Rare Crazy Panzer Projekts.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 843
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
Click to expand...

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.

 
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.
 

Attachments

  • p1.jpg
    38.2 KB · Views: 1,081
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
 
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,
Click to expand...

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:
 
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).
 


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
Click to expand...

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.
 

Attachments

  • 01.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 1,235
  • 2.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 647
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Nice, but the Löwe model is wrong, this is the Lion. Armor was 120mm and the main gun 88 or 105mm.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 491
  • 2.jpg
    52.9 KB · Views: 410
  • 3.jpg
    48.9 KB · Views: 607
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.
 

Attachments

  • img002.jpg
    41.7 KB · Views: 427
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...
 
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...
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Wiking, Nordland & 11th (Gespenster) Panzer Divisions?
Replies
6
Views
3K
Lucky13
Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf. E on liquid gas
Replies
15
Views
5K
chuter
W
Impact of a Zis-2 equipped Panzer III
Replies
5
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
B
Some pretty rare and graphic photos from World War II
Replies
0
Views
3K
Bgallo28
B
Longer Panzer III. The path not taken.
2
Replies
22
Views
8K
razor1uk
Menu
Log in
Register