WW2 German Prototypes

2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV

Germany (1943)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun (SPAAG) – 1 prototype

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:

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.


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:

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 [email protected],800 rpm instead of the usual 265 [email protected],600 rpm. If this was implemented on the Flakpanzer IVprototype is not clear.


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:

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:
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.


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:

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.


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:


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


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



WW2 German Prototypes

3.7 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70

 Germany (1935) Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – 1 prototype

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


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.


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:

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:

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:

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:

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:


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.


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

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:

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:


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:


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




WW2 German Prototypes

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

Germany (1945)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun – Possibly only 1 prototype

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:

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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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:

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.


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:

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.


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:

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.


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.



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



WW2 German Prototypes

Flakpanzer IV (3 cm Flakvierling) ‘Zerstörer 45’

Nation Flag IconGermany (1944)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun (SPAAG) – 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:

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:

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.


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.


Due to the little existing information, the precise internal design of the Zerstörer 45 is unknown.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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:

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.


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


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:
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:


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:

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.


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.


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



WW2 German Prototypes

3.7 cm Flak 43 in Keksdose-Turm auf Pz.Kpfw.III Fahrgestell

Germany (1944)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun (SPAAG) – 1-2 prototypes and 11-18 built

The German ground forces were hard pressed by the Allied ground attack aircraft during the second half of World War II. The Panzer and Sturmartillerie units were hit especially hard by these attacks. Towards the end of the war, the Panzer branch of the Army came up with a temporary solution in the form of the Flakpanzer series based on the Panzer IV. The Sturmartillerie (Eng. assault artillery) units, equipped with the StuG III based on the Panzer III, also asked for Flakpanzers (Eng. anti-aircraft tanks) for their own protection. As they were unable to acquire these vehicles, a possible solution was to simply develop and build a Flakpanzer based on the Panzer III chassis. While small numbers were built, they were simply too late to have any real effect on the war’s outcome. Sadly, besides a few drawings, there are no known surviving photographs of this vehicle.

Besides a few drawings, to this day, there are no surviving photographs of the Flakpanzer III. Source: Panzer Tracts. 12-1

Context and Development

By 1943, it had become apparent that the Luftwaffe was losing control of the skies, which left the German ground forces severely exposed. The armored formations were often the main focus of the Allied ground attack aircraft operations. While the Germans employed a number of anti-aircraft vehicles based on half-tracked (Sd.Kfz.10/4, Sd.Kfz.6/2, Sd.Kfz.7/1, etcetera) and truck chassis. These had very limited or no armor, and thus they were vulnerable to enemy fire either from the ground or the air. To provide adequate armed and armored anti-aircraft vehicles, the Panzer units were supplemented with several Flakpanzers built using different tank chassis, raging from the old Panzer I (built in a small series and more of an improvisation than a properly design vehicle), Panzer 38(t), to the Panzer IV. The Panzer IV-based anti-aircraft vehicles (Mobelwagen, Wirbelwind and Ostwind) proved to be most effective but were introduced for service late into the war.

The quadruple 2 cm gun-armed Wirbelwind was probably the best German Flakpanzer IV produced during the war that saw combat in some numbers. While the later Ostwind had a stronger 3.7 cm gun, it was built too late and in too small numbers and only saw limited combat action. Source: WIki

The In 4 (artillery branch – Inspectorate 4) wanted a similar vehicle for their own assault artillery units. To facilitate the production of spare parts and maintenance, the new vehicle should have been based on the Panzer III chassis, the same as the StuG III was using. For this reason, in October 1944, a military delegation was dispatched to Deutsche-Eisenwerke in Duisburg to inspect the available anti-aircraft turret designs. For the planned Flakpanzer III production, in November 1944, In 4 managed to obtain a monthly delivery of 30 StuG III chassis. In addition, some 90 Panzer III superstructures were also allocated for this project.

In December 1944, Regierungsbaurat Becker was dispatched to the Ostabau Sagan factory, where the Ostwind and Wirbelwind turrets were being built. Becker proposed to modify the Ostwind and Wirbelwind turrets so that these would be able to fit to the smaller diameter of the Panzer III turret ring. The Obstbau officials simply rejected this proposal, not willing to engage in this project. It is possible that the Obstbau officials were influenced by the Panzer branch, which had, to say the least, a ‘tense’ relationship with the assault artillery branch. These tensions had been raging since even before the war had actually started. Another simpler explanation was that Obstbau Sagan simply lacked production capabilities and was barely managing to keep up with Flakpanzer IV turret production. As the Obstbau experience and production facilities (limited as they were) would have greatly sped up the assault artillery Flakpanzer project, In 4 was left empty-handed.

Nevertheless, not willing to admit defeat, In 4 initiated development of the assault artillery unit’s own Flakpanzer project. For the main base for the construction of such a vehicle, the Sturmgeschützschule (Eng. assault gun school) at Burgen was chosen. In early 1945, Deutsche-Röhrenwerke delivered an Ostwind turret with an enclosed floor. Depending on the source, a Wirbelwind turret was also allocated for this project. Additionally, two 3.7 cm Flak 43 and two 2 cm Flakvierling 38 anti-aircraft guns, along with two (or one) Panzer III chassis were also acquired.

While it was not adopted, a Wirbelwind armed Flakpanzer III was also tested. Source: Walter J. Spielberger.Gepard the History of German Anti-Aircraft tanks

The two prototypes were successfully completed and tested by March 1945. While testing the Ostwind turret, the Burgen engineers noted that besides the standard 3.7 cm Flak 43, the installation of 2 cm Flakvierling 38 could be done without any major problems. In early March 1945, the Heeres Waffenamt gave permission to allocate some 18 Ostwind turrets from Ostabau Sagan stocks to the Flakpanzer III project. An additional 72 turrets were yet to be built.


Due to its late and unofficial introduction into service, it is unknown if this vehicle ever received any official name. In the well-known Panzer Tracts series, issue 12-1, Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV and other Flakpanzer projects, this vehicle is named the 3.7 cm Flak 43 in Keksdose-Turm auf Pz.Kpfw.III Fahrgestell. However, a quite common short name is the Flakpanzer III. This article has and will use this designation for sake of simplicity.


While In 4 requested 90 Ostwind turrets, only around 18 (the precise number is unknown) were actually delivered. The Flakpanzer III project would reach a quick end as it was, in essence, canceled by the Albert Speer Emergency Armament Production Program. This decision also encompassed the previously mentioned 18 turrets. Nevertheless, the Commanding General of Artillery, who was part of the German Army General Staff, urged for the completion of at least these 18 vehicles. He also requested special permission to build the remaining 72 turrets at a production rate of 12 per month. Due to the deteriorating war situation, his request was rejected. Despite this rejection, the Sturmgeschützschule at Burg managed to build a small number of Flakpanzer IIIs. If these were all armed with the 3.7 cm or some with the 2 cm anti-aircraft guns is unknown.


Sadly, there is little to no information about the precise technical characteristics of the Flakpanzer III. A number of educated guesses can be made based on the similarities to the Panzer IV-based Ostwind project.

The Flakpanzer III chassis

As already mentioned, the Flakpanzer III was to be built using a combination of StuG III chassis and Panzer III superstructures. Which precise version of both was to be used is not known. Use of repaired (returned from the front) or even training vehicles could have been possible by the desperate Germans in 1944 and 1945. While the modification of less combat-worthy Panzer IIIs and StuG IIIs may, at first, seem like a good idea, the production of this tank was discontinued in 1943, thus limiting the potential large-scale production of such vehicles. However, the StuG III was still in production.

Suspension and the Engine

The suspension and running gear were the same as those of the original Panzer III, with no obvious changes to it. It consisted of torsion bar suspension with six small road wheels. Additionally, there were two front drive sprockets, two rear idlers, and six return rollers in total. The engine was the Maybach HL 120 TRM that produced 265 hp at 2600 rpm. With the removal of the original turret and replacing it with the new one, the weight was probably around 20 to 21 tonnes. This is at best just as a guess, as there is no information about it. This meant that the overall speed would not be changed much, which was around 40 km/h. The operational range would also remain the same, at 155 km.

The Panzer III suspension is visible here. Source:

The Hull and the Superstructure

The Panzer III superstructure was probably unchanged. The driver’s front observation hatch and the ball-mounted hull machine gun were possibly kept as well. The most obvious place that would see a necessary modification were the Panzer III’s interior and the turret ring housing. In order to make a stable firing platform for the new turret, two (or more) metal beams were welded inside the Panzer III hull, probably a more or less direct copy from the Odtwind construction. How the engineers at the Burgen assault gun school placed the Ostwind turret, with its larger (1,680 mm) diameter on a smaller 1,520 mm diameter Panzer III turret ring is unknown.

The Turret

While both the Ostwind and Wirbelwind turrets were tested on the prototypes, the In 4 officials decided to use the Ostwind turret for the Flakpanzer III. The Ostwind turret was also known by the humorous Keksdose (Eng. cookie tin) nickname. It had a simple design, constructed by using 12 larger armored plates (placed at 30°) welded together. The turret was open-top, which provided a good all-round view, but offered no top protection. While initially there were plans to partly cover the top, due to a lack of resources and to avoid delays, this was never implemented. The overall armor thickness of the turret plates was only 16 mm, which provided protection from small arms fire and shrapnel. The Ostwind turret also had an additional pyramid-shaped sheet of armor welded to the lower front armor. Its purpose was to provide additional protection against any possible ricochet (from smaller caliber rounds) in the direction of the vehicle hull.

The Flakpanzer III’s traverse turret mechanism was probably taken directly from the Ostwind. This was in general a simple mechanism, by using a steering rod to connect the Flak 43 traversing mechanism to the Panzer III turret ring. This allowed the crew to move the turret by using the main gun traverse. The armored shield wall construction was placed on a ring-shaped turret base welded to the hull top, with added ball bearings to help with the rotation. If any additional modifications were made is unknown due to the lack of information.

The Ostwind had a simple design that provided the crew with small-caliber fire and shrapnel protection (from the side and not from the top). Source:D. Terlisten, Nuts and Bolts Vol.13 Flakpanzer, Wirbelwind and Ostwind.

For extra protection, the Ostwind turret received a pyramid-shaped sheet of armor welded to the lower front armor. The Flakpazer III would probably also have this feature. Source: D. Terlisten, Nuts and Bolts Vol.13 Flakpanzer, Wirbelwind and Ostwind.


The main weapon used was the 3.7 cm Flak 43 built by Rheinmetall-Borsig. It had a new gas-operated breech mechanism which was loaded with a fixed loading tray with eight-round clips. In order to be installed in the new Ostwind turret, some modifications were needed. The lower part of the carriage and the original gun shield were removed. In addition, the spent ammunition basket was smaller due to the turret size. Only the small rectangular shield in front of the gun was left in order to cover the front embrasure opening. The Flak 43 could rotate a full 360°, with a range of gun elevation between – 10° to + 90°. The maximum rate of fire was 250-300 rounds per minute, but 150-180 was the more practical rpm. It is not clear, but it is estimated that between 400 to 1,000 rounds of spare ammunition were carried inside the vehicle. With a muzzle velocity of 820 mps, the maximum effective ceiling was 4,800 m. The upper right front armor plate had a small hatch that could be opened to allow the gunner to see and engage ground targets.

For self-defense, the crew could rely on the hull-mounted MG 34, retained from the Panzer III design, and their personal weapons, which included the MP-38/40 submachine gun, pistols, and hand grenades.

The 3.7 cm Flak 43 Source: Pinterest


The Flakpanzer III crew would most likely have consisted of a commander, one or two gunners, a loader, a radio operator, and a driver. The driver and radio operator were placed in the vehicle hull, while the remaining crew were positioned in the new cramped turret.

Close up view of the Panzer IV Ostwind turret crew positions. The gunner is to the right and the loader and commander to the left. As the Flakpanzer III used the same turret, the crew configuration would not be changed much. Source Pinterest

In combat

The few constructed Flakpanzer III were actually rushed into combat. The following Sturmgeschütz Brigaden (Stu.G.Brig.) were known to have operated some Flakpanzer IIIs. In mid-March 1945, Stu.G.Brig.224 had 2 vehicles (one operational), while Stu.G.Brig.341 had 3 vehicles (two operational). The last unit to be equipped with Flakpanzer IIIs was Stu.G.Brig.667, which had two operational vehicles (out of four). All Flakpanzer IIIs saw service in the West by the end of the war. Whether they were actually used in combat or their performance is sadly unknown.


To draw a proper conclusion about the Flakpanzer III is almost impossible due to a lack of information. The use of a cheaper Panzer III chassis for a Flakpanzer idea had some merits. The much-needed Panzer IV chassis could instead be used for tanks or even in anti-tank configurations. In the end, while a potentially good idea, by the time it was implemented, it was simply too late to have a real impact on the war’s development.

Representation of the Flakpanzer III based on the available descriptions, as no photos have survived. Illustration by David Bocquelet, modified by Pavel ‘Carpaticus’ Alexe.

3.7 cm Flak 43 in Keksdose-Turm auf Pz.Kpfw.III Fahrgestell

Dimensions L-W-H 4.6 m x 2.12 m x 2.4 m
(ft in x ft in x ft in)
Total weight 9.4 tonnes
Crew Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver and Radio operator
Armament 3.7 cm Flak 43
Secondary Armament 7.92 mm M.G.34 machine-gun
Turret Armor All around 16mm
Hull Armor 10-80 mm
Propulsion Maybach HL 108 TR 265 hp at @ 2600 rpm
Top road speed 40 km/h (25 mph)
Max. road range 155 km ( miles)
Total production 1-2 prototypes and 11-18


WW2 German Prototypes

Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Tiger I (Flammanlage auf Tiger I – ‘Flammpanzer VI’)

Nazi Germany (1944-45)
Flamethrower Tank – Experimental Only

There is something about a flamethrower that induces the primordial fear amongst those on the receiving end. The awe of seeing a sheet of flame projected towards you with little or no chance of stopping it was recognized as a very effective psychological weapon during World War I, when these devices first started to be fielded. Even as far back as then, there were ideas and plans to mount these flamethrowers into tanks. An armored all-terrain platform makes a lot of sense for a flamethrower-carrier, as it is protected by its armor from the small arms of the enemy but also able to traverse the rough or broken ground in front of the position. Further, whilst a man-portable system was limited by the ability and stamina of the man hauling it, a vehicle was not. A vehicle-mounted flamethrower system could carry far more fuel for a bigger flame thrower with a longer range than was possible with a man-portable system.

The Germans, right from World War I, were fans of flamethrowers and understood the potential of them both in their direct military application for clearing an enemy position as well as for their psychological effect. Various German tanks in World War II were trialed with flamethrowers, although some are better known than others. One of these projects that is mostly forgotten and was never realized in a vehicle was the fitting of a heavy flamethrower into the hull of a Tiger I, the Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Tiger I.

Flamethrowers mounted on the Panzer I (Pz.Kpfw. I Ausf.A), also known as ‘Flammpanzer I’, were used in North Africa against the British and a version known as the ‘Flamingo’, based on the Panzer II (Pz.Kpfw.II(F) Sd.Kfz.122), also known as ’Flammpanzer II’, was used on the Russian Front. Both of these vehicles saw relatively limited service. They were simply too vulnerable to enemy fire with thin armor which even an anti-tank rifle could penetrate from the front. As such, the poor range of the flame projectors they mounted left them very vulnerable to being penetrated as they had to get too close. This, and carrying hundreds of liters of fuel inside the tank was thus a recipe for disaster for the crews. The Flammpanzer I had mounted its projector in the turret alongside a single machine gun but the Flammpanzer II went for two nozzles, one on each front mudguard over the tracks (Spritzkopfe – Spray Heads). Each was independently operable, able to be rotated through 180 degrees. The turret was changed to include new vision ports permitting a better view of each nozzle as it worked and just a single machine gun. Flame time for the Flammpanzer II was limited. Just 160 litres of fuel were carried, enough for up to 80 ‘shots’ lasting up to 2-3 seconds each with the usual method being to douse the target with fuel before igniting it.

Flammpanzers I and II (Flamingo) showing the turret-mounted flame-projector on the Panzer I and the front-wing mounted projectors on the Panzer II. Source: Jentz et al. (left)

A solution to the lack of armor on the Flammpanzer I and II was to use the hull of a more heavily armored tank. Whilst it was on a much slower platform, a successful flamethrower was retrofitted to captured French Renault Char B tanks (Pz.Kpfw.B2 (F1)). Powered by a J-10 Motor driving a pump rather than being reliant upon cylinders of compressed nitrogen gas as the propellant like on the Flammpanzer II, this system had a range of 40 to 45 metres with enough fuel for about 200 separate bursts. This was a new type of fitting designed by Wegmann, although the actual flamethrower was designed by Koebe. This partnership paired the heavily protected Char B hull with the flamethrower, allowing, at least in theory, for the vehicle to get close enough to the enemy to make use of it.

Two views of the front-mounted flame-projector fitted to the front of the captured French Char B2 (Pz.Kpfw.B2 (F)). Source: Jentz et al. via The Tank Museum, England

The Panzer III (Pz.Kpfw.III (F) Sd.Kfz.141/3) flamethrower version, also known as the Flammpanzer III, was different to the Pz.Kpfw.B2 (F) using a Koebe* HL II 40/40 1000/20 pump which, in turn, was driven by a two-stroke 28 hp Auto Union ZW 1101 (DKW) (1,100 cc) engine. It could achieve a jet of burning flame oil out to just 60 metres at a pressure of 1.52 to 1.72 MPa (15 to 17 atmospheres) and a rate of 7.8 litres per second. The fuel mix itself was a mixture of oil and petrol to create a thickened burning fluid which was easily ignited by means of Smits glow plugs (Smitskerzen). This system had far better mobility than the Pz.Kpfw.B2 (F) retrofitted system, but still required improvement and found limited use.

*(Koebe was the firm of Hermann Koebe Feuerwehr-Geraete-Fabrik of Berlin, a manufacturer of fire-fighting equipment)

Panzer III (Pz.Kpfw.III (F) Sd.Kfz.141/3) ‘Flammpanzer III’ in action. Source: Jentz and Doyle
Koebe HL II 40/40 1000/200 auxilliary pump and fuel tank (on top) as used in the Pz.Kpfw.III (F) to deliver the flame-fuel. source: Jentz et al.

Enter the Tiger

Despite the successful use of various flamethrower-armed vehicles, including tanks and half tracks, during the war, it was clear to the Germans that the short range of the flame systems used meant that the vehicles carrying them had to get too close to the enemy and this rendered them vulnerable to fire. The solution was twofold: first, put the flamethrower on a heavily armored platform (like had been tried on the Pz.Kpfw.B2 (F)), and secondly, partner this with a new, longer-range flamethrower system.

At the end of 1944, a solution was proffered by Hitler. On 5th December 1944, during a conference, he requested that a long-range flamethrower should be mounted behind as heavy an armored chassis as possible. Various heavy tank projects had been suggested up to and including the Maus (which had been through its own flamethrower development by this time). The Tiger II chassis was the most well armored vehicle in service which was in production at the time, but chassis for that vehicle were at a premium. The next best thing of course was the Tiger I (Sd.Kfz.181 – Tiger Ausf.E), a vehicle which had finished production and for which there were hulls available as vehicles were brought back from the front for repair.

Repurposing these hulls for this use was not dissimilar from the idea to reuse hulls for the Sturmtiger programme, as it meant that a tank which might have had severe and irreparable turret damage could be reused for the war effort. Unlike the Sturmtiger though, this flamethrower idea would not require extensive rebuilding with a new superstructure and weapon system. Instead, the plan was much simpler. Hitler’s goal was a Flammpanzer with frontal armor which was impenetrable to enemy fire with a target of 250 mm, but the Tiger I, with armor up to 120 mm thick on the front, would have to do in the short-term. This demand was repeated by Hitler on 29th December 1944 and the task passed over to Obert Crohn of the Entwicklungskommission Panzer (Tank Development Committee).

Preserved Tiger 131 at The Tank Museum Bovington. Currently the only running Tiger tank in the world. Source: Mark Nash


Reusing Tiger I hulls would mean there would be no need to design a chassis on which to mount this flamethrower but there were still technical hurdles to overcome. First was the flame-part of the problem and, on 23rd January, Obert Crohn reported a solution. It was a reversion to the older high-pressure gas-based delivery system but it would provide a significantly longer range flamethrower, at 120-140 metres. The mounting for the weapon was selected as being the machine gun port on the front of the Tiger, meaning it could be directed by the man in the front right who had previously had the role of radio operator/hull machine gunner, but there was still the issue of the fuel tanks. The interior of the Tiger was crammed full already with the equipment it needed to function as a tank as well as the turret basket, ammunition etc., so there were only two easy options for the fuel. Either it would have to be hauled in a trailer behind (a solution adopted famously by the Churchill Crocodile) or else the turret would have to be removed to create the space. The advantage of a trailer idea is that the main gun could be retained, but this would come at a cost. The trailer would be vulnerable and, since the surplus Tiger Is were those with damaged turrets anyway, the turretless internal-fuel-stowage option was chosen instead. This would be lighter and avoid the vulnerable trailer but had its own flaws. First was the lack of armament as the hull weapon had been replaced, and the turret weapons had been lost. This would receive separate consideration for a solution. The second problem was the profile. A turretless Tiger would draw significant attention and be an obvious target on which an enemy could focus fire.

Certainly, production would not have been a significant issue as the modifications were modest but the whole concept had to be called into question. Major General Thomale was a fan of the flamethrower but only in limited circumstances. Specifically, he liked them on small, light, and maneuverable vehicles which could target the odd stubborn strongpoint and the Tiger I was neither small, light, nor particularly fast even with a turret removed. His second point was also valid. With its main gun, the tank could pick off the enemy at combat ranges up to 2,500 metres meaning a significant safety distance from their fire and, with 80 rounds, could do so many times. A flamethrower meant getting very, very close and offered relatively few attempts to destroy the enemy. Despite the limited advantages of the system, he was therefore against it.

The flame thrower system designed could still be used, but would have to be mounted on something smaller and lighter instead, and the Jagdpanzer 38 was selected as the replacement. Nonetheless, the idea of a flamethrower on the Tiger I was not over.

On 19th March 1945, despite the extremely dire war situation, the project, named ‘Flammenlage auf Tiger I’ (Flame mounting on Tiger I) or ‘Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Tiger I’ (Heavy flamethrower on Tiger I) was still being listed as a project under development and Hitler ordered Maj.Gen. Thomale to fit the flamethrower system to a turretless Tiger I with the second idea of increasing the thickness of the armor on the front. Quite how much additional armor was meant to be added is not clear nor how it was to be done, but perhaps something akin to the method used on the Ferdinand/Elephant is the best approximation as to which would have been adopted. The Sturmtiger was similarly up-armored with an extra 50 mm plate, which suggests the frontal armour of the Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Tiger I could have been increased to around 150 mm across the front, a lot less than Hitler might have wanted but certainly a significant improvement.

The original Tiger (P) armor was significantly improved with heavy armor plating bolted to the original front to improve protection. Source: Jentz and McKaughan
Prototype Sturmtiger with 50 mm thick additional front armor plate bolted on the lower front section.

Further progress was still reported into the final days of Nazi Germany, with an update from Wa Pruef 6 on the project as late as 3rd April 1945. In this report, Obert Holzhauer (head of Wa Pruef 6) reported that, following Hitler’s orders, the first steps in putting together this experimental heavy flamethrower on a Tiger I had taken place at Wegmann, Kassel on 21st and 22nd March with completion of the project estimated by 15th April. The Tiger I to be used had been dispatched by train from Kummersdorf on 17th March but, due to enemy bombing, had been delayed until 3rd April 1945. From Kassel, the vehicle was then sent to the firm of MIAG at Braunschweig for assembly there under supervision of men from Wegmann.

This additional movement and Allied bombing meant that the target completion date of 15th April was missed and the vehicle was never completed. Likely, work on actually fitting the system was never even started before Allied forces overran the facility. This is confirmed by a British intelligence report of the time which stated:

…It is believed that this equipment never progressed beyond the experimental stage and no specimen has yet been recovered….

– War Office. (26th July 1945). Technical Intelligence Summary Report 182 Appendix F ‘Flame thrower mounted on Pz.Kpfw. TIGER MODEL E (Sd.Kfz.181)’


The new flame-system that was to be fitted to the Flammenlage auf Tiger I reverted back to using compressed nitrogen and special reduction valves (obtained from the Kriegsmarine) which raised the pressure output from the tanks. This meant that this new system had abandoned the motor-driven-pump system. In this way, the pressure of the system could be raised from 1.52 to 1.72 MPa (15 to 17 atmospheres) to 2.03 to 2.53 MPa (20 to 25 atmospheres). With this increased pressure, the system could deliver a jet of burning fuel out to a range of 120 to 140 metres. A pair of 400-litre fuel tanks* would be fitted on the inside (there was more room because no turret was required), providing enough fuel for 16 to 20 bursts, meaning each burst would use about 40 to 50 litres of fuel. At 2-3 seconds per burst, this means the system delivered about 20 litres per second.

The fuel was different to what had been used before. Koebe, when asked at the end of 1942 to design a long-range flamethrower for use on the Porsche-Maus, proved unable to develop a system with a range of more than 100 m. Even then it would have required a flame-nozzle (Spritzkopf) 22 mm wide and would have used 33 litres of fuel per second propelled by a 30 hp engine driving a pumping system. To project a flame even further would require a narrower (12-14 mm) nozzle, but the jet would disperse with range. To go further, therefore, the fuel needed to be thicker and it was this factor which meant a pump could not be used. Even with a range of 140 metres, this was still not ideal and Hiter, in March 1945, still wanted a thicker fuel to match the type used by the British on their flamethrowers, but there would be no time to develop an even thicker fuel. The projector itself, when fitted into the front of the Tiger, would have had only limited traverse. A range of motion of just 10 degrees in all directions was possible.

*(A British report from July 1945 on the project reported a single 300 litre tank, suggesting just a single fuel tank was found with the remains of the system when it was recovered and mis-estimated in volume)

Given that this project was relatively crude, it is hard to know exactly how many men would have been required to crew it, but some things are known. For example, the tank would have had to have kept its driver, located in the front left. Without any kind of remote-control over the direction of the flame-projector, the flame-projector located in the front right would need manual operation too and this would have meant the retention of the man who would usually operate both the hull machine gun and the radio. He would have been the flame-operator and likely still the radio operator too, although it was also identified that flamethrower tanks should have a second radio set in order to coordinate with supporting vehicles. This would suggest the use of a Panzerbefehlswagen Tiger hull which was fitted with both a Fu 5 and Fu 8 (Sd.Kfz.267) or Fu 7 (Sd.Kfz.268) radio sets, although on the Panzerbefehlswagen Tiger the additional set was fitted into the turret and would have to be relocated within the hull. No loader was required nor was a gunner, but a commander would certainly have had to be retained in order to coordinate the operation of the vehicle, which would therefore indicate a crew of 3 men. Even with the removal of the turret and ammunition, the two 400-litre tanks required would have taken up a lot of the internal space and it is doubtful there would be room for a fourth man and, in any case, there was no clear role for him anyway.


As the vehicle was based upon an existing Tiger I hull, there were likely no changes made to whichever hull was to be used. As the Tiger I had gone through production, various minor changes were made to some internal and external fittings. Some were fitted with special air filters at the back, and others not. Early production Tiger I vehicles received the 650 hp Maybach HL 210 650 hp petrol engine whilst later vehicles received the 700 hp Maybach HL 230 petrol engine. Early production Tigers used rubber-tyred road wheels but these were later replaced with a more resilient steel-tyred type. Without knowing which hull was to be used, it is impossible to know exactly what the Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Tiger I would have looked like, but the essentials of the automotive system would be identical.


Changes to the Tiger I hull were relatively modest. Removal of the turret meant leaving a large hole in the roof of the tank which was obviously a serious hazard in combat so this would have been covered with a large armor-plate. Already discussed is the additional armor on the front, although how this might have looked around the machine gun mounting is unclear. Other than these changes and the interior changes, like the removal of the ammunition racks etc., there would have been few changes inside and most of the work would have been done on the roof. For the prototype, it is possible that just a single plain disc of metal welded or bolted over the hole where the turret would have sat would have been employed. This would have retained the front crew hatches but meant that a commander in the back would have been unable to get out except by these front hatches. Given the hundreds of litres of fuel he would be sat next to, this seems highly improbable for any design which would ever have been authorised for production and the description in the British 1945 report provides an additional clue.

Other Armament

Whilst with no turret and hull machine gun the vehicle might seem otherwise unarmed, it was to get a new machine gun, most likely either an M.G.34 (Maschinengewehr 34) or M.G. 42. This would not have been mounted within the vehicle, but this time mounted externally. This would have been controlled from inside, again supporting the proposition of a third crew member, and would have been mounted on the outside of the cover plate over the turret-hole.

The mounting of such a weapon was certainly not a new idea and was mounted on various Sturmgeschütz in the form of a 7.92 mm M.G. 34, fitted with a 50-round drum mounted behind a short and sharply curved gun shield. Under the gun was a small optical sight which permitted the man below the armor to see where he was firing. Reloading however, had to take place externally.

Roof-mounted remote-controlled weapon station as featured on a Jg.Pz.38t (left) and from an Allied Intelligence Bulletin (right). Source: and Intelligence Bulletin May 1945

In order to provide any value to the commander, he would have needed to be provided with some optics as the small optic on even the roof-mounted machine gun would be wholly inadequate for the purposes of command. A hatch would also have been required for observations, access or egress to the vehicle, changing barrels, or reloading/clearing stoppage on the machine gun. Despite the description of the “single continuous roof plate”, it would appear that any development of this vehicle would have needed to include at least a moveable optic and hatch for him, or even just a repurposed tank cupola.

One extra piece to consider is that the Tiger was fitted with a self-protection system launching S-mines to protect against enemy infantry. As this Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Tiger I was, by definition, having to get very close to the enemy in order to use its primary weapon, it would be logical to assume that this type of system would have been adopted for any production of the Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Tiger I even if the prototype being assembled did not have them. Further, a lot of flame throwing vehicles used by the Germans carried smoke-candle launchers in order to create a smoke screen to protect them from enemy observation. Here again, the addition of smoke grenade launchers on the Schwerer-Flammenpanzer auf Tiger I is a very reasonable assumption as once it had ‘flamed’ its target it would need to withdraw and a smoke screen provides ideal screening during such a manoeuvre.


The overall idea was not a bad one. A flamethrower certainly had some practical military value and served as a potentially very effective psychological weapon against the enemy too. This fact was reinforced in February 1944 by considerations from Panzer Grenadier Division ‘Grossdeutschland’, which recommended the use of a motor-driven ‘howling siren’ to accompany the use of the flamethrower to maximise the demoralisation effect.

Early flame-throwing attempts had been too small (Panzer I), too lightly armored (Panzer II) and too short in range (Panzer III et al.). A heavy flamethrower paired with a heavily armored hull from the Tiger I seems like a system which could have fulfilled the requirements but it was simply flawed in premise.

With very little development time on hand and with the progress of the war going so badly, this was a weapon system which was not going to enter production. The days of assaults against fixed enemy positions like bunkers and trenches, for which a flamethrower is best suited, were over by 1945, as most of the fighting was defensive in nature. The Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Tiger I was never finished so no photos of it exist and whatever plans may have existed for it are believed to have been lost. Outside of reports, both German and British, the project remains unknown, and the reader is therefore reminded that the discussion over the vehicle is speculative, as is the artist’s rendering.

Illustration of the Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Tiger I (Flammanlage auf Tiger I – ‘Flammpanzer VI’’) based on existing descriptions. Modified by Pavel Alexe, based on wok by David Bocquelet.


Doyle, H., Jentz, T., Sarson, P. (1995). Flammpanzer German Flamethrowers 1941-45, Osprey Publishing, UK
Doyle, H., Jentz, T. (2011). Panzerkampfwagen III Umbau. Panzer Tracts, Maryland, USA
Jentz, T., McKaughan, J. (1995). Elefant Panzerjager Tiger (P). Darlington Productions, Maryland, USA
Jentz, T., Doyle, H. (2008). Panzer Tracts No.6-3 Schwere Panzerkampfwagen Maus and E 100.
US War Department. (May 1945). Intelligence Bulletin Vol. III No.9. War Department, Washington, USA
War Office. (26th July 1945). Technical Intelligence Summary Report 182 Appendix F

WW2 German Prototypes

Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Jagdtiger (Flammanlage auf Jagdtiger)

Nazi Germany (1944-45)
Flame Tank – Design Only

The Germans were quick to exploit the devastating psychological effects of the flamethrower in the First World War with man-portable examples. Those were short-range devices that excelled at demoralizing the enemy and at clearing enemy positions. However, they were seriously limited by their weight, range and operational endurance for ‘flaming’ – a function of how much fuel it could carry. There is only so much a man can carry and, even in WW1, there were ideas for mounting flamethrowers onto armored vehicles. Armor would allow for close contact with the enemy to obviate the problem of range, the engine and platform would counter the flaw of a man not being to carry enough fuel, and the armor would ensure it was protected, unlike a man-portable version. In WW2, the Germans tried various vehicles as the mounts for flamethrowers, from the Panzer I and II up to and including the Tiger I. One of the lesser-known concepts though was the consideration of the Jagdtiger as the platform on which to mount a flamethrower.

Why the Jagdtiger?

It is hard to understand quite why the Jagdtiger was considered as a possible platform for a heavy flamethrower without a short review of the previous flamethrowing equipment operated by the German Army. Some Panzer I’s were modified to mount flamethrowers during the Spanish Civil War, and very early in World War II the Germans had mounted a man-portable flamethrower into the turret of a Panzer I (Pz.Kpfw. I Ausf.A), known as ‘Flammpanzer I’. These had been used in North Africa against the British but the very thin armor of the Panzer I left it vulnerable close-up to anti-tank rifle fire and even concentrated machine-gun fire. The short-range of the man-portable flamethrower and small fuel tank meant that not only did it have to get very close to be effective, but also had a very short flame time on target due to the small fuel capacity.

Flammpanzers I and II (Flamingo) showing the turret-mounted flame-projector on the Pz.1 and the front-wing mounted projectors on the Pz.2 Source: Jentz et al. (left)

An improvement in this regard was the Pz.Kpfw.II(f) also known as ’Flammpanzer II’, which found use on the Russian Front. Slightly improved in all regards, the Flammpanzer II was still vulnerable to enemy fire and had an inadequate flame duration and range. It would not be until the retrofitting of a motor-driven flame-throwing system on captured French Renault Char B1 heavy tanks that at least one of these concerns (the armor issue) was resolved. That vehicle, known as the Pz.Kpfw.B2 (fl), had abandoned the compressed gas cylinders used on the Pz.Kpfw.II(f) and adopted a motor-driven pump to provide the pressure required, using the same principle as a fire-fighting pump for projecting water. Although this did require a relatively low-viscosity flame fuel made from oil mixed with petrol, the pump was able to cope and propel burning fuel out to 40 to 45 metres. The drawback with mounting this system on the Char B though was obvious. It was a captured vehicle in limited supply, was also rather slow and, more importantly, did not provide a significant increase in range.

Two views of the front-mounted flame-projector fitted to the front of the captured French Char B1 (Pz.Kpfw.B2 (f)). Source: Jentz et al. via The Tank Museum, England

It was not until the Pz.Kpfw.III (fl), a flamethrowing tank based on the Panzer III, that an effective German flame tank was provided. Powered by a Koebe* HL II 40/40 1000/20 pump which, in turn, was driven by a two-stroke 28 hp Auto Union ZW 1101 (DKW) (1,100 cc) engine, the Pz.Kpfw.III(fl) could propel a jet of burning flame oil out to just 60 metres at a pressure of 1.52 to 1.72 MPa (15 to 17 atmospheres) and a rate of 7.8 litres per second. The fuel mix itself easily ignited by means of Smits’ glow plugs (Smitskerzen). Mounting this weapon on the Panzer III provided adequate armor and mobility. It was still not ideal however, and would only find limited use.

* Koebe was the firm of Hermann Koebe Feuerwehr-Geraete-Fabrik of Berlin, a manufacturer of fire-fighting equipment

Pz.Kpfw.III (F) Sd.Kfz.141/3 ‘Flammpanzer III’ in action. Source: Jentz and Doyle


The obvious successor to the Panzer III as a carrier for flamethrowing equipment was not, as might have been expected, the Panzer IV, because the same faults found with the Panzer III were still there on the Panzer IV, most importantly a lack of sufficient armor. The range of the weapon guaranteed that any vehicle had to come to very close range with the enemy which left it vulnerable, especially on the flanks, to enemy fire. This was why heavy/assault tanks carried heavy armor and it is no surprise therefore that, for an assault flamethrower, protection could be provided in two ways. Firstly, by increasing the distance from tank to target – which meant a longer range flamethrower, and secondly, by increasing the armor on the tank itself. By the time this was being considered though, the Allies were already operating heavily-armored flamethrowing vehicles with a long range, such as the Churchill Crocodile. With up to 152 mm of frontal armor, a range of 140 m and carrying nearly 2,000 litres of flame fuel, the Churchill Crocodile was strides ahead of anything in the German inventory and should have come as absolutely no surprise to the Germans. They had, after all, captured some Churchill Oke flamethrower tanks after the raid on Dieppe in 1942, yet had done little work on the subject.

It was not until 5th December 1944 that proper consideration was given to a long-range, good-duration, heavy flamethrower on a well-armored chassis, when the topic came up in a conference with Hitler. Hitler was no stranger to the idea. He had, after all, pressed for the addition of not one, but two flame nozzles to be added to the Porsche Maus over a year earlier, pushing for a system with a range of 200 m. By the end of 1944, though, the Maus project was effectively over despite having a functional vehicle, there was no prospect of production restarting for it. The most heavily armored chassis in use and available at that time was that of the Tiger II. Tiger II hulls were at a premium at the time and production was focussed on both the tank version of the hull as well as the tank-destroyer version, known as the Jagdtiger, with the huge 12.8 cm gun.

Hitler’s goal was to put a heavy flamethrower onto a vehicle with enough frontal armor to be effectively immune to enemy fire and this meant very thick armor. This was the focus of the following meeting on 29th December 1944 and the heaviest armored vehicle available was the Jadgtiger, but only if a range of 200 m could be achieved, something which at the time could not be done.

Despite a following meeting on 3rd January 1945, where the extremely heavy armor was emphasized and that a figure of 250 mm was needed (the same as the front of the Jagdtiger’s casemate), more discussion was had but no designs or plans were forthcoming. The Jagdtiger, as it met the armor requirement, was the leading prospect for this new vehicle, even if those vehicles were at a premium and needed for their original role.

At a further meeting held on 23rd January 1945 by the Entwicklungskommission (tank development committee), Obert Crohn of Wa Pruf 6 presented a design for a new flamethrower. This design, like the Churchill Crocodile, used compressed nitrogen gas (going back to the original gas-propelled rather than motor-driven system) and could achieve the same range as that of the Crocodile, about 140 metres. How much the Crocodile system influenced that design is debatable although the similarities are interesting.

With this new system designed, a longer range was achievable, albeit not the 200 m demanded and with Jagdtigers in short supply, it was instead to create a prototype based upon the hull of a Tiger I Ausf E. Whether that Tiger I-based heavy flamethrower would ever have been developed further into an actual production vehicle on the chassis is unknown, just as is whether or not the Jagdtiger-based idea would be revised if the flamethrower had proven successful. As it was, neither project was ever built. The Tiger I-based system was ordered and parts sent for assembly, but the war ended before this had been assembled. Nonetheless, a concept of what a production version of that Tiger I-based vehicle could look like is possible.

The Tiger I-based option was worked on under the name Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Tiger I’ (Heavy flamethrower on Tiger I), so the Jagdtiger-based option could be speculatively referred to as Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Jagdtiger’ (heavy flamethrower on Jagdtiger).

Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Jagdtiger: What Would it Look Like?

Knowing only that the Jagdtiger platform was considered for mounting this heavy flamethrower system, and there being no plans or drawings known to exist for it, it is not possible to know exactly what such a vehicle could have looked like had it ever been built.

An examination of the considerations at play during this period provides some important clues though. First is the gun, not the flamethrower nozzle but the actual gun on the Jagdtiger. This gun was a 12.8 cm Pak.44 L/55. A very potent gun capable of firing a 28.3 kg armor-piercing shell and penetrating around 200 mm of armor at a range of 2,000 m. The obvious desire for the Jagdtiger would be to retain this gun as it allowed for the destruction of the enemy at a very long-range rather than closing to close range for a flame-attack. Major-General Thomale, for example, understood the value of flamethrowers, especially those on small, light and maneuverable vehicles and bemoaned the idea of a flame system on a Tiger I as it was wasteful of the main gun.

That obvious advantage of keeping the main gun was fulfilled by the British on the Churchill Crocodile and exactly this consideration was given the Tiger I project – retain the gun and add a flamethrower.

Taking the Jagdtiger therefore, exactly the same consideration can be given to it. Retain the gun and add the flamethrower in place of the hull machine gun. This, on the face of it, gained the advantages of both ideas but had a couple of flaws. Firstly, the loss of the machine gun would leave the Jadgtiger with no secondary armament, as it did not have a coaxial machine gun like the Tiger I. Of course, for the Tiger I option, it was eventually selected to go without a turret anyway, so it was left in the same boat and to get around this problem a remote-controlled machine gun was fitted to the roof of the Tiger I hull. Conceivably, a machine gun could easily be added to the roof of the Jagdtiger too as it retained all of the usual features there.

The second problem of putting the flamethrower in the hull machine gun position and retaining the gun was space. There was simply no space inside the Jagdtiger in which to put the large-volume fuel tanks required of a flamethrower. The same problem had been considered on the Tiger I (with turret) and the same solution was apparent for both. The obvious route was the same one taken by the British, the towing of a fuel-carrying trailer. For the Crocodile, the nitrogen cylinders were fitted into the trailer along with the fuel and then it was piped through the tank to the nozzle at the front for projection. The trailer-option, however, was not adopted, perhaps because it was too vulnerable to fire or for want of developing a whole new trailer for it.

With no trailer option possible, this would leave a question as to where the flamethrower would be mounted. It could, of course, go in the hull replacing the machine gun, perhaps retaining a dummy barrel, but it could likewise have simply, and more effectively, been mounted inside the huge casemate. The massive mounting at the front which allowed the 12.8 cm gun to move could be repurposed for holding the flame nozzle, as this would be easy for the gunner (to the left) to operate and direct whilst at the same time retaining the existing machine gun for close defence. In the absence of any plans or any development of the Jagdtiger-based idea, it is not possible to know which of these might have been selected.

Jagdtiger damaged during a bombing raid on the Nibelungen works on 16th October 1944 affording a unique look inside showing the enormous interior of the casemete to be occupied by the 12.8 cm gun. Source: Frohlich and Schneider respectively

The one thing the Jagdtiger really offered, making it a good choice for this heavy flamethrower idea, was volume, it was simply huge inside. With the breech, mounting, and ammunition for the 12.8 cm removed, there would easily have been enough room for fuel tanks. For the Tiger I, for comparative purposes, it was to have its turret removed and still had space for a pair of 400 litre fuel tanks. Retaining its full interior volume, a Jagdtiger-based vehicle would have had even more space inside so more than 800 litres could easily have been carried. Any further speculation as to what a potential Schwerst-Flammpanzer auf Jagdtiger is perhaps best left to model makers.


The new flame-system which had been chosen is worthy of attention in any discussion over this potential vehicle. As previously stated, the system had gone back to using compressed nitrogen gas, and was to use special high-pressure fittings to raise the pressure available from them. The reason for going back to gas-propellant was a change in fuel. In order to reduce dispersion and in an attempt to get closer to the thickened mix used by the British, the old oil/petrol mix had to be thickened up and this meant that a pump could no longer be used. The system pressure on the Pz.Kpfw.III (f) operated at 1.52 to 1.72 MPa (15 to 17 atmospheres), and by changing to this high-pressure gas system, that was increased to 2.03 to 2.53 MPa (20 to 25 atmospheres). This, and the thicker fuel, meant the range was increased to about 140 metres with a burst delivering around 20 litres of fuel per second.


Given that this project received nothing more than some consideration with no plans, it is not possible to know how many of the original complement of 6 men (commander, gunner, loader x 2, driver, and radio operator) would be retained. Certainly, the tank, at a minimum, required the driver, radio operator and commander, and with no gun, did not need the 2 loaders. This means that at least 3 men would be needed, but the gunner is questionable depending on whether or not the flame unit was mounted in the hull or casemate. Assuming it would have been casemate mounted, the retention of the gunner would have allowed the commander to concentrate on commanding the tank whilst the gunner used the flame gun to immolate the target.


As the vehicle was based upon an existing Jagdtiger hull, there were likely no changes made to the hull, save for whatever new armored cover arrangement might have been added around the casemate front around the flame nozzle. It would have retained the same running gear and the same 700 hp Maybach HL230 petrol engine with performance probably about the same, as if the large and heavy 12.8 cm gun was removed, it would simply be replaced with a couple of large fuel tanks instead.


The overall idea was not a bad one considering the goal was the production of a very heavily armored heavy flamethrower. Despite General Thomale’s preference for small and light flamethrowing vehicles, the use of them was limited to isolated enemy positions, as they were simply too vulnerable to enemy fire otherwise. A flamethrower on a Jagdtiger might sound incredible on paper, but the slow nature of the vehicle, the sheer size and removing the gun would have made it a very obvious target for enemy fire.

It is undoubtedly true that a flamethrower has some practical military value as well as making a huge psychological impact on an enemy force. This fact is reinforced by consideration in February 1944 from the Panzer Grenadier Division ‘Grossdeutschland’, which recommended the use of a motor-driven ‘howling siren’ to accompany the use of the flamethrower to maximise the demoralisation effect.

Regardless of whatever value such a system might have had for extensive flaming of a heavily defended enemy target, this was simply neither what the German Army needed in 1945, nor a type of combat they were undertaking. By this time in the war, it was a process of defensive combat and withdrawal. The Jagdtiger itself proved to be rather inadequate at its role despite the otherwise impressive armor and armament and reusing this chassis for a flamethrower was a project without a purpose. Such things were only pursued because Hitler had said so.

No Schwerer-Flammpanzer auf Jagdtiger was ever made or likely even drawn, but consideration of the chassis for this type of weapon system provides a special insight into both the functioning and the dysfunction at the top of German military command and vehicle design.

Jagdtiger with the main gun removed and replaced with a fake main gun to disguise the flame projector. No drawings of what a Flammjagdtiger could look like exist. Therefore the art is an impression only of what a casemate-based flamethrower might have looked like if it had ever been pursued.

No drawings of what a Flammjagdtiger could look like exist. Therefore the art is an impression only what a hull-mounted flamethrower might have looked like, in this case having to haul a trailer for additional fuel.

These illustrations were produced by Mr. C. Ryan, funded by our Patreon Campaign.


Total weight, battle-ready >70 tonnes
Crew 4 ((Driver, Radio operator/hull machine gunner, Commander, Gunner)
Propulsion Maybach HL230 P30 TRM 700 hp Petrol engine
Speed 38 km/h (road)
Armament Heavy flamethrower – 140 m range
Armor Glacis 150 mm at 50 deg., lower front hull 100 mm at 50 deg., front hull roof 50 mm, casemate roof 40 mm, engine deck 40 mm, hull lower sides 80 mm vertical, hull upper and casemate 80 mm at 25 deg., casemate front 250 mm at 15 deg., casemate rear 80 mm at 5 deg. Hull rear 80 mm at 30 deg., front hull floor 40 mm, rear hull floor 25 mm


British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee. (1945). BIOS report 1343: German Steel Armour Piercing Projectiles and Theory of Penetration. Technical Information and Documents Unit, London.
Chamberlain, P., Doyle, H. (1993). Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two. Arms and Armour Press.
Doyle, H., Jentz, T., Sarson, P. (1995). Flammpanzer German Flamethrowers 1941-45, Osprey Publishing, UK
Doyle, H., Jentz, T. (2011). Panzerkampfwagen III Umbau. Panzer Tracts, Maryland, USA
Jentz, T., McKaughan, J. (1995). Elefant Panzerjager Tiger (P). Darlington Productions, Maryland, USA
Frohlich, M. (2015). Schwere Panzer der Wehrmacht. Motorbuch Verlag, Germany
Jentz, T., Doyle, H. (2008). Panzer Tracts No.6-3 Schwere Panzerkampfwagen Maus and E 100.
Schneider, W. (1986). Rarities of the Tiger family: Elephant, Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger. Schiffer Publishing, PA, USA
Spielberger, W., Doyle, H., Jentz, T. (2007). Heavy Jagdpanzer: Development, Production, Operations. Schiffer Military History, PA, USA
US War Department. (May 1945). Intelligence Bulletin Vol. III No.9. War Department, Washington, USA
War Office. (26th July 1945). Technical Intelligence Summary Report 182 Appendix F

WW2 German Prototypes

Demag D II ‘Liliput’

ww2 German half-tracks Nazi Germany (1934-36)
Unarmoured Half-Track – At Least 3 Completed

The D II series of experimental half-tracks arose from the German Army’s pursuit of motorization in the years preceding the outbreak of the Second World War. Following successful trials with prototype designs that utilized the half-track principle in the late 1920s, semi-tracked trucks and prime movers became an integral component of this overarching drive for greater strategic and tactical mobility. Capable of achieving high speeds on roads as well as traversing difficult cross-country terrain, these vehicles appeared to be an excellent means of motorizing the German Army (Reichsheer). Convinced by these many advantages, the Heeres Waffenamt (Army Ordnance Department) assigned one of their most talented engineers, Heinrich Ernst Kniepkamp, the task of overseeing the development of a range of different half-tracks to fulfill the various needs of the German Army.

Having already approved the development of several designs capable of hauling heavy loads of up to five tonnes or more, in 1934 the Heeres Waffenamt initiated work on a smaller design that would be more suitable for towing lighter infantry guns and anti-tank guns. In response to these requirements for the Kleinster geländegängiger Ketten-schlepper (smallest cross-country tracked towing vehicle), the Demag firm produced small numbers of three consecutive prototype half-tracks: the D II 1, the D II 2, and the D II 3.

Known by their diminutive appellation ‘Liliput’, these comparatively small half-tracks nevertheless employed a whole host of innovative technological features that would go on to find widespread use throughout the Second World War. However, despite numerous incremental improvements across the three permutations of the D II series, the final D II 3 design still required further refinement before it could be considered suitable for series production. As a result, the overall design of the D II 3 continued to be gradually revised between 1937 and 1938, until it evolved by way of the interim D 6 into the final D 7. Classified as the Sd.Kfz.10 1-tonne half-track by the Heer, over 10,000 of the D 7 half-tracks would be produced from 1938 until the end of the Second World War.

In light of the ubiquity of its descendants, the D II 3 was a significant stage in the development of German semi-tracked prime movers. Even though the early D II designs appear to be far removed from the future Sd.Kfz.10, the underpinnings of a reliable workhorse had been established by the time the D II 3 was produced in 1936. As such, these obscure machines (of which we know very little) represent an important chapter not only in the development of German prime movers but also in the German Army’s quest to fully motorize its forces; a goal that, contrary to Nazi propaganda, would never be achieved.

A D II 3 half-track demonstrating its off-road capabilities. This machine was intended to be a mobile lightweight towing vehicle, with the versatility to perform well on paved roads or rough terrain. Consequently, it was designed to use a torsion bar suspension on both the tracked section of the running gear and on the front road wheels. In order to determine the best features, the D II series were tested with two types of tracks, as well as pneumatic tires or solid rubber tires on the front wheels. Seen here with all-steel tracks and solid tires, this D II 3 is unique in that it appears to have had a camouflage scheme applied to the hull. Consisting of two colors separated by stripes of a third darker color, this style of application does not conform to the usual Buntfarbenanstrich (a multi-colored scheme comprising three camouflage colors) that adorned many German military vehicles of the early 1930s.

Solving an Old Problem: The Motorisation of the German Army

Following Germany’s defeat at the end of the First World War in November 1918, the fledgling Weimar Republic inherited a strategic conundrum that had bedeviled generations of German military planners: how could the German armed forces defend Germany’s vast frontiers to both the east and the west with an army that was primarily reliant on railways for its mobility? Worse still for the German generals, the stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles compounded Germany’s vulnerability by placing size restrictions on the size of the military and banning the use of much of the latest military technology, including tanks. Confronted with this perennial German predicament and many hostile neighbors, the Reichsheer aimed to solve this problem by cultivating a highly mobile professional army that could rapidly respond to enemy incursions and form the nucleus of a resurrected German army capable of conducting its own offensive operations. In order to realize these strategic aspirations, the Reichsheer needed to enhance its tactical mobility. This, in turn, required one essential ingredient: the motorization of the German Army.

Correspondingly, significant emphasis was placed upon procuring motorized transportation for the Reichsheer, particularly in the form of tractors to tow artillery, in order to ensure that Germany’s limited military assets possessed the mobility to make a difference on the battlefield. These efforts culminated in the Kraftfahrüstungsprogramm (Motorisation Programme) formulated by the General Staff during 1927 and 1928. According to this initiative, the Reichsheer would specify its automotive requirements and provide technical specifications for designs that would be able to fulfill its needs. Whilst the 1920s saw many developments in this field, the Weimar Republic’s clandestine attempts to rearm in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles were accelerated with the accession of Adolf Hitler as German Chancellor in January 1933. Under the Nazi Party, which was vehemently opposed to what was perceived as the emasculating and unjust dictates of Versailles, plans to rebuild and motorize the Reichsheer were given greater priority and would eventually receive considerably more funds for research and development.

Among the many experiments in motorization undertaken by the Weimar Republic and continued by the Nazis was the development of three-quarter tracked vehicles (commonly known as half-tracks) for the purposes of carrying loads and, more importantly, towing artillery. Encouraged by earlier successes with these vehicles, Waffen Prüfwesen 6 (Wa Prüf 6), the sub-division of the German Army’s ordnance department responsible for the development of tanks and motor vehicles, initiated the creation of a light, medium, and heavy class of three-quarter tracked vehicles for the Reichsheer in 1932. At first, these vehicles were identified in accordance with their load-carrying capacity, but they were later reclassified to reflect towing weights of 5 tonnes, 8 tonnes, and 12 tonnes respectively. This reorientation originates from the conceptualization of these vehicles as prime-movers for the German Army’s various artillery pieces and trailers.

One of the products of this push for the motorization of the Reichsheer was the one-tonne three-quarter tracked vehicle. Although the initial requirements for three-quarter tracked vehicles prepared by Wa Prüf 6 in 1932 had not called for anything with less than 5 tonnes of towing capacity, there were plenty of anti-tank guns and infantry guns in development during the 1930s that would benefit from motorised towing, but which did not require a tractor with a 5-tonne towing capacity. Therefore, in order to provide prime movers for these indispensable constituents of German infantry formations, Wa Prüf 6 expanded the range of three-quarter tracked vehicles in 1934 to encompass a design with a one-tonne towing capacity. It was due to this imperative of motorization that the rather odd-looking Demag D II came into being.

The Demag D II 1 towing a 3.7 cm Pak anti-tank gun (left and an ammunition trailer (right). The trailer is most probably a Sd.Ah.32 used for transporting 3.7cm Pak, 7.5cm Le. IG, and 15cm s.IG 33 ammunition. Similar photographs exist of the Demag D II prototypes demonstrating their ability to tow 2cm Flak anti-aircraft guns. Although poor quality photographs (see Panzer Tracts 22-1 for better quality images), they show the unconventional appearance of the D II 1 and the rubber-padded track links associated with many of Kniepkamp’s designs. Due to the space taken up by the rear-mounted engine, the D II 1 was only capable of carrying four men. Sources: &

The Dark Ages: The Genesis of the One-Tonne Half-Track

Whilst the overarching narrative recounting the mobilization of the Reichsheer is relatively well-known, the more intricate details pertaining to each particular vehicle are, by contrast, exceedingly scant. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the all-too-typical case of the one-tonne half-tracked vehicle, of which there are no surviving primary source records from either Demag or Wa Prüf 6 concerning its early development and production. Historians of the Medieval period may resent the ‘Dark Ages’ paradigm, but it is an apt term to describe the loss of information regarding the history of many interwar German military vehicles.

Consequently, the only comprehensive source available that outlines the early history of the one-tonne three-quarter tracked vehicle is a report compiled after the war in June 1946 by the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR). Entitled ‘German Semi-Tracked Vehicle Development from 1934 onwards’, this document provides a detailed overview of the history and the technical features of most of the German three-quarter tracked vehicles developed before and during the Second World War. However, the fact that the information in this report was primarily derived from post-war interviews with relevant personnel from the design firms and Wa Prüf 6, who did not have access to their records, means that it can contain significant errors and omissions. In the case of the one-tonne three-quarter tracked vehicle, the BAOR report contains only a brief synopsis of the production and technical features of the trial vehicles. Faced with this barren documentary record, there is little that can be said about the events leading up to the completion of the first Demag D II 1 sometime in 1934 or 1935.

Piecing together the evidence that is available, it is probable that the one-tonne half-track started development in 1934 as part of an effort to create a light prime mover that could advance at high speeds along paved roads and negotiate rugged terrain. The idea that the one-tonne three-quarter tracked vehicle was envisaged as a towing vehicle for light artillery, such as the leichtes Infanteriegeschütz 18 (le. IG 18) or the 3.7 cm Panzerabwehrkanone (3.7 cm Pak), is supported by a myriad of photographs showing trials vehicles hitched to these guns and their ammunition trailers, as well as the wartime use of their successors in this exact role.

Having established a need for this lightweight towing vehicle in 1934, Wa Prüf 6 contracted Demag AG, a crane manufacturing company based in Wetter an der Ruhr, to produce a series of trial vehicles (Versuchs-Fahrzeuge) incorporating their desired technical features and adhering to the prescribed specifications. Although Demag was a large industrial concern specializing in heavy equipment such as cranes and steam locomotives, this appears to have been their first project involving the development of half-tracked vehicles. Unfortunately, there is no information revealing why Demag was chosen to design these trials vehicles, or whether there were alternative concepts considered for this role. Whatever the wider story behind the early stages of the one-tonne half-track, between 1934 and 1936, Demag designed and produced a series of distinctive three-quarter tracked vehicles known as the D II, all of which employed several novel and unique technical features.

An excellent view showcasing the poorly optimized internal layout of the D II 1. Thanks to this overhead view, it is possible to appreciate the vast space consumed by the BMW 6-cylinder petrol engine. This design decision left little room for accommodating crew members and their various accouterments. In contrast to the previous photographs of the D II 1, this example has been equipped with the all-steel track links which do not have any rubber pads. Source:

Micro Machines: The Development of the D II 1 and D II 2 ‘Liliput’

The first incarnations of the D II are immediately recognizable due to to their diminutive size and unconventional appearance. It is thanks to these characteristics that this series of machines received the peculiar moniker ‘Liliput’, an adjective (spelled ‘Lilliput’ in English) that denotes an object or person of extremely small size. Originating from Jonathan Swift’s famous eighteenth-century novel Gulliver’s Travels, in which Lilliput is an imaginary island inhabited by miniature 15 cm tall people, the term entered the European lexicon after this popular novel was translated into different languages. Whilst it may seem strange for a German military vehicle to be referred to by this esoteric label, the term ‘Liliput’ was sufficiently well-known in contemporary Europe that it became the name of one of the smallest semi-automatic handguns ever produced, the 4.25 mm Liliput Pistol, which was designed and manufactured by Waffenfabrik August Menz in Germany between 1920 and 1927. It is unknown how this term came to be attached to the Demag D II, but it appears to have been a contemporary name that aptly captures the strange appearance of these tiny machines.

Asides from its noteworthy name, the first variant of the Demag D II series developed between 1934 and 1935, the D II 1, also incorporated a number of unusual technological innovations. Whereas the other German semi-tracked vehicles mounted the automotive components onto a traditional chassis frame, the D II 1 encased all of these parts inside a unique lightweight hull. This novel approach to the construction helped to ensure that the machine would remain as light as possible, thus increasing its maneuverability and cross-country performance.

These performance characteristics were enhanced by Kniepkamp’s revolutionary torsion bar suspension, fitted to both the front axle as well as the tracked section. This worked in conjunction with the interleaved road wheels to provide the D II 1 with excellent mobility across challenging terrain, not to mention relatively fast speeds on paved roads. Although these features do not seem particularly remarkable in light of their widespread employment in later German designs of the Second World War, the Demag D II 1 was one of the first three-quarter tracked vehicles to use such an advanced suspension system successfully.

Kniepkamp’s penchant for cutting-edge technology and his preoccupation with speed, mobility, and weight are also evident in one of the types of track fitted to the D II 1. Alongside orthodox unlubricated pin cast steel track links intended to prioritize off-road traction, the D II 1 was also tested with lubricated needle-bearing track links, each of which carried a rubber pad. These track designs were viewed as a compromise between steel and rubber tracks, the former permitting higher speeds on road, with the latter being more suitable for off-road activity and more durable. By equipping German half-tracks with lubricated rubber padded tracks, Kniepkamp hoped to retain some of the beneficial performance and noise-dampening qualities of the rubber tracks, without sacrificing all of the resilience afforded by steel tracks. Although it appears to be the case that different track designs were still being evaluated at the time when the D II series was being tested, the lubricated needle-bearing rubber padded tracks had become a standard feature on all major German three-quarter tracked vehicles by the beginning of the Second World War.

Whereas the technical and automotive attributes of the Demag D II 1 fulfilled the brief for a light cross-country vehicle, other aspects of the design left something to be desired. Chief among these limitations of the D II 1, at least among those that are apparent without having access to any detailed testing reports, was the placement of the 1.479 litre 6-cylinder 28 hp BMW 315 engine. In another example of defying normal expectations, the engine of the D II 1 was not located in a separate compartment at the front, but was instead installed at the right rear of the hull, where it took up most of the space inside the rear compartment. As a result, there was room for only a driver and three additional men, with little space for extra stowage. For a vehicle designed to tow guns and carry their ammunition and crew complements, the lack of internal volume was a significant shortcoming that could only be rectified by a radical rearrangement of the internal layout of the hull.

One of the two known photographs of the Demag D II 2. Seen here crossing a trench, the D II 2 has been fitted with cast steel track links, which were known to provide better cross-country mobility than the rubber-padded alternatives. Curiously, there is also a triangular attachment of unknown purpose fitted to the front wheel’s hub. The many similarities between the D II 1 and the D II 2, such as the rear-mounted engine, the torsion bar suspension for the front wheels, and the hull construction, are readily apparent in this photograph. The civilian number plate ‘IY-02247’ seen on the front of the vehicle appears to have been used for all of the D II prototypes. Source:

Sometime after the D II 1 was completed, the D II 2 was finished in 1935. In many respects, the D II 2 remained the same as its predecessor. It maintained the exact layout, engine, and suspension used in the D II 1, with the only major difference being the addition of an extra road wheel to the tracked suspension as well as a corresponding increase in track length. Other than the provision of a canvas cover to protect the driver from the elements, there were no more significant differences distinguishing the D II 2 from the earlier D II 1.

Consequently, by the end of 1935, Wa Prüf 6 was in possession of two lightweight compact towing vehicles capable of moving their light artillery. In the case of the D II 2, this translated into a vehicle capable of towing up to 600 kg, despite only weighing 2,560 kg fully laden. Moreover, it was able to attain a range of 250 km and a top speed of 50km/hr on roads, as well as scale a grade of 24 degrees unloaded or 12 degrees loaded. However, there were also significant shortcomings to these early designs which necessitated continued development by Demag.

An extremely rare photograph of the Demag D II 2 showing the extra fourth road wheel added to the suspension. Given the presence of both civilian and military observers, as well as the guide flags in the foreground, this D II 2 appears to be participating in some kind of training exercise or demonstration. It has been fitted with the lubricated rubber-padded tracks and a canvas cover over the cab to protect the driver from the elements. From this angle, it is also just possible to see the towing hitch and the rear-mounted exhaust muffler. Further in the background, there is a Sd.Ah.32 ammunition trailer, which is one of the loads that the Demag D II was designed to tow. Source:

Towards the Sd.Kfz.10: The Demag D II 3

In 1936, the third and final incarnation of the D II, the D II 3, was assembled by Demag and delivered to Wa Prüf 6 for testing. In this guise, the D II came to more closely resemble the final shape of the mass-produced D 7. The original layout was discarded in favor of a more traditional setup, with the engine placed at the front in a separate compartment, whilst another road wheel was also appended to the suspension. Along with the conspicuous bulbous front fenders, these alterations to the D II 3 resulted in an appearance that bore a much closer resemblance to the later Sd.Kfz.10.

The D II 3 fitted with all-steel unlubricated tracks and pneumatic front tires. Compared to its predecessors in the D II series, the D II 3 had a more traditional layout with an engine at the front and the rear area reserved for passengers and cargo. Close examination of the photo shows a spare wheel attached to the rear, four rifles stowed behind the cab, and a couple of stowage boxes along the side. The radiator grille, large front fenders, and bug-eye headlamps give this machine a similar appearance to the later Sd.Kfz.10. However, the torsion bar suspension seen here fitted to the front wheels was a remnant of the earlier designs that would not be carried over to the D 6 and D 7. Source:

However, the modifications to the D II 3 were not merely superficial aesthetic details. By replacing the BMW 315 engine with a larger 1.971 liter 6-cylinder BMW 319, the D II 3 was slightly more powerful than its predecessors. In addition to this, the relocation of the engine to the front of the vehicle improved cooling, thereby reducing the stress on the engine. Furthermore, the greater internal volume in the rear compartment meant that the D II 3 was able to transport 6 men in total, including the driver. For a vehicle intended to transport gun crews, this was a considerable upgrade to the design that increased its utility on the battlefield.

An overhead view of the Demag D II 3 highlighting the improved internal layout. By relocating the engine to the front of the vehicle, Demag created a rear area more conducive to carrying gun crews and their equipment. There was space for four passengers (as well as a driver and co-driver in the cab) and sufficient room to allow for stowage boxes to be attached along the sides. Source:

The suspension also underwent several notable alterations. The solid road wheels of the D II were replaced by five road wheels of a new 6-holed variety. Coupled to a larger idler wheel that was mounted close to the ground, the extra track contact area provided by this refined suspension improved flotation on soft terrain, thus ameliorating the cross country mobility of this machine.

Another crucial evolution to the D II 3 design was the substitution of rollers in the place of teeth on the front-mounted drive sprocket. By using rollers, the friction between the track links and the sprocket was decreased. This reduction in resistance allowed the D II 3 to attain higher speeds and was to become a staple feature of later German three-quarter tracked designs.

In the same way as its forebears, the D II 3 was trialed with at least two different track designs, as well as two kinds of front wheels. In terms of tracks, this consisted of a familiar all-steel design alongside Kniepkamp’s lubricated rubber-padded tracks. These tracks could be combined with either pneumatic tires of a type similar to the D II 1 and D II 2, or a solid rubber variety. Unsurprisingly for an experimental vehicle like the D II 3, the photographic evidence is sparse and, due to the quality of surviving photos, difficult to interpret. However, photographs show that both types of tracks and front wheels were equipped on the D II 3, and seem to suggest that the different tire designs were tested in combination with both track variants.

An unusual photograph of a D II 3 in service with the Heer. This example has solid rubber front tires in place of the pneumatic versions used by the earlier D II prototypes and some D II 3s. Alongside these road wheels are all-steel tracks enveloping the distinctive six-holed road wheels. The flag-shaped object mounted next to the left side fender is a flag staff, a metal frame used to hold various pennants and flags that would help to identify the specific unit that the vehicle belonged to. Although these were a common feature on pre-war half-tracks, they were dropped from new production vehicles during the early stages of the Second World War. Source:

If the technical features of the D II are relatively well-documented by the BAOR report, production figures for these earlier vehicles are more opaque. According to the British, 38 D II 3 were completed by Demag. However, this claim is not confirmed by any surviving German records from the time and does not accord with the usual practice of producing trial vehicles in small series of one to five examples. This suggests that this statement in the BAOR report may be one of its many errors, but without the original German records, no definitive answer can be obtained. In either case, it is clear that in spite of the considerable improvements, the Demag D II 3 was an experimental vehicle that required further development in the eyes of Wa Prüf 6.

A D II 3 parked in front of two Panzerattrappen (dummy training tanks created on the basis of passenger cars). This particular specimen has solid front wheels fitted in combination with rubber-padded tracks. These tracks would have provided a faster, quieter ride on the paved areas in this courtyard compared to all-steel track links seen on other examples of the D II 3. The unfolded windshield shows two turn signals protruding from either side. These would later be relocated to a slightly lower position on the side of the hull on the D7. Source:

Waste Not, Want Not: The D II 3 as a Testbed

Despite their shadowy existence in both the documentary and the photographic record, German prototype vehicles rarely enjoyed a quiet life. Rather than allow their experimental machines to languish in storage, many of the German trial vehicles ordered by the Heeres Waffenamt saw later use as testbeds for new concepts or technology. The Demag D II 3 was no such exception to this rule.

Even before the end of 1935, the Heeres Waffenamt had already presented a report outlining the tactical advantages of creating self-propelled 2 cm Flak guns on the basis of existing half-tracks. The report noted that due to the greater muzzle velocity and the superior penetration of the 2 cm Flak 30 anti-aircraft gun compared to other weapons of this caliber, it was not only an effective defense against air attacks but could also be employed to protect marching columns against surprise tank attacks. Taken by the merits of this idea, the D II 3 and D 6 experimental half-tracks were used to test a superstructure able to mount a 2 cm Flak 30 with 360 degrees of traverse, which would go on to be used on the mass-produced Sd.Kfz.10/4 anti-aircraft half-track.

Generally, such experiments mentioned in the documentation are devoid of photographic evidence, but every so often, stray photographs are published which illuminate these forgotten chapters of a particular vehicle’s career in service. In the case of the D II 3, there are at least two photographs confirming that at least one of the D II 3 experimental chassis fitted with solid rubber front tires and all-steel tracks was used to test this idea.

The D II 3 fitted with a trial superstructure for mounting the 2 cm Flak anti-aircraft gun. There are many similarities between this vehicle and the Sd.Kfz.10/4 produced in 1940. Chief among them are the loading ramps protruding from the front of the D II 3 and the small cable pulleys located just behind the driver’s cab. These would be used to load and unload the 2cm Flak gun from the rear of the halftrack, should it be desired to emplace the gun in a static position. Strong resemblances between this vehicle and the Sd.Kfz.10/4 can also be seen in the design of the folding sides, which have four bins attached to either side for carrying one magazine of 2 cm ammunition. Also, note that this D II 3 is using the solid front wheels rather than pneumatic tires and the all-steel tracks. Source:

Close examination of these photographs reveals many similarities between the design of this trial superstructure and the standard style used on the Sd.Kfz.10/4, such as the four ready bins for one twenty-round Flak 30 magazine attached to the folding sides. Puzzlingly, the D II 3 testbed also has several features that were not fitted to Sd.Kfz.10/4 produced in 1939, but which did become standard in 1940. These include the loading ramps protruding from the front of the vehicle and the cable rollers just behind the driver, which were intended to allow the 2 cm Flak 30 to be dismounted from the half-track so that it could be emplaced in a concealed position on the ground.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to say any more about this experimental vehicle due to the lack of additional evidence. It is not even clear when this trial machine was modified in this manner, although it is probable, given its role as a testbed, that the conversion was completed between the production of the D II 3 in 1936 and the date at which the first orders for the Sd.Kfz.10/4 were issued in May 1939. Nonetheless, this example of reusing a prototype machine exemplifies the importance of the D II series in establishing the design parameters for many of the 1-tonne half-tracks that would see successful wartime service.

Another photograph of the D II 3 with the experimental superstructure for mounting a 2cm Flak gun. Examples of this superstructure were also fitted to Versuchs-Serie D 6 and 0-Serie D 6 half-tracks for testing. Source: Unknown

Stepping Stones: The D II in Retrospect

By the end of their development in 1936, the D II series of prototypes had established the foundations for a half-track design capable of meeting the specifications for a lightweight cross-country towing vehicle outlined by the Heeres Waffenamt in 1934. Although the D II 1 and D II 2 had many peculiar characteristics that were later dispensed with, they also pioneered several ingenious features that would be carried through to the mass-produced D 7, most notably the torsion bar suspension and the substitution of a hull construction in place of the conventional chassis frame. When the positive aspects of the early D II machines were amalgamated with numerous improvements introduced in the D II 3, the basic outline of the future Sd.Kfz.10 became fixed in shape.

Even so, the external similarities between the Sd.Kfz.10 and the final incarnation of the D II can be misleading. There would be multiple adjustments to almost every single facet of the existing design before its finalization as the D 7 in 1938, including changes to the engine, front axle, and road wheels. Nevertheless, In spite of these many modifications distancing the D 7 from the D II 3, these earlier vehicles still performed an important role in establishing the basic parameters and characteristics for their successors.

Consequently, the D II series must not be perceived as an evolutionary dead-end, but as a key step in the history of the development of the ubiquitous Sd.Kfz.10. Whilst none of the D II prototypes have survived to this day, their influence can still be appreciated through the mass-produced D 7, which is as prolific in present-day collections of German military vehicles as it was on the battlefields of the Second World War.

Soldiers posing with their solid rubber-tired D II 3. The opened bonnet provides a small glimpse into the engine bay, at the front of which is the radiator for cooling the BMW engine. Markings have been stenciled onto the side of the hull, but unfortunately it is not possible to discern their meaning. Usually, such markings were applied to trucks and half-tracks to remind crews of their weight, towing capacity, and other important specifications. The background does not furnish many clues as to where this photograph was taken, but the front of a Panzer I can be seen poking into the background. Source:

Bibliographical Comment

The lack of surviving documentation concerning the history of the Demag D II series of vehicles means that the BAOR Report is still the primary source of information regarding these half-tracks. For those unable to access this report, Panzer Tracts 22-1 is an essential resource for further reading into this topic. As well as quoting directly from the BAOR report, this Panzer Tracts volume also highlights possible errors and provides several photographs of the D II that have not been published elsewhere. In addition to this, the coverage of the later D 6 and D 7 developments has revolutionized our understanding of the history of these vehicles. Older works of literature, such as those authored by Spielberger and Milsom, also summarise the history of the D II as presented in the BAOR report, but they should be used with caution when researching the rest of the Sd.Kfz.10 family, as they each contain errors and outdated information. Finally, a considerable number of photos of the D II that have not been published in printed books have surfaced on the internet, the majority of which have been published in this article.

Illustration of the Demag D II 1 half-track prototype with the rear-mounted engine and with the windshield up.
Illustration of the Demag D II 3 half-track prototype with the engine in the front.

Both illustrations by Alexe ‘Carpaticus’ Pavel, funded by our Patreon campaign.

Variant D II 1 D II 2 D II 3
Crew 1 + 3 1 + 3 1 + 5
Dimensions ? 3.4m (L) x 1.6m (W) x 1.7m (H) 4.4m (L) x 1.8m (W) x 1.7m (H)
Weight (laden) ? 2,560kg 3,400kg
Automotive Components 28 HP BMW 315 1.479 litre 6-cylinder petrol engine
ZF 4-speed transmission
28 HP BMW 315 1.479 litre 6-cylinder Petrol Engine
ZF 4-speed transmission
42 HP BMW 319 1.971 litre 6-cylinder petrol engine
ZF 4-speed transmission
Towing Capacity ? 600kg 600kg
Maximum Speed ? 50 km/hr ?
Range ? 250 km (on roads) ?
Gradient ? 24 degrees (without load)
12 degrees (with load)


Doyle, Hilary L., and Jentz, Thomas L., Panzer Tracts No.22-1 Leichter Zugkraftwagen 1 t (Sd.Kfz.10) Ausf.A und B and Variants: Development and Production from 1935 to 1945 (Maryland: Panzer Tracts, 2009).
Milsom, John, German Half-Tracked Vehicles of World War 2: Unarmoured Support Vehicles of the German Army 1933-45 (London: Arms and Armour Press, 1975).
Spielberger, Walter J., Die Halbkettenfahrzeuge des deutschen Heeres 1909-1945 (Stuttgart: Motorbuch Verlag, 1976). Translated into English as Halftrack Vehicles of the German Army 1909-1945 (Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing US, 2008).
Spielberger, Walter J., Die Motorisierung der deutschen Reichswehr 1920-1935 (Stuttgart: Motorbuch Verlag, 1979).Photograph of D II 2. Date of Access: 14 June 2018.
Photographs of the D II 3. Date of Access: 14 June 2018.

WW2 German Prototypes

3.7 cm Flakzwilling auf Panther Fahrgestell “341”

Nazi Germany (1943)
SPAAG – 1 mock-up built

As the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) lost control over the skies over Germany in the second half of the Second World War, it could no longer provide sufficient protection against Allied aircraft. Panzer divisions were especially affected by the lack of cover from fighter aircraft because they were always at the center of the most intense fighting.
The Germans already had copious amounts of half-tracked Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Guns (SPAAG) of different calibres and weights (Sd.Kfz.10/4, Sd.Kfz.6/2, Sd.Kfz.7/1, etc). As these vehicles had very limited or no armor, they were vulnerable to enemy fire either from ground or air. The crew needed better protection from small arms fire and artillery/mortar high explosive fragmentation shell shrapnel. A tank-based anti-aircraft vehicle (German: Flakpanzer) could solve this problem, as it would have sufficient armor to resist most ground attacks with the exception of larger caliber guns. They would also provide some protection against air attacks, but even tanks could be destroyed by air ground-attack fire.

Side view of the Flakpanzer 341. Source
Many designs based on different Panzer chassis and weapons were tested and built during the war. The most successful were the ones based on the Panzer IV chassis (Möbelwagen, Wirbelwind and Ostwind), which were built in some numbers but were too late to have a significant impact on the war. One of the major shortcomings of all German Flakpanzers was the lack of a fully enclosed fighting compartment. As all were open-topped (because of easier construction, easier exhaust of gun fumes and the need to produce them as fast as possible), the gun crews were exposed to air attacks.
By the end of the war, the Germans tried to solve this problem by designing and building new Flakpanzers with fully enclosed turrets. One of these was the Flakpanzer based on the Panther tank, best known today as the ‘Coelian’.


In May 1943, Oberleutnant Dipl.Ing von Glatter-Götz, responding to the orders of Inspectorate 6, initiated the development of a new series of Flakpanzers based on already existing chassis. The Panzer I and II were outdated or used for other purposes. The Panzer III tank chassis was used for the production of the StuG III and thus not available. The Panzer IV and the Panzer V Panther were considered next. The Panzer IV tank chassis was already in use for several German modifications, so it was decided to use it for the Flakpanzer program. The Panzer V Panther was considered in case even the Panzer IV chassis proved to be inadequate for the task.
The Germans formed a commission for the analysis of the effectiveness of enemy ground attack planes. The report (dated 31st June 1943) stated that, in the case of dive-bombing, the lowest point that the enemy plane reached was 1200 to 1500 m at an angle of 45-80°. Planes using larger caliber machine guns or cannons attacked at an altitude of around 150 to 300 m. The committee suggested that the best way to bring down enemy planes was using direct fire autocannons. To effectively fight the enemy planes, the future Flakpanzer would have to have a fully rotating turret with a high angle of fire and the caliber used should not be lower than 2 cm, with the more powerful 3.7 cm being preferred.
To give the crew the best protection possible and to meet any future Allied developments, the Panther-based Flakpanzer had to have a fully enclosed turret that could be armed with several different proposed weapon configurations. These included the 2 cm Flakvierling, 3.7 cm (either twin or triple configuration), 5.5 cm Flakzwilling and even an 88 mm caliber heavy flak gun. The first proposed design drawings (HSK 82827) were completed by Rheinmetall in late May 1943. The armament consisted of four 20 mm MG 151/20 mounted in a specially designed turret. The elevation of the four guns was -5° to +75°. This proposal was never implemented, mostly due to the weak armament by the standards of 1944.
On the 21st December 1943, a Panzerkommision was formed to examine the further development of a Flakpanzer based on the Panther tank chassis. It was decided that the main armament should consist of at least two 3.7 cm caliber anti-aircraft guns. This requirement was later revised to two 5.5 cm Gerät 58 guns. The development of this new weapon had begun in 1943, but due to its complicated design, problems developing the ammunition and the late start of the program, only 3 prototypes were completed by the war’s end.
For the construction of the new turret, Daimler-Benz was chosen. The new turret had to fulfill several set criteria like armor thickness and having an effective traversing mechanism. The armor protection of the turret was to be impressive, with 100 mm frontal armor and 40 mm on the sides. The turret was to be moved by using a hydraulic drive which was powered by the tank’s own engine. The new turret design was to be ready by the middle of 1944, but nothing came from this.

Rheinmetall’s proposed Flakpanzer turret armed with four 20 mm anti-aircraft guns. Source

The Rheinmetall-Borsig “341” design

Unfortunately, being more or less a project only, there is little known information about this Rheinmetall-Borsig design. What is known is that, by the end of 1943, Rheinmetall-Borsig (or its subsidiary, Vereingte Apparatebau AG, depending on the source) began working on its own design for the new Flakpanzer based on the Panther tank chassis. The first drawings of the new vehicle were completed by 23rd May, 1944. One mock-up turret was built and placed on a Panther D and presented to Wa Prüf 6 at Kummersdorf, possibly in early 1945. Due to many reasons, it never went into production and the whole 3.7 cm armed Flakpanzer based on the Panther tank chassis was cancelled in January 1945 in favour of the larger 5.5 cm weapons.

Only one mock-up with a wooden turret was ever built and presented to German army officials. It was never adopted for service, mostly due to the need to focus production on Panther tanks. Source


Depending on the source, there are different designations for this vehicle armed with 3.7 cm anti-aircraft guns. These include Flakzwilling 3.7 cm auf Panzerkampfwagen Panther, 3.7 cm Flakzwilling auf Panther Fahrgestell “341” or, simply, Flakpanzer 341. The designation 341 stands for the two main 3.7 cm guns (Flak or Gerät 341). This article will use the Flakpanzer 341 designation for the sake of simplicity.
It is also best known today under the ‘Coelian’ name. Coelian is actually the third name of Oberleutnant Dipl.Ing von Glatter-Götz, who was greatly involved in the development of the German Flakpanzer program. It is important to note that the Coelian designation was never used by the Germans and was possibly added after the war, like many similar German armored vehicle designations.

Front view of the Flakpanzer 341. The simple flat face of the lower part of the front turret and the angled upper part can be seen. Source: Unknown

What-if illustration of how a Flakpanzer 341 prototype with the later turret design might have looked like. Illustrated by David Bocquelet.

Technical characteristics of the Flakpanzer 341

Due to a lack of information, the precise Flakpanzer 341 technical characteristics are not known in detail.
The Rheinmetall-Borsig Flakpanzer was meant to be built using a new turret designed by the company and mating it with a Panther tank chassis. While sources do not explicitly mention it, it is possible that the chassis used for the production would consist of damaged ones returning from the front for repairs or major overhauls (similar to the Wirbelwind and Sturmtiger) rather than using new ones. The armor of the Panther hull was 80 mm thick at the front and 40 mm on the side and rear. The overall Panther hull would most likely have had only some minor modifications in order to speed up production.
The lower front and side section of the turret had simple flat plates. The top armor was sloped, probably in order to increase protection against air attacks. The rear armor consisted of one large rounded plate. There were at least two hatches on the top and one on the turret rear. Additional ventilation ports would most likely have been added to avoid the accumulation of fumes from the guns. The turret armor thickness was 70 mm, the gun mantlet had 80 mm, while the sides and rear were 40 mm thick. This was less than the Daimler-Benz version with 100 mm of frontal armor. It is interesting to note that, on Hilary L. Doyle’s drawing from the book Panzer Tracts No.20-2 Paper Panzers (dated from May 1944), the turret has a much more angled front armor design. The built mock-up had flat front and side plates, probably as these were easier to build. The turret was to be operated by a hydraulic drive powered by the Panther’s own engine.
For the main armament, twin experimental 3.7 cm (L/77) Flak 341 guns were chosen. Some sources wrongly mention the 3.7 cm Flak 43 as the main armament. The 3.7 cm Flak 341 (3.7 cm Gerät 341) was an improved version of the same caliber anti-aircraft gun which was developed by Rheinmetall during 1944. The development process was too slow and only four prototypes were ever built. The Gerät 341 had a range of 4300 m, with a muzzle velocity of 1040 m per second and a rate of fire of 250 rounds per minute (or 400 to 500 depending on the source, but this was probably the maximum theoretical rate of fire of the two guns). The Flakpanzer 341 3.7 cm gun had a belt ammunition feed mechanism with some 1500 rounds of ammo for both guns. The ammunition would be stored beneath the turret, in the vehicle hull. The Flakpanzer 341 turret had a full 360° of traverse, and the gun could elevate between -5° and +90°. The total weight of the guns and the mount was around 470 kg. The secondary weapon would have been the radio operator’s ball-mounted MG 34 in the glacis plate, with one more possibly mounted on the turret roof.

The Flakpanzer 341 with the guns at high elevation. Source
The crew would consist of four to five crew members. While the sources do not specify the precise role of these crew members, we can assume that it would be more or less similar to other Flakpanzer vehicles. In the Panther hull, there were seats for the driver and radio operator / hull machine gun operator.
The two hatches on top of their positions were unchanged. The remaining crew members would be stationed in the new turret. One (or two) loaders would be positioned on either side of the guns. However, because these were belt-fed, their jobs were much easier than with the earlier magazine feed systems. The commander’s position was behind the gun, and he was also probably the gun operator.
The estimated combat weight was around 40 tonnes. The average weight of Panther tanks (depending on the model) was in the range of 44-45 tonnes. With its 700 hp strong Maybach engine, the Flakpanzer 341’s mobility would most likely have been better than that of the regular Panther tank.
The dimensions of the Flakpanzer 341 would also be similar to those of the regular Panther, with the same length of 6.87 m and width of 3.27 m. The height would be the only exception, at 2.8 m to the top of the turret.

The Daimler-Benz and Krupp Flakpanzer 44 design

During 1944, Daimler-Benz and Krupp were also working on a similar Panther-based Flakpanzer. Their turret design had 60 mm thick front armor. It was armed with two 3.7 cm Flak 44 anti-aircraft guns. This project is somewhat confusing for a few reasons. The existing drawings circulating online of the alleged Daimler-Benz and Krupp Flakpanzer 44 are actually of the Flakpanzer 341 according to Hilary L. Doyle. In addition, despite the best efforts of historians, no solid information about the existence of the above-mentioned Flak 44 anti-aircraft guns could be found. There were two different 3 cm Flak 44 projects, but they progressed very little. In addition, in some sources, the 3.7 cm Flakzwilling 43 is wrongly identified as the Flak 44. It is possible that this variation of the Flakpanzer 341 design was mistook after the war as a different project. Being developed during 1944/45, when Germany was in a state of chaos and due to the lack of documentation, the impression of another design having been developed could have formed easily. Of course, due to a lack of proper documentation, this is only an assumption at best.

This is the alleged drawing of the Flakpanzer 44. In fact, this is a Flakpanzer 341 with a modified turret. Source

Reasons for cancelling the project

While the idea of a Flakpanzer equipped with a fully enclosed turret, armed with two anti-aircraft guns, based on the Panther was certainly tempting, there were many reasons why this project would not have been very successful. A fully protected turret offered the crew much needed protection from ground and air fire but it also led to a number of issues that had to be resolved. These included potential problems with ammunition feed loading and removing the used shell cases at 90° angles. Due to the low quality of the German propellant in the late part of the war, during firing, a lot of powder smoke and fumes would be produced which could be dangerous for the crew. A dedicated and efficient ventilation system had to be installed.
The turret controls had to be designed and built to quickly respond to crew commands. The main armament was also problematic. Instead of using already produced weapons, the Rheinmetall-Borsig designers decided to use the experimental 3.7 cm Flak 341. which was never adopted for service. In January 1945, Wa Prüf 6 submitted a report in which the 3.7 cm caliber was deemed as insufficient for an anti-aircraft vehicle of the size of the Flakpanzer 341.
Another problem was the acquisition of air targets. In an open-topped turret, this could be easily achieved by the crew by simple observation. In a fully enclosed turret, a specially designed periscope and sights had to be added.
While the fully protected turret offered many potential advantages, it was not easy to successfully design and build one. While, during the war, the Allies used vehicles with fully enclosed turrets, most anti-aircraft vehicles built after the war were open-topped (like the ZSU-57-2 or M42 Duster).
The most obvious reason why the Flakpanzer 341 was canceled was the high demand for tanks on all fronts across Europe. Thus, sparing any Panther tank chassis for roles other than tank and anti-tank versions was out of the question for the Germans.


Despite this, the development of the Flakpanzer 341 continued up to the war’s end. It never received a high priority and only wooden mock-ups were ever built. Even if the war had continued for some time, there was a small chance (if any) that the Panther-based Flakpanzers would have ever been put into production.

This vehicle would have similar dimensions to those of the ordinary Panther tank. Source


Duško Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
Peter Chamberlain and Hilary 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
Walter J. Spielberger (1993), Panther and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing.
Thomas L.J. and Hilary L. D. (2002) Panzer Tracts No.20-2 Paper Panzers, Panzer Tract
Petr C. and Terry G. (2005) Enzyklopadie Deutscher waffen 1939-1945 Handwaffen, Artilleries, Beutewaffen, Sonderwaffen, Motor buch Verlag.
Hilary D. and Tom J. (1997) Panther Variants 1942-1945, Osprey Military
Werner Oswald (2004). Kraftfahrzeuge und Panzer, der Reichswehr, Wehrmacht und Bundeswehr ab 1900, Motorbuch Verlag,

3.7 cm Flakzwilling auf Panther Fahrgestell “341” specifications

Dimensions 6.87 x 3.27 x 2.8 m
Total weight, battle ready Around 40 tons
Crew 4-5 (Gunner/commander, loaders, driver and radio operator)
Armament Two 3.7 cm Flak 341 guns with 360 degree traverse
Armor Hull front 80 mm, side and rear 40 mm,
Turret shield armor 80 mm, front armor front 70 mm side and rear 40 mm
For information about abbreviations check the Lexical Index
WW2 German Prototypes

Mahlkuch Armored Cover


Nazi Germany (1938)
One-man tank – None built

Ernst Mahlkuch is not a name synonymous with tanks or armored vehicles, yet he designed an armored vehicle at the height of pre-war Nazi Germany. He designed this vehicle not as the product of a ‘crack-pot’ inventor or an otherwise-untrained engineer, but from the mind of a very competent engineer and one who would amass dozens of patents and designs in his name for a variety of ideas, from flour-weighing equipment to wood-gasifier units for vehicles.
Whilst those designs were well considered and based on some expertise in the field, his idea for an armored vehicle for soldiers was far less well-considered, never received any interest and has, until recently, been forgotten by history. As a product of Nazi Germany, this armored vehicle certainly lacks the presence of the Maus, the fame of the Tiger, or the utility of the half-track, but his design does follow a common trait – an armored vehicle with a low silhouette with the intention of protecting the otherwise unprotected infantry during the attack.

The Company Man

Ernst Mahlkuch, a German national from Post Klützow, Pomerania, (now part of Poland) was an engineer who specialized in industrial machines used for moving and filling bags, balances, and other machines, from the early 1900s and through WW2. Ernst Malhkuch’s family connection to the mill-industry and the Greif mill at Klützow had started with Joann Mahlkuch in 1734 as a miller, producing very high-grade flour. Although the original Greif mill (Greifenmühle) itself dated back to 1100, after the mill burned down in 1891 (a common problem for flour-mills), it was rebuilt and modernized, with Ernst Malhkuch assuming charge of the business. By the outbreak of WW1, Mahlkuch‘s business took a hit with its horses and a lot of the workers taken away for the war effort and with the firm renamed Reichsgetreidestelle (Imperial Breadstuff’s Commission).

Ernst Mahlkuch, mill owner. Circa 1908. Source: Velopack
The firm survived WW1 and, in its aftermath, Malhkuch continued to expand the business with the purchase of electric vehicles in 1920. A second major fire in 1933 destroyed the plant, leading to another rebuild and modernization in 1934.
By 1938, the firm was renamed ‘Greif-Werke’, based in Klützow, and was fully operational by 1941. By the end of WW2, Mahlkuch’s plant had fallen on the wrong side of what was to be the east/west divide and he restarted his mill business in the city of Lübeck instead. The firm changed name one more time in 1997 to Greif-Velox and today is still in operation, making fill-line production systems for industry as Velox Industrial Packaging Systems Inc.

The Vehicle

Quite how or why a man fluent in the engineering of flour and milling machines came to take an interest in armored vehicles is unclear. When this vehicle design was submitted in 1938, the Nazi war machine had already consumed Czechoslovakia and was busily eyeing up Poland. It would be no surprise, therefore, to imagine that, in a heightened time of conflict, an engineer might consider ways in which he could help his nation to victory.

The rather uncomfortably prone crew of Mahlkuch’s design illustrates well one of the numerous problems inherent with this type of design. Source: German Patent DE687780


Mahlkuch is clear that his armored vehicle was for either just one man or a crew of not more than two. One man would, after all, have to manage the steering, propulsion, command, and fighting power of the vehicle. This was an overwhelming task which was the downfall of a lot of one-man tank designs. As a two man vehicle, this machine would have one man act as the commander and driver, able to observe the enemy and direct the vehicle to where it needed to go, with the second crew-man as the gunner and loader.
In his patent application drawing, Mahlkuch only drew a single operator within the machine, carrying what looks like a fat rifle, but is described as a machine gun. It is safe to assume, therefore, that whether the vehicle was a one or two-man machine, its only armament would be a single forward-firing machine gun.

Illustration of Mahlkuch’s Armored Cover made by Brian Gaydos, funded by our Patreon campaign.


In common with many one-man tank designs, the layout consists of the occupant lying prone, facing forwards and controlling the steering and propulsion of the vehicle with their feet (their hands being occupied operating the weapon/s). The engine, mounted at the back, was cooled by means of a fan, mounted externally, driving air over the radiator mounted above it. Both the fan and the radiator were exposed at the back and not shown to be covered by the armor of the vehicle.
As expected from a vehicle in which the operator would lie flat, it has a very low profile. It was not more than 600 mm high from the ground according to Mahlkuch, meaning it could conceal itself within long grass. This would also have the significant disadvantage that the driver could not see ahead of the vehicle and very easily drive into a wall or ditch with little or no warning.
Propulsion along the ground is more complicated though, as Mahlkuch shows one system using 4 large 8-paddle wheels about 400 mm high on each side. With little or no ground clearance, these paddle-wheels, described as “shovel-like grippers”, would drag the vehicle over the ground. The floor of the vehicle was smooth, acting as a skid, reducing the friction with the ground and providing floatation on soft ground, but it also meant that the vehicle could easily become stuck on something as simple as a tree-stump. These paddle-wheels were seen by Mahlkuch as providing an advantage over conventional tracks, as they permitted a much more silent approach. The engine was well silenced too, as a covert approach was seen by Mahlkuch as being tactically advantageous.

Top-down view of the arrangement of the vehicle from Mahlkuch. The drive is at the back, supplied by the rear-mounted motor. Source: German Patent DE687780


No armor thickness or level of protection is specified, but he was clear that this machine should be armored. In order for the armor to have any value against even bullets, it would have to be at least 6 – 8 mm thick. The armor was well rounded increasing the likelihood of deflecting an incoming bullet, a simple way of improving the protection offered by even thin steel plate and was also made with just a single seam, ensuring that no splash could get between the joints in the armor. The single seam in question was the joint between the top and bottom halves of the machine, as it was to be made in just two pieces, with each stamped from a sheet of steel and then attached together. A single, small armored flap was provided in the roof of the vehicle for the operator/s to enter/exit and for ventilation.


To make the vehicle easy to haul around in between actions, a two-wheeled trailer towed behind another vehicle was envisaged. The range of the vehicle was low in of itself, so would be reliant upon a tractor vehicle to tow it around to a gathering point from where many such vehicles could then be deployed en-masse to attack the enemy.

The transportation cart for Malhkuch’s armoured vehicle. Source: German Patent DE687780


Ernst Mahlkuch had clearly given the design a lot of thought. He wanted to overcome traction problems over the ground and to also make the design simple to manufacture, operate, and transport. Well shaped to deflect bullets and with a very low profile, the design could be seen to maximize the survivability of the soldier/s operating it, but it was a fundamentally flawed concept. Just as with so many other vehicles in this style, the crew would have little or no visibility, could easily become stuck, and were limited in offensive potential to the front, even though they may not be able to see where they might have to fire. Trapped within this low steel box, the crew would have little chance to effectively deliver fire on the enemy, as there was no provision made for firing to the sides and the noise/heat in such a small and stifling space would have been extremely unpleasant. The idea was not adopted by the German military, but it was accepted as a patent. Mahlkuch had filed the application on 9th April 1938, just one month after German troops had occupied Austria. It was approved on 11th January 1940, by which time Germany was already at war with Great Britain and France. No examples were ever made.


British Patent GB430985 ‘Improvements in or relating to automatic weighers’ filed 28/11/1933, granted 28/6/1935
German Patent DE679858 ‘Gaserzeuge zum Vergasen von festen Brennstoffen im Querstrom’ filed 9/6/1936, granted 20/7/1939
German Patent DE687780 ‘Ortsbewegliche, motorisch angetriebene Panzerdeckung’ filed 9/4/1938, granted 11/6/1940
Greif Velox
Schneider, J. (2013). Herstellerverzeichnis v3.4.

Mahlkuch’s Armored Cover specifications

Dimensions 600 mm high
Crew 1 or 2 (Commander/Driver, Gunner)
Armament One machine gun
For information about abbreviations check the Lexical Index