Practical Value of Rangefinders: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(move from old Bibliography Templates to new, Citable Source Templates) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
==Bibliography== | ==Bibliography== | ||
{{refbegin}} | {{refbegin}} | ||
*{{ | *{{BrooksThesis}} | ||
{{refend}} | {{refend}} | ||
[[Category:Fire Control]] | [[Category:Fire Control]] | ||
Revision as of 20:17, 14 September 2012
As optical instruments, rangefinders have finite accuracy and precision. Manufacturers and naval services attempted to identify and quantify sources of error and limitation in an effort to make their instruments more helpful in the fire control process.
This article will focus first on Coincidence Rangefinders, as they are easiest to characterise in optical and mechanical terms.
Sources of Error
The Royal Navy estimated that the human eye can detect misalignment of half images in a coincidence rangefinder when the angle at the eye reaches 12 arc seconds, or 0.0000582 in circular measure. For a rangefinder, this meant that the uncertainty of range estimation was:
error = (0.0000582 * range * range) / (magnification * baselength)
In other words, the error in ranging would vary with the square of the range, and would be reduced linearly by the baselength of the instrument and by its magnifying power.
Errors in Practice
John Brooks cites late-war Grand Fleet reports that[1]
An examination of rangefinder plots obtained at full calibre firings during the third quarter of 1917 shows that small rangefinder spreads were the exception, and that the gun range in many cases differed from the mean of the rangefinders by as much as 1000 yds. In more than one instance, an individual rangefinder altered its divergence from the gun range by 2000 yds. during the firing. Rangefinder rates on the whole were good, but in some cases all rangefinders of a ship indicated a rate of 200 to 300 yds. per minute in error. ...for want of a better explanation, these errors have been attributed to refraction, i.e. the bending of the rays from the target to the rangefinder, due to the opacity of the atmosphere, smoke, or light effects.
Investigation by Barr and Stroud discounted reports of refraction and placed the blame predominantly on heating of the instruments under direct sunlight.[2]
Footnotes
- ↑ John Brooks thesis, p. 494.
- ↑ Brooks offers these citations: Admiralty, Technical History Section, 'Fire Control in N.M. Ships' (TH23), p.33 in The Technical History and Index: A Serial History of Technical Problems dealt with by Admiralty Department, 1919, AL Admiralty, Gunnery Branch, Progress in Gunnery Material 1921, p.9, ADM 186/251 and Progress in Gunnery Material 1922 and 1923, ADM 186/259, p.53.
Bibliography
- Brooks, John (2001). Fire Control for British Dreadnoughts: Choices of Technology and Supply. Unpublished PhD Thesis. London: Department of War Studies. King's College, London.
