Thread: StuG Question.
View Single Post
  #6  
Old August 30th, 2008, 05:01 PM
cbo's Avatar

cbo cbo is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 303
Thanks: 4
Thanked 40 Times in 26 Posts
cbo is on a distinguished road
Default Re: StuG Question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckfourth View Post
Hi cbo
First just a point on referencing if your going to provide a reference then please put these "" around the quote im sure Ogorkiewicz doesnt say all of what you have attrbuted to him in your post.
These items "" are called quotations marks because they are used when you quote someone directly, ad verbatim. I do not quote Ogorkiewics ad verbatim, hence I do not use quotation marks.

By referring to Ogorkiewiecz as my source, I'm pointing out, that it is not something, that I've pulled out of my hat. It is is actually quite common practice.

But I can see that I didn't put the pages in. They are basically Chapter 7, in particular p.169-173

Quote:
No, I am not saying that sf14 are rangefinders I am saying they can be used to get a much better estimate of range than a "normal" set of binoculars. They have about twice the magnification, a fixed mounting and most importantly are stereoscopic. A normal set of binoculars presents you with a flat image, not good when estimating range. sf14 are used to observe(estimate range of) a target not scan for targets like a tankers binos. They are the tank equivelent of a snipers telecopic sight, ie they improve accurracy.
I suggest you read an old gunners manual. They usually describe how you use binoculars to estimate range. The simple procedure is to compare the position of the target to an item in the field to which you know the distance, typically from a map. The Sf14z might be a tad better at that due the fact that the depth of the vision is better, but it is still operating within the confines of that basic method, which is not particularily accurate.

Ogorkiewicz puts the margin of error at 25-30% of the range, down to about 20 with intensive training. So that is 200-300 meters off at 1000 meters.

If the vision device, be it a gun sight or binoculars, has a reticle with lines reprenting mils, you can use those for estimating the range to the target, if the size of the target is known - like an enemy tank. This is stadiametric rangefinding and Ogorkiewicz puts the ranging error at 15-20% of the range.

In this case, range estimation is not based on the quality of the optics itself or the ability of the observer to see relative range between items on the battlefield far away. And since those lines are available in field glasses as well as gun sights, the small stereoscopic vision advantage of the Sf14z does not really come into play.

Now, once you introduce an optical rangefinder proper, things are very different. Here, you simply have to observe the target and turn a knob until the measuring devices in the eyepiece shows that you have the target (either by the coincidence or stereoscopic method) and then read the range off a scale on the rangefinder. Now things start to improve, as the estimated ranging error drops to 10-20 meters at 1000 meter (dependent on the base width of the rangefinder - wider = more accurate).

So perhaps you are right, the Sf14z does give an advantage as it is a superior set of binoculars, but measured againt the yardstick of the game, the difference remains minute.

Quote:
From
http://www.germanwarmachine.com/phot...ry/3/index.htm

"The 14-power Scherenfernrohr 14 Ziel Gitter, or stereo binocular, served as a rangefinder for the artillery and was a mainstay of forward observers to gauge distances."

This quote says agrees with what I am saying, You -can- estimate range with the sf14.
No one is saying you cannot. In fact, you can measure range with your Mk I eyeball. But the Sf14z does not posess any rangefinding qualities beyond those of the average set of binoculars or a tank sight (i.e. the stadiametric pattern). It is quite a stretch to call it a "rangefinder", as that definition is usually reserved for deviced that actually measure range.

Btw, the link seems broken?

Incidentally, the RF values in SPWW2 does not seem to conform to what is says in the Mobhack manual:

"Range Finder - This makes hitting targets easier, especially for firers who did not move. 14 is the level for laser range finders, use 6 for the ranging coaxial rifle calibre MG as used in UK tanks, or 8 for a ranging .50 MG as used in Chieftains. Use around 6 to 10 for optical range finders as in the M48/M60/Leo 1. values under 5 tend to be used for WW2 type tank sights. For reference - 4 was generally the max value in SP 1 (e.g. panthers) barring some specials (e.g. 8 for the Nashorn, which used a stereo optical range finder of artillery observer type)."

Jagdtiger has a value of 8, like the Nashorn, and Panther A and G have a value of 5, higher than, say, the Jagdpanther, which has a value of 3 like most tanks. The Panther F - which had a proper, 1.32 meter stereoscopic rangefinder, has a value of 6.
It has been my impression, that RF was a value, you could manipulate to get better long range accuracy of a given gun, rather than a direct 1-1 relation the the actual rangefinding capabilities of the guns optics. The different values in the German OOB seems to bear this out?

Also, I'm not really all that convinced, that a 1 meter rangefinder was standard issue to Nashorns in particular. They might have been available on occassion for those vehicles, just as they were for some Tigers in Tunesia. But perhaps someone have some info on that.

cbo
Reply With Quote