It’s a valid application of the known equipment available. If possible move the driver’s 20cm searchlight down the front plate closer to the ground.
The exhausts are a bit distressing as they are in theory projecting their output at the enemy – a shield perhaps?

Who operates the 20mm sub-turret the commander? In which case there would appear to be a wasteful application of valuable IR scopes i.e. he has one behind the driver and then slips into the sub-turret to use the gun? If it’s the loader then why is there a loaders hatch on the other side, for the gunner who is now on the right?

4 IR scopes – one for each crewman, is an incredibly lavish allocation for a fixed gun ‘mobile hostilities platform’ (I got that from an American manual) but it is you’re what if. Get some paint on it.

No problem with the IR searchlight of the driver...I must admit I was carried away by enthusiasm when installing FG´s on the vehicle and that for a 1946 Germany that would be an unacceptable waste of resources. But I thought that at least three should be used to made the vehicle fully operative:
Driver: It can be a lower quality device (Very much like FG 1253 vs FG 1250) and I agree it could be changed by lower performance IR goggles, but if you intend to move at night to avoid as much as possible straffing planes it is better for all that the driver could see at least 20m ahead.
Commander and Gunner: I feel that what made German UR solutions useless (apart from their technical limits) was the way it has to be used with the commander connecting and disconnecting the steel band to give the gunner a hint of where to aim...So I gave them both a full IR scope with illuminated reticle. The commander sight is connected to a device that, when rotated, sends a signal to a light bulb quadrant placed by the gunner that this way knows at least where to search the target...Then he aims by himself.
The turret is a remote controlled gun, very much like StuG III MG´s . The fact that I wanted it to be fully rotating to be effective against softskins, infantry and low level flying planes (Like Kugelblitz turret) made it all too complicated, so in the end I said : Why not? I have a spare IR Searchlight! And then, in the end, there was no room for a hatch on it...
Loader´s hatch mmmmh...I expect the loader to be a really skilled man, capable to operate the turret and load the gun.So he deserves at least a scape hatch The gunner and driver may have something to say also ( At least if all four of the crew were trying to get out of the burning vehicle with only the commanders hatch and a eventual scape hatch on the tank´s belly . )
I´ve been thinking in inverting the flammvernichter so that exhaust fumes were expelled to the ground (a la T34), but they look really awful that way . Also I thought that to reduce IR signature, hot air should be expelled from the engine bay through a opening UNDER the vehicle. Both solutions create new problems, in daylight flying dust would be the main one, mud and debris coming from tracks could also damage all that mess under the vehicle...So I gave up.
Right now I´m trying to bond steel tubing with copper foil to made the schürzen supports and that will be the end of the build...I hope.

I came by this older thread and suddenly found out that Jon posting all that information is the author of that great article in AFV. Congrats for that, that is the best article on German IR I have ever read, hands down.

Now, there is one little thing in the article that eventually started to frustrate me... At the very end AFV announce a follow-up article on the Panther IR installement in one of the coming issues. Well..... I'm still waiting (or I have seriously missed out on it). When? When? Oh when?

Just one more question to round up things discussed above: when creating '46 panzers (e.g. all the E-types, Panther F, KT post 07/'45) it would not be necessary to make a complete external IR set-up for the driver since there was the possibility to use the different periscope? Right?

Thanks!

John

So... a couple of ideas and comments which may (or not! ) help for depicting "rational" or more-probable 1946+ development and application of IR tech in German vehs:

IR devices incorporated varied optics (lenses in mounts and tubes) positioned relative to a Bildwandler (BiWa), or image-converter tube. The light-path is flexible- you can insert mirrors to create periscopes as versus in-line telescopes, for example. All well-developed by 1945. The BiWa, on the other hand, was "what it was". Way up in this post is a splendid pic of a (test-bed?) periscope-unit incorporating the production 1250 BiWa. Various web-sites host good pics of the BiWa on Panthers, SdKfz 251, etc. Also seen and noted was the smaller (and lower-resolution) unit used for the "Vampire" Mp-44 set-up.

Regarding how this device might have further developed during, say, 1946??? I would suggest that the 1250 BiWa would likely have been the standard format for vehicle applications for at least a couple of years more, were Germany to have continued fighting. It would seem more likely to try and produce more of these and deploy them than to spend more effort and time searching for a new version and waiting to deploy that.

From this, the 1250 BiWa would be the species-of-choice for the E- projects, which were, after all, intended to be simplified designs using off-the-shelf and standardized components. So I went, at any rate, on a recent E-10 project, and am planning on for my E-25! But that's me, of course!

As to "how" one might apply it in a model...

This BiWa and its clear size and geometry should be, IMHO, a salient "limiter" in "modelling" application of IR devices...

It was big and bulky. Therefore, it was put outside the Panther turret and outside the SdKfz driver-visor. There would be no room for this thing in most vehicles, including, I should think, an E-25 hull.

As doc'd (and modelled) elsewhere, the IR device attached to the Panther cupola was mechanically connected via a metal link to a repeater inside to show the gunner the elevation angle of the device. As the IR device was fixed on the cupola to face in the direction of the gun, no traverse would be indicated to the gunner (or needed- the commander would point the turret and gun at the target).

Talk about trust and shooting blind!

So maybe a "rational" application in a more-probable-seeming "what-if" might incorporate your BiWa in something like boxed or armoured external mounts on a turret or deck, coupled perhaps with some sort of periscope rig to allow viewing from within the hull??? And maybe, where appropriate, add in some sort of linkage for gun info?

Just an idea to further muddy these nice, deep waters!

Just as a sort of follow-up (and a revelation of my ignorance as to how to get things like my pics into these fori...) I have attached below a pic of my recent "E-10 Ausf. D" project with one of these linked (but not in an armoured box) FG1250 units. I lifted the basic unit from the Tamiya Panther G steelie and added some stuff...

That is a really beautifull E-10 you got there!! Got any more pics?

Cheers,

J

Found some pics in your profile page. This is Grade A modeling! Love it!
Just love the configuration at the back of your E-10.

J

Oncit I get my head wrapped around how to put together a build post, I plan on doing so... It was a great project, and my second model built after about a 35 year hiatus. I got lots of maybe better pics, and the project has evolved a little since I took the set you have seen...

That's what happens when you go to a show with something and it gets nicked along the way! You get the ready-made "opportunity" to right some wrongs and make things all better!

John, thanks for your kind comments unfortunately despite years of assembling the material I rushed the final effort and it could have been much better. As regards a second article much of the information I have on operational Panthers is from other generous people who don’t want to see it used in that publication. It will come out just not from me.

As it worked on the Panther when used as a gun sight the FG1250 replaces the gunner’s sight. It is located directly above the gunner’s day sight and therefore has the same offset from the barrel. The illuminated aiming gradicle is identical to the gunner’s day scope.

First zero the sight in the late afternoon. There is a small box above the gunners head which contains two steel bands (a lot like a metal tape measures) one connects to the gun and one connects to the FG sight. The gunner uses his day sight to aim at something 300 meters away and the commander uses his FG to aim at the same point. Both steel bands are connected, insulated strips and contacts are adjusted and a light comes on inside the box to show that the FG and the gun are pointing at the same place in the correct elevation. The commander then disconnects his steel band which retracts to the top of the turret roof and is held there by a large rubber thumb piece.

Of they go looking for targets. The commander has placed the glass diffuser in its holder in front of the 20cm IR search light which cast a more general beam in front of the vehicle and looking through his sight directs the driver around the dark battlefield. At this stage he is looking at the large viewing area (100mm) of the 1:1 aspect screen on the back of the FG. He halts the driver, removes the glass diffuser which concentrates the IR searchlight beam to 8 degrees and looks for a target. He has now clipped in the 2x optic on the FG for greater magnification.

The commander is free to swing the FG sight left and right until he finds a suitable target. He then holds the sight on the target and gets the gunner to traverse slowly in that direction (lets say to the right) as the turret and gun swings around it will eventually line up with the target the commander is viewing through the FG. When it does a pin locks the FG to the cupola and the gun and sight are now both in line with the target.

The commander now elevates or depresses the FG sight until the aiming point is on the target (centre of the seen mass) with the fine vernier control on the sight table. The sight is now ‘locked on’ to the target.

The commander then leans forward and pulls the steel band up from the turret roof in front of the cupola and connects it to the FG sight table. The gunner is now directed to elevate or depress the gun accordingly. On the roof inside the fighting compartment the light comes on when the gunner has adjusted the elevation of the gun to match the elevation of the sight.
Light ON - FIRE. BANG> Gun runs back, ejects the spent cartridge, gun runs forward, loader slams in a new round – breach closes.

It was soon found that after a few rounds the whole alignment of this system was completely out of wack and whatever the commander was looking at was not where the gun was pointing.

Another problem of this lash up was the poor commander was constantly exposed and illuminated to boot by the pale green display of the FG sight. The solution was to place the two riders on the back with ‘vampire’ weapons but that had its own problems and at leat one commander was shot up from behind by one of his ‘protectors’.

Understanding the way the sight works it is now possible to see why it wouldn’t work on a jagdpanzer. It has to be tied to the gun in elevation and traverse. If you remember the Marder II shots the sight is attached to the guns normal sight plate so that it traverses with the gun. On a jagdpanzer the whole vehicle would have to traverse with the sight fixed.
Looking at Bob’s very nice build he has allowed for a slight traverse on the sight but how does that relate to the gun which is traversed separately on a different plane and is also offset from the guns day sight.

Panzer ’46 logic just doesn’t apply. The FG1250 and derivatives was – what it was. And that was all it was going to be for the rest of 1945. Fitted to Panthers and supporting 251’s. Had the war continued then the sky is the limit and you are no longer confined to realities. There where another two dozen designs in the background. An important consideration is that although the Germans deployed the FG 1250 it was really not a ‘combat ready’ system. It was in reality a university instrument lashed to the outside of a tank and it suffered accordingly. It was particularly susceptible to the damp and there were huge problems with the electrical cables supplying it due to the large voltages required and the insulation broke down as a result.

Lastly the ‘vampire’ was a smaller unit but it had the same resolution as the bigger units, the image was very good. It had less range than a bigger unit.

Jbailey;

Many THANKS for your illuminating and fascinating discussion! I enjoyed it tremendously!

Couple of things... I am certes NO expert on either tanks nor WWII nor Germans and their IR equipment (though I have actually handled and operated a Leica 1250 - A BiWa.... just so cool!)!

But... the larger optics and larger aperture of the 1250 BiWa did result in greater functional light-gathering - longer range, wider field of view, and greater functional resolution - in terms of collected info. The projected image resolution on the viewing eye-piece is, of course, limited. Think of a low-res viewing screen on a higher-res digital camera. You might have a splendid pic, but what you get to see is limited by the projection resolution.

As to that linkage system you have detailed... I NEED to say a few things! It sure seems pretty complicated- and I would certes agree with anyone that those Germans were well-able to complicate things! And probably, their complications were driven by what they were trying to do.

But I cannot disagree more on any argument as to whether one could effectively use a remote sight (IR or otherwise) to lay a gun! Done all the time! The question is simply one of being clear what you actually want in the relationship of the sighting device to the gun itself - you have a range of choices, all the way from physical linkage where one points his remote sight and the gun follows (with or without autocorrection for the angular error created by displacement between sight and gun), down to relaying "lay" (traverse degrees and elevation angle) and range info to a gunner, who then lays his gun accordingly.

When using relayed info to lay the gun, the problem created by the geometry of the sight being offset to one side of that gun can be readily fixed by a simple trig computation (or, it can be built in as an "accepted estimated error" - where, for every unit of greater range, you include some reducing degree of added traverse angle- a fudge factor, like "windage" or "lead"). NOT very precise, but then, we are not talking sniping, here - not with the limits of a rather weak and imprecise night sight!

Anyway, I thought you might be interested- I DID work up (and test-built) a possible design for that E-10 I built. I was interested in what might work in a jagdpanzer... So my build has some "rationale" (but we all note that it IS a"paper panzer" and a "what-if", so I did have some freedom...

I started by positing that my E-10 would be used as an ambush gun at night. Positioned in a "blind" with motor off for stealth. The killing field would be limited by the short traverse of the gun (maybe 10 or so degrees to either side- or more to the right, owing to the gun's offset position in the hull).

Next, I posit - as known for Hetzers and jagdpanzers (and on the E-10 kit), that the E-10 gun has limited (but useful) traverse - so the hull needn't be pointed to aim the gun (within its traverse arc).

Next, I posited that the IR sight could be linked mechanically to an info-repeater inside the hull - as versus to the gun or day-sight. The point here is, INFO relay, NOT physical aim control. I posited that this approach would allow the commander to use the sight to direct the gunner, but also free him up to use it as a scan-and-search device... as the repeater is simply relaying the direction and angle of the IR device to the gunner, but NOT "mandating" that the gun move.

From this, I built a table-top working test to see whether one may be able to do this- and it worked OK (it was a crude set-up - but showed the principle is A-OK to have a repeater, sort of like a helm-repeater on a ship, but in both the verticle and horizontal planes). I used a set of plastic sticks and protractors and pins layed out on a board with a raised block for the vertical displacement of the sight.

I went from there to build a limited-traverse sight table on the E-10, plus a tape-drive vertical repeater (as actually used in the Panther turret). As I was going to allow my sight to traverse a limited arc, I needed to allow my tape (see it in the pic) some lateral movement. This could easily be mechanically coupled to the info repeater board on the gunner's hull-roof.

As for the gun-sight offset... It's a night fight done with a dim green image. The gunner would estimate his range and lay his IR sight. The linkage would share the sight elevation and traverse relative to the tank hull to the repeater board. The commander would verbally pass a range estimate, and the gunner would lay his gun using all of the info (3 bits) provided. He could easily use a generalized "displacement - correction" table to add some "windage" to his aim.

One additional correction might be needed if the tank hull was substantially not level fore-aft... sort of like the correction a sniper or hunter in an elevated position needs to apply when shooting down-hill... Again, it's night fighting, not technical marksmanship!

From this, I would humbly submit that it COULD have been done- they COULD have worked out a pretty effective lash-up for fitting IR to jagdpanzers.

So, WHY didn't they?

IMHO, it has nothing to do with "technical challenge" and everything to do with philosophy and priority. And of course the limiting supply of goods...

Tanks, and especially those big cats, were the premier and high-prestige commands and weapon systems. All of those jagdpanzers - and especially the StuG and Hetzer and PzJgd IV types (and likely also the E-10), were considered as being lesser things. Not "real" tanks, but rather mobile guns.

So, in the real German army of the day, cheaper SPG types were used differently than were tanks, and may well have been relegated down-rank on things like expensive - but - nifty IR sights.

I am positing that maybe, by 1946, a surviving Heer may well have started to really rethink their philosophy and started using - and equipting - SPG differently. When one realizes that one can save maybe 30 to 50% of cost and build time with an SPG over a turreted tank, maybe it would become apparent that one could really effectively use those savings even when upgrading stuff like IR sights.

In any case - the E-10 was fun and I did have a rationale in place...! at least I sorta did!

BTW: That's all also why I did suggest in prior post that maybe the BiWa wants to be externally-mounted but could get an armoured box... much like putting the spot lights out there.

Cheers!