Mr. Tittles

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/german_accuracy7.html Footnotes 1. 8,8cm Flak 18, 36 & 37. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Tank Combat in North Africa. Note that there is a significant difference in accuracy between the early Pzgr. and the later Pzgr.39 fired from the 8,8cm Kw.K.36. [up] 2. 8,8cm Kw.K.36. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Germany’s Tiger Tanks. Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics. Although the 8,8cm Flak 18, 36 & 37 is ballistically the same as the Kw.K.36, the accuracy is specified only for the Kw.K.36 in the reference. It is likely that the accuracy for the 8,8cm Flak would be similar for these ammunition types. [up] 3. 8,8cm Kw.K.43. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Germany’s Tiger Tanks. Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics. Although the 8,8cm Pak 43 and 8,8cm Pak 43/41 are ballistically the same as the Kw.K.43, the accuracy is specified only for the Kw.K.43 in the reference. It is likely that the accuracy for the 8,8cm Pak 43 and 43/41 would be similar. [up]

I will remind Rexford that the catalog article states he does not have the manual or instructions. I doubt he was trained to use the device. He states the device is not in working order. The most important information on that site is the pics, IMO.

Heres the SF folded and packed in its container. Notice the brass bar is extended on the left eyepiece? Does anyone doubt that the IPD does in fact need the scissor action to be set?

Interpupillary distance Sometimes abbreviated as IPD, Interpupillary distance is the distance between each of the human adults eye pupils. Interpupillary is a common measurement found in virtual reality devices, microscopes, and binoculars. The average interpupillary distance is between 58 and 72mm.

A few sources support that the SF did not have to be all the way to see stereoscopic images. Most do state that the further apart they are, the more 3D the images appear (some describe the effect as people appearing to be sculpted). Its apparent then that since there IS just one knob that adjusts this stereo effect (maybe Rexford needs to go back and look again), and that knob does have markings which must be the range scale, there could be a way to correlate those knob readings to actual ranges. Ideally, it would be a linear correlation. The combination of the clarity of image, depth of perception, graticle and knob readings makes me lean towards range finding with this device. Someone posted accuracy data before from Spielberger for this device. I would not assume that would be for the end of the scale. It would probably be for the median values on the interpupillary distance.

http://home.arcor.de/thuernagel/sf14-e.htm stereoscopic mode; interpupillary distance approx. 70 mm. Here we see the SF splayed out and the interpupillary distance DOES go out towards the end of the scale. As said before, the scale goes from 55 to 75. Its the brass bar that runs along the top. So this supports that the scissors splay out and the interpupillary distance increases. The only stereo adjustment is the one bottom knob on the lower right. It brings the device into 3D focus by angling the prism (one prism is probably fixed and the other right side is adjusted) The other knob on the side deals with the bubble level (which faces the right side). The other knob, attached to the white piece deals with angle of direction for arty purposes. The fact remains that humans can not move thier eyes out to the outside of thier heads. They are fixed distances between them. I guess the next guess is that the interpupillary distance could be adjusted AND the scissor scopes splayed out independantly? yeah right. [ August 14, 2004, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Its actually so close to be within measurable tolerance levels. The fact that the Panther is listed as 97% at 1000m and the Tiger is 91% amkes me wonder. The 88mm Flak DID have a rather large rangefinder and it could easily find range data more accurately than a Tank that relied upon a TC with ordinary binoculars. The data above is for the case of a stationary target WHEN the range is known?

I was sent a copy of this article. Its only 3 pages but has very nice close up pics. Whats apparent is that as the scope is scissored out, the eyepieces also move out! Just like when you use a pair of binocs for the first time, you have to angle the hinge element so that the eyepieces line up to your eye seperation. There is a scale on the tubular bar that shows the seperation setting also. Its 55, 60, 65, 70, 75 with ticks between those numbers. This way, you could fold them up and return to the same setting as before. The implication is that they probably could be used as rangefinders at the different angles. People with large heads and widely seperated eyes would have an increased stereo effect. They would be better then most at finding range. It appears that all stereo adjustment comes from one knob on the bottom (which has fine markings indicating rotational amounts). The inter-eye-distance number could be used as a correction factor. Crude but doable. So the drill would be sight target, adjust the stereo effect till target image appear 3d, read off the knob and do a math factor based on your interpupillary needs, get a range. A person would then know through experience what the knob readings mean as far as range distance (especially easy if its a linear correlation). It would be very easy to set up tanks at precise distances and have training so that people got to know their SF very well. Guys like Wittman probably kept his because it was like a glove to him. He went from StuGs to Tigers and kept the SF. The SF in this article are SF14Z and supposedly from WWI. They are clearly from an arty unit and there is a leveling bubble and a finely adjustable scale in the German units (1/400th?). [ August 13, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

He writes... For documentation of all of these WWII instruments, I would suggest the book by Dr. Hans Seeger (German Military Technology: The Optical Equipment) available in the US from Deutsche Optik (search for the website) for specific detail. This is a collection of Zeiss catalog data from 1930-1940 but since it was for the German Military only, it is in the German language.

As far as the German binos: I did not say it has anything to do with stereoscopic rangefinding. The reason I bring it up is IF the TC is actually calling out targets, range to the gunner, THEN he must have some superior means of guaging (or estimating) the range. Binos ARE stereoscopic in nature and would give better depth perception than the mono sights of a gunner. Binos would have better magnification I suppose and better depth perception than a mono sight. Certainly, the observation of long and short rounds would be improved. In a typical turreted panzer that had a mono sight and a TC with just ordinary binoculars (which I suspect most were), I would suggest the TC had the best visual means of estimating range, followed by the gunner and everyone else in the crew a distant third and below. In a jagdpanzer or StuG, the typical TC would have a scissor scope and perhaps the training/inclination to use the device to measure long ranges in either ambush or in setting up a defense. The scissor scope would certainly give superior spotting ability than regular TC binoculars. The scissor scopes had a grid reticle in WWII. This could serve the same function as the gunners triangle sight for known height/width targets. I have corresponded with someone from the Zeiss Historica society and hope to get more info. [ August 13, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The panzer commanders binoculars seem to also have some range finding reticle incorporated. Many sources comment on the enhanced stereo effect these regular binos have also. I read an account of a GI who had a captured pair and claimed he could spot two enemy positions with them but did not see them with his GI issued pair. Does anyone have any info about these German binocular reticles? Is it similar to the strich triangles in the gunners sights? Rexford's calc: 2.4m High Target at 800m 75L48: 680m to 830m 75L70: 695m to 975m Why wouldnt the L70 have a lower range number that is greater than a L48? Its error gap should extend both near and far? In any case, you seem to have changed your mind regarding missing more often than not?

Surnont, A. A Zeiss Folding Stereo Telescope. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1995. This might be a great source if it could be found. Note that the Germans had these items in WWI but developed the rangefinding element in WWII.

IRL they were not thought of so highly. Both Carius (TigerI) and Earnst (Hornet) disliked moving to this vehicle. The Tiger II was already overstraining its driveline. To have a vehicle that relied on rotating itself (this is not a good thing for tracks) and further increasing on the weight of the TigerII was a waste. I don't think that the 12.8cm gun was really needed and to just field 79 of them was silly. The game should model this vehicle as getting bogged often.

Panther chassis had the ability to counter rotate tracks and this vehicles turning rate (and precision) would be better than most tanks. The drivers sight is at the same height as the main gun and MG. He could therefore find hull down positions nicely. It is much more useful than a KingTiger or a JagdTiger. I think the 44/45 Panzer division should have had a Battalion of Panthers (45 vehicles), battalion of Panzer IV/JagdpanzerIV (37 vehicles) and a company of JagdPanther (14 vehicles). The Panzer IV battalion would have one Panzer IV company (14 vehicles..a light tank company) and the other two companies (10 each) would be Jagdpanzer IV. The Panzer IV would basically serve as scouting for the other two jagdpanzer companies. The jagdPanther company acts as a fast antitank reaction force for the whole division. The Panther battalion is the main offensive striking force and the Panzer IV/jagdpanzer battalion is the initial blocking defensive force.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5353/jagdp.htm This link gives the Jagdpanther orders. Its very similar to US TD policy.

Thats another reason to concentrate on just a couple of types. Its easier to train crews.

I think in 44 they should scaled back Panzer IV and made jagdpanzerIV.

The Germans should have dropped the KingTiger program and put the resources into Panther/Jagdpanther. Perhaps another 1000 Panther and 500 Jagdpanther could have been made.

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-16-F.html good tutorial on rangefinders

http://home.arcor.de/thuernagel/sdn.htm Interesting cross sectional view

http://home.arcor.de/thuernagel/sf14.htm Same site in German. I believe the author is German? In any case, he mentions there is no manual included. I would be very impressed by some manual for this device. In other words, the author of that website does not know exactly how to use the device. From the description, it does not sound like this piece of equipment even works. [ August 09, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

It was addressed very well, you just don't understand it very well. Perhaps it has nothing to do with this thread, which is my point now. If you will go to the other thread and restate your question there, I will again explain to you the same thing as before. I have also uncovered new info regarding 90mm fuzes for AP. Also... I don't think you quite grasped what I was getting at when I wondered about the wierd German habit of needing to add onto range. Did any other WWII participent do anything like this? The fact is, that there is no real way to field zero a AP type weapon to land exactly at a range. [ August 09, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Heres an example of a rangefinder (coincidence type) that was found in early Tigers in North Afrika. The later Tigers had the improved copula that had a mount for a scissors scope.

The game probably just uses a circular area and does not model differences from arty/mortars/etc

Uh yeah, it was discussed there. maybe you should go back to that thread and catch up.