Jump to content
Lumituisku

Why the difference in size of reticle on low magnification between of Leo 2 and M1 day-sight's?

Recommended Posts

Day-sights on all leopard 2s seem to have feature that on low magnification reticle is on screen exact same size when compared to high magnification. I wonder if this is as in real life, and how comes it is different when compared for example M1s? Does anyone know?

SS_05_29_15.thumb.jpg.1a316ec0b8b3ffe70cc83305a288bf30.jpg

SS_05_29_21.thumb.jpg.e639d34052089150ec11b3df2bbbb801.jpg

 

I have started to suspect this because on so many other vehicles daysight reticle seems to get smaller when going from high to low magnification. In short... on those "non leopard"  vehicles reticle maintains proper size for manual distance measuring, and makes much more clear indication of Low mag mode because of "tiny" low mag reticle as seen for example on M1s

SS_05_29_37.thumb.jpg.3e286c609903dd529104783865e9403d.jpg

SS_05_29_45.thumb.jpg.8261cb8022a99861cd42afe260dd22dd.jpg

 

Edited by Lumituisku
trying to make title more understandable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M1’s day channel reticle is correct. The 3x-10x day channel mag lever switches the AFOCAL side to side (Kinda like a rifle scope). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, thank you Assasin.  I like that Click sound there is in the game when switching between magnifications. I guess it is exactly that, when one swiches AFOCAL side to side.

 

On Leopards there is no sound when switching magnification... I wonder how it is done there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Leopardo 2E, there's the same button used by the loader to open the ammo door mounted at the gunner's knee. Obviously, it can't have a direct connection to the optical channel from there, so the lens shift must be done electrically. But I think it's been more than ten years since I last climbed a Leopardo, so I'll have to remain somewhat fuzzy on the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. So no swiches and manual movements there. I guess commanders peri is electric as well.

 

 

But how about reticle size? because what  i asked Is not just leopardo and Strv-122 gunners position, But as well commanders daysight Peri on all leo2 variants. In daysight,Reticle, despite magnification stays same size. Meaning that on low mag, mill scale is way off (reticle is much larger than should be for manual range estimation). I wonder if that is purposeful? 

 

(I am aware that for range estimation one would want to have it high mag, I'm simply asking cause on many other vehicles it's done otherwise)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lumituisku said:

I guess commanders peri is electric as well.

For the Leo 2A4, it's a pretty tiny flip switch at the base of the peri, probably not visible in the 3D interior. But it's not mechanical, the lense does indeed get inserted into the optical channel by other means (probably electrical).

Quote

 

But how about reticle size? because what  i asked Is not just leopardo and Strv-122 gunners position, But as well commanders daysight Peri on all leo2 variants. In daysight, Reticle, despite magnification stays same size. Meaning that on low mag, mill scale is way off (reticle is much larger than should be for manual range estimation). I wonder if that is purposeful?

 

It serves no functional purpose and is, IMO, detrimental. But not every military customer is willing to pay extra to make sure that the reticle will always provide accurate angular dimensions. The question ultimately is where the maginification lens is being inserted in the optical channel - before or after the etched reticule plate. It may be easier (=cheaper) to do it behind the plate, meaning that it would not change its apparent size with the FoV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

It serves no functional purpose and is, IMO, detrimental. But not every military customer is willing to pay extra to make sure that the reticle will always provide accurate angular dimensions. The question ultimately is where the maginification lens is being inserted in the optical channel - before or after the etched reticule plate. It may be easier (=cheaper) to do it behind the plate, meaning that it would not change its apparent size with the FoV.

Right. So it is safe to assume it was build that way in Leopards to start with? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't say why Sweden and Spain wanted the default sight modified in the way they did. All I can say is that traditionally there are no two magnifications for the Leopard gunner's daysight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I do approve low magnification day-sight on steelbeast.  Especially since gunner lacks vision block or other ways to see wider field of view.  It is also good at dense forested and bushy areas.  It is also helpful to spot dust trails of vehicles. 

 

perhaps some of my reasoning is common with reasons why they wanted it modified.   Also On M1s it is like that too. I wonder what was reasoning there to have both Low and High instead of just high mag.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low magnification makes finding targets easier, cause you see more, your vision is not reduced to a very narrow FoV.

It's like Nick Moran explained why in general during WWII American tank crews in M4's had better situational awareness than their German counterparts. In German tanks, gunner vision was reduced only to a narrow FoV of his telescope sight. In M4 medium tank, gunner had a periscope sight combined with unity sight, and later both periscope sight, unity sight and telescope sight.

 

If I can be frank, I really dislike Leopard 2's day sight, even tough it have a very good double axis stabilization for it's mirrors, I preffer M1/M1A1 sight, even if it only have single axis stabilization of it's mirrors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Damian90 said:



It's like Nick Moran explained why in general during WWII American tank crews in M4's had better situational awareness than their German counterparts. 

 

 

more american tanks were destroyed or knocked out from side hits rather than frontally, suggesting that allies crews weren't seeing what was doing it. by the allied invasion of italy, overlord and beyond (excepting the battle of the bulge), the germans were on the defense where they could map out expected allied advances with ranges accurately estimated and sighted whereas the allied crews were blundering into prepared ambushes and often got shellacked. it came down to more than just which tanks had more or better situated vision ports. the main killers of allied tanks weren't german tanks anyway. in other words, as an allied tank crew, you wouldnt perceive the theoretical advantage like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...