Speedy Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 I would suspect the squares are 1 km no matter the scale of the map as (to the best of my knowledge) they are used as reference for calling in arty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Originally posted by Speedy: I would suspect the squares are 1 km no matter the scale of the map as (to the best of my knowledge) they are used as reference for calling in arty. But keep in mind that if the map were designed/printed in the WW II era and is of either British or American provenance, this may not hold true. I don't really know for sure what the answer is to this interesting question, but I would be cautious about jumping to conclusions based on current practice. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Usually squares are one KM wide. And I have seen a number of WWII era maps, mainly captured from german or italian stashes. WWB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Originally posted by WWB: Usually squares are one KM wide. And I have seen a number of WWII era maps, mainly captured from german or italian stashes.Unless PC is using a captured German or Italian map, how is that relevant? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by WWB: Usually squares are one KM wide. And I have seen a number of WWII era maps, mainly captured from german or italian stashes. WWB I believe this map to be British in origin. Since it shows the British units to a pretty detailed level. The map itself is very detailed. I guess an easy way would be to find the distance between two known points today and then check it against this map. It appears that what we take for granted today is nothing like was the standard in WWII. That there may not even have been a standard. Thanks for all the help and suggestions on this issue. :cool: Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WWB: Usually squares are one KM wide. And I have seen a number of WWII era maps, mainly captured from german or italian stashes.Unless PC is using a captured German or Italian map, how is that relevant? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by WWB: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WWB: Usually squares are one KM wide. And I have seen a number of WWII era maps, mainly captured from german or italian stashes.Unless PC is using a captured German or Italian map, how is that relevant? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Hi, The grids on 1:25 000 and 1:50 000 maps each represent 1km. If you have two maps, one which is 1:25 000 and the other is 1:50 000 of the same place, each grid sqaure covers the same amount of land The one on the 1:50 000 is just smaller due to the scale involved. The same applies to 1:100 000, each grid is 1km by 1 km. The squares just get smaller as the scale increases. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Speedy: I would suspect the squares are 1 km no matter the scale of the map as (to the best of my knowledge) they are used as reference for calling in arty. But keep in mind that if the map were designed/printed in the WW II era and is of either British or American provenance, this may not hold true. I don't really know for sure what the answer is to this interesting question, but I would be cautious about jumping to conclusions based on current practice. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 From a book by a Canadian MG Offr, posted to 3rd (UK) Div: ... The maps in this work are all sections of original maps which I used in action. As they ceased to be of use to me in action, as the battle moved on, I sent them home to my Dad, and he saved them for me. ... At the time of WWII, the SI or metric system had not been adopted by the Allied armies, so all maps were in Imperial measure. Distances were in yards, and the grid on these maps is in 1000 yard squares. The vertical interval between contour lines is in feet. ...Emphasis by me. Incidentally, he has reproduced part of the map from the GOODWOOD area, and notes it as FRANCE 1:25,000, 40/16 NE, NW, SE, SW. Defence overprint as at 9 July 44. PC, you've been asked once, but I'll ask again: could you post a link to the page where you found the map? Regards JonS P.S. to note that I was wrong on the first page of this thread. I had thought that 1:25,000 implicitly meant that it was a metric map. [ January 25, 2004, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 That is interesting Jon as the map I linked to above clearly states in lower left hand section (directions for giving grid reference) that the square is 1000 metres, also states that the vertical interval is 10 metres. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by JonS: PC, you've been asked once, but I'll ask again: could you post a link to the page where you found the map? Regards JonS I wish I could give you the site. I have all my sources for my maps but that one. :confused: :confused: I have been searching high and low, for the site I got it from, and at the moment, am at a loss. I could email you the map itself if you'd like. Anyone wanting a copy of it can just speak up and I'll send it to you by email. Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WWB: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WWB: Usually squares are one KM wide. And I have seen a number of WWII era maps, mainly captured from german or italian stashes.Unless PC is using a captured German or Italian map, how is that relevant? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by Speedy: That is interesting Jon as the map I linked to above clearly states in lower left hand section (directions for giving grid reference) that the square is 1000 metres, also states that the vertical interval is 10 metres. Speedy, yes, I dl'd your map and saw what you meant. I think that most (all?) of NA was 'done' in metric because the Frnech and the Italians had already made the change. NWE was a bit different because the British and the Americans had time to prepare an excellent series of maps for the whole area, which they knew they'd be fighting over sooner or later. Since they (and more particularly their indirect fire support weapons) used Imperial measure, they calibrated the maps for that. In some respects, perhaps the care and attention paid to the metric nature of the NA maps is the give-away. It was the exception, so they made sur everyone using the maps knew they were different, and knew how to use them. That said (and notwithstanding PCs problem, which is a bit different since he doesn't have any marginal info), when measuring distance, the size of grids don't matter - only the scale. Incidentally, I have a 1:25,000 map of part of Northern Italy, dated 28 March 1944, in which the grid is in 1km squares, not 1000 yard squares. Go figure. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by WWB: ... I can now see how my eyeballing was mistaken. 1000m is not too far off from 1000 yards.Which is of course a good point. If the map is actually in yards, but you think its in metres, you will be out a total of 3 CM tiles per kilometre. Given the limitaions of the map editor, you're likely to be out by more than that anyway. Regards JonS [ January 25, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Originally posted by JonS: Since they (and more particularly their indirect fire support weapons) used Imperial measure, they calibrated the maps for that.Which is what I've been thinking all along. During WW II the Americans (and I'm pretty sure this applies to the Commonwealth countries too) used Imperial standards for most of their measurements. Ranges were called out in yards, marches in miles or fractions thereof. Altitude was in feet. I suspect that all anomolous cases, such as Speedy's map of Tobruk and Jon's map of North Italy can be explained as copies taken from countries that had already long since converted to metric. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: During WW II the Americans (and I'm pretty sure this applies to the Commonwealth countries too) used Imperial standards for most of their measurements. Yes, it does, and they did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I suspect that all anomolous cases, such as ... Jon's map of North Italy can be explained as copies taken from countries that had already long since converted to metric.Just to clarify, the Italian map I referred to isn't an one-off anomally. It is part of a series, covering the whole country, in scales of 1:50,000 and 1:25,000, all of which are gridded in metric. I think you (Michael) understood that though, and refer to it in the second clause (third clause maybe? Feh, I'm not a lawyer - the last bit) of the sentence I quoted. Regards JonS P.S. PC, could you email me a copy of your GOODWOOD map please? Address is in my profile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Edit: A celebrated double, made weird by forum goodness [ January 26, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 The forum list shows JonS posted something here at between 0100 and 0200 last night, but the message doesn't seem to be here now. More late night forum weirdness? Maybe a bump will reveal the secret message? EDIT - that did the trick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.