Lillput Panzers

TheRedBaron · #1 (**permalink**) May 20th, 2003, 03:38 PM

I think Kai mentioned the LillputPAnzer that was designed for airborne drops, I have seen this mentioned by Von Der Heydte in the US Army appraisal of German Airborne landings.

Has anyone seen any experimental designs for an airborne Panzer? The vehicle did not get past the design stage but was certainly drawn up.

Any info let us know guys!!! [img]graemlins/rk.gif[/img]

Mahross · #2 (**permalink**) May 21st, 2003, 09:45 AM

I have read reports that the PzKpw1 Ausf c was to be used as an airborne tank transported in the Me321 Gigant.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz11.htm

I think this is what Heydte may have been describing. Try this site it deals with it in detail. It was experimental only about 40 being produced and none used by the airborne forces.

http://www.panzerone.com/

CrazyD · #3 (**permalink**) May 21st, 2003, 02:01 PM

I didn't see anything about airdrop tests on either of those pages. Wonder if they ever tried actually dropping a manned PzI ausf C from any real height?

Anyone see any results anywhere?

CrazyD · #4 (**permalink**) May 21st, 2003, 07:14 PM

Found some more info on the Pz. I Ausf C.

On September 15th 1939 the ordnance department was given the order to get a light reconnaissance tank developed. The company of Krauss-Maffei in Munich was responsible for making the chassis while Daimler-Benz got the responsibility for superstructure and turret. The project was known as VK601 or better known as Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf.C.
The engine was the Maybach HL45P with 150 metric hp, giving the vehicle a maximum speed of 65km/h.* The crew of two men had as main armament a 7.9mm EW141 ** machinegun and a MG34.
The appearance of the Ausf.C was completely different from the previous Ausf.A and B. Additionally the armor thickness was significantly improved. It was now 30mm on front of turret and chassis and 20mm for sides and rear of turret and chassis.
The weight was 8 tons, a length of 4.19m, width 1.92m and height of 2.01m. The power to weight ratio of 18.2hp/t was remarkable, which was one of the reasons for the high speed. With a length of 2.2m where track touches ground and a track width of 39cm resulted in a ground pressure of 0.46 kg/cm2. The track had 89 single track links, and some vehicles got a lubricated pin track. The VK601 was able to wade up to 78.5cm deep, pass over 1.2m wide trenches and could climb 30cm high obstacles.
40 *** Panzer I Ausf.C were produced from July 1942 on, of which two were delivered to 1st Tankdivision early in 1943 and troop tested in Russia. (The picture on the left is a rare shot showing a VK601 in operation. The shot is most likely taken in the Normandy in 1944 during allied invasion). The remaining 38 vehicles were taken to reserve units of the LVIII.tank reserve Corps and those came in action in 1944 in the battles in the Normandy.
The very last vehicles got a better engine, the Maybach HL61. They were numbered as VK602. MAYBE these were the vehicles which were called Panzer I Ausf.D (??), of which is nearly nothing known! If someone of you readers have more information on that Panzer I Ausf.D, please let me know and write a mail, even if you think your information is too insignificant!!!!

*: Some sources speaking of a max.speed of 79km/h. I think 65km/h is more realistic and I guess the speed of 79km/h may be achieved by the vehicles with lubricated pin tracks or the more powerful VK602 got the 79km/h.
**: Another sources speaking of a 13mm PzB (Anti tank rifle).
***: Here are also different numbers existing, cause some sources speak of 46 tanks which were ordered and delivered.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...167/erpz1.html

Odd- seems to make no mention of the Airborne intention...

TheRedBaron · #5 (**permalink**) May 22nd, 2003, 03:35 PM

I know that the Gigant was capable of lifting a 38t so it could carry a panzer I. I get the feeling though that Heydte is refering to a design solely for airborne insertion, which I presume would be by glider?

I hope they wouldnt drop a tank with crew in... the russians tried it and it made rather a mess...

But cool info guys, thanks.

TheRedBaron · #6 (**permalink**) May 22nd, 2003, 03:37 PM

Just wondering it wouldnt be the Lynx would it or the Leopard? Unlikely I know but both were designed as light recon vehicles...

wilconqr · #7 (**permalink**) May 22nd, 2003, 04:36 PM

Wasn't the Leopard a post-war production MBT?

Kai-Petri · #8 (**permalink**) May 22nd, 2003, 04:43 PM

I think this Leopard was the Porche´s first version for Tiger tank.

VK3001(P) Leopard
Porsche Type 100

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/heu.htm

[ 22. May 2003, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

CrazyD · #9 (**permalink**) May 22nd, 2003, 06:05 PM

I think "inspiration" for the Tiger I would be more accurate- the first official prototype of the Tiger I was the VK4501(H).

"Both designs were completed as prototypes but their further development was cancelled in 1942 in favour of the development of VK4501(H) - Tiger I."

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/heu.htm

wilconqr · #10 (**permalink**) May 23rd, 2003, 03:05 PM

" . . . petrol-electric drive and longitudinal torsion bar suspension as later perpetuated on the Porsche Tiger design."

CrazyD · #11 (**permalink**) May 23rd, 2003, 04:43 PM

And what happened to the Porshe Tiger design?

Because of the problematic electric-petrol drive mechanism, among other things, the Henschel prototype was selected to use for production of Tiger Is.
The Porshe Tiger prototype was used ONLY for the Elephant Tank destroyer, and even in that case it was only because Porsche had already built 90 chassis when the contract was awarded to Henschel.

Erich · #12 (**permalink**) May 23rd, 2003, 05:37 PM

also wasn't the Porsche design turret for the Königstiger too heavy and the traverse mechanism could not handle the additional weight factor ?

I await the informative experten on this.....

~E

CrazyD · #13 (**permalink**) May 23rd, 2003, 08:32 PM

AS FAR AS I KNOW (which could very well be incomplete!)
(and... how does Crazy put this... he may not be in the best condition to post right now

)

Main source- George Forty, World War 2 Tanks, Osprey.

Actually, the King Tiger with the Porsche turret weighed less than when equipped with the Henschel Turret- 68.43 tons with Porsche turret, 69.75 with Henschel. The whole Porsche turret thing was another instance of Porsche being convinced that their design would be chosen, and beginning manufacture. According to Forty, Porsche's first design for the Tiger II was basically just a revamped and enlarged Tiger I. But... "this was rejected in favor of a second design VK 4502(P), which had a larger turret set back on the hull with a forward mounted engine and electric transmission. Unfortunately for Porsche this was also cancelled, because the sea blockade of Germany was so effective that there was a desperate shortage of copper which the new electric transmission needed. Porsche had manufactured 50 turrets and these were subsequently fitted to the early production Tiger IIs. The design eventually accepted was VK 4503(H)..."

Erich, haven't read anything to the effect of your reference, but I've certainly not read anywhere near all the sources!

As far as I know it... the main problem in service with the Porsche turret was a shot trap caused by the slope of the gun mantlet armor. Since it was sloped on the underside of the gun mantlet, this would cause shots hitting in that area to be deflected down towards the weaker armor on the top hull. The top hull armor- around the turret and rear engine decks- was far thinner than hull front and side armor, and a hit there would be devastating to the tank if it penetrated.

Apparently Porsche (Dr. Ferdinand) thought far more of his designs than others. His (their?) designs for both Tigers were excessively complex and difficult to manufacture. Although I'm pretty sure he designed the production turret on the Tiger I- Henschel chassis, Porsche designed (Henschel/Krupp manufactured, I think) turret.

Sorry about the rampant Tiger tanks hi-jacking this thread!

[ 23. May 2003, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD ]

Panzerfreak · #14 (**permalink**) May 30th, 2003, 07:41 PM

euhm i read something about leopard....
i dont know either what it is but it's certainly not a leopard
i know it was my job once!!!!!!!