Author: MarkoPantelic

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm L/41 Sturmgeschütz (Sturmgeschütz III L/41)

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date August 7, 2023
3 Comments on Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm L/41 Sturmgeschütz (Sturmgeschütz III L/41)

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm L/41 Sturmgeschütz. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

German Reich (1941)
Self-Propelled Assault Gun – At Least 1 Prototype Built

During the battles across the Soviet Union and North Africa in 1941, the Germans were hard-pressed as their anti-tank and tank guns proved to be almost useless. In desperation, the Germans often employed the 8.8 cm anti-aircraft or even some larger caliber artillery gun as makeshift anti-tank weapons. German tanks and armored vehicles, such as the StuG III series, lacked the firepower to reliably pierce the armor of enemy tanks. In 1942, the improved 7.5 cm L/43 and L/48 guns were introduced into service, and, thanks to them, the Germans finally had the means to effectively fight back. The development of such weapons had actually been initiated before the start of the war by the Krupp firm. This gun would be fitted into at least one heavily modified StuG III vehicle.

The modified StuG III, armed with the Krupp long 7.5 cm gun. Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/panzerdb/34066231454/in/album-72157626390233907/

A Brief History of German Early 7.5 cm Gun Development

During the mid-1930s the Heereswaffenamt HWa (English: Army Weapons Department) issued a request for the development of two new types of tanks designed to fulfill specialized combat roles. Both received somewhat unusual designations but this was done intentionally to deceive the Western Allies, as the Germans were still technically forbidden to develop such vehicles by the Treaty of Versailles.

The first one was the Zugführerwagen ZW (English: platoon commander’s vehicle). This vehicle armed with a 3.7 cm KwK (short for ‘Kampfwagenkanone’ which could be translated as ‘combat vehicle cannon’ or, more simply, as ‘tank gun’) L/45 gun was intended to spearhead an attack on German armored formation and deal with enemy armor. It would eventually evolve into the Panzer III series.

The Panzer III Ausf.E. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/panzer3/

The second, known as Begleitwagen BW (English: escort vehicle), was intended as a firing support vehicle. Its purpose was to deal with enemy fortified positions, anti-tank and artillery emplacement, and similar targets by firing high-explosive ammunition. While the 3.7 cm gun was a good weapon for the pre-war standards, it lacked sufficient destruction and firepower. That is why the Germans decided to use the 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun as the main armament for this vehicle. This would lead to the creation of the Panzer IVs series.

A Panzer IV Ausf.A, armed with the 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun. Source: Wiki

This 7.5 cm gun was not a new design and was already used on several early and experimental German tanks, such as the Grosstraktor (English: large tractor) and Neubaufahrzeug (English: new vehicle) projects. While these were unsuccessful, they provided the Germans with vital experience in tank design.

The Grosstraktor was one of the earlier German attempts to domestically design and produce tanks. Few were built and they were used mostly for evaluation and initial crew training. Source: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/14/steel-from-the-rhine-rheinmetall-minibranch/

The Neubaufahrzeug, despite being built in small numbers (only five vehicles), still saw limited service within the German Army during the invasion of Norway in 1940. Source: Wikimedia Commons

The 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 had a short barrel that had 28 grooves, each 0.85 mm deep. It had a semi-automatic breech, which means that, after firing, the spent cartridge would be self-ejected, thus increasing the overall firing rate. The gun recoil cylinders that stood outside of the turret and the gun were covered by a steel jacket and a deflector guard. For the gunner’s protection, a recoil shield was added to the rear of the gun. Usually, the gun was provided with a ‘Y’ shaped metal rod antenna guide placed under the gun. Its purpose was to deflect the antenna and thus avoid damaging it during turret rotation.

Close-up view of a dismounted 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun. Source: world-war-2.wikia.org

Initially, this gun could fire a few different types of ammunition. These include the 7.5cm GrPatr 34 high-explosive, 7.5 cm PzGr patr anti-tank, and NbGrPatr smoke round. Given its original purpose, the early Panzer IV would mostly be supplied with the high-explosive round. This round had a weight of 5.7 kg and with a muzzle velocity of 420 m/s could reach a maximum distance of 6.5 km. The anti-tank round was heavier at 6.8 kg, but had a lower velocity of 385 m/s, and could pierce around 39 mm of 30° angled armor at distances of 500 m. The 7.5 NbGr Patr was a smoke-screen round. When fired, it would create a smoke cloud that could cover an area of 15 to 20 m for a period of some 30 seconds.

A New Sturmgeschütz III Vehicle

Based on the combat experience of the German Army during the First World War, Erich von Manstein proposed the introduction of a highly mobile, well-protected, and well-armed self-propelled artillery gun. Such vehicles were meant to provide infantry with mobile close-fire support during combat operations. Thanks to the self-propelled chassis, these could be quickly redeployed to respond to any new threat. This self-propelled artillery gun was to be an organic part of standard infantry divisions. Such a vehicle known as Sturmgeschütz III or simply StuG III (English: Assault gun) was developed just prior to the war in the West in May 1940. It quickly proved to be an effective concept and the German Army requested that its production be increased.

The StuG III basically consisted of a Panzer III chassis which was combined with a new superstructure armed with the 7.5 cm StuK 37 (Sturmkanone – assault gun) L/24 gun. It was more or less a copy of the Panzer IV’s 7.5 cm KwK 37 gun just adopted for use inside the StuG III. With this gun and strong armor, the StuG III became a very effective and popular vehicle in the German arsenal. It was able to provide mobile firepower to German infantry formations.

The StuG III, from the Ausf.A to the Ausf.E versions, were armed with the short barrel 7.5 cm gun. While generally a good gun, its anti-tank performance was becoming obsolete by 1941. Source: Walter J. Spielberger, Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Combat Experiences

During the Polish campaign of September 1939, the 7.5 cm proved to be more than much of the enemy armor and fortified positions. In a 3rd Panzer Division’s officer’s report, the performance of the 7.5 cm gun was described as follows.

“ .. Once again it has been made obvious that Panzer units should avoid combat in forests and most towns. However, those with houses built from wood were easily set on fire with high-explosive rounds fired from 7.5cm-armed PzKpfw. The subsequent blaze would force any Polish troops out into open, where we shot them down with our machine gun fire. I am convinced that the 7.5cm-armed PzKpfw is the perfect support vehicle for infantry in urban warfare… “

For the anticipated war with the Western Allies, and especially France, the Germans could count on less than 300 Panzer IVs and a small number of StuG IIIs equipped with the 7.5 cm gun. Prior to the war, the Germans were clearly aware of the new French tank designs. When developing the 7.5 cm gun, they also introduced armor-piercing ammunition specially designed to deal with the French armor. This could be seen in a report made by the Waffenamt (English: Ordnance Office) written on 30th October 1935.

“ …. When firing the 7.5cm Panzergranate [anti-tank] 43mm of armour was penetrated at an angle of 60 degrees which makes it eminently suitable for defeating the new French tank type. However, these are theoretical considerations which will have to be proven by practical trials at Putlos; the low muzzle velocity results in a curved trajectory which will seriously affect accuracy. Despite this, we expect the BW [Panzer IV] to defeat all types of French tanks with the exception of the Char 2C super heavy tank. ….”.

The effectiveness of the 7.5 cm gun against enemy armor can be seen during the battles around Stonne in France in mid-May 1940. One Panzer IV managed to destroy 2 Hotchkiss H39 tanks but failed to do anything against the heavy Char B1 Bis tank despite firing 20 or so rounds against it. Although the rounds could not penetrate the heavy French armor, the Panzer IV did manage to destroy the French tank’s track and thereby render it immobile. At the same time, a second B1 Bis was engaged by the Panzer IV. This time, due to a lucky hit, the German tank jammed the second French tank’s cupola. The Panzer IV managed to fire another round to the rear, and this time the 7.5 cm gun managed to penetrate the armor of the B1 Bis which was blown up by an internal explosion. The Char B1 and the British Matilda Mk.II were tanks that the German intelligence failed to detect, which were almost immune to German weapons.

Despite facing such strong opponents, the Germans did little in regard to improving the firepower of their tanks. The Panzer III’s 3.7 cm gun would be replaced with a short barrel 5 cm caliber gun, while the armament on the Panzer IV and StuG III would remain the same. In 1941, when the Axis forces invaded the Soviet Union, the 7.5 cm gun proved more than sufficient in dealing with the light enemy armor, such as the T-26 and BT-series. However, once the stronger T-34 and KV-series were encountered, the effectiveness of the 7.5 cm armor-piercing round was shown to be lacking. The high-explosive round, on the other hand, was somewhat more successful. While it could not penetrate the thick armor of the enemy tanks, its explosive firepower was enough to cause serious damage to them by blowing up the suspension or even jamming the gun. By late 1941, due to the ineffectiveness of their anti-tank guns, the Germans were becoming desperate to find a solution. The introduction of tungsten-based ammunition was seen as a simple solution. The downside of it was that Germany was in short supply of this metal. Interestingly, due to the 7.5 cm L/24’s low velocity, the Germans never developed a tungsten round for this gun.

In December 1941, Adolf Hitler issued an order that the production of the shaped-charge round should begin as soon as possible. This led to the introduction of the 7.5 cm GrPatr38 shaped-charge rounds. These had a velocity of 450 m/s with the difference that the later version had a slightly better penetration of 7.5 cm at any range. While on paper this meant that any enemy tank could be defeated, the reality was quite different. For example, the low velocity led to a rather limited accuracy. In addition, the overall ballistic design of this round was far from perfect as it too often simply bounced off or failed to penetrate enemy armor. Improving the anti-tank performance of standard armor-piercing rounds was thus seen as the most preferable solution, The easiest way to do so was to increase the round propellant charge and use a longer barrel, thus increasing velocity. While this project was initiated in late 1941, the firm of Krupp had already considered this problem back in 1938.

Krupp 7.5 cm L/41 Gun

With the slow development of the new StuG III vehicles, new designs and ideas were often proposed to further increase their effectiveness. One of these included a proposal for a new so-called Verstärktes (English: improved or enhanced) StuG III vehicle. It was to be armed with a much longer 7.5 cm gun. Unfortunately, this part of StuG III development is rather obscure and not well documented in sources, where it is rarely mentioned.

However, what is clear is that this gun was intended to have improved anti-tank performance thanks to improved velocity. It might appear odd that a high-velocity gun was not considered earlier, but it must be borne in mind that the primary role of the StuG III was to engage fortified positions, not tanks. Combat versus tanks was to be done only in case of emergency or self-defense. It is also possible that the Germans wanted simply to improve the StuG III’s overall firepower but also to increase the designated task that such a vehicle was to perform.

In either case, in August 1938, the Waffenamt Prüf 4 (English: Army Weapons Agency of the Artillery Branch) instructed both the Rheinmetall-Borsig and Krupp firms to begin preparation for developing such guns. Another quite interesting and also confusing fact is that the Panzer IV was not included in this project despite using the same gun as the StuG III and could also benefit from using the stronger armament. On 3rd November, Krupp informed Waffenamt Prüf 4 that their project received the 7.5cm L/41 (sometimes referred to as L/40) sPaK verstärkt (English: improved or strengthened) designation. A month later, the WaPrüf 1 (English: Army Weapons Agency of the Ammunition Branch) asked Krupp to make the first drawing of the ammunition that would be used on this gun (armor-piercing and high-explosive). In early 1939, the first gun prototypes were to be completed and issued for firing trials, but delays occurred which postponed these trials.

In April 1940, firing test trials were held at Meppen. These showed some problems with spent cartridge ejection. In addition, it was requested to add a muzzle brake to the gun to reduce recoil forces. On 7th May 1940, after more firing trials were conducted, the ejection problem was noted to still be present. On the other hand, the new muzzle brake was noted to be highly successful, reducing the recoil by some 47%. In the following firing trials, some 130 rounds of ammunition were used. An average velocity of 675 m/s was achieved. Only one ejection problem was noted. Unfortunately, it appears that no photograph of this gun is known to have survived.

Into a StuG III

As the gun was being tested, several (the precise number is unknown) modified and experimental StuG III vehicles were being built using Panzer III Ausf.F chassis. It is not clear when this was initiated, by who, or who actually designed and built the vehicle. Likely many different firms and companies would have been involved in this project before the vehicle was assembled at Daimler-Benz. This company was closely engaged in the early StuG III’s development and production. Sometime in May 1940 (or even earlier), this vehicle was transported to the Jüterbog artillery training center for further evaluation.

The modified StuG III is armed with the Krupp long 7.5 cm gun. Source: T. Anderson, Sturmartillerie Spearhead of the Infantry

Name

The standard production vehicles received the Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone Ausführung with a capital letter depending on the version. If these Versuchsfahrzeuge (English: experimental or test vehicles) received any official designation it is sadly unknown. A possible designation using the previous example could have been Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm L/41 Sturmgeschütz but this is speculation at best. For the sake of simplicity, this article refers to it as the 7.5 cm L/41 StuG III.

Design

The overall design of this vehicle is unfortunately not documented in the sources. Luckily, there are a few known photographs of it. Thanks to it, we can make several educated guesses about its overall construction. In addition, we know that they used the chassis taken from the Panzer III Ausf.F which was used for early StuG III vehicles.

Hull

The 7.5 cm L/41 StuG III hull would have consisted of three major sections. These were the forward-mounted transmission, central crew compartment, and rear engine compartment. The front hull was where the transmission and steering systems were placed and it was protected with an angled armor plate. The two square-shaped, two-part hatch brake inspection doors were located on the front hull.

Suspension and Running Gear

The 7.5 cm L/41 StuG III’s suspension consisted of six pairs of road wheels on each side. These were suspended using a combination of individual swing axles together with torsion bars which were placed in the bottom of the hull. The upper movement of each wheel’s swingarm was limited by contact blocks covered in rubber. Additionally, the first and the last wheels were equipped with a hydraulic shock absorber. At the front, there was a 360 mm wide 21-tooth drive sprocket. On the back of the hull was the idler with an adjustable crank arm. The number of return rollers was three per side. The whole suspension unit was taken directly from the Panzer III Ausf.F version.

This vehicle used a simpler torsion bar suspension consisting of six road wheels. While not perfect, it did the job. Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/-t235297

The Engine

Given that the 7.5 cm L/41 StuG III was based on the Panzer III Ausf.F, it would have used the twelve-cylinder, water-cooled Maybach HL 120 TRM engine giving 265 hp at 2,600 rpm. With this engine the production version of the StuG III Ausf.A could achieve a maximum speed of 40 km/h, while the cross-country speed was reduced to 20 km/h. The fuel load of 310 liters was stored in two fuel tanks placed below the radiators in the engine compartment. With this fuel load, StuG III Ausf.A’s operational range was 160 km on roads and 100 km cross-country.

Given the added weight of the gun, ammunition, and armor, the 7.5 cm L/41 StuG III’s overall drive performance would likely (while not significantly) be still slightly reduced. To what extent it is impossible to know precisely due to lack of information.

The Superstructure

The superstructure was in many regards quite different from the standard StuG III’s superstructure. Due to the larger size of the ammunition, it was necessary to enlarge the whole superstructure. The most obvious change was extending the sides of this new superstructure. This provided additional working room for the crew but likely at the same time increased the ammunition load. The extended sides design was quite simple, which was built using flat plates.

The front driver’s (and opposite of him) angled plates were also redesigned. These were placed at a much higher angle providing better protection and removing the shot trap that the production StuG III had. This feature would be finally introduced to standard StuG III vehicles only in late 1942 starting from the Ausf.F/8 version. Another unusual feature was adding a driver visor port, on the right side of the front plate. The top armor was mostly flat, with the sides slightly angled toward the fenders. The three hatches for the gunner, commander, and the gunner would likely remain the same. The rear of the superstructure was completely flat which greatly simplified the overall design.

The 7.5 cm L/41 StuG III’s new superstructure was in many regards much different from that used on standard StuG III vehicles. Note the fake right visor port, which was only used on this vehicle and not on the production version of the StuG III. Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/-t235297

Side view of this vehicle, note the simple flat side and rear of the superstructure. Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/-t235297

In comparison, the early StuG III Ausf.A and Ausf.B superstructures were much different and had a large weak point in form of the opening for the gunner sight. Source: T. Anderson, Sturmartillerie Spearhead of the Infantry

Armor Protection

The 7.5 cm L/41 StuG III vehicles received mild steel superstructure as they were intended for experimentation and evaluation. If accepted for service, the armor thickness would likely be the same as other StuG IIIs produced at that time.

The front and upper hull armor were 50 mm thick, while the sides and rear were 30 mm thick. The front superstructure armor plates were 50 mm thick. Like the hull armor, the superstructure side and rear were also 30 mm thick. The top armor was 10 mm, while the top of the engine compartment was slightly thicker, at 16 mm.

From August 1938 on, nearly all German panzers were equipped with a Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung (smoke grenade rack system). This device was placed on the rear of the hull. It contained five grenades which were fired through a wired system by the commander. When activated, the StuG would then drive back under the safety of the smokescreen.

Armament

The main armament for this experimental vehicle was the Krupp 7.5 cm L/41 gun. Its overall performance is not well documented. According to Krupp documentation dated 15th April 1941, this gun had the following properties: it could fire a 6.8 kg round at a muzzle velocity of 670 m/s, its barrel length was 3,023 mm and its total weight was 1,400 kg. It was estimated that at ranges of 400 m this gun could penetrate 70 mm of armor plate at a 30º angle. Given its stronger recoil force, the gun would receive much larger recoil cylinders that were placed above the gun barrel. It was protected by an armored casing quite different from early and later production StuG III vehicles. To further reduce the recoil force, a double-baffle muzzle brake was used. The ammunition load is unknown, but given the enlarged superstructure, probably more than the standard 44 rounds. No secondary defense armament appears to be intended for this vehicle. This may have just been because this was an experimental vehicle.

The 7.5 cm L/41 used a much different design of the recoil cylinder armored cover. Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/-t235297

Close-up view of the different StuK 37 L/24 cylinder gun covers. This difference is to be expected as the 7.5 cm L/41 gun required larger recoil cylinders. Source: Sturmartillerie Tome I by Didier Laugier

The later introduced StuG III (starting from Ausf.F) received a larger cylinder cover for their main armament. Source: B. Carruthers, Sturmgeschütze Armored Assault Guns

Crew

The crew of this vehicle consisted of four: commander, driver, loader, and gunner. While the loader was positioned to the right of the gun, the remaining crew was placed opposite of him. The driver was positioned on the left front side of the hull. Just behind him was the gunner, and right behind him was the commander.

The Fate of the Krupp Gun

Following its completion, the prototype vehicle was sent to the Jüterbog artillery training center and later to Kummersdorf. In both locations, the gun was thoroughly examined and fire tested. On 19th March, it was transported to Daimler-Benz. At the end of the month, it was presented to Adolf Hitler. While it is unclear how this inspection went, Hitler was probably satisfied with the design as troop trials were ordered. If these proved to be successful, mass production was estimated to begin in spring 1941 or 1942 (sources disagree here). Nothing is known about these trials and if any problems with this vehicle were detected. Unfortunately, what happened to the Krupp L/41 armed StuG III vehicle is also unknown. Interestingly, in early November 1941, Krupp was informed that this gun was purely intended for the German Army and not to be exported to other countries. On 20th November, Krupp was informed that this project was to be canceled and any further work on it should stop. The prototype vehicle was likely rebuilt back to its original Panzer III configuration or reused as a training vehicle but its final fate remains unknown.

However, there may be some clue that one such vehicle may have seen combat action. But due to a lack of more information, this could not be confirmed with great certainty. During battles in Crimea in May 1942 between the Germans and the Soviets the 22nd Panzer Division and 197th Assault Battalion saw extensive action. Due to the lack of infantry anti-tank guns, the StuG III was used in anti-tank roles. The German armored formations managed to take out 250 Soviet tanks with the loss of only 3 StuG IIIs and 8 Panzers. In the after-combat report of the 197th Battalion, the use of 7.5 cm L/41 guns is mentioned. This may have referred to the Krupp prototype but it is impossible to confirm with certainty as it could also be just a simple typo by the author of this after-combat report.

While the 7.5 cm L/41 StuG III project was canceled, Krupp’s work on this gun was not completely wasted. In parallel to Krupp’s work, Rheinmetall-Borsig was also working on a similar project. This company was focusing on developing an anti-tank weapon which was basically an enlarged version of the 5 cm PaK 38. They succeeded in this, creating the 7.5 cm PaK 40 L/46 anti-tank gun. It would prove to be an effective tank destroyer and would see service up to the end of the war. This weapon was the main reason why the Krupp 7.5 cm L/41 gun project was canceled as the Rheinmetall-Borsig had better anti-tank power. This gun could on the other hand not be directly installed on StuG III and Panzer IV without a series of modifications. The main issue was the cramped interior of these two vehicles, in which their crews could not effectively use the PaK 40 long ammunition rounds. The Waffenamt Prüf 4 instructed Krupp and Rheinmetall-Borsig to join together to resolve this issue. These two firms resolved this problem with a simple solution. The Rheinmetall-Borsig barrel (albeit shortened to L/43 to reduce the cost and time needed for production) was merged with the Krupp-developed breech and cartridge chamber. This enabled the use of shorter but thicker ammunition rounds without any major loss of anti-tank properties. This led to the creation of the 7.5 cm Kanone 44 L/46 later in March 1942, renamed to 7.5 cm StuK (Sturmkanone) 40 L/43 gun.

Close-up view of the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43. Source: W. J. Spielberger, Sturmgeschütz and its variant

This gun would be installed inside modified StuG III Ausf.E vehicles for testing held during April 1942. Regarding the vehicle design, it necessitated only some minor changes to StuG III Ausf.E’s original form. These mainly involved adding new ammunition racks, improving the ventilators, and some other minor changes. But besides that, the StuG III proved to be an excellent base for this gun. With this armament, the StuG III would become one of the best anti-armor vehicles in the German arsenal up to the end of the war.

A StuG III Ausf.E was modified in order to test the new 7.5 cm L/43 gun. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/stihace/stug3.php

Conclusion

The Krupp 7.5 cm L/41 gun was a huge missed opportunity for the Germans to develop a potent anti-armor gun even before the war. It appears that despite having the better overall performance of the short 7.5 cm L/24, Krupp’s own gun development ran at a relatively slow pace until it was eventually canceled in 1941. While having batter armor-piercing performance, it was not without problems, ejection of spent cartridges was a big problem, although that in time would likely have been resolved. The 7.5 cm L/41 gun (at least some part of it) would prove instrumental for the development of new series of the 7.5 cm L/43 and L/48 guns which finally gave the Germans the much-needed firepower, albeit too late.

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm L/41 Sturmgeschütz. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm L/41 Sturmgeschütz Technical specification
Crew	4 (commander, gunner, loader, and driver)
Dimensions	Length 5.38 m, Width 2.92 m, Height 1.95 m
Engine	Maybach 120 TRM 265 hp @ 200 rpm
Speed	40 km/h, 20 km/h (cross-country)
Range	140 km, 85 km (cross-country)
Primary Armament	7.5 cm L/41

Sources

T. Anderson (2021) Panzer IV, Osprey Publishing
D. Doyle (2005). German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
Walter J. Spielberger (1993) Sturmgeschütz and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (1999) Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
T. Anderson (2016) Sturmartillerie Spearhead Of the Infantry, Osprey Publishing
T. Anderson (2017) Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45 , Osprey Publishing
Walter J. Spielberger (1993) Sturmgeschütz and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
https://www.armedconflicts.com/-t235297

Has Own Video WW2 German Medium Tanks

Neubaufahrzeug

Neubaufahrzeug with Krupp turret. Illustration by Pavel Alexe.

German Reich (1934)
Medium Tank – 5 Built (2 Soft Steel Prototypes + 3 Production Vehicles)

Years prior to the start of the Second World War, the German Army experimented with different tank designs. Early attempts lead to the introduction of a small series of experimental prototypes. In those early days of German tank development, these vehicles were intended to deal with two major threats: enemy tanks and fortified positions. In time, these two jobs would be carried out by the Panzer III and Panzer IV vehicles. But the German Army thought that combining these two concepts into a single vehicle could offer a much simpler solution. For this purpose, a small series of five experimental multi-turret tanks, known as Neubaufahrzeug, would be built and tested during the mid-1930s.

The multi-turret Neubaufahrzeug. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/neubaufahrzeug/

A New Tank

In the years leading up to the Second World War, the Reichswehr (Eng. German Army as it was known prior to 1935, when the name was changed to Wehrmacht) was experimenting with tank designs and concepts. During the Interwar period, the concept of tanks was indeed relatively new, and various doctrines regarding their design and usage were being explored by different armed forces. The prevailing opinion during this time was that tanks would primarily serve as infantry support weapons. The experience of the First World War, when tanks were initially introduced, had a significant impact on the development of tank doctrine. However, due to technological limitations and tactical challenges, tanks were not yet fully integrated into combined arms warfare.

There were also other emerging doctrines and experiments regarding tank usage. Some military thinkers, particularly in Germany, were exploring the concept of using tanks in more independent and decisive roles, envisioning large armored formations capable of conducting independent operations. But years prior to the formation of the Panzer Divisions, Reichwehr officials were not sure what the best tank design was or its precise role in combat. The early attempts were aimed at addressing two primary challenges: dealing with enemy tanks and attacking fortified positions.

In the late 1920s, the Reichswehr began exploring the development of tanks to gain valuable experience and test various proposals, mechanical components, armor, and armament. The primary objective was to develop a military capability that could be utilized in case the restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles were lifted or evaded. Under the Treaty of Versailles, the Germans were actually forbidden from developing such technologies. Nevertheless, Germany sought ways to bypass these restrictions and secretly initiated the development of armored vehicles for potential future use. One of the first projects was the lightly 3.7 cm armed Leichttraktor (Eng. Light tractor).

Following the Leichttraktor, the Germans continued their tank development program and produced several versions of a larger tank known as the Grosstraktor (Eng. large tractor). These tanks were armed with a 7.5 cm cannon and were used to further test and refine the design, mechanical components, and tactical use of armored vehicles.

The use of the “tractor” designation for these tanks was an attempt to deceive the Western powers and circumvent the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles. By using the term “tractor”, the Germans aimed to create the impression that these vehicles were merely agricultural or utility vehicles rather than offensive military weapons.

While no final decision about combat doctrine was made at that time, the use of two different calibers basically defined their specific roles. The 3.7 cm gun (which was initially only issued with anti-armor ammunition) was intended to deal with enemy armor. On the other hand, the larger 7.5 cm gun fired high-explosive rounds, meant to deal with fortified positions. These early experiments laid the groundwork for the development of the renowned Panzer series of tanks, specifically the Panzer III and IV.

But besides these two different tank use concepts, attempts were made of creating a new vehicle that combined the firepower of both tank designs. On paper, this made sense, as it would eliminate the need to build two different vehicles that had to perform opposite combat roles. In 1932, the development of one such vehicle was initiated by the Heereswaffenamt (HWa – Army Weapons Department). This vehicle was initially designated as mittlerer Traktor oder Grosstraktor (Neubau) (medium or large tractor [new build]). While the basic overall design was similar to the previous design, the new vehicle was to have three turrets and a total weight of 15 tonnes. The general idea was that, thanks to these various armaments, it would be well-equipped to deal with any threat from any side.

Name

Over its brief service life, this vehicle received several different designations. These included: Grosstraktor Nachbau (Eng. Large Tractor New Construction), mittlerer Traktor Neubau (Eng. New Type Medium Tractor), and Grosstraktor Neubau (Eng. New Type Large Tractor). The designation was finally standardized as Neubaufahrzeug (Eng. New Construction Vehicle or, shortly, NbFz) by WaPrüf 6 in October 1933. This article will be referring to it by its shorter name for the sake of simplicity.

Work on the First Prototypes

WaPrüf 6 awarded production contracts for the first prototypes to two companies: Rheinmetall-Borsig and Krupp. Given their relative success with the earlier Grosstraktor design, Rheinmetall-Borsig was responsible for designing and building the chassis and turret, while Krupp received an order for the turret only.

In 1933, both companies presented their final drawings for the multi-turret tank. The main armament of this tank included a 7.5 cm L/24 gun and a coaxial 3.7 cm KwK 36 L/24 gun. Additionally, two smaller turrets were positioned opposite each other to provide close fire support. Rheinmetall-Borsig’s prototype was presented the following year, featuring an unconventional weapon configuration, with the guns placed vertically, one above the other. On the other hand, Krupp’s prototype, completed in 1935, had a turret with simplified construction and two guns placed side-by-side.

Given their experimental nature, both were built using soft steel. After analyzing these two vehicles, the Krupp turret design was deemed better. In 1935, WaPrüf 6 issued production orders for three additional vehicles using the Rheinmetall-Borsig’s chassis and Krupp’s turrets. These were to be fully functional vehicles protected with proper armor plates. The two smaller turrets were redesigned by an unspecified company.

Rheinmetall-Borsig prototype under construction. Source: https://www.destinationsjourney.com/historical-military-photographs/neubaufahrzeug-german-tank-prototypes/

The Rheinmetall-Borsig prototype was used as a podium for General Brauchtischduring during his speech in front of Rheinmetall factory workers on May 10th, 1938. The occasion was the celebration of the creation of the Deutsche Arbeitsfront or DAF (Eng. German Labour Front). Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Following the examination of the first two experimental prototypes, a production order for three more vehicles was issued. Source: Wikipedia

Other German Multi-Turret Tanks

Besides the Grosstraktor and the Neubaufahrzeug, the Germans built and tested a few other multi-turret tank designs. One of them was Rheinmetall’s Begleitwagen (Eng. Escort tank). It was intended to compete for the contract to create a new support tank armed with a 7.5 cm gun. This vehicle featured an additional turret that was equipped with a machine gun. However, after evaluating various designs, Krupp’s prototype, which later became the Panzer IV, was selected as the superior option. Rheinmetall only built one soft-steel prototype before the project was canceled.

While not always immediately apparent, the early Grosstraktors had a rear-positioned auxiliary turret armed with a single machine gun. Source: https://www.tankarchives.ca/2019/11/first-try-at-medium-tank.html

Rheinmetall’s unsuccessful Begleitwagen prototype. The auxiliary machine gun turret was meant to be positioned on the vehicle’s right hull side. The few surviving photographs of this vehicle indicate that it was never actually fitted. Source: https://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/01/pziv-specialist-of-all-trades.html

The second vehicle was the Panzerkampfawgen VII, also known as VK65.01. This vehicle was ordered by Wa Prüf 6 in 1939. It was intended as a 65 tonne heavy tank with different proposed armaments. Besides the main turret, it was to have a second smaller turret positioned in front of the vehicle superstructure. Krupp completed one soft-steel prototype but the project was canceled in 1942 and this vehicle and all parts were scrapped.

Despite one experimental model being built, no known photograph of this vehicle appears to have survived. Source: T. L. Jentz and H. L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers

Design

Hull

The NbFz’s spacious hull basically consisted of two components. The engine and the transmission compartments were placed to the rear. The rest of the vehicle’s hull was used for the crew compartment. On the hull’s right side, two hatches were placed (one rectangular and one oval-shaped). There was one more on the left and one on the rear of the engine compartments. In addition, the hull sides and parts of the suspension were protected by spaced armor plates which were bolted down to the hull sides.

Suspension

The large NbFz utilized coil spring suspension. On each side, there were five two-wheel boogies placed on pivoting arms. These were cushioned with vertical coil springs. In addition, there was a single road wheel placed close to the front idler. To the rear was a large drive sprocket. Lastly, there were four return rollers. The tracks were 380 mm wide.

While the suspension had a simple design in general, it was not without flaws. The main issue was that the track often fell off. After an investigation, it was determined that the problem was the position of the drive sprocket. Given the experience with this design, the Germans later only employed front-drive sprockets on their tanks.

The NbFz utilized a unique coil spring suspension. While simple, this type of suspension would not be adopted for use on later German tanks. Source: T. Anderson Panzer IV

The position of the rear drive sprocket caused problems, with the track often falling off. This vehicle was one of the main reasons why the Germans never employed this configuration on the later-built Panzer series. Source: T. Anderson The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1

Engine

This vehicle was powered by a BMW Va six-cylinder liquid-cooled engine giving out 290 hp@ 1,400 rpm. With this engine and a weight of 23 tonnes, the maximum speed was 30 km/h. The fuel load was 457 liters, which provided an operational range on good roads of around 120 km. The engine was connected to a rear-positioned ZF SSG 280-type 6-gear (plus reverse) transmission. The engine was fully enclosed in the engine compartment.

Some noticeable features of this part of the tank were the large encased ventilation port and the two long exhaust pipes located on the right rear fender. On the rear part of the engine compartment armor plate, German engineers added one large oval plate (with a hatch) that was connected to the hull with bolts. It served to provide easy access to the transmission for maintenance. Lastly, the second auxiliary machine gun turret was positioned next to the engine itself.

Rear view that gives a good look at its engine compartment. The large bolted armor plate could be removed and thus provide access to the engine and suspension in case of repairs or maintenance. Source: https://www.destinationsjourney.com/historical-military-photographs/neubaufahrzeug-german-tank-prototypes/

At the time when this vehicle was developed, the Germans lacked the means to build a dedicated and sufficiently strong engine for tank use. Instead, modified aircraft engines had to be used. These engines produce very high torque at low speeds (1,400 rpm), which forced the Germans to use heavier drives than otherwise needed, which were not suited for tank use. The engine itself was fairly large, so it took up extensive space inside this tank.

Superstructure

In contrast to other German tank designs, the NbFz did not have a large superstructure. This consisted of the small raised superstructure platform for the front machine gun turret and the second section that acted as a platform to hold the main turret, with an extension that covered the driver’s compartment. It was mostly round-shaped, with two small observation ports on each side. The driver’s compartment had a simple box shape. On each of the front and left sides, an observation port with vision slits was installed. This provided the driver with a view of these two sides. The position of the machine gun turret on his right created a blind spot for the driver in this direction. The slightly angled top of this compartment housed a hatch, which the driver used to enter his position.

A good view of the vehicle front and part of the rather small superstructure. The right machine gun turret had to be slightly elevated in order to have a better angle of fire. Opposite it, the driver’s compartment can be seen. With the two observation ports, the driver had a relatively good view to the front and left sides. Source: https://www.destinationsjourney.com/historical-military-photographs/neubaufahrzeug-german-tank-prototypes/

The superstructure more or less acted as a platform for the main turret. It was round-shaped with two small observation ports located on each side. Source: J. Ledwoch Neubaufahrzeuge

Turrets

The NbFz employed two different main and auxiliary turret designs. The first turret model was developed by Rheinmetall and had a rounded shape. It featured an opening on the front for the main armament, with both gun barrels exposed and the recoil cylinders covered in armored jackets. The gun mantlet was box-shaped. Additionally, a machine gun ball mount protruded slightly from the turret, located to the right of the two guns. On the left side of the guns, a rectangular-shaped small hatch was added.

The turret had two large crew hatches on the sides, which opened to the rear. This design choice was somewhat unusual, as it could potentially allow enemy rounds or shrapnel to bounce inside the turret when the hatches were open. A smaller observation port was present on the rear armor of the turret. On top of the turret, there was a commander’s cupola with seven small vision slits. The Rheinmetall turret had a slight bulge on top, intentionally designed to provide a slightly better depression angle for the main gun. At some point, this turret model was modified by adding a large radio frame antenna, which visually resembled the style used on Soviet tanks.

The Rheinmetall turret had a rounded shape which was a bit more complicated to build. In addition, note the box-shaped gun mantlet and the protruding machine gun ball mount. Source: J. Ledwoch Neubaufahrzeuge

The auxiliary turrets, while not specified in the sources, were most likely also designed by Rheinmetall. These were similar in appearance to the turret used on the Panzer I, with some differences. The most obvious one was the use of only one machine gun. It also employed a large angled machine gun mantlet not used on the Panzer I turret. These turrets were provided with four observation ports. The rear ones would almost always be facing the NbFz superstructure, thus restricting the machine gun operator’s view in this direction. Lastly, one hatch acted as an entry point for the machine gun operator.

The two soft-steel vehicles used quite different auxiliary turret designs. These used four observation ports and an angled front mantle. Both features would be dropped on the later-built vehicles. Source: https://www.destinationsjourney.com/historical-military-photographs/neubaufahrzeug-german-tank-prototypes/

The front view of a Rheinmetall vehicle gives a good look at the position of the main armament. In contrast to Krupp’s design, Rheinmetall left the gun barrels exposed. The main turret-positioned machine gun was able to engage targets independently of the main armament. Lastly, note the angled armor plate of the front machine gun turret. Source: M. Sowodny German Armored Rarities 1935-1945

Krupp engineers, on the other hand, went for a simpler overall turret design. It incorporated a turret made of several armor plates which were welded together. The two guns were covered with a protective jacket. In addition, the gun mantlet had a much simpler round design.

The machine gun ball mount was quite different too. It was built into the front turret plate. In contrast to Rheinmetall’s design, the Krupp machine gun ball mount was fixed in traverse. This meant that it could only be elevated up or down. The right observation hatch was retained. The whole front gun plate was bolted down and, if needed, could be removed for maintenance quite easily.

Side crew hatches were used on Krupp’s turret too, but these opened to the front. This provided the crew with some level of protection when open. The commander’s cupola was similar to that of the Rheinmetall vehicle, but Krupp used a two-part hatch.

The Krupp turret utilized a metal protective jacket for the two gun barrels and the recoil cylinders. The ball machine gun mount, on the other hand, was coupled to the main armament in traverse, meaning that it always pointed at the target that was engaged with the main armament. Lastly, the whole front gun assembly was bolted down and could be removed in case of repair relatively easily. The front turret is of a late type which lacks the front-angled mantlet. Source: J. Ledwoch Neubaufahrzeuge

Following the production order for three more vehicles, it was requested that the design of the two smaller turrets be changed. An unspecified company reused and modified the Panzer I turret for this purpose. The armament remained the same, but the turret design was simplified. The number of observation ports was halved and the larger hatch was replaced with a smaller-two-part hatch.

The second vehicle that was tested with a Krupp turret also utilized the two auxiliary turrets shared with the first prototype. Here, the rear observation port of the small turret can be seen. Its purpose was rather limited. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/neubaufahrzeug/

The Krupp commander’s cupola used a two-part hatch, in contrast to Rheinmetall’s, which used a single-piece one. Source: T. Anderson The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1

Similar to the armament, sources are somewhat conflicting about how many turrets were built by which company. Author M. Sowodny mentions that two turrets were built by Rheinmetall, while the remaining three were completed by Krupp. Other authors, such as T. Anderson, T. L.Jentz, and H. L. Doyle, only credit Rheinmetall with one turret built.

Armor

The NbFz was rather poorly protected for its size. For late 1930s German armor protection standards, this was in line with other Panzer vehicles that were in service at that time. Starting from the hull, the lower glacis was protected by 16 mm of armor placed at a 50° angle. The upper glacis armor consisted of two plates. The first was 20 mm thick and angled at 50° and the second was 13 mm but placed at a 75° angle. The side and rear measured 13 mm and the bottom was 8 mm thick. The spaced armor that protected the suspension was 13 mm thick.

The driver’s compartment was frontally protected by 20 mm of armor, the sides 13 mm, and the top 10 mm. The superstructure was 13 mm thick on all sides. The main turret’s frontal armor was 15 mm, while the rear and sides were slightly weaker at 13 mm. The gun mantlet was 15 mm thick. The three smaller turrets had 13 mm thick all-around armor.

This low armor thickness and the vehicle’s generally large size meant that it would have been an easy target for enemy gunners. Luckily for those tank crews that operated the few available NbFz, they did not see any major engagement.

The crew of this vehicle was obviously aware of the NbFz’s weak protection, as they added improvised auxiliary armor. Basically, they stole bricks and added them to some parts of the front armor. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

The same vehicle, but this time with a hole in the machine gun turret front. The front armor of the small turret was pierced, possibly by an anti-tank rifle. Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/476534-neubaufahrzeug-armor/

Armament

There are some discrepancies in the sources regarding the armament of this vehicle. For example, author M. Sowodny (German Armored Rarities 1935-1945) mentions that Krupp was tasked with developing a turret armed with two different caliber guns. The first was a 10.5 cm and the second was a 3.7 cm gun. Instead of a 10.5 cm gun, Rheinmetall was instructed to install a 7.5 cm gun. Other authors, such as T. Anderson (The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1) and T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.4 Panzerkampfwagen IV) do not mention the 10.5 cm armament ever being used. Thanks to the surviving photographs, it can be said with certainty that the NbFz was never equipped with a 10.5 cm gun. In either case, the main armament’s positions differed between the two turret designs. Rheinmetall used vertically positioned guns, with the 3.7 cm placed above the 7.5 cm gun. As only one such turret was built, this indicates that there were some issues with this arrangement, and it was not adopted. Krupp’s turret used a side-by-side configuration which was easier to load. In both cases, the main armament had an elevation of -10° to +22°. The ammunition load for these two guns was 80 for the 7.5 cm and 50 for the 3.7 cm gun. While the 7.5 cm gun could use various types of ammunition (high-explosive, armor-piercing, and smoke rounds), the latter was provided only with armor-piercing rounds.

The secondary armament consisted of three 7.92 mm MG 34 machine guns with a total ammunition load of 6,000 rounds. One machine gun was located in a machine gun ball mount to the right of the main armament. The remaining two were used to arm the smaller turrets. These had a traverse of around 230° and elevation of -10° to +20°.

While multi-turret tanks were not new, using two guns inside one turret was a rather unusual configuration. In theory, a vehicle armed with both guns was able to deal with any encountered threat, either tank or defended position. In practice, this would have caused more problems than it was worth. It would only complicate the overall design and made the loader’s life much more difficult. Source: Facebook group Panzerwaffe German Armored Force in WW2

Crew

The crew of the NbFz consisted of six, including the commander, a gunner, a driver, a loader, and two machine gun operators. The driver was seated on the left side of the front hull. Opposite him, the first machine gun operator was seated.

Inside the main turret, three crew members were located. The gunner, as on most German tanks, was positioned to the left of the main armament. The loader was right next to him. The loader was probably the most overburdened crew member, as he had to load both guns and operate the turret-positioned machine gun. The commander was seated in his cupola which protruded out of the turret. Lastly, the remaining machine gun operator was positioned on the rear left side of the vehicle. While this vehicle was provided with radio equipment, the sources do not specify which crew member was responsible for operating it.

Six crew members were needed to fully operate the large NbFz. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/neubaufahrzeug/

What Was It Intended For?

Once the three additional fully functional vehicles were built, these were used for various trials. Given that no further production orders were issued, the Germans were not satisfied with the design or concept. Unfortunately, no German document that goes into detail about why the work on the NbFz was abandoned has survived. It is likely that the Germans saw the downsides of the whole NbFz design. It was large and, together with its weak armor, would be an easy target for enemy gunners. It required a large crew and was likely not cheap nor easy to build. Most importantly, the Germans focused instead on other projects, such as the Panzer III and IV.

Another mystery regarding this vehicle that is not immediately apparent was its precise role that was to be fulfilled on the battlefield. The sources do not specify in detail its role or type. Depending on the source, it is described as either multipurpose, breakthrough, medium, or heavy. The most probable explanation is that it was an experimental concept that the German Army wanted to test. This was not a new concept, as such multi-turret tanks saw testing with the British and even served with the Soviet Union armies, albeit with limited success.

In either case, the Germans invested time and resources in order to build these five vehicles. At that time, the German Army lacked tank numbers, so these could not be simply discarded. Instead, they were allocated for crew training.

The few built NbFz were mostly used as training vehicles. This picture was taken at the tank training center in Putlos in April 1940. Source: T. Anderson Panzer IV

First And Only Combat Service

Following the victory in Poland, the German leadership had to decide how to deal with the Western Allies. While Hitler insisted that an attack be launched as soon as possible, the approaching winter put those plans on hold. In addition, the German units were slowly returning from Poland and needed time for recuperation and reorganization. This gave the German leadership time to analyze the overall situation in Europe. While the attack in the West was expected, the situation in the northern part of Europe was far from perfect. The Germans were heavily relying on ore shipments from Sweden. While neutral, there were fears that it may turn over to the Allied side at any point. There was also a chance that France and Britain could land forces in Norway, cutting off the vital supply lines to Sweden. To prevent this, the Germans decided to launch their own offensive with the aim of capturing Denmark and Norway. This operation would be known as Unternehmen Weserübung.

The attack on Demark began on the 4th April 1940. The Danish Army did not offer much resistance and the country was occupied by the 10th. On the 7th of April, the Germans began amphibious and airborne operations with the aim of capturing major Norwegian city centers, such as Narvik and Oslo.

Given the limited resources available and the hilly terrain in Norway, no major tank force was used during this operation. The exception was a small unit known as Panzerzabteilung (zbV) 40 (Eng. Tank Battalion). zbV stood for zur besonderen Verwendung, meaning for special duties. It consisted of three light companies. Its total combat strength was 29 Panzer Is, 18 Panzer IIs, and 3 NbFz, including four command tanks based on the Panzer I chassis. No better design was allocated to this front, as all available Panzer III and IV tanks were in short supply and needed for the upcoming invasion of the West. In addition, the Germans did not expect any major resistance from the Norwegians. The hilly terrain of Norway also played a huge part in this. In contrast to Poland, where the Panzer Divisions were used as the main spearheads of the attack, in Norway, the tanks were dispatched in smaller groups to provide firing support to the infantry.

An NbFz being unloaded from a transport ship in Oslo during the invasion in April 1940. Source: T. Anderson The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1

The NbFz was often used for propaganda purposes while in Norway. It must be remembered that the three vehicles sent were fully combat-ready vehicles. These were used in real combat situations fighting the Allied forces at Andalsnes on the 17th of April 1940. One vehicle would be completely destroyed during this short campaign. The remaining vehicles were stationed at Akershus fortress in Oslo through 1940.

The remains of the only vehicle lost in Norway. Source: J. Ledwoch Neubaufahrzeuge

Following the successful conclusion of this campaign, the commander of zbV 40 later wrote about the NbFz’s performance:

“… The Neubaufahrzeuge were deployed with great success even in the mountains. Despite warnings in many official reports, all bridges, even those with limitations of less than 5 tons, could be crossed without problems. Also, the tanks could move through very narrow streets … In most cases where Neubaufahrzeuge were sent forward, our artillery could not be deployed. The tanks, however, were able to fully compensate for the missing artillery… Effective fire was opened with the 7.5 cm gun, overpowering any enemy. While the 2 cm gun was effective, the 7.5 cm high-explosive (HE) round had a truly destructive impact… Firing of smoke shells, only possible by the 7.5 cm gun of the Neubaufahrzeug, was absolutely necessary to ‘blind’ the enemy and to impede the use of his own weapons. For this reason, the tank was essential for combat in mountainous terrain. The fact that the tanks were widely spread out among varying combat groups made supply with special ammunition (2 cm, 7.5 cm and tracer), and also with special rations [Schokakola, a chocolate/caffeine-based energy food] difficult… “

This vehicle was either damaged or had a mechanical breakdown and was left abandoned. Source: T. Anderson The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1

A NbFz advancing toward Oslo during the German attack. Source: Wikipedia

What happened to the four remaining vehicles after the German victory in 1940 is unclear. Sources give different accounts about their final fate. It is often mentioned that they were given back to training schools. This makes sense as, while they were not suited for modern combat (especially the soft-steel prototypes), they still could be still used for crew training. The downside is that, due to limited production, spare parts would have been rare. This meant that, at some point late in the war, they were most likely scrapped. The first prototype did survive at least up to 1942 given photographic evidence.

The first prototype undergoing a major overhaul at Krupp in 1942. Source: Wikipedia

According to M. Sowodny, the surviving vehicles were used during the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. These were allegedly part of the Panzer Group I and participated in the attack on Dubno, where they were lost on the 28th June 1941. It is hard to tell if there is any truth to this claim.

A NbFz next to a French Renault UE ammunition carrier. This small vehicle was captured by the Germans in huge numbers and saw wide service with the new owners. This vehicle indicates that this picture was taken after June 1940, when the French Army was defeated. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/neubaufahrzeug/

Surviving Vehicle

Given the limited number built and their unknown fate, no vehicle is known to have survived. However, some parts of the suspension, possibly taken from the destroyed vehicle, can be seen at the Gudbrandsdal Krigsminnesamling Museum at Kvam (Norway).

A few NbFz surviving suspension parts can be seen at the Gudbrandsdal Krigsminnesamling Museum. Source: http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Sonderfahrzeuge.pdf

Conclusion

In the 1930s, the German Army conducted experiments and developed prototypes in an effort to design effective tanks. One of these experimental projects was the Nbfz. The intention was to provide the tank with increased firepower and the ability to engage both enemy tanks and fortified positions effectively.

The Nbfz faced several challenges. It was a cumbersome vehicle, its complex design likely made it difficult to manufacture and maintain, and there were a number of issues with its poor-performing engine and suspension. These factors, combined with the rapidly evolving nature of tank warfare, eventually led to the discontinuation of the Nbfz project.

Instead, the German Army focused on developing and producing the Panzer III and IV tanks, which were better suited for the roles of engaging enemy tanks and fortifications, respectively. These tanks became the backbone of the German armored forces during the early stages of the war. The Nbfz, though ultimately unsuccessful, remains an interesting chapter in the development of German tanks, showcasing the experimentation and innovation that took place during the pre-war period.

Neubaufahrzeug with Krupp turret. Illustration by Pavel Alexe.

Neubaufahrzeug with Rheinmetall turret. Illustration by Pavel Alexe.

Neubaufahrzeug Technical specifications
Crew	Commander, gunner, loader, driver, and two machine gun operators
Weight	23 tonnes
Dimensions	Length 6.65 m, Width 2.9 m, Height 2.9 m
Engine	BMW Va six-cylinder liquid-cooled 290 hp@ 1,400 rpm
Speed	30 km/h
Range	120 km
Primary Armament	7.5 cm L/24 and 3.7 cm Kw.K. L/46.5
Secondary Armament	Three 7.92 mm M.G. 34
Elevation	-10° to +20°
Armor	8-20 mm

Sources

M. Sowodny (1998) German Armored Rarities 1935-1945, Schiffer Military
T. Anderson (2015), The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1 Osprey Publishing
T. Anderson (2021), Panzer IV Osprey Publishing
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (1998) Panzer Tracts No.4 Panzerkampfwagen IV
D. Nešić, (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
T. L. Jentz and H. L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers
J. Ledwoch (1997) Neubaufahrzeuge, Militaria

WW2 German Panzer IV WW2 German StuG III

Rearmed Panzer IV and Sturmgeschütz III Training Vehicles

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date July 10, 2023
No Comments on Rearmed Panzer IV and Sturmgeschütz III Training Vehicles

A likely Ausf.D armed with the long gun. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

German Reich (1942-1945)
Modified Training Vehicles – Unknown Number Converted

Tank crew training is extremely important, as it directly impacts the effectiveness of tank operations. The crew must also be able to operate the tank and its systems efficiently and effectively, as well as work together as a team and as part of a larger unit to achieve mission objectives. A well-trained tank crew can make the difference between success and failure on the battlefield. In order to train these men, some vehicles have to be allocated for this purpose. In the early years of the war, the Germans employed mostly older modified vehicles, but also those that had been replaced by newer versions or returned from the frontline for a major overhaul. In this group, the Germans also included vehicles such as the Panzer IV or the StuG III. The majority of these were early variants with the short 7.5 cm gun. In 1942, a long 7.5 cm gun was introduced for these vehicles. It was important to modify at least some of these training vehicles with this gun in order to train gunners and loaders and to prepare drivers and commanders to handle the gun overhang as would have been in the later versions of both vehicles.

An older Panzer IV Ausf.D armed with the longer 7.5 cm gun Source: https://warspot.net/24-pz-kpfw-iv-ausf-d-through-e

This StuG III Ausf.C or D is armed with a long 7.5 L/48 gun. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Development of 7.5 cm KwK L/24 Gun

Following Germany’s defeat in the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles imposed severe restrictions on the size and capabilities of the German military, including limitations on the development and deployment of new weapons, such as tanks. Despite these restrictions, the German military began secretly developing tanks in violation of the Treaty. However, these efforts were initially limited due to a lack of funding and industrial capabilities. Additionally, tanks were a new concept at the time, and there was a lack of consensus on the best way to develop and employ them in combat. Nevertheless, German engineers and military leaders continued to work on them. In 1935, the Heereswaffenamt (HWa) (Eng. Army Weapons Department) issued a request for the development of two new types of tanks designed to fulfill specialized combat roles. Both received somewhat unusual designations, but this was done intentionally to deceive the Western Allies, as the Germans were still technically forbidden from developing such vehicles by the Treaty of Versailles.

The first one was the Zugführerwagen ZW (Eng. platoon commander’s vehicle). This vehicle, armed with a 3.7 cm KwK (short for ‘Kampfwagenkanone’, which could be translated as ‘combat vehicle cannon’ or, more simply, as ‘tank gun’) L/45 gun was intended to spearhead an attack by German armored formation and deal with enemy armor. It would eventually evolve into the Panzer III series.

The Panzer III was initially armed with a 3.7 cm gun, with the purpose of engaging enemy tanks. Source: T. Anderson Panzer III

The second, known as the Begleitwagen BW (Eng: escort vehicle), was intended as a fire support vehicle. Its purpose was to deal with enemy-fortified positions, anti-tank and artillery emplacements, and similar targets by firing high-explosive ammunition. While the 3.7 cm gun was a good weapon for pre-war standards, it lacked sufficient destructive firepower. For this role, the Germans chose the 7.5 cm caliber weapons. This was mostly based on the experience from the previous war, which showed that the smallest effective caliber for dealing with entrenched enemy positions was 7.5 cm. In any case, for this proposal, the Germans developed the 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun. While it would be the main armament of the early Panzer IV series, it was also used on some older German tank designs, such as the Grosstraktor (Eng. large tractor) and the multi-turret Neubaufahrzeug (Eng. new construction vehicle). The latter was interesting, as it was armed with both the 3.7 cm and the 7.5 cm guns. The overall design proved unnecessary and complicated and was abandoned. In any case, while these two did not enter production, they provided the Germans with vital experience in tank design.

The Neubaufahrzeug used a combination of 3.7 and 7.5 cm guns merged into a single turret. Despite being more or less a prototype series, they would still see some combat use. The surviving vehicles were likely reused for training purposes. Source: Wikimedia https://www.pinterest.ch/pin/715368722079315155/

Initially, this gun could fire a few different types of ammunition. These included the 7.5 cm GrPatr 34 high-explosive, 7.5 cm PzGr patr anti-tank, and NbGrPatr smoke rounds. Given its original purpose, the early Panzer IV would mostly be supplied with high-explosive rounds. This round weighed 5.7 kg and, with a muzzle velocity of 420 m/s, could reach a maximum distance of 6.5 km. The anti-tank round was heavier, at 6.8 kg, but had a lower velocity of 385 m/s, and could pierce around 39 mm of 30° angled armor at distances of 500 m. The 7.5 NbGr Patr was a smoke-screen round. When fired, it would create a smoke cloud that could cover an area of 15 to 20 m for a period of some 30 seconds. The maximum rate of fire ranged between 10 to 20 rounds per minute. These numbers should not be taken as standard, as they depended on many factors, such as the quality of the crew training, fatigue, combat situations, etc.

Close-up view of a dismounted 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun. Source: world-war-2.wikia.org

Internal view of the Panzer IV turret with its 7.5 cm gun. Source: T. Anderson Panzer IV

In general, there is a misconception that the Germans did not consider using this gun to deal with enemy armor, and that its sole purpose was to destroy fortified positions by using high-explosive rounds. However, a Waffenamt (Eng. Ordnance Department) document dated October 1935 discusses the effectiveness of German guns against the known French tank designs. According to it, the Germans were aware at that time that the armor of most French tanks was around 40 mm. In addition, it was estimated that the French had over 1,000 such vehicles. Regarding the 7.5 cm gun, it is mentioned that:

“… The 7.5 cm Kampfwagenkanone has a caliber length of L/24 and a muzzle velocity of 430 mps. When firing the 7.5 cm Panzergranate [7.5cm KGr rot Pz], 43 mm of armor was penetrated at an angle of 60 degrees, which makes it eminently suitable for defeating the new French tank types [these had 40 mm armor]. However, these are theoretical considerations which will have to be proven by practical trials at Putlos; the low muzzle velocity results in a curved trajectory which will seriously affect accuracy. Despite this, we expect the BW to defeat all types of French tanks with the exception of the Char 2C super heavy tank…

It is thought that an increased muzzle velocity of approximately 650 mps should make it possible to defeat a Char 2C. But such an increase in performance would require the construction of a new tank to mount such a gun, which – assuming it had minimal 20 mm armor – would have an operational weight of 30,480 kg. But only recently, the Commander-in-Chief of the army stated that he was against such a solution…”

This document highlights several interesting facts. While the Germans were aware of tanks such as the R35 or the large Char 2C, it did not mention the Somua S 35 nor the B1. It is also interesting that, despite knowing the strength of the enemy’s armor, they did not develop rounds or guns that offered a slightly stronger punch. Lastly, the remark regarding increasing the muzzle velocity is somewhat ironic as, later on, necessity showed that the Panzer IV could be relatively easily rearmed with a longer gun. In either case, introducing an armor-piercing round proved quite prudent on the German side as, during the battles in the West in May and June 1940, the Panzer IV was able to defeat most Allies tanks, except for the better-protected B1 bis and the Matilda II tanks. While it is true that the Germans primarily used 7.5 cm gun to destroy fortified positions, they also recognized the importance of anti-tank warfare and developed ammunition specifically for that purpose.

A New Sturmgeschütz III

The 7.5 cm L/24 gun would also be used to arm the Sturmgeschütz III or, simply, StuG III (Eng: Assault gun). These were developed as highly mobile, well-protected, and well-armed self-propelled artillery guns with the aim of providing close fire support to German infantry. They were based on the Panzer III chassis which was coupled with a new superstructure. In the early stages of the war, it was the best-protected vehicle in the German arsenal, with 50 mm thick frontal armor. It was armed with the 7.5 cm StuK 37 (Sturmkanone – assault gun) L/24 gun. This was more or less a copy of the Panzer IV’s 7.5 cm KwK 37 gun, just adopted for use inside the StuG III. It was logical to use this gun for both vehicles. It provided easy access to spare parts and reduced the development time and cost of production for the StuG III. With this gun and strong armor, the StuG III became a very effective and popular vehicle in the German arsenal. It was able to provide mobile firepower to German infantry formations, something that no other army had at that time.

The StuG III, from the Ausf.A to the Ausf.E versions, was armed with the short barrel 7.5 cm gun. Source: Walter J. Spielberger, Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Combat Experiences

During the Polish campaign of September 1939, the 7.5 cm proved to be more than a match to enemy armor and fortified positions. In a 3rd Panzer Division officer’s report, the performance of the 7.5 cm gun was described as follows.

“ … Once again it has been made obvious that Panzer units should avoid combat in forests and most towns. However, those with houses built from wood were easily set on fire with high-explosive rounds fired from 7.5 cm-armed PzKpfw. The subsequent blaze would force any Polish troops out into open, where we shot them down with our machine gun fire. I am convinced that the 7.5 cm-armed PzKpfw is the perfect support vehicle for infantry in urban warfare…”

The effectiveness of the 7.5 cm gun against enemy armor can be seen during the battles around Stonne in France in mid-May 1940. One Panzer IV managed to destroy 2 Hotchkiss H39 tanks but failed to do anything against a heavy Char B1 Bis tank despite firing 20 or so rounds against it. Although the rounds could not penetrate the heavy French armor, the Panzer IV did manage to destroy the French tank’s track and thereby render it immobile. At the same time, a second B1 Bis was engaged by the Panzer IV. This time, due to a lucky hit, the German tank jammed the second French tank’s cupola. The Panzer IV managed to fire another round to the rear, and this time the 7.5 cm gun managed to penetrate the armor of the B1 Bis, which was blown up by an internal explosion. The Char B1 and the British Matilda Mk.II were tanks that the German intelligence failed to detect and were almost immune to German weapons.

After the Western campaign was concluded with France’s capitulation in June 1940, various combat reports were gathered to be analyzed by the German Army. The 33rd Panzer Regiment issued an interesting report of combat that occurred near St. Germain. During this engagement, the German tanks fought a group of 12 B1 bis and, allegedly, Char 2C tanks.

“… The battalion had light tanks, but also a PzKpfw III and a PzKpfw IV, and only these were used to attack the enemy tanks. Shots fired at 800 m range against the Char 2C had no effect. But two of the other tanks were effectively attacked at 400 m to 500 m range. Our high-explosive shells damaged their tracks and the turrets were easily blocked by hits. After the fight, we inspected the vehicles and found that our high-explosive shells, fired without a delay fuse, were ineffective. Even the 7.5 cm KopfGrrot armor-piercing shells did not penetrate the armor at 500 m…”

The massive and rare Char 2C French tank. It is unusual that this report mentioned this vehicle given that only a few were built and most were destroyed or abandoned before reaching the frontlines. Source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/char-2c-frances-super-heavy-tank-and-maybe-biggest-ever-152891

The Soviet Tank Threat

The appearance of the T-34 and KV tanks posed a significant challenge for the German Army during the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. The Panzer IV and StuG III 7.5 cm guns, which were effective against older Soviet tank designs, were unable to penetrate the thick (75 mm on the KV-1) and sloped armor (45 mm@60° on the T-34) of these new tanks except under rare and favorable circumstances.

While not completely powerless, the Germans tanks of 1941 were hard-pressed if they had to take out a T-34, having to make use of better coordination, optics, terrain, and combined arms support. The 7.5 cm short guns could damage such tanks at close range, while the Soviet tank guns could destroy a German tank from 1 km away without a problem. Source: Tanks of Operation Barbarossa

The Germans developed tungsten-based ammunition known as PzGrPatr 40 (this was the name given to all rounds of this type regardless of the caliber) to improve the armor-piercing capabilities of their weapons during the war. These rounds were designed with a high-density tungsten core that was encased in a softer metal jacket. This design allowed the rounds to have greater velocity and penetrate armor more effectively. The downside was that this metal was in short supply, which meant that these rounds were never issued in any significant numbers. Starting from 1940, such ammunition was delivered for the 5 cm guns. Due to the 7.5 cm L/24’s low velocity, the Germans did not develop a tungsten round for this gun, prioritizing other more suitable weapons.

In December 1941, Adolf Hitler ordered that shaped-charge round production should begin as soon as possible. This led to the introduction of the 7.5 cm GrPatr38 A and B versions. These had a velocity of 450 m/s, with the difference that the later version had a slightly better penetration of 75 mm at any range. While, on paper, this meant that any enemy tank could be defeated, the reality was quite different. The low velocity led to a rather limited accuracy. In addition, the overall ballistic design of this round was far from perfect, as it too often simply bounced off or failed to penetrate enemy armor. Interestingly enough, following the introduction of this new ammunition, the production of standard armor-piercing ammunition was discontinued at the end of 1942.

New Gun Proposals

Neither of the previously mentioned solutions offered a real solution to the German tank gun ineffectiveness against enemy armor. The use of shaped-charge rounds provided the German tanks with the means to engage enemy armor at distances. However, tanks such as the T-34 and the KV-1 used a 76 mm gun that was able to pierce the armor of German tanks from over 1 km. Realistically, the Germans did not have any other choice but to develop a new gun. The aim was to increase muzzle velocity, thus improving the anti-armor performance. In addition, the extra velocity would also increase the overall combat range.

For the Panzer IV series, there were a few different rearmament proposals. One of these included using an experimental taper-bore gun with a 75/55 mm caliber known as Waffe (Eng. Weapon) 0725. This project did not go beyond a wooden mock-up.

The Panzer IV Ausf.F with a Waffe 0725 75/55 mm gun wooden mock-up. Source: warspot.ru

In late 1941, Krupp engineers rearmed one Panzer IV Ausf.D with the 5 cm L/60 gun. This gun greatly improved the Panzer IV’s anti-tank firepower compared to the original short-barrel 7.5 cm gun. While the installation of this gun proved to be feasible and there was even a planned production run of 80 vehicles by spring 1942, the whole project was canceled. One of the reasons for this was the fact that this gun could easily be installed in the Panzer III. Installing the smaller caliber gun in the larger Panzer IV was seen somewhat as a waste of resources, as the heavier Panzer IV could possibly allow the installation of a larger caliber gun.

The Panzer IV Ausf.D armed with the 5 cm KwK 39 L/60 gun. Source: https://console.worldoftanks.com/en/news/panzer-IV-variants

Improving the anti-tank performance of standard armor-piercing rounds was seen as the most preferable solution, The easiest way to do so was to increase the round propellant charge and use a longer barrel, thus increasing velocity. The development of such weapons was prioritized in 1941. Somewhat ironically, the firm of Krupp had already considered this problem back in 1938. Krupp’s development led to the creation of a 7.5 cm L/41 (sometimes marked as L/40) gun. The prototype was ready and tested in May 1940. At least one modified StuG III was tested with this gun, but the precise results of these trials are sadly lost. No production order for this vehicle nor this gun was given.

The modified StuG III, armed with the Krupp long 7.5 cm gun. One or a few more were built and tested in May 1940. Source: www.flickr.com

In November 1941, Krupp was tasked with developing an improved 7.5 cm gun. To speed up the development, another company, Rheinmetall-Borsig AG, was attached to this project. Rheinmetall-Borsig was already involved in the development of a 7.5 cm gun that would evolve into the later PaK 40 towed anti-tank gun. With their combined efforts, the 7.5 cm L/43 long KwK 40 gun would be developed. Starting from 1942, it would be the main armament of the Panzer IV. This gun would also be adapted for use on the StuG III, on which it was known as the 7.5 cm StuK (Sturmkanone) 40 L/43.

A good view of a dismounted 7.5 cm L/43 gun. Source: K. Hjermstad, Panzer IV Squadron/Signal Publication

In comparison, the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43 had larger recoil cylinders which were placed above the gun. Source: W. J. Spielberger, Sturmgeschütz and its variant

Training Tanks

Proper tank crew training is essential before sending them to the frontlines. Inadequate training can compromise the effectiveness of tanks and reduce their combat capabilities, putting the lives of soldiers at risk. In order to ensure that tank crews are adequately trained, they require access to specialized training facilities and equipment. These facilities and equipment allow crews to practice various maneuvers, such as driving, shooting, and communication. Additionally, training for tank crews should include theoretical instruction covering the technical aspects of the tank, including its capabilities, limitations, and maintenance procedures. This should include how to coordinate with other units and how to respond to different threats and situations. Overall, providing proper training for tank crews is critical to their effectiveness in combat.

All training vehicles, such as this Panzer III Ausf.A that had its turret removed, were designated as Fahrgestell für Schulfahrzeug (Eng. training vehicles). Source: Pinterest

Of course, for tank crew training, it is necessary to use real tanks. The earliest built vehicle was the Fahrschulwagen I, which was based on the Panzer I chassis. The Fahrschulwagen I was vital for initial crew training. But, in order to operate vehicles such as the Panzer IV and StuG III, these were insufficient for the job. The only real option was to use fully functional vehicles. Rarely were newly produced vehicles given to Ersatz und Ausbildungs-Abteilungen (Eng. training and replacement units). More commonly, older versions that had become outdated or were replaced with newer models were issued for this purpose. For example, once the Panzer IV Ausf.D and Ausf.E entered service, most older versions were retired from frontline service and given to training centers. Lastly, vehicles that were returned to Germany from the frontlines for major overhauls and repairs were mostly reused for training purposes. Despite all of this, the Germans never had enough of these training vehicles, which affected the crew training process as the war progressed.

Colorized photo of a Fahrschulwagen I using a 2. Serie La.S. chassis, winter 1938. Colorization by Johannes Dorn.Source: World War photos

A Panzer IV from the 3rd Panzer Division used for training. Source: T. Anderson Panzer IV

This StuG IIII was used as a training vehicle. Note the sign Fahrschule (Eng. driving school) painted on the right front side of the superstructure. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz

Not all newly built Panzer IV Ausf.Gs were sent to the frontline. A few such as this vehicle were likely kept for crew training. Source: T. Anderson Panzer IV

Design Changes

The introduction of the new L/43 and L/48 guns dramatically changed the Panzer IV and StuG III’s combat roles. Both vehicles were initially designed to provide fire support and not to engage enemy armor. With the long guns, these two became effective anti-armor vehicles. While the Panzer IV became the backbone of the German Panzer Division, the StuG III’s role did not change. It still remained an infantry support weapon, but now had the firepower to deal with enemy tanks more effectively.

These guns had improved velocity and longer range, which had a significant impact on the effectiveness of engaging enemy armor. On the other hand, they required changes in training and the allocation of better-armed vehicles to training units, which presented challenges for the Germans. The slow production of these vehicles meant that not many could be delivered on time, and frontline troops were in desperate need of them. To overcome these problems, the Germans simply had to reuse tanks that were returned from the front lines for repairs and overhauls. An unknown number of the older Panzer IV and StuG III vehicles were fitted with long guns. This solution was not ideal, as it involved using older, potentially outdated tanks and did not address the underlying production issues. Nonetheless, it provided a temporary solution to the shortage of better-armed vehicles on the frontlines. An unknown number of older Panzer IV and StuG III were fitted with long guns. Their shorter 7.5 cm guns were reused for other purposes. Such guns were installed in 8×8 armored cars and the later Panzer III versions.

Unfortunately, these vehicles are generally poorly documented so any precise details about the changes made, especially those made internally, are hard to come by. In addition, identification is not always possible given that these vehicles received a mix of older and new spare parts. This was quite common for the Germans, as production of spare parts was quite limited and they had to make do with what was available at hand. Lastly, the Germans never undertook any major standardization of these training vehicles. Any vehicle, regardless of its origin or condition, was reused for this role.

This vehicle was probably used for training. Unusually, it used a front drive sprocket taken from a StuG III Ausf.A vehicle, which itself may indicate that this particular vehicle was sent back to Germany and rebuilt using any available parts. Also, note the large air filter placed next to the engine compartment. It was usually supplied to vehicles that operated in warmer regions of the Soviet Union. Source: T. Anderson Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, Waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45

Armament

Fortunately for the Germans, the installation of the L/43 and L/48 guns in the Panzer IV and StuG III did not require major structural changes. This allowed them to upgrade their tanks with more powerful guns without having to redesign the entire vehicle, which would have been a much more time-consuming and costly process. The modifications required, such as the cylinder compressor and new protective cover, were relatively simple and could be carried out during production without significantly affecting the production schedule. Given that no major design change was implemented during the Panzer IV nor StuG III production runs, the installation of this gun was possible even on older versions.

A likely Ausf.D armed with the long gun. It can be identified by its one-piece turret side hatch, rear-positioned commander cupola, and the use of a superstructure machine gun port. The Ausf.B and C versions lack the machine gun, in addition, the command cupola bulge that protruded to the rear part of the turret was removed on the Ausf.E. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Two more such modified Panzer IVs. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

A possible rearmed Panzer IV during firing trials. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Another modified Panzer IV being transported by train. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Some of the older StuG IIIs were also modified in this manner. The 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43 received larger recoil cylinders which were placed above the gun. These were protected by a box-shaped armored deflector guard. This gun would be installed inside modified StuG III Ausf.E vehicles for testing during April 1942. Regarding the vehicle design, it necessitated only some minor changes to the StuG III Ausf.E’s original form. These mainly involved adding new ammunition racks, improving the ventilators, and some other minor changes. Besides that, the StuG III proved to be an excellent base for this gun. With this armament, the StuG III would become one of the best anti-armor vehicles in the German arsenal up to the end of the war. Unusually, some later versions that used a long gun as the standard armament had it replaced with a shorter gun.

This vehicle was actually a StuG III Ausf.E that was used to test the installation of a new 7.5 cm L/43 gun. After successful testing, it served as the base for the later Ausf.F. While its fate is not clear, it was likely given to a training unit. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/stihace/stug3.php

An Ausf.F or Ausf.F8 that had its long gun replaced with the older design for some unknown reason. It is possible that the production of new guns simply could not keep up with demand and some vehicles were armed with the short gun and issued for training thus out of necessity. Photographs show that at least two such vehicles were converted. Source: T. Anderson Sturmartillerie Spearhead Of the Infantry

Other if not the same vehicle side view. The use of an air filter indicates that this vehicle was intended to be used in the warmer regions of the Soviet Union or even in North Africa. Source: Panssarikilta Facebook group

Firing exercise with the short barrel armed StuG III Ausf.F or F8. Source: Panssarikilta Facebook group

Another possible early StuG III rearmed with a long gun. The angled side armor indicates that this must be an early version. However, given the extensive modifications done on some vehicles by their crews, this could also be just a normal later-built StuG III Ausf.G. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Other Changes

Besides their armament changes, training vehicles also received some modifications regarding their armor protection and engines. Experience gained during the fighting in 1941 showed the Germans that their vehicles, despite all attempts, were not well protected. In late 1941, the so-called Vorpanzer (Eng. Front or spaced armor) was slowly issued for use. This should not be confused with the earlier attempts of bolting or welding additional armor plates to the front and sides of many vehicles. Such spaced armor was quite a common sight on many late Panzer IIIs. The Panzer IV also received spaced armor plates placed in front of the turret and superstructure front side starting from 1942 on. In the case of the Panzer IV, these proved more troublesome. The added weight caused problems with turret rotation. Not many such installations would be implemented and the majority of such vehicles were actually used as training vehicles. Not many saw frontline action with this armor.

In an attempt to increase the Panzer IV Ausf.D’s armor protection, additional armor plates were added to the front and sides. This design proved to be problematic and was not issued in any large numbers. Most such vehicles were used for training. Source: Pinterest

Older Panzer IVs that were rearmed with a new gun additionally received the 5 mm thick armor plates known as Schürzen. These served to protect the Panzer IV’s weaker sides against Soviet anti-tank rifles. Surviving pictures show Schürzen being mounted on the turret and not the hull sides. It is unusual to use these on vehicles that were not intended to see frontline service. They likely served to familiarize new crew members with getting out through the side turret hatches.

Panzer IV Ausf.D training vehicle equipped with turret mounted Schürzen. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Regarding the use of Schürzen on training rearmed StuG IIIs, it is possible that some of them received these armor plates. However, without further information or documentation, it is difficult to say for certain. Additional improvised armor was sometimes added on vehicles that were pressed into service near the end of the war. In some cases, this included welding additional armor to the front or on top of the superstructure.

This rearmed StuG III Ausf.E was found abandoned by the Soviets in mid-May 1945. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

A close-up view of the same vehicle. The lack of a superstructure upper ventilation port meant that this was not the later Ausf.F and F/8 vehicle, which had the long gun as standard. Unusually, the upper part of the superstructure was covered with additional welded armor plates. Source: L. Archer and W. Auerbach Panzer Wrecks 1945

As the war dragged on, the German fuel shortages became chronic. The impact of these fuel shortages was felt across the German military, including at training centers where new crews were being trained to operate tanks, aircraft, and other vehicles. Without sufficient fuel, these centers were unable to provide the necessary training, which had a negative impact on the effectiveness of German forces in the field. It is worth noting that fuel shortages were not a new phenomenon in Germany, even before the start of the war. As a possible solution, the engines were often modified to be powered by wood-gas generators or using Stadtgas (Eng. city gas). Some of the rearmed vehicles likely received this modification.

A Panzer IV equipped with gas cylinders fixed horizontally at the rear. Source:T. Anderson Panzer IV

In Combat

By March 1945, the war was coming close to the German borders. In desperation, over 700 armored vehicles, of which a great proportion had been used for training, were mobilized for combat. While this seems like a huge number, most of these vehicles were either obsolete older equipment or had been stored and not operational. The upgraded Panzer IV and StuG III AFVs would see some limited action toward the end of the war. Most were likely abandoned or destroyed to prevent capture.

There is photographic evidence of a modified StuG III Ausf.C or D that appears to have been left abandoned somewhere in Samland (Eastern Prussia) at the end of the war in May 1945. This particular vehicle participated in the defense of Konigsberg. Another photograph also shows a similar StuG III Ausf.E left abandoned at an unknown location. In both cases, it is not known if these vehicles ever got the chance to fight back at the advancing Soviet forces.

An unknown number of StuG III Ausf.C and D were used as training vehicles. Their role was highly important, as an inexperienced and untrained crew had little combat potential on the battlefields. Some of these vehicles received long guns. At least one StuG III Ausf.C or D was armed with the long 7.5 cm L/48 gun. It appears to have been lost in combat in the later stages of the war. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Another view of the same vehicle. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Another close-up view of the same vehicle. The angled side armor clearly identifies it as an early-produced StuG III vehicle. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

This vehicle was abandoned by its crew. Given its location, it appears to have been used in an ambush position. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

A modified Panzer IV Ausf.D from the NSKK (Nationalsozialistisches Kraftfahrkorps (Eng. National Socialist Motor Corps)) Panzerfahrschule (Eng. Tank driving school) located in Wreizen, Germany. Source: Waffen-Arsenal Special Band 35

Surviving Vehicles

Despite not many vehicles being converted for this role, one modified Panzer IV Ausf.D armed with the long gun has survived to this day. It can be seen at the Bovington Tank Museum. Not much is generally known about the history of this vehicle, other than that it was used for training.

The unique surviving Panzer IV Ausf.D armed with the 7.5 cm L/48 gun is located at the Bovington Tank Museum. Source: Wiki

A likely Ausf.D armed with the long gun. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

StuG III Ausf.E armed with a long gun. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

The modified StuG III Ausf.C/D armed with the 7.5cm L/48 gun. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Conclusion

Training tank crews is paramount. For this, proper tanks are needed. Of course, given the limited resources Germany had during the war, an alternative solution had to be found. Using rebuilt or old vehicles which were simply reamed with the long 7.5 cm gun was seen as the simplest solution. These vehicles would have likely proved sufficient for the job, giving new crews valuable experience on how to operate them. When used in real combat, their performance was limited, given their improvised nature, ad hoc employment, and possibly poorly trained crews.

Sources

T. Anderson (2021) Panzer IV, Osprey Publishing
D. Doyle (2005). German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
W. J. Spielberger (1993) Sturmgeschütz and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (1999) Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
T. Anderson (2016) Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infantry, Osprey Publishing
T. Anderson (2017) Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45, Osprey Publishing
K. Hjermstad (2000), Panzer IV Squadron/Signal Publication.
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
B. Perrett (2007) Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank 1936-45, Osprey Publishing
T. Anderson (2017) History of the Panzerwaffe Volume 2 1942-1945, Osprey Publishing
I. Denny (2007) The Fall Of Hitlers Fortress City, Greenhill Books

WW2 German Panzer III

Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf.F (Sd.Kfz.141)

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date June 26, 2023
1 Comment on Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf.F (Sd.Kfz.141)

Mid production Panzer III Ausf.F with false gunsight removed from the top of the turret.

German Reich (1939)
Medium Tank – 435 Built

The Panzer III Ausf.F succeeded the Ausf.E as the next of the Panzer III series of tanks and was essentially a refined version of its predecessor, with a few upgrades and modifications. The Ausf.F was produced in greater numbers than the Ausf.E, with over 400 built between 1939 and 1941. This made it one of the most numerous of the Panzer IIIs and allowed it to play a crucial role in the early stages of the war, starting from the invasion of the West in May 1940.

Tank Encyclopedia Magazine Issue #8 is out! Available in PFD and EPUB! ☝️
And it’s absolutely FREE! 💥🎉✨
As usual, all the articles are well researched by our excellent team of writers and are accompanied by beautiful illustrations and photos. If you love tanks, this is the magazine for you!
https://payhip.com/b/yOt9Z

The Panzer III Ausf.F. Source: T. Anderson The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1

History and Production

The Panzer III Ausf.E was an important milestone in the development of the Panzer III series of tanks used by the German military during the Second World War. It represented a significant simplification of the tank’s design, particularly its suspension system. The earlier Panzer III versions featured complicated suspension systems that were difficult to maintain. By replacing them with a much simpler torsion bar suspension, the Panzer III Ausf.E was not only easier and cheaper to produce, but it was also more reliable and easy to maintain in the field. In addition to the simplification of the suspension system, the Panzer III Ausf.E also standardized the design of the tank’s armored body and construction.

Despite the improvements made on the Panzer III Ausf.E, it was still produced in relatively small numbers. However, the overall design (with the exception of the transmission unit) proved to be so successful that the next version of the tank was essentially a copy of it. This allowed for larger numbers of the tank to be produced, and for further improvements to be made. The next in the line would be the Panzer III Ausf.F, of which over 400 would be built, in contrast to only 96 of the Ausf.E.

The Panzer III Ausf.E, which was visually almost identical to the later Ausf.F with the exception of a few minor details. Source: warspot.ru

In comparison to the previous version, the Panzer III Ausf.F received a much greater production order of 435 vehicles. Another novelty implemented on the Ausf.F was the inclusion of additional factories to meet war demands for more tanks. Six such companies would be chosen to assemble the new Panzer III Ausf.F. Production quotas were very different, because the limitations of the production capacities of some of them were taken into account. The production order was as follows:

Manufacturer	Number of produced vehicles
Daimler-Benz	95
M.A.N.	96
Famo	28
Henschel	120
MIAG	60
Alkett	36
In total	435

In addition, there were also many smaller subcontractors who provided other necessary equipment and parts. Wegmann and Henschel of Kassel were responsible for the production of turrets, which were then delivered to M.A.N. and Henschel for assembly onto the tanks. Krupp was responsible for the delivery of armored plates, which were used to protect the crew and vital components of the tank. Maybach and Daimler-Benz of Berlin-Marienfelde were responsible for the delivery of engines.

Almost from the start, the production of the new Panzer III Ausf.F was plagued with setbacks, primarily due to the delay in the delivery of parts and components, such as the transmission and armor plates. These setbacks resulted in Henschel being unable to deliver its first vehicle until August 1939, well after the planned delivery date of April 1939. To make up for lost time, Henschel agreed to assist Daimler-Benz in fulfilling its production quota. Of the 95 vehicles ordered to be built by Daimler-Benz, some 50 chassis were actually completed by Henschel. The remaining 45 vehicles were completed by Daimler-Benz between November 1939 and July 1940. The production rate was not very high, with an average of only 5 to 6 vehicles per month. The delays in production were a result of several factors, including difficulties in the supply of materials and the complexity of the assembly process.

Once Henschel was done with this initial run, it was finally ready to commence its own production order. The surviving records mention Henschel delivered its first vehicles in January 1940. It is unclear when the full order was completed. MIAG production lasted from September 1939 to June 1940. M.A.N. and Alkett started around September and did not complete their last vehicles until May 1941. The main reason for their slow production was the problem with the availability of armored plates, which arrived at a slow pace. Famo’s production records did not survive the war.

The German pre-war industry was not prepared for the demands of war production. The slow pace of production by M.A.N and Alkett due to the lack of availability of armored plates highlights the challenges faced by manufacturers in meeting the demands of war.

Specifications

The Panzer III Ausf.E and F were similar in appearance, and it can be difficult to distinguish between the two at first glance. It is important to note that it was not uncommon for older components to be reused on newly built vehicles due to production demands. So it is possible to see a Panzer III Ausf.F with components from older versions and vice versa.

Hull

The Panzer III Ausf.F was based on the same hull design as its predecessor. The hull consisted of three sections: the forward compartment housed the transmission and steering systems, the central compartment accommodated the crew, and the rear compartment contained the engine.

The Panzer III Ausf.F received armored ventilation ports for the steering brakes placed in the frontal glacis armor plate. Generally, in theory, Panzer III Ausf.Fs had these ports, and it should be a distinguishing feature from the Panzer III Ausf.E. However, some Panzer III Ausf.Es had these ports too. To complicate matters, in some instances, these were not present on Panzer III Ausf.Fs, which can make it difficult to differentiate between the two models based solely on this feature.

The Panzer III Ausf.F received two armored ventilation ports for the steering brakes, but this feature was not always present on all vehicles. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. E, F, G, H.

Suspension

The Panzer Ausf.F used a six-road wheel torsion bar suspension system. It had previously been tested on the Panzer III Ausf.E variant and was found to be adequate for the job. Although not much was changed in this aspect of the vehicle, the 75 mm wide rubber rim was noted to wear out quickly. To address this issue, the rubber rim was increased to 95 mm to increase its service life. However, given the availability of older models, they were not immediately retired from service and were often reused in combination with new wheels.

Another change included moving the front return roller slightly forward to prevent the part of the track from hitting the front-mounted shock absorber, which often occurred. Additionally, in some cases, the Panzer III Ausf.F was issued with the older 36 cm narrow tracks. The reason for this decision is unclear, but it is possible that it was due to a lack of resources and production components.

The first road wheel on this Panzer III Ausf.F had a larger 95 mm rubber rim. The remaining five are older models. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. E, F, G, H.

A Panzer III Ausf.F that used short 36 cm wide tracks Source: T. Anderson Panzer III

Engine

The engine was the same twelve-cylinder, water-cooled Maybach HL 120 TR which produced 265 hp@ 2,800 rpm. The only minor difference was the use of a slightly improved electric starter and modified ventilation ports. The overall performance was the same as on the previous version. The maximum speed was 40 km/h, while the cross-country speed was 15 km/h. With a fuel load of 310 l, the Panzer III Ausf.F’s operational range was 165 km and 95 km cross-country.

Transmission

As its predecessor, the Panzer III Ausf.F was equipped with the ten-speed (and one reverse) Maybach Variotex SRG 32 8 145 semi-automatic transmissions. This proved to be mechanically unreliable and prone to breakdowns. The poor quality of production also led to problems with parts not being properly connected. These issues affected the performance of the Panzer III, as it prevented proper crew training and required constant maintenance, some of which could not be undertaken in the field.

The problems with the transmission were highlighted in the report made by the 2nd Panzer Division in March 1940, which identified 58 Panzer III with mechanical problems related to their transmissions. It needed constant maintenance and some of the problems could not be fixed in the field. Despite attempts to improve the transmission, the issues persisted, leading to its eventual replacement with the older and properly tested SSG 76 in the Panzer III Ausf.H.

Superstructure

The superstructure’s overall design was the same. One change that was already incorporated on some Panzer III Ausf.Es was the addition of the radio operator side vision port. Three-part deflectors meant to protect the small gap where the hull connected with the turret were placed on the superstructure’s top. This was another modification that was not present on all vehicles.

Turret

Most produced Panzer III Ausf.Fs lacked the left fake periscope cover, located on top of the turret. As the Panzer III Ausf.F was slowly being rearmed with stronger guns, a new gun mantled was added. In addition, a properly dedicated ventilation port was placed on top of the turret. It was protected by a round-shaped cover. From April 1941 onwards, all Panzer IIIs that did not have it received a rear-positioned turret storage bin.

Armor Protection

The armor protection remained on the same level as the previous version, with the front and sides being 30 mm thick. The rear parts were slightly less protected, with 20 mm of armor. The Panzer III Ausf.E and F used face-hardened forward armor plates. Starting in June 1940, the side armor plates were to be replaced with face-hardened plates of the same thickness.

The Panzer III Ausf.F was also equipped with a Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung (smoke grenade rack system) placed on the rear of the hull. This rack contained five grenades which were activated with a wired system by the Panzer III’s commander.

This vehicle is equipped with a five-smoke grenade rack system, located on the right side of the engine. Source: warspot.ru

In the early years of the war, German Army officials discussed how to improve the Panzer III’s protection. One proposal was to replace the existing 30 mm armor plates with thicker 50 mm plates, although nothing came of this proposal. The decision not to increase the armor thickness of the Panzer III vehicles earlier in the war was likely due to a number of factors, including limited resources and competing priorities within the German Army. However, as the war progressed and the limitations of the 30 mm armor became more apparent, steps were taken to reinforce the vehicles with additional plates. In an effort to further increase its protection, most available Panzer IIIs, including the Ausf.F, were to be reinforced with additional 30 mm face-hardened plates. These plates were to be either welded or bolted down to the front, but also to the rear. It is worth mentioning that not all Panzer IIIs actually received the extra protection, for various reasons, but mostly due to the slow production of the necessary components. Overall, the decision to reinforce the Panzer III with additional armor was a necessary one, given the changing nature of the conflict and the evolving threat posed by Allied tanks.

The Panzer III Ausf.F was protected by 30 mm of armor plates. While this could stop the older 37 mm French guns, it was almost useless against much stronger 47 mm guns. Some crews tried to add various armor improvisations in the hope of further increasing their survivability. This often meant simply adding the spare tracks to the front and sides, such as on this vehicle during the Western campaign in May 1940. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. E, F, G, H.

Later modifications included adding an additional 30 mm of armor to the front. This greatly improved Panzer III’s protection. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. E, F, G, H.

Armor to the rear was also improved. The upper part of the engine compartment received the 30 mm armor plates. Surprisingly, the lower parts did not. Note the unusual ‘U’ shaped container for the spare road wheels. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. E, F, G, H.

Main Armament

Initially, the Panzer III Ausf.F received the standard 3.7 cm KwK 36 main that was used on all previous versions. In addition, there were three 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 machine guns, with one of the superstructure and two more in the turret. On the Panzer III Ausf.F, the machine gun drum feed magazines were replaced with belt feeds. These belts held 150 rounds and there were 30 of them stored inside, for a total ammunition load of 4,5000 rounds.

German Army officials were aware of the well-protected French tanks and the need to improve their own anti-tank capabilities. In a Waffenamt (Eng. Ordnance department) document dated October 1935, it was noted that the anti-tank capabilities of the German Army had to be improved. It was estimated that the French had over 1,000 tanks that had armor protection of 40 mm. The use of a 5 cm tank gun was seen as an important step in increasing the firepower of tank forces. Given the limitation of the German industry, this gun could not be adopted before mid-1940.

Installation of stronger armament was somewhat postponed by WaPrüf 4 (Eng. Inspector of Artillery). WaPrüf 4, which was responsible for the development of tank and anti-tank guns, insisted on using the 3.7 cm caliber for these roles. Although this may seem like an irrational decision, especially from today’s point of view, it must not be forgotten, that due to the underdeveloped industry, WaPrüf 4 wanted to standardize ammunition and guns. Nevertheless, it was agreed to develop a much longer 3.7 cm L/65 gun. Even this project was hindered by the belief that longer gun barrels could lead to it accidental damage during driving. This decision to avoid using longer tank guns greatly hindered Germany’s early tank gun development and was not discarded until the invasion of the Soviet Union. The 3.7 cm L/65 project would not be adopted, as it would require new ammunition and it was expected thatbetter armament would enter production at some point in the future.

The effectiveness of the 3.7 cm gun was further misinterpreted when the Germans tested a captured Polish Renault R35 tank. This vehicle was bought from France by Poland but arrived too late to have any real impact on the war with the Germans in September 1939. This tank was used as a firing test target. The result of these was issued by the High Command of the 11th Army Corp in December of 1939.

“… Ballistic tests on a captured French PzKpfw R-35 have shown that it is easily penetrated by our anti-tank weapons despite having 40 mm-thick armor. This result is mainly due to the fact that the superstructure and turret are made of cast steel; only the side parts of the hull are made of rolled steel. The R-35 is penetrated by the 3.7 cm tank shell (anti-tank round) at an angle of impact of 60 degrees, from the front at 600 m, at the turret and from the side at 350 m. At a favorable angle of impact, the R-35 is penetrated at 100 m by the 2.8 cm Panzerbüchse 38 and the 2 cm PzGr from the front. The turret flaps are particularly vulnerable against fire from all weapons, as the retaining screws break off when hit and the flap is torn out. The bottom plates of bow and hull are only weakly armored (10–13 mm) and therefore very sensitive to bullet penetration and the effect of anti-tank mines…”

Experience gained during the battles for the West in France quickly showed that the 3.7 cm gun was insufficient for dealing with modern tank designs. After May 1940, extensive efforts were made in order to introduce the 5 cm gun as soon as possible. Work on such guns was carried out by Rheinmetall-Borsing prior to the war. Its development would lead to the creation of the 5 cm PaK 38 L/60 anti-tank gun. For early war standards, this was an effective gun, and had it been ready for service prior to May 1940, it could have easily dealt with French tanks. Production was quite slow and only some 20 guns were available by the start of the war in the West and did not see action there, besides some troop trials.

While this gun would have been an excellent choice for the Panzer III in 1940/41, concerns about its barrel length meant that it was not adopted for this role initially. Instead, Krupp, which was developing its own 5 cm version, was tasked with creating a shorter gun. This would be the 5 cm KwK L/42 semi-automatic gun. It was almost 1 m shorter (2.1 m in comparison to 3 m) than Rheinmetall-Borsing’s weapon. Krupp’s gun had a maximum range of 6.5 km and a maximum rate of fire of 12 to 15 rounds per minute. It could fire a few different rounds:

Type of Ammunition	Muzzle Velocity
SprGrPatr 38 high-explosive	450 m/s
PzGrPatr 39 armor-piercing	685 m/s
PzGrPatr 40 tungsten cored armor-piercing	1,050 m/s

Using a standard armor-piercing round, the 5 cm L/42 was able to defeat 47 mm of armor at 500 m and 37 mm at 1 km distance. With the installation of the new gun, the ammunition load was reduced from the original 120 to 87 rounds.

Due to the extra weight of the gun, armament, and armor, it was necessary to adopt some modifications in order to not lose the overall drive performance. To cope with the added weight, stronger torsion bars were used together with wider 40 cm tracks. This highlights the importance of balancing the different components of a vehicle in order to optimize its performance.

A good view of a 5 cm KwK L/42 which was used as a static defense point. As this gun became obsolete, some were reused for this role. Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/panzerdb/7969885400

Despite the urgent need for such weapons, by the end of 1940, there were only 347 guns available for installation. This meant that some Panzer IIIs still had the weaker 3.7 cm armament after 1941. The last reported Panzer III still armed with the 3.7 cm gun was finally rearmed in 1943.

With the installation of the new gun and mantlet, the number of turret-positioned machine guns was reduced to one. Although the firepower against enemy infantry was reduced, there was practically no need to install both machine guns. This was also reflected in the reduction to 3,750 rounds of ammunition for the remaining machine guns.

Original configuration with the 3.7 cm gun. Source: T. Anderson The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1

The late upgraded version with the added frontal protection and a 5 cm new gun. Source: T. Anderson Panzer III

Crew

The Panzer III Ausf.F had the same crew of five, which included the commander, gunner, and loader, who were positioned in the turret, and the driver and radio operator in the hull. Their positions and their duties were the same as in all versions.

An illustration of the crew positions inside a Panzer III. Source: S. J. Zaloga Panzer III vs. Somua S 35

In Service

In France

As the Panzer III Ausf.F became available, it was initially issued to training units. The first operational use was during the German invasion of the West. By May 1940, the number of Panzer IIIs was increased to 349 vehicles which were distributed to seven Panzer divisions. The disposition of Panzer III tanks was as follows.

Panzer Division	Number of Panzer IIIs operated
1st	58
2nd	58
3rd	42
4th	40
5th	52
9th	41
10th	58
Total:	349

One of the earliest successes of the Panzer III in the West was during the fighting around the village of Hannut (Belgium) on 12th May 1940. There, Panzer IIIs managed to destroy 8 (out of 11 destroyed that day) Hotchkiss tanks. German after-combat reports mentioned that, despite the well-camouflaged French positions, their tanks did not open fire at the advancing German tanks. At a distance of 100 m, the French tanks were spotted and engaged by the Germans. Later analysis confirmed that, due to the poor visibility of their tanks, the French simply failed to spot the Germans in time to properly react. In addition, these reports also mentioned a situation where the Hotchkiss turret speed was too slow to follow a quickly moving Panzer III. But it was also noted that the 3.7 cm gun had trouble penetrating the French armor at these distances.

On 13th May, near Merdorp (Belgium), some 22 French tanks were taken out. Interestingly, during this engagement, one S35 was targeted with all tank calibers (from 2 cm to 7.5 cm) at a distance of 800 m, but all failed to penetrate its armor. The 3rd Panzer Brigade that saw service that day against the French 3rd Mechanized Division reported having destroyed 87 tanks. They reported that the most effective weapon was the Panzer IV’s 7.5 cm gun. The 3.7 cm was generally ineffective against the armor of the Somua S35 and the D2 at combat ranges. Penetration was noted only at close ranges of less than 300 m. Another interesting fact is that, due to trouble penetrating the enemy’s armor, this unit spent all its 3.7 and 7.5 cm ammunition.

Illustrated map of the Battle for Hannut, with the German forces (in red) advancing from the west. The few mechanized French units tried to stop the German advance with a massive tank attack. Source: Wikipedia

On 17th May, at Mortiers (France), the Germans engaged a B1 tank. After numerous attempts to destroy it failed, three Panzer IIIs tried to approach it from behind. One vehicle fired over 10 rounds but failed to do any damage to it. The remaining two Panzer IIIs tried to disable its turret. This also did little to the B1 as its crew proceeded to engage the Germans. Eventually, the crew would abandon the vehicle, with some of them being wounded. Surprisingly, German reports mentioned a crew of five on the B1. The B1, despite receiving a dozen or so hits from various German guns, was largely intact. Only one round was able to penetrate its rear plates and disable the engine.

On 10th June 1940, elements of the 1st Panzer Division engaged a group of French tanks, including a B1, near Neuflize (France, near Reims). Once again, the German tank guns had trouble dealing with the heavy enemy armor. Even the tungsten-cored rounds, which had been recently issued for use, could do nothing at ranges over 300 m. Only once the French tanks got at close range were the Germans able to destroy most of them.

The combat experience in the West showed that the Panzer III was not protected against the French 47 mm gun, nor was its 3.7 cm gun effective. Thanks to their speed, training, better tactics, and use of radios, the German tanks could easily outmaneuver the enemy tanks and engage them from a more advantageous position. The five-man crew proved to be superior in contrast to the French two to three-crew tanks. In the case of most French tanks, the commander had to take on several roles during the heat of a battle, including loading and firing the gun, finding targets, and commanding the vehicle, overburdening him. On the other hand, in German vehicles, each crew member had a specific role to complete, which provided their tanks with a greater tactical advantage. While the French tanks were better in terms of firepower and armament, they were clearly obsolete in most other regards. Total Panzer III losses were 133 vehicles.

After the French campaign, the Germans tried to amend some of the shortcomings identified with the Panzer III, especially regarding its armor and firepower. The Panzer III would be rearmed with the 5 cm L/42 gun and receive an additional 30 mm of frontal and rear armor.

On 4th June 1940, the Allgemeine Heeresnamt (Eng. General Army Office) issued the following statement about the 3.7 cm gun’s performance.

“… The experience gained in the previous operations of our armored units against the Western enemy has proven that the 3.7cm KwK in the PzKpfw III is unsuitable as an armor-piercing weapon. The Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres (Commander-in-Chief of the Army), General-Feldmarschall Walther von Brauchitsch, therefore demands that the introduction of the 5cm KwK as the main ordnance of the PzKpfw III be accelerated by all means. The currently valid date for the start of deliveries of PzKpfw III with 5 cm KwK in autumn 1940 is definitely too late. Furthermore, it must be expected that rearmament of the existing PzKpfw III (3.7 cm) to 5 cm weapons will not be possible for the time being, since these vehicles will then not be available for combat operations for several months. It is therefore all the more urgent that series production of the PzKpfw III (5 cm) begins as soon as possible… “

Panzer III Ausf.F during the conquest of the West. Source: T. Anderson The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1

In the Balkans

Following the conclusion of the Western camping, the Germans next turned their attention to the Balkans. The Italians had tried and failed to conquer Greece, and their forces were bogged down and facing total collapse. To complicate matters, a friendly Yugoslavian government was taken down by a ‘coup’ and replaced with a more pro-Allied government. Thus, on the order of Hitler himself, the 2nd and 12th Army Groups were dispatched to deal with these problems. The 2nd Army was tasked with conquering Yugoslavia and was supported by the 6th and 14th Panzer Divisions. The 12th was to engage Greece from Bulgaria and it had the 2nd, 5th, 9th, and 11th Panzer divisions at its disposal. In total, the Germans had over 270 Panzer IIIs, of which some 109 were armed with 3.7 cm guns. Both Greece and Yugoslavia had limited armored forces, and, as a result, tank versus tank battles were rare. Even the British forces stationed in Greece had a limited number of tanks. Even so, some 31 Panzer III had to be written off.

Despite the light resistance during the Balkan campaign in April 1941, some Panzer IIIs were lost. This burnout vehicle was either hit by an anti-tank fire or drove over a mine. These German soldiers try to see if anything could be salvaged. Source: T. Anderson The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1

In Africa

The Panzer III Ausf.F would see service in the North African campaign. The extreme heat and harsh weather conditions of the desert environment presented a number of challenges for the tank crews and its mechanical systems. To address some of these challenges, the Panzer III Ausf.F was modified with several changes to its engine compartment and ventilation system. Holes were cut into the engine compartment armor to improve ventilation, and these were covered by armored caps to protect the engine from damage. In addition, the tank’s ventilation system was improved with the installation of additional air filters to prevent dust and sand from entering the engine. The addition of extra storage space for jerry cans allowed the tank to carry additional fuel and water.

In March 1941, Germany dispatched its forces to Tripoli to support their desperate Italian ally. This force was supported by the 5th Panzer Regiment, which had 25 Panzer Is, 45 Panzer IIs, 71 Panzer IIIs armed with the 5 cm gun, 20 Panzer IVs, and 7 command tanks. In May, the German armored forces would be supplemented by the newly arrived 15th Panzer Division, which had 71 Panzer IIIs. The most dominant variants in North Africa were the later Panzer III Ausf.G and H. At least a few Panzer III Ausf.Fs also saw service on this front.

A Panzer III Ausf.F that was modified prior to it being sent to North Africa. Numerous modifications needed to be done on the engine compartment to cope with the heat. In addition, any available space was used as a storage area to hold valuable spare parts, but, more importantly, fuel and drinking water. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. E, F, G, H.

While the later versions were more common in North Africa, some Panzer III Ausf.Fs also saw combat there, Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. E, F, G, H.

Operation Barbarossa

For the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Panzer III was the backbone of the German armored thrust. The German tanks were able to quickly overcome the older Soviets models, such as the T-26 and the BT series. The T-34 and KV vehicles proved to be almost invulnerable to the German tank guns. Even the short 5 cm gun, let alone the older 3.7 cm, proved almost useless against these vehicles. This can be demonstrated in the battle report of the 3rd Panzer Division.

“ …. On 19 August 1941 at 05.30am, strong Russian forces attacked Unetscha from the northwest and tried with six heavy tanks of the type T-34 to enter the city via the bridge. In the city, several tanks of I. and II.Abteilung were waiting for their workshop company. Leutnant Büschen moved to the north-western boundary with his Panzer IIIs to defend against the enemy attack. The Panzer IV had already taken position there and stopped a heavy Russian tank with a hit on the running gear. The crew abandoned the tank and escaped. Subsequently, a Panzer IV was hit by another attacking Russian tank. Two further tanks were destroyed by Panzer IIIs some 70 m before reaching the bridge… A further tank managed to enter the city despite heavy fire. Leutnant Störk in Panzer III (731) followed it. At the railway embankment, the Russian tank was caught and set on fire by a demolition charge thrown into the engine compartment… “

“ The I.Abteilung destroyed three tanks with Christie-type suspension (T-34) on 19 August. Clear penetrations were achieved using PzGr 40 only at favorable angles and at ranges below 400 m, and only on weak points such as the gun mantlet or the hull sides. Binocular observation revealed that direct hits by PzGr 40 on the turret resulted in ricochets; even at ranges under 400 m. Direct fire at the tracks resulted in clear penetrations, which, however, did not stop the tank due to the width of the tracks. In one case, fire from 7.5 cm rounds resulted in the crew abandoning their undamaged vehicle . …”

At the end of 1941, the German Army groups North and Center only had 180 operational Panzer IIIs left. Another 254 were under repair. Delays in repairing these vehicles occurred due to a general lack of spare parts and problems with logistics.

Variants based on the Panzer III Ausf.F

Tauchpanzer III

For the planned seaborne invasion of the United Kingdom, the Germans modified over 150 Panzer III tanks to be used as Tauchpanzer (Eng. Submersible tank). These tanks were designed to be able to move slowly along the seabed and then surface close to the beach to launch their attack.

The extensive modifications made to the tanks were aimed at making them watertight and able to operate underwater. The tanks were equipped with rubber seals on all hatches and openings and the exhaust mufflers were replaced with non-return valves to prevent water from entering the engine. The crew of the Tauchpanzer relied on a 15 m long hose attached to a rubber hood placed above the commanding cupola for air supply. The tank’s cooling system was modified to use seawater.

However, the planned invasion of the United Kingdom was ultimately canceled, and the Tauchpanzer tanks were deployed to fight on the Eastern Front instead. The tanks proved useful in crossing water obstacles such as rivers and lakes, but using them like this was always a risky option for their crews, who had to rely on the modified equipment to keep them safe while operating underwater.

Some Panzer III Ausf.Fs were adapted to be used as submersible tanks. While not used in their original role, these vehicles would see action in the East. Source: T. Anderson The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1

Panzerbeobachtungswagen III

Given their combat obsolescence, some 262 Panzer IIIs would be altered to perform the role of target spotters for self-propelled artillery batteries during the period from February 1943 to April 1944. Some 90 (or even more) Panzer III Ausf.Fs were modified for this role. The first prototype was actually built using an Ausf.F chassis at the start of 1943. These vehicles were modified by removing the main gun and replacing it with a new gun mantlet that had a wooden dummy gun and a ball mount placed in the center of it. Additional scissors and tubular periscopes were also added for the crew.

The first prototype of the Panzerbeobachtungswagen III was built using a Panzer III Ausf.F chassis. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.3-5 Panzerkampfwagen Umbau

Sturmgeschütz III

The Panzer III Ausf.F chassis would also see service during the construction of StuG IIIs. These were meant to provide close fire support to German infantry. They proved to be quite successful and remained in use throughout the entire war.

Early StuG III vehicles were built using the Panzer III Ausf.F chassis. Source: Anderson Sturmartillerie, Osprey Publishing

Conclusion

The Panzer III Ausf.F was more or less a direct copy of the Panzer III Ausf.E and it was one of the most important tanks used by the German Army in the early years of World War II. The Panzer III Ausf.F saw more widespread use than the Ausf.E, with over 400 being produced between 1940 and 1941. It was used extensively in the early stages of the war, particularly during the invasion of France in 1940. It was also used during the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

The decision to upgrade to a 5 cm tank gun was an important step towards increasing the firepower of the tank forces. However, due to limitations in the German industry, the adoption of the new gun had to wait until mid-1940. Even this gun relatively quickly became obsolete once modern, well-armored tanks such as the T-34 were encountered.

Early production Panzer III Ausf.F

Mid production Panzer III Ausf.F with false gunsight removed from the top of the turret.

Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf.F Technical specifications
Crew	Commander, gunner, loader, driver, and radio operator
Weight	19.5 tonnes
Dimensions	Length 5.38 m, Width 2.91 m, Height 2.5 m
Engine	Maybach HL 120 TR 285 hp@ 2,800 rpm
Speed	40 km/h, 15 km/h (cross-country)
Range	165 km, 95 km (cross-country)
Primary Armament	3.7 cm Kw.K. L/46.5 / 5 cm L/42
Secondary Armament	Two or three 7.92 mm M.G. 34
Elevation	-10° to +20°
Armor	10-30 mm / up to 60 (30 + 30 mm)

Sources

T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2010) Panzer Tracts No.3-4 Panzerbefehlswagen Ausf. D, E, H, J. und K.
W. Fleischner (2001) Panzerkampfwagen III Band 187, Podzun-Pallas-Verlag
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2011) Panzer Tracts No.3-5 Panzerkampfwagen Umbau
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2012) Panzer Tracts No.23 Panzer production from 1933 to 1945
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2006) Panzer Tracts No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. E, F, G, H.
P. P. Battistelli (2007) Panzer Divisions, The Blitzkrieg Years 1939-1940, Osprey publishing.
P. P. Battistelli (2006) Rommel’s Afrika Korps Osprey publishing.
D. Nešić, (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
H. Scheibert (1994) Panzer III, Schiffer Publishing
Walter J. Spielberger (2007) Panzer III and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
S. J. Zaloga (2014) Panzer III vs. Somua S 35 Osprey publishing
M. Harley (2008) The Campaigns in the West 1940, Ian Allan publishing
D. Doyle (2005) German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
G. Parada, S. Jablonski and W. hryniewicki, Panzer III Ausf.L/M. Kagero.
Walter J. Spielberger (2007) Panzer III and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
Walter J. Spielberger, AFV Panzerkampfwagen III, Profile Publications
B. Perret (1980) The Panzerkampfwagen III, Osprey Publishing
T. Anderson (2015), The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1 Osprey Publishing
T. Anderson (2015), The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 2 Osprey Publishing
T. Anderson (2022), Panzer III, Osprey Publishing

Has Own Video WW2 German Tank Destroyer Prototypes

Entwicklungsfahrzeug 25 (E 25)

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date June 12, 2023
9 Comments on Entwicklungsfahrzeug 25 (E 25)

E 25. Illustration by Pavel Alexe.

German Reich (1942)
Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – Possibly Up To 5 Prototypes Built

During the Second World War, the Germans made extensive efforts to introduce a standardization of parts in tank and armored vehicle production. This was, to a limited extent, achieved with the Panther and Tiger II, which shared a number of parts. But, in general, the Germans had to rely on several different tank chassis with different engines, transmissions, guns, and running gears, which created a nightmare for their logistical support. In 1942, Oberbaurat H. E. Kniepkamp proposed the introduction of an entirely new series of armored vehicles, which were to have many interchangeable components. While the overall project led nowhere, some attempts were made by the war’s end, even allegedly creating a few experimental chassis, such as the E 25.

Today, only a few drawings of the E 25’s alleged design exist. Source: Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers

Early Attempts For Standardization

During the early development of the Panzerwaffe (English: German Tank Army Branch), the Germans tested various tank designs. As the German engineers and industry lacked any knowledge of tank design, these early attempts were vital for gaining valuable experience. In addition, these experiments, evaluations, and testing helped sort out which designs were suited for use and which were not. At that time, there were some unsuccessful attempts to develop a common chassis that would help reduce development time and lower production costs. Wa Prüf 6 (the office of the German Army’s Ordnance Department responsible for designing tanks and other motorized vehicles) wanted to redesign the Panzer IV Ausf.C in order to be equipped with the newly developed Panzer III torsion bar suspension. For this reason, at the start of June 1937, Krupp, at that time the sole Panzer IV manufacturer, was asked to cease any further work on the Panzer IV chassis. However, the development of the Panzer III Ausf.E chassis was running at a slow pace due to the introduction of a new torsion bar suspension and transmission. It was estimated that the first experimental chassis could not be built prior to April 1938. As there was a great demand for Panzer IV tanks, in October 1937, Krupp was informed to continue working on and producing Panzer IVs in their current form, which would remain basically the same until the end of the war.

Every newly developed Panzer series introduced new improvements over the predecessor (such as better engines, armaments, suspension designs, etc.). By the start of the war, the Germans had in their inventory four different tank designs. This did not include the Czechoslovakian tanks that the Germans also pressed into service. German industry was also highly unprepared for a prolonged war, as it lacked production capabilities to mass-produce tanks and other armored vehicles.

The early Panzer I and Panzer II were deemed poorly armed and were to be replaced by the Panzer III and IV. These two were specifically designed to unify different combat roles. The Panzer III, armed with the 3.7 cm gun, was intended to deal with enemy armor, while the Panzer IV’s 7.5 cm gun’s job was to destroy fortified positions, both acting within Panzer battalions. Why the Germans did not simply use one chassis but with different armaments is not quite clear, as this early tank development period is not always well documented.

Oberbaurat Kniepkamp’s Entwicklungsfahrzeug Projects

By 1942, Germany’s war industry was in disarray, as the frontline troops constantly required more and more materials and equipment, which the German industry failed to deliver in the required quantities. To complicate the whole situation, even more, the usage of several different tank designs and the introduction of yet new ones caused huge stress on an already overburdened industry. The reduction of the number of different tank designs and the introduction of standardization were seen as possible ways out of this precarious situation for the Germans. This was something that Oberbaurat H. E. Kniepkamp, who was the civilian head of the automotive design of Wa Prüf 6 proposed in May 1942. According to him, the tanks and other armored vehicles that at that point were in service were to be replaced by new designs. To save development time and reduce costs, these were to share as many construction components between themselves as possible. In theory, this would enable the development of a series of vehicles that performed various different roles and shared most parts, such as suspensions, engines, automotive parts, etc.

These new vehicles were to be classified depending on their weight. A series of vehicles with a weight ranging from 25 to 30 (or up to 50 tonnes, depending on the source) was to be developed in order to replace the existing tank destroyers. The German Army was highly dependent on these self-propelled anti-tank vehicles, which were often simple improvisations and not dedicated designs. In most cases, this meant that an anti-tank gun with some minor armor protection was placed on any available chassis.

The new replacement vehicles were to have a low silhouette, be protected by angled armor, and well armed. As they would share components with other vehicles, the production would be significantly rationalized and simplified. Wa Prüf 6 approved this project in April 1943. The firm Argus Werke from Karlsruhe was contacted to begin working on the new design. Argus Werke’s development team was led by Dr. Klaue. In the sources, other firms, such as Adler and Porsche, are said to have also been included.

Name

The whole program received the Entwicklungs-Serien (English: Developmental Series) designation. It is this vehicle that Argus Werke was tasked with developing and was designated E 25. The capital E stands for Entwicklungsfahrzeug (English: Development vehicle) and the number 25 represents (at least in theory) its overall tonnage.

Design

A very important fact to mention here is that the E 25’s precise design characteristics are not completely clear. There are barely any sources that go into any detail regarding its overall performance and components. To further complicate the research on this vehicle, many internet sources often present invented, wrong, or untested claims. Basically, any information on the E 25 vehicle must be taken with a dose of skepticism and a grain of salt given the general lack of sources.

Hull

Not much is known about the E 25’s hull design. It would have consisted of the front-mounted gun position, central crew compartment, and rear-positioned engine and drive unit. The vehicle was relatively small, with a length of 5.56 m, a width of 3.41 m, and a height of 2.03 m.

Suspension and Running Gear

The suspension of the E 25 consisted of five 1 m diameter rubber cushioned steel tired and overlapping road wheels. In addition, there was a front idler and rear-mounted drive sprocket. To reduce forward weight and thus relieve pressure on the front part of the suspension, the drive unit (with transmission) was to be placed to the rear. This was a relatively huge issue with a number of German vehicles which were nose-heavy. In the case of the later Panzer IV/70(V) equipped with the long L/70 gun, the extra front weight caused huge problems with the overburdened suspension. Another benefit of relocating the drive components to the rear was that it would be possible to place thicker armor plates in the front. The use of a rear-positioned drive unit was not new to the Germans. This installation was actually tested prior to the war on the Neubaufahrzeug (English New Construction Vehicle), but proved to be too problematic and was abandoned. The tracks were 70 cm wide and had an estimated ground clearance of 0.51 m.

The Neubaufahrzeug was one of the first German tanks to experiment with a rear-positioned drive sprocket. In its case, the whole installation proved problematic and was abandoned. Source: Wikimedia Commons

In order to save production time and in the hope of providing a larger interior space, the E 25 was meant to use an external suspension unit. Each of the five wheels was suspended using individual bell crank units which consisted of an enclosed spring and a shock absorber. In theory, this meant easier production and replacement of damaged parts. While the external suspension was not a common sight in German inventory, it was used on the huge Panzerjäger Tiger (P) ‘Ferdinand/Elefant’ with rather limited success.

An alleged drawing of the E 25’s external and individual (for each wheel) suspension units. Source: http://combat1.sakura.ne.jp/E 25.htm

The Engine and Transmission

Initially, the E 25 was to be powered by a Maybach V-12 HL 110 400 hp strong engine. In late March 1945, a decision was made to use the stronger HL 101 550 hp@3,800 rpm engine instead. Given the obscure status of the E 25’s development program, not much is known about its estimated overall drive performance. Some authors, such as D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata-Nemačka), mention that this vehicle, with a weight of 27 tonnes, could achieve a maximum speed of up to 57 km/h. In addition, the operational range is listed as 210 km. How accurate these numbers are is unclear.

Work on the automotive components, such as the transmission, final drive, etc. was carried out by Zahnradfabrik-Friedrichs-Haven in 1944. It was estimated that the first powerplant units were to be completed in April 1945, but if this was ever achieved is not clear.

The Superstructure

The E 25’s superstructure was to be constructed using angled armor plates. The angled shape of the superstructure provided thicker effective armor and also increased the chance of deflecting enemy shots. Also, by using larger one-piece plates, it was much stronger and also easier to produce. These would be connected by welding, except for the roof plate, which would have been likely held in place using bolts. All fully enclosed German anti-tank vehicles had this feature. This was done so that the plate could be easily removed to facilitate easier maintenance and replacement of spare parts, such as the gun mount.

The E 25’s drawing does not show any kind of observation ports. In reality, this vehicle would have been at least provided with a front driver visor. To save building time and somewhat reduce cost, side visors were often removed on some German vehicles near the end of the war. It would not be surprising if the E 25 was not provided with side vision ports. To compensate for this obvious drawback, a command cupola or observation periscope may have been provided instead, although the drawings do not show these either.

The existing drawings of the E 25 show it without any vision ports for the crew. The drawing also lacks many other details, especially to the rear and top (such as the exhaust pipe, top hatches, etc.) Source: Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers

The top part of the superstructure would have most likely been a copy of the one on the Jagdpanzer 38(t) or other designs, such as the Panzer IV/70(V). It would need at least two escape hatches placed on both sides of the upper superstructure, one on the right for the loader or commander and one to the left for the remaining crewmember. If no command cupola was to be used, a replacement for it would be a small rotating periscope that would be placed on the commander’s hatch. An even easier solution would be scissor telescopes. The downside was that, in doing so, he would have to open the hatch, potentially exposing himself to enemy fire. Lastly, the sliding armored cover for the gunsight would be placed in the front part of the upper superstructure.

Top view of a Panzer IV/70(V). There are two hatches for the crew. The front curved opening was used for the gunner’s sight. A similar layout may have been used on the E 25. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.9-2 Panzer IV/70(V)

In comparison, a top view of the Jagdpanzer 38(t). While generally similar, the major difference was the position of the commander’s hatch. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/hetzer/top-view-hetzer/

Armor Protection

The E 25’s frontal armor plate was 50 mm thick, with the upper plate sloped at 50° and the lower hull at 55° angle. The upper side plate armor was 30 mm thick and placed at a 52° angle. The hull side armor plates were also 30 mm thick. The rear armor was 30 mm thick, while the top and bottom were 20 mm thick.

This armor protection was rather weak by 1945 standards, given the introduction of strong anti-tank guns by the Allies. Given the limitation of the chassis to around 25 tonnes, adding thick armor plates was simply not possible. The E 25’s best defense would be its relatively small size and the highly angled armor plates used in its construction.

While not specified in the sources, this vehicle may have used the 5 mm thick armor skirts (Schürzen) that would cover its sides.

Armament

The drawings of the E 25 show it being equipped with a 7.5 cm L/70 gun. Different versions of the same gun were used on the Panther and Panzer 70/IV(V) vehicles. It had good anti-armor penetration power. When firing a standard armor-piercing round at a distance of some 500 m, it could penetrate 124 mm of armor placed at an angle of 30°. Using the rare tungsten rounds, the armor penetration at 500 m at an angle of 30° was increased to 174 mm.

While almost impossible to know precisely, the gun cradle mount may have been fixed to the front glacis plate. Normally, the gun cradle was fixed to the bottom of the vehicle. An exception to this rule was the Jagdpanzer 38(t). In order to provide the lower profile of the Jagdpanzer 38(t), the gun cradle was fixed to the glacis instead. This necessitated that the gun be placed slightly off-center to the right to provide room for crew and ammunition. A similar installation was done on the Panzer IV/70(V). A gun with this mount being placed on the right side would have broken the balance of the vehicle. In order to compensate for this, most of the crew and ammunition would be placed opposite it. The front of the gun was protected by a large gun mantlet, which had a quite similar design to the two previously mentioned vehicles.

A front view of the E 25 drawings, where little to no details of this part of the vehicle is shown. Source: Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers

For comparison, the Panzer IV/70(V) armed with the L/70 gun used the same gun and possibly the same or a similar gun mantlet. Source: https://warspot.net/322-a-barrel-too-long

Despite the fact the E 25 drawings show it being armed with a 7.5 cm gun, this project never received a precise armament proposal. The 7.5 cm L/70 would have been the most logical choice, as it was already in production and was a good gun. Apparently, there was a proposal to use an autoloader feed system (for the 7.5 cm L/70) that would provide a firing rate of up to 40 rounds per minute. Such weapon systems were tested by the Germans at the end of the war, but not much came of them. Installing such a mechanism offered huge firepower on paper. In reality, it would have likely been limited in effectiveness on the E 25, as the small internal volume would limit the total amount of spare rounds carried inside it. Another issue would be the recoil, which would greatly affect the precision of the gun.

Supposedly, other guns, such as the 8.8 cm L/71 or a 10.5 cm howitzer, were also considered. Authors such as W. S. Carson (Light tanks of Germany in World War II) mention that the E 25’s main armament was most likely meant to consist of the 10 cm PAW 1000 smooth-bore anti-tank gun. A prototype of this gun was built and tested near the war’s end, but nothing came of it.

The experimental 10 cm PAW 1000 smooth-bore anti-tank gun was mounted on a PaK 38 carriage. Source: P. Chamberlain and T.J. Gander Enzyklopadie Deutscher Waffen 1939-1945 Handwaffen

Internet sources often depict the E 25 with a top-mounted cupola armed with a 2 cm cannon. It is unclear if this was a real feature or just a post-war fabrication. The Germans never employed such small cupolas, as their installation would be impossible given the limited space available in such tiny turrets. It is also possible that such an installation may have been proposed though.

It is unclear if a secondary machine gun was to be provided for the E 25. The existing drawing does not have the front ball mount machine gun port. This does not necessarily mean that it would not have had one. A possible secondary armament option may have included the Rundumfeuer machine gun mount, which would be positioned on top of the superstructure. With this specially designed-mount, the machine gun could be operated from inside the vehicle. This mount provided an all-around firing arc. In addition, the operator did not have to expose himself to fire when he was using the machine gun. However, he still needed to go outside to manually load the machine gun. The machine gun was protected by two small angled shields. This weapon system was standard equipment on the Jagdpanzer 38(t) and somewhat less common on the StuG III and StuG IV series.

Close up view of the Rundumfeuer machine gun mount. Source: https://forum.odkrywca.pl/topic/642959-podstawa-km-ze-stuga-iii/

The use of Nahverteidigungswaffe (close-quarters defense weapon) was also possible. In essence, this was a close-range grenade thrower that was to be used against infantry. Only small numbers were produced during the war, despite the fact that almost all German armored vehicles were to receive these in the later stages of the war.

The Nahverteidigungswaffe was essentially a small grenade thrower, intended to be used against enemy infantry. Limited numbers were built and delivered for use. Source: http://www.custermen.net/nahvert/nah2.htm

Crew

There is no information about the E 25’s number of crew members. Given the similarities with other German anti-tank vehicles, such as the Panzer IV/70(V) or the smaller Jagdpanzer 38(t), this likely consisted of four. These included the commander, gunner, loader/radio operator, and driver.

The precise position of these four crewmembers may have differed greatly depending on the internal layout of the E 25. If the design copied the Jagdpanzer 38(t)’s internal design, then the commander would have been placed on the right side of the vehicle. Opposite him would have sat the driver, the gunner, and the loader further back. In the Panzer IV/70(V), thanks to its larger interior, the loader was positioned on the right side. The remaining three crewmembers were placed on the opposite side.

The Fate of the Project

The overall development and design work on the E 25 ran at a slow pace. By 1945, while some progress and even production of parts began, the overall program appears to have failed to gain any major interest from the German Army. Given the project’s late introduction, not much is known about its final realization. It is known that an order for a few experimental prototypes was given. It is estimated that at least some of these may have been constructed. If these were fully completed prototypes that could be used in testing or incomplete vehicles is not fully clear.

From this point, what happened to the whole E 25 program is a bit unclear, as sources provide different accounts. Authors T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers) mention that, after the war, during Oberbaurat Kniepkamp’s interrogations by the Allies, he claimed that at least three hulls were built by Alkett in Berlin-Spandau. As these were never found by the Allies, this raises questions about the veracity of Kniepkamp’s testimony. Several different explanations may exist to explain what happened to these vehicles that Oberbaurat Kniepkamp mentioned. There is a possibility that the Soviets may have gotten to these vehicles before the Western Allies. This leads to other questions, such as if the Soviets have even bothered to drag out the unfinished hulls and conceal them from the Western Allies. Another explanation is that the Germans themselves destroyed these to avoid capture. Yet again, given the chaotic state of Germany in May of 1945, it seems unlikely that they would have had time or will to do so. It is also possible that there was a simple bureaucratic or intelligence mistake by the Allies, simply misplacing or misidentifying these hulls.

Lastly, the whole story of the built hulls (or complete vehicles) may have been an invention told by Kniepkamp. This would not be surprising, as many German scientists and engineers wanted to gain attention from the Western Allies after the war. This was mainly done in the hope of possibly being recruited by them or avoiding consequences for their work or crimes as part of the Third Reich. Something like this was not unheard of, as many German rocket scientists were later employed in the American rocket program. This is speculation at best, given the lack of proof, but an interesting possibility to consider.

Author W. S. Carson (Light tanks of Germany in World War II) mentions that Argus may have managed to build a few hulls in mid-January 1945. He also states that not a single operational E 25 was built. D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka) mentions that five prototypes were fully completed and were transported to Kattowitz for further testing in January 1945.

Basically, the production of a few prototype vehicles may have been initiated in late 1944 and early 1945. If they were ever fully completed is unclear, but it seems unlikely given the collapse of German industry at that time.

E 25 in Games

In recent years, the E 25 has appeared in some games, most noticeably World of Tanks (WoT). Because of its status within the game, the E 25 has received a level of fame beyond its actual history. Because of this, a huge level of interest but also misinformation has been created about the E 25.

Their interpretation of the E 25 is armed with the 7.5 cm PaK 42 L/70. It is powered by a Maybach HL 230 TRM P30 700 hp engine with a maximum speed of 65 km/h. The most noticeable differences compared to the historical information available are the use of the small auxiliary 2 cm armed cupola and the reduced size. This model also appeared in some mods for games, such as Battlefield Forgotten Hope and Blitzkrieg GZM 11.

WoT version of the E 25. Source: https://wot-lot.ru/shop/E 25.html

A similar design was used by the Forgotten Hope mod. Source: https://fhsw.fandom.com/wiki/E 25?file=E_25.jpg

Conclusion

The whole Entwicklungs-Serien started with a good premise, hoping to standardize parts between the different armored vehicles. The Germans did attempt to introduce some kind of standardization, but it was never fully successful. On the other hand, the whole Entwicklungs-Serien concept was proposed too late to have any real chance to be implemented. By the second half of the war, the German war industry was simply overcommitted to the production of existing vehicles. Slowing down or even stopping the production of some vehicles in order to introduce the E-series was something that the Germans could not afford to do. It would have taken time, maybe even years, to fully implement it.

The other question would be if the E 25 was really worth pursuing. It had a rather unimpressive armor, used the same armament as other vehicles already in production, and would require time to be put into production. Other vehicles, such as the Panzer IV/70(V), while not perfect, had better front armor protection and used the same gun. It used already-produced components, so it was a much cheaper option. While many internet sources give some vehicles, such as the E 25, near superweapon status, in reality, it would most likely have ended up as an overly complicated method of trying to simplify production.

E 25. Illustration by Pavel Alexe.

E-25 Technical specification
Crew	4 (commander, gunner, loader, and driver)
Weight	27 tonnes
Dimensions	Length 5.66 m, Width 3.41 m, Height 2.03 m
Engine	Maybach HL 101 550 hp @3,800 rpm
Speed	57 km/h
Primary Armament	Possibly the 7.5 cm L/70
Armor	20 to 50 mm

Sources

D. Doyle (2005). German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2001) Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
P. Chamberlain and T.J. Gander (2005) Enzyklopadie Deutscher waffen 1939-1945 Handwaffen

Cold War Yugoslavia Film Props Film Prop Tanks

Yugoslav ‘Panzer III’ Film Prop

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date May 24, 2023
2 Comments on Yugoslav ‘Panzer III’ Film Prop

M-60 disguised as a Panzer III for the TV show Nepokoreni Grad

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1980s)
Movie Prop Tank – 1 Tank Modified For The Role

Movies and TV series that represented the fight against the Axis powers during the Second World War were very popular in Yugoslavia. For filming these, a large variety of supporting props, such as weapons, uniforms, and other equipment were used. In some instances, armored vehicles were employed for the best possible visual effects. These were vehicles taken from the Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (JNA) (English: Yugoslav People’s Army). In most cases, these were used in their original form, only receiving some German markings. In rarer cases, the whole vehicle would be modified to closely resemble a German tank. For this purpose, one M-60 armored personnel carrier (APC) was modeled to look like a German Panzer III tank.

A modified M-60 that represented a Panzer III. Source: Still from Nepokoreni Grad series

Yugoslav Props Tanks

The Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija (SFRJ) (Eng. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), that existed between 1945 and 1992, was heavily influenced by the heritage of the Communist resistance movement. Its influence was reflected in various aspects of public life, including literature, art, and film. As such, movies and TV series often portrayed the struggles and sacrifices of the Yugoslav Partisans, who fought against Fascism and occupation during the Second World War.

Films such as the Užička Republika (Eng. Republic of Užice) (1974) tell the story of the establishment of the first liberated territory in Yugoslavia during the war. The movie Sutjeska (1973) portrays the Battle of Sutjeska, which was one of the most significant battles fought by the Partisans during the war. Bitka na Neretvi (Eng. Battle of Neretva) (1969) depicts one of the largest battles fought in Yugoslavia during the war.

These movies and TV series were not only popular in Yugoslavia but also gained international recognition and acclaim. They were a testament to the bravery and sacrifice of the Partisans and served as a reminder of the importance of resistance against Fascism and oppression.

Creating such movies and TV series that depicted historical periods often required the use of props. The JNA had access to a range of equipment and weapons that could be used, including iconic German firearms such as the MP 40 submachine gun, MG 34 and 42 machine guns, Mauser 98K rifles, and others.

The JNA had in its inventory a wide selection of captured armored vehicles. Some of these vehicles were pressed into service in the early years after the war. It is not uncommon for captured or older vehicles to be used in such a manner, especially when resources are limited. However, as these vehicles aged and spare parts became scarce, maintenance was complicated, and, as result, many of them fell into disrepair. While these vehicles were original and saw combat in Yugoslavia, their use was not without its own set of challenges. For example, filmmakers may have struggled to find working examples of these vehicles that could be used on camera. Additionally, even if a vehicle appeared to be in good condition, it may not have been safe to operate. As a result, filmmakers may have had to use replicas or special effects to recreate these vehicles on screen.

The JNA operated large numbers of armored vehicles supplied by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. These were in more workable conditions, and, more importantly, safer to use. Both the T-34-85 and the Sherman tanks saw wide use in this role. In most cases, they received only simple German markings or some random number designation. In rarer cases, such as the filming of Bitka na Neretvi, some T-34-85 were modified more extensively to resemble the German Tiger tanks. In other cases, some fully-tracked tractors were modified to resemble enemy tanks. In 1980, one M-60 armored personnel carrier (APC) would be modified to resemble a German Panzer III tank.

A Yugoslav T-34-85 with a slightly modified turret that acted as a German tank. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=26018.30

Yugoslav T-34-85 disguised as a Tiger tank in the movie Bitka na Neretvi. Source: www.reddit.com/

A Soviet-tracked tractor was also modified to resemble an Italian CV-38 fast tank. Source: https://www.imcdb.org/v624177.html

For the movie Desant na Drvar, a full-track tractor was modified to resemble something close to a tank. Source: Still from the movie Desnat na Drvar

A T-34-85 modified to imitate a Tiger tank used during the filming of Kelly’s Heroes. Source: www.pinterest.com

A US-supplied M3 Half-Track modified to resemble a German vehicle armed with 2 cm anti-aircraft guns. Source: Still from the movie Sutjetska

The Panzer III in Yugoslavia

The development of the tank that would later be known as the Panzer III was officially approved in a meeting of the German General Staff held in January 1934. Its proposed use in combat would be to engage and destroy enemy armor. To conceal its true purpose, it was initially designated as Zugführerwagen (Eng. Platoon commander’s vehicle). After years spent preparing the production facilities and improving the design, this vehicle finally entered mass production just before the outbreak of the war. In the early years of the war, the Panzer III was the backbone of the early panzer divisions. Inadequate armament was one of the major issues faced by the early Panzer III models, which led to the incorporation of a more powerful gun in later models. Despite many challenges, the Panzer III remained an important part of the German armored divisions until its replacement with the Panzer IV after 1942. Some Panzer III tanks even remained in use until the end of the war, indicating the durability and effectiveness of the design.

One of the more modern German tank designs in the early war years was the Panzer III. Source: T. Anderson Panzer III

The Panzer III would see service in Yugoslavia during the war. Some 270 such vehicles were operated by the 2nd and 12th Army Groups tasked with conquering Yugoslavia and Greece in April 1941. The whole operation was initiated by Mussolini’s failure to defeat Greece in October 1940. Greek forces managed to stop the Italian attack and even went on their counter-offensive. With this setback, together with the losses suffered in North Africa, Mussolini had no choice but to seek help from his German ally. Hitler was not very interested in the Mediterranean theater, being more preoccupied with the plans for the invasion of the Soviet Union. But, worried by the possibility of a second front being opened to the south in Greece by the British, while the German forces were assaulting the Soviet Union, he reluctantly decided to send German military aid to help the Italians. For the planned occupation of Greece, Hitler counted on the Kingdom of Yugoslavia either joining the Axis or at least remaining neutral. Initially, the Yugoslavian government agreed to join the Axis, but a pro-West military coup ultimately led to a German invasion that started on 6th April 1941. The German armored forces had little trouble dealing with the disorganized Yugoslavian defenders, and by 17th April, the war was lost. Following the conclusion of this campaign, the German armored formations were sent back to Germany in anticipation for the invasion of the Soviet Union.

The Panzer IIIs used during the invasion of Yugoslavia were of the early versions, mostly equipped with the 5 cm L/42 and 3.7 cm guns. Source: . D. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne Jedinice Na Jugoslovenskom Ratistu 1941-1945

The emergence of resistance groups in Yugoslavia during the war was a significant challenge for the German military. The harsh treatment of the Yugoslav people by the occupying forces fueled resentment and resistance, leading to the formation of two main groups: the Communist Partisans and the Royalist Chetniks. The resistance groups used guerrilla tactics to engage the German forces, attacking isolated posts, communication and supply lines, and other vital targets. The German response was to send any available armored vehicles to Yugoslavia, but as most of their units were engaged on the Eastern Front, only obsolete and captured vehicles were available. The situation became more desperate for the Germans in 1944, as they lost their Italian ally and had to send additional forces to Yugoslavia. These forces included a small number of Panzer III vehicles, which remained in use up to the end of the war.

During the first year of occupation, the Germans forces had limited armored vehicles available for use against the Partisans forces. These were mostly obsolete and captured vehicles, such as this aging Renault FT. Source: Bojan B. D. and D. S avić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945

From late 1943 onwards, the Germans began employing various better designs, albeit in limited numbers, including these two Panzer III Ausf.N. Source: B. D. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne Jedinice Na Jugoslovenskom Ratistu 1941-1945

During the war, some Panzer III tanks were captured by the Partisans, and these tanks remained in use for a few years after the war. However, due to the general lack of spare parts and ammunition, their service was limited. Unfortunately, because of poor record-keeping from this period, not much is known about the precise number or version of these captured Panzer III tanks. The Partisans and later the JNA did not keep accurate records of their older equipment, which makes it difficult to know the exact number of tanks captured and their specific models.

These captured tanks were likely used for training purposes or as a source of spare parts for other vehicles. Some of them may have also been used in parades or as static displays in museums. However, without more detailed records, it is difficult to know for sure how these captured Panzer III tanks were used after the war.

The M-60 as a Panzer III

The M-60 was the first Yugoslavian domestically developed and built APC. In general, it was characterized to be a poor design, with weak armor, an underpowered engine, obsolete suspension, drive components, etc. Despite this rather poor service history, the JNA was forced to keep it in service, as nothing else was available. The production of fully operational vehicles began in late 1965 and lasted up to 1979. By that time, some 790 M-60 vehicles of all versions were built. As a result, it was available at hand and was likely cheaper to use than an actual tank.

The M-60 was the first Yugoslavian developed APC. Its overall design would prove to be unsuccessful, but, due to lack of anything better, it remained in use for decades. Source: http://www.balkanwarhistory.com/2017/10/yugoslav-armored-personnel-carrier-ot-m.html

The M-60, like many other JNA military vehicles, has a distinctive appearance and can easily be modified to resemble other vehicles. It is not uncommon for filmmakers to use military vehicles as props in war movies to add authenticity to the scenes. The whole modification was rather simple. A mock-up of a Panzer III turret was placed on the top of its superstructure. Additionally, some minor alterations were made to the front of the superstructure and the mudguards. It would be used to represent a German vehicle in the movie Doviđenja u sledećem ratu (Eng. See You in the Next War) released in 1980.

An interesting adaptation of an M-60 into a German Panzer III tank. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=3177.165

It also was used in the TV series Nepokoreni Grad (Eng. Unconquered City). In this case, it was used as a Croatian vehicle. During the war, the Nezavisna Država Hrvatska (NDH) (Eng. Independent State of Croatia) was a German puppet state, created after the invasion and breakup of Yugoslavia in 1941. As part of its collaboration with Nazi Germany, the NDH was allowed to establish a small armored force to help combat resistance movements in Yugoslavia. However, due to limited resources and a lack of industrial capacity, the NDH was forced to rely mainly on obsolete armored vehicles acquired from the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia and their Axis allies, such as Italy and Germany. The NDH’s armored forces were mostly composed of light tanks, armored cars, and self-propelled guns, which were often poorly maintained and lacked spare parts. Despite these limitations, the NDH armored units saw extensive actions in the fighting against resistance forces.

Some sources mentioned that in late 1944, the Germans provided the NDH with 20 Panzer III Ausf.Ns, 10 Panzer IV Ausf.Fs, and 5 Panzer IV Ausf.Hs. While some Croatian crew members were, at that time, sent to Germany to be trained to operate these vehicles, there is no proof that these were ever actually delivered or used by the NDH.

In late 1944, several Croatian tank crews were sent to Germany to be trained on Panzer IVs. The is no proof that the NDH forces ever received such vehicles. Source: B. B. Dumitrijević and D. Savić, Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu

A M-60 used in the series Unconquered City as a Croatian vehicle. Note the added Croatian red and white chessboard marking, which was used during the war. Source: Still from Nepokoreni Grad series

Croatian Panzer I with the chessboard marking. Source:www.paluba.info

Overall Construction

Suspension

The M-60’s suspension was based on the Soviet SU-76, which was developed during the Second World War. The Yugoslav engineers who worked on the M-60 project reused the SU-76’s suspension, but made several modifications to it, such as reducing the number of road wheels to five per side and changing the front drive sprocket.

The M-60 employed a SU-76M suspension with some changes. The most noticeable is the reduced number of road wheels and the addition of a new type of front drive sprocket. Source: http://elektron.tmf.bg.ac.rs/user/bojan/armor/apc/m-60p/

On the other hand, the Panzer III’s suspension consisted of six small road wheels in addition to a front-drive sprocket and rear-positioned idler. Both suspensions used three return rollers per side. To someone unfamiliar with these vehicles, their suspensions may appear the same. However, historians and armor enthusiasts can spot many differences. For a start, the Panzer III employed a much larger front driver sprocket and idler. In addition, the Panzer III used six road wheels which were positioned closer to each other. The M-60 road wheels on the other hand, had a larger space between them, and there were only five of them. Lastly, while not present on all vehicles, early Panzer IIIs had the hull-side escape hatches for the crews. While the M-60 and Panzer III shared some similarities in their use of a torsion bar suspension, their specific designs and modifications were unique to each vehicle.

A side view of the Panzer III’s suspension. While using the same type of torsion bar suspension, the Panzer III had six road wheels and a larger drive sprocket and idler. Source: warspot.ru

Realistically, nothing could be changed to the M-60’s suspension to resemble a Panzer III’s. Trying to add a sixth road wheel would be expensive and pointless. It could only have damaged the vehicle and prevented its use as a military vehicle. It is also understandable that the JNA would not want to discard vehicles that, while obsolete, were still useful in some capacity. The JNA simply did not have anything better in sufficient numbers to carelessly discard its vehicles.

Some minor attempts to slightly change the suspension appearance were made, by adding larger and crudely made mudguards. The M-60 was equipped with round-shaped or flat forward and rear mudguards. The vehicle adopted as the German tank had completely different front and side mudguards. The front part appeared to be slightly longer and more crudely made.

The M-60 generally had round-shaped front and rear mudguards. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m60/opis.htm

Beside the previously mentioned mudguard design, a somewhat simpler model was also used. Source: Magazine Poligon 1/2017

The modified M-60 used larger and more crudely made mudguards. The front parts were somewhat longer and were not even properly connected to the vehicles as a small gap could be seen in the picture or video of this vehicle. Source: Still from Nepokoreni Grad series

Superstructure

While there are some similarities regarding suspension parts, the superstructure is completely different. It is important to acknowledge that the two vehicles were designed in different eras with different technological capabilities and design priorities. The Panzer III was designed as a tank, while the M-60 was used to transport infantry squads.

The Panzer III used a simple square-shaped superstructure with no hatches. Contrary, the M-60 had a slightly larger superstructure with many hatches, either on top or rear of the vehicle. Despite this, some minor attempts were made to at least resemble (with lots of imagination) a Panzer III’s superstructure. The M-60’s trim vane connected to the lower superstructure armor was removed. Ironically, the M-60, due to many design flaws, did not have amphibious capabilities, so the trim vane was pretty much useless. Instead, a mock-up front aperture was added. It had a machine gun port and a fake driver vision port.

Good view of a Panzer III’s small superstructure on this disassembled vehicle. For historical contexts, this vehicle was damaged beyond repair and it is being cannibalized for any valuable spare parts. Source: T. Anderson Panzer III

The M-60, on the other hand, had a much larger superstructure. This was necessary as its role was to transport 9 soldiers with their weapons and equipment. Source: http://elektron.tmf.bg.ac.rs/user/bojan/armor/apc/m-60p/

The M-60 was provided with a trim vane. As the driver was seated above the trim vane, there was no need to add a front vision port. Instead, such a vision port was placed on his hatch. The position of the front machine gun port, however, necessitated the installation of a small hatch. That way the gunner could use his machine gun despite the trim vane being raised. Source: Magazine Poligon 1/2017

The trim vane was removed, and in its place, a mock-up that was to resemble (kind of) a Panzer III’s frontal superstructure design. While the driver’s vision port was fake and could not be used, the machine gun port was real. Source: Still from Nepokoreni Grad series

Turret

Whoever worked on this vehicle, did an excellent job with the mock-up turret. Many quite well-made details, such as the side two-part hatches, pistol ports, and side vision ports were replicated. The mock-up turret was not just placed on the M-60’s top. Instead, what appears to be a round base was used to connect these two. Further, the turret appears not to be fixed in place. There are scenes where the turret moved slightly to the sides. While there is no information on how it was built, it is possible that a ring-shaped turret base with added ball bearings to help with the rotation was used.

While not easy to spot, the turret was placed on what appears to be a round-shaped base. Source: Still from Nepokoreni Grad series

The turret itself appears to be able to rotate slightly to the slides. On the other hand, it is possible that it was only loosely connected and it simply moved slightly depending on the road condition the vehicle was driving on. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=3177.165

The German Panzer III tank went through several modifications during its production run, with different versions featuring different turret designs and components. This makes it challenging to identify the precise version of the turret design, even on an original German Panzer III. Additionally, due to the nature of war and the need for field repairs, it was not uncommon for vehicles to be equipped with older or newer components, depending on availability and the urgency of the situation. As a result, tanks with mixed components were not a rare sight, even within the same unit. This further complicates the identification of the exact version of the replicated turret’s design.

For a start, the gun depicted is a 5 cm L/42. This gun was intended as a replacement for the outdated 3.7 cm gun that was originally used on the Panzer III. While the overall gun and its mantle mock-up were quite well done, there are some mistakes. The 5 cm L/42 gun is missing some key elements of the original design, such as the round-shaped gun mantle, protected machine gun port, and pyramidal-shaped hatches. Additionally, the gun protective recoil cylinder steel jacket and deflector guard are not centered correctly. Instead, the older version’s internal mantlet was copied, but this too lacks the two machine gun mounts on the right side of the turret. Lastly, the gun’s protective gun recoil cylinder steel jacket and a deflector guard were not fully centered, but were slightly off to the right side. The original Panzer III’s gun was positioned in the center of the deflector guard.

A front view of the mock-up Panzer turret. While generally a good copy, it is missing some key elements of the original design. Also, note that the gun is not centered on the deflector guard. Source: Still from Nepokoreni Grad series

The early Panzer III turret armed with the 3.7 cm gun. This version was copied for the mock-up Panzer III. Features such as the two machine gun ports and the left cover are missing. Source: T. Anderson Panzer III

The creators of the vehicle were inspired by the later version armed with the 5 cm gun. But this too is wrong regarding the missing mantlet and not centered deflector guard for the main gun. Source: T. Anderson Panzer III

The command cupola of the prop Panzer III was taken from the Ausf.G version. In this case, it was an exact copy of it. It had a two-part hatch that could be opened or closed. Other elements of the turrets were also well-made, starting with the rear-positioned two machine gun ports. On the sides, the two-part hatches were also well made with some minor details lacking. In the TV show, actors can be seen entering the turret via the commander’s cupola.

The design of the command cupola was copied from the Ausf.G version. Source: T. Anderson Panzer III

A side view of the Panzer III’s turret. Source T. Anderson Panzer III

In comparison, the side view of the mock-up vehicle. The details of the two hatches and vision ports, to name a few, are quite well done. Source: Still from Nepokoreni Grad series

Rear view of the vehicle. Source: Still from Nepokoreni Grad series

The actors could be seen on several occasions entering the turret through the commander’s cupola. Source: Still from Nepokoreni Grad series

The top of the mock-up turret was also basically the same as on a Panzer III. In general, the early Panzer III, besides the signal ports, had quite a simple top turret design.

An early Panzer III’s top turret view. Source: panzernet.net

The mock-up vehicle had a very similar turret top design. Source: Still from Nepokoreni Grad series

On Screen

In contrast to other Yugoslav films, where tanks and other armored vehicles were shown destroying buildings or participating in fighting, the M-60 prop had a rather unimpressive role. In episode six of Nepokoreni Grad, the tank was undergoing repairs at a workshop where a group of Partisans constantly sabotage attempts to repair tanks. The M-60 is shown leaving the workshop and driving through the city before being forced to stop, as one of the Partisan mechanics had thrown a bag of sugar into the fuel tank. In Doviđenja u sledećem ratu it appears in a few scenes driving through a village.

Conclusion

The Yugoslav movie industry often used tanks and other armored vehicles to represent enemy vehicles. In most cases, these only received enemy markings with no attempts to modify them to share some similarities with those vehicles used during the war. In the case of the M-60 adaptation of a Panzer III, things were a little different. Those who made it did an excellent job to copy some elements of the Panzer III, namely the turret. The M-60’s superstructure was way different from that used on the Panzer III, so even with the best aspects considered, they would never look alike. The use of modified vehicles for movie productions highlights the importance of realism in creating effective and engaging films. It is impressive to see the level of creativity and resourcefulness in adapting existing vehicles for these purposes.

M-60 disguised as a Panzer III for the TV show Nepokoreni Grad

Sources:

B. D. Dimitrijević and D. Savić (2011) Oklopne Jedinice Na Jugoslovenskom Ratistu 1941-1945, Institut za savremenu istoriju
B. B. Dumitrijević (2010), Modernizacija i Intervencija, Jugoslovenske Oklopne Jedinice 1945-2006, Institut za Savremenu Istoriju
T. Anderson (2015), The History Of The Panzerwaffe Volume 1 Osprey Publishing
T. Anderson (2022), Panzer III, Osprey Publishing
http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m60/opis.htm
Magazine Poligon 1/2017
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3bClNmGEh8&ab_channel=malijura

Has Own Video WW2 German Tank Destroyers

Panzer IV/70(V)

German Reich (1944)
Tank Destroyer – 930 to 940 Built

The further development of the StuG series led to the introduction of the Jagdpanzer IV tank destroyer. The Jagdpanzer IV was initially meant to be armed with the long 7.5 cm L/70 gun. As this gun was not available in sufficient numbers, as a temporary solution, the vehicle was armed with the shorter L/48 gun instead. In early 1944, the production of the long gun was finally increased and it could be used for this purpose. This would lead to the introduction of a slightly modified Jagdpanzer IV which was renamed Panzer IV/70(V). Production started in August 1944 and, by March 1945, some 930 to 940 vehicles were built.

Panzer IV/70 (V). Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

The Development

The introduction of the Jagdpanzer IV into service provided the German Army with an effective anti-tank vehicle that had a small silhouette, was well-protected, and had a good gun. Work on such a vehicle was initiated by Waffenamt (Eng. Army Weapon’s Office) in September 1942. Initially designated Sturmgeschütze Neue Art (Eng. New Type Assault Gun), the new vehicle was to be armed with the 7.5 cm KwK L/70 gun and protected with 100 mm frontal and 40 to 50 mm of side armor. It was intended to have the lowest possible height, a top speed of 25 km/h, 500 mm ground clearance, and a weight of up to 26 tonnes. It is somewhat ironic that this vehicle, initially intended as a replacement for the StuG III, ended up being hijacked by the Panzer branch.

However, the initial plans to use the 7.5 cm L/70 gun could not be fulfilled, as its production was limited and reserved for the Panther tank program. While the short-barrelled Jagdpanzer IV was slowly entering production in January 1944, a meeting was held to discuss the use of the larger gun. For this reason, one prototype was to be built and tested to establish the feasibility of the concept once enough guns were available.

The prototype of this new vehicle was completed in early April 1944. It was, in essence, just a modified Jagdpanzer IV (chassis number 320162) armed with the long gun. Of course, some internal structural changes had to be made in order to fit the larger gun. The new vehicle was presented to Hitler on 20th April 1944. Hitler was impressed and insisted on a monthly production order of 800 such vehicles. The Waffenamt was slightly more realistic and issued a production quota of 2020 vehicles (both the L/48 and L/70 versions) to be completed by the end of April 1945, closer to 160 vehicles per month.

The first prototype of the vehicle that would later be known as Panzer IV/70(V). Source: https://warspot.ru/12584-slishkom-dlinnyy-stvol

Designation

Throughout its development and service life, the new tank hunter received several different designations. This was nothing unusual by German standards. The initial designation for it was Sturmgeschütz auf Pz.Kpfw.IV. This name derived from its original purpose as a replacement vehicle for the StuG III. On Hitler’s own personal insistence, this vehicle was to be renamed to Panzer IV lang (V). The V stood for the manufacturer, Vogtlandische Maschinenfabrik AG (Vomag), while the word lang (Eng. Long) referred to the L/70 gun. This order was issued on 18th July 1944.

In October 1944, this designation was slightly changed to Panzer IV lang (V) mit 7.5 cm PaK 42 L/70. Starting from November 1944, it was referred to as Panzer IV/70(V) – Panzerwagen 604/10 (V) mit 7.5 cm PaK 42 L/70. Lastly, in January 1945, the term Jagdpanzer was once again used. The full designation was Jagdpanzer IV lang (V) (Sd.Kfz.162). To avoid confusion with the previous model and to be consistent with most sources, this article will refer to the vehicle as the Panzer IV/70(V).

This vehicle is also known by the nickname ‘Guderian Ente’ (Eng. Guderian’s Duck) given to it by its crews. This is often described as being related to its slower speed and reduced mobility in the sources. According to W. J. Spielberger (Military Vehicle Prints), this nickname was translated as ‘Guderian’s Hoax’ and is related to his refusal to accept this project. The word Ente in German (and in some other languages) can refer to as false news, hence Spielberger’s interpretation of this term.

Production

Given that Vomag was already involved in the Jagdpanzer IV’s production, it was logical that this company would produce the new Panzer IV/70 (V). Production plans were quite ambitious, especially taking into account that this occurred in late 1944, when the Allied bombing campaign had slowly grinded down the German industry to literal dust. The lack of resources and a logistical collapse were also notorious during this late part of the war. Many newly built vehicles never reached the front. Nevertheless, despite all the hardship, Vomag managed to keep up with the planned production, as can be seen in the following production table from T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.9-2 Jagdpanzer IV).

The month of production	Planned production quota	Actual production numbers
1944
August	60	57
September	90	41
October	100	104
November	150	178
December	180	180
1945
January	200	185
February	160	135
March	180	50
Total	1,120	930

Up to March 1945, the production numbers were often reached and sometimes even exceeded the planned quotas. Production dropped in March 1945 before ultimately stopping. That month, Vomag’s facilities were completely devastated by an Allied bombing raid. Given the chaotic state of Germany at that time, there was no time nor resources to restart production. While the production could not be restarted, there were some 30 hulls and 10 superstructures left available. Some of these were completed likely in April and issued for frontline use. It is possible that at least 10 more vehicles were completed.
In July 1944, Adolf Hitler insisted that production of the Panzer IV was to be terminated in February 1945 at the latest. Instead, the companies that were initially involved in the Panzer IV production were to focus on the Panzer IV/70 tank hunter. Given the insufficient production numbers of tanks such as the Panther and the Tiger II, the Panzer IV could simply not be phased out. This order was never implemented in reality.

Design

The Panzer IV/70(V) inherited the Jagdpanzer IV’s overall design. In essence, it was the same vehicle with better armament. Still, some modifications were necessary in order to fit the larger gun, while other changes were implemented in order to reduce production costs or to reduce the usage for materials that were in short supply. The Panzer IV/70(V) was built using chassis taken from Panzer IV Ausf.H and Panzer IV Ausf.J tanks.

The Panzer IV Ausf.H and J chassis served as the base for this new vehicle. Source: www.panzernet.net

Hull

The overall hull design was mostly unchanged from its predecessor. Some minor modifications were introduced during the production run. For example, the air intake vents on the brake inspection hatches were replaced with simple handles. They had become unnecessary, as the Germans had added ducts that extracted the smoke to the ventilation ports of the engine compartment. Their locking mechanism was also altered slightly. Another small modification was adding a vertical towing bracket which was welded to the rear part of the hull. This was a late introduction, first appearing in December 1944.

This vehicle uses early brake inspection hatches with ventilation ports on them. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

It is difficult to find a proper photograph that shows in more detail the Panzer IV/70(V)’s front hull, especially the brake inspection hatches. In this photograph, the soldier on the left actually holds the handle from the left brake inspection hatch. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.9-2 Jagdpanzer IV

Drawing of brake inspection hatches. The larger one to the right (number 3) is the original Panzer IV hatch. The remaining two were used on the Jagdpanzer IV and Panzer IV/70. The air intake vents (number 2) would be replaced with a simple handle (number 1). Source: J. Ledwoch. Panzer IV/70 (V)

Suspension and Running Gear

Given the added extra weight of the gun and armor, the Panzer IV/70(V)’s suspension became overburdened and thus prone to breakdowns. The rubber rims on the two front wheels wore out quickly. In addition, steering the vehicle on the uneven ground became problematic.

The problem with the suspension was already an issue with the slightly lighter Jagdpanzer IV, but became a serious problem for the later vehicle. One of the earliest attempts to resolve this issue was a proposal to move the road wheels’ positions to the front by 10 cm. It was hoped that this would shift the center of gravity a bit. This idea was flawed from the start, as the front road wheels were already too close to the drive sprocket. It would also necessitate huge changes to the hull design. In turn, this would cause delays in production, and thus it was never implemented.

The only real attempt that gave some positive results regarding the overburden suspension was the introduction of steel-tired road wheels. The two front road wheels were replaced with this new model. In addition, lighter tracks were to replace the ones in use. Both of these measures were introduced starting in September 1944. Of course, the older vehicles were at some point likewise provided with these reinforced wheels to help cope with the added weight.

The number of return rollers would be reduced to three. In addition, these were made of steel due to the lack of rubber. Lastly, different types of idlers were used depending on the availability of spare parts.

The first-built vehicles were not provided with steel-tired road wheels and had the standard four-return roller configuration. Being nose heavy, the first suspension boogie was under huge pressure. This led to quicker wear of the rubber rims. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/stihace/jgdpz4.php

Despite the introduction of the steel-tired road wheels, not all vehicles received these. This particular vehicle does not have them but has three return rollers. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/stihace/jgdpz4.php

This vehicle has two steel-tired road wheels. One of them appears to be damaged. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/stihace/jgdpz4.php

Engine

The engine compartment received no major modifications. It was still powered by the Maybach HL 120 TRM which produced 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm. Given the increase in weight from 24 to 25.8 tonnes, the overall drive performance dropped significantly. The maximum speed was reduced from 40 km/h to 35 km/h. The cross-country speed remained the same, at around 15-18 km/h. While this decrease in maximum speed does not appear as much at the first glance, the Panzer IV/7(V) became difficult to steer and the added weight caused huge stress on the engine itself. With a fuel load of some 470 liters, the operational range was 210 km.

The cylindrical exhaust muffler was replaced with two upright-positioned Flammentoeter (English: flame exhaust mufflers). These were implemented on vehicles produced starting from November 1944. Chain links were attached to the cooling air intake and flap so that they could be manually opened or closed depending on the need.

A good illustration of the changes implemented to the engine exhaust mufflers. Initially, a standard cylindrical exhaust muffler was used. This would be replaced with flame exhaust mufflers. Lastly, their cover was slightly modified during production. Also, note the added vertical towing bracket on the last illustration. Source: И. Мощанский, И. Переяславцев Tank Destroyer Pz.IV/70V)

The Superstructure

The upper superstructure design was mostly the same, except for one major difference which is not obvious and somewhat illogical. The superstructure’s top, despite the use of a larger gun which would require more working space inside the vehicle, was actually lowered by some 30 mm. While not a huge difference, the reason why this was implemented is unknown.

Besides that, other minor improvements were also introduced, mostly near the end of the war. Some vehicles received rain channels which were positioned under the commander and the loader’s hatches. The Panzer IV/70(V) was meant to receive a jib boom crane installation. This required adding five sockets that needed to be welded to its top superstructure. This crane would provide the crews with a means to easily remove heavier components, such as the engine. This was rarely added to the vehicles and appears to be mainly present on vehicles produced near the end of the war.

The design of the sliding gun sight cover was also slightly changed to make it easier to build. Initially, it consisted of two curved single-piece sliding rods. These would be replaced with sliding rods that consisted of many smaller parts.

Some vehicles had spare track link holders added to the sides of the superstructure. It is not clear if these were introduced during production or added by some of the crews as an improvisation.

A good view of the Panzer IV/70(V)’s upper superstructure. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Given its late introduction, pictures of the Panzer IV/70(V) with the jib boom crane installation are hard to come by. Here is a picture of a StuG IV with a jib boom crane. In essence, the installation on the Panzer IV/70(V) would be quite similar if not the same as here. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

The leading gun sight cover was also modified. To the left was the one used initially. It would be replaced with a new design that incorporated many segmented parts (on the right). Source: И. Мощанский, И. Переяславцев Tank Destroyer Pz.IV/70V)

Some vehicles had spare track link holders added to the sides of the superstructure. Source: И. Мощанский, И. Переяславцев Tank Destroyer Pz.IV/70V)

Another such example with slightly shortened spare track link holders. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Armor and Protection

The Panzer IV/70(V)’s armor was the same as on its predecessor. It was well protected, with thick and well-angled armor plates. For the lower hull, the upper front armor plate was 80 mm thick at a 45° angle and the lower plate was 50 mm at a 55° angle. The side armor was 30 mm thick, the rear 20 mm, and the bottom 10 mm. The hull crew compartment had 20 mm of bottom armor.

The upper superstructure frontal armor was 80 mm at a 50° angle, the sides were 40 mm at a 30° angle, the rear armor was 30 mm, and the top was 20 mm. The engine compartment design and armor were unchanged from the Panzer IV, with 20 mm all around and 10 mm of top armor.

The 80 mm of front armor was introduced on the Jagdpanzer IV series in May 1944. The later version incorporated a larger gun which led to an increase in weight. Thus, in August 1944, it was proposed to once again use weaker 60 mm thick frontal armor. Even Hitler agreed that the superstructure frontal armor needed to be reduced in thickness in order to save some weight. For unknown reasons, this decision was never implemented.

The Panzer IV/70(V) was initially provided with Zimmerit anti-magnetic coating, but after September 1944, its use was abandoned. Additional 5 mm thick armor plates were also provided for extra protection of the engine compartment’s sides. The Panzer IV/70 (V) could be equipped with additional 5 mm thick armor plates (Schürzen) covering the sides of the vehicle. They served mainly to protect against Soviet anti-tank rifles. In rarer cases, at the end of the war, these were replaced with Thoma Schürtzen wire mesh. While these were lighter and provided the same level of protection, their use was delayed due to problems with production.

The 5 mm thick armor plates (Schürzen) cover the side of the vehicle. They served mainly to protect against Soviet anti-tank rifles. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

The crews of some vehicles often added all kinds of improvised armor. These were often reused spare parts, such as tracks and road wheels. Some of the crews added concrete to the front armor plates. The effectiveness of this improvised armor was dubious at best, but these improvised up-armoring jobs were relatively common on other German vehicles, such as the StuG III series.

The crew of this vehicle added concrete on the front superstructure armor. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Armament

The Panzer IV/70(V) was rearmed with the stronger 7.5 cm PaK 42 L/70 (sometimes referred to as 7.5 cm StuK 42 L/70) gun. The position of the gun was unchanged, as it was placed slightly off-center to the right. Given that it was a much larger gun with stronger recoil forces, some structural changes were needed. For example, the gun mantlet was redesigned in order to save weight. In addition, a hydro-pneumatic equilibrator was installed on the right side of the gun. To provide better gun balance, an iron counterweight was added at the end of the recoil guard. Despite being a considerably longer gun and using stronger rounds, the recoil was only 42 cm. The total weight of the gun itself was 2.2 tonnes. Surprisingly, no ventilation fan was present in the crew compartment. Instead, an air blast mechanism was meant to blow fumes created after firing the gun out the barrel.

Given the longer length of the gun barrel, an external travel lock had to be provided. Its purpose was to help stabilize the gun during traveling. This in turn would help avoid damaging or even misaligning the gun sight. When connected to the travel lock, the gun was raised up at a 13° angle. This was necessary in order to avoid accidentally hitting the ground when driving on uneven ground. While this seems unlikely to happen, the Panzer IV/70(V)’s lower height and longer barrel meant that this was a real possibility. The prototype was initially not provided with a travel lock, but it quickly became apparent that such a device would be needed. In order to free the gun, the gun operator only had to elevate the gun a bit and the travel lock would fall down. This allowed for a quick combat response but also avoided the need for a crew member to exit the vehicle in order to do it manually. The shape of the travel lock was changed during production. Initially, these had a large opening in them. Later built travel locks did not have this opening.

The Panzer IV/70(V)s initially did not have a gun travel lock. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/stihace/jgdpz4.php

Given the long barrel, the use of a travel lock was required. In order to free the gun, the gun operator only had to elevate the gun a bit and the travel lock would fall down. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/stihace/jgdpz4.php

A Panzer IV/70 with the later introduced travel lock. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

The elevation of the main gun was –6° to +15° and the traverse was 24°. Here it is important to note that these numbers differ greatly in the sources. These particular numbers were taken from T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.9-2 Jagdpanzer IV). A muzzle brake would not be added to the gun, as it would create a lot of dust during firing and also increase the cost of construction slightly. Some guns had threaded ends on the barrel for the installation of a muzzle brake. As this was a labor-intensive task, most were likely not provided with such a feature.

The 7.5 cm StuK 42 L/70 could fire a few different types of rounds, including armor-piercing (PzGr 39/42 or 40/42), high-explosive (SpGr 42), and armor-piercing tungsten rounds. While the latter had superb anti-armor penetration power, due to the scarcity of tungsten, these rounds were rarely employed.

Distance:	500 m	1 km	2 km
Standard Armor-piercing round	124 mm	111 mm	89 mm
Armor-piercing tungsten round	174 mm	149 mm	n/a

Thanks to this firepower, this gun could effectively engage most Allied tanks up to the war’s end. The maximum firing range of the high-explosive rounds was 5.1 km, while the armor-piercing range was 3 km.

	T-38-85	IS-2	M4	Cromwell	Churchill
Front	2000 m	800 m	2800 m	3400 m	2000 m
Side	3500 m	2000 m	3500 m	3500 m	3000 m
Rear	3300 m	1000 m	3500 m	3500 m	2000 m

The 7.5 cm PaK 42 L/70 Armor penetration (maximum range) table against enemy tanks. Source: T.L. Jentz (Germany’s Panther Tank)

The ammunition load consisted of 55 rounds, but this would be increased to 60. Usually, around 34 were armor-piercing, while the remaining 21 were high-explosive. This could differ depending on the combat need or availability of ammunition.
The 7.5 cm PaK 42 L/70 gun used a Sfl.Z.F.1a gun sight which had a magnification of x5 and a field of view of 8°. On some vehicles, the gunner sight was encased into protective covers. Starting from November 1944, one-third of the produced Panzer IV/70(V) were meant to receive the SF 14 Z scissor periscope. In addition, these were also to incorporate the use of an Entfernungs-Messer 0.9 m (Eng. Range finder). Three small connecting points were welded around the commander’s hatch for the installation of this range finder. Due to delays with the delivery of such equipment, the first vehicles mounting this were supplied in March 1945.

A good view of the Panzer IV/70(V) commander and gunner’s periscopes. In addition, notice the three connecting points, with one in front and two to the rear of the commander’s hatch. These were to be used to mount the range finder but were introduced too late to see any real service. Source: https://warspot.ru/12584-slishkom-dlinnyy-stvol

As a secondary weapon, the MG 42 machine gun was retained. The ammunition load for it consisted of 1,950 rounds. In addition, at least one 9 mm submachine gun MP 40 or a later 7.92 mm MP 44 assault rifle was carried inside for crew protection.

Some vehicles were equipped with the Rundumfeuer machine gun mount that was operated from inside the vehicle. This mount provided an all-around firing arc. In addition, the operator did not have to expose himself to fire when he was using the machine gun. However, he still needed to go outside to manually load the machine gun. While this installation was tested on the prototype, it did not see wide use on the Panzer IV/70(V).

The first prototype did receive the Rundumfeuer machine gun mount, but its use appears to have been limited on the later production vehicles. Source: https://warspot.ru/12584-slishkom-dlinnyy-stvol

A destroyed vehicle that was provided with the Rundumfeuer machine gun mount. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

The Panzer IV/70(V) was also equipped with the Nahverteidigungswaffe (Eng. close defense grenade launcher), with some 40 rounds of ammunition (high explosive and smoke rounds), placed on the vehicle’s top. Due to the general lack of resources though, not all vehicles were provided with this weapon. In such cases, the Nahverteidigungswaffe’s opening hole was closed off with a round plate.

The Nahverteidigungswaffe’s firing port was located on the left of the commander’s hatch. When not provided (which was often the case), the opening was simply hidden by an armored cover. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

For defense against infantry that got too close, an unusual weapon attachment named Vorsatz P was provided. This was a curved muzzle attachment for the MP 43/44 assault rifles. With this curved barrel, the loader (who was to be equipped with this weapon attachment) could engage enemy infantry from inside the vehicle without exposing himself. The Vorsatz P barrel was angled at 90°. For installation on armored vehicles, such as the Panzer IV/70(V), a small ball mount was developed. It was to be attached to the top superstructure hatches. For combat use, the assault rifles were to be attached to this ball mount vertically, pointing up. With the extended curved barrel, the maximum firing range was around 15 m. Despite its odd appearance, the system actually worked. This weapon system was introduced too late and was only issued in limited numbers in 1945.

The Vorsatz P curved muzzle attachment for the MP 43/44. https://panzerworld.com/stg-44

Crew

The crew number and position remained unchanged. It consisted of the commander, the gunner, the loader/radio operator, and the driver. The loader’s position was to the left while the remaining three crew members were placed opposite him.

Organization and Distribution to Units

In July 1944, Hitler came up with the idea of using smaller mobile armored formations. Their purpose would be to act as a quick response to enemy attacks. These were the so-called Panzer Brigaden (Eng. Tank Brigades). They were to consist of three 11-vehicle-strong Panther companies and one 11-strong Panzer IV/70(V) company. In addition, they were to be protected by at least 4 anti-aircraft vehicles. Guderian was against the formation of such small units, as they diverted vital resources of men and materiel that were desperately needed by the Panzer Divisions. Regardless, Hitler persisted and some 10 such units were to be formed. A few additional brigades were equipped mainly with Panzer IVs.

The first units to be equipped with a Panzer IV/70(V) company were the 105th and 106th Panzer Brigades in August 1944. A month later, five more such units were formed. These were the 107th, 108th, 109th, 110th, and the Führer Grenadier Brigade. The whole Brigade concept was quickly abandoned and, by November 1944, nearly all such units were absorbed by the existing Panzer Divisions.

Besides these short-lived brigades, the Panzer IV/70(V)s were issued to 10-vehicle strong Panzerjäger Kompanie (Eng. Anti-tank company). Other units, such as the Panzer Grenadier Divisions and schwere Panzerjäger Abteilungen (Eng. Heavy anti-tank battalions) were to be slightly stronger, at 14 vehicles. It is worth pointing out that not all units received these in the prescribed number strength. There were often variations in the delivered number of vehicles Besides forming new units, the Panzer IV/70 (V) was also issued as a replacement vehicle to existing formations.

A destroyed vehicle from the Führer Grenadier Brigade lost in January 1945 on the Western Front. Despite most of these brigades being disbanded, the Führer Grenadier Brigade was one of few that did not share this fate. Source: И. Мощанский, И. Переяславцев Tank Destroyer Pz.IV/70V)

The 24th and 116th Panzer Divisions each received 10 vehicles during September and October 1944. As the Eastern Front came under pressure from the Soviets, more Panzer IV/70(V)s were rushed there. The 7th, 13th, and 17th Panzer Divisions each received 21 vehicles, while the 24th Panzer Division received 19 vehicles.

At the start of 1945, the quick collapse of all fronts meant that the Panzer IV/70(V) was issued to frontline units without much training. The numbers allocated to different units were also dependent on the available vehicles. For example, the 563rd Heavy Anti-Tank Battalion received 31 vehicles in January 1945. It was probably the strongest single unit supplied with this vehicle. On the other hand, others were less lucky, receiving only 10 vehicles, such as the 510th Anti-Tank Battalion in February 1945.

After March 1945, the situation became even more chaotic. Any form of organization was discarded, and instead, vehicles were sent to various units as they arrived at the front. For example, in late March and early April 1945, the Panzer Lehr Division received 12, 114th Panzer Division 5, and the 15th Panzer Grenadier Division 21 vehicles. Even some assault gun brigades received Panzer IV/70(V)s during this period. These units finally received the vehicle that was initially designed for them way back in 1942.

The same month, out of desperation, the Germans tried to mobilize some 711 armored vehicles that were used for training. While this seems like a huge number, most of these vehicles were either obsolete older equipment or had been stored and not operational. At least two Panzer IV/70(V)s were used in this manner. One of them was likely the first prototype built.

In Combat

The Panzer IV/70(V)’s late production start meant that it took some time to actually deliver these vehicles to the frontlines. Crew training was also an important part, as it also required much-needed time. The German logistical infrastructure had been ravaged by Allied bombing runs. As the Allies liberated France, it was possible to build new air bases closer to Germany itself. Roads and railroads were under constant threat of enemy air attacks. This meant that vital supply transportation lines were often targeted. Transportation of new vehicles to the frontline became dangerous and, in many cases, they failed to reach their destinations.

Ardennes Offensive and the End of the War in Western Europe

The Panzer IV/70(V) began to reach frontline units in significant numbers only at the end of 1944 and the start of 1945. The first vehicles were concentrated for the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944. At that time, the Germans mustered some 210 vehicles of this type. An additional 90 were to be used as reinforcements and replacements. The precise numbers of Panzer IV/70(V)s used during the Ardennes offensive differ between sources. The previously mentioned number is according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.9-2 Jagdpanzer IV), while K. Mucha and G. Parada (Jagdpanzer IV) give a much smaller number of 135 vehicles.

A well-recorded action where the Panzer IV/70(V) saw combat action was during the battles around the Belgian Krinkelt-Rocherath villages at the end of 1944. This was part of a German attack spearheaded by elements from the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend. This Division’s 12th SS Panzerjäger Abteilung had Panzer IV/70(V)s in its inventory. The attack was also accompanied by infantry support from the SS Panzergreandier Regiment 25. It is worth mentioning that, by this point of the war, the German soldiers were mostly inexperienced and poorly trained.

As the Germans advanced, they threatened to surround two Allied infantry divisions. In order to prevent this, the 9th Infantry Regiment, together with various elements from the retreating Allied soldiers were gathered to form a defense line at the Krinkelt-Rocherath villages and the Lausdell crossroads. Interestingly, the commander of the 9th Regiment, Lieutenant Colonel William Dawes McKinley, favored the use of bazookas over towed 57 mm anti-tank guns. Both struggled to do damage to the front armor of some of the better German armored vehicles. Still, a team armed with bazookas could be effective, especially from concealed positions.

German infantry, supported by two Panzer IV/70(V) companies, attacked the Allied positions on 17th December 1944. The defenders did not have any armor support at this point, but they laid a huge number of mines. Several Panzer IV/70(V)s from the 2nd Company led the attack, supported by small Panzergrenadier infantry groups, some of them hiding on the Panzer IV/70(V)’s engine decks. The remaining infantry followed up from behind.

Illustrated map of the fighting that took place during the battle for Krinkelt-Rocherath (to the left) and Lausdell crossroads (to the right) Source: S. Zaloga Bazooka Vs. Panzers Battle for the Bulge

Once the German vehicles were spotted, they were immediately bombarded by American artillery. One vehicle was destroyed by an artillery hit, and two were immobilized by mines. Two more were destroyed by the Allied’s bazooka teams. Later that day, despite heavy losses and pressure from the Allies’ artillery, the Germans made another attack. They were supported by the fire of one immobilized Panzer IV/70(V). This vehicle would be destroyed with thermite grenades and a fuel canister. At least one more was destroyed in this attack.

At the same time as the attack on the Lausdell crossroads was carried out, the Germans also attacked the Allied’s positions at the Krinkelt-Rocherath villages. At least three Panzer IV/70(V)s led the attack and managed to penetrate into the villages. The M4 tanks sent against the Germans were quickly taken out. There was heavy fighting that lasted the whole day, but the Germans withdrew the next morning, expecting reinforcements and supplies. On the 18th, the Germans attacked again, this time advancing with Panther tanks in the direction of Rocherath. Two leading Panthers would be taken out, blocking the road to the village, forcing the remaining vehicles to try to go around them. Around one hour later, one Panzer IV/70(V) came to the place where the two Panthers were lost. This vehicle was quickly taken out by bazooka fire.

The precise losses suffered by both sides are not well documented. The defenders lost some 11 tanks, 2 M10 tank destroyers, and a large number of anti-tank guns. The Allies reported the destruction of over 40 German armored vehicles, including 5 Tigers. These reports were not correct, as no Tiger was used during this battle. In addition, the precise number of destroyed German vehicles was likely less than mentioned above, as many vehicles would be recovered.

Interestingly, the Allies used a captured Panzer IV/70(V) during the winter of 1944/45 to test the effectiveness of bazookas. While the front armor proved impervious, the sides and the rear were vulnerable to this weapon.

The two Panthers taken out near Rocherath, which blocked the entrance to the village. Just behind them is the destroyed Panzer IV/70. The two Allied soldiers are standing on it. Source: S. Zaloga Bazooka Vs. Panzers Battle for the Bulge

The captured Panzer IV/70(V) was used for testing the bazooka’s effectiveness against armor. The hits were marked with chalk numbers. Its thick and angled frontal armor proved to be immune to bazooka rockets. Source: S. Zaloga Bazooka Vs. Panzers Battle for the Bulge

At the end of December 1944, some Panzer IV/70(V)s participated in the last large German offensive in the West, Operation Northwind. The operation ended in another German failure by late January 1945, further depleting the strength of its armored units.

After the last offensive against the Western Allies, the German armored formations in this part of Europe were dangerously depleted. There were only six surviving anti-tank battalions equipped with Panzer IV/70 vehicles. By mid-March, the Germans had only 77 Panzer IV/70s vehicles on this front, with only 33 operational. This number likely included both the Vomag and Alkett versions.

An abandoned Panzer IV/70 vehicle was captured by the Allied Forces near Bremen in April 1945. Interestingly, this vehicle only has one steel roadwheel. Source W. J. Spielberger Military Vehicle Prints

Eastern Front

The Panzer IV/70(V) also saw heavy action on the Eastern Front. For example, on 16th March 1945, at the Oder River near Stettin, in north Poland, a platoon leader of the 6th Company from the 9th Panzer Regiment noted the following:

“ … About 900 hours, we learned that Ivan had positioned many tanks ready to attack in front of our infantry’s defensive positions. After signaling the Abteilung and Regiment by radio, we learned from an infantry messenger that the rest of our Kompanie and Abteilung must already be advancing. Their progress was delayed by the plowed up terrain caused by the heavy artillery barrage. At exactly 1100 hours, the artillery fire stopped. It was still deadly all around us. Then, from the deep holes and machinegun nests, signal flares were fired – Enemy attack! The first Russian T-34-85 and SU-85 rolled into the field of view of our Jagdpanzers which were in defiladed positions. Quickly, flashes appeared from hits on two of the forward T-34s, then they started were smoking. Thereafter, a further five to eight enemy tanks quickly appeared beside and behind these. They burnt just as fast. So it went for most of the other enemy tanks that continued to appear in advancing tank squadrons. Every shot from our gun was now a hit. Our knowledgeable and experienced gunners, who were the oldest corporals and sergeants in the Abteilung, could hardly miss their targets. After about a 30 minute fight, a strong formation of T-34s attempted to bypass the right flank of our position. We had fired almost all of our ammunition when behind and beside us additional guns opened fire. The rest of the Abteilung had arrived and supported our bitter defensive battle against the overwhelming Red tank formations.’’

Unfortunately, the report does not mention the precise Soviet armor losses, but these were possibly heavy. The report was meant to highlight the effectiveness and experience of the German gunners. This may somewhat be misleading, as the number of experienced German gunners and crews by the end of the war was greatly reduced due to attrition. The majority would be replaced with inexperienced and poorly trained crew members. Not surprisingly, their performance would be greatly diminished. In any case, the particular Panzer IV/70(V) mentioned in the report would be immobilized by a hit from a T-34-85 to the rear.
Another example would be the 563rd Heavy Anti-Tank Battalion, which saw extensive combat action against the advancing Soviet forces in early 1945. This unit was in the process of reorganization and was supplied with one Jagdpanther company and two Panzer IV/70(V) companies. The total combat strength was 18 Jagdpanther and 24 Panzer IV/70(V). The crew of these vehicles had been previously used as standard infantry and were quite exhausted from heavy fighting with the Soviets. As there was no time for recuperation, on 21st January 1945, they advanced toward the enemy. The unit reached Wormditt that day, where heavy fighting with the enemy occurred. Thanks to their superior firepower and experience, the German vehicles managed to inflict severe losses to the enemy. During a period of 10 days, some 58 enemy tanks were reported destroyed. The Germans only lost one Jagdpanther and four Panzer IV/70(V)s. The remaining vehicles had to be blown up to prevent being captured due to a lack of fuel or spare parts.

The IV SS-Panzer Corps, which engaged the Soviets in a desperate attempt to reach the besieged Budapest, had in its inventory some 55 Jagdpanzer IV and Panzer IV/70(V) tank destroyers. Some would also see service at the last major German armored offensive in the East at Lake Balaton during March 1945. By mid-March, the German Army on this front had some 357 vehicles in its inventory, of which 189 were operational.

Abandoned Panzer IV/70(V) somewhere in Hungary during early 1945. Source: https://www.yaplakal.com/forum2/st/25/topic1261749.html

Panzer IV/70(V) from the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend retreating after the Battle of Lake Balaton during March 1945. Source: H. Meyer The 12th SS The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division: Volume Two

Some Panzer IV/70(V)s participated in the fighting around and in Budapest in early 1945. Source: И. Мощанский, И. Переяславцев Tank Destroyer Pz.IV/70V)

Italy

The Panzer IV/70(V) saw limited use in this part of Europe. Newly produced vehicles were rushed to either the Eastern or Western Fronts. The hilly terrain in Northern Italy would likely have led to overheating and transmission problems. Thus, by April 1945, only three such vehicles were present on this front.

Jagdpanzer IV Versions

Panzer IV/70(V) Befehlswagen

An unknown number of Panzer IV/70(V)s were modified to be used as Befehlswagen (Eng. command vehicles). These vehicles had additional radio equipment installed, namely the FuG 8 30 radio station (30 W power) with an operational range of 80 km. The extra equipment was positioned behind the loader and was to be operated by an extra crew member. The Befehlswagen would also use a Sternantenne (English: star radio antenna) which was 1.4 m long and located on the left side of the engine compartment.

Other Users

After the war, some surviving Panzer IV/70s would see service with a few different armies.

Bulgaria

The Bulgarians, who were allied to the Germans, switched sides in late 1944. They joined the Soviet Union in the fight against Germany. In March 1945, the Bulgarian armored force was supplemented with one captured Panzer IV/70(V) (chassis number 320662) supplied by the Soviets. In Bulgarian service, this vehicle was known under the Maybach T-IV designation. This vehicle still exists to this day and can be seen at the National Museum of Military History in Sofia.

National Museum of Military History, Sofia, Bulgaria. Source: https://preservedtanks.com/Profile.aspx?UniqueID=202&Select=1

Romania

An unknown numbers of captured Panzer IV/70(V)s were supplied to the Romanian Army by the Soviet Union (possibly after the war). In Romanian service, they were known under the TAs T-4 designation. The TAs was an abbreviation for Tun de Asalt (Eng. Assault Gun) and T-4 was the Romanian designation for the Panzer IV.

A Romanian Panzer IV/70(V) seen during a military parade held in May 1948. Source: Trupele Blindate din Armata Română 1919-1947

Syria

Around five to six vehicles (both L/48 and L/70 armed versions) were given to Syria in 1950 by the French, although, depending on the sources, it is possible that the Soviets actually supplied them. During combat with Israeli forces in 1967 during the Six-Day War, one Jagdpanzer IV was lost when it was hit by a tank round. The remaining were withdrawn from the front and probably stored in reserve. These Jagdpanzer IVs were still listed in the Syrian Army inventory during 1990-1991. What became of them is, unfortunately, not currently known.

Surviving Vehicles

At least several Panzer IV/70(V) vehicles are known to have survived the war. They can be seen in museums around the world. The National Armor and Cavalry Museum Fort Benning in the US has one vehicle. Another US vehicle can be seen at the Army Ordnance Museum, Aberdeen Proving Ground. One can be seen at the Bulgarian National Museum of Military History in the capital, Sofia. Another vehicle is located at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. The well-known military museum at Kubinka also has one vehicle in its collection.

Surviving Panzer IV/70(V) at the National Armor and Cavalry Museum, Fort Benning, in the US. Source: https://preservedtanks.com/Profile.aspx?UniqueID=201&Select=1

Another Panzer IV/70(V) located at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Source: www.net-maquettes.com

Panzer IV/70(V) at the Canadian War Museum, Ottawa. Source: Wikipedia

Another example can be seen at the Kubinka Museum near Moscow. Source: Wikipedia

Conclusion

The Panzer IV/70(V) was the final result of the German attempts to create a new and better-armed assault gun to replace the StuG III. Ironically, some Sturmartillarie units only received these vehicles near the end of the war. The Panzer IV/70(V) would remain primarily a dedicated anti-tank vehicle. It possessed strong armament, was well protected, and was a small target. On paper, it met nearly all the requirements that were often associated with an effective anti-tank vehicle for Second World War standards at least. But it was far from perfect, as the added weight led to the chassis being overburdened, which resulted in reduced maximum speed, reliability, and mobility issues.

Despite being produced in relatively large numbers (for German standards), not all of these ever reach the frontline units. The German logistic supply lines were all but destroyed by the end of 1944. The Panzer IV/70(V)s were not concentrated in numbers but instead given in smaller groups to fill the gaps created on the fronts. Thus, their effectiveness was greatly reduced. By late 1944, there was a general lack of panzers, so the Germans were forced to use the Jagdpanzers as replacement vehicles instead. The Panzer IV/70(V) suffered losses, as it was often used in the role of panzer, a role for which it was not suited nor designed for. But, as there were no other solutions, something was better than nothing.

In the end, the Panzer IV/70 (V) was a sound design that exploited the old Panzer IV chassis that was reaching the end of its development limits. Its effectiveness was hampered due to its late introduction in the war, when it could do little to change the final outcome.

Late-type Panzer IV/70(V) based on the Panzer IV Ausf.H, 13th Panzer Division, Hungary, January 1945.

Early type Panzer IV/70(V) in winter camouflage, Hungary, possibly January 1945.

Panzer IV/70(V), late version, 1st SS Panzer Division, Hungary, 1945.

Panzer IV/70(V), late version, 13th Panzer Division, Hungary, January 1945.

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	8.5. x 3.17 x 1.85 m
Total weight, battle-ready	25.8 tonnes
Crew	4 (driver, commander, gunner, loader)
Propulsion	Maybach HL 120 TRM, 265 hp @ 2,800 rpm
Speed	35 km/h 15-18 km/h (cross-country)
Operational range	210 km, 130 km (cross-country)
Traverse	12° right and 12° left
Elevation	-6° to +15°
Armament	7.5 cm (2.95 in) PaK 42 L/70 (55-60 rounds) 7.9 mm (0.31 in) MG 42, 1200 rounds
Armor	Front 80 mm, sides 40 mm, rear 30 mm and top 20 mm

Sources

T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2001) Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2012) Panzer Tracts No.9-2 Jagdpanzer IV
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (1997) Panzer Tracts No.9 Jagdpanzer
D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
S. Zaloga (2016) Bazooka Vs. Panzers Battle for the Bulge, Osprey Publishing
T. J. Gander (2004), Tanks in Detail JgdPz IV, V, VI and Hetzer, Ian Allan Publishing
B. Perrett (1999) Sturmartillerie and Panzerjager 1939-1945, New Vanguard
S. J. Zaloga (2021) German tanks In Normandy, Osprey Publishing
K. Mucha and G. Parada (2001) Jagdpanzer IV, kagero
P. Chamberlain and T.J. Gander (2005) Enzyklopadie Deutscher waffen 1939-1945: Handwaffen
A. Lüdeke (2007) Waffentechnik im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Parragon books
H. Doyle (2005) German Military Vehicles, Krause Publications
S. J. Zaloga (2010) Operation Nordwind 1945, Osprey publishing
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
P. C. Adams (2010) Snow and Steel The Battle of the Bulge 1944-45, Oxford University press
P. Thomas (2017), Hitler’s Tank Destroyers 1940-45. Pen and Sword Military.
Walter J. Spielberger (1993). Panzer IV and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
P. Paolo (2009) Panzer Divisions 1944-1945, Osprey Publishing
N. Szamveber (2013) Days of Battle Armoured Operations North Of The River Danube, Hungary 1944-45, Helion & Company
J. Ledwoch (2009) Bulgaria 1945-1955, Militaria.
J. Ledwoch. (2002) Panzer IV/70 (V), Militaria.
W. J. Spielberger (1972) Military Vehicle, Bellona Print Series 30
T. J. Jentz (1996) The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Employment of Germany’s Tank Force 1943-1945, Schiffer Publishing
H. Meyer (2005) The 12th SS The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division: Volume Two, Stockpile Book
И. Мощанский, И. Переяславцев (2002) Tank Destroyer Pz.IV/70(V)
S. Zaloga (2022) Tanks In The Battle OF Germany 1945, Osprey Publishing
B. Mihalyi (2022) Siege Of Budapest 1944-1945, Osprey Publishing

Has Own Video WW2 German SPAAGs

Flakpanzer IV (3.7 cm Flak 43) ‘Möbelwagen’ (Sd.Kfz.163/3)

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date May 3, 2023
2 Comments on Flakpanzer IV (3.7 cm Flak 43) ‘Möbelwagen’ (Sd.Kfz.163/3)

Flakpanzer IV (3.7 cm Flak 43) 'Möbelwagen' (Sd.Kfz.163/3). Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign, based on the work of David Bocquelet.

German Reich (1944)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun (SPAAG) – 205-250 Built

As the Second World War progressed, it was becoming obvious to the German tank force that the Luftwaffe (English German Air Force) was slowly losing control of the skies over Europe. In order to protect themselves from enemy ground attack aircraft, a series of self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAG) based on tank chassis were proposed in 1942. None of these early designs would be adopted, given the severe capacity limitations of the German war industry. As a temporary solution, the Panzer IV chassis was chosen for this use, being initially armed with the 2 cm Flakvierling anti-aircraft gun. The whole concept was deemed worthwhile, but the armament was seen as too weak. In early 1944, a slightly improved model armed with the stronger 3.7 cm Flak 43 anti-aircraft gun would be adopted for service as the first of the Flakpanzer IVs.

The 3.7 cm Flak 43 armed Flakpanzer IV. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

A New Flakpanzer IV

The early German attempts to create an effective SPAAG based on a tank chassis were rather unsuccessful. The problem with these early proposals was that they were based on tank chassis that were yet to enter production, and none of these actually did so in any significant numbers, so these AA projects had to be quickly abandoned. By the later stages of the war, the overburdened German industry was simply unable to provide resources and production facilities for yet another new vehicle type.

One such early proposal was Rheinmetall’s Flakpanzer, which was based on the VK13.03 chassis with an anti-aircraft gun in a fully rotating turret. Besides a wooden mock-up, nothing came of this proposal. Source: http://www.leadwarrior.com/Lw35022-h.htm

During May 1943, various German Army commissions, including those concerned with armaments and tanks, met to discuss a proper solution to the general lack of anti-aircraft protection for the panzer divisions. After a series of discussions, it was agreed that the best solution was to reuse the Panzer IV chassis for the new SPAAG. The contract for this project was officially awarded on 8th June 1943. In order to speed up the development and production process, the whole design was to be as simple as possible. As a temporary solution, the armament would consist of the 2 cm Flakvierling. This anti-aircraft gun and its crew were to be protected by four-hinged armored walls. The firm responsible for the realization of this project was Krupp. Once the prototype was completed, it was presented to a Luftwaffe delegation for inspection on 3rd October 1943. The delegation did not have any objections and the prototype was to be used for initial testing and evaluation. The overall results were promising and a monthly production run of 20 vehicles was to begin starting in April 1944.

The first Flakpanzer IV prototype was armed with the 2 cm Flakvierling. The gun and its crew were to be protected by four-hinged armored walls. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/flaky/mobelwagen.php

This was not to be, as, on 21st December 1943, it was decided to instead rearm this vehicle with the more powerful 3.7 cm Flak 43 anti-aircraft gun. The Germans were becoming aware that their 2 cm anti-aircraft gun was slowly losing its effectiveness against enemy aircraft at heights greater than 1 km. While it had a much lower firing rate, the larger 3.7 cm round offered a much greater punch. On the 3rd of January 1944, a meeting was once again held between various army branches, including some prominent figures such as Heinz Guderian, General Von Renz (anti-aircraft branch), Hitler, and Albert Speer. Hitler himself agreed to the notion that the Panzer IV chassis should be used as a temporary solution and that the second version (armed with the 3.7 cm gun) should be adopted. A production order for 20 such vehicles was issued. These were to be completed in February 1944. After that, a monthly production rate of 20 vehicles was to be carried out. The initial order included 100 such vehicles. Deutsche Eisenwerke AG was responsible for the delivery of the guns. These were to be placed on the chassis completed by Krupp.

With this, the 3.7 cm armed Flakpanzer IV project received a green light. A prototype vehicle was quickly built. This was actually the same prototype, just rearmed with the larger gun. After a brief examination, some minor changes were requested. mostly in regard to the weapon mount and the redesign of its gun shield.

The 3.7 cm Flak 43 armed Flakpanzer IV. Source: https://ww2-history.fandom.com/wiki/Flakpanzer_IV_M%C3%B6belwagen

The first Flakpanzer IV, together with other anti-aircraft vehicles (not specified which ones in the sources), were transported near Oksbol in occupied Denmark for firing trials. The 3.7 cm Flak 43 worked without any problem. The main issue noticed was the extensive exhaust gasses and the long flame tongues that exited from the gun breech. Both of these were not related to the design of the gun, but to the lower quality of the gunpowder used at this stage of the war.

A Flakpanzer IV during firing trails. This was possibly the vehicle tested in Denmark. Notice the spare barrel and ammunition boxes. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Name

The new vehicle received the quite simple designation Flkakpanzerkampfwagen IV (or simply Flakpanzer IV). In order to help distinguish it from other similar vehicles based on the Panzer IV chassis, the armament caliber and name are often added to its designation. The vehicle itself is possibly best known by the name given mockingly by the troops that operated it. They referred to it as the Möbelwagen (English: Furniture van).

Production

While initial plans predicted that the first group of 20 vehicles would be built in February 1944, this did not happen. The actual production began in March 1944. The production went relatively smoothly, with the 20 vehicles per month quota being achieved and sometimes even surpassed. The production of this vehicle was to be terminated in October 1944. It was to be replaced by the Ostwind, which was expected to enter serial production in November 1944. As this did not occur, the production of the Flakpanzer IV continued up to April 1945, with some 240 vehicles being built in total by that point. The production number may have been slightly larger, as the documents from the Stahlindustrie (Eng. Metal Industry), which were recovered after the war, mention that 243 vehicles were completed.

Month	1944	1945
January	/	5
February	/	18
March	20	12
April	20	Unknown
May	15
June	34
July	31
August	30
September	24
October	14
November	10
December	7
In total	205	Around 35

While most sources agree that 240 such vehicles were produced, there are some that offer different production numbers. For example, author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka) gives a figure of 250 vehicles having been built. Author B. Perrett (Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank 1936-1945) states a total of 211, while Walter J. Spielberger (Gepard The History of German Anti-Aircraft Tanks) only mentions 205 vehicles being built. The most likely correct production numbers are 240 vehicles, as mentioned by T. L. Jentz and H. L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No. 12-1 – Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV), given that they are supported by German documentation.

A group of three newly produced Flakpanzer IVs. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Design

The new Flakpanzer IV shared most of its components (besides the obvious difference in the main armament) with its Flakvierling-armed predecessor on which it was based. Still, some modifications and improvements were introduced, either at the start of or during production. The Flakpanzer IV was built using Panzer IV Ausf.H and Panzer IV Ausf.J chassis.

Suspension and Running Gear

The Flakpanzer IV suspension and running gear were the same as those of the original Panzer IV, with no changes to the overall construction. They consisted of eight small doubled road wheels on each side, suspended in pairs by leaf-spring units. There were two front-drive sprockets, two rear idlers, and eight return rollers in total. Usually, the return rollers were rubber rimmed, but by 1944, shortages of this material meant that they had to be replaced with metal return rollers.

The Flakpanzer IV suspension was basically unchanged from the Panzer IV. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/flaky/mobelwagen.php

Hull and the Engine Compartment

The original Panzer IV hull design did not receive any major change. The Flakpanzer IV utilized the Maybach HL 120 TRM engine but was slightly modified to give out 272 hp@2,800 rpm instead of the usual 265 hp@2,600 rpm.

Superstructure

The new Flakpanzer IV retained the large rectangular-shaped superstructure. In order to reduce production costs, the machine gun ball mount was replaced with a much simpler machine gun firing port. This port was protected by a round cone-shaped cap. It was like a plug, connected to a chain, and when in use, the armored cover would simply be pushed out by one of the crew members. The Panzer IV driver’s observation port remained unchanged. To the left of the driver vision port, a metal bar with a round hole inside it was welded to the front plate. Its purpose was to prevent the front folding wall from completely falling down and thus covering the driver’s view.

Front view of the Flakpanzer IV, where the simple design of the new superstructure is evident. Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/559316-flakpanzer-iv-mbelwagen-flak-in-the-
/

A metal bin was added to the front to prevent the front folding wall from covering the driver field of view. The lone soldier to the right in this picture actually sits on it. Source Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

On top of this superstructure, a platform was added to provide the necessary room for the installation of the main armament and for the crew to work with it. In order to have access to their positions, the driver and the radio operator had two hatches, which were positioned at the front of the superstructure. In comparison to the predecessor, these were slightly enlarged.

In order to reduce the vehicle height as much as possible, the gun platform was actually lowered down inside the Panzer IV hull. Lastly, to the rear, close to the engine compartment, two additional hatches served as access points to the ammunition storage.

A close-up view of the upper platform. In order to reduce height, the gun mount was actually lowered inside the Panzer IV hull. The open entry point for the driver is visible here too. Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/559316-flakpanzer-iv-mbelwagen-flak-in-the-box/

A good upper view of the Flakpanzer IV superstructure top. Unusually, the centrally positioned mount for the gun is missing. The two front open hatches serve as entry points for the driver and radio operator. To the rear, the other two hatches lead to ammunition storage bins. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Fighting Compartment

The 3.7 cm Flakpanzer IV which entered production inherited most components and the overall design from the previous prototype, with some changes. The position of the main armament remained in the center of the superstructure top. Around it, there was enough room for four (or more) crew members. Some minor changes were needed to provide the necessary installation of the larger armament.

The folding walls received a number of changes to their overall design. The first Flakpanzer IV prototype had higher side walls, which were angled inward. The angled plates served to provide an additional level of protection against aerial attacks. On the 3.7 cm Flakpanzer IV, the side armor plates’ height was reduced by about 25 cm. The first 45 produced vehicles retained this slightly curved side armor. After that point, they were replaced with simpler flat armor plates. They were easier to produce and, realistically, the angled armor offered no real extra level of protection. Another interesting feature of the Flakpanzer IV were the two (one on each side) small round-shaped firing ports. One additional port was placed on the rear wall.

The 2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV prototype used side folding walls that had larger inward-angled armor plates. Source: T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 12-1 – Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV.

The production Flakpanzer IV, on the other hand, only initially used this design, which was greatly shortened, before being fully replaced with flat walls. Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/559316-flakpanzer-iv-mbelwagen-flak-in-the-box/

Whilst driving, these walls were fully raised. In a combat situation, these would be slightly lowered to engage low-flying targets or fully lowered to provide a full-around firing arc. The front and rear plates also had two small hinged parts. These could be swung outwards and allowed for the side plates to be fixed at an outward angle. This was done to allow more space for the crew during an aerial engagement while still providing protection from ground fire. In order to reduce the deployment time, the rear armor wall could be completely lowered while the remaining three were partially raised.

Once combat was expected or the enemy was spotted, the crew would lower the armor wall to this position. The firing arc of the gun was increased this way. Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/559316-flakpanzer-iv-mbelwagen-flak-in-the-box/

To achieve maximum firing angle on all sides, the walls had to be fully lowered down. This made the crew exposed to any kind of return fire. Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/559316-flakpanzer-iv-mbelwagen-flak-in-the-box/

In case of need, the rear wall could be simply lowered down and not connected to the side walls. Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/559316-flakpanzer-iv-mbelwagen-flak-in-the-box/

The majority of the produced Flakpanzer IVs had simpler flat side walls. Notice the small round-shaped firing port. Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/559316-flakpanzer-iv-mbelwagen-flak-in-the-box/

Armament

In order to increase the destructive power and range of the SPAAG, the 2 cm Flakvierling 38 was replaced with a 3.7 cm Flak 43 anti-aircraft gun. Although sharing the same 3.7 cm caliber as the earlier Flak 18, 36, and 37 models, the newer Flak 43 (built by Rheinmetall-Borsig) was a completely different weapon. The primary goal of this design was to be simple to operate and easy to produce. It had a new gas-operated breech mechanism which was loaded with a fixed loading tray with eight-round clips. There was also a Flakzwilling 43 version with two guns mounted on the same carriage. In order to be installed in the new vehicle, some modifications were needed. The lower part of the carriage and the original gun shield were removed. In addition, the spent ammunition basket was smaller due to the smaller working space. Only the small rectangular shield in front of the gun was left in order to cover the front embrasure opening. The Flak 43 could rotate a full 360°, with a range of gun elevation between –10° to +90°. The maximum rate of fire was 250-300 rounds per minute, but 150-180 was the more practical rpm. With a muzzle velocity of 820 mps, the maximum effective ceiling was 4,800 m.

The 3.7 cm Flak 43 was an effective weapon built too late and in too small numbers to have any major impact on the war. Source: https://en.topwar.ru/181342-ispolzovanie-30-i-37-mm-trofejnyh-nemeckih-zenitnyh-avtomatov.html

The 3.7 cm Flak 43 was positioned on a specially designed round-shaped mount. While on this mount, it retained its 360° firing arc but the elevation was slightly reduced from –10° to –7°. With the original gun shield, the gun could not be fully rotated, even with the side wall lowered. To overcome this issue, parts of the gun shield were cut off. In order to further provide a better firing arc, the sides of this gun shield could be folded behind it. The ammunition load consisted of 400 rounds. This included 320 high-explosive and 80 armor-piercing rounds.

The first prototype armed with a 2 cm Flak gun had one major flaw. In order for the gun to fit inside the fighting compartment, parts of its gun shield had to be cut off. This meant that the gun was fixed and could not be moved until the side armor wall was partially or fully lowered. In theory, the engagement of ground targets could be done in an emergency by lowering the front wall. However, the gun would have no possibility to traverse and the driver had to move the whole vehicle to hit moving targets. The 3.7 cm armed Flakpanzer IV resolved this issue to some extent. The gun could be used to engage forward targets if only the front wall was partially or fully lowered. The firing angle would be limited when used in this role, and the crew would be exposed to return fire. Starting from around vehicle 201 (the precise vehicle is not clear), the central part of the front wall was cut off. This way, the gun could be used more effectively against ground targets. Given its late introduction, only a smaller number of vehicles would receive this modification.

The secondary armament consisted of two 7.92 mm MG 34 machine guns and at least one 9 mm MP submachine gun.

The 2 cm armed Flakpanzer prototype had its gun fixed in position whilst driving, and could not be moved. Targets could be engaged effectively only when all four armored walls were partially or fully lowered. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/flaky/mobelwagen.php

The 3.7 cm armed Flakpanzer IV could engage targets with the front wall lowered with a limited firing arc. This would leave the crew exposed. Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/559316-flakpanzer-iv-mbelwagen-flak-in-the-box/

On late production vehicles, the front wall was modified by cutting part of it. This way, the gun could be used to engage ground targets without exposing the crew. This was generally a rare modification that saw limited service in the last year of the war. Source:https://weaponsystems.net/system/224-M%C3%B6belwagen

A rear view of the main gun position. The wire mesh box, on the right side of the gun, served to catch spent ammunition cartridges. Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/559316-flakpanzer-iv-mbelwagen-flak-in-the-box/

There is an old photograph that shows a Flakpanzer IV being armed with what appears to be a 3.7 cm Flak 18. The photograph itself is not clear enough to help identify the gun itself. The Flak 18 was the first German 3.7 cm anti-aircraft gun to be introduced to service in 1935. Its production and service were limited due to it being an overly complicated design. Why would the Germans use this obsolete weapon for the Flakpanzer IV is unclear. It was possible that this was used as a training vehicle, or the crew replaced the original gun with what they had on hand. At this stage in the war, the Germans were using all available resources to fight back against the Allies. The usage of two-part armored walls indicated that this was an early-produced vehicle.

The unusual Flakpanzer IV is armed with what appears to be an older 3.7 cm Flak 18. The use of this obsolete weapon indicates that this vehicle was intended to be used for crew training. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Another view of the same vehicle. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Armor Protection

The Flakpanzer IV’s frontal armor hull protection was 80 mm thick. The sides were 30 mm and the rear was only 20 mm thick. The superstructure frontal armor was 50 mm thick and its remaining sides were 30 mm thick.

The armor thickness of the four sidewalls was changed three times. The first group of 20 vehicles had sidewall armor that consisted of two spaced (55 mm apart) 12 mm thick plates. The next 25 vehicles still had the space armor, but the thickness was reduced to 10 mm. The idea behind using two-spaced armor plates was that the first would absorb most of the impact and the second plate would stop the round completely. Of course, due to the low armor thickness of these two plates, it could only effectively work against small-caliber bullets and shrapnel. Anti-tank weapons could easily pierce this armor. Another downside was that it greatly complicated the overall production, as more time was needed to build these. What is unclear in the sources is if all four walls consisted of two-piece armor plates. The photographs of this vehicle obviously show that the rear and front folding walls (on the vehicles that were produced with them) were made of spaced armor plates. The side walls, on the other hand, appear to be thinner and possibly not using the spaced armor design.

The front armored wall on this early vehicle obviously was made of two armored plates with a space between them. The side walls are different and appear to be much thinner. Unfortunately, the sources are unclear on this. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

After these 45 vehicles were built, someone on the German side realized that using space armor generally offered no major improvement. So its use was discarded and replaced with four single-piece 25 mm thick armor plates. In addition, the upper angled armor on the side wall was also removed from production. The sides were thoroughly flat.

In some sources, there is disagreement about the thickness of the armor side walls. To some extent, this is quite understandable if we take into account the marginal difference between the first 12 mm plates and the later 10 mm. The previous information comes from authors such as T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No. 12-1 – Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV). Author Walter J. Spielberger (Gepard: The History of German Anti-Aircraft Tanks) mentions that the later vehicles used 20 mm thick armor plates and not 25 mm.

Regardless of the thickness of the four sidewalls, they were simply too weak to offer any level of protection except against low-caliber rounds and shrapnel. Source: www.worldwarphotos.info

Crew

The crew of the 3.7 cm Flakpanzer IV consisted of six, namely the commander, two gunners, a radio operator, the loader, and the driver. The radio operator and the driver were positioned inside the hull and were fully protected. The remaining crewmembers were positioned inside the fighting compartment. The gun was operated by two gunners positioned on the right side. Opposite the gunners was the loader. Behind them sat the commander. Besides his main role of commanding the whole vehicle, he also acted as an extra spotter and helped to identify targets.

The gun was operated by two gunners, with the loader placed opposite them. Behind them, two more crew members helped with ammunition delivery or spotting enemy targets Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Some authors, such as Walter J. Spielberger, mention that the number of the crewmembers varied between 6 to 7. This is not surprising, as this was the case with some other German combat vehicles which sometimes had more crewmembers than were officially assigned. The reasons for this may vary depending on the need or the combat situation of the unit itself. Some units may have noted that having an extra loader or spotter could help with the vehicle in combat. It could also be possible that some unit lost some vehicles and redistributed the surviving crewmembers between surviving vehicles.

Unit Distribution

As the first vehicles were completed, they were allocated for the training of the initial groups of crews. These would then be used to equip and form 8-vehicle strong Panzer Flak Zuge (English: Tank anti-aircraft platoons).

During June and July 1944, the first such units were attached to the 9th, 11th, and 116th Panzer Divisions which served on the Western Front and 6th and 19th on the Eastern Front. In the following two months, reduced strength units (with only four vehicles) were issued to 10 different Panzer Brigades serving on both fronts. After that, mixed units were formed, equipped with four Flakpanzer IVs and four Wirbelwinds (2 cm Flakvierling armed Panzer IV). It is important to note that these were theoretical strengths as, due to production limitations or logistical reasons, not all 8 vehicles would be always issued. Despite their rather small production number, slightly less than 30 anti-aircraft platoons would be formed during the war.

In Combat

Despite a large number of surviving photographs of the Flakpanzer IV being used in combat, the sources frustratingly rarely mention this vehicle’s operational service in more detail. To some extent, this is not surprising given their late introduction and low production numbers.

On 2nd October 1944, US P-47s from the 389th Fighter Squadron commanded by Lt William Grounds undertook a reconnaissance mission over Vortum Mullem in the Netherlands. They were meant to support the advance of the 7th Armored Divisions against the positions held by the 107th Panzer Brigade. This unit had the 3.7 cm Flakpanzer IV in its inventory. During an aerial attack run led by Lt William Grounds, his aircraft would be hit by a 3.7 cm round. The hit was fatal, as it destroyed the control cables located near the aircraft’s tail.

A P-47 was brought down by Flakpanzer fire. The extensive damage received from the 3.7 cm round is evident here. The US soldier to the right (next to the star marking) has placed his leg inside the hole made by the 3.7 cm round. Source: J. Bernstein P-47 Vs German Flak Defenders

In December 1944, Flakpanzer IVs participated in the last large German offensive in the West, known as Operation Northwind. Panzer Abteilung 5 (5th Tank Battalion) had in its inventory six Panthers, five Jagdpanzer IVs, and 3 Flakpanzer IVs. Given the rather poor weather conditions, it is unlikely that they saw much use against enemy aerial targets during this offensive.
The Flakpanzer IV also saw action in the East. For example, the 20th Panzer Division, which saw heavy action in Hungary in early 1945, had 4 Flakpanzer IVs in its inventory. Some were even used in defense of Budapest before being lost.

A destroyed Flakpanzer IV being recovered by a Bergepanther. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

A Flakpanzer IV with quite an interesting camouflage pattern. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

An abandoned or destroyed Flakpanzer IV in Budapest, 1945. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

An abandoned Flakpanzer IV being inspected by Allied soldiers on 21st September 1944. This vehicle was left by the retreating Germans in the Vosges Mountains. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

A Flakpanzer IV providing anti-aircraft protection for advancing Panthers. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Despite being intended for the anti-aircraft role, its crews tried to prevent Allied aircraft from spotting them first. A well-selected position and camouflaged vehicle had the potential to do more damage than hunting for targets in the open field. Allied ground attack aircraft would often try to first neutralize any anti-aircraft positions before attaching other targets. Source:https://weaponsystems.net/system/224-M%C3%B6belwagen

Surviving Vehicles

Given the rather small production run, it is no surprise that only a few 3.7 cm Flakpanzer IVs have survived to this day. One can be seen at the French Musée des Blindés at Saumur. The second vehicle, which was initially stored at the Aberdeen US Army Ordnance Museum, was given back to Germany in 1970. It can now be seen at the Auto-Technik Museum in Sinsheim. The original 3.7 cm gun is currently not on display. Instead, a 4 cm Bofors gun has been placed on top.

The surviving Flakpanzer IV at the Musée des Blindés at Saumur. Source: http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzer_IV_variants.pdf

The Flakpanzer IV at the Auto-Technik Museum in Sinsheim exhibitted with the 4 cm gun. Source: Wiki

Conclusion

The first Flakpanzer IV that entered production was a mixed bag. On one hand, it finally provided the panzer units with a vehicle that was protected (in contrast to the half-tracks, on which only the cabin was protected in the best case scenario) and had the firepower to bring down most late-war enemy aerial targets. On the other hand, its overall design was somewhat crude and ineffective. The folding walls were used intentionally in order to provide the crew with a good enough view of the surroundings to spot aerial targets before they could be engaged and with enough space to operate the gun. In theory, this would provide sufficient time to set up the 3.7 cm Flakpanzer IV and prepare for combat. The German tank branch of the army was far from satisfied with this vehicle but, given that nothing else was available, they could do little but to accept it for service.

Flakpanzer IV 3.7 cm (Sd.Kfz.163/3) ‘Möbelwagen’. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign, based on the work of David Bocquelet.

Flakpanzer IV Technical Specifications
Crew	5-6 (Commander, two gunners, loader, radio operator, and driver)
Weight	25 tonnes
Dimensions	Length 5.92, Width 2.95, Height 3.25 m
Engine	Maybach HL 120 TR(M) 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm
Speed	42 km/h, 25 km/h (cross-country)
Range	210 km, 130 km (cross-country)
Primary Armament	3.7 cm Flak 43
Secondary Armament	Two 7.92 mm MG 34
Elevation	-10° to +100°
Wall armor	2×12 mm / 2x 10 mm or 25 mm
Superstructure armor	front 50 mm, sides 30 mm, rear 30, and top 8-10 mm
Hull armor	front 50 or 80 mm, sides 20-30 mm, rear 14.5-20 mm, and the top and bottom 10-11 mm

Sources

K. Hjermstad (2000), Panzer IV Squadron/Signal Publication.
Engelmann-Scheibert, H. A. Koch, O. W. v. (1978) Renz Flak Auf Dem Gefechtsfeld Podzun-Palla-Verlag
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
Walter J. Spielberger (1982). Gepard The History of German Anti-Aircraft tanks, Bernard & Graefe
Ian V. Hogg (1975) German Artillery of World War Two, Purnell Book Services Ltd.
T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (1998) Panzer Tracts No.12 Flak selbstfahrlafetten and Flakpanzer
T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (2010) Panzer Tracts No. 12-1 – Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV and other Flakpanzer projects development and production from 1942 to 1945.
T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (2002) Panzer Tracts No. 20-2 Paper Panzers
Walter J. Spielberger (1993) Panzer IV and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
D. Doyle (2005) German military Vehicles, Krause Publications
J. Bernstein (2021) P-47 Vs German Flak Defenders, Osprey publishing
S. J. Zaloga (2010) Operation Nordwind 1945, Osprey publishing
B. Perrett (2007) Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank 1936-1945, New Vanguard

Cold War Yugoslavia Film Props Film Prop Tanks Has Own Video

‘Tiger’ Film Props in Bitka na Neretvi

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date May 1, 2023
2 Comments on ‘Tiger’ Film Props in Bitka na Neretvi

T-34-85 modified to imitate a Tiger tank. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1960s)
Movie Prop Tank – 3 To 4 Tanks Modified For The Role

Movies that represented the fight against the Axis powers during the Second World War were very popular in the communist parts of Europe, such as Yugoslavia. The Germans, not surprisingly, were always portrayed as the bad guys, who brought death, oppression, and destruction with them. They were presented as having vast manpower and armament superiority. Opposite them were the people, fighting with courage and determination in the hope of liberation and, of course, for the party. Many battles were recreated, reinterpreted, filmed, and turned into movies. For this, producers needed all kinds of supporting props, such as weapons, uniforms, and other equipment. However, for the best possible visual effects, they needed actual tanks. On that matter, they did not need anything else, but the mighty Tiger. Of course, the Yugoslavs never had such a vehicle. Instead, they disguised a few T-34-85s for this purpose, and these were successful mock-ups for the period.

A T-34-85 modified to imitate a Tiger tank. Source: www.pinterest.com

Yugoslav “Tigers”

After the war, the newly created Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija SFRJ (English: Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) was heavily influenced by the heritage of the Communist resistance movement in many areas. This was present in almost all spheres of public life, from monuments dedicated to fallen fighters, which were common sights in towns or small villages, or other important events in both literature and art. This was probably best represented in the TV series and movies filmed up to the start of the 1990s. These often portrayed tales of smaller groups of Partisans or the much larger battles that occurred during the war. The most prominent movies of that time were Užička Republika (English: Republic of Užice), Sutjetka (English: Battle of Sutjeska), Valter Brani Sarajevo (English: Walter Defends Sarajevo), and the Bitka na Neretvi (English: Battle of Neretva), to name a few.

When it comes to films with a historical theme, of course, it is necessary to use props that are reminiscent of the period depicted. This was not too big of a problem for Yugoslav cinematography. Although fighting in Yugoslavia may not have been as intense in terms of the number of soldiers and equipment as on other fronts in Europe, great battles were fought nevertheless. This was especially the case between 1944 and 1945, when fairly large engagements took place. During these, the Yugoslav Partisans managed to capture huge stockpiles of enemy weapons and vehicles of all kinds, including tanks. Many of these weapons would serve as a foundation for the creation of the new Jugoslovenske Narodne Armije JNA (English: Yugoslav People’s Army). Iconic German weapons, such as MP 40 submachine guns, MG 34 and 42 machine guns, Mauser 98K rifles, and others were captured in sufficient quantities to be issued for army use until replaced with more modern designs. Thus, during the filming of larger and more important movies, the JNA was often called to provide the necessary equipment and men. Partisan uniforms were also easy to come by, as they had often used various military outfits or simple civilian clothes during the war.

Tanks and other armored vehicles which were captured during the war saw limited use in the early years of the JNA. The Germans and their allies had used various types of vehicles in their attempt to suppress the Yugoslav resistance movements. These mostly included older or captured vehicles, as the Germans could not afford to send more modern designs. There were some modern vehicles, such as the StuG III, Panzer IV, and the Soviet T-34s in the area, but these were issued in limited quantities. Not surprisingly, many of them quickly fell into disrepair after the war given their age and lack of spare parts, So, by the time the Partisan-themed movies were filmed, none of these could be reused. Even if some were still in running condition, it is unlikely that they would be used. The JNA did have in its inventory vehicles that were used by the Allies, which were present in large numbers and in a more workable condition, such as the T-34-85 and Sherman tanks, both of which saw use in this manner.

After the war, the JNA operated a vast collection of different types of armored vehicles of various origins, such as the StuG III. A major issue quickly arose when maintenance and acquisition of spare parts became impossible. These would be rather quickly replaced with more modern designs available in sufficient numbers. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.inf

In Yugoslav cinematography, Bitka na Neretvi was the most expensive movie ever made. It was filmed in 1969 and directed by Veljko Bulajić. It was famous for starring foreign actors, such as Yul Brynner, Orson Welles, and Franco Nero. Another interesting fact was that Pablo Picasso did the movie poster intended for the world premiere. This movie initially had a huge budget of over US$4.5 million and was supported by over 10,000 JNA “volunteers”. It was shown in cinemas around the world and was even nominated for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film. This movie follows the plot of a series of events in Bosnia during 1943, as the Axis forces tried to isolate and destroy a large contingent of Partisans forces. Not surprisingly, the Axis forces were clearly presented as possessing superior weaponry, including tanks and aircraft. The Partisans, on the other hand, had to fight with courage and faith in the Communist Party, with some help from captured weapons. Of course, the movie itself does not depict the war as it was in reality. This can be seen in the scenes where the Germans simply stumble and fall like flies under Partisan fire, Partisans who are mowed down by enemy fire take a few minutes to die, and in other scenes where the Communist struggle for liberation is magnified. But, despite this, the movie itself is a treasure for all historical enthusiasts of this period. Many original hand-held weapons and guns can be seen in it.

An interesting fact was that Pablo Picasso did the movie poster intended for the world premiere. Source: https://www.portalmladi.com/pikaso-i-bitka-na-neretvi/

The Italian actor Franco Nero in front of a German 5 cm PaK 38 guns in the movie Bitka na Neretvi. Source: https://naissus.info/bitka-na-neretvi-najskuplji-i-najgledaniji-film-sa-ovih-prostora/

When depicting enemy tank formations, JNA tanks and other vehicles were reused. In Bitka na Neretvi, over a dozen or so tanks were used. These were mostly T-34-85s with some minor cosmetic changes, such as adding German markings. Some vehicles were modified more extensively to resemble the German Tiger tanks. Of course, it has to be taken into account that, when these films were shot, the availability of quality literature that dealt with the topic of armored vehicles was generally rare, at least in Yugoslavia. Thus, to some extent, it can be understood that using improvised tanks to represent German designs was completely irrelevant to an audience of that time. This is likely the case even today, as most audiences would not see it as a major issue, while tank enthusiasts might ‘scream internally’. In the movie, some imitations of other armored vehicles were also present, including Italian light tanks.

During the first year of occupation, the Germans operated the aging Renault FTs. These would be soon replaced with other French-captured tanks. Even if later tanks were used during filming, these would never be as visually imposing as the much larger T-34-85 tanks. Source: Bojan B. D. and D. S avić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945

Yugoslav T-34-85 disguised as a Tiger tank in the movie Bitka na Neretvi. Source: www.reddit.com/

A Soviet-tracked tractor was also modified to resemble an Italian CV-38 light tank. Source: https://www.imcdb.org/v624177.html

A Brief History of T-34 Tanks in Yugoslavia

In order to fight the ever-increasing Yugoslav resistance, the Germans operated a number of mostly obsolete and captured foreign tanks. During the summer of 1944, the SS Polizei Regiment 10 (English: 10th SS Police Regiment) was transferred from Ukraine to Trieste in Northern Italy. Once there, it was tasked with defending the vital transport lines against the Partisans. In its inventory, this unit had around 10 T-34-76 tanks of various types. They would see action in the last days of the war against the Partisans, when all T-34 tanks were either destroyed or captured.

While not clear, at least 5 or 6 T-34-76s were captured by the Partisans and put to use. Source:www.srpskioklop.paluba

The improved T-34 armed with an 85 mm gun placed in an enlarged turret would also see service in this theater of war. These were initially used by the Soviet 3rd Ukrainian Front, which supported the Yugoslav Communist Partisan’s attempts to liberate Serbia from the Axis forces in the autumn of 1944. This Soviet drive was supported by some 50 T-34-76 and 110 T-34-85 tanks. After successfully defeating the Germans in Serbia, the Soviets moved north, toward Hungary.

A Soviet T-34-85 during the liberation of Belgrade. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba

This was not the only support that the Soviets provided to the Yugoslav Partisans. On Stalin’s own orders, a unit, later named Second Tank Brigade, was to be formed. It was meant to be equipped with 65 T-34/85 tanks which were manned by Communist Partisan soldiers. After successful training in the Soviet Union, the whole unit was transported to Yugoslavia in late March 1945. Despite its late arrival, the unit saw action against the remaining Axis forces in occupied Croatia and Slovenia.
After the war, the surviving T-34 tanks would be used as the main fighting force of the newly created JNA. In later years, the JNA would acquire over 1,000 such tanks, which, despite their age, represented a huge part of its armored force. Given their sheer numbers, the JNA never managed to fully replace them with something better. The T-34-85 would see extensive action during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s. Following the conclusion of these wars, all surviving T-34-85 were removed from service and mostly scrapped.

Two T-34-85s in Trieste at the end of the war. While not used during the final fighting for the city, they would be used for political pressure placed on the Allies to hand over the city to Yugoslavia. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba

A post-war T-34-85 in JNA service. Source:www.srpskioklop.paluba

The Yugoslav Tigers

Generally speaking, finding original World War Two weapons was not a problem. The JNA had in its inventory all kinds of stockpiles of captured weapons. Various and sometimes rare German tanks and other armored vehicles were put to use by the JNA after the war. Of course, the Tiger was never used in this part of Europe. Such rare beasts would have never been effective in hunting small Partisan units in hilly terrain. Their job was to spearhead German assaults and decimate enemy armored forces. Using it in any other role was simply a waste of the resources invested in this tank. Given its general effectiveness, it became one of the most iconic tanks in history.

A Panzer 35(t) and an extremely rare Panzer I Ausf. F. Both vehicles survived the war and can be seen at the Kalemegdan Military Museum. Source: B. D. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne Jedinice Na Jugoslovenskom Ratistu 1941-1945

As the JNA did not have such tanks, the easiest way was to recreate them using what they had at hand. The producers of the Bitka na Neretvi movie went for imposing visual effects more than any historical accuracy. Using such a known tank as the Tiger in a movie where it can be seen destroyed by a much-weaker opponent could be seen as a symbolic act of bravery and the inevitable demise of the German force. The best-suited tank that could be reused for this purpose was the T-34-85. It was available in huge numbers and, with some improvisation and modifications, it was the closest thing that could resemble a Tiger tank. The T-34-85 already had a movie career in Yugoslavia, often being portrayed as a German tank in many old Partisan movies. They were often used without any cosmetic changes, simply adding German markings. In rarer cases, some minor changes were made by adding some modifications to the turrets or hulls.

A Yugoslav T-34-85 with a slightly modified turret that acted as a German tank from the movie Battle for Neretva, filmed in 1969. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=26018.30

Yugoslav film workers who worked on visual effects, possibly assisted by some elements from the JNA, managed to build a decent Tiger replica. It was not just merely adding some cosmetic changes, as they actually put some extensive effort into making it resemble a Tiger tank.

Overall construction

Sadly, precise information on how these vehicles were assembled are hard to come by. It is likely that nobody at that time gave any thought to writing articles or even mentioning them in books or any other publication. The whole extended frames that were placed around the turret and the superstructure were possibly made of wood or metal plates. In any case, what is certain is that the overall construction had to be robust enough to withstand stress and vibrations caused by the vehicle moving. It certainly would not be visually appealing if, during the filming, some parts fell off.

Suspension

The T-34-85 and the Tiger used quite different suspension designs. The Tiger tank used torsion bar suspension with eight large overlapping wheels. While offering excellent drive performance, it was difficult to maintain and repair, labor-intensive, and expensive to build. The T-34-85, on the other hand, used a Christie coil spring suspension. It was mechanically more robust but required a lot of space inside the hull sides. In contrast to the Tiger, the Soviet tank only had five road wheels.
Visually, from a distance, these two shared some similarities, at least to someone who is not familiar with either the history or the design of these vehicles. Both used large road wheels, without return rollers. Given their similarity, it was logical to reuse the T-34-85 for this purpose. Other tanks in JNA inventory, such as the Shermans or the M47, used a suspension that was obviously quite different in every aspect.

The T-34-85 used a five-road wheel suspension with a front idler and rear drive sprocket. Source: Picture taken from the Bitka na Neretvi movie

The Tiger suspension consisted of eight road wheels. Unlike the Soviet vehicle, the driver sprocket on the Tiger was located to the front. While obviously not the same, they share some visual resemblance to each other, at least from distance. Source: Wiki

A good view of the complex interleaved wheels used on the Tiger. This perfectly shows the complexity of its suspension. The Germans were the only ones to use such a design in large numbers. Armies around the world that produced tanks after the war mainly used the much simpler torsion bar suspension but without overlapping wheels. Source: Wiki

Superstructure

Another quite recognizable detail of the German Tiger was its simple box-shaped superstructure that covered the upper part of the vehicle. The driver vision port and the machine gun ball mount were placed on the front armor plate. Above them, two round-shaped hatches served as the entry points to the hull-positioned crew members. The Tiger hull was fairly large, being 8.45 m long and 3.23 m wide.

A quite recognizable feature of a Tiger tank was its simple square-shaped superstructure. Source: Wiki

In contrast, the T-34-85’s superstructure design was quite different, incorporating highly angled armor plates. Similarly to the German vehicle, this tank had a forward-mounted machine gun ball mount and a driver vision port which acted as an entry hatch. Unlike the Tiger, however, the T-34-85 was not provided with an upper hatch for the hull-positioned crew members. It was also slightly smaller in dimensions, 6.68 m long and 3 m wide.

In contrast to the Tiger, the T-34-85 used highly angled armor plates. This provided an extra level of protection, as incoming rounds could bounce off the sloped armor plates. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba

The people responsible for the creation of these vehicles had to make a number of changes to adapt the T-34-85 in order to resemble the Tiger as closely as possible. They did not have to change the overall dimensions of the vehicle, as obviously, no one was going to use a measuring tape to actually measure. Luckily for them, the Tiger superstructure’s simplicity offered a quite straightforward solution, which essentially was the installation of a box-shape frame around the T-34-85’s body. While not perfect, and to some extent disproportionate, it provided a relatively good resemblance to the Tiger. As the final touch, a driver vision port and a machine gun ball-mount replica were added, but these were obviously not precise copies of the real ones. Lastly, in order to not interfere with the engine ventilation ports, the upper parts of the engine compartment were left open.

The box-shaped housing was placed on the T-34-85 tanks and offered a great resemblance to a Tiger, at least from a distance. The driver’s vision port could not be copied, as this part was likely difficult to adapt to be fully functional and not obstruct the driver’s field of vision. Source:http://aquestionofscale.blogspot.com/2016/07/film-review-battle-of-neretva-1969.html

A close-up view of the Tiger’s front armored plates, which obviously shows the difference in shape and design. Source: Wiki

Turret

Once again, the turret was another major difference between these two vehicles. Luckily for the Yugoslavs, the Tiger’s turret also had a simple design that made it relatively easy to replicate. The turret’s construction concept was basically the same as with the tank’s superstructure. The T-34-85’s turret was encased with a frame that imitated a Tiger’s turret. While not an exact copy, it was quite similar to the original. The Yugoslav Tiger did have a commander’s cupola, but its quality was rather poor. Another small detail added to the turret was the rear-positioned imitation of the storage boxes.

A front view of the prop Tiger turret. The main visual difference was that the front parts of the Tiger turret moved with the gun itself. On the Yugoslav Tigers, only part around the barrel moved up or down, the rest of the frontal turret stayed in place, regardless of the gun’s position. Source: Still from Bitka na Neretvi

Side view of possibly the same vehicle. The people who were in charge of implementing this modification did a relatively good job. Source: Still from Bitka na Neretvi

The last part that needed to be adapted was the main gun itself. Both the Tiger and the T-34-85 used similar caliber guns, with the first being 88 mm and the latter 85 mm. The Tiger’s gun was much more complex in design, as it consisted of a large mantlet, a two-part barrel, and a muzzle brake. In contrast, the 85 mm gun used a smaller gun mantlet and a single-piece barrel without a muzzle brake. These prop tanks were never going to use actual live ammunition besides simple blanks. Therefore, a mock-up mask could be placed above the original guns without fear of potentially damaging them.

The upper picture shows the mighty 88 mm gun which was the main armament of a Tiger. It had a different shape to that of a T-34-85’s gun. Thanks to the simplicity and similar dimensions, the 85 mm gun was easy to adapt to the new role. The only thing that was needed was a wooden or metal replica of the 88 to be placed around it. Source: https://www.historyhit.com/facts-about-the-tiger-tank/ and https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/File:T-34-85_dismount_tank_riders.jpg

A ‘Tiger’ operated in another Partisan-related movie, the Sutjetska. From this distance, all the modifications, even the gun barrel, make for a quite well-done replica. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=26018.30

How Many Were Converted?

How many tanks were modified for this proposal is not clear. Given a large amount of available resources, there was no major reason to not convert at least a few of them. The T-34-85s were taken from the 329th Armored Brigade. According to author B. B. Dimitrijević (Modernizacija i Intervencija Jugoslovenske Oklopne Jedinice 1945-2006), four tanks were adapted for use in Bitka na Neretvi. This author does not go into detail if these four are ones that were used as modified Tigers, but this seems very likely. In the movies, at least three Tigers can often be seen engaging the Partisans. That does not necessarily mean that only three were converted. Additional tanks may have been stored as available replacements if something went wrong with other vehicles.

At least three T-34-85s were converted for this purpose. Given the historical and political significance of these major movies, the JNA had to provide the necessary manpower and material. Source: https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Battle_of_Neretva,_The

In the Movies

The purpose of Bitka na Neretvi was not necessarily historical accuracy. The plot of this movie is more focused on the emotions and strength of the Partisan fighters. It depicts their struggle, where despite all circumstances, the Partisans fight on. To some, this may appear as a Communist propaganda tool, in which their struggle and success were greatly exaggerated, which was certainly true. However, it must not be forgotten that the Yugoslav Partisan fighters suffered a lot of hardship in their fight against a militarily superior enemy, who was often brutal and without mercy. It would take years of heavy fighting and sacrifice to finally see the enemy defeated and liberate their homeland. Such movies, with this kind of storytelling which is common across many war movies from all countries, are maybe not for everyone, but at least they serve as a tribute to honor the service and sacrifices made during the war.

Of course, considering the main purpose of this kind of movie, tactics and proper use of armored vehicles were completely unimportant. They served simply to imply the enemy’s superiority in every aspect, which makes the Partisan victory and struggles even greater. The Germans never used such modern vehicles (by World War Two standards) in Yugoslavia in any noticeable numbers, let alone in huge concentrations. The tanks that saw service were much smaller and less imposing. But still, to a poorly trained Partisan, even these may have appeared as invincible weapons.

Thus, the fake Tigers and ordinary T-34-85s could be seen in huge columns supported by the German infantry. During action scenes, they usually simply rushed forward, blowing up houses and other structures before being taken out by the Partisans. They are portrayed doing so in various ways, including using captured anti-tank guns, such as the 5 cm PaK 38 and the larger 7.5 cm PaK 40. Both of these guns were used in Yugoslavia by the Germans, but were generally rare sights. They were more commonly used in action close to the end of the war, way beyond 1943, when the events of this movie took place. The 7.5 cm gun had sufficient firepower to destroy a Tiger, but the smaller PaK 38 would have had major trouble doing anything against the Tiger’s heavy armor. Molotov cocktails were another famous tool used in these Partisan themed movies. They could be effective, but getting close to an enemy tank was not an easy task and success was not always guaranteed. In any case, in these movies, after the enemy attacked, they would usually be beaten back, with the tank slowly going forward in a somewhat chaotic manner.
These Tigers would be again used in another major Partisan movie, the Sutjetska, filmed in 1973. The plot is similar to the Bitka na Neretvi, where the Partisans try to escape a massive Axis envelopment. In this movie, the fake Tigers appear to be further improved to resemble a Tiger in more detail, such as adding a new command cupola, pistol ports, smoke dischargers, and other equipment. Once more, Orson Wells was involved in the film, this time as one of the writers. Renowned Welsh actor Richard Burton stars in the lead role of Josip Broz Tito.

The three Tigers used in the Sutjetska movie appear to have received major cosmetic improvements in many aspects. Source Still from Sutjetska

These three Tigers could be seen at the end of the movie advancing toward the Partisan’s positions. They would be ambushed by a Czechoslovak 3,7 cm KPÚV vz. 34 or 37 anti-tank gun operated by two Partisan fighters. This gun was another weapon used during the Second World War in Yugoslavia, so it is another small historical touch. At close range, the Tigers were taken out one by one, with each being destroyed by a single round. While this surely leaves a great visual impact on the viewer, in reality, this anti-tank gun would have been useless against the 100 mm thick frontal armor of the Tiger tank and would have struggled even against the 60-80 mm thick sides, even at point blank range.

While surely visually effective, the small 37 mm anti-tank gun would have been useless against a Tiger tank. Single rounds were also unlikely to succeed in defeating an enemy tank in real life, as at least several such small caliber rounds would probably be needed to do the job. Source Still from Sutjetska

International Career

Although perhaps less well known in the world today, during the 1960s, Yugoslav cinema entered its golden age. Thanks to the participation in several different foreign film productions, a series of well-known movies were filmed in Yugoslavia or had Yugoslav actors in them. For example, Winnetou and the Crossbreed, a 1966 Western was filmed in Yugoslavia. War-related movies were also filmed, probably the best known being Kelly’s Heroes (1970) starring Clint Eastwood. The movie’s plot revolves around the Allied liberation of France in 1944. The main protagonist is an American soldier named Kelly, who comes across information about German gold held in a bank behind enemy lines. He gathers a group of soldiers and a few Sherman tanks in an attempt to ‘liberate’ the gold for themselves. They finally manage to locate the bank where the gold is stored but find out that it was guarded by three German Tiger tanks. These tanks were likely the same ones used during the filming of the Yugoslav movies. Of course, given that this was a cooperation between the American and Yugoslavian film industries, the visual effects were much improved, and these are best seen on the tank themselves. The quality of the detail added to the tanks is extraordinary and resembles a real Tiger quite well. In the movie itself, the overall combat action is more realistic, to some extent. The downside is that they still portrayed some myths, such as that the Tiger armor was weakest at the back, which it was not (80 mm thick rear, 80 mm thick upper sides, 60 mm thick lower sides). The Americans used a Sherman armed with a long 76 mm gun, which could have easily penetrated a Tiger’s armor at the ranges presented in the movie.
The fate of the mock-ups is generally unknown, but they were probably given back to the army and converted back into regular tanks. These may have then been scrapped or they may have even seen service in the Yugoslav wars that followed.

Kelly’s Heroes had an outstanding cast, with three of the main protagonists played (from the left to right) by Donald Sutherland, Clint Eastwood, and Telly Savalas. This was a part of the iconic scene where these three confront the last Tiger tank. Source: Still from Kelly’s Heroes

A look at the amazing detail of the mock-up Tiger’s top part of the turret. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=26018.30

A side view of the turret, showing many small details, such as the pistol port, the three smoke dischargers and even what looks like Zimmerit. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=26018.30

The shape of the gun barrel was also quite well made. Given the much better understanding and information available on these vehicles, the American filmmakers probably had the help of historians and even soldiers who were in the war. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=26018.30

It is possible that, for filming Kelly’s Heroes, the same modified T-34-85s were reused. The main difference was the use of new road wheels with different designs. This was surely done intentionally to further increase the resemblance to a Tiger’s suspension. Source: www.pinterest.com

Conclusion

In the world of cinema, tanks such as the T-34-85 were often used to portray German tanks. In many cases, no changes were made, while sometimes, attempts were made to adapt them to resemble a Tiger or other German tanks. Yugoslavian filmmakers, with the support of the JNA, made quite convincing replicas of the Tiger tanks, which saw use in a number of domestic films, and even in Kelly’s Heroes.

T-34-85 modified to imitate a Tiger tank. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Sources

B. D. Dimitrijević and D. Savić (2011) Oklopne Jedinice Na Jugoslovenskom Ratistu 1941-1945, Institut za savremenu istoriju
B. B. Dimitrijević (2010) Modernizacija i Intervencija Jugoslovenske Oklopne Jedinice 1945-2006, Institut za savremenu istoriju
D. Predoević (2008) Oklopna vozila i oklopne postrojbe u drugom svjetskom ratu u Hrvatskoj, Digital Point Tiskara
http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info
https://www.bbc.com/serbian/lat/srbija-50547283
https://www.blic.rs/kultura/vesti/tajne-bitke-na-neretvi/78weql5
https://www.imcdb.org/v624177.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWupVGJ0Yuk&ab_channel=PodcastYugoslavia-2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6biIzxt8Mr8&t=337s&ab_channel=solidaritet2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vQ-dXW-3Mk&ab_channel=WorldWarTwoMovie

WW2 German Assault Guns WW2 Italian Vehicles in Foreign Service

Beute Sturmgeschütze mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i)

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date April 29, 2023
2 Comments on Beute Sturmgeschütze mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i)

Beute Sturmgeschütz M41 mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i). Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

German Reich (1943-1945)
Self-Propelled Assault Gun – 123 Captured and 55 Built

After the Armistice the Regno d’Italia (English: Kingdom of Italy) had signed with the Allied forces on 8th September 1943 was made public, what was left of the Italian war industry and armament of the Regio Esercito (English: Royal Army) were taken over by the Germans. In terms of armored vehicles, most were obsolete designs that were put to use only as nothing else was available. The Semoventi (English: Self-Propelled Guns), on the other hand, were of more use, and some 123 Semoventi M41 da 75/18 and Semoventi M42 da 75/18 (English: 75 mm L/18 Self-Propelled Guns on M41 and M42 chassis) were captured. The Germans renamed the captured vehicles Beute Sturmgeschütz mit 7.5 cm Kampfwagenkanone L/18 850 (italienisch) (English: Captured Assault Gun with 7.5 cm Tank Cannon Coded 850 [italian]). These were mainly used in Italy, while a few saw service in the Balkans, Hungary, and in Germany as the Second World War drew to a close.

A captured Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/18 850(i) of 2 Kompanie, Panzerjäger Abteilung 278 in Ancona, Italy, 17 July 1944. Source: beutepanzer.ru

The Italian Semoventi da 75/18

The Semoventi da 75/18 (English: 75 mm L/18 Self-Propelled Guns) were a series of Italian self-propelled guns based on the Serie M (English: M Series) medium tanks. Production started with the Semovente M40 da 75/18 (English: 75 mm L/18 M40 Self-Propelled Gun), which was built using the chassis of the Carro Armato M13/40 (English: M13/40 Tank). The second model was the Semovente M41 da 75/18, based on the chassis of the Carro Armato M14/41. The two models differed only by a different diesel engine. The third and last model was the Semovente M42 da 75/18, based on the chassis of the Carro Armato M15/42. This model differed from the previous two semoventi da 75/18 by its new engine compartment fitted with a powerful petrol engine.

One of the first produced Semovente M40 da 75/18. Source: Nicola Pignato

A Semovente M41 da 75/18 abandoned by the Italian soldiers in North Africa. Source: pinterest.com

From late April 1941, 60 Semovente M40 da 75/18 were built, before the superior-engined Semovente M41 da 75/18, of which 162 were produced until November 1942, substituted them on the assembly line. The first Semovente M42 da 75/18 was finished on 21st November 1942, even though the self-propelled gun was officially adopted on 9th December 1942. In total, by the end of July 1943, 190 Semoventi M42 da 75/18 were produced. An unknown number of other M42s were produced between 1st August and 8th September 1943.

A Semovente M42 da 75/18 ready to be delivered to the Italian Army before the Armistice. Source: worldwarphoto.com

The Semovente M40 da 75/18 was powered by a V-shaped, 8-cylinder, liquid-cooled FIAT-SPA 8T Modello 1940 diesel engine with a maximum power output of 125 hp at 1,800 rpm, giving the vehicle a maximum speed of 31.8 km/h.
It was not a very reliable engine. In fact, it was developed for 8-tonne vehicles, while the Semovente M40 da 75/18 weighed 13.1 tonnes. The Obice da 75/18 Modello 1934 (English: 75 mm L/18 Howitzer Model 1934) was located in the front of the vehicle, slightly to the right, in a ball mount support that allowed a notable 36° of the traverse, 20° on the left and 16° on the right, and an elevation from -12° to +22°. Anti-aircraft defense was ensured by a Fucile Mitragliatore Breda Modello 1930 (English: Light Machine Gun Breda Model 1930) mounted on the vehicle’s roof, with a reserve of 600 rounds on board.

The Obice da 75/18 Modello 1934 mounted on a Semovente da 75/18 that is ready to be delivered. Source: fondazioneansaldo.com

The Semovente M41 da 75/18 was powered by the powerful FIAT-SPA 15T Modello 1941 8-cylinder V-shaped diesel engine, producing 145 hp at 1,900 rpm, increasing the maximum speed to 33.3 km/h. The anti-aircraft machine gun was substituted by a powerful Mitragliatrice Media Breda Modello 1938 (English: Medium Machine Gun Breda Model 1938) with 1,104 rounds on board.

The Semovente M42 da 75/18 was powered by the petrol version of the FIAT-SPA 15T Modello 1941, the new FIAT-SPA 15TB (‘B’ for ‘Benzina’ – Petrol) Modello 1942 petrol 12-cylinder V-shaped water-cooled engine that produced 190 hp at 2,400 rpm. In order to accommodate the new petrol engine, increased fuel tanks and new fire extinguisher system, the chassis of the vehicle was lengthened from 4.92 m to 5.06 m. Apart from these modifications, the M42 was identical in structure and armament to the M41.

The armor of the Semoventi da 75/18 was 30 mm thick on the transmission cover plate, which was rounded. The upper armored plate that covered the transmission was 25 mm thick and angled at 80°. The superstructure had a 50 mm thick front plate angled at 5°. The Semovente M41 and M42 da 75/18, was composed of two 25 mm armored plates bolted together to increase protection. The angled plate that connected the upper glacis plate of the transmission cover and the front plate was 30 mm at 65°.

The sides were 25 mm for the hull and casemate, with the only difference being that the casemate’s sides, which were angled at 8°. The rear casemate was protected by a 25 mm thick armored plate. The rear of the engine compartment was 25 mm thick and angled at 20°. The roof was 15 mm thin, horizontal in the first section and then angled at 85°. On the sides of the roof, other 15 mm plates were angled at 65° on the right and to 70° on the left side.

The engine compartment roof was 10 mm and angled at 74°. The inspection hatches of the engine compartment had the same thickness. The brake inspection hatches were 25 mm thick, while the driver port on the front armored plate was 50 mm thick.

After the Armistice

In September 1943, due to the Allied invasion of Sicily and internal pressure, Italy sought to negotiate peace with the Western Allied powers. The Germans were expecting this and planned to occupy as much of Italy as possible. With the occupation of most of Italy, the Germans came into possession of a number of armored vehicles, but also weapon-producing facilities, along with many vehicles that were awaiting assembly for their former ally.

A Semovente M42 da 75/18 inspected by some civilians in Parma. It was abandoned intact by Italian soldiers of CCCCXXXIII Battaglione Complementi Carri M during the fighting with the Germans in the days after the Armistice. Source: beutepanzer.ru

On 1st October 1943, the Germans declared to have captured a total of 123 Semoventi M41 and M42 da 75/18. The number did not account for the Semovente M40 da 75/18 because all the 60 vehicles delivered to the Regio Esercito in 1941 were lost in North Africa. The Germans renamed the Semovente M41 da 75/18 as the Beute Sturmgeschütz M41 mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i) (which stands for Italienisch (English: Italian)), while the Semovente M42 da 75/18 was renamed Beute Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i). German sources also referred to them as StuG M41 mit 75/18 850(i) or StuG M42 mit 75/18 850(i) as abbreviations. Sometimes, German official documents did not mention the chassis model. For the sake of simplicity, this article will refer to them simply as StuG M41 or StuG M42.

Evaluation by the Germans

After the Armistice, the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen (English: Inspector General of the Armed Forces) of the German Army began analyzing the vehicles produced in the various Italian factories. The Inspectorate considered the StuG M42 as an underpowered vehicle, but there were enough parts available for an additional 55 vehicles. The production of the better-armed semoventi, such as the Beute Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/34 851(i) (German for the Semovente M42M da 75/34) and the Beute Sturmgeschütz M43 mit 105/25 853(i) (German for the Semovente M43 da 105/25) continued at a slow pace. The final report of the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen about the Italian Beute Sturmgeschütz was that they had a low profile and low weight, but cramped fighting compartments, limited visibility, and thin frontal armor, all of which were unsatisfactory.

German Production

After the assignment of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht or OKW (English: Upper Command of the Armed Forces) and Heereswaffenamt Italien (English: Army Weapons Agency of Italy), the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen took over previous Regio Esercito contracts since components were available. The German order of 5th October 1943 was for 55 Beute Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/18 850(i), 80 Beute Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/34 851(i), and 60 Beute Sturmgeschütz M43 mit 105/25 853(i).

On 5th October 1943, contracts were signed between Ansaldo and the Germans for the delivery of new Italian self-propelled guns with some modifications. The German modifications concerned the addition of 4 bigger teeth on the sprocket wheel. These were intended to prevent the track from slipping from the wheels while driving in muddy or snowy terrain. Another modification requested by the Germans was to substitute the right roof hatch with one openable in two parts for better ventilation of the fighting compartment. Some Stahlhelm supports for the crewmembers were also added on some vehicles on the roof.

At the end of 1943, the German Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen had planned to equip the German divisions with some 143 medium tanks of the Serie M, 83 StuG M42 mit 75/18, and 109 StuG M42M mit 75/34. This meant that they needed to order Italian companies to produce 28 medium tanks of the Serie M, 82 StuG M42 mit 75/18, and a total of 200 StuG M42M mit 75/34 (including reserves). Of these new armored vehicles ordered, the Germans planned to put 32 tanks of the Serie M, 130 StuG M42 mit 75/18, and 119 StuG M42M mit 75/34 in reserve, while the others would be delivered to first line units or to training schools.

The Germans implemented some minor changes to the StuG M42s, such as adding four larger teeth on the front drive sprocket to prevent the tracks from slipping off. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/italy/spg2/75-18/stug-m-42-232-2/

After the Armistice, the Germans planned to produce a new vehicle, the Beute Sturmgeschütz M43 mit 75/46 852(i), aka the Semovente M43 da 75/46, armed with a Cannone da 75/46 Contraerei Modello 1934 (English: 75 mm L/46 Anti-Aircraft Cannon Model 1934).

In 1944, the Germans produced the Beute Sturmgeschütz M43 mit 75/46 852(i) and adopted the powerful Cannone da 75/46 Contraerei Modello 1934 as a tank gun, named by the Germans as Kampfwagenkanone 75/46 (English: 75 mm L/46 Tank Cannon). The Germans hoped to equip all Italian self-propelled guns in production with this powerful gun. This meant that all the Beute Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i) had to be modified, but it seems that this project would never be started because the production rate of the Kampfwagenkanone 75/46 was one or two guns per month.

Beute-Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i) captured by a Canadian unit and redeployed by Canadian soldiers against their former owners in Italy. It was nicknamed ‘Zombie’. Source: beutepanzer.ru

Another German plan was to modify the Kampfwagenkanone 75/46 breech to fire the same ammunition as the 7,5 cm Panzerabwehrkanone 40 or PaK 40 anti-tank cannon, in Italy known under the designation Cannone da 75/43 Modello 1940 (English: 75 mm L/43 Cannon Model 1940). It is not clear if the Germans reached the goal of modifying the Italian guns to fire German ammunition, but the modifications would have forced a slow process to modify the guns, maybe explaining why there was an average production of 1.5 guns per month.

The Germans also briefly played with the idea of mounting the 7,5 cm Panzerabwehrkanone 40 on the M43 self-propelled gun’s chassis to ease the gun production, but, by the end of the war, nothing was decided.

In the late war, the German Army wanted to save on raw materials, producing only the most powerful and reliable vehicles. This was done in Germany and also in Italy. It was planned to cancel the production of all the Italian vehicles apart from the Beute Sturmgeschütz M43 mit 75/46 852(i), the Beute Panzerspähwagen AB43 203(i), and the Panzerkampfwagen P40 737(i). On 20th February 1945, the German Army planned to equip 4 infantry divisions with such vehicles.

The Aufstellungsstab Sued was in favor of a production contract extension with the Italian factories. They essentially wanted to have all the Italian armored vehicle factories still capable of producing vehicles convert their production lines to the Beute Sturmgeschütz M43 mit 75/46 852(i) and the Beute Panzerspähwagen AB43 203(i) (no mention of the Beute Panzerkampfwagen P40 737(i)), with a production estimated on 50 StuGs and 50 Pz.Sp.Wg. per month. The new production schedule for the Ansaldo-Fossati plant of Sestri Ponente, near Genoa, where all the semoventi were produced, was of 116 Semoventi M43, 51 Carri Armati P26/40, and 22 command tanks to be produced by August 1945. Due to Allied bombings of the Italian factories that produced semoventi and other armored vehicles, the production rate was slower. In early 1945, the Germans moved part of the production and assembly of armored vehicles from Genoa and Turin to Milan and Novara.

German Organization

At the same time as the capitulation of its former ally, Italy, the German Army undertook structural changes in order to increase the number of panzer divisions. Over a dozen new panzer grenadier divisions and a few more SS formations were to be formed. This, in turn, required an increased number of tanks, which the German industry was incapable of producing. To overcome this, panzer divisions were to receive an anti-tank battalion armed with 45 StuG IIIs. Not surprisingly, even this was impossible to achieve. Luckily for the Germans, the captured Italian equipment became available. As the Italian command did, the German forces assigned the semoventi to former artillerymen (obviously trained to man self-propelled guns) and not to tank crews.

The long gun-armed StuG III was one of the most effective German anti-tank vehicles, but also the most produced. Despite this, there were never enough of them to satisfy the war demands of the German Army. Source: Panzernet

To supplement the lack of StuG IIIs, Italian Semoventi vehicles were reused for this purpose. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/italy/spg2/75-18/stug-42-prinz-eugen/

Already on 20th September 1943, the German High Command ordered the delivery to infanterie-divisionen (English: infantry divisions) of: 11 Carri Armati M15/42, 3 command tanks, and 80 Semoventi M42 da 75/18 and M42M da 75/34. At the end of September 1943, another 6 Carri Armati M15/42, 4 Command Tanks on M42 chassis, 6 Semoventi M42 da 75/18, 5 Semoventi M42M da 75/34, and 14 Semoventi M43 da 105/35 were delivered to German infantry divisions.

From the stockpiles of captured StuG M41/42s, together with other Italian vehicles, the Germans re-equipped some units, such as the 90. Panzergrenadier-Division (English: 90th Mechanized Division). Others were allocated to various infantry divisions, such as the 44. Infanterie-Division, 65. Infanterie-Division, 71. Infanterie-Division, 305. Infanterie-Division, and 334. Infanterie-Division. These numbers would be expanded in 1944. Note that these units also received the improved semoventi vehicle, which is not always specified in the sources. While this helped rearm the units, in reality, it also caused huge logistical problems. For example, the 90. Panzergrenadier-Division had in its inventory Panzer IVs, StuG IIIs, and Italian StuG M41/42s.

In late 1943 to early 1944, the Germans started to train some new tank crewmembers on Italian armored vehicles, with some training schools in northern Italy. These units trained with former Regio Esercito vehicles but were mainly equipped with post-Armistice production self-propelled guns and tanks.

The 26. Panzer-Division (English: 26th Armored Division) was equipped with Italian tanks and self-propelled guns. Even the Fallschirm-Panzer-Division 1. “Hermann Göring” (English: 1st Paratrooper Tank Division) of the Luftwaffe (English: Air Force) was equipped with Italian captured tanks and SPGs.

In 1944, Sturmgeschütz-Abteilung 210. and Sturmgeschütz-Abteilung 914. of the Luftwaffe, which were equipped with Italian tanks and semoventi, were brought to brigade level, even if, in practice, only a few new Italian vehicles were assigned to them. Each of the 2 Sturmgeschütz-Abteilungen had 3 batteries with 14 semoventi and a command battery with 2 Italian command tanks.

An Italian Semovente M42 da 75/18 in German service during maintenance in a German unit field workshop. The FIAT-SPA 15TB Modello 1942 petrol engine is in the foreground, while, behind the semovente, there is a Jagdpanzer IV. Source: eshop

In 1944, for the German infantry divisions created in Italy, Panzerjäger-Abteilungen were created. These armored battalions would be equipped with 3 companies, even if, due to the low number of vehicles, some were equipped with only 2 companies. One company was usually equipped with 6 StuG M41 or StuG M42, 8 StuG M42M mit 75/34, and one command vehicle. Later, the majority of the companies also received 4 StuG M43 mit 105/25 and another command tank. Of course, depending on the combat situation, availability, or logistical transportation, these numbers were different between units. The M41/42 would see some service in Italy, but their general use was hampered with mechanical and logistical problems.

In May 1944, a German report claimed that there were 85 Italian StuGs in service in German hands on the Italian peninsula, of which 29 were deployed against the Allies in Anzio and Nettuno. In July 1944, another 28 Italian StuGs were delivered to German divisions to replace part of the losses suffered on the Gustav Line.

German Service

German Service in Italy

Beute-Sturmgeschütz mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i) abandoned during the battles for the Gustav Line. Note that, on top of the 3-tone camouflage painted in the factory before the Armistice of 1943, the coat of arms of the 71. Infanterie-Division was painted on the left and that of the Panzerjäger-Abteilung .171 on the right. Above the coats of arms, the registration plate of the Regio Esercito was covered with a layer of gray paint. On the fender, a German-made jack is visible and, on the right side of the superstructure, is the name of the vehicle, ‘Margarete 3’. Source: beutepanzer.ru

71. Infanterie Division

In January 1944, the 71. Infanterie Division (English: 71st Infantry Division) was deployed in the Montecassino area to fight the Allied forces. Together with the infantry and artillery regiments, the division had in its ranks the Panzerjäger-Abteilung .171 (English: 171st Tank Destroyer Battalion) equipped with Beute Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/18 850(i), Beute Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/34 851(i), and German vehicles.

The division fought in the Monte Cassino area until May 1944 and then retreated after a Free French Forces offensive, maintaining new defensive positions until September 1944.

Free French troops advancing somewhere in Italy in August 1944. On the roadside, near a hospital, lay abandoned and parked some vehicles that participated in the previous day’s battle. The StuG M42 mit 75/18 850(i) belonged to Panzerjäger-Abteilung .171. Original color photo Source: LIFE magazine

65. Infanterie Division

The 65. Infanterie Division was in La Spezia when the order to disarm the Italian soldiers was received on 9th September 1943. They quickly reached Genoa and Sestri Ponente, where the semoventi were produced, and captured a great number of not yet delivered Italian vehicles.

In October 1943, the 65. Infanterie Division, with its Panzerjäger Abteilung 165. with Italian StuGs, was moved to Ortona and then to Orsogna, where it maintained positions after fierce fighting with the 8th Indian Division and 2nd New Zealand Division. During the fighting, the armored vehicles losses were limited compared to the infantry’s ones. The division then fought in Anzio and Firenze, losing all its armored vehicles.

Between late August to early November 1944, in fighting on the Gothic Line, the Germans lost a total of 62 StuG mit 75/18, 43 StuG M42M mit 75/34, 35 StuG M43 mit 105/25, and 5 command tanks. At the end of 1944, there were some 92 75 mm-armed Semoventi in German service.

278. Infanterie Division

Beginning in May 1944, the Panzerjäger-Abteilung .278 deployed their Stug M42s in Ancona, where it fought fiercely against the 2nd Polish Army Corps that entered Ancona on 18th July 1944. After that, it lost all the Italian vehicles in the Gothic Line.

Another image of captured Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/18 850(i) number 232 of 2 Kompanie, Panzerjäger Abteilung .278 in Ancona, Italy, 17th July 1944. Source: beutepanzer.ru

German Assessment of the Beute Sturmgeschütz mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i) in Italy

The general performance of the StuG M41/42 seems to have been rather poor based on reports of some units that operated them in Italy. For example, the 278. Infanterie-Division, which had Beute Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/18 850(i) and Beute Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/34 851(i), reported that these had little combat value, to the point of being completely useless.

Another StuG M42 mit 75/18, number 201, which belonged to the Panzerjäger Abteilung 278, captured by the Allies in Forlì, Italy at the start of 1945. Source: Wiki

Similar complaints were made by the 29. Panzergrenadier-Division, which noted problems with the automotive components. This unit especially emphasized that Italian self-propelled guns were not a proper replacement for the StuG IIIs. The 356. Infanterie-Division reported that only the 105 mm-armed Beute Sturmgeschütz M43 mit 105/25 853(i) could be used in an anti-tank role, while short barreled 7.5 cm-armed semoventi could not. These were instead used as mobile artillery. The Panzerjäger-Abteilung .356 of the 356. Infanterie-Division was also the unit that came up with the idea of improving the armor of Italian self-propelled guns.

A StuG M42 in German service destroyed in Roccasecca, 100 km south of Rome. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/italy/spg2/75-18/stug-m-42-232-2/

The German frontline combat units appreciated the Semoventi’s lightweight and small dimensions. The Italian self-propelled guns were easy to transport on a railway or towed by trailers. In many cases, the German troops that deployed them against the Allied forces on the Italian peninsula preferred the Italian self-propelled guns to ambush or fight the Allies troops in urban fighting. In fact, due to their limited weight, they could be easily deployed on mountainous terrain, where Allied and German medium tanks had difficulty climbing, or on city streets.

German Service in Yugoslavia

While the majority of StuG M41/42s would see action in Italy, some would find their way to occupied Yugoslavia. There, the Axis forces were battling an ever-growing Partisan movement. The number of Yugoslav Partisans and equipment began to rise, especially in 1944, thanks to support provided mostly by the Western Allies and, later, the Soviet Union. Germany, due to a lack of anything better, mostly used captured armored vehicles in Yugoslavia. After 1943, most older French tanks were replaced with Italian equipment, including the Beute Sturmgeschütz M41 or M42 mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i), but also more numerous smaller Beute Sturmgeschütz L6 47/32 630(i) (German for the Semoventi L40 da 47/32) cousins armed with the 47 mm gun. Sources often do not make a differentiation between them, so identifying precise versions is not always possible.

In Yugoslavia, the Panzer-Abteilung 202 (English: 202nd Tank Battalion) is known to have used StuG M41/42 vehicles. In April 1944, this unit was to be supplied with two StuG M41/42s and other Italian equipment. As these were not available, it had to be postponed. It was not until April 1945 that this unit received 2 StuG M41 vehicles. During their retreat from Yugoslavia in May 1945, some of the equipment, including the StuG M41/42s, was captured by the Partisans.

Abandoned German equipment, including a StuG M41 and a M15/42 in May 1945. More vehicles, possibly M-tanks, can be seen in the background Source:

The Skanderbeg Panzer-Abteilung (English: Skanderbeg Tank Battalion) received a new contingent of Italian captured equipment in August 1944, including 2 StuG M41s. These were noted to be in poor mechanical condition, possibly even beyond repair. Their use, if at all, was thus likely limited.

The German-operated StuG M41/42s saw combat use during the battle for the Yugoslavian capital Belgrade, which lasted from 15th September to 24th November 1944. The Germans were hard-pressed by the Soviets, who agreed to help the Partisans during this fight. Ultimately, they were driven out, and the city was liberated. In the process, the Germans lost at least one StuG M41/42.

This vehicle was abandoned by the Germans in Belgrade, 1944. Source: beutepanzer.ru

The same StuG M41 mit 75/18 abandoned in Belgrade deployed by the Partisans, probably for a post-battle propaganda image. Source: beutepanzer.ru

In Yugoslav Partisan Hands

The Yugoslav Partisans managed to capture some StuG M41/42s from the Germans during 1944/45. At least one such vehicle was used by a tank crew training school that the Partisans opened in freed Serbia in late 1944. A few more were captured during the liberation of Belgrade and some in the final days of the war. While these survived the war, given their obsolescence and lack of spare parts, their use was limited. Their fate in Yugoslavian service post-war is unclear, but they were likely scrapped at some point, as none of them survived until today.

This vehicle from the 202nd Tank Battalion was captured by the Partisans in Slovenia in May 1945. The added spare track links were a rather common sight among the Italian tanks operated by the Germans in Yugoslavia. Source: Wiki https://warspot.ru/10779-shturmgeshyutts-s-apennin

Conclusion

The StuG M41/42 vehicles saw extensive use with the Germans compared to other captured vehicles. However, the Italian vehicles’ service was affected by a lack of spare parts and ammunition. Their overall numbers were also rather small, as the production of new vehicles was limited. Thus, employing them on a large scale, such as had been the case with the Panzer 38(t) (and the later versions based on its chassis), was not possible. Given the rather obsolete pool of Italian weapons, the Semoventi were the best available vehicles that the Germans could reuse.

Beute Sturmgeschütz M41 mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i), M42. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Beute Sturmgeschütz M41 mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i) Technical Specification
Crew	3 (commander/gunner, loader, and driver)
Weight	13.3 tonnes
Dimensions	Length 4.915 m, Width 2.200 m, Height 1.850 m
Engine	FIAT-SPA 15T Modello 1941 diesel, 11,980 cm³ producing 145 hp at 1,900 rpm.
Speed	33 km/h, 15 km/h (cross-country)
Range	200 km
Primary Armament	Obice da 75/18 Modello 1934 and a Mitragliatrice Media Breda Modello 1938
Elevation	-12° to +22°
Armor	from 6 mm to 50 mm

Sources

F. Cappellano and P. P. Battistelli (2012) Italian Medium Tanks 1939-45, New Vanguard
T. Anderson (2017) Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45, Osprey Publishing
D. Guglielmi, Italian Self-Propelled Guns Semoventi M41 and M42, Armor PhotoGallery 17
W. Fleischer (1998) Captured Weapons and Equipment Of the German Wehrmacht, Schiffer publishing
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2008) 19-2 Beutepanzerwagen
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
B. Carruthers (2012) Sturmgeschütze Armored Assault Guns, pen and Sword
T. Anderson (2016) Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infantry, Osprey Publishing

Has Own Video WW2 German Improvised Vehicles

Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date April 24, 2023
2 Comments on Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40

Panzer I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

German Reich (1945)
Improvised Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – At Least One Built

In the final months of the war, the Germans were losing men and materials on all fronts. Out of desperation, all kinds of improvised vehicles, mostly based on obsolete vehicles or simply whatever was at hand, were rushed into service. One such vehicle was built using a Panzer I Ausf.B chassis on top of which a 7.5 cm StuK 40 was placed, for use in the futile defense of Berlin in 1945

Panzer I Ausf.B with 7.5 cm StuK 40 in Berlin of 1945. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/hl628f/gaijin_pls_panzer_i_with_pak_40/

History

By 1945, the German Army and its industry were in ruins. The Allied bombing campaigns, lack of resources, and the rapid advances of Germany’s enemies on their own soil made the production of new vehicles difficult. Despite this, the German war industry was desperately hanging on, producing limited quantities of new vehicles. By this point, these efforts were hopelessly insufficient to rearm the depleted German military formations. In desperation, some improvised vehicles were created by using all kinds of available chassis, ranging from experimental, obsolete, or even training vehicles, and adding whatever weapons were at hand.

Vehicles such as the Panzer I were reused in this manner, creating unusual and rare improvised fighting vehicles. The Panzer I Ausf.A and B were introduced as the first real German serially-produced tank in 1935. Even though it was obsolete by 1939, it still saw service throughout the war. After 1941, these were retired from service as combat tanks, but their chassis were reused for other purposes, mostly as training or ammunition supply roles. By 1945, their numbers were greatly diminished due to many factors, such as combat losses.

The Panzer I Ausf.B, due to its weak armor and armament, quickly became obsolete. As there were no other replacements, they remained in combat service up to 1941. After that point, the surviving Panzer Is were reused for secondary roles, such as training. Source: VK.com

Using such a vehicle as an improvised fighting platform speaks for itself in regard to German desperation at this point. Thanks to a surviving photograph, we know that at least one Panzer I Ausf.B was modified by removing the turret and parts of the superstructure and adding a 7.5 cm StuK 40 gun taken from a StuG III. Who exactly built it and when is unknown. What is known is that it was used during the defense of Berlin in 1945.

Name

Given its improvised construction, this vehicle likely never received any form of proper designation. Possible designations such as 7.5 cm StuK 40 (Sf) auf Panzerkampfwagen I ohne Turm may have been used.This article will use Panzer I Ausf.B mit (English: with) 7.5 cm StuK 40 for the sake of simplicity.

Design

The overall design of this vehicle is unfortunately not documented in any sources. Based on the only known photograph, several educated guesses about its overall construction.

Hull

The Panzer I hull appears to have been left unchanged. Like all German tanks, it could be divided into three sections: the front part where the transmission was placed, the central crew compartment, and the rear-positioned engine. The overall construction was made out of several armor plates welded together, with a firewall separating the engine compartment and the crew compartment.

Close-up view of the Panzer I’s hull interior. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.1-1 Panzerkampfwagen I

Suspension

The suspension is another element that remained unchanged. It consisted of five road wheels per side. The first wheel used a coil spring mount design with an elastic shock absorber in order to prevent any outward bending. The remaining four wheels were mounted in pairs on a suspension cradle with leaf spring units. There was a front drive sprocket, rear idler, and four small return rollers.

The Panzer I Ausf.B was never fully reliable, especially when the chassis was converted for other purposes, such as the 15 cm sIG 33 auf Panzerkampfwagen I ohne Aufbau (English: Without a superstructure). Given the added weight of the 15 cm sIG 33 gun, the suspension was very prone to malfunctions and breakdowns.

This was likely also the case with the 7.5 cm L/48 gun, as the weight and recoil force when firing would likely cause damage to the suspension, as its design was never intended to be able to resist such stress.

Panzer I Ausf.B suspension. Note the five road wheels and four return rollers. Source: Modified from Panzer Tracts

Engine

The Panzer I Ausf.B was powered by a water-cooled Maybach NL 38 Tr, which was able to supply 100 hp at 3,000 rpm. The maximum speed with this engine was 40 km/h and only 15 km/h cross-country. The added weight of the gun, ammunition, and likely additional crew members on the Panzer I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40 would have led to an overall weight increase of possibly up to 2 tonnes, if not more. This would greatly affect the engine’s overall performance, although to what extent is unknown. The standard Panzer I fuel load capacity was around 144 liters, which provided an operational range of up to 170 km. By 1945, fuel was a scarce commodity for the Germans, so regardless, it is unlikely that this vehicle ever received any large enough quantities of fuel to go anywhere besides its station point.

Superstructure

The superstructure of this vehicle received a series of modifications that were necessary in order to install the large gun. The upper armor and the turret were removed. Parts of the rear armor appear to have been slightly cut down.

Two interesting features can be noticed on the right side of the superstructure. Firstly, there is an unidentified round-shaped object that casts a shadow on the superstructure. It is possible that this was a seat added for the loader, although it could also simply be an extended plate to provide the loader with more working space. In front of it, a larger flat plate with a handle can be seen. It appears not to be an original part of the Panzer I, as it is on the side that did not have any hatch. This part could also be intended to be lowered and provide the loader with more working space. In either case, due to a lack of information, we cannot be sure. Interestingly, on top of the frontsuperstructure, a small shield was added to cover the space between the gun shield and the mount.

A close-up view of this vehicle’s side superstructure. What appears to be a round-shaped object can be seen at the rear of the superstructure. In front of it, a hatch, or a simple armor plate with a handle, was added, although its purpose is unknown. Note the large ‘742’ painted on the vehicle’s side. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/hl628f/gaijin_pls_panzer_i_with_pak_40/

An artist’s impression of this vehicle. Source: https://www.scalehobbyist.com/catagories/Military_Vehicles/panzerjager-ib-w-7-5cm-stik-40-l-48-gun/DML00006781/product.php

Armor

The armor of the Panzer I Ausf.A and B was quite thin. The Panzer I’s front hull armor ranged from 8 to 13 mm. The side armor was 13 mm, the bottom 5 mm, and the rear 13 mm. The armor was made of rolled homogenous hardened plates with a Brinell hardness of 850. It was welded and formed the body of the superstructure and hull. Whilst insufficient to protect against tank and anti-tank gunfire, this armor was still adequate to provide protection from enemy small arms.

An illustration is showing the armor thickness around the tank. Source: Panzer Tracts

The crew operating the gun was only protected by the gun shield. The armor thickness of it is unknown, but it was likely only a few millimeters thick. Given the small working space for the gun operator and the loader, both would be quite exposed to the enemy’s small arms fire. Light armor does not necessarily mean that the vehicle was useless, thanks to its gun it could still fire at great ranges and from well-selected positions.

On the other hand, this was neither 1942 nor 1943, when German guns had a huge advantage over Soviet armored vehicles. By 1945, the Soviets employed tanks such as the T-34-85 and the IS-2, which had enough firepower to deal with German Tiger and Panther tanks at a distance, so a lightly protected Panzer I was surely no problem for them. It is also noteworthy that as this vehicle was used in the defense of Berlin, combat action was likely to occur at close ranges, making this vehicle quite exposed.

Armament

The main armament of this modified vehicle was the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 gun, which was probably taken from a damaged StuG III assault gun. This gun was developed by Krupp and Rheinmetall in 1942. It was initially used with a barrel length of L/43, although later that year it was increased to L/48. Both versions of the gun had a semi-automatic breech, which means that, after firing, the spent cartridge would be self-ejected, thus increasing the overall firing rate. It was fired electrically. When mounted on StuG III vehicles, the elevation of this gun went from –6° to +20°, while the traverse was 10° to either side. The elevation, depression, and traverse limits for this gun as mounted on the modified Panzer I are unknown.

A 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 installed on a StuG III Ausf.G Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/stug-3/

Armor-piercing shells fired from this gun had a muzzle velocity of 790 m/s. The armor-piercing (Pz.Gr.39) round could penetrate 85 mm of armor (sloped at 30°) at 1 km. The maximum range of the high-explosive rounds was 3.3 km while, for armor-piercing, 1.4 to 2.3 km, depending on the type used. The gunner used the Selbstfahrlafetten Zielfernrohr Sfl.Z.F.1a gun sight to acquire direct targets. For indirect targets, on the other hand, either the Rundblickfernrohr 32 or 36 were used, which had a magnification of 5x and a field of view of 8°.

Close-up view of the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43. This gun only differed from the later L/48 gun by virtue of the barrel length. Source: W. J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its variant

In order to install this gun on the Panzer I’s hull, some modifications were needed. First, a stable platform base had to be placed inside the hull. On top of it, the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 with its mount was placed. The protective recoil cylinder mantlet was not used on this vehicle. Given the gun’s weight, the Germans added a large travel lock in front of the gun. The whole gun installation would take up most of the Panzer I’s interior, making room for spare ammunition difficult. The only possible location where the ammunition would have been located was atop of the engine compartment. A minor change to the gun was the lack of the spent cartridge bag.

The 7.5cm StuK 40 was likely salvaged from a damaged StuG III vehicle at some point. The choice to mount such a large weapon on a weak chassis is difficult to understand. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/hl628f/gaijin_pls_panzer_i_with_pak_40/

Crew

Normally, a vehicle like this modified Panzer I would have needed at least three crew members to be fully effective. A driver located inside the vehicle would have been the only crew member fully protected by armor, a gunner who would possibly have also acted as the commander positioned to the left of the gun, and a loader positioned opposite the gunner. The two gun operators would have had quite limited space to effectively operate this vehicle. Based on the German’s lack of manpower by 1945, it is also probable that this vehicle may have had an even smaller crew of possibly two. This meant that these two had to perform other tasks too, in addition to their original ones.

Ideally, it would take three crew members to effectively operate this vehicle. This model of the Panzer I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40 clearly shows the positions of the two gun operators, with the gunner to the left and the loader on the right. It also shows how these two would be exposed to enemy fire, despite having a front-mounted shield. Source: https://www.militaryimages.net/media/panzerjaeger-1b-75mm-stuk-40-tank-destroyer.92231/

Was the Panzer I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40 Used in Combat?

Nothing is known about the history of this vehicle. Based on the available photograph, we can assume that it was modified in and saw service in Berlin. A detail that helps us identify where the photo of the Panzer I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40 was taken is the command tower that can be seen in the background. Berlin was defended by three immense Flakturme (English: Flak towers): Flakturm Humboldhain, Flakturm Tiergarten, and Volkspark Friedrichshain. These were basically massive, reinforced concrete bunkers equipped with several larger-caliber anti-aircraft guns. Each gun tower was provided with more minor but still huge command towers. Their purpose was to relay information about enemy air activity.

Flakturm Humboldhain was placed on a small hill that does not appear in the photograph, so it can be excluded. The command tower for ‘Zoo-bunker’ lacked some features, such as the four round-shaped concrete platforms located on the tower’s top, that the tower in the picture has. The most probable explanation is that the tower in the background belongs to the Volkspark Friedrichshain tower. The design of the command tower is similar and also there are buildings to the left of the Panzer I’s position which match those in the photo.

The command tower in the background helps identify this vehicle being used in Berlin. Also note the building on the left side of the Panzer I, just beneath the gun breach protective shield. Both of these give us an indication that this vehicle saw use (or even combat action) near the Volkspark Friedrichshain tower. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/hl628f/gaijin_pls_panzer_i_with_pak_40/

The position of the ‘Zoo-tower’ and its command tower. The command tower lacked the large round-shaped platforms, so it is unlikely that the Panzer I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40 was positioned next to it. Source: https://www.panzeraufgd.co.uk/flaktowerspt1.html

Aerial photograph showing the area of the Friedrichshain Flakturm where the Panzer I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40 was photographed. Source:https://catalog.archives.gov/id/220895591

The missing track links may indicate that this vehicle was not fully operational and was instead towed to its defense point. Given that the picture of it was taken in an open space and the Panzer I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40’s weak protection, this would be an illogical thing to do. It is possible that by the time the photograph was taken, it was already in the process of being salvaged for scrap. On the other hand, it may have been in the process of being towed before being abandoned in a rush.

Another possibility is that this vehicle was at some point converted to this gun configuration to be used as a training vehicle with the gun not actually intended to be fired. While this at first seems logical, given the weight of the gun which would have put too much stress on the chassis, this seems highly unlikely.

In any case, the fate of this vehicle is unknown, but it was likely scrapped after the war by the Soviets.

Conclusion

Placing a large gun such as the 7,5 cm StuK 40 on a chassis weak and prone to malfunctions difficult to understand. Even in desperation, whoever built it must have known that the recoil force of the gun was simply too much for the Panzer I’s chassis to handle. Firing could have easily led to the breakdown of some components of the suspension or the engine. Armor protection was almost non-existent. Even using it as a static emplacement would be suicidal, as the vehicle’s height would not have allowed for it to be easily camouflaged.

Panzer I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Panzer I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40 Technical specification
Crew	3 (commander/gunner, loader, and driver)
Engine	Maybach NL 38 TL 6-cylinder water-cooled petrol
Speed	40 km/h, 15 km/h (cross-country)
Range	170 km
Primary Armament	7.5 cm StuK 40

Sources

D. Doyle (2005). German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
Walter J. Spielberger (1993) Sturmgeschütz and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
T. Anderson (2016) Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infantry, Osprey Publishing
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
Ian V. Hogg (1975) German Artillery of World War Two, Purnell Book Services Ltd
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.1-1 Panzerkampfwagen I

Cold War Yugoslav Armor Has Own Video

M-60

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1956-1991)
Armored Personnel Carrier – 790 Built

During the late 1950s, the Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (JNA, English: Yugoslavian People’s Army) became aware of the fact that its inventory lacked an armored personnel carrier (APC) able to effectively transport the supporting infantry of armored formations. In 1956, a project, initially known as M-590, began. Its development would lead to the creation of the first Yugoslavian APC, designated as M-60. Despite huge expectations, this vehicle would prove to be a rather poor and outdated design. While the whole project was problematic from the start, the M-60 would actually, to some extent, outlive its creator.

The first domestically developed and built Yugoslavian APC, the M-60. Source:http://www.balkanwarhistory.com/2017/10/yugoslav-armored-personnel-carrier-ot-m.html

Need for an APC

The JNA, like many other modern armies in the world, was aware that, in order to fully exploit a tank offensive, they needed adequate infantry support. This concept was especially proven during the Second World War with the rapid German panzer division offensives, which were supported by mechanized infantry formations. They employed specially designed half-track vehicles to provide the necessary mobility for their infantry. Using a combination of tracks and wheels increased their mobility greatly. While effective in their role, these vehicles were not perfect, as they were too expensive to make.

After the war, thanks to technological advancements, it was possible to use fully-tracked vehicles that were relatively cheap and had good drive performance. These early designs followed the same concept of placing a simple box-shaped superstructure on a tracked chassis. These were lightly protected and had an armament that usually consisted of a few machine guns. US APCs, such as the M59, are probably the best-known designs of this era.

The M59 APC was designed to replace the older M75 APC. This particular vehicle would have a great influence on the later first domestically developed Yugoslav APC. Source: http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/apcm59.html

Back in Europe, after the war, the JNA possessed some captured German half-tracks, which saw limited use. Given the lack of spare parts, their practical use beyond training and exercises was out of the question. As nothing else was available, JNA infantry units that were meant to support tank formations had to rely on trucks for transport. While trucks provided an increase in mobility, they simply could not keep up with tanks on rough terrain, which meant that the infantry could not follow up. In addition, the trucks themselves did not have any kind of armor protection, exposing the infantry to enemy fire. Thus, a need for a tracked and fully protected APC arose during the late 1950s. Inspiration for this project was more or less taken from the American M59 and M113 APCs. This may seem surprising at first, but at that time, despite being a Communist state, Yugoslavia had good political and military cooperation with the United States for some time.

At the end of 1956, representatives from all military branches that were interested in this project held a meeting to discuss the performance and characteristics that the new APC should have. The project was viewed as quite ambitious and many different solutions were proposed. For example, the infantry branch wanted a vehicle that could transport 20 soldiers and armed with either a 12.7 mm machine gun or a recoilless gun. Another proposal was that its chassis be reused for various self-propelled configurations armed with different caliber weapons, ranging from 40 to 105 mm. A tractor version with a capacity of 9 tonnes was also proposed. By April 1957, the final design was agreed upon. It was to be amphibious, the transport capacity was to include 10 soldiers, the armament should consist of one heavy machine gun, it would have a fully enclosed compartment, etc.

Troublesome Start

Initially, the project was designated as Object M-590. The first prototype was completed in 1958 and, the following year, it was used for various testing runs. While the overall design of the upper superstructure was influenced by the M59 APC, the hull and the suspension unit were taken from the obsolete SU-76M. Why the Yugoslavian engineers decided to reuse this outdated chassis is unknown. The JNA had in its inventory some 87 aging SU-76Ms, which were, at this point, obsolete and put into storage. Yugoslavian engineers had worked on several different domestic tank projects with limited success by this point. The decision to reuse the SU-76 chassis was possibly made in order to speed up development time, reusing components that were available. In either case, this decision would have huge long-term negative consequences for the whole project.

The JNA had some 87 aging SU-76Ms in its inventory. These were either purchased or received as gifts from the Soviet Union after the war. Even at that point, when the JNA had trouble finding sufficient modern armored vehicles, the SU-76M was seen as a completely inadequate vehicle and only remained in service until a proper replacement was found. Source: Magazine Arsenal 65/2012

Following the introduction of the first prototype, five more vehicles were to be completed by the end of 1960. Some 10 additional prototype vehicles were ordered, and these were to be completed by April 1961. Even before the testing trials were completed, the JNA officials tasked FAMOS, a vehicle manufacturer, with the first serial production order of 46 vehicles. These were to be completed by 1963. This order was further expanded by a yearly production quota of 50 vehicles during the period of 1964 to 1976. After that, the yearly production was to increase up to 100 vehicles. As it turns out, these plans were a bit overly ambitious given the fact that the whole project was, at that point, in an early stage of development.

More extensive testing of the prototypes was carried out from October to November 1960. During this period, three prototypes were used to cross a distance of 2,200 km. This trial showed the many deficiencies in the SU-76’s suspension. Torsion bar breakdowns were frequent and there were even cases of the road wheels’ rubber rims falling off. From January to February 1961, more tests were carried out on all six available prototypes. A shorter distance of 1,000 km was chosen for these trials. The M-590’s 140 hp engine showed to be too weak and prone to overheating. The clutch steering units proved to be ineffective, and the amphibious properties were inadequate, as the vehicle was difficult to control during river crossings. Despite all shortcomings, this project received a green light from the JNA officials.

Name

In its early prototype stage, this project received the Oklopni transporter (English: Armored personnel carrier) M-590 designation. When the vehicle entered service with the JNA, the name was changed to M-60.

Futile Improvement Attempts

Following the completion of the first prototypes, it quickly became apparent that the new M-60 would need to receive extensive modifications before it was put into service. There was a fear that, even with these modifications, the M-60 would lose its amphibious properties, something which actually occurred with the newly built prototypes. To avoid this, it was proposed to increase the M-60’s overall size, but at the same time, reduce its weight. Other proposed changes included installing a stronger engine and using a better-quality transmission. Constant changes to the M-60’s overall design only led to confusion and delays in production. In addition, the Yugoslavian industry was unable to produce some necessary components, such as radios, night vision equipment, etc. This meant that some prototypes could not be fully equipped and, as a result, properly tested.

In April 1961, six more prototypes were delivered. These were given to the school teaching center for armored units. In the same year, an improved prototype was developed under the M-590-1 designation. It incorporated some modifications, such as an improved control system, using a dual differential, extending the vehicle by 17 cm, etc. In turn, these changes led to more problems than they solved. The M-590-1’s weight was increased from the original 9.5 to 10.7 tonnes, which greatly affected its overall drive performance, reducing the maximum speed from 45 km/h to 37 km/h. Once again, the amphibious properties were lost. The work on M-590-1 would be finally discontinued in 1963. By that point, a decision was made to focus solely on the regular M-60, despite its flaws. Due to M-60’s unsatisfactory performance by this point, another APC project was initiated As it would take years before it was ready, as a temporary solution, the M-60 was to be produced in a small series. In 1963 and 1964, a production of 60 M-60s was expected.

In the meantime, the production of the pre-series ran into serious delays. There were huge issues with the delivery of necessary armor plates. This was not the only problem, as many of these plates had to be discarded due to poor production quality. Bureaucratic delays and lack of technical documentation did not help either. While these were supposed to be built in 1962, they would not be delivered until 1964. Fearing that these problems would only lead to further delays in production, the JNA officials decided to go on with the manufacturing of the M-60 operational vehicles. At this point, the 0-series was not yet completed, let alone properly tested. Once again, the Yugoslav industry failed to deliver the promised vehicles. The Yugoslavian military industry could not provide the necessary parts, such as the armament and the radio equipment. Not surprisingly, the acquisition and production of the suspension caused additional delays. What is surprising is that the necessary parts of the relatively simple SU-76 suspension were difficult to reproduce. The newly delivered parts, such as the tracks or the road wheels, were often not interchangeable. To resolve this issue somewhat, spare parts for the suspension had to be imported from Hungary. Given the old age of the SU-76s and that it was no longer produced, the available spare parts imported from Hungary were probably of dubious quality.

The M-60, despite its simple appearance, proved difficult to produce, mostly due to the inadequately developed Yugoslav military industry. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m60/opis.htm

Testing the 0-series

The 30 0-series vehicles were finally ready for testing in 1964. Part of them was transported to Čapljine and Nevesinje for testing and evaluation, while some were given to FAMOS, where the serial production was expected to commence. A number of them were also allocated to the 329th Armored Brigade for troop trials. For the anticipated victory parade that was held in May, some of these vehicles were prepared to be used. During the preparation and rehearsals for the parade, a number of defects were discovered on these vehicles, such as broken water pumps and oil coolers.

The 329th Armored Brigade issued a report where the M-60’s overall performance was noted as being rather poor. A frequent complaint by this point was the weak engine. Overheating was a quite regular occurrence during M-60 driving. Accumulating mud on the suspension was another problem that could lead to track breakdowns. The machine gun was described as being difficult to use in a horizontal position, which sometimes led to the crew being injured during firing. The commander’s vision was limited when his hatch was closed, the transmission problems persisted, etc. The 329th Armored Brigade requested that all 12 vehicles that were in their inventory be moved to FAMOS for necessary modifications and improvements to be implemented. As FAMOS simply lacked production capacity, this could not be achieved.

M-60 Production

Despite the obvious flaws of the M-60, the JNA officials insisted that its production should commence as soon as possible. As has been seen before, there were numerous delays in the actual start of the production. The JNA placed a new order to FAMOS for the first series of 60 M-60s, which was to be completed by mid-December 1965. It was requested that the problems with the 0-series be resolved by the time of the M-60’s production, something to which the FAMOS officials agreed. Astonishingly, the JNA had plans to produce nearly 2,000 M-60 vehicles. This number was far from reality as, by 1967, when the production stopped, only 180 M-60s were built. The production of the latter M-60P and M-60PB would continue until 1979, by which time 790 vehicles were built in total. The production of these was carried out by FAMOS too.

Specifications

Hull

The M-60 hull could be divided into a few different sections. These included: the front-mounted transmission, followed by the crew compartment, the centrally placed engine, and the rear-positioned passenger compartment.

Engine

The M-60 was powered by a FTR six-cylinder 140 hp @2,000 rpm diesel engine. On good roads, its consumption was 85 (D-2 diesel) liters of fuel and 0.85 liters of oil for a 100 km distance. Off-road driving increased consumption to 140 liters of fuel and 1.65 liters of oil over the same distance. Two fuel tanks (each with 185 liters) were placed to the rear, in the passenger compartment, and under the stationary seats. The engine itself was accessible from inside the vehicle and through a hatch located on top of the superstructure. The M-60 was equipped with the 5GFTR five-speed (and one reverse) transmission.
With a weight of 10.7 tonnes, the M-60 was capable of achieving a maximum speed of 43 km/h. This dropped to only 20 km/h off-road. The M-60 was quite a slow vehicle, as there were problems with the drive unit and engine overheating, additionally limiting its maximum drive speed. The maximum operational range was 400 km. It was capable of crossing a 2 m wide trench, and driving over vertical obstacles up to 0.6 m.

A drawing of the FTR six-cylinder engine. Source: Oklopni Transporter M-60 Priručnik Za Motomehanizovano Odeljenje

Suspension

Possibly to help reduce the development time, it was decided to reuse the obsolete SU-76M torsion bar suspension with some modifications. This included reducing the number of road wheels to five per side, changing the front drive sprocket, and using new tracks. The number of return rollers remained the same, with three per side. Two types of tracks were used, either a 350 mm wide one with 92 to 94 tack links or a slightly wider 400 mm one with 93 to 96 tack links While simple, this suspension proved prone to breakdowns, and acquiring spare parts was not always easy.

A good side view of the SU-76M’s torsion bar suspension. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/su76/opis.htm

The M-60 employed the same suspension, with some changes. The most noticeable is the reduced number of road wheels and the addition of a new type of front drive sprocket. Source: Magazine Poligon 1/2017

It was common to see fenders added on top of the M-60’s suspension. Source: Magazine Poligon 1/2017

Superstructure

The M-60 was provided with a simple superstructure. The front consisted of two angled armor plates. A trim vane was connected to the lower plate. Given that the M-60 lost its amphibious properties at the prototype stage due to the added weight, this was quite pointless. This trim vane did not have any major purpose but was not removed. On the right upper side of this plate, a small machine gun port was placed. On the upper front plate, two hatches for the radio operator and the driver were placed. Each of these and the commander’s hatch were provided with an M-61 type periscope. Given the lack of a proper command cupola, the commander’s field of vision was quite limited when his hatch was closed. Between these two hatches were the night vision headlights. These were part of the IC type M63 night vision device.

On the front upper plate, two hatches were added to be used by the driver and, in this case, the radio operator. The M-60 had, in general, quite a limited field of view. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m60/opis.htm

Between the driver and radio operator hatches, the night vision headlights of the IC type M63 night vision device were positioned. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=3177.15

Close-up view of the IC type M63 night vision device from JNA manuals. Source: Oklopni Transporter M-60 Priručnik Za Motomehanizovano Odeljenje

The superstructure sides were also divided, with the lower plate being flat and the upper one slightly curved inward. In order to provide the commander and the gunner with more working space, the superstructure in these areas was extended outwards. There were no side vision ports, but the rear-positioned passengers could use six (three on each side) firing ports. To the rear, a large two-part hatch with two firing ports was located.

M-60 side view. Notice the three small firing ports to the rear. Interestingly, this was one of the 190 M-60s which were sold to Iraq. While basically the same, the only major differences were the replacement of the Browning machine gun mount with a new one designed to hold the Soviet 12.7 mm DShK and the different top hatches at the rear. Source: http://elektron.tmf.bg.ac.rs/user/bojan/armor/apc/m-60p/

The top armor was completely flat. To the left of the vehicle’s top was the commander’s hatch. On the opposite side, the mount for the heavy machine gun and the gunner’s hatch were placed. Between them was the ventilation hatch for the engine. To the rear part of the top, there were three additional round-shaped hatches. These were to be used by the passengers for either exiting the vehicle or, in cases of emergency, used to fire at aerial targets.

Rear view of the M-60’s superstructure. Notice the large two-part door that acted as the main entry point for the soldiers. Source: http://elektron.tmf.bg.ac.rs/user/bojan/armor/apc/m-60p/

Armor

The M-60 was lightly armored. The front armor plate was 15 mm thick. The upper angled plate, with the two hatches for the driver and the machine gunner, was only 9 mm thick. The flat sides were 13 mm thick, while the upper angled one was 10 mm thick. The rear armor was 10 mm thick.

Armament

Armament consisted of one 12.7 mm PAM (Protiv-avionski mitraljez – anti-aircraft machine gun) heavy machine gun (basically an M2 Browning) and one 7.92 mm M-53 (a copy of the German MG 42). The heavy machine gun was positioned on a mount providing 360º fire on the top right side of the superstructure. No protective gun shield was provided for its gunner. This heavy machine gun had sufficient firepower to engage unprotected targets (soft-skin vehicles, for example) up to 1 km. It also could be used to engage lightly protected targets up to 500 m. In order to avoid potentially injuring a crew member, a spent ammunition cartridge bag was attached to this machine gun. Given its large caliber, the gunner could choose between several different types of ammunition depending on the combat needs. These included the M2 standard round, M2 armor-piercing round, M8 armor-piercing incendiary round, M1 and M25 incendiary rounds, and lastly, M20 armor-piercing incendiary tracer round.

The 12.7 mm PAM gunner could traverse a full circle and engage low-flying targets. He was completely exposed to enemy fire. Source: Oklopni Transporter M-60 Priručnik Za Motomehanizovano Odeljenje

The M-60 12.7 mm PAM operator could choose between several different types of ammunition. These included (from top to bottom): M2 standard round, M2 armor-piercing round, M8 armor-piercing incendiary round, M1 and M25 incendiary rounds, and M20 armor-piercing incendiary tracer round. Source: Oklopni Transporter M-60 Priručnik Za Motomehanizovano Odeljenje

Secondary armament consisted of an M-53 machine gun. This was positioned on the lower right side of the superstructure. It was operated by a radio operator. The M-53 was to be used against infantry formations up to 1.5 km distance. If needed, it could be dismounted and placed on top of the M-60 to act as an auxiliary light anti-aircraft gun. In this configuration, aerial targets could be engaged at a distance of up to 1 km. The M-53 was fed by a 50-round drum magazine. Two types of rounds were used for this machine gun, consisting of a standard M-49 type round and a tracer round.

The M-53 was fired by the radio operator from inside the vehicle. Source: Oklopni Transporter M-60 Priručnik Za Motomehanizovano Odeljenje

Besides these, the M-60’s firepower was further augmented by the personal weapons of the passengers. These initially included rifles and semi-automatic rifles, but would be replaced with submachine guns. In addition, at least two more M-53 machine guns were also carried by the dismounted unit. Some of these could be fired from the eight firing ports. The two extra M-53s were usually placed on each side of the vehicle.

An example of using one of the eight firing ports. This soldier is using a captured German MP 40 submachine gun. Source: Oklopni Transporter M-60 Priručnik Za Motomehanizovano Odeljenje

Crew and Infantry Dismount

The crew of this vehicle could be divided into two groups. The first included the driver, who was positioned on the left side, and the radio operator placed on the other side of him. The radio equipment consisted of a R-113 and R-120 intercom radio set. It used a rod antenna located just right of the radio operator. In rarer cases, a 2.5-wire antenna could also be used. The radio had an effective range of up to 20 km when the vehicle was stationary. During movement, this was reduced to 1 to 2.5 km. The radio operator was also tasked with operating the hull-positioned machine gun. The driver was trained to act as a mechanic.

Behind them, the PAM heavy machine gun’s operator was placed on the right and opposite him was the commander position. If, for some reason, the commander was unable to perform his task (being injured or, in the worst-case scenario, killed), the heavy machine gun operator was to take charge of the vehicle.

The M-60 had a crew of four, all of which were located in the front part of the vehicle. Source: Magazine Poligon 1/2017

The passenger compartment was able to accommodate a squad of between 8 to 9 soldiers. While maintenance was the primary responsibility of the vehicle’s crews, the remaining passengers were tasked with providing necessary assistance during such operations, despite not always being trained to do so.

The M-60’s rear compartment had room for up to 9 fully armed soldiers. Source:http://www.balkanwarhistory.com/2017/10/yugoslav-armored-personnel-carrier-ot-m.html

Modernizations and Versions

Further Improved: M-60P

Given the M-60’s poor performance, the JNA was unwilling to put more time and resources into this project. So, after the initial 180 vehicles were completed, production was stopped. The available vehicles were put into service. JNA commanders hoped that further APC development would lead to the quick introduction of a much-improved vehicle. Unfortunately for them, this did not materialize, and, at the start of the 1970s, most of the available M-60s were in a state of disrepair. As the production had been basically canceled, the availability of spare parts was limited. This was especially true for vital automotive components. Units that used them urged for the delivery of necessary parts and requested that a major overhaul be done on all available vehicles. The JNA was left with a dilemma about what to do next. The development of the new APC would not be completed for years to come but, on the other hand, the M-60 did not meet expectations and had many flaws. The dilemma, in truth, had only one solution and that was to somehow improve the overall characteristics of the M-60. The alternative was that the JNA would be forced to use trucks for transporting their mechanized infantry, which was deemed unacceptable.

Luckily for them, FAMOS was already working on a new steering (planetary/epicyclic gearing) system, which was tested in 1970. It was tested on one vehicle, which was designated as M-60P. The P stands for either Poboljšan (English: Improved) or Planetarni (English: Planetary). Before this change was implemented, the Uprava Oklopnih Jedinica (English: Armored Unit Administration) proposed that it should be examined and tested in detail on a few more prototypes. While the new steering unit proved promising, it was far from perfect and breakdowns were frequently reported. Given the great need for such vehicles and the lack of anything better, it was decided to upgrade all remaining (less than 180 vehicles, at that point) M-60s to the M-60P standard as soon as possible. Production of brand-new vehicles of the M-60P series began in 1973. Visually, these two vehicles were identical, as most modifications were mainly done regarding the steering unit.

M-60PB

Increasing firepower was another point that the Yugoslav engineers wanted to achieve. The heavy machine gun was enough to deal with lightly armored targets, but against better-protected vehicles, it could do little. It could also not offer explosive support against dug-in infantry or fortified positions. Of course, adding any larger armament was out of the question due to weight limitations. The easiest solution was simply to use two 82 mm M-60 recoilless guns. The project was initiated in 1972, with the completion of two prototypes. These were built using two modified M-60P vehicles. The main armament was placed on a specially designed mount. To house this mount, the rear part of the top part of the crew compartment was modified. While the main armament was retained, some structural changes were necessary. For example, the number of passengers was reduced to 7 (commander and six soldiers). The number of crew was not increased and included the driver, radio operator, 12.7 mm machine gun operator, and the recoilless gun operator. Technically speaking, the number of crew was reduced, as one of them had to take the role of the dismount’s commander.

By 1973, three such prototypes were used to test if the whole concept had any merit. Initial testing was carried out at the military training ground in Moljača. After these were successfully completed, the three vehicles were given to the 329th Armored Brigade for troop trials. Production was approved in 1973. Unfortunately, sources do not provide us with a precise number built of this version. Like its predecessors, this version was also built by FAMOS.

The M-60PB introduced increased firepower with two recoilless guns. Its installation necessitated some structural changes but, otherwise, the vehicle was the same as the M-60P. Source: Magazine Poligon 1/2017

The 82 mm M-60 recoilless gun was able to engage fortified positions up to 1.6 km distance and armored vehicles up to 1 km. It was capable of penetrating up to 400 mm of homogeneous armor. Source: Vojna tehnika i naoruzanje Jugoslavije i Srbije Facebook group

The superstructure was redesigned to only two rear top hatches. The left one was where the gun main was placed and was used by the gunner. Next to it was another hatch placed which was to be used during gun reloading. The two M-60 recoilless guns were placed on a simple mount, with the barrels placed on either side of the operator. This new armament installation was flawed in its design. The gunner had to completely expose himself during the aiming and firing of the two recoilless guns. The rate of fire was between 4 to 5 rounds per minute. The elevation angles were quite modest, with -4° to +6°. It was possibly restricted by the huge backlash created during the firing of these guns. While it technically had a full 360º firing angle, the position of the forward-mounted machine gun prevented this gun from firing in this direction. As the operator required extra working space, the rear part of the upper superstructure had to be redesigned. The gunner’s position was extended with a bulged armor plate, the same as done with the forward gunner and the commander’s positions. In addition, the installation of this position led to the deletion of the last firing port. The added firepower was seen as an improvement and thus it was adopted for service as the M-60PB, with the B standing either for Bestrzajni (English: Recoilless) or Bojni (English: Combat), depending on the source.

There is an unconfirmed story that Josip Broz Tito himself proposed that such a version be developed. Allegedly, during the inspection of armored vehicles used during the Sloboda 71 military exercise, he came across the M-60P. After inspecting it, Tito was satisfied with this vehicle but asked that it should have anti-tank weapons.

Adding two recoilless guns increased the offensive capabilities of the M-60PB. The overall design was poorly carried out, providing no protection for the gunner. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m60/opis.htm

In order to find targets and fire the two guns, the gun operator had to expose himself to potential enemy fire. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=3177.105

The new gun installation required some work on the upper superstructure. The rear-firing port had to be removed and an enlarged gun operator compartment had to be added instead. It extended beyond the upper superstructure armor. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=3177.165

M-60PK

Another version that was introduced into service was a command version equipped with additional radio equipment (R-123 and R-112) designated as M-60PK – Komandni (English Command). No production number for these versions is given, but it is likely that, depending on the need, ordinary vehicles were converted for this role.

Other Proposals and Projects

There were also numerous additional proposals for M-60 design improvements, such as using new tracks, removing the trim vane, new handles for the hatches, adding an 82 mm mortar or a 2 cm cannon, etc,. All these implemented or proposed modifications were a mixed bag. All the new changes extended the M-60’s operational service life, but on the other hand, the overall performance was still poor. Adding new modifications led only to a rise in production and maintenance costs without offering any major advantage over the basic version, so many of these would not be introduced.

At least one vehicle was tested with an 80 mm mortar being installed inside the passenger compartment. As no production order was given for it, is it possible that the whole design was impractical or overly complicated. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m60/opis.htm

There were also a few proposed versions, such as ammunition transport or medical versions, but these remained at the prototype stage.

The M-60 was a poorly designed vehicle, but given that nothing else was available, it was kept in production. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m60/opis.htm

Service

In Use with the JNA

The first few produced M-60 prototypes were presented to the Yugoslav public in 1962, during a May military parade held in the capital, Belgrade. The first 80 production vehicles were distributed to the following units:

Unit – Armored Brigade	Quantities
1st	10
203rd	20
221st	10
243rd	30
252nd	10

After only two years in service, two M-60s had to be written off. In the following years, the M-60s were used in various military parades and exercises. The poor mechanical reliability and lack of spare parts greatly affected their performance. For example, during the military exercise Pčinja 72 (in 1972), of 30 vehicles from the 243rd Armored Brigade, 14 broke down due to problems with the running gear. The later version M-60P proved to be less unreliable, but far from a perfect solution.

The M-60 was shown to the general public in 1962 during a May military parade held in Belgrade. After that, it was a common sight. Source:http://www.balkanwarhistory.com/2017/10/yugoslav-armored-personnel-carrier-ot-m.html

Just before the outbreak of the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s, the JNA had in its inventory 551 M-60P and PBs. The JNA had planned just before the war to reduce this number to around 398 M-60s, but this never occurred. During its use by the JNA, the M-60 received the mocking nickname Peglica (English: An iron), a Yugoslavian name often also given to the small FIAT 126 car.

Given that nothing better was available, the M-60 was extensively used by the JNA during army exercises and training. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

The M-60 was to be replaced with a much more advanced M-80 APC. The M-80 was larger, was better armed and protected, and most importantly had an engine that was mechanically reliable. The later APC was introduced to service in 1976 but was not produced in sufficient numbers to fully replace the obsolete M-60.

The M-80 was designed as the M-60 replacement but due to insufficient production numbers, it never achieved this. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m80/opis.htm

In The Yugoslav Police Service

In 1975, some M-60s were allocated to Yugoslav Police units, with the Army providing the necessary training. In contrast to those used by the JNA, the Police M-60s were completely painted in blue. At least 21 M-60s remained in use with the Serbian police forces in the cities of Kraljevo and Niš up to 2004.

The M-60s used by the police forces were easily recognizable thanks to their blue camouflage color. Source: http://elektron.tmf.bg.ac.rs/user/bojan/armor/apc/m-60p/

The Yugoslav Civil Wars

The political and economical crisis of the late 1980s, together with ever-rising nationalism in all federal entities in Yugoslavia, would ultimately lead to a bloody and costly civil war. These events are still politically and historically controversial, especially in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. The reasons why it started, who started it, when, and even its name are still ferociously debated to this day. Unfortunately, the war was accompanied by great suffering and crimes committed by all warring parties.

The outbreak of the Yugoslavian Civil war was chaotic in nature. Various paramilitary forces began to appear in the western part of Yugoslavia, especially in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The JNA initially tried to subdue these, but various factors (desertions, chaotic organization, poor morale, and rushed decisions) lead to unnecessary losses in men and material.

One of the first combat usages of the M-60 happened on 2nd July 1991 in Slovenia. On that day, elements of a JNA armored column clashed with Slovenian forces near Prilep. At least four M-60s were reported damaged.

In 1992, the JNA initiated a general evacuation of its personnel and equipment to Serbia. Many of its vehicles had to be left behind, and they were often captured and reused by the various military and paramilitary organizations which were present in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. After this point, the M-60 saw service with all warring parties in various roles. When used in direct combat, the M-60 generally performed poorly due to its weak armor. The use of portable anti-tank weapons (often imported despite the military embargo placed on Yugoslavia) was quite common, so armored vehicle losses were rather high during the war. A lightly protected M-60 stood little chance of survival when engaged with modern anti-tank weapons.

This was the fate of many M-60s which, because of their weak protection, fell victim to various anti-armor weapons. Source:http://www.balkanwarhistory.com/2017/10/yugoslav-armored-personnel-carrier-ot-m.html

A M-60PB operated by Croatian forces during the war. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m60/opis.htm

As the direct use of the M-60 in combat was rather dangerous, many were converted to perform various other roles. These included modifying the interior so that they could be reused as transport or medical vehicles. Croatian forces modified a few M-60s by extending their rear crew compartment, creating mobile ambulances for evacuating wounded soldiers and civilians. Other than that, some M-60s received various weapon upgrades. One such vehicle received an aircraft rocket pod, intended to be used as an improvised artillery support vehicle.

Croatian forces modified some M-60s as ambulance vehicles. These received extended rear parts of the crew compartment to make additional rooms for the wounded. Source: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m60/opis.htm

This surviving M-60 received a 57 mm rocket pod mounted on top of it. If it was effective or even practical is anyone’s guess. Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/YUG-M-60-a-la-UB-32-57-57mm-raketomet-t23843

The crew of this vehicle added one more machine gun point on top of the crew compartment. They also added a protective shield for this machine gun. Source: https://www.mycity-military.com/Oklopna-tehnika/Oklopni-transporter-M-60_17.html

Another bizarre M-60 modification had two light anti-aircraft guns in an improvised turret. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=3177.180

This picture well describes the chaotic nature of the Yugoslav Wars. Many paramilitary formations took up arms, either with the real belief that they are fighting for liberation, as ad hoc defense militias, or simply to murder and plunder. Many of these combatants did not even have any uniforms. Source: https://www.mycity-military.com/Oklopna-tehnika/Oklopni-transporter-M-60_3.html

After the War

After the war, nearly all warring sides during this conflict had in their inventory some M-60s. Given the agreement of disarmament signed after the war, many armored vehicles were sent to be scrapped, as they were obsolete, or worn out. This was the fate of the M-60, many of which were scrapped.

Despite their obsolescence, the new Savezna Republika Jugoslavija (English: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) Army had over 120 M-60s in its inventory. Given their obsolescence, it was decided to, if possible, sell these vehicles abroad and, if not, scrap them. The 1996 Agreement on Sub-Regional Arms Control, part of the Dayton Accords, actually offered this possibility. They were presented to various East European countries but no agreement was made. In 2004, it was proposed to donate some of them to the new Iraqi government, but nothing came from this. Eventually, they were mostly scrapped.

Other Users

In Iraqi Service

In 1975, Iraqi leader Sadam Husein visited Yugoslavia. This visit had the goal to establish political as well as potential military cooperation. It succeeded in this, as the following year, Josip Broz Tito visited Iraq. Several agreements for military cooperation were signed including the construction of secret and well-dug-in underground facilities. This agreement also included the shipment of weapons. Surprisingly, despite its poor design, Yugoslavia managed to sell 190 M-60s to the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi forces used a 12.7 mm Soviet DSK heavy machine gun instead of the original Browning. They saw action during the long Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. The M-60 was noted to be an almost unusable vehicle, being poorly protected and susceptible to engine overheating. There is an alleged story that, when the Yugoslavian delegation asked the Iraqi about the M-60’s performance, the Iraqis responded with “If you want us to remain friends, better not ask us”.

The M-60 was operated by the Iraqi forces. Note the last road wheel is replaced by a much smaller wheel for some reason. Source: https://twitter.com/ninja998998/status/1124548541374914560

In the Role of a “German Tank”

In Yugoslavia, World War Two-themed movies and TV shows were quite popular. The JNA often provided necessary props, such as uniforms, weapons, volunteers, and sometimes even tanks. For the filming of the TV show Nepokoreni Grad (English: Unconquered City) in 1981, an M-60 was modified by receiving a fake (possibly even a real) Panzer III turret.

An interesting adaptation of an M-60 into a German Panzer III tank. Source: https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=3177.165

Surviving Vehicles

Today, there are a dozen or so surviving M-60s spread around the former Yugoslavia. While most are stored or put on exhibit, some are in working condition, modified to be used for various civilian or military purposes.

A M-60PB that was preserved at the Bosnian Manjač training ground. Source: http://www.oklop.byethost14.com/manja%C4%8Da/album/index.html?i=1#

M-60 at the Croatian Vukowar War Museum. Source: Wiki

Conclusion

The M-60’s development was plagued from the start by miscalculations, poor decision-making, and bad mechanical solutions, such as using a weak engine, light armor, etc. Adopting the obsolete SU-76’s suspension caused huge logistical problems, as this vehicle was long out of production, thus making the acquisition of spare parts difficult. Adding weight beyond the initial calculations made the M-60 lose its amphibious characteristics, which limited its combat effectiveness. Frequent changes to the design lead to delays in production. Using a weak engine limited the overall speed and was prone to overheating. The armor proved almost to be useless when it was used in combat.

In essence, the M-60 can be considered a failed project that did not live up to meet the expectations that were required of it. Probably the only positive thing that could be said about this vehicle is that it provided Yugoslav engineers with experience in designing such a vehicle, which would lead to the creation of a much better design, the M-80. It also served to give the troops a vehicle that was at least better than ordinary trucks used up to that point.

Basic M-60 APC

M-60PB with two 82 mm M-60 recoilless guns

Yugoslav police M-60

M-60 as seen at the Croatian Vukowar War Museum

Iraqi M-60PB

M-60 disguised as a Panzer III for the TV show Nepokoreni Grad

M-60 Specification
Size (L-W-H)	5 x 2.7 x 1.86 m
Weight, battle-ready	10.7 tonnes
Crew	4 (Driver, commander, radio operator, and gunner)
Engine	FAP six-cylinder 140 hp @2,000 rpm diesel engine
Speed/off-road	40 km/h, 20 km/h
Range/off-road	400 km, 250 km
Primary Armament	one 12.7 mm PAM heavy machine gun
Secondary Armament	One 7.62 M-56 machine gun
Armor	up to 15 mm

Sources

Držani Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (1970) Oklopni Transporter M-60 Priručnik Za Motomehanizovano Odeljenje, Vojna Štamparija Beograd
B. B. Dumitrijević (2010), Modernizacija i Intervencija, Jugoslovenske Oklopne Jedinice 1945-2006, Institut za Savremenu Istoriju
M. Dragojević (2003) Razvoj Našeg neoružanja VTI kao sudbina, Zadužbina Adrijević
Magazine Poligon 1/2017
M. Jandrić, Seventh Decade of the Military Technical Institute (1948–2013)
http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m60/opis.htm
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1040.html
http://www.oklop.byethost14.com/manja%C4%8Da/album/index.html?i=1#31.jpg

Has Own Video WW2 Yugoslav Partisan Armor of Western Origin

Light Tank M3A3 with 7.5 cm PaK 40

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date April 10, 2023
5 Comments on Light Tank M3A3 with 7.5 cm PaK 40

Yugoslav Resistance Light Tank M3A3 with 7.5 cm PaK 40 illustrated by David Bocquelet

Yugoslavian Partisans (1944-1945)
Improvised Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – 1 To 5 Converted

During the war, the Yugoslavian communist Partisans were often faced with shortages of war materiel, especially in regard to anti-tank weapons and tanks. Luckily for them, after 1943, the Western Allies decided to send large quantities of all kinds of war material, including M3A1/A3 light tanks. While these tanks were a welcome addition in the Partisan’s fight for the liberation of occupied Yugoslavia, their guns were not up to the date and lacked serious firepower. By the end of 1944, the Partisans simply decided to resolve this issue by mounting a captured German 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun on a few M3A3 tanks. While not perfect, these at least gave them a much needed increase in firepower, effectively being a weapon that could destroy any vehicle on this front.

The modified M3A3 armed with the 7.5 cm PaK 40 in Partisan service. Source:www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

The M3 light tanks in the Balkans

Following the quick conquest of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia during the April War (that lasted from 6th to 18th April 1941), its territories were divided between the victorious Axis forces. Due to the harsh and brutal occupation by the Axis troops stationed in Yugoslavia, by the second half of 1941, two resistance groups started a rebellion against the occupiers. These were the Royalist Chetniks and Communist Partisans. Although, at the beginning these two groups worked together in the fight against the occupying Axis forces, a conflict between these two forces in late 1941 would break out into an open civil war. This lasted until the end of the war and the victory of the Partisans.

By the end of 1943 and start of 1944, the Communist Partisans movements were heavily involved in organising a number of attacks on German and their allies vital communication and supply lines, military bases and airfields, and other targets , inflicting increasing losses in men and materials. While, initially, the Western Allies mainly supported the Chetnik movement, due to various reasons (including a lack of major military action against the Germans or even open cooperation with them), this attitude changed drastically from 1943 onwards. The Allies instead focus on supporting the ever increasing Partisan movement by supplying them with ammunition and equipment but also special personnel to help train the Partisan ground forces.

Beside these, Allied High Command made an agreement with the leader of the Partisans, Josip Broz Tito, to form a tank brigade that was to be equipped with Allied tanks and armored cars. The unit, named First Tank Brigade, would be formed on 16th July 1944. The British supplied some 56 M3A1/A3 tanks, 24 AEC Mk.II armored cars and two M3A1 scout cars. The Partisan crews were previously sent to Italy in order to be trained in operating these vehicles. They also managed to salvage a few more damaged tanks from Allies repair facilities.

A Partisan M3A3, easily recognized due to the large Yugoslav flag (with the added Red star) usually painted on the tank’s sides. Source: Wiki

The First Tank Brigade would see extensive action against the Germans and their allies until the end of the war in May 1945. Due to a high attrition rate, a great number of M3A1/A3 tanks were either lost or heavily damaged. Given the general lack of replacements, these had to be repaired in order to keep the whole unit operational. Some damaged vehicles had their turrets removed and replaced with captured weapons. One such modification included installing a captured 7.5 cm PaK 40 on top of an M3A3 tank, creating a bizarre vehicle somewhat similar to the German Marder tank hunter series.

The M3 Light Tank

The M3 Light Tank was designed in 1940 to replace the older and outdated M2 tanks that were in service with the American armored forces. The M3 had many improvements over the M2, including thicker armor, stronger (due to the increase in weight) vertical volute spring suspension (VVSS) with a bigger rear idler wheel, increased speed, and improved firepower consisting of four 7.62 mm machine guns and a 3.7 cm cannon. The first series was powered by the gasoline-fueled (petrol) Continental seven-cylinder four-cycle radial aircraft engine. After 1942, a new four-stroke diesel radial Guiberson A-1020 engine was used. It had a crew of four (driver, driver assistant, gunner, and commander). From March 1941 to August 1942, some 5,811 Stuarts with petrol engines and 1,285 with diesel engines were built. The much improved M3A1 version was produced from April 1942 onwards. The first batches of M3A1 tanks were built by using riveted armor, but later models had welded armor. The changes that were made were an improved turret design (the small commander cupola was removed) with two hatch doors, reducing the number of machine guns to three on later built vehicles, and the addition of a turret basket.

Soon after the M3A1, a new model, the M3A3, was made as a result of the poorly designed frontal armor and small fuel capacity of the first versions. The front and side armor of the Stuart M3A3 were angled and the front hatches for the driver and his assistant were replaced by new overhead ones. Due to extra space that the Stuart M3A3 now had, it was possible to increase the fuel capacity. This version was produced until August 1943, with a total of some 3,427 vehicles being built.

The M3A3 light tank. Source:warspot.net

The Stuart series saw extensive operational service throughout the war on many different fronts. The USA supplied the Stuart series to other nations through Lend-Lease, including the British Empire, USSR, Brazil, China, France, the Netherlands, and many other Latin American nations. Britain would subsequently give some of their Stuarts to the Yugoslav Partisans. By 1943, however, the M3 was already outdated, due to its weak gun and feeble armor.

Repair Facilities at Šibenik

The Partisan First Tank Brigade, after some heavy fighting with the Germans, managed to push them out of the city of Šibenik (located on the Adriatic coast of modern Croatia), which was captured on 3rd November 1944. Prior to the war, Šibenik had been a large naval shipyard and possessed a number of workshops. Despite many of them being sabotaged by the retreating Germans, there was still sufficient working equipment and materials left to meet the needs of the Partisan mechanics, who were somewhat in great need of such tools. Namely, the fighting with the Germans had led to heavy tank losses. As there was no way to replenish lost tanks, the Partisans were forced to try to salvage and repair damaged vehicles. Even those that were damaged beyond repair were reused for spare parts. Enemy vehicles and equipment captured by that time were also transported to Šibenik in hope of repairing them or, if this was not possible, to be cannibalized for spare parts. Šibenik would remain the Partisans’ main base for repairs and maintenance until the end of the war. In addition, it also served as a vital training ground for new Partisan tank crews from November 1944 onwards. The Partisan repair work was actually supervised and assisted by British Major Peterson supported by an unnamed Sergeant.

Modification of the M3A3

While the Partisans were surely grateful to the Allies for the Stuart tanks, they were, to say the least, quite disappointed with their firepower. The Stuart was armed with a 37 mm gun which was quite inadequate for anti-tank duties in 1944/45. While the enemy tanks which operated in Yugoslavia were mostly obsolete French and Italian tanks, a number of them were more modern (Panzer III, Panzer IV, StuG III, or even captured T-34s), against which the 37 mm gun could do little. Another issue with the Stuart’s gun was that it was noted to be generally ineffective against well fortified enemy positions. The Partisans, to some extent, resolved these issues by utilizing the AEC Mk. II (due to its better firepower, the 6 pounder – 5.7 cm gun) as anti-tank vehicles. This, in turn, led to another problem. The armored cars, which were intended to perform reconnaissance, were instead reused for the anti-tank role. This forced the Partisans to use ordinary infantry for reconnaissance, which was not always effective or even reliable and often led to great losses.

Rearming the already existing tanks seemed one possible solution. One attempt was arming a Somua S35 with a 5.7 cm gun placed in a modified turret. This vehicle was lost on its first combat missions and appears to have been quite ineffective in design. Given the general improvised nature, this should not come as a big surprise

The main anti-tank firepower of the First Tank Brigade came from the AEC Mk. II armored cars. Their 5.7 cm guns were more suited for this role than the weaker 37 mm ones of the M3 light tanks. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

By the end of 1944, at ‘La Dalmatien’ workshop in Šibenik, a number of Stuarts with damaged turrets that were probably beyond repair were present. A decision was made by the Partisan authorities stationed in Šibenik to try and install a number of German captured weapons in hope of increasing their combat effectiveness. While a number of sources claim that four different such modifications were made, based on the information and evidence available, only two of these can actually be confirmed. At least one was armed with a German 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun and a second vehicle was armed with the 20 mm Flak 38 Flakvierling anti-aircraft gun.

General information about these two vehicles are scarce and difficult to find, mainly as the Partisans kept a poor record of them. What is known is that these were likely hasty improvisations with little to no testing done prior to their completion. The work on these modifications began sometime at the end of 1944 and was completed by early 1945.

A M3A3 in process of being rearmed with a PaK 40, at Šibenik 1944/45.Source: forum.warthunder.com/

Name?

Sadly, there are no available sources that mention the precise names of these vehicles. It is also unknown if the Partisans ever actually bothered to give them any designation or even a nickname. Sometimes, it is simply referred to as the M3A3 with 7.5 cm PaK 40. This article will use the simple PaK Stuart designation for the sake of simplicity only. It is important to note that this is purely a modern designation.

The Modifications

For this modification, damaged Stuarts M3A3s were used (as they were present in greater numbers). Instead of the original tank turret, a simple three-sided shield and a 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun were placed. This is where the sources effectively stop describing the overall PaK Stuart design. More information can be obtained based on analysis of available photographs and educated guesses.

The Gun Mount

The general decision to use the 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun can be explained simply by the fact that it was the best anti-tank weapon in Yugoslavia. Also, the Partisans captured a number of these guns, so they used what they had.

Precisely how the Partisans mounted the 7.5 cm anti-tank gun is unknown. Given the general urgent need for a vehicle with increased firepower and in order to reduce the overall construction time needed, the Partisans would most likely have gone for the simplest working solution. One possible solution is that the Partisans first install a reinforced (likely using metal bars) base, on which they mounted the gun with its cradle mount. In order to save weight and space, the 7.5 cm PaK 40 wheels and trailing legs were removed. The gun would be placed on the previously mentioned base and held in place either by being welded in place or by bolts. Thus, the gun’s original elevation (-5° to +22°) and traverse (65°) would likely remain the same. While no front gun travel lock was installed, there is a photograph of such a vehicle being under construction with what appears to be a rear positioned travel lock. This had a simple design, using two bars in a reverse ‘V’-shape. On the other hand, given the lack of a better view of this position, the part believed to be a V-shaped travel lock could also be (at least in this case) a simple tool that was used during the mounting of the gun. Either way, the use of a travel lock on a long gun like the PaK 40 was quite essential. For example, driving over rough terrain without one could potentially damage the gun mount or even affect its overall precision.

A side view of the PaK Stuart under construction. The reverse ‘V’-shape of what is possibly a travel lock is evident here. On the other hand it may also be an improvised tool used to help instal the gun. Source: /www.paluba.info

The added gun, armor plates and ammunition certainly raised the vehicle’s overall weight, but to what extent is unknown. It is also unknown how the whole modification affected the M3A3’s overall driving performance.

A PaK Stuart being under construction at the Šibenik workshop. Source: Od Tenka Do Brigade 1941-1945

Armament

This vehicle was armed with the excellent 7.5cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun. It was more than well suited to successfully engage any tank in the Yugoslav theatre of operation until the end of the war. Beside installing this gun onto the Stuart tank, the Partisans would also face problems with where to store the relatively large PaK 40 ammunition. While the sources do not provide us with an explanation, there are quite few solutions to this issue. One possible solution is that the Partisan crews stored spare ammunition inside the vehicle. Given the small size of the vehicle, only a limited amount of ammunition could be stored this way. How these would be given to the gun crews is questionable. If the new gun mount installation left no opening for the ammunition to be taken from inside the tank, the driver or his assistant had to provide them. This would leave them open to enemy fire and this was, in general, quite an ineffective method.

Another solution was that spare ammunition was stored in the fighting compartment and in easy reach of the gun crews. Due to the small size of this fighting compartment, only a few spare rounds could be carried. The last solution may be that the vehicle was used to engage targets at greater ranges and the ammunition was instead carried by another vehicle (likely an ammunition supply truck). Given the general lack of information about such a vehicle, this seems unlikely but not impossible.

The general lack of space on top of the Stuart tank is clear. While spare ammunition could be carried in this part of the vehicle, it is difficult to tell as no visible spare rounds can be seen in this photograph. The side armor plates barely cover the gun, let alone the crew, providing them with limited overall protection. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

This top view of the M3A3 offers a good idea of how the fighting compartment would be cramped and difficult to work in. Source: warspot.net

The secondary armament consisted of the original hull mounted Browning 7.62 mm machine gun. Interestingly, some vehicles appear to lack the hull positioned machine gun. The reason for this is unknown, but possibly done to make more room inside the vehicle, or they were simply removed for maintenance or ammunition reasons. On some photographs, a second Browning machine gun can be seen placed on top of the gun shield or behind it, but the photographs are not clear enough.

The second machine gun mounted on top of this vehicle is visible. While no explanation for this installation is provided in the sources, a simple answer would be that, this way, the machine gunner had a better firing arc and view (albeit with the sacrifice of protection). The use in the anti-aircraft role seems unlikely as, by 1945, German aircraft on this front were rare at best. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

Armor Protection

The armor protection of this vehicle (with the exception of the original Stuart hull) is unknown. The gun keeped its own twin layer gun shield (each plate was 4 mm thick with 25 mm of free space between them). On both sides of the vehicle’s new fighting compartment, there were simple angled armored plates. These were made from salvaged German vehicles that were too damaged to be repaired. Interestingly, on the rear bottom of the side armor plates, there are what appear to be small hatches that had no obvious reason to be there. One possible solution is that this was actually part of the original salvage metal plates that the Partisans did not bother to remove.

The unusual small hatch that could be seen on the PaK Stuart’s sides. If this was present on the other side or even on all vehicles is unknown. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.infol

To fill the gap between the gun and the hull, an armored plate was added. The top and the back of this fighting compartment were completely open, exposing the crew to the elements and enemy fire. In principle, the armor of the upper modified gun platform at best offered only limited protection for its crew, mostly from small caliber bullets and shrapnel.

Crew Hatches

While the Stuart turret was removed, the rest of the vehicle appears to have been unchanged. On the Flak armed Stuart version, the two hull hatches were redesigned to be opened forwards. This was done to provide a better firing angle for the main weapon. On the PaK armed version, this was not the case. Given the fact that the gun itself was higher up, there was still plenty of room to use the hatches in their original configuration.

The Flak armed Stuarts had their front crew hatches modified to be opened forwards only. Source: forum.warthunder.com

The PaK armed version did not receive this modification, as it was not needed. The gun was sufficiently high up that these could be opened with any problem. Also note the large plate that is placed in front of the gun. Source:http://www.paluba.info

Crew

While there is no certain information, the crew of this vehicle likely consisted of four. These include a driver and an assistant, who was also the machine gun operator, which were located in the hull. The gun loader, who was probably the commander, and the gunner were positioned in the small open fighting compartment. While the hull crew were fully protected, the gun operators were completely exposed to weather and had only limited protection from enemy fire.

The PaK Suart most likely had four crew members, as there was barely any room left after the gun was added. Source www.paluba.info

Number Built

The number of PaK Stuarts built is unknown. It is generally believed that at least three vehicles were constructed. One such source is the book written by authors B. B. Dimitrijević and D. Savić (Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945). Various internet websites mention a number of 5, which seems to be unlikely. What is particularly strange is that this conversion always appears alone in contemporary photographs, so it is possible that only a single vehicle conversion was ever carried out.

On this photograph (but also on many more), only a single PaK Stuart is depicted. This may indicate that only one vehicle was actually constructed, but that by itself is no definitive proof. Source: warspot.net

Author D. Predoević (Armored Units and Vehicles in Croatia during WWII, Part I, Allied Armored Vehicles) also agrees that three vehicles were modified in this manner. He also gives an explanation about the production number mystery. He claims that, in Partisan documents regarding the 4th Army (dated from April 1945), they mentioned the use of four Stuart self-propelled guns. These, in fact, were Howitzer Motor Carriage M8s armed with the 75 mm howitzer developed and built by the Americans. Between 7 and 9 such vehicles were supplied to the Partisans during April 1945. These vehicles may be the main culprits for the overall confusion about the precise number of PaK Stuarts built. The same caliber being present on both vehicles may have led to some sources wrongly describing them as the anti-tank vehicles developed by the Partisans.

Small numbers of the M8 were supplied by the Allies to the Partisans in April 1945. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.inf

In Combat

Once the PaK Stuarts were ready, during early 1945, they were initially used for training the crews in order to effectively operate these modified vehicles. During late March, these vehicles were dispatched to the front line and saw action against the Germans until the end of war.

Before any combat actions were undertaken, it was necessary to familiarize and train the crews to effectively operate this unusual vehicle. This picture was taken in early 1945 behind the front line. It and the AEC Mk. II were the main anti-tank weapons (excluding the towed guns) operated by the First Tank Brigade. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

There is little information on the usage in action and losses of the Partisan Stuart PaK version. What is known from contemporary photographic evidence is that they were used in combat. There are only a few documented actions in which these tanks were used. The modified PaK Stuart vehicle (or vehicles) were used in battles near cities like Mostar, Bihać, and Drenovača during February/March 1945. Besides a few photographs, their precise usage during these battles is unknown.

A column of Stuart tanks, including a PaK Stuart, of the First Tank Brigade near the city of Mostar in February 1945. Source: Armored Units and Vehicles in Croatia during WWII, Part I, Allied Armored Vehicles

The PaK Stuart firing at designated targets near the city of Bihać. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

At the end of April, they were engaged in heavy fighting with the Germans near Ilirska Bistrica. On 28th April 1945, the Germans, supported by captured T-34s and vehicles described as ‘Panthers’ managed to push back the Partisans. While the precise vehicle types used are unknown (as no real Panther were used in Yugoslavia during the war), it is possible that these were in fact StuG IIIs. The Partisans made a counter-attack and pushed the Germans back. During this offensive, during a short engagement, a modified Stuart managed to destroy a German T-34 tank. While its general performance is unknown due to a lack of information, what is known is that the gun recoil during firing would cause the whole vehicle to be pushed back several meters. Firing of the gun probably also put enormous stress on the M3A3 chassis. The modified Stuarts (the PaK and Flak versions) participated in the liberation of Trieste near the end of the war, in May 1945.

Rear view of a Partisan armored column, with the PaK Stuart between two AEC armored cars. Source: Author D. Predoević (Armored Units and Vehicles in Croatia during WWII, Part I, Allied Armored Vehicles)

Fate

Both vehicles survived the war and were pressed into service with the new Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (JNA) (Eng. Yugoslav People’s Army). These two vehicles may have also seen service during the 1946-47 Trieste crisis. While they remained in JNA inventory for a few more years, their final fate is unfortunately unknown.

The PaK Stuarts did survive the war and were even in use for a few more years. This vehicle was used in a military parade held in Belgrade in 1946. Source: B. Dimitrijević Cominform Crisis Soviet-Yugoslav Stand Off 1948-1954

Conclusion

The M3A3 armed with the 7.5 cm anti-tank gun was a Partisan attempt to quickly build a vehicle capable of effectively destroying any enemy target. While in this they succeeded, the overall performance of the vehicle was most likely quite disappointing. While its new gun gave it huge firepower, it was also its Achilles’ heel. The gun’s tremendous recoil during firing was simply too much for the small Stuart. The small and poorly protected fighting compartment was also a huge issue. The small ammunition load would also limit its effectiveness in prolonged combat missions. While the Partisans managed to destroy a number of enemy tanks with it, this modified M3A3 was simply a hastily improvisation using any available resources at hand. Despite its somewhat poor design, it certainly served as a reminder of the harsh battles fought in Yugoslavia and the ingenuity of the Partisans fighting there.

Yugoslav Resistance Light Tank M3A3 with 7.5 cm PaK 40 illustrated by David Bocquelet

Specifications
Crew	4 (Gunner/ commander, loader, driver and driver assistance)
Propulsion	Continental 7 cylinder petrol 250 hp – air cooled
Speed	58 km/h (36 mph) road 29 km/h (18 mph) off-road
Range	120 km at medium speed (74.5 mi)
Armament	7.5 cm PaK 40 Anti-Tank Gun
Armor	From 13 to 51 mm (0.52-2 in)

Sources

B. B. Dimitrijević, (2011) Borna kola Jugoslovenske vojske 1918-1941, Institut za savremenu istoriju.
B. B. Dimitrijević and D. Savić (2011) Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945, Institut za savremenu istoriju, Beograd.
D. Predoević (2008) Oklopna vozila i oklopne postrojbe u drugom svjetskom ratu u Hrvatskoj, Digital Point Tiskara
B. Perrett (1980) The Stuart light tank series, Osprey Publishing
M. Babić (1986) oklopne Jedinice u NOR-u 1941-1945, Vojnoizdavački i Novinarski Centar
I. V.Hogg (1997) German Artillery of World War Two,
D. Predoević (2002) Armored units and vehicles in Croatia during WW II, part I, Allied armored vehicles, Digital Point Rijeka
B. Dimitrijević (2023) Cominform Crisis Soviet-Yugoslav Stand Off 1948-1954, Europe at War series No.24 Helion and Company
http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

WW2 US Light Tanks

Combat Car M1 and M1A1 (Light Tank M1A2)

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date April 8, 2023
3 Comments on Combat Car M1 and M1A1 (Light Tank M1A2)

M1 Combat Car, 1st Armoured Division, Fort Benning, Georgia, 1938. The M1 entered service in 1937. Notice the exercise unit colors, painted on the turret. The two extra sponson machine-guns were rarely mounted.

United States of America (1937)
Light Tank – 89 Built

In the years prior to the Second World War, the US was in the process of forming its first armored formations. Their tank-producing industry was greatly hampered by a lack of funds, the US’ isolationist policy, the lack of foresight of many of the Army’s military top brass, etcetera. By the early 1930s, the US Cavalry wanted its own tank that would provide highly mobile fire support to its units. This would lead to the creation of the M1 Combat Car, which would become a forerunner of the famous American light tank series extensively used during the Second World War.

The M1 Light Tank was initially designed as a combat car. Source: R. P. Hunnicutt Stuart A History of the American Light Tank

Cavalry Combat Car Development

Following the outbreak of the First World War in Europe, the US was at that period trying to be neutral. In early 1917, this changed mostly due to Germany’s submarine action against US shipping. As the inexperienced US soldiers were slowly sent to the Western Front, they came across the new Allied tanks. In the years after this war, the US Army undertook a series of experimental developments with different tank designs. For a variety of reasons, the whole development process was rather slow. Among them, to name a few, limited funds, the inexperience of the designers, and beliefs that American troops would no longer take part in wars like the First World War. Probably the most important reason was the disbandment of the Tank Corps in 1919. At that time, the Infantry’s commanders simply did not see an urgent need for such vehicles, instead prioritizing their own formations. The following year, the National Defense Act of 1920 (N.D.A., 1920) put the responsibility for the development of such vehicles solely on the Infantry. The Infantry branch would lay down basic requirements to the US Army General Staff. While this was done, the General Staff would then make a final decision about the realization and issue an order for either discarding the project or accepting it. Similarly, like in most modern armies, the tank was seen as an infantry support weapon, and thus not expected to be a war-winning weapon on its own. In this sense, as the US Army’s main concerns were guarding its existing borders, tanks were seen as less important weapons.

This attitude persisted up to the end of the 1920s. In 1928, while visiting Britain, the US Secretary of War, D. F. Davis, participated in a demonstration of an experimental British armored brigade. This experimental unit consisted of a series of light and medium tanks supported by motorized infantry and artillery. Once back in the US, Secretary Davis urged for the development of similar units. This change in attitude was further fostered by the newly appointed Army Chief of Staff, General Douglas MacArthur, in 1931. MacArthur argued that tanks had greater offensive potential than acting merely as infantry support weapons, thus supporting their development. The early attempts in designing and building tanks would lead to the creation of the T2 tanks.

During the 1930s, the US Infantry branch was solely responsible for developing tanks. Nonetheless, the Cavalry branch wanted to increase its firepower by adding armored vehicles to its inventory. Due to legislative limitations (N.D.A., 1920), the Cavalry was forbidden from developing its own tanks. They bypassed this by simply designating them as ‘combat cars’ instead. Their attempts to ‘hide’ their purpose were somewhat ironic, as both the Cavalry and Infantry designs were developed and built at Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois.

Combat cars were essentially tanks used by the US Cavalry units. They were to perform the same support role as the Infantry’s tanks. The main difference was, at least in the early stages of tank development in the US, that the Cavalry branch put great emphasis on these vehicles having a fully rotating turret. This somewhat ‘petty’ debate was not unique to the US during this period. At the same time, the cavalry branches in France and Japan developed the AMR 33 and Type 92 Heavy Armored Car respectively. All these were referred to as “cars” even if they were tanks just because they were used by the cavalry branch.

Further Development

In 1933, the development of a new design was initiated. It was to incorporate a weight of around 6.3 tonnes, armor that was resistant to small-caliber rounds, and armed with a single 12.7 mm heavy machine gun and two 7.62 mm machine guns. In addition, the maximum speed was set at 48 km, with an operational range of 160 km. The use of a wheel-only mode tested on some earlier US designs was discarded. While this vehicle would share a number of features with the infantry Light Tank T2 to save development time and resources, the primary difference was the choice of suspension units used.

The Infantry’s T2 Light Tank used a suspension influenced by British Vickers Mark. E (also referred to sometimes as Vickers 6-ton) designs. The Cavalry’s T5 Combat Car, on the other hand, used a newly developed volute spring suspension. Another innovation was the introduction of a rubber block track that had rubber bushings. On 9th August 1933, the War Department gave the green light for the implementation of this project.

The T2 Light Tank was designed for the needs of the US Infantry. While the Cavalry branch reused its basic form, the suspension was deemed insufficient for the fast-moving vehicle that they requested. Source: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/04/light-tanks-t1e4-and-t2e1-experiments.html

The T5 was quite similar in appearance but incorporated a new suspension which proved to be more reliable. Source: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/04/combat-car-m1-armour-for-american.html

In its early stage of development, the T5 Combat Car project initially incorporated the use of two separate turrets. The first prototype was presented at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds (A.P.G.) in late April 1934. For potential use by the Infantry, the T5 Combat Car was modified by replacing the two turrets with a new large and fixed superstructure, resulting in the T5E1. While this may have suited the needs of the Infantry, the Cavalry wanted a tank equipped with a fully rotating turret. This led to the creation of the T5E2 version equipped with a turret taken from the T4E1 vehicle. Following a successful trial, this vehicle would be adopted for service under the designation Combat Car, M1.

The Infantry’s T5E1 had a fixed superstructure and was armed with several machine guns. Source: R. P. Hunnicutt Stuart A History of the American Light Tank

The turret from the T4E1 vehicle would be reused for the Combat Car M1 project Source: Wiki

Name

This vehicle was intended to be used by the Cavalry, which designated it the ‘Combat Car, M1’. In 1940, the US created its first Armored Force, which basically combined the Infantry and Cavalry tanks into a single organizational structure. This organizational change was deemed necessary, especially after the quick German victory over the Western Allies in 1940. Using tanks as a support element of either infantry or cavalry was obviously shown to be a flawed concept. Instead, these were to be integrated into single armored formations.

Interestingly, and somewhat confusingly, according to S. J. Zaloga (Early US Armor 1916 to 1940), in July 1940, after the consolidation of Army and Cavalry, the ‘Combat Car, M2’ was renamed ‘Light Tank, M1A1’, while the ‘Combat Car, M1’ was renamed ‘Light Tank, M1A2’. The Combat Car, M2 was a similar vehicle project that ran parallel with the original M1. The precise name designation is somewhat confusing in the sources. On the other hand, B. Perrett (Stuart Light Tank Series) mentioned that the M1 became M1A1 while the M2 became M1A2. Ellis and Chamberlain (Light Tanks M1-M5) state that the use of the term ‘combat cars’ began to disappear much earlier, starting from 1937.

Specifications

Hull

The M1 had a rather simple hull design which was divided into a few compartments. The front-drive compartment, where the drive units and the transmission were located, was the first. It was protected by an angled upper glacis plate. On its left side, a round-shaped opening for the hull machine gun ball mount was placed. In the center of the hull was the fully protected crew compartment with the turret on top. Lastly, to the rear, was the engine compartment.

A drawing of the M1’s interior. The positions of components, such as the front drive unit, central crew compartment, and rear-positioned engine, can be clearly seen here. Source: Pinterest

Another illustration of the M1 with much more detail included. The M1, similarly to all US light tanks, had a very simple construction which enabled them to be later mass-produced in great numbers. Source: R. P. Hunnicutt Stuart A History of the American Light Tank

Engine

The M1 was powered by a series of modified and improved engines, including the Continental R-670-3M, R-670-3C, R-670-5, and W670-7 engines. The power available from these engines ranged from 235 to 250 hp@2,400 rpm. With a fuel load of 190 liters and a weight of slightly more than 8.5 tonnes, the M1 Combat Car’s operational range was 190 km on roads and 100 km cross-country. The engine compartment was enclosed and the rear part was covered by a large ventilation grid. The maximum speed of the M1 was an excellent 72 km/h, while the cross-country speed was lower, at 32 km/h.

Different variations of the Continental W-670 engine would be tested on the M1 tanks, during its service life. Source: https://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/continentalmotors.htm

Suspension

The M1 used a relatively new volute type of spring suspension (VVSS). This consisted of two bogies with two doubled wheels per side. These were suspended using vertical volute springs. It also consisted of the front-drive sprocket, three return rollers, and the rear-positioned idler. The front-drive sprocket had 14 track guiding teeth. The tracks were 295 mm wide and had a ground contact length of around 2.9 m.

A good view of the M1’s rear engine compartment. The M1 was provided with a volute type of spring suspension that consisted of two dual-wheel bogies per side. Source: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/04/combat-car-m1-armour-for-american.html

Superstructure

The M1’s superstructure had a simple box-shaped design. Both the superstructure and turret armor were constructed using face-hardened steel and connected using rivets. The front driver’s plate had a single two-piece rectangular-shaped hatch which also acted as the driver’s vision port. On the right side, next to it, the driver’s assistant was also provided with a larger rectangular-shaped vision port. The front driver’s plate actually protruded slightly out of the rest of the superstructure. This allowed the addition of two smaller vision ports on both sides of the vehicle. The superstructure sides were usually used to store various tools and equipment.

The driver’s front plate had two large rectangular-shaped vision ports which could be opened to provide an excellent view for both the driver and his assistant. This was obviously not usable in a combat situation. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/m1/combat-car-m1/

Turret

The M1’s turret design was reused from the earlier T4E1 project. It was D-shaped, with a flat side and rear armor, while the front plate was angled backward. There were two observation ports placed on each side, with one more to the rear. The machine guns were positioned in the front openings. To the rear of the turret, an anti-aircraft machine gun mount was placed. No commander’s cupola was provided to these vehicles. On the top, a large hatch for the turret crew was located to the rear. The turret ring diameter was 1,210 mm.

The first production vehicle of the Combat Car, M1 used a D-shaped turret. Source: R. P. Hunnicutt Stuart A History of the American Light Tank

The last 30 vehicles received a simplified 8-sided turret. This was primarily meant to reduce costs and simplify the whole production. The production of curved armored plates was deemed unnecessarily complex and costly to do.

Some 30 vehicles received a simplified 8-sided turret. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/m1/combat-car-m1/

Armament

Nominally, the M1’s armament consisted of a single 12.7 mm M2 heavy machine gun and three 7.62 mm machine guns. The heavy machine gun was placed on the left side of the turret, while one 7.62 mm machine gun was on the right side. One machine gun was located on the right side of the hull, with one more stored inside, which could be used for anti-aircraft duties.

Depending on the need, this configuration and the type of machine guns and mounts used could change. For example, the heavy machine gun could be removed or replaced with a 7.62 mm machine gun. For the hull ball mount, both the M2 or M1919A4 7.62 mm type machine guns could be used. In addition, one .45 caliber Thompson submachine gun was provided for the crew’s protection. The ammunition load consisted of 1,100 rounds for the 12.7 mm, 6,700 for the 7.62 mm, and 500 rounds for the Thomson.

For engaging targets, an M5 or M1918A2 telescopic sight could be used.

A side view of the hull position machine gun mount. Source: R. P. Hunnicutt Stuart A History of the American Light Tank

During the production run, some vehicles received a smaller ball mount for the hull machine gun. Source: R. P. Hunnicutt Stuart A History of the American Light Tank

The turret was armed with a pair of machine guns. This armament may have been sufficient for the interwar years, but totally inadequate for WW2. The US Army would eventually replace it with a 37 mm gun in later models. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/m1/combat-car-m1/

To the rear of the turret, an anti-aircraft gun mount was positioned for the turret crew to use a machine gun in an attempt to fight off enemy-attacking aircraft. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/m1/combat-car-m1/

Armor

The M1’s frontal hull armor was 16 mm thick, with the upper glacis placed at a 69º angle. The driver’s plate was also 16 mm thick and placed at a 17º angle. The hull and superstructure side armor was the same, at 13 mm, while the bottom, rear, and top armor were only 6 mm thick. The turret had all-around armor of 16 mm, with a steeply angled front at 30º. The roof was only 6 mm thick.

Crew

The M1 had a crew of four: commander, gunner, driver, and driver’s assistant. The commander and the gunner were positioned in the turret. The remaining two crew were placed inside the vehicle, with the driver to the left and the driver’s assistant to his right. The driver assistant’s role was to act as a replacement if the main driver was disabled or, in the worst case, killed. Besides that, he was to operate the hull-positioned machine gun.

Despite its small size, the M1 had a crew of four. While not perfect, it was an improvement over some other tanks of the era, such as the French tanks that had a two or three-man crew. Source: R. P. Hunnicutt Stuart A History of the American Light Tank

Further Development of the M1

M1E1

In 1936, the T5 Combat Car was tested with a new engine. Its Continental gasoline engine was replaced with an air-cooled Guiberson T-1020 model radial diesel engine. This engine produced 220 hp@2,200rpm. Some three M1 tanks would be modified and re-equipped with this new engine. These received M1E1 (T5E3) designations and would be used for testing at Fort Knox in early 1937.

M1E2

In summer 1937, further tests and modifications were carried out on the M1 tanks. One tank was extensively modified, receiving a completely redesigned rear engine compartment. This was mainly done to provide the crews with easier access to the engine. In addition, the fuel load was also increased. Another major change was the use of a redesigned suspension to reduce wobbling. The rear idler was moved further to the back. The distance between the two boogies was increased. In addition, the number of return rollers was reduced to two. This experimental model received the M1E2 designation. Interestingly, given its experimental nature, the modified engine compartment was made by using simple soft steel plates.

Once ready, this vehicle was sent to Aberdeen Proving Grounds to be tested. The tests were carried out from 3rd August to 5th October 1937. It was noted that the modified suspension offered better stability during firing and overall driving. The negative aspect was that it required a slight increase in steering effort. The modification to the engine compartment was also seen as an improvement, as it offered easier access for repairs. Once the test was completed, the single vehicle was modified back to the M1’s original configuration.

This improvement attempt was deemed successful, and the decision was made in 1938 that additional vehicles would be built using these improvements. Some 24 to 34 such vehicles would be built under the M1A1 designation. These were equipped with eight-sided turrets. In addition, at least 7 vehicles known as M1A1E1 were equipped with Guiberson engines.

The M1A1 Combat Car would later be redesignated as the M1A1 Light Tank. This version formed the basis for the later and T7 Combat Car.

Side view of the M1E2 prototype. Source: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/04/combat-car-m1-armour-for-american.html

A small number of M1A1 would be built with the modified suspension and the eight-sided turret. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/m1/combat-car-m1/

M1E3

In late 1938, the M1E3 vehicle was tested. This was basically an M1 with a modified suspension in order to use T27 rubber band tracks. In addition, there were improvements to the transmission, and lowering of the drive shaft. The lower-positioned drive shaft was desirable and was decided to be implemented in vehicles built in 1940. As this would cause huge delays in production, it was decided to temporarily not adopt this feature. By that time, the M2 Light Tank version was being adopted for service in ever-increasing numbers due to the ongoing war in Europe. There were plans to modernize the available M1 tanks to the M2 standard and be designated as M1A2 Combat Cars. Interestingly, the M1E3 prototype was to be used as a base for a self-propelled artillery vehicle armed with a 75 mm howitzer. The project HMC T17, as it was known, never materialized beyond the drawing board.

The M1E3 was tested with a new rubber band track, which was not adopted for service. Source: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/04/combat-car-m1-armour-for-american.html

In 1940, due to development in Europe and demands for more tanks, some attempts were made to further increase the performance of tanks such as the M1. According to the Protective Mobilization Plan, it was recommended that some 88 M1 tanks had to be reequipped with new turrets, which were to be provided with protective periscopes that were to replace vision slots. Due to a lack of funds, this was never implemented.

T5E4

Another T5 project, known as T5E4, was used to test the modified suspension in late 1937. The rear volute bogie was replaced with a new torsion bar unit. In addition, the rear idler was replaced with a new trailing idler which was placed on the ground. This helped reduce the overall ground pressure. Testing was conducted in early 1938. The results were positive, as the new idler provided better stability during the firing of the gun and driving. The torsion bar unit was also deemed positive, but the main problem was its durability, and as a result was not suggested for production. The engine was replaced with a 150 hp T-570-1 and later with a W-670. This vehicle was not provided with a turret during testing.

The T5E4 served as a testbed for a new modified suspension. The use of a low-placed idler increased the stability of the vehicle and would be adopted in the later production version of the M3. The torsion bar, while providing a good ride, had problems with durability and was not adopted. Source: R. P. Hunnicutt Stuart A History of the American Light Tank

Production

The production of the M1 was carried out by Rock Island Arsenal. In the sources there are slight disagrement about the precise production numbers and the dates.

Year of production *	Prodcution numbers
1935	38
1936	19
1937	32
In total	89
According to R. P. Hunnicutt (Stuart A History of the American Light Tank)

It began in 1935, with 38 vehicles being built that year. In 1936, only 16 were made, while in 1937, when the production ended, a further 32 were built. In total, M1 Combat Cars would be built, according to

Year of production *	Prodcution numbers
1935	33
1936	23
1937	30
In total	86
According to S. J. Zaloga (Early US Armor 1916 to 1940)

D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata-SAD) mentions that, while 89 were built, production began in 1935 and lasted until 1937.

In 1937 and 1938, a small production run of the slightly improved M1A1 was carried out. In total, for this version, only 24 to 34 vehicles were built.

In Service

The first Combat Car, M1s would be allocated to the 1st Cavalry Division. These would be used during the second Army summer maneuvers in 1936. One of the largest such military exercises was the Louisiana Maneuvers held in 1941. The M1 tanks would not be used in any combat action. Instead, they would mainly perform the role of training vehicles up to 1942, before finally being removed from service.

An M1 from the 7th Cavalry Brigade at the Army maneuvers in 1940. Source: C. Ellis and P. Chamberlain Light Tanks M1-M5

General Patton posing in front of an M1 during the Louisiana Maneuvers of 1941. Source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/486248091023765145/

A group of US Civil War veterans curiously examine an M1 tank at the World’s Fair in New York. The technological advancements between the US Civil War and WW2 were outstanding. Source: Wikipedia

Conclusion

The M1 was one of the first successful American light tank designs that were put into production in some numbers. While not perfect, it, together with the later M2 Light Tank, would eventually lead to the creation of the M3 and M5 light tank series. Besides its importance as the first stepping stone in light tank development, the M1 played an important role in providing US tank crews with the necessary training for their overseas deployment during WW2.

M1 Combat Car at Fort Raily, Kansas, 1940. The M1 and its derivatives never left the American soil. They were kept for training and drilling exercises.

M1A1 light tank of an unidentified training unit, 1941. This variant (17 built in 1937) received a new octagonal turret. The hull was 40 cm longer (to 4.44 m – 17 ft 7 in) and the two bogies were farther apart. The next M1A1E1 (7 produced) received a new Guiberson diesel engine. They led to the development of the M2 light tank.

M1 Light Tank Technical specifications
Crew	Commander, gunner, driver, and driver Assistant
Weight	8.5 tonnes
Dimensions	Length 4.14, Width 2.4, Height 2.26 m
Engine	Different types of power ranging from 235 to 250 hp@ 2,400 rpm
Speed	72 km/h, 32 km/h (cross-country)
Range	190 km, 100 km (cross-country)
Primary Armament	12.7 mm M2 heavy machine gun
Secondary Armament	Three 7.62 mm machine guns
Armor	6-16 mm

Source

S. J. Zaloga (1999) M3 and M5 Stuart Light Tank 1940-45, Osprey Publishing
S. J. Zaloga (2017) Early US Armor 1916 to 1940, Osprey Publishing
C. Ellis and P. Chamberlain (1972) Light Tanks M1-M5, Profile Publication
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata-SAD, Beograd
R. P. Hunnicutt (1992) Stuart A History of the American Light Tank, Presidio
T. Berndt (1994) American Tanks Of World War Two, MBI Publishing Company
B. Perrett (1980) Stuart Light Tank Series, Osprey Publishing
Popular Science (1935) “Popular Mechanics”

Modern Serbian Prototypes

M09 105 mm Armored Truck-Mounted Howitzer

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date March 27, 2023
2 Comments on M09 105 mm Armored Truck-Mounted Howitzer

M09 105 mm Armored truck-mounted howitzer. Illustration by Hans.

Republic of Serbia (2009)
Self-Propelled Howitzer – Possibly Only 1 Prototype Built

After Serbia became independent in 2006, its Army inherited stocks of various equipment and weapons left over from Yugoslavia. These included older artillery pieces, such as the 105 mm M-56 howitzer. Given the availability of this howitzer, the engineers from the Serbian Yugoimport company tried to develop a self-propelled vehicle equipped with this gun. In order to make the whole project as cheap to develop as possible, this howitzer was simply placed on a modified military truck chassis. This created a vehicle known as the M09 105 mm armored truck-mounted howitzer.

The M09 105 mm self-propelled howitzer. Source: Wiki

History and Context of the Project

During the mid-2000s, the Serbian Army began to be interested in the development of cheap self-propelled vehicles that could be built using available components, such as the chassis and the main weapon. The Yugoimport company began building and developing a series of such vehicles. Yugoimport (Југоимпорт СДПР Ј.П) was founded back in 1949, with the intention of acquiring the necessary military equipment for the JNA (Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija, Yugoslav People’s Army) from abroad. After 1953, Jugoimport expanded the scope of its business to the export of domestic military equipment. In 2006, Jugoimport was reorganized and became a Serbian state-owned public enterprise.

One of their projects included installing the aging 105 mm M56/33 howitzer on a 6×6 truck chassis. While using a tracked chassis would provide better off-road driving capabilities, it would also raise the price and prolong the development time needed to build such a vehicle. A truck chassis, on the other hand, was quite cheap and could be easily adapted for this role. The gun choice mainly lay in its availability and, while it lacked sufficient firepower, it was hoped that its rate of fire would make up for this shortcoming.

Name

The official designation for this vehicle was the M09 105 mm armored truck-mounted howitzer. For the sake of simplicity, this article will refer to it as simply M09.

Development of the M09

Unfortunately, the M09 is quite poorly documented, especially regarding its development history. It appears to have been a private venture of Yugoimport as an attempt to create a cheap self-propelled vehicle. The M09 was intended to provide fast mobile fire support to rapid deployment forces of different unit strengths, from brigade to battalion level. Thanks to its small caliber and large ammunition storage, it was meant to saturate the designated target with sufficient firepower before retreating to avoid any potential counter-response from the enemy. Another interesting feature is that its low overall weight allowed it to be transported by air. The sources do not specify the precise time during which the whole project was carried out. This vehicle name M09 gives an indication that its development likely began sometime at the end of the 2000s.

One of the first public appearances of the M09 was during the ‘Partner 2011’ (Партнер) Arms Fair held in the Serbian capital, Belgrade. While some sources mention that the M09 was first publicly shown during the military fair in 2013, this is not true, as there are photographs of it from 2011.

The M09 during the 2011 Partner military fair. It can barely be seen between two other self-propelled vehicles (SORA to the right and NORA to the left). Source: Magazine Arsenal number 55

Technical Characteristics

Chassis

The truck chassis which was used for this vehicle is not listed in the sources (as are, in general, all other major details). Given its appearance, it was likely based on the FAP2026 BS/AB 6×6 all-terrain wheeled truck. This was a vehicle domestically developed and built by the FAP (Fabrika Automobila Priboj) factory beginning in the late 1970s. It was primarily designed to act as a towing vehicle for a number of artillery pieces. It could also be used to transport troops and materials, with up to 6 tonnes capacity. The M09 could be customized to use on any available 6×6 military truck chassis for potential buyers.

The M09 chassis was probably reinforced and strengthened in order to withstand the firing recoil of the main gun. The M09 was a light vehicle, at only 12 tonnes. Its maximum speed was 90 km/h, while the operational range was 450 km.

Serbian FAP2026 BS/AB, the truck which was probably used for the M09 modification. Source: Wiki

Main Armament

The main armament chosen for this vehicle was the 105 mm M-56 howitzer. This weapon was domestically produced during the 1950s in Yugoslavia. It was developed mostly using components from the German 10.5 cm leFH 18/40 but also modified to be able to use ammunition from the American M2 howitzer. Some of these survived up to the 2000s, when they were modernized, receiving new ammunition, a longer barrel, and modifications to breach lock and muzzle brake. The maximum firing range, depending on the ammunition used, was from nearly 12 km to 18.1 km. The modified howitzer was designated the M-56/33.

The modernized M-56/33 howitzer. Source WIki

During the installation of the M-56/33 howitzer on the M09, its wheels and trail legs were removed. The main weapon was placed to the rear of the truck chassis, where the previous flatbed was replaced with a simple flat firing platform. The howitzer was then placed on a simple round-shaped mount which allowed full rotation of this weapon. The gun and its crew were protected by an enlarged gun shield that fully protected them from the front and sides.

The elevation of the M09 main gun was -10° to +62°. While the M09’s main gun could make a 360° turn, its firing arc was actually facing to the rear. Firing to the sides or front (over the crew compartment) could potentially overturn the vehicle. As there was no automated loading system, each round had to be loaded manually. The firing speed was 6 to 7 rounds per minute.

The gun crew was protected by an enlarged gun shield. Source: https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m09-105-mm-armored-truck-mounted-howitzer

The ammunition load consisted of 60 rounds. These were stored in two storage bins located just below the armored crew compartment. During traveling, the gun would be positioned between the two ammunition storage bins.

Close-up view of one of the M09 ammunition bins. Source: https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m09-105-mm-armored-truck-mounted-howitzer

Given its relatively small weight, in order to provide stability during firing, two manually operated support legs had to be lowered. In addition, there are two small stabilizers located to the rear, and these too had to be manually lowered. Despite this, with a skilled crew, the M09 needed some 2 minutes to deploy. The reverse process was a bit longer, at 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The manual lowering/raising of the support legs left the crew exposed from potential enemy counter-fire.

Prior to firing, the crew had to disembark and manually lower or raise each of the four supporting legs. Source: https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m09-105-mm-armored-truck-mounted-howitzer

All four support legs are lowered to prepare the M09 ready for firing. Source: https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m09-105-mm-armored-truck-mounted-howitzer

For self-defense, the M09 was provided with a small manually rotating turret armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun which was mounted on top of the crew compartment. This small turet was protected from the front and back and had open sides and top. Based on the photographs during its development, two types of turrets were employed. Initially, the front of this turret was protected by angled two-piece armor. The later version had a much simpler one-piece angled armor. The armament itself was also changed. Initially, a 12.7 mm Browning was used, later being replaced by a domestically produced M87 of the same caliber. Besides the heavy machine gun, the crew was also armed with their personal weapons.

A close-up view of the initial heavy machine gun turret employed early in the M09’s development phase. It can be easily identified by the two-piece frontal armor, placed at a high angle. Source: https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m09-105-mm-armored-truck-mounted-howitzer

At some point, the turret would be slightly redesigned, incorporating a domestically-built heavy machine gun. Source: https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m09-105-mm-armored-truck-mounted-howitzer

Armor

The M09’s main driver compartment was protected from 7.62 x 51 mm NATO caliber rounds and shrapnel. The gun and the gun operators were protected by a larger gun shield. The M09 was quite lightly armored, its speed and mobility being its best defense.

Crew Compartment

The M09 crew compartment was placed at the front of the vehicle and it also covered the whole engine compartment. The crew compartment had a simple box shape, with the top slightly curving inwards. This area also received a number of modifications during the vehicle’s development history. Initially, the front armor plate was placed at a high angle, which offered better protection. This design was not accepted for some reason, as it was replaced with a more box-shaped front. There were two doors on opposite sides for the crews to access it. Besides the larger two-piece windshield, there were also four smaller windows placed in pairs on each side, two of which were on the doors. Behind the crew compartment, two ammunition storage bins were placed.

Initially, the M09’s crew compartment front armor plate was placed at a high angle to provide better protection. Source: https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m09-105-mm-armored-truck-mounted-howitzer

This was later replaced with a more box-shaped front. Source: https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m09-105-mm-armored-truck-mounted-howitzer

Crew

The M09 had a crew of five. However, sadly, the sources do not specify the precise role of each one. The roles likely included a commander, a gunner, a driver, a loader, and a gunner assistant. These would be seated inside the front protected cabin when driving. The rear gun compartment had room for three crew members. The gunner was positioned to the left of the gun, with the gunner assistant on the right and behind them the loader. The gunner assistant manually opened and closed the breechblock and may have also helped the loader. The gunner assistant could fire the gun. The gun platform was quite cramped, with limited room for the operators. They were placed on two seats that were connected with the whole gun mount, so they rotated with it. The commander and the driver would remain in the crew compartment. The commander probably was the one that operates the top-mounted machine gun.

The rear-positioned gun compartment offered room for three crew members. Source: https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m09-105-mm-armored-truck-mounted-howitzer

Side view of the three crew members that operate the M-66/33 howitzer. Source: https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m09-105-mm-armored-truck-mounted-howitzer

The Fate of the Project

How many M09s were built is unknown, but likely only a single prototype was constructed. The M09 was presented on numerous military fairs and exhibitions after 2011 but failed to gain any foreign interest. The Serbian Army also did not adopt it, mainly because it was more focused on the larger and more advanced NORA self-propelled series. One of the recent events where the M09 was presented was during a visit by a military delegation from the Kingdom of Bahrain held in Serbia in April 2021. As the M09 did not gain any foreign interest and it appears that it will not be adopted by the Serbian Army, its final fate currently is unknown, but it is likely that it will be abandoned.

The much smaller M09 can be seen in the left corner of this picture. It is dwarfed by the two larger NORA self-propelled guns. The NORA is much better armed has a better overall design and even achieved some export success while also being adopted for service in the Serbian Army. Its smaller cousin’s fate is uncertain. Source: https://tangosix.rs/2021/13/04/foto-reportaza-analiziramo-novitete-na-batajnickom-prikazu-za-bahrein/

Conclusion

The M09, while being designed to be cheap and simple to operate, did not manage to gain any foreign interest. Given that it uses an outdated and generally weak main gun, this is not surprising. While it is not uncommon to find manually loaded self-propelled guns, modern armies have gravitated more and more towards much more sophisticated weapon systems than the M09. Armies that have smaller budgets may find the M09 appealing, but for now, none have actually shown interest in it. While its final fate is uncertain, it is likely that it will remain just a simple proposal and testbed for the Serbian engineers.

M09 105 mm Armored truck-mounted howitzer. Illustration by Hans.

M09 Technical specification
Crew	Commander, gunner, gunner assistant, loader, and the driver
Weight	tonnes 12 tonnes
Dimensions	6.85 x 2.3 x 3.15 m
Engine	Mercedes OM 402188 kW @ 2500 rpm
Speed	90 km/h
Range	450 km
Primary Armament	105 mm M56/33 howitzer
Secondary Armament	12.7 mm M87 heavy machine gun
Elevation	-10° to +62°
Armor	Lightly protected

Sources

B. B. Dumitrijević and D. Savić (2011) Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945, Institut za savremenu istoriju, Beograd
M. Radić (2009) Arsenal Specijalno Izdanje Magazina ODBRANA 25 and 26
http://www.vti.mod.gov.rs/index.php?view=actuality&type=reference&category=1&id=113
https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m09-105-mm-armored-truck-mounted-howitzer
https://www.armyrecognition.com/serbia_serbian_army_artillery_vehicles_systems_uk/m09_105mm_6x6_armoured_truck-mounted_howitzer_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html
https://galetovaputesestvija.com/2017/10/20/sloboda-2017/?sr_pismo=lat

WW2 Soviet SPG Prototypes

T-27 37 mm Projects

T-27 37 mm. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Soviet Union (1931)
Experimental Self-Propelled Gun – At Least 2 Prototypes Built, Possibly A Small Production Series

During the 1920s, the Soviet Army was rather poorly armed and equipped. As it was slowly built, the need for armored vehicles, such as tanks, arose. The initial attempt to develop domestic tank design failed, as the Soviets lacked experience in designing such vehicles. For this, a military delegation was dispatched to countries, including the United States and Great Britain, in hope of acquiring a foreign design that was to be built under licenses. From Britain, the license for the Carden-Loyd tankette was acquired. The Soviets further improved this design, which led to the creation of the T-27 tankette. As it was only armed with a machine gun, the Soviets wanted to increase its firepower by adding a 37 mm gun, creating a small series of experimental vehicles.

The experimental T-27 was armed with a 37 mm gun. Source: Svirin M. N. Самоходки Сталина. История советской САУ 1919-1945

The T-27’s Brief History

During the 1920s, the Soviet armored forces were in a process of reorganization and rearmament. Initial Soviet attempts to develop armored vehicles were rather unuseful, and only smaller series were built. The first domestically built tank, the T-18 (MS-1), was adopted in small numbers to service in July 1927. Soviet industry was experiencing constant delays in delivery and poor quality of production. In November 1929, Управление по механизации и моторизации – YMM (English: Department of Mechanization and Motorization – UMM) instructed that the current development situation was unfeasible in the near future. To remedy this situation, YMM was instructed to seek technological help abroad.

On 30th December 1929, a commission led by the head of the UMM, Innokentii Khalepskii, went abroad. The plan was to visit Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Great Britain, and US in order to purchase technologies and armaments. The negotiation with Great Britain proved most promising, as the Soviets managed to purchase a few different tank designs, including the Vickers Carden-Loyd tankettes, the Vickers-Armstrong 6-ton, and the Mk.II medium tanks.

Vickers Carden-Loyd tankette. Source: panzerserra.blogspot.com

Some of the newly acquired Carden-Loyd Mk.VI tankettes were sent to Zavod No.37, a factory in Moscow. There, an engineering team led by N. Kozyrev examined this vehicle in great detail, in order to be put into production as quickly as possible. The Soviet engineers were generally satisfied with this vehicle, but noted a number of shortcomings. Consequently, they implemented a series of improvements (such as modifications to the suspension, adding a stronger engine, etcetera) before the vehicle under the name T-27 was finally accepted for service.
The T-27 was basically a two-man tankette armed with one DT 7.62 mm machine gun. Its production began in 1931, and by the time the production stopped in 1933, slightly fewer than 3,300 had been built (the precise number differs greatly between sources). Given their obsolescence, the T-27 did not stay long in active service, as it was replaced by much more modern tank designs. The T-27s were allocated for crew training, but during the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, many would be put into service. They performed poorly due to their weak armament and armor.

T-27 in Soviet Service. Source: www.worldwarphotos

Improving Firepower

While the T-27 filled the gap of a lack of armored vehicles, its potential combat effectiveness was limited due to its weak armament and its general configuration which lacked a turret. As they were available in great numbers, discarding them was not a proper solution. On the other hand, increasing their overall combat performance by adding new armament was something that the Soviet Army considered doing.

For this reason, in October 1930, an official order was issued that such modification be implemented. The following year, a design team led by K.K. Sirken from the Leningrad Bolshevik, began the first steps to do exactly that. The overall T-27 design was to remain the same, with the exception of the vehicle’s right superstructure, where some modification would be required in order to fit the larger gun. This would lead to the creation of two prototypes. These received slightly different armament rearrangements. In addition, the first prototype used a four-wheel suspension, while the latter used the more common six-wheel suspension. Due to the rather short development time, this project appears to have received no official designation.

Design

Hull

The hull of this vehicle could be divided into three compartments or sections. The front-mounted transmission with the drive unit, the central engine compartment, and the two fully enclosed crew positions (opposite of the engine).

Engine

The engine from this T-27 modification was unchanged. It was powered by a Ford four-cylinder petrol, water-cooled engine delivering 40 hp @ 2,200 rpm. The T-27’s maximum speed with this engine was around 35 km/h, while the operational range was 110 km and 60 km cross-country. The weight of this vehicle was 2.7 tonnes. The modified versions with the extra added weight likely had slightly worse overall driver performance.

Suspension

The T-27 was used in two similar suspension configurations. One used the original 4 road wheels placed on a suspension cradle. In addition, there was a front drive sprocket and rear idler. The road wheels were placed in par on bogies which were suspended using simple flat leaf springs. The Soviets were not satisfied with this design, so they improved it by adding another pair of wheels.

The T-27’s suspension consisted of six road wheels, one front drive sprocket, and a rear-positioned idler. There was no return roller, instead, a simple guiding rod was used for the upper track section. Source: www.globalsecurity.org

The first prototype armed with the 37 mm gun used a four-wheel suspension. While there is very little information on these vehicles’ overall construction, thanks to surviving photographs, it is possible to identify that some structural changes were made. Given the recoil force of the gun, the integral structure of the suspension had to be strong. The part of the suspension cradle that held the rear idler was reinforced. Lastly, the upper track guiding rod was replaced with two simple return rollers.

The first attempt to modify a T-37 led to the use of a strengthened four-wheel suspension. Two small return rollers were used on this prototype, Source: A.G. Solyankin Отечественные бронированные машины.

This arrangement appears to have been insufficient for this modified vehicle. So, on the second prototype, a six-wheel suspension was used. It also received extensive structural improvement to better cope with the gun’s recoil. Its suspension cradle appears to have been slightly larger than on a standard T-27 vehicle. While the two upper return rollers remained, they appear to have received some kind of leaf spring addition.

The suspension on the second prototype was even further improved, in order to better cope with the new gun installation. Source: Svirin M. N. Самоходки Сталина. История советской САУ 1919-1945

Rear view of the modified T-27. Source: coollib.com

Superstructure

The superstructure is another part of the vehicle that was heavily modified. Originally, the T-27 had a simple box shape superstructure that covered most parts of the vehicle. The crew’s head (and the engine’s top) were protected by a pyramidal-shaped hatch. In front of the crew compartment, there was a hatch placed on the upper glacis that provided access to their transmission unit. The T-27 was built using simple plates connected using bolts.

The driver and the gunner positions were protected by two pyramidal-shaped hatches Source: www.worldwarphotos

The right part of the superstructure, where the machine gun port was originally located, was redesigned in order to fit the larger gun inside of it. This part was greatly extended forward to provide room for the gun mount. Not much is detailed in the sources about this new superstructure’s design. We can assume though, that due to the T-27’s small size, it would be quite cramped and difficult for the gunner to operate this gun.

To accommodate the gun and provide the gunner with working space, the left side of the vehicle’s superstructure was enlarged. Note the trailer which was used to store additional ammunition. Source: http://battlefield.ru/content/view/72/50/lang,en/

Armament

The initial armament of the T-27 consisted of only one 7.62 mm DT machine gun. This proved to be completely inadequate and was the main reason why this project was initiated. Instead, the Soviet designers wanted to install a 37 mm gun. Two guns were initially considered: the PS-2 and the B-3. Due to delays in production, neither of them was available for use.

As a replacement, a 37 mm Hotchkiss which was in service by the Soviet Army was chosen instead. In the first prototype, this gun was placed in the enlarged gunner position. The overall construction and the general characteristic of this gun mounted on the modified T-27 are not specified in the sources. What is known is that the performance of this vehicle was poor. The chassis became overburdened with the added weight of the gun, ammunition, and extra armor. It was noted that the ammunition for the main gun took up too much space inside the vehicle. As a temporary solution, a trailer was to be used to transport additional ammunition.

The front view of the first prototype. Source: http://battlefield.ru/content/view/72/50/lang,en/

The second prototype received more modifications in order to provide more working room for the gun. The Soviet engineers were a bit overambitious, as they added a machine gun to this vehicle. For this reason, the main gun was placed in a lower position. Above it, a Degtyaryov 7.62 mm DT machine gun was placed on a ball mount. The machine gun could be operated independently of the main gun. In theory, this would provide armament to deal with the enemy armor and infantry. Realistically, this arrangement proved too much for the small vehicle and cumbersome to use.

The second prototype had its gun placed in the lower position. Above it, a machine gun ball mount was placed. Source: http://battlefield.ru/content/view/72/50/lang,en/

Crew

The crew consisted of only two: the commander/gunner and the driver. The driver’s position was on the left and the gunner was on the other side. This arrangement was not changed on the modified T-27. Interestingly, on the second prototype, the Soviets tested the use of dual controls, meaning that both crew members could drive should the need arise.

The small size of the T-27 is evident here. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/ussr/tanks-2/t-27/

Armor

Given its slight weight and small size, the T-27 was only lightly protected. The armor thickness of the front armor was 9 mm, the side and rear were 8 mm thick, the bottom was 4 mm, and the top was 6 mm thick. There is no mention in the sources that the armor of the modified T-27 was changed. This level of protection ensured that the vehicle was protected against small arms fire and shell splinters, but little else.

Ultimate Fate

After a series of examinations, it quickly became obvious that this concept was flawed. The gun was simply too heavy for the chassis. The use of machine gun placed above the gun was difficult to operate. The added weight led to engine overheating problems. As a result, the project was rather quickly terminated. It is not clear if any additional vehicles were built beside the two already mentioned prototypes. Some sources, such as D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-SSSR) mention that a small production run was made.

Despite the cancellation of this project, the experimenting with stronger armament on the T-27 continued. An installation of a recoilless gun on the right side of the vehicle was tested. In addition, a modified version with a 76.2 cm gun installed to the vehicle’s rear was also built. None of these entered productions and any further work on improving the armament of the T-27 was discontinued.

A prototype armed with a recoilless gun. Source: coollib.com

Mounting an infantry support gun on the T-27 also proved futile. Source: coollib.com

Conclusion

While the whole concept of rearming the older design with a stronger gun was sound, in reality, this was impossible to achieve. The T-27’s chassis was simply too small and weak. The 37 mm armed T-27 project was essentially doomed from the start. The gun weight and its recoil were probably too much for the small chassis. In addition, the working space inside it was quite limited to effectively operate this gun. This ultimately led to the cancellation of this project, but at least, it offered some experience to the Soviet tank engineers.

The first modified T-37 used a strengthened four-wheel suspension. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

T-27 37 mm second prototype The suspension was further improved, in order to better cope with the new gun installation. In addition, an installation of a machine gun was tested. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

T-27 with the 37 mm gun Technical specification
Crew	Commander/Gunner, and Driver
Weight	over 2.7 tonnes
Dimensions	Length 2.65 m, Width 1.83 m, Height 1.47 m
Engine	44 hp Ford petrol engine
Speed	45 km/h
Primary Armament	37 mm gun
Secondary Armament	One 7.62 mm DT machine gun (second prototype)
Armor	6 to 9 mm

Source

S. J. Zaloga and J. Grandsen (1984) Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicle of World War Two, Lionel Leventhal
T. Bean and W. Fowler (2002) Russian Tanks Of World War II MBI Publishing Company
Svirin M. N. (2008) Самоходки Сталина. История советской САУ 1919-1945, Эксмо
A.G. Solyankin (2002) Отечественные бронированные машины. XX век Том 1, Цейхгауз
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-SSSR, Beograd
http://battlefield.ru/content/view/72/50/lang,en/
https://www.armedconflicts.com/T-27-t6527

Has Own Video WW2 German StuG III

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm Sturmgeschütz 40 Ausführung F/8 (Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.F/8)

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date March 11, 2023
3 Comments on Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm Sturmgeschütz 40 Ausführung F/8 (Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.F/8)

StuG III Ausf.F/8. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

German Reich (1942)
Self-Propelled Assault Gun – 250 Built

Following the success of the StuG III Ausf.F, the Germans introduced yet another slightly improved version in September 1942. While, in most regards, the new version was a direct copy of its predecessor, the main difference was the use of the extended hull taken from the late production Panzer III series. This led to the introduction of the StuG III Ausf.F/8 vehicle. While not many would be produced, it was the last stepping stone before the introduction of the later mass-produced StuG III Ausf.G.

StuG III Ausf.F/8. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/stug-3/

New Version

During the first year of fighting on the Eastern Front, the Germans found out that their anti-tank weapons lacked potency against Soviet armor. This issue was finally resolved with the introduction of long barreled 7.5 cm guns, either in a vehicle or towed configuration. The first model (7.5 cm L/43) of such a gun was installed inside the Panzer IV turret and in StuG III vehicles. The StuG Ausf.F particularly proved to be a deadly vehicle, being fully protected, with a low silhouette and highly trained crews. As it was based on the Panzer III chassis, it was logical that any larger improvement and modification of the base chassis would also be implemented on the StuG III. This led to the creation of the Ausf.F/8. It was simply a further extended production order of the previous version, but with an improved hull and a number of minor changes.

Name

Regarding its designation, this version was a bit of an outsider. It received the Ausführung F/8 designation, which referred to the base chassis of the Panzer III Ausf.J, or 8.Serie/Z.W.. It is unusual that the Germans did not give it the Ausf.G designation regardless of the implemented changes. For example, the Ausf.C and D were almost identical, and the latter was just an extended order, still receiving different capital letter designations.

Production

The production of the Ausf.F/8 began in September and ended in December 1942. By that time, some 250 (chassis number 91401 to 91650) vehicles were built by Alkett. Of course, like with many other German vehicles, its production numbers differ between sources. The previously mentioned number of 250 built vehicles is most commonly used in the sources, one example being Panzer Tracts No.23 Panzer Production from 1933 to 1945. On the other hand, some authors, such as D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata-Nemačka), mention the number of 334 vehicles being built. This number is also listed in the older book written by P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition) way back in 1978. It is highly likely that this number is outdated and, thanks to more recent research, it has become obsolete.

Design

Hull

The StuG III Ausf.F/8 hull was greatly redesigned, being further extended to the back. This was done to provide better ventilation to the engine compartment and, to some extent, facilitate the overall production. The rear part was simplified and protected with two armored plates. The upper plate had a small round port that could be used to manually start the engine. The previously used bolted towing brackets were removed. Instead, the towing bracket holes were drilled into the hull.

The StuG III Ausf.F/8 used the hull taken directly from the Panzer III Ausf.J (and later series) vehicles. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/stug-3/

The new hull incorporated an extended rear part in order to provide better ventilation of the engine compartment. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

The two upper glacis two-part hatches were replaced with larger single-piece hatches. In November 1942, this decision was reversed, once again using two-piece hatches. Lastly, the two front hull-mounted headlights were replaced by a single Notek headlight. It was placed at the center of the upper hull armor.

For a brief time, the two-part hatches were replaced with larger single-piece hatches, such as on this vehicle (note this is likely an Ausf.G version, but the design of the hatches was the same). These likely proved problematic for unspecified reasons, and the older two-part hatches were reintroduced. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/stug-3/

Suspension and Running Gear

While the hull was changed, the suspension remained the same. It consisted of six small road wheels, three return rollers, the front drive wheel, and the rear-positioned idler. During the first winter on the Eastern Front, the Germans found out that, due to the rather short track width on their tanks and other tracked vehicles, they could easily bog down in muddy and snowy terrain. A simple solution was to introduce specially designed winter tracks which were much wider than normal tracks. According to the Germans, it was estimated that, by 1943, nearly 75% of the StuG IIIs operating in the East during winter would be equipped with these. They were mainly allocated to units to Heeres Gruppe Nord and Mitee (English: Army Groups North and Center). One additional but minor modification included reducing the length of the front fenders, which became fixed.

Using specially designed winter tracks, the German vehicles had a better chance of operating in the muddy or snowy terrain of the Soviet Union. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/stihace/stug3.php

Engine

The StuG III Ausf.F/8, like its predecessor, was powered by a twelve-cylinder, water-cooled Maybach HL 120 TRM engine providing 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm. Its overall drive performance remained basically the same, with a maximum speed of 40 km/h and a range of 160 km (on good roads). The Ausf.F/8 introduced an improved ventilation system, using larger engine compartment hatches with protected cowlings. Due to extreme and cold Soviet winters, the Germans faced a problem in 1941, with the engines not being able to start working. The oil and water would often freeze. To prevent this, in October 1942, a warm water transfer system with a conector was installed in the StuG III vehicles, including the Ausf.F/8.

Rear view of a StuG III exposed engine compartment. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

To help their vehicles operate in cold climates, a warm water transfer system with a connector was installed in the StuG III vehicles, including the Ausf.F/8. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Superstructure

Overall, the superstructure’s design remained basically the same as on the Ausf.F version. The majority of the Ausf.F/8 built had the angle of the upper plate above the driver (and opposite of him) increased. This provided better protection, but also strengthened the whole construction. The opening for the periscope sight was slightly redesigned, and some vehicles received a mesh cage. Its purpose was to protect the crew from enemy hand grenades or other projectiles aimed at this opening. Realistically, this offered limited protection at best. The folding radio antennas were replaced with a fixed mount, located on either side of the vehicle’s superstructure.

The fixed antenna is visible in this picture. Source: F. V. De Sisto German Sturmartillerie at War Vol.I

Armor Protection

The Ausf.F/8 was meant to have 80 mm thick frontal armor protection. As such thick single armor plates were not yet available, as a temporary replacement, additional 30 mm plates were welded, or more commonly, just bolted to the front 50 mm usual plate. The sides were 30 mm thick, top 10 mm, and the engine top was 16 mm thick. The rear part of the engine compartment received better armor protection, with the lower plate being 50 mm thick and placed at 10°, while the smaller upper one was placed at 30°.

This vehicle received welded armor plates to the front to further increase its protection. Source: F. V. De Sisto German Sturmartillerie at War Vol.I

While welding was used by the Germans with great expertise, using bolts was much simpler and easier to do. Thus, most StuG III Ausf.F/8s received bolted armored plates instead of welded ones. This offered the same level of protection. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

To protect against Soviet anti-tank rifles, the StuG III Ausf.F/8 received 5 mm thick Schürzen (English: armor plates) covering the side of the vehicle. These were mainly supplied after May 1943.

The Ausf.F/8 was probably the first StuG III to receive the armored Schürzen as protection against anti-tank rifles. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Armament

While the StuG III Ausf.F was equipped with the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43 and L/48 guns, the Ausf.F/8 was mostly armed with the latter. In rarer cases, some were equipped with a shorter gun. The L/48 had a semi-automatic breech, which meant that, after firing, the spent cartridge would be self-ejected, thus increasing the overall firing rate. It was fired electrically. The elevation of this gun went from –6° to +20°, while the traverse was 10° to both sides. Given that this vehicle used the L/48 gun, it was meant to be provided with the new double-chambered muzzle brake. As these were rather expensive to build, demand often outpaced production, so some vehicles were instead supplied with the older ball-shaped muzzle brake.

A 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 was installed on a StuG III Ausf.G (which was basically the same as on the Ausf.F/8). Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/stug-3/

These Ausf.F/8 were armed with the shorter L/43 gun. Source: T. Anderson Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, Waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45

Another example of the StuG III Ausf.F/8 being equipped with the L/43 gun, but also with the less effective ball-shaped muzzle brake. Also, note the mesh cage for the gunner’s periscope sight. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

This gun had a muzzle velocity of 790 m/s. The armor-piercing (Pz.Gr.39) round could penetrate 85 mm of armor (sloped at 30°) at 1 km. The maximum range of the high-explosive rounds was 3.3 km while, for armor-piercing, 1.4 to 2.3 km, depending on the type used. The gunner used the Selbstfahrlafetten Zielfernrohr Sfl.Z.F.1a gun sight to acquire direct targets. For indirect targets, either the Rundblickfernrohr 32 or 36 was to be used. This sight had a magnification of x5 and a field of view of 8°.
The ammunition load, depending on the source, consisted of 44 rounds, later increased to 54. Ammunition was stored in holding bins located mostly on the right side of the vehicle, with some placed behind the commander.

Close-up view of the gunner Sfl.Z.F.1a with the hatch fully open. Source: N. Számvéber The Sturmgeschütz Abteilung 202

For self-defense, the Ausf.F/8 was provided with an MG 34 machine gun, which was operated by the loader. The ammunition load for the MG 34 was 600 rounds. Initially, the machine gun operator was not provided with a shield. This caused problems, as the operator was completely exposed to enemy fire. To resolve this, in December 1942, a square-shaped machine gun shield was tested, located in front of the loader’s hatch. It had a small opening in the center for the machine gun to be placed. On top of it, there was a small anti-aircraft mount for the same machine gun. This mount was designed to be used in anti-aircraft roles by the gunner. While a 7.92 mm caliber machine gun could do little against flying targets, it was enough to disturb the enemy pilot and force him to pick easier targets. This was far from perfect, but still better than nothing. The shield would have the option to be folded down when not in use. While it is not common to see it on the StuG III Ausf.F/8, it would see extensive use on the next version, the AusF.G. In addition, two submachine guns and hand grenades were also carried inside.

The machine gun shield was lowered when not in use. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

The use of this shield provided the machine gun operator with some measure of protection. Above, the handle and the anti-aircraft mount are visible. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

A StuG III Ausf.F/8 with the machine gun shield. Source: T. Anderson Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45

Crew

The crew of these vehicles consisted of four: commander, driver, loader, and gunner. While the loader was positioned to the right of the gun, the remaining crew was placed opposite. The driver was positioned on the left front side of the hull. Just behind the driver was the gunner, and right behind, the commander.

Differences between the F and F/8 versions

The StuG III Ausf.F and F/8 were, in many regards, almost identical, and without a proper angle, almost impossible to distinguish between. The main problem with identification is that some changes that were introduced on new versions were also implemented on the older versions that were returned to Germany for repairs. This was something that the Germans often did to improve the performance of older vehicles. A good example is the Panzer IV Ausf.G to J versions, which were in some cases impossible to distinguish from each other without having access to the chassis code.

There are a number of indicators already mentioned that can help identify if the vehicle was a StuG III Ausf.F or F/8. The best way to do so is to observe the rear engine compartment. The Ausf.F/8 used an extended engine compartment with a larger armor plate that had a round shape cover for the engine starter. It is also very important to mention that, even in sources (such as books), wrong identification may occur due to the similar appearance of the two versions.

A StuG III Ausf.F. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz

In comparison, the StuG III Ausf.F/8 had a completely different and much simpler rear engine compartment design. Note the small round shape (next to the Balkenkreuz marking) cover for the manual engine starter. Source: Achtung Panzer No.5

A drawing of both rear engine designs, with the Ausf.F to the left and F/8 to the right. Source: Achtung Panzer No.5

The shortened front fenders are another clear identification mark that can be used to identify a precise version. In addition, the Ausf.F/8 used a single Notek headlight placed at the center of the upper center of the front hull armor. It is important to note that some late-built vehicles of the StuG III Ausf.F received the single Notek headlight too.

The Ausf.F was identified by the two headlights and longer front fenders. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/stihace/stug3.php

The Ausf.F/8, on the other hand, had only one Notek headlight placed at the center of the upper center of the front hull armor. Also, notice the much shortened front fenders. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/stihace/stug3.php

The front upper superstructure design is also an indicator that must be taken into account when determining the precise version. The upper superstructure plates on the Ausf.F/8 were placed at a high angle, starting at the front driver plate and raised up to the superstructure top. While this was used on the Ausf.F/8, it was not always present, and older superstructures may also be seen on this version. In addition, the crews often added concrete filing on this part of the armor, which greatly complicates the identification process.

The original Ausf.F upper armor plate positioned above the driver is visible here. This created a shot trap and would be replaced by a much simpler design. Source: B. Carruthers Sturmgeschütze Armored Assault Guns

The crew of this Ausf.F vehicle added concrete on top of the superstructure, which wrongly appears to show that this part of the superstructure was changed. Source: T. Anderson Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infantry

The Ausf.F/8 incorporated much simpler and better-angled armor plates on top of the front superstructure. Source: F. V. De Sisto German Sturmartillerie at War Vol.I

Lastly, but probably the most important part, was the main armament itself. While the Ausf.F is often associated with the 7.5 cm L/43 and Ausf.F/8 with the L/48 gun, this is not completely true. The Ausf.F used both guns during its production run, while the latter was mostly armed with the L/48 gun. In addition, the Ausf.F/8 guns were sometimes equipped with the older gun and the ball-shaped muzzle brake, as seen in some pictures.

Drawings of the StuG III Ausf.F (top) and F/8 (bottom) which help illustrate some differences. The most obvious was the use of single hatches on the front hull and a larger access door to the engine compartment. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz

Organization Change

Initially, the StuG III was issued in 6 vehicle-strong Sturmartillerie Batterie (Eng. assault gun battery). These were divided into three Zuge (Eng. platoons), each equipped with only two vehicles. In time, as more StuG IIIs became available, their unit strength was increased to Abteilungen (Eng. battalion) strength of 18 vehicles. These battalions were divided into three batteries, each 6 vehicles strong. These would be further reinforced by three additional vehicles which were allocated to the platoon commanders. By late 1942, in order to further increase the effectiveness of the StuG III battalions, the strength of each battery was increased to 10 vehicles. The strength of the battalions was to be 31 vehicles (including a command vehicle).

The Germans rarely fully supplied new equipment directly to frontline units. Instead, they focused first on equipping newly created units at home or replenishing those units that were sent back for recuperation. The frontline units were instead supplied in smaller quantities, mostly as replacements for lost vehicles. This was also partly done due to problems with the transportation of replacement vehicles directly to their designated unit for various reasons (either due to poor logistics or enemy activity). So, basically, it would take some time before the operational strength of frontline battalions was increased to 10 vehicles per battery.

Another vital change was that the StuG III was slowly being integrated into other military branches, not only infantry. The SS formations already used the StuG III as part of their divisions. For example, the Leibstandarte-SS Adolf Hitler was sent back to Germany for recuperation and rearmament in July 1942. Its StuG III Battalion was to be equipped with 22 vehicles. It was rushed to the East in early 1943 at Kharkov. In October 1942, the LuftwaffeFeldeinheiten (English: air force ground troops) received four StuG IIIs for their Panzerjäger-Kompanien (English: Anti-tank company). The Hermann Göring Division received a StuG III Battalion.

The Panzer Divisions also received StuG IIIs starting from October 1942. The 6th, 7th, and 19th Panzer Divisions were to each receive a StuG III battalion. Vehicles and manpower were to be provided by the 209th StuG III Battalion. In later years, the StuG III would become quite an important anti-tank element of many panzer divisions.

A StuG III Ausf.F/8 transporting Luftwaffe personnel, possibly during training. Source: T. Anderson Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45

In Combat

As the production of the new Ausf.F/8 began in September 1942, they would see their first action at the end of that year, mostly in the area of Stalingrad, as the Germans made progress toward this important city and the resource-rich Caucasus. They ran into several series of problems. Their supply lines and forces were overstretched. The flanks were guarded by their understrength Romanian allies, which had to cover immense frontlines with insufficient and poorly equipped forces. Furthermore, the Soviets had several bridgeheads across the Don, from which they started their offensive. The weak Romanian and German troops in the area failed to successfully repel the rapid Soviet advance. This led to the encirclement of German forces in Stalingrad. Several StuG III battalions (such as the 177th, 203rd, 243rd, 244th, and 245th) would see extensive combat here, but in the end, the Germans were forced to abandon their rescue operations. The 243rd, 244th, and 245th battalions were almost destroyed in the process. What was left of them was sent back to Germany to be reformed and reequipped with new vehicles.

A StuG III Ausf.F/8 from the 901st Battalion, advancing toward Stalingrad in December 1942. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Despite this setback, other StuG III units would still have great successes against enemy armor, like the case of the 202nd Battalion. At the end of November 1942, the 202nd Battalion, equipped with 21 StuG IIIs, participated in the defensive operation of the 9th Army in the area of Rschew (Rzhev).

On 29th November, elements from this unit participated in the destruction of some 5 Cossack cavalry battalions at Lopotek. Later that day, the StuG IIIs managed to destroy three Soviet tanks. The next day, they claimed to have destroyed additional enemy armor, including 6 light tanks (possibly T-60s or T-70s), 6 T-34s, and one KV-1 heavy tank. Three more tanks were reported destroyed but not confirmed. While the Germans did not have any losses, one needed extensive repair while five more needed smaller repairs. A lack of ammunition was a serious issue, as there were some 212 rounds left. While 3,873 spare rounds were on the way, this was far from enough. During the two days of combat, the 202nd Battalion used some 5,512 rounds in total. On the morning of 30th November, four StuG IIIs supporting German infantry managed to destroy three Soviet 7.62 cm guns. These four were then redirected to support the attack of the Kampfgruppe Kohler (English: battle group) on a gathering point of the Soviet forces close to Mal. After outflanking the unsuspecting enemy, the Germans managed to inflict severe losses to them. The Germans reported destroying 14 T-34s, 2 T-60s, 7 anti-tank and 2 anti-aircraft guns, some 40 trucks, and 250 to 300 enemy soldiers killed but losing one StuG III in the process. At the start of December 1942, three more Soviet armored vehicles were destroyed. By this point, the StuG IIIs of the 202nd Battalion were severely depleted. Of 22 (at some point, the Battalion was reinforced) vehicles, only 13 were operational, while the remaining ones were in various states of repair. The 4th of December was quite successful for this unit, claiming to have taken out 25 Soviet armored vehicles, spending 250 rounds to do so.

During the fighting in this area, the commanding officers of one of the StuG IIIs, Fritz Amling, with the support of another vehicle, engaged 20 Soviet tanks. He alone claimed to have managed to destroy 10 of these, surviving despite the enemy’s numerical advantage. Another commander, Tantius, claimed to have managed to take out 15 enemy armored vehicles in three days of fighting.

An army combat report dated 3rd January 1943 listed the total number of enemy armored vehicle losses from the period of 25th November 1942 to 17th December 1942: The 202nd Battalion was credited with the destruction of 195 and the 667th Battalion with 109 armored vehicles destroyed. In the case of the 202nd, this number included 180 tanks, with 15 T-26s, 61 T-60s and T-70s, 94 T-34s and, lastly, 10 KV-1s.

The 202nd Battalion operated some 22 StuG IIIs armed with long guns (such as the Ausf.F and F/8). These achieved great success while fighting Soviet armored vehicles. This unit also used wooden planks to protect (likely against enemy anti-tank rifles) the vehicle’s hull sides. Source: N. Számvéber The Sturmgeschütz Abteilung 202

In March 1943, the StuG III would see extensive combat action around the important city of Kharkov. During the fighting that lasted from 7th to 20th March, the Panzergrenadier Division Großdeutschland inflicted heavy tank losses on the Soviets. Of some 247 destroyed tanks, the StuG III Ausf.F/8 alone was credited with the destruction of 41.

Near Leningrad, at the same time, another StuG unit was causing havoc on Soviet armor. This was the 226th Battalion, which claimed to have destroyed 210 enemy tanks by this point, albeit at a loss of 13 of its own vehicles.

Likely the majority of StuG III Ausf.F/8 built would see service on the Eastern Front. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

On Other Fronts

StuG III vehicles were generally a rare sight in North Africa. The first StuG IIIs that were used on this front were three Ausf.D. These were allocated to Sonderverband 288 (Eng. Detachment for special employment) in early 1942. The first long barrel version to reach this front was the StuG III Ausf.F/8 from the 242nd Battalion. This unit was specially created to support the Axis forces there. But, as it turned out, only a single battery with four (two more were sunk during transport) vehicles was sent to Africa. According to T. Anderson (Sturmartillerie Spearhead of the Infantry), this battery had 10 vehicles and he does not mention any of them being lost in transport. This battery was renamed the 90th Battery and was attached to the 10th Panzer Division at the start of 1943. Some of them would survive until the Axis forces surrendered in May 1943.

One of three StuG III Ausf.D that was sent to North Africa. One was captured by the Allies near Bir Hacheim in May 1942. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz

The Ausf.F/8 in North Africa. Source: https://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/3/t/161176.aspx?page=1

Occupied Yugoslavia was another front where the StuG III Ausf.F/8 would see service. Given the lack of and sometimes confusing sources regarding armored vehicles used in this theater of war, pinpointing the precise use of this particular version is unclear. But, given that one such vehicle was captured by the Yugoslav Partisans indicates that at least a few StuG III Ausf.F/8s saw service there. Some StuG III Ausf.F/8s were also stationed in Greece during 1943.

A preserved StuG III Ausf.F/8 belonging to the Serbian Kalemegdan military museum. Source: https://warspot.ru/3482-samaya-massovaya-nemetskaya-samohodka

A StuG III Ausf.F/8 from the 11th Luftwaffe Field Division in Greece during 1943. Source: T. Anderson Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45

The StuG III Ausf.F/8 would also see action against the Allies in Italy and likely in the West. The Hermann Göring Panzer Division had at least 30 StuG IIIs in its inventory, including some Ausf.F/8s. These were stationed in Sicily and unsuccessfully tried to turn the Allies back. Some StuG III Ausf.F/8s even saw service in Finland in 1944.

A StuG III Ausf.F/8 from the Hermann Göring Panzer Division during the defense of Sicily. Source: T. Anderson Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45

Some of the StuG III Ausf.F/8 were captured and tested by the Allies during the war. Source: P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition

Modification

Sturmgeschütz III Flammenwerfer

In 1943, some 10 StuG IIIs were armed with flame-throwing weapons. Based on a few existing photographs, at least one was built on the StuG III Ausf.F/8 chassis. While little is known about them, some if not all were rebuilt back to their original configuration and none saw action.

One of several built Sturmgeschütz III Flammenwerfer prototypes. Source: Panzer.net

Fahrschul Sturmgeschütz

Some StuG III Ausf.F/8s were allocated to training centers, such as the one in Jüterbog. They would be used in this manner up to the end of the war.

Different StuG III Ausf.F/8s (in the center of the picture) from the Sturmgeschütz Ersatz und Ausbildung Abteilung located in Denmark, 1944. Source: T. Anderson Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infatry

This vehicle was probably used for training. Unusually, it used a front drive sprocket taken from a StuG III Ausf.A vehicle, which itself may indicate that this particular vehicle was sent back to Germany and rebuilt using any available parts. After this, it was given to a training unit, where the use of salvaged parts would not be a major issue. Also note the large air filter placed next to the engine compartment. Source: T. Anderson Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45

Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33

Due to the need to fight the well-entrenched Soviet positions at Stalingrad, the Germans hastily modified some 24 StuG III vehicles for this role. The modification was simple, as the original StuG III superstructure was replaced with a new box-shaped one armed with a 150 mm gun. Some 24 Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33 (English: assault infantry gun) were built. For this modification, some 12 Ausf.F/8 chassis were reused.

Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33, half of which were based on the Ausf.F/8 chassis. Source: https://firearmcentral.fandom.com/wiki/Sturminfanteriegesch%C3%BCtz_33

The StuG 42 Modifications

At the end of 1942 and the start of 1943, at least four StuG III Ausf.F/8 were modified to be used as test vehicles for the anticipated new series of 10.5 cm howitzer-armed StuGs. Some of these were issued to the 185th Battalion wich saw service near Leningrad.

Surviving vehicles

Today, a few StuG III Ausf.F/8s are known to have survived the war and can be seen in museums. These included museums such as Kubinka in Russia, the already mentioned Military Museum in Belgrade, and the Bastogne Barracks in Belgium.

This vehicle from the Bastogne Barracks has been fully restored and is in running condition. Source: http://tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Stug-III-sturmgeschutz-40-ausff8-bastogne-barracks-belgium.html

The preserved Kubinka StuG. Source: http://tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Stug-III-Sturmgeschutz-ausf-f-tank-destroyer.html

Conclusion

Once they reached the frontline, the StuG III Ausf.F/8s performed excellently, managing to easily deal with enemy armor. The Ausf.F/8 design did offer some minor improvements, mostly in regard to the engine ventilation and overall hull structure. But, otherwise, it was the same as its predecessor. Both of them fulfilled their designated role but left much room for improvement. Further development and refinement would lead to the introduction of the mass-produced StuG III Ausf.G vehicle that would become the most important armored vehicle of the German Army from 1943 onward. This was the main reason why only 250 Ausf.F/8 were ever built and not due to any design fault.

StuG III Ausf.F/8. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

StuG III Ausf.F/8 Technical specification
Crew	4 (commander, gunner, loader, and driver)
Weight	23.3 tonnes
Dimensions	Length 5.38 m, Width 2.92 m, Height 1.95 m,
Engine	Maybach 120 TRM 265 hp @ 200 rpm
Speed	40 km/h, 20 km/h (cross-country)
Range	140 km, 85 km (cross-country)
Primary Armament	7.5 cm L/43 or 48
Elevation	-10° to +20°
Superstructure armor	front 30+50 mm, sides 30 mm, rear 30, and top 10-16 mm
Hull armor	front 30+50 mm, sides 30 mm, rear 30 mm, and the top and bottom 15 mm

Sources

D. Doyle (2005). German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
Walter J. Spielberger (1993) Sturmgeschütz and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (1999) Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2006) Panzer Tracts No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. E, F, G, H.
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2011) Panzer Tracts No.23 Panzer Production from 1933 to 1945
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
H. Scheibert (1994) Panzer III, Schiffer Publishing
Walter J. Spielberger (2007) Panzer III and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
B. Carruthers (2012) Sturmgeschütze Armored Assault Guns, pen and Sword
M. Healy (2007) Panzerwaffe Volume two,Ian Allan
T. Anderson (2016) Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infantry, Osprey Publishing
T. Anderson (2017) Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45, Osprey Publishing
K. Sarrazin (1991) Sturmgeschütz III The Short Gun Versions, Schiffer Publishing
F. Gray (2015) Post War Panzers German Weapons in Czech Service, Guideline Publications
L. Miguel García Ruiz (2014) Africa 1941-1943 D.A.K. Profile Guide AK Interactive
F. V. De Sisto (2008) German Sturmartillerie at War Vol.I, Condor Publication
N. Számvéber (2016) The Sturmgeschütz Abteilung 202, PeKo Publication

Has Own Video Modern Serbian Armor

Miloš-N

Miloš-N. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Republic of Serbia (2016)
Remote Control Unmanned Platform – 10+ Built

In recent years, most modern armies around the world have become increasingly interested in developing remotely controlled vehicles and aircraft. These vehicles are intended to perform various combat roles, ranging from reconnaissance, logistics, or probably most importantly, direct combat operations. These were developed in the hope to supplement or even replace human soldiers in dangerous situations, thus reducing the risk to human life. The effectiveness of these vehicles is shown during the ongoing war in Ukraine. The use of drones has especially gained huge media coverage.

The Serbian Army entered this new arms race by initially introducing the short-range anti-tank system named Милица (Eng: Milica – a Serbian female name). It was, in essence, a small remotely-controlled tracked vehicle armed with two anti-tank launchers. While it was not adopted for service, further development would lead to the Милош (‘Miloš’ in the Latin script) Даљински Управљива Безпосадна Платформа – ДУБП (English: Milosh – a Serbian male name – Remote Control Unmanned Platform) which entered service with the Serbian Army in small numbers.

The Miloš remote control unmanned platform. Source: www.army-technology.com

The Milica Predecessor

Prior to Miloš, the first Modular Robotic System vehicle under the name Milica was developed by Jugoimport, one of the major Serbian arms and weapons manufacturers. During the late 2000s, Jugoimport was also involved in developing a number of remote-controlled systems meant to perform different tasks, ranging from surveillance to anti-tank operations.

Modular Robotic System ‘Milica’. Source: www.indiedb.com

Milica was primarily intended to provide infantry with a remotely controlled anti-armor close support system that could engage modern MBTs (main battle tanks). It could also be used to engage and destroy an enemy firing positions and fortifications. The Milica system was intended to be fully modular, which meant it could be adapted to fulfill various combat roles, but also secondary non-combat duties. Other roles included helping infantry with gathering intelligence, monitoring and observing areas that were not yet fully secured, transporting spare equipment and ammunition, and even transporting wounded soldiers. While a fully working vehicle was built, no production orders for this project were ever issued. In order not to waste the resources and time used to develop this vehicle, its chassis was reused for another project, the Miloš.

Interestingly, way back in 1985, during a military exhibition of various weapons and equipment held in Belgrade, an unusual remote control platform was presented, described as being named ‘Hunter’. This vehicle was designed to relocate unidentified explosive devices to save distance. While not much is known of this vehicle, its hull design somewhat resembles that of the later built Miloš. If this vehicle in any way had an influence on the Miloš project is unknown, but it seems unlikely given its huge time differences of over 30 years.

This vehicle, while sharing some resemblance, it is highly unlikely that its design had any influence on the later Miloš project. Source: Screen shot from the Sredstva nase odbrane TT zbor nakon parade 1985 1 deo Yotube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAGMfCtMIM8&ab_channel=SladjanBenak

Miloš’ Development History

The Milica project, in the end, led to no production order either by the Serbian Army or aboard. Nevertheless, it provided Serbian engineers with key experience in designing such vehicles. It also offered a good starting point for a series of new improvements. Based on its initial development, work on improving the overall performance was undertaken by Војнотехничког институт VTI (English: Military Technical Institute). Прва Петолетка – Наменсka ППТ (PPT) would also later join in. This firm specializes in the modernization and production of small-arm weapons. It is also involved in the production of some new Serbian military vehicles, such as the PASARS-16 mobile anti-aircraft platform.

The available sources do not offer much information on the development process. What is known is that the project was initiated in 2016. The main aim of this project was to provide the Serbian Army with a remote control unmanned platform. Initial plans did not include that this vehicle would be used as an export opportunity. Instead, it was specially designed to fulfill the needs of the Serbian Army.

To make the new starting point easier and cheaper, the new designers initially reused the Milica’s chassis. While the armament of the Milica was sufficient to deal with tanks and fortified positions, it lacked any means to combat enemy infantry formations. This role was intended for the new vehicle, and for that reason, the armament was to be replaced with one machine gun and grenade launcher. With this new armament, the main purpose of this vehicle was to provide fire support for Serbian special forces during an engagement against enemy infantry groups or positions at ranges up to 800 m. Armament aside, the whole chassis, suspension, and superstructure would be completely redesigned. Initial work was mainly focused on experimenting with different armaments on the Milica’s chassis. Further work led to testing a new suspension that incorporated fewer but larger independent torsion bar-suspended road wheels.

In its early development phase, the Milica’s chassis was reused, but with different armaments. Source: Mycity military forum

Its evolution led to the testing of a new suspension which consisted of four larger road wheels. Source: http://www.ppt-namenska.rs/Miloš.html

At some point, the original Milica’s chassis was redesigned and replaced by a much smaller and possibly simpler design. The four-road wheel suspension was used, but the design of the wheel was slightly changed. The drive sprocket was moved to the rear, and the idler was placed to the front. In addition, due to technological advances, the bulky superstructure was also completely removed. This new vehicle was presented for the first time to the public during the military exercises Челик 2017 (English: Steel).

Miloš during its first public appearance in 2017. Source:www.mod.gov.rs

Name

This vehicle is known by the name Miloš. It is also referred to as Miloš-N, with the N standing for Наоружани (English: Armed). In the media, it is sometimes called Мали Милош (English: Little Milosh). The vehicle class is referred to by various designations, such as an Unmanned Ground Vehicle, Remotely Controlled Unmanned Platform, or simply a Drone. As the Serbians use both Cyrillic and Latin scripts, this article refers to it as Miloš.

Design

Given its recent introduction, the Miloš overall design has often been prone to various modifications and improvements. Because of this, its current form may receive additional changes in the future. What is more, due to being a new combat platform, more precise information on its construction is likely to be unavailable to the public yet.

Hull

The simple box-shaped hull is fully enclosed and was built using welded steel armor with a combination of screws. These hold the upper plates in place so that they can be easily removed for maintenance and repairs in the field.

While there is limited information on its interior, based on the available pictures, the hull can be seen divided into a few sections. The transmission has been placed on the rear. The electric motor, batteries, and other equipment needed for controlling and powering the main weapon system have likely been stored in the remaining part of the hull. Two cameras (one in front and one to the back) have been placed on the hull. It also has what appears to be a pair of towing hooks placed on the front and the rear of the upper hull.

The Miloš base consists of a simple box-shaped hull. While most of its parts have been connected using welding plates, the upper plates are connected to the hull with screws. This provides easier access to the interior in case of repairs or maintenance. Source: Wiki

Suspension

The suspension consists of four road wheels. These are independently suspended with torsion support units. Further, there is a rear-mounted drive sprocket, rear idler, and two return rollers. Thanks to the use of an electric motor, small size, and rubberized tracks, Miloš provides the possibility of approaching enemy positions quite stealthily.

The Miloš used a simple torsion bar suspension which consisted of roar road wheels. Source: www.mod.gov.rs

With this suspension unit, the Miloš is capable of reaching a vertical elevation of 25° and a side elevation of 20°. Crossing a 2.5 m wide trench is also possible. Ground clearance of this vehicle is 200 mm. Given its small size, it is possible for it to be used inside buildings (that have entrance points at least 80 cm wide) by climbing staircases.

Engine

This vehicle is powered by an unspecified electrical motor connected to 60 to 84-V strong lithium-ion batteries. With a weight of 650 kg, its maximum speed is 7 km/h. The effective operational autonomy ranges between 2 to 8 hours depending on the current mode it is used for. For example, when stationary and used for observation or shooting, the operational range goes up to 8 hours. When in movement, the operational range is 2.5 hours, and movement-observation-shooting decreases its operational use to 2 hours.

Given its small size, the Miloš can be easily transported by using a simple trailer. Source: Wiki

Superstructure

While the Milica incorporated a highly angled but bulky superstructure, the engineers that worked on Miloš, decided to completely remove it from the Miloš. With new technologies, it was possible to place the automotive parts inside the hull. This made the whole design much easier to build.

Milica used a fairly bulky superstructure that housed the most important components. Source: www.paluba.info

Turret

The Miloš’ turret acts as a firing platform for the main armaments with spare ammunition, optic sights, signal antennas, a control management panel, and a fire control system. The turret known as Даљински Управљана Борбена Станиица – ДУБС (English: Remote Control Combat Station – RCCS) was developed by the PPT to be used as an axillary firing platform for armored vehicles. This turret is also used on the new Командно Извиђачкао Возило КИВ (English: Command and Reconnaissance Vehicle – CRV) based on the BOV-3 4×4 vehicle.

The Remote Control Combat Station turret was developed by PPT. Source: https://ppt-namenska.rs/en/dubs/

The new command vehicle is based on the BOV-3 with a similar turret that was used on the Miloš project. Source: www.mod.gov.rs

The Miloš’ overall design changed during its development. Initially, a much smaller turret was used, replaced by a somewhat larger design. Besides the obvious changes to the dimensions, the position of the grenade launcher and the optic unit were repositioned. The current version has a weight of 275 kg and is powered by 24V batteries.

Early version of the turret. Source: www.sd.rs

The later version incorporated a somewhat larger turret. Source: www.sd.rs

Armament

When the Miloš project was initiated, it was primarily intended to deal with targets up to 800 m away. For this, a 7.62 mm M-86 machine gun was used as the main armament. To further increase firepower, a 40 mm grenade launcher was also added.

Main armament consists of one machine gun and one grenade launcher. Source: topwar.ru

As the Miloš’ development continued, the armament and ammunition storage position received some changes to the overall design. The machine gun was positioned inside the small turret. Initially, it was placed inside the turret, almost covering it completely. Later, the machine gun was placed further to the front of the vehicle. The position of the ammunition box magazine with a capacity of 500 rounds received some changes. At first, it was placed next to the machine gun and fed it directly. The later improvement led to the introduction of the somewhat larger turret, which also required some changes to the magazine’s design. The magazine on the new version is placed sideways and fed to the machine gun by a guiding rail. To avoid potentially damaging (although the chanse for that is minimal) the vehicle, a spent cartridge box is placed in front of the turret. The M-86 is a gas-operated machine gun intended to be used as a coaxial or mounted on an armored vehicle. It is activated electrically and has a firing rate of 700 to 800 rpm.

This version had a completely resigned feeding system and ammunition storage magazine which is placed sideways. Source: https://cegit.org/veliki-koraci-malog-Miloša/

The grenade launcher was initially placed on the left of the machine gun. It would be repositioned to the rear and slightly above the machine gun. It uses a six-round drum magazine. This launcher had a maximum effective firing range of up to 375 m.

Early on, the grenade launcher was placed left of the machine gun and was completely exposed. It would be repositioned just behind the machine gun. Source: https://www.blic.rs

Recently, the Miloš has adopted to mount two 64 mm M80 Зоља (English: Wespe) rocket-propelled anti-tank grenades. The M80 Зоља is a disposable, cheap, and easy-to-use anti-tank weapon developed during the early 1980s. While maybe a bit outdated, it is still useful in engaging enemy light armor and fortified positions. The combat-effective range of this weapon is 200 m while the maximum range is up to 400 m. It is capable of penetrating some 300 mm of homogeneous armor. With a weight of 3 kg, it could be easily carried by one man, so mounting two such weapons on Miloš was not a major issue. These two are located on the Miloš’ left turret side. In this case, the original armament is still retained, greatly increasing its combat effectiveness. The use of the M80 appears to be temporary as better weapons systems are currently in development.

Firing of the 64 mm M80 anti-tank grenade. Source: https://www.mod.gov.rs/eng/16427/velika-borbena-efikasnost-malog-Miloša-16427

64 mm M80 Зоља Source: Wiki

All weapons on the Miloš are linked together and can not be operated at different targets independently. The whole turret can achieve a full 360° rotation, while the elevation of the weapon systems is -15° to 50°. The Miloš’ operator can adjust the rotation and elevation speed to suit different needs. The rotation speed ranges from 0.05°/s to 48°/s, while the elevation speed 0.05°/s to 28°/s.

Protection

Not much is yet published about the Miloš’ overall protection. What is known is that this vehicle is protected against small caliber rounds from 5.56 mm to 7.62 mm. Another layer of defense is the vehicle’s own small size. Its length is 1.7 m, width 0.77 m, and height 0.95 m. As the Miloš’ development progresses, other modifications intended to increase its survivability may be introduced.

Control and Optics

The Miloš is provided with a charge-coupled device – CCD camera with a maximum zoom of 30x. With this camera, the Miloš’ operator is capable of spotting an enemy soldier at up to 1 km distance. Miloš also possesses a night vision-thermal camera that has a zoom of up to 4x. Using it during the night, an enemy soldier can be spotted at 450 m. In addition, it also incorporates a laser range finder with a maximum operational range of up to 2 km. Lastly, Miloš has a meteorological sensor connected to the firing system. Its purpose is to provide information such as wind speed and azimuth for better correction of fire.

Close-up view of the Miloš’ optic unit. Note the position of the grenade launcher just behind the machine gun. Source: https://cegit.org/veliki-koraci-malog-Miloša/

Miloš is remotely controlled using a fixed control panel that is located in a command vehicle. Another option is to use a small portable control panel that is operated by one operator. In this case, great attention is given to this control panel to be as easy to use as possible. During good visibility on an open field with few obstacles, the Miloš can maintain operational communication with its operator at ranges up to 3 km. In cities or on bad terrain where visibility is reduced, the visual operational communication with this vehicle is around 1.5 km. In a non-visual situation, its command operational range is 500 m. Lastly, the operator is also provided with an ammunition counter indicator, to help keep track of the spent ammunition.

The Miloš needs only one operator to be fully functional. This operator can stay behind at great ranges up to 3 km when there is enough visibility. Source: www.novosti.rs

Modifications

In 2021, the PPT presented two new versions of the Miloš. The first version is intended to provide an increase in overall performance and firepower. The second version was to act as logistical support by transporting equipment and ammunition or even wounded soldiers. Both versions are currently at the prototype stage and their production numbers are likely small.

Miloš V2

Further development into the Miloš project led to the creation of a new prototype named Miloš V2 (the original Miloš is marked as V1). It incorporates a number of modifications and improvements. The obvious change is the use of a five-road wheel suspension. The length of this version is 1.87 m, width is 0.96 m, and the height is 0.95 m. Improvements to its automotive drive unit allow for an increase of maximum speed of up to 15 km/h despite the weight being increased to 750 kg.

In addition, the armament was replaced by a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun and two 9 cm M79 anti-tank rocket launchers. The 9 cm M79 with a maximum firing range of 650 m is capable of penetrating 400 mm of rolled homogeneous armor. Further development is to include Russian Kornet missile launchers. The Miloš V2 RCCS (without the two M79) was tested as part of the M-84AS1 prototype upgrade package

The experimental Miloš V2 version. Source: rs.n1info.com

The 9 cm M79 OSA anti-tank launcher. Source: WIki

The M-84AS1 was tested with the Miloš V2 RCCS, the fate of this project is still unclear. Source: Wiki

Miloš-L

The Miloš-L, the L-stands for Логистика (English: Logistic) is an unarmed version of this vehicle. Its main purpose is to act as a support and auxiliary supply carrier vehicle. It has a towing capacity of 200 kg, either in supply or transporting wounded men. It is different, as it has no weapon platform, which was replaced by a storage bin. The front of it is protected by an armored shield, while the side has a metal fence that can be used to store additional equipment and supplies.

The Miloš-L version is intended to be used as a support vehicle. Source: www.armyrecognition.com

Operational use

Following the successful testing of the prototype, a small 0-series was produced for the Serbian Army for further evaluation. These 12 vehicles were allocated to the 72. Бригаде за Специјалне Операције (English: 72nd Brigade for Special Operation). Ironically, this Brigade is also equipped with 4×4 BOV M16 Miloš Multi-Purpose combat vehicles. To differentiate these two, the RCUP Miloš is often referred to as Little Miloš. A few Miloš were used during military exercises, such as the Садејство 2020 and Муњевити Удар 2021.

For now, a small production run of some 12 vehicles is complete. Source: 24sedam.rs

Small Miloš, next to the Miloš multi-purpose combat vehicle Source: https://www.balkansec.net/post/novi-robot-sa-te%C5%A1ki-mitraljezom

During Sudejstvo 2020 military exercises. Source: https://cegit.org/zdruzena-takticka-vezba-sa-bojevim-gadjanjem-sadejstvo-2020/

The fate of the Miloš is not yet clear, but unofficially, it has been estimated that a production order of 50 to 100 of the V1 version are to be built. If this is true is yet to be seen. The price of the V1 version is noted to be €120,000 and the larger version €200,000.

While initially it was not intended for export, in 2022, the Miloš was presented to a delegation from the United Arab Emirates in Abu Dhabi. Despite the extremely warm climate, on demonstrations, the Miloš performed without any issues. If this demonstration bears any fruit for orders or modifications, only time will tell.

Conclusion

The Miloš is certainly a modern and capable remote control platform. Thanks to it, enemy infantry formations or positions can be engaged without the need to expose Serbian soldiers to unnecessary threats. How it will perform in the future and if a production order for more vehicles is ever achieved is yet to be seen.

Miloš-N. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Miloš-N Specifications
Crew	One remote operator
Weight	650 kg
Dimensions	Length 1.7 m, Width 0.77 m, Height 0.95 m
Speed	7.5 km/h
Operational range	2 to 8 hours
Armament	varies -Zastava M86 7.62 mm Machine-Gun, M11 38 mm Grenade Launcher (V1) -Zastava M87 12.7 mm Machine Gun, M11 38 mm Grenade Launcher, 2x 90 mm M79 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher (V2)
Elevation	-15° to +50°
Traverse	360°
Armor	Able to resist 7.62 mm rounds

Sources

M. Jandrić Weaponry and Military equipment Fair, Partner 2009
M. Švedić (2010) Arsenal 31-40, Odbrana
https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/milica-anti-tank-military-robot-system
https://www.mod.gov.rs/eng/16427/velika-borbena-efikasnost-malog-Miloša-16427
https://rs.n1info.com/vesti/fabrika-u-trsteniku-napravila-novo-robotizovano-borbeno-vozilo-mali-Miloš/
https://ppt-namenska.rs/Miloš/
https://www.mod.gov.rs/eng/16427/velika-borbena-efikasnost-malog-Miloša-16427#
https://cegit.org/veliki-koraci-malog-Miloša/
https://www.balkansec.net/post/novi-robot-sa-te%C5%A1ki-mitraljezom
https://www.zastava-arms.rs/en/machinegun-m86/
http://www.vti.mod.gov.rs/index.php?view=actuality&type=reference&category=2&id=115
https://cegit.org/zdruzena-takticka-vezba-sa-bojevim-gadjanjem-sadejstvo-2020/
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/Miloš-unmanned-ground-vehicle/
https://www.zastava-arms.rs/mitraljez-m86/
https://web.archive.org/web/20180822034305/http://www.ppt-namenska.rs/Miloš.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmU8vu-u27g

Has Own Video WW2 German Assault Guns

Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date February 15, 2023
6 Comments on Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33

German Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33B equipped with the 15 cm sIG 33 howitzer for close infantry support, Stalingrad, fall 1942. Only 12 were deployed here, out of the 24 converted. Illustration by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.

German Reich (1942)
Infantry Assault Gun – 24 Converted

Click here to partake!

The concept of mounting a heavy infantry gun on a tank chassis was born out of a need to provide effective destructive firepower against enemy-fortified positions. While during World War Two the Germans already used the well-known StuG III series that fit this role effectively, something with an even greater punch was desirable. The need for a well-protected vehicle armed with a 15 cm gun arose in late 1942. At that time, the Germans were bogged down attempting to take the city of Stalingrad. Due to the urgent demand for such a weapon system, a small series of improvised vehicles armed with a 15 cm gun placed inside an armored superstructure would be created on a StuG III chassis, creating the Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33.

The Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33. Colorization by Johannes Dorn. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Early Attempts to Provide Close Fire Support Vehicles

Based on experience gained during the First World War, some people within the German Army, such as Erich von Manstein, argued for the introduction of well-armed and protected assault guns. Eventually, these would be the Sturmgeschütze (or StuG IIIs for short). These were to act as highly mobile artillery vehicles that were intended to provide close-up infantry support by destroying enemy fortified positions.

Whilst the concept was initially opposed by some elements within the German Army, the project was greenlit when it was approved by Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres (English: German Commander in Chief of the Army) Generaloberst von Fritsch in 1935. Due to many factors, but mostly related to the rather undeveloped state of the German industry and bureaucratic problems, the start of the StuG III’s production was delayed for years. The first production vehicles reached the troops at the start of the Western campaign in May 1940. Despite the small number of vehicles used, they quickly showed that a mobile, protected, and well-armed assault gun was capable of providing adequate infantry support.

The early StuG III vehicles were armed with short 7.5 cm guns, protected by 50 mm of frontal armor, and had a well-designed chassis. Despite never being produced in sufficient numbers, they performed excellently in their support role. Later, when equipped with long guns, they even became effective anti-tank vehicles, although their primary role remained to support the German infantry formations. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Over the following years, the number of StuG IIIs would constantly increase. While its short barrel 7.5 cm gun was effective in its original role, due to urgent demand for mobile anti-tank vehicles, the StuG IIIs would be rearmed with long guns. After 1942, to further increase the effectiveness against enemy-fortified positions, the 7.5 cm guns were replaced by larger 10.5 cm guns.

While the StuG IIIs were well suited to their designated infantry support roles, there were never enough of them. As a result, the main artillery firepower for infantry formations came in the form of two different types of towed support guns: the lightweight 7.5 cm leIG 18 and the much heavier, larger caliber 15 cm sIG 33. Both of these proved to be excellent designs, serving the German infantry up to the end of the war. In the case of the larger 15 cm sIG 33 gun, it had sufficient firepower to destroy all but the most fortified enemy positions. It only needed a few rounds to completely demolish smaller buildings with ease. While the 15 cm sIG 33 offered great firepower to the German infantry, its weight severely limited its mobility. Infantry units of the German Army were in general not very mobile formations given the general lack of towing vehicles, mostly relying on horses to pull their equipment. Despite this, moving a heavy gun was tiresome and took some time to set up properly. Moreover, during retreats, the guns were often abandoned, as they could not be moved fast enough. These shortcomings became obvious after the Polish campaign in 1939. Shortly after that, WaPrüf 6 (English: German Army’s design office for armored vehicles and motorized equipment) issued orders to develop a self-propelled version armed with such a gun. Although initially it was intended to build a completely new design, this idea had to be abandoned due to a lack of production capacity.

The 15 cm sIG 33. Even though it was an effective, robust, and cheap gun, it was too heavy to be effectively used. Source: https://en.topwar.ru/180513-trofejnye-nemeckie-pehotnye-orudija-na-sluzhbe-v-rkka.html

Given that designing a brand-new chassis would take time, the Germans went for the simplest possible solution. They simply reused what they had available, in the form of the obsolete Panzer I Ausf. B chassis. A 15 sIG 33 gun was placed on this chassis, protected by a three-sided armored superstructure. This led to the creation of a rather awkward vehicle, that on the one hand solved the problems with the mobility of the 15 cm gun, but was plagued with other issues. Namely, the chassis proved to be too weak and prone to malfunction due to the extra added weight. The crew was poorly protected and only a few rounds could be carried inside. Despite all the problems, a small production run of 38 vehicles was made, which was completed by March 1940. This vehicle is known as 15 cm sIG 33 auf Panzerkampfwagen I ohne Aufbau Ausf.B and was intended to be used as mobile artillery, although it was occasionally used in a direct fire role. While its gun was effective at close ranges, other factors, such as its high silhouette, poor armor, and weak chassis, made using it in such a way highly dangerous. Any kind of enemy anti-tank weaponry could easily take out this vehicle. In addition, since it was open-topped, the crew was completely exposed to enemy fire from above, something that was likely to occur in urban fighting.

A 15cm sIG 33 auf Panzerkampfwagen I ohne Aufbau Ausf.B of which some 38 would be built. Despite its clumsy appearance, the last vehicle would be lost in 1943. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/samohybky/spanzer1.php

The sIG 33 auf Pz. I’s armor did not offer any real protection besides against small caliber bullets and shrapnel. Being hit by any properly designed anti-tank weapons could easily take it out of action or completely destroy it, like in this picture. Consequently, using such vehicles in close combat operations in urban areas was quite dangerous. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Experience in Stalingrad

In the summer of 1942, the Germans and their allies launched a new offensive with the aim of capturing the resource-rich Caucasus, but also the strategic and politically important city of Stalingrad. The fighting around and for the city of Stalingrad was notoriously vicious. The Soviets desperately tried to defend it, as the loss of the city named after their leader would be a huge morale boost for the enemy. The Germans had to fight for every street and building. As the Soviets were well entrenched, the Germans had great difficulty dislodging them.

This issue was discussed at a meeting on 20th September 1942 between Army officials and Adolf Hitler. During the meeting, it was agreed that a new vehicle capable of leveling entire houses with a few rounds was desperately needed. It was to engage targets at close range, so it had to be well protected. Given the urgency of the project, a small series of 12 vehicles were to be built within a two-week period. This meant that this vehicle had to be built using existing tools and equipment. The armament chosen was the 15 cm SiG 33 heavy gun. For the chassis, the Panzer III and IV were to be tested to establish if this gun could be installed inside their turrets. As this proved impossible to achieve, as a temporary solution, the StuG III chassis was to be used instead. Given that the company Alkett was responsible for the construction of the StuG III, it was tasked with developing this new vehicle. In theory, the cheapest way to produce this modification would be to mount the 15 cm gun inside the StuG III. In reality, though, this was not possible due to the large size of the gun, so a completely new superstructure had to be designed from scratch. The frontal armor protection of this vehicle was to be 80 mm thick, which was one of the mightiest in the German arsenal at that time, excluding the heavy Tiger tanks, which were slowly entering service. Due to the urgency of the project, any available StuG III chassis were to be reused for the construction of this new vehicle. In essence, this meant reusing older chassis which were either used for training or were from damaged vehicles which were returned to Germany for repairs. StuG III chassis used ranged from the Ausf.A to Ausf.F.

The new vehicle was to reuse StuG III chassis from older models, in this case, an Ausf.D. The German industry had difficulty providing brand-new chassis for this project. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.9 Sturmpanzer

Name

This vehicle was simply designated as Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33. This name could be translated to infantry support assault gun. The number 33 refers to the main armament, the 15 cm sIG 33 (schwere Infanteriegeschutz – Heavy infantry gun). In the sources, it is sometimes also designated as 33B. The capital ‘B’ referred to the second version of this gun introduced in 1938. The sources occasionally shorten the name to StuIG 33. For the sake of simplicity, this article will use this shortened designation.

Production

Given the urgency and rather simple conversion process for the StuIG 33, the first 6 vehicles were completed by 7th October 1942, and the remaining six three days later. On 13th October, all 12 were reported ready for service. The remaining 12 from the second series were reported ready by mid-November 1942. Given the vehicle’s improvised nature, and the fact that its design arose from the fighting at Stalingrad, no further vehicles were ordered.

A few of the StuIG 33s under construction. As the gun and the chassis were available, only the superstructure needed to be built from scratch. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.9-1 Sturmpanzer

What is interesting is that in older sources, such as P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle’s Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two, the first vehicle was stated as having been completed in December 1941. In a more recent publication, H. Doyle does not mention this date, which may suggest the older information has since been disproved with the appearance of more reliable information.

Design

Even though the StuIG was built using any available StuG III chassis, there were some differences in the vehicles’ overall design. As these were more of an improvisation than a dedicated designed vehicle, this should not come as a surprise.

Hull

The StuIG 33’s hull can be divided into three major sections. These were the forward-mounted transmission, central crew compartment, and rear engine compartment. The front hull was where the transmission and steering systems were placed and it was protected by an angled armor plate. The two square-shaped, two-part hatch brake inspection doors were located on the front hull. The front glacis had two small round-shaped covers. Their purpose is unclear, but on the original Panzer III, starting from Ausf. E/F, enclosed air intake ports were placed in the exact position of these round-shaped covers. What is unusual is that the StuG IIIs were not provided with such an air intake port except for the Ausf.A/B hybrid which was built in small numbers. A more probable explanation may be found in the fact that after the conclusion of the Western campaign in June 1940, the German Army initiated a huge program intended to improve Panzer III’s overall performance. This included adding extra armor plates to the front and rear. The armor plates that were added to the front were usually bolted down. As these Panzer IIIs were provided with the front air intake ports, it would be necessary to add holes to the frontal armor plates. The Germans would have likely reused these plates, and the round holes were filled with round-shaped metal plates.

As different StuG III chassis were used for the StuIG 33’s construction, there were some minor differences between them. For example, the StuG III Ausf.E used smaller cast hinges for the two glacis hatches.

A StuIG 33 from the 23rd Panzer Division during the summer of 1943. The two round metal covers on the front hull can be seen here, next to the towing cables. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz

The unusual StuG III Ausf.A/B hybrid were used as a replacement for the delayed production of the later Ausf.B series. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz

After June 1940, most Panzer IIIs in service received a number of modifications including added frontal plates. To add these to the front hull armor plate, where the two air intakes were located, round-shaped holes had to be cut into them. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf.E, F, G, H.

The earlier StuG III versions used two large cast hinges for the two glacis hatches (left picture). Starting from the Ausf.E, four much simpler hinges were used instead. Those StuIG 33 that were built using the Ausf.E chassis did receive this small change. Source: Achtung Panzer No.5

Suspension

The suspension was the standard StuG III type which consisted of six road wheels on each side. These were suspended using a combination of individual swing axles together with torsion bars which were placed in the bottom of the hull. The upper movement of each wheel’s swingarm was limited by bump stops covered in rubber. Additionally, the first and the last wheels were equipped with a hydraulic shock absorber.

Once again, due to its somewhat accelerated development, any StuG III chassis that was available at hand were reused for this project. This is visually most noticeable when observing the suspension, which often had mixed components from the older and newer StuG III versions. The use of different types of front drive sprockets and rear idlers was common on the StuIG 33. As these were intended to be used on the Eastern Front during the winter of 1942/43, wider Winterketten (English: Winter track) were often used. The added weight of the gun and the superstructure to the front of the vehicle caused huge problems with the front road wheels and the transmission, which were prone to breakdowns. This issue would occur later on in other German designs as well, such as the Jagdpanzer IV series. Whilst the Germans did some improvements, such as the use of internal suspended metal wheels, the StuIG 33 did not receive any such modifications. Basically, the driver would have to pay great attention during driving so as to not overstress the front transmission.

This particular vehicle uses the front drive wheel of an Ausf.A with a combination of return rollers and wider tracks of the Ausf.B. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.9-1 Sturmpanzer

This vehicle had the new front-drive sprocket but uses the older rear idler design. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/artillery/sig33b/sig33-g7-zitadelle/

The Ausf.C and D suspension introduced a new type of cast idler. The new cast idler (right) had a much-simplified design in contrast to an earlier version. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants and www.reddit.com

Given that the StuIG 33 was nose heavy, this led to mechanical issues with the front road wheels and the drive unit. Source: Digitial Collection of Armin Freitag

Engine

The StuIG 33 was powered by the standard StuG III twelve-cylinder, water-cooled Maybach HL 120 TRM engine giving 265 hp@2,600 rpm. With this power unit, the StuIG 33’s maximum speed was only 20 km/h. The reason for this drop in maximum speed is not quite clear. Given the vehicle’s weight at 21 tonnes, it was not much different from the later 23.9 tonnes StuG III Ausf.G. This StuG III version with the same engine could achieve a maximum speed of nearly 40 km/h.

The fuel load of 310 liters was stored in two fuel tanks placed below the radiators in the engine compartment. With this fuel load, the StuIG 33 operational range was 110 km on roads and 85 km cross-country. To avoid any accidental fires, these fuel tanks were protected by firewalls.

The engine compartment was protected by an enclosed superstructure. On top of this compartment, two two-part hatches were added for access to the engine. Further back, two smaller doors were added to provide the crew access to the fan drives. The air intakes were repositioned to the engine compartment sides and were protected with armor plates. One major change was the addition of a large storage box above the engine compartment.

The rear view of the StuIG 33. Notice the large storage box, positioned above the engine compartment. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/artillery/sig33b/g2-1943/

Superstructure

The superstructure had a simple box-shaped design. On the front part, there was the main opening for the gun mount, and to the left of it, the driver’s visor port was located. Right off the main gun, the machine gun ball mount was placed. The StuIG 33 had quite a limited field of view as no side or rear vision ports were provided. On the right side of the superstructure, a small pistol port was added.

To the rear, there were two hatches placed opposite of each other. Each of them had small pistol ports. On top, there was one hatch located in the bottom left corner. In addition, there was an opening for the gunner’s periscope. To avoid dust, rain, or, worse still, enemy grenades falling inside, a small protective roof was added on top of it. Lastly, there was a round opening for the ventilation port. Given that no such ventilation unit was fitted on any of the 24 StuIG 33 vehicles, it was simply covered by a round armor plate.

Side view of the StuIG 33’s simple box-shaped superstructure. Source: Wiki

Front view of the StuIG 33’s superstructure. In 1942, the Germans had trouble building 80 mm thick one-piece armored plates. As a temporary solution, they used a 50 mm and a 30 mm plate which were bolted together. Notice the small machine gun ball mount and the driver’s vision port. Source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/300615343875904530/

While the StuIG 33’s superstructure had a relatively simple design, it did not provide an adequate view of the surroundings for the crew. Source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/809733208019712173/

On the rear hatches and on the superstructure’s right side, in total, three small pistol ports were added. These would be used as close-defense firing points against enemy infantry. Source: https://historyopinion.com/341-yuri-pasholok-assault-shed-in-german/

A top view of the StuIG 33 which was simply flat. Only one top hatch was provided for the commander, but there was no cupola for the commander. The opening for the gun’s periscope is covered by protective housing. Next to it, a ventilation port was welded shut. Although this vehicle would have certainly needed a ventilation fan to extract the fumes created from firing the gun, none were provided. The most likely reason for this is that the Germans could not produce them in time to fit them in. Source: Tank Power Vol.XXIV 15 cm sIG 33(Sf) auf PzKpfw I/II/III

A StuIG 33 built on an Ausf.E chassis and captured by the Soviets. This particular vehicle survived the war and is now located at the Kubinka Museum in Russia. The small pistol port can be seen here, located just behind the Balkenkreuz marking. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.9-1 Sturmpanzer

Armament

The main armament of this vehicle was a 15 cm sIG 33. Rheinmetall began its development in 1927 and it entered service in 1933. With a total weight of approximately 1,700 kg, it was one of the heaviest guns to be ever used for infantry support. It was a reliable and robust gun that was easy to build and required very little maintenance.

In terms of construction, it was quite a conventional design. It had a two-wheeled carriage and the older type of box trail equipped with a hydropneumatic recoil system placed under the gun barrel. The gun possessed a high elevation and used a horizontal sliding-block breech mechanism. To help counteract the muzzle weight, two balancing springs (one on each side) were installed. The 15 cm sIG was considered a satisfactory weapon by the Germans, but the greatest issue was its weight. It would remain in use throughout the whole of World War II in both its original form and as the main weapon of many German self-propelled guns.

A gun crew loading a 15 cm sIG 33. Source: Wiki

The 15 cm sIG 33 fired a 38 kg heavy high-explosive round at a maximum range of 4.7 km. This high-explosive round, during the explosion, created a lethal area of around 100-120 m wide and 12-15 m deep. While the 15 cm sIG used several different ammunition types, in the sIG 33 auf Pz. I configuration, only the high-explosive rounds were used.

The main gun elevation was -4° to +75, while the traverse was 5.5° to either side. These figures differ depending on the source consulted. The rate of fire was low, at only 2 to 3 rounds per minute. This was due to the heavy weight of the shells and the use of separate two-part ammunition (shell and charges). The 15 cm sIG 33 used the Zeiss Rblf 36 gun sight.

The 15 cm sIG’s large ammunition is evident here. Source: https://en.topwar.ru/180513-trofejnye-nemeckie-pehotnye-orudija-na-sluzhbe-v-rkka.html

During the construction of the Panzer I modification, the whole gun with its trailing leg and wheels was simply placed on top of the Panzer I hull. While this made the replacement of damaged parts or even the removal of the gun itself easier, it added unnecessary weight and height. Given that the StuIG 33 was to have an enclosed superstructure, using a whole gun assembly was impossible. Luckily for the Germans, Škoda was developing a modified version of this gun, known as the 15 cm sIG 33/1. This version was intended to be used on Škoda’s own self-propelled gun project that was in the works but delayed due to the great need for anti-tank vehicles based on the Panzer 38(t)’s chassis. In this modified version, the 15 cm sIG 33/1 had its wheels and trail removed. As a result, the gun could easily be installed in any fighting vehicle capable of carrying its weight.

As Škoda worked on its own self-propelled version, it created the 15 cm sIG 33/1, which was designed especially to be installed in armored vehicles. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.9 Sturmpanzer

The 15 cm sIG 33/1 gun was positioned slightly offset from the center to the right. The reason for this is not mentioned in the sources, but was possibly influenced by the driver’s position. The gun’s vertical rectangular opening was covered by a simple flat and sliding armor plate which moved with the gun when elevating. There were two parallel guiding rail plates bolted to the front armor, placed on opposite sides of the gun’s opening. The central opening for the gun was not fully protected, as there was some room between it and the gun barrel.

When the gun was highly elevated, there was an opening at its lower opening on the superstructure. To avoid potentially creating a death trap, the German engineers added a small sliding armor plate. When the gun mantlet plate was fully raised, it fell down and covered the small opening. This was a far from a perfect solution, but due to the urgency of the project, it was the best thing that the German engineers could think of.

The protective gun mantlet was not fully enclosed, as there was a small opening between it and the gun’s assembly. Notice the added sliding armor plate and the travel lock. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.9 Sturmpanzer

Once the gun was elevated, the sliding armor plate would fall down and cover the opening left by the gun. Source: Digital Collections of Armin Freitag

The StuIG 33’s gun mount offered only a limited traverse of -3° to +3°, or -10° to +10°, depending on the source. Elevation ranged from -3° to +25°. Despite having a larger size than the smaller Panzer I, due to the 15 cm sIG 33’s large ammunition, only 30 rounds were carried inside the StuIG 33. When in movement, the gun was held in place by a forward-mounted travel lock.

The secondary armament consisted of one 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun. It was placed on a Kugelblende 30 on the right side of the vehicle’s superstructure. The numbers 30 indicate the armor thickness of this ball mount. This ball mount consisted of two parts. The movable armored ball to which the machine gun was attached and the external and fixed armored cover. It offered a 15º traverse to either side. It could be elevated to 20° and depressed to -15°. For spotting targets, a telescopic sight with a field of view of 18° and 1.8 x magnification was provided. Only 600 rounds of spare ammunition were carried inside. Lastly, the crew was also provided with two 9 mm MP 40 submachine guns.

Close-up view of the Kugelblende 30. Source: P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two

Armor Protection

Given the specialized role that the StuIG 33 was to perform, it had to be well protected. Because the Germans had not yet fully introduced 80 mm thick plates, as a temporary solution, bolted armor was used. While it slightly complicated the overall production, the Germans never noted any major issue with bolted armor plates, which were commonly used on the StuG III series and other vehicles up to the war’s end.

The original StuG III’s chassis had frontal armor formed of two plates with a thickness of 50 mm and placed at 21° and 52° angles respectively. For the StuIG 33, the Germans added an additional 30 mm of frontal armor. The smaller lower hull plate, placed at 75°, remained 30 mm thick, while the sides and rear were 30 mm thick.

The front superstructure’s armor consisted of one 50 and one 30 mm thick armor plate, placed at an 81° angle. The side plates were 50 mm thick and placed at a 75° angle. The rear armor was flat and only 30 mm thick. The top was only 20 mm thick. The top engine compartment was lightly protected by 16 mm of armor.

Adding all kinds of spare equipment was often used as improvised armor. The most common way was to mount one or more spare wheels to the front of the superstructure. In addition, some crews added track holders, which were installed on the superstructure’s sides.

The crew of this vehicle added two road wheels to the front to act as spare parts, but as improvised armor protection too. Also, notice that spare track links were carried on the sides. Source: https://ww2-history.fandom.com/wiki/StuiG_33B

This vehicle has only one spare road wheel added to its superstructure, but in a slightly different position to the previous vehicle. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/artillery/sig33b/sig33-summer-1943/

Crew

The crew of the StuIG 33 consisted of five: a commander, two loaders, a driver, and a gunner. The driver was positioned on the left side of the vehicle. Behind him was the gunner and after him the commander. While not specified in the sources, due to the radio’s 2 m antenna being positioned on the left, we can assume that the commander was also the radio operator.

The StuIG 33 was not provided with a command cupola, which limited the commander’s ability to scout the battlefield. Furthermore, the initial 12 produced vehicles were at first not even provided with scissors periscopes. Lastly, the two loaders would be placed opposite the previously mentioned crew members. One of them operated the machine gun.

The StuIG 33 had a crew of five, including the commander, gunner, driver, and two loaders. Source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/73042825188124136/

This vehicle, most likely belonging to the second series, was provided with the scissors periscopes for the commander. This was an essential piece of equipment, as the commander could observe a target and the battlefield without the need to expose himself to enemy fire. Source: Pinterest

The 2 m long radio antenna was positioned to the rear left part of the superstructure, which indicates that the commander may have acted as the radio operator too. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz

Combat Use

Immediately after completion, the first 12 vehicles were sent to the Eastern Front. They arrived at the River Chir, near the Don River, on 28th October 1942. Half of them were given to the Sturmgeschutz-Abteilung 117 (English: Assault Gun Battalion) and the remaining half to the 244th. Unfortunately, there is no surviving combat record of these 12 vehicles that saw service at Stalingrad. Given the heavy fighting, they likely saw extensive combat action.

The second group was initially attached to the 17th Lehr Abteilung, a training unit. Given the deteriorating situation at Stalingrad, especially after the Soviet encirclement of the 6th Army, these vehicles were part of the German relief force, which failed to break the enemy line. During this fighting, 5 vehicles were lost. The remaining 7 vehicles were allocated to the Gruppe Burgstaller (English: Burgstaller Group), essentially an ad hoc military unit, something that would become quite common for the Germans to do in later years. In April 1943, the Gruppe Burgstaller and its vehicles were integrated into the 23rd Panzer Division. The division itself was in the process of rearmament and reorganization, so any armor elements were welcome additions. As part of the 23rd Panzer Division, the StuIG 33s saw at least some combat action. At the end of May, this unit sent a combat report about the overall performance of the StuIG 33.

“ We advise close co-operation with tanks, since the self-propelled gun can destroy antitank guns and artillery positions at ranges up to 3,500m. Enemy tank assembly positions were effectively obliterated. We note that it is very effective against buildings, also infantry and anti-tank rifle positions. The gun did not achieve direct armor penetration when used against tanks. Mechanical maintenance is guaranteed only when used in conjunction with a tank regiment.

During the assault by our tank forces against concealed positions all were overrun and occupied. An advance in stages was carried out only under the cover of accompanying armored infantry. …. The mounting bolts on the [gun] cradle’s armor plate are too weak. The commander’s cupola is too small to provide good observation. The hatch impedes vision to the right. The vehicle is front-heavy. The second running wheels are overloaded. The engine is underpowered and the clutch is too weak, also the brakes wear out too quickly. “

On 11th May 1943, three vehicles were reported to be fully operational, while the remaining four were under repair. The last vehicle was reported lost in October 1943. Some sources also mentioned that at some point the 22nd Panzer Division briefly operated these vehicles.

A StuIG 33 from the Sturmgeschutz-Abteilung 224, possibly in or around Stalingrad in winter 1942. Source:https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/artillery/sig33b/sig33-winter/

One StuIG 33 from the second production series, which was part of the 23rd Panzer Division, during summer 1943. Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/artillery/sig33b/sig33-and-tiger-1943/

Surviving Vehicle

Surprisingly, despite the limited number of the vehicles built, one StuIG 33 actually survived the war. It was captured at some point during the fighting for Stalingrad, and can now be seen at the Russian Kubinka Tank Museum.

The only surviving StuIG 33 vehicle at the Kubinka Tank Museum in Russia. Source: Wiki

Conclusion

While there is little to no information about the StuIG 33’s overall combat performance, we can assume that thanks to the 15 cm gun, it was quite effective in taking out designated targets. But given its rather improvised and rushed design, many flaws were noted. The vehicle was handicapped by low mobility and prone to breakdowns of the suspension and the drive unit. The gun, while effective, had limited traverse and a small ammunition load. The crew had poor vision of their surroundings, especially the commander. Despite all these flaws, the StuIG 33 showed that such a vehicle was needed, and further development would lead to the introduction of an assault gun known as Sturmpanzer IV, which saw service in greater numbers.

Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33 Specifications
Size (L-W-H)	5.4 x 2.9 x 2.3 m
Weight	21 tonnes
Crew	5 (driver, commander, gunner, two loaders)
Engine	Maybach HL 120 TRM 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm
Speed	20 km/h
Range	110 km / 85 km (cross-country)
Armament	15 cm sIG 33/1
Armor	15 to 80 mm

Sources

D. Nešić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog rata-Nemačka, Beograd
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (1999) Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.9 Sturmpanzer
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
H. Doyle (2005). German military Vehicles, Krause Publications
Ian V. Hogg (1975) German Artillery of World War Two, Purnell Book Services Ltd.
T. L. Jentz and H. L. Doyle (1998) Panzer Tracts No.10 Artillerie Selbsfahrlafetten
J. Engelmann, Bison und andere 15 cm-Geschutze auf Selbstfahrlafetten, Podzun-Pallas-Verlag GmbH
Tank Power Vol.XXIV 15 cm sIG 33(Sf) auf PzKpfw I/II/III, Wydawnictwo Militaria
Walter J. Spielberger (1993) Sturmgeschütz and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd
T. Anderson (2016) Sturmartillerie Spearhead Of the Infantry, Osprey Publishing
W. J. Spielberger (2007) Panzer III and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
B. Carruthers (2012) Sturmgeschütze Armored Assault Guns, pen and Sword

WW2 German StuG III

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone Ausführung A/B (Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.A/B Hybrid)

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date January 16, 2023
3 Comments on Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone Ausführung A/B (Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.A/B Hybrid)

Gepanzerten Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone Ausführung A/B. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

German Reich (1940)
Self-Propelled Assault Gun – 6 to 20 Built

The early StuG IIIs were plagued with production delays, resulting in its late introduction to service. In May 1940, two more units equipped with StuG IIIs were to be formed. As the promised vehicles were instead transferred to SS forces, new vehicles had to be delivered in order to fully equip them. Given the production of new vehicles was temporarily delayed, the Germans simply reused what they had on hand, creating hybrid vehicles that incorporated parts from the Ausf.A and Ausf.B series, but also used an unmodified Panzer III chassis.

The unusual StuG III Ausf.A/B hybrid was used as a replacement for the delayed production of the later Ausf.B series. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz

The First StuG IIIs Enter Service

The importance of having vehicles such as the Sturmgeschütz (English: Assault gun) was mainly heralded by Erich von Manstein. He argued for the introduction of a highly mobile, well-protected, and well-armed self-propelled artillery gun. Such vehicles were meant to provide infantry with mobile close-fire support during combat operations. Thanks to the self-propelled chassis, these could be quickly redeployed to respond to any new threat. Towed artillery, on the other hand, was often vulnerable to enemy return fire and needed time to change positions. This self-propelled artillery gun was to be an organic part of standard infantry divisions.
The Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres (German Commander in Chief of the Army) finally approved the project in 1935. The Waffenamt (English: Ordnance bureau) issued a production order for 280 vehicles. This included 30 vehicles of the initially marked 0-series (actually the Ausf.A version) and 250 of the second series. Due to many reasons, but mostly related to the rather underdeveloped German arms industry, production of the Ausf.A version actually began at the end of 1939. All 30 vehicles were finally completed by April 1940.
From March 1940, these vehicles were designated as Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone, which can be translated as armored self-propelled chassis for 7.5 cm armed assault gun. It is generally best known under the much shorter StuG III name. The first series of this vehicle received the Ausfuhrung (Eng. version or series) A designation.
Given the rather limited production run, it was only possible to equip a limited number of small combat units. The initial unit organization for StuG IIIs was quite simple, as it was limited by the available numbers. Six vehicles were used to form a sturmartillerie batterie (Eng. assault gun battery). These were divided into three zuge (Eng. platoons), each equipped with only two vehicles.
Prior to the start of a Western campaign in May 1940, the 24 available StuGs were distributed to four batteries: the 640th, 659th, 660th, and 665th. The remaining 6 StuG III Ausf.As were used to create an SS assault battery for the LSSAH (Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler) Regiment. These were to be attached to various infantry divisions, depending on the combat needs.

Why Build a Hybrid?

As the Ausf.A had a fairly small production run of only 30 vehicles, it was not possible to equip units such as the 666th and 667th batteries. An additional 6 to 20 vehicles were built using different components, such as the Panzer III Ausf.F or G hull and the superstructure taken from the StuG III Ausf.B. The front transmission unit was taken from the StuG III Ausf.A. The secondary literature disagrees as to why the Germans decided to do so and there are a few different explanations.
Author of Sturmgeschütz and its Variants, Walter J. Spielberger, mentions no explanation had been found in the German documentation to explain why these vehicles were built up to the time of publication.
Authors T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz) mention that, due to delays in the delivery of new transmissions, the production of the Ausf.B had to be postponed. As a temporary solution, some 20 hybrid Ausf.A/B vehicles were ordered instead. These were allocated to the 666th and 667th batteries.
Lastly, author T. Anderson (Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infantry) gives a different account. According to him, the need for more vehicles arose when the StuG IIIs allocated to the 666th Batterie were instead given to the LSSAH. The 666th Batterie was planned to be formed on 20th May and was to reach full combat readiness by 20th June (it actually did so on 13th July 1940). Likely due to political connections, priority was given to SS formations, such as the LSSAH Division instead. The 666th Batterie was informed that its six StuG III vehicles were to be delivered by the end of June.
Based on this information, it can be assumed that the simple reason why these hybrids were built was out of a need to form additional batteries. The availability of guns and superstructures was not a problem. The delivery of new transmissions, on the other hand, was problematic. It was the main reason why the StuG III Ausf.B production was delayed. The Germans probably approached this problem with the simplest solution, reusing what they had on hand. Acquisition of a few Panzer III hulls for this project was not difficult, even if the production of the Panzer III was rather slow at this point of the war. As the StuG III used the Panzer III chassis, creating these hybrid vehicles could be done relatively easily. But in general, these hybrid vehicles are rarely mentioned in the sources, and nothing much is known about them.

Name

According to a German war document dated February 1944, this vehicle did not receive any special designation and was known simply as Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone Ausführung A. They received 90401 to 90500 chassis number designations. Despite using components from the Ausf.B, the designation Ausf.A was used, mainly due to it being equipped with the older type of transmission. Thus, the name was not changed, mostly due to bureaucracy and to avoid confusion with the allocation of spare parts. To distinguish between these two series, this article will refer to it as StuG III Ausf.A/B for the sake of simplicity, even though this was not an official designation.

How Many Were Produced?

Production numbers for this vehicle range between 6 to 20. Authors Walter J. Spielberger, T.L. Jentz, and H.L. Doyle mention a number of 20 vehicles being built. T. Anderson initially mentions that 6 vehicles were to be allocated to the 666th Battery. Nevertheless, later on, he cited sources such as P. Müller (Historyfacts), who argued that, based on German production documents and statistics, it is likely that 20 such vehicles were produced. Based on the evidence, the larger number of 20 seems more plausible. The firm responsible for producing these 20 Ausf.A/B vehicles was Daimler-Benz.

Design

This vehicle was quite similar to the Ausf.A, although there are some unique features that help distinguish the two.

Hull

The StuG III Ausf.A/B hull generally had the same design as other WWII German vehicles and can be divided into three major sections. These were the forward-mounted transmission, central crew compartment, and rear engine compartment. The front hull was where the transmission and steering systems were placed and it was protected with an angled armor plate.
The first difference between the Ausf.A and the Ausf.A/B hull, which was taken from the Panzer III Ausf.F and G, was in the front of the hull. The hybrid StuG III used different square-shaped, two-part hatch brake inspection doors, which were located on the front hull. In the case of the Ausf.A/B, these would be opened horizontally and not vertically, as was the case on the standard StuG III vehicles. In addition, the Ausf.A/B also was provided with two armored ventilation ports located on top of the front hull armor plates. Their purpose was to provide cooled air to the front-mounted steering brakes.

A noticeable feature of the StuG III series was the way the front hull inspection hatches could be opened, as seen in this photograph. Note that this StuG III was provided with a small bullet splash deflector for the driver’s vision port. This feature was not used on the StuG III Ausf.A/B. source: www.worldwarphotos.info

On the other hand, the Panzer III used slightly different hull hatches, which could be opened horizontally. Source: www.worldwarphotos.info

Suspension and Running Gear

The StuG III Ausf.A/B used the standard Panzer III suspension, which consisted of six road wheels on each side. These were suspended using a combination of individual swing axles together with torsion bars, which were placed in the bottom of the hull. The upper movement of each wheel’s swingarm was limited by contact blocks covered in rubber. Additionally, the first and the last wheels were equipped with a hydraulic shock absorber. At the front, there was a 360 mm wide 21-tooth drive sprocket. On the back of the hull was the idler with an adjustable crank arm. The number of return rollers was three per side.
The major difference was that the older and unnecessarily complex (prone to malfunctions and breakdowns) 10-speed SRG 32 8 145 transmissions were replaced with a much simpler and reliable 6-speed ZF SSG 77 type. In addition, StuG III Ausf.A/B had two (one on each side) emergency escape hatches located on the lower hull sides. These were located behind the first idler.

A close-up view of the Panzer III Ausf.G’s suspension. While not perfect, it was relatively easy to build, requiring less maintenance. Source: warspot.ru

Given that the Ausf.A/B vehicles were mostly based on the Panzer III Ausf.G, they also had hull side escape hatches. This feature was not present on standard StuG III vehicles and greatly helps to identify these vehicles. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Engine

The power unit was the same twelve-cylinder, water-cooled Maybach HL 120 TRM engine giving 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm. This engine was placed at the rear of the hull and was separated from the central crew compartment by a firewall. The firewall had a small door. Its purpose was to provide the crew members with access to the engine if needed.
The engine was held in place by three rubber bushings. With this power unit, the StuG III Ausf.A/B’s maximum speed was 40 km/h, while the cross-country speed was 20 km/h. The fuel load of 310 liters was stored in two fuel tanks placed below the radiators in the engine compartment. With this fuel load, the operational range was 160 km on roads and 100 km cross-country. To avoid any accidental fires, these fuel tanks were protected by firewalls. One minor change was the introduction of a cast cover for the external crank starter port.

A rear-view of the StuG III Ausf.A/B, which used the same engine as standard StuG III vehicles. One minor change was the introduction of a cast cover for the external crank starter port. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Superstructure

The overall superstructure design was left unchanged. It was taken from the Ausf.B, which compared to the Ausf.A, received a slightly modified gunner’s periscope hatch design. One minor difference that the Ausf.A/B vehicle had was the lack of a driver bullet splash deflector, which would be normally located in front of his vision port. The reason for this was the hull hatch design, which opened differently on this vehicle and prevented the installation of this deflector.

Armor Protection

The StuG III Ausf.A/B was constructed using the early Panzer III chassis, which was only protected by 30 mm of frontal armor. Given that standard StuG III was protected by 50 mm of frontal armor, additional armor plates had to be added in order to reach this level of protection. To this end, an additional 20 mm of armor was bolted to the lower front hull armor. The upper glacis appears not to have received the extra 20 mm of armor, which is a bit unusual.
Sources disagree on the effectiveness of this bolted armor plate. Authors F. Kurowski and G. Tornau (Sturmgeschütz – Die Panzer der Infanterie) mention that the Germans made a mistake during the drilling of the holes for the bolts. Namely, the holes were drilled straight instead of being tapered. The consequence of this alleged mistake was that the 20 mm plate was not well connected with the hull armor and thus offered less protection. In addition, if the vehicle was hit in this area, there was a chance of metal splinter ricocheting inside the vehicle, possibly wounding, or, in a worst-case scenario, killing a crew member. This was reported by some of the crews, who criticized this mistake. It must be noted that there is no mention of this flaw in any of the German war documents regarding the use of these vehicles. Besides that, while it complicates the production of new vehicles a bit, no major issue was noted with this kind of armor arrangement. Due to a lack of proper information, the full truth can never be known for sure, but there may have been some issue with this armor, as these vehicles appear to have seen limited service. Because of this, it is possible to assume that some mistakes were made during its construction.

The 20 mm armored plate was bolted to the lower front hull armor. There may have been some issues with its construction that eventually led to the Ausf.A/B being removed from service. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Other than that, the remaining armor was the same, with the hull’s sides and rear being 30 mm thick. The front superstructure armor plates were 50 mm thick. Like the hull armor, the superstructure side and rear were also 30 mm thick. The angled-spaced armor was 9 mm thick and placed at a 30° angle. The top armor was 10 mm, while the top of the engine compartment was slightly thicker, at 16 mm. The gun mantlet was 50 mm thick. The StuG III was one of the most well-armored vehicles in the German arsenal at that time.

Armament

The armament remained unchanged. The main armament consisted of a semi-automatic 7.5 cm StuK 37 (Sturmkanone – assault cannon) L/24. It was primarily designed to engage enemy-fortified positions, but was also equipped to deal with early enemy armor designs. A total of 44 spare rounds were carried inside the vehicle.

A close-up view of the 7.5 cm StuK 37 L/24 gun. Despite its short barrel and low velocity, it suited the StuG III’s close support role perfectly Source: Sturmartillerie Tome I by Didier Laugie

Crew

Like in the Ausf.A, the crew of this vehicle consisted of four: the commander, driver, loader, and gunner. The loader was positioned to the right of the gun, with the remaining crew placed opposite. The driver was positioned on the left front side of the hull. Just behind him was the gunner, and right behind him was the commander.

Operational Use and Fate

What precisely happened to the StuG III A/B vehicles is not known. They were delivered too late to participate in the German invasion of the West in May 1940. While at least two batteries received these vehicles, there is little information on their use. What is strange is that these units were mainly photographed using the later Ausf.B vehicles.

While at least 20 vehicles were built, their use is generally unknown. At least one vehicle was reported lost in combat. This indicates that some were used in combat. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz

Author T. Anderson mentions that one vehicle was lost in combat, but does not provide more details about when this happened, but it was likely in the Soviet Union during 1941. If there was a flaw in the design of the bolted armor plates, there is the possibility that these were removed from service and then reallocated to training units, or even reused in their original configuration. In either case, their final fate remains unknown.

Other Hybrid StuG III

This would not be the last time that the Germans built hybrid StuG III vehicles. Such vehicles were constructed due to production limitations, being repaired with parts that were available onhand or, more commonly, for use as training vehicles.

This StuG III Ausf.C was armed with a long 7.5 cm L/48 gun taken from the later-developed series. Other vehicles, such as the older Panzer IVs, were similarly rearmed in this manner and mostly used for training. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Some of the early produced Ausf.Es received the superstructure from the Ausf.D. This picture was taken in September 1941. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Sturmgeschütz and its Variants

Conclusion

The StuG III Ausf.A/B was an interesting attempt to produce more StuG III vehicles in a short period of time. Given that very little is known about their performance, a proper conclusion on them would be difficult to make. The fact that only a limited number were made may give an indication that its overall design had some flaws. On the other hand, the production of the later Ausf.B may suggest that such a hybrid vehicle was not needed.

Gepanzerten Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone Ausführung A/B. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone Ausführung A/B Technical specification
Crew	4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, and Driver)
Weight	20.7 tonnes
Dimensions	Length 5.38 m, Width 2.92 m, Height 1.95 m
Engine	Maybach 120 TRM 265 hp @ 2,000 rpm
Speed
Range	160 km, 100 km (cross-country)
Primary Armament	7.5 cm L/24
Elevation	-10° to +20°
Superstructure armor	front 50 mm, sides 30 mm, rear 30 mm, and top 10-16 mm
Hull armor	front 30+20 mm, sides 30 mm, rear 30 mm, and the top and bottom 15 mm

Sources

https://www.armedconflicts.com/StuG-III-Ausf-A-2-Serie-t191752
https://www.hl-barbara.de/index.php/die-garnison/wehrmacht/sturmartillerie/fotoalbum-batterie-666
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/stug-iii-ausf-a/

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm L/41 Sturmgeschütz Technical specification

Neubaufahrzeug Technical specifications

Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf.F Technical specifications

E-25 Technical specification

Flakpanzer IV Technical Specifications

Beute Sturmgeschütz M41 mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i) Technical Specification

Panzer I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40 Technical specification

M-60 Specification

Specifications

M1 Light Tank Technical specifications

M09 Technical specification

T-27 with the 37 mm gun Technical specification

StuG III Ausf.F/8 Technical specification

Miloš-N Specifications

Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33 Specifications

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone Ausführung A/B Technical specification

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm L/41 Sturmgeschütz (Sturmgeschütz III L/41)

Neubaufahrzeug

Rearmed Panzer IV and Sturmgeschütz III Training Vehicles

Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf.F (Sd.Kfz.141)

Entwicklungsfahrzeug 25 (E 25)

Yugoslav ‘Panzer III’ Film Prop

Panzer IV/70(V)

Flakpanzer IV (3.7 cm Flak 43) ‘Möbelwagen’ (Sd.Kfz.163/3)

‘Tiger’ Film Props in Bitka na Neretvi

Beute Sturmgeschütze mit 7.5 cm KwK L/18 850(i)

Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf.B mit 7.5 cm StuK 40

M-60

Light Tank M3A3 with 7.5 cm PaK 40

Combat Car M1 and M1A1 (Light Tank M1A2)

M09 105 mm Armored Truck-Mounted Howitzer

T-27 37 mm Projects

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm Sturmgeschütz 40 Ausführung F/8 (Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.F/8)

Miloš-N

Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone Ausführung A/B (Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.A/B Hybrid)

German Reich (1941) Self-Propelled Assault Gun – At Least 1 Prototype Built

A Brief History of German Early 7.5 cm Gun Development

A New Sturmgeschütz III Vehicle

Combat Experiences

Krupp 7.5 cm L/41 Gun

Into a StuG III

Name

Design

Hull

Suspension and Running Gear

The Engine

The Superstructure

Armor Protection

Armament

Crew

The Fate of the Krupp Gun

Conclusion

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 7.5 cm L/41 Sturmgeschütz Technical specification

Sources

German Reich (1934) Medium Tank – 5 Built (2 Soft Steel Prototypes + 3 Production Vehicles)

A New Tank

Name

Work on the First Prototypes

Other German Multi-Turret Tanks

Design

Hull

Suspension

Engine

Superstructure

Turrets

Armor

Armament

Crew

What Was It Intended For?

First And Only Combat Service

Surviving Vehicle

Conclusion

Neubaufahrzeug Technical specifications

Sources

German Reich (1942-1945) Modified Training Vehicles – Unknown Number Converted

Development of 7.5 cm KwK L/24 Gun

A New Sturmgeschütz III

Combat Experiences

The Soviet Tank Threat

New Gun Proposals

Training Tanks

Design Changes

Armament

Other Changes

In Combat

Surviving Vehicles

Conclusion

Sources

German Reich (1939) Medium Tank – 435 Built

History and Production

Specifications

Hull

Suspension

Engine

Transmission

German Reich (1941)
Self-Propelled Assault Gun – At Least 1 Prototype Built

German Reich (1934)
Medium Tank – 5 Built (2 Soft Steel Prototypes + 3 Production Vehicles)

German Reich (1942-1945)
Modified Training Vehicles – Unknown Number Converted

German Reich (1939)
Medium Tank – 435 Built

German Reich (1942)
Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – Possibly Up To 5 Prototypes Built

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1980s)
Movie Prop Tank – 1 Tank Modified For The Role

German Reich (1944)
Tank Destroyer – 930 to 940 Built