Hungarian, Romanian & Slovak armour!??

[Franzl Rider]

second picture of an Hungarian Toldi. Same unit? From ebay

[Epaminondas]

Booking coming out in the Winter about a battle in Hungry involving the hungarian Panzer division.

PANZERSCHLACHT: Armoured Operations on the Hungarian Plains September-November 1944 (Hardcover)

Looks good.

[melbar16]

Can you tell us more about this Panzerschlacht book? Do you have a link to a review? I'm very interested

[Epaminondas]

Check it out on Amazaon. Not published for another month or two; so probably at least a month before review copies go out.

Looks good though; its an area of operations that generally gets ignored; typically talk about Normandy, Bulge, Budapest and skip right over the intial fighting in Hungry

[zerkalli]

I very interested in armour of the german allies. Information on the first sight can be found, but it's too poor (mainly specifications). Practically there are no photos and descriptions of battle actions of armored detachments. I am addressed for help. Please, help with photos (normal quality) of Hungarian, Romanian and Slovak tanks, assault guns and armoured cars. Can there is an information about actions and tank aces. Thank you.

Здравствулте!
Hello!

http://www.worldwar2.ro - about Romanian Army
http://www.worldwar2.ro/arme/?section=19 - about Romanian Tanks, SPG
http://www.hobby.ro/roarmy/blindate.htm - about Romanian Tanks, SPG


In picture is TACAM T-60

[CB1]

Hi,

Here you can see some photos that should be unpublished anywhere else (at least some of them). Make sure you check the posts below each picture. You probably will not understand much (it is in Hungarian) but may find additional photos or links.
http://www.netlabor.hu/roncskutatas/mod ... =12&cid=33

If you are interested in some other things as well check this:
http://www.netlabor.hu/roncskutatas/modules/myalbum/

And now let us take a stroll in Hungarian armored vehicle fantasyland:

http://www.tar.hu/zsoltmilitary/toldi.htm
On the bottom of the page you can see the Hungarian “Marder”: a 75mm AT gun installed on Toldi chassis (total production: 1). The picture above it shows the medical version: some ammo was taken out to accommodate medical equipment and a back hatch introduced to facilitate “loading” WIA (total production: 9).

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... n&start=15
This is basically an APC based on the Nimród chassis.

And now, Gentlemen, our pride: the Tas (well, you must admit that this one looks hot).
http://www.haditechnika.hu/Archivum/199301/P11.htm
One prototype was made before evil allied bombers destroyed our means of producing further pieces. And the prototype itself is probably somewhere in the dungeons of Kubinka.

Bye,
Krisz

[alecu]

That TOS is a most impressive tank CB1.
Romanian engineers however realised that a small and nimble tank destroyer was the solution for facing the great numbers of Soviet tanks.
http://www.worldwar2.ro/arme/?article=244
The tank is considered a very modern approach for that time and unfortunately the events of 1944 ment that Romanians built another tank only 30 years later.
The Maresal was the prototype for the succesful Hetzer.

[CB1]

Hi alecu,

Personally I think Romanian (and Hungarian) engineers should have kept their mouths shut and the local...well, for lack of a better word: industry (I do not know much about Romanian industry, but Hungarian was of tiny capacity) should have turned to produce under German license. For instance the Pz-III and the StuG-III. I think that by far the most successful weapons program in Hungary was the license-built Bf-109. I do not know how your IAR-39s and IAR-80s fared but our WM-21s (improved Fokker-V?) and "Héja"s (improved Re-2000) surely sucked. Or look at this Swedish wonderbug (i.e. L-60/Toldi). We decided to have it after we poured much time and effort and money into an abortive V-4 program. And as far as I know the only good feature of the V-4 (a 40mm tank cannon) was considered for the Toldi. But top brass decided that a 20mm Solothurn would suffice. And it did suffice - until 1941.

I mean no offense and of course deep in my heart I am terribly proud of the Tas but my mind tells me that it was a waste of time and effort. I am sure you are terribly proud of the Maresal (and you should be - giving rise to Hetzer and beating StuGIII in field tests) but it is a similar stroll in fantasyland. Would it not have been better to have that inferior but very actual StuGIII from early on? Of course we are all much wiser in hindsight and perhaps I tend to look things simple.

Bye,
Krisz

[KACKO]

Hello guys,

didn't Hungarian and Romanian officials tried to get licenses for Germans tanks and... Germans didn't agree?

I will not to try introduce Slovak tank building in WWII. Best try were three armored trains with LT-35 (Pzkpfw-35) built into the railways trains. They did a good job in 1944....against Germans but to be honest even if I still agree it was a great job under pressure of 3-4 weeks I can't call it tank building.

[dragos03]

Hi alecu,

Personally I think Romanian (and Hungarian) engineers should have kept their mouths shut and the local...well, for lack of a better word: industry (I do not know much about Romanian industry, but Hungarian was of tiny capacity) should have turned to produce under German license. For instance the Pz-III and the StuG-III. I think that by far the most successful weapons program in Hungary was the license-built Bf-109. I do not know how your IAR-39s and IAR-80s fared but our WM-21s (improved Fokker-V?) and "Héja"s (improved Re-2000) surely sucked. Or look at this Swedish wonderbug (i.e. L-60/Toldi). We decided to have it after we poured much time and effort and money into an abortive V-4 program. And as far as I know the only good feature of the V-4 (a 40mm tank cannon) was considered for the Toldi. But top brass decided that a 20mm Solothurn would suffice. And it did suffice - until 1941.

I mean no offense and of course deep in my heart I am terribly proud of the Tas but my mind tells me that it was a waste of time and effort. I am sure you are terribly proud of the Maresal (and you should be - giving rise to Hetzer and beating StuGIII in field tests) but it is a similar stroll in fantasyland. Would it not have been better to have that inferior but very actual StuGIII from early on? Of course we are all much wiser in hindsight and perhaps I tend to look things simple.

Bye,
Krisz

There was really no other choice for Romanian and Hungarian engineers, since the Germans refused to license their weapons and even to assist with parts in some cases.

I think that, given the limited resources at their disposal, the Romanian engineers did a very good job. The IAR 80 was actually a very good design. When it was introduced, it was better than the He 112 and on par with the Me 109. It was again the German refusal to supply a better engine that made the IAR 80 obsolete later in the war. With the engine of the FW190A, the IAR 80 could have been better than the latest Me 109 models and the Romanian Airforce would have faced the USAAF on equal terms. And even with its crap engine, the 80's made the Allies pay a high price in their bombing campaign against Romania. As for the IAR 39, it was an obsolete design that was however suited for its tasks on the battlefield.

Maybe the Hungarian fighters you mention were crap (dunno anything about them), but at least your pilots had somthing to use.

Same thing about tanks, the German refusal to license anything made Romanian engineers try to build something from scratch. The result (Maresal), was an original design in many ways that actually succeded to convince the Germans to cooperate. The German enginners sent to evaluate the prototype were so impressed that Hitler actually asked Antonescu to allow the Maresal to be produced in German plants as well, with the production being split between Romania and Germany.It was too late however.

[CB1]

Hi,

Key sentence: German unwillingness to license technology. At least initially yes, granted.

Somewhat later Germans relented though. In the autumn of 1940 the Germans told they cannot ship Ju-87 or Bf-109 but offered licensing the Bf-109F and Me-210. The deal was done in FEB41 and production was up and running in full gear in 1943 – including DB-605 engines. Of course production was shared with Germany.

It could have been the same story with tanks. Following an inquiry in 1937 Germans offered the license of Pz.I. We chose L/60 (Toldi) instead and while that may sound a wise decision I personally doubt that. Of course L/60 was superior to Pz.I. but became obsolete by 1941 regardless and had to get a lot of additional licenses from German companies (engine, torsion spring etc.) anyway. More importantly we missed the opportunity to get involved with the German industry. Maybe during the process we could have “upgraded” the program. Anyway after the moderately successful and rather short-lived reign of the Toldi we had to transit to more powerful vehicle. German reluctance led us to embrace the Czech T-21 (Turán) earlier in 1939, which was hardly more than an experimental prototype at the time. After some trouble the first vehicles reached the troops in JUN42 only to be recalled to the factory in FEB43 due to some technical glitches. Somebody got an idea and a delegation was sent to Germany in APR43 and at that time the Germans were more helpful: license of the Pz.IVG and StuG IV was offered. Then top brass decided that Pz.IVG was not a notable improvement over Turán 75. YIKES!!!!

Bye,
Krisz

[DenesBernad]

There was really no other choice for Romanian and Hungarian engineers, since the Germans refused to license their weapons and even to assist with parts in some cases.

This is only partially true, valid for the early period of the war. Sticking to Rumania, the Germans eventually sold the licence of the Bf 109G, to be manufactured at the I.A.R. Plant in Brasov.

The IAR 80 was actually a very good design.

That's debatable. Indeed, when it first flew, in April 1939, it was one of the top fighter models in the world. However, by the time it actually saw service, in Febr. 1941, the I.A.R. 80 was already surclassed by the latest designs, and by 1944 it was decidedly obsolete, not being developed significantly.

When it was introduced, it was better than the He 112 and on par with the Me 109.

I would again argue with this statement. First, it's still unclear which model was better, the He 112 or the early Bf 109 (great attention has to be paid to which sub-type to actually compare). At that point, the I.A.R. 80 was still on the drawing board. Second, I would hardly call the I.A.R. 80 prototype, featuring an open cockpit, no radio and only a pair of rifle calibre machine guns, better in service than the cannon armed, enclosed cockpit He 112 or Bf 109.

It was again the German refusal to supply a better engine that made the IAR 80 obsolete later in the war.

Eventually, the Germans did supply aviation engines to the Rumanians. Besides the DB 605, necessary for the Bf 109G licence, they also sold the Jumo 211, built into the Savoia 79 bomber. Following tests, neither engine models actually fit the I.A.R. 80.

With the engine of the FW190A, the IAR 80 could have been better than the latest Me 109 models and the Romanian Airforce would have faced the USAAF on equal terms.

By 1944, NO air force could face the USAAF on equal terms! No matter how good the I.A.R. 80/81s could have been, it would have made no significant difference in the outcome of the air war over Rumania (except, of course, if hundreds of more aircraft and pilots would have been available - which wasn't the case).

And even with its crap engine, the 80's made the Allies pay a high price in their bombing campaign against Romania.

Indeed, but by early July 1944, the I.A.R. 80/81 squadrons were decimated and subsequently they were ordered NOT to engage the USAAF any more.

As for the IAR 39, it was an obsolete design that was however suited for its tasks on the battlefield.

That's correct.

Dénes

[dragos03]

Denes, I didn't claim that the IAR 80 was one of the best fighters in the world (although, as you said yourself, it was among the best when it flew the first time). I just said it was a very good design. The fact the enginners of IAR, with the very limited resources at their disposal, have managed to design a fighter comparable to the world's finest at the time is remarkable. It became obsolete later because the Germans refused to supply the right engine for it.

When the IAR prototype was tested vs the He 112, it proved better in all the flying characteristics. Problems like the open cockpit or the weak armament were solved later, although the first models still had weak firepower because of the lack of guns. A German test pilot sent to evaluate the early IAR 80 and compare it with the Me 109 concluded they were on par, although the Romanian plane still had some problems with accesories and overall finishing (which were rectified by the time it became operational).

Of course, by 1944, the IAR 80/81 was obsolete and outmatched by the USAAF fighter escorts. But even then, the IAR's fared better than expected and skilled pilots still could score victories against the Americans. And against the Soviet airforce, the IARs were competitive even at that time.

Yes, the IARs were ordered not to attack the USAAF in July 1944. But that was not only because of the technical inferiority of the IAR 80/81, but also because of the overwhelming odds they faced. While the USAAF could easily replace their losses, Romania had few planes and skilled pilots and could not afford to lose them. Even if the IAR would have been equal to the P51, the Romanian squadrons would have still been decimated in the end.

Overall, the IAR 80 was initially a very good design (perhaps the best fighter produced by a minor in WW2) that was adequate for the first half of the war and, despite being obsolete at the end, it still put up a fight against overwhelming odds.

[alecu]

The licence to build the BF 109 was bought by the Romanian War Ministry as early as 1939 to be built at IAR Brasov, at least. There were a few other factories that could have been able to later integrate the Meserschmitt. But as told above the Germans were reluctant to stick with their promise and the Ro forced them by ordering 15 G2's in 1942 and about 50 kits, they only delivered the 15 aircraft.
Eventually they handed over the licence documentation in late 1943 when it was really too late, only about 35 Me 109 G6 were built until the factory was bombed in an air raid in the next early summer and production ceased. To show the fare capacity of the IAR plant I will say that by 1947 about 201 Me 109's were built and the whole aircraft had been integrated including the DB 605engine.
Who knows how things might have worked out for the Romanian airforce in the summer of 1944 if the licence for the Me's had been given in 1942.

The Maresal is a product incorporating the late war experience and the decision to build Romanian tanks probably came too late.
I dunno what survival ratio the Romanian tank crews had, but it must have been horrible to face the Tiger or the IS in a Renault R 35.

[alecu]

Denes, you are a great authority in this domain.
Probably the IAR 80 was not a good platform for future improvements like German or British aircraft.It probably didn't have a very ergonomic cockpit like the Me or a promising RR Merlin engine. Had the 1500hp engine designed by a Romanian enginner been developed and proven a good design things might have been better. A beautifull airplane flies well that's what they say, and the IAR was a beautifull design and at least in terms of airframe it was a modern design. The later IAR80/81 improved gun platforms were even slower at altitude than the first 50 aircraft series.