British v German rangefinders

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: British v German rangefinders

Post by dunmunro » Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:27 pm

Paul L wrote:I will go with the "Oxford companion to World War two" , which reports the KM numbers as 190,000 in 1940 -while the Heer/SS was 4.5 million, which is about 23:1.

In 1944v the KM figures are reported at 810,000 while the HEER/SS are reported at 7.1 million ; which is about 9:1...again hardly 40:1. The vast majority of the KM personnel by 1944 were manning the ATLANTIC WALL and indeed did require binoculars.

German Navy combat manpower in July 1943

July 1943
Submarines:___ 49589
Surface vessels: 171,938
Coast artillery: _8454
Air Defense: ___86759
Radio/Radar: __28467
Base and supply: 6929
Total ______351958

Projected strength for Sept 1944 is ~438000



Fuehrer Naval Conferences Jun 29 1943.

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: British v German rangefinders

Post by Steve Crandell » Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:20 am

Their entire "base and supply" establishment was less than 7,000 men? How did they ever send ships to sea?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: British v German rangefinders

Post by dunmunro » Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:23 am

Steve Crandell wrote:Their entire "base and supply" establishment was less than 7,000 men? How did they ever send ships to sea?
The figures for submarines and surface vessels are far in excess of actual shipboard complements (crew requirements for 4 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, 6 light cruisers and 40 destroyers and torpedo boats and smaller was only ~40,000 and the KM only briefly achieved this strength) and the excess represented shore establishments. Of course many of the base workers were civilian. As I stated previously, the peak strength of all the Commonwealth Navies was just around 1 million, and these navies had many times (~10x) greater seagoing strength and crewing requirements.

Christian VII.
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:49 am

Re: British v German rangefinders

Post by Christian VII. » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:47 pm

Still a completely inaccurate way to gauge the ratio of coated vs non coated optics made, esp. as all evidence available points towards the Heer recieving a lot of coated optics as well. If regular mass produced army Dienstglasses were coated, sometimes both inside & out, then already there you have an indication of how common lense coating was within the German optics industry.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if 1/4th of all German optical equipment made after 1941 was coated either internally, externally or both.

Bart B.
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:06 pm

Re: British v German rangefinders

Post by Bart B. » Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:02 pm

I came across this forum searching for "stereoscopic vs coincidence rangefinder." Though I would share my experiences with both.

The early days of my US Navy 20+ year career as a fire control technician, I hen spent some time using stereoscopic rangefinders. Performed both target ranging and spotting shots on surface and air targets. My first two ships were destroyers in the late '50's and I was sometimes the 5 meter rangefinder operator in their 5 inch main battery director several times. My first ship's leading petty officer administered a simple test to evaluate my stereoscopic vision quality thai I passed with ease. Attended the rangefinder operator school in San Diego and was shown the differences of both types. Oft times I performed tests on the rangefinders to ensure their accuracy. Best thing I did was giving deflection spots before 5 inch projectiles splashed near the towed target sled. They could be seen arcing down the last several hundred yards of their trajectory. When the splash was seen, a range spot was given. The radar operator next to me logged the radar range difference to evaluate my visual range spotting skills. My record was above average.

In a stable environment, a coincident rangefinder can give more exact ranges. To me, range and deflection spotting is easier, faster and more accurate with stereoscopic ones. Especially then the old tin cans built in the early 1940's were making 15 knots or more and their vibrations would read 6 or more on the Richter scale. A shipmate on my second destroyer mentioned that one of these days, some optical engineering guru will invent lens stabilizing stuff to make ranging and spotting easier. A mental flashback to that happened when the first image camera lenses were introduced

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 682
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: British v German rangefinders

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:40 am

for Germany the optical rangefinders at least on the capital ships were triaxially stabilised. A feature wich was recommended by NavTecMisEur also for use on american ships.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

Bart B.
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:06 pm

Re: British v German rangefinders

Post by Bart B. » Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:40 pm

USN rangefinders in directors were also stabilized. The gyro in the device that put ship's roll and pitch angles into the battery computer/rangekeeper to correct gun positions also were used to position the battery director and its ranging devices.

But nothing corrected for the ship vibrations caused by main engines turning screws and ships bouncing off waves.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: British v German rangefinders

Post by dunmunro » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:47 am

Bart B. wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:40 pm
USN rangefinders in directors were also stabilized. The gyro in the device that put ship's roll and pitch angles into the battery computer/rangekeeper to correct gun positions also were used to position the battery director and its ranging devices.

But nothing corrected for the ship vibrations caused by main engines turning screws and ships bouncing off waves.
Most RN RFs were power stabilized as well. On older destroyers the RF was stabilized by the layer and trainer as they were mechanically linked together.

Bart B. Hi.

Can you tell us more of your experiences using Stereo RFs at night?

Post Reply