Author: MarkoPantelic

Leichter Panzerspähwagen (M.G.) Sd.Kfz.221

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date July 9, 2022
3 Comments on Leichter Panzerspähwagen (M.G.) Sd.Kfz.221

Sd.Kfz. 221 Illustration made by David B.

German Reich (1935-1945)
Armored Reconnaissance Car – 339 Built

The German Kfz.13, although an initial success as the first serially produced armored car, lacked armor and any fighting capabilities and was never intended for combat use. This led to the need for a new armored car that would be built on a new standard chassis common to all kinds of other German armored vehicles. The Sd.Kfz.221 was first developed in 1934 and was a completely new design with many modern features at that time. It was meant for frontline service, acting as a reconnaissance vehicle together with radio-equipped vehicles. However, with thin armor and armed with only a machine gun, it could do very little in combat, even in 1939. Therefore, the production of the Sd.Kfz.221 was stopped and emphasis was laid on newer armored cars. In the end, it was still in service around 1943 due to a low supply of reconnaissance vehicles, with many regular 221s converted into radio or command vehicles.

Colorization of a Sd.Kfz.221 crossing the Austrian border in 1938 during the Anschluss. Colorization by Johannes Dorn. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

A Brief History of Early German Armored Car Development

Following the end of the First World War, Germany was strictly forbidden from developing new military technologies, including armored vehicles. Surprisingly, the Entente allowed the German Schutzpolizei (Eng. Police force), which had 150,000 armed men in service, to be equipped with 1 armored personnel carrier per 1,000 men. The Germans exploited this exception made by the Entente and developed and built a few new armored cars, such as the Ehrhardt/21. These vehicles were nominally given to and used by the police force, but the army also acquired and operated small numbers. To counter the large extremist groups and organizations which took hold of Germany in the post-war years, the Freikoprs had to be well equipped and trained.

The Ehrhardt / 21 of the Schutzpolizei. Source: Wiki

By the late 1920s and early 1930s, great interest was given to the development of new types of armored cars that were to be specially designed and used by the Army. The general lack of funds greatly hampered the development and introduction into the service of such vehicles. For example, while the eight-wheeled ‘ARW’ armored car was promising, having excellent mobility compared to four-wheeled armored cars, due to its price, the German Army simply could not afford it at that time. For this reason, the development of new armored cars focused on four-wheeled chassis. These had to be cheap and easy to be built, without the need for overly specialized tooling. As these were to be used as temporary solutions and for crew training, a simple design was deemed sufficient for the job.

The Kfz.13 Maschinengewehrkraftwagen (Eng. Machine gun vehicle) was Daimler-Benz’s response to the German Army’s request for an easy to build and a cheap open-top armored car. To make the Kfz.13 as cheap as possible, the Adler Standard 6 4×2 Kublesitzer passenger car was used for its base. On top of its chassis was a simple open-top armored body. The armament consisted of a rotating MG 13 machine gun protected by an armored shield. Based on this vehicle, a radio communication version, named Kfz.14, was built. It was basically the same vehicle, but the machine gun was replaced with radio equipment, including a large frame antenna.

The Kfz.13 (to the left) and its radio variant, the Kfz.14 (to the right), were Germany’s first attempts to develop armored cars. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/auta/13.php

The fact that they were not fully protected was not seen as a problem, as this vehicle was never intended to be used in real combat. Nonetheless, due to the general lack of armored vehicles when the war started, both the Kfz.13 and 14 had to be used by the invading German forces. Surprisingly, despite their obsolescence, they were in use with frontline units up to the end of 1941. Some even managed to survive up to the end of the war in May 1945.

During 1934, more extensive work was made to develop dedicated four-wheeled armored vehicles that would be used by the German army in different specialized roles. This would lead to the creation of a successful Leichter Panzerspahwagen series starting with the Sd.Kfz.221.

Name

Initially, the new armored vehicle was designated as the Panzerspähwagen 35 (M.G.) (Eng. reconnaissance armored car). In July 1935, the designation would be slightly changed to Leichter Panzerspähwagen (M.G.) (Eng. light reconnaissance armored car). In contrast to the previous Kfz. 13 and 14 vehicles, which were not intended for combat use, this vehicle was specially designed for it. For this reason, it received the military classification marking and number, Sonderkraftfahrzeug (or Sd.Kfz., Eng. Special purpose vehicle) 221. Given that, in most sources, this vehicle is described simply as Sd.Kfz.221, this article will use the same designation.

The Sd.Kfz.221

The need for a heavy chassis arose in the context of the development of a standard and unitary chassis for Army purposes. The Einheitsfahrgestell I (Eng. standard chassis I) was to have a rear-mounted engine and was to carry an armored superstructure, later intended to be an armored car. Development of the standard chassis ‘I’ began in 1934, when the first design and layout of the vehicle were thought out, with certain factors that needed to be fulfilled.

These requirements were:

Decent reliability
Few defects and breakdowns in regular non-combat situations
Able to run on different grades of fuel
Easy to produce and to maintain chassis so lower-skilled workers could work on it too
Extensive standardization
Cross-country capabilities
Powerful engine
Adequate gearbox
Differential gear
Running gear had to have limited rolling resistance
Good suspension
Good grade ability
High ground clearance
Good steering with 4 wheel steering
Low weight and ground pressure
Large wheels
However, these requirements turned out to be very difficult to implement, which made it impossible to use any older chassis or spare parts.
The heavy standard chassis ‘I’ differed in many aspects from the other chassis. The rear-mounted engine had the large radiator located in front, while the size of the engine was minimized. The steering wheel was inverted and located on the left side.

The standard chassis ‘I’. Note the rear-mounted engine. Source: German Armored Cars of WW2.

The Einheitsfahrgestell I (Eng. standard chassis I) being tested on the Auto Union testing ground in 1935. Source: German Armored Cars of WW2

The Sd.Kfz.221 based on the Einheitsfahrgestell I was intended as a direct replacement for the obsolete and inadequate Kfz. 13 and 14 armored cars. Wa. Prüf. 6 (Eng. Weapons Ordinance department) gave specific demands for two types of vehicles. The first was a light armored car mounting a single machine gun. Later, during development, an additional requirement for a vehicle with a two-man turret and a 20 mm cannon was issued and would become the Sd.Kfz.222. It was meant to act as a support vehicle for the MG version. The last version was a light armored car with a radio and frame antenna (the Sd.Kfz.223).

A prototype of the Sd.Kfz.221 during test trials. Note the elevated driver’s compartment. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag.

Production

Several different factories were involved in the production of the Sd.Kfz.221. The I series was built from 1935 to 1937, with some 14 being assembled by Daimler-Benz, 69 by Schichau, and 60 by Deutsche-Werke. An additional 48 of the II series were built during 1938. The last 150 of the III series were assembled by Weserhütte from June 1939 to August 1940. Despite the original intention for the vehicle to be cheap, the Sd.Kfz.221 was rather expensive and difficult to build.

Colorization of a Sd.Kfz.221 during the interwar period (note the camouflage), before 1938. Colorized by Johannes Dorn. Source: Privat Collection of Armin Freitag

Design

Chassis and Running Gear

The Sd.Kfz.221 chassis consisted of the rear-mounted engine, central crew compartment, and the front driver position. To have the best possible off-road performance, independent suspension was used on all four wheels. Each of the four wheels was connected to the chassis frame by two unequal bar arms. These were then sprung by two coil springs, which, in turn, were connected to two double-acting shock absorbers. The actual drive to the wheel ran between the two springs.

A close-up view of the Sd.Kfz 221 chassis, with the rear-mounted engine. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle ) Panzer Tracts No.13-1 Panzerspahwagen

The dimensions of the pneumatic tires were 210 x 18. From 1938 onwards, the Sd.Kfz.221 wheels were to be equipped with bulletproof inner tubes. These were not actually bullet resistant, but instead did not deflate when hit by enemy fire, and thus the vehicle could drive on for a while.

Engine

The Sd.Kfz.221 was powered by a Horch 3.5 liter V-8 water-cooled 75 hp @ 3,600 rpm engine. With a total weight of nearly four tonnes, this armored car was able to reach a maximum speed (on good roads) of 80 km/h. In front of the engine was a 110-liter fuel tank. With this fuel load, the operational range of the Sd.Kfz.221 was 350 km, while cross-country, this was reduced to 200 km. Immediately behind the fuel tanks, a fire-resistant wall was installed.

The Sd.Kfz.221 had a four-wheel drive. For steering, there were two options. The vehicle could either use only the front wheels, or, in special circumstances, the driver could use all four wheels. The later option was to be avoided during fast driving, as it could be potentially dangerous for the crew. The driver was instructed to use four-wheel steering only when the speed of the vehicle was less than 20 km/h.

Armored Body

An armored body was placed on top of the chassis. While protected with only 8 mm of armor at the front and on the sides and 5 mm at the rear, the plates were placed at a high angle to provide additional protection from small-caliber rounds.

The lower part of this armored body was V-shaped and placed at 35° angles. The upper plates had the opposite shape, curving inward as they neared the top and were placed at the same angle. The front plate armor, angled at 36º to 37º, was specially designed to offer the maximum protection possible, but, at the same time, providing the driver with an excellent view. The rear part, where the engine was positioned, was similarly designed to have angled armor plates. All these plates were welded together. Only the front and rear suspension protective plates were bolted to the armored body. The wheels were also protected by four detachable hubs. Various storage boxes and spare wheel holders were placed around the armored body.

While the armor thickness of the Sd.Kfz.221 was thin, the armor plates were highly angled to provide additional protection. Nevertheless, its armor was only able to resist small-caliber rounds. Source: www.panzernet.net

Numerous external storage boxes were attached around the armored body. In addition, spare road wheels were also carried by the vehicle. This photo shows a unit of Sd.Kfz.221 during the invasion of France in 1940. Colorization by Johannes Dorn. Source: World war photos

On the lower part of the armored body sides were two large hatches. Just above them were the driver’s side vision ports. Each vision port was additionally protected with a metal frame that provided resistance against bullet splash and an armored glass block. The driver was provided with a large single-piece frontal visor. As these proved too expensive to produce, from early 1939, the vision ports were replaced with cast ones.

The top front of the Sd.Kfz.221 was protected with 5 mm of armor. The rear part, behind the turret, was covered with a mesh wire which provided protection against grenades. If needed, it could be open for a third crew to be transported inside the vehicle.

The rear part of the armored body was covered with mesh wire. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2005) Panzer Tracts No.13-1 Panzerspahwagen

To the rear in the engine compartment, three smaller hatches were provided for the crew to have easy access to the engine. Interestingly, the two hatches located on the engine compartment sides could be remotely opened by the commander. The purpose of them being open was to provide additional cool air to the engine. The large ventilation port was protected by overlapping armor strips. These offered free flow air ventilation but prevented enemy rounds from entering the engine compartment.

To the rear engine compartment, three hatches were provided for the crew to have easy access to the engine. The two side hatches could be remotely opened to act as additional ventilation ports. Source: www.panzernet.net

Despite increasing the frontal armor to 14.5 mm in 1939, the Sd.Kfz.221 crew were only sufficiently protected from small-caliber bullets. Any kind of anti-tank weapon could easily destroy the vehicle. Given that this was a reconnaissance vehicle not meant to be used directly in combat, speed and mobility were more important than armor.

Turret

The small seven-sided turret was just an extended machine gun shield. The turret did not move using a ball bearing race, but instead on four simple rollers which were placed on top of the Sd.Kfz.221’s superstructure. The armored plates of the turret were only 8 mm thick and placed at 10° angles. The turret ring diameter was 1,450 mm.

This turret did not actually fully protect the gunner, whose head was partially exposed. It was common to see the gunners of this vehicle using steel helmets. Half of the turret top was covered with a two-piece anti-grenade screen. The open-top nature of the turret offered the commander excellent all-around visibility, which was important for a reconnaissance vehicle. In case of an engagement with the enemy, two side vision ports were provided for observation. During the introduction of the III series, the additional visors were added to the turret sides.

Top and bottom view of the Sd.Kfz.221 turret. It was actually an enlarged gun shield that was manually moved by the gunner. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2005) Panzer Tracts No.13-1 Panzerspahwagen

Armament

The Sd.Kfz.221 was only lightly armed, with one pedestal-mounted 7.92 mm MG 13 machine gun. The machine gun mount with the gunner’s seat had simple spring units that allowed them to be raised. For lowering the machine gun, the gunner simply had to use his own body weight. If needed, this mount could be further raised up, protruding out of the small turret. This was done to provide the vehicle with limited anti-aircraft capabilities. This machine gun was belt-fed with an ammunition load of 1,000 rounds. Different sources also mention that the ammunition load consisted of either 1,050, 1,200, or even 2,000 rounds.

A close-up view of the Sd.Kfz.221 MG mount. It was simple in design and could be easily moved by the gunner’s own weight. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2005) Panzer Tracts No.13-1 Panzerspahwagen

If needed, the MG mount could be raised to protrude out of the turret. This way, enemy aircraft could be targeted. Given the machine gun’s small caliber, it could do little to seriously threaten its air opponents. Note this vehicle is the prototype. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2005) Panzer Tracts No.13-1 Panzerspahwagen

The obsolescent MG 13 began to be replaced with a more modern MG 34 in April 1938. Later that year, in June, the belt feed was to be replaced with drum magazines on the MG 34. Despite being replaced by the much-improved machine gun, the older MG 13 was still in use by some units, such as the aufklärungs (Eng. reconnaissance) detachments of the reiter-regiments (Eng. Cavalry units). In either case, the elevation of the machine gun was -30° (or -10°) to +70°, while the traverse was a full 360°.

The crews were supplied with one MP-18 submachine gun. This would later be replaced with an improved MP-38 or 40. Additionally, six hand grenades and a 27 mm signal pistol were carried inside.

Crew

The Sd.Kfz.221 had a crew of two, the commander and the driver. The driver was positioned at the front of the vehicle, while the commander was just behind him. Given that the use of radios by this vehicle was rare, the commander’s secondary role was to operate the machine gun. Communication with other vehicles was possible by using either hand or flag signals.

Radio Equipment

In spite of being a reconnaissance vehicle, the Sd.Kfz.221 was usually not equipped with a radio. From 1941 onwards, some vehicles, possibly in limited numbers, were equipped with short-range radios such as the FuG 3 or 5.

Organization

According to the German doctrine, the reconnaissance armored vehicles’ primary goal was to race ahead of the main force. They were to scout for an enemy’s strong and weak points. Once the enemy positions were observed and vital information gathered, the armored cars were to report back. Armor and weapons were mainly for self-defense, and engagements with the enemy were to be avoided when possible.

The Sd.Kfz.221s were used to equip aufklärung (Eng. reconnaissance) detachments of various units, including panzer, motorized, and regular infantry divisions. However, these armored cars were rather rare and could not often be provided in the numbers needed. As an example, an infantry division in 1939 had around 3 armored cars, either the 221 or the 222. Furthermore, a motorized infantry division did not field many armored cars as part of their reconnaissance unit. Only the panzer divisions and their panzer aufklärungs abteilungen (Eng. tank reconnaissance battalions) were heavily in need of armored cars, as they needed a very fast car that was also armored.

In 1939, theoretically, a panzer division fielded 90 armored cars in total. In reality, the number of armored cars varied from each division. As an example, the 5th Light Division fielded 127 armored cars, whilst the 4th Panzer Division only fielded 70. Out of these 90 armored cars, 20 were the Sd.Kfz.221s. All of them were part of the panzer aufklärungs abteilung (note the term Panzer was only applied after 1940). In each reconnaissance battalion, two armored car companies existed at this time, named aufklärungsschwadron (Eng. reconnaissance squadron). Each armored car company had a signal detachment, company HQ, 1 heavy platoon, a company maintenance section, and 2 light platoons. One light platoon consisted of 4 Sd.Kfz.221 and 2 Sd.Kfz.222. The other light platoon consisted of 6 Sd.Kfz.221. A motorized division had, in theory, 30 armored cars and again 1 motorized reconnaissance battalion. The same numbers applied as for the panzer division. This also meant 20 Sd.Kfz.221s had to be present in total in a motorized division.

By 1940, the numbers had not changed. Although present during the invasion of Poland, the Waffen SS or, at this time, Verfügungstruppen der Waffen SS (Eng. Units available of the Waffen SS), only saw minor action. In the invasion of France, they participated in large numbers for the first time. The SSVT (Waffen SS Verfügungstruppen) had a different organization than the regular panzer divisions in both Poland and France. Unlike the regular Wehrmacht divisions, the SS Division of the LAH (Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, 1. SS. Panzer Division), for example, had a light SS armored car platoon within their motorized infantry regiments. This meant 4 additional Sd.Kfz.221s to the 10 from the armored car company within the reconnaissance battalion (SS battalions only had one AC company), 14 Sd.Kfz.221s in total. The regular SS-V (Waffen SS Verfügung) had this additional light AC platoon. This included the Germania SSVT, Der Führer SSVT, and Deutschland SSVT (all part of the 2. SS). This also explains why, in some photos, the Sd.Kfz.221s have the tactical symbol of a regular infantry regiment and not of a reconnaissance unit. The 3. SS Panzer Division did not have this additional light AC platoon.

Sd.Kfz.221 in Poland in 1939. The vehicle belongs to the LAH. The tactical symbol shows that this vehicle is part of the motorized infantry regiment (within the light SS AC platoon) and is not part of the reconnaissance battalion. Source: Warloard

In 1941, most armored cars were still organized into the panzer aufklärungs abteilungen of panzer divisions. Each battalion had one armored car company, which consisted of a signal detachment, company HQ, 1 heavy platoon, company maintenance section, and 2 light platoons. The light platoons consisted of 8 armored cars, 4 of which were Sd.Kfz.221s. This meant each panzer division theoretically had 8 Sd.Kfz.221s. The same numbers applied to the motorized infantry divisions. By 1941, SS Divisions were full combat divisions, and, therefore, the reconnaissance battalions had the same organization as the Wehrmacht divisions.

In 1942, the Sd.Kfz.221 was removed from all lists and organizations in the panzer and motorized infantry divisions. However, like the Panzer I, it continued to see service as a replacement and spare vehicle.

Sd.Kfz.221s during the very early stages of the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Note the writing on the side honors a fallen crewmember or officer of the unit. The vehicles are part of the 2nd Platoon of the armored car company of 2. SS Panzeraufklärungs Abteilung (Eng. 2nd SS Tank Reconnaissance Battalion) of the 2. SS Panzer Division “Das Reich”. Source: M.B. via Ebay

Estonian SS soldiers and their Sd.Kfz.221 and 5 cm Pak 38 of the 5. SS Panzer Aufklärungs Abteilung of the 5. SS Panzer Division “Wiking” in the Soviet Union in 1942. Source: World war photos

Number of Sd.Kfz.221s per Division from 1939 to 1941
Date	Type of Division	Number of Sd.Kfz.221s
1.9.1939	Infantry Division	3
1.9.1939	Motorized Infantry Division	20
1.9.1939	Panzer Division	20
1.9.1939	Waffen SS VT (1st, 2nd)	14
1.9.1939	Waffen SS VT (3rd)	10
1.5.1940	Motorized Infantry Division	20
1.5.1940	Panzer Division	20
1.5.1940	Waffen SS VT (1st, 2nd)	14
1.5.1940	Waffen SS VT (3rd)	10
22.6.1941	Motorized Infantry Division	8
22.6.1941	Panzer Division/Waffen SS	8/10

In Combat

The Sd.Kfz.221 would see extensive action in almost all fronts where the Germans were involved. Unfortunately, the general use of the German armor cars is often overshadowed by the better-known panzers. The first use of the Sd.Kfz.221 in German hands in a foreign land was during the Anschluss of Austria in 1938 and during the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1939. As part of Aufklärungs Abteilung 1, several Sd.Kfz.221s participated during the occupation of Memel (Lithuania) in 1939.

Sd.Kfz.221 crossing the Austrian border during the Anschluss in March 1938. Source: Bundesarchiv, Photo: 137-040270

Their first combat experience in German hands would be gained during the invasion of Poland. At least 290 Sd.Kfz.221s took part in the invasion as part of either the SSVT or the Wehrmacht. Although they did not encounter many tanks, the Polish AT guns proved to be more than a match for the 221. The German Army, in general, did not have a lot of experience in actual fighting, let alone their reconnaissance units. This resulted in reconnaissance units running into AT guns without any support from tanks or artillery. Furthermore, the coordination between the air force and the ground forces was only in its early stages and still had to be fine-tuned.

During the invasion of Poland, although achieving victory, the German Army lost a large amount of vehicles, especially lightly armored ones, including the Sd.Kfz.221. Before the invasion of France and the Benelux, the Sd.Kfz.221 saw service during the invasion of Denmark and Norway as part of Panzer Abteilung 40 z.b.V. (Eng. Tank Battalion 40 for special purposes).

Colorization of a Sd.Kfz.221 in what appears to be Denmark in April 1940. Colorization by Johannes Dorn. Source: Panzer.net

In May 1940, around 280 Sd.Kfz.221s took part during the invasion of France. Although the coordination within the German forces had improved, the Allied tanks proved to be a new danger for the 221. British and French tanks could destroy entire armored car companies, with the companies which were unable to defend themselves. However, due to much better coordination, the reconnaissance units worked better with the tank regiments and air force and were able to beat back Allied forces. Furthermore, the knowledge and intelligence that the fast and mobile Sd.Kfz.221 and the reconnaissance units in general collected were essential for the German application of the doctrine of mobile warfare.

Destroyed Sd.Kfz.221 in France or the Soviet Union with the extended MG arm. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

It is unknown if any 221s were sent to North Africa, as no photos show them there. If any took part, it must have been only in small numbers, possibly 20 to 24 vehicles.

During Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, approximately 210 Sd.Kfz.221s were still in service. The Soviet Union would be the end for the 221, as the harsh climate and mud season were too much even for the decent mobility of the 221. Furthermore, the large numbers of Soviet AT rifles, guns, and tanks contributed to the decreasing number of vehicles that were still operational. This and the discounted production led to the removal of the Sd.Kfz.221 from all organizational tables and it was replaced by the Sd.Kfz.222 in 1942.

Nonetheless, it continued to see service as a replacement and reserve vehicle. Furthermore, Sd.Kfz.221 versions with the 2.8 cm AT gun or an AT rifle were introduced, both of which continued to see service until the Battle of Kursk. Eventually, even these were put out of service due to their increasingly weak armament. However, many of the improvised radio vehicles and command vehicles served within the divisions until the war’s end.

Sd.Kfz.221 with the 2.8 cm sPzB 41 with a late war camouflage in the Soviet Union, 1943. Source: Antikfuchs via Ebay

Colorization of a Sd.Kfz.221 in a region of Ukraine in 1942. Colorized by Johannes Dorn. Note the AT rifle on the side carried by the crew. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Colorization of a Sd.Kfz.221 in the Soviet Union in 1941. Note the Pz.B.39 AT rifle fitted next to the MG. Colorized by Johannes Dorn. Source: Panzer.net

Sub-Variants

Due to the Sd.Kfz.221 being available in relatively large numbers and obsoleteness, many vehicles were converted and reused in new roles. Some of these vehicles were created to counter the lack of anti-tank power, whilst some units made use of them to replace missing radio vehicles.

Sd.Kfz.221 with Panzerbüchse 39

The Sd.Kfz.221’s armament of only one machine gun proved to be insufficient, so, in 1941, the first attempts were made to increase its firepower. Besides the machine gun, an opening for a 7.92 mm Pz.B.39 anti-tank rifle was added. This anti-tank rifle was introduced in 1940 as a replacement for the older Pz.B.38. Due to the obsolescence of this rifle, few such modifications were made.

The 7.92 mm Pz.B.39 anti-tank rifle, due to its late introduction in 1940, saw quite limited service. Source: Wiki

An unknown number of Sd. Kfz 221s received the 7.92 mm anti-tank rifle. To make room for the new weapon, the left part of the turret was cut open. This vehicle was part of the 4th Infantry Division in the Soviet Union in 1942. Source: Antikfuchs via Ebay

The same vehicle as above shows the Panzerbüchse in the Soviet Union in 1942. Source: Antikfuchs via Ebay

Colorization of an Sd.Kfz.221 of the 14th Panzer Division in the Soviet Union in 1942. Note the Pz.B. 39 next to the MG mount. Colorization by Johannes Dorn. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Sd.Kfz.221 with 2.8 cm schwere Panzerbüchse 41

From 1942 onwards, most Sdk.Kfz. 221s were to be rearmed with the 2.8 cm schwere Panzerbuchse 41 (Eng. heavy anti-tank rifle), or more simply, sPzB 41. While classified as an anti-tank rifle, it more correctly fitted the role of a light anti-tank gun, given that the gun was placed on a two-wheel mount with split trail legs. Surprisingly, no traverse or elevation mechanisms were used. Instead, the gun operator had to aim the gun using a spade grip to manually change the position of the barrel to fire at the designated target. The gunner grip unit was actually offset to the right from the breech block. An unusual element of this weapon was that it implemented the use of a tapering bore. Basically, the barrel section that connected to the sliding breech block had a diameter of 2.8 cm. Toward the end of the barrel, at the muzzle brake, this diameter was reduced to 2 cm.

The 2.8 cm schwere Panzerbuchse 41. Source: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2016/08/schwere-panzerbuchse-41.html

Another unusual feature of this weapon was its specifically designed ammunition. Basically, the crew of this gun could choose between the 2.8 cm Pzgr Patr 41 armor-piercing (AP) and Sprgr patr 41 high-explosive (HE) rounds. The AP round consisted of a tungsten core that was placed inside a lead sleeve. It was then placed in a cartridge made of iron that had a magnesium-alloy top. The whole cartridge could easily fit into the chamber. During firing, the front part would be squeezed thanks to small holes in it that would allow the air to escape. Thanks to the magnesium-alloy top, when the target was hit, a bright light was released. This helped the gunner see where he had hit the target. The total weight of this AP round was 131 g. With a muzzle velocity of 1,400 m/s, the armor penetration of these AP rounds was 52 mm at 500 m at a 30° angle. The HE round worked the same way, but the difference was that its casing was built using steel. Both rounds had a meager range of only 800 m.

The front part of the turret was cut, and the gun mount was placed on top of the armored body, slightly in front of the turret. The sPzB 41 trailer was meant to be carried with the vehicle. While not clear how many were converted with this weapon, author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka) mentions that around 34 vehicles were made. In order to protect the operator, the original sPzB 41 two-part gun shield was retained. The MG 34 was retained inside the vehicle, but its ammunition load was decreased to 800 bullets.

It is unknown which divisions carried out these conversions. However, photos reveal that the Kradschützen Abteilung Grossdeutschland (Eng. Motorcycle Battalion Greater Germany) used several of these AT Sd.Kfz.221s. The 11th Panzer Division also used several during the Battle of Kursk.

Sd.Kfz.221 with the 2.8 cm AT gun of the 11th Panzer Division in the Soviet Union during the Battle of Kursk. Source: Digital collection of Armin Freitag

The mount for this gun was placed slightly in front of the gunner’s turret. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.13-1 Panzerspahwagen

Sd.Kfz.221 with 2.8 cm sPzB 41 in the Soviet Union as part of the 1st Company of Kradschützen Battalion Grossdeutschland (Eng. Motorcycle Reconnaissance Battalion Greater Germany). Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Sd.Kfz.221 Radio and Command Vehicles

During the war, the German Army suffered from a severe lack of command and radio vehicles. Therefore, many replacement or old vehicles had to be reused for this purpose. The obsolete Sd.Kfz.221, with its MG armament or even the AT rifle and the expensive AT gun variants, was too weak to defend itself on the battlefield.

For this reason and due to a shortage of radio vehicles such as the Sd.Kfz.223, an unknown number of 221s were converted into radio vehicles. Since these were mostly field conversions, the vehicles differed greatly from each other. Some had their turret removed, whilst some still mounted it. However, all vehicles were outfitted with some kind of antenna. Early during the war, this antenna would be a Rahmenantenne (Eng. frame antenna). Although these antennas differ in size and height from vehicle to vehicle, all of them were smaller and narrower than the one fitted on the Sd. Kfz. 223. Conversions were presumably done by the 7th Panzer Division, as their armored car company was refitted with French armored cars and they, therefore, had a stockpile of Sd.Kfz.221s. At the same time, their radio vehicles were removed from the signal detachment. Therefore, the spare Sd.Kfz.221s were refitted with the radios. The same can be said about the 20th Panzer Division. There is a possibility that other divisions did the same at a later point.

An Sd.Kfz.221 with a frame antenna, part of Aufklärungs Abteilung 37 (Eng. Reconnaissance Battalion 37) of the 7th Panzer Division in the Soviet Union in 1941. Note the swastika for aerial identification. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Sd.Kfz.221 radio version with a larger frame antenna. Note that it seems that the turret was removed and covered with a canvas. The Soviet Union, winter 1941. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Sd.Kfz.221 with frame antenna. This photo shows that, although the turret was removed, the MG was kept and temporarily placed on some kind of mount. Unknown date and location. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Sd.Kfz.221 with frame antenna from what appears to be the 7th Panzer Division in the Soviet Union in 1941. Note the tactical symbol showing that this vehicle was reused from the armored car company and put into the signal platoon to replace a Sd.Kfz.223 from Panzer Aufklärungs Abteilung 37. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

A single vehicle is known to have been commanded by Generalleutnant Gerhard Graf von Schwerin. It did not have the regular frame antenna, but a middle-to-late-war Sternenantenne (Eng. Star antenna). The vehicle had its turret removed and was outfitted with a windshield. It was one of the last Sd.Kfz.221s to see combat action during the Battle of the Bulge in winter 1944-1945.

Generalleutnant Gerhard Graf von Schwerin in his Sd.Kfz.221 radio version as part of the 116th Panzer Division in Belgium in September 1944. Note the equipment for the star antenna. Source: Digital Collection of Kurt Wendt

The same vehicle, now outfitted with a windshield, winter camouflage, and iron chain tires during the Battle of the Bulge in the Winter of 1944-1945. Note that the windshield appears to be taken from a VW Kübelwagen Typ 82. Source: Years of History

The Sd.Kfz.221 not only proved to be popular as a replacement for radio vehicles, but also as a mobile command post. Due to fairly decent mobility, it was popular amongst HQ units, which reused the old 221s from their reconnaissance battalions. Similar to some radio vehicles, these command vehicles received a windshield. However, this windshield was less of a field conversion and more of a production type, as multiple vehicles can be seen with the same curved windshield. One of the most popular command variants with the photographers was a Sd.Kfz.221 converted during the Polish campaign, named “Tiger”. Another vehicle was seen during the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

Sd.Kfz.221 “Tiger” command version during the Polish campaign (Note the markings). Also note the fact that this vehicle is being driven by an officer. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Colorization of a Sd.Kfz.221 command version with a curved windshield in the Soviet Union in 1942. Colorized by Johannes Dorn. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Sd.Kfz.221 command vehicle without a turret used by the Brigade Headquarters of the 7th Panzer Division. This was again done due to a stockpile of Sd.Kfz.221s caused by newly captured French armored cars replacing the old German ones. Source: Digital Collection of Armin Freitag

Sd.Kfz.221 with MG 34 Lafette

An unknown number (presumably a single vehicle) of Sd.Kfz.221s were converted into Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Guns (SPAAGs). The vehicle had its turret replaced by a Zwillingssockel 36 (Eng. twin base) with two AA MG 34s and a protective shield.

Sd.Kfz.221 with twin anti-aircraft MG 34s, presumably in the Soviet Union in 1941. Source: Engelbubu-Fotos via Ebay

Sd.Kfz.221 in Chinese Service

In 1935, the Chinese Kuomintang Government was feeling more and more threatened by the Empire of Japan on its borders. As a result, the German advisors in Nationalist China advised the purchase of German tanks. Alongside Panzer Is, ammunition, firearms, and trucks, 18 Sd.Kfz.221s were also acquired. On arrival, they were organized into the 3rd Tank Battalion stationed in Nanjing, where they would later see service. Only a portion of the vehicles had machine guns sent with them. This meant a number of vehicles had to be equipped with Soviet or Chinese MGs. However, under German advice, the vehicles were not used in their intended role as reconnaissance vehicles. During the defense of Shanghai in 1937, they were mostly used as mobile pillboxes. Although defeated during the defense of Shanghai, the vehicles survived until at least 1944 according to photographic evidence.

There is a controversy around the use of the Sd.Kfz.221 in China relating to its camouflage. Although it seems like the vehicles were painted in the dark gray camouflage in most photos, they were actually painted in the standard German three-tone camouflage. The dark gray camouflage was only applied in Germany from around September 1938, when the vehicles were already in China. Due to exposure to the weather of China and because the pattern was not repainted, the three-tone camouflage quickly disappeared and wore off.

Sd.Kfz.221s and 222s of the 88th Infantry Division of the Kuomintang during a parade in Yunnan in 1944. Source: Char 1A via Twitter

Surviving Vehicles

A single Sd.Kfz.221 is known today that survived the war. It is exhibited in the Royal Jordanian Museum, however, it is unknown how it got there. Furthermore, if the license plate is still the original one, it reveals that the vehicle was part of the SS. Wiking Division, which mainly served on the Eastern Front. This would lead to the conclusion that the museum purchased the vehicle from another museum or private collection in Russia. However, there is a possibility that this vehicle is a reconstruction (due to a number of oddities).

The Sd.Kfz.221 presented in the Royal Jordaning Museum. Note the MG appears to be wrong and the grenade hatch is missing. Source: Tripadvisor

Conclusion

The Sd.Kfz.221 turned out to be a success during the early war. The vehicle featured many new technologies, such as a four-wheel drive or a rear-fitted engine. For the first time, it introduced standardized production in the German Army. However, like many other armored fighting vehicles developed and built during the interwar years, the vehicle was obsolete after 1940. The sole machine gun could not provide an adequate threat to any armored vehicles and the armor could only protect against small arms fire. The addition of the AT rifle could only help against soft skin vehicles and light tanks and the upgraded 221 with the 2.8 cm sPzb was not able to fight against enemy tanks at medium to long ranges. However, due to its mobility, it was fairly popular amongst the troops, who would use it as a command station or radio vehicle during the middle and late war.

Early Sd.Kfz.221 of the 15th SS Aufklärung Abteilung “LSSAH”, spring 1939. Click to see another from the Aufklärung-Abteilung 3rd SS Panzerdivision “Totenkopf”, Arras sector, northern France, May 1940. Illustration made by David B.

Sd.Kfz.221, Russia, winter 1941-42. Notice the half open anti-grenade screen over the top of the turret. Illustration made by David B.

Sd.Kfz.221 of the Chinese Nationalist Army Illustration made by Pavel

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	4.56 x 1.95 x 1.7 m
Total weight, battle-ready	3.85 tonnes
Crew	2 (Driver and Commander/Gunner)
Propulsion	Horch 3.5 liter V-8 water-cooled 75 hp @ 3,600 rpm engine
Speed	80 km/h
Range (road/off road)-fuel	350 km, 200 km (cross country)
Primary Armament	one 7.92 mm MG 13 or MG 34
Ammunition:	1,050 rounds
Elevation	-30° to +70°
Armor	5.5 to 8 mm.

Sources

D. Doyle (2005). German military Vehicles, Krause Publications
H. Scheibert (1993) German Light Reconnaissance Vehicles, Schiffer Publishing
I. Hogg (1975) German Artillery Of World War Two, Purnell Book Services
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2005) Panzer Tracts No.13-1 Panzerspahwagen
J. Milson and P. Chamberlain (1974) German Armored Cars of World War Two, Arms and Armor Press
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
T. Anderson (2017) History of Panzerjager Volume 1 1939-42, Osprey Publishing
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor Press.
B. Perrett (2008) German Armored Cars and Reconnaissance Half-Tracks 1939-45. Osprey Publishing
B. Perrett (2005) German Armored Cars and Reconnaissance Half-Tracks, Osprey Publishing
P. P. Battistelli (2007) Panzer Divisions The Blitzkrieg Years 1939-40, Osprey Publishing

WW2 German Tank Destroyer Prototypes

Jagdpanzer 38 D

Jagdpanzer 38 D Ilustration made by Godzilla

German Reich (1944)
Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – 2 Prototypes Built

The small and cheap Jagdpanzer 38(t) proved to be an effective tank destroyer. The main problem with it was that BMM and Škoda who made the vehicles simply could not keep up with the demand. In the hope of getting its production repositioned to Germany in late 1944, Alktett was instructed to oversee the projected construction of a new vehicle, later designated as Jagdpanzer 38 D. While the work continued until the end of the war, only two prototypes were completed.

A drawing of the Jagdpanzer 38 D. Sadly, no known pictures of this vehicle survived the war. Source:T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 20-1 Paper Panzer Panzerkampfwagen, Sturmgeschütz and Jagdpanzer

A brief history of the Jagdpanzer 38(t)

When the Germans occupied what remained of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, they came into possession of two well-known weapon manufacturers: ČKD (Ceskomoravska-Kolben-Danek) and Škoda. The ČKD factory was renamed Böhmish-Mährische Maschinenfabrik AG (abbreviated to BMM) by the Germans were tasked with the production of the Panzer 38(t) for the Germans. The production of this tank would be terminated during the second half of the war, as it proved to be ineffective as a combat vehicle by that stage of the war.

The BMM factory continued production of different combat designs (mostly anti-tank vehicles) based on the Panzer 38(t) chassis. By late 1943, the BMM factory was involved in designing and building light and relatively cheap tank destroyers based on some components from the Panzer 38(t). The result of this work would be the Jagdpanzer 38(t) tank destroyer. It was armed with the 7.5 cm PaK 39 and was fully enclosed and protected with well-angled 60 mm thick front armor. While not a perfect design, it would prove to be an effective anti-tank weapon. During the war, around 2,824 such vehicles were built by BMM and Škoda.

The Jagdpanzer 38(t), popularly known as the ‘Hetzer’. Source: warspot.ru

History of the German Jagdpanzer 38

The Jagdpanzer38(t) that was produced by Škoda and BMM proved to be an effective and cheap anti-tank vehicle. In the later stages of the war, these two companies could not keep up with the production demands imposed by the Germans. For example, the production quota for February 1944 was set at 4,000 vehicles, but such a production rate was never achieved. Something had to be done to increase the overall production. While cheap, the production could not be carried out by any German weapon manufacturer, as it would take too much time to manufacture and adopt the necessary machine tooling needed for production in Germany.

Nevertheless, on the 26th of September 1944, the Oberkommando des Heeres OKH (English: German High Command) issued orders to make the first steps in preparing to produce a highly modified Jagdpanzer 38(t) in one of the many German companies. The task for this was given to Alkett, who was already involved in the production of similar vehicles based on the Panzer III and IV chassis. As with many other German projects at this late stage of the war, the unrealistic production goal was set at 1,000 vehicles per month. This proved to be an impossible task given the shortages of many things, including time. Nevertheless, the work slowly progressed.

On 4th October 1944, due to the deteriorating German industrial and logistical infrastructure, a Panzerkommission (English: Panzer Commission) was formed to determine the next steps to be undertaken in the hope of somewhat stabilizing the war efforts. Their conclusion was that, in order to increase the production of armored vehicles, a rationalization of vehicle chassis had to be implemented. The only chassis that would remain in production was the Panther, Tiger, and the small Panzer 38(t). That same month, Wa Prüf 6, the German armor design office which was part of the ordnance department, pointed out the great setback in the delivery of new Jagdpanzer 38(t) by the Checkoslovakian companies. Both of these facts played positively for the German-made Jagdpanzer 38(t) project.

Name

As the project began to develop, it was initially designated as Jagdpanzer 38 ‘Reich’. On the 20th of November 1944, General der Artillerie changed the name to Jagdpanzer 38D (sometimes referred to as Jagdpanzer 38d as well). The sources are not completely clear what the latter D presented, but it is likely to stand for Deutschland (English: Germany), as opposed to the letter ‘t’, which stood for Tschech (Czech).

Work on the Jagdpanzer 38D

The chief designer for this project at Alkett was an engineer named Michael (last name unknown). In order to facilitate production and to improve the overall design, some modifications would be needed. These mostly involved simplifying the chassis and improving the drive components. The work on the vehicles dragged on into 1945. In late January 1945, engineer Michael stated that additional changes were needed to the engine compartment in order to fit the Tatra engine. By the end of January, the overall design calculations and plans were ready. The first production order for two prototypes was given to Alkett during this time.

On the 30th of January, Alkett received a production schedule for the Jagdpanzer 38 D. The first five vehicles were to be completed by March 1945. After that, Alkett was instructed to slowly increase its monthly production. The final goal was to reach a monthly production of 800 vehicles by the end of the year. To further boost these numbers, Vomag was also chosen for the Jagdpanzer 38 D production. It was to construct the first five vehicles by July and then reach a monthly production of 300 by the end of the year.

Technical Specification

It is important to note that. due to its late introduction and the scarcity of sources, which do not include even one picture, very little is known about this vehicle. Given its similarities to the Jagdpanzer 38(t), it can be assumed that most components would have been reused or even more simplified.

Hull

The hull of the new Jagdpanzer 38 D was to be greatly redesigned in contrast to the original vehicle. The Jagdpanzer 38(t) tank destroyer’s lower hull sides were angled producing a slight ‘V’ shape. This provided additional protection for the crew and the vehicle itself. The negative side was that it somewhat complicated production and limited internal space. In order to reduce cost and make production easier, the hull sides were made vertical on this vehicle.

The Jagdpanzer 38(t) hull had angled sides, which provided extra protection but limited the already cramped internal space. Source: warspot.ru

The Jagdpanzer 38 D, on the other hand, was to have vertical, as opposed to angled lower hull sides. This made the production of this hull easier. Source:T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 20-1 Paper Panzer Panzerkampfwagen, Sturmgeschütz and Jagdpanzer

Suspension

The suspension was visually quite similar to the one used on Jagpanzer 38(t), but there were a number of differences. The obvious change was the introduction of new vertical volute spring units that replaced the horizontal leaf spring units. The road wheels were widened to 60 cm and the track width was increased from 350 mm to 460 mm. The estimated Jagdpanzer 38 D weight was to be around 16.7 tonnes, but the improved suspension could easily sustain up to 20 tonnes.

Engine

A new engine was to be used for this vehicle. This was the air-cooled V-12 Tatra Diesel engine which produced up to 200 hp@2,000 rpm. The estimated maximum speed that the Jagdpanzer 38 D could achieve with this engine was 40 km/h. The engine was connected to the front-mounted AK 5-80 (or 5-55) transmission. The transmission, in turn, was connected to a much improved and reinforced steering unit and the final drives. The fuel load consisted of 380 liters, giving it an operational range of 500 km on good roads, and 300 km off-road.

The rear engine compartment was also slightly redesigned. Besides the obvious change in the engine compartment sides, the large round-shaped hatch (where the manual hand crank was positioned) was replaced with an off-center and simpler hatch. The top engine compartment doors were also replaced with a single hatch located on the left side. The muffler was repositioned to the right side. Lastly, the commander’s rear periscope was to be removed.

A rear view of the Jagdpanzer 38(t). Source: warspot.ru

The Jagdpanzer 38 D had a slightly different rear engine compartment. The most obvious change was the replacement of the round hatch with a rectangular one, positioned more to the left. Source:T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 20-1 Paper Panzer Panzerkampfwagen, Sturmgeschütz and Jagdpanzer

Superstructure

The Jagdpanzer 38 D’s superstructure consisted of four angled plates and a flat top. The front plate had an opening to the right, where the gun and its protective cover were placed. Left of it was a small visor for the driver. The simple side plates did not receive any ports or hatches. The rear plate had only one large hatch that could be used by the crew to gain access to the engine. The top plate had the standard sliding armored cover for the gunner’s sight. Behind it, the remote control machine gun mount was installed. Next to it was a simple round shape escape hatch. Completely to the rear right was a single-piece hatch door. This was the commander’s hatch. It had a small opening in the middle that the commander would use to put his periscope up so that he could find targets without exposing himself to enemy fire.

The front armor plate (which would be basically the same on both models) was simple in design. Source:www.warhistoryonline.com

Jagdpanzer 38(t) top view. Source: warspot.ru

This drawing of the Jagdpanzer 38 D shows that it would have had different hatches. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 20-1 Paper Panzer Panzerkampfwagen, Sturmgeschütz and Jagdpanzer

Armament

When the project was initiated, its primary armament was to consist of one 7.5 cm PaK 39 L/48. The ammunition load was to consist of 68 rounds. This was a slightly enlarged ammunition load in comparison to the 40 to 45 rounds usually carried inside a Jagdpanzer 38(t). The gun position was unchanged, on the right side of the vehicle. This limited its traverse to 8° on both sides. The elevation was -8 to +15°.

Other armaments were also proposed. To increase its effectiveness against new enemy armor, the 7.5 cm PaK 42 L/70 was to be used. The weight of the new gun with its ammunition was estimated to add an additional 500 to 600 kg. Lastly, as the Panzer III chassis was to be abandoned from 1945 on (including the StuH 42 armed with a 10.5 cm gun), the German infantry would have been left without a support vehicle. Thus, the Jagdpanzer 38 D was to fulfill this role as well, some being armed with the 10.5 cm Sturmhaubitze 42/2.

While the installation of the shorter 10.5 howitzers was likely possible, how the Germans planned to do the same with the long 7.5 cm L/70 gun is questionable. Their attempt to mount this gun on a slightly larger StuG III chassis was unsuccessful.

The secondary armament was to consist of one 7.92 mm machine gun (either an MG 34 or 42). It was placed on a specially designed gun mount (Rundumsfeuer) that could be fired from inside the vehicle.

Armor

Authors T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No. 20-1 Paper Panzer Panzerkampfwagen, Sturmgeschütz and Jagdpanzer) only mention that its frontal armor was 60 mm thick. Older books, like that of P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two), give different but more detailed information. The front hull armor was 60 mm thick and placed at a 40° angle. The side was 20 mm, the rear also 20 mm but placed at a 12° angle while the bottom was 8 mm. The superstructure front armor was highly angled at 60° and was 80 mm thick. The sides were 20 mm thick and placed at 55°, while the rear and top were only 8 mm thick. The protective gun mantlet was 60 mm thick.

The front armor plate of the Jagdpanzer 38 D was 60 mm thick and, thanks to its high angle, would provide excellent protection for its crew. Colored by Smargd123. Source:www.warhistoryonline.com

Crew

The number of the crew would most likely have been four. These included the commander, the driver, the gunner, and the loader. The driver was positioned on the left front side of the vehicle. Behind him were the gunner and the loader even further back. The commander was positioned on the right side of the vehicle, just behind the gun.

Other Projects Based on the Jagdpanzer 38 D

Despite not yet being put into production, the German army officials planned to use its chassis for other purposes. These included the Bergepanzer 38 D, Aufklärer 38 D, anti-aircraft version, 12 cm mortar carrier, and armored personnel carrier. Besides the last versions, which likely remain only paper concepts, some work was dedicated to the first three mentioned proposals.

Bergepanzer 38 D

While not much is known about it, although it appears that this vehicle would more or less be a copy of the Bergepanzer 38(t). The gun and the upper superstructure would be removed and additional towing equipment placed inside of its compartment. None were ever constructed.

Aufklärer 38 D

Surprisingly, this was to use a slightly longer body than the Jagdpanzer 38 D. The armament was to consist of a 2 cm cannon and a machine gun placed in a turret taken from the Sd. Kfz. 222 armored car. This turret was commonly used on other German reconnaissance vehicles. The second proposal was to use a 7.5 cm L/48 gun placed in a fixed amount. Due to urgent demand for anti-tank vehicles, the development of this version was abandoned in March 1945.

The Aufklärer 38 D equipped with a 2 cm armed turret. Source: en.topwar.ru

The second proposal included a stronger armament which was placed in a fixed mount. Source: en.topwar.ru

Anti-Aircraft Versions

In late 1944, BMM and Škoda attempted to mount the twin 3 cm armed Kugelblitz turret on a Jagdpanzer 38(t) chassis. They appeared to have achieved some success, as this design was submitted. Given the lower production numbers of the Jagdpanzer 38(t), it was instead proposed to use the newer Jagdpanzer 38D chassis instead. Despite production orders, the importance of this project was deemed low. Instead of the production of new vehicles, recovered vehicles were to be reused for this project. As the Jagdpanzer 38 D never entered production, none would be built.

A Flakpanzer based on the Jagdpanzer 38(t) was to eventually be replaced with one on the Jagdpanzer 38 D chassis, something that was never achieved. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 20-2 Paper Panzer Reconnaissance, Observation and Anti-aircraft

The Flakpanzer based on the extended Jagdpanzer 38 D chassis. Source: W. J. Spielberger Gepard The History of German Anti-Aircraft tanks

Another proposal made by Rheinmetall included a 3.7 cm Flakzwilling 44 placed on top of the Jagdpanzer 38 D by using a Panzer IV turret ring. This project was abandoned as no Jagdpanzer 38 D was ever available.

The Fate of the Project

In March 1945, it was decided by the Generalinspector der Panzertruppen, Heinz Guderian, that the production version of the Jagdpanzer 38 D was to be armed with a 7.5 cm PaK L/70 gun. The ammunition load for this vehicle was to be 50 rounds. To cope with the increased weight, the front armor thickness was reduced to 50 mm.

Despite the general chaotic state of Germany in early 1945, the work on the two prototypes went nearly as planned. By late March 1945, two prototypes were reported to be almost completed. The only missing components were their transmissions, which were estimated to arrive by early April 1945. Once completed, the prototypes were to be demonstrated to Adolf Hitler on the 20th of April 1945. If the necessary components ever arrived or if the vehicles were fully completed is unknown, as the Alkett records and documents regarding these two prototypes were destroyed.

Conclusion

In contrast to many German late-war projects, the Jagdpanzer 38 D seems like a reasonable design. As the Czechoslovakian factories could barely keep up with the demands for armored vehicles, switching the production of this vehicle to Germany was another sound proposal. This would also cut the dependence on foreign companies. The Germans would have introduced a lot of simplified components to further ease the production. The decision to use the longer 7.5 guns was dubious at best. The installation of such a large gun on a small chassis would likely have proven troublesome. If introduced earlier, the Jagdpanzer 38 D may have been produced in greater numbers and provided the Germans with a much-needed tank destroyer. However, the Jagdpanzer 38 D would never be put into production and it would remain one of many unfulfilled German projects.

Specifications
Dimensions (l-w-h)	5.92 x 2.83 x 2.68 m
Total weight, battle-ready	16.7 tonnes
Crew	4 (driver, commander, gunner, loader)
Propulsion	200 hp@ 2,000 rpm Tatra Diesel engine
Speed	40 km/h
Range (road/off road)-fuel	500 km, 300 km (cross country)
Primary Armament	7.5 cm PaK 42 L/70
Secondary Armament	One 7.92 mm machine gun
Armor	up to 60 mm

Jagdpanzer 38 D Illustration made by Godzilla

Jagdpanzer 38 D with different camouflage

Sources

WW2 German Panzer IV

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.H

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date June 4, 2022
10 Comments on Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.H

Panzer IV Ausf.H, 1st SS Panzerdivision Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, France, summer 1944.

German Reich (1943)
Medium Tank – 2,322 to 3,774 Built

The introduction of the longer 7.5 cm gun-armed Panzer IV Ausf.G changed the role of the Panzer IV tank-type significantly within the German Wehrmacht. The 7.5 cm L/43 guns were more than capable of dealing with most tanks on the battlefield in 1942. Given its excellent performance, more better-armed Panzer IVs were requested. This would lead to the introduction of the Ausf.H version. It was in essence the same vehicle as the Ausf.G with some minor modifications to facilitate easier production. Thanks to its larger production, firepower, and improved armor, the Panzer IV Ausf.H would become the backbone of the Panzer divisions from 1943 until the end of the war.

The Panzer IV Ausf.H. Source: www.panzernet.net

A New Form

Installing the longer 7.5 cm guns on the Panzer IV greatly improved its anti-tank capabilities. The superstructure design and armor were deemed insufficient and warranted some changes to improve the overall performance. The experience gained fighting the Soviet T-34 tanks showed that angled armor offered advantages with regard to protection. Angled plates could be built using thinner armor plates and thus save on costs and production. It also offered an increased chance for the enemy round to ricochet off. Flat plates were easier to work with and provided additional internal space, but had to be steadily increased in thickness to cope with new enemy anti-tank weapons.

The German High Command was quite interested in adding a new angled superstructure on the Panzer IV. One such design was offered by Krupp engineers under the drawing ‘W 1462’. At the end of 1942, the project was initiated and Wa Prüf 6 instructed Krupp to proceed with its construction. The new superstructure frontal armor was to be highly sloped and 80 mm thick. The angled glacis armor was somewhat weaker, but still respectable at 50 mm. The front armor protection would offer immunity from most anti-tank weapons employed at that time. Consideration was given to further increase the turret side armor up to 45 mm. The weight of the superstructure was calculated to add nearly 900 kg. In order to preserve the overall drive characteristics, wider tracks were to be used. In addition, during this time, experimentation on a new suspension consisting of 6 larger road wheels was being undertaken.

The whole project was short-lived and almost doomed from the start. In February 1943, Krupp engineers calculated that the total weight, with the extra armor and wider tracks, would be around 28.2 tonnes. Even the ordinary Panzer IV Ausf.G version, with the added weight of the gun and armor, was nearing the limits of the chassis and suspension. A weight of 28.2 tonnes would cause huge stress on the suspension, leading to potential breakdowns and its service life is greatly reduced. Another nail to the coffin for this project was Adolf Hitler’s order that the Panzer IV production had to be doubled. Adding the new superstructure and potentially even a new suspension would lead to huge delays which the Germans could not afford. In the end, this project would have likely caused more problems than it was worth and, thus, it was quickly discarded with no prototype ever being built.

Had this project been implemented, the Panzer IV Ausf.H would have been visually quite different from previous versions. Due to delays that would have surely occurred due to the necessary changes to the production facilities, this project was quickly dropped. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 20-1 Paper Panzer Panzerkampfwagen, Sturmgeschütz and Jagdpanzer

The Real Panzer IV Ausf.H

By 1943, Adolf Hitler and his commanding officers were quite aware of the huge tank losses suffered in the previous years, mostly while fighting in the Soviet Union. In order to hopefully increase the overall production of tanks, at the start of 1943, Adolf Hitler appointed Albert Speer, the German Minister of Armament, to supervise the entire war production. At that time, other tank projects, such as the Tiger and Panther, were underway. These inevitably affected the production of other vehicles, including the Panzer IV. Speer soon informed Hitler that an increase in production was only possible if it focused on the Panzer IV and StuG III. Attempts to increase production showed some results. For example, Nibelungnwerke increased its Panzer IV output by 20 vehicles per month during March 1943. On the other hand, problems with deliveries of necessary parts were becoming an ever-present threat to the German tank program, which would only worsen as the years passed.

In March, Generaloberst Heinz Guderian, the Inspector General of the Armored Troops, informed Hitler that the Panzer division’s strength could be reinforced only by focusing on the production of Panzer IV tanks. In addition, he argued that the Panzer IV had to remain in production for the next two years. While Hitler agreed, this decision would often be ignored and bypassed, reducing the Panzer IV production in favor of anti-tank and assault gun versions based on its chassis. Considerable resources also went into the development and production of the larger Tiger and Panther tanks.

The further development of the Panzer IV led to the introduction of the Ausf.H version. There is a common misconception about the difference between it and the previous Ausf.G, which is commonly attributed to the barrel length. In reality, the latter built Ausf.Gs received the same L/48 long gun as employed on the Ausf.H. These two tank versions were the same, to the point one may even ask why even bother giving a new designation.

A common misconception is that the difference between Ausf.H and Ausf.G was the barrel length. In reality, the latter built Ausf.G received the same L/48 long gun. Basically, these two versions were nearly identical to each other. Source: www.panzernet.net

The Ausf.H was initially meant to have a new hydraulically operated turret. And in order to implement rationalization and ease production, this turret was to be completely compatible with both the Panzer III and IV. In the end, nothing came of this proposal and the vehicles instead would be equipped with a Panzer IV Ausf.G turret with an increased roof thickness

Interestingly, another attempt at improving the tank was made in 1944, when Krupp proposed a new Panzer IV turret designated as Vereinfachten Turm (Eng. Simplified turret). It did not have visor ports, nor a command cupola, the right side hatch was removed. The front armor was 80 mm thick and the side and rear were 42 mm placed at 25º. Despite this, by mid-1944, the decision was already made to slowly terminate Panzer IV production in favor of the anti-tank version based on its chassis. Investing in a new turret, despite some benefits, seemed redundant and nothing came of it.

While the proposed turret projects led nowhere, the improvement of the front-drive elements was seen as highly important. Steps were made to quickly develop and implement a much more durable drive. Aside from the small changes, the Panzer IV Ausf.H was virtually identical to the previous version of the vehicle.

Production

The German attempts to increase overall tank production truly kicked in with the Panzer IV Ausf.H during 1943. In previous years, for various reasons, the Panzer IV production was rather low. The Ausf.H reached a monthly production of almost 300, with a maximum of 354 tanks built in December 1943. In comparison, some early Panzer IV versions needed over a year to produce such quantities. For example, during 1941, on average, the monthly Panzer IV production was around 40 tanks.

The Ausf.H was one of the most produced versions of the Panzer IV series, with over 2,300 vehicles built. Source: www.panzernet.net

The Panzer Ausf.H was produced by Krupp, Vomag, and Nibelungenwerke. Over 100 companies of various sizes would be included in its overall production. Huge production orders were given to Krupp and Vomag to produce 1,400 tanks each, and Nibelungenwerke a further 1,900. Despite being heavily involved in the Panzer IV production, Krupp produced only 381 Ausf.H vehicles by December 1943. During 1943, Krupp was in a somewhat chaotic state due to constant changes in the production orders. For example, in April 1943, Krupp was ordered to completely abandon production of the Panzer IV in favor of the Panther I and II. In August, this was changed again, with Krupp receiving orders to manufacture some 150 Panzer IVs. In late August, this order was once again changed to 100 vehicles per month. In the end, the Panzer IV production was abandoned by Krupp in favor of the StuG IV assault gun.

The Vomag production numbers were higher, at 693. Finally, by the time the production ended in February 1944, Nibelungenwerke managed to build 1,250 Panzer IV Ausf.H. An additional 90 chassis built at Nibelungenwerke were reused for the StuG IV (30) and Sturmpanzer IV (60). During the period from May 1943 to February 1944, in total, some 2,322 Panzer IV Ausf.Hs would be built.

However, like so many German production numbers, there are some disagreements between sources. For example, K. Hjermstad (Panzer IV) and D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka) give a much greater number of 3,774 built in the period from April 1943 through to July 1944. Author A. T. Jones (Images of War Special The Panzer IV Hitler’s Rock) states that, in total, 3,935 Panzer IV chassis were built, with 130 used for the Sturmpanzer IV and 30 for StuG IV, and the remaining chassis were used in standard tank configuration. Author B. Perrett (Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank 1936-45) mentions only that some 3,000 were built during 1943.

Design

Hull

The hull received only a few minor modifications. The most important of which was the introduction of an interlocking front glacis and superstructure armor with the sides of the vehicle for better rigidity starting from December 1943.

Suspension and Running Gear

The overall design of the suspension remained the same. The difference was the reduction to three return rollers. In order to save rubber, these were made completely out of metal. In addition, the welded rear idler would be replaced from October 1943 by a new cast one starting. Some sources also mentioned that a new SSG 77 six-speed transmission was used on the Ausf.H. This seems to be some misidentification in the sources, as the Ausf.G also utilized this transmission.

In order to further simplify suspension production, some other minor changes were introduced. For example, the cast bump stop mountings were replaced with new welded mounts. The road wheels’ cast caps were replaced with slightly redesigned forged caps. It is important to note that not all vehicles received these modifications and that some continued to use older components.

A minor change was the introduction of a slightly modified wheel cap cover. Source: K. Hjermstad Panzer IV

The top picture represents a common rubber return roller. Due to a general shortage of rubber, in the latter part of the war, the Germans introduced simpler all-steel return rollers (lower picture). Source: K. Hjermstad Panzer IV

Another minor change was the redesign of the front-drive wheel. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Panzer IV and its Variants

Engine

The Panzer IV Ausf.H used the same engine as the previous version, the Maybach HL 120 TR(M) 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm. One major change was the introduction of an improved final drive. Given the constant increase of weight, this was necessary as the extra weight had been causing severe stress on the front-drive components. Its overall design was changed, with most of the reduction gear being relocated to the external part of the casing of the front-drive unit. The new drive had a higher gear ratio and this, together with increased weight, led to a slight reduction of speed to 38 km/h. The first 30 newly produced Panzer IV Ausf.Hs did not receive the improved front-drive unit due to problems with the production of necessary parts. Despite these changes, its operational range was the same, at 210 km on a good road and 130 km cross-country. The fuel load of 470 liters was also unchanged.

Superstructure

The superstructure design remained unchanged. The front 80 mm plate was interlocked with side armor for improved durability. The driver compartment received a heater. Lastly, an air pre-cleaning system was placed on the superstructure’s right side. The use of this system would be discarded near the end of the war.

The superstructure was almost unchanged from the previous version. The only visual difference was the use of an air pre-cleaning system placed on the right side of the superstructure. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.4 Panzerkampfwagen IV

Turret

Like the Ausf.G, this version also lacked a turret visor. In addition, the rear positioned pistol ports were removed together with the signal port. Aside from this, the turret on the Panzer IV Ausf.H remained unchanged from previous Panzer IVs.

Close-up view of a Panzer IV command cupola. While the Panzer IV Ausf.H used the same turret as its predecessor, its armor was slightly improved. Source: K. Hjermstad Panzer IV

Armor Protection

The overall armor protection was quite similar to the previous Ausf.G version, with some exceptions, mainly regarding its front and top armor. Previous versions had maximum frontal protection that consisted of a single 50 mm thick face-hardened armor plate. As this was deemed insufficient, additional 30 mm plates were either welded or sometimes even bolted to the frontal hull and superstructure armor plate.

The Panzer IV Ausf.H was meant to use a single 80 mm thick face-hardened armor plate for the protection of the front hull and superstructure. This was agreed to by Wa Prüwf 6 and three major amor component suppliers, Krupp, Bohler-Kapfenberg, and Eisenwerk Oberdonau, just before the Panzer IV Ausf.H production began. The single-piece armor plates were easier to work with, offered better protection, and did not need holes for the bolts, thus saving time. However, this was not possible at that time and, as a temporary solution, two-piece armor plates had to be used for a brief period. During the production, most vehicles would be equipped with single-piece frontal armor. It was not uncommon to see vehicles that had a combination of a single piece and bolted armor.

This improved frontal armor provided sufficient protection against the T-34’s 76.2 cm and Sherman’s 75 mm guns. Later improved Allied armament, such as the Soviet 85 mm gun, could penetrate the Panzer IV’s frontal armor. The side armor was much weaker and could be penetrated by rounds larger than 2 cm in caliber.

Another change was the improved top turret armor, which ranged from 16 to 25 mm in comparison to the 10 mm used previously. The armor of command cupola armor was also slightly increased by 5 mm.

Like many German armored vehicles, from May 1943 onward, the Panzer IV Ausf.H began to receive 5 mm thick skirts, known as Schürzen. Their primary purpose was to provide protection from Soviet anti-tank rifles. The Panzer IV hull was covered by six such skirts on each side. The turret was almost completely covered by these plates, leaving only the front open for the main gun. On the sides, two two-piece doors were placed for the turret crewmembers. As these were relatively loosely connected, they tended to be quickly lost during combat. This was something that the tank crews often complained about. In hope of improving their overall design, some changes to the mounting system were implemented starting in October 1943. The side rail bins that held the shields were modified to include triangular-shaped holders. The side skirts received ‘U’ brackets that were to be connected with these triangles and positioned at an angle toward the wheels. This modification somewhat improved the handling of the side skirts but still, they could be easily thrown off by the rapid movement of the tanks.

Starting in October 1943, the side rail bins were modified to include triangular-shaped holders. The side skirts received ‘U’ brackets that were connected with these triangles, and positioned at an angle toward the wheels. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle, Panzer Tracts No.4-3 Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.H / Ausf.J 1943 to 1945

A Panzer IV Ausf.H fully equipped with Schürzen. Source: www.panzernet.net

Zimmerit anti-magnetic paste was used on the Panzer IV Ausf.H. While originally, it was to be applied mostly on the tank’s flat surfaces, some more imaginative crews simply put the paste over the whole tank. While newly produced tanks would receive it at the factory, tank units were supplied with the necessary kit to do it in the field as well.

While intended to cover mostly flat surfaces, Panzer IV crews would sometimes cover other parts of their tanks. This vehicle, for example, had the Zimmerit applied to its side skirt armor plates. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle, Panzer Tracts No.4-3 Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.H / Ausf.J 1943 to 1945

While mostly ineffective, crews would often add additional spare links, storage boxes, spare road wheels, or whatever they had at hand for extra protection. Source: T. L. Jentz (1996) Panzertruppen The Complete Guide of the Creation and Combat Employment of German Tank Force 1943-1945

Armament

The Panzer IV Ausf.H was equipped with the 7.5 cm Kw.K. L/48 long gun. The longer barrel, compared to the L/43 used on early Ausf.Gs, offered slightly improved anti-tank capabilities. At a 1 km range, the 7.5 cm Kw.K. L/48 gun could penetrate around 85 mm of armor angled at 30° using standard armor-piercing rounds. The rare tungsten round increased the penetration at the same distance and angle up to 97 mm. A third option consisted of a hollow charge round that could penetrate 100 mm of armor regardless of the range but had a slow velocity of only 450 m/s compared to 750 m/s of the standard anti-tank round. The usual ammunition load consisted of 87 rounds, usually almost equal numbers of AP and HE rounds. When available, tungsten AP rounds would also be stored in limited numbers and used against the best-armored targets. The hollow charge rounds were sometimes used instead of the HE rounds.

The secondary armament was unchanged and consisted of two 7.92 mm MG 34 machine guns. The ammunition load for these two machine guns was stored in 21 belt sacks, each with 150 rounds ( 3,150 rounds in total). A third machine gun could be placed on a Fligerbeschussgerat 43 type anti-aircraft mount located on top of the command cupola.

Lastly, many armored vehicles that were produced in the later stages of the war were meant to receive the Nahverteidigungswaffe (Eng. close-range defense weapon), basically a small grenade thrower. It was mounted on top of the turret. Due to the general lack of availability, it was rarely issued prior to the start of 1944. Those vehicles that did not receive it had the turret opening covered with a round plate.

While not present on all tanks, an anti-aircraft mount could be placed on the command cupola. It only offered marginal defense against air targets and it could come in handy when engaging ground targets. The negative side was that the commander was completely exposed while using it. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle, Panzer Tracts No.4-3 Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.H / Ausf.J 1943 to 1945

Organization

Starting from June 1943, the Germans introduced some structural changes to their armored units operating in the East. The Panzer Divisions’ Panzerregiments (Eng. Tank Regiments) were divided into two Abteilungen (Eng. Battalions). Each battalion would have 96 Panzer tanks. Battalions were further divided into four mittlere Panzer Kompanie (Eng. medium tank companies) that each would have 22 tanks. Additional units, such as the command sections for the battalion and company elements, were also included. Older light companies used in previous years were disbanded. Ideally, the new Panzer Divisions of early 1943 were to be equipped mostly with Panzer IV tanks, but given the lack of numbers, Panzer IIIs armed with the long 5 cm gun were often used instead, even though these were no longer produced. The newly developed Panther tank was to be added to each panzer division, as well. Due to its slow delivery pace, it would take time before it was actually issued for frontline use in any sufficient numbers.

While this organizational change would be implemented by the end of 1943, there were never enough tanks to equip all units. For example, some Abteilungen could be equipped with 17 tanks per company, instead of the original 22. There were some exceptions, such as Abteilung ‘Feldherrnhalle’, which had only three 14 vehicle strong companies. Other units, such as the 3rd Abteilung from the 24th Panzer Regiment, were supplemented by two 22 vehicles strong StuG III companies instead of tank ones.

Additionally, while this structural change was initiated in early 1943, it would take almost a year or so to fully implement it. The units that fought in the East in 1943 used older structural organizations, including other tanks than the intended Panzer IV.

In Combat

From May 1943 onwards, the German panzer divisions were slowly being equipped with the new Panzer IV Ausf.H. Unfortunately, identification of the precise version of Panzer IVs mentioned in the sources is not always easy. The main problem is that most sources simply refer to them as Panzer IVs, without any explanation of which precise version was in question. In addition, the general similarity of the versions also complicates the matter. It is also important to note that many vehicles that were returned to Germany for repairs or otherwise survived to the later stages of the war were often equipped with components taken from the newer models. This makes the identification of precise vehicle versions quite difficult, but also creates ‘hybrids’ with different components taken from various versions.

In the Soviet Union

In July 1943, the Germans launched Operation Citadel with the aim of crushing the Soviet positions at Kursk. For this operation, the Germans managed to gather some 583 L/43 and 302 L/48 armed Panzer IV tanks. Surprisingly, there were still some 56 to 58 older Panzer IVs armed with the short barrel gun. The number of available Panzer IV tanks differs slightly between sources, as author T. Anderson lists that 682 such vehicles were present by 5th July 1943. It is curious that the Panzer III, in spite of no longer being produced and its combat effectiveness was greatly reduced and overshadowed by the newer German designs, was available in much greater numbers. Some 1,013 Panzer IIIs were armed with the short and long 5 cm guns. Some of the new Panzer III Ausf.N version rearmed with the short 7.5 cm gun was also present. Their presence in such large numbers demonstrated the lack of production capabilities of the German industry to keep up with the demand of new vehicles.

Panzer IV Ausf.H somewhere on the Eastern Front. Source: www.panzernet.net

The Panzer III, despite becoming obsolete as a frontline battle tank, had to be used as there were not enough Panzer IVs in operation. For example, the 16th Panzer Battalion from the 16 Panzer Grenadier Division had 37 Panzer IIIs and only 11 Panzer IVs. In a report written in early 1944 that included the combat performance of this unit from Kursk to January 1944, it was listed that it claimed to have destroyed 239 tanks and 12 self-propelled guns, 34 trucks, and over 250 artillery and anti-tank guns. It lost 37 tanks in the process, including 7 Panzer IVs. The Panzer IVs likely greatly contributed to the Soviet losses.

After Kursk, the Soviets pushed further into the German defensive lines. Despite being beaten at Kursk, the Panzer Divisions would still fight on. For example, during battles near Krivoy Rog, the 24th Panzer Division, which was equipped with Panzer IV and StuG III vehicles, claimed to have destroyed 184 (mostly T-34) tanks, 87 anti-tank guns, and 26 artillery guns during a period of 9 days. During this time, it only lost four tanks. Another example was the 36th Panzer Regiment, which fought in the East from late October 1943 until the start of December 1943. It was equipped with a mix of 49 Panzer IVs and 44 StuG IIIs. During its service in the East, this unit claimed to have destroyed 211 tanks and 230 artillery and anti-tank guns, although it lost 20 Panzer IVs and 16 StuG IIIs.

In Italy

Axis forces set up defensive positions in Sicily in April 1943, preparing for the anticipated Allied landings. German armored formations were present in small numbers, including the Panzer IV. Some 32 Panzer IVs were part of the Hermann Göring Panzer Division and a further 17 in the 504th Panzer Battalion. In July, the Allies began their landing operations. The first Panzer IV was lost when it was hit by a naval gun on 12th July 1943. Two days later, two more Panzer IVs were lost to enemy anti-tank guns. On 15th July, the German armored units, supported by infantry, managed to retake Height 398 from the enemy. The Allies launched two counterattacks, but both were repulsed. The Allies lost 12 tanks, 3 armored cars, and 2 anti-tank guns. The German losses included two tanks, one of which was a Panzer IV. On 27th July, two Shermans were destroyed near Gerbini. On 31st July and 1st August, heavy fighting occurred, during which the Germans inflicted 8 tank losses to the enemy near Sferro. By 17th August, Sicily was in Allied hands. The Germans lost 52 Panzer IV tanks during this operation.

The Allied conquest of Sicily forced the Germans to send substantial armored formations to Italy. By August 1943, there were some 773 armored vehicles, including 318 Panzer IVs, stationed in Italy. The Allied advance was severely contested by the Germans, especially along the Gustav defense line. Due to the hilly terrain of the Italian peninsula, the use of tanks, especially heavy tanks, was quite difficult and sometimes almost impossible. Fast movement of such vehicles, like on other fronts, was not possible.

The 26th Panzer Regiment from the 26th Panzer Division, for example, had 36 Panzer IVs armed with the L/48 gun and, surprisingly, 17 older versions armed with the shorter gun. Its tanks saw action against the Allies at the start of December 1943. Five Panzer IV tanks armed with long guns were sent on a reconnaissance mission toward Castelfrentano but saw no enemy movement. On 31st November 1943, 6 long-barreled Panzer IVs and 2 older versions attacked the Allied positions at Lanciano. In the following battle, one Sherman and two Churchill tanks were destroyed. Later that day, one Panzer IV and two Panzer IIIs provided supporting fire during the extraction of a damaged Panzer. This tank was successfully recovered despite heavy Allied artillery and anti-tank fire. On 6th December, at least four Panzer IVs were lost in an ambush near Ruatti.

A Panzer IV Ausf.H from the 26th Panzer Division, which served in Italy. Source: T. L. Jentz Panzertruppen The Complete Guide of the Creation and Combat Employment of German Tank Force 1943-1945

By June 1944, there were 210 operational Panzer IVs on this front, with 62 more needing repairs. By April 1945, the number was reduced to only 131 Panzer IVs.

France 1944

At the start of the Allied liberation of France, in June 1944, the Germans could muster some 863 Panzer IVs split into 11 panzer divisions. The authorized strength of these units was 965 tanks.

The Panzer Lehr Division, which fought in Normandy, had one battalion equipped with 98 Panzer IV Ausf.H. It saw heavy action fighting the British forces at Caen. By late June, it had only 26 operational tanks left. During this time, they claimed to have inflicted the loss of 85 tanks with 18 self-propelled guns. Some 15 Panzer IVs from this Division supported Michael Wittmann’s attack at Villers-Bocage. Following the Allied advance, elements of the Panzer Lehr Division attempted to make a counterattack near Le Dezert on 11th July. The German attack was repulsed with the loss of 8 Panzer IV Ausf.H tanks. In late July, the Allies launched Operation Cobra with the aim of destroying most German defenses in western France. The Allied attack was spearheaded by massive air bombing raids, which caused destruction and huge communication problems for the Germans. The Allies made a rapid advance, piercing the German line. In the confusion, some German units were not even aware that the Allies had made significant progress. On one occasion, a single Panzer IV that was advancing toward the frontline unexpectedly ran into an Allied truck column. The tank commander possibly misidentified the Allied trucks for German vehicles. Once the confused German crew realized that they ran into the enemy, they tried desperately to escape by blowing up a truck with a hand grenade and running over a Jeep. Another confusing event happened when another Panzer spotted an Allied convoy, mistaking it for friendly troops. The Allied military police that were present simply signaled it to move to the front of the column, after which it was hit by an M4 tank.

Another armored unit that was active in Normandy was the 2nd SS Panzer Division. It was stationed near Toulouse for recuperation after being recalled from the East in April 1944. This Division had 79 Panzer IV tanks in its inventory. It was engaged initially around Caen from late June to early July 1944, during which time it lost 37 tanks. By late July, this Division was reduced to 37 operational Panzer IVs.

The 12th SS Panzer Division tried to contest the initial Allied landing by attacking the Allied positions near Caen. During the attack, four Panzer IVs were lost. In another attempt to flank the Allied positions, an attack was launched near Mathieu. Here too the German tanks came under heavy fire from enemy anti-tank weapons. Six Panzer IVs would be lost while destroying one enemy anti-tank gun. On 7th June, the Panzer IVs had more success. Around Authie, the Germans ran into a column of Sherman tanks and a fierce skirmish occurred. By the time it ended, the Germans destroyed more than 10 Shermans, losing five tanks in the process.

A map of fighting around Caen during mid-June 1944. Source: Wiki

A Panzer IV Ausf.H or J which was part of the 2nd SS Panzer Division. Due to the Allied air supremacy, the German tanks were quite exposed to enemy bombing raids. In order to hide the vehicle, the crew placed it close to a building. Source: T. Anderson History of the Panzerwaffe Volume 2 1942-1945

While it appears that the Allies had the upper hand thanks to their superior firepower both on the ground and in the air, the German defensive line at Caen was strong and not easy to dislodge. On 11th June, the Allies launched an attack on the German positions near Le Mesnil-Patry. The area was defended by three tanks, possibly Panzer IVs. They managed to ambush a group of Sherman tanks, destroying at least 8 in the process but losing one tank to enemy anti-tank fire. Nearby Germans holding positions close to Brouay and Cristot were attacked too. In the ongoing battle, the Allies lost over 37 Sherman tanks.

In the Balkans

During the second half of 1943, in occupied Serbia, the Germans formed Kampschulle Niš (Eng. training school Niš). It served as a base for training Bulgarian crews which were meant to be equipped with German armored vehicles. The school remained in use during 1944, before being disbanded due to the Allied advance. At Crete, the 212th Panzer Battalion had 10 Panzer IVs in its inventory.

Modified Panzer IV Ausf.Hs

Sturmpanzer IV

While this project mostly reused damaged vehicles and ones returned from the front, some 60 newly built Panzer IV Ausf.H chassis was also used in the Sturmpanzer IV program. The Sturmpanzer was an armored infantry support gun armed with the 15 cm StuH 43 L/12. Over 300 were produced between 1943 and 1945.

Some Sturmpanzer IVs were based on the Ausf.H chassis. Source: Wiki

Flakpanzer IVs

A number of refurbished Panzer IV Ausf.H chassis would be reused for different Flakpanzer IV projects, including the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, Wirbelwind, and Ostwind. As a number of damaged tanks returned to Germany for repairs from all fronts, some were converted for other roles, so it is sometimes difficult to know the precise numbers of chassis used of each type.

The Möbelwagen was the most common Flakpanzer built using a variety of different Panzer IV chassis, including the Ausf.H. Source: Panzernet

In early 1944, Untersturmführer Karl Wilhelm Krause (commander of the Flakabteilung of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment, part of the ‘Hitlerjugend’ Division) issued orders for his men to mount a 2 cm Flak 38 Flakvierling on a Panzer IV tank (possibly an Ausf.H) chassis. The tank turret was removed and, in its place, a 2 cm Flak 38 Flakvierling was installed. The original gun shield was removed but later built vehicles had a newly modified three-sided gun shield. This vehicle was used against the Allies during the fighting in France in 1944. This vehicle would serve as a base for what would become the Wirbelwind.

The first Karl Wilhelm Flakpanzer battlefield modification was based on a Panzer IV chassis and armed with a 2 cm Flak 38 Flakvierling anti-aircraft gun. Note the Flak gun shield is missing, showing that it was the first Karl Wilhelm prototype. Photo: Operation Dauntless

Sturmgeschütz IV für 7.5 cm Sturmkanone 40

At least 30 Panzer IV chassis were specifically reallocated for the Sturmgeschütz IV für 7.5 cm Sturmkanone 40 project, also known simply as the StuG IV. The StuG IV was developed in response to Alkett’s temporary cessation of StuG III production, due to heavy Allied bombing of the factory. Despite being designed as a temporary stopgap solution, they would remain in production up to the end of the war with over 1,100 being built. They proved to be as effective as their StuG III counterparts.

The StuG IV. Source: www.panzernet.net

Panzerbefehlswagen IV

From early 1944, some Panzer IV Ausf.Hs would be modified as command tanks. These were equipped with the Fu 8 (medium wave receiver) and Fu 5 (ultra short wave receiver) radio equipment. A Sternantenne D (star aerial) for the Fu 8 was mounted on the rear of the hull, while the classic 2 m antennae for the Fu 5 was mounted in place of the Nahverteidigungswaffe on the roof of the turret. A T.S.R.1 observation periscope and an SF14Z periscope scissor were also mounted. In addition, the ammunition load was reduced from 87 to 72, and the turret-mounted machine gun was removed.

A front view of the Panzer IV turret. Note the position of the antenna which replaced the Nahverteidigungswaffe. To the right, the T.S.R.1 is raised up. While this is a later Ausf.J, the Ausf.H vehicle would be completely identical in this role. Source: Panzer Tracts No.4 Panzerkampfwagen IV

E-140 project

In November 1944, Krupp presented a project that involved placing a Panther turret armed with a 7.5 cm L/70 gun on a Panzer IV chassis. Not surprisingly, this installation would be impossible given the extra weight of the new turret and the gun, which would greatly affect the already overburdened chassis. Krupp even made a wooden mock-up of this proposal, but it was quickly discarded.

According to some authors, such as D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka), one Panzer IV Ausf.H hull was tested by adding a turret taken from a Panther Ausf.F which was armed with the 7.5 cm L/70 gun.

While the long 7.5 cm gun had excellent anti-tank capabilities, the gun and turret weight was simply too much for the already overburdened Panzer IV chassis. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Panzer IV and its Variants

Other Operators

Hungary

By 1944, after terrible losses in the Eastern Front supporting their German allies, almost all of the Hungarian armored vehicles were obsolete. Despite this, their 2nd Armored Division managed to destroy nearly 30 Soviet tanks during battles in eastern Galicia in April 1944. Their valor and resistance were noted by General Walter Model. On his insistence, the Hungarian 2nd Armored Division was reinforced with 10 to 12 (depending on the source) Panzer IV Ausf.H, a smaller number of StuG IIIs, and even with a group of Tiger tanks. These would have fought alongside the retreating Hungarians until the Battle of Budapest between the end of 1944 and February 1945.

Hungarian Panzer IV. Source: C. H. Climent and D. Bernad Madarska Armada 1919-1945

Romania

The Romanians, another of Germany’s allies, were also supplied with nearly 130 Panzer IV tanks of various versions. These arrived in a period from November 1943 through to August 1944. In Romanian service, these were known simply as T-4 and were distributed to the 1st Armored Division. This unit saw action against the Soviets in 1944. In late August, the Romanians changed sides and joined the advancing Soviet Army in their fight against the Germans. Those Panzer IVs that survived the war remained in service up to 1953.

Romania operated nearly 130 Panzer IV tanks. Source: www.worldwar2

Bulgaria

Another German ally, Bulgaria, was supplied with a large number of Panzer IVs, some of which were of the Ausf.H version, but precise identification is complicated. Bulgaria never used these tanks against the Soviets. In September 1944, Bulgaria changed sides and began attacking German forces in the occupied Balkans, using the Panzer IVs in the process.

Their initial operation was aimed at attacking the German forces in Serbia. The Bulgarian Armored Brigade, which was equipped with Panzer IV, Panzer 35(t), and 38(t) tanks, was moving out of Pirot to engage German positions near Bela Palanka on 17th September. While on the road, they came under fire from a lone 8.8 cm Flak gun. It destroyed the leading tank and followed up shortly after with the last one. The remaining tanks were, at this point, sitting ducks, unable to do anything, mostly due to panic and the inexperience of the Bulgarian crews, before they were all destroyed. By the end of the short engagement, all 10 tanks (the majority being Panzer IVs) and 41 crew members were lost. After the war, the Bulgarians used the Panzer IV for some time before being modified as static defense points on the Turkish border.

Bulgarian Panzer IV. Source:www.worldwarphotos

Spain

In late 1942 and early 1943, after the Allied landings in North Africa, Spain negotiated a deal to buy German armament to defend Spain from a possible invasion. Germany also needed the deal, as it continued to depend on Spanish minerals, especially tungsten, and wanted to ensure Spain would not facilitate an Allied landing on continental Europe. After some fruitless negotiations, a compromise was reached in May 1943, though negotiations stalled until the summer.

In total, Spain received 25 aircraft, 6 S-Boots, several hundred motorcycles, 150 Soviet 122 mm M1931/37 (A-19) guns, 88 8.8 cm Flak 36 anti-aircraft guns, 120 20 mm Oerlikon autocannons, 150 25 mm Hotchkiss anti-tank guns, 150 75 mm PaK 40 anti-tank guns, 20 Panzer IV Ausf.H medium tanks, and 10 Stug III Ausf.G assault guns, in addition to multiple radios, radars, replacement parts, and ammunition.

The 20 Panzer IV Ausf.H medium tanks and the 10 Stug III Ausf.G assault guns would prove a significant improvement over the existing Spanish tanks but were available only in small numbers.

In Spain, they were nicknamed ‘Maybachs’ after their engine. They were replaced by US-supplied M47s in the 1950s, though some remained in service in Spanish North Africa until 1957. A total of 17 were sold to Syria in 1965, with the remaining three surviving as gate guardians and museum pieces.

Panzer IV Ausf.Hs in Spanish service during a parade commemorating the victory in the Spanish Civil War. Source: www.reddit.com

Independent State of Croatia

The armored forces of the German puppet Independent State of Croatia allegedly received up to 5 Panzer IV Ausf.Hs during July 1944. This is quite unlikely, as the Croatian forces mostly operated older equipment. The misconception probably came from a few pictures of Croatian tank crews being trained by the Germans from Panzer Einsatz Kp. 3. The Germans did employ some of the later versions of the Panzer IV in Yugoslavia, and these may have been misinterpreted as Croatian vehicles.

In late 1944, a number of Croatian tank crews were sent to Germany to be trained on Panzer IVs. Source: B. B. Dumitrijević and D. Savić, Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu

France

After the war, a number of countries in Europe continued operating the Panzer IV for a brief period. France’s armored forces managed to acquire and use some 60 Panzer IVs, which were probably abandoned across the country by the retreating Germans. These were mostly stored and were not used. France would also sell some of its Panzer IVs to Syria in the early 1950s.

After the war, the French operated a number of German captured vehicles including some Panzer IVs. Source: forum.warthunder.com

Czechoslovakia

Czechoslovakia was another operator of the Panzer IV. These were leftover by the Germans after the war. This included some 150 Panzer IVs of various versions, the majority being later Ausf.Js. Some must have been of the Ausf.H version as well. When these were replaced with new Soviet equipment, the remaining Panzer IVs would be sold to Syria.

Surviving Czechoslovakian Panzer IV Ausf.H. Source: the.shadock.free.fr

Syria

Syria obtained over 100 Panzer IVs, including many Ausf.Hs from Czechoslovakia, France, and Spain during the 1950s and 1960s. These were used against the Israelis in the Water War of 1964 to 1967 and the Six Days War of June 1967. Israel captured many Panzer IVs during the Six Days War and has displayed them in museums. Allegedly, some Syrian Panzer IVs even survived as static firing positions all the way up to the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Syrian Panzer IVs received some minor modifications, including the addition of a 12.7mm DShK heavy machine gun on top of the turret.

A Syria Panzer IV is easily identified by the heavy machine gun mount located on the turret top. Source: www.pinterest.com

Yugoslavia

After the end of the Second World War, the new Jugoslav People’s Army would also operate an unknown number of long gun versions of the Panzer IV, including some Ausf.Hs. These were mostly used for training in the first years after the war, but when sufficient Soviet and Western equipment was acquired, these were replaced.

The Yugoslav Partisans managed to capture relatively large numbers of German armored vehicles near the war’s end. This included some Panzer IVs, some of which were of the Ausf.H version. Next to this vehicle, a Panther tank was also captured. This type of tank was not used in the Balkans but was actually left abandoned by the retreating German units from the East. Source: B. B. Dimitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945

Surviving Vehicles

Today, there are a dozen or so surviving Panzer IV Ausf.Hs around the world. Many museums have one specimen in their collection, including the Musée des Blindés Saumur in France, the André Becker Collection in Belgium, Militärhistorisches Museum Dresden in Germany, Yad la-Shiryon Museum in Israel, and Vojni Muzej Kalemegdan in Serbia. Interestingly, many sources mention that the one in Serbia is an Ausf.H version, while the museum’s own publication mentions that it is an Ausf.F. Some Bulgarian modified Panzer IV that were used as static emplacements and rearmed with a 7.62 cm gun survived too.

The surviving Panzer IV Ausf.H located in the Belgrade Military Museum at Kalemegdan. Source: www.mycity-military.com

The modified Bulgarian Panzer IV. Source: www.reddit.com

Conclusion

While the Panzer IV Ausf.H started out and was, in essence, the same as its predecessor, it nevertheless made a name for itself. It offered excellent firepower which was able to defeat nearly all Allied tanks up to the end of the war. Its primary importance for the panzer divisions was not in its effectiveness but, more importantly, that it was produced in relatively high numbers by German standards. Thanks to this, it helped greatly replenish the depleted panzer divisions of 1942.

Despite Guderian’s attempts to increase the production of Panzer IV, it was constantly undermined by many, including Hitler, who instead urged for the development of all kinds of armored vehicles which were more often than not a major waste of resources that were much needed for the Panzer IV. Furthermore, the Germans did not know what they wanted in regard to vehicles. In the end, this led to a continuation of the Panzer IV development and production, but at a much slower pace and in smaller quantities in contrast to what could have been achieved if all production capabilities were focused on its production.

Specifications
Dimensions (l-w-h)	7.02 x 2.88 x 2.68 m
Total weight, battle-ready	25 tonnes
Crew	5 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Radio Operator, and Driver)
Propulsion	Maybach HL 120 TR(M) 265 HP @ 2600 rpm
Speed (road/off-road)	38 km/h, 25 km/h (cross-country)
Range (road/off-road)	210 km, 130 km (cross-country)
Primary Armament	7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48
Secondary Armament	Two 7.92 mm MG 34
Elevation	-10° to +20°
Turret Armor	Front 80 mm, sides 30 mm, rear 30, and top up to 25 mm
Hull Armor	Front 80 mm, sides 20-30 mm, rear 14.5-20 mm, and the top and bottom 10-11 mm

Panzer IV Ausf.H – XVIth Panzerdivision, Kursk, July 1943.

Panzer IV Ausf.H, 1st Armored Division, Bulgarian army, Hungary, winter 1944.

Panzer IV Ausf.H of the IInd Panzerdivision, France, June 1944.

Panzer IV Ausf.H of the 35th Panzer Regiment of the IVrd Panzerdivision, Bobruysk, December 1943.

Panzer IV Ausf.H of the 35th Panzer Regiment of the IVth Panzerdivision, Kowel, Poland, early 1944. The 35th Regiment inflicted heavy losses on the Soviet 3rd Tank Corps at the Battle of Wołomin (part of operation Bagration). Its symbol was the “Grizlibär”, a menacing brown bear.

Panzer IV Ausf.H, IXth SS Panzer Division, France, summer 1944.

Panzer IV Ausf.H, 3rd Company, 130th Regiment of the 1st Panzerdivision, PanzerLehr, France, summer 1944.

Panzer IV Ausf.H, 9th Panzerdivision, Central Germany, April 1945. Notice the “ambush” type spotted camouflage and turret Schurzen armor open panels.

Sources

Has Own Video WW2 German SPGs

Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and 8.8 cm BuFlak ‘Bunkerknacker’

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date May 27, 2022
No Comments on Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and 8.8 cm BuFlak ‘Bunkerknacker’

Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and 8.8 cm BuFlak ‘Bunkerknacker’ Ilustration made by Godzilla

German Reich (1938-1940)
Armored Towing Vehicle – 25+ Built
Anti-Aircraft Gun – 33 to 50 Modified

Prior to the Second World War, the Germans were aware that they would need weapons that could deal with enemy fortified positions, such as bunkers. Their anti-tank guns and most of the artillery were not suited for this task. During the Spanish Civil War, the 8.8 cm Flak anti-aircraft gun proved to be quite effective when used against ground targets. Thanks to its large caliber and high velocity shells, the German Army officials came up with the idea of modifying some of them for use against enemy bunkers. Around 50 or so guns would be modified and used during the invasion of the West in 1940.

Heavily modified Sd.Kfz.7 half-track with the specialized 8.8 cm Flak gun.Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/halftracks/sdkfz-7/

A Brief 8.8 cm Flak History

In search of a new anti-aircraft gun, Krupp was contacted by German Army officials to develop such a design. In 1931, Krupp engineers returned to Germany after spending years cooperating with the Swedish Bofors company to begin construction of the gun under the most secret conditions. By the end of September 1932, Krupp delivered two guns and 10 trailers. After a series of firing and driving trials, the guns proved to be more than satisfying, and, with some minor modifications, were adopted for service in 1933 under the name 8.8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 18 (Eng: anti-aircraft gun) or, more simply, Flak 18.

Its overall anti-aircraft performance was similar to other nations’ heavy anti-aircraft guns. It gained its fame as an excellent anti-tank weapon in the early years of the war. This gun helped the Germans when other weapons failed them in this role. It would remain in German use up to the war’s end, with over 20,000 such guns being built. Many, including copies, would see service for several more decades.

The 8.8 cm Flak 18. Source: Pinterest

Not a Ground Attack Weapon

Despite its fame as an excellent anti-tank weapon during the war, the 8.8 cm Flak was not intended to fulfill this role. Proof for this can be seen in a Wa Prw document dated October 1935. In it, a list of all available anti-tank weapons that were in use or under development was mentioned. In addition, weapons and guns that could be used in this manner were noted too. This included some 2 cm and 3.7 cm caliber anti-aircraft weapons. Somewhat surprisingly, the 8.8 cm Flak gun was not mentioned for potential use as an anti-tank weapon. Two years later, armor-piercing rounds for the 2 cm and 3.7 cm anti-aircraft guns were included in the anti-aircraft development program. The 8.8 cm caliber was once again not included, and thus, no armor-piercing rounds for it were to be developed.

The Germans at this point did not consider the 8.8 cm Flak to be a viable anti-tank weapon. The main reasons for this were its sheer size, the difficulty of movement once employed, and concealment. The only German anti-tank gun that was in service during this time was the 3.7 cm PaK 36. It could be easily moved by only a few crew members, was a small target, and had sufficient firepower to deal with most of the tanks from that era.

When the war in Spain broke out in 1936, the Germans responded to Francisco Franco’s call for aid. The Germans dispatched both ground and air forces to Spain, including a small number of the 8.8 cm Flak guns. As the Nationalists gained the upper hand in the air, the 8.8 cm guns were employed for the destruction of ground targets, where their firepower showed that it had great potential in this role. Thanks to their half-track towing vehicles, mobility was not a major issue, as these possessed good overall drive on-road and off-road.

Even before the Spanish War ended, in 1938, the Heereswaffenamt (German Army weapons agency) and, more importantly, Adolf Hitler himself, requested that the 8.8 cm Flak 18 be adapted for use against ground targets. Their primary missions would be to destroy enemy fortified positions, such as bunkers, but also tanks if any came into range. Mobility was a major factor, as the gun had to be quickly positioned to take action against enemy targets. Two proposals would be adopted. The first would be by placing the gun on a half-track chassis, creating the 8.8 cm Flak 18 Sfl. auf schwere Zugkraftwagen 12 t (Sd.Kfz.8) als Fahrgestell. The second variant was more orthodox in design, consisting of an armored half-track prime mover and a slightly modified 8.8 cm Flak 18 gun.

Some 10 8.8 cm Flak 18 Sfl. auf schwere Zugkraftwagen 12 t (Sd.Kfz.8) als Fahrgestell would be built. While having a number of issues with their overall design, these vehicles would prove to be effective anti-tank weapons during the war. Source: en.wheelsage.org

The latter version was known as the 8.8 BuFlak (Bunker Flak). Given its purpose, the destruction of enemy bunkers, these 8.8 cm guns are sometimes referred to as Bunkerknacker (Eng: bunker destroyer). It is important to note that this name was not only used to describe the 8.8 cm gun, but also for other weapons that performed similar roles, such as the 10.5 cm K 18 guns. The term Gepanzerte Flak is also sometimes used. The towing vehicle was designated as Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen.

Increasing the 8.8 cm Flak gun’s mobility was to be achieved by firing the gun while still connected to its two-wheeled bogies. In this way, the crew would not need to waste time lowering the gun and removing the bogies. A new shield was to be added to the gun for crew protection, albeit minimal in scope. In addition to protecting the crew, their towing vehicle would be armored as well. The vehicle chosen for this conversion was the Sd.Kfz.7, which was the standard towing half-track for the 8.8 cm Flak gun prior to and during the war.

The first wooden mock-up of the modified Flak gun. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak

Production

In order to implement what was seen as an urgent project, Rheinmetall was contacted in August 1938. Rheinmetall engineers worked hard, completing the wooden mock-up by 19th August. Only a week later, the first prototype was completed and tested at Kummersdorf. By the end of September, around 50 such modified guns would be built. Authors, such as T. Anderson (History of Panzerwaffe Volume 1 1939-42), mention that 33 guns were modified in this way.

While the number of the modified guns is known, the precise number of modified towing vehicles is unknown. Authors T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak) mention that, thanks to photographic evidence, it is known that at least 25 such vehicles were built, though possibly more. The first vehicles were completed in mid-1938.

Design of the 8.8 cm BuFlak Gun

The Gun

The 8.8 cm Flak 18 used a single tube barrel which was covered in a metal jacket. The barrel itself was some 4.664 meters (L/56) long. The gun recuperator was placed above the barrel, while the recoil cylinders were placed under the barrel.

The 8.8 cm gun had a horizontal sliding breechblock which was semi-automatic. It meant that, after each shot, the breach opened on its own, enabling the crew to immediately load another round. This was achieved by adding a spring coil which was tensioned after firing. This provided a good rate of fire of 15 rounds per minute when engaging ground targets. Despite its maximum range of 15.2 km (with a muzzle velocity of 840 m/s), modified Flak guns were meant to engage enemy bunkers and positions in ranges of less than 1 km.

The modified Flak guns received a slightly changed Flakzielfernroht 20E telescopic sight. Its original use of degree grading was replaced with meters. The gunsight was positioned some 71 cm to the right and 20 cm below the gun. The gunner had to take this into account during firing. The gunsight had to be accordingly positioned slightly to the right and below the target.

The crew manual for this weapon notes that the best and most stable firing position was when the gun was facing forward or to the rear. When fired to the sides, great care had to be taken so that the gun could take the firing recoil. No source provides a precise weight of this gun, but given that it received minimal modifications, it would likely remain the same or quite similar to the original, which had a weight in firing position of 5,150 kg, while the total weight was 7,450 kg.

Controls

Initially, the Flak 18 had two handwheels, one responsible for elevation or one for the traverse. These were located on the right side of the gun. In essence, this meant that two crew members were needed to fully control the movement when tracking targets. The Flak gun that was intended to be solely used for ground operations had to have changed controls. The two separate handwheels were replaced with a single operating unit that contained both of these controls. This new control unit was placed on the forward right side, close to the shield. Essentially, this meant that only one crew member, the gunner, was needed to fully engage targets. Due to its primary mission of engaging ground targets, the elevation was limited to -4° to +15°.

Carriage

Given its size, the gun used a large cross-shaped platform. It consisted of the central part, where the base for the mount was located, along with four outriggers. The front and the rear outriggers were fixed to the central base. The gun barrel travel lock was placed on the front outrigger. The side outriggers were shorter in contrast to those originally used. On these two side outriggers, the round-shaped leveling jacks were replaced with a new square-shaped jack. Their purpose was to prevent the gun from digging into the ground and to keep the gun level on uneven ground.

The modified 8.8 guns had side outriggers that were shorter in comparison to those of normal guns. Also note the new square-shaped jacks. Source: www.worldwarphotos.info

In comparison, the original side outriggers were longer and had round-shaped leveling jacks. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role

Bogies

The whole gun was moved using two-wheeled bogies designated as Sonderanhanger 201. The front bogie had single wheels, while the rear one consisted of a pair of wheels per side. Another difference between these two included that the front bogie had 7 and the rear 11 transverse leaf springs. The wheel diameter was the same for the two, at 910 mm. These were also provided with air brakes. In contrast to ordinary guns, this version was to be fired while the two bogies were still connected to the gun carriage.

These guns were to be fired by still connected to the two bogies. This made them rather tall targets for enemy gunners. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak

Shield

Another new implementation was the introduction of a slightly modified armored shield. It had a simple rectangular shape and was placed at an angle. To the right, there was a hatch that could be closed if needed. Its purpose was to provide the gunner an opening to spot his targets. While an ordinary 8.8 cm Flak front armor shield had a small opening on top for the gun to elevate to the sky, this gun shield did not have it, and it was instead covered with a plate. To somewhat further increase the gun operator’s protection, two smaller triangle-shaped side armor plates could be expanded to both sides. When on the move, these were folded to the front armor shield. The precise armor thickness is not listed in the sources, but it is mentioned that it was slightly thicker than the 10 mm used on the original 8.8 cm Flak shield. While not particularly thick, it was intended to protect the crew from small-caliber rounds and shrapnel.

Front view of the new gun shield, which was slightly enlarged. As the upper part of the shield was enclosed, the gun could not be used to target enemy aircraft. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak

For comparison, the armored shield used on ordinary 8.8 cm guns had an opening at the top which enabled the crew to elevate the gun barrel to engage air targets. In addition, it was somewhat smaller in dimensions. Source: www.deviantart.com

Ammunition

The modified Flak gun was mostly meant to fire high-explosive and anti-tank rounds. The 8.8 cm Sprgr Patr was a 9.4 kg high-explosive round with a 30-second timed fuze. The 8.8 cm Pzgr Patr was a 9.5 kg standard anti-tank round. With a velocity of 810 m/s, it could penetrate 95 mm of 30° angled armor at 1 km. At 2 km, at the same angle, it could pierce 72 mm of armor. Using an armor-piercing round, at 70° angle, it could penetrate 1 m of concrete at 1 km distance. As these guns could not be used in their original role, the fuse setting device was replaced with a box-shaped ammunition bin that contained 6 rounds of ammunition.

Another modification was the introduction of ammunition storage for six rounds, which was placed where the fuse setting device was originally located. The ammunition box on this gun is currently empty. Due to its high rate of fire, the ammunition could be easily spent in a short amount of time. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak

Crew

The vehicle with the gun had a crew of 7. This consisted of the commander, loader, gunner, and four additional gun assistants. The gunner was placed on the right side of the gun and was responsible for operating the gun traverse, elevation, and firing mechanism. Left of the gunner was the loader’s position. Due to the use of bogies during firing, the height of the gun was raised. In order for the loader to be able to load a new round, a metal platform was welded on this side to stand on. The commander and the remaining crew were responsible for moving the gun, carrying additional ammunition, and spotting targets.

Due to its increased height, it was necessary to add a platform for the loader. Also, note the smaller shape of the lowered side outrigger. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role

Another view of the loader’s positions. The loader was put in a quite precarious and somewhat exposed position, where a well-placed enemy bullet could easily end his life while loading the gun. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak

The Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen

The primary towing vehicle for the 8.8 cm Flak guns was the Sd.Kfz.7 half-track, although it was also not uncommon to see heavy 6×6 wheeled trucks being used in this role. The Sd.Kfz.7 was developed in the mid-1930 by Krauss-Maffei. During its production run, some changes to its design would be implemented, mostly in an attempt to increase its overall performance. This would lead to the installation of a stronger engine and adding two more road wheels per side. The performance was deemed satisfactory and some 12,000 such vehicles would be built up to 1945. The Sd.Kfz.7 also saw limited export success, being sold in small numbers to Brazil, Hungary, Japan, the Soviet Union even Great Britain after the war. It was also built in Italy under the Breda 61 designation.

As the previously mentioned 8.8 cm guns were to be used for destroying enemy fortified positions at relatively close ranges, a soft-skin towing vehicle was deemed undesirable for this task. For this reason, unknown numbers of Sd.Kfz 7 was modified, receiving an armored body to protect the engine, crew, and ammunition.

The Sd. Kfz. 7 half-track in its original configuration. Source: wwiitank.wordpress.com

Chassis and Suspension

The Sd.Kfz 7 chassis and its suspension seem to have been unchanged. The suspension consisted of 6 road wheels, a rear idler, and a front positioned drive sprocket. The front four wheels were suspended using a balance suspension. The remaining wheels were placed on a pivoting arm suspended using a semi-elliptic leaf spring unit.

The armored Sd.Kz. 7’s suspension and overall chassis construction seem to have been unchanged. Also, note the side hatch door located beneath the driver compartment. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak

Crew

The crew of this vehicle consisted of only the driver, who was positioned on the front left side of the driver compartment. During the drive, the commander would sit next to the driver. The remaining crew were located in the rear crew compartment.

Armored Body

The armored body of this vehicle resembles that used on the Sd.Kfz.251 armored half-track. It was well angled and covered the whole length of the rear compartment. In addition, it was open-topped. The armor thickness of the plates used for this vehicle was 15 mm. With this thickness and with the angled sides, it provided sufficient protection from small-caliber rounds and artillery shrapnel only.

The armored body of this vehicle could basically be divided into a few sections: the engine compartment, the driver compartment, the crew compartment, and the ammunition storage bin. The engine’s sides and front were fully enclosed with an armored shield. On both sides, there were four large hatches. These could be opened to provide better ventilation for the engine. The top of the engine compartment was not protected.

The engine front and side were fully protected. On each side, there were two hatch doors that could be opened for better engine ventilation. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

The drive compartment was slightly raised up from the rest of the armored body. It was open-topped and had four protective hatches, two at the front and one on each side. In addition, on the bottom of the sides of the driver compartment, two larger hatches were located. Their purpose is not clear, and they served either for some kind of storage or to allow the driver and the commander to exit the vehicle. Behind was the gun crew compartment. The crew was positioned on two benches placed opposite each other. In order to exit the vehicle, there was a hatch at the rear of this compartment. Lastly, to the rear of the vehicle, box-shaped armored ammunition storage was located. It contained some 24 spare rounds of ammunition.

The top of the engine compartment was left unprotected. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak

Top view of the driver’s position. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak

The ammunition storage could hold 24 rounds to the rear of the vehicle. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak

Performance

The ordinary Sd.Kfz.7 vehicles had a 140 hp HL 62 TUK engine and could reach up to 50 km/h. With a fuel load of 213 liters, the operational range on roads was 250 km, and 135 km off-road. The length of this vehicle was 6.85 meters, width 2.4 meters, and height 2.62 meters. While the performance of the Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen is not mentioned in the sources, the additional weight from the armor plates probably affected its overall performance. To which extent this was the case it is quite difficult to know.

Either due to losses or some other reasons, ordinary unarmored Sd.Kfz 7 half-tracks would sometimes be used as towing vehicles, like in this case. Source: T. Anderson History of Panzerjager Volume 1 1939-42

Training and Organization

By the order of the Oberkommando des Heeres (Eng. German High Command), the training of the first crews that were to operate these guns was to commence during September 1938. The main training center was to be at the Juterbog artillery school.

Nominally, these were intended to be attached to heavy motorized artillery or anti-tank battalions. The order for the employment of these vehicles was to be issued by the command of an infantry regiment.

Prior to the engagement, the commander, along with two assistants, would go ahead to observe its target, find the best firing position, and the best way to retreat if needed. Once the location was found, the gun was moved to that position. Despite the 8.8 cm gun’s good firing range, targets were to be engaged at less than 1 km. In addition, due to its somewhat limited elevation, great care had to be taken by the crews to choose good firing positions. Given that the crew had to come rather close to the target, hiding and camouflaging the gun was seen as essential. Because of its sheer size, in practice, this would be a difficult task to undertake in close proximity to the target. Smoke screens were meant to be used while the gun was preparing to fire.

These units were to be primarily used in destroying enemy fortified positions, such as bunkers. Since the target hit rate was expected to be around 30%, shooting at greater ranges than that had to be avoided. If enemy tanks came into range, these were also to be targeted.

Some 11 vehicles were attached to the 525th, 560th, and 605th schwere Panzer Jäger Abteilung (Eng. heavy anti-tank battalions) each. Each of these battalions were divided into three companien (Eng. Company).

In Combat

Occupation of The Sudetenland

The first ‘combat’ use of the Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak was during the occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938. This operation was peaceful and the 8.8 cm guns did not have to fire in anger. While its self-propelled cousin saw service in Poland, use of the Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and the 8.8 cm BuFlak in this campaign is not recorded, which likely suggests that it was never employed there.

The Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak in the occupied Sudetenland. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak

In France

The 525th, 560th, and 605th heavy anti-tank battalions would see service during the German West campaign of 1940. During this campaign, they were attached to various units depending on the combat needs. Unfortunately, their overall performance and usage is rather poorly documented.

The 525th heavy anti-tank battalion saw its first action while helping clean Allied road barricades at Trois Ponts on 10th May 1940. The following day, it provided its firepower to the 49th Infantry Regiment that was attacking a bunker. After firing several rounds, the bunker crew surrendered. On 19th May, while driving toward Dinant, two vehicles from the 525th heavy anti-tank battalion ran into an enemy ambush and were hit by machine gun and anti-tank fire. One armored Sd.Kfz 7 was hit by an anti-tank round and was set on fire. The fire would expand to its ammunition storage, igniting it into an explosion. The second vehicle was hit with machine gunfire. Its crew abandoned the gun and used the armored towing vehicle to retreat. An hour later, they returned to recover the damaged gun. The gun would be repaired that evening and the unit advanced toward Clairefontaine.

The following day, another vehicle arrived to support the attack of the 49th Infantry Regiment at the Allied held Assevent. Elements of the 525th heavy anti-tank battalion participated in this engagement with two guns. One gun was positioned to protect the infantry against enemy armor, which had been spotted. The second gun proceeded forward, but its towing vehicle hit a metal bar which immobilized it. The crew had to sit by this vehicle and wait for a replacement. Soon, the replacement vehicle arrived and the crew continued the advance. Once in a designated position, at least three enemy machine gun positions were destroyed. The crew of this gun noticed that friendly infantry was retreating under fire from enemy B1 bis tanks. One was engaged at a distance of 300 m and destroyed. The second vehicle was hiding behind a wooden hut. As it emerged to target the 8.8 cm gun, it was hit, exploding in the process. Seeing the two tanks destroyed, the German infantry made a counter-attack. These guns were also used to support the 51st Infantry Regiment advancing toward Dunkerque during May 1940.

The Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen towed an 8.8 cm gun at the start of the German attack in May 1940. Source: /www.armedconflicts.com

An 8.8 cm firing at Allied positions near Dunkerque in May 1940. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars

Despite their armor, the Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen could still be taken out by almost any anti-tank weapon. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

Following the successful conclusion of the West campaign, the 525th, 560th, and 605th heavy anti-tank battalions were equipped with ordinary towed 3.7 cm anti-tank guns. The reason for this decision is not known. The order for the reorganization of these units did not include an explanation for this decision. Other units (both Heeres and Luftwaffe), which operated normal 88 mm Flak guns were more than satisfied with their overall performance. This is also supported by the German General Staff, which even argued that the 8.8 should be incorporated into each infantry division. A possible reason for the removal from service of the BuFlak may have been poor training and use. Another issue may have been related to the gun’s limited elevation, which prevented it from being operated in anti-aircraft use.

The fate of the guns and towing vehicles is unknown. It is likely that both types which survived the West campaign were converted back to their original configurations.

Conclusion

The Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and its modified Flak gun were an attempt to provide the German ground forces with an effective anti-bunker and anti-tank vehicle. Its overall performance is quite difficult to describe due to the lack of sources and information about its use.

While the 8.8 cm gun was unquestionably an effective weapon when used against fortified targets or tanks, this design was rather questionable. The 8.8 cm Flak in its original configuration was already a tall target. The modified gun was even taller, which made it even easier for the enemy to see. The Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen, while protected, in contrast to the ordinary towing variant, was often easily taken out due to the required close proximity to the target.

Due to a lack of information, the precise reason why this vehicle and its gun were removed from service is not known. It is likely that this was done more due to its poor organizational usage than due to any major flaws in its design, as the 8.8 cm Flak and the soft-skin towing vehicles would see major action up to the war’s end.

Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen. Ilustration made by Godzilla

8.8 cm BuFlak ‘Bunkerknacker’. Ilustration made by Godzilla

8.8 cm BuFlak Specifications
Dimensions	7.7 x 2.2 x 2.9 m
Weight in firing position:	5.150 tonnes
Crew	7 (Commander, loader, gunner, and four additional gun assistants)
Primary Armament:	8.8 cm L/56 gun
Elevation:	-4° to +15°

Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen Specification
Dimensions (l-w-h)	6.84 x 2.4 x 2.62 m
Total weight, battle-ready	23.6 tonnes
Crew	1 (Driver)
Propulsion	140 hp HL 62 TUK
Speed	50 km/h
Range (road/off-road)	250 km, 135 km
Armament	None
Armor	15 mm

Sources

Has Own Video WW2 German StuG III

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone (Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.A)

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date May 21, 2022
1 Comment on Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone (Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.A)

StuG III Ausf.A Illustration made by David Bocquelet

German Reich (1940)
Assault Gun – 30 Built + 6 to 20 Ausf.A/B Hybrids

Prior to and during the Second World War, the Germans developed and introduced into service a series of armored vehicles. While most of these were tanks, there were also a number of modifications designed to fulfill different roles, such as anti-tank or anti-aircraft duties. During the early stages of the war, a new vehicle, known as the Sturmgeschütz III, was slowly being introduced. Its purpose was to provide close fire support to infantry units, a role in which it would perform superbly. While mostly overshadowed by the famous Panther and Tiger tanks, the small and cheap Sturmgeschütz III would become the most widely produced tracked vehicle in the German armored arsenal. Its entry into service in 1940 was rather modest, mostly due to the small numbers of vehicles available at that time, but this was something that would change dramatically in the war’s later years.

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone Ausführung A. Source: www.panzernet.net

Sturmgeschütz III Development History

During the Great War, the Western front was bogged down in trench warfare, where fast movement was limited due to the terrain and fortified defenses. In order to break the stalemate, the Germans began employing the so-called Sturmtruppen (Eng. Stormtroopers). These were infantry units that put great emphasis on speed and sudden attacks in order to overwhelm the enemy’s defensive line. In order to support them, towed artillery was used. The close fire support was a welcome addition during an assault, destroying enemy targets like machine-gun emplacements and fortified positions. However, the use of the artillery in this role was hampered by the crews being exposed to enemy return fire and the guns being too cumbersome to move over the rough terrain.

After the war, German Army military officials were quite aware that failing to provide the infantry with adequate close-range fire support would lead to high losses during attacks on enemy entrenched positions. Mobile artillery was seen as a solution to this problem. In 1927, the German Reichswehrministerium (Ministry of Defense) issued a contract for a self-propelled vehicle armed with a 77 mm gun mounted on an experimental Hanomag WD fully tracked tractor. Work on this vehicle had to be stopped due to a number of reasons, like lack of funds and priority being given to other military projects and reorganization.

The 77 mm gun-armed Hanomag WD tracked tractor. Source: Pinterest

Nevertheless, this concept was not completely abandoned, and work on it reemerged in the early 1930s. This was mainly thanks to 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, divided into three 6 vehicle strong batteries.

While initially opposed by some elements of the German Army, the project received a green light when it was approved by Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres (German Commander in Chief of the Army), Generaloberst von Fritsch, in 1935. The project was to be carried out under the supervision of Colonel Walter Model. The whole project started at a very slow pace, and it took a year for things to finally get going.

Whose Responsibility Was It?

While the first steps in the creation of such a vehicle were underway, there was a disagreement between the different Army branches, including artillery, infantry, and armor, about this project. While the value of such a vehicle was greatly praised by both infantry and artillery units, military circles that advocated for the use of tanks were less enthusiastic. The main issue that arose was the question of what was the difference between a tank that could fulfill the same role and the proposed self-propelled artillery gun. There was also the question of whether it was worth it to spend the limited production resources on developing both types of vehicles.

In order to find answers to these questions, in early June 1936, an unnamed general in the infantry branch General der Infanterie sent a dispatch to the General Staff of the Army. In it, he noted that, while such a vehicle offered clear advantages over ordinary towed artillery, it was necessary to establish an accurate draft of the requirements for its design and of its tactical usage in combat. Furthermore, he explained at length that it was necessary to make a clear line between the roles that tanks and infantry support guns should fulfill. While their combat role seemed to be quite similar at first glance, they were in fact different.

While the tank force was seen as the main offensive formation, the infantry was meant to follow up and destroy the remaining isolated enemy forces. On the other hand, infantry saw the tanks as support weapons and would request that part of the tanks be left behind to provide close support. This in turn would weaken the tank formations, robbing them of their numbers and firepower. The tanks were an offensive weapon that relied on speed and mobility to attack less defended positions. Fortified targets could not be taken by tanks alone, and they had to be accompanied by infantry. The assault vehicles, on the other hand, thanks to their mobility, armor, and firepower could easily support the infantry. It was not a weapon to be used en masse, but instead, used in smaller numbers as needed.

While other nations, like France, advocated for the use of tanks as primarily infantry support weapons, the Germans also tested this idea. In August 1936, this was discussed by the German General Staff of the Army, but the idea was quickly discarded. They argued that, in order for tanks to fulfill this role, tank armor had to be constantly upgraded to keep up with the development of anti-tank weapons. Adding additional armor would cause the tank to lose its mobility and its tactical offensive advantages.

The generals from the panzer divisions were against the assault gun project. To them, introducing a new vehicle would put enormous stress on the overburdened German production industry. The production of new tanks, like the Panzer III and IV, was limited at best. But, despite their resistance, in the end, it was decided that the artillery branch would be responsible for training and developing tactics for this vehicle.

First Requirements

What followed was a period of design and development requirement negotiation. The requirements were finalized and issued on military document 449/36 dated 15th June 1936. The list of requirements was initially designated schwere Panzerabwehrkanone sPaK (Eng. heavy anti-tank gun). It had to have a small height, no more than a standing soldier. The main armament would consist of a 7.5 cm gun facing forward. It had to have sufficient elevation to reach a 7 km firing distance. Elevation had to be 30° in both directions. In addition, it had to possess enough armor penetration to pierce any known enemy armored vehicle at ranges of up to 500 m.

Surprisingly, initially, it was requested that this vehicle be open-topped. As this was a vehicle that was to provide close fire support, having an open-top would be too dangerous for the crew and this requirement was changed to include a fully enclosed crew compartment. The armor had to be enough to stop 20 mm rounds. Thanks to the weight-saving due to not having a turret, stronger armor plates could be used.

These were all early requirements and some changes would be introduced during initial development. Probably most noticeable were the characteristics of the gun (firing range and traverse), which had to be changed from the initial requirements.

To speed up the development time, a Panzer III chassis was to be used. The Panzer I and II chassis were too small. Why the Panzer IV chassis was not used is not specified in the sources, but there may be a few reasons for this. Roughly at the same time, the Germans had initiated the standardization of tank development. According to plans drawn up by Wa Pruef 6 (the German Army’s design office for armored vehicles and motorized equipment), the Panzer IV, starting from the Ausf.C version was to be built using the new Panzer III Ausf.E chassis, which used torsion bar suspension. Due to problems with the Panzer III development, nothing came from this.

Due to Germany’s general lack of industrial capacity during the 1930s, it would take some time before the first prototypes could be delivered. Daimler-Benz from Berlin-Marienfelde was chosen for designing and building the first prototypes. In 1937, the assembly of a small 0-series based on the Panzer III Ausf.B chassis began. These received a soft-steel superstructure and thus could not be used in combat. Their main purpose was to serve as evaluation, testbed, and training vehicles.

Name

Initially, this vehicle was designated as schwere Panzerabwehrkanone sPaK. The usage of the prefix Selbstfahrlafette or short Sfl. (Eng. self-propelled chassis) was also common. It was also common to see the use of the Sturmgeschütz designation in German documents. As it was based on the Panzer III chassis, sometimes it would also be referred as Panzer-Selbstfahrlafette III (Eng. tank self-propelled chassis III).

At the end of March 1940, the name was officially changed to Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone, which could be translated as armored self-propelled chassis for 7.5 cm armed assault gun. The first series of this vehicle received the Ausfuhrung (Eng. version or series) A designation. In addition, the Sd.Kfz.142 number was added to the name. It is generally best known under the much shorter StuG III Ausf.A name. This article will use this shorter designation for the sake of simplicity.

Production of the StuG III Ausf.A

While no StuG III was used during the fighting in Poland in September 1939, experience gained there showed that such a vehicle was desirable. One month after this campaign, the Waffenamt (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.

The five vehicles of the actual 0-series were built using a chassis of a Panzer III Ausf.B. Source: meditationsonahobby.blogspot.com

For the production of the StuG III Ausf.A, several companies were included. The production of the guns and its mounting was carried out by Krupp from Essen. Brandenburger Eisenwerke, together with a couple of smaller firms, was responsible for providing the necessary armored parts and components. The guns and armored components, once available, were transported to Daimler-Benz for final assembly. The chassis, taken from the Panzer III Ausf.F series (starting from serial number 90.001), were also to be produced by Daimler-Benz. Interestingly, according to W. J. Spielberger (Panzer III and its Variants), these were actually completed by Alkett in Berlin.

A slightly modified Panzer III Ausf.F chassis was used for the StuG III Ausf.A. Source: forum.warthunder.com

Official orders for 30 StuG IIIs were issued on the 13th of October 1939. These 30 vehicles had to be completed no later than the beginning of April 1940. The first fully completed chassis was delivered during December 1939. During the installation of the gun mounts, it was noted that, due to a miscalculation, these could not be fitted. This miscalculation led to a one-month-long pause in production until this issue was resolved. The whole order for 30 vehicles was completed by April 1940.

Design

While visually quite similar to the early prototypes, the StuG Ausf.A features a number of improvements to the overall design. In addition, the Panzer III Ausf.F-based chassis was not completely identical to the tank version, as there were some minor differences made to its design.

The Hull

The StuG III Ausf.A 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 with an angled armor plate. The two square-shaped, two-part hatch brake inspection doors were located on the front hull. In contrast to the tank chassis it was based on, these opened vertically and not horizontally. While the StuG III 0-series had two bolted round-shaped plates added on the front transmission, these were removed on the Ausf.A. There were four towing couplings, with two at the front and two at the rear of the hull.

The 0-series had two round two-part brake inspection hatches located on the front hull. These were removed on the first production StuGs. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz

Suspension and Running Gear

The Panzer III Ausf.F 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 cast tracks were 380 mm wide.

The Panzer III Ausf.B suspension, which consisted of 8 small road wheels. This suspension was deemed ineffective and too complicated. Source: www.worldwarphotos.info

The Stug III used a simpler torsion bar suspension. Source: www.panzernet.net

Illustration of the Panzer III’s suspension arrangement. Source: warspot.ru

The Engine

The early prototype version was built on the Panzer III Ausf.B chassis. The production version was actually built using the much improved Panzer III Ausf.F chassis. This included the usage of a stronger twelve-cylinder, water-cooled Maybach HL 120 TRM engine giving 265 hp (in some sources listed to be 280 or even 300 hp strong) @ 2,600 rpm. The StuG III Ausf.A’s 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’s maximum speed was increased to 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 StuG III Ausf.A’s operational range was 160 km on roads and 100 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.

Transmission

The StuG III Ausf.A was equipped with a somewhat overly complicated ten-speed and one reverse Maybach Variorex SRG 32 8 145 semi-automatic transmission. The transmission was connected to the engine by a drive shaft that ran through the bottom of the fighting compartment. The steering mechanism used on the Panzer III was bolted to the hull. It was connected to the two final drives, which were themselves bolted to the outside of the hull. In theory, with this transmission, the StuG III Ausf.A could reach speeds of up to 70 km/h. In reality, this caused huge problems and the rubber-rimmed road wheels had to be changed frequently due to being worn out. The transmission itself was overly complicated, difficult to produce, and prone to frequent breakdowns. It would be replaced with a much simpler and more reliable SSG 76 transmission on a later version of the StuG III.

The Superstructure

The box-shaped upper superstructure was taken almost directly from the initial StuG 0-series, with some small differences. The front and side armor plates were flat. On the left front, the plate was a driver vision port. The StuG Ausf.A introduced a new improved driver protective visor, the Fahrersehklappe 50, which was 50 mm thick. When the visor was closed, the driver would use a K.F.F.1 binocular periscope to see through two small round ports located just above the visor. In front of it was a bullet splash protector. Left of the driver’s position, there was another vision port. Both of these were further protected with armored glass. What appears to be doors on the StuG III Ausf.A’s sides were actually angled plates that served as spaced armor. On the left superstructure side, a box-shaped armored extension was used to store the radio receiver (Empfanger h). Just behind it was a folded antenna. The rear armor plate was unusually angled, somewhat complicating the overall design.

The box-shaped upper superstructure was, with some differences, taken directly from the initial StuG 0-series. On the left front plate was a driver vision port, with another vision port placed to the left of him. Source: Anderson Sturmartillerie, Osprey Publishing

The StuG Ausf.A introduced a new improved driver protective visor, the Fahrersehklappe 50, which was protected by an armored glass block on the inside. Source: Anderson Sturmartillerie, Osprey Publishing

When the visor was closed, the driver would use a K.F.F.1 binocular periscope to see through two small round ports located just above the visor. Source: Anderson Sturmartillerie, Osprey Publishing

Probably the most noticeable feature of the StuG III Ausf.A was the large sight tunnel placed above the driver’s position. It led to the gunner’s optics used to aim the gun. In the hope of protecting the optics, zig-zag type deflectors were added. This was slightly redesigned compared to the 0-series. This installation proved to be flawed in design and would later be abandoned. The top of this superstructure was bolted down and could be easily removed to facilitate repair or removal of the gun if needed. There were a few hatches added on the top. Two small hatches were placed above the gunner’s position. One served as an opening for the indirect fire sight. To the rear, there were two larger two-piece hatches used by the crew to enter their positions.

The gun itself was protected by a mantlet. Behind this, a canvas was used to protect the interior of the vehicle from the weather. This was connected to the hull using simple bolts.

The StuG III Ausf.A had a large sight tunnel placed above the driver. It was to be used by the gunner’s optics to aim the gun. Source: www.worldwarphotos.info

Armor Protection

The StuG III Ausf.A was well protected for its time. The front and upper hull armor were 50 mm thick and placed at 21° and 52° angles, respectively. The smaller lower hull plate, which was placed at 75°, was 30 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 angled space 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 Ausf.A III was one of the most well-armored vehicles in the German arsenal at that time.

The superstructure’s angled side plates were not doors, despite appearing so. These were, in fact, spaced armor meant to provide additional protection. Source: www.worldwarphotos.info

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.

The rear hull-mounted Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung smoke grenade rack, seen here mounted on a StuG III. Source: www.worldwarphotos.info

Armament

The main armament remained the same as used on the 0-series. It consisted of a 7.5 cm StuK 37 (Sturmkanone – assault cannon) L/24. It was more or less the same gun used on the Panzer IV tanks. The 7.5 cm StuK 37 was a semi-automatic gun, which meant that, after a round was fired, it was automatically ejected, enabling the loader to insert a new round. As it was intended as a close support weapon, it had a rather low muzzle velocity. Despite this, it was a fairly accurate gun, with a 100% hit probability in action at ranges up to 500 m. The accuracy dropped to 73% at 1 km and to 38% at distances of over 1.5 km. While, initially, it was requested that its maximum firing range be 7 km, it could only reach targets at 6 km.

While it was primarily designed to engage fortified positions using a 7.5 cm Gr Patr high-explosive round weighing 5.7 kg (at a 420 m/s velocity), it was also fairly good for engaging enemy armor. This fact is often overshadowed by its close support role (similar to the Panzer IV). 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 capable of piercing at least 40 mm of armor. The 7.5 cm PzGr patr was a 6.8 kg armor-piercing round with a muzzle velocity of 385 mps, and could pierce around 39 mm of 30° angled armor at distances of 500 m. The ammunition load consisted of 44 rounds stored in front of the loader. 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. It is important to note that its effectiveness greatly depended on the weather. The secondary armament of the StuG III was unchanged and consisted of two 9 mm MP 38/40 submachine guns.

The 7.5 cm StuK 37 was equipped with a Rundblickfernrohr RblF 32 type panoramic gun sight. The elevation of the gun -10° to +20°, while the traverse was limited to 12° per side. Given the nature and role, it was to fulfill, the limited traverse and lack of turret were not major issues for the StuG III.

Crew

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

The commander was not provided with a command cupola. In order to look for possible targets, the commander would use a scissors periscope. It was usually placed in a tube-shaped sunshade cover. With this, he could spot potential targets from inside the vehicle. However, he would often have to partly get out of his position to acquire targets, potentially exposing himself to enemy fire.

The crew of this vehicle consisted of four men, the commander, driver, loader, and gunner. In case of emergency, the driver could use the front transmission hatch to escape from the vehicle. Source: Anderson Sturmartillerie, Osprey Publishing

StuG III Ausf.A/B hybrids

The production of further StuG III versions was moved to Alkett. Almost from the start, there were delays in production, largely due to the introduction of the new transmission on the Panzer III. As there were no new available chassis, in order to avoid any major delays, some 20 additional StuG III Ausf.A was ordered to be built. Author T. Anderson (Sturmartillerie: Spearhead Of the Infantry) mentioned that there are two production numbers for this hybrid vehicle. While older sources mention a number of 6, a number of 20 seems more likely to be true. This number is supported by German production statistics published in the works of T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz). The difference was that these were in essence hybrid vehicles, incorporating a chassis from the Panzer III Ausf.G merged with a superstructure intended for the StuG III Ausf.B version.

The hull front armor plate, which was 30 mm thick, was reinforced with an additional 20 mm of bolted armor plates. On the hull sides, between the front road wheels and return rollers, there were two small escape hatches. In addition, on the front hull armor plate, two enclosed air intake ports were installed.

The unusual StuG III Ausf.A/B hybrid, used as a replacement for the delayed production of the later Ausf.B series. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (199) Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz

Organization

The initial unit organization for these vehicles 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. 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.

The StuG-equipped units were to be reinforced with armored half-tracks. As the StuG III had a relatively small ammunition load and was on the move constantly, ordinary trucks could not be used as ammunition carriers. Instead, the Sd.Kfz.252 half-track was to be used. It had an interior storage capacity of 64 rounds. An additional 64 rounds could be carried in an ammunition trailer (Sd.Ah. 32/1). The Sd.Kfz.253 vehicle was designed to act as a command vehicle and was thus equipped with radio equipment. The larger Sd.Kfz.251/12 were to be used to transport replacement crews. In total, each StuG battery was supposed to have had 6 Sd.Kfz.252, 5 Sd.Kfz.253, and 3 Sd.Kfz 251s. In addition, an Sd.Kfz.9 was allocated for the recovery of damaged vehicles.

Due to the slow production of this vehicle, not all of these support vehicles were available. The StuG units had to use what was at hand, including Sd.Kfz.10s or modified Sd.Kfz.251s (with a closed top) half-tracks and turretless Panzer Is.

The Sd.Kfz.253 was used as a command vehicle for the StuG batteries. Source: Wiki

The Sd.Kfz.252 had an interior storage capacity of 64 rounds. An additional 64 rounds could be carried in a Sd.Ah. 32/1 ammunition trailer. Source: http://acemodel.com.ua/en/model/296

Training

The Artillery-Lehr-Regiment (ALR) stationed at Jüterbog was chosen to train the StuG crews. The first five vehicles of the 0-series were used extensively in this role. The whole training process was carried out in secrecy. The StuG crews were all volunteers from artillery regiments. The initial personnel consisted of 90 non-commissioned officers and 250 men.

At the start of 1939, as a Soviet Army Delegation was visiting the Jüterbog artillery center, they noticed the new vehicles and immediately took pictures of them. The German Army officials present felt they had to do something to prevent the pictures from reaching the USSR. They invited the delegation to visit Berlin, where a new (not specified in the source) aircraft type was to be presented. As the Soviet delegation was on their way to see the new aircraft at the Berlin Tempelhof airport, they walked through the corridor where a powerful X-ray gun was secretly placed. The Soviet delegation would be quite surprised when they later opened the films and saw that they were completely destroyed by the X-rays.

In Combat

Prior to the Western campaign of 1940, the 24 available StuGs were distributed to four batteries: the 640th, 659th, 660th, and 665th. The 640th was combat-ready on the 4th of April, followed by the 659th on 20th April, 660th on 8th May, and the 665th on the 9th of May 1940. These were to be attached to various infantry divisions, depending on the combat needs. Two additional units were formed using the StuG III Ausf.A/B hybrids. These included the 666th and 667th batteries. The remaining StuG III Ausf.As we’re used to creating an SS assault battery for the LSSAH (Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler) division.

The StuG III Ausf.A from the 665th Batterie. Source: Anderson Sturmartillerie, Osprey Publishing

When the German attack came on the 10th of May 1940, the 640th Battery was the first to see action. It was attached to the Grossdeutschland Regiment. The 640th would be one of the first StuG batteries to be permanently attached to an infantry unit. After the western campaign, it would become part of the Grossdeutschland Regiment under the new 16th Assault Gun Battery name.

Unfortunately, due to the limited numbers of StuG III Ausf.As used during the Western campaign, not much is documented of their combat use by the Germans. The StuG IIIs from the 640th participated in the defense of German-held positions at Bulson Ridge. On the 14th of May, the French were trying to dislodge elements of the XIX Panzerkorps. The French attacked with FCM 36 tanks, which proved difficult to destroy using 3.7 cm anti-tank guns. The StuG III Ausf.A, together with 88 mm armed 12-tonne half-tracks, helped to turn the tide.

In a report made by private H. Engle from the 660th Battery after this campaign, he noted that:

“.. The French light tanks (R 35) were invulnerable to the 2 cm guns … but lost their turrets after being hit from our ‘Stummel’… We felt safe in our Sturmgeschütz and an after-action check at Givry-en-Argonne showed that our front plate had received 13 hits, but not one penetrated our armor.”

Only one StuG III Ausf.A was reported to be lost, but it was recovered and repaired. The performance of the StuG III in France was a huge success, and the Army officials demanded the production of the newer version be increased.

Following the completion of the Western campaign, the 660th, 666th, and 667th Batteries were used extensively in the preparation for Operation Sealion, which never came. After this, some of the first StuG batteries were transported to Northern Germany, where they were positioned up to early 1942.

After the German victory against the French in 1940, 660th, 666th, and 667th Batteries were used for extensive amphibious exercises for the planned invasion of the United Kingdom. Source: Anderson Sturmartillerie

The 659th, 660th, 665th, 666th, and 667th Batteries were attached to Army Group North during the early phases of the Barbarosa campaign. Some of them received an improved suspension and wider tracks.

StuG III Ausf.A of the 667th Batterie on the Eastern Front. Note this vehicle had an improved suspension. Source: T. Anderson Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infantry

Surviving vehicle

Despite the small production numbers one of the Ausf.A survived to this day. It could be seen at the Australian Armour and Artillery Museum in Cairns.

The only surviving StuG III Ausf.A. Source: shadock.free.fr

Conclusion

The StuG III Ausf.A, while only being built in small numbers, proved that such a vehicle was quite desirable. It had a rather simple design, a low silhouette, and a powerful gun. What was most important was that it possessed good mobility, being able to quickly reposition to engage new targets. Nevertheless, the Ausf.A was only the first stepping stone. It would be supplemented by the new Ausf.B version, which was basically the same vehicle with some improvements.

StuG III Ausf.A Illustration made by David Bocquelet

Specifications
Weight	20.7 tonnes
Dimensions	Length 5.38 m, Width 2.92 m, Height 1.95 m
Crew	4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, and Driver)
Propulsion	Maybach HL 120 TRM 265 hp giving 265 hp @ 2600 rpm
Speed (road/off-road)	40 km/h, 20 km/h
Range (road/off-road)	160 km, 100 km/h
Primary Armament	7.5 cm L/24
Elevation	-10° to +20°
Superstructure armor:	10 to 50
Hull armor:	15 to 50 mm
Total Built	30 + 6 to 20

Sources

Has Own Video Modern Serbian Prototypes

Lazanski Armored Combat Vehicle

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date April 20, 2022
5 Comments on Lazanski Armored Combat Vehicle

Lazanski Armored Combat Vehicle Ilustration made by Phantom_25_Sniper

Republic of Serbia (2021)
8×8 Infantry Fighting Vehicle – 1 Prototype Built

In recent years, the Serbian military industry has managed to develop and produce a series of 8×8 wheeled armored vehicles, including the Lazar series. A recent addition to the 8×8 family has been the Lazanski wheeled Armored Combat Vehicle (ACV), demonstrated for the first time in October 2021 at the Partner-2021 military exhibition in Belgrade.

According to some Serbian media news outlets, such as RTS, the prototype of the Lazanski 8×8 is a further development of the Lazar III project, but actually, it is a completely new vehicle that incorporates much better armor protection combined with stronger offensive armament, capable of engaging both ground and air targets. In addition, the vehicle retains the capability of transporting 10 fully armed soldiers. One of the most interesting features of the new ACV is the Russian remotely controlled ‘Kinzhal’ (Dagger) combat module. At the moment, the vehicle is still in the early phases of development.

The author would especially want to thank Alex Tarasov, for helping with this article.

The Lazanski wheeled infantry fighting vehicle. Source: https://www.srbijadanas.com/vesti/info/vucic-ispunio-obecanje-na-sajmu-naoruzanja-predstavljeno-najbolje-vozilo-u-srbiji-nazvano-po-2021-10-12

History

Given the Lazanski’s recent public display, the precise development history of this vehicle is not yet available to the public. According to the information revealed at the Partner-2021 exhibition, the Lazanski was developed by the well-known Serbian Yugoimport SDPR company, responsible for designing and manufacturing many modern armored vehicles in recent years. Yugoimport was founded back in 1949, with the intention of acquiring necessary military equipment for the JNA (Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija, Yugoslav People’s Army) from abroad.

After 1953, Yugoimport expanded the scope of its business to the export of domestic military equipment. One of its most successful exports has been the Lazar series. The Lazar (Series I to III) is an 8×8 wheeled armored vehicle designed to be able to transport 3 crew members and 9 soldiers. These were designed to be highly modular and equipped with different weapon outfits. First presented in 2008, they have seen service with the Serbian armed forces and have seen limited export success with countries such as Pakistan.

The Lazanski at the Arms and Military Equipment Fair was held in Belgrade in October 2021. Source: https://www.armyrecognition.com/partner_2021_news_online_show_daily_defense_exhibition_serbia/yugoimport_unveils_new_lazanski_8x8_armored_vehicle_armed_with_57mm_cannon.html

Initially, the Lazanski project was named after medieval Serbian Emperor Stefan Dušan Silni. It was renamed Lazanski to honor the late military analyst and diplomat Miroslav Lazanski, who died in August 2021.

While Lazanski’s overall design was made by the Yugoimport engineers, some elements, such as the remote-controlled turret, were imported from Russia. Sources do not mention why the Serbian engineers decided to use this weapon system. However, this is not the first example of military-industrial cooperation between Russia and Serbia. Earlier in 2021, Yugoimport sold a batch of Lazar 3 wheeled ACVs armed with Russian-made BPPU turrets to Turkmenistan.

A Lazar 3 A1 ACV equipped with a Russian-made 32V01 remotely-controlled module. Source: Jane’s, Dmitry Fediushko

A BTR-80A armed with a BPPU-1 combat module. A BPPU-1 incorporates a 2A72 30 mm autocannon and a 7.62 mm PKT machine gun. Source: https://www.arms-expo.ru/armament/samples/1285/92413/

Given the general close cooperation between the Russian and Serbian arms industry, this also should not come as a surprise, as both sides benefit from this mutually reinforcing collaboration. The Serbian Army could receive a new high-tech weapon system without the need to invest in research and development. At the same time, the Russian side could enter new emerging markets thanks to the Serbian brand-new wheeled platform and the fact that the Serbian arms industry is not under the threat of sanctions.

The price of the Lazanski ACV might be between $2 and $2.5 million, depending on the armament and configuration, according to certain unverified sources. The export prospects are unclear at this point, however, it is possible that Serbia might enter new markets with the help of Rosoboronexport, the sole state intermediary agency for Russia’s exports/imports of defense-related and dual-use products, technologies, and services. However, with the sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it is unclear how this could affect the Lazanki.

Design

Not much is known about the design and performance, as the vehicle is in its early development phase. However, some limited specifications have been revealed at the Partner-2021 exhibition. According to official sources, Serbia expects to finish trials of the platform by the end of 2022. While the Lazanski shares some similarities with the Lazar 3, it also incorporates a number of improvements.

Engine and the Chassis

The Lazanski ACV hull measures 8 m long, 3.2 m wide, and 2.6 m high. Overall height including the turret is 3.6 m. Since the platform could be equipped with modular armor protection, the weight would vary. The lightly armored version weighs 26 tonnes, while the weight of the Lazanski ACV fitted with heavy armor could reach up to 36 tonnes. The ACV does not have amphibious capabilities and features a hydro-pneumatic suspension.

The Lazanski is powered by a 711 hp Caterpillar C13 engine connected to a six-speed Allison 4000SP automatic transmission. The engine itself is placed on the front right side of the vehicle. The design of the running gear also incorporates driving axles produced by the Finnish company SISU, and a transfer gearbox by Katsu.

The Russian military blog bmpd, which is part of the CAST think-tank, points out that the automotive part of the Lazanski is very similar to Finnish Patria AMV XP.

While the Lazanski is powered by a 711 hp engine, its overall driving performance is not yet revealed. Source: https://it-mixer.com/predstavljeno-vozilo-lazanski-pogledajte-njegove-karakteristike/

Close-up view of the Lazanski’s infantry dismount compartment interior. Note the screen on the front wall. The Lazanski is equipped with a situational awareness system that allows troops to see their surrounding environment. Source: https://www.srbijadanas.com/vesti/info/vucic-ispunio-obecanje-na-sajmu-naoruzanja-predstavljeno-najbolje-vozilo-u-srbiji-nazvano-po-2021-10-12

Crew, Hull, and Internal Layout

The Lazanski’s hull is welded, made of armored steel, and has a relatively simple shape featuring flat rear and sides and sloping-down frontal plate. The internal layout is typical for basically all modern armored vehicles of this type, with an engine compartment at the front-right, driver’s compartment at the front-left next to the engine, the combat compartment in the middle, and, finally, the infantry dismount compartment at the back of the vehicle.

The engine is fully enclosed but has a few access hatches with ventilation grilles that the crew can use for maintenance.

Crew members can access their positions through the two hatches on the top of the hull or through the passage between the fighting compartment and the infantry dismount compartment. The crew could use the same passage as an emergency exit, allowing the crew to leave the vehicle through the rear ramp in case the hatches at the front are damaged or under enemy fire. Each crew hatch is provided with three vision blocks. Some elements of the hull are covered by an anti-slip coating. Dismounts are supposed to leave the vehicle by using the rear hydraulic ramp.

In order to fully operate the Lazanski, a crew of three is needed. This includes the commander, gunner, and driver. The driver is located on the front left side, with the commander’s and the gunner’s seats placed behind. To the rear is a large infantry dismount compartment where 10 fully armed soldiers can be stationed in shock-mitigating seats. The soldiers’ seats are divided into rows of five seats on each side, which are positioned opposite each other.

In order to provide the crew with an excellent field of view, the Lazanski is equipped with six surveillance infrared cameras which provide a full 360° field of vision. In addition, the driver has two mirrors, one placed on each side of the vehicle.

According to bmpd, the Lazanski is also equipped with several subsystems, such as an air conditioning unit, intercom, NBC protection, a navigation system, and an automated battle management system.

The Lazanski’s front view. Source: https://www.b92.net/biz/vesti/srbija/mocni-lazanski-privukao-najvise-paznje-sve-o-oklopnim-premijerama-sajma-naoruzanja-1940325?version=amp

While other Serbian designs, such as the Lazar, have side doors and firing ports for dismounts, the Lazanski does not.

The soldiers that are transported inside the Lazanski can use the rear hydraulic ramp. Source: https://www.srbijadanas.com/vesti/info/vucic-ispunio-obecanje-na-sajmu-naoruzanja-predstavljeno-najbolje-vozilo-u-srbiji-nazvano-po-2021-10-12

Turret and Armament

The Lazanski is armed with the ‘Kinzhal’ Russian-made remotely operated and controlled combat module.

The ‘Kinzhal’ (Dagger) is a further development of the AU-220M ‘Baikal’ RCWS. Both modules were developed by CRI Burevestnik, which is part of Uralvagonzavod.

The standard armament of the ‘Kinzhal’ consists of a 57 mm 2A91 (BM-57) autocannon with eighty ready-to-fire 57 x 348 mm rounds in the internal storage. The secondary armament consists of the coaxial 7.62 mm PKTM machine gun with 1,000 stored rounds and smoke dischargers. Additionally, ‘Kinzhal’ can be fitted with two 9M120 Ataka-M ATGMs. However, the exhibited prototype had no ATGMs installed.

‘Kinzhal’ includes a sophisticated fire control system (FCS) with day and night capability and a panoramic sight, but the exact specifications are not known. Typical ammunition load for the 2A91 autocannon consists of HE-T (UOR-281U) and AP-T (UBR-281U) rounds. Also, the manufacturer plans to develop a 57 mm programmable HE round and guided round for use against aerial targets, such as helicopters and UAVs.

The 2A91 57 mm autocannon originates from the S-60 autocannon used on the ZSU-57-2. The 2A91 retains the capability to use older rounds.

According to the manufacturer’s information, the turret weighs 3,850 kg, including elements installed inside the hull. Some sources, such as the Russian bmpd, say that the combat station fitted on the prototype exhibited at the Partner-2021 weighs only 3,600 kg.

This difference probably appeared because the turret was installed without some elements, such as Ataka ATGM launchers, or the prototype was equipped with a full-scale mock-up of the ‘Kinzhal’ RCWS.

Since the Lazanski’s design is modular, the vehicle could be quite easily fitted with a wide variety of turrets and weapon stations of either domestic or foreign origin. For example, Serbian news outlets mentioned that the idea to arm Lazanski with a Turkish-made MIZRAK-30 turret is under consideration.

MIZRAK-30, an unmanned turret system designed and produced by Turkish company OTOKAR. Source: https://defense.otokar.com.tr/turret-systems/mizrak-30-turret-system

Main specifications for the Kinzhal RCWS. Source: UVZ

Primary armament	57 mm 2A91 (BM-57) autocannon
Rate of fire, rpm	80
Initial velocity, m/s	1,000-1,500
Armor piercing at 1,500 m, mm	100-120 at 60 degrees
Ammunition (ready to fire), pcs	80
Elevation, degrees	-5 to +60
Traverse. degrees	360
Secondary armament	7.62 mm PKTM machine gun
Ammunition (ready to fire), pcs	1,000
Rate of fire (PKTM), rpm	700-800
Total weight of the RCWS, kg	3,850 *

* Including the elements installed in the hull

Armor and Protection

The hull of the prototype is constructed from steel with additional ceramic armor. According to the manufacturer, the ballistic protection of the frontal arc reaches Level 5 STANAG 4569A, meaning it can withstand 25 mm projectiles from 500 m and 155 mm shell splinters. The ballistic protection of the sides and rear reaches STANAG 4569A Level 3, and is able to withstand 7.62 mm AP bullets from any distance. According to the designers, the effectiveness of this armor was examined and tested in Germany and Israel.

In addition, Yugoimport is developing an appliqué armor kit able to raise the ballistic protection to STANAG 4569A Level 6, which means the ability to withstand 30 mm APDS rounds from 500 m distance.

In terms of blast protection, the Lazanski has a V-shaped bottom and can sustain blasts of up to 10 kg of explosives (STANAG 4569B Level 4a/b).

Additionally, the Lazanski, in the configuration demonstrated at the Partner-2021 exhibition, was provided with several smoke dischargers for self-protection.

Lazanski’s technical specifications were officially revealed at the Partner-2021 exhibition in Belgrade. Source: bmpd.livejournal.com/

Future and Conclusion

The Lazanski is certainly an interesting design coming out of the relatively small Serbian military industry. According to Serbian media and its constructor, the Lazanski is a high-tech modern armored vehicle with huge military potential in domestic use or as an export product. Besides it, the Serbian military industry achieved some export success with the Lazar III and Nora series of self-propelled guns.

Given its experimental nature, it is hard to predict its fate at this point. However, it is possible to make several assumptions.

Firstly, the ACV is not in its final shape, and the development of the Russian Bumerang platform, which was constantly delayed, may offer a cautionary tale on how the development might take more time than is anticipated. Obviously, many changes and improvements are to be expected in the near future. These would probably be mainly focused on increasing its survivability and various additional equipment.

Secondly, given that the platform is designed on a modular basis, we can expect that various variants of the Lazanski will appear. In the future, the Lazanski might start a whole new family of combat and auxiliary armored vehicles, including APCs, ARVs, self-propelled artillery systems, C2, or CBRN variants, but this remains to be seen.

Lazanski Armored Combat Vehicle, left side view
Ilustration made by Phantom_25_Sniper

Lazanski Armored Combat Vehicle, right side view
Ilustration made by Phantom_25_Sniper

Lazanski Armored Combat Vehicle, front view
Ilustration made by Phantom_25_Sniper

Lazanski Armored Combat Vehicle, rear view
Ilustration made by Phantom_25_Sniper

Lazanski Armored Combat Vehicle, top view
Ilustration made by Phantom_25_Sniper

Technical Specifications
Dimensions (l-w-h)	8 x 3.2 m x 2.6 m
Total weight, battle-ready	26 to 36 tonnes
Crew	3 (Commander, Gunner, and Driver) plus 10 Soldiers
Propulsion	711 hp Caterpillar C13 engine
Primary Armament	57 mm 2S91 gun
Secondary Armament	7.62 mm 6P7K machine gun
Elevation	-5° to +°60
Armor	Unknown

Sources

Has Own Video WW2 Czechoslovak Tankettes WW2 Yugoslav Armor

Škoda Š-I-d (T-32)

Czechoslovakia/Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1936)
Tankette – 8 Purchased

In an effort to equip its cavalry divisions with armored vehicles, the Yugoslav Royal Army began a series of negotiations with several European nations. While for a variety of reasons almost all would end up unrealized, one would, to some extent, be successful. After a number of examinations and testing of various armored vehicles, finally, in 1936, a deal was made with the Czechoslovakian weapon manufacturer Škoda for the acquisition of 8 Š-I-d tankettes. These were delivered in August 1937 and remained in service up to 1941.

A column of Š-I-d tankettes in Yugoslav service. Source: Wiki

Need for Modernization

During the 1930s, armies in Europe, such as France, for example, were slowly modernizing their cavalry units by attaching various mechanized elements to increase their speed and combat effectiveness. Horses were being replaced with trucks that could transport soldiers, weapons, and supplies. To increase the offensive capabilities of these new mechanized units, armored vehicles, such as tanks and armored cars, were being attached to them.

The Kingdom of Yugoslavia’s neighbors also initiated such reorganizations of their cavalry units to some extent. Not wanting to be left behind in this arms race, the Yugoslav Royal Army decided to implement a similar reorganization of its own cavalry divisions. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia originally had only two cavalry divisions, one formed after the First World War, and the second in 1921. These would be supplemented by the cavalry brigade which was attached to the Royal King’s Guard unit. In 1930, a bicycle battalion was also attached to each cavalry division. More serious steps in the motorization of these two divisions were initiated by General Milan Nedić in 1934. It was planned to attach a motorized regiment to each division. However, it was necessary to obtain some light tanks or tankettes for these cavalry units.

The Yugoslav Royal Army had fewer than 60 Renault FTs and its modified M-28 counterpart available in its inventory. Given the obsolescence and poor speed of available FT tanks, another vehicle was necessary to fulfill this role. This was not as easy a task as it seems at first glance. Europe at that time was getting deeper into a political fracture between the Western Allies and Germany. Countries that had a good relationship with Yugoslavia, such as France, wanted to dispose of their older surplus models first, keeping the new models for themselves in case of war with Germany. These older designs were not appealing to the Yugoslav Royal Army officials, so they turned to other potential candidates. These included Poland, Czechoslovakia, and even the Soviet Union.

The Renault-Kégresse M-28 in Yugoslav service. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

Search For A Proper Solution

The Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Poland had relatively good military cooperation, with the acquisition of different military equipment and weapons. In 1932, Poland and the Yugoslav Royal Army signed an agreement for the purchase of some 14 Polish Renault FT tanks. A year later, one TK-3 tankette was tested to see if it satisfied the Royal Yugoslav Army’s requirements. While not much is known about these trials, it appears it was not successful, as no contract was ever signed.

Similarly, Czechoslovakia also had good cooperation with the Yugoslav Royal Army. Both countries were members of the so-called ‘Little Entente’, the alliance formed in 1920-21 between Yugoslavia, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia possessed two well known military weapon manufacturers, Škoda (Pilsen) and Českomoravská Kolben-Daněk, ČKD (Prague). Škoda officials presented their new OA vz.27 armored car to the Yugoslav delegation during 1930. While the Yugoslav delegation was interested in this vehicle, due to its high price, nothing came from this. In 1933, both companies presented their new tankette designs to Royal Yugoslav Army officials. Škoda was the first to deliver its vehicle, which arrived in Yugoslavia in July 1933. A month later, the ČKD vz.33 tankette also arrived. After a series of tests and evaluations, both tankettes performed poorly. While the MU-4 had constant engine problems, the Yugoslav Royal Army showed interest in it, and asked Škoda officials to, if possible, improve its overall performance for new testing. The ČKD vz.33 tankette, on the other hand, was immediately rejected.

While the Yugoslav Royal Army showed interest in the MU-4, due to its engine problems, no orders were issued. Source: Wiki

The Škoda engineers implemented some improvements on the MU-4, mostly regarding its weak engine, which was replaced with a stronger one. Once this and other minor modifications were done, it was once again tested by the Royal Yugoslav Army in late October 1934. While performing much better, and despite the initial negotiation for 40 such vehicles, nothing came from this.

Much later, in May of 1940, a Yugoslav Trade Delegation negotiated with the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov, for the acquisition of military equipment. A total of 300 tanks were requested. While the Soviets initially agreed to this, not a single tank was ever given to Yugoslavia. The Soviets simply did not trust the Yugoslav authorities and constantly postponed the delivery of the promised vehicles.

The Š-I-d Prototype

The early Škoda armored designs were mostly armed with machine guns. In 1935, its design teams began working on a new design. This time, however, the new vehicle was to be armed with one machine gun and a 37 mm gun. The prototype of this new tankette, which was designated Š-I-d, was completed by mid-1935.

The Š-I-d suspension consisted of two pairs of road wheels suspended using leaf springs. Three return rollers, a front-drive sprocket, and a rear positioned idler completed the running gear. The crews and the armament were placed in a box-shaped superstructure that had a command cupola on it. The armament consisted of a centrally mounted 37 mm A-3 gun, provided with 25 rounds of ammunition. On the front side of the front superstructure, a single 7.9 mm ZB. vz. 26 machine gun was placed with 2,600 rounds of ammunition. The frontal armored plates, which were fixed using bolts, were 20 mm thick. The sides were 10 mm, the rear 8 mm, and the bottom only 5 mm thick. This vehicle was powered by a 60 hp @ 2500 rpm Škoda engine. With this engine and a weight of 4.5 tonnes, the maximum speed was 41 km/h.

The Š-I-d Prototype source: aviarmor.net

A Deal is Made

The same year as this vehicle was completed, 1935, it was presented Yugoslav Royal Army. The Š-I-d was a great improvement over the previous Škoda works, and the Yugoslav Royal Army showed great interest in it. After evaluation and testing, some changes were requested before an agreement was to be signed. These mainly included increasing the frontal armor protection from 20 to 30 mm. Strangely enough, the later delivered vehicles had a frontal armor that was slightly increased to 22 mm. Why this was not implemented or why the Yugoslav Royal Army accepted this is not clear. Regardless, the Ministry of the Army and Navy of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Škoda finally signed a contract on 30th June 1936. According to this contract, 8 such improved tankettes were bought at a total price of nearly 6 million Czechoslovak Crowns. These were to be completed and transported to Yugoslavia within the next 11 months. Due to delays in production, these were finally delivered in two batches, with the first one arriving on 14th August and the second on 25th August 1937.

Four newly produced Š-I-d at Škoda. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

While the 8 improved Š-I-d were delivered to Yugoslavia, the prototype remained at Škoda. It would remain there until April 1940, when a German SS delegation bought it. It was delivered to Germany in July 1940, and from that point on, its ultimate fate is unknown, but it was likely scrapped.

Name

The Š-I-d designation is actually an abbreviation. “Š” stands for the first letter of the manufacturer, Škoda. “I”, the Roman numeral for ‘1’, represents the vehicle category, in this case, a tankette (category II was for light tanks and category III was for medium tanks). The “d” stands for “dělový”, which was a gun-armed version designation. The improved Š-I-d was accepted into service under the designation “Брза борна кола T-32” (Eng. Fast fighting vehicle). What precisely the letter ‘T’ or the number 32 meant is not mentioned in the sources. The Royal Yugoslav Army at that time did not use the term tank. Among the soldiers that were operating these vehicles, these were known as Škoda Šid, likely imitating the name of a Serbian town named Šid.

There are some disagreements between different authors about the correct designation for this vehicle. For example, D. Babac (Elitni Vidovi Jugoslovenske Vojske u Aprilskom Ratu) mentions this vehicle’s designation as S id. B. D. Dimitrijević (Borna Kola Jugoslovenske Vojske 1918-1941) describes the prototype being named as Š-1-d, while the production vehicles were named Š1D. To further complicate the matter, H. L. Doyle and C. K. Kliment (Czechoslovak armored fighting vehicles 1918-1945) mention this vehicle as T-3D. To avoid any further confusion, this article from this point on will refer to the vehicle as the T-32.

Design

Hull

The hull of this vehicle was divided into three sections, the front part, where the transmission was positioned, the center crew compartment, and the rear positioned engine compartment. The hull was slightly shorter in contrast to the prototype, having a length of 3.58 m compared to 3.7 m. The width was almost the same, being 1.95 m, while the prototype was 2 m wide.

Suspension

In comparison to the prototype, the T-32 had a slightly modified suspension. It consisted, per side, of two pairs of road wheels, suspended by leaf-spring units, and one additional road wheel suspended on a vertical spring. There was one large front drive sprocket, rear positioned idler, and four small return rollers.

The T-32 suspension is evident here. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

Engine

The T-32 was powered by a (sources do not give us a precise type or name) Škoda 60 hp (44.2 kW) @2,500 rpm petrol engine. With a weight of 4.8 tonnes, or 5.8 tonnes, depending on the source, the maximum speed was 41 km/h. The T-32 had a fuel load of 115 liters, which provided it with an operational range of 260 km.

The engine compartment was completely covered and protected with armored plates. On the sides of the engine compartment were two exhaust pipes. On top of the engine compartment, a large box with an unknown purpose was positioned.

While the rear engine compartment was fully enclosed, on top of it was a large box with an unknown purpose. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

Superstructure

The superstructure consisted of a simple rectangular armored shape. It was not completely flat, as its sides were slightly angled, though the precise angle is not mentioned in the sources. The front plate had an opening in the center, where the main gun was placed. Left of it was a small observation port. To the right was the much larger driver visor port. If these were additionally protected with armored glass is not mentioned in the sources. There was an additional visor port placed to the right of the driver. The rear plate was used to store two spare road wheels. Additional working tools could be attached to the superstructure sides.

On the front plate, two observation ports were located. The larger one was provided for the driver. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

A smaller visor port was placed on the right side of the superstructure. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

The superstructure top plate was mostly flat, with a small portion of it being slightly curved toward the front of the vehicle. On the left, a large round-shaped command cupola was positioned, with a much simpler hatch for the driver next to it. The commander’s cupola was provided with four large observation ports, each placed to cover one side of the vehicle. On top of the cupola, a cylinder-shaped object probably served as a flag port that was used by the commander to communicate with other vehicles.

A good view of the T-32 top, note the right open hatch was for the driver. The commander would enter and exit the vehicle through his command cupola. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

Close-up view of the command cupola. Quite interestingly, and somewhat unusually, a mount for an additional machine gun is seen, which was not present on other vehicles. This was probably used during an exercise. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

Armor

The T-32’s armor consisted of armored plates that were held in place using bolts. The front armor was 22 mm thick. The side armor was 12 mm and the rear was 8 mm thick. The vehicle’s bottom was only 5 mm thick. This vehicle was very lightly protected. Its best protection was its small overall size. These armor values are taken from N. Đokić and B. Nadoveza (Nabavka Naoružanja Iz Inostranstva Za Potrebe Vojske I Mornarice Kraljevine SHS-Jugoslavije). On the other hand, D. Denda mentions that the maximum armor thickness was 30 mm.

Armament

For its small size, the T-32 was remarkably well-armed. Its main armament consists of a Škoda 37 mm ÚVJ gun (sometimes called Škoda 37 mm A3). Part of the gun and its upper recoil cylinder were protected with a steel jacket. The elevation of this gun was -10° to +25°, while the traverse was 15° in both directions. It was a modern gun at that time and could penetrate some 30 mm of armor at 500 meters. The composition of the ammunition load varies between the sources, with authors disagreeing between 25 to 42 rounds.

Secondary armament included a ZB vz.30 J machine gun. It was positioned in a small ball mount on the right side of the vehicle’s superstructure. The elevation for the ZB vz.30 J machine gun was -10° to +20°, while the traverse was 15° in both directions. The ammunition load consisted of 1,000 rounds.

For a tankette, the T-32 was quite formidably armed, with a 37 mm gun and a machine gun. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

Crew

The T-32 had a crew of two, including the commander and the driver. The commander was positioned on the left side of the vehicle. Besides commanding, the commander was also responsible for operating the main gun, including finding targets, loading the gun, and firing it. The driver, who was positioned on the right side, operated the machine gun. Due to the small size of the vehicle, no more crew members could be placed inside it. This arrangement greatly diminished the effectiveness of the crew, as they were simply overburdened with the different tasks that they had to perform.

Service Before the War

Once in Yugoslavia, these 8 vehicles were used to form the Eskadron brzih bornih kola (Eng. fast combat vehicle squadron). This was divided into two platoons, each with four vehicles, supplemented by two armored cars, and two improvised armored trucks. The squadron was stationed at the Cavalry School in Zemun, near Belgrade.

While more modern than other armored vehicles that were in Yugoslav Royal Army service, the T-32’s performance was somewhat disappointing. While it possessed good firepower, its weakest part was the poor suspension design, which made it prone to frequent breakdowns. This, in turn, meant that only a few vehicles were operational at any given time, while the remaining ones had to be sent to an army workshop for repair. In the Yugoslav Royal service, the T-32s were painted in a three-tone camouflage of brown, green, and ochre.

The T-32 used the standard Czechoslovak three-tone camouflage, which was unchanged in Yugoslav service. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

A colored picture of the T-32 Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/CZK-Skoda-S-I-D-t71735

In the lead-up to the war with the Axis powers that began in April 1941, the T-32s were extensively used in various military exercises and occasionally on parades. The T-32s were involved in military exercises at Ada Ciganlija, near Belgrade, in 1940. These exercises were actually the first-ever recorded color documentary videos made in Yugoslavia.

A T-32 during a river crossing exercise near Belgrade during late September 1940. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

In March 1941, the government of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was negotiating with the Germans to join the Axis powers. A group of pro-Western Yugoslav Air Force officers, under the leadership of General Dušan Simović, staged a coup on 27th March 1941 in order to prevent this from happening. They were supported by the R35 tanks, which were deployed at key locations in the capital Belgrade. The T-32s were not initially involved but would participate in the parade in honor of the success of the coup later that day.

While not directly involved in the coup, the T-32s were paraded through the capital after. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

Tactics of Employment

Despite the appearance of an anti-tank or an assault vehicle, like, for example, the German StuG III series, according to the Royal Yugoslav Army, the T-32 was meant to fulfill the role of a support weapon. It was intended to perform a few different tasks. Reconnaissance of enemy flank positions and attacks on enemy flanks and vital points, but only in cooperation with other units. Frontal direct attacks were to be avoided as much as possible. These were only permitted when the enemy was caught off guard and if sufficient artillery support was available.

While, at first glance, the design of T-32 appears similar to an anti-tank vehicle, it was not designed for this role. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

The T-32 could act as a vanguard, when a platoon would be divided into two groups of two vehicles. The first group would advance, while the second would remain in reserve. In rearguard operations, the T-32 was to attack enemy flanks and thus slow down their movements.

Thus, the T-32 was not intended as a vehicle that would lead an attack, but instead as a support element for other units. To maximize its effectiveness, the crew were to use its low silhouette, good speed, and firepower, and if possible, with a factor of a surprise to their advantage.

Some sources, such as L. Ness (World War II Tanks And Fighting Vehicles) wrongly identify it as an anti-tank vehicle. Despite having a gun with good anti-tank performance against lighter armored targets, the Yugoslav Royal Army never intended it to solely fulfill this role.

The Improved Š-I-J

After initial experiences with the T-32, the Yugoslav military leadership asked Škoda to develop better armored and armed vehicles with a more reliable suspension. In 1939, Škoda presented an improved tankette designated Š-I-J (‘J’ for Jugoslavsky/Yugoslavia) to the Royal Yugoslav Army. While visually quite similar to the T-32, it incorporated a number of improvements, mainly regarding armament and suspension. The Yugoslav Royal Army was pleased with this new model and was interested in purchasing 108 such vehicles, however, nothing came of this in the end.

The improved Š-I-J is armed with a 47 mm gun and a new suspension. While a production order for 108 vehicles was initially placed, nothing would come from this. Source: forum.warthunder.com

In Combat

Just prior to the Axis attack on Yugoslavia on 6th April 1941, the squadron of fast combat vehicles, with all 8 T-32s, was based in Zemun. This unit was also supplemented with an old First World War-era armored car and two indigenously armored trucks. The primary mission of this unit was to protect the capital Belgrade from any possible enemy attack from the north or an airborne assault. The commander of the unit at that time was Cavalry Major Dušan G. Radović.

While the Axis attack was anticipated, the Yugoslav military planners failed to estimate its sheer size and speed of advance. Almost from the start, the Yugoslav Royal Army was in complete disarray and chaos, with the majority of units failing to fully mobilize their manpower. The squadron of fast combat vehicles did not participate in the war up to 10th April. Given the Axis attack from Bulgaria in the east, this unit received an order to move and protect the Belgrade-Niš area. As it moved toward the city of Niš, it was meant to establish a new base of operations there and go under the control of the command of that area. Due to the general chaos, as the unit was leaving Belgrade, it was ordered by the Commander of the Srem Division to proceed toward the Mladenovac-Aranđelovac area and finally to the city of Topola. At least one T-32 had to be abandoned in Belgrade due to a mechanical breakdown. This particular vehicle was captured by the advancing Germans. Interestingly enough, the T-32s were, due to an unknown reason, not supplied with anti-tank rounds at this point, only with high-explosive rounds.

One T-32 was left abandoned in Belgrade and later captured by the advancing Germans. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

The unit arrived at Topola during the night of 10th April. There, it was placed under the command of the VI Army. On the following day, the unit set up defensive positions around the road that led from Mladenovac to Topola. The same day, at around 10 PM, two T-32s were ordered to carry out a reconnaissance mission toward the city of Kragujevac. The communication lines with this city were lost and the current position of the enemy advance was not clear. Unfortunately for them, the Germans were already in Kragujevac and dispatched a small group of several tanks toward Topola. While on the way to their objective, one T-32 had a mechanical breakdown and had to be abandoned. The second vehicle, commanded by Lieutenant Ljubomir Mihajlović, continued on its own. It unexpectedly got in the path of the advancing German tanks. Both sides were probably surprised for a few minutes before the German tanks opened fire. Lacking anti-tank rounds, Lieut. Ljubomir Mihajlović could do little to oppose the enemy tanks and ordered the driver to pull back to safety. On the way back, this vehicle too had to be abandoned to a mechanical breakdown.

At 1 PM, the Germans attacked the Yugoslav Topola defense positions. By this point, at least 5 T-32s were still operational. In a counter-attack attempt, the T-32s managed to temporarily stop the German advance. The unit commander’s vehicle alone managed to destroy three German tanks, including a command vehicle. Unfortunately, he was killed while trying to escape his burning vehicle, which was hit by return enemy fire. After three and a half hours of fighting, the Yugoslav positions were finally overrun. The fate of the defending T-32s is not clear. Some may have escaped the destruction of the Yugoslav forces in Topola and moved to Mladenovac, where they were finally lost.

A number of T-32s had to be abandoned due to frequent breakdowns. This particular vehicle showed the major problem that these vehicles had, namely the weak and poorly designed suspension. The rear idler is completely dislocated from its original position. Source: srpskioklop.paluba.info

In German Hands

The Germans managed to capture at least some of these vehicles in various conditions. In their service, the T-32 was renamed to Pz. Kpfw. 732 (j). The precise fate of these after this point is not known. What is sure is that not all available vehicles were used by the Germans during the occupation of Yugoslavia. It is very likely that all the captured tankettes were eventually sent for scrap metal at some point during the Second World War. None of the T-32s survived the war and their final fate remains unknown to this day.

German captured T-32s. Their final fate and use after the April War is not known. Source: beutepanzer.ru

Conclusion

Compared with the tankettes from other states, on paper, the T-32 was a major step forward. This tankette had a low silhouette, was fast, well-armed, and armored. However, the T-32 suffered from problems with its suspension, which was structurally very weak and prone to failures. As a result, most of the T-32 vehicles spent months in the Army’s repair workshops. The two-man crew was simply overburdened with the tasks that they had to perform. Lastly, and probably their most major issue, was their small production run of only 8 vehicles. This greatly diminished their combat use and made the acquisition of spare parts difficult given the fact that by 1938, Škoda was in German hands. Nevertheless, the T-32 provided the Yugoslav Royal Army with a more modern vehicle than its armored pool of existing vehicles, albeit in limited numbers only.

Škoda Š-I-d (T-32)

Škoda Š-I-D (T-32) specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	3.58 x 1.95 x 1.76 m (11.7 x 6.3 x 5.7 ft)
Total weight, battle ready	4.8 or 5.8 tonnes
Crew	2 (commander, driver)
Propulsion	Škoda 60hp (44,2 kW) @2,500 rpm petrol engine.
Speed	41 km/h (25.4 mph)
Range	260 km (161 miles)
Primary Armament	Škoda 37 mm ÚVJ
Secondary Armament	7.9 mm ZB vz.30 J
Armor	5 – 22 mm (0.1 – 0.8 in)

Sources

B. D. Dimitrijević (2011) Borna Kola Jugoslovenske Vojske 1918-1941, Institut za savremenu istoriju
B. D. Dimitrijević and D. Savić (2011) Oklopne Jedinice Na Jugoslovenskom Ratistu 1941-1945, Institut za savremenu istoriju
Istorijski Arhiv Kruševac Rasinski Anali 5 (2007)
N. Đokić and B. Nadoveza (2018) Nabavka Naoružanja Iz Inostranstva Za Potrebe Vojske I Mornarice Kraljevine SHS-Jugoslavije, Metafizika
D. Denda (2008), Modernizacije Konjice u Krajevini Jugoslavije, Vojno Istorijski Glasnik
D. Babac, Elitni Vidovi Jugoslovenske Vojske u Aprilskom Ratu, Evoluta
D. Predoević (2008) Oklopna vozila i oklopne postrojbe u drugom svjetskom ratu u Hrvatskoj, Digital Point Tiskara
H. L. Doyle and C. K. Kliment ( ), Czechoslovak armored fighting vehicles 1918-1945
L. Ness (2002) World War II Thanks And Fighting Vehicles, HarperCollins Publication
D. Denda (2020) Tenkisti Kraljenive Jugoslavije, Medijski Cetar Odbrana
http://srpskioklop.paluba.info/skodat32/opis.htm
http://beutepanzer.ru/Beutepanzer/yougoslavie/t-32.html

Fictional Tanks Has Own Video

Macharius Heavy Tank

Macharius Heavy Tank. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Imperium of Man (41st and 42nd Millennium)
Heavy Tank

“In the grim darkness of the 41st Millennium, there is only war.” This is the starting slogan of Game Workshop’s Warhammer 40K Sci-Fi universe, where mankind is besieged by many threats in the form of alien and traitor attacks. In order to defend its vast domain, the Imperium of Man employs armies equipped with highly advanced and slightly less so (but present in almost unlimited numbers) vehicles. One of these is the huge Macharius heavy tank.

The Macharius heavy tank. Source: wh40k.lexicanum.com

The Warhammer 40K universe

The Warhammer 40K universe is set at the end of the 41st and the start of the 42nd millennia in the future. While many different factions (T’au, Necrons, Eldar, Orks, to name some) are part of the large universe, the main protagonist is the Imperium of Man. This is a vast galaxy-spanning human civilization besieged by many external and internal threats (aliens, heretics, demons, to name a few). The Imperium of Man is led by the immortal God-Emperor, who has remained immobile for over 10,000 years on the golden throne on Terra (Earth). The Emperor is worshiped as a God who protects his people from many threats.

The Imperium is a totalitarian regime in which untold billions of Imperium citizens live under harsh conditions, surrounded by oppression from their planetary lords, technology stagnation, fear of the Xenos (aliens), with only the faith in the God-Emperor that keeps them going forward. In order to defend Humanity, the Imperium calls to service fast armies of supersoldiers (Adeptus Astartes/Space Marines), Armies of the Tech Priesthood of Mars, and from its many Forge Worlds (controlled by the Adeptus Mechanicus), the ever-vigilant Inquisition, and many other military organizations. Lastly, but probably the most important and the one that always responds first, are the countless billions of soldiers of the Imperial Guard (Astra Militarum). These ordinary humans have to fight the horrors of the Universe with nothing more than a Lasgun (basically an AK 47 of the future) and faith in the God-Emperor. They are supported by countless armored vehicles, including tanks, such as the immense Macharius Heavy tank.

The Imperial Aquila is the main symbol of the Imperium of Man. Source: wh40k.lexicanum.com

Warhammer 40K is the property of Games Workshop company (also its sister company, the Forge World, which sells the Macharius scale models), together with other franchises like Warhammer Fantasy or the Age of Sigmar. Games Workshop is well known for selling their Warhammer 40K models, along with different types of accessories necessary for painting and assembly of these models. It also possessed a vast library (Black Library) that includes a series of rules and storybooks that describe many different stories of this – to some – fascinating science fiction universe. This company traces its origins back to 1975 in London when a small workshop for building and selling wooden game boards was opened. During the early 1980s, the first series of board games, that would eventually evolve into the Warhammer (both fantasy and Sci-fi universes), appeared. Over the years, these would evolve into one of the largest and best-known board games in the world.

Games Workshop company logo. Source: www.escapistmagazine.com

History of the Macharius Heavy Tank

Given the nature of the Warhammer 40K setting, spanning a history of over 40 millennia old, things are often described as being lost or forgotten. Such is the case of the Macharius tank, which is described as having been used in the distant human past, but due to huge cataclysmic events, simply forgotten. Its design and construction methods were understandably lost in the vast and sometimes abandoned archives of many distant forge worlds (worlds involved in the production of various types of equipment, spaceships, military vehicles, and weapons) spread across the known Universe. On one such forge world, named Lucius, in search of old technologies long since lost, Magos (basically meaning engineer) Nalax came across fragments of a heavy tank. After years and years of painstaking research, he finally gathered all available information, which allowed him to finally reconstruct the long-forgotten heavy tank. He then went to the main forge world of Mars to petition the High Fabricator-General (essentially the highest authority of all forge worlds) for this new design to be formally accepted. Unfortunately for Magos Nalax, he never lived to see the final verdict of his petition, as the whole acceptance process took over 200 years. After years of testing and tedious discussions, this tank was finally approved for production and received the name Macharius in honor of one of the greatest generals of the Imperial Guard, Lord Commander Solar Macharius.

Lord Commander Solar Macharius, a man under whose leadership over 1,000 worlds were brought under Imperium control. Source: wh40k.lexicanum.com

At the same time when the production of the Macharius was approved, forge world Lucius received the STC (Standard Template Construct, which refers to a computer possessing the necessary schematics on how to build certain technologies, ranging from simple tools to spaceships) for the production of the massive Baneblade super-heavy tank. It appears that the work of the Magos Nalax would be forgotten. But due to the huge demand for weapons of war and the slow production of the Baneblade, it was decided that the Macharius would be put into service. The Macharius was initially supplied to the newly created Death Korps of Krieg regiments, which specialized in siege and attrition warfare. It was later supplied to various units spread across the Galaxy as well.

Specification

The real-life design inspiration of the Macharius (and most other Imperial Guard vehicles) mostly consists of World War One and World War Two vehicles. With the hull and suspension units being taken from the First and the armament and turret design from the Second World War.

The hull

The Macharius hull can be divided into several different components. These are the rear positioned engine compartment, central fighting compartment with the turret placed on top, front driver compartment, and the two large suspension compartments. The Macharius tank is constructed using a combination of welding and bolted armor plates.

Front view of the Macharius. Source: wh40k.lexicanum.com

The superstructure

The superstructure of the Macharius occupies a large portion of the tank’s center and rear, partly extending over the rear parts of the tracks. While most parts of the Macharius’ armor plates are flat, a portion of the front superstructure armor plate (above the driver’s compartment) is placed at a 45° angle. While the flat armor provided relatively less protection than angled armor of the same thickness, it would be necessary in order to increase the internal space needed for the large crew, ammunition, and other equipment. Two protected observation ports and what could be some sort of camera or other sighting device are placed on this plate.

The Macharius side view. Source: www.forgeworld.co.uk

The driver’s compartment is placed on the vehicle’s right front side. This compartment has a simple box shape with a small cupola, which has five observation ports, placed on top of it. In front of it, another single-piece hatch with an observation port is located. On its left side, a firing point armed with heavy stubbers is placed. The weapon mount has a small gun sight and a larger armored periscope on top of it. While the driver’s side view is partially blocked by the suspension and track frame, the top observation ports provide a limited field of vision to the sides.

The driver’s compartment is located on the right side of the vehicle, with a weapon mount next to it. While the direct front and side visibility is somewhat restricted, the top-mounted ports somewhat help with this issue. Source: Author’s ow

Engine and suspension

The Macharius is powered by an LC400 V18 P2 engine that can run on any type of fuel. The fuel is stored in two large tanks placed on both sides of the engine. Additional fuel can be carried in two horizontally placed fuel drums at the rear of the vehicle. The overall driving performance for a tank built so far in the future is quite poor, with the maximum speed being 26 km/h and the off-road speed being even less at 18 km/h. There is no information about its operational range. The engine itself is positioned in the rear of the vehicle. It can be reached either through a two-part hatch or a larger single-piece metal plate with a ventilation grill located on top of the engine compartment. The engine is equipped with two large exhaust pipes.

Close-up view of the rear of the engine compartment. The engine can be easily accessed through a two-part hatch. Note the two large external fuel tanks. The two bottom hatches possibly serve to provide the crew with easy access to the vehicle’s transmission unit. Source: Author’s

Top view of the engine compartment. The single-piece metal plate with a ventilation grill could be removed if needed. The two side hatches (placed on both sides of the engine) lead to the internal fuel tanks. The two smaller round-shaped hatches serve as refueling points. Source: Author’s own

The Macharius’ suspension and track frame are completely enclosed by armored shields. This overall design is heavily inspired by the British tanks from the First World War. The suspension consists of 9 road wheels and an unknown number of return rollers. The drive sprockets are likely located to the rear, while on the front, an idler with a track tension screw is placed. The tracks are mostly completely exposed to enemy fire, and given their large size, can be easily destroyed, leading to immediate immobilization.

Close-up view of the large and fully enclosed suspension and track frame. Source: Author’s own

While not the same, the British tanks from the First World War are the obvious inspiration for Macharius’ overall chassis construction. Source: Wikipedia

Turret

The inspiration for the Macharius turret comes more or less from the German Panzer II tank. It has the same overall basic shape, being slightly enlarged and with some other differences. The Macharius turret has a hexagonal shape with the round commander’s cupola placed on the right side. The rear armor plate is slightly angled. The side armor consists of two plates. The rear smaller one narrows toward the back armor plate. The longer front side plates also narrow toward the gun mantlet. The gun mantlet is surrounded by two highly curved plates on both sides. Above the gun mantlet, a movable armor plate serves to provide additional protection when the guns are in a level position. The turret’s top armor is mostly flat and slightly curves toward the gun.

The enlarged Macharius turret compared to a Panzer II turret, showing a number of similarities in the overall design shape. The most obvious similarity is the front rounded armor. The main armament is obviously different. Sources: weaponsandwarfare.com and Siege Studios facebook group

On top of the turret, there is what appears to be a round-shaped ventilation port protected with an armored cover. Next to it is a protected telescope sight. What possibly is a targeting acquisition sight is located on the left side. Behind it, a small hatch is added to the rear of the side armor. Given its size, it seems unlikely that it is used for removing spent cartridges. On the back of the turret, a large three-part storage bin is installed.

On the right side of the turret top, a large round-shaped commander’s cupola protrudes out. A two-part hatch is placed on top. In order for the commander to have a good overall view of the surroundings, he is provided with 16 small vision ports.

To the rear of the turret, a large three-part storage bin is placed. Also, note the top positioned round ventilation port cover. Source: Author’s own

The Armament

The main armament of the Macharius consists of twin-linked large battle cannons placed in the turret. These are 120 mm smoothbore cannons that fire armor-piercing high-explosive rounds (APHE). With this armament, the Macharius is ideal for dealing with enemy armor but also large concentrations of infantry thanks to its large explosive blast radius. The total ammunition load for these two guns is 40 rounds. The turret can rotate 360o, while the elevation of the main armament ranges from -2° to +28°.

The Macharius’ main armament consists of two 120 mm smoothbore cannons. The hull twin-linked heavy stubbers are also visible here. Source: warhammer40k.fandom.com

Secondary weapons consist of two hull-positioned heavy stubbers, with two more placed on the sponson mounts in the hull sides. The heavy stubbers are basically equivalent to modern-day heavy machine guns and operate the same way. The weapon mount is protected with a round shield that rotates as the stubbers move. The firing arc of the side sponson mounts is 20° to 130° and the traverse appears to be around -10° to +10°. This unusual firing arc essentially prevents these guns from firing directly forward. The gunners observe their target through small vision ports. To the rear of the sponson mounts, a large square-shaped hatch is placed.

The sponson weapons can be replaced with either two heavy flamers or two heavy bolters. Heavy bolters are enlarged machine guns that are specially designed to fire rocket-propelled and mass-reactive 2.5 cm shells simply known as bolts. The hardened tip is capable of penetrating most infantry armor (and light vehicles), obliterating the target with its explosive charge from within. The heavy flamer is basically an enlarged flamethrower with extended range and potency for destruction. The ammunition for the heavy stubbers consists of 1000 rounds and 600 rounds for the heavy bolters. One more heavy stubber can be added on the commanded cupola, which has to be operated by him. The Macharius can also be outfitted with a one-shot Hunter-Killer anti-armor missile launcher.

Side view of the Macharius left sponson mount armed with a heavy bolter. Source: Author’s own

The Imperial Guard uses heavy machine guns that are known simply as heavy stubbers. These fire large-caliber shells that could easily deal with most lightly armored targets. Due to the sheer size of Imperium production centers, there are many patterns of these weapons, but otherwise, they operate on the same principle. Source: wh40k.lexicanum.comr

The more complicated and far more deadly heavy Bolter fires rocket-propelled and mass-reactive shells. Source:wh40k.lexicanum.co

The Armor

The overall turret armor was 220 mm thick, while the gun mantlet was 150 mm thick. The superstructure is 200 mm thick and the hull 150 mm thick. This overall armor thickness, together with the bolted armor, does not look very impressive for a vehicle produced in the far future. Its strength probably relies on the materials used in the construction of its armor plates. They are probably made using futuristics materials that are extremely resistant to heat, ballistic impacts, and other weapons. For additional protection and tactical use, smoke launchers can be installed on the tank.

Crew

Given its immense size, the Macharius needs a large crew in order to work properly. In the turret, the commander, gunner, and two loaders are positioned. In the hull are the driver, comms-operator, (radio operator), and two more gunners. The comms-operator is tasked with operating the two hull positioned stubbers. The hull gunners each operate a sponson weapon on the hull sides. It is highly likely that the Macharius was provided with a number of targeting, communication and other cogitators (computers in Warhammer 40K) to help the crew better operate the vehicle.

In Combat

The Macharius tank’s first major combat use was during the 17 year-long sieges of Vraks, the capital city of the planet Vraks Prime. The Imperial authorities were overrun by insurgents who then proceeded to plunder the enormous war material storage depots present on the planet, including tanks, artillery, and other weapons needed to prepare for the Imperial retaliation. The capital Vraks was reinforced with many trenches, minefields, bunkers, and other defensive systems. The Imperium responded by sending in the 88th Siege Army to retake the planet, composed of units taken from the Planet of Krieg which were specialized in siege warfare. The subsequent battle lasted 17 years, leading to some dozen or so millions of dead and the complete destruction of Vraks Prime. The Macharius was used in this operation by the 88th Siege Army, providing the Imperials with strong fire support. Thanks to its long tracks, it was capable of crossing the many trenches that covered the killing fields of Vraks. Following the end of this campaign, the Macharius was slowly distributed to various other Imperial armored formations.

Macharius tank during the Siege of Vraks. Source: warhammer40k.fandom.com

Sub-version based on the Macharius

The Macharius tank had two versions with a different main armament, along with several other variants based on the chassis.

Macharius Vanquisher

A specialized anti-tank sub-version of the Macharius is the so-called Macharius Vanquisher. It is named after its improved main armament, the twin-linked Vanquisher cannons. These cannons fire special anti-tank ammunition at high velocity. Besides the change in the main armament, the secondary weapons are unchanged.

The Macharius Vanquisher is easily identified by its longer guns. Source: warhammer40k.fandom.com

Macharius Vulcan

Another variant of the standard Macharius tank is the Macharius Vulcan. Like the previously mentioned Vanquisher, its name derives from its new main armament, the five-barrelled Vulcan Mega-Bolter. Two of these are mounted in the turret instead of the battle cannons. They are able to fire over a thousand rounds per minute and are excellent at destroying enemy infantry formations and lightly armed targets. In order to accommodate the extra ammunition needed, the crew had to be reduced to six crew members.

The Macharius Vulcan is specialized in the destruction of enemy infantry and lightly armored vehicle formations. Source: warhammer40k.fandom.com

Macharius Omega

This version of the Macharius, unlike the previously mentioned vehicles, received a number of overall design modifications in order to accommodate the massive and extremely potent Omega-pattern Plasma Blastgun. This weapon (while prone to malfunctions or even explosions) creates extensive heat that then melts any armor without any trouble. In order to house the massive weapon, it was placed inside a new rear open-top fighting compartment on top of the Macharius hull. Additional changes include the removal of the two superstructure positioned stubbers. The inspiration for the vehicle was probably taken from German World War II self-propelled vehicles (like the Wespe or Marder series) that usually featured a powerful gun but only limited armor protection.

A more specialized version of the Macharius chassis is equipped with the more advanced Omega-pattern Plasma Blastgun. Source: warhammer40k.fandom.com

Praetor Armoured Assault Launcher

The Praetor is basically equivalent to a modern-day MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System). It uses the chassis of the Macharius tank with a front-mounted fighting compartment with two front weapon mounts. To the rear, a large rocket launcher can be raised or lowered under armor. Depending on the need, this vehicle can be equipped with different types of missiles, including anti-vehicle, anti-air, etc.

The Praetor Armored Assault Launcher. Source: wh40k.lexicanum.com

Gorgon Heavy Assault Transport

The Gorgon was designed to fulfill the role of a transport vehicle on the front lines, mainly for short distances. It is capable of transporting a whole platoon of some 50 men. While heavily armored, it is completely open-topped, exposing the men inside to enemy projectiles that come from above. Another noticeable feature is the large forward-mounted armored ramp.

The Gorgon Heavy Assault Transport. Source: wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki

Crassus Armored Transport

The Crassus is another type of transporter. In comparison to the Gorgon, it is fully enclosed. It is armed with four weapon mounts. There is a large hatch on the rear of the vehicle that acts as the entry point for the infantry that is being transported.

Another transport version of the Macharius is fully enclosed. Source: wh40k.lexicanum.com

Conclusion

While the Macharius looks intimidating, the creators of this vehicle took inspiration from historical tanks and kitbashed them without much consideration of how its overall design would function. For example, while it is heavily armored, its tracks are completely exposed and present a huge target. The maximum speed is described as being less than 30 km/h. On the other hand, it fits perfectly into the Imperial Guard’s overall aesthetics and logic. For the Imperial Guard, more advanced weapons are rare while less advanced vehicles are used in such huge numbers. The Guard often employs simple tactics, counting on an overwhelming force of men, armor, and artillery which is enough to bring down any kind of resistance but not without huge cost in life and war materials.

Macharius Heavy Tank. Illustrations by the illustrious Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Specification
Dimensions (L-W-H)	10.9 x 7 x 4.8 m
Crew	8 (Commander, Gunner, Driver, Two Loaders, Radio Operator and two sponson weapon Gun Operators)
Propulsion	LC400 v18 p2 Multi-Fuel
Weight	175 tonnes
Speed	26 km/h on-road, 18 km/h off-road
Armament	Battle cannons
Armor	150 to 220 mm

Sources

W. Kinrade (2007) Armour Volume FIve The Siege Of Vraks – Part One, Forge world
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Macharius_Heavy_Tank
https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Macharius_(Heavy_Tank)
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-NZ/Macharius-Heavy-Tank-2018

WW2 German Tank Destroyer Prototypes

Panzer IV/70(E)

Panzer IV/70 (E) Illustration made by Godzilla

German Reich (1944)
Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – 1 Incomplete Prototype

During the Second World War, the German Army officials wanted to improve the overall performance of their Panzer IIIs and IVs. One such project involved combining a number of elements from both tanks into a new design. In addition, new elements, such as an improved suspension and superstructure with angled armor were also to be added. The project was simply designated as Panzer III/IV, on which a self-propelled anti-tank variant was also developed, named Panzer IV/70(E).

A drawing of the Panzer IV/70(E) Source: firearmcentral.fandom.com

The Panzer III/IV project

Incorporating components from the Panzer III and IV into a single-vehicle was something that the Germans tried doing even before the start of the war. Early during the Panzer development, Wa Pruef 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, with 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 a new transmission It was estimated that the first experimental chassis could not be built prior to April 1938. As there was a large demand for Panzer IV support tanks, in October 1937, Krupp was informed to continue working and producing Panzer IVs in their current form, which would remain basically the same until the end of the war.

The consolidation of the two different designs into a single-vehicle offered many advantages: reducing the cost of production, increasing the availability of spare parts, etc. But, as these two vehicles were becoming obsolete and the focus moved to more advanced tanks, such as the Tiger and Panther, the development of a Panzer III/IV hybrid was seen as redundant at that point.

But this was not the end of the story. In 1943, using components from both tanks, a new chassis, designated as Geschutzwagen III/IV, was developed. This was used for numerous projects, but the best known and which were actually produced and used in combat were the Hummel self-propelled artillery and Nashorn self-propelled anti-tank vehicles.

The idea of building a Panzer III/IV vehicle, while initially discarded, was not completely abandoned. In January of 1944, a Panzerkomission (tank commission) was formed to once again determine how the Panzer III/IV hybrid should be further developed. This vehicle was to be designated as Panzerkampfwagen auf Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV Ausf.A, or more simply known as Panzer III/IV. It was agreed by the tank commission, that this new vehicle would use the modified chassis and the engine of a Panzer IV, with the steering gear, transmission, and final drives from the Panzer III. In addition, a new suspension and upper superstructure with sloped armor were also to be implemented. Work on the first few trial vehicles was to commence from March 1944, while the production would start in early 1945. In the end, by July 1944, the whole Panzer III/IV project was terminated. This vehicle simply did not offer that much of an improvement over a standard Panzer IV to warrant the introduction of a new vehicle.

The drawing of the new Panzerkampfwagen auf Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV Ausf.A. Source:firearmcentral.fandom.com

The Anti-Tank Version Based on the Panzer III/IV

Interestingly, when the same tank commission met at the start of 1944, besides the talks about the Panzer III/IV, another project based on it was also proposed. This was to be an anti-tank version based on the Panzer III/IV chassis, designated at that simply as Jagdpanzer III/IV. This particular vehicle was heavily influenced by an earlier project based on the Panzer IV chassis. This project consisted of a Panzer IV chassis that was equipped with a new and well-sloped armor superstructure (known as Jagdpanzer IV). Initially, the Jagdpanzer IV was to be armed with the 7.5 cm L/70 gun. As this gun could not be produced in sufficient numbers, as a temporary solution, the shorter 7.5 cm L/48 gun had to be used instead until the production of the longer version could match up with the demand.

The early Jagdpanzer IVs were equipped with somewhat weaker L/48 guns due to the lack of the 7.5 cm L/70 gun. Source: www.yaplakal.com/forum2

The Jagdpanzer III/IV project would incorporate many components that were already in production. This included the sloped superstructure, 7.5 cm L/70 tank gun, engine, etc. As these components were already available, the overall development time and costs could be greatly reduced. The only major modification was a completely redesigned suspension. Thus, the prospect of producing this vehicle did not seem a far-fetched idea. Given the German plans to cancel the overall Panzer IV production and instead focus on the anti-tank version based on it, great interest in this project arose. In addition, the Jagdpanzer IV’s general combat performance was deemed satisfactory, having excellent armor, low silhouette, and possessing sufficient firepower to deal with any Allied tank, further encouraging the Germans that another such vehicle was desirable.

In March 1944, Alkett received orders to prepare for the production of the first few trial vehicles meant to be used for testing. The German Army officials went to such an extent that, two months later, they informed Alkett and MIAG (Maschinenfabrik und Mühlenbau) that the StuG III production would cease in favor of the new Jagdpanzer III/IV project. The companies were to make the necessary preparations for the production of this vehicle, which was to commence in November 1944. During the first few months of 1945, three additional manufacturers, Krupp, Vomag, and Nibelungenwerke were also to be included in the Jagdpanzer III/IV production.

Name

Initially, the project was designated as Jagdpanzer III/IV. During the war, it was quite common for the Germans to change the designation for their vehicles, and the Jagdpanzer III/IV was no exception. In July 1944, Adolf Hitler insisted that the name of all Jagdpanzer IV should be changed to the much simpler Panzer IV lang (long). In addition, the capital letter of the manufacturer was also added to them, such as (A) for Alkett and (V) for Vomag. In the case of the now Panzer IV lang (E), the E stood for Einheitsfahrgestell (which could be translated as standard chassis). The name would eventually further be changed to the even simpler Panzer IV/70(E). This article will refer to it as such.

The Panzer IV/70 (A) was the last anti-tank vehicle that was developed on the Panzer IV chassis. Due to its somewhat forced and quick development time, it offered worse performance than its more successful Panzer IV/70(V) cousin. Source: Pinterest

Design

Despite the Panzer IV/70(E) never being fully completed (no surviving photograph of its components exist), thanks to the fact that it would share most components with the Panzer IV/70(V), a somewhat clear picture of how its overall design may have looked can be considered.

The Hull

The Panzer IV/70(E) hull was likely quite similar to that of a Panzer IV. Given the introduction of new parts, for example, the transmission, there would be some changes made to incorporate them.

The front hull was redesigned and had a more sharply angled shape, with the glacis being placed at 60° and the lower hull at 45°. The transmission and steering brake inspection hatches appear to have been removed based on a few drawings of Panzer IV/70(E). The upper part of the hull, where the two steering brake inspection hatches were originally positioned, was slightly raised.

The upper part of the hull, where the two steering brake inspection hatches were originally positioned, was slightly raised, possibly to accommodate the new transmission and final drive. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers

The lower hull would greatly resemble that of a Panzer IV/70(V), with some differences, such as the armor thickness. Source: warspot.net

The Superstructure

The Panzer IV/70(E) more or less had a superstructure directly copied from the Panzer IV/70(V). It was designed to provide the best possible protection with its angled and thick armor. 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.

On the front angled plate, slightly to the right, was the gun with its mantlet. Next to it, on the right side, was a small round-shaped machine gun port. It was protected by a movable hemispherical-shaped armored cover. To the left of the gun was a small visor for the driver.

On the top part of the superstructure were two escape hatches. The right round-shaped one was for the loader. Left of it, the commander’s hatch had a small rotating periscope in the middle. The commander had a small additional hatch for the use of a retractable telescope. In front of the loader and commander hatches was a sliding armored cover for the gunsight. Additional periscopes with armored covers would likely have been added on the Panzer IV/70(E) superstructure’s roof.

Top drawing of the Panzer IV/70(E). Its superstructure was taken from the Panzer IV/70(V), which would have greatly reduced development time and eased overall production. The transmission and steering brake inspection hatches appear to have been removed. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers

The Panzer IV/70(V) superstructure was designed to provide the best possible protection with its angled and thick armor. The angled shape of the superstructure provided thicker effective armor and also increased the chance of deflecting enemy shots. While the drawings of the Panzer IV/70(E) show no travel lock, due to the gun’s overall weight and in order to avoid any damage during the move, such a device would have had to be added. Source: warspot.net

Suspension

During the Panzer IV/70(E)’s development phase, it appears that a few different ideas for the suspension were proposed, though sources do not mention which precisely. In the end, German engineers decided to go with six 660 mm diameter road wheels. As rubber became a rare commodity in Germany in late 1944, these were instead steel-tired and internally sprung. It is not completely clear, but, according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers), these were suspended using simple leaf spring units. Author J. Ledwoch (Panzer IV/70), on the other hand, mentions that the leaf springs were replaced with horizontal volute springs.

The front-drive sprocket was taken from a Panzer III, and was modified to have center guides. The rear idler was taken from a Panzer IV, but provided with a strengthened and improved tensioning mechanism. The number of return rollers would likely have been reduced to three, as was common at that time. The Panzer IV track was replaced with completely new 540 mm wide tracks. This suspension was actually built and tested on some Nashorn vehicles, possibly during 1944.

The original Panzer IV suspension, while performing well, was not perfect and the Germans wanted to replace it. Nothing came from the attempts in the end. Source: warspot.net

While a great number of German armored vehicles remained only paper projects, some elements that were to be used on the Panzer IV/70(E) were actually constructed and tested, as on the Nashorn behind this Panther. Source: warspot.ru

The production version of the Nashorn utilizes an unchanged Panzer IV suspension. Source: Reddit

The Engine and Transmission

The engine used on the Panzer IV/70(E) was the standard Maybach HL 120 TRM engine producing 265 hp@2,600 rpm. In the engine compartment, an additional 300 liters fuel tanks were to be placed. These would have greatly increased the vehicle’s operational combat range. Components such as the SSG 77 transmission, reinforced steering gear, and final drive was taken from the Panzer III Ausf.M. As no operational prototype was ever constructed and there is no information about the estimated weight, it is difficult to predict how the Panzer IV/70(E) would have performed mobility-wise.

Armor Protection

The Panzer IV/70(E) glacis armor plate was 60 mm thick and placed at a 60° angle. The lower hull had the same thickness but was placed at a 45° angle. The upper superstructure frontal armor was 80 mm at a 50° angle. The sides were much weaker, being only 30 mm of armor placed at a 36° angle. The armor thickness of the remaining components of the Panzer IV/70(E) is not listed in the sources. Additional 5 mm thick armor plates were also provided for extra protection of the engine compartment sides.

The Panzer IV/70(E) could probably also be equipped with additional 5 mm thick armor skirts (Schürzen) covering the sides of the vehicle. These may have been replaced with the later developed stiff wire mesh panels (Thoma Schürzen).

Schürzen were to be placed around the suspension, where the armor was weaker, in order to protect against Soviet anti-tank rifles which were used in mass up to the war’s end. Source: www.valka.cz/topic/view/6426/Panzer-IV-70-V

Armament

The main armament chosen for the Panzer IV/70(E) was the effective 7.5 cm StuK 42 L/70 gun. This gun was, more or less, the same one as used on the Panther tanks. While there is no information about its characteristics when mounted on the Panzer IV/70(E), these may have been close if not the same as on the Panzer IV/70(V). In that case, the elevation of the main gun would be –5° to +15° and the traverse 20°. While not present on existing drawings, the use of a travel lock would be required due to the long and heavy gun. The muzzle brake would not be added to the gun, as it would create a lot of dust during firing.

As this gun required a large amount of room and the use of large one-piece ammunition, the Panzer IV/70(E) interior would have been very cramped and the ammunition capacity probably consisted of between 55 to 60 rounds.

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 a superb anti-armor penetration power, due to scarcity of tungsten, these rounds were rarely employed. Its cousin, the Panzer IV/70(V), usually carried 34 anti-armor rounds, while the remaining 21 were high-explosive rounds, so it is plausible that a similar ammunition load would also be employed on this vehicle.

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°. At 1 km and at the same angle, the armor penetration was 111 mm, and at 2 km it was 89 mm. Using the rare tungsten rounds, the armor penetration at 500 m at an angle of 30° was 174 mm. At ranges of up to 1 km, it could penetrate 149 mm of armor Thanks to this firepower this gun could effectively engage most Allied tanks up to the war’s end.

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 secondary weapons would have consisted of an MG 42 machine gun, the crew’s personal weapons, and probably a Nahverteidigungswaffe (close defense weapon).

Crew

Four crew members would have been needed to effectively operate the Panzer IV/70(E). These included the commander, gunner, loader/radio operator, and driver. The driver’s position was on the vehicle’s left front side, but his view of the surroundings was limited, as he only had a front-mounted periscope and a small periscope pointing to the right to see out of. Behind him was the gunner’s position, and behind him was the position of the commander. The last crew member was the loader, who was positioned on the vehicle’s right side. He operated the radio and he also doubled as the MG 42 machine gun operator.

The Fate of the Panzer IV/70(E) Project

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. This included the (A), (V), and the newer (E) version.

In anticipation of the Panzer IV/70(E)’s production, work on its components was carried out during 1944. Due to the worsening economic situation, there were delays. Deutsche Edelstahl, which was responsible for the production of the armored components, reported that one superstructure was completed by September 1944. Some components that were to be used for this project were installed on a Nashorn for testing and evaluation.

The following month, in the hope of reducing the number of many different tank chassis, prioritizing mainly the Panther, Tiger, and the Panzer 38(t) chassis, this project came to an end. In contrast to the Panzer III/IV, some components for the Panzer IV/70(E) were built, but they were never assembled into a complete vehicle.

Conclusion

The Panzer IV/70(E), if ever produced, would have had good anti-tank firepower and protection. On the other hand, the introduction of one more design would have caused additional strain on the already stretched-to-the-breaking-point German industrial production capabilities. Its performance would likely have been quite similar to the Jagdpanzer IV, except for some improved mobility and a slight increase in ease of production, so there was really little reason to introduce it to service. While initially quite interested in the Panzer IV/70(E), this fact became quite obvious to the German military circles, who simply terminated the whole project even before a single prototype could be made.

Panzer IV/70(E)

Specifications
Crew	4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader/Radio Operator, and Driver)
Propulsion	Maybach HL 120 TRM 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm
Primary Armament	7.5 cm StuK 42 L/70
Secondary Armament	7.92 mm MG 42
Superstructure armor	80 mm, side 30 mm
Front hull armor	60 mm
Number built	One incomplete prototype

Sources

Has Own Video WW2 Italian SPG Prototypes

Semovente M43 da 149/40

Semovente M43 da 149/40 Ilustration made by David B.

Kingdom of Italy (1942-1943)
Self-Propelled Gun – 1 Prototype Built

Prior to and during the Second World War, the Italian industry generally lacked the capacity to fulfill all the military demands placed upon it. This was probably most obvious in regards to producing and developing more modern armored vehicles. Italian armored formations mostly consisted of obsolete light tanks, which were no match for the Allied armor. Even in regards to the medium tanks they produced, these were severely lacking. On the other hand, Italians introduced a number of vehicles that proved to be useful, although their number was small. These were the so-called Semoventi (Eng. self-propelled vehicles), which proved to be quite effective, but with some issues. They were armed with 47 mm, 75 mm, 90 mm, or 105 mm guns. In the later stages of the war, one installation of an even larger weapon was tested in the form of the highly mysterious and poorly documented Semovente M43 da 149/40.

The Semovente M43 da 149/40. Source: comandosupremo.com

History

When it entered the war on the German side in 1940, the Italian Army was mostly equipped with the CV series of small fast tanks. While cheap, these were only lightly armed and protected and were virtually obsolete even before the war started. The development of more powerful vehicles, such as the M-series of medium tanks, was underway but the small production capabilities and some bad decisions (like limiting the overall strength of the engine) ultimately led to rather a slow production and introduction. These tanks were armed with a 47 mm gun, which may have been effective in the earlier stages of the war, but struggled to do anything against newer Allied tank designs.

The Italians turned to their German allies for help, and after observing the StuG III, they came up with the idea of developing a similar vehicle utilizing components that were already in production. This would lead to the creation of a series of vehicles that, armed with a 75 mm gun, offered the Italians a means to fight back more effectively. The early and later improved versions were used as anti-tank vehicles. These could also act, if need be, as mobile self-propelled artillery.

While the 75 mm gun could fulfill this role, something with more firepower was preferable. It is for this reason that the Italian Army began showing interest in the development of a more dedicated design of self-propelled artillery armed with much larger caliber guns.

Unfortunately, due to a general lack of information about this vehicle in the sources, determining its precise developing history is quite difficult. Based on limited available information, it appears that the firm responsible for developing this vehicle was Ansaldo. When it was built and on which chassis it was based is somewhat confusing in the sources.

According to C. Bishop (The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II), work on such a vehicle was initiated by Ansaldo in late 1942. Ansaldo engineers used a heavily modified M15/42 chassis and placed the Cannone 149/40 Modello 1935 on it. When a fully working prototype was completed in late 1942, it was given to the Army for testing.

Author P. Battistelli (Italian Medium Tanks 1939-45) mentions that it was based on the improved P26/40 chassis. According to this source, the Semovente M43 da 149/40 was actually developed and completed by August 1943.

Authors C. Falessi and B. Pafi (Veicoli da combattimento dell’esercito Italiano Dal 1939 Al 1945) give a more detailed account. According to them, the Semovente M43 da 149/40 was not even a project requested by the Italian Army, but instead a private venture from Ansaldo. Ansaldo engineers, who had designed the large Cannone 149/40, were interested in increasing its mobility. Like all towed guns, it needed some time to be properly set up before it could effectively engage enemy positions. Mounting this gun onto a fully tracked chassis would resolve the mobility issue greatly. So, during 1943, Ansaldo engineers set out to develop such a vehicle. The prototype was completed by August 1943 and appears to have been presented to the Army.

The completed prototype at Ansaldo. Source: Ansaldo Archives

Sources, such as Gli autoveicoli da combattimento dell’esercito italiano, volume secondo (1940-1945) by Pignato and Cappellano., mention that Ansaldo started the whole project at the end of 1941, when a wooden mock-up was completed. The actual work on the first prototype began in April 1942. Due to many delays, the prototype took some time before it was finally completed in August of 1943.

Probably the first wooden mock-up of the Semovente M43 da 149/40, dating back to November 1941. Source: 2020.fondazioneansaldo.it

Design

The Hull

The Semovente M43 da 149/40 hull was divided into a few sections. In the front part were the transmission and two crew members. The engine was positioned in the center of the vehicle. To the rear was the gun mount.

Which precise chassis was used for the construction of the Semovente M43 da 149/40 is not clear. Sources mention that it could have been either that of an M15/42 or the larger P26/40. The hull front and the upper glacis do not resemble any of the M-series (even the chassis used for the later Semoventi). The M15/42 front hull had a rounded shape. The P26/40 hull has some similarities, but its design was also different. A more plausible solution is that the Anslado engineers simply took the best components from both chassis and combined them into a single-vehicle with some modifications. Authors C. Falessi and B. Pafi (Veicoli da combattimento dell’esercito Italiano Dal 1939 Al 1945) claim that, while the chassis of the Semovente M43 da 149/40 was new, it incorporated a steering gear unit taken from the M15/42, together with a strengthened suspension copied from the P26/40. The upper glacis on the Semovente M43 da 149/40 had two small hatches used as access points to the transmission and brakes for repairs and maintenance.

Close-up view of the front hulls of the Semovente M43 da 149/40, M15/42, P 40, and the Semovente M42. While the latter two are somewhat similar, they were still different from the Semovente M43 da 149/40 front hull shape. Sources: tvd.im/land-systemshttps:, forum.warthunder., beutepanzer.ru/Beutepanzer

Front view of the Semovente M43 da 149/40. Note the two smaller maintenance hatches placed on the upper glacis. Source: Ansaldo Archives

Suspension

The suspension used was the Italian standard semi-elliptical leaf spring type. On each side, there were four bogies with eight doubled rubber road wheels, paired onto two suspension units. This suspension type was obsolete by the early 1940s and did not allow the vehicle to reach a high top speed. The drive sprockets were at the front and the idlers, with modified track tension adjusters, were at the back, with three rubber return rollers on each side. Interestingly, the front-drive sprockets had an unusual design not seen on other Italian armored vehicles. The tracks had a width of 400 mm.

The Semovente M43 da 149/40 suspension was the standard Italian type used on all mediums and later developed heavy tanks. While it did the job, it was far from perfect. Note that the front sprockets had a completely new design in comparison to the one used on previous vehicles. Source: tvd.im/land-systems/2946-semovente-da-149-40

Engine

The Semovente M43 da 149/40 was powered by an unspecified 250 hp SPA petrol engine. With a weight of 23.5 to 24 tonnes, the maximum speed was around 35 km/h. This engine somewhat complicates the matter of determining which chassis was used. The M15/42 used a SPA 190 hp engine, while the P 40 was powered by a 330 hp SPA engine. Neither of them matches the known data. Ansaldo engineers had plans to equip the first small production series with a similar engine, which was to be slightly lighter and smaller in size, but nothing came of this. Some sources also mention a completely different power plant, an eight-cylinder V-shaped 185 hp @ 2,400 rpm engine. The use of the engine from the experimental Sahariano tank was also proposed, but nothing came of it.

The engine was placed in the central part of the hull. It was fully enclosed, with two exhaust pipes placed on each side. Ventilation grills were placed to the rear, close to the gun installation. On top of the engine compartment were several smaller hatches.

Superstructure

The superstructure of the Semovente M43 da 149/40 consisted of a simple box-shaped and fully enclosed crew compartment. As was the standard for Italian designs, this was constructed using a metal frame on which armored plates were mounted, connected with bolts. On top of this compartment, two hatches were placed, one for each crew member. In addition, on top, a simple round-shaped travel lock was located. To the front were two protective observation ports without any slits. These too were of a standard Italian design, which was commonly used on other armored vehicles. No side ports nor slits were used on this vehicle.

To enter their positions, the front crew had two hatches placed on top of the fighting compartment. Source: beutepanzer.ru/Beutepanzer

Two protected observation ports (the left port has number 262 painted on it) without any slits were placed in front of the crew compartment. Source: Pinterest

Such protective observation ports were also common on Italian vehicles, like this Semovente. Source: http://beutepanzer.ru

Armor Protection

As it was intended to use the Semovente M43 da 149/40 for long-range support, the vehicle was only lightly protected. The front armor was, depending on the source, 25 to 30 mm thick. The side armor was 14 mm thick, while the top armor was 6 mm. No armor protection was provided for the gun operating crew.

Armament

This vehicle was armed with the long Cannone 149/40 gun. Its official name was Cannone Ansaldo da 149/40 Mod. 1935 (Eng. Ansaldo Cannon 149 mm L/40 Model 1935). The development of this gun was initiated in 1929, when the Regio Esercito (Eng. Italian Royal Army) asked OTO, Ansaldo, and Arsenale Regio Esercito di Napoli, or AREN (Eng. Royal Army Arsenal in Naples), to develop a new 149 mm artillery gun to replace some aging artillery pieces which dated to before the First World War. It was requested to have a firing range of 20 km with a maximum weight of some 11 tonnes. In order to ease transport, it had to be dividable into two parts. In addition, it had to be assembled in half an hour. While OTO did not participate in this competition, both Ansaldo and AREN proposed their projects.

Ultimately, the Ansaldo project was chosen over its competitor. After some testing in 1934, the gun was officially adopted in July of 1935. In total, some 180 guns of this type would be produced (this number may have been lower as 63 to 64). These were used on various fronts, including in the Soviet Union and North Africa, and were deemed good designs. The Germans managed to capture some guns after 8th September 1943, renaming them to 15 cm K 408(i). After the war, the surviving guns were kept in reserve by the new Esercito Italiano (Eng. Italian Army) until 1969.

The Cannone 149/40 had a 6,360 mm long barrel and could fire a 46 kg round (with a muzzle velocity of 800 m/s) at ranges up to 23,700 m. It could fire a standard high-explosive, armor-piercing, and training round. The rate of fire was only one round per minute. Elevation was 0° to 45°, while the gun traverse was 57° (or 60° depending on the source).

The Ansaldo Cannon 149 mm L/40 Model 1935. Source: www.italie1935-45.com

This gun had modern twin-split trail legs. Additionally, in order to further absorb the recoil, the trail spades had metal bars that could be hammered into the ground. Both of these would be used on the self-propelled vehicle. Given the rather large size of the original trail legs, shorter ones were instead placed to the rear of the vehicle. When on the move, these would be raised from the ground and then folded down toward the vehicle. The spades would be placed on each of these two trail legs when the vehicle was prepared for firing. On the move, these would be removed and placed on each side of the gun for transport. In order to fully prepare the vehicle for action, the crew needed around 3 minutes. In contrast, the towed version of the same gun needed 17 minutes to be ready for action.

Elevation of the Semovente M43 da 149/40 gun was the same as on the towed version, but the traverse was slightly reduced, at 53°. The ammunition load allegedly consisted of only six rounds, which seems unlikely due to the lack of storage space for them. Additional spare rounds were carried by an auxiliary ammunition supply vehicle. No secondary armament besides the crew’s personal weapons was to be carried.

Rear view of the Semovente M43 da 149/40. The two shortened trail legs and the left spade are clearly visible here. In addition, note the rear positioned engine ventilation grilles. Source: Wiki

The Semovente M43 da 149/40 gun was placed at zero elevation. Source: www.militaryimages.net

Elevation of the Semovente M43 da 149/40 gun was the same as on the towed version, but the traverse was slightly less, at 53°. Source: Ansaldo Archives

Crew

Like most information regarding this obscure vehicle, the number of men needed to effectively operate it is unknown. Often, sources mention that the vehicle only had two crew members, but this is likely referring only to those that were stationed inside the vehicle. This would include the driver, and likely the commander, but it could also be anyone from the crew. The remaining crew would be transported in an auxiliary vehicle. Ideally, in order to keep up with the Semovente M43 da 149/40, a fully tracked vehicle would be used in this role.

Given the general lack of such vehicles in Italian service, a more plausible solution would be to use simple trucks. The crew would most likely consist of a driver, commander, gunner, and possibly up to two (if not more) loaders. In the original towed version the 149/40 gun needed 10 crew members to be fully operational. The crew operating the gun were completely exposed, but given the firing range of more than 23 km, this should not have been a major issue most of the time.

The Fate of the Project

The Semovente M43 da 149/40 was used by the Italian Army for testing and evaluation. It is not clear if the Italian Army officials were satisfied with this vehicle. Nevertheless, Ansaldo made preparations for the production of a small series of some 20 vehicles, which were scheduled to be completed by the end of 1943. Unfortunately for them, in September of that year, Italy surrendered to the Allies and any further work on this project was terminated.

Following its former ally’s capitulation, the Germans took over what was left of the Italian industry and weapons. This included the sole-built Semovente M43 da 149/40 prototype. In German service, it was renamed to gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette M 43 854(i). Its precise usage by the Germans from this point is not clear. Some sources suggest that this vehicle may have been used to defend the German Gothic Line against the Allies in Italy.

What happened next to it is also not clear. According to the American archives from the Museum of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the prototype was captured near Rome by the advancing American forces. In 1944, it was transported to America for evaluation. There is another version of the story, for which there is photographic evidence. The prototype was transported to Germany for examination. What the Germans thought of this design is unknown, but appears to have not influenced the development of German self-propelled artillery in any way. The prototype would eventually be captured by the Allies, possibly somewhere in France, during 1944-45, after which it would be shipped to America for examination and evaluation. Luckily, the prototype survived to this day. While initially located at the Military Museum Aberdeen Proving Grounds, it was later moved to the U.S. Army Field Artillery Museum at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Unfortunately, at some point during the 1970s, its tracks were removed and ultimately lost.

A number of German vehicles together with the Semovente M43 da 149/40 prototype, were captured by the advancing Allies. This photo was taken in a military depot near Paris in 1944. Source:beutepanzer.ru/Beutepanzer

The Surviving Semovente M43 da 149/40. Source: comandosupremo.com

Conclusion

The Semovente M43 da 149/40, while not unique, was quite an interesting vehicle from Italy. It was designed and built with the intention of providing mobility to heavier guns. Alas, due to the deteriorating Italian industrial situation, lack of resources, and urgent need for tanks and self-propelled vehicles, there was simply no place for the new Semovente M43 da 149/40. In addition, taking into account that it was actually developed just prior to the Italian capitulation, there was simply no time for its introduction to service. Other nations also developed somewhat similar projects, like the American 155 mm armed M12 GMC, which saw some service during the war. Unfortunately, due to a general lack of information about the Semovente M43 da 149/40, a precise conclusion about its overall performance cannot be made.

The author would especially like to thank Art and Roshindow for providing valuable sources.

Semovente M43 da 149/40

Semovente M43 da 149/40 specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	6.6 -6.5 x 3 x 2 m
Total weight,	23.5 to 24 tonnes
Crew	2 (Driver and possibly the Commander)
Propulsion	SPA petrol engine 250 hp
Speed	35 km/h
Armament	Cannone 149/40
Armor	6 to 25 mm

Sources

T. Gander and P. Chamberlain, Enzyklopädie Deutscher Waffen 1939-1945, Motorbuch Verlag
F. Cappellano (1998) Le artiglierie del Regio Esercito nella Seconda Guerra Mondiale
P. Battistelli (2012) Italian Medium Tanks 1939-45, new wanguard
C. Bishop (1998) The Encyclopedia of weapons of World War II, Brown Packaging Books
C. Falessi and B. Pafi () Veicoli da combattimento dell’esercito Italiano Dal 1939 Al 1945
R. Riccio (2011) Italian Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War II – Roadrunner/Aberdeen
Storia Militare 1994
24 Committee etc. Storia dell’Artiglieria Italiana, Vol. XV, B. A. e G., Rome 1953
http://www.italie1935-45.com/regio-esercito/materiels/item/261-canon-de-149-40-mod35
http://beutepanzer.ru/Beutepanzer/italy/spg/DA_149_40/Da-149_40-1.htm

Has Own Video WW2 German SPAAG Prototypes

2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date March 2, 2022
4 Comments on 2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV

2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV Illustration by Godzilla

German Reich (1943)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun – 1 Prototype Built

In the later stages of the Second World War, the Germans lost control over the skies and their ground forces had to endure extensive enemy air attack raids. The use of self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAG) based on half-track chassis offered some way to fight back, but these were themselves highly vulnerable, as they lacked proper armor protection. A SPAAG based on a tank chassis was more desirable. Early attempts were made in the form of the Flakpanzer 38(t), but this was more of a stopgap solution than a proper design. In 1943, more serious work was conducted using the larger Panzer IV chassis. This would lead to the creation of the first Flakpanzer IV, which would be a stepping stone to later German SPAAG development. Eventually, this would lead to the 2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV, or Flakpanzer IV.

The 2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV. Source: T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 12-1 – Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV and other Flakpanzer projects development and production from 1942 to 1945

Search for an Anti-Aircraft Tank

The development of a SPAAG based on a tank chassis was an idea that came to circulate in German military circles back in 1942. For this reason, Krupp was instructed in September 1942 to develop a lightweight chassis that would be able to be armed with a variety of weapons, ranging from 2 cm to even 5 cm anti-aircraft guns. The overall weight, with the armament, seven-man crew, and ammunition was not to exceed 4.5 tonnes. The armament and its crew were to be protected by folding armored walls. To speed up development time, the use of the Panzer II ‘Luchs’ chassis was proposed for the project. Given the cancellation of the Panzer II Luchs, Krupp instead proposed the ‘Leopard’ chassis in early November 1942. As the Leopard suffered the same fate as the Luchs, this idea was also scrapped. Interestingly, Rheinmetall also proposed its version of an anti-aircraft tank based on the VK13.03 chassis. In comparison to the Krupp design, the Rheinmetall project offered a somewhat better design, as it had a fully rotating and mostly fully protected, albeit open-top, turret. While a wooden mock-up was built, nothing came from this project.

Rheinmetall’s proposal for the lack of a Flakpanzer was based on the VK13.03 chassis with an anti-aircraft gun in a fully rotating cupola. Besides a wooden mock-up, nothing came of this proposal. Source: www.leadwarrior.com

In January 1943, the use of a highly modified Panzer IV chassis was proposed instead. While the basic overall design would remain the same, the chassis was to be shortened and used only six doubled road wheels on leaf suspension on each side. This was to be armed with either the 2 cm Flakvierling, the 3.7 cm Flak, or even the more powerful but extremely flawed 5 cm and 5.5 Flak guns. The fighting compartment was to be protected by a box-shaped superstructure with folding walls, each consisting of two 10 mm spaced armor plates. Initially, the whole project was deemed crucial, so Krupp was instructed to build two prototypes to be used for evaluation and testing.

Due to the overburden German production and industrial capabilities, the introduction of another tank chassis was deemed unnecessary. A simpler temporary solution was needed. Krupp was informed that the anti-aircraft tank based on the modified Panzer IV chassis was canceled. This did not stop Krupp from actually continuing working on this project, and, in March 1944, all necessary components for its construction were ready. While some components were assembled, it is unlikely that the vehicle was completed by the war’s end.

The Flakpanzer IV

During May 1943, various German Army, including armament and tank, commissions met to discuss a proper solution to the general lack of anti-aircraft protection for the Panzer Divisions. The use of a cupola-mounted 7.92 mm machine gun was deemed almost useless in this role. Installation of stronger anti-aircraft weapons on the Panzer turrets was also not possible. The half-track anti-aircraft vehicles were also deemed not up to the task, mostly due to their weak protection. The only feasible solution was to develop an anti-aircraft vehicle based on a tank chassis.

The Luftwaffe (German Air Force) design office (GL/Flak 4) gave new instructions to Krupp to cease all work on previously ordered projects and focus on developing an anti-aircraft tank based on the regular Panzer IV chassis. At this point of the war, the Luftwaffe was still responsible for providing anti-aircraft protection to the German ground forces, so to some extent, it was their responsibility to develop such a vehicle.

The contract for this project was officially awarded on 8th June 1943. 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 decision to use this arrangement and not an enclosed turret was mostly based on the thinking that the anti-aircraft gun crew had to be able to have a good all-around view in order to be able to detect a fast-moving enemy aircraft. This thinking would prove to be flawed and later anti-aircraft Panzers would have almost fully protected turrets.

Krupp informed the Luftwaffe officials that the completion of the first prototype was expected to be ready by September 1943 if a Panzer IV chassis was provided in time. Krupp kept its promise and the prototype was completed by the end of September 1943 and presented to the German Army officials for inspection and evaluation. This vehicle was designated as 2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV, but this article will refer to it as Flakpanzer IV for simplicity.

Design

Compared to its later 3.7 cm armed successor, there is quite a small amount of information on the overall construction characteristics of the first Flakpanzer IV. Which precise chassis was used for its construction is not clear in the sources, but it is likely to have been an Ausf.G version.

The Flakpanzer IV was likely based on the Panzer IV Ausf.G. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/tanky/pz4.php

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.

Hull and the Engine Compartment

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

Superstructure

A major change in comparison to a normal Panzer IV was the introduction of a larger and simpler rectangular-shaped superstructure. It was slightly enlarged and had four vertical sides. The machine gun ball mount was removed and replaced with a 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 hatch remained unchanged. On top of the superstructure, four hatches were placed, two to the front and two more to the rear. The two front hatches served as entry points for the driver and the radio operator. The rear positioned doors served to access extra storage for spare ammunition.

The upper superstructure had a very simple box shape. While the driver visor was unchanged, the original ball mount machine gun was replaced with a simple round-shaped pistol port. Source: www.panzernet.net/panzernet

Fighting Compartment

On top of the superstructure were the main gun, crew, and protective folding walls. In the center of this compartment was a round-shaped mount on which the main gun was positioned and which could rotate 360°. It was protected by four large folding armored walls. Whilst driving, these walls were fully raised and the main 2 cm Flak gun was fixed in position, with its four barrels raised up. The front and rear plates also had two small hinged parts. These could be swung outwards and allow 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. For the installation on the Flakpanzer, 2 cm Flak gun’s shield had to be slightly modified. On the outside of the left and right side walls, two small metal rods were placed. These provided stability to the walls when fully folded down. Engagement of ground targets was possible only when all four walls were placed horizontally. This also provided the crew with additional working space, but left them almost completely exposed to enemy fire.

During driving, the sidewalls were completely pulled up, and thus the gun barrels had to be raised up. The front and rear plates had two small hinged parts. These could be swung outwards and allow for the side plates to be fixed at an outward angle. On the outside of the left and right side walls, two small metal rods were placed. These provided better stability to the walls when fully folded down. Source: www.panzernet.net/panzernet

The only way to properly engage ground targets and to have more working space was by folding the armored walls all the way down. This, in turn, left the crew completely exposed to enemy return fire. The cuts made into the 2 cm Flak’s armored shield made in order to fit the angled side armored walls can be seen. Source: T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. 12-1 – Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV and other Flakpanzer projects development and production from 1942 to 1945

The main reason for using a folding wall was to provide the crew with an excellent overall view of the surroundings, especially of the sky, where fast-moving enemy aircraft had to be spotted quickly. This would, in theory, give the crew time to prepare for firing. In reality, lowering the side walls would take valuable time and leave the crew exposed to enemy fire.

Armament

This vehicle was armed with the 2 cm Flakvierling 38 anti-aircraft gun. A well-known anti-aircraft gun of the Second World War, it was designed by Mauser-Werke to replace the older 2 cm Flak 20 and was introduced in May 1940. Its effective firing range was between 2 to 2.2 km, while the maximum horizontal range was 5,782 m. The maximum rate of fire was 1,680 to 1,920 rpm, but 700-800 rpm was a more appropriate operational rate of fire. The elevation was –10° to +100°.

The 2 cm Flakvierling 38. Source: Wiki

Whilst driving, the gun was fixed in position and could not be moved. 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. When engaging air targets the side walls could be partially lowered to a 30° angle. Ground targets could be engaged effectively only when all four armored walls were fully lowered.

Even air targets could not be engaged without folding the armored walls Source: www.panzernet.net/panzernet

While the 2 cm Flakvierling 38 was fed by 20 round magazines, not many sources mention how much ammunition was carried inside the vehicle. The gun itself had a special ammunition box in its base on both sides, where up to 8 magazines could be stored and which were in easy reach by the two loaders This meant that at least 320 rounds could be carried around the gun. Author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka) mentions that the total load consisted of 3,200 rounds. For self-defense, the crew had at their disposal one MG 34 with 600 rounds of ammunition and their personal weapons.

Armor Protection

The Flakpanzer IV’s frontal armor hull protection would have ranged between 50 to 80 mm in thickness, the sides were 30 mm, the rear 20 mm, and the bottom armor was only 10 mm thick. The superstructure frontal armor was 50 mm and its sides 30 mm thick.

The four sidewalls placed to protect the crew and the gun consisted of two 12 mm (or 10 mm, depending on the source) spaced armor plates. 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 only 12 mm, these could only effectively work against small-caliber bullets and shrapnel. Anti-tank weapons could easily pierce this armor.

Crew

The crew of the 2 cm Flakpanzer IV consisted of between five to six crew members. The radio operator and the driver were positioned inside the hull and were fully protected. In the fighting compartment were the two loaders, each on one side of the gun. The gunner was placed behind the gun, while the position of the commander is not clear in the sources. Some sources, such as Walter J. Spielberger (Gepard, The History of German Anti-Aircraft Tanks), mention that the crew of this vehicle consisted of five, which would suggest that the commander probably also acted as the gunner.

The Fate of the Project

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. For this, it was driven from Magdeburg to Kummersdorf for testing. During the 6 and a half-hour drive, no major problems were noted on the prototype. Once in Kummersdorf, it was used to test if the whole platform was stable during firing. After firing some 800 rounds using all-four guns, once again no problems were detected. Guderian was generally satisfied with its design and ordered it to be put into production, with 20 vehicles per month to be produced beginning in April 1944.

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. For this reason, the 2 cm Flakvierling armed Panzer IV project was temporarily canceled, though revived later with the Wirbelwind project, and Krupp was instructed to focus on the 3.7 cm armed Flakpanzer. Krupp simply reused this prototype and armed it with the 3.7 cm gun. This would lead to the creation of the Möbelwagen, of which more than 200 would be built and which would see extensive action up to the war’s end.

The successor of the first Flakpanzer IV was the 3.7 cm armed Möbelwagen, which was basically the same design with some changes. It would see extensive use up to the war’s end. Source: www.panzernet.net/panzernet

Conclusion

The first Flakpanzer IV prototype, while built relatively quickly and with a satisfactory overall design that satisfied the officials, would not be accepted for service. This was not due to some flaws in the design, but due to the need for a more potent weapon than the 2 cm anti-aircraft gun. Unfortunately, the folding wall solution offered little protection for the crew operating the gun and the time needed to set up the whole system would have taken too long to effectively fight back against any sudden enemy attack. This would later become apparent with the Möbelwagen, which led to the creation of turrets for the next designs, the Wirbelwind and Ostwind.

2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV Illustration by Godzilla

The same vehicle with folded sides

2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV with another hypothetical camouflage

Specifications
Dimensions (l-w-h)	5.92 x 2.95 x 3.25 m
Total weight, battle-ready	25 tonnes
Crew	5 (Commander/Gunner, Two Loaders, Radio Operator, and Driver)
Propulsion	Maybach HL 120 TR(M) 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm
Speed (road/off-road)	42 km/h, 25 km/h (cross-country)
Range (road/off-road)	210 km, 130 km (cross-country)
Primary Armament	2 cm Flakvierling 38
Secondary Armament	7.92 mm MG 34
Elevation	-10° to +100°
Armor	10 to 80 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.

WW2 German Prototypes

3.7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date February 25, 2022
2 Comments on 3.7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70

3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70. Illustrations by the Octo10 funded by our Patreon Campaign.

German Reich (1935)
Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – 1 Prototype Built

It is well known that prior to WW2, the Germans were heavily involved in tank development. What is less known, is that they also experimented and evaluated anti-tank self-propelled vehicles, based on half-track chassis. These were intended to provide a quick anti-tank response to enemy armor formation attacks. This overall concept, while tested, was never fully developed and only a small number of prototypes were made, including the vehicle known as 3.7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70. While a single prototype was built, sadly, the general development of German pre-war self-propelled anti-tank half-track is poorly documented in the sources.

3.7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70 Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.7-1 Panzerjager

History

During the early 1930s, in the Germany Military circles, the concept of using fast anti-tank vehicles that could outrun tanks was beginning to take shape. For this reason, on 20th November 1934, a program to develop and build such a vehicle was initiated. The chassis for this new self-propelled anti-tank vehicle project was to be based on a half-track. The choice to use a half-track chassis was probably based on its good overall road and off-road driving performance. While it could not fully match a tank’s off-road performance, especially on poor terrain, it still would perform better than ordinary wheeled trucks. The overall performance that this vehicle would be able to achieve was best described in the Wa Prw (short for Waffen Prüfungsamt, the automotive design office) report called ‘Offensive Defense Against Tanks’ (Offensive Abwehr von Panzerwagen) published at the end of October 1935.

In its introductory part, it described the earlier thinking that the only weapon that could successfully stop a tank was another tank. It followed on by elaborating that this was not the case anymore, providing examples that bombers were not employed against bombers, but instead this was the job of the smaller fighter aircraft. Another example was that smaller and more maneuverable ships could cause huge damage to much larger and expensive but slow warships. The key element in defeating these threats was superior speed and maneuverability. The armor came in second place, and only to a limited extent, not to hinder the performance of the overall mobility.

If these factors would also prove to be beneficial for an anti-tank vehicle was a good question. In order to test the new concept of an anti-tank vehicle, it should fulfill several criteria including high road speed; good overall cross-country speed, similar, or when possible, superior to that of tanks; small dimensions; accurate fire while stationary; effective firing range up to 700 meters; cheap; and if possible, use components that were already in production. The last request was a bit unusual but optional. The main gun was (if possible) able to be dismounted to be used as a towed gun

The two main problems in this report indicated for this vehicle were the creation of the chassis with enough mobility, and finding a sufficiently strong weapon to fit in it. In the case of the gun, it had to have the best possible armor penetration, but the recoil had to be manageable. Quite interestingly, this report also mentioned the possibility of alternatively using some kind of unspecified rocket launcher. The benefit of this weapon is no recoil and the armor-piercing round could be replaced with large high-explosive rockets.

Ultimately, only two trial vehicles were completed and submitted for testing during the period of 1935 and 1936. One of these was the 3.7 cm Panzerabwehr-Geschütz auf Selbstfahrlafette and the other one was simply described as Tankjager (during the early 1930s, the German Army used the term tank, later being fully replaced with Panzer).

3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70

For producing one such vehicle prototype, the Wa Prw issued a military contract to two firms, each designated to produce different necessary components. The company Hansa-Lloyd was tasked with building the chassis and the company Rheinmetall-Borsig for designing and building its main weapon and a turret. It was quite common practice in Germany, prior to the war, to include a number of different manufacturer companies in one project. The German industry at that time was still undeveloped and including other companies allowed them to gain valuable experience in armored vehicle design and construction.

When the vehicle was completed, it received an unusual but simple 3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette (self-propelled) L/70 designation. Unfortunately due to being poorly documented in the sources, not much is generally known about this vehicle. What is known is that it was completed in 1935.

Specifications

The Chassis

The 3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70 chassis was based on the HL kl3(H) half-track vehicle, developed by Hansa-Lloyd. A pre-war attempt to design a cheap and easy-to-produce half-track. This vehicle chassis could be divided into three major compartments. The front driver compartment was fully protected except for the wheels. The central firing compartment housed the main weapon. And lastly, the rear positioned engine compartment.

The Engine and the Running Gear

The 3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70 was powered by a Borgward engine, providing 70 hp @ 2,600 rpm. The engine was positioned to the rear of the chassis, somewhat unusual for German half-track vehicles. The installed transmission had 4 speeds, with a 2-speed transfer case. The maximum speed on the road was an excellent 50 km/h. While the cross-country speed is not listed in the sources it was likely slightly slower.

A view of the 3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70 engine bay. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

The torsion bar suspension consisted of one front drive sprocket, 5 road wheels, and a rear idler, larger than the wheels. Each track was 1.6 meters long. Two steering wheels were located to the front of the vehicle. These, like all German half-track designs, were not powered.

A drawing of the HL kl3(H) half-track chassis. Somewhat unusual for German half-tracks, the engine was placed to the rear. In front of it were the fuel tanks and the main gun mount base is visible. Lastly, the driver’s seat and steering wheel are in the front. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

Armored Body

On top of the chassis, a larger armored superstructure was placed. The overall armor thickness is unknown, but given the fact that it was intended to be a lightweight vehicle and easy to build, it would most likely provide protection against small-caliber bullets. The high angled armored superstructure slides also served to provide additional protection.

The front part of this armored superstructure where the driver was positioned, was provided with at least one hatch, which was placed on the right side. Sadly there is no photograph of the vehicle’s left side, but it’s highly possible that another door was also added to this side. For observing his surroundings, the driver was provided with three visor slits. The two front steering wheels were completely exposed and could be easily damaged by enemy fire. Whether this was intentional or hoped to be later covered in armored plates, given that this was only a prototype vehicle, is sadly unknown.

The driver’s interior was very cramped. The driver could see where he was going to two sides and one front visor slits. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

The center of the vehicle was provided with highly angled armor plates. These spread from the bottom towards the top. While this arrangement provided additional protection, it also provided the crew with somewhat more working space inside the vehicle. On the right side, possibly also on the left, a rectangular hatch was added, possibly to serve as an entering point for the crew but also for maintenance.

The angled armor is evident here. This helped to reduce the need for thicker armor, but complicated the overall production of this vehicle. The side rectangular hatch is noticeable here. No mudguard was provided for the tracks. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

The engine compartment had three ventilation grill hatches. One to the rear that could be opened and two on each side. Interestingly, in one photograph, these side hatches were covered by an armored plate. These probably offered a large target for the enemy and were thus replaced with simple armored cover. In addition, there was another two-part hatch placed on the top of the engine compartment.

Rear view of the 3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70 Source: www.armedconflicts.com

Turret

On top of the armored superstructure, an open-top turret was placed. Unlike a tank turret, the 3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70 turret was more like an extended armored shield of its main gun mount, somewhat similar to the later Sd. Kfz. 222 armored cars series. The front of the turret was occupied by the main gun positioned in the center. To the left of the gun was a hatch for the gun sight. A machine gun ball mount was placed on the opposite side. There were no side visor slits or hatches but given that the turret top was open, this was not needed. To the rear, a small hatch was added. It probably served to remove spent cartridges or was used for gun barrel removal. On top of the open turret, a round-shaped anti-aircraft machine gun mount was placed. The whole turret could rotate 360°.

The 3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70 armament consisted of one gun and two machine guns. The machine gun ball mount is located right of the main gun. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.7-1 Panzerjager

The turret top was completely open and exposed to elements of enemy fire from above. Source:www.armedconflicts.com

Armament

The main armament consisted of one 3.7 cm PaK L/70 anti-tank gun especially developed by Rheinmetall. It had a horizontal slide breach and was probably semi-automatic. This weapon is somewhat an enigma as very little is known about it. What is known is that when firing an armor-piercing round, which weighed some 0.710 kg, the muzzle velocity was 900 m/s. To the rear of the breach, a canvas bag was located to serve to catch any spent cartridges. The elevation of this weapon was -7° to +20°. The main ammunition storage bin was located behind the gun. The unusual feature of this gun was the cone-shaped muzzle brake. To improve the stability of the gun, a larger metal bar with two round cutouts was added to the rear of the gun.

A rear view of the 3,7 cm gun. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

The ammunition storage bin was placed behind the main gun. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

Side view of the 3.7 cm gun mount, with the canvas bag placed to the rear. In addition, the larger bar (with two round openings) stabilizer is also visible here. This mount also illustrates the vehicle’s overall small size, having barely enough room for it. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

The secondary armament consisted of two MG 34 7.92 mm machine guns. One was placed in the turret machine gun ball mount. The second one was placed on top of the turret in a specially designed anti-aircraft mount. No information is provided in the sources about the precise amount of ammunition for the main and secondary weapons.

The second Mg 34 was placed in a round anti-aircraft mount. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

The Crew

The number of crewmen is not mentioned in the sources. Given the vehicle’s overall small size, we can give an educated guess that it would likely consist of at least three crew members. The driver was positioned in the front driver compartment. Behind the driver’s compartment, the fighting compartment with the main gun was placed. On a few surviving photographs of this vehicle’s interior, it can be seen that two crew members were needed to operate the gun. The gunner, who was likely also the commander of the vehicle, and the loader. The gunner was positioned to the left of the gun while the loader was on the opposite side. It also appears given that both machine guns were placed on the right vehicle side and would be operated by the loader. This was far from perfect, as these two would be overburdened with more tasks than they would be able to handle. A third crew member would have greatly improved the performance of the gun operating crew, but there appears no available space for one inside the cramped fighting compartment.

Positions of the crew operating the gun, with the gunner to the left and the loader just behind him. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

Fate

According to Rheinmetall-Borsig documentation, salvaged after the war and dated from 1940, only one 3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70 vehicle was ever built. It was supposedly tested extensively prior to the war. As mentioned earlier, due to the lack of sources, the precise fate or use of this vehicle is not well documented. But the fact that only one vehicle was built gives us an indication that the design was not good enough to warrant serial production. The fate of the prototype is unknown, but it was probably scrapped during the war.

While not adopted for service, the single prototype was noted for being used for testing and evaluation. But ultimately it did not enter production. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

Conclusion

The 3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70 was a quite unusual concept developed by the Germans during the mid-1930s. It generally fulfilled a few aims of the German Army mostly regarding speed and firepower. The half-track chassis could achieve speed up to 50 km/h on roads, while the longer 3.7 cm gun likely had much better armor-piercing performance than the 3.7 cm Pak 36 that was in service at that time. The negative sides were the generally small and cramped interior, low armor thickness, use of a gun that was not in service, and that the half-track was generally not cheap for production. But the reasons why this project was rejected are sadly not available. Due to almost nonexistent sources on this unusual vehicle, we will never know its overall performance nor its reason for rejection.

3,7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70. Illustrations by the Octo10 funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Dimensions (l-w-h)	5.1 x 2 x 1.65 m
Total weight	6 tonnes
Crew	3 (Commander/Gunner, Driver and Loader)
Propulsion	Borgward 70 hp @ 2,600 rpm
Speed	50 km/h,
Armor	Unknown but probably light
Armament	3,7 cm PaK L/70

Sources

Walter J. Spielberger (1993), Fahrzeuge Des Deutschen Heeres 1909-1945, Motorbuch Verlag
https://www.armedconflicts.com/3-7-cm-Selbstfahrlafette-L-70-t34932

WW2 Soviet SPG Prototypes

SU-45

SU-45 Illustration by Phantom_25_Sniper

Soviet Union (1935)
Self-Propelled Gun – 1 Prototype Built

Prior to the Second World War, the Soviets were experimenting and developing a series of projects intended to improve the performance of already existing armored vehicles. One of these projects was an attempt to resolve the issues with the weak armament of Soviet amphibious tanks. This would lead to the creation of the experimental SU-45. While one prototype would be built, its poor performance would eventually lead to the cancelation of this project.

The SU-45. Source: Pinterest

The SU-37 project

The Soviet Scientific and Technical Department Agency of Automobiles and Tanks (which was part of the Ministry of Defense of Red Army) issued a request to the director of plant №37 to begin designing and building a new self-propelled vehicle based on the T-37A amphibious light tank. The timeline was quite short. The order was given on 22nd March and the first prototype was to be completed by 11th April the same year. In reality, this task could not be achieved effectively in such a short period of time.

The T-37A was an amphibious light tank developed during the early 1930s in the Soviet Union. It was lightly protected and armed with only a single machine gun. The crew consisted of the driver and the commander/machine gunner. The T-37A was primarily intended to perform reconnaissance operations. Over 2,000 vehicles would be built, with most being lost during Operation Barbarossa in 1941.

T-37A amphibious light tank. Source: https://armored-vehicles.fandom.com/wiki/T-37

When the tactical and technical requirements arrived, they included an option to use either an unchanged T-37A chassis or to build a completely new chassis with some elements taken from this vehicle. Other requirements included a maximum weight of the vehicle of 3 tonnes. The armament would include one 45 mm gun with a traverse of 30° (in both directions) and elevation of -8° to +25° and a DP machine gun. The ammunition load for the gun was to be 50 rounds, with an additional 1,000 for the machine gun. The overall armor protection had to be at least 5 mm thick (except the roof, which would be open-top) including an armored shield for the gun.

The new vehicle, which would receive the SU-37 (Samokhodnaya ustanovka – self-propelled) designation, was to have the same amphibious properties as the T-37A. It should have supplemented the weak firepower of the T-37A formations with its stronger armament. In addition, it was to fulfill a mobile anti-tank role on a regimental level.

The improved SU-45 replacement project

Despite the short-term development goal, the actual design work on the new self-propelled vehicle dragged on. Almost from the start, a number of problems arose. One issue was the weight of the new vehicle was much larger than expected. This prevented it from being able to cross water obstacles. Another even greater problem was that many components for the T-37A were no longer being produced. A team of engineers under the leadership of I. Arharov was tasked with resolving the problems with the SU-37 and trying to find a better solution.

In November 1935, a mock-up version of the new modified self-propelled vehicle was presented to the Agency of Automobiles and Tanks of the Ministry of Defense. The basis for this new vehicle was the T-38 amphibious light tank. The T-38 was an improved version of the T-37A. It had a slightly modified suspension, overall simpler construction, better buoyancy properties, and the turret position was changed to the left side of the hull. The armament, crew configuration, and armor were the same. Over 1,200 of his vehicles would be built from 1936 to 1939.

The T-38 amphibious light tank. Source:panzerserra.blogspot.com

This vehicle incorporated the chassis, transmission, and engine from the T-38. The main gun was still the same 45 mm anti-tank gun. The driver/gunner was initially positioned on the right side. The commission requested that the driver’s position be changed to the left side and that he no longer have to operate the gun. The first prototype was to be built by the start of 1936.

Name

In the documents of the Agency of Automobiles and Tanks of the Ministry of Defense, the project received the “SU-45” designation. It is somewhat confusing that the Soviet Military Authorities decided to name the previous prototype based on the chassis on which it was based (SU-37 from T-37A) and the second prototype by the main gun caliber. This designation practice would continue on, many later developed self-propelled vehicles receiving names based on their gun caliber.

Author D. Nešić, (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-SSSR) notes that the designation for this vehicle was T-45. This should not be confused with a Soviet attempt to improve the T-60 tank during the Second World War. If this is a mistake or misunderstanding on behalf of the author is difficult to know.

Specifications

Note that, due to the generally obscure history of this vehicle, sources greatly disagree about nearly all of the SU-45 components.

Chassis

For the construction of the SU-45, a modified chassis of a T-38 light amphibious tank was used. The front part of the chassis housed the crew and the main gun. To the rear, the engine and the transmission were placed.

Engine and transmission

The SU-45 was powered by a four-cylinder liquid cooling 40-45 hp GAZ-A engine. The maximum speed of the SU-45 with this engine, on a good road, was 45 km/h. The off-road speed and operational range are unknown. The GAZ-A engine was started by using a MAF-4001 electrical starter. The position of the transmission was changed to the rear.

Suspension

With the increased number of crewmen, added ammunition, and other changes, the weight of the vehicle reached 4.5 tonnes (or 4.3 tonnes, depending on the source). The T-38 running gear had to be redesigned. This included adding an additional roadwheel (on both sides), making it five in total (from the original four on the T-38). While the added wheel was suspended individually, the remaining four were placed in pairs on a bogie suspension unit. All five wheels were rubber-tired. The idler and drive sprocket on the SU-45, in comparison to the T-38, had switched positions. The driver sprocket was now at the rear, while the idler was at the front. The two return rollers remained unchanged.

Side view of the T-38’s suspension, which had four wheels placed in pairs on two bogies. Note the Finnish swastika on the turret. Source: panzerserra.blogspot.com/

Close-up view of the modified SU-45 suspension which included one additional road wheel and the changed positions of the idler and drive sprocket. Source: Pinterest

Superstructure

Not much is detailed in the sources about the superstructure’s design. The SU-45 was actually an open-topped vehicle. To shield the crew from the weather and elements, a canvas cover could be placed on top of the vehicle. Its overall construction, based on the few existing photographs, appears to have been simple in design. The SU-45’s side armor plates were flat, while the front plate was at an angle. The front, where the crew compartment was located, was slightly raised in comparison to the rear engine compartment. This was meant to provide the crew with protection but also to reduce the vehicle’s overall weight.

On the right front plate, a large square-shaped driver’s visor was placed. In its center, a smaller vision port was located. On the opposite side of it, a ball mount for the machine gun was located. Close to it, a pyramid-shaped cover can be seen. Its purpose is not clear, but it is likely to have been a protective cover for the gun’s sights.

Armament

The 45 mm M1932 anti-tank gun was chosen as the main armament of this vehicle. It was the standard Soviet infantry anti-tank gun prior to and during the first years of the war. While it would be replaced with larger caliber weapons, due to the large production numbers, it remained in use during the war. The 45 mm M1932’s armor penetration at 500 m (at 0 degrees) was 38 mm. The rate of fire was some 12 rounds per minute.

The 45 mm M1932 anti-tank gun. Source: Wiki

The main gun on the SU-45 was positioned in the front center of the vehicle. It was protected by a round shield placed in front of the gun. The elevation of the gun was -3° to +10°, while the traverse was 10° in both directions. The ammunition load consisted of (depending on the sources) between 50 to 100 rounds. The latter number seems to be unlikely, given the small size of the vehicle. The secondary armament consisted of one 7.62 mm DT machine gun. It was placed in a ball mount and positioned to the left side of the vehicle. It was operated by the vehicle’s commander. The ammunition load for this machine gun was around 1,100 rounds. The machine gun was also provided with a pivoting mount to be used as an anti-aircraft weapon.

Front view of the SU-45. The main weapon, with its curved gun shield, is located in the front. Left of it, the driver’s observation hatch with a small slit visor can be seen. On the opposite side, the machine gun ball mount (without the machine gun itself) is noticeable. Interestingly, sources like A.G. Solyankin (Отечественные бронированные машины. XX век Том 1) stated that this is not the SU-45 but the SU-37. Due to the general obscurity of the Soviet armored vehicles prototypes of the time, especially in western literature, this should not come as a surprise. Source: Pinterest

The Crew

Depending on the source, this vehicle is listed to have either two or three crew members. In case it had three crew members, these included a commander/gunner, loader, and the driver. Despite initial plans to change the position of the driver to the left, on the prototype, he was seated on the right side. The remaining crew members were positioned opposite the driver. The commander was overburdened, as he had to operate the gun and the machine gun and command the vehicle, greatly reducing his effectiveness.

Armor protection

The SU-45 was lightly protected, with armor plate thicknesses ranging from 6 mm on the sides to 9 mm on the front. These armor plates were connected using screws and rivets. This armor thickness was sufficient, at best, against small-caliber bullets.

Ultimate fate

Despite the plans to complete the first prototype by January 1st, 1936, due to many delays, it was only completed in the spring of that year. Once ready, a series of trails with the SU-45 were carried out. During these, a number of flaws in the design were noted. The T-38 chassis was overloaded and often led to mechanical breakdowns. The engine was underpowered, with an ineffective cooling system which often led to overheating. The transmission was also problematic and unreliable.

Seeing the results of these trials, the Agency of Automobiles and Tanks of the Ministry of Defense insisted that all these flaws and problems be resolved. The experiment would be carried on to the experimental T-38M chassis, but ultimately lead nowhere, and the whole SU-45 project was scrapped.

Conclusion

The SU-45 was intended as a lightweight self-propelled vehicle which was to provide additional support fire for the amphibious light tanks in cooperation with other units. The SU-45 design ultimately proved to be a failure. Having too great weight prevented it from being used as an amphibious vehicle. The engine had overheating problems. While it had much-improved firepower in comparison to the vehicle it was based on, it retained weak armor protection. This vehicle would never enter production and the Soviet units had to rely on their obsolete T-37 and T-38 vehicles. During the Second World War, these also proved to be unsatisfactory designs in many regards.

SU-45 right side view

Left side

Front side

Rear side

Top view. All illustrations by Iustin Drăgan ‘Phantom_25_Sniper’ Nicolae, funded by our Patreon campaign.

SU-45 specifications
Dimensions (L-w-h)	4.2 x 2.36 x 1.62 m
Weight	4.3 to 4.5 tonnes
Crew	3 (Commander/Gunner, Loader, and Drive)
Propulsion	40-45 HP GAZ-A engine
Speed (road)	45 km/h
Primary Armament	45 mm M1932
Secondary Armament	7.62 mm DT machine gun
Armor	6 to 9 mm
Total production	1

Source

L. Ness (2012) World War II tanks, Harper Collins Publisher
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-SSSR, Beograd
Svirin M. N. (2008) Самоходки Сталина. История советской САУ 1919-1945, Эксмо
A.G. Solyankin (2002) Отечественные бронированные машины. XX век Том 1, Цейхгауз
http://aviarmor.net/tww2/tanks/ussr/su-45.htm

Has Own Video WW2 German SPAAG Prototypes

Flakpanzer IV (3.7 cm Zwillingflak 43) ‘Ostwind II’

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date February 14, 2022
7 Comments on Flakpanzer IV (3.7 cm Zwillingflak 43) ‘Ostwind II’

Flakpanzer IV 3.7 cm Zwillingflak 43 ‘Ostwind II’ Illustrations by Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

German Reich (1945)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun – Possibly 1 Prototype Built

In the later stages of the Second World War, the Germans lost control over the skies and their ground forces had to endure extensive enemy air attack raids. The use of self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAG) based on half-track chassis offered some way to fight back, but these were themselves highly vulnerable, as they lacked proper armor protection. A SPAAG based on a tank chassis was more desirable. Starting from 1944, the German focus was on producing vehicles based on the Panzer IV chassis. The vehicle known as the Ostwind (Eng. Eastwind) was one of them, armed with a single 3.7 cm anti-aircraft gun placed in an open-topped turret. In the hopes of further increasing its firepower, the Germans tested the installation of two 3.7 cm guns in a modified turret which led to possibly the creation of a single Ostwind II prototype.

An Ostwind II drawing- There are no known surviving pictures of it, and even the construction of a single prototype is debated. Source: Pinterest

A Brief History of the Flakpanzer IV Ostwind

The first real effort to create a self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicle based on a tank chassis, known as a Flakpanzer in German, was the Flakpanzer 38(t). While it was built in some numbers, its design was unsuccessful given the weak firepower, lack of a fully protected turret, and its overall small size. The Panzer IV chassis was deemed more suitable for this task. The first such vehicle, known as the Möbelwagen to its crews, while having a good gun, suffered from the same problems as the previous vehicle. It needed time to properly set up for firing, which reduced its combat effectiveness. For these reasons, the German Army focused on developing a Flakpanzer based on the Panzer IV having a fully rotating and protected turret. This would lead to the creation of two similar vehicles. The first introduced was the so-called Wirbelwind, armed with four 2 cm anti-aircraft guns. The second vehicle was the Ostwind, which was quite similar in appearance, being armed with a single 3.7 cm anti-aircraft gun. Both vehicles were quite simple in design and simply replaced the original Panzer IV turret with an open-top turret with the main gun placed in it.

Unusually, the Ostwind, similar to the Wirbelwind, was developed and built by the German Army itself, without the inclusion of any commercial firms. Due to the worsening economic situation, the use of newly produced tank chassis was limited at best, so repaired and returned from the front chassis had to be reused for this project. While vehicles such as the Ostwind were in great demand, there were huge delays in production, which hindered its introduction to service. By the time the war ended, only between 6 and 43 such vehicles are believed to have been built, seeing limited combat action.

The 3.7 cm Flak 43 Flakpanzer IV, better known as Ostwind. Source: warspot.ru

An Improved Model

The general development history of the Ostwind II vehicle is, sadly, quite poorly documented in the sources, with very little information available. What is known is that it was developed by the Ostbau-Sagan workshop from Silesia, which was also involved in the development of the Ostwind Flakpanzer. The main weapon was provided by Gustloff-Werke from Suhl. The request to develop a Flakpanzer armed with two 3.7 cm anti-aircraft guns was given by Adolf Hitler in 1943. During May 1944 several wooded mock-up Flakpanzer projects were presented to a military delegation led by Heinz Guderian. One of these was a wooden mock-up of a Flakpanzer IV armed with 3.7 cm Flakzwilling 43 in its original configuration developed by Alkett. The delegation rejected this project and focused instead on the Wirbelwind, which was also presented at that time. The development of a Flakpanzer IV armed with two 3.7 cm anti-aircraft guns resumed sometime at the end of 1944. The first working prototype was completed only in January 1945. Unfortunately, besides a few drawings, no known photographs are believed to have survived to this day, and questions remain as to if even a prototype was built at all.

Name

The name of this vehicle is often described as being Ostwind II. Due to the lack of information in the sources, it is almost impossible to determine if this was an official or post-war invented designation. This article uses the Ostwind II designation, mostly for the sake of simplicity.

Design

Chassis

The Ostwind II, like its predecessor, would be made using modified Panzer IV chassis. Due to the worsening situation with the war, new chassis could not be spared for projects besides the original tank configuration. The chassis used would have varied depending on what was available on hand. This would most likely have included the Panzer IV Ausf.H and J chassis, but out of necessity, older chassis may have also been used.

Suspension

The suspension and running gear were the same as those of the original Panzer IV, with no changes to its construction. It consisted of eight pairs of small road wheels on each side, with every two pairs suspended by leaf-spring units. There was a front-drive sprocket, a rear idler, and three to four (depending on the model used) return rollers per side.

Engine

The engine was the Maybach HL 120 TRM, which produced 272 hp at 2,800 rpm. The original Ostwind had a weight of 25 tonnes. The improved version would have been heavier than that by about 1.5 tonnes, given the extra weight of the main armament. The new crew member should also be included, but also any additional spare ammunition needed to load the two guns. This would likely affect the overall driving performance, but to which extent is difficult to tell without any explicit source.

Superstructure

The upper tank hull was unchanged from the original Panzer IV. The driver’s front observation hatch and the ball-mounted hull machine gun remained the same as well. The installation of the main armament would most likely be a direct copy of the Ostwind, possibly with some minor modifications, such as strengthening the overall construction of the mount, given the extra weight added by the gun and the additional crew member. Two, or even more, in order to cope with the extra weight, metal beams were welded inside the Panzer IV hull to make a stable platform on which the twin 3.7 cm guns were placed.

Armor

Depending on the chassis used for the Ostwind II, there may have been slight differences in armor thickness. In general, the later built Panzer IVs had a maximum frontal armor thickness of 80 mm. The sides were much thinner, at 30 mm, while the rear was 20 mm thick.

Turret

The Ostwind II turret design would have been quite similar to the previous version in visual appearance, with some differences. The turret was open-topped, in order to provide a better view of the surroundings and to reduce overall construction costs. This would have also helped remove the gun fumes properly, as the Germans never properly developed a full-enclosed anti-aircraft turret with an adequate ventilation unit. The turret consisted of 12 welded armor plates. Due to the new gun and the additional crew member, its overall internal layout and its size had to be changed slightly. In addition, as the two guns were placed side by side, two new openings to the front armor had to be made. There would also be a small hatch for the gun operator’s sight, placed on the right front side of the turret.

The Ostwind II turret would have been quite similar in appearance to its predecessor, with some differences. This would include two openings for the guns, external changes, and probably even its overall size. Source: warspot.ru

The turret traverse mechanism would most likely be a copy of the one used on the Ostwind, which is itself poorly documented. A steering rod was used to connect the twin Flak guns’ traversing mechanism and the Panzer IV turret ring. This allowed the crew to move the turret by using the gun traverse. The turret would be placed on a ring-shaped turret base welded to the hull top, with added ball bearings to help with the rotation. It is unknown if the Ostwind II would have the pyramid-shaped sheet of armor welded to the lower part of the front turret. Its purpose was to provide additional protection against any possible ricochets from smaller caliber rounds in the direction of the vehicle’s hull.

The turret armor protection would probably have remained the same as on the first version in order to save time and resources. The armor thickness would have been 16 mm of all-around armor placed at a 30° angle. The secondary sources disagree on the turret armor thickness, as both 16 mm and 25 mm of armor are often attributed. For example, W. J. Spielberger (Gepard, The History of German Anti-Aircraft Tanks) mentions that the armor thickness was originally 16 mm, but later, during production, it was increased to 25 mm. T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No. 12-1 – Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV and other Flakpanzer projects development and production from 1942 to 1945) list that it was 16 mm thick.

Armament

The main weapon used was the 3.7 cm Zwillingflak 43 (also sometimes called Zwillingflak 44). This weapon was basically just two 3.7 cm Flak 43s placed one above the other. 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.

The Zwillingflak 43 was built-in smaller numbers during the closing years of the war. Source: www.team-yankee.com

What is somewhat unusual is that this gun was not placed in its original configuration, but instead side by side, with some 30 cm distance between the two barrels. This is odd, as it would have been much easier to just install the gun as it was into the Ostwind II turret. The most obvious reason for this kind of installation was reducing the overall height. With such an over-and-under configuration, in order to load the upper gun, the loader would have to stand up, which would expose him to enemy fire. In addition, with a height of nearly 3 m, the Ostwind’s weakly armored turret was too exposed to enemy fire. Raising the turret height would only increase the chances of being hit by enemy fire. Another reason would have been the difficulty of putting two loaders on the same side in the relatively cramped turret. The side-by-side configuration may have complicated production and development, but would at least offer more effective use of internal turret space.

The gun itself had to be modified in order to fit inside the turret. The lower part of the carriage and the original gun shield were removed. In order to cover the two front embrasure openings, smaller rectangular shields would be placed in front of each gun barrel. In addition, the spent ammunition baskets had to be smaller.

The Zwillingflak 43 could rotate a full 360°, with a range of gun elevation between – 10° to + 90°. The maximum rate of fire was 500 rounds per minute, but 360 was a more practical rate. With a muzzle velocity of 820 mps, the maximum effective ceiling was 4,800 m. The ammunition load is unknown, but in order to feed the two guns, it (at least in theory) had to be increased from the previous version. The Ostwind ammunition load differs between sources, ranging from 400 up to 1,000 spare rounds. It is possible that an ammunition trailer may have been used on the Ostwind II, but how practical it would be in a real combat situation would be questionable. It must not be forgotten that the German economy in 1945 was in a complete state of chaos and ammunition or fuel stocks were in short supply. For self-defense, the crew could rely on the hull-mounted MG 34, retained from the Panzer IV design, and their personal weapons.

Author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka) mentioned that the Ostwind II was armed with two 3 cm Flakvierling MK 103 anti-aircraft guns. He also mentioned that the ammunition load was 2,800 rounds. This is most likely erroneous, mistaking it with the Destroyer 45 based on the Wirbelwind. He also mentioned two 3 cm guns, when ‘Flakvierling’ actually means four guns.

Crew

The crew of the Ostwind II would likely consist of a commander, gunner, radio operator, driver, and loader. The driver and radio operator were placed in the vehicle’s hull. For the radio operator, the Fu 5 and Fu 2 radio equipment were provided. In addition, the radio operator also operated the hull-mounted machine gun.

The positions of the remaining crew members are not listed in the sources. But, given its gun main characteristics, their positions can be deduced. The 3.7 cm Flak 43 gunner position was on the right side, with the position somewhere on the right of the turret. As the two guns were placed side by side, the two loaders had to be placed opposite each other. While two loaders would be needed to properly feed the main guns, it is possible that, due to lack of personnel or space, the commander may have acted as the loader on the left side. This would hinder the main command task, but would provide more working room in the otherwise cramped turret. Given the lack of information, this is merely speculation. The commander would be placed on the left rear side of the turret. The working conditions in the Ostwind II turret would be quite difficult due to the lack of working space. This was actually a problem even on the previous Ostwind vehicle, and was never effectively solved.

The Ostwind II turret crew consisted of three (four, according to some sources) men, with the gunner placed on the right and the commander and the loader opposite him. The Ostwind II would probably have had to have room for extra crew members needed to feed the guns. Source: warspot.ru

The Fate of the Project

According to Walter J. Spielberger (Gepard, The History of German Anti-Aircraft Tanks), once the prototype was completed, it was, together with the improved Wirbelwind (known as Zerstörer 45, Eng. Destroyer), transported to the training center at Ohrdruf, in Thuringia. What happened to them after this point is not clear. Due to the chaos and destruction of the late stages of the war, they may have been used as part of an ad hoc unit in order to fight the advancing Allied formations. It is more likely that they did not see any action, given their experimental nature.

It is also important to consider the fact that the whole Ostwind II construction may have also ended in failure. The installation of two 3.7 cm guns in the cramped modified Ostwind turret may have not been possible. It is also possible that the often mentioned prototype did not even have a fully operational turret and was just used to see if the whole installation was even feasible. As such, some, including Hilary L. Doyle, have speculated that not even a prototype was built, alleging Germany’s almost non-existent industrial capacity at the time. H. L. Doyle expressed suspicion that by 1945 the Germans had industrial capabilities to actually build the Ostwind II vehicle, so it seems unlikely that even one fully operational prototype was ever completed.

Other sources, including author D. Terlisten (Nuts and Bolts Vol.13 Flakpanzer, Wirbelwind and Ostwind) mentions a report from Ostbau-Sagan discovered after the war that mentions that some turrets (plural, although the precise number is not listed) for the Ostwind II were completed. D. Nešić, (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka) mentions that one prototype was built and that a production order for 100 vehicles was given, which did not materialize due to the end of the war.

Overall, for several reasons, the production of the new Ostwind II was not possible. Due to the Allied advance, the Ostabu-Sagan facility had to be evacuated to Teplitz-Schonau in occupied Czechoslovakia. This caused major delays and confusion during the Flakpanzer production. The lack of resources and spare Panzer IV chassis was also a major issue, not to mention the general lack of spare ammunition and fuel at this stage of the war.

Conclusion

The Ostwind II was certainly an interesting Flakpanzer design. It could have provided the Germans with a vehicle with sufficient firepower to be a serious threat to the Allies. In reality, it is not clear if the whole installation was without any mechanical issue. Another problem was its late conception, with a possible prototype being completed at the start of 1945, though even this is questionable. Given the chaotic state of Germany at that time, serial production would not have been possible.

Flakpanzer IV 3.7 cm Zwillingflak 43 ‘Ostwind II’ Illustratied by Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Specifications
Dimensions	5.92 x 2.9 x 2.9 m
Total weight,	25 to 27 tonnes
Crew	6 (Commander, Gunner, Two Loaders, Radio Operator, and Driver)
Primary Armament	3.7 cm Zwillingflak 43
Secondary Armament	7.92 mm MG 34
Propulsion	Maybach HL 120 TR(M) 265 HP @ 2,600 rpm
Armor	10 to 80 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.
Walter J. Spielberger (1993). Panzer IV and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
D. Doyle (2005). German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
.

Has Own Video WW2 German SPAAG Prototypes

Flakpanzer IV (3 cm Flakvierling) ‘Zerstörer 45’

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date February 4, 2022
No Comments on Flakpanzer IV (3 cm Flakvierling) ‘Zerstörer 45’

Flakpanzer IV 3 cm Flakvierling ‘Zerstörer 45’ Illustrations by Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

German Reich (1944)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun – Possibly Up To 2 Prototypes Built

In the later stages of the Second World War, the Germans lost control over the skies and their ground forces had to endure extensive enemy air attacks. The use of self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAGs) based on half-track chassis offered some way to fight back, but these were themselves highly vulnerable, as they lacked proper armor protection. A SPAAG based on a tank chassis was more desirable. Starting from 1944, the German focus was on producing such vehicles based on the Panzer IV chassis. This led to the development of the Flakpanzer IV 2 cm Flak 38 Vierling, better known today as the Wirbelwind (Eng. Whirlwind). With its four 2 cm guns, it shot down many Allied aircraft, but by late 1944 standards, something with more firepower was desired and needed. Thus, the Germans developed a new version armed with four 3 cm anti-aircraft guns. The late start of this project meant that only a few prototypes were allegedly created by the war’s end.

Drawing of how the Flakpanzer IV 3 cm Flakvierling may have looked. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

The Wirbelwind

The first real effort to create a self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicle based on a tank chassis, known as a ‘Flakpanzer’ in German, was the Flakpanzer 38(t). While it was built in some numbers, its design was unsuccessful given its weak firepower, lack of a fully protective turret, and its overall small size. The Panzer IV chassis was deemed more suitable for this task. The first such vehicle, known as the Möbelwagen to its crews, while having a good gun, suffered from the same problems as the previous vehicle. It needed time to properly set up for firing, which reduced its combat effectiveness. For these reasons, the German Army focused on developing a Flakpanzer based on the Panzer IV with a fully rotating and protected turret. This led to the creation of the Wirbelwind, armed with four 2 cm anti-aircraft guns placed in a simple open-topped turret.

The Wirbelwind was developed and built by the German Army itself, without the inclusion of any commercial firms. Due to the worsening economic situation and in order to speed up its overall production, repaired vehicles and chassis returned from the front were mostly reused for this project. From July 1944 to January 1945, some 100 vehicles (the number differs between sources) would be built. These would see service both on the Western and Eastern fronts, proving to be effective weapons.

The Wirbelwind self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicle. Source: weaponsystems.net

Development of the Flakpanzer IV 3 cm Flakvierling

In German Army service, the Wirbelwind was seen as a temporary solution until better-armed self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicles could be developed. By late 1944, a new proposal emerged to simply upgrade the Wirbelwind with more potent weapons. This would lead to the creation of a new vehicle armed with four 3 cm anti-aircraft cannons, known as the Flakpanzer IV 3 cm Flakvierling.

The overall history of this vehicle is quite obscure due to the general lack of information and the late start of the project. In November 1944, Ostbau-Sagan, a small German Army-organized workshop, which was involved in the design and construction of the Flakpanzer IV projects, presented the German Army officials with a new self-propelled anti-aircraft prototype. They reused the Flakpanzer IV (Möbelwagen) replacing its single 3.7 cm armament with four 3 cm Flak 103/38 anti-aircraft guns. This vehicle was used mainly for testing and evaluation. Further development of the project focused more on installing this armament into a Wirbelwind. It is likely that they wanted to reduce the overall design and production time.

Name

The name of this vehicle was Flakpanzer IV 3 cm Flakvierling. It was common for the Flakpanzer IV series to simply add the type and the caliber of its main armament to distinguish them from each other. It is quite common in the sources to see the Zerstörer (Eng. Destroyer) 45 designation attached to this vehicle. It is difficult to establish if this was an official designation or a name given after the war. Regardless, this article will refer to it as the Zerstörer 45 for the sake of simplicity.

Design

Due to the little existing information, the precise internal design of the Zerstörer 45 is unknown.

Chassis

For the construction of the Zerstörer 45, a Panzer IV chassis would have been used. Due to the worsening economic situation, new chassis could not be spared for such auxiliary vehicles. The chassis used would have varied depending on what was available on hand. This would most likely have included the Panzer IV Ausf.H and J chassis, but out of desperation, older chassis may have also been used.

Suspension

The suspension and running gear were the same as those of the original Panzer IV, with no changes to its construction. This consisted of eight pairs of small road wheels on each side, with every two pairs suspended by leaf-spring units. There was a front-drive sprocket, a rear idler, and three to four (depending on the model used) return rollers per side.

Engine

The Zerstörer 45 was to be powered by a Maybach HL 120 TRM which produced 272 hp at 2,800 rpm. While the Wirbelwind weighed some 22 tonnes, the Zerstörer 45 would have been slightly heavier than that. This would likely have affected the overall driving performance, but to what extent is difficult to tell without any explicit source.

Superstructure

The upper tank hull was unchanged from the original Panzer IV. The driver’s front observation hatch and the ball-mounted hull machine gun remained the same as well. The installation of the main armament was more or less a direct copy of the Wirbelwind design, possibly with some minor modifications. The major change to the Panzer IV chassis would be adding a stable firing platform for the main armament, which would be placed on the turret ring. What kind of platform is unknown, but likely to have been similar to that of the Wirbelwind.

Turret

The Zerstörer 45 was more or less just an improved Wirbelwind, so it would have utilized many of the same components. The nine-sided open-topped turret’s overall design would likely have been the same, with some minor changes. It was open to the top in order to provide a better view of the surroundings and to reduce overall construction costs. This would have also helped remove the gun fumes properly, as the Germans never properly developed a full-enclosed anti-aircraft turret with an adequate ventilation unit. Each of these nine-sided plates was built by welding two angled armored plates. The lower plates were angled outwards and the upper ones were angled towards the inside. The angled armor provided some extra protection but, in general, it could only protect the crew from small-caliber weapons or splinters. The upper front armor plate, between the Flak barrels, had a small hatch that could be opened to allow the gunner to see and engage ground targets.

The Wirbelwind turret was nine-sided and was open-topped. Its overall design for the Zerstörer 45 project would likely have received minimal changes in the hope of speeding up the development. Some changes were likely necessary in order to fit the somewhat larger armament. Source: warspot.ru

In order to make the construction of this vehicle easier, no extra traverse mechanism was provided. The turret was instead traversed by using the main gun traverse. The new turret was, in essence, just an extended gun shield. The ring-shaped turret base was welded to the hull top. To help with the rotation, ball bearings were added into this base, which made turret movement much easier.

Armor

Depending on the chassis used for the Zerstörer 45, there may have been slight differences in the armor thickness. In general, the later built Panzer IVs had a maximum frontal armor thickness of 80 mm. The sides were much thinner, at 30 mm, while the rear was 20 mm thick.

The turret armor protection would likely have been unchanged from the Wirbelwind, in the hope of saving development time and resources. If this is true, the armor thickness would have been 16 mm of all-around armor, with the top being completely opened. The side and front plates were placed at 21° to 27° angle. The rear plates were placed at a 14° to 20° angle

Armament

The most obvious change introduced on the Zerstörer 45 was the installation of the 3 cm Flakvierling anti-aircraft gun. This weapon was introduced to service (in single barrel version) as the 3 cm Flak 103/38 during 1944. It is also often named as the ‘Jaboschreck’,o which can be translated as terror or fright (Ger. Schreck) of the fast ground attack aircraft (Jagdbomber in German or just Jabo for short). In reality, if it would have lived up to its name is quite questionable. It was built as a combination of the aircraft-based 3 cm MK 103 cannon and the 2 cm Flak 38 mounting, mostly to get it in operational service as soon as possible and to be cheap to produce. In mid-1944, Rheinmetall-Borsig was tasked with the production of some 2,000 guns, in addition to 1,000 guns that were to be built by Gustloffwerke, but only small numbers were produced by the end of the war.

The 3 cm Flak 38 was a gas-operated and fully automatic gun capable of firing at 450 rpm, but the more practical rate of fire was 250 rpm. The 3 cm Flak 103/38 introduced a new belt-fed system which replaced the older 20 round magazine fed system. The maximum firing range at ground targets was around 5,700 m, while airborne targets could be hit at 4,700 m. It had a 360° traverse and -10° to +80° elevation.

Late into the war, a four-barreled version of the 3 cm MK 103, known as the 3 cm Flakvierling, was tested and possibly even built-in smaller numbers. Due to the late introduction, the overall characteristics of this four-barreled version are barely mentioned in the sources. Based on a few available photographs, it was provided with cylindrical-shaped magazines that were fixed to the gun but could be opened to place belt-fed ammunition inside of them. Another interesting feature was that these ammunition magazines were placed above (on the upper) and under (on the lower) guns, not on the side, like for the 2 cm four-barreled version.

Lastly, for self-defense, the crew could rely on the hull-mounted MG 34, retained from the Panzer IV design, and their personal weapons.

The 3 cm Flak 103/38. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

The 3 cm Flakvierling anti-aircraft gun. Note the muzzle brakes added in the hope of providing better stability during firing. In addition, the original 2 cm Flak 20 round magazines were replaced with the new belt-fed system with disintegrating links. These were stored in the four larger cylindrical-shaped magazines. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

Crew

The crew of the Zerstörer 45 would likely consist of a commander/gunner, radio operator, driver, and one or two loaders. The driver and radio operator were placed in the vehicle’s hull. The positions of the remaining crewmembers are not listed in the sources. Given its gun’s main characteristics, their positions can be deduced. The 3 cm Flak38 commander/gunner position was to the rear of the gun. Given the use of a belt-fed system, it is possible that only a single loader would be placed in the turret. This seems plausible, given the general lack of manpower by 1945, but it would have greatly increased the reloading time of the main armament. On the other hand, the prolonged fire interval of the belt-fed system was probably sufficient to destroy or just drive off the attacking aircraft long enough for the crew to reload the main armament. In this case, the commander may have also helped to reload the armament faster. It is also possible that two loaders were placed in the turret too, each responsible for reloading two guns.

The Wirbelwind turret configuration included the commander/gunner, who was seated to the rear of the main gun. Left and right of the gun were the two loaders. Source: weaponsystems.net

The Fate of the Project

According to author Walter J. Spielberger (Gepard: The History of German Anti-Aircraft Tanks), two such vehicles were built by the end of 1944. What happened after that is not clear. It appears that at least one of them was, alongside the Ostwind II, transported to the training center at Ohrdruf in Thuringia. If these vehicles were ever actually fully completed and if there were any defects with the overall design is unknown. Given their late introduction and unavailability of sources, this is unclear. Authors H. F. Duske, T. Greenland and F. Schulz (Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind and Ostwind) mention that at least 6 ground mounts for the Zerstörer 45 were built. Author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka), on the other hand, mentions that only one such vehicle was produced.

Conclusion

The Zerstörer 45 was another German World War Two design that is shrouded in mystery. While some sources claim that at least two were completed, it is not well known if the whole installation was viable. For example, the ground version of the 3 cm cannon, while effective when used against enemy aircraft, was noted to have a number of defects, such as strong vibrations during firing, which affected its precision, something the Germans tried to improve but never truly resolved. Given its late introduction, the chaotic state of Germany was in, with ammunition, manpower, and fuel in short supply. The Zerstörer 45 had great potential to be a good anti-aircraft weapon, at least in theory. In reality, the whole project was undertaken under harsh conditions of 1945 and was simply over-ambitious, without any real chance of getting into mass service.

IFlakpanzer IV 3 cm Flakvierling ‘Zerstörer 45’ Illustrations by Godzilla funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	5.92 x 2.9 x 2.76 m
Total weight, battle-ready	25 tonnes
Crew	5 Commander/Gunner, Two Loaders, Radio Operator and Driver
Propulsion	Maybach HL 120 TR(M) 265 HP @ 2600 rpm
Range	320 km on road; 210 km off-road
Primary Armament	Four 3 cm Flak 103/38
Secondary Armament	MG34 machine gun
Armor	10 to 80 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.
Walter J. Spielberger (1993). Panzer IV and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
D. Doyle (2005) German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
H. F. Duske, T. Greenland and F. Schulz (2005) Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind and Ostwind, Nuts and Bolts vol.13

WW2 German Panzer IV

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.D mit 5 cm KwK 39 L/60

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date January 29, 2022
2 Comments on Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.D mit 5 cm KwK 39 L/60

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.D mit 5 cm KwK 39 L/60

German Reich (1941)
Experimental Medium Tank – 1 Prototype

The Panzer IV’s 7.5 cm short-barrel gun was primarily designed as a support weapon that was to destroy enemy fortified positions, while its 3.7 cm-armed Panzer III counterpart was to engage enemy armor. Despite this, the 7.5 cm gun still had enough firepower to be a serious threat to many early tank designs encountered in the invasions of Poland and the West. By 1941 standards, however, it was deemed insufficient by the Germans, who wanted a gun with increased armor penetration. It was for this reason that works on such a project was initiated, which ultimately led to the development of a single 5 cm L/60 armed Panzer IV based on the Ausf.D version.

Drawing of the Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausführung D mit 5 cm KwK 39 L/60. Source: Walter J. Spielberger Panzer IV and its Variants

A Brief History of the Panzer IV Ausf.D

The Panzer IV was a medium support tank, designed prior to the war with the intention of providing effective fire support. For this reason, it was armed with, what was at the time, a fairly large 7.5 cm caliber gun. Other Panzers were usually tasked with identifying and marking (usually with smoke shells or other means) targets, which were then to be engaged by the Panzer IV. This target was usually a fortified enemy position, an anti-tank or machine gun emplacement, etc.

Once it was introduced into service, the Germans made several modifications to the Panzer IV, which led to the development of numerous versions of it. The Ausf.D (Ausf. is short for Ausführung, which can be translated as version or model) was the fourth in line. The most visible change compared to previous models was the reintroduction of the protruding driver plate and the hull ball-mounted machine gun, which had been used on the Ausf.A, but not on the B and C versions. Production of the Panzer IV Ausf.D was carried out by Krupp-Grusonwerk from Magdeburg-Buckau. From October 1939 through to October 1940, of the 248 ordered Panzer IV Ausf.D tanks, only 232 were built. The remaining 16 chassis were instead used as Brückenleger IV bridge carriers.

The Panzer IV Ausf.D. Source: warspot.net

Due to the underdeveloped German industrial capabilities in the early stages of the war, the number of Panzer IVs per Panzer Division was quite limited. Despite their low numbers in the early stages of the war, they saw extensive action. The Panzer IV, in general, proved to be a good design, performing its designated role successfully. While having relatively good anti-tank capabilities, heavy enemy tanks, such as the British Matilda, French B1 bis, Soviet T-34, and KVs proved too much for the short-barrel gun. This would force Germany to initiate a series of experimental projects with the aim of increasing the Panzer IV’s anti-tank firepower. One such project would be the Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.D mit 5 cm KwK 39 L/60.

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.D mit 5 cm KwK 39 L/60

Unfortunately, due to its experimental nature, this vehicle is quite poorly documented in the literature. The research challenges are further exacerbated by the conflicting information present in the sources. Based on the available information, during 1941, German Army officials approached Krupp with a request to investigate whether it was possible to install a 5 cm L/60 gun into a Panzer IV Ausf.D turret. According to B. Perrett (Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank), prior to this request, the Germans had plans to test the installation of the same caliber but shorter L/42 barrel into a Panzer IV. Given the weaker performance of this weapon against newer enemy armor, the decision was made to use the long gun instead. Other sources, such as H. Doyle and T. Jentz (Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.G, H, and J) state that Adolf Hitler personally issued an order that the longer 5 cm gun be installed in both the Panzer III and IV. The work adopting the Panzer IV turret to house this gun was given to Krupp. Prior to this, in March 1941, Krupp began developing a more compact version of the 5 cm PaK 38 anti-tank gun that could be installed in the Panzer III and IV turrets. The prototype (based on Fgst. Nr. 80668) was presented to Adolf Hitler during his birthday, on 20th April 1942. The prototype was transported to St. Johann in Austria during the winter of 1942, where it was used together with a number of other experimental vehicles for various trials.

The modified Ausf.D, together with other experimental tanks, waiting for an inspection by German Army officials. Source: T. Anderson History of the Panzerwaffe Volume 2 1942-1945.

Design

The sources do not mention any changes to its overall design, aside from the obvious change of the main armament, and visually, it appears to be the same as a standard Panzer IV Ausf.D tank. Sadly, there is no available information about changes to the interior, which would have had to take place due to the installation of the new gun. In addition, the prototype was built on the Ausf.D version, it is possible that had the tank been produced in large numbers, later versions of the Panzer IV would have also been used for this modification too.

The Superstructure

The Panzer IV Ausf.D superstructure has the earlier mentioned reintroduction of the protruding driver plate and the ball-mounted machine gun. On the front of this plate, a protective Fahrersehklappe 30 sliding driver visor port was placed, which was provided with thick armored glass for protection from bullets and fragments.

The Turret

Externally, the turret design of the 5 cm armed Panzer IV Ausf.D appears to be unchanged from the original. While most Panzer IV Ausf.Ds were equipped with a larger rear turret-mounted stowage box after early 1941, this prototype did not have one. It is possible that, if this version was to enter production, it would have had one attached.

A front view of the Panzer IV armed with the 5 cm gun. Visually, besides the change of the main armament, no other modifications appear to have been done. The antenna deflector located under the gun was retained. In addition, the turret storage box is not fitted to this vehicle. Source: www.armedconflicts.com

Suspension and Running Gear

The suspension on this vehicle was unchanged and consisted of eight small road wheels suspended in pairs on bogies. In addition, the front-drive sprocket, rear idler, and four return rollers were also unchanged.

The Engine and Transmission

The Ausf.D was powered by the Maybach HL 120 TRM engine, giving out 265 hp@2,600 rpm. With this engine, the tank could reach a maximum speed of 42 km/h, with 25 km/h cross-country. The operational range was 210 km on road and 130 km cross-country. The addition of the new gun and the ammunition would likely not have changed the overall driving performance of the Panzer IV.

The Armor Protection

The Panzer IV Ausf.D was relatively lightly armored, with the front face-hardened armor being some 30 mm thick. The last 68 produced vehicles had armor increased to 50 mm of protection on the lower plate. The 5 cm armed Panzer IV Ausf.D was built based on one such vehicle with increased armor protection. The side armor ranged from 20 to 40 mm. The rear armor was 20 mm thick, but the lower bottom area was only 14.5 mm, and the bottom was 10 mm thick. The external gun mantlet was 35 mm thick.

From July 1940 onward, many Panzer IV Ausf.Ds received additional 30 mm appliqué armor plates bolted or welded to the front hull and superstructure armor. The side armor was also increased with 20 mm additional armored plates.

In an attempt to increase the Panzer IV Ausf.D’s armor protection, additional armor plates (20 to 30 mm thick) were added to the front and sides. The new 5 cm armed Panzer IV would have probably received the additional armored plates if it was based on the Panzer IV Ausf.D version. Source: Pinterest

The Crew

The 5 cm armed Panzer IV Ausf.D would have had a 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.

The Armament

The original 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 was replaced with the newer 5 cm KwK 39 (sometimes even designated as KwK 38) L/60 gun. Unfortunately, there is no information in the sources about how difficult the installation of this gun was to perform or if there were any problems with it. Given the Panzer IV’s larger turret and turret ring, it can be said with some certainty that it would provide more working space for the turret crew. The external gun mantled of the original 7.5 cm gun appears to be unchanged. The gun recoil cylinders that were outside of the turret were covered with a steel jacket and a deflector guard. In addition, the ‘Y’ shaped metal rod antenna guide placed under the gun was also retained.

The Panzer IV 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24, while good in the early stages of the war, was less effective in later years. Source: world-war-2.wikia.org

It appears that the installation of the 5 cm gun into Panzer IV was not difficult to do. It would provide the Panzer Divisions with slightly improved anti-tank capabilities. Colored by Smaragd123 Source: warspot.ru

The 7.5 cm gun could defeat around 40 mm of armor (the number may differ between sources) at ranges of some 500 m. While this was enough to deal with most pre-war era tanks, newer tank designs proved to be too much for it. The longer 5 cm gun offered somewhat better armor penetration capabilities, as it could penetrate 59 to 61 mm (depending on the source) of 30° angled armor at the same distance. The muzzle velocity, when using the anti-tank round, was 835 m/s. The elevation would probably be unchanged, at -10° to +20°. The 5 cm tank gun, while more or less a copy of the infantry truck-towed PaK 38 anti-tank gun, still had some differences. The most obvious change was the use of a vertical breech block. With this breech block, the rate of fire was between 10 to 15 rounds per minute.

Originally, the ammunition load of the Panzer IV Ausf.A consisted of 122 rounds of 7.5 cm ammunition. Given the extra weight and higher chance of accidentally causing an explosion when hit or when on fire, the Germans simply reduce the load to 80 rounds on later models. The Panzer IIIs that were equipped with this 5 cm gun, such as the Ausf.J, were equipped with 84 rounds of ammunition. Given the smaller caliber of the 5 cm rounds and the larger size of the Panzer IV, the total ammunition count could have exceeded this number by a lot. Sadly, the precise number is unknown, as none of the sources even give a rough estimation.

Secondary armament would consist of two 7.92 mm MG 34 machine guns for use against infantry. One machine gun was placed in a coaxial configuration with the main gun and was fired by the gunner. Another machine gun was positioned on the right side of the superstructure and was operated by the radio operator. On the Ausf.D, the Kugelblende 30 type ball mount, was used. The ammunition load for the two MG 34s was 2,700 rounds.

End of the Project and its Final Fate

Production of the first batch of some 80 vehicles was to be undertaken by Nibelungenwerk, which, at that time, was slowly becoming involved in Panzer IV production. It was estimated that these could be completed by spring 1942. Ultimately, nothing would come from this project. There were basically two reasons for its cancelation. Firstly, the 5 cm gun could be easily placed in the smaller Panzer III tank, with some modification. This was implemented in the production of the later Panzer III Ausf.J and L versions. While this gun had relatively good penetration capabilities for 1942, it would be quickly outclassed by superior enemy designs. This ultimately led to the cancelation of the 5 cm armed Panzer III production in 1943. Ironically, it was the Panzer III that would be refitted with the Panzer IV’s short-barrelled gun in the end, instead of the other way around.

The later developed models of the Panzer III would be equipped with the long 5 cm gun. While initially effective, they would quickly become outclassed by the enemy’s newer tank designs. Source:warspot.net

The second reason for the cancelation of the 5 cm armed Panzer IV project was that the Germans simply deemed it a waste of resources to install such a small-caliber gun in the Panzer IV, which clearly could have been armed with stronger weapons. Roughly parallel with its development, the Germans began working on installing the longer version of the 7.5 cm gun. This eventually led to the introduction of the L/43 and then L/48 long 7.5 cm gun, which offered superior overall firepower than the 5 cm gun. Ironically, some of the damaged Panzer IV Ausf.Ds that were returned from the frontline were instead equipped with the longer 7.5 cm guns. While these vehicles were mostly used for crew training, some may have been also reused as replacement vehicles for active units.

This surviving Ausf.D was armed with the longer 7.5 cm gun. In addition, it is also equipped with 5 mm thick armor plates (Schürzen) on the turret. These modified vehicles were mostly used for crew training, but some were probably used in combat. Source: warspot.net

Sadly, the final fate of this vehicle is not listed in the sources. Due to its experimental nature, it is unlikely that it ever saw any frontline service. It is likely that it was either rearmed with its original gun or reused for other experimental projects. It could have also been issued for crew training or any other auxiliary role on that matter.

Conclusion

The Panzer IV Ausf.D armed with the 5 cm gun was one of several different attempts to rearm the Panzer IV series with a gun that had better anti-tank capabilities. While the whole installation was feasible and offered the crews a somewhat larger working space (in contrast to the Panzer III), likely with an increased ammunition load, it was rejected. Given that the same gun could be installed in the Panzer III, the Germans simply saw the whole project as a waste of time and resources. The Panzer IV could instead be rearmed with a much stronger gun. This was what they actually did, introducing the 7.5 L/43 and later L/48 tank guns to their Panzer IVs, creating excellent anti-tank vehicles that remained in use until the war ended.

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausführung D mit 5 cm KwK 39 L/60
Dimensions (L-W-H)	5.92 x 2.83 x 2.68 m
Total weight, battle-ready	20 tonnes
Crew	5 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver and Radio operator)
Propulsion	Maybach HL 120 TR(M) 265 HP @ 2600 rpm
Speed (road/off-road)	42 km/h, 25 km/h
Range (road/off-road)-fuel	210 km, 130 km
Primary Armament	5 cm KwK 39 L/60
Secondary Armament	Two 7.92 mm M.G.34 machine guns
Elevation	-10° to +20°
Armor	10 – 50 mm

Sources

Has Own Video WW2 German Panzer IV

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.G

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date January 1, 2022
2 Comments on Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.G

German Reich (1942)
Medium Tank – 1,930 Built

The introduction of the Panzer IV Ausf.G version basically changed the Panzer IV’s overall combat role. While all previous versions were primarily intended as support tanks that were to engage fortified positions in support of the Panzer Divisions, the Ausf.G was to receive a huge increase in firepower against armored targets. Besides its rearmament, very little in the form of other changes were introduced to its overall design compared to the previous version. The production of such vehicles began in 1942, which greatly helped the German armored divisions to more effectively fight against the well-armored enemy tanks that were being fielded on the Eastern Front and in North Africa.

The Panzer IV Ausf.G. Source: www.panzernet.net

The Long-Barrel Panzer IV Genesis

Prior to the war, the Panzer IV series was primarily designed to act as a fire support vehicle for other slightly weaker armed Panzers. For this role, they were armed with the 7.5 cm K.w.K. L/24 short-barrel gun. Their targets were usually fortified enemy positions or machine gun nests. These were usually marked by other tanks using smoke grenades. Once the target was identified, the 7.5 cm high-explosive rounds were more than enough to successfully neutralize these threats. However, it is often forgotten that they could also be effective against armored targets.

The main German pre-war enemy was deemed to be France, so German officials were quite keen to spy on France to keep track of the development of enemy military technology, such as tanks. In the mid-1930s, the Germans came into possession of information that the French were planning to produce large quantities of tanks that were frontally protected by some 40 mm of armor. Thus, the Germans focused on developing an anti-tank round for the 7.5 cm gun that could effectively pierce this kind of armor at ranges of some 700 m.

This 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. But, by 1940 standards, this proved barely enough, as bigger and more armored tanks such as the B1 bis and Matilda II were almost immune to this gun.

The German Panzer thrust through the Soviet Union in 1941 sprung a nasty surprise when they came into contact with enemy T-34 and KV tanks. The Panzers’ 5 cm and 7.5 cm short-barrelled guns could do little against these tanks. It was for these reasons that the German Army initiated a number of projects in the hope of increasing the firepower of their Panzers. One such project included rearming a Panzer IV Ausf.F with the experimental Waffe 0725. This was actually an experimental taper-bore gun with a 75/55 mm caliber firing a tungsten round. Due to a shortage of tungsten, this particular gun was never introduced into service.

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

Another project was developed by Krupp in late 1941. Krupp engineers simply rearmed one Panzer IV Ausf.D with the 5 cm KwK 39 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 the spring of 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

While the previously mentioned projects lead nowhere, Krupp engineers had one more ace up their sleeve. In March 1941, they began working on a longer barreled 7.5 cm L/40 gun that was initially to be used for the StuG III vehicles. At that time, the Army did not want a gun that could be damaged while moving by accidentally bumping into an obstacle and requested that its length be shortened to L/33. This gun would be tested on a Panzer IV Ausf.E/F hybrid at the end of 1941.

Given the experience gained during the heavy fighting of the first year in the Soviet Union, a Panzer Commission was formed to examine possible solutions on how to effectively counter the new Soviet tanks. This commission proposed the simple solution of rearming the already existing tanks with more potent guns. For this reason, 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. While the simplest solution would be to mount this gun into a Panzer IV, this was not possible for a few reasons. Namely, the recoil force of this gun was too much for the Panzer IV turret. In addition, the ammunition was deemed too long. The solution was to use the same caliber barrel which was shortened, also introducing a new loading chamber. The ammunition casing was also redesigned to make them easier to handle in the Panzer IV turret. The first fully completed prototypes were to be completed by March (or May, depending on the source) 1942.

One of the first produced Panzer IV Ausf.G being presented to Adolf Hitler possibly, in April 1942. Source: H. Doyle and T. Jentz Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.G, H, and J

Name

There is general confusion in the sources about the name of this vehicle. Many sources mention that the 7.5 cm L/43 gun-armed vehicle (with the round muzzle brake) was named Ausf.F2, while those armed with the longer L/48 guns were designated as Ausf.G. However, according to the Germans, the vehicles armed with the L/43 guns were known under several different designations, including Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf.F-Umbau (dated from March 1942) and Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf.F2 (dated from May 1942). As this probably caused some bureaucratic confusion, Wa Pruef 6, the German tank testing division, finally announced in July 1942 that the short-barreled Ausf.F and the new version were to be distinguished from each other by renaming the latter Ausf.G. Basically, the Germans did use the Ausf.F2 designation, albeit for a brief time only. From July 1942 to the end of the war, this vehicle was regarded as the Ausf.G by the Germans. For this reason, this article would refer to it as the Panzer IV Ausf.G, regardless of the barrel length. In many sources, it is also mentioned that the opposing forces in North Africa described this vehicle as the Panzer IV Ausf.G Spezial (Special), Panzer IV Lang or, in the British case, Mark IV Special.

Production

As the Panzer Ausf.F was already being produced by Krupp, Vomag, and Nibelungenwerke, these also received the production orders for the new improved Ausf.G. From March 1942, when production began, until June 1943, some 1,930 Ausf.Gs would be built. Of these, Krupp built 907, Nibelungenwerke 587, and Vomag 436. Of course, like so many German production numbers, there are some disagreements between sources. For example, author K. Hjermstad (Panzer IV), has a slightly lower number of 1,887 vehicles produced. Walter J. Spielberger (Panzer IV and its Variants) notes that 1,700 Auf. G were built. Another author, A. T. Jones (Panzer IV: Hitler’s Rock), mentions that, of the 1,750 Ausf.G chassis, only 1,687 were actually completed as tanks, with the remaining chassis being employed for other uses, such as the Hummel or Sturmpanzer IV projects.

Design

Compared to the previous version, besides the obvious upgunning, not many other major changes were introduced on the Panzer IV Ausf.G. It is also important to note that many vehicles that were returned to Germany for repairs or otherwise survived to the later stages of the war were often equipped with components taken from the newer models (Ausf.H or J). This makes the identification of precise vehicle versions quite difficult, but also creates ‘hybrids’ with different components taken from various versions.

The Hull

The hull received only minor modifications, such as adding a holder for 7 spare track links on the lower glacis. On the rear part of the hull, a small hatch for the new cooling water exchanger unit was placed. Its primary purpose was to allow easy access to hot water that could be transferred to other vehicles. This helped start the engines of other tanks in extremely cold weather.

The Panzer IV Ausf.G’s overall chassis design remained mostly the same, with some minor visual changes. The most obvious was the introduction of a holder for 7 spare track links on the glacis. Also note the additional 30 mm bolted front superstructure armor, which was usually welded. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (1997) Panzer Tracts No.4 Panzerkampfwagen IV

The Superstructure

The superstructure design also received only minimal changes. From early 1943 onwards, the driver’s periscope was removed. The driver and the radio operator’s hatch signal ports were removed. In addition, the position of the radio antenna was changed to the left side. A smaller change also included adding a rack for two additional spare road wheels on the left track guard.

The Panzer IV Ausf.G vehicles received a small holder for two spare road wheels on the left superstructure side. Source: www.panzernet.ne

The Turret

From April 1942, the turret’s right front and side vision ports were completely removed. This was done for several reasons. First, it made the overall construction of the turret somewhat easier. As the side turret parts were made of a single one-piece plate, it also offered more protection by removing the weak spot that was the vision port. Lastly, with the introduction of protective skirts (Schürzen), these essentially lost their purpose, as they were now fully covered. Another change was replacing the two-piece commander’s hatch with a larger single piece round one on top of cupola. This was implemented in early 1943. From June 1944 onward, all surviving tanks received mounts to use a jib boom crane.

Most Panzer IV Ausf.Gs did not have the turret vision ports, as these were removed to make the production somewhat easier. Source: Pinterest

Suspension and Running Gear

The overall design of the suspension remained basically the same. Some vehicles received later simplified suspension components, like the drive sprocket or idlers. The use of Wintergleisketten (winter track) and Osketten (East track) was common on the Eastern Front.

To cope with the poor Soviet winter roads, the Germans employed specially designed extended tracks. Source: www.panzernet.net

The Engine

The Panzer IV Ausf.G had the same engine as the previous version. Despite the slight increase of weight to 23.6 tonnes, the overall driving performance did not change much.

Armor Protection

The overall armor protection was the same as the Ausf.F version. The front hull, superstructure, and turret (including the gun mantlet) were protected by 50 mm thick face hardened armor plates. The side armor was 30 mm thick, while the rear ranged from 10 to 30 mm. Starting from May 1942, the Panzer Ausf.G began receiving additional 30 mm welded or sometimes even bolted frontal armor plates (Zusatzpanzer). The whole process of backfitting this additional armor was completed on all vehicles by the start of 1943.

Like many German armored vehicles, from May 1943 onward, the Panzer IV Ausf.G began receiving 5 mm thick skirts, Schürzen. Their primary purpose was to provide protection from Soviet anti-tank rifles. The Panzer IV hull was covered by six such skirts (on each side). The turret was almost completely covered by these plates, leaving only the front open for the main gun. On the sides, two two-piece doors were placed for the turret crewmembers. As these were relatively loosely connected, they tended to be quickly lost during combat. The hull skirts were better connected and usually lasted longer.

From the Ausf.G onwards, the use of the rear positioned grenade rack system (Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung) was abandoned. Instead, on the front sides of the turret, two similar smoke dischargers (each containing three rounds) were placed. During the later stages of the war, even this would be discarded. It was noted that these could be accidentally activated when hit by the enemy’s rifle caliber rounds. In addition, some sources mention that, when activated in this manner, they could actually harm the tank crew. Another layer of protection was the Zimmerit anti-magnetic paste applied on many German vehicles. Lastly, the crews of many tanks would often add what they had at hand for additional protection. This often included spare tracks, road wheels, storage boxes, etc.

The turret-mounted smoke dischargers replaced the older types which were placed to the rear of the vehicle. The use of these new dischargers would be mostly abandoned from 1943 onwards. Source: www.panzernet.net

To increase the armor protection, the crews of many vehicles would add whatever they had on hand. This mostly included spare track links or road wheels. Source: www.panzernet.net

Armament

The main modification was carried out on the Panzer IV Ausf.G was the introduction of the new 7.5 cm L/43 long (3.21 m) KwK 40 gun. Given the larger size and stronger recoil, substantial changes were needed. The gun itself was nose heavy and, in order to counter this, a cylinder compressor was added. It was housed on the right side of the turret ring. Like its shorter ‘cousin’, the KwK 40 was also provided with a semi-automatic sliding breach which helped increase the overall firing speed. The gun recoil cylinder’s protective cover was also changed. To avoid misalignment or even damaging the gun during long marches, a simple internal travel lock was placed on the turret roof. It was provided with a simple release mechanism to provide the crew with a quick combat response. For this gun, a new T.Z.F.5f telescopic sight was added. This sight had a 24° field of view and a 2.5x magnification. Radio antenna deflectors were initially placed under the gun on some vehicles. From November 1942 onward, a smaller deflector was added on the Ausf.G. It was welded to the right side of the gun, just beneath the coaxial machine gun.

Close-up view of a dismounted 7.5 cm L/43 gun. Source: K. Hjermstad (2000), Panzer IV Squadron/Signal Publication

Initially, large radio antenna deflectors were placed under the gun. Source: www.worldwarphotos.info

The 7.5 cm L/43 gun was initially provided with a ball-shaped muzzle brake. This would be replaced with the more common double-chambered muzzle brake type. Both the shorter and longer guns were equipped with it.

This gun had an increase in muzzle velocity, which reached 740 to 790 m/s (depending on the sources). This, in combination with the improved ammunition, provided increased accuracy, armor penetration, and firing range. The 7.5 cm L/43 gun could penetrate around 80 mm of armor at ranges of 1,000 m. The effectiveness of this gun was best described by a report from the 5th Panzer Division during early 1943. In this report, it was noted that the Soviet tanks (ranging from the weakly protected T-26 to the KV-1) could be destroyed at ranges from 1,200 to 1,600 m with only a few rounds. It was also noted that, firing the AP round (Pzgr.39), most hits would lead to the target catching fire. The hollow charge round was less effective, needing between one to 5 rounds to destroy enemy targets, which were rarely set ablaze with this ammunition type. The elevation of this weapon was -10° to +20°.

Despite the larger size of the L/43 gun rounds, the overall ammunition load was increased from 80 to 87. This should not be surprising given the fact that the older versions (like the Ausf.A) could store 122 rounds of spare ammunition. Most rounds (55) were stored in the hull, while the remaining (32) were stored in the superstructure. The usual ammunition load consisted of almost equal numbers of AP and HE rounds. When available, tungsten AP rounds would also be stored in limited numbers and used against the best armored targets.

In August 1942, the first longer barreled L/48 guns were becoming available for evaluation and testing. Once these were completed, all tanks that were returned to Germany were to be retrofitted with the improved gun.

Organization

With the slow introduction of the newer Panzer IV Ausf.G, the Germans did not operate any significant changes to their Panzer Division organization. The Ausf.G was mostly used to reinforce already existing units in limited numbers. Priority in delivery was mostly given to newly formed units. The Panzer IV was attached to medium tank companies, which consisted of the command unit with two such tanks, three platoons, each equipped with four tanks, and a supporting light tank platoon equipped with the weaker Panzer II. In reality, the third platoon was rarely available in any Panzer company, as there were simply no available tanks to create them. For this reason, most Divisions would have 10 Panzer IVs in each tank company. At the start of 1942, the units on the Eastern Front saw the reorganization of the Panzer Divisions and motorized Infantry Division. The Panzer Divisions changed to three tank battalions, each containing medium tank companies, while some Motorized Infantry Divisions were reinforced with one tank battalion.

In Combat

The Panzer IV Ausf.G was slowly introduced during 1942 and saw extensive combat during this and the following year. Sadly, after 1943, with the introduction of the Ausf.H and later the Ausf.J, the tracking of their combat operations becomes a bit tricky. The main problem is that most sources simply referred to them as Panzer IVs, without any explanation of which precise version was in question. In addition, the general similarity of these three versions also complicates the matter further.

In North Africa

The first recorded operational use of the new Panzer IV Ausf.G was during the North African Campaign, in late May 1942. Some 9 vehicles were dispatched in May, arriving shortly to reinforce the Deutsche Afrika Korps (DAK) [Eng. German Africa Corps]. They were immediately pressed into service during the German Operation Venezia, a prelude to the Battle of Gazala.

By July 1942, after heavy skirmishes with British forces, the 5th and 8th Panzer Regiments were worn out, having only slightly more than 50 tanks, with only two Panzer IV Ausf.Gs remaining. Nevertheless, during the heavy fighting at El Mreir, from the 21st to 22nd July 1942, these were successfully used in a counterattack against the attacking British forces. The British 23rd Armoured Brigade lost some 87 tanks in total, of which 40 were completely destroyed.

There were 30 operational Panzer IV Ausf.Gs listed in the inventory of the 5th and 8th Panzer Regiments operated on this front in October 1942. During the German attack of the 2nd November 1942, the 8th Panzer Regiment was reported to have knocked out some 60 enemy tanks, some of these were likely inflicted by the Panzer IV Ausf.G. Ultimately, the Germans lost the battle for Egypt and had to retreat back to Libya in the hope of reinforcing their battered units.

On 2nd December 1942, there were only around 12 Panzer IV Ausf.Gs left operational in the DAK. Over twenty new Panzer IV Ausf.Gs were to arrive from Germany by the end of 1942, but some were lost during the transit. Early 1943 saw some success by the German forces against the Allied forces. During the German Operation Fruehlings Wind, they managed to destroy nearly all of the 53 Shermans of the American 1st Armored Division. An additional 54 Sherman tanks also suffered the same fate. In total, the German Panzers destroyed some 97 tanks in two days. This was not enough for the Axis forces in North Africa, as the combined strength of the Allies was simply too much for them. By May 1943, the Axis forces that were not evacuated surrendered to the Allies.

A Panzer IV Ausf.G somewhere in Tunisia during 1943. Source: Pinterest

During the Panzer IV Ausf.G’s service on this front, it was noted that its new gun could easily pierce any Allied tank, even the newer American M3 Lee at ranges of 1.5 km. Less armored targets were even destroyed at combat ranges of some 2 km. The large muzzle flash was noted to be highly problematic, obscuring the gunner’s visor. While effective, they were simply too few in number to have any real impact on this front. For example, by October 1942, the British could muster some 1,000 tanks, while the Germans had only around 30 Panzer IV Ausf.Gs. The Panzer IV Ausf.G, like all German tanks that were used in Africa, was modified by improving the ventilation system to cope with the high temperatures. In addition, sand filters were also added to prevent sand from getting into the engine.

In the Soviet Union

The 1941 fighting in the Soviet Union took a heavy toll on both sides. The German Panzer Divisions suffered badly, losing many vehicles. In early 1942, the Germans prepared a new offensive, with the aim of taking the oil-rich Caucasus and the city of Stalingrad. For this operation, the German Army Group South was reinforced with 9 Panzer Divisions. These were reinforced with 135 Ausf.G tanks. This number may differ between various sources, as some mention a much smaller number of only 82 tanks. Due to their relatively small numbers, on average, each Panzer Division could only be equipped with four Ausf.G per medium tank company. Exceptions were the 3rd, 16th, and the 22nd Panzer Division, which each had 12 of these tanks.

The Panzer IV Ausf.G distribution was quite limited in early 1942 and many Panzer Divisions only had a few of them. Source: www.panzernet.net

In May 1942, the 22nd Panzer Division received some 12 new Panzer IV tanks. These were used to spearhead an attack toward the Sea of Azov in Ukraine. Some 50 Soviet tanks were destroyed in the process. These included at least three T-34 and 12 KV-1 tanks. Later examination of these tanks revealed that a number of 7.5 cm rounds made clear holes in the front and sides of the KV-1 and T-34 tanks.

Another example was the 9th Panzer Division, which had in its inventory (dated 22nd June 1942) 142 tanks, of which 9 were older Panzer IVs (Ausf.B to F), while 12 were the newer Ausf.G. On 6th July, the 9th Panzer Division reported having destroyed 61 enemy tanks. Some of these were probably credited to the Panzer IV Ausf.Gs. However, on 15th July, this unit reported having lost 9 Panzer IVs, of which four were the Ausf.Gs. In a report made by the 33rd Panzer Regiment from this Division, it was recommended to use the new Ausf.G in front of the advancing unit, as it was capable of dealing with the Soviet tanks, especially the KV-1 tanks. The T-34 armor, for example, could easily be penetrated with the long 7.5 cm gun. On the other hand, problems with extracting the spent cartridges were deemed serious, as in some cases, the only way to clear the gun was by using the cleaning rods from outside.

Another example of this tank’s performance comes from a report from the 2nd Panzer Division, which received its first Panzer IV Ausf.G (five in total) only in mid-August 1942. From 11th to 17th August, four such tanks participated in a German counterattack near the village of Jelnja. The German attack on this village was successful, managing to drive off the Soviet defenders, which were supported by at least two T-34 tanks. The following morning, the Soviets made a counterattack with infantry and T-34s. This attack was repelled with the loss of two T-34 tanks. On the 13th, the Soviets made another attack but it was also turned back, losing two T-34s and one KV-1. The Soviets persisted and, in the evening of the same day, attacked with a larger concentration of tanks, some 8 to 10 KV-1s. The Panzer IV Ausf.G managed to destroy two KV-1s at ranges as short as 15 to 20 m. An interesting fact is that the German unit commander mentioned that the Panzer IV needed on average 8 hollow charge rounds to set the KV-1 on fire. In the following days, the Soviets made several attempts to dislodge the Germans, and during one of such attacks, they accidentally ran into a swamp. where some tanks remained bogged down, unable to move. These were quickly destroyed by the German tanks. The Germans also suffered casualties, losing two Panzer IV Ausf.Gs in the process. By the time fighting ceased in the village of Jelnja, the Soviets lost 43 tanks (the majority were T-34s and KV-1s, with at least 11 smaller T-60 tanks). The German losses appear to be only two Panzer IV Ausf.Gs.

At the end of 1942, the German Forces were plagued with a general lack of fuel and reinforcements. The 6th Army was also completely encircled at Stalingrad. In a desperate attempt to reach their beleaguered units, the Germans launched Operation Winter Storm. While, on paper, some 5 Panzer Divisions were present and part of the so-called Heeresgruppe Don, in reality, these were vastly depleted, only managing to field 46 Panzer IV Ausf Gs. Ultimately, they failed, and the Germans made a withdrawal from this region, effectively abandoning all their 1942 gains in the southern ends of the Soviet Union.

In 1943, the Soviets were once again on the offensive, concentrated in the area of the major center of Kharkov. The Panzer IV Ausf.Gs were once again employed in countering the Soviet tanks. In this area, during March 1943, the Soviets lost some 16 light tanks (possibly either T-60s or T-70s), 3 KV-1s, and some 250 T-34 tanks. Of these, some 188 were credited to the long 7.5 cm gun equipped Panzer IVs.

In the 5th Panzer Division, during the heavy fighting from 22nd February to 20th March 1943, four Panzer IV Ausf.Gs managed to destroy a great number of enemy tanks. This included 1 T-26, 26 T-34s, 17 KV-1s, 4 Valentines, and one Lend-Lease supplied M3 General Lee tank .

In July 1943, the Germans launched Operation Zitadelle with the aim of crushing the Soviet positions at Kursk. For this operation, the majority of the 941 Panzer IVs used (some 583) were of the Ausf.G version.

Two Panzer IVs from the 1st SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler Panzer Division somewhere in the Soviet Union during the winter of 1942. Source: www.panzernet.net

On Other Fronts

In August 1943, the Germans dispatched some 770 tanks of various types, including some 318 Panzer IV equipped with the long-barreled gun, to the Italian front. Prior to the Allied invasion of Normandy, in June 1944, German tank forces included nearly 750 Panzer IVs.

The German forces in the Balkans operated a number of mostly obsolete and captured armored vehicles. A smaller number of vehicles were also more modern types, such as the Panzer III, IV, and even StuG IIIs. Both versions of the Panzer IV (short and long barrel) were employed there. Some of these may have been of the Ausf.G version.

Other Modifications

Fahrschulpanzer IV Ausf.G

Some Panzer IV Ausf.Gs were given to tank training schools. While new vehicles were certainly used, others may have been returned from the frontline for repairs and were reused for this purpose too.

Sturmpanzer IV

Damaged Panzer IV tanks that were returned to Germany for repairs were reused for the Sturmpanzer IV program. The precise number of modified chassis is difficult to know precisely.

Some Sturmpanzer IVs were based on Ausf.G chassis. Source: Wikipedia

Flakpanzer IV

A number of refurbished Panzer IV Ausf.G chassis would be reused for the Flakpanzer IV projects.

One Panzer IV Ausf.G was reused for the Ostwind Flakpanzer. prototype. Source: www.panzernet.net

Panzerbefehlswagen IV

During 1944, some Panzer IV Ausf.Gs were modified as command tanks. These were equipped with additional radio equipment, had their ammunition load reduced and the turret-mounted machine gun was removed.

Some Panzer IV Ausf.Gs were modified as command vehicles in 1944. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No.4 Panzerkampfwagen IV

Panzer IV mit Hydrostatischem Antrieb

During 1944, one Panzer IV Ausf.G was heavily modified in order to test an experimental hydrostatic drive. Despite the prototype having survived to this day, this is generally an obscure vehicle with little information about its precise history.

The surviving Panzer IV mit Hydrostatischem Antrieb. Source: Wiki

Other Operators

In order to help somewhat rebuild the shattered Hungarian Forces that would be needed in the 1942 offensive toward the Caucasus, the Germans provided them with large quantities of armored vehicles. This contingent also included 10 Panzer IV Ausf.G tanks. During the heavy fighting of 1942 and 1943, all would be lost either due to enemy action or being blown up after running out of fuel or breaking down.

Hungarian Panzer IV Ausf.G. Source:S. Becze (2007) Magyar Steel, Stratus

Bulgaria and Romania were also supplied with a large number of Panzer IVs, some of which were the Ausf.G version. Bulgaria never used these tanks against the Soviets but against its former Ally. In September 1944 Bulgaria changed sides and began attacking German forces in the occupied Balkan, using the Panzer IV in the process. Romanian Panzer IV tanks were used against the Soviets during 1944. But it too changed sides in August 1944 and joined the Soviet advance toward Austria.

Bulgarian Panzer IV Source: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/panzer-4/bulgarian-panzer-iv-ausf-g/

During May 1943, some 15 Panzer IV Ausf.Gs were given to Turkey. This was done in the vague hope of bringing neutral Turkey on the Axis side. Ultimately these attempts failed and Turkey actually declared war on Germany in early 1945, but its troops never actually saw any combat.

Turkish Panzer IV Ausf.G Source: http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzers.html

In 1942, the Royal Italian Army, having noticed the obsolescence of Italian tanks, asked Germany to produce the Panzer III and Panzer IV under license, but due to bureaucratic problems and resistance both in Germany and in Italy, nothing came from this. In 1943, to remedy the problem and also to help replace the losses suffered by the Royal Army, Germany provided a contingent of 12 Panzer III Ausf.Ns, 12 Panzer IV Ausf.Gs, and 12 StuG III Ausf.Gs. These were to be employed against the Allied invasion in Sicily but, due to the inexperience of the crews, it was decided to wait a few more months. After the Armistice, the vehicles were all requisitioned by the Wehrmacht without the Royal Army ever being able to employ them in action.

Italian Panzer IV Ausf.G Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/442231-panzer-iv-g-division-m-italian-division-m-have-stug-iii-ausfg-and-pziii-n/

Surviving Vehicles

Today, there are a dozen or so surviving Panzer IV Ausf.Gs. These include at least two located in the Bulgarian Museum of Battle Glory. At least one is located in the United Kingdom. A few can be seen in Germany, with one even in fully working condition. One more, which is also in running condition, can be seen at the Russian Kubinka Museum. One Panzer IV Ausf.G is located at the Turkish Etimesgut Tank Museum.

The surviving Panzer IV Ausf.G that is in running condition. Source: http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzers.html

Conclusion

The Panzer IV Ausf.G was a great improvement in the anti-tank capabilities of German tank units at that time. With its long gun, the Ausf.G was capable of destroying any Allied or Soviet tank at over 1 km or even more. While initially issued in limited numbers, it and its following versions would be produced in even greater numbers, becoming the backbone of the Panzer Division until the later stages of the war.

Panzer IV Ausf.G of the 1st Infantry Division (motorized) “Grossdeutschland”, Voronezh, Russia, June 1942. Improvised pattern of sprayed brownish sand over standard factory dunkelgrau.

Panzer IV Ausf.G, 1st SS Panzer Battalion, SS Division LSSAH in France, which took part in “Case Anton”, the German invasion and occupation of Vichy French zone, November 1942.

Panzer IV Ausf.G, 4th Kompanie, 1st Abteilung, VIIIth Panzer-Regiment, XVth Panzerdivision, DAK, El Alamein (Egypt), October 1942.

Panzer IV Ausf.G, 36th Panzer Regiment, XIVth Panzerdivision, Army Group South, Russia, summer 1942.

Panzer IV Ausf.G, XVth Panzerdivision, Tunisia, spring 1943. This is a late production vehicle, up-gunned with the new KwK 40 L/48 gun.

Panzer IV Ausf.G of the IVth Panzerdivision, Battle of Orel, Russia, early 1943.

Panzer IV Ausf.G late production vehicle, XIVth Panzerdivision, Stalingrad, winter 1942 to 1943.

Panzer IV Ausf.G, XXth Panzer Division, Kursk, Russia, summer 1943.

Bulgarian Maybach T4G (Ausf.G), 13th unit, Russian border, winter 1942. Early production transitional model.

Specifications
Dimensions (l-w-h)	6.63 x 2.88 x 2.68 m
Total weight, battle-ready	23.6 tonnes
Crew	5 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Radio Operator, and Driver)
Propulsion	Maybach HL 120 TR(M) 265 HP @ 2600 rpm
Speed (road/off-road)	42 km/h, 25 km/h (cross-country)
Range (road/off-road)	210 km, 130 km (cross-country)
Primary Armament	7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 or L/48
Secondary Armament	Two 7.92 mm MG 34
Elevation	-10° to +20°
Turret Armor	Front 50 mm, sides 30 mm, rear 30, and top 8-10 mm
Hull Armor	Front 30+50 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.
M. Kruk and R. Szewczyk (2011) 9th Panzer Division, Stratus
F. Kurowski (2010) Das Afrika Korps Stackpole books.
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (1997) Panzer Tracts No.4 Panzerkampfwagen IV
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2004) Panzer Tracts No.16 Panzerkampfwagen IV Bergepanzer 38 to Bergepanther
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2014) Panzer Tracts No.8-1 Sturmpanzer
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
B. Perrett (2007) Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank 1936-45, Osprey Publishing
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
Walter J. Spielberger (1993). Panzer IV and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
D. Doyle (2005). German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
A. Lüdeke (2007) Waffentechnik im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Parragon books.
H. Scheibert, Die Deutschen Panzer Des Zweiten Weltkriegs, Dörfler.
T. Anderson (2017) History of the Panzerwaffe Volume 2 1942-1945. Osprey Publishing
S. Becze (2007) Magyar Steel, Stratus
P. Thomas (2012) Panzers at War 1939-45, Pen and Sword Military
A. T. Jones (2017) The Panzer IV Pen and sword Military
S. J. Zalora (2013) Tanks of the Hitlers Eastern Allies 1941-45, Osprey Publishing
H. Doyle and T. Jentz Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.G, H, and J, Osprey Publishing
A. T. Jones (2017) Images of War Special The Panzer IV Hitler’s Rock, Pen, and Sword
T. L. Jentz (1996) Panzertruppen The Complete Guide of the Creation and Combat Employment of German Tank Force 1943-1945, Schiffer Military History
http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzers.html

Has Own Video WW2 Yugoslav Partisan Armor of Western Origin

Light Tank M3A3 with 2 cm Flakvierling 38

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date November 12, 2021
1 Comment on Light Tank M3A3 with 2 cm Flakvierling 38

Yugoslav Partisans (1944)
Improvised Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun – 2 Converted

During the Second World War, the Yugoslav communist Partisans were often faced with shortages of war materiel. They were especially lacking in regards to armored vehicles and tanks. Luckily for them, after 1943, the Western Allies decided to send large quantities of all kinds of war materiel, including M3A1/A3 light tanks. These tanks were a welcome addition to the Partisan’s fight for the liberation of occupied Yugoslavia. By the end of 1944, the Partisans mounted captured German Flakvierling 38 anti-aircraft guns on two M3A3 tanks. What they actually intended with these vehicles is unclear, as the enemy air force was almost non-existing by this late stage of the war.

The modified M3A3 armed with the 2 cm Flakvierling 38 anti-aircraft gun. Source: D. Predoević Oklopna vozila i oklopne postrojbe u drugom svjetskom ratu u Hrvatsk

The M3 light tanks in the Balkans

Following the quick conquest of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia during the April War, which 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, in 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 open civil war. This lasted until the end of the war and the victory of the Partisans.

By the end of 1943 and the start of 1944, the Communist Partisan movements were heavily involved in organizing a number of attacks on the Germans and their allies, especially vital communication and supply lines, military bases, and airfields, 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 focused 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, the 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 the 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 Allied repair facilities.

A Partisan M3A3, easily recognizable 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 2 cm Flakvierling 38 on top of an M3A3 tank, creating a bizarre vehicle somewhat similar to the German Wirbelwind.

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 hatches, reducing the number of machine guns to three on later built vehicles, and the addition of a turret basket.

Shortly 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 the 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: https://warspot.net/118-light-tank-m3a3-american-emigrant

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 either anti-tank or assaulting fortified enemy positions. By the end of 1944, at the ‘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 on the Stuarts in the hope of increasing their combat effectiveness. The lack of anti-tank firepower was somewhat resolved by installing a 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun on a few modified M3A3 chassis. It is not clear why, but on two vehicles, the effective 2 cm Flakvierling 38 anti-aircraft gun was installed. They could have converted these two chassis in the same manner as the previously mentioned anti-tank version, as they had a number of supplied 5.7 cm (6-pounder) and captured 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank guns in use. Given the fact that the use of German aircraft in Yugoslavia by late 1944 was rare at best, coupled with the total Allied air support, it seems quite unreasonable to build vehicles to counter this inexistent threat of enemy air attack. Sadly, due to a lack of information in the sources, no valid conclusion can be made as to why this conversion was done. It is also possible that the Partisans used what they had available at that time.

The 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank version of the M3A3 employed by the Partisans near the end of the war. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

General information about these two vehicles is 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.

Name?

Sadly, there are no available sources that mention the name 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 2 cm Flakvierling 38 on M3 Stuart. This article will use the simple Flak Stuart designation for the sake of simplicity only. It is important to note that this is purely a modern designation.

The Modifications

Installation of the Gun

Due to a general lack of information, how the Partisans actually mounted the 2 cm Flakvierling 38 anti-aircraft gun is not known. But, unlike the PaK armed Stuarts, the Flak version had a much simpler construction. It is highly likely that the Partisans simply placed the gun on top of the M3A3 and connected it to the chassis top, possibly using bolts or even simply welding. While welding it to the chassis was easier, it would mean that the gun could not be easily removed, so this seems unlikely but possible. If the Partisans even covered the opening left by the removal of the turret is also sadly unknown.

Armament

This vehicle was armed with the 2 cm Flakvierling 38 anti-aircraft gun. A well-known anti-aircraft gun of the Second World War, it was designed by Mauser-Werke to replace the older 2 cm Flak 20, and was introduced in May 1940. While initially issued for the use in the Kriegsmarine (German Navy), it would be allocated (both in towed and or mounted on various vehicles, like tanks or half-tracks) to field troop use and some 3,850 such guns would be built. Its effective firing range was between 2 to 2.2 km, while the maximum horizontal range was 5,782 m. The maximum rate of fire was 1,680 to 1,920 rpm, but 700-800 rpm was a more appropriate operational rate of fire.

The 2 cm Flakvierling 38. Source: weaponsystems

Unlike the PaK Stuart, which incorporated a number of changes and modifications, the Flak Stuart’s main weapon was simply placed on top of the chassis. While there is no information in the sources, it is highly likely that the overall characteristics of the main gun were unchanged. The gun could traverse a full circle, while the elevation was –10° to +100°. The 2 cm Flakvierling 38 was fed by 20 round magazines. The gun itself had a special ammunition box in its base (on both sides), where up to 8 magazines could be stored and which were on easy reach by the two loaders. This means that at least 320 rounds could be carried with the vehicle. Due to these magazines being relatively small, additional spares could be carried inside the vehicle or stored somewhere on the superstructure. On the other hand, given that this was a captured weapon, the only way to acquire additional spare ammunition was by capturing it from the enemy. This means that, if the Flak Stuart crew used the gun too often, there is a possibility that they may have depleted the available ammunition reserves quickly before replacements could be captured. This also meant that the total ammunition load could be limited by what they had on hand. Secondary armament consisted of the original hull-mounted Browning 7.62 mm machine gun and the crew’s personal weapons.

A side view of the 2 cm Flakvierling 38, note the 7 magazines placed on the bottom of the gun mount. Source:en.topwar.ru

Armor Protection

The Flak Stuart did not receive any major modification regarding its overall armor protection. The hull armor remained the same. The only protection for the gun operators was the gun shield that provided only limited protection in front of them. This meant that the gun operators were almost completely exposed to enemy return fire of nearly all calibers. Using this vehicle in close combat, such as in cities, would be very dangerous for the crew.

While the modified M3A3 had a simple overall construction, its crew was almost completely exposed. Source: www.reddit.com

Crew Hatches

The removal of the turret was not the only change to the Flak Stuart. It was noted (even on the unchanged M3A3 tanks) that, if the main gun was placed above the crew hatches, it could prevent them from opening them. For this reason, the Partisan engineers simply modified the two hatches, which now opened forwards. This provided the gun with a better firing angle but also prevented the hull crewmen from being stuck in the vehicle in case of an emergency. The PaK armed version did not receive this modification.

The Flak armed Stuarts had their front crew hatches modified to be opened forwards. Source: www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

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: www.paluba.info

Crew

In order to effectively operate this vehicle’s main gun, the gun crew had to consist of a minimum of three members. This consisted of the gunner, positioned in the center, and two loaders placed on either side of the gun. These crew members were placed on top of the superstructure. Besides these, inside the M3A3, on the left side, was the driver. On the opposite side, the assistant driver was responsible for operating the hull-mounted machine gun.

In Combat

While the precise number of PaK Stuarts built is not clear, there is general consensus in the sources that two Flak Stuarts were constructed by the Partisans. The general usage of the two vehicles is unknown. While there are a few photographs of them being used by the Partisans, if they actually saw combat is not clear. Author D. Predoević (Oklopna vozila i oklopne postrojbe u drugom svjetskom ratu u Hrvatskoj) says that, besides a brief mention of the Flak Stuarts near the city of Knin during November 1944, no written document about their use is known.

There is a potential short reference of the Flak Stuart made by authors J. Popović, M. Lolić and B. Latas (Stvarnost): “…. This Tonković, in the fall of 1944, had the entire Corps placed in the aluminum factory buildings in Lozovac. He then informed the Partisans, who arrived with British-supplied tanks and then began blocking the factory. Captain Tonković went through the gate, and when the first tank arrived, he put a Partisan hat with a bloody five-pointed star on his head, entered the tank and began the attack with flak’s…”

The British tanks mentioned in these sources must be the Stuart tanks, as no other such vehicle was supplied to the Partisans. The reference to using Flak probably refers to the Flak Stuart tank. While the First Tank Brigade had a number of towed Flak guns, the mentioning of a tank attack indicated that this was actually a Flak Stuart. Sadly, the source does not go into more detail about the Partisan tanks.

At least one Flak Stuart saw combat in the area of the Croatian town of Gospić in March 1945. It was attached to support Partisan infantry attempts to destroy two enemy anti-tank gun emplacements near the village of Klenovac. The Flak Stuart task was to clear up any enemy infantry resistance while the Partisan’s own infantry was to take out the two guns. The Partisan attack succeded and the enemy was driven off.

There are few photographs of the Flak Stuarts being used by the Partisans. If they actually saw combat is not clear. Source:www.srpskioklop.paluba.info

After the war

After the war, political tension between the Western Allies and the new communist Yugoslavia began to build up regarding the Italian city of Trieste. In essence, Yugoslavia wanted to annex this city and its surrounding territories. The negotiations for resolving and avoiding possible conflict lasted several days. Finally, on 9th June 1945, an agreement was signed between the Yugoslav and Western Allies representatives. The Yugoslavian Army was to evacuate from Trieste and it and its surroundings were divided into two spheres of influence. Zone A was controlled by the Allies and included the city itself and its surrounding. Zone B included the city of Istra and part of the Slovenian coast. Both the First and Second Tank Brigades were present during this crisis. The Flak and possibly even the PaK Stuarts were used briefly during this crisis. Luckily for all, despite the stubbornness on both sides, no actual combat occurred. In 1953, political negotiation began, and a final agreement was signed, where Yugoslavia agreed to stop attempts to annex this area.

In June 1946, the First Tank Brigade handed these two vehicles over to the newly formed First Tank Division. These vehicles were in use until 1949, but because of the fact that some Stuart tanks remained in storage until 1960 or so, it is possible that they were in use even after 1949. Sadly, their final fate is unknown, but they do not seem to have survived to this day.

The Flak Stuarts saw service once again during the Trieste crisis that occurred after the Second World War ended. Interestingly, this vehicle had its hull positioned Browning machine gun replaced with what appears to be a captured German MG 42 machine gun. It also appears that a machine gun was placed on each side of the gun shield. Source: B. Dimitrijević The Trieste Crisis 1953

Conclusion

The M3A3 armed with the 2 cm Flakvierling 38 is a quite mysterious modification. While the whole construction was simple, the general reasoning behind choosing this weapon is difficult to fathom. While the 2 cm Flakvierling 38 had a tremendous firing rate and could saturate a target with hundreds of rounds, individually, these were quite weaker than the original 37 mm round. If they wanted to increase the firepower, the Partisans could have simply added anti-tank guns on these two vehicles. Using them as mobile anti-aircraft vehicles may have been a good idea earlier in the war, but by this stage, the German Air Force was almost destroyed. Nevertheless, regardless of its initial intent, the Flak Stuart served as a reminder of the ingenuity of the Partisan engineers by the end of the war.

Illustration of the M3A3 Flakvierling by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet

Specifications
Crew	5 (Gunner/commander, two loaders, driver and driver assistance).
Armament	2 cm Flakvierling 38
Engine	Continental 7 cylinder petrol 250 hp, air cooled
Armor	13 to 51 mm

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.
J. Popović, M. Lolić and B. Latas (1998) Podiyanje, Stvarnost Zagreb
B. B. Dimitrijević (2010) Modernizacija i Intervencija Jugoslovenske Oklopne Jedinice 1945-2000, Institut za savremenu istoriju
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
B. B. Dimitrijević, (2015) Vek Srpske Protivvazdušne odbrane, Institut za savremenu istoriju
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
http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info
N. Borić (1954) Od Tenka Do Brigade 1941 – 1945
B. Dimitrijević (2019) The Trieste Crisis 1953, Europe at War series No.1 Helion and Company

WW2 Italian Vehicles in Foreign Service WW2 Yugoslav Partisan Armor of Italian Origin

Semovente L40 da 47/32 in Yugoslav Partisan Service

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date November 5, 2021
3 Comments on Semovente L40 da 47/32 in Yugoslav Partisan Service

The Semovente L40 in a classic Italian camouflage but sporting the large Partisan flag on the side. Illustration by David Bocquelet, modified by Pavel 'Carpaticus' Alexe

Yugoslav Partisans (1943-1945)
Self-Propelled Gun – Unknown Number Operated

The Semovente L40 da 47/32 was an Italian light Self-Propelled Gun (SPG) developed as an infantry support vehicle. Entering service in 1942, it proved to be immediately obsolete. Given the general lack of armored vehicles, the Regio Esercito (Eng: Italian Royal Army) was forced to use them up to the Italian armistice. After that, the surviving vehicles were captured by the Germans and, in smaller numbers, by their Croatian allies. On some occasions, the Yugoslav Communist Partisans managed to capture some of these and put them to use against their former owners.

A Semovente L40 being towed by a German half-track operated by elements of the Partisan 2nd Tank Brigade at the end of the war, 1945. Source: Bojan B. Dumitrijević and Dragan Savić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu

The Semovente L40 da 47/32

The development of a new light infantry support gun that could support the assault of the Bersaglieri units (Italian Light Assault Troops) started in the late 1930s. The first prototype would be built and tested during 1941. The new vehicle, named Semovente Leggero Modello 1940 da 47/32, or Semovente L40 da 47/32, was based on a modified L6/40 light tank chassis. The modification included the installation of a box shaped superstructure armed with a Cannone da 47/32 Mod. 1935 gun on top of the L6/40’s unchanged chassis. By May 1943, some 282 were produced, with an additional 120 being produced by the Germans after the armistice, in 1943. The vehicle would see action on many fronts, from the Mediterranean to Russia, but was considered obsolete by the time it was introduced into service.

The Italian Semovente L40 da 47/32. Source: Wiki

Axis invasion of the Balkans

After the fruitless invasion of Greece by Italian forces, Benito Mussolini was forced to ask for help from his German ally. Adolf Hitler agreed to provide assistance, fearing a possible Allied attack through the Balkans would reach Romania and its vital oil fields. On the path of German advance towards Greece stood Yugoslavia, whose government initially agreed to join the Axis side. This agreement was short-lived, as the Yugoslav government was overthrown by an anti-Axis pro-Allied military coup at the end of March 1941. Hitler immediately gave an order for the preparation of the Invasion of Yugoslavia. The war that began on 6th April 1941 was a short one and ended with a Yugoslav defeat and the division of its territory between the Axis powers.

Map of the partition of Yugoslavia after the invasion. Slovenia was divided between Germany, Italy, and Hungary. The Croatian puppet state was given most of western Yugoslavia, including Bosnia. Macedonia was divided between Italy, which also took Montenegro, and Bulgaria. Northern Serbia was partitioned between Hungary and Romania. What was left of Serbia was placed under German occupation. Source: Wiki

Italian occupation force

After the collapse of Yugoslavia, the Italian High Command allocated some 24 Divisions to occupation duties. At first, this occupation ran without any problems. However, the Communist and Chetnik uprisings in Serbia and later in other parts of Yugoslavia would cause chaos among the Axis forces. While these initial uprising attempts would be put down, the resistance would only increase in the coming years. During 1942 and 1943, the Italians were hard-pressed to stop the Yugoslav Partisan activities in their occupation zones. While the Italians maintained large numbers of soldiers, these were actually divided into smaller groups for the defense of vital points, such as railways, supply bases, airports, cities, etcetera, greatly diminishing their combat abilities. The Partisans simply bypassed larger units and instead attacked smaller isolated positions. Then, the Partisans would simply wait for the relief columns before attacking them, causing huge losses. To help battling the Partisans, the Italians used a number of armored vehicles, ranging from simple armored trucks to light tanks.

During 1943, the self-propelled Semovente L40 da 47/32 also appeared in smaller numbers in this war theater. While it did see some service against the Yugoslav Partisans, the Italian surrender to the Allies in September 1943 brought an end to their use, at least by their original owners. The Italian exit from the war caused a race by the remaining Axis and Partisan forces to capture and disarm as many Italian divisions as possible. From September 1943 onwards, the Semovente L40 would see service with the Slovensko Domobranstvo and Croatian forces. On the other side, the Communist Partisans managed to also capture a number of Semovente L40 vehicles and use them against the Axis forces in occupied Yugoslavia.

In Communist Partisan Hands

After September 1943, despite German attempts to prevent Italian weapons and vehicles falling into the hands of the Partisans, many of them did. In part thanks to their quick response, the Partisans managed to acquire a number of Italian armored vehicles. Which exact vehicles and models were captured is generally not known precisely. There is a good chance that at least a few Semoventi L40 da 47/32 were also captured or handed over by Italian soldiers who joined the Yugoslav resistance or bartered for their freedom with their vehicles and weapons. While these vehicles were used against the Axis forces, due to German counterattacks, all were either lost to enemy fire or destroyed by the Partisans to prevent them falling back into enemy hands.

For the remainder of the war, on some occasions, Semovente da 47/32 would fall in hands of the Partisans. One such occasion was with the 1st Tank Brigade during the liberation of Mostar in mid-March 1945. At least one Semovente da 47/32 was captured, but unfortunately, the use of captured armored vehicles by this unit is not well documented and little is known. Another problem is that the Partisans referred to all armored vehicles (tanks, armored cars, and even self-propelled guns) simply as tanks. In some cases, the estimated tonnage of the particular tank would be added.

A Semovente L40 da 47/32 armed with a FIAT-Revelli Mod. 14/35 behind a column of M3 tanks belonging to the Partisan 1st Tank Brigade. Source: B. B. Dumitrijević and D. Savić Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu

It quickly became apparent to the Partisan High Command that their soldiers simply lacked the experience and proper training to efficiently operate the captured armored vehicles. For this reason, a tank training school was to be formed in Serbia (the exact location is unknown) during fall 1944. To efficiently train future tank and anti-tank crews, different types of vehicles from different origins were allocated to this school. Among these, a few Semoventi da 47/32 were also present.

Another Semovente da 47/32 was captured at the start of 1945 in Northern Yugoslavia. Note the machine gun that appears to be a German 7.92 mm MG 34. Source: B. B. Dimitrijević and D.Savić (Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu,, Institut za savremenu istoriju

From 8th to 15th May 1945, the Partisans managed to capture a large number of different military equipment from the retreating Axis forces, including tanks and anti-tank vehicles. Sadly, due to poor Partisan document records, it is almost impossible to determine which types were actually captured. To make matters worse, some Partisan units that did manage to capture enemy armored vehicles did not bother to inform the Supreme Partisan Command about them or even list them in any document. These vehicles were often used until they broke down or ran out of fuel, after which they were simply blown up. Another problem was the lack of Partisan knowledge of their real names. Sometimes, names like Tiger of Panther were used to describe vehicles that were completely different from the real thing. Interestingly, the Partisans referred to the L6 (and possibly the Semovente L40 da 47/32) vehicles either as FIAT, ‘small’ or ‘large’ tanks.

Camouflage and Markings

The Yugoslav Partisans which captured some L40s did not repaint them, keeping the Italian or German camouflage patterns. They added, when possible, Yugoslav flags or red stars on the sides of the superstructures to avoid friendly fire.

Two Semoventi L40 da 47/32 (the first vehicle is actually a command version based on it) that were captured by the Partisans. The large Yugoslav flag with a red star painted on the sides. Behind them, several other captured vehicles could be seen including an AB 41 armored car, L6/40 light tank. Source: http://beutepanzer.ru/

After The War

After the war, the new Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (Yugoslav People’s Army, JNA or YPA) still had a number of Semovente L40 da 47/32 anti-tank vehicles. Their use was at best limited due to a lack of spare parts and insufficient armor protection and firepower. Sadly, none of the Yugoslav Semovente L40 da 47/32 have survived to this day.

Conclusion

The Semovente L40 da 47/32 in Yugoslavia saw service in smaller numbers with nearly all warring parties. The Yugoslav Partisans managed to capture some of these vehicles and put them to use after 1943. The Semovente L40 da 47/32 combat operations in Partisan hands are hard to document. Those that were used surely provided additional firepower, something that the Partisans desperately needed during the war. Due to a general lack of spare parts and ammunition, some would be also used for crew training. Those that survived the war would be operated by the JNA for a short time.

The Semovente L40 in a classic Italian camouflage but sporting the large Partisan flag on the side. Illustration by David Bocquelet, modified by Pavel ‘Carpaticus’ Alexe

L40 da 47/32 specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)	3.82 x 1.92 x 1.63 m
Total weight, battle-ready	6.5 t
Crew	3 (commander/gunner, driver, loader)
Propulsion	FIAT-SPA, 6 cyl. gasoline, 68 hp
Speed	42 km/h, 25/20 km/h (cross-country)
Range	200 km
Armament	One Cannone da 47/32 Mod. 1935 gun and one machine gun
Armor	30 mm front, 15 mm sides and rear, and 10 mm floor

Sources

A. J. Munoz, Slovenian Axis Force in World War II 1941-1945, Axis Europa Books
N. Thomas and K. Mikulan (1995) Axis Forces in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Osprey Publishing
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata-Italija, Beograd
B. B. Dimitrijević and D.Savić (2011) Oklopne jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu,, Institut za savremenu istoriju, Beograd
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2008) 19-2 Beutepanzerwagen
M. Babić (1986) Oklopne jedinice u NOR-u 1941-1945,
Vojnoidavački I Novinski Centar
F. Cappellano and P. P. Battistelli (2012) Italian Light tanks 1919-45, New Vanguard
Nicola Pignato e Filippo Cappellano – Gli autoveicoli da combattimento dell’Esercito Italiano, Volume secondo (1940-1945).
Filippo Cappellano – Le artiglierie del Regio Esercito nella Seconda Guerra Mondiale

Has Own Video WW2 German Tank Destroyers

7.62 cm F.K. 36(r) auf gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3

Post author By MarkoPantelic
Post date October 25, 2021
No Comments on 7.62 cm F.K. 36(r) auf gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3

The 7.62 cm F.K. 36(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz. 6/3 in action is North Africa. Both illustrations by David Bocquelet.

German Reich (1941)
Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – 9 Built

During the war, the Germans encountered ever increasing numbers of strong enemy armor. Due to a general lack of numbers of their own tanks, they were often forced to field improvised anti-tank vehicles. These were mostly based on obsolete tank chassis, such as the Marder series, and armed with good anti-tank guns. In some rare cases, half-tracks were also employed in this manner. One such vehicle was the 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette (Sd.Kfz.6/3) developed during late 1941. While the increase in firepower was welcome, these vehicles had a number of defects which ultimately lead to a small production run of only 9 vehicles.

The 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette (Sd.Kfz.6/3). Source: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/506317-sdkfz-63-diana-soviet-guns-for-the-afrika-korps/

History

From 1941 onwards, on the Eastern Front, the Germans were starting to encounter tanks like the T-34 and KV series, which their tank and anti-tank guns struggled against. The situation in North Africa was not better either, as the British employed tanks such as the Matilda II, which were difficult to effectively deal with. The 7.5 cm PaK 40 towed anti-tank gun that was slowly entering service from the end of 1941 was able to successfully destroy these vehicles at long ranges. However, its main issue was its general lack of mobility, being a heavy towed gun. In the vast expanses of North Africa, a self-propelled anti-tank vehicle could offer a number of advantages, being able to quickly respond to enemy armor movements. It was for this reason that, in August 1941, the Germans began developing such a vehicle. It was meant to reinforce the German forces (Deutsches Afrikakorps DAK – German Africa Corps) fighting in North Africa.

For the initial tests, truck or half-track chassis were proposed. Regarding the armament, the Germans had two options to choose from, either the 5 cm PaK 38 or the captured Soviet 7.62 cm F.K. 36(r). The 7.5 cm PaK 40 was still under development at this time and far from entering service. Ultimately, the choice was cast in favor of the stronger and larger 7.62 cm F.K. 36(r) gun. According to the original plans, if the whole assembly proved viable, a limited production run of some 20 vehicles was to be carried out. This was ultimately changed to only 9 vehicles for unknown reasons. At the end of August, the German Army High Command (Oberkommando des Heeres) announced that, due to the urgent need for such vehicles, the chassis of a modified Sd.Kfz.6 half-track was to be armed with a 7.62 cm F.K. 36(r).

The Sd.Kfz.6 5-ton half-track was one of several similar half-track vehicles employed by the Germans during the war. It was developed back in 1934 by Buessing-NAG with the intention of providing the Pioniere (German Army engineers) with a vehicle for towing pontoon bridges and other equipment and the standard German 10.5 cm field howitzers. During the war, these were modified and used as self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicles. Depending on the role it was to perform, it received a slightly modified designation. The regular engineer version was named Sd.Kfz.6, the artillery towing version was the Sd.Kfz.6/1 and the later anti-aircraft version was the Sd.Kfz.6/2. While the half-track had a somewhat complicated suspension which consisted of 5 (later increased to 7) overlapping and interleaved double road wheels, its performance was deemed satisfactory. Like many other German vehicles, there were simply never enough of them to fulfill the Army’s needs. When the production ended in 1943, some 3,122 had been built.

An Sd.Kfz.6 5-ton half-track towing the standard 10.5 cm leFH 18. Source: Wiki

The main gun for this modification was actually a Soviet 76.2 mm M1936 (F-22) divisional gun. Such guns were captured in huge numbers during the initial months of Operation Barbarossa in the East. After a brief assessment of the gun’s characteristics, the Germans were satisfied with its performance. The gun was given to the army for use, under the name 7.62 cm F.K. (Feldkanone) 36(r) (also sometimes designated as Feldkanone (FK) 296(r)). It was initially used in its original field gun role, but very soon it became clear that it possessed great anti-tank capabilities. As this was a captured weapon, the German Army High Command also issued orders to collect as much armor-piercing and high-explosive ammunition as possible. These were to be then allocated to the unit that was to be equipped with this gun.

The 7.62 cm M1936 (F-22) was a Soviet divisional gun. Source: Wiki

Testing the Prototype

Once the first prototype was completed by Alkett sometime during late August or early September, it was transported for testing at the secret research center in Kummersdorf during September 1941. The prototype had a very basic design, with a large thinly armored structure placed on the former cargo bay of the half-track chassis. The front driver’s compartment was unchanged. The gun was placed inside this new box-shaped firing compartment. In order to fit inside, its trailing legs were shortened.

A series of evaluation and firing tests were conducted on 10th September. A few days later, Wa Prüf 6 (the tanks and motorized equipment design office) personnel made a report of its overall performance. In short, the report described that some 44 high-explosive and armor-piercing rounds were fired from the prototype vehicle at different elevations and traverse angles. No major issues were detected with the gun assembly. The half-track chassis also proved to be up to the job, as it could withstand the recoil of the 7.62 cm gun.

The 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 had a laconic overall design, which is quite evident here. It consisted of a box-shaped fighting compartment and the unchanged driver compartment to the front. Given its short and fast development process, this should not come as a surprise. Source: https://www.chaosbunker.de/en/2020/02/07/sdkfz-6-3-diana-for-the-afrikakorps-but-how/

While the overall design was deemed satisfactory, some changes were requested. The prototype was provided with an armored cover for the half-track’s radiator to protect it from damage from firing the gun, but this did not happen. It was proposed that it be removed, likely to save as much weight as possible. Another change that was requested was to remove part of the rear armor. The reason for this was the noted difficulty that arose during the replacement of the gun barrel and recoil cylinder due to lack of space. The opening to the rear provided the crew with plenty of room to effectively change the gun barrel. To avoid any possible delays, simple soft-steel doors were placed in the opening. On 17th September, further firing tests were conducted using Soviet but also German rounds adapted for the gun. These tests were to be followed up by driving trials.

While not directly related to these projects, the Germans were also experimenting with the idea of using half-track chassis as highly mobile anti-tank vehicles. One of these, which saw combat, was the Panzer-Selbstfahrlafette II, built using the experimental HKP 902 half-track. Only two would be built and they were lost in North Africa.

Another half-track project, the Panzer-Selbstfahrlafette II. Source: red

Name

This vehicle received the 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 designation. It is also known under the similar 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf 5t Zkgw designation. There are some misconceptions about the ‘Diana’ nickname for this vehicle. According to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No. Rommel’s Funnies), this name was associated with a subsequent Alkett project from 1942 based on the same half-track chassis, known as the 7.62cm PaK 36 auf 5t Zgkw Diana. While similar to the previous vehicle, it was to incorporate a number of improvements, namely a modified and improved anti-tank gun, better protection and fewer crew members. To complicate matters even more, according to the author T. Cockle (Armor of the Deutsches Afrikakorps), the ‘Diana’ nickname was actually given by the British.

Production Numbers

Only nine 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 vehicles were requested. For this reason, Buessing-NAG was tasked with the production of nine Sd.Kfz.6 chassis, which were delivered during October and November 1941. The company responsible for their final assembly was Alkett. Interestingly, while the majority of sources agree that only nine such vehicles were built, author G. Rottman (German self-propelled guns) notes that only six vehicles were built.

Specifications

The Chassis

This vehicle was based on the modified chassis of the Sd.Kfz.6 half-track. This half-track had a number of changes during its production run, aimed at improving its overall performance. In the case of the 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3, the BN 9b subversion was used. Some of the changes compared to previous versions included redesigning the suspension by using the torsion bar units, adding two extra road wheels, and installing a stronger Maybach NL 54 TUKRM engine giving 115 hp @ 2,600 rpm. With this engine and a weight of around 10 to 10.5 tonnes (depending on the source), the 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 could reach a maximum speed of some 50 km/h. The fuel load of some 190 liters offered an operational range of 222 km on road and 112 km off-road.

The 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 used a torsion bar suspension with overlapping and interleaved double road wheels. While somewhat complicated, it provided a relatively good off-road drive. Source: https://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/sdkfz-63-diana.html

The Fighting Compartment

The Sd.Kfz.6 cargo bay was replaced with a new fighting compartment that was protected by a simple but quite bulky box-shaped armored fighting compartment. The sides of this box-shaped fighting compartment were 3.6 m long and had a height of some 1.5 m. The rear plate was some 2 m wide with the same height. The front was open, with two smaller armored plates connected to the side walls. This is where the gun was to be located and its armored shield was to provide the crew protection from incoming fire. On top, this armored compartment was completely open, but could be covered with canvas to protect the crew from the harsh desert weather if needed. For this reason, three metal bar rails were added on the top to help stretch the canvas cover better.

The front was open in the center to provide room for the gun. Source: https://www.chaosbunker.de/en/2020/02/07/sdkfz-6-3-diana-for-the-afrikakorps-but-how/

On each side of this armored compartment, a large door was added for the crew to enter their positions. These doors could be opened toward the vehicle’s front. They were 90 cm wide and had a height of nearly 1 m. On the rear armor plate, a larger 60 cm wide door made of soft-steel was placed. This door was hinged at its bottom edge. Its primary function was to provide the crew with easy access in order to facilitate the replacement of the gun barrel and other parts. It could also be used to eject spent cartridges.

The doors are visible here. Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/7-62-cm-FK-296-r-auf-gp-Selbstfahrlafette-Sd-Kfz-6-3-t8911

The Armor

The new fighting compartment was protected (except the rear positioned door, which was made of soft steel) by 4.5 mm armor plates. While it was hoped this would provide protection at least against small-caliber rounds, in reality, it did not. The front was mostly protected with a 3 mm thick gun shield. Some older sources mention that the overall armor thickness was either 8 or 10 mm thick. In a German war report about this vehicle’s performance, it was noted that this armor was insufficient to provide protection from even small caliber machine gun fire.

In theory, for any self-propelled vehicle that was lightly armored, the best defense was a well-selected combat position and good camouflage. While the first of these two could be achieved with good reconnaissance, the latter was quite tricky given the vehicle’s huge size. The half-track SPG was a notoriously large target, with a length of 6.33 m, a width of 2.26 m, and a height of 3.05 m.

While this vehicle was provided with 4.5 mm thick armored plates, in reality, these proved mostly useless against enemy return fire. The large size also did not help much in the survivability of this vehicle. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/start.php

The Armament

The main armament was a captured Soviet 7.62 cm M1936 field gun. For installation in this vehicle, only the rear trail legs were shortened and then bolted down to provide stability during firing. The large wheels were also retained, but they were bolted down for the same reason. This gun had a traverse of 30° in both directions and an elevation of -7° to +20°. The armor penetration at 1 km was (depending on the ammunition used) 67 to 77 mm, more than enough to deal with enemy tanks encountered in North Africa.
In a German war report made by a Waffenamt liaison officer, it was noted that this gun (both in the towed and self-propelled versions) would generate fear among the enemy, who in turn would attempt to neutralize it by using artillery or airstrikes.

The 7.62 cm M1936 field gun, while possessing good anti-tank capabilities, was generally unsuited for this role. The main reason for this was the general arrangement of its traverse and elevation wheels. Namely, the traverse wheel was on the left, together with the gun sights, while the elevation handwheel was on the right side. As the gunner was positioned on the left, targeting was made quite difficult, if not almost impossible. The Germans took steps to address the issue, moving the elevation handwheel to the left side, but the linkages limited total elevation.

During the war, the Germans would modify and improve the 7.62 cm M1936 field gun for the anti-tank role. The changes involved adding a muzzle brake (but not all guns were equipped with it), cutting the gun shield in half (the upper part was welded to the lower part of the shield in a similar fashion to the PaK 40 two-part shield) and rechambering the gun to 7.5 cm caliber in order to use standard German ammunition ( as on the PaK 40). After these changes, the gun was renamed 7.62 cm PaK 36(r). This version was not the one mounted on the 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3, but the original version of the gun.

The ammunition load was huge, with 100 rounds being stored in an ammunition bin which was located to the rear of the new fighting compartment. An additional 40 rounds could be stored on a towed trailer, if needed. Some sources claim that the ammunition load consisted of 64 rounds, while author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka) mentions that only 20 rounds were carried inside.

The original Soviet gun had its traverse and elevation handwheel positioned on opposite sides of the gun, which made aiming this gun for anti-tank duties quite difficult. The Germans would later change this by moving both handwheels on the left side. Source: Wiki

The armor plates offered no real protection against enemy return fire, and possibly most vehicles were lost this way. To save time and to provide stability for the gun, the wheels of the gun were retained and can be seen here. In addition, the shortened trail legs are also visible. Source: https://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/sdkfz-63-diana.html

The 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 gun had a traverse of 30° in both directions and an elevation of -7° to +20°. Source: https://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/sdkfz-63-diana.htm

The secondary armament consisted of one 9 mm MP 40 submachine gun allocated to the vehicle commander. The remaining crew were issued with pistols for self-defense.

The Crew

This vehicle had a rather large crew, which consisted of a commander, a gunner, a driver, a loader, and two additional ammunition bearers. Beside the driver, who was fully exposed at the front, the remaining crewmen were located in the box-shaped fighting compartment. The number of crew members is listed as 5 in a number of sources.

The 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 had a large crew of six. The driver was probably in the worst situation, as he was completely unprotected and exposed to enemy fire. Source: https://guerra-mundial-1914-1945.fandom.com/es/wiki/7.62cm_Flak_36(r)_auf_Selbstfahrlafette_Zugkraftwagen_5t_Sd.Kfz._6/3_%22Diana%22

Forming the First Units and Organisation

At the end of September 1941, an order was issued to begin the necessary steps for forming a unit equipped with 9 such vehicles. The delivery of completed vehicles was expected to be ready by 25th October. In mid-November, a new order gave instructions to form three Platoons (Zuge). each equipped with three vehicles. The commanders of these Platoons were to be supplied with cars including and support staff, like a motorcycle messenger.

In North Africa

The 9 vehicles were transported from Germany to Italy at the end of December 1941. From there, they were transported by ship to Tripoli. Six vehicles arrived there on 12th January 1942, while the remaining three arrived in late February 1942. The first six 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 were used to reinforce the 3rd Kompanie (Company) of the 605th Panzerjäger Abteilung (Anti-tank Battalion), which was part of the 90th Leichte Division (Light Division). Beside the 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3, the 605th Anti-Tank Battalion was also equipped with at least 6 Panzerjäger Is (anti-tank vehicles based on the Panzer I chassis).

Beside the small number of 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 vehicles, the 605th Anti-Tank Battalion was also equipped with the Panzerjäger I which can be seen in the background. Source: https://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/sdkfz-63-diana.html

As only six arrived in January, these initially saw action against the British in early 1942. By the 10th of February, probably due to high mechanical failures, only one vehicle of the original six was still operational. By March, with the arrival of the remaining three vehicles, the whole unit was finally attached to the 90th Light Division. The first losses occurred during April, when two vehicles were written-off, but the precise cause of these losses is not recorded.

In May 1942, the 605th anti-tank Battalion still had three operational platoons equipped with this vehicle, which were slightly reduced in strength. The 1st Platoon had three vehicles, while the remaining two Platoons each were equipped with two vehicles. These remaining seven vehicles saw extensive action during Unternehmen Venezia (Operation Venice), an Axis attack on the British positions at Gazala in late May 1942. On 28th May, the few 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 managed to beat back the tanks of the British 4th Armored Brigade near El Adem.

Due to further fighting, the number of these vehicles was reduced to four, while one was under repair on 8th June 1942. Due to further losses, by the start of July, only one operational and two non-operational vehicles were left. The same month, at least two vehicles participated in the Axis conquest of Tobruk. During the failed attempt to break the El Alamein line, one more was lost. At the start of December 1942, the last remaining 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 were finally lost. Of the 9 vehicles built, at least one was captured by the British in North Africa.

This vehicle was captured and examined by the British. Source: http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/start.php

While the 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 offered a great increase in firepower and mobility, due to its weak armor and large size, it did not prove to be a successful overall design. Source: https://www.chaosbunker.de/en/2020/02/07/sdkfz-6-3-diana-for-the-afrikakorps-but-how/

Related Vehicles

7.62 cm PaK 36 auf 5t Zgkw ‘Diana’

The ‘Diana’ was a subsequent project from Alkett, meant to provide a more mature design for this type of vehicle. While based on the same chassis, it used the modified Pak 36(r), which had better anti-tank performance, better armor and a smaller crew.

The 7.62 cm PaK 36 auf 8t ZgKw ‘Artemis’

Using the Sd.Kfz.6 was not the last attempt to develop an anti-tank vehicle based on a half-track chassis. The development of such a vehicle based on the larger Sd.Kfz.7 was initiated in August 1941. It was to be lightly protected and to have a crew of only four. While a single prototype was completed, the whole project was eventually abandoned and no photos have survived.

Conclusion

The decision to build only nine 7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 was quite justified, as this vehicle had a number of disadvantages. While its gun had good overall armor-piercing properties, its origin as a field gun made it somewhat unfit for the anti-tank role. The overall large shape of the vehicle offered an excellent target for enemy gunners. The weak, almost useless armor offered no real protection against any kind of enemy fire. The low numbers built also limited its overall performance on the front. In the end, while the Germans made some attempts to develop self-propelled anti-tank vehicles based on half-tracks, these projects ended in failure and were built in limited numbers.

The basic Sd.Kfz.6 half-track.

The 7.62 cm F.K. 36(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3 in action is North Africa. Both illustrations by David Bocquelet.

Specifications
Dimensions (l-w-h)	6.33 m, 2.26 m, 3.05 m
Total weight, battle-ready	10 to 10.5 tonnes
Crew	6 (Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader and two Ammunition )
Propulsion	Maybach NL 54 TUKRM 6 cyl., 115 hp @ 2,600 rpm
Speed (road/off-road)	50 km/h
Range (road/off-road)	222 km, 112 km (cross country)
Primary Armament	7.62 cm F.K.(r)
T Armor	3 to 3.4 mm

Sources

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. P. Battistelli (2006) Rommel’s Afrika Korps, Osprey Publishing
F. Kurowski (2010) Das Afrika Korps Stackpole books.
G. Rottman, German self-propelled guns, Concord
D. Doyle (2005). German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
A. Lüdeke (2007) Waffentechnik im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Parragon books.
V. Andorfer, M. Block and J, Nelson, Marder III, Nuts and Bolts Vol. 15
H. Scheibert, Die Deutschen Panzer Des Zweiten Weltkriegs, Dörfler.
T. Cockle (Armor of the Deutsches Afrikakorps)
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2005) Panzer Tracts No.7-2 Panzerjager
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2014) Panzer Tracts No.22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and SFL. Flak (Sd.Kfz.7)
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (1997) Panzer Tracts No. Rommel’s Funnies
W.J.K. Davies (1979), Panzerjager German Anti-Tank Battalions of World War Two. Almark Publishing Co.Ltd.

Leichter Panzerspähwagen (M.G.) Sd.Kfz.221

Jagdpanzer 38 D

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.H

Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and 8.8 cm BuFlak ‘Bunkerknacker’

Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7.5 cm Kanone (Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.A)

Lazanski Armored Combat Vehicle

Škoda Š-I-d (T-32)

Macharius Heavy Tank

Panzer IV/70(E)

Semovente M43 da 149/40

2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV

3.7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70

SU-45

Flakpanzer IV (3.7 cm Zwillingflak 43) ‘Ostwind II’

Flakpanzer IV (3 cm Flakvierling) ‘Zerstörer 45’

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.D mit 5 cm KwK 39 L/60

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.G

Light Tank M3A3 with 2 cm Flakvierling 38

Semovente L40 da 47/32 in Yugoslav Partisan Service

7.62 cm F.K. 36(r) auf gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette Sd.Kfz.6/3

German Reich (1935-1945) Armored Reconnaissance Car – 339 Built

A Brief History of Early German Armored Car Development

Name

The Sd.Kfz.221

Production

Design

Chassis and Running Gear

Engine

Armored Body

Turret

Armament

Crew

Radio Equipment

Organization

In Combat

Sub-Variants

Sd.Kfz.221 with Panzerbüchse 39

Sd.Kfz.221 with 2.8 cm schwere Panzerbüchse 41

Sd.Kfz.221 Radio and Command Vehicles

Sd.Kfz.221 with MG 34 Lafette

Sd.Kfz.221 in Chinese Service

Surviving Vehicles

Conclusion

Specifications

Sources

German Reich (1944) Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – 2 Prototypes Built

A brief history of the Jagdpanzer 38(t)

History of the German Jagdpanzer 38

Name

Work on the Jagdpanzer 38D

Technical Specification

Hull

Suspension

Engine

Superstructure

Armament

Armor

Crew

Other Projects Based on the Jagdpanzer 38 D

Bergepanzer 38 D

Aufklärer 38 D

Anti-Aircraft Versions

The Fate of the Project

Conclusion

Specifications

Sources

German Reich (1943) Medium Tank – 2,322 to 3,774 Built

A New Form

The Real Panzer IV Ausf.H

Production

Design

Hull

Suspension and Running Gear

Engine

Superstructure

Turret

Armor Protection

Armament

Organization

In Combat

German Reich (1935-1945)
Armored Reconnaissance Car – 339 Built

German Reich (1944)
Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – 2 Prototypes Built

German Reich (1943)
Medium Tank – 2,322 to 3,774 Built

German Reich (1938-1940)
Armored Towing Vehicle – 25+ Built
Anti-Aircraft Gun – 33 to 50 Modified

German Reich (1940)
Assault Gun – 30 Built + 6 to 20 Ausf.A/B Hybrids