3 more photos of the Panzer Beo III; in the first the fake gun could be clearly seen, and I dont think they actually deceive anybody …
Panzerknacker, I’m curious about photo 1.
It seems the driver’s and bow-gunner’s roof hatches are absent from the vehicle.
Was the only access therefore via the commander’s hatch and the turret side-doors, or were the hull hatches between the tracks still in place on this model of the chassis?
I know the hull hatches were eliminated in the later marks of both Pz3 and Pz4, but had no clue before seeing photo 1 here that the roof hatches in the hull had been omitted or plated over.
I find that to be a very strange thing.
Kind and Respectful Regards Panzerknacker, Uyraell.
It seems the driver’s and bow-gunner’s roof hatches are absent from the vehicle.
The Panzer III chassis was kind of small so it never had roof hatches for MG gunner and driver. The Panzer IV did because it was a more roomy chassis. The large side acess doors in the turret sides are used to get in the vehicle by the turret crew and chasis panzersoldat as well.
Thank you Panzerknacker my friend. I’ve a much better understanding of it now.
Looking back, I didn’t often see images of panzers from above, so had no idea the bow-overhead hatches had not existed in the PZ3 series.
I did know some had hatches in the glacis plate, but had thought that to be more often seen in the Pz4 series vehicles.
Kind and Respectful Regards, Uyraell.
On Photo 3: Now with it’s own Zimmerit! Love it Panzerknacker!
Thank you Panzerknacker my friend. I’ve a much better understanding of it now.
Looking back, I didn’t often see images of panzers from above, so had no idea the bow-overhead hatches had not existed in the PZ3 series.
I did know some had hatches in the glacis plate, but had thought that to be more often seen in the Pz4 series vehicles.
The Panzer III had two small hatches forward to the emplacemente of the hull crew, those were for inspecting the drum brakes. that might be the ones causing some mistake.
Do you think so ?, I think the only Variant of the Panzer III ever use zimmerit was the L
I think the only Variant of the Panzer III ever use zimmerit was the L
& the Ausf M i.i.r.c
Yea that too, but definately is not the tank most associated with the anti magnetic paste.
By the early variants of the Panzer III had other way to exit.
Panzerknacker, just a thought, but could it be that the “bridge” on the PZ1 chassis is not a bridge in the true sense, but simply a ramp to the actual bridge as would have been carried on the Brueckenlaeger IV chassis?
I seem to recall in Guderian’s book “mobile ramps” are mentioned.
My thought is that perhaps the PZ1 chassis we see here is one of those ramps.
If it is a ramp, it doesn’t really have to bear the weight for long, be it 7 tons or otherwise, and in any case, the mobility of the ramp is secondary once the bridge itself has been crossed by the vehicles that need to use it, meaning the PZ1 chassis is in effect disposable if need be.
I admit this is a somewhat speculative thought, but it seems to fit the deployment method for the bridging vehicle-proper.
To my mind, it makes sense.
Kind and Respectful Regards my friend, Uyraell.
Thinking about that, you may well be correct PK, my friend.
I recall seeing those hatches in the glacis in some illustrations, and have certainly seen captions decribing those hatches as crew exits. I also recall reading of a debate in a treadhead forum that the hatches were inspection hatches only, as you state in your post. I’m inclined to take your view of it, because it would take an “Extremely Motivated” man to be able to contort his body at speed to exit a Pz 3 via one of the glacis hatches, and try as I might, I cannot envisage him succeeding.
Many years ago I sat in the driver’s position in a Valentine tank.
Granted, no Pz3, but the same age vehicle in design terms, with many of the same design limits.
Leaving the Valentine is not an easy task. Leaving it in a hurry would be vastly less so.
That experience showed me how dreadfully difficult it would be to exit the vehicle were it on fire, for example, and while the flames and potential explosion of the tank would provide great motivation as regards speed of exit, it would also hinder that same exit, especially were the man having to contort himself around various very hot components in the process.
Kind and Respectful Regards Panzerknacker my friend, Uyraell.
The good thing is that when you tank caught fire and the flames start heating the ammuniton you always find the correct motivation to jump out of it, he,he. Of course if you a are a big panzer man ora fat british tank crew you might found some trouble, and yes even in that spciellay designed side exits. 
Panzerknacker, just a thought, but could it be that the “bridge” on the PZ1 chassis is not a bridge in the true sense, but simply a ramp to the actual bridge as would have been carried on the Brueckenlaeger IV chassis?
I seem to recall in Guderian’s book “mobile ramps” are mentioned.
My thought is that perhaps the PZ1 chassis we see here is one of those ramps.
Yes is spossible, actually so far I know an special “sturmsteg” assault ladder to be deployed over thick barber wire or above the bunkers roof, however that was emplaced on bigger Panzer IV chassis. This ( Pz I ) seems a more limited budget variant.
Sturmsteg panzer
Speaking with a Pz III veteran, he definitely spoke about the driver and radio operator needing to exit through the turret hatches. The brake inspection hatches were not an option for them and crews knew that to be a severe weakness in the Pz III design.
Interesting that one of the roadwheels is the pic you post here is absent.
This suggest two things.
A: that chassis is not going to be mobile, or even capable of being mobile, for very much longer.
B: that chassis is vastly, heavily overloaded, to the point of being near collapse.
As a matter of interest my friend, you posted earlier about how the German Special purpose panzers were often over-loaded in the suspension.
The pic above demonstrates that with extreme clarity.
Kind and Respectful Regards PK, my friend, Uyraell.
Looks like the whole front suspension assembly is missing on one side at least, not good or easy to drive especially with the weight of the top hamper looking like it is mostly towards the front.
Having driven armoured vehicles with broken torsion suspension bars, overloaded front heavy mine ploughs and short tracked (missing track adjuster/idler wheel) I pity the bloke having to move that even a short distance.
Interesting that one of the roadwheels is the pic you post here is absent.
This suggest two things.
A: that chassis is not going to be mobile, or even capable of being mobile, for very much longer.
B: that chassis is vastly, heavily overloaded, to the point of being near collapse.
You forgot the option C, it stepped over a landmine and the section was blow off ;), I think the tracks was Re-ensembled for phot pusposes only, but that tank is under repair for sure.
Looks like the whole front suspension assembly is missing on one side at least, not good or easy to drive especially with the weight of the top hamper looking like it is mostly towards the front.
Having driven armoured vehicles with broken torsion suspension bars, overloaded front heavy mine ploughs and short tracked (missing track adjuster/idler wheel) I pity the bloke having to move that even a short distance
Incidentally the Panzer III ride ( with all the torsion bars in place ) was noted as comfortable, unlike the hard leaf springs in the Pz Iv ths suspesion in the Mark III was designed by Doktor Porsche. somewhat luxurious for a massed production tank.
For recovery of armoured vehicles with missing road/idler wheels and/or top rollers we used to put the track back on with maybe a few links removed so that we could drive them at least some way to a more suitable area for repair, low loader or tow.
Always makes me wonder why so many armoured vehicles had front driving sprockets but rear engines with a transmission having to fit through the hull. The notable exception seems to be Soviet tanks.
For recovery of armoured vehicles with missing road/idler wheels and/or top rollers we used to put the track back on with maybe a few links removed so that we could drive them at least some way to a more suitable area for repair, low loader or tow.
Well, that is quite feasible too.
Always makes me wonder why so many armoured vehicles had front driving sprockets but rear engines with a transmission having to fit through the hull. The notable exception seems to be Soviet tanks.
It was always seen more logical the motor to “pull” the tracks, instead “pushing” them, that is why
you see always big russians tank like the VK-1 or JS- 2 with ( apparently) loose tracks. In the end it didnt make a lot of difference
Führungpanzer III
Panzer III ausf G or H with aditional radio equipment for guiding remore controlled explosive loaded vehicles like the Sd.Kfz 300/301. 70 converted in 1942-43, used by F.K battallions.
[FONT=Verdana]Leichter Reheinwerfer SOMUA MCG
In early 1943 the Generalfeldmarschall Rommel, just arriving from the African teather of operation was put in charge of inspecting the defensive worthiness of the Atlantic Wall. From Rommel s inspiration came a number of special panzers whom are little known even today. One of the first request of Rommel was for a movable plataform capable to deliver a rain of mortar shells on the beachheads.
This armoured vehicles manufactured to fullfill this requeriment had a weird looking shape, mostly because they were erected over a captured French MCG artillery tractor of the Societe dOutillage Mecanique et Usinage dArtillerie ( society of machine tools and artillery manufacturing) mostly know as SOMUA.
Its engine and driver compartiment were cover by armoured plate to withstand rifle fire. 16 tubes of “8cm granatwerfer” (literally grenade throwers) were emplaced over a steel turntable. The 16 pieces were muzzleloaders and could turn 360 º and fire in a 16 shots salvo or two salvoes of 8 shells each.
The normal vehicle crew was 4, driver, two loaders and aimer/ vehicle chief. Max muzzle velocity of the 80mm projectile 224 mps, max range 2700 meters. Some 36 L.Rw.Somua halftracks were completed inside Alkett facilities by the “Baukommando Becker” between april and july 1943.
Characteristics Light Grenade thrower on SOMUA MGC:
Engine. 6 cilinders gasoline SOMUA 105 hp.
Weight: 6100 kg
Suspension: leaf spring
Armor: 8-9mm
Speed: 45 km/h
[/FONT]
Firing a salvo of eight seems an awkward way for the fire control blokes to direct the fire. Would have made more sense to have ripple fire or an ability to fire one round at a time.
Firing all 16 must have compressed the suspension quite abit so maybe accuracy was not too good especially when firing 16 rounds over nearly 3 km.
It was essentially an improvised “stonk” system, much as the use of “hedgehog” from tanks on land was for British forces.
Accuracy wasn’t quite so critical as for an artillery stonk for example, because the system PK shows in the photo was an area weapon in any case, and the beaten zone of impact was measured in tens of square yards rather than smaller units.
Basically, though smaller and vastly more mobile, this German system has more in common with the British “Matress” (the LCM with multiple hedgehog launchers, as employed at Walcheren, for example) bombardment system than it does with a conventional mortar role.
Panzerknacker, a very neat posting, my friend, thoroughly enjoyable.
From memory, I don’t think more than approximately 150 Somua-Kegresse vehicles were converted as this image shows.
Have you confirmation of the number of conversions?
Kind and Respectful Regards Leccy my friend, Uyraell.