» Errors, Corrections & Clarifications 02:03 note that "Obere Führung" at late-war meant Heerestruppen so above division command, usually assigned to a corps or an army command. The definition from Truppenführung is pre-war and although used also in late-war instructions, the situation was quite different to 1934. Thank you to Dr. Roman Töppel for that correction. Want to see more videos with content from museums or historical sites? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, more info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv - » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
Sollte "Schwerpunkt" wirklich mit "weight of efforts" übersetzt werden? Ich bin kein Militärexperte oder Übersetzer, aber Clausewitz "Schwerpunkt" wird meisten mit "center of gravity" übersetzt. In diesem Fall wäre "center of gravity" aber glaube ich auch nicht so doll. "Focus point" oder "concentration" oder "anchor" passen besser.
I got wrecked trying to use one of these things last night against a Churchill in Post Scriptum. now I clearly see the error of my ways, thank u mr military history for showing me what to do next time
For mine this is exactly what their expecting as I talk about weapons all the time and know the - "Im a cat person." - joke this chanel made a shirt for. They are not expecting that I watched this ruclips.net/video/Z8RXBb0syEI/видео.html
"Now you know what to do.....NO MORE EXCUSES" *Adds "Familiar with Jagdpanther Battalion Deployment and Employment" to LinkedIn Profile, almost immediately gets 5 job-offers*
You too ? Its to tough to keep my family well supplied with 15 Inch ( sorry I meant 38 cm ) rocket ammo. We are a 3 Sturmtiger family and I need to keep myself my wife AND our teenage daughter stocked up with ammo...I tell you man modern problems !
When you stand beside the Jagdpanther my jaw just dropped. I forgot how HUGE that thing was!! If I was an Allied soldier in WW ll and saw that, I'd be HARD pressed to keep my cool. "You've got to be kidding me!!" would be the most polite thing that comes to mind. An EXCELLENT video, thank-you for making it!!
Umh.....if you were a LOYAL AND TRUE jagdpanzer member why are you writing and not with your comraden? As I thought, the Gestapo will be stopping by to visit soon. Your Truly, A.H. Postmark Argentina.
I have no comment relating to this video in particular, I just wanted to say that I got my copy of the Assault Platoon Manual today and even just skimming through it really quick: I am very impressed by the quality of it all.
It's interesting how detached so much of these documents are so detached from the reality of operations. Everything is to be a mobile reserve to support the infantry: never mind the waves of enemy interdictors or massive artillery against staging areas that will break up any kind of counterattack, or the question of what exactly is going to be providing the infantry with frontline support.
It feels like these manuals were assuming the war in 1944 was the same kind of situation for the German army as it had been in 1941 or '42; very far removed from the harsh reality of the late war! I believe very few Jagdpanthers were ever made - did they even make enough to fill more than a couple of those battalions?
Surprising how much taller the Jagdpanther is than a Jagdpanzer. Nevertheless, the Jagdpanther makes the development of the the Jagdtiger seem even more useless.
@@kleinerprinz99 Maybe, but I'd argue that putting the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 on the Jagdpanther was a better investment than on the Tiger II. The need for mobile firepower capable of taking out heavy soviet tanks was necessary, and the Jagdpanther was a more cost effective if not versatile alternative.
This quote that I saw on the internet some time ago really sums it up well: "The Germans got tired of blasting away t34s with the 88mm gun, so they decided to nuke them with a ahell the size of its engine block."
Yup. Really no need for a gun heavier than the 8.8 cm L/71. But German weapons procurement in WW2 was always a mess which is why they ended up with so many different weapons and unfinished projects.
I recall the 14 Jagdpanthers of the 654 were used in Penny packets in Normandy. Whilst there was a successful engagement against a squadron of 6 Armour Brigade Churchill’s, lead by Willie Whitelaw, who later became Home Secretary, all three of the Jagdpanthers were lost or abandoned. Similarly 3 were lost in a counter attack , 43rd (Wessex) Division and tanks of the 13th/18th Royal Hussars at Mont Pinçon. After a rain storm, the ground was unsuitable for heavy tracked vehicles. They quickly became bogged down, and easy targets for the 17 pounder screen. So they we’re dealt with because the tactical rules were not followed. They were working with one of the SS heavy Tiger battalions, would also lost two tigers 1 a new king tiger bogged, a Crocodile destroyed them.
@@kleinerprinz99 worth a read, www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2018/08/02/repair-of-jagdpanthers-at-normandy-part-ii/ the numbers in repair are high limiting what was available to fight.
The Jagdpather on display in Münster is especially interesting in that one can see 75mm (or possibly 76mm?) hits scarring its frontal armor. I'd love to hear what this particular machine encountered during its service and in what circumstances it received its battle damage. Although those facing this beast in WW2 probably didn't think so at the time, I myself, with the benefit (and blessing) of being able to peacefully consider this machine 70+ years later, feel that the Jagdpanther is a strikingly beautiful piece of evolved AFV design.
> The Jagdpather on display in Münster Munster not Münster, this is important because every year even Germans end up in Münster where is no Panzer museum. Doesn't help that google maps "auto-corrects" to Münster also, since Munster is rather small.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized LOL!! Thanks for the geo-correction there MHV! Would hate to end up asking some local in Münster, "Wo ist der Jagdpanther" and get directed to some random Puff. : p
I love the amazing audio and how it wasnt in the slightest dubbed over at a later date when referred to as 53 calibers instead of the proper 56 length ;)
If you read unit histories you'll see they violated these rules constantly as circumstances dictated. When things hit the fan, the rule book went out the window.
We have a saying called “METT-TC dictates”. It’s kind of used as a sarcastic response to any question. METT TC stands for Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Time, Troops, Civilian considerations. In effect, you have what the rule book states and what you’re able to do because METT-TC dictates what happens, not the rule book.
Yes, using their heavy armored batallions (both tanks and tank destroyers) as intended would have required having enough „normal“ tanks, as well as arguably infantry and self-propelled guns (and halftracks...) in order to handle the „normal“ tactical and operational tasks required by the situation. Which after 1941, the German Army never did. And since they were always short on men, tanks, guns, and pretty much anything else, out goes the rule book and the heavy bataillons constantly needed to close the gaps and put out fires. In fact, you can probably argue that the whole use of „Kampfgruppen“ is also a direct result of the fact that no army, division, or batallion was ever really at authorized strength or capable of handling the intended task, so the Germans were inevitably forced to throw together whatever units they had available and use them together. This of course raises an obvious problem with the use of heavy tanks and tank destroyers in that they are not flexible enough, and history has borne this out with the rise of the MBT. On the other hand, one might argue that the Tiger and especially the Jagdpanther were perfectly suited to the tasks they were given in practice, and it was simply the doctrine that was wrong...
@@jacquesstrapp3219 this is true, but they are arguably still descended from the medium tanks of WWII, certainly where their role is concerned. Yes they‘re heavier, but they‘re also highly mobile, much more mobile than your Churchill‘s, Tigers or IS-2. And it‘s not like MBT’s started off in the late 40s weighing 60 tons. They worked their way up to it, more or less as engine technology caught up to be able to handle the extra weight. Certainly for WWII, it’s the mobile Shermans and T-34s that play the dominant role on the battlefield. The Panthers are a bit heavier, but the Germans never had enough of them and they were already running into reliability and propulsion issues.
@@raylast3873 I agree for the most part but would like to add that tactically MBTs perform the roles of every tank class. I was in the US Army when the Abrams and Bradley vehicles were introduced and participated in the wargames that tested the doctrine that is currently being used so I'm quite familiar with the capabilities of modern equipment.
My grandfather was a panzerjager in a Marder and then a Panzerjager L70. From what I remember, he told me they were used to protect the flanks and in an ambush role
If you are ever in Texas, be sure to visit the Drive Tanks ranch where you can drive Shermans and fire the main gun. There are also historical machine guns for rental, as well as flamethrowers.
It be interesting to see how much of this was used in the Courland pocket in TIK's documentary on the subject. After all, based on him alone, is the side show battles, that really show the most things than the massive glorious ones that we all know and read about. Don't think the wording is correct but it be interesting to see. I'm a layman on this sort of stuff. But I have a general interesting in the Tank Destroyers and Stugs as they've seem to have done the most work when compared to the tank units. I suspect I'm wrong and missing stuff. But I'm generally interested as I've heard many positive things on them. When also backed up by the infantry.
One thing to look out for with TIK is that he likes creating controversy (he has said so) ... and as such ... despite some good research - is less of a historian than he might have been ... .
It is clearly not to be used as the Swiss Army Knife of AFV. I assume the scouting for positions is best done by infantry? Maybe motorcycle/bicycle/Kettenkrad? I assume no one dismounts the vehicle to scout? I would guess that it has to be infantry or support personnel trained as to what positions are advantageous? In any case, it is clear that they knew there would not be many of them so to be very careful and conserve them. This would also require the most powerful towing machine to drag them back for repair, so not many of those either. What is not surprising is the amount of support personnel necessary; it turns out there are often several people operating in the rear for each soldier fighting at the front. It probably gets much worse when complex equipment is involved.
afaik dismounting your armored vehicle to scout ahead was somewhat common practice for ww2 tank commanders (could be wrong, i just read about multiple occasions)
We had a towed 3 inch anti tank gun but had to let them get close. Not sure if it could penatrate the front even up close. I know they did some damage to some king tigers during the Ardennes attack. The tigers a appeared at broadside i don't remember the range.
Germany in WWII in a nutshell: Slaps a bigger and biggest gun on a tank/ship. The chassis/ship isn't big enough? Make it bigger to fit the gun. What? Crippling economy? I can't hear you over the sound of SUPREME GERMAN ENGINEERING.
Very informative and interesting video, it reminded me the episode of Band of Brothers where germans use a Tiger and a Jagpanther to successfully ambush a British armored column
slightly inaccurate as no U.S. forces encountered a tiger until they fell over 3 of them (damaged on flatcars for return to Germany) much later than D Day.The first troops to come up against Tigers were the Canadians and Brits.Alleged contact in North Africa turned ot to be MK 1V s.
Curious how different the experience in practice was. In 1944 in September the Germans had a Tank Destroyer battalion deployed in the south of the Netherlands. This was the schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 559. It never got a full complement of 45 JagdPanther but was rather a mixed bag of whatever they could assign. It went from 5 Jagdpanthers in Mai 1944, to a mix of stugs and Jagdpanthers in August(this source only mentions what was assigned, but not the losses incurred in between). In reality, the units were never deployed en masse but rather used as stopgap measures to bolster up defenses and notably attacks. As such compliments of these were assigned to the KampfGruppe Chill, ranging from 2 JagdPanther to 6 JagdPanther and eight stug, depending on what they thought was needed. This was partly due to the lack of armoured vehicles and due to the nature of the Dutch countryside with was basically a flat land with roads ofter on high embankments bordered with ditches. KampfGruppe Chill was the fire brigade unit for the 15th Army and the1st FallschirmJaeger Army(it got shifted between them) and consisted of a core of Fallschirm Jaegers units(notably the 6th Regiment of Von der Heydte) with additional units and a cadre from the former 85 Infantry Division. Aufgestellt am 10. April 1944 durch die Umgliederung der Panzerjäger-Abteilung (Sfl.) 559. Die Abteilung befand sich zu diesem Zweck im Lager Mielau. Im Mai 1944 wurden der Abteilung fünf Jagdpanther zugeteilt, im August 1944 folgten acht weitere. Im August 1944 wurden der Abteilung zudem 14 Sturmgeschütze zugeteilt, einen Monat später wurden 17 Jagdpanther übernommen. Am 31. Oktober 1944 wurde die Abteilung dem LXXXVII. Armee-Korps unterstellt. Am 4. Dezember 1944 wurde die Abteilung der 256. Volks-Grenadier-Division unterstellt, eine Woche später der Panzer-Lehr-Division. Der Abteilung wurden 18 Panzer IV L/70 zugeteilt, einen Monat später sechs Jagdpanther. Im März 1945 erfolgte die Unterstellung unter das XIII. SS-Armeekorps. www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gliederungen/schwPzJAbt/schwPzJAbt559.htm KampfGruppe Chill: Fighting Spirit , Kampfgruppe Chill and the German recovery in the West between 4 September and 9 November 1944, a case study by Jack Didden
I think the experiences of schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 559 show the massive gap between 1944 German theory (use these vehicles massed in battalion or at least company strength!) and practice (AFVs frequently committed to battle a handful at a time, because that was all that was available). Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 559 actually fought very well in September 1944, considering how understrength it was.
@@jrd33 It also sums up the Normandy battle. Because of bombings, the Wehrmacht lacked the trains it relied upon to transport the standard infantry units to the front. It took weeks to send some infantry units. The consequence was that only the most nimble units, like Panzer Divisionen or Panzer Grenadieren divisions could do it in a relatively short time. The issue was that those divisions were designed to counterattack the Allies, not hold the ground, which was the purpose of the infantry units left behind. The Germans had no other choice than fight an attrition battle they could not win, with a tactical disadvantage.
I can see why people assume that armored turretless tank destroyers would be thought of as a defensive weapon. People forget that turrets were not overwhelming superior in an age before fire-on-the-move systems were fully developed, hence the S-Tank and Kanonenjagers being considered serious weapons even in the 1970s. If anything, moving around was better for the assault guns because it meant that the vehicles could quickly steer themselves onto targets. So in WW2, assault guns were really just that, assault guns, and could be very effective on the attack. Sure, by 1944, the majority of German assaults are counter-attacks, offensive acts part of a defensive operation, but they are still attacks all the same.
Lack of a turret is a big detriment in urban fighting. Remember that the gun arch was limited and you would have to turn the hull. Tank destroyers were done in part because they were economical, if a tank would pack similar firepower it was prefered over a case mate tank destroyer because the turret allows for far greater flexibility. Imagine being flanked in one, you cannot return fire as you need to be facing your enemy. A imobilised tank destroyer is dead, a tank can fire back. People seem to forget that. Why do you think nobody bothered with tank destroyers after WW2 ? You name me one fixed case mate tank destroyer built in large numbers imediatly after war. What did people built instead ? Centurions, T54/ T55 and Patton series dominated production for decades and this was before tanks could fire accuratly on the move because of advanced fire control systems and stabilisers. The swedish S series were an exception I guess, but as far as I know they did not classify them as tank destroyers at all. There is a reason nobody uses case mate tank destroyers, it was used in the war as a convenient and economical way to put a bigger gun on a tank chasis, that is it. It worked well in that contest as WW2 was a war of production too. It's a obselete concept by the end of WW2.
@@Vlad_-_-_ The point about urban warfare is valid. However, outside of cities I'd see turretless tanks as superior in terms of kills vs. cost until the 1970s, when turreted tanks were able to reliably shoot and hit while driving. Turretless tanks had the advantage that they needed to keep moving and could fight at close range, which helped against systems the SU had developed to detect the direction of gun shots. The main reason the turretless fighting vehicles weren't built was that Germany lost the war and the other powers saw no need to copy turretless tanks, despite their good kill/death ratios.
@@carldombrowski8719 I disagree. The fact that all the major powers spend all their time and effort developing main battle tanks such as T54's, Patton's and Centurion's speaks volumes. The USSR played a bit with what ? Object 268 and 703 and SU 122 54 ? And ASU 85 and ASU 57, out of which the last three I mentioned saw only low production numbers and did not see combat ? And I guess the USA played with the airborne Scorpion. Outside of that nobody bothered with tank destroyers, they were an obselete concept and it shows. Whatever a tank destroyer can do a turreted tank with similar cannon will do far better. Simple as that. Tank destroyers are good at mostly defensive fire from preferably hidden positions. There is far more to armored warfare than that.
@@Vlad_-_-_ I don't even know how this myth developed - probably from bone headed generals who didn't like them and used the fact that they were mostly used when Germany was on the retreat to discredit them. SG3, SG4 and similar tanks were made for the offensive, performed far better in relation to cost than any turreted tank, and solved the issue that the SU learned to automatically aim artillery and direct troops at gun shot sounds. Also, all tanks operate the same way in defense and offense: Go to the battle field. Wait until the enemy is in reach. Go on the offensive. Retreat to the assigned base for restocking. Repeat. Turreted tanks would usually stay in a suitable position and shoot for a while, which made it easy to counter them, while turretless tanks had to keep moving. Which is why Germany had such a large share of them during the final years of ww2, much higher than the share of production. An army with a mix of turreted and turretless tanks would easily beat an army of the same cost with only turreted tanks, until the 1970s.
@@carldombrowski8719 I am not saying casemate tank destroyers were bad or not capable, quite the opossite, if employed corretly they were very dangeorus and historically achieved great succses on the front. But I stand by on what I said, if a turreted tank is packing the same gun and you can afford it, there is no point producing tank destroyers instead of said tanks. The turret makes it so much more versatile. There are some today, sure, the RacketenJagdpanzer, russian Khrizantema and I am sure there are others. But main battle tanks are way more common.
You should have called it Panzer Museum Monster! Notice that the Jagdpanther you stood beside apparently had marks due to shots having bounced off the glacis.
Nothing surprising for the use of a "Schwerpunktwaffe" which was normally under the control of a "Generalkommando" or a "Armeeoberkommando". What I find interesting that there were many reminders that this vehicle was weighting much.
There definitely was a widespread adoption of tank destroyers late in the war by the German army. I think there was a push to have atleast one company of the 75mm 38t in the new "volksgrenadier" divisions. Not sure how many actually got them in practice. I wonder what is more effective having TD units attached to a corps or army command or having individual companies available to each infantry division.
So, if I understand correctly, the main problem with the german tanks, and anything armoured, was not really the "overengineering", but the improper application of tactics as stated.
As far as I know the JPanther inherited the issues of the Panther, aka the poor steel quality that meant guns that should not be able to penetrate it, would do so and even with non penetrating shots the armor could be cracked and resulting spalling on the inside would basically do the shell's job and injure crew and damage components. There is a picture of a JPanther knocked out frontally by a M36 Jackson that used the M3 90mm cannon, basically similar in performance to the Tiger I 88mm. That gun should NOT be able to penetrate it, but poor steel quality made it possible. Ironic, for a tank and a heavy tank destroyer that is praised to no end by german armor fans to have great armor to have such weaknesses. Still, both Panthers and JPanthers could be deadly if employed correctly.
seeing the jagdpanther along the JgdPz4,its obvious what a disadvantage the great size is. anti-tank guns were very dangerous because of their small size, easy to camouflage. after the war, the germans build the Jagpanzer Kanone, with a 90mm gun, but almost as small as the jagdpz 4.
Not using it in fixed positions, well, i bet it is really handy to have some scouting troops prepare the firing positions in advance of the tank getting there. Moving a lot makes the tank venerable on the move. I can see how this is prohibited from staying fixed in one spot. While you can use horses or cars with a canon for that sort of deal. Greetings, Jeff
For those interested in de use of Jagdpanthers in operations: there is a dissertation written by Jack Didden(in English) which you can download from the Radboud Universtity for free. See the link below. It is a detailed description of the operations by Kampfgruppe Chill. KG Chill was an ad hoc unit used in most of the operations during the early fall of 1944 in the Southern Netherlands, including Market Garden and the battles to clear the access to the Port of Antwerp. Core units came from the 85th Infantry Division, but the core fighting units for most of its existence were fallschirmjaeger regiments(including the 6th) backed up on a regular basis by Jagdphanters and Stugs from sHPzJgAbt 559. Interesting detail: the sHPzJgAbt 559 was a mixed unit of Jagdpanthers and Stugs. repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/98661
At 05:12: "The use of individual Jagdpanther is prohibited!" I can see two reasons why you would emphasize this: 1. One tank is no tank. If you use a single tank it couldn´t be used with effect. Fire and Movment is nearly impossible. The smallest unit of tanks you can use with effect is the platoon. 2. Not everyone gets every handbook. Even today cross-reading handbooks and regulations is rare. Most soldiers, even officers, only read the handbooks and regulations of their branch of arms and the basic handbooks and regulations. Tha´ts why some handbooks and regulations from different branches of arms contain the same phrases.
We've seen many vehicles from Military History Visualized, will we get to see the light Marder III? I don't hear much of it outside video games. Usually only the heavy tank destroyers are talked about.
Looking at all of that, I'm going.... uh huh, right. Sure, yeap, okay, making sense. Control the fire, mutually supporting units, finding good positions to fire from. Mutually supporting lanes of fire. Have clear fall back positions, ensure that you're moving under friendly cover. Either I'm reading too much of this stuff or it's just particularly obvious for me. Probably both.
Does the manual have anything on the logistics of supporting such a massive weapon? The passages you've cited stress concentration of force, but concentration of force can only be achieved if you have tank transports to get tanks to the battlefield and if the terrain, bridges and such, allows such a heavy tank to traverse the battlefield. It seems unlikely that the German army would be able to employ this in accordance with doctrine given these constraints. This also raises the question of why resources were allocated to such a weapon.
@@f4ucorsair264 that's where uptiering comes in and is BS they need to fix, if it was at 6.3 It would do good but...... we both know you never get you're BR ranking ( I fucken run a 4.7-5.3 line up for whe. I need to get lions but I get bumped to 6.3 all the time)
@@f4ucorsair264 I haven't gone that far in american tree but was haveing fun in the begining but as soon as I started hitting mid tier 2......... I dont like rape
I thanks for the video really interesting. I have one question. What was the arc of movement the gun itself had. That is how far could the gun move up/down and left/right? Thanks once again.
The major German strategy flaw was that they were designing superior but prohibitively expensive weapons and THEN expecting them to be used in mass formations and for short periods of times to do proper maintenance. It's like having a cake and eating it too. it was practically impossible to employ these few superior weapons effectively as they were designed to do.
This the tank killed by a 6 pounder APDS. The penetration is the small hole under the bolt on mantlet facing, bottom left. Unlike world of tanks, where my Ram II is so nerfed. The front dents are made by 17 pounder APBC. The Chieftain.
One thing that always puzzled me: why did the original Sherman have such a short barrel? I know that many tankers preferred the original 75mm gun over the 76mm gun but I would think just making the 75 muzzle longer would have given more velocity to the shells so when the Shermans came up against Nazi tanks, they would have had more of a chance. Was US manufacturing incapable of putting a longer gun in the turret when the Sherman first was developed?
The original Sherman did not have a short barrel. It had a 40 caliber length gun, the early Panzer IV had 24 caliber length that was short. The upgraded Panzer IV had 43 and then 48 caliber length.
» Errors, Corrections & Clarifications
02:03 note that "Obere Führung" at late-war meant Heerestruppen so above division command, usually assigned to a corps or an army command. The definition from Truppenführung is pre-war and although used also in late-war instructions, the situation was quite different to 1934. Thank you to Dr. Roman Töppel for that correction.
Want to see more videos with content from museums or historical sites? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible.
Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, more info here:
» patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv - » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
*3 weeks ago
I follow your channel time ago
you can make subs for spanish people?
your work need see for everyone.
Saludos!
Great video 👍
Sollte "Schwerpunkt" wirklich mit "weight of efforts" übersetzt werden? Ich bin kein Militärexperte oder Übersetzer, aber Clausewitz "Schwerpunkt" wird meisten mit "center of gravity" übersetzt. In diesem Fall wäre "center of gravity" aber glaube ich auch nicht so doll. "Focus point" oder "concentration" oder "anchor" passen besser.
Why did German vehicles use petrol engines rather than diesel ones? T34 was diesel, no? Wouldn't that have created less oil dependence?
I didn’t realize how big a Jagdpanther is...wow
Yeah, it’s flicking massive!
Yeah, you could put a hinge on the front plate and use it for a Hetzer garage!
That’s what she said...
Sorry I had to. And I agree, you don’t really get a scale on these machines until you see them from the ground.
Big girls with a "large" front AND a PUNCH = ♥♥♥♥
He's just short.
Yes, now we can operate our Jagdpanther battalions. NO MORE EXCUSES!
I got wrecked trying to use one of these things last night against a Churchill in Post Scriptum. now I clearly see the error of my ways, thank u mr military history for showing me what to do next time
If they don’t break down
@@eazy8579 NO MORE EXCUSES.
Lets practice it ingame
Get your helmet and goggles. I'll pick you up at 2pm sharp!
When I tell my family that I like to watch cat videos, this is not what they were expecting.
For mine this is exactly what their expecting as I talk about weapons all the time and know the - "Im a cat person." - joke this chanel made a shirt for.
They are not expecting that I watched this ruclips.net/video/Z8RXBb0syEI/видео.html
Kätze Videos!
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 OH GOD OH GOD
LOL !!!!! :-)
"Now you know what to do.....NO MORE EXCUSES"
*Adds "Familiar with Jagdpanther Battalion Deployment and Employment" to LinkedIn Profile, almost immediately gets 5 job-offers*
I shall use this
@@simon4781 the Euro-Banks ❤ this in your skill-set, especially!
Sigh*
Puts on helmet*
Goes to the front*
Girls in the 40's be like: ugh if your lenght isn't at least 71 times your caliber don't even bother
pro tip, just never tell her your caliber is tiny
@@SomeSaltySoviet Avoid girls with wide ditches. Your caliber size wont matter in these situations.
Karl gerät operators are crying in the corner.
Damn harlots, you’d think they would know the small ones conquered Europe, but the big boys get all the fame
barrel length relative of caliber would just be called a __ caliber barrel, such as a 71 caliber barrel
I'm still trying to find ammunition for my Sturmtiger.
You too ? Its to tough to keep my family well supplied with 15 Inch ( sorry I meant 38 cm ) rocket ammo. We are a 3 Sturmtiger family and I need to keep myself my wife AND our teenage daughter stocked up with ammo...I tell you man modern problems !
Please be sure to purchase Fair Trade/ Environmentally Friendly HE rounds.
@@lostalone9320 It would take ages to hand manufacture a tank shell. Especially if all you have is handyman tier tools.
@@1973Washu He'll be down to launching beer cans full of concrete.
2:30 "the regular tiger 1 had a mere...F I F T Y S I X...barrel lengths"
tfw you erased a word with a shit pencil eraser a few times and hope it isnt too obvious that you couldnt spell "bourgeoisie"
like a car navi when another persons voice just says the city name
Hahahahahh
When you stand beside the Jagdpanther my jaw just dropped. I forgot how HUGE that thing was!! If I was an Allied soldier in WW ll and saw that, I'd be HARD pressed to keep my cool. "You've got to be kidding me!!" would be the most polite thing that comes to mind. An EXCELLENT video, thank-you for making it!!
Imagine seeing a Konigstiger rolling through a bush a few hundred meters ahead of you. I'd just throw down my weapons and bolt
@@CrazyDutchguys That would be a big club!
My overall absolute favourite TD. I've built two scale model versions and just love the look, simplicity and powerful gun.
My personal favorite too
One of the more reliable german tanks used doing the war.
Damn. this is a week late, my Jagdpanther battalion was over run and totally lost.
Umh.....if you were a LOYAL AND TRUE jagdpanzer member why are you writing and not with your comraden? As I thought, the Gestapo will be stopping by to visit soon. Your Truly, A.H.
Postmark Argentina.
I have no comment relating to this video in particular, I just wanted to say that I got my copy of the Assault Platoon Manual today and even just skimming through it really quick: I am very impressed by the quality of it all.
Thanks for the support and glad you like it!
I'm interested, where can I get a copy?
It's interesting how detached so much of these documents are so detached from the reality of operations. Everything is to be a mobile reserve to support the infantry: never mind the waves of enemy interdictors or massive artillery against staging areas that will break up any kind of counterattack, or the question of what exactly is going to be providing the infantry with frontline support.
It feels like these manuals were assuming the war in 1944 was the same kind of situation for the German army as it had been in 1941 or '42; very far removed from the harsh reality of the late war! I believe very few Jagdpanthers were ever made - did they even make enough to fill more than a couple of those battalions?
Surprising how much taller the Jagdpanther is than a Jagdpanzer. Nevertheless, the Jagdpanther makes the development of the the Jagdtiger seem even more useless.
Both of them were redundant.
@@kleinerprinz99 Maybe, but I'd argue that putting the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 on the Jagdpanther was a better investment than on the Tiger II. The need for mobile firepower capable of taking out heavy soviet tanks was necessary, and the Jagdpanther was a more cost effective if not versatile alternative.
This quote that I saw on the internet some time ago really sums it up well:
"The Germans got tired of blasting away t34s with the 88mm gun, so they decided to nuke them with a ahell the size of its engine block."
Yup. Really no need for a gun heavier than the 8.8 cm L/71. But German weapons procurement in WW2 was always a mess which is why they ended up with so many different weapons and unfinished projects.
Always superb Bernard. Merry Christmas and stay safe!
I recall the 14 Jagdpanthers of the 654 were used in Penny packets in Normandy. Whilst there was a successful engagement against a squadron of 6 Armour Brigade Churchill’s, lead by Willie Whitelaw, who later became Home Secretary, all three of the Jagdpanthers were lost or abandoned. Similarly 3 were lost in a counter attack , 43rd (Wessex) Division and tanks of the 13th/18th Royal Hussars at Mont Pinçon. After a rain storm, the ground was unsuitable for heavy tracked vehicles. They quickly became bogged down, and easy targets for the 17 pounder screen. So they we’re dealt with because the tactical rules were not followed. They were working with one of the SS heavy Tiger battalions, would also lost two tigers 1 a new king tiger bogged, a Crocodile destroyed them.
Because the crews were teenagers not trained well enough and not drilled well enough. And the tactical doctrine was even contradicting itself.
@@kleinerprinz99 worth a read, www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2018/08/02/repair-of-jagdpanthers-at-normandy-part-ii/ the numbers in repair are high limiting what was available to fight.
The Jagdpather on display in Münster is especially interesting in that one can see 75mm (or possibly 76mm?) hits scarring its frontal armor. I'd love to hear what this particular machine encountered during its service and in what circumstances it received its battle damage. Although those facing this beast in WW2 probably didn't think so at the time, I myself, with the benefit (and blessing) of being able to peacefully consider this machine 70+ years later, feel that the Jagdpanther is a strikingly beautiful piece of evolved AFV design.
> The Jagdpather on display in Münster
Munster not Münster, this is important because every year even Germans end up in Münster where is no Panzer museum. Doesn't help that google maps "auto-corrects" to Münster also, since Munster is rather small.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized LOL!! Thanks for the geo-correction there MHV! Would hate to end up asking some local in Münster, "Wo ist der Jagdpanther" and get directed to some random Puff. : p
I love the amazing audio and how it wasnt in the slightest dubbed over at a later date when referred to as 53 calibers instead of the proper 56 length ;)
Everybody gangsta until the Jagdpanthers show up.
If you read unit histories you'll see they violated these rules constantly as circumstances dictated. When things hit the fan, the rule book went out the window.
We have a saying called “METT-TC dictates”. It’s kind of used as a sarcastic response to any question. METT TC stands for Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Time, Troops, Civilian considerations. In effect, you have what the rule book states and what you’re able to do because METT-TC dictates what happens, not the rule book.
Yes, using their heavy armored batallions (both tanks and tank destroyers) as intended would have required having enough „normal“ tanks, as well as arguably infantry and self-propelled guns (and halftracks...) in order to handle the „normal“ tactical and operational tasks required by the situation. Which after 1941, the German Army never did.
And since they were always short on men, tanks, guns, and pretty much anything else, out goes the rule book and the heavy bataillons constantly needed to close the gaps and put out fires. In fact, you can probably argue that the whole use of „Kampfgruppen“ is also a direct result of the fact that no army, division, or batallion was ever really at authorized strength or capable of handling the intended task, so the Germans were inevitably forced to throw together whatever units they had available and use them together.
This of course raises an obvious problem with the use of heavy tanks and tank destroyers in that they are not flexible enough, and history has borne this out with the rise of the MBT. On the other hand, one might argue that the Tiger and especially the Jagdpanther were perfectly suited to the tasks they were given in practice, and it was simply the doctrine that was wrong...
@@raylast3873 MBTs are super heavy tanks by WWII standards. An M4 Sherman weighed 25 tons, an M1 Abrams weighs 60 tons.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 this is true, but they are arguably still descended from the medium tanks of WWII, certainly where their role is concerned. Yes they‘re heavier, but they‘re also highly mobile, much more mobile than your Churchill‘s, Tigers or IS-2.
And it‘s not like MBT’s started off in the late 40s weighing 60 tons. They worked their way up to it, more or less as engine technology caught up to be able to handle the extra weight.
Certainly for WWII, it’s the mobile Shermans and T-34s that play the dominant role on the battlefield. The Panthers are a bit heavier, but the Germans never had enough of them and they were already running into reliability and propulsion issues.
@@raylast3873 I agree for the most part but would like to add that tactically MBTs perform the roles of every tank class. I was in the US Army when the Abrams and Bradley vehicles were introduced and participated in the wargames that tested the doctrine that is currently being used so I'm quite familiar with the capabilities of modern equipment.
One of my favorite scenes in "Band of Brothers" (Replacements) is the Jagdpanzer racing out of cover, halting and popping the lead Sherman.
The way that it rocks back and forth before firing...made me jump right out of my seat!
My grandfather was a panzerjager in a Marder and then a Panzerjager L70. From what I remember, he told me they were used to protect the flanks and in an ambush role
Another excellent video, thanks MHV!
Mate, I love the detail in your videos. I learn something new every time.
Thanks.
Absolutely love these videos hope you do one on the Ferdinand
If you are ever in Texas, be sure to visit the Drive Tanks ranch where you can drive Shermans and fire the main gun. There are also historical machine guns for rental, as well as flamethrowers.
It be interesting to see how much of this was used in the Courland pocket in TIK's documentary on the subject.
After all, based on him alone, is the side show battles, that really show the most things than the massive glorious ones that we all know and read about. Don't think the wording is correct but it be interesting to see.
I'm a layman on this sort of stuff. But I have a general interesting in the Tank Destroyers and Stugs as they've seem to have done the most work when compared to the tank units.
I suspect I'm wrong and missing stuff. But I'm generally interested as I've heard many positive things on them. When also backed up by the infantry.
One thing to look out for with TIK is that he likes creating controversy (he has said so) ... and as such ... despite some good research - is less of a historian than he might have been ...
.
Pz 4
@@BobSmith-dk8nw TIK aka ''NAzIs are Socialists''
@@tzeentchnianexaltedsorcero2041 They were.
Maybe look up what happened to actual left wing people in Nazi-Germany :).
Gute Weihnacht und ein Glückliche Neues Jahr.
My favourite WW2 Panzer by far. Still looks so deadly (& cool) 75 years later. Thanks for another brilliant video! 👍🇩🇪
It is clearly not to be used as the Swiss Army Knife of AFV. I assume the scouting for positions is best done by infantry? Maybe motorcycle/bicycle/Kettenkrad? I assume no one dismounts the vehicle to scout? I would guess that it has to be infantry or support personnel trained as to what positions are advantageous? In any case, it is clear that they knew there would not be many of them so to be very careful and conserve them. This would also require the most powerful towing machine to drag them back for repair, so not many of those either.
What is not surprising is the amount of support personnel necessary; it turns out there are often several people operating in the rear for each soldier fighting at the front. It probably gets much worse when complex equipment is involved.
Yes most likely
afaik dismounting your armored vehicle to scout ahead was somewhat common practice for ww2 tank commanders (could be wrong, i just read about multiple occasions)
I realize these machines were developed because they were cheaper and faster to produce than a tank, but they sure were great looking.
My East Prussian heritage is showing... Really enjoy your concise and informative videos. Fiellen Danke!
Vielen Dank*
@@MrNebelschatten I think you are technically correct on reflection, but my Ya-ya had a lisp.
@@Gronicle1 *Ja, ja* :*
Every time I find myself in celle I make the trip to munster. Its a great museum
Oh yes, ready and willingly to assume my Jagdpanther battalion! Thanks a lot.
"We didn't penetrate their armor."
"We just dinged them."
We had a towed 3 inch anti tank gun but had to let them get close. Not sure if it could penatrate the front even up close. I know they did some damage to some king tigers during the Ardennes attack. The tigers a appeared at broadside i don't remember the range.
yes we did check the pictures at the imperial war museum london
Love your videos! Thanks!!!!!
Germany in WWII in a nutshell: Slaps a bigger and biggest gun on a tank/ship. The chassis/ship isn't big enough? Make it bigger to fit the gun. What? Crippling economy? I can't hear you over the sound of SUPREME GERMAN ENGINEERING.
Thank you sir. Doing outstanding job. Great channel
Me playing Jagdpanther in WoT: Where the hell is my supporting infantry?
!!!
Ans also the armor is missing :/
My favorite tank as a kid... I'd like a 1/6th scale R/C one. Seems like the equivalent of the archer in medieval times.
Very informative and interesting video, it reminded me the episode of Band of Brothers where germans use a Tiger and a Jagpanther to successfully ambush a British armored column
slightly inaccurate as no U.S. forces encountered a tiger until they fell over 3 of them (damaged on flatcars for return to Germany) much later than D Day.The first troops to come up against Tigers were the Canadians and Brits.Alleged contact in North Africa turned ot to be MK 1V s.
Very informative piece.........Great machine also! One of my favourite armoured vehicles....Peace from Ireland!
You’re the greatest Austrian military historian in world history MHV!!!!
Northern German accent
Wait until they deny him from tank school...
Curious how different the experience in practice was. In 1944 in September the Germans had a Tank Destroyer battalion deployed in the south of the Netherlands. This was the schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 559. It never got a full complement of 45 JagdPanther but was rather a mixed bag of whatever they could assign. It went from 5 Jagdpanthers in Mai 1944, to a mix of stugs and Jagdpanthers in August(this source only mentions what was assigned, but not the losses incurred in between).
In reality, the units were never deployed en masse but rather used as stopgap measures to bolster up defenses and notably attacks. As such compliments of these were assigned to the KampfGruppe Chill, ranging from 2 JagdPanther to 6 JagdPanther and eight stug, depending on what they thought was needed.
This was partly due to the lack of armoured vehicles and due to the nature of the Dutch countryside with was basically a flat land with roads ofter on high embankments bordered with ditches.
KampfGruppe Chill was the fire brigade unit for the 15th Army and the1st FallschirmJaeger Army(it got shifted between them) and consisted of a core of Fallschirm Jaegers units(notably the 6th Regiment of Von der Heydte) with additional units and a cadre from the former 85 Infantry Division.
Aufgestellt am 10. April 1944 durch die Umgliederung der Panzerjäger-Abteilung (Sfl.) 559. Die Abteilung befand sich zu diesem Zweck im Lager Mielau. Im Mai 1944 wurden der Abteilung fünf Jagdpanther zugeteilt, im August 1944 folgten acht weitere. Im August 1944 wurden der Abteilung zudem 14 Sturmgeschütze zugeteilt, einen Monat später wurden 17 Jagdpanther übernommen. Am 31. Oktober 1944 wurde die Abteilung dem LXXXVII. Armee-Korps unterstellt. Am 4. Dezember 1944 wurde die Abteilung der 256. Volks-Grenadier-Division unterstellt, eine Woche später der Panzer-Lehr-Division. Der Abteilung wurden 18 Panzer IV L/70 zugeteilt, einen Monat später sechs Jagdpanther. Im März 1945 erfolgte die Unterstellung unter das XIII. SS-Armeekorps.
www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gliederungen/schwPzJAbt/schwPzJAbt559.htm
KampfGruppe Chill: Fighting Spirit
, Kampfgruppe Chill and the German recovery in the West between 4 September and 9 November
1944, a case study by Jack Didden
I think the experiences of schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 559 show the massive gap between 1944 German theory (use these vehicles massed in battalion or at least company strength!) and practice (AFVs frequently committed to battle a handful at a time, because that was all that was available). Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 559 actually fought very well in September 1944, considering how understrength it was.
@@jrd33 It also sums up the Normandy battle. Because of bombings, the Wehrmacht lacked the trains it relied upon to transport the standard infantry units to the front. It took weeks to send some infantry units. The consequence was that only the most nimble units, like Panzer Divisionen or Panzer Grenadieren divisions could do it in a relatively short time.
The issue was that those divisions were designed to counterattack the Allies, not hold the ground, which was the purpose of the infantry units left behind. The Germans had no other choice than fight an attrition battle they could not win, with a tactical disadvantage.
@@chefchaudard3580 Good point.
Awesome video thank you for making this information palatable for me
Jagdpanther is a beautiful beast.
Thanks. Very nice video ! 😊👍 It's very interesting those tactical and organizational videos.
I can see why people assume that armored turretless tank destroyers would be thought of as a defensive weapon. People forget that turrets were not overwhelming superior in an age before fire-on-the-move systems were fully developed, hence the S-Tank and Kanonenjagers being considered serious weapons even in the 1970s. If anything, moving around was better for the assault guns because it meant that the vehicles could quickly steer themselves onto targets. So in WW2, assault guns were really just that, assault guns, and could be very effective on the attack. Sure, by 1944, the majority of German assaults are counter-attacks, offensive acts part of a defensive operation, but they are still attacks all the same.
Lack of a turret is a big detriment in urban fighting. Remember that the gun arch was limited and you would have to turn the hull. Tank destroyers were done in part because they were economical, if a tank would pack similar firepower it was prefered over a case mate tank destroyer because the turret allows for far greater flexibility. Imagine being flanked in one, you cannot return fire as you need to be facing your enemy. A imobilised tank destroyer is dead, a tank can fire back. People seem to forget that. Why do you think nobody bothered with tank destroyers after WW2 ? You name me one fixed case mate tank destroyer built in large numbers imediatly after war. What did people built instead ? Centurions, T54/ T55 and Patton series dominated production for decades and this was before tanks could fire accuratly on the move because of advanced fire control systems and stabilisers. The swedish S series were an exception I guess, but as far as I know they did not classify them as tank destroyers at all.
There is a reason nobody uses case mate tank destroyers, it was used in the war as a convenient and economical way to put a bigger gun on a tank chasis, that is it. It worked well in that contest as WW2 was a war of production too. It's a obselete concept by the end of WW2.
@@Vlad_-_-_ The point about urban warfare is valid. However, outside of cities I'd see turretless tanks as superior in terms of kills vs. cost until the 1970s, when turreted tanks were able to reliably shoot and hit while driving. Turretless tanks had the advantage that they needed to keep moving and could fight at close range, which helped against systems the SU had developed to detect the direction of gun shots. The main reason the turretless fighting vehicles weren't built was that Germany lost the war and the other powers saw no need to copy turretless tanks, despite their good kill/death ratios.
@@carldombrowski8719 I disagree. The fact that all the major powers spend all their time and effort developing main battle tanks such as T54's, Patton's and Centurion's speaks volumes. The USSR played a bit with what ? Object 268 and 703 and SU 122 54 ? And ASU 85 and ASU 57, out of which the last three I mentioned saw only low production numbers and did not see combat ? And I guess the USA played with the airborne Scorpion. Outside of that nobody bothered with tank destroyers, they were an obselete concept and it shows. Whatever a tank destroyer can do a turreted tank with similar cannon will do far better. Simple as that. Tank destroyers are good at mostly defensive fire from preferably hidden positions. There is far more to armored warfare than that.
@@Vlad_-_-_ I don't even know how this myth developed - probably from bone headed generals who didn't like them and used the fact that they were mostly used when Germany was on the retreat to discredit them. SG3, SG4 and similar tanks were made for the offensive, performed far better in relation to cost than any turreted tank, and solved the issue that the SU learned to automatically aim artillery and direct troops at gun shot sounds. Also, all tanks operate the same way in defense and offense: Go to the battle field. Wait until the enemy is in reach. Go on the offensive. Retreat to the assigned base for restocking. Repeat. Turreted tanks would usually stay in a suitable position and shoot for a while, which made it easy to counter them, while turretless tanks had to keep moving. Which is why Germany had such a large share of them during the final years of ww2, much higher than the share of production. An army with a mix of turreted and turretless tanks would easily beat an army of the same cost with only turreted tanks, until the 1970s.
@@carldombrowski8719 I am not saying casemate tank destroyers were bad or not capable, quite the opossite, if employed corretly they were very dangeorus and historically achieved great succses on the front. But I stand by on what I said, if a turreted tank is packing the same gun and you can afford it, there is no point producing tank destroyers instead of said tanks. The turret makes it so much more versatile. There are some today, sure, the RacketenJagdpanzer, russian Khrizantema and I am sure there are others. But main battle tanks are way more common.
Very good analysis thanks B
very inspirational - I use those tactics tips for writing standardised operational procedures in solo tabletop games :-)
The more of your videos I watch the more I understand the importance of coordination.
Thank you
You should have called it Panzer Museum Monster!
Notice that the Jagdpanther you stood beside apparently had marks due to shots having bounced off the glacis.
Nothing surprising for the use of a "Schwerpunktwaffe" which was normally under the control of a "Generalkommando" or a "Armeeoberkommando".
What I find interesting that there were many reminders that this vehicle was weighting much.
Wow, the Jagdpanzer looks like a Toy next to the Panther.
On the Right
Jagdpanzer medium
On the left
Jagdpanzer XL
Good video and clear explanations.
Well done + I suscribe !
Weiß ich fürs nächste Mal Bescheid. ;)
Klasse Beitrag!
It is interesting that the Jagdpanther tactics were the same whether facing the Soviet or western forces.
There definitely was a widespread adoption of tank destroyers late in the war by the German army. I think there was a push to have atleast one company of the 75mm 38t in the new "volksgrenadier" divisions. Not sure how many actually got them in practice. I wonder what is more effective having TD units attached to a corps or army command or having individual companies available to each infantry division.
Great video. Thanks for posting. Only now do I realise we share the same hairstyle.
Outstanding video and presentation.
I feel much more confident now heading out to the PTA meeting in my Jagtpanzer.
2:45 Yea I am going to doubt that one
In theory it is sound, in practice ehhh...
Well it's based on primary sources as they idealized, like all other manuals etc
Interesting video. Happy Christmas.
Alright then, next time I will do my best with Jagdpanther
So, if I understand correctly, the main problem with the german tanks, and anything armoured, was not really the "overengineering", but the improper application of tactics as stated.
As far as I know the JPanther inherited the issues of the Panther, aka the poor steel quality that meant guns that should not be able to penetrate it, would do so and even with non penetrating shots the armor could be cracked and resulting spalling on the inside would basically do the shell's job and injure crew and damage components. There is a picture of a JPanther knocked out frontally by a M36 Jackson that used the M3 90mm cannon, basically similar in performance to the Tiger I 88mm. That gun should NOT be able to penetrate it, but poor steel quality made it possible. Ironic, for a tank and a heavy tank destroyer that is praised to no end by german armor fans to have great armor to have such weaknesses. Still, both Panthers and JPanthers could be deadly if employed correctly.
I just love the heavy german accent...
Excellent! Very enjoyable video, thanks.
you can say - The Jagdpanther is a real Munster
Oh yes another video I can watch with my girlfriend, thanks Bernhard!
@@lostalone9320 right hand
@@lostalone9320 no, been meaning to show her that though, she likes anime, but I’m not
@Niek Vels uh
seeing the jagdpanther along the JgdPz4,its obvious what a disadvantage the great size is. anti-tank guns were very dangerous because of their small size, easy to camouflage. after the war, the germans build the Jagpanzer Kanone, with a 90mm gun, but almost as small as the jagdpz 4.
Hide, wait for enemy to approach, fire, retreat, hide, wait for enemy to approach, fire, retreat, hide,..... lose the war, GG.
All we need now is the *jagdabrams* tactics next
They did have plane for a "jagdabrams" or Goliat during the cold war.
Ah well. At least we got a couple of vehicles based on that chassis. M1074 Joint Assault Bridge and M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle.
3:20
How is it not an anti-tank gun? It's a self-propelled anti-tank gun.
Not using it in fixed positions, well, i bet it is really handy to have some scouting troops prepare the firing positions in advance of the tank getting there. Moving a lot makes the tank venerable on the move. I can see how this is prohibited from staying fixed in one spot. While you can use horses or cars with a canon for that sort of deal.
Greetings,
Jeff
Great video. Can you do a video on Jagdpanther counter-tactics? How were they defeated by advancing allies?
Is there any information available about the Panzerabwehrwerfer 600
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_cm_PAW_600
This tank is a Part of new gen of German Tanks i.e. "Hanz, the transmission broke again" gen.
Great video, so advanced technology for 1943 year
For those interested in de use of Jagdpanthers in operations: there is a dissertation written by Jack Didden(in English) which you can download from the Radboud Universtity for free. See the link below. It is a detailed description of the operations by Kampfgruppe Chill. KG Chill was an ad hoc unit used in most of the operations during the early fall of 1944 in the Southern Netherlands, including Market Garden and the battles to clear the access to the Port of Antwerp. Core units came from the 85th Infantry Division, but the core fighting units for most of its existence were fallschirmjaeger regiments(including the 6th) backed up on a regular basis by Jagdphanters and Stugs from sHPzJgAbt 559.
Interesting detail: the sHPzJgAbt 559
was a mixed unit of Jagdpanthers and Stugs.
repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/98661
thank you!
did not realise it was that much bigger than a hetzer holy crap
I think a better translation of Schwerpunkt is main focus or focal point when used in the tactical sense
At 05:12:
"The use of individual Jagdpanther is prohibited!"
I can see two reasons why you would emphasize this:
1. One tank is no tank.
If you use a single tank it couldn´t be used with effect. Fire and Movment is nearly impossible. The smallest unit of tanks you can use with effect is the platoon.
2. Not everyone gets every handbook.
Even today cross-reading handbooks and regulations is rare. Most soldiers, even officers, only read the handbooks and regulations of their branch of arms and the basic handbooks and regulations. Tha´ts why some handbooks and regulations from different branches of arms contain the same phrases.
We've seen many vehicles from Military History Visualized, will we get to see the light Marder III? I don't hear much of it outside video games. Usually only the heavy tank destroyers are talked about.
Excellent
Looking at all of that, I'm going.... uh huh, right. Sure, yeap, okay, making sense. Control the fire, mutually supporting units, finding good positions to fire from. Mutually supporting lanes of fire. Have clear fall back positions, ensure that you're moving under friendly cover.
Either I'm reading too much of this stuff or it's just particularly obvious for me.
Probably both.
Does the manual have anything on the logistics of supporting such a massive weapon? The passages you've cited stress concentration of force, but concentration of force can only be achieved if you have tank transports to get tanks to the battlefield and if the terrain, bridges and such, allows such a heavy tank to traverse the battlefield. It seems unlikely that the German army would be able to employ this in accordance with doctrine given these constraints. This also raises the question of why resources were allocated to such a weapon.
Great video. But I don’t understand how the lack of a turret wasn’t a huge disadvantage in offensive action.
In war thunder it’s sit 2 miles from the battle then start the complicated two step algorithm point and click
For good reasons fucken 10 second reload blows especially since no turret
@@seventucker3232 it helps to be able to kill anything though
@@f4ucorsair264 that's where uptiering comes in and is BS they need to fix, if it was at 6.3 It would do good but...... we both know you never get you're BR ranking ( I fucken run a 4.7-5.3 line up for whe. I need to get lions but I get bumped to 6.3 all the time)
@@seventucker3232 I play American vehicles, I get screwed over with every update
@@f4ucorsair264 I haven't gone that far in american tree but was haveing fun in the begining but as soon as I started hitting mid tier 2......... I dont like rape
I thanks for the video really interesting. I have one question. What was the arc of movement the gun itself had. That is how far could the gun move up/down and left/right? Thanks once again.
The major German strategy flaw was that they were designing superior but prohibitively expensive weapons and THEN expecting them to be used in mass formations and for short periods of times to do proper maintenance. It's like having a cake and eating it too. it was practically impossible to employ these few superior weapons effectively as they were designed to do.
I love the look of the L71 gun, it just LOOKS like it kills tanks. Ain’t shit gonna be bouncing his shells.
That reverse gear though... 😬
Hello everybody!
also do most military doctrine/manuals sound alike or are US field manuals worded eerily simliarly to ww2 german manuals?
This the tank killed by a 6 pounder APDS. The penetration is the small hole under the bolt on mantlet facing, bottom left. Unlike world of tanks, where my Ram II is so nerfed. The front dents are made by 17 pounder APBC. The Chieftain.
Very interesting for all Steal Division players!
One thing that always puzzled me: why did the original Sherman have such a short barrel? I know that many tankers preferred the original 75mm gun over the 76mm gun but I would think just making the 75 muzzle longer would have given more velocity to the shells so when the Shermans came up against Nazi tanks, they would have had more of a chance. Was US manufacturing incapable of putting a longer gun in the turret when the Sherman first was developed?
The original Sherman did not have a short barrel. It had a 40 caliber length gun, the early Panzer IV had 24 caliber length that was short. The upgraded Panzer IV had 43 and then 48 caliber length.