By the mid-2010s, similar to other military forces in the world at the time, the Serbian Army had stockpiles of aging tanks in its inventory. The youngest tank design, the M-84, dated from 1984. Of course, with the advancement of technology and weapons systems, the question arose whether to invest in the improvement of these vehicles or start with the development of a brand-new design. States with limited financial and economic resources, such as Serbia, realistically have limited options. Such states could potentially buy new tanks from abroad, but that is not always a cheaper or better option. However, the lack of industrial capacity actually served as a motivation for a group of engineers who made drawings for a new tank that they hoped, if accepted, would revitalize the Serbian economy. In 2015, they presented a vehicle, known as the M-20UP1, the development of which ultimately and predictably led nowhere due to its sheer ambition compared to Serbia’s economic and production capabilities at the time.
Domestic Tank Development
Developing and producing a completely new tank is an exceedingly difficult task, and it is rarely undertaken without proper preparation. Tank development and production involve substantial financial investments. Any country willing to allocate resources to such endeavors needs economic stability and a strong commitment to national defense. Tanks can be seen as significant symbols of military power and are not only instruments of war, but also representations of a nation’s technological prowess and industrial might. They often embody cutting-edge technology, and successful development is a testament to a country’s scientific and engineering capabilities. This was particularly pronounced during the Cold War, when the USA and the Soviet Union engaged in an arms race.
In the Balkans, Communist Yugoslavia wanted to be part of this elite. Its Army entered this race somewhat overly overambitious, in the hope of reducing its dependence on foreign suppliers to acquire armored vehicles. The attempt reflected the broader trend during the era, where many nations sought to establish or enhance their prestige and military capabilities through the development of indigenous armored vehicles, despite the availability of relatively cheap and advanced vehicles from the reigning superpowers of the day.
This was the case for Yugoslavia, a country that had been ravaged by war and lacked resources, industrial capacity, and qualified personnel and engineers. Nevertheless, in 1948, the development of the first Yugoslav domestic tank was initiated. This development led to the creation of a small series of 5 Vozilo A (English: Vehicle A) tanks. This was basically a T-34/85 with numerous improvements. However, despite their efforts, the project proved to be a failure, leading to its abandonment.
Subsequent years saw Yugoslavia engaging in continuous testing and modification of existing tanks in the pursuit of developing a completely new design. After decades spent in this endeavor, the Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (JNA, English: Yugoslav People’s Army) finally conceded that developing such a project was beyond the capacity of Yugoslavia’s industry.
In the late 1970s, things changed with the acquisition of a production license for the new Soviet T-72 tank. The JNA spent all its resources on putting this tank into production. While its overall shape remained the same, various improvements regarding the armor, mobility, and internal equipment and parts were implemented. The JNA thought this was enough to warrant a change in the name to M-84. While it could be considered the first successful Yugoslavian tank design, in essence, it was a T-72 copy.
In 1985, a new tank project was initiated, designated Vihor (English: Whirlwind). It was to be a completely new design incorporating components taken from the T-72 and M-84. However, the work on this vehicle was terminated with the collapse of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.
The Work Must Go On
Following the 1990 Yugoslavian collapse, a new Savezna Republika Jugoslavija (SRJ English: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), basically a union between Serbia and Montenegro, was created in 1992. Despite the overall chaos and economic and industrial stagnation, work on a new version of the Vihor was announced in 1993. It was to incorporate a new engine, improved suspension and transmission, better firing control, and various other improvements. Nothing came of this project and, in reality, it was likely a weak propaganda attempt. Yugoslavia was under sanctions and in a dire economic situation, so developing such a design would have been almost impossible.
In the following years, various attempts were made to improve the performance of the existing tanks. The SRJ Army had in its inventory fairly large numbers of the aging T-55s (some 727 in 2004) and smaller quantities of the T-72 (65 in 2004). There were attempts to improve their overall combat performance by adding reactive armor, better optics, thermal gun barrel lining, etc. These improvements were meant for domestic but also for foreign exports, but nothing came of them and such projects were ultimately canceled. By 2006, Serbia became independent, after the secession of Montenegro from the federation. Its Army’s need for a new tank turned to improving existing M-84s. Introducing a completely new modern design was still a preferable option, and this was something that a group of engineers from Serbia in 2015 optimistically tried to achieve.
The M-20UP-1 Project
During the mid-2010s, a small group of engineers from the Serbian city of Čačak started working on the project of a new tank on their own initiative. The design was to incorporate many new and innovative features but also be cheap to build. They saw this project as an opportunity to revitalize the Serbian industry by incorporating many small companies for the production of various necessary parts. They were later joined by other engineers from Serbia and Republika Srpska (a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina). This group was known as Srpski Tim (English: Serbian team) and was composed of about 30 or more various experts and engineers from different fields, under the leadership of Goran Stojanović. Allegedly, this group involved engineers who had originally worked on the M-84 tank project. However, it is important to note that this project had no official backing nor any from the larger defense companies in Serbia.
Their new project incorporated a modular tank chassis that could be modified for different roles such as APC, engineering, recovery vehicles, transporter, etc. The modular chassis would allow for a standardization of spare parts, and reduce the overall development and production cost. According to the leader of this group, Goran Stojanović, the Russian T-90 tank was to be taken as a model for this project. Some sources mentioned that this tank was influenced by the Russian T-14 Armata instead.
In any case, after some eight months of work, preliminary drawings and calculations for a new tank project designated M-20 UP-1 were ready. In 2015, this project was presented to the Serbian Army officials but also to many foreign military delegations at the Belgrade arms fair Partner 2015. The engineers who worked on the M-20UP-1 project calculated that, once the serial production had started, the initial price of this vehicle would be around €5 million, slightly less than the price of a second-hand Leopard 2A6 around the time.
Design
It is important to note that not much is known about this vehicle’s expected overall performance, components used, or any major detail. Sources on this vehicle are also lacking and generally repeat the same information.
Chassis
The front part of the M-20UP1’s hull housed the crew. The central part of the hull would be taken up by the spare ammunition and the automatic loader that was connected to the turret. Lastly, to the rear of the vehicle, a fully enclosed engine compartment was located.
Suspension
This tank was to have an unusual and advanced running gear, where each road wheel was to be individually powered with an electric motor. In theory, this meant that the tank would not make as much noise during driving. This would also help reduce the overall heat footprint, making it slightly more difficult to spot by the enemy according to its own designers. How this would have worked in practice is a different matter. Such an installation would have been incredibly complicated and expensive to construct and operate. Adding 14 electric motors to the vehicle, along with an electrical generator to power them, would have added a good deal of weight, certainly more than what could be gained by the removal of the mechanical transmission.
The suspension type is not specified but most likely would have been a standard torsion bar, with what appears to be seven road wheels. With each road wheel being powered, it is unclear if a standard drive sprocket would have still been used. If this was the case, then it would have been positioned to the rear of the vehicle, with an idler placed to the front. It is also unclear how the suspension would have interacted with the individual motors for each wheel.
Engine
An unspecified 1,200 hp diesel engine was to provide a maximum speed of 60 km/h. The estimated combat weight of the M-20 was to be around 45 tonnes. The operational range was to be 550 km, but if needed, it could be further improved up to 700 km by adding auxiliary fuel tanks. The M-20UP-1 was predicted to cross a 30° slope, pass over 3.5 m long trenches, and go over 1.2 m high objects. Two larger exhaust points were located on each side of the engine compartment. This engine would have had to be connected to an electrical generator in order to power the electrical motors. If any high-power batteries would have been available to allow for short-distance silent running is unknown.
Superstructure
There is no information related to the superstructure. What can be observed from the few existing artistic presentations is that the front part was placed at a high angle, while the sides and rear were completely flat. Given that the crew was seated inside the front part of the hull, there would have been at least a few hatches for the crew to enter their positions. In addition, some observation points were likely to be installed there too.
Turret
Given that the crew was placed inside the front hull, the turret was unmanned. This meant that the extra free space could be used either to reinforce the armor protection or even reduce the turret’s overall size. In addition, the crew’s survivability was increased because they were separated from the ammunition storage bins. The front and sides of the turret were covered with protective reactive armor. The rear parts of the turret were to be covered with metal grids.
Armament
The main armament chosen for this tank was the 125 mm 2A46M smoothbore gun, the same gun from the T-72. The elevation of this gun was between -7 to +30º. This armament would have been remotely operated by the gunner. To observe targets, the gunner would use high-resolution cameras.
The ammunition load was to consist of 48 rounds. These were stored inside the unmanned turret. Several types of ammunition would be used, depending on the combat need, including laser-guided missiles. The gun would be loaded using an automatic gun loader. The overall design of this automatic gun loader mechanism is not specified in the available sources.
The secondary armament consisted of one 30 mm remotely operated cannon located on the right side of the turret. It was to be used against less protected ground and aerial targets. The specific version of this cannon is not specified. In theory, the potential buyers could choose the weapon they wanted to be mounted. The ammunition load for it was to be around 500 rounds. Lastly, on the opposite turret side, there was a remote control combat station armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun with 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Such remote control stations are already in use on some armored vehicles in the Serbian Army. It could be safely operated from inside the vehicle, avoiding exposing one of the crew members.
Armor
The M-20 was to have reactive armor protection. Potential armor thickness is not discussed in the sources. The further defense was to be improved with the introduction of bait-release sensors, but what this system would have been is not unfortunately not specified. It possibly might refer to smoke grenades that would be released when the vehicle would be laser designated. No precise characteristics or information are yet available.
Crew
The M-20 was meant to have a crew of three: a commander, a gunner, and a driver. This was carried over from the M-84, which was itself influenced by the Soviet T-72 tank. The difference was that none of the crew members were located inside the turret, but instead seated next to the driver inside the vehicle’s hull. They were placed inside an enclosed capsule. This capsule was meant to be strong enough to provide extremely good levels of protection, including against fire, radiation, and, most importantly, hits from enemy tanks or other weapons. Its specifications were not published, but it was noted to be made of metal and encased in specialized fabric which allegedly was highly resistant to physical impacts.
Fate of the M-20UP-1
After 2015, there was no progress on the M-20UP-1. By the end of 2023, there is no news or information regarding the M-20 tank. Whether the Serbian Army and leadership were interested in this vehicle is still unknown, but looks highly unlikely. If they were, there would be more publicly available information about its development by this point. The whole project led nowhere and no foreign nation showed any interest in the development of what is basically a pipe dream.
It is strongly questionable how realistic this whole project was. Its designers may have had good intentions and enthusiasm to see this project come to fruition. If there was an agreement for its introduction, there is a huge chance that some construction or other issues may have arisen. It is also important to note that this project was overly ambitious, with a number of either cutting-edge or even futuristic ideas. However, without the backing of a top defense manufacturer and given the less-than-stellar abilities of the Serbian tank-producing industry, the manufacturing of such an advanced design was implausible, if not impossible, from the outset.
By 2023, the Serbian Army is experimenting with improving the M-84’s performance. There are a few different proposals, such as the M-84AS1 and AS2. While these could increase the M-84’s service life, in the long run, this is only a temporary solution. The M-84 chassis is slowly reaching its development limit and a new solution will be needed at some point in the future.
Conclusion
In summary, tanks are not just tools of war, but symbols of national strength, technological prowess, and strategic foresight. The development and production of tanks serve as visible markers of a nation’s commitment to defense and its position on the global stage. The M-20UP-1, on paper, may have been seen as one such project. Alas, some countries, such as Serbia, simply do not have such industrial capacity and resources to spend on developing such overly-ambitious tank projects that currently exceed the capabilities of far more powerful nations.
M-20 Technical specifications
Crew
3 (driver, gunner, and commander)
Weight
45 t
Dimensions
Length 9.5 m, Width 3.8 m, Height 2.25 m
Engine
1,200 hp diesel engine
Speed
60 km/h (road)
Range
550 to 700 km
Armament
One 125 mm gun
Armor
Unspecified
Sources
Bojan B. Dimitrijević (2010), Modernizacija i intervencija, Jugoslovenske oklopne jedinice 1945-2006, Institut za savremenu istoriju
The small and cheap StuG III (Sturmgeschütz III, Eng. Assault gun vehicle) proved to be an effective infantry support weapon despite being initially supplied in small quantities. After 1942, it was produced in ever greater numbers and rearmed with longer guns, thus increasing its lethality against enemy armor. In the mind of Adolf Hitler, this was not enough and he requested that the even longer version of the 7.5 cm gun (taken from the Panther tank project) be the new armament of the assault gun vehicles. In 1942, there was a proposal to reuse the chassis of the VK9.03 light tank armed with a 7.5 cm L/70 gun. The project would be short-lived as, besides some drawings, nothing came of it.
History
During the Great War, German infantry formations were supported by towed artillery. For the German Sturmtruppen (Eng. Stormtroopers), which depended on mobility, the necessary towed artillery proved to be slow and inadequate for the supporting task of taking more fortified enemy positions. After the war, the great German Army tactician, General Erich von Manstein, proposed using highly mobile, well-protected, and armed self-propelled artillery. They were to provide infantry with mobile close-fire support during combat operations. This concept would eventually evolve into the StuG III. Due to Germany’s general lack of industrial capacity during the 1930s, it would take years before the prototypes were completed. The actual production of these vehicles began just a month before the German invasion of the West in May 1940.
Once pressed into service, the StuG III proved to be an excellent infantry support vehicle. It featured a low silhouette, thick frontal armor (it was the best-protected German vehicle in the early stages of the war), and effective armament. The armament, in particular, consisted of a short barrel 7.5 cm gun. Its primary purpose was to deal with enemy entrenched positions at medium-to-close range. When using high-explosive rounds, it could easily destroy enemy anti-tank or machine gun emplacements. The Germans were aware of the possibility that these vehicles would encounter enemy tanks. High-explosive rounds, while not designed for this role, could still deal significant damage to lightly protected vehicles. For dealing with more heavily protected vehicles, proper armor-piercing rounds were needed. These could pierce some 40 mm of armor at distances of 500 m. This was more than enough to deal with most enemy tanks encountered in the early stages of the war.
However, things changed after 1941, when the Germans began encountering better-protected enemy tanks in ever greater numbers. Most notable were the Allied T-34s, KVs, and Matildas. The German tanks struggled to deal with the new threats so, in desperation and due to a lack of any other alternatives, the StuG III was often put into the role of an ad hoc tank hunter. Despite the short gun, the StuG III performed well in this role. For example, during the German attempt to capture Crimea in March 1942, the StuG IIIs from the 197th Assault Gun Battalion saw action against Soviet armor. From 13th to 19th March, they claimed to have destroyed 70 Soviet tanks, including KV-1s. This offensive was followed up by the Trappenjagd (Eng. Bustard Hunt) operation to dislodge the Soviet Forces in Crimea. The main spearhead of this operation consisted of the 22nd Panzer Division, supported by the 197th Assault Gun Battalion. The German operation lasted from 8th to 20th May 1942. During that time, these two units claimed to have destroyed 250 Soviet tanks for the loss of only 3 StuG IIIs and 8 Panzers. This success was partially achieved thanks to the use of newly developed high-explosive anti-tank rounds. While they could penetrate the thick armor of the Soviet tanks, their effectiveness was quite limited by the rather poor ballistic characteristics of such rounds.
The Germans developed the 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun to deal with the enemy armor threat. Being a towed gun, it was not suited in its original form for mounting inside armored vehicles. Thus, several changes were needed before it could be reused for this role. This led to the introduction of the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43 and the slightly longer L/48 guns.
The installation of such a gun was tested on a modified StuG III Ausf.E in April 1942. While the gun’s performance was overall satisfactory, the ejection of spent cartridges proved somewhat problematic, but in time, this problem would be resolved. The first StuG III to enter service with this gun as standard armament was the Ausf.F version. The production began in late March and ended in September 1942. During this period, some 366 Ausf.Fs were built by Alkett. It was followed by the Ausf.F/8 (250 built) and the final form, known as the Ausf.G. The latter was one of the most produced German vehicles, with some 8,500 being built.
The Need for a Bigger Gun
Despite the effectiveness of the 7.5 cm L/48 guns, Adolf Hilter was adamant that the StuG III’s firepower had to be further improved. After 1941, Hitler increasingly interfered in major military decisions, including vehicle designs. He was obsessed with installing the strongest possible armaments and armor to new vehicles, which often led to overly ambitious and too often unrealistic projects.
With the development of the Panther tank project, a new gun, the 7.5 cm L/70, would be made available. Thus, in September 1942, the Waffenamt (Eng. Army Weapon’s Office) discussed the development of the so-called Sturmgeschütze Neue Art, Stu.Gesch.n.A. (Eng. Assault Gun New Type). This project essentially went in two different directions. One of them was to simply continue the development based on the existing Panzer III chassis. The other was to create a completely new vehicle. The former offered the option of reusing some of the already existing production capabilities and parts, which would greatly reduce the development time. The problem with this approach was that the Germans would need to use a vehicle that was not initially designed for larger and heavier armament and would need many other changes. There was simply no guarantee that the existing Panzer III chassis would be sufficient for the job.
The latter option was to build such a vehicle essentially from scratch. This was a more tempting solution, as it would offer a more dedicated design better suited to the given tasks. This led to the creation of several different proposals. One of them was a rather obscure vehicle with little to no information of its origin. This was an attempt to mount a new fully enclosed superstructure on the chassis of the Panzer II Ausf.H or M chassis.
A Brief History of the Panzer II Ausf.H/M (VK9.03)
At the start of 1941, the German Army had great plans for a huge expansion of its armored forces. This expansion included the creation of many new reconnaissance elements of the Panzer Divisions and other units. While this role was mainly carried out by 4×4 and 8×8 wheeled armored cars, the German Army wanted to replace these with highly mobile light tanks. Luckily for them, M.A.N. was working on such a vehicle from way back in 1938. In 1940, drawings of a new vehicle initially designated as VK9.03 (essentially a further development of the previous VK9.01 light tank) were presented to the German Army. The proposal proved to be satisfactory and, soon, orders for six prototypes were issued. M.A.N. would design the chassis and Daimler-Benz would design the upper superstructure and turret. Two different variants of this vehicle were to be adopted. The first, designated Panzer II Ausf.H, with a crew of three, was to be attached to the Panzer Regiments for reconnaissance operations. The second variant was designated Panzer II Ausf.M (although it is also known under several different designations) and had to have a four-man crew. The difference from the previous variant was that it would use the superstructure and turret taken from the VK13.03 light tank. While there were plans for a huge production order, nothing came of it. After a single incomplete prototype was constructed, further development was stopped. Problems with the drive components and other priorities led to the cancellation of this project in early 1942.
Name
Authors T. L. Jentz and H. L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers) mention that this vehicle was designated as 7.5 cm PaK 42 L/70 mit Kugelblende auf VK9.03. The “VK” stands for Vollketten, which means “fully-tracked” in English. The number “9” represented its weight in metric tonnes, and the number “3” indicated that this was the third version of this vehicle. It should be noted that the number for tonnage was rarely repeated, as such experimental designs often weighed more than initially planned.
Somewhat confusingly, these authors mention the Sturmgeschütz auf Leopard (L/70) designation. The nickname Leopard was used for the VK16.02. It is not completely clear if they are accidentally referring to this nickname or the VK9.03. There could have been two different projects, but this is not clarified in the book. For the sake of simplicity, this article will refer to it as the VK9.03 L/70.
Known History
Based on the few available sources, this project appears to have been initiated on the 12th of September 1942. Precisely who ordered it and who was responsible for developing the first drawings is unclear. It can be assumed, based on the fact that the VK9.03 was originally a M.A.N. project, that this company was the one that proposed it. The possible first drawing of this vehicle was dated on the 28th of January 1943. Besides this meager information, nothing else is known of its development history. There is only one relatively detailed drawing of this vehicle that at least shines some light on how it would have looked. There is no known photograph of the incomplete vehicle, as these were probably lost or destroyed at some point during the war.
Design
Chassis
The VK9.03 L/70’s overall chassis design would have been similar to nearly all other German tank vehicles. The front part of the hull served as a housing point for the transmission, followed by the crew compartment, and the engine. The front hull, where the transmission and steering systems were located, was fully enclosed, protecting the vital components housed within.
Suspension
The VK9.03 was to have a torsion bar suspension with overlapping road wheels. There were 5 road wheels, a front-drive sprocket, and one rear idler per side. In addition, two large shock absorbers were fitted to the first and last road wheel stations on each side. The VK9.03 was to have 36 cm wide tracks. It can be assumed that, for this assault gun, wider tracks would have been used to improve the ground pressure distribution.
Engine
The VK9.03 light tank was to be powered by a Maybach HL 66 TP engine providing 200 hp @ 3,200 rpm. With a light weight of 10.5 tons, this vehicle was in theory able to reach speeds up to 60 km/h. The operational range with 235-liter fuel tanks was 290 km (on good roads) and 175 km off-road. The VK9.03 L/70 assault gun vehicle would weigh at least a tonne or two more than the VK9.03 light tank version. This meant that the overall drive performance was sure to worsen but to what extent is impossible to tell with certainty.
Superstructure
The VK9.03 L/70 was to be fitted with a simple superstructure that would protect the crew and the gun. It had a simple six-sided box shape that would be constructed using welding. The front plate housed the main armament in the middle. In addition, there were two observation ports. The one on the left side would have been used by the driver. On the opposite side, the observation port was likely to be used by the loader. It could also have a secondary role of acting as a firing port, either for a machine gun or for a submachine gun. No observation ports were placed on the superstructure sides. On top, two two-part hatches were placed. In front of the left one, a small opening for the moving gun sight was present.
Armor Protection
The armor protection of this vehicle is unspecified in the sources. The VK9.03 light tank was protected with 30 mm of face-hardened armor. The sides and rear were weaker, being 20 mm, the top was 10 mm, and the bottom was only 5 mm. The armor thickness of the superstructure is unknown but, given the weight limitations, would have been quite light. For a vehicle that would be used in a close support role for the infantry, this was a far from perfect solution. The long-range capabilities of the 7.5 cm L/70 gun would have helped their crew to some extent but, still, this would have been a vehicle with a low survivability rate.
Armament
For the main armament, the 7.5 cm PaK 42 (also sometimes referred to as StuK 42) L/70 was chosen. The L/70 gun offered greater penetration power than the L/48, as presented in the following table (Source. T. Anderson Sturmartillerie Spearhead Of the Infantry).
Range (m)
100
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
7.5 cm L/48
99 mm
91 mm
82 mm
72 mm
63 mm
7.5 cm L/70
138 mm
124 mm
101 mm
99 mm
88 mm
Given these numbers, it makes sense that the Germans wanted to install the longer gun. The problems would have been the increased weight, longer recoil, and larger ammunition, which had to be taken into account when designing the vehicle.
The L/70 gun on the VK9.03 assault gun version was positioned centrally inside the enclosed superstructure. The gun was protected by a large box-shaped gun mantlet, followed by a thick protective barrel jacket. To help somewhat negate the effect of the recoil during firing, the gun was provided with a ball-shaped muzzle brake. This was actually a direct copy of the muzzle brake used on the early Panther tank prototypes. Besides that, the overall characteristics of this gun on the VK9.03 L/70 are unknown.
Given the longer length of the gun barrel, an external travel lock had to be provided. Its purpose was to help stabilize the gun during traveling. This, in turn, would help avoid damaging or misaligning the gun sight. In addition, this was necessary to avoid accidentally hitting the ground when driving on uneven terrain. No external travel lock is visible on the available drawing of this vehicle. It is possible that it would have been added if this vehicle had entered production.
The significant length of the gun would have caused issues with terrain and maneuvering around obstacles, as the driver would have to be careful not to snag it on various obstacles. This would require constant attention from the commander and the driver. Furthermore, the heavy armament would have placed very significant stress on the front suspension, and the whole vehicle would have probably been quite unbalanced.
Crew
Given the small chassis, this vehicle would have likely had room for only three crew members. This would have included the driver, loader, and the commander. The driver’s position was on the front left side. Behind him, the commander would have been seated. Besides his commanding role, he would have had to act as the gun operator and was tasked with observing the surroundings for potential targets. It is obvious that he would have been overburdened with various tasks. Lastly, opposite of him, the loader was probably positioned. He would also have acted as a radio operator and possibly even a machine gun operator if such secondary armament was ever to be provided for this vehicle.
Fate
It appears that the VK9.03 remained only a paper project, with little interest gained from the German Army. The main problem with the Sturmgeschütze Neue Art project was that the Germans simply included too many different proposals, without arriving at a final design. In January 1943, Albert Speer informed Hitler that this problem had to be resolved shortly, as constant changes in the overall design would ultimately lead to a huge delay in its eventual production. All projects that were deemed unrealistic or that could not be implemented in a short time were discarded. This also included Alkett’s attempt to rearm the StuG III with an L/70 gun. After some consideration of available resources, it was decided that the best option was to proceed with the development of such a vehicle based on the Panzer IV chassis. This would eventually lead to the creation of the Jagdpanzer IV and its better-armed version, known as the Panzer IV/70 (V). The term Jagdpanzer (Eng. Tank hunter) in connection to the assault gun projects may be confusing at first. While the overall story is long, essentially what happened is that, at some point, the new Sturmgeschütze Neue Art project was hijacked by Heinz Guderian. While initially intended to perform the role of infantry support weapon, operated by the Artillery branch, it was instead allocated to the Panzer branch of the Army and allocated to anti-tank units.
Conclusion
While in theory, it would have offered an even cheaper solution than the StuG III, the VK9.03 L/70 was unrealistic from the start. The chassis would simply have been too weak to hold the added weight of the armament, ammunition, armor, and crew. There would have been no chance to realistically install the large and heavy gun into this small chassis, and at the same time, provide sufficient working space for the crew. This project may have been M.A.N.’s last-ditch attempt to salvage the production order for the VK9.03 light tank project, which was canceled in early 1942.
7.5 cm PaK 42 L/70 mit Kugelblende auf VK9.03 Technical Specifications
German Reich (1942)
Assault Gun – Wooden Mock-Up Built
The introduction of the long-barrel StuG III (Sturmgeschütz III, Eng. Assault gun vehicles) gave the Germans an excellent anti-tank vehicle that was cheap, combat effective, and was slowly being produced in ever-growing numbers. But its overall design was not perfect and there was room for improvement. Adolf Hitler took this to the next level by urging that further StuG III development had to include the installation of the 7.5 cm L/70 gun that was specially developed for the new Panther tank. While a wooden mock-up was constructed, it was eventually decided that the larger Panzer IV chassis was better suited for this purpose and the work on the rearmed StuG III was canceled.
History
During the Great War, German infantry formations were supported by towed artillery. For German Sturmtruppen (Eng. Stormtroopers), which depended on mobility, the necessary towed artillery proved to be slow and inadequate for the supporting task of taking more fortified enemy positions. After the war, the great German Army tactician, General Erich von Manstein, proposed using highly mobile, well-protected, and armed self-propelled artillery. They were to provide infantry with mobile close-fire support during combat operations. This concept would eventually evolve into the StuG III. Due to Germany’s general lack of production industrial capacity during the 1930s, it would take years before the prototypes were completed. The actual production of these vehicles began just a month before the German invasion of the West in May 1940.
Once pressed into service, the StuG III proved to be an excellent infantry support vehicle. It featured a low silhouette, thick frontal armor (it was the best-protected German vehicle in the early stages of the war), and effective armament. The armament, in particular, consisted of a short barrel 7.5 cm gun. Its primary purpose was to deal with enemy entrenched positions at medium-to-close range. When using high-explosive rounds, it could easily destroy enemy anti-tank or machine gun emplacements. The Germans were not ignorant of the possibility that these vehicles would encounter enemy tanks. High-explosive rounds, while not designed for this role, could still deal significant damage to lightly protected vehicles. For dealing with more heavily protected vehicles, proper armor-piercing rounds were needed. These could pierce some 40 mm of armor at distances of 500 m. This was more than enough to deal with most enemy tanks encountered in the early stages of the war.
However, things changed after 1941, when the Germans began encountering better-protected enemy tanks in ever greater numbers. Most notable were the Allied T-34, KVs, and the Matildas. The German tanks struggled to deal with the new threats so, in desperation and due to a lack of any other alternatives, the StuG III was often put into the role of an ad hoc tank hunter. Despite the short gun, the StuG III performed well in this role. For example, during the German attempt to capture Crimea in March 1942, the StuG IIIs from the 197th Assault Gun Battalion saw action against Soviet Armor. From 13th to 19th March, they claimed to have destroyed 70 Soviet tanks, including KV-1s. This offensive was followed up by the Trappenjagd (English: Bustard Hunt) operation to dislodge the Soviet Forces in Crimea. The main spearhead of this operation consisted of the 22nd Panzer Division, supported by the 197th Assault Gun Battalion. The German operation lasted from 8th to 20th May 1942. During that time, these two units claimed to have destroyed 250 Soviet tanks for the loss of only 3 StuG IIIs and 8 Panzers. This success was partially achieved thanks to the use of newly developed high-explosive anti-tank rounds. While they could penetrate the thick armor of the Soviet tanks, their effectiveness was quite limited by the rather poor ballistic characteristics of such rounds.
To deal with the enemy armor threat, the Germans developed the 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun. Being a towed gun, it was not suited in its original form for mounting inside armored vehicles. Thus, several changes were needed to be done before it could be reused for this role. This led to the introduction of the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43 and the slightly longer L/48 guns.
The installation of such a gun was tested on a modified StuG III Ausf.E in April 1942. While the gun’s performance was overall satisfactory, the ejection of spent cartridges proved somewhat problematic, but in time, this problem would be resolved. The first StuG III to enter service with this gun as standard armament was the Ausf.F version. The production began in late March and ended in September 1942. During this period, some 366 Ausf.Fs would be built by Alkett. It was followed by the Ausf.F/8 (250 built) and the final form known as the Ausf.G. The latter was one of the most produced German vehicles, with some 8,500 being built.
The Need for a Bigger Gun
Despite the effectiveness of the 7.5 cm L/48 guns, Adolf Hilter was adamant that the StuG III’s firepower had to be further improved. After 1941, Hitler increasingly interfered in major military decisions, including vehicle designs. He was obsessed with installing the strongest possible armaments and armor to new vehicles, which often led to overly ambitious and too often unrealistic projects. Rearming the StuG III was one such project that was rather unrealistic. With the development of the Panther tank project, a new gun, the 7.5 cm L/70, would be made available. Thus, in September 1942, the Waffenamt (Eng. Army Weapon’s Office) discussed the development of the so-called Sturmgeschütze Neue Art’, Stu.Gesch.n.A. (Eng. Assault Gun New Type).
The Germans essentially had a few different options. They could either continue the development based on the existing Panzer III chassis or create a completely new vehicle. Both of these approaches had advantages and problems. One of the earlier works was an attempt to mount the L/70 gun on the chassis of a modified VK9.03, essentially a light tank intended to replace the Panzer II series. Given that it was based on a light chassis, it would have serious trouble supporting the weight of the new weapon and superstructure. Thus, the project was doomed from the start. It did not help either that the development of the VK9.03 was stopped. The work on this assault gun version was obviously canceled and did not go beyond some basic drawings.
A simpler and cheaper solution would be to reuse the already existing Panzer III chassis. While not perfect, it was already in production, so it would speed up the development time and reduce the overall costs.
According to Hitler, the new StuG III had to have improved overall drive performance by increasing the ground clearance from 39 to 50 cm and ground pressure from 1.04 to 0.7 kg/cm². The frontal armor protection was to be increased to 100 mm and the sides to 40 to 50 mm. To further increase the vehicle’s survivability, it was to use angled armor plates. The overall weight was expected to rise to 26 tonnes. In general, the Germans tried to avoid reducing the speed of the armored vehicles, and that was one of the reasons why they implemented lighter armor protection. For the new StuG III project, however, Hitler was completely fine with reducing the speed from 40 to 25 km/h. Lastly, the main armament was to consist of the 7.5 cm L/70 gun.
Alkett, which was responsible for the StuG III’s production, responded by delivering a wooden mock-up in 1943. The new gun could not be installed in a standard StuG III’s superstructure given its sheer size. Alkett’s engineers instead developed a completely new fully enclosed superstructure that had a simpler design and would have had better structural integrity.
Name
The whole attempt to improve the assault gun design was referred to as Sturmgeschütze Neue Art. This did not necessarily refer to a single project. Unfortunately, this particular project was short-lived and there is no specific name for it in the sources. Given the German praxis in meaning their vehicles, this would likely have been designated as 7.5 cm StuK 42 L/70 (sometimes referred to as PaK 42) auf StuG III. It is also possible that, if this vehicle had entered production, the Germans would simply have used the Ausf.H designation, following the previous Ausf.G. For the sake of simplicity, this article will refer to it as the StuG III L/70.
Design
Chassis
The StuG III L/70 chassis would remain the same as that used on the previous versions. The front part of the hull served as a housing point for the transmission, followed by the crew compartment, and the engine. The front hull, where the transmission and steering systems were located, was fully enclosed, protecting the vital components housed within. The positions of the two transmission hatches would likely have remained unchanged. It provided easy access for repairs but also acted as an auxiliary entry point to the driver.
Suspension
Given that it was a further development of the StuG III series, the suspension would have remained the same. It consisted of six small road wheels, three return rollers, the front drive wheel, and the rear-positioned idler. It is possible that some parts would have been additionally strengthened to cope with the extra weight.
Engine
The sources do not specify the precise engine that would have been used for this proposed version. It can be assumed that it would have remained the same. This assumption is based on the fact that the Germans would want to press this vehicle into production as soon as possible. Leaving most of the available components unchanged was one way to ensure this.
If this was the case, then it would have been powered by the twelve-cylinder, water-cooled Maybach HL 120 TRM engine providing 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm. With this engine, a regular StuG III was able to achieve a maximum speed of 40 km/h and a range of 160 km (on good roads). Given the added weight of the gun and the superstructure, the overall drive performance was surely to decrease but to what extent, it is impossible to tell with certainty.
Superstructure
The StuG III L/70 received a completely new pyramidal-shaped superstructure. It consisted of four highly angled armor plates. Somewhat surprisingly, the wooden mock-up showed that the side plates were connected using what appears to be bolts. It is unclear if this feature would have been carried over to the production vehicles or if it was simply put to hold the side wooden panel. The latter option seems more plausible. The use of bolts may have been a simpler option for construction but it came with several disadvantages. Using bolts meant that the structural integrity of the superstructure was much weaker in comparison to a welded one. A particular example of this were the Italian tanks that were built using a metal frame on which bolted plates were placed. This approach proved ineffective during the war.
The wooden mock-up generally lacked many smaller but important details, such as the driver vision port and hatches. It can be said with certainty that a driver’s vision port would have been positioned on the left side of the vehicle. On top of the superstructure, it can be assumed that at least two hatches would have been installed, one for the commander on the left side and one on the opposite side, for the loader. This configuration was employed on the StuG III and on later anti-tank vehicles, such as the Jagdpanzer IV and the smaller Jagdpanzer 38(t). Another feature missing was a commander’s cupola. Lastly, it is unclear from the available photographs if the new superstructure fully enclosed the engine compartment.
Armor Protection
The armor protection of this vehicle is unspecified in the sources. The StuG III Ausf.G’s hull armor was an 80 mm thick armor plate at the front. The sides and rear were weaker, at 30 mm and 50 mm. The front armor plate of the angled superstructure was to be 100 mm thick, according to Hitler’s orders. How realistic this was is another matter. With this armor, the new StuG would have been almost immune to the enemy from the front.
Armament
The wooden mock-up was shown being armed with the 7.5 cm L/70 gun. An immediately noticeable feature is that the gun assembly was bolted down to the front superstructure. This indicates that the gun cradle mount had been fixed to the front superstructure plate. On a standard StuG III, the gun cradle was fixed to the bottom of the vehicle. The former installation was implemented on vehicles such as the Jagdpanzer IV and 38(t)’s. This way, the gun could be easily removed for repairs and the vehicle’s overall height could be reduced.
The L/70 gun offered greater penetration power than the L/48, as presented in the following table (Source. T. Anderson Sturmartillerie Spearhead Of the Infantry).
Range (m)
100
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
7.5 cm L/48
99 mm
91 mm
82 mm
72 mm
63 mm
7.5 cm L/70
138 mm
124 mm
101 mm
99 mm
88 mm
Given these numbers, it makes sense that the Germans wanted to install the longer gun. The problems would have been the increased weight, longer recoil, and larger ammunition which had to be taken into account when designing the vehicle.
The gun was protected by the round-shaped gun mantlet. The mock-up gun used a muzzle brake. This feature was present on all StuG IIIs excluding the early version and the latter one armed with the 10.5 cm howitzer. Interestingly, the later built Jagdpanzer IVs also initially had a muzzle brake. The crews that operated these vehicles quickly noticed that, during firing, the muzzle brake would create extensive dust clouds in front of the vehicle due to the Jagdpanzer IV’s small height. This reduced visibility, but, more importantly, also gave away the vehicle’s position to the enemy. As a result, crews began removing the muzzle brakes from their vehicles. It is possible that the StuG III L/70 would at some point have had the muzzle brake removed, either at the factories or at the frontline, if the recoil mechanisms were able to take that. Besides that, the overall characteristics of this gun on the StuG III L/70 are unknown.
Given the longer length of the gun barrel, an external travel lock had to be provided. Its purpose was to help stabilize the gun during traveling. This, in turn, would help avoid damaging or misaligning the gun sight. In addition, this was necessary to avoid accidentally hitting the ground when driving on uneven terrain. While this seems unlikely to happen, the StuG III’s lower height and longer barrel meant that this was a real possibility. Even some of the standard StuG IIIs received front-mounted travel locks during the later stages of the war.
Crew
This vehicle was likely to retain the four-crew configuration, consisting of the commander, the gunner, the loader/radio operator, and the driver. The driver’s position was on the front left side, with his overall awareness of the surroundings being limited. Due to the position of the gun, the driver had a huge blind spot to the right. Just behind him was the gunner’s position, and behind him the commander. Lastly, the loader was probably seated on the opposite side of the vehicle.
Fate
After a wooden mock-up was constructed, the work on installing the 7.5 cm L/70 on a Panzer III chassis was stopped. This project encountered several obstacles that ultimately led to its cancellation. For a start, the Sturmgeschütze Neue Art project included too many different proposals, without arriving at a final design. In January 1943, Albert Speer informed Hitler that this problem had to be resolved shortly, as constant changes in the overall design would ultimately lead to a huge delay in its eventual production.
After examining Alkett’s proposal, it quickly became apparent that this chassis was unsuited for the given task. Considering that the Germans barely squeezed the L/43 and 48 guns into the StuG III, an even larger superstructure would have been required to operate this gun effectively. Thus, the StuG III L/70 gun project met a rather abrupt end.
However, this was not the end of the attempts to develop a new StuG that was better armed. Parallel to Alkett’s project, another company named Vomag proposed that the new StuG be based on the larger Panzer IV chassis instead. This proposal was presented to Adolf Hitler on 2nd October 1942. Hitler was impressed by what he saw and gave the project the go-ahead. To avoid further delays in the Sturmgeschütze Neue Art project, Hitler ordered that this vehicle was to be developed on the Panzer IV’s chassis in February 1943. This would eventually lead to the creation of the Jagdpanzer IV and its better-armed version, known as the Panzer IV/70 (V). The term Jagdpanzer (Eng. Tank hunter) in connection to the assault gun projects may be confusing at first. While the overall story is long, essentially what happened is that, at some point, the new Sturmgeschütze Neue Art project was hijacked by Heinz Guderian. While initially intended to perform the role of infantry support weapon, operated by the Artillery branch, it was instead allocated to the Panzer branch of the Army and allocated to anti-tank units. The proof that this vehicle shared the assault gun heritage can be seen in the fact that, throughout its history, it was designated as Stu.Gesch.n.A. auf Pz.IV (Eng. New Type Assault Gun on the Panzer IV Chassis) in November 1943 and Sturmgeschütze Neue Art mit 7.5 cm Pak 39 L/48 auf Fgst.Pz.Kpfw during the period of February to October 1944.
Given the lack of L/70 guns, it was initially armed with the shorter L/48 guns. When the production of the L/70 was increased and it became available, the Jagdpanzer IV was rearmed with it, changing its name to Panzer IV/70 (V).
Ironically, such vehicles finally reached assault gun units in the final month of the war. Three years after the Sturmgeschütze Neue Art project was initiated, it finally reached the units for which it was intended for, albeit in far too few numbers.
Potential Influence on the Jagdpanzer38(t)
The Alkett wooden mock-up superstructure design shares many similarities with the later-built Jagdpanzer 38(t) that was introduced in 1944. It is often said that the general shape of the Jagdpanzer 38(t) was inspired by the Romanian Mareșal tank hunter project. According to Romanian records, two German officers, Lieutenant-Colonel Ventz and Lieutenant-Colonel Haymann, inspected the work on the Mareșal tank hunter project in April 1944. Their report allegedly influenced the overall shape of the Jagdpanzer 38(t). However, Alkett’s wooden mock-up’s superstructure shares many similarities with the Jagdpanzer 38(t)’s. The installation of the gun and the overall shape of the superstructure are also visually the same. The wooden mock-up lacked many vital features. Of course, given the lack of any written sources on this topic, it can only be speculated if this was true, or just a quite lucky coincidence.
Conclusion
This project was used to test if the installation of a long 7.5 cm L/70 gun on a modified StuG III was possible. Theoretically, this would offer several advantages, such as reducing development time and overall cost. However, it became apparent that such an installation on the existing Panzer III chassis was impractical, and the project was canceled in favor of the Panzer IV’s chassis.
Finally, it must not be forgotten that, while the StuG III possessed many characteristics of an efficient tank killer, such as a low silhouette and good armor, it was not designed for this role, as it was primarily an infantry support weapon. Even the installation of the longer L/43 and 48 guns did not change its primary role. In essence, this meant that, even if the Germans managed to somehow fit the L/70 gun into a StuG III, its role to support the infantry would probably have remained the same, but the extra firepower would surely have helped deal with enemy tanks better. This is, of course, considering that the Panzer branch of the Heer would not have stolen this project from the artillery, as it did multiple times during the war.
German Reich (1944)
Armored Recovery Vehicle – 3 Built
The introduction of the 65-tonne heavy Ferdinand anti-tank vehicle gave the Germans a well-protected and armed tank destroyer. While not perfect and plagued with many mechanical problems, it caused havoc amongst the Soviet tanks during the Battle for Kursk in July-August 1943. The greatest disadvantage of the Ferdinand was its immense weight, which resulted in rather limited mobility. Such vehicles often got bogged down in mud or bad terrain. While they were focused on developing a heavily protected vehicle, the Germans did not have time to build a suitable armored recovery vehicle. Many Ferdinands had to be blown up because they could not be recovered. This urged the Germans to quickly improvise and create three heavy tank recovery vehicles that shared the same chassis as the Ferdinand.
A Brief History of Dr. Ferdinand Porsche’s Failed Heavy Tank Project
Prof. Dr. Ferdinand Porsche began his engineering career in the early twentieth century, when he showed great interest in developing hybrid engines (with a combination of electric and petrol motors). In 1930, he founded his own company located in Stuttgart. Porsche’s new company was mainly engaged in developing various designs based on the request of its clients. Thanks to his connections with the Nazi Party, the NSDAP, Dr. Porsche was appointed chairman of the German Panzer Commission in September 1939. This Commission was composed of leading owners of major industrial plants and engineers. Their primary function was to give suggestions and new ideas for future or already existing tank designs. While working on a number of military projects, Dr. Porsche established a good relationship with Adolf Hitler. This support gave Dr. Porsche a huge advantage over the competitors, despite Porsche generally creating overcomplicated or overly expensive designs.
The first Porsche heavy tank project was the Porsche Typ 100, also known as the VK30.01(P). Due to the urgent needs of the Tiger program, and due to a number of problems identified (high fuel consumption, suspension problems, etc.), the project was canceled. Only one (or two, depending on the source) soft steel prototypes were built and used for testing.
By the end of May 1941, the requirements for the new heavy tank project were issued. These included an increase in armor thickness (up to 100 mm maximum) and the use of an 88 mm gun. Dr. Porsche began working on this new design in July 1941, and two months later, the first drawings and calculations were ready. Similar to the previous vehicle, this project was initially designated as Typ 101, also known as VK45.01(P) or Tiger (P). This vehicle had several changes to its design in comparison to its predecessor. In order to obtain a better distribution of weight, the turret was moved more to the front and the final drive unit was repositioned to the rear. The engine was replaced with a more powerful one. Additionally, there were many design changes to its chassis and superstructure’s design.
The construction of this vehicle was handed over to Nibelungenwerk. The first prototype was completed and presented to Hitler on his birthday, 20th April 1942. Hitler was impressed with it, as Dr. Porsche received a production order for 100 vehicles. A second prototype, which was built shortly after, was transported to the Army’s weapon test site at Kummersdorf in June 1942. There, the VK45.01(P) proved to be prone to malfunctions, especially with the new engine.
At the end of August 1942, the Reichsminister (Eng. Minister of Armaments and War Production), Albert Speer, had the opportunity to examine Dr. Porsche’s work at Nibelungenwerke. Speer even had the chance to actually drive the VK45.01(P) prototype. Witnessing the overall performance of this heavy tank prototype, Speer insisted that this project be canceled. While fewer than 10 VK45.01(P)s would be fully completed as tanks, only one heavily modified vehicle would be ever used in combat during 1944, on the Eastern Front, as a command vehicle.
What About the Remaining Chassis?
Despite the VK45.01(P) being canceled, around 100 hulls were produced, representing a significant financial investment. The German military had to figure out what to do with these hulls since they could not be simply left unused or scrapped. To address this issue, approximately 90 to 91 chassis were modified into the Panzerjäger Tiger (P), which was commonly referred to as the Ferdinand or Elefant (Eng. Elephant). This vehicle was a tank destroyer equipped with a powerful 8.8 cm gun mounted in a fixed casemate. It saw first combat service on the Eastern Front in 1943, with some surviving up until the end of the war.
The Bergepanzer VI Recovery Tank
For the anticipated 1943 summer offensive against the Soviet positions at Kursk, the Germans made preparations to send their newest armored vehicle designs, including the Ferdinands, Panthers, and others. In order to deliver the promised vehicle, the German industry was hard-pressed and was forced to rush some of the projects. For example, while some 200 Panther tanks were ready for the expected offensive, they had many mechanical issues caused by a catastrophic lack of testing, leading to a huge amount of breakdowns.
The Ferdinands, besides the mechanical unreliability, faced another problem that was not immediately apparent. The Ferdinand was a massive vehicle weighing over 65 tonnes. This meant that it had rather poor overall mobility and was likely to bog down in mud or bad terrain. The crews themselves could try to dig their vehicle out, but this could cause engine overheating problems (for a heavy vehicle such as the Ferdinand, this was a common appearance) or some other mechanical breakdowns. An alternative was to use another Ferdinand to assist, but this could also quickly lead to the breakdown of another valuable vehicle. The best way to recover such bogged-down or damaged Ferdinands was to use a proper recovery vehicle. Such a role was given to the large Sd.Kfz.9 half-track in the early stages of the war. Alone, it did not have sufficient power to pull out a stranded Ferdinand. More vehicles had to be used for such recovery operations, in this case, up to four Sd.Kfz.9. To make matters worse for the Germans, this particular half-track was unprotected and in short supply. Given the extensive fighting at Kursk, where the Soviets had created extensive defensive lines covered with mines and artillery, such recovery operations were dangerous and often impossible. This meant that vehicles that were immobilized either by terrain or due to some combat damage often had to be blown up to prevent capture. The Germans lost many Ferdinands this way. If recovered, these could have been quickly repaired and put back into action. Despite their weight and bulky size, the Ferdinands were redeemed by an effective 88 mm main gun which devastated the Soviet tank forces at great ranges. Given that the losses could not be replaced, preserving the remaining vehicles gained priority. In order to effectively pull them back to safety, a dedicated armored recovery vehicle was needed. Given the urgency, this was not possible, so the Germans had to do with the limited resources that they had at hand. Given the time limitation and as there was nothing available suited for this task, in June 1943, Nibelungenwerke was instructed to convert three VK45.01(P) into recovery vehicles.
Name
In the sources, this vehicle is known under several similar designations, some of which are: Bergepanzer Ferdinand, Bergetiger, or Berge Panzer Tiger(p). The term Bergepanzer can be translated as recovery vehicle/tank. Authors T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.16 Bergepanzerwagen) give a different designation, namely Bergepanzer VI Ferdinand/Elefant. In this article, it will be referred to as Bergepanzer VI.
Production
Between 90 to 91 VK45.01(P) chassis were converted into Ferdinand tank destroyers. This means that less than 10 chassis remained. For various (and not completely clear) reasons, only three such chassis were chosen to be converted. The modification was carried out at Nibelung Werk in August of 1943, where all three were completed rather quickly. Some sources mentioned that the first prototype was actually completed in September 1943.
Design
Hull
The Bergepanzer VI’s hull design consisted of the front crew, central engine, and rear transmission compartments. The overall hull design was a direct copy of the Ferdinand vehicle.
Suspension
This vehicle’s suspension consisted of six large road wheels, a front idler, and a rear drive sprocket on each side. The six road wheels were divided into pairs and were placed on bell cranks, which in turn were mounted on longitudinal torsion bar units. Each of these pairs of road wheels was suspended individually. The all-metal road wheels had inbuilt spring units to help with shock absorption. The shapes of the front idler and rear drive sprocket were visually almost identical. The main difference between these two was in their internal construction. They were identical to simplify the production of parts and to prevent the track from falling off the suspension due to the vehicle’s length and lack of any return rollers. Both the idler and the drive sprocket had a diameter of 920 mm and consisted of two toothed rings that had 19 teeth. In contrast to the Ferdinand, which had 600 mm wide tracks, the Bergepanzer VI was provided with a wider 640 mm track. This offered improved mobility to the somewhat lighter Bergepanzer VI.
Engine
The Bergepanzer VI was powered by two Maybach HL 120 TRM 265 hp @ 2,600 rpm gasoline engines. With a weight of 60 tonnes, this vehicle’s maximum speed was 30 km/h on good roads. Off-road, it fell down to 8 to 10 km/h. The fuel capacity was 950 liters and, with that, the Bergepanzer VI had an operational range of 150 km (90 km off-road).
Superstructure
The front part of the Bergepanzer VI’s superstructure housed the driver. He entered his position through a hatch placed on top of the superstructure. The driver was provided with a forward-mounted observation port. No three-sided periscope (which was used on the Ferdinand) was installed on the driver’s hatch. Next to him was the former position of the radio operator. In the sources, it is not clear if the radio remained in its original position or if it was moved to the rear casemate. The front-positioned machine gun ball mount was removed and the opening was covered with armored plates. To provide better visibility, two round-shaped visors (additionally protected with armored glass) were placed on both sides of the inward-angling side armor. Behind these two crewmembers was the engine compartment, which was separated (on both sides) by a fire-resistant wall. A jib boom crane was installed on the right side of the superstructure. Ironically, this was the only dedicated repair equipment carried by the Bergepanzer VI. When not in use, it was folded down and placed on top of the engine compartment.
Casemate
Just behind the engine, a fully enclosed pyramidal casemate was placed. It consisted of four angled plates which were welded together. On the front right side, a machine gun ball mount was placed. While not easy to spot at a distance, three small vision slits were cut into the front and sides of the casemate. In addition, on both sides, small pistol ports were installed. To the rear of the casemate, a two-part hatch which was taken from a Panzer III’s turret was located. On top of the casemate, a round-shaped hatch without a cupola was installed.
Armor
Despite sharing the same chassis with the Ferdinand/Elefant tank destroyer, the Bergepanzer did not share the same level of protection, at least from the front, but was still formidable. After 1944, these vehicles were covered in Zimmerit anti-magnetic paste for further protection.
Front
Sides
Top
Rear
Hull
100 mm *
60 mm
/
40 to 80 mm
Superstructure
100 mm *
80 mm
30 mm
80 mm
Casemate
50 mm
30 mm
20 mm
30 mm
Armament
The armament of this vehicle consisted of a single 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun. It was positioned on the right side of the casemate. The ammunition load consisted of 600 rounds. According to some sources, the firing angle of this machine gun was rather poor and provided limited combat effectiveness. It is for this reason that at least one vehicle received a remote-controlled machine gun mount (Rundumsfeuer) with a 360º firing arc on top of the enclosed casemate.
Crew
The crew consisted of a commander, a driver, and a mechanic to help with repairs and towing operations. The driver was seated on the left side of the superstructure. The commander, who was probably also tasked with operating the radio equipment, was seated to the rear, in the enclosed casemate. The mechanic’s position was not specified in the sources, but he likely shared the compartment with the commander.
Recovery Operation
As it did not have a winch, the Bergepanzer VI crew would be forced to carry out the recovery operations by simple towing. The German crews of recovery (tank-based) vehicles that did not have the winch installed instead used the drive sprocket. The track link was removed and then attached a wire rope to the drive sprocket. This wire was then connected to the vehicle that needed to be recovered. The drive sprocket would then be rotated by the engine, which in turn would pull the wire around it. This would be usually enough to pull up the damaged (or bogged down) vehicle. In order to provide good stability, the towing vehicle had to be anchored. This was usually done either by connecting it to another tank or to a sufficiently strong object, such as a large tree or building. This was far from a perfect solution, but was nevertheless an effective method to remove any damaged vehicle.
In Service
Once the three vehicles were completed, they were rushed to the Eastern Front. Once there, they were allocated to the schwere (Heeres) Panzerjäger Abteilung (Eng. Heavy Tank Destroyer Battalion) 653. At the start of August, this unit still had three operational Bergepanzer VIs and Bergepanthers. The latter was sent to assist with the recovery operations of the Ferdinands. The Bergepanthers were still at the prototype stage and thus not equipped with proper towing equipment. As these did not prove themselves up to the task for towing the Ferdinands, the crew of this unit modified them by installing a salvaged Panzer IV turret and a four-barrel 2 cm anti-aircraft gun in 1944.
Following the Eastern campaign, all surviving Ferdinands, including the support vehicles, were brought back to Nibelungenwerke for a major overhaul. Following the Allied invasion of Italy in 1943 and, later, the American amphibious landing at Anzio in January 1944, the German High Command was forced to rapidly send more and more troops and equipment there. On 15th February 1944, the 653rd Battalion’s 1st Company, with 11 Ferdinand and one recovery vehicle under the command of Helmut Ulbrich, was ready to be transported to Italy. By August 1944, when this unit was pulled out of Italy, a single Bergepanzer VI was still reported to be operational. Their final fate is unknown, but they were likely lost during the second half of 1944.
Conclusion
The Bergepanzer VI was surely a welcome addition to the 653rd Battalion, which lacked any reliable means to recover damaged or bogged-down vehicles. Had it arrived sooner, the Ferdinand losses at Kursk may have been lower. The Bergepanzer VI was rather a mixed bag. While being excellently protected, it lacked any proper towing equipment, was slow, and was heavy. Given that nothing else was available, these were still far better than nothing.
Kingdom of Hungary (1941-1944)
Armored Ambulance Vehicles – 12-13 Used
During World War Two, Hungary was one of Germany’s allies in Europe that operated a fairly large mostly domestically-produced armored force. One of their earlier mass-produced armored vehicles was the Toldi light tank. While a good design for the pre-war era, it quickly became obsolete due to its weak armor and armament. In order to reuse the existing vehicles, the Hungarians tried to improve their armor and weaponry with little results. However, in 1942, they introduced a new variant that was quite a novelty during the war, the Toldi eü20, a medical evacuation vehicle based on a slightly modified Toldi tank. While few were built in 1942, the Hungarians appeared to be satisfied with their performance and ordered another small series to be built in 1944.
Medical Tanks in Hungarian Service
Evacuation of wounded soldiers has been a critical aspect of military operations throughout history, with increasing significance in the 20th century, particularly during the Second World War, when armies around the war became more professional. In professional armies, the training of soldiers, especially for specialized roles like tank crews, is a significant investment. Losing an experienced crew member not only means losing someone skilled in their role but also necessitates the time-consuming process of training a replacement. This is particularly crucial in roles where specific skills and knowledge are essential, like operating complex machinery. Tanks played a pivotal role in many battles of the Second World War, being at the forefront of major offensives. Their presence on the battlefield often meant that they were exposed to intense fighting and increased the likelihood of crew members being wounded. Evacuating these crew members safely was crucial for maintaining the operational capabilities of armored units. Evacuating wounded personnel from the battlefield, especially in areas of heavy fighting, is a dangerous undertaking. It requires coordination, planning, and often exposes medical personnel to the same risks faced by combat units.
Soft-skinned vehicles, such as trucks or cars, are not well suited for this job given the lack of armor. A proper, well-protected, good mobility vehicle offers a better chance of success. Prior to the war, the major armies around the war did not have the tactical insight or resources to spend on developing such dedicated vehicles. Germany and the US did invest resources, albeit these were more a modification of already existing vehicles. However, a less-known fact is that the Hungarians also built their own armored evacuation vehicle based on a slightly modified Toldi light tank.
A Brief History of the Toldi Light Tank
Following the end of the First World War, Hungary was stripped of most of its territories. It was left a shattered country that began a slow path of rebuilding its economy and army. The Honvéd (Eng. Hungarian Army) was particularly keen to one day being able to take back some of its lost territories. But, for that, it would need to rebuild and rearm its military forces. Armored formations were also needed. Their development was slowed down by various factors, not to mention the fact that Hungary was actually prohibited by the Treaty of Trianon (signed on 4th June 1920) from developing and using tanks and other armored vehicles. Nevertheless, during the mid-1930s, they purchased over 100 Italian CV.33 fast tanks, known in Hungarian service as 35M Ansaldo.
In 1936, the Hungarian Army made attempts to find more modern types of tanks. Eventually, Hungary managed to acquire a single Swedish L-60 light tank in 1937. After a series of test trials, the L-60 overall design was deemed satisfactory. Following successful negotiations with Sweden, Hungary managed to obtain a license for the production of this vehicle. It would not be an exact copy, as the Hungarian made some modifications, mostly regarding its armament. It was armed with a 20 mm 36M anti-tank rifle and a coaxial 8 mm Gebauer 34/37 machine gun. From April 1940 to December 1942, 190 such vehicles were locally produced. machine gun.
The Toldis saw their first combat action during the brief war with Yugoslavia in April 1941. The Hungarians joined their other Axis allies during the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. For this invasion, the Hungarians could muster 81 Toldis and 60 35M Ansaldos. By the end of 1941, nearly all of these were lost either in combat or due to mechanical breakdowns.
Toldi Medical Tanks
In 1942, Hungary was hard-pressed by their German allies to send more forces to the Eastern Front. The Hungarian armored forces had been shattered and needed to be rebuilt. They bought over 100 Panzer 38(t) (known in Hungarian service as the T-38) and 22 better-armed Panzer IV Ausf.F tanks from Germany. These were used to equip the 1st Armored Division, which was part of the Hungarian 2nd Army. This Division was divided into two battalions. Each battalion had in its inventory 52 T-38s, 11 Panzer IVs, and three Toldi tanks. In total, this regiment had 6 Toldi tanks. Additional elements equipped with Hungarian vehicles were attached to this division. This included the 1st Armored Reconnaissance Battalion with 14 Csaba armored cars and 17 Toldi tanks.
By 1942 standards, the Toldi, armed with the 20 mm anti-tank rifle and weak armor, was an obsolete vehicle. The Hungarians were aware of this and allocated them auxiliary roles, such as command, or liaison. Based on the experience from the previous year in the Soviet Union, the Hungarians realized that they lacked a proper medical evacuation vehicle that had sufficient mobility and protection to follow up tank formations. Developing specialized vehicles was not an option, as Hungary simply lacked production capabilities. The only possible solution was to repurpose already existing vehicles, in this case, a Toldi light tank. For the upcoming 1942 campaign, a few Toldi tanks were modified as medical evacuation vehicles. How many depends on the source used. For example, author P. Mujzer (Operational History Of The Hungarian Armored Troops in World War II) mentions that two (possibly up to three) such vehicles were converted for this role. Each of the two battalions received one medical vehicle. C. Bescze (Magyar Steel Hungarian Armour in WW II) and E. M. G. Martinez (Images of War Hungarian Armored Fighting Vehicles), on the other hand, state that this division had four such vehicles.
Name
In most sources, this vehicle is simply designated as medical Toldi. Author C. Bescze briefly mentioned a Toldi eü20 designation, without giving much context to it. The ‘eü’ likely stands for egészségügyi (Eng. medical). The number 20 indicates that it was based on the Toldi I and II, which were armed with the 20 mm anti-tank rifle. For the sake of simplicity, this article will refer to it simply as Toldi eü20.
Technical Characteristics
Unfortunately, the sources that talk about the Toldi eü20 are scarce and barely mention it. Further problems are a lack of photographs of this vehicle. Given the similarities with a standard unmodified Toldi tank, it is almost impossible to distinguish these two. What is known is that its overall design remained the same as the standard Toldi tank, except for a few minor differences. A more detailed description of the Toldi’s overall design can be read here.
Hull
The Toldi’s hull had a standard layout, which consisted of the forward-mounted transmission, the central crew compartment, and the rear engine compartment.
Suspension
The Toldi used a simple torsion bar suspension system. It consisted of one front drive sprocket, one rear idler, four larger road wheels, and two return rollers per side. While this suspension did the job, it did not provide a gentle ride.
Engine
The Toldi was powered by a German-built Büssing NAG L8V 160 hp @2200, eight-cylinder petrol engine. With a weight of some 8.5 tonnes, the Toldi was capable of achieving a top speed of 50 km/h.
Superstructure
On top of this hull, an armored superstructure that narrowed as it went toward the engine compartment was placed. On the vehicle’s left front side, the fully protected driver position was located. The driver was provided with an escape hatch on top of it.
Turret
The Toldi had a rather small and cramped turret. On each side of the turret, a large single-piece crew hatch was installed. The Toldi eü20 tank received a slightly enlarged hatch that, at least in theory, would help during the evacuation of wounded crew members. Which hatch was precisely enlarged is unclear in the sources. P. Mujzer mentions the left one, while C. Bescze lists the right hatch as the one that was enlarged. Neither specifies to which extent it was modified or if there were any other modifications made to it. As the gun sight was positioned on the left side, it made more sense to increase the size of the opposite hatch, as there would be somewhat larger space to put a wounded soldier.
In either case, the Toldi turret, with the armament and two crew members, was rather cramped. It must have been a tedious process to exit the vehicle and then bring the wounded soldier inside the vehicle through the turret, not to mention that this was likely done under enemy fire.
Armament
Early versions of the Toldi I and II (basically the same vehicle, just built with domestic parts) were armed with one 20 mm 36M anti-tank rifle and an 8 mm Gebauer 34/37 machine gun. The medical version retained its armament, despite its specific role. While this limited internal space, it offered the crew a chance to provide covering fire during the evacuation of wounded. The Toldi eü20 ammunition load was reduced, but not specified in the sources to what extent. In addition, some of the ammunition storage bins were reused to store medical supplies.
Crew
The number of crew members is another characteristic that was not specified in the sources. A normal Toldi was operated by a crew of three, which included a commander, driver, and gunner/loader. The driver was seated on the left hull side, while the remaining two crew members were paced in the turret. The Toldi was rather a small vehicle, with little space inside it.
For the medical version, the crew was likely reduced to two, as this would give more internal space for the wounded soldiers. It could consist of a driver and a commander who was a doctor or at least received some basic medical training. It would have made little sense for the driver to leave the vehicle during the evacuation process. If he was wounded or, in the worst-case scenario, killed, there was no one who could drive the vehicle. The commander/doctor’s job was to help bring the wounded into the vehicle and stabilize their condition by providing medical aid. The crew of the vehicle that called for medical evacuation likely helped during the evacuation. The vehicle in question may have been only lightly damaged or one of the crew was wounded by shrapnel or an unlucky bullet. Of course, this is an example of ideal conditions. In real combat, the overall extraction operation was done in a more chaotic environment, with the enemy shooting at them. There may have been more wounded men that needed to be evacuated, so the Toldi eü20 crew would have to prioritize based on the severity of wounds.
Markings
The Toldi eü20 lacked any official military markings. They received only a small red cross painted on the turret sides. The reason why the large medical cross was not painted was probably that the vehicle was armed. Although today it may be believed that a medical vehicle would not attract enemy fire, the harsh reality of wars (especially brutal ones, such as the Second World War) proved differently.
In Action
Elements of the Hungarian 2nd Army began to reach the Eastern Front in May 1942. Given the rather poor railway infrastructure in this part of the Soviet Union, the relocation of the 1st Armored Division took months. The transportation of tanks directly to the frontline was not possible. This division finally reached their destination at the Uryw-Storozhevoye (Урыв-Сторожевое) area west of the River Don in early July. There, the Axis forces were already engaged with the Soviet 24th Tank Corps.
The first combat action of the 1st Armored Division against the Soviet western bridgeheads began on 18th July. It is here that the Toldi eü20 saw service. Dr. János Vercseg, a correspondent who accompanied the division, later wrote in his memoirs:
“… As I spied out of the turret, I couldn’t see any Hungarian tank losses. But my joy was too early: my headphones (editor: during this engagement, he was actually inside a T-38 tank) asked for a doctor. ‘Tank number 591 got hit. We need a doctor!’I could see through my binoculars that a Major of the staff reached the damaged vehicle and lifted the injured men over into his tank under heavy fire. Quite a few enemy tanks opened fire on them and we tried to cover them as well as we could from the distance. We were much relieved when the doctor’s tank arrived and that the damaged tank had not fallen into enemy hands…”
Besides this quote, the sources do not provide us with more info on the Toldi eü20s service. The 1942 campaign was quite brutal and the Hungarians saw extensive combat action against the entrenched Soviet defenders. This meant that the Toldi eü20 saw plenty of use during this period. By early 1943, the 1st Armored Division lost nearly all its equipment, including the contingent of Toldi tanks.
The overall performance of the Toldi eü20 was deemed sufficient during the 1942 campaign. Based on this experience, the Hungarian Army issued a request for 9 more vehicles to be built in 1944. The Hungarian weapon’s manufacturer Ganz completed these conversions in March 1944. These vehicles were designated 43M Toldi medical tanks. The actual delivery to the frontline units took some time. These finally reached the frontline during June and July 1944. The fate of these vehicles is unclear, but given the intense fighting on the Eastern Front, most if not all were lost by the end of 1944.
Author G. Finizio (Hungarian Armor, Wheels and Tracks) gives a somewhat different account of events. According to him, Ganz modified some 9 Toldi vehicles into armored personnel carriers in 1943. It is not mentioned in what manner they were modified, besides the fact that the armament was retained. As these proved to be ineffective in their role, they were adopted as medical tanks in 1944.
Other Hungarian Medical Vehicles
The Toldi was not the only armored vehicle employed by the Hungarians in this manner. During the formation of the 1st Armored Division, the Germans provided the Hungarians with a few Sd.Kfz.251 armored ambulance half-tracks. In the later stages of the war, the Hungarians tried to develop a more dedicated armored ambulance based on the 40M Nimrod anti-tank/aircraft vehicle. A prototype named Lehel would be built, but no production order was given, as tanks had priority over such specialized vehicles.
Conclusion
The Toldi eü20 version may seem like a waste of resources but, in reality, it had a rather important role. The evacuation of wounded soldiers, especially those in specialized roles, is not just a humanitarian concern, but a strategic one. It ties into the broader aspects of military effectiveness, including maintaining morale, preserving experience, and ensuring the continued functionality of specialized units. So this vehicle was surely a welcome addition to the Hungarian armored arsenal. The downside was that very few were actually completed due to the limited production capacity.
Toldi I specifications
Dimensions (L-w-h)
4.75 x 2.05 x 2.14 m
Total weight, battle-ready
8.5 tonnes
Crew
2 Commander/Gunner, and the Driver
Propulsion
Bussing-NAG LV8 8-cylinder 160 hp petrol/gasoline engine
Top speed
50 km/h
Range
220 km
Armament
20 mm anti-tank rifle
8 mm 38M Gebauer machine-gun
German Reich (1944-1945)
Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun – At Least 1 Vehicle Modified, Possibly 2
The occupying Axis forces in Yugoslavia during World War II were constantly under threat by the ever-increasing Partisan activities. Given that the Germans lacked production capabilities and were short of manpower, the forces operating in Yugoslavia were in short supply of any modern military equipment. To compensate for this, they often had to improvise and reuse existing vehicles by upgrading their armament. In one particular case, at least one Sd.Kfz.250 half-track was modified by rearming it with 5 cm PaK 38 anti-tank guns. Not much is known about these vehicles, as there are no known records of them.
A Brief History of the Occupation of Yugoslavia
After the unsuccessful invasion of Greece by Italian forces, Benito Mussolini was forced to ask his German ally for help. Adolf Hitler agreed to provide assistance, fearing a possible Allied attack through the Balkans would reach Romania and its vital oil fields. On the path of the German advance towards Greece stood Yugoslavia, whose government initially agreed to join the Axis side. This agreement was short-lived, as the Yugoslavian government was overthrown by an anti-Axis pro-Allied military coup at the end of March 1941. Hitler immediately gave an order for the preparation for the invasion of Yugoslavia. The war that began on 6th April 1941 was short and ended with a Yugoslavian defeat and the division of its territory between the Axis powers.
Following the collapse of Yugoslavia, the occupying Axis forces did not expect any major trouble to come from this part of Europe. Unfortunately for them, very quickly, two resistance groups sprang up, the Royalist Chetniks and the Communist Partisans. What followed were five years of heavy struggle, suffering, and destruction on all warring sides in Yugoslavia. While the resistance movements were initially small in scope, by 1944, the Communist Partisans movement combat strength reached several hundreds of thousands. They also employed armored formations consisting of vehicles that were either supplied by the Allies or captured from the enemy. While many Axis allies were present in occupied Yugoslavia, the German forces were by far the largest and best equipped. This did not mean that these German units were supplied with the best equipment. Instead, they were mostly equipped with older, captured, or even obsolete weapons and vehicles. But even these, in many cases, were more advanced than the weapons of other participants on this front.
Field Modifications
The combat operations in occupied Yugoslavia would see the use of several rare, obsolete, or captured equipment, along with some more modern ones. The most common in use were the French armored vehicles employed by the Germans. After 1943, these were mostly replaced with Italian vehicles, which were also captured by the Germans after their former ally surrendered. Given the Partisan’s lack of any kind of anti-tank weapons, except on the rare occasions when such weapons were captured from the enemy, even these obsolete armored vehicles could be put to good use. To compensate for the lack of armored vehicles, both the Germans and the Partisans made several unusual modifications. These often included reusing the already existing vehicles and adding better weapons in the hope of increasing their firepower. Some of the best-known examples of this are the M3 Light Tank modifications made by the Partisan First Tank Brigade in late 1944. These were made by adding a 2 cm anti-aircraft or a 7.5 cm anti-tank gun on the M3’s superstructure. Another example would be a Somua S35 which was rearmed with a 57 mm gun placed in a modified turret.
The Germans were not idle either, creating a number of lesser-known improvised armored vehicles. These were constructed by simply reusing any available vehicles. Some modifications were quite simple, like adding a machine gun to a civilian car or truck. Others were more elaborate, such as adding a Panzer 38(t) turret on an Italian medium tank’s body. Another modification included arming a Sd.Kfz.251 half-track with two 12 cm mortars. We know of these field modifications thanks to surviving photographic evidence.
However, one particular and unique example actually survives to this day and is located in the Military Museum in Belgrade (Serbia). This is a Sd.Kfz.250 half-track that was armed with a 5 cm PaK 38 anti-tank gun and a modified superstructure.
Sd.Kfz.250
In 1939, the German Army requested a new light half-track troop carrier similar to the larger Sd.Kfz.251. The development of this project was handed over to Buessing-Nag (for the design of the main armored body) and Demag (for the chassis). For this purpose, the D7p chassis was used, a truncated version of the Sd.Kfz.10’s D7 chassis that featured only four road wheels on either side, instead of five. Due to many reasons (priority being given to the larger Sd.Kfz.251, slow adaptation for production, insufficient materials, etc.), the development process and production were slow. The first production vehicles were not ready until 1941. From 1943 onwards, a new simplified armored body was used in the hope of speeding up production. These were designated the Ausf.B in order to differentiate them from the more complex superstructures fitted to the Ausf.A. Over 6,500 vehicles were produced in 12 variants until the end of the Second World War.
The Sd.Kfz.250 in Yugoslavia
The Sd.Kfz.250 was not used during the war with Yugoslavia in April 1941, as its production only began a few months later. However, it did see service with the occupation force tasked with dealing with the insurgents. It was a quite rare sight, as not many vehicles saw service in this part of Europe. One example was Panzergrenadier Lehr Regiment 901, which had 236 Sd.Kfz.251s and a few Sd.Kfz.250s in its inventory. This unit was only stationed briefly in Yugoslavia (September 1943 to January 1944) before being moved to Hungary. The 11th SS Armored Grenadier Division also used a few such vehicles in Yugoslavia.
Designation
There is no information about the exact designation for this vehicle, and whether the Germans or later the Partisans even bothered to assign one for it. In accordance with German army practice, the nomenclature, and designation of such a modification would have been Sd.Kfz.250 mit (English: with) 5 cm PaK 38.
History
The historical context and usage of this vehicle are somewhat of a mystery, with very little available information in the sources. Questions such as who built it, when, where, and how many were actually constructed cannot be easily answered. While most such modifications are often forgotten or are known thanks to only a few surviving photographs, this vehicle survived the war and can be now seen at the Belgrade Military Museum. Thanks to its preservation at the Museum, the construction can be analyzed in relatively great detail. However, it is important to note that the vehicle itself is missing many of its parts. This is especially the case with the internal components of the vehicle, which are completely missing. According to Museum Advisor Dr. Mirko Peković, this vehicle was donated to the Museum in 1954 from a military post in Kragujevac (a city in Serbia). Unfortunately, the Museum does not possess information on its origin. It is known that the vehicle was captured by the Partisans during the German withdrawal from Greece. More precise information is difficult to find, as the Partisans kept poor records of most captured vehicles and weapons during the war.
If this is true, then at least it is known that this vehicle was originally built by the Germans. Unfortunately, beyond that, there is no actual information about where or by which unit it was constructed. Additionally and more importantly, it is not known why it was built in the first place. As it was based on the simplified Sd.Kfz.250 chassis, it must have been constructed after October 1943 (when this vehicle entered production). Units that operated on secondary fronts, such as Yugoslavia, would take some time before deliveries in limited quantities were possible. As such, it is unlikely that these saw service in Yugoslavia before 1944. The German withdrawal from Greece began in late 1944. They had to retreat through Serbia, where the Yugoslav Partisans were quite actively attacking any German unit that was encountered. It can be assumed that late 1944 was the time period when this vehicle was captured.
Another question that needs to be answered is why it was made. There are a few possible reasons for this. It is possible that it was used as a training vehicle. This seems unlikely, as the Germans reused all kinds of vehicles (usually those that were returned from the frontline and repaired) for this. Going to that length to modify in this way just for this specific role seems doubtful. A more possible explanation is that it was built in order to increase the mobility of the towed 5 cm PaK 38. In Yugoslavia, there were no real frontlines and the Partisans could attack from any place and direction. Their way of fighting usually includes smaller units undertaking a surprise attack on vital enemy targets, such as patrols, supply convoys, rail lines, etc. For the Germans, it was important to respond quickly or, if possible, prevent these attacks in time before they could cause damage, so mobility was important.
Given that the German units in Yugoslavia often had limited means to transport their troops, they often had to improvise with what they had at hand. This meant that trucks or trains were used to transport troops quickly to where they were needed. Both of these had limitations. The trucks lacked armor protection (with the exception of those properly armored for this role, which mostly saw service with the Italian Occupation Army) and were often easy targets for the Partisans. The latter was limited by the tracks, which could be easily mined or destroyed.
The Sd.Kfz.250 half-track had good mobility and had sufficient armor to protect its crew from small arms fire. The Partisans rarely used captured anti-tank guns, so the crew of this vehicle were generally well protected. The Sd.Kfz.250 standard armament of two machine guns would be generally enough to deal with Partisan attackers. Someone on the German side obviously thought this was not enough and added a 5 cm gun on top of the Sd.Kfz.250 vehicle. While designed as an anti-tank gun, the 5 cm Pak 38 was still provided with high-explosive rounds that would be useful in destroying houses or machine gun nests at great distances.
It is also possible that this modification was built during the fast and chaotic withdrawal of German forces from Greece. Mobility was a key factor, as the few available roads out of Greece were coming under frequent attack from the Partisans, but also the Bulgarians, who had switched sides in the meantime. At some point during this retreat, this vehicle could have been either abandoned, possibly due to a breakdown or captured by the Partisans after a fight. Unfortunately, the true story will likely never be known given the lack of any available information in the sources.
The last question is who precisely built it. This is the most difficult to give an answer to. During the occupation of Yugoslavia, the Germans employed various units that operated armored vehicles. The Panzer Abteilung 202 operated in Yugoslavia throughout the war and saw the most extensive combat service there. Another possibility was that this vehicle was not operated by the retreating forces from Greece but instead by one of several units that fought to keep the supply line open in Serbia. The Partisans could have easily misidentified the unit if they even cared at all.
Not A Sole Vehicle?
For many years, the vehicle preserved at the Belgrade Military Museum was believed to be the only modification done in this matter. However, in 2023, the book Cominform Crisis Soviet-Yugoslav Stand-Off 1948-1954 written by B. Dimitrijević was published. On its cover stood an Sd.Kfz.250 vehicle armed with the 5 cm PaK 38. Even though, at first, it seemed that this photograph would help put this vehicle into a historical context, it also creates further mystery. The vehicle in this photograph is slightly different from the one that is currently exhibited in Belgrade. There are two main visual differences. First, someone (either the Germans or the Partisans) added a protected ventilation grille in front of the engine compartment. This was not a standard part of the original Sd.Kfz.250 vehicle. This feature is not present on the vehicle located in Belgrade, nor is there any indication that this part of the armor plate was cut out and then covered. In addition, the surviving vehicle received an extension of the rear part of its superstructure at some point in its history. This is not present on the vehicle from the preserved photograph. This gives us an indication that at least two vehicles may have been modified and armed with the 5 cm Pak 38 during the war.
The Modification
While not much is known about its history, thanks to its preservation at the Museum, the construction can be analyzed in detail.
Hull
The Sd.Kfz.250 hull consisted of a frontal mounted engine compartment, followed by the tracked suspension unit, above which the armored superstructure was placed. For this modification, it appears that the overall hull design remained unchanged.
Suspension
The Sd.Kfz.250’s tracked suspension consisted of four overlapping and interleaved double road wheels. These were mounted on swing arms sprung by torsion bars. The suspension was powered by a front-mounted drive sprocket and a rear-positioned idler.
The surviving Sd.Kfz.250 vehicle exhibited at the Belgrade Museum has an unchanged suspension, although the right suspension unit is missing many components. Two interlocking road wheels are completely missing, along with the cover caps for the remaining road wheels. An older photograph of this vehicle shows that the last road wheel was present at some point when it was placed at the museum. As of 2023, it is missing, and what happened to it is unclear. Either it was stolen or removed by the Museum workers in the hope of restoring it one day.
Superstructure
The preserved Sd.Kfz.250’s most noticeable feature (besides the added gun) is the extended rear superstructure. The reason why it was done is unknown. The easiest possible explanation for this modification was that the crew needed more working space to effectively operate the gun. The rear part may have been simply salvaged from another damaged Sd.Kfz.250. The whole installation was rather well made and could easily pass as a normal unmodified vehicle to someone not familiar with the general shape of the latter Sd.Kfz.250 simplified version. This implies that this was not a rushed modification, but someone had to take time and dedication actually to build this extension.
The vehicle from the old photograph does not have this extension. The Germans used the Sd.Kfz.250 with three different armaments of various calibers, the largest of them being a 7.5 cm gun. The installation of such a large armament required some changes to the vehicle’s superstructure. An extension was added on top of the vehicle but not on the rear, creating a quite cramped crew compartment. If the installation of the 5 cm gun was possible without adding the rear part, why bother with such labor-intensive work? Unfortunately, no solid information is available to make a proper conclusion here.
Another change done to the superstructure’s design was the addition of the large engine ventilation grille. As mentioned earlier, this is present on the vehicle from the old photograph but not on the surviving vehicle. The reason for installing such a ventilation port, let alone on the front part of the engine’s compartment, is unclear. While this would provide better airflow to the engine (helping cool it), it also created a huge weak spot for the vehicle that the enemy gunners could easily exploit. This was not used on the original German Sd.Kfz.250 (either old or new versions). It is possible that, at some point, the Partisans themselves made it, for unclear reasons. It is possible that, due to the engine’s poor mechanical reliability (due to being worn out and lacking spare parts), it had trouble working properly and they added the ventilation port to provide a steady flow of cool air to the engine. This is speculation at best.
Some may argue that the Partisan or later JNA simply changed the front armor plate back to the original form. It is highly unlikely that anyone would be bothered to remove the front plate and replace it. Especially if it is remembered that the engine front armor plate was welded to the rest of the superstructure. Only a few such vehicles were available in the Partisan/JNA service, and, without any spare parts and given the general ineffectiveness of the 5 cm gun, it would be counterproductive to actually do such extensive modification after the war.
Another small feature that may indicate that there were at least two different vehicles is a hole in the left top superstructure’s armor. It is not present in the surviving photograph. The origin of this hole is unknown but there is a chance that it was made during the war with the vehicle being hit by a large shrapnel fragment or small caliber round.
Armament
The main armament of this modified vehicle was a 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. The average penetration at 1,000 m (at 0°) was 61 mm (Panzergranate 39) and 84 mm when using the rare tungsten ammunition (Panzergranate 40). The maximum effective range of high explosive shells was around 2,500 to 2,650 m.
Between 1939 and 1944, some 9,500 were produced. The Germans employed this gun in Yugoslavia but, given that the Partisans did not have tanks (with the exception of those being captured and reused against the Axis occupiers) before 1944, these were used more as artillery to provide support fire.
In order to fit the 5 cm gun, some modifications were needed. For a start, the wheels and the rear split trial legs were removed. The trunnion and part of the axle that was not removed were mounted on two forward-pointed thick metal levers (one on each side). These were bolted to a metal construction which was added for this purpose. Due to weight and space restrictions, the gun had to be mounted inside the crew compartment. This meant that the frontally positioned machine gun and its shield had to be removed.
The characteristics of the gun in this new mount is unknown. The traverse was likely quite limited, while the elevation seems to have been significant, but the exact numbers are unknown. The total ammunition load is also unknown. The Sd.Kfz.250/8 was able to store only 20 rounds within its cramped interior. The added space to the rear and the smaller 5 cm rounds meant that this vehicle would have had a much greater ammunition load, but determining the precise number would be impossible. Nothing of its internal compartment was left that could have given an indication. Secondary armament likely consisted of an MG 42 machine gun and the crew’s own personal weapons.
Roof
Another unusual feature of this vehicle is the top covered with sheet metal. At first glance, it seems like a good idea, as this way, the crew would be better protected. However, there is a major problem. By adding this sheet metal, the gun was made completely useless and unusable. The explanation is that it was added after the war, possibly by the JNA when it was given to the museum in order to keep the weather out of the vehicle for external display. The vehicle in the original photograph lacks this feature.
Crew
In ideal circumstances, the crew would probably have consisted of the driver, gunner, loader, and commander in order to efficiently operate this vehicle. More probably, the vehicle was operated by just three crew members given the limited space available inside (with the gun and spare ammunition). In this case, the commander would have performed the role of the gunner or the loader.
In Partisan Hands
These two probable vehicles were eventually captured by the Partisans during the closing stages of the war. They were put into service with the newly created JNA (Yugoslav Army). According to B. Dumitrijević, at least one was used as a self-propelled anti-tank vehicle by the Korpus Narodne Odbrane Jugoslavije KNOJ (Eng. Yugoslav People’s Defence Corps). Other German armored half-tracks were also included. These were used in this manner at least up to September 1949. That is when one of the modified Sd.Kfz.250s was photographed at the Šumadija military maneuvers. Their fate after this point is unclear, but one found its way to the Museum, and the other one was likely scrapped at some point.
A Possible Modification as a Movie Prop?
On some internet websites, it is mentioned that this vehicle was nothing more than a movie prop. Allegedly, the extension was added to imitate the l Sd.Kfz.251/22, which was armed with the much larger 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun. This notion has several flaws. First, there is no actual surviving movie that shows this vehicle being used in this manner. Second, the idea of modifying this vehicle to resemble another is rather ridiculous. The audience of any movie (in the decades after the war) would have had absolutely no idea what the Sd.Kfz.251/22 was. While tanks were used in Yugoslavia during the war, their numbers were quite limited and the majority of civilians would never have had a chance to actually see one. Even the Partisan’s own forces did not bother learning the precise names or types of the enemy armor encountered. Adding the gun and the superstructure extension, which would have been expensive and time-consuming just to imitate a little-known tank destroyer would have been pointless, especially given the plentifulness of armored vehicles the Yugoslav movie industry could obtain from the army. Until actual proof of this is found, this theory remains unsupported.
Conclusion
Given that there is no reliable information about the history of this vehicle, a proper conclusion is difficult to make. What is known is that it was probably built by the Germans at some point during the later stages of the war and captured in Yugoslavia. While at first, this modification may seem irrational, when the battlefield in Yugoslavia is taken into account, it appears more reasonable. The Germans needed a fast mobile vehicle armed with something more than a machine gun. Plus, it had sufficient armor to protect the crew from small caliber rounds. In that essence, it would have made a good self-propelled vehicle. Unfortunately, beyond that, nothing is known.
The Belgrade Military Museum
This unusual vehicle can be seen in the Belgrade Military Museum’s collection. The Museum was founded in August 1878, with the first permanent exhibition open in 1904. Over the course of more than a century of existence, it has accumulated a large amount of various military exhibits and weapons, along with other interesting and rare World War Two era vehicles, such as the German Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf.F. and the Polish TKF tankette.
The author of this article would like to take this opportunity to thank the museum advisor, Dr. Mirko Peković, for helping with the research for this article.
Sd.Kfz.250 mit 5 cm PaK 38 Technical Specifications
Crew
Commander/gunner, loader, and driver
Weight
6-7 tonnes
Dimensions
Length 3.62 m, Width 1.91 m, Height 1.63 m
Engine
Maybach HL42TRKM 100 hp @2,800 rpm
Primary Armament
5 cm PaK 38
Secondary Armament
Possibly one or two 7.92 mm machine guns
Armor
8-15 mm
Sources
D. Nešić, (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
German Reich (1943)
Ammunition Supply Vehicle – 6 Converted
Even before the outbreak of the Second World War, the Germans were aware that an ammunition supply vehicle based on a tank chassis was desirable. Given the limited production capacity for tanks, allocating resources for such a project was not possible. Instead, the Germans decided to convert older tank chassis. The Panzer I, for example, was a light tank that had become obsolete as a frontline combat vehicle by the start of the Second World War. These early tanks were repurposed for various roles, including as ammunition supply vehicles. While the Panzer I was small and had limited capacity, it could still be used effectively in secondary support roles. In 1943, the Germans introduced the Sturmpanzer IV, which was a self-propelled assault gun based on the Panzer IV chassis. This vehicle was designed for direct fire support and assault roles and was equipped with a short-barreled 150 mm gun. Given its limited ammunition storage and the need to keep it resupplied during combat, a smaller number of leftover Panzer IV chassis were converted into ammunition supply vehicles specifically for the Sturmpanzer IV units. These ammunition supply vehicles played a crucial role in ensuring that the Sturmpanzer IVs had a steady supply of shells during battles.
Early Attempts at Tank-Based Ammunition Supply Vehicles
Despite being forbidden from doing so, the Germans began investing time and resources into tank development during the 1920s. It soon became obvious that they would need an armored ammunition supply vehicle that was based on a tank chassis. While the armor of such vehicles was seen as beneficial, more important was its mobility. Thanks to their tracks, they could easily follow other tanks regardless of the terrain. Wheeled and even half-track vehicles were less suited for this role. In the late 1920s, the Leichttraktor (Eng. Light tractor) tank chassis was considered for this role. It was estimated that every sixth vehicle would be converted for this specific role. While some early modification attempts were made, ultimately, for various reasons (lack of production capacity, rejection of the Leichttraktor project, and lack of funds), the project did not go beyond the prototype stage.
The development of tank-based ammunition supply vehicles was put on hold for some time. Given the limited production capabilities, investing vital and scarce resources into tank-based ammunition supply vehicles was not possible for the Germans. The concept gained some momentum just prior to the outbreak of the Second World War. As no dedicated vehicle could be built, the Germans instead decided to reuse some obsolete tanks for the job. During September 1939, the Germans converted some 51 older Panzer I tanks into ammunition carriers. This conversion was quite rudimentary, done by simply removing the turrets and replacing the opening with two-part hatches. These vehicles would be allocated to the Munitions Transport Abteilung 610 (Eng. Ammunition transport battalion). An additional 122 Panzer Is would be converted to ammunition supply vehicles from 1942 onwards. Compared to the previous conversion, these vehicles received an ammunition storage area mounted on top of the superstructure. The Panzer I chassis was obsolete, underpowered, and poorly protected, and thus their overall performance was questionable. But given that nothing else was available to the Germans in any significant number, they were still better than nothing.
Support Vehicle for the Sturmpanzer IV
Trying to dislodge the enemy from a well-fortified position proved to be a tedious task for the Germans (or any other army of the time, for that matter). The combat experience gained in such situations showed that a heavily protected vehicle that was armed with a large-caliber gun was desirable. In 1943, the Germans introduced a new vehicle based on the Panzer IV that was frontally protected with 10 cm of armor and armed with a 15 cm gun. This vehicle, known as the Sturmpanzer IV, was intended to provide heavy close combat support. Given that it used a large caliber gun, the ammunition load was limited to 32 rounds. This meant more prolonged combat operations were impossible without support vehicles. Ordinary trucks or half-tracks were unsuited for this task, given that the Sturmpanzer IV engaged targets at relatively close ranges to the enemy. A fully protected ammunition supply vehicle was more effective for that particular role.
When the production of the Sturmpanzer IV was carried out in the first half of 1943, over 60 Panzer IV chassis were allocated for the conversion. Not all available chassis were suited for the conversion. Those that did not meet the requirement were instead reused as ammunition supply vehicles. These were mostly based on the older Panzer IV Ausf.D chassis. Although other more modern Panzer IV chassis were also reused, these were in limited numbers. For example, at least one Panzer IV Ausf.G was utilized this way. The overall modification was simple, involving removing the turret and much of the hull’s interior.
Only 6 such vehicles were converted in May and June 1943. The work was carried out by the German Army’s own repair facilities at Heeres-Kraftfahrzeug-Werkstatt (Eng. German Army Motor Vehicle Workshop) located in Vienna, also sometimes referred to as Heeresarsenal Wien (Eng. German Army Vienna Arsenal).
Given the urgent need to increase tank production, no more Panzer IV chassis could be spared for this role. These vehicles were simply designated as Munitionspanzer IV (Eng. Ammunition Tank), although similar designations, such as Munitionsträger auf Fahrgestell PzKpfw IV (Eng. Ammunition Carrier on Panzer IV Chassis) can be seen in the sources. This article will refer to the vehicle as the Munitionspanzer IV for the sake of simplicity.
Design
Chassis
The chassis of the Panzer IV that was used for the Munitionspanzer IV project did not receive any modification to its overall design. The front part of the hull housed the transmission, followed by the crew compartment and the engine.
Suspension
The suspension design was also unchanged. It consisted of eight small double wheels placed on each side, suspended in pairs, and placed on four bogie assemblies. The small road wheels were suspended by leaf-spring units.
However, the older chassis used were refurbished to the latest standard. This meant replacing the 380 mm track with 400 mm wider tracks. In addition, older types of front drive wheels and the rear idlers were replaced with better models.
Engine
The Munitionspanzer IV was powered by a Maybach HL 120 TRM 265 hp@2,600 rpm engine. Unfortunately, given the limited number of converted vehicles, sources on their overall drive performance are lacking. Nothing of their tonnage or speed is mentioned in the sources. A standard Panzer IV Ausf.D had a weight of 20 tonnes. Its maximum speed was 42 km/h with an operational range of 210 km on good roads. Given that for this modification, the turret, gun, ammunition, and most of the crew were removed, the overall vehicle weight was likely reduced by at least one or two tonnes. This, in turn, would have improved its drive performance to some extent.
Superstructure
The superstructure received some minor changes, such as adding improved air vents, installing a preheating system that helped start the tanks in cold weather, adding two additional spare road wheels on the right side, etc.
The major change was the removal of the turret and redesigning of the tank interior in order to accommodate the new ammunition storage bins. The turret opening was covered with a round-shaped plate made of sheet metal. It had two hatches that the crew could use to gain access to the storage bins. Thanks to the fact that the bearings from the original tank turret were not removed, this sheet cover could fully rotate, so the hatch position could be changed depending on the need.
Inside the space that was previously occupied by the turret basket and the crew compartment, a vertically positioned storage bin was added. The capacity of this storage bin was 70 rounds of 15 cm ammunition. There are also photographs that show these vehicles without the metal cover and the ammunition storage bin.
Depending on the version used, there are some visual differences of the superstructure’s design. For example, Panzer IV Ausf.D vehicles used a protruding driver plate. The later models used a much simpler one-piece driver plate. In addition, there were differences in the shape of the machine gun ball mount and the driver vision port.
Armament
The armament of this vehicle consisted of a single MG 34 machine gun. Its original position on the right side of the front superstructure remained unchanged. If its original ammunition load was changed is not specified in the sources.
Armor
The frontal armor thickness of the vehicles based on the Panzer IV Ausf.D chassis ranged between 30 to 50 mm. The central part of the hull side armor was 40 mm thick. The remaining side armor (that covered the driver’s side and the rear engine compartment) was only 20 mm thick. The rear armor was 20 mm thick, but the lower bottom area was only 14.5 mm, and the bottom was 10 mm thick.
The face-hardened front superstructure armor was 30 mm placed at a 9° angle. The sides of the crew compartment were 20 mm placed vertically. The engine compartment was protected by 20 mm thick armor. While most Panzer IV Ausf.D tanks received additional 30 mm appliqué armor plates which were either bolted or welded to the front hull and superstructure armor, the chassis used for the ammunition supply modification lacked these.
The one vehicle that was based on Ausf.G chassis had better armor protection. The front hull and superstructure were protected by 50 mm thick face-hardened armor plates. This was further improved by adding 30 mm of additional armor plate. The side armor was 30 mm thick, while the rear ranged from 10 to 30 mm.
A few of these Munitionspanzer IV were equipped with 5 mm thick armor plates (Schürzen) covering the sides of the vehicle. These served to protect the tank from Soviet anti-tank rifles.
Crew
The precise number of crew for this vehicle is not mentioned in the sources. It can be assumed that this consisted of at least two, a commander and a driver. The commander, who also operated the machine gun, was seated on the hull’s right side. This was originally the position of the radio operator. Opposite him was the driver. With only two crew members present, it can be inferred that the Sturmpanzer IV crews also helped during the ammunition resupply process.
In Service
The six completed ammunition supply Panzer IV reached the Eastern Front in July 1943. Once there, they were allocated to Sturmpanzer Abteilung (Eng. Assault Tank Battalion) 216. At the start of August 1943, only four vehicles were reported to be operational. On 20th November, the 216th Battalion was pulled back from the frontline. On 6th January 1944, the 216th Battalion had 4 fully operational Munitionspanzer IV in its inventory.
This unit would once again see combat against the Allied landings at Anzio in Italy, which were launched on 22nd January 1944. During the Italian campaign, the unit had four Munitionspanzer IVs in its inventory. In March 1944, two were operational while the remaining two were stored in workshops awaiting repairs. A month later, the situation was unchanged, with two vehicles still being under repair. At that time, the unit received two Munitionspanzer IIIs, which were based on the Panzer III chassis. On 1st September 1944, one ammunition supply vehicle based on the Panzer IV Ausf.D was reported in the inventory of this unit. The final fate of these six vehicles is unknown but they were likely lost by the end of the war.
Other Ammunition Supply Versions Based on the Panzer IV Chassis
Besides these few converted chassis, intended to act as ammunition supply vehicles for the Sturmpanzer IV, the Panzer IV chassis was used for a few similar modifications.
Munitionsschlepper für Karlgerät
An unknown number of different Panzer IV chassis were modified to be used as ammunition supply vehicles for the huge self-propelled siege mortar codenamed ‘Karlgerät’. The modification included removing the turret and installing a large crane in its place. Additionally, an ammunition compartment for four huge 2-tonne shells was also added.
Munitionsfahrzeug III/IV
The Hummel was a self-propelled artillery piece used by the Germans during the war. It was introduced in 1942 and was built on a modified Panzer III/IV chassis, incorporating components from both of these tank chassis. The primary armament of the Hummel was a 15 cm howitzer, which made it an effective self-propelled artillery vehicle.
To support the Hummel and ensure a steady supply of ammunition, the Germans developed an ammunition supply vehicle based on the same chassis. This ammunition carrier variant essentially lacked the main gun but was otherwise similar in design and construction to the Hummel. These vehicles were essentially built for resupply purposes, ensuring that the self-propelled artillery units had a continuous source of ammunition during combat operations.
What is interesting about these ammunition supply vehicles is that, with minimal effort, they could be converted back into fully functional self-propelled artillery pieces if the need arose. This flexibility was important for the Germans, as it allowed them to adapt to changing battlefield conditions and maintain the functionality of their artillery units. In total, around 157 of these ammunition supply vehicles based on the Hummel chassis were produced by the end of the war.
Field Modified Ammunition Supply Panzer IV
During wartime, military forces often have to adapt and reuse damaged or outdated equipment for various purposes. The conversion of tanks or other armored vehicles into different roles was a pragmatic approach, especially when there were limited resources and a need for specialized vehicles.
One such adaptation during the Second World War involved using damaged tanks, like the Panzer IV, as ammunition supply vehicles. These conversions were generally rare because combat tanks were in high demand, and the primary focus was on maintaining or repairing combat-ready vehicles. However, in situations where a tank’s turret was damaged beyond repair and there were no immediate replacements, it made sense to convert the tank into a different, but still useful, role, such as an ammunition carrier.
The identification of these converted vehicles can indeed be challenging. From a distance or from certain angles, a damaged tank with its turret removed might resemble an ammunition supply vehicle or another type of support vehicle. In addition, Germany employed turretless Panzer IVs as training vehicles.
Conclusion
The Munitionspanzer IV was constructed out of a need to provide a mobile and protected ammunition supply vehicle for the Sturmanzer IV. Given the limited availability of spare chassis, only six vehicles were ever constructed. While surely a welcome addition to the German arsenal, their numbers were simply too few to have any meaningful impact on the war itself.
Munitionspanzer für Sturmpanzer IV (based on the Panzer IV Ausf.D) Technical Specifications
Kingdom of Hungary (1944-1945)
Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Rocket Vehicle – 1 Prototype Built
Despite having a limited industrial capacity, Hungary managed to produce a fairly large number of tanks during the Second World War. However, these were generally outdated when compared to more modern Soviet or German designs. The Hungarians did make some attempts to improve their combat effectiveness. While no effective solution was ever implemented, they did build some unusual and interesting vehicles, albeit none that went beyond the prototype stage. One such vehicle was almost unknown until recently, when a photograph of it was published. This was a Toldi tank that was equipped with a Hungarian 44M Buzogányvető domestically developed anti-tank rocket launcher system.
A Brief History of the Toldi Light Tank
Following the end of the First World War, Hungary was stripped of most of its territories. It was left a shattered country that began a slow path of rebuilding its economy and army. The Honvédség (Eng. Hungarian Army) was particularly keen to one day being able to take back some of its lost territories. But, for that, it would need to rebuild and rearm its military forces. Armored formations were also needed. Their development was slowed down by various factors, not to mention the fact that Hungary was actually prohibited by the Treaty of Trianon (signed on 4th June 1920) from developing and using tanks and other armored vehicles. Nevertheless, during the mid-1930s, they purchased over 100 Italian CV.33 fast tanks, known in Hungarian service as 35M Ansaldo.
In 1936, the Hungarian Army made attempts to find more modern types of tanks. Eventually, Hungary managed to acquire a single Swedish L-60 light tank in 1937. After a series of test trials, the L-60 overall design was deemed satisfactory. Following successful negotiations with Sweden, Hungary managed to obtain a license for the production of this vehicle. It would not be an exact copy, as the Hungarian made some modifications, mostly regarding its armament. It was armed with a 20 mm 36M anti-tank rifle and a coaxial 8 mm Gebauer 34/37 machine gun. From April 1940 to December 1942, 190 such vehicles were locally produced.
The Toldis saw their first combat action during the brief war with Yugoslavia in April 1941. The Hungarians then joined their other Axis allies during the Invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. For this Invasion, the Hungarians could muster 81 Toldis. By the end of 1941, nearly all of these were taken out of action.
Attempts to Improve the Firepower
While maybe a good design in pre-war years, by the time it saw combat in 1941, the Toldi was severely lacking in armor and especially firepower with its 20 mm gun. The Hungarians tried to increase the production of the larger 40 mm-armed Turan tank, but due to a lack of resources and production capabilities, they failed to do so. In addition, they had a stockpile of Toldi tanks which they could not simply scrap. Instead, the Hungarians tried to improve their overall performance by increasing the armor protection and introducing a larger caliber gun. The Toldi’s lightweight chassis essentially meant that these could only be improved to some minor extent. The frontal armor was increased to 35 mm and the anti-tank rifle was replaced with a 4 cm gun. This gun could penetrate some 30 mm of armor at 1 km. In 1944, when this vehicle was issued to frontline troops, both of these characteristics were severely lacking and offered no real benefit to the Hungarian tank force.
Another attempt was to modify a Toldi tank chassis as an anti-tank vehicle. In 1942, the Germans gave the Hungarians a few Marder II tank destroyers. These saw extensive combat action in early 1943. One vehicle would be sent to Hungary for evaluation. It inspired the Hungarians to build a similar vehicle armed with a German 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun with minimal armor protection. One prototype was built and tested, but the project eventually reached a dead end. The Toldi chassis was too light for the gun recoil. In addition, the Germans were not willing to provide the needed guns for this modification, so it was canceled.
This was not the last attempt made by the Hungarians to improve the Toldi’s combat effectiveness or at least to reuse its chassis. Near the end of the war, they mounted two 44M Buzogányvető (Eng. Maul) anti-tank rocket launchers on top of a Toldi’s engine compartment. While quite interesting, such a concept was also implemented by the Germans and the Allies near the end of the war to some limited extent. The Germans built limited numbers of light vehicles armed with portable anti-tank rockets, while the Allies mounted aircraft rockets on some of their tanks.
An Unknown Vehicle
This modified Toldi tank is one of several (examples such as a German 7.5 cm StuK armed Panzer I or the Japanese Type 5 Ho-To and Ho-Ru) strange designs developed near the end of the war where, besides one or two surviving photographs, almost nothing is known.
The modified Toldi was a completely unknown vehicle until recently, when a photograph of it was published during the 2000s. It showed what appears to be Toldi I (armed with the 20 mm anti-tank rifle version) that was armed with two anti-tank rocket launchers. It is unknown if this was a field modification made as an improvisation or an official attempt to develop such a vehicle.
According to the limited available sources of this vehicle, the original photograph was taken by an American Sergeant from the 691st Tank Destroyer Battalion. The unit was stationed in Bavaria (Germany) during the period of April to May 1945. The date or location where the photograph was taken is sadly unknown. It is unlikely that the Soviets would let the Allied journalists or public officials through the ravaged part of Eastern Europe. It is possible that this particular vehicle was photographed somewhere in Germany. If this is true, how it got there is a mystery of its own. Did the Germans try to evacuate the vehicle for study and evaluation or did some of the Hungarians manage to flee all the way to Germany? Unfortunately, given the complete lack of sources, only wild speculations without any proof can be made.
Design
Hull
The Toldi’s hull had a standard layout, which consisted of the forward-mounted transmission, the central crew compartment, and the rear engine compartment.
Suspension
The Toldi used a simple torsion bar suspension system. It consisted of one front drive sprocket, one rear idler, four larger road wheels, and two return rollers per side. While this suspension did the job, it did not provide a gentle ride.
Engine
The Toldi was powered by a German-built Büssing NAG L8V 160 hp @2200, eight-cylinder petrol engine. With a weight of some 8.5 tonnes, the Toldi was capable of achieving a top speed of 50 km/h.
Superstructure
On top of this hull, an armored superstructure that narrowed as it went toward the engine compartment was placed. On the vehicle’s left front side, the fully protected driver position was located. The driver was provided with an escape hatch on top of it.
Turret
The rear side of this Toldi tank turret helps us to identify the precise version used for this modification. When the 4 cm gun was installed inside the Toldi’s turret, some modifications were needed. To provide a larger working space and to act as a counterbalance to the gun, a rear extension was added. The first two versions, the Toldi I and II, which were basically the same, did not have the rear turret extension part. As the vehicle in the photo does not have this extension, it is a Toldi I or II.
Armament
Early versions of the Toldi were armed with one 20 mm 36M anti-tank rifle and an 8 mm Gebauer 34/37 machine gun. Unfortunately, the surviving photographs of this vehicle do not show clearly if the main armament was removed. It can be assumed that, given its experimental nature, the main armament was removed, but this is pure speculation.
The modified Toldi was also armed with two 44M Buzogányvető rockets. The Hungarians were one of few nations during the Second World War that developed anti-tank rockets. Their initial work was influenced by their German ally. One of the first such weapons created was a portable 6 cm tubed rocket launcher, known as Páncélrém (Eng. Tank fear), similar to the Panzerschreck. These saw some service near the end of the war.
Beside this weapon, the Hungarians developed an even larger caliber rocket intended to be fired from a stationary mount. This was the 100 mm 44M Buzogányvető rocket system. Two such rockets were placed on a three-legged mount close to the ground, presenting a small target. The gunner, who was placed next to it, was protected from the rocket exhaust fumes by a large shield. Two different rockets were designed for this weapon: a shaped-charged and an anti-personnel rocket. The first was nicknamed Buzogány (Eng. mace) and contained a 4 kg heavy warhead that could pierce some 300 mm of armor. While this figure seems impressive, it must not be forgotten that this penetration power was achieved under ideal conditions. In reality, these early shaped-charge rockets suffered from somewhat poor ballistics and were prone to simply bouncing off the armor of enemy tanks. This is not to mention that their production quality may have been questionable (at least those built by the Germans and Hungarians), as they were introduced so late into the war. Despite all of this, such relatively cheap weapons could still be effective against enemy armor, and even fortified positions.
The second rocket known as Zápor (Eng. Rain) and was intended to deal with enemy infantry. The maximum theoretical range for these two rockets was 2 km, while the more practical range was 1.2 km.
The development of this weapon system was initiated in 1944. While several hundred such mounts were built, the majority of them were used during the desperate defense of Budapest at the end of 1944 and the start of 1945.
In case of the Toldi’s modification, the whole construction was placed on a metal plate base located just above the engine compartment. The two rockets were then positioned opposite of each other on a ‘H’ shaped metal frame. In the photograph, what appears to be a metal rod that protrudes from the turret top and is connected to this frame can be seen. This was likely a control rod that the crew used to change the elevation of the whole installation by moving it either forward or backward.
As the installation appears to be fixed in position with no traverse, it is unclear how it would be used without accidentally hitting the turret. A possible solution to this was to rotate the turret slightly in the opposite position of the rocket that was being fired. If this is true, then the firing of both rockets would have taken, some time reducing its combat effectiveness somewhat. There was also a realistic chance that the rocket could be accidentally activated and hit the vehicle itself. This design, while it may seem like a good idea, had some flaws.
Given the sheer size of the 44M Buzogányvető rocket, which was nearly a meter in length, storing them inside the vehicle was impossible. This means that only two rockets could be initially stored inside the two tube launchers. For additional ammunition, an auxiliary vehicle would be needed, possibly a truck or, in the best-case scenario, a half-track. The crew of the auxiliary vehicle may have helped during the reload process. Essentially, this restricted the combat effectiveness of the vehicle, which needed to constantly return back for reloading after firing both rockets. If the ammunition supply vehicle did not reach it or was destroyed, the crew of the Toldi would be left defenseless if the main armament was removed, as speculated.
Crew
The number of crew for this vehicle is another mystery. A Toldi had a crew of three, including a commander, gunner, and driver. This modified vehicle would need at least two, a gunner and a driver. The gunner would have to take the role of the commander in this case. Using two crew members offered some advantages, such as more working space inside the vehicle. To some marginal extent, it also reduced the vehicle’s overall weight. The downside was that the gunner was overloaded with all the additional tasks that he would have to perform. This included commanding the vehicle, finding targets, aiming at the targets, and even possibly loading the armament. In real combat situations, this could prove crucial for crew survival, as the gunner/commander could operate the vehicle for some limited time before being totally exhausted and overwhelmed. Having a gunner separated from the commander was surely a better option. But it must not be forgotten that this vehicle was likely built at the end of the war, when there was an acute shortage of men and materials, which meant that such ill-conceived compromises may have been implemented.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, given the lack of sources, it is not known if this vehicle was a kind of prototype or a mere improvisation made by a unit at the front to improve their anti-tank capabilities. Using shape-charged rockets that had great anti-armor characteristics may, at first glance, seem like a good idea. In reality, such rockets were far from perfect designs, often lacking in accuracy and quality, and the penetration of enemy armor was not always guaranteed despite scoring a hit. In conclusion, this modification, while impressive and seemingly innovative, was likely to be less combat-effective given the previously mentioned limitations of the Second World War anti-tank rocket designs.
Toldi 44M Buzogányvető specifications
Dimensions (L-w-h)
4.75 x 2.05 x 2.14 m
Total weight, battle-ready
8.5 tonnes
Crew
2 Commander/Gunner, and the Driver
Propulsion
Bussing-NAG LV8 8-cylinder 160 hp petrol/gasoline engine
Top speed
50 km/h
Range
220 km
Armament
20 mm anti-tank rifle and two 100 mm caliber anti-tank or anti-personnel rocket
8 mm 38M Gebauer machine-gun
German Reich (1939)
Heavy Tank – 1 Incomplete Prototype Built
At the start of the Second World War, the Germans decided to initiate the development of their heaviest tank by that point, known as Panzerkampfwagen VII VK65.01. This vehicle was to weight 65 tonnes, possibly even more. It represented a further development of the earlier heavy tank projects and, normally, some components were reused to reduce cost and development time. However, the interest in such heavy vehicles quickly died out following the German victory over the Western Allies in 1940. Only a single soft-steel hull would be completed, which was scrapped in 1942.
Early German Heavy Tank Projects
The development of heavy tank concepts was initiated by the Heeres Waffenamt (Eng. German Army Weapons Agency) in 1935. The desire to build such a vehicle was driven by the need to counter the French tanks, particularly the formidable Char 2C and Char D1. The initial focus was on equipping the new heavy tank with a 7.5 cm gun with a high muzzle velocity. The weight of the tank was also a critical consideration, as exceeding 30 tonnes would compromise mobility and create challenges during bridge crossings. To balance weight and protection, initial calculations suggested an armor thickness of approximately 20 mm. However, this was deemed insufficient to withstand French 2.5 cm gunfire. Furthermore, achieving reasonable speed requires a powerful engine. It was anticipated that Maybach, a German engine manufacturer, could develop a 600-hp engine to meet this requirement. Despite these plans, the German industry was not yet fully capable of producing such components. Nevertheless, the initial proposals provided a starting point for further development and served as a catalyst for progress in German heavy tank manufacturing.
In 1937, after discussions on the necessity of a new vehicle, Wa Prüf 6 (the German Army’s Ordnance Department office responsible for designing tanks and other motorized vehicles) instructed Henschel to develop a 30-tonne chassis for the tank. The early heavy tank project work would evolve into the Durchbruchswagen (Eng. Breakthrough vehicle) or simply D.W. The Henschel D.W. project would not be adopted. Despite its cancellation, Heeres Waffenamt was satisfied with the progress made on the heavy tank project and decided to expand and improve upon it. The next in line was the VK30.01 heavy tank project, which inherited many components from the preceding D.W., but also introduced several improvements, with the most obvious being the use of a new suspension. The VK30.01 was also not accepted for service, but the several chassis built were used for various trials and training.
These early German heavy tank projects were hampered by the 30 tonne limitation. This meant that the designs had to fit a perfect balance between armor, armament, and other components in the desire to fit into the given parameters. For the next project, the Germans decided to disregard this limitation and focus on improving the armor protection up to 80 mm. This in turn meant that the overall weight increased to an estimated 65 tonnes. This vehicle would be designated as Panzerkampfwagen VII VK65.01.
Name
According to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.20-1 Paper Panzers), this vehicle was designated as the Panzerkamfwagen VII VK65.01. Other sources use a simpler VK65.01(H) designation instead. “VK” stands for Vollketten, which means “fully-tracked” in English. The number “65” represented its weight in metric tonnes, and the number “1” indicated that this was the first version of this vehicle. The “H” stands for the manufacturer, Henschel. In their documentation, Henschel referred to this vehicle as Sturmwagen (Eng. Assault vehicle) or Schwerewagen (Eng. Heavy vehicle), with the abbreviation S.W.
Development History
In January 1939, Wa Prüf 6 officials requested the development of a new heavy tank project. This time, the weight limitation was raised to 65 tonnes. This allowed for the installation of heavier armor protection. In this case, 80 mm thick, which was to provide full protection against 5 cm caliber anti-tank guns. Given the huge weight of the vehicle, speed received minor priority and was estimated to reach between 20 to 26 km/h.
It is important to note that the history of German early heavy tank projects is, unfortunately, poorly documented. Finding reliable sources that talk about this topic in detail is difficult due to the destruction and loss of many original documents during the war. This is also true for the VK65.01. Very little to no detailed information is available in the sources. In addition, there are no surviving photographs of this vehicle and only a few drawings which were created by T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle.
The work on the VK65.01 began in January 1939. Henschel, being already involved in previous heavy tank projects, was tasked with designing and building a hull. Given its experience in tank turret design, Krupp was tasked with constructing a wooden full-scale turret model. Different armaments were to be tested, starting with 7.5 cm to 10.5 cm caliber guns. Krupp delivered the wooden model of the turret in April 1939. The German Army officials were satisfied with the Krupp proposal and placed an order for a fully functional soft-steel turret soon after. The precise shape of the original Krupp VK65.01 turret is not mentioned in the sources. In March 1940, it was decided that the VK65.01 would receive the same turret used on the previous D.W. projects. This indicates that there were some issues with the original Krupp turret. On the other hand, this may also indicate that the German Army wanted to reuse already existing components.
A production order for a small pre-production series was issued in September 1939. In early 1940, Krupp received a contract for the construction of 8 turrets together with their armament. The delivery of the final turret was expected to be completed by August 1942. In addition, other components (such as the armor plates, hull, etc.) were to be delivered to Henschel. Once there, Henschel would begin the final assembly of the VK65.01 vehicles.
Design
Chassis
The VK65.01 chassis shared its overall layout with other German tank designs. The front part of the hull housed the transmission, followed by the crew compartment and the engine. The front hull, including the glacis plate, was designed to be heavily armored to protect the vital components and crew from enemy fire. If any access hatches were added on the glacis plate is unknown. Given the similarity with the previous VK30.01, which did not have them, we can assume that the VK65.01 was not provided with these either. Such design features helped enhance the protection of the tank’s front-facing components but also made the construction of the front hull somewhat simpler and cheaper.
Initial plans called for Henschel to produce a single-piece hull. Given the technical and production limitations, this was not possible at that time. Henschel instead decided to produce a three-part hull. This would be then connected into one piece. While such a design made the hull’s overall structural integrity somewhat weaker, it was easier for production and transportation.
To allow the crew to escape in case of emergencies, escape hatches were added on the hull sides. They were located between the first set of return rollers. In comparison to the VK30.01, which used oval-shaped hatches, the VK65.01 was to be equipped with round-shaped hatches.
Suspension
The VK65.01 was meant to utilize a torsion bar suspension system. It consisted of nine rubber-rimmed interleaving road wheels, which would improve weight distribution and overall driving performance. In addition, there was a front-drive sprocket, rear idler, and three return rollers. This design choice, although somewhat complex, offered advantages in terms of the tank’s maneuverability and stability. The overall visual design appears to be a more-or-less VK30.01 copy, albeit extended with two more road wheels. In addition, the road wheels appear to be somewhat smaller in diameter. Given the extensive weight of 65 tonnes, 800 mm wide tracks were to be used to help distribute the weight.
Engine
The VK65.01 was to be powered by a 12-cylinder Maybach HL 224 600 hp engine. With a weight of 65 tonnes, the VK65.01 could reach a maximum speed of 20 to 26 km/h, as sources vary. Off-road performance is unfortunately unknown. The engine was fully enclosed in an armored compartment. At least a few hatches would be installed to provide the crew with easy access for maintenance.
Superstructure
The VK65.01’s superstructure was square-shaped and fully enclosed, with mostly flat armored sides that were welded together and bolted down to the chassis. The fully enclosed driver compartment protruded out of the superstructure’s right front side. The precise design of the driver’s compartment is unknown. It would have probably had a front-mounted driver vision port and possibly even some smaller vision ports on the sides. On top of this compartment, a hatch would have been placed.
Turret
The precise turret design for this vehicle is somewhat unclear in the sources. Presumably, it was to receive a turret taken from the previous heavy tank models. This is actually confirmed by authors such as T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle. They mention that the Germans decided to reuse a modified D.W. turret with improved armor protection. However, they do not specify if this referred to the first D.W. heavy tank project or the latter VK30.01 (which also briefly used the same D.W. designation). The first D.W. vehicles (built in two similar variants) were to receive a modified Panzer IV turret. The later VK30.01 received a completely new turret but was armed with the same gun. Given the fact that the first D.W. tank project was canceled, it is likely that this refers to the later VK30.01 turret. However, the previously mentioned drawings show the VK65.01 with both turrets, which complicates things. Author T. Anderson (History of the Panzerwaffe Volume 2 1942-1945) specifically claims that this latter turret was used. Author T. Melleman (PzKpfw VI Tiger Vol.I) mentions that the turret intended to be used on the D.W.I. was to be used instead.
The VK30.01 turret was built using six welded angled plates. The front hexagonal-shaped armor plate housed the main armament and its curved gun mantlet. On the turret sides, small observation ports were installed. To the rear, two round-shaped firing ports were placed. The commander’s cupola was located on the turret top. In order to provide the commander with a good view of the surroundings, a rotating ring with seven small periscopes was added. The turret was to be hydraulically rotated.
While not the first German tank to have more than one turret, the presence of such a design feature was a rather unusual decision. Even the Begleitwagen (Eng: Escort vehicle), a tank that would eventually evolve into Panzer IV, was meant to have such a small turret in its early development stage, although it was never actually fitted. Based on the drawings, the VK65.01 auxiliary turret appears to have been round in shape, with a curved machine gun mantlet. It also had what appears to be an observation periscope port located on top of it.
Armament
When the VK65.01 project was initiated, there were three proposals for the main armament. Two of these were 7.5 cm guns, but with different barrel lengths. The 7.5 cm KwK L/24 was used on the Panzer IV and was already in production. This meant that it was available for installation and was already used on the previous heavy tank vehicles. The downside was that, due to its specific role as a support weapon, it was less suited for engaging enemy armor. However, the Germans knew that their tanks armed with this gun could encounter enemy tanks. To counter them, an armor-piercing round with a muzzle velocity of 385 m/s was developed for it, which could pierce around 39 mm of 30° angled armor at a distance of 500 m.
The second proposal was the 7.5 cm L/40 gun. This had a much longer barrel and improved armor-piercing capabilities, making it much more suited for dealing with armored vehicles. The development of this gun was constantly delayed and was never actually put into production.
The last option was a 10.5 KwK L/20 gun. It fired a much heavier 15 kg round compared to the 6.8 kg 7.5 cm round. While this gun was tested, it too was not accepted for service given the rather cumbersome and heavy ammunition. Given that these two guns were not introduced to service at the time, the Germans realistically could only use the proven 7.5 cm L/24 gun as the main armament of the VK65.01, with possible replacement at a later point.
Besides the known armament, other characteristics, such as elevation or traverse are unknown. The ammunition load for the main armament is also not mentioned in the sources. The previous VK30.01 heavy tank had an ammunition load that consisted of between 90 to 100 rounds. One of the existing VK65.01 drawings shows an unusual feature of the gun mantlet and the armored gun barrel deflector designs. The gun mantlet appears to be flat but slightly angled. Normally, German tanks that were equipped with the short 7.5 cm gun were provided with a round-shaped gun mantlet. The second unusual feature is the use of a thick armored gun barrel deflector. This is likely a copy of a similar design used on some of the VK30.01 turrets (but not all, as there is photographic evidence of this). On the second VK65.01 drawing, the whole gun assembly is positioned quite high in the turret, which would greatly limit its elevation and depression. Lastly, the gun barrel is too short. Of course, this is likely an artistic expression based on little available information about its appearance.
The secondary armament would have consisted of the coaxial 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun and another (or even two) machine gun would be placed inside the small auxiliary turret.
Armor
Very few sources mention anything specific about the VK65.01’s armor thickness. What is known is that the front hull and superstructure were 80 mm thick. The side and rear armor are not mentioned but it can be assumed that these (at least in the case of the superstructure) were also 80 mm thick. Some sources mention that the production version of the VK65.01 would have received 100 mm of frontal armor. While it used a VK30.01 turret, its frontal armor thickness was increased from 50 to 80 mm. No information regarding the armor protection of the auxiliary turret is mentioned in the sources. Its overall armor thickness was likely lower than that of the frontal armor, making it a weak spot on the WK65.01.
Crew
The VK65.01 had a crew of five, which included the commander, gunner, and loader, who were positioned in the turret, and the driver and auxiliary turret operator in the hull. The latter was likely also the radio operator. If the VK65.01 drawing is completely correct, then the driver position would have been on the right side of the vehicle. This is somewhat unique among German tank designs, as this position was often reserved for the radio operator. Opposite him sat the machine gun/radio operator. The gunner, as on most German tanks, was positioned to the left of the main armament. The loader was right next to him. Lastly, the commander was positioned under the turret cupola.
Transportation Problems
The VK65.01’s excessive weight and small maximum speed limited its overall mobility. Transportation of such vehicles over long distances would have been difficult. Some sources mention that the Henchel engineers designed the VK65.01 in such a way that it could be disassembled into three individual components: suspension and gearbox; turret and crew fighting compartment; and engine compartment.
Even when divided into smaller components, moving them on a railway car would still require specialized crane equipment. The L900D Faun heavy-duty truck equipped with the large Demag LK 5S 20-tonne crane was to be used for this role. It was estimated that two such vehicles would be needed to load and unload a disassembled VK65.01 heavy tank. This would have been a time-consuming process for the crews involved. How practical this solution was is dubious at best. The vehicle and its working crew would have been quite exposed to potential enemy attack either from the air or ground and the locations where it could be deployed would have to have been close to railway heads.
Fate
The VK65.01 project would turn out to be short-lived. After the major victory against the Western Allies in June 1940, the German Army did not see the need for the development of such heavy vehicles. By August 1940, the previously issued order for the delivery of various components was canceled, including the first soft steel turret. Despite the cancellation of the project, Henschel completed one soft-steel chassis with the superstructure in 1941. As other tank projects took priority, the single chassis was possibly sent to be scrapped at the end of 1943.
Conclusion
The VK65.01 was an interesting but short-lived project. It was the first truly heavy tank in the German Army’s arsenal. With an estimated weight of 65 tonnes, it weighed the same as three fully equipped Panzer IV tanks. While the armor of 80 mm would have been formidable, the maximum speed of only 26 km/h would have limited the vehicle’s offensive capabilities, especially for the kind of warfare Germany had fought up to that point. The realization that such a vehicle was not needed in 1940 essentially killed the project. Still, working on such a heavy vehicle offered a valuable experience for Henschel’s engineering teams. This would undoubtedly be used during the development of the later Tiger heavy tank.
Panzerkampfwagen VII VK65.01 Technical Specifications
Crew
5 (Commander, driver, gunner, loader, and radio operator)
Independent State of Croatia (1942)
Light Tank – 4 Operated
With the fall of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the Nezavisna Država Hrvatska (NDH) (Eng: Independent State of Croatia), was created. While theoretically independent, it was actually a German puppet state created to act as a buffer zone from parts of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The harsh occupation policy of Axis forces led to the formation of two resistance movements that began to attack various military installations, personnel, and infrastructure. The mass deportations carried out by the NDH to concentration camps and the execution of civilians were often met with vengeful Partisan attacks. To combat these, the NDH leadership urged the Germans to send them armored vehicles. The Germans were initially unwilling to do so, but finally, at the end of 1941, they began the delivery of four aging Panzer I Ausf.A tanks.
History
After the fruitless invasion of Greece by Italian forces, Benito Mussolini was forced to ask for help from his German ally. Adolf Hitler agreed to assist, fearing a possible Allied attack through the Balkans would reach Romania and its oil fields, which were vital for the Germans. On the path of German advance towards Greece stood Yugoslavia, whose government initially agreed to join the Axis. This agreement was short-lived, as the Yugoslavian government was overthrown by a military coup at the end of March 1941. Hitler immediately gave an order for the preparation of the Invasion of Yugoslavia. The war that began on 6th April 1941 was a short one and ended with a total Yugoslavian defeat and the division of its territory between the Axis powers.
Even as the Yugoslavian Army was desperately trying to put up any form of armed resistance, the Croatian Ustaše, under the leadership of Ante Pavelić, declared the creation of the NDH on the 10th of April 1941. Croatia received a significant territorial expansion, annexing most of western Yugoslavia, including Bosnia, parts of Serbia, and Montenegro. The Adriatic coast, while nominally part of the NDH, was actually controlled by the Italians up to 1943. The creation of this state was initially an Italian idea, which the Germans reluctantly accepted. The Germans did not fully trust the NDH leadership, but given the expected invasion of the Soviet Union, they did not want to reserve many men and materiel for security forces in Yugoslavia, and they left this role mainly to their Allies, including NDH forces.
Almost from the start, the new NDH regime began the persecution of all the non-Croatian population. The Serbian, Roma, and Jewish populations were especially targeted, with numerous atrocities and arrests. Death camps, similar to those used by the Germans, were also established, In response to the NDH’s actions against Yugoslavian civilians, resistance movements began to emerge on its territory. Initially, these were spontaneous resistance groups formed around villages and small communities. However, these would rapidly expand to include much more important Communist and Royalist movements.
As its forces proved incapable of fighting these insurgents, the NDH requested some of the captured ex-Yugoslavian armored vehicles from their German overlords. Expecting a positive reply from the Germans, the NDH Army High Command issued a decree (1st July 1941) which required that all available personnel that were part of pre-war Yugoslavian armored units be relocated to the capital of Zagreb. Once there, they were to serve as a foundation for the newly formed 1st Automobilski Bataljon (Eng. Car/Mechanized Battalion). It was to serve as a base for further expansion of armored formations that were to support the standard NDH Army, known as the Hrvatsko Domobranstvo (Eng: Croatian Home Guard/Defence), and the Ustaška Vojnica (Eng: Militia) political-military organization, which was similar to the German Waffen SS formation. At this point, the NDH armored formation only consisted of a few FT and one R35 tank (all ex-Yugoslavian vehicles).
Unfortunately for the Croatians, the Germans only delivered promises with no real intention of actually supplying armored vehicles to them. However, after months of begging for such vehicles, the Germans finally gave in and delivered four obsolete Panzer I Ausf.A tanks to the NDH at the end of 1941 and the start of 1942.
Panzer I Brief History
The Panzer I Ausf.A was the first German mass-produced tank, entering service in the mid-1930s. This rather simple design was developed by Krupp in response to the German Army’s request for a cheap and mass-produced vehicle. Earlier German tank designs, while better armed, were unnecessarily complicated and not suited for large-scale production. The Panzer I Ausf.A was, on the other hand, only lightly protected and armed with two machine guns. It also had only two crew members, with the driver located in the hull and the commander /gunner seated in the turret. While of limited combat value, the Panzer I was an important stepping stone in German tank development, as it provided necessary experience for both the tank crews and the designers. Between 1934 and 1936, over 1,000 such tanks were built. Given the lack of anything better, they remained in use as frontline tanks up to 1941. Due to their obsolescence, the surviving vehicles were allocated to secondary roles, mostly being reused either as training or ammunition supply duties.
In NDH Service
By late 1941, when these vehicles began to arrive in the NDH, the Panzer I Ausf.A was a rare sight. Most vehicles were over 5 years old (depending on the year of production), mostly worn out, and allocated to other auxiliary tasks. It is not surprising that either the Germans only managed to find four fully operational vehicles, or that they were unwilling to give more than that. In either case, these were a welcome addition to the meager NDH armored vehicle arsenal. In NDH service, these were often referred to simply as ‘Krup’, the Croatian writing of the manufacturer’s name. In addition, these received new registration numbers ranging from 2501 to 2504. All four tanks were allocated to the Domobranstvo and were used to form a tank platoon. Interestingly, the Panzer I was extensively used for propaganda purposes during 1942. The German Panzer gray camouflage was left unchanged. On the superstructure sides, a large Croatian white and red chessboard was painted.
The first combat use of these four vehicles is unclear. There is an indication that one such vehicle saw action against the Partisan forces at Ozren in December 1941. On the 4th of December, this vehicle supported the NDH 4th Infantry Division. Due to a lack of coordination and poor planning, the vehicle was easily captured by the Partisans. While the tank was in working condition, none of the Partisans knew how to operate it, so they removed its two machine guns (which were reported to be of German origin) and sabotaged the tank. The mention of two machine guns being removed is a clear indication that this must have been a Panzer I. At that time, the NDH forces did not have any other armored vehicle that was of German origin. While the fate of its crew is unknown, the vehicle was recaptured by the NDH forces and possibly sent back to the rear in the hope of putting it back into action. If this was achieved is unspecified in the sources. During the Summer of 1942, at least two Panzer Is saw action against the Partisans in Bosnia. Unfortunately, a more precise combat record of these vehicles is not mentioned in the available sources.
By 1943, the Domobranstvo had only one armored unit, the Laka oklopna satnija (Eng. Light Armored Company). It was stationed at Daruvar and was part of the 1st Infantry (Mountain) Division. In its inventory, it had some 16 to 18 Polish TKS tankettes (supplied by the Germans the previous year) and an unknown number of Panzer Is. While there were plans to expand this unit’s strength, not much came of this. In May 1943, this unit was still reported to have had Panzer I tanks in its inventory. After May, the unit was moved to the capital, Zagreb, for recuperation and reforming. The fate of the Panzer Is after this point is unclear. They were either lost at some point in the later stages of the war or reused as training vehicles given the limited availability of spare parts.
Interestingly, at the end of September 1944, the Partisan forces in Slovenia had in their inventory one tank marked as Krup. It is unclear if this was a captured NDH Panzer I or a vehicle operated by the Germans, who also used this type of tank in Yugoslavia, albeit in limited numbers.
Conclusion
While obviously obsolete vehicles, the Panzer Is were probably some of the best-armored vehicles in NDH inventory (not including the single R35 tank) in the early stages of the war. The various tankettes that were in use by the NDH forces were more numerous, but they lacked a turret, which limited their combat effectiveness. In the end, despite their small numbers and general obsolescence, the Panzer I was surely a welcome addition to the NDH’s armored vehicle inventory.
Panzer I Ausf.A Specifications
Dimensions (L-W-H)
4.02 x 2.06 x 1.72 m
Weight
5.4 tonnes
Crew
2 (commander/gunner, driver)
Speed
max.: 37.5 km/h, roads: 20 km/h, cross-country: 12 km/h
Range
roads: 140 km, cross-country: 93 km
Armament
2x 7.92 mm MG 13/MG 13k
Armor
8-13 mm
Engine
Krupp M 305 4-cylinder air-cooled
Sources
B. B. Dimitrijević and D. Savić (2011) Oklopne Jedinice na Jugoslovenskom ratištu 1941-1945, Institut za savremenu istoriju, Beograd.
D. Predoević (2008) Oklopna vozila i oklopne postrojbe u drugom svjetskom ratu u Hrvatskoj, Digital Point Tiskara Armored units and vehicles in Croatia during WW II, part I, Allied armored vehicles, Digital Point Rijeka
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2002) Panzer Tracts No.1-1 Panzerkampfwagen I
S. J. Zaloga (2013) Tanks of Hitler’s Eastern Allies 1941-45, Osprey Publishing
Kingdom of Hungary (1942)
Heavy Tank – 22 Operated
Hungary, under the leadership of Admiral Miklós Horthy, aligned itself with Nazi Germany before the war and during the early stages of World War II. This alliance was partially motivated by Hungary’s territorial ambitions and a desire to regain lost territories. As such, Hungarian forces, including their meager armored units, were part of the Axis coalition that invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. As the invasion progressed, the Hungarian armored units suffered heavy losses and, by the end of the year, nearly all AFVs were lost. The Germans had to intervene in order to keep the Hungarians in the war. To somewhat rebuild the shattered Hungarian armored forces that would be needed in the 1942 offensive toward the Caucasus, the Germans provided them with over 100 tanks. These included 22 Panzer IV Ausf.Fs. In 1942, these were the best tanks that the Hungarian Army operated on this front. By the end of the year, due to heavy fighting, all would be lost.
History
Following the end of the First World War, Hungary was stripped of most of its territories. It was left a shattered country that began a slow path of rebuilding its economy and army. The Honvéd (Eng. Hungarian Army) was particularly keen to one day be able to take back some of its lost territories. But, for that, it would need to rebuild and rearm its military forces. Armored formations were also needed. Their development was slowed down by various factors, not to mention the fact that Hungary was actually prohibited by the Treaty of Trianon (signed on 4th June 1920) from developing and using tanks and other armored vehicles. Nevertheless, during the mid-1930s, they purchased over 100 Italian CV.33 fast tanks, known in Hungarian service as 35M Ansaldo. In addition, the Hungarians obtained a license from Sweden for the production of the L-60 light tank, which would be known in Hungary as the Toldi. From April 1940 to December 1942, 190 such vehicles were locally produced.
While the Hungarians were not eager to wage war with the Soviets, they nevertheless joined the Axis forces during Operation Barbarossa. The Hungarians officially declared war on the USSR on 27th June, after Soviet air raids into Hungary occurred the previous day. For the Invasion of the Soviet Union, the Hungarians could muster 81 Toldis and 60 35M Ansaldos. By the end of 1941, nearly all of these were lost either in combat or due to mechanical breakdowns.
Even at the end of 1941, the Hungarians fielded only light tanks, which were of little use against the newer Soviet tanks. To rebuild its shattered force, the Hungarian High Command tried to implement the ‘Huba II’ military plan. This plan involved the formation of two new units, the 1st and 2nd Armored Divisions.
Given the raging war in Europe, purchasing new equipment was impossible. To make matters even harder, the Hungarian High Command was hard-pressed by the Germans to send additional forces to the Eastern Front. Thus, the 2nd Army (with 250,000 men in total) was chosen to support the German operation with the aim of capturing the vital city of Stalingrad and the oil-rich Caucasus. This army consisted of nine light divisions supported by the 1st Armored Division. The major problem for the Hungarians was finding tanks to outfit this division. Despite German promises of modern equipment, the Hungarians were instead supplied with over 100 Panzer 38(t) (known in Hungarian service as the T-38) and 22 better-armed Panzer IV Ausf.F. In Hungarian service, the former was classified as a medium tank and the latter as a heavy tank.
A Brief Panzer IV History
After Germany’s defeat in the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles imposed strict limitations on the German military, including restrictions on the development of new weapons, like tanks. However, Germany secretly began developing tanks in violation of the treaty. In 1935, the Heereswaffenamt (Eng: Army Weapons Department) requested the development of specialized tanks, including the Begleitwagen (BW), designed for fire support roles.
The Begleitwagen evolved into the Panzer IV tank armed with a 7.5 cm gun. Production began in October 1937 with the Panzer IV Ausf.A, which served as a test bed to refine the design. Subsequent series were introduced with improvements. In April 1941, the last version with a short-barreled gun, the Panzer IV Ausf.F, was introduced to service. The Panzer IV Ausf.F production lasted from April 1941 to February 1942, and during this period, some 471 vehicles were built in total.
While the Panzer IV was modern, its short-barreled gun had limited anti-tank effectiveness due to its low velocity. After 1942, the Panzer IV was re-armed with longer guns, significantly improving its anti-tank capabilities. However, the short-barreled version continued to be used until the end of the war.
Forming the Hungarian 30th Tank Regiment
The formation of the Hungarian 1st Armored Division was done on a rather ad hoc basis. Any available mobile units were allocated to the formation of this division. While it was in short supply of equipment and weapons, it also lacked tanks. For this reason, in December of 1941, Germany sent a delegation to Hungary to discuss the situation regarding the acquisition of tanks and crew training. It was agreed that the Germans would sell tanks to Hungary. In addition, they would provide necessary crew training. At the start of 1942, the Honvéd dispatched a group of 40 officers and 144 men (drivers, radio operators, maintenance crew, etc.) to Germany. The nine-week course officially began on the 10th of January 1942. This course was carried out at the Wünsdorf military school. There, the Germans provided Panzer 38(t), Panzer IV, and even a few older Panzer I tanks. All these were used for training and familiarization with the new equipment. In addition, in Hungary, another training center was organized at Esztergom-Tábor. The promised vehicles finally began to arrive during February and March 1942. These were used to equip the 30th Tank Regiment, which was officially formed on the 8th of April 1942. While the Germans delivered these tanks, they were less generous in regard to spare parts delivery, which would come to haunt the unit later when it saw service on the Eastern Front.
Organization
Despite the influx of new equipment, it was only possible to form one tank regiment, which was divided into two battalions. In theory, this regiment was to have a third battalion, but there were never enough tanks, so it was never formed. The regiment’s command unit was supplied with three T-38s, two Toldis, and six command vehicles (possibly based on the Panzer I). The battalions were divided into one heavy (3rd and 6th) and two medium companies. The heavy company consisted of 11 Panzer IVs, 3 T-38s, and 1 Toldi. Each of the two medium companies was equipped with 20 T-38 tanks. Additional T-38 tanks were allocated to the battalion command staff and reserve platoon. In total, each battalion had in its inventory 52 T-38s, 11 Panzer IVs, and three Toldi tanks.
Additional elements equipped with Hungarian vehicles were attached to this division. This included the 1st Armored Reconnaissance Battalion with 14 Csaba armored cars and 17 Toldi tanks. The Toldi tanks were given auxiliary roles such as medical evacuation, command, or liaison. In addition, there was the 51st Tank Hunter Battalion, which was equipped with 18-19 Nimród anti-tank/aircraft vehicles.
Markings
In Hungarian service, the Panzer IV received three-digit identification numbers, which were painted on the turret’s rear side (on the storage box) and occasionally on the turret’s left and right sides. The first tank battalion (30/I) had numbers from 0 to 3. ‘0’ was used for the command company, while ‘1’ to ‘3’ were allocated to each of the three companies. The second digit also went from ‘0’ to ‘3’, with a similar purpose (instead of companies, it indicated the platoon). The last digit represented each vehicle’s individual number. The second battalion (30/II) used the same system but with the first number from 4 to 7.
On the rear side of the superstructure (engine compartment), the Hungarians added registration number plates. For the Panzer IV, these consisted of the number ‘1’ next to a capital ‘H’ (Honvéd) followed by the Hungarian flag (in the shape of a shield). Above them, a three-digit number (starting from 800) was added.
Regarding military markings, the Hungarians added their own variant of the Balkenkreuz which was usually painted on the superstructure sides. It consisted of a green central cross painted on a red background. The original German panzer gray paint was left unchanged.
In Hungarian Service
Elements of the Hungarian 2nd Army began to reach the Eastern Front in May 1942. Part of this Army also participated in the German Operation Blau (Eng. Operation Blue) and was tasked with defending over 200 km wide frontlines at the River Don in July 1942. Given the rather poor railway infrastructure in this part of the Soviet Union, the relocation of the 1st Armored Division took months. The transportation of tanks directly to the frontline was not possible. The Hungarians were forced to unload their tanks and drive over 300 km to finally reach their destination at the Uryw-Storozhevoye (Урыв-Сторожевое) area west of the river Don in early July. There, the Axis forces were already engaged with the Soviet 24th Tank Corps.
The first combat action of the 1st Armored Division against the Soviet western bridgeheads was generally successful. It began on the 18th of July with one Panzer IV commanded by Captain Laszlo Maklary destroying a T-34 tank. It is important to mention that the Panzer IV’s short-barrel gun was almost useless against the armor of the T-34. This engagement either took place at a close range or the Germans had provided the Hungarians with hollow charge rounds that could penetrate a T-34 armor, although the sources do not specify if this ammunition was actually given to the Hungarians. This kill and later successes against the T-34 suggested that this may have been the case. Regardless, by mid-day, the Hungarians managed to eliminate the Soviet forces. During this engagement, the Soviets lost 21 tanks, of which 12 fell victim to the Panzer IVs. Two more light tanks were destroyed by the Panzer IV during the Soviet retreat over the river Don. By the end of the day, the Hungarians were reported to have taken out 35 tanks. This number also included a few M3 Stuart light tanks which were captured. During this engagement, one Panzer IV commanded by Lance-Corporal Janos Roszik was credited with destroying four enemy tanks. The 1st Armored Division only had two damaged T-38 tanks. Unfortunately for the Hungarians, the Soviets made a night-time counterattack and managed to drive the Hungarians out, re-establishing their bridgehead. Hungarian attempts to push them back were unsuccessful.
The Soviets had established two well-defended positions west of River Don at the villages of Uryv and Korotoyak. This posed a serious threat to the Hungarians, who decided to deal with them. The 1st Armored Division was to play a crucial part in this operation. It mustered a force of 103 T-38, 20 Panzer IV, 12 Nimród, and 7 Toldi tanks. The offensive began on the 7th of August 1942. The advance was slowed down by the extensive Soviet defense line, artillery, and air support. Due to these obstacles, it was not possible to use a mass tank attack in one concentrated push. Instead, the Hungarians used their tanks to support the infantry. By 9th August, they managed to clean up many of the Soviet defensive positions, but suffered heavy losses in return. The 1st Armored Division had suffered the losses of 38 T-38, 2 Toldi, and 2 Panzer IV tanks, including nearly 400 men killed. The commander of the 2nd Battalion was also killed. The same day, Panzer IVs from the 1st Battalion were ordered to move to Uryv to counter-attack Soviet forces that were reported to have assembled there. This proved to be a false alarm and the Panzer IVs returned.
The following day, Hungarian tanks from the 2nd Battalion attacked the hill position held by the Soviets near Storozhevoye. Despite being supported by infantry, the Hungarians had to cancel the offensive. One Panzer IV was reported to have been damaged.
On the 13th of August, the 1st Armored Division attacked the Soviet positions at Korotoyak. By this time, the division strength was reduced to 44 T-38s, 4 Panzer IVs, and five Toldi tanks. During the fighting, the Hungarian tanks managed to destroy 10 Soviet tanks, the majority of them being M3 light tanks. One Panzer IV commanded by Lajos Hegedus managed to take out four M3 tanks. When his tank ran out of ammunition, Hegedus ordered the driver to drive into the rear for resupplying. Eventually, they hit a Soviet mine and the tank became immobilized. Ironically, one of the “destroyed” M3 tanks (taken out by the same Panzer IV) opened fire. The M3, while heavily damaged, had an operational gun, and the Soviets noticed this and prepared an ambush. After receiving several hits, Hegedus’ Panzer IV eventually exploded. The radio operator and the driver were killed, while the rest of the crew survived and escaped to friendly lines.
By the 18th, the intensity of the battle slowly died out due to losses sustained by both sides. The Hungarian 1st Armored Division had lost over 1700 men. In regard to armored strength, it only had 55 T-38 and 15 Panzer IV tanks combat-ready. This division was then pulled back for rest and recuperation. To help rebuild the Hungarian armored forces (yet again), the Germans supplied them with four Panzer IV Ausf.G tanks armed with the longer L/43 gun. By the end of August, the Hungarians managed to rebuild their tank pool to 22 Panzer IV (including long barrel versions), 85 T-38, and 5 Toldi tanks.
The 1st Armored Division was once again at the frontline at the start of September. Its task was to support the attack on the Uryv-Storozhevoye bridgehead. The Soviets, in the hope of shortening their line, focused on defending only this area and completely abandoned Korotoyak in the process. The Soviets fortified their lines with thousands of mines and dug in T-34 tanks. The Hungarian tanks attacked the Soviet positions on the 9th of September. The following day, Panzer IVs managed to destroy two T-34s and a more heavily protected KV-1 tank. Two of these were destroyed by Corporal Janos Roszik. Following that engagement, Corporal Janos Roszik’s Panzer IV tried to advance alone. The tank was spotted by a Soviet anti-tank crew. They soon fired their 7.62 cm gun, hitting the Panzer IV at close range. The round likely hit the Panzer’s ammunition storage, completely destroying the tank in the process. By the 11th of September, the Soviet defense was finally breached.
On the 12th, the Axis forces proceeded to attack the Soviet line near Storozhevoye. They succeeded in this and began to fortify their new line. The following day, the Soviets made a counterattack spearheaded by T-34 and KV-1 tanks and drove off the defending Germans. The Hungarian armor was sent to try to stop the Soviets. During the following engagement, the Hungarians suffered heavy losses, their tanks being almost useless against the armor of the KV-1. At nightfall, the Hungarian 1st Armored Division was left with 4 Panzer IVs and 22 T-38s. They managed to destroy eight Soviet tanks and damage two KV-1s. The battle lasted until 16th September and ended with a Soviet defeat. That day, they lost 22 tanks taken out by tank and anti-tank fire, mines, and German StuG IIIs. The 1st Armored Division was left with only two Panzer IV Ausf.F and 12 T-38s.
By October, an uneasy stalemate took hold, which the Hungarians used to reinforce its division with new tank crews. During the same month, an additional 6 Panzer IV Ausf.G and 10 Panzer III (due to slow crew training, these vehicles were operated by German crews) tanks were given to this unit. On the 19th of October, Hungarian Panzer IVs managed to destroy 4 additional Soviet tanks.
At the start of 1943, the Soviets made massive preparations to overwhelm the Axis defenses around Stalingrad, including the Hungarian forces. The 1st Armored Division, at that point, had 8 Panzer IV Ausf.F and 8 Ausf.G, 41 T–38, 9 Panzer III, 2 Toldi tanks, and 5 Marder II tank-destroyers which were temporarily given to them by the Germans. The attack began in mid-January and inflicted great losses on the defenders. On the 17th of January 1943, some 4 Panzer IV and 8 Panzer III tried to counterattack in the region of Dolschik-Ostrogosshk. The attack was eventually called back, but one Panzer IV had to be blown up when it broke down. Two more Panzer IVs were blown up when they ran out of fuel. By early February, what was left of the division managed to reach Krakow and was withdrawn from the frontlines.
According to P. Mujzer (Operational History of the Hungarian Armored Troops in World War II), the Division was left with only 9 T-38s, 1 Panzer IV Ausf.G, 2 Marders, 1 Nimród and a few Csaba armored cars. The same author in another book (Hungarian Arms And Armor of Wolrd War Two) mentioned that one Panzer IV Ausf.F survived the Soviet Winter Offensive of 1943. S. J. Zaloga (Tanks of Hitler’s Eastern Allies 1941-45), on the other hand, mentions that only 3 Toldis and 3 Nimróds survived 1942.
Conclusion
The Panzer IV Ausf.F was a huge boost to the Hungarian armored inventory, despite the rather limited number allocated by the Germans. It was the best protected and armed Hungarian tank at that point in the war. Despite having the short barrel gun, it played a crucial part in the fighting done by the Hungarians on the Eastern Front on many occasions. The crews of the Panzer IVs managed to destroy over a dozen or more Soviet tanks, including the dreaded T-34 and KV-1. However, the Panzer IVs were simply too few in number to have made any major impact on the war for the Hungarians.
Panzer IV Ausf.F in Hungarian Service Specifications
Dimensions (l-w-h)
5.92 x 2.88 x 2.68 m (19.4 x 9.44 x 8.79 ft)
Total weight, battle-ready
22.3 tonnes
Crew
5 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Radio Operator, and Driver)
Propulsion
Maybach HL 120 TR(M) 265 HP @ 2600 rpm
Speed (road/off-road)
42 km/h, 25 km/h (cross-country)
Range (road/off-road)
210 km, 130 km (cross-country)
Primary Armament
7.5 cm KwK L/24
Secondary Armament
Two 7.92 mm MG 34
Elevation
-10° to +20°
Turret Armor
Front 50 mm, sides 30 mm, rear 30, and top 8-10 mm
Hull Armor
Front 30-50 mm, sides 20-30 mm, rear 14.5-20 mm, and the top and bottom 10-11 mm.
Sources
P. Mujzer (2017) Operational History Of The Hungarian Armored Troops in World War II, Kagero
E. M. G. Martinez (2019) Images of War Hungarian Armored Fighting Vehicles, Pen & Sword
C. Bescze (2007) Magyar Steel Hungarian Armour in WW II, STRATUS.
B. Adam, E. Miklos, S. Gyula (2006) A Magyar Királyi Honvédség külföldi gyártású páncélos harcjárművei 1920-1945, Petit R
S. J. Zaloga (2913) Tanks Of Hitler’s Eastern Allies 1941-45 Osprey Publishing
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (1997) Panzer Tracts No.4 Panzerkampfwagen IV
German Reich (1942?)
Self-Propelled Rocket Launcher – 1 Prototype Built
Rockets used during the Second World War were notorious for their lack of accuracy. These were often fired in large salvos to saturate an area rather than target specific points with precision, while also having a pronounced psychological impact. This approach could indeed be effective when used in significant numbers, especially against infantry and soft targets. Rockets were also a cheaper alternative to artillery pieces. While the Katyusha rocket launchers are probably the best-known examples that came out of the war, the Germans also employed a series of different rocket designs. While these were mostly used in towed or static configurations, some found their way onto a number of vehicle types. In rare cases, tanks were used in this role. One such obscure prototype was developed by mounting a four-tube 28 cm rocket launcher on a modified Panzer IV chassis.
History
Germany began developing its rocket programs during the 1930s. These included a series of experimental designs, such as cheap rockets intended to provide a smokescreen for the advancing ground forces. These were issued to the so-called Nebeltruppen (Eng. Fog troops). The experience gained during the war led the Germans to develop rockets intended to destroy enemy positions. This would lead to the introduction of a series of different rocket designs ranging from 15 cm to 32 cm calibers.
The 15 cm Nebelwerfer (Eng. fog thrower) 41 and its larger cousin, the 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42, were early models that were mounted on the carriage of the PaK 36 anti-tank gun. These launchers were relatively mobile and cost-effective to produce, which made them suitable for various battlefield situations.
However, the Germans aimed to simplify the rocket design further while increasing destructive power, which led to the introduction of the 28/32 cm Nb.Wf.41 rockets. These larger rockets were more powerful but had limitations, including a relatively short range of 2 kilometers and the emission of significant exhaust smoke that could reveal the launcher’s position to the enemy. To address these issues and enhance tactical effectiveness, the idea of mounting these rocket launchers on vehicles, particularly tanks, was explored by the Germans during the war.
The concept of self-propelled rocket artillery was seen as advantageous due to the mobility and protection offered by tanks. Tanks equipped with rocket launchers could quickly reposition and respond to threats, making them valuable assets for dynamic battlefield situations, especially for highly mobile formations like Panzer Divisions.
Various experimental and improvised attempts were made by German engineers to mount rocket launchers on tanks such as the Panzer I, Panzer 38(t), and, eventually, the Panzer IV chassis. These efforts aimed to create a dedicated and effective rocket artillery vehicle.
Dedicated Design Based on the Panzer IV
Unfortunately, as this is a rather obscure project, the sources are completely silent about its overall history and construction. It is not known when it was built, who ordered it, or any other details of its development history. It is possible that the project was initiated sometime during the mid-war and was intended to be attached to Panzer Divisions.
There is only one known photograph of the vehicle that gives some clues about its construction. It was based on the Panzer IV Ausf.B or C version. The Panzer IV was a German tank design intended to provide firing power with its short 7.5 cm gun. The Ausf.B and C versions were further developments of the Ausf.A, the first version of the series built in limited numbers. It quickly showed a number of problems with the design and later versions resolved some of these encountered issues. These were the Ausf.B and C, which were visually identical vehicles. They received stronger engines, improved armor, and other changes. Production of the Panzer IV Ausf.B and C was carried out by Krupp-Grusonwerk. The Ausf.B was built in small numbers, with a total of 42 vehicles (chassis number 80201-80300) from May to October 1938. The production of the Ausf.C (chassis number 80301-80500) began in October 1938 and lasted until August 1939. The production run of this version was larger, consisting of 134 vehicles.
Both versions saw combat action starting in Poland in 1939. Despite small production numbers, some of these remained in use up to the end of the war. For example, during the Allied landing in Normandy in 1944, the 21st Panzer Division had in its inventory at least six such vehicles.
The Panzer IV Ausf.B and C had a completely flat front driver plate, distinguishing them from the earlier Ausf.A, which had a 3-part front plate. This change in design made the front of the tank visually different and easier to identify. The Ausf.B and C versions lacked the machine gun ball mount that was present in the earlier Ausf.A. Instead of the machine gun ball mount, they featured a simpler firing port and a radio operator vision port. This change in configuration was an attempt to improve the design but was ultimately abandoned in later versions.
In addition, authors P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle, in their Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two book, mention that it was based on the Ausf.C. Given their identical visual appearance, it is hard to say if it was a B or C, but given the larger production numbers, the Ausf.C does indeed seem more likely.
Name
The precise designation of this vehicle is unknown. Author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata-Nemačka) mentions it as the Raketenwerfer auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV (Eng. Rocket launcher based on Panzer IV chassis). For the sake of simplicity, this article will refer to the vehicle as the Raketenwerfer auf Panzer IV.
Design
Chassis
The overall Panzer IV Ausf.B/C chassis and its components were likely left unchanged. Given that the rocket did not produce a lot of recoil, there was no need to introduce structural changes, such as strengthening the suspension.
Superstructure
The Panzer IV used for this project had received additional external armor that was bolted to the front superstructure side. The early Panzer IV versions (and all other early German tanks, for that matter) were rather poorly protected. In an attempt to increase their survivability on the frontlines, additional armor plates were added.
It is unclear if this armor was added specifically for this modification. It is highly likely that this was unrelated to this design. It was common practice to add the additional armor plates on most Panzer IVs that were returned from the frontlines for major repairs or overhauls. Such vehicles were often given to training units. It is possible that this particular Panzer IV was one of these vehicles just reused for the rocket project. Besides this change, it is unknown if any other structural modifications were made to the overall superstructure design.
Turret
The original Panzer IV turret was replaced with a completely new design. It consisted of two parts. The front crew compartment and the rear rocket pod. The crew compartment had a box-like shape. It appears to have been fully enclosed, with a hatch located on the left side. It is likely that there was another hatch located on the opposite side. The hatch itself was taken from a Panzer IV, with the difference that it opened to the rear. This arrangement offered a chance of a ricochet entering the crew compartment when the hatch was open. It is possible that it was intentionally installed to prevent rocket backflash from entering the crew compartment in case the crew forgot to close it.
While the view of this turret is rather poor, it appears that a machine gun ball mount was placed on this turret. In addition, there would be a need for an observation port. The gunner would use it to find the target. It is unknown if any hatch was added on top.
The rear part of this turret was used to store the box-shaped rocket pod. It was fully protected and hydraulically raised to engage the enemy positions. When on the move, it was simply lowered down. The turret could possibly have been able to fully rotate. While this new turret was built to fit inside the original Panzer IV turret ring, the upper parts of it seem to have been enlarged to use most of the upper superstructure space.
Armament
The limited available sources on this vehicle mention that its armament consisted of four horizontally placed 28 cm rockets. Each rocket was 120 cm long and weighed approximately 83 kg. These rockets had a limited effective range of just over 2 km and compensated for their poor ballistic shape with a large 36 kg incendiary oil or explosive warhead.
After firing all the rockets, the tank would need to return to the rear for reloading, a process that would likely be difficult and time-consuming due to the weight of the rockets and high mounting. Firing the rockets was possibly done when the turret was turned sideways to avoid damage to the engine compartment from the rocket’s backflash, which could, in the worst-case scenario, lead to a fire.
The Raketenwerfer auf Panzer IV lacked the typical superstructure-mounted machine gun ball mount, instead featuring a small firing port for the crew to use their own personal weapons. Inside the new turret, there might have been a machine gun ball mount added, possibly equipped with a 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun, although specific details about the ammunition load for the machine gun are unknown.
Armor
Both the Panzer IV Ausf.B and C had thin armor protection. The frontal armor thickness ranged between 20 to 30 mm. With the installation of additional armor plates, the front protection was increased to 60 mm. The side and rear were only 14.5 mm thick.
The armor thickness of the new turret is unknown. It is likely that it was only lightly protected. In addition, given its experimental nature, the turret may have been built using soft steel not suited for real combat operations.
Crew
The number of crewmen for this vehicle is unknown. It can be assumed that the crew would have consisted of at least four crew members. The driver and the radio operator would be seated inside the hull. A gunner and possibly a commander would be located inside the turret. Of course, due to a lack of sources, this is speculation at best.
Fate
While this vehicle was tested, its performance during these trials has not been found and is therefore unknown. No production order was ever given. It is possible that some mechanical issue with the whole design was found. The small payload of only four rockets may also have been deemed insufficient. On the other hand, the whole design may have also been a success, but the final production order was not given, as the Germans desperately needed Panzer IV in their original tank configuration and could not spare any chassis for this project. It is also possible that, if it entered production, later Panzer IV chassis would have been reused for this modification.
The final fate of this vehicle is unknown. There is a possibility that the hull was captured by the Allies in 1945. A similar Panzer IV Ausf.B or C in quite a poor shape was found by the advancing Allies during the final days of Nazi Germany. The vehicle itself was missing many components, such as tracks and the front drive sprocket. More importantly, it had no turret. There is a chance that, after the cancellation of the Panzer IV Raketenwerfer project, the turret was removed and the vehicle was given back to training units. Once again, this is speculation at best, as it simply could be another completely unrelated Panzer IV.
The role that the Raketenwerfer auf Panzer IV was meant to carry out was taken over by a Sd.Kfz.251 variant is generally known as the Stuka zu Fuß (English: Stuka on Foot). It was armed with six rockets, with three placed on each side of its superstructure. Thanks to its armor and mobility, it was generally an effective vehicle and saw service up to the end of the war.
Conclusion
None of the warring parties employed tank-based self-propelled rocket launchers in any significant number, possibly with the exception of the American T34 Calliope. Most preferred to use simpler and cheaper trucks or other wheeled vehicles. The Raketenwerfer auf Panzer IV seemed like an ideal self-propelled rocket launcher for this short-range rocket launcher, having good mobility and armor. Given the lack of sources on that matter, it will never be known precisely what led to its cancellation.
Raketenwerfer auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV Technical specifications
German Reich (1944)
Armored Recovery Vehicle – 21 To 36 Built
Armored vehicles, such as tanks, are designed to withstand enemy fire to a certain extent due to their protection and robust construction. While they can be damaged by enemy hits, this does not always result in complete destruction. Many times, the damage only affects some components or systems, rendering the vehicle temporarily inoperable or immobilized. Such vehicles can be saved from total destruction or at least prevented from being captured by the enemy. This was and still is the job of specialized armored recovery vehicles. During the Second World War, the Germans employed various vehicles for this purpose, and one of them, the Bergepanzer IV, was based on the Panzer IV chassis. This version was built in limited numbers toward the end of the war.
The Panzer IV as a Recovery tank
It is somewhat ironic that an army that heavily centered its offensive capabilities around tanks lacked a dedicated vehicle designed specifically to recover them in case of damage or bogging down. The lack of proper recovery vehicles was a notable issue for the Germans during the war, and it had implications on their ability to recover and repair damaged tanks in the field. The Sd.kfz.9 half-tracks, while useful for some tanks, proved inadequate for the heavier Tiger and Panther tanks, and could not be used in combat situations or under any fire. The lack of proper armor protection for the crew of these recovery vehicles made them vulnerable, limiting their effectiveness. In addition, they lacked the rough terrain mobility that fully tracked vehicles had.
To address this issue, the Germans eventually recognized the need for fully protected recovery vehicles based on tank chassis, which could provide better protection for the crews during recovery operations, even in combat zones. However, due to the demands of the war and the strain on industrial capabilities, the Germans could not spare tanks for this specific purpose in the early stages of the conflict. As the war progressed, especially after 1943, it became evident that dedicated recovery tank designs were necessary. There were two recovery tank designs based on the Panzer III and Panther chassis that were built in some numbers. In addition, there was also a modified Jagdpanzer 38(t) version which was also used in this role.
The decision to convert the Panzer IV chassis for this purpose was made in 1944, during a time when the German military was under tremendous pressure and needed more tanks and anti-tank vehicles. The vehicle was designated as Bergepanzerwagen (Eng. Tank recovery vehicle) IV, but was generally referred to simply as Bergepanzer IV.
However, given the urgent demand for combat-ready vehicles, the conversion and production of the Bergepanzer IV were given relatively low priority. As a result, the number of Bergepanzer IVs produced was limited, making this modification quite rare. Due to the limited production and the chaotic nature of the latter stages of the war, information on the Bergepanzer IV is scarce, and not much is mentioned in the sources about their development history.
Production
In contrast to other Bergepanzers built on the Panzer III and Panther chassis, of which over 500 were built, the Bergepanzer IV’s production was quite limited. How many vehicles were actually completed slightly differs between sources. This discrepancy in the sources clearly shows us how little is actually known about these vehicles
T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.16 Bergepanzerwagen) mentioned 21 vehicles being completed from October 1944 up to March 1945
Walter J. Spielberger (Panzer IV and its Variants) gives a number of 36 vehicles being built.
T. Jones (The Panzer IV Hitler’s Rock) mentions that the 36 vehicles were built during the period of October to December 1944.
It is important to note that these were not new chassis but were instead converted from Panzer IV Ausf.F to J damaged tanks that were returned from the frontlines. It is also possible the German units on the frontlines made their own ad hoc Bergepanzers based on the Panzer IV.
Given their scarcity, there are no photos of these vehicles. To complicate matters further, identification of these vehicles is not always possible, as the Germans also employed a limited number of Munitionspanzer (Eng. ammunition supply tanks) based on the Panzer IV, and the two versions were visually quite similar.
Design
Chassis
The whole Panzer IV chassis and hull design were mostly unchanged. The front part of the hull housed the transmission, followed by the crew compartment and the engine. One small change was adding a vertical towing coupling to the rear of the hull. It appears that the Germans initially planned to install a winch coupled with a modified transmission to provide power, but this was never done on the Bergepanzer IV. The lack of such equipment severely hindered its effectiveness in the recovery of damaged vehicles.
The suspension was also unchanged. It consisted of eight small double wheels placed on each side, suspended in pairs, and placed on four bogie assemblies. The small road wheels were suspended by leaf-spring units. There were also three to four return rollers (depending on the hull version) on each side. Finally, the drive sprocket was at the front and the idler at the rear.
Superstructure
The superstructure design was also left unchanged. However, given its specialized role, some extra equipment was added. The original turret of the vehicle was not required, so it was removed. The turret opening was covered by a large round-shaped wooden cover. It consisted of wooden planks held together by a steel frame. To provide easy access to the vehicle’s interior, a hatch was added on the right side of the wooden cover. This allowed the crew to enter the storage area within the central part of the superstructure.
On the right side of the superstructure, brackets that held a long wooden beam were added. On the opposite side of the superstructure, a folding 2-tonne jib-boom crane was installed. To assemble it, there were three connection points known as Piltze (Eng. Mushrooms) welded to the superstructure’s top. This feature was actually present on a number of vehicles produced near the end of the war. The idea behind it was that ordinary vehicles (for example, the Jagdpanzer IV or StuG IV) could be used as auxiliary repair vehicles when the engine or other heavier parts needed to be removed for replacement or repair.
Engine
The Bergepanzer IV was powered by a Maybach HL 120 TRM 265 hp@2,600 rpm engine. By removing the turret, armament, and ammunition, and reducing the crew’s size, the weight of the Bergepanzer IV was reduced by approximately five tonnes compared to the standard Panzer IV Ausf.H and J tanks (from 25 to 20 tonnes). The weight reduction allowed the Bergepanzer IV to achieve a maximum speed of 42 km/h, which was slightly higher than the standard Panzer IV’s top speed of 38 km/h.
Regarding its operational range, the Bergepanzer IV could travel up to 210 km on good roads and approximately 130 km off-road. However, it is worth noting that vehicles based on the Panzer IV Ausf.J’s chassis likely had an extended operational range of up to 320 km due to their larger fuel load capacity. This extended range would have provided more flexibility and endurance during recovery and support missions.
Armor
Depending on the Panzer IV chassis used for this modification, the frontal armor thickness ranged between 50 to 80 mm. The side armor was 30 mm, the rear 20 mm, and the top only 11 mm thick.
Armament
The armament of this vehicle consisted of a single MG 34 machine gun. Its original position on the right side of the front superstructure remained unchanged. In contrast to ordinary tanks, its ammunition load was reduced to 600 rounds. In addition, the crews had a 9 mm MP 40 submachine gun for close protection.
Crew
The crew of this vehicle consisted only of two, a commander and a driver. The commander, who also operated the machine gun, was seated on the right side of the hull. This was originally the position of the radio operator. Opposite him was the driver. With only two crew members present, it can be inferred that the crew of the bogged-down or damaged tank (if present at the moment of recovery) would help during the recovery process.
Recovery Operation
As it did not have a winch, the Bergepanzer IV crew was forced to improvise. What they did was remove the other track links and attach a wire rope to the drive sprocket. Then connect this wire to the vehicle that needs to be recovered. The drive sprocket would be then activated which in turn would pull the wire around it. This would be usually enough to pull up the damaged (or bog down) vehicle. In order to provide good stability the Bergepanzer IV had to be anchored. This was usually done either by connecting it to another tank or to a sufficiently strong object such as a large tree or building. This was far from a perfect solution but was nevertheless an effective method to remove any damaged vehicle.
In Service
Not much is known about the service life of these rare armored recovery vehicles. Given their late introduction to service near the end of 1944, this should not be surprising. By mid-January 1945, only five vehicles were reported to have been issued to frontline units. Four vehicles were distributed to the following units: the 11th Infantry Division (in Kourland), the 2nd SS Panzer Division “Das Reich” (fighting in the Ardennes and Hungary), the 212th Volksgrenadier Division (in Western Germany), and the 510th Anti-tank Battalion. At least one more vehicle was to be allocated to the 276th Volksgrenadier Division. If it ever reached its designated unit is unclear. The remaining vehicles were at some unspecified point, having been allocated to other frontline or training units. Given that, by 1945, the Germans were basically retreating on all fronts, coupled with a chronic lack of fuel, recovery operations were probably rare.
Conclusion
The Bergepanzer IV was essentially a crude attempt to build a recovery vehicle. It lacked proper towing equipment to be really effective in its role. In addition, it was introduced too late and in too few numbers to have any meaningful impact on the war. Given the general lack of information in the sources, it is not known how it performed on the frontlines.
German Reich (1935)
Medium Support Tank – 1 Mild-Steel Chassis Built + 1 Wooden Mock-Up
During the 1930s, the German Army wanted to introduce a new tank design to deal with fortified enemy positions. Two firms were contracted to develop and build a prototype, namely Krupp and Rheinmetall. While Krupp’s vehicle would serve as the basis of the later Panzer IV series, Rheinmetall’s version would not be so lucky. Whilst one prototype chassis was completed and tested by the German Army, it would ultimately be rejected.
Concept of a Support Tank
Following Germany’s defeat in the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles imposed severe restrictions on the size and capabilities of the German military, including limitations on the development of new weapons, such as tanks. Despite these restrictions, the German military began secretly developing tanks in violation of the Treaty. However, these efforts were initially limited due to a lack of funding and industrial capabilities. Additionally, tanks were a new concept at the time, and there was a lack of consensus on the best way to develop and employ them in combat. Nevertheless, German engineers and military leaders continued to work on them. In the mid-1930s, the Heereswaffenamt (HWa) (Eng. Army Weapons Department) issued a request for the development of two new types of tanks designed to fulfill specialized combat roles.
The first one was the Zugführerwagen or ZW (Eng. platoon commander’s vehicle). This vehicle, armed with a 3.7 cm KwK (short for ‘Kampfwagenkanone’, which can be translated as ‘combat vehicle cannon’ or, more simply, as ‘tank gun’) L/45 gun, was intended to spearhead an attack by German armored formations and deal with enemy armor. It would eventually evolve into the Panzer III series.
The second, known as the Begleitwagen BW (Eng: Escort vehicle), was intended as a fire support vehicle meant for the Panzer Regiments. Its purpose was to deal with enemy fortified positions, anti-tank and artillery emplacements, and similar targets by firing high-explosive ammunition. But before such a vehicle could be designed, the Germans had to resolve a few issues encountered during the testing of previous tank designs. In addition, a decision had to be made regarding the armament for this vehicle.
The new BW was also developed to act as a temporary substitute for self-propelled artillery, which the Germans lacked at that time.
In order to give the newly created Panzer divisions greater offensive capabilities, an artillery regiment was attached to them. This allowed the divisions to have their own dedicated artillery support to provide firepower against fortified enemy positions. Given that mobility was a key part of the Panzer division concept, these had to be mobile. To obtain the required mobility, the German forces employed half-tracks to transport and support the artillery guns, but they still needed time to properly set up for combat. Increasing the mobility of these guns while offering some level of protection could only be achieved in the form of self-propelled artillery. Even before the war, German Army officials were aware that such a vehicle was desirable. However, given the limitations of the German industry at that time, this was only a pipe dream.
Instead, BW tanks were to be used in this role too. For this, they would need a powerful gun. The 3.7 cm gun lacked sufficient destructive firepower. Another solution was to use a larger 7.5 cm caliber gun. Experience gained from the previous war showed that the smallest effective caliber for dealing with entrenched enemy positions was the 7.5 cm gun. But before a final decision was made, the German Army officials wanted to test the installation of an even larger caliber. In 1935, Krupp was instructed by Wa Prw 6 (the German Army’s Ordnance Department office responsible for designing tanks and other motorized vehicles, later renamed to Wa Prüf 6) to build a Panzer IV turret armed with a 10.5 cm L/16 gun.
The 10.5 cm gun was more powerful, but also heavier (plus the added weight of the larger rounds), requiring a stronger engine to compensate for the added weight. To ensure that the tank’s overall weight remained within project limits, the vehicle would have to have lighter armor. Consequently, the Germans determined that the 7.5 cm gun was a better solution, likely due to its more balanced weight and performance.
The next step would be solving the engine problem. Early German tank prototypes used adapted aircraft engines, which seemed cost-effective since no new development was required. However, these aircraft engines had a high torque and caused difficulties in the design of the drivetrain components. To handle the torque, the components needed to be robust and heavy, leading to increased weight in that area. Consequently, other components, such as armor, had to be made thinner to maintain weight limits. To address this issue, the Germans approached Maybach to develop a specialized engine designed specifically for tanks, which would likely offer better performance and reliability.
Lastly, the position of the rear drive sprocket was deemed ineffective because the tracks easily and too often fell off during testing. As a solution, the design was modified, and the drive sprocket was moved to the front, which improved track reliability and reduced the risk of the track falling off easily.
Rheinmetall BW
Once the overall design of the three components (armament, drive sprocket position, and engine) was determined, the German Army approached Rheinmetall and Krupp to request the design of a new 18-tonne tank. Rheinmetall was officially contracted in late February 1935 to provide a new chassis with a superstructure that incorporated a Maybach engine and a front-mounted drive sprocket. The design of the turret was to be handled separately, which was a common practice in early German tank development, with one company developing the chassis and another (often Krupp) designing the turret.
Before starting working on the BW project, Rheinmetall had fully designed (encompassing both the chassis and turret) the Neubaufahrzeug (Eng. new construction vehicle) or NbFz. Although the turret design would later be rejected, the chassis was considered adequate, and besides the mild-steel prototype, Rheinmetall built three additional chassis. Ultimately, the Germans quickly abandoned the concept of a multi-turret tank as they moved toward other tank designs and strategies.
Despite its cancellation, Rheinmetall engineers decided to reuse some of its components for the new BW project. This was a logical step to some extent, as it would speed up the development time and such components were already available. Unfortunately, the design history of this vehicle is quite poorly documented, with very little information available in the sources, other than the date the design was ordered.
Name
Initially, this project was designated as verbesserten Nb.Fz. (Eng. improved new construction vehicle). It would be changed to Begleitwagen or simply BW (sometimes written as B.W.). Both of these unusual designations were used intentionally to deceive the Allies (the WWI victors), as the Germans were still technically forbidden from developing such vehicles. Sometimes, it is wrongly designated as VK20.01(Rh). The real VK20.01 was another project initiated a few years after this project was officially ordered. For the sake of simplicity, this article will use the Rheinmetall BW designation.
Design
Chassis
The Rheinmetall BW chassis shared its general layout with other German tank designs of the time. The front part of the hull was dedicated to housing the transmission, followed by the crew compartment and the engine. This arrangement allowed for a fully enclosed front hull, providing protection to the crucial components located within.
However, in order to facilitate repairs and maintenance, two large hatches were positioned on the glacis to provide access to the transmission and steering systems. Additionally, there was a large plate bolted to the hull, likely serving as another inspection point for the transmission and a way to remove it for maintenance.
If this vehicle was introduced in this form, the inclusion of this large inspection plate and hatches could create potential weak points in the tank’s protection. This feature was common in early German tank designs, but it was later discarded in the development process. The decision to eliminate it was driven by the realization that it complicated production and created vulnerabilities in the tank’s armor. Overall, the inclusion of such inspection points and hatches in the early stages of tank development was a trade-off between the need for access to internal components for maintenance and the desire for enhanced protection. As tank design progressed, efforts were made to streamline production and improve armor protection, leading to the removal of unnecessary weak points.
Suspension
The Rheinmetall BW utilized coil spring suspension, which was mostly carried over from the NbFz. On each side, there were four two-wheel bogies placed on pivoting arms (instead of five used on NbFz). These were cushioned with vertical coil springs. As requested, the drive sprocket was moved to the front, and an idler was placed at the rear. Lastly, there were three return rollers. To prevent mud from falling into the road wheels and potentially clogging them, a deflector guard was installed on both hull sides.
The Rheinmetall BW’s adjustable rear idler underwent some changes during the testing of its working prototype. In the original configuration of the prototype, there was an armored cover for the rear idler. However, at some point during the testing phase, this feature was removed. Unfortunately, without more specific details or additional context, it is challenging to provide further information about the changes made to the design of the adjustable rear idler.
Engine
This vehicle was powered by a Maybach HL 100 TR 300 hp@ 3,000 rpm engine. With a weight of around 18 tonnes, the maximum speed was reported to be 35 km/h. Other than the maximum speed, the vehicle’s overall drive performance is unknown.
The engine compartment was protected by extended parts of the superstructure. Noticeable features were the two hatches located on the top and the large protective ventilation port located to the rear of the engine complement. The engine exhaust mufflers were initially placed on the engine sides. These would be later moved to the rear of the engine compartment.
Superstructure
Rheinmetall’s engineers chose to deviate from the traditional box-shaped superstructure design commonly used by German tank designs at that time. Instead, they opted for a unique design that featured a hexagon shape (excluding the opening left for the auxiliary turret) when viewed from above, created by arranging flat plates. This design included two bulges that extended over the side fenders and covered the entire upper hull of the vehicle. This superstructure also extended into the engine compartment.
On the right side of the front superstructure, there was a larger opening specifically designed for the auxiliary turret. On the opposite side, the driver compartment was located. The driver compartment was fully enclosed and equipped with two observation ports, one at the front and one on the left side, and a hatch mounted on top. It is worth noting that, since the development of this vehicle never progressed beyond the prototype stage, there were no armored covers installed on the driver observation ports, as seen in the available photographs.
It is uncertain whether an observation port was added to the right side of the driver compartment. If such a port existed, its field of vision would likely have been restricted by the position of the auxiliary hull turret, making it unlikely to be placed there.
Turrets
It appears that this prototype was never fitted with a working turret. There is a surviving photograph of the wooden mock-up which shows this vehicle being equipped with a turret similar, if not the same, as the later Panzer IV tanks. During testing, a round-shaped mock-up turret with three observation ports and a large opening to the rear was used. It was not a real turret and was used to simulate the weight of a fully functional turret.
Why Rheinmetall’s engineers included a secondary auxiliary turret is unclear. While the exact reasons behind this decision may not be explicitly documented, there are some speculations and observations that can shed light on this topic.
One possible reason is that they may have been influenced by their earlier NbFz tank, which featured two such turrets. These secondary turrets were designed to increase the vehicle’s field of fire and engage infantry, while the main turret focused on dealing with more substantial enemy threats. Although the Germans tested this concept, they ultimately abandoned it. It is worth noting that other European tank-building nations, such as the Soviet Union and the UK, utilized vehicles with secondary turrets in significant numbers.
Regarding the appearance of the secondary turret on the Rheinmetall BW, since there are no surviving photographs or detailed information available, it is purely speculative. Reusing components from the NbFz tank is a possibility, but without further evidence, it remains a hypothesis. These were similar in appearance to the turret used on the Panzer I, with some differences. The most obvious one was the use of only one machine gun. In addition, it employed a large angled machine gun mantlet not used on the Panzer I turret. They also had four observation ports. Lastly, one hatch acted as an entry point for the machine gun operator. It was protected by 13 mm of armor.
Armament
Based on the available information, the 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun was chosen as the main armament. Besides that, not much else is known about the armament. It is doubtful that the armament was ever tested with fully functioning capabilities. It is likely that the vehicle would have been equipped with additional machine guns for defensive purposes. One or two machine guns would have been mounted inside the auxiliary turret, providing a wide range of fire for the crew. One more machine gun would have been placed in a coaxial configuration with the main gun, allowing the gunner to fire it alongside the main gun.
Armor
Given that this project never went beyond the prototype stage, it was built using soft steel. Initially, it was planned for it to be protected with 13 to 20 mm of front armor. Besides that, nothing else is known about the armor thickness of the remaining components.
Crew
The vehicle would have featured a five-man crew, including a commander, gunner, loader, driver, and machine gun operator. The commander, gunner, and loader would have been positioned inside the turret, with the driver seated in the front of the hull and the machine gun operator in his sub turret.
Fate
Rheinmetall initially completed a wooden mock-up, which was then followed by a working prototype chassis in soft steel which was finalized by the end of 1935. While the working prototype chassis was presented to the German Army for testing and evaluation, there is no mention in surviving sources about what led the German Army to reject the vehicle. Several changes were made to the existing prototype vehicle during this time (such as the removal of the cover for the rear idler), implying that the German Army recommended changes during testing. However, without any surviving sources, all that is known is that Rheinmetall’s BW design was rejected in favor of Krupp’s design, which would evolve into the Panzer IV.
Conclusion
While it is not known for certain why the Rheinmetall BW was rejected, it can be theorized based on contemporary tank designs that did enter service that two main factors were disliked during testing. The first was the use of a suboptimal suspension system that was unlike anything else used by the German Army. This would likely have complicated maintenance on the vehicle were it to enter service. The second factor is the use of an auxiliary turret, which would have added unneeded complexity to the design and manufacturing process. In addition, such a turret might have limited the upgrade potential of the design should heavier or larger armament be required in the main turret, as was seen on later iterations of the Panzer IV.
German Reich (1939)
Heavy Tank – 4 Built + Components For 4 Additional Vehicles
Despite having a rather underdeveloped military industry that was barely providing enough tanks for the new Panzer Divisions, the Germans decided to begin developing a new heavy tank project in 1937. After a few years, the 30-tonne heavy VK30.01 would emerge. Despite the resources invested in its development and the production of components for eight vehicles, the project was eventually canceled in favor of the Tiger tank. Nonetheless, the VK30.01 was a vital stepping stone in the German heavy tank development program.
Start of the German Heavy Tank Projects
The history of German early heavy tank projects is, unfortunately, poorly documented. Finding reliable sources that talk about this topic in detail is difficult due to the destruction and loss of many original documents during the war.
The first notable German attempt to develop a heavy tank can be traced back to the K-Wagen project in 1917. The K-Wagen was envisioned as a massive breakthrough vehicle weighing approximately 120 tonnes. It was designed to be armed with four 77 mm guns and numerous machine guns. The project faced several challenges, including a late start, limited resources, and production capabilities. As a result, only two K-Wagen vehicles were partially completed before the end of the First World War.
After this war, the German industrial infrastructure was ravaged and completely worn out. Given the economic and infrastructural challenges, it would take a considerable amount of time before the Germans could even consider proposing and undertaking heavy tank development. Despite the difficulties, German officials wanted to participate in the emerging arms race. Germany, despite being limited by the Treaty of Versailles, began developing new designs in secrecy. These early designs were aimed at gaining valuable experience in tank design. To speed up development and to hide from the Allies (the WWI victors), the Germans decided to team up with another Interwar era pariah, the Soviet Union. The Soviets themselves were in a rather precarious situation regarding tank development, failing to achieve any noticeable success in this regard. Germany collaborated with the Soviet Union from 1927 to 1933. This partnership provided German engineers with valuable experience and knowledge in tank development. The cooperation between the two countries came to an end when the Nazi Party gained power in Germany, as they pursued their own military strategies and priorities.
Thanks to the rapid expansion of early Panzer divisions and increased investment in the army and industry, the staging ground for the creation of the first heavy tanks was prepared. The development of heavy tank concepts was initiated by the Heeres Waffenamt (Eng. German Army Weapons Agency) in 1935. The desire to build such a vehicle was driven by the felt need to counter the French tanks, particularly the formidable Char 2C and Char D1. The initial focus was on equipping the new heavy tank with a 7.5 cm gun capable of a high muzzle velocity, of around 650 m/s. The weight of the tank was also a critical consideration, as exceeding 30 tonnes would compromise mobility and create challenges during bridge crossings.
To balance weight and protection, initial calculations suggested an armor thickness of approximately 20 mm. However, this was deemed insufficient to withstand French 2.5 cm gunfire. Furthermore, achieving reasonable speed required a powerful engine. It was anticipated that Maybach, a German engine manufacturer, could develop a 600-hp engine to meet this requirement. Despite these plans, the German industry was not yet fully capable of producing such components. Nevertheless, the initial proposals provided a starting point for further development and served as a catalyst for progress in German heavy tank manufacturing.
In 1937, after discussions on the necessity of a new vehicle, Wa Prüf 6 (the German Army’s Ordnance Department office responsible for designing tanks and other motorized vehicles) instructed Henschel to develop a 30-tonne chassis for the tank. Given their experience, Krupp had been tasked with developing a suitable tank turret already in 1936, in anticipation of the tank project 1936. Given that high-velocity guns would not be available for years to come, the Germans decided to go with what they had available and reused the Panzer IV’s 7.5 cm L/24 gun. This was a short barrel gun with low velocity intended to deal with enemy-fortified positions.
The development of a suitable engine posed another problem for the project. Initially, calculations indicated that a 600 hp strong engine would provide sufficient power, equating to around 20 hp per tonne. However, Maybach was in the early stages of testing a 300 hp engine at that time. The development of a desired 600 hp engine would take years.
Due to the weight limitation of 30 tonnes, the armor thickness was limited to be 50 mm. Although relatively thin by later standards, this thickness was considered sufficient to protect against most anti-tank weapons prevalent during that pre-war era. Overall, the challenges faced in the early development of the heavy tank project included debates about the necessity of the vehicle, the need for suitable turrets and guns, engine development issues, and the requirement to balance armor protection within weight limitations.
The early heavy tank project work would evolve into the Durchbruchswagen (Eng. Breakthrough vehicle) or simply D.W. The project was poorly documented, and as a result, not much information is available about it. Henschel produced two chassis for the D.W., designated as D.W. I and D.W. II, which differed in some details. While the D.W. project was not adopted for mass production or operational use, it played a significant role in the development of future heavy tanks. It served as a crucial step in the advancement of German heavy tank design, providing valuable insights and lessons that influenced subsequent tank development in the country.
The VK30.01(H)
In September 1938, the German military, specifically the Heeres Waffenamt, issued a request to continue the development of a 30-tonne heavy tank. They were satisfied with the progress made on the heavy tank project and decided to expand and improve upon it. The previous tanks in the series, the D.W. I, and II, served as the basis for the new heavy tank project, known as VK30.01(H).
The VK30.01(H) inherited several components from its predecessors, including the armament, armor thickness, overall hull design, and internal layout. However, some new components were introduced, such as a new suspension system and a Maybach HL 116-type engine. The tank was designed with a single-piece hull. The weight limit for the tank remained at 30 tonnes. In terms of protection, the VK30.01(H) was designed with 50 mm of armor. During the initial stages of the project, there were discussions about the armament of the tank. Due to the weight limitations, there was no space to install stronger and heavier armament, so the tank was equipped with a short 7.5 cm gun.
In November 1939, representatives from Krupp and Wa Prüf 6 met to discuss the next steps for the project. They agreed that Krupp would provide one VK30.01 alte Konstruction (Eng. old construction) hull and three VK30.01 neue Konstruktion (Eng. New construction) hulls and superstructures. The older construction hull refers to the initial D.W. multi-part hull. It was scheduled to be completed by April 1940 and transported to Kummersdorf for armor penetration firing trials. However, due to production delays, the old hull was not finished until September 1940, when it was finally delivered for testing. The hull underwent a series of firing tests against a 37 mm anti-tank gun. The sources stated that the 50 mm armor provided protection from this caliber gun. However, they do not go into detail about at which distances or under which circumstances these firing trials were carried out. At shorter ranges, the 37 mm anti-tank gun was able to piece such a thick armor plate.
Name
This vehicle received the official designation Panzerkamfwagen VI (7.5 cm) in October 1940. Given its connection to its predecessor, it was also code-named D.W. However, the code name was later changed to VK30.01 (sometimes written as VK 3001). “VK” stands for Vollketten, which means “fully-tracked” in English. The number “30” represented its weight in metric tonnes, and the number “1” indicated that this was the first version of a 30-tonne tank from Henschel.
In order to distinguish it from another similar project that shared the same VK30.01 designation, it received the “H” suffix, indicating its developer, Henschel. The other project, VK30.01(P), was developed by Porsche and was a different design.
Production
Krupp was responsible for providing the hull, superstructure, and turret components, while Henschel was in charge of the final assembly. Initially, Krupp was supposed to provide components for three hulls and superstructures without the turrets. These three vehicles were intended for drive tests and were assembled by Henschel using weight ballast instead of the turret. The delivery schedule agreed upon mentioned one vehicle delivered by 15th March, another by 15th April, and the last one by 15th May 1940.
In January 1940, Krupp received a new order to produce components for a total of eight vehicles (including the three already ordered), expected to be delivered between July and October 1941. The contract for the delivery of the turret was signed in October 1940, with completion expected by January 1942.
However, in September 1940, Krupp was informed that, after completing the eight vehicles (chassis number 150411-150418) and conducting tests, the Army could not guarantee any further orders. This was due to indications that the VK30.01 project would be canceled. The Army deemed other Panzers already in production as more urgent, diverting available resources towards them.
The last fully completed hull arrived at Henschel in November 1941, while the last turret arrived in late January 1942. Due to workforce shortages at Henschel, there were concerns about delays in the final assembly. Consequently, Wa Prüf 6 instructed that only four vehicles would be fully built. Two were to be completed in March 1942, and the remaining two the following month.
The completion of the remaining four vehicles was planned for the future but never occurred due to various delays and the low priority of the project.
Design
Chassis
The VK30.01(H) chassis shared its overall layout with other German tank designs. The front part of the hull housed the transmission, followed by the crew compartment and the engine. The front hull, including the glacis plate, was designed to be heavily armored to protect the vital components and crew from enemy fire. It was fully enclosed, meaning there were no access hatches located on the glacis plate armor. This design feature helped enhance the protection of the tank’s front-facing components. However, to allow the crew to escape in case of emergencies, escape hatches were added on the hull sides, just behind the first set of return rollers.
Suspension
The VK30.01(H) utilized a torsion bar suspension system. This type of suspension was also employed by the D.W., but there were some notable differences between the two. The VK30.01(H) featured seven interleaving road wheels, which contributed to improved weight distribution and overall driving performance. This design choice, although somewhat complex, offered advantages in terms of the tank’s maneuverability and stability. To ensure effective shock dampening, shock absorbers were installed on the first two and the last two road wheels of the VK30.01(H). This helped to enhance the vehicle’s ride comfort and reduce vibrations caused by rough terrain.
Initially, the VK30.01(H) was equipped with road wheels having a diameter of 500 mm. However, in January 1940, these were replaced with larger wheels measuring 700 mm in diameter. The VK30.01(H) had a front drive sprocket and a rear idler. Additionally, it featured three return rollers, which were directly taken from the D.W..
As for the tracks themselves, the VK30.01(H) utilized tracks that were 520 mm wide. These tracks had a single centrally positioned guide, which helped maintain the track’s alignment and prevent excessive lateral movement.
Superstructure
The VK30.01(H)’s superstructure was square-shaped and fully enclosed, with mostly flat armored sides that were welded together and bolted down to the hull. The driver’s vision port was positioned on the left side of the front plate. While the sources do not mention it, this was likely the Fagrersehklappe 50-type protective cover, which was 50 mm thick, and was possibly taken from the Panzer IV Ausf.F tank. Another feature possibly taken from the Panzer IV was the machine gun ball mount. In this case, the Kugelblende 50 was also 50 mm thick. It was positioned opposite the driver’s vision port.
Surviving photographs indicate that not all vehicles were equipped with a machine gun ball mount or protective driver vision port. Instead, a simple round-shaped metal cover was added in place of the machine gun port on some vehicles, while the driver’s vision port was left open or covered with a glazed window. Given that only four vehicles were ever fully completed, the Germans likely did not bother adding such components to the remaining four incomplete vehicles.
While the superstructure usually only covered the front part of the tanks (such as on the Panzer III and IV), while the rear had a separate construction, on the VK30.01(H), the superstructure covered the engine compartment as well in one piece. On top of this compartment, two hatches were added for access to the engine. Further back, two smaller doors were added to provide the crew access to the fan drives. Some vehicles received protective air intake ports located on the engine side.
Engine
The VK30.01(H) was powered by a six-cylinder Maybach HL 116 300 hp@ 3,000 rpm engine. With a weight of 32 tonnes, the VK30.01(H) could reach a maximum speed of 35 km/h on good roads. Off-road performance is unfortunately unknown. The fuel load of 408 liters provided an operational range of around 150 km. The engine was cooled by two radiators with four fans.
During its development, there were various proposals for alternative engines. For example, HL 150 and HL 190 engines, with power outputs of 375 and 400 horsepower respectively, were among the proposed alternatives. However, it is unclear whether any of these engines were actually mounted in the vehicles that were built.
Similarly, different transmission units were also considered. The SSG 77 transmission, which was used on the Panzer III series but had proven to be problematic, and the SMG 90 transmission were among the options evaluated. Unfortunately, the information available does not indicate whether these alternative transmission units were ultimately used in any of the produced vehicles.
Turret
The VK30.01(H) turret was built using six welded angled plates. The front hexagonal-shaped armor plate housed the main armament with its curved gun mantlet. On the turret sides, small observation ports were installed. In May 1940, Wa Prüf 6 informed Krupp that the turret had to have a firing port placed to the rear. Krupp responded with the installation of small oval holes that were protected with an armored guard and a pivoting armor plate. Two such ports were added on the turret’s rear curved armor plate. The commander cupola was located on the turret top. In contrast to other German tanks, such as the Panzer III and IV, the VK30.01(H)’s commander’s cupola was much smaller in dimension. To provide the commander with a good view of the surroundings, a rotating ring with seven small periscopes was added.
Besides the command cupola, two turret crew hatches were added. Changing the position of the hatches from the side to the top made the construction of the VK30.01(H) turret much easier. In addition, it increased the protection level, as the two side hatches used on the Panzer III and IV presented a rather large weak spot. In addition, the Germans added one protective ventilation port and three observation periscopes on the top.
Armament
Due to weight limitations and nothing more capable being available at the time, the Germans decided to arm the VK30.01(H) with the 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun. It had a semi-automatic breech, which meant that, after firing, the spent cartridge would be self-ejected, thus increasing the overall firing rate. The 7.5 cm L/24 gun was primarily designed to engage fortified positions using high-explosive rounds. However, the Germans knew that their tanks armed with this gun could encounter enemy tanks. To counter them, an armor-piercing round with a muzzle velocity of 385 m/s was developed for it, which could pierce around 39 mm of 30° angled armor at a distance of 500 m.
The VK30.01(H)’s gun had an elevation of -10° to +20°. The turret could be rotated either manually or using an auxiliary engine. For engaging targets, a T.Z.F.9 gun sight was used by the gunner. It had a magnification of 2.5x and a 24° field of view. With it, enemy armor could be engaged at 1.2 km and fortifications up to 2 km (using high-explosive rounds). The ammunition load of the 7.5 cm gun ranged between 90 to 100 rounds.
Besides the main gun, the VK30.01(H) had at its disposal two 7.92 mm MG 34 machine guns for use against infantry. One machine gun was placed in a coaxial configuration with the main gun and was fired by the gunner. Another machine gun was positioned on the right side of the superstructure and was operated by the radio operator. It had an elevation of -10° to +20° and a traverse of 15° in either direction. The radio operator, who was responsible for firing this machine gun, used a K.Z.F.2 sight. It had a magnification of 1.8x and an 18° field of view. The total ammunition load for both machine guns was 4,350 rounds.
The main armament was effective in the early stages of the war. However, by 1941 standards, it was becoming obsolete, particularly in terms of its anti-tank capabilities. In October 1941, Wa Prüf 6 sent a request to Krupp to test the feasibility of installing a stronger armament on the VK30.01(H). One suggestion was to install a slightly longer 7.5 cm L/34.5 gun, but this idea was discarded because it would require extensive modifications to the turret.
Other options considered were the 5 cm L/50 and L/60 guns, but they were not adopted. Another option, the 75/55 mm tapered-bore gun known as Waffe 0725 was also quickly discarded, as the gun itself was never adopted for service.
In December 1941, a new proposal emerged, suggesting the installation of the newly developed 7.5 cm L/43 gun. Krupp informed Wa Prüf 6 that this installation would be possible but would require extensive modifications. However, in January, Wa Prüf 6 officially abandoned any real attempt to rearm the VK30.01(H).
Armor
This vehicle was well protected for early German standards. The lower hull front plate was 35 mm thick and placed at a 75° angle. The front hull plate was 50 mm at a 14° angle, while the glacis was 35 mm thick and placed at an 82° angle. The hull sides were 50 mm, the bottom 20 mm, and the rear between 35 to 50 mm thick.
The superstructure’s armored sides were made using a 50 mm thick armored plates. While the rear and side plates were upright, the front plate was placed at an angle of 9°. The top of the superstructure, including the engine compartment, was 25 mm thick.
The front turret armor sides, including the gun mantlet, were also 50 mm thick. The front armor was positioned at a 10°, sides at 15°, and rear at a 13° angle. The top turret armor was 15 mm thick. The small command cupola was protected with 50 mm of curved armor. In April 1941, Wa Prüf 6 sent a request to Krupp to use face-hardened armor plates. It is unclear if this was ever implemented on the VK30.01(H).
Crew
The VK30.01(H) had a crew of five, which included the commander, gunner, and loader, who were positioned in the turret, and the driver and radio operator in the hull. The driver was seated on the left side of the front hull. Opposite him sat the radio operator. The gunner, as on most German tanks, was positioned to the left of the main armament. The loader was right next to him. Lastly, the commander was positioned under the command cupola.
The Fate of the Project
While the construction of the eight ordered vehicles was underway, the rapid developments on the Eastern Front during 1941 led to a drastic change of priorities. The Soviet tanks proved to be superior to German designs. The Germans recognized the need to counter the Soviet tanks and responded by introducing improved tanks and self-propelled tank hunters. In 1942, the decision to prioritize the Tiger heavy tank project led to the termination of all other heavy tank projects. Despite having the necessary components to complete all 8 vehicles, Henschel was told that only four vehicles would be needed. These four vehicles were completed and used for training. As for the remaining four VK30.01(H) hulls, they were repurposed for other purposes. The specific modifications and test purposes varied depending on the needs and objectives of the German military at that time.
In Combat
No fully completed VK30.01(H) would ever see combat. Technically speaking, some of their components would see the action, but not as part of the tank.
Static Defence Points
Some of the VK30.01(H) turrets were repurposed and reused as static emplacement bunkers. The concept of using the turrets in such a role was first mentioned in the early drawings of the Atlantic Wall in 1942. The Atlantic Wall was a series of fortifications constructed by Germans along the coast of Western Europe.
It was not until 1944 that the first such emplacement was constructed. On 11th February, six turrets were in the process of being modified by Krupp for this role. The 7.5 cm recoil guard was reinforced. In addition, small metal tubes were welded on the turret sides. These served as connection points when camouflage nets were used.
In this new configuration, the turret was fully traversable and had an elevation range of -10 to +20 degrees. The emplacements were stocked with approximately 168 rounds for the main gun and 21,000 rounds for the auxiliary machine gun.
Four of these modified turrets were placed on the Atlantic Wall, while the remaining two were used on the Siegfried Line, another German defense. It is unclear from the sources whether these emplacements saw actual combat action. However, it is highly possible that the crews operating some of these turrets fired rounds at the enemy. At least two of these turrets were captured intact by the Allies.
12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/61
When the Germans encountered the T-34 and the KV Soviet tanks, they had few weapons that could deal with these new threats. The 8.8 cm Flak anti-aircraft guns could effectively destroy these Soviet tanks at long distances. However, this was not the largest anti-aircraft gun that the Germans had in their inventory. The 12.8 cm Flak 40 was another weapon that was slowly entering production as the war progressed. Thanks to its large rounds, long barrel, and high velocity, it had huge potential as an anti-tank weapon. Moving such a huge weapon was no easy task. In 1941, an idea was slowly forming of mounting this gun on a self-propelled chassis. The chosen chassis had to be sufficiently robust to resist the strong recoil force and to cope with its weight. As there were a few VK30.01(H) chassis available, the Germans decided to construct two test vehicles. Both would see action on the Eastern Front during 1942 and 1943. While both would be lost, they proved to be potent anti-tank weapons, with one of them alone destroying 22 Soviet tanks. Given the urgency of the Tiger heavy tank projects, no more modifications were ordered. One of the two vehicles employed on the Eastern Front was captured by the Soviets near Stalingrad, after the German defeat. It can be now seen now at the Russian Military Museum at Kubinka. It represents the only known VK30.01(H) component that has survived the war.
VK30.01(H) Trench Digging Modification
One or more VK30.01(H) vehicles were modified in order to test various trench digging equipment. Such tests were carried out at the start of 1944. The whole project appears to not have gone beyond the prototype stage, as no such vehicle was issued for troop use. The victorious Allies managed to get their hand on one such modified vehicle. The final fate of that particular vehicle is unknown.
Fate
While the VK30.01(H) did not enter mass production, components for eight vehicles were produced. Out of these eight, four were assembled and used as training vehicles. Their exact fates are uncertain. Two more of the vehicles were modified for an anti-tank project. One complete vehicle and one trench-digging modification were captured by the Allies in 1945. The fate of these two captured vehicles beyond that point is unknown, but they do not seem to have survived to this day.
The remaining four vehicles were likely stored somewhere in Germany and captured by the Allies towards the end of the war. However, as none of these vehicles have survived, it is possible that they were scrapped or destroyed. According to some internet websites, one VK30.01(H) hull was present at the Sennelager ranges in Germany at least until 1980.
Conclusion
The VK30.01(H) was an early German attempt to develop a heavy tank during the Second World War. It incorporated some components from its predecessor, the D.W., and featured fairly good protection for the early stages of the war. However, by the time the VK30.01(H) was intended to enter production, around late 1942 or early 1943, its level of protection was deemed insufficient for a heavy tank. The armament also became mostly obsolete in effectively dealing with new enemy armor. The weight limitation of 30 tonnes imposed further constraints, preventing any attempts to install stronger armor and armament.
In contrast, the Panzer IV Ausf.G, which entered production in 1942, had similar or even better frontal armor protection, superior armament, and was much lighter. The VK30.01(H) did offer better side and rear protection, but the additional 10 tonnes made this advantage insignificant.
Due to a lack of information, it is unclear if there were any major mechanical issues with the VK30.01(H)’s design. While it was not adopted for service, the experience gained in building and designing this vehicle was a vital stepping stone in the development of the famous Tiger tank.
VK30.01(H) Technical specifications
Crew
5 (Commander, driver, gunner, loader, and radio operator)
During the Second World War, tank warfare played a significant role on various fronts, and all involved countries faced numerous challenges in terms of tank production and utilization. Hungary, being a smaller player, had limited industrial capacity and resources compared to major powers, like Germany or the Soviet Union. This led to their reliance on foreign exports and captured equipment to build and sustain their tank forces. The war with the Soviets especially took a great toll on the weak Hungarian tank formations. Still, war often presents opportunities to capture enemy equipment and the Hungarians occasionally did so. In 1942, they managed to acquire four American-supplied M3 light tanks. As these were captured in good condition, they were pressed into service by the Hungarian 1st Armored Division.
History
Following the end of the First World War, Hungary was stripped of most of its territories. It was a shattered country that began a slow path of rebuilding its economy and army. The Magyar Honvédség (Eng. Hungarian Army) was particularly keen to one day take back some of its lost territories. But, for that, it would need to rebuild and rearm its military forces. Armored formations were also needed. Their development was slowed down by various factors, not to mention the fact that Hungary was actually prohibited by the Treaty of Trianon (signed on 4th June 1920) from developing and using tanks and other armored vehicles. Nevertheless, during the mid-1930s, they purchased over 100 Italian CV.33 fast tanks, known in Hungarian service as 35M Ansaldo. In addition, the Hungarians obtained a license from Sweden for the production of the L-60 light tank, which would be known in Hungary as the Toldi. From April 1940 to December 1942, 190 such vehicles would be locally produced
While the Hungarians were not eager to wage war with the Soviets, they nevertheless joined the Axis forces during Operation Barbarossa. The Hungarians officially declared war on the USSR on 27th June, after Soviet air raids into Hungary occurred the previous day. For the Invasion of the Soviet Union, the Hungarians could muster 81 Toldis and 60 35M Ansaldos. By the end of 1941, nearly all of these were lost either in combat or due to mechanical breakdowns.
In 1942, the Honvéd tried to rebuild its shattered armored formations, but given the raging war in Europe, purchasing new equipment was impossible. To make matters even harder, the Hungarian High Command was hard-pressed by the Germans to send additional forces to the Eastern Front. Despite German promises of modern equipment, the Hungarians were instead supplied with 102-108 Panzer 38(t) (known in Hungarian service as the T-38) and 22 better-armed Panzer IV Ausf. F1. These vehicles were allocated to the 30th Tank Regiment from the 1st Armored Division, which was part of the Hungarian 2nd Army.
The majority of the Hungarian 2nd Army was engaged in the advance toward the city of Stalingrad, Operation Blau (Eng. Operation Blue), in May 1942. The 1st Armored Division’s initial position was in the Uryv-Pokrovka, Storozhevoye area, on the western banks of the Don River. Its first orders were to crush a Soviet bridgehead defended by the 130th Tank Brigade, which was part of the 14th Tank Corps. The Hungarian attack began on the 18th of July. During the following battle, the Hungarians managed to push back the Soviets, inflicting heavy losses on them. It is here that the Hungarians encountered the M3 light tank for the first time.
The M3 Light Tank
The M3 Light Tank was designed in 1940 to replace the older and outdated M2 tanks that were in service with the American armored forces. The M3 had many improvements over the M2, including thicker armor, stronger vertical volute spring suspension (VVSS) with a bigger rear idler wheel, increased speed, and improved firepower consisting of four 7.62 mm machine guns and a 3.7 cm cannon. The first series was powered by the gasoline-fueled (petrol) Continental seven-cylinder four-cycle radial aircraft engine. After 1942, a new four-stroke diesel radial Guiberson A-1020 engine was used. It had a crew of four (driver, driver assistant, gunner, and commander). From March 1941 to August 1942, some 5,811 tanks with petrol engines and 1,285 with diesel engines were built. The much improved M3A1 version was produced from April 1942 onwards. The first batches of M3A1 tanks were built using riveted armor, but later models had welded armor. Some changes were made, including an improved turret design (the small commander’s cupola was removed) with two hatches, a reduction of machine guns to three on later-built vehicles, and a turret basket.
Soon after the M3A1, a new model, the M3A3, was made due to the poorly designed frontal armor and small fuel capacity of the first versions. The front and side armor of the Stuart M3A3 were angled and the front hatches for the driver and his assistant were replaced by new overhead ones. Due to the extra internal space that the Stuart M3A3 now had, it was possible to increase the fuel capacity. This version was produced until August 1943, with a total of 3,427 vehicles being built.
The M3 series saw extensive operational service throughout the war on many different fronts. The USA also supplied the Stuart series to other nations through Lend-Lease, including the British Empire, the USSR, Brazil, China, France, the Netherlands, and many other Latin American nations.
M3 Light Tanks in The East
The Soviet Union was completely unprepared for the Axis invasion in 1941. While its armies managed to stop the enemy near Moscow and stabilize the frontline by the end of 1942, they did so at a huge cost in men and materials. Prior to the war, the Soviets had the largest tank forces in the world, with thousands upon thousands of tanks of various types. By the end of 1941, these had been largely lost and the Soviets were in desperate need of more tanks. Luckily for them, the Western Allies agreed to help the Soviets by sending large quantities of military aid, including various types of tanks. One of the first shipments, including M3 light tanks, reached the Soviet port of Murmansk in late December 1941. According to S.J. Zaloga (Soviet Lend-Lease Tanks Of World War II), some 1,232 M3 light tanks reached the Soviet Union during the war.
In Hungarian Service
The first combat action of the 1st Armored Division against the Soviet western Don bank bridgeheads was generally successful for the Hungarians. Despite the fact that the core firepower of this unit was made up of Panzer 38(t) tanks, the few Panzer IVs were more than welcome additions. Together with other Hungarian armored vehicles, anti-tank guns, hand grenades, and magnetic mines, they managed to take out 35 Soviet tanks. Not all of these vehicles were destroyed, as some were abandoned and captured intact. This included the new M3 light tank, with the Hungarians managing to capture 4 working vehicles.
When Hungary captured these M3 light tanks in 1942, they seized an opportunity to bolster their armored forces. While these tanks might not have been as powerful or heavily armored as some other tanks of the time, they still added valuable capabilities to the Hungarian 1st Armored Division. Three tanks were reused by the 1st Armored Division, while one vehicle was sent back to Hungary for testing and evaluation. The use of captured tanks is always limited by the availability of spare parts, ammunition, and technical knowledge, and the Hungarian M3s were not an exception.
Not much is known about their precise use by the Hungarians from this point on. At least one was allocated to the 1st Armored Signal Battalion of the division. The remaining M3s were used as recovery vehicles, towing damaged Panzer38(t) tanks. Due to a general lack of armored vehicles, the Hungarians could not spare any of their own tanks for this role. The captured M3s were a welcome addition to their meager arsenal. Whether they saw real combat action is unclear in the sources. Given that, in the surviving photographs, their armament seems functional, it is likely that, at some point, they saw some action if there was any ammunition available. Their final fate is unknown, but they were all likely lost by the end of 1942.
Conclusion
The few captured M3 Light Tanks did not give any great benefit to the Hungarian Army. While having a good general design, the M3 was becoming obsolete by 1942 standards. They were arguably better than the early Hungarian Toldis, but fewer in number and could not be used for long. Still, their role as recovery vehicles was invaluable given that the Hungarians lacked such vehicles. Every tank that was salvaged could be repaired and returned to action, and for a country that could not adequately cover its losses, this was very important. Overall, the use of captured equipment like the M3 light tanks by Hungary exemplifies the resourcefulness and adaptability that smaller nations had to demonstrate during the war in order to make the most of their limited capabilities in the face of larger and more industrially powerful adversaries.
Light Tank, M3 Specifications
Dimensions
Length 5.03 m, Width 2.52 m, Height 2.57 m
Total weight, battle ready
14.7 t
Crew
4 (driver, driver’s assistant, gunner and commander)
Propulsion
Continental W-670-9A
Speed
58 km/h, 32 km/h (cross-country)
Range
217 km
Armament
37 mm M5 gun, with up to five 7.62 mm machine guns
Armor
10-38 mm
Sources
P. Mujzer (2017) Hungarian Armored Forces in World War II, Kagero
C. Bescze (2007) Magyar Steel Hungarian Armour in WW II, STRATUS.
B. Adam, E. Miklos, S. Gyula (2006) A Magyar Királyi Honvédség külföldi gyártású páncélos harcjárművei 1920-1945, Petit R
S. J. Zaloga (1999) M3 and M5 Stuart Light Tank 1940-45, Osprey Publishing
S.J. Zaloga (2017) Soviet Lend-Lease Tanks Of World War II, Osprey Publishing
S. J. Zaloga (2913) Tanks Of Hitler’s Eastern Allies 1941-45, Osprey Publishing
P. Chamberlain and C. Ellis (1977) Axis Combat Vehicles, Arco Publishing Company
B. Adam, E. Miklos, S. Gyula (2006) A Magyar Királyi Honvédség külföldi gyártású páncélos harcjárművei 1920-1945, Petit Real
Republic of Poland (1939)
Light Tank – 45 To 53 Operated
Prior to the start of the Second World War, the Polish state was surrounded by two hostile countries, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Fearing a possible attack at some point, the Poles tried to create a strong armed force supported by armored units. They managed to produce some tank and tankette designs, but the Poles simply lacked the production capabilities to supply all their units. The rapid need for more armor forced them to try to acquire more tanks in France. While the Polish were interested in the more modern Somua S35, the French instead offered the Renault R35 tank. As this offer was better than nothing, the Polish delegation ordered 100 R35 tanks. Due to the outbreak of the war, less than 50 actually arrived in Poland. Those that had arrived just before the war were used to reinforce the 21st Tank Battalion.
History
The collapse of the Central Powers after their defeats during the First World War and that of the Russian Empire after the Revolutions meant that more and more peoples in Europe finally got their own independent state. Poland was one such nation that had been part of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia for centuries. In the general chaos that arose in Eastern Europe after the collapse of these monarchies, Poland’s existence was almost immediately threatened by foreign forces. In 1919, Poland would be invaded by the Bolsheviks in the Russo-Polish War that lasted up to 1920. During this period, Poland also had a war with the Ukrainian proto-states (November 1918 – July 1919), border clashes with the newly formed Czechoslovakia (January 1919) and Lithuania (1919-1920), involvement in the Latvian War of Independence (1919-1920), and some involvement in the Silesian Uprisings in Polish speaking parts of Germany.
Poland managed to survive this turbulent period in European history and, following the end of these wars, a period of relative peace came. The following years were not easy for Poland, as it did not have good relationships with its neighboring countries. The long years of the war left Poland’s economy in a poor state, with a limited industrial capacity. In addition, during the twenties, Poland also faced political instability, which would eventually lead to a military coup. Fearing the possibility of yet another war with its neighbors, Poland began to invest in developing its army, especially its armored formations.
Despite its undeveloped industry, Paland managed to locally build armored vehicles in some numbers. The most common were the small two-man TK-3 and its improved TKS cousin. As these were only armed with a machine gun (a few TKS were armed with a 2 cm cannon), their combat effectiveness left much to be desired. The Polish Army wanted something with greater tactical flexibility and better firepower. In the mid-1930s, a new vehicle would be introduced to service, namely the 7TP. This was a fairly modern tank by pre-war standards, being armed with a 37 mm gun. The problem was that Poland could never produce them fast enough and in sufficient numbers to arm all its armored units.
Expecting possible war with Germany, the Polish sent a delegation to France in the summer of 1939 in the hope of acquiring more tanks. There were better solutions than this, as it would introduce one or more tank types, requiring additional spare parts and ammunition and cause logistical problems. But, given the impending danger of war with Germany, more weapons were desperately needed. Following the negotiations with France, the Poles showed a desire to buy the more modern Somua S35 tank. France did not want to sell their new tanks, so a deal was made for the acquisition of 100 R35 tanks. In addition, three H35s were also purchased to be used for testing and evaluation.
The R35 Tank
The Renault R35 was a French light tank developed during the early 1930s to replace the aging FT tank. While the French Army tested other heavier designs (Renault D1 and D2), a simpler and cheaper vehicle was deemed more desirable. Work on this tank began in 1933 at the French Army’s request for a new light tank design. Renault was quick to respond and presented its prototype to the French Army which, after a series of modifications (among which was increasing the armor to 40 mm and improving the running gear), placed an order for over 1,600 tanks. While the R35 was well protected with 40 mm-thick cast armor, it was plagued with problems, such as weak firepower (it had the same 37 mm gun as the FT), just two crew members, a lack of radio, and slow speed. During its service life, a number of further modifications and tests were carried out in order to improve its firepower and mobility, all with limited success. It was the most numerous French tank during the German invasion of 1940. After the defeat of France, the Germans captured many R35 tanks and put them in use in various roles, either unchanged or modified for specific purposes, such as ammunition carriers or anti-tank vehicles. The R35 was also exported to Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Yugoslavia.
In Poland
The delivery was scheduled to be done by ships in two convoys. In July 1939, the first group of tanks arrived in Poland. The precise numbers of this first group vary depending on the sources used.
D. Porter (Western Allied Tanks 1939-1945) mentions a number of 53
K. Barbarski (Polish Armor 1939-1945) 50
J. Prenatt (Polish Armor of The Blitzkrieg) 49 (including three H35)
Regardless of the precise number, these were allocated to the 21st Batalion czołgów lekkich (Eng. Light Tank Battalion). This battalion was divided into three 13-vehicle strong companies. Each company was further divided into four platoons and a command squad. The platoons were provided with three R35 tanks. The company command unit was only equipped with one tank. In addition, there was a maintenance reserve company with 6 tanks. The combat strength of this battalion was 45 tanks and 475 men. It also included various auxiliary support vehicles (some of them French trucks, which possibly arrived with the shipment of tanks) necessary for providing supplies and spare parts, including at least 4 C7P tractors.
The tanks arrived just a month before the German invasion in September 1939. This meant that the crews had only a limited amount of time to familiarize themselves with their new tanks. The unit was far from fully formed, lacking many support vehicles and other materials. The second convoy left France in mid-September 1939 but was too late to reach Poland in time and had to turn back.
During the War
The R35, while generally considered an outdated design given its slow speed and low mobility, was still capable of fighting the German pre-war tank designs which were often poorly protected and armed. At the start of the war, the 21st Battalion was positioned close to the Romanian border. The Germans launched their attack on 1st September 1939. Despite Polish tenacious resistance, the Germans managed to break through the defensive lines, advancing toward the capital, Warsaw, encircling and destroying any opposing force.
The 21st Battalion was mobilized to support the 10th Cavalry Brigade. However, due to a breakdown of communications and transportation, this did not occur. The Soviet attack from the east crushed any Polish hope for holding on until the Allies attacked Germany from the west. Seeing that there was little hope in fighting on, the Poles tried to save their forces by escaping to neutral neighboring countries. The 21st Battalion crossed into Romania. It is not completely clear if these tanks ever saw combat action during the retreat. According to J. Prenatt (Polish Armor of The Blitzkrieg), the Polish left a small rearguard to defend their retreat. This force consisted of three R35 and the three H35s. They managed to repel a German attack and were even reported to have destroyed a Panzer II. The Soviets tried their luck too but were also repelled. Allegedly, one R35 was destroyed after being hit by a Soviet SU-1-12 self-propelled gun. The remaining tanks were eventually lost either destroyed by their crews or due to mechanical breakdowns.
The Derela website, which covers the use of Polish armored vehicles in great detail, mentions that these vehicles were not used in combat. Between 23 to 34 (depending on the source) of these tanks with their crews managed to escape to Romania, where they were interned and then added to the Romanian fleet of R35 tanks. Three more reached Hungary. Those three were initially given to the Hungarian 1st Reconnaissance Battalion and used for crew training. Interestingly, one vehicle survived up to the end of the war and was captured by the Soviets during their conquest of Budapest in 1945. The fate of the remaining tanks is not clear but they were most likely lost during the retreat.
The R35 Once Again in Polish Hands
Following their defeat in the war with the Germans, many from the Polish Army managed to escape to neighboring countries. Slowly, they started moving to the west in the hope of joining the Western Allies. As the war raged on, the Polish embassy and the French government signed a treaty on 9th September 1939. According to it, the Western Allies would provide weapons and equipment needed to form Polish infantry and armored units in France. The 1st and 2nd Tank Battalions were such units created using Polish volunteers and were supplied with R35 and R40 tanks. Unfortunately for the Poles, the equipping and training took time and these units were not yet fully formed by late May 1940. Given the rapid German advance and collapse of the frontlines, these battalions were rushed to the front in the hope of providing some rearguard protection for the retreating Allied forces. The 1st Tank Battalion, equipped with R35 tanks, offered stiff resistance while battling German tanks and infantry and even managed to make some counterattacks. By 18th June 1940, nearly all equipment was lost either in combat or due to breakdowns. After that, the units were split into smaller groups in the hope of reaching ports still controlled by the Allies and escaping to the United Kingdom.
The 2nd Tank Battalion had been initially equipped with R35 tanks, but these were given back to the French. A few days later, these were replaced with improved R40 tanks. Given the general chaos, they saw some action but the rapid collapse of French resistance forced the Poles to abandon their tanks and the crews mostly managed to evacuate to the United Kingdom.
Conclusion
While possessing a weak armament, the R35 was arguably one of the best-armored vehicles in the Polish arsenal. In 1939, it had superior armor to all German tanks, which were at this point only protected by 14.5 mm of armor (excluding the captured Czechoslovak tanks). Its weaker gun was capable of penetrating this armor while being immune to most German tank calibers. The two-man crew and the slow speed meant that they were at a huge disadvantage. The lack of crew training was another factor that would diminish the R35’s combat effectiveness. All in all, given their late arrival, they eventually saw little combat and most would manage to escape Poland to neighboring countries, where the vehicles were interned.
Renault R35 in Polish Service Specifications
Dimensions
4.02 x 1.87 x 2.13 m
Total weight, battle ready
10.6 tonnes
Crew
2 (commander/gunner, driver)
Propulsion
Renault V-4 gasoline 48 hp, p/w ratio 8.0 hp/t
Speed
20 km/h
Maximum range
130 km
Armament
Main: 37 mm L/21 SA18
Secondary: Châtellerault or Reibel MAC31 7.5 mm (0.29 in) machine gun
Maximum armor
43 mm
Total Operated
45-49
Sources
S.J. Zaloga (2014) French tanks of World War II (1), Osprey Publishing
S.J. Zaloga (2013) Tanks Of Hitler’s Eastern Allies 1941-45, Osprey Publishing
D. Porter (2010) Western Allied Tanks 1939-1945, Amber Book
T. A. Bartyzel and A. Kaminski (1996) Polish Army Vehicles 1939-1945, Intech 2.
J. Prenatt (2015) Polish Armor of The Blitzkrieg, Osprey Publishing http://derela.pl/form.htm
C. Czolg, Armor in Panzerne Profile 1, PELTA
K. Barbarski (1982) Polish Armor 1939-1945, Osprey Vanguard
P. Mujzer (2017) Hungarian Armored Forces in World War II, Kagero
T. L. Jentz Panzer (2007) Tracts No.19-1 Beute-Panzerkampfwagen
Germany (1942)
Obstacle-Clearing Tank – Possibly Up To 3 Built
During the Second World War, the warring nations felt the need to adapt their tank chassis for specialized roles based on the specific combat situations they encountered. The Western Allies, with their significant resources and production capabilities, were able to develop a wide range of vehicles designed for specific purposes beyond traditional tank warfare, such as bridgelayers, armored recovery vehicles, flamethrower vehicles, etc. These specialized vehicles played crucial roles during various military operations. The Germans tried to develop similar vehicles but, due to a chronic lack of resources, such designs were at best built in small quantities. One such adaptation was the unique and somewhat bizarre Rammpanzer based on Dr. Porsche’s abandoned Tiger project.
A Brief History of the Dr. Ferdinand Porsche’s Failed Heavy Tank Project
Prof. Dr. Ferdinand Porsche began his engineering career in the early twentieth century, when he showed great interest in developing hybrid engines (with a combination of electric and petrol motors). In 1930, he founded his own company located in Stuttgart. Porsche’s new company was mainly engaged in developing various designs based on the request of the clients. Thanks to his connections with the Nazy Party, the NSDAP, Dr. Porsche was appointed chairman of the German Panzer Commission in September 1939. This Commission was composed of leading owners of major industrial plants and engineers. Their primary function was to give suggestions and new ideas for future or already existing tank designs. While working on a number of military projects, Dr. Porsche would establish a good relationship with Adolf Hitler. This support gave Dr. Porsche’s work a huge advantage over the competition, despite generally creating either overcomplicated or overly expensive designs.
The first Porsche heavy tank project was Porsche Typ 100, also known as the VK30.01(P). Due to the urgent needs of the Tiger program, and due to a number of problems identified (high fuel consumption, suspension problems, etc.), the project was canceled. Only one (or two, depending on the source) soft steel prototypes were built and used for testing.
By the end of May 1941, the requirements for the new heavy tank project were issued. These included an increase in armor thickness (up to 100 mm maximum) and the use of an 88 mm gun. Dr. Porsche began working on this new design in July 1941, and two months later, the first drawings and calculations were ready. Similar to the previous vehicle, this project was initially designated as Typ 101 also known as VK45.01(P) or Tiger (P). This vehicle had several changes to its design in comparison to its predecessor. In order to obtain a better distribution of weight, the turret was moved more to the front and the final drive unit was repositioned to the rear. The engine was replaced with a more powerful one. Additionally, there were many overall design changes to its chassis and superstructure design.
Construction of this vehicle was handed over to Nibelungenwerk. The first prototype was completed and presented to Hitler on his birthday, 20th April 1942. Hitler was impressed with it, as Dr. Porsche received a production order for 100 vehicles. A second prototype, which was built shortly after, was transported to the Army weapon test site at Kummersdorf in June 1942. There, the VK45.01(P) proved to be prone to malfunctions, especially with the new engine.
At the end of August 1942, the Reichsminister (Eng. Minister of Armaments and War Production), Albert Speer, had the opportunity to examine Dr. Porsche’s work at Nibelungenwerke. Speer even had the chance to actually drive the VK45.01(P) prototype. Witnessing the overall performance of this heavy tank prototype, Speer insisted that this project be canceled. While fewer than 10 VK45.01(P) would be fully completed as tanks, only one heavily modified vehicle would be ever used in combat during 1944, on the Eastern Front, as a command vehicle.
What to do with the Remaining Chassis?
Despite VK45.01(P) being canceled, around 100 hulls were produced, representing a significant financial investment. The German military had to figure out what to do with these hulls, since they could not be simply left unused or scrapped. To address this issue, approximately 90 to 91 chassis were modified into the Panzerjäger Tiger (P), which was commonly referred to as the Ferdinand or Elefant (Eng. Elephant). This vehicle was a tank destroyer equipped with a powerful 8.8 cm gun mounted in a fixed casemate. It saw service on the Eastern Front in 1943, with some surviving up until the end of the war. Additionally, three more chassis were converted into recovery vehicles specifically designed for the heavy Panzerjäger Tiger (P). These recovery vehicles were used to tow and recover damaged or disabled tanks in the field.
Rammpanzer Project
During the war, especially on the Eastern Front, major cities were often turned into strong defensive points for the Soviet forces. The Germans would try to dislodge them using heavy artillery and bombing raids, resulting in the cities being reduced to piles of rubble and debris. The cleanup and advance after such attacks were dangerous, making it difficult for the attacking forces to gain ground. The most famous example of such urban warfare was the Battle of Stalingrad. The ruined city presented numerous challenges for the attacking Axis forces and turned into a prolonged and brutal attritional battle.
One way the Germans proposed to tackle this problem was by using the so-called Rammpanzer (Eng. Ramming tank). Ordinary tanks could tear down house walls, but doing so posed a risk of damaging essential components, such as the turret, engine, or armament. In rarer cases, when this was done (mostly for propaganda purposes) the turret was turned backward to avoid damaging the gun during the clearing process.
Some in the German Army thought that a specialized and dedicated design, a Rammpanzer, could push debris and obstacles out of the way without risking damaging critical components of the vehicle. In 1942, one such project based on the VK45.01(P) chassis was initiated. The history of this project is shrouded in mystery. It is no surprise that the sources disagree on its development and production history.
Author T. Melleman (Ferdinand Elefant Vol.I) mentions that this proposal was made by Adolf Hitler himself at the start of 1943. Three such vehicles were to be built and sent to Stalingrad as soon as possible. The overall design was simple, consisting of a VK45.01(P) chassis covered in specialized armored housing and provided with a forward-mounted reinforced metal ram. The project was quickly discarded as the Germans lost at Stalingrad, and thus not a single vehicle was completed.
Author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka) gives us a different development history. Based on the experience gained during the Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans initiated the Rammpanzer project. For this, they reused one VK45.01(P) chassis. The modified vehicle was assembled in August 1943. Its fate is unclear, as there is no proof that it was ever used operationally.
Authors T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts No.14 Gepanzerte Pionier-Fahrzeuge) give a slightly different account. According to them, after the cancellation of the Porsche Tiger project, one chassis was to be modified as a ramming vehicle. While speed was seen as of little importance for this vehicle, armored protection received the highest priority. Given its specialized role, armament was also of little importance. It was speculated that it would have been armed with only one machine gun. The first drawing of the vehicle initially designated as VK45.01(P) mit Rammhaube (Eng. Ram hood) was completed in early December 1942. These authors do not put any emphasis on a relationship between this design and Stalingrad.
While not specified why, at some point, the production order increased to three vehicles in total. Armored components were provided by the Eisenwerke Oberdonau in May 1943. These were finally completed by Nibelungenwerk in August 1943. That same month, they were accepted by the Waffenamt. There is no official document showing that these three vehicles were ever issued to any unit either for evaluation trials with a combat unit.
Lastly, J. Ledwoch (Ferdinand/Elefant) gives yet another view of this vehicle. According to him, Hitler initiated the project in January 1943. Three vehicles were to be built and sent to the Eastern Front. The project went nowhere and only a small 1:15 wooden scale model was built. The German Army simply did not want this project and urged its cancellation early on. Hitler also agreed to this and nothing came of the whole thing.
Name
This vehicle in the sources is mentioned by a few different designations. A quite common designation comes in the form of Rammpanzer – Tiger (P) or Rammtiger. As previously mentioned, T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle stated that it was initially designated as VK45.01(P) mit Rammhaube. Lastly, author J. Ledwoch mentioned a Räumpanzer (can be translated as clearing tank) Tiger (P) designation.
It is possible that none of these designations would have been officially used by the Germans if the vehicle had entered production. Thanks to their great research work and experience on this topic, T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle are probably closest to what its designation may have been. In either case, this article would refer to it as Rammpanzer for the sake of simplicity.
Specification
The available sources do not definitively specify whether the Rammpanzer was built using the original VK45.01(P) chassis or the modified chassis used for the anti-tank Ferdinand. The presence of a gap in the rear part of the vehicle in the mock-up photograph could indicate a design similar to the later Ferdinand chassis, but this detail might also have other explanations. This recess could have easily been just the connection point for the lower and the upper wooden parts. It also lacks some design features present in the Ferdinand vehicle, such as the rear superstructure flat sides that were added to support the large casemate. This observation further supports the idea that the original VK45.01(P) tank chassis might have been used for the Rammpanzer project.
Hull
The Rammpanzer hull design consisted of the front crew and the rear engine and transmission compartments. If any modifications were made to the overall hull design is unfortunately unspecified in the sources.
Suspension
This vehicle’s suspension consisted of six large road wheels, a front idler, and a rear drive sprocket on each side. The six road wheels were divided into pairs and were placed on bell cranks, which in turn were mounted on longitudinal torsion bar units. Each of these pairs of road wheels was suspended individually. The all-metal road wheels had inbuilt spring units to help with shock absorption. The shapes of the front idler and rear drive sprocket were visually almost identical. The main difference between these two was in their internal construction. They were identical to simplify the production of parts and to prevent the track from falling off the suspension due to the vehicle’s length and lack of any return rollers. Both the idler and the drive sprocket had a diameter of 920 mm and consisted of two toothed rings that had 19 teeth. The tracks were 600 mm wide and were connected using single pins.
Engine and Transmission
Assuming that it was based on the original VK45.01(P) chassis, then the Rammtiger was powered by a dual-electrical engine system consisting of the two Typ 101 310 hp@ 2,500 engines connected to two Siemens generators. These two generators would in turn produce the necessary power for the two Siemens Typ 1495a direct current electric (230 kW each) motors. Each of them was responsible for providing power to one side of the vehicle, being connected to the rear-positioned drive sprockets through electromechanical drives.
The original VK45.01(P) proved to be too complicated and unreliable. For the Ferdinand, the internal combustion engines were replaced with two Maybach HL 120 TRM gasoline engines giving out 265 hp@ 2600 rpm instead. There is no information in the sources regarding its overall drive performance.
Superstructure
Based on the surviving photograph of the small mock-up, most of the superstructure would have been retained. It had a rather simple square design, with flat sides that angled inwards toward the front plate, while the rear part had a reverse angle.
The front part of the superstructure housed the driver and the radio operator. These two crewmembers entered their position through two hatches placed on top of the superstructure. The driver was provided with a forward-mounted observation port. Next to it, a machine gun ball mount would have been positioned. In addition, there were two round-shaped visors (additionally protected with armored glass) placed on both sides of the inward-angling side armor. If these were retained on this vehicle is unknown, but improbable. The large armored roof added on top would have completely encased the side vision ports, making them useless. On the other hand, there was no reason to remove them from already built hulls, as it would require additional working time.
Some superstructure modifications would have been needed to create a suited base to hold the heavy metal roof. As with many other aspects of this vehicle, the sources provide no information on this matter.
Armored Roof
The armored roof was specially designed to fulfill two different purposes. The front hood that protruded outward actually served as a battering ram. Its purpose was to tear down any building or debris that lay in front of it.
The rest of the armored roof was constructed as a curved pyramid. It was designed to be able to withstand the heavy weight of debris. This would, in theory, simply slide off its angled armor sides. On the front side, a large opening was left in order to provide the driver with some field of view. In addition, the second crewmember could use the machine gun through it. On top of this opening, there was a pentagonal shape that appears to have been a hatch. Its position suggests that it was installed there to provide the crew with an access point to the vehicle.
With this contraption installed on the vehicle, the overall length was 8.25 m, height 2.55 m, and width 3.6 m.
Armor
If the vehicle was based on the original VK45.01(P) tank, then its frontal armor would have been 100 mm thick, while the sides and the rear were 80 mm thick.
The armor thickness of the armored roof varies depending on the source. Author T. Melleman mentions that parts of it were 100 to 150 mm thick, without specifying any more details. This seems excessive and would add extensive weight to the vehicle.
On the other side, T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle suggest more modest parameters. According to them, the added armored cover for the vehicle consisted of 30 mm all-around armor, while the top was 50 mm. The armor was also placed at a high angle, so it provided additional protection for the whole vehicle.
Armament
The armament of this vehicle consisted of a single 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun. It was positioned to the right of the driver’s position. No further information is given about any other armament or the ammunition load.
Crew
The number of crew is also unspecified in the sources. It likely consisted only of two, a driver and a machine gun operator, who was possibly also the commander of the vehicle. Due to the lack of any reliable sources on this matter, this is only speculation.
Given its specific role, to some extent, this two-man configuration makes sense. It would need one crewmember, presumably the commander, who would receive orders either by radio or other means. He would then direct the driver toward the target that needed to be torn down or cleared. Additional crewmembers were unlikely to be needed.
Service Life
Unfortunately, due to discrepancies in the sources and the lack of photographs, it is difficult to determine with certainty whether these three vehicles were ever produced. However, well-known authors, such as T. L. Jentz and H. L. Doyle, provide some dates and information about when the components and the vehicles were assembled, indicating that they were completed.
The fate of these three vehicles is unknown. Given that they were never issued for troop use, it can be assumed that they were used for testing but eventually were either stored or returned back to tank configuration. Unfortunately, due to limited sources, it is likely this will remain a mystery.
The Germans employed some similar vehicles that were intended to clear up the remains of destroyed buildings. Ironically these were not used offensively, on contested battlegrounds, but back home in Germany, clearing up buildings destroyed by Allied bombing raids. Only a few such vehicles were built using either Panther or StuG IV chassis without the armament and provided with a large dozer blade.
Conclusion
The Rammpanzer Tiger (P) was a unique and somewhat bizarre vehicle developed by Germany during the Second World War. The concept behind the Rammpanzer was to create a vehicle that could breach heavily fortified positions, destroy obstacles, and clear the way for German forces. However, this project never seems to have progressed beyond the prototype stage. The reasons why this was so are unclear. The limited resources and production capabilities of Germany during the war were likely some of them.
Overall, the Rammpanzer Tiger (P) was an example of Germany’s attempts to adapt tank chassis for specialized roles during the war. While the Western Allies had the advantage of vast resources and production capabilities to create a wide array of specialized vehicles, Germany struggled to produce tanks in sufficient numbers and, as a result, could not allocate resources to such projects on a large scale.
VK45.01(P) mit Rammhaube “Rammtiger” Technical Specifications
Republic of Serbia (2020)
Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Vehicle – 6 Purchased
In 2019, Serbia made a deal with Russia, acquiring six Pantsir S1 self propelled anti-aircraft systems, significantly boosting Serbia’s anti-aircraft defense capabilities. The Pantsir S1 was designed as a versatile complex intended to engage multiple targets at once using two 30 mm cannons and guided missiles. The Serbian vehicles were allocated to the 250th Raketna Brigada (Eng. Rocket Brigade). There are talks regarding the acquisition of an improved version of this vehicle, but nothing concrete has emerged as of October 2023.
A Brief History Of Serbian Anti-Aircraft Defense
The outbreak of the First World War marked the beginning of the creation of Serbian anti-aircraft defense. In July 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, just a month after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The same day, Austria-Hungary began bombarding the Serbian capital, Belgrade, followed by a large invasion. During these events, Austria-Hungary employed a small air force primarily for reconnaissance purposes. These aircraft occasionally carried out bombing raids as well.
At that time, the Serbian military had limited resources and capabilities to counter aerial threats. During the war, Serbia and all other nations involved in the war faced significant challenges in defending against enemy aircraft. The Serbian Army lacked dedicated anti-aircraft units and specialized equipment. However, they made efforts to adapt and respond to the new threat posed by aerial warfare. They repurposed 75 mm Schneider M-1907 field guns by mounting them on improvised platforms to enhance their elevation. Although there is limited documentation regarding the performance of these improvised Serbian anti-aircraft guns in the first year of the war, it is believed that they managed to shoot down or severely damage at least one or two enemy aircraft.
In the following year, the Serbian government made more dedicated efforts to establish an organized anti-aircraft defense system. Allied France, which was supporting Serbia, dispatched a group of aircraft and pilots to assist them. With the assistance of these French pilots, initial attempts were made to develop improved anti-aircraft guns.
To achieve this, a few 75 mm Krupp guns (which had been captured from the Ottomans during the First Balkan War in 1912) were modified specifically for anti-aircraft purposes. The modifications did not involve significant changes to the gun itself. Instead, a special platform was designed to enable the gun to have a full firing arc and increased elevation. In May 1915, two of these modified guns were sent to Belgrade, marking the formation of the first anti-aircraft unit in Serbian history. Additional guns of this type were subsequently deployed to enhance the anti-aircraft defense of the capital and other strategically important locations in Serbia.
On the 30th of September 1915, a group of 7 enemy aircraft were flying toward the city of Kragujevac, dropping some 45 bombs in the process. The Serbians responded with anti-aircraft fire but initially failed to score any hit. From a firing point at Metino Brdo, gunner Radoje Raka Ljutovac was trying to hit one enemy flier. Through his sight, he managed to acquire the enemy aircraft and fired, scoring a direct hit. The enemy aircraft was shot down, killing the two crew members in the process. The incident described is considered one of the early instances, if not the first, of shooting down an aircraft using ground-based anti-aircraft fire. For this remarkable feat, Ljutovac was honored with the Karađorđeva Zvezda (Eng. Order of Karađorđe’s Star), one of the highest military awards in the Serbian Army. Following the war, 30th September was celebrated as the Day of Anti-Aircraft Defense, commemorating Ljutovac’s achievement.
In the following decades, the now Kingdom of Yugoslavia Army continued improving its anti-aircraft defense. Improved anti-aircraft guns were acquired, mostly from Czechoslovakia. During the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, these offered strong resistance. The number of enemy aircraft shot down by the Yugoslav anti-aircraft defenses during the invasion is difficult to ascertain with accuracy, as historical records and sources differ. However, it is believed that the Yugoslav anti-aircraft defenses did manage to shoot down at least 45 enemy aircraft. The Yugoslav armed forces faced overwhelming odds during the invasion, as the Axis had superior firepower, air support, and coordination. Despite valiant but ill-coordinated efforts, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was quickly occupied by Axis powers and subsequently disintegrated.
During the process of rebuilding and rearming the Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (JNA, Yugoslav People’s Army) after the Second World War, the JNA faced challenges due to the destruction of industrial infrastructure. In order to acquire new equipment, the JNA initially relied on the Soviet Union as its main supplier. However, the relationship between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union deteriorated during the Tito-Stalin split, which began in 1948.
As a result of the split, the JNA turned to Western countries for military equipment. In 1951, Yugoslavia signed the Mutual Defense Aid Program (MDAP) with the United States. Through this program, the JNA received substantial assistance and acquired various types of military equipment between 1951 and 1958.
Among the equipment received were a small number of M15 anti-aircraft half-tracks. Additionally, due to the scarcity of equipment, the JNA improvised by mounting captured German anti-aircraft guns, predominantly 20 mm ones, on available trucks. By repurposing existing trucks and integrating captured weaponry, the JNA created their own makeshift anti-aircraft vehicles. This mix of acquisitions from abroad and domestically improvised solutions helped the JNA in the process of rebuilding and strengthening its military capabilities in the post-World War II era.
After Stalin’s death in 1953, the political tensions between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia began to relax to some extent. This led to the possibility of Yugoslavia purchasing new military equipment from the Eastern Bloc, which included various anti-aircraft weapons. The JNA took advantage of this opportunity to bolster its defense capabilities and acquired a range of anti-aircraft weapons of different calibers. They were intended to protect Yugoslavia from potential aerial threats coming from both the Western and Eastern Blocs. However, tragically, many of these weapons acquired by the JNA were eventually used during the disintegration of the country during the 1990s Yugoslav wars. As the country descended into conflict and different ethnic groups sought to assert their independence, the weapons that were initially meant for defense were deployed against the very people they were initially meant to protect.
On 27th April 1992, Serbia and Montenegro formed the Savezna Republika Jugoslavija, SRJ (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). Its newly created Army inherited what was left of the former JNA weapons and equipment. In 1998, tensions between Serbian authorities and Albanian paramilitary organizations operating in the province of Kosovo and Metohija led to a NATO intervention aimed at ending the conflict and protecting the Albanian population. The NATO air bombing campaign against the SRJ lasted from 24th March to 10th June 1999. While the Yugoslav Army faced superior numbers and the technological dominance of NATO forces, the conflict primarily consisted of air strikes, and no ground invasion was launched.
On 27th March 1999, during the NATO air bombing, the Yugoslavian 250th Rocket Brigade achieved a historic feat, shooting down an American F-117 Nighthawk stealth bomber. The F-117 was a highly advanced aircraft known for its stealth capabilities, and this incident marked the first and only known shootdown of such an aircraft in history.
The 250th Rocket Brigade, equipped with Neva-guided rockets, was responsible for the successful downing of the F-117. Despite operating with aging and obsolete equipment, the Yugoslav anti-air defense managed to exploit a vulnerability in the stealth technology of the F-117 and successfully engaged the aircraft. The details of the specific circumstances and tactics used in this shootdown remain a subject of debate and speculation.
The shootdown sent shockwaves through the international community and showcased the effectiveness of the Yugoslav Army’s anti-aircraft capabilities, despite being severely depleted by shortages and lack of funds. It also highlighted the challenges faced by NATO forces in maintaining complete air supremacy during the conflict. The remains of the F-117 can be seen at the Belgrade Military and Aviation Museums.
The Serbian military underwent a major reorganization process after the final dissolution of Yugoslavia in 2006. The Serbian Army reduced its manpower and phased out obsolete equipment. Its primary anti-aircraft force consisted of the best available vehicles, such as the 2K12, SLO S-10M, and the Strela 1M. In recent years, the Serbian military industry managed to put into production a series of new vehicles, including some modern anti-aircraft designs. This includes the PASARS-16, which is armed with the Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft gun along with two short-range anti-aircraft rockets. These were further reinforced with a battery of Pantsir S1 acquired in 2020 from Russia.
Russian Pantsir S1
During the 1990s, the Soviet and later Russian Army began developing a new self-propelled anti-aircraft system intended as a cheaper variant of the 2K22 Tunguska. After years spent in development, the Pantsir S1 was introduced within the Russian Army in early 2010.
The main purpose of the Pantsir S1 is to engage and destroy various aerial targets, including helicopters, aircraft, missiles, and drones. Its armament consists of two pairs of 30 mm 2A38M cannons and up to 12 missiles. The missiles used by the Pantsir S1 have a maximum effective range of 20 km. The 30 mm cannons can be used to engage both ground and aerial targets, with a maximum firing range of 4 km against ground targets and 3 km against air targets.
The Pantsir S1 system can be mounted on different 8×8 heavy truck chassis, including vehicles like the KAMAZ-6560. This flexibility in chassis selection helps reduce construction costs and allows for easier transportation and deployment of the system.
The Pantsir S1 has been exported to various countries, including Algeria, Jordan, Libya, Syria, and others. It has been used in conflicts such as the Libyan Civil War, the Syrian Civil War, and the invasion of Ukraine, where it has been deployed to provide air defense capabilities against enemy threats.
Pantsir S1 in Serbia
Russia and Serbia have a long history of cultural, religious, and political ties. The Slavic and Orthodox Christian backgrounds of both nations have contributed to a sense of shared identity and affinity. Throughout history, Russia has provided assistance to Serbia on various occasions, viewing it as a potential ally and a strategic foothold in the Balkans.
Serbia, being geographically located in a region often surrounded by larger powers, has sought alliances with stronger nations to ensure its survival and protect its interests. Russia has been one of the countries that Serbia has relied upon for support and solidarity.
The historical relationship between Russia and Serbia has not always been smooth. The split between Tito and Stalin, which occurred during the Cold War, strained the ties between the two countries. However, in recent years, Serbia has heavily depended on Russia’s support in the United Nations regarding the issue of Kosovo. This political partnership is also reflected in military cooperation, as Serbia’s military equipment is predominantly based on Soviet-era technology. Transitioning to Western equipment would be expensive and pose logistical challenges, hence Serbia continues to make purchases from Russia.
It is worth noting that Serbia does engage in arms purchases from other manufacturers apart from Russia. However, the reliance on Russian support and equipment is a significant aspect of their defense cooperation.
The Pantsir S1 and S-400 were first showcased in Serbia during the Russian-Serbian military exercise Slovenski Štit (Eng. Slavic shield) in October 2019. The exercise took place near Belgrade at Batajnica, and both systems were demonstrated to the public. There were discussions and interest from Serbian politicians regarding the potential purchase of the S-400 system. However, no official agreement or contract has been signed, which should not come as a surprise, given the lack of funds for such a system.
At the time when these two systems were presented to the public, the Serbian political hierarchy was willing to put huge funds into the acquisition of modern weapons and equipment. According to various media sources, during that time, total spending for acquisitions was over $1,300 million. The reasons for this mass expansion were mainly political in nature and, to some extent, the desire to improve the ability to defend the unaligned country from potential threats.
The increase in the military budget provided sufficient funds for the acquisition of six Pantsir S1 vehicles. The deal was officially signed in 2019. According to the agreement between the Serbian and Russian sides, these were meant to arrive in 2020. On 23rd February 2020, a large Russian An-124 cargo plane landed at the airbase in Batajnica. This landing was met with great media and public attention. Later that day, the Serbian Minister of Defence confirmed the arrival of the first Pantsir S1, stating to the press “..By acquiring defensive weapons, the only one of its kind in the region, Serbia continues to strengthen its defense power and increase its deterrent potential..” The last two vehicles arrived in March 2020. The prices at which these vehicles were obtained has not been disclosed at present. Costs associated with one single vehicle are reported to reach over $13 million.
In Service
Once in Serbia, these vehicles were given to the 250th Rocket Brigade. The crews for these vehicles received the first basic training and familiarization in 2019, when the Russian vehicles were in Serbia. On 9th April 2021, an accident took place involving one of the vehicles. During transportation to a military exercise near Belgrade, for unspecified reasons, a driver lost control of a vehicle transporting a Pantsir S1. The two toppled on the road, receiving damage in the process. The extent of the damage is unclear, but the cabin windshield was broken and sensitive electronics and the radar might have suffered significantly as well.
The few available Pantsir S1 are mainly used for training and exercises, along with the occasional media coverage.
The Challenge in Acquiring New Russian Equipment
In December 2021, the Serbian president announced that the Serbian Army was interested in acquiring at least one more battery of the improved M version. This version introduced a number of modifications, improving the aiming and radar systems. By 2023, no such delivery has been made yet.
The Pantsir S1 is one of the most modern anti-aircraft weapons in the Serbian arsenal. However, the current situation with the war between Ukraine and Russia has put a halt on further weapon deliveries, which could affect the Serbian Army’s ability to maintain and operate these vehicles in the long run.
If the war in Ukraine continues for an extended period, the availability of ammunition and other necessary equipment for the Pantsir S1 systems could become a challenge for Serbia. Since the country relies on imports for such supplies, any disruptions in the supply chain due to the ongoing conflict could impact the operational capabilities of these vehicles.
Additionally, it is worth noting that the Russian military industry, which produces the Pantsir S1, may prioritize meeting domestic demands and re-equipping its own forces once the conflict in Ukraine concludes. If the Russian military industry is strained due to the war, it may have limitations in exporting weapons, including the Pantsir S1, to other countries, such as Serbia. The worn-out state of the Russian military industry is a concern and could affect the availability of spare parts and technical support for the Pantsir S1 systems in the future. However, it is challenging to predict the exact outcome, as it depends on various factors, including the duration and aftermath of the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Serbia, being surrounded by NATO members, also places it in a particularly precarious situation. As it was at war with NATO in 1999 and suffered a significant bombing campaign, the Serbian public is mostly against joining this alliance. Despite that, Serbia has relatively good relations with NATO. Despite being under sanctions since 2014, Serbia did continue its military and economic cooperation with Russia. However, political pressure from the EU and NATO eventually led to a reduction of military connection between these two counties. While Serbia has condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it did not support the sanctions that Russia is currently under. Given that Serbia is dependent on EU funding, it would seem unlikely that they would choose to antagonize them over Ukraine.
Conclusion
The Pantsir S1 is a valuable addition to Serbia’s anti-aircraft capabilities. However, the limited number of these systems would significantly reduce their overall performance and effectiveness in combat. It is important for Serbia to consider diversifying its defense capabilities to reduce reliance on foreign imports. By doing so, Serbia can enhance self-sufficiency and resilience in case of potential disruptions.
Although Serbia may attempt to order more Pantsir S1 vehicles, the ongoing war in Ukraine and the significant losses suffered by the Russian Army are likely to impact the availability of these systems in the near future. Therefore, it might be challenging for Serbia to acquire additional units in the short term. This situation emphasizes the need for exploring alternative options and investing in domestic defense production to ensure long-term security and independence.
Pantsir S1 Technical Specifications
Crew
3 (driver, gunner, and commander)
Dimensions
Length 8.15 m, Width 2.47 m
Engine
Air-cooled diesel Ural-745.10, 290 hp
Speed
90 km/h
Range
500 km
Armament
Two twin 30 mm cannons and 12 missiles
Armor
None
Sources
B. B. Dumitrijević (2010), Modernizacija i intervencija, Jugoslovenske oklopne jedinice 1945-2006, Institut za savremenu istoriju, Beograd.
B. B. Dumitrijević (2015) Vek Srpske Protibbazdušne Odbrane, Odbrana
The development of the Panzer division concept in Germany during the 1930s played a significant role in creating an effective offensive force. The mass concentration of tanks within these divisions provided considerable firepower, allowing them to overcome most enemy opposition. However, engaging well-fortified defensive positions posed a challenge even for Panzer divisions. To address this issue, half-track towed artillery guns were attached to these divisions. These guns were mobile but required some time to set up for firing. Recognizing the need for more mobile and rapidly deployable artillery, Germany started developing self-propelled artillery vehicles. The first attempt to develop such a vehicle would lead to the Geschutzwagen IVb für 10.5 cm le.F.H.18/1.
History
To supplement the firepower of newly created Panzer divisions, an artillery regiment was attached to them. This allowed the divisions to have their own dedicated artillery support to provide firepower against fortified enemy positions. These regiments were equipped with 24 10.5 cm le.F.H. 18 and 12 larger 15 cm s.F.H. 18 field howitzers. Occasionally, the latter were replaced with one battery with four 10.5 cm K18 guns.
Given that mobility was a key part of the Panzer division concept, these had to be mobile to provide the necessary fire support against fortified enemy points. To maintain the required mobility, the German forces employed half-tracks to transport and support the artillery guns, which had good overall mobility. These half-tracks were capable of keeping up with the Panzers in various types of terrain. However, despite their mobility advantages, the half-tracks still required some time to properly set up for combat. When preparing to fire, the guns had to be uncoupled from the towing transport vehicles and the crew had to manually tow the guns to their designated firing positions. The time required for this preparation would depend on the crew’s training and the specific combat situation. It is worth noting that the crew operating these guns were exposed to the risk of enemy return fire during this process. Another drawback of this setup was that the transport vehicles were parked at a distance from the firing positions. In case of an emergency or the need to rapidly relocate, the guns could not be easily moved away. This limitation could potentially leave the artillery crews vulnerable if they were under direct enemy attack or if the situation required a quick change of position. Overall, while the addition of an artillery regiment with mobile half-tracks provided valuable firepower to the Panzer divisions, there were trade-offs in terms of setup time, crew exposure to enemy fire, and limited mobility once the guns were in position.
Increasing the mobility of these guns while offering some level of protection could only be achieved in the form of self-propelled artillery. Even before the war, German Army officials were aware that such a vehicle was desirable. In 1934, the early Panzer division concept was meant to include an artillery battalion equipped with 12 self-propelled artillery vehicles. Given the limitations of the German industry at that time, this was only wishful thinking.
The Germans partially addressed the need for close fire support with the introduction of the 7.5 cm armed Panzer IV. In 1935, Krupp was instructed by Wa Prw 6 (German Army’s Ordnance Department office responsible for designing tanks and other motorized vehicles, later renamed to Wa Prüf 6) to build a Panzer IV turret armed with a 10.5 cm L/16 gun. This test vehicle was designated as a 10.5 cm Panzerwagen Nebeltank (Eng. Fog tank). Its purpose was to fire either smoke or high-explosive rounds against enemy positions. The British used a similar concept in their early Cruiser tank designs. Krupp did complete a prototype with the 10.5 cm gun in 1938, but the project did not progress beyond that stage. The exact reasons for the cancellation are not well-documented, and it is unclear why the development of tanks with a 10.5 cm low-velocity gun did not proceed further. It is possible that the German Army’s focus shifted towards other priorities or that technical challenges and resource limitations played a role. In addition, there were some in the German Army who fiercely opposed this concept. Overall, while the Germans did experiment with the idea of mounting a 10.5 cm gun in a tank turret, such projects did not progress beyond the prototype stage.
Still, the idea of using self-propelled artillery was not fully discarded. Following a large military exercise undertaken by the 1st Panzer Division, a report (dated December 1935) was issued regarding the artillery support.
“ …During the rapidly increasing pace of the (mock) battles, it proved impossible to gather exact statistics for the possible deployment of a self-propelled gun battalion in combat. Principally, the missions presented to motorized artillery are comparable to those for towed artillery units in an infantry division. However, it must be demanded that ready-to-fire preparations must be made quicker and a change of position to be achieved more rapidly.
Any mission directed by the Panzer brigade to the supporting artillery cannot be fulfilled by horse-drawn units. After a successful breakthrough, the horse-drawn artillery is too slow in getting into position, which significantly reduces their ability to open supporting fire. Any artillery support for the Panzer brigade requires it to have the ability to immediately follow the tank advance, also the type must have high mobility over all terrain and protection against enemy fire: an armored fully tracked vehicle mounting an artillery piece…”
In addition, this report highlighted the importance of deciding which caliber should have been used for this role.
“…Furthermore, it must be decided as to whether this vehicle will be armed with a 7.5cm or 10.5cm gun. Trials using both weapons will have to be conducted in the near future. A 10.5cm gun will have a greater impact in the target, but inevitably will make the vehicle heavier and give it a conspicuous superstructure. Due to the size of the gun, ammunition storage will be considerably limited. Until trials with 10.5cm self-propelled guns have been completed, the tank brigade will have to continue to use the 7.5cm-armed tanks of the heavy companies. The crews will have to be trained on how to use this weapon as artillery…”
In 1936, several steps were taken to develop more suitable self-propelled artillery vehicles. However, the development of these vehicles faced consistent delays. One primary factor was the limited production capacity of the German industry, which was struggling to produce an adequate number of tanks and had little spare capacity for other projects. As a result, the development of self-propelled artillery vehicles languished.
Furthermore, there was a belief that the Luftwaffe, the German air force, would provide sufficient close operational fire support to the Panzer divisions. In the early years of the war, the Luftwaffe effectively fulfilled this role, which further diminished the immediate need for mobile artillery vehicles and alleviated some of the pressure for development.
Additionally, it should be noted that some officials within the German Army were against the concept of self-propelled artillery vehicles. They might have held the belief that traditional towed artillery and close air support were sufficient, or they had concerns about the feasibility or effectiveness of such vehicles. These differing opinions among army officials also contributed to the delays in developing self-propelled artillery vehicles.
It was not until 1939 that work on such a vehicle finally began to gain traction. That year, Krupp presented a drawing (designated W 1324) of such a vehicle to the Army. In contrast to the later designs built during the war, this vehicle was dedicated for this sole purpose. The engine was mounted to the rear, while the turret with the gun was placed in the central section of the hull. The Krupp engineers did not want to place the engine in the middle of the hull, as this would increase the overall vehicle height. Wa Prüf 6 was interested in this project but requested some structural changes. They agreed that the engine should be positioned to the rear. Other suggestions included that the traversing arc had to be increased without changing the traverse mechanism, the ammunition load was to consist of at least 40 rounds, the elevation of -10° to +15°, frontal armor protection had to be at least 20 mm, etc.
During a new meeting held in October 1939, further changes were requested. For example, it was ordered that the SSG 46 transmission had to be used. The pivoting point of the main weapon was proposed to be moved slightly to the rear and raised up. It was hoped that, by doing this, the elevation and traverse of the main gun would be improved. With these suggestions, the production of the first prototype known as Sfl.IVb was scheduled to be completed at the start of 1941.
In the meantime, another meeting was held in late January 1940 to discuss further details. During this meeting, great attention was focused on how to best use the limited turret interior space. Especially of great interest was if the elevation and traverse controls could be positioned on the left side of the main armament, as it would be the most effective in this arrangement. The possible use of a diesel engine was discussed.
A month later, Krupp informed Wa Prüf 6 that the wooden mock-up was ready for inspection. Obersltl. Olbrich was part of the first group that inspected the mock-up. He was one of the major opponents of mounting a 10.5 cm howitzer in a tank turret. While the overall design was deemed sufficient for the job, Olbrich requested some changes. First, he demanded that this vehicle should not have a fully rotating turret, as it would resemble a tank. This decision may seem absurd due to the benefits of having a fully rotating turret, however, during the early development of tanks, there were individuals in various countries, including Germany, who held obsolete or unrealistic notions about how tanks should function and their specific design. This backward and conflicting thinking was not unique to the German army but was present in other nations as well.
Obersltl. Olbrich’s opposition to a fully rotating turret might have stemmed from such notions or his personal beliefs. It is possible that he had concerns about the vulnerability of a fully rotating turret or the complexity it would add to the vehicle’s design. Without further information, it is difficult to ascertain his exact reasoning.
In any case, additional changes, including redesigning the turret were requested. The side armor would slope down toward the rear. The turret walls would be placed at an angle to provide additional protection. The Germans were quite aware of the benefits of using angled armor. Storage area and the radio would be placed in the turret rear to act as a counterweight to the main armament. Despite Olbrich’s reservations, the project was gaining enough interest within the German Army, and production orders for the first vehicles followed soon after the inspection of the wooden mock-up.
Name
The vehicle was initially designated as Sfl.IVb. Sfl was short for Selbstfahrlafetten (Enbg. Self-propelled). The Roman numeral IV was related to the Panzer IV chassis and the latter ’b’ served to distinguish it from other self-propelled projects, such as the Sfl. IVa, ahistorically better known as the Dicker Max. Sometimes in sources, it is also referred to as Selbstfahrlafetten mit Fahrgestell des Panzerkampfwagen IVb.
In August 1941, Krupp was informed that the designation was to be changed to le.F.H.18 (Sfl). In 1942, it was once again changed to Pz.Sfl.F.le.F.H.18 Ausf.A. This article will continue using the short Sfl.IVb designation for the sake of simplicity.
First Production Orders
Following the inspection of the wooden mock-up, Krupp received a production order for two prototype vehicles designated V1 and V2 in November 1940. Rheinmetall was awarded a contract for the delivery of four guns. Krupp then received another production order for 10 pre-production vehicles. The production schedule for these 10 vehicles was:
Date
Number
1941
December
1
1942
January
2
February
3
March
4
If these vehicles proved to be successful, a production order of 200 vehicles was to be awarded to Krupp. The estimated mass production was to commence in October 1941. Of course, as with many other projects, there were delays in the production of these vehicles. Krupp was reported to have finished the two prototypes at the start of 1942. These were then transported to the secret test center at Kummersdorf. One of the two prototypes received some damage, probably during firing trials, and was sent back to Krupp to be repaired. It was reported to be fully repaired by 4th February 1942.
As these two were being tested, the necessary components for the assembly of the 10 pre-production vehicles slowly arrived at Krupp. It was estimated that these would be completed by April 1942 and that serial production would start at the end of the year. These were once again delayed and Krupp finally completed them during the period of August to December 1942.
Krupp obviously lacked the proper production facilities to deliver all promised vehicles. It was instead decided to award the production order to Stahlindustrie GmbH from Mulheim-Ruhr.
Specifications
This vehicle shared a number of visual resemblances with the Panzer IV. In truth, many components were not interchangeable, for example, the suspension. It is not clear why these components were not taken directly from the Panzer IV production lines, as it would have made the construction of the whole vehicle much simpler and cheaper.
Chassis
The Sfl.IVb chassis shared its overall layout with other German tank designs. The front part of the hull served as a housing point for the transmission, followed by the crew compartment and the engine. The front hull, where the transmission and steering systems were located, was fully enclosed, providing protection to the vital components housed within. To allow access for repairs and maintenance, a square-shaped transmission hatch was positioned in the middle of the angled plate. This hatch would allow the crew to reach the transmission without having to dismantle the entire hull. Additionally, two rectangular steering brake inspection hatches were included in the design. The presence of these inspection hatches made it easier for the crew to check and service the steering system when needed.
The overall configuration of the Sfl.IVb‘s front hull was similar to that of the Panzer IV’s design. However, there was a difference in the size of the transmission hatch. The Panzer IV utilized a larger transmission hatch compared to the Sfl.IVb. This discrepancy in size could be attributed to the specific requirements and design choices made for each vehicle.
Suspension and Running Gear
The suspension was another element that was similar to that of the Panzer IV. Pairs of road wheels were placed on bogies. Only the last assembly was provided with a bump stop. These, in turn, were suspended using self-dampening leaf spring suspension. In contrast to the Panzer IV’s suspension, this vehicle had only six road wheels. In addition, these were somewhat larger, having a diameter of 520 mm in contrast to the Panzer IV’s 470 mm road wheels. The Sfl.IVb used three return rollers, a rear idler, and a front-mounted drive sprocket. The tracks were 40 cm wide. This suspension, while not perfect, had a simple design and was easy to build and maintain.
Engine and Transmission
For the engine, Krupp’s engineers decided to use the Maybach 6-cylinder HL 66P which produced 188 hp@3200 rpm. Why they used this weaker engine instead of an original Panzer IV engine is unclear. It is possible that this was done in order to reduce the height of the hull and, thus, the whole vehicle as much as possible. It is somewhat ironic that, for the anticipated mass production, this engine was to be replaced with the much stronger 320 Maybach HL 90 P20K engine, which actually never occurred.
With the HL 66P engine and a weight of 18 tonnes, this vehicle had a maximum speed of 35 km/h. The fuel load of 470 l provided an operational range of 210 km and 130 km cross-country. The engine was coupled to the front-mounted SSG 46 six-speed (and one reverse) transmission.
The engine itself was fully protected by armor. The rear part of the engine compartment curved down slightly. On top of it, there were two ventilation ports. Two more were positioned to the rear, with a large exhaust being placed in the middle. The engine was separated from the crew compartment by a fire-resistant wall. Spare equipment, such as road wheels, were stored on top of the engine compartment.
Superstructure
The vehicle superstructure was box-shaped and had a quite simple overall design. The front armor plate had two vision ports. The left one was used by the driver, while the right one was a fake port meant to confuse enemy gunners about the driver’s position. This tactic was also employed on other German vehicles, such as the Panzer II Ausf.F. On both sides of the superstructure armor, there were two smaller vision ports.
The driver accessed his position through a hatch located on top of the superstructure. The last noticeable features on the superstructure were the two turret rail extensions, with one on each side. These rails were used to mount and stabilize the turret.
Turret
The turret was open-topped. This had several advantages.
Firstly, it provided the crew with a good view of their surroundings, which was important for an artillery vehicle that needed to identify targets and adjust fire accurately. This increased situational awareness could enhance the effectiveness of the crew in engaging enemy targets within sight.
Secondly, the open-topped turret made ammunition resupply easier. Since the crew could access the ammunition storage directly from the top of the turret, reloading the artillery gun with additional rounds was simpler and more efficient. This could contribute to faster firing rates and sustained operations on the battlefield.
Lastly, removing the roof of the turret helped in reducing the overall weight of the vehicle. By eliminating the need for heavy armored roofing, the vehicle’s weight was reduced, which could have positive effects on its mobility and maneuverability.
The turret was constructed using eight angled armored plates that were welded together. The front plate featured a large opening where the gun assembly was bolted. The height of the side plates tapered downward towards the back. This design choice was not uncommon in German self-propelled vehicle designs of the time. By tapering the side armor, the weight of the turret was further reduced while still maintaining sufficient protection for the crew.
Inside the turret, the working space was rather cramped. To address this issue and provide more room, both the commander and gunner seats could be folded when not in use. This folding feature likely allowed the crew members to move around more comfortably and perform their duties effectively.
Observation ports were not placed on the turret since they were deemed unnecessary. Presumably, the open-topped design already provided the crew with sufficient visibility, eliminating the need for additional observation ports. This could have contributed to a simpler and more streamlined turret construction.
To serve as a counterbalance to the main armament, additional spare track links and other equipment were stored to the rear of the turret. This placement of equipment helped balance the weight distribution of the turret and the overall vehicle, maintaining stability during firing and movement.
Armament
The main armament for this vehicle was the 10.5 cm le.F.H. 18 light howitzer. This was the most common field artillery piece that the Germans employed during the war. It was designed by Rheinmetall and put into service in 1930. The designation “18” was intentionally misleading, as the Germans were prohibited from developing new artillery after World War I. By using designations that falsely implied it was a World War I design, they were able to bypass these restrictions. While a good overall design, it would be improved a few times during the war, mainly in order to increase its range and reduce the construction costs.
In order to fit inside this particular vehicle, the 10.5 cm howitzer had to undergo a redesign. The howitzer was removed from its carriage and placed on specially designed mounting points located on the front part of the turret. To accommodate the limited space, the original recoil cylinders and recuperators were replaced with smaller ones. These modified components were positioned farther back, located just above the breach block. To further reduce the recoil force during firing, a large muzzle brake was added. Thanks to these modifications, it was possible to use a much smaller armored gun mantlet. In order to avoid accidentally injuring the gunner on the left side of the breach block, a large protective gun shield was added. With these changes, the modified howitzer was designated as 10.5 cm le.F.H. 18/1.
In the turret, it had an elevation of -10° to +40°. The traverse of the whole turret was limited to 35° in both directions. The gunner operated the elevation of the main armament by hand. The manual traverse handwheel was located on the right side of the turret and operated by the loader. It was hoped that, on the production vehicles, a fully traversable turret would be used. The maximum firing range of 10,650 m could be achieved by using the 14.8 kg heavy high-explosive round. For aiming the 10.5 cm le.F.H. 18/1, the gunner would use the Z.E.34 and Rfl.F.36 gun sights. This vehicle did not use travel locks.
The two-part (round and propellant charge) ammunition was stored inside the hull. In total, the ammunition load capacity was 60 rounds and propellant charges.
While no secondary machine gun was incorporated, the crew members were equipped with 3 MP 40 submachine guns for close self-defense purposes. These submachine guns were s, accompanied by 18 32-round capacity magazines.
Armor
Given its specific role, this vehicle was only lightly protected. The front hull and superstructure armor was 20 mm thick. The sides were even less protected, being only 14.5 mm thick. The turret armor was mirrored, being the same armor thickness. The top armor was 8 mm thick, the same as the hull’s bottom. The driver’s protective vision port was 30 mm thick and, in addition, he was extra protected with a 90 mm thick armored glass.
Such self-propelled artillery vehicles were meant to provide long-range fire support. Thus, they would be, ideally, but combat conditions are not always predictable, firing from afar, without fear of enemy retaliation. For this reason, mobility had greater importance than armor thickness.
Crew
Given its relatively small size and cramped interior, the crew of the vehicle consisted of four members, namely the commander, driver, gunner, and loader. The driver enjoyed full protection, as he was situated in the front hull compartment. The commander occupied the position on the left side of the gun and was equipped with a doppelscheren Turmspaehfernrohr scissor periscope for observing the surroundings. The periscope offered a 3x magnification and a 20° field of view. As on all German armored combat vehicles, the gunner was seated to left of the gun. On the right of the gun sat the loader.
In Service
Once the 10 pre-production vehicles were fully completed, some of these were allocated to the Feldversuchs Batterie (Eng. Field trial battery) of the Artillerie Regiment 16 (Eng. Artillery regiment) in late 1942. The battery was part of the 16th Panzer Division. Six vehicles were used to form a single battery. The remaining four vehicles and the prototypes stayed behind to serve as training and replacement vehicles.
While these saw service on the Eastern Front, no record of their performance survived to this day. The 16th Panzer Division was almost completely destroyed at Stalingrad, so it is likely that the six vehicles were lost there too.
Further Plans and the End of the Project
The discovery that a modified Panzer II chassis could be reused for a similar purpose led to the decision to prioritize that option instead. By late 1942, due to the challenges faced by the German industry in producing enough tank chassis, introducing yet another completely new chassis would only cause additional delay and confusion. The Panzer II components were already available and were much easier to be reused. While the self-propelled vehicle based on the Panzer II chassis lacked a rotating turret, the urgency of the situation necessitated the use of available components.
However, the Sfl.IVb project was briefly revived when Krupp was instructed to test if a 15 cm s.F.H.18 could be used on the chassis. Despite the efforts of Krupp engineers, it was determined that the chassis was not suitable for the installation of such a large weapon. Consequently, the project was shut down in November 1942. Krupp then attempted to repurpose the Sfl.IVb chassis as an anti-tank vehicle similar to the Jagdpanzer IV project, known as Panzerjager IVb E39. However, it appears that these proposals also did not progress further.
The ultimate fate of the 12 vehicles remains unknown. At the end of the war, one of the vehicles (possibly one of the two prototypes) without a gun was discovered by the Allies at the Rheinmetall facility in Hillersleben.
Conclusion
The Sfl.IVb was part of Germany’s efforts to design a dedicated self-propelled artillery vehicle for their tank formations. The Sfl.IVb featured a partially rotating turret, which was considered a novel feature compared to later designs introduced by the Germans. The vehicle had a well-designed overall structure, and its ammunition storage was relatively large and somewhat protected. These features made it a potentially suitable option for meeting the artillery needs of the German Panzer divisions.
However, the Sfl.IVb faced significant drawbacks that led to the termination of the project. One major issue was the extended development and production time, which resulted in delays. Additionally, the design did not make effective use of components that were already in production. As a result, by the time it was planned to enter production, the Germans opted for a simpler but less sophisticated design: the Wespe self-propelled artillery gun, based on the Panzer II chassis.
The decision to switch to the Wespe was driven by the Germans’ lack of capacity for the introduction into production of yet another chassis, considering the demands of the war by 1942. Consequently, the Sfl.IVb project was effectively abandoned, and no combat reports or real-world performance data exist to evaluate how the vehicle performed on the battlefield.
Geschützwagen IVb für 10.5 cm le.F.H.18/1 Technical specifications
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.