Finest and Most Influential Tanks of WWII

Oh please spare me the games m kenny, I don't have the time nor patience for it. You know where the mentioned is written, you have the reports. Are you really suggesting to be incapable of finding it yourself?

You don't seriously believe it would be sitting like that during operations, do you? The thing has obviously been unfastened to make ready for length adjustment. When the gunner has found the correct distance he will fastend it again and it will ofcourse be sitting fully horizontal.

You can see the brow pad fastening point in detail here:

 

I can't think of a single point where I denied any facts brought up by anyone familiar with similar systems, so I guess it's up to you to find what you claim exists.

I didn't provide the manuals to illustrate the system's performance, I brought to attention the veteran's own opinions for that purpose, as-well as the opinion of those who operate the system today. But just by observing how the system was designed and knowing how similar systems work, you will quickly be able to realise that not only was it very precise, it also should be very precise. Leaking pipes or seals could obviously change this ofcourse.

Oh come on, he wasn't being biased at all, he was simply describing how the system felt operating cause I asked. He even showed me how precise it was, by making minute adjustments in traverse with the powered system just by carefully controlling the amount of pressure he put on the foot pedals. And lets keep in mind that this is 60+ year old restored piece of equipment. I'm sure it would be atleast as precise back when it was new, and possibly even more.

Now you see that is hefty bias on your part lwd. How else could you take the single word of a writer (Zaloga) who has been shown to be completely wrong in many areas regarding this tank, over that of those who actually operated the system daily back in the day, as-well as those who operate restored examples of it today??

I mean come on, you can't be serious?

 

In an emergency the gunner would put the hydraulic system into the high gear, which was dependant on engine speed (RPM) for max speed, i.e. the higher the engine rpm the higher the maximum traverse speed. This has nothing to do with power, only revolutions of the crankshaft; the faster it spins the faster the hydraulic motor will be able to traverse the turret. The amount of power it takes from the engine is virtually the same at all speeds, and never any amount you would be able to notice as the driver.

The hydraulic traverse system was dependant on the engine's rpm for maximum traverse speed, it hardly took any power because of the gearing; which kind of says itself as the manual system for traversing the turret, a geared wheel handle, was very easily operated.

It doesn't contradict anything, you've quite simply not been paying any attention.

Not all situations demand maximum turret traverse speed, some situations demand slower and more precise traverse, hence the gunner's ability to be able to choose between what'ever setting the situation dictated.

I showed you pictures of both monocular & binocular TzF.12's & TzF.9's, which are very similar in appearance, as clearly shown in the pictures. What'ever your gripe with this is I am unable to understand, I was but doing you a favor.

 

We were discussing your lack of references. Don't worry, I didn't expect any.

 

Relax nerd rage, everything is fine and there are no requests of you. I know how you hate those, just continue to make them of others and I'll not disturb you anymore. : )

 

I am sure you have not read the reports.
I am certain you are repeating what you read in 3rd hand accounts.
Thus you have no idea what was originaly said.
For instance in such reports each crew member is dealt with individualy and thus you would have to be specific as to which position has such a comment made about it.
Until you rectify this error then there is no point in continuing.

I do not know. What I do see is this monocular pad in the same position in every single photo. I only posted one but I doubt that it could be 'swung' anywhere. The fittings seem to preclude it happening.


You can see the brow pad fastening point in detail here:
[/QUOTE]

 

You will resort to anything to get in the last word. Now it's name calling. Brava!

 

This thread seems to be descending a slippery slope....

 

Yes I totally agree Gent's hence my post's!!

 

*sigh* why do I even bother

The hydraulic traverse motor is connected to the engine via a driveshaft, and the faster the engine runs (crankshaft rpm) the faster the hydraulic motor runs. Additionally the motor features a high & low gear to be able to further control the max speed of the system. Comprende?

Also you go ahead and believe that the driver will notice any loss in power from his 1850 Nm engine as it has to spin a turret around which a single person is also capable of via a simple crank handle... seems you need to learn the effect gearing has on force needed to lift or turn something...

Considering that most tank engagements took place at a quite a distance you'd very rarely need to be able to swing your turret around at 24 deg/sec. So only in very rare and desperate situations, such as a enemy tank turning up from behind yours 50 meters away in an urban area), would the gunner have to communicate with the driver to attain the absolute maximum traverse speed. And considering this was accomplished by a single short command to the driver, I don't see it as any form of difficult feat of coordination.

So directly showing pictures of what we are talking about cannot be considered a reference in your opinion? I must say you are one very peculiar person JBark...

I guess you will sooner take the word of an ignorant author rather than accept the reality shown by actual pictures of the equipment in question. Your choice...

Oh and I did also provide written references, incase you forgot them:
1. Tiger & Panther technical manual
2. Tiger & Panther crew manual
3. Veteran & modern accounts
4. Thomas L. Jentz

 

m kenny you have posted the reports yourself for anyone to see over at the ArmChairGeneral forum, there is absolutely no need for me to list anything for you cause you can obviously see it for yourself. Are you going to deny that the errors I listed were expressed in the reports, is that it?

Swung? No, I see where the misunderstanding is now. You are refering to the lean/inclination of the pad mounting arm, which obviously leans to the left as the sight was meant for use by the right eye. Afterall there'd be no point in mounting the pad in center over the sight, then you'd just be looking down the sight with your nose instead of your eye ;-)

What I was saying was that the forehead pad could be unfastened so that it could be adjusted back & forth to obtain the right eye relief for the sight, and at the same time it was rotatable ofcourse. The pad on the picture is obviously unfastened as it's rotated down from its horizontal position.

 

Here is a nice training video for Panther crews, clearly demonstrating that the gunner had plenty of room for his headphones:

[video=youtube;xB_FDpT8et8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB_FDpT8et8[/video]

See video at 1:43 min & 2:00 min.

Hopefully this discussion will make people more careful about taking test reports on captured enemy equipment from either side as gospel. There is often bound to be a lot of bias involved in such reports. Individuals testing the enemy material were used to the different control layouts, seating positions etc. of their own tanks, and as such often found it hard to adjust to new equipment just for the sake of testing it.

 

Proeliator- I wanted to say a couple of things. First, I can't see much in the video as it is pretty dark. Too bad, it seems like good stuff. Second, it seems like, from what you have posted, there were a number of different sight and sight pad combinations. It would seem as if the Panthers sight degraded (?) over time... two lenses to one, less padding. I am suggesting this with no real idea of the time frame of what you have posted. It might stand to reason that they were trying to build them cheaper and quicker. Degraded refers not to the quality of the sight itself, by the way.

 

The quality of the sights didn't degrade, it stayed the same and in some cases even improved, the German optics industry remaining largely untouched by Allied bombing raids as-well as not experiencing any lack of important materials or equipment during the war. Only things that changed was in small part the tube designs and that they changed from binocular to monocular sighting instead. And there was never any less padding, the difference between the early binocular sights and the later monocular sights was that the later ones featured a forehead padded rest instead of the brow padding, whilst folded rubber eye padding was present on both types.

As for the video, it certainly aint too dark on my screen, I can clearly see the side of the gun, the gunners headphones etc etc.. maybe you just need to adjust your screen better. You'll notice that there is plenty of room for the gunners headphones whilst sighting, as I've already completely in vain been trying to tell you countless times by now.

 

Of course it is not too dark on your screen and I'm sure you can see all you want to see. I'm afraid I don't. I also wonder if you can explain how films like this might be made. Surely that camera was not in place during combat? I wonder how they find room for it at all. Any ideas?

 

The padding wasn't decreased, just changed, one featuring brow padding the other forehead padding, and both eye padding.

And regarding the change from binocular to monocular sights, it was decided to instead equip the tanks with a wider lense monocular sight providing a slightly wider FOV while at the same time cutting costs abit; thus improving capability and lowering cost. An evolutionary change for the better.

As for the film, can't you see the side of the main gun to the gunners right? Can't you see he's wearing his headphones and his head is moving around freely to either side without hitting anything? If not then you truly need to adjust the brightness and/or colour representation of your screen.

And in regards to how it was filmed, it was rather simple: small cameras were placed around inside the tank and were left running, and in the end they cut the clips together to form a film. Furthermore one or more of the crew members could've obviously been given a small handheld camera to film with.