# Rare Crazy Panzer Projekts.



## CharlesBronson (Jul 4, 2005)

A collection of Paper proyects and others.

*Panzerkampfwagen IX*







*Panzerkampfwagen X*


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 4, 2005)

*Landkreuzer P-1500 "Monster"*






This is a proyect af a self propelled 1500 tn 80 centimer howitzer very much like the Dora but mounted over 4 diesel electric traction tracks......crazy


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 4, 2005)

Edited: I will post updated info


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2005)

some very..."interesting" designs there


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 5, 2005)

The improved Tiger II:

*Panzerkampfwagen "Löwe" , (lion) VK 7201*











Typ: Kampfpanzer 
Gefechtsmasse: 90.000 Kg 
Länge:7.74 m 
Breite:3.84 m 
Höhe:3.08 m 
Motor: 1 Zwölfszylinder-Benzinmotor 
Leistung: 700 PS ( Maybach HL) 1000 hp ( Daimler-Benz) 
Fahrwerk: Kette; 9 Laufrollen - Stützrollen 
Höchstgeschwindigkeit: 25-32 km/h Straße / Gelände: 15 km/h 
Fahrbereich: 160 km Straße / Gelände 80 km/h 
Bewaffnung: eine 12,5 cm Kanone L/60; ein Koaxial MG; 
Munitionsvorrat: Kanone: 22 Schuss, MG 2700 Schuss 
Panzerung: Front 240 mm, Seite 120 mm 
Besatzung: 5 Mann


----------



## me262 (Jul 5, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> A proyected anti-aircraft vehicle, the Twin 3,7 cm Flak 18 over a Panther.


i scratchbuilt the turret using that pic and use a regular panther chassis, just need to glue the gun muzzles and put the modelkasten tracks and voila!!!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 5, 2005)

Very good job...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2005)

Yes, that's excellent.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 6, 2005)

Looking for more info, I found out that the actual name of this projeckt is "Flakpanzer Coelian"

Edited, pic link doest work.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

The Tiger II may have been interesting but I think it was a long shot to ever be produced.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 6, 2005)

"Flakzwilling 3.7cm auf Panzerkampfwagen Panther" aka. Gerat 554/ Flakpanzer 341 "Coelian" . 

_In December 1943, Rheinmetall-Borsig started a project to mount two 3.7cm FlaK43 in a fully-armoured turret, on the chassis of a normal Panther. A wooden mock-up turret was mounted on a Panther Ausf D chassis. The final design for the turret had sloping armour similar to the schmal turret turms of the Panther Ausf F. Production of this tank was continually delayed_

*Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two* - Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle


There you go, Charles. 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Cool info thanks.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 6, 2005)

Nice pics to compare the shapes of the Tigers and the Lion.

Königstiger mit Porsche turm.







Königstiger mit Henschel turm.







Panzerkampfwagen VII Löwe:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

How far along was the Lion in development process. I doubt it was any close to being built.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 7, 2005)

The development of super heavy tank started as early as 1941, when Krupp started the studies of superheavy Soviet tanks. In November of 1941, it was specified that the new heavy tank was to have 140mm front and 100mm thick side armor. The vehicle was to be operated by 5 men crew - 3 in the turret and 2 in the hull. This new panzer was to have maximum speed of some 44km/h being powered by 1000hp Daimler-Benz marine engine used in Schnellboot (torpedo boat). The main armament was to be mounted in the turret. The weight was to be up 90 tons. In the early months of 1942, Krupp was ordered to start the process of designing new heavy tank designated PzKpfw VII Löwe (VK7201). Its design was based on previous project by Krupp designated VK7001 (Tiger-Maus) and created in competition with Porsche's designs (including first Maus designs).VK7001 was to be armed with either 150mm Kanone L/37 (or L/40) or 105mm KwK L/70 gun. Lowe was to utilize Tiger II's components in order to simplify the production and service. 

Designers planned to build two variants of this streamlined vehicle with rear mounted turret. Light (leichte) variant would have frontal armor protection of 100mm and it would weight 76 tons. Heavy (schwere) variant would have frontal armor protection of 120mm and it would weight 90 tons. Both variants would be armed with 105mm L/70 gun and coaxial machine gun.It is known that 90ton schwere Löwe was to have its turret mounted centrally and in overall design resembled future Tiger II.Variants of Löwe were both to be operated by the crew of five. It was calculated that their maximum speed would range from 23km/h (schwere) to 27km/h (leichte). 

Adolf Hitler ordered that the design Leichte Löwe was to be dropped in favour of Schwere Löwe. Lion was to be redesigned in order to carry 150mm L/40 or 150mm L/37 ( probably 150mm KwK 44 L/38 ) gun and its frontal armor protection was to be changed to 140mm. In order to improve its performance, 900-1000mm wide tracks were to be used and top speed was to be increased to 30km/h.

In late 1942, this project was cancelled in favour of the development of the Maus. During the development of Tiger II, designers planned to build redesigned version of Löwe (as suggested by Oberst Fichtner), which would be armed with 88mm KwK L/71 gun and its frontal armor protection would be 140mm (as planned before). Redesigned Löwe would be able to travel at maximum speed of 35km/h and it would weight 90 tons. It was to be powered by Maybach HL 230 P 30, 12-cylinder engine producing 800hp. Löwe would be 7.74 meters long (with the gun), 3.83 meters wide and 3.08 meters high. Löwe would be operated by the crew of five. It was planned that Löwe would eventually replace Tiger II. 
Also it would be fitted with the 128 mm L/60 gun.

From February to May of 1942, six different designs were considered, all based on the requirements for Löwe. On March 5/6th of 1942, order for heavier tank was placed and project Löwe was stopped in July of 1942. Löwe project never reached the prototype stage but it paved the way for its successor's development - Porsche's Maus.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

Aha okay thanks.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 7, 2005)

It really was silly. 90 tons is way too heavy for a tank of that day - but it was much better than the Maus which weighed 188 tons. The Maus was just beyond stupid - at least the Lowe had some sort of potential, although small. 

Germany should have kept the limit at 60 tons. The King Tiger was 68 tons and that was too heavy - it's not like the Tiger couldn't deal with anything the Soviets or Western Allies threw at it, it only weighed 54 tons.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 7, 2005)

I have to agree with you, probably the good relationship between the austrian corporal and Dr. Porsche had something to do with that.

The Lowe designed for Henschel was much more realistic proyect than this *demential* artefact.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 8, 2005)

Certainly was the most bizarre and pointless designs of Germany to get off the drawing board. Three or more Tigers could have been built from the resources used on making one Maus - and even more off the time to design and build it.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 8, 2005)

*The E-series:*

The E-Series program was conceived by Dipl Ing Heinrich Ernst Kniekamp, Chief Engineer of Waffenpruefamt 6 in May of 1942. In April of 1943, Heereswaffenamt (Army Weapons Office) accepted his program and ordered many different manufacturers to start the planning and development of the Entwicklung (project/development) / Einheitsfahrgestell (general purpose chassis) Series. It was designed in order to replace armored vehicles and tanks that were used by the German Army from 1945 onwards. All six basic designs of E-Series would have standardized parts making their production, maintenance and service easier and cheaper


*E-10 (10-25 tons) Height: 1.74 m*

Designed by Klockner-Humboldt-Deutz Magirus AG in Ulm.
light multipurpose tank, 
light test chassis, 
replacement for PzKpfw 38(t) and conversions built on its chassis, 
redesigned and enlarged chassis of 38(t) designated 38(d) (German), 
armored personnel carrier, 
light/medium Jagdpanzer, 
light/medium waffentragers.

The jagdpanzer version armed with the 75mm L/48 Stuk.





Nice rear view.






MG-42 with shield, I am not sure that it was remote controlled.


----------



## me262 (Jul 8, 2005)

to the other end of the E series, we have the E-100 armed with a 150 mm KwK44 L/38,a 75 mm KwK44 L/36.5 as coaxial,weight 140 tones, only one prototype was build, captured by the british army at war end's, only the turret was missing


----------



## plan_D (Jul 8, 2005)

I have a picture of a British soldier sat on the E-100 chassis - because that's all what was built of it.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 9, 2005)

The heavier jagdpanzer E-25. Designed by Porsche.







The top small turret use a EW-141 20 mm gun....anti-aircraft maybe ?
Weight : 25 tons; Hull length: 5.66 m






Some influence from the Russian SU-series from this angle.


----------



## me262 (Jul 9, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I have a picture of a British soldier sat on the E-100 chassis - because that's all what was built of it.


did you know that the british tried to finish it?, i saw a pic of the e-100 with the tracks on


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It really was silly. 90 tons is way too heavy for a tank of that day - but it was much better than the Maus which weighed 188 tons. The Maus was just beyond stupid - at least the Lowe had some sort of potential, although small.
> 
> Germany should have kept the limit at 60 tons. The King Tiger was 68 tons and that was too heavy - it's not like the Tiger couldn't deal with anything the Soviets or Western Allies threw at it, it only weighed 54 tons.



Could not agree more with you here. That is a prime example of the Germans having to over engineer and go bigger and better when they already have something that works. They should have just kept producing the Tigers, King Tigers and Panthers rather than waste material on this piece!


----------



## Chocks away! (Jul 10, 2005)

Did the Mouse see any action? It would be interesting to speculate on how many Shermans it could knock out!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 10, 2005)

According to some sources one Maus entered in action the last days of the war against the russians, but that is at list dubious, one of this was captured and it can be seen in the Kubinka museum near Moscu.

E-100 pictorial.

















*E-75.*

With 50mm conic bore, 75 L/48 and 88 mm L/71 installed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

I agree with those of you that say she was too heavy. She may have been very innovative and possibly the future but was not needed. As was stated the Germans already had superior tanks they needed to build those and not work on the Maus.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2005)

I did hear a rumour that the Maus saw action in the defence of the Porsche factory but I have read an extremely sensible and well thought out article disproving that rumour. 

The Maus did not see action - the pot marks in it's hull front are from post-war Soviet tests with an A-19 122 mm cannon, at all ranges.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

So the Russians were not able to punch through the armour.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

Nope, they weren't even 1% inside the structure of the Maus.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

Damn!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 11, 2005)

I don't understand the point of any of these projects, they had no practical use except as static bunkers and wasted desperately needed supplies. It must just have been a "mine's bigger than yours" philosophy. Maybe they were trying to make up for something?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

That is exactly what it was and the fact that well Germans have the habit of over engineering things.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 11, 2005)

More pics of this very crazy projekt.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2005)

Those pot marks on the front of the Maus are from the A-19, as I've mentioned - a 122 mm cannon!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 12, 2005)

does anyone else find the picture of it going cross country really funny


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 12, 2005)

Not really, but thats phenomenal damage absorbence!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2005)

Agreed! In what museum can it be found now.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 12, 2005)

The thing that the German designers hadn't thought about was that it could be very easily destroyed if you used the right weapon- i.e. a tallboy


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 12, 2005)

Id like to see a tank that can survive a tallboy


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2005)

You'd have some trouble hitting it with a Tallboy from a Lancaster - but why bother? You could end it with a 500 lbs bomb. The Maus is in Kubinka Tank Museum in Russia.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 12, 2005)

Well , now that I see the amount of armour of this wacky panzer I understand the litte damage done by the 122mm shells.







*E-100*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2005)

I would love to go there and see it.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 13, 2005)

*The Entwicklung E-50*






Proposed replacement for the Panther, it used about 60% same components as the Pz V and the Schmalturm of Panther Ausf F, with his increased side armour.






Also it had a improved transmition, one of the weakest item in the Panther and other minor changes in order to ease the production.






Weight: about 50-55 tons, Engine: 750 hp.
Even the muzzle brake was deleted in the KWK 75mm L/70 to save raw materials.


----------



## Karbine (Jul 15, 2005)

This is a very intresting image,any info on it because only something like 3 of these were made and i know one was destroyed by its crew when it broke down,is this possibly it?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 15, 2005)

Only 2 prototypes were built and 9 were under construction. V1 and V2 were both blown up at Kummersdorf at the end of the war - the Soviet Union captured a hull and turret almost to completion - I believe they finished the job (very little to do) - on which would have been V3. And that's the one in Kubinka.


----------



## trackend (Jul 15, 2005)

That looks like a big waddling tortoise CB not very practical.
PD My next major trip is Portsmouth docks heritage center but after that I intend to get down to Bovington tank museum and take lots of pics I dare say you've been D but It will be my first time I've been told its about the best in the world.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 15, 2005)

You'll be surprised - I've never been to Bovington - in fact, even more of a shock for you, the first time I'd actually seen a World War 2 tank was in April of this year when I went to IWM-North and they had a lone T-34/85. 
The land museum in Duxford gave me a lot to look at - which was good. Make sure you get lot's of pictures for me to steal! 8) 

They have one of only six (in the world) running Tigers in Bovington. Kubinka is supposed to be the best - and I imagine Aberdeen Proving Grounds has it's fair share of awesome equipment - but to Russia, to U.S or to Bovington - which is cheaper?!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 15, 2005)

Never been to Bovington?! Get yourself down there at once! I loved it and Id love to go again. Its great


----------



## plan_D (Jul 15, 2005)

It might be easy for you lot but it took me 3 hours to get to Duxford - and I don't even know where Bovington is.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 15, 2005)

Dorset somewhere, I think. Down and left  And it still takes a couple of hours from here.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 15, 2005)

Exactly - and I'm 124 miles away from Duxford - and probably well in excess of 200 miles of Bovington.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 15, 2005)

Karbine said:


> This is a very intresting image,any info on it because only something like 3 of these were made and i know one was destroyed by its crew when it broke down,is this possibly it?



Probably it do, the germans put some heavy explosive ( and I mean HEAVY) charge wich blew up the turret and side armour completely.

No Maus was claimed destroyed in combat by the russians or the western allies.


----------



## Karbine (Jul 15, 2005)

intresting thanks,did the soviets do anything with the one they built again?


----------



## me262 (Jul 15, 2005)

Karbine said:


> intresting thanks,did the soviets do anything with the one they built again?


the used the maus as a target, cos the front is marked with many impacts, but none went thru the armor, as noted before the only maus is housed in the tank museum in kubinka


----------



## Karbine (Jul 15, 2005)

so wheres this one they used as a target gone?


----------



## me262 (Jul 15, 2005)

check this link:
http://www.jagdtiger.de/GermanTanks/Maus-01.htm


----------



## Karbine (Jul 15, 2005)

ah right so they just shot it up and now the museam has it but when did it go to the museam,did it sit in a field somewhere for years before?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 15, 2005)

You can found more about the PZ VIII in here.

http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/pz7.htm#maus


----------



## Karbine (Jul 16, 2005)

Thanks intresting stuff


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 16, 2005)

The heavy self propelled assault gun sturmpanzer Bär ( bear) 








Early May of 1942, a new design of Sturmpanzer, was proposed. On March 4th of 1943, Krupp proposed development of new Sturmgun armed with 305mm L/16 mortar and first drawings were ready in May. It was to be armed with a 305mm gun mounted in the superstructure, based on the modified chassis of the then new Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger (Tiger I) heavy tank utilized some Panther components with new suspension developed by Krupp. The new vehicle was to weight 120 tons. 

This new Sturmpanzer was to be powered by a 12-cylinder Maybach HL 230 P 30 engine producing 700hp. This would have al-lowed the vehicle to travel at a maximum speed of approximately 20km/h [12 mph]. Bär was to be armed with a rigidly-mounted 305mm KwK L/16 gun installed in an armored superstructure in the back of the hull. The main gun could only be elevated from 0 to 70 degrees and had a range of 10,500 meters [11,400 yards]. Each 305mm round weighed 350kg [770 pounds] and carried a 50kg [110 pound] charge. The interior storage space allowed for only 10 rounds. 

Another weapon proposed was the 210mm L/21 wich this panzer should be contain 22 proyectiles.

It was to be 8.2 meters [26.7 feet] long, 4.1 meters [13.65 feet] wide and 3.5 meters [11.4 feet] high. Armor was sloped and protection ranged from 80mm on the sides to 130mm at the front. Sturmpanzer Bär was to be operated by a crew of six - commander, gunner, two loaders, driver and radio-operator. The project never left the drawing board, but was a step in the development of the Sturmtiger.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2005)

The Entwicklung E-50 seems a lot more practacle than the other prototypes.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2005)

Developing it was pointless though, they already had the Brummbar and SturmTiger which did the exact same job.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Entwicklung E-50 seems a lot more practacle than the other prototypes.



And very good looking too. Check the new 6 faced turret.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2005)

I don't actually know much about the E-50 - it was basically an evolution of the Panther. It was set to replace the Panther I and Panther II - but never saw anything beyond the paper. 

There is actually a Panther II in Fort Knox, U.S. It has a Panther G turret though instead of the destined Schmal Turm 605 which was going to go on the Panther F, Panther II and E-50. 

You have to love the looks of the E-50, that Schmal Turm was a beautiful piece of machinery.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2005)

Agreed and yes I do agree that they should have just put emphasis on the existing tanks rather than develop newer less practacle ones.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 19, 2005)

> There is actually a Panther II in Fort Knox, U.S. It has a Panther G turret though instead of the destined Schmal Turm 605 which was going to go on the Panther F, Panther II and E-50.



I think that the "small turret" in the Panther II probably would cause some trouble with the larger 88mm L/71


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

What do you mean? With the turret ring? The reason the Panther II has a Panther G turret is because they were testing the chassis. I assume they would have fitted the 605 later on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

I think the only problem with the smaller turret is that it would be a smaller fit for the crew.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

It had a larger 8.8cm cannon as well - in one of the designs. Maybe it would have required a strengthened turret ring but I don't know. If it could take the high velocity 75 mm - then it could take a 88 mm.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

I guess like I said I am very weak in armor.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 21, 2005)

> The reason the Panther II has a Panther G turret is because they were testing the chassis. I assume they would have fitted the 605 later on.



Probably. I try to found a pic of this turret but I failed  

Another cliche is is said about the Panther F and E-50 is that the Schmalturm could fit the L/100 75mm gun.
Not completely true . This compact turret would need some counterwight to handle this very very long gun.

Panther F





At list one prototipe of the crazy L/100 was made and it probe to increase the muzzle velocity from 1000 m/s to 1210 meters per second with the standar Steel-core armour piercing explosive, Panzergranate 39. 
However the barrel wear was enormous.

I may ad to this that is very likely to the L/100 had troubles with the accuracy at long ranges, due the significant whip effect in this long and thin cannon.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 21, 2005)

I have a picture of the Panther Ausf F and the turret - unfortunately it's in a book and I haven't got a scanner. I've heard of the plans laid down to fit a 88 mm KwK in the Schmal Turm but never a higher velocity 75 mm cannon. 

The one written down for the Panther Ausf F is the KwK42/1 L/70 75 mm which is an improved model (but the same model) as the one on the original Panthers. 

Have you got more, detailed, information on the L/100?

The 75 mm KwK42 L/70 was 925 m/s by the way. The 75 mm StuK42 L/70 was 1,120 m/s.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 21, 2005)

Nop, no more data, I ve posted all I got.  



> The 75 mm KwK42 L/70 was 925 m/s by the way. The 75 mm StuK42 L/70 was 1,120 m/s.


 
The Kwk 42 and the Stuk 42 was almost the same gun, the designation change only to Stuk when it was mounted in some Jagdpanzers like the Jagdpanzer IV, with minor changes.
Very often the muzzle brake in the Stuk was deleted.

Checking in the Bryan Perret book about the Panzer V, it gives me 935 m/s for the 6.8kg Pzgr 39/42 Steel core AP-HET, and 1120m/s for the 4.75kg tugsten core APCR-T Pzgr 40/42.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 21, 2005)

I've got 925 m/s for the Pzgr 39/42.  

Source: _Encyclpedia of German Tanks of World War Two_ - Peter Chamberlain, Hilary Doyle and Thomas L. Jentz.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 21, 2005)

Well....10 m/s is not a diference to die for.....


----------



## plan_D (Jul 21, 2005)

True.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2005)

By m/s you mean meters per second correct? I know that was probably a dumb question.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 22, 2005)

Yeah.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 22, 2005)

Front and rear view of the "Kachzen" APC, despite the relative simplicity of this vehicle, only two protipes seems to be manufactured.
Lenght about 5 meters, weight 7 tons.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

An APC without a top to me is pretty much useless.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jul 30, 2005)

I can think of where it would be useful. It would be easier to clean blood out of than if it had a roof to trap that blood inside the vehicle. But yes, it would be sniper bait. If the Allied snipers had heard of that vehicle I bet they were saying, 'yes, please give us a vehicle we can shoot at, Germans.' Maybe the idea is to put the driver and a passenger in the front, put people you don't want in the back, and drive near enemy lines and let the ALlies do the extermination work for you.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jul 30, 2005)

Actually looking at it are you sure it didn't get manufactured under a different name? It looks similar to the SdKfz out of Bf1942 Forgotten Hope used by the Germans. Have to try to dig up some images of it for you.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2005)

All APCs were open top in World War 2, the Allies had them too. It's not that bad, they can't be sniper bait in open field.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

Yeah but once you bring them into the urban type environment then you are fair game to them.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 15, 2005)

> Germany should have kept the limit at 60 tons. The King Tiger was 68 tons and that was too heavy - it's not like the Tiger couldn't deal with anything the Soviets or Western Allies threw at it, it only weighed 54 tons.



The JS2 (Soviet, aprox 45 tons), M26 Pershing (USA, aprox 50 tons) and Sherman Firefly (UK, aprox 30 tons) were easily capable of defeating the Tiger1, but not the Tiger2. A better proposition was the Panther2, which, like the Tiger1, also weighed aprox 55 tons.
Or, as some here have mentioned, the E-50 or E-75.

On the Maus:

There was a Maus Flakpanzer, armed with 2 88mm Flak guns.



> Did the Mouse see any action?



Maybe 1 did at Kummersdorf, but it was destroyed by its crew, maybe before killing another tank - unknown.

The one at Kubinka wasn't completed before the German surrender and is actually 2 put together (hull/turret).

The thing that the German designers hadn't thought about was that it could be very easily destroyed if you used the right weapon- i.e. a tallboy

Strangely, it was very vulnerable to Molotov cocktails!




> The reason the Panther II has a Panther G turret is because they were testing the chassis. I assume they would have fitted the 605 later on.
> 
> Probably. I try to found a pic of this turret but I failed



It was planned, but never actually done.

Does anyone here have the armour penetration data of the 75mmm L100?

I know this gun, along with the Maus' suspension was designed/built by Skoda.



> All APCs were open top in World War 2



Not true, the Sherman/RAM Kangaroo wasn't:

http://tanxheaven.com/ljs/shervar/shervar.htm


----------



## plan_D (Aug 15, 2005)

The Tiger I was superior to the IS-2, M26 and Sherman Firefly. All were not "easily capable" of destroying the Tiger I. In a straight shooting match the Tiger I was superior to all of them, the M26 and Firefly were both more durable, manuverable and reliable than the Tiger I. They both were inferior in armour protection. The IS-2 only carried 28 rounds, it had weak welding, it had a slow rate of fire due to two-piece loading and it was cramped. It also had inferior armour protection to the Tiger I although it was more reliable and easier to repair/build. 

The Maus never saw any action. That is pure myth. The Maus was destroyed by it's "crew" and members of the production team. 

Thank you, it's pretty obvious it was planned. That is why they were testing the chassis with a G turret first. 

I did forget about the RAM Kangeroo, that's given. 

Adler, APCs aren't supposed be operating in urban areas. They should be dropping off the troops before reaching the village, town or city so it can be cleared by the infantry and any supporting tanks. APCs are just armoured trucks to mobilise the infantry in the operational advance to keep them up with the armour.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 15, 2005)

> The Tiger I was superior to the IS-2, M26 and Sherman Firefly. All were not "easily capable" of destroying the Tiger I. In a straight shooting match the Tiger I was superior to all of them, the M26 and Firefly were both more durable, manuverable and reliable than the Tiger I. They both were inferior in armour protection. The IS-2 only carried 28 rounds, it had weak welding, it had a slow rate of fire due to two-piece loading and it was cramped. It also had inferior armour protection to the Tiger I although it was more reliable and easier to repair/build.



Heavily disagree there, unless you're talking about the Konigstiger?

Toe-to-toe, the Tiger was the worst there in all respects except flank protection, though the JS2 was close.



> The Maus never saw any action. That is pure myth. The Maus was destroyed by it's "crew" and members of the production team.



Can't say definately one way or the other, I think it did, but was destroyed because:

1. The Ruskies got too close.

2. The scientists were valuable to the Soviets, more room to barter with.



> Thank you, it's pretty obvious it was planned. That is why they were testing the chassis with a G turret first.



You're welcome, it is obvious, isn't it?

The turret and hull were made by different companies, always a bad thing IMHO.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 15, 2005)

You disagree? 

Which part to you disagree with? You believe that the M26 and Firefly could match a Tiger I in a straight shooting match?

The IS-2 was poorly built and suffered extensive armour trouble when welding failed. The Tiger I could destroy it at ranges up to and including 1000 metres. 

Go look up armour values of all those tanks, the Tiger I was superior. It had superior firepower to the IS-2, Firefly and M26. It had superior armour protection than all of them. It had better optical equipment. Better radios. 

In battle the Tiger I was superior to them. If you really want to discuss this with me properly, bring facts and sources to bare.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 16, 2005)

> The IS-2 was poorly built and suffered extensive armour trouble when welding failed. The Tiger I could destroy it at ranges up to and including 1000 metres.



True, but the late Tigers were poorly maintained/manned.

The IS2 was also not primarily an anti-tank weapon, but could still take out a TigerI at near twice 1000m.

Even vs a Tiger2, there was aprox an equal chance (proven), but admittedly the same with the Panther G.

Michael Wittmans Tiger was destroyed by a single Firefly, along with many others.

The M26 Zebra missions anihilated TigerI's.



> bring facts and sources to bare.



OK, you asked for it!  

All armour data is frontal, head on data (admiteddly where the Tiger loses)

All penetration data is @ 100mm range on homogenised nickel/steel vertical plate

*PzVI Tiger I Ausf E and Ausf L*

hull 100mm @ 66°

superstructure 100mm @ 80°

mantlet 110mm max @ vertical

gun: 88mm L56 KwK36

armour penetration: 

AP (PzGr39(late) 177 mm 

APCR (PzGr40) 224 mm 

*Sherman Firefly*

hull 51mm @ 45°

superstructure 51mm @ 34°

mantlet 89mm @ round

gun: 76.2 mm L58 QF 17 Pdr

armour penetration: 

APCBC 179 mm 

APDS 253 mm 

I*S2M*

hull 120mm @ 60°

superstructure 120mm @ 30°

mantlet 100mm @ round

gun: 122 mm L46 D-25

armour penetration: 

APHE 145 mm 

HVAP 205 mm 

HEAT 200 mm 

*M26 Pershing*

hull 76mm @ 37°

superstructure 102mm @ 44°

mantlet 114mm @ round

gun: 90 mm L52 

armour penetration: APCBC 270 mm 

NB: The Tiger and Firefly often added applique armour and/or spare tracklinks effectively increasing armour protection, more so on the Firefly.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 16, 2005)

*Japanese Heavy Tank Projekts*






*Super-Heavy Tank "O-I"*

Moving fort or what?

*Weight : 120 ton
Dimensions: 10.0 x 4.2 x 4.0(h) m
Armor (max) : 200 mm
Speed (max) : 25 km/hr
Engine : Gasoline Engine 550 PS/1500 rpm x 2
Armaments : 105 mm Cannon x 1, Type 1 37 mm x 1, Type 97 7.7 mm x
3
Crew : 11

Allegedly one was made and was shipped to Manchuria according to a engineer concerned with the project*

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/O-I.htm






*Experimental Ultra Heavy Tank*
modification of the O-I Super Heavy Tank with *4 turrets*





Type 4 Chi-To Medium Tank
Weight 30.0t
Crew 5
Length 6.73m
Width 2.87m
Height 2.87m
Min clearance 0.40m
Armor 75 - 35mm
Armament 75mm, 2 x MG
Engine Type 4 V12 Diesel with supercharger, 400hp
Max speed 45km/h
Obstacle 2.70m Trench

Six completed

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/japan/japan-tank.html

*Soviet Heavy Tanks*













SMK Heavy Experimental Tank

http://www.battlefield.ru/smk.html





T-35 Heavy Tank




The Russian "Crocodile"




T-35 Heavy Tank

A crap tank, but it looks impressive

http://www.battlefield.ru/t35.html

Not WW2, but interesting





The "Object 279" during trials. 1959-1960

The hull of the tank was covered by a thin elliptical shield. That shield protected the tank against HEAT ammunition and to prevent it from overturning during a nuclear explosion.
Another unusual feature of the tank was the chassis. It consisted of four tracks combined in pairs. Such construction increased the tank's height, but guaranteed that the tank would rarely get bogged down. The tank also had great tractability on snowy and swampy terrain. At the end of 1957, a single tank had been built, but after that the project was abandoned. The "Object 279" is now displayed at Kubinka.

http://www.battlefield.ru/is4.html






British A1E1 "Independent" Heavy Tank (1925)

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/BritishHeavyTanks.html


And of course the ultimate WW2 tank projekt, utterly insane;

*P 1000 / P 1500*

The numbers are the weights(!)
















http://www.panzerschreck.de/panzer/pzkpfw/p1000.html

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1636

*35.00m long X 14.00m wide X 11.00m tall and armed with 2 x 280mm naval guns!

Specifications for P 1000

Weight:	900000-1000000kg
Crew:	- men
Engine:	2 x MAN V12Z32/44 Diesel / 24-cylinder / 2 x 8500hp
8 x Daimler-Benz MB501 Diesel / 20-cylinder / 8 x 2000hp
Speed:	Road: 40km/h
Cross-Country: --km/h
Range:	Road: ---km
Cross-Country: ---km
Fuel Capacity:	--- litres
Lenght:	35.00m
Width:	14.00m
Height:	11.00m
Armament:	2 x 280mm SK.C/34 L/54.4
1 x 128mm Kanone
8 x 20mm Flak 38
2 x 15mm Mauser MG 151/15
Ammo:	-- rounds
Armor (mm/angle):	Turret Front: 360mm / ?
Turret Side: 220mm / ?
Turret Rear: ? / ?
Turret Top: 150mm / ?*

http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/p1000.htm#1000

P 1000 turret ended up at coastal defence battery (Batterie Oerlander) near Trondheim, Norway (!)


----------



## plan_D (Aug 16, 2005)

The Tiger Is were not poorly manned, they were always given to the best of Wehrmacht. How they were maintained has nothing to do with their combat capability. If a tank breaks down in the field it's not recorded as being lost to enemy action but to mechanical faults. 

IS-2 vs Tiger I - 

The IS-2 was not a primary anti-tank weapon, you're right. It lacked the punch of a effectively built tank. It had a slow RoF with two piece loading, it carried more HE shells than AP shells and it only had 28 rounds. At 2000 metres the IS-2 would never be able to strike the Tiger I, it's optics were not capable of such accurate aiming. Even if it did, the shell would most likely bounce off. 

The IS-2 was definately not an equal to the Tiger II in a straight shooting match, that is far from proven. The claims of Soviet tank crews is over the top and mistaken identity on the part of Soviet crews. They would often state they had destroyed more Tigers, Elefants and King Tigers than were actually there. 

The IS-2M was designed to be invincible to all enemy armour. On paper it may look so, as it carried an equal of 120 mm armour at maximum. This isn't so though because the IS-2M was the product of poor casting, it was vulnerable at 1000 metres to the Tiger I and Tiger II. 

Let me quote _Russian Tanks of World War II - Stalins Armoured Might_ by Tim Bean and Will Flower - 

_"The new hull could withstand a direct shot from a German 8.8 cm armour-piercing round at over 1000m, whilst its own gun could penertrate 160mm of armour at the same range, *if its gunners could hit the target.*"_ 

That does sound impressive but if we continue from the same book - 

_"In reality, the IS-2 had several major shortcomings. The designers were aware that the IS-2's effectiveness in combat was restricted by a slow rate of fire (just 2 or 3 rounds a minute) and stowage room for only 28 rounds. The former factor was partially solved in 1944, when an improved D-25T gun was introduced with a more efficient breech. Combat experience also revealed that the 122mm gun could not penetrate the Panther's sloped armour above 600m, whilst splintering remained a problem for the IS-2's own armour. Tempering the frontal armour to very strong hardness proved too complex and costly to introduce, and the deficiency was allowed to remain."_

From another section of IS-2's in combat - 

_"...although post-battle analysis again revealed that the IS-2's armour was vulnerable up to 1000m because of faulty casting."_. 

Basing armour penertration at 100 metres is a little unfair. It should be 500-600 metres where most tank conflict took place. The German cannon were more capable at destroying heavier armour at longer range due to higher velocity. 

As you will notice with the Tiger Is 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 with Pzgr40, it could pierce 123mm of armour at 1,500m. That means, even if the IS-2's armour was fully capable, it could still be destroyed or at least badly damaged at 1,500 metres. 

I really do not know why you say the Tiger I loses on frontal armour, it's armour protection on the front is great than the Firefly and Pershing on paper, while being greater than that of the IS-2 in practice. 

The armour on the front, from _Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War 2_ by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle -

(mm/angle)

Turret: 100/8
Superstructure: 100/10
Hull: 100/24
Gun mantlet: 100-110/0

In a straight shooting match from 3000m and closing, the Tiger I in practice wins time and time again with an increase in armour protection, gun power, faster RoF, better optics, better radio and was actually one kilometre faster than the IS-2M. 

The Tiger I was all-round superior to the IS-2M. 

I will get to how the Tiger I was superior to the others later.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 17, 2005)

Another excellent post Smokey!

The SMK is a great tank as it was the forerunner to the excellent KV-1.



> The Tiger Is were not poorly manned, they were always given to the best of Wehrmacht.



As a rule, yes, but a lot ended up with Hitler Youth crews, hardly the best in the Wehrmacht!



> How they were maintained has nothing to do with their combat capability. If a tank breaks down in the field it's not recorded as being lost to enemy action but to mechanical faults.


Yes it does, plus if they are lost, they are lost!



> IS-2 vs Tiger I -



Correct on RoF, but wrong on lacking punch, even it's HE shells could rip a Tiger apart.

The optics varied, usually poor accuracy, but that was more down to the crew.



> the IS-2M was the product of poor casting



Not usually. That's just propaganda. Surprisingly a lot of Panthers and KT's had poor quality armour!



> it was vulnerable at 1000 metres to the Tiger I and Tiger II.



True, in fact the 75mm L48 (PzIV, Hetzer, StugIIIG) was capable of desroying an IS2M turret frontally at 1,500m!



> Combat experience also revealed that the 122mm gun could not penetrate the Panther's sloped armour above 600m



There's something wrong there.  



> Basing armour penertration at 100 metres is a little unfair.



Yes it is, I have better info somewhere, but that's the best I had at the time, sorry!



> It should be 500-600 metres where most tank conflict took place. The German cannon were more capable at destroying heavier armour at longer range due to higher velocity.



Yes, but higher velocity weapons suffer excessively from shatter-gap at 500-600m. Also higher velocity weapons lose accuracy very quickly.



> As you will notice with the Tiger Is 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 with Pzgr40, it could pierce 123mm of armour at 1,500m. That means, even if the IS-2's armour was fully capable, it could still be destroyed or at least badly damaged at 1,500 metres.



Yes but by the time the IS2M came out, Pzgr40 rounds were no longer available, or at least very, very, very rare.



> I really do not know why you say the Tiger I loses on frontal armour, it's armour protection on the front is great than the Firefly and Pershing on paper, while being greater than that of the IS-2 in practice.



The Sherman maybe, but not the IS2M and certainly not the M26.



> The armour on the front, from Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War 2 by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle -
> 
> (mm/angle)
> 
> ...



Those are the exact figure I gave!! 
Only my angles are from the horizontal, yours are from the vertical.



> In a straight shooting match from 3000m and closing, the Tiger I in practice wins time and time again with an increase in armour protection, gun power, faster RoF, better optics, better radio and was actually one kilometre faster than the IS-2M.



Worse armour, less gun power unless using the mega-rare Pzgr40, but the other points are right, however:

On the points of; cost, weight, size, unable to cope with sub-zero mornings, acceleration, reliability, complicated build, fuel consumption and weight of numbers it loses hands down, which are much more important factors.



> I will get to how the Tiger I was superior to the others later.



The Firefly it was equal to, the Pershing?? I'd love to see you explain that one!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 17, 2005)

Look at all German records, they state that a tank lost to mechanical failure is exactly that a mechanical loss not one to enemy action. Exactly right that it is lost but something lost to mechanical failure could be reclaimed later on, recovered and repaired. That is why it's a mechanical listing, just in case they arrive back there and the tank is still there. They know which it is and they can recover it. No point in taking one home with a shattered barrel and blown out fuel tank. 

The optics varied from bad to worse. It's a known fact of Soviet optical equipment, they were poor pieces of equipment. It was a matter of crew ability and the inexperience crew of a Tiger would still have a better advantage. 

Prove it is propaganda. You cannot just come out and state that without proof. The Panther and King Tigers at the late stages in the war is true, they were lacking manganese and had to use high carbon steel. However, the case in point is the IS-2, the IS-2 had poor casting and I even provided a source. 

Go tell the Soviet tank crews there is something wrong there. You obviously have not read combat reports. There isn't something wrong at all, it was a proven fact. The Soviet tankers had to report this fact or get more of their men killed by giving away positions too early. 

Higher velocity weapons are more accurate than low velocity. They drop speed quickly over extreme distances but with a mass of weight in shell, they keep the energy up to be accurate enough to strike a target 2000m. 

The IS-2M had poor quality armour to the point that it's armour protection was less that of the Tiger I. That is why I stated in practice it's armour was less. You have not provided any source that states the poor quality of IS-2M was propaganda.

Again, the point of armour was made and you have not countered it. 

It all depends on how many IS-2s the Tiger could take out before being taken out itself. In reality, in a straight shooting match from 3000m closing the Tiger would win, time and time and time and time again. 

From a war point, the Sherman was better than every tank on the field but go tell a Sherman crew that. 

You know what I'd love, a serious post by you with proper sources.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 18, 2005)

> Exactly right that it is lost but something lost to mechanical failure could be reclaimed later on, recovered and repaired.



Unless the enemy now controls that territory, of course.



> Again, the point of armour was made and you have not countered it.



I am above going into an anti-Soviet propaganda arguement, sorry.

Admitedly average IS2 armour quality and accuracy was worse than the Tigers, but not as bad as you make out.

The last-of-line IS2M's armour quality was probably better than the Tigers the deprivated of materials, bombed-daily, slave labour staffed factories turned out (in pathetic numbers).



> Higher velocity weapons are more accurate than low velocity. They drop speed quickly over extreme distances but with a mass of weight in shell, they keep the energy up to be accurate enough to strike a target 2000m.



I know, I didn't mean that.

What I mean is high velocity weapons wear the barrel quickly, so if either the RoF is kept too high and/or the gun sees a lot of use, accuracy ends up wildly innacurate.

The Tigers gained little advantages from having a HV gun, unlike the KT, even then at combat ranges of 500-600m the D-25T PaK44 were superior to the Pak43. Although your KwK36 has the advantage there.



> In reality, in a straight shooting match from 3000m closing the Tiger would win, time and time and time and time again.



A King Tigers attrition rate vs the JS2M was aproximately 50/50. I understand your love for the Tiger slightly, as the TigerI was almost equal I suppose, you've changed my mind slightly there, but I'd still plump for the JS2M as a lot were in fact excellently made.



> It all depends on how many IS-2s the Tiger could take out before being taken out itself. In reality, in a straight shooting match from 3000m closing the Tiger would win, time and time and time and time again


. 

No chance, a good crew vs a good crew, if both were reasonable batches then the IS2M would win, no two ways about it.

The 1st JS2's were anihilated by Tigers, yes, but the 1st KT's were also beaten by IS2's.



> From a war point, the Sherman was better than every tank on the field but go tell a Sherman crew that.



How? The T-34 'out-classes' it.



> You know what I'd love, a serious post by you with proper sources.



You know what I'd love? You to get over yourself.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 21, 2005)

The point is you have to list it as a mechanical loss just in case you get back to the ground. The Allies, especially the Americans, would abandon almost anything because they knew they had it all in high supply. A Tiger tank that's broken down due to a clutch problem would be left by the Americans if that area is still anything near a battlefield. 

The IS-2M casting was left as it was, the Soviet Union thought to improve the armour through hardening would be too expensive. What I have read states the IS-2 was poorly made throughout it's WW2 life. 

It would have been much less accurate at long distances than the Tiger I. It had inferior optical equipment and a less accurate, slow velocity cannon. 

The KwK36 would be superior to those, as you said. And as the Tiger I was equipped with the KwK36 it applies directly to this discussion. 

The King Tiger isn't up in this discussion though and I've read the combat reports of actions against the Kings. The Soviet tank crews often reported there to be more Kings destroyed than were actually on the battlefield. Another point about the King is that it was designed for the west, not the east. The German High Command recognised the King to be too heavy for effective action in the east, that's why it didn't have an amazing time out there. 
However, the King destroyed more enemy armour than the amount of Kings that got destroyed. Another point, the King would break-down then be destroyed by the enemy when they didn't know it had broken down. The Soviets would record it as a 'kill' the Germans would mark it as a mechanical loss. 
The kill:loss ratio for the King against all other armies is much in it's favour. I don't quite believe it's 1:1 against the IS-2 but then I've never read any different.

From 3000m the Tiger would have the first advantage, it had better long range capability. It could be hitting the IS-2 before the IS-2 could strike back. And the Tiger wouldn't pierce the IS-2Ms frontal armour, even at 3000m it would shake the crew and could possibly be lucky enough to knock it out through other damage. 
A good crew in the Tiger would be able to use all it's advantages and increase their advantage. The IS-2 crew has to make up for the lack of equipment to match the Tiger I. 

You can never go off combat alone but if you read up on many of the combats between IS-2s and German armour it's down to tactics and skill in concealment for the IS-2. It was a small tank compared to the Tiger I, it could hide well. 
I've read an action between one Panther Ausf G and a platoon of IS-2Ms. The Panther destroyed three before retreating. The IS-2Ms were being knocked out before they had time to react as the Panther would keep moving. Obviously, the Panther crew was remarkable but it still proves that the IS-2M was nothing special. 

The T-34 far from out-classes the Sherman. The T-34 lacks the equipment of the Sherman, for a start. The Sherman is more durable, more manuverable and easier to build than the T-34. The Sherman 76s had enough firepower to match the T-34. The T-34 suffered greatly from the same problems as the Sherman against German armour, they were both weak and were knocked out in droves but they just kept coming. In Korea, in every encounter between Shermans and T-34s, the Shermans came out on top. They were M4A8(76W)s against T-34/85-I. 

You'd love that? Well, keep dreamin' - it isn't going to happen.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 22, 2005)

I suppose it's a matter o opinion on the breakdowns (new discussion thread?), but even if it's not on enemy territory it may be 'written off'.



> The IS-2M casting was left as it was, the Soviet Union thought to improve the armour through hardening would be too expensive. What I have read states the IS-2 was poorly made throughout it's WW2 life.



Correct for the IS2, airbubbles mainly due to poor casting, but quality did improve with the IS2M and hardness/malleability was usually decent.



> It would have been much less accurate at long distances than the Tiger I. It had inferior optical equipment and a less accurate, slow velocity cannon.



Well, truth be told 'a poor workman always blames his tools'. A few Tigers were blasted at aprox 2000m metres by competent crews, who were sadly in short supply. Kinda like the Zeitzevs of the Russian infantry.

A lot of the crews were women too remember! (PMT?  )



> It had inferior optical equipment and a less accurate, slow velocity cannon.



Correct on the 1st 2, but not by that much, the cannon was actually HV, though obviously not as much as the 88/L71, but IIRC better than the KwK36/56?



> The KwK36 would be superior to those, as you said. And as the Tiger I was equipped with the KwK36 it applies directly to this discussion.



Yeah, it's due to 2 things:

1. You made a good point.

2. Shatter-gap (important you learn of this, trust me!)



> Another point, the King would break-down then be destroyed by the enemy when they didn't know it had broken down.



True everywhere, but a lot of times the crew would be inside, a broken KT was still very lethal.



> I don't quite believe it's 1:1 against the IS-2 but then I've never read any different.



Not in open country as much, but in urban areas that's right.



> And the Tiger wouldn't pierce the IS-2Ms frontal armour, even at 3000m it would shake the crew and could possibly be lucky enough to knock it out through other damage.



That's the point you made, good job!  Its more due to the RoF though that, nit accuracy.

But an IS2 round didn't exactly rely on penetration, you get me?

1 122mm round could concuss the crew or rip the turret clean off!

Though if an 88 hit an IS2, the crew might run for it!



> The Panther destroyed three before retreating. The IS-2Ms were being knocked out before they had time to react as the Panther would keep moving. Obviously, the Panther crew was remarkable but it still proves that the IS-2M was nothing special.



The Panther A onwards was actually roughly equal to the ISM (OK then, maybe slightly better!) and superior to the TigerI in most respects believe it or not!



> The T-34 lacks the equipment of the Sherman, for a start.



Yeah, smoke dischargers etc, but radios ended up being fitted.

Something you may want to know is T34's were NEVER fitted with bedsprigs - MYTH!



> Sherman is more durable, more manuverable and easier to build than the T-34.



Maybe (except radial engined versions), false, dunno too many variants.



> The Sherman 76s had enough firepower to match the T-34.



Much better than the /76 much worse than the /85.



> The T-34 suffered greatly from the same problems as the Sherman against German armour, they were both weak and were knocked out in droves but they just kept coming. In Korea, in every encounter between Shermans and T-34s, the Shermans came out on top. They were M4A8(76W)s against T-34/85-I.



Yeah, but it's just the tactics though, the Russians Korean/Chinese were stuck in WW1 using 'human wave' tactics - very silly indeed! Same with their infantry, aircraft etc.



> You'd love that? Well, keep dreamin' - it isn't going to happen.



Heheh!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 22, 2005)

Look at German after-combat reports; losses are listed by cause of loss. 

The IS-2M armour wasn't as strong as the statistics make out. Combat reports prove so. 

The IS-2M crew had to be very good to make up for the IS-Ms short fall. A good workman would blame his bad tools if he couldn't do anything with them. 

I don't rank the D-25T above the KwK36 - certainly not. The KwK36 was capable of destroying the IS-2M above regular combat ranges, that means it's a more than adequete cannon. An argument you use for the 17pdr being superior due to the 8.8cm because it's a smaller shell, remember the D-25T is 12.2cm! 

Yes, the King could still be deadly but a lot of the time even when the crew had abandoned the King the Soviets would destroy the King and claim it as active. 

I would like a source for that, please. I do doubt the Tiger and IS-2 were equal in kill:loss. 

The KwK36 had a faster RoF to the D-25T. The D-25T only achieved a 2-3 shells a minute RoF. Also, the German crews were generally superior to that of the Soviets which gave the Tiger I an even bigger increase in RoF. Not only that, the Tiger I was a more accurate tank due to superior optics. 
The D-25T wasn't a weak cannon at short ranges but it was lacking at long ranges. As combat reports showed the D-25T was often unable to knock a Panther out at ranges beyond 600m. The Tiger I armour wasn't much less than that of the Panther on the front, it would be able to withstand a blow at 1000m. The fact is, at 1000m, the D-25T would have to rely on luck when, and if, it hit the target. The KwK36 was well known to be knocking out IS-2Ms at 1000m. At 2000-3000m the KwK36 has the advantage through optical superiority, it's not a case of the IS-2M abandoning after being hit, the KwK36 could shake the crew to hamper their progress and there is always the possibility of armour failure and hitting vital spots. A Panther was knocked out by a Sherman in Normandy at 600m when the Sherman struck between it's chassis and turret, jamming the turret. 

The Panther G was capable of destroying the IS-2M at 800m. I firmly believe the Panther G was the best all-round tank of the entire war. I would highly rate the Panther G above the IS-2M and I would rate it above the Tiger I. The point was though, a Tiger could have done the same. The Tiger I had a more powerful cannon than the Panther at long ranges, the weight of shell made sure of it. The Panther's cannon would start dropping away from it's extremely high velocity due to the low weight of shell while the KwK36 8.8cm had much more kinetic energy due to large weight. 

Radios did end up being fitted but even in 1945 not all T-34s had radio. Their equipment was still inferior. And I've never heard that myth. 

It was certainly more durable. T-34s broke down a lot, certainly a lot more than people seem to believe. The narrowness of the Sherman did make it more manuverable. The T-34 had wide tracks giving it better cross-country ability. Too many variants for the Sherman? Certainly not. There was M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, M4A4 all of which were easily tooled up for fitting the 76mm after it was brought into service. All other variants are special fittings. The Sherman was built in massive numbers and certainly was easier to build. 

Not largely inferior to the T-34/85. A Sherman 76 would be a match for a T-34/85. 

They weren't stuck in WWI - they were just unable to match the ability of the Allied troops. The point still stands that Shermans defeated T-34s.


----------



## reddragon (Aug 22, 2005)

I was under the impression that the Russian 122 mm was not as effective a weapon as the German 88 mm.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 22, 2005)

From what I've read the KwK36 L/56 8.8cm was superior at longer ranges and was only partially inferior at 500m and below. The KwK43 L/71 8.8cm was without a doubt, in my mind, superior to the D-25T 12.2cm.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 23, 2005)

> I was under the impression that the Russian 122 mm was not as effective a weapon as the German 88 mm.



It depends, also bear in mind that the TigerI's armament, the KingTigers armament and the '88' were completely different beasts, despite all being 88mm, there was also a naval version.


I had another point of interest for you PlanD today, but I forgot it!

Anyway, your questions/points:

A loss is a loss IMHO, unless it's recovered then repaired and ready again.



> The IS-2M armour wasn't as strong as the statistics make out. Combat reports prove so.



There are scars on JS2M armour made by KwK36's, though yes, it was the luck of the draw.

I still have to get you a lot of info for you, got it somewhere.

Forgot where I put that Panther F stuff at mo, will get it ASAP.

Damn it! shatter gap is when a HV projectile crumples due to the shock of impact, even on extremely soft armour or even annealed steel!

Don't forget about skate angles either.

An interesting point is that in battle, the T34's armour could be at 90 degrees to an enemy gun, destroying the advantages of sloping armour.

On the other hand, the Tigers armour could be @ 60 degrees, making it effectively invulnerable!



> I don't rank the D-25T above the KwK36 - certainly not. The KwK36 was capable of destroying the IS-2M above regular combat ranges, that means it's a more than adequete cannon. An argument you use for the 17pdr being superior due to the 8.8cm because it's a smaller shell, remember the D-25T is 12.2cm!



Hey, I admitted that didn't I?



> Yes, the King could still be deadly but a lot of the time even when the crew had abandoned the King the Soviets would destroy the King and claim it as active.



I don't doubt it. So did the Allies!



> Also, the German crews were generally superior to that of the Soviets which gave the Tiger I an even bigger increase in RoF. Not only that, the Tiger I was a more accurate tank due to superior optics.



Granted, I even made the 1st point!



> As combat reports showed the D-25T was often unable to knock a Panther out at ranges beyond 600m. The Tiger I armour wasn't much less than that of the Panther on the front, it would be able to withstand a blow at 1000m. The fact is, at 1000m, the D-25T would have to rely on luck when, and if, it hit the target.



You seem hung up on penetration (oo-er!  ) an IS2 shell worked similar to a HESH round. Even a HE round could destroy a Tiger.



> A Panther was knocked out by a Sherman in Normandy at 600m when the Sherman struck between it's chassis and turret, jamming the turret.



That often happens, it's where the RoF comes in.

Also, guns, tracks, visors can be hit, if you're lucky and/or accurate. Your KwK36 wins hands-down there, unless the 122mm uses HE.



> The Panther's cannon would start dropping away from it's extremely high velocity due to the low weight of shell while the KwK36 8.8cm had much more kinetic energy due to large weight.



Yeah, but it was still better than the KwK36, your point there works in the D-25T's favour!



> The point still stands that Shermans defeated T-34s.



It was down to the crews, roughly equal though, yes.



> From what I've read the KwK36 L/56 8.8cm was superior at longer ranges and was only partially inferior at 500m and below.



You know what, maybe at close range the Tiger was better (High Rof, 1st shot probability), dunno.

At long ranges, I'm still going for the D-25T.

A point is the Tigers complicated Henschel suspension made it a much more accurate gun platform.

Your other points I agree with!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 23, 2005)

The D-25T didn't have the velocity in the first place to make good use of the 12.2cm shell. The Sherman 105 had a heavy shell but again, the shell wasn't out quick enough to give it good long range capability. 

HE shells are not effective at destroying tanks. The heat is spread across the armour and cooled down. It's not going to melt its way through the armour, so what's the point? The only time it's going to have a big effect is through the vision ports when the heat can get inside of the tank and kill the crew. An AP shell would go through the armour and puncture a fuel tank or ammo store, big explosion, tank is destroyed. 

Are you trying to tell me that a 7.5cm shell travelling at 900 m/s could crumple against soft armour because of the shock of the impact because of this "shatter gap"?

Deflection of shot is always taken into consideration since the introduction of angled armour. All the penertration values I have are at 30 degrees. 

Penertration is the easiest and most efficient way to destroy a tank. Heat would get spread out. The IS-2M would have to be close to knock out a Tiger from pure brute force. 

It would work in the D-25Ts favour, if the D-25T had a good velocity in the first place. The heavier the shell, the higher the velocity needs to be to make up the difference. The D-25T didn't have enough charge to make up the fact the 12.2cm was so heavy. 

From combat I think the Tiger I was a superior machine. From a war point of view, the IS-2 was better. If the Germans had the IS-2M they could have made much better of it than the Soviets did. 

The design of the IS-2M was good, there's no doubt about that. The vital things missing are a proper loading mechanism, decent optics, decent radio - and it'd have been better with a OQF 17pdr.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Adler, APCs aren't supposed be operating in urban areas. They should be dropping off the troops before reaching the village, town or city so it can be cleared by the infantry and any supporting tanks. APCs are just armoured trucks to mobilise the infantry in the operational advance to keep them up with the armour.



That is true, you are correct, but unfortunatly we are seeing APC's and vehicles such at the Bradley Fighting Vehical having to be used in an urban environment.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 3, 2005)

> The D-25T didn't have the velocity in the first place to make good use of the 12.2cm shell. The Sherman 105 had a heavy shell but again, the shell wasn't out quick enough to give it good long range capability.



Come on, the D-25 was developed from an AA gun IIRC and was about 50 calibres long.



> HE shells are not effective at destroying tanks. The heat is spread across the armour and cooled down.



Yes but it causes incredible stresses, ripping armour and breaking welds etc. Russian tank HE shells were by far the best.

Penetration is preferable though, correct.



> An AP shell would go through the armour and puncture a fuel tank or ammo store, big explosion, tank is destroyed.



Yeah, or kill the crew.



> Are you trying to tell me that a 7.5cm shell travelling at 900 m/s could crumple against soft armour because of the shock of the impact because of this "shatter gap"?



Even more amazing, a Tungsten penetrator can vapourise when it hts mild steel!!  



> Deflection of shot is always taken into consideration since the introduction of angled armour. All the penertration values I have are at 30 degrees.



Yeah, ideal is 60 degrees, then the rules change.



> The D-25T didn't have enough charge to make up the fact the 12.2cm was so heavy.



Good point, it had enough, but quality was little better than black powder (Guy Fawkes stylee stuff!)



> From combat I think the Tiger I was a superior machine.



Disagree.



> If the Germans had the IS-2M they could have made much better of it than the Soviets did.



Agree.



> The vital things missing are a proper loading mechanism,



Good enough.



> decent optics,



Yeah, pretty dodgy, but reasonable.



> decent radio



Again, depends, but yeah see your point.



> - and it'd have been better with a OQF 17pdr.



You damn right!

Or the (very available) D3/D10 100mm for that matter!

With the APC thing, of course they'll be used in urban areas and should be designed that way ie the Schurzen making a reappearance in Iraq.

This was where the KT lost it's 'King' status vs the IS2M.

If I were the Germans, I'd have a PzIV/Panther APC modified for this role.

BTW: If there's any pics of a Panther with schurzen plates, if I could see it It'd make me very happy!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

Yeah that would be interesting to see.


----------



## me262 (Sep 4, 2005)

your wish is my command!!!!!!


----------



## me262 (Sep 4, 2005)

uuppss,forgot my source!!!!
from the book :
panzer, a pictorial documentation


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

Good stuff thanks.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 4, 2005)

Thanks very much me262.  

Is it justt me that thinks those skirts should have been deeper?

BTW Theres a webpage of a report of the Bazookas effectivness on a captured Panther.


----------



## me262 (Sep 4, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> BTW Theres a webpage of a report of the Bazookas effectivness on a captured Panther.


can you post the link, please?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Yeah that would be interesting. Which was more effective anyhow? The Bazooka or the Panzerfaust?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 5, 2005)

The Panzershreck!  

http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html


----------



## plan_D (Sep 5, 2005)

In what way does a decent radio depend? Tanks cannot act independantly on the battlefield, when they do, they fail.


----------



## me262 (Sep 5, 2005)

but it is only for the bazooka,not for the panzershreck


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Yeah that does not have info on the Panzerschreck or Panzerfaust.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 7, 2005)

> In what way does a decent radio depend?



Well the platoon commander had one!  

Hand signals will do for WW2-era (though the Russians had flags!  )

I know real-world penetration for the Bazooka is 110mm and the PIAT 100mm.

I have the 'Faust Klein 50 100 Klein and 'Shreck (Not Disney!)somewhere and will do a little table if you want?

I'd have the Bazooka - light, available and re-loadable. Used against doors, buildings, pidgeons etc.

For pure anti-tank work the Panzerfaust Klein 100 had the best penetration, but was un-reloadable, so I go for the PanzerShreck.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

What was the penetration of the Faust or Schreck?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 7, 2005)

Hand signals were not good enough for World War 2. They're unreliable and take work. They also put those doing the hand signals at risk of enemy snipers as they're exposed.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 8, 2005)




----------



## me262 (Sep 8, 2005)

on that " thing" you better put a bullseye for the allied bombers, so big they can not miss!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2005)

Obviously it is not real! But where the hell did you find that thing.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 9, 2005)

It was a real design of the Germans. It never got beyond the drawing board, of course.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2005)

You have to be shitting me! I know they came up with crazy designs but that is just obsurd.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 9, 2005)

Nope. Seriously. From pure memory it carried two 380mm in the turrt as main armament and was powered off two submarine engines.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2005)

2 MANN Diesels. Jesus Christ that is crazy!


----------



## plan_D (Sep 9, 2005)

There you go, my friend: http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/p1000.htm#1000

It was two 280mm, my mistake.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2005)

That is just crazy. Way way overkill!


----------



## plan_D (Sep 9, 2005)

Amazing that they actually had the turret built! What a bunch of looneys.


----------



## zerum (Sep 9, 2005)

Holy s.. that was big! But top speed 40 km/h, 1000 ton,brake distanse???
But that was the p 1000.what about the p 1500, 1500 ton and 800 mm gun.thats crazee, where they gonna drive such a thing ,aaautoban??


----------



## plan_D (Sep 9, 2005)

I think the 40 km/h is a little over-optimistic. I doubt it would be able to reach that speed if it even moved at all. If it was ever built it would be what the name suggests, a land cruisers but as the Cruisers in the sea found, they are vulnerable to air power. Bombs, bombs and more bombs would destroy it if it even managed to move. And what about repairing the thing?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2005)

I am surprised the thing could go 40kmh


----------



## plan_D (Sep 9, 2005)

That's what they estimated. It was never built, so it was never proven. I doubt it could go 40 km/h, I mean c'mon...at that weight!?! No way.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2005)

Good point, I doubt it either.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 9, 2005)

> What was the penetration of the Faust or Schreck?



'Faust 50k = 150mm

'Faust 100k = 210mm

'Shreck = 200mm

The 'Fausts were dangerous to the operator too and only single shot.

The Bazooka was aluminium, foldable and available, but offered only half the penetration.  



> They also put those doing the hand signals at risk of enemy snipers as they're exposed.



Not with the T34/85's 'Mickey Maus' cupola hatches.

That piccy CharlesBronson posted is in a new book coming out which also has art of the JagerMaus.



> I think the 40 km/h is a little over-optimistic. I doubt it would be able to reach that speed if it even moved at all.



I should be able to calculate the top speed, I'll do it in a week or so.

However to actually get it going in the 1st place...

Has anyone got the torque figures for those U-Boot engines, or at what rpm those power figures arrived at?



> Bombs, bombs and more bombs would destroy it if it even managed to move.



I think the top armour was a lot thicker than a battleships?

It was designed for this, as was the Maus to a lesser extent.



> I doubt it could go 40 km/h, I mean c'mon...at that weight!?! No way.



What if it was dropped from a great height?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You have to be s**t me! I know they came up with crazy designs but that is just obsurd.



....And that is why I ve called this topic "rare and crazy panzer Projekts"  

The teorical use of Ratte and Maus were to fill the gaps in the Atlantic Wall, serving as a self propelled heavy coast defense guns.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 9, 2005)

They were still exposed to snipers, even in the T-34/85. Hand signals are slow and not always reliable due to the situation of the battle, battle mist could blind one tank from another. Hand signals are not enough.

I doubt the top armour was thicker than a battleship. The Maus was only 40mm on top.


----------



## zerum (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.panzerschreck.de/panzer/pzkpfw/p1500
http://www.panzerschreck.de/panzer/pzkpfw/p1000
Some variants of the tema,wonder where they want to use it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Has anyone got the torque figures for those U-Boot engines, or at what rpm those power figures arrived at?



I dont have torque or rpms for those but I can give you Horse Power.

To power something of that size it probably would need the engines of the Type VII U-Boot. The Type IX was probably too big for it. The engines of the Type VII were 2800 - 3200 HP Diesel Motors made my MANN.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 10, 2005)

Thats OK DerAdler, thanks, but I was after trque and/or rpm figures, cheers anyway.

BTW I put the weight and bhp of the Ratte in my 1/4 mile estimator and got 28 seconds!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

Cool noproblems anyhow.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

Anyone got anything more? Don't care whether it relates just to tanks. If someone wants to bring in a rare and crazy aircraft that is fine by me.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 7, 2005)

A size comparative between the Panzer V and the P-1000.

The potruding barrels in this last one was 8x37mm Flak guns.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 7, 2005)

That's powerful. Easily destroyed though, just Tallboy it


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 7, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> That's powerful. Easily destroyed though, just Tallboy it


Wouldn't be that hard to hit! Looks a beast though, however where was Hitler going to find the fuel to get it to move?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 7, 2005)

You British guys seems to have some kind of adoration for the 5,45ton Tallboy  

One well aimed ( by divebombing I guess) armor piercing 1000 kg (2250 pounds) bomb and is it, no more Ratte.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Those designs are just overkill and not worth it.


----------



## reddragon (Nov 7, 2005)

I was wondering about the fuel for something like that, too. 

Bet it would be kind of hard to get across a river, too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Considering the Germans had fuel problems for there Tigers and Panthers, it would have been even more of a nightmare.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 8, 2005)

*Gnomey:*



> Wouldn't be that hard to hit!



I'm afraid I don't know how bombers would fare against tanks much.



> where was Hitler going to find the fuel to get it to move?



The Ratte was (U-Boot) Diesel-powered, that would help a little. Tigers/Panthers were petrol.



DerAdler said:


> Those designs are just overkill and not worth it.



True though mayybe there was some poential, if it didn't take up resources it would be OK. Bad for enemy morale.

How many crew though??



reddragon said:


> Bet it would be kind of hard to get across a river, too.



Nah, it would very likely have fording equipment like the Maus and early Tigers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2005)

That is the problem they were too heavy, if anything it would have been good for moral, but not when it is stuck in the mud and getting bombed.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 9, 2005)

Well I don't think it would get stuck in the mud.

Why?

Well, the Maus had very wide tracks in relation to it's width (more than 50% IIRC). It also had Porshe being forced to co-operate with Skoda, instead of bickering with Henschel for once. The result of this was better mobility than many tanks, though those huge tracks created extra rolling resistance meaning it was slower.

I've seen the Boblingen and Kummersdorf trials and they are very impressive. 8) Mobility is more like the best Panzer, though it was much slower but also much less likely to get stuck.

The prototye Maus got buried past it's hull in mud and pulled itself out by itself!!

However the 2nd Maus test vehicle, with it's Porsche Diesel-electric (Like the Ferdinand and failed VK's) was pathetic and ended up being ferried about by the 1st Maus. The 1st Maus even pulled the 2nd Maus and a portion of it's transport train without incident!!

Though the Henshel system had it's merits, it also had huge negatives and IMHO shouldn't have been considered (sand I don't think it was) though that Ratte 3D CG model seems to have it?

I reckon the Ratte, apart from the Henschel suspension, may have been similar?


With all this though it's pathetic top speed means it is going to get bombed? (Athough AA defenses seem to be carried?)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 19, 2005)

Two more about ratte in....1948  ....crazy.


----------



## reddragon (Nov 19, 2005)

I'd hate to come across something like that. Wonder what the speed, fuel consumption, and crew size would be? How many rounds would it carry? Why would they need something that big?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2005)

F*ck me!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

They're pieces of shit, and only people like schwarzpanzer (a tit) find them impressive and actually worth something on the battlefield.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

I agree that they would have been worthless. To big of a target that would have been to slow and to heavy. Just aircraft would have been eneogh to take that thing out.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 21, 2005)

PlanD said:


> They're pieces of sh*t, and only people like schwarzpanzer (a tit) find them impressive and actually worth something on the battlefield.



The T34 and Tiger were also flawed, but their chief advantage was their phychological impact on the enemy:



reddragon said:


> I'd hate to come across something like that.



I rest my case.



DerAdler said:


> Just aircraft would have been eneogh to take that thing out.



I think it was meant to be armed with many 37mm Flak guns, I dunno how effective they'd be?

*reddragon:*



> Wonder what the speed,



15 mph tops at a guess.



> fuel consumption,



Thirsty, but unlike other Panzers it used diesel.



> and crew size would be?



It took up manpower when it was in short supply.



> How many rounds would it carry?



My guess is aprox 100 rounds per turret.



> Why would they need something that big?



Thats an ongoing debate...


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 21, 2005)

It's a land battleship and we all know what happens to battleships that don't have air support


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

Again it would have been worthless. 15 mph, too slow, for such a big target. It would have taken up too much fuel, too much manpower, and too much recources. It would have been too big of a target and I dont care how much FLAK you put on it, it would have been an easy target for aircraft.

The T-34 and Tigers biggest impact was not the psychological impact on there ememy, it was how good the tank was.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 26, 2005)

The Tiger's biggest impact was the fact it could kill anything it saw ...while actually having a chance of survival. 

The biggest impact of the T-34 was it's vast numbers, which created a great combined hitting power of the armoured thrust. 

No infantry man would enjoy coming up against the German massive machines ...but the bombers would love to have a go.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

Agreed Pd.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 27, 2005)

Pictures of projeckted Flakpanzers:

Edited, check the updated info in mi latest post.


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> All penetration data is @ 100mm range on homogenised nickel/steel vertical plate
> 
> *PzVI Tiger I Ausf E and Ausf L*
> 
> ...




Hahahaha !!   

The 90mm M3 certainly NEVER EVER penetrated 270mm of armor in ANY U.S. test(or any other for that matter), and certainly not with a APCBC round !

May I ask where you have obtained these "funny" figures ?

The Highest vertical armor penetration achieved by the 90mm M3 with its standard AP round is 189mm at 100y, far from that "ridiculous" figure you posted.

Also the 122mm D25-T never had HVAP rounds. 

And those HE and APHE figures for the 122mm D25-T are totally ridiculous ! Those rounds would never exceed 120mm of armor penetration. (And thats against Russian armor)

Even with its best late war AP round, the 122mm D25-T would still highly struggle to penetrate over 200mm of vertical armor at a range of only 100m ! (A penetration performance which the 88mm Kwk43 could easely duplicate at 2000m)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 26, 2006)

Strange combo; panzer III/IV prototype towing a experimental armored infantry cubicle, that was supposed to provide effective infantry support in the most extreme muddy and snowy conditions.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2006)

Interesting concept, but a hell of a target for a good grenade toss!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 27, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Interesting concept, but a hell of a target for a good grenade toss!


Agreed, or a well placed Bazooka or Tank Shell...


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2006)

That too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

Not much protection from aerial attack or even artillary attack either.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 29, 2006)

Or rifle or SMG fire for that matter. Or LMG, MMG, HMG, Pistol, air-rifle, spud-gun....


All right *Soren*.  I cannot say for sure that HVAP was used in IS2's, nor that APCBC was used in Pershings during WW2. (Those are post-war British-German figures IIRC)



> And those HE and APHE figures for the 122mm D25-T are totally ridiculous !



I said HEAT, not HE and we discussed how crap APHE was before didn't we?


*PlanD:*



> The Tiger's biggest impact was the fact it could kill anything it saw



With the exception of the Sherman Jumbo. 8) 



> The biggest impact of the T-34 was it's vast numbers, which created a great combined hitting power of the armoured thrust.



The T34 was also a technological marvel, why else would Germany want to copy it? Go on, admit it!  



> No infantry man would enjoy coming up against the German massive machines ...but the bombers would love to have a go.



Funkily enough, the Maus was extremely vulnerable to Molotov cocktails.  

What dive-bomber in all honesty could carry a tallboy though? 
- A well-placed 500lb could do it like PlanD said, also a M-13/RS-132 - though direct hits would be needed.

A moving target that size, even doing only 10+mph, with flak defense is really that easy? 
- Then again it would be a priority target and obviously not in great numbers.


A turret similar to the Coelian turret, the KugelBlitz was mounted on a Pz38t (Hetzer type) tank. Also one was made with sloping armour.

This may be interesting to some of you? I have wanted to build a model of this in 1/76 scale.

Also the PantherII, an up-armoured Panther with KonigsTiger suspension, now resting at the Patton museum.




evanglider said:


> a good grenade toss!



Is that some form of extreme masturbation?  - Sorry!  



Gnomey said:


> Agreed, or a well placed Bazooka or Tank Shell...



I doubt you could hit so small a target with a Bazooka?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

The Tiger could splatter the Sherman Jumbo, even with it's increased armour protection. And the T-34 was an excellent machine, but had the Germans really copied it - it would have been much better. For a start, better internal equipment and superior optics.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 29, 2006)

edited ( slightly wrong info, i will update later)


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 2, 2006)

You're right about the T34 PlanD.  With German build quality, the cannon and ammunition would also be a *lot* better, but the German alloys _were_ inferior to Russian ones.

The Tiger wouldn't have an easy time against the Jumbo's armour, or the Churchil VI onwards for that matter.


----------



## Soren (Feb 2, 2006)

Thats not true Schwarzpanzer.

German as-well British ammunition was the best in the world throughout WWII, it was the hardest, best in quality and strongest ammunition available, and thats a damn fact. The Tiger would have no problem what so ever penetrating the Jumbo's armour!


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 3, 2006)

That's what I said Soren!  

Thinking about it though, German ammo wasn't that good; 

Often being made by slaves and saboteurs as it was...

Also with no manganese and Tungsten...

APHE PzGr was also a bad design...

The Jumbo was almost impervious to frontal attack, equal or even better than the KingTiger!! - though like the Churchill, lacking in offensive power.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 3, 2006)

All very interesting, gents. The use of tungsten and manganese for projectiles is according to the situation of ressources a pure waste. This is true for all involved nations. Think of how many engines could have been made by saving these ressources...
A projectile body with hardened steel nose (AP-cap) and softer lower body would have a reduced armor piercing capability (but not by that much) but the spared ressources a worth it.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 4, 2006)

Hi delcyros,

Germany always had enough Tungsten for machining work (lathes etc), just none left over for APCR/APFDS.

I'd say that you can't go far enough in terms of technology/quality/materials. Think of the soldiers lives! There is still a debate as to why not all Shermans should have been upgraded to Firefly spec.

Giving your soldiers cheap and ineffective weapons unsurprisingly makes them resent it. Would you be happy to be cannon-fodder, a pawn? Would you do it to those fighting for you if you were in charge?


----------



## delcyros (Feb 4, 2006)

The lack in materials like tungsten and manganese are responsible for dropping the Jumo-222 in 1941/42. Had they produced this engine, the Ju-288 would became standart bomber of the Luftwaffe and I considere this plane as the best medium bomber of ww2. It did not, so older and inferior planes had to fullfill their role till wars end (Ju-88, He-111).
The lack of tungsten and manganese also led to those problems with the Jumo-004B jet engines regarding their reliability (with enough manganese and chromium the original Jumo-004A could have been produced, this engine was very reliable and had more thrust output) from 1943 on. The need to invent new alloys delayed the engine development a lot.
But I can understand your argument considering the man to serve on the front. However, sometimes strategical thoughts are necessary.
( in case of the Sherman a lot fewer could be send to europe if all were upgraded to Firefly because of the limits in transportation ships. Otherwise the time to deploy the numbers would have been higher, the suczessive DDay beeing delayed. What do you think would cost more men?)


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 4, 2006)

Did it use Tungsten in it's actual construction?

The Firefly would not have been such an advantage for DDay (like you said, a logistical disavantage if anything), but after the landings the advantages would have been huuge.

It was beurocracy and perverted patriotism (NIH) then, like the SA80 is now.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 5, 2006)

Are we talking about proyects in here or what ?  

Here I found another pic of the german armored trolley, this towed by a Stug III, seems an action photo.


----------



## Soren (Feb 6, 2006)

> That's what I said Soren!
> 
> Thinking about it though, German ammo wasn't that good;



Care to prove it ? Wait, don't bother, cause you can't. Why ? Cause its untrue! British and German AP projectile were the best throughout WW2.



> The Jumbo was almost impervious to frontal attack, equal or even better than the KingTiger!! - though like the Churchill, lacking in offensive power.



What ???!!!!!  You surely can't be serious about that ?! Have you completely lost your sense of reality ?! 

The Tiger Ausf.B's glacis is 150mm thick and sloped at 50 degrees from vertical, the Jumbo's glacis is 100mm thick and sloped at 47 degrees from vertical ! So as you can see the Tiger Ausf.B is enormously better protected from the front than the Jumbo, you can't even compare the two ! 

And since the Jumbo had a pea-shooter of a gun it was a Cow on the battlefield, no match for the KingTiger which could knock it out at distances exceeding 2km. Heck even the Tiger Ausf.E could take out the Jumbo frontally at a distance of 1km, just by aiming at the turret. The Panther could do the same at a 1.5km distance. Truth is, against the AT and tank-guns of the time, the Jumbo was anything BUT impervious to AT fire.


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2006)

Just to show you how powerful AT and tank guns had become by 1944, I'll show you these pictures of Wittmann's Tiger Ausf.E which was hit by a AP round from a firefly's 17pdr tank gun, one of most powerful tank guns of WW2.


----------



## Erich (Feb 7, 2006)

Soren I believe several rounds hit Wittmann's Panzer as well as the other 3 Tiger 1's ? outside of Cintheux. Frankly I still cannot see why Wittmann ordered up and approved this death ride out in that field... those chaps were sitting ducks


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2006)

> Soren I believe several rounds hit Wittmann's Panzer as well as the other 3 Tiger 1's ? outside of Cintheux.



As far as I know it was just one well placed shot, and the 17pdr could easily do this kind damage with just one shot. IIRC the round penetrated the front turret and set off the ammunition in the turret, blowing off the turret away from the chassis. The 17pdr certainly was a very effective AT gun, on par with nearly any German AT gun in effectiveness against armor, very few exceeded it.



> Frankly I still cannot see why Wittmann ordered up and approved this death ride out in that field... those chaps were sitting ducks



I agree, it was very unlike him to do such a thing, however since he had become such a propaganda figure over the past years leading up to his time of death, maybe he began feeling abit invincible, a big mistake on the battlefield.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 7, 2006)

*Soren:*



> Care to prove it ? Wait, don't bother, cause you can't. Why ? Cause its untrue! British and German AP projectile were the best throughout WW2.



Especially that produced by Oskar Schindler.  



> The Tiger Ausf.B's glacis is 150mm thick and sloped at 50 degrees from vertical, the Jumbo's glacis is 100mm thick and sloped at 47 degrees from vertical ! So as you can see the Tiger Ausf.B is enormously better protected from the front than the Jumbo, you can't even compare the two !



Yes, that was silly of me.  - Though the Jumbo had 140mm @ the front in places and 114mm minimum.



> And since the Jumbo had a pea-shooter of a gun it was a Cow on the battlefield



You don't read what I write?? - That's exactly what I said!  



> Heck even the Tiger Ausf.E could take out the Jumbo frontally at a distance of 1km, just by aiming at the turret.



The Jumbo's turrett was 152mm all round. 178mm on the Mantlet.



> Just to show you how powerful AT and tank guns had become by 1944, I'll show you these pictures of Wittmann's Tiger Ausf.E which was hit by a AP round from a firefly's 17pdr tank gun, one of most powerful tank guns of WW2.



The ammo brewing up caused the damage, not the Sabot!

Agree with points on the 17pdr. 8) 



> I agree, it was very unlike him to do such a thing, however since he had become such a propaganda figure over the past years leading up to his time of death, maybe he began feeling abit invincible, a big mistake on the battlefield.



Yes, that's what I thought. I heard a Typhoon may have immobilized his tank 1st, allowing the Firefly to finish him off - don't think it's true.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2006)

I don't think it was because of his status that Wittman thought he was invincible. It was the status of the Tiger, for many years Tiger crews had gone through battle knowing that the enemy would not be able to destroy them. Many forgot the basic principles of armoured warfare, and when 1944 rolled around this caused a lot of loss in the Tiger ranks because the Soviets and Allies had developed weapons that could destroy the Tiger. 

I cannot remember where I read that, but I'm sure it's somewhere out there. And it seems reasonable to me. Since August 1942 the Tiger had been untouchable and I imagine if I were in such a machine, I wouldn't take into consideration the basic tactics of warfare. Why hide your tank when the enemy can't destroy it anyway?


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2006)

> Especially that produced by Oskar Schindler.



Oh so Oscar Schindler was the only supplier for Germany's armed forces, I didn't know that.  

Besides, Schindlers goal was to produce as little as possible, not to sabotage anything, cause if he had done that it would eventually have been discovered and his firm would've been shut down, and his workers shot. And THAT was not what he was looking for ! 

With that having been said, yes, some places German ammunition was sabotaged but not by making the projectiles inferior in quality, but by placing objects inside the cartridge causing it to explode on firing. However these sabotage attempts were few and far between, and covered less than 0.1% of all German ammunition and supplies made.



> Yes, that was silly of me.  - Though the Jumbo had 140mm @ the front in places and 114mm minimum.



The Jumbo's glacis was 100mm thick.



> The Jumbo's turrett was 152mm all round. 178mm on the Mantlet.



The 88mm Kwk36 could penetrate 179mm of vertical armor at 1000m.



> The ammo brewing up caused the damage, not the Sabot!



Like I said, the 17pdr's AP round caused those rounds to explode Schwarzpanzer ! What did you think, that they magically exploded by themselves ?


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I don't think it was because of his status that Wittman thought he was invincible. It was the status of the Tiger, for many years Tiger crews had gone through battle knowing that the enemy would not be able to destroy them. Many forgot the basic principles of armoured warfare, and when 1944 rolled around this caused a lot of loss in the Tiger ranks because the Soviets and Allies had developed weapons that could destroy the Tiger.
> 
> I cannot remember where I read that, but I'm sure it's somewhere out there. And it seems reasonable to me. Since August 1942 the Tiger had been untouchable and I imagine if I were in such a machine, I wouldn't take into consideration the basic tactics of warfare. Why hide your tank when the enemy can't destroy it anyway?



Thats a good theory as-well.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 8, 2006)

Soren said:


> Just to show you how powerful AT and tank guns had become by 1944, I'll show you these pictures of Wittmann's Tiger Ausf.E which was hit by a AP round from a firefly's 17pdr tank gun, one of most powerful tank guns of WW2.



Wittman had a damn bad luck , I see a lot of Panther, Tiger I and II being shooted several times in pics and videos, some set in fire and burn some not, but NONE of them had the horrific internal explosion that blew the turret in that SS Tiger 1.


----------



## Soren (Feb 9, 2006)

CharlesBronson said:


> Wittman had a damn bad luck , I see a lot of Panther, Tiger I and II being shooted several times in pics and videos, some set in fire and burn some not, but NONE of them had the horrific internal explosion that blew the turret in that SS Tiger 1.



He certainly had bad luck that day, or maybe not so bad, as the tactics he used that day were pretty foolish. Driving out in the middle of an open field isn't exactly a good idea  

It is true that German tanks were hard nuts to crack, the hardest infact, and also carried the deadliest main armament. But the 17pdr was the Allies most effecient AT gun of the whole war, the equal of the German 75mm Kwk42, and it would have very little problem turning a Tiger Ausf.E inside out if the round hit the right place.(Which it did in Wittmann's case)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I don't think it was because of his status that Wittman thought he was invincible. It was the status of the Tiger, for many years Tiger crews had gone through battle knowing that the enemy would not be able to destroy them. Many forgot the basic principles of armoured warfare, and when 1944 rolled around this caused a lot of loss in the Tiger ranks because the Soviets and Allies had developed weapons that could destroy the Tiger.
> 
> I cannot remember where I read that, but I'm sure it's somewhere out there. And it seems reasonable to me. Since August 1942 the Tiger had been untouchable and I imagine if I were in such a machine, I wouldn't take into consideration the basic tactics of warfare. Why hide your tank when the enemy can't destroy it anyway?



I can agree with that.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 11, 2006)

I put togheter the info abot the mouse.


*Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus
Porsche Typ 205*







The Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus (Sd.Kfz 205) is the heaviest tank with completed working prototypes built during World War II. The basic design known as the VK70001/Porsche Type 2005 was suggested by Ferdinand Porsche to Adolf Hitler in June of 1942, who subsequently approved it. The design up to then had been the culmination of work done by Porsche who had won the contract for the heavy tank that March. Work on the design began in earnest and the first prototype would be ready in 1943 and was initially received the name Mammut (Mammoth). This was reportedly changed to Mäuschen (Mousie) in December of 1942 and finally Maus (Mouse) in February of 1943.




The development of super heavy tank started as early as 1941, when Krupp started the studies of superheavy Soviet tanks. In early 1942, Krupp produced designs of Tiger-Maus (VK7001) and PzKpfw VII Lowe (VK7201), but on March 5/6th of 1942, order for heavier tank was placed. Lowe never reached the prototype stage but paved the way for their successor's development. On March 21/22nd of 1942, Porsche received the contract for new 100-ton Panzer - VK10001 / Porsche Typ 205. On April 14/15th, it specified that new 100-ton tank must carry at least 100 rounds of ammunition. VK10001 was to be developed by Professor Ferdinand Porsche and Dr.Muller (Krupp) at the personal demand of Adolf Hitler made in May of 1942. He demanded 120-ton "indestructible" super-heavy tank armed with high performance L/60 or L/72 gun. 

The task of producing hulls, turrets and armament was given to Krupp, while Alkett was responsible for the assembly. First specifications demanded that armament should consist of 150mm L/40 gun and 20mm MG151/20 heavy machine gun, while usage of 128mm L/50 was under consideration. It was stated that prototype should be operational before the Spring of 1943. On June 23rd of 1942, Porsche provided their design for improved VK10001 armed with turret mounted 150mm L/37 and 105mm L/70 guns. Porsche promised that first prototype will be ready in May of 1943. In December of 1942, new armaments such as 150mm gun, 127mm naval gun, 128mm Flak and the longest version of 128mm were considered. Also in the same month, it was restated that first vehicle was to be ready in Summer of 1943, followed by the production 5 per month. First official names VK10001 and Porsche Typ 205 ("Mammoth") were used in April of 1942, followed by Maeuschen (Mousy) in December of 1942 and Maus (Mouse) in February of 1943. In January of 1943, Hitler decided that the Maeuschen was to be fitted with turret mounted with 128mm and 75mm guns, while turret mounted with 150mm KwK 44 L/38 or 170mm KwK 44 gun was to be designed for future use. Specification for ammunition storage space were never met and decreased by further modifications. 






From the designs emerged 188 tonnes heavy monster. On May 1st of 1943, wooden mockup of the Maus was presented to Adolf Hitler, who agreed on production and ordered series of 150 to be produced. On November 4 of 1943, development of Maus was to be ceased and only one was to be completed for evaluation. In October of 1943, original order placed by Hitler for 150 vehicles was cancelled. 

*Maus turret.*






On December 24th of 1943, first turretless prototype was completed by Alkett and was put to the extensive tests. During the tests, the Maus could hardly move due to its enormous weight and power/weight ratio. First prototype V1 (Maus I), was powered by modified Daimler-Benz MB 509 (developed from DB 603 aircraft engine), which could not provide planned speed of 20km/h but only 13km/h in ideal conditions. Also problems arouse with suspension system which had to be modified in order to take the weight of the vehicle. Another problem that emerged from its weight, was that simply there were no bridges able to take the its weight. To overcome this problem Maus had to be provided with a "snorkel" arrangement which allowed it to submerse to the maximum depth of 8 meters. In December of 1943, V1 was fitted with (Belastungsgewicht) simulated turret (representing the weight of the turret) and was tested. Maus I was applied with camouflage paint and marked with red star and hammer and sickle disguised as a captured Russian vehicle. 

*Fording equipment*







In March of 1944, second prototype V2 (Maus II) which differed in numerous details from V1 was produced. V2 lacked the powerplant, which was fitted in mid 1944. On April 9th of 1944, Krupp produced the turret, which in June of 1944, was delivered and then mounted on V2 and tested. Krupp produced a turret mounted with 128mm KwK 44 L/55 gun with coaxial 75mm KwK 44 L/36.5 gun and 7.92mm MG34, providing the Maus with an enormous firepower. Maus' main gun could penetrate front, side and rear armor (at 30 degrees from vertical) of Sherman, Cromwell, Churchill, T-34/85 and JS-2 tanks at ranges of 3500+ meters. Turret included mounts for rangefinder (by Zeiss), but was not fully finished and some of the missing components were shipped later on. 

Maus I was to be fitted with Krupp's second turret but it was never delivered and it remained fitted with simulated turret. On July 25th of 1944, Krupp reported that two hulls will be available soon and two more later on. On July 27th of 1944, Krupp was ordered to scrap those four hulls. On August 19th of 1944, Krupp informed Porsche that it was order to stop further work on Maus. In September of 1944, second prototype started its tests. It was installed with Daimler-Benz MB 517 diesel engine that made little difference in comparison with previously used engine. Advanced electric steering system was used to steer the vehicle. Its running gear designed by Skoda, consisted of double-wheeled trucks supported by twelve return rollers with 1100mm wide tracks. The crew had to be provided with oxygen supplied by built-on fans/ventilators when all the hatches were closed. 

*V1 and V2 inside bunker.*







In order to transport the Maus, special 14-axle railroad transport car (Verladewagon) was produced by Graz-Simmering-Pauker Works in Vienna. From mid January to early October of 1944, trials took place at armored vehicle proving grounds in Kummersdorf (near Berlin) and then at Porsche proving grounds at Boblingen. Tests were long, delayed by engine failures and production delays caused by Allied bomber attacks on German factories. During tests, it was determined that in case of any failure each Maus would have to be towed by two other Maus tanks. It is also reported that Germans worked on Flakzwilling 8.8cm auf Maus, which was to be Maus mounted with a modified turret housing two 88mm Flak 43 guns and used as heavy Flakpanzer. 



Some sources state that according to Porsche, Hitler's aim for the Maus was to plug holes in the Atlantic coastal defenses on the Western Front, where it's limited range and mobility wouldn't have been too much of a hindrance. The popular version states that V2 prototype was blown up by the personnel at proving grounds in Kummersdorf, while some sources state that actually V2 saw combat while defending the facility at Kummersdorf. When war ended, almost finished V1 turret and third hull were found at Krupp facilities in Essen. 

Overall, Maus was an interesting design but it would be of limited combat value because of its poor mobility and heavy weight making it more of a mobile fortification rather than a super tank. One fully assembled example (V2 turret mounted on V1 hull) was tested at Kubinka in 1951/52 and can be seen today in the Museum of Armored Forces in Kubinka (near Moscow) in Russia






Length: 10.09 m 
Width: 3.67 m 
Height: 3.63 m 
Weight: 188 ton 
Speed: 13 km/h on road 
Range: 160 on roads, 62 off road. 
Primary armament: 128 mm KwK44 L/5 
Secondary armament: co-axial 75mm KwK 44 L/36.5
7.92mm MG34 
Armor (V2) Front lower hull (Glacis plate approximately 200 mm (8 in), sloped at 35 degrees to the vertical.

Side hull: 180mm (7 in)
Rear hull: 160mm (6.3 in)
Turret front: 240mm (9.5 in)
Turret sides: 200mm (8 in)
Turret roof: 60mm (2.3 in)


Ground Pressure 140 kPa (20 psi) 
Production 1 complete (V2)

1 complete but with dummy turret (V1)
9 total at various levels of completion. (at Essen and Kummersdorf)

Power plant: 1080 hp MB509 gasoline (V1)
1200 hp MB517 Diesel (V2) 
Crew: 6


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 11, 2006)

*10.5cm K18 auf Panzer Selbstfahrlafette IVa
"Dickermax"*






In September of 1939, German High Command ordered Krupp to design a heavy panzerjager armed with 105 or 128mm gun that would be able to destroy enemy tanks and heavily fortified positions (such as pillboxes). In early/mid 1941, Krupp-Gruson produced two prototypes of such a vehicle and on March 31st of 1941, first was presented to Adolf Hitler. The Fuhrer ordered further development of heavy panzerjagers armed with either 105mm or 128mm guns. He also ordered that the production of Selbstfahrlafette 10.5cm must start in the Spring of 1942, but it was later on cancelled in favour of other vehicles. 

Selbstfahrlafette 10.5cm was armed with Krupp's 105mm K 18 L/52 gun with limited traverse of 8 degrees (left and right) and based on modified Panzer IV Ausf A's chassis. The gun itself was developed by Krupp and Rheinmetall from 105mm sK 18 L/52 heavy field gun and was mounted with a muzzle break. The gun was capable of penetrating 111mm of 30 degrees sloped armor plate at 2000 meters. It was mounted in lightly armored (armor protection ranged from 10mm to 50mm), open at rear superstructure and for local defense machine gun (7.92mm MG34) was carried inside as well. Vehicle was powered by Maybach HL 120 TRM engine with total power of 300 horsepower (same as Panzer IV) allowing it to travel at the speed of 40km/h. 






Originally, two prototypes were assigned to Panzerjager Abteilung 521 in preparations for upcoming attack on Gibraltar. At the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, both were assigned to 3rd Panzer Division and were troop tested. One of them was lost when its ammunition exploded (as reported it was then captured the Soviets) and the second one was brought back to the factory in October of 1941. The further fate of the surviving vehicle is unknown. Both prototypes proved to be very effective against Soviet KV-I, KV-II and T-34 tanks. Serial production did not take place, while even limited numbers would prove to be very useful to the front line troops faced with superior Soviet armor in 1941/42. 







Weight: 25000kg 

Crew: 5 men 

Engine: Maybach HL 120 TRM / 12-cylinder / 300hp 

Speed: 40km/h 

Range: Road: 200km

Lenght: 7.52m 

Width: 2.84m 

Height: 3.25m 

Armament: 105mm K 18 L/52 7.92mm MG34
(1 x MG34 - carried inside)

Ammo: 105mm - 20-25 rounds

7.92mm - 600 rounds 

Armor (mm/angle): Front Hull: 50/12
Front Superstructure: 50/10
Front Turret: 30/14
Gun Mantlet: 50/10
Side Hull: 20/0
Side Superstructure: 20/0
Side Turret: 20/14
Rear Hull: 20/10
Rear Superstructure: 20/10
Rear Turret: 20/20
Hull Top / Bottom: 10/90
Superstructure Top / Bottom: 12/90
Turret Top: open


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2006)

Good info. I like the pic with the 100% Original on it.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 12, 2006)

Have you seen the "Stubborn Emil" CharlesBronson? - Very similar to the "Dickermax" only 128mm.



CharlesBronson said:


> Wittman had a damn bad luck , I see a lot of Panther, Tiger I and II being shooted several times in pics and videos, some set in fire and burn some not, but NONE of them had the horrific internal explosion that blew the turret in that SS Tiger 1.



I suggest you look at:

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=204&Itemid=105〈=en




Soren said:


> But the 17pdr was the Allies most effecient AT gun of the whole war, the equal of the German 75mm Kwk42,



It was not the gun so much, more the amunition (APDS/SVDS) though even with APCBC it was still probably the best Allied AT gun! 8) 



> and it would have very little problem turning a Tiger Ausf.E inside out if the round hit the right place.



With a direct hit, even the glacis (the hardest part of the Tiger) is getting whacked @ 1000m - what a gun!

Though like PlanD said, gave off a lot of smoke and it was obvious and the 1st target for German taks.

Also the Firefly was not used effectively (1 in 5), if only battalions were armed with Fireflies, if only America had made all ShermansFirefly-spec, if only...

I wonder how many Fireflies were made in total?


I believe Wittman underestimated this beast (Although he had already destroyed at least 4 prior)

Also, not to take anything from Wittman, but his claims were twice hat he actually killed and his most numerous victims by far were softskins and Bren carriers etc. Germany's Vasilly Zaitsev?

I think the tank blew up like that because, due to his favourite targets, he carried mainly HE rounds. That would explain the huge explosion.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 12, 2006)

> I suggest you look at:
> 
> http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=204&Itemid=105〈=en



well..yeah there is 2 or 3 Panthers blew up in that link, but the Tiger I in there remain relative intact.








> Also, not to take anything from Wittman, but his claims were twice hat he actually killed and his most numerous victims by far were softskins and Bren carriers etc. Germany's Vasilly Zaitsev?



A Bren Carrier is a armored vehicle, small yes but armored probably it count in the final Wittman score of 138.

Wittman was not the major scorer of the war but Kurt knispel, his achievements were concealed a little because he was not a high rank or very disciplinate soldier and only managed to command a tank in the late stages of the war, most of this score was on the gunner role.

1. Kurt Knispel (s.Pz.Abt 503) -- 162 victoires
2. Otto Carius (s.Pz.Abt 502)-- 150 victoires
3. Johannes Hans Bolter (s.Pz.Abt 502)-- 139 victoires

*Kurt Knispel*


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 12, 2006)

> Have you seen the "Stubborn Emil" CharlesBronson? - Very similar to the "Dickermax" only 128mm



...And the Sturer Emil.

*12.8cm Selbstfahrlafette L/61
(Panzerselbstfahrlafette V)
"Sturer Emil / Stubborn Emil*"







Design of Selbstfahrlafette 12.8cm was based on Henschel's prototype of Panzer IV' successor - VK3001(H). In March of 1941, two VK3001(H) were ready to be converted into heavy anti-tank gun carriers - Panzerjagers. Rheinmetall-Borsig provided the 128mm PaK 40 L/61 gun for the main armament, which was developed in 1939, from 128mm Flak gun. Both chassis had to be modified in order to mount heavy 128mm gun. Major modifications consisted of the enlargement of the chassis (addition of one road-wheel, extension of the hull) and addition of the heavily armored open-top compartment mounted over the engine compartment. 






Fighting compartment was mounted in the rear of the vehicle and housed powerful 128mm anti-tank gun with limited traverse of 7 degrees to the left and to the right. Space inside the fighting compartment operated by the crew of five, allowed storage for only 15 to 18 rounds. One 7.92mm MG34 was mounted in the hull for local defence.






From August of 1941 to March of 1942, Rheinmetall-Borsig and Henschel produced two prototypes, which were troop tested in Russia in mid 1942. Both prototypes performed successfully but the development of this project was cancelled in favour of Tiger I. One of Selbstfahrlafette 12.8cm (pictured above) saw service with 521st schwere Panzerjaeger Abteilung and second one with 2nd Panzer Division as late as July of 1942. One of two prototypes (from 2nd Panzer Division) was destroyed in combat, while other one (from 521st sPzJagAbt with 22 kills rings painted on the gun barrel) was captured intact in January of 1943 in Stalingrad area. It was shown at the captured equipment exhibitions in Moscow's Gorky Park in 1943 and 1944.It can be seen today in the Museum of Armored Forces in Kubinka.

The "normal" panzergranate 39 in this caliber (128mm) could penetrate more than 150mm of rolled homogeneus armor at 1000 meters distance.


----------



## Henk (Feb 12, 2006)

You done it again and showed that you are the master. I would feel unsafe in a open top tank destroyer.

Henk


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 13, 2006)

*CharlesBronson:*



> well..yeah there is 2 or 3 Panthers blew up in that link, but the Tiger I in there remain relative intact.



Yeah, there is a KingTiger there though with it's turret blown clean off it's ring!  Not necesssarily ammo going off though, as the Zvierboy could do that with it's humongous 152mm gun. 8) 



> A Bren Carrier is a armored vehicle, small yes but armored probably it count in the final Wittman score of 138.



Yes it is, but it can be destroyed by HE (Particularly something as big as 88mm). The pictures/footage of the Bocage Bren carriers that Wittman destroyed were clearly the work of HE shells.

In fact HE is more effective than an AP or HEAT shell against a Bren carrier... (I'll explain below)

Incidentally, the Cromwells and Shermans could also be destroyed by HE (easily from the rear).

Just a theory, but I reckon HE shells were his main loadout - explaining the huge explosion. When AP ammo cooks off, sometimes the penetrator merely pops off the charge - no explosion at all.

HE on the other hand explodes, along with it's charge making an immense chain-explosion.


I'll have to read about Kurt knispel, though I probably already have!  

An interesting book (forgot the title) was on the exploits of an obviously insane Panzer Skoda 38t commander who used to charge down KV1's to kissing range and shoot down their barrels!!  


Wittman's gunner, Bobby Woll (correct spelling? Said as sounds - German accent - umlaut probably over the o) was also a gunner like Knipsel and won the Iron Cross and was a colleague of Wittman.




Henk said:


> I would feel unsafe in a open top tank destroyer.



Funnily enough, as I mentioned above, _sometimes_ it was better. The spall from HEAT or HESH rounds or KE-penetrator/spall of an AP shot/shell could fly out the open top vehicle. Also HEAT creates little or no overpressure in an open-topped vehicle.

PlanD and myself listed the many vulnerabilities a while ago.


----------



## Henk (Feb 13, 2006)

Yes, correct, but then your biggest enemy will be infantry. Yes it also reduce your weight.

Henk


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 14, 2006)

> Yeah, there is a KingTiger there though with it's turret blown clean off it's ring! Not necesssarily ammo going off though, as the Zvierboy could do that with it's humongous 152mm gun



I was talking about the Tiger I not II, it was the hardest to burn and explode like the Wittman escenario.

The King Tiger despite his colossal armour seems to have his troubles also. this I think was ble up by his own crew, thre is no visible holes.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 15, 2006)

That's possible CB, also it could have been penetrated from the side/rear. The N/S track seems to be stuck, either it was abandoned 'cos of that, or a 152mm drove it into the mud?

Furthering my Wittman mainly HE Loadout theory, Wittman himself also said AT guns were his most feared enemy...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 16, 2006)

*Landwasserschlepper*






Development of Landwasserschlepper (Land-Water-Tractor) started in 1936, but first 7 vehicles were completed in July of 1940. Additional 14 were produced by March of 1941. It was designed by Rheinmetall-Borsig as an amphibious vehicle for the use by engineers but it lacked storage and loading/unloading access. To overcome this problem, special 10 and 20 ton amphibious trailers were made. It carried 3 to 5 men crew and 20 passangers. Another problem was that it was unarmored and could operate effectively in the combat area. LWS saw service in Russia and North Africa. 






Despite being unarmored the LWS probe to be a extremely useful vehicle in the always changing terrain conditions of the Russian lanscape.

Weight: 17000kg 
Crew: 5 men 
Engine: Maybach HL 120TRM / 12-cylinder / 300hp 
Speed: Road: 35km/h
Water: 12km/h 
Range: Road: 150km
Lenght: 7.68m 
Width: 2.34m 
Height: 2.65m


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 17, 2006)

Aditional pics of the Land-water-tractor.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 24, 2006)

*Porsche VK3001 Leopard.*






In 1937, along with Henschel, Porsche was given the task of build the medium tank that would replace Panzerkampfwagen IV. Its design was supposed to be capable of being armed with 75mm L/24 or even if possible 105mm L/28 gun and one 7.92mm MG34 for local defence. VK3001(P) was Porsche's first design since 1927's Grosstraktor I and its drawings were finished by September 5th of 1939 by Porsche's Chief Engineer Karl Rabe. 







Prototypes were supposed to be fitted with turrets manufactured by Krupp. Porsche considered arming the vehicle with 105mm KwK L/47, 105mm KwK L/52 gun and finally with 88mm KwK 36 L/56 gun (developed from 88mm Flak 36 gun). Six turrets armed with 88mm guns were ordered in April of 1941, but none were produced. Leopard's turret was similar in appearance to that used on Tiger(P) and Tiger. Porsche planned to power VK3001(P) with gasoline-electric power/drive system (two air-cooled Porsche Typ 100 engines by Steyr and electric transmission). Only one or two turretless prototypes were completed by Nibelungenwerke in St.Valentin, Austria in late (October) 1941, out of 3 hulls originally ordered. 

*F. Porsche (with hat) testing his vehicle.*






Although many problems were encountered with its advanced power and drive system, prototype(s) performed well. During tests prototype(s) reached maximum speed of 60km/h but its fuel consumption was 170 liters per 100 kilometers. In order to solve the engine problems, Porsche designed diesel engine (Porsche Typ 200) but it was never produced.






VK3001(P) program was abandoned and two prototypes were used extensively in the development of VK4501(P) - Porsche's Tiger, which started in July of 1941. In order to transport VK3001(P) tank, Porsche designed special tank transporter (Panzertransporter Porsche 142), but this project was also abandoned. Tests continued until May of 1942, but VK3001(P) never went into production just like VK3001(H) and VK3601(H). 






Weight: 30000kg 
Crew: 5 men 
Engine: 2 x Porsche Typ 100 / 10-cylinder / 210hp 
Speed: 60km/h 
Lenght: 6.58m 
Width: 3.80m 
Height: 3.05m 
Armament: 75mm KwK 37 L/24 7.92mm MG34
105mm KwK L/28 7.92mm MG34 

Armor (mm/angle):

Front Turret: 80/21.5
Front Superstructure: 75/15
Front Hull: 75/20 45
Side Turret: 60/0
Side Superstructure: 60/0
Side Hull: 60/0
Rear Turret: 60/0
Rear Superstructure: 
Rear Hull: 40/31.5 0
Turret Top / Bottom: 40/10 15
Superstructure Top / Bottom: 26/90
Hull Top / Bottom: 26/90
Gun Mantlet: 80/0


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 8, 2007)

Some variants over the Panther theme.

*Panzerbeobachtungs Panther mit 5 cm Kwk, *a proposal for the replacement of the most vulnerable Pz III and half-tracks used for the artillery correction task. Desing of November 1942, none completed.








Self propelled 128 (upper) and 105 mm howitzers over Panther components. Both mountings were "absetzbarer" ( dismountable) and capable to shoot from the ground. None reach the prototipe stage.








pics from "Panther variantz Osprey"


----------



## Bf109_g (Jan 9, 2007)

So the Land-Water-Tractor was kind of like the American DUKW (Duck)?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 9, 2007)

Yea, but with greater mobility because the tracks, few were actually used.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2007)

just how did they get the guns onto the ground? looks like arms lift it forward?


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 9, 2007)

Any more rare and crazy Panzer Projects? Thanks for the ones that are up there. Really enjoying seeing a lot of these paper and real-life projects.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 10, 2007)

> Any more rare and crazy Panzer Projects? Thanks for the ones that are up there. Really enjoying seeing a lot of these paper and real-life projects


.

You got it.


*Panzerspähwagen Schildkröte I, II und III
*

Three prototype four-wheeled amphibious armored cars - Schildkröte (Turtle) I, II and III were designed by Hans Trippel in 1941 and build by Trippelwerke at Molsheim in October of 1942. 

The vehicles were powered by an 125 hp V8 Tatra air-cooled engine. It had good performance on the road and in the water being the Sch III the most powerful of the series with an 20 mm gun. This was not the Kwk 38 from the panzer but a an aeronautical MG-151/20 cannon.







*Mg-151/20 with open sights.*






However the requeriments for flotation ( an obvious characteristic in an amphibious vehicle) means that the armor was to be light with a maximum of 10 mm . The Waffeamnt did not like that characteristics and decide to not purchase the vehicle.

*Schildkröte III in water.*









*Panzerspähwagen Trippel E3 / E3M* 

In 1943 and 1944, based on Schildkröte III, new Panzerspähwagen Trippel E3 (E = Einheits = Standard) series was built. Only three prototypes were build including single turretless E3M ammunition carrier. The armor was between 5.5-14.5mm In October of 1944, Waffenamt decided that such vehicles were not needed. 

*Turretless prototipe.*







Pics from: Encyclopedia of German Tanks, Achtung Panzer !, Cañones y ametralladoras de la Luftwaffe.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 10, 2007)

Nice.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 11, 2007)

*Flakpanzer IV (3cm) Kugelblitz
(Ball Lightning*






In April of 1944, plans were laid for the design that would be an effective defense against Allied fighter bombers, which proved to be very effective against German ground targets. It was proposed to build such vehicle based on Panzer IV Ausf H's proven chassis and armed with twin 30mm MK (MK - Maschinenkanon) 303 "Doppelflak" / "Brunn" guns (developed by Rheinmetall for Type XXI U-Boot to be installed on coning towers) mounted in fully closed sphere-like turret.Development of this project was given to both Rheinmetall and Daimler-Benz and production was planned to start in September 1944.


First improvised prototype by Daimler-Benz was mounted with modified U-Boot turret armed with two 30mm MK303 guns. It was tested but it didn't perform as expected and further development was to be continued. The additonal problem was that entire production of 30mm MK303 guns and turrets was reserved for the Kriegsmarine. Designers then decided to utilize older 30mm MK103/38 guns, which were used as armament for Henschel Hs 129 and Dornier Do 335 Pfeil (Arrow) airplanes. 

*Kugelblitz mocke-up.*







The weapon was known to the Luftwaffe as the Jaboschreck (Fighter-bomber terror). In November of 1944, first real prototype was produced at Marienfelde and was tested and eventually production was to start in March of 1945 with 30 being produced monthly. 

*The height of this vehicle was only 2,3m*








Only five chassis were obtained due to shortages by Daimler-Benz with sub-contractor Stahlindustrie. Daimler-Benz produced three and Stahlindustrie two were produced in February/March of 1945. Due to the war situation and cancellation of Panzer IV's production, only 2 to 5 prototypes were delivered in February/March of 1945 and assigned to Panzerflak Ersatz und Ausbildungs Abteilung (Anti-Aircraft Tank Training and Replacement Battalion) at Ohrdruf, but it is not knownif they saw any combat. Although, some sources state that all took part in the Battle for Berlin in April of 1945, where they were all lost.Kugelblitz was intended for use exclusively on the Western Front, where Allied Air Force was the biggest threat to the German Army. 

Kugelblitz was operated by the crew of 5, protected by the armor thickness varying from 10mm to 80mm. The turret housed 3 men crew consisting of two gun operator (each sitting alongside the gun) and commander (sitting in the middle). The 3500kg turret had one entry/exit hatch (commander was last to enter and first to exit) and two smaller hatches for observation. It had manual traverse by hand of 14 degrees per second. Armored protection of the turret was only 20mm. The size and weight of the turret demanded that hulls were fitted with larger 1900mm rings from Tiger I. 

With its low silhouette, high mobility (with maximum speed of 38km/h), great rate of fire (400 to 650 rounds per minute) and gun range (up to 5700 meters), Flakpanzer IV Kugelblitz would prove deadly to any enemy plane. Both guns were coupled together, but could be fired independently. The ammunition, known as Minengeschoss was belt-fed and more powerful than standard 30mm round, only three to four rounds were needed to shotdown any enemy plane. Its main drawback was its small ammunition storage allowing it to continue firing for only 90 seconds, while afterwards more ammunition was to be supplied by other vehicles. 



*This turret of a Kugelblitz is on display at the Lehrsammlung der Heeresflugabwehrschule in Rendsburg (Germany). It is the only remaining part of the handful of prototypes produced before the end of the war*


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 12, 2007)

Ughh....I rescue this thread from the deep bottom and you both start to post about the Sherman...?? .Why just dont create a topic of that tank and stop the off-topic in here.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 13, 2007)

> '88' actually and the fact it had a hard time with the Jumbo's.




Easy then, go and open a "German 88mm against Jumbo Sherman" nice isnt.


------------------------



Especifications for Flakpanzer IV (3cm) Kugelblitz 

Weight: 25000kg 
Crew: 5 men 
Engine: Maybach HL 120 TRM 112 / 12-cylinder / 300hp 
Speed: 38km/h 
Range: 200km 
Lenght: 5.92m 
Width: 2.95m 
Height: 2.30m 
Armament: 2 x 30mm MK103/38 7.92mm MG34 
Ammo: 30mm - 1200 rounds
7.92mm - 900 rounds 

Armor (mm/angle): 

Front Turret: 30/round + 20/60
Front Superstructure: 80/10
Front Hull: 80/12
Side Turret: 20/round + 20/60
Side Superstructure: 30/0
Side Hull: 30/0
Rear Turret: 30/0
Rear Superstructure: 20/11
Rear Hull: 20/9
Turret Top / Bottom: 20/90
Superstructure Top / Bottom: 13/85-90
Hull Top / Bottom: 13/90










Caracteristics of the Rheinmetall-Borsig Maschinen Kanone MK-103:






Caliber: 30mm (30x184B)

Lenght: 2318mm

Weight: 146 kg.

Operation: gas assisted short recoil.

RoF: 360-420 rpm according ammo weight.

30 mm ammo caracteristics.

Bullet weight: between 390-460 grams.

Muzzle speed of the ammo:

Normal HE: 815 m/s

Minengesschoss HE: 900 m/s.

AP steel core ( panzergranate 39) 710 m/s.

AP tugsten core (Panzergranate 40) 960 m/s.


*Normal He ammo:*






*Steel core incendiary ammo.*







*Panzergranate 40, the Kugelblitz might use this type of ammo for self defense against other tanks. The bullet can penetrate 65 mm homogeneus armor at 300 meters.*


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 13, 2007)

I have a question for you tank experts. What was the typical accuracy of WWII tank and anti-tank cannon? From what I have read and the pics you guys are posting, it looks to be within a couple of minute-of-angle (MOA) [e.g. 1 MOA = 1in at 100yds, 6in at 600yds]. I've actually read of german commanders targeting barrels of KV-1/-2 to disable them. Fairy tale?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 13, 2007)

This topic is completely ruined, thanks soren and company.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> This topic is completely ruined, thanks soren and company.



I've been trying to find good information on the PzIIJ - I think that was the one that was about double the weight of the standard PzII. I believe that there were only 22 built - sent possibly to the east front? I can't find much about them though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

There you go Charles, they have there own thread to discuss whatever they want in.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 13, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> This topic is completely ruined, thanks soren and company.



Sorry CB. I contributed to that. My bad.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2007)

Has anyone been having a problem posting in this thread like it was closed? If so please let me know.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There you go Charles, they have there own thread to discuss whatever they want in.



Thank you very much Adler, is nice to see a fast moderator in here.



> I've been trying to find good information on the PzIIJ - I think that was the one that was about double the weight of the standard PzII. I believe that there were only 22 built - sent possibly to the east front? I can't find much about them though.



Let see:

*VK1601 (panzer II ausf J )*

The VersuchsKetten 1601 (experimental fully tracked vehicle 16 tons model 01) was a tank slightly based on the Panzer II. The object was to improve the armor and therefore the survivality in the battefield. In order to do so the frontal armor was 80 mm and 50 mm in the side hull /turret. This tank copied the crew layout in the Pz II , with an Tank commander/gunner/ loader, radio operator and driver. 







The delopment for an "0" series was issued in december 1939, development of the chassis was entrusted ton MAN and the turret went to Daimler-Benz. The fisrt VK1601 was completed in June 1940.

This tank had an interleaved suspension of similar desing to the prototipe "VK901" but more strongly built in order to support the aditional weight. The hull and the superestructure was buil as one unit ( A departure from the german practice up to this time wich was a bolted superestructure.)








In total 22 VK1601 were manufactured between April - December 1942, The "ausf J" designation was a extraoficial one used mostly by the soldiers. The armament being a 20 mm automatic KwK 38 gun and a 7,92mm MG-34 with 2150 AP bullets. The turret was traversible only by hand.

*Bergenpanzer II ausf J.*






Seven VK 1601 (Ausf J) were issued to 12th Panzer Division, which was fighting on the Eastern Front. In 1944, one of them was converted into a recovery vehicle - Bergepanzer II Ausf J. Later on in 1944/45, the same vehicle served with Panzer Werkstatt Kompanie (Tank Repair Company) of 116th Panzer Division.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 14, 2007)

I don't think it was totally off topic as it is rare and crazy Panzer projects so comparing it with the Sherman Jumbo and other Allied tanks that they are likely to come across has some validity. For my part I wonder how that floating Panzer would have done against targets such as the T-34 or the IS-2 in combat considering that a likely theatre of operations was in the Eastern Front against the Soviets, or alternatively how it would have done against the Shermans, Churchills and other tanks in a Normandy style invasion of Britain in 1944...


----------



## mkloby (Jan 15, 2007)

Excellent thanks charles!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 15, 2007)

> Excellent thanks charles!



You re welcome.



> For my part I wonder how that floating Panzer would have done against targets such as the T-34 or the IS-2 in combat considering that a likely theatre of operations was in the Eastern Front against the Soviets, or alternatively how it would have done against the Shermans, Churchills and other tanks in a Normandy style invasion of Britain in 1944...



Not fair comparative, an amphibius armored car against Medium/heavy tanks  


-----------------------



*Alkett-Raümgerät*

This strange AFV was found by the Soviet troops at Kummersdorf proving grounds in 1945 and was then stored at the Soviet military base in Dresden. In 1947, it was delivered to Kubinka proving grounds for tests together with other German AFVs. The tests could not be completed because the minesweeping mechanisms of the mineroller were badly damaged during the transportation and only movement and tactical tests were made. The design was the joint project by Alkett, Krupp and Mercedes-Benz and construction was finished in early 1942. 


*Front side.*






The appearance of this AFV was very strange and unusual. The vehicle's body was mounted on the heavy gun frame with the cabin containing the fighting compartment, engine and the turret from PzKpfw I armed by the two MG-34 machine guns for close defense. The body armor was 20 to 40mm thick. The bottom had to withstand the explosive power of mines and was 80mm thick. There were inside armor plates in this AFV. Turning the mineroller was done by the small steering wheel placed in the rear part of the body. 


*Rear side.*






Driving was done by turning of the steering wheel and via the gear selector The wheels were mounted with 75mm wide brake shoes that were controlled directly from the fighting compartment. The moving parts of this mineroller were caterpillar trucks with shoe pads fixed onto the driving wheels. They were similar to those used on wheels of the German heavy field guns in the WWI. The explosives theoretically could not damage those pads. The tests showed that the weight of this AFV, its low speed and height made an easy target for enemy artillery. This AFV was constructed under the influence of high panzer losses on the Soviet minefields. It was to go before the tanks in the offensive operations. It appears that the designers understood that this AFV was useless in comparison with the ordinary tanks mounted with mineplows and was abandoned at the proving grounds. Today Alkett-Raümgerät can be seen in the Museum of Armored Forces in Kubinka in Russia.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 15, 2007)

Looks like something that belongs in BF2142 by EA/Dice rather than a WW2 piece of equipment that tracked one. How do you think the Panzer II Ausf J would have done against Allied Armor on the battlefield that it was likely to meet when it became operational in 1942?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 15, 2007)

It would be like a German "Matilda"....with great survivality in the battlefield due his heavy armor but with a weak main gun....with no chances to penetrate anything heavier tan a T-26/T-60 or an "Honey" tank.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 15, 2007)

Ah, okay. Interesting to know. Thanks for that information.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 17, 2007)

A pretty weird Panther.






This vehicle used large natural gas tanks instead the normal petrol fuel. The tank was used for a replacement and intruction Panzer driver unit, the reason for his different tipe of feeding was obvious, to save the always scarce B4.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 17, 2007)

Nice info, as always CB. 

That Panther with the gas bottles - I've seen a Konigstiger with those before, not a Panther though IIRC.8)

Also, the Kugelblitz turret was experimentally fitted to a Pz38t chassis - never seen pics of that though.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 18, 2007)

You re welcome, here a Marder with that system:








It remember me some cars that used also gas in here to move. ( because is cheaper than the liquid fuel )







There was also another mean of gas wich was named "Holzgas" and obtained from the wood, but it requires a heavier instalation and gave less HPs in turn.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 19, 2007)

*Grille 12 fur 12,8 cm K-43*. (Panther chassis) 

This was another atemp to create a heavy self propelled gun using the Panther wheelbase. The Kanone 43 was a double use gun that could shot armor piercing ammo and long range HE shells.







The gun mounting and shield was desmountable ( thing wich contribute to made the desing even more complicate) . None were completed and the projekt was cancelled in 1944.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

That was fascinating those gas powered tanks. Would be a bit impractical in the field though due to the ease of arming at the gas tanks. Natural gas is very flamable isn't it?


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 22, 2007)

The hungarian heavy tank-project Tas

http://www.haditechnika.hu/Archivum/199301/P11/09.jpg

Let me explain the importance of these attempts of the Hungarian Army a bit first. 
Although Hungary didn't play a very significant role in WW2 because of its unfortunate politics,extreme pressure of 3.Reich and the neighbour countries surrounding him,and obsolete equipment,as a hungarian i pay my tribute to the brave men who fought and died.
Hungary's heavy industry wasn't developed at all,and the german supplies weren't equaling the suffered losses nor the requirements to fight with success.We know alot about soviet,german or allied armored vehicles, but maybe Hungary's efforts might interest you as a unique,rare topic.
Hungary bought or recieved before and during the war equipment which been declared obsolete for german use.In numbers:
before 1939: 150 Ansaldo Tankettes ,mainly CV33
1939: 15-20polish TKS ,2 T-11 light czech tanks,3 Renault R-35 light tanks
1940: 1 T-21 czech tank
1942: 8 Pz. I ,4-8 Pz. II ,5 Marder II.,108 p38(t) Czech tanks,10 Pz. IIIM, 22 Pz. IVF1 ,10 Pz. IVF2 , 10 StuG III. , 15 Hotchkiss light tanks,2 Somua S-35 
1944: 10-12 Pz.IIIM, 12-30 pz.IVH ,50 StuG G,5-10 Panthers and 12 Pz.VI.E
1945: the real deliveries unknown, planned been 30 Pz. IV.H and 75 Hetzers.


I still'd like to tell you about hungarian built vehicles,which been used
during WW2 and the plans about future.
Hungary had to equip 3 Armies,so own production had to run up.
There are a few sources on internet about the major types built and used like the Toldi light tank.Toldi was based on the Landswerk 60 tank made in Sweden. It had good movement abilites, highly sloped armour and very good optical instruments for observation and fire guidance. Hungarians installed 20mm gun and 8mm AA machinegun.Certainly it prroved to be hapless against the T-34.At all 190 been built.
The Nimrod was designed as a tank-killer and AA,but its 40mm gun,despite its high rate of fire coulnt penetrate the thick armor of soviet counterparts.135 of these been produced.
The backbone of hungarian armored troops been the 40M Turán tank,279 of the light (version I with a 40mm cannon) and 180 of its heavier version (version II with 75mm gun)been built ,based on the design of the Škoda T-21 medium tank prototye.Despite the improvement, the relatively low velocity of the projectile was unable to pierce the frontal armor of a T-34, except at point blank range. The T-34s main gun could penetrate the Turan's 50 mm of armor at a much greater distance.
Aside from tank production, the chassis was the basis for an assault gun. Called the Zrinyi II, this weapon mounted a 105 mm short gun which poked through the front plate of the hull, and lacked the all around traverse turret of the battle tanks. Only 40 examples of this useful weapon were produced(i found this sentence on wikipedia,it writes 60 but the correct number is 40). The only other vehicles known based on this chassis were the Turan III and the Zrinyi I, both of which used the German 75mmL43 tank gun (which armed the Pz. IV). Both vehicles were produced as prototypes only, as the Hungarian Army were supplied with German armored vehicles.The Zrinyi's had successes against smaller soviet tank formations,as tunk hunters or self-propelled guns they were equal to the StuG's or the Italian Semoventes.
They been still unavailable in numbers which could have a real influence to slow down the red rush.
Hungary also built 93 Csaba armoured cars,which been mainly used for scouting missions.This 39M Csaba's been a very nice construction.

here a few pics:
Axis History Factbook: Gallery: Vehicles (Hungary)

back to Tas..it been a promising plan to build a heavy tank to match not only the superb T-34(85) but the -at that time already numerous-heavy tanks like KV-85 or Joszif Stalin 2's.
The result been the Tas heavy tank
http://www.freeweb.hu/gamma21/Tasvazlat.gif

The request been made in mid.'43, mostly basing on the T-34 and the Panther. The prototype been ready to roll in may'44,but production never started anymore.

I have an article about it, with more pics,if you are interested, i scan them and describe its specs and details


----------



## plan_D (Jan 22, 2007)

I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about the Hungarian armour during World War II. That "Tas" looks impressive if looks are anything to go on, it is quite modern by design.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 22, 2007)

> That was fascinating those gas powered tanks. Would be a bit impractical in the field though due to the ease of arming at the gas tanks. Natural gas is very flamable isn't it?




Not as flammable as liquid fuel but very explosive, yes it was only for training duty, no german commander was mad enough to send one of this into battle.



> The hungarian heavy tank-project Tas



Interesting...it looks like a mini Panther.


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 23, 2007)

sure,since the engineers took the t-34 and the panther as example.if mini,im not sure,its length for example been exactly of the t-34's,a few centimeter longer even. 
watch the design of the wheels,its also rare.




so it seems like i aint boring the hell outta you if i post more. okies.
last week my windows said goodbye,and i lost everything,i have to install the driver of my scanner.next week i gonna post it


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 23, 2007)

a few more pics of hungarian built armoured vehicles.i hope uploading works by now,im noob lol.




Csaba armoured car




Csaba command-cars




Nimrod AA/AC




Toldi I light tank in action




Toldi II 




Toldi II in colour




Turán I in colour




Turán II ,the 'heavy' version . no chance against T-34 tho




Tas project




Tas tank-killer, a very interesting plan building a self-propelled gun/hunter on the Tas chassis


----------



## Henk (Jan 23, 2007)

Nice info and pics Trautloft.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 23, 2007)

Yep, the Tas looks interesting, did it ever progress beyond the prototype stage?


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 23, 2007)

no. the Ganz factory been bombed in summer of 1944 and the prototype and the facilities aswell,been destroyed. at the end of '44 the whole tank-manufacturing stopped. The rest of factories couldnt produce either,because of the lack of materials. btw until the 80's, a very few knew about the whole project.it was told ,its a legend only (also because of the 40yrs of comminusm and censorship). later, using czech sources and documentaries, the historicans found prooves .
i post more accurate data next week, a few things:
the similarities to T-34 and Panther are obvious,as many of you noticed.
It chains been almost as wide as the Panthers,and the free distance between the ground and the chassis aswell(sorry i dont know this word).
The frontal armors degree been 30° like the T-34/76 (Panther's been 35° if im right). The tower/turret looks similar from the side-view of the Panther,its a bit shorter tho,mainly because of the chopped backside.On frontal view its also similar but wider,and the cannon-shield is thicker.
Apartof the mixed looking,its structure is typical hungarian.The relatively big engine room covered two, 260HP a part engines,which been operateable seperate aswell. Armor been thick,frontal 120mm,turret 50mm,the rest 20mm.
The prototype had one 75mm,43M length cannon,with synchronized 8mm machine gun,and another 8mm Mg on front. The planned serie recieved a better gun, a 80mm,44M cannon. Crew should be 5,max.speed 45km/h.






to be continued


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 23, 2007)

So this is the T-Panther is it? (Joking combination of T-34 and Panther). Looks interesting. So this is a missing link between the T-34 and the Panther or is this more correctly a Panther II?


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 24, 2007)

Healz,none of these.i didn't misspelled the 80mm 44M cannon, not the 88 of the tigg.
It used the frightening experiences made with the first contacts of the great ammounts of T-34's,which suddently made any used armoured vehicles used by the hungarians obsolete and vulnerable.Also the advantages of the great Panther, but all of these with hungarian specs,like the engines,the suspension.They had great influence on it,but it isnt simply a mix.its just like as people say 'the panther is a copy of the t-34' which is simply incorrect.So its not that simple to call it T-Panther,even if its a funny point


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 24, 2007)

a few new pics and data.
Another very important hungarian built vehicle been the Rába Botond multi-role offroad truck,which been superb even to the Opel Blitz.
In 1936 Dezsö Winkler started design work on a specialised cross-country truck that could fulfil the roles of a weapons prime mover and a mechanised infantry transport. This new truck was named the Botond and featured two rear driving axles on independent coil spring and balancing beam suspension allowing it to cross the most difficult terrain.They were used to transport motorised infantry and tow heavy weapons including the 37mm 36M, 40mm 40M, 50mm 38M and the 75mm 40M guns. It was also used on occasion from 1943 to tow 105mm howitzers.Both named vehicles been capable to consume both gasoline and petrol fuel.
38M Botond (38/42M Botond)
Horsepower: 65hp (70hp)
Range: 380km
Crew: 1 driver
Passengers: 14 in rear, 1 in front next to driver
Top Speed: 60km/h
Transport weight: 1.5-ton
Towing weight: 1 to 2-ton
Number produced: approximately 700













The 41M Rába tower had a weight of 9700kg with 3000kg transport weight
Horsepower:115HP ,8000ccm3 
Max.Speed: 56km/h, average fuel consume 50-60litres/100km
Crew: 1+11 persons









The Csaba armoured car's specs:

Crew 3
Weight 5950kg
Armor 9mm
Length 4.52m
Width 2.1m
Height 2.27m
Ground Clearance 33.3cm
Track 1.7m
Weapons 8mm MG or 20mm Cannon
Engine German Ford, 8cyl, 90hp, 3560cc
Transmission 4 x 4, 5 forward, 5 reverse
Performance 65 km/hr
Range 150 km
Gradient 30 degrees
Vertical Obstacle .5m
Fording Depth 1 meter
Armament 20mm 36m cannon, 34/37A M 8mm MG.
Ammunition 200 rounds 20mm; 3,000 rounds 8mm
Fuel 135 liters
Radio R-4









The Turán medium tank's specs,and the project of Turán III tank-hunter:

Crew 5
Weight Turan I - 40,131 lbs
Turan II - 40,792 lbs
Length Turan I - 18.64'
Turan II - 18'7"
Width : Turan I - 8.33'
Turan II - 8'4"
Height : Turan I - 7.64'
Turan II - 7'7"
Armament: Turan I - 40mm
Turan II - 75mm MAVAG Model 41M howitzer, 25 calibres. 
1 x Danuvia 34/40M 8mm MG
Performance : 29.19mph
Engine : Manfred Weisz , V8, water-cooled, 250 gallons - gasoline, 260hp
Armor .55" - 1.97" (15 - 50mm)
Ground clearance : Turan II - 14.82"
Ground pressure : Turan II - 0.83 kg/sq cm
Power/Weight ratio :	Turan II - 14.3 hp/ton
Transmission :	6 forward, 6 reverse
Range :	102 miles
Gradient :40%
Fording Depth :35.1'
Verticle Obstacle: 31'2 
Suspension :	Wheels: (2) 4-wheel bogie units each side; 1 paired.
Return: 5 rollers each side; rear idler wheel
Track: 202cm long; 42cm wide




frontal view of Turán II




Turán I crossing a river




Turán II crossing a river




Turán II with side armor plates








Turán III anti-tank vehicle,only2 prototypes built
a promising plan ,fitted with 75mm 43M cannon


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 24, 2007)

The Zrinyi assault gun and its specs
Crew 4
Weight 21,600kg
Length 5.68m
Width 2.99m
Height 2.33m
Armament 105mm MAVAG 40/43M howitzer, 20.5 calibres, Muzzle velocity: 448 m/sec. 1 x 8mm Danuvia 34/40 MG.
Performance 43 km/hr
Engine Manfred Weisz , V8, water-cooled, 445 liters - gasoline, 260hp
Armor 13 - 75mm
Ground clearance 38cm
Ground pressure .91 kg/sq cm
Transmission 6 forward, 6 reverse
Range 220 km
Gradient 45%
Fording Depth .9m
Verticle Obstacle .8m




rear view. i posted a few frontals and side views already i think




structure of Zrinyi assault gun

a few rare,interesting pictures:





Zrinyi in Kubinka Museum




a colored,current picture of Nimrod AA/AT in Budapest
specs of Nimrod:
Crew 5
Weight 10.7 tons
Length 5.29m
Width 2.31m
Height 2.99m
Armament Bofors 40 ItK 38 40mm (L/60) automatic cannon
Performance 35km/hour
Engine VIII EST 107, 8-cylinder, gasoline, water-cooled,150 hp
Range 300 miles




Nimrod graphic




Nimrod disguised




a 100% post-war picture taken of Toldi I light tank during a presentation.watch the white falcon painted on turret and side. i don't understand the german marking tho.









a captured ex-Soviet M3 Honey in hungarian use





german amphibious tank-project basing on p38(t) for Operation Seelöwe


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 24, 2007)

Nice pics, here other projekt with Panther backgrounds.


*VK1602 Leopard*

Since 1941, plans were made for the development of a new reconnaisance tank based on PzKpfw II Ausf J (VK 1601). In March of 1942, MIAG and Daimler-Benz received orders to build a fast (medium/heavy) reconnaisance tank, designed to operate under heavy combat conditions - Gefechtsaufklarung. MIAG was to construct the chassis, while Daimler-Benz was construct the turret. Both were to be designed and ready for production by October of 1942.The main purpose of this vehicle was to be at HQ tank platoons in Panzer units. 






Two versions were proposed, "Leopard (leicht)" lightly armored fast version (18ton) and "Leopard (schwer)" heavily armored one (26ton). The light version was quickly dropped in the Summer of 1942, in favour of the heavier one.Design of VK 1602, named Leopard was based on the development of previous projects such as PzKpfw II Ausf J (VK 1601) and PzKpfw II Ausf M (VK 1301).

*Light Leopard.*






Its hull was similar to that of PzKpfw II Ausf J (VK 1601), but was largely influenced by PzKpfw V Panther, which was still being developed at the time. Its suspension was made up of interleaved road wheels similar to PzKpfw II Ausf L - Luchs. It was planned that Leopard would eventually replace lighter (leichter) PanzerSpahwagen II Ausf L Luchs - Sd.Kfz.123 (VK 1303).Mock-up was ready in May/June of 1942 and first prototype was to be finished by the September 1st of 1942. Full scale production was to start in April of 1943. 

*Heavy Leopard.*






Leopard's armament consisted of 50mm KwK 39/1 L/60 and 7.92mm MG34/42 in newly designed small turret. It was also planned to use 75mm KwK 41 gun. VK 1602's was heavily armored and had well sloped frontal armor (influenced by Panther). Leopard was to be powered by Maybach HL157P engine with total power 550hp which allowed VK 1602 to travel at maximum speed of 50-60km/h. In order to improve its cross-country ability, 350mm wide tracks were used. It was to be operated by the crew of four men. "Panzerprogramm 41" made provisions to build 339 Leopards (105 by December 1943 and further 150 by mid 1944). The start of production was previously planned for April of 1943, but the entire production was cancelled in January of 1943, when the first prototype was still incomplete. The reason for cancellation was its heavy weight and lack of heavy armament which made the vehicle vulnerable to enemy tanks. Also the fact of Leopard being similar to Panther pointed out that reconnaissance Panther can be developed and produced at lower cost.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 28, 2007)

So the heavy leopard was dropped because it was seen as useless and too heavy... I wonder whether the Maus and the Ratte would have similarly been dropped as too heavy, too useless and too expensive...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 29, 2007)

The ratte was discarded, The Maus....well I guess that the friendship between Doktor Porsche and Hitler influenced in the actual fabrication of this crazy tank.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 30, 2007)

So the Maus would have been made, despite the fact that they may as well have painted a bulls-eye and broadcast its position by radio to every Allied bomber and fighter in the area?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2007)

"Would have been made"? The Maus WAS made! There's one in Kubinka - although the Soviets did have to reassemble it from two Maus.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 30, 2007)

So they might have continued on with the Maus, a tank that they might as well have painted bright colours with a standing out bulls-eye and broadcast its position by radio in plainspeak to every Allied fighter and bomber in the area?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2007)

Well, since it was made and ready to use - yes, I guess they would. And I'm sure, just for you, they'd have painting it bright pink with a big white marker that said "Bomb here, you yankee devils" underneath. And Hitler would wear a hat not unlike Napoleons and ride the Maus right into paris. 

That's my counter-factual.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 30, 2007)

Yes, but still I suppose such a tank if you could rig it up to be remote-controlled might serve a useful purpose, as a magnet for every Allied fighter and bomber to go after...


----------



## Henk (Feb 7, 2007)

No, what a waste of time, money, equipment and great minds. I would rather focus on more usefull equipment and use the manpower to build more machines and the money to build more aircraft and oh yes not think bigger is always better. "How bigger they are the harder they fall".


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 9, 2007)

> So the Maus would have been made



If you just took the work to browse some of the early pages of this topic you ll see more data on Maus and pictures of it. 


-----------------------------



*VersuchsKetten VK601 602 ( Panzer 1 neuer art ausf C)*







On September 15th 1939 the ordnance department was given the order to get a light reconnaissance tank developed. The company of Krauss-Maffei in Munich was responsible for making the chassis while Daimler-Benz got the responsibility for superstructure and turret. The project was known as VK601 or better known as Panzerkampfwagen I Na Ausf.C. 

The engine in the proto was the Maybach HL45P with 150 metric hp, giving the vehicle a maximum speed of 65km/h.The tank commander/gunner had 8 periscopes in a tiny cuppola.

The appearance of the Ausf.C was completely different from the previous Ausf.A and B. Additionally the armor thickness was significantly improved. 

The crew of two men had as main armament a heavy machinegun *EW141* machinegun and a coaxial MG34. 

There is a lot of mistakes in the websites when describing the EW-141. Some say it was a 13mm gun some even describe it as a 20 mm cannon. 

Actually this was a 7,92mm caliber Mauser desing originally called "MG-141" , the EW just mean "_Einbauwaffe"_ or emplacement gun. This recoil operated MG used large the cartrigdes of the Pzb 38 39 antiarmor rifles, the machinegun had a 600rpm rate of fire and a muzzle velocity of 1180 m/s and could penetrate 26 mm of armor up to 100 meters in a vertical plate. So in that way the ausf C had a limited antitank capacity.

*Mauser Ew 141 heavy MG.*







The weight was 8,1 tons, a length of 4.19m, width 1.92m and height of 2.01m. The power to weight ratio of 18.2hp/t was remarkable, which was one of the reasons for the high speed. With a length of 2.2m where track touches ground and a track width of 39cm resulted in a ground pressure of 0.46 kg/cm2. The track had 89 single track links, . The VK601 was able to wade up to 78.5cm deep, pass over 1.2m wide trenches and could climb 30cm high obstacles.







Before production some changes were introduced , including a some dry pin tracks wich have less mantainance that the lubricated ones. Also a more powerful engine HL61 was installed. bThe vehicle was now denominated VK602.

40 Panzer I Ausf.C were produced between July of 1942 and april 1943, of which two were delivered to 1st panzer division early in 1943 and troop tested in Russia.


The remaining 38 vehicles were taken to reserve units of the LVIII Panzer reserve Korps in France. Those came in action in 1944 in the battles in the Normandy.


*Pz ausf 1 c in France , june 1944. The guns had a muzzle cover*


----------



## HealzDevo (Feb 27, 2007)

Looks like that was an interesting German tank.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 6, 2007)

Does anyone have data on the amounts of metals used on German tanks. These are usually provided by Datenblatten. I have one of the Pz IVF but it doesn't mean much when you cannot compare. 


Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 7, 2007)

> Looks like that was an interesting German tank.



It was.

*VK601, pz 1 ausf C.*















> Does anyone have data on the amounts of metals used on German tanks. These are usually provided by Datenblatten. I have one of the Pz IVF but it doesn't mean much when you cannot compare.




Try this site.

Achtung Panzer! - Additional Information !


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 19, 2007)

*Panzerbeobachtungwagen Panther:*






Until 1943 the advanced artillery observers were doing his work from armored cars and light halftracks, that vehicles had a very low survivality in the battlefield . A more heavy and well protected panzer was needed.







The Panther Beobachtungwagen (Artillery observation vehicle) was proposed to this task, it had a modified turret mounting wooden dummy gun and ball-mounted 7.92mm MG34. Mounted with additional observation devices designed by the firm Anschutz ( today famous for his small caliber high presition rifles and CO2 guns) wich includes map tables optical rangefinders and goniometric measuring devices. Also it had a more powerful Fug radio equipment and other designed to talk with aicrafts.







Although no combat photo of a Panther Beo was know the german sources claimed that 41 were converted from Panthers returned for repairs in late 1944/45 and used in both fronts.








Profiles from. Panther variants, Jentz/Doyle Osprey Military.

Panther Variants in Color, Waldemar Trojka, kagero Militaria.

Panther, Armor At War series, Anderson/wai, Concord Publishing.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 20, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> It was.
> 
> *VK601, pz 1 ausf C.*
> 
> ...



No good. Best site around but can't find the information I'm looking for. Most information I find is about the cost price which is not very useful information.

Btw, was that Pz Ic the ultra-armoured Pz I variant, or was that another one?
Kris


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 20, 2007)

Oh, well I suppose it seems a lot of information was lost at the end of WWII. Perhaps it was lost then, the data that you seek...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 21, 2007)

> Btw, was that Pz Ic the ultra-armoured Pz I variant, or was that another one?
> Kris




Panzer 1 aucf C info in the page behind this.

Probably you are refering to the VK 1801 ,a 21 tons tank also named as "Panzer 1 ausf F"


----------



## Civettone (Mar 22, 2007)

Yes, I was. 

That Pz IF (or VK 1801) is rather enigmatic. Can't think of any tank that has its weight more than tripled. I think it had more potential than was credited. With a MK it could have been a good recon, with a Stummelkanone a good StuG and later a good tank hunter with a RPzB.

Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 22, 2007)

Posible, but just had that pair or armored MG 34s.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 23, 2007)

Thanks Charles. Do you have some more information on how these babies performed on the battlefield. I seem to recall that the few that were built were used on the Ostfront. I can imagine them doing ok but the lack in firepower would have meant they were of little value.



Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 23, 2007)

Some were used by Pz Div in the Eastern Fornt, I guess for partisan cleaning mostly.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 24, 2007)

Would probably have been effective. Artillery the site and then machine gun down anyone running from the scene...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 24, 2007)

There was also some other variations of this uparmored Pz I and Pz II:

Lexikon der Wehrmacht - Panzer 2 Ausführung M


Panzer II Ausf. H (PzKpfw IIH)

This vehicles were not more that experimental tanks, the heavy need of real combat tanks like Pz III/IV/V deny further development.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 25, 2007)

That was really interesting! Thanks !!

I also noticed that the Pz IIM had a 28mm gun. IIRC, that was one of those tapered guns with the rare tungsten cored ammunition. I suppose that would have ended the program in the end.

The Pz IIH seems more enigmatic but I suppose the Pz IIL was better protected.

Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 25, 2007)

Yea, the 2,8cm kwk 42 mentioned in the Lexikon site is a projeckt called "Maschinenkanone MK 8202" it was devloped by Mauser, it used conical bore Spzb 41 hard core bullet but with a enlarged cartrigde case to asure higher initial speed. The cannon was automatic , belt fed and operated by recoil, and it was intented to use it in several design of light weight vehicles.

The design was good but no enough wolfram to use it.

*Spzb 41 in armored car.*


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 25, 2007)

What was that an armoured car that could transport some troops in the back? That Spzb 41 armoured car design... Anyone got a name for it?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 26, 2007)

It is a Sd.Kfz 221, recon armored car.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 27, 2007)

Ok, I just didn't think it looked like the recon cars I had seen...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 28, 2007)

Maybe is a bad angle...let see.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 29, 2007)

Two more, rockets launchers mounted over Panzer IV and Panther.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 1, 2007)

Yep, the second angle looked more like a Recon car that I knew. Thanks CharlesBronson. That looks interesting. I didn't know the Germans were working on anything like the Sherman Calliope. How interesting. Are there any actual photos of them, the Panzer IV and the Panther with these attached?


----------



## Civettone (Apr 3, 2007)

CB, do you have any more information on that Pz IV? (besides what's written next to the image)

Kris


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 4, 2007)

An interesting angle on tanks as said. Artillery that packs a defensive punch of its own...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 18, 2007)

> CB, do you have any more information on that Pz IV? (besides what's written next to the image)
> 
> Kris



No I really dont have.


*Panzerkampfwagen IV with Panther Schmalturm*

Given the growing resistance of allied tanks to German anti-tank guns, plans were developed to categorically up-gun the entire range of German tanks toward the end of World War II. One possible answer was affixing the Schmalturm of the Panther Ausf. F to the Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. J chassis. The drawing above gives a good indication of what the conversion would look like.






Unfortunately, like so many other late-war German projects, this conversion was impractical. The chassis of the panzerkampfwagen IV was severely overloaded by the schmalturm. Furhtermore, it is doubtful the turret ring of the Panzer IV would have been able to accomodate the turret unless the overhang was widened (which was suggested in one schematic). However this would have further overloaded an already burdened chassis.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

I've seen it being mentioned at AchtungPanzer but this is the first image I've seen from it. 

Keep 'em coming Charles!! 
Kris


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 19, 2007)

The Sturmtiger-Ive heard the gun was either a naval gun or a missile launcher. Please can someone tell me which


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2007)

It was a rocket launcher that was developed by the navy for anti-submarine work. It was not a 'gun'.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

IIRC it was a "Mörser" so a mortar gun. 

Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 19, 2007)

That was rarity allright.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

Although I find AchtungPanzer site the most fun to browse through, it's not as accurate as the Panzerworld site of Christian Ankerstjerne. 

So I took a look and first learned that there never was a Sturmtiger, its official name was the Panzersturmmörser. As the name suggest it carried a mortar gun.

But the navy bit isn't completely wrong either as the gun was developed for the navy for anti-submarine actions. It cannot be called a rocket launcher though. That's pretty obvious when you look at the gun itself...

Kris


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 20, 2007)

It wasnt a German tank but I like the T28 super-heavy tank


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 20, 2007)

Pretty much alike the british "tortoise" 8) 


*Anti-Aircraft vehicles on Panther chassis. (I)*


In the months after the introduction of the Panther as the new Main Battle Tank of the Panzerwaffe the development for a new antiaircraft armore vehicle for escorting the panzer colums began.

The use of this heavy vehicle would provide a steadier and more capable gun plataform since the existing vehicle were improvisated means, mostly with open top armor, wich made those extremely vulnerable to artillery splinters and the aircraft mechineguns also.

The first of this proposal was the *Flakpanzer Panther mit MG-151/20 Flakvierling. *This introduce a new fully traversible motorized turret with 4 echeloned MG 151 mauser guns.








The turret had the cannons emplaced in pairs one above the other and off centered muzzles in order to provide a wider patter of fire. The barrels had an elevation of +75 degrees maximum and -7º minimum ( this last one allowed to engage ground targets with devastating effect against infantry and soft skinned vehicles) . Rate of fire on this weapons were 750 rpm per barrel and the stimated efective ceiling 800-900 meters.







The gun muzzle velocity vary between 705-790 m/s (see my topic on luftwaffe weapons for more) The turret armor was 100 on front and 40 mm sides, with an reinforced top of 30mm, the hull remain the same as the ausf D.







*Detail on the turret:*







The RLM and WaffeAmt were pleased with this desing because most of their components were well proven, it did not produce any series vehicle however, probably because the extreme need of standar Panthers. The projekt was cancelled in late 1943.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 20, 2007)

I also think FlakPanzers were better off to be equiped with the Flakvierling. This was a better close-range AA gun. The 37mm gun was overall better and more lethal but because a FlakPanzer should be able to hold its own versus air attacks it could handle firing at enemy aircraft at close range.

Just my 2 cents...
Kris


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Viola, le tortue:


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 20, 2007)

> The turret had the cannons emplaced in pairs one above the other and off centered muzzles in order to provide a wider patter of fire. The barrels had an elevation of +75 degrees maximum and -7º minimum ( this last one allowed to engage ground targets with devastating effect against infantry and soft skinned vehicles) . Rate of fire on this weapons were 750 rpm per barrel and the stimated efective ceiling 800-900 meters.



I wouldnt like to turn round a corner in my truck and see that thing!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 20, 2007)

> I also think FlakPanzers were better off to be equiped with the Flakvierling. This was a better close-range AA gun. The 37mm gun was overall better and more lethal but because a FlakPanzer should be able to hold its own versus air attacks it could handle firing at enemy aircraft at close range.




Agree, after all the casualties between the panzerwaffe were produced by aircraft flying at no more than 300-500 meter, you dont need really a heavier caliber in that ceiling, but a faster one to increase the chances of hitting a target. (Rommel itself was strafed by a Spitfire flying lower than that)



> Viola, le tortue:



Massive, tank, Thanks  



> I wouldnt like to turn round a corner in my truck and see that thing!



That would be 3000 round per minute coming to get you.


*Anti-Aircraft vehicles on Panther chassis. (II) Flakpanzer Cölian, mit 3,7cm Flakzwilling 43:*






The second stage on the desing of a antiaircraft Panther was the "Cölian" projekt of december 1943. This introduce a pair of side-by-side mounted 37mm flak 43 guns. The Flak 43 was a development of the army 37mm Flak 36, wich include several stamped and welded parts.






This made the gun more light an easy to manufacture, incidentally the Flak 43 had his rate of fire raised to 150 rpm.

The gun were mounted in a enclosed fully traversible turret with an armor of 100-40mm. Elevation vary between +86 to -5 degrees.
It had an stereoscopic rangefinder and a direct aiming device with a reflex gunsight taking the aim trough a periscope.






The rangefinder was used to calculate the range and the pericopic sight to track and aim the guns while shooting.

A subsidiary of Reinhmetall -Borsig made one real scale mock-up using an panther ausf D chassis and a dummy wooden turret.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2007)

Awesome thread Charles my good man! I wonder sometimes if the Germans "waisted" too much time with fantasy projects like some seen here, when they should maybe had concentrated to improve what already had ie Panther, Tiger etc. Probably would have solved some of their problems.....but what do I know.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 20, 2007)

> Awesome thread Charles my good man! I wonder sometimes if the Germans "waisted" too much time with fantasy projects like some seen here, when they should maybe had concentrated to improve what already had ie Panther, Tiger etc. Probably would have solved some of their problems.....



And awesome thanks Lucky. You know the germans...they were always prone to "gadgetry"


Two more images of the *Cölian* (extracted from "Panther variants in color-Waldemar Trojca)







Note the stereoscopic rangefinder over the left turret vision port.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 22, 2007)

All very interesting varients. I didn't know the true name of the Sturmtiger was other than that. Might just be what the Allies called it.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 23, 2007)

Civettone said:


> It cannot be called a rocket launcher though. That's pretty obvious when you look at the gun itself...




Look again. The holes around the muzzle are exhaust vents for the gasses released when the rocket propelled mortar round ignited in the chamber. They did not vent into the fighting compartment

German 38 cm (14.96") Raketenwerfer 61 L/5.4

Sturmtiger: Information from Answers.com


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 23, 2007)

Yep, it was a rocket launcher, the recoil of a conventional gun would be too much, even for that heavy vehicle.


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 24, 2007)

Hmm If i was hitler I would never had attacked Russia, not declare war on the USA and concentrate on building the Panther. The war could of been diferent!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 24, 2007)

Probably.

*Anti-Aircraft vehicles on Panther chassis. (III) Cölian 341 mit 3,7 cm Flakzwilling 44:*






In November 1944 the Cölian was also proposed for the mounting of a newer weapon, that was the 3,7 cm Flakwzilling 44.


This double gun consisted in two automatic cannons Flak 44 of 37 mm, the Flak 44 was a scaled up variation of the Reinhmetall Borsig MK 103 , it was heavily modified to accept the larger 263mm case and a belt feed system. This gas operated gun shoot at 250 rpm, wich teorically gave a 500 rpm in the twin emplacement. 
The gun barrel emplacement jackets and mantlet were modified with respect to the earlier Cölian. 

In here the polish illustrator *Josef Kolacha* made a little mistake, the barrel could not achieve fully 90º in elevation but 82º.













Again this projekt did not manage to get the production line because two reason:

A) There was problems with the belt feed in the maximum elevation of the barrel.

B) The Waffeamt was searching for a more powerful weapons because they felt that a 40 tons vehicle should be armed with heavier than 37 mm auto cannons.

*Another camo scheme for this flakpanzer.* ( modellers beware)


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 25, 2007)

Brilliant, CB.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 26, 2007)

Oh, thanks Matt.  


*Sturmpanther.*

Late in the war, numerous proposals were made for mounting medium to large caliber weapons on the Panther chassis. One of these was to mount the 15cm StuH43/1 in the Panther turret creating a Panther equivalent to the Brummbär, but with a fully traversing turret. The initial proposal was made by Krupp, while Alkett was working on a similar proposal using the Sturmgeschütz III chassis. Krupp proposed using the commander's cupola from a Tiger and the gunsight of the Maus on the Sturmmörser Panther.







​Given the size and expense of the Panther chassis, one must question the validity of the Krupp proposal. Long barreled versions of 15cm weapons could be mounted on the Panther chassis, therefore mounting the short 15cm StuH43/1 in the Panther seems to be a waste of material. The vehicle never made it off of the drawing board before the end of hostilities.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 30, 2007)

Sounds interesting, so it would have been a less powerful Strumtiger would it? Certainly an interesting idea but yes, it was a little bit dumb. Indeed the Germans should have concentrated on producing a better tank that could be mass-produced quickly. Then the Germans would have overrun Europe very quickly with an ever-expanding number of tanks...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 30, 2007)

> Sounds interesting, so it would have been a less powerful Strumtiger would it? Certainly an interesting idea but yes, it was a little bit dumb



I dont see any "dumbness", this tank would be a lot cheaper and simplier than the sturmtiger dinosaur, the IG 13 could shoot HEAT proyectiles , that fat hollow charge bullet would blew up tanks in case to found some. Limited range yes, but probably was designed for infantry support as the Brummbar and the IG 33 based on Pz III chassis.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2007)

....and maybe chosen to make a few more Jagdpanther than Jagdtiger. Wonder how many Tigers and Panthers they would have produced if they had concentrated to improve them, instead for all those side steps...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 30, 2007)

I dont how many, but more that is for sure.



> and maybe chosen to make a few more Jagdpanther than Jagdtiger.



The Jagdpanther was a good vehicle but the Jagdtiger was another overkill, and resource eating Hitlerian dream. ( or I should say nightmare)

And talking about nightmares, check this, Grotte P-1000 on his way the front passing a french town.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 1, 2007)

All I am saying is that a lot of these tanks took a lot of time and manufacturing skills to create. Also a lot of the German tanks were highly sensitive to environmental conditions. Just look at the early Panther and the early Tigers. Okay they did solve these problems but afaik the Sherman and the T-34 never really suffered from these problems. Okay the Js-1 and Js-2 did.


----------



## Joe2 (May 2, 2007)

Grotte P-1000 

How big where those guns?


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 2, 2007)

> All I am saying is that a lot of these tanks took a lot of time and manufacturing skills to create



And I agree in the Jagdtiger and Sturtiger, both extremely heavy and not very rewarding for the Whermacht.



> Grotte P-1000
> 
> How big where those guns?



Teorically 280 mm naval guns.


----------



## Joe2 (May 3, 2007)

JESUS!

Glad that monster never got into battle!


----------



## Joe2 (May 3, 2007)

It would only need to drive over a sherman to destroyit!


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 3, 2007)

> It would only need to drive over a sherman to destroy it!



The most sane thing to do for a Sherman crew if this monster is seeing is put reverse, get out and call some air support.

*Anti-Aircraft vehicles on Panther chassis. (IV)  "Super Cölian" with 5,5 cm Flakzwilling Gerät 58:*









The last attemp to arm a Panther ausf G with a medium caliber automatic weapon was the Flakzwilling 5,5 cm or "Super Cölian"

The 55 mm caliber weapon was an adaptation of the "gerat 58" naval weapon. this automatic cannon shot a 2,2 kilogram shell at 140 rpm .

*Gerät 58*






The muzzle speed was 1000 meters per second and the stimated efective ceiling 4500 meters.


The gun mantlets had to be extremely modified to accept the larger guns.

Detail of the turret for 55 mm flak.













Finally Albert Speer got completely tired of the slow development of the entire Cölian programme, and stated that this new Panzer had no place in the emergency production plan, the Cölian was cancelled definately in January 1945.

For more about the gun:

5,5 cm flak


----------



## Joe2 (May 8, 2007)

The germans had no need of such large tanks. There is no point of two 128mm guns. a single 88 or even 75 mm gun will do. It's madness.


----------



## delcyros (May 8, 2007)

The P1000 should get the barrels from BC Gneisenau (guns removed in 1942). That are 11.1"/54.5 C34 naval rifles firing a 330Kg projectile (727lbs) with an estimated muzzle velocity of 2920 fps using RP/C38 (taken the gunwear into account this would equal to ~2800 fps using RP/C40).
Theoretical penetration is in excess of 580mm Face hardened armour, >600mm rolled hardened armour or >10ft. of concrete with steel reinforcement.
The remaining barrel life was about 150 full capacity charges per barrel but with respect to the unsurpassed armour penetration and the large charges it would be more practical to use reduced capacity charges (= 300 rounds remaining barrel life, muzzle velocity: ~2500fps) or even weak capacity charges (= 600 rounds remaining barrel life, muzzle velocity: ~2100fps). The original rate of fire is stated with cyclic 16-18 sec. but the hoists and power rammers of the P1000 were far less sophisticated than those of the naval turret so I would doubt any cyclic rate of fire larger than 20 sec. (equaling to 10 sec. firing intervals with the twin mount). 
Armour protection (all KC n/new, face hardened):
front hull turret: 14.2"@ 35 degrees
hull sides: 8.7" vertical
turret sides: 10" @ 15 degrees
hull back: 7.9" @ 10 degrees
turret back: 9.9" vertical

The design aim for speed was somehow optimistic with 40 Km/h, this would equal to a comparably fast panzer. 

The tank design must be considered as totally absurd and impractical. It would be a true fuel gulp, preventing it´s operational use in all but static defense. And despite a 10" armour, it would present a formidable target for TallBoy´s and Grand Slams.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 8, 2007)

Nice info. here some pic of this large guns.






Gneisenau - The Guns of the Gneisenau - Battery Ørland - Norway


----------



## Joe2 (May 9, 2007)

see, its madness! no allied tank had that much armour!


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 10, 2007)

Teorically the Grotte P-1000 ratte should be a mobile heavy gun plataform to engage invation forces in France, and this force included cruisers and battleships, that was the purpose of those heavy kanonen.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 11, 2007)

Where do they get these ideas???


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 11, 2007)

I dont know, cocaine maybe ?


----------



## delcyros (May 11, 2007)

If You ask mewhat could have been the possible max. of a tank for the germans...

The less well known Porsche proposal for a 100t. tank from mid 1942:

Dimensions:
length: 8.42m
beam: 4.82m
height: 1.8m + 1.6m for turret

armement:
1 x 105mm/65C33 with elevation restricted to 20 degrees, 45 rounds per gun, firing a 15.8 Kg APCBC with 900 mp/s muzzle velocity. rof: ~15 rpm, firing cycle is 1 round all 4 sec. 
1 x MG 151/15 on turret with 250 rpg

armour:
turret face: 200mm + 50mm Blende 
turret sides: 100mm declined 25 degrees 
turret roof: 60mm 
turret rear: 120mm declined 10 degrees 

upper frontal hull: 180mm declined 35 degrees 
lower frontal hull: 60mm inclined 30 degrees 
upper sides: 120mm declined 15 degrees 
lower sides: 60mm + 15mm Schuerzen (later added by hand)
rear: 100mm inclined 25 degrees 
bottom: 30mm 
roof: 50mm 

Engines:
2 x 750 hp Diesel units, electic drive (Posrsche)
max.speed: 20 Km/h offroad, 38 Km/h onroad
range: up to 490 Km 

crew: 5-8

weight:
04.6t.--%--guns (including breech mechanism)
11.7t.---%--mounts (including power train, hoists turntable and sights) 
01.4t.--%--ammunition
03.8t.--%--fuel, lubes and spares
66.6t.--%--armour:
--18.9t.--%--turret
--47.7t.--%--hull
02.0t.--%--engine
16.3t.--%--frame, suspensions, supprts, tracks
01.0t.--%--misc. weights, equipment 

weight empty: 99.2t.
weight max: 107.4t.


----------



## Joe2 (May 11, 2007)

Any pictures?


----------



## delcyros (May 11, 2007)

Not as far as I know. It´s only from a very preliminary design stage together with other discussed designs written on a tabulary page which can be found in the Breisgau archive.The proposal never had a chance because the difference in striking power between 105mm/65 and 88mmKWK43 was not large enough to justify the horrible weight. It´s entirely possible that it never was seriously intended to be designed rather than for comparison.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 11, 2007)

> armement:
> 1 x 105mm/65C33 with elevation restricted to 20 degrees, 45 rounds per gun, firing a 15.8 Kg APCBC with 900 mp/s muzzle velocity. rof: ~15 rpm, firing cycle is 1 round all 4 sec.
> 1 x MG 151/15 on turret with 250 rpg



Interesting, to have a MG-151/15 in the turret gave a good antipersonel-antiaircraft capabilities, better than a Browning M2 .50

Sturmgeschutz 27t - Porsche E-25 Jagdpanzer design


----------



## Joe2 (May 12, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> I dont know, cocaine maybe ?



Love that picture


----------



## HealzDevo (May 13, 2007)

What German tank is the one behind the trains looking like it is being pulled along? Also it looks like it scraping along the sides of the bridge is it? Massive looking tank. Don't think you could really get much bigger could you?


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 13, 2007)

> What German tank is the one behind the trains looking like it is being pulled along? Also it looks like it scraping along the sides of the bridge is it? Massive looking tank. Don't think you could really get much bigger could you?



The Grotte P-1000 ratte obviously, check page 21 for more pictures.

*Multipurpose Panzer:*








Panzer Tracts 20-1 Paper Panzers - Panzerkampfwagen Jagdpanzers


----------



## HealzDevo (May 13, 2007)

Of course, must have had some sort of automatic loading system because I wouldn't want to be lifting up shells to a gun that big. The big WW2 brass artillery shells from Papua New Guinea we have at home are heavy enough. They are about 75mm I think...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 8, 2007)

*Verdeja Light Tank:*

A weird tank desing, the spanish "Carro de combate Verdeja". This vehicle was an attemp by the spanish army in order to get an economic AFV, The engine was placed at front a Ford 6 cilinders with 125hp, The armor vary between 15 to 30mm. The main gun was a high velocity 45mm AT-45, a copy of the russian gun in the T-26. The 2 man turret carry 2 coaxially monted Oviedo 7 mm Mauser Mgs. Another could be placed in the top for AA defense.






in here in comparative test against a captured soviet T-26.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 9, 2007)

Continue from above....


















Scans Revista Armas nº 281.


----------



## Trautloft (Jun 10, 2007)

these look like they studied the probably captured soviet tanks like BT or t-26 and copied it


----------



## genkideskan (Jun 10, 2007)

Hello,

there was a P 1500 project too- Interesting is the E- 100 series.

Now showing up at model shows as plastic models, they are very impressive tanks using 

the the 12,8 cm KWK 44 (82) and a 7.5cm as coax.

The pic are made at Henschel showing the hull on an railroad car and the 

rolled up tracks, the back of an E 100 in the background.

The tank hull was completed and was shipped to England together with spare parts and 

uncomplete sectiones for tests.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 11, 2007)

> these look like they studied the probably captured soviet tanks like BT or t-26 and copied it



Probably, after some years of experimentation the Verdeja I and II were left aside and Spain bought some Panzer IV.



> Hello,
> 
> there was a P 1500 project too- Interesting is the E- 100 series.
> 
> ...




Yeap, the P-1500.. I think I ve posted a picture in he early pages, nice model of the E-1200 by the way, funny thing that was less complicated than Maus, but the Maus was choosen instead.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 13, 2007)

Yes, but that is the way the Germans liked things, overly complicated.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 13, 2007)

The only way they like it. 

Check this:

*Projeckt NM:*

They don't come much stranger than this. A three-view plan can be found in Der Panzer-Kampfwagen Tiger und Seine Abarten by Walter J. Speilberger of what appears to be three large turrets, each with a 12.8cm gun, on an I-beam girder frame measuring approximately 17 metres by 15 metres. It is carried by three Tiger I chassis, two at the rear and one in front (the guns face rearward). The frame is topped by a rectangular wooden building that completely covers the turrets except for the gun tubes. The building has three sets of double doors, which when opened, allow some traverse and elevation of the guns. Projekt NM only existed on the drawing board, although all of its component parts were readily available.







It only takes a cursory inspection of this machine to rule out its use as a "tank". Firstly anything 15m wide would be extremely awkward to manoeuvre anywhere. Tactical mobility would be a problem, for to cross a waterway or ditch it would require three bridges or one very wide one. In order to engage the enemy, it must perform a stately U-turn in order for the guns to bear. This may be feasible in open country, however the building or shed covering the turrets would stand out while performing no useful concealment function. It would be of no more use for fighting other tanks than three separate tanks would.


The only likely use for NM that I can see is some sort of mobile coast defense battery, and I suspect it was probably a Kreigsmarine project after all. If anyone else has a better idea, please write to me. The reasons for this assumption are as follows:


Disguising something as a building would only be of use where it would not look out of place. Even a solitary building on the coast would attract a lot less attention than three gun turrets. I imagine this vehicle reversed into a position overlooking some likely invasion beach, and pretending to be a harmless wooden building. As drawn NM could be shifted between prepared sites as a means of avoiding unwanted attention. I suspect the building would be considered expendable once the shooting started, and merely traversing the outer turrets would be sufficient to clear most of the structure away. 






Several hints point to German Navy involvement. Tank projects tended to have either a VK number, or a name (e.g. "Lowe") or some abbreviated descriptive name (e.g. NbFz). The Kreigsmarine were big on letters, "H and "J" were battleship projects, I believe. The extensive I-beam construction is fairly normal for warships, not AFVs. Finally, the "building" limits the vision of the gunners. However if the guns were controlled by a director sited elsewhere, it would not be a problem. Having several turrets aimed externally is something navies have been doing for many years. 


Weight of the whole assembly would be anybody's guess, however there would be an upper limit of 165 - 180 tons, based on the suspension capacity of the Tiger carriers, in this case Bergetiger Porsche.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 14, 2007)

Now that is a bit krazy, but feasible as a mobile coast defense battery. However, one near miss would shake that flimsy looking structure to pieces


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 14, 2007)

The main disadvantage in my opinion is the turning movement, very complicated. And yes the cammo would vanish quickly but the turret are heavily armored they would continue firing.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 14, 2007)

I was just thinking that the turrets could get loosened off simply by large shells landing nearby


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 14, 2007)

Probably but is hard to tell given the small details wich had survived.


*VK 4502 (P), Panzerkampfwagen "Tiger" P2 *

*Porsche Typ 180 Series*

After the failure of the VK 4501 (P), Dr. Porsche began work on an updated version of its design for future production. Given the fluid nature of war, however, it became clear that an uparmored version of the VK4501 would not meet future requirements.


*Design for the Typ 180 with the turret mounted toward the front*.






True to Porsche's infatuation with obtaining ever higher automotive performance, he proposed no fewer than four different engines, two different drives (electric and hydraulic), and two different hull configurations (one with the turret forward, the other with the turret at the rear)


*Design for the Typ 180 with the turret mounted at the rear.*







The VK 4502 (P) was therefore numerous vehicles in one. Initially entitled Typ 180, the initial vehicle grew into a series of five different vehicles: 


*Typ 180A:* Electric drive with Porsche Typ 101/3 gasoline engines.
*Typ 180B:* Electric drive with Porsche Typ 101/4 gasoline engines.
*Typ 181A:* Voith II hydraulic drive with Porsche Typ 101/3 gasoline engines.
*Typ 181B:* Voith II hydraulic drive with Porsche Deutz Typ 180/1 diesel engines.
*Typ 181C:* Voith II hydraulic drive with Porsche Deutz Typ 180/2 diesel engines.






The turret of the VK 4502 (P) was developed after Dr. Porsche informed Wa Preuf 6 that the 8.8cm Flak 41 could not be installed in the turret of the VK 4501 (P) on June 21, 1941. By May 7, 1942, the design seems to have been finalized because Krupp reported difficulties shaping the rounded turret front of the turret. The rounded front of this turret was developed to reduce frontal target area, and would not have presented the shot-trap common to the initial production Henschel Tiger II's because the designs of the hull tops differend (at least on the design with the turret forward). 


*Top view of the Typ 180 with the turret mounted toward the front.*







Production of the VK4502 (P) was authorized in April of 1942. Initially an order for 200 hulls and turrets was placed with the first four to be delivered in October. In May of 1942, the delivery schedule was set to proceed as follows:

December 1942: 6 June 1943: 15 
January 1943: 15 July 1943: 18 
February 1943: 15 August 1943: 20 
March 1943: 15 September 1943: 25 
April 1943: 15 October 1943: 30 
May 1943: 15 November 1943 (onward): 30 


Unfortunately for Dr. Porsche his fascination with advanced engine design let to the ultimate failure of the VK 4502 (P). The 10-cylinder engines failed during trials, and there was no confidence that the design would bear fruit (given previous Porsche failures using the same drivetrain layout). In November of 1942, all of the contracts relating to the VK 4502 (P) were rescinded. Work did, however continue into the middle of 1944. By that time the vehicle had hydraulic drive, new suspension, a 900 metric horsepower air-cooled diesel, and heavier armament with delivery schedule "far in the future." Ultimately the turrets were converted for use on the Henschel Tiger II.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 17, 2007)

That is crazy, that idea of the wooden building. Anyone think that the building camoflague could shake itself to pieces in transit? I don't really know about the suspension but if the building is that flimsy then it will shake itself to pieces almost straight away...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 22, 2007)

The suspension are 3 bergepanther porsche.

This is a rarity for sure, improvisated artillery bunker build up over Panzer III chasis.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 23, 2007)

The 'bunker' reference is clearly meant to describe the Panther turrets used as pill boxes in Berlin.
This is an early chassis PzIV conversion of some sort.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 23, 2007)

You are right, the vehicle seems to be a Jagdpanzer IV without the gun, sorry for my fast reading


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 26, 2007)

So how would that work, I wonder?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2007)

How a turret would be used as a pill box? Do you really need an explanation?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 29, 2007)

How ?

Easy one, you dig and cover it.




















*Panther turrets as pill-boxes*

During the Italian campaign the Germans mounted Panther's turrets on concrete pillboxes for anti-tank defence. Some were installed for saving the vehicles while providing a cheap but powerful anti-tank capability, but the most were expecially designed ones with increased 40 mm roof armor to whithstand heavy artillery shells, and heavier 70mm side armor. Most of the Italian inland was mountanous: by blocking a few passes with assault guns and anti-tank pill-boxes (as the Panther's one) the Germans were able to contain the menace with their thinily spread forces. 

Although the majority of this Panther Ostwallturm saw employement in the East, in the effort of building strong German defensive positions along along a line going from Narva to Crimea. As war progressed many German cities were named felde platze (fortress) and turrets (both appositely designed ones or from damaged tanks) were used to strengthen these improvised positions.
The turrets, with their low profile, resulted quite impressive to Allies commands and an evaluation of the Panther turrets employed as pill-boxes by the British Mediterranean theatre high command (circa August 1944) expressed in these terms (extract from T. Jentz's Panther variants):


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 29, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Only 2 prototypes were built and 9 were under construction. V1 and V2 were both blown up at Kummersdorf at the end of the war - the Soviet Union captured a hull and turret almost to completion - I believe they finished the job (very little to do) - on which would have been V3. And that's the one in Kubinka.



They used the turret from the tank shown in the picture (V2) and put it on the second chassis (V1) to make one tank. And, yes, it is currently on display at Kubinka Tank Museum outside of Moscow.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 2, 2007)

*Panzerkampfwagen VI ausfurung H2.*

This vehicle is a strange mix of components.
This was comprised of a Tiger 1 chassis and a new turret armed with a KwK 42 of 75 mm L/70 with a single chamber muzzle brake.






The front of the turret had 100mm armor plus a round 100 mm mantlet. 
The tank was armed with 3 Mg-34, one manned by the radio operator in the hull, other coaxially mounted and a third one in the rear of the turret in a ball mounting ( characteristic probably borrowed from the russian KV series)

The commanders cuppola was the simple "garbage can" of the earliest Panther ausf D.

Additional defense against infantry attacks was provided for 2 pistols ports on the sides. No less than 100 rounds of 75mm were carried internally.

This design did not progress further because the production of the normal Tiger 1 with 88mm gun was choose instead, the deadly Kwk 42 were mounted exclusively in the Pz V Panther. This projeckt was cancelled in July 1942.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 1, 2007)

*Gerät 338.*

This projekt of flakpanzer was designed in mid 1944, the armament was a single Flak 43 37 mm automatic cannon emplaced in a fully traversible fully armored turret.








There is no much ( better said there is no any) information in wich chassis it was based, but my guessing is it must be build up over the recce vehicle VK 1602 Leopard or the MZP, multipurpose panzer.
To more info about those just browse the earlier pages of this topic.


Image of_ "Deutsche panzer raritaten", Michael Sawodny, Waffen Arsenal._


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 13, 2007)

*Munitionspanzer with MK-103.*

A very rare improvisated "flakpanzer" , a munitionspanzer with a 30mm Rheinmetall MK 103 automatic gun.


----------



## Denniss (Aug 13, 2007)

It looks like the ammo transport version of the Grille Ausf. M was used as base for this vehicle. The image caption of the second image seems to be wrong as it does really look like a MK 103.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 13, 2007)

It is a MK 103 "jaboschreck", definately.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 15, 2007)

*Panther ausf D mit le.Fh 43.*

This projekt comprised a Panther chassis armed with a 105 mm field howitzer in a open turret. The vehicle was relatively simple was simple but General Guderian simply refuses to gave away Panther elements for artillery vehicles with ( teorically) could be constructed with more cheap panzers.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 26, 2007)

*Durchbruchwagen*

One of the most unknown projekts of the german army were the early attemps to create a heavy tank ( heavy for the mid 1930s standar that is)

In late January of 1937, Waffenamt ordered Henschel und Sohn of Kassel to design and produce prototype of heavy 30-ton class tank. Designated as Durchbruchwagen (Breakthrough Tank), it was to be Germany's first heavy tank intended to breakthrough enemy defense lines dealing with machine gun nest, antitank guns and artillery.

Prototype of DW I was produced by Henschel and was protected by 50mm thick armor. The running gear consisted of five road-wheels supported by torsion bars.and three return rollers. Waffenamt put Krupp in charge of the production of the turret and its armament. Krupp decided to produce the turret similar to that of Panzer IV and armed with the same 75mm KwK 37 L/24 gun. Only one test hull was produced in late 1937, but its turret was never manufactured. At the time of the development of DW I, Waffenamt ordered Henschel to design and produce prototype of never heavy 30-ton class tank. 

Designated as DW II, it was an improved and modified version of previous DW I. Both, DW I (30000kg) and DW II (33000kg) were powered by Maybach HL 120 engine (280hp) allowing it to travel at the top speed of 35km/h. As well as DW I, only one prototype was built in 1938 and once again its turret was never manufactured. It was also planned to use PzKpfw IV Ausf C turret on DW II. In late 1938, DW project was cancelled and on September 9 of 1938, VK3001(H) project started. Both DW I and DW II were extensively tested until 1941 and provided Henschel with valuable experience used in the development of VK3001(H) tank and other future designs.

*Durbruchwagen (with Panzer IV ausf C. turret)*


----------



## learnfromthepastfortoday (Aug 27, 2007)

Anyone have any information or pictures of this mysterious German WW2 project?

AIRBORNE OPERATIONS: A GERMAN APPRAISAL 

AIRBORNE OPERATIONS
A German Appraisal
CMH Pub 104-13


Page 45
APPENDIX
NOTES ON GERMAN AIRBORNE OPERATIONS By Col. Freiherr von der Heydte.
Section I. EQUIPMENT OF GERMAN PARACHUTE TROOPS

"Immediately after the Crete operation the paratroops had requested the construction of special midget tanks (Lilliputpanzer), which could be carried along on airborne operations, as well as special light weight portable antitank guns. Experiments were begun in 1942 on a two-man tank which could be transported in a large troop-carrying glider and which because of its shape was called a "turtle." Because of difficulties in the armament production program, the experiments were discontinued toward the end of 1942 before it was possible to form a definite opinion on the usefulness of the model. In any case, it seems to have met the Army's three requirements of low silhouette, high speed, and great cross-country mobility as fully as possible."


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 27, 2007)

Definately sound like the VK 601 light tank also named "Panzer 1 ausf C"

However I dont think that it is a "liliputpanzer".

*VK 601*






The VK 601 had a maximum armor of 30 mm, two man crew one MG 34 one heavy MG EW-141 and with his 150 hp Maybach it could reach 67 km/h.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 27, 2007)

That's a tiny tank!

It looks like German boys playing with their toys!

That's what some kids will want for Christmas this year I bet.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Aug 27, 2007)

I could definitely find some use for one of that...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 27, 2007)

Teorically was for infantry support, but with his lack of a real heavy weapon is hard to tell. anyway it was designed for airborne use, actually the Me-321 could easily acomodate one plus some infantry and the me-323 could carry two.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 21, 2007)

A veri interesting Albert Speer showing Hitler a mock-up of King Tiger and munition for the new panzers. From left to right pzg 39/42 and spreng 39/42 (Panther), Pzg 39/42 and Spreng 39/42 (Tiger II, Elephant; Jagdpanther), and in the far right you can the see ammo for the kwk 36 Tiger 1, nearly dwarfed by the others two


----------



## Civettone (Oct 18, 2007)

Can someone tell me some more about this one?
It's the 12,8 cm K44 auf Panther. I especially want to know what the difference was with the Grille 12. Could it be that the turret of the Grille was removable while that of the other one wasn't? The Grille dates back from 1942 while the 12,8 cm K44 auf Panther seems to be a 1944 project.

Panther 1944 - Artillerie auf Pantherfahrgestell - Kruppentwürfe

And second question, how does this rather well known gun compare with the 10,5cm L/56 and the 170mm K 72 L/50 (of the Grille 17)?

Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 19, 2007)

Is hard to compare the benefit of one or other design since those never advanced from the paper.

I going to search more info , I think in "Panther varinats" of Jent/Doyle must be some about this project. At the first glance it seems like a non removable turret.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 22, 2007)

While you're at it, can you dig up some information on that gun? Especially the weight would be interesting to compare with the 88. 

And second, do you know anything of a new 10,5 cm cannon which was supposed to be the new gun for the medium-heavy tanks?
Kris


----------



## Fenyeskard (Dec 31, 2007)

Warfront: turining point


----------



## Pioneer (Mar 16, 2008)

plan_D said:


> The biggest impact of the T-34 was it's vast numbers, which created a great combined hitting power of the armoured thrust.



Also I would like to add - the T-34's revolutionary scientific and calculated use of angled armour to give armour protection for a lighter weight, which at an instant made most of the standard German Infantry anti-tank guns (37mm-50mm) obsolete over night.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2008)

Please create a thread for the T-34 if you want to discuss that one. This is about the Panzer.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 4, 2008)

> Can someone tell me some more about this one?
> It's the 12,8 cm K44 auf Panther.



After some search I ll found out that profile did not belongs to the k44 but a waffentrager with a 150mm field gun, the profile is wrongly captioned in his original source wich is the book "Panther Variant 1942-45" By Jentz/ Doyle/ Badrocke. Obviously the error is repeated since everybody takes the profile from that.

The *12.8 K44 auf Panther* is this, the gun is the same and the Maus and Jagtiger with separate loading ( projectiles first and then the case containing the propellant) The muzzle velocity is 860 m/s and the penetration is ...a lot. In some aspect is like a super heavy Nashorn.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 10, 2008)

It even has a resemblance to the Nashorn in shape. What do other people think?


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 12, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> After some search I ll found out that profile did not belongs to the k44 but a waffentrager with a 150mm field gun, the profile is wrongly captioned in his original source wich is the book "Panther Variant 1942-45" By Jentz/ Doyle/ Badrocke. Obviously the error is repeated since everybody takes the profile from that.
> 
> The *12.8 K44 auf Panther* is this, the gun is the same and the Maus and Jagtiger with separate loading ( projectiles first and then the case containing the propellant) The muzzle velocity is 860 m/s and the penetration is ...a lot. In some aspect is like a super heavy Nashorn.



Welcome back Charles!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 14, 2008)

Thanks 8)


----------



## Kruska (Jun 15, 2008)

Hello CharlesBronsen,

A 12.8 cm gun would not feature a muzzle brake. Are there any pictures that I might not have seen in regards to a Jagdtiger or Maus or E100 that would depict a 12.8 with a muzzle brake?

So IMO this picture/drawing does not show a 12.8cm.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 15, 2008)

> A 12.8 cm gun would not feature a muzzle brake. Are there any pictures that I might not have seen in regards to a Jagdtiger or Maus or E100 that would depict a 12.8 with a muzzle brake?



Say who ? you ?, and you are who ? Baurat Kniekampf maybe?

The projects of Reinmetall Borsig and Krupp for a tank hunter/self propelled howitzer using Panther elements did featured mundungbremse, no matter 105, 150 or 128 mm guns.

And just for the fun check this:

*Self Propelled artillery on Panther Chassis, Rheinmetall Borsig proposals.*

The first Rheinmetall attemp to fullfill a requeriment for a self propelled howitzers and cannons that could be dismounted come out in July 1942 , time in wich the Panther was merelya prototype.
The WaPrüf 4 showed little interest in the series design because the always short supply of Panther for other than main battle tank use.

However Rheimetall was undeterred and continue to produce design drawings until december 1944, some of them using completely new weapons and components, the most prominent of that was a big multichamber muzzle brake in the main guns. 
Some examples :

*12,8 cm K43 slf*, january 1943. 128mm dual purpose gun in a high elevation mount and dismountable shield.







*12,8 cm Skorpion.* april 1943, this "poisonous" design was one for a direct support/tank killer 128 mm self propelled gun. The gun had a separated charge projectile with a muzzle speed of 850 mps.







*15 cm schweres Feld Haubitze Panther Bauteilen*, 150 mm heavy howitzer april 1943. Not really a Panther chassis but a longer vehicle using several components of the Pz V.






This was clearly a "waffenträger", the "casemate" shield and gun was designed to used mostly from the ground, the mechanic elements to dismount the gun ( jacks and winch) was carried in the rear and aft of the vehicle.


All profile drawings by *Hillary L. Doyle* ( god bless him)

As you might note my dear Krusty the projekts in drawing boards were independient of any design used in actual series vehicles.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 15, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> Say who ? you ?, and you are who ? Baurat Kniekampf maybe?



No wise guy, I am someone who isn't into Nazi fantasy projects and drawings, so I will leave you to yourself with great pleasure.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 15, 2008)

> No wise guy, I am someone who isn't into Nazi fantasy projects and drawings,.



Sorry Krusty but again you had showed that you dont know anything ( I was tempted to wrote that you dont know sh...t but I dont like to sound unpolite) about this topic ( wich is a little sad considering that you are german).

The drawings and profiles are extracted from this book, and those are not my "fantasy" nor the author invention :








> so I will leave you to yourself with great pleasure



Definately, if you dont participate anymore in this topic I will feel a great pleasure, and probably someother too.8)


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 16, 2008)

I would like to know whether you know of whether there are any good sites with any other variant tanks listed. I really enjoy seeing these variants which are very interesting and unusual and though they didn't reach service are interesting to speculate on what their impact might have been.


----------



## genkideskan (Jun 16, 2008)

The currently best books are written by

Waldemar Trojca

and

Walter Spielberger

both are available in english - 

Amazon.com: trojca

Amazon.com: spielberger


----------



## m kenny (Jun 16, 2008)

These are all figments of the imagination. Someone draws it but that does not mean it was feasable. There never was the slightest chance they would be built and being paper panzers you never hear about the drawbacks.
As for 12.8 cm guns with a muzzle brake the only one was the dual field gun/Pak version made in very limited numbers at the wars end, 

*The Jagdtiger used the 12.8cm Panzerjagerkanone 44 (L/55), also known as the Pak 80. Some confusion over the name of the weapon stems from the fact that the name was changed in mid-1944 from Pak 44 to Pak 80, causing confusion in many reference works. So, references will be found where the the gun is called either name, in official documents dated from late 1944 and on.

The performance of this weapon was phenomenal -- the muzzle velocity for the AP round is said to have been 920m/sec and for the HE round 750m/sec. With a range for the AP of well over 4000 meters, it can generally be said that if the gunner could clearly see a target, he could usually hit it. The gun was actually a further development of the 12.8cm Kanone 44 (towed anti-tank gun), which was a competitive effort between both Rheinmettal-Borsig and Krupp, each producing a similar tube and breech, but mounted on very different-looking mobile platforms. The gun was 55 calibers long, but unlike the towed version the model mounted in the Jagdtiger, it did not have a muzzle break. Although the prototypes of the towed Kanone 44 were completed and delivered, there were no towed versions of this gun put into series production; the only weapons produced and actively used diring World War Two were mounted inside the Jagdtiger.*
PzKpfw VI TIGER - Variations

There are 2 Panzertracts Booklets (20-1 20-2) on paper panzers but the Speilberger Tiger/Panther books (German or English) have a lot of data on these flights of fancy


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 16, 2008)

> As for 12.8 cm guns with a muzzle brake the only one was the dual field gun/Pak version made in very limited numbers at the wars end,



Your data is correct, but again, the guns used or projected for this kind of panzer designs were not nessesarily the same as in series vehicles. 

*28 cm Duka aus Panther-Fahrgestellen langholzprincip:*

Do you think that you had seen all ? well, you dont... what about this ? 

_The 28cm Duka aus Panther Langholzprincip_ was the granfather of all the german Waffenträgers, it comprised 2 ausf G chassis carring a 280 mm long range gun. The weapon was downloaded to the ground in order to fire. After that the panther chassis could disengage and used as Munitionspanzers.






Not only that, also being a dusenkanone the Krupp 28 cm piece had a rear gas scape nozzle in order to reduce the recoil...imagine this firing in dusty terrain? a year of waiting until the smoke cloud disapear...


----------



## Kruska (Jun 18, 2008)

m kenny said:


> As for 12.8 cm guns with a muzzle brake the only one was the dual field gun/Pak version made in very limited numbers at the wars end,



Hello m kenny,

Hmm.. 12.8 dual field gun sounds very interesting, would you have some datas or photos for me, thanks

Regards
Kruska


----------



## genkideskan (Jun 18, 2008)

Here is a model ...

Wettringer-Modellbauforum | Bauberichte | Im Bau: 12,8cm Pak 44 Kruppversion

a version using the 8,8cm Pak exist too.

12,8 cm Kanone 81/3 (1/35)


----------



## Kruska (Jun 18, 2008)

Thanks for the link, but the pictures can’t be opened. I guess that -m kenny-was referring to the below picture. But that was a AA gun not a anti tank or field gun, and it also does not feature a muzzle break.






Regards
Kruska


----------



## genkideskan (Jun 19, 2008)

No, he didnt refer to the 12,8cm Flak - the Pak is well known and a Googel search will bring you informations.
The guns where made in numbers of 3 for testshoots. The idea was to make them mobile on available carriages and to do this quick. So the project drawings show mostly the PAK guns with muzzle brakes.
The Krupp mounts needs a long time to buildt, so the gun was simply put into an available 8,8 Pak mount with improved raised elevation for multi pupose use.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 19, 2008)

Thanks for the pictures.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 26, 2008)

*Mittlerer Kamfpanzer für Ausland:*

Between 1936-39 Krupp evaluated the possibilities to manufacture a special design for foreign sales. The objetive of this design was to obtain a final product better than the tanks sold at that time ( Renault R-35, Skoda TNH, Vickers Light and medium). 

However the German High Command gave strict order that not to use the latest development in Gunsight, engine cooling, armored hinges and vision ports technology.
Despite the bureocratic shorcomings the tank was a sound design with a maximum armor of 25 mm at the frontal plates and 18 mm at the sides.

*M.K.A as completed in january 1940.*







The best characteristic was the Krupp specially designed a new 45 mm gun. In fact the muzzle velocity of 750 m/s allowed to penetrate more armor than the gun of the main battle tank in Germany in that time, the Panzer III. This weapon was based in the one used by the russian T-26 tanks captured by the Legion Condor in the Spanish Civil war.

In his final shape the M.K.A was proposed as alternative design for friendly countries like Italy, Japan, nad Spain ( particulaty in japan the purchase of the M.K.A would be a great improvement over the local designs)

A single prototype was completed in january 1940, no further development was pursued because the needs of the german tanks forces for standar panzerkampfwagens.

Mittlerer Kamfpanzer für ausland, medium tank for export.

Weight: 12.100 kg.

Lenght: 5,1 meters.

width: 2,38 meters.

Armor thickness: max 25 mm, min 10 mm.

Engine : Maybach 6 cilinders HL 76 190 hp.

Speed. 42 km/h


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 27, 2008)

Quite an interesting tank design. Amazing the Japanese were able to get tank forces considering how bad a lot of their tanks were...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 29, 2008)

Another image of the Krupp s MKA.






The cartrigde case lenght of the experimental Krupp 4,5 cm K.w.K was 323 mm.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 30, 2008)




----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 2, 2008)

*Panzerkampfwagen III ausf K.*

An early attemp to improve the firepower of the workhorse of Panzertruppen.
The 15 december 1941 in a meeting between Krupp representatives and the Heereswaffeamt some agreement was made to prepare drawings of a Pz III with the high velocity 7,5 cm L 43 gun.

Drawings and calculated weights were completed in january 1942, however given the several changes that should be made and the overweight of the new turret to the torsion bars on Pz III chasiss caused some doubts about the ausf K design. 






Finally the HWA cancelled the project to use a K.w.K 40 in Panzer III in march 1942. The fabrication of this weapon was devoted to the Pz IV ausf G and the Stug III.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jul 4, 2008)

I wouldn't have used any of the Japanese tanks in battle, would you? They really seem quite light. Even what the Japanese call a heavy tank is what would be considered a medium tank in the European theatre in weight...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 6, 2008)

The only decent japanese tank was the Type 3 Chi-nu (166 made)












PROFILE

It had a 75mm gun with the same muzzle energy as the Sherman M4a1 and welded 60 mm armor.

There was also an japanese "panzer projekt", a heavy tank like the Tiger, the Chi-ri, very interesting by the way, it woul use a 37mm as well a 105 or a 88 mm main gun in turret, ill post more about it later.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 6, 2008)

In here you got more about the type 5, there was a page in german with more info but does not seems to work now.

Chi-Ri


----------



## HealzDevo (Jul 8, 2008)

True but even then with that Japanese one, didn't the US Shermans have better penetration and ability to resist being knocked out quickly than that tank?


----------



## Denniss (Jul 8, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> In here you got more about the type 5, there was a page in german with more info but does not seems to work now.



experimenteller Typ 5 Panzer Chi-Ri

This site ?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 8, 2008)

> True but even then with that Japanese one, didn't the US Shermans have better penetration and ability to resist being knocked out quickly than that tank?



Yea probably so.



> This site ?



Exactly that.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 10, 2008)

a "living mouse":






looks like from starwars isnt ? its a german "mine exploder"






thats tor, a self propeled artilhary, i tought all of those was destroyed:






this is really the best tank museum i ever saw in internet, check it out:

Tank museum, Kubinka, Russia

i had listen about they had a preserved "gustav" in some part of russia, but i didnt found yet.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 10, 2008)

I ve posted some info about those vehicles, check the early pages of this topic.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 11, 2008)

yep, i didnt read all topis but i did saw a illustration and old pics about the mous project and people talking about this very mous in kubinka, russia.

let me comment about something that i read in past posts:

people talks: "- how many tigers or panthers would be made with the source needed to build one tiger..."

and how many shermans would be made with the source needed to build a single tiger ? and how many shermans would be destroyed by one tiger, or one panther ?

those people dont understand the mentality behind the germans ww2 weapons. they didnt care about quantity, they target was ever the quality. if they could build a tank to destroy 30, 40 allied tanks, that project worth to be made. 

they was fighting against soviet union, wich has more industrial mass production capabilities, they needed to have the best weapons and the most reliable ones also, to equals the game. 

most of the parts of those german veichles have 60 years warranty, the russians digg that stuff of from a hole near moscow, or they bring that out from a lake, they clean the engine, put fuel, oil, and it works.

near my house, in the military area, theres a sherman on exibit, its diyng rotten, and it wasnt buried, or either the weather here is so hard like russia.

the diference is ever the german quality.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 11, 2008)

to ensure nobodys will complains about "language barriers" later, the deal is:

for the germans, quality beats quantity, if you guys dont understand that, you dont understand the germans minds behind the great warfare projects of germany in ww2, including the mous.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 11, 2008)

Yea, but several projekts were definately crazy.

Not this one in particular.

*Mannschaftstransportwagen ARW Daimler Benz *

A Reichswehr project.

In march 1927 Wa Pruff 6 awarded Daimler Benz and Magirus a contract to design and produce an AZW ( achtzanradwagen = eight wheels car) also know as Mannschaftstransportwagen or personal carrier vehicle. The specificatios were 65 km/h in road max speed, and at list 32 km/h continous speed, also a maximum autonomy of 200 km was requested. Weigh stimated 7,5 tons.

The DB AZW was to be armed with a two man turret with a 37 mm L/45 gun.

*Profile of the DB ARW with the proposed 3,7 cm gun turret.*

*



*

The cross country abilites included the capacity to cross a 1,5 wide trench and 1 meter deep fording without preparations.
Crew was four: commander, driver, gunner/loader, and radio operator. 
A sole DB ARW was completed for test with other designs in 1930/31, the Krupp made turret was never installed.

*DB ARW in trials.*

*



*


----------



## JugBR (Jul 11, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> Yea, but several projekts were definately crazy.
> 
> Not this one in particular.
> 
> ...



thats true, that mine exploder for example, looks like came out from star wars.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jul 13, 2008)

Wonder how effective it would have been in real life. You'd need really thick armour on the belly with all those exploding mines underneath...


----------



## JugBR (Jul 13, 2008)

i believe thats why they built the belly so height, if it was captured in germany, its possible never being used, otherwise if thei capturd in russia, its sure they used it and probably it worked.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 13, 2008)

Talking about strabge mine exploders.

*Minenraeum-Gerät (Hammer-Schlaggerät)*

Very weird anti-mine device, the "mine clearing apparatus- hammer blow device" was developed by Wegmann Co from Kassel in 1941/42. This could be attached in front of any panzer and was made in a way the movement of wheels accionated the mine exploding heads, wich were hammer like steel cilinders hitting the ground about a meter of travel or so






No combat usage or further development of this is recorded.


----------



## Soren (Jul 13, 2008)

Look at that mine clearing vehicle, it's got tracks that are atleast 100mm thick! And by the looks of it they are attached in a manner which allow quick replacement of one when it was destroyed in a blast. The belly is probably 200mm or thicker. So an AT mine should be no problem.

As for the effectiveness of the vehicle, well it was probably excellent when you knew where there were mines, but it was probably way too slow and heavy to have around everytime it would be needed. Would've been a real pain in the ass having to drag than thing around while trying to invade a place like the USSR.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 15, 2008)

According to "Panzer Tracts" the belly armour in The Alkett raumgerät was 50 mm thick, wich was enough to withstand the explosions, considering the rise up emplacement of the crew.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 18, 2008)

*3.7cm Selbsfahrlafette L/70*

Design of 1935 by Reihnmetall Borsig. A long AAA flak gun mounted in a fully traversible turret with coaxial machinegun







The chassis was an armored Hansa-Lloyd-Goliath Zgkw 3t. No much more data available, it was tested by cavalry units in 1936.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jul 22, 2008)

The tank that couldn't decide between being an armoured car, a tank and a half-track so tried to be all three at once... Interesting project. Obviously wasn't very successful as there is no further data on it...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 22, 2008)

> The tank that couldn't decide between being an armoured car, a tank and a half-track so tried to be all three at once...



 Probably was made because the german army needs a bit of everything in those pre-war days.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jul 23, 2008)

Yes, still does seem like it would have been hard to use being all three at once...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 23, 2008)

Other proto of the pre-war period.

*Mannschaftstransportwagen ARW Magirus*






The Magirus variant of the ARW was slightly better armored, so in order to save some weight special cast aluminium alloy center roadwheels were developed and manufactured for this model.

Also the turret was different, it had a two crew but with 2 MG 08 7,92mm water cooled machineguns, no cannon installed. The machineguns mounting allowed some independet movement and the turret itself could turn 360 º by hand.







A single prototype of this heavy armored car was completed for test trials in the winter 1930.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 29, 2008)

*Auto Union Kätzchen*

The Kätzchen ( little cat or kitty) proposal for an armored personnel carrier in the same way and the BMM proposal ( based in panzer 38 t)

Just a prototipe made, no production series.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 29, 2008)

Great pics, CB.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 30, 2008)

Thanks, maybe is just me but the name "kitty" sounds a bit "gay" for a military vehicle


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

Doesn't it also translate to "p#ssy" too? That's worse than "kitty".


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 30, 2008)

Yea, maybe the guy in charge to name the new panzer was a surviving SA member...you know what I mean.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 1, 2008)

*Pzkpfw IX X Propaganda Panzers*






Two designs wich were published in the german propaganda magazine "signal" in late 1944, the development is purely fictional and was made with the purpose to misinformate the allied intelligence services. Of course given the german inclination for the super heavy panzers those designs does nor appeared so irrational, at list at that time.


*"The mighty Panzer X breaching into the Eastern front", sketch published in Signal oktober 1944.*







The stimated data for the Panzer X ( that is stimated according "Signal" ) armor was 240 mm in the front and 120 mm in the sides, the main gun was a 105 mm kwk, weight 150 tons.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 12, 2008)

*Panzerkampfwagen IV with Torsion Bar Suspension* 

The suspension of the early tanks developed by the German army leading up to World War II tended to use coil-springs or leaf-springs exclusively. The Panzer III even utilized coil- and leaf-spring suspension until the standardization of the Ausf. E. The first German torsion bar designs appeared after E. Kniepkamp took charge of WaPruef 6 in 1936.






The torsion bar design was preferred for several reasons including its survivability and reduced tendency for blockage by ice, snow, or mud.

Another attractive feature of the torsion bar suspension was the handling and running characteristics. Because torsion bar suspension allowed each wheel to move independently, the ride was drastically impoved over earlier designs. Unfortunately, at the time of the standardization of the Panzer IV, improvement of the ride was not seen as a priority. Therefore, Krupp ultimately decided to use the bogie pairs on leaf springs rather than the torsion bar layout. Ultimately, the engineers at Krupp found themselves at constant odds with the Heeres Waffenamt.

The prototype was converted in a experimental bruckenlegerpanzer ( brigde laying tank)​


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 16, 2008)

maybe it was already posted before but anyway
warhistory: Ð§ÑƒÐ´Ð¾-ÑŽÐ´Ð¾ - ÑˆÐ²ÐµÐ´ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ Ñ‚ÑÐ¶ÐµÐ»Ñ‹Ð¹ Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐµÐ²Ð¸Ñ‡Ð¾Ðº 1929 Ð³Ð¾Ð´Ð°....


----------



## JugBR (Aug 22, 2008)

how about this one ?






One of the most interesting prototypes based Panzer III's chassis was Minenraumpanzer III - mine clearing/mine destroyer tank developed by Krupp. It proved to be unsuccessful and never entered production. 

Achtung Panzer! - PzKpfw III


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 25, 2008)

Here you got more information about the mine destroyer Pz III

*Minenraumgerät mit Pzkpfw III antrieb.*






_Minenraumgerät mit Pz III antrieb _= Mine destroyer apparatus with pz III transmition.

Is not know wich firm developed this specializated mineclearer tank in mid 1941. Originally was tough that the extended suspenssion was used to roll over the mines and the enlenghtened torsion bars arms would be capable to withstand the blast. However that is simple not possible because the average antitank mine would cut off the pins of the track.

More evidence has been brought in the way of photos, in those a steel cross bar is seen in the front, that bar was used as the conection for two heavy steel rollers. 






The extension of the tracks and suspenssion was designed to minimizate the noise, blast and stress on the crew manning the Raumgerat when it hit a mine. No operational use of the two Minenraumgerät Pz III antrieb is recorded.


----------



## Soren (Aug 26, 2008)

Regarding the Kätzchen, it actually looks like a very good design, very similar to the M113.


----------



## fly boy (Aug 26, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Damn!



der alder that like the first time i have known that you said damn


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 15, 2008)

> Regarding the Kätzchen, it actually looks like a very good design, very similar to the M113.



I dont like the open top, a hand grenade or an airburst shell and you are done.

*2cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen IV*

The 2cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagern IV, popularly known as the Möbelwagen ( furniture van or furniture truck), never actually entered volume production. The chassis was a simple conversion of the basic Panzerkampfwagen IV with a wider superstructure and large shields surrounding the 2cm Flakvierling 38. Hitler saw at least two demonstrations of the vehicle (in early 1943 and in October of 1943), but both times vetoed production. The chassis was ultimately used to create a Möbelwagen using the 3.7cm FlaK43.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 10, 2008)

*Lauster Wargel LW-5 recovery armored vehicle.*

At the request of WaPrüf 5 (Department for the Study of Engineering Equipment) in 1943, the firm Lauster in Stuttgart built a modular vehicle to be able to tow new heavy German armored vehicles in development for the German army. 







When the two separate armored units were mated, each equipped with a Maybach HL 108 motor developing 235 horsepower, the vehicle could pull up to 53 tons (about enough to tow German armor up to a Panther tank).

Lauster chose to go with the huge armored spiked wheels over tracks for traction over the most difficult terrain. 

The machine was thoroughly tested on the ground, where even a test spade was attached to dig trenches with satisfactory results, but the LW-5 did not proceed past the prototype stage despite its potential. 


Judged as too slow, cumbersome, and with only pivotal steering, the LW-5 towing concept faded into obscurity as latter German heavy tanks were usually towed by other heavy tanks via cables and in some cases, even experimental armored RATO units!

The Wargel part of the designation comes from the Swabian word “wargeln” which means to roll.


Technical Data:

Length: 12.4 m 
Height: 3 m 
Width: 3.56 m 
Maximum speed: 30 km/h


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 22, 2008)

*Porsche Typ 175 ( Radschlepper ost)*






This strange vehicle was the Porsche response to a German army requeriment for a towing and transport special lorry. 

The _radschlepper ost_ (wheeled tractor for the East) was to be capable to operate in the worst mud and snow conditions, for that purpose the doktor Porsche choosed a design with all steel spiked roadwheels with large diameter wich teorically helped to achieve grip is soft ground but probably gave a very hard ( and noisy) ride over pavement.

*Uncle addie gave a closer look to the Typ 175.*






The vehicle weight was 7000kg, had all wheel drive and it was capable to carry his own weight or tow about 5 tons, maximum speed in soft terrain was just 15 km/h, the weak 4 cilinders engine with just 90 hp probably didnt help to the maneouver. 

200 Typ 175 were ordered in 1942 but the order was reduced to merely 50 made by Skoda in 1943 after the the failure to fullfill the requeriments.


----------



## marconi (Nov 1, 2008)

Strange that this one wasn't mentioned here:
KRUPP KUGELPANZER - Mysterious German Ball Tank


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 3, 2008)

Armored observation post I believe, but wouldnt put myself in it was a too obvious target.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 15, 2008)

3 photos of the Panzer III G with *"schachtellaufwerk" *interleaved roadwheels suspension) doing some test in the austrian-German border, winter 1942/43. The tank is testing an armored trolley for infantry transportation in snowy conditions.

Does anybody know what are those atachmets in the sides , in front of the turret?


----------



## fly boy (Dec 15, 2008)

man i don't know about guns but it would suck if one of the guys in the back had to pee


----------



## 109ROAMING (Dec 15, 2008)

marconi said:


> Strange that this one wasn't mentioned here:
> KRUPP KUGELPANZER - Mysterious German Ball Tank



Oh man thats weird,Quite scary and really depressing

sorry I can't help Charles


----------



## Flyboy2 (Dec 15, 2008)

Yeah that is a very interesting little tank...


----------



## ratdog (Dec 15, 2008)

can it even be qualified as a tank?!!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 16, 2008)

> man i don't know about guns but it would suck if one of the guys in the back had to pee



That is why the buckets were invented for, but aniway the trolley was designed to transport the infantry to the frontline, probably was not intended to roam with panzergrenadiers above a snowy battlefield with that, specially with the menace of mortar and artillery attack that could destroy the infantry in any second.

The kubelwagen is not tank, it have 3 wheels but was designed as fixed armored artillery and sniper spotting post, akward, bulky, difficult to cammouflate, probably never used in action, at list I never saw a picture of that in action.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 18, 2008)

*Raketenwerfer aus Panzer IV fahrgestell*

A panzer IV ausf D chassis equipped with a protected rack for launching the 21cm "wurfkorper". It had no turret but an aditional protected cabin for the rocket operator. The date of this projekt is 1943, unfortunately I have no more data on the manufacturer or other performances.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Dec 18, 2008)

Very interesting stuff Charles. Much appreciated. Thank you.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 19, 2008)

Thank you, if you tought that was weird, check this one:


*Pzkpfw IV mit 7,5 cm Ruckstossfrei Kanone 43 3cm MK 103*

*



*

Very interesting design for a recce vehicle based on Panzer IV chassis. Instead the normal 75mm gun it had a fully automatic belt fed MK 103 30mm aeronautic gun. The single place turret is also armed with two 75mm spin stabilized recoiless gun ( rifled bore rocket launchers) in each side, similar concept to several modern IFVs wich had a medium caliber automatic gun and missile launchers like the Bradley.


----------



## ratdog (Dec 19, 2008)

how large of a projectile could it launch do you know? just wondering because it is slightly large


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 19, 2008)

You mean how large was the rocket ?

Unfortunately I have no datta on that ammunition, it was derivated of the parachutist 7,5 cm Leichtgeschütz 40


----------



## ratdog (Dec 19, 2008)

sorry yes rocket and i was just wondering


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 21, 2008)

I found some info, weight of the projectile: 7 kilos.

Muzzle velocity: 355 mps

Penetration of the HEAT warhead: 89 mm.

Very interesting and light gun the LG 40, not many were produced tough.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 25, 2008)

This is not a proto but a small serie vehicle, interesting aniway:

*Panzer II ausf L "Luchs"*






In late 1941 the HeeresWaffeAmt (HWA) ordered the design of a new 13 tons fast fully tracked vehicle for recoinassance purposes.
It was to be armed with a 37 or 20 mm gun and a machinegun, it should had a powerful radio set with "sternantenne" in order to comunicate with platoon commanders and artillery batteries up to 35 km. 

3 proposal were submitted in june 1942, one from Skoda, other form MAN, and the later by Saurer.

After intensive testing the Man proposal was declared as the winner in june 1942, eventually 300 vehicle were ordered but later this order was reduced to 100 tanks.






*Characteristics panzerkampfwagen II ausf L* 

Type: Recce tank

Crew: 4

Weight in combat : 13250 kg

Armor: 30mm front hull and turret, 20 mm sides, 12mm top deck and roof.

Engine: 6 cilinders Maybach HL 66 water cooled, 200 hp

Speed on road: 60 km/h

Off road: 30 km/h

Armament: 1 Kwk 38 fully automatic 20 mm gun with 330 rounds, plus a MG 42 with 3350 rounds of S.m.K ammunition.

Turret operation: manual

*Internal view of the turret viewing from the commander seat, the MG 42 is removed.*






The lynx included some extras like the heating and extra ventilation for the crew, also it had 2 devices for starting the engine is severe cold conditions. 31 were delivered by the 1th january 1943, after the 100th vehicle was manufatured in july 1943 all the program was cancelled, the tank did not fullfill completely the needs of the Heer, mostly because their size. its planned sussesor, the VK 1601 "Leopard" did not manage to enter in service.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 14, 2009)

*Neubaufahrzeug:*
There is already some info of this tank posted, It was a experimental projekt dated 1936 one was made by Rheinmetal Borsig and the other by Krupp.











Its armament was 2 x MG 34s plus a 75mm howitzer with a 37 mm pak in an over and under configuration. Coaxial gun was the magazine fed MG 13.
It armor was completely inadecuate, between 20 to 13mm. Is worth to mention that it was the only german multiturret design ever. Overall weight 23 tons.
The pair saw some action in Norway ( one damaged by british gunfire but repaired later) and Russia when the survivor was dully destroyed by Russian defences in the early stage of "Barbarossa".


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 16, 2009)

I must clarify something, the Rheinmetall Borsig Nfbz used and "over and under" guns, the one made by Krupp had a "side by side " main armament. Also the MG 13 ball mounting was different. 

3 were made by Krupp and 2 by Rheinmetall, the RB made tank had low carbon steel plates so were used only for training purposes.

And by the way _Neubaufahrzeug_ means something like "new design or new construction vehicle"

*Rheinmetall Borsig Neubaufahrzeug*


----------



## Juha (Jan 17, 2009)

Charles Bronson, Thanks a lot for the last photo of Rheinmetall Borsig Nbfz, IIRC I have not seen it before.

Juha


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Jan 18, 2009)

Lots of weird and unusual designs, but the one that made my eyes pop out is this BALL tank, KUGELPANZER........ what the hell? It looks so alien.

Cheers


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 18, 2009)

> Lots of weird and unusual designs, but the one that made my eyes pop out is this BALL tank, KUGELPANZER........ what the hell? It looks so alien.



The thing is an expensive coffin, once the russians indentify it, or you were wiped out by artillery or you were hit by an antitank rifle. I prefer the good old trench.




> Charles Bronson, Thanks a lot for the last photo of Rheinmetall Borsig Nbfz, IIRC I have not seen it before



You re welcome, two more profiles.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 11, 2009)

*Selbstfahrlafette s.I.G.33/2 auf Bergepanzer 38 (t)*

*



*


This AFV was the result of mounting a _schwere Infanterie Geschutz (_ heavy infantry support cannon) over an Bergepanzer 38 chassis.
Internal capacity for ammunition was merely 15 round with separate charge. Elevation varied from -2º up to 45º. Azimuth only 7 degrees at left and right.
The armor was reduced in the sides, from 20 to 12mm, probably to save some weight. Frontal plate was 30mm thick.
Automotive characteristics were the same as all late czech 38 (t) designs, with a 6 cilinders gasoline 150 hp engine and leaf spring suspensison with 2 bogies per side. Weight around 11,5 tons.

Despite the good aspect of this sturmgeschutz it did not manage to enter in service. Probably due the extreme cramped combat room. A single prototyte assembled by the _Bohemische und Moravische Motorenwerke_ ( BMM Prague) in fall 1944.


----------



## Frédéric GARNIER (Feb 12, 2009)

Hi every one, I'm new on this site, visiting for long but logged in at last !  
I have a question about the VK 30.01 (H) - for Henschel - recently released by Trumpeter...
They have figured some kind of "air inlets" on both sides of hull, next to engine doors.
This model seems to be developped from a Hilary Louis Doyle profile but no picture to picture to be sure...
I even believe they didn't even know what it was supposed to be, because there's no grille nor air vents inside, only an empty case.

After a long wandering on the net, I found that these "air inlets cases" were on the VK 36.01 (H), not on the VK 30.01 !!
(VK 30.01(H) has overlapping road wheels and 3 return rollers on each side; VK 36.01 has also overlapping road wheels but NO returm rollers with makes it look like closer to serial Tiger).
Achtung Panzer! - Prototypes !
So here is my question : Does anyone has a picture of the rear part of a VK30.01 (H) prototype in order to be certain of the actual aspect of air inlets?
Thanks


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 12, 2009)

I think that I had already put some info about this 2 protos.

*VK 30.01(H)*


















*VK 36.01(H) with Waffe 0725*


----------



## Frédéric GARNIER (Feb 12, 2009)

Now, its obvious that blueprints are wrong ! Thanks a lot !
But I suppose that Mr Doyle had any reference to draw that ...
What is it supposed to be if not air intakes ??? Moveable part such as toolbox?
On your 3rd pix, there are some kind of side opened doors on top of engine plate...
Witch doesn't match wich Trump engine compartment !
Still confusing...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 12, 2009)

Yes, the problem is the VK 30.01 never received its turret, so it was used for testing several experimental devices, so its is possible that the configuration of the rear engine could change. The only sure is that armored boxes at the side were not air intakes per se, however they maybe protecting an air inlet.

In this picture the turretless VK 30.01 is testing a bulldozer.


----------



## Frédéric GARNIER (Feb 13, 2009)

Note windshield instead of armored visor ! 8) 
Thanks to Chris Just who shared his picture, at least one VK 30.01 (H) received a turret :
http://monsite.orange.fr/rubberarmor/images/1-picture3.jpg
It is supposed to be a training vehicle (final use of many prototypes...) but no info about date nor location.
I read that 4 hulls were mades in early 40 but turrets were not finished until mid-42.
This one also has no "side air box" but long unclear "rails" located there. Supposingly stuffs attached to mud guards....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 15, 2009)

Nice photo Frédéric 8) , according to my sources all the turrets were placed in France for atlantic wall defenses, seems that at list one was in its designated place.


----------



## Frédéric GARNIER (Feb 16, 2009)

finaly I cutted out these side boxes...
SO, 4 hulls finised, 8 turret produced, 2 hulls transformed in Sfl. "Sturer Emil" 1 (for sure now!) used as training vehicle.
So 1 hull remains.. Maybe the one on your pictures used as bulldozer ?
VK 30.01 (H) air inlets 
http://monsite.orange.fr/rubberarmor/images/2-picture1.jpg
http://monsite.orange.fr/rubberarmor/images/2-picture2.jpg
and with BIG(ER) nbrother VH 45.01 (P) :
http://monsite.orange.fr/rubberarmor/images/2-picture3.gif
Thanks for help !


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2009)

Nice models, the Tiger Porsche is one that I dont like, however the VK 30.01 always look to me as an atractive tank. It was like a fat panzer IV, better suspension system and improved side armor.

*MinenräumGerät Krupp mit PzKpfw IV antrieb*.

In late 1940 Krupp was responsible for designing and testing a roller device for mine destroying purposes. It consisted in 3 heavy steel barrels attached to the Panzer IV tank by swingwing arms, every roller weighted in excess of 1,5 tons.
2 were emplaced at the front of the tank stepping ahead of the track paths and one in the rear, acting in the middle exploding any mine left active by the the front devices. The dispositive was strong and simple, but the Panzer was very difficult to steer with it and all the development was dropped in 1941.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 25, 2009)

*Leitche Panzerspähwagen Für Tropen.*

On july 21 1941 the Waffenamt requested a design for a new armored car. This new panzerspähwagen ( armored recce vehicle) should be based in a shortened Sd.Kfz 234 chassis, using its same frontal and sides with a redesigned rear armor and engine compartiment and m,any commom parts as possible and practical.

As an adaptation for the western desert the vehicle had several ventilation ports, also its engine a brand new Tatra V910 diesel was air cooled intean using a more complicated ( and somewhat inconvenient in Libya) water coolant.

The main armament was an automatic k.w.K 38 20 mm gun and a coaxial Mg 34. The proyected weight was 7 tons and the panzerspähwagen should use a turret heavily based in the one of the Sd.Kfz 222, open top with antigrenade mesh screen.

Büssing Nag was awarded with an contract of 500 vehicles to be ready in 1943, however the low priority of the project and the lack of the new Czech engines demorated the design until 1943 , 2 prototipes were made, one in july 1942 and other in October 1943 . In that date Germany was already pushed out Afrika, The project was obviously cancelled, there was no more need of that vehicle.

Leitche Panzerspähwagen für Tropen

Type: Recce armored car for hot climates.

Armor: Max 30 mm min 10 mm

Engine: Diesel Tatra V910 V8 125 hp

Speed: 70 km/h

Weight: 6900kg

Crew: 4, commander, Gunner/loader, front driver and rear driver


----------



## MacArther (Mar 5, 2009)

Going back to the Ratte for a second, couldn't the Germans just turned the whole thing into one big mobile Anti-Air station? One or two 88s, backed up by either heavier armament for specifically air targets, or lighter AA for low level targets.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 2, 2009)

The best alternative to the Ratte were a heavy armored and armed panzerzug ( armored train). But I think due the air supremacy of the allies over France they never operated often outside Germany or the eastern front.

*Ferngelenkt Minenräumwagen "Ente"*

Ferngelenkt Minenräumwagen ( remote controlled mineclearing vehicle)
A curious variation of the Bordgward Sd.kfz 300 ( 2nd serie), it was a concrete chassis explosive carrier with an amphibious capacity. It had a external steel shell to create the bouyancy. This external plate was really thin, from 4 to 5mm of carbon steel wich did protect the Ente ( duck) only from small arms fire at 100 meters ( not including armor piercing rounds) 

The Ente had a 55 hp 4 cilinders engine wich drive the tracks and used a propeller for water impulsion reaching 3 km/h in water and 6 km/h over ground. Only 2 prototipes were made in late 1940.


Good image of an Ente next to a Sd.kfz 300 II serie and pzklbfl 1.


----------



## Frédéric GARNIER (Apr 28, 2009)

... But I'm not sure that I correctly translate; the chassis was made of ..CONCRETE ??? 
And secondly I don't understand the real purpose of the machine...
"mine clearing" : concrete chassis (let's admit..) but with such ridiculous tracks ?
"explosive carrier" : delivering charge from the rear ? Or self exploding (so why concrete??) ?
Or was it supposed to clear minefields with explosion ??? Hazardous...
Not speaking of buoyancy of a concrete block !!  even wraped in a thin steel hull... 

Anyway, very interresting history, any idea of actual use?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 28, 2009)

Yes it was concrete or cement. I think is ciment in french.

The chassis was cement and had a thin layer of armor in the outside. I guess the idea was saving steel in a vehicle wich going to be exploded in air anyway. The charge could be detonated simply rolling it over a minefield " by sympathy" or by radio control.

All the series of Borgward B1/Sd.kfz 300 had this same characteristic.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 29, 2009)

By the way if you are a modeller you can use this rear view of the remote controlled amphibius mineclering vehicle.


----------



## Frédéric GARNIER (May 14, 2009)

Thanks !
Also interresting is that small tube at the rear (exhaust pipe?) with means thermic engine remote controled !
... in 1940 ! I'm really impressed !
By the way, "concrete" in french is "béton" like in german (in "betongranate") 
Any idea for the purpose of that square protuding shape on top ?


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 14, 2009)

> By the way, "concrete" in french is "béton" like in german (in "betongranate")
> Any idea for the purpose of that square protuding shape on top ?



Beton ?, merci...rare word, If I remember well Prussia used the French as auxiliary language, just like in Armee, same significance in the both languages.

Yes the Sd.kfz 300 used a "petrol" ( british expression for gasoline) 2 stroke engine. The boxy structure is an armored box for radio guiding equipment. I suppose it was placed in the top to avoid any flitration of water.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 15, 2009)

We use word "beton" in Croatia too. Same with the rest of ex-Yougoslavia


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 26, 2009)

*Panzerkampfwagen auf Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV* 

Very few information has survived about this design.The Panzerkampfwagen auf Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV placed the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.J turret on a totally new hull. The armor was sloped on all surfaces and thicker than that of the Pz.Kpfw.IV, it used also the strong transmition elements of the Pz III. The suspension had three pairs of leaf-spring mounted roadwheels on each side with tracks. Series production was planned but abandoned in mid-1944 in favor of more Panthers. According to some sources 3 prototipes were made by Krupp-Grusonwerke, but aparently there are no pics of those.


----------



## Coors9 (May 26, 2009)

Great pics and info. I only have one model tank collecting dust, still in the box and it's a Panther. Man what a beautiful tank


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 31, 2009)

> Great pics and info. I only have one model tank collecting dust, still in the box and it's a Panther. Man what a beautiful tank



AThanks, the Einheit III/IV was the poors man Panther, notice the sloped 80mm armored, the same thickness of the Panther.

By the way the Einheit III/IV apparently used the same 3 x 2 leaf suspension and chassis of other Krupp projekt, the self propelled howitzer 10.5cm Sd.Kfz 165/1.

Rare thing that it wasnt adotpted for series production, it was a more simple, cheap plataform for armored vehicles.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 3, 2009)

*Panzer IV mit vereinfachem turm.*

1944 proposal for mounting a "simplified" turret for KwK 40 7,5 cm on panzer iV ausf G. Cant find any data if ever reached prototipe stage.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 7, 2009)

I'm fascinated by that Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV. I believe it was an excellent way to extend the life of the Panzer IV project. The chassis with the sloped armour is basically identical to that of the JagdPanzer IV by Vomag. I did read that there would have been some problems with the tank versions to fit for instance the brakes and inspection hatches. 

But it seems to me that the idea behind it was that this new suspension would have allowed the Panzer IV to increase its weight. That way sloped armour could be included. In fact, it could go even further. There were plans to put the Panther Schmalturm on a Panzer IV but it would have overburdened the Panzer IV suspension. This would no longer have been the case with the Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV. And finally, this added weight would have left the tank underpowered. The logical next step would have been to get a new engine. The 550 HP Maybach HL 101 was expected to be ready before the end of 1944. This was a supercharged version of the HL 100 which produced 400 HP, which was one third more than the Panzer IV Maybach engine. 

One could say that the Panther was the way to go. But the Panther was quite limited: for its size and weight it had limited protection and firepower... The Einheitsfahrgestell would have had interlocking armour plates of a JagdPz IV which greatly simplified production. It would also be very reliable and easy to repair in the field, unlike a Panther. 

In short, it would have been an excellent stopgap until the arrival of the E-50.

Kris


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2009)

m kenny said:


> As for 12.8 cm guns with a muzzle brake the only one was the dual field gun/Pak version made in very limited numbers at the wars end,



That is incorrect however.

The Panzerselbstfahrlafette V also known as the Sturer Emil was equipped with a 12.8cm L/61 with muzzle brake which saw action in Russia in 1942 where it performed very well:


----------



## m kenny (Jun 8, 2009)

These 2 vehicles were fitted with the 12.8cm AA gun (L/61)
This was not the same gun as the 12.8cm Pak( L/56).


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 8, 2009)

> I'm fascinated by that Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV. I believe it was an excellent way to extend the life of the Panzer IV project. The chassis with the sloped armour is basically identical to that of the JagdPanzer IV by Vomag. I did read that there would have been some problems with the tank versions to fit for instance the brakes and inspection hatches.




Is fascinating to see the several "lines" or "families" of tanks made or proposed by german designers, you got almost a expensive, a medium, and a cheap line of armored fighting vehicles, probably the Porsche designs with thier fancy petrol-electric drives were in the top of cost. However projekts like this last ones (vereinfachtem and Einheitfahrgestell) were quite feasible.



> But it seems to me that the idea behind it was that this new suspension would have allowed the Panzer IV to increase its weight. That way sloped armour could be included. In fact, it could go even further



In that weight question I am not so sure, I think that 3 x 2 road wheels are more designed for medium /light tanks, after it would have a worst weight distribution( more pressure in each road wheel tha a normal 4x2 panzer IV suspension)


*The definitive panzer IV,projekt W 1466*

Proposal for the definitive Panzer IV by krupp, combination of a sloped armor ausf H hull with the vereinfachtem turm ( simplified) cancelled in July 1944 for unknown reasons, Weight 26.7 tons. Maximum armor 80mm, Other data unknown.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 13, 2009)

Wow, those models are awesome. Beautiful lines there...

As to the weight vs wheels issue, I have my doubts whether the number of wheels matter. I mean, there are/were several heavy tanks which have less wheels than medium tanks. Also, the wheels on the Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV were not the same as on the Panzer IV, they were bigger. I've tried to calculate their size and they don't seem to be identical to either the larger Panzer II or III wheels. In any case, I believe the issue is the suspension which could not cope with the added weight and not so much the wheels. Although it is said that the new vehicle would use parts of the III and the IV, it seems that the suspension would have been a totally new one: still leaf-springs but new ones. So not those of the Panzer III either... In fact, one wonders what exactly the elements of the Panzer III were. Same concern goes for the Geschützwagen III/IV: the Panzer III only delivered the drive wheel, final drive and transmission.

In any case, we can assume that the new suspension was meant to cope with more weight. What else would have been the reason to go for a new suspension system??
Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 14, 2009)

> In fact, one wonders what exactly the elements of the Panzer III were. Same concern goes for the Geschützwagen III/IV: the Panzer III only delivered the drive wheel, final drive and transmission.



The same goes for the Einheitpanzer, for some strange reason the transmition in the mark III was deemed as superior to the one in panzer IV. 

In regard of the other you maybe are correct, but take in consideration this; from the large pool of heavy panzer projekts or protos displayed in this topic no one had leaf spring suspension, so I think the germans regarded this system as useful up to 25-30 tons.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 14, 2009)

I also recall reading that Krupp refused to build anything without leaf springs ... don't know if that's true or not though 


Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 15, 2009)

Hmmmm, dunno, that could explain why the design of the chassis of the Tiger was in hands of Henschel and Porsche.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 2, 2010)

Found this picture of a Tiger and Loewe models.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/King_Tiger_and_Loewe.jpg


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 4, 2010)

Nice, but the Löwe model is wrong, this is the Lion. Armor was 120mm and the main gun 88 or 105mm.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 21, 2010)

*7,5 Pak 44 auf 3 ton Zugkraftwagen.*

One of the few prototypes using a K.w.K 42 from the panzer V. The vehicle is in fact an simplified "waffenträger" since the gun could be dismounted with the help of a simple crane transported in the vehicle side. The 70 calibers Pak 44 was an field variant of the powerful Panther cannon with the original muzzle brake and electric ignition included, this was made in order to use the same amunition of the german main battle tank thus favouring logistic. One of 2 prototypes were displayed to Hitler in october 1943, there is no a lot of information about, is likely that it had been troop tested sometime in november 1943. The proyect was cancelled by Speer in january 1944.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2010)

Thanks for the picture, CB 

A question: did anybody made a calculation of prices between a SP gun (be it AT or plain howitzer) vs. gun+prime_mover. 
My money is on SP piece...


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 22, 2010)

But then with the gun and prime-mover you have the added advantage of being able to transport some troops at the same time... Anyway, I know they were used, but nobody here has talked about their interesting Sturmtiger Self-propelled Artillery. I think the thing with the SP Guns is that they were heavier and slower than the gun+prime mover to move around. Also a lot of SP Gun pictures I've seen were very venerable to crew knock-outs anyway, because that Panzerselbstfahrlafette V looks like it would be quite easy to aim above it with an airbust fuse and disable the crew even with a very near miss...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2010)

The SP gun requires more people for a complete crew, not something Germans would like. 
The other thing favoring SP gun was/is the reaction time: the Praga V3S 30mm gun (SP) was ready-to-combat under 100 seconds after vehicle stopped (and under 30 sec if the canvas was removed already), while the folks manning the towed triple 20mm gun needed 7-8 min. Plus their crew numbered 8 people, while 'my' (= Praga) needed 5.
As far as the defeating the SP gun crew goes, the same implies for the towed gun crew.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 23, 2010)

Not a German Tank /SPG - but a version based on the Comet chassis - just to show that other countries were developing some similar concepts!

Welcome to the Tank Museum - Home of the Tank - Virtual Museum


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 23, 2010)

> Thanks for the picture, CB
> 
> A question: did anybody made a calculation of prices between a SP gun (be it AT or plain howitzer) vs. gun+prime_mover.
> My money is on SP piece...



Your guessing is right, actually the germans sought the entire war for an "hybrid" vehicle, the so called "waffenträgers" weapons carries, they want a self propelled piece with the possibility of dismounting the gun and having two separate devices:

A) an normal artillery piece, howitzer or antitank gun plus...

B) an vehicle that ( already separated from its task to carry the gun on its back) could be used as prime mover, supply, etc.

In the end they achiveved nothing despite the several types of waffentragers designed, if you browse the early pages of this topic you will see a tons of them, the only really succesfull were the Wespe, Hummel, and Nashorn, vehicles who didnt have the anoyying gun dismounting requeriment.



> Not a German Tank /SPG - but a version based on the Comet chassis - just to show that other countries were developing some similar concepts



Look like a updated sturmgeschutz.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 10, 2010)

*Aditional information on 12,8 cm self propelled Pak vehicles based on VK 30.01 (H).*

Originally I thought their usage was quite experimental, however with the new information available is clear that the pair of vehicles were sometimes crucial to defeat soviet local counterattacks supported by heavy armor. The exchange of fire at long range with russian T-34s and KV seems to be the more confortable field of application for the 128 mm gun carriers. His supply of a very effective sprenggranate ( high explosive) ammunition provided excellent bunker busting and anti-infantry capabilities also.


----------



## skeeter (Aug 22, 2010)

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. The Germans lost the war. They started it, and the Allies finished it. Super heavy tanks are fine and awesome and big gunned and, sadly, just too heavy for bridges and such. The Russian T-34 was the best all around design of the war, in particular, the T-34 sporting the 85mm gun aka T-34-85. It wasn't built like a Swiss watch, it was anything but. But it did have a diesel engine, wide tracks, low ground pressure, generally good reliability, and so on. Once the Russians figured out what a radio was and how well the Germans used it to coordinate their attacks, things got better. That and having the Stormavik on their side. The American Sherman was inadequate individually but made up for that by being mass produced and available in quantity. I personally think it was something of a crime to send American troops to war in something the Germans called the "Ronson." Surely we could have done better by our troops, put in a more powerful engine, up armored the son of a gun especially across the frontal arc, and used a better suspension earlier than we did with the M-24 Chaffee and the M-26 Pershing. But history is as history does.


----------



## Civettone (Sep 16, 2010)

skeeter said:


> But it did have a diesel engine, wide tracks, low ground pressure, generally good reliability, and so on. Once the Russians figured out what a radio was and how well the Germans used it to coordinate their attacks, things got better. That and having the Stormavik on their side. The American Sherman was inadequate individually but made up for that by being mass produced and available in quantity. I personally think it was something of a crime to send American troops to war in something the Germans called the "Ronson."


Did the Soviets use two-way radios in their tanks? Did the Germans ever call the M4 the 'Ronson'? Or 'Tommy Cooker'? I always have ;y doubts about these nicknames. 

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 17, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Did the Soviets use two-way radios in their tanks?
> Kris



The soviets certainly planed to have radios in their tanks. Please note the number of photographs of T-26s, BT tanks, T-28s and armoured cars from before the war with frame aerials around the turrets. 
As in many other areas, soviet theory, invention and planning was beyond their actual manufacturing capability. The western allies not only supplied the Russians with complete radios but with large quantities of vacuum tubes. As supplies of radios increased the proportion of tanks fitted with radios increased.


----------



## zerum (Sep 18, 2010)

Thanks to slow pc--


----------



## zerum (Sep 18, 2010)

The term "Tommy cooker" came to be applied by the late Panther and Tiger German tank crews as a derogatory nickname for the Sherman tank, which on earlier models, mainly due to a combination of obsolete armour, unprotected shells, and the highly flammable fuel, acquired an early reputation for "brewing up" when hit[2].
BBC - History - From the Field Gun to the Tank


----------



## Civettone (Sep 25, 2010)

Shortround, are you sure these were two-way radios? I know that at least in early years tanks or aircraft were often equiped with receivers with only leaders able to send and receive.

About the Tommy Cooker. I would like to see a single German account or document which mentions this or the Ronson. I think the vast majority of nicknames used by the Germans but in the English language are either post-war or war propaganda. 

Also reminds me of the P-38 being called the fork-tailed devil or the US Marines as Devil Dogs or whatever. These names seem to me cases of allies boosting morale by inventing these names to show German fear of them. 

Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 19, 2010)

*12,2 cm Selbstfahrlafette Lorraine panzerschlepper*

A sole example of french LS infantry tractor was converted in self propelled protected gun with a russian 122 howitzer as armament. Aparently it was used only onboard an armored train patrolling the north of France in 1943-44. The panzer was open topped and his armor protection was similar to the series variant with the 150 mm s.I.H 13 "haubitze".


----------



## Civettone (Oct 19, 2010)

I didnt even know they used armoured trains on the Western Front!


Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 20, 2010)

The vast majority or armored trains of the German army operated in the East in antipartisan duties, however there were an small number of AT in France paired with artillery trains, most of them used panzer IV turrets, Ill post some photos later.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 20, 2010)

Great post, CB!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 20, 2010)

Nice CB, armored trains have always fascinated me.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 22, 2010)

Thank you, thank you, I had found more info in the 122mm panzer, it was attached to the train PZ 32, PZ goes for Panzerzuge= armored train.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 14, 2010)

Amazing. Just when you think you have seen all the crazy German projects someone finds another one to post. Strange some of these look actually practical. Could be why they never went ahead...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 21, 2010)

> Just when you think you have seen all the crazy German projects someone finds another one to post.



Here you got more:

*8cm-Raketen Vielfachwerfer aus Gepanzerter Opel Maultier.*

A projekt of the SS, the 1942 CZ Brno manufactured "multiple rocket launcher on armored Opel Mule" was armed with a german variant of the russian RS-82 rocket wich impressed the teutonic weapon designers given its high speed.






The launching frame had 24 projectiles with an 360º azimuth and 40º max elevation. Initial velocity of the rockets was 250 mps and his range 5600 m. The Waffen SS asked for 180 of this vehicles to reinforce fully motorized divisions. Albert Speer denied the usage of the Maultier chassis and the series production cancelled. A small batch of launchers on french half-tracks was used instead.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 21, 2010)

Ah, so that is what produced the launcher that we know is it?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 21, 2010)

Yes, the normal Maultier rocket launcher used 150 and 210 mm projectiles.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 23, 2010)

I always found it strange to believe that it was on a 3 t truck instead of the bigger MB 4,5 t truck. The Maultier configuration resulted in the payload being reduced to 2 tons. Adding armour and armament must have made the Panzerwerfer very heavy and slow. 

And second, I wonder if a similar configuration could not have been made into a cheaper armoured infantry carrier like the SdKfz 251. Infantry and personal equipment (max 1,500 kg) instead of the weapon launchers and the ammo. Put the heavier engine of the SdKfz 251 in it (or the 80 hp Deutz diesel engine). Not as good but a lot cheaper and in quantity to motorize all the Panzergrenadier units.

Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 24, 2010)

Actually there was an rocket launching variant of the Sd.Kfz 251 called sturmpanzerwagen of stupa, the rockets were really short range so the AFV couldnt fullfill artillery roles and was used as close support instead.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 26, 2010)

no, I think that was the so called Stuka zu Fuss. 
The Stupa was the nick for the Sturmpanzer IV. 

And there is a thin line between close support and artillery. In any case, I think even with the Wulfrahmen the range was beyond visual range.

Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 27, 2010)

Yes, you got it right, I did better here 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/special-purpose-panzers-17604-7.html

In spite of that I do believe there was a variant of the Sd.Kfz 251 wich had a nickname beginning with "stu".

I don have to check the range of the 320mm rocket but in any case didnt reached even 4 km, specially with the low elevation in teh stuka zu fuss.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 1, 2010)

Ultra fasinating. Keep them coming if you can. By the way, any more on the Ratte? Did any plans survive or are the reconstructions totally guesswork?


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 7, 2015)

If you ever pop back in Charles Bronson, the majority of the photos on the thread are missing

Geo


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 7, 2015)

Yea, quite sad, imageshak is warped from sometime on.

here a video, Experimental medium tank Henschel VK.30.01 with trench digging equipment.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQLVa6Nr9r8_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Feb 8, 2015)

What type suspension was used on that medium tank test chassis?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 8, 2015)

That was pretty interesting.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 8, 2015)

davebender said:


> What type suspension was used on that medium tank test chassis?



Well, is clearly visible, interleaved wheels with torsions bars. In other chasis they made the "Sturer Emil" 128mmm self propelled gun, I think 2 or 3 no more than that.


----------



## planb (Feb 9, 2015)

What was it with the Germans and interleaved road wheels on everything?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 9, 2015)

planb said:


> What was it with the Germans and interleaved road wheels on everything?



It worked?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 10, 2015)

Looks to me that was the way to have tightly spaced big wheels. Big wheels should mean a smoother ride than with smaller wheels, and probably less strain on the tracks.
At the end of the day, going with the simple suspension and wheel layout, like it was the case on the Pz-III and Pz-38(t) should also give good results, while not having propensity to clog mud snow between the wheels. The Soviet KV and IS tanks used the Pz-III style torsion bar suspension and small wheels, worked just fine. The US designs also used it, at M-18 and Pershing, though with bigger wheels.


----------



## davebender (Feb 10, 2015)

Softer ride plus superior weight distribution on track = superior off road performance. Softer ride improves crew performance as they don't get bounced around so much. Weapons are more accurate when moving even without stabilization as they don't get bounced around so much. Shock sensitive equipment such as radios and optics not so likely to suffer damage from getting bounced around. 

Easy to adjust vehicle length by adding or removing road wheels. This is most obvious when examining German 3/4 track vehicle development.

Probably also helps that Germany was able to mass produce Schachtellaufwerk suspension at relatively low cost using their decentralized manufacturing methods.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 13, 2015)

The most funny part is the the 3 most numerous german armored fighting vehicles of WW2 (panzer III, IV and Stug III) didnt have any of that interleaved thing, probably becaus ethe weight didnt surpass the 30 tons.


----------

