Ah, yes, I see it...yes the EM17 shown is a co-incidence type that could be spoofed at long distances (Just ask the British at Jutland) or if the target outline was not easily discerned, but it also didn't need someone with stereo vision to be able to operate it. I also recognized the TZR-1 reference, one I think I remember your comments on another board about. Maybe they mean the Em 0,9, and the US.Army didn't know it's proper nomenclature at the time (shrugs)? I'll bet the co-incidence ones were used out of frustration experienced with the stereo Em 0,9s.
I updated the page at the bottom if you want to go back and look again. I translated the little pamphlet that the OKH had issued along with the device. It might have gone inside the box as the little 'instruction manual', but I'm not 100% certain. It doesn't help terribly much other than how to set it up - I also added the view from the left side without the reticles engaged. ]The device had to be collimated ahead of time and as I remember the owner telling me there were adjustments for distance once you had a specific distance established and then you had to adjust the other side to make sure the stereo-image reticles were in line with each other. The reticle is an upside down arrow and the range number shows up directly below, sort of like a reflected image from another portion of the tube, like the Ems do and it's all perfectly superimposed on the FOV. What the Em 0,9's advantage, supposedly , was to sort of combine the best features of an observational scope with the increased reflective/objective relief of a scissor and the range estimation accuracy of the Em series, but more portable and "high-speed/low-drag" in that it could fold up on the move, and apparently was seen as a good solution for long range battery-type firing for the heavy Pzkpfw battalions. As you adjusted the stalks, a subsequent variance in the level of 'relief' or three dimensional texture of the distant objects could be obtained - much like the SFs, the more spaced, the more relief. I'm guessing that the user may have needed to use more or less relief when viewing an objective and placing the reticle marks and range scale against it, depending on the objective. ..and if the user didn't have stereo vision in his eyes...the whole thing was pointless...he couldn't see the arrow positioned directly above the objective.....My best way to describe it (as described to me) is of looking at a group of houses and selecting just one as your objective...once calibrating in the range (against a known distance calculated from some other reference point), the image of the arrow and the house appear to stand out from the rest of the group - or imagine throwing a softball at a target and the softball stopping to hover in suspension directly above it...and the reading would appear directly underneath. Without ability to see stereo images, it's just a nice set of 14x binoculars...
As good a design it was (was co-opted into the postwar EM-61 for the DDR NVA) it didn't seem to pass the field tests for utility or heat-of-combat-practicality..it was heavy as hell...but I'd certainly like to have one..
![[TW]Wilsonam](/data/avatars/s/0/10.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
