Dar Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 This is not an extension of the flamefest under the same topic! This is a genuine question and bid to understand more about this weapon and any other unusual close-in defense weapons AFVs used in WWII. Before the last thread degenerated into its own private war, I managed to glean that the Nahverteidigungswaffe was basically a 92mm mortar that launched an HE shell. It could be reloaded from inside the turret/hull by the TC. My questions to the more enlightened readers are: o Did this round detonate in an airburst, or did it have a contact fuse? It seems to me an airburst would be more effective, although a little hard on any exposed objects, like AAMGs, but then those could be damaged by small arms fire anyway. However, a contact fuse round could conceivably land a little too close to the AFV and ruin a tread, thereby immobilising it, I would think. Anyone have the specifics on this? o Were there smoke rounds in addition to HE? Or other types of round, e.g., signal flares? o Did the Allies attempt any such close-in counter measures? It seems the Germans particularly were quite active in coming up with defensive measures for AFVs vs. infantry, such as the Nahverteidigungswaffe, Zimmerit anti-magnetic mine paste, and even a bent barrel hull-mount MG. The effectiveness of these measures could certainly be debated, but did the Allied armies attempt anything similar? Dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Colapietro Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 Dar, >> ... It seems the Germans particularly were quite active in coming up with defensive measures for AFVs vs. infantry, such as... It is my understanding that the Germans were initially very shocked by (and unprepared for) the American and Russian infantry's willingness to assault AFVs in close combat with satchel charges, grenades, etc., so perhaps that led to the focus on anti-infantry weapons. The loss of a tank and the extensively trained crew was a pretty big blow to the German army who could not replace them as readily as the Allies. Anyone have a more informed POV on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted November 16, 1999 Author Share Posted November 16, 1999 Funny, I thought the opposite was more likely: that the Germans were more likely to close assault AFVs, and that they used these defenses to prevent the enemy from using the same tactics against them! I recall reading that the Zimmerit coating especially was used as a countermeasure against the ATMMs (anti-tank magnetic mines) that the Germans used to such effect on the Eastern Front. However, the Western Allies never used or issued ATMMs. Dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 I saw that war go thermal right before it winked out of existence. I too support the quest for more information on this little toy. There is more unknown about this weapon than known. Every other weapons system has well- documented stats on muzzle velocity, ammunition types, blast radius of the ammo, penetration capability, normal (basic) load out of ammo (10 HE, 10 smoke, 4 signal etc). What is definitely known about this thing: 1. It was roof mounted on several types of late-war German AFVs including Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Panther G (possibly A as well), Tiger I (late), Pz IV J, Jagdpanzer IV, Sturmtiger, King Tiger, and StuG III (very late). 2. It was 92mm in bore. 3. It could be rotated through 360 degrees. 4. It was breech loaded. 5. It had no sighting device of its own. 6. It was intended to be used for close defence and for discharging smoke after the older model smoke dischargers were removed. From the drawing that was posted in the other thread by Mattias I was able to make determine that: It was NOT a MORTAR. Its construction is closer to that of a grenade launcher. It doesn't appear to be built with a strong enough breech area to handle that level of pressure. The term "projector" is probably the best term for it. The tube was angled 39 degrees from the vertical (51 degrees from the horizontal). It could not have been fired by the TC. The trigger is a very simple device that holds the firing pin in check after th loader cocks it. It was operated by the loader who could only fire in the direction given by the TC who was the only crew member with 360 vision devices. The breech swung open and was hinged at the top. The breech was opened by rotating locking lever 90 degrees clockwise when looked at directly from below. This allowed the breech to be opened. A cartridge (of unknown design) would then be inserted. The brech would be closed and the locking lever rotated back counter-clockwise. The firing pin would be pulled back and locked in place by the spring loaded trigger. There is a safety catch. Pressing the trigger allows the pin to strike forward and fire the round. It was a very simple weapon. Very much like a big M203. The important questions that still need to be answered are: 1. Types and description of ammunition. This is the most important thing. From this we can learn how the HE round functioned, how powerful it was, at what height it would detonate or if it was supposed to/could be set to impact before exploding. With muzzle velocity figures we can figure the range of the rounds, probably more important for smoke than HE. 2. Tactical usage. Guidelines, training etc. How often was it actually used? How plentiful was the ammo? Were tankers trained to use it or was it just an afterthought. Was it used to attack infantry in adjacent buildings or only to defend the tank when enemy infantry were actually assaulting it (ala Saving Private Ryan) or both? Was it normally kept loaded with HE or smoke or only loaded when necessary? The truth is out there! PS. BTS posted somewhere (looking for quote) to the effect that they were not going to model the damn thing at all due to lack of info but then they got a good source late in the game and put them in. I hope they share some of that data... (in the manual?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Colapietro Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 Dar, >> ...Funny, I thought the opposite was more likely: that the Germans were more likely to close assault AFVs.. You may very well be correct - I can't recall exactly where I got the impression that the Germans were a bit shocked early on by infantry close assualts. From what I remember it had to do with the fact that the infantry would come right up to the AFV to plant grenades and explosives with seemingly little regard for their hides as opposed to the 'sporting' method of engaging with a projectile weapon. I guess that freaked them out a bit - maybe something similar to British troops in the Rev. War dealing with the Americans who refused to stand in a neat line and fight back. If I'm way off here someone feel free to chime in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 On the Nahverthingamajig: 92mm could indicate quite a heavy and destructive projectile considering the power of comparably sized mortar rounds. On Zimmerit: It's my understanding that Zimmerit coating was put on mid-war tanks by the Germans in anticipation of a magnetic anti-tank mine threat. This never materialized so Zimmerit coating was discontinued on late war armored vehicles. -Renaud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 1. Russian and German infantry were renowned for their close assaults on tanks. British and US infantry only did those very, very rarely. Dar and Renaud are right regarding Zimmerit. Dar, the bent barrel thing is called the Krumlauf and I've posted about it before. A search might find the info It'd be in an MP44 / STG44 thread. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Bah! You mugs have all got it wrong! The Nahverteidigungswaffe was actually a secret V-weapon -- the world's first weapon that fired words so long they could destroy an entire platoon in one shot. On 12 June 1944 an M-10 received a direct hit from 'Unabhängigkeitserklaerungen' and was knocked out. The next day a unit froim the 101st airborne was all but wiped out by salvoes of 'Generalstaatsverordnetenversammlungen.' Allied response to this new terror weapon were quite inneffective. The British Churchill "Antidisestablishmentarianism" tank was a failure. The US 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious' was, of course, doomed from the moment of inception. Fortunately, the war ended before the Germans could deploy the 'Panzerselbstfahrlafette Constantinopolitanischerdudelsackspfeifenmachersgesellschafft.' The postwar Schwere Panzerhaubitze auf Geschutzwagen 'Transvaaltruppentropentransporttrampelthiertreibertrauungsthraenentragoedie' was declared a violation of the Geneva Convention and scrapped. Source at this location [This message has been edited by Richard III (edited 11-16-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 wow, you learn something everyday... (lol) I think that the geneva convention declared those weapons illegal, under their "eschew obfuscation" clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charles Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Nahverteidigungswaffe! AAAAIIIIEEEEEE! (Runs screaming from building). Seriously: in my request for information on this weapon, I guess I got a little carried away. My sincere apologies to Fionn and everyone else on this board (I'm actually a very mellow guy). ------------------ Not THE Charles from BTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 No problems Charles. Actually I decided to write an article on the nahverteidigungswaffe when I realised that thread wasn't going anywhere. Of course the article is one I am writing so I am writing it based on what I know of the system and what I believe its capabilities were. Hopefully though it will provide a little bit more info on how the weapon was utilised. A few forum members who did not want to contribute to the other thread sent me much original data supporting effectiveness which I am sure most of you haven't seen before ( some of it I hadn't seen before either) which will help provide some insight into the weapon. It'll be a while before I post it since I want to wait to get some accurate translations on some things I want to be sure of. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charles Posted November 18, 1999 Share Posted November 18, 1999 Sounds good. I'll look forward to hearing about the new data you have accumulated. This is a great forum! ------------------ Not THE Charles from BTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 Hi friends, Expect some news concerning this matter next week or so. I asked them if they know more than that what can be read in some 10 books <G> Here´s what they answered: --------------- From: webmaster@panzermuseum.com Date: 19 Nov 1999 Time: 15:54:04 Comments I don't know how much this will help, but I have a copy of D656/42, "Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausführung B, Turm Nr. 1-50 und Panzerbefehlswagen: Gerätbeschreibung und Bedienungsanweisung zum Turm" that contains a section describing the different projectiles and use of the Nahverteidigungswaffe; it also includes a cutaway diagram of the weapon. If you would like, I would be happy to make this information available on the Panzermuseum Munster site (but it will take me a few days to type it all in and scan the diagram). Cheers, Mike ------------- regards Helge ============== Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 Helge, We've already seen the cutaway diagram that Mattias has. I bet it is the same. The other info about usage instructions and ammo types will pretty much solve the "mystery." I hope it goes up soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 R Cunningham If it is the same diagram that is in Spielbergers Panther book, we most probably will experience a little surprize concerning the ammo-caliber and how the crew fired the anti-personal shells Helge ============== Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 Is this the 26mm thing Helge? In preparation for the next nahv-related discussion. Does ANYONE have the calibre of the S-mine discharger noted? ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 Fionn, If we trust Spielberger, it is. The Nebelwurfbecher were 90mm and If I have a look on Photos the S-Mine-Becher were aprox. the same, could be 92mm. The inner diameter of the Nahverteidigungswaffe is for sure more than 26mm and must be at least 90mm, since it was able to fire the same Nebelwurfkorper 39 that can be fired with the "old" turett mounted Nebelwurfbecher. So you see it´s a little bit complicated and that´s why I am looking forward what the Panzermuseum can tell us. Helge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 I thnk it is a distinct possibility that the 26mm Spielberger talks about is for the signal cartridge only. The Panzermuseum guy will give us the real info, but I speculate that the Germans would not have developed a special 90-92mm signal cartridge for this thing. What would be the point? I'be bet they just opened the breech on the thing and then used a normal flare pistol. The smoke and HE are most important for our purposes anyway. I have several drawing of King tigers to scale, but the size of the drawings do not allow for precise measurement of the Nahverteidigungswaffe opening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted November 20, 1999 Author Share Posted November 20, 1999 What do you mean "We've already seen the cutaway diagram that Mattias has"? I haven't! Is it posted somewhere? Helge, Thanks for continuing to investigate this! I'm really looking forward to what the Panzermuseum has on this weapon. Dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 Well, Helge's coup kinda stole my thunder. I was working on a page dedicated to the mystery of the nahverteidigungswaffe. It has the diagram I got from Mattias on it. I will update this with the data we get from Mike at the Panzermuseum. The link: Die Nahverteidigungswaffe [This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 11-21-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 The Panzermuseum posted some good data in German from their manual on the Tiger B (D 656/42, Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausführung B, Turm Nr. 1 – 50 und Panzerbefehlswagen: Gerätbeschreibung und Bedienungsanweisung zum Turm, 1.2.1944) at http://www.panzermuseum.com/archive/archive_nahverteidigungswaffe.htm I updated my page to reflect some of their data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted November 22, 1999 Author Share Posted November 22, 1999 R Cunningham: Thanks for the post and the links! Great stuff--I'm going to have to get my German/English dictionary out for the Panzermuseum stuff. I can't quite decipher the stuff regarding protection from rain without a little help. Thanks again! This really helps. Dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 22, 1999 Share Posted November 22, 1999 I updated the page again after I realised what the tiger manual actually said about the Sprenggranate. It was fired from a regular signal pistol through the NahVW tube because it offered the most protection from the shrapnel. But it could have been fired from any hatch, though at some risk to the crew. Still working on the size of the explosive but so far the outside figure is 112 grams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted November 23, 1999 Share Posted November 23, 1999 Realy good information..looks like the Nahvtwf r a dangerous weapon. single pices can fly over hundred meters..There I would like not be nearby if that goes higly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 23, 1999 Share Posted November 23, 1999 Dar, Its no replacement for a good translater but altavista has a decent service called 'Babel Fish' (named after Douglas Adam's translating fish!) which will translate the text for you. Note, it is a very LOOSE translation but you can figure most of it out, for example tower-turret etc... Here is the link: http://babelfish.altavista.com Just type in the URL of the page you want translated and set it to German to English! There may be better services available but this one does a good job for me! Madmatt out...Abscondi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts