Thanks for the aditional information. In thuth the projekts Pz II ausf G,H,M L had several common characteritics that could ( and in fact did ) confuse any historian or simple panzer aficionado. Of course that is not our fault but the one of the german engineers wich had so many prototypes for a simple recce tank. :neutral:
12,2 cm self propelled.
Rare “selbstfahrlafette” made upon a captured Lorraine french tractor and armed with a 122 russian howitzer. Apparently was used only as support to an armored train.
This is a very informative thread, been following it for ages, I know it has been a long time since this question was posted but…
The picture on the right is of the Schmallturm designed for the Panther F at Bovington Tank Museum, literally down the road from where I trained, unfortunately it was used as a hard target on, I believe, Salisbury Plain Training Area. The barrel has been cut of for some reason, possibly ease of transport.
I’d recommend visiting the tank museum, I’ve been there many a time since I joined the army, it has recently been extended/ modernised making it all the better.
Grille 17/21/30/42
Geschutzwagen “Tiger” fur 17cm K72, 21cm MRS 18/1 und 30,5cm GRW
A Waffentrager designed by Krupp using Tiger II components as part of the Grille series. Grille 17 was to mount a 170mm K 72 L/50 gun, Grille 21 to be armed with a 210mm Mortar 18/1 L/31, Grille 30 a Skoda 305mm GrW L/16 mortar, and Grill 42 to be armed with a 420mm Grw mortar. Krupp started work on the prototype in 1943/44 with full-scale production to begin in mid-1945 but the end of the war cancelled any further development.
Grille 17/21/30/42 had its armament mounted on the rail platform inside the hull allowing it to be dismounted anytime. Each variant was also armed with two 7.92mm machine guns.It would be operated by the crew of eight (driver, commander, gunner, radio operator and four loaders).
One prototype with 170mm gun was almost completed in May of 1945 and was captured by British troops at Haustenbeck near Paderborn.
Panzerjager Borgward B IVc Ausf.m RPzB 54
Borgward B IV C in Berlin 1945
A Borgward B 4 with a 6x Panzerschreck launcher captured by the Red Army
Panzerjäger Bren 731(e)
Captured Bren carrier armoured tracked vehicle armed with with Panzerschrecks and Panzerfausts
Again i stumbled on this thread …
strange history …
First the germans thought in tactical and strategic ways: heavy and maintenance should be avoided (see VK6501), later on it changed like in scrapping einheitsfahrgestell III/IV… In my eyes the most real valuable element in this thread.
I want to get back to panzerknacker’s words.
Why can’t a war be won with light and medium tanks? Of course it can: blitzkrieg, the summum of combined warfare. The clue is in the organisation and discipline: where the machines do what the tactics demand (blitzkrieg), and not where tactics should be forced in what machines demand (late war German illusion).
model of the III/IV found on the net :shock::shock::shock:
Looking at it I easily get drawn in thinking it would have been far better than standard IV
found www.stardestroyer.net website.
Cool idea. light panzer based on APC Kätzchen (light tank version of 38(t) - 38d(d))
smaller, faster and easier to produce than leopard project
Why can’t a war be won with light and medium tanks? Of course it can: blitzkrieg, the summum of combined warfare. The clue is in the organisation and discipline: where the machines do what the tactics demand (blitzkrieg), and not where tactics should be forced in what machines demand (late war German illusion
I am not sure about going to war with light tanks, you ll be probably defeated (like in the italian case) but with decent designed medium tanks you definately can win. The german fixation with increasing armor and gun calibers is consecuent with the desire to achieve an supuerior quality and an local tactical advantage, eventually that was married with the increasing use of defensive tactics in wich the panzer were seen more like a heavily armored mobile guns to destroy advancing tanks. In that the fast mobility wasnt essential and gave place to some of the monster heavy designs posted here.
Probably, yes…
However I stated light and medium tanks.
Medium tanks can overcome heavies once they have the firepower needed to do so.
Oh yes, indeed, a good example is the medium Sherman Firefly with his 17 pounder destroying Panther and Tigers, of course if you missed a shot on the german cats you were history but that is other item. Unfortunately for many tank crews the vast majority of Sherman and Cromwells, even Churchills landing on Normandie in 1944 did not pocessed that firepower.
Why did they still win then? 
In theory one does need more than medium tanks with sufficient firepower, especially if you can produce lots of them
You are making questions in wich you already know the answers, they won by sheer numbers, but I dont think that would made a lot of consolation for the big numbers of allied tank and tankcrews losses by every centimenter gained of territory after the landings in Normandie. This topic is seen by many as a good showcase of a german excesses is development and overengineering for thier panzers but I am pretty sure that more development and engineering would be a good idea for the people who going to get inside of Sherman, Cromwells and Churchills before being butchered by german tanks or antitank weapons.
Yes, but the tank destroyers did (to an extent). And even if the Allies had had better tanks, they still would have suffered heavier losses by default as they were on the offensive in open country against a well equipped, very competent enemy. Even heavier tanks would have been bottled up in the Commonwealth northern sector, and better tanks really wouldn’t have made much of a difference in the Bocage, where the Americans were pinned down in the Hedgerows. But I agree that several decisions made by the Allied high command handicapped the Allies and resulted in losses of crews that otherwise might have lived to fight another day. But don’t forget that one of the constraints was the tanks needed to fit in landing craft. For instance, the American M26 Pershing, which could have entered the war much earlier–as early as that August actually if the U.S. Army Ordnance Dept. had gotten its way–needed a deep water port to unload on the continent and could not be directly transported to the beach. So difficult choices needed to be made.
And yes, the Panther you have above (which I drove by while at Aberdeen a long time ago) also had weaknesses. One of the Military/History Channel’s episodes of Greatest Tank Battles had an interview with a Canadian vet who was in a Sherman that ambushed a half-dozen to a dozen Panthers from the side as they drove down the road like ducks in a shooting gallery. Even the weak 75mm gun gutted the panzers from the side…
I completely agree.
To such an extend that I question the fact that the German army “needed” Panthers and Tigers. Yes, they were a response to the Russian armory, but perhaps the Germans threw away their rational and coldblooded tactical views and strategy to soon, influenced by their national-socialist hysteria. I dare to say they did not need the tanks they developed at the end. Not that a Tiger was not a powerful machine on the battlefield and of course every already produced and capable fighting vehicle needs to be used.
And yes, the Panther you have above (which I drove by while at Aberdeen a long time ago) also had weaknesses. One of the Military/History Channel’s episodes of Greatest Tank Battles had an interview with a Canadian vet who was in a Sherman that ambushed a half-dozen to a dozen Panthers from the side as they drove down the road like ducks in a shooting gallery. Even the weak 75mm gun gutted the panzers from the side…
Microtactics always kill the monster. It takes resources, competence and skill to win and hold territory. All the rest is spice in the cake.
Very nice model of extended PzIV 
“Krupp”?
Very rare Film of the prototype Henchel VK.30.01 with an trench digging device attached.