Heuschrecke 10 (German Grasshopper)

LefH18 has a range of nearly 11km, that's not automatically a direct infantry support gun


As far as I can se that's the max-ish range for the later item, the higher-pressure charge/bigger muzzle brake/new recoil dampers/fin-spin stabilised round item introduced after Stalingrad. What was the range before that? For THAT would have been the range they were working on when the project was kicked off

Also, it doesn't HAVE to be providing direct fire support for infantry - just be expected to operate close enough to the front it would be vulnerable enough to counter-battery fire to require the armoured deployment/schlepper system.

 

Assorted other more conventional SP Howitzers expected to operate indirectly for their primary role


Actually, if you think about it....to be specific what they did was go to a whole range of almost obsolete tank hulls and ditto artillery pieces....and a whole range of French "beute" confections cobbled together by Alfred Becker.

The SPG programmes gave the Skoda T38 chassis a whole new lease of life mid-war; otherwise, by then it would have been nearly useless - certainly to move a tank! But using what was already rolling off a "second line" production line (by that time in the war) for the motive power - rather than close it and have to go to the expense of retooling for a NEW item entirely in the Skoda factories...and utilising the piles of French recoveries and confiscations....made FAR more economic sense.

 

I knew of this model/concept before (there are already fine models from Trumpeter and Dragon ) and at first I also didn't understand the gain/profit of this system.

But reading all this forum I see it:

A few men mention that a traditional static defense piece needed digging with lots of concrete. Well, then: there it is: It saves the expenses and time to prepare a pillbox.
Probably only a hole is dug, something to avoid the hole being swamped by groundwater, and a support ring..and c'est ça.
The idea is probably that it is a temporary(!) static defense..which is placed a mile or two-four behind the frontline (Howitsers!) , and that by the time the front is penetrated, there is still time to pick up a turret and move it deeper. And because by that time the pentrating forces could be at a distance of half a mile (?) it is more safe to use a tank hull to pick it up , than an ordinary truck with crane.

The Wespe (or Hummel) is of course better/more complete, but also more expensive , and less efficient at times when fuel is rationed and enemy planes are strafing the area.

Am I right here ?

 

Still not convinced after all this time

Again, how tall is this when emplaced? Where does the crew go? How big is the crew? Where is ready ammo located?

The original 10.5 LeFH had two big momma spades well dug in to handle recoil. An SPG has the mass of the vehicle, some 20 tons. How does this deal with it? By cartwheeling?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZpxJSowlGfS76mzmWQBLMGrOwxOw2M_h2dXPZoIUosVljtW6d

 

The Rheinmettal one had a cruciform 'trail', & for the Krupp version, it would seem disingenuous to suppose that all of the sums had not been done. It's not as if either firm was exactly inexperienced in Guns of all sorts.
(The massive Muzzle Brake on the Heuschreckes might be an indicator of considering recoil on unconventional mounts too. What was the brake's effect on Panther's HV gun? Something like 70% recoil absorbed... Muzzle velocity of the 'jacket-cradle' gun here was 665m/s - Panther's maybe 900-100?)

As for 'where did the crew go' - in the same place they did when the turret was mounted, only presumably kneeling/crouching as one might service other conventional field pieces, and making use of the extra space behind the shield when not in a direct fire situation.
The picture in post #32 gives the best indication of scale/height. Seems perfectly adequate.
On ready Ammo - when mounted the Krupp one had 60rds ready, and when dismounted, where does any normal field gun keep it's ammunition?

I'd always envisioned the square cradle being spiked to the ground too, like on the 88's cruciform mount when emplacement time allowed, but the one thing we're missing is a really good shot of a turret emplaced sans-vehicle.

I see the very first thoughts along these lines were to be LeFH 18/40 on Zgkw.3t., Pak44 on the same, along with a LeFH18 on GwIII/IV - all three were to be on cruciform removable mounts. Doesn't sound like those went much further, but I'd like to see what was envisioned to hoist things off the Zgkw3t/Sd.Kfz.11 - thinking of that makes the turret & cradle seem positively elegant.

On the muzzle brake and recoil management you and I can only speculate. In the absence of trail spades of any I maintain my doubt on the effectiveness, but the 8.8 FlaK and others similar also used a cruciform base - solidly staked to the ground.

Size is important, following that image in #32 barrel is at belt height. This being a howitzer, firing at elevation by definition, the breech may reach an elevation limit where it will start digging a hole on recoil. Unless one considers mention above of deployment over pits, dug up or otherwise.

Crew size? How many gun numbers can you fit on that casemate and for what purpose? A how. this size will require how many, eight, ten? But you need a separate vehicle for those and for ammunition too! 10.5 shells plus separate charges is a bulky thing. Two vehicles for one artillery piece only?

Even if technically feasible I still fail to see the advantage over a proper SPG like the Wespe, or even over a normal towed one. After all a howitzer is supposed to do indirect fire, a towed one will do this marvellously well. A SPG will provide faster redeployment but will still do indirect fire. If it comes to a direct fire situation it will mean somebody did not do his homework.

Pretty on the museum ground, but a footnote on the history of the eternal German quest for Überwaffen. This was not so sexy but damn, it worked!



And it's not even Russian And before someone says it's not firing indirect so someone blooped, I'll say the guys on the receiving end did for allowing conditions for this kind of use

 

I'm a bit busy now, but which Jentz/Doyle Osprey do you mean? I'll get back to you!

And nothing like a Pansa discussion to bring up the old fire! Where's the others?

 

Worry not about the bollocks, it's daily fare around here (together with the local version of Rocky Mountain Oysters )

...all it says re. Guderian was he thought it was "Interesting, but hardly worth the disruption of tank production". (p.12)

Translated: "Donnerwetter, here they come again with another piece of idiocy! Follow the motions and then bury it. Deeply!"

 

An SPG has the mass of the vehicle, some 20 tons....


Za we are dealing with the Wespe's gun here not the Nashorn's so the SPG is closer to 10t than 20. I usually don't see those big spades on early war pictures of the Le FH 18, that one has the the big muzzle brake so it's a late war variant and I suspect the spades were only required for the overpowered late war long range ammo.
But I agree with you that I would love to see a picture of the thing in firing position on the ground with crew and ready ammo. It would clear up a lot of things. IIRC the concept was used in some post WW2 designs, will need to look them up.

 

Adam,

It Looks reasonable after a coat of paint.

Reading the text it mentions Czech Chassis.

It Looks like a Standard MkIV to me.

Regards
Tom

 

Jerries were rather good at digging holes, in fact only the Japanese were probably better. As an NCO in Burma said," the -------s are three feet underground while our blokes are still spitting on their hands!"

It does offer the great advantage of getting two guns in motion for the price of one chassis, and as the war went on, that would have seemed more attractive. Adolf would have loved it: not much chance of withdrawing once emplaced. You win or you die.

 

I am just wondering what Gen Patton thought of that idea!!!

Regards
Tom

 

Great photographs Adam.
Regards
Tom