_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: What If?
For those who like to build hypothetical or alternate history versions of armor/AFVs.
Hosted by Darren Baker
German Infrared gear Development
FJCabeza
Visit this Community
Spain / España
Joined: October 25, 2007
KitMaker: 111 posts
Armorama: 104 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 12:14 AM UTC
Right now I´m building Trumpeter´s E-25 and I´ve been playing with the idea of a strictly "night hunter", given that even with the most optimistic (German) point of view Allied, air control would have been total by end 1945.
As every one seems to install bulky external IR gear in their "What If" models, I´ve wondered what would have been the future of IR in Germany and found some clues in Russian post-war equivalents (That seem to be near relatives)...
I want to know your opinion about the subject, I´ve found some time ago this German wartime IR episcope:



Somebody said that it was only a driving help device. But wouldn´t have been a good idea to use all that expensive and delicate material from "inside" the vehicle instead than from "outside"...Would have been possible to use periscopic IR devices as sights for the weapons or for the commander? How far were german to get really useful IR gear?
And finally: Can somebody tell me what models of IR lights were used? Pictures would be nice , thanks
TIA
H_Ackermans
Visit this Community
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 12:23 AM UTC
Are you sure that is an IR device?

Looks to me like a regular periscope sighting device as used on many vehicles, and not an IR device.
FJCabeza
Visit this Community
Spain / España
Joined: October 25, 2007
KitMaker: 111 posts
Armorama: 104 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 01:36 AM UTC
Trojka Panther Vol2: FG 1253



I find it a completely logical development...Don´t you?
H_Ackermans
Visit this Community
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 01:47 AM UTC
Myeah... Trojca.... that says enough....
FJCabeza
Visit this Community
Spain / España
Joined: October 25, 2007
KitMaker: 111 posts
Armorama: 104 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 02:14 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Myeah... Trojca.... that says enough....



Would you mind to ellaborate? Do you mean that you know for sure it is a fake?

From ML:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1123296611/1123313598/German+Infrared+Night-Vision+Devices+question
H_Ackermans
Visit this Community
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 04:01 AM UTC
These are the IR devices Germany had produced in WW2:









What Trojca claims as being an IR device looks like a TZF-13 or similar.

Trojca is known to have a huge imagination...
FJCabeza
Visit this Community
Spain / España
Joined: October 25, 2007
KitMaker: 111 posts
Armorama: 104 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 08:34 AM UTC
Quoting Robert Lockie, himself quoting Mirko Bayerl in the aforementiioned thread at Missing Links:
"The active units that fought in April 1945 used ONLY the IR-equipment for the commander - BUT one unit (1.Komp.Pz.Rgt 29 ) with 10 IR-Panthers used the -fahrgerät 1253 - for the driver also. He could just simply switch from normal periscope to the F.G.1253 and use the same "halterung". The F.G.1253 was stored beside (on the left ) the driver during the day. Nothing was needed to be rebuild outside. He could see the ground with help from the Commander's spotlight when he had the IR-filter on, or from the light of the UHUs. It is correct that the commander could turn his IR in 360 degrees - the steel band was easy to remove and put on a holder over the periscope guard. Then he could focus on a target and the turm was turning to this position and the commander install the steel-band again, and begins the complicated communication with the gunner that saw nothing outside."
H_Ackermans
Visit this Community
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 08:18 PM UTC
The FG-1253 is what is fitted to the SdKfz 251 driver's position and also is found on the complete setup on the Panther cupola.

JBailey
Visit this Community
Australia
Joined: October 22, 2009
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 09:29 PM UTC
I agree that Mr Trojca is inclined to flights of fantasy but he has it right in this case. The FG 1253 drivers’ scope is nothing more than a FG 1250 gunner’s sight that failed testing specifications.
That is to say the quality of the tube after manufacture was insufficient for gun applications (up to 600 meters) but adequate for driving purposes (100 meters) and labelled as FG 1252 – the drivers’ scope on the sdkfz 251 serries.

FG1253 and FG 1254 were vertical and horizontal periscope versions of the drivers’ scope. The unit illustrated in FJC’s post was used in trucks mounted through the roof and braced with a frame.

What made the FG 1250 a gunners’ scope as seen on the Panther was the inclusion of a Panther’s gun sight aiming graticule at the end of the scope – that’s the extra power cable running out to the end. See it’s visible on the MG42 mount but not the drivers’ scope.

The Germans had over 70 pieces of IR equipment (including thermal gear) for the Navy, Army and Luftwaffe not just the few you’ve shown.
H_Ackermans
Visit this Community
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, October 23, 2009 - 02:02 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I agree that Mr Trojca is inclined to flights of fantasy but he has it right in this case. The FG 1253 drivers’ scope is nothing more than a FG 1250 gunner’s sight that failed testing specifications.
That is to say the quality of the tube after manufacture was insufficient for gun applications (up to 600 meters) but adequate for driving purposes (100 meters) and labelled as FG 1252 – the drivers’ scope on the sdkfz 251 serries.

FG1253 and FG 1254 were vertical and horizontal periscope versions of the drivers’ scope. The unit illustrated in FJC’s post was used in trucks mounted through the roof and braced with a frame.

What made the FG 1250 a gunners’ scope as seen on the Panther was the inclusion of a Panther’s gun sight aiming graticule at the end of the scope – that’s the extra power cable running out to the end. See it’s visible on the MG42 mount but not the drivers’ scope.

The Germans had over 70 pieces of IR equipment (including thermal gear) for the Navy, Army and Luftwaffe not just the few you’ve shown.



Any reliable sources for this information?

I've searched for FG 1253 on the net and didn't really find anything on it, apart from one post on Feldgrau.net.
JBailey
Visit this Community
Australia
Joined: October 22, 2009
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Friday, October 23, 2009 - 03:10 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I agree that Mr Trojca is inclined to flights of fantasy but he has it right in this case. The FG 1253 drivers’ scope is nothing more than a FG 1250 gunner’s sight that failed testing specifications.
That is to say the quality of the tube after manufacture was insufficient for gun applications (up to 600 meters) but adequate for driving purposes (100 meters) and labelled as FG 1252 – the drivers’ scope on the sdkfz 251 serries.

FG1253 and FG 1254 were vertical and horizontal periscope versions of the drivers’ scope. The unit illustrated in FJC’s post was used in trucks mounted through the roof and braced with a frame.

What made the FG 1250 a gunners’ scope as seen on the Panther was the inclusion of a Panther’s gun sight aiming graticule at the end of the scope – that’s the extra power cable running out to the end. See it’s visible on the MG42 mount but not the drivers’ scope.

The Germans had over 70 pieces of IR equipment (including thermal gear) for the Navy, Army and Luftwaffe not just the few you’ve shown.



Any reliable sources for this information?

I've searched for FG 1253 on the net and didn't really find anything on it, apart from one post on Feldgrau.net.




British National Archives; ADM 212/194, WO 195/8849 and WO 291/281.
There is also a fantastic record made by the German Working Group of Infrared meeting records for January to March 1945.
Bovington Tank museum has some very good records (and have copies of the Kew records above) in particular the interrogations of Dr Gaertner and Dr Bruneg (spelling) who was in charge of manufacture and training and a 1970’s speech delivered by Dr Gaertner to a NATO conference on IR. Dr Gaertner was the head of WaPruf 8 (optics) and the man behind the German development.
You won’t find this on the web you have to go to the archives where you can find extraordinary amount of information. If you have the time and inclination.


H_Ackermans
Visit this Community
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, October 23, 2009 - 03:14 AM UTC
Would I?

The only problem is not being in the UK
JBailey
Visit this Community
Australia
Joined: October 22, 2009
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Friday, October 23, 2009 - 03:20 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Would I?

The only problem is not being in the UK




As you can see I live in Australia so as I say it depends on your inclination (or obsession I guess)…


FJCabeza
Visit this Community
Spain / España
Joined: October 25, 2007
KitMaker: 111 posts
Armorama: 104 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 25, 2009 - 11:22 AM UTC
I guess then is a matter of obssesion, time and money...
But getting back to my original question:
How far could have the Germans gone with their UR technology? Was it a dead end or could have been improved to a practical/useful level? And I mean by "practical" the way IR sights were later used in the 50´s and 60´s.
I want to mount at least three periscopic UR devices in my E-25:For driver , gunner and commander. Could a periscopic UR sight for Gunner/commander have been developed or would the quality of image be too bad to be used? Would they need too much power for such small vehicle? What kind of IR emitters would be used?
I know is a "What if" and I can do (Almost) whatever I want. But I´ve got a genuine interest in German UR development and this is a chance to improve my knowledge on the subject.
TIA for any answer.
JBailey
Visit this Community
Australia
Joined: October 22, 2009
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 25, 2009 - 07:48 PM UTC
The whole rational for what you are doing (E25 paper panzer) supposes the Germans where still battling on into 45-46 and that they had pushed the allies back, had resolved the fuel issues and had control over the sky’s again etc, etc. So if you accept that then the sky is the limit for your IR configuration and you are not constrained by the facts.

Part of what made the German equipment superior to the allied equivalent was its legendary chemical industry. The Germans were able to make much finer grain coatings for their receivers which enabled grater ranges.
What appalled the envious investigating British was that the Germans had developed their equipment to do a job first and size and weight was a secondary consideration.
The British had always put the physical dimensions first and the performance suffered accordingly.

At the end of the war all concerned knew the range and usage limitations of the IR gear but accepted that they had to use and develop what was there because it forced the opposition to do the same. And that if the opposition didn’t have IR then local superiority and advantage could be gained. For the next decade the west and east fielded larger, better quality versions of German systems.
All knew from the start that the end goal was a system that did not require supplementary (active) illumination but one that used the available battlefield and night light (image intensification). All this was known and under research in war time Germany. Working in a vacuum the Germans would have eventually developed everything we have today such as FLIR and thermal imaging. (I’ve seen a thermal image photo of a baby taken during the war).

Anyway back to those damn facts. Once Gudarian said yes to the Panther set-up the production of tubes increased rapidly but due to the largely unskilled workforce quality dropped correspondingly. This was mostly overcome by early 1945 however the high cost and still low output of the device meant that only one per vehicle could be considered. It was appreciated that at least the driver, gunner and commander should all have one but this was just not possible. A figure of 1,000 units is often quoted as having been made by wars end but further investigation shows that was tubes and only approximately 300 had been fully assembled and accepted.

Keeping within some bounds of reality and known production your vehicle could have a separate driver’s periscope for night use only placed at night time - think of the M113 drivers IR scope which was of a similar generation.
Externally an IR scope will look the same as a normal scope i.e. a glass coloured optical cover though they do have an IR lens on the inside to act as a light filter for the IR sensitive receivers further inside.
The gunners’ scope would have to be placed in the same position as the day scope to traverse with the weapon. Give the commander a similar scope.
Any combinations of IR spotlight/driving light, preferably under armour for protection, and please the lenses are black.

In your E25 world we can assume the Germans reduced the power requirement substantially and this is not an issue. In reality the one scope and s/l on the Panther required an additional battery and a separate generator to recharge it.

You could also include a sensor (rotating beacon on a post) on the back of the vehicle designed to pick up enemy IR emissions and maybe an adaptation of the 3-barreled smoke discharger to fire IR flares as a countermeasure – both of these were developed for the U-Boat arm. Good luck.
FJCabeza
Visit this Community
Spain / España
Joined: October 25, 2007
KitMaker: 111 posts
Armorama: 104 posts
Posted: Monday, October 26, 2009 - 08:25 AM UTC
Thank you very much, a truly informative answer...So , in fact, I can do whatever I want because it would be impossible to build by 1946 ...Well what if they used TABUN, SARIN and SOMAN on the Russsians and an A10 with a nuclear "dirty bomb" on NYC?...Yes, I know they would have been bombed until nothing higher tan 50cm would have lasted at Germany. But at least give a background for my E-25
I´m thinking of a smaller FG for the driver and a bigger one for gunner and commander, a UR spotlight mounted on the gun mantlet (What diameter for an acceptable range?) and a second smaller one on the mudguard for the driver. Maybe some modifications in the engine deck to allow for extra batteries/generator?
What do you think?
JBailey
Visit this Community
Australia
Joined: October 22, 2009
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Monday, October 26, 2009 - 08:21 PM UTC
Sounds like you’ve got the hang of this. When you say a small sight for the driver yes but it would be under cover so you wouldn’t see it anyway. You could give him IR goggles, I haven’t seen much in the way of German development but the allies had a trunk load full of them, both head and helmet mounted.

You could put a separate exhaust for your auxiliary generator on the rear deck like the old panzer IV turret traverse muffler but that would of course increase your vehicles thermal signature – something both sides were investigating at the time. What about an external socket for IR recharging?

If you can get hold of the 30cm (PaK 40) searchlight that comes with the AFV club UHU set would look good clamped to the mantlet preferably in some armoured box with a shutter. From a purely technical point of view the angle of illumination was best offset - that is to say the greater the angle of the illumination source to the receiver the better as it avoids back scatter. The 251 UHU worked best when it was offset to the Panthers it worked with. However with a fixed assault-gun weapon you are limited and the light and sight must traverse/elevate with the weapon.

When the sights were first shown to Gudarian as mounted on the PaK 40 he at once saw the potential but deemed that was purely defensive. He wanted IR sights for offensive use only so don’t think of your E25 as a defensive ambush weapon. In your world the Germans are back on the offensive pushing into the Urals….

The Germans had developed a special paint for U-Boats that reflected IR – it was a clear suspension emulsion which had reflective particles of a certain wave-length in it. However a glossy AFV would stand out during the day. Play around with your camouflage but remember paint schemes only work when the vehicle is stationary, once it starts moving the paint scheme is void.
Not urban camouflage, remember your out in the open Russian fields again. Natural camouflage (tress, bushes etc.) are great for breaking up the vehicles shape but the trap there is all natural vegetation gives of a unique IR signature which changes as the foliage dies. The Germans used IR photographs to look for changes in foliage during the war. Dr Gaertner was a specialist in IR photography. All markings should be in IR absorbing black which would be acceptable during the day and would stand out better to your friends at night.




FJCabeza
Visit this Community
Spain / España
Joined: October 25, 2007
KitMaker: 111 posts
Armorama: 104 posts
Posted: Friday, November 06, 2009 - 11:59 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Sounds like you’ve got the hang of this. When you say a small sight for the driver yes but it would be under cover so you wouldn’t see it anyway. You could give him IR goggles, I haven’t seen much in the way of German development but the allies had a trunk load full of them, both head and helmet mounted.


I,ve been thinking in covering the front plate sight hole and add an extra periscope for the driver, that would made the glacis plate stronger and would allow the use of a more powerful UR equipment...


Quoted Text

You could put a separate exhaust for your auxiliary generator on the rear deck like the old panzer IV turret traverse muffler but that would of course increase your vehicles thermal signature – something both sides were investigating at the time. What about an external socket for IR recharging?



What was the working time with batteries for a FG 1250? Around three to four hours? I´d rather add a generator than a recharging socket...Maybe both would be better. I´ve already added Flammvernichter and I´m considering the use of some kind of heath scape grille under the vehicle engine. Would it reduce the thermal signature?


Quoted Text

If you can get hold of the 30cm (PaK 40) searchlight that comes with the AFV club UHU set would look good clamped to the mantlet preferably in some armoured box with a shutter. From a purely technical point of view the angle of illumination was best offset - that is to say the greater the angle of the illumination source to the receiver the better as it avoids back scatter. The 251 UHU worked best when it was offset to the Panthers it worked with. However with a fixed assault-gun weapon you are limited and the light and sight must traverse/elevate with the weapon.



No way I can get AFV searchlight...Have you got any drawings o pictures of it so I can scratchbuild it ? It will be mounted on the left side of the mantlet (Another reason to eliminate the driver´s sight) While the gunner will be on the right side. I´ve see pictures of postwar SU 100 with that kind of searchlight mount...


Quoted Text

When the sights were first shown to Gudarian as mounted on the PaK 40 he at once saw the potential but deemed that was purely defensive. He wanted IR sights for offensive use only so don’t think of your E25 as a defensive ambush weapon. In your world the Germans are back on the offensive pushing into the Urals….



Not so sure about tha scenery...Anyway it is still in the works.


Quoted Text

The Germans had developed a special paint for U-Boats that reflected IR – it was a clear suspension emulsion which had reflective particles of a certain wave-length in it. However a glossy AFV would stand out during the day. Play around with your camouflage but remember paint schemes only work when the vehicle is stationary, once it starts moving the paint scheme is void.
Not urban camouflage, remember your out in the open Russian fields again. Natural camouflage (tress, bushes etc.) are great for breaking up the vehicles shape but the trap there is all natural vegetation gives of a unique IR signature which changes as the foliage dies. The Germans used IR photographs to look for changes in foliage during the war. Dr Gaertner was a specialist in IR photography. All markings should be in IR absorbing black which would be acceptable during the day and would stand out better to your friends at night.


I was thinking in something more like the Leibermuster, with black carbon pigments paint breaking the shape of the now "classic" hard edged Dunkelgelb+ Dunkelgun over Red Primer
What do you think?




JBailey
Visit this Community
Australia
Joined: October 22, 2009
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Monday, November 09, 2009 - 08:05 PM UTC
Good idea to strengthen the glacis plate in that manner, it was one of the reasons hull MG’s were dropped post war – they took up to much space for the firepower offered and weakened the front plate.

Batteries life depended on the draw. For example the German 20w searchlight was a big drain on the vehicle battery but post war the British used their searchlights with German FG1250 and had a much better outcome as their lights only consumed 5-6w.
This is its up to you… you can limit yourself to using what was actually available at close of play 8/5/45 or you can make anything you want to fit a scenario. If they needed a generator it was carried inside the vehicle and you won’t see it anyway.

If you can’t get a AFV searchlight just look at the post war Russian searchlight as the base and mount it as you say on the mantlet.

Cammo is again up to you. If you think a Leibermuster style is good then do that but look at the logic. You’re using IR cammo paint to make you vehicle hared to see by someone using IR, therefore your opponent has IR. When you turn on you search lights no matter what your cammo he will see you very well. So your cammo is only effective when you are passive (active searchlight turned off) and not moving.

Remember IR light is affected in exactly the same way as visible light, it reflects of shinny surfaces and it can’t see through smog or smoke.
Leibermuster is not IR invisible and even if it was you would have a large tank shaped IR invisible shape blotting out the IR reflecting environment around it. Back to natural vegetation as the best bet.
FJCabeza
Visit this Community
Spain / España
Joined: October 25, 2007
KitMaker: 111 posts
Armorama: 104 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009 - 02:43 AM UTC
While dry-fitting all the mess I realized I wasn´t sure if the main IR searchlight is correctly placed...Taking into account the IR sight for the gunner is on the opposite side of the mantlet! Does IR light cast shadows?
H_Ackermans
Visit this Community
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009 - 10:02 AM UTC

Quoted Text

While dry-fitting all the mess I realized I wasn´t sure if the main IR searchlight is correctly placed...Taking into account the IR sight for the gunner is on the opposite side of the mantlet! Does IR light cast shadows?



It doesn't work that way.

What the method of operation was, is that several Uhu 251 halftracks would flood an area with their 60cm IR lights. Other vehicles like the IR Panthers and Falke 251's would use their IR gear to catch the "reflected" IR light.

Also take into account the IR gear used huge batteries, the Uhu was almost completely filled with batteries to power the searchlight, and on the Panther, ammo storage was taken away to give space for the batteries.

The IR-scopes on experimantal STG-44's required the man holding such a weapon to haul around a large heavy box on his back.

It's not like you could just fit an IR sight and be done with it. Therefore with the Ausf. F of the Panther, the hull and turret were redesigned internally to accomodate the gear, plus be ready instantly to mount it. On the Ausf. G, the gear was stowed externally in a large box at the right rear of the hull rearplate.
GaryGore
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: November 05, 2006
KitMaker: 384 posts
Armorama: 338 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009 - 02:07 PM UTC

Quoted Text

It's not like you could just fit an IR sight and be done with it. Therefore with the Ausf. F of the Panther, the hull and turret were redesigned internally to accomodate the gear, plus be ready instantly to mount it. On the Ausf. G, the gear was stowed externally in a large box at the right rear of the hull rearplate.



How much space could be found in the turret of the F? The turret is smaller, they need to carry the same combat load if not more than the G, I just don't see how they could come up with more space in the turret to store the IR tube and the apparatus to mount it in the cupola.

As to the hull, how much more re-arranging could be done and still have the same combat load ready and available to the loader? From the pictures of the last F hulls, they seem to be dimensionaly the same as the G. Why make changes to the production, when the layout of the G was suitable for their needs? The IR storage bin on the back is a perfectly suitable solution until the next hull design went into production?

Can you provide a source to the storage of the IR equipment inside of the F?
JBailey
Visit this Community
Australia
Joined: October 22, 2009
KitMaker: 12 posts
Armorama: 11 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009 - 02:09 PM UTC
If you can swap it to the other side, move it further forward on the mantlet and reduce its size by a third which is not essential but would be more proportional to the subject. If you can lower the drivers periscope as well.
I like the 20/30mm sub-cal arrangement and s/l.
To answer your question yes IR light casts shadows – it behaves in exactly the same way as visible light – shine, reflects and attenuated by smoke and fog.

The UHU would indeed illuminate the battlefield but that was mainly for target identification and acquisition, it would then (using its Fu5 tank radios) talk the IR tanks on to the target. Once they got into ‘their’ zone of around 400 meters would use their own s/l and sight combination to target and destroy the enemy tank.

The removal of rounds from the Panther was not to accommodate the extra battery but for a stand that held the GG400 generator used to charge the extra battery the tank carried – the same as the command versions.

The UHU was not full of batteries but was full of the 8Kv generator set which was the standard gen-set for the 60cm searchlight in Luftwaffe use. The UHU used the standard s/l and gen-set just with an IR filter over it.

The Panther F was in no way IR ready and no provision had been made for the equipment. It would have used the same ‘add-on’ set-up of the Panther G had it ever bee in line to receive the gear. By the time the go ahead had been given to the IR development for tanks the Panther serries was too developed to include such equipment under armour and the lash-up as seen was what was accepted. Nothing in the German inventory existing or planned was designed from inception to carry infrared equipment. It was still very esoteric at that stage of the war.
otawerks
Visit this Community
Paris, France
Joined: December 14, 2009
KitMaker: 2 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009 - 11:37 AM UTC
Hi everybody!
First post here...
Could someone tell me, in what publication I can find Dan Graves' full Illustration of the UHU ?
I have purchased both Articles of AFV 35th issue (One with Jon Bailey's well documented development overview)
.. But It doesn't include a scale Drawing of the Scheinwerfer 60cm and platform...
Which I'd like to find...
Thanks
FJCabeza
Visit this Community
Spain / España
Joined: October 25, 2007
KitMaker: 111 posts
Armorama: 104 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 - 07:52 AM UTC

Quoted Text

If you can swap it to the other side, move it further forward on the mantlet and reduce its size by a third which is not essential but would be more proportional to the subject. If you can lower the drivers periscope as well.
I like the 20/30mm sub-cal arrangement and s/l.
To answer your question yes IR light casts shadows – it behaves in exactly the same way as visible light – shine, reflects and attenuated by smoke and fog.

The UHU would indeed illuminate the battlefield but that was mainly for target identification and acquisition, it would then (using its Fu5 tank radios) talk the IR tanks on to the target. Once they got into ‘their’ zone of around 400 meters would use their own s/l and sight combination to target and destroy the enemy tank.

The removal of rounds from the Panther was not to accommodate the extra battery but for a stand that held the GG400 generator used to charge the extra battery the tank carried – the same as the command versions.

The UHU was not full of batteries but was full of the 8Kv generator set which was the standard gen-set for the 60cm searchlight in Luftwaffe use. The UHU used the standard s/l and gen-set just with an IR filter over it.

The Panther F was in no way IR ready and no provision had been made for the equipment. It would have used the same ‘add-on’ set-up of the Panther G had it ever bee in line to receive the gear. By the time the go ahead had been given to the IR development for tanks the Panther serries was too developed to include such equipment under armour and the lash-up as seen was what was accepted. Nothing in the German inventory existing or planned was designed from inception to carry infrared equipment. It was still very esoteric at that stage of the war.


Sorry for Necro-posting but I wasn´t able to work in this project for a while. I´ve changed the position of the main IR seachlight onto the mantlet and I´ve benn trying some other features...The latter just to make it looking "cooler", like Thomaschurzen, armored covers for engine grilles and Flamentoter.
What do you think ? Does it look now like a feasible project ?






 _GOTOTOP