Wehrmacht '47 is here!!!

[Schwerepunkt]

..however, I have one small, teeny weeny request. As you have provided the data needed to play the Wehrmacht '47 game, would it be possible if you could provide detailed descriptions of the armored vehicles Germany would have had: for example, thickness of armor, caliber of gun, number of MGs, etc.
Those more experienced with the GHQ game probably can take the values you provided with the supplement and substitute them but I am not sure I can.
If that would be too great a bother on top of everything else you have done, don't mind me. I believe I am aware of most armaments on the Schwere Panzers, Mittliere Panzers and Lichte Panzers as well as the APCs. I know the weapons carriers will be spectacular.
Thanks, Bob W
AKA Schwerepunkt

[Sven]

..however, I have one small, teeny weeny request. As you have provided the data needed to play the Wehrmacht '47 game, would it be possible if you could provide detailed descriptions of the armored vehicles Germany would have had: for example, thickness of armor, caliber of gun, number of MGs, etc.
Those more experienced with the GHQ game probably can take the values you provided with the supplement and substitute them but I am not sure I can.
If that would be too great a bother on top of everything else you have done, don't mind me. I believe I am aware of most armaments on the Schwere Panzers, Mittliere Panzers and Lichte Panzers as well as the APCs. I know the weapons carriers will be spectacular.
Thanks, Bob W
AKA Schwerepunkt

That, my friend, is far from a teeny-weeny request. John spent months of work researching, finding sources, compiling data, & more, with no compensation. What little I could do to help on that part of it, still took me weeks. I'm sure a gentleman such as yourself didn't mean to be offensive with your request, but it inadvertently implies that our time is not worth compensation and has no value. People who have never done the work have no concept of the labor that goes into it.

I'm sure as you go forth to criticize or praise the supplement or write your own set of rules or mods some day, you will understand the frustration a writer can feel. I understand this was not the response you were expecting, but let me rather show you honor, by letting you really get a feel for the technology & achievements of the designers of WW2, by letting you research it yourself. If you do that, you will have earned my respect.
Skal,
Sven

[Schwerepunkt]

....in fact I have done quite a bit of reseach into the never were battleships of the Kriegsmarine. Also, I realized that you put a number of web sites that I can use to get the info I need. Please accept my apology because I do know how much work has been done to get this thing going and I fully intend to do my own homework if I want the info I think I need.
Also, no offense taken as I know you only intended to point out how shortsighted my question was. I have begun painting my E75 which weights approximately 80-85 tons and carries a 105mm/56. Thanks for all you have done.

[Sven]

....in fact I have done quite a bit of reseach into the never were battleships of the Kriegsmarine. Also, I realized that you put a number of web sites that I can use to get the info I need. Please accept my apology because I do know how much work has been done to get this thing going and I fully intend to do my own homework if I want the info I think I need.
Also, no offense taken as I know you only intended to point out how shortsighted my question was. I have begun painting my E75 which weights approximately 80-85 tons and carries a 105mm/56. Thanks for all you have done.

No apologies are necessary, because I knew, you being the gentleman you are, meant no offense, but were just eager. I am always happy to see enthusiasm. I also knew you would have the wisdom to understand my response correctly, and thus together we have educated those folks less aware than those of us who do the leg-work in this hobby, so that they are less likely to trip up in the future. Thank you for your help in this.
I am glad to have contributed to this project because it is for me a way of saluting all my fellow gamers I have met & will meet. This past Christmas marked my 50th year as a war-gamer (admittedly my first attempts as a Kindergartener were HG Wells little War with my Britains & thus very crude, but I quickly advanced) and I have been working on a number of projects as a way of giving back & thanking all the good folks in the hobby.
with all honor & respect to you,
Sven

[Donald M. Scheef]

Comments on the Weapons Lists in the Wermacht ’47 Supplement

SdKfz 350 and 351 vehicles on pages 7 & 8:

Matching the versions of the existing SdKfz 250 and SdKfz 251 with the hypothetical SdKfz 350 and SdKfz 351 is a good concept. The an*logy does not carry through in all aspects, however. The SdKfz 250 and SdKfz 251 had a similar configuration on different-sized chasses (with the SdKfz 251 longer). The proposed SdKfz 350 and SdKfz 351 seem to have the same-sized chassis with different configuration (rear-engined SdKfz 350 and front-engined SdKfz 351).
The rear-engine configuration of the SdKfz 351 is good for centrally-mounted weapons but not well-suited for personnel and cargo carriers. The front-engine configuration of the SdKfz 351 provides direct access to the personnel/cargo space, as in the SdKfz 250/251 vehicles.
To take advantage of each type’s advantages and eliminate duplication, I would suggest the following modifications:
SdKfz 350/1: I wouldn’t get this – the SdKfz 351/1 is better suited for the personnel carrier function. (Available as GHQ g532)
SdKfz 350/2: I wouldn’t get this – a cable-laying vehicle should have direct access from the back of the cargo compartment as in the SdKfz 351/11.
SdKfz 350/3: This is OK, but I would prefer the SdKfz 351/3. There is no reason to produce two versions of a radio communications vehicle.
SdKfz 350/4: This is OK, but I would prefer the SdKfz 351/18. There is no reason to produce two versions of an armored observation post.
SdKfz 350/5: I wouldn’t get this - dismounted foot patrol is an integral function of a light reconnaissance vehicle. I would suggest a version of the SdKfz 351 with a shortened crew compartment (matching that of the SdKfz 250/5).
SdKfz 350/6: I wouldn’t get this – the SdKfz 351/4 is a better munitions carrier.
SdKfz 350/7: This is OK, but I would prefer the SdKfz 351/2. There is no reason to produce two versions of an 8 cm mortar carrier.
SdKfz 350/8: This is OK, but I have concerns about the crowded conditions in the crew compartment. The SdKfz 351/9 has more room but may be nose-heavy. There is no reason to produce two versions of a 7.5 cm L/24 support vehicle.
SdKfz 350/9: Yes, the rear-engine chassis is the better arrangement for the 2 cm reconnaissance turret. I prefer this to the SdKfz 351/23. (Available as GHQ g530)
SdKfz 350/10 and SdKfz 350/11: I wouldn’t get these as a platoon command vehicle – the SdKfz 351/10 is better-suited for the platoon command function.
Arming any of these vehicles with the 3.7 cm Pak 35/36 L/45 or the 2/8 cm sPzB 41 is a waste. These guns were totally outdated even by 1945 standards. Instead, I would build the SdKfz 350/10 and SdKfz 350/11 as anti-tank rocket/missile carriers. Perhaps the SdKfz 350/10 would mount a 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 (Püppchen) or 10.5 cm Leichtgeschutz 42 for short-range work. The SdKfz 350/11 would have Rotkäppchen or Rochen for longer-range attack.
SdKfz 350/12: I wouldn’t get this – being able to dismount is an essential part of artillery plotting and survey. Instead, a version of the SdKfz 351 should be used. The SdKfz 251/12 was discontinued in 1943 but I would produce a SdKfz 351/12.
SdKfz 350/13: This is OK, but I have concerns about the crowded conditions in the crew compartment. The SdKfz 351/22 has more room but may be nose-heavy. There is no reason to produce two versions of a 7.5 cm L/48 Pak vehicle. (Available as GHQ g529)
SdKfz 350/14: I don’t think this is a viable design – a twin 35 cm Flak mount is much too heavy for the chassis. Instead, I would suggest a triple MG 151/15 or MG 151/20 “drillingâ€￾ as in the SdKfz 251/21. The chassis might be able to support a twin 30 cm or a single 35 cm Flak 43.
SdKfz 350/15: I wouldn’t get this – the SdKfz 351/24 is better-suited as a 12 cm mortar carrier.
SdKfz 350/16: Yes, the SdKfz 350 chassis should be an appropriate chassis for an armored recovery vehicle.
SdKfz 350/17: Yes, the rear-engine chassis is a good mount for a 5 cm turret. (Available as GHQ g534)
SdKfz 351/1: Yes, this should be the standard armored personnel carrier. (Available as GHQ g528)
SdKfz 351/2: Yes, this should be the standard 8 cm mortar carrier. (Available as GHQ G533)
SdKfz 351/3: Yes, this should be the standard radio communications armored vehicle.
SdKfz 351/4: Yes, this should be the standard armored munitions transport.
SdKfz 351/5: Although the SdKfz 251/5 was discontinued in 1943, a still-aggressive Wermacht would have use for an armored as*ault engineer vehicle. The SdKfz 351/5 could be modeled by adding spec*alist engineer equipment to the SdKfz 351/1.
Alternately, the SdKfz 351/5 designation could be applied to the light armored reconnaissance vehicle in place of the less-suitable SdKfz 350/5. I would make this by shortening the crew compartment of the SdKfz 350/1 to match that of the SdKfz 250/5.
SdKfz 351/6: Although the SdKfz 251/6 was discontinued in 1943, I believe the 1947 Wermacht could use a company command vehicle based on the SdKfz 351 chassis. I would alter the SdKfz 351 by raising the sides and adding an armored top (at least sufficient to stop shrapnel) and radio antennae. Consider, for example, the post war Pbv 301 built in Sweden by modifying fifteen-year-old Czech TNHS tanks. The Pbv 301 was fully enclosed with room for eight personnel, large rear door, and had a remote-control machine gun mounted above the cupola.
SdKfz 351/7: Yes, this should be the standard armored engineer equipment carrier.
SdKfz 351/8: Yes, this should be the standard armored ambulance.
SdKfz 351/9: This is OK, but I have concerns about the weight distribution. The SdKfz 350/9 is better in this respect, but may have an over-crowded crew compartment. There is no reason to produce two versions of a 7.5 cm L/24 support vehicle. (Available as GHQ g540)
SdKfz 351/10: Yes, this should be the standard platoon command vehicle. However, the 3.7 cm Pak 35/36 L/45 should be removed. This gun was totally outdated even by 1945 standards. Instead, retain the MG42 of the SdKfz 351/1 and add additional radio communications gear.
SdKfz 351/11: Yes, this should be the standard armored cable-laying vehicle.
SdKfz 351/12: Although the SdKfz 251/12 was discontinued in 1943, I would produce this as the plotting and survey vehicle rather than the SdKfz 350/12.
SdKfz 351/13, /14, and /15: The SdKfz 251/13 (sound recording vehicle), /14 (sound ranging vehicle), and /15 (shot spotting vehicle) were discontinued in 1943. There would have been no purpose for these vehicles in Wermacht ’47. Perhaps technical advances could provide radar equivalents.
SdKfz 351/16: Yes, this flamethrower-equipped version of the SdKfz 351/1 should be built.
SdKfz 351/17: This vehicle mounted a single 2 cm Flak gun and was not a platoon command vehicle. The SdKfz 350/14 should be the anti-aircraft vehicle for Wermacht ’47 Panzergrenadiers.
SdKfz 351/18: Yes, I prefer this to the SdKfz 350/4 as the standard armored observation post vehicle.
SdKfz 351/19: Yes, this should be the standard armored telephone exchange vehicle.
SdKfz 351/20: Yes, this should be the standard armored IR spotlight vehicle. Note, however that the SdKfz 350 chassis would do as well in this function. In addition, although the SdKfz 251/20 would have given the Germans an immediate advantage in night combat, the Allies would quickly have developed IR scopes in response. Once these became available, the survival time of an illuminated SdKfz 351/20 would be very short. In fact, without the expense of the Manhattan Project the Allies might be able to develop even better passive night vision devices.
SdKfz 351/21: I would not get this – the SdKfz 350 seems a better chassis for an anti-aircraft mount (see comments for SdKfz 350/14). By the way, the “drillingâ€￾ mount on the SdKfz 251/21 was for 1.5 cm or 2 cm guns, not 3 cm guns. The 3 cm gun was significantly heavier. The SdKfz 350 or SdKfz 351 chassis might be able to carry a twin 3 cm mount but almost certainly not a triple mount.
SdKfz 351/22: This is OK, but I have concerns about the weight distribution. The SdKfz 350/13 is better in this respect, but may have an over-crowded crew compartment. There is no reason to produce two versions of a 7.5 cm L/48 anti-tank vehicle. (Available as GHQ g535)
SdKfz 351/23: I would not get this – the SdKfz 350/9 seems a better mount for the 2 cm reconnaissance turret.
SdKfz 351/24: Yes, this should be the standard 12 cm mortar carrier vehicle.

German Weapons on page 21 lists “E-100 Jagdpanzerâ€￾ twice with identical statistics.
On page 21, SdKfz 350/9 and /16 are listed under personnel carriers. The /9 has a turreted 2 cm gun and the /16 is a recovery vehicle. Neither of these is really a personnel carrier. The SdKfz 350/5 fits better in this designation.
The SdKfz 351/22, listed on page 22 as an infantry close support artillery vehicle, should be on page 21 as an anti-tank weapon.
The 350/15, listed on page 23 as a transport, should be listed on page 22 with other self-propelled artillery.

US Weapons:

The M75 armored personnel carrier listed on page 24 was not amphibious but had superior armor protection and speed compared to the M59 (which was amphibious).
I would replace all the M4 chasses on page 24 with the equivalent on M27 chassis (production versions of the T20 and T23).
I would add:
T32 – an enlarged Pershing chassis (7 road wheels per side) with a longer 90 mm gun (as on T26E4) or 105 mm gun (as on T29)
The LVT 3, LVT 4, and LVT(A) 4 were all in service by 1945 in the Pacific. Under wartime pressure (e.g., invasion of the main Japanese home islands), it is possible that craft similar to the LVTP 5 and LVTH 6 would be available by 1947.
T96 – a 155 mm breach-loading mortar on a modified M24 chassis
T85 – a quadruple 20 mm enclosed mount on a M24 chassis
90 mm antiaircraft gun M1A1 and M2 – these were available in towed mounts during the war. By 1947, self-propelled mounts would have been produced
75 mm “skysweeperâ€￾ antiaircraft gun – this is a land modification of the naval anti-aircraft gun under development at the end of the war as the smallest shell capable of having proximity fusing at the time. It had semi-automatic firing and on-board radar. Self-propelled mounts were considered and could have been available in 1947 under pressure of wartime development.
M38 Wolfhound – a six-wheeled armored car intended to replace the M8 Greyhound series.
75 mm recoilless rifle M20 (also could be mounted on Jeep or any other vehicle)
106 mm recoilless rifle M40 (also could be mounted on Jeep or any other vehicle)

UK
The 20-pounder armed Centurion III and possibly even a 32-pounder would have been available by 1947. By 1947, the British would have also produced specialty versions of the Centurion, such as armored recovery, engineer, and demolition tank.
The Coventry armored car combined the best features of the Humber and Daimler types. They were just entering production as the war ended and most were sold to France for colonial use.
The Oxford carrier was enlarged and improved development of the Universal carrier. It was entering service near the end of the war as a mortar carrier, light gun mover, and transport.
120 mm “Wombatâ€￾ recoilless rifle – ground mount or portée
Various versions of the Land Rover would have begun replacing US Jeeps.
The British were working on a 6x6 that post-war developed into the Saracen/Saladin/Stalwart line series of armored personnel carriers, armored cars, and transport vehicles. Hypothetically, these could have been available in 1947.

Soviet Union
Add T-54 to the Armored Fighting Vehicles
Add BTR-152 to the Armored Personnel Carriers

France
If we consider the AMX.13/75, then also include the AMX-VCI APC, AMX 105 mm gun, Mark F3 150 mm gun, AMX 13 armored recovery vehicle, and AMX bridgelayer mounted on the same chassis.
The TT6 was a small tracked armored personnel carrier useful for reconnaissance purposes.
The EBR-75 was an eight-wheeled armored car carrying a turret similar to that of the AMX.13/75. Based on a design begun before the war, the EBR-75 could have been available in 1947 if the Germans had allowed the Vichy French to continue development during the war.

Don S.

[DAK]

I've been impressed with the free download on the date and info on the vehicles and also the supplements of Tac News explaining what could have been. As long as GHQ continues to provide info and support for the 47 line I'll buy them. So far I have bought at least on pack of everything and several packs of the late war German Infantry. All are outstanding and up to the GHQ standard.

[Donald M. Scheef]

Here are some suggestions for artillery pieces to be included in the Wehrmacht ’47 line. This, for the most part, does not include self-propelled guns, which have already been well-covered in other lists.

Germany:

For infantry support: One of the following:

7.5cm Infanteriegeschütz 42 aA (alter Art): This piece was designed as a replacement for the venerable 7.5cm leichtes Infanteriegeschütz 18. It was an all-new design. The barrel was much longer than the le IG 18 and had a tubular muzzle break. The carriage had a tubular split-trail, pneumatic tires and a rectangular shield. This piece would have provided close-support artillery and (with hollow-charge shells) anti-tank capability for the infantry. This piece was not mass produced because in 1942 production capacity was not available and the le IG 18 was thought to be good enough. Later experience on the Russian front showed this to be false and that the IG 42 aA (or one of the two related projects described below) would have been very useful.

7.5cm Infanteriegeschütz 37: Despite the name, this piece was not introduced until 1944. It consisted of the gun of the IG 42 aA (now with a square four-baffle muzzle break) mounted on redundant carriages of the now-obsolete 3.7cm PAK 36. The shield was similar to that of the PAK 36.

7.5cm Infanteriegeschütz 42: This was the same weapon as the IG 37 on a different carriage – that of the 8cm PAW 600. A highly-angled shield was fitted.

For medium field artillery:

10.5cm leichte Feldhaubitze 43: One of three designs – two by Krupp and the other by Skoda – should have been in production if the war had lasted past 1945. In each case, the gun itself was similar to that of the FH 18/40 but slightly lengthened and with a larger combustion chamber.
The Krupp Entwurf 2 mounted the gun on the carriage of the 8.8cm PAK 43. This carriage had the benefit of being already in production but was less than ideal for an artillery piece expected to fire in the upper register. It would also have been more difficult to emplace than the new designs.
The Krupp Entwurf 1 mounted the gun in an all-new three-legged carriage with dual wheels. In firing position, the legs extended at 120o angles and the wheels lifted clear of the ground. This provided all-round traverse and the ability to fire at high angles. For traverse, the wheels were lowered, lifting the central body clear of the ground, one leg was lifted and connected to the muzzle, and the other two legs brought together.
The Skoda design was similar to the Krupp Entwurf 1 but had four legs instead of three. In the traveling position, two of the legs were brought together under the muzzle and the other two legs brought together in the opposite direction.

For heavy field artillery:

12.8cm Kanone 43 or Kanone 44: The Germans were very impressed with the effectiveness of Soviet 12.2cm pieces and decided to make a gun in this range but technically superior to anything the Soviets could build. In each case, the gun was about L/55 with a pepperpot muzzle break. All of the carriages allowed good elevation and all-round traverse. One of the following should have been available in 1947.
12.8cm Kanone 43, Skoda design: This was an enlargement of the le FH 43 concept. The project was dropped with the expectation that the 12.8cm Kanone 44 designs would be superior.
12.8cm Kanone 43, Krupp design: This was an enlargement of the le FH 43 Entwurf 1 concept. The project was dropped with the expectation that the 12.8cm Kanone 44 designs would be superior.
12.8cm Kanone 44, Rheinmetall design: This had a cruciform carriage. A two-wheeled bogie at the front was removed when in firing position and a four-wheeled bogie at the rear was raised.
12.8cm Kanone 44, Krupp design: This had a cruciform carriage with removable two-wheel bogies at the front and rear. The arrangement was similar to the “Sonderanhängerâ€￾ used by many German anti-aircraft guns.

15cm schwere Feldhaubitze 43 or schwere Feldhaubitze 44: These were updates of the existing 15cm howitzers to provide extended range (larger chamber for powder and longer barrel) and all-round fire capability. One of the following should have been available in 1947.
15cm schwere Feldhaubitze 43, Skoda design: This was an enlargement of the le FH 43 concept.
15cm schwere Feldhaubitze 43, Krupp Entwurf 1: This was an enlargement of the le FH 43 Entwurf 1 concept.
15cm schwere Feldhaubitze 43, Krupp Entwurf 2: This used the same carriage as the Krupp design for the 12.8cm Kanone 44
15cm schwere Feldhaubitze 43, Rheinmetall design: This used the same carriage as the Rheinmetall design for the 12.8cm Kanone 44

Heavy artillery:

24cm Kanone 4 and 30.5cm Haubitze 4: This was a Krupp design for either a large gun or howitzer. In either case, the barrel would have been relatively long to provide extended range. The carriage employed a dual-recoil box-trail mounting (like the highly-regarded 17cm Kanone 18 in Mörserlafette) but employed a unique transport mode. Each end of the box had a fifth-wheel pin. Two Panzerkampfwagen VI chasses (made redundant by introduction of E-75) with fifth-wheel connectors would pick up the chassis and, working in tandem, move the piece in one load. (This concept was adapted, in wheeled form, by the US post-war 280mm “atomic cannonâ€￾.)
(Although I have no evidence that it was actually considered, a similar concept, using redundant Panther or Pz.Kpfw.IV chasses could have been used to improve the mobility of the 17cm Kanone 18 in Mörserlafette.)

Anti-aircraft:

5cm Flugabwehrkanone 41: Unfortunately for the Germans, this ambitious design was a failure – the mount was unstable when fired, the traverse was too slow, and the sight was ineffective. Aside from the trivial fact that it didn’t work, this was an excellent solution to a serious problem. I don’t suggest that GHQ should make a model of this – I just included it for completeness.

5cm Flugabwehrkanone 214: This was a gap-filler. It employed redundant 5cm PAK 38 barrels, drum-fed automatic loading gear designed by Mauser-Werke for mounting the PAK 38 into Me 410 aircraft, and the carriage of the 5.5cm Gerät 58. This might have been a workable combination, but the effort delayed (fatally) completion of the Gerät 58 project, and no example of the Flak 214 was completed.

5.5cm Gerät 58 Flugabwehrkanone: This was potentially an extremely important artillery piece for the ’47 Wehrmacht. Unfortunately for the Germans, only three examples had been completed by April 1945. The basic mount was a single gun on a cruciform carriage with Sonderanhänger transport. A twin-gun installation and various self-propelled version were also suggested.

Anti-tank:

8cm Panzerabwehrwerfer 600 (later, 8cm PWK 8H63): This piece was designed to try to overcome the German dissatisfaction with recoilless rifles in the anti-tank role (low accuracy, back-blast, and excessive propellant consumption). It employed a high-low pressure system (in which the high-pressure combustion gases were contained in a thick firing chamber and gradually released to a lighter-walled barrel. The barrel was unrifled; the projective was fin-stabilized with a hollow-charge warhead. About 250 were built in the last months of the war.

10cm Panzerabwehrwerfer 1000 (later 10cm PWK 10H64): This was a design for an enlarged PWK 600. None were actually built.

12.8cm Panzerabwehrkanone 44: See 12.8cm Kanone 44 under Field Artillery.

Rocket Artillery:

The 15cm Nebelwerfer (G63) is OK as is. I would suggest a replacement for the Panzerwerfer 42 (G143) based on the SdKfz 351 chassis and an unarmored version based on the Raupenschlepper (G71).


Soviet Union

122mm Field Gun D 74: This piece was developed immediately after the end of the war to replace the 122mm Corps Gun M1931/37 (A 19). It has a relatively standard split-trail carriage.

152mm Gun-Howitzer D 20: This piece was developed shortly after the end of the war, using the same carriage as the contemporary 122mm Field Gun D 74. It can be distinguished from the D 74 by the fatter and much shorter stepped barrel.

180mm Gun S-23: This was an early 1950s development from the standard naval cruiser weapon. The carriage had a fairly standard split-trail. It could have been developed for a Wehrmacht ’47 scenario.


UK

4.5inch Medium Gun: This was a companion piece to the already-available 5.5inch gun. The 4.5inch gun provided significantly greater range but at the expense of a lower shell weight. This was particularly troublesome because the shell was designed to use lower-grade steel, which required a thicker wall, and subsequently much lower explosive power. With an American-designed thin-wall shell, it would have been a much better weapon. The same comments apply to the US 4.5inch Field Gun, which was mounted on the same carriage as the 155mm Howitzer M1. With a better shell, this piece could have been useful in a towed version or in a variety of self-propelled mounts.

32pdr Anti-Tank Gun: This was the slightly-modified barrel of the 3.7inch (94mm) anti-aircraft gun in a split-trail carriage. The general impression is similar to that of the 8.8cm Panzerabwehrkanone 43/41 (including configuration, size, performance, and difficulty of emplacement). One reference states that a muzzle velocity of 4,000 ft/s was anticipated with APDS shot.

55pdr Anti-Tank Gun: This started with the slightly-modified barrel of the 4.5inch (114mm) medium gun. There is no record of what the carriage would look like, but it must have been massive. The only realistic means of bringing such a weapon into action would have been on an armored, self-propelled carriage (for example, Tortoise Mk.II). There were totally fantastic ideas of giving the same treatment to the naval 5.25inch (133mm) dual-purpose gun.

6pdr 6cwt Anti-Aircraft Gun: The barrel was that of the 6pdr (57mm) anti-tank gun, but with a longer barrel and larger combustion chamber. The auto-loader was by the Molins Company (in peacetime, a manufacturer of vending machines). This was on a twin mount with a three-wheeled self-propelled chassis for limited mobility. Like the German 5cm Flugabwehrkanone 41, it never came together. Eventually, the promise of guided missiles led to abandonment of this project. For Wehrmacht ’47, we could suppose success, including a single-barrel version and mounts on a tracked, armored chassis.

3.45inch Mk 1 Recoilless Gun (25pdr Shoulder Gun): This was mostly an experimental weapon, intended to provide infantry with a weapon of significant destructive power at relatively low weight. Its appearance, like other British recoilless guns of the time, was notable for the angled venturis extending back from the breech. There was no carriage, as such, only a light metal tripod.

3.7inch Mk 1 Recoilless Gun: This was a slightly larger version of the 3.45inch weapon. The only major difference in appearance was that this larger weapon had light wheels on the mount. It was declared obsolete only about a year after its introduction.

95mm Mk 1 Recoilless Gun: This was a larger piece, intended for towing behind a light vehicle, although it could be man handled (weight was less than the 6pdr anti-tank gun). This looked almost like an ordinary artillery piece, except for the exhaust venturis and the fact that the single trail extended forward, beneath the barrel of the gun. The design was notable because it introduced the “wallbusterâ€￾ shell design (plastic explosive in a flexible enclosure). Intended for attacking concrete emplacements, this eventually led to the “squash-headâ€￾ anti-tank round. This could have provided an effective anti-tank weapon in 1947.

7.2in P1 Recoilless Gun: This was a much more massive piece, really requiring a towing vehicle, although something as small as a Jeep would suffice. Intended for attacking German fortifications during the invasion of France, the problem associated with the massive back-blast on a crowded beach led to its abandonment in favor of the Recoiling Spigot Mortar of the AVRE tank.


US

US 4.5inch Field Gun: See UK 4.5inch Medium Gun

3in Anti-Tank Gun T18: This was a post-war development of the M5 (increased chamber size, lengthened barrel, discarding sabot fin-stabilized ammunition to achieve 3850 ft/s muzzle velocity) on carriage T5 (similar to that of the 90mm T9 described below). This could be very useful in Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.

76mm Anti-Tank Gun T3 on T4E2 carriage: This is the towed version of the gun used in the GMC M18 (Hellcat). The split-trail carriage looked unexceptional. Performance was about as good as the PAK 40 and inferior to the 17pdr.

90mm Anti-Tank Gun T13 on Carriage T9: This is the towed version of the gun used in the 90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36. The carriage was unusual in that the shield was the basic strength member. The split-trail legs attached directly to the top of the rectangular shield and pivoted forward to join at the muzzle for towing. The wheels attached to the lower sides of the shield and pivoted up clear of the ground when in firing position, so that the gun rested on a pivoted firing jack. A post-war development was the T54 with longer barrel and larger combustion chamber to achieve 3,750 ft/s with discarding sabot tungsten-core ammunition.

105mm Anti-Tank Gun T8: This was a purpose-built heavy anti-tank gun. Its performance would have been awesome, but also the difficulty of moving the piece. (The weight of the barrel and breech alone was approximately that of the entire 90mm gun T13.) The gun was the intended armament for the Heavy Tank T28 (GMC T95) and T29 (enlarged Pershing). Several different carriage designs were proposed, including one similar to the 90mm T13 on Carriage T9. The only examples actually built had a Carriage T19. This looked ordinary but the gun rotated 180 degrees and latched to the split trails for towing.

75mm Anti-Aircraft Gun M51 “Skysweeperâ€￾: This was the smallest caliber gun that could carry a proximity fuse and still contain enough explosive to be effective. The auto-loader employed two revolving magazines to produce a firing rate of 45 rounds per minute; very impressive for this large a weapon. The carriage included on-mount fire control, including radar. It didn’t really work well until long after the war, by which time guided missiles were entering service. For Wehrmacht ’47, we can assume we made it work. (One of the major drivers was the US Navy’s need to defeat Japanese Kamikaze attacks.) One example of a self-propelled version was built.

57mm T15 Recoilless Rifle (Kromuskit design): This highly-portable weapon proved successful in attacking Japanese island fortifications. The shells were identical to those of the 57mm anti-tank gun. There was no carriage; it could be fired from the shoulder or mounted on a machine gun tripod. For a Wehrmacht ’47 scenario, it would already be obsolete.

75mm M20 Recoilless Rifle: This was an enlargement of the 57mm weapon. They used the same shells as the 75mm Pack Howitzer. They were used in the last few days of the European war by US Airborne troops and in the last few months of the Pacific theater. They were well-liked by the US troops, who appreciated the combination of portability and impact. This would probably have been the standard infantry anti-tank weapon in 1947.

105mm T19 Recoilless Rifle: This was the second enlargement of the Kromuskit design. It used the same shells as the 105mm howitzer. Development of this weapon was of relatively low priority, so they did not enter service until the Korean War. At this time, significant re-work was necessary. For a Wehrmacht ’47 scenario, development would have continued and this weapon would have been available. Its most probable deployment would be on an anti-tank mount on a light vehicle, such as a Jeep.

155mm T4 Recoilless Howitzer: This was based on the British Burney design rather than the Kromuskit principle. It was intended to use the same shells as the 155mm Howitzer, but the British Wallbuster would have been better. Very little work had been completed by the end of the war, at which time the project was abandoned.

[Schwerepunkt]

...either Allied or German. When might some new articles be made available? It appears all the tanks and halftracks are done and a couple of the panzerjager. The SP artillery is yet to make an appearance so I was wondering if the Allied forces would receive their boost or will the Wehrmacht continue to benefit from their '47 plan?
SWPnkt

[Cav Dog]

I don't think the US Army would be using any towed anti-tank guns had the war continued into 47 or later. The combat performance of the 57mm and 3" guns was so poor that any development would have ceased on any larger caliber versions. It wasn't just their armor piercing capability, it was the whole concept of towed tank destroyers that wasn't working. With very few exeptions they were essentailly combat ineffective. They took too long to emplace and once emplaced if they had to be moved it was very difficult due to their size and weight. It was nearly impossible to move them under fire resulting in most guns getting off one shot before being destroyed. I think it is also possible that the SP tank destroyer untis may have been on the way out too because by then the army had pretty much decided that the best weapon to fight a tank is another tank.

[Schwerepunkt]

...is G543 or SdKfz 351/24 12cm mortar carrier.

[DAK]

Very Nice!!

[Schwerepunkt]

....I think I am getting somewhat better at putting on light coats and using a wash to get details. I have now painted all of the Wehrmacht '47 models and have not found one that was not easy to paint. Perhaps that is because I am becoming practiced and the GHQ colors that work so well. The above photo came out a bit light and glossy but that was taken a bit closer than I am used to shooting.
Again, thank you and there are many more coming. I am looking forward to Super Pershing, Centurion, T44/100 and many of the other Allied vehicles coming too. There have been so many requests that I would like to have in my own collection that I would be bankrupt withing a very short time. We all have to pick and choose but I want an Allied force to reckon with. My collection is not one sided by any means. In fact, my Russian force of ISII, IS152, T34/85, T60s and 8inch howitzers could give a very good account of themselves.
Schwerepunkt/Bob

[chrisswim]

That is a good looking fig, may need to pick some up for my Dirtside(sci fi) games. Nice look to it.

[Schwerepunkt]

The first two pictures are of German heavy panzers: 1) Tiger I, II, Jagdtiger, E50, E75, Maus and E-100, the first rank are opening fire. 2) A comparison shot, TIger I, TIger II, Jagdtiger, E50, E75, E100, Maus.
Next, SdKfz 350/8 8cm mortar carrier (5) and SdKfz 351/1 Personnel carrier.

[DAK]

I would hate to be the Allies facing those monster tanks. Very Nice work!! Keep the photos coming.