Heuschrecke 10 (German Grasshopper)

Also...

The vehicle was intended for use in the Soviet Union to assist the attempted take-over of Moscow.


Heuschrecke 10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That reads to me as if when designed it wasn't going to be working/fighting in a rural environment - but an urban/suburban one with semi- or fully-metalled roads, concrete paving/open spaces etc...

I.E. the crew would be plonking the turret down over shellholes in already hardened surfaces, or holes blasted by combat engineers...as the advance INCHED forward day by day :mellow: In the sort of city reduction the Germans expected to fight, the Grasshopper's ability to move forward under fire makes more sense...

And remember - this is one of the means the Germans used to defend Berlin in 1945! - dismounted tank turrets set over holes in the ground, or tanks dug into streets right down to the top of their hulls

It's probably only the same design path that produced the Tortoise in the UK for inching through the Siegfried Line....

 

...and we should remember there's an even BIGGER muzzle brake on the Grasshopper's gun than even the one mentioned in the body of the above. It could be that recoil was kept down to a minimum..

No matter how big the muzzle brake is, this still doesn't look like a recoilless gun to me

This one I'd love to see being tested

I.E. the crew would be plonking the turret down over shellholes in already hardened surfaces, or holes blasted by combat engineers...as the advance INCHED forward day by day

Ha! Vindication!

And yes, no info how the thing would be clamped to the ground. Personal magnetism?

Still, an open top casemate would be fine for keeping smoke out, but as for keeping grenades, splinters, etc, out I have my doubts

 

No matter how big the muzzle brake is, this still doesn't look like a recoilless gun to me


I didn't say recoilLESS Historically, the muzzle brake on the 10.5 cm leFH 18M allowed the Germans to fire a HIGHER-pressure charge and thus longer-range shell...so what if they fired the original charge? With this even bigger brake and the original charge weight, they'd be experiencing even less recoil ("less", not recoil-free )

Plus, this was a howitzer, after all It wouldn't be expected to be firing horizontally or near to horizontal. Firing high-angle the recoil wouldn't somersault it...it would ground it even more firmly!

 

Still, an open top casemate would be fine for keeping smoke out, but as for keeping grenades, splinters, etc, out I have my doubts


In the context of a rolling advance, it wouldn't be placed IN the front line, but probably just behind it, providing fire support for the (very slowly) advancing infantry that would have to take the time to clear Moscow building by building.

Makes sense if the advance into Moscow was envisaged as a slowly-tightening "ring of steel" - not a general Blitzkrieg-style assault; a prefabriated defensive line advancing immediately behind the lead infantry.

 

I.E. the crew would be plonking the turret down over shellholes in already hardened surfaces, or holes blasted by combat engineers...as the advance INCHED forward day by day :mellow: In the sort of city reduction the Germans expected to fight, the Grasshopper's ability to move forward under fire makes more sense...

And remember - this is one of the means the Germans used to defend Berlin in 1945! - dismounted tank turrets set over holes in the ground, or tanks dug into streets right down to the top of their hulls

What makes you think work would be that simple? It's not just plonking any old turret on a shell hole! As I've been saying a dismounted tank turret needs a proper turret ring beneath it, which implies a structure taking time to install.

Or do you think you can improvise this as the PBI goes inching along?



I don't think you'll believe this was simply dropped into a hole.

Also I can't really see the advantage over other tried infantry support systems systems such as :







In the context of a rolling advance, it wouldn't be placed IN the front line, but probably just behind it, providing fire support for the (very slowly) advancing infantry that would have to take the time to clear Moscow building by building.

Moscow? Aren't we talking about a late '44 system? Why Moscow?

 

Well, obviously - by the end of January 1942 it's original reason for being had vanished again LOL But as a "general weapons carrier" it might still have had SOME potential use.

But regarding its reason for being -

1/ that indicates it didn't think it's current crop of early SPGs were necessarily up to the "job"...

2/ that the "job" itself - the reduction of Moscow - was envisaged as going to be long, long enough to get a new weapon system into production

 

I don't think you'll believe this was simply dropped into a hole


no...DRIVEN into it then the earth, square setts etc. filled in around it!

proper turret ring beneath it, which implies a structure taking time to install.

Or do you think you can improvise this as the PBI goes inching along?

It doesn't imply a "structure" in the sense of a bunker beneath it as per your illustration, just whatever was "needed" to support it at minimum. I'm quite sure a lot of artillerymen would have preferred the bunker idea - but that wasn't what they were necessarily going to GET in the field every time!

As for the Brummbär - different solution with design work begun at a different time using a different weapon!

Moscow? Aren't we talking about a late '44 system? Why Moscow?

Work was started in 1941 (some locations say 1942) but as discussed was VERY slow...

 

Here's another intetresting view of the item...



Specifically - look at the "cart" on the ground it's about to be lowered on to...from Achtung Panzer...

It had fully rotating turret that could be removed with the use of the crane mounted in the back of the vehicle (by hydraulic mechanism or by hand). Turret could be removed and mounted on the wheeled cart/carriage (carried on the vehicle) and moved to a designated position.


Look closely at the frome of the "cart" - there's no turret ring on there!

We "know" it was fully traverseable" when ON the tank - but did it achieve this just by sitting in an adapter that sat in the ring?

Or maybe - did the ring + adapter detach WITH the turret? There's 10-12 inches of SOMETHING below the hull-line of the turret...

We could really do with a schematic...

 

And look again at the pic above...

It had fully rotating turret that could be removed with the use of the crane mounted in the back of the vehicle


Yes, it had a turret that could be turned to the rear for dismounting...

But we DON'T know that it could be actually fought on the tank in any traverse position

 

or bang a few spikes into the ground (like the cruciform mounts) - job done.


...or screw-in ground anchors.

And in THIS impression there's a MUCH bigger "spigot" coming out of the tank hull attached to the bottom of the turret

 

Hey, I've just noticed something....have to do some photoshop work, back in a mo...

 

Take a look at THIS -



The wheels don't attach to the "CART" :mellow:



...they attach to the TURRET on those brackets!

Therefore the "cart" HAS no real function at all EXCEPT as a ground anchor/mount!

 

Very strange altogether.........Thank god they devoted time and effort to flights of fancy like this!

 

Adam, Phylo,

Really interesting reading and thanks for the great pictures.









You can see from the left and right views that the frame parts were carried on the outside of the lifting arms.

Regards
Tom

 

In a way, the concept DOES make a bit of sense - when you remember it's a "complete" weapon system, the "carrier" when deployed ALSO is it's own schlepper

But there's a suprising and interesting point of failure in it. Yes, it would be great for deploying infantry support howitzer capacity right forward to close-in behind the infatry in an heavy-fire environment...

But look at the actually deployment process! :mellow:

X-number of crew members have to dismount, unbolt and assemble the cart, then climb on the hull and rig up the chains, then winch up the "turret" and along its rails, then lower it...attach the wheels....drop it on down into the cart...

THEN when deployed, open the butterfly-wings of the splinter shielding and crew the gun...

So it gets you safely INTO the combat area - but after THAT....! All that standing around and winching and assembling...

The HUMAN element in the system is a bit bloody vulnerable!!!

So - depends on your point of view; the obvious advantages are -
1/ dual purpose vehicle, greatly reducing the cost of creating a full artillery train
2/ all-terrain deployment
3/ armoured carrier protecting crew during movement forward...through an enemy's heavy tac-air support?

But the obvious disadvantages are -
1/ the cost - it's another tank hull lost what could BE a tank or be used for a TRUE SPG or StuG
2/ vulnerability of the gun crew during deployment and operation
3/ limited applications

But there are hidden advantages It allows the Germans to KEEP on using what was rapidly becoming an underpowered artillery piece that was only being kept in the game by stretching its ability to fire ever-higher-pressure rounds. THIS system, with its armoured carrier, large splinter shields and its forward deployment system....would have allowed the Germans to deploy it CLOSER to the front line to compensate for the range issue.