Ardennes : Peiper's Tigers could bite.....

yes, I was going to put that in my post about defense-offense difference...of course, there were situations like Wittman who on defense went on the offense?? but tank to tank, the Tiger gun was much more accurate at longer ranges than the Sherman...so are there any stories of a Sherman making a ''comparable gun'' range kill<> [taking into consideration the difference in guns between the Tiger and the Sherman??

 

I see ''claimed'' is highlighted....also, in desert conditions, what is medium range.....if the targets are tanks, once under fire, would they not move and zig zag, making hits that much more difficult?

 

One mention is in the book 'Montgomery's Scientists' page 11


Studies comparing the gunsights used in German and
British tanks led to important results and an object lesson in OR methods. Solandt recalled this
investigation as one of the highlights of his time at Lulworth. The problem presented to Solandt was
that "the Germans had introduced a new tank gunsight which was vastly superior to the British sight."
Tank crews in the desert were sure that it was the new sight that made it possible for the Germans to
knock out British tanks at long range before they were themselves in danger. However, careful
measurements showed the British gunsight was accurate. The German sight was similarly tested and
found to be inferior. "We were therefore forced," Solandt wrote, "to treat it as an operations research
rather than a technical problem



Solandt's team studied "the whole weapon system" undertaking "first class fundamental research

which shed light on the whole process of aiming a gun and which subsequently produced important

improvements in various aiming systems." None of this research solved the immediate problem of

what was actually happening in the desert. It was not until 1943 that firing tests against captured

German tanks revealed the existence of face hardened armour which existing British shot could not

penetrate.

As can be seen above the obvious answer is not alaways the right answer.
For another test I remember a side by side comparison done of 2 bar rangefinders German and British that again found the 2 were almost identical in performance but I did not keep this information. However my word that I saw it is just as authorative as the oft-repeated but never backed by a single technical report claim German optics were superior.

Note I said 'practical'. Too often these debates fall into the trap of detailing every single aspect of the German sights with no regard to the practical application on the battlefield. What good is a sight that is honed to 5000 mtrs line of sight shots that are beyong the capability of the gun doing the firing? Aimed shots at individual moving targets at 2000 mtrs are a waste of ammo.
Fot all its claimed superiority the Panther (for instance) had vastly inferior gunner vision than a Sherman. The Panther gunner had no direct vison device other than his scope. This resulted in a slower 'first shot' capability. Excellent optice but poor application.
I have asked this question many times over the years but have yet to get an answer. Where are the technical reports that illustrate this huge German advantage in sighting and aiming ability? Note I am asking for comparisons rather than simple uncritical fanbois listings of the German advantages without any explaination of why it was superior in action.
You dont have to look far for dozens of such technical reports showing the claimed German superiority in every other aspect of weapons design. Why the complete silence on the sights?

What does that prove? A WW1 rifle is just as leathal as a modern day rifle. They both do their job. Is it seriously being claimed that only German optics were any good and that every other country were using jam-jar bottoms to make their sights? If my memory serves me well a certain Swedish gentleman obtained a captured German ww2 air camera and in his garden shed took it apart and made it a much better piece of equipment.

 

Why are these 'test' rigged to give the Tiger the advantage?

Why not put it this way?

"Are there many stories of a Tiger doing a 60 mile road advance and then dealing with opposition at the end of it?"

If you think my question is biased and the original one is not then I am sorry to inform you that you are biased.

 

I'm simply asking about the gun difference...as harolds pointed out, combat conditions/defense/offense makes a difference in kill ratios....was the Tiger's gun more accurate/penetrating at its longest range than the Sherman gun at its own longest range??......I would think the bigger guns better at ''their'' longer ranges...I'm not biased for/against either...

 

So all tanks are transported safely to the place where they do their shooting?
The Tiger was designed as a heavy tank with a long range gun.
The Sherman was designed as a medium with a medium gun.
What is the point in comparing the 2 side by side?
Why not do a comparison to show the Colt 45 was a vastly inferior gun to the MG 42 and thus prove the US could not build a decent firearm?

There is no point comparing the Sherman to a Tiger because they were not comparable.

 

Calm down mk. My only point was that German optics were better at picking up targets in low-light conditions. I never made any claims about accuracy of any sight. Nothing in your quotes refutes that. I'm saying you can't hit what you can't see. For those of us who hunt, shoot, take pictures etc., we know that German optics are in a class by themselves and have been for a very long time. Unfortunately their price is in a class by themselves too! So most of us opt for glass that is good for most conditions. This is probably how the Allied tank sights could be considered. However, when shooting at long range in poor light, clarity, precision, lens coatings and magnification power all contribute to the accuracy potential of a rifle be it hunting or tank.

The part of your quote that says that a weapon system's accuracy is the sum of the whole system is absolutely correct. Gun, gun mounting, sights, sight mounts AND shooter expertise all have to be of a high caliber if a system is to be accurate.

 

The point is simple. Claim is German sights were 'superior'.
The inference clearly is that Allied sights were 'inferior' and this is assumed to mean they did not work as designed and barely functioned in comparison to German sights . I.E. only German sights could guarantee a hit.
Yes it is an argument taken to absurdity but it is always assumed.
My point is that at ranges under 1000 yds the superiority gave no advantage. I am quite prepared to admit that with a 3000 mtr miracle shot German optics would give you a huge advantage. Instead of an Allied 1% chance of a hit the German sights would give you a huge 3% chance of a hit at 3000 mtrs!

I am making very pertinent points here. Tiger v Sherman questions are always framed in terms that give the advantage to the Tiger. Tiger advantages are played to and Sherman advantages ignored. I fail to see how just measuring the Tiger's designed in gun advantage is fair but allowing for the fact the Sherman could actualy get to the front more often than a Tiger isn't even a consideration. It is called prejudice and like all prejudice the person holding it does not know he has it.

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not inferring anything. My singular point is that German sights were better in low-light situations such as what we're discussing in this thread. As I've pointed out twice, If the gunner isn't very good or the barrel of the 88 is worn, or the Sherman sneaks up behind the Tiger, it doesn't matter. Read the last sentence of my previous post.

 

weren't Zeiss binos much sought after?

 

On the subject of long range shooting/sighting advantage:




Panzer lehr Division 1944-45


http://www.helion.co.uk/published-by...ies-vol-1.html

page 82

The Panther tanks all got stuck. I had been told that the terrain near St Lo was better suited for tank operations than that around Caen. Although I could have taken either the Mark IV or Mark V (Panther), I relied on what I had been told and took the latter. Actually the Mark IV would have been more suitable; the Mark V has too long a barrel and is not maneuverable. It was too wide and had too low a slope to negotiate the hedged dikes; it had to stick to the roads. ...................

............................. We could only knock out enemy tanks at a maximum range of 200 yards, as the hedges concealed everything farther away. The German tanks are built for long range firing in the desert and on the Russian front. We could not use the Mark V cross-country in Normandy. The British Cromwell tank had a sharper angle of approach and, therefore, could scale the hedgerow dikes. We believed it had been specially built for use in Normandy, where the terrain is similar to that in southern England.

Bayerlein again but without citation:


While the PzKpfw IV could still be used
to advantage, the PzKpfw V [Panther] proved
ill adapted to the terrain. The Sherman
because of its maneuverability and height was
good . . . [the Panther was] poorly suited for
hedgerow terrain because of its width. Long
gun barrel and width of tank reduce maneu-
verability in village and forest fighting. It is
very front-heavy and therefore quickly wears
out the front final drives, made of low-grade
steel. High silhouette. Very sensitive power-
train requiring well-trained drivers. Weak side
armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-
bombers. Fuel-lines of porous material that
allow gasoline fumes to escape into the tank
causing a grave fire Hazard. Absence of vision
slits make defense against close attacks impossible