Observation vs Attack periscope

[Sluipneger]

Hi,

Is there any difference in the 2 periscopes? I always use the attack periscope because the officer can use a sailor to help.

Thanks.

[wolf310ii]

DECAFBAD původně napsal:

Why? Whoever is looking through the periscope must be able to tell distance just by looking.

That wasnt done by just looking, that was done by useing the markings in the optics and calculating the distance.

According to the reports on U-570/HMS Graph from the Royal Navy the attack periskope had magnification of 1,5x and 6x, and field of view of 38° and 9°
The Observation periscope hat 1,54x and 6,1x and a FOV of 36°38' and 8°46' for the main occular and 28°36' and 7°3' for the sencondary occular.
The UZO had a magnification of 7,1x and a FOV of 7°25'

[DECAFBAD]

wolf310ii původně napsal:

That wasnt done by just looking, that was done by useing the markings in the optics and calculating the distance.

Calculating based on what? Unlike Silent Hunter and all other video games, the recognition manuals weren't as available, and exact classification of ships wasn't done prior to attacking. They had these handy graphics of how large ships usually were horizontally and vertically.

wolf310ii původně napsal:

According to the reports on U-570/HMS Graph from the Royal Navy the attack periskope had magnification of 1,5x and 6x, and field of view of 38° and 9°
The Observation periscope hat 1,54x and 6,1x and a FOV of 36°38' and 8°46' for the main occular and 28°36' and 7°3' for the sencondary occular.
The UZO had a magnification of 7,1x and a FOV of 7°25'

I know those numbers. 38° vs 36°38'. 9° vs 8°46'
Why aren't the measurements so detailed for the AP? I suspect the AP angles were copied from the booklet that the captain failed to destroy while they measured the angles of the OP. Those are the exact same numbers (38° and 9°) that are in the StaSR C-2 booklet.

[wolf310ii]

DECAFBAD původně napsal:

Calculating based on what? Unlike Silent Hunter and all other video games, the recognition manuals weren't as available, and exact classification of ships wasn't done prior to attacking. They had these handy graphics of how large ships usually were horizontally and vertically.

Unlike SH and other games they didnt had a booklet with like 20 ships typs, they had almanachs with pretty much every ship that got actualised for every patrol and classification was done as exact as possible prior attacking to get as exact fire data as posible

[DECAFBAD]

wolf310ii původně napsal:

DECAFBAD původně napsal:

Calculating based on what? Unlike Silent Hunter and all other video games, the recognition manuals weren't as available, and exact classification of ships wasn't done prior to attacking. They had these handy graphics of how large ships usually were horizontally and vertically.

Unlike SH and other games they didnt had a booklet with like 20 ships typs, they had almanachs with pretty much every ship that got actualised for every patrol and classification was done as exact as possible prior attacking to get as exact fire data as posible

During the first year of the war that might have gotten some use, but it was certainly not the norm by 41 to identify ships. Especially when attacking submerged, the limited visual conditions wouldn't allow it. Portuguese, tanker, about 10000 tons. That was the extent to which ships were identified.

[Nz0]

you don't mention the fact that some of the light is lost in periscopes,
especially in attack scopes because of the narrow head.
certainly the reason of attacking on surface with UZO during night (not just for pleasant windy breezy air)