[REQ] Possible to stabilize only the UZO ?

[stoianm]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

you can of course choose to mod your own game any way you wish, but no, it is not historically correct.

- now i do not know how it was in real... i know that magic1111 love very much uboat history and he readed a lot of books about... and i know that you are well informed all the time
so can you point me where to read some inf about UZO to see what was for real?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by stoianm

- now i do not know how it was in real... i know that magic1111 love very much uboat history and he readed a lot of books about... and i know that you are well informed all the time
so can you point me where to read some inf about UZO to see what was for real?

There was nothing magical about the UZO. It was a simple pair of binoculars strapped to a fixed point. No rangefinding mechanism, although you could send the bearing.

If you look at the photos I posted above, the UZO was fixed with a large axis on each side so you could pivot it up and down and keep a ship fixed even though the U-boat's bow was going up and down. However, since the "stabilizing" was done by the crewman, it would not work in very heavy seas. Furthermore, there is no stabilizing whatsoever for waves coming from the side.

Now let's look at the periscope. True, there is no stabilizing mechanism whatsoever, but that is because you don't need one. A sub underwater at 45-60 feet is much less affected by surface waves, so less side to side movement than if it is on the surface. In respect of fore and aft movement, you have the entire 220+ feet length of the hull underwater acting as a stabilizer, so little movement that way either.

so, you have two options, either of which can be seen as correct:

1. scope stabilized, UZO not stabilized;
2. scope stabilized, UZO stabilised;

options 1 and 2 are already available in all SH games.

however option 3: scope not stabilized, UZO stabilized is not historically correct.

[Magic1111]

I agree with these posts:

http://174.123.69.202/~subsimc/radio...40&postcount=6

3rd post from above:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...2/m/8311049103

and my sources in my historical books !

Best regards,
Magic

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Magic1111

I agree with these posts:

http://174.123.69.202/~subsimc/radio...40&postcount=6

I see that you choose to ignore my response to that very claim. "Most likely" means that he was guessing and hoping, not that he had a clue what he was talking about. And upon rereading my own response I have to repeat it: How exactly would this be made to work?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...2/m/8311049103

Again he makes a claim with no verification at all. It's worthless.

and my sources in my historical books !

What books? If you're going to make a claim like this you need to quote the source exactly, and provide a link to where I can buy the same book and learn this. Anyone can claim anything and say they have a reference, but if you don't show it then it is meaningless.

[Trevally.]

I have been thinking about how this could work.

When you are standing on the deck of a boat travelling forward, there is a lot of motion up and down as the boat pushes through a wave. (more so than side sway)

Now if I am used to standing on this deck (sea legs) I can sway with the movement of the boat. So my head is always parallel to the sea. If I had a stick in front of me that was free moving forward and back and fixed to deck, I could hold this against myself and continue my sway. So I become the stabilizer. If this was binos and could also pivot at the head - perhaps a steady view could be achieved.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Trevally.

I have been thinking about how this could work.

When you are standing on the deck of a boat travelling forward, there is a lot of motion up and down as the boat pushes through a wave. (more so than side sway)

Now if I am used to standing on this deck (sea legs) I can sway with the movement of the boat. So my head is always parallel to the sea. If I had a stick in front of me that was free moving forward and back and fixed to deck, I could hold this against myself and continue my sway. So I become the stabilizer. If this was binos and could also pivot at the head - perhaps a steady view could be achieved.

That is what I figure also.


By captain_joch at 2011-03-02


By captain_joch at 2011-03-02

the crewman is leaning against the pedestal and can keep the UZO aimed at the horizon just by standing up or crouching down. Since a boat will usually head into waves, side motion should not normally be a factor. Should be fairly easy to keep the image level, except in rough seas.

[stoianm]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Should be fairly easy to keep the image level, except in rough seas.

Speaking about rough sea... how were the tactics in WWII - the uboat attack in rough sea or just waith for weather to change?

[Vanilla]

Originally Posted by Trevally.

I have been thinking about how this could work.

When you are standing on the deck of a boat travelling forward, there is a lot of motion up and down as the boat pushes through a wave. (more so than side sway)

Now if I am used to standing on this deck (sea legs) I can sway with the movement of the boat. So my head is always parallel to the sea. If I had a stick in front of me that was free moving forward and back and fixed to deck, I could hold this against myself and continue my sway. So I become the stabilizer. If this was binos and could also pivot at the head - perhaps a steady view could be achieved.

Try this with binoculars when in a car. It is impossible to make it level. I tried. Of course cars 3d movement is much more chaotic, so I guess on a U-boot one could keep it level to some extent, but defenitely not exactly stabilized. My thinking is that looking through binoculars as it is now in Sh5 gives you exactly the effect one would see through UZO - it is not level but you can make it level to some extent manually (using mouse).

Regarding cushinong - it doesn't affect stabilization at all, just remember that regular binoculars are also cushioned - by your hands and body, they are soft, remember? So: neither UZO nor scopes/gun were stabilized in U-boats. The scopes are, however, naturally more 'stable' since the boat is submerged when using scopes and hence much more stable.

Regarding split-image stadimiter - AFAIK neither scopes nor UZO had it in the U-boats. You had to use mil marks and your best judgement from experience.

[Trevally.]

Originally Posted by Vanilla

Try this with binoculars when in a car. It is impossible to make it level. I tried. Of course cars 3d movement is much more chaotic, so I guess on a U-boot one could keep it level to some extent, but defenitely not exactly stabilized. My thinking is that looking through binoculars as it is now in Sh5 gives you exactly the effect one would see through UZO - it is not level but you can make it level to some extent manually (using mouse).

I was meaning that if you spend time on a boat (standing up) you develop
an ability to stand upright as the deck pitches under you. This comes from your ankles.
You can also do this from your hips if you are sitting. (anyone who has had soup on a ship
in rough weathers knows what I mean here). The
point is that you have to get used to this motion and works best when standing.

In a car I agree this would not work.

[Jester_UK]

Originally Posted by Vanilla

Try this with binoculars when in a car. It is impossible to make it level......

That's because you're sitting down and as such have no solid "base" to work from.

This method of stabilisation - as primiative as it is - is very possible. In fact one of the earliest British tanks operating in the 2nd world war (the A9 Cruiser IIRC) jused exactly this method ofstabilisation for it's main gun (effectively meaning the gunner's knees became the gun stabiliser. The system worked well (if...and only if you had a well trained gunner) and gave the British the first tank capable of firing accurately whilst on the move (at that time all other tanks needed to be stationary to fire accurately).

Source for this: Bovinton Tank Museum.


If this would work in a moving tank (where movement would be far more exagerated than on a U-Boat), there is absolutely no reason why this wouldn't work as Magic is suggesting.

[Magic1111]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"Most likely" means that he was guessing and hoping, not that he had a clue what he was talking about. And upon rereading my own response I have to repeat it: How exactly would this be made to work?

Okay, Point for you !

Again he makes a claim with no verification at all. It's worthless.

Okay, point for you !

What books? If you're going to make a claim like this you need to quote the source exactly, and provide a link to where I can buy the same book and learn this. Anyone can claim anything and say they have a reference, but if you don't show it then it is meaningless.

Sorry, but for me it´s not possible to write the exactly source, because I´ve bought me since the last 20 years over 60 books from german subs in WW2 (for example iron coffins from Herbert A. Werner and many others). So I remind that I read about the UZO in one of my books, but I think you understand, that I can´t say exactly in which book ( when you want I can post a picture from all of my books...).

So, I asked a former submarine driver of german Navy (Bundesmarine) in my german ubi-forum and he answerded me the following (I´ve translate his answer via google, because my english is not so good):

Please look first this picture: http://www.u-995.com/images/galerie/...kenwanne02.jpg

and then read his answer:

"In the pictures of the bridge when can we see the column of the torpedo target device or the UZO base very well. The upper range (ie where the UZO is placed), is from the surrounding ring with the degree numbers must be clearly separated. Somehow reminds me of the process with the support of a magnetic compass, which is indeed suspended freely to compensate for the ship's movements.
This makes sense since the UZO was indeed used in case of water attacks, so a submarine, even at low wave heights ever is rocked by something stronger. It would therefore only logical that a telescopic sight would be stabilized in accordance."

Best regards,
Magic

[Vanilla]

Originally Posted by Magic1111

....
This makes sense since the UZO was indeed used in case of water attacks, so a submarine, even at low wave heights ever is rocked by something stronger. It would therefore only logical that a telescopic sight would be stabilized in accordance."
....

We know that UZO is just slightly better binoculars (that is - there could be no internal stabilization mechanism inside, like moving lenses etc.) Moreover from the pictures above we see that the operator would look through it just like a regular binoculars - holding it close to his eyes. Now let's imagine for a moment that the UZO was indeed stabilized, then it would mean that the post had an automatic mechanism that has an ability to move attached binoculars in order to keep it level. What our operator standing on the deck would see in heavy seas - an UZO that would be swaying, jolting and twisting violently and erratically due to stabilization keeping it level - in fact it is the boat that would twisting and turning, while UZO would be perfectly level, but the man on the deck would pereceive that it is the UZO moving (relativity).
In such a situation I doubt that anyone would dare even to approach such a device forget continuosly keeping it close to your eyes or risk to be hit by it.

I agree with Trevally that the only stabilization that could be obtained was through our operator's human innate ability to stay upraight even on swinging deck. But as Bilge_Rat said 'stabilized' option is already very much like that now.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Magic1111

"...It would therefore only logical that a telescopic sight would be stabilized in accordance."

"It would therefore only logical?" That is an assumption, nothing else. I repeat:

How was it done? Gyroscopic stabilization of rangefinders was barely being experimented with on American battleships in 1945. If the gunsights on a battleship didn't have this, how did a pair of binoculars mounted to a stand on a submarine have it?

We have accurate drawings of how the fixed-eyepiece periscope from U-570 worked, and complete descriptions and drawings of the workings of the US periscopes, yet no mention is made of this wonderful device in any source I've seen.

It's not about "points for me", or for you. It's about what is known. If someone can show me that this was done, and how I'll change my attitude so fast you won't even see it happen. I would love if this were so, but I've never seen even the slightest evidence, other that what someone wishes or assumes would make sense.

[Magic1111]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"It would therefore only logical?" That is an assumption, nothing else. I repeat:

How was it done? Gyroscopic stabilization of rangefinders was barely being experimented with on American battleships in 1945. If the gunsights on a battleship didn't have this, how did a pair of binoculars mounted to a stand on a submarine have it?

We have accurate drawings of how the fixed-eyepiece periscope from U-570 worked, and complete descriptions and drawings of the workings of the US periscopes, yet no mention is made of this wonderful device in any source I've seen.

It's not about "points for me", or for you. It's about what is known. If someone can show me that this was done, and how I'll change my attitude so fast you won't even see it happen. I would love if this were so, but I've never seen even the slightest evidence, other that what someone wishes or assumes would make sense.

Hi Folks !

I wait a few days for another answer from the former U-Boat-driver (german Navy, not WWII), and today he send me an pm via german ubi forum !

Before I copy & paste his original answer in german language and translate via google let me say, that he asked a good friend from him, and these good friend was an former U-Boat-Driver of the U-Boat Typ XXI "Wilhelm Bauer", formely U-2540, look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_..._Wilhelm_Bauer

Now his original answer via copy & paste:

"Ich habe mal einen guten Bekannten (und U-Bauer Veteran) nach der UZO-Säule gefragt und der hat mir bestätigt, daß der UZO-Sockel kardanisch gelagert war. Damit ließen sich also die Schiffsbewegungen in gewissen Rahmen ausgleichen."

Now I translate via google:
Quote begin:
"I asked a good friend (and veteran U-Bauer) according to the UZO and he confirmed to me that the UZO socket was mounted on universal joints (gimbal). This could be offset so the movement of vessels in certain extent".
Quote End !

To Gimbal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal

These above words spoke a veteran of an Typ XXI Sub !!!

For me that´s clearify enough, together with that I have in mind what I read in many books !

The last thing what I can do to post here the sources (names of books), where I´ve read this. When I find, I post here (or scan the pages and post here a picture from the book) !

Best regards,
Magic