Hans Seeger, Militaerische Fernglaeser und Fernrohre, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3; pages 31-39 2. Prism Field Glasses (Excepting the Navy) Introduction and Summary [page 31] In this section, prism glasses which were produced for service use will be summarized. Therefore, field glasses which were used in the Army or Navy, but were of civilian origin, are briefly mentioned or omitted. The distinction between military and civilian is at times rather arbitrary. In many countries, for example Great Britain, civilian field glasses were used well into the Second World War. The classification of German glasses is a little easier. A large number of military field glasses had civilian counterparts, which in most cases are easily distinguishable from the military models. The civilian models in question usually have center focus, and can therefore hardly be confused with military glasses. The matching civilian models with individual focus had other identification names. As is well known, prism field glasses have a number of advantages, which cannot be matched by binoculars of different optical designs; the Galilean, astronomical [Keplerian oculars, inverted image], and terrestrial (see 'Feldstecher', pp 26, 29 ff). Therefore, the more complicated and expensive prism glasses were introduced for military use around the world. Money has only a subordinate role in military decisions. Countries without optical industries imported these prized models (see below). Among early prism glasses, the expensive and luxurious models named 'Officer glass' had a special role to play. The Galilean models still had their importance at the end of the 19th century, but the situation had changed by the first World War. German field glasses are the main subject of the following; for the author has little information about models from other countries. Developments in Great Britain were extensively covered by William Reid (1981/84), and therefore section 2.3.1 has only summarized or revised notes. Before we go into detail about the models, the Porro I binocular will be discussed. This was the most commonly used image reversing system for the first 100 years of binoculars, in the models we are interested in (see fig. 16). With the Porro I system, field glasses can be manufactured with a separation between the objectives that is greater than the distance between the oculars. The potential for viewing with heightened image plasticity is one of the reasons for the success of this prism system. Unfortunately, documentation about military and navy glasses survives as fragments (if at all), or is difficult to examine. True, there were announcements & brochures for these models, but because of the low number of potential customers (essentially military departments), the quantity printed was probably small. Civilian access was only possible through publicity which described field glasses that were also available on the open market, for example the Zeiss Prospectus T 82 (1911), in which it says: 'The Army models were already introduced in 1896 for the German Army as service glasses. The German Navy followed later with the Marine Model. Nearly all other countries followed Germany in this respect. The Gentlemen Officers repeatedly were asked to acquire these special models for their private use by the relevant authorities, as recently in Germany through the Army regulations No. 1 volume 38, of January 16 1904 or through the order of the secretary of state of the Reichs Marine of September 27 1907. H II a 8453.' [page 32] The lack of reference material in regards to military optics has another reason. Especially after the first World War, some companies looked upon the manufacturing of military optics as a necessary evil, and publishing the details of production of optics for the military was not to be expected. The author doesn’t know of any collection of papers on military models, comparable to the cited T 82 (by Zeiss), from the time after the first World War. The few relevant references have the character of date sheets and obviously were not printed for civilian use. Often the military models or their data were top secret and only available for current glasses. Any account of these binoculars would not be complete for these reasons. More exact knowledge about military glasses could often be obtained only when the models in question were sold as surplus or came into private possession as booty. The corresponding surplus lists and sales catalogs of military optics from the second World War contain obvious mistakes, so that these can only be used as a source with some caution. Attempts to document a military field glass meet with a further difficulty: After the first World War, by the order of the victorious powers, a great number of German military optics had to be destroyed (Schumann 1962); a fate that was possibly shared by many field glasses after the second World War. But during WWII, there were also Allied 'regular search troops' [regelrechte Suchtrupps] with orders to secure the optically powerful German free standing [Stativ-Fernrohre] binoculars in particular, from the conquered areas. In the new countries of the German Democratic Republic, there are practically no surviving examples of military glasses from before 1945. Military optics were under the jurisdiction of the Armament Laws [Waffengesetz]. Understandably, no one exposed himself to the dangers connected with the possession of any military glasses during the hard times in the Soviet occupation zone. The situation in other countries is different. Some of the handbooks printed during war time in the U.S., repair instructions for military optics and etc., are still available, and reprints were made. There are lists which assist in orienting the researcher. But some of the cited material, for example the Navord Reports, are unavailable as an original, even with great effort. The author was told privately that there are supposed to be many other documents of this kind, but supposedly they are still Top Secret and are not going to be released. In these old documents, there might still be something Secret or Confidential and until somebody reads them, they stay secret. The sad story is, that there are no officials who are reading these papers to decide on their release. In addition to the cited papers, there are further important documents from America, for example 'The Univex Story' by Cynthia Repinski. The situation is even more complicated in Great Britain. There are extensive and detailed descriptions of optics used in the wars, but these papers are top secret, unavailable, and as far as the author knows, publication is strictly forbidden. Nevertheless, with some luck, the 'Handbook of Artillery Instruments' can be found in a flea market. John Gould and William Reid have published important papers, and company histories of some optics manufacturers are available. But researching the history of French military optics is hopeless. All attempts to get a copy of the War Ministry’s paper about Artillery of 1928 (!) through official channels were unsuccessful. (See bibliography, paragraph 1, and table 5.) In spite of these rather pessimistic declarations, a book about military optics could still be written. If there were enough available literature, this book would be unecessary. Fortunately there are collections and museums, where there are optics of the kind we are interested in here, instruments that have actually been built and therefore can explain more than any written note. As is well known: 'paper is patient'. Fortunately there are some documents about military optics. The documents, or copies of documents, that have been discovered are widely scattered, and had to be painstakingly gathered by the author. Finally there are and were helpful collectors and experts who were generous with their expertise and knowledge. All in all, the circumstances led to success, but were not really ideal. In totality, they led to a preliminary result: This book. With that, the introduction is finished and we arrive at the question: How does one recognize a military field glass? 2.1. Identifications and Marks [page 33] All military and Naval glasses produced in this century and to this date, are distinguished by certain characteristics. Some of these are: -Individual focus; or fixed focus (non-adjustable focusing to infinity for normally sighted people.) -Solid construction, and water protected or watertight. -Frequently there will be a reticle, with a cross of filaments, and / or built in colored glasses (color filters). -High quality optics - depending on the producer and the era of manufacture. -On the lower or upper end of the folding bridge, there is often a large screw* with which the binocular can be fixed at a certain interpupillary distance (this was often used, until about 1920, but is more infrequent in later military models.) *Footnote in the H.Dv. 448/1 of May 3 1927: 'For older D.F.s, there is a holding screw at the lower end of the hinge axis to fix the field glass body at the adjusted eye distance.' -Frequently, there are particular markings. For example, the German Dienstglass [service glass], D.F. (= doppelfernrohr or double telescope) dated by year, 'Artillerie D.F., 'Marine' or 'Armee Trieder', troop insignia, emblems (crown, eagle, etc), and during the second World War manufacturers codes in the form of a three letter code instead of the manufacturer’s name. The English military used optics with an arrow symbol (the broad arrow) and / or an O.S. or A.P. number (= Optical Store or Admirality Pattern). French field glasses showed the engraving M.G. = war ministery. -Features such as range finders, drying cartridges, and connections for drying devices, are rarer, but their presence always indicates a military model. -Laser protection filters- but those are only to be found on some newer military models (from about 1980 on), see fig 32. Of course, not all of these characteristics can be found on each military model, some of them depend on the era, and others are mutually exclusive. Except for the reticle (and of course the laser protection filter), most of these characteristics are also valid for Galilean military glasses. The first Zeiss prism binoculars (see fig. 34 in 'Feldstecher'), and some of its predecessors, were built with individual focus only. From a technical point of view, this simple method of focusing permits a glass to be nearly dust and water tight, and avoids all the problems associated with a center focus. Jacobs (1943) cites another reason for the use of individual focus in military glasses. Binoculars in which the two halves are focused independently from each other are the only field glasses that can still be used when one half is damaged, for the undamaged half can be used as a monocular. Hanna (1953, vol. 3, page 248) gives ample space to the problems of center focus. He concludes with his judgement about center focus: 'This design is unsound, both optically and mechanically...' Hanna also points to the obvious when using a field glass during war. In regards to focusing he thinks: 'if an object were so close that focusing be necessary, the observer would not need a binocular'. His suggestion, that we not forget the idea of a fixed focus field glass, was not necessary even then, for during the second World War these glasses were produced in Germany and England, see figures 131 and 226. Later, the 'General Purpose Model' of Avimo, see fig. 25, was built without the provision for focus. The discussion on whether monocular glasses are sufficient for military use, has probably been held since the introduction of military prism field glasses. The obvious advantages of a monocular of the same specifications are: less weight, no need for a folding bridge, fewer focusing problems, and cheaper production costs. These advantages have at no time endangered or questioned the predominance of military binoculars. The advantages of natural two-eyed observation are paramount, and other considerations are less important. Interesting details in regards to the question of monocular military glasses are given in Jacobs, 1943. Monoculars were used because of weight and space savings, or because of lack of materials, but only infrequently. In regards to the construction of the optical elements, there are no special details of military and marine glasses which were not sooner or later introduced to civilian models. But certain characteristics, which definitely increased the capacity of a field glass, were often developed for military glasses, for example an especially large field of view (see fig. 90 and page 74 in 'Feldstecher'.) [page 34] In this context, the increase of image brightness and the diminishing of the number of optical elements, have to be mentioned. German military field glasses from about 1900 to 1920 used eye cups that were differently built than the civilian models. The military eye cups contain a 'core' of metal, and only the outer part consists of hard rubber. A screw thread is cut into the metal (in most cases bronze), with which the socket is screwed onto the ocular housing. (For all civilian models, the eye cups consist of hard rubber, bakelite or plastic). This distinguishing characteristic survived, along with the big clamping screw on the hinge of military glasses, only until the end of the 2nd or 3rd decade of this century. The clamping screw on the other hand was used for some British models until the middle of the second world war. 2.2. Optical Specifications and Construction Forms [page 35] The optical specifications of military hand held field glasses correspond to the civilian glasses, with very few exceptions. This is because only certain combinations of magnification and objective diameter lead to usable exit pupils. At the start of the 20th century, the small and relatively light weight army and navy models used 6 to 8 power, with objective diameters of 18 to 32 mm (6 x 18, 6 or 8 x 24, 6 x 30). The 6x30 was first introduced for marine use. Until 1908, only the Zeiss field glass used the design with an enlarged objective distance, which was patented by Zeiss, see fig. 109 (patent document of 1893.) Later, after about 1908, this design became standard, although not all manufacturers immediately took advantage of the expired Zeiss patent. The patent situation explains why we can find in military glasses from the first decade of the twentieth century, similar optical specifications with different construction forms. One can find different construction forms with the same or similar optical data, see figures 47 and 48. The 'non-Zeiss-versions' gradually disappeared from military use, since they didn't have the increased 'image plasticity'. Unwieldy military field glasses like the Avimo 7 x 42, with a form recalling the field glasses from the turn of the century, were short lived, see fig. 25. The good old Zeiss construction form is up to date today, as then, as are the slim field glass models that were introduced for the military, see fig. 65. The reason for that may have been the fact that observation through a small gap was possible. As already discussed, military field glasses do not have distinct forms, by which they can be distinguished from the the civilian models. The exceptions are the especially sturdy and heavy U-boat field glasses, see section 4.6, and special models for use on tripods. 2.3 Official and non-official military field glasses from different countries. We already pointed to the problems that arise with a systematic treatment of the 'pure bred' military models. All kinds of field glasses were used on the battlefield, and soldiers probably didn't care if they had an official service glass or not. However, for the manufacturers, that was an important distinction, and after the turn of the century each manufacturer tried to gain for his models the classification 'Official Service Glass', a seal of approval which meant an advantage over the competition. Only those models that were checked out by the war department were mentioned in the army regulations and recommended for purchase, a recommendation that was considered a binding obligation. When that wasn’t possible (most firms were unsuccessful), fantasy names were created to give the impression that some model had successfully passed the hard tests of military departments under field conditions. Thus, for example, Hensoldt produced the 'Kleine Infanterieglas 07' [Little Infantry Glass 07], and Schuetz* the 'Fernglas 1914', although the brochures do not say anything about an official date of introduction as service glass. (*In Great Britain, at the turn of the century, there had not yet been any discussions or statements about 'official' service glasses. The author knows of a Schuetz 'Perplex' (center focus) with the engraving 'Nov 1905' and broad Arrows, evidence that Schuetz models were used in the British Service. The same is true for a surviving Zeiss Teleplast (5 power model with Sprenger Prisms) which has this British military marking. During the Second World War a Binoctar (Zeiss, 7x50, center focus) with the yellow 'broad Arrows' and therefore official, was used in the navy.) Names like these were used in a prospectus from Goerz, Berlin (circa 1906, 'Officially Introduced Army Models D.F. 99 and D.F. 03'): 'In recent times, prism glasses are being offered from various sources to members of the army under the name : 'Army models'. We point to the fact that these have nothing to do with the officially introduced models for the army.' Furthermore it says: 'The Royal Prussian war department has after many years of tests named their official field glasses by the year of their introduction...Prism binoculars, which do not carry the D.F. in connection with a year’s number are consequently not official Army models.' [page 37] But this all inclusive statement is not true and the facts cannot be generalized in this fashion. Zeiss markings for official service glasses, as a rule, were the magnification, D.F. 6x or D.F. 6 x 42. There are only a small number of German military optics which are marked by the year. Examples include the D.F. 74, C91, D.F. 99, D.F. 03, D.F 08, S.F. 14, and S.F. 17. The main manufacturers for German military optics did not need any 'tricks' like misleading pseudo military markings (compare fig. 68). Goerz wrote after the turn of the century: 'Our military binoculars are constructed especially for military use and are only sold to members of the Army and Navy'- if the order came from a military source. The advertising for Zeiss and Goerz by the war department was successful, as seen in the army regulations. On October 30, 1913 the war department announced: 'Fernglas 03....let it be known that the optical factory OIGEE in Berlin - Schoeneberg also sells the Fernglas 03 with carrying case at a discount price... Here we expressedly state that there is no obligation to buy personal glasses from the above named firms. There will be no further mentioning of company names.' The unified efforts of other firms attempted to undermine the 'monopoly' of the main suppliers, and the company names Zeiss and Goerz were no longer mentioned. In the Army regulations from 1901, which the author has at hand, the name Oigee appears after the names of Zeiss and Goerz as a third name, but only in the cited document of 1913. Concerning the purchase of field glasses in Germany; the reference to a 'Private number' in the first military binocular brochures from Zeiss and Goerz shows that the firms understandably were trying to also sell these glasses outside the military channels to private individuals. Therefore special pamphlets were printed with an enclosed order form for members of the military, but which had to be stamped by a military organization. Until the First World War, it was probably easy for military personnel to get a stamp, which authorized the purchase of these field glasses at a special price. During the First World War, such purchases became more and more difficult (see below), and after 1916 they were probably impossible. During the 'Good Old Time' before the First World War, any civilian could probably buy these glasses - at the usual list price. Between the wars, military personnel could buy their own service glasses. In the Army regulations of July 15 1929, it says: 'Price for Personal Field glasses. The price for a Doppelfernrohr 6 x 30 with accessories is fixed on July 1, 1929 at 115.50 marks according to the order of March 7, 1925, No 2882/2 Wa 4 IV (concerning the purchase of private binoculars for members of the military). Rw. M., Armament Dept., June 28, 29, No 269/6.29. WaVw 4 Ivc.' This situation did not last. During the Second World War, sales to private individuals were at first restricted, then outlawed, and at last permitted to heavily wounded war veterans under certain conditions. Following are the documents in question and their contents: 'Army regulations of June 25, 1940 Purchase of private service glasses. The sale of Doppelfernrohr 6 x 30, according to H. Dv 398 A58 S.7, and the order of April 10 1930 no. 1513.2.30 Wa N IVa, is discontinued for the duration. O.K.H. (Ch H Ruest u. BdE), 14.6.40 - 79 a/e 60/83-Fz In (IV c)' General Army News, February 21, 1941 'Acquisition of field glasses and sighting telescopes through authorized military departments as well as individual service members Subordinate service departments as well as individual service members have acquired field glasses or telescopic sights from the manufacturer or from stores with purchase orders stamped by military departments. The issuing of such purchase orders, and the purchase through subordinated service departments as well as the individual private purchase by service members, are hereby forbidden. The supplies are to be acquired exclusively through regular channels. The acquisition of such instruments is solely permitted by the Weapon Supply Deprtment of the Military. O.K.H. (Ch H Ruest u. BdE) Feb. 7 41 -2091/41 AHA Ib' General Army News, March 22, 1943: 'Supply of fine mechanical optical instruments. To guarantee a smooth and sufficient supply of fine mechanical-optical instruments to the field army, the demands of the service departments in regards to field glasses, photographical instruments, film instruments, geodetic instruments, marching compasses, microscopes, projectors, and drawing instruments, must be limited to the absolute necessities. [page 38] Requisitions by individual members of the military with permits to acquire the above mentioned instuments are in the future to be submitted only if they can be proven necessary for the retraining of heavily wounded personel. Ch H Ruest u. BdE, March 5 1943 - 799/43 - Stab III' Not until the first World War did standard construction forms emerge. Great numbers of manufacturers built service glasses on order of the government (?), which are recognizable by official markings. In the following, the unquestionably official military hand held field glasses of Great Britain and Germany will be considered first. Their number is not large and there is documentation for both. Separate from them are further models from Germany and foreign countries, which were probably built for military use but did not carry the official markings. There are also some models that are listed in relevant publications (such as Reid 1981, 1984). Some licensed examples and export models are mentioned separately. This arbitrary sequence does not claim to be complete; and models of Polish, Russian and Czech manufacturers are missing. The models known to the author from those countries do not have any specific features to distinguish them from the discussed models. Dividing German service glasses between 'official' models and those that were not officially introduced is difficult enough, and cannot be done for some foreign models, or at least not always done correctly. German military glasses with the name D.F. (Doppelfernrohr, double telescope, sometimes written without periods) were introduced in the last century for military field glasses. Inscriptions like 'Fussartillerie' [foot artillery], or an engraved hand grenade symbol (for artillery), designate the use of these glasses at that time, and are unmistakable indications of official service glasses. The distinction between civilian and military field glass models becomes easier for more recent models. After about 1914, the engraving 'Dienstglas' [service glass] often appears. From about 1940/41 German military models omit the name of the manufacturer and have instead a code, the 'manufacturing mark', see section 2.3.4-VI. This is also a definite sign of manufacture for official military use. An article from the Central Newpaper for Optics and Mechanics (vol. 39, no. 23, pg. 229, 1918) concerns the significance of field glasses in the first World War. From this citation it can be seen why it is impossible to distinguish between military and civilian field glasses for some foreign manufacturers. Busch, Rathenow is given as the author for 'Restrictions on selling field glasses': 'The ban has not been issued by the Army to secure the requisitons of optical instruments for the Army, since the satisfaction of this need was never a question for our highly developed optical industry. Mostly it was because at the beginning of the war, especially in our port cities, large numbers of binoculars were bought by members of neutral states and shipped by sea to enemy states, via the neutral countries, especially the northern ones, to meet the needs of the armies of our enemies. As is probably generally known, our enemies were very insufficiently supplied with optical instruments at the beginning of the war, because in peace time the German manufacturers were the nearly exclusive suppliers to meet the need for those instruments. For this reason all prism field glasses, as well as Galilean field glasses, were at first bought in the neutral countries. After that, when these supplies were not sufficient, an attempt was made to buy those kinds of instruments in Germany itself and to smuggle them into the neutral foreign countries. To prevent this, the departments adopted the admittedly rigorous measure of a general ban on sales of instruments that were destined mainly for army use. Those included all prism field glasses, sighting telescopes, and Galilean field glasses of more than 4 power.' Nevertheless a German person could buy a field glass during the first World War, but only after cumbersome requisition procedure, with police permit; and then only models of up to 4 power could be bought. The assurance given at the time by Busch, that the measure was not 'unfair and greatly restrictive of business' was probably not very convincing even then. But it is clear what immense importance optics had for the military, and models with high magnification had nearly the status of weapons. This is shown by another two citations from the Army Regulations News of April 29, 1916, and July 21, 1917: [page 39] 'Sales of Field glasses to Members of the Military. In the future, members of the military may buy field glasses in home- stores only with a stamp and signature of their military department, which has to state that the field glasses are destined for military use. Requisition of replacement field glasses. When replacing field glasses, the difference between glasses alloted under budget, and glasses available on hand must be considered. In the future, each field glass to be replaced, must have the previous owner named, and furthermore it must be explained why the field glass was lost. An exact control of the distributed field glasses is urgently necessary and is the duty of the troops.' The existing documents about official German military optics are few. It is remarkable that in the list of military documents known to the author, optics are so poorly represented. With German thoroughness, pamphlets were written for official service use, about 'Regulations for music troops and trumpet groups of the army' (H.Dv. 32, 1936), 'Uniforms for forest employees of the air force' (1942), 'Regulations for the installation and testing of lightning conductors for high rises of the Army departments' (1935), 'The Troop bicycle' ( 1935), 'The pack-animal, mountain riding horse, and oxteam' (1939), 'The potato in the nutrition of soldiers, especially in winter' (1942), and not to forget the 'Loading of camels' for the 2 cm mountain artillery 38 D Luft, T 1040/4, (1943), but nothing much is to be found about optics. H.Dv. 448/1 (see below and fig. 52) is the most often cited paper, but besides that, only a few other models or papers are mentioned. They are listed in chart 1. Sighting optics are not included. From this list, it can be seen that the German military found use for French and Russian command instruments, undoubtedly an indication for their good quality and naturally also for the lack of a similar German instrument. [page 36] Chart 1. Service Regulations of the German Military on Optical Instruments. From the documents of Guenther Siebrasse H.dV.448/1 part 1: Double telescopes, scissor telescopes, periscopes, gunsights, observation ladder, cloth for cleaning 1927, 1936, 1940 H.Dv.448/2 Observation device, measuring instrument and planning documents: Part 2: Rangefinder, including: Rangefinder 14, Rangefinder 17, Rangefinder 2m and 4m coincidence and stereoscopic. 1929 H.Dv.449/1,2 and 3: Treatment, test and repair of observation and measuring instruments 1940 Observation-and measuring instrument No. 27 (H.Dv. 398 A58) 1935 Director for Searchlights 35 1937 Manual for the treatment of the optical observation and measuring instrument of the anti-aircraft artillery, for lengthy use in the open, to maintain readiness and eliminate the occurrence of faults. 1940 News report, regulations of the Navy, No. III: the optical news service 1940 Binocular observation field glass 10 x 80 (with 80 degree ocular) 1940 Rangefinder 4m R (H) 34 and 36 1940 Rangefinder 1 m R 36. Description, Use, and Treatment 1938 Rangefinder 1.5 m Stereoscopic Image 1939 Rangefinder 1 m Stereoscopic Image 1940 Rangefinder 4m Stereoscopic Image 40 1940 Rangefinder 1.25 m Stereoscopic Image 42 1944 Auxiliary Command Instrument 35 1941 Command Instrument 40 - Part 1: Description, Theory and Function 1941 the same Part 2: Treatment, Testing and Repair 1943 Anti-Aircraft Instrument 41. Part 1: Description 1943 Training regulations for the Anti-Aircraft Artillery ( A.V. Flak). Training for the Command Instrument 36, the Auxiliary Command Instrument 35 and shooting with the command computer 1942 Personal Training for the French Command Instrument OPL Model 1937 1941 French Command Instrument OPL 1937 1941 Personal Training for the French Command instrument 'Aufiere' Model 1935 1941 Personal Training for the French Command instrument 'Precision Moderne' Model 1936 1942 Training for the Russian Command Instrument Puaso 3 1942 Personal training for the Command Instrument 'Wikog' 9 S H 1941 Recording, Evaluation and Judgement of shootings and optical tests with French Command Instruments 1942 Recording, Evaluation and Judgment of shootings and optical tests with Command Instrument 'Wikog'9 SH 1941 Rangefinder 4 m Stereoscopic Image SOM/AC 5. Description, Service Instruction and Treatment 1942 Rangefinder 3 m Stereoscopic Image SOM/AC 3. Description, Service Instruction and Treatment 1942 Russian Command Instrument Puaso 3. Description, Theory,Function 1942 Command Instrument 36, Part 1 and 2: Description, Function and Treatment 1942 Command Instrument 'Aufiere 35'. Description, Theory, Function 1943 Tower Observation Telescope 2 1943 Anti Aircraft Binocular 10x80. Description, Regulations, and Treatment 1944 General maintenance manual for optical instruments (M.Dv. no. 678 1944 Anti-Aircraft Command Instrument Lg 4, 4a 5 (M.Dv. No. 936, Parts 1 to 4) 1944 Preliminary Description and Service regulations, binocular panoramic navigation Periscope C/1 1944 10