A study of stereoscopic rangefinders

[Craiglxviii]

To answer a question on Quora (how tiring were BISMARCK's rangefinders to use?) I found the following.

Page 69 for reference, the data is fascinating.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0200796.pdf

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

Been a while, but I read some-where that 'Dazzle' camo scheme was surprisingly effective against one of the two main types of optical range-finder...

But the Germans preferred the other !!

[Craiglxviii]

Been a while, but I read some-where that 'Dazzle' camo scheme was surprisingly effective against one of the two main types of optical range-finder...

But the Germans preferred the other !!

Correct- razzle dazzle worked against coincidence rangefinders but not stereoscopic.

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

A thought: Given periscope constraints, wouldn't U-Boot range-finders be 'coincident' ??

( And, yes, need for multiple wide, wider, widest stereo optics for light, medium, heavy weapons' fire-control that spawned infamous 'FUUSOOO !!' masts. How else, in that era, could you reliably track, tackle multiple targets ?? )

[Craiglxviii]

A thought: Given periscope constraints, wouldn't U-Boot range-finders be 'coincident' ??

( And, yes, need for multiple wide, wider, widest stereo optics for light, medium, heavy weapons' fire-control that spawned infamous 'FUUSOOO !!' masts. How else, in that era, could you reliably track, tackle multiple targets ?? )

They used stadimetric rangefinders.

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

Ah...
Hasty google-search required, as that's a new term to me !!

A very few ranging shots would establish beyond doubt if target is the size of initial estimate, hence distance.
eg destroyer vs destroyer leader vs light cruiser etc...
Then it gets bloody...