Any sort of weird equipment, either testing or just field fuckery.
I'll start off, AMX-13s with Chaffee turrets.
>>28626897
>fuck we don't have any more AMX bodies for our turrets
>quick lets use all those chaffee bodies.
T-34/85 with a stamped steel turret.
Sherman with pershing turret
persherman
An M3 Lee with a search light mounted on it.
>>28626944
Matilda with the same thing.
>there was over 300 of each types made.
>>28626944
Dummy guns?
>>28626963
A Sherman with fortifed hatches to keep gooks and magnetic mines out. There might be wood armor on the sides to help with the mines, but I can't be sure.
>>28626965
Yeah. I don't think any of them had operating cannons from what I've read.
>>28626981
Here is some more of that wooden side armor.
>>28626975
What the heck
>>28626897
KV-2 Beutepanzer.
>>28627033
Here is another, normally the Germans replaced the hatch with their own for better visibility, rather than the little crab eyes.
>>28627052
Is that a german KV-2?
>>28626997
>killer
Subtle but to the point
>>28627074
Yeah, the germans reused a lot of captured equipment. Most of the tanks are simply called Beuetepanzer. They range from S35s, to Shermans to T70s and KV-2s.
Literally everything.
>>28627074
>>28627107
Muh S35.
Of course, a lot of these where used for training or sent to smaller fronts. Like Norway or Finland.
>>28627074
kv-2 captured and re-fitted for use by the germans
pictured here is a kv-1 fitted with a german 75mm
saddened there are no other pictures, to my knowledge that is
>>28627120
I've got some captured KV-1 pictures, but none with refitted guns.
>>28627145
Heres another strange one. Captured Italian armored cars pressed into German service.
>>28627166
>>28627178
Captured Lees, wonder why they even bothered.
>NVA Copy of a Chinese copy of a Russian PPSh-41.
>>28627222
cos it has guns, armor and moves ?
at this would make having one infinite times better than not having one
>>28627222
M3 Lees were the best tanks on the field in their initial theater. Why do most people have to convert everything to either "the very best" or "the absolute worst?"
>>28626981
>There might be wood armor on the sides to help with the mines, but I can't be sure.
Yep.
>>28627166
>>28627178
>Captured
>>28626897
>>28626917
Oh France.....
>>28626927
That is the hydraulic brake of a 76.2mm or 57mm gun, definitely not an 85mm. The external tanks make me think of a 76.2mm armed 1942 version, but i am by no means an expert so correct me if I'm saying bullshit of any kind
>>28627012
T33 Flamethrower tank, based on a sherman (obviously) but with a new turret sporting six inch armour, a 75mm cannon and a seperate E12R4 flamethrower.
They only built threee prototypes then the wars end cancelled it.
(iirc)
>>28627033
What's with all the chains?
>>28628983
Improvised additional armor, I presume? Could act the way sandbags do for kinetic penetrators or just disperse energy from HEAT rounds.
Everyone went pretty much overboard with ways to improve survivability of tanks, during WW2
>pic related
>>28627286
Mostly because well though out, reasoned arguments are hard.
When the M3 was introduced to Africa its 75mm was invaluable as it meant the allies finally had a tank in theatre capable of dealing with anti-tank guns outside of their effective range (unlike the British tanks saddled with no HE ammunition). But then again once tanks with 75's in them started appearing (i.e. upgunned P IV's and Shermans) it was pretty much obsolete on the spot.
Then again, from the look of that picture, that Lee isn't in the desert anymore. Its combination (As someone has point out) of guns, armour and the ability to move would make it useful on secondary fronts, policing or anti-partisan work.
here's some more content. Most pics have information in the filename
>>28627286
Because this is the internet, no place for anything inbetween shit and the best.
>>28627222
As >>28627286 said, the M3 Lee was pretty much the king of North Africa when it arrived, and was still one of the best tanks in the theatre at the end. Did well with the Russians up on the Murmansk front, and returned to its role as king of the battlefield in Burma against the Japs through 1945.
Thing is, any tank is good when the enemy lacks adequate AT in either quantity or ability.
>>28628965
Looks to big to be a Zis 2 in the turret.
>>28629002
I'd have said that, but they're piled on top of the tank, not the front or sides and in a position taht stops the turret from traversing.
So they can't be for protection.
The Australian Sentinel tank.
They wished to evaluate the possibility of mounting a 17 pdr gun on it, but didn't have one on hand for testing, so they mounted 2 25pdr guns, wired to fire at the same time to simulate the recoil.
The tests were successful, and a later prototype was equipped with the 17 pdr.
Think I'll expand on the captured equipment.
>>28629024
>>28626927
not an 85. Stamped turrets were pretty common actually, it was an interim measure while they were working out the kinks of casting hexagonal-pattern turrets. The fact that only one factory possessed the 10.000 ton press necessary in order to reliably press form 60mm thick steel sheets probably prevented a more widespread adoption.
>>28629016
then it's probably a 76.2mm as I first thought. It did look rather fat for a 57mm, but I based my assumption on the shape of the recoil brake
so, if not as improvised armor, could that kv-2 have been employed as a recovery vehicle? I mean, it's heavy and rather slow, but an engine moving around that much weight could have enough power to get broken vehicles out of dodge. Even if removing the turret could have saved a lot of weight for that purpose. I dunno, just conjectures up in here. Could also be that it was meant as additional armor and the crew were just stupid, for what I know... or maybe they saw that slow hunk of HE as a perfect target for ground attack planes and they prioritized covering the engine block.
>>28629045
A testament to crew safety....
>>28629048
>28629048
I'm going to have to say that it definitely isn't add on armour since it stops the turret from traversing.
I thought revocery vehicle too, but then again you'd definitely take the turret off if you were going to use it as that.
Maybe the chains were used to drag it there and they've just been unceremoniously dumped on top of it?
>>28629057
Yeah, but the chains look like they are rather long just to drag the vehicle there, it's a lot of additional weight. Maybe they just doubled up to ensure no link would break? Still looks like an exaggeration. I guess we'll never know, though it would be a nice mystery to solve.
>>28629107
Yup, again I thought the chains might be a bit too long, but of the three reasons I can think of, it looks like the most likely.
Or maybe they just needed to dump some chains somewhere, who knows!
>>28628983
Germans are into some kinky shit, dude.
>>28629237
>BDSM tank action
here we go...
>>28627222
Reminder that they were fielding F-17s at the same time The IS-2 was around.
>>28627000
I am awfully saddened that the rise of computer assisted development lead to the sharp decrease of such nigger-rigged experimentation.
There are probably several chains on this tank, in order to attach the wreck to the recovery vehicle at different places on the hull, thus reducing the strain of each chain.
Sorry if I didn't made my point very clear, not a native english speaker.
But this technique is used to pull trucks over long distances, only one attach point is often damageable to the chassis.
>>28628983
It's an enemy tank so it has to be restrained.
>>28629438
yeah, nig-rigging and "trial and error" is the shit
