Sd.Kfz 251 with Pak 36 and Stielgranate 41

[Christian W.]

Hello,

Would any of our forum members have pictures of Sd.Kfz 251 with Pak 36 and Stielgranate 41? Some Sd.Kfz 251s were armed with Pak 36 which was designed to fire Stielgranate 41, but has anyone ever seen a picture of Sd.Kfz 251 with Pak 36 and Stielgranate 41?

The closest I have seen is Sd.Kfz.6/2 with Flak 36 and Stielgranate 41: while Stielgranate 41 was designed for Pak 36, it was technically possible to fire it from another gun as long as the barrel size was big enough to accommodate it, and Flak 36 happened to be such a gun.



Thanks.

[Yoozername]

How could they do that with the flash suppressor?

[Christian W.]

How could they do that with the flash suppressor?

It would obviously be removed to use Stielgranate 41.

[Contender]

You might have better luck trying to find the optic for the Sd.kfz 251/10 or the 250/10 the "Z.F. 2 x 16" (gerat number 1039) because if these vehicles did indeed fire these rounds it would probably be modeled into the optic like the late 37 mm flak gun ground sight which has a range scale for the hollow-charge grenade.

[Yoozername]

I find it somewhat whimsical that they are using an optical range-finder with the Stielgranate 41.

[Manuferey]

Hello,
Would any of our forum members have pictures of Sd.Kfz 251 with Pak 36 and Stielgranate 41? Some Sd.Kfz 251s were armed with Pak 36 which was designed to fire Stielgranate 41, but has anyone ever seen a picture of Sd.Kfz 251 with Pak 36 and Stielgranate 41?

The only Pak 36 I'm aware of is the 3.7 cm Pak 36 (p), the 37 mm M-36 Bofors bought by Poland before WW2.
I've never seen a Pak 36(p) mounted on a Sd.Kfz.251.

Would you mean instead the standard German 37 mm Pak gun i.e. 3.7 cm Pak (no year)?

See some pictures of this gun with Stielgranate 41:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&t=211688

Emmanuel

[Blorange]

How would the crew intend to fit the warhead in combat? At best they'd have to traverse the gun to a 90 degree angle to attempt to fit the wearhead whilst remaining within the crew compartment. Or perhaps through reaching over the gun shield and dangling across the barrel (assuming that the shield was lowered, or one of those shorter variants). Instead I'd assume it would have to be fitted prior to combat, and I can't speak for how viable having it attached for periods of time would be.

Its possible. But to me it seems more like a "good idea" that wouldn't work in practice, outside of where circumstances permitted it. I.e. a situation where the crew wouldn't be disturbed whilst fitting it.

Someone do fill me in on what retained the warhead within the barrel, and how liable it would be to be knocked out if the vehicle went over a bump?

[Grzesio]

Exactly. There was no reasonable way to (re)load the grenade on the vehicle, particularly in combat (I think the traverse of the gun was only 60 degrees).
Nothing held the grenade on the barrel other than friction, but, on the other hand, the tail and shaft of the grenade were fairly long.
Then the grenades were pretty big for a cramped interior of the vehicle.

[Contender]

How would the crew intend to fit the warhead in combat? ........ reaching over the gun shield and dangling across the barrel

It does not seem any worse than other vehicles or weapon systems which launched these types of hollow charge rounds:


or some infantry support vehicles for that matter:


Furthermore the 250/10 & 251/10 gun shield was substantially smaller and less intrusive than the flak tank & flak piece pictured above & by OP:

[Yoozername]

I could possibly see the 251 being used defensively as a 'back-stop' weapon that could use its mobility to fire a Stielgranate at an enemy tank making a breakthrough. Obviously, pulling back to cover to reload.

http://inert-ord.net/rod02h/stielgr/index.html

They were produced in great numbers. I wonder if they were ever used in city fighting dropped from buildings.