6 April 2020, 04:05:54 *

Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to War and Tactics!    War and Tactics Forum is currently undergoing some modifications that might disable features you are used to. This is unabvoidable as we have to update the forum engine to a new structure that is incompatible with many of the features we had used so far. The good news: WaT will be more secure and stable, and most of the features we uninstalled will be a natural part of the new structure anyway. For the rest we will be looking for solutions. (APR 23, 2018)
   
  Home   Forum   Help ! Forum Rules ! Search Calendar Donations Login Register Chat  
Pages:  [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on MySpaceShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on TechnoratiShare this topic on TwitterShare this topic on Yahoo
Author Topic: WWII German panzers & AFV's: Q&A  (Read 29982 times)
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« on: 11 June 2009, 10:08:20 »
ReplyReply

Do you have a picture where you want to know more from?

Post them here and we'll get into some research!



Logged
Earl Grey
Member of Staff

**

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Lower Franconia
Posts: 421




View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 11 June 2009, 11:11:43 »
ReplyReply

First one hasn't been identified for years and probabaaly never will... as far as I'm aware we don't even know where that picture was taken. Probabaly Germany.

Second one is most likely a "Wiking" Panther in Poland, 1944, around Kovel.

No idea yet on the third picture.
Logged

"You don't have to take things how they are - rather how they should be!" - Bastard Instructor From Hell
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #2 on: 12 June 2009, 10:26:40 »
ReplyReply

First one hasn't been identified for years and probabaaly never will... as far as I'm aware we don't even know where that picture was taken. Probabaly Germany.

Second one is most likely a "Wiking" Panther in Poland, 1944, around Kovel.

No idea yet on the third picture.


got an idea on the types?
I would like to put some order in my collection  hatsoff
Logged
Earl Grey
Member of Staff

**

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Lower Franconia
Posts: 421




View Profile
« Reply #3 on: 12 June 2009, 15:01:21 »
ReplyReply

First one is a late (maybe even final) G, second one is an early A, third are early G (though I don't recall haveing seen a Panther G with A type skirts before).
Logged

"You don't have to take things how they are - rather how they should be!" - Bastard Instructor From Hell
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #4 on: 12 June 2009, 15:11:00 »
ReplyReply

First one is a late (maybe even final) G, second one is an early A, third are early G (though I don't recall haveing seen a Panther G with A type skirts before).


ok
Logged
MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #5 on: 24 February 2010, 03:54:05 »
ReplyReply

Is this a Maus?



I was under the impression that the Maus never saw service yet this one looks to have been destroyed (maybe deliberately) in operation.
Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #6 on: 24 February 2010, 22:32:24 »
ReplyReply

Is this a Maus?

<Quoted Image Removed>

I was under the impression that the Maus never saw service yet this one looks to have been destroyed (maybe deliberately) in operation.



interesting picture, question is ofcourse was it sabotaged or destroyed?
I can't recall there was ever a shot fired or a combat engagement.
Quote
The working Maus prototypes remained at Kummersdorf and at the proving grounds in Böblingen. In the last weeks of the war the V1 with the dummy turret was captured by the advancing Soviet forces in the vicinity of the western batteries of the Kummersdorf artillery firing grounds. It had been mechanically sabotaged by the Germans before abandoning it.


Quote
Bei Kriegsende befanden sich beide Prototypen auf dem Heeresversuchsgelände in Kummersdorf, wo die erste Maus beim Herannahen der sowjetischen Truppen von der Wehrmacht gesprengt wurde.


picture is also posted here: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-viii-maus-porsche-typ-205-tiger-iip.htm
Quote
Sowohl der V1 als auch der V2 wurden von ihren Besatzungen gesprengt, als die Rote Armee das Versuchsgelände in Kummersdorf erreichte. Darüber hinaus gibt es auch Gerüchte, dass die beiden "Maus"-Panzer bei der Verteidigung des Testgeländes eingesetzt wurden.

Logged
MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #7 on: 24 February 2010, 23:11:53 »
ReplyReply

I personally lean toward it being sabotage as the turret is relatively intact yet the central hull is destroyed, this would indicate that it was unlikely to have been caused by artillery fire or an AT round.

The other thing that interests me is that lack of finish on the turret itself as it has no hatches or spare "wheels" this indicates to me that the vehicle was unfinished at the time of destruction.
Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #8 on: 24 February 2010, 23:14:26 »
ReplyReply

I personally lean toward it being sabotage as the turret is relatively intact yet the central hull is destroyed, this would indicate that it was unlikely to have been caused by artillery fire or an AT round.

The other thing that interests me is that lack of finish on the turret itself as it has no hatches or spare "wheels" this indicates to me that the vehicle was unfinished at the time of destruction.



there was none ready for normal duty...only limited test had been made so the lack of hatch(es) or spares is no indication

I believe that this is a picture of an attempt to leave the testgrounds but since that failed they sabotaged it
Logged
MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #9 on: 24 February 2010, 23:31:52 »
ReplyReply

That would certainly be a plausible answer although I would have thought they would have put more effort into destroying the turret as well.
Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #10 on: 24 February 2010, 23:36:43 »
ReplyReply

That would certainly be a plausible answer although I would have thought they would have put more effort into destroying the turret as well.


well, it was build to be 'undestructable'  hihi
Logged
MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #11 on: 25 February 2010, 00:15:09 »
ReplyReply

Well next up...

I thought they only made a few of these (2 to be precise) so I am surprised to see any on combat.



Selbstfahrlafette L/61 Sturer Emil?
Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Earl Grey
Member of Staff

**

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Lower Franconia
Posts: 421




View Profile
« Reply #12 on: 26 February 2010, 18:07:19 »
ReplyReply

That is indeed a "Sturer Emil". 2 were built and apparently both served on the Eastern Front from 1942 until 1944 - one captured by the Red Army, the other one disappeared, so it very likely got destroyed somewhere.
Logged

"You don't have to take things how they are - rather how they should be!" - Bastard Instructor From Hell
MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #13 on: 27 February 2010, 01:13:49 »
ReplyReply

I wonder why so few were made given that it can not have had any equal in terms of firepower during the 1942-1944 period, it also looks like it is utilising the Pz-III chassis which should have been available in greater numbers given that they were being phased out during this period.

I am assuming that in the long term the fully enclosed tank destroyers would have been the preferred option but this seems like the ideal short term solution.
Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #14 on: 27 February 2010, 11:54:05 »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette auf VK3001(H) "Sturer Emil" was an experimental World War II German self-propelled anti-tank gun. It was based on the Henschel VK3001 chassis and armed with a Rheinmetall 12.8 cm K L/61 gun (based on the 12.8 cm FlaK 40). This gun could traverse 7° to each side, elevate 10° and depress 15°. It carried 18 rounds for the main gun.

The chassis was left over from Henschel's submission for the canceled VK3001 heavy tank program, but the hull was stretched and an extra road wheel added to accommodate the large gun, which was mounted on a pedestal ahead of the engine. A large, open-topped, fighting compartment was built where the turret was intended to go in the original design.

Two vehicles (named Max and Moritz) were built, both of which served on the Eastern Front. One vehicle was destroyed, the other captured at Stalingrad in January 1943, with 22 kill marks painted on the barrel. This captured vehicle is now displayed in the collection on the Kubinka Tank Museum.



so when they used a chassis form a cancelled heavy-tank program the numbers were limited and they had to modify them which meant extra work so no 'short-term' solution but an expensive one?
and in the russian open plains they were easy to detect due to their size and very vulnerable to air-attacks

just thoughts  whistle

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/heu.htm#128
Quote
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. Vehicles were named "Max" and "Moritz" after characters in Busch's classic children's story. Today, the one captured by the Red Army can be seen in the Museum of Armored Forces in Kubinka (Russia).

Logged
Earl Grey
Member of Staff

**

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Lower Franconia
Posts: 421




View Profile
« Reply #15 on: 27 February 2010, 15:15:29 »
ReplyReply

Call it a 'field test' - no other chassis had the ability to carry a 12,8cm gun at that time, the KVs were numerous but the Tiger not yet avialbale in sufficient numbers or at all. And would you let a couple of chassis go to waste when you can modify them a little and employ them with a gun without match on the battlefield, even when there are only 2? Then there was the "Dicker Max" (based on a PzIV chassis aremd with a 10.5cm field gun), of which also only 2 were built. Even though thsoe were expensive and difficult to produce I'm sure the German engineers gained valuable information from the deployment of those vehicles necessary for the development of the heavy tank destroyers.
Logged

"You don't have to take things how they are - rather how they should be!" - Bastard Instructor From Hell
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #16 on: 27 February 2010, 20:41:54 »
ReplyReply

Call it a 'field test' - no other chassis had the ability to carry a 12,8cm gun at that time, the KVs were numerous but the Tiger not yet avialbale in sufficient numbers or at all. And would you let a couple of chassis go to waste when you can modify them a little and employ them with a gun without match on the battlefield, even when there are only 2? Then there was the "Dicker Max" (based on a PzIV chassis aremd with a 10.5cm field gun), of which also only 2 were built. Even though thsoe were expensive and difficult to produce I'm sure the German engineers gained valuable information from the deployment of those vehicles necessary for the development of the heavy tank destroyers.


why do YOU think they didn't go for the original 'open' turret? because the crew felt they were "sitting ducks"?
Logged
MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #17 on: 27 February 2010, 22:05:11 »
ReplyReply

Here is what I assume is the same vehicle from a different angle...



There appears to be reasonable crew protection.

Also are you sure that is an experimental chassis?
Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #18 on: 27 February 2010, 22:11:25 »
ReplyReply

it's a modified chassis for an experimental tank

modified: 1 wheel added
experimental: to use with for a new heavy tank

EG: correct me when I got it wrong  Knipoog
Logged
MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #19 on: 27 February 2010, 22:17:51 »
ReplyReply

Hehe I just noticed the extra top guide wheel.

I assume this is the 10.5cm one produced using the Pz-IV chassis...



and

Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Pages:  [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Unique Hits: 28503258 | Sitemap
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page 17 February 2020, 11:47:27