[烛光生存狂]-有关罗马尼亚"元帅"坦克歼击车的报告

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2724&hl=maresal&st=45

MILITARY CABINET of STATE LEADER

Nr.201.005

TOP SECRET

??.4.1944

GENERAL STAFF

- Cabinet -

I have the honor to bring to your attention that the two German specialists, Lieutenant-Colonel Ventz and Naymann, who came to study the tank destroyer and the self-propelled howitzer, built by the Military Cabinet at Malaxa Workshops, made the following assertions:

1. Considerations on the tank destroyer.

Lt.-Col. Ventz from the Waffen-Amt, the architect of the improvisation “Hornisse” (88mm anti-tank gun mounted on the Mark III tank on top of the chassis, in the place of turret) and a modern tank destroyer, based on “Panther”, presently in construction, declared that his report regarding the “Maresal” tank destroyer will be positive. As a first consequence, he will propose to Berlin that in 8-10 days a construction engineer to be dispatched, in order to assist us in perfecting the details.

Lt.-Col. Haymann, from the OKH, affirmed his belief that the Romanian Army, when it will have one thousand of such tank destroyers at disposition, will have a considerably greater combat strength. In his opinion, “Maresal” tank destroyer, mobile, with great operating range and armed with a powerful anti-tank gun, will be “ein grosser Hetzer” (a troubling enemy) for the Russians. He also added: General Guderian wishes to have units of tank destroyers, to be able to throw them wherever the enemy launches an armored attack; once this attack being weakened, these units reorganized in the rear, being ready to intervene in another threatened area. The presented tank destroyer, light, fast, with reduced fuel consumption and great range, has the qualities needed for such a role.

The opinion of Lt.-Col. Haymann is that the mobility characteristics of “Maresal” tank destroyer should be kept, and the temptation of increasing the armor protection should be resisted.

As relative value, both specialists - after examining also the two improvisations of tank destroyers, based on: the ex-Russian light tank T.60 and the R.2 tank, armed with Russian 76.2 anti-tank gun - have classified the various anti-tank motorized weapons in the following manner:

1) Tank destroyer special built for this role,

2) Sturmgeschutz armed with anti-tank gun,

3) Tank armed with anti-tank gun,

4) Tank destroyer improvised by mounting an anti-tank gun on the chassis of a tank, in the place of turret,

5) Towed anti-tank gun.

Referring to the two tank destroyers improvised from the T.60 and R.2 tanks, Lt.-Col. Ventz said: “50% is better than nothing”. Lt.-Col. Haymann: “in spite the solution being an improvisation, it is better than the towed anti-tank gun”.

Lt.-Col. Haymann, when asked on the ratio of engines that should be used for the tank destroyer and the auxiliary vehicles (command, supply, security vehicles) he said firmly: given the evolution of the Russian tanks, none of the ordered Hotchkiss engines should be used for anything else than tank destroyers. As command vehicles, Horch, Stoewer and other all-terrain vehicles can be employed, while for supply 3-ton trucks are adequate, by replacing the rear axles with a simple track, a model that can be delivered and adapted for any model of truck.

As factory priority, both agreed that the building of the tank destroyer should be top of the list, being a solution superior to any other anti-tank systems.

In detail, the observations of the German specialists were the following:

a) Weight.

Given the power of the engine (15-16 hp/ton), the mobility was found very advantageous.

Even if Lt.-Col. Ventz said that the armor of a light tank destroyer must offer protection only against Russian anti-tank guns, and any increase in armor is inutile, if the armor plates is not 80-100 mm thick, therefor prohibitive weight, he would favor a slightly thicker armor for our tank destroyer, this being certainly the requests of the crews after the first engagements.

Lt.-Col. Haymann did not agree with thicker armor, because it would result in a heavier vehicle, therefor a reduced mobility, its essential feature.

b) Protection.

A tank destroyer can often be found in the enemy lines, either amid infantry supported by anti-tank guns, or tanks armed both with anti-tank guns and machineguns. Ideally, the tank destroyer should be able to withstand this fire from every direction. The German heavy tank destroyer resists the Russian 76.2 anti-tank gun from the distance, even up to 100 m, but it’s weight is 47 t and becomes a moving plant; for a light tank destroyer protection against bullets, shrapnel and anti-tank rifles is sufficient.

The conclusion is that while the heavy tank destroyer has unlimited use, in principle the light one should not overpass the lines of friendly infantry or armor.

In combat the tank destroyer exposes its front, this must be better armored. The German heavy tank destroyer the frontal armor plate is 80 mm thick and an inclination of 35; “Maresal” tank destroyer has a 20 mm thick frontal armor plate at a more favorable inclination of 25.

Lt.-Col. Ventz proposed that its thickness to be increased to 30 mm, which will be attempted after evaluating the effect of fire of the Russian 45 mm anti-tank gun that will took place at Suditi trial grounds.

The thickness of the side armor plates must be about 1/3 of the front plate. The Germans have a tank destroyer with 50 mm in front, while only 15 mm on the sides. We were advised to keep the actual thickness of … mm for the side armor plates.

The shape of the hull was found to be very simple and very successful. Lt.-Col. Haymann compared it with the shape of a turtle, low profile, hardly detectable from the distance and easy to build.

c) Armament

The 75-mm D.T.U.D.R. anti-tank gun is considered powerful enough, even against the T-34 tank.

The following observations on its setting were made:

- The horizontal field of fire of 15 degrees is very good; the German heavy tank destroyer has a horizontal field of fire of 30 degrees, but given the ease of turning “Maresal” in direction, the 15 degrees are considered as very sufficient; it could be even reduced if required by other needs;

- The vertical field of fire was considered sufficient: +10 and -5; the German tank destroyer has -8 because of its notably higher ground clearance;

- The clearance should be increased in order to avoid hitting the ground with the barrel while crossing trenches and …. . This will be accomplished by raising the frame with 18 cm (suspension raised with 10 cm and the side traverses inside the chassis lowered with 8 cm)

- Retreating the gun inside the hull with 20-30 cm, as suggested by Lt.-Col. Ventz, is not possible because of the loader position, only mounting a special anti-tank gun like the Germans did could achieve this request.

- Placing the gun on a special mount was found good; we were advised to research the possibility of placing a cardanic suspension, between the armor plate and the floor of the chassis (we will receive blueprints). This idea can be conveniently used to place a light machinegun in the armor plate, near the gun;

- Taking out the gun for repairing only after lifting the armor plates was found as unpractical. But as the repairing take place only at mobile workshops, lifting a hull of 1.5 tons is not a problem for these workshops. To make possible taking out the gun through the hull would mean weakening the hull or complicating the design.

- The exhaust of the gasses resulted from the firing is made by the Germans with the help of a special ventilator. If the exhaust produced by the Hotchkiss engine’s ventilator would not prove sufficient, we will mount an electric ventilator.

d) Ammunition

The German improvised tank destroyers, which are armed with 75-mm guns, carries up to 70 rounds. “Maresal” tank destroyer will carry 45

新用户注册返回首页
首页上一页下一页尾页页次1/1 转到第页