Comments: 10
Carrier2 [2017-10-15 20:43:55 +0000 UTC]
I don't mean to be rude or anything, but what weapons does each one have? (I'm a bit of a statistics nut when it comes to weapons of war.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Khyron2000 In reply to Carrier2 [2017-10-15 21:12:44 +0000 UTC]
Wiesel is one of the more successful of the old designs, it also has a new version, recently uploaded.
The Wiesel I itself is armed with a 75mm L/48 main gun and three 7.9mm machine guns.
Sturmpanzer Wiesel is open-topped, carrying a short 150mm infantry gun, one machine gun.
First Panzerhaubitze uses a 105mm artillery piece, one machine gun.
Second a 128mm dual-purpose gun, again one MG.
Flakpanzer Wiesel had a dual 37mm AA gun, one machine gun.
Zerstörer used four 30mm machine cannon, one machine gun.
Jagdpanzer Wiesel had a long 75mm L/70 weapon, one machine gun, one close assault weapon.
Panzeraufklärer Wiesel downgraded the main gun to a 50mm L/60 weapon to accommodate more more radios and
observation equipment.
Wiesel II used the same long 75mm, but I made a mistake in the turret. Two machine guns, one close assault weapon.
Bergepanzer, ARV, just has a machine gun.
Flammpanzer exchanges the main gun with a flamethrower and internal flame fuel. Unsuccessful.
Minenräumer just ads a mineplow.
Schützenpanzer Wiesel is an early APC, with a 30mm gun and two machine guns. Carries six infantrymen.
Unterstützungspanzer is an improvised anti-insurgent vehicle. Instead of a turret, it mounts an armored pillbox. Four machine guns, an 80mm mortar and a flamethrower are the carried weapons.
Raketenpanzer Wiesel just mounts a twelve Tube 150mm Nebelwerfer rocket launcher.
Again, the drawings have fatal mistakes, mainly in the turret areas and there are newer versions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Zwerchhau [2010-08-25 21:51:45 +0000 UTC]
Nice. If I'm not mistaken, the Flammpanzer is a Flamethrower built in to the main gun right? Any way nice variations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Khyron2000 In reply to Zwerchhau [2010-08-26 06:23:46 +0000 UTC]
Yes, the Flammpanzer carries a 14mm Flamer instead of the main gun. Not very successful, though.
Glad you like them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Zwerchhau In reply to Khyron2000 [2010-08-27 00:33:05 +0000 UTC]
Yea I kinda Figured A flamethrower as the main gun wouldn't be very effective in combat. Maybe if it had M1A2 Abrahms armor, Mounted .50 MG, and a Dozer Shovel put on it. You would have one Heluva tank.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
paladin49 In reply to Zwerchhau [2019-08-04 13:50:31 +0000 UTC]
look at the ww2 flame tanks in the pacific
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Khyron2000 In reply to Zwerchhau [2010-09-02 14:23:07 +0000 UTC]
Oh, flamethrower-tanks had their, albeit limited, uses in WWII. Smoking out foxholes, bunkers and fortifications under armored cover was something very desireable. Mostly, though, light tanks were enough.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Zwerchhau In reply to Khyron2000 [2010-09-02 21:57:49 +0000 UTC]
true the reason that the us doesn't use flamethrowers anymore is because of the danger it is to use it. Flamethrowers on the battlefield are just one big target followed by an explosion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1