Second vehicle down...Sturm Panther. Did it really exist? Especially on a G chassis? Really??

I wasn't getting excited either - just thought it was a colossal waste.

Quoted Text

---

I wasn't getting excited either - just thought it was a colossal waste.

---

Of the German war effort? Certainly, but there are many, many things that applies to, fortunately.

Of a model company's efforts? Not at all. It's what they do.

KL

My grandfather worked with cutting steel plates to build
submarines, then Hitler decided that submarines would not
win the war so a lot of shipyard workers became available
to be soldiers, my grandfather was put on a train, eastward
bound, then someone changed Hitlers mind and shipyard
workers became a priority again, my grandfather was taken
off the train somewhere in Poland and sent back home again.
He survived the war and bought me toys when I was a kid ...

Making sense or being a waste depends on which viewpoint
one takes. A lot of waste for the total war effort but
maybe 100% sense for those working with it ...

Quoted Text

---

My grandfather worked with cutting steel plates to build
submarines, then Hitler decided that submarines would not
win the war so a lot of shipyard workers became available
to be soldiers, my grandfather was put on a train, eastward
bound, then someone changed Hitlers mind and shipyard
workers became a priority again, my grandfather was taken
off the train somewhere in Poland and sent back home again.
He survived the war and bought me toys when I was a kid ...

Making sense or being a waste depends on which viewpoint
one takes. A lot of waste for the total war effort but
maybe 100% sense for those working with it ...

---

I wouldn't equate a person's individual survival with the Third Reich's overall war effort.

Similarly I will however remain glad that the Reich was unable to use it's resources efficiently as this contributed to their demise before my father needed to be pulled from flight training and put into infantry in the ETO.

KL

I can understand why it was a drawing board consideration. But if you think about it, a 15cm Heavy Infantry Gun, mounted in a rotatable turret is simply overkill and needlessly complex.

The gun would be a bombardment weapon and wouldn't require the complexity of a full operational turret when a large superstructure (with better ammo stowage) would do the trick. Or.... just keep making more Grilles or upgrade a StuH III

Quoted Text

---

I can understand why it was a drawing board consideration. But if you think about it, a 15cm Heavy Infantry Gun, mounted in a rotatable turret is simply overkill and needlessly complex.

The gun would be a bombardment weapon and wouldn't require the complexity of a full operational turret when a large superstructure (with better ammo stowage) would do the trick. Or.... just keep making more Grilles or upgrade a StuH III

---

When the US created the 105mm Shermans they were intended as "assault tanks", likewise for fire support. They used a turret-mounted gun (to maintain commonality in production as much as anything else) but deleted the gun tank's power turret controls. Once fielded the crews quickly demanded power controls and the design was changed. Apparently there was some value to a fully functional turret, at least from the American viewpoint, whether from a doctrinal standpoint or simply because of the war they had to fight.

KL

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

I can understand why it was a drawing board consideration. But if you think about it, a 15cm Heavy Infantry Gun, mounted in a rotatable turret is simply overkill and needlessly complex.

The gun would be a bombardment weapon and wouldn't require the complexity of a full operational turret when a large superstructure (with better ammo stowage) would do the trick. Or.... just keep making more Grilles or upgrade a StuH III

---

When the US created the 105mm Shermans they were intended as "assault tanks", likewise for fire support. They used a turret-mounted gun (to maintain commonality in production as much as anything else) but deleted the gun tank's power turret controls. Once fielded the crews quickly demanded power controls and the design was changed. Apparently there was some value to a fully functional turret, at least from the American viewpoint, whether from a doctrinal standpoint or simply because of the war they had to fight.

KL

---

I could understand it for a late war vehicle. The Blitzkrieg moved too fast to implement such a design. Although, it may have helped on the Eastern Front and probably had a lot to do, with the design. Germany(or more correctly Hitler) had a panache for bigger is better. Just look at the Ratte or Landkruizer. Germany would have been better served by pursuing the high velocity 75 and deadly 88.

But THAT won't happen, because non-existent WWII German types are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT...

But THAT won't happen, because non-existent WWII German types are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT...

Quoted Text

---

But THAT won't happen, because non-existent WWII German types are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT...

---

I have to feel it might be time for Dragon to pull a Asuka and rename themselves to "Germans, prototypes and Iron Man in scale", honestly

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

I can understand why it was a drawing board consideration. But if you think about it, a 15cm Heavy Infantry Gun, mounted in a rotatable turret is simply overkill and needlessly complex.

The gun would be a bombardment weapon and wouldn't require the complexity of a full operational turret when a large superstructure (with better ammo stowage) would do the trick. Or.... just keep making more Grilles or upgrade a StuH III

---

When the US created the 105mm Shermans they were intended as "assault tanks", likewise for fire support. They used a turret-mounted gun (to maintain commonality in production as much as anything else) but deleted the gun tank's power turret controls. Once fielded the crews quickly demanded power controls and the design was changed. Apparently there was some value to a fully functional turret, at least from the American viewpoint, whether from a doctrinal standpoint or simply because of the war they had to fight.

KL

---

I could understand it for a late war vehicle. The Blitzkrieg moved too fast to implement such a design. Although, it may have helped on the Eastern Front and probably had a lot to do, with the design. Germany(or more correctly Hitler) had a panache for bigger is better. Just look at the Ratte or Landkruizer. Germany would have been better served by pursuing the high velocity 75 and deadly 88.

My only criticism was in reference to: the days of "Sturm-ing" were long past, as German forces were on the defensive, or retreat, on all fronts. Any redundant tank (Pz.lll/lV) chassis could be used as a platform for the 15 cm gun. Panther chassis were much better employed as tanks or Jagdpanthers. Of course, that's Herr Hitler for you!