Military Review

Small tank destroyers of Germany

13
At the end of 1943, the tank armament testing department (WaPruf 6) entered into agreements with BMW and Weserhuette to develop the so-called “small fighter” tanks»- Panzerkleinzerstoerer. Later, such a machine was named "Rutscher" (fidget). However, at the end of February 1944 this work was canceled, since the tank destroyer Jagdpanzer 38, later called the Hetzer, was adopted.


Rutscher projects are back at the end of 1944. At the above-mentioned meeting of the Tank Development Commission, which took place on 23 on January 1945, Chief of Staff of the Inspector-General of Tank Forces, Major General Tomale, said that at present the development of the project on a small tank destroyer is a very important task. These cars were considered as weapon infantry support melee. At the same time, it was believed that it could inflict "maximum damage to the enemy with the cost of its production of the minimum amount of scarce raw materials and labor."

Speaking after Tomale, Colonel Holtshauer, who headed the tank weapon test department (WaPruf 6), said that over the past two years more than 20 various “small tank destroyer” projects were considered, but only projects from BMW and Weserhiitte were acceptable for manufacturing .

During the discussion, it was decided to develop a combat vehicle with a mass of 3,5-5 tons with a crew of two, engine 90 l. with. (supposed to use the 4-cylinder Tatra). In addition, the option of installing a FAK-5 Zahnradfabrik 45-speed gearbox in a block with an 150-strong Saurer diesel engine, the prototype of which was supposed to be tested by March, was considered on the car.


Wooden model (life-size) of a small tank destroyer “Rutscher”, developed by BMW. This project, armed with two PAW80H8 63 guns, was considered in January 1945 (PI)



The second version of the small tank destroyer “Rutscher” from BMW with a modified hull shape. To compare the size of the car is next figure tanker (SP)


The thickness of the armor was 20 mm front of the hull and 14,5 mm on the sides and stern, the total height of the machine was assumed to be no more than 1,5 meters, and the clearance, for better permeability, should have been at least 350 mm. 80-mm (to be exact 81,4-mm) Panzerabwehrwerfer 8 H63 anti-tank gun (8-cm PAW 8Н63) and a machine gun were supposed to be used as weapons. It was planned to fabricate five Rutscher samples in the shortest possible time in order to determine its characteristics and to consider the possibility of organizing mass production.

There should be a small digression, and say a few words about the 80-mm gun PAW 8H63. This artillery system, designed and manufactured by Rheinmetall in 1944, was created as a further development of the Offen Roh anti-tank grenade launcher. Her shells were of rather original design - they had a cumulative head, in the center, in a cardboard sleeve, there was a propelling charge, and in the lower part - six stabilizers. When fired, the role of the powder chamber was played by the space between the tail and head parts, in which the propelling charge was located. With the passage of the projectile through the barrel of the charge burned completely.

Externally, the PAW 8Н63 looked like an ordinary cannon - it had a carriage, shield, wheels. Serial production of these guns began at the end of 1944, at the factory of the Wolf company in Magdeburg, and until the end of the war the 301 artillery system was manufactured.

For firing from PAW 8Н63, shots were used with a cumulative projectile Pwk.Gr.5071, which had an initial speed of 520 m / s. The armor penetration rate of the projectile at a distance of 750 m was 145 mm normal. However, the accuracy of the PAW 8Н63 was significantly lower than that of conventional anti-tank guns. In addition to the cumulative, high-explosive fragmentation projectiles were used for shooting from PAW 8Н63, the range of which was 1500 m.

The main attractive point of using the PAW 8Н63 as a weapon for the “light tank destroyer” was a small rollback of the cannon with a rather large caliber of the artillery system. By the way, the Luftwaffe command, which was planning to use this machine for arming paratroopers, took serious interest in the Rutscher project.


General view of the PAW 80H8 63-mm anti-tank gun. These artillery systems were supposed to be used for armament of small tank destroyers “Rutscher” (SP)


The progress of work on the “small tank destroyer” was considered by 19 in March 1945 at a meeting of the headquarters of the inspector general of tank forces. By this time, the options “Rutscher” of BMW companies weighing 3,8 tons (weapons - two 80-mm guns PAW 8H63), Bussing-Nag weighing 5 tons (the project assumed wide use of automotive units in production), Humboldt-Deutz weight about 5 tons and Weserhuette weighing about 3,5 tons (completely original development).

During the discussion, the military came to the conclusion that the creation of a full-fledged combat vehicle with specified characteristics when using components and assemblies that were already in production is impossible. And for the development of self-propelled guns of the original design (with the new engine, transmission and chassis) mass 3,5-5 tons and the development of its mass production will require at least one and a half - two years. It was also noted that when using industrial components and assemblies, it is possible to create and begin mass production of self-propelled units armed with an 80-mm PAW 8H63 X-gun, but with a weight of 7 — 10 tons (versions of such machines offered by Daimler-Benz) in a fairly short time. However, taking into account the fact that the PAW fire was effective at distances less than 600 meters, the creation of such a machine was considered inexpedient as quite expensive, but of low combat value.

As a result, the creation of a “light tank destroyer” and the organization of its mass production in the near future was considered inexpedient. At the same time, the companies Weserhuette and Daimler-Benz were offered to carry out further design of self-propelled units weighing 3,5 and 7,5 tons, respectively. After the manufacture of prototypes and their tests it was supposed to return to the discussion of the need for the production of a “small tank destroyer”. It was recommended to consider the possibility of arming the machines not only with the 80-mm PAW 8Н63, but also with the 75-mm KwK L / 48 cannon to ensure effective firing at distances over 600 meters.


The command of the Berlin garrison inspects the Borgward wedges, armed with an 88-mm RPz.B 54 “Pantsershrek” rocket launcher. Spring 1945 of the year. The photo shows four cars, and in addition to installing six "Panzershrek" on a special installation, another grenade launcher laid on the nadgusenichnaya shelf (PI)


Perhaps, the above-described work on the creation of a “small tank destroyer” is associated with the appearance of a self-propelled anti-tank installation of six RPN.B 88 “Panzershrek” RPZ.B 54 rocket launchers on the Sd tanketki chassis. Kfz. 301 B-IV Borg-Ward. In some sources, this machine is referred to as the Panzerjager "Wanze" (bug).

The Borgwarts began to enter the army in 1943 and were intended primarily as radio-controlled vehicles carrying explosives. A special discharged container with explosives was fastened on the wedge heel, which was exploded after the B-IV had moved a safe distance. With the help of these charges, they made passages in minefields, undermined enemy firing points, etc.

“Borgward” was produced in three versions (Ausf. A, Ausf. B and Ausf. C), and was a machine mass 3,6-4, 85 tons with an engine power 49-78 HP, which allowed it to move at speeds up to 40 km / h While moving the car on the march, it was led by a driver, for whom there was a special place. Borgvard's armor protection was 8 — 22 mm, depending on the modification.


Fighters of the Red Army on the captured German Borgward wedge with the installation of six 88-mm "Panzershrek". Berlin, May 1945 of the year. In addition to grenade launchers, the machine has three smoke grenade launchers on the front hull plate (ASKM)



The German Borgvard wedge with the installation of six 88-mm "panzershrekov", thrown on the streets of Berlin. May 1945 of the year (ASKM)


In total, until the end of 1944, the 1181 produced a serial machine of this type, which entered service with the battalions of radio-controlled tanks. As of 1 in January 1945, X-VUMX B-IV tanks remained in service, and even 79 were in training units and warehouses. Probably, their conversion into anti-tank self-propelled units resulted from the design of the “small tank destroyer”. Although it is not excluded the likelihood that this was done on the initiative “from below”.

The exact amount of Panzerjager Wanze made on the B-IV Borgward base is unknown. The most common figure is 56 machines. At the same time, various sources report on the participation of these self-propelled guns in the battles for Berlin in the spring of 1945, as confirmed by their photos on the streets of the city. There are references to the fact that Panzerjager Wanze operated as part of the 1 division of tank destroyers, and were also used in the band of the 11 volunteer panzergrenadier division of the SS Nordland.

Judging by the available several photos of Panzerjager Wanze, the launch pads of the “Panzershrek” were mounted on a special swing frame. In addition, some of them show the installation of smoke grenade launchers on the front hull sheet. Probably after the shot at the enemy from “Panzershrek” it was supposed to cover the withdrawal of the car for cover by a smoke grenade.


Also the machine as in the previous photo. In the background are the Brandenburg Gate. Berlin, May 1945 of the year (ASKM)



A German Borgvard wedge with the installation of six 88-mm Panzershrek at an exhibition of captured weapons and equipment. Moscow, TsPK and O Gorky. 1946 year. To the left of the "Borgvard" is visible "Waffenturger" Ardelta (ASKM)
Author:
Articles from this series:
German tank industry to 1945 year
Infrared devices for German tanks
Modernization of the "Royal Tiger", 1945 year
Tanks "Panther" in 1945 year
"Waffentragers"
Jagdpanzer 38D tank destroyer
German anti-aircraft tanks
Small tank destroyers of Germany
E series tanks
13 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. avt
    avt 24 December 2013 10: 06 New
    +4
    A good continuation of the last convulsions of the tank thought of the Nazis, interesting material +
  2. datur
    datur 24 December 2013 10: 09 New
    +1
    Hmm, a child prodigy and only !!!! wassat
  3. Prohor
    Prohor 24 December 2013 10: 29 New
    +1
    Looking at the unprecedented abundance of anti-tank equipment in the Wehrmacht, the conclusion suggests itself that the Germans, at the very thought of our tanks, pissed around their pants around the clock and shouted "Mom!" It was a nightmare and horror for Germany, and talking about some "superiority" of the Panzerwaffe is simply inappropriate.
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 24 December 2013 10: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: datur
      Hmm, a child prodigy and only !!!!

      Quote: Prokhor
      Looking at the unprecedented abundance of anti-tank equipment in the Wehrmacht, the conclusion suggests itself that the Germans, at the very thought of our tanks, pissed around their pants around the clock and shouted "Mom!" It was a nightmare and horror for Germany, and talking about some "superiority" of the Panzerwaffe is simply inappropriate.

      And now - three times "Hurray!".
      Striking neglect and apparent unwillingness to see the rational grain in the technique of the enemy. Yes, we won, but why should it be arrogant to spit right and left? "And here we have ...!" - Well, we didn’t have anything like that, there wasn’t. And there were no anti-tank grenade launchers. But weren’t nearly two thousand tanks burned from such “waffles” in Berlin? (Do not try to accuse me of falsification, this is official data, it is enough to read the memoirs of Generals Bogdanov, Katukov and the commanders of the tank corps of their tank armies) And it also says who and where he pissed into his pants at the mention of the Panzer Shreks and Panzerfausts.
      But in reality, we see the world's first self-propelled PTK. So much for the “prodigy”! The Germans during the war did what appeared in the other armies two decades later. It may not be patriotic, but obvious!
      1. Andy
        Andy 24 December 2013 18: 01 New
        +1
        "Striking neglect and apparent reluctance to see the rational grain in the technique of the enemy"
        the range and accuracy of fire by some shrek left no chance of surviving the host vehicle.
        "But weren’t nearly two thousand tanks burned from such waffles in Berlin?"
        no. hand grenade launcher in the city is a thing. because of the loss. only now our Berlin took, and the Germans, Stalingrad, no
      2. Stas57
        Stas57 25 December 2013 09: 04 New
        0
        almost two thousand tanks burned in Berlin? (Do not try to accuse me of falsification, this is official data, it is enough to read the memoirs of Generals Bogdanov, Katukov and the commanders of the tank corps of their tank armies)

        again "the whole truth is in memoirs"?
        1. IRBIS
          IRBIS 25 December 2013 10: 20 New
          0
          Quote: Stas57
          again "the whole truth is in memoirs"?

          No, in the "GABTU Handbook ..." ...
    2. mirag2
      mirag2 24 December 2013 11: 42 New
      +4
      In addition to our tanks against Germany, there were a bunch of other tanks — and British — in one operation in Africa (where the Germans fought for bespont Italians) —the Germans destroyed about 800 British tanks.
      I do not praise the fascists — but they fought better than their allies, and I respect courage in any people — as the highest virtue.
      But the British in Africa had Indian divisions fighting with the Gulkin, and as the most combat-ready-Australian, it struck me. I did not know this before.
      The English film was watched "Road to Rome."
      Documentary naturally.
    3. Volkhov
      Volkhov 24 December 2013 13: 05 New
      0
      417000 tanks were restored by industry and repair units, 95000 tanks were produced, 25000 tanks were in place by the start of the war, about 20000 tanks were delivered under Lend-Lease, and there were also armored vehicles, armored vehicles ... and about 11000 tanks remained at the end of the war - that is, by different means more than half a million Soviet tanks were shot down and destroyed - there aren’t so many soldiers in the modern army, but there were Americans, British, French with their armies ...
      No equipment could help the Germans, simply because the classical victory of their side was not originally planned when organizing the war - they did everything possible during the evacuation and now represent the most powerful military organization - only the Gray and other extraterrestrial forces are stronger.
      The modern Russian army - something in between a gang and a suicide club - would be crazy to add there.
      1. Kars
        Kars 24 December 2013 13: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: Volkhov
        end of war about 11000

        all the same, about 35 are left.
        1. Volkhov
          Volkhov 24 December 2013 13: 31 New
          +1
          This is a question of sources and condition of the equipment - if it is considered faulty, it is possible, but the main number is half a million damaged.
      2. family
        family tree 24 December 2013 19: 34 New
        +5
        Quote: Volkhov
        Lend-Lease delivered approximately 20000 tanks,

        12700
        417000 tanks were restored by industry and repair units
        i.e by various means were hit and destroyed more than half a million Soviet tanks

        1. Which of the anti-tank means is the engine life of the engine, or other unit, destroyed, which, in order to restore the tank, is changed in the combat gear?
        2. If a tank has been in Rembath five times, can it be considered that five tanks were destroyed and destroyed by various means?
        3. If a tank, for whatever reason, fails on the march and has been restored to the Rambat, should it be considered damaged and destroyed? wassat
        1. Volkhov
          Volkhov 24 December 2013 23: 35 New
          0
          The number 417000 refers to repairs at factories and repair bases of fronts, as a rule, after evacuation - current repairs were carried out in parts and the tank was not dragged to the factory for its sake - this is difficult in itself. The exact numbers are a moot point, but it's clear that a lot. People are proud of one wrecked tank.
          1. family
            family tree 25 December 2013 07: 28 New
            +1
            http://www.rkka.ru/analys/btrepair/main.htm
            http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/T34/tovictory/?page=35
            Here, about the organization and repair of tanks during the Second World War.
            And a concrete example:
            At the beginning of the movement, the T-34 breaks down the gearbox. Rembatovtsy bring new and change. When you try to start moving, the box again orders to live long. The Special Department strains, and the driver, almost falls under the tribunal, for cowardice. The gearbox is being replaced again. As a result, according to the documents of the combat team, two tanks were restored in the morning. The reason, the driver, because of inexperience, did not clean the dirt from the chassis, and put the tank in a damp place, and at night frost hit
            430000 tanks, these are all returned to service by means of repair facilities of the troops and factories of the People's Commissariat of Defense and Industry
            1. Kars
              Kars 5 January 2014 21: 57 New
              +1
              Quote: perepilka
              430000 tanks, these are all returned to service by means of repair facilities of the troops and factories of the People's Commissariat of Defense and Industry

              How do you justify these your words?
              Quote: perepilka
              cowardice. The gearbox is being replaced again. As a result, according to the documents of the combat team, two tanks were restored in the morning

              Show these documents? What exactly is written there? Restored? Repaired? Is there a reason for failure? Are there battle damage graphs, current repairs, and so on?
  4. Andrey77
    Andrey77 28 December 2013 19: 37 New
    0
    And how many Soviet tanks and self-propelled guns were irretrievably lost during the assault on Berlin? Are there more or less truthful sources?
  5. DesToeR
    DesToeR 5 January 2014 21: 47 New
    0
    Quote: IRBIS
    Striking neglect and apparent unwillingness to see the rational grain in the technique of the enemy. Yes, we won, but why should it be arrogant to spit right and left? "And here we have ...!" - Well, we didn’t have anything like that, there wasn’t. And there were no anti-tank grenade launchers.


    Have you ever seen a foreigner pouring shit on his ancestors and his story. Have you seen foreigners who would not be proud of victory over the enemy. You in EVERY article write your nonsense about the superiority of the Aryan race and the crazy losses of the USSR. You are not tired of pouring dirt on your country, slandering the people who were able to seize the initiative in the great war and scratch the victory? Regarding "well, we had nothing of the kind." It was! You probably are not aware that all of these faustpatrons and other panzer shreks are an ersatz weapon at the level of Soviet anti-tank systems, with approximately the same efficiency. The share of tank losses from these weapons ranged from an average of 3 to 5%, and in rare clashes reached 17%. The infantryman physically and psychologically could not use this weapon against the tank because of its imperfection. Indirectly, this confirms the huge number of faustpatrons just abandoned unused.
    PS None of the Germans who survived and, as a rule, passed captivity do not agree with the statement that the enemy was stronger. How long will we, WINNERS, bow to a nation that has lost two World Wars ?!
    1. Kars
      Kars 5 January 2014 21: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      Have you ever seen a foreigner pouring shit on his ancestors and his story. Have you seen foreigners who were not proud of victory over the enemy

      Are you fluent in foreign languages? If you haven’t heard of such languages, then maybe they simply haven’t been translated into Russian?
  6. DesToeR
    DesToeR 7 January 2014 21: 13 New
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    Are you fluent in foreign languages? If you haven’t heard of such languages, then maybe they simply haven’t been translated into Russian?

    I have not heard of such. Maybe they are. Maybe they have not been translated into Russian. What questions, such and answers. What is the meaning of your Kars questions? Or do you think it is normal that in every topic about Soviet / German technology a statement is made like "well, yes, not bad ... but the Germans had better." You do not notice that this has become a stamp? None of its shortcomings is forgiven for Russian weapons, while the German counterparts are quietly silent about the haste and lack of development, the low technological effectiveness and unreliability, dubious combat effectiveness, etc. It doesn’t happen that they (the Germans) excelled in everything, killed and lured everyone and everything, but lost the war. In many ways, the Germans were inferior to the Russians in technology as well. There and then no one writes what the Germans were fools that did not produce large-caliber anti-tank rifles in millions in the years 1941-1943. And why? After all, the same, theoretically, there was a superweapon, even Panther arr. 1943 could be knocked out of the ATRA model of 1941.
    1. Kars
      Kars 7 January 2014 21: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      I have not heard of such.

      But this does not mean that they are not.
      Quote: DesToeR
      What are your Kars questions?

      The fact that you should not judge indiscriminately.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Or do you think it’s normal that in every topic about Soviet / German technology a statement is made like "well, yes, not bad ... but the Germans had better"

      If this is true, and you can prove it, then I do not see anything wrong.

      Quote: DesToeR
      None of its shortcomings are forgiven for Russian weapons, while about German counterparts

      Well, don’t tell me - I can answer on armored vehicles - there are many things that are forgiven for SOVIET weapons, and not many know its flaws, and even less believe it.

      Quote: DesToeR
      It doesn’t happen that they (Germans) excelled in everything

      I think nobody bothers you here to talk about these shortcomings.

      Quote: DesToeR
      There and then no one writes what the Germans were fools, that they did not produce large-caliber anti-tank rifles in millions of years 1941-1943

      Well, the Germans used captured antitank rifles, and did not hesitate to do this.
      and by 1943 they made a slightly more effective weapon.
      Quote: DesToeR
      even Panther arr. 1943 could be knocked out of the ATGM model 1941.

      That even the Tiger could be burned with a bottle of gasoline, and so what?