Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
News
Dragon: Submarine Panzer IIIvaranusk
Managing Editor
Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain / España
Joined: July 04, 2013
KitMaker: 1,288 posts
Armorama: 942 posts
Joined: July 04, 2013
KitMaker: 1,288 posts
Armorama: 942 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 - 04:32 AM UTC
Dragon’s newest 1/35 kit portrays a Tauchpanzer III Ausf.F made ready for Operation Seelöwe, with all the features of this diving tank.
Read the Full News Story
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
joepanzer
North Carolina, United States
Joined: January 21, 2004
KitMaker: 803 posts
Armorama: 740 posts
Joined: January 21, 2004
KitMaker: 803 posts
Armorama: 740 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 - 05:46 AM UTC
I can understand trying to ford a river submerged, but the thought of having to do it on a shifting sand bottom and the surf is a sketchy proposition.
210cav
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 - 08:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I can understand trying to ford a river submerged, but the thought of having to do it on a shifting sand bottom and the surf is a sketchy proposition.
A true death trap
stevieneon
England - West Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: January 24, 2009
KitMaker: 144 posts
Armorama: 143 posts
Joined: January 24, 2009
KitMaker: 144 posts
Armorama: 143 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 - 01:57 PM UTC
I know. And what happens if you crash into a sunken ship. And how do you know if youre going in a straight line? LOL.
brekinapez
Georgia, United States
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 - 03:42 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Dragon’s newest 1/35 kit portrays a Tauchpanzer III Ausf.F made ready for Operation Seelöwe, with all the features of this diving tank.
Read the Full News Story
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
This is a rebox:
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/255783
basco
Solothurn, Switzerland
Joined: September 24, 2006
KitMaker: 161 posts
Armorama: 121 posts
Joined: September 24, 2006
KitMaker: 161 posts
Armorama: 121 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 - 03:46 PM UTC
and just imagine... there's a leak... bye bye!
obg153
Texas, United States
Joined: April 07, 2009
KitMaker: 1,063 posts
Armorama: 1,049 posts
Joined: April 07, 2009
KitMaker: 1,063 posts
Armorama: 1,049 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 - 08:30 PM UTC
A true "what-if." Since this is nothing more than a re-box, what if we just ignore this release?
Photoguy1
United States
Joined: September 29, 2016
KitMaker: 77 posts
Armorama: 55 posts
Joined: September 29, 2016
KitMaker: 77 posts
Armorama: 55 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 - 10:35 PM UTC
Quoted Text
A true "what-if." Since this is nothing more than a re-box, what if we just ignore this release?
Perhaps because some people, lacking others "encyclopedic" knowledge of the subject, just might be interested. BTW, since 168 were manufactured and they were used (after a modification) in combat I don't think that they qualify as a "true what if".
Jmarles
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: November 02, 2008
KitMaker: 1,138 posts
Armorama: 953 posts
Joined: November 02, 2008
KitMaker: 1,138 posts
Armorama: 953 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 19, 2017 - 12:30 AM UTC
"Hey guys we threw a track - who wants to get out?"
Blackstoat
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: October 15, 2012
KitMaker: 568 posts
Armorama: 561 posts
Joined: October 15, 2012
KitMaker: 568 posts
Armorama: 561 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 19, 2017 - 03:55 AM UTC
...and the water pressure at that depth. It would force through virtually every seam. Ok a brief submersion crossing a river might be feasible. But hours under that pressure?
It was never realistic and they knew it
It was never realistic and they knew it
Posted: Sunday, February 19, 2017 - 04:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
...and the water pressure at that depth. It would force through virtually every seam. Ok a brief submersion crossing a river might be feasible. But hours under that pressure?
It was never realistic and they knew it
True- but if I was German Engineer at that time I'd rather spend my time designing crap like this than serving on the front!!
Jerrers2000
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: December 10, 2005
KitMaker: 42 posts
Armorama: 40 posts
Joined: December 10, 2005
KitMaker: 42 posts
Armorama: 40 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 19, 2017 - 06:00 AM UTC
they were only designed to go down 20ft - as far as I was aware the Germans were planning on using Barges etc for the crossing - so couldn't get to the beach like the landing craft in Normandy - so had to be able to lower the tanks into the sea, and let them drive ashore - pretty much a variation on the Sherman DD - which (mostly) floated!
AgentG
Nevada, United States
Joined: December 21, 2008
KitMaker: 1,109 posts
Armorama: 1,095 posts
Joined: December 21, 2008
KitMaker: 1,109 posts
Armorama: 1,095 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 19, 2017 - 09:35 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextA true "what-if." Since this is nothing more than a re-box, what if we just ignore this release?
Perhaps because some people, lacking others "encyclopedic" knowledge of the subject, just might be interested. BTW, since 168 were manufactured and they were used (after a modification) in combat I don't think that they qualify as a "true what if".
June 22, 1941. 1st Battalion, 18th Panzer Regiment crossed the river Bug. Max depth was a bit over 10 feet. Total success.
G
ReluctantRenegade
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 19, 2017 - 11:44 PM UTC
Well, the idea can't be that bad if it still exists after almost 80 years, can it...? At least the crew-escape issue seems to be solved...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxIxkwIOnMU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxIxkwIOnMU
bill_c
Campaigns Administrator
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 19, 2017 - 11:51 PM UTC
This was a Cyberhobby kit years ago, so for those who are interested, it's a good addition if you missed that kit.
ReluctantRenegade
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2017 - 12:00 AM UTC
Chuck4
United States
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2017 - 12:01 AM UTC
If I were the British on the receiving end of submersible tank crawling onto my beach, I would just lob shells into the water around the tank and let the depth-charge effect knock over all the snorkel tubes.
ReluctantRenegade
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2017 - 12:34 AM UTC
More on the topic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C26rJiOnKLk
Taeuss
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 3,778 posts
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 3,778 posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2017 - 08:59 PM UTC
And here I was thinking "wait a minute" as Dragon released this one some time back. Wonder what (if any) changes outside of decals were different in this kit from the CH version. The Bug river crossing was the most famous usage of these tanks, I believe that they were also used on a couple of other, lesser occasions, but it should also be remembered that the first series of Tiger 1 also had deep-fording capabilities. Between leaks and claustrophobia it must have been terrifying!
Chuck4
United States
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2017 - 10:22 PM UTC
I believe tiger 1, tiger 2,and panthers are all fitted for, but in most cases not with, snorkeling equipment.
In fact one reason why early panthers suffer easily from engine fires was because the engine compartment was sealed for snorkeling so flamable fuel fumes accummukate too easily.
In fact one reason why early panthers suffer easily from engine fires was because the engine compartment was sealed for snorkeling so flamable fuel fumes accummukate too easily.
panzerbob01
Louisiana, United States
Joined: March 06, 2010
KitMaker: 3,128 posts
Armorama: 2,959 posts
Joined: March 06, 2010
KitMaker: 3,128 posts
Armorama: 2,959 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 - 08:37 AM UTC
The specific Pz. III tauch featured in this kit (and the original Cyber Hobby white-box edition) was a genuine test-bed vehicle - there are in-action photos of it. This specific vehicle used a large float for a flexible snorkel - production tauch III (F, G, and H versions - and also Pz.IV D and E tauchs) used a simplified snorkel arrangement. As another poster mentioned, these were indeed successfully used to cross the Bug River, among other places.
A large number of post-war tanks - German Leopard 1 and II, Italian Ariete, Russian T-62, T-64A and 64B, T-72, T-80, T-90, French LeClerck, and several others - come with standardized snorkel attachments and fittings and "diving" is a routine training exercise.
Nobody - not the WWII Germans and not any modern army - likely intended or intends to have a diving tank actually go more than a few feet sub-surface. The real challenges (as I learned first-hand by riding inside a diving German Leopard crossing a small river during Reforger 76) lie not in how to keep the water out or get air into the engine and crew spaces, but in the fact that the driver can't see much of anything as he goes, so he has to rely upon the commander up top to direct his actions... We hit an under-water "pot-hole" and went "under wader-depth" for a moment...
The WWII German approach using a sealed tank with a flexible floating snorkel with a closure poppet valve actually may have been a better idea than the modern "stack vent" - as the poppet could momentarily close, like in a submarine, and the tank and crew had a chance to get back up to workable depth before drowning. When that rigid "stack" dips under... you get an immediate flood.
Cheers! Bob
A large number of post-war tanks - German Leopard 1 and II, Italian Ariete, Russian T-62, T-64A and 64B, T-72, T-80, T-90, French LeClerck, and several others - come with standardized snorkel attachments and fittings and "diving" is a routine training exercise.
Nobody - not the WWII Germans and not any modern army - likely intended or intends to have a diving tank actually go more than a few feet sub-surface. The real challenges (as I learned first-hand by riding inside a diving German Leopard crossing a small river during Reforger 76) lie not in how to keep the water out or get air into the engine and crew spaces, but in the fact that the driver can't see much of anything as he goes, so he has to rely upon the commander up top to direct his actions... We hit an under-water "pot-hole" and went "under wader-depth" for a moment...
The WWII German approach using a sealed tank with a flexible floating snorkel with a closure poppet valve actually may have been a better idea than the modern "stack vent" - as the poppet could momentarily close, like in a submarine, and the tank and crew had a chance to get back up to workable depth before drowning. When that rigid "stack" dips under... you get an immediate flood.
Cheers! Bob
Taeuss
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 3,778 posts
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 3,778 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 - 07:19 AM UTC
Thanks for that insight, I always figured visibility (ie: none) was the big problem. While I know that only the first twenty or so(?) Tiger 1s were equipped for deep fording, I didn't know if the early Panthers were so equipped. If the Tiger 2 was at all is news to me as well. I understand that all subsequently had the gear removed later as it was decided as being an unnecessary, slow to use and expensive feature.
ReluctantRenegade
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 - 01:37 PM UTC
Chuck4
United States
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 - 05:48 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Thanks for that insight, I always figured visibility (ie: none) was the big problem. While I know that only the first twenty or so(?) Tiger 1s were equipped for deep fording, I didn't know if the early Panthers were so equipped. If the Tiger 2 was at all is news to me as well. I understand that all subsequently had the gear removed later as it was decided as being an unnecessary, slow to use and expensive feature.
Early panthers with an armored pot over the central air intake at the rear duck were fitted with deep wading equipment. The pot protects a telescoping snorkel tube. The basic design of panther and tiger ii engine compartment with a separate water tight engine bay in the middle and free flooding radiator bays on either side were arranged this way to enable the engine to run while the vehicle was completely submerged. Early panther and tiger 2 also had inflatable hollow rubber o-ring seals on th erurret ring to allow the o ring to expand to form a watertight seal for wadding.