Looking for someone that has used this set before, it is worth the price? How many IR sets come with it?

Looking to add this to the Trumpeter Jagdpanzer E100, and I figure either this set, or see if I can buy the sprue out of the Panther kit that has them from Tamiya.

I would assume the Lion Roar one has much better detail, but if it only has one set of IR in it...seems like alot for just the one set. Then again, I don't know how much Tamiya would want for the sprues out of the Panther kit either, and I don't really need the extra set of Panther wheels the sprue comes with! LOL.

Scott;

A great place to get at least some answers to your Qs - and to see what the assembled goods look like - is to go to Tim Sloan's build review done on Armorama back in 2010.

Here is a link:

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/review/4900

For my money, it looks a whole lot better than some and will build up to a nice kit. You get 2 complete units, plus an MG 34 and an MG 42 with assorted bits.

For comparison to what GWH has done (and to Sloan's build pics), I have attached below a pic of the Tamiya version lifted from T's G kit and added onto an Trumpeter E-10 build I did back in 2010... I had to do a lot of detailing to the Tamiya goods to get to what you see here. Looking at Sloan's pics, I would say that I would have loved to go there, had I known of it! (I'm not slamming T's gear - it's actually pretty nice and gives a pretty good depiction of the Leitz Bildhandler, etc. - but it does want detailing)

I don't know anything about the Dragon version.

I see these GWH kits going for around 15 US delivered off the evilbay - and frankly I think, given you get 2 sets and 2 MG with accessories, and the molding is top drawer - it would be worth that, at least!

But just my opinion

The E-10 IR pic:



Bob

Hey there Bob,

Thanks for the info. So both units are the same...with or without the MG, they both function the same?? IE by adding the MG to the assembly, the IR equipment is used the same, and not just to aide in the use of the MG.

Nice that the kit comes with the MG42....the Trumpeter Jagdpanzer E-100 kit only comes with the MG34, so the MG42 will be a nice upgrade as well.

The Trumpeter kit is great...I don't normally build WWII German stuff, but when I saw this kit I had to have it....one mean looking tank, and really should have had the IR equipment included with it.

Scott;

The GWH kit contains two full optical units and mounts - as T. Sloan (and maybe others) have pointed out, the GWH kit does NOT provide all the stuff needed to outfit both a driver and a commander / top-side gunner - as in the Dragon SdKfz 251 Falke kit.

I look at it this way: The German IR optics were the same for any and all stations on the vehicle - all would use the same Leitz buildhandler unit - whether or not they would also have that associated IR lamp (IF for example a separate UHU vehicle was providing stronger IR illumination, the little lamp would not contribute to things for the viewer.)

The GWH kit provides 2 bildhandler sets, including mounts as used on things like Panther turrt cupolas, etc. NO mount as used for the Falke driver vision slit. You can build 2 turret-commander rigs, or 1 commander and 1 MG mount, with a choice of guns.

IF you are looking to provide a tank driver with a set, you can use the bildhandler and lamp and scratch up some mount as desired.

The kit MG... both are super nice guns with drums and belts. Note that actually MG 34 and 42 are not completely interchangeable in mounts and usage on vehicles... The barrel-changing operation differed quite a bit between these guns, and the MG 42 requires access on the right side of the gun for this... So when altering or arranging optics (bildhandler) and guns onto a "scoped gun mount", this needs to be considered.

As to use... both bildhandlers are exactly the same kit (2 kits are included) and thus both do exactly the same thing. In the historical record, one mount and application was for the tank commander to view his potential nearer targets and provide a crude night-sight for the turret aiming (this is both the set-up and use I have depicted on my E-10, and is illustrated on the kit box - left set-up). The bildhandler could also be mounted with an MG as a night-vision general aiming device for that gun, as depcted on the right box image. You'll get parts to make the bildhandler mount with either geometry, and parts to attach the MG to the latter mount. The optics package operates the same in either application.

(PS: when mounted with the MG, we are talking here of a "field-effect" aiming device and not a precision aiming reticule and gun-sight - that IR MG was no sort of marksman-grade set-up, but rather a generally-guided hose. It's not a sighting telescope integrated with a night - vision device, unlike some modern versions.)

From this, I would say that the MG-mount version would still be useful as a field-viewing device, but would NOT likely be linked to any main-gun aiming / sight gear, unlike the turret-commander set-up (and what again I did on that E-10) - it was not doing dual - service as the night-sight for the main gun.

As to MG and the E-100 you are working up: I'm in no way convinced that the MG-42 would be an improvement or upgrade over the - 34 in that application. The 42 was a simpler, cheaper manufacturing job, but not a better MG. The -34 was a "Cadillac" but a slightly better shooter... the -42 does, I think, look more modern! Shot both, prefer the -34. But that's just my opine!

Bob

Thanks for the info Bob,

I guess my problem with the E100 is that the MG is mounted to the commander's station. So I was wondering if mounting the IR devices with the MG, if the devices would then be used for the main gun? Or just the MG?

Keeping in mind that this is a tank destroyer, so it doesn't have a traditional turret, so I wonder if the IR devices would actually be used on something like that for the main gun? I know they were mostly only used on Panthers, so maybe would be used in a different capacity on a TD

Yeah I think for me, MG34 vs MG42....the 42 looks "cooler" LOL

Scott:

Remember the commander's mounting on that Panther turret cupola? That set-up, just like the set-up I put on my E-10, serves as a somewhat crude night-vision gun-sight for the main gun. And that function really does not differ between "traditional turret" and casemented main-guns, such as you are working on, or my E-10!

What you need to know about this is how deflection in the IR unit - traversing right or left of "straight-ahead" - translates to the actual gun-sight, gunner's position, and direction that the gun actually points in.

In the original case, this data - the "compass-bearing" of the IR unit, as a deviation from the compass-bearing of the gun-sight and gun-tube - was likely relayed by a mechanical "metal tape" linkage, as was the elevation angle. Much like older-fashioned big guns on battleships, where the gun-sight was distant from the gun.

So... that commander's unit had a very limited left-right traverse - if any at all - relative to the main axis of the gun. Unless that IR unit could decouple from its data-transfer mechanical linkage, it's traverse would logically be limited pretty much to the available traverse of the gun. On a casement gun (E-10 or E-100 jagdpanzer?), the gun would be able to traverse a few degrees left and right of center, and that IR set would likewise probably traverse a few degrees L and R. This would not make using it for an MG mount very practical...

For that turret mount, it may well have been pretty much fixed in parallel to its main gun - and rigged to communicate elevation angle info only (as the gun did not traverse within its turret). Seeing as the commander could either direct the crew to traverse the turret, or could do that himself, in order to acquire the target, there would be little benefit in having this mount traverse.

On the other hand, for that IR-MG mount to be very useful, the MG gunner would need to be able to rapidly traverse his IR set and its weapon, and over substantially greater amount of arch. This would mean that it probably could not be mechanically linked to the main-gun sight or tube... as that MG was likely to get pointed quite elsewhere than the big gun. So, I would guess that you can have it serve one function, or the other, but not plausibly both!

In my E-10 mount, I accepted that the main gun might traverse ca 7 - 15 degrees L or R of center, and concocted my IR mount to accordingly swing that amount L or R of center, along with the historically-established metal tape elevation relay device. IF I was doing an E-100 I would probably go this route with that beast, too.

I had (briefly - as I actually only had the one IR set-up to work with) considered whether I could maybe mound an IR tube on that MG mount (perhaps as an under-barrel sight). As the real "rundumfeuer" MG mount had a periscope-sight under that MG, so I figured I might mount that bildhandler to "feed" that periscope. But it looked like it was going to be pretty bulky and so I let it go. Note: that bildhandler is an in-line photo-multiplier device which projects a tiny image on a view-screen at the back of the tube. The operator thus is looking "through" the bildhandler just as if it were a telescope. There was no remote, wire-connected view-screen, so this geometry would dictate how you can actually place your IR device. So, for the rundumfeuer mount, it would have to sit in front of the periscope lens.

Cheers!

Bob