Re: StuG Question.
 

Now I think you are being deliberately obtuse, and I'm not going to take the bait :)

It is a simple binocular compared with a gunsight or a rangefinder proper. The matter is how simple. Not that it matters one bit in game terms :)

I'm pretty sure that the argument for giving the Nashorn RF=8 is not because of the Sf14. As you say, everybody had those. Rather, I think it is due to the assumption that Nashorn units carried a proper rangefinder.
There is one reference that might suggest this could be the case. In a gunnery manual for the Nashorn it is said that engaging targets at long ranges requires establishing the range accurately, either by ranging fire or by "E-messung". The latter means "rangefinding", but does not mention the means to be used. I'm pretty convinced, though, that this is a reference to the use of a rangefinder (often referred to as an "E-messer"). There is no mention, however, of a rangefinder being available for targetting. Only the gunsight on the gun and sight used for indirect firing (Aushilfsrichtmittel 38).

I'd like to know where you got the information, that only FlaK units carried rangefinders? According to TM 30-451 the smaller types were used even in infantry units for directing mortar and machinegun fire. The 1.5meter item was allegedly used against "fixed targets" only, which has to mean against ground targets for the field artillery? Even larger units were used for heavy anti-aircraft artillery and coastal guns.

I know positively that a 0.9 meter rangefinder was tested for used on Tigers in Tunesia, but they appear to have fallen out of fashion later? Or perhaps tanks just wasn't first in line for this type of equipment?

Interestingly, the commander of sPzAbt 501 in Tunesia was expressing his surprise, that the use of the rangefinder required an operator with excellent depth perception. As the battalion had no means of testing this, they struck a deal with a Flak unit to test the personell of the battalion on their 4 meter rangefinder, having one of the Flak officers select the tank crewmen fit to operate the 0.9m rangefinder.
The battalion commander seems somewhat sceptical about the use of the rangefinder, particularily as it has to be used by a member of the tank crew, not a "rangefinder-group", sent in advance to measure distances on the battlefield (assumingly a reference to common field artillery practice?). Therein lies, perhaps, the reason why it wasn't used much on tanks: It was big and cumbersome, had to be carried in and mounted on the tank in combat and you had to find a crewmember fit to use it - preferably, one would assume, the tank commander.

Here is a picture of the 0.9meter item:

http://www.paulstiger1.co.uk/WWII-Op...M-0,9-mR-1.JPG

The Nashorn manual mentioned above is from May 1943 and the Tigers were fighting in Tunesia late 1942, early 1943, so perhaps this whole business about rangefinders being used in tanks and SP guns was an idea launched at that point in time, turning out not to work very well.

As for the Stug being a "famously accurate shooter", I've seen one reference (Kurowski: Fels in der Brandung"?)suggesting that this was due to the training of the crew. They got the full monty in terms of artillery training whereas the gunnery training for tank crews was less thorough. That applied in particular to rangefinding by means of ranging fire.

As for this whole business of making OOB changes based on secondary optics (binoculars, rangefinders, special indirect fire sights and whatnot), it seems to me to be something which is not generally considered in the game. And where it appears to be, it results in some odd and not easily explained OOB anomalies.
If you really want to make the case for these type of optics to be considered, I think you need to do a rather in-depth study of what was available to what units for at least the major powers in WWII. I would imagine, for example, that infantry units having rangefinders would only have a few, perhaps at company or battalion level, and that these were used mainly when laying out defensive positions or controlling fire from several units. In other words, more like the way an FOO works in the game now rather than having every single unit benefit by an increased RF value.

cbo

Re: StuG Question.
 

Hi Claus

OK so as you are refusing to answer the question it appears that Ogorkiewicz has in fact nothing to say about the sf 14 and that you comment "The Sf.14z is, has always been and remains a simple set of binoculars" is your opinion not Ogorkiewicz's, as you would have us believe.

It has a much greater magnification than a binocular, or gunsight for that matter. Higher magnification translates directly into better estimation of range at distance.

When I say only flak units carried rangefinders I mean only flak units have a rangefinder issued to each and every gun. (unfortuneately this isnt reflected in the rangefinder values for these equipments in-game) Obviously one held at infantry battalion HQ is meaningless in game terms.

You dont think that "E-messer" might be a reference to rangefinding with the sf14? a standard peice of kit on the vehicle in question? rather than to a "real" rangefinder that it didnt have?
Were not talking about tanks here Claus, the SF14 is not issued to tanks. The nashorn as an example it isnt a tank, armoured and tracked it may be but nevertheless its an AT gun. And if Im not mistaken manned by gunners not a "tank" crew, All (hetzer jgdpz IV jagdpanther etc etc) the vehicles issued with the sf14 are designed to shoot from the halt and get a first shot hit, ie requiring good rangefinding and having the sf14 for this purpose. Sf14 would be largely useless in a tank as a tank is about shock not gunnery.

Chuck.

Re: StuG Question.
 

Whatever, Chuck :re:

Claus B