Diskussion:Saurer (Panzer)

Bildunterschrift 2. Bild enthält Fehler Bitte ändern.

Saurer statt Sauer

-- 78.42.61.104 13:55, 8. Mär. 2009 (CET)

Vielen Dank, habs gleich korrigiert. Sei mutig und mach doch so kleine Änderungen das nächste mal gleich selbst: Es ist ganz einfach: Links oben auf Seite bearbeiten klicken, den Fehler im Text ausbessern und Seite speichern drücken. In die Zusammenfassungszeile am Besten noch so was wie Rechtschreibfehler korrigiert oder tippo schreiben. Gruß, myself488 22:03, 13. Mär. 2009 (CET)

Vorbild Sdkfz 251???

Wie bitte kann das Halbkettenfahrzeig mit Schachtelradlaufwerk Schützenpanzerwagen Sd.Kfz. 251 Vorbild für ein Vollkettenfahrzeug mit ungeschachteltem Rollenlaufwerk sein??? TF der Fraktion "Die Wehrmacht ist unser Vorbild"? --Feliks 07:41, 26. Apr. 2010 (CEST)

Als Vorbild diente nicht das Fahrwerk des SdKfz 251, sondern seine Form: die schräggestellten Panzerplatten, die einen besseren Panzerschutz gaben, während die amerikanischen M3 (Halbkettenfahrzeug), M75 APC bis zum M113 alle senkrechte Panzerung aufwiesen und deshalb nach österreichischer wie auch nach deutscher Auffassung allenfalls als Transportpanzer galten.--Automobilia8545 (Diskussion) 06:22, 19. Jan. 2022 (CET)

M21 Schützenpanzer??

Die Österreicher können nach dem Krieg keinen amerikanischen M21 Schützenpanzer gehabt haben, weil der M21 ein selbstfahrender Mörser war...basierend auf dem M3 Halbkettenfahrzeug, welches ursprünglich als Transportfahrzeug eingesetzt wurde. Richtig ist hier also "M3", nicht "M21" --Aquinate 16:28, 26. Mär. 2011 (CET)

Dazu noch: War der nach dem Krieg eingesetzte M3 denn eine Version, die man als "Schützenpanzer" bezeichnen kann? Der normale M3 wäre jedenfalls nur ein Mannschaftstransportwagen (Militär). Fusselwurm (Diskussion) 15:34, 18. Sep. 2013 (CEST)

RK 9

Do you know were I could find more information on a wheel-and-track armoured vehicle called the PzSpWg (Panzerspähwagen) RK (Rad-Ketten) Ausf. A, or the RK9? All the following information I have gleaned from Crow&Icks Encyclopedia of Tanks, www.aviarmor.net and www.panzernet.net.

As you know, after the Anschluss in 1938, a peculiar hybrid wheel-and-track reconnaissance / command vehicle that had just been developed by Saurer, the le gp beob KW auf RK7, was ordered by the German army and renamed the SdKfz 254. It seems it was issued to the artillery units of the Panzer divisions after the defeat of France and employed as an observation vehicle. However, some were turned into a combat vehicle, usually by mounting a PzKpfWg I turret. Saurer had offered to develop an improved combat version with a rotating turret, but for some reason development was delayed and it was only after 4 years, in the summer of 1942, that the first, turretless prototype of the improved wheel-and-track vehicle was finally ready for testing, the RK9.

I know of only four photographs of the RK9, two of vehicles without turret and two of turreted vehicles. The two photographs of a vehicle without roof, turret, antennae, armoured vision-ports, or armour cover on its exhaust-pipe muffler, show it being tested on uneven, snow-covered terrain, so it must already have been late in 1942. They suggest the engine of this hybrid must have been positioned in the front of the vehicle, to the right of the driver. The photograph of the right side of the vehicle clearly shows the exhaust protruding from the front right side of the vehicle, while the photograph of the rear of the vehicle shows no provisions for ventilation, only an attachment for a spare wheel on a large hatch. The vision-port in the rear suggests that there might have been additional controls for a driver in the left rear of the vehicle, which would concur with the usual tactical requirements for a heavy German Panzerspähwagen. The shovel and the axe stowed on the exterior do not look like standard Wehrmacht equipment, and the crew-members are attired in overalls and unfamiliar “flying” helmets. All this suggests that, although the vehicle carries Wehrmacht number plates, the crew-members are employees of Saurer and the picture is showing trials of its tracked performance done by the manufacturer, not by the army.

Of the two photographs of turreted RK9’s, one is apparently undergoing trials in an army setting, as here a Kübelwagen can be seen in the background. This RK9 is standing on its tracks. The other picture shows a turreted RK9 parked on its wheels in a cobbled street, perhaps at the Saurer factory in Vienna (so on the very cobblestones that were the ruination of early tracks and thereby inspired the wheel-and-track hybrids). As this photograph has been taken from its left (driver) side, it can be seen that the attachment for the buggy-whip antenna was on the left rear side of the turret. In addition, a long-range “star” antenna has been mounted on the back of this vehicle. Only this last feature distinguishes the “wheeled” from the “tracked” turreted RK9, suggesting it is a (Fu) (Funkgerät) variety. Both vehicles have a shiny, uncluttered factory look, unlike the turretless prototype with full external stowage.

As can be seen on the photographs, the RK9 was a remarkably elegant hybrid. It looks a bit like a SdKfz 221-3 hull sandwiched between PzKpfWg II suspension, and topped by a rotating turret. This turret is of a low, angular type, like a smaller version of the turret mounted on the Luchs, but with undercut rear and flat, vertical front. It seems to be symmetrically positioned on the roof of the hull. The commander’s cupola is equipped with periscopes for al-round vision. When the vehicle moves on its tracks its retracted road wheels dangle near the protruding drive and rear sprockets. The tracks are covered with mudguards, and the partly armoured muffler and exhaust pipe are jammed between these and the angular body. While the wheels, the three return rollers, the drive sprocket and rear idler look very similar to those on the SdKfz 254, the 4 road wheels are much larger and there is no external girder. Unfortunately, the exact details of their apparently paired springing system cannot be discerned.

The crew consisted of three, probably a commander in the small, one-man turret, a driver at the front, to the left of the engine, and a radio operator in the back. Armour protection was 14,5 mm on the hull and turret front, and 5,5 mm elsewhere. On the road, its top-speed on wheels was 80 km/u and its tracked top speed 30 km/u, with a wheeled range of about 250 km. Armament comprised a turret-mounted Mauser EW (Einbau Waffe) 141 and a standard coaxial MG 34. The EW 141 was a belt-fed semi-automatic anti-tank rifle, an emplacement variant of the experimental MG 141 heavy machine-gun, firing the same 7,92x95 round as the antitank rifle Pzb (Panzerbüchse) 38/39.

In late 1942, 15 RK9’s were ordered for trials, but the order was cancelled and the vehicles never seem to have left the factory. And that would hardly be surprising, as in those four years it took Saurer to develop their RK9, it had become completely obsolete. The ammunition used by the EW 141 was outdated. The single-shot Pzb 38/39 firing the same round had already performed poorly as an anti-tank rifle against French and British armour in 1940 and was finally withdrawn in 1941. The RK9 armour protection was insufficient and as it had been purposely designed to be as light as possible, only 8 tons, the chassis and engine would not have allowed for the weight of heavier armour and armament. As it was a 2x4 vehicle, its wheeled off-road performance must have been rather modest. Also, as a reconnaissance tank the RK9 would have been seriously lacking in tracked mobility, being half as fast as the new versions of the PzKfWg II and 38(t).

So the RK9 was too slow, too lightly armed and too lightly armoured. However, the most serious drawback of this vehicle was its specific hybrid nature. All other hybrids than the halftrack had proven to be expensive, complex and vulnerable pieces of engineering, compromising both their wheeled and their tracked performance. Improved track life had made them redundant, and special adaptations for roads were of little practical use on the eastern front. One can only wonder why the RK9 was submitted at all. Probably to please the Austrians, or one Austrian in particular.

And what was the fate of the few RK9’s produced? Did they collect dust for the duration of the war, were they immediately scrapped, or has an RK9 actually been used in action? 87.212.52.128 08:43, 6. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Techn. Tabelle

Die Masse fehlt ... 144.85.227.50 17:07, 26. Mai 2022 (CEST)