Putting feelers out for a Kursk GB

You are correct Hermisminiatures, there were a few individual anomolies between them. 

I recall reading somewhere that there were two different sizes of gun shields.  I'll dig out my references and confirm that.

About the whitewashed T-34 issue - here's a picture of one in early spring 1942 - although it looks like there might still be snow on the ground, it's from March at the earliest:

 

Another photo, a rare one showing T-34's prepared to fire as anti-aircraft weapons. This photo is from earlier in 1943 again, as is obvious by how the crew is dressed, so the paint could have worn off in 2 months...

 

Finally, I think your best chance for finding a whitewashed T-34 at Kursk is here:

http://powstanie-warszawskie-1944.ac.pl/aa1/t34_kursk.jpg

Be warned this is a somewhat graphic picture.  The dead Russian (wearing wrapped leggings, so not German) looks like he's been burned. I've seen the white on the tank been explained as some sort of soot related to the fire that burned the soldier, but it has drips and chips in it. It's most definitely paint. The tank has some charring on the front, but no real damage. The soldier's not dressed in winter gear, and there's no snow around the tank (the white stuff in front of it is probably some sort of soot, because it's too fluffy to be snow) it looks like the tank has had straw thrown on it for camouflage, which wouldn't seem very approprite if it was wintertime. Best of all, this photo is reportedly taken by a German photographer the week the Kursk offensive started. I've heard this photo credited such by two different websites, so it could be so. I don't know what the white ares in the background are - they could be water, but I don't think they're snow.

Anyway - do what you want with it - I think you could model a Kursk T-34 with vestiges of whitewash and be accurate (or at least not decisively wrong!) 

Dicker Max #1 was destroyed by engine overheating igniting its ready ammo and kaboom!

Dicker Max #2 was sent back to Juterbog for refit and returned to the front in 1942 and is presumed to have been lost at Stalingrad. So, no DM for Kursk I'm afraid.

Hermes,

Some other minor differences from the Ferdie to the Elefant had to do with the track types as well IIRC.

Thanks for those pics Hermisminiatures, those are some excellent photos.  What book did you get those from?  I need to expand my armor reference library.   

I'm curious about the T-34/anti-aircraft photo.  I'd never heard of them being used that way before (I'm no expert on Russian armor or tactics by the way...  ). 

Was it effective?  Did they use standard HE rounds or ones with delayed fuses or some such thing?  

And back to Bob's question, I think we've seen enough evidence to suggest that you could easily get away with a heavily worn whitewash scheme.  Whatever you decide to do, it's going to look cool, so go with what you want to do, it is your kit after all. 

According to this website: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/gerafv.htm

The caption to the table reads "This table is a list of German AFV available in July 1943, with details of the gun mounted and armour"

The table adds some additional detail, including main gun bore type and calibre, along with some clarifying notes. While there might be some debatable entries in the list, I think it is a good way to narrow down the list of potential vehicles for the Kursk GB. There is a similar table for Soviet AFV. Definitely go to the URL above and check it out. There's also a lot of Unit information on the site as well.

I hope this helps somewhat.


German AFVs

Pz Jg I
Pz II F
Marder II
Pz III J
Pz III J/1
Pz III L
Pz III M
Pz III N
Pz III Flamm
Pz IV D
Pz IV E
Pz IV F
Pz IV F2
Pz IV G
Pz IV H
Pz V D
Pz VI E
Assault Guns/TD:
StuG III B
StuG III E
StuG III F
StuG III F/8
StuG III G
StuH 42
Marder III (t) H
Marder III (t) M
SturmPz IV
Pz Jg III/IV
Pz Jg VI

espins - I really don't know much about the Russians using the T-34 in anti-aircraft mode. I'd assume they'd have used the usual 76mm timed HE shell, certainly not AP. I can't imagine it was very effective - maybe only against slow, low flying planes like the Stuka. 'Bout as sensible as what the Ferdinand crews did - sighting enemy infantry with the main gunsight, then firing an MG-42 down the barrel of the 88...

I got those pictures from battlefield.ru, which is a Russian WWII armor site with lots and lots of nice pictures from the Eastern Front war. Most of it's in English, too, so you don't need to speak Russian to understand it

Hermesminiatures wrote:

'Bout as sensible as what the Ferdinand crews did - sighting enemy infantry with the main gunsight, then firing an MG-42 down the barrel of the 88...

Sad that the Ferdinand crews had to resort to that.  It's a testimony to the flaws of the design, and the total misunderstanding of the strenth and weaknesses of the Ferdinand. 

They were used in the wrong role at Kursk.  Hitler envisioned the Ferdinand as a "Ramm Panzer" or breakthrough tank, a role to which it was completely unsuited to perform.  It was extremely heavy and the suspension was inadequate to handle the weight.  The design of the suspension was also flawed in the sense that you only had to knock out one set of wheels on a bogey to completely immobilize the tank.  It required six heavy prime movers to tow the thing!  It lacked any close-in defense against infantry (other than a few pistol ports and the ability to fire an MG 42 down the barrel ).  It was very slow, consumed a lot of precious fuel, and used an electric motor (run by the engines) which added more weight and used a lot of copper (a precious raw material).   

It's strengths were the insanely accurate and hard hitting 88mm PaK 43/2 L/71, and the thick armor plating that made it impervious to most anti-tank weapons except at extremely close ranges. 

They should have been employed as a stand off anti-tank weapon and positioned in places with a commanding view of the battlefield where they could have picked off Russian tanks with almost total impunity. 

Espins, didn't you say a couple of posts back you weren't an expert on german armor? Seems to me that you know a thing or two...

I rooted through my stash to see what I had that would fit this GB...I have a lot of eastern front stuff, but only a couple of things that would qualify for Kursk. I have the DML Marder II and some Trumpeter KV-1's but those seem to be getting a lot of attention already. I just picked up a Nashorn - but it's the late variant (dang!), so unless I can find an early Nashorn or a Hornisse I think I'll have to go with the 251/1 Ausf. C I have kicking around.

I was perusing the paint schemes in the instructions, one of which is labeled "Kursk 1943", and the colors seem a bit...odd. I know it's partially me trying to convert the Gunze labels, but it seems like they're trying to tell me it's dark yellow with red brown and gray ("field gray") stripes? I did some cross checking with the charts in my other DML kits and something certainly isn't matching up color-wise. Was there some sort of yellow/brown/GRAY scheme I don't know about? I'll scan a pic of the instructions...tomorrow, hopefully.

Here is an interesting scheme of a 2nd SS "Das Reich" Tiger April 1943.  Notice it has a scheme of gray, yellow and green.  The Germans were doing a lot of experimenting with different camo schemes during this time.  Up until late in the war the schemes were applied in the field, which gave a lot of "creative license" to the individuals applying the camo patterns from various paint pastes that were provided to them.  What makes the colors even harder to match exactly is that they used all kinds of things to thin the paint with, water, gas and even diesel fuel! 

Wow! Check that out! "Interesting" to say the least! I guess that opens up a whole new bunch of paint schemes to use...that Tiger is really nifty (brain working overtime on possibilities). Are there any other gray camo pics in your references? Also, what IS that reference? Finally, do they happen to give a color for that gray? Can I come up with any more questions in this, my 100th post (yay!)?  

Okay, I set a spark and cinders are lit. I will start a new thread for the GB.

That profile came straight out of the Squadron/Signal Publications Armor Number 27 "Tiger in Action".  You gotta love all the varied schemes used by the Germans for both armor and aircraft. 

Here is a black and white shot as well:

 

 

And here are some photos and profiles that may prove useful.  Note how these images show the great variations from "artistic license" and the means with which the crews had to apply the paints. 

These are from another Squadron/Signal publications book "Panzer Colors III" by Bruce Culver

espins1 wrote:

(other than a few pistol ports and the ability to fire an MG 42 down the barrel ).

Haven't read much about Ferdinands/Elephants and had never heard this. Was this a makeshift attempt at close in anti personal since they had no bow gun?

Was it the Ontos that had .50s hanging under the guns? I think so under the recoilesses. Though I understood this was more for verifieing aim than for personal or such.

kcmat wrote:

espins1 wrote: (other than a few pistol ports and the ability to fire an MG 42 down the barrel ). Haven't read much about Ferdinands/Elephants and had never heard this. Was this a makeshift attempt at close in anti personal since they had no bow gun?

Yes, that was a desperate attempt to fend off the hoards of Russain infantry.  The Elefants were slow.  The Russians would hide in their trenches and wait for the initial punch of panzers to go past, then mop up the infantry and assault the Elefants.  Even German infantry were unable to protect the Ferdinands.  They were so huge and slow that they drew a lot anti-tank and artillery fire, which decimated the protecting panzer troopers.

I had read about firing the MG 42 down the barrel in several of my Elefant/Ferdinand resources as well as in some of my books on the Battle of Kursk.

espins1 wrote:

I had read about firing the MG 42 down the barrel in several of my Elefant/Ferdinand resources as well as in some of my books on the Battle of Kursk.

Hermesminiatures-thanks for the digging & posting of pics.  I have several options for the T-34, involving homemade numbering/lettering and/or faded winter wash.  It's always good to have options....

I'm thinking about building the SU-122 for the GB. The only 1/35 scale kit that I've seen is the Tamiya, and I haven't found a review for it anywhere. Has anyone got the kit or has anyone built it and can comment on it?

I have the Dragon SU-100, and wondering if I could convert it to the SU-122 (sort of a reverse-retrofit).

I'm really interested in the Dragon SU-76, but all the reviews I've read recommend to run, not walk, away from that one.

Thanks,

Larry