except it was the last major German JagdPanzer to be developed in the war so that's totally backward. Also the StugIII in WoT only really fits after the Hetzer because they let you put a long 75mm gun on it. Otherwise, the two would be largely equivalent.
@@weirddudes5543 they literally said in the video that the stug is more of an assault gun rather than a tank destroyer. The *real* German tank destroyers came after the hetzer, those being the jagdpanther, jagdtiger and jagdpanzer
My father commanded one of these Jagdpanzer 38(t)s on the eastern front in 1945 with the Prague Uprising in May 1945 being his final action. He had to destroy his vehicle in Prague when they ran out of fuel. BTW he never referred to his vehicle as a Hetzer, only as a 38(t). The Hetzer name became popular in the war gaming world.
And because it's a good name. Jumbles of letters and numbers contain no character to the average Tommy or for people just getting into history, especially in a foreign language or odd translation. A cool, German sounding name for the bad guys' kit works a treat better. Hence 'Spandau,' 'Messerschmidt,' 'Schmeisser,' 'Stuka,' 'Hetzer,' 'Stig,' 'Stug,' 'Mauser,' etc etc. So much cooler and fits conversations, advertisements, memoirs and fictions so much better hence why people are still coming up with new ones today like 'Skiddiff' and 'Peasy'. :)
Peter, thank you for sharing your fathers experience, he must of had nerves of steel. Prior to commanding JP 38t, was he a crew member of any other types of assault guns/panzers, for either training or combat? My uncle was a tank commander in Germany during the 1950's. He would always say the Soviets armor outnumbered NATO many times over, and the Soviets (at that time) had some superior designs. My uncle later said they would have been in trouble should the war turn "hot". Your father, and all armor personnel of that era, were extremely brave. Unlike my uncle, your father had to experience combat against those overwhelming odds.
@@ArcticTemper to be fair, it's military equipment, not a car, Although the Germans use a similar naming scheme for their cars as well. But thats due to European language barriers, a statistical description is often better than a name, which may carry different meaning in other countries. (Like the ford... ugh... "escort") No idea why I made this comment but I hope you enjoyed the info dump.
Thanks for the interesting video on the HETZER. My barber was a gunner on a Hetzer. He volunteered at the age of 16 and saw combat soon after in early 1945 in the area of Austria/Czech Republic against the Red Army. They were knocked out, his commander was killed and the rest of the crew was trapped inside the tank. They heared russian voices around the tank but kept silent. After three days they heard German voices and consequently they were resued by German soldiers. The worst thing was thirst as they had only little fresh water supplies. When he left the tank his hair has turned grey bcause of the horror.
@@todcarter110 Thanks for your reply! Although he smiled and laughed when he told me his story (because I mentioned that I am a scale modeler of WWII aircrafts and a few tanks) I could feel that it was not fun at all. He cut my hair way beyond his 80ies. :-) His son just noted that he thinks he was in idiot to volunteer at 16 and that late in the war! :-)
@@Bernd109 Who isn't an idiot when they're aged 16 haha. I'd hop in a Hetzer. Geez i'd have been sold on the German helmet design alone. Lol. Either way he lived to tell his story and have children. Also to give you good haircuts!
@@todcarter110 why don't you pop up to Inverness and try it, do a Claire Randall. When you've had a faceful of spall from a 75mm round tell me it's fun. Or maybe play catch with a butterfly bomb because you didn't know what it was - and watch a preteen girl get blasted in half - like my neighbour did when she was a child. Don't talk such fucking nonsense. As for the volunteering - possibly - but at best it was volunteering under duress and at worst it was Machiavellis Rule - give me a child until he is 7 and he'll be mine for life, the timing and age would be perfect.
In Australia the locomotive works were the only factories capable of producing large castings. The country had no works capable of producing roller steel armor
@Edgar Miller All true, my point was when the Allies were rapidly ramping up tank production, the first industries they turned to were ones with sufficient existing infrastructure, such as the locomotive builders.
That would make the most sense in any country. The only other factories which could do so would be car factories, but they're usually not prepared for such heavy loads at that time (closest you could get in terms of weight would be buses and trucks, and even those would be pretty light when compared even to light tanks), then shipyards but those are a bit overkill and they usually work with slightly different parts (lots of relatively thin plates, not nearly enough milled of forged parts to be efficient at making tanks), and then weapon factories for artillery but those would need some new tools as well. Locomotive factories are just the best fit apart from dedicated tank factory. Btw. nice to see that someone still uses word ''locomotive'' just recently I was thinking that I don't hear it that often and that its' use is dying out as most people just say ''train'' (same goes for my native language).
Great that you explain the German language tank names to an English audience. So many native English speaking presenters say the German tank names without explaining them.
Jagtpanzer -> a Tank that hunts Panzerjäger -> someone who hunts tanks The last Word is the proper noun the ones before are additional descriptors. This thing is technically a tank that hunts tanks that's why both terms apply. I'm not sure what kind of primary sources mr Raths (the director here) is drawing from but everything I read had a preferential treatment to calling the vehicles Jagtpanzer and the crews and troop segments the vehicles were assigned to as Panzerjäger.
Want to bet 90% of the times during the "question" part people are going to ask "Why is it called Hetzer?" or "How fast is it?". At some point somebody will put 1&1 together. And im pretty sure they do some research on tank games to know where they can "start with their potential audiance" because these games are so popular. It is the same with movies and every other museeum. Peoples "starting knowledge" is often based on media and a good museeum has to know that so they can work based on that and dont be confused if somebody asks "Why were the spartans all nearly naked only armed with a shield, spear and shield during the battle of the Thermoply?" IT is the same in school. You have to know where your students get their basic historical knowledge from so you can worked based on that/with that in your mind :)
I didn't know the stug factories were actually destroyed, I thought they just wanted to get the concept upgraded. Thanks for the video and all the explanations guys.
Not permanently destoryed though. But to stop this production stop from happening again they decided to increase the TD Modells and spread out TD production. If the Stug factory gets bombed again the frontline will at least still get hetzers....any usuable TD is better then no TD at the frontline. It is partly the same reason they started to build Panzer 4 TDs as well to diversify the production to different places so no matter what happens a certain amount of basic TD production of varies models would always get to the frontlines.
@@noobster4779 I understood that the factories were all destroyed in 1943. But that couldn't be because the amount of stugs fighting in 44 into 45. The stug iv at least I knew it was meant to hamp up production, but I didn't know about the factories being bombed and so forth.
@@TheStugbit Often when they say Destroyed doesn't mean it cannot be rebult, the main Tiger and Panther factor was down for 12 months however this wasn't all at one time, somtimes production of some parts of the tank could still take place.
A Hetzer wouldn't have been much of an upgrade given its paper thin side armor and cramped interior. Someone has a video, possibly The Chieftain, showing a cut open Hetzer and just how little room there actually was inside of them.
@@TheStugbit The factories were not destroyed, but production plummeted quite a bit for a time. The Alkett factory in 1943/44: September - 205 October- 255 November - 145 (Two RAF raids on Berlin) December - 25 January - 77 (bombed again by RAF) February - 59 March - 144 April - 194 May - 255 Assuming a steady production of 250 a month, instead of the 1500 tanks that could have been produced those 6 months, only 644 were made. A pretty significant loss. MIAG factory in 1943/44 November - 150 December - 150 January - 150 February - 137 (bombed) March - 120 (bombed) April - 100 (bombed) May - 80 June -145 Source: www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/WW2_GER_Tank_Monthly.htm
Such a great design, economical with such a punch! My dad was a tank commander of an M4 Sherman powered by a Ford GAA V 8 18 litre engine through Italy and his tank got knocked out by something in the Battle of Monte Cassino; luckily for me what ever it was, was low on Ammunition as it withdrew not firing another shot at my dads completely demobilised M4 Sherman, his team couldn't even move the Turret and they felt like sitting ducks. I learnt his stories by playing the waiter when his old mates came around, he was a Scotch and water man and his mates were either a Scotch or Gin and water; now and then they would go for a Rusty Nail, which was in their case 2 nips of Scotch and 1 Nip of Drambuie. And then I would just listen!
To be fair it is THE PERFECT vehicle for the swiss. Park it in a mountain pass and put support fire/at guns left and right on the mountains while the Hetzer covers the low ground. Under those circumstances there is literally only "the front" to worry about which is its strenght. also it is so small you can easily hide it everywhere and because it is small it can use most "dirt roads" and small bridges so the military can blown up the bigger ones to deny them to the enemy because they themselfs dont need them. Additionally i suspect that the HEtzer is do to its size a rather low maintenance vehicle by german standarts. Dont need heavy specialized equipment, average industrial cranes would propably do the trick as well or "nomral" field repair cranes. Just imagine a Panther driving up a mountain......the transmittion is going to be recked ion minutes... Or hiding a sherman.....it would stick out like a giant arrow sign Where here in the big box" And the fact that the Hetzer was pathetically slow wouldnt be a problem eather if you are on the hardcore defense with good positions every 5 meters prepared for decades for this moment :D
Man I wish the Panzer Museum had more English videos, or at least English cc. It could possibly bring a whole new subscriber base. Anyhow, I absolutely adored this video, I don't know why, I can't get enough of Hetzer content (I blame War Thunder and Lindybeige).
Its a good looking tank imo. When i see it my brain just thinks "yeah that should work pretty well". But i love non-turreted tanks. bee lined up all the non turreted lines in world of tanks, after 1st unlocking the obligatory Tiger of course.
@@ausaskar Actually, I find that to be quite interesting myself. I wonder if the Munster museum has any rare captured Soviet tanks (that had been modified with German weapons)? I doubt it, its extremely rare; however, I believe the Germans put a 75mm Pak 40 on a KV-1 (could just be an urban legend)
@@redhammer92 I'm a fan of casemate tanks myself, god the German TDs sure look sexy! I play Fly ACEs High and War Thunder myself. War Thunder has a different damage model than WOTs I believe. However, the Hetzers crew has the "human centipede" situation. Suffice to say, penetrating the right front plate will take out the driver, gunner and commander lol. Still a bad ass tank (for everyone but the uncomfortable crew lol)
That discussion of the crane capacity in Czech Rep. vs Germany was very interesting. I'm a Hetzer and PzKw 38t fan, but this is a level of documentary not found elsewhere. Thank you for the knowledge!
@@russianbotfarm3036 The German word for "splinter" is "Splitter". But "Schrappnel" is sometimes used synonymus for a splinter that flies thru the air with dangerous speed like debris during / right after a crash or explosion
Cranes are an especially common bottleneck in many economies. The USA didn't like the M26 tank because the typical ship-loading cranes were just about able to handle 30 tons of Sherman, but the majority of cranes were not rated for the 45+ tons of M26 Pershings, which limited where you could ship them from and to. Same for North Africa: a lot of people say that the Axis should have just sent more supplies to Rommel, but they tend to not know that the Axis-held ports in North Africa were mostly small affairs with few large cranes, already operating beyond their designed capacity, and so Rommel was basically as well supplied as he could have been because even if more ships had arrived, they couldn't move the cargo off them any faster.
'You fight with what you have, not what you wished you had." If you got a bunch of T38 hulls laying around, and have factories to produce more, might as well use them.
Finally real information on WW2 German tanks from German experts. Thank you for the historical information and "gaming" jokes/puns to make it more entertaining.
Honestly, it came down to the Anti-Tank divisions vs the Mechanized Infantry divisions. They cranked out StuG IIIs as fast as they could, but an Assault Gun was being pressed into service in an anti-tank role, that it wasn't designed for. The JagdPanzer was designed for Anti-Tank from the ground up, so for one thing the hull was a more efficient use of steel. It was designed for that, because RHS was also in short supply, being sent to every factory, building as many vehicles as possible. So, the decision came down to Logistics.
I had the privilege of meeting someone who was in the Swiss army for many years who drove one of these beautiful things around, needless to say, they convinced me this is one of the best tanks ever made. I LOVE the Hetzer.
Great discussion! Makes sense to build lots of these given Germany's strategic situation, and similar to the advantages of the Sherman, I'll bet these lighter guys can cross many bridges allowing for more deployment options as well. That being said ... I'm guessing it's not as useful for a Battle of the Bulge style all-in.
It seems like it did its job for the circumstanced. I didn't know that the stug factories got destroyed, which lead to them using the Czechoslovakian design to make a new version. Lindybeige made a video about the hetzer and I think he missed the point a bit, he complained a lot about the poor visibility, but this was to be used with infantry in ambush settings.
Great interview! I love it when interviewers let the expert talk and just direct them by asking the pertinent question, instead of pushing themselves into the foreground.
I've seen Ralf on quite a few channels, I like the guy he's very interesting and always gives great details in what he's taking about. Good video, thanks.
A couple of years ago at Militracks (somewhere in Limburg, the Netherlands) I had the chance to be in one of these being driven around. He is not exaggerating when he says it's cramped. It really is just a sardine can with a big gun right next to your face. Vision out was terrible. I sat in the position right behind the driver and I couldn't see shit. But I still love this thing, it's so tiny and cute
The most impressive thing about the hetzer is that they were able to make so damn many of them in such a short amount of time, unlike pretty much every other vehicle that they needed. Produced 4 march 1944 - 11 may 1945 No built approx 2827
That wasn't hard to do since all of the parts for the 38(t) were made close to the assembly plants. The turreted 38(t) became popular with crews and armor commanders due to being very reliable, fuel efficient and easy to repair and maintain. 1,400 turreted models were produced before the lines switched over to producing 1,500 Marder 3 versions. The Jagdpanzer 38(t) was designed to replace the Marder 3 which lacked frontal armor and crew protection.
There are comments further asking about the name Hetzer. Wiki, citing Dolye and Jentz, has this to say: "The name Hetzer (German for "baiter" or "chaser") was never an official suggestive name used for this vehicle. It was the designation for a related prototype, the E-10. The Škoda factory for a very short period confused the two names in its documentation and the very first unit equipped with the vehicle thus for a few weeks applied the incorrect name until matters were clarified. However, there exists a briefing paper from Heinz Guderian to Hitler saying that an unofficial name, Hetzer, had spontaneously been coined by the troops. Post-war historians basing themselves on this statement made the name popular in their works."
I find the power numbers for these vehicles shocking every time I see them, in this case a 34,000 lbs vehicle pushed by a 160HP engine (15750 kg/160 PS). A CAR that weighs 2500-3000 lbs (1100-2800 kg) would be considered at the very low end of the power spectrum at 160 HP, thus a vehicle an order of magnitude heavier seems outrageous to a modern civilian. I'd love to see a video going over just the gearing on these transmissions, as the ratios must be absolutely astronomical. At the very end when Ralf discusses the planned transition to a diesel engine, I wonder what the proposed torque numbers and changed to the gear rations would've been? For comparison, a modern 6.7L Ford Powerstroke turbo-diesel V8 produces 475 HP and 1075 lb-ft of torque, while the 3.0L generates 250HP and 440 lb-ft of torque (i.e. still substantially more than the Hetzer). The issue that arises from inefficient engines is not commonly discussed, but is important: if your tank runs out of gas, it immediately becomes a liability. The US seems to overcome that issue with exceptional logistics, but the issue crops up in all sorts of places (i.e. for German light tank destroyers attempting to get back to resupply despite a 110 mile operational range).
I’m always amazed that engines with such low HP and torque numbers could even move these behemoths, especially over rough terrain. No wonder the engines/transmissions were always breaking down.
This is just only a recent chasm, though, at least the scope... we thought the same thing about these war machines 25 years ago, “My goodness, how underpowered and heavy....” But in a relative sense. The cars of the ‘80s and ‘90s were not nearly as powerful as today. A 3500lb. sport sedan with 160bhp would have been “class leading” circa the late ‘80s- or the high end of the power spectrum, whereas today that seems anemic. In the ‘80s there were still many sub-100bhp cars, and 200+ was downright exotic. For any driver that worked then, it is a bit astonishing how strong engines are today, with their computer fuel maps and valves. The muscle cars of 20 years before that made big horsepower from sheer displacement (i.e., “There is no replacement for displacement” was a normal saying... and nowadays that is not true at all...).
@@WitchyWagonReal In the 60s and 70s a 'sports sedan' with 120 hp would be considered perfectly appropriate. Regular sedans, wagons and other 'normal' vehicles, as you stated had less than 100 hp. The muscle cars of the 60s and 70s were not nearly as impressive as people today think of them, the suspensions were archaic, the tires were pretty poor performers (driving a 'sports car' with bias-ply tires could be terrifying) and while the transmission were actually pretty good the cars of the era could be questionable performers.
@@WitchyWagonReal My favorite saying on this is a quote by David Ricardo during WW2, at the time in reference to aircraft engines: "We must think of an engine's power not in terms of its displacement, but in terms of the volume of air per unit time which it may be made to efficiently consume." Maximizing peak chamber pressure and minimizing pressure at exhaust valve open while maintaining control of ignition is perhaps the best distillation of engine efficiency and its limits.
Transmissions were always problematic on German panzers. As often happened, the vehicle would be designed and tested, and then "upper management," would demand more armor be added. The Panther's weakest point was its transmission. Supposedly this was resolved in the Jagdpanther, and the plan was to use the same transmission on the Panther going forward, but by then (1945) things were too desperate to make any changes to the manufacturing.
Dankeschön! Excellent exposition of the evolution and workings of an enigmatic machine. I can appreciate further how difficult it must have been to operate and maintain one of these Jagdpanzers.
"A perfect example of how the Wehrmacht was not structured for these things." What an excellent, of many descriptions, of the Wehrmacht as a whole. I've learned from this channel, primary, and secondary sources that almost the majority of all aspects of the Wehrmacht were unbelievably ad-hoc and improvised and subject to constant changes. The persistent myth in English speaking countries of German "Ordnung muss sein" conflicts heavily with the historical reality.
Thats a false dilemma fallacy, one doesnt necessary exclude the other. You can have constant changes and improvisations, but still have a lot of regulations, rules and a fable for lists. And if the others do worse than you, you can still be the order-loving one. So no, its not a myth, it depends on the perspective
I have seen the comic you mentioned at 12:17. It goes like this: the guns got longer and so were the faces of those who crewed them. Where would it have ended if someone would not have invented the "Pak auf Selbstfahrlafette" and the image is a drawing of a Nashorn with a smiling tank commander. In essence though you could say the Hetzer is basically recycling of exisiting resources. Several captured french vehicles were converted into tank destroyers by putting in the 7.5 PAK and adding soem armor. The Hetzer is basically a reuse of a reliable chassis (the Pz 38(t)) but in this case factory made and not improvised. Before the Hetzer Germany already used the same chassis for tank destroyers (for example the Marder 3) but the Hetzer was a more polished version. And it's biggest adavantage? it was way lower then the Marder series giving it way better ambush opportunities. Plus the sloped armor gave it a bit more protection. And just look at these numbers: introduced in March 1944 2584 Hetzer's were build until May 1945. Those are some respectable numbers.
According to Otto Carius a lot of new tank commanders were promoted up from the drivers position. Somehow the experience of tank driving made for good commanders.
And the drivers themselves were usually the most experienced crew members as it was also critical that they have mechanical awareness on the limits of their machines.
That "paper thin armor" makes the vehicle shrapnel resistant and splinter proof. With the russians using artillery to soften up prepared positions a fully enclosed fighting compartment was extremely important on the eastern front. Especially if you intend to use forested terrain (because if the enemy uses direct contact fuzes any hit on a tree becomes a storm of wood splinters. Which is bad for unprotected crew, but of no consequence if you have a fully armored vehicle). Adding sidearmor increases artillery resistance by about a factor of 4. With side armor AND top armor it's more like a factor of 12 since enemy artillery needs a direct hit (or very close hit with a sufficiently powerful round that it rocks the vehicle with sufficient force to injure crew and damage components). The only critique against the hetzer is that the sides should probably have been straight(er) to give the crew a larger fighting compartment.
The Jagdpanther is a work of art. I've seen videos of the inside, and there is SO much room it's incredible! Anyone who served in one loved it. (in interviews, of course). They said the cannon was the best!
Seems like the allies agreed that it was a great tank (despite its high silhouette and lack of a turret). So they gave much priority to bomb the factories making this tank. So only 382 of them were built before the war ended.
@@janstan8407 Common misconception. WW2 air-launched rockets were generally too inaccurate to reliably take out tanks (A direct hit would be a kill, but in testing the hit rate was like 5%, lower in combat). The real effect of these airstrikes was to take out the unarmoured trucks and horse drawn carriages (yes the Germans were still using those) carrying the fuel and ammo, without which the tank is of course useless.
@@nerd1000ify 10-4, but the same could be said for tank to tank combat. Kill to shot ratios were very low depending on the terrain, (field or city), tank, country, crew experience and ammo. But still a good point.
@@janstan8407 I think the main point to to look at it in the context of how many rockets a plane could carry. A full load of HVAR rockets on a P-47 is I think 10 rockets per plane. So at a 5% hit rate you on average will need two full P-47 loads to take out each tank.
the hetzer is my favourite tank. it's just such a fun tank to look at. it's also fun in games, i have learned the hetzer well enough in war thunder that i can semi-reliably hunt cold war battle tanks with it.
@@stein_the_lynx3284 Yeah, true. At that point, it could have been more useful to leave the sides completely vertical. They would at least have a little more space inside.
As an engineer I love it. Where can we build it? What can we build there? Take proven chassis and gun, slap on some armor, keep it low to the ground for ambush. Then it works so well they said, "Just build a huge number of these things." Improvisation at its greatest. Necessity is again the mother of invention. Sounds like another vehicle that would have a support group identifying the next ambush point for hasty retreats.
Great video,appreciate that 2 Germans trying to explain some complex machines, in English. Thank you. Not been to Munster yet,will do when movement for peasants allowed again.
7:01 A minor correction to your minor correction, if I may: 7.5 cm PaK 39 was a different version of a tank-mounted KwK 40 L/48 and used the same ammuniton (75×495 mm R), while PaK 40 used the same shells, but with a different case altogether, thus resulting in the 75×714 mm R cartridge.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized These days you can get this stuff even from the Wiki, and for visual references and more data Anthony Williams' website (quarryhs.co.uk) is the way to go. Even Wehrmacht teaching aide posters are available online. As for the books, I think you should check the usual suspects (Jentz & Doyle, Chamberlain & Gander, Hogg, etc) first and foremost. There are some German authors on this topic like Wolfgang Fleischer, Karl Pawlas, Joachim Engelmann and Horst Scheibert, but I'm not familiar with their works at all.
@@F1ghteR41 I checked pretty much all of that, but that detail I apparently missed it, probably because I was mainly looking at what the Pak39 actually is / how it differs from the Pak40.
Great video and I appreciate how well each of you speaks English (and I love the German accent in the English!). Thank you for producing this great content.
With the various restrictions in their abilities and need to focus on ambush more than on the aggressive movement, it almost seems like they are more like a mobile AT bunker than a tank or AFV mounting a more powerful gun. Something with a turret is freer to move around, adapt to, and operate in spite of the terrain. Something like the Hetzer is tied much more tightly to the physical lay of the land, much like any concrete emplacement would be.
Great discussion about my favorite little tank destroyer ! I remember seeing one at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in the strange white, black and yellow camo scheme.
Oh my God, he forgot to mention that the design was inspired by the Marshall Tank which was a Tank Destroyer (in prototype stages) build in Romania as a symbol of respect for our Marshall Ion Antonescu.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Wikipedia: Hetzer page (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer#cite_note-2): "British historian Mark Axworthy suggests that the design for the Hetzer was likely rooted in the Romanian Mareşal tank destroyer. In November-December 1943, a Romanian commission ordered from Germany and German-occupied France several components which could not be made in Romania and this drew German attention to the Mareşal. Hitler approved the development of the Hetzer on 7 December 1943. That same month, Marshal Antonescu (Conducător of Romania at the time) commended the Mareşal project to Hitler. Soon afterwards, on 6 January 1944, Hitler was presented with the plans of the Mareşal M-04 prototype. Axworthy notes that the Hetzer'"s armament, armor and broader hull were very similar to those of the M-04. He also reports that in May 1944, German Lieutenant-Colonel Ventz (a delegate of the Waffenamt) admitted that the Hetzer had followed the Romanian design solution.[2] American historian Steven Zaloga writes that "The Germans were impressed with the overall layout of the Mareşal, and it is credited with being the inspiration for the German Jagdpanzer 38(t) tank destroyer."[3]" and the sources mentioned there are the following: [2] Axworthy, p. 229 [3] Zaloga, p. 31 The Mareshall Tank Destroyer page : "Two German representatives observed the testing of M-04 and were impressed by its maneuverability. According to British historian Mark Axworthy, it was a German Lieutenant-Colonel by the name of Ventz who, in May 1944, acknowledged that the Hetzer was created along the lines of the Mareșal.[8]" and the sources mentioned here are the following: [8] Axworthy, p. 229 and in the Romanian variant: "Acesta a fost inspirația pentru crearea distrugătorului de tancuri german Panzerjager 36 poreclit Hetzer" "Testele prototipului M-04 au fost evaluate și de 2 reprezentanți ai Înaltului Comandament German, care au fost impresionați de manevrabilitatea și mobilitatea originalului vânător de tancuri." which is translated into: "This was the inspiration for creating the German tank destroyer Panzerjager 36, nicknamed Hetzer." "The tests of the M-04 prototype were evaluated as well by two representatives of the German High Command , whom were impressed by the maneuverability and the mobility of the original tank destroyer" (probably referencing the M-00 variant, although that is debatable)
Course is "Kurs" in German. German and English have a great deal of shared roots in vocabulary, but not syntax or grammar at all. I make the same mistake often when I say a similar sounding English word in a German sentence. It *is* funny and fitting though.
There is another video where Hillary Doyle says the Hetzer's front RHA armor was inferior as it was too soft. This was looked at by experts and found it was the optimum hardness as it facilitates ricochet in highly oblique impact (60°). But, more so vs. UK/US AP and not so well vs the large caliber blunt SU shells.
So was the US M4 Medium ("Sherman"). But if you build enough of them, and are willing to accept huge losses in your tank crews (as was the US), then it may work out better than having a few heavier vehicles.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 German armor quality in general suffered as war shortages caused problems: the German jets in particular suffered because of this, but Tigers and Panthers also got knocked out by shots they should have been able to endure simply because too many shortcuts were made for the armor to be reliable.
There's more to the war than Germany, you know. Italians had some heavier gun prototypes of their Semovente line right when the government capitulated. The Russians has the SU 122, SU 152, and ISU 152 among others. The Hungarians had the Zrinyi, a bit outdated but still useful. The Jagdpanther is a great vehicle, but I'd still prefer to be in an ISU 152 if my life depended on it.
This really answers the puzzle of the weird Hetzer. So many people ask "Why didn't they just ...?", not realizing the issues of production capability, overhead crane capacity, rail or road transport, and bridge weight limits. The Hetzer worked within those limits, with the added factors of a proven CZ drive train and undercarriage, and the range limits of Allied bombing with no midair refueling. Face it, the Hetzer was one of the components of the "last ditch" strategy. Sometimes some strange limitations were thrown in, such as the US limiting tank track widths due to the width of existing US pontoon bridge sections, and tank weight due to dockside crane lift capacity. The US had many production advantages, such as General Steel Castings Company, which could routinely pour enormous and complex steel castings. GSC had huge furnaces able to melt many tons of steel in one batch. This came about because GSC was set up well before WW-II, to make one-piece steam locomotive underframes, complete with cylinders and air tanks. These frames were much more rigid than the built up bar frames of most UK and European locomotives, leading to less bearing and wheel wear, and frame breakage. When war came, casting one piece Sherman hulls and turrets was no big deal. Looking at a Sherman, notice a cast shield shape with a "G" inside it, that's General Steel Castings. The Chieftain has done many of these "Why didn't they ...?" videos for the US side.
You see hits on the front? I seen it in Munster. Someone's earS would've been ringing/Bleeding. But worse would be the poor bastards who shot at it, only to get a hit and have it bounce off! Some of the hits are like an Inch deep. It has many indents around the Gun sight from a heavy MG.
@@todcarter110 During the battle of Kursk one Tiger survived getting hit over 60 times and the crew managed to get the tank back to German lines drawing a long line of oil and fuel behind them since their tanks got ruptured by the hits. I can't imagine how taxing this was on their ears.
@@Athrun82 I imagine your whole body and brain would be a bit shaken up. Massive Steel rounds pinging off solid steel! Not sure if you've seen this vid but imagine the sound and impact of the 88 Firing inside the tank! Let alone getting hit so many times! This guy mentions he ''feels like someone has punched him in the sinus'' ruclips.net/video/CMm-k26qMaA/видео.html Had to be tough as fuck to fight and survive!
Most people don't know this, but the Hetzer only had actual armor plate on the front of the vehicle. The 20mm sides were just regular mild steel, not armor plate. You can see a video of Hetzer destroyed by a side shot from a bazooka, the only part of the tank destroyer that was left was the gun mantlet and cannon. The 60mm heavily sloped armor made it invulnerable to the Sherman 75mm gun from the front, it was good protection against the American 76mm gun as well. It had 121mm effective armor thickness. Panther was 141mm effective thickness
Let me guess, I have not seen: you have hulls and tracks ready made, and there are guns available, and it is cheaper to just put some steel plate on than build more Stugs.
Nope! The Stug factories were almost completely destroyed from allied strategic bombing, so they proposed building them in Czech Škoda factories instead. However, the cranes were not strong enough to haul 24 tonne Stugs, only 16-tonne vehicles. Therefore, they had to base a Tank Destroyer on the 38(t) chassis with this in mind.
@@Mr_Bunk The Škoda works were building LT 38 models since before the war and it was a good and reliable chassis. The Hetzer was inspired by Romanian Mareșal tank hunter which impressed the Wehrmacht, not a improvised Stug replacement.
If I may share my opinion about the matter. There were two,very distinct layout for dedicated tank destroyer vehicles in the German military. *1st* . Open topped,usually open back superstructure,with dedicated anti-tank gun.The main gun has a good firing arc.The boxy superstructure usually start at the middle length of the hull.Mostly refurbished chassis(like Pz I,II,captured French vehicles,etc),although dedicated chassis were also present(like the Geschützwagen III/IV for Nashorn,or the last series of the actual 38(t) chassis,which were built for the Marder IIIM[and some other vehicles] from the start). *2nd* . Enclosed upper hull and superstructure, with dedicated anti-tank gun. The main gun hasn't got as good for a firing arc as category 1st. Superstructure usually start as close to the nose section as possible,sometimes it's just an enlarged nose plate act as the front of the superstructure as well(like Jgpz 38(t)). Mostly designed and built on an already existing chassis with new,sloped armour plates for superstructure. Although in case of the Jgpz 38(t),it's a new,but already tested chassis(Pz 38(t) nA),which itself is based on a previously mass-produced,well-proven design(the well-known Pz 38(t)). But,obviously: And then there is category *3rd* . as the interim in between 1st and 2nd. Those are the Ferdinand/Elefant and the StuG IIIF and G. You already got some elements of the 2nd category, but some elements are not fully developed. And there is category *4th* as vehicles which are not designed to be either Panzerjäger or Jagdpanzer,but because of their gunnery performance and their armour penetration, are well capable for the tank destroying role,sometimes even used by Panzerjäger units, like the half-track with the 8,8 cm FlaK 37(forgive me,can't remember it's designation) or the 'Pz.Sfl. V Sturer Emil'.
This was done as a wheeled tank in the game Battletech. Loved it in that game. Ugly, fragile, massive gun. Frightening if it catches you by surprise though.
Simple: Gleiche Logik wie beim Hetzer;´ 1) Fabriken sind die gleichen wie bei Panzer 4, heißt Unterbau kann 1 zu 1 übernommen werden 2) ein nahezu perfektioniertes Design. Der Panzer 4 war der m meisten gebaute und am längsten dienende deutsche Panzer und schon sehr sehr SEHR häufig optimiert und verbessert worden. 3) TD sind billiger als "richtige" Panzer, also können mehr in die Schlacht geworfen werden 4) Strategische Lage entwickelte sich zur Defensive -) TDs werden mehr bevorzugt 5) Besser als der Stug 3, da er zum einen als TD von Grund auf designed worden war und zum anderen das bessere und schwerer Panzergrundgerüst hatte (Pz3 < Pz4) 6) Produktionsprobleme bei dem Stugs durch Bombardierungen wie im Video erwähnt. Produktion der TDs auf mehrere Modellle und Standorte verteilen um Grundversorgung zu erhalten (besser irgendein TD an der Front als gar keiner)
@@noobster4779 Den wichtigsten und ursprünglichen Punkt hast du vergessen: Die lange 7,5 Des Panther auf Panzerjäger zu bringen. Dieser Panzer ist abseits der Panzerspezialisten dennoch eher unbekannt, deshalb mein Vorschlag
Because the germans liked stugs so much they planned to convert all tanks to Stug style tanks. If the war had lasted longer, we would’ve seen Stugtigers.
Being a German, I can tell you that we have the same amount of chaos and lack of thought and organization as in every other country there is. It just depends on the topic and where you look at.
13 minutes video and I feel like the really interesting chat of tank fans just began 🙂 Still a lot of interesting information. Greetings from Czech, sad that our best tank design finally helped the wrong side. Now it's history, but let's learn from it.
The ammo for the Jgd.Pz.38(t) is the same 7.5 cm. round (KWK40) used in late Mark IVs and Stug. IIIs, but it is not the same cartridge as the PAK 40 towed antitank gun. To keep the weight down of the towed antitank gun (PAK 40), it shot a very long cartridge, when compared with the shorter KWK40. But, the towed gun's cartridge was of a smaller diameter without a shoulder to the casing. Thus the towed gun's barrel could be of a smaller diameter at the breech end, saving weight. I owned one for twenty years.
It's more like: How can the Czech factories produce a vehicle that isn't outdated by 1943 standards. The Hetzer is just the same evolution of the Pz. 38(t) that they StuG F/G was for the Pz III. Mounting a gun that at least could deal with tanks. The StuG production also temporarely continued in the form of the SuG IV.
That was how the Finns "killed some Soviet tanks (including the biggest one in existence at the time) during the Winter War. The just dug giant Bear Traps, and kited the enemy tank towards it. If it is stupid, but works ... then it ain't stupid!
The Hetzer was designed to replace the Marder 3, which went into production after the turreted 38(t) was declared obsolete. The 38(t) was considered to be an excellent design due to being extremely reliable, fuel efficient and easy to repair and maintain so were converted to carry AT cannons with shielding for the gun crew. A total of 1,400 38(t)'s were produced, 1,500 Marder 3's and 2,800 Hetzers. Production of the Hetzer was ramped up after the StuG factories began having more delays due to the bombing.
Quite obvious. You have to unlock the Hetzer before you can further research the tank destroyer line.
except it was the last major German JagdPanzer to be developed in the war so that's totally backward. Also the StugIII in WoT only really fits after the Hetzer because they let you put a long 75mm gun on it. Otherwise, the two would be largely equivalent.
@@j.f.fisher5318 I think this refers to war thunder, where the JagdPanzer IV, JagdPanther, and JagdTiger all come after the hetzer.
Imagine having to need the padlock key to you machine before going into action!
@@jefflei215 More likely referring to WoT because the Hetzer in WT comes after the last StuG.
@@weirddudes5543 they literally said in the video that the stug is more of an assault gun rather than a tank destroyer. The *real* German tank destroyers came after the hetzer, those being the jagdpanther, jagdtiger and jagdpanzer
My father commanded one of these Jagdpanzer 38(t)s on the eastern front in 1945 with the Prague Uprising in May 1945 being his final action. He had to destroy his vehicle in Prague when they ran out of fuel. BTW he never referred to his vehicle as a Hetzer, only as a 38(t). The Hetzer name became popular in the war gaming world.
actually not, there is a report of the time, where a Higher Up refered to them as Hetzers by mistake, thats kind of how it came to the strange name
And because it's a good name. Jumbles of letters and numbers contain no character to the average Tommy or for people just getting into history, especially in a foreign language or odd translation. A cool, German sounding name for the bad guys' kit works a treat better.
Hence 'Spandau,' 'Messerschmidt,' 'Schmeisser,' 'Stuka,' 'Hetzer,' 'Stig,' 'Stug,' 'Mauser,' etc etc. So much cooler and fits conversations, advertisements, memoirs and fictions so much better hence why people are still coming up with new ones today like 'Skiddiff' and 'Peasy'. :)
Peter, thank you for sharing your fathers experience, he must of had nerves of steel. Prior to commanding JP 38t, was he a crew member of any other types of assault guns/panzers, for either training or combat?
My uncle was a tank commander in Germany during the 1950's. He would always say the Soviets armor outnumbered NATO many times over, and the Soviets (at that time) had some superior designs. My uncle later said they would have been in trouble should the war turn "hot". Your father, and all armor personnel of that era, were extremely brave. Unlike my uncle, your father had to experience combat against those overwhelming odds.
The Prague Uprising, that's chilling.
@@ArcticTemper to be fair, it's military equipment, not a car,
Although the Germans use a similar naming scheme for their cars as well.
But thats due to European language barriers, a statistical description is often better than a name, which may carry different meaning in other countries. (Like the ford... ugh... "escort")
No idea why I made this comment but I hope you enjoyed the info dump.
Posted 28mins ago and already have a dislike? Probably stug fan
Maybe Bernhard is such a celebrity now, he has a stalker who automatically downvotes anything he uploads?
Russian bias! 😅
They didn’t choose stug life, stug life chose them
@@johanrunfeldt7174 probably they got HETZED.
StuG life: don't Hetz the player, Hetz the game.
Thanks for the interesting video on the HETZER. My barber was a gunner on a Hetzer. He volunteered at the age of 16 and saw combat soon after in early 1945 in the area of Austria/Czech Republic against the Red Army. They were knocked out, his commander was killed and the rest of the crew was trapped inside the tank. They heared russian voices around the tank but kept silent. After three days they heard German voices and consequently they were resued by German soldiers. The worst thing was thirst as they had only little fresh water supplies. When he left the tank his hair has turned grey bcause of the horror.
What a life hey. He lived more in that 3 days than most do in a lifetime. Hence why he went grey!
@@todcarter110 Thanks for your reply! Although he smiled and laughed when he told me his story (because I mentioned that I am a scale modeler of WWII aircrafts and a few tanks) I could feel that it was not fun at all. He cut my hair way beyond his 80ies. :-) His son just noted that he thinks he was in idiot to volunteer at 16 and that late in the war! :-)
@@Bernd109 Who isn't an idiot when they're aged 16 haha. I'd hop in a Hetzer. Geez i'd have been sold on the German helmet design alone. Lol. Either way he lived to tell his story and have children. Also to give you good haircuts!
@@todcarter110 Exactly! :-)
@@todcarter110 why don't you pop up to Inverness and try it, do a Claire Randall. When you've had a faceful of spall from a 75mm round tell me it's fun. Or maybe play catch with a butterfly bomb because you didn't know what it was - and watch a preteen girl get blasted in half - like my neighbour did when she was a child.
Don't talk such fucking nonsense. As for the volunteering - possibly - but at best it was volunteering under duress and at worst it was Machiavellis Rule - give me a child until he is 7 and he'll be mine for life, the timing and age would be perfect.
Crane capacity is why you see so many tanks in Britain, Australia, Canada, and the US being made by locomotive works.
In Australia the locomotive works were the only factories capable of producing large castings. The country had no works capable of producing roller steel armor
@@binaway I believe initially in the US and Britain the same was true also.
@Edgar Miller All true, my point was when the Allies were rapidly ramping up tank production, the first industries they turned to were ones with sufficient existing infrastructure, such as the locomotive builders.
Canada manufactures nothing, wouldn't want to contribute to climate change!🤣
That would make the most sense in any country. The only other factories which could do so would be car factories, but they're usually not prepared for such heavy loads at that time (closest you could get in terms of weight would be buses and trucks, and even those would be pretty light when compared even to light tanks), then shipyards but those are a bit overkill and they usually work with slightly different parts (lots of relatively thin plates, not nearly enough milled of forged parts to be efficient at making tanks), and then weapon factories for artillery but those would need some new tools as well. Locomotive factories are just the best fit apart from dedicated tank factory. Btw. nice to see that someone still uses word ''locomotive'' just recently I was thinking that I don't hear it that often and that its' use is dying out as most people just say ''train'' (same goes for my native language).
Great that you explain the German language tank names to an English audience. So many native English speaking presenters say the German tank names without explaining them.
Jagtpanzer -> a Tank that hunts
Panzerjäger -> someone who hunts tanks
The last Word is the proper noun the ones before are additional descriptors.
This thing is technically a tank that hunts tanks that's why both terms apply. I'm not sure what kind of primary sources mr Raths (the director here) is drawing from but everything I read had a preferential treatment to calling the vehicles Jagtpanzer and the crews and troop segments the vehicles were assigned to as Panzerjäger.
@@DeHerg it's referring to a panzerjager as in the open top vehicles as stationary in ambush and the jagtpanzer as mobile and hunting
i totally love that the museum is aware of the memes lol
They know their audience
Want to bet 90% of the times during the "question" part people are going to ask "Why is it called Hetzer?" or "How fast is it?". At some point somebody will put 1&1 together. And im pretty sure they do some research on tank games to know where they can "start with their potential audiance" because these games are so popular. It is the same with movies and every other museeum. Peoples "starting knowledge" is often based on media and a good museeum has to know that so they can work based on that and dont be confused if somebody asks "Why were the spartans all nearly naked only armed with a shield, spear and shield during the battle of the Thermoply?"
IT is the same in school. You have to know where your students get their basic historical knowledge from so you can worked based on that/with that in your mind :)
Ralf & Bernhard X HETZER= Legendary Video!!!!
Well a Hetzer _has_ gotta Hetz.
In some of their many German videos the director actually said that they sometime cooperate with games like War Thunder or World of Tanks.
"Tank hunter" does sound better than "Tank back stabber, before running away so as to not get obliterated".
You must admit that it will most undoubtedly sound stupendous is German
@@colbyuetake130 To be fair, everything does sound more badass in German.
**Spy from TF2** noises
Hunter in the sense of ambush killer is perfectly accurate though. In the sense of a pursuit predator though, it's not exactly accurate.
Shorter.
I didn't know the stug factories were actually destroyed, I thought they just wanted to get the concept upgraded. Thanks for the video and all the explanations guys.
Not permanently destoryed though. But to stop this production stop from happening again they decided to increase the TD Modells and spread out TD production. If the Stug factory gets bombed again the frontline will at least still get hetzers....any usuable TD is better then no TD at the frontline.
It is partly the same reason they started to build Panzer 4 TDs as well to diversify the production to different places so no matter what happens a certain amount of basic TD production of varies models would always get to the frontlines.
@@noobster4779 I understood that the factories were all destroyed in 1943. But that couldn't be because the amount of stugs fighting in 44 into 45. The stug iv at least I knew it was meant to hamp up production, but I didn't know about the factories being bombed and so forth.
@@TheStugbit Often when they say Destroyed doesn't mean it cannot be rebult, the main Tiger and Panther factor was down for 12 months however this wasn't all at one time, somtimes production of some parts of the tank could still take place.
A Hetzer wouldn't have been much of an upgrade given its paper thin side armor and cramped interior. Someone has a video, possibly The Chieftain, showing a cut open Hetzer and just how little room there actually was inside of them.
@@TheStugbit The factories were not destroyed, but production plummeted quite a bit for a time. The Alkett factory in 1943/44:
September - 205
October- 255
November - 145 (Two RAF raids on Berlin)
December - 25
January - 77 (bombed again by RAF)
February - 59
March - 144
April - 194
May - 255
Assuming a steady production of 250 a month, instead of the 1500 tanks that could have been produced those 6 months, only 644 were made. A pretty significant loss.
MIAG factory in 1943/44
November - 150
December - 150
January - 150
February - 137 (bombed)
March - 120 (bombed)
April - 100 (bombed)
May - 80
June -145
Source: www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/WW2_GER_Tank_Monthly.htm
Why Hetzer? Because it’s better than dragging a PaK 40 through the mud.
Such a great design, economical with such a punch! My dad was a tank commander of an M4 Sherman powered by a Ford GAA V 8 18 litre engine through Italy and his tank got knocked out by something in the Battle of Monte Cassino; luckily for me what ever it was, was low on Ammunition as it withdrew not firing another shot at my dads completely demobilised M4 Sherman, his team couldn't even move the Turret and they felt like sitting ducks. I learnt his stories by playing the waiter when his old mates came around, he was a Scotch and water man and his mates were either a Scotch or Gin and water; now and then they would go for a Rusty Nail, which was in their case 2 nips of Scotch and 1 Nip of Drambuie.
And then I would just listen!
The hetzer was produced for the post war Swiss military as well. Great museum guide! Very academic and professional.
To be fair it is THE PERFECT vehicle for the swiss. Park it in a mountain pass and put support fire/at guns left and right on the mountains while the Hetzer covers the low ground. Under those circumstances there is literally only "the front" to worry about which is its strenght.
also it is so small you can easily hide it everywhere and because it is small it can use most "dirt roads" and small bridges so the military can blown up the bigger ones to deny them to the enemy because they themselfs dont need them.
Additionally i suspect that the HEtzer is do to its size a rather low maintenance vehicle by german standarts. Dont need heavy specialized equipment, average industrial cranes would propably do the trick as well or "nomral" field repair cranes.
Just imagine a Panther driving up a mountain......the transmittion is going to be recked ion minutes...
Or hiding a sherman.....it would stick out like a giant arrow sign Where here in the big box"
And the fact that the Hetzer was pathetically slow wouldnt be a problem eather if you are on the hardcore defense with good positions every 5 meters prepared for decades for this moment :D
It was also used by Czechoslovakia after the war.
As a former tanker now employed as a crane operator, this episode resonated with me more than usual.
I cannot count the times I have watched and rewatched this magnificent episode.
Man I wish the Panzer Museum had more English videos, or at least English cc. It could possibly bring a whole new subscriber base. Anyhow, I absolutely adored this video, I don't know why, I can't get enough of Hetzer content (I blame War Thunder and Lindybeige).
lindybeige fuels my tank addiction too
Yeah I was really interested in their videos on the East German stuff.
Its a good looking tank imo. When i see it my brain just thinks "yeah that should work pretty well". But i love non-turreted tanks. bee lined up all the non turreted lines in world of tanks, after 1st unlocking the obligatory Tiger of course.
@@ausaskar Actually, I find that to be quite interesting myself. I wonder if the Munster museum has any rare captured Soviet tanks (that had been modified with German weapons)? I doubt it, its extremely rare; however, I believe the Germans put a 75mm Pak 40 on a KV-1 (could just be an urban legend)
@@redhammer92 I'm a fan of casemate tanks myself, god the German TDs sure look sexy! I play Fly ACEs High and War Thunder myself. War Thunder has a different damage model than WOTs I believe. However, the Hetzers crew has the "human centipede" situation. Suffice to say, penetrating the right front plate will take out the driver, gunner and commander lol. Still a bad ass tank (for everyone but the uncomfortable crew lol)
That discussion of the crane capacity in Czech Rep. vs Germany was very interesting. I'm a Hetzer and PzKw 38t fan, but this is a level of documentary not found elsewhere. Thank you for the knowledge!
Thank you!
We had a Hetzer in my reenactment unit. It was awesome.
and what happened to it?
The guy who owned it sold it to a collector.
The Hetzer may be at Camp Mabry.
Hetzer is my biggesssssst love ❤ 😍 😍🤩❤❤
Hetzer is my biggesssssst love ❤ 😍 😍🤩❤❤
Side armor that protects against "hand guns and splinters", I love that description.
Well, artillery splinters
Wonder whether “shrapnel” is German for “splinter”.
@@russianbotfarm3036 in in sense yes.
Meanwhile in world of tanks when I try to kill a hetzer it bounces 45mm shells from everywhere but the rear
@@russianbotfarm3036 The German word for "splinter" is "Splitter". But "Schrappnel" is sometimes used synonymus for a splinter that flies thru the air with dangerous speed like debris during / right after a crash or explosion
Once again, thank you MH(n)/V for traveling to bring your subscribers this brilliant content!
Like the military style channel designation!
@@SteamCrane 👍
Interesting to hear about the cranes, makes sense, but never knew that.
Cranes are an especially common bottleneck in many economies. The USA didn't like the M26 tank because the typical ship-loading cranes were just about able to handle 30 tons of Sherman, but the majority of cranes were not rated for the 45+ tons of M26 Pershings, which limited where you could ship them from and to. Same for North Africa: a lot of people say that the Axis should have just sent more supplies to Rommel, but they tend to not know that the Axis-held ports in North Africa were mostly small affairs with few large cranes, already operating beyond their designed capacity, and so Rommel was basically as well supplied as he could have been because even if more ships had arrived, they couldn't move the cargo off them any faster.
Can someone explain me why "hetzer", I didn't got it, even after watching the whole video 😭
@@karmat710 You mean why they used the hetzer or why it is called the hetzer?
@@collectibletaco7797 why is it called like that yeah :(
'You fight with what you have, not what you wished you had."
If you got a bunch of T38 hulls laying around, and have factories to produce more, might as well use them.
Wasn't that a Donald Rumsfeld line about US problems in Iraq?
Finally real information on WW2 German tanks from German experts. Thank you for the historical information and "gaming" jokes/puns to make it more entertaining.
The 88 stares menacingly from the background...
Honestly, it came down to the Anti-Tank divisions vs the Mechanized Infantry divisions. They cranked out StuG IIIs as fast as they could, but an Assault Gun was being pressed into service in an anti-tank role, that it wasn't designed for. The JagdPanzer was designed for Anti-Tank from the ground up, so for one thing the hull was a more efficient use of steel. It was designed for that, because RHS was also in short supply, being sent to every factory, building as many vehicles as possible. So, the decision came down to Logistics.
I had the privilege of meeting someone who was in the Swiss army for many years who drove one of these beautiful things around, needless to say, they convinced me this is one of the best tanks ever made. I LOVE the Hetzer.
Great discussion! Makes sense to build lots of these given Germany's strategic situation, and similar to the advantages of the Sherman, I'll bet these lighter guys can cross many bridges allowing for more deployment options as well. That being said ... I'm guessing it's not as useful for a Battle of the Bulge style all-in.
13 minutes lectures without chair, small table or a cup of tea. Just 2 guy standing straight up.
@@lostalone9320 i see that as an absolute hell
If you can't stand up for 13 minutes you need to seriously reevaluate your lifestyle choices (barring any disability/injury ofc)
@@WozWozEre aint easy bein Merican, son!
It seems like it did its job for the circumstanced. I didn't know that the stug factories got destroyed, which lead to them using the Czechoslovakian design to make a new version. Lindybeige made a video about the hetzer and I think he missed the point a bit, he complained a lot about the poor visibility, but this was to be used with infantry in ambush settings.
Lindybeige misses a lot of points, and is ultra UK biased in his opinions.
8:25 paper thin armor may not stop things that will kill the tank but it will stop the most important thing- the rain.
Thanks for another extraordinary video!
Great interview! I love it when interviewers let the expert talk and just direct them by asking the pertinent question, instead of pushing themselves into the foreground.
I've seen Ralf on quite a few channels, I like the guy he's very interesting and always gives great details in what he's taking about. Good video, thanks.
Thanks!
thank you!!!
Linked to a tankee buddy who spoke very well of his M60A1 days in Bad Hersfeld. He also reports that the 9cm Jagdpanzer Kanone was a fine, fast, AFV.
I am kinda surprised they did not talk about the angled armor, especially in comparison with the Stug.
they would have to admit, that without czechnology, they would lose the war 2 years sooner.
@@Pyrochemik007 you ever seen a panzer 38t? It has no sloped armour either.
A couple of years ago at Militracks (somewhere in Limburg, the Netherlands) I had the chance to be in one of these being driven around. He is not exaggerating when he says it's cramped. It really is just a sardine can with a big gun right next to your face. Vision out was terrible. I sat in the position right behind the driver and I couldn't see shit. But I still love this thing, it's so tiny and cute
The most impressive thing about the hetzer is that they were able to make so damn many of them in such a short amount of time, unlike pretty much every other vehicle that they needed.
Produced 4 march 1944 - 11 may 1945
No built approx 2827
That wasn't hard to do since all of the parts for the 38(t) were made close to the assembly plants. The turreted 38(t) became popular with crews and armor commanders due to being very reliable, fuel efficient and easy to repair and maintain. 1,400 turreted models were produced before the lines switched over to producing 1,500 Marder 3 versions. The Jagdpanzer 38(t) was designed to replace the Marder 3 which lacked frontal armor and crew protection.
Kinda helped that czechs were slaving in these factories.
There are comments further asking about the name Hetzer. Wiki, citing Dolye and Jentz, has this to say:
"The name Hetzer (German for "baiter" or "chaser") was never an official suggestive name used for this vehicle. It was the designation for a related prototype, the E-10. The Škoda factory for a very short period confused the two names in its documentation and the very first unit equipped with the vehicle thus for a few weeks applied the incorrect name until matters were clarified. However, there exists a briefing paper from Heinz Guderian to Hitler saying that an unofficial name, Hetzer, had spontaneously been coined by the troops. Post-war historians basing themselves on this statement made the name popular in their works."
I find the power numbers for these vehicles shocking every time I see them, in this case a 34,000 lbs vehicle pushed by a 160HP engine (15750 kg/160 PS). A CAR that weighs 2500-3000 lbs (1100-2800 kg) would be considered at the very low end of the power spectrum at 160 HP, thus a vehicle an order of magnitude heavier seems outrageous to a modern civilian. I'd love to see a video going over just the gearing on these transmissions, as the ratios must be absolutely astronomical. At the very end when Ralf discusses the planned transition to a diesel engine, I wonder what the proposed torque numbers and changed to the gear rations would've been? For comparison, a modern 6.7L Ford Powerstroke turbo-diesel V8 produces 475 HP and 1075 lb-ft of torque, while the 3.0L generates 250HP and 440 lb-ft of torque (i.e. still substantially more than the Hetzer).
The issue that arises from inefficient engines is not commonly discussed, but is important: if your tank runs out of gas, it immediately becomes a liability. The US seems to overcome that issue with exceptional logistics, but the issue crops up in all sorts of places (i.e. for German light tank destroyers attempting to get back to resupply despite a 110 mile operational range).
I’m always amazed that engines with such low HP and torque numbers could even move these behemoths, especially over rough terrain. No wonder the engines/transmissions were always breaking down.
This is just only a recent chasm, though, at least the scope... we thought the same thing about these war machines 25 years ago, “My goodness, how underpowered and heavy....” But in a relative sense. The cars of the ‘80s and ‘90s were not nearly as powerful as today. A 3500lb. sport sedan with 160bhp would have been “class leading” circa the late ‘80s- or the high end of the power spectrum, whereas today that seems anemic. In the ‘80s there were still many sub-100bhp cars, and 200+ was downright exotic. For any driver that worked then, it is a bit astonishing how strong engines are today, with their computer fuel maps and valves. The muscle cars of 20 years before that made big horsepower from sheer displacement (i.e., “There is no replacement for displacement” was a normal saying... and nowadays that is not true at all...).
@@WitchyWagonReal In the 60s and 70s a 'sports sedan' with 120 hp would be considered perfectly appropriate. Regular sedans, wagons and other 'normal' vehicles, as you stated had less than 100 hp. The muscle cars of the 60s and 70s were not nearly as impressive as people today think of them, the suspensions were archaic, the tires were pretty poor performers (driving a 'sports car' with bias-ply tires could be terrifying) and while the transmission were actually pretty good the cars of the era could be questionable performers.
@@WitchyWagonReal My favorite saying on this is a quote by David Ricardo during WW2, at the time in reference to aircraft engines: "We must think of an engine's power not in terms of its displacement, but in terms of the volume of air per unit time which it may be made to efficiently consume." Maximizing peak chamber pressure and minimizing pressure at exhaust valve open while maintaining control of ignition is perhaps the best distillation of engine efficiency and its limits.
Transmissions were always problematic on German panzers. As often happened, the vehicle would be designed and tested, and then "upper management," would demand more armor be added. The Panther's weakest point was its transmission. Supposedly this was resolved in the Jagdpanther, and the plan was to use the same transmission on the Panther going forward, but by then (1945) things were too desperate to make any changes to the manufacturing.
AND YES!!!!!!! The return of *Demilitarized Zone* haha!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks herr Kast, you are the man.
Dankeschön! Excellent exposition of the evolution and workings of an enigmatic machine. I can appreciate further how difficult it must have been to operate and maintain one of these Jagdpanzers.
"A perfect example of how the Wehrmacht was not structured for these things."
What an excellent, of many descriptions, of the Wehrmacht as a whole. I've learned from this channel, primary, and secondary sources that almost the majority of all aspects of the Wehrmacht were unbelievably ad-hoc and improvised and subject to constant changes. The persistent myth in English speaking countries of German "Ordnung muss sein" conflicts heavily with the historical reality.
Thats a false dilemma fallacy, one doesnt necessary exclude the other. You can have constant changes and improvisations, but still have a lot of regulations, rules and a fable for lists.
And if the others do worse than you, you can still be the order-loving one.
So no, its not a myth, it depends on the perspective
I have seen the comic you mentioned at 12:17. It goes like this: the guns got longer and so were the faces of those who crewed them. Where would it have ended if someone would not have invented the "Pak auf Selbstfahrlafette" and the image is a drawing of a Nashorn with a smiling tank commander.
In essence though you could say the Hetzer is basically recycling of exisiting resources. Several captured french vehicles were converted into tank destroyers by putting in the 7.5 PAK and adding soem armor. The Hetzer is basically a reuse of a reliable chassis (the Pz 38(t)) but in this case factory made and not improvised. Before the Hetzer Germany already used the same chassis for tank destroyers (for example the Marder 3) but the Hetzer was a more polished version. And it's biggest adavantage? it was way lower then the Marder series giving it way better ambush opportunities. Plus the sloped armor gave it a bit more protection. And just look at these numbers: introduced in March 1944 2584 Hetzer's were build until May 1945. Those are some respectable numbers.
According to Otto Carius a lot of new tank commanders were promoted up from the drivers position. Somehow the experience of tank driving made for good commanders.
I’d imagine that has to do a lot with knowing how to effectively position the vehicle, accounting for terrain, cover, concealment, etc
And the drivers themselves were usually the most experienced crew members as it was also critical that they have mechanical awareness on the limits of their machines.
That's stRange in the US army it goes loader->driver->gunner->commander
An excellent and informative video; absolutely first class and the enthusiasm of the presenters really shines through
Glad you enjoyed it!
What would Anzu, Yuzu and Momo take to battle if not for their Hetzer?
Go team turtle! Panzer vor!!!
I saw one of these in person during a reenactment. I got tingles. Love this stuff!!!!
Well done - you gents make a solid team.
More of these please ! Lots of info I’d never heard before from obvious experts in their field . More from the tank museum !
That "paper thin armor" makes the vehicle shrapnel resistant and splinter proof. With the russians using artillery to soften up prepared positions a fully enclosed fighting compartment was extremely important on the eastern front. Especially if you intend to use forested terrain (because if the enemy uses direct contact fuzes any hit on a tree becomes a storm of wood splinters. Which is bad for unprotected crew, but of no consequence if you have a fully armored vehicle).
Adding sidearmor increases artillery resistance by about a factor of 4. With side armor AND top armor it's more like a factor of 12 since enemy artillery needs a direct hit (or very close hit with a sufficiently powerful round that it rocks the vehicle with sufficient force to injure crew and damage components).
The only critique against the hetzer is that the sides should probably have been straight(er) to give the crew a larger fighting compartment.
But angling it pretty much doubles it's effectiveness, no matter how thin it is.
@@tomservo5347 hes talking about side armour. who cares
The Weight of straighter side armor with a wider roof was considered and rejected due to the weight issue.
The Jagdpanther is a work of art. I've seen videos of the inside, and there is SO much room it's incredible! Anyone who served in one loved it. (in interviews, of course). They said the cannon was the best!
Seems like the allies agreed that it was a great tank (despite its high silhouette and lack of a turret). So they gave much priority to bomb the factories making this tank. So only 382 of them were built before the war ended.
@@nattygsbord Also all large tanks were PRIME targets for rocket planes and dive bombers.
@@janstan8407 Common misconception. WW2 air-launched rockets were generally too inaccurate to reliably take out tanks (A direct hit would be a kill, but in testing the hit rate was like 5%, lower in combat). The real effect of these airstrikes was to take out the unarmoured trucks and horse drawn carriages (yes the Germans were still using those) carrying the fuel and ammo, without which the tank is of course useless.
@@nerd1000ify 10-4, but the same could be said for tank to tank combat. Kill to shot ratios were very low depending on the terrain, (field or city), tank, country, crew experience and ammo. But still a good point.
@@janstan8407 I think the main point to to look at it in the context of how many rockets a plane could carry. A full load of HVAR rockets on a P-47 is I think 10 rockets per plane. So at a 5% hit rate you on average will need two full P-47 loads to take out each tank.
Another excellent video, as always!
Hetzer or StuG....love them both! 👍🏻😎
the hetzer is my favourite tank. it's just such a fun tank to look at. it's also fun in games, i have learned the hetzer well enough in war thunder that i can semi-reliably hunt cold war battle tanks with it.
CAS with .50s wants to know your location.
@@elpatrico2562 not just cas with .50s anything with .50s
@@stein_the_lynx3284 Yeah, true. At that point, it could have been more useful to leave the sides completely vertical. They would at least have a little more space inside.
As an engineer I love it. Where can we build it? What can we build there? Take proven chassis and gun, slap on some armor, keep it low to the ground for ambush. Then it works so well they said, "Just build a huge number of these things." Improvisation at its greatest. Necessity is again the mother of invention. Sounds like another vehicle that would have a support group identifying the next ambush point for hasty retreats.
Great video,appreciate that 2 Germans trying to explain some complex machines, in English. Thank you. Not been to Munster yet,will do when movement for peasants allowed again.
7:01 A minor correction to your minor correction, if I may: 7.5 cm PaK 39 was a different version of a tank-mounted KwK 40 L/48 and used the same ammuniton (75×495 mm R), while PaK 40 used the same shells, but with a different case altogether, thus resulting in the 75×714 mm R cartridge.
thanks, I was trying to find some proper information there, but was not that successful. Do you can recommend a source that covers this?
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
These days you can get this stuff even from the Wiki, and for visual references and more data Anthony Williams' website (quarryhs.co.uk) is the way to go. Even Wehrmacht teaching aide posters are available online.
As for the books, I think you should check the usual suspects (Jentz & Doyle, Chamberlain & Gander, Hogg, etc) first and foremost. There are some German authors on this topic like Wolfgang Fleischer, Karl Pawlas, Joachim Engelmann and Horst Scheibert, but I'm not familiar with their works at all.
@@F1ghteR41 I checked pretty much all of that, but that detail I apparently missed it, probably because I was mainly looking at what the Pak39 actually is / how it differs from the Pak40.
Great video and I appreciate how well each of you speaks English (and I love the German accent in the English!). Thank you for producing this great content.
With the various restrictions in their abilities and need to focus on ambush more than on the aggressive movement, it almost seems like they are more like a mobile AT bunker than a tank or AFV mounting a more powerful gun.
Something with a turret is freer to move around, adapt to, and operate in spite of the terrain. Something like the Hetzer is tied much more tightly to the physical lay of the land, much like any concrete emplacement would be.
Great discussion about my favorite little tank destroyer ! I remember seeing one at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in the strange white, black and yellow camo scheme.
Oh my God, he forgot to mention that the design was inspired by the Marshall Tank which was a Tank Destroyer (in prototype stages) build in Romania as a symbol of respect for our Marshall Ion Antonescu.
what is the source for that claim?
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Wikipedia:
Hetzer page (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer#cite_note-2):
"British historian Mark Axworthy suggests that the design for the Hetzer was likely rooted in the Romanian Mareşal tank destroyer. In November-December 1943, a Romanian commission ordered from Germany and German-occupied France several components which could not be made in Romania and this drew German attention to the Mareşal. Hitler approved the development of the Hetzer on 7 December 1943. That same month, Marshal Antonescu (Conducător of Romania at the time) commended the Mareşal project to Hitler. Soon afterwards, on 6 January 1944, Hitler was presented with the plans of the Mareşal M-04 prototype. Axworthy notes that the Hetzer'"s armament, armor and broader hull were very similar to those of the M-04. He also reports that in May 1944, German Lieutenant-Colonel Ventz (a delegate of the Waffenamt) admitted that the Hetzer had followed the Romanian design solution.[2] American historian Steven Zaloga writes that "The Germans were impressed with the overall layout of the Mareşal, and it is credited with being the inspiration for the German Jagdpanzer 38(t) tank destroyer."[3]"
and the sources mentioned there are the following:
[2] Axworthy, p. 229
[3] Zaloga, p. 31
The Mareshall Tank Destroyer page :
"Two German representatives observed the testing of M-04 and were impressed by its maneuverability.
According to British historian Mark Axworthy, it was a German Lieutenant-Colonel by the name of Ventz who, in May 1944, acknowledged that the Hetzer was created along the lines of the Mareșal.[8]"
and the sources mentioned here are the following:
[8] Axworthy, p. 229
and in the Romanian variant:
"Acesta a fost inspirația pentru crearea distrugătorului de tancuri german Panzerjager 36 poreclit Hetzer"
"Testele prototipului M-04 au fost evaluate și de 2 reprezentanți ai Înaltului Comandament German, care au fost impresionați de manevrabilitatea și mobilitatea originalului vânător de tancuri."
which is translated into:
"This was the inspiration for creating the German tank destroyer Panzerjager 36, nicknamed Hetzer."
"The tests of the M-04 prototype were evaluated as well by two representatives of the German High Command , whom were impressed by the maneuverability and the mobility of the original tank destroyer"
(probably referencing the M-00 variant, although that is debatable)
This guy is cool! Nice bow at the end! You should have him on the channel more often. Excellent explanation! Hezers gonna Hetz!
0:45: "Over the curse of the war"
That was a fitting pronounciation error.
Course is "Kurs" in German. German and English have a great deal of shared roots in vocabulary, but not syntax or grammar at all. I make the same mistake often when I say a similar sounding English word in a German sentence. It *is* funny and fitting though.
Such consistently good content. Thank you so very much
really should have mentioned the Romanian Marasel prototypes which the Germans saw and basically nicked for the hetzer design
Mareșal ,not Marasel !
Interesting talk about an intersting vehicle. But what impresses me most is how very good his English is.
It may not have had a turret but if i recall correctly the gun could still traverse an arc of 15 degrees...seems the Hetz was a tank sniper !
That was a very good presentation from the museum director.
There is another video where Hillary Doyle says the Hetzer's front RHA armor was inferior as it was too soft. This was looked at by experts and found it was the optimum hardness as it facilitates ricochet in highly oblique impact (60°). But, more so vs. UK/US AP and not so well vs the large caliber blunt SU shells.
So was the US M4 Medium ("Sherman"). But if you build enough of them, and are willing to accept huge losses in your tank crews (as was the US), then it may work out better than having a few heavier vehicles.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 Except American tank crews didn't suffer great losses
@@princeofcupspoc9073 German armor quality in general suffered as war shortages caused problems: the German jets in particular suffered because of this, but Tigers and Panthers also got knocked out by shots they should have been able to endure simply because too many shortcuts were made for the armor to be reliable.
@@bubbasbigblast8563 I don't think so. The Germans were still rejecting armor based on lack of quality in the last month of the war.
Later years of the war the armor become cheaper as lack of alloys for harded steel
Interesting vid, correcting some approximations and false understanding. Keep the great work !
Well crews loved the StuG and they loved the Hetzer. Really liked the Jagdpanther, not so much the bigger ones.
There's more to the war than Germany, you know. Italians had some heavier gun prototypes of their Semovente line right when the government capitulated. The Russians has the SU 122, SU 152, and ISU 152 among others. The Hungarians had the Zrinyi, a bit outdated but still useful. The Jagdpanther is a great vehicle, but I'd still prefer to be in an ISU 152 if my life depended on it.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 okay but the video is about German TDs so that's why I mentioned them. I'd pick StuG all day.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 The Semovente line was literally a "made in Italy" Stug though :D
Smaller is easier to hide, harder to hit. As long as gun is capable larger is just a waste of resources.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 The ISU is not extremely well armored. Around 80mm on the front was normal for 1944 standard.
This really answers the puzzle of the weird Hetzer. So many people ask "Why didn't they just ...?", not realizing the issues of production capability, overhead crane capacity, rail or road transport, and bridge weight limits. The Hetzer worked within those limits, with the added factors of a proven CZ drive train and undercarriage, and the range limits of Allied bombing with no midair refueling. Face it, the Hetzer was one of the components of the "last ditch" strategy.
Sometimes some strange limitations were thrown in, such as the US limiting tank track widths due to the width of existing US pontoon bridge sections, and tank weight due to dockside crane lift capacity.
The US had many production advantages, such as General Steel Castings Company, which could routinely pour enormous and complex steel castings. GSC had huge furnaces able to melt many tons of steel in one batch. This came about because GSC was set up well before WW-II, to make one-piece steam locomotive underframes, complete with cylinders and air tanks. These frames were much more rigid than the built up bar frames of most UK and European locomotives, leading to less bearing and wheel wear, and frame breakage. When war came, casting one piece Sherman hulls and turrets was no big deal. Looking at a Sherman, notice a cast shield shape with a "G" inside it, that's General Steel Castings.
The Chieftain has done many of these "Why didn't they ...?" videos for the US side.
Ugh that jagdpanther ❤
👍👍
You see hits on the front? I seen it in Munster. Someone's earS would've been ringing/Bleeding. But worse would be the poor bastards who shot at it, only to get a hit and have it bounce off! Some of the hits are like an Inch deep. It has many indents around the Gun sight from a heavy MG.
@@todcarter110 During the battle of Kursk one Tiger survived getting hit over 60 times and the crew managed to get the tank back to German lines drawing a long line of oil and fuel behind them since their tanks got ruptured by the hits. I can't imagine how taxing this was on their ears.
@@Athrun82 The tiger crew probably is as deaf as an old man in a retirement home
@@Athrun82 I imagine your whole body and brain would be a bit shaken up. Massive Steel rounds pinging off solid steel! Not sure if you've seen this vid but imagine the sound and impact of the 88 Firing inside the tank! Let alone getting hit so many times! This guy mentions he ''feels like someone has punched him in the sinus'' ruclips.net/video/CMm-k26qMaA/видео.html Had to be tough as fuck to fight and survive!
Most people don't know this, but the Hetzer only had actual armor plate on the front of the vehicle. The 20mm sides were just regular mild steel, not armor plate. You can see a video of Hetzer destroyed by a side shot from a bazooka, the only part of the tank destroyer that was left was the gun mantlet and cannon. The 60mm heavily sloped armor made it invulnerable to the Sherman 75mm gun from the front, it was good protection against the American 76mm gun as well. It had 121mm effective armor thickness. Panther was 141mm effective thickness
Let me guess, I have not seen: you have hulls and tracks ready made, and there are guns available, and it is cheaper to just put some steel plate on than build more Stugs.
Nope! The Stug factories were almost completely destroyed from allied strategic bombing, so they proposed building them in Czech Škoda factories instead. However, the cranes were not strong enough to haul 24 tonne Stugs, only 16-tonne vehicles. Therefore, they had to base a Tank Destroyer on the 38(t) chassis with this in mind.
@@Mr_Bunk thanks.
@@Mr_Bunk The Škoda works were building LT 38 models since before the war and it was a good and reliable chassis. The Hetzer was inspired by Romanian Mareșal tank hunter which impressed the Wehrmacht, not a improvised Stug replacement.
If I may share my opinion about the matter.
There were two,very distinct layout for dedicated tank destroyer vehicles in the German military.
*1st* . Open topped,usually open back superstructure,with dedicated anti-tank gun.The main gun has a good firing arc.The boxy superstructure usually start at the middle length of the hull.Mostly refurbished chassis(like Pz I,II,captured French vehicles,etc),although dedicated chassis were also present(like the Geschützwagen III/IV for Nashorn,or the last series of the actual 38(t) chassis,which were built for the Marder IIIM[and some other vehicles] from the start).
*2nd* . Enclosed upper hull and superstructure, with dedicated anti-tank gun. The main gun hasn't got as good for a firing arc as category 1st. Superstructure usually start as close to the nose section as possible,sometimes it's just an enlarged nose plate act as the front of the superstructure as well(like Jgpz 38(t)). Mostly designed and built on an already existing chassis with new,sloped armour plates for superstructure. Although in case of the Jgpz 38(t),it's a new,but already tested chassis(Pz 38(t) nA),which itself is based on a previously mass-produced,well-proven design(the well-known Pz 38(t)).
But,obviously:
And then there is category *3rd* . as the interim in between 1st and 2nd. Those are the Ferdinand/Elefant and the StuG IIIF and G. You already got some elements of the 2nd category, but some elements are not fully developed.
And there is category *4th* as vehicles which are not designed to be either Panzerjäger or Jagdpanzer,but because of their gunnery performance and their armour penetration, are well capable for the tank destroying role,sometimes even used by Panzerjäger units, like the half-track with the 8,8 cm FlaK 37(forgive me,can't remember it's designation) or the 'Pz.Sfl. V Sturer Emil'.
This was done as a wheeled tank in the game Battletech. Loved it in that game. Ugly, fragile, massive gun. Frightening if it catches you by surprise though.
Ambush Hunter.....quite useful in an urban environment!
Ich liebe es wie ihr euch die Bälle zuspielt!
When you see Jagdpanzer 38 in half of time in reports of supply, well, it`s better, than nothing to have.
Very excellent video. Great discussion of many questions. Thanks.
Videoidee: Warum Jagdpanzer IV? 😊
Warum nichts? It's the best td by far
Simple: Gleiche Logik wie beim Hetzer;´
1) Fabriken sind die gleichen wie bei Panzer 4, heißt Unterbau kann 1 zu 1 übernommen werden
2) ein nahezu perfektioniertes Design. Der Panzer 4 war der m meisten gebaute und am längsten dienende deutsche Panzer und schon sehr sehr SEHR häufig optimiert und verbessert worden.
3) TD sind billiger als "richtige" Panzer, also können mehr in die Schlacht geworfen werden
4) Strategische Lage entwickelte sich zur Defensive -) TDs werden mehr bevorzugt
5) Besser als der Stug 3, da er zum einen als TD von Grund auf designed worden war und zum anderen das bessere und schwerer Panzergrundgerüst hatte (Pz3 < Pz4)
6) Produktionsprobleme bei dem Stugs durch Bombardierungen wie im Video erwähnt. Produktion der TDs auf mehrere Modellle und Standorte verteilen um Grundversorgung zu erhalten (besser irgendein TD an der Front als gar keiner)
@@noobster4779 Den wichtigsten und ursprünglichen Punkt hast du vergessen: Die lange 7,5 Des Panther auf Panzerjäger zu bringen.
Dieser Panzer ist abseits der Panzerspezialisten dennoch eher unbekannt, deshalb mein Vorschlag
Because the germans liked stugs so much they planned to convert all tanks to Stug style tanks. If the war had lasted longer, we would’ve seen Stugtigers.
@@siegfried2k4
"(...) we would’ve seen Stugtigers."
It's *'Jagdtiger'* - and they were _in production_ ...
ruclips.net/video/xv9QAXPJVSc/видео.html
Excellent video , informative and clear . Both of you have speak very good English indeed .
1:38 Germans not structured? You have to be kidding! April Fool's Day was yesterday.
Being a German, I can tell you that we have the same amount of chaos and lack of thought and organization as in every other country there is. It just depends on the topic and where you look at.
13 minutes video and I feel like the really interesting chat of tank fans just began 🙂
Still a lot of interesting information. Greetings from Czech, sad that our best tank design finally helped the wrong side. Now it's history, but let's learn from it.
StuG life... but Hetzer gonna hetz
The ammo for the Jgd.Pz.38(t) is the same 7.5 cm. round (KWK40) used in late Mark IVs and Stug. IIIs, but it is not the same cartridge as the PAK 40 towed antitank gun. To keep the weight down of the towed antitank gun (PAK 40), it shot a very long cartridge, when compared with the shorter KWK40. But, the towed gun's cartridge was of a smaller diameter without a shoulder to the casing. Thus the towed gun's barrel could be of a smaller diameter at the breech end, saving weight. I owned one for twenty years.
At 10:00 by "glass gun" does he mean glass cannon?
yes
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized thx, was very well done interview. Wasn't sure if it was just me or if it was throwing off others
Great video, really enjoy the knowledge behind it. Also good explanation why the Hetzer in the first place.
I always felt that this type of weapon was the sniper of the tank world . Darn cool
Wonderful video. Very informative. Thanks.
3:00 ...weapon systems that need to fire from an Imbiss situation. Let's snack some Shermans and T-34s!
Excellent guest, great job! Stug III man myself, but great convo. Have him on again.
It's more like: How can the Czech factories produce a vehicle that isn't outdated by 1943 standards. The Hetzer is just the same evolution of the Pz. 38(t) that they StuG F/G was for the Pz III. Mounting a gun that at least could deal with tanks. The StuG production also temporarely continued in the form of the SuG IV.
Hearing Germans pronouncing the vehicle names (properly) is pure heaven...
Hunting tanks has alot in common with hunting bears I notice
You make sausages from a tank? Or stew?
That was how the Finns "killed some Soviet tanks (including the biggest one in existence at the time) during the Winter War.
The just dug giant Bear Traps, and kited the enemy tank towards it. If it is stupid, but works ... then it ain't stupid!
@@Grubnar interesting. I never heard or red of "bear tank" traps. Tree stumps and frozen wood blocks are known to work as anti tank obstacles.
@@Grubnar Hmm, nice tank. It would be a shame if it just... fell into a hole.
Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you! ;)
Excellent presentation with very informative content!
Glad you liked it!
No mask!! Such a great view.
they probably got their vaccine
I’ve only had the opportunity to visit a war museum once but they had mostly WW1 armaments.
So then, the Hetzer was a improvised tank destroyer that filled the Wehrmacht needs in late 43. This is very interesting, thank you.
The Hetzer was designed to replace the Marder 3, which went into production after the turreted 38(t) was declared obsolete. The 38(t) was considered to be an excellent design due to being extremely reliable, fuel efficient and easy to repair and maintain so were converted to carry AT cannons with shielding for the gun crew. A total of 1,400 38(t)'s were produced, 1,500 Marder 3's and 2,800 Hetzers. Production of the Hetzer was ramped up after the StuG factories began having more delays due to the bombing.
"Its always the worst conditions for soldiers"
Truer words have never been spoken.
Fascinating stuff. Two guys who know their subject. Loved the video.