• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Tank optics?

Aelius

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 22, 2006
56
0
0
T34s at first had no optics I think. However I think it was updated later on and they got basic optics. The optics on the Tiger is probably off otherwise it would be impossible to spot targets at over 2km let alone hit them.

I may be wrong. I haven't done a lot of research on optics. Yet...
 

Yoshiro

In Soviet Russia, Yoshiro is a cake
Staff member
Oct 10, 2005
12,746
3,737
113
We have yet to have somebody proove our optics wrong. We got ours from russian files and the real thing. If you think we have something wrong, feel free to let us know with the proper files.
 

karl stiner

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 18, 2006
1,205
8
0
50
Ireland
Yoshiro said:
We have yet to have somebody proove our optics wrong. We got ours from russian files and the real thing. If you think we have something wrong, feel free to let us know with the proper files.
dont worry the optics are perfect:cool::p
 

Aelius

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 22, 2006
56
0
0
I looked around. I could find very little about optics on the net. Would probably need to read up on books. However what I could find was what the optics looked like for a Tiger and that's 100% accurate.

I think it just looks odd when trying to sight and target at long range because of the draw distance. That's about it.
 

Vikhr

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 24, 2006
22
0
0
Finland
Tank optics are portrayed accurately, and work as they should. Try Tanknet search for tank optics, I think they had a thread about them about an year ago. Meanwhile, here's something for Tiger fetishists to consume! :D

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

note: check out those armor penetration tables. Not so invulnerable after all, eh?
 

Aelius

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 22, 2006
56
0
0
Vikhr said:
Meanwhile, here's something for Tiger fetishists to consume! :D

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

note: check out those armor penetration tables. Not so invulnerable after all, eh?
Read that carefully. The penetration table for the Allied tanks are with high quality ammo which brings to question the entire penetration table results. Allied tanks primarily did not have high quality ammo what so ever during almost the entire length of the war until late in the war.

"Another fact that helped the Tigers a lot was the "shatter gap" effect which affectted allied ammunition, a most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. It should be noted that the problems with the 76 mm and 3" guns did not necessarily involve the weapons themselves: the noses of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail.

Penetrations would occur below this velocity range, since the shell would not shatter, and strikes above this range would propel the shell through the armor whether it shattered or not. When striking a Tiger I driver's plate, for example, this "shatter gap" for a 76mm APCBC M62 shell would cause failures between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect."
The shatter gap effect is a real issue and it effected not only the British, Canadian and US armies but also the Russian military throughout the length of the war. It was enhanced by the German's use of face hardening techniques on the various German tanks.

That doesn't even begin to take into account the quality of the armor in any of the tank designs throughout the war. Both German but especially Allied. While German armor quality fell (except Tiger tanks) near the end of the war the quality of Allied armor only reached it's peak at the end.

I would venture to guess, for various reasons I don't need to mention, that it's not impossible to think that penetration tables are best results rather than real world results based during the time the actual war was primarily fought.

Coupled with after action reports on both sides I think it's safe to say that it's a fact.
 
Last edited:

HotDang

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 16, 2006
300
0
0
N.Yorks, UK
My only comment about optics is based on the idea that TWI and CRS (WWIIonline) both say they have accurate blah blah yet there are differences between the two games. I haven't played WWIIonline in years but it used to have a PIV F1. The optics looked the same but in WWIIonline you get two levels of zoom, not just one (that was the case for all axis tanks in the game).

So someone out there is not as accurate as they like to pretend, but I don't know which one tbf.
 

Aelius

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 22, 2006
56
0
0
I also recall having a zoom option on some German tanks (PzIV, PzV and their varients) in Panzer Commander. Which is a tank sim.
 

Folgore

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 23, 2006
69
0
0
Yoshiro said:
We have yet to have somebody proove our optics wrong. We got ours from russian files and the real thing. If you think we have something wrong, feel free to let us know with the proper files.
The Tiger's main triangle should be 4 "strich", that is, an object 4 metres in lenght that is 1000 metre away should be just as big as the base line of the main triangle. In RO however, the triangle is much bigger, almost 8 "strich" if I've measured it right. This is down to calibration of course, but the Tiger Fibel says a correctly calibrated sight should have the main triangle's base at 4 "strich". Because the triangles are so much bigger in RO, it's much harder to aim at high distances, like over 1 km.
 

Vikhr

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 24, 2006
22
0
0
Finland
Aelius said:
Read that carefully.
Now that I did, it seems I celebrated too early. I took the entry "Hull 900 m" for the whole hull sides, but it seems that the "box" that Tigers turret is on is the superstructure entry.

Penetration Table 02: Sherman A2, Sherman A4.
Sherman vs. Tiger I (75 mm M3)
Side: Turret 100 m
Superstructure 100 m
Rear: Turret 100m
Hull 900 m
Hull 0 m


The last entry is a bit of mystery. However, 75 mm M3 is more or less comparable with T-34's and KV-1s' 76 mm F-34. Since ammo or armour quality, overmatching, shatter gap nor shot trap are not an issue in RO (I hope we see these someday), it is still possible to damage or bring Tiger down at 900 meters by aiming a bit low, at the roadwheels. And if you get really close... then it's a different story.
 

Amarok

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 11, 2006
114
0
0
56
Costa Blanca, Spain
AFAIK, the gunsights are quite correct, at least for the german side.

@Aelius: IIRC, the standard magnification of the German Zeiss-Gunsights (and I think also in soviet sights) was 2.5. Only some monocular versions got a 2nd magnification of 5.0: TZF 9c (Tiger I from aprox. end 1943 on and Tiger II), TZF 9d (Tiger II), TZF 12a (Panther Ausf A [9/1943] and G[3/1944]) and TZF 13 (for the Panther II prototypes, iirc).
The Panther Ausf. D had the binocular TZF 12, and aprox. the first 2/3 of the Tiger I had the binocular TZF 9b, both with the standard magnification(2.5).

@Folgore: I was sometimes wondering if the Zeiss sights are 100% accurately represented. How did you measured that within the maps?

AFAIK, the specifications were: For the Tiger and the Panther--> small triangles2 x 2 mil (=strich), the big one 4x4 mil, the bottom distance between triangles is 2 mil and the top distance 4 mil.

For PIII L(TZF 5e) and PIV Ausf F and F2 (TZF 5b/36 and f) same values excepting: the big triangle is 4x2 (HxW), the triangles are together at the bottom and 2 mil away at the top.
 

Folgore

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 23, 2006
69
0
0
Amarok said:
@Folgore: I was sometimes wondering if the Zeiss sights are 100% accurately represented. How did you measured that within the maps?

The T34 is about 3 metres wide. This one is slightly angled so from left to right it's about 4 metres if you look at it like this. (Not including the barrel.) The range is set at only 500 metres here, while it should be 1000! (I know the range is correct, because when I fire a shell is lands exactly at the tip of the triangle.)

Of course, you can still use it to find the range, but you have to use 8 strich.
 

Heinz

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 29, 2005
1,804
0
0
New York, USA
how the gun sights LOOK is one thing. I am sure they are represented properly in the game. however, German optics during WWII were amongst the finest in the world, and were light-years ahead of what the soviets had, especially anything pre-1943/early 1944.

that aspect, alas, is not represented in the game. think of it with this analogy; the difference would be like the difference in the MGer position on the tanks. it's alot easier to hit infantry targets in the german MG spot in a tank as there is a great zoom optic there. Contrarily, the russian one almost has no zoom optic at all.

the difference would not be that drastic with tank optics, but, on a proper tank map like Orel, it just might. :)
 

Hasso VM

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 12, 2006
9
0
0
Virginia, USA
The basic optic renderings compared to original vehicles, photos and books I've seen/read are actually quite good. My question (being a newb) is this, are the sights adjustable for range as they are in WW2 Online, or do you simply estimate range and "hold over"? I've yet to find any sight adjustment "key" or "button". Those who have played WW2 Online will be familiar with what I am speaking of.
 

malice

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
900
0
0
Hasso VM said:
The basic optic renderings compared to original vehicles, photos and books I've seen/read are actually quite good. My question (being a newb) is this, are the sights adjustable for range as they are in WW2 Online, or do you simply estimate range and "hold over"? I've yet to find any sight adjustment "key" or "button". Those who have played WW2 Online will be familiar with what I am speaking of.
your lean keys will adjust the range for the tanks, as for knowing what range the targets at you just need practice to learn that. Or read the tank manuals and they tell you how.

Also you can adjust the range for the panzerfaust using your attach bayo jey.