Category: WW2 German Tank Destroyer Prototypes

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

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

A brief history of the Jagdpanzer 38(t)

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

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

History of the German Jagdpanzer 38

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

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

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

Name

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

Work on the Jagdpanzer 38D

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

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

Technical Specification 

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

Hull

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

Suspension

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

Engine

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

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

Superstructure

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

Armament

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

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

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

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

Armor

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

Crew

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

Other Projects Based on the Jagdpanzer 38 D

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

Bergepanzer 38 D

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

Aufklärer 38 D

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

Anti-Aircraft Versions

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

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

The Fate of the Project

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Sources

• T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2001) Panzer Tracts No. 20-1 Paper Panzer Panzerkampfwagen, Sturmgeschütz and Jagdpanzer
• T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2002) Panzer Tracts No. 20-2 Paper Panzer Reconnaissance, Observation and Anti-aircraft
• W. J. Spielberger (1982) Gepard The History of German Anti-Aircraft tanks, Bernard and Graefe
• T. J. Gander (2004) Tanks in detail Jagdpanzer, Ian Allan
• D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
• P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.

 

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

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

The Panzer III/IV project

Incorporating components from the Panzer III and IV into a single-vehicle was something that the Germans tried doing even before the start of the war. Early during the Panzer development, Wa Pruef 6 (the office of the German Army’s Ordnance Department responsible for designing tanks and other motorized vehicles) wanted to redesign the Panzer IV Ausf.C in order to be equipped with the newly developed Panzer III torsion bar suspension. For this reason, at the start of June 1937, Krupp, at that time, the sole Panzer IV manufacturer, was asked to cease any further work on the Panzer IV chassis. However, with the development of the Panzer III Ausf.E chassis was running at a slow pace due to the introduction of a new torsion bar suspension and a new transmission It was estimated that the first experimental chassis could not be built prior to April 1938. As there was a large demand for Panzer IV support tanks, in October 1937, Krupp was informed to continue working and producing Panzer IVs in their current form, which would remain basically the same until the end of the war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name

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

Design

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

The Hull

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

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

The Superstructure 

The Panzer IV/70(E) more or less had a superstructure directly copied from the Panzer IV/70(V). It was designed to provide the best possible protection with its angled and thick armor. The angled shape of the superstructure provided thicker effective armor and also increased the chance of deflecting enemy shots. Also, by using larger one-piece plates, it was much stronger and also easier to produce.

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

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

Suspension

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

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

The Engine and Transmission

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

Armor Protection

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

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

Armament 

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

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

The  7.5 cm StuK 42 L/70 could fire a few different types of rounds, including armor-piercing (PzGr 39/42 or 40/42), high-explosive (SpGr 42), and armor-piercing tungsten rounds. While the latter had a superb anti-armor penetration power, due to scarcity of tungsten, these rounds were rarely employed. Its cousin, the Panzer IV/70(V), usually carried 34 anti-armor rounds, while the remaining 21 were high-explosive rounds, so it is plausible that a similar ammunition load would also be employed on this vehicle.

When firing a standard armor-piercing round at a distance of some 500 m, it could penetrate 124 mm of armor placed at an angle of 30°. At 1 km and at the same angle, the armor penetration was 111 mm, and at 2 km it was 89 mm. Using the rare tungsten rounds, the armor penetration at 500 m at an angle of 30° was 174 mm. At ranges of up to 1 km, it could penetrate 149 mm of armor Thanks to this firepower this gun could effectively engage most Allied tanks up to the war’s end.

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

Crew

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

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

In July 1944, Adolf Hitler insisted that production of the Panzer IV was to be terminated in February 1945 at the latest. Instead, the companies that were initially involved in the Panzer IV production were to focus on the Panzer IV/70 tank hunter. This included the (A), (V), and the newer (E) version.

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

 

Sources

• K. Hjermstad (2000), Panzer IV Squadron/Signal Publication.
• T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2001)  Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers
• P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
• Walter J. Spielberger (1993). Panzer IV and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
• J. ledwoch (2002) Panzer IV/70, Militaria

 

German Reich (1941)
Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – 2 Prototypes Built

During the Second World War, the German Army (Ger. Heer) saw a need to equip its Motorized Infantry and Airborne units with a cheap, light and mobile anti-tank vehicle. For this reason, Rheinmetall-Borsig was tasked with designing such a vehicle. While two would be built, there were delays in the production and the ineffectiveness as the main anti-tank weapon, the 5 cm PaK 38, eventually led to shutting down the entire project.

History

In July 1940, In 6 issued orders to Wa Pruef to develop a completely new and relatively cheap 5 cm PaK 38 armed self-propelled anti-tank vehicle. This vehicle was to be issued for use by the Motorized Infantry Divisions and Airborne units and thus had to possess good mobility and light weight. These two conditions, in essence, limited its armor thickness that could be employed. To somewhat overcome this shortcoming, it should use spaced armor (Schützenpanzer).

Eventually, the Rheinmetall-Borsig company received the contract to design such a vehicle by installing the 5 cm PaK 38 on a Borgward VK3.02 ammunition supply vehicle. The vehicle received the designation Panzerselbstfahrlafette Ia 5 cm PaK 38 auf Gepanzerter Munitionsschlepper or, in short, Pz.Sfl.Ia 5cm PaK 38 auf. gp.Mun.Schlepper. Initially, an order for two trial vehicles was given, which were to be ready by the second half of 1942. Rheinmetall-Borsig managed to build two vehicles by the start of July 1942.

The VK3.02

Back in 1937, In 6 made a request for the design of a new fully tracked ammunition transport vehicle. It was to be capable of carrying 500 kg in a storage bin positioned to the rear part of the vehicle, with an additional 500 kg in a trailer. The final contract for designing and producing such a vehicle was eventually given to Borgward from Bremen. This would lead to the development of the small fully tracked Gepanzerter Munitions-Schlepper VK3.01.

In 6 was not satisfied with its performance and additional changes were requested, from which the improved VK3.02 vehicle would emerge. This vehicle had a simple design with a fully protected two-man compartment and rear positioned open storage bin. Borgward was instructed to build 400 of these vehicles. This was never achieved and fewer than 50 vehicles were ever built. Most of these would be allocated to the 1st Infantry Division, who used them up to 1944, by which time all were lost in combat.

Production orders

Even before the previously mentioned two vehicles were built, during May 1941, it was planned to produce around 3,144 such self-propelled anti-tank vehicles. Somewhat strange was that the production run was to be quite slow, with the first series of 100 vehicles completed by April 1944, followed by a second series of 200 by April 1945.

Specification

Hull and the Superstructure

The Pz.Sfl.Ia 5cm PaK 38 auf. gp.Mun.Schlepper retained much of the original VK3.02 hull design, with some changes. The most obvious change was the removal of the rear positioned storage bin, which was replaced by a new gun crew compartment. In addition, the two escape hatch doors which were located on the enclosed superstructure top were removed. Instead, on the left side, a large hatch door was added. The assistant, who, in the VK3.02, was placed on the right side of the superstructure, was removed along with his small observation port.

The rear positioned gun crew compartment was built by using six armored plates (two per side and two to the rear) bolted together. The side armor consisted of a small rectangular-shaped plate that was slightly curved inward. This was followed by a larger one, also rectangular in shape. There were two additional plates placed behind each of the two crew seats. The compartment’s overall size was quite limited and the crew’s working space was thus highly cramped. While the original VK3.02 was built using welded armor, the added armor plates were connected using mostly rivets. While the sources state a width of 1.82 m for this vehicle, other dimensions are not known precisely.

Suspension

The suspension of this vehicle was unchanged from the VK3.02. It consisted of four large road wheels (per side), suspended using a torsion bar system. There were also front-mounted drive sprockets and rear-positioned idlers. The rubber cushioned tracks had 45 links per side.

Engine and the transmission

This vehicle was powered by the VK3.02’s original Borgward 6 M 2.3 RTBV six-cylinder 55 hp @ 3600 rpm engine. The Pz.Sfl.Ia 5cm PaK 38 auf. gp.Mun.Schlepper had a maximum speed of 30 km/h. The fuel load was 95 l. Whilst the VK3.02 ammunition vehicle had an operational range of 200 km, the precise operational range of the modified vehicle is unknown but probably slightly less than that number. With the added gun and ammunition, extra crew members, and other equipment, the weight was increased from 3.7 to 4.5 tonnes. The transmission unit was placed in the frontal lower part of the hull. For necessary repairs, the crew could use the larger rectangular-shaped hatch door placed on the upper glacis.

Armament

The Pz.Sfl.Ia 5cm PaK 38 auf. gp.Mun.Schlepper was armed with the 5 cm PaK 38 anti-tank gun. This gun was developed by Rheinmetall-Borsig back in 1938 as a replacement for the weaker 3.7 cm Pak 36, but it was not ready for service until 1940. The gun was fitted with a semi-automatic breech and had a muzzle brake. This gun had a practical rate of fire of 10 to 15 rounds per minute. Average penetration at 1,000 m (at 0°) was 61 mm (Panzergranate 39) and 84 mm by using the rare tungsten ammunition (Panzergranate 40). The maximum range of high explosive shells was around 2,500 to 2,650 m.

The gun’s main controls (traverse and elevation wheel, sights, etcetera) were located on the vehicle’s left side. The originally rear positioned recoil shield guard was retained. As the vehicle was lightly built, in order to help absorb some of the 5 cm PaK 38’s recoil during firing, a three-tube spade was lowered to the ground. While providing stability, this system somewhat limited the vehicle’s combat potency, as it would constantly need to be raised or lowered depending on the combat situation, which would take precious time. In order to hold the gun in place during long-distance drive, a rear travel lock was added.

The original PaK 38 gun shield was removed. It was instead replaced by a larger three-sided armored shield. While the side armor plates were placed flat, the frontal armor plates were angled to somewhat increase the overall protection. On the left front armor, there was a small opening for the gunner’s main sight. While the few photographs of these vehicles may give the impression that this gun shield was fixed, it was actually not. It had a 40° traverse and -10° to +20° elevation. To provide better stability during the traverse, the side shields were connected to small sliding rods.

The total ammunition load for the main gun is unfortunately not mentioned in the sources, but it would have been limited due to the vehicle’s small size. Another negative side effect of the vehicle’s small size was the insufficient room for ammunition in the rear positioned gun crew compartment. For this reason, the ammunition was actually stored in the hull compartment next to the driver. While not specified in the sources, the loader would probably have access to the stored ammunition through a small hatch door placed in front of him. If the driver would provide assistance from his position inside the armored hull is not known, but likely. Additional rounds may have been stored in the gun crew compartment.

Due to the vehicle’s small size, no secondary weapon (such as an MG 34) was carried inside. While this would make the crew vulnerable to enemy infantry attacks, they would probably respond with their personal weapons (pistols, hand grenades, or submachine guns).

Armor protection

The original VK3.02 frontal and side hull was protected by an 8 mm (or 10 mm depending on the source) thickness armor plate. The upper glacis was 7.5 mm thick, while the frontal driver armor plate was 14.5 mm (placed at 20° angle), sides 10 mm with the roof armor being 6.5 mm thick.

The extended upper gun shield was only lightly armored. The frontal armor consisted of two spaced 4 mm armor plates. While the side armor which was also spaced consisted of two 3 mm thick armored places. The idea of using space armor was that the first armor plate would absorb some energy from the incoming around which was to be deflected by the second plate. For the rear side armor that was added to the crew compartment the sources do not mention its armor thickness, but probably consisted of two 3 mm thick armored plates. The lightly armored thickness of this vehicle only provided limited protection from rifle caliber ammunition.

Crew

The Pz.Sfl.Ia 5cm PaK 38 auf. gp.Mun.Schlepper had a crew of three, which included the commander, the loader, and the driver. The commander, who also served as the gunner, was positioned to the left side of the rear positioned crew compartment. Next to him was the loader. The only crew member that was fully protected was the driver. He was positioned to the vehicle’s left hull side. To see where he was driving, a vision port with two slits was added on the front armor plate. To enter his position, he was provided with a large hatch door. This door had a small observation hatch with a visor slit placed on it.

In combat

The two built vehicles were allocated to the 19th Panzer Division in August 1942 for troop trials. After one month of use, this unit made a combat report about their performance. Unfortunately, it has not been preserved and its contents are not known and lost to history. In addition, the final fate of these two trial vehicles is also unknown. They may have been lost in combat or sent back to Germany to be scrapped, but there is no proper information.

Conclusion

The use of cheap mobile anti-tank vehicles as a concept had its merits. This is especially important for airborne troops, which could put to good use a light armored vehicle that could be transported in transport planes. The negative side is the lack of armor and, by the time they could have been fielded in larger numbers, the 5 cm main gun was already insufficient for the job. In addition by 1943, the airborne units were used mainly as standard infantry units after the disaster in Crete, with no further major parachute operations planned. So this vehicle lost its intended role by that time. The Germans concentrated on the production of the larger 7.5 cm PaK 40 which had much more effective firepower. In the end, due to a lack of information about the field use of the prototypes, their overall performance cannot be known for certain.

Specifications
Total weight, battle-ready	4.5 tonnes
Crew	3 (Commander/Gunner, Loader, and Driver)
Propulsion	Borgward 6 M 2.3 RTBV 55 hp @ 3600 rpm
Max. Road Speed	30 km/h
Operational range	200 km
Primary Armament	5 cm PaK 38 anti-tank gun
Elevation	-10° to +20°
Hull Armor	6.5-14.5 mm
Superstructure Armor	6-8 mm
Total Built	2 Prototypes

Sources

D. Doyle (2005). German Military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2010) Panzer Tracts No.7-1 Panzerjager
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2009) Panzer Tracts No.17 Gepanzerte Hachshub Fahrzeuge
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
Ian V.Hogg (1979) German Artillery of World War Two, Grenhill.

---

German Reich (1943)
Assault Gun – Design Only

The Jagdtiger (Hunting Tiger) is a highly recognizable vehicle consisting of a huge flat-sided casemate built on the hull of the Tiger II Heavy Tank. What is less well known is that the Jagdtiger as we know it (design started in early 1943), was not the vehicle originally requested and that, by tracking that design philosophy and evidence, it is possible to see a completely different Jagdtiger; one which was never built yet still offers a fuller picture of the evolution of German heavy armor in the Second World War.

Conception

In the spring of 1942, the Army General Staff was requesting a 12.8 cm gun mounted on a self-propelled chassis capable of supporting the infantry and of destroying unarmored as well as armored targets at distances up to 3,000 m. Armor and firepower were the priority, not speed and maneuverability.

By 2nd February 1943, this demand became an official request in the form of a letter sent from Wa Prüf 4 (the Army High Command design office for artillery) to Friedrich Krupp of Essen, setting out the requirement to mount a 12.8 cm Sturmkanone (Eng: Assault Gun abbreviated to ‘Stu.K’) on a modified Tiger H3. The ‘Tiger H3’ concerned was what we now know as the Tiger II, which was not named as such until March 1943 following the abandonment of the VK45.02(H), which was at the time known as Tiger II.

The requirements from Wa Prüf 4 for the modifications meant moving the engine forward on the chassis, with the gun being mounted in a casemate at the rear. This philosophy was felt to have the advantage of keeping the barrel overhang for the tank to a minimum and allowing for a better distribution of weight, although it was not without problems, as would soon become apparent.

The firm of Henschel und Sohn of Kassel would be responsible for the design of the hull modifications to fulfill this project and was contracted to produce designs. The gun desired was a 12.8 cm Stu.K, and the intention was to simply take the 12.8 cm Kw.K. L/55 gun unchanged, in its entirety, along with mounts, breech, brake, and recuperator from the Pz.Kpfw. Maus, although there was a strong emphasis placed by the High Command on the removal of the muzzle brake, as this allowed the use of Triebspiegel shells for heavy anti-armor work. The design, therefore, was not simply an assault gun, but also a tank-destroyer too, the difference between the two being blurred in this regard.

Further requirements set out in this letter were the use of as simple a design as possible with an elevation of -8 to +15 and 15 degrees of traverse. The sighting for the gun consisted of the Sfl.Z.F.5 and Rbl.F.36 telescopes to allow for both direct and also indirect fire.

Panzerjäger Panther design

By the start of 1943, the attempts to mount a 12.8 cm gun on a chassis were focused on using either the Panther or Tiger II as a basis. The Panther design to mount this 12.8 cm gun followed the design request closely. The engine, cooling, and ancillaries were moved to the front of the hull, behind the driver and radio operator, with the fighting compartment at the back.

The 12.8cm L/55 gun was mounted in the front of a well-sloped casemate with sloping sides, a flat roof, and a sloping rear, rather akin to the design of the back of the Ferdinand. Elevation limits for this gun were just +15 degrees to -6.5 degrees which did not meet the -8 degrees desired. Further, the rather small space of the casemate for the breech of this huge gun likely restricted the traverse to below the required 15 degrees each way.

The advantages of the design, such as the less complex and expensive Panther chassis compared to the Tiger II chassis, and the reduced length, just 8.5 m long from the muzzle to the rear, were offset by its deficiencies, such as the gun placement complicating maintenance of the engine and transmission. It is also possible that the armor which could be carried was not felt to be sufficient on the Panther chassis but, regardless of why the design was dropped, the attention was switched to the Tiger II chassis instead.

Enter the Tigerjäger

The Panzerjäger Panther design was dropped at some point, but Dr. Erwin Aders, the design lead at Henschel und Sohn, was working on two alternative designs for a Panzerjager based on the new Tiger II design. By March 1943, Aders was actively considering armor for the design up to 200 mm thick on the front and up to 100 mm on the sides, although this was subject to change in order to keep the weight to 70-tonnes (77.16 tons) or less. The goal was to provide a finished design by June 1943.

On 12th April 1943, Aders’ designs for Henschel were ready and the name being used at the time was Tigerjäger (Hunting Tiger). Designs plural, because Aders presented not one design but two: Tigerjäger Design A and Tigerjäger Design B.

Competing Designs

Design A had completely disregarded the requirement of the initial design brief to move the engine to the front of the hull. Instead, this design kept the engine at the back, with the transmission at the front as it was already arranged on the Tiger II. Despite this, the hull still had to be lengthened by 300 mm. Spielberger, Jentz, and Doyle (2007) describe the frontal armor of this design as being 150 mm at 40 degrees on the glacis and 200 mm thick on the 60-degree sloping part on the front of the casemate. However, the side armor had been reduced from the 100 mm desired in March to just 80 mm in order to keep the weight down. In other words, the frontal armor was now effectively double or more than the Tiger I but with the same side armor as the Tiger II.

Construction of a casemate with the armor desired and enough room for the breech of the huge 12.8 cm gun created a major problem and the height of Design A had to be reduced by 40 mm to allow it to fit inside the German rail gauge height limits for transportation. This had the effect of reducing gun depression from the -8 desired to -7 but, other than that, the design had met almost all of the requirements desired in the original letter from Wa Prüf 4 in February.

Design B, on the other hand, was significantly more problematic. In order to meet the requirements of Wa Prüf 4’s request to move the engine to the front, the hull roof had to be raised. Further, the cooling system of fans and radiators would not fit and would require a total redesign but even so, the engine was put in the middle of the hull. This, in turn, created additional problems with the transmission of power from the engine to the transmission at the front and to resolve that dilemma would mean designing new intermediate gearing. If that was not bad enough, Dr. Aders had not managed to design an effective system for exhaust from the engine and ventilation as the new arrangement had created so many difficulties for the design, and that was just the automotive problems.

Along with this total redesign of the Tiger II to accommodate this new automotive arrangement and the casemate at the back, the vehicle was too large for the rail gauge. Altering the design in order to meet this limitation would further reduce the movement of the gun which was already reduced by the height of the hull in front of the casemate. Assuming for a moment that the height could be amended in the same manner as Design A, reducing the -8 depression to just -7, then we can only surmise that the figure of -7 would be yet further reduced by this engine deck-height issue to -6 or less. Significant benefits of this gun mounting which should not be forgotten, however, were that it kept the center-of-gravity of the vehicle further back and meant there was very little overhang of the gun over the front of the hull.

One more problem to add to this litany of issues was maintenance. Not only would Design B require parts unique to it which were not compatible with the Tiger II, such as the gearing and cooling systems, but access to these parts was hard too. The 12.8 cm gun and mantlet would overhang the engine deck and, with limited traverse and elevation, there was no means to remove the engine or transmission without first removing the gun. This would also have to be done anyway for the Design A option but only for a change of the transmission and not for the engine. A short note here is that, at this time, the only engine being considered for the Tigerjäger was the same as that of the Tiger II, the Maybach HL 230 TRM producing 700 hp.

When Design A was amended with the casemate 200 mm further back due to a design change over the gun mounting, it resolved the centre-of-gravity issues and also reduced the gun overhang at the front. Design B, therefore, offered little in the way of advantages over Design A and a whole slew of major and unresolved problems. With an urgency to get this heavy 12.8 cm assault gun platform into service, there was only one logical choice and Design A, despite not being the engine-forward design requested, was selected instead. Design A went on to be the Jagdtiger and Design B was dropped.

The Duplicate

The first ‘Tigerjäger Design B’, as previously described, dates to the first half of April 1944 and the creative mind of Dr. Aders at Henschel und Sohn. Just to be confusing for historians, there is another Tigerjäger Design B. In fact, it is actually written as ‘Tiger-Jäger B’ and also emerges from Henschel just a month after the first Tigerjäger Design B. This means it is almost certainly from Dr. Aders as well, as he was the chief designer at Henschel.

Given the fact it was almost certainly proposed by the same designer responsible for Tigerjäger Design A and Tigerjäger Design B, from the same firm and only separated by a month, it would be easy to assume that there may be an error and that there was, in fact, only 1 Tigerjäger Design B. Here though there is a lucky break for the curious, as the plans for the May 1944 Tigerjäger Design B, unlike the April 1944 Tigerjäger Design B, actually survive.

Looking at the plans for the May Tigerjäger Design B and comparing it to the description known for the April design, it becomes very apparent that they are not the same vehicle which have been confused. The April vehicle was an engine-forward, rear casemate design with the 12.8cm gun over the engine with a small projection, whereas the May vehicle is the engine-rearward center-casemate design just like that known for Tigerjäger Design A from April, mounting the same gun but only over the front of the hull and projecting forwards.

The May Tigerjäger Design B initially looks like Design A, but there is one key visual difference that is easy to overlook; a cut-away portion on the top edge of the glacis. This cut-away reduced the point at which the gun would foul on the hull during depression.

The armor listed on the plan for the May Tigerjäger Design B also matches the armor described for the April Tigerjäger Design A, namely 200 mm on the front of the casemate, 150 mm on the glacis, and 80 mm on the sides. As these armor figures both pre- and post-date the April Tigerjäger Design B, it can be reasonably assumed even without the plans that the armor would be the same.

Resurrection: September 1943

Design B might have failed but the idea of sticking the 12.8 cm gun is a rear-casemate engine-forward design certainly had one last surprise. This time it was not from Henschel but from Krupp.

On 24th September 1943, Colonel Crohn (Wa Prüf 6) wrote to Krupp about improving the armament for the Tigerjäger, which was now the Henschel Design A type vehicle. There had been problems with the 12.8cm L/55 from Krupp which was, as yet, still unfinished. The gun suggested by Colonel Crohn was the 12.8cm L/70 version of the gun which used the same two-piece ammunition as the shorter gun but would deliver a higher muzzle velocity for armor-piercing rounds.

Krupp set to work and on 21st October replied that they had altered the design (the current Design-A type vehicle) to take the L/70 instead of the L/55. The gun could still fit in the same mounts as the L/55 gun but caused serious problems. The extremely long barrel now projected nearly 5 m beyond the front of the tank, bringing the center of gravity much further forwards, leaving a great strain on the front suspension.

The solution, in one way, was obvious – put the gun further back. In fact, mount the gun in a casemate at the back of the hull and, in doing so, move the engine forwards. This was then unsurprisingly exactly what Krupp suggested. At the same time, they outlined what effect the use of an L/70 would have on the primary design they suggested, and outlined this exact alternative, namely moving the engine forwards and the gun backward. This would reduce the overhang at the front to just 2 m or so and bring the center-of-gravity further back too. The drawbacks though, would be the same as before on the Design B and, on top of this, Krupp foresaw an increase in weight too on top of the weight of the heavier gun. Krupp said that it would consult with Henschel on the matter but, as Henschel had already considered this problem, it is no surprise that this idea died as quickly as it started.

By the end of October 1943 then it can be said that the rear-casemate engine-forward Tigerjäger was well and truly dead as an idea.

Clues

Because the designs were both rejected,k as both had so many faults and neither drawing has survived, it is perhaps no surprise that the descriptions provided, along with a knowledge of the development of the 12.8 cm Panzerjager and Tiger II programs, only allow for an approximation or surmised layout to be offered.

Looking at all of the other Panzerjägers following this engine-forward principle, such as the Panzerjäger IV mit 8.8 cm L/71, the Elefant/Ferdinand with the 8.8 cm L/71, and the Panzerjäger Panther with the 12.8 cm L/55, they all share the same core elements of sloping casemate sides, flat roof, and a rear which slopes both out from the floor to about the midpoint before sloping back to meet the casemate roof.

It is also worth considering that rear-mounted guns were actually installed on the Tiger II chassis, such as the 17 cm Selsfahrlafette 17/21, better known as the ‘Grille’ (Cricket). For that design, the engine was brought forward and the gun taken to the rear. A look at the engine position in the Grille, therefore, provides a view of what the front section of Design B might have looked like with the engine brought forwards. Why was it not a problem for the Grille when this layout was such a problem for the Tigerjäger? Simple: the Grille’s 17cm gun could be elevated far enough that access to the engine and transmission was relatively easy, as the gun did not need to be removed first.

Without seeing the original design, it is not possible to know for sure what Tigerjäger Design B looked like and the ‘invention’ of a tank, however reasonable it may look, is avoided by serious historians, which is why the artist’s impression shown here by the author is offered with the warning that it is exactly that, a rough impression of what it might have looked like based only on the little information available and from contemporary designs. Only if, and when, the original drawings are found can it be known for sure how close this impression is to reality.

Conclusion

The Tigerjäger Design B was literally a ‘paper panzer’ – it never left the drawing board. Designed by Henschel exactly as was actually demanded, it was simply surpassed by the alternative design (Design A), the design which went on to be the Jagdtiger. Using a rear casemate design with the engine forward would have allowed the use of the 12.8cm L/55 (April/May 1943) or even L/70 (September/October 1943) without the otherwise enormous overhang and without the excessive weight on the front suspension. Nonetheless, the design caused other problems relating to maintenance, the need for new component parts and really was not needed. There had been serious delays already in the Jagdtiger program at the time and 12.8cm L/55 production was behind schedule; switching to a longer gun would simply have slowed things down even more and the L/70 was simply not necessary to deal with its intended targets.

Krupp’s ideas for mounting the L/70 in the Design A never came about either and its ideas about moving the casemate to the rear were equally impractical given the problems of engine access. As it was, the Jagdtiger would follow a more conventional layout and the Design B of April 1943 was dropped. Together, the discussions over the Tigerjäger come together to provide a fuller picture of the small, but important steps in the evolutionary process for the Germans’ heavy Jagdtiger program.

---

Illustration of the Tigerjäger Design B produced by Mr. C. Ryan, funded by our Patreon Campaign

Tigerjäger Design B (April – March 1943)
Total weight, battle-ready	est. 75 tonnes
Crew	6
Propulsion	Maybach HL 230 TRM petrol producing 700hp
Armament	12.8cm Kw.K. L/55 plus hull mounted machine gun
Armor	Up to 200 mm frontal, 80 mm sides and rear. 40-50 mm roof

Tigerjäger Design B (September-October 1943)
Total weight, battle-ready	est. 70 – 75 tonnes
Crew	6
Propulsion	Maybach HL 230 TRM petrol producing 700hp
Armament	12.8cm Kw.K. L/70 plus hull mounted machine gun
Armor	Up to 200 mm frontal, 80 mm sides and rear. 40-50 mm roof

Sources

Spielberger, W., Doyle, H., Jentz, T. (2007). Heavy Jagdpanzer: Development, Production, Operations. Schiffer Military History, PA, USA
Hoffschmidt, E., Tantum, W. (1988). German Tank and Antitank. WE Inc., CT, USA

---

German Reich (1940-1942)
Tank Destroyer – 2 Built

Ever since the late 1920s, the German Army (Heer) had recognised the need for self-propelled anti-tank guns. It was thought that by exploiting their mobility and low silhouette, these dedicated tank destroyers would be able to flank attacking enemy armor and take the momentum out of the offensive. However, this theory had failed to translate into practice by the time of the Second World War, as the need to prioritise funding for other technological developments meant that the dedicated tracked and half-tracked tank destroyer projects of the interwar years were unable to progress further than the prototype stage.
This shortcoming in mobile anti-tank firepower was exposed during the invasion of France in 1940 and the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Confronted with more heavily armored tanks, such as the T-34, the standard 3.7 cm PaK 36 anti-tank gun was becoming increasingly obsolescent and there was a growing demand for heavier, more mobile anti-tank guns. In order to meet this need as quickly as possible, the Heer jettisoned the idea of a specialised self-propelled anti-tank gun built from the ground-up and instead authorised the conversion of obsolete or captured tank hulls to Panzerjäger (literally ‘tank hunter’), resulting in such ungainly machines as the Panzerjäger I and the 4.7 cm Pak (t) auf Pz.Kpfw.35R. At the same time, the development and fielding of the more powerful 5 cm Pak 38 and 7.5 cm PaK 40 towed anti-tank guns was accelerated.
The Panzer Selbstfahrlafette Ic (Pz.Sfl.Ic) was one of a multitude of developments to arise from this drive for improvised self-propelled anti-tank guns. However, unlike many of its contemporaries, it mounted the German-made 5 cm Pak 38 and used the hull of one of the latest and most advanced tank designs in the German inventory, the VK9.01. Although this would appear to be a promising start to the project, the technological problems with the VK9.01 chassis would ultimately compromise the viability of this development. The German word ‘Selbstfahrlafette’ translates to ‘self-propelled gun’ and is often abbreviated to Sfl. or (Sf).

Bad Genes: The VK9.01 and its Defects

The VK9.01 (Vollketten 9.01, meaning first design for a fully tracked vehicle in the 9 tonne class) had begun development in 1938 in response to a perceived need for a new, more mobile model of the Panzer II light tank. Heavily influenced by the ideas of Heinrich Ernst Kniepkamp, a talented engineer and head of the Waffen Prüfen 6 (Wa Prüf 6) agency of the German motorised vehicle procurement system, the VK9.01 was designed to offer a revolutionary step forward in tank mobility.
To that end, it took advantage of several innovative automotive components then under development in Germany. These included a 150 hp Maybach HL 45 engine, an 8-speed preselective Maybach VG15319 transmission and various types of triple-stage steering units that would allow the tank to take turns at high speeds. A distinctive torsion bar suspension with five overlapping road wheels was attached to the hull, which allowed the tank to traverse rough ground at high speeds and provided a greater degree of manoeuvrability than contemporary designs. Taken together, these innovations meant that the VK9.01 was not only relatively easy to drive, but that it could also reach speeds of up to 67 km/h (41.63 mph) on roads, an exceptionally high speed for fully-tracked vehicles of the time.
The vast improvements in mobility were complemented by the installation of a vertical stabiliser for the standard Panzer II 2 cm KwK. 38 main armament and the coaxial 7.92 mm M.G.34 machine gun that permitted it to fire more accurately on the move. Other than a new turret design and marginal increases in the armor protection, it remained similar to the existing model of the Panzer II in most other respects, maintaining the three-man crew of the original.
Initially, it was hoped that the first pre-production examples of the VK9.01 would be able to enter production as soon as 1939, with mass production scheduled to commence in 1941. It would then subsequently replace the rest of the light tanks in the Heer’s inventory. These ambitious and grandiose plans would prove to be short-lived however, as the development process was constantly delayed by decisions to trial new steering units and transmissions. As a result, by the summer of 1940, none of the 75 0-Serie (pre-production) VK9.01 then under contract had been produced and work had even started on a new variant with a more powerful engine and marginally thicker armor known as the VK9.03.
In the end, the protracted development process and the need to rationalise German tank production meant that the VK9.01 never fulfilled its destiny. Although 55 of the 0-Serie hulls with a bewildering variety of transmissions and steering systems were completed between 1941 and 1942, mass production never occurred as, by that time, there was a more pressing demand for heavier armored vehicles such as the Panther. Worse still, the VK9.01 proved to be an unreliable machine during testing precisely because of the new automotive components that ironically more often that not broke down and crippled the machine. Consequently, the VK9.01 never saw any notable uses during the war and is now a largely forgotten episode in the saga of German Second World War tank development.
Although the officials of Inspektorat 6 (the body nominally responsible for drawing up requirements for armored vehicles) could not have foreseen the ultimate demise of this project when they initiated the development of a tank destroyer based on the VK9.01 on 5 July 1940, these faulty genes were to determine the fate of this project too.

Small but Deadly: The Pz.Sfl.Ic Design

Following the July 1940 directive from Inspektorat 6 to develop a light Panzerjäger (tank hunter) able to keep pace with Panzer Divisions and Motorised Infantry Divisions, Wa Prüf 6 awarded contracts to the Berlin-based company Rheinmetall-Borsig to draw up designs for a 5 cm Pak mounted on a VK9.01 hull. According to Yuri Pasholok, Rheinmetall-Borsig then allocated this work to Alkett, another firm based in Berlin. While this could make sense given Alkett’s involvement in other armored vehicle projects, it is not mentioned in any other publications. Indeed, Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary L. Doyle, having looked at original German wartime documents, state in their book Panzer Tracts No.7-1 that the superstructure conversion work was completed by Rheinmetall-Borsig on the M.A.N. built hull. They do not make any reference to this work being subcontracted out.
Regardless of the exact division of the labour, this presents a problem for those studying this armored vehicle today, as surviving primary source material concerning the development of armored fighting vehicles during this period at Rheinmetall-Borsig has mostly been lost. Unfortunately, this means that there are many unanswered questions relating to the history of this project and the technical details of this conversion.
One such problem is the designation of the machine itself. It was known as the Panzer Selbstfahrlafette Ic (English: Armored Self-propelled Carriage Ic). While Panzer Selbstfahrlafette is a common enough element in the designations of armored vehicles converted by the Germans into self-propelled guns, the Ic aspect is unusual. Some other German tank destroyers received similar combinations of Roman numerals followed by alphabetical suffixes, such as the 10 cm Kanone Panzer Selbstfahrlafette IVa (better known as ‘Dicker Max’). Given that there was a Panzer Selbstfahrlafette Ia based on a converted VK3.02 munitions carrier, it is likely that the ‘c’ means that this was the third design in a series of 5 cm self-propelled anti-tank guns, but it is not possible to be sure.

A factory-fresh Pz.Sfl.Ic. This provides a clear view of the VK9.01 chassis, the two-tiered superstructure and the 5 cm Kanone L/60 gun. Note the appliqué armor fitted to the side of the hull, which is visible next to the two shock absorbers. Ancillary equipment for the gun such as the cleaning rods is stowed on the side of the lower tier of the superstructure and a canvas cover strapped onto the roof shields the crew from the elements. Photo: warspot.ru
Nevertheless, what can be gleaned from the few fragments of surviving information and photographs is that the Pz.Sfl.Ic involved the mounting of a fixed open-topped superstructure onto a standard VK9.01 hull. It is unclear whether the VK9.01 hulls used to create the Pz.Sfl.Ic were part of the 55 0-Serie VK9.01 chassis completed in 1941 and 1942 or if they were extra hulls produced especially for this purpose. Nevertheless, they appear to have maintained the same suspension and general layout of the base tank. They carried the same level of armor protection, consisting of 30 mm at the front, 14.5 mm at the sides which was bolstered by an additional 5 mm of appliqué armor, and 14.5 mm at the rear.
Mounted in place of the turret was a two-tiered armored superstructure. On the bottom tier, this contained a driver’s visor of the same type fitted to the VK9.01 at the front, as well as two elongated visors at the front right and left hand sides. Gun cleaning rods were also stowed on the left-hand side of this lower tier of the superstructure. A slightly shorter and narrower tier of the superstructure containing the 5 cm gun and its mounting surmounted this lower segment. It is unclear whether this top section of the superstructure could rotate like a turret, but there is no indication in documents or photographs that this was the case. Hence, it is likely that elevation and a limited degree of traverse to either side was provided by the gun mount, as with other comparable designs such as the Marder II and Marder III.
The main gun selected for the Pz.Sfl.Ic was the 5 cm Kanone L/60, a derivative of the 5 cm Pak 38 towed anti-tank gun that had been under development at Rheinmetall Borsig since 1938. This version of the gun had modifications to the breech, carriage and recoil mechanisms to make it more suitable for use within the confines of an armored vehicle.
According to one German technical document issued during the war, the 5 cm Pak 38 could penetrate 69 mm of armor at 100 m when firing the 5 cm Panzergranate (Pzgr.) 39 armor piercing capped (APC) round, which was increased to 130 mm with the 5 cm Pzgr. 40 armor piercing composite rigid (APCR) rounds. At distances of 1,000 m, the penetration decreased to 48 mm and 38 mm respectively. However, it is important to note that stocks of the 5 cm Pzgr. 40 APCR round were limited due to its tungsten core. Tungsten was a valuable material that was in short supply in wartime Germany and required for many other industrial purposes. It could therefore not be squandered on producing vast numbers of anti-tank rounds meaning that tank and anti-tank gun crews were generally issued only a few of these rounds at a time for use in the most threatening situations.

An excerpt from an original German document outlining the penetration of the 5 cm Pak 38. Whilst the 5 cm Pak 38 was adequate for dealing with most enemy tanks that might have been encountered in 1942, the Heer was already seeking more powerful anti-tank guns to deal with anticipated future threats. It is important to note that each military had its own procedures for measuring and testing penetration which could lead to different results for the same gun and projectile. Source: valka.cz
Compared to the VK9.01 tank, the Pz.Sfl.Ic accommodated an extra crew member for a total complement of four men. Presumably, this included a driver and radio operator seated in the front left and front right of the hull respectively, plus two men in the top part of the superstructure to load and fire the gun, one of whom would have been the vehicle commander.
Despite these significant changes to the VK9.01, its performance (at least on paper) does not appear to have been adversely affected. The 150 hp Maybach HL 45 engine was still capable of propelling the vehicle to a maximum speed of nearly 70 km/h and the weight remained at 10.5 tonnes, the same as the standard VK9.01.
Even so, due to the scarcity of documentation concerning this vehicle, there is no way to evaluate how well these design specifications translated into practice. When the 0-Serie VK9.01 tanks were evaluated at the Berka proving ground sometime in 1941 or 1942, they fared miserably. Most of the tanks succumbed to breakdowns after covering relatively short distances, and problems with getting the automotive components to work reliably proved to be an insurmountable challenge for the engineers.
Presumably, such problems would also have afflicted the Pz.Sfl.Ic had it ever entered mass production, but in the absence of test reports, one can only speculate.

Illustration of the 5 cm PaK 38 auf Pz.Kpfw. II Sonderfahrgestell 901 (Panzer Selbstfahrlafette Ic), produced by Alexe Pavel, funded by our Patreon Campaign.

Big Plans for a Small Tank Destroyer: Pz.Sfl.Ic Production

On 30 May 1941, almost one year after Rheinmetall Borsig had been contracted to begin designing the Pz.Sfl.Ic, the Heer issued a document called the Heeres Panzerprogramm 41 (Army Tank Program 41). An exercise in long-range planning, this document outlined the production quantities of all vehicles necessary to outfit a total of 20 new Panzer Divisions and 10 new Motorised Infantry Divisions by 1945. By this time, the successor to the VK9.01, the VK9.03, was the preferred choice of new model light tank for the Heer. As such, the Panzerprogramm 41 envisaged the production of almost 10,000 of these new light tanks.
In addition to the standard tanks, the planners behind the Panzerprogramm 41 also envisaged an entire family of armored vehicles based upon the VK9.03. Sources differ on the exact number, but this would have included between 1,028 and 2,028 tank destroyers armed with a 5 cm anti-tank gun referred to as l.Pz.Jäger (Pz.Sfl.5 cm) auf VK903 Fgst. (Light Tank Destroyer on VK9.03 chassis). As there were only minor differences between the VK9.01 and VK9.03, it is likely that such a tank destroyer would have closely resembled the Pz.Sfl.Ic.
However, this document was more aspirational than it was realistic. It was not based on any sober assessment of German economic capabilities, nor did it offer precise guidelines on how such astronomical (for the standards of mid-1941 German industry) production figures were to be achieved. At the time the document was issued, the VK9.03 was still on paper and fewer than 15 of the 0-Serie VK9.01 had left the production line, which raises several questions as to whether such plans as laid out in the Panzerprogramm 41 would have been feasible.
In the end, the VK9.03 never entered production and only two trial examples of the Pz.Sfl.Ic based on VK9.01 hulls were ever made. According to a report issued in July 1941, these were scheduled for completion in September 1941. There is no way of knowing whether production kept to this schedule, but in any case, the two machines were completed by March 1942 at the latest.

Trials on the Eastern Front: The Pz.Sfl.Ic in Combat

Unlike many experimental vehicles that were typically constructed out of unarmored mild steel, the two Pz.Sfl.Ics were made from armor plate. This meant that they were suitable for deployment in combat and the Heer did not waste this opportunity.

All two of the Pz.Sfl.Ic in service with the third platoon of Panzer-Jäger Company 601 (later renamed as the 3rd Company of Panzer-Jäger battalion (Sfl.) 559) as it travels through the small town of Kloster Zinna in Brandenburg. A Kleinepanzerbefehlswagen I (a small command tank based on the Panzer I hull) leads the convoy, while at least four of the 8.8 cm Sfl. half-tracks bring up the rear. The relatively small size and low silhouette of these tank destroyers can be appreciated by comparing them to the humongous half-tracks and the young boys walking in the middle of the road. Note that the frontal plate of the Pz.Sfl.Ic superstructure only has a single visor for the driver, perhaps suggesting that there was not a separate radio operator (who would normally have his own visor) and a three-man crew instead of four. Source: valka.cz
On 10 March 1942, the two Pz.Sfl.Ic vehicles were assigned to the 3rd platoon of Panzer-Jäger Company 601 to replace some of the 8.8 cm Sfl. (8.8 cm Flak 36 mounted on Sd.Kfz.8 half-tracks) that had been lost in combat on the Eastern Front. Later renamed as the 3rd Company of Panzer-Jäger battalion (Sfl.) 559 on 21 April 1942, this unit operated under the 2nd Army, itself part of Army Group South.
Unfortunately, little else is known about the service of the Pz.Sfl.Ic on the Eastern Front. There are no known surviving trials reports detailing its performance in combat or discussing any issues with the design. A few surviving photographs prove that they did indeed make it to the front, and a strength report dated 20 August 1941 states that the 3rd Company of Panzer-Jäger battalion (Sfl.) 559 still had two Pz.Sfl.Ic at that time, one of which was operational. However, the Pz.Sfl.Ic simply vanishes from the paperwork after this point, with no mention of the ultimate fate of these two vehicles.
This suggests that unless they were sent back to Germany for some reason, the guns likely perished by the end of 1942. At the time the Pz.Sfl.Ic joined the 3rd Company of Panzer-Jäger battalion (Sfl.) 559, Army Group South had been split into two groups for the assault on Stalingrad and the Caucasus oil fields. As part of Army Group B, the 2nd Army protected the northern flank of the 6th Army as it fought its way into Stalingrad, until it was decimated by the Soviet winter offensive in late 1942 and early 1943.
It is unlikely that the Pz.Sfl.Ic would have survived this maelstrom, especially if the technological foibles that plagued the VK9.01 had also afflicted this machine. The maintenance nightmare involved in keeping these fickle vehicles running would have been compounded yet further by the bewildering menagerie of different vehicles operated by Panzer-Jäger battalion (Sfl.) 559, which also included Panzer Selbstfahrlafette 1 für 7.62 cm Pak 36 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II Ausf.D and 8.8 cm Sfl. halftracks.

A Pz.Sfl.Ic entrained with a group of Panzer IIIs. Few details of this vehicle are visible on this photograph, other than the prominent Balkenkreuz and the fact that it is missing one of its outer road wheels. The exact location of this train and its intended destination are unknown, though this photo once again shows that the Pz.Sfl.Ic did make it to the front. Source: valka.cz

Too Little, Too Late

The fate of the Pz.Sfl.Ic was tied to that of its host, the VK9.01. Once work on the deeply flawed and troublesome VK9.01 and VK9.03 tanks was abruptly terminated in March 1942, any hopes that the Pz.Sfl.Ic would be mass produced were dashed, as the entire rationale behind such projects was to save time and funds by converting readily available hulls.
Yet even if by some miracle the VK9 series had entered mass production as the new model of Panzer II, the Pz.Sfl.Ic would still have had a precarious future. By the time the first two trials machines had been issued in March 1942, the Heer was already looking to guns of a calibre greater than 5 cm to counter the ever increasing armor of enemy tanks. Consequently, conversions involving captured Czechoslovakian 4.7 cm and 5 cm Pak 38 guns were superseded by those equipped with captured Soviet 7.62 cm guns or the new 7.5 cm Pak 40, resulting in the well-known Marder (Marten) series among others. This prevailing trend suggests that the Pz.Sfl.Ic would not have remained in production for long.
Although there were paper projects to mount the 7.5 cm gun on the VK9 series (and a photo of one such conversion suggests it even seems to have been carried out), the fact that the VK9.01 and VK9.03 never entered mass production meant that such ideas would never have been able to enter widespread service.
Ultimately then, the Pz.Sfl.Ic was a non-starter. The failure of the VK9 initiative undercut the reason for its existence and the gun it was equipped with was already starting to be outclassed due to the frenetic pace of Second World War tank development. Apart from a few photographs and a smattering of documents, nothing of the Pz.Sfl.Ic project survives to this day, but it remains a curious example of the German propensity to experiment with self-propelled gun conversions throughout the war.

A rare glimpse at the rear of the Pz.Sfl.Ic. Taken in the summer or autumn of 1942, this photograph is proof that the Pz.Sfl.Ic did indeed make it to the front. Like all other German armored vehicles in use on the front line, it has a Balkenkreuz painted on the hull side for identification purposes. The wrecked Soviet fighter in the foreground suggests that this may be in the vicinity of an airfield. Source: warspot.ru

TransmissionLGR 15319 or LGL 15319 Triple radius differential steering unit

Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H, based on VK9.03)	4.24 m x 2.39 m x 2.05 m
Weight	10.5 tonnes
Crew	4
Propulsion	Water-cooled gasoline Maybach HL 45 motor producing 150 HP at 3800 rpm VG 15319, or OG 20417, or SMG 50
Speed (road)	67 km/h (regulated to 65 km/h)
Armament	5 cm Kanone L/60
Armor	30 mm hull front 14.5 mm + 5 mm appliqué hull side 14.5 mm hull rear Superstructure armor unknown
Total production	2

Bibliographical Comment

The most accurate source on the Pz.Sfl.Ic is Panzer Tracts 7-1 written by renowned German Second World War AFV historians Thomas Jentz and Hilary Doyle. However, only a single page of this book is devoted to the Pz.Sfl.Ic, reflecting the dearth of primary source material for this vehicle.
An online article originally written in Russian by Yuri Pasholok and available in English translation provides a decent summary of the Pz.Sfl.Ic and helps to place it in the wider context of the development of the VK9 series of projects.
Asides from a few photographs showing the Pz.Sfl.Ic on deployment (one of which was published in Autumn Gale), little else has emerged on this elusive machine.

Sources

Didden, J., and Swarts, M., Autumn Gale/Herbst Sturm: Kampfgruppe Chill, schwere Heeres Panzerjäger Abteilung 559 and the German Recovery in the Autumn of 1944 (Drunen: De Zwaardvisch, 2013).
Doyle, H.L., and Jentz, T.L., Panzer Tracts No.2-2 Panzerkampfwagen II Ausf.G, H, J, L, and M: Development and Production from 1938 to 1943 (Maryland: Panzer Tracts, 2007).
Doyle, H.L., and Jentz, T.L., Panzer Tracts No.20-2 Paper Panzers: Aufklaerungs-, Beobachtungs-, and Flak Panzer (Reconnaissance, Observation, and Anti-Aircraft) (Maryland, Panzer Tracts, 2002).
Doyle, H.L., and Jentz, T.L., Panzer Tracts No.7-1 Panzerjaeger (3.7 cm Tak to Pz.Sfl.Ic): Development and Employment from 1927 to 1941 (Maryland: Panzer Tracts, 2004).
Spielberger, W.J., Der Panzer-Kampfwagen I und II und ihre Abarten: Einschließlich der Panzerentwicklungen der Reichswehr (Stuttgart: Motorbuch Verlag, 1974). Translated into English as Panzer I and II and their Variants: From Reichswehr to Wehrmacht (Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing US, 2007).
Pasholok, Y., ‘Pz.Kpfw.II Ausf.G: The Fruit of Unending Labour’. Read HERE (Russian), English version HERE.