The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

German weapons, vehicles and equipment 1919-1945.

Moderator: sniper1shot

phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by phylo_roadking »

David, the first thing is - we don't know very much at all about the 234/1 w schwebelafette - it COULD have only had a crew of three, I don't know and haven't turned up any details, if we turned up details we wouldn't be having the discussion! :D :D :D

Second is - whether or not we can see the commander's station, or whether or not it's there at all - as we don't know anything about it, we don't know how good it was or wasn't at what it was built for LOL.

Third - "Note its low height" - note "Operator's seat can be positioned at different elevations" :wink:

Fourth - regarding the "finish" of the work. don't forget that Pilsen 234/1 had taken a hit LOL

Fifth, look at the "fighting station" pic again; what's that oblong sticking out from under the rear armour to the left and rear of the gunner's seat? I can't tell...but it's certain far MORE than is provided ANYWHERE for the commander or gunner of a 234/4! I can place THREE - driver, rear driver/loader, and a fold-down seat over on the port side behind the MG42, but no "station" for the fourth man here either.

Image
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

By the way Phylo, the U.S. Inteliegence reports on this vehicle report it as having only a 60+ elevation, not a 90 degree elevation, all of which tends to reinforce my belief that this was a hasty field modification and not a comparable substitute for the 234/1's hanglaffette. I don't seriously believe that you are arguing that the 234 vehicle commander had to "make due" in any corner of the 234 that wasn't occupied by men, steering gear an weapons. This was an armored scouting vehicle after all and the commander was vastly more important that the gunner and two drivers in fulfilling the vehicle's reconnaissance mission. The 234/1 was not a large vehicle, so the idea of its commander just "hanging out" strikes me as...ridiculous.

And the picture you posted is of the 234/4 with 75mm L/48 gun, so it is irrelevant to this discussion.

A normal 234/1 had the gunner and commander in the turret, the drivers fore and aft. It was a simple and logical arrangement and I can't see the point in re-arranging it except in a vehicle that underwent a field modification due to damage.

Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by phylo_roadking »

P.S. I'm actually not fighting with you over any of this! There's TOO many grey areas. But my take is simply that its not a depot conversion...or rather, it might be DONE at depot level as easily as at factory source, but it's going to have to be tested and okayed somewhere. I don't THINK it's going to be a case of just welding a spare schwebelafette into a hull from a damaged 251/17, for the installation itself seems quite "lightweight - anything that takes a 251 out of commission beyond repair is going to do some amount of damage to the pedestal and gun mount too.
having only a 60+ elevation, not a 90 degree elevation
Another example of some "thought" being put into this, tho' not necessarily good thought LOL the 251/17's splash shield is supposed to open to the sides, like the wire lids on a regular 234/1 or a 222. But scope out the fighting station pic we have; admittedly it's not a GOOD pic...but there's no split in the shield at the rear. It's either a VERY bad pic or it's been welded up to form a semi-turret thingy. I would guess THAT's why the elevation brake - to let the gunner actually squeeze into the one-piece shield. As the breech would go from 60 to 90 degrees, there'll otherwise be a point where the downswing will do through the gunner's head LOL
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by phylo_roadking »

The 234/1 was not a large vehicle, so the idea of its commander just "hanging out" strikes me as...ridiculous.

And the picture you posted is of the 234/4 with 75mm L/48 gun, so it is irrelevant to this discussion
No, Dave - it's not irrelevant, these are ALL 234 hulls in question here. Just look at the model, it's the best top-down view I can find of any of these on the net. SOMEWHERE in that fighting station as well as the MUCH bigger gun mount and breech...there have to be THREE bodies. For normal transit I can see TWO seats, and we know there's a third for the driver...where's the fourth? Unless he sits on the rear driver loader's tin helmet :D , he's standing over to port BEHIND the MG42 gunner. That's all the space there IS because of the L48.

And don't forget - on the 234/4 the gun mount was further to the rear than in the 234/3, that empty space under the gunbarrel and recoil box IS actually empty. Thus in even LESS space than a 234/3 and a 234/1 you have to squeeze three people (with no.4 out of sight to the front) :wink: Okay, he won't be standing, he'll be crouching behind the L48's splashguard, but that's the only place he can literally be fitted.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

Phylo, not an argument of course, simply a discussion! :up: :up: :up:

The problems I have are that such a modification leaves the vehicle commander homeless and there is no foreseeable upside to the modification, so I see it as a move of desperation--"field anything you can with a gun!"

Minor modifications to the gun shield don't bother me in the least--it's a art of learning from real war. But, again, I suspect that this is a rare vehicle created in an emergency to keep a good chassis in service and give it an armament that would keep it out of serious trouble. How many pictures of this variant exist? Not many, by my account.

As for the 251, heck, a mine, a Soviet anti-tank rifle or anything else that punched through its thin armor might not have damaged the gun. Guns are much less likely to fall prey to shrapnel, mines and anti-tank rifles that punch holes in its thin armor. And, there is always the possibility of a mechanical failure or a lack of fuel for an SdKfz 251 in 1945.

Very Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
Martin Block
Enthusiast
Posts: 416
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 11:09 am

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by Martin Block »

Interesting discussion but I fully agree with David that this was nothing but a field conversion!

If it would have been a factory made member of the Sd.Kfz. 234 series and more than one would have been produced, then within the German standard procedures
a) someone must have either demanded production of such a vehicle or a factory produced one upon own initiative and then offered it to the authorities
b) someone must have agreed to the demand or to the factory suggestion
c) production must have been authorized and contracts signed. Since the design is very different from all other 4 variants of the series a new Sd.Kfz. number would surely have been assigned, or at least something like a different "Ausführung" to the vehicle it was based upon
d) If it would have been more than a prototype the vehicles should have appeared in monthly production overviews of the Reichminister für Rüstung und Kriegsproduktion and/or the Heereswaffenamt
e) Heereswaffenamt must have accepted vehicles coming from the production line and this should show up in their monthly acceptance reports.
f) like with any introduction of a new combat vehicle a new K.St.N. would have been issued, even if only as 'Behelf' at first.
g) units to be equipped with this new type of vehicle would have been authorized this new K.St.N. by the OKH/GenStdH/Org.Abt.
h) experience reports should have been written and recorded

What I basically want to say with this is that any new vehicle officially introduced into the inventory of the German Army left a trail of paperwork. Much has been lost during the war but I haven't heard of any vehicle which did not leave something behind somewhere. And I put my trust in the over 30 years of research of Mr. Tom Jentz in military and industrial archives all around the world, if anything had been left somewhere I'm pretty sure he would have found it.

What I can add from my little archive is that in the production records I have from the Reichsminister für Rüstung und Kriegsproduktion and the Heereswaffenamt no 5th member of the Sd.Kfz. 234 family is ever mentioned - and BTW no 6th member either which could have been the marriage of the Luchs turret with the Sd.Kfz. 234 chassis recently published in the Panzerwrecks series - not even a different 'Ausführung' of any of the Sd.Kfz. 234/1 to /4. Nothing, nil, zero!

Now to the 20. Pz.Div.: If we agree that - as film footage from the very end of the war shows us - the vehicle belonged to the Pz.A.A. 20 than it might be of some help having a closer look at the Panzerspähwagen issued to that unit and their status in 1945.
Upon orders by OKH/GenStdH/Org.Abt. and OKH/Chef H Rüst u BdE/AHA dated 8.4. and 15.4.1944 the Pz.A.A. 20 was sent back to Wildflecken in Germany for a full refit. Allocation records of the Gen.Insp.d.Pz.Tr. show that during the month of June 1944 a total of 16 Sd.Kfz. 234/2 were shipped to the unit. These were the only Panzerspähwagen they received until October 1944 when another three Schwere Panzerspähwagen were shipped. This time the exact type is not given but since in the divisional status report dated 1.11.1944 three 7,5 cm L/24 guns appear for the first time it is pretty save to assume they were three Sd.Kfz. 234/3. These remained the last Panzerspähwagen shipped to Pz.A.A. 20 until the end of the war.
From 1.11.1944 until 1.4.1945 all known status reports of the division do show no other vehicle mounted weapons with Stabskp. Pz.A.A. 20 other than 5 cm and 7,5 cm L/24. In the report 'Bestand an gepanzerten Kraftfahrzeugen der 20. Pz.Div. Stand 6.3.1945' the available Pz.Spähwagen are listed as
11 Pz.Spähwagen (5 cm)
3 Pz.Spähwagen (7,5 cm)
No other wheeled recce cars of any type are mentioned - which doesn't surprise me since none had been delivered.

In the last known 'Kriegsgliederung' dated 1.4.1945 one can see 10 - 5cm guns (i.e. 234/2) and 1 - 7,5cm gun (i.e. 234/3) but still NO 2cm gun! Two of the Sd.Kfz. 234/3 have disappeard but the last one is later still visible on the May 1945 video near Pilsen. On the same 1.4.1945 there were still some 7 Sd.Kfz. 251/17 in the II./Pz.Gren.Rgt. 59 and there also appears to be one in the 2./Pz.A.A. 20. The latter probably had been in the inventory of the 3./Pz.A.A. 20 which had started the year 1945 with 7 of the vehicles but during March was merged into the 2. Kp..

Now here comes my theory: Around 1.4.1945 or a little later the mysterious Sd.Kfz. 234 with 2cm Schwebelafette was constructed with one of the Werkstatt-Kompanien of the 20. Pz.Div. who simply merged a 2cm Schwebelafette salvaged from a wrecked Sd.Kfz. 251/17 either from the II./59 or the 3./20 with a Sd.Kfz. 234/3 that had lost its original armament either to enemy action or an accidental 'Rohrkrepierer' and thus was no longer included in the 1.4.1945 weapon listing.

'Unnoticed factory production' vs. 'field improvisation' theory, decide for yourself which one you favour!

Just my 2 Cents :wink:

Martin Block
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by phylo_roadking »

Martin, thanks for that, that's excellent :up:

Here's a couple of more general questions touching on the matter and others -

1/ I'm all too familiar :( with paper trails etc.; however, how closely was all this adhered to after, say, January 1945?Especially with something like a "matured" design like the 8-rad hull?

2/ How did someone like Alfred Becker get the weapons for his various batches of beutepanzer conversions during the war? I can understand him standing scratching his head at various big fields of assorted French scrap (even when new LOL) and waiting for inspiration - but who made captured French weapons available to him? How far up the chain of supply/command did that decision have to go?

3/ Likewise, for items like the Marder conversions - who made new German weapons available???

4/ Given that the conversions produced consisted of bringing together two parts that had wholly been through whatever testing and type approval process separately - did this result in a shortened approval process for the finished conversion?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

The Marder and Becker questions seem to be totally irrelevant to this discussion. There have been several good books written on the Marders, all of which describe the complicated process, including the letting of contracts, manufacture, etc., in the genesis of these machines. No one can argue that the Marders were "field modifications" without arousing some derision. Same I think, although more obscure, with Becker's unit, which was formed in 1944, well out of the time frame of the particular 234 variant we were discussing.

My humble opinion is that this is a Thread on the 234 (with only slight diversions into other 8-wheeled armored cars) and it shouldn't be deflected into tangential matters that involve pages of explanation. A Thread elsewhere on Becker's unit or on the Marders would be welcomed, but injecting them into this Thread is rather a distraction.

I think an obvious point of difference between a "field modification" and a series-produced vehicle is that the latter would have its own Sd. Kfz. number.

Very Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by phylo_roadking »

The Marder and Becker questions seem to be totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Here's a couple of more general questions touching on the matter and others
Not actually having any of them I had hoped Martin or someone could give a brief answer to question number 4...and questions 2 and 3 aren't about the vehicles Becker's workshop team put together - but about their weapons, an aspect brought to my attention again by this thread...but the answer has a bearing on this thread - as at least two of the four "offical" 234 variants are "hybrids" using German weapons.
How many pictures of this variant exist? Not many, by my account.
I know of at least four, admittedly of the same vehicle at Pilsen, of which the Schwebelafette installation pic I found of the Net is one. The rest - and any others - MAY be in Panzer Tracts 13, the 8-rad folio, but I don't have it.
Minor modifications to the gun shield don't bother me in the least
Maybe, but it does me - as welding up the shield is what makes it claustrophobic in the extreme for the gunner. But since finding that pic and the reference to the 251/17 installation as being in TWO parts opening right and left...I've ALSO found a note that the splashshield WAS one piece, hinged at the side...hence the TWO handles to lift it off him pivoting to one side. Mind you - the gunner wouldn't need to be wanting out of a burning vehicle quickly...
might not have damaged the gun
Not sure about this. The point of the Schwebelafette WAS that it rose up and then settled back down to lower the vehicle's profile. Not sure if that was by hydraulics or a quick-thread, but either increases the "point failures" that could take the whole Schwebelafette installation out of service if a vehicle was damaged. The slightest bend or "ding" on a quick-thread and you may as well chuck it.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

Hi Phylo, neither Panzertracts #13, Museum Ordinance Special #24, AFV Weapons Profile #33 "German Armored Cars", Squadron Signal #4 "Panzerspahwagen in action", Osprey New Vanguard #29 "German Armored Cars and Reconnaissance Half-Tracks 1939-45", "Military Vehicles in Detail #2, SdKfz 231/234" nor Horst Scheibert's "Panzer-Grenadier, Motorcycle & Reconnaissance Units" have a picture of this particular variant.

So, what are the sources of your pictures? Is it possible that all of the pictures are of the same vehicle?

Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

Not sure about this. The point of the Schwebelafette WAS that it rose up and then settled back down to lower the vehicle's profile.
Where does this information come from? The intelligence report on the 234 variant simply mentions that it was mounted on a tubular support.

Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by phylo_roadking »

So, what are the sources of your pictures? Is it possible that all of the pictures are of the same vehicle?
err....see above
I know of at least four, admittedly of the same vehicle at Pilsen
So, what are the sources of your pictures?
I can't find my way back to the link for that one yet, but the other four I KNOW of were put up by a Dragon rep on the missing-lynx.com modellers' forum...but they're x'ed out there at the minute or I would have cut-and-pasted them on here. So Dragon had at least four to work from. I THINK I remember coming across a source saying they were from one of the Panzer Wrecks, possibly No.4. That location or one I looked at close to it was the source of the "MAY be in Panzer Tracts 13 Panzerspahwagen folio" comment.
The intelligence report on the 234 variant simply mentions that it was mounted on a tubular support.
David, that's the fourth quote from the intel report - is it a Net source?
Where does this information come from?
I'll have to find my way back to that, about the SchwebeIafette mounting, I was bouncing from link to link last night.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

The intel report is "ETO Ordnance Technical Intelligence Report #302", dated 8 June, 1945 and published in Volume 2 of "Tech Intell, World War II U.S. Army Technical Intelligence Reports and Summaries", compiled by Jeffrey D. McKaughan and published by Darlington Press in 1997. ISBN 0-9648793-9-5.

Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by phylo_roadking »

So, what are the sources of your pictures?
Ah! And ALSO
There are photos of this armor car in the new Panzers in the gun site book
published in Volume 2 of "Tech Intell, World War II U.S. Army Technical Intelligence Reports and Summaries", compiled by Jeffrey D. McKaughan and published by Darlington Press in 1997. ISBN 0-9648793-9-5.
Are you SURE there are no pics there? Just come across a forum reply that says THAT's where the couple of pics are - Tech Intell Vol. 2 - and a sketch of the gun installation....?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: The Sd. Kfz. 234 Thread!!!

Post by phylo_roadking »

Yep, it's listed as appearing in Panzerwrecks 4...

http://www.panzerwrecks.com/pw4info.html
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Post Reply