Soviet gunsights

[HagarTheHorrible]

From what I understand early Soviet fighters were hampered by using rather crude lens type sights, namely the PBP-1a, or even no sights at all, and this was possibly still very much the case during the BoS time frame. The PBP-1a lens gun sight, from what I can ascertain, had two rings, one for 200 meters and the other 300 meters range.

 

Do you think there will be any noticeable difference between using the crude PBP-1a type gun sight over that of German, or later Soviet Reflector sights, or even for that matter,  where there was no gun sight at all,a cross painted on the canopy, or given the limitations of computer graphics and monitors will it all be very much the same point and shoot for all of them ?

 

If more advanced sights are available for fitting in the options will there be any restrictions or will everyone have the very best available even if, during the time frame depicted, very few advanced sights were available, which seems to be the case in RoF.

[Sokol1]

I dont think that game model these limitations...

 

Here's guys discussing PBP-1b

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.il2sturmovik.ru%2F

 

 

In 1943, Soviet aircraft builders had to go for another one, this time an emergency measure. Instead collimator sights PBP-1 model 1939, which noted the poor quality of many pilots from the very beginning of the war, fighters began to establish a primitive ring sights BB-1 ("aerial sight"), is a wire frame with crosshair, fortified over the dashboard, and the front sight on the hood. Such devices use the [400] airmen in World War I, however, had already begun to replace their scopes.

Rejection of the collimator explained by high complexity and high cost of PRP-1, as well as the inability to provide an acceptable quality in a continuous build-up of mass production of aircraft. And while collimating sight in principle much more convenient framework (while aiming not just to combine the line of sight with the line of fire, and the illuminated reticle and target are seen equally sharp), pilots, exhausted staring at the faint, barely noticeable marks on the sight glass PBP-1, embraced the transition to BB-1 positive. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe pilots used the collimator sights Revi comfortable with good optics, greatly facilitates their combat work.

 

Sokol1

Edited November 13, 2013 by Sokol1

[Sternjaeger]

The PBP-1 gunsights weren't exactly "crude": the basic principle of a reflective gunsight is pretty much the same for all, the real limitation was the very small reflective glass surface, which proved aiming very hard and had distortion issues.

 

I'll take some comparison shots later of my PBP-1 compared to a standard US Navy gunsight, so you'll be able to see the difference, but basically you had to be very very close to the gunsight to be able to see the whole reticle, which was uncomfortable and potentially dangerous.

[CIA_Yankee_]

The PBP-1 gunsights weren't exactly "crude": the basic principle of a reflective gunsight is pretty much the same for all, the real limitation was the very small reflective glass surface, which proved aiming very hard and had distortion issues.

 

I'll take some comparison shots later of my PBP-1 compared to a standard US Navy gunsight, so you'll be able to see the difference, but basically you had to be very very close to the gunsight to be able to see the whole reticle, which was uncomfortable and potentially dangerous.

 

Real men use substandard gunsights. Makes for a better challenge!

 

To be honest, I hope the game models these limitations. I will be flying Red Army, but I'm all realism, even if it means my poor LaGG-3 is utterly outclassed (at least it'll look pretty while doing it ).

[Sternjaeger]

Ok, so here is a comparison between a Russian PBP-1 from 1942 and a US Navy Mk.VIII Mod.8. 

I have taken a shot where you can see the reticle in full and one at the distance your head would normally be. Note how, in order to see the Russian one in full on the reflective glass, you really need to get up close (this because of the small reflective glass and lens). 

 

 

[Sternjaeger]

whops, here they are! 

 

 

Video.MOV

Video_1.MOV

[JtD]

Nice pictures, thanks for posting.

[HagarTheHorrible]

whops, here they are! 

 

Cheers that was very interesting, particularly the video. 

 

Can I assume then that at normal viewing distance (head position) the sight seems to correspond to the diameter of the 300 meters range ring, which might explain why it was considered less useful, if of any use, for deflection shooting ?

[Emgy]

Thanks for the videos!

Ok, so here is a comparison between a Russian PBP-1 from 1942 and a US Navy Mk.VIII Mod.8. 

I have taken a shot where you can see the reticle in full and one at the distance your head would normally be. Note how, in order to see the Russian one in full on the reflective glass, you really need to get up close (this because of the small reflective glass and lens). 

Yes the circles disappear, but you still get the crosshairs. Enough for aiming in a computer game.

[BeastyBaiter]

The heavy tint on the soviet one is interesting. Makes it hard to see through in the video. Is that from age or were they like that brand new too?

[Sternjaeger]

yep, bear in mind I was also perfectly aligned with it, if you move about it's even hard to see the reticle. The first change they introduced was a larger diameter lens and reflecting glass to resolve this. 

Edited November 15, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[Sternjaeger]

The heavy tint on the soviet one is interesting. Makes it hard to see through in the video. Is that from age or were they like that brand new too?

 

The surface is slightly polarized, and in natural sunlight it doesn't look as dark. There were several versions of the glass, some of them were plain clear, and the early ones actually were a sandwich made of two glasses, which caused some double refraction problems. 

 

It kinda did the job, but accuracy at longer distances was probably hard to achieve. Bear in mind that the adjusting knobs regulate windage and elevation, so the pilot could "zero in" the gunsight as he shot.

 

Things got better with later versions of course, and the later version has been used for decades after, up until the Mig-21! 

Edited November 15, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[CIA_Yankee_]

yep, bear in mind i was also perfectly aligned with it, if you move about it's even hard to see the reticle. The first change they introduced was a larger diameter lens and reflecting glass. 

Well, I hope that's how it works for us too.

 

Soon we'll all adopt the "Chickenhawk" method and draw a reticule on our monitors with a grease pencil.

[Sternjaeger]

an important note about the reticle: if your eye focusses on the reticle, you'll see the lines as very crisp, but if your eye focusses on other parts, the reticle will appear as slightly blurry and not as defined. This is particularly noticeable with the videos vs pictures: I didn't quite manage to keep the reticles focussed as I moved the phone for the video, so the reticle lines look chunky and blurry, but if you look at the pics, which are focussed on the reticle, the lines are more defined and crisp.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I just happened to watch the BoS trailer again and was interested to see the Soviet gunsight, how much is CGI and how much is game, I don't know, but the reticule appeared to be much more in line with your zoomed in view, head very close to the sight, even thought the pilots perspective in the video was much further out.

[Sternjaeger]

yep, I noticed that too, it should be addressed at some point. Let's hope the devs see this. Needless to say I'm also happy to make more videos if necessary.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[ACG_Dickie]

Wonderful Stern.  But where were you when I needed educating on how these things actually worked a few months back!  

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/838-looking-reflector-gunsight/?do=findComment&comment=15259

[Sternjaeger]

lol sorry mate, missed that one! But yes, the reticle as such looks like it's changing in size as you move back and forth, in reality the reflection is the same, it's the perception we get that makes it look like it changes size. A good comparison is looking through a keyhole on the door: the stuff on the other size doesn't change in size, but you see more or less of it as you move your head back and forth.

[Emgy]

Wonderful Stern.  But where were you when I needed educating on how these things actually worked a few months back!  

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/838-looking-reflector-gunsight/?do=findComment&comment=15259

Like SYN_Vander indicated, the sight is projected into infinity . He could have expanded on that: If you are looking at an object which is infinitely far away, moving your head back and forth won't change your perception of the object's size.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Calvamos

[DD_bongodriver]

Collimation.

[AndyJWest]

Collimation.

 

I believe prunes are a good cure for that. 

[DD_bongodriver]

Thanks........do they have to go in the other end?

[Gort]

Ok, so here is a comparison between a Russian PBP-1 from 1942 and a US Navy Mk.VIII Mod.8. 

I have taken a shot where you can see the reticle in full and one at the distance your head would normally be. Note how, in order to see the Russian one in full on the reflective glass, you really need to get up close (this because of the small reflective glass and lens). 

What's the time frame of the Navy sight? Looks a lot like the old sight in the A4, purely fixed with a dial a mil input.

[Sternjaeger]

The Mk.VIII Mod.8 was introduced in the early 40s and equipped most WW2 US Navy fighters. There were several versions of the reticle, but the 100 MILS one with the ladder was the definitive version that they kept on using for decades, well into the late '60s and early 70s.

[Zoring]

Great photos Sternjaeger Personally I hate all that clutter on a gunsight though, Just a single dot showing the aiming point would do me.

[Sternjaeger]

You're not alone in that, and it's interesting to see comparisons between the US Navy and USAAF philosophy: the former extensively tested on deflection shooting, the latter always kept it much simpler (at least until the K-14 was introduced!)

Edited November 17, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[Caudron431]

TY Hagar, this is a great thread!

 

Thanks Sternjaeger for posting the pics and the vids, very much appreciated I just check IL2 1946 soviet gunsights for comparison, and only in La7  did they get the small size of the gunsight reticle right (at least when gunsight is not activated), hopefully 1CGS will model it like that for all Russian birds.

 

Interesting to see the differences between the two.

 

Hope you will soon add a Revi in your collection!

[Sternjaeger]

Thanks, please note that the later gunsights got a slightly larger glass, so reflection was slightly better.

 

I'm currently waiting for some Luftwaffe stuff actually, stay tuned ;-)

[Sternjaeger]

bump, is there any way to flag this to the devs? 

[MarcoRossolini]

Judging by a moment in the trailer... it appears they're already aware of it iirc...

[Sternjaeger]

Mmmh I'm not sure Marco, do you have a link to the video in question?

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

all the sights magnification seem to be off.. 

 

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

in 1946 the sights seem correct.

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

whops, here they are! 

so if this is correct why is it not done in this one correct?

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/2000-soviet-gunsights/

 

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by 71st_AH_Mastiff

[Riderocket]

I just happened to watch the BoS trailer again and was interested to see the Soviet gunsight, how much is CGI and how much is game, I don't know, but the reticule appeared to be much more in line with your zoomed in view, head very close to the sight, even thought the pilots perspective in the video was much further out.

In the old days when BoS was in early access, you'll actually see in one of their live streams that the gun sight reticle was much much smaller.

 

So it was once upon a time made "bigger" I guess maybe it was way to small when viewed up close?