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

[jeffduquette]

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.

Hey mlespaul:

There are numerous iterations of coaxial mounted telescopic gunsights and roof mounted periscope+telescope gunsights used for 37mm tank guns. Some used the circle and dot ballistic reticle (what you're calling the AF Reticle), some used the "more advanced" dashed ballistic reticle.

Telescope+periscope gunsights that I know of that were used with the 37mm tank gun.

M40, M40A1, M46 and M46A1 telescopes. These all employed the circle and dot reticles.
The M40A2 and M46A2 telescopes used the dashed reticle.

The M46, M46A1, M46A2 were mounted in M8 or M8A1 periscopes and used in the T9E1 tank. The rest of the above telescopes were mounted in either the M4 or M4A1 periscope and used in various versions of the M3 or M5 tank. Whether or not the above info can be found via Google I have no idea. I’m sure one of the local spring-buts will be along forthwith to let us know.

The same deal with coaxial mounted telescope gunsights used with the 37mm tank gun. Some used the circle-dot reticle, some used the dashed reticle. The M54 telescope is a circle-dot reticle. The M70D telescope is a dashed reticle.

One of the early war coaxial mounted telescopes for the 37mm tank gun actually included only a simple cross hair reticle – this being the M5A1 telescope. There is also an early war periscope+telescope gunsight for the 37mm tank gun – M2 periscope and M19 telescope. This used a simpler version of the circle-dot reticle.

To answer your question more directly, what you are seeing on that first page of the materials you posted is how to boresight both the coaxial mounted telescopic gunsight, and the roof mounted periscope+telescope gunsight. The example the field manual is showing involves two gunsights (one is a coax telescope, and the other a periscope+telescope) that happen to utilize different reticles. The middle lower image is the actual boresight image. You drop the breech block and than tape two threads to the muzzle (there are four dimples in the face of the muzzle you use for aligning the threads across the muzzle). Ideally you use a boresight device, but simple black threads also work in a pinch. When you peer through the breech toward the muzzle you see the crosshair threads on the end of the muzzle. You align the boresight cross hair threads on a distance building corner (or the like) by using the elevation handwheel and turret traversing handwheel. I think 1000-yards was considerd the ideal distance between the tank and building corner of interest. But you also see various other distances quoted in the myriad of gunnery training materials coming out of that time period. But that is where you want your line-of-sight through the muzzle and your line-of-sight through the coaxial mounted telescopic gunsight to intersect. This is also where you want your line-of-sight through the muzzle and your line-of-sight through the roof mounted periscope+telescopic gunsight to intersect.

You look through the coaxial mounted telescope gunsight. The boresight cross-hair on the telescope reticle (top of reticle) should be aligned with the same building corner as your boresight crosshair threads on the gun muzzle. If the telescopes boresight crosshairs do not lay on top of the same building corner, you need to adjust the telescope gunsight such that the telescopes boresight crosshair is aligned with the same building corner as the muzzle boresight crosshairs.

Now look through the periscope+telescope gunsight mounted in the turret roof. The boresight dot (also at the top of the reticle) of the periscope+telescope should be on top of the same building corner as your muzzle boresight crosshairs threads. If it is not, you need to adjust the periscope+telescope gunsight such that the boresight dot is aligned with the same building corner as the muzzle boresight crosshairs. I'm sure you can easily imagine that a reticle with only a boresight dot wasn't as good as having a reticle with a boresight crosshair.

It is possible for one or both gunsights to be out of boresight alignment. They each have different linkages to the main gun. They each have their own mounts. They are independent targeting systems. Either can be employed to lay the gun. One can be busted, but this will not effect the ability to lay the gun with the other gunsight.

It is analogous to the gunner’s primary gunsight and gunner’s secondary gunsight in an Abrams.

Best Regards
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

Sorry -- Looks like what they are showing on the first page could either be boresighting for two different types of coaxial telescopes or an example of boresighting a periscope+telescope. But the boresight principals are the same regardless if it is a periscope+telescope or coaxial mounted telescope. Go through the list of gunsights I provided. That will tell you which reticle is associated with which instrument.

Does the M5A1 TM from which you grabbed those pages you posted indicate what telescope is mounted in the M4 periscope? I'd guess the M40 telescope (a circle-dot AF reticle), but I would be interested if the manual is specific. I don't suppose you have a copy of Hunnicutt's book on the Stuart?

 

[Amizaur]

Paul, I think there is a chance, that the "how to boresight" picture (figure 18) just shows where are the zero points for both types of reticle (if any of them, or both, happen to be used on this type of tank). How to boresight a armored force type reticle and how to boresight a "anti-tank" type reticle. This does not HAVE to mean that BOTH types were used in that particular tank type. One of possible interpretations.

If in tank manual it is written precisely what telescope type (M70D ? M54?) and what periscope sight type (M4A1?) it used, Jeff probably can tell you what types of reticle should it have. Only, well, M4A1 was used in many tanks with many guns and many telescope types inside, so the reticle can't be M4 specific, rather telescope-specific and there is said something about conversion, so early sights could have different reticle standard than late sights of same type. In PDF I found it's said that "all reticle patterns, exept of M19A1, adhere to the recently adopted antitank type reticle pattern". Sounds like something has changed on production lines, only M19A1 was left with old reticle ? To know what reticle should any sight have, one would need to tell also a year he have in mind ? If he is going for absolute historical accuracy .

The manual page/picture 18 which shows both reticle types while boresighting, may only mean that the manual covered many versions of same tank with many various sight types, so they showed instructions for both reticles. Or maybe not. Just a possibility IMO.

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...

Side by side... usually The telescope is not articulated, and the eyepiece moves with the gun up and down, but the periscope is fixed to the turret roof and moves only forward-backward. So the distance between both can vary... I guess not as comfortable as with articulated telescope... The gunner's seat was probably fixed to the turret (floor or side) so when gun moved up pr down, it would be not comfortable somtimes to reach the telescope... same problem was in early Russian tanks (before they introduced telescopic articulated sights). The ergonomy of gunner's work could be probably compared to T-34/76 with PT-76 and TMFD sights... Only those Russian sights were possibly better than US ones (at least on technological level, not going to discuss the quality of war-time production).

A thought comes, that no wonder when US crews (especially those using M70 & M4A1/M47A2) examined captured German tanks, a look trough TZF12a sight (or even TZF5) could be a bit shocking experience... 25-28deg FOV in x2.5 magnification in German sights, which gives whole 62-70deg apparent FOV, in Panther x5 zoom, all this with great image quality. M4A1 had x1.44 magnification with 9deg FOV (so apperent FOV of only 13 deg !!!!!!!) and M70 x3 magnification with 12.3 deg to get mere 37deg apparent FOV. It's something like cheap German PaK sight... The difference when looking trough both must have been frustrating. "Why don't we have such stuff....?" like...

The M10 and M71 brought much better parameters, much closer to Germans - M10 x6 mag with 11.33 FOV, to give apparent FOV of very nice 68deg. The M71 telescope x5 mag with 13deg FOV, apparent FOV of 65deg - also very nice - on par with TZF9c from Tiger E in higher magnification. Don't know about image quality, but I guess it improved in subsequent models. Having those, a look trough TZF5 or TZF12 would not shock me at all probably, maybe I would compare image quality and German ergonomics. On the other hand I would appreciate having a x1 periscope for observation and target spotting, something Germans didn't have.

and the telescope can be snapped into the M4...system redundancy...I get it....I think.

Redundancy is one thing (very important), the second is that they were not the same. The improvised periscope sight M4 (telescope+periscope like Jeff calls it) had much better field of view (in observation, no magnified view, around 40deg probably), so good for spotting targets. Telescopic was around 10 (9-13deg) so 4 times worse. And when looking by unmagnified periscope window, you could also take a quick look into the integrated telescope easily to get x1.44 magnification or to aim a gun.
I just checked, that the magnified (x1.44 ) view had even worse field of view than in the telescopic sights (!).... So after acquiring a target, if you had time, you could switch to telescope (M70) to have much better magnification (x3) with slightly better field of view and more reliable zeroing. Also better magnification means that you can better see the reticle (reticle is visually larger, so you can aim more precisely for given range).

Only with later M10 periscopic sight they got better magnification (x6) than with M71 telescope (x5), but still slightly worse field of view. I guess you could use M10 almost just as well for aiming and shooting as the telescopic sight, I only wonder which one was more comfortable. I guess the dedicated telescope was. Jeff saidn something that M10 (and the whole idea) was not liked too much ?

Last thing that could make those sights different (having their pros and cons), and not only redundant, could be light collecting ability. Do not know which sights had better (larger) objectives and which worked better in limited light conditions. But especially the M70 telescopes look like they had a very small objective (so the hole in the mantlet can be small) so maybe the telescopes integrated in the periscopic sights (M4, M10) were better in a twilight... I do not know,

So there could be some reasons to prefer a periscope or prefer a telescope in given situation, beyond just having redundant systems. 90% of time would be spent looking trough pericopic x1 window anyway, looking for targets.

Paul, you wrote something like

and the telescope can be snapped into the M4...

From what I understand, the telescope is always there, inside. Maybe it could be removed for fixing of cleaning, but it is integral part of M4 periscipe from my understanding (Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong). Of course you could use M4 without telescope (for example if telescope has broken, and you removed it), but M4 would be an ordinary x1 periscope then (just M6 linked to the gun) - without any reticle, and you rather couldn't aim a gun with it (at least for distances > 10m ). M10 was even more integrated device.

--

Jeff - you said about M10 periscope having no "zoom" like in Panther sight - you are right, sorry, just my kinowledge of english words is not precise. I wrote "zoom" thinking really about "magnification" - wanted to say that it has magnification of x6 (when looking by eyepiece). I know in M10 there is an eyepiece with x6 and an observation "window" with no magnification. There is no "zoom" feature which means you can change the magnification. I understand that, just used wrong word :/
--

Paul - you say the last Jeff's photo suggest this type of reticle (pure triangles) used on Elefant. Well, the previous photo (with well-known SlfZF1a reticle) was also said to be from Elefant . So... what ? Either it was random (you could find any of them in your vehicle's gunsight), or commander/gunner could choose which one he prefers and replace it in field (just the reticle plate, or rather just replace the eyepiece which is not that big part)? Maybe two eyepieces were issued for each sight, with both reticle styles, for personal preference ? Just a guess, of course.

---

Anti-tank type (dashed) reticle sizing - well, I do not talk about any particular reticle for particular sight. I rather think about the "standard" - all the reticles of this type, although they look different, are composed from same type of elements - the boresight cross, the horizontal lines and spaces between marks. The size of those elements are probably ruled by some standard. I have suspicion that the size of the cross and horizontal lines are 8 mils wide, and spaces between the the lines (horizontal ones) are also 8 mils. Vertical spaces are of course ruled by ballistics of the gun - could be found from ballistic tables if needed. For RO gunsight, reticle vertical scale should be just adjusted to match RO shell ballistics.

I'm looking for dimensioning of those standard elements (cross, lines, spaces) or the basic layout - so dimentions of any example reticle (of this type) would be fine.

edit: Well, not really needed anymore. In fact IT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN in M4A3 manual, that each horizontal line and each space is 5 mils wide. I should read more carefully and would not need to ask. So it's 5 mils (like in old armored-force reticle) and not 4 mils like could be roughly estimated from the manual pictures - if the3y were true. But they again turn out to be schematic. In fact in manual both reticles (for 75mm gun and 76mm gun) are shown like identical (which is absurd) and are probably too wide (at least 75mm one). Well, it's enough to compare pictures with this photo:

http://www.surplusshed.com/images/items/A1602_1.jpg to see that manual picture is out of proportions - as usually. Do not know what's that, it's 41mm so either M71D or M10G reticle for 75 or 76mm gun (M70F is of smaller diameter 27mm).

Regards

 

[mlespaul]

Sorry -- Looks like what they are showing on the first page could either be boresighting for two different types of coaxial telescopes or an example of boresighting a periscope+telescope. But the boresight principals are the same regardless if it is a periscope+telescope or coaxial mounted telescope. Go through the list of gunsights I provided. That will tell you which reticle is associated with which instrument.

That's what I was wondering. It did seem like they were instructing the reader on boresighting using either one of the reticles that they happen to have. I know the 'cross' diagram is of the simple laying wire/string on the front and physically looking through the guntube. I will review that list again. I have the ORD 7/SNL F-235 but haven't tried matching stuff yet. IRT the utilization of periscope sights in tandem with the telescopes, I think my main problem is thinking outside the co-axial telescope system 'box'.

Does the M5A1 TM from which you grabbed those pages you posted indicate what telescope is mounted in the M4 periscope? I'd guess the M40 telescope (a circle-dot AF reticle), but I would be interested if the manual is specific.

Sorry, it's from "FM 17-68 Armoured Crew Drill, Light Tank M5 Series, 24 May 1944"
The page 20 photo of the interior showing the M4 and M54 is from the same manual
....and YUP, it's in figure 11. "Gunner's controls" #11. Periscope sight M4, w/telescope M40.

From same manual - Interesting paragraph in 'Service of the Piece' Section V , page 25, italics are mine:

"d. To lay the gun. Locate target through the periscope. Turn the power traverse (pistol grip) control handle, or traverse with hand crank (figure 11) in the proper direction until the vertical line of range dots (or dashes) is on the target, or the proper lead is taken. Make the final traversing motion against the greatest resistance, such as might be caused by cant in the tank. Then elevate gun until the proper range marking is on the target (See FM 17-12)."

17-12 being our tank gunnery manual.

So they're saying, either reticle could end up being displayed in the periscope? Good - that makes thing's easier. Then why aren't they mentioning using the co-ax telescope for laying the gun? Interesting that they say to use the periscope...

I don't suppose you have a copy of Hunnicutt's book on the Stuart?

No, sir I don't but probably should - I've read your other forums' comments regarding this one - would prob help me.

Also - I pm'd you on another thing.

 

[mlespaul]

Ami - got your comments on the instruction - noted and acknowledged

It's like the three of us are in a tanker's lounge having some beers at the bar...not a bad idea.

Side by side... usually The telescope is not articulated, and the eyepiece moves with the gun up and down, but the periscope is fixed to the turret roof and moves only forward-backward. So the distance between both can vary... I guess not as comfortable as with articulated telescope... The gunner's seat was probably fixed to the turret (floor or side) so when gun moved up pr down, it would be not comfortable somtimes to reach the telescope... same problem was in early Russian tanks (before they introduced telescopic articulated sights). The ergonomy of gunner's work could be probably compared to T-34/76 with PT-76 and TMFD sights... Only those Russian sights were possibly better than US ones (at least on technological level, not going to discuss the quality of war-time production).

Good insight. This makes me think of the PG-type panoramic telescopes used on the big Russian SP-type weapons/122/152 that poked out of the top. Maybe the same concept at work.
I agree to not let things get into the quality of sights....those arguments go back 10 years among the real and 'cyber'-tankers!

Ami - It all really boils down to, I guess, providing the best and most realistic use of the information we have for an accurate portrayal of these weapons systems. I'm not into fighting over nuts and bolts, for nuts and bolts sake (not that there's anything WRONG with that ) , but it's a means to an end, being here, an accurate sight picture.

But it's also fun gaining the knowledge.

Paul - you say the last Jeff's photo suggest this type of reticle (pure triangles) used on Elefant. Well, the previous photo (with well-known SlfZF1a reticle) was also said to be from Elefant . So... what ? Either it was random (you could find any of them in your vehicle's gunsight), or commander/gunner could choose which one he prefers and replace it in field (just the reticle plate, or rather just replace the eyepiece which is not that big part)? Maybe two eyepieces were issued for each sight, with both reticle styles, for personal preference ? Just a guess, of course.

All I'm saying there is that when we had our discussion way, WAY up above about the page from the German Panzerjager/Hetzer manual you posted, we were talking about the two different kinds of reticles being shown in the diagrams a) and b). The photos show the same two kinds in photographic form that most likely came from an Elefant. I just thought it interesting that there was existing photographic evidence of type (a) reticle in use. Any period photo taken through the objective lens is ALWAYS a big deal .
People have asked about modding an Elefant for RO and I'm offering the opinion that these two were both used in the vehicle, not just the one we're already familiar with. So now, there's no more excuses for waiting for an Elefant in RO - they've got their choice of gunsights!

I'm sad...I thought you'd be more excited about those photos....sniff lol

But you did just came up with your own theory that there might have been two reticles issued with the SflZF1. Given the 'persnickety' nature of the way the wehrmacht equipped its people, I don't think anything was 'random' - there was always a system...maybe a very convoluted, senseless, pointless system, but always a system. LOL Sure, there might have been two issued - but if what you are saying about FOV size, would there have been a point if the gun platform remained the same - or did it not matter?

Yes, the reticles were located in the forward eyepiece unit box, the everything above the first section was all tube, prisms/mirrors, and coated glass objectives, they were designed to be easily switched out when hit or shattered.

Interestingly some of datenblatt information I've seen Jentz provide list various models of SFlZF, which might have something to do with the reticle included (meaning it might not have been related to a double set, but the model itself)

The models of the SflZF I know of are:
SflZF1
SflZF1a
SflZF1a/1
SflZF1b
SflZF1c

So yes there was more than one type of scope - they looked the same/FOV and mag, just differing in slight physical ways, I think.

I can see everyone else just shaking their heads.....in disbelief that we're talking about this stuff...

 

[Amizaur]

But it's also fun gaining the knowledge.

It's THE fun, gaining the knowledge Using it in a game is a secondary thing for me

This makes me think of the PG-type panoramic telescopes used on the big Russian SP-type weapons/122/152 that poked out of the top. Maybe the same concept at work.

Well, I do not think it's the same. We were talking about tanks and tank periscopic sights. Here is assault gun and an artillery sight.

Looking at one, a PG-1 was a precise and somewhat delicate optical instrument, like Rlbf32 (nothing like M4A1 or M10), so I doubt it was used for observation or to laying direct fire (at least commonly). I guess it was put on the mount only if necessary (before the battle when you know it will be used, or before firing), and SU or ISU was not normally running around with this sight mounted. You had to open some roof doors and the sight would be vunerable to enemy fire. It had no replaceable head (had it?), not dsigned to take damage, so having one hit by small arms fire or a shrapnel would be losing whole instrument probably - not a cheap instrument.
Maybe you could be even court martialed or at least have some troubles if you lost one in a stupid way, using it out of destination... (you could be court martialed in Russia for not well justified use of APCR shell IIRC).
Sure if it happened that you lost your coaxial telescope sight, you could put PG-1 on and use it for direct fire in emergency, so this would be some kind of reduncancy. Also when firing for long distances, PG-1 could be better than coaxial telescope (magnification and direct use of artillery tables instead of CT-10 range scales).
PT-4-7 (not PT-76 as I called it from memory) - well, this family of sights in T-34/76 was a permanently mounted, perscopic sight (panoramic too), in armored casing.

Some T-34 periscope can be seen in this gallery http://www.ww2.ru/pics.php?id=1753&num=3

the page that described it as an item for sale, is no longer there, but pictures are. But I'm not sure if it's PT-4-7 periscopic gunsight, or maybe rather an observation periscope that was mounted on the right side of T-34/76 turret in commander's tanks ? (PTK or PTK-5) Any clue ? Anyway, they were said to be almost identical, the PTK just like PT-4-7 but lacking the reticle (and not linked with the gun). The external armored cover can difer a bit between both, and also in later tanks the PT-4-7 was better shielded - covered by a fixed armored shield with small opening for optics. On early tanks the PT-4-7 (or PT-6, PT-7) seem to have completly closed cover, that had to be opened before the battle (huh?) and then the sight was not protected of course.

Periscopic one was considered main sight and definitely was THE sight that T-34/76 commander/gunner was using when running around and usually also for aiming the gun AFAIK. At least on closer ranges. I even wondered if shouldn't I model just PT-4-7 instead of TMFD for RO's T-34/76 - it has a better FOV. But it has also different scale so I would have to make new texture... I have chosen the easy way

edit: do you have maybe, in your collecton of Russian manuals, a good drawing of PT-4-7 (or 17) reticle ? Like the one you send me for 10T-15 ? You know, something close to actual view and not just schematic illustration ?

PT-4-7 was also panoramic but don't know if this feature was commonly used. (Or maybe it was, and this was reason for Russian T-34 being so slow in acquiring targets and commencing the fire in 1941 ).

edit: I know I'm saying things we all (Paul, Jeff, Alan) well know... like about the PT-4-7, but just in case... and, well, there is some other people, beyond us 4, reading this thread, I hope some additional historical/technical digression thrown in cant't hurt, right ? Other than taking server space ?

Any period photo taken through the objective lens is ALWAYS a big deal .

For me it's the same, be sure ! Also I agree completly that this photo is important because it's the evidence (if photo is correctly signed) that both types of reticle were used in SflZF1a, and most likely even in same vehicle type. So in fact, as it seem so far, both are "correct" for modeling purposes. Up to preference. Complete agreement.

Only I have a bad habit of not appreciating the knowledge I just gained, but instead to go forward and in turn start wondering for example WHY there were two types of reticles and when/for what reason one or the other type was used The answer is that we don't know, I can only wonder and came up with theories Up to this moment, I don't see any reason for one being better than the other, so I think that either one was older standard and second was new standard (less likely) or it was up to personal preference (depending if someone had experience from artillery, or from tanks - the small triangle reticle being identical like in tank sights, and later in the war assault guns served also in tank batalions, right ?) Maybe Germans prefered to keep one's experience in using one type of reticle, laying the gun and estimating distances, instead of forcing him to learn new reticle type - after all, replacing one small glass plate was not that big deal, if you had a technican and a clean place where you could do this. Or maybe it was dependant on gunsight type as you said (1a, 1a/1, 1b, 1c).

Tell me, if an SflZF1a could be just removed from a Stug III and put into an Elefant, or removed from Elefant and put into Hetzer or JPzIV or Stug IV ? Was it the same sight, same device ? I suppose the range controls (that were different in various vehicles) were not a part of sight, but part of gun/sight MOUNT rather ?

Yes, the reticles were located in the forward eyepiece unit box,

Well, so inside the sight body, not in the eyepiece. So it wasn't possible to switch the reticle easily (I guess opening the sealed sight body in field would be NOT reccomended). Maybe (not sure if possible) there were two reticle plates inside the SflZF1 body ? That could be switched by some knob, just like that ? Crazy thought, and not sure what would be gained by this, but it's German engineering after all, so everything is possible

Sure, there might have been two issued

Well, not I don't see how it would be possible - if reticle plate was buried deep inside the sight body/box. I wouldn't open it in field, just like any precise optical instrument. For a moment I thought the reticle may have been located in an easily replaced eyepiece.

but if what you are saying about FOV size, would there have been a point if the gun platform remained the same - or did it not matter?

Don't understand this FOV issue. FOV of both was identical. 8 deg true, 40deg apparent. Only reticle size was different (the "triangles" one being smaller), but FOV of the sight was same.

 

[mlespaul]

edit: do you have maybe, in your collecton of Russian manuals, a good drawing of PT-4-7 (or 17) reticle ? Like the one you send me for 10T-15 ? You know, something close to actual view and not just schematic illustration ?

I'll go look

Tell me, if an SflZF1a could be just removed from a Stug III and put into an Elefant, or removed from Elefant and put into Hetzer or JPzIV or Stug IV ? Was it the same sight, same device ? I suppose the range controls (that were different in various vehicles) were not a part of sight, but part of gun/sight MOUNT rather ?

Yes, it was completely detachable. The periscope assembly simply vertically hooked on to the side of the drum range mounting (just like a standard artillery/howitzer/feld haubitz zieleinrichtung 34 -type rig). It hooked right in and I have some shots of the SflZF's hookup flap and of some guys attaching and detaching it from the zieleinrichtung inside the fighting compartment (some from manual, some from reenactors) . It was very, very simple to connect and dis-connect.

Well, so inside the sight body, not in the eyepiece. So it wasn't possible to switch the reticle easily (I guess opening the sealed sight body in field would be NOT reccomended).

well...maybe not SO hard to do. I'd have to look more closely at my hardware pics ---and the schematics that I have of it, as to where the reticle cell was actually located....Uh...Ami, there's a couple for sale on Ebay right now...you could get one right now .....

Maybe (not sure if possible) there were two reticle plates inside the SflZF1 body ? That could be switched by some knob, just like that ? Crazy thought, and not sure what would be gained by this, but it's German engineering after all, so everything is possible

Couple years ago, I used to think that manual diagram (of type a. and type b.) actually did switch from one view to the other by a flick of a switch! But then I woke up and smelled the proverbial coffee....

 

[mlespaul]

edit: do you have maybe, in your collecton of Russian manuals, a good drawing of PT-4-7 (or 17) reticle ? Like the one you send me for 10T-15 ? You know, something close to actual view and not just schematic illustration ?

I'll go look

Tell me, if an SflZF1a could be just removed from a Stug III and put into an Elefant, or removed from Elefant and put into Hetzer or JPzIV or Stug IV ? Was it the same sight, same device ? I suppose the range controls (that were different in various vehicles) were not a part of sight, but part of gun/sight MOUNT rather ?

Yes, it was completely detachable. The periscope assembly simply hooked on to the side of the drum range mounting (just like a standard artillery/howitzer/feld haubitz zieleinrichtung 34 -type rig). It hooked right in and I have some shots of the SflZF's hookup flap and of some guys attaching and detaching it from the zieleinrichtung inside the fighting compartment (some from manual, some from reenactors) . It was very, very simple to connect and dis-connect.

Well, so inside the sight body, not in the eyepiece. So it wasn't possible to switch the reticle easily (I guess opening the sealed sight body in field would be NOT reccomended).

well...maybe not SO hard to do. I'd have to look more closely at my hardware pics ---and the schematics that I have of it, as to where the reticle cell was actually located....Uh...Ami, there's a couple for sale on Ebay right now...you could get one right now .....

Maybe (not sure if possible) there were two reticle plates inside the SflZF1 body ? That could be switched by some knob, just like that ? Crazy thought, and not sure what would be gained by this, but it's German engineering after all, so everything is possible

Couple years ago, I used to think that manual diagram (of type a. and type b.) actually did switch from one view to the other by a flick of a switch! But then I woke up and smelled the proverbial coffee....

 

[jeffduquette]

17-12 being our tank gunnery manual.

So they're saying, either reticle could end up being displayed in the periscope? Good - that makes thing's easier. Then why aren't they mentioning using the co-ax telescope for laying the gun? Interesting that they say to use the periscope...

Like I say, the coax telescope was a later war addition for some tanks. For example the early production Shermans only had the roof mounted periscope+telescope. Same again for the 75mm on the Grant\Lee. Most M3 Medium tanks only had the periscope+telescope for the 75mm sponson mounted gun. I think there was a single model of the M3 medium tank that was produced or modified to include a coaxial telescope, but I would have to go through my references to see which model this was.

Again the early to mid war telescopes and periscope+telescope reticles were the circle dot type. The higher numbered models of telescopes and periscope telescopes were the dashed type reticles.

There are actually some advantages to the periscope+telescope in that the tank can be pretty much turret defilade, yet the gunner can still peak out through his periscope and see what the TC is seeing. Moreover, the gunner can identify the target location picked by the TC before the tank advances to a more exposed hull defilade position to take a shot. If you catch my drift. A coax telescope requires a portion of the turret to be exposed for the gunner to actually see what the TC is seeing.

It also has and was employed advantageously for long range semi-indirect fire on AT-gun or infantry positions. The tank remains 99% defilade, yet the gunner still has some ability to sense his fire\spot fall of shot...two sets of eyes are better than one.

Course one of the disadvantages is that the gunner doesn't quite know when the muzzle has cleared the military crest when using only a periscope. You'd have to drop the breach and peek through it to make sure the shot line is clear and not obstructed by the crest in front of you.

Best Regards
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

Sorry, it's from "FM 17-68 Armoured Crew Drill, Light Tank M5 Series, 24 May 1944"
The page 20 photo of the interior showing the M4 and M54 is from the same manual
....and YUP, it's in figure 11. "Gunner's controls" #11. Periscope sight M4, w/telescope M40.

In this instance both the M54 coax-telescope, and M4+M40 periscope+telescope used the circle-dot ballistic reticle (your AF-reticle).

Regards
Jeff

 

[mlespaul]

In this instance both the M54 coax-telescope, and M4+M40 periscope+telescope used the circle-dot ballistic reticle (your AF-reticle).

Regards
Jeff

Jeff -

Got it! Outstanding descriptions on all your posts. Most thankful!

respectfully,
M

 

[jeffduquette]

Sorry...I've been fighting a flu for the last week. I had meant to answer your 17-pdr question, but my energy levels are running on empty right now.


No.41 Telescope:
Mag: 1.9x
FOV: 21-degrees


The reticle for the No.41 telescope used on the 17pdr antitank field gun (the towed thingie' -- not the Firefly) is just a simple cross-hair. The cross hair lines are continuous across the sight view and thicken along the outer edges of both the vertical and horizontal portions of the cross hair.


Thin lines near the central intersection are like 1-minute in thickness. The heavier portions of the lines are like 5-minutes thick. Lead lines are also 1-minute.


There is a big "R" and "L" below the horizontal portion of the cross hair. This is apparently a reminder to the gunner for how to apply his lead ('leed' -- not the metal). "R" being on the "left" lower quadrant; "L" being on the lower "right" quadrant. Top of the letters are 45-minutes below the horizontal line of the main cross-hair. Letters are 45-minutes horizontally from the vertical line of the main cross hair. Letters are exactly 30-minutes high and 30-minutes wide.


There are two, short, vertical lead lines on the horizontal line of the main cross hair. Each lead line is spaced 30-minutes apart and each is 30-minutes in height.


Below is just my quick sketch of the No41 reticle. It's not drawn to scale, but I've put in enough real dimensions in my above description to recreate the thing for game purposes.






It seems to me Alan Wilson already has a lot of the British gun sight reticle info. You might want to try getting him to lend you a hand with some of your UK vehicle\gun modding stuff. Or does he typically avoid helping with mods?

Best Regards
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

image corrected...

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

Sorry...I've been fighting a flu for the last week. I had meant to answer your 17-pdr question, but my energy levels are running on empty right now.

It seems to me Alan Wilson already has a lot of the British gun sight reticle info. You might want to try getting him to lend you a hand with some of your UK vehicle\gun modding stuff. Or does he typically avoid helping with mods?

Best Regards
Jeff

Alan does - courtesy of documents at the Tank Museum Archives at Bovington. But I haven't bothered to get as much detail on them, simply because we don't use them. I don't have the 17pdr's No. 41, for instance.

I'm sure there is ref on it at Bovington, but I now live 5,000 miles away, so not so easy to pop in and see them!

 

[mlespaul]

Sorry...I've been fighting a flu for the last week. I had meant to answer your 17-pdr question, but my energy levels are running on empty right now.


No.41 Telescope:
Mag: 1.9x
FOV: 21-degrees


The reticle for the No.41 telescope used on the 17pdr antitank field gun (the towed thingie' -- not the Firefly) is just a simple cross-hair. The cross hair lines are continuous across the sight view and thicken along the outer edges of both the vertical and horizontal portions of the cross hair.


Thin lines near the central intersection are like 1-minute in thickness. The heavier portions of the lines are like 5-minutes thick. Lead lines are also 1-minute.


There is a big "R" and "L" below the horizontal portion of the cross hair. This is apparently a reminder to the gunner for how to apply his lead ('leed' -- not the metal). "R" being on the "left" lower quadrant; "L" being on the lower "right" quadrant. Top of the letters are 45-minutes below the horizontal line of the main cross-hair. Letters are 45-minutes horizontally from the vertical line of the main cross hair. Letters are exactly 30-minutes high and 30-minutes wide.


There are two, short, vertical lead lines on the horizontal line of the main cross hair. Each lead line is spaced 30-minutes apart and each is 30-minutes in height.


Below is just my quick sketch of the No41 reticle. It's not drawn to scale, but I've put in enough real dimensions in my above description to recreate the thing for game purposes.






It seems to me Alan Wilson already has a lot of the British gun sight reticle info. You might want to try getting him to lend you a hand with some of your UK vehicle\gun modding stuff. Or does he typically avoid helping with mods?

Best Regards
Jeff

Jeff -

Thanks my man. Outstanding diagram! Yes, I had the same flu you have about a month ago. Made me wanna die and I was out for over two whole weeks...its a mother.

Yes, I see the No. 41 is very similar to the No. 22 C and D:

1943 No. 22 C/D MkI (this one's a D)

Compare to the 1943 No. 51 Mk I S:

Difference appears to be that the magnification on 51 is higher (housing and internal structure of scope are different) and decreased FOV and the graticules go numbered along the bottom 3-2-1 and 1-2-3 with 1/2 and 1/4 mark divs.

And I did send these over to MN.

 

[jeffduquette]

Yes...I have a No.22 Telescope (Canadian Manufactured) in my collection. Reticle is very similar\identical to the No.41 used with the 17-pdr.

There was also a No41 MkII Telescope used with 17-pdr field gun. But I have no details on this instrument -- dates of use -- blah blah. I came across an internet source indicating it was also a 1.9X, 21-deg telescope. But can't verify from a real source yet.

Who or what is MN?

 

[jeffduquette]

This is unrelated, but since this is sort of becoming the catch-all thread for optics, I figure I will ask this question here.

The AB-Mod for RO added an excellent feature for the gunner’s sight in the Panther -- this being the two power gunsight. This is a very important game feature (IMO), as it has a profound affect on tactical options and tactical employment by players crewing Panthers.

The gunner’s sight on the Tiger-1 was apparently upgraded in April 1944 to a two power telescope – tzf9b upgraded to tzf9c. Is it possible to include a two-power telescope in Tiger-1's for say mid-1944'ish(+) scenarios?

I suppose while I’m at it, what about inclusion of the powerful donkey ear periscope at the TC position in Stugs? Could this be done in the AB mod?

Lastly, why are TC binoculars in the AB-game modeled as two-power?

Best Regards
Jeff

 

[mlespaul]

This is unrelated, but since this is sort of becoming the catch-all thread for optics, I figure I will ask this question here.

The AB-Mod for RO added an excellent feature for the gunner’s sight in the Panther -- this being the two power gunsight. This is a very important game feature (IMO), as it has a profound affect on tactical options and tactical employment by players crewing Panthers.

The gunner’s sight on the Tiger-1 was apparently upgraded in April 1944 to a two power telescope – tzf9b upgraded to tzf9c. Is it possible to include a two-power telescope in Tiger-1's for say mid-1944'ish(+) scenarios?

I suppose while I’m at it, what about inclusion of the powerful donkey ear periscope at the TC position in Stugs? Could this be done in the AB mod?

Lastly, why are TC binoculars in the AB-game modeled as two-power?

Best Regards
Jeff

......Ami?

.....Captain O?

.....Shurek?


All great questions...I think the 2.5/5X was discussed before and Ami was working on that....plus the TZF 9c has a slightly different reticle scale, and it was a mono..They went from a 9B to a 9B/1 before the 9c....Leitz won the contract for the Tiger I/II's, starting with 9b/1...once the waffenordenance officials decided the binocular system wasn't cutting it.

I know the 9B/1 had two separate scales by that time for both Spr and Pzr and the MG scale was done away with...probably ended up being the same layout for the c...

...getting all the good (and accurate) optics mods to stick on the stock RO and all the servers has always been my gripe...a good idea gets put into practice, then when you log on most servers, the guy has the vanilla RO loaded...

 

[Shurek]

This is unrelated, but since this is sort of becoming the catch-all thread for optics, I figure I will ask this question here.

The AB-Mod for RO added an excellent feature for the gunner

 

[mlespaul]

CO and I never came to a determined decision about implementing the scissor's periscope (Scherenfernrohr) for the StuG. First, it would have created more modelling work for Paul, and I think there was also some concern about game balance issues. Namely, that every other tank in the game requires the commander to pop out of his cupola to spot targets thus exposing himself to sniper fire. If we had implemented a protected viewing position for the StuG commander, it would have given that vehicle a certain advantage over others. Of course, I'm all for realism, and wouldn't be opposed to putting it in at some point, if Paul concurs.

Not sure about the answer to the 2x power binocs for AB...

Me either...was it Amizaur who had done the modded telescope views for the Panther and Tiger I? I think it may have just been a one-off project because I don't think the Tiger I has ever had the 9b/1 rets or maybe it did. But the Panther got the 12a once, that I think I remember seeing. (Weird how the upgraded turret telescope reticles seem stretched/squished....maybe my resolution isn't set correctly.

For the Allied side....you could potentially go with a number of periscopes (if player fairness were a major concern here) Just off the top of my head a number of Allied scopes come to mind that have brilliant, attractive reticles...
U.S. had its own rabbit-ear telescope, the B.C. M65, the M4 binocular range-estimation reticles, and some others....pm me if you want. I have large-size photos of the reticles or from the manuals....By no means did the germans have it all...I mean - only if you were absolutely out of options...use these allied ones.

Another thing...this reticle that's been recently shown in

the binocular view for Alte Ziggy, that I've seen (it's the standard Russian 6x30/8x30) - strange how the German's also use it ....that one was actually the same for the observation scope (a co-opted sniper periscope) for the SU-76, that we've mentioned before on this board....Why not use that? All a russian tank commander had to do was pop that sniper optic up through the hatch and look around, holding it in his hand..that's historically kosher....why not use it?

I'll tell you, we have to do something about that "V ' V ' V ' V ' V ' V ' V" binocular reticle that shows up in vanilla RO everywhere...ugh..