Fake ZF41 manual D136/1

[KenT]

I would like to ask opinions from you manual experts.<O</O
There are two types of German ZF41 scope manual D136/1. I will call them here as Manual A and Manual B. Their ONLY difference is the figures within are ALL changed, but there is NO difference in the description, including the date “Vom 10. 2. 42” on the cover.
<O</O
Manual A

<O</O
Manual B

<O</O
By comparing those pictures, I have a thought that the Manual B is a postwar fake.
I have already explained this at my website, so take a look now if you are interested.
<Ohttp://zielfernrohr.b.la9.jp/index.htm</O

[KenT]

But I will explain it here again, showing you the pictures.

Manual A

<O</O
Manual B

<O</O
Now, the first thing to say is that the scope shown in Manual B is not ZF41 but ZF41/1.<O</O
(If you don’t know the difference between ZF41 and ZF41/1, see my website.)<O</O
It is possible to change pictures from ZF41 into ZF41/1, but why didn’t the ordnance change the caption into “Zielfernrohr 41/1”?
I know they changed the manual of “Gewehr 43” into “Karabiner 43”.<O</O
And if they changed the pictures, why didn’t they indicate the annotation or the date of revision?

<O</O

[KenT]

Here are pictures of the scope packed in a container.

<O</OManual A


Manual B


Take a look at what C2 and C3 show. You will see they show nothing on Manual B. No Klarinol cloth, no dust brush.<O</O
Do you think the ordnance would take a picture like this?

So, my opinion is that the manual B is too poor to be true.<O</O
But I don’t know by whom and why this was done.<O</O
Or did the German ordnance really make a manual like this? Does anyone know any other similar cases?<O</O
I would like to hear your opinion.<O</O

[KenT]

I have forgotten to mention another information. The figures of Manual A I have shown here are not directly from D136/1 but from Merkblatt 25/4, which shows the figures originally from D136/1. So the layout of captions may vary but the figures itself are same as the ones from D136/1.<O</O
And the date of 25/4 is 15.5.1943. This means if Manual B is legit, it was issued later than May 1943. Perhaps there is no problem with this.

[FrenchVolunteer]

Hello Kent,

interesting topic, did you check the paper with an UV light ?

In my opinion, it seemed to be a lot of work only to produce a fake reprint ?

See You

Vince

[KenT]

Unfortunately I do not have the “original” Manual B and had never seen one before in my hands. But I believe this matter is not about modern reprint of the picture and I don’t think UV test will work. Both Mr.Senich of “The German sniper” and Mr.Law of “Sniper variations of the K98k” had no doubt on the Manual B. The manual they saw when writing the book was thought and treated as original. But they didn’t know the difference between ZF41 and ZF41/1, and further, the ZF41/1 pictured in Manual B was made by Etablissement Barbier Benard et Turenne (kov) in France.

For Your Information:
<OThe difference between ZF41 and ZF41/1
</Ohttp://zielfernrohr.b.la9.jp/zielfernrohr_013.htm
ZF41/1 made by kov
http://zielfernrohr.b.la9.jp/zielfernrohr_062.htm

What I can really say is that with all those pictures, the manual is fishy. I can’t say who did all this hard work, and on what purpose. Perhaps, the Heereswaffenamt did make a manual like this. This is what I wanted to ask your opinion. Do you think this is a German official work?
<O</OSurely, the mystery is unsolved.