Buttoned and Optics effect?

[z1812]

Hi All,

Will being buttoned or unbuttoned have some effect on play?

Buttoned= more safety less visibility.

Unbuttoned= vice versa.

Will the difference between Russian and German optics be modelled?


Regards John.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: z1812
Will being buttoned or unbuttoned have some effect on play?
Buttoned= more safety less visibility.
Unbuttoned= vice versa.

Yes, pretty much exactly like that.

Will the difference between Russian and German optics be modelled?

Yes, for the most part Germans have better accuracy at medium to long range as a result.

Regards,

- Erik

[Yoozername]

I would suggest the designers read 'Tigers in the mud' by Otto Carius. In particular, the chapter 'In praise of the Tiger' on page 117.

The author clearly describes the effects of being buttoned up on aquiring targets and handling a tank in combat. The author has extensive experience battling T34s and also describes the difficulties in battling ATG.

The lack of cupola and the limitations of a 4 man crew never really showed itself in CM. I think I once suggested that buttoned tanks have the turret speed further reduced as an abstraction to reflect the inability to spot/identify targets.

But if this game has individual spotting, it can model the reality much better without abstractions.

As a side note, armored vision blocks in cupolas were often damaged and rendered useless. It might be worth having a damge model for them. I can supply several sources for this.

[Yoozername]

The subject of optics might be broken down into the following catagories:
Spotting enemy units
Range estimation to enemy
Shot fall observation after firing

Spotting:
Buttoned up AFV relying on gun optics to spot enemy (German superiority in multimagnification levels, clarity but some cases of narrow view angle)
Buttoned up AFV relying on vision blocks, periscopes and cupolas to spot the enemy

Unbuttoned AFV relying on strait vision, binoculars and scissorscopes. In some cases, multiple crewmen might be heads-out. In most cases, its just the AFV commander combined with the directed vision of the gunner from commander's commands. Added to this is the local vision block observation of the loader, driver, bow-gunner, etc.

Spotting can also be shared via vehicle to vehcile communications but thats another subject.

Range estimation
The germans have well documented built-in range estimation capabilities in their tank sights. They also had an odd advantage since so many Soviet AFV shared the T34 chassis. Estimating range to a T34 vehcile became a common skill.

Most binoculars have scales built in and German optics were sought after by allied soldiers everywhere. The internal scales can be used in a similar manner as the Germn tank sights.

Some units did have optic devices that were specifically meant to measure range. FLAK units in particular. Getting the range estimation is the first step in gunnery accuracy. Rexford has some great threads on this. But having an actual range measurement (instead of estimating) device would be critical.

Shot Fall:
Observation of shot fall is the second part of iterating towards a hit on the target. Some sources claim that US tanker gunners could not observe shots at close targets for example. The reson was the blast and smoke obscured the observation of the tracer. Some sources claim the same for german guns. Shot fall was soemtimes a platoon effort with another tank that was to the flank spotting. But having a commander heads out was a factor given his height advantage and use of binoculars/scissorscopes.

[Yoozername]

Since the game will have relative spotting and also relative idenrification, I am hoping that the identification issue can also be addressed.

One of the easy parts to fix about the non-relative spotting was the 'dumbing' down of the identification of units. It can't be helped that units are spotted and thats shared but the particulars about the unit (type, size, class, model, etc etc) served no real purpose in CM but to allow the omniknowing player to abuse such information.

An example is the conscript soviet truck crew spotting and IDing a Tiger aus B. They probably did not have a clue what the different German marks of tanks even were.

As far as optics, identification might also be addressed. Poor binos of infantry units might not have the power/clarity to ID a camouflaged Marder as anything other than a AFV. A company HQ may not only posses superior binos but also the training/experience to ID units better.

In some cases, even after an enemy unit fires, absolute IDing may still not be possible. A case like a 50mm ATG or a 75mm ATG can be given. They are so similar in shape that given slight cover, both might appear to be the same weapon from most any distance.

[Hard Sarge]

good info, good thinking,

But having a commander heads out was a factor given his height advantage and use of binoculars/scissorscopes

not to nit pick or anything, but

you ever have your head out side of a tank when the gun fired ?

now the early tanks, it may not be much of a hassle, but once you start getting into the long barrel 75's and bigger, that is a mean mussle blast

(there some good pic's of a Tiger fireing (looks like from a movie, showing the commander dropping out of sight each time the main gun fired)

more detail then we need

[Yoozername]

Yes I believe that most commanders would duck to a degree within the cupola at the moment of firing. Most unbuttoned commanders would only be nose-down in the hatch during combat conditions.

Panther commanders would complain about the generation of smoke blowing back at them under some wind conditions also (eyes tearing up). Sherman 76mm could not observe the shot at all even if the commander was exposed.

Some german vehciles had scissorscope devices that allowed the commanders to be under armor yet observe stereoscopically the fall of shot. The StuGs and other AFV were eqipped as such. Carius mentions he used one in his Tiger experiences. I believe Wittman (Tiger commander) took his scissorscopes from when he was StuG commander and used them in Tigers also.

I beleive in close fighting there is not much observation of the fall of shot. Given the flat trajectory and the blast/flinch response.

[Yoozername]

http://www.missing-lynx.com/articles/ge ... dtiger.htm

This modeling website claims that Tigers had cutouts in the commansders hatch for using these scissor scopes

a unique feature seen on another of 507’s Tigers (221), was added in the form of two neatly cut out notches in the commander’s cupola hatch to allow the use of the scissors scopes through the holes when it was closed, which would make sense for an HQ vehicle such as this if it was a unit mod seen on other command Tigers

[Yoozername]

One of the things I forgot to mention was the Soviet's 2 man turret crew were 'locked-in' as far as shot followup. By shot follow-up I mean observing the fall of the shot.

By that I mean they could not make successful followup corrections to their shots like the German 3 man turrets that had dedicated commanders interplatoon communications. If you can not observe the fall of the shot, you can not correct for its followup. The 2 man turret guys were stuck in first round accuracy mode. They would have to rely on the gunner's own observation through his own optics.

The CM model really falls apart when Marders are taking on T34s. In reality, the superior optics and communications and observation would allow the Marders to hunt the T34s. Especially when using shoot n scoot tactics. But in CM, the T34s share spotting (absolute spotting) and as soon as a Marder opens up, it gets lit up by T34s that always seem to be at least the equals to the Germans as far as gunnery.

The soviet first and second round hit percentage at ranges greater than 600m is mismodeled in CM.

[Yoozername]

US WWII FM 17-12 states specifically that tank commanders should be unbuttoned and observe direct fire (75mm included). Standing outside the tank if needed. The reason, as already mentioned, is that his binocular view (please understand that it is stereoscopic enhancement AND magbification that makes it superior) can sense and judge the fall of shot better than the gunner can. The gunner is using a monocular device (in most cases, perhaps the german early tigers had bino gunner sights).

Since a certain troll that posts here posted on another forum that I was 'banged' about this matter, let me make myself perfectly clear. A tank commander could be unbuttoned (hatches open) AND duck slightly (to reduce exposure to noise and blast effects) and STILL pop up fast enough to observe the fall of the shot. This is because the shot takes time (example German 75mmL48 takes about 1.4-1.5 seconds to go 1000m) to reach the target.

In cases where the the Germans had stereoscopic devices that allowed shot fall observation (either under armor or through an open hatch), its not needed to be commander exposed. The TC would mostly expose himself to ascertain targets, watch for battlefield visual signals, etc.

Standing outside armor while the gun is firing can actually be deadly. Especially those guns with muzzle brakes. But a TC can be 95% under armor and have both earphones ( a minimal amount of hearing protection) and the binos to protect his eyes. I have seen photos of German 75mmL70 training turrets that have instructors clearly standing on the roofs directing the firing.

The disadvantage that a soviet TC has is that he is the gunner. He is restricted to a monocular view of the world. His ability to hit targets after 900m or so rapidly falls off.

[koiosworks]

Yoozername,

the game doesn't take the effects of buttoning in regards to sighting to the extremes but does obviously take in consideration many factors. For example:

For sighting, being unbuttoned adds anywhere from 350-450 meters to your sighting range depending on if you are moving or not compared to buttoned up. And lets you sight in a much wider arc around the vehicle than buttoned up. Having a Cupola on the vehicle will add around 50 meters to sighting for buttoned up vehicles.

Thanks!

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: koiosworks

Yoozername,

the game doesn't take the effects of buttoning in regards to sighting to the extremes but does obviously take in consideration many factors. For example:

For sighting, being unbuttoned adds anywhere from 350-450 meters to your sighting range depending on if you are moving or not compared to buttoned up. And lets you sight in a much wider arc around the vehicle than buttoned up. Having a Cupola on the vehicle will add around 50 meters to sighting for buttoned up vehicles.

Thanks!

From a sighting based perspective, the motion in a tracked vehicle vehicle would have a greater effect than what you are saying. Ive been on a few tracked vehicles and the transmitted vibration is quite severe. That and the rocking motion would greatly decrease sighting ability. I would suggest it be modeled as a percentage of range. That is a percentage reduction, ie normally 1600m reduced to 800m and then other factors thrown in.

Its nearly impossible to use binos from a vehicle that is moving at any speed but a crawl. Going cross country negates the periscopes and the gunsight for the most part also.

A buttoned T34 moving cross country at any speed other than a crawl is nearly blind. The drivers vision is restricted to his front and he is focusing on driving.

[Yoozername]

Tigers in the Mud-Carius

pg 37, The author clearly describes tank commanders standing outside the vehicles directing fire

[Waldo_slith]

I recall reading somewhere (Carius? Glanz's Kursk?) that Russian tank commanders tended to button up at the first sign of the enemy while German tank commanders remained exposed much longer.

wp

[redwolf]

Whatever you do with buttoning and spotting, please do not repeat this mistake from CM:

In CM, when you were already firing at a target far away, buttoning up would make you lose sight to that target and your AFV would stop firing.

That is rubbish, of course, because the gunner has never looked out the hatches in first place, his sight is unaffected by buttoning up.

You could, of course, make the chance to spot a target in first place depending on the buttoning status, modeling the better position of the TC. But once it is spotted and fired at it is out of the hands of the hatches-using crew.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: redwolf

Whatever you do with buttoning and spotting, please do not repeat this mistake from CM:

In CM, when you were already firing at a target far away, buttoning up would make you lose sight to that target and your AFV would stop firing.

That is rubbish, of course, because the gunner has never looked out the hatches in first place, his sight is unaffected by buttoning up.

You could, of course, make the chance to spot a target in first place depending on the buttoning status, modeling the better position of the TC. But once it is spotted and fired at it is out of the hands of the hatches-using crew.

Since there will be relative spotting, this should be addressed. I suppose that 'losing' spotted units might not apply to a target currently under fire from the spotting unit (In most cases). In CM, with its shared spotting, this 'losing' spotting sort of abstracted out the shared spotting. But in any case, a target in cover terrain that either 'hides' or is pinned might be lost to the spotting unit. It is possible that a buttoned AFV could lose a target if smoke/dust.detonantions/target motion/etc occurs. Antitank guns were often targetted just by the flash they gave off. The actual ATG itself might not actually be fully located as a piece of equipment on a piece of terrain in other words. Tanks often used many more rounds of HE to destry ATG than AP to destroy armor for just this reason.

This is why I do not like the spotting and subsequant identification that this game plans. I would like ? to signify possible enemy but the ? location is by no means precise as far as the enmy location. I would like generic AFV, Gun and Infantry 'dummies' as the next level of spotting/IDing (location somewhat more precise) and finally 'full' info where the spotted unit is both fairly accurate as to its type and where it actually is located onboard. I say 'full' because this should be set as an option. The actual amount of 'full' info being limited in harder settings.

I would say that having a target under fire would generally cause a firing unit like a AFV to be target fixated in real life. Spotting new threats might be restricted as the commander spots for the gunner. This is the critical advantage that a exposed TC has over a 'naturally' buttoned-firing afv like the 2 man turret T34s.

[Yoozername]

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... e64a62c9c5

A 2 man Japanese turret. looks cozy.

[Yoozername]

The more I think about the T34/76 2 man turret, the worse it seems.

Take , for example, a T34 that has its commander unbuttoned. He scans about and spots a target over to his half-left (turret is at 12 o colck). The TC must now button up, get in his firing position, rotate the turret to where he remembers the target to be (using optics only) and relocate the target. He can then sight in (with his remembered range estimation) and then fire.

The major difficulty is re-aquiring the target. Some people find it very hard to see an object with the naked eye and then try to get binoculars onto said object. They constantly scan about with the binoculars. They get 'lost'.

The poor Soviet TC must use the guns optics (narrow field of view) or possibly a periscope (good luck). Since neither of these optics will have the same magnification that binos typically have, there is the very real case of spotting a target but NOT being able to sight it in on a weapon system. US troops reported a similar phenomena when using German binoculars and comparing them to US binos. They could spot AND ID targets with the German optics (excellent clarity) and then not be able to spot the same target with US binoculars even when they knew there was a target! The magnification was not the only critical factor. The superior clarity was.



I remember reading quite a few threads in forums regarding T34 turret rotation rate. The fact is, the rotation rate is not the critical factor. Its the process I describe above that is important. Too fast a turret rotation would confuse the TC and throw off his ability to guage the angle he needs to cover. If he overshoots, he will get lost.

German 3 man turrets had a means for the gunner and TC to relay these turret rotation increments. The German TC knew his degree rotation aspect in relation to the hull. A German TC could call out a target and its rotation offset to the gunner. The gunner could then rotate the turret to bring the target in his FOV. The TC could call out the range and the gunner would be oriented very well to engage in a first shot attempt. So the German turret rotation speed could be used to its fullest given the co-ordination between commander and gunner.

I almost think the Japanese 2 man turret setup is better than the soviet setup. Both were probably equally cramped.

[Yoozername]

http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html

Soviet tanker interview regarding shermans


- What did you consider the most dangerous opponent? A cannon? A tank? An airplane?

- They were all dangerous until the first round was fired. But in general, the antitank cannons were the most dangerous. They were very difficult to distinguish and defeat. The artillerymen dug them in so that their barrels literally were laying on the ground. You could see only several centimeters of their gun shield. The cannon fired. It was a good thing if it had a muzzle brake and dust was kicked up! But if it was winter or raining, what then?

- Were there cases when you did not see from your tank where the fire was coming from, but your SMG infantry did see? How did they guide you to the source of the fire?

- Sometimes they pounded on the turret and shouted. Sometimes they began to fire in the direction with tracer bullets or fired a signal rocket in that direction. And then, you know, when we went into the attack, the commander often looked around from the turret. None of the periscopes, even in the commander's cupola, gave us good visibility.

[Yoozername]

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

The picture at the top of the page shows what most unbuttoned Tiger commanders looked like under battle conditions.

Note the minimal amount of exposure. Just enough so the eyes are above the armored cupola. The tank commander can easily pop down and use the vision slits or use scissorscopes to see above the rim again.

This Tiger has trhe awful initial production cupola. A target for ATR and ATG.