Technology and Science from 1901 to 1945

[m kenny]

Issue 53 of 'Wheels And Tracks' magazine

As has been stated many times IR Technology was not a war-winning German invention but something every major nation had. As it is a spin-off from Television technology then it was widely know about before the war.
Everyone seems to have had an IR night driving system. The Germans went one further and tried to use it in combat situations. This was not practical given the state of play. Any tank going into action with an active IR source might as well have had a sign on it saying kill me. A simple cheap IR detector (which the Allies had ready and waiting) was the answer and for this reason the use of German IR was forbiden in the West. There is no documented information about IR Panther usuage in 1945 and certainly no IR use in The Bulge. It seems this Bulge claims overlooks one of the problems with IR-it does not work in the snow!
If you read the links that mention the capture of the German IR Training Unit it becomes obvious why it was never used in action. The first shot knocked all the sighting systems out of alignment and thus negated the IR advantage.
A blessing really becuase it saved the crews from certain destruction when their lights gave their position away.
Reading of the US 5th AD account of the claimed IR Panther attack confirms that no IR Panthers were involved and the other IR claim about the destruction of the Comets is equaly suspect.
The whole of the claims about IR Panther usuage in 1945 rest on 2 unsourced and demostrably faulty reports in the Feist and Culver 1995 book. There is not even an unsourced claim saying they saw use in 1944.

 

[parsifal]

One site I found

Nightfighting Panthers

Relevantly, the site makes the following point:

Admittedly the searchlight range wasn´t more than 600 metres, limiting the long range advantage of the excellent KwK42 75mm/L70.

Thats a maximum range not a maximum effective range in my book, because as Jones makes very clear in his book, the performance of the IR systems was downgraded very badly by the atmospherics and other factors

The site also includes a drawing of the FG-1250, which has already been reproduced on the site. It clearly shows the system as a relying on a searchlight system, therefore it cannot be considered a passive detection system

The Germans were developing a 600mm searchlight IR system (the "UHU mounted on a halftrack. This did have a theoretical maximum range of 2500 metres, buts use was only ever projected. Moreover the size of the searchlight and equipment are such that I am very doubtful that the airborne versions deployed by the germans (which still relied on active light sources) could have an effective range of 2400 metres.....the light emitters on the a/c are simply too small to have that range capability.

Admittedly one site claims that the airborne IR detection system was a passive system.....and then promptly disproves that by providing an illustration of an aircraft with a device incorporating an IR searchlight.

 

[Kurfürst]

Soren
Would I be right in saying that those pictures are of experimental/test examples. The Do17 is clearly an early aircraft and that 110 looks like an early version to me.
I have never seen an operational version in use in the front line or on any photo of a Ju88 or 110G.

From what I have read the IR devices were indeed used on the early nightfighters over Germany, but with the appearance of radar sets, which were overall more effective, replaced them.

 

[Kurfürst]

The British in fact had an airborne operational IR unit from early 1939. This is according to Jones, who worked on the equipment. Jones, in his Book, "Most Secret War" makes the point that British IR technology was clearly superior to anything the Germans were working on.

I wouldn't put much faith in the comments Jones use to make regarding German progress, I have seen references to his 'conclusions' about German recce flights over England, concluding there was none since 1940, because they found 1940ish recon photos with V-1 launching units. Of course there were numerous recon flights, of which perhaps Jones did not know about (which OTOH shows how little insight he had into those things), but its a good example of how wishful sometimes Jones and generally, intelligence can be. I have some of these wartime air intelligence reports and their quality is appealing - either they are panicking at some non-existent enemy boogeyman technology, or having this pompous assurance of total superiority over the sorry enemy. Jones strikes me generally as being a specimen of the latter approach.

I cant actually prove it, but just looking at the diagrams for the respective technologies, it looks to me that the Brits had some wartime equipment that used image enghancement, that is it uses a passive light source rather than an active light source. If this is the case, the British were reaching into what is referred to as "2nd generation" technology with IR.

Perhaps they were using passive sets, but wheter they were usable at all is another matter - many generations of post-war tanks of the NATO and the USSR relied on active IR sets, with huge IR search lights mounted on the tanks, so obviously the passive technology was simply not mature for field use long after the war.

As for passive application, I understand the Germans had developed their own passive devices meant to locate enemy IR signitures if used on the battlefield, but never seemed to have used them, which would point to the fact that there were no substantial Allied IR use either. But overall, passive IR as a technology wasn't anything 'secret', there are for example several (German)IR photographs of British Chain Home towers published in Wood and Dempster's 'Narrow Margin', and those are fairly good quality, ie. IR sensitive film existed back then already.

My opinion, based on the above is that it cannot be stated unequivocally that the germans held the lead.

Agreed. Personally I would very much doubt that any of these IR sets saw much use during the war, and I have certainly not seen evidence of that. There are a few examples on both sides, but these would appear on either the experimental, or very small scale.

 

[Glider]

From what I have read the IR devices were indeed used on the early nightfighters over Germany, but with the appearance of radar sets, which were overall more effective, replaced them.

Again you certainly could be right Kurfurst and it makes sense. What I was expecting was that early Ju88 and Me110's would have been fitted with them but they don't seem to have been.
It could have been little more than a experimental installation or trials unit

 

[parsifal]

It appears that the majority view on IR technology was that there was no clear advantage for wither side. Some may disagree with that, but it seems a reasonable enoug conclusion to make, considering the extremely limited contribution the teechnology made on the war as a whole. IR technology post war has had a huge impact on the nature of warfare...no longer is it a safe option, to "use the cover of darkness".

I think the majority view on this subthread is that there is no clear advantage by either side. Perhaps we should move onto another area of technology for discussion....

 

[parsifal]

If we are going to move on, it seems to me that a useful exercise would be to think about the parameters of successful technology. IMO there are a number of factors to consider including

Combat Effectiveness, Produceability, Serviceability, Reliability, Development costs.

Are these agreed parameters? Any other factors we should include?

 

[Soren]

That the detector was passive doesn't mean that a searchlight wouldn't be of benefit though.

But the ZG-1229 Vampir was indeed active, not passive. As for Spanner, there were four versions, Spanner I was active, the rest were passive.

As for FG-1250, a searchlight is present, but it could be both. I rembered it as passive. But the 600m clear visibility range and 1,000m max range was a clear advantage over any of the Allied sets.

The Germans were clearly ahead in this field, which ironically is also stated on the pages M_Kenny has provided.

 

[Soren]

If we are going to move on, it seems to me that a useful exercise would be to think about the parameters of successful technology. IMO there are a number of factors to consider including

Combat Effectiveness, Produceability, Serviceability, Reliability, Development costs.

Are these agreed parameters? Any other factors we should include?

Does combat effectiveness cover the performance/capability of the technology ? The reason I'm asking this is because many things which aren't related to the capability/performance of the material at all can have a dramatic effect on how effective said material proves in combat.

 

[Glider]

That the detector was passive doesn't mean that a searchlight wouldn't be of benefit though.

Can I ask you to explain this?

But the ZG-1229 Vampir was indeed active, not passive. As for Spanner, there were four versions, Spanner I was active, the rest were passive.

Spanner II was passive but not built or issued as for III and IV I have no idea as I have found no trace of them. Can I ask you to supply something to support your statement. I am pretty sure that if they had been deployed then something would have shown up on my enquiries.
Be fair, I did supply the sources that I found, they may well be wrong or incomplete but at least you have the basis of my points. All I ask is that you do the same.

As for FG-1250, a searchlight is present, but it could be both. I rembered it as passive. But the 600m clear visibility range and 1,000m max range was a clear advantage over any of the Allied sets.

I don't think it could be both. None of the sources I have seen mention that it was both. They only link the searchlight with the viewer, one is part of the other.
Again I would ask you to supply sources to back up your claim.

Generally, neither side seem to have a technical advantage, the allies concentrated on practical equipment to assist with driving and produced thousands of working sets deployed to a number of types of unit.
Germany on fighting equipment produced in very small numbers.

 

[Soren]

Can I ask you to explain this?

Sure. The searchlight sends out infrared light, illuminating what'ever surfaces it hits with infrared light which in turn is detectable by the IR detector. The passive detectors are more sensitive than the active sets, allowing them to be used without a searchlight. But like using light to clear something up for ourselves to see, the searchlight can be used the same with passive IR detectors, lighting up objects far away otherwise not visible.

But pure active devices have a clear disadvantage in that the light from the needed searchlight can be easily spotted by other IR detectors, just like you can see if someone is using a flashlight in the dark. Therefore the military was vary of using it, and instead opted for passive sets which only need the surrounding light to form an image. However one clear advantage of the active systems is the clearer image, the passive sets tending to be abit blurry, and therefore the military today combines the two, a passive IR detector IR searchlight (Like the Germans did), using the IR searchlight to illuminate objects which the passive detectors otherwise couldn't see properly and providing a clearer image. However since, like I said, that the light from the IR searchlight can be seen by other IR detectors, it is very seldom used when outside. However when there is very little to no natural IR light available, like when entering a windowless building at night, the searchlight is essential. That is why soldiers today carry the passive IR detector IR searchlight combination.

Spanner II was passive but not built or issued as for

Oh Spanner II was certainly built, and also issued, I even have pictures of it.

Spanner II in Bf-110:

III and IV I have no idea as I have found no trace of them. Can I ask you to supply something to support your statement. I am pretty sure that if they had been deployed then something would have shown up on my enquiries.
Be fair, I did supply the sources that I found, they may well be wrong or incomplete but at least you have the basis of my points. All I ask is that you do the same.

See picture above, Spanner III IV were but improved versions of the Spanner II.

I don't think it could be both. None of the sources I have seen mention that it was both. They only link the searchlight with the viewer, one is part of the other.
Again I would ask you to supply sources to back up your claim.

When I say it could be both I mean it could be either active or passive, and according to memory it is passive. But it might very well be active. But like I said, a passive detector may be coupled with an IR searchlight to provide longer clearer imaging, like we do today.

Generally, neither side seem to have a technical advantage, the allies concentrated on practical equipment to assist with driving and produced thousands of working sets deployed to a number of types of unit.
Germany on fighting equipment produced in very small numbers.

I disagree, and so does every expert on the subject it seems, atleast all my sources. Fact is that the German detectors were more sensitive and provided better imaging, giving them a much longer usable range, and that's a clear advantage in my book.

 

[Glider]

Soren
re I disagree, and so does every expert on the subject it seems, atleast all my sources. Fact is that the German detectors were more sensitive and provided better imaging, giving them a much longer usable range, and that's a clear advantage in my book.

All I am asking is what are your sources? One untitled un attributed photo of something in an early 110 doesn't cut it.

 

[Soren]

Glider my sources are as follows:

History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-45 by Gebhard Aders
Die deutschen Funkmeßverfahren bis 1945 By Fritz Trenkel
Die deutschen Funkführungs-und Funk-navigationsanlagen By Fritz Trenkel
Handbuch Luftfahrt 6, Infrarot-Nachtjagdgerät "Spanner" By Karl Pawlas

Btw, small correction, Spanner III was an active device.

And here's a picture of the improved FuG280 Kiel III being tested on a Ju-88 (From: Die deutschen Funkmeßverfahren bis 1945)

 

[Soren]

According to my sources the Germans were esp. ahead because of their electron multiplier design which was used to increase the sensitivity of their IR detectors to an unpresidented lvl that the Allies didn't even come anywhere close to during the war. The design was copied by the British right after the war.

 

[m kenny]

Soren are you using a site that lists those books as its sources?
Have you read any of those sources or are you just repeating a list given on a site?

Is any of the info you gave available on a site that we can see?

I ask this because in a previous answer to me you gave a similar list of sources that turned out to be a list of sources that you had seen on a site rather than sources you had.

 

[Soren]

Go get the books if in doubt, that's all I have to say to you m_kenny.

 

[m kenny]

I think I found it

Infra-red equipment - Luftwaffe Experten Message Board

Sample:

Spanner II and derivates a-e, passive device, detecting only IR-emitting targets, such as exhaust flames. As such it was also tested on Fw 190 A. All Spanner II devices were found to be very insufficent. Spanner II was developed to "Katze" and was tested as FuG 280 "Kiel Z" in conjuction with FuG 220.

I found these details in:
• Gebhard Aders, Geschichte der deutschen Nachtjagd
• Fritz Trenkle, Die deutschen Funkmeßverfahren and Die deutschen Funkführungs- u. Funknavigationsanlagen
• Karl Pawlas, Handbuch Luftfahrt, Bd.6, Infrarot-Nachtjagdgerät "Spanner" (Evaluation reports on Spanner I, II, III and Katze)

 

[Juha]

Soren
Aders in his book on page 39 gives rather negative conclusion on Spanner
and on page181 gives some rather operationally restrictive facts on FuG 280 Kiel Z.

Juha

 

[Soren]

Same books, nearly atleast.

I have the english version of Gebhard's book.

 

[Soren]

Soren
Aders in his book on page 39 gives rather negative conclusion on Spanner
and on page181 gives some rather operationally restrictive facts on FuG 280 Kiel Z.

Juha

True, Spanner proved to be insufficient compared to the new radar sets being
available. The range of the Spanner was simply too short for it to be of much use in a/c. The ranges at which a/c were spotted in the air was simply too great, radar having much longer ranges.