Joined German tank forces in 1984. Although we had optical range finders (Turmentfernungsmessgerät-TEM) half of our training was estimating range with the TZF (the Leopard 1 gunner had two optics, TZF and TEM). And even in the 90s, when the Leopard 1A5 got a laser range finder estimating range with the TZF was trained intensively.
@@thorstennommensen5105 No, not only. And a laser range finder is an active system, that could be dectected, when an optic telemeter/ranger finder is a passive system, then is undectectable.
Awesome video & great information. It’s covers deeper topics that aren’t covered in most videos. The tank crew also had to be great at estimating ranges & calculating firing solutions using various techniques. They had stadiametric range finders but also had to good at estimating ranges. The gun sights had various reticles for shooting at ranges & they also had special marks for lead, etc So besides knowing how to id enemy vehicles they had to know general sizes of enemy tanks for calculations. I was a tanker in the US Army & the Abrams has a laser range finder, multiple sensors for things like crosswind & vehicle cant, & a ballistic computer that gives us a firing solution. The gunner’s secondary or auxiliary sight (GAS) which is used if the primary sight (GPS) fails or is damaged is close to WW2 tank gunning as it lacks all the technology. Of course good optics helped & Germany had the best ones. Many of the finer details a out German tanks are covered in most WW2 armor videos which are the factors that made German tanks better overall. The German tanks had superbly trained crews, but also had better optics, radios, ammunition, etc Considering how crude the first tanks in WW I were it’s pretty amazing how advanced they became in some 20 odd years. They share the same overall build, layout & characteristics as modern tanks in many regards. Thanks for the greta video🙂👍
@@1armeddrummerinaprisonrock244 There were many other reasons why the Soviets suffered such high losses, bad coordination due to lack of radios was just one of them
Good presentation! A few notes: Additives to optical glass such as Lanthanum do nothing of any note as regards improved transmission efficiency. Indeed, some additives can reduce transmission. The base level transmission of decent glass is so good that it requires a thickness of order 1 meter (!) to begin to become of any concern. The purpose of additives like rare earth elements is solely to obtain specific values of refractive index and dispersion. The aim is the suppression or at least diminution of chromatic (color) aberrations. There are two principal chromatic aberrations: Longitudinal, mostly introduced by the objective lens. This causes halos of unfocused light in certain parts of the spectrum. Most commonly exhibits as a blue halo, due to the shorter wavelengths becoming more rapidly differentially refracted. Affects the entire field of view essentially equally. Lateral, mostly introduced by the eyepiece. The central portion of the image is fine, but at increasing angular distance from the optical axis the light is radially elongated into a miniature spectrum. At such low magnifications of these sights, standard, inexpensive optical crown/flint glass objectives are quite good enough. For the eyepiece, lateral color aberration will not impact the working central part of the image, where the aiming reticle is located. It's only an issue in the more outer parts of the field. And so eyepieces made using non-exotic glass are still serviceable. Field of view at given magnification is controlled by the eyepiece design. The eyepiece FoV as it appears on the observer's retina is called the apparent FoV (AFoV). For older designs this was typically 40-50 degrees. After WW1 designers were starting to create oculars possessing AFoVs of 60-70 degrees. (In the 60s a designer cooked up a monster eyepiece having a whopping 120 degree AFoV!) The Germans during WW2 used eyepieces commonly having wider AFoVs than did the Allies, which presents an advantage in detection by virtue of presenting a physically wider field of coverage. In multi-element optical systems like tank sights and binoculars, coatings are important more for the improvement in contrast via reduction of internal reflection intensity from all those air-glass surfaces. The increase in total transmission is more of an additional benefit; it is decidedly secondary to contrast transfer. Let me put it this way; a 10% reduction in contrast is worse than a 50% reduction in image brightness. The human visual system has a HUGE dynamic range in its ability to detect light. What might seem to be a debilitating diminution is not nearly so injurious as might be feared. Contrast transfer, however, is most crucial because it presents as an immediate degradation no matter the image brightness. Even a subtle internal ghost reflection superimposed upon a shadowed part of the scenery can hide from view that tank lurking there in the gloom. The 'cleanest' image possible, aided by efficient reflection-reducing coatings, is a highly prized characteristic. Finally, I might note the differences in sight design that result from the image erecting elements employed. If a sight uses lenses to invert the image as opposed to prisms, the additional refraction imposed by these intermediary elements can introduce additional optical aberrations which prisms do not (by virtue of their acting optically as simple plane parallel optical windows). Now, I don't know if any tank sights used lens-based image erection schemes. But I would not be surprised if one or more nations did so early on. Parenthetical, my interest in gun sights leans far more toward those for aircraft. And I might add that I have worked in optics fabrication professionally. ;) Cheers! Glenn
The Germans are just amazing engineers. They were/are blessed with innovative, creative, inventive, genius across a wide range of technology. Love the Germans for that.
German Zeiss today is fundamental in the coopaeration with dutch ASML and fundamental in the creation of computer chips.. they pretty much ditched their optical efforts and outsourced to Japan (the formulas are still german tho)
@@Keckegenkai Zeiss still makes lenses for glasses in Oberkochen and Wetzlar, spotting scopes and rifle scopes are also made in Wetzlar (former Hensoldt plant). Zeiss does have a close cooperation with Sony since the mid-90s, but that goes both ways. Sony produces Zeiss lens - including the Zeiss logo - in Japan, but lenses for video and film cameras are still made in Oberkochen. Also, all of the lenses for mirrorless Sony cameras are made there. Lower end stuff is made in Mexico and Brazil, Italy and of course in China - but not in Japan. The high end optics for ASML are all made by Zeiss - but that does not mean Zeiss gave up their core business.
@@Uli_Krosse I mightve got my timing wrong, but I thought they are still produced by Cosina in Japan same as Voigtländer. I could be wrong but Sony and Zeiss parted ways much of the dismay of Sonys most recent line up of lenses as they lack the Zeiss look and are quite boring imo. I have no clue about scopes and the likes so I guess you are right.
I have a Carl Zeiss artillery scope (Rbl.F. 40) that I found as a kid between some flower pots at my grandmas. After clearing off some rust, the optic is still crystal clear, adjustments work and it has an illuminated reticle :O
Italian Admiral Trizzino wrote several books, and one of those deals with the Italian submarines which operated in the Atlantic, from their Bordeaux base. I remember his mention of the Italian crews receiving German binoculars on their arrival in Bordeaux, which were superior to the Italian ones: they allowed to inspect the sea during hours without feeling eye fatigue.
Japanese Company, later called Nikon, hired a German Lens maker, in the 1920s. And they managed to improve their optics, to the point, that Imperial Japanese Navy had the best Night sight optics, when WW2 started.
@@jackmoorehead2036 The Japanese admirals didn't want a radar, even though the Japanese researchers weren't actually behind in developing radar technology. The admirals believed exposing your own location by using a radar was a worse drawback than the benefit of detecting enemies and their distance. It was with great reluctance they allowed installing air surveillance radars, eventually. Sometimes admirals, or generals, shouldn't be allowed to make big decisions.
@@herrakaarme Man, radar can be used in battle when you are already detected. Then it makes gun control much easier. Your argument lets japanese admirals look like little morons. But they werent.
The mirrors used to focus the lasers to cut the substrate on the newest 5nm CPU chips are made by Zeiss. The mirrors are absolutely flat, so flat that if the mirrors were the size of the earth the highst point on the surface would be only 3mm, can you imagine that kind of precision and accuracy.
Zeiss rifle scopes for hunting still are outstanding and second to none. I use a Zeiss HT 3-12x56 as my general rifle scope and using it in the dusk is like turning on the lights.
>zeiss rifle scopes are second to none >nightforce has entered the building >leupold has entered the building >trijicon has entered the building >Vortex has entered the building >shit, even primaryarms came out to laugh.
@@shockwavecity I have owned and used most of the scopes you mention. They are OK and not at least Leupold good value for money but none come close to a true Zeiss. But perhaps you only know Zeiss Conquest, a discount model developed for mainly the American market. They are OK, but in no way sublime. But it is always a good question when marginal utility has fallen too much to be worth another 1000 $. In bright sunshine at moderate distance a premium scope rarely is, but in dusk it is worth all the money.
@@shockwavecity I have owned and used most of the scopes you mention. They are OK and not at least Leupold good value for money but none come close to a true Zeiss. But perhaps you only know Zeiss Conquest, a discount model developed for mainly the American market. They are OK, but in no way sublime. But it is always a good question when marginal utility has fallen too much to be worth another 1000 $. In bright sunshine at moderate distance a premium scope rarely is, but in dusk it is worth all the money.
Good video , and just mirrored the fact you need good equipment, like a Tiger or Panther with ZEISS Optics and a well trained crew. The crew make the tank to a killing machine, or failure. My Dad was confronted alone with his Panther by 11 T34/85 . They came with high speed head on in February 1945 at Hungary. They opened fire from1,100m and destroyed in less than 15minutes all 11 Soviet Tanks. They did not get hit at all from the wild shooting but bad aiming T34 crew. Every of the 11rounds fired from the Panther was a hit. The following but much slower two IS2 far behind the fast T34 were a different story . The Panther took them out , each IS absorbed one hit and need two rounds to get light up. The Panther got hit twice from the slow moving and two rounds a minute only capacity of the IS. They shoot five rounds at all and hit the Panther twice at the front which bounded off. But the heavy gun made a big dent and noise when his Panther was hit . On the end the class of the crew won over quantity . And yes, back in time the Russian T Tanks burned back in time on the first hit like they do today on the same fields , again….
@@falconeaterf15 oh and, without lend-lease and pre-lend-lease programs the Soviet Union would have been crushed by the (not so well prepared) German Army.
I had aways wondered how tanks could be accurate at 2000 meters and now I know. I had no idea the tankers used tables to calculate their targets and they must have done a lot of training to be able to identify and accurately range an enemy tank quickly. Amazing.
Also amazing, a WW2 battleship travelling on ocean, firing at a moving target at ranges out past 15 miles. They used mechanical computers the size of a chest freezer to make required calculations. Subs also used a smaller mechanical computer to calculate torpedo trajectories.
On the vast open landscape of the Eastern front, Soviet tanks had to be easy target practices for the German tank gunners with good gun sights above normal combat ranges.
It's crazy , this "small" part was so important and had such advantage. But without steel ,tanks and/or ammo, this part was useless. Thank you for the video and information .
This was known in WW1 as well-in the naval battele of Jutland, British gunners missed hits because the British rangefinders were poorly shock insulated-one gunner wrote that the prisms moved out of alignment after a german shell hit. The RN ordered improvements as a result
Wow, this video certainly contains a lot of "padding". Empty words of praise that convey no information. The actual knowledge posted in here is limited. We are told the German tanks had "TzF" scopes, but the individual models are not listed. The periscopic sights of SPGs and Stugs are not covered at all - but we see them on film several times. Shouldn't we be told that they exist, at least? We're shown the range markings on a later-model tank scope and how to use them, but what about the procedure for bracketing to determine range? I can guess which manuals the author has read and which ones they didn't read. And these paper "ranging tables" - how were they used? Did the gunner keep them in the tank and refer to them, or memorise them? Why don't we see a real one? The telescope of the hull MG is not mentioned, though we see it on film. What was THAT one capable of? The biggest defect of this video (in my opinion) is that the video doesn't mention the "open sight" system of early-war Panzers - a lensless "sighting bar" with a dedicated window. Why skip over that? Another manual that wasn't looked at, methinks.
Thanks. I too was hoping for something with more hard data. You saved me a couple of minutes as this is not for me it seems. All the best to the uploader too. No disrespect and I'm sure many will enjoy the video.
I discovered the 1:00 3:00 and 5:00 timestamps mark changes in content. First general praise, then german praise, then... Meh why did I watch this? Skip the first 5 mins.
The American Stuart, Grant and Sherman tanks were the first to feature a gun stabilization system in the vertical plane, able to keep the gun barrel from dipping or climbing while crossing uneven ground giving them a limited shoot on the move capability.
This was/is an extremely well done presentation on an important subject matter usually overlooked by most WW2 armor channels.... -German gunners, depending on how much TIME they spent, or how long theyd survived/seriously uninjured in that seat, gotten extremely intuitive @ acting extremely >> rapidly >>... -In absorbing tons of microdata from the optic, weather, other crewmen, ammo types needed, or on hand, T.C, unique machine, cannon, optical characteristics & scores of variable other factors @ play (As they werent always in the same Panzer everyday due to their own ride being under repairs, they maybe the same model/Ausf tank, but ALL had their very own idiosyncrasies due to previous/current wear or usage, maintenance schedules (Or lack of), prior repairs, un-repaired damage(s) or major parts/component re-fits, etc) As was often the case, most non-comm grade gunners who'd achieved a fair amount of time spent in that seat often got promoted to C.O of their very own Panzer, either due to rank, skill &/or T.C attrition rates. In spite of the gunner usually being the C.O's 'Nummer 2 man' I still believe the most important man, or position, held in any tank, even moreso with the WW2 German heavies was the DRIVER.... -Odd thing too, that most competent C.O's of any Schweres, or even Panthers to a degree, if they had the choice to make, would often draft, or have transferred over, drivers from Assault Guns/StuG' III's IF available. Which seems ODD @ 1st glance considering the difference between tactics via an assault gun & turreted panzer, but considering they HAD to keep thickest armor & cannon to the >> front due to overall design, that together with the ultra -S-L-O-W- turret traverse rotational speed of the T1, even if sitting stationary & engine was @ max RPM's to assist rotational speed, only then does grabbing a former assault gun driver make perfect sense if replacement personnel are needed...(Even if not the usual 'Status-Quo' rules regarding 'proper' personnel transfer within tank battalions, just like wild looking, but completely effective improvised armor adaptations, the Germans got away with a literal shit-ton of non standard practices on the battlefield, as long as the practices WORKED & achieved objectives, or desired results) -As depending on ground type/terrain the tank is on, sloughing the entire chassis w/cannon & frontal armor @ 11-1 o clock position to the nearest threat, or target, w/gunner doing the finer gun laying/traverse adjustments, turns out to be MUCH faster, safer for the entire crew, the complicated traverse motor & the continued employment of the expen$ive machine in general (Of which, with the new Tiger 1's, crewmen were oft reminded of several times DAILY in an ad-nauseum manner;). The T1's final drives being planetary arrangement so they could sustain stout twisting/lateral loads, only its tracks & subsequent ground types poss being a track popping/wrenching affair (The reason why some PzAbt's removed the Tiger 1s 1st outer road wheel) -Its tranny being incredibly well designed for its day, if a bit fussy @ times, but only as good as the man operating it & his own knowledge base of the overall integrated system(s), its features, faults, limitations, uses & limits. This had only gotten worse with shortened training schedules, emergency transfer, or drafting of fresh, non-specialist crewmen later in the war. The looks on the faces of all those former Luftwaffe & Kriegsmarine personnel when they'd gotten transfer orders to other ground units was probably ALL the SAME?..."!WTF?!"....Ha! -The total gleaned wisdom came w/experience, both good & bad, as to properly employing all those varying factors towards continued successful outcomes. Which only worsened as the wars fuel, personnel, material shortages & ever looming closure date was within sight... VERY well done vid FB...;)
With 4.2 percent light loss per lens, the sight only retain 65.1-50.3 percent of the light going from ten lenses to sixteen. The high-quality sights with 0.6 percent loss per lens is between 94.2 - 90.8 in the same range of ten to sixteen lenses.
Zeiss Optik in Jena. After WW2, it ended up in East Germany territory. So there is another Zeiss Optik in West Germany. The one in the East is known as Zeiss Jena. I believe their vapour deposition technique was leading edge at that time. It was crucial to produce low light lenses, one with very high light transmission factor.
Haven't watched yet, but I'm super excited. I've heard for years how German optics really made a difference, it will be great to get into the nitty-gritty. And since you brought up subsystems, how about a similar video on who had the best comm systems.
Been looking for this video for many years finally by chance this was sitting on my YT home Page. saving and making a copy fr personal video libaray Thank you for sharing don't know how much i Appreciate this video here.
An interesting video. There's endless anecdotal evidence of the superiority of German optics. German binoculars were highly valued by Allied sailors and soldiers. Those men obviously had the opportunity to compare the captured equipment with what they were issued.
great video and tech details. FOV is important, particularly during scanning. Also, switching between low and high mag if the FOV dropped significantly it's easy to misplace the target. With regards to magnification I'm amazed at what they were able to accomplish back then. 2.5x-5x is insufficient to identify targets at range so it's incredible that they were able to hit targets beyond 2000m. Even with a 10X I couldn't correctly ID targets beyond 2500 meters and wished there was a higher mag available on my M1A1. Memorizing silouettes helped, but it wasn't enough. Boresighting back then was no joy either. Come to think of it, it isn't a joy now even with muzzle reference updates to offset gun tube droop. Thank God for our Master Gunners. :)
Tank gunners needed extensive education and experience when using their optics. During my time as a gunner later as tank commander one of the most important gunnery training is using the GAS sight once properly bore sighted with the main gun using the SABOT and HEAT type ammunition. In the modern world tank crews have used computer generated simulators to train bother commander and gunner combination to train on the GAS for non-tankers is the Gunner Auxiliary Sight which has no magnification but relying on the Mil radiant markings to estimate range and aiming points. Basically almost like using and aiming the emergency optic on the tank if the GPS or Gunners Primary Sight is knocked out during combat.
I still remember how I tried, completely clueless, to interpret the German tank aiming optics in video games...What are those triangles and what do they do?...At some point (and this was before the internet was available to everyone) I got my hands on a copy of an original Wehrmacht manual for the tank troops an the range tables for various tank types...Enlightenment...this is simply genius.......:)
If you watch the movie Kingdom of Heaven, you can see how range-finding was accomplished by placing distance markers on the battlefield. It's Old School but still effective. While in the Army, I was taught how to measure distance using the pace method. A pace is the distance of one footstep. Depending on a person's leg length, 100 yards might be X paces. As Porky Pig says, "Th-th-th-thats all folks!"
A family member literally wrote the book on lens grinding in Germany and published in 1938. I suspect he was employed by Zeis or was a wheel with the company
The Germans did use high quality sights in their tanks and AT guns that had to be sent back to the factory for internal cleanings, adjustments and repairs. That caused problems when they started to run short on spare sights to install and the bombing of factories delayed having them serviced and made. American sights were adequate and could be service or rebuilt then adjusted by a tank mechanic out in the field in 30 minutes.
Thats one complaint I've never read in all my memoirs and readings? We ran out of zeiss optical sights! It's ok to admit that the german optics were just better. Germans were always tops with optics- till today.
@jandoernte3312 Ive never read that German tanks were without sights while they were being sent back to the factory to be cleaned either 😂. These Shermanboos are hilarious.
@@lyndoncmp5751I read about that in some armor forums years ago. One discussion was about the Battle of the Seelow Heights where the Germans aimed three 88's at one Soviet tank to ensure a hit. A German forum member said they had to do that due to using out of kilter optics since those couldn't be repaired at the factory anymore. He went on to say that their tankers had the same issue. Later on in another forum a German member said his father was a Panther gunner that complained about having to use sights that were out of adjustment so we're only reasonably accurate when his target was too close for comfort. He said the repair depot used to have new and rebuilt sights on hand until the factory was bombed, which destroyed their stock of new and rebuilt sights along with much of the machinery.
German cameras were so good, that the British government had to put out an appeal, for private owners of Leica cameras to turn them in, so they could be used for aerial photography.
My father was 101st airborne, fought in Bastogne, his advice to me as a young man, " if you go into the military, whatever you do, stay out of those gd tanks".
I knew a fellow that worked for Marnell Correo and he did Custom finish carpentry job on the house on Correo island.and in the house was a World War II German submarine periscope That went from the main room in the center of the house and one could see every part of the island from that periscope. Big beautiful brass devic. he showed me pictures of him hanging his wrists upon it hat backwards.
One thing that might be less depressing than war: Karl Zeiss still makes top notch lenses for microscopes and anything in a lab that needs a lense. I was working as a lab technician in an university and I always tried to get their stuff, if possible. More expensive? Yes. Worth it? Definitley!
Regarding the range calculation: it is still used and not based on specific tank models and it is used in binoculars as well. there it is called "Strichplatte".
Germany had the world's most efficient and effective economy before and at the start of WW2, with perhaps the greatest Commonwealth/working class ever created. So yes they took care of their workers, that's what happens when you kick the international bankers out of your country and create your own currency and redesign your economy. It proves European countries, (including North America) and working class wealth explodes when the leeches are stripped off our backs.
Ziess used Jewish and other minority slave labor in their factories during the war. They certainly weren't the worst German company during the war, but they were no Oskar Schindlers
A good officer wasn't interested in collecting a Luger, but rather the Germans Zeiss binoculars. I've read accounts of British tank commanders in North Africa envying their fellow crew commanders who had Zeiss optics, and the search for a pair of their own after a battle.
Actually, Bausch and Lomb in the US produced Optics for American tank under license from Zeiss, these were procured via Sweden where Zeiss had a company specially for this. Since every tank canon is different and requires a different sight, German intelligence actually knew how many tanks were produced and of which type. Sweden played an important role in WW2 for Germany, also licensing Bosch Sparkplugs, (The Art of Cloaking Ownership: The Case of Sweden by Gerard Aalders, Cees Wiebe)
Just like Imperial Japanese Navy before the advent off Radar..IJN has very good Gun range optics also their secret early version off NVG range optics for their Gun ranging system.. But,by 1943 after Allied has perfected the used off radar,IJn starts to loose every Naval battle..
The grandfather of a friend was a gunner in a Panther Ausf. F at the end of the war and told how it was like being a sniper in a tank because of the superior optics. I know, I know. The Ausf. F never made it into production and at the time I learned that, he had already passed away and I couldn't ask him about it.
I read somewhere (Military History (not) Visualized?) that Dubno & Prokhorovka notwithstanding, tank on tank battles were relatively rare. Most combat losses were from AT guns at ranges under 1,000 m. As for the Soviet T-34, the early models in 1940-41 were actually of better quality overall, including the optics. At one point decision was made to prioritize mass production of T-34s, and by 1943 its per unit cost was reduced in half. I'm guessing that expensive Zeiss optics were swapped for a cheaper local or American model.
badly needed article ,as battle accounts over and over make clear that the fewer and weaker germany tanks and anti tank guns, still regularly destroyed opponents tanks from long range before they got into range to fire back - this had to be due to better sights and better layout in the tank for rapid fire
German soldiers and doutrine were leaps ahead than their enemies. (Also, their motivation, fighting to stop preemptively the invasion of Europe by USSR and the biggest tank army ever assemble together is a really good reason to give your best
Problem was the crews became less efficient, used more fuel and range lead to many tanks being captured a ND the crews WALKING BACK TO BERLIN. ERGO KRAUT DEFEAT HURRAH FOR MASS PRODUCTION OVER Size and technology.
Very very high quality video like always !! If someone could tell me what is the "klink" noise after each tank fired , i assume it is in relation with the barrel or culass or the empty shell , but i'm curious for what is precisely make that noise .
the triangle aiming deal is a lot like stadia which I imagine is the same for WWII subs in calculating distances (along with a recognition chart) remember Ziess being the gold standard in surveying optics then Nikon came along later and was just as good and a whole lot less dollar wise.
15:22 now i do not now how true this is but i heared that the t-34 originaly had the best sights of any tank but the production facility for those was relativly close to the frontlines and as such no longer in soviet control shortly after the production of the t-34 began.
The technical cooperation between Berlin and Moscow lasted until June 21, 1941. The CCCP was constantly acquiring military equipment from Germany and Italy. The Soviets paid immediately and quickly. This is how the Blue Cruiser "Taskent" arrived in the Black Sea in 1940, from Italy. Some weapons were bought by the Soviets even though they were under development and untested. You should know that the Red Army already had night vision systems for tanks available since 1939. I am surprised this is not mentioned . Suggesting the optics of KV 1 - 1941 was inferior to a Tiger 2 - 1944 are jokes ! Soviet tanks had very good optics by inception. But not all the tanks were used to hunt other tanks !
Russian optics were particularly bad during WWII - to a substantial degree due to the fact that they had to relocate the respective optics producing factory to the East - where the quality of everything - starting from the sand and ending up with the additional labor force - was inferior. One Russian tanker recollected his experience in looking through the optics of a German Tiger knocked out by him a couple of days before: “I was shocked with the quality of a slightly bluish picture allowing to see the details at the distances which would be far beyond the capabilities of the T-34 gunsights”. The more respect I have to the Soviet tankers, who, undertrained and otherwise disadvantaged in too many ways against their German counterparts had the outmost courage to fight and eventually to win.
First hand account of german tankers on the eastern front say the same thing. The soviet tanks were good, but they had two severe weaknesses: 1. The optics. The germans knew that the first shot of soviet tankers would very likely miss 2. The lack/ or bad quality of radios
Superior glass quality perhaps. I'd say that for utility during combat the Sherman's setup was superior. The combination of 1x periscope and a magnified gunner sight made for faster target acquisition.
In todays World War, it doesnt matter what tank you are in, What matters is that it can shoot shells because regardless if its any modern or futuristic tank it will be taken out either with a precision guided artillery or a drone or a mine and if that does not suit it there are many other ways it gets put out of service with entire crew. The 70-90s era is over , nothing is superior or invincible at this point. The Hollywood movie just ended.
This is one of the things I ALWAYS bring up in the various "better/best" tanks of WW2 discussions... the Germans had far superior optics in their tanks and guns. When looking through Soviet optics it was like looking through a glass of iced tea. I can't find much data but the Japanese were touted to have excellent optics as well. Mixed in the middle between the pinnacle (Germans) and the bare minimum (Soviets) were the US, British, French, Italians, and everyone else. Binocs, range finders, tank optics, gun topics (Pak, infantry guns, etc). CONTENT CHALLENGE at 07:53. It wasn't the gunner using the tank gun sight that found enemy targets, it was usually the commander using his binocs or range finders. He then called out a bearing, estimated range, and the gunner moved the turret and gun accordingly and hoped to visually identify the target ASAP.
Fascinating! Someone should send this to the Chieftain. He keeps knocking German tanks while praising the superior sight arrangements on the Sherman. It seems he doesn't realize that his analysis doesn't take into account the German optic's wider view.
Yes he does. The distinction NOT mentioned here is that the Sherman had TWO sets of optics. A 1.4 wide view periscope, and a x3 coaxial sight. The Sherman gunner could use the wide view to set the initial sight while in a turret down position, but then move forward. The Shermans gun stabilization would maintain the aiming position until the main gun cleared the cover. The Sherman gunner could then take a quick resight ( knowing that the gun was already aimed towards the target), then fire. The more limited field of view of the x3 optic was offset by the wider field of view of the x1.4. So end result, German optics would outperform Allied optics on flat, open terrain (Kursk). US optics would outperform the Germans in broken terrain (Normandy).
@@SgtBrendanN This. I make no statements as to the engineering quality of German optics vs those of other nations. That isn't my field, and I've not looked up reports. (Though people more versed than I have certainly challenged the general rule of "German optics were usually better"). My issue is with their functionality. A Panzer or Tiger or Panther gunner cannot see a target if the tank is in a hide position behind a defilade. It doesn't matter what your zoom or field of vision or light transmission percentage is if there's a bush or hill in the way. That is a tank design flaw, entirely separate to what is going on at Zeiss, and why the Germans refused to give their gunners more optics despite every other nation doing so is a question I have not yet found an answer to. Except possibly a shortage of glass: Removing a periscope from the bow gunner when Panther got a new bow MG mount seems churlish unless there's an industrial reason behind it. Worth noting, though, that vision just doesn't seem to have been a thing for German tanks. A US loader has a 340 or so degree field of vision from inside the tank. A German loader? Not so much. German tank sights were fantastic for the accurate firing part of an engagement, but the winner of a fight is usually he who fires first, and for aquisition purposes, German tanks were generally more blind. Video also spends a lot of time on the German use of mils (strichs) in their sights, but seems to completely omit that US sights also use mils and did from the very first M3 light tank. For whatever reason, the US one uses 1, 5 and 10mil graduations instead of the 2s and 4s the Germans used. It was hardly a novel concept. I have not looked into the British or Soviet sights to verify their use of mils, but it wouldn't surprise me. The bit about the German gunner having to aim off due to parralax effect was eventually solved by later US reticles having the offset built into the reticle. (The aiming points make a sort of a 'curved line')
Joined German tank forces in 1984. Although we had optical range finders (Turmentfernungsmessgerät-TEM) half of our training was estimating range with the TZF (the Leopard 1 gunner had two optics, TZF and TEM). And even in the 90s, when the Leopard 1A5 got a laser range finder estimating range with the TZF was trained intensively.
Great insight👍
Yeah, if your wonderful laser range finder goes down in battle the “old fashioned” skills are essential.
@@richardbriscoe8563 Sure. That was the reason.
@@thorstennommensen5105 No, not only. And a laser range finder is an active system, that could be dectected, when an optic telemeter/ranger finder is a passive system, then is undectectable.
It is wise to always train in the analogue as everything high tech can fail.
Awesome video & great information. It’s covers deeper topics that aren’t covered in most videos. The tank crew also had to be great at estimating ranges & calculating firing solutions using various techniques. They had stadiametric range finders but also had to good at estimating ranges. The gun sights had various reticles for shooting at ranges & they also had special marks for lead, etc So besides knowing how to id enemy vehicles they had to know general sizes of enemy tanks for calculations.
I was a tanker in the US Army & the Abrams has a laser range finder, multiple sensors for things like crosswind & vehicle cant, & a ballistic computer that gives us a firing solution. The gunner’s secondary or auxiliary sight (GAS) which is used if the primary sight (GPS) fails or is damaged is close to WW2 tank gunning as it lacks all the technology. Of course good optics helped & Germany had the best ones. Many of the finer details a out German tanks are covered in most WW2 armor videos which are the factors that made German tanks better overall. The German tanks had superbly trained crews, but also had better optics, radios, ammunition, etc Considering how crude the first tanks in WW I were it’s pretty amazing how advanced they became in some 20 odd years. They share the same overall build, layout & characteristics as modern tanks in many regards.
Thanks for the greta video🙂👍
Another important point was radio communication! At least every group leading tank had a radio set built in which gave enormous tactical advantage.
The policy in 1939 and 1940 was that every Panzer should have a radio receiver at least, even the little Panzer 1.
yeah every german Panzerkampfwagen was supposed to have a radio - unlike the soviet tanks, who suffered high losses cause of this issue
@@1armeddrummerinaprisonrock244 There were many other reasons why the Soviets suffered such high losses, bad coordination due to lack of radios was just one of them
@@IxtzalitThey were still waving signaling flags at each other...lol
Brother is your channel is monitized?plz reply me.thanks
Good presentation!
A few notes:
Additives to optical glass such as Lanthanum do nothing of any note as regards improved transmission efficiency. Indeed, some additives can reduce transmission. The base level transmission of decent glass is so good that it requires a thickness of order 1 meter (!) to begin to become of any concern.
The purpose of additives like rare earth elements is solely to obtain specific values of refractive index and dispersion. The aim is the suppression or at least diminution of chromatic (color) aberrations.
There are two principal chromatic aberrations:
Longitudinal, mostly introduced by the objective lens. This causes halos of unfocused light in certain parts of the spectrum. Most commonly exhibits as a blue halo, due to the shorter wavelengths becoming more rapidly differentially refracted. Affects the entire field of view essentially equally.
Lateral, mostly introduced by the eyepiece. The central portion of the image is fine, but at increasing angular distance from the optical axis the light is radially elongated into a miniature spectrum.
At such low magnifications of these sights, standard, inexpensive optical crown/flint glass objectives are quite good enough. For the eyepiece, lateral color aberration will not impact the working central part of the image, where the aiming reticle is located. It's only an issue in the more outer parts of the field. And so eyepieces made using non-exotic glass are still serviceable.
Field of view at given magnification is controlled by the eyepiece design. The eyepiece FoV as it appears on the observer's retina is called the apparent FoV (AFoV). For older designs this was typically 40-50 degrees. After WW1 designers were starting to create oculars possessing AFoVs of 60-70 degrees. (In the 60s a designer cooked up a monster eyepiece having a whopping 120 degree AFoV!) The Germans during WW2 used eyepieces commonly having wider AFoVs than did the Allies, which presents an advantage in detection by virtue of presenting a physically wider field of coverage.
In multi-element optical systems like tank sights and binoculars, coatings are important more for the improvement in contrast via reduction of internal reflection intensity from all those air-glass surfaces. The increase in total transmission is more of an additional benefit; it is decidedly secondary to contrast transfer. Let me put it this way; a 10% reduction in contrast is worse than a 50% reduction in image brightness.
The human visual system has a HUGE dynamic range in its ability to detect light. What might seem to be a debilitating diminution is not nearly so injurious as might be feared. Contrast transfer, however, is most crucial because it presents as an immediate degradation no matter the image brightness. Even a subtle internal ghost reflection superimposed upon a shadowed part of the scenery can hide from view that tank lurking there in the gloom. The 'cleanest' image possible, aided by efficient reflection-reducing coatings, is a highly prized characteristic.
Finally, I might note the differences in sight design that result from the image erecting elements employed. If a sight uses lenses to invert the image as opposed to prisms, the additional refraction imposed by these intermediary elements can introduce additional optical aberrations which prisms do not (by virtue of their acting optically as simple plane parallel optical windows). Now, I don't know if any tank sights used lens-based image erection schemes. But I would not be surprised if one or more nations did so early on.
Parenthetical, my interest in gun sights leans far more toward those for aircraft. And I might add that I have worked in optics fabrication professionally. ;)
Cheers!
Glenn
Thanks for sharing your insights!
Show off. lol
@@kenth151 nein, bemerkenswerte Zusatzangaben
The Germans are just amazing engineers. They were/are blessed with innovative, creative, inventive, genius across a wide range of technology. Love the Germans for that.
Voesprung durch Technik !
That's sadly in the past :( our education system has degraded a lot.
Zeiss Optics have always been and still are the benchmark other companies strive to attain hands down.....
German Zeiss today is fundamental in the coopaeration with dutch ASML and fundamental in the creation of computer chips.. they pretty much ditched their optical efforts and outsourced to Japan (the formulas are still german tho)
@@Keckegenkai Zeiss still makes lenses for glasses in Oberkochen and Wetzlar, spotting scopes and rifle scopes are also made in Wetzlar (former Hensoldt plant). Zeiss does have a close cooperation with Sony since the mid-90s, but that goes both ways. Sony produces Zeiss lens - including the Zeiss logo - in Japan, but lenses for video and film cameras are still made in Oberkochen. Also, all of the lenses for mirrorless Sony cameras are made there. Lower end stuff is made in Mexico and Brazil, Italy and of course in China - but not in Japan.
The high end optics for ASML are all made by Zeiss - but that does not mean Zeiss gave up their core business.
@@Uli_Krosse
I mightve got my timing wrong, but I thought they are still produced by Cosina in Japan same as Voigtländer. I could be wrong but Sony and Zeiss parted ways much of the dismay of Sonys most recent line up of lenses as they lack the Zeiss look and are quite boring imo. I have no clue about scopes and the likes so I guess you are right.
Nikon, Canon and Leica might beg to differ.
I have a Carl Zeiss artillery scope (Rbl.F. 40) that I found as a kid between some flower pots at my grandmas. After clearing off some rust, the optic is still crystal clear, adjustments work and it has an illuminated reticle :O
Italian Admiral Trizzino wrote several books, and one of those deals with the Italian submarines which operated in the Atlantic, from their Bordeaux base. I remember his mention of the Italian crews receiving German binoculars on their arrival in Bordeaux, which were superior to the Italian ones: they allowed to inspect the sea during hours without feeling eye fatigue.
Great!
Japanese Company, later called Nikon, hired a German Lens maker, in the 1920s.
And they managed to improve their optics, to the point, that Imperial Japanese Navy had the best Night sight optics, when WW2 started.
And the came Fire Controll Radar.
What a bummer. US Navy had best Radar (at daylight and night :D
@@jackmoorehead2036 The Japanese admirals didn't want a radar, even though the Japanese researchers weren't actually behind in developing radar technology. The admirals believed exposing your own location by using a radar was a worse drawback than the benefit of detecting enemies and their distance. It was with great reluctance they allowed installing air surveillance radars, eventually. Sometimes admirals, or generals, shouldn't be allowed to make big decisions.
Yes, a video on Japanese naval night optics would be great.
@@herrakaarme Man, radar can be used in battle when you are already detected. Then it makes gun control much easier.
Your argument lets japanese admirals look like little morons. But they werent.
The mirrors used to focus the lasers to cut the substrate on the newest 5nm CPU chips are made by Zeiss. The mirrors are absolutely flat, so flat that if the mirrors were the size of the earth the highst point on the surface would be only 3mm, can you imagine that kind of precision and accuracy.
So not absolutely flat.
I applaud you for making such a fool of yourself so easily.
@@touristguy87 Clap harder, I can't hear you.
@@jb-xc4oh but you can feel me
nothing is absolute. And all this is achieved by well-known technologies that are known to the Germans, Russians, and Chinese... and even Americans.
@@touristguy87your the fool
Zeiss rifle scopes for hunting still are outstanding and second to none. I use a Zeiss HT 3-12x56 as my general rifle scope and using it in the dusk is like turning on the lights.
>zeiss rifle scopes are second to none
>nightforce has entered the building
>leupold has entered the building
>trijicon has entered the building
>Vortex has entered the building
>shit, even primaryarms came out to laugh.
You forgot "Schmidt und Bender", some army use this in sniperrifles!
@@shockwavecity I have owned and used most of the scopes you mention. They are OK and not at least Leupold good value for money but none come close to a true Zeiss. But perhaps you only know Zeiss Conquest, a discount model developed for mainly the American market. They are OK, but in no way sublime. But it is always a good question when marginal utility has fallen too much to be worth another 1000 $. In bright sunshine at moderate distance a premium scope rarely is, but in dusk it is worth all the money.
@@shockwavecity I have owned and used most of the scopes you mention. They are OK and not at least Leupold good value for money but none come close to a true Zeiss. But perhaps you only know Zeiss Conquest, a discount model developed for mainly the American market. They are OK, but in no way sublime. But it is always a good question when marginal utility has fallen too much to be worth another 1000 $. In bright sunshine at moderate distance a premium scope rarely is, but in dusk it is worth all the money.
A very informative piece with excellent footage of an aspect of WWII that's not well covered. Thanks a whole bunch. 👍
Thanks for the visit ☺️
Good video , and just mirrored the fact you need good equipment, like a Tiger or Panther with ZEISS Optics and a well trained crew. The crew make the tank to a killing machine, or failure. My Dad was confronted alone with his Panther by 11 T34/85 . They came with high speed head on in February 1945 at Hungary. They opened fire from1,100m and destroyed in less than 15minutes all 11 Soviet Tanks. They did not get hit at all from the wild shooting but bad aiming T34 crew. Every of the 11rounds fired from the Panther was a hit. The following but much slower two IS2 far behind the fast T34 were a different story . The Panther took them out , each IS absorbed one hit and need two rounds to get light up. The Panther got hit twice from the slow moving and two rounds a minute only capacity of the IS. They shoot five rounds at all and hit the Panther twice at the front which bounded off. But the heavy gun made a big dent and noise when his Panther was hit . On the end the class of the crew won over quantity . And yes, back in time the Russian T Tanks burned back in time on the first hit like they do today on the same fields , again….
Ah, yes………Germans vastly superior in every measure. And yet they still lost. Does that tell you anything?
@@falconeaterf15Germany having to fight an enemy with far superior numbers on 2 frontlines won the war for the Soviets/Allies.
Eastern front in a nutshell:
-German Tank has 70 rounds of ammunition
-Soviets send in 71 Tanks
-Soviet victory
@@freigeist2814
Thanks Captain Obvious.
But why would they choose to do something so stupid?
@@falconeaterf15 oh and, without lend-lease and pre-lend-lease programs the Soviet Union would have been crushed by the (not so well prepared) German Army.
I had aways wondered how tanks could be accurate at 2000 meters and now I know. I had no idea the tankers used tables to calculate their targets and they must have done a lot of training to be able to identify and accurately range an enemy tank quickly. Amazing.
Also amazing, a WW2 battleship travelling on ocean, firing at a moving target at ranges out past 15 miles.
They used mechanical computers the size of a chest freezer to make required calculations.
Subs also used a smaller mechanical computer to calculate torpedo trajectories.
On the vast open landscape of the Eastern front, Soviet tanks had to be easy target practices for the German tank gunners with good gun sights above normal combat ranges.
cant beat ZEISS
They are still superd.
Zeiss manufactured the mirror for the James Webb space telescope. Nothing compares.
It's crazy , this "small" part was so important and had such advantage. But without steel ,tanks and/or ammo, this part was useless.
Thank you for the video and information .
Fuel....
This was known in WW1 as well-in the naval battele of Jutland, British gunners missed hits because the British rangefinders were poorly shock insulated-one gunner wrote that the prisms moved out of alignment after a german shell hit. The RN ordered improvements as a result
Bravo, on oublie souvent les excellentes optiques Allemandes qui étaient un plus énorme pour leurs équipages..
Wow, this video certainly contains a lot of "padding". Empty words of praise that convey no information. The actual knowledge posted in here is limited. We are told the German tanks had "TzF" scopes, but the individual models are not listed. The periscopic sights of SPGs and Stugs are not covered at all - but we see them on film several times. Shouldn't we be told that they exist, at least?
We're shown the range markings on a later-model tank scope and how to use them, but what about the procedure for bracketing to determine range? I can guess which manuals the author has read and which ones they didn't read. And these paper "ranging tables" - how were they used? Did the gunner keep them in the tank and refer to them, or memorise them? Why don't we see a real one?
The telescope of the hull MG is not mentioned, though we see it on film. What was THAT one capable of?
The biggest defect of this video (in my opinion) is that the video doesn't mention the "open sight" system of early-war Panzers - a lensless "sighting bar" with a dedicated window. Why skip over that? Another manual that wasn't looked at, methinks.
Thanks. I too was hoping for something with more hard data. You saved me a couple of minutes as this is not for me it seems. All the best to the uploader too. No disrespect and I'm sure many will enjoy the video.
I discovered the 1:00 3:00 and 5:00 timestamps mark changes in content. First general praise, then german praise, then...
Meh why did I watch this? Skip the first 5 mins.
Yeah, was hoping for a real deep dive in aiming, laying on, etc. the sight reticle & range table are just two parts in a complex procedure.
Totally agree. Rubbish. Total rubbish.
The American Stuart, Grant and Sherman tanks were the first to feature a gun stabilization system in the vertical plane, able to keep the gun barrel from dipping or climbing while crossing uneven ground giving them a limited shoot on the move capability.
Informative and covers a topic rarely touched in general discussion.
This was/is an extremely well done presentation on an important subject matter usually overlooked by most WW2 armor channels....
-German gunners, depending on how much TIME they spent, or how long theyd survived/seriously uninjured in that seat, gotten extremely intuitive @ acting extremely >> rapidly >>...
-In absorbing tons of microdata from the optic, weather, other crewmen, ammo types needed, or on hand, T.C, unique machine, cannon, optical characteristics & scores of variable other factors @ play (As they werent always in the same Panzer everyday due to their own ride being under repairs, they maybe the same model/Ausf tank, but ALL had their very own idiosyncrasies due to previous/current wear or usage, maintenance schedules (Or lack of), prior repairs, un-repaired damage(s) or major parts/component re-fits, etc)
As was often the case, most non-comm grade gunners who'd achieved a fair amount of time spent in that seat often got promoted to C.O of their very own Panzer, either due to rank, skill &/or T.C attrition rates. In spite of the gunner usually being the C.O's 'Nummer 2 man' I still believe the most important man, or position, held in any tank, even moreso with the WW2 German heavies was the DRIVER....
-Odd thing too, that most competent C.O's of any Schweres, or even Panthers to a degree, if they had the choice to make, would often draft, or have transferred over, drivers from Assault Guns/StuG' III's IF available. Which seems ODD @ 1st glance considering the difference between tactics via an assault gun & turreted panzer, but considering they HAD to keep thickest armor & cannon to the >> front due to overall design, that together with the ultra -S-L-O-W- turret traverse rotational speed of the T1, even if sitting stationary & engine was @ max RPM's to assist rotational speed, only then does grabbing a former assault gun driver make perfect sense if replacement personnel are needed...(Even if not the usual 'Status-Quo' rules regarding 'proper' personnel transfer within tank battalions, just like wild looking, but completely effective improvised armor adaptations, the Germans got away with a literal shit-ton of non standard practices on the battlefield, as long as the practices WORKED & achieved objectives, or desired results)
-As depending on ground type/terrain the tank is on, sloughing the entire chassis w/cannon & frontal armor @ 11-1 o clock position to the nearest threat, or target, w/gunner doing the finer gun laying/traverse adjustments, turns out to be MUCH faster, safer for the entire crew, the complicated traverse motor & the continued employment of the expen$ive machine in general (Of which, with the new Tiger 1's, crewmen were oft reminded of several times DAILY in an ad-nauseum manner;). The T1's final drives being planetary arrangement so they could sustain stout twisting/lateral loads, only its tracks & subsequent ground types poss being a track popping/wrenching affair (The reason why some PzAbt's removed the Tiger 1s 1st outer road wheel)
-Its tranny being incredibly well designed for its day, if a bit fussy @ times, but only as good as the man operating it & his own knowledge base of the overall integrated system(s), its features, faults, limitations, uses & limits. This had only gotten worse with shortened training schedules, emergency transfer, or drafting of fresh, non-specialist crewmen later in the war. The looks on the faces of all those former Luftwaffe & Kriegsmarine personnel when they'd gotten transfer orders to other ground units was probably ALL the SAME?..."!WTF?!"....Ha!
-The total gleaned wisdom came w/experience, both good & bad, as to properly employing all those varying factors towards continued successful outcomes. Which only worsened as the wars fuel, personnel, material shortages & ever looming closure date was within sight...
VERY well done vid FB...;)
FYI: I hadnt crossed that portion out myself...
With 4.2 percent light loss per lens, the sight only retain 65.1-50.3 percent of the light going from ten lenses to sixteen.
The high-quality sights with 0.6 percent loss per lens is between 94.2 - 90.8 in the same range of ten to sixteen lenses.
Zeiss Optik in Jena. After WW2, it ended up in East Germany territory. So there is another Zeiss Optik in West Germany. The one in the East is known as Zeiss Jena. I believe their vapour deposition technique was leading edge at that time. It was crucial to produce low light lenses, one with very high light transmission factor.
Haven't watched yet, but I'm super excited. I've heard for years how German optics really made a difference, it will be great to get into the nitty-gritty.
And since you brought up subsystems, how about a similar video on who had the best comm systems.
Been looking for this video for many years finally by chance this was sitting on my YT home Page. saving and making a copy fr personal video libaray Thank you for sharing don't know how much i Appreciate this video here.
Finally a video worth watching and learning from. Thank you.
Super 👌 wonderful mathematical explanation video of accurate aiming by German tank crews
Even today the Carl Zeiss lenses are among the Best in the world,and the excellence of their Luxury Lenses are second to none.
The Chinese will soon throw them off the throne.
An interesting video. There's endless anecdotal evidence of the superiority of German optics. German binoculars were highly valued by Allied sailors and soldiers. Those men obviously had the opportunity to compare the captured equipment with what they were issued.
At last, been waiting for this topic. Thank you. This video deserves more view etc.
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@FactBytes I think the optics also played important role in U-boat periscope? How about producing a video about it 😍
great video and tech details. FOV is important, particularly during scanning. Also, switching between low and high mag if the FOV dropped significantly it's easy to misplace the target. With regards to magnification I'm amazed at what they were able to accomplish back then. 2.5x-5x is insufficient to identify targets at range so it's incredible that they were able to hit targets beyond 2000m. Even with a 10X I couldn't correctly ID targets beyond 2500 meters and wished there was a higher mag available on my M1A1. Memorizing silouettes helped, but it wasn't enough. Boresighting back then was no joy either. Come to think of it, it isn't a joy now even with muzzle reference updates to offset gun tube droop. Thank God for our Master Gunners. :)
Tank gunners needed extensive education and experience when using their optics. During my time as a gunner later as tank commander one of the most important gunnery training is using the GAS sight once properly bore sighted with the main gun using the SABOT and HEAT type ammunition. In the modern world tank crews have used computer generated simulators to train bother commander and gunner combination to train on the GAS for non-tankers is the Gunner Auxiliary Sight which has no magnification but relying on the Mil radiant markings to estimate range and aiming points. Basically almost like using and aiming the emergency optic on the tank if the GPS or Gunners Primary Sight is knocked out during combat.
Thanks for the great insight👍
Q. What did the Panther crews say to the Zeiss optics engineers?
A. Tank you. Tank you very much.
I still remember how I tried, completely clueless, to interpret the German tank aiming optics in video games...What are those triangles and what do they do?...At some point (and this was before the internet was available to everyone) I got my hands on a copy of an original Wehrmacht manual for the tank troops an the range tables for various tank types...Enlightenment...this is simply genius.......:)
Excellent. Thank you for this video
Glad you enjoyed it!
As the adge goes, "You got to see them before you kill them", the Germans could see very well.
In Germany, we say that someone has "Adlerauge" (eagle eyes), when he is able, to spot and kill an enemy efficiently.
That was an amazing video! Thank you for the work you put into it!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Awesome video! Important topic!
This channel is a jewel. Thanks!
Thanks for the visit!
If you watch the movie Kingdom of Heaven, you can see how range-finding was accomplished by placing distance markers on the battlefield. It's Old School but still effective. While in the Army, I was taught how to measure distance using the pace method. A pace is the distance of one footstep. Depending on a person's leg length, 100 yards might be X paces. As Porky Pig says, "Th-th-th-thats all folks!"
During WW2 most used periscopic optic on tanks was develop by Polish offcer Gundlah. I was patented in 1936.
awesome video, thanks!
Thank you for the interesting vid from Germany!
Thanks for the visit
Great video
such an excellently scripted , illustrated and researched video, well done!
This is a very informative video, it is this sort of information that I am interested in.
A family member literally wrote the book on lens grinding in Germany and published in 1938. I suspect he was employed by Zeis or was a wheel with the company
The Germans did use high quality sights in their tanks and AT guns that had to be sent back to the factory for internal cleanings, adjustments and repairs. That caused problems when they started to run short on spare sights to install and the bombing of factories delayed having them serviced and made. American sights were adequate and could be service or rebuilt then adjusted by a tank mechanic out in the field in 30 minutes.
Thats one complaint I've never read in all my memoirs and readings? We ran out of zeiss optical sights! It's ok to admit that the german optics were just better. Germans were always tops with optics- till today.
@jandoernte3312
Ive never read that German tanks were without sights while they were being sent back to the factory to be cleaned either 😂.
These Shermanboos are hilarious.
@@lyndoncmp5751 They didn't go without sights while waiting for replacements. The gunners learned how to adjust their aim.
@@billwilson-es5yn
What is your source for this claim? And you've contradicted yourself.
@@lyndoncmp5751I read about that in some armor forums years ago. One discussion was about the Battle of the Seelow Heights where the Germans aimed three 88's at one Soviet tank to ensure a hit. A German forum member said they had to do that due to using out of kilter optics since those couldn't be repaired at the factory anymore. He went on to say that their tankers had the same issue. Later on in another forum a German member said his father was a Panther gunner that complained about having to use sights that were out of adjustment so we're only reasonably accurate when his target was too close for comfort. He said the repair depot used to have new and rebuilt sights on hand until the factory was bombed, which destroyed their stock of new and rebuilt sights along with much of the machinery.
Thanks for this explanation of the tank optics.
German cameras were so good, that the British government had to put out an appeal, for private owners of Leica cameras to turn them in, so they could be used for aerial photography.
My father was 101st airborne, fought in Bastogne, his advice to me as a young man, " if you go into the military, whatever you do, stay out of those gd tanks".
Then there are statistics and unsurprisingly a tank is a safer place than no tank or a plane.
Rally very detailed, congratulazioni.
Thanks!
Always wondered on each counteies tank and anti tank optics, this just answered a lot of My qestions....thank you!!
Amazing optics technology 👍
Loved seeing these optics. Not sure I've seen anything like this before.
All my Hasselblad lenses are made by Zeiss they are simply amazing..!!
Thank you for making a no nonsense documentary and telling the truth about German technological superiority.
Great analysis!
I knew a fellow that worked for Marnell Correo and he did Custom finish carpentry job on the house on Correo island.and in the house was a World War II German submarine periscope That went from the main room in the center of the house and one could see every part of the island from that periscope. Big beautiful brass devic. he showed me pictures of him hanging his wrists upon it hat backwards.
Zeiss / Jena (East Germany) NVA Binos are the best Binos i ever had in my Hands during Service.
Never wanted "Steiner" Binos again...
One thing that might be less depressing than war: Karl Zeiss still makes top notch lenses for microscopes and anything in a lab that needs a lense. I was working as a lab technician in an university and I always tried to get their stuff, if possible. More expensive? Yes. Worth it? Definitley!
Great job thanks
Thank you too!
Excellent video! I believe a similar story exists for naval periscopes.
What a Great Upload , no Recycling.
finally truth about sights and optics
Regarding the range calculation:
it is still used and not based on specific tank models and it is used in binoculars as well. there it is called "Strichplatte".
Germany set the bar for a lot of things before the war during the war and continue setting bar. They are excellent in technology 😮
Ziess really took care of their workers too which contributed to a superior product.
Germany had the world's most efficient and effective economy before and at the start of WW2, with perhaps the greatest Commonwealth/working class ever created. So yes they took care of their workers, that's what happens when you kick the international bankers out of your country and create your own currency and redesign your economy. It proves European countries, (including North America) and working class wealth explodes when the leeches are stripped off our backs.
Ziess used Jewish and other minority slave labor in their factories during the war. They certainly weren't the worst German company during the war, but they were no Oskar Schindlers
@@BFVsnypEz I know what you're saying and I agree 100 percent
That's the benefit of nationalism
Very interesting.
A good officer wasn't interested in collecting a Luger, but rather the Germans Zeiss binoculars.
I've read accounts of British tank commanders in North Africa envying their fellow crew commanders who had Zeiss optics, and the search for a pair of their own after a battle.
I read about bubbles in allied glasses.
Actually, Bausch and Lomb in the US produced Optics for American tank under license from Zeiss, these were procured via Sweden where Zeiss had a company specially for this. Since every tank canon is different and requires a different sight, German intelligence actually knew how many tanks were produced and of which type. Sweden played an important role in WW2 for Germany, also licensing Bosch Sparkplugs, (The Art of Cloaking Ownership: The Case of Sweden by Gerard Aalders, Cees Wiebe)
The Narrator keeps calling them "TZF" when videomaterial says "TFZ"
Just like Imperial Japanese Navy before the advent off Radar..IJN has very good Gun range optics also their secret early version off NVG range optics for their Gun ranging system..
But,by 1943 after Allied has perfected the used off radar,IJn starts to loose every Naval battle..
The grandfather of a friend was a gunner in a Panther Ausf. F at the end of the war and told how it was like being a sniper in a tank because of the superior optics. I know, I know. The Ausf. F never made it into production and at the time I learned that, he had already passed away and I couldn't ask him about it.
I read somewhere (Military History (not) Visualized?) that Dubno & Prokhorovka notwithstanding, tank on tank battles were relatively rare. Most combat losses were from AT guns at ranges under 1,000 m.
As for the Soviet T-34, the early models in 1940-41 were actually of better quality overall, including the optics. At one point decision was made to prioritize mass production of T-34s, and by 1943 its per unit cost was reduced in half. I'm guessing that expensive Zeiss optics were swapped for a cheaper local or American model.
Excelent video. Thanks.
Excellent.
badly needed article ,as battle accounts over and over make clear that the fewer and weaker germany tanks and anti tank guns, still regularly destroyed opponents tanks from long range before they got into range to fire back - this had to be due to better sights and better layout in the tank for rapid fire
Also training.
German soldiers and doutrine were leaps ahead than their enemies.
(Also, their motivation, fighting to stop preemptively the invasion of Europe by USSR and the biggest tank army ever assemble together is a really good reason to give your best
Problem was the crews became less efficient, used more fuel and range lead to many tanks being captured a ND the crews WALKING BACK TO BERLIN. ERGO
KRAUT DEFEAT HURRAH FOR MASS PRODUCTION OVER
Size and technology.
THE GERMAN PANZER MEN USED TO SAY “DON’T WORRY ABOUT THE RUSSIANS THEY ALWAYS MISS THE 1ST SHOT, WE’RE TRAINED TO NEVER MISS IT”
@@Daniel-du7pv
What was there for the USSR to invade when Germany itself already invaded & occupied all of Europe?
Very very high quality video like always !! If someone could tell me what is the "klink" noise after each tank fired , i assume it is in relation with the barrel or culass or the empty shell , but i'm curious for what is precisely make that noise .
Łuska spada na dno czołgu po wystrzale
Ammo shell dropped to the bottom of tank hull.That make this metallic noise...
the triangle aiming deal is a lot like stadia which I imagine is the same for WWII subs in calculating distances (along with a recognition chart) remember Ziess being the gold standard in surveying optics then Nikon came along later and was just as good and a whole lot less dollar wise.
Well any advantages in these tanks did not work out too well for them overall, did it ?
The pronouncination of Zeiss is about "Tzeis" and the Panzer is "Pantzer"
Germany has always been the leader in optics, cameras. High end stuff
15:22 now i do not now how true this is but i heared that the t-34 originaly had the best sights of any tank but the production facility for those was relativly close to the frontlines and as such no longer in soviet control shortly after the production of the t-34 began.
I live in the city where Zeiss originated.
Al fin, un estudio de la optica alemana en la segunda guerra
The technical cooperation between Berlin and Moscow lasted until June 21, 1941. The CCCP was constantly acquiring military equipment from Germany and Italy. The Soviets paid immediately and quickly. This is how the Blue Cruiser "Taskent" arrived in the Black Sea in 1940, from Italy. Some weapons were bought by the Soviets even though they were under development and untested. You should know that the Red Army already had night vision systems for tanks available since 1939. I am surprised this is not mentioned . Suggesting the optics of KV 1 - 1941 was inferior to a Tiger 2 - 1944 are jokes ! Soviet tanks had very good optics by inception. But not all the tanks were used to hunt other tanks !
Russian optics were particularly bad during WWII - to a substantial degree due to the fact that they had to relocate the respective optics producing factory to the East - where the quality of everything - starting from the sand and ending up with the additional labor force - was inferior.
One Russian tanker recollected his experience in looking through the optics of a German Tiger knocked out by him a couple of days before: “I was shocked with the quality of a slightly bluish picture allowing to see the details at the distances which would be far beyond the capabilities of the T-34 gunsights”.
The more respect I have to the Soviet tankers, who, undertrained and otherwise disadvantaged in too many ways against their German counterparts had the outmost courage to fight and eventually to win.
First hand account of german tankers on the eastern front say the same thing.
The soviet tanks were good, but they had two severe weaknesses:
1. The optics. The germans knew that the first shot of soviet tankers would very likely miss
2. The lack/ or bad quality of radios
Superior glass quality perhaps.
I'd say that for utility during combat the Sherman's setup was superior.
The combination of 1x periscope and a magnified gunner sight made for faster target acquisition.
Excellent video, but please use variety for the gunfire sounds. The same one again and again is rather grating.
Noted!
German engineering in the house!
Zeiss was in Soviet Zone but US Army got there first. A US Colonel organized removal of equipment and staff to the west. Stalin not happy. 😂
Seems like the bad guys always know how to do optics the best.
Like Germans, Soviets and the Japanese.
In todays World War, it doesnt matter what tank you are in, What matters is that it can shoot shells because regardless if its any modern or futuristic tank it will be taken out either with a precision guided artillery or a drone or a mine and if that does not suit it there are many other ways it gets put out of service with entire crew. The 70-90s era is over , nothing is superior or invincible at this point. The Hollywood movie just ended.
This is one of the things I ALWAYS bring up in the various "better/best" tanks of WW2 discussions... the Germans had far superior optics in their tanks and guns. When looking through Soviet optics it was like looking through a glass of iced tea. I can't find much data but the Japanese were touted to have excellent optics as well. Mixed in the middle between the pinnacle (Germans) and the bare minimum (Soviets) were the US, British, French, Italians, and everyone else. Binocs, range finders, tank optics, gun topics (Pak, infantry guns, etc). CONTENT CHALLENGE at 07:53. It wasn't the gunner using the tank gun sight that found enemy targets, it was usually the commander using his binocs or range finders. He then called out a bearing, estimated range, and the gunner moved the turret and gun accordingly and hoped to visually identify the target ASAP.
The problem is when the enemy has more tanks than you have shells...
Fascinating! Someone should send this to the Chieftain. He keeps knocking German tanks while praising the superior sight arrangements on the Sherman. It seems he doesn't realize that his analysis doesn't take into account the German optic's wider view.
Yes he does. The distinction NOT mentioned here is that the Sherman had TWO sets of optics. A 1.4 wide view periscope, and a x3 coaxial sight. The Sherman gunner could use the wide view to set the initial sight while in a turret down position, but then move forward. The Shermans gun stabilization would maintain the aiming position until the main gun cleared the cover. The Sherman gunner could then take a quick resight ( knowing that the gun was already aimed towards the target), then fire. The more limited field of view of the x3 optic was offset by the wider field of view of the x1.4. So end result, German optics would outperform Allied optics on flat, open terrain (Kursk). US optics would outperform the Germans in broken terrain (Normandy).
@@SgtBrendanN This. I make no statements as to the engineering quality of German optics vs those of other nations. That isn't my field, and I've not looked up reports. (Though people more versed than I have certainly challenged the general rule of "German optics were usually better"). My issue is with their functionality. A Panzer or Tiger or Panther gunner cannot see a target if the tank is in a hide position behind a defilade. It doesn't matter what your zoom or field of vision or light transmission percentage is if there's a bush or hill in the way. That is a tank design flaw, entirely separate to what is going on at Zeiss, and why the Germans refused to give their gunners more optics despite every other nation doing so is a question I have not yet found an answer to. Except possibly a shortage of glass: Removing a periscope from the bow gunner when Panther got a new bow MG mount seems churlish unless there's an industrial reason behind it. Worth noting, though, that vision just doesn't seem to have been a thing for German tanks. A US loader has a 340 or so degree field of vision from inside the tank. A German loader? Not so much. German tank sights were fantastic for the accurate firing part of an engagement, but the winner of a fight is usually he who fires first, and for aquisition purposes, German tanks were generally more blind.
Video also spends a lot of time on the German use of mils (strichs) in their sights, but seems to completely omit that US sights also use mils and did from the very first M3 light tank. For whatever reason, the US one uses 1, 5 and 10mil graduations instead of the 2s and 4s the Germans used. It was hardly a novel concept. I have not looked into the British or Soviet sights to verify their use of mils, but it wouldn't surprise me. The bit about the German gunner having to aim off due to parralax effect was eventually solved by later US reticles having the offset built into the reticle. (The aiming points make a sort of a 'curved line')