Why did the Germans build some tanks without a hull mg?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
User avatar
cbo
Member
Posts: 710
Joined: 15 Feb 2004, 19:23
Location: DK

Re: Swedish S-tank

#16

Post by cbo » 13 Feb 2007, 17:30

Panzermacher wrote:
cbo wrote:
Panzermacher wrote: ok, this is partly my fault for not making a full clarification, when I sighted the Centurion, I did so from (my own stand point) that the Centurion featured almost all of the design characteristics that Modern Tanks have, in other words, sloped frontal Armour, rear transmission & final drive 4 man crew etc

As for the early British designs you have sighted, just to make everyone aware, other than the "Crusader" series these all featured a central drivers position, this obviously does not allow in anyway for the installation of a Bow MG, Radio or Gunner to operate.
It is possible to have bow (hull) machineguns with only one crewmember in the front hull, even when placed in the center. A contemporary of the Centurion like the IS-II did just that, the gun being aimed by the driver. AFAIK this feature was also used in the T-44 and the T54/55. The French Char B1 also had only one crewmember in the front, the driver but he also had a hull mounted MG to play with (as well as a 75mm gun).

But you are right, one will be hard pressed to find a tank made after ca. 1960 with a bow/hull machinegun.

Possibly, the bow/hull MG was abandoned because postwar tanks to an ever increasing degree became predominantly anti-tank weapons, designed to fight other armoured vehicles in mobile battles. The benefits of an unbroken frontal armour plate was just another advantage.

Claus B

User avatar
Panzermacher
Member
Posts: 550
Joined: 21 Jan 2005, 19:08
Location: Groote Eylandt

Re: Swedish S-tank

#17

Post by Panzermacher » 13 Feb 2007, 17:37

cbo wrote:
Possibly, the bow/hull MG was abandoned because postwar tanks to an ever increasing degree became predominantly anti-tank weapons, designed to fight other armoured vehicles in mobile battles. The benefits of an unbroken frontal armour plate was just another advantage.

Claus B
And the irony of that is that since WWII there have been very few Tank vs Tank engagements except for the Israeli wars & nothing like that which occurred on a large scale such as Kursk.


User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

#18

Post by LWD » 13 Feb 2007, 19:49

If you look up the numbers you may find that depending on how things are counted some of the Israeli wars and ODS may be very comparable to Kursk.

User avatar
Panzermacher
Member
Posts: 550
Joined: 21 Jan 2005, 19:08
Location: Groote Eylandt

#19

Post by Panzermacher » 14 Feb 2007, 17:59

LWD wrote:If you look up the numbers you may find that depending on how things are counted some of the Israeli wars and ODS may be very comparable to Kursk.
Yes as you say it does depend on one's perspective & or perception.

LV
Member
Posts: 275
Joined: 18 Apr 2006, 15:31
Location: EU

Re: Swedish S-tank

#20

Post by LV » 14 Feb 2007, 18:59

cbo wrote: It is possible to have bow (hull) machineguns with only one crewmember in the front hull, even when placed in the center. A contemporary of the Centurion like the IS-II did just that, the gun being aimed by the driver. AFAIK this feature was also used in the T-44 and the T54/55. The French Char B1 also had only one crewmember in the front, the driver but he also had a hull mounted MG to play with (as well as a 75mm gun).
Claus B
Yeah, I think that at least the T-54 had a fixed SGMT machine gun in the front plate. But I suppose it was deleted in later models.

User avatar
Strosstruppen
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 26 Jan 2007, 07:57
Location: Toronto

#21

Post by Strosstruppen » 16 Feb 2007, 16:16

For the Ferdinand the crew often carried MP-40s for close-combat defense, and they were stored in the hull of the Ferdinand,
and for the Panther A maybe they assumed it was unnecessary and installed one into the turret coaxially with the
75mm gun.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re:

#22

Post by Aida1 » 01 Jan 2020, 12:29

cbo wrote:
12 Feb 2007, 10:37
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:The Sturmgeschütze didn't have hull-mounted machine guns either.
..which is why the Ferdinand didn't have one either. It was built as a (heavy) Sturmgeschütz according to the standards of such a vehicle at the time. And that did not include a hull or coaxial machinegun (or a commanders cupola for that matter).
It was re-named as a Panzerjäger when responsibility for the organisation of the heavy Sturmgeschütze was taken over by the general-inspectorate for armoured troops under Guderian in March 1943, but that didn't change its intended role on the battlefield.

The Ferdinand did get a cupola and a machinegun when it was upgraded early in 1944. In doing so, it was basically following the same development as the smaller Sturmgeschütze where a coaxial machinegun was requested in 1943, even though it did not materialize in production until the summer of 1944.

So there was nothing apparently "wrong" with the design of the Ferdinand when it was concived in September 1942, it just followed the StuG design practices as they were at the time. And in its combat debut at Kursk, it was deployed according to its design, as a StuG in support of infantry. Experiences here and later showed that it was not suited for close infantry support. It attracted much attention from enemy artillery due to its size, which made life very uncomfortable for any nearby infantry. Without infantry in support, it was completely lost when trying to combat enemy defenses on its own, partly because it lacked suitable weaponry, partly because it wasn't very manouverable and needed to be in order to get its gun to bear on the target. So it was a complete flop as a StuG. It was, however, very usefull as a supporting weapon if it was held back in an overwatch position behind the infantry (or armour) where its firepower and protection from enemy guns could be utilized without jeopardizing the infantry by its presence. Or, of course, as a defensive weapon.

Claus B
Judgment on Ferdinand in a conference note of 17.07.1943:

1.Tactics
Opinion Gen. Insp.:
Infantry does not follow Ferdinand and Sturmpanzer .
Demand : cooperation with Panzergrenadiere .
Opinion Panzer officer:
Employing them like panzer units in a Panzerdivision is false . Employment this way is understandeable as the regimental commander is an old Panzer man.
Correct: employment like Sturmgeschütze , then the staying together with the infantry is guaranteed

2. Technics

machinegun lacks

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”