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

[jeffduquette]

I'm working on a vehicle right now that has a multi-powered sight, similar to Amizaur's work with the Panther scope.

Maybe he can speak to "upgrading" the later Tiger I model's scope for the next release of AB?


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...

Thanks Shurek. Sorry for the length of this reply, but I had a big cup of coffee this morning and just started typing…;o)

To be clear, I’m not complaining about the AB-Mod. You guys have done some very wonderful work in spicing up the original RO-tank combat model. I like the stock RO-tank maps, but I definitely lean toward the AB-mod tank maps when choosing servers to spend my time on.

The question of play balance is always important and a very valid point. However, I think map\scenario balance can be achieved via force mix and placement of the map objectives.

I think players who truly enjoy the game are reasonably malleable, and therefore will adapt to equipment foibles, particularly if these equipment foibles are perceived to be “realistic”. For example scissors telescope in a Stug.

Those players that grumble constantly are the sorts that require that a game somehow adapt to their “playing style” rather than the player adapting to the game environment. In this instance a grumblers “playing style” is a euphemism for the tactical ineptitude.

“Realism” within wargames should be a player trying to invoke real world tactics and the player being paid the appropriate dividends for his efforts. Use of terrain, firepower, maneuver and(!!) communication with ones team mates has to be employed in various combinations to achieve the scenarios goals – the mission objectives.

Various weapon systems will have certain inherent advantages – be this speed and flotation associated with a T34; or armor and stand-off capability of a Tiger-1. In the instance of the Stug, and adding an enhanced optic system at the TC position (scissors telescope); this is counter-balanced by the limited traverse of the main gun. In addition, I think(?) the scissors telescope has only a limited traverse capability in the TC position. The scissors telescope, while being a rather high magnification instrument, has a rather small field of view (FOV). Lastly, players crewing Stugs can’t effectively employ all the advantages provided by the enhanced optics at the TC position within the game environment. He still has to jump back to the gunner’s position and employ the normal gunsight telescope to do his shooting. But the telescope would be a great advantage within the game environment for enhancing the vehicles stand-off capability in that it should allow players crewing Stugs to "realistically" spot targets at longer distances (in reality this periscope would also be employed to help the TC sense and correct his gunner’s shot placement as well as better determine the effect of his fire on a target – but this is not really possible in the game as the player has to jump back and forth from TC position to gunners position – but be that as it may). I think there are enough potential advantages to players crwing Stugs to make this option of interest, but there are also enough counter-balances inherent in the game and the vehicle to make the instruments inclusion not an overpowering advantage.

In the case of the Tiger-1 with the Tzf9c, I can understand why it might not be a priority to folks working on the AB Mod. There were only a few hundred tanks produced with the duel magnification tzf9c monocular telescope – i.e. production from April 1944 onward was I think less than 300 vehicles. Look for photos showing the single aperture in the mantlet on the gunners side of the turret – ala one of the KO’d Tigers in Villers-Bocage. I also think some percentage of rebuilds from that time period onward would also include the Tzf9c. In the later case, I think there were instances of the two aperture binocular telescope type gun mantlet having one aperture patch welded and the other aperture increased in size to accommodate the monocular tzf9c. But this would likely only add a handful to the newly produced versions of the Tiger-1 with a stock tzf9c.


I obviously don't know enough about the games inherent restraints to know if it is possible to have multiple editions\models of the same Tank. Moreover, a early Tiger-1 with the single magnification binocular gunsight, and a late war model with a two power monocular gunsight. Or; early model Panther with single power telescope at the gunner's position, and the later versions with the duel magnification gunner's sights.

Keep up the great work.

Best Regards
Jeff

 

[Amizaur]

LOL

Jeff, you probably can't know this, but a late model of Tiger I with TZF9c is available in AB from LONG time (it was added several versions ago)

(just checked - Tiger late with TZF9c was already in AB 2.04, so at least year ago) (edit: 2.03 had it too)

It has same double magnification as Panther G sight, and slightly better FOV of 26deg (I have no reliable info about this, but some suggest that TZF9c has better FOV - 25-26deg to even 28deg, than TZF9b - 24-25deg (even 23deg), most reliable says 25deg for 9b like Spielberger books or here: link).

There is also an early Panther D in AB available from almost the beginning (using a 3D model of Panther G, sadly, but with single magnification TZF12 sight and slow rotating turret). There is even an early Tiger (but it differs only by the external texture). Of course, the gunsight textures of those sights (TZF12 vs TZF12a, TZF9c vs TZF9b) are all the same (stock or now improved stock), only the optical parameters were changed.

Just no one uses those AB tanks on the maps and because there is only one model of Tiger in stock game, it can be replaced (by default in mutator) only by one AB model of Tiger, and it's not the late model of course.

If someone needs late model of Tiger on his map he should either use directly the model he needs from AB package, or write (or modify) new mutator script to replace stock Tiger by late Tiger on this particular map. AB is only a bunch of tanks and a code handling them. The mutator replacing them is another thing, anyone can write his own mutator replacing stock tanks by specific versions of AB tanks.
This is why AB is now several packages, one of them being the mutator script, other package being vehicles. You can use AB vehicles without using AB mutator at all (use vehicles directly on maps or use your own mutator to repalce tanks), much better mutator script can be written and I'm still waiting, curious when someone do this

Regards

P.S.

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

It has more to do with being useful than strict realism. A compromise.

First, I noticed that in stock RO the magnification of tank commander's binoculars (while being in tank's hatch) is only half of that used for ordinary binoculars used in the rest of the game (infantry binoculars - or just when being out of tank). Tank commander being out of tank has better magnifing binocs than when being inside tank .

The FOV of tank commander's binoculars in stock RO was 20deg - it's something like x4.25 binocs !! (85/20) in stock RO. Panzer commanders usually used (7x50 to 10x50 binocs). Russians would use probably 6x30 or 7x50 ones. The non-tank binocs have a 10deg FOV so twice the magnification (x8.5).

First thing I did was to set tank binocs to 10deg FOV also. But this caused (expected) problems with very small FOV which makes scanning for enemy a very slow and hard task. This was probably the reason the TWI decreased the magnification of tank binocs.
The problems with small FOV although perfectly realistic, but when combined with poor quality of unmagnified view (85deg FOV on 17-19" monitor in computer game has NOTHING to do with real world naked eye vision) then searching for enemy become maybe too hard in game. When in real life you would normally scan for targets with naked eye (having much better x1 visibility than in game) and even when using narrow FOV binocs you have much better feel of direction and situational awarness in real life (you just know which direction you are looking at).

So what to do ? Keep the binocs FOV at 10deg and force players to use rather "naked eye" view to scan for targets on all but longest ranges (which promotes players having larger monitors and better GFX cards). Increase the binocs FOV back to 20deg (x4.25 magnification) like in stock game ?

Or maybe do both ? Keep the low magnification wide FOV mode from stock game, but also allow the player to switch to more realistic high magnification / narrow FOV mode, giving good long range capability like they would see in real 7x50 binoculars ?

So it's a compromise of having both magnifications (the one from stock game, and second, more realistic, twice higher magnification like in real x7 binocs).
Again, it depends on how do you understand "realism" I don't always go for "strict" implementation of realism, sometimes just "way that allow player to act/play in more realistic way".
In fact it's a test, I didn't got much feedback from players about this feature (other that it's "nice") so it's hard to decide yet which is better. Of course I COULD remove the first medium magnification mode, and leave players with either naked eye or narrow x7 binocs... But for now I like it, becuase I do not have 21" monitor yet too and it allows me to more easily find targets.

The binocular reticles are taken from real photos of German binocular scale and photo of Russian standard binocular/periscope/observation reticle.
For the "general"/universal binocular reticle (currently in AB replaced even for infantrymans, in place of the hated V V V V V one) I chosed the "Russian" one - as it has the central + which makes obvious which point is aiming point. Some players reported they had problem with German binoc reticle about which part is the center . Now they have the + to aim with It's nice to hear that Germans used this reticle too

Second feature being tested currently in AB from some (quite long) time (again no feedback at all, no one noticed, no one reads readmes, threads...), regarding to target spotting, is the change of default naked eye view when looking from tanks.

In stock game it's very wide 85deg FOV. I changed it (for from-the-tank views) to new 75deg FOV (value used in many other FPS/Sim games).

It gives slightly better "magnification" so bit easier seen far targets, with slightly worse situational awarness (FOV slightly smaller) and a bit less picture distortions too. Personally I found the 85deg FOV is maybe good for foot soldier at close ranges, but not so good for tanks and also very far from "natural" view even on large monitors. I first tried 70deg but it was maybe too narrow, so increased it to 75 deg which it is now - it's not drastically lower FOV than stock 85deg, so it went unnoticed probably... You can notice the difference only when exiting the tank.

 

[jeffduquette]

Very interesting. Thanks for the in-depth explanations.

Regarding the late model Tiger-1, I was not aware of the Tzf9c being an option. I don’t play the German’s side very often. However, I do hear various comments\complaints from folks that do play the German side a lot. Some of them had been going on about the Tiger’s lack of two power telescope capability.

I think your philosophic\"game-ergonomic" approach to the two power bino’s is interesting and perhaps makes sense given some of the game environment parameters and constraints vs. real life optics and the human eye. But of course tanks are sort of known for being blind.

Not that I’m in any position to do anything about it other than yak, but I still would be inclined to run with single power bino-magnification in the game for two reasons:

1) “Realism”. I understand your very logical reasoning for the two power approach, but would still lean toward only a single power setting as this is consistent with the viewing options actually available to the TC -- eyeball or bino.
2) From the perspective of providing an additional means of breaking out of cookie cutter vehicle modeling and simulate some of the inherent advantage some vehicles had over other vehicles.

What I mean with #2 is that some vehicles – ala the Stug – were designed to include enhanced optics such as a set of scissors scope at the TC position (or I suppose the Assault Gun Commander is more accurate than “TC”). What if you only gave the TC position for Stugs a duel magnification setting for the TCs binos, and limit binos in other vehicles to only one magnification? This would help in putting forth some of the inherent advantages peculiar to this vehicle type. If within the game environment, all TCs in all tanks and assault guns are -- by default -- provided with enhanced two power binoculars, there is little to be gained by providing Stugs with scissors scopes.

One often sees photos of "normal" German Panzer crews also using scissors telescopes -- Panther crews -- Tiger crews -- PzKw IV crews -- etc. I had convinced myself sometime ago that these were Panzers operating with an artillery forward observer on board or Company Commanders that might need to call in fire missions. However, I suppose one might make the case that all panzer crews managed to get hands on scissors periscopes. In the latter case it perhaps makes sense to give only German crews a two power binocular capability at the TC position to simulate their having both standard binos and high powered scissors periscopes at the TC position. Buit these are just my random thoughts on how one goes about making distinctions between equipment and capabilities between different vehicles.

I am also interested in your thoughts regarding optical glass quality and if it is something worth pursing in computer simulations. Moreover, one often reads about the superior quality of German WWII optical instruments. I think their optical glass was “bloomed” throughout the war. As I recall, blooming optical glass enhances light gathering quality of the glass. I suppose a rough analogy might be the difference between scanning an image at 300-dpi as opposed to scanning something at 200-dpi. I suppose same sort of question for binocular type gunsight telescopes vs. monocular gunsight telescopes.

I have read some internet discussion forums where various folks suggest (or argue) that there is no real difference between say Soviet or British\American and German optical glass. However, there are sufficient numbers of period operational reporting indicating how much clearer German gunsights were and how much easier it is to make out detail in distant objects -- particularly in poor light conditions (ala the Alt Ziegeli map). Less eye fatigue for the gunner, etc. I have also looked through a few tank and antitank gunsights from my own collection and from instruments at the Littlefield Collection that were produced by the USA, UK, Canada and Germany, (etc.) during this time period, and I have to agree that German optical glass does seem to be more “uber” than Allied optical glass.

I guess my interest would be whether – given what you were talking about above with variability in PCs, graphics cards, monitors, etc. – if optical glass quality and the advanatges associated with it is something that could even be considered within a computer game.

Just an aside, but I do agree with some of your commentary regarding the contrasts in user systems. I have a fairly new, ‘uber’ gaming computer I had built – large monitor. I run the game at maximum detail in the graphics setting (except Alt Ziegeli which I can only run way down at medium graphics setting). While this isn’t scientific in the least, I will often crew a tank with another player – me in the drivers position about half the time. I often find that I can see or distinguish targets at a distance while in the drivers position (i.e. no enhanced optics), long before the player in the TC position can, even though the TC is higher up, and can use either his higher magnification binos or gunsight. Like I say, this isn’t scientific at all, and for all I know I have just trained my eye better as to what to look for in the game. It can be frustrating when your talking (than yelling at your gunner about the tank at our 2-oclock that is shooting at us, and your gunner can’t see the target.

Best Regards
Jeff

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

Having been watching this thread (too little time to get into this depth on this topic right now), I would be fascinated to know what people find about "optical quality". Like many people, I've heard that "German optics were better..." for years - but I'd love to know what that really means, how it actually manifests itself. I've used both - but obviously not under battlefield conditions, so very hard to compare.

On the use of scissors scopes... I'd haev to do some checking and reading to look for examples. I've certainly seen pics of the things poking out of tanks - never really stopped to figure it out before. So much bloody detail when you dig, ain't there?

And then we get to "realism" and "compromise"... that gets to be a complete bugger, too Mix in some guesswork replacing accurate information, the odd mistake and the lines all get a bit blurry!

Anyway - keep it up guys - I'm taking notes

 

[mlespaul]

Having been watching this thread (too little time to get into this depth on this topic right now), I would be fascinated to know what people find about "optical quality". Like many people, I've heard that "German optics were better..." for years - but I'd love to know what that really means, how it actually manifests itself. I've used both - but obviously not under battlefield conditions, so very hard to compare.

A,
I've read the same forums you have regarding 'quality', and I think, and I'll bet Jeff agrees, that these perceptions of quality are based a lot on level of magnification that the Germans were employing a lot earlier on than the the Allies. Coupled with the fact that the non-ballistic reticle arrangements and behavior were more complex in their mechanical operation than the ballistic types might go some ways toward that perception. The Germans were ingenious with their articulated telescope designs and their periscopic sights in the way in which the prisms and light paths were engineered - in addition the "T" coating of the ends of the lenses that mitigated the amount of glare coming in to the user so that a colored or smoke lens plate wasn't necessary.

But....I'd also say that this 'quality' didn't mean that the rounds were always 100% accurately placed on target as a result, or that the TZF lenses didn't get shattered from vibration off a glancing turret hit, or from hitting a particularly rough bump, so....Bryan Perret (the author of some of those Osprey books) told me in a letter that German crews often didn't care all that much for their own aiming systems...

On the use of scissors scopes... I'd haev to do some checking and reading to look for examples. I've certainly seen pics of the things poking out of tanks - never really stopped to figure it out before. So much bloody detail when you dig, ain't there?

Hello....!?!!

http://germanmilitaryoptics.wordpress.com/chapter-i-scherenfernrohrs-sf-part-i-background/
and
http://germanmilitaryoptics.wordpre...rnrohrs-sf-ii-technical-description-and-uses/

The work's been done for you, mate! (And anyone else, naturally) Please read them why there's one peeking out of a Tiger I just below!

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

A,
http://germanmilitaryoptics.wordpress.com/chapter-i-scherenfernrohrs-sf-part-i-background/
and
http://germanmilitaryoptics.wordpre...rnrohrs-sf-ii-technical-description-and-uses/

The work's been done for you, mate! (And anyone else, naturally) Please read them why there's one peeking out of a Tiger I just below!

I know that part - but I was referring to the questions of just who used them and when... how often were they really enountered in tanks... I've only seen a few pictures showing them in use, so I'm none too sure myself.

And the accuracy of rounds is another matter entirely So many factors - gunner training and experiecne, accuracy of sight zeroing, accuracy of the optics themselves, range estimation, quality of the round, basic (in)stability in flight etc etc...

 

[jeffduquette]

A,

I've read the same forums you have regarding 'quality', and I think, and I'll bet Jeff agrees, that these perceptions of quality are based a lot on level of magnification that the Germans were employing a lot earlier on than the the Allies. Coupled with the fact that the non-ballistic reticle arrangements and behavior were more complex in their mechanical operation than the ballistic types might go some ways toward that perception. The Germans were ingenious with their articulated telescope designs and their periscopic sights in the way in which the prisms and light paths were engineered - in addition the "T" coating of the ends of the lenses that mitigated the amount of glare coming in to the user so that a colored or smoke lens plate wasn't necessary.

No, I actually had not considered that. But you make a very good point. For example, in N.Africa -- at least in 1941-42 -- the avg. German Panzer's gunsight magnification would have been superior to that of avg. UK tank telescopes.

One of the examples I was thinking of is detailed by David Fletcher in his book Churchill. He discusses ad-hoc testing conducted by the British on a captured Panther -- Holland. By this time there would be a bit more parity in at least magnification between British gunsight Telescopes and German. For example the No43MkI telescope had a 3X magnification, and the No43 MK3 telescope had a 3X eyepiece and alternate 6X eyepiece. 3X being somewhat better than the typical German tank gunsight with single magnification of 2.4X or 2.5X.

There is additional discussion in a SHAFE report from late 1944 in which US tankers comment on the excellent quality of German tank optics. But again, the commentary is subjective

 

[mlespaul]

I know that part - but I was referring to the questions of just who used them and when... how often were they really enountered in tanks... I've only seen a few pictures showing them in use, so I'm none too sure myself.

Ahh, now that's a whole 'nutha thing! Hmmm...not sure why you're going down THAT path, but other than the fact that the OKW directing their use in 1937 and 1941 (that I'm aware of), there's another thing you can try:

I have a couple copies of these things called a "Datenblatt" which listed all the gear and other specifications that were part of the 'initial outfitting' when they left the factory. These Datenblatts were factory-supervisory use documents (with "quality control" courtesy of OKW and other engineering bureaucratic offices under Speer's shop) and they list among other things on the left hand side of the column, a line item titled "Optische Gerat (optical equipment), that was usually split into general types, turret optic, ball optic (hull mg), and observation. I think these are where Jentz gets a lot of his tech details for the Panzer Tracts series.
Usually in these I've seen "SF 14Z" or "SF14Z Gi" in the block (c). Of course, I can't find the one I want for the Hummel, but this one for a version of the Wespe shows a "Periskop" outfitted for it (along with our RblF 36 and and SflZF1a ):

Of the interior shots I've seen of the German tanks, I always seem to see the metal storage box mounted to the inside with the stenciled "SF 14Z" on it. I know all the Tigers had them issued, incl Sturm, Jagd, and King, as did all the heavy and medium Self-Propelled mounts for the Pzkpfw IV chassis. and AT mounted Sdkfz 251s.

Why are we worried about this? Why not just put the SFs in the German vehicles? The Wehrmacht had them everywhere, and were in every armoured vehicle that I would think any self-respecting leutnant in charge would make sure was within arm's reach.

For the Russians, from what I've been looking at in my limited harebrained way in the old Russian manuals, they had some pretty nifty and advanced observation periscopes (PT-1s, PTKs, etc) that seem pretty far advanced for the time and provide a lot of ranging/estimation use, and those certainly kept the commander unexposed.

Heck the Tigers even had an even MORE advanced rabbit ear telescope issued to it in 1942, the Em 0,9 M and it was a real stereoscopic rangefinder, not just an observational tool like the SF14, for pete's sake! And even then Germans found that the 0,9 was actually too hard to use in the field and gave up on it....

Okay....I'm done *outofbreath* Sorry, off the soapbox....but seriously, I would think the datenblatts would be the hardcore definitive answer for what was issued to what vehicle (at least when it left the factory) - all bets are off as to modifications or "add-ons" when it hit the battlefield, LOL. Now, getting copies of the datenblatts....hmmmmmm.....

And the accuracy of rounds is another matter entirely So many factors - gunner training and experiecne, accuracy of sight zeroing, accuracy of the optics themselves, range estimation, quality of the round, basic (in)stability in flight etc etc...

Amen.

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

Aha... I have some Datenblatts... I shall have to prowl through them and see... and why I am asking "how common": simple - should they be readily available or not??

And, to Jeff - I've never seen a British side-by-side. However, one doc I have merely states "This is a robust well made instrument, of large apparent field 72o. The definition is good." of the TZF-12. So helpful...

 

[mlespaul]

Aha... I have some Datenblatts... I shall have to prowl through them and see... and why I am asking "how common": simple - should they be readily available or not??

I vote "Da" And I would really like to see what you have datenblatt-wise, please, kind sire?

so......wouldn't game parity also then dictate that the Russian tanks then get their own observational periscope (as per the period manuals that say they existed for each model) with the range estimation reticles?

...random thought ends followed by another...

Jeff makes a good point about modeling the optical view to reflect "quality".
I suppose that someone from the texturing/modeling gang could build in a certain level of gamma or other filter to recreate a difference in lens appearance. I'm thinking along the lines of when you sit in the driver seat of the Stug IIIB in that minionworkz map and after the animation of the K.F.F. 2 driver periscopes is complete you see an approximation of the 63 deg FOV and suddenly everything is much brighter and of higher granularity - it also seems (this may be subjective on my part) that the 'glow' that the human eye experiences around the perimeter of the FOV when looking through a real optical device can almost be detected. I've mentioned this 'glow' effect before, I think, and it's really hard to describe, but it's part of the character of the viewing experience-maybe impossible to truly replicate in this engine, I don't know.

....but again, all that is really a function of aesthetic "quality", only useful if it affects the ability to see objectives better than if they were outside the tank. When we talk performance "quality" we mean can the TZF 5f see an objective before a Tsh can and is the laying mark more accurate than another when used as appropriately co-configured/zeroed with the main gun (subtracting user/operator error).

so maybe we need a simulation of these two factors....but then....

Here's (another crazy thought)-As we know, the various combinations of the different angles of glass lens concavities and convexities, and the right angle prism size and shape (and the sheer physical number of glass cells - could be 8,9,10 or more + the prisms) in each type of device are what make the objective appear as clear or as close or any other sort of behavior like a sterescopic image of the SF...you almost have to build a separate model based on the technical diagrams....some of those astronomy guys have really involved telescope designing and engineering software. But not only do we need to know the measurements of the lenses concavities and convexities, we'd need to know the divergence calculations of the light hitting the prisms (oh, and is it a right angle or a rhomboid, 90 deg triangle-shape, on and on, etc) to ensure the light path is duplicated. Even if we have that, we don't know without measuring a real device, the actual distance between each glass cell lens (and each one's corresponding thickness) within in the erecting system that provides the real image.

Sorry about all that....the optical systems are in and of themselves beautiful and inspiring works of engineering and extremely hard to duplicate...I still believe it can be done....I'm just not smart enough....I know I sound like I need a beer with a coffee chaser...

..I can hear Alan now: "Just get the bloody authoritative primary source, already!!!!"

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

..I can hear Alan now: "Just get the bloody authoritative primary source, already!!!!"

You know me, then ?

 

[jeffduquette]

For the Russians, from what I've been looking at in my limited harebrained way in the old Russian manuals, they had some pretty nifty and advanced observation periscopes (PT-1s, PTKs, etc) that seem pretty far advanced for the time and provide a lot of ranging/estimation use, and those certainly kept the commander unexposed.

If these were readily available in all Soviet tanks, and these provided similar ease of use in combat and similar levels of magnification as say the German donkey ears, than I

 

[jeffduquette]

Aha... I have some Datenblatts... I shall have to prowl through them and see... and why I am asking "how common": simple - should they be readily available or not??

hmmmm...

And, to Jeff - I've never seen a British side-by-side. However, one doc I have merely states "This is a robust well made instrument, of large apparent field 72o. The definition is good." of the TZF-12. So helpful...

I believe I have already sent you some of this sort of material in which the British were comparing various reticle types and aiming error associated with each...

I have seen side-by-side proving ground tests of German range finders vs. Allied range finders...so I'd guess I will eventually come across the same for gunsight telescopes.

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

I believe I have already sent you some of this sort of material in which the British were comparing various reticle types and aiming error associated with each...

You did? Hell... now I have to go looking for it, cos I don't remember it...

 

[jeffduquette]

You probably don't remember me sending you a bunch of dattenblatte as well...sort of why I don't get to heavily involved in handing out source data to people anymore. They have no idea what is often entailed in obtaining these sorts of things. I think there is this mind set that it's all just a simple google search away.

Best Regards
Jeff

 

[jeffduquette]

Just a side note regarding the Tzf12a monocular sight used in the later versions of the Panther; with the actual Tzf12a telescope, the range scale reticle can

 

[jeffduquette]

More on the Em34 range finder; with a well trained operator it required on average slightly over 22 seconds to obtain a range reading from the instrument. This combined with its size (70cms in length) and weight (compared with a set of binos) are the reasons why I don't think this thing would have any use in tank combat at normal battle ranges. While not implicit in the report, I suspect this time rate per range reading represents test results with the instrument mounted on it's tripod as this is how it is represented in photos from the proving grounds report. Which raises the question -- at least in my mind -- about the effects of fixity of the instrument on either accuracy of readings or ease of obtaining readings. Moreover as far as I know, there is no dedicated mount on the cuploa or turret roof of a Tiger-1 for the Em.34. Conversely, I think there is a mount for the scissors periscope on the cupola of a Tiger-1. I think I have seen photos of these things -- the Em.34 that is -- being employed without a mount (no tripod or shoulder and chest mount seen on Flak crewmen), but it seems logical that without the mount, either additional time would be required in obtaining a range reading or the lack of a mount would effect accuracy of a range reading -- or both.


At normal combat ranges of say 300m to 1500m -- at least for the 88mmL56 -- the trajectory for pzgr.39 or spgr. is pretty flat. Ranging errors can therefore be relatively large without resulting in a major influence on hit probability. It is why tank crews are trained in battlesight gunnery. There is little benefit in trying to hack out an accurate range assessment with an Em.34 for typical shooting scenarios because of the time entailed. A half-way decent Tiger crew should be able to get off 4-rounds down range in the time it would take the TC to obtain a range reading with an Em.34 (probably more if additional time is required for a range reading when the Em.34 isn't in an shoulder chest mount, or tripod mount). The rate of fire assumes battlesight gunnery techniques in which one round is already up the spout when the engagement begins. Better for survival probability if you simply employ battlesight gunnery and apply burst on target for normal combat ranges.


As an aside, the problem is much different with say the 75mm M3 or M6 mounted in the Sherman. Muzzle velocity is pretty low -- only about 2030fps. Maximum trajectory height\max ordinate is therefore going to be relatively high even for shorter ranges of say 800m to 1500m. Range errors therefore become very influential on hit probability.

If one can add long range visibility to the game environment – which IMO is essential to capturing the essence of tank combat on the Steppes or in North Africa – you would have a tank game environment where range estimation becomes much more critical, and inclusion of an Em34 might be interesting.


Best Regards
Jeff

 

[Amizaur]

I have simillar feelings about using RANGEFINDERS in the battle. Considering the weight and size of those instruments, time needed to obtain range, and the high magnification (so very small FOV) I suppose they are very poor observation instruments, a good binoculars are much better. If it was used to measure ranges, this would be possible in slow, long range duels, or even more probably - before the battle (especially in defensive), to measure ranges to some terrain features... Or measure range to target while being hidden (no need to hurry) and only then open the fire. 22 seconds for measuring range is awfully long time....

As for the periscopic/stereoscopic binoculars with high magnification (forgot the name) being observation device, it's high magnification, stable mounting (not possible to use x14 optic effettively from hand) and either stereoscopic effect or being hidded from sniper fire - seem to be very nice features, so I have no doubt any tank commander would try to get his hands on one of those. But again, rather to use it for observation before the battle, or when time is not critical, because observing with x14 narrow FOV optics is not good for having good situation awarness.... maybe while firing on long range they would be usefull, to identify targets and sense the rounds (they are mounted in cupola that is probably shaken by the recoil, but when firing on long range picture shuld stabilise again, after the shot, before the round is going to land). Nashorn commander would like to have one for sure . Very nice to have, high magnification auxilary observation device (primary are eyeball and binoculars), especially good for target identification, but not for use in the heat of battle... hard to imagine that.

Jeff, thanks for the info about Panther sight and the range scale. I didn't know that. I supposed that either the scale circle in TZF12a version was smaller (less than half of the FOV diameter), so it would be still seen in x5 magnification, or that the plate with the scale was somehow smartly positioned in the optical path of the device, that the change of magnification didn't affected the range scale picture (i.e. only the aiming marks were magnified, scale ring was same size in x5 and x2.5). Now having your info, I can design the TZF12a/TZF9c sights taking this into consideration.

When the x5 magnification was first introduced in AB (more than year ago), it was only a trick in code, adding second level of magnification without any change in gunsight textures/reticles. I didn't think back then about doing any texture work, and didn't know about the sights much more than it had double magnification (had no idea how it really looked like, how it worked). And to this day the sight is not modeled fully - it's just stock RO sight (no mechanisation, moving traingles) with second level of magnification added. Only recently I face-lifted the stock texture to look more like real ones.
The fully modeled sight is partially done (strange, but German is easier than Russian) I have to only think how to do this smart way (systemic solution for all vehicles, accomodating various needed features like doubling the size of textures in second magn., an option for second sight (periscic) with it's own texture ect. - not an improvised hacked one which is trivial), write some code and split textures into layers instead of single picture. But without your info, I would make it so that only the aiming triangles would double size when in x5, the range scale circle would remain the same . Now I will make it properly

The fact that range scale is not visible in second magnification means the sight was not perfect device. Second mag was rather added-on feature, than device properly designed from scratch for double magnification. But still better to have than not have, right ? I wouldn't see it as a big shortcoming. Gunner can always switch back to x2.5 to check, he can also count the "clicks" when adjusting, just like artillerymans were doing IIRC (the Stug sight also didn't have range setting visible in FOV). When you use x5 maginfication, you are probably firing on long range, so time is usually not as critical to not allow for occasional check of range scales...? Was switching the magnification easy and quick operation ? How was it done, some kind of knob for that ?

Anyway, thanks for the info Jeff !! I wondered how it was working - there were some possible solutions (smaller circle, circle not changing the size somehow) but I didn't thought that there was no sulution in fact, circle was same size as in TZF12, was doubling it's size and going out of sight/FOV :-O

P.S. BTW, nice item:

http://cgi.ebay.com/WWII-German-Tank-Periscope-SFL-Z-F-1-Original_W0QQitemZ360046921384QQihZ023QQcategoryZ36049QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Unfortunately it exceeds my budget for WW2 collectibles Especially with the shipping costs...

 

[jeffduquette]

I wouldn't see it as a big shortcoming. Gunner can always switch back to x2.5 to check, he can also count the "clicks" when adjusting, just like artillerymans were doing IIRC (the Stug sight also didn't have range setting visible in FOV).

Agreed.


The context of this part of the report is sort of a compare and contrast thingy. The assessment is therefore trying to provide an honest look at the pros and cons of the instrument. The cons are perhaps somewhat more grasping at proverbial straws such that the report is not perceived as being unduly biased.

More modern non-ballistic reticles do not show the range setting in the sight picture. For example, in the post-war Centurion sporting the 20-pdr main gun, the gunner inputs range on a range drum. He can look at his range set in a little window on the range drum -- which means taking your eye away from your sight picture. There is no read-out of the range set that magically appears in the gunners sight picture.

I suppose having the range wheel visible in the 5X setting of the Tzf12a would have provided a nice reminder to the gunner, but the like is not essential to gunnery.

When the x5 magnification was first introduced in AB (more than year ago), it was only a trick in code, adding second level of magnification without any change in gunsight textures/reticles.

Well whatever you did to allow this feature to be incorporated into game play is very slick -- very nicely done. And in my opinion really helps in developing the stand-off capability a Panther should have. It gets the "realistic" stamp of approval.


Best Regards
Jeff

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

You probably don't remember me sending you a bunch of dattenblatte as well...sort of why I don't get to heavily involved in handing out source data to people anymore. They have no idea what is often entailed in obtaining these sorts of things. I think there is this mind set that it's all just a simple google search away.

Best Regards
Jeff

Actually I did remember them - but I just wasn't going to publicise the fact, cos you asked me not to It was the side-by-side comparison I don't recall - and I haven't had time to hunt through to see if you sent it to me! And given the "fun" I have extracting source materials from the Russian archives, as well as visiting US and UK archives - no, I don't take such things trivially! Firing tables for ex-Soviet kit being quite hard to come by, too