The Fight for Sight: How Germany Set Unparalleled Superiority in Tank Optics During WW2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 авг 2024
- The optical aiming systems installed on German, Allied, and Soviet tanks varied significantly in their design and quality.
Among these, German tanks stood out with multiple advantages in their gun sights.
With meticulous design and unparalleled quality, German gun sights boasted advantages that set them apart from their counterparts. From wider fields of view to superior magnification, these optical marvels offered tank-crews a crucial edge on the battlefield.
Designed by the renowned German optics manufacturer Zeiss, these devices became synonymous with precision and excellence on the battlefield.
Whether prowling the deserts of North Africa or the snow-covered plains of Eastern Europe, German tank gunners could rely on their sights, to deliver accuracy and lethality when it mattered most.
#ww2tanks #germantank #zeiss
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.
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
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🙂👍
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!
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
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
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
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.
@@gargoyle7863 - Americans were so stupid that they developed a GI helmet that would snap the users neck of they had it strapped and came within a blast shockwave...
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.
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!
@@smokecrackhailsatan 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.
@@smokecrackhailsatan 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….
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.
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 ☺️
cant beat ZEISS
They are still superd.
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
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.
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.
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.
Bravo, on oublie souvent les excellentes optiques Allemandes qui étaient un plus énorme pour leurs équipages..
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.
Informative and covers a topic rarely touched in general discussion.
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.
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.......:)
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...
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.
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 😍
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.
Super 👌 wonderful mathematical explanation video of accurate aiming by German tank crews
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. :)
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.
Germany set the bar for a lot of things before the war during the war and continue setting bar. They are excellent in technology 😮
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👍
Excellent. Thank you for this video
Glad you enjoyed it!
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!"
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.
Q. What did the Panther crews say to the Zeiss optics engineers?
A. Tank you. Tank you very much.
That was an amazing video! Thank you for the work you put into it!
Glad you enjoyed it!
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.
This channel is a jewel. Thanks!
Thanks for the visit!
During WW2 most used periscopic optic on tanks was develop by Polish offcer Gundlah. I was patented in 1936.
What did the Polish kid say when told there's a war:'there's a war where 😂
Finally a video worth watching and learning from. Thank you.
Thank you for making a no nonsense documentary and telling the truth about German technological superiority.
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?
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.
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
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. 😂
such an excellently scripted , illustrated and researched video, well done!
Awesome video! Important topic!
awesome video, thanks!
Always wondered on each counteies tank and anti tank optics, this just answered a lot of My qestions....thank you!!
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.
Germany has always been the leader in optics, cameras. High end stuff
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!
Is this AI generated content? It’s over long and repetitive and the voiceover pronunciation sounds a bit robotic at times. Just saying. I could be wrong.
It's a natural suspicion in today's world where AI is becoming more prevalent in content creation. You might have seen it in articles, videos, or even in the voices of virtual assistants.
The lengthiness and repetition might be a giveaway. AI sometimes struggles to maintain concise and varied writing styles. It might loop back on itself, saying the same thing in slightly different ways. That's where the "over long and repetitive" part comes into play.
Then there's the voiceover. Sometimes it sounds a bit off, like it's trying too hard to sound human. Those slightly robotic moments give it away.
But here's the thing: being wrong is absolutely okay. AI technology has come a long way, and it's often hard to tell the difference between human and machine-generated content. Plus, AI is continuously improving. What sounds robotic today might sound human tomorrow.
So, the next time you find yourself questioning if something is AI-generated, you might just be onto something. But don't worry if you're wrong. After all, AI is all about learning and evolving, just like we do.
@@2adamastI hope you are just being cheeky cause your response even sounds like an Ai generated answer to his question
@@2adamastbro write a book or something cuz you lost me after the first sentence 😅
@@DukeExeter is indeed a ChatGPT response
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 !
Despite the superior optics,crews, ammo etc..of the Germans it still eventually was a game of numbers and quantity over quality.
Agreed 👍
Indeed but in order to benefit from any mass produced piece of equipment, it has to satisfy certain levels of quality. The T-34/76 was an excellent tank in 1941 but by early 1943 it became mediocre and the Red Army high command concluded that they couldn't eternally rely on its mass production.
Thanks for this explanation of the tank optics.
Great video
I'm already getting really sick of these AI written and narrated vids. InVideo AI will even use appropriate public domain pics and vids now, or make them. You just have to feed it the right prompts. This vid is a bit harder to spot if its entirely AI, but the script certainly seems like it....and the narration def is AI.
Thank you for the interesting vid from Germany!
Thanks for the visit
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.
This is a very informative video, it is this sort of information that I am interested in.
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.
Hmm. The best late-war German optics had an estimated error of plus/minus 15 %. By comparison, the best late-war Soviet were 18 % error, the US 20 %, and the British 24 %.
So yeah, a bit superior, but not war-changing superior. This advantage was mostly an advantage at long-range engagements, and the only instances where long-range engagements were practical were the North African desert and the open spaces on the Eastern front. The Soviet sights by late-war were essentially equally able to hit targets at long range, while in Italy and France most engagements were close-range due to terrain where the German advantage wasn't as important. Crew training, gun characteristics, and the tactical situation were of at least equally important, and likely more important.
The other facet where Germany didn't win "the fight for sight" was in crew vision. German tanks lost vision slits (as did everyone else as infantry shot at them) but didn't gain in periscopes compared to Allied and Soviet tanks. Moreover, sometimes the periscopes they gained didn't rotate. Thus German tanks became increasingly blind at the war went on. This is why German tank commanders had their heads sticking out of tanks so commonly, exposing them to enemy small arms fire and artillery shrapnel. German late-war tanks were becoming as blink on the battlefield as early-war Soviet tanks like KVs.
So what good is are optics that are a bit better than everyone else's when you don't even spot an enemy?
@stewartmillen7708 In my books, early German tank sights had a ranging errors of between 13% to 14.5%. Later in the war, ranging errors were down to 10.5% (not 15%). The WZF series in Jagd Panthers and Jagd Tigers (with 10x magnification) were even better. Early Soviet sights had a ranging error of 19-20%. Only after the introduction of the TSh series, copied from German designs, (first mounted in T35-85) did ranging errors go down to 16%.
The superiority of German tank gun-sights was not just in ranging errors, but also in the lens clarity and the ability to register targets even in low-light conditions which is a norm in the Western European Theatre.
German tank commanders did not have or need vision slits. They did not need to go into action with their heads sticking out of their hatches because they had their own commander’s cupola with 360° vision from six to eight glass blocks as copied by the British and incorporated into their Centurion. Before that, British tanks from the Churchill Mk.VII and later models of M4 Shermans introduced the inferior flat cupolas with one or two rotating periscopes so it was rather American and British tank commanders who went into action with their heads sticking out of their turret hatch, and not the outer way round.
You finished with - “So what good is are optics that are a bit better than everyone else's when you don't even spot an enemy?” - perhaps you missed the part on field of vision. On their 3x low-settings, the British No.43 & No.50 tank-sights had a field of vision of 13° and 9° on their 6x high-setting. The best the US could do was the M71D for 76mm armed Shermans with just one magnification of 5x with a 13° field of view. The German TZF.9, 12a & 13 on the other hand, when set on low of 2.5x had a field of vision of 25° (28° in the 12a & 13) and 14° when on high-setting of 5x or 6x - even more than British sights when on low-setting!
@@joegatt2306 A panther gunner has only his 25° FOV. That's nice when you are in a long range ambush, less when you go to war. You often see poor german reactions when their heavy tanks are getting hit out of nowhere.
@@2adamast Searching for targets was not the primary job of a German gunner. That was the responsibility of the commander within his 360° all-round vision cupola, an important tank item only introduced in Shermans and British tanks, (Mk.VII Churchills & Cromwells) only from late 1944! The Panther's TZF 12a on low power, has an angle of vision of 28° (not 25°) equating to a field of view of 117 meters at 250 meters range or one of 235 at 500. The Sherman's M71D's (single 5x mag. option) of 13° angle of vision could but manage an FOV of 56 meters at 250 meters range or one of 112 at 500. Not so good for quick reaction.
Also, I thought the feature presented above by FactBytes was on optics not on poor reaction when hit out of nowhere. But most tanks usually have poor reaction when hit out of nowhere, one such engagement comes to mind: Villers-Bocage and the victims were not even heavy tanks!
Rally very detailed, congratulazioni.
Thanks!
finally truth about sights and optics
Zeiss / Jena (East Germany) NVA Binos are the best Binos i ever had in my Hands during Service.
Never wanted "Steiner" Binos again...
All my Hasselblad lenses are made by Zeiss they are simply amazing..!!
Great job thanks
Thank you too!
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.
If Germany hadn't been highly advanced, it would have fallen quickly like Italy
If germany wasn't fighting the united states they would have likely won the war
Italy lacked industry and fuel, Germany had a strong industry until the end of the war
Germany had little in the way of raw material in every step of the war even going as far to start having fuel and oil shortages for some units in 1941-1942
It depended on its allies mainly if I remember Romania for oil and its stockpiles pre war
Its industrial power was severely hampered due to the pre nazi era depression and the management of factories was subpar
As the granddad of my best friend said: we had the better tanks, the Russian tanks were more like tractors but they had a lot.
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.
Amazing optics technology 👍
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)
What a Great Upload , no Recycling.
Great analysis!
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.
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.
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')
I live in the city where Zeiss originated.
Loved seeing these optics. Not sure I've seen anything like this before.
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..
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.
The Narrator keeps calling them "TZF" when videomaterial says "TFZ"
The pronouncination of Zeiss is about "Tzeis" and the Panzer is "Pantzer"
"Tanks captured and meticulously measured" - the whole form rubs me the wrong way. Who wrote this? This is unbearable.
Excellent.
In Germany, we say that someone has "Adlerauge" (eagle eyes), when he is able, to spot and kill an enemy with deadly efficiency.
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".
I read about bubbles in allied glasses.
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!
Seems like the bad guys always know how to do optics the best.
Like Germans, Soviets and the Japanese.
Bro, even the specs you yourself give show that there was no advantage over allied sights in zoom and FOV. And in some cases the allied sights were even better, lmao.
Also, you go into great detail about how the German sight markings worked, but apparently the allied markings (which work in a very similar way) are just disregarded as "primitive". With no explanation whatsoever.
This channel repeatedly shows itself to be nothing but wehraboo ramblings.
They were primitive, you couldn't set a range or measure something . You always have to aim higher up or down after you shoot and the smoke disappeared, the Germans could set the range at 700m . And then correct by one click to 750 or 800 , that's way faster .
Way overblown wheraboo.
@coachhannah2403 What an intelligent comment! When I see the "Wehraboo" remark, it is a sure sign that the feature presented above, (that told nothing but plain WW2 facts), did not go down well with Limeyboos and USAboos. It irritates their pride. So they jot down negative comments. That's trolling in my book.
Surprise me next time. Post something intelligent!
@@joegatt2306 - German optics were good, but there were severe aspects that they never really overcame. Technically, good, ergonomically, poor engineering decisions were made. German tanks were, for example, slow to acquire targets, and the gunner was overworked in tasks best suited for the commander (e.g., new target in a significantly different angle from current facing).
@@coachhannah2403The kill ratio of German tanks doesn't fit with your "facts" dude , that's a major problem I would say . Who the fck knocks out all those tanks , the Germans with their scrap metal ? 😅
@@5co756 - Read what I said, not what you want it to say. Argue from reality, not fantasy.
@@coachhannah2403 I thought the feature presented above by FactBytes was about tank gun-sights, (correct me if I’m wrong) and not about tank ergonomics or how German tank gunners were over-worked.
By your reasoning, it was the Sherman gunners with their M4A1 periscopes, who were obliged to search for their targets, were the ones that were over-worked, again, by your reasoning. In German tanks, new targets were handed over by the commander, a job much facilitated by their 360° FOV cupolas, a feature lacking from both British and American tanks up to late 1944! At least Soviet tanks incorporated them from September 1943, following decree No.3531ss, issued by the State Committee of Defence on June 7th, 1943.
And of course, there were the ‘severe aspects that they never really overcame’ - can’t see which. And German tanks were ‘slow to acquire targets?’ The critical conditions to be able acquire targets and hit with the first shot, were, a wide angle of view with super-clear lenses and quick range estimation. German sights had, hands down, the best of all three require-ments. Their 7-triangle ‘strich’ system was also range-graded for all three types of rounds ie. Pzgr.39 APCBC, Pzgr.40 APCR and Sprenggranate, (HE). US scopes on the other hand, apart from the fact that they were not as quick in range estimation, had to make do with inferior lenses with narrower field of views, they also must be 'head fudged' for the different ammo types. That meant memorizing range equivalents or working them out there and then, which was hardly very good for overall gunnery including a fast response to a new target. The Soviets had nothing but praises for German tank optics. It is said that coping is the best form of flattery, and that is exactly what they did in their TSh-15/17 series, (using the same ‘strich’ system but with a 9-triangle reticle).
And once you’ve mentioned it, tank ergonomics. The PzKw III Ausf. H set the trend early in 1939, combining multiple features in one tank model, ie: a commander’s cupola with 360° FOV, radios, intercom (Kasten) for all crew members except loaders, turret-basket, 3-man turret, escape hatches for all five crewmen, amongst others. All nations followed suit, except the Soviets who had turret-baskets only in the older T-28 and T-35 and 3-man turret crew only in the later T34-85 and Josef Stalin tanks. Cupolas, I already mentioned above. And just discovered that the newest of US tanks of WWII, the M26 Pershing, did not have a turret-basket - so much for ergonomics!
And one last comment - German optics were not good, they were simply the best, hands down. We can argue ad-nausea on the best tank, the best fighter or bomber, the best rifle or the best machinegun, but there is no contest when it comes to tank optics.
Interesting fact: ZEISS JENA was in the GDR after the war, Warsaw pact tanks got sights from there.
With the collapse of the Warsaw pact and the soviet union that advantage was lost.