[REQ] Possible to stabilize only the UZO ?

[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