Zeiss Optics

[David Wilma]

I am reading a historical novel set in Berlin in July 1945.
Part of the back story is the rocket scientist and equipment
snatched away from the Soviets. There is a mention of
engineers from Zeiss also being spirited away by the
Americans to the annoyance of the Soviets. The Zeiss
people were engaged in advanced technologies.

Remembering that this is fiction, was Zeiss developing
something advanced? What was it for? Did we ever see
the results either in military or civilian use?

[Kenneth Young]

Post by David Wilma
Remembering that this is fiction, was Zeiss developing
something advanced?

Probably not however they did have the reputation of being the highest
quality producer of optics in the world and in 1945 everybody was using
optical sights etc for land warfare.

[Dave Smith]

Post by Kenneth Young

Post by David Wilma
Remembering that this is fiction, was Zeiss developing
something advanced?

Probably not however they did have the reputation of being the highest
quality producer of optics in the world and in 1945 everybody was using
optical sights etc for land warfare.

That is why it was one of the target areas in Dresden.

[Jim H.]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 6:50:30 PM UTC-5, David Wilma wrote:
.......

Post by David Wilma
Remembering that this is fiction, was Zeiss developing
something advanced? What was it for? Did we ever see
the results either in military or civilian use?

Just a total guess but my only thought, maybe
improved optical coatings? But that
would hardly be an earth-shaking technology.

You may want to register at Cloudy Nights astronomy forum and
post your question in the ''Classic Telescopes' sub-forum
(under 'Equipment'). Since Zeiss was such a well-known brand,
there's very likley that someone there knows something about
their wartime activities.

http://www.cloudynights.com/forum/62-classic-telescopes/

Jim H.

[IndSyd]

Ziess Optics so could they have had some
research going on into Infra red detection
devices and thus look for thermal images at
night? But of course it would have been far
from field usable and probably not portable.

[Jim H.]

Post by IndSyd
Ziess Optics so could they have had some
research going on into Infra red detection
devices and thus look for thermal images at
night? But of course it would have been far
from field usable and probably not portable.

Come to think of it, I believe _someone_ in the 3rd Reich
was developinginfrared night vision equipment, and I think
it actually reached field deployment. It may have been Zeiss.

Back in the 1970's, I took a considerable interest in building
and researching Japanese-made 1/35 military models, mostly German
and Allied. From my reading ISTR that there was a Panther
and armored halftrack (StdKfz 251?) IR combo. From a maybe hazy
memory, the 251 housed the generator & IR source ('searchlight').
The tank had the IR viewing gear, presumably for aiming the maingun A very faint memory says thecombo was called the 'Uhu', or Owl.

I don't know if they got beyond the prototype stage, but I think
there were a few units deployed on the Eastern Front right at the
very end of the war. Wish I could recall a source, but it's lost
in the haze of age.

Jim H.

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by IndSyd
Ziess Optics so could they have had some
research going on into Infra red detection
devices and thus look for thermal images at
night? But of course it would have been far
from field usable and probably not portable.

Starting in late 1944, the Germans deployed infrared sighting devices
which were vehicle mounted. Additionally, a small number of similar
devices which could be rifle mounted were manufactured and deployed.

They seem to have been satisfactorily "field usable".

[GFH]

Post by David Wilma
I am reading a historical novel set in Berlin in July 1945.
Part of the back story is the rocket scientist and equipment
snatched away from the Soviets. There is a mention of
engineers from Zeiss also being spirited away by the
Americans to the annoyance of the Soviets. The Zeiss
people were engaged in advanced technologies.
Remembering that this is fiction, was Zeiss developing
something advanced? What was it for? Did we ever see
the results either in military or civilian use?

Read Zemke, Herbert; "Zemke's Stalag", 1991, ISBN:
1-56098-018-4. The last chapter, starting on page
124, tells the story over the next 20 pages. Zemke
was in charge of the 'theft' (according to the USSR)
of Zeiss equipment and key personnel. Spoiler alert:
Yes, Zeiss was "developing something advanced".

GFH

[Don Phillipson]

Post by David Wilma
I am reading a historical novel set in Berlin in July 1945.
Part of the back story is the rocket scientist and equipment
snatched away from the Soviets. There is a mention of
engineers from Zeiss also being spirited away by the
Americans to the annoyance of the Soviets. The Zeiss
people were engaged in advanced technologies.
Remembering that this is fiction, was Zeiss developing
something advanced? What was it for? Did we ever see
the results either in military or civilian use?

The technological environment was simpler.
1. In general, German optics (especially Zeiss) was in
1939 superior to what British or American optical plants
could produce: hence:
(a) major government efforts to create or improve
Allied optical industries, producing everything from
field binoculars to gunsights for long-distance artillery.
(b) a lively trade among army and naval officers
for captured German binoculars etc.
2. In 1945 the USSR began looting conquered
Germany, viz. removed industrial (and domestic)
capital equipment and high-tech staff to the USSR
(because promised "reparations" by the Yalta
agreement) initially from all parts of Germany, including
the British and US Zones of Occupation. There are
books about this removal (and whether capital goods
were actually reused in the USSR or simply scrapped.)

[SolomonW]

Post by Don Phillipson
There are
books about this removal (and whether capital goods
were actually reused in the USSR or simply scrapped.)

Don, could you please supply more information about this?

[Don Phillipson]

Post by SolomonW

Post by Don Phillipson
There are
books about this removal (and whether capital goods
were actually reused in the USSR or simply scrapped.)

Don, could you please supply more information about this?

One could start with (and sources cited in):
H.P. Schrader, The Blockade Breakers: the Berlin Airlift (2008)
A. Hearnden, The British in Germany (1978).

[GFH]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by David Wilma
I am reading a historical novel set in Berlin in July 1945.
Part of the back story is the rocket scientist and equipment
snatched away from the Soviets. There is a mention of
engineers from Zeiss also being spirited away by the
Americans to the annoyance of the Soviets. The Zeiss
people were engaged in advanced technologies.
Remembering that this is fiction, was Zeiss developing
something advanced? What was it for? Did we ever see
the results either in military or civilian use?

The technological environment was simpler.
1. In general, German optics (especially Zeiss) was in
1939 superior to what British or American optical plants
(a) major government efforts to create or improve
Allied optical industries, producing everything from
field binoculars to gunsights for long-distance artillery.
(b) a lively trade among army and naval officers
for captured German binoculars etc.
2. In 1945 the USSR began looting conquered
Germany, viz. removed industrial (and domestic)
capital equipment and high-tech staff to the USSR
(because promised "reparations" by the Yalta
agreement) initially from all parts of Germany, including
the British and US Zones of Occupation. There are
books about this removal (and whether capital goods
were actually reused in the USSR or simply scrapped.)

Looting is an unfair word. Germany was assessed reparations.
The UK and USA (each) got $ 5B and the USSR $10B.

A lot of these reparations did not benefit the recipient
nations. The coal the UK got did great damage to the UK
coal mining industry. Much of the equipment, including
large electric power plants, was not ever put to use.
The plants were designed for specific types of coal which
were not found (at that time) in the USSR. The USA took
technical personnel (Operation Paper Clip) plus all
German patents for technology. Example: The Germans
had advanced the manufacture of ersatz rubber much
further than the USA. Nazi scientists were given
'absolution', which helped our rocket program a lot.
Arthur Rudolph is a good example. He was in charge
of the V-2 factory at Mittelbau-Dora, north of
Nordhausen.

GFH

[Don Phillipson]

Post by GFH

Post by Don Phillipson
2. In 1945 the USSR began looting conquered
Germany, viz. removed industrial (and domestic)
capital equipment and high-tech staff to the USSR
(because promised "reparations" by the Yalta
agreement) initially from all parts of Germany, including
the British and US Zones of Occupation. There are
books about this removal (and whether capital goods
were actually reused in the USSR or simply scrapped.)

Looting is an unfair word. Germany was assessed reparations.
The UK and USA (each) got $ 5B and the USSR $10B.
A lot of these reparations did not benefit the recipient
nations. . . . Much of the equipment, including
large electric power plants, was not ever put to use.

This is why it is fair to call them looting (not reparations.)

Post by GFH
The coal the UK got did great damage to the UK
coal mining industry.

Bad example: the UK needed to supply coal to the
British Zone of Occupation until 1947, depriving
British customers.

Post by GFH
Example: The Germans
had advanced the manufacture of ersatz rubber much
further than the USA.

Bad example: IG Farben patents for Buna rubber
were licenced before the war to Du Pont (USA)
and ICI (UK)

Post by GFH
Nazi scientists were given
'absolution', which helped our rocket program a lot.
Arthur Rudolph is a good example. He was in charge
of the V-2 factory at Mittelbau-Dora, north of
Nordhausen.

US recruiting of Nazi scientists had nothing to do
with postwar reparations. The commenter omits
that Rudolph left the USA in disgrace in 1984 to
avoid prosecution as a war criminal. He thus seems
different from other Germans in US rocketry like
Werner Von Braun.

[RW]

Post by Don Phillipson

A lot of these reparations did not benefit the recipient nations. . .
. Much of the equipment, including large electric power plants, was not
ever put to use.

This is why it is fair to call them looting (not reparations.)

The sometimes quoted here Sean Longden's book "T-Force: The Forgotten
Heroes of 1945" says that German technology was often not used by British
industry because of the arrogance of some British businessmen and their
conviction that "we know everything best", without caring to look at what
Germans had come up with.

Post by Don Phillipson
US recruiting of Nazi scientists had nothing to do with postwar
reparations. The commenter omits that Rudolph left the USA in disgrace
in 1984 to avoid prosecution as a war criminal. He thus seems different
from other Germans in US rocketry like Werner Von Braun.

Given that Von Braun was involved in the use of slave labour to build his
rockets, the distinction between him and Rudolph seems more a matter of
convenience (for Braun's new masters) than of principle.

RW

[Jim H.]

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 11:01:06 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
....

Post by RW
The sometimes quoted here Sean Longden's book "T-Force: The Forgotten
Heroes of 1945" says that German technology was often not used by British
industry because of the arrogance of some British businessmen and their
conviction that "we know everything best", without caring to look at what
Germans had come up with.
.....
RW

I recall reading a history of Volkswagen in the late 70's
('Small Wonder, the Amazing Story of the Volkswagen Beetle',
by W H Nelson).

The VW plant was in the British Zone of
occupation. The plant, machinery, and plans for the Beetle were
offered to the Allies as part of war reparations. British,
French, and American industrialists (including one of the Fords)
all refused it. I don't know if it was offered to the Russians.

'Too small and noisy to appeal to the post-war consumer' seems to
sum up the opinions. So VW production continued in Germany, and
the rest is, as they say, history. It would appear that the British
businessmen were not alone in their arrogance....

Jim H.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by RW
The sometimes quoted here Sean Longden's book "T-Force: The Forgotten
Heroes of 1945" says that German technology was often not used by British
industry because of the arrogance of some British businessmen and their
conviction that "we know everything best", without caring to look at what
Germans had come up with.

This was not the case in N.America where 200 million Americans
and Canadians wanted new cars, houses, household appliances,
radios and TV -- which the existing industries were happy to
supply as soon as they could reconvert the factories enlarged
to turn out ammunition, aircraft, tanks and so on. Cutting-edge
technology (for supersonic flight, synthetic materials, etc.)
made no contribution to this current demand on current
suppliers. (I doubt if British producers and consumers were
much different, in 1945 or 1950 -- just poorer.)

[RW]

Post by RW
The sometimes quoted here Sean Longden's book "T-Force: The Forgotten
Heroes of 1945" says that German technology was often not used by
British industry because of the arrogance of some British businessmen
and their conviction that "we know everything best", without caring to
look at what Germans had come up with.

This was not the case in N.America where 200 million Americans and
Canadians wanted new cars, houses, household appliances, radios and TV
-- which the existing industries were happy to supply as soon as they
could reconvert the factories enlarged to turn out ammunition, aircraft,
tanks and so on. Cutting-edge technology (for supersonic flight,
synthetic materials, etc.) made no contribution to this current demand
on current suppliers. (I doubt if British producers and consumers were
much different, in 1945 or 1950 -- just poorer.)

True, but many military technologies can be reused for civilian
applications if one has the necessary vision. It seems that such vision
was lacking at that time.

RW

[Don Phillipson]

Post by RW

Post by RW
The sometimes quoted here Sean Longden's book "T-Force: The Forgotten
Heroes of 1945" says that German technology was often not used by
British industry because of the arrogance of some British businessmen
and their conviction that "we know everything best", without caring to
look at what Germans had come up with.

This was not the case in N.America where 200 million Americans and
Canadians wanted new cars, houses, household appliances, radios and TV
-- which the existing industries were happy to supply as soon as they
could reconvert the factories enlarged to turn out ammunition, aircraft,
tanks and so on. Cutting-edge technology (for supersonic flight,
synthetic materials, etc.) made no contribution to this current demand
on current suppliers. (I doubt if British producers and consumers were
much different, in 1945 or 1950 -- just poorer.)

True, but many military technologies can be reused for civilian
applications if one has the necessary vision. It seems that such vision
was lacking at that time.

This looks like the "high-tech fallacy" characteristic of the techno-boom
since the 1980s (microelectronics and software.) Accountants tell
us, however, that no one in the real market (financial or military)
usually seeks to use the maximum or highest technology available.
They seek to use the minimum required to do the job in hand.

This was obviously true for postwar factories that re-engineered
radar dishes as electric bowl fires etc. The science may have
existed to calculate what shape of dish radiated heat most
efficiently, costing the user least for fuel: but actual manufacturers
and actual shoppers wanted the stuff in the stores today, so
no more knowledge (technology) was used than was needed
by current demand. (Kenneth Boulding called this "satisficing."
This seems why MS-DOS displaced CP/M, why VHS tape
outsold Betamax, etc.)

[RW]

Post by Don Phillipson
This looks like the "high-tech fallacy" characteristic of the
techno-boom since the 1980s (microelectronics and software.)
Accountants tell us, however, that no one in the real market (financial
or military) usually seeks to use the maximum or highest technology
available.

As I work in the financial sector, I can assure you this is often not the
case.

Post by Don Phillipson
They seek to use the minimum required to do the job in hand.

Maybe that's why accountants rarely develop anything brilliant or grow
companies. They are very good in running stable businesses (sometimes in
the ground, see modern IBM).

Post by Don Phillipson
This was obviously true for postwar factories that re-engineered radar
dishes as electric bowl fires etc. The science may have existed to
calculate what shape of dish radiated heat most efficiently, costing the
user least for fuel: but actual manufacturers and actual shoppers
wanted the stuff in the stores today, so no more knowledge (technology)
was used than was needed by current demand. (Kenneth Boulding called
this "satisficing."

This is a good strategy if you're a monopolist. If you're competing for
market share, you need to be better than the other guy, and you don't know
in advance how good they will be, so you have to reach further ahead than
just for "good enough for today".

Probably in a post-war market the demand outstripped supply so much that
for a limited time, businesses could assume that there is enough market
share for everybody. But how long did this last?

RW

[Stephen Graham]

Post by RW
Probably in a post-war market the demand outstripped supply so much that
for a limited time, businesses could assume that there is enough market
share for everybody. But how long did this last?

While there was pent-up consumer demand and excess savings available in
the US Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for the immediate post-war
period, that seems to have largely dissipated by 1949 at the latest.
There's some argument that the Marshall Plan also addressed a weakening
of the North American economy in 1947 as the effects of the ruined
European economy were felt.

As far as I know, the remainder of the Americas saw an immediate slump
from the wartime boom, as did Africa.

Asian countries had similar issues as the European countries complicated
by the outbreak of multiple civil wars and insurrections, as well as the
partition of India.

[GFH]

Post by RW
Given that Von Braun was involved in the use of slave labour to build his
rockets, the distinction between him and Rudolph seems more a matter of
convenience (for Braun's new masters) than of principle.

Only partially. The Mittelbau-Dora operation was
efficient, but almost total disregard for the
workers. The vapors while loading the fuels was
especially dangerous.

OTOH, the Saturn V set a new standard of reliability.
One might assume that the astronauts appreciated that
factor. NASA gave him several medals.

GFH

[Rich Rostrom]

Example: The Germans had advanced the manufacture
of ersatz rubber much further than the USA.

Bad example: IG Farben patents for Buna rubber were
licenced before the war to Du Pont (USA) and ICI (UK)

Yabbut were the German patents voided
after the war? (One presumes they were
ignored during it.) Confiscation of the
patents (if still valid) would be worth
billions.

[GFH]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by GFH
Example: The Germans
had advanced the manufacture of ersatz rubber much
further than the USA.

Bad example: IG Farben patents for Buna rubber
were licenced before the war to Du Pont (USA)
and ICI (UK)

Do not assume that the Germans made no technical
advances in ersatz rubber during the war. They
did. Pre-war technology required a percentage,
about 15%, of natural rubber to made satisfactory
tires. The Germans worked on this problem, and
had solved it. We had not.

There is no question that USA industry had many
technical exchanges pre-war. We knew where to
look and scientists to look for.

GFH

[Don Phillipson]

Post by GFH
Do not assume that the Germans made no technical
advances in ersatz rubber during the war. They
did. Pre-war technology required a percentage,
about 15%, of natural rubber to made satisfactory
tires. The Germans worked on this problem, and
had solved it. We had not.

This seems contradicted by the synthetic rubber
plant built in wartime at Sarnia, Ontario, (later named
Polymer Corp.) and 10 more similar plants in the USA
(all privatized and absorbed by conventional tyre
companies after the war.) The practical point is that
Allied troops in the field did not run out of rubber tyres
but German troops in the field did.

(A further clue is that no German tyre company sold to
world markets in the 1950s. Those were supplied by
American, British, French and Italian producers, and
later Japanese as well: still no German.)

[GFH]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by GFH
Do not assume that the Germans made no technical
advances in ersatz rubber during the war. They
did. Pre-war technology required a percentage,
about 15%, of natural rubber to made satisfactory
tires. The Germans worked on this problem, and
had solved it. We had not.

This seems contradicted by the synthetic rubber
plant built in wartime at Sarnia, Ontario, (later named
Polymer Corp.) and 10 more similar plants in the USA
(all privatized and absorbed by conventional tyre
companies after the war.) The practical point is that
Allied troops in the field did not run out of rubber tyres
but German troops in the field did.
(A further clue is that no German tyre company sold to
world markets in the 1950s. Those were supplied by
American, British, French and Italian producers, and
later Japanese as well: still no German.)

Only 15% natural rubber was required; that leaves 85%
ersatz rubber. Natural rubber was available from
Brazil and western Africa.

German rubber supply was always limited, and made
more limited by Allied bombing. Note: The plant
at Auschwitz was not completed to the point it
could produce rubber; it produced chemicals that
three other plants used. The Germans used two
different processes.

GFH

[Jim H.]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 6:50:30 PM UTC-5, David Wilma wrote:
......>

Post by David Wilma
Remembering that this is fiction, was Zeiss developing
something advanced? What was it for? Did we ever see
the results either in military or civilian use?

I ran across something in a book on navigation, Williams'
"From Sails to Satellites". I doubt it is relevant, but
thought I'd throw it out. From p. 123, in 1940 Zeiss started
making what seems to be an analog navigation computer "used
successfully by the Luftwaffe and in U-boats." The explanation
of what it was is long winded, and unclear (to me, anyway). It
was used for celestial navigation.

Called the 'Astronomisches Richengerat'(google never heard of
it), it consisted of two microscopes, one movable and one
fixed, and an engraved movable glass scale.

I have the impression that it was more delicate and complex to
make than to use. It must have been fairly sturdy to used at
sea and in the air. Dunno if this might have attracted the
Russians' attention or not.

Jim H.

[Mario]

Post by Jim H.
On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 6:50:30 PM UTC-5, David Wilma
wrote: ......>

Post by David Wilma
Remembering that this is fiction, was Zeiss developing
something advanced? What was it for? Did we ever see
the results either in military or civilian use?

I ran across something in a book on navigation, Williams'
"From Sails to Satellites". I doubt it is relevant, but
thought I'd throw it out. From p. 123, in 1940 Zeiss started
making what seems to be an analog navigation computer "used
successfully by the Luftwaffe and in U-boats." The
explanation of what it was is long winded, and unclear (to
me, anyway). It was used for celestial navigation.
Called the 'Astronomisches Richengerat'(google never heard of
it),

Maybe that spelling was not correct.

http://www.google.com/search?q=zeiss+'Astronomisches+Rechengerat'

Post by Jim H.
it consisted of two microscopes, one movable and one
fixed, and an engraved movable glass scale.
I have the impression that it was more delicate and complex
to
make than to use. It must have been fairly sturdy to used at
sea and in the air. Dunno if this might have attracted the
Russians' attention or not.
Jim H.