Rare & Crazy Panzer Projekts.

plan_D · 07-21-2005, 07:54 PM

I've got 925 m/s for the Pzgr 39/42.

Source: Encyclpedia of German Tanks of World War Two - Peter Chamberlain, Hilary Doyle and Thomas L. Jentz.

CharlesBronson · 07-21-2005, 08:05 PM

Well....10 m/s is not a diference to die for.....

plan_D · 07-21-2005, 08:31 PM

True.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-22-2005, 10:18 AM

By m/s you mean meters per second correct? I know that was probably a dumb question.

plan_D · 07-22-2005, 04:48 PM

Yeah.

CharlesBronson · 07-22-2005, 07:38 PM

Front and rear view of the "Kachzen" APC, despite the relative simplicity of this vehicle, only two protipes seems to be manufactured.
Lenght about 5 meters, weight 7 tons.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-25-2005, 12:39 PM

An APC without a top to me is pretty much useless.

HealzDevo · 07-30-2005, 10:48 PM

I can think of where it would be useful. It would be easier to clean blood out of than if it had a roof to trap that blood inside the vehicle. But yes, it would be sniper bait. If the Allied snipers had heard of that vehicle I bet they were saying, 'yes, please give us a vehicle we can shoot at, Germans.' Maybe the idea is to put the driver and a passenger in the front, put people you don't want in the back, and drive near enemy lines and let the ALlies do the extermination work for you.

HealzDevo · 07-30-2005, 10:53 PM

Actually looking at it are you sure it didn't get manufactured under a different name? It looks similar to the SdKfz out of Bf1942 Forgotten Hope used by the Germans. Have to try to dig up some images of it for you.

plan_D · 07-31-2005, 05:26 AM

All APCs were open top in World War 2, the Allies had them too. It's not that bad, they can't be sniper bait in open field.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-31-2005, 02:08 PM

Yeah but once you bring them into the urban type environment then you are fair game to them.

schwarzpanzer · 08-15-2005, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Germany should have kept the limit at 60 tons. The King Tiger was 68 tons and that was too heavy - it's not like the Tiger couldn't deal with anything the Soviets or Western Allies threw at it, it only weighed 54 tons.

The JS2 (Soviet, aprox 45 tons), M26 Pershing (USA, aprox 50 tons) and Sherman Firefly (UK, aprox 30 tons) were easily capable of defeating the Tiger1, but not the Tiger2. A better proposition was the Panther2, which, like the Tiger1, also weighed aprox 55 tons.
Or, as some here have mentioned, the E-50 or E-75.

On the Maus:

There was a Maus Flakpanzer, armed with 2 88mm Flak guns.

Quote:

Did the Mouse see any action?

Maybe 1 did at Kummersdorf, but it was destroyed by its crew, maybe before killing another tank - unknown.

The one at Kubinka wasn't completed before the German surrender and is actually 2 put together (hull/turret).

The thing that the German designers hadn't thought about was that it could be very easily destroyed if you used the right weapon- i.e. a tallboy

Strangely, it was very vulnerable to Molotov cocktails!

Quote:

The reason the Panther II has a Panther G turret is because they were testing the chassis. I assume they would have fitted the 605 later on.

Probably. I try to found a pic of this turret but I failed

It was planned, but never actually done.

Does anyone here have the armour penetration data of the 75mmm L100?

I know this gun, along with the Maus' suspension was designed/built by Skoda.

Quote:

All APCs were open top in World War 2

Not true, the Sherman/RAM Kangaroo wasn't:

http://tanxheaven.com/ljs/shervar/shervar.htm

plan_D · 08-15-2005, 04:32 PM

The Tiger I was superior to the IS-2, M26 and Sherman Firefly. All were not "easily capable" of destroying the Tiger I. In a straight shooting match the Tiger I was superior to all of them, the M26 and Firefly were both more durable, manuverable and reliable than the Tiger I. They both were inferior in armour protection. The IS-2 only carried 28 rounds, it had weak welding, it had a slow rate of fire due to two-piece loading and it was cramped. It also had inferior armour protection to the Tiger I although it was more reliable and easier to repair/build.

The Maus never saw any action. That is pure myth. The Maus was destroyed by it's "crew" and members of the production team.

Thank you, it's pretty obvious it was planned. That is why they were testing the chassis with a G turret first.

I did forget about the RAM Kangeroo, that's given.

Adler, APCs aren't supposed be operating in urban areas. They should be dropping off the troops before reaching the village, town or city so it can be cleared by the infantry and any supporting tanks. APCs are just armoured trucks to mobilise the infantry in the operational advance to keep them up with the armour.

schwarzpanzer · 08-15-2005, 05:34 PM

Quote:

The Tiger I was superior to the IS-2, M26 and Sherman Firefly. All were not "easily capable" of destroying the Tiger I. In a straight shooting match the Tiger I was superior to all of them, the M26 and Firefly were both more durable, manuverable and reliable than the Tiger I. They both were inferior in armour protection. The IS-2 only carried 28 rounds, it had weak welding, it had a slow rate of fire due to two-piece loading and it was cramped. It also had inferior armour protection to the Tiger I although it was more reliable and easier to repair/build.

Heavily disagree there, unless you're talking about the Konigstiger?

Toe-to-toe, the Tiger was the worst there in all respects except flank protection, though the JS2 was close.

Quote:

The Maus never saw any action. That is pure myth. The Maus was destroyed by it's "crew" and members of the production team.

Can't say definately one way or the other, I think it did, but was destroyed because:

1. The Ruskies got too close.

2. The scientists were valuable to the Soviets, more room to barter with.

Quote:

Thank you, it's pretty obvious it was planned. That is why they were testing the chassis with a G turret first.

You're welcome, it is obvious, isn't it?

The turret and hull were made by different companies, always a bad thing IMHO.

plan_D · 08-15-2005, 07:06 PM

You disagree?

Which part to you disagree with? You believe that the M26 and Firefly could match a Tiger I in a straight shooting match?

The IS-2 was poorly built and suffered extensive armour trouble when welding failed. The Tiger I could destroy it at ranges up to and including 1000 metres.

Go look up armour values of all those tanks, the Tiger I was superior. It had superior firepower to the IS-2, Firefly and M26. It had superior armour protection than all of them. It had better optical equipment. Better radios.

In battle the Tiger I was superior to them. If you really want to discuss this with me properly, bring facts and sources to bare.