Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikdunaev
Sorry, what exactly are the KTBs?
You are saying that the stadimeter and the adjustable stand scope never actually coexisted in one unit, is that right?
I am curious, why could they not, say, take the boat one or two meters deeper, and use the normal, full length scope, with the same effect of it sitting low? Especially in quiet weather, when scope is most visible, but depth control is also easier and more precise...
|
KTBs are the logbooks maintained on patrol. Correct, stadimeter did not exist on StaSr. To your second question, head of the attack scope was smaller, significantly so, and depth control is still difficult even at a slightly different depth. I’m not sure what the difference in heights was, if any at all. But depthkeeping was certainly difficult even a couple of meters deeper in rougher weather, and they would not have forgone the advantage of an adjustable fixed eye scope just for that anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikdunaev
Did they plot on the map? Maneuvering board? I assume they did not have a device similar in function to the allied dead reckoning tracer?
But plotting itself requires reasonably accurate ranges, right?
Did they get those from telemeter tables? Or was there some other way still?
|
Plotting was done on what was called millimeter paper, which is like graph paper on steroids. Very tiny squares that allow for accuracy. Now, there was no rangefinding device reliable on the surface, because the UZOjust was a bearing transmitter, but what they did to plot was they used the mast tips on the horizon as a reference. They knew if just a little bit of mast was showing, that might be 16 nautical miles or so, and they based their plot on whether those mast tips grew or shrank. Over time you can develop a very accurate plot. Note that this was only on the surface and only during the day; submerged, plotting like this was generally not done. The preferable method however on the surface was simply adjusting own course and speed until it appeared they were paralleling the target, that is the simplest way to get the target data (“Ausdampfen”). But no DRT or anything like that like the US. All done by the navigator, with information supplied either by the skipper or a watch officer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikdunaev
And for the fixed wire, they did use U-Jagd, right?
|
Probably not. U-Jagd means the hunting of subs, ASW. That watch was actually used by German ASW to plan depth charge approaches. Now, it just so happens that it is handy to use for this method, because the principles are the same, distance traveled over time. They had tables to help with this, but may have also used some form of stopwatch, there is reference made to that in at least one source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikdunaev
I remember reading somewhere that they had tables, listing the linear, rather than angular, torpedo parallax, which allowed shooting at any angle without knowing range to the target, using the target length as a rough yardstick.
|
Absolutely correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikdunaev
How did the real thing function in terms of scope magnification?
Did you have to divide everything by four in low power, like with the American stadimeter?
|
The reticle was designed for 1.5x. In game you can multiply by 4 in 6x but IRL this was more complicated due to nuances in the optics. Rangefinding at 1.5x only was recommended.