Tips

Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 22, 2013

Possible premium TD/SPG - Mörserträger auf Panzer 38(t) Ausf.M

This is something I found recently, could make a decent lowtier German tank destroyer. Most people know the Marder III Ausf.M vehicle - it was built on the 38(t) Ausf.M chassis, which was modified by moving the engine to the middle, giving the vehicle its distinctive look (with the superstructure moved in the back). It's sad that Ausf.M will most likely not appear in World of Tanks, at least not in the 2nd German branch - I can speculate the reason for that is that the Marder III Ausf.H was equipped historically with both the Pak 36(r) and Pak 40 guns (like the Marder II was), while Ausf.M only carried the Pak 40/3.

Either way, in 1944 there was an attempt to modify the Ausf.M chassis into yet another universal Waffenträger. It started as a Mörserträger (mortar carrier), but gradually more guns were envisaged.



As you can see, the defining difference is the very steep sloped frontal armor (67 degrees in fact) - more parameters (such as the armor thickness) are unknown. It was projected to be equipped with various guns: 50mm, 73mm, 81mm, 100mm and finally 210mm mortars (in its "mortar carrier" variant), but also with 75mm and 100mm low-pressure guns, 75mm PaK and finally, 75mm, 105mm and even 150mm howitzers.

In the end, the project was rejected. Only one mockup was ever made in 1944 and after that, the Germans (who preferred the Waffenträger designs based on 38(d) platform, seeing - correctly - the original 38(t) as insufficient) lost interest and the project was scrapped.


17 comments:

  1. It looks like a wiesel :D

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pls one advice, when u can write an "ö" then I guess u can write an "ä" aswell so pls write it in the correct way then its spelled "Mörserträger" not Mörsertrager its just plain wrong, u cannot change its german names cause they are specified names.

    When its too uncomfortable for u for using ä,ö,ü just use ä=ae, ö=oe, ü=ue. Example: "Moersertraeger"

    Sry for my bad english.

    But as a german I know at least my own language. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I know about it, I was wondering if anyone would bring it up before I manage finish my phonecall and correct it... :)

      Delete
  3. If it's sloped at 67 degrees, the armour has to be rather thin or it will trololo-bounce everything that doesn't hit it at a good angle.

    -Platypusbill

    ReplyDelete
  4. I find it odd that they would not implement the Marder III as a alternative to the Marder II for tier 3, considering that WG has no issue "bending" historical accuracy for things as it suits them.

    Also what sort of difference between the Pak 40/3 and the Pak 40/2 is their?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure what you are getting at. Marder III WILL be the tier 3 alternative, but it will be the Ausf.H, not the Ausf.M. Marder III Ausf.H was equipped with both the Russian and German PaK (much like the current ingame Marder II), Ausf.M only had the 75mm PaK 40 historically. The difference between PaK 40/2 and 40/3 is some sort of mount I think, can't tell from head.

      Delete
    2. Marder III as tier 3 alternative? it wasnt planned to be tier 4 with l70 as top gun and start of new branch of open top tds?

      Delete
    3. I don't think so? But now I am totally not sure...

      Delete
    4. H & 4 level?

      Delete
    5. Yes, you are actually right.Odd, I thought the split was projected at tier 3

      Delete
  5. Neither the Marder III Ausf H, M or the Marder II in-game were ever equipped with the Russian PaK 36 (happy to be proven wrong though). The ones that did have them were the Marder II Sd.Kfz. 132 and Marder III Sd.Kfz. 139. I can't see WG adding all of these variants into WoT, so its likely only one will be a regular TD and one other a premium.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I remember reading about an experimental Marder III Ausf.H with Pak 36, but I can't remember where and whether it was a real prototype, or a field conversion - but at least one definitely had it.

      Delete
    2. Only one...

      Delete
    3. One is all it takes for introduction :)

      Delete
  6. Looks strangely like a JgPanther2 to me for some reason...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting but cannot be arsed to check the sources.

    You yourself stated previously that basically whatever you post must be checked from the original sources (your Failöwe 'story'). And well, I don't have them. So basically this interesting story even if I don't have any idea whether it's true or not. I'm going to assume it's not true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *shrugs* Suit yourself, if you CBA googling...

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.