Yeah, also noticed that difference but that is a diff that imo doesnt justify adding a whole 2nd scope to a boat (less is more).
I mean the longest scope does not necessarily needs to be extended to its max. So in that respect only one scope would have sufficed.
Also diff of magnification does not seem to justify the extra engineering efforts of adding a whole extra scope; I mean, again, the scope does not need to be necessarily magnified to its max (also a lower magn could be chosen I guess).
Only diff that seems somewhat substantial seems the field of view. But I don't really see why a more narrow view would be more beneficial than a more broad field of view. Especially considering that via magnification levels the view field can be narrowed down.
But anyways, that's just me newbie lay-man first impression on the matter. Of course there must be a good reason for placing two scopes (maybe it is also not too much extra effort in terms of cost, weight, space etc) otherwise they would not be there, so I am of course wrong, but on firts sight I do not immediatley see the extra benefits of the Attack scope above the Obs scope.
Maybe the diameter of the scope itself is also a factor where the attack scope is thinner resulting in less wake resulting in less chance of detection.
|