Jump to content

BFC et al., 250/9 ammo load question


Recommended Posts

For grins and giggles, I was playing around earlier with the QB Generator and whistled up a Mixed SS force for a Large Attack scenario. I got a brace of 250/9s and was shocked to discover the ammo load for each was a measly 100 rounds (75 API and 25 HE). By contrast, a 234/1 in

SPOILER ALERT!

SPOILER ALERT!

SPOILER ALERT!

It's A New Dawn has 480 (320 API and 160 HE). Not only am I confused, but so are many in the Axis History Forum under sdkfz 250/9.

http://forum.axishistory.(usual)/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=45141&start=15

Is there a solid source, or sources, proving the ammo load for this wee beastie was so low?

I vividly recall reading in AFV-G2 magazine about the savaging a 250/9 unit gave a massive Russian infantry attack in the East. It was written by Kurt Fischer, a veteran of combat there who served in Panzerjaeger units. From the way it was written, the problem didn't seem to be have been too little ammo aboard the 250/9s, but too many Russians! The village wouldn't have held absent the hellish firepower of the recon unit. Shall see if I can find the account.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As does Terry Gander in 'Military Vehicles in Detail SdKfz 250/1 to 250/12'

All those sources also list the 250/10, which has the larger 3.7cm PaK, carrying 216 rounds.

Seems odd that the /10 carried over twice as much ammo that was, round for round, twice the size of the 20mm shell. Something to do with the 20mm being issued in 10 round magazines? Seems unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As does Terry Gander in 'Military Vehicles in Detail SdKfz 250/1 to 250/12'

All those sources also list the 250/10, which has the larger 3.7cm PaK, carrying 216 rounds.

Seems odd that the /10 carried over twice as much ammo that was, round for round, twice the size of the 20mm shell. Something to do with the 20mm being issued in 10 round magazines? Seems unlikely.

From the thread John linked to above:

Kelvin wrote:

sdkfz 250/9 ammo load is too too little : only 100 round ! how could fight ?

Panzer Tracts 15-1, says the January 1944 Waffenamt data sheet lists the following;

100 rounds for the 2 cm Kw.K.38

2010 rounds for the M.G.34

1024 rounds for the M.P.

However, an earlier report from January 1943 lists 230 rounds for the 2 cm Kw.K.38. I've no idea why there would be such a differance. Perhaps there less ammo storage with the Ausf.B models compared to the Auf.A? Mission changes?

I suspect all the western sources that list 100 rds. all trace back to this data sheet. But then these sources are full of oddities: e.g. 250/10 having more 37mm than the 251/10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're comparing apples to oranges.

The 250/9 has a 20mm autocannon in a turret with a secondary coax mg.

The 210/10 has a single shot, manual reload cannon in an open, fixed (limited traverse) mount with no secondary weapon.

Given the greater complexity, bulk and weight of the 250/9 weapon mount, it does not surprise me at all that the 250/10 might have typically carried more main gun ammo, even though it has a larger caliber primary weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're comparing apples to oranges.

The 250/9 has a 20mm autocannon in a turret with a secondary coax mg.

The 210/10 has a single shot, manual reload cannon in an open, fixed (limited traverse) mount with no secondary weapon.

Given the greater complexity, bulk and weight of the 250/9 weapon mount, it does not surprise me at all that the 250/10 might have typically carried more main gun ammo, even though it has a larger caliber primary weapon.

That may well have been a factor but the turret was identical to the one used in the little Sd Kfz222 AC and the Chamberlain, Doyle, Jentz source gives the ammo for that as 180 rounds.

There is not a great deal of difference in the size, or one would imagine, the carrying capacity of the two vehicles and they had the same number of crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...