Sniper manual D136/2

Hello,
I have re-typed the German Sniper Manual D136/2 "Karabiner 98k mit handelsüblichen Zielfernrohren" and shared it on the web.
http://zielfernrohr.b.la9.jp/zielfernrohr_095.htm
It lists several Commercial scopes on Low Turret and Short Side Rail mounts.
Interesting is that although it includes Zielvier + Low Turret, it does not refer to ZF39(D134) at all.
It seems they have forgotten the Zielfernrohr39 System they introduced in 1940.

Great info Ken. Thanks for all your hard work and sharing it here.

Since the information on German rifle scopes are totally obscure, there are still some people calling every K98k sniper rifle with 4 (or 6) power scopes “ZF39”. I had been thinking, at least, it is safe to say this is clearly wrong. The manual D134 “Das Zielfernrohr 39” only describes Zeiss Zielvier on low turret mount. So it is also safe to call Zielvier+LTM as “ZF39”. But note there is no abbreviation such as “ZF39” nor “Zf.39” used in the text of the manual. The “Zielfernrohr 39” was a designation mainly for the system with a newly designed turret mount, not the scope itself. Everybody knows there is no scope engraved “Z.F.39” on the scope body. The scope was Zielvier, which was developed in the 1920s and was already in service in the Weimar era. I am wondering if there is a word “Zielfernorhr 39” or “ZF39” used in other wartime German documents other than D134? I guess no, so please let me know if there is any (exclude Russian ZF39).
So after all, what was “Zielfernrohr 39” and the meaning of publishing D134 in 22.1.1940?
There was a complex power balance concerning the development of German military rifle scopes. The ZF41 (or ZF40, actually they had no designation at the beginning) project began in 1938, before the war (not after the campaign in Poland as someone wrote) . General Leeb, chief of the HWaA, wrote the HWaA were rather opposed to the project. They wanted 4 power sniper rifles, and Zielvier mounted on LTM was the newest typical sniper rifle in their hand. Beside the ongoing ZF41 project, which was promoted by someone or some people superior to the HWaA, the HWaA intended to announce the Zielfernrohrkarabiner they wanted. In this case, not only Zielvier and LTM (named then ZF39) were important, and the designation “Zielfernrohr 39” had not much meaning. Hensoldt, Ajack, and on SSR, everything was okay. This is the reason Zielvier and LTM are only one of the sets of several K98k with commercial scopes described in the manual D136/2 later in 1943, when more real sniper rifles were needed.
Nowadays, I think we have overestimated the name “ZF39”. I believe they did not even recognize the designation “ZF39” soon later its introduction.

Ken, good information. The habit of calling all German sniper rifles ZF39 has been made worse by commercial dealers such as Mitchell's Mausers who like to the use the term in ads. And for use collectors it made some sense until these manuals were brought to light. Also, for collectors, it is easy to just refer to them by the actual mounting type (turret, single claw, etc.)

Personally I think Georg has the right idea here
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?35474-Highest-known-SC&p=263727

By 1944 the Wehrmacht is likely using these terms (as given by Georg)

Mauser'sche Montage- Mauser Mount (Turret)
Sauer'sche Montage- Sauer Mount (Short Side Rail)
Marholdt'sche Montage- Marholdt Mount (Single Claw)

Very interesting discussion.

Matt, thank you for the info.
As I had been saying, the ZF41 project was not the result of the request from the commanders after the campaign in Poland. There was already a plan to equip the infantry squad with a Zielfernrohrgewehr, and the project was already moving, although it seems to be not going well as it supposed to be.
My opinion is that the D134 was the direct reaction of the HWaA to the request, the Zielfernrohrgewehr of their image.