Nice collection :)
Is anything known of this?
I have not yet come across such, but it could have very well been made. Conciddering that there was the Flakpanzer I Ausf.A, 3,7 cm Flak auf Panzer I Ausf.B, Bergepanzer 38(t) 2 cm Flak, Panzer III 2 cm Flak. So putting a 2 cm Flak on a Panzer II chassis is no problem.
1 Like
Looks like a really cool IFV. Hopefully it would get HVAP so it could do some damage.
How’s the elevation? Could it be used as as SPAA?
Nope, cant be effectively used as a SPAA. because the Baumaffe / Podestial mounting simply doesnt have enove space. Traverse only around +/- 80° elevation would also be around 50-60° (similar to the Sd.Kfz.251/21 or generally the Drilling Ausf.B, with shoulder stab/mount.) It would be a light armored (30mm hull 14,5mm Gunshield). So pretty much a small Automatic AT assault gun. The same mount is also on the Marder III Ausf.M with Mk 103 which also most likely doesnt have enove space for 360° traverse. (Which i am also planning to suggest.)
Pictures:
3 Likes
Cool, then it might get scouting and not relegated to the SPAA role. Would be nice with some more “Light Tanks” in the light tank branch among the SPGs we get there.
1 Like
This is sort of my thinking when it comes to unbalanced SPAAGs. If you add the gun with its full ammunition range as a separate anti-tank type vehicle, then you can remove the unbalanced shells from the AA thus allowing it a proper BR for anti-air again.
In this scenario, the Bergepanzer MK 103 would have HVAP and be balanced solely on its ability to kill tanks, meanwhile both the Zerstorer and Kugelblitz could have said HVAP removed and moved down to where they are at their best.
While having twin or quad 30mms in an anti-tank configuration is cool, I would much prefer to see their original purpose as anti-air be prioritized, with other options using the same armament to allow testing of the weapon’s AT abilities.
2 Likes
Doubt.
Well that’s new. The question lies if the tank is actually functional and not a static defense with the automotive abilities stripped. The Germans are known to have rearmed many tanks with new weaponry specifically to use their turrets as a part of fortifications so there is a possibility.
Whats this? Magrius Deutz, but what gun? My assumtion is a 2 cm Flak in the background, and it has maybe a 4,7 cm Pak Böhler (ö) in some sort of shield?
1 Like
This image has been posted all over the internet suggesting a Kingtiger with the Panther’s KwK 42, but it is not as it seems
I found a neat WT Live post that offers an explanation, a major malfunction in which the breech broke away from the mantlet and slammed into the rear of the turret
Nothing new here, I simply wanted to highlight this interesting misidentification resulting from a relatively rare example of battle damage.
1 Like
Or simply sabotage after the crew fleed. IIRC, they were told to drain the recoil cylinders and let it get stuck back, damage or remove the breech block, set a termite charge on the engine block. And more (iirc).
Hmm, I suppose this method would’ve taken extra time then? If it was a worthwhile means of disabling the vehicle I’d find it suprising we don’t see more photos of it.
Well i did see multiple pictures of such and some written stuff from US troops who found some, but aparently late war many simply didnt care because the time it took.
Makes sense, when a properly-situated explosion could cause even greater damage I can understand why a more elaborate form of self-sabotage would be inconvenient.
