PzII Chassis for Sturmgeschutz
PzII Chassis for Sturmgeschutz
Was the PzII chassis ever considered for the assault vehicle? If not, why not? Czech designs for assault guns appear to tiny vehicles; less than 10 tons. Also Pz II was able to accommodate the 150 field gun, and very successfully the 105 mm gun. A 75 mm gun would have been well within its abilities.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion
-
- Member
- Posts: 3370
- Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44
Re: PzII Chassis for Sturmgeschutz
You are confusing Assault Guns and Panzerjäger. The Assault Guns were expected to be well enough armoured to be in the front line in direct support of the Infantry while the Panzerjäger were expected to knock out enemy tanks from concealed positions and some way back from the front line. Neither the Pz II wasn't able to take the weight of the heavy gun and the extra armour thus required.
Alan
Re: PzII Chassis for Sturmgeschutz
Uparmoring the PzII to 1940 Stug levels would have added about 2 tons to the tank. Given the historical 8 tons that the J variant added, it is fully feasible. Plus the loss of mobility is mitigated by the change in mission type.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion
-
- Member
- Posts: 3370
- Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44
Re: PzII Chassis for Sturmgeschutz
The J variant didn't enter series production because it was useless so why use it as a prop to your argument ? Further why would the Germans have wasted time and effort on up armouring the Pz II to do the job of the Pz III chassis ? You have also forgotten that in order to properly mount the sIG 33 in the Pz II chassis it was necessary to widen the tank and increase its length by a road wheel. Even this proved too little and only 12 of those vehicles were produced as being a waste of effort.
Alan
Re: PzII Chassis for Sturmgeschutz
According to a telex message dated 17.10.1942 from Pz. AOK Afrika to the OKH the Pz. II chassis of sIG 33-Sfl. was unsatisfactory and had proved a failure.
Among difficulties encountered were that the engine, transmission and suspension were too weak for the vehicle's total weight. [And that on an open-topped vehic with lighter base armour than a mid-to-late production StuG III.]
Specifically extreme overheating of engine coolant and motor oil due to overburdening the engine. Fan performance was insufficient, cooling area too small.
Frequent damages to mitre gears (the drive train went on one side of the hull from engine to transmission via two sets of mitre gears), teeth breakages frequent.
Cracked track links and pins, cracked sprockets.
For further production of a sIG-Sfl. the Panzer III chassis was considered necessary.
Info from Sturmgeschütze - Entwicklung und Fertigung der sPak by Walter J. Spielberger.
Markus
Among difficulties encountered were that the engine, transmission and suspension were too weak for the vehicle's total weight. [And that on an open-topped vehic with lighter base armour than a mid-to-late production StuG III.]
Specifically extreme overheating of engine coolant and motor oil due to overburdening the engine. Fan performance was insufficient, cooling area too small.
Frequent damages to mitre gears (the drive train went on one side of the hull from engine to transmission via two sets of mitre gears), teeth breakages frequent.
Cracked track links and pins, cracked sprockets.
For further production of a sIG-Sfl. the Panzer III chassis was considered necessary.
Info from Sturmgeschütze - Entwicklung und Fertigung der sPak by Walter J. Spielberger.
Markus
Re: PzII Chassis for Sturmgeschutz
OTOH the kwk37 is less than half the weight of the SIG33, and with significant less recoil. Also focusing on the shortcomings of SIG-sporting design overlooks that the Panzer II chassis did very successfully carry a weapon larger than the kwk37 (the 10.5 cm leFH 18). But unlike the ad-hoc Bison, the Wespe was much more carefully designed and developed.
Bottom line, I am unconvinced that the Panzer II chassis could not have loaded a kwk37 in a fixed superstructure, and with beefed armor. Of course, that would have been the endpoint for this chassis, unlike the Panzer III chassis, where a significantly more powerful kwk could be added.
Bottom line, I am unconvinced that the Panzer II chassis could not have loaded a kwk37 in a fixed superstructure, and with beefed armor. Of course, that would have been the endpoint for this chassis, unlike the Panzer III chassis, where a significantly more powerful kwk could be added.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion