StuG Question.

[cbo]

Originally Posted by chuckfourth

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 I do not quote Ogorkiewics ad verbatim, hence I do not use quotation marks.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

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.

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

[chuckfourth]

Hi Claus
So Im guessing then that your origional comment "The Sf.14z is, has always been and remains a simple set of binoculars" attributed to Ogorkiewicz is in fact incorrect? Does Ogorkiewicz even mention sf14? Needless to say this is why I prefer quotations rather than paraphrase. Paraphrase can be very misleading.
Good to hear you have changed your position from SF14 being a simple binoclar to being a superior binoclar. So it just remains to be settled how superior.
Your quote from mobhack is interesting. The Nashorn is equipped with the sf14. Mobhacks description fits it, ie a sterioscopic artillery type "rangefinder" The real Rangefinders were all issued to the Flak ie AA not Artillery.
So whatever the rangefinder value the Nashorn has, all the other vehicles equipped with Sf14 should also get it. If the real rangefinder gets 8 then Sf should probably get something less. Alternately the SF14 could get a RF value of 8 and the real rangefinders something higher as the two seem to be confused in the case of the Nashorn.
Circumstantial evidence is all I can offer for a high RF value for SF14 in that the Nashorn had it and was a famously accurate shooter and it appears from the origional post so was the stug. ie there is no other explanation of both vehicles being very accurate other than their common peice of kit, the SF14 (ie I think it does make a difference in game terms).
Regards Chuck.

[cbo]

Originally Posted by chuckfourth

Hi Claus
So Im guessing then that your origional comment "The Sf.14z is, has always been and remains a simple set of binoculars" attributed to Ogorkiewicz is in fact incorrect? Does Ogorkiewicz even mention sf14? .

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

Good to hear you have changed your position from SF14 being a simple binoclar to being a superior binoclar. So it just remains to be settled how superior.

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

Your quote from mobhack is interesting. The Nashorn is equipped with the sf14. Mobhacks description fits it, ie a sterioscopic artillery type "rangefinder" The real Rangefinders were all issued to the Flak ie AA not Artillery.
So whatever the rangefinder value the Nashorn has, all the other vehicles equipped with Sf14 should also get it. If the real rangefinder gets 8 then Sf should probably get something less. Alternately the SF14 could get a RF value of 8 and the real rangefinders something higher as the two seem to be confused in the case of the Nashorn.

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:



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

[chuckfourth]

Hi Claus

Originally Posted by cbo

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

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.

Originally Posted by cbo

It is a simple binocular compared with a gunsight or a rangefinder proper.

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?

Originally Posted by cbo

They got the full monty in terms of artillery training whereas the gunnery training for tank crews was less thorough"

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.

[cbo]

Whatever, Chuck

Claus B