• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

RELEASE: Armored Beasts Beta 2.0

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#227
Upvote 0
#228
Amizaur said:
Thanks.


I'm slowly starting to think, that the whole RO idea of "gun linked" gunsights is a bull**** in WW2 game. Because if the gunsight was to move the main gun, then the range setting in gunsight would have to be changed by a big "knob" or wheel, because the force that moves the gun up or down have to come from somwhere... From what I read about the Tiger/Panther gunsights up to now, seems for me that they worked in usual way, moving the aim marks up and down when the range setting was changed, and then the gunner elevated the gun to place aim mark on target, Just like it is now in game for T-34/76 and KV-1. I'd like to be wrong here, and TW right, because then I won't have to completly remodel the tank sights :-/
Anyone could direct me to source that states that in WW2 there were in use tank gunsights adjusting automaticly the main gun elevation when the sight range setting was changed ?? Again, I'd LOVE to be wrong here and will accept such source and the fact that such gunsights existed in WW2 with great relief...
Click to expand...

Hi Amizaur -
I know this is old but...I was catching up on some of the threads, and since my interest is optics, your angst regarding whether the lay-off points or hauptstachels and nebenstachels within the reticles moved "north" or "south" when dialing in increased or decreased ranges into the TZFs is a common experience.
The problem we researchers have is that right after the end of the war (or even while it was coming to an end) much of the information regarding optics, as well as the telescopes themselves that weren't destroyed, were being snapped up by Allied and Soviet forces as quickly as possible along with all other types of high-technology equipment developed for the third reich, and ferreting them away in various storage facilities for top secret research - optics being a top priority, as the german ones were considered through reputation at the time as being the best. Couple this with the fact that the wehrmacht often did not do a very thorough job in organizing and documenting all their models of optical equipment makes compounds the problem we have today. Its been said, for example, that there are numerous manuals describing how to properly load a camel with equipment to carry through the desert, and how to store photographic development fluid at temperatures below 40 degrees, but depressingly little on the various types of optical equipment and how it was deployed with each weapon. Often there is a short description, but diagrams and explicit illustrations showing exactly what we want are often lacking. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that it's very hard to find.
Anyway - addressing your specific angst:
 Some (not all) Zeiss gun sights had 2 pieces of glass mounted one in front of the other. One glass has the sight reticle and the other has the range scale. The "black" triangle pointer RO has at the very top of the TZF9b is not actually part of the reticle. It is an opaque piece (called sometimes a "witness mark") that sat in front of the glass. Okay, again, there are two pieces of glass one in front of the other. When you rotated the range ring to align the range you want with the witness mark, it imparted a vertical movement to the reticle glass. The closer the target the higher the reticle would appear in the gunsight. As the range increased, the reticle would move down in your sight picture. That motion imparts what is known as "super elevation" to the gun or how much higher the gun was aimed above the gunsight line of view. It still depended on how accurately the boresight was zeroed. Once the reticle was moved based on the range adjustment that was just made, the gunner then had to do the handwheel thing and move the gun (and the sight, which was linked to the gun) back up or down to put the aiming point back on to the target.
You're suspicion that automatic adjustment of the gun wasn't around yet is pretty close - a true fire control computer and rangefinder where the gun automatically adjusted as the range was inputted wasn't until the US M47 medium, but the Germans were actively working on it up until the end of the war, for the Jagdtiger and other second generation Tiger.

So back at least to the Pkzpfw III (from Bryan Perrett's book "Panzerkampfwagen III Medium Tank 1936-1944 pages #8 and #16 - I think the RO guy who did the TZF5a already got the basic pieces)
tzfhv7.jpg

Page 8: "The 'sight picture' of a PkzKpfw III with 50 mm gun: (1) Range plate (2) Sighting plate (3) Main armament engaging hard target at 1,000m (4) Co-axial MG engaging infantry at 400m.
Page 16:
"The sighting telescope was more complicated than its British counterpart, which employed a simple graticle pattern, and contained two movable plates. The first or range plate rotated about its own axis, the armament and machine guns scales being marked on opposing quadrants; the 50mm scale was marked from 0 to 2,000 metres, and the machine gun scale from 0 to 800 metres. The second or sighting plate moved in a vertical plane and contained the sighting and aim-off markings. The two plates moved simultaneously, the sighting plate rising or falling as the range plate turned. To engage at a selected range, the range wheel was turned until the required marking was opposite the pointer at the top of the sight, and the sighting mark laid onto the target by the traverse and elevation controls."
So...I hope that clears thing up...the movement of the aiming markes did not automatically correct the gun..in real life the range adjustments moves the TZF reticle (triangles) up and down and the gunner has to move the sight back on to the target after adjusting the range, because the cannon and sight are linked, but only in a manual sort of way. The current "static" reticle interface with the player is probably not 100% correct as the aim-off marks (triangles) don't move. I'm verifying with several authors about whether this was the same for all TZFs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#231
I'm sorry guys, but month ago I got a job and then had literally ZERO free time, especially to spend on such things like RO. The 2.07 was done but not tested, and I couldn't release it or even coordinate other people testing it. And it turned out to be good decision because there was few nasty bugs in it, that only now (when I have SLIGHTLY more time and spend an hour one day or other) show up.

Some are being fixed right now. The most unexpected thing was one that was there not only from AB 2.0, but even before - it's present in mutator code for AB 1.1, which was the only part of 1.1 code that came into 2.0. The bug caused winter vehicles (some of them) to not be properly replaced by modded winter, but by modded summer (main) versions. For example winter T-34/85 was never happening in mod, but winter Is-2 were ok. Can't believe that me (or anyone else) didn't notice this before - well at least I didn't got any serius bug reports about this issue.
The new striped and camo vehicles would be replaced by standard versions too, if I didn't fix it.

The problem is maybe in the order of checking the classes to replace. The T3485Factory_Snow happens also to be an T3485Factory as well :-D so maybe it is replaced by one. Changing the order to check snow, camo and striped vehicles first should help. edit: doesn't help, the problem is somewhere else...

Barashka map:

ScriptLog: >>>>>>>>> ROVehicles.T3485Factory
ScriptLog: Changing ROVehicles.T3485Factory tank type to AB_T3485Tank

but

ScriptLog: >>>>>>>>> ROVehicles.IS2Factory_Snow
ScriptLog: Changing ROVehicles.IS2Factory_Snow tank type to AB_IS2Tank_Snow

Are those standard T3485Factory with only different tank type set in RoEd ?? That wouldn't be nice...

edit: yes this is the case. On Barashka there is for example no T3485Factory_Snow. There is ordinary T3485Factory but with set to produce T3485Tank_Snow vehicle :/. The script recognised tank type by factory class... now it turns out that it's not fail-safe solution... :-/

Now to mlespaul - thanks a lot !! Although it was long time, and to this time I figured out myslelf most of the things you wrote about, it's good to know someone interested and knowledgeable in WW2 optics, and be sure I'd love to discuss with you other issues. I can only with I got your reply then, when I was looking for info :) on the other hand I did some VERY interesting research and learned a lot while resolving those things by myself :).

Now I'm looking for some other info - definite data of TZF9 and TZF12 FOV (best - measured from existing pieces or read from markings on them - NOT a book numbers), the position of the aiming marks set at 0m (were they centered, or maybe above the center like in PzIII on the pictures you posted, I guess it's the latter as the FOV of both gunsights is similar and gun superelevation also similar so there is probably not enough room to work only with lower half of the FOV). I also wonder how MG scale worked exactly in Tiger sight, when there is no (or seem to be no) separate mark to read it like in Panther sight... was it turned 180deg to get MG scale up ? Was the glass plate returning up again in that position ?

Yes I noticed there is very little materials about how optics worked.... but I know there are people, collectors, who personally have such optic pieces like TZF9 ! sometimes in full working condition. So I hope sooner or later I find one which like to help and take some pictures and describe inner workings.

Currently I believe I have almost all data to recreate working of tank sights (how they looked, moved, how they were layed on target) with only minor doubts. Now I'm only looking for TZF5 (PzIV short and long) reticle pictures (does it look like PzIII sight, or maybe closer to what we see on TZF9?). Also about how periscopic sights of german artillery pieces and TD worked, were they panoramic or not, how was the elevation changed (prism in the head?) ect. Probably I had some more questions but can't remember now. Anyway thanks a lot for answering after so long time !! When I find some time, surely I'll write to you and I believe you can still help me a lot in this matter.

Regards!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#233
You mean the man who posted few posts above ? :)

One of the things I'd like to know, not necessarily for a game, just to understand the inner workings, can be ilustrated by the PzIII reticle picture posted above.

For 0m the plate is in highest position and aiming mark is above center.

As range setting is increased, the plate with aiming marks goes down and for 1000m is about center (I've seen little different pictures than the one avove, too), for longer ranges is below center.

Now if you rotate it further to get the MG scale up, the aiming mark is again high and as the range is increased (for MG) is again goes down.

Is it working in double cycle ? Goes down for max AP range, then returns up as range circle is turned firther to get MG scale up, then again goes down as range is increased for MG... and maybe returns up when the range circle is turned further to return to starting position for gun scale. The plate with aiming marks goes down, then up, then down, then up for a whole 360deg turn of the scale ?

Would be more simple to just add second V marker and read MG scale simultaneously with gun scale, as it is done in TZF12 Panther sight. Single action - plate moves only down when range is increased and doesn't ever have to return up (only goes up when the range is decreased).

But the picture speak for itself, you have to set MG scale to 12 o'clock to aim for PzIII and I seen same pictures for Tiger sight.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#235
Yes I have it :) and still want to try it some day, maybe this is good moment :)

BTW the current way changes the tank in the factory too. Only it recognises the factories, not the tanks they produce. If there is T3485_Factory then the tank is replaced to AB_T3485Tank... The problem is that on Barashka standard T3485_Factory was set in ROEd to produce T3485Tank_Snow...
I changed it and it recognises/works now by tank type the factory is set to produce. If it's set to produce XXX_Snow tank then type is replaced to AB_XXX_Snow tank, no matter what the factory name was. Seem it works, but guys are testing it yet.

Anyway I have to check your alternate method, quite possibly it's much better.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#237
Amizaur said:
You mean the man who posted few posts above ? :)
Click to expand...

Yes, that's me :)

Amizaur said:
One of the things I'd like to know, not necessarily for a game, just to understand the inner workings, can be ilustrated by the PzIII reticle picture posted above.

For 0m the plate is in highest position and aiming mark is above center.

As range setting is increased, the plate with aiming marks goes down and for 1000m is about center (I've seen little different pictures than the one avove, too), for longer ranges is below center.

Now if you rotate it further to get the MG scale up, the aiming mark is again high and as the range is increased (for MG) is again goes down.

Is it working in double cycle ? Goes down for max AP range, then returns up as range circle is turned firther to get MG scale up, then again goes down as range is increased for MG... and maybe returns up when the range circle is turned further to return to starting position for gun scale. The plate with aiming marks goes down, then up, then down, then up for a whole 360deg turn of the scale ?
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm pretty sure the aiming marks could only move up or down within the sight picture. The glass behind the first glass was directly controlled by the ring movement. The cannon and coax assembly had only a certain height and drop that it was capable of anyway. So, If you look at fig 3 the reticle is poised to engage at 1000 m but there's no way to tell what the cannon's actual angle at the time is. Or whether the gunner has re-adjusted/corrected the cannon yet. Same for the MG. The aiming marks height look to be about the same in 3 and 4 - so perhaps it might stay in one position while the MG is dialed in because the range will also be correct at the elevation the gun has to be at according to what the aiming marks are "communicating" to you (sigh.... its crazy I know) I've talked to book author's who have all told me that it was a complicated balancing act that went on.
Amizaur said:
Would be more simple to just add second V marker and read MG scale simultaneously with gun scale, as it is done in TZF12 Panther sight. Single action - plate moves only down when range is increased and doesn't ever have to return up (only goes up when the range is decreased).

But the picture speak for itself, you have to set MG scale to 12 o'clock to aim for PzIII and I seen same pictures for Tiger sight.
Click to expand...

Right. I'm still getting more on this. I'll be back with more. I'm also getting ready to do a brain/reticle dump over on DH soon of various optics.
 
Upvote 0
#238
Amizaur said:
You mean the man who posted few posts above ? :)

One of the things I'd like to know, not necessarily for a game, just to understand the inner workings, can be ilustrated by the PzIII reticle picture posted above.

For 0m the plate is in highest position and aiming mark is above center.

As range setting is increased, the plate with aiming marks goes down and for 1000m is about center (I've seen little different pictures than the one avove, too), for longer ranges is below center.

Now if you rotate it further to get the MG scale up, the aiming mark is again high and as the range is increased (for MG) is again goes down.

Is it working in double cycle ? Goes down for max AP range, then returns up as range circle is turned further to get MG scale up, then again goes down as range is increased for MG... and maybe returns up when the range circle is turned further to return to starting position for gun scale. The plate with aiming marks goes down, then up, then down, then up for a whole 360deg turn of the scale ?

Would be more simple to just add second V marker and read MG scale simultaneously with gun scale, as it is done in TZF12 Panther sight. Single action - plate moves only down when range is increased and doesn't ever have to return up (only goes up when the range is decreased).

But the picture speak for itself, you have to set MG scale to 12 o'clock to aim for PzIII and I seen same pictures for Tiger sight.
Click to expand...

Hi Amizaur, yes, that is the same person - me :)

With all the book authors that I have consulted with (emailed and bugged them, really) they've never mentioned that the reticle glass dropped down to the bottom to recycle. But here's what I think (I know this is counter-intuitive, but bear with me):
Let's take a look at the picture again. #3 is pointed at 1000m, if the circle continues to be rotated counterclockwise to engage higher distance (1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, etc) the aiming marks are going to be lowering in the sight picture, which signals to the gunner to raise the cannon to readjust and lay the arrow yet again onto the target. So if the gunner were to turn the sight all the way to 2000m, the aiming marks would be at their lowest position within the reticle. (Remember he's raising the cannon to compensate for the lowering marks) Next, notice there is nothing but space between 2000 and 0 for the MG. So - continuing the counterclockwise motion - the very next position is 0 for MG and, consequently.....the aiming marks are already now at the bottom and ready to be brought up. Nothing happens (no clicks) between 2000m(cannon) and 0 (MG) - it's a single jump. After 2000m, on more turn and suddenly you're at 0 for the MG

Okay, now say we continue and we're selecting ever higher ranges for the MG...same concept. Look at the diagram. 0, 100, 200, 300, 400...the aiming marks are going back up, right? But wait , they're moving upwards at a different rate, and then, again, they're at their highest point again in the sight, one more turn after 800 and...click immediately you're back at 0 again for the main cannon. Which, now that you're at 0, if you wanted to hit something at 0 you would have to lower the main gun completely down to ground level, to match where the aim mark (now completely at the top) says to go, right?

You might ask, how come the rate of lowering and raising the aim marks are different in the MG and main cannon to get it where it needs to be each time (i.e. the speed at which the marks go up or down) when switching scales?

Obviously the 50mm and the co-ax mg have very different trajectories and so their range scales had to be positioned some distance apart on the plate system. One of the authors I correspond with mentioned that this idea was of interest to the Allies but needed streamlining - think about the graticule pattern system employed on later WWII British and American tanks included AP, HE, Smoke and MG were aligned in parallel either side of the aiming mark symbols, which was much faster once gunners got used to it.

The second glass was part of a system of cams and notches that were connected to a metal plate surrounding the glass which was connected (like a cuckoo clock) to a rotation mechanism inside the telescopic tube. Each notch was sized differently along the edges - so with each turn, the cam would strike the notch in the corresponding manner in which it was calibrated to match up with the correct range.

1) The operation of the sight and the operation of the elevation of the gun are two physically separate actions. The sight only "recommends" where the gunner should place the gun. It's still up to him to raise or lower to bring the gun there.

2) The jump from one scale to another happens immediately - there are no clicks "in the white space", only pre-determined locations.

3) The gun/boresight would need to be "zeroed" by a separate process.

4) Obviously this becomes more difficult and complex when we add in additional range scales with the picture for Spgr and Pzgr. Even more when you consider the TZF 9d which had 4 separate range scales within it's reticle!
5) This was a messy and complicated system for gunners to fiddle with and they often voiced this, but it WAS accurate and the best for it's time IMHO.

I think I got that right. Maybe I'm directly backwards. But that's how I've analyzed it. I definitely don't believe that it was a "run-up then drop back down to 0" because that would have played havoc with whatever the gunner and commander had agreed upon as being the elevation currently "in play" at the time of the estimation of range. It was a definite balancing act by two people from everything I've been told.

Anyway, I'm currently getting ready to make a large contribution of reticles and fire control systems such as the Rblf and Ems and SFs, ZFs, SlZFs, and others over at DH, where you'll normally find me.
I totally agree, let keep in touch and discuss these things further. I've been learning a lot in a short amount of time, as well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#239
I'm ready to jump in this discussion but have no time now :-(, I'll reply as soon as I can.

Two points only now - pictures in manuals are usually - just a pictures. Usually simplified, not in scale, and not very accurate, but just to ilustrate the things written. Well, they can't be in proper scale because they would be not readable in printed manual :). If aiming mark at 1000m is drawn to be in some place, it doesn't have to be exact, but generally something like that. If for MG and gun the mark seem to be in same place, this doesnt mean it's exactly the same in fact.

Second point - we actually know (or can know) what exactly is the reticle drop for what range, and how gun compares to MG - we only need to know the gun and MG ballistics !! I have such exact data for Russian tanks (Russian ballistic tables for 76, 85, 100 122mm guns and DT MG), and approximate can be developed for German guns and MGs. Or maybe someone have German ballistic tables too ?
We know the size (in mils) of reticle marks and we know the FOV of the sight (usually). This is all the info needed to recreate realistic sight look and movement when range is set. I don't know only the exact point at which sight is zeroed (so where the aiming marks are when range is set to 0) but it could be changed to some extend probably (sight have to be able to be regulated).
I even started such work - beginning from Tiger and Panther sights, but it was back when I had plenty of free time. I can only say that realistic sighting marks are very, very small. Not like what you see in Tiger/Panther fibel. You'd have to use 1600x1200 resolution to work comfortably with them :). I consider making them exactly double size, or true size as an option in .ini file.

So we can just calculate the reticle drop for various ranges for gun and MG and compare them. I'm sure the MG was mounted coaxial with the gun, so they were zeroed simultaneously... I mean the lines of fire were pararel. So if the gun was set (elevated) for a range of 2000m, then if you fired MG then, it would probably went 1000m or something like that - certainly would not be zeroed for 0m then.
If I had time, I would make short anim showing how the sight mechanisation could (should?) work as I see it. The reticle went down when the gun was set to long ranges, but then it had to return back to zero position when the MG scale was set to zero. Don't know if the range scale could be turned >360deg in both directions (I mean if you could turn it over and over, without stopping and returning). But if it could, then the glass plate with reticle would have to went down and up two times and return to zero position with full 360deg turn (in PzIII and Tiger sights). In Panther sight gun and MG range could be read simultaneously IIRC (more usefull and simpler construction) which would require the reticle plate to go only down and only once, and don't require 360deg rotation.

More on this later, now I didn't have time to closely read everything you have written :-(
 
Upvote 0
#240
What you're describing sounds reasonable. We'd never know for sure until we have one in our hands. :/

I also agree with you about representation of actual FOV which is very hard to recreate as a simulation. One of the things we have to struggle with is what is actually seen in the human eye once it is put up through the eyepiece and the fire control system is properly focused and corrected. We have two things going: one is the Angular (sometimes called Apparent) Field of View (AFOV) which is what you normally see in all the books and listings next to each optic in degrees, and the True (or Actual) Field of View (TFOV) as used by astronomers as to what is actually being viewed by the human eye.
Take a quick read here: http://www.nexstarsite.com/_RAC/articles/FieldOfView.htm
Check out this neat TFOV calculator automated program which is part of Lunar Map Pro (yes, veiw is misspelled in the URL):
http://www.riti.com/LMP4-0Help/FieldOfVeiwHelp.htm

Best so far is Scope City's Telescope and Eyepiece Calculator on

http://www.scopecity.com/TelescopeTerms.cfm

(But then we need focal lengths measurements from an actual owner of the scope or ask a museum to take out a tape measure for us, unless you happen to have them already...)

Isn't this fun? Now we know why Zeiss, Hensoldt, and Jena made so much moolah as contracted engineers :)
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu