| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Romanian Army > Maresal tank destroyer |
| Posted by: stephen brezinski December 01, 2005 02:41 pm |
| Greetings From what I have read on the Maresal, it was developed from the Soviet T-60 light tank. What is confusing me is that a 1/72 scale model of the Maresal by Kora Models shows it with the suspension of the Czech 38(t). While the prototypes appear to have been with the T-60 suspension (wheels & tracks) was the actual production model to have Romanian made T-60 suspension or 38(t) suspension? Thank you, Stephen |
| Posted by: dragos December 01, 2005 03:21 pm |
| The prototypes from M-00 to M-03 used T-60 suspension, wheels and tracks. M-04: Rogifer suspension and wheels, widened T-60 tracks M-05 and M-06: Rogifer suspension and wheels, CKD LT 38 tracks. |
| Posted by: stephen brezinski December 01, 2005 11:56 pm |
| Thank you for the quick reply. Can you please help me understand what the Rogifer suspension and wheels looked like? Any photos I can see? Thanks Stephen |
| Posted by: sid guttridge December 08, 2005 02:20 pm |
| Hi Stephen, As I understand it, there exist only two photos of the front of the last Maresal prototype and none of the others. Furthermore there are apparently no complete plans of any of the Maresal prototypes. The drawing in "Third Axis, Fourth Ally" is marked "provisional". It uses the front photos mentioned above, but the sides, top and rear seem to be derived from no authoritative source. I would therefore suggest that any model of the vehicle can at best be inspired guess work. Perhaps Kubinka contains more undiscovered details? Cheers, Sid. |
| Posted by: mihnea December 08, 2005 03:35 pm |
| There is a third one, but you you’ll have to wait for the last book in the “Dorobantul” collection about the tanks in the Romanian army. The picture is not much, it is from a distance and the vehicle is moving towards the camera but you can see the right side of the vehicle. The book is going to appear in a few months. I think... |
| Posted by: Dénes December 08, 2005 08:51 pm | ||
Thanks for the info.  I am looking forward for this book, which will certainly fill a significant gap in the Rumanian military historiography. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: mihnea December 08, 2005 09:47 pm | ||
Oops sorry,  corrected the mistake.
I also hope so. |
| Posted by: sid guttridge December 09, 2005 09:25 am |
| Hi Mihnea, Excellent! I look forward to this book too. Cheers, Sid. |
| Posted by: dragos December 26, 2005 05:04 pm |
 The "M 05 Maresal Tank Destroyer" self propelled gun, during a driving test in the "Rogifer" Plant courtyard. Starting from the T 60 Soviet tank chassis, Romanian military and civilian engineers designed a new AFV, with different size and technical performance. It was equiped with the M. 1943, 75 mm. calibre, "Resita" antitank gun. On 23rd of August, 1944, the "0 series" production was in progress. The Germans have copied the model and in 1944 have produced the "Hetzer" tank destroyer self propelled gun at "C.K.D." plants. Bucharest, 1944. (Cristian Craciunoiu collection) Cornel I. Scafes, Horia Vl. Serbanescu, Ioan I. Scafes, "Trupele blindate din Armata Romana 1919-1947", Muzeul Militar National, Bucharest, 2005. |
| Posted by: mabadesc December 26, 2005 05:40 pm | ||
I think the above statement is incorrect. The Hetzer was not a copy of the Maresal. |
| Posted by: dragos December 26, 2005 07:14 pm |
| I don't think they meant a copy of the vehicle itself, but of the conception. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 26, 2005 07:36 pm |
| The design work of the 'Hetzer' was completed in December 1943. On January 24, the full-scale wooden mock up was finished. The first three prototypes rolled off production line in March 1944. Thus it appears that the two designs were developed more or less in parallel, the German-Czech team having a slight headstart. In comparison, the 6-1/2 tonne initial 'Maresal' prototypes had less than half the weight of the 16-tonne 'Hetzer'. It's hard to prove who influenced whom; however, it's quite possible that the information flow was two sided, the Germans acting as "couriers". Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos03 December 26, 2005 07:48 pm |
| The final design of the Hetzer was completed only in January 1944, months after the Maresal prototipes were ready. Besides, the Germans themselves admitted afterwards that they were inspired by the Romanian vehicle. I have a copy of a report made by Col. Davidescu, who accompanied 2 German tank experts (Ventz and Naymann) who came to see the prototype of the Maresal in January 1944. The Germans were very impressed by the vehicle. All the aspects of the Maresal were tested and here are the conclusion of the Germans: 1. Weight. Maresal was considered to have a very good power to weight ratio and very good speed. 2. Armour. The Germans considered that the armour was enough to protect the crew against small arms and Soviet anti-tank rifles. They advised not to increase the armor because the best defence for a vehicle is speed and Maresal had a good speed. They were impressed by the original turtle-shape, low profile and easy to produce. 3. Gun. The Resita gun was considered good enough against any Soviet tank. 4. Ammo on board. Maresal carried less ammo than the Stug's but it was considered enough because the Resita gun had excellent balistic qualities, allowing it to fire more accurately. 5. Engine. Good. 6. Crew. It seems that Maresal had an original driving system allowing the driver to steer the vehicle with his feet and aim the gun with his hands, at the same time. The Germans were very intrigued by this system, requested several tests on the field and even drived the Maresal themselves. The verdict was that this system was effective and allowed the Maresal to have a only 2-man crew. Ventz said: "It is incredible that you found a way to reduce the crew, we failed to find such a solution all those years." 7. Off-road performance. The Germans thought that the distance to the ground is too low and requested several tests in muddy terrain but the Maresal performed well. Before leaving, the 2 officers said that Maresal is a very good AFV and they learned a lot from it. Ventz said that after Romania will have 1000 Maresals the Romanian army will be much more effective, and the Maresal will prove to be "ein grosser Hetzer" for the Russians. |
| Posted by: johnny_bi December 26, 2005 07:54 pm |
| Incredibly low profile... almost a toy. |
| Posted by: mabadesc December 26, 2005 09:11 pm | ||
Doesn't this imply, however, that the Hetzer was already in existence while trials were barely being carried out for the Maresal? |
| Posted by: dragos December 26, 2005 09:54 pm | ||
The first prototype of Maresal, M 00, was tested at Suditi trial grounds on 30 July 1943. Hitler approved the development of the "Hetzer" project on 7 December 1943. During the same month Romania presented the Germans the blueprints of the M 04 prototype. In May 1944, Lt.Col. Ventz, the delegate of Waffen Amt, declared that the Hetzer followed the Romanian solutions. |
| Posted by: dragos December 26, 2005 09:59 pm | ||||
The first protoype of Maresal was completed months before the project of Hetzer was approved (see above). However it is true and logical that it took longer to Romanians to put the Maresal into production than to Germans to start the production line for Hetzer. |
| Posted by: dragos03 December 26, 2005 10:22 pm |
| In the report, "ein grosser hetzer" was translated as "un adversar suparator" (an annoying opponent) [for the Russians]. "Hetzer" was not an official name for the German vehicle anyway. |
| Posted by: mihnea December 26, 2005 10:49 pm |
| Comparison of the Stug III, Hetzer and Maresal, at the same scale. http://imageshack.us This drawing was posted some time ago on http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=70126&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=maresal&start=15 |
| Posted by: Dénes December 26, 2005 11:14 pm |
| Since I am hardly an expert in armour, I sent the question to one of the top experts of the topic, Dr. Charles Kliment, who authored several books on this very subject. I will post his answer as soon as I'll receive it. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos03 December 26, 2005 11:37 pm |
| Did Mr. Kliment ever study the Romanian archives? |
| Posted by: Dénes December 27, 2005 01:10 am |
| I don't think so. However, he did study extensively the Czech and German archives. And he co-authored a book on the Hetzer, which should give him some credibility. But let's wait for his answer first. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino December 27, 2005 03:57 am | ||
1000 tanks like that ... Wow!!! ( Source Steel Master ) http://imageshack.us |
| Posted by: mihnea December 27, 2005 02:18 pm |
| Here is the same picture that dragos has posted but of a better quality. http://img368.imageshack.us/my.php?image=xii63px.jpg Suorce: "Trupele Blindate din armata romana 1919-1947" Cornel I. Scafes, Horia Vl. Serbanescu, Ioan I. Scafes. |
| Posted by: C-2 December 27, 2005 02:49 pm |
No MG on the Maresal????  |
| Posted by: mihnea December 27, 2005 03:09 pm | ||
There is one good reason not to put one in the Maresal: the two man crew had already many tasks: finding targets, aiming, loading, driving and others, so operating an MG was too much. |
| Posted by: mabadesc December 27, 2005 03:21 pm | ||
Dragos03, Quite possible, but in the report, the wording is "ein grosser Hetzer" - with capital H. The phrase /un adversar suparator/ could be a personal comment added by the narrator, not a direct translation. Also, isn't the statement incomplete? "...vinatorul de care Maresal....va fi un agitator mai mare pentru rusi" (ein grosser Hetzer) The comparison is missing - mai mare decit ce? Could it be that Ventz and Haymann are talking about "ein grosser Hetzer", meaning - a larger version of the Hetzer? It's quite possible that I'm missing something, but I don't know what. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 27, 2005 03:56 pm | ||
Here is the answer I received from Mr. Kliment, regarding the 'Maresal' vs. the 'Hetzer':
Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos03 December 27, 2005 04:29 pm |
| As i suspected from the start, Mr. Kliment's opinion is irrelevant in this case. Maybe you could tell him that the Germans recieved the plans of Maresal in December 1943 and that two officers from the Hetzer's design team saw a working prototype of Maresal before they completed the drawings for the German vehicle. Anyway, i think this debate is pointless, since Ventz himself admitted later that they used some of Maresal's features in the Hetzer. |
| Posted by: dragos December 27, 2005 04:29 pm |
| Denes, it is now clear that for Mr. Kliment the subject Maresal is pretty obscure given the inaccuracies he wrote*, but when he stated that he does not know of any direct contacts between the Romanian and German design teams it appears that he does not even had at hand the work "Third Axis Fourth Ally" by Mark Axworthy, a more credible source on this subject since the author documented with the help of Romanian historians and archives. *) "The second accepted prototype M-05 was based on 38(t) chassis, and had the Renault tank engine and gear box" M-05 chassis: Rogifer Engine: Hotchkiss H-39 Gear box: Hotchkiss "The BMM design team started working on the Hetzer in October 1943, at the same time the Romanian construction team started with the early M-01 - M-03 prototypes." The Romanian technicians started the research on the to-be-called "Maresal" project in the end of 1942, and the M-00 prototype was ready for testing on 30 July 1943. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 27, 2005 05:49 pm | ||
I am not aware of Mr. Kliment's sources. I quoted his reply ad verbatim. However, as per your request, I will make sure to convey him exactly what you've said. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Victor December 27, 2005 06:13 pm | ||
The section on the Romanian armor from Third Axis, Fourth ALly was wrote by Cornel Scafes, I believe, who is the probably the no. 1 authority on the subject of Romanian armored vehicle construction. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 28, 2005 01:39 am | ||||
Here is his reply to your post:
Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Dénes December 28, 2005 01:42 am | ||||||||
Here is his reply to your post:
Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos December 28, 2005 10:41 am |
| Whether Hetzer was better than Maresal or not, this was not our topic. However, Mr. Kliment admitted he was wrong so I consider the case closed. |
| Posted by: dragos03 December 28, 2005 01:37 pm |
| I think that a historian who co-authored a book about the Hetzer should really know more about Maresal. |
| Posted by: sid guttridge December 28, 2005 05:36 pm |
| Hi Guys, Fascinating thread. According to my dictionary, the German word "Hetzer" (with a capital "H", unlike other non-nouns with the same root like the verb "hetzen") means "baiter, instigator, agitator, rabble rouser" in English. I would therefore suggest that it fits into the context that Dragos 03 offers, especially as the Maresal was not "grosser" than the conceptually similar but bigger German Hetzer. Charles Kliment is a very respected researcher with at least three decades of specialist armour publications behind him, so his opinions are of some weight. He is very much an authority on non-Romanian evidence, especially Czech, and any comparison he draws between the likely performance of the Maresal and Hetzer is definitely worth listening to. However, if new information is emerging from Romanian archives, then even his knowledge may be behind the times. In any event, Denes is to be congratulated in getting an important expert to contribute to the debate here. It is, of course, of particular interest to Romanians, if not to others, if their engineers had an influence on weapons design in one of the major powers. If the Maresal did influence the design of the Hetzer it offers no more than an interesting minor footnote to general military history, but it necessarily figures rather larger to Romanians, whose conception the Maresal was. However one looks at it, the Maresal seems a very creditable design solution to a difficult technical problem using limited resources, and the more we know about it the better! More please! Cheers, Sid. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 28, 2005 05:57 pm | ||
Mr. Kliment certainly is an expert in armour, particularly Czech-made; hence my effort to obtain his point of view (which is definitely not "irrelevant", as it has been implied) regarding this controversial topic, to the benefit of this forum. I had the pleasure to know him personally while visiting him at his home in New Jersey, where we spent many hours with highly interesting talks on topics of mutual interest. A very knowledgeable and interesting gentleman, I might add. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Jeff_S December 28, 2005 07:18 pm |
| I too have enjoyed this thread. It's good to improve the level of scholarship on the forum occasionally. Even better when the expertise comes from New Jersey (my home state) Does anyone know the rationale behind the 2-man crew on the Maresal? Was it an allowance for the general manpower shortage afflicting the Romanian Army at that time? Or was it to allow the vehicle to be made smaller? (Or both of these...or something else). I can't think of a successful tank (or tank destroyer, assault gun, etc.) with a 2-man crew. There are simply too many things to do when a tank is in combat. |
| Posted by: mihnea December 28, 2005 09:11 pm | ||
The two man crew might have been the big fault in the design of the Maresal, but because it never saw action we will never know the real answer to this question, but we can presume. So this is my opinion: A two man crew would be easier and cheaper to train; a bigger crew will mean more space in the hull that was already cramped, a longer time for training and a longer time to replace. |
| Posted by: Jeff_S December 28, 2005 09:44 pm | ||||
How so? With a small crew, each member of the crew must train on more tasks.
But bigger crews are better able to absorb casualties and continue to function. For example in a 4-man crew (commander, gunner, loader, driver), the loader can train as a gunner, the commander can drive, and so on. Lose one crew member and you still have an effective vehicle. That's harder to do with a 3-man crew, and impossible with 2. But you're right about the space, and larger vehicles are easier to hit. Bigger crews also raise the cost of a catastrophic hit (one that kills the vehicle and all the crew). |
| Posted by: Dénes December 28, 2005 09:49 pm | ||
In this respect, I think we should consider Mr. Kliment's educated observation, posted earlier:
Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: mihnea December 28, 2005 10:13 pm | ||||
The driver was steering with the pedals so he was also the loader.  I don’t think the Maresal had a radio!? But I am not sure about this. |
| Posted by: mihnea December 28, 2005 10:37 pm | ||||||
By the last years of war the chances of only one crew member to be hit diminished, because the antitank rifles that could injure only one crew member were used in smaller and smaller numbers, there place being taken by the big number of AT guns in Russians case and the many small antitank weapons developed by the Germans (panzerfaust series, and panzerschreck). All of the new weapons tended to explode inside the vehicle. |
| Posted by: sid guttridge December 29, 2005 02:36 pm |
| Hi Guys, I doubt the 2-man crew had anything to do with manpower shortages. The crewing of Maresals would have been a priority and would have over ridden almost any other army manpower demands. I suspect the 2-man crew is due to the limitations of Romanian industry and the limited availability of imported components within German-occupied Europe by 1944. These factors restricted the size of any armoured vehicles the Romanians were likely to be able to produce, with a knock-on impact on crewing. I guess the Romanians went for the minimum crew they could get away with. At half the weight but with similar armament, the Maresal necessarily had to make some sacrifices compared with the Hetzer. In order to justify its existence the Maresal simply had to be better than the alternative - a Resita 75mmm gun and tractor combination. However, at half the weight but with similar main armament, the Maresal necessarily had to make some sacrifices compared with the Hetzer. Cheers, Sid. P.S. I think it highly unlikely the Maresal would have had no radio. |
| Posted by: Kosmo January 04, 2006 09:14 am |
| In view of what Mr. Kliment said (and I thank him for being so gracious) I made some suppositions: If Maresal was designed first then Hetzer a and had some better designs b we should expect the germans to copy them. As we know they did not copy most things so we can say that either a or b are untrue (or both). The two advantages of Maresal are unsure. First the size of the crew seems to be too small as later war tank designs had more man than the first models (like T-34/85 compared with earlier versions) It is true that I saw on TV the design of a contemporary british tank killer with a 3 man crew that can be operated by just one man, but is different tehnology. To see that high speed was considered better then front armor is news for me. Tank killers are supposed to surprise the enemy firing from camuflaged and hull defilade positions. In this case a thick front armor would defend better against enemy fire while speed will be important just to get in time to/off position. |
| Posted by: dragos January 04, 2006 07:01 pm | ||
Nobody here said that Maresal was better in design than Hetzer, just that the German engineers inspired from the design of Maresal in developing Hetzer. Given the industrial capacity and the resources of Germany, they could make a better weapon. They had a production line for LT vz.38 tanks at disposal at the CKD factories in Czeckoslovakia, from which they used the chassis. Romanians had nothing of that kind, this is why their solution looked so stingy. And the fact that the work on Maresal started before Hetzer is already well documented and no reason to debate. |
| Posted by: mihnea January 05, 2006 09:08 am | ||
OFF TOPIC: JS-2, built at the end of the war, had a crew of 4 man crew (and a huge 122mm gun), no hull-machine gunner/radio operator, it was one of the first tanks that had no hull machine gun. |
| Posted by: mabadesc January 06, 2006 04:12 am |
| Some interesting facts about the Hetzer, according to the book "PzKpfw 38 (t) in action", Squadron/Signal Publications, 1979. The first 23 production-line Hetzers were manufactured in April 1944 and were issued to a new PanzerJager Battalion in July 1944.a In September 1944, SKODA also started producing Hetzers. Until March 1945, a total of 2584 were built. There were also 20 FlammPanzer Hetzer (flamethrowers). Furthermore, Hetzer variants which were equipped with 150mm howitzers, 88mm cannons, and BergeHetzers were also produced and saw action late in the war. Hungary received 100 Hetzers (50 in Nov. '44 and 50 in Jan. '45). Hetzers were used by the Czechoslovak and Swiss armies until the late '60's. |
| Posted by: dragos03 January 14, 2006 08:28 pm |
| Here is a translation of the paragraph from the mentioned report regarding the Maresal's two-man crew: "To allow the vehicle to aim easier, the Maresal tank destroyer has an inversed way of steering, different from other armored vehicles: it is steered by applying the breaks on the two tracks with the feets and not with the hands. This system allows the vehicle to be steered even when the gunner/driver has its hands occupied with the aiming mechanisms. [...] The two German specialists considered the system is ingenious and examined it carefully for a long time. Lt. Colonel Haymann went inside the vehicle to see it working and asked for a straight drive on a concrete alley in order to see how sensitive the breakes are when used with the feets. The second inovation, the combination of the acceleration with the de-clutch ("debreiaj", i don't know the English term for it), was also carefully studied. The Maresal tank destroyer has only a two-man crew: a gunner/driver and a loader/transmissionist. The idea behing the small crew was: the driver doesn't shoot while driving and doesn't drive while shooting, except for steering the vehicle in order to aim from a static position. [...] The German specialists didn't criticise this innovation. Quite the opposite: Lt. Colonel Ventz asked: how did you fing this solution to combine tasks in order to reduce the crew, we are also trying to find such a solution. However, both specialists pointed out that battery commanders, section commanders and skilled NCOs will have to be used for the position of gunner/driver. The two crew members must have enough space to perform their combined tasks, more space than in the current tanks, where the crew members have separate tasks. Maresal has enough space available." |
| Posted by: dragos April 13, 2006 04:56 pm |
Here is the complete report. MILITARY CABINET of STATE LEADER Nr.201.005 TOP SECRET ??.4.1944 GENERAL STAFF - Cabinet - I have the honor to bring to your attention that the two German specialists, Lieutenant-Colonel Ventz and Naymann, who came to study the tank destroyer and the self-propelled howitzer, built by the Military Cabinet at Malaxa Workshops, made the following assertions: 1. Considerations on the tank destroyer. Lt.-Col. Ventz from the Waffen-Amt, the architect of the improvisation “Hornisse” (88mm anti-tank gun mounted on the Mark III tank on top of the chassis, in the place of turret) and a modern tank destroyer, based on “Panther”, presently in construction, declared that his report regarding the “Maresal” tank destroyer will be positive. As a first consequence, he will propose to Berlin that in 8-10 days a construction engineer to be dispatched, in order to assist us in perfecting the details. Lt.-Col. Haymann, from the OKH, affirmed his belief that the Romanian Army, when it will have one thousand of such tank destroyers at disposition, will have a considerably greater combat strength. In his opinion, “Maresal” tank destroyer, mobile, with great operating range and armed with a powerful anti-tank gun, will be “ein grosser Hetzer” (a troubling enemy) for the Russians. He also added: General Guderian wishes to have units of tank destroyers, to be able to throw them wherever the enemy launches an armored attack; once this attack being weakened, these units reorganized in the rear, being ready to intervene in another threatened area. The presented tank destroyer, light, fast, with reduced fuel consumption and great range, has the qualities needed for such a role. The opinion of Lt.-Col. Haymann is that the mobility characteristics of “Maresal” tank destroyer should be kept, and the temptation of increasing the armor protection should be resisted. As relative value, both specialists - after examining also the two improvisations of tank destroyers, based on: the ex-Russian light tank T.60 and the R.2 tank, armed with Russian 76.2 anti-tank gun - have classified the various anti-tank motorized weapons in the following manner: 1) Tank destroyer special built for this role, 2) Sturmgeschutz armed with anti-tank gun, 3) Tank armed with anti-tank gun, 4) Tank destroyer improvised by mounting an anti-tank gun on the chassis of a tank, in the place of turret, 5) Towed anti-tank gun. Referring to the two tank destroyers improvised from the T.60 and R.2 tanks, Lt.-Col. Ventz said: “50% is better than nothing”. Lt.-Col. Haymann: “in spite the solution being an improvisation, it is better than the towed anti-tank gun”. Lt.-Col. Haymann, when asked on the ratio of engines that should be used for the tank destroyer and the auxiliary vehicles (command, supply, security vehicles) he said firmly: given the evolution of the Russian tanks, none of the ordered Hotchkiss engines should be used for anything else than tank destroyers. As command vehicles, Horch, Stoewer and other all-terrain vehicles can be employed, while for supply 3-ton trucks are adequate, by replacing the rear axles with a simple track, a model that can be delivered and adapted for any model of truck. As factory priority, both agreed that the building of the tank destroyer should be top of the list, being a solution superior to any other anti-tank systems. In detail, the observations of the German specialists were the following: a) Weight. Given the power of the engine (15-16 hp/ton), the mobility was found very advantageous. Even if Lt.-Col. Ventz said that the armor of a light tank destroyer must offer protection only against Russian anti-tank guns, and any increase in armor is inutile, if the armor plates is not 80-100 mm thick, therefor prohibitive weight, he would favor a slightly thicker armor for our tank destroyer, this being certainly the requests of the crews after the first engagements. Lt.-Col. Haymann did not agree with thicker armor, because it would result in a heavier vehicle, therefor a reduced mobility, its essential feature. b) Protection. A tank destroyer can often be found in the enemy lines, either amid infantry supported by anti-tank guns, or tanks armed both with anti-tank guns and machineguns. Ideally, the tank destroyer should be able to withstand this fire from every direction. The German heavy tank destroyer resists the Russian 76.2 anti-tank gun from the distance, even up to 100 m, but it’s weight is 47 t and becomes a moving plant; for a light tank destroyer protection against bullets, shrapnel and anti-tank rifles is sufficient. The conclusion is that while the heavy tank destroyer has unlimited use, in principle the light one should not overpass the lines of friendly infantry or armor. In combat the tank destroyer exposes its front, this must be better armored. The German heavy tank destroyer the frontal armor plate is 80 mm thick and an inclination of 35; “Maresal” tank destroyer has a 20 mm thick frontal armor plate at a more favorable inclination of 25. Lt.-Col. Ventz proposed that its thickness to be increased to 30 mm, which will be attempted after evaluating the effect of fire of the Russian 45 mm anti-tank gun that will took place at Suditi trial grounds. The thickness of the side armor plates must be about 1/3 of the front plate. The Germans have a tank destroyer with 50 mm in front, while only 15 mm on the sides. We were advised to keep the actual thickness of … mm for the side armor plates. The shape of the hull was found to be very simple and very successful. Lt.-Col. Haymann compared it with the shape of a turtle, low profile, hardly detectable from the distance and easy to build. c) Armament The 75-mm D.T.U.D.R. anti-tank gun is considered powerful enough, even against the T-34 tank. The following observations on its setting were made: - The horizontal field of fire of 15 degrees is very good; the German heavy tank destroyer has a horizontal field of fire of 30 degrees, but given the ease of turning “Maresal” in direction, the 15 degrees are considered as very sufficient; it could be even reduced if required by other needs; - The vertical field of fire was considered sufficient: +10 and -5; the German tank destroyer has -8 because of its notably higher ground clearance; - The clearance should be increased in order to avoid hitting the ground with the barrel while crossing trenches and …. . This will be accomplished by raising the frame with 18 cm (suspension raised with 10 cm and the side traverses inside the chassis lowered with 8 cm) - Retreating the gun inside the hull with 20-30 cm, as suggested by Lt.-Col. Ventz, is not possible because of the loader position, only mounting a special anti-tank gun like the Germans did could achieve this request. - Placing the gun on a special mount was found good; we were advised to research the possibility of placing a cardanic suspension, between the armor plate and the floor of the chassis (we will receive blueprints). This idea can be conveniently used to place a light machinegun in the armor plate, near the gun; - Taking out the gun for repairing only after lifting the armor plates was found as unpractical. But as the repairing take place only at mobile workshops, lifting a hull of 1.5 tons is not a problem for these workshops. To make possible taking out the gun through the hull would mean weakening the hull or complicating the design. - The exhaust of the gasses resulted from the firing is made by the Germans with the help of a special ventilator. If the exhaust produced by the Hotchkiss engine’s ventilator would not prove sufficient, we will mount an electric ventilator. d) Ammunition The German improvised tank destroyers, which are armed with 75-mm guns, carries up to 70 rounds. “Maresal” tank destroyer will carry 45 rounds. The speed and low profile of our vehicle, as well as the higher muzzle velocity of our shell, allows firing at closer range and with greater accuracy, therefor a lower ammunition consumption. e) Engine and transmission, were found as very good. The transmission fared very well at the trial consisting of starting up on a slope of about 30. f) Manning the tank destroyer In order to allow a better aiming of the tank destroyer, the steering implemented for “Maresal” is contrary to the one of the actual tanks: the direction is changed by braking the two tracks with the legs (not with the hands). This system allows changing the direction of the vehicle even when the gunner (which is also driver) has the two hands busy with the handles for elevation and traverse (when stopping, the driver switches to first gear and declutches - braking with both legs; any lifting of one of the legs causes the rotation of the vehicle in the opposite direction). The system was found ingenious by the two German specialists and it was examined with a lot of attention and thoroughly. Lt.-Col. Haymann entered the tank in order to see it running and asked driving on a straight line across a paved road to see the sensitivity of the vehicles at braking the tracks with the legs. The second innovation, the combination of declutch with the acceleration, was the object of a same careful examination. g) Crew “Maresal” tank destroyer has a crew of two men only: a driver-gunner and radio operator-loader. The basic idea was: the driver does not fire while driving and he does not drive while firing (except when changing the vehicle’s orientation, which is accomplished only by using the legs, in case of a moving target). Lt.-Col. Ventz declared that a German constructor presented a fairly similar project of combining the roles of crew, but it was rejected. He provided the combination of gunner and loader functions, though. No criticism was brought to this innovation. Even more, Lt.-Col. Ventz asked: how did you manage to find a solution to the problem of combining roles for reducing the crew, an issue we are also researching? Both specialists pointed that for the role of driver-gunner should be used battery commanders, section commanders and NCOs. The two crew members should have enough room for conducting their combined tasks in good order, more than the cramped space of the actual tanks, where everybody has a separate function. “Maresal” tank destroyer complies with this requirement. h) Suspension and tracks There is nothing to remark for the suspension. For the track, even having a ground pressure quotient of 0.6, and at the German tanks it goes up to 0.9 and even 1, we were recommended to widen it. For this purpose we will try to use the track of a 38 T tank brought from Crimea. As the ground clearance was found to be too small (30 cm) we were advised to raise it to 40 cm. In order to prove us that the actual clearance is too small, Lt.-Col. Ventz asked to make three full turns in place, operation that was supposed to mire the vehicle, due to the earth gathered underneath it. Even if the ground was soft, the tank destroyer turned three times in one direction and three times in the other, and then left, leaving behind deep ditches and a pile of turned up soil. The track of the Russian tank T.60 proved to be very good: it does not gather earth and it does not produce detracking by sticking sideways into the ground at turns. We were recommended to reconsider the distance between the track and its guard, where earth could pile up. After driving in soft, moist and partially snowy ground, as well as in an autumn plowed field, all done with ease, Lt.-Col. Haymann declared: such a small and mobile vehicle (ein solches kleiness Ding so beweglich) I have never seen before. i) Organization in units The two specialists provided the following organization: The tank destroyers are to be organized in independent groups (battalions) at the disposition of higher HQ. The commander drives behind in an all-terrain vehicle equipped with a radio on 2-3 channels: one for the HQ, another one for the companies, and - if possible - a third one for the tank destroyers. Beside him a small command group, in all-terrain vehicles. The battalion is to be organized on 3 companies, the company on 3 sections, each section with 3 tank destroyers. Company commanders and section commanders have their own tank destroyers. The tank destroyers of company commanders should have one more radio operator (if possible) for communication with the battalion, by reducing the ammunition on board. For the fighting trains, all-terrain trucks are to be used. The battalion has a regimental train, which could be split among companies if needed. j) Conclusions The true opinion of the 2 specialists on “Maresal” tank destroyer is not known. By some estimation we could deduce their valuation of our achievement. In our discussions, Lt.-Col. Ventz, speaking about the ingenuity of Romanians, regretted that the German mentality, by means of keeping secret their achievements, prevents collaborations that could be useful to the German industry itself. The interest that was shown by the 2 specialists for the tank destroyer was constantly vivid. Especially the innovations were carefully examined and they repeatedly requested explanations on their origin and development (inverted steering, clutch combined with acceleration, combined roles of the crew, ammunition storage, placement of the gun on the lower part of the hull). The impression of specialists was that the 2 German officers had more lessons to take than to give, judging by their questions and remarks. This can be concluded also from the comparison with the most recent German tank destroyer, armed with 88-mm anti-tank gun, therefor superior with one class over our 75-mm D.T.U.D.R. anti-tank gun, and which has ... tons, over the 7.5 tons of our tank destroyer. Questioned about an industrial collaboration for fulfilling the needs of the German and Romanian armies, for mass production of the “Maresal” tank destroyer, the German specialists replied that they are not empowered for such arrangements. Nevertheless, at our request they promised we would receive official answers, through the constructor that will come, to some of the technical questions. By amiability, Lt.-Col. Ventz confessed that Waffen-Amt would not consent to answer all of our questions, but by their willingness to help and in return for the attention they were welcomed, the German officers promised they would offer verbal and confidential answers to the rest of our questions, through our military attaché. Both specialists intervened by Colonel Assmann, from the German military mission, and Colonel Busch, from the German economic mission, to offer full support for building the tank destroyer, by deliveries of raw materials and German products. For the components that are made in Germany only, such us the rubber coated ratchets for the suspension, we received no formal promise. We are to receive the answer via Colonel Busch on the possibilities of delivery. For training the armor welders we are offered a course of 8 days with the latest technique of the German industry. It is still to find out what these 2 specialists reported to General Hansen, whom they saw before their departure, in a 15 minutes audience. He will be questioned with the occasion of his visit at the Malaxa factories, this week. 2. The self-propelled howitzer. The documentation for the self-propelled howitzer (annexed) presented to the 2 German specialists was found judiciously prepared. The German Army has such self-propelled howitzers of 150 mm caliber (old model) mounted on the chassis of the Czech tank C.K.D.-38 T. Presently they are still employed in Italy, as tracked artillery (Sebsfahrlafett) organized in independent groups (battalions), at the disposition of HQ. The solution answers to the need for motorization of the artillery by mounting the cannons on self-propelled chassis, solution that is superior to the old procedure of towing the cannons. The low ground clearance of our self-propelled howitzer was found advantageous; the Russian 122-mm howitzer was considered adequate: its relative short range does not constitute an inconvenient, since the assault artillery is required to execute direct fire, so at short distances. The ensemble is conceived in such way that this howitzer can be used both for the static defense of a front and for the preparation of an attack against a defiladed position. The maximum gun elevation angle of 23 degrees allows a range of about 6500 meters, and the panoramic sight allows indirect fire. Loading the heavy shells, with separate propellant charge, justifies the increasing in crew from 2 to 3 or even 4, being plenty of room. The separation of the roles of gunner and driver was also found justified, given the great importance of the gunner, which has to deal with hardly detectable objectives: camouflaged casemates, improvised automatic weapons emplacements on the ground etc (unlike the tank destroyer, whose objectives have tall profile and are easy to spot). We were recommended to provide the self-propelled howitzer with a (large?) number of rounds, because the tonnage does not play any role: the movement of the self-propelled howitzer does demand neither swiftness nor crossing heavy obstacles that cannot be taken sideways. The storage of ammunition on the top side of the engine being inevitable, a good thermal isolation is required in order not to affect the temperature of the propellant charges, and therefor the range of the shells. The employment of self-propelled howitzers, said the specialists, must be well known by the troops, that are to receive their support. The howitzer must have HE shells for its usual missions. But as any cannon, it must have a small percent of Hohlladung shells for protection against tanks (these shells are to be fired at ranges up to the muzzle velocity of the shell, which is 400 m). Therefor, when dealing with tanks, the self-propelled howitzer should act defensively and it should search for cover or concealment, in order not to be spotted before the enemy tank enters its effective range. It is a mistake to have these pieces, in case of an enemy tank attack, “forward” (Panzer vor), by employing them in this manner, pushed offensively in the tank battle, they would be easily destroyed because of their insufficient protection (15 mm) and their characteristic visible profile. This mistake is common in the German Army and they are trying hard to repair it. The opinion of the German specialists is that the 122 and 150-mm howitzers should not be mounted on the chassis equipped with Hotchkiss engine until the needs for tank destroyers would be fulfilled. Since this year there are chances to have the 1000 engines which have been ordered, but 500 anti-tank guns only, it will be decided during production which purpose will serve the available chassis. They receive: - other type of anti-tank gun, German for example; - the 75-mm Vickers AA gun, fitted as anti-tank gun; - 122 or 150 mm howitzers. 3. Various information. a) Russian armor. The 2 German officers declare that both in technical quality and in quantity, the Russian armor is superior. The Russian T.34 tank cannot be matched by the German industry because of its light engine, of aircraft type, built of light metals. Germany does not posses such metals therefor she cannot build light yet powerful engines. The German tanks are trying to counter this inferiority by employing a more powerful gun, improved interior installations and a better trained, conscious and disciplined crew. Regarding the value of the Russian 76.2 gun that arms the T.34 tank, the German officers admit that, having a shorter barrel and no muzzle break, its power is inferior to the 75 mm German gun. But it has the advantage to fire the same shell as the field cannon or as the anti-aircraft gun, an advantage of capital importance in this war. The unification made by the Russians in the armament, engineering, aviation, is of an unimagined utility besides the diversity of models that the German army fights with. Considering this, Lt.-Col. Ventz expressed his concern that our anti-tank gun wouldn’t be able to accept German ammunition. The Russians produce only the T.34 tank. The K.W.1 and K.W.2 stopped being produced. The Russian prisoners talked about 100 tons tanks, but they weren’t seen and their tonnage seem to limit their utility. Regarding the production capacity of T.34 tanks, no figure can be given. It is known only that the Russian specialists, arrived in Germany in 1940 to receive the plans for the German tanks M.III and M.IV (in accordance with the agreement from august 1939) have asked to be shown the factories, not only the experimental workshops (which were in fact minuscule compared to the Russian ones). The Russian self-propelled howitzer, put together by placing a 122-mm howitzer upon the T.34 tank chassis, is little valuable: too tall, few ammunition and rudimentary installation. On the other hand, a recent Russian assault gun is successful and dangerous. b) German armor. The latest modified M.IV tanks, Tiger and Panther, are superior to the Russian tanks, according to the German specialists, as a sum of their qualities. Among the German armored units it is noticed a preference for the assault gun (Sturmgeschutz), more than for the tank. The assault gun, having no turret, carries a gun of a caliber superior to the one of the tank of equal tonnage, offers a smaller profile and has fewer chances to be hit. The tank finds its typical utility only in the big armored units called to penetrate deep in the battlefield and fight in unexpected situations. In all the other cases, the assault gun, which resembles a bit with “Maresal” tank destroyer although it has a weaker armor, has a much large utility. c) Anti-tank ammunition. The unit reports from the German front shows that the Hohlladung shell loses its importance. The troop prefers the armor piercing shell that gives a more reliable effect. The divisional artillery has and uses the Hohlladung shell to protect itself when attacked by tanks at short range. d) The progress of war. Germany makes great efforts into the armor, new weapons (about which we have no knowledge) and aircraft areas. Although air raids hit some of the factories, the reconstruction began the very next day. Yet we can expect neither these weapons nor those assembled on the coast of the Channel to be decisive. It is only believed that the Russians won’t be able to continue the attrition war forever and that Germany will be able to defeat them only after the Russian’s shortages and straggling weaken the strength of its army. Lt.-Col. Ventz, without showing any concern for the German army potential, believes that if it hadn’t been so many German units scattered across Europe, the Russians could have been defeated in 4-5 months. Lt.-Col. Haymann, although thoughtful when told about the progress of war, says that, with the help of new weapons, the new light and heavy German bombers and with the reprisals upon England, the chances for Germany to win the war increase. CHIEF OF MILITARY CABINET Colonel R. Davidescu |
| Posted by: dragos03 April 14, 2006 03:52 pm |
| There was another German officer who admitted that Hetzer was inspired by the Maresal, engineer Wohlrath from Alket. He said (in May 1944): "for 2 years we have been trying to design a good, lightweight and well-armed tank destroyer. We couldn't find the right solution, but you found it." |
| Posted by: mabadesc April 14, 2006 06:01 pm |
| Dragos, what is the source for your quote? Thanks. |
| Posted by: Dénes April 14, 2006 06:09 pm | ||
I fail to see how the above quote proves that the Hetzer was inspired by the Maresal.  Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos03 April 14, 2006 06:17 pm | ||||
Yeah, right, even when Ventz specifically admitted that Hetzer was inspired by the Romanian vehicle. Of course, all of these quotes don't prove anything...  Mabadesc, the source for my quote is an article published in "Buletinul Muzeului Militar National", Nr. 2, 2004. The article is "The Maresal tank destroyer" by Cornel I. Scafes and the quote is from an original document. |
| Posted by: Dénes April 14, 2006 06:42 pm |
Dragos03, you didn't answer my question: how the above quote of yours proves that the Hetzer was inspired by the Maresal?  Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos03 April 14, 2006 06:48 pm |
| It's obvious. In May 1944, when Hetzer was already produced while Maresal was starting production, this German engineer admitted the Romanians wer the first to design such a project. If the Hetzer wouldn't have been inspired by the Maresal, Wohlrath would have said something like: "it's a good design, we also have a similar one (the Hetzer)." |
| Posted by: Iamandi February 27, 2008 01:32 pm |
| "In June of 1944, Germans also proposed to produce Flakpanzer Maresal. " From Achtungpanzer site. Anyone knows what AAA was planned to be used on this vechicle? Iama |
| Posted by: Iamandi August 30, 2008 09:18 pm |
| What firms where selected to provide parts for building Maresal? Who was able to make armor plates in Romania at that time? Because from what i know to this momment, we used russian armor plates from russian captured tanks. One thousand tank destoryers sounds good, but who was able to make Lt-38 chassies? I ask this questions because, pre-ww2 to Romania was provided one broken down AH-IV and Malaxa can't make all that parts and the planned tankette serial production in Romania was cut from the wish list. About Maresal hull, what was the method to produce it? I think it wans't a casted one... So, welding? Or rivetted armor plates? Thank you, Iama |
| Posted by: MMM December 21, 2008 04:33 pm | ||
Nope! The Hetzer was only on the drawing boards then. However, I kinda fail to see the importance of who were the first to design it, as it was a "mutant", made from different parts from different vehicles. We might say "a typical Romanian improvisation"...  But everybody else did stuff like that! |
| Posted by: mabadesc December 29, 2008 12:02 am |
| Guys, The germans had multiple projects of transforming various tank platforms into tank destroyers. The idea of using 38(t), pz I, pzII, pzIII, pzIV, V and VI chassis and transforming them into tank destroyers was well recognized and developed in Germany. Multiple parallel experimental projects and variants were in process. I have the same archival report from Dragos03 - I believe we obtained it at the same time, several years ago. It's interesting, but IMO quite inconclusive in establishing whether the German technical envoy - Ventz - was "inspired" by the idea of the "Maresal". Let's not forget the industrial capacity of Germany vs. Romania, and the number of projects the Germans had in producing prototypes of light, maneouvreable tank destroyers. Regardless, the Hetzer (whether "inspired" or not by the "Maresal") went into production (though too late in the war) and was very effective on the battlefield and ended up being used by the Swiss army until the 1970's. Were it not for the Hetzer, the Jagdpanzer IV (also reaching production too late), was very effective as well on the battlefield. The Maresal had the misfortune of not making it to production, unfortunately. In any case, let's keep things in perspective, however. I find the archival document very inconclusive and insufficient in establishing that the Germans inspired themselves after the Maresal. In any case, if it they did or not, the production of a light and nimble tank destroyer was a high priority on Guderian's list and it would have been developed anyway. No offence intended regarding the Romanian know-how, we had some smart and innovative engineers, but the country's industrial capacity for mass production of armored vehicles was limited at best. |
| Posted by: brano January 16, 2011 08:18 pm |
| Hi guys, i have question for M-06. Existing this prototype ? Your specifications... ? Existing summary for all prototypes in publications, website ...? Weight, lenght, wide etc....more data ? THX Braňo |
| Posted by: MMM January 17, 2011 02:55 pm | ||
I don't know how to put it, but even this is an optimistic approach! @brano: check out this forum, search the terms and you'll get a result! |
| Posted by: Alanmccoubrey January 18, 2011 02:46 pm | ||||
If this was taking place in Jnuary 1944 then the Ventz might well have been aware of the developement of the Jagdpanzer 38 but as it certainly wasn't called the "Hetzer" by the Germans yet why would he say such a thing unless he meant the proper meaning of the German word "Hetzer", which is "trouble maker". So perhaps Ventz just meant that the Maresal would cause the Russians a lot of trouble ? |
| Posted by: ANDREAS July 21, 2012 01:20 pm |
| TACAB M 06 plans from april 1944 found on the Internet, on a russian site: http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/users/user7914/tacab_armour_plan_by_wingsofwrath-d3dhrbt.jpg http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/users/user7914/tacab_general_plan_by_wingsofwrath-d3dhr12.jpg |
| Posted by: muggs July 21, 2012 02:18 pm |
| If i remember correctly these are fantasy drawings made for a game. |
| Posted by: Dénes July 21, 2012 02:25 pm |
| If these are fantasy drawings, they are done with a great amount of authenticity. They can easily fool anyone, even specialist ones. This is partly a compliment, partly a warning to a potentially dangerous situation of faking history. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos July 21, 2012 04:59 pm |
| Yes, they are artistic creation http://wingsofwrath.deviantart.com/art/TACAB-Armour-Plan-204062105 |
| Posted by: ANDREAS July 22, 2012 09:58 am |
| I'm sorry, I didn't knew! The only doubt I had was about the drive wheels in front and rear that looks like Pz.III early version, which were no longer produced from 1941 I guess, but I couldn't be sure about it! Anyway it's good that we cleared this pictures problem right now! |