Your Guess....

[Hundestaffel]

....is as good as mine.

Can anyone ID this Little Monster ???


"Hundestaffel"

[Erich B.]

I want one!
It looks like an armoured tractor.
Erich

[Jock Auld]

Could it be some sort of 'bespoke' machine for a range area?

Maybe range 5 (V) for towing targets or the like?

I see similar Unimog trucks on the ranges today, although not armoured they have been modified to give a better view of the range and a good command and control platform?

Jock

[Mil-Archive]

Looks a bit like a Dalek prototype

[jmark]

I want one!
It looks like an armoured tractor.
Erich

Or a self-propelled armoured portaloo (porta potty).

[Jon Fish]

Looks a bit like a Dalek prototype

Exactly my thought ! Weird look contraption.....

[Totenschmiss]

I looked at it and said to myself "Dalek", then read others thought the same thing. Funny.

[chrischa]

I think it is a tractor for combat engineers.

If you think rationally, the only time a vehicle needs to be armoured is for protection either in combat situations or the potential for combat situations.

It appears to be early war and a local build rather than wide spread. This would indicate it did not really take off as a necessary vehicle.

Regarding it being used for range work, having an armoured vehicle for this job indicates it could potentially come under fire. This is not a behaviour armed forces encorage. Also, there would be a hell of a lot of them in photographs as there were many ranges of various types during the war.
This could not protect the driver under artillery fire.

All opinion of course.

Chris.

[Larry Davis]

Mystery solved.....

[chrischa]

Ah, I stand corrected.

I'm not sure the armour is thick enough to cope with one of the Fuhrer's balls. (He appears to only have one in the photo).

[kuratorium]

Mystery solved.....

[Jock Auld]

I think it is a tractor for combat engineers.

If you think rationally, the only time a vehicle needs to be armoured is for protection either in combat situations or the potential for combat situations.

It appears to be early war and a local build rather than wide spread. This would indicate it did not really take off as a necessary vehicle.

Regarding it being used for range work, having an armoured vehicle for this job indicates it could potentially come under fire. This is not a behaviour armed forces encorage. Also, there would be a hell of a lot of them in photographs as there were many ranges of various types during the war.
This could not protect the driver under artillery fire.

All opinion of course.

Chris.

Chris,

Good point but if you visit the period ranges such as Munster Nord OP Winkler you will still see today the bunkers forward of the firing points where some poor bugger sat and operated the large mechanical levers for the targetrey.

I looked at the flat bed behind it and you will see similar flat beds carrying targetry today as well, it was just a though.

Also our attitudes to range safety have evolved a lot in 70 years.

I like the idea though that this is the original CET.

Our 'wedgeys' could never keep them running anyway!

Jock

[Larry Davis]

Link failed...try again

No it was nothing, really....browser is in censor mode....it's all becoming very PC these days.

[Br. James]

I love the photo, Larry!! Wonder why the kid is holding a putter while on the driving range?!?! If he was getting golf instructions from the Führer...or perhaps from Wilhelm Brückner...then it's no wonder why he's holding the wrong club!!

Much fun!

Br. James

[Br. James]

Should we assume that this photo was taken at a Bavarian resort sometime between 1925 and 1927, when the NSDAP was banned? Brückner isn't wearing a swastika brassard on his SA uniform...

Br. James