$24.95 PANZER TRACTS No.10-1 Artillerie Selbstfahrlafetten from Pz.Sfl.1Vb to Hummel-Wespe Created by Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary Louis Doyle Featuring new four-view 1/35th scale drawings of the Hummel, Wespe, Heuschrecke IVb, and 10.5 cm le.F.H.18/40/2 Sf.Front Cover Photo: A “Hummel”, Geschuetzwagen III/IV fuer s.F.H.18/1 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.165) being loaded onto a rail car in May 1943 at the assembly plant in Duisburg for transport to a Heeres-Zeugamt, where vill be outfitted prior to being issued to a field Batterie. At this time many “Hummel” had idler wheels originally designed for the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.D. (HLD) The scale prints were drawn at full scale using a CAD program and printed at 1/38 seale. ‘Thanks are especially due to Henry Hoppe (2), Lee Archer (2), Marek Solar (1), Peter Dolezal (1), ‘Thomas Anderson (1), and H. Woelkering (1) for providing copies of rare and unique photos. Photos were also obtained from the Bundesarchiy-Bildarchiy (3), the Archives of Modern Conflict (6), the Tank ‘Museum (21), and the National Archives (6). Special thanks also goes to Frank, Kevin, Laurent, M. Becker, Col. DuBois, and Col. Seignon for thier as- sistance and support in measuring surviving Wespe and Hummel in detail. Published by Panzer Tracts P.O.Box 312 Boyds, MD 20841 © Copyright Thomas L. Jentz 2012 www.panzertracts.com All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reprinted or reproduced in any fashion or by any means without the express written permission of the publisher.INTRODUCTION The value of self-propelled artillery had been rec- ognized from the start of creating a mechanized German army. The first organization chart for a trial Panzer-Divi- sion in 1934 included an Artillerie-Abteilung with three batteries, each with four self-propelled 10.5 em howitzers. As revealed in a report on technical troop trials, dated 11 April 1935, instead of a 10.5 em Selbstfahr- lafette (self-propelled carriage), Wa Prw 6 (automotive de- ign office of the ordnance department - later renamed Wa Pruef 6) chose to create a 10.5 em Kpfw. mit Fahr- gestell des 7,5 em Geseh.-Kppfw. (10.5 em tank on the chassis as the Pz.Kpfw.IV). Krupp was awarded the con- tract to design and fabricate a single turret mounting a 10.5 em Kanone L/16. The primary purpose of the 10.5 ‘em Panzerwagen (Nebeltank) (fog tank), also known as the Rauchwagen (R.W,) (smoke tank), was to lay down a smoke screen on enemy anti-tank guns. Secondarily, it was to be capable of firing field howitzer high-explo- sive shells at suitable targets. In 1938 Krupp completed the turret with armament and mounted it on the “B.W.IT”, the second Pz.Kpfw.IV Versuchsfahrgestell (experimen- ). The reasons for rejecting this design for series production weren’t revealed in the orders to Krupp dated 17 November 1938 directing them to dismount the turret so that the chassis could be used for other experiments In 1938, Krupp was awarded design development contracts for a 10.5 em Kw.K. L/28 turret (this time with 100 mm thick armor) and a 10.5 em Kanone L/S2 Selbst- fahrlafette, The turret was to be mounted on the S.W. chassis being designed by Henschel. Contracts to design and build two 10.5 em Kanone L/S2 Selbstfahrlafette (Pz.Sf1.1Va) were awarded to Krupp. Both of these were completed in January 1941 Finally in September 1939, Krupp presented a pre- liminary design for a self-propelled 10.5 em L/28 howitzer with a limited traverse of only 70 degrees. Ata meeting with Krupp on 8 February 1940, Wa Prucf 6 stated that in accordance with the proposal of the Inspektion, the Pz.Sfl, IVb was planned as the replacement for towed field how- itzets supporting the Panzers attack. After settling on de- sign details, Krupp was awarded an initial contract for two Je, .H.18 (Pz.Sfl.1Vb) which were completed, tested, and accepted in January 1942. A“0-Serie” of ten Pz.SA.IVb was ordered from Krupp and assembly was completed at, Krupp-Grusonwerk in November 1942. The first battery of self-propelled 10.5 em howitzers wasn’t given to a Pan- zer-Division until late in 1942. In fact, due to the inability to decide on a production series design, this first battery. ‘as the last tp be fekded ona chassis specidcally de- i : In April 1942, Wa Pruef 4 and representatives from the artillery established basic tactical requirements for fu- ture self-propelled artillery designs. These four basic tac- tical requirements were: 1) relatively high speed compared to a Panzer, 2) readiness for instant action, 3) all-round tra- verse, and 4) the gun to be dismountable for employment on the ground. Experience in the Russian campaign had proved the importance of the demand for all-round traverse be- cause the tactics employed by the Panzers created situa- tions in which attack was to be expected from every quar- ter. The demand for all-round firing ability could not be fulfilled by turning the vehicle, which was considered to be both too inaccurate and too slow. Self-propelled artillery was also indispensable for defense. Since the valuable vehicle should not be unneces- sarily exposed to shell fire and weather, it was desirable to have a dismountable gun that could be emplaced in favor- able defensive positions, Continuous and expert mainte~ nance was needed to keep the self-propelled carriage run- ning, and this was not considered achievable within range of heavy enemy artillery. When it was necessary to remain for long periods in one firing position, the dismounted gun was a much less visible target for enemy aircraft than the complete self-propelled carriage. A self-propelled carriage was to remain a close support weapon of the artillery and was not to assume the assault role of a Panzer or Sturmgeschuetz, Armored pro- tection only needed to be sufficient to protect the crew, gun, and mounting against small arms fire and shell frag- ‘ments, The weight saved on armor enabled the sell-pro- pelled carriage to carry a larger amount of ammunition and have greater mobility Krupp, Rheinmetall-Borsig (with Alkett), and Skoda then spent three years trying to create complicated designs to meet the four basic tactical requirements, such as the Heuschrecke 10, 12 and 15 and Grille 10, 12, 15, 17 and 21. Their efforts were impeded by the fact that the chassis selected (Luchs, Leopard, Mehrzweekfahrzeug, Pz.Kpfw.III/IV) as the basis for their designs either never ‘went into mass production or the parts were considered to be in too short a supply to be diverted from Panzer produ tion (Panther and Tiger). One after the other, these design projects were canceled, usually before a single trial vehicle was assembled and tested, Onily those self-propelled carriages actually com- pleted for the artillery (even if only a single trial vehicle) are covered in Panzer Tracts 10-1 On 22 February 1943, Wa Pruef Stab distribut- eda list of new cover names, including: Heuschrecke 10 for the le.F.H.(Sf1.) Kp.1, Grille 17 for the 17 em K18 (Sfi.), Grille 21 for the 21 em Mrs.18 (Sfl.), Wespe for the Je,F.H.18/2 (Sf1.11, and Hummel for the s.F.H.18/1 (Sfl. IV). The suggestive names Wespe, Grille, and Hummel were officially killed by an order signed by Generaloberst, Jodl on | February 194, 10-1-1Pz.Sfl.IVb Geschuetzwagen IVb fuer 10.5 cm le.F.H.18/1 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.165/1) Ausfuehrung A, Fgst.Nr. 150631 - 150640 Development On 14 September 1939, Krupp presented concep- tual design drawing W 1324 for mounting a le-RH.18 in a PrSALIV (le.F.H.18). Wa Pruef basically agreed with the layout with an engine in the rear, because an engine under the howitzer had too many disadvantages. If possible, the traverse are was to be increased to 15 degrees while re- taining the same traverse mechanism. Direct fire must be possible from -10 to +15 degrees. Firing height can be in- creased 10 1900 mm. The trunnions can be moved a bit forward to reduce the opening and the recoil slide length- ened if possible to 800 mm to reduce the recoil hit. At least 40 rounds of ammunition are to be carried. The total weight isto be based on armor impervious to 7.92 mm S.am.K. (armor piercing bullets) with 20 mm frontal armor. Installation of the longer range le.EH.40 with a muzzle brake will still be considered instead of the le. F.H.18. Further decisions were made at a meeting in Berlin with Wa Pruef 6 on 10/11 October 1939. The SfLIVb (le. .H.18) is to have the same SSG 46 transmission as the SflIVa. The B.W. steering unit can't be used because the driver is seated farther forward. Wa Pruef proposed that the pivot point for the howitzer be moved to the rear 10 ob- tain an elevation are of -10 to +40 degrees over a traverse are of 32 degrees. The drivers compartment restricted the elevation to +3 degrees to that the firing height must be in- creased to 1800 mm. A trial SflIVb is to be completed by about January 1941 Additional details were decided at a meeting in Es- sen on 24 January 1940, attended by Oberstlt.Dr-Ing.Ol- brich (Wa Pruef 6 I1) and Dorn, Woelfert, Heerlein, and Habermass from Krupp A.K. On the Pz.SflIVb the driver is to have a vision slit on with left with a 90 mm thick glass block, but because of hindrance from the gun mantle, a round pivoting vision port is to installed on the right. In- stallation of a Diesel-Motor is to be examined. Initially, there won't be any radio equipment, later a radio; with in- stallation determined during assembly. Because of limited space, Wa Pruef 6 I has thoughts against locating the gun sight on the right of the howitzer. Krupp is to again inves- tigate whether the direct and indirect sights can be mount- ed beside each other to the left of howitzer by modifying the left turret deck. Overview drawing W 1331 was dis- cussed. An Attrappe (fake bin) is to be added beside the Above: Even though it had a turret, the traverse of the 10.5 em le.F.H.18/1 auf G.W.IVb (formerly known as Pz.Sfl.IVb) was limited to 35 degrees to the left and 35 degrees to the right. (TTM) 10-1-2T T T “Pz,Sfl.IVb” Geschuetzwagen IVb fuer 10.5 cm le.FH.18/1 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.165/1) WL.driver ¥ compartment which can be used to stow spare parts and equipment. The frontal armor isto he increased 10 30 mm thick. As compensation, lighten the turret (man- tle cover, mantle trunnions, and carriage armor) and sides of the superstructure. The difference in weight between all-round 14.5 mm armor and 30 mm front, 20 mm sloped sites, and 14.5 mm for the rest of the supersiructure and turret is to be determined. Ina meeting on 8 February 1940 in Berlin, Ing. Woelfert from Krupp informed Hauptmann Ventz from Wa Prucf 6/lle that the wooden model for the Pz.S#.IVb had been completed and was to be visited soon by OberstIt. Ol- brich, 4s proposed by the Inspektion, as a replacement for towed artillery the Pe.SftIVb was intended to support Panzer attacks and therefore must be as light and manew- verable as possible with a protective shield being suffi- cient, Since Olbrich was previously against production of a Panzer with a 10.5 em gun, he would prefer that the PoSfIVb didn't have a turret so that the Inspektion wouldn't get the impression that i was a tank. Olbrich placed great value on strongly sloping the top of the turret down toward the reat On 18 March 1940, Oberstlt. Dr. Olbrich (Wa Pruef 6/I1) inspected the Pz.Sf1.1Vb wooden model. In general Wa Pruef was in agreement with the layout, but wanted changes in some details, Geschuetz mit Schutzschild (turret) - the three front plates ‘are to remain at the same angle and height, then slope down about 90 mm to the flat rear plate, so that there is sufficient space for a radio set. The forward side plates and as far as possible all side plates should be sloped. The middle step can be eliminated. The radio set and heavy equipment stowage can act as a counterweight. The canvas cover for the Schutzschild is to be made so that it can be rolled up to the center and the howitzer fired at less than 0 degrees elevation. The radio set is to be protected from dust with a roller curtain. A 2 meter Antenne mit Gummifuss is 10 be ‘mounted on the rear. The commander operating the radio is to have a folding seat behind the gunmer that is high enough that he can observe over his head. Install a higher recoil guard on the left side of the howitzer. Wa Pruef 6 proposed a travel lock on the end of the recoil guard. The loader is to have a folding seat. The armor thicknesses for the Schutzschild (turret) are: 8 mm deck sides, 10 mm deck forward, 15 mm deck strips, 20 mm Schild front and forward angled sides, 15 mm rear angled sides and rear, 6 mm deck Stow three M.P. in the turret with a pouch contain- ing 6 Magazine for cach M.P. Bump stops for the traverse arc of plus/minus 35 degrees are to be removable. Install the Rundblickfernrohr (indirect sight) graduated to 6000 meters to the left and the Zielfernrohr (direct sight) grad- ated t0 2000 meters to its right. 10-1-4 Fahrgestell - shorten the hull and the driver's compartment with a horizontal roof from the left side to the middle. No Fahreroptik (driver's periscopes). Enlarge the driver s hhatch and install a strong rain channel. Install a 30 mm Sehklappe mit Sehschilitz (visor with vision slit) with a 90 ‘mm Glasblock on the left side. 30 mm thick armor on the ‘ull front and driver’ front plate, 8 mm for the driver s compartment roof, 6 mm for the firewall, and 8 mm for the belly. Stowage for 46 rounds of ammunition. ‘The Ausruestungs und Zuberhorliste (equipment stowage list) dated 31 January 1942 for the Pz.SALIV b Ausfuehrung A included: 110.5 cm leF.H. L/28 2M.P.38 60 10.5 em Granaten (56 in installed stowage racks and 4 in two carrying cases) 60 10.5 em Kartuschen (56 in racks and 4 in two carrying cases) 4 Magazintaschen with 3 Magazin, each 32 Patr. 6 Stiethandgranaten (3 in | Halter) | Zielfernrohr SA.ZENr.la | Rundblickfernrohr 36 | Scherenfernrohr 14 7 £Sf. | Verlaengerungsstueck 280 mm fuer Rablkf.36 | Funksprechgeraet “a” in turret rear | Bordsprechanlage (intercom) Production Wa Pruef 4 awarded contract 004-1520/40 to Krupp for two trial Pz.SfLIVb to be numbered VI and V2 ‘on 2 November 1940. Contract 004-1039/41 for four gun tubes was awarded to Rheinmell-Borsig by Wa Pruef. On 13 August 1941, Wa Pruef 4 informed Krupp that the final name for the Pz.SA.EVb was “Ie. H.18 (sft Krupp, Essen was awarded contract SS-016- 4253/40 for 10 Panzer-Wannen for the le.F.H. (Sfl.) and a contract to Krupp-Grusonwerk for assembling a 0-Serie of 10 Pz.SALIVb. The drawing number list assigned to the O-Serie Pz.Sf1.1Vb was Gruppen Nr. 021 St 40700. On 3 October 1941, the delivery schedule for the 0-Serie Pz.Sfl IVb was 1 in December 1941, 2 in January, 3 in February, and 4 in March 1942 with the mass production Serie Pz. Sfl.1Vb to be completed by Krupp-Grusonwerk starting with 2 in October 1941, 5 in November, 10 in December, 15 in January 1943, etc. These latter were to completed under contract SS-210-8902/41 awarded to Krupp-Gruson- werk on 13 December 1941 for delivery of 200 Pz.Sfl. fuer |e.F.H.18 including Fahrgestell and Aufbau, As decided ‘on | December 1941, the engine in the series production Pz.Sf.1Vb3 was to be a Maybach HL 90 P20K (instead of the Maybach HL. 66 PLb for the Versuchs-Serie) and on 2 February 1942, a 6/B.W. Laufwerk (suspension) instead of the 7/B.W. Laufwerk with 400 mm wide tracksSee ee init biiithtaten a apne ae This Page: Instead of eight 470 mm diameter roadwheels per side (common on the Krupp designed Pz.Kpfw. IV), there were six pairs of 520 mm diameter roadwheels on each side of the Pz.Sf1.1Vb chassis. (TTM) 10-1-5On 7 January 1942, Krupp reported that both Ver- suchswagen LF.H.18 (gp.Sfl,) were assembled and the Abnahmebeschuss (acceptance firing trials) completed on V2. Both were accepted by the inspectors and were autho- rized to be sent from Meppen to Kummersdorf. Krupp re~ ported on 3 February 1942 that the Versuchs-Pz.SA.[Vb damaged by Wa Pruef Fest had been rebuilt and test fired 5 rounds. It was accepted and to be sent to Kummersdorf on 4 February 1942, Under contract $$ 016-4253/40 Krupp, Essen s the first four Panzer-Wanne Nr, 150631 to 150634 to Grusonwerk by the end of November 1941. The other 6 were to be sent by early February 1941, and the 10 Pan= zer-Aufbau were to be sent in December 1941 to early March 1942. The third turret with Turm Nr. 150633 was sent on 31 January and the last with Turm Nr. 150640 on I May 1942. ‘As reported on 3 March 1942, the first 0-Serie Pz.Sf.1Vb was to be completed by Grusonwerk in April and the 1.Serienfahrzeug in December 1942. Wa Pruef 6 informed Krupp that the name to use in the manual was Pz.Sfi. fle. FH.18 Ausf.A, which was also to be stamped {nto the serial number plate. As recorded in Krupp’s fiscal year 1941/42 report for the Kriegsmaterial Abteilung 10 Pz.SAL.IVb (10.5 em L/28) were completed at Grusonwerk This 0-Serie were assembled at Krupp-Grusonwerk at the rate of one in August, three in September, four in October, one in November, and one in December 1942. Troop trials of these self-propelled guns were to be conducted by a Feld-Versuchs-Batterie assigned to Al lerie-Regiment 16 of the 16.Panzer-Division, which was ordered to be combat ready by 20 September 1942. The trial battery was organized in accordance with K.St.N.431 dated 2 September 1942 for a Batterie leichte Feld~ haubitze (6 Geschuet7) (Sfl.) with six Selbstfahrlafetten (mit Fahrgestell des Panzerkampfwagen IVb). Due to production capacity limitations at Gruson- werk, the mass production assembly contract was trans- ferred to another assembly plant, On 20 July 1942, Stahl- industrie GmbH, Mulheim-Ruhr sent a request to Krupp- Essen for drawings in Gruppen Nr. O21 St 2600 for as- sembly of 200 Pz.Sf1.1Vb (LFH.18) under OKH contract SS 210-8902/42(H), This series production Pz.Sf.IVb3 was to have a 320 horsepower Maybach HIL 90 P20k en- gine and other improvements, including 360 degree tra- verse. After it was proven that the le.F.H.18 could be successfully mounted on a modified Pz.Kpfw.II chassis, ‘on 25 July 1942 Hitler directed that the 200 planned Pz.IIVIV chassis be quickly used to mount 200 15 em s.EH. by 12 May 1943. On 14 August 1942, Krupp met, with Wa Prucf 4 and 6 in Essen to discuss the proposed de- sign of a s.F.H.18 auf Fahrgestell LV b (Zwischen- loesung). The conceptual drawing showed an unmodified 10-1-6 nt SfLIVb Fahrgestell which had a very tall fring height and a‘small elevation of only 25 degrees. Krupp was to attempt 10 use the SfLIVb components but relocate the engine to change the entire layout to achieve a lower firing height and fully useable elevation of 45 degrees This did not work out and the P2.SALIVb3 produ tion series, scheduled to start delivery in January 1943, was abruptly canceled in early November 1942. lodifications On 10 July 1942, Wa Pruef 4 discussed a series of development changes with Krupp. Both Versuchs-SflIVb by the Kdo, der Art. Schule Jueterbog are to be quickly ‘modified by installing the Hilfsschwenkwerk 021 B 2685 (auciliary traverse) intended for series production and al- ter the gunner ¥ seat so that it can be ajusted higher. Two of the O-Serie Pz.SfLIVb are to be used for new Versuchs-Sfl. and modified to test further design de~ velopments, including all-round firing without changing the firing height and maximum elevation, installation of a Maybach HL 90 engine intended for the series production and a series of automotive modifications Opposite Page: ‘The antenna base for the Fu.Spr.Ger. was mounted above the radio set located behind hinged doors held by toggles in the turret rear of the P2.Sf.1Vb. (TTM)This and Opposite Page: Six of the ten Gesehuetzwagen IVb fuer 10.5 em le.F.H.18/1 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.165/1) Ausfuehrung A were issued to a Batterie, that was sent to the 16.Pz.Div. As shown here, the other four were issued to a training unit that also had two *Wespe” in carly 1943. (AMC) 10-1-8Geschuetzwagen IVb fuer 10.5 cm le.F.H.18/1 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.165/1) ‘Weapons Data: In Turret: Elevation: Traverse: Gunsight: Range: Secondary: Ammunition: Crew: Communication: Measurements: Length, overall: Length, w/o gun: Width, overall Height, overall: Firing Height: Wheel Base’ Track Contact: Combat Loaded: Fuel Capacity Armor Protection: Chassis: Front Sides & Rear Turret: Front Sides 1-10.5 om le.FH.18/1 A107, + 40° 35° R, 35°L Z.E.34 with RILF.36 10,650 meters. 3-9mm MP, 60 - 10.5 cm 576-9 mm. ‘Commander 2 Kanoniere Driver FuSpr.Gera 5.90m 5.50m 287m 225m 184m 2.46 m 290m 18 metric ton 410 liters 20 mm 14.5 mm, 20 mm 14.5 mm Automotive Capabilities: Maximum Speed: 35 kmihr ‘Avg. Road Speed 2 kmihr Cross Country: 2 kine Range on Road: 240 km Cross Country: 130 km Grade: 34° Trench Crossing: 20m Step 65 om Fording Depth: 95 om Ground Clearance: 40cm Ground Pressure: 0.78 kg/om? Power Ratio’ 10.6 HPIton. Steering Ratio: 1.18 Automotive Components: Motor: Maybach HL 66 P 6-cyl, water-cooled 6.6 liter gasoline 188 HP @ 3200 rpm Transmission: ZFSS.G46 Reverse 4.7 kmihr 1. Gear 4.4 kmihr 2. Gear 8.4 km/hr 3. Gear 43.7 kmihr 4, Gear 20.2 kmihr 5. Gear 27.1 kmihr 6. Gear 36.0 km/hr Steering} Differential Drive: Front sprocket Roadwheels: 6 x2 per side Tires: 520 mm dia. Rubber ‘Suspension: Leaf springs Track: Kgs.61-400/120 Dry pin Links per side: 89“Wespe” Geschuetzwagen II fuer le.F.H.18/2 (Sf) (Sd.Kfz.124) Fgst.Nr. 31001 - 32185 In the Spring of 1942, Wa Pruef 6 had embarked on the design of a series of self-propelled artillery pieces. based on a new set of design specifications. The overrid- ing requirements were (1) that the artillery piece had to be dismountable for emplacement on the ground and (2) had to be capable of firing in 360 degrees while mounted on the self-propelled carriage. Because the designs for the Heuschrecke or Grille would not be ready for production for quite some time, the OKH decided to produce a ‘Zwischenloesung (interim solution). On 14 July 1942, the Panzerkommission decided that the Pz.Kpfw.II chassis should be converted to a Selbstfahrlafette with an le.R.H. Rheinmetall-Borsig/Alkett were awarded a contract to re- design the Pz.Kpfw.lI chassis by moving the motor for- ward and the fighting compartment to the rear to create a self-propelled le.F.H.18 as a Zwischenloesung which could quickly enter series production, On 25 July 1942, Hitler was informed that it had been proven that the Ie.F.H.18 could be successfully mounted on a modified Pz.Kpfw.ll chassis, All drive train components were adopted from the Pz.Kpfw.ll, the motor being relocated to the center in or- der to provide a fighting compartment in the rear. The drive train consisted of a high performance Maybach HL, 62 TR, six cylinder motor delivering 140 metric horse- power at 2600 rpm, through a six speed Zahnradfabrik SSG 46 transmission onto the cluteh/brake steering units, and final drives, designed to provide a maximum speed of 40 kilometers per hour, Maintaining the leaf-spring sus- pension, the combat weight of II metric tons was distrib- uted over five 550 mm diameter rubber-tired roadwheels per side, The unlubricated 300 mm wide tracks provided an acceptable ground pressure of 0.76 kilograms per centi- ‘meter squared, The armor was only intended to provide sufficient protection against armor piercing bullets fired from small arms and shell splinters from close bursts. It was not de- signed to withstand a direct hit from any high explosive shell or armor piereing round fired by an anti-tank weapon. ‘The British examination of captured vehicles revealed that the armor protection was not the same as advertised by the Germans in their data tables. The front of the hull was 30 ‘mm thick (not 18 mm), the glacis was 15 mm thick (not 12, mm), and the bottom of the hull was 5 mm thick (not 12 mm). These thicknesses were confirmed by measurements of the Wespe formerly at Aberdeen and the front left cor- ner remnant of'a Wespe at Saumur. ‘The le.FH.18/2 was mounted on a base plate that also served as decking over the motor compartment. Tra~ verse was restricted to an arc of 40 degrees (20 degrees left and right of center, or + 356 mils and elevation to an are of 10-1-10 minus 5 degrees (89 mils) to plus 42 degrees (747 mils). Maximum range was 10,650 meters when firing a 14.81 kg FH Gr. (high explosive shell) at charge 6 to achieve a muzzle velocity of 470 meters/second. Normally the led a distance of up to 1.150 meters. The crew were to cease fire at a maximum allowable recoil of 1.170 meters. As listed on data sheets, the Wespe was to be out- fitted with stowage for 32 rounds and cartridges. Howev- er, a detailed listing of the authorized ammunition load for the le.F.H.18/2 (Sf) dated 28 June 1943 states that a total of only 30 rounds along with 30 normal cartridges for charge I to 5 and 15 special cartridges for charge 6 were to be catried with the howitzer. Of the 30 rounds authorized to be stowed with the gun 18 were to be FH.Gr. with nor- mal A.Z.23 fuzes, 4 FH.Gr. with double fzes, and 8 10 em Gr.39 rot HV/A,B,C shells. The total authorized issue in the field for cach le.F-H.18/2 (Sf) was 225 rounds con- sisting of 153 FH.Gr. with normal fuzes, 9 FH.Gr. with double fzes, 45 10 em Gr.39 rot HL/A,B,C, and 18 FH.GENb. (smoke shells). Secondary armament for the crew of five consisted of an MG 34 machinegun and two MP 38 automatic pis- tols. A Funksprechgeraet f was installed for communica tion between vehicles and the battery commander and a Bordsprechgeraet installed for intercom within the crew. The official designation for this self-propelled ar- tillery carriage as announced in the H.T.V.BL. in July 1943, when it was accepted as a standard item in the OKH inven- tory was the leichte Feldhaubitze 18/2 (Sf) auf Ge- schuetzwagen II consisting of the leichte Feldhaubitze 18/2 (Sf) drawing number 5-1046 and the Geschuetz- wagen IT fuer leichte Feldhaubitze 18/2 (Sf) (Sd. Kfz.124), The name Wespe was merely a “Suggestiv- name” whose use was officially ordered to be discontinued in February 1944. Other official titles included: leichte Feldhaubitze 18/2 (Sf) auf Gw II (D2020 IMay43) G.WALL, “Wespe” fuer le.FH 18/2 (Sd.Kfz.124) (In6 6Aug43) Geschuetzwagen II (Sd.Kfz.124) Geschuetzwagen II fuer Munition (Sd.Kfz.124) (K.StN.431b INov43) leichte Panzerhaubitze auf Sd.Kfz.124 Munitionstraeger auf Sd.kf.124 (K.SUN.431 IMay44) Je FH.18/2 auf Fgst.Pz.Kpfwll (Sf) (Sd.K' (Wa Pruef Oct44) ‘Geschuetzwagen TL fuer Munition (Sd.Ktz.124) Egst.Nr.Serie 31001 - 32200 ns-Sf was basically a Wespe without 7.124)T T T “Wespe” Geschuetzwagen II fuer 10.5 cm le.F.H.18/2 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.124) \ ‘\ (0) 6 Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 Features present on this “Wespe" G.Wilt le.FH.18/2 (St) completed in early 1943 include: two Bosch headlights and the original Pz.Kpfw.li bump stops for the wider leaf spring suspension. 1 L L 1 L 10-1-11the gun, The gap in the superstructure front for the miss- ng gun shield was plated over and stowage capacity in- creased to carry 90 complete rounds. It could be readily converted in the field to a normal gun carriage, The same radio and intercom sets in the Wespe were installed for communication with the three man erew in the Munitions- St. These were normal Geschuetzwagen II with addi- tional ammunition stowage racks and an armor plate cov- ering the opening in the gunshield for the 10.5 em Je.F.H.18/2. Geschuetzwagen IT completed as Muni- tionsfahrzeuge could be converted in the field to mount the 10.5 em le.F.H.18/2. Production The assembly firms contracted for production of the Gw II f fe. F.H.18/2(S0) (Fgst.Nr. 31001-31300 and 31651-32185) were Famo in Breslau and the affiliated Ur- sus in Warsaw, These firms were also responsible for as- sembling the Pz.Kpfw.Il Ausf.F and the 7.5 em Pak 40/2 (Sf). The first two production series Wespe were reported as being completed by Famo in their semi-monthly report for 1-15 February 1943. Priority was given to production of the Wespe with assembly of the 7.5 em Pak 40/2 (Sf) brought to a halt in order to get the self-propelled artillery to the troops for the planned offensive in the Summer of 1943. In August 1943, Famo was directed to cease pro- duction of the Wespe and devote their full production ca- pacity to assembling the 18 to Zugkraftwagen (Sd.Kfz.9) At the same time the number of le.F.H1.18/2 (Sf)/Muni that had been ordered was reduced from 1000 to 835. Produc- tion of the le.F-H.18/2 (Sf) was scheduled to end by May 1944. It was intended to be replaced by a self-propelled carriage with all-round traverse capable of dismounting the howitzer. However, these exotic designs never made it past a few experimental pieces. After a one month delay production of the self-propelled 10.5 em howitzer came to an end in June 1944 (Refer to Table 1). At the start of the Gesehuetzwagen IT production, a note in the acceptance report stated that plans were to complete one quarter of these vehicles as Munitionsfahr- zeuge (ohne Geschuetz) (ammunition carriers without guns), However, over 200 were completed as Geschuetz- wagen II fuer le.F-H.18/2 before the first 10 Munitions- fahrzeuge were completed in June 1943. In total, 159 were completed from June 1943 to June 1944 by Ursus Fa- ‘mo as Munitionsfahrzeuge out of the entire production run of 835 Geschuetzwagen II. Modifications Introduced During Production ‘The Scheinwerfer mit Tarnvorsatz (Bosch headlight) on the right side was dropped starting in May/June 1943. Initially, the Wespe had the same bump stops for 10-1-12 the leaf spring suspension as the Pz.Kpfw.II Aus£.F. By June 1943, the front two on each side were replaced by heavy duty bump stops with vertical volute springs. By November 1943, the last one on each side was also re- placed by a heavy duty bump stop with a vertical volute coil spring A track pin return plate was welded to both hull sides by January 1944 (present on Fgst.Nr.32005). Unit Organizatis Is The Wespe were issued as six howitzers in accor- dance with K.St.N.431(b) to batteries in one of the Ab- teilungen in the Artillerie-Regiment of each Panzer-Di- vision (except the 21.Panzer-Division (neu), five Panzer Grenadier-Divisions, and the 18,Artillerie-Division (creal- ed from the 18.Panzer-Division) In accordance with K.St.N.431b dated 16 January 1943, the Batterie le.Feldhaubitze 18/2 (6 Gesch) (Sf) was authorized to have 2 Geschuetzwagen fuer Muni- tion. Sd.Kfz.124 was added to the designation in K.St.N431b dated 1 November 1943, and the name was changed to Munitionstraeger auf Sd.Kfz.124 in K.St.N.431 dated 1 May 1944. Starting in May 1943, these Munitionsfahrzeuge were also issued to units that previously had been issued 12 or 18 “Wespe” and already sent to the front Table 1 - Wespe Production Month TeFH18/2 [_ Muni-Sf. Jand3 0 Feb43 2 Mar43 40 Apr43 136 May43 37 0 Jun43 34 10 Jul43, 39 19 Auga3 37 21 Sep43 49 17 Octd3 37 B Novas 38 12 Dec43 38 12 Jand4 37 1 Febad 33 24 Mara4 35 15 Apr 19 8 May44 20 3 Jund4 19 2 ld 0 0 Total 676 159Above: This Versuchs le.F.H.18 (SFI.) photographed in 1942 has features that weren’t adopted for the production series, such as the wider muzzle brake, driver’s compartment, and single headlight. (TTM) Below: At the start of the production series the “Wespe” had two Bosch headlights and normal Pz.Kpfw.II bump stops for the wider leaf spring suspension. (AMC)Above: A “Wespe” completed after June 1943 with two vertical volute spring bump stops for the front two roadwheels on each side. (BA 297/1707/8a) Below: A vertical volute spring bump stop was also added for the last roadwheel by the end of 1943. (HH); ZgH Removing the le.F.H.18/1 with its traversing cradle from Geschuetzwagen II (Fgst.Nr.31051), which had an exhaust muffler covered by a heat shield on the rear. (BA 312/968/20) Below: The driver’s vision slit was protected by a thick glass block. (TA)After waiting for over eight years for their self propelled artillery, all but three Panzer-Divisions received their authorized allocation of Wespe within the eight month period from May through December 1943. The 19.Pz.Div., 12.SS-Pz.Di Wespe in early 1944. Six of the divisions had received their Wespe batteries in time for employment in the Kursk offensive. As shown in Table 2, the Wespe had a remark- able ability to survive on the Easter Front during a period when losses suffered by the Panzers exceeded 75 percent. Experience Reports The following excerpts from a report written on 24 April 1943 by the commander of the 17.Panzer-Division ‘on how to deal with Russian anti-tank guns reveal the im- portance that was being placed on acquiring self-propelled artillery: Even in the most favorable conditions against the flanks or rear, an attack against the enemy anti-tank de- fense fronts cannot be carried out only with the Panzers weapons. It requires artillery support. However, experi ence has shown that a Panzer attack, advancing against the flank and rear, outranges the artillery group that has Table 2 - Number of Wespe Reported with Divisions in 1943 Division 31May | 30Jun_| 3iJul_ | 31Aug | 30Sep | 310ct [| 30Nov | 31Dec LPz.Div. 12 12 12 12 12 12 2.Pz.Div. 12 12 12 8 8 8 3.Pz.Div. 12 12 12 4.Pz.Div. 12 12 in i 9 9 10 5.Pz.Div. 12 12 12 12 6.Pz.Div. 12 12 in i 9 7.Pz.Div. 6 12. 12, 12 14 15 B 8.Pz.Div. i 14 14 9.Pz.Div. 12 12 12 10 15, 15 11.Pz.Div. 12 12 12 22 7 7 12.Pz.Div. 12 12. 12 13.Pz.Div. 12 12 8 8 14.Pz.Div. 6 6 12 12 12 u u 16.Pz. Div. 12 12 12 2 12 12 17.Pz.Div. 12 12 12 12 12 2 ul W 20.Pz.Div. 12 12. 12 23.Pz.Div. 5 12 12 24-Pz. Div. 6 6 12 12 2 12 12 25.Pz.Di 12 12. 9 9 26.Pz.Div. 12 12 2 9 8 7 5 3.Pz.GrDiv. 18 18, 18 18, 18, 18 18 7 29.Pz.Gr.Div. 18 18, 18 12 12 12 10 1 90.Pz.Gr.Div. 12 12 12 12 i ul u Pz.Gr.Div. G.D. 12 12 12 u il i 10 10 Pz.Gr.Div. FHH, 6 6 6 18 18 18, 17 18.Artl. Div. 12 12 12 10 LSSAH, 12 12 12 12 12 ul ul 10 SS Das Reich 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 i SS Totenkopf 12 12 12 12 i u i 5.SS Pz.Div. 12 9.SS Pz.Div, 12 12 10.88 Pz.Div. 12 12 10-1-16Right: The second Bosch headlight was dropped in June 1943 before the vertical volute spring bump stops were introduced. (AMC)been assigned to cooperate with them. Self-propelled ar- tillery batteries are needed which use their mobility to ‘move to firing positions in the same formation with the Panzers and thereby conform to the mobility of the Panzer unit The arrival of the self-propelled artillery batteries is awaited with great expectation. With longer firing rang- es than the Panzers themselves, they will be capable of achieving the fire superiority that is needed to again win back supremacy over anti-tank defenses The following comments on the employment of the Wespe were recorded in a experience report written by the commander of the 1.Abteilung/Panzer-Artillerie- Regiment 103 on the offensive and defensive battles south of Orel from 5 July to 18 August 1943: The Abteilung was outfitted with two Batterien each with six le.EH. auf Panzerfahrgestell II and one Batterie with six s. FH. auf Panzerfahrgestell IV. The mixture of calibers (10.5 cm and 15 cm in a 2 10 1 ratio) ‘met all tactical demands. The objective is to combine di- rect fire from the smaller caliber Panzer's guns, which score direct hits, with indirect area barrages from artillery, which, because no direct hits are achieved, must gain su- periority through its heavier caliber and number of shell fragments Since a breakthrough was not achieved, in spite of the massed employment of the Panzer forces (from 8 to 10 duly 1943), the Batterien were not employed in mobile of- fensive actions. Instead, for the most part the Sf.-Ab= teilung was assigned the same tasks as the other towed Abteilungen in the Artillerie-Regiment, that is supporting attacks with limited objectives against enemy prepared for defense and repulsing enemy attacks. The advantages of the superior mobility of the Sfe= Artillerie weren i utilized in supporting swift progressive Panzer and infarury attacks. The actual task for which this Sf-Artillerie was created did not occur and will not occur in the East until the development of an operational, pene- trating Panzer force. However, it is wrong to conclude that Sf.-Artillerie should not exist for the present because 1. The situation may be differemt on other fronts, for exam- ple, for defending against landing enemy troops by sup- porting the counterattacks of Panzer units. 2. The advantages of the thoroughly invulnerable Sf.-Art- illerie was already decisive during the recent battle of at- trition in the East. While the other Abteilungen in the Art- ilerie-Regiments suffered significant losses in their firing positions because of continuous aerial attacks and coun- ter-hattery artillery fire, the Sf--Abteilung was spared be- cause of armor protection and ability to simply drive out of heavy concentrated fire, even though exposed fire positions had to frequently be chosen due to the situation. 3. The armored Sf.-Artillerie were the only batteries that ‘maintained the ability 10 return fire at exactly the critical 10-1-18 ‘moment when the enemy attacked and at the same time the firing positions were covered by counter-battery fire. 4. Even when on the defense, the Sf--Artillerie made mo- bile deployment possible and therefore it was possible to continually fire artillery strikes that surprised the enemy. Examples of this is the assembly of the entire Sf.-Abteilung all 18 howitzers beside each other in open or concealed ‘map coordinates, carrying out a concentrated sudden artil- lery strike, directly followed by immediately changing posi- tion before effective counter-strikes could occur However, in practice this last described method of employment couldn't be tested during the almost always critical situations because it was absolutely necessary that all the howitzers in the Abteilung be continuously prepared to fire. 5. The mobile Sf-Artillerie was capable of defending itself ‘against tanks and infantry that had broken through the de- fenses. This is of decisive importance during the rapidly shifting battles that occur in the East. Northeastward of Ssnamenskoyje, about 50 kilometers northwest of Orel, us- ing direct fire the 4,Batterie effectively engaged eight ene- my tanks which attacked the battery's firing position from the right flank. The howitzers immediately moved to the right and because the tanks were recognized in the open terrain, already opened fire at a range of 1500 meters with a mixture of high explosive and shaped charge shells. As a result of the rapid fire the enemy tanks pulled back and turned off toward another direction. Neither side scored a single hit 6. Because the Sf Artillerie is invulnerable to counter-bat- tery fire, it is possible to achieve rapid and heavy concen- trated barrages by two or three Batterien pulling into par- allel positions in a tight space. As experienced during re- cent battles, concentrated fire could be rapidly and com- pletely achieved. The only mechanical problems that have shown up con the Wespe are wear on teeth in the steering gear, as well as the brakes being continuously soaked with oil because oil leaks out of the final drive housing. Other mechanical problems haven't occurred with the Wespe in spite of being continuously in action under difficult conditions. The ammunition expended by the Sf-Abteilung during this period totaled 18,916 rounds fired by the Je. :H.18 and 5,161 rounds fired by the sFH.18. The number of rounds fired by each gun were: Lo2 3 4 5. 6. Total 4.Batterie 2162 83 1889 1602 1217 1517 8504 S.Batterie 2280 830 1779 1868 2009 1646 10412 6.Batterie 467 1246 320 379 1222 1527 5161 The difference in the number of rounds fired by the 4. and S.Batterien was due to the 4. Batterie losing a Wespe on the first day and a shortage of ammunition when this Batterie was detached with a special Kampfgruppe during the period from 18 July to 3 August 1943.T T T T T “Wespe” Geschuetzwagen II fuer 10.5 cm le.F-H.18/2 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.124) Yt \ (0) 3 Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 Features present on this "Wespe” G.WIf. le.F.H.18/2 (Sf.) completed in early 1944 include: one Bosch headlight and vertical volute spring bump stops for the 1st, 2nd, and Sth roadwheels. L L L L 1 nee 10-1-19From previous experience, the ammunition expen- diture appears to be very high even though the Abteilung was almost continuously subjected to a shortage of ammu- nition. As in World War J, in the current battles of attrition the artillery requires many times the ammunition supply as that calculated to meet the needs of mobile warfare. An officer in the Waffenamt sent to Italy to obtain a clear picture of operational experience with the Wespe reported on 17 November 1943: Above all else, the main difference between the op- erational employment on the Eastern Front and in aly is due to the terrain. The terrain in the south and middle of aly is mainly mountainous that is characterized by roads over passes, steep inclines, sharp curves, hard and rocky ‘ground. The terrain places far higher demands on the equipment than in the East. In addition, the temperatures are very high during the summer. The planned employment of Sft-Artillerie within a Panzer-Division practically never occurred in Italy. This was due to the peculiarity of the terrain and the combat situation. In actual fact the Sfl. were preponderantly em- ployed in platoons or indeed only as individual guns. Therefore, in no way were usefull experiences obtained on the tactical employment of the Sfl. The main deficiencies observed by the troops were 1. The motor of the Wespe is too weak. Therefore, the Sf. are 100 slow (only one-third of the convoy speed of a mo- torized towed artillery). Concentrated movement of a Bat- terie was not possible because of continuous mechanical failures. The Sft. moved individually. 2. The Wespe final drives frequently broke down while at- tempting to steer through the tight curves in the mountains, 3. Due to overtaxing caused by the terrain, damage con- tinuously occurred to the brakes, brake linings, and rivets. ‘As an example, because of these problems, only I out of 18 Wespe were still operational in the 3.Panzer-Grenadier-Division although this division first ‘came into action with these Sfl. for only several weeks. In the 26.Panzer-Division only two out of twelve Wespe still remained operational after four weeks in ac- tion. Three Wespe had to be blown up by the troops after they broke down during a retreat. These losses due to me- chanical breakdown are especially high when one com- pares them to only two losses occurring due to enemy ac- tion: The lack of room for carrying anything in addition 10 the crew and ammunition in the Wespe fighting compart- ‘ment is bothersome. It isnt possible to carry along the necessary baggage for the crew such as blankets, washing kits, ration pouches, and cooking utensils Inspite of several minor weaknesses, the Sf. have proven to be successful on the Eastern Front. The Wespe hhas proven to be an excellent weapon on the Eastern Front. However, it has been established that this model of the Sf. is not suitable for employment in the mountainous terrain in the south and middle of Italy. The troops want their old towed batteries back Left: ‘The Gesehuetzwagen Il fuer Munition was designed so that it could be converted in the field from an ammunition carrier into a normal “Wespe” with a 10.5 cm le.F.H.18/2. (HH)Weapons Data: “Wespe” Geschuetzwagen II fuer le.F.H.18/2 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.124) Automotive Capabilities: On Hull 1- 10.5 om le.FH.18/2 Maximum Speed: 40 kevhr Elevation 5°, + 42° Avg. Road Speed: 2 kmih Traverse: 20° R, 20° L Cross Country: 2 kmihe Gunsight: Z.£.34 with RbIt 36 Range on Road! 140 km Range’ 10,650 meters Cross Country 95 km Grade: 30° Secondary: 1-7.92 mm M.G.34 Trench Crossing: 17m 2-9mmMP. Step’ 420m Fording Depth: 80cm Ammunition: 30- 10.5 em Ground Clearance: 340m 384-9 mm Ground Pressure: 0.76 kg/cm? Power Ratio: 12.7 HPiton Crew: Commander Steering Ratio: 1.35 2 Kanoniere Driver Automotive Components: Motor: Maybach HL 62 TR Communication: Fu.Spr.Ger 6-cyl, water-cooled 6.23 liter gasoline Measurements: 140 HP @ 2600 rpm Length, overall: 4gim Transmission: ZFSS.GA46 Width, overalt: 2.28m Reverse 5 km/hr Height, overall: 2.30 m 1. Gear 4 km/hr Firing Height: 194m 2. Gear 9 km/hr Wheel Base: 4.88 m 3. Gear 415 km/hr Track Contact: 2.40 m 4, Gear 22.5 kmihr Combat Loaded: 114 metric ton 5. Gear 30 km/hr Fuel Capacity: 200 titers, 6. Gear 40 kimihr Steering: Differential Armor Protection: Drive: Front sprocket Chassis: Roadwheels: 5 per side Front 30mm Tires: '550 mm dia. Rubber Sides & Rear 145mm ‘Suspension’ Leaf springs Superstructure: Track’ Kgs.67-300/90 Front 10mm Dry pin Sides 40 mm Links per side: 108 A step was welded onto the left rear track guard and many “Wespe” did not have a heat shield covering the engine exhaust muffler, (AMC)“Heuschrecke IVb” 10.5 cm le.F.H.18/6 (Sf.) auf Geschuetzwagen II/IV. After almost a year of effort had gone into design- ing a chassis for the Heuschrecke 10 and Grille 10, a de- cision was made in May 1943 to create an experimental Heuschrecke IVb using a Hummel chassis and the howit- zer from an earlier le.F.H.18/I (Sf.) auf Geschuetzwagen IVb. The Heuschrecke IVb project was initiated on 28 May 1943 at a meeting with Wa Pruef 4 in Krupp, Essen. As noted by Herr Daur on the Heuschrecke 10 mit le..H.18 (IVb): Muelheimer Eisenwerke is to provide a Hummel Wanne and a Maybach HL 120 engine onto which as far as possible an unmodified le. EH.18 is to be installed. Wa Pruef 4 hinted that the hydraulic dismount ing mechanism would be made by Rheinmetall and not be based on gear reduction. Krupp replied that they also had raised the idea of a hydraulic device, but gear reduction was still necessary so that 100 percent savings on gears is not possible. Dr: Bankwitz added that a maximum firing elevation of 55 degrees can he achieved. Wa Pruef4 wants the highest elevation possible for firing behind cov- er Further clarifications were made in notes on the ‘on 28 May 1943: The gun from the previous le FH.18/1 (Sf) auf Gw.IVb (drawing 5-145) is to be mounted on the Hummel Fahrgestell. In the interim a complete le RH.I8/ (Sf) auf Gw.IVb has been sent from the Artillerie-Schule I, Jueterbog to Krupp-Gruson, Mag- deburg. It is 10 be used to build a Geraet V2, leFH 18 (Sf) auf G.1Vb, Heuschrecke IVb (1/28) in Magdeburg as a Versuchs-Sfh. parallel to the Geraet V1, leFH 43 (Sft.) Heu-schrecke 10 (1/35) in Essen, Previous design investigations revealed that with- ‘out increasing the elevation of the Geraet V2 in compar son to Geraet V1 and with all-round traverse, the maxi- ‘mum possible elevation on the vehicle is about 55 degrees. Wa Pruef 4 demanded that to get an Sft. (meeting the requirements for all-round fire, dismountable, and high elevation) into production directly following the end of Wespe (le.F-H.18/2 (Sf) auf Gw.II) production in May 1944, the supporting documents for mass production of the le, H.I8/I (Sf.) Heuschrecke IVb must be completed by 30 September 1943. On 25 June 1943, Krupp, Essen was assembling a new turret under contract 41/205691 to be completed as quickly as possible, striving for September 1943 but at the latest October 1943. Grusonwerk was completing a Ver~ suchsfahrzeug Heuschrecke 4b on which the turret com-This Page and Below Left: Originally the trial “Heuschrecke IVb” had an exhaust muffler. The two Schwingarme (one on each side for dismounting the turret) driven by a gear box consisting of a Schnecken- trieb (worm drive), a Stirnradvorgelege (spur gear transfer) and a Planetengetrieb (planetary gear). (TTM)pleted in Essen for the Heusehreeke 10 was to be mounted but with a different howitzer, ‘The development status of Artillerie-Selbstfahr- lafetten was discussed at a meeting on 30 June 1943 at- tended by decision making representatives from the Watfenkommission, Panzetkommission, Gen.Insp.d.Pz.Tr., Gend.Art,, AHA/In 4, AHAJIn 6, Wa J Rue, Wa Pruef 4, and Wa Pruef 6 including details about the Krupp le.F.H. 18 (Sfl.) Bauart: Heuschrecke auf Hummelfahrgestel: Several weeks ago a new project was started tak- ing advantage of the Hummel Fahrgestell in mass produc- tion with its complete Aufbau adopted from the Heu- sehrecke, The weapon to be used for this Geraet was de- signed for the le. EH.18/1 (Sf) IV 6 with the exception of the breech which has been taken over from the 10.5 ‘Stu.H.A3 80 that available production capactity can be used for the production of this Sl. The Fahrgestell from the mass-produced Hummel has to he changed to relocate the engine and accommodate the Absetzvorrichtung (dis- mounting device). Because mostly available components will be used, it is expected that mass production of this Geraet can start in early 1944, so that after production of the te. RH.18 auf PKpfi.ll Wespe ceases, a Geraet with Rundumfeuer and Absetzbarkeit will be available. Priority is being giv- en to complete a V-Geraet by Krupp so that testing can be- gin in October 1943. In the current development status itis understood that the Heuschrecke auf Hummelfahrgestelt is the await- ed final design for the le. EH. Sfl.. The engine in this V2= Geraet from Krupp is the HL 120 with 300 metric horse- power that only achieves a power to weight ratio of 13 Pion. On 3 July 1943, a Hummel Fahrgestell (Fgst.Nr. 320148) without a superstructure or weapon was sent to Grusonwerk in Magdeburg. Wa Pruef 4 awarded contract SS 0004-2056/43 H dated 28 June 1943 for design of a complete Geraet 5-1055, On 7 July 1943, Wa Pruef 4 in- formed Krupp that the Geraet Heuschrecke IVb carries the official name of le.F.H.18/6 (Sf.) auf Gw.1V and has the Geraet Nr 5-1055, Dipl.-Ing, Giesecke and others from Wa Pruef 6 met at Krupp-Grusonwerk on 13 July 1943. Krupp pre- sented drawings of the turret, howitzer, and Abhebewerk (dismounting mechanism) for the le. FH.18/6 (Sf) auf Gw. IV (Heuschrecke IV b) and details were discussed on the type of gun sight, gunnery controls, weight, muzzle brake, and howitzer. It was not planned to have a Scherenfern- rohr Jor this Sfl. so the holder was to he dropped. Wa Pruef 4 again demanded that the total weight (including crew and ammunition) not exceed 23 metric tons, The le. EH.I8/ (Sf) auf Gw IV b couldn’ be taken over be- cause the traverse and elevation mechanisms were signifi- cantly simplified and the le. EHA3 barrel used. Wa Pruef 10-1-24 4 arranged for the delivery of two Panzersehklappen (ar- ‘mor visors) for the Fahrer and Funker (also Beifahrer) on the one piece Aufbau for the Fahrer and Funker. Krupp was to develop an Aufbau for a Munitionsfahrzeug as close as possible in design to the Geschuetcpanzer- ‘aufbau with interior layout for ammunition in their pack- ing. Ammunition was to be loaded/unloaded from both sides of the Aufbau On 17 July 1943, Stablindustrie, Mulheim sent a complete front plate with two Fahrersehklappen (driver's visors) to Grusonwerk ‘A meeting was held on 29 July 1943 with Wa I Rue (WuG 6) to discuss the production of the chassis for the leF.H.18/6 (Sf. auf GwelV. The question of produc- ing the drive for the Auf- und Absetzvorrichtung des Ge~ sehuetz ran into great difficulty. Krupp had met the re- quirement set by the Gen.Stab for dismounting the howitzer by using two Schwingarme (one on each side) driven by a gear box consisting of a Schneckentrieb (worm drive), a ‘Stirnradvorgelege (spur gear transfer) and a Planetenge- trieb (planetary gear). Switching the Schwingarme from lifting to lowering was accomplished by a Wendegetriebe (conversion gear box) consisting of a Stirnradvorgelege (spur gear transfer) and three Kegelraeder (bevel gears). Wa Chef Ing 4 and Sonderausschuss Getriebe re- ported on 5 August 1943: There isnt sufficient manufac- turing capacity to complete this complicated drive. Since it was absolutely necessary to meet the deadline for starting Te, EH.18/6 (SP) auf Gw.IV production in Jaruary/Febru- ary, the Waffenams proposed: a. Initially, le-PH.18/6 (SP) auf GwaIV were to be deliv. ered so that a Bochkran mit Flaschenzug (crane with block and pully) be used to dismount and mount the turret. This improvised lifting device was to the carried on every ‘Muni-Fahrzeug, so that there was one for each three Sf. b. Wa Chef Ing 4 and Sonderauschuss Getriebe are to im- mediately initiate all necessary steps to produce a built-in Absetzgeraet. From the start, the hulls were to be prepared so that the drive can be easily installed later. On 1 September 1943, Wa J Rue (WuG2) informed Fried. Krupp that the firm Menck & Hambroch GmbH, Hamburg-Altona were to take over production of the com- plete le,F.H.18/6 and deliver the first one already in De- cember 1943. On 3 September 1943, Wa Pruef 4 agreed to Krupp’s proposed design for a Bochkran of which 100, were to be produced. Also, the turret armor body was to be made out of M8 steel instead of Panzerstahl. Ata meeting on 28 September 1943, Oberst Woe- hlermann, Chef Wa Pruef 4 discussed the development of the leichten Artillerie-Selbstfahrlafette (light self-pro- pelled artillery). Since the Wespe (le.EH.18/2) (Sf) auf Gw.II production was to run out in May 1944, the purpose of this meeting was to clarify the requirements and desiresAbove and Below: The “Heuschrecke IVb” after being modified to install manually-operated ‘equipment for dismounting the turret. The dismounted turret with wheels bolted to the sides was towed by an improvised hitch clamped to the howitzer barrel. (TTM)ZL0z e1Kog s1n07 Kei 1YBIIAdOS, Al/UI| UaBemzyanyosany ne (4S) 9/81 'H4'e] WO S'OL «QAI exoe4y9sneH,, 10-1-262102 e1fod s1n07 Are BUASOD A : 6 Opa anaalO g L 10-1-27 ie)for development, production, and employment of self-pro- pelled artillery, responsive to military needs. Rundum- fewer (all-round traverse) and Absetcbarkeit (dismount- able) were emphasized as being the basic and absolutel necessary requirements for a final design for modern light self-propelled artillery. Rundumfeuer is not simply necessary from a tac- tical basis for either attacks or defense with mounted guns As proven by the large majority of experience reports sent in by Selbstfahrlafetten-Abteilungen on the Eastern Front, itis also necessary from a technical basis. Fre- quently during a fight, artillery are required to engage tar- gets in all directions which because of their limited tra- verse requires the entire self-propelled chassis to be turned around. Thus the engine must always be ready to start and itis the main reason for the numerous breakdowns of the tracks, idler wheel, track tension adjuster, brakes, and final drives of the Wespe and Hummel. The need for Absetcbarkeit (dismountable) in or- der to help maintain the vehicle and to quickly mount the gun on a Munitions-Fahrceug doesn’ need any further explanation. The ability to dismount the gun onto a wheeled carriage, so that it can be towed immediately by any suitable vehicle is recognized as being militarily valu- able, But, itis not considered to be critical especially by In 4, because dismounting onto a cross or frame carriage with all-round traverse presents a good defensive capabili- ty and would be used more often than an attempt to quickly tow the gun away, The not yet tested Pilz (pedestal mount) for all-round traverse on a wheeled carriage has been in- cluded in the design and should improve its effectiveness in actual combat conditions. Referring to drawings of the Krupp design (worked on since July 1942 with construction drawings nearly complete except for insignificant details) and the Alkett design Gust presented to Wa Pruef the day before, these new conceptual project drawings are significantly different than previous militarily uninteresting proposals from Rheinmetall, and therefore deserve the same attention as the older Krupp design), the Chef Wa Pruef 4 explained the detailed differences between the two designs 1. Krupp Design: A 360 degree traversable turret-like su- perstructure is mounted on a chassis with Hummel com- ponents. An le.FH.18 with the tube and breech from the 10.5 cm Stull 42 is mounted in the turret. The jacket car- riage is a new design, with standard model recoil cylinder and recuperator from the StuK 42, StuH 42 and Kw.K.42. The turret is dismountable, but because procurement of the complicated drive for the mechanical dismounting device posses major difficulties, itis intended that the first 200 10 300 of the production series have a simple Bochkkran (crane) later replaced by a mechanical device. The dis- mounted turret iy set into a frame made out of four carri- ers. Elevation of 45 degrees on the vehicle can be in- 10-1-28 creased 10 68 degrees on the ground mount, but a I meter deep hole must be dug to achieve an elevation greater than 21 degrees. Traverse on the ground is also 360 degrees The turret can't be towed when dismounted. 2. Alkett Design: After removing the wheels and trails, an unmodified, series production le... 18/40 is mounted on a chassis with Hummel components $0 that the gun can be traversed 360 degrees with an elevation are from -5 to +42 degrees. This is achieved by mounting the howitzer on a Drehbettung (turn table) set into the hull. The howitzer is ‘mounted eccentrically on the Drekbettung to absorb the full recoil energy. As shown in the drawing this set up is extraordinarily simple, but must still be designed in detail and tested. The wheels are mounted outboard on the ar- mor hull on special strips. The trails are also carried out side, The planned method of dismounting is to use a jack to raise the howitzer out of its seat, only high enough to ‘mount the trails and wheels. A winch can be used to lower the howitzer down an inclined ramp to the ground where it can be used as a normal le. RH.18/40. All-round fire of the howitzer should be achieved by mounting the wheeled car- riage on a Pilz (pedestal) that is still being designed. All meeting attendees were in agreement on the fol- lowing advantages and disadvantages of both proposed de- signs: Krupp design: Advantages: Mature working design with an outer form and interior room similar to a Panzer. Shorter space-sav- ing recoil, recoil cylinder and recuperator protected by ar- ‘mor, good stowage capacity for ammunition, firing height lower than the Alkett design, dismounted howitzer has all- round traverse and higher elevation. The final design (af. ter the first 300) has quick and easy dismounting capabili- n Disadvantages: Higher production expenditure, especial- Jy with an installed drive for the dismounting device, uses a smaller number of series production components, because not as many gun tubes, recoil cylinders, and recuperators are produced as the le. EH.18/40; dismounted gun is not towable, Alktt design. Advantages: Uses the series production le.RH.1840 and the dismounted howitzer is towable. Disadvantages: Preparation for dismounting by adding wheels and trails is time consuming: moving the heavy components (wheel about 145 kg, trail about 110 kg) on the chassis platform: space in fighting compartment reduced due to longer recoil; recoil cylinder and recuperator must have special armor protection which causes poor access- ability for refilling: unimportant increase in firing height; all-round traverse of the dismounted howitzer is dependent on the usability of the Pilz (pedestal mount). Afier thoroughly discussing the pluses and minuses of the design and employment plus production considerAbove and Below: The “Heuschrecke IVb” after being modified to install manually operated equipment for dismounting the turret, (TTM) 10-1-29ations, the attendees unanimously agreed that neither of these proposed designs supports an immediate decision. Representatives from Gen.d.Art. and In 4 disclosed that a temporary production lull of 3 t0 4 months will exist after the Wespe runs out in May, which is tolerable when Hummel production is increased, so that a decision on the new design can be delayed, To get a clear picture from the various military branches, a position on the following three alternatives was requested: a. Immediately start production of the Krupp design for which the first preparations have already been initiated, with the possibility that production could be halted after the first 100 to 150 in order to switch t0 the Alkett design. , Immediately stop work on the Krupp design and accel- erate preparation of the Alkett design. ¢. Quickly demonstrate both designs (Krupp in October, Alkett in December), thorough testing and thereafter a fi- nal decision about January/February 1944 so that about ‘vo months after Wespe production runs out, production of the new chosen design can start in June/July. Alll attendees declared that they were for the third option. As promised, the Versuchs-Sfl, Heuschrecke IVb was ready for acceptance in Magdeburg on 13 October 1943. From 13 to 15 October the Heuschrecke IVb was test driven off road in Hillersteben and turret dismounting tests completed in an assembly hall ‘The barrel installed in the Heusehreeke IVb turret, was from the SAIVb. The sights were an $f1.Z.F.2 for di- tect fire and a Rundbliekfernrohr for indirect fire. Oberbaurat Rau (Wa Pruef 6) reported on 19 Octo- ber 1943 that the armor for the production series Heu- schrecke IVb should be 20 mm (previously 30 mm) on the turret front with 15 mm (previously 20 and 15 mm) side walls and flaps. Hom.E.P, steel was to be used instead of Hom.P armor plate. On 23 October 1943, the Heuschrecke IVb was in Grusonwerk to complete the simplifications (with the ex- ception of the azimuth scale) agreed to by Wa Pruef 4. ‘These included dual mount for the direct and indirect gun sights, changed to the front wall, and adding a 5 mm high strip to mount the turret base ring onto the vehicle ‘On 9 November 1943, the status of the Heu= schrecke IVb was discussed at a meeting with Wa Pruef 4 in Berlin: The Versuchsfahrzeug was sent back to Gruson- werk to incorporate several simplifications that resulted from testing in Hillersleben. In spite of the heavy load, up 10 now there haven't been any problems. The howitzer wasn + held by a travel lock on the drive from Hillersleben to Magdeburg without showing any stress. Wa Pruef 4 re~ ated that the Heuschrecke IVb has a good chance of bet- tering the Alkett design. A simple Bochkran to dismount the turret has been completed for testing and proven capa- 10-1-30 ble of bearing the load. In spite of this, Wa Pruef 4 leans more toward the Hub- und Wendegetriebe (installed swing arms with motor drive). Wa Pruef 4 cancelled the le.F.H.18/6 (Sf) auf Gw.IV - Munitionstraeger on 9 November 1943, explain- ing: Because all the Pz.Kpfw. components being produced are urgently needed for the troops, Wa Pruef 4 holds the opinion that it is not possible at this time to produce a com- plete special Munitionstraeger. tis sufficient to complete ‘an appropriate Aufbau to be mounted on the available Sfl. Fahrgestell for tests. Therefore, components previously ordered from Stahlindustrie won t be delivered. On 18 No- vember 1943, Wa Pruef 4 awarded Abt.AK contract 0004- 2150/43 to produce a Munitionstraegeraufbau zur le, F.H.18/6 (Sf.) auf Gw.lV to be rapidly delivered, On 20 November 1943, Krupp reported to Wa Pruef4 that the 20 changes had been made to simplify -F.H.18/6 (Sf) auf Gw.IV production and reduce the tur- ret weight, including reducing the armor thicknesses, elim- inating the transfer gear drive for the traverse mechanism, eliminating two seats for the commander and loader, elimi- nating a second travel lock, shortening the Absetzrahmen (dismounting frame), rebuilding the Hub- und Wendege- trieb and replacing the cast housing with a welded design. ‘These measures achieved a weight reduction of about one metric ton, significantly reduced production time and costs, and inereased available space in the turret. Because the Waffenamt had decided by 30 Decem- ber 1943 not to let production of the Heuschecke IVb start until comparison trials with other Sfl, had taken place, Krupp undertook a basic redesign of the turret with interior layout. New drawings were made of a greatly simplified Sfl. that only required a part of the previous labor expendi- ture to produce. The turret was modified so that when dis- mounted two wheels with springs could be mounted for towing. The Wendegetriebe und Hebgetriebe (power drives for dismounting the turret) with its gears, clutches, and planetray gears were eliminated resulting in further weight reduction. Commercially available hydraulic pumps for hand or motor drive were their replacements, The first firing trials of the le.F.H.18/6 (Sf.) Gw.IT/V took place at the Versuchsplatz Hillersleben on 21 January 1944, The howitzer was fired to front, left, rear and right at elevations from +50 degrees and +27.5 de- grees. The only problem occurred when firing at 27.5 de- grees. During recoil the howitzer swung up to almost max- imum elevation, apparently there was insufficient restric- tion by the worm gear in the elevation mechanism. The tri- als had to be broken off because damage to the left final drive immobilized the vehicle. ‘The Pz.Kpfw.IIL final drive is too weak. On 31 January 1944, Krupp started on developing a new design for a Heusehrecke [Vb auf Einheitsfahr- gestell Pz.III/IV with provision for dismounting the turretAbove and Below: After being modified to install manually operated equipment for dismounting the turret, the “Heuschrecke IVb” had bases welded to the turret sides and hull rear for mounting rubber-tired wheels. The engine exhaust muffier was replaced by two vertical exhaust pipes. (TTM)by hand or hydraulic power. Krupp reported that the demonstration of the Heu- sehrecke IV b had gone well at a meeting on 15 February 1944. The Versuchs-Serie was to have an ausschwenk- barer Kranbahn (pivotable crane track) to dismount the turret. By using a higher base, elevation of 21 degrees (in- stead of 17 degrees) is possible when firing the dismounted turret. A new proposal for firing at 35 degrees without ex- cavating a hole is to be made. Habermaas was working on a proposal to dismount the turret at the front using Aus- legerarms (extension arms). Wa Pruef 4 reported on the firing, driving, and dis- mounting/remounting demonstration held on the morning of 28 March 1944 of both the Versuchs-le.F.H.18/40/2 (Sf) Above: Lowering the turret onto the Absetzrahmen (dismounted frame) using the manually 10-1-32 operated ausschwenkbarer Kranbahn (pivotable crane track). (TTM)Gw III/Y (Alkett) and the Versuchs-le..H.18/6 (S1) Gw 'V (Krupp) being considered as replacements for the le FH.18/2 (Sf) Gw.ll (Wespe). (Refer to page 10-1-38 for the complete report). Following a comparison of the ‘vo designs, Krupp was ordered to make the following ‘modifications immediately, at the latest by 15 May: 1. Install the hand-operated Absetzkran (dismounting crane) 2. Install the SLZf. (periscopic gunsight) 3. Improvise towing for the dismounted turret. 4. Install the standard carriage and the standard reeuper- ator. Wa Pruef 4 was ordered to immediately complete, at least within the next month and a half the mass firing and driving trials with the modified Versuchs-Art.Sfl.s0 that at the latest by the end of May, without further discus- sion, only based on the Wa Pruef 4 test report another meeting attended by representatives from the various ser- vices a decision can be made on which model should go into mass production as a Zwischenloesung. In April 1944, Krupp modified the Heuschrecke IVb by removing the Wendegetriebe with swingarms and replacing it with an ausschwenkbarer Kranbahn (pivot- able crane track) for dismounting the turret, Bases for the wheel mounts were welded to the sides of the turret, as an improvisation for towing the dismounted turret. When the modified Heuschrecke IVb with the parallelogram hand-operated crane and wheels for the dis- mounted carriage was demonstrated on 31 May 1944, the 3.8 metric ton dismounted turret was considered to be un- usable in the field. Krupp’s Heusehreeke was rejected by the Waffenamt for series production, “Heuschrecke IVb” 10.5 cm le.F.H.18/6 (Sf.) auf Geschuetzwagen III/IV Weapons Data: On Hull 1-10.5 om le-FH.18/6 Elevation: 5, + 45° Traverse’ 360° Gunsight: SAZF2 Range: 10,650 meters Secondary: 2-9mmMP. Ammut 87 -10.5 om 384-9 mm Crew: Commander 3 Kanoniere Driver Communication: Fu.Spr.Ger-f Measurements: Length, overall 657m Chassis Length: 6.25m Width, overall 2.90m Height, overal: 2.65m Firing Height: 215m Wheel Base! 2.50m Track Contact 3.50m Combat Loaded: 24 metric ton Fuel Capacity: 360 liters, ‘Armor Protection: Chassis: Front 30 mm Sides & Rear 20 mm ‘Superstructure: Front 20mm Sides 15mm Automotive Capabil ies: Maximum Speed: 38 knvhr ‘Avg. Road Speed: 2 kenihr ‘Cross Country: 2 kmihr Range on Road: 225 km Cross Country: 120 km Grade: 30° Trench Crossing: 2.3m Step 75cm Fording Depth 140 om Ground Clearance: 40 om Ground Pressure: 0.74 kg/cm? Power Ratio: 11.9 HPIton Steering Ratio: 1.40 Automotive Components: Motor: Maybach HL 120 TRM 12-cyl, water-cooled 11.9 liter gasoline 285 HP @ 2800 rpm Transmission: ZESSG77 Reverse 5.4 km/hr 1. Gear 4.2 kmlhr 2. Gear 8.1 km/hr 3. Gear 13.8 km/hr 4. Gear 20.8 km/hr 5. Gear 29.5 km/hr 6. Gear 38.0 km/hr Steering: Differential Drive: Front sprocket Roadwheels: 8x2 per side Tires: 470 mm dia. Rubber Suspension: Leaf springs Track Kgs.61-400/120 Dry pin Links per side: 107 10-1-33le.F.H.18/40/2 (Sf) auf Geschuetzwagen III/IV At a meeting on 28 September 1943, Oberst Woe- hlermann, Chef Wa Pruef 4 discussed the development of the leichten Artillerie-Selbstfahrlafette (light self-pro- pelled artillery). Referring to drawings of the Alkett design (just presented to Wa Pruef the day before) these new con- ceptual project drawings are significantly different than previous militarily uninteresting proposals from Rhein- ‘metal, and therefore deserve the same attention as the old- er Krupp design. The Alkett design was based on mount- ing an unmodified, series production le. EH.18/40 (with wheels and trails removed) on a chassis with Hummel components so that the gun can be traversed 360 degrees with an elevation arc from -5 to +42 degrees. This is achieved by mounting the howitzer on a Drehbettung (turn table) set into the hull. The howitzer is mounted eccentri- cally on the Drehbettung to absorb the full recoil energy As shown in the drawing this set up is extraordinarily sim- ple, but must still be designed in detail and tested. The wheels are mounted outboard on the armor hull on special stripes. The trails are also carried outside. The planned ‘method of dismounting is to use a jack to raise the how Zer out of its seat, only high enough to mount the trails and wheels. A winch can be used to lower the howitzer down an inclined ramp to the ground where it can be used as a normal le.EH.18/40, All-round fire of the howitzer should he achieved by mounting the wheeled carriage on a Pilz (pedestal) that is still being designed. The Alkett design had the following advantages/ disadvantages. Advantages: Uses the series production te. the dismounted howitzer is towable, Disadvantages: Preparation for dismounting by adding wheels and trails is time consuming; moving the heavy components (wheel about 145 kg, trail about 110 kg) on the chassis platform; space in fighting compartment re~ duced due to longer recoil; recoil cylinder and recuperator ‘must have special armor protection which causes poor ac~ cessability for refilling; unimportant increase in firing height; all-round traverse of the dismounted howitzer is dependent on the usability of the Pilz (pedestal mount) The attendees agreed 10 the option to quickly dem- onstrate both designs (Krupp in October, Alkett in Decem- ber), conduct thorough testing and then make a final dect- sion about January/February 1944 so that about two H.18/40 and Above: The full scale wooden model of the le.F.H.18/40/2 (Sf) auf G.W.III/IV being shown to General Lindemann (General der Artillerie) at Alkett in the Fall of 1943, (WW) 10-1-34Above and Below: The le.F.H.18/40/2 (Sf) auf G.W.ILI/IV with the wheels and trails for the dismounted carriage mounted on the rear and parts of the dismounting jib crane carried on the sides. While the same drive train components were used, the hull was about 100 mm wider than a standard G.W.II/IV. (TTM)AI/Ill uaBemzjenyosen jne Ziov/er Hye 10-1-36{euun} Buy JO 188) Aut Te Siex90s Bally By) 10 Yoap suIBua ‘8lj Uo S}93490s 2014) BU} UO PeIUNOUL (WODG qi) UesY -syeyag & Bulsn Aq paunowisip Sem Ob/eL'H'S'2l SUL, zh0z eikog sino Aue 1yBiadog 10-1-37months after Wespe production runs out, production of the new chosen design can start in June/July On 10 March 1944, Wa Pruef 4 reported on the de- velopment status of the le. F-H.18/40/2 (Sf) auf Gw IIV/IV (Alkett) and le.F.H.18/6 (Sf) auf Gw.IIV/IV (Krupp): Jn the interim a Versuchsfahrzeug has been completed for oth designs. A demonstration is laid on for 28 March with emphasis placed on testing the military application of these devices. The Alkett Selbsifahrlafette uses the Ie. FH.18/40 mounted on a special pedestal in a vehicle using components from the Pz.Kpfw.IHl und IV with a hull form close to that ofa Hummel. The Krupp Selbstfahr- lafette has a new weapon mainly constructed from StuH.42 and le. E.H.18/40 components, mounted on a chassis with Pz-Kpfw.II und IV components. The hull is close to that of a Hummel, especially if the current motor driven Absetzvorrichtung (dismounting device) is replaced by one operated by hand. Both vehicles are different than previous Pz.KpfwIV special models, especially in differ- ‘ences in the hull that require special assembly. However, technical construction savings and a substantial simplification in organizing appropriations can be achieved if the weapon was mounted on the Einheits- panzerwagen IY. After reviewing the main design points, Alkett declared that to mount the le.F-H.18/40 it would be necessary 10 increase the hull width of the Einheitspancer- wagen IV by 100 mm. In spite of this the hull can still be completed with jigs used for the Einheitspanzer IV and the interior outfitting and components including suspen- sion taken over unmodified with the exception of insertion. of wider pieces. Krupp clarified that there was no difficul- 1 in mounting their weapon in a Einheitspanzer IV with- out modification. The Einheitspanzerwagen IV chassis is still being developed: while the hull is already completed, the suspension has not yet been determined. This results in the following status for the new 10.5 cm Selbsifahrlafette: Production of the Wespe runs out in May. Gen. Stad.H, requires that it be replaced by a new Sf. design with delivery commencing in August 1944. Independent of the result of the military decision, a suitable vehicle quite similar to the Hummel exclusively using standard drive train components is available. Drawings for production of the weapon and vehi- cle are available. ‘The technical production testing is par- tially complete. Krupp tests are advancing at a rapid pace, Alkett must stil test whether several known compo- ‘nents can work together. No production bottle necks have been identified. The view is that the appropriation to re- place a previous type is achievable. The desirable inclusion in Einheitspanzerwagen IV production is possible without difficulty, with the excep- tion that an exacting investigation has still not been com- pleted by Alket. 10-1-38 Wa Pruef 4 reported on the firing, driving, and dis mounting/remounting demonstration held on the morning of 28 March 1944 of both the Versuchs-le,F.H.18/40/2 (Sf) Gw IIV/IV (Alkett) and the Versuchs-le.F.H.18/6 (Sf) Gw IIVIV (Krupp) being considered as replacements for the le, F.H.18/2 (Sf) Gw.ll (Wespe), as follows Chef Wa Pruef 4 Oberst Woehlermann presented a summarized overview of the development status of both the Alkett and Krupp designs 1. Fahrgestell - Both firms have based their designs on the same Panzerkamfpwagen IIT und IV components. Both use a hull made out of SM-Stahl whereby the use of the se- ries production le. EH.18/40 by Alkett requires the hull t0 be about 100 mm wider than that for Krupp which has a normal hull. 2. Einheitsfahrgestell Pz. KpfwlV - Both can be converted to the standard chassis at any time without any restrictions for Krupp, but Alkett needs extension pieces for the drive shafts. 3. Contrary to the previous traverse field of only plus or minus 20 degrees, the requirement for Rundumfeuer (all- round fire) is again recognized as absolutely necessary. It ‘must be required not only in order to quickly engage close targets in all directions while on the move, especially tanks breaking into the flanks or rear, but also when employed as artillery to quickly engage targets in neighboring sectors or cover a wide divisional front without turning the entire vehicle (resulting in final drive breaks, broken tracks, and continuously running the engine) and without a new and time consuming parallel alignment of the howitzers. The traverse field of the mounted howitzers on both Versuchs-Fahrzeuge is 360 degrees. While the Krupp de- sign has an unrestricted elevation are of -8 to +45 degrees, the Alkett design has a 60 degree sector over the rear re~ stricted to +2 degrees, resulting in the shortest range being 1100 meters with charge 5. Considering that Rundum- feuer is important for clase targets, this restriction is not acceptable. If the stowed carriage wheels are relocated, the Alkett design can also achieve an unrestricted elevation are of -5 to +42 degrees. The very advantageous depres- sion of 8 degrees isn't possible on the Alkett design because the le. EH.18/40 is constructed for a depression of -5 de~ ‘grees 4. When dismounted the Alkett model has the same tra- verse field of plus/minus 30 degrees as the le. H.18/40. By using a Schiesspitz (firing pedestal) a continual all- round traverse is achievable. The design must be changed ‘for stowing this Schiesspitz on the vehicle. The dismount ed Krupp model has continuous all-round fire. 5. The elevation are when dismounted is the same as the Je, EH.I8A0 (-5 to +42 degrees) for the Alkett design. In contrast, the Krupp howitzer has an elevation are of -8 to +65 degrees, but on frozen or rocky ground it is very re- stricted 10 +20 degrees (which means a maximum range ofAbove: Because of the complex traverse mechanism adopted from previous Rheinmetall Sfl. projects, the hull had to be ucted about 100 mm wider than a standard S-WIILAV. (HLD) Below: The le.F.H.18/40/2 (S! on the rear and part of the di mounting jibe ine carried on the sides. (TTM 10-1-397825 meters with charge 6) unless a hole about 70 em deep is dug below the turret. 6. In contrast to a Panzer or Panzerjaeger, a dismount- able gun is considered to be absolutely necessary for an ArtillerieSelbstfahrlafette. An SflAbt. has one third of the fire power of the divisional artillery. It must also be achievable, that all guns can remain on enemy targets, even if individual vehicles break down. Intakes 15 10 20 minutes to dismount/remount the howitzer on the Alkett design, and about the same time for the Krupp design after being converted to the final design with a hand-operated, raised crane system. The engine- driven swing arm device on the Krupp-Versuchsfahrzeug that was demonstrated (took about 5 to 8 minutes to dis- ‘mount/remount the turret) but can't be considered for se- ries production because it is especially difficult to produce and won t be useable if the vehicle's engine breaks down when dismounting is urgently needed. 7. The requirement to tow the dismounted howitzer was not made by the Gen.St.dH. when ArtSfl. development be~ gan in 1942, Therefore the demonstrated Krupp Versuchs- Fahrzeug does not have this feature. Because towing the howitzer is very desirable from a military standpoint, Krupp should achieve limited towing capability by mount- ing avles and wheels on the dismounted turret. The Alkett model (whose design was first started in October 1943) has the advantage of complete mobility after being dis- mounted by using the mass produced wheeled-carriage of the le. EH.18/40. 8. The firing height of the dismounted howitzer is unique at only 875 mm for the Krupp design. However, it must be reckoned that this will increase by making this dismounted howitzer towable. In the overall vehicle height, Krupp has an advantage of 225 mm. 9. The total weight of both Sft. with full crew of five and 80 rounds of ammunition is about 25 metric tons. In any case this results in a power/weight ratio of 12 metric horsepower/ton. The probable weight decrease by Krupp with the choice of the lighter dismounting device, may be completely offset by the weight increase from adding axles and wheels. 10. The vehicle hull is almost the same for both vehicles. With construction using standard M8 Stahl, the difference in the thickness of the armor (Alkett - 15 mm front, 10 mm sides and rear and Krupp - 20 mm front, 15 mm sides and rear) results in the Krupp design somewhat better for erew protection. Retaining the very advantageous larger fight- ing compartment (which is very tight in the Krupp design), the Alkett design has better protection for the crew, espe~ cially against strafing aircraft. In addition, armor protec- tion of the recuperator and carriage must be added to the mass produced le. EH.18/40. Good protection with an ar- mored jacket for susceptible gun parts is a unique advan- tage of the Krupp design. 10-1-40 11. Replacement part supply is an advantage for the Alkett model because the standardized parts of the le. EH.1840 are readily available. In Krupp's case the howitzer has completely new parts including the carriage, traverse and elevation mechanisms; while other parts are already avail- able in the supply chain such as the breech from the StuH142, muzzle brake from the le. RH.18/40, recoil cylin- der from the Pak 40, and recuperator from the Pak 40 or Stult42, 12. The following modifications are to be made by Krupp and Alket immediately, at the latest by 15 May. Alkett Modifications 1. Rework the connection of the howitzer to the vehicle ‘and the functional safety so that continuous test firing can he conducted after 28 April. 2. Depression of -5 degrees must be achievable over the rear. 3. Add the Schiesspils (firing pedestal) 4, Improve protection of the crew in the fighting compart- ment. 5. Raise the handwheels for the rough traverse mecha- nism The vehicle was still not completed, among other things, the connection hatch between the driver and the gun crew wasn ¥ present. Krupp Modifications 1. Install the hand operated Absetzkran (dismounting crane) 2. Install the SLZf. (periscopic gunsight) 3. Improvise towing for the dismounted turret. 4. Install the standard carriage and the standard recuper- ator At the end of the meeting discussions were held about the problems of production and technical procure- ment. Generalleutnant Schneider (Chef Wa Pruef): Based on the military-tactical differences between both Sfl, it doesn't appear to be supportable to reach a final decision today: On the other hand, no time may be lost or too large «a gap in the production of leichten Art.Sf. will occur, be- cause as Oberst Audoersch declared production of the Wespe cani be extended, Therefore, itis proposed that shortened troop trials be conducted for both Sfl. in order that the troops at the front are allowed to give their opinion on which Sft is better. Gen.d Art, Lindemann agreed with this proposal. However; he placed the requirement that the dismounted howitzers be towable, and in an emergency be moved by horses. Gend.Art. demanded that two Versuchs-Batterien each with four howitzers he created with Sfl. from Krupp and Alkett incorporating the modifications. A Versuchs- Batterie Alkett was to he produced with the le EH.18/40 upper carriage mounted on a Drehsockel (traversable ped- estal) in the vehicle and be dismounted using a simplecrane onto the lower carriage towed behind the vehicle. Oberst Woeklermann (Chef Wa Pruef 4) proposed that the first Versuchs-Batterie Krupp have the demon- strated model with a towed dismounted turret. A second Versuchs-Batterie should be produced similar to the pro- posed s.FH.18/3 (Sf) Gw.V with a raised firing compart- ment and trails so that a hole wouldnt need to be dug for the dismounted howitzer. These proposals were agreed up- A Versuchs-Batterie Alkett with the same chassis as the demonstrated model with the howitzer including Iower carriage mounted without trails and wheels on the vehicle. The second Versuchs-Batterie Alkett in the same ‘model as Hanomag with the howitzer including the upper carriage on a Dreksoekel mounted on the vehicle and the lower carriage with trails and wheels towed by the vehicle. Genealleutnant Schneider requested information from both firms if these proposals were feasible and when the Versuchs-Batterien could be completed. Generalmajor Beisswaenger stated that to conduct the tests five Sfl. of each model are needed, four for the front and the fifth for the Artillerie-Lehr-Regiment. Be- cause in addition the Heereswaffenamt (Wa Pruef 4) needs a Versuchs-Sfl. from each final design and it is beneficial 10 give a Munitionsfahrzeug to each Batterte for troop tri- als, a total of 28 $f (four without weapons) must be rapid- ly completed. Professor Dr. Mueller (Krupp) and Direktor Frey- berg (Alkett) stated that the proposed modifications and de~ ‘sired improvements were achievable and declared that about 5 months were needed to deliver the Versuchs-Bat- terien in September 1944, Oberst Dr Stammbach view was that there would be no specific difficulties in mass production of these de- signs. Calculation of the labor expenditure by Wa Chef Ing thas determined that there is only an unimportant difference between both proposed designs. Alket needs about 5000 man-hours, while Krupp comes out to about 4200 man- hours. A start-up period of about 6 months after receipt of the supporting construction drawings should be reckoned. Alllowing about 3 months for troop trials, another two months must be added for completion of the construc- tion drawings, because possible significant changes must be incorporated. Gen.d.Art Lindemann added that the troop trials are only useful for the purpose of testing the four different Above: The interior of the G.W.III/V with the le,F.H.18/40/2 on a traversable pedestal mount. This larger chassis had sufficient space to store 85 rounds. (HLD) 10-1-41designs, but these would never create proposals for new designs. These tests can only result in minor unimportant changes, so that the major part of the production drawings can be completed at the end of the troop trials. Professer Dr. Mueller remarked that the question of the Einheitsfahrgestell for the Pc.KpfwIV is solved oth- cr than the suspension. The suspension design should be decided for production in four weeks. Therefore, a Ver- suchs-Batterie can he produced with Einheitsfahrgestelle Obering. Michaels proposed that the first Alkett Versuchs-Batterie be completed with the previous Fahr- gestell GuITIAV because these hulls have already been contracted. This proposal was agreed to, as long as a con- tract change doesn t result in a schedule delay Generalleutnant Schneider consolidated the fol- Jowing schedule: 6 months to complete the Versuchs-Bat- terien by September 1944, 3 months for shortened troop trials at the front, 2 months to incorporate drawing chang ¢s from troop trials, 6 months to start up mass production. Therefore, delivery of the first new le.Art.Sfl. would occur in early September 1945. Since it was declared that extending Wespe pro- duction is not possible, the gap from May 1944 to Septem- ber 1945 must be filled with increased output of s.EH.18/1 (Sf) GuIMAV (Hummel). The General der Ariillerie ‘must determine if this is bearable from a tactical view- point. Generalmajor Henvici remarked that an increase in Hummel output also causes an increase in the need for the already very limited ss H.-Munition supply. Gene almajor Huether determined that the increased demand for s.EH.-Munition is relatively insignificant when compared {0 total ammunition production and is acceptable. Oberst Kurz indicated that an increased produc- lion of SEH.I8/ (Sf) Gw INAV placed a burden on the total production of s.F-H.18. The fact that the troops won t receive the new Je,ArtSff. until at the earliest in the Fall of 1945 was held in general as being totally unsatisfactory and unbearable. Oberst Andoersch answered the question from Generalleutnant Schneider on which firms will be involved in production, that hulls and armor are to come from Deutschen Rochrenwerke and final assembly by Deutschen Eisenwerke. The final design firms must work very closely with the production firms so that a savings in start up time can be achieved. Obering. Michaels held the opinion that the start up time can be shortened because, for example all vehicle components such as the engine, transmission, steering unit, tracks, fuel linkage, cooling fans, etc. are already in continuous production. With the delivery of the Versuchs- Batterie, a decision must be clear so that the hulls can im- ‘mediately go into mass production. inisterialrat Roever held the view that an imme- 10-1-42 diate decision is needed on which model should go into ‘mass production. He pointed out that it isnt only about 25 vehicles per month, but involves a total of 800 tracked ve~ hieles during the same time period. Ministerial-Direktor Pollert declared that Wa Chef Ing is unconditionaly for the immediate production of the Krupp model Gencralleutnant Schneider held the opinion that the plan to complete four Versuchs-Batterien for troop tri- als is correct and proposed that in order to soon give the troops an all-round traverse and dismountable leichte Art. Sfl,, temporarily introduce one of the demonstrated Ver- suchs-ArtSfl. immediately as a Zwischenloesung. Gen..Art. Lindemann agreed to this view and re- marked that he can agree with the Krupp model as a Zwischenloesung for an improved Wespe, whereby the re- quirement for an unrestricted mobility of the dismounted howitzer can be omitted. Oberst Woehlermann stated that before beginning ‘mass production, in any case mass firing and driving trials must be completed for both Versuchs-Art.Sfl. and the vari- ous modifications and improvements must be incorporated. A period of two months is needed for this. Generalleutnant Schneider closed the meeting with the conclusions. a. That the orders for the Versuchs-Batterien will stand with the goal of reaching a final decision in less than 14 ‘months. b, Wa Pruef 4 is ordered to immediately complete, at least within the next month and a half the mass firing and driv- ing trials with the modified Versuchs-Art.Sfl. so that at the atest by the end of May, without further discussion, only based on the test report from Wa Pruef 4 another meeting should be held by the end of May again attended by repre~ sentatives from the various services so a decision can be ‘made on which model should go into mass production as a Zwischentoesung. ‘The modified le.F.H.18/40/2 Sfl. trial vehicle with carriage wheels relocated on the rear for firing the howitzer at -5 degrees was demonstrated on 28 May 1944. Slanting the upper edge of the superstructure sides inward to im- prove crew protection was rejected because ammunition stowage would have decreased by 15 rounds. A decision ‘was made to get this Alkett le.Pz.Haub. mounted on a Pz.IV chassis into mass production immediately without troop trials. Production of the “Ersatz-Wespe” was discussed at a meeting in Alkett on 4 July 1944 attended by Major Koch from Wa J Rue (WuG 6), Herr Wasmuth from Hauptausschuss Panzerwagen, and Dir. Kronholz from D.E.W., Werk Stahlindustrie. Major Koch declared that the Ersatz-Wespe production must start in September. Kon- strukteur Herr Michaels (Alkett) stated that the Versuchs- Fg, was still at Hillersleben and was expected to be re~cured to Borsigwalde by 15 July. Drawings needed for production were still not available, ‘As reported by Wa J Rue, completion of the first Je.F.H.18/40 (10.5 em) auf Fgst. Pz.Kpfw.lV (Sf.) was scheduled to occur in October 1944. Reporting start-up problems as an excuse, the production goals were continu- ously changed; from the first 20 in November, to the first 5 in December, then the first 5 in January 1945, and finally the first 35 in February 1945. However, not a single le.F.H.18/40 (10.5 cm) auf Fgst. Pz.Kpfw.LV (Sf.) was re~ ported by Wa J Rue as having been completed and accept- ed from October 1944 through February 1945. The exact nature of the start-up problems wasn’t specified in the Wa J Rue reports. During a meeting on Entwicklung und Ferti- gung (development and production) on 12 December 1944. the decision was made to drop the le.Pz.Haub.Alkett from production plans. Plans had been made to outfit 3 out of 10 Ge- schuetzwagen III/IV per month (starting in November 1944) to carry 10.5 em le.F.H.18 ammunition in batteries outfitted with the le.F.H.18/40/2 (Sf. auf Geschuetzwa- gen IIV/IV. However, no reports were found that any of this type were completed. le.F.H.18/40/2 (Sf) auf Geschuetzwagen III/IV Weapons Data: On Hull: 1- 10.5 om le.FH.18/40/2 Elevation, 5, + 42° Traverse! 360° Gunsight: Z.E.34 with Rbif.36 Range: 12,300 meters ‘Secondary: 1-9mmMP. ‘Ammunition: 85 - 10.5 om 192-9 mm Crew: Commander 3 Kanoniere Driver Communication: Fu.Spr.Gerf Measurements: Length, overall: 7.195 m Width, overall 3.000 m Height, overall: 2.875 m Firing Height 2m Wheel Base: 252m Track Contact: 3.514m Combat Loaded! 25 metric ton Fuel Capacity 500 liters Armor Protection: Chassis: Front 30mm Sides & Rear 20 mm Superstructure: Front 40mm Sides 10mm Automotive Capabilities: Maximum Speed: 42 kevhr Avg. Road Speed: 25 kevlar ‘Cross Country 2 km/hr Range on Road: 190 km Cross Country: 150 km Grade: 30° Trench Crossing: 23m Step: 60cm Fording Depth: 80cm Ground Clearance: 40 cm Ground Pressure: 0.89 kg/cm? Power Ratio 10.6 HP/ton Steering Ratio: 1.39 Automotive Components: Motor: Maybach HL 120 TRM 12-cy1, water-cooled 11.9 liter gasoline 265 HP @ 2600 rpm Transmission ZESSGI7 Reverse 5.8 km/hr 1. Gear 47 km/hr 2. Gear 9.0 km/hr 3. Gear 15.2 km/hr 4. Gear 23.0 knvhr 5. Gear 32.6 km/hr 6. Gear 42.0 km/hr Steering Differential Drive: Front sprocket Roadwheels: 8x2 per side Tires: 470 mm dia. Rubber Suspension: Leaf springs Track: Kgs.61-400/120 Dry pin Links per side: 104 10-1-43“Hummel” Geschuetzwagen III/IV fuer s.F.H.18/1 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.165) Fgst.Nr.Serie 320001 - 321000 and 325001 - 325050 Because the designs initiated in the Spring of 1942 for the Heuschrecke or Grille would not be ready for series production for quite some time, OKH decided to produce a ‘Zwischenloesung (interim solution). Rheinmetall-Borsig/ Alkett were awarded a contract to create a new chassis, with the engine mounted in the middle allowing additional room for serving the 15 em howitzer at the rear. Automo- tive components were adopted from both the Pz.Kpfw.1II and Pz.Kpfw.LV chassis. ‘The more robust final drive and steering units and Zahnradfabrik SSG 77 transmission ‘were adopted from the Pz.Kpfw.lIT, while the Maybach HL 120 TRM engine with its cooling system, the suspen- sion, and idler with track tension adjustment were adopted from the Pz.Kph ‘The upper superstructure walls were constructed using 10 mm thick E11 chrome-silicon armor plates hard- ened to 153 kg/mm? for protection against shell fragments, and the 30 mm thick front hull was made using face-hard- ened E32 chrome-nickel armor plates. The rest of the hull was made out of cheaper rolled SM-Stahl (carbon steel) that was hardened to 75-90 kg/mm. It took 20 mm thick plates of SM-Stahl to provide equivalent protection against penetration by S.m.K. (7.92 mm AP bullets) as, 14.5 mm of EL armor plate. The 15 em s.F-H.18/1 was mounted on a base plate that also served as decking over the motor eompart- ment. Traverse was restricted to an are of 28 degrees (13 degrees left and 15 degrees right of center) and elevation to an are of minus 3 degrees to plus 42 degrees. Maximum range was 12,250 meters when firing a 43.5 kg Gr.19 (high explosive shell) at charge 8 to achieve a muzzle ve- locity of 520 meters/second, As listed on the data sheets the Hummel was to be ‘outfitted with stowage for 18 rounds and cartridges. The ammunition allotment (In 4 dated [3Mar43) for the s.F.H.18/I (Sfl.) consisted of 90 15 em Gr.19 mit A.Z.23, 9.15 em Gr.19 mit Dopp.Z, 9 15 em Gr.19 Be. mit Bd.Z.., 30 15 em Gr.39 HVA, 15 em Gr.19 Nb., 150 Huelsen- kart. der s.R.H.18 (1.-6.Ldg.), and 72 Sonderkart. f. 7.u.8.Ldg,) of which 1] 15m Gr19, 5 15 em Gr39 HVA, 2.15 cm Gr.19 Nb, 18 Huelsenkart. and 8 Sonderkart. 7u.8 were to be carried on the Sf. Secondary armament for the crew of six consisted of an MG 34 machinegun and two MP 38 automatic pis- tols, A Funksprechgeraet f was installed for communica- tion between vehicles and the battery commander and a Bordsprechgeraet installed for intercom within the crew ‘The official designation for this self-propelled ar- tillery carriage as announced in the H.T.V.BL. in July 1943 when it was accepted as a standard item in the OKH inven- tory was the schwere Feldhaubitze 18/1 (Sf) auf Ge- 10-1-44 schuetzwagen III/IV consisting of the schwere Feldhau- bitze 18/1 (Sf) drawing number S-1523 and the Ge- schuetzwagen III/IV fuer schwere Feldhaubitze 18/1 (Sf) (Sd.Kfz.165). The name Hummel was merely a “Suggestivname” whose use was officially ordered to be discontinued in February 1944 Other official titles included: Geschuetzwagen IIT Gesehuetzwagen III fuer Muni (KSLN.461b 16Jan43) schwere Feldhaubitze 18/1 (Sf) auf Geschuetzwagen 1V (2026 1ul43) G.WALUIV “Hummel” fuer s.FH 18/1 (Sd.Kfz.165) (In6 6Aug43) Geschuetzwagen III/IV (Sd.Kf.165) Gesehuetzwagen III/IV (Sd.Kfz.165) fuer Munition (K.SLN.461b [Nov43) GW IAN fuer s.F.H.18/1 (Sf) (Sd.Kfz.165) (In 6 18Mar44) schwere Panzerhaubitze auf Sd.Kfz.165 Munitionstraeger auf Sd.Kfz.165 (K.SLN431 IMay44) s.Pz.Haub.18/1 auf Fgst.P2KpfwlII/IV (Sf) (Sd.Kfz.165) (Wa Pruef Oct44) n ‘huetzwagen III/IV fuer Munition (Sd.Kf7.165) Because only 18 rounds were carried by the Ge- sehuetzwagen III/IV, plans were made to produce Muni tionsfahrzeuge to provide additional ammunition at bat- tery positions in the field, These Munitionsfahrzeuge were the same as a normal Geschuetzwagen IIV/TV with additional ammunition stowage racks and a 10 mm thick armor plate covering the opening in the gunshield for the 15 em s..H.18/1. The amount of stowed ammunition that could be carried was limited by its weight and not by the available space. Geschuetzwagen III/IV produced as Munitionsfahrzeuge could be converted in the field to ‘mount the 15 em .R.H.18/1 Production Initially, the armor supplier Deutsche Edelstahl- werke, Krefeld (code ghp) was contracted to complete the armor components for 100 Hummel with Nr.20001 to 20100. 12 Panzerwannen (hulls) were completed in De- cember 1942, 46 in January 1943, 34 in February, and the last 8 in March, The Panzeraufbau (superstructures) were completed about a month later with 40 in January 1943, 39 in February, and 21 in March, Armor production was then transferred to Deutsche Rochrenwerke AG, Werk Thyssen. Muelheim/Ruhr (code duw) which completed the first 31 Panzerwannen in March 1943, followed by 27 in April,7267.42 10-1-45“Hummel” Geschuetzwagen III/IV fuer s.F.H.18/1 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.165) Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 Features present on this “Hummel” G.MUllltV f. sFH.18/1 (Sf) completed in May 1943 include: two Bosch headlights, the narrow Fahrerraum (driver's compartment), louvers on the sides for Luftansaug und Luftaustritt (cooling air intake and exhaust), rubber-ted return rollers, a Pz.Kpfw.lV Ausf.D idler wheel, and a engine exhaust muffler on the rear. —L L 10-1-46Lal Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 pene ae Above: A “Hummel” with two Bosch headlights on the front track guards completed at the Deutsche Eisenwerke AG, Werk Stahlindustrie in Duisburg in May 1943. (HLD) 10-1-4736 in March, 27 in June, 50 in July, and 53 in August; and the first 30 Panzeraufbau in May 1943, followed by 40 in June, 40 in July, and 45 in August. Production of armor ‘components was to increase from 80 in September to 90 in October and continue at the rate of 100 per month starting in November 1943. Completion of Panzerwanne at Deutsche Rochrenwerke AG, Werk Thyssen was reported as 100 in January 1944, 95 in February, 87 in March, 74 in April, and 60 in May; and was to continue at the rate of 40 per month, ‘The s.F.H.18 were completed by Spreewerk and. M.AN. and the Maybach HL 120 TRM engines complet- ed by Nordbau. Deutsche Bisenwerke AG, Werk Stahlindustrie in Duisburg (code Igt) was awarded contract SS210-8911/43 for final assembly of the Hummel. An initial contract for 500 (including the Munitionstraeger version) was com- pleted starting with 5 in February 1943 (refer to Table 3). While most Hummel were assembled at Werk Stahlindustrie in Duisburg, 20 were completed at Werk Teplitz Schonau in early 1944. As recorded in the weekly status reports from Deusche Eisenwerke AG, Werk Teplitz, Schonau: 4Feb44: The first 10 Hummel Fgst. from the Duisburger Werk arrived here starting 10 January. With the exception of the rear doors and several holders, all 10 are complete with the s..H.18 mounted. 15Feb44: Abnahmehericht (acceptance report): 9 s.FLH. auf Sfl. (Hummel) were presented for acceptance inspe tion. 6 were accepted and three with Fgst.Nr. 320475 320481, and 320483 passed for acceptance. 19Feb44: The first 10 Hummel stand completed with the exception of the missing Geschuetzzubehorkasten (gun accessory boxes). Assembly of the 2.Serie of 10 Hummel Fgst. is progressing without any significant difficulty. 28Feb44: The previously delivered materials for the 2.Se- rie of 10 Hummel Fgst. have been installed, JApr44: 10 Hummel were completely assembled includ- ing the Fahrgestell and accepted by 31 March. A total of 20 Hummel have been completed to date in Teplitz. Prep- arations for Hornisse assembly is to begin on 3 April. None of the other more elaborate designs for ‘mounting a 15 em s.F-H. on a self-propelled chassis was approved for series production, resulting in extension of the contract for Hummel production to the end of the war. Production stoppage in October 1944 was due to a shortage of both transmissions and Maybach HL 120 TRM engines, In reviewing the status of future development on 14 March 1945, there were 430 Hummel included in the Auslaufprogramm (final production program) dated 13Feb45 of which 250 were to be completed mit s.F.H. fuer Artillerie, However, the best case was that material for 199 to 200 could be recovered from Duisburg. Due to 10-1-48 Table 3 - Hummel Production Month SRHIS/I Muni-Sf. Jan43 0 Feba3, 3 Mara3 26 Apr a 0 May43 35 5 Jun 26 9 Jul 30 10 Aug’s 38 2 Sep43 30 19 Oct43 3 4 Nova3 Al 20 Decd3 35 7 Jan44 32 13 Febad 50. 18 Mar44 AT 13 Apra4 35 6 May44 29 4 Tuna 4 0 ula 0 0 ‘Augad 50. 0 Sep44 B 0 Oct 0 0 Novad 3 7 Dec44 4 0 Jan45 42 0 Feb45 3 0 Mar45 1 0 Total 705 157 bombing attacks and enemy advances to the Rhine threat- ening the assembly plant Werk Stablindustrie in Duisburg, toward the end of the War production was relocated to the Deutsche Eisenwerke AG Werk Teplitz-Schonau, Atotal of 705 Hummel and 157 Muni-Fzg, were reported by Wa J Rue as completed by the end of March 1945, Only 1 Fgst.Hummel and no other armored vehi- cles were reported to be present at the Stahlindustrie Werk Teplitz-Schonau on 6 May 1945. In a postwar report dated 30 August 1945 on vehicles completed by D.E.W. Werk Stahlindustrie, 884 Pz. Hummel sFHI8 were included un- der the heading of new production. About 100 “Hummel” Geschuetzwagen IL/IV with 15 em s.F.H.18/1 were completed before production started on the Munitionsfahrzeuge. On 15 May 1943, the Deutsche Eisenwerke, Werk Stablindustrie in Duisburg,Above and Below: A “Hummel” with two Bosch h on the rear completed at the Deutsche Eisenwerke AG, Werk Stahlindustrie in Duisburg in May 1943. (HLD)NA This and Opposite Page: Foto 1 - 4 Schweissen der Wannen (welding the armor hulls) at Deutsche Rochrenwerke AG, Werk Thyssen. Muelheim/Ruhr. (HLD)Below: Aufbau 35 was completed by Deutsche Rochrenwerke AG, Werk Thyssen, Muelheim/Ruhr in June 1943. (HLD)This Page and Opposite Page Above: Foto 9 - 11 Schweissen der Wannen (welding the armor hulls) at Deutsche Roehrenwerke AG, Werk Thyssen. MuelheinyRuhr. (HLD)Below: Foto 12 Fahrgestell Montage (chassis assembly) at the Deutsche Eisenwerke AG, Werk Stahlindustrie in Duisburg in May 1943. (HLD) a , tHlow: Foto 13 & 14 Fahrgestell Montage (chassis assembly) at the Deutsche Eisenwerke AG, Werk Stahlindustrie in Duisburg in May 1943. (HLD)Above and Below: Foto 15 & 16 Getriebe Einbau (transmission installation) at the Deutsche Bisenwerke AG, Werk Stahlindustrie in Duisburg in April/May 1943. (HLD)5 ia ae Above: Foto 17 Motoreinbau (engine installation). (HLD) Below: Foto 18 Einbau der Brennstoffbehaelter (fuel tank installation). (HLD)=~ a . oe . = 2 Above: Foto 21 Montage Richtmaschine (traversing mechanism assembly). (HLD) Below: Foto 22 Geschuetzmontage (howitzer assembly). (HLD)10-1-61Above: Foto 29 Geschuetzmontage (howitzer assembly). (HLD) Below; Foto 30 Justieren der Geschuetz (sighting the howitzer). (HLD) 10-1-64x ae Above and Below: Foto 31 & 32 Justieren der Geschuetz (sighting the howitzer), (HLD) This photo is dated by these two Pz.Beob.Wg.III, reported as being converted on 11 May 1943.Above and Below: Foto 33 & 34 Kinfahren im Gelaende (break-in drive off-road). (HLD)A Above: Foto 39 Verladen (loading on railcars). (HLD) Below: A “Hummel” completed in the Fall of 1943 with chevron ice cleats on the tracks and a single Bosch headlight on the left track guard. (HLD) ARAL ARR rlel@leleleiexsie!ee 116161616 hS)™ ¢ and Opposite Page Top: A G.W.IM/IV fuer Munition assembled in the Fall of 1943 with ron ice cleats on the face of the tracks, a single Bosch headlight on the left track guard, and spare roadwheel carriers and a step instead of a muffler on the rear, (HLD)Right: A“Hummel” assembled in the Sum- mer of 1943 with spare roadwheel car- riers, inverted tow hooks, and a step instead of a muffler on the rear. (NA)“Hummel” Geschuetzwagen III/IV fuer s.F.H.18/1 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.165) | ® 1 ' Doli Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 |Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 10-1-72“Hummel” Geschuetzwagen III/IV fuer s.FH.18/1 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.165) ‘eri = % Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 atest S Features present on this “Hummel” G.WilliV . s.FH.18/1 (St) Fgst.Nr. 820728 completed in the Fall 11944 include: a wider Fahrerraum (driver's compartment), the modified Luftansaug und Luftaustritt (Cooling air intake and exhaust), steel-rimmed return rollers, and a relocated track pin return plate. Copyright Hilary Louis Doyle 2012 of 10-1-73reported that they still needed drawings to complete the 5 Muni-Fzg. that were supposed to be delivered by the end of May. There were 100 Munitionsfahrzeuge completed from May 1943 to January 1944 in Gesehuetzwagen III/ IV Fgst.Nr. Serie 320001 - 320500, 50 from January to May 1944 in Geschuetzwagen IIV/V Fgst.Nr. Serie 325001 - 325050, and 7 in November 1944 from Fgst.Nr. Serie 320701 ~ 320800. Modificati During P On 15 May 1943, Alkett completed a drawing for ‘modification of the Kettenabdeckung (track guards) which was sent to Werk Stablindustrie. The Scheinwer- fer mit Tarnyorsatz, (Bosch headlight) on the right side was dropped Werk Stahlindustrie received an Alkett drawing for dropping the Abgasschalldaempfer (engine exhaust muf- fler) dated 23 June 1943. The Auspuffiopf (muffler) was dropped and the exhaust pipes shortened with the ends bent outward so that the exhaust blew against the dust stirred up by the tracks and kept the Kampfraum (fighting compartment) dust free. Two Laufrollenhalter (spare roadwheel brackets) made out of Rundeisen (steel rod) were welded onto the hull rear in place of the Auspuffiopf. An Auftritt (step) made out of angle iron was welded to the hull rear between the Laufrollenhalter. \n addition the tow hooks bolted to the upper right and left rear corners of the hull were mounted upside down. These changes were introduced starting in August 1943, A sketch of the modified Bugplatte der Sf. “Hummel” was dated 6 December 1943. The new Bug- Platte (driver's front plate) resulted in a larger Fahrer- raum (driver s compartment), better vision for the Fahrer and Funker, and improved access to the Bremsen (brakes) and Lenkgetreibe (steering unit). This larger Fahrerraum ‘was introduced starting with Fgst.Nr. 320301 in February 1944 A strengthened Seitenvorgelege (final drive) was announced in the H.T-V.BI. in July 1944: From now on a new Seitenvorgelege for the G.WIMAV fuer s.EH.18/ (Sf) with a 9/35 gear ratio (instead of the previous 9/36). ‘Assketch dated 7 December 1943, showed the ‘modified Luftansaug und Luftaustritt (cooling air intake and exhaust). Originally the cooling air was pulled in above the tracks resulting in the Kuehlsystem (radiators) and Motorraum (engine compartment) being heavily coat- ced with dust which endangered the reliability of the engine and its accessories. Covers were installed over the side air intake and exhaust. Cooling air was pulled in from the 1op (left side) so that only pure air entered the Motorraum. The cooling air exhaust sent out the top (right side) pre- vented unnecessary dust buildup. The modified Luft- ansaug und Luftaustritt was introduced starting in Au- gust 1944 with external covers open at the top plus slots 10-1-74 cut into the top of the engine compartment roof inside the fighting compartment. Orcanizati Hummel were issued at six per battery and orga- nized in accordance with K.St-N.461b as a Batterie schwere Feldhaubitze 18/1 (6 Geschuetz) (Sfl.) with six Geschuetzwagen III/IV. Two Wespe batteries and one Hummel battery normally made up the self-propelled artil- lery battalion for each Panzer-Division. Their first em- ployment in combat was 60 Hummel in 10 different divi- sions during Operation Zitadelle starting on 5 July 1943. In accordance with K.St.N.461b dated 16 Janu- ary 1943, the Batterie schw.Feldhaubitze 18/1 (6 Gesch) (Sfl.) was authorized to have 2 Geschuetzwagen III fuer Munition. Starting in May 1943, these Munitionsfahr- zeuge were also issued to units that previously had been is- sued 6 Hummel and already sent to the front. In addition to issuing six Hummel to the Sfl. Ab- teilung in the Artillerie-Regiment for each Panzer-Div sion, as shown in Table 4, 14 Hummel and 9 Muni-Kfz. wued to six independent Artillerie Sfl. Abteilungen Experience Reports On 20 August 1943, the Kommandeur of the ILAbteilung/Panzer-Artillerie-Regiment 103 reported ‘on the tactical experience in the attack and defensive bat- tles south of Orel from 5 July to 18 August 1943: The Abteilung was outfitted with two batteries each with 6 le.E.H. auf Panzerfahrgestell It and one bat- tery with 6 .EH, auf Panzerfahrgestell IV. 9 Art-Beob. Panzer Il and 3 Sd.Kfe.250/3 (named Ziege) were also available. This equipment had proven successful during both the attack and in defensive battles, The mixture of 10.5 and 15 cm calibers at a ratio of 2 t0 1 met all tactical requirements. The Hummel on the combination Fahrgestell des Pz.Kw ITTV had not proven successful in continuous em- ployment. Problems were caused by the shortage of re- placement parts, untrained drivers, and the design didn't ‘meet the stresses from the mounted s.FHL18. The specific mechanical breakdowns consisted of: 0 The large drive gear in the final drive broke. The bro- ken off gear and then the entire mounting shattered. Bolts and then the final drive housing were broken off This was caused by frequently turning the Sf on the spot. The tracks dug into the ground resulting in side stress on the suspension being too high. 0 The numerous failures of the idler wheel mounting were ‘due to the same high stress of turning on the spot and re- lated to the lack of a sheer pin. Up to now all other deficiencies such as gear fail- ure in the steering unit, loosened rivets on the fan drive,Above: This “Hummel” assembled before June 1943 has an carlier sprocket wheel, two Bosch headlights, and rear mud flaps. (HLD) Below: While “Hummel” left the assembly plant without rear mud flaps, these were fitted on about half of them in the field in 1943, (NA)Table 4 - Number of Hummel Reported with Units in 1943 UnitName [30] 31 FgstNr Jun | Dec 6 | 6 | 320020,25,28,29,32,34 6| 6 6 6] 6 320095,96,99 6 | 6 | 320047,67,71,75,81,97 Z| 6 | 320106,12,13,15,21,23 6 | 320287,303,06,10,14,18 6Z| 6 6 |_6 | 320052,69,73,78,94,95 12.PzDiv. | 6Z| 6 13PZzDiv. | 6Z| 6 14.P; 6 7 16.Pz.Div. 6 6 17.Pz.Di. 6] 7 19.P7.Di 6 | 320164,75,78,82,83,84 20PzDiv. | 6Z| 6 23.Pz.Di. 6 24PzDdiv. | 6 | 6 25.PzDiv. | 6 | 6 | 320122,36,57,58,59,60 26Pzdiv. | 6 | 6 90.P7.GrDiv. | 6 | 6 PzGrDiv.GD] 6 | 6 | 320012,18,19,22,2627 TAT RgtA2 4 TJArRgt.63 14 TVArtRgt71 4 TLArLRgt.843 14 sArtAbt 101 14Z | 320348,87,89,92,400,02 406,08,12,14,15,22,23,25 Art.Abt.536 14 SArt.AbL845 4 Pz.Div. HG 18.Ar.Div. | 6Z 320130,43 LSSAH 6 320033,35,37,41,42,44 SS Das Reich | 6 320046,51,76,83,84,87 320049,65,82,89,98,100 5.88 Pz.Dly. 9.88 Pz.Di 320211,13,17,26,28,31 6 4 6 6 SS Totenkopf | 6 | 6 6 6 6 10.88 Pz.Div. 320200,01,15,16,21,23 10-1-76 and radiators leaking, were not a series problem. An officer in the Waffenamt sent to Italy to obtain a clear picture of operational experience with the Wespe and Hummel reported on 17 November 1943: Above all else, the main difference between the op- rational employment on the Eastern Front and in aly is due to the terrain. The terrain in the south and middle of Italy is mainly mountainous that is characterized by roads over passes, steep inclines, sharp curves, hard and rocky ground. The terrain places far higher demands on the equipment than in the East. In addition, the temperatures are very high during the summer. The planned employment of Sft-Artillerie within a Panzer-Division practically never occurred in Italy. This was due to the peculiarity of the terrain and the combat situation, In actual fact the Sfl. were preponderantly em- ployed in platoons or indeed only as individual guns. Therefore, in no way were useful experiences obtained on the tactical employment of the Sfl. The main deficiencies observed by the troops were: 1. The engines in both the Wespe and the Hummel are 100 weak. Therefore the self-propelled are too slow, only about 1/3rd of the convoy speed of motorized towed artil- ery. Concentrated movement of a battery was not possible because of continuous mechanical failures. The Sl. moved individually. 2. The Hummel final drives frequently broke down while attempting 10 steer through the tight curves in the moun- tains. 3. Due to overtaxing caused by the terrain, damage con- tinuously occurred to the brakes, brake linings, and rivets For example, the entire spare parts supply of brake linings and roadwheels was expended during a 320 kilometer trip by the 26.Panzer-Division during the highest temperatures in August. In the 26.Panzer-Division only one out of the six Hummel still remained operational after four weeks in ac- tion. Four Hummel had to be blown up by the troops after they broke down during a retreat. These losses due to me- chanical breakdown are especially high when one com- ares them to only two losses occurring due to enemy ac- tion. The same as on the towed le, EH.18 and s.EH.18, the recuperator and cylindrical carriage on the Sfl. lacked armor protection. All divisions reported several howitzers out of action because of shell fragment damage to the car- riage and recuperator. In spite of several minor weaknesses, the Sfl. have proven to be successful on the Eastern Front. The Wespe has proven to be an excellent weapon on the Eastern Front. However, it has been established that this model of the Sft is not suitable for employment in the mountainous terrain in the south and middle of laly. The troops want their old towed batteries back.GWA with the wider driver's compartment were completed starting with Fgst.Nr.320501 in February 1944. (O, Knoll ~ Museum with Fgst.Nr. 320753 completed mber 1944 s the modified Luftansaug und Luftaustritt (cool- aust) open at the top to reduce dust being collected in the engine compart- ment. (NA)Above and Below: A G.W.II/E with the wider dri I“Hummel” Geschuetzwagen III/IV fuer s.F.H.18/1 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz.165) Weapons Data: Automotive Capabilities: On Hull: 4-15ems.FH.18/1 Maximum Speed: 42 kminr Elevation 38, +.42° Avg. Road Speed 26 kminr Traverse’ 48°L, 18° R Cross Country 2 kmihr Gunsight: Rolf.36 Range on Road: 215 km Range: 12,250 meters Cross County: 130 km Grade 30° Secondary: 1-7.92 mm M.G. Trench Crossing: 23m 2-9 mmMP. Step’ 60cm Fording Depth: 80cm 48-15 om Ground Clearance: 40. cm 384-9 mm Ground Pressure: 0.82 kg/om? Power Ratio: 11.5 HPIton Crew: Commander Steering Ratio: 1.40 4 Kanoniere Driver ‘Automotive Components: Motor: Maybach HL 120TRM Communication: Fu.Spr.Ger 12-oyl, water-cooled 11.9 liter gasoline Measurements: 265 HP @ 2600 rpm Length, overall: 77m Transmission: ZF.SS.G.17 Width, overall 297m Reverse 5.8 km/hr Height, overall: 281m 1. Gear 4.7 kmihr Firing Height: 2.30 m 2. Gear 9.0 kre Wheel Base’ 252m 3. Gear 15.2 km/hr Track Contact: 3.52m 4. Gear 23.0 km/hr ‘Combat Loaded’ 22 metric ton 5. Gear 32.6 km/hr Fuel Capacity 400 liters 6. Gear 42.0 km/hr Steering: Differential ‘Armor Protection: Drive Front sprocket Chassis: Roadwheels: 8x2 per side Front 30mm Tires: 470 mm dia. Rubber Sides & Rear 20mm Suspension Leaf springs Superstructure: Track: Kgs.61-400/120 Front 40mm Dry pin Sides 15mm Links per side: 104 TY I Right: The interior of a G.W.LL/LV fuer Munition without ammunition racks, Most of the two-piece ammunition was transported in packing crates. (NA)“Hummel-Wespe” le.Pz.Haub auf Hummel Fahrgestell On 25 October 1944, Oberst Schaede informed the Gend.Art: Because of its low priority, the le.PzHaub, “Alkett” auf Einheitsfahrgestell is hardly expected to be completed. It should be discussed whether a le.PzHaub, auf Fahrgestell s.PzHaub should be produced in order to deliver more le. FH. to the Panzer-Artillerie. This conver- sion from “Hummel” to le.PzHaub. was to be investigat- ed by Oberst Schaede, On 11 December 1944, ina meeting with In 4 it was reported that: Design work has been initiated on the le.Pz.Haub auf Hummel Fahrgestell. If it goes to plan, we can reckon on 60 completed in February 1945. During a meeting on Entwicklung und Fertigung on 2 December 1944: Plans are to install the le. EH.18/40 in the s.PzHaubitze Fahrgestell as a Zwischentoesung. Production can begin four weeks after the drawings are re- ceived. The le.RH.18A0 barrels were to be taken from the normal mass production. The demanded production schedule was for 0 in January, 40 in February, 50 in March, and 80 in April. later report dated 9 January 1945 requested that 250 be completed by June 1945. The Reichsminiterium fuer Ruestung und Kreigs- produktion reported under Selbstfahrlafetten production for the s..H. (i.e. Hummel) that I Sd.Fz. was completed in December 1944 and 9 Sd.Fz. in January 1945 (but none in February or March 1945). In a postwar report dated 30 August 1945 on vehicles completed by D.E.W. Werk Stahlindustrie, 11 Pz. “Hummel-Wespe” were included under the heading of new production. Due to bombing at- tacks and enemy advances to the Rhine threatening the as- sembly plant Werk Stablindustrie in Duisburg, toward the end of the War production was relocated to the Deutsche Eisenwerke AG Werk Teplitz-Schonau (located in the cur= rent Czech Republic). Above: The front superstructure armor was modified to adopt a G.W.I/IV. to mounting a le.F.H.18/40 in order to create a “Hummel-Wespe” of which 10 were reported as accepted in December 1944 and January 1945. (PD & MS) 10-1-80GLOSSARY OF GERMAN MILITARY TERMS Abteilung Aufbau Ausbildung Ausfuehrung Begleitwagen Bugpanzer Ersatz Fahrer Fahrersehklappe Fahrgestell Fahrzeug Feldhaubitze Funk Funksprechgeraet Gepanzerte Geraete Geschuetz, Grille Heuschrecke Heer Hummel Kanoniere Kraftfahrzeug KSUN. KwK. Ladesehuetze Laufwerk Leichter Mehraweckfahrzeug Munitionstraeger Panzergranaten Pz Sf Richtschuetze Rohr Scheinwerfer Schwere Sa.Kfz. Sehklappe SHLZR. S.m.K. Seimens-Martenite Sprenggranaten Versuchs Waffenamt Wa Pruef 4 ‘Wa Pruef 6 or Wa Prw 6 Wespe Zugang ZbN. Zug ‘Zugfuehrer ‘Zwischenloesung Abt. - battalion with less than 5 companies or a unit superstructure (or supersturcture and turret) training Ausf. - model designation B.W. - code name for the Pz. Kpfw.lV superstructure replacement driver driver's visor Fgst. - chassis vehicle EA. - field howitzer Fu - radio set Fu.Spr.Ger, - radio set gep. or gp.- armored equipment, device gun cricket grasshopper amy bumble bee K. - gunner Kfz. - motor vehicle organization table tank gun loader suspension le, light multi-purpose vehicle ammunition carrier Pzgr. - armor-piercing shells self-propelled gun with armored chassis, gunner R-gun headlight s.- heavy special motorized vehicle periscopic gun sight 7.92. mm armor-piereing bullet with steel core SM - electric furnace Sprgr. - high explosive fragmentation shells Vers. - experimental ordnance department artillery design department automotive design office under the Waffenamt wasp Z.- issued, being delivered for special assignment platoon platoon leader interim solutionPANZER TRACTS No.I-1 Panzerkampfwagen I No.1-2 Panzerkampfwagen I, No.2-1 Panzerkampfwagen IT No.2-2 Panzerkampfwagen II No.2-3 Panzerkampfwagen II . No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III . No3-3 Panzerkamfpwagen III . No.3-4 Panzerbefehlswagen . No.3-5 Panzerkampfwagen III Umbau , No.4 Panzerkampfwagen IV... NoS1 Panzerkampfwagen Panther NoS-2 Panzerkampfwagen Panther NoS3 Panzerkampfwagen Panther Nos4 Panzerkampfwagen Panther No6-3 Schwere Panzerkampfwagen . No.7-1 Panzerjaeger No.7-2, Panzerjaeger No.7-3, Panzerjaeger No.8 Sturmgeschuetz.. No9-2 Jagdpanzer No.9-3 Jagdpanzer No.10-1 Artillerie Sfl....... oe tee No.lI-1 __ Panzerbeobachtungswagen No2-1 —Flakpanzer....... No.13-1 Leichter Panzerspachwagen No.13-2 _ Schwerer Panzerspachwagen . No.4 Gepanzerte Pionier Fahrzeuge . No.15-1 _ Schuetzenpanzerwagen . . No.15-2 _—_Schuetzenpanzerwagen No.15-3 _ Schuetzenpanzerwagen No.16 Bergepanzerwagen .......++++ 0000+ No.7 Gepanzerte Nachschub Fahrzeuge No.18 Panzerkampfwagen 38(1) . No.19-1 _Beute-Panzerkampfwagen . 'No.20-1 Paper Panzers . No.20-2 Paper Panzers . No.22-1 —_Leichte Zugkraftwagen 1 t. No.22-2 _Leiehte Zugkraftwagen 3 t. No.22-3 _mittlerer Zugkraftwagen 5 t and s.W.S. No.23 Panzer Production . KLTr, to Ausf.B KLPz.Bef.Wg. to VK 18.01 Ausf.a/1 toC ‘Ausf.G, H, J, L, and M Ausf.D, E, and F Ausf.E, F, G, & H Ausf.J, L,M, & N Ausf.D,, E, H, J, & K Z.W.40 to Munitionspanzer GrTr. to Pz.Bef. Wg.1V Ausf.S Panther Ausf.D and Fgst.Nr.V2 Panther Ausf.A. Panther Ausf.G Panther II and Panther Ausf.F Maus and E 100 3.7 em Tak to Pz.Sfl.le 7.62 em F.K.(r) auf gp.Sfl. to 7.5 em Pak 40/3, 7.5 cm Pak 40/4 to 8.8 cm Waffentraeger s.Pak to Sturmmoerser Jagdpz.1V, Pz.1V/70(V), and Pz.1V/70(A) Jagdpanther Pz.Sfl.IVb to Hummel-Wespe Sd.K 2.253 to Pz.Beob.Wg,Panther Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV to 8.8 cm VFW Sd.Kfz.221, 222, 223, 260, 261 Sd.Kfz.231(8-Rad), 232(8-Rad), 263(8-Rad), 233 Goliath to Racumer S (Sd.Kfz.250) Ausf.A & B (Sd.Kfz.251) Ausf.A to C 1939 to 1942 (Sd.Kfz.251) Ausf.C & D 1943 to 1945 Bergepanzer 38 to Bergepanther VK 3.01 to schwere Wehrmacht-Schlepper Ausf.A to.G & S Czech, Polish, and French Captured Tanks Pz.Kpiw., Stu.G., & Jagdpz. Aufkl., Beob., and Flak-Pz. (Sd.Kfz.10) Ausf.A & B and Variants (Sd.Kfz.11) and Variants (Sd.Kfz.6, 6/1, 6/2) and s.WS. 1933 to 1945, Includes data on over 350 German armored vehicles from 1925 to 1945 Illustrated with scale prints drawn by Hilary Louis Doyle and photographs selected for clarity of detail and rarity of model. Development history, unique characteristics, major modifica ns, data sheets, and armor specifications all based solely on original documents and existing vehicles.