Anti-tank SAU of Germany during the war (part 1) - Panzerjager I

20
The presence in the armies of countries of likely opponents of a large number tanks, forced the Wehrmacht leadership to attend to the question of creating effective anti-tank weapons. Horse-drawn artillery from the beginning of the 30s of the XX century was already assessed as very slow and heavy. In addition, the horse cart was too easy a target and made it difficult to move guns on the battlefield. Mechanically-driven artillery was more mobile, but a gun on a self-propelled tracked chassis was an ideal option for fighting enemy tanks.

Already after the military campaign in Poland, German refineries began work on the conversion and conversion of insufficiently armored and lightly armed light tanks PzKpfw I into anti-tank SAU. At the same time, instead of a turret, an armored conning tower was installed on top of the tank, with an 47-mm anti-tank gun installed in it, which had been taken to the Germans during the Anschluss of Czechoslovakia.

Thus, the Panzerjager I. anti-tank self-propelled gun was born. The first serial German tank destroyer based on the chassis of the hopelessly outdated light tank PzKpfw I Ausf. B. 47-mm Czechoslovak anti-tank gun came at an opportune moment, during the occupation of Czechoslovakia, it went to the Germans in significant quantities. This tool was created by Skoda in 1937-1938 and had the designation 4.7 cm KPUV vz.38 (factory index А5). The gun was adopted by the Czech army. With all its remarkable characteristics, the gun had one major drawback - it was completely unsuitable for mechanical punching. The speed of his towing horses was 10-15 km / h, which was enough for the Czech army, but did not suit the Wehrmacht, who lived on the idea of ​​a lightning war.

Anti-tank SAU of Germany during the war (part 1) - Panzerjager I
Panzerjager-I, first chop version

In winter, 1940, the German company Alkett received an order for the design of ACS using a Czech anti-tank gun and chassis of light tanks Pz-I or Pz-II. By this time, the company’s engineers had already created a project for an anti-tank SAU with an 37-mm cannon based on the Pz-I Ausf.A light tank. However, this tank turned out to be unsuitable for reworking under a new weapon - when firing without using special stops at the tank, the sloth simply smashed. Therefore, the gun mounted on the chassis of the tank Pz-I Ausf.B, setting it in an open top and rear armored. The maximum thickness of her armor was 14,5 mm. The horizontal angles of the gun pointing were ± 17.5 degrees, the vertical was from -8 to + 12 degrees.

Ammunition guns - 86 shells. For firing were used armor piercing shells made in the Czech Republic and Austria. In the 1940, the 47-mm sub-caliber ammunition was developed for this gun. At a distance of 500 meters, he was able to penetrate 70-mm armor. The anti-tank SAU was adopted by the Wehrmacht in March 1940 of the year under the designation 4.7cm Pak (t) Sfl auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.B (Sd.Kfz. 101). The German firms Alkett and Daimler-Benz were engaged in refitting light tanks into tank destroyers. The first was engaged in the final assembly of anti-tank self-propelled guns, while the second was overhauled the chassis and engines of the converted ones.

The Wehrmacht Chief of Staff Franz Halder left the following entry for this ACS: “47-mm guns: 132 self-propelled units (47-mm Skoda guns). Of these, 120 was transferred to tank divisions; 12 remain in reserve. Thus, tank divisions receive anti-tank self-propelled guns in their 1 anti-tank divisions. ” The initial order was exactly 132 ACS (of which the prototype 2). Production self-propelled guns dragged on until June 1940 year. The name Panzerjager-I (tank hunter) stuck in the troops behind them.

Panzerjager-I, fights in France

In combat operations of the spring-summer 1940 of the year against France, this ACS was not sufficiently used. Separate her meetings with French tanks revealed insufficient armor penetration capability of the gun, in the ammunition package of which there were not yet sabot projectiles. At the same time, in general, the use of anti-tank self-propelled guns in the troops was rated positively. In the autumn of 1940, the Panzerjager-I was actively used at shooting ranges and firing ranges, shooting at an extensive collection of captured armored vehicles from France and England.

Then the first modernization of cars was carried out. The upgrade included the replacement of old armored logging with new, more spacious, fully welded logging. In the autumn of 1940, the Wehrmacht issued an order for the production of another 70 (according to other 60 data) tank fighter data. Most likely, such a small size of the party was due to the limited chassis of the PzKpfw I Ausf tanks. B. The conversion of this batch was carried out by the Skoda and Daimler-Benz factories, since Alkett at that time was busy with a large order for the manufacture of assault guns.

In the summer battles 1941 of the year, the Panzerjager-I, which has ammunition slug shells, proved to be quite good. All criticism addressed to them came down to their transmission and running gear. Often the PT-ACS chassis got stuck even on dirt roads after a light rain. In the fall, self-propelled guns began to fail. The situation became aggravated in the late autumn with the onset of cold weather. Self-propelled engines refused to start at temperatures below -15 degrees (the lubricant thickened, and the Germans simply did not have winter lubrication).

Panzerjager-I, fights in Rostov-on-Don, autumn 1941, the Don Hotel is on the background

Tankers and everyone associated with the engines had to warm their engines using soldering lamps or by adding petrol to the lubricant, while these methods were fraught with sad consequences, but the Germans had no other way out. Often they only had to envy the Russians, who had a lot of winter grease, and also cursed their loggers, who did not take care to prepare everything necessary for the winter campaign in Russia. Thus, the harsh climatic conditions of Russia partially influenced the decision to send the 605 anti-tank division to North Africa. There, Panzerjager-I fought fairly well with English cruiser tanks, and in the close battle they could even hit a fairly well-defended Matilda.

The situation in Russia was partially smoothed out by the fact that almost all anti-tank ACS Panzerjager-I were concentrated in the southern sector of the Eastern Front, where the frosts were not so severe. In particular, these self-propelled guns were in service with the famous SS tank division "Leibstandart Adolf Hitler." Also a number of captured cars were used by the Red Army. The latest episodes of the use of Panzerjager-I on the Eastern Front refer to the 1942 campaign of the year, to the battles at Stalingrad and in the Caucasus.

If we talk about efficiency, the 47-mm anti-tank gun from a distance of 600-700 meters could hit all Soviet tanks with the exception of KV and T-34. True, these menacing machines could be amazed if the projectile hit the side of their casting towers from a distance of 400 meters. It is worth noting that sniper shooting at the front was not of a mass character. Only sub-caliber ammunition could significantly increase the effectiveness of the gun. His appearance in the ammunition allowed punching the armor of Soviet tanks from a distance of 500-600 meters, only the anti-armor striking effect of these shells was catastrophically small. In practice, the tungsten-molybdenum core was very weak. The number of secondary fragments, which could pose a threat to the crew of tanks, was also extremely insignificant. It was often possible to observe such cases when a piercing piercing piercing the armor of a Soviet tank disintegrated into a piece of 2-3 that simply fell on the floor of the tank, without causing harm to either the equipment or the crew.

Panzerjager-I in Africa

Panzerjager-I - the first serial German tank destroyer can only be viewed as a completely successful, but still intermediate solution. The 47-mm anti-tank gun, created by Czech designers in the late 30-s, was focused on fighting the armored vehicles of its time, but was ineffective against the Soviet HF and T-34.

Reviews on combat use in France

In the French campaign took part 4 anti-tank battalion. One of them was given to the Kleist tank group from the first day of the campaign, that is, from 10 in May 1940, three other battalions 616, 643 and 670 were drawn into the battles as they became operational. In the combat report of the 18 Infantry Division, the combat operations of the new tank destroyers were rated as successful. New PT-ACS perfectly fought with enemy armored vehicles, and were also effective in destroying buildings in populated areas, providing a demoralizing effect on enemy soldiers.

The commander of the 643 anti-tank battalion, which had only a month to prepare for it, summarized his observations on the use of combat vehicle data:

Movement on the march

Together with the infantry marches led to the fact that the machines often failed. Especially often observed failures associated with the failure of the differentials and clutch. Joint marches with tank units led to exactly the same destructive results. Over-noisy and noisy, the Panzerjager-I is unable to maintain the same pace as the tanks.

On the march, the ACS is not able to keep the speed over 30 km / h, also every half hour in the first 20 km. It is necessary to stop the march in order to cool the engine of the machine, as well as to inspect, if necessary, perform minor repairs and lubrication. Further stops must be made every 30 kilometers. Due to the lack of replaceable driver-mechanics, the length of the day march in hilly areas does not exceed 120 km., On good roads - no more than 150 km. The length of the march at night with the lights on is very much dependent on the degree of natural light and weather conditions.

Panzerjager-I on the march

Efficiency of tank destroyers 4,7 cm Cancer (t)

Anti-tank self-propelled proved to be quite effective in the fight against equipment, the booking of which did not exceed 40-50 mm. at distances no more than half a kilometer, maximum 600 meters. At distances up to a kilometer 1, an anti-tank gun can destroy the tracks of tanks that are damaged by direct hits or rebound. Also, the PT-SAU is able to effectively hit the enemy’s machine-gun nests at distances up to 1 kilometers, at large distances the defeat of small-sized targets is significantly hampered primarily because of the small increase in the existing telescopic sight. The filling trajectory of the armor-piercing shells used is 2000 meters. The demoralizing effect of the appearance on the battlefield of Panzerjager-I is enormous, especially at the time when they fire with armor-piercing and high-explosive fragmentation projectiles.

Observation

The review of the self-propelled gun is bad enough, while you can look forward through the upper edge of the felling shield, but the result will be death. In street battles, the crew has practically no opportunity to follow what is happening. The self-propelled commander almost always has to keep the target in the gunsight, which is very difficult to implement in motion. A review of the sides of the machine must be carried out by a loader, which, because of this, is often distracted from working directly with the implement. The driver-mechanic fully concentrates his attention on the route and also cannot control the terrain. Any brave enough enemy soldier is able to destroy the crew of a self-propelled gun with a hand grenade, throwing it into the cabin from the side or from the stern of the vehicle. Often in the heat of battle, a company commander’s warning on the radio about the threat is ignored.

Reservation

The personnel of the battalion is aware that the Panzerjager-I was created under conditions of sufficient haste and is the first such vehicle in the German army. But now we can say with confidence that booking a car is completely inadequate to the combat situation. The shells of the French 25-mm anti-tank guns are able to penetrate the armor of the machine, even from serious distances. Cutting armor can be pierced even with rifle-caliber armor-piercing bullets! As a result of direct hits of shells, a large number of fragments are formed not only from the projectile itself, but also from the PT-SAU armor. These fragments pose a serious threat to the entire crew. The cutouts for the gun sight and the gun barrel are very large. It seems necessary to create a new cabin with thicker armor, especially along the sides, and also to equip it with observation devices.


Despite all the shortcomings, well-trained crews would never agree to replace self-propelled tank destroyers with towed 37-mm guns.

Technical specifications
Combat weight - 6,4 t.
Crew - 3 people. (commander-gunner, loader, driver)
Armament - 47-mm gun 4,7 cm Pak 38 (t).
Horizontal angle pickup guns - 35 hail.
Vertical angle pickup guns - from -8 to + 12 hail.
Ammunition - 86 shells.
The thickness of the frontal hull armor - 13 mm.
The thickness of the frontal armor felling - 14,5 mm.
Maximum speed on the highway - up to 40 km / h
Р — Р ° РїР ° СЃ С… РѕРґР ° - 150 РєРј.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kazak_30
    +3
    29 December 2011 11: 03
    WoT is the first and rather fun tank destroyer.
    1. shmack
      +2
      29 December 2011 14: 52
      Her balancer loves, yes. The first military earned on it :)
      1. WADIM
        0
        29 December 2011 16: 11
        Marder is better ...
        1. shmack
          0
          29 December 2011 18: 28
          Yes, the Germans are all good birds, except for the pan
        2. Uncle Sam
          0
          1 January 2012 10: 35
          my marder is also a favorite unit smile
    2. +2
      29 December 2011 20: 51
      Made under the motto "waste to income." Shooting from the gun is conducted only from the spot. not stand any competition even with the DShK and PTR not to mention tanks

      by the beginning of 1942. already morally obsolete, and practically disappeared from the front-line units by the end of 1942. Panzerjager I did not play any important role as an anti-tank self-propelled gun, however, it gave German designers the necessary experience to create more advanced "tank destroyers", such as self-propelled guns of the Marder, Nashorn series.

  2. dred
    +1
    29 December 2011 11: 45
    According to reviews, the car is efficient.
  3. Odesit
    0
    29 December 2011 20: 49
    The German army did not have enough anti-tank equipment, and therefore went to various tricks. Trophy guns were also installed on the chassis of captured Czech and French tanks - our F-22, Czech anti-tank guns, etc. There were many options for self-propelled guns. There is no sense from them. In the memoirs of Melentin (general of the Wehrmacht's tank forces), this is what "ERZATSTANK" is indicated. The lifespan on the battlefield is 10 minutes.
    1. J_silver
      -1
      29 December 2011 22: 34
      You’ll ask our dead tankers about their effectiveness ...
      It should be a shame to write such nonsense!
      1. 0
        29 December 2011 22: 59
        Why are you bringing our dead grandfathers here? A similar move can be used when discussing any type of military equipment of that period and its use in war. This is known in communication as "a prohibited technique." In this case, you operate on the moral side of hostilities, intervening in the discussion of the qualities of a particular object. You should be ashamed!
        1. J_silver
          +1
          29 December 2011 23: 57
          It was written above that these self-propelled guns were no use - this is not true! Unfortunately there was a sense ...
          What does morality have to do with it - it's just about efficiency ...
          1. 0
            30 December 2011 00: 19
            Well then, I'm sorry!
            With regard to efficiency, here, unfortunately, I can only say without links. At the initial stage of the war, the Czech 47-mm gun really coped well with the overwhelming majority of our BT, T-26 and even modern T-34 tanks at that time. The self-propelled gun played its role. There is often an opinion that poor booking, an open deckhouse made it an extremely bad car. In this case, do not forget that our first SU-76s had a roof, but the terrible tightness and constant smoke of the fighting compartment played a role and later it was produced in numerous series without a roof and part of the rear wall under the SU-76M brand. As Vadivak said, it was outdated by 1942, later they were used mainly in security units in the same way as self-propelled guns with the same weapon based on the captured French Renault R-35 tank.
            1. Odesit
              0
              30 December 2011 01: 39
              So our "45 millimeters" at the initial stage of the war easily coped with both the T -2 and the T-3 and with the early versions of the T-4. Take a look at the statistics of combat losses for Army Group Center for August-September 1941. Tank divisions were half drained of blood (irrecoverable losses, i.e. the tank was destroyed or burned out completely). And pay attention we are not talking about tanks out of order for technical reasons
              1. 0
                30 December 2011 01: 53
                And I don’t argue! Here we are already talking about experience, tactics, organization, etc. This topic is oh-oh-very extensive!
          2. +1
            30 December 2011 08: 43
            Our 45 mm gun was also useful, but the name Farewell Homeland was behind it.
      2. Odesit
        0
        29 December 2011 23: 25
        Captain Silver, we are not on Treasure Island. Pirate tricks are prohibited here.
  4. +3
    29 December 2011 22: 29
    "The gun is fired only from the spot. Can't stand up to any competition."

    All tank destroyers only shoot from the spot. And so this is a successful redistribution from garbage with 2 machine guns into a more or less combat-ready unit.
  5. Odesit
    -1
    29 December 2011 23: 50
    I can't understand! Are we talking about anti-tank guns on a self-propelled gun carriage or specialized "tank hunters"? So these are two big differences! "Nashorn", "Hound Dog", "Ferdinand" aka "Elephant" and the entire family of "Yagd Tigers and Yagd Panthers" have nothing to do with the self-propelled guns shown in the photographs. This is an anti-tank gun on a self-propelled gun carriage and on the basis of the German T-1 (which was outdated even when Czechoslovakia was occupied. It has an armored wheelhouse open at the rear. one must remember at least the "Storm Geshutze" of all modifications. This was already a dangerous enemy. And the fact that the creation of such machines was a forced measure - this can be read about in the memoirs of Major General of the Wehrmacht General Staff Müller - Gillebrant himself.
    1. +1
      30 December 2011 00: 28
      I absolutely agree with you that they cannot be equated with each other! Here are just a forced measure - a loose concept in this case, in my opinion. We had a forced measure when (already during the period of warfare) light T-60 and T-70 were mass-produced, while the production of "thirty-fours" was being adjusted. Here the practicality of the Germans amazes me! Having a lot of captured French and Czech tanks, tractors and guns, they combined them with each other and got good cars.
  6. Odesit
    -1
    30 December 2011 01: 27
    Well, let it be your way. Only the T-60 and T-70 differed in many ways from the T-2 and the earlier version of the T-3 with a short-barreled gun? I agree right away that the Fritzes had better quality and quantity of observation devices and the presence of a radio station. But this is not the only potential of the tank. Both the T-60, T-70 and Panzer 2 and 3 were actually outdated by the beginning of the war, but they still continued to fight. T-3, so that, after installing a long-barreled gun and anti-cumulative screens, it continued to serve until 1945, and several vehicles even ended up in the created Israeli army. Now about the main thing. Agree that it was not from a good life that the Wehrmacht was supplied not with full-fledged tanks and self-propelled guns, but such a symbiosis of an outdated running gear and a captured gun. The Germans, like us, suffered huge losses. industry fell short of the production plan by more than one third. Therefore, the production of such hybrids was forced. I agree with you that they certainly successfully used the available captured weapons, but this was done by almost all countries that took an active part in the hostilities. Suffice it to recall our self-propelled guns on the chassis of the captured T-3 and T-4 and not only them.
  7. SAMEDOV SULEYMAN
    -1
    30 December 2011 01: 39
    There was one interesting article when the British forced a German submarine to rise to the surface, they found Brazilian coins in it - they were nickel, the Germans did not have enough nickel alloys for armor by the end of the war, so I agree with Odesit - "that not a good life in the Wehrmacht did not supply full-fledged tanks and self-propelled guns "
    1. 0
      30 December 2011 01: 56
      Yes, forced measures, forced! wink But I mean the period is still relatively calm for German industry - before the start of the Second World War.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"