Russian ПП-1 type Optical Sight for MG (part 1)

[mlespaul]

What I found interesting - in short - telescopic sights (at least) in Shermans seem to have no range setting at all - you just aim using the reticle pattern, placing target at a mark corresponding with range to target. But I have to read it again more carefully to be sure. Maybe it's only a one way of aiming...

Regards

Ami

Ami -
The + you see at the top is the boresight alignment or 'absolute zero' point for the gunner to align the gun and sights. the rest of the markings are actual range setting marks for the ammo. read more of your manuals and you'll find out what they are. Let me know if you need help with the U.S. sights. They are actually more complex than you may realize. Differing ammo types used different marks according to a firing table. But yes, it was simple in that there were no moving reticles. It was indeed a STATIC picture, unlike the german, russian, french, and many british ones.
There was also an evolution of reticle styles. From the "armoured force" reticle to the "anti-tank" reticle which all styles eventually converted to by Fall 1944. The earlier M5/M3 and M4 tanks had a setup where the gunner had to switch his eyes between a periscope for estimation and the telescope for gunlaying before the M10 periscope was deployed which combined the views into a single periscope casing. There was a 1x and 6x view - each of which had its own distinctive reticle for the 75mm and later 90mm gun for the Sherman and later models. The M5 Light tanks eventually all converted their telescopes to the M70 series with the segmented lines and + mark and away from the old "circle and dot and ladder" type. Let me know if you are interested in any help. PM me if you need. I have tons of wartime manuals like these.

I am thinking of doing a U.S. tank periscope and telescope history thread here or over on Darkest Hour....

As far as the SflZF 1a reticle that the lines looked a little "thick", remember?
Take a look at these:
These were taken through a SflZF1a by the owner at objects, I think about 25 to 30 yds away. These photos are obviously sized differently.

this second one would almost approximate the old wartime photo way up above, suggests if a specific distant object were focused in on by the camera instead of the broader FOV and the reticle, the reticle lines would appear thicker. the reticle lines are etched/angled cuts in the glass and so are not fixed like a painted/printed line, I would think they are subject to refractory light distortion in photographs.

******New Subject*****
And also ----to close the loop on this wondrous string...here is a sight from an 1941 tank manual, but I'm sure the reticle was put in a different model telescope for the tank - not sure which model tank it went to .....anyway....this should give you something to think about this weekend LOL

 

[Amizaur]

Only in short:

AS for Sherman reticles - yes I read the text, not only admired the pictures but I have to read it again more throughly. The + being the bore, and the zero meter setting being in different place - this is because of cannon jump IIRC. Interesting. This could explain me some oddity I seen in T-34/85 sight scales. edit: do you have also the firing table, you mentioned ?
The whole system was not that simple, but from what I read the telescope was, and reticle seemed to be static and the only way of aiming - by placing target on according range marks. This is not as good as German, or even older Russian sights (like TMFD) but sometimes (especially at close range) it's even better (simple is better then). And of course the fixed scale can be for one kind of ammo only, so... like you said, range settings for other projectiles/range combinations have to be read from table (I'm sure a gunner would be required to have them all in his memory and give correct values even if he was woken up from his bed in the middle of the night . But in heat of battle it can be harder than in the middle of the night... And to be hinest, Russian TMFD users (as well as TSh-15/16/17) had to keep some tables in memory too, Germans probably as well.

Before that I read some info about evolution of US tank sights, but can't rememer much so I think it's a very good idea, such article. How this all started and how it was progressing in terms of technical fidelity, user-friendlines, standarisation ect.

As for the thick - thin lines. Well I'm not expert in optics at all. Any advanced camera user knows those matters better (although I have a friend who is an astronomer, knows everything about telescopes, lenses, optical systems, so I will ask him what he thinks). But - the system (telescope optical system as a whole) is designed in a way that for a human eye (which "optical" part is not that different from mechanical ones) both things (the distant target, and the markings on the plate) are sharp and focused simultaneously. It's just designed to be so. You don't have to refocus your eye to see the target/markings while looking trough the sight (in that case the sight is broken).
I would think that for a camera (which is not that different from human eye, in it's optical part) it should be the same. If the sight is correctly focused on target, and technically functional, both things (target and markings) should be perfectly focused on the picture (or both non-focused, if camera settings were wrong). It is the sight optical system that makes all the focusing, not the eye/camera. The eye is just looking at the resulting picture and should not focus at all. This is from what I know about telescopes ect...

The other thing is, that on the picture from the book, the edges of the reticle elements are very crisp and for me it can't be just some kind of blur or refraction... any such phenomena that makes things appear bolder or larger, also make them look blurry or at least loses the information about small details (like sharp edges or triangle tips). I'm not sure if I explained what I mean... But I don't believe that such crisp image of lines bolder than they should be, could be caused by some kind of optical phenomena. I would consider if it's possible the other way (lines being bold, on a picture are becoming thin and still sharp - I know such effect but it's related to black lines displayed on very bright or white background and this would not be the case usually).

Here both pictures - it's the same sight I suppose ? but why the first picture was done in Afrika, and second somwhere in northern Europe or northern part of America ? ;-))) So both pictures seem to have rather thick lines... they have a visible thickness and they would appear even more thick in closer zoom (because of the effect I mentioned). They would look like the one from the book I think, from close. edit: after saving the pictures and closer examination, the resolution is too low to be sure about anything... they could be thick, could be thin, it's 1 pixel anyway... do you have larger versions of those photos ??

And... I look at the triangles... They are full triangles. How many variations of the same sight was there ???

Maybe the lines were thin at first (in first years of the war) but later it was reported that they lack visibility (especially against snow background) and they become to produce plates with thicker lines ?

As for the manual page you posted - it is talking about range estimating using a gunsight. There is a table with example sights, there is even an example case and calculations. Nothing more. Even the picture is calles something like "range estimation with gunsight". What the gunsight is, well, seem like something for 20mm or 45mm gun, something like T60, T70, T26, BT-5, BT7. Year is 1941 so I can rule out T-70 and maybe T-60 too... I would suspect some BT or T-26 tank but what worries me is that the reticle range scale is only 1000m. Hmm you don't do that for 45mm gun or larger, do you ? Such range setting can be for 20mm gun... If I had a photo, I could try to estimate the muzzle velocity of the projectile, but from picture it's pointless. So I would probably assume it's a T-60 sight (only tank with 20mm gun?) - produced from1941... and as second option some _older_ 45mm gun tank - like T-26, possibly BT family.

Fortunately I know the reticle is from (or is identical like) TOP-1 sight from T-26 tank. I guess all other tank sights for this 45mm gun (so BT-7, T-70) were probably very similar if not practically the same.
I wanted to make BT-7 sight using this reticle (it's somewhat different than 45mm AT gun reticle) for Ab version of AHZ BT-7 tank, but had no time/willingness for that and used the AT gun texture for vehicle too, for now.

And it was meant to be short... aaaargghhhhhhhhhh.... <lol>

 

[jeffduquette]

For what it's worth, here is the Sfl.Zf.1a photo as it appears in K.Munch's "Combat History of Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653". See page 141. I scanned the photo at 300-dpi.

It appears that the eBay image was either enhanced to show the entire reticle (which might explain why the reticle lines seem so thick); or Munch only had access to a poor copy of the original photo that didn't show the entire reticle.

Regards
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

Only in short:

AS for Sherman reticles - yes I read the text, not only admired the pictures but I have to read it again more throughly. The + being the bore, and the zero meter setting being in different place - this is because of cannon jump IIRC. Interesting. This could explain me some oddity I seen in T-34/85 sight scales.
The whole system was not that simple, but from what I read the telescope was, and reticle seemed to be static and the only way of aiming - by placing target on according range marks.

This is correct. It is what is referred to -- at least in US Army nomenclature -- as a ballistic reticle. Soviet and German reticles of this period would be considered non-ballistic or semi-ballistic reticles.

For a ballistic reticle, the greater the range to the target, the lower down on the reticle you will line up the target. Gunner rotates the elevation wheel until target aligns with the appropriate range line on the reticle. The US Army's various ballistic reticles employed in tanks and TDs were typically calibrated to a specific projectile -- typically the APC round. Firing HE or smoke or the like would require the gunner to either look at his tables or handy dandy chart showing which range reticle was applicable to which non-APC projectile. Range in yards --

Ballistic reticles are still employed even in the M1 Abrams as the secondary gunners sight. Moreover, if the gunner’s GPS (a non-ballistic reticle) is not operational the gunner can still employ the secondary gunsight (which uses a ballistic reticle).

I traiuned on both ballistic and non-ballistic reticles in the old M48A5. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Best Regards
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

For example: This is an early war gunsight reticle for the 37mm M6 gun. Something one might find in early Stuart\Honey tanks. The first image shows how the gunner is supposed to interpret the various reticle lines in his sight picture. As you can see the reticle is tuned specifically to 37mm M51 AP, muzzle velocity = 2900fps (M51 APC or APCBC-T for the nit-pickers). As an aside the training round version of M51 had an Mv=2600-fps.

The second picture is what the gunners sight reticle actually looks like. The third pic is just M51B1 APC.

Each of the reticle numbers correspond directly to range (in thosands of yards) to target for M51 APC (Mv=2900-fps). Now if the gunner is firing M63 HE, he has to remember that the numbers on the reticle do not apply directly to range to target. As I understand it, the gunner would typically have this table tacked up close to the telescope so that he could quickly reference it. However, it should be obvious that there is some disadvantage to this sort of arrangement when firing anything other than M51 APC.

Regards
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

Ballistic Sight: The gunsight picture when the gun is properly elevated for range should look like the attached. Moreover the stationary target is aligned with the proper range line in the sight picture by turning the elevating handwheel.

 

[Amizaur]

Yes, I've seen those pictures, are they from FM 17-12 (tank gunnery) ? It can be found on the web in PDF form.

For those making textures (exact ones, like me) this one may be interesting too:



It gives exact dimensions of standard armored force reticle.

So this standard reticle was not a standard anymore in M4A3 Shermans with 75 and 76mm guns ?
Paul, write this article please

I wish the FM 17-12 manual covered also longer 76mm gun, but there are diagrams only for 75mm M3 and 37mm M5 guns... well, it's not that important, but would be nice to model properly HE shell ballistics or of different models of AP (in the future).

I wonder how the Sherman sights are made in DH mod. Are range scales tuned to RO shell ballistics, so you really can use them directly (but it takes some work) or are they going to be used like stock RO ones (so you have to FIRST set the range AND THEN YET aim with proper rangemark), or maybe only set the range and aim with the center mark (unrealistic as well). Or maybe they are going to make me a very nice surprise ?

P.S. We may also need a ballistic data/reticles for 90mm guns (normal and supercharged versions) soon, and I can bet than people, after playing for half an hour in DH, will demand for more heavies - first a Pershing, then a super Pershing and then who knows what ;P I hope I'm joking

 

[mlespaul]

For what it's worth, here is the Sfl.Zf.1a photo as it appears in K.Munch's "Combat History of Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653". See page 141. I scanned the photo at 300-dpi.

Jeff -

Thanks! That's THE picture!! Also there is another one just above it or to the left on that same page of a different reticle - it looks like just one Large triangle with the three little ones on each side, but it looks like this:

Can you show that one as well?

On the U.S. sights, the one's Jeff posted are of the "Armored Force" Reticle style that was superceded by the "anti-tank" Reticle starting with the M70 Series, (I think). Maybe Jeff knows, but in the M5 manual it shows zeroing the main gun with the telescope (showing a M70D ret) and the periscope (showing an armoured force reticle) and the boresight to establish a common zeroing point.

I think the 'Armored Force' rets were phased out around Oct 44. According to this armorers guide I have, all M54s and similar and earlier, had to be turned in and replaced with the new 'anti-tank' M70s.

Maybe Jeff knows this, but I'm pretty sure someone told me once that the early M3, M5 tanks, and some early Shermans had the gunner using both a periscope AND a telescope, and gunner had to switch his eyes from one to the other to lay the gun and estimate distance using two separate devices. I have a gunsight optic catalog that describes the 'snapping in' of a telescope into the casing of a periscope, so at some point before all the optical sights were combined into the single periscope casing (I'm thinking the M10) the long telescope types and and the periscopes had to be used in tandem ---was the 'armored force' reticle used as the range estimation/observation periscope in one, and the M40 and M50 series (superceded by the M70 series) kept as the targeting/laying sight.

...but this doesn't make sense because the M54 had the armoured force reticle as well, was the same reticle used in both the telescope AND periscope system? The M4 and M4A1 periscope had a reticle I've read about but I don't know what it looks like.

In the 90mm TM Manual it shows the M10 reticle in the 1X and 6X mode - two different reticles.

I think I might end up having to call up to Aberdeen Museum on this one...I'll write that article after I confer with them...unless Jeff knows for sure.

 

[Amizaur]

Also there is another one just above it or to the left on that same page of a different reticle - it looks like just one Large triangle with the three little ones on each side

So a "tank" type reticle ? Maybe it was done trough tank's sight ? And if it was really Sflz1 then I wonder if the vertical lines were also present there ? And in what form ? Would like to see this photo too !!!

P.S. I edited the post and made long writing about the M70F and M71D telescopes, M4A1 and M10 periscopes, periscope reticles, how is it possible at all to put a reticle in ordinary periscope (it has to be slightly less ordinary, IMO, some additional lenses needed, or an eyepiece), about my "discovery" (after you wrote it) that M4A1 though looking like ordinary piece of glass, contains a telescope inside (inside? vertically?) - I said I have to read it again, more carefully. But the browser refreshed my window before I managed to send it an all this went to @#$%&. No, I'm not going to write it again.

Only will say that in M4A3 Sherman manual is shown M10G x1 reticle, and it is said that x6 reticle is same as in the main gun telescopic sight (M70F or M71D). Nothing mentioned about M47A2 reticle, nothing about reticle in observation view (without telescope) trough M4A1. I would assume M4A1 in observation mode doesn't have a reticle... M47A2 mode have to have one, as it's used for aiming...

My question would be - what are magnifing powers of all mentioned telescopes (M70F, M71D, M47A2) - it's not mentioned in manual. Are those one power telescopes ??? If so, then the only function of M47A2 inside the M4A1 would be to properly display the reticle...?

P.S. Wow, a NICE page

http://www.wwiibythebook.com/index2...escope M38/Telescopes M38A2 M40A2 M47A2.htm&2

http://www.wwiibythebook.com/index2...r/Equipment/Periscope M10/Periscope M10.htm&2

http://www.wwiibythebook.com/index2.htm?/USA/Ground/Armor/Equipment/Periscope M6/Periscope M6.htm&2

http://www.wwiibythebook.com/index2...ipment/Periscope M4/Periscope M4A1 & M4.htm&2
(this link doesn't work, you can get to M4 page only from M6 page - there is a link to M4A1)

and a

http://www.wwiibythebook.com/index2.htm?/USA/Ground/Armor/Equipment/Telescope%20M70/M70%20Series%20Telescopes.htm&2

the index is here

http://www.wwiibythebook.com/index2.htm

sadly, nothing for Germans, with so detailed descriptions

So M10 periscope are just two pararel telescopes mounted in a periscope casing . One x6 for aiming, second x1 for observation. So both manifications have reticles.

M4 periscope is a single M38/47 telescope mounted inside a periscope (x1.44 power?) to make possible haveing a reticle and aiming a gun with it. The observation part of M4 is said to have no reticle, only some kind of vertical line (painted on mirrors?) for very rough aligning gun on target.

BTW read this:

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/a1604.html

seem like a reticle plate for M70... nice thing to take a look at (especially with a microscope)

For only $4 I would buy it but shipping would cost me several times more than the price damn...

edit again: I checked if I find something interesting in the subject of WW2 US sights in "Technology of tanks" by Ogorkiewicz, but as the book covers many subjects, no one of them is really detailed, so not much new info can be found there. Only a historical look back on general sight development, from WW1 to present, about general trends ect. The "References" section may have a greater value

If someone is interested, a 1MB file: http://rapidshare.com/files/107162892/Ogorkiewicz_-_Technology_of_tanks_-_Gunner_s_sights.rar

 

[jeffduquette]

Yes, I've seen those pictures, are they from FM 17-12 (tank gunnery) ? It can be found on the web in PDF form.

Of course my posting include only scans I made this morning from an original copy of the field manual.

So this standard reticle was not a standard anymore in M4A3 Shermans with 75 and 76mm guns ?

The early Sherman's apparently used this same standard AF reticle -- at least according to the April 1943 FM 17-12. Telescope M38 with periscope M4 was the standard periscope gun sight for the 75mm M3 gun in the early M4 tank series.

The M4A3(75) (mid-production) was equipped with gunners sight telescope M55, and gunsight telescope M38 with Periscope M4.

The M4A3(76)W HVSS was equipped with gunsight telescope M71D, and gunsight telescope M47A2 with periscope M4A1.

Best Regards
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

Jeff -

Thanks! That's THE picture!! Also there is another one just above it or to the left on that same page of a different reticle - it looks like just one Large triangle with the three little ones on each side, but it looks like this:

Sorry -- there is only the one gunsight reticle photo on page 141 of Munch's book. I haven't opened the book in sometime so I'll leaf through the rest of it to see if there are any other gunsight reticle photos.

Regards
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

Jeff -

On the U.S. sights, the one's Jeff posted are of the "Armored Force" Reticle style that was superceded by the "anti-tank" Reticle starting with the M70 Series, (I think). Maybe Jeff knows, but in the M5 manual it shows zeroing the main gun with the telescope (showing a M70D ret) and the periscope (showing an armoured force reticle) and the boresight to establish a common zeroing point.

I assumed you were working on the Mare Nostrum or Nostra Damas -- or whatever -- mod. At least that's what you were saying in your forum email to me. Isn't this supposed to be an early war mod? If yes why are you worried about the M70? I haven't been following this mod so don't know the time scale. I guess I assumed 1941-ish to 1942-ish.

I think the 'Armored Force' rets were phased out around Oct 44. According to this armorers guide I have, all M54s and similar and earlier, had to be turned in and replaced with the new 'anti-tank' M70s.

AF reticle for early war Stuarts and Sherman’s -- so like UK crews using Honey's or Grants or M4s...think Brevity or Crusader or Gazala or El Alamein or whatever.

Maybe Jeff knows this, but I'm pretty sure someone told me once that the early M3, M5 tanks, and some early Shermans had the gunner using both a periscope AND a telescope, and gunner had to switch his eyes from one to the other to lay the gun and estimate distance using two separate devices.

The periscope gunsight that I have seen and have schematics on is the M10F. This has both a large periscopic observation window like what you sort of see on a standard M6 observation periscope. But it also had a eyepiece right below the observation window. In the case of the M10F, the standard observation window had 1x mag, 800mil FOV and M82 APC ballistic reticle. The M10F eyepiece had 6x mag, 201mil FOV and M82 APC ballistic reticle. You could use either to shoot from. Use the 1x for close range or area targets -- use the 6x for long range point targets. But there isn't any need to switch your eye between the two. Use either or to fire the coax or main gun.

 

[jeffduquette]

Ok…did a bit more digging into my stuff. The periscope telescope gun sight looks basically like a standard US Army tank M1 or M6 observation periscope. The periscope with telescope clip assembly is the M4, M4A1 or M8. A telescope can be mounted within the M4A1 (etc) periscope body by a simple clip assembly in a position where its field of view is visible through the lower periscope mirror. The periscope holder mounting follows the traversing and elevating motion of the gun The periscope holder mounting includes a housing and linkage. The linkage system, acts through a ball-mount housing and maintains a constant relation between the periscope and the gun.

The early Sherman design and various marks of the M3 and its 75mm mount used the telescope+periscope that peeps through the roof of the turret (or hull roof for the Grant). The telescope in the periscope+telescope includes the appropriate gunsight reticle -- be it the standard AF reticle for early war tanks, or later war 75mm APC reticle, 76mm APC reticle or 90mm APC reticle, blah blah blah...I actually have a M38A2 in my collection – 75mm M61 reticle.

There are also US built Tanks equipped with coaxial mounted telescope gunner’s sight that peeps through the mantlet or turret front of an M3 or M4 or M5 – ala the M54, M70 and M71 series of telescopes. I think these are mostly mid and late war tanks that were using coaxially mounted telescopes in addition to a secondary periscope+telescope mounted in the turret roof. I have several versions of the M70 in my collection.

Best Regards
Jeff

 

[mlespaul]

Jeff -

Thanks. And yes, I'm helping out the MN for the Vickers VIB, but I'm also helping the DH with the M3 and M5 series over there. I'm thinking it's M70D for that one, if the map is later in 44 or if it's B of the B.. The first few months of Normandy campaign, i'm sure some AF reticles were around...

I was just all confwesed about what the periscope and gunsights were since I started leafing through all the manuals....what I saw as the AF was what I thought they were using in the periscopes for estimation....I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't some special "other" reticle used for range estimation....

So we'll go with whichever gunsight reticle (AF or AT) that was installed for the main gun was also used for the periscope view as well...IF the modders want a periscope utility...as it would be 'snapped in' to the periscope housing.

The only different one I'm seeing is the M10 with the 1x and 6x reticles, but that went to a different armour platform, IIR.

thanks again, for keeping me from running down another rabbit hole.

M

 

[Amizaur]

Thing to remember is that even if it's the same reticle (in telescope vs periscope) then still reticle size is proportional to the optics zoom.
So M10 reticle in x6 zoom is same as in M71D telescope, but slightly larger - telescope has x5 zoom and M10 is x6.
For M4A1 / M70F combo, IF the reticle was the same, it would be more than two times larger in the telescope than in periscope (x3 vs x1.44).
Same reticle, but not same texture (at least with stock code). Do not know if the reticles in MN/DH are going to be functional (they would be tiny in x1.44 zoom, and not much better in x3) but would be nice to see the difference in size when sights are switched (if such feature is going to be coded, which is another thing).

P.S. What's that ?

http://www.simcentrum.com/pafiledb.php?action=download&id=32

It jumped froom the Google, when I searched for reticle patterns
ok, found the index: http://www.simcentrum.com/pafiledb.php?action=category&id=6

P.S. Is this your thread, Paul ?

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=24678&pid=558636&st=0&#entry558636

Well, when you have a periscope gunsight, that is linked to the gun, you don't have to switch, obviously. What fo ? You can aim and fire using periscope sight only (at least on close ranges).

When you estimated range with one sight (any of them) you can as well use it for laying the gun and shooting. Only in case you needed a greater magnification of the telescope sight (or greater precision, gun-sigh linkage is maybe not always perfect), you would switch to it before firing...

Maybe the situation described here (you were talking about it too - that user HAD TO switch between those two) happened in early tanks were you looked for targets and estimated range with observation periscope, that had range estimating reticle, but you could not lay gun with it. And aimed the gun with a telescope (that had a simple cross type reticle?). It another case, it doesn't make sense...

And, BTW, isn't it the commander who estimates range to the target - with his binoculars or experience - and give command to gunner ? AFAIK it was this way in all armored forces, with exeption of Germans which tried a more "democratic" way (every crewmember gave his estimate, and commander had to be good in math and take an average from all) ?

P.S. I'm looking for mil measurements of this new "anti-tank" type reticle. You know, this line is x mils wide, the cross is y mils ect. - a scheme like the one I pasted for "armored force" type reticle in post #27. Now I can only guess, that horizontal marks were 8mils, spaces between them as well, and the cross as well (so any cross "arm" was 4 mils) - but it's a guess based on visual comparison of both patterns and the fact that Russians too switched to 4/8mil "units" in tank reticles during the war (even if they used 5/10mils system before). Maybe it has something to do with an average width of a tank . So, are exact specs given in some field manual ?

 

[jeffduquette]

Ok...I guess I had to turn three or four more pages in Munch. Again Original Source of this photo is K.Munch's "Combat History of Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653". See page 144



Negative version of same photo...



Best Regards
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

Mlespaul:

I’m not certain what Claus B. was going on about with the two different optical instruments being needed by US Tankers for gunnery. I’d have to see the context I guess. He may have been confused by the US Tanks use of both co-axial telescope as well as periscope+telescope in a number of the mid to late war tank models. If you look through Hunnicutt – or simply look at a picture of a mid to late war Sherman or the like you see there is often both a coax telescope with a mantlet aperture, as well as the periscope+telescope mount on the turret roof. They both function in similar ways for gunnery. They are intended as system redundancy. If the telescope is damaged, the periscope+telescope can still be employed for gun laying – or vis versa.

Or he may have been saying that the gunner might typically be looking through the periscope window for initial target acquisition and then switch his eye position to the telescope reticle for actual gun laying. But they are right next to each other. In the same sight picture. So it isn’t any sort of chore. It’s sort of like having a low magnification big FOV periscope window with a higher magnification low FOV gunsight reticle right next door.

Or he may have been referring to indirect lay. Who knows...

One thing I forgot to point out is that the gunner could switch the reticle on or off in the low mag window view of the M10F periscope. M10F was used in 90mm gun tanks. There was also an M10 used in 75mm and 76mm gun tanks.

The periscope+telescope sights were a bit different than the M10/M10F in that the low mag periscope window didn’t have a ballistic reticle. It’s just a 1x periscope view. The Telescope sits inside of the periscope – vertical. You look through the viewing window and see the eyepiece of the telescope through the periscope mirror. The telescope sits on the right side of the periscope. This perhaps sounds more complex than it actually is. I prolly’ need to draw it out or take some photos of the arrangement for it to make more sense.

Regards
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

Thing to remember is that even if it's the same reticle (in telescope vs periscope) then still reticle size is proportional to the optics zoom.
So M10 reticle in x6 zoom is same as in M71D telescope, but slightly larger - telescope has x5 zoom and M10 is x6.

Sorry...only just started reading your last post. It's not really a zoom like say the gunsight telescope on a German Panther in which the gunner can select magnification. In the M10 series there a unitary periscope window with a big fov. The ballistic reticle can be illuminated or not. The telescope eyepiece is encased in the periscope body and is located below the periscope window -- seperate eyepiece -- ballistic reticle.

I have read from S.Zaloga at least, that the periscope+telesopce system was not well liked by gunners -- thus the movement to the duel system that included a coaxial telescope and the periscope+telescope gunsights. However, I haven't come across any hard empirical data by which one could actually compare the two sighting systems for there relative merits and accuracy.

P.S. What's that ?

http://www.simcentrum.com/pafiledb.php?action=download&id=32

Yes -- US Army 1944 Standard Ordnance Catalogue. Good source of general info on numerous bits of equipment and ammunition. Better is to actually have an M4A1 periscope and M38A2 telescope in hand with techmanual for the gun Perhaps you can describe the Periscope+Telescope view from info in the Ordnance Catalogue? This would save me drawing a picture.

P.S. I'm looking for mil measurements of this new "anti-tank" type reticle. You know, this line is x mils wide, the cross is y mils ect. - a scheme like the one I pasted for "armored force" type reticle in post #27. Now I can only guess, that horizontal marks were 8mils, spaces between them as well, and the cross as well (so any cross "arm" was 4 mils) - but it's a guess based on visual comparison of both patterns and the fact that Russians too switched to 4/8mil "units" in tank reticles during the war (even if they used 5/10mils system before). Maybe it has something to do with an average width of a tank . So, are exact specs given in some field manual ?

Which reticle or telescope specifically are you modeling? Surely you can find this info from your Googling...

 

[mlespaul]

Sorry...only just started reading your last post. It's not really a zoom like say the gunsight telescope on a German Panther in which the gunner can select magnification. In the M10 series there a unitary periscope window with a big fov. The ballistic reticle can be illuminated or not. The telescope eyepiece is encased in the periscope body and is located below the periscope window -- seperate eyepiece -- ballistic reticle.

I have read from S.Zaloga at least, that the periscope+telesopce system was not well liked by gunners -- thus the movement to the duel system that included a coaxial telescope and the periscope+telescope gunsights. However, I haven't come across any hard empirical data by which one could actually compare the two sighting systems for there relative merits and accuracy.



Yes -- US Army 1944 Standard Ordnance Catalogue. Good source of general info on numerous bits of equipment and ammunition. Better is to actually have an M4A1 periscope and M38A2 telescope in hand with techmanual for the gun Perhaps you can describe the Periscope+Telescope view from info in the Ordnance Catalogue? This would save me drawing a picture.

Boy---I don't think i could - The more I read this, the more confused I am. I think you're right, you need to be actually sitting in front of one of these. My copy of this catalog helps me figure out the transition of the models, but yes, I see how they attached.

Jeff ---
Please look at this from the M5 manual a la 1944 - I think this is what's confusing me. The pages describe zeroing the weapons between the periscope, telescope, and boresight. Evidently this manual describes the periscope having an 'armoured force reticle', the telescope being an M70D, and the boresight. Am I seeing this right? This is why I got the idea that there were two different aiming systems on the same M5 tank On third page down it says on the M44 mount it lists both the periscope and the telescope when calibrating the sights.

So there's where I thought there were two different sight reticles being used on the same tank. Below, then is the M44 mount in the M5A1. I can see the gunner now, switching from one to the other....this again, is where I got the impression there were two sighting systems being used at the same time....it's from the same manual...but drat! But this is showing an M54 telescope! Arrrghh...must have been a transition....but I DO understand your explanation of system redundancy, that helps tremendously.

So in the M5A1 below...the M54 OR the M4 could be used for targeting..they all had the same reticle..they're side by side..and the telescope can be snapped into the M4...system redundancy...I get it....I think.

 

[mlespaul]

Ok...I guess I had to turn three or four more pages in Munch. Again Original Source of this photo is K.Munch's "Combat History of Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653". See page 144



Negative version of same photo...



Best Regards
Jeff

YES!!! That's the OTHER reticle that I was talking about.. So this may have been a model of the SflZF that was used in the Elefant! Assuming that is what Mr. Munch means by the caption..see the differences in the reticles