"wwii tanks -- forward field of vision when buttoned-up?" Topic

A tank sees an enemy tank in front and buttons up. Combat ensues and the tank out takes the enemy tank.

In the meantime, another enemy tank approaches to the side.

1. What is the typical forward field of vision that would allow the tank to spot the new enemy?

2. How would the tank know the new enemy is there? Would the commander take a peek out the hatch? Would he direct the turret to turn to look for other targets? No idea until shot at (and possibly hit)?

Thanks

It depends.

Some tanks had just a few periscopes. Others had a cupola giving 360 degree view albeit nothing like having your head out.

I would abstract this and give a spotting penalty for side/rear targets. Maybe less of a penalty for cupola equipped tanks.

The forward arc would be about 120 degrees max. And there should be a penalty for spotting even dead ahead if the AFV is closed down.

2. How would the tank know the new enemy is there?

The sound of a round hitting him?

There is a reason we trained with the TC's head out the hatch if not under indirect fire. I don't care what they say, you can't see squat out the periscopes or view ports unless the target was close.

Most likely, other tanks in the group would report. This is why radios were such an advantage.

The view through the vision ports is quite narrow (and there is no view up close to the tank, in many cases), e.g. around 15 – 30 degrees, IIRC.

Sometimes, there are multiple viewports, but a periscope that can be rotated would be best. Again, very narrow view angles for these.

In your example, my guess is the tank won't see the other one coming in from the side, unless he's actively searching to the sides, and/or someone else warns him via the radio.

Most attention would be focused to the front.

Most nationalities in WW2 fought their tanks with the commanders head out so he could see what was happening. Its one of the reasons TCs had a high mortality rate from head wounds

In Shermans every crewman had a rotatable periscope. The driver and co-driver also had one each fixed forward (on very early models they also had direct vision ports.. It was also standard practice for tanks (in the US Army anyway) to watch over one another whenever possible. And in many US Tank units it was SOP for the commander to not button up, at least until they got the later full vision cupola.

When I did my Specialty Arms Course at Bovington in the early 70s we had a Jordanian tankie officer staying in the Officers' Mess. He had fought the Israelis in Centurions and told us that within 15 minutes the optics were shot and the only way to see anything was to stick your head out.

Very little mention of the main way to see during a button up situation which was the gunners sights. It is miserable to be buttoned up and just going down the gunnery range. The TC is looking for secondary targets while the gunner engages the main threat. In the M551, the TC could over-ride the gunner's control to swing the main gun onto a high value target. This was also possible on the M60A1 and A2.

The M551 TC could also fire the smoke grenade launchers as well. He did have an .50 MG but would have to pop up to fire it. The M60A1/A2 TCs could fire their .50 MG while still buttoned up.

They didn't generally button up due to spotting an enemy tank, but rather due to close proximity of enemy infantry.

Most nationalities in WW2 fought their tanks with the commanders head out …

I'm not sure what would qualify as "most nationalities" in this case.

The French in 1940 could not fight unbuttoned. Period. Their hatches were generally one of the back walls of the turret, and when opened (hinging downward) formed a seat for the commander to sit with 2/3rds of his body out of the turret. Definitely NOT done in combat.

The Russians had forward-opening hatches. Many know of the big two-man hatch on the early T-34s, but most other Russian tanks also had forward opening hatches including the T-26, BT, T-28, T-60, T-70 and IS. Even the later T-34s and T-34-85s, with smaller one-man hatches, still had hatches the opened forward. The commander had to get a major portion of his body out of the hatch to bend enough to be able to see around the hatch. The KV-1 didn't even HAVE a hatch for the tank commander. The one hatch on the turret roof was the loader's position during road marches (he took on AA watch duties), and was positioned directly in the recoil path of the gun, so there was no way to fight unbuttoned even if you wanted to.

Early war British tanks had a variety of hatch styles, leading to different potentials in different marks of tank. There was no consensus or doctrine, that I have found, that said they would/should fight unbuttoned. Given that many (certainly not all, but many) were 2-man turrets, it is impractical to even consider having the commander NOT in the turret during combat. Some (Cavalier, anyone?) had hatches that were a real hazard to any commander fool enough to stick his head out while in action. Others had perfectly sensible side opening hatches, cupolas, and even split hatches (although the split front-and-back opening seems like a near miss on making something useful.

The Italian M11 had a forward-opening hatch, but it could be opened far enough to almost lay flat on the front of the turret, so that a TC could operating un-buttoned, although having a fair portion of his head out to see over the hatch. The later M13 and M14 gave the TC a sensible split hatch with each half opening to the side. This was probably the most sensible arrangement short of a 360 degree cupola with elevating hatch cover.

The Sherman had a fairly sensible split hatch for the TC. But I have not seen any evidence that TCs were taught to fight un-buttoned. Many with combat experience learned to fight un-buttoned, but I don't know that it was doctrine. It certainly is now, but I doubt it was in WW2. US Tank Destroyer doctrine recognized the value of fighting un-buttoned, to the extent that situational awareness in the tank-vs-tank fight was one of the primary reasons that US TDs were open-topped. And when turret roof armor kits were produced (for both the M10 and the M36), they placed the armor up above the turret sides, leaving a small gap around the turret between side armor and roof armor, so the crew could not button up even when they closed the hatches.

The Germans tended to fight unbuttoned. They also tended to have cupolas for the TC. Later war tanks (Panther, Tiger 2) even had cupolas with rising TC hatches, so that the TC had top-cover while operating eyes-out. This is common on modern western tanks, but was quite an innovation in WW2, and not seen in other armies.

So I'm kinda feeling that "most nationalities" is perhaps not quite the right proportion…

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

As noted above, a buttoned up tank engaged from the flank is essentially dead. Unless it has some pals with it to provide support.

That is why tanks go around in groups, and don't wander around the battlefield on their own (unlike so many of our games!)

Tanks tend to operate in pairs. One engages the other covers.

In our games everybody engages because you can…

When you're busy doing one thing you can't do another thing well. If the crew are loading, aiming, firing, observing results and repeating this sequence they are BUSY. Multitasking is a myth. What people do is switch tasks rapidly which degrades the performance of all tasks attempted.

You may have a crew of 3 or 4 or 5 in a tank but they have jobs to do when engaging a target so there is no-one left to watch the sides and rear properly. Even if the TC has his head and shoulders out of the hatch he is likely using binoculars to spot the fall of shot and issue corrections.

Many WW2 tanks could not operate with the TC out of his hatch and the ability of the Germans to do this with all tanks from the PzIII onward gave them a significant edge, especially in Russia.

One of the many reasons why its better to model tank fighting in WWII at the platoon level. You can assume tanks working in conjunction and get a reasonable assesment of capablities for a platoon sized unit overall.

TomT

In WWII when a tank was engaged in firing at a target the TC was normally observing so he could sense the tracer of the round and correct for the gunner. The gunner could not always see the results of the shot so relied on the TC for corrections. My opinion the TC would best operate with his binoculars just over the top of the turret top/cupola.

The TC would also need to be unbuttoned to provide ranging information for the gunner. It is very difficult to estimate range through a gun sight with any magnification. Even with stadiametric ranging capability the gunner may not be able to get a good image to estimate the range.

I'd expect a TC engaged in estimating range and sensing would be unbuttoned and looking through his binoculars about 50% of the time and attempting to spot other threats to his front 90 degrees and being a lot less aware to his flanks and rear.

Being buttoned up the entire time would mean a poor range estimation error and errors in range corrections/bracketing. However, at ranges of one second time of flight or less it would not be a big deal.

Also with a TC buttoned up the driver is very restricted in what he can see and could result in a better chance of a bog down in poor terrain.

Periscopes helped but many had poor quality ballistic glass resulting in very reduced visibility distance even if the cupola had 360 degree capability.

Also I doubt if in the middle of an engagement the other crew members would have been much help as they'd be too busy as Skarper indicated.

Mark 1, didn't the T-34/85 have a forward opening hatch that also rotated 360 degrees? I saw an example of it in that movie "White tiger". It looked like it could provide some good cover for the TC.

Wolfhag

Mark 1, didn't the T-34/85 have a forward opening hatch that also rotated 360 degrees? I saw an example of it in that movie "White tiger". It looked like it could provide some good cover for the TC.

Yeah … kinda still wondering about that. Can you point to a clip from the movie, with a ref to the time slot in the clip where it might be seen? I'd love to understand it more.

Unfortunately I have had limited opportunities to personally inspect T-34-85s, and I was not looking into this specific question when I did. So even my pics don't give me much to go on…

But …

There were several minor changes in the turret, and the cupola, of the T-34-85 during and immediately after the war.

The earliest model, usually called T-34-85 model1943, with the D-5T gun, had a split hatch on the cupola.

The first version with the S-53 gun, usually called T-34-85 model1944, had the cupola moved back, but still had the split hatch.

The most commonly produced model during WW2 is usually called the model 1945 (production began in the fall of 1944). This version introduced the single-piece hatch hinged at the front.

The version seen most frequently in post-war pics and movies is what is usually called the model 1946. Production of this model started just about at the end of the war (mid-1945), and continued in the post-war period. It also had the forward opening hatch, and can usually be distinguished by the mushroom vents on the turret roof, which are split with one in the front half and one at the turret rear (most model 1944s and all 1945s had two mushroom vents together at the turret rear).

It does appear that the hatch on the model 1945 and model 1946 could be rotated. I say it appears (looking at what pics I have, and what pics I can find online) because I've never done it myself nor seen it done. But if you look at the pic I posted above (taken looking down into the loader's hatch … the TC's cupola is partially seen on the left) you can see that it appears that the cupola top/roof is on a race. That is to say that it could be rotated. But also note that the cupola sides are solid … no vision ports or periscopes around the periphery.

The limitation then is that there was only one periscope for the TC, on the front of the cupola roof in front of the hatch. So I believe the idea behind the rotation of the cupola roof was to give the TC the opportunity to scan 360 degrees through his periscope while buttoned up. IF he chose to rotate the cupola roof to open his hatch any way other than to the front, then when he dropped inside his cupola during battle he would have had been momentarily blind across the frontal arc until he rotated his periscope forward again. :-/

Not a good fighting solution.

So while I do believe the hatch could be rotated to open to the side or rear, I don't think it was done. I believe it was clearly designed with the intention that the TC would keep the hatch aligned to open towards the threat (ie: opening forward) so you could use the periscope.

However I am certainly open to learning more. Don't claim to have a full understanding on this.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

p.s.
I also believe that the IS-2 and SU-100 cupolas were of similar design. But I have not had a chance to personally inspected either, so do not assert it with any certainty.
d.s.

BTW – I believe the forward opening hatch was a very deliberate design concept in Russian WW2 era tank design.

I believe it was considered a means of enhancing crew survival … a hatch opening to the front provided some measure of protection for the crew against small arms fire in the event they bailed-out under fire.

Many people think that the Russians / Red Army had no regard for the lives of their soldiers or tank crews, but that is not true.

There is ample evidence of deliberate thought given to crew survival Russian tanks had floor escape hatches (not common across all nations' designs), and Russian tank crews commonly had crash helmets (not common for German or British tank crews).

So even though they may not have made all the best choices in regards to crew survivability, clearly it was given a fair bit of consideration …

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Many WW2 tanks could not operate with the TC out of his hatch and the ability of the Germans to do this with all tanks from the PzIII onward gave them a significant edge, especially in Russia.

Yes.

Yes yes yes.

And not just in Russia.

Whether it was vs. the French in Belgium in 1940, the British in the western desert in 1940/41, or the Russians on the steppe in 1941/42/43, the German Panzers in the first half of the war regularly out-fought their enemies when they were out-numbered, out-gunned and even out-armored.

There were a combination of reasons, but the heart of it was the recognition, early in the development of the Panzerwaffe, of the importance of the tank commander to the efficiency of the tank as a fighting machine. German tanks were more likely to have a separate TC, more likely to give the TC a productive working environment, and more likely to connect the TCs by radio.

I believe this stems in part from the tradition, deeply entrenched in doctrine and training and handed down from the days of Frederick the Great through Prussian military methods, of empowering low level commanders to be independent tactical decision makers. Once you accept that the tank company commander, platoon leader and even the individual TC will be making tactical decisions, it is a small step to providing them with 3 man turrets, radios, binoculars, and cupolas. Still good design decisions, but design decisions that were more likely than in armies like the French or Russian armies, which expected company, platoon, and tank commanders to carry out orders as issued without worrying themselves about changing combat conditions.

The lowly Pz III is vastly under rated in most "best tanks of …" or "top weapons of …" evaluations. Like the Renault FT of WW1, it set the standard for several critical features for generations of tanks which followed.

I use the Pz III as a test of armored wargaming rulesets. If the rules don't show me how a Pz III, with a smaller gun and lighter armor, could win against a more numerous opponent equipped with tanks with bigger guns and more armor (whether S-35s and Char-Bs or T-34s and KV-1s), then I'm not interested.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

The vision for the Panzer III/IV was probably the best of any tank in WW2.

These holes were undoubtedly weak spots to shoot at. The Panzer skirts that were applied to many tanks would obscure the flank 'eye's and make them useless.

-Driver: The usual vision slit, which is larger and this double goggled, probably adjustable periscope which gives adequate vision for what's in front of the tank. From the outside, there are two holes on top of the vision slit.

The Driver's left is a window that can be close and opened. This gives him some view of his flank.

-Radio operator: His MG has a periscope that magnifies far more than the T-34's tiny 2 x or so sight. On his right is another window.

-Tank commander: He has the 360 degree windows of the copula and with a split hatch that is easy to open.

-Gunner: He has his optic sight from the gun and also another window on his left.

-Loader: He has a window on his right.

There are two view ports to the rear of the turret. Like the others, they can be closed.

Many of these slits are not ideal but overall they do contribute to the vehicles situational awareness.

T-34: Has a lot of design problems from a tanker's perspective.

-Driver: A vision slit that's smaller than the Panzer IV's and is low to the ground. In order to drive completely properly he really needs to lift up his hatch but that can expose his body to fire.

-Commander: Has no copula, and is blind if the hatch is shut. He has one window to his left, and it is smaller than the one on the panzer iv's. He also has the optic of the main gun.

-Radio operator or hull gunner (with no radio). This is the most useless position on the T-34. It is a blind position, and there is a tiny 2x sight that is so small that it makes firing the hull mg rather difficult.

-Loader: A blind position.

A t-34 that is buttoned up has to rely on the commander for vision against the enemy. He has two sources. The driver can see what's low on the ground but that's really it. The hull MG sight is virtually worthless due to its size. When buttoned up it is blind in the 160 degree rear area.

Later in 1942 they came out with the "Mickey Mouse" turret with two hatches. No radio meant even worse SA.

Some Germans claimed they could get off 3 rounds to a T-34/76 one round. The system I'm using the Panzer III can normally get off 2 rounds before the T-34 can get off 1 round.

Wolfhag

I use the Pz III as a test of armored wargaming rulesets. If the rules don't show me how a Pz III, with a smaller gun and lighter armor, could win against a more numerous opponent equipped with tanks with bigger guns and more armor (whether S-35s and Char-Bs or T-34s and KV-1s), then I'm not interested.

@Mark 1 -- what rules do you use?

This question illustrates the importance of basic training and formations: unlike the movies and most tabletop games, each tank in a platoon will be watching one arc and dealing with threats there, covering your buddy's back while he does the same for you.

Just the same as an infantry rifleman on a patrol – he's only going to be looking in one direction because his squad mates are looking the other way and covering him. That was, the leader knows he has all round cover and not several people looking one way while leaving a blind spot somewhere else.

It's not new either: back in the days of the shield wall, you blocked to your front and stabbed the opponent on your right. The man next you did the same and so on down the line.

Mark I,
At 44:00 into White Tiger the TC goes unbuttoned and rotated the upper part / split hatch of the cupola. It's the part just before the Tiger I hits him from behind.

Wolfhag

Quote from Otto Carius, Tigers in the Mud

"Unfortunately, impacting rounds are felt before the sound of the enemy's gun report, because the speed of the round is greater than the speed of sound. Therefore, a tank commander eyes are more important than his ears. As a result of rounds exploding in the vicinity, one doesn't hear the gun's report at all in the tank. It is quite different whenever the tank commander raises his head occasionally in an open hatch to survey the terrain. If he happens to look halfway to the left while an enemy anti-tank gun opens fire halfway to the right, his eyes will subconsciously catch the shimmer of the yellow gun flash. His (the tank commander) attention will immediately be directed toward the new direction and the target will usually be identified in time.

Everything depends on a prompt identification of a dangerous target, usually seconds decide. What I said above also applies to tanks that have been equipped with periscopes."

Wolfhag

The easiest method to simulate better battlefield awareness is to have joint movement and fire phases in which the better crew/tank moves second in movement phase and fires first in fire phase.

Simple yet effective – as all good designs should be.

TomT

Oh and if you want to see Pz IIIs fight it out with T34s – and have a good chance of winning come play in my version of "The Revolving Battle" at Historicon on Thursday using Combat Command.

TomT