Failing to Save the Skies | ‘Möbelwagen’ Flakpanzer IV (3.7 cm Flak 43/2 cm Flakvierling prototype)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ค. 2023
- The concept of mounting anti-aircraft guns on tank chassis came to the forefront in 1942 due to the declining control of the skies by the German Air Force. Initially, the Panzer IV chassis was chosen for this purpose, and a prototype vehicle was armed with the 2 cm (0.78 in) Flakvierling, anti-aircraft gun. However, the armament was considered too weak, and improvements were sought.
In early 1944, a modified version was introduced, equipped with the more powerful 3.7 cm (1.45 in) Flak 43 anti-aircraft gun. The Flakpanzer IV served as a mobile anti-aircraft platform, intended to protect German armored units from enemy ground attack aircraft. With its upgraded armament, it provided a temporary solution to meet the immediate need for improved anti-aircraft defense, although its design had a number of flaws.
Join this channel to get access to exclusive perks:
/ @tanksencyclopediayt
If you liked this video, please consider donating on Patreon or Paypal!
Patreon: / tankartfund
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/tanke...
Article:
tanks-encyclopedia.com/2-cm-f...
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-na...
Sources:
K. Hjermstad (2000), Panzer IV Squadron/Signal Publication.
Engelmann-Scheibert, H. A. Koch, O. W. v. (1978) Renz Flak Auf Dem Gefechtsfeld Podzun-Palla-Verlag
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two - Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
Walter J. Spielberger (1982). Gepard The History of German Anti-Aircraft tanks, Bernard & Graefe
Ian V. Hogg (1975) German Artillery of World War Two, Purnell Book Services Ltd.
T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (1998) Panzer Tracts No.12 Flak selbstfahrlafetten and Flakpanzer
T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (2010) Panzer Tracts No. 12-1 - Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV and other Flakpanzer projects development and production from 1942 to 1945.
T. L.Jentz and H. L. Doyle (2002) Panzer Tracts No. 20-2 Paper Panzers
Walter J. Spielberger (1993) Panzer IV and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
D. Doyle (2005) German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
J. Bernstein (2021) P-47 Vs German Flak Defenders, Osprey publishing
S. J. Zaloga (2010) Operation Nordwind 1945, Osprey publishing
B. Perrett (2007) Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank 1936-1945, New Vanguard
Reddit: / tankencyclopedia
TE Shop: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Goo...
Our website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com
Gaming News Website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/games/
Facebook: / tanksencyclopedia
Twitter: / tanksenc
Discord: / discord
Email: tanks.encyclopedia@gmail.com
An article by Marko P
Narrated by ABloomfield
Edited by @storiediguerra3260
Sound edited by ABloomfield
At that point in the war, I don't imagine the Germans had many options.
They could've surrendered. 😂
@@CharChar2121True but unlikely.
Fascinating video. I appreciate Tank Encyclopedia covering so many little known vehicles. After all, if not you, then who?
It's a unique and important niche!
Flakpanzer duty would have been hell. Strafing runs make me want to burrow underground.
TBH, I don't think these could have been anything else than "too little, too late."
The biggest downside to this vehicle is usage of medium tank chassis that were in short supply. Nimrod/Anti(and soviet ZSU-37 that was too late for WWII) was a proof that one can make much more with far less.
They were usually early models that had the thinner armour or were just mechanically worn out.
The same thing happened with a lot of SPGs, chassis that had been damaged beyond local repair were sent back to the factory where they were diverted into new functions.
@@voiceofraisin3778 the problem is that it's still a chassis of PzKw.IV with component base designed to carry 20-25 tons. Which are far more suitable for conversions into SPGs, be they conventional ones or "tank destroyers" like Jagdpanzer IV/70 Alkett. Even if it's a worn out base of early model with thinner armor, even if you have to put Pak40 into it due to gun shortages and even if Alkett conbersion is taller then Hetzer, it's STILL better then Hetzer.
Meanwhile there are said czech LT35/38 bases available that would be made into Grille and Hetzers and Marders and whatever else. And only some of them were turned into Flakpanzers 38t(and if I recall right, none of them were armed with 37mm).
Basically it was a waste of a too big chassis that would have been better suited for other roles for which the smaller chassis wouldn't have worked. Unless you plan to put twin 37-45mm or quad 20-30mm autocannons in a turret, you don't need medium tank chassis to carry the load.
Soviets(and everyone else) also used tanks delivered for repairs to the factory as basis for their SPGs. However imagine if instead of making SU-85 with repaired T-34 hull, someone had tried to put 20mm on top of it and instead decided to put the 85mm gun still waiting for a platform to be mounted upon into SU-76? Yes, those were also tried. Soviets immediately decided that the idea wasn't going to work. So light tank chassis for SPAAG, medium tank chassis for SPG.
P.S.: and germans DID try to design Hetzer hull based SPAAG. In 1945. Why it was pointless by that point hopefully needs no explanation.
@@TheArklyte Isn't the real issue though that they didn't need to/couldn't afford to create a new chassis? If the 38t chassis is too small and the PZ IV is too big then what is left? Per your argument the PZ III chassis should continue to be prioritized for STUGs, the PZ II is likewise too small and the Tiger/Panther chassis are likewise too big. The Germans can't start up a new chassis assembly line in '44 so they need to go with what they have. PZ IV chassis also give the benefit of a potentially larger ammo storage while streamlining logistical requirements for the Panzer Divisions.
@@robertdickson9319
All of this could have been avoided if 1)you've actually read comments of other people before jumping to answers;
2)knew that Hetzer, Grille, Marder III all used slightly modified LT vz 38 chassis.
P.S.: ironically germans DID do exactly that ie put new chassis's into production on the middle of the war and many people(including me... sometimes) believe that wasn't the best idea on their part. That's what all the "cats" were. But the fetishism with late Pz.II that they continuously tried to put onto interleaved system is probably even better example of poor decisions.
What is more time and cost effective: using relative small numbers of an already mass produced chassis or come up with something new ?
Landsverk already had the L-62 Anti model in the 1930s with a much more powerful 40mm Bofors gun in a fully rotating turret.
Thank you for a great video .
Very nice video.
can you make a video on georgian lazika IFV?
Saw a documentary on this, and they were useless in protecting German soldiers from machine gun fire, bombs and rockets launched by Allied aircraft.
The narrator in that documentary suggested the Germans should have just put machine guns on light trucks and they would have accomplished the same purposes at one third the cost, metal and labor in producing them.
They built a better version eventually
@@mrwhips3623
Not really.
Their “War Winner” was produced in the quantity of 5 in 1945.
The Allies had thousands of fighters and bombers at that time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(armoured_fighting_vehicle)
That doesn't sound right. The Germans were leaders at the beginning of the war in taking 20mm and 88mm guns towed by half tracks or trucks into battle. In some cases guns mounted on half tracks. They played a big part in shredding the French Air Force and RAF during the Battle of France.
-I would say they at least compelled attacking aircraft to keep a distance, thus degrading accuracy. A 7.92mm machine gun has a lot less range than a 20mm or 37mm.
-An effort would have been made to camouflage towed artillery. A SPAAG is harder to hide.
@@williamzk9083
The problem with towed guns are that when you are immediately attacked by Allied fighter bombers flying at 350 plus mph, you don’t have the luxury of time in removing your gun from the tow lines and setting it up to fire. Those differences of several minutes will get yourself killed.
Further, the reason why the Germans developed self propelled artillery and anti-aircraft guns was that there were few paved roads in the Soviet Union for trucks to go especially in mud and snow.
Lastly, the Germans needed the trucks to supply food, ammo, and gasoline to their front line troops. In Western Europe, the Germans transported 80 percent of their War supplies, tanks and troops via their excellent rail system. They did not have that option in the Soviet Union as their railway worked on a different rail gauge system.
The Russians did not have that problem as the U.S. had supplied them with 250,000 Ford trucks that worked well in the Russian environment.
beautiful ❤
Desperate times means desperate measures.
War thunder is about to implement what they call "zerstorer 45". This is a Mobelwagen fitted with quad mount flak 103 guns, same guns as the Kugelblitz. To my knowledge, that gun arrangement was never fitted to a Mobelwagen provably. Am I wrong?
this video makes me seasick
Weapons are adapted as they are used. The idea was good, but they lacked the designers who could think outside the box, and had to adapt what they had. They should have asked the men who used it how to design the most effective combination.
German ZSU-37-2!
not judging the vehicles efficiency, i think it was an admirable testing step into the field of armored anti aircraft vehicles.
now, before the keyboard warriors start condescendingly laughing and trying to pick apart every minor detail of the vehicle just because it is german and had a funny name.
we should take the time to remember that this was a field that was at the time relatively unexplored.
and i think, without this vehicle and the experiences gained from it, other, better solutions to the armored anti aircraft vehicles would not have been found.
the german engineers that came up with the idea of this vehicle, during a losing war effort, taking into account how german armaments industry worked, likely under immense time pressure and material restraints, still paved the path for vehicles like the Wirbelwind, Ostwind, Kugelblitz and i am sure there are a whole container full of other german Armored Anti Aircraft vehicles.
vehicles, that, while in no way perfect solutions, were definetely the most advanced armored anti aircraft vehicles of the time.
and that fact should not be overlooked or played down, to this day armored anti aircraft vehicles, mounting manual fire controll systems and guns caliber 20-40mm, just like these german prototypes, are in use.
and in a way, i see this vehicle and others of its sort dating back all the way into WW1, as the grandfathers of these modern vehicles.
Now, i will take the time to salute those Soldiers that gave their life during their service on this vehicle.
after all this talking, we still speak of a vehicle built for war, a war that cost millions and millions of people, people with wifes, kids, friends and pets, their lifes, and for all the interest in history i have, i should never forget that i learn this history lesson today, on the backs of the fallen.
Good day Gentlemen, thank you for reading.
All of this is valid except the part where the allies had no comparison. It was only a prototype but there was an anti-aircraft version of the m4 Sherman that the Canadians tried to build that had 4, 20 mm cannons that saw service in 44-45 on combat trial bases. It was just found at the American M15 and M16 half track anti-aircraft vehicles were more than adequate as the 50 cals would literally just shoot a laser beam of it whatever was attacking them due to how fast they could fire. Hell, even though it's an anti-aircraft vehicle, the Americans still ended up using them in Korea as an anti-infantry role against the Chinese.
@@sniperboom1202 i did never say the allied powers had no comparable vehicles, i just said the germans had the most advances in the field of Armored Anti Aircraft vehicles, which is only logical when you consider the allied air supremacy at the time.
Badass Flakpanzer…
Meet the Gepards grandpa.
Germany couldn't produce enough planes with trained, experienced crews and sufficient fuel to compete with the Allies in the air, so they had to increase production of anti-aircraft guns, and put those guns on a tank chassis, which cut into the production of badly needed tanks. The German military production capability was in a losing effort right from the start of the war.
How many Flakpanzer on Pz IV chassis were built ? It's just a very little fraction and there is no need to argue that a few Pz IV could have saved the day.
Second point: Germany didn't use its full military production capacity until 1943 and only peaked in late 1944. They arrogantly thought they wouldn't need to ramp up production until they collapsed simultanously on every front, i.e. Russia, North Africa, Atlantic and in the sky.
"Fun fact": during Barbarossa in 1941, 100.000 (or more ?) soldiers were sent back to Germany to increase civil production. You can't make this sh** up.
German Engineering: *Box*
joooj al me montira
Did this vehicle serves as precursor to Wirbelwind?
Yes, after it was upgraded with the single 3.7 cm Flak 43 L/89 as a temporary stopgap after "producing" 240 Möbelwagens then they created the far better Wirlebwind..
They should have put the 3.7 on a Pz38 chassis and some half tracks. Additionally, any 2cm should have been replaced by the MK 103 30mm cannon.
There is actually a half track with 37mm gun
Wonder why they didn´t use the panzer III as basis, consittering how much they needed the panzer IV at the front?And a rotating armored tureret would be a much better sollution, instead of the folding walls. Better protektion, faster use.
They did make a turret version very late in the war. They built some prototypes. I think it saw some action in April against ground units
Look for Flakpanzer III on our channel or website
Because Pz III chassis was out of production except for StuG III exclusively. You can only guess which one was in higher demand - I can't tell. I can only assume that by 1944 Pz IV chassis was more easily available since it was produced by several factories. Also, Pz III chassis was a bit more expensive due to torsion bars instead of leaf springs.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Thank you.
i love these vehicles
FlakToaster
P47 v. Pop Tarts
I am the fan base of that tank and I hope it comes to warthunder
Just use the ostwind mannnn 😭
@@charlieyes4946 hahaha no well i mean i did im at the kugelblitz at the moment but just having some more aa can neve hurt
@@kiliandrilltzsch8272 I guess that's true, it's also sad that the kugel got put at 7.0
Good video, dumb title ("Failing to Save the Skies").
Watching all that needless close up filming made me seasick. A montage of stills would have been much better.
Please put it in war thunder lol