Historical question?

[Jack]

Why is the Pza LRS (f) have such a short range? It is a 150mm mobile platform. I guess I am wrong in assuming that all the big guns have long range.
Why would the Germans even want them with such limitations? I know they are capture but were they that hard up for equipment?

[SoleSurvivor]

I cannot speak about the range issue, but for if we were desperate for equipment: yes.

[gators]

Believe it or not at least on paper Hitler planned to decommission a few divisions after the fall of France. Russia pointed out a lot of deficiencies in the Wehrmacht and all sorts of makeshifts followed. some like the Marder were successful, others ...

[john g]

Originally posted by Jack:
Why is the Pza LRS (f) have such a short range? It is a 150mm mobile platform. I guess I am wrong in assuming that all the big guns have long range.
Why would the Germans even want them with such limitations? I know they are capture but were they that hard up for equipment?

---

All the gun has to do is outrange its target.

It has better range than the 150mm infantry gun, in fact I just checked and all the German sp 150mm short barrel carriers ie sig33 pz1, stuig, brummbar all have range 49.

Realize that entire panzer units were equipped with captured R35 tanks during Barbarossa. Not everyone got good German built equipment. Those who compare German tank production vs Allied tank production ignore the fact that a good portion of the German army was using captured equipment since the Germans couldn't/wouldn't build it fast enough.
thanks, John.

[tracer]

Originally posted by john g:


Realize that entire panzer units were equipped with captured R35 tanks during Barbarossa.

---

And they used alot of Czech 35t's and 38t's to get *those*. Makes me wonder who they would have turned all those T-34's against.

[ November 19, 2001: Message edited by: tracer ]</p>

[Jack]

So does that mean that historically the Pza Lrs(f) was only used in the close support role???

[Larry Holt]

It was originally a French tank. They envisioned it as an infantry support tank and it had a large calibre, low velocity gun. Its short range is due to its low velocity. It was not designed to take out tanks at long range but rather to suppress enemy heavy weapons (HMGs, ATRs, infantry guns, etc.) that were fairly stationary. It could just sit there and lob shells at them in a WWI manner.

When the Germans took them over I suppose that they tried to adopt an armored vehicle designed for infantry support to their blitzkerig tactics and use them as they did other tanks but I cannot document this.

[Grumble]

Makes me wonder who they would have turned all those T-34's against.

---

OT and NO FLAMES INTENDED:
I've occasionally wondered why the Western Allies, especially the USA with its surplus heavy manufacturing capacity, didn't at least attempt to negotiate for plans for the T34 series-clearly a superior vehicle except for drivetrain and optics (which could be adapted to US/UK standard).
I've never seen anything on this. I ASSUME members of the Allied Military Mission would at least have seen it on display, if not in action. Anyone have some info on why, other than maybe Stalin's paranoia?

[panda124c]

Originally posted by Grumble:

OT and NO FLAMES INTENDED:
I've occasionally wondered why the Western Allies, especially the USA with its surplus heavy manufacturing capacity, didn't at least attempt to negotiate for plans for the T34 series-clearly a superior vehicle except for drivetrain and optics (which could be adapted to US/UK standard).
I've never seen anything on this. I ASSUME members of the Allied Military Mission would at least have seen it on display, if not in action. Anyone have some info on why, other than maybe Stalin's paranoia?

---

It's the old I can do anything better than you can syndrone. The M24 Chaffie is a modified T34/BT-5 chassie.