Want AD-FREE early Access? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, which also helps making trips like this possible. More info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv - » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
Well, it was far more efficient than my previous visit(s), yet there is definitely room for improvement. But yeah, 5 pages of Excel tables for all the different scenes etc. if I remember correctly...
@@tamlandipper29 Or nazi/far right idiocy. Remember how adolf demanded me 262 to be fighter, fighter bomber, dive bomber, bomber, and courier plane all at once?
@@KuK137 Why don't you head on over to Military Aviation History's channel and figure out where you messed up here. Just because someone has an idiotic ideology doesn't mean all their decisions are irrational, the same goes for those with good ideologies still being just as capable of making idiotic decisions.
„Hitler forbade calling it Wespe.“ „I‘m gonna keep doing it though“ Hitler: DAS WAR EIN BEFEHL! DIE NAMENSÄNDERUNG DER FELDHAUBITZE AUF PANZERKAMPFWAGEN 2 WAR EIN BEFEHL... … I am surrounded by traitors” *cries dramatically*
I presume that an open topped turret was completely reasonable until the end of 1944, though the basis for thinking so is a bit tangential. One of the most striking things about Junger's Storm of Steel is the enormous delta between the AMOUNT of artillery fire encountered and the actual EFFECT of the fire upon the intended targets. The thing that stands out is that the rounds were not inaccurate, but impossible to fuze with sufficient precision to achieve a vertical shotgun effect with the shrapnel. The effect of the proximity fuze cannot be understated both in terms of how terrifying it is and how different artillery fire utilizing it was from all prior bombardment. In the context of the Wespe, the VT fuze transformed the risk of shrapnel hitting the vehicle from the top from a theoretical risk to a likelihood. On a more human level, the public still doesn't grasp how brutal a war between advanced peer powers would be, as the popular conception of a war against a peer enemy is either the theoretical risk of nuclear war or conventional warfare in WW2. There has not yet been a war in which opponents faced off against once another both armed with corps level VT fuzed artillery as well as modern air defenses to cover it. Perhaps the closest analogue is the Egyptian attack across the Suez in 1973, though the scale of casualties there was heavily mitigated by Israeli fortifications and a rapid transition to a war of maneuver beyond the range of the static Egyptian artillery units. Consider that today, modern militaries are rapidly transitioning to rocket assisted, terminal guided, drone spotted proximity fuzed artillery. In terms of the Wespe, without retrofitted active countermeasures, it could be killed by a single round from over 30km, or even a single mortar round from 6.5 km. War is awful, but modern war will end us all.
I would say that a lot of the improvements in modern artillery are meant to increase 'economic efficiency'. Like the Multiple Simultaneous Impact Rounds are great because they allow for a single unit to blast the same area as a battery. (Which is something you might not even want actually). However, there are scary ones as well. In terms of improved efficiency/killing potentioal, I would suggest the Russian/Soviet thermobaric artillery. That thing is beyond scary. Maybe just as much as a VT fuse
Modern war may end up being somewhat less lethal overall without resorting to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons because no one can make enough of the precision munitions to do the kind of slaughter that the 20th century conflicts achieved. Today, we have a half-dozen precise missiles to do the job that used to be done with hundreds of artillery shells. We stopped having the hundreds of artillery shells so as to pay for the missiles. We now have a few dozen artillery shells rotting away, and the guns to fire them are not being given the love they need either, so fewer barrels are persisting. Why does this matter? Well, you can't flatten a few square kilometers with the missiles, and you don't have the artillery to do it anymore, so the damage is localized to where the missiles are hitting. So war between peer states would be extraordinarily violent for the engaged combat units as they burn up their stockpiled precision munitions, but then the fighting would peter out as industry takes the months and years to actually tool up. The combatants would have to choose between trying to quickly rearm with cheap old-fashioned weapons to get as much manpower fighting again or they would accept a much lower rate of violence while waiting for the factories to figure out how to make the same volume of precision munitions in months that had taken years in peacetime. Hundreds of thousands would certainly still be dying, but we may have actually worked ourselves to a point where the technology dominating warfare is less effective at mass murder than it is at precise murder, and that is actually good for reducing the overall damage done.
You are looking at it backward. You have N tons for armor. Where do you put that armor to do the most good? Most attacks will be small arms from the front and shrapnel from all directions. So you can save a lot of weight by not putting a top on it. That said, the vehicle WAS too small. The Soviets produced the much more successful SU-122, with a bigger gun, on a T-34 chassis, with good armor all around.
You forget a major positive, the Wespe used an existing chasis that wasn't of much use other than as a platform for the 7.5 cm PAK. As such, the Wespe did not interfere with Stug, Panzer IV, or other tank production and allowed existing production lines to produce a useful vehicle rather than having to stop them to retool. Although you mentioned it used the obsolete panzer II chasis, you didn't point ot out as a positive when it should be given Germany's situation. I wonder though if the 38t chasis might have been a better choice? Pretty sure the Panzer III chasis would have been better, but would it be worth having lass Stugs on hand?
I wonder if they could have done the same with some of the obsolete French tanks? The long term problem with that might be the German army's supply chain was already very complex and would get worse.
@@chrisgibson5267 yes, I have found instances of conversion, thanks. Should have searched earlier. The slower French tanks would not have been fast enough to keep up, so probably not worth converting.
With German shortages of everything, was there any efforts to reclaim and recycle old tanks and vehicles and steel? Seems to me the soviets left a lot of scrap steel laying around.
I'd bet the Soviets downrange of them never once thought that they were "cute." Suddenly I'm reminded of the rabbit in Monte Python and the Holy Grail! lol
Absolute best channel to come to for well-researched and well-presented information on German equipment and tactics of WWII, presented by an actual German so you can learn the correct pronunciation of the names as well! Thanks for what you do!
For a WW 2 nut like myself your channel has been a goldmine of information that even 10 years ago would have been very difficult to impossible to find. Thank you.
Your level of research, insight, & detail is unsurpassed on RUclips, & I am a Panzer Wehrmacht obsessive since my early teens in the mid 70's. Your channel for the deep detailed dives & Mark Felton's Channel for the WW2 stories are all anyone needs here for a comprehensive overview of the German Army during WW2.
Thanx so much for this one Bernhard. I find the SPGs just as interesting as the tanks. Dare you tackle the Marder tank destroyer series? There are so many variants of them due to their being made in different places and the availability of guns. A hodge podge of components to get guns on anything that moved on tracks.
@@SusCalvin Well tank destroyers or "Jagdpanzers" or also "Panzerjagers" are much more armored and lower hulled. They are sort of snipers so to speak. But the Germans were putting guns on anything that moved. Thats where the Marders and the Nashorn comes in. I believe they had an assortment of rounds they carried. Not just anti tank rounds but high explosives to deal with infantry too. So I'd put them in the SPG category. At least thats my understanding.
3:00 quick tip for when someone walks through your shot, you've got the camera on a tripod so the shots not moving. Rather than placing a black box over that area take a screenshot when no one is in the frame, cut out that section of the frame and place it over the same area when someone walks through. As long as you lighting is consistent and you get it in the right spot it will look almost seamless and not draw the eye in the way a black box suddenly appearing does.
I just built a 1/35 scale model of this Wespe. Loved it! I am surprised to learn the large indent on the rear folding hatch was not a scale model addition but actual design.
The design specifications seems been written by the usual military committee! Then it was down too economy, time and physical laws to make sense of the mess!
I recall reading (I think in Chamberlain and Ellis) that the M7 was an inefficiently large chassis for a 105mm gun, and here we learn that the Wespe was if anything a bit too small. I wonder if the Pz IV chassis might also have been a bit big, but the Pz III chassis could have been the perfect size for a 105mm armed SPG? The post war US M37 105mm HMC was based on the M24 chassis, and dimensionally that's about the same size as a Pz III.
really the idea that the artillery "needs" what was asked for is silly considering the need to deploy a battery of artillery in order to have any meaningful effect on target area carrying amo and crew is kind of a luxury, they are not really tactical that's what Stugs are for, although Russia used SU-76s as assault guns but was that really a "good" idea M7 has it's flaws but spoils the hell out of it's crew with all the space, amo and the .50 the title is a bit unfair as the criteria is so stringent almost no WW2 SPG could be considered successful
@@michaelkensbock661 Have you seen the two vehicles side by side? Or even two models in the same scale side by side? The Panzer III is visibly more compact than the Panzer IV.
Pz3 production was stopped in 1943, however there were significant numbers of pz3 chassis Available right up to the end of the war. Thus a conversion of a pz3 chassis to self propelled artillery is not infeasible
The number of Wespe surviving the war seems very high. Could you elaborate on self propelled artillery survival versus other tank types such as tank destroyers and 2nd and first line tanks?
maybe in the future, I don't have enough data on that yet myself. It could also be that they were not used anymore, although that I consider unlikely since they were listed with the field army.
Well they are support vehicles, they are armored and they didn't carry a lot of ammo. So by the time the battle went south they where probably long out of ammo and there was no reason for them to stick around any longer. Meanwhile the tanks gets destroyed by direct fire and the other support vehicles gets destroyed by indirect fire or just small arms fire.
*Hitler in 1944 Losing the war on all fronts:* "Why are my SPA's named like insects?!" 10:00 Also, I think the word you're looking for is accuracy. The high precision of artillery fire means a compromise of accuracy and fire-readiness due to having to remap your position after relocation.
hint: don't edit your post after receiving if a "love", because you will lose it, instead add a second comment; btw. your addition also breaks the joke, so a second comment is far better hear in any way.
The PanzerArtilerrie officer's recommendation: "we should use the PzIV chassis". Not when the Panzer forces need every PzIV they can get - there's a reason the PzIV stayed in production right to the end.
The only modern artillery design with a removable independent turret that I can think of is a NEMO mounted in a 20-ft-container. It's a 120mm automatic breech loading mortar manufactured by Patria. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_NEMO
KMW's AGM can be removed, too, at least the Boxer module can be replaced easily. Maybe then placed on a mount for stationary use. Maybe even lifted by helicopter, at 12.5t however at the limit of a CH-47 and put on a mointain ...
I know I'm getting off the subject here but when you mentioned 140 horsepower it didn't sound like a lot but yet there's no mention of how much rated torque it is. and so as it's the torque that actually gets heavy objects moving why isn't there more important placed on torque in descriptions. A Ford escort had 140 horsepower, but you never saw that kind of engine in a tank because of the torque. And I am quite sure that in all armies there are plenty of lower horsepower engines that have twice the torque in a different application, mainly dependent on stroke. Well that's enough of my rambling but it would be nice that in the horsepower stats you included the torque and RPM ratings. Thank you for great videos.
Love listening to a german speaking person talking about german weaponry ... so much more authentic! Playing HOI3/Black Ice really makes someone appreciate this info. Forgot the fact (con) it cost more fuel. I wich you could have talked about kill ratios and the performance in battle overall.
I had so much fun with Grilles and Wespes in WoT. Before they were nerfed. I could hit a speeding light tank with an artillery shell! To the amazement of my teammates. Fun times. And Grilles and Wespes could race around the rear areas to avoid enemy breakthroughs or sprint forward if the game was going well. Often I could occupy an objective while the tanks took the next one while my shells rained on the enemy! What a time it was!
When speaking about the traverse, don't forget that the chassis itself was mobile and, like a tank, could turn in place to "spin around", eventually fulfilling the 360 degree requirement. That said, it WAS an interim design, not a specially designed piece. It was making due with pieces that were around at the time.
It is artillery, so for indirect fire if you move the vehicle, you have to recalculate a lot of stuff. I am sure I mentioned this in one of the self-propelled artillery videos, maybe not in this one.
Yeah, it is actually covered in this video, to quote my own script: "The lack of a 360 degree traverse was particularly a problem on the Eastern Front, since the mud and the cold required often position changes, but that was less easily done in such a condition. Now, you might argue Sturmgeschütze and Panzers changed the position all the time, so what is the big deal. Remember we are talking about artillery here. Artillery firing charts account for wind, temperature and a lot of other stuff. So this is way more precise or well imprecise if you get a number wrong and as such changing the position a little bit could have major influences."
as one who was in artillery units, 8th and 37th, both sp and towed 155s, it is obvious that the line between artillery and anti tank gun is being tippy toed upon here. Each has it's own purpose. It's easy to outrun your artillery coverage. That should never be allowed unless you have air superiority. the range of a 155 is tremendous, and accurate. SP artillery doesn't require a truck to pull it, but does need an ammo hauler close by. No need for a turret, as the driver can turn the vehicle quicker. unecessary manufacturing costs. However, it DOES require AA & infantry coverage, or you're a hunk of scrap iron quickly, with either cannon.
Added to that number of Priests the British (through Canada) produced 2,100 Sextons with 25 pounder guns. No wonder the tactic of using firepower to wear down the opponent rather than expend lives was the trademark of British-American offense and defense. On top of that the US delivered over 1,700 M8 (75mm M5 Stuart) self propelled guns as well 1,300 105mm Shermans. Very few of this vehicles were lost in combat.
It's always illuminating to see the production disparity between Axis and Allies. I can't imagine how 'the baddies' ever really expected to come back from their various losses (once their initial shot at victory failed), let alone muster enough to actually win in a longer conflict.
they never expected to win in the long run and were quite surprised by their successes themselves in the beginning and then there was hitlers & Co barbarossa eradication programme, thats what happens when you mix economical, political and military goals with a fucked up idiology with its own occultism etc.
@@kirbyculp3449 I have many fond memories playing Avalon Hill, SPI and GDW board games. Modern video games just aren't the same as gathering around a table with a bunch of friends for a weekend afternoon.
Hello! I think its a bit odd that the Wespe only had 30 rounds of ammunition with it. If they would have chosen a bigger chasse they could have gotten away with more room for rounds. But i think you also need to view this from the production point of view. They probably already have a production line ready for the Panzer II chase, and while they were beefing up the tanks with heavier chasses, the Panzer II chasse probably became available. And they probably filled that gap up with the Wespe design. Also the ammo carrier is the same shape as the Wespe, that also shows that they wanted to keep production simple, so nothing fancy for the ammo carrier and they used the same design as the Wespe. Today we have plasma cutters and CAD programs that let you design and build in a really quick pace. If they had that back in the day it would have been a lot easier to get things done. I think engineers back in the day were real artists, the amount of work you have to put in to get a drawing right, its a tedious job. Any way; nice video! Greetings, Jeff
I think the original idea was moveable gun, if a Wespe is knocked out you move its gun into an ammo carrier and you have another Wespe. Germans also proved unwilling to dismantle production lines with the Panzer 2, Panzer 3 and 38T production lines simply being retooled to produce different vehicle variants, probably more efficent than Britain where everytime they came up with a new tank at one of the four or so main design companies they shut down the previous production lines so you had small production runs, also from 1941 every time a company won a contract to build a tank the next best bidder would be appointed to design an improved version of the winning design which meant the losing company would have to acquire another set of the winning companies tooling. (Though I suppose the plus side was redundancy, if one factory was knocked out another could still build the same design)
@@watcherzero5256 The British failed for a long time to come up with a tank design with which they were satisfied. Nor had they an assault gun stratagem (they used infantry tanks), or had self propelled artillery at a high priority. I think they even phased the Priest out at one time because the Priest used different ammo. So there was little use for stug and self propelled gun concept. But for the Archer the British did reuse a chassis and they did it even simpler. They put the 17 pounder on a Valentine chassis and switched gun around (firing backwards) so they did not even not to switch the engine and the fighting compartment around.
@@barthoving2053 There was also the Achilles which was an M10 but upgunned by the British, it used a slightly modified M4 chassis. Your right though, for the most part the British never withdrew a tank from service making it available for refitting, just sent it somewhere less hot (for example the Matilda II saw out the war fighting the Japanese in the Pacific) and ultimately for training new recruits. Some were used as artillery tractors though with both M3, M4 and Crusader II converted to tractors when better tanks came along 1943-1945. There was also some Valentines and other tanks converted to AA and SPGs as field modifications rather than an official programme of conversion. Also there were close support assault guns produced but generally as variants of normal tank designs (e.g. using a 95mm howitzer instead of a 2pdr and the Churchill AVRE) rather than a whole new vehicle being designed.
I disagree. Bigger gun than a normal tank, bigger munitions than an average tank, heavier than a panzer 2, less armoured. It's clearly designed to haul the main weight being the gun (as the gunless carriage can hold 3x the munitions). Simply "moving the gun to make room for more bullets, can throw the balance of the vehicle easily, putting excessive strain on the engine, gears, rollers etc, not to mention the possibility of needing a bigger engine and being prone to tipping or getting stuck if too far forward. (Also keeping in mind engine height given the clearance of the chassis)
No offence guys but you're nitpicking over nothing. Just making the 105mm LeFH howitzer mechanised and armoured, made them much MUCH MORE survivable. That they didn't have to waste that effort on medium tanks was a god send. An alternative might be the 150mm infantry gun....yes 1/2 artillery range , but with more than three times the through weight. That was also on the Czech chassis - again another sound concept. As to limits of ammo supply- each howitzer battery had ammo section of a light battery and carried >500 shells [Buchner T GI HB pp90] . With Wehrmacht a mechanized battery carried 4 *3 ton ammo trucks allowing maybe 144 shells plus 6 with each limber tractor. L W.G Niehorster . These batteries also had a fifth tractor in the battery as replacement. Always thought that was to bring ammo forward , but i gather the limber arrangement was far from ideal and losing such a tractor was frequent enough to require a ready replacement.
On the point about "lighter weight for mobility" (or however it was phrased), I believe there is evidence that that was done. Specifically it is an open-topped vehicle. A closed armored top would have added perhaps a ton or two to the overall weight, and made the unit nearly immobile. I believe there is some documentary evidence that US self-propelled artillery was likewise open topped to reduce overall weight and increase mobility (or at least allow mobility).
On the removable turret, british M22 Locust had one, but not be removed and used as emplacement - it was the way to transport tank by air under the cargo plane, then assemble it on site.
I'm here thinking: what if you could make a design where the 360 traverse is achieved by the gunner being able to assume control of the tracks on the vehicle? Self-propelled artillery isn't intended to fire during movement anyway. The intent is to be able to keep up with armored units, and also relocate quickly after firing one or several shots. So if you had a system where the gunner and loader assume control over the tracks for traverse purposes, while the driver has the ability to override it during the case of an emergency, you could've saved a lot of construction that goes into the turret so the gun only requires elevation control.
@@VytasVytautas I wonder what he thought of the Ta-154...a wooden aircraft which I think they called the Moskito(glue was bad; the aircraft fell apart during a test flight)
@@llamallama1509 I think I recall he didn't think naming his weapons after insects sounded tough enough. Though in reality I think the average person thinks of a wasp as something dangerous enough to be avoided. Less so a bumblebee I guess.
Its interesting...the Avalon Hill Game Panzerblitz gives Wespes pretty good stats in combat (at least in terms of using it against troop units). When I play Wehrmacht instead of Red Army, I ALWAYS protected my Wespe (and Hummel) units lol
Talking about mobility you didn't mention ground pressure - this is also an important factor. It looks like Wespe' tracks are quite narrow. To put 30 rounds in a batter perspective, it would be great to hear how fast a Wespe could fire out its ammo supply.
5:38 "I can't find modern SPGs able to do this" Well we modern people do it the other way around. Now we have towed artillery with limited ("last mile") self-propel ability.
It's not just power-to-weight ratio that's important, but ground pressure, especially in muddy/boggy conditions. In fact, the Wespe was still very good in this regard: 0.76 kg/cm2. . Compare the Pz IV at ~0.90 kg.cm2, , and the Panther at 0.88kg.cm2 . There are other cross-country factors as well: maximum grade angle, trench crossing depth, vertical obstacle height, fording depth, etc. I suspect this is where the Wespe struggled a bit at Kursk (according to the 4th Pz XX report).
Very interesting and informative! Great stuff, although the mask was kind of distracting. There were some odd rules for the mask 😰 all over the world. Still a great video 👍👍👍!
Since these designs are mid /late war neither are useful and by then more useful roles had already been worked out for both Panzer II & IV . Before the war even began the need for armored howitzers was established in KStN as far back as 1934/35. but since this envisage tank chassis , it could not be built. Guderian demanded that combined arms panzer division had to have ALL units in armored tracks.
Odd question, but does anyone know if the M7 Priest had/used a HE-VT (proximity fuze) shells? I have been looking into this topic and although I am aware that the HE-VT shell was used by U.S. atillery from the battle of the buldge onwards, I can not find out which atillery guns used the shells. I would imagine that the "Long Tom" 155mm atillery used them the most and I would also guess that some people in the U.S. army would be opposed to have self propelled atillery (which had a higher chance of getting captured by enemy forces) carry around the allies greatest military secret but I just cant find any sources on it what so ever.
Independent gun was used in OT 810 the recoiless gun was removable. Australian M777 gun carrier can fire gun while in carry position also independently I think
I think I remember reading somewhere that Hitler banned the use of the roman numeral V, which is why we have Panzers 1-4, then the Panther. I wonder why he banned "Wespe". It's a good name.
@@colonel_yuri I imagine because the V, V for Victory, sign was heavily used in Allied propaganda. Either that or Hitler was a strong partisan for the letter U.
Typical military procurement, the Germans start getting their self propelled artillery at about the time they go on the defensive and no longer have as much of a need for artillery to keep up with the advance. Actually the 105mm M4 was pretty close to what they actually wanted.
The Germans did drop the ball though ....when they converted the Panzer 1 in 1940, they mounted couple hundred captured Czech 47mm ATG. Given that 1800 47mm ATG , were captured from Austrian , Czech and French sources [ 1939-1941] ; they should have introduced a crash program to repurpose ALL the remaining 1100-1300 Panzer 1 chassis into "Panzerjagger 1". During this very same time period the generals rage over - should the main tank chassis production be diverted into producing STuG-III to equip each infantry division with battalion of 21 STuG . Thats 1800 STuG III instead of the first 1800 Panzer III/IV tanks. Just a suggestion , but all those thousands of increasingly obsolete Pz-I; Pz-II & Czech 38 tanks chassis look like an attractive alternative to interim 'assault guns'????.... utilizing 75L24 guns and later PaK-40. BTW that could also mean building1500 more needed Panzer III through 1940-42.
Germany had a deficiency in artillery throughout the war. The US poured out many more AFV's, as did the Soviets. The Soviets somehow figured out self-propelled guns far better than Germany, giving mobility and protection for crews for guns 85, 100, 120 up to 152. The relative poverty of the German effort was reflected on their old chassis with guns already obsolescent when they were introduced to the field.
SU-152 was based on the older KV Chassis and there was no SU-120 anyway??? They also scooped up captured Panzer III ; built new superstructure to house old 76mm ATG...sounds like a good way to recycle old captured AFV's....perhaps that was proof of concept ? BTW the Russians did copy the Germans Wespe with their Su-76.
WESPE & HUMMEL were only built for the Panzer Divisions , no other units had them....except a few hyped SS Panzer Grenadier Divisions. It was an expedient utilizing smaller tank production factories, and it was achieved with out cutting into major tank production. But its overall effect could never have been much because of the limited numbers. The Waffentragger concept had much much more potential as improvised mechanized artillery for all mobile forces especially non divisional artillery.+ To that end the 72 Jagdtiger built at the end of the war , would have been much better invested in Geschutzwagen for 170 Kanon 150 Kanon as well as 210 Mortar....In fact all the Tiger chassis production could have mechanised 300-400 of these guns at in 44/45.
Mathew Kelly - Wespe = Wasp ... (in German) I know know mate, fuckin' hard to believe, but there 'ya have it !! EDIT : - Just to clear some tyhings up, my rael name ismy business, and it's NOT some joker named "Karl Muller", ooooohhh FARK NOE !!! EDIT : - (No.2) I was born in Rural South Western New South Wales, but Iv'e lived in Sydney for mopre than 45yrs
Is there anyway to make a video on how German TOEs were made with captured equipment? Like is there idk an infantry division whose regiments had exclusively French gear?
You could read up on Alfred Becker and the 21st Panzer division. Alfred Becker is the guy, who created most of those whacky conversions of former French vehicles to artillery, tank destroyers and transports. The 21st p. Division was known to be reequpied with many of those conversion vehicles, while in northern France. Before they fought in Africa and afterwards in Normandy. (Though even they were not equipped soley with French vehicles. I dont think there is a division, that did that.) I love those vehicles. They are fascinating.
In German service, captured equipment tended to be used by the unit that captured it, if it fit their TO&E, or passed on to a higher HQ if not, with the anomaly of Soviet 120mm mortars. The Germans loved it so much, they set up factories in Germany to produce their own copies and ammunition, and added it to most late war division equipment tables. German produced one had pneumatic tyres, whereas the soviet produced one had solid rubber tyres
While the panzer 4 chassis might have been preferred it makes sense that they used the panzer 2 chassis. After all, once the panzer 2 is no longer useful as a frontline tank you want to do something with all of those hulls so they don't go to waste, and using them as SPGs would seem to be the thing to do. Of course that assumes that they are taking existing panzer 2 hulls and converting them to wespes. If the wespe chassis is slightly different from the panzer 2 chassis then that suggests that they are producing brand new hulls based on the panzer 2 design (or at the very least are going through a more complicated conversion process), in which case I would think it would be better to go with the panzer 4 chassis as per the recommendation of that battalion commander after Kursk.
You were comparing Priests built in 3 years against Wespe who who was built only for 1 year. More correct number is that USA built twice as many SPGs than Germans.
May not have been a perfect weapon but Im assuming this was relative inexpensive and quick to produce compared to other more complicated weapon systems the germans produced. Sometime cheap and easy to build and use go a long way. A little surprised more of these were not built.
Although I suppose you'd like a response from MHV, I'll give a quick answer. Wespe is self propelled 105mm howitzer on a modified Panzer II hull. Hummel is a self propelled 150mm howitzer on a panzer IV hull. Marder were a series of self propelled anti tank guns. Marder I on French Lorraine carriers and some based on old French tank hull maybe as well. Marder II were based on various versions on panzer II. Marder III were based on various modified chassis of the 38t
Want AD-FREE early Access? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, which also helps making trips like this possible.
More info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv - » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
‘Wasp’ doesn’t exactly cause the enemy to shake in their boots though does it
ruclips.net/video/nXf6Egp7Kw0/видео.html..
2:47 ... any secret hidden message in the black box that appears and disappears ?
ah, a visitor in the background I guess
A Interaction helps the Algorithm
do you know if the soviet equivalent(su-76 i think) is as good?
Dude, you filmed a year's worth of material when you were with us, didn't you?
Well, it was far more efficient than my previous visit(s), yet there is definitely room for improvement. But yeah, 5 pages of Excel tables for all the different scenes etc. if I remember correctly...
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Okay then, next time will charge by the weight of the filmed materiel. :D
I wish I could visit you one day...
@@DasPanzermuseum oh my. How did I not realize you started a RUclips channel?! Subbed
ruclips.net/video/nXf6Egp7Kw0/видео.html..
Self propellled artillery should be called SPARTY and I’m not giving up on this
This is madness? This is SPAAAAARTY!
Yeah right we're with you there.
@@spitefulwar *155mm shell noise*
ruclips.net/video/nXf6Egp7Kw0/видео.html..
can we call self propelled howitzers SHARTY?
@@LowStuff yes
'So we want something like a tank with a huge gun but still a three-sixty traverse and removable turret, but lighter.' Okay. Good luck.
Welcome to the magical world of requirements engineering.
@@tamlandipper29 Or nazi/far right idiocy. Remember how adolf demanded me 262 to be fighter, fighter bomber, dive bomber, bomber, and courier plane all at once?
@@KuK137 Why don't you head on over to Military Aviation History's channel and figure out where you messed up here.
Just because someone has an idiotic ideology doesn't mean all their decisions are irrational, the same goes for those with good ideologies still being just as capable of making idiotic decisions.
Also i want it to make my tax declaration, carry the kids to football and be hybrid
@@KuK137 Well, you're right there. If you think the solution is the genocide might be your requirements are likely to be a bit off in general.
„Hitler forbade calling it Wespe.“
„I‘m gonna keep doing it though“
Hitler: DAS WAR EIN BEFEHL! DIE NAMENSÄNDERUNG DER FELDHAUBITZE AUF PANZERKAMPFWAGEN 2 WAR EIN BEFEHL...
…
I am surrounded by traitors”
*cries dramatically*
Hhahaah underrated comment
Underrated shit
Speer
mit Stalin
Untergang memes less goooo
I presume that an open topped turret was completely reasonable until the end of 1944, though the basis for thinking so is a bit tangential. One of the most striking things about Junger's Storm of Steel is the enormous delta between the AMOUNT of artillery fire encountered and the actual EFFECT of the fire upon the intended targets. The thing that stands out is that the rounds were not inaccurate, but impossible to fuze with sufficient precision to achieve a vertical shotgun effect with the shrapnel. The effect of the proximity fuze cannot be understated both in terms of how terrifying it is and how different artillery fire utilizing it was from all prior bombardment. In the context of the Wespe, the VT fuze transformed the risk of shrapnel hitting the vehicle from the top from a theoretical risk to a likelihood.
On a more human level, the public still doesn't grasp how brutal a war between advanced peer powers would be, as the popular conception of a war against a peer enemy is either the theoretical risk of nuclear war or conventional warfare in WW2. There has not yet been a war in which opponents faced off against once another both armed with corps level VT fuzed artillery as well as modern air defenses to cover it. Perhaps the closest analogue is the Egyptian attack across the Suez in 1973, though the scale of casualties there was heavily mitigated by Israeli fortifications and a rapid transition to a war of maneuver beyond the range of the static Egyptian artillery units. Consider that today, modern militaries are rapidly transitioning to rocket assisted, terminal guided, drone spotted proximity fuzed artillery. In terms of the Wespe, without retrofitted active countermeasures, it could be killed by a single round from over 30km, or even a single mortar round from 6.5 km. War is awful, but modern war will end us all.
I would say that a lot of the improvements in modern artillery are meant to increase 'economic efficiency'. Like the Multiple Simultaneous Impact Rounds are great because they allow for a single unit to blast the same area as a battery. (Which is something you might not even want actually). However, there are scary ones as well. In terms of improved efficiency/killing potentioal, I would suggest the Russian/Soviet thermobaric artillery. That thing is beyond scary. Maybe just as much as a VT fuse
Modern war may end up being somewhat less lethal overall without resorting to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons because no one can make enough of the precision munitions to do the kind of slaughter that the 20th century conflicts achieved. Today, we have a half-dozen precise missiles to do the job that used to be done with hundreds of artillery shells. We stopped having the hundreds of artillery shells so as to pay for the missiles. We now have a few dozen artillery shells rotting away, and the guns to fire them are not being given the love they need either, so fewer barrels are persisting. Why does this matter? Well, you can't flatten a few square kilometers with the missiles, and you don't have the artillery to do it anymore, so the damage is localized to where the missiles are hitting. So war between peer states would be extraordinarily violent for the engaged combat units as they burn up their stockpiled precision munitions, but then the fighting would peter out as industry takes the months and years to actually tool up. The combatants would have to choose between trying to quickly rearm with cheap old-fashioned weapons to get as much manpower fighting again or they would accept a much lower rate of violence while waiting for the factories to figure out how to make the same volume of precision munitions in months that had taken years in peacetime. Hundreds of thousands would certainly still be dying, but we may have actually worked ourselves to a point where the technology dominating warfare is less effective at mass murder than it is at precise murder, and that is actually good for reducing the overall damage done.
They say it was the new proximity fuse, that did the damage to the Nazis during the battle of the bulge.
That was essay! Talkabout Schindlers list lol
You are looking at it backward. You have N tons for armor. Where do you put that armor to do the most good? Most attacks will be small arms from the front and shrapnel from all directions. So you can save a lot of weight by not putting a top on it. That said, the vehicle WAS too small. The Soviets produced the much more successful SU-122, with a bigger gun, on a T-34 chassis, with good armor all around.
If you need your SPARTY to fire to the rear, you have bigger problems than whether or not it can.
France - visibly confused.
Tell that to the designers of the Archer SPG.
You forget a major positive, the Wespe used an existing chasis that wasn't of much use other than as a platform for the 7.5 cm PAK. As such, the Wespe did not interfere with Stug, Panzer IV, or other tank production and allowed existing production lines to produce a useful vehicle rather than having to stop them to retool. Although you mentioned it used the obsolete panzer II chasis, you didn't point ot out as a positive when it should be given Germany's situation. I wonder though if the 38t chasis might have been a better choice? Pretty sure the Panzer III chasis would have been better, but would it be worth having lass Stugs on hand?
Well, I didn't talk about production benefits, also this is kinda implied with obsolete panzer 2 and existing components.
I wonder if they could have done the same with some of the obsolete French tanks?
The long term problem with that might be the German army's supply chain was already very complex and would get worse.
@@seriousmaran9414 I believe that a visit to Baustab -Becker is called for.
@@chrisgibson5267 yes, I have found instances of conversion, thanks. Should have searched earlier. The slower French tanks would not have been fast enough to keep up, so probably not worth converting.
With German shortages of everything, was there any efforts to reclaim and recycle old tanks and vehicles and steel? Seems to me the soviets left a lot of scrap steel laying around.
0:23 Thanks for caring for our sanity, really appreciated ;)
If I had to guess I'd wager that "saving weight" is code for saving material used for this upgrade
Good catch that makes a lot of sense.
the wespe is still my favourite spg of ww2, something about its tiny size made it cute to me
I'd bet the Soviets downrange of them never once thought that they were "cute." Suddenly I'm reminded of the rabbit in Monte Python and the Holy Grail! lol
So civilized
Absolute best channel to come to for well-researched and well-presented information on German equipment and tactics of WWII, presented by an actual German so you can learn the correct pronunciation of the names as well! Thanks for what you do!
Any ideas around vidoes about Panzer Flak? I.e Möbelwagen, Ostwind
I would like to see some too!
Yeah good idea.
Very good Idea. especially the Performance of the flakpanzer 38
I want Videos about Ostwind and Kugelblitz! 👍🏻👍🏻
Damn. Got nothing either!
Germans with surgical masks make me nervous 😅
too much Team Fortress 2?
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized to much precision in a GERMAN surgeon
You guys are precise enough already 😂❤️
Well, thank god he is an Austrian then.
@@TheNheg66 So was A H .
Their famous aerosolized condiment, Mustard, used to peacefully dispatch hostilities between in World Peace 1. With its distinctive taste and color.
For a WW 2 nut like myself your channel has been a goldmine of information that even 10 years ago would have been very difficult to impossible to find. Thank you.
Your level of research, insight, & detail is unsurpassed on RUclips, & I am a Panzer Wehrmacht obsessive since my early teens in the mid 70's. Your channel for the deep detailed dives & Mark Felton's Channel for the WW2 stories are all anyone needs here for a comprehensive overview of the German Army during WW2.
Thanx so much for this one Bernhard. I find the SPGs just as interesting as the tanks. Dare you tackle the Marder tank destroyer series? There are so many variants of them due to their being made in different places and the availability of guns. A hodge podge of components to get guns on anything that moved on tracks.
Was there any difference between self-propelled artillery in general and dedicated tank destroyers?
@@SusCalvin Well tank destroyers or "Jagdpanzers" or also "Panzerjagers" are much more armored and lower hulled. They are sort of snipers so to speak. But the Germans were putting guns on anything that moved. Thats where the Marders and the Nashorn comes in. I believe they had an assortment of rounds they carried. Not just anti tank rounds but high explosives to deal with infantry too. So I'd put them in the SPG category. At least thats my understanding.
3:00 quick tip for when someone walks through your shot, you've got the camera on a tripod so the shots not moving. Rather than placing a black box over that area take a screenshot when no one is in the frame, cut out that section of the frame and place it over the same area when someone walks through. As long as you lighting is consistent and you get it in the right spot it will look almost seamless and not draw the eye in the way a black box suddenly appearing does.
might consider that, but in that case I probably won't do it, since some "challenged" people actually claim I was all alone in the museum at the time.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Oh well, keep the feet visible, that is what I finally noticed. I thought at first it was another colorized night video.
These fools were a step behind - the truth is that you invented this "museum," and all so-called visitors are paid actors!@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized
I just put together the 1/35 Wespe model, she is nice.
I got 1/76 from revell
How can you tell a female Wespe from a male Wespe?
@@Nightcrawlerfive the male has less color (monotone camouflage)
I just built a 1/35 scale model of this Wespe. Loved it! I am surprised to learn the large indent on the rear folding hatch was not a scale model addition but actual design.
The design specifications seems been written by the usual military committee! Then it was down too economy, time and physical laws to make sense of the mess!
I recall reading (I think in Chamberlain and Ellis) that the M7 was an inefficiently large chassis for a 105mm gun, and here we learn that the Wespe was if anything a bit too small. I wonder if the Pz IV chassis might also have been a bit big, but the Pz III chassis could have been the perfect size for a 105mm armed SPG? The post war US M37 105mm HMC was based on the M24 chassis, and dimensionally that's about the same size as a Pz III.
really the idea that the artillery "needs" what was asked for is silly
considering the need to deploy a battery of artillery in order to have any meaningful effect on target area carrying amo and crew is kind of a luxury, they are not really tactical that's what Stugs are for, although Russia used SU-76s as assault guns but was that really a "good" idea
M7 has it's flaws but spoils the hell out of it's crew with all the space, amo and the .50
the title is a bit unfair as the criteria is so stringent almost no WW2 SPG could be considered successful
Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 were the same size.
@@michaelkensbock661 Have you seen the two vehicles side by side? Or even two models in the same scale side by side? The Panzer III is visibly more compact than the Panzer IV.
@@michaelkensbock661 No 3 has a smaller chassis. But his production where stopped 1943 so ...
Pz3 production was stopped in 1943, however there were significant numbers of pz3 chassis Available right up to the end of the war. Thus a conversion of a pz3 chassis to self propelled artillery is not infeasible
The Mark II was no longer a viable front line chassis. So Wespe was a very viable utilization of Germany's production capacity.
The number of Wespe surviving the war seems very high. Could you elaborate on self propelled artillery survival versus other tank types such as tank destroyers and 2nd and first line tanks?
maybe in the future, I don't have enough data on that yet myself. It could also be that they were not used anymore, although that I consider unlikely since they were listed with the field army.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thank you. I appreciate your work.
Well they are support vehicles, they are armored and they didn't carry a lot of ammo. So by the time the battle went south they where probably long out of ammo and there was no reason for them to stick around any longer. Meanwhile the tanks gets destroyed by direct fire and the other support vehicles gets destroyed by indirect fire or just small arms fire.
I've been here for some time, and I see your video quality has really improved. Congratulations!
*Hitler in 1944 Losing the war on all fronts:*
"Why are my SPA's named like insects?!"
10:00 Also, I think the word you're looking for is accuracy. The high precision of artillery fire means a compromise of accuracy and fire-readiness due to having to remap your position after relocation.
hint: don't edit your post after receiving if a "love", because you will lose it, instead add a second comment; btw. your addition also breaks the joke, so a second comment is far better hear in any way.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thx for the hint, didn't want to spam :)
Nice video. It'd be interesting to see the Heuschrecke 10 covered.
The PanzerArtilerrie officer's recommendation: "we should use the PzIV chassis". Not when the Panzer forces need every PzIV they can get - there's a reason the PzIV stayed in production right to the end.
the concept of 105mm how on tank chassis was listed in the 1934 KSTN for the first panzer divisions.
Would be interesting to hear about Germany's own night witches (Störkampfstaffel) and how effective they were. Great video as always!
“Task failed successfully”
The only modern artillery design with a removable independent turret that I can think of is a NEMO mounted in a 20-ft-container. It's a 120mm automatic breech loading mortar manufactured by Patria. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_NEMO
thank you!
KMW's AGM can be removed, too, at least the Boxer module can be replaced easily. Maybe then placed on a mount for stationary use. Maybe even lifted by helicopter, at 12.5t however at the limit of a CH-47 and put on a mointain ...
I know I'm getting off the subject here but when you mentioned 140 horsepower it didn't sound like a lot but yet there's no mention of how much rated torque it is. and so as it's the torque that actually gets heavy objects moving why isn't there more important placed on torque in descriptions. A Ford escort had 140 horsepower, but you never saw that kind of engine in a tank because of the torque. And I am quite sure that in all armies there are plenty of lower horsepower engines that have twice the torque in a different application, mainly dependent on stroke. Well that's enough of my rambling but it would be nice that in the horsepower stats you included the torque and RPM ratings. Thank you for great videos.
Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen torque values so far, rpm sometimes. I guess it is too special.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Sometimes I Google it myself if I know the name of the engine.
Love listening to a german speaking person talking about german weaponry ... so much more authentic! Playing HOI3/Black Ice really makes someone appreciate this info. Forgot the fact (con) it cost more fuel. I wich you could have talked about kill ratios and the performance in battle overall.
I had so much fun with Grilles and Wespes in WoT. Before they were nerfed. I could hit a speeding light tank with an artillery shell! To the amazement of my teammates. Fun times. And Grilles and Wespes could race around the rear areas to avoid enemy breakthroughs or sprint forward if the game was going well. Often I could occupy an objective while the tanks took the next one while my shells rained on the enemy! What a time it was!
Good presentation....The Wespe was a very valuable machine.
So the main point is, Wespe got quite a lot of drawbacks but somehow works well on the battlefields?
When speaking about the traverse, don't forget that the chassis itself was mobile and, like a tank, could turn in place to "spin around", eventually fulfilling the 360 degree requirement. That said, it WAS an interim design, not a specially designed piece. It was making due with pieces that were around at the time.
It is artillery, so for indirect fire if you move the vehicle, you have to recalculate a lot of stuff. I am sure I mentioned this in one of the self-propelled artillery videos, maybe not in this one.
Yeah, it is actually covered in this video, to quote my own script:
"The lack of a 360 degree traverse was particularly a problem on the Eastern Front, since the mud and the cold required often position changes, but that was less easily done in such a condition. Now, you might argue Sturmgeschütze and Panzers changed the position all the time, so what is the big deal.
Remember we are talking about artillery here. Artillery firing charts account for wind, temperature and a lot of other stuff. So this is way more precise or well imprecise if you get a number wrong and as such changing the position a little bit could have major influences."
Wespe, my favorite Chit in PanzerBlitz.
1:50 Nooooo... Not Das Teddy!
as one who was in artillery units, 8th and 37th, both sp and towed 155s, it is obvious that the line between artillery and anti tank gun is being tippy toed upon here. Each has it's own purpose. It's easy to outrun your artillery coverage. That should never be allowed unless you have air superiority. the range of a 155 is tremendous, and accurate. SP artillery doesn't require a truck to pull it, but does need an ammo hauler close by. No need for a turret, as the driver can turn the vehicle quicker. unecessary manufacturing costs. However, it DOES require AA & infantry coverage, or you're a hunk of scrap iron quickly, with either cannon.
Added to that number of Priests the British (through Canada) produced 2,100 Sextons with 25 pounder guns. No wonder the tactic of using firepower to wear down the opponent rather than expend lives was the trademark of British-American offense and defense. On top of that the US delivered over 1,700 M8 (75mm M5 Stuart) self propelled guns as well 1,300 105mm Shermans. Very few of this vehicles were lost in combat.
It's always illuminating to see the production disparity between Axis and Allies. I can't imagine how 'the baddies' ever really expected to come back from their various losses (once their initial shot at victory failed), let alone muster enough to actually win in a longer conflict.
they never expected to win in the long run and were quite surprised by their successes themselves in the beginning and then there was hitlers & Co barbarossa eradication programme, thats what happens when you mix economical, political and military goals with a fucked up idiology with its own occultism etc.
Hitler thought anyone who claimed a country had 10,000 tanks was insane.
toller Beitrag.mach doch mal was zu den "wandernden Kesseln" zum Ende des Krieges. auch sehr spannend mal was von dir dazu zu hören ...
Ah the days of PanzeBlitz, Wespes and Hummels ganging up on T34 at range. We need a video on teh Hummel, please.
Good ol' Panzerblitz. I had hours of fun playing that. Panzer Leader and Arab-Israeli Wars also.
@@kirbyculp3449 I have many fond memories playing Avalon Hill, SPI and GDW board games. Modern video games just aren't the same as gathering around a table with a bunch of friends for a weekend afternoon.
Hello!
I think its a bit odd that the Wespe only had 30 rounds of ammunition with it. If they would have chosen a bigger chasse they could have gotten away with more room for rounds. But i think you also need to view this from the production point of view. They probably already have a production line ready for the Panzer II chase, and while they were beefing up the tanks with heavier chasses, the Panzer II chasse probably became available. And they probably filled that gap up with the Wespe design. Also the ammo carrier is the same shape as the Wespe, that also shows that they wanted to keep production simple, so nothing fancy for the ammo carrier and they used the same design as the Wespe.
Today we have plasma cutters and CAD programs that let you design and build in a really quick pace. If they had that back in the day it would have been a lot easier to get things done. I think engineers back in the day were real artists, the amount of work you have to put in to get a drawing right, its a tedious job.
Any way; nice video!
Greetings,
Jeff
I think the original idea was moveable gun, if a Wespe is knocked out you move its gun into an ammo carrier and you have another Wespe. Germans also proved unwilling to dismantle production lines with the Panzer 2, Panzer 3 and 38T production lines simply being retooled to produce different vehicle variants, probably more efficent than Britain where everytime they came up with a new tank at one of the four or so main design companies they shut down the previous production lines so you had small production runs, also from 1941 every time a company won a contract to build a tank the next best bidder would be appointed to design an improved version of the winning design which meant the losing company would have to acquire another set of the winning companies tooling. (Though I suppose the plus side was redundancy, if one factory was knocked out another could still build the same design)
@@watcherzero5256 The British failed for a long time to come up with a tank design with which they were satisfied. Nor had they an assault gun stratagem (they used infantry tanks), or had self propelled artillery at a high priority. I think they even phased the Priest out at one time because the Priest used different ammo. So there was little use for stug and self propelled gun concept.
But for the Archer the British did reuse a chassis and they did it even simpler. They put the 17 pounder on a Valentine chassis and switched gun around (firing backwards) so they did not even not to switch the engine and the fighting compartment around.
@@barthoving2053 There was also the Achilles which was an M10 but upgunned by the British, it used a slightly modified M4 chassis. Your right though, for the most part the British never withdrew a tank from service making it available for refitting, just sent it somewhere less hot (for example the Matilda II saw out the war fighting the Japanese in the Pacific) and ultimately for training new recruits. Some were used as artillery tractors though with both M3, M4 and Crusader II converted to tractors when better tanks came along 1943-1945. There was also some Valentines and other tanks converted to AA and SPGs as field modifications rather than an official programme of conversion. Also there were close support assault guns produced but generally as variants of normal tank designs (e.g. using a 95mm howitzer instead of a 2pdr and the Churchill AVRE) rather than a whole new vehicle being designed.
I disagree. Bigger gun than a normal tank, bigger munitions than an average tank, heavier than a panzer 2, less armoured. It's clearly designed to haul the main weight being the gun (as the gunless carriage can hold 3x the munitions). Simply "moving the gun to make room for more bullets, can throw the balance of the vehicle easily, putting excessive strain on the engine, gears, rollers etc, not to mention the possibility of needing a bigger engine and being prone to tipping or getting stuck if too far forward. (Also keeping in mind engine height given the clearance of the chassis)
No offence guys but you're nitpicking over nothing. Just making the 105mm LeFH howitzer mechanised and armoured, made them much MUCH MORE survivable. That they didn't have to waste that effort on medium tanks was a god send.
An alternative might be the 150mm infantry gun....yes 1/2 artillery range , but with more than three times the through weight. That was also on the Czech chassis - again another sound concept.
As to limits of ammo supply- each howitzer battery had ammo section of a light battery and carried >500 shells [Buchner T GI HB pp90] . With Wehrmacht a mechanized battery carried 4 *3 ton ammo trucks allowing maybe 144 shells plus 6 with each limber tractor. L W.G Niehorster .
These batteries also had a fifth tractor in the battery as replacement. Always thought that was to bring ammo forward , but i gather the limber arrangement was far from ideal and losing such a tractor was frequent enough to require a ready replacement.
On the point about "lighter weight for mobility" (or however it was phrased), I believe there is evidence that that was done. Specifically it is an open-topped vehicle. A closed armored top would have added perhaps a ton or two to the overall weight, and made the unit nearly immobile. I believe there is some documentary evidence that US self-propelled artillery was likewise open topped to reduce overall weight and increase mobility (or at least allow mobility).
A steel roof plate 2,5 x 2,5m and 10mm thick would weight about 500kg, so you were pretty close.
On the removable turret, british M22 Locust had one, but not be removed and used as emplacement - it was the way to transport tank by air under the cargo plane, then assemble it on site.
I lost it at "Soft Targets".
I'm here thinking: what if you could make a design where the 360 traverse is achieved by the gunner being able to assume control of the tracks on the vehicle?
Self-propelled artillery isn't intended to fire during movement anyway. The intent is to be able to keep up with armored units, and also relocate quickly after firing one or several shots.
So if you had a system where the gunner and loader assume control over the tracks for traverse purposes, while the driver has the ability to override it during the case of an emergency, you could've saved a lot of construction that goes into the turret so the gun only requires elevation control.
addressed in the video
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Ah, I jumped the gun a bit there. Thank you for the correction!
Very very good video. Thanks brother! Keep safe my friend ✌️
Thanks for another excellent video. I enjoyed it, and learned some things I didn't know.
Why did Hitler prohibit calling the vehicle "Wespe(Wasp)"? Did he have a stinging insect phobia?
There's was a maus and a ratte, so why no wespe? 😂
I am not sure if it is true. But Hornisse was renamed to Nashorn.
@@VytasVytautas I wonder what he thought of the Ta-154...a wooden aircraft which I think they called the Moskito(glue was bad; the aircraft fell apart during a test flight)
@@ronaldfinkelstein6335 Or the de Havilland Mosquito... a wooden aircraft that DIDN'T fall apart, even under some shockingly heavy AA fire :P
A stunning level of research. Thank you!
Thank you.
I love the Wespe, you never expect too much out of it, and yet it always exceeds expectations.
nice detail on a weapon i didn't know much about......the high survival rate is a testament to good design and operation
Tolles Video! Grüße aus der Schweiz
danke!
Good for a stopgap design. Do a video comparing it to todays spg. Not sure new stuff is better, gets the job done any better. Your thoughts
I knew that "Mr. H" banned the use of the name Hummel (bumble bee), but I didn't know that he also banned the use of the name Wespe (wasp).
Does anyone know why he banned those names?
@@llamallama1509 fuckin buzz kill innit
@@llamallama1509 I think I recall he didn't think naming his weapons after insects sounded tough enough. Though in reality I think the average person thinks of a wasp as something dangerous enough to be avoided. Less so a bumblebee I guess.
But naming his 100ton monstrosity maus was ok.....
One of the two armoured vehicles with which I've been able to obtain an ace tanker award. The 105 has a pretty good rate of fire.
Good video, allways nice how you explain the military vehicles.
Its interesting...the Avalon Hill Game Panzerblitz gives Wespes pretty good stats in combat (at least in terms of using it against troop units). When I play Wehrmacht instead of Red Army, I ALWAYS protected my Wespe (and Hummel) units lol
Talking about mobility you didn't mention ground pressure - this is also an important factor. It looks like Wespe' tracks are quite narrow. To put 30 rounds in a batter perspective, it would be great to hear how fast a Wespe could fire out its ammo supply.
I kinda wanna see a video on the Nashorn
5:38 "I can't find modern SPGs able to do this"
Well we modern people do it the other way around. Now we have towed artillery with limited ("last mile") self-propel ability.
Sounds like the 203mm B-4 actually
Most modern tanks have bigger guns than the WW2 SP guns.
Love your videos. Keep up the good work!
Great video!
It's not just power-to-weight ratio that's important, but ground pressure, especially in muddy/boggy conditions.
In fact, the Wespe was still very good in this regard: 0.76 kg/cm2. .
Compare the Pz IV at ~0.90 kg.cm2, , and the Panther at 0.88kg.cm2 .
There are other cross-country factors as well: maximum grade angle, trench crossing depth, vertical obstacle height, fording depth, etc.
I suspect this is where the Wespe struggled a bit at Kursk (according to the 4th Pz XX report).
Yes , if a removable turret is required during this time period, french tanks should be utilized.
You could say that about T-34
@@paullakowski2509 true
Nice work!
I wonder why Hitler had banned the usage of 'Wespe' in 1943... *proceeds to google away*
Interesting and informative, thanks!
Very interesting and informative! Great stuff, although the mask was kind of distracting. There were some odd rules for the mask 😰 all over the world. Still a great video 👍👍👍!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Since these designs are mid /late war neither are useful and by then more useful roles had already been worked out for both Panzer II & IV . Before the war even began the need for armored howitzers was established in KStN as far back as 1934/35. but since this envisage tank chassis , it could not be built. Guderian demanded that combined arms panzer division had to have ALL units in armored tracks.
Why did Hitler ban the name?
Odd question, but does anyone know if the M7 Priest had/used a HE-VT (proximity fuze) shells? I have been looking into this topic and although I am aware that the HE-VT shell was used by U.S. atillery from the battle of the buldge onwards, I can not find out which atillery guns used the shells.
I would imagine that the "Long Tom" 155mm atillery used them the most and I would also guess that some people in the U.S. army would be opposed to have self propelled atillery (which had a higher chance of getting captured by enemy forces) carry around the allies greatest military secret but I just cant find any sources on it what so ever.
Great video. As usual .
i DID enjoy this video! Your stuff is great.
Independent gun was used in OT 810 the recoiless gun was removable. Australian M777 gun carrier can fire gun while in carry position also independently I think
I think I remember reading somewhere that Hitler banned the use of the roman numeral V, which is why we have Panzers 1-4, then the Panther. I wonder why he banned "Wespe". It's a good name.
Why did he ban the roman numeral V?
@@colonel_yuri I imagine because the V, V for Victory, sign was heavily used in Allied propaganda.
Either that or Hitler was a strong partisan for the letter U.
@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 Considering the Panther was actually the "Panzerkampfwagon V Ausf. A "Panther"", I don't think V was banned.
The failure was in building so few of those self-propelled guns, more were need dearly!!
Typical military procurement, the Germans start getting their self propelled artillery at about the time they go on the defensive and no longer have as much of a need for artillery to keep up with the advance.
Actually the 105mm M4 was pretty close to what they actually wanted.
The Germans did drop the ball though ....when they converted the Panzer 1 in 1940, they mounted couple hundred captured Czech 47mm ATG. Given that 1800 47mm ATG , were captured from Austrian , Czech and French sources [ 1939-1941] ; they should have introduced a crash program to repurpose ALL the remaining 1100-1300 Panzer 1 chassis into "Panzerjagger 1".
During this very same time period the generals rage over - should the main tank chassis production be diverted into producing STuG-III to equip each infantry division with battalion of 21 STuG . Thats 1800 STuG III instead of the first 1800 Panzer III/IV tanks.
Just a suggestion , but all those thousands of increasingly obsolete Pz-I; Pz-II & Czech 38 tanks chassis look like an attractive alternative to interim 'assault guns'????.... utilizing 75L24 guns and later PaK-40.
BTW that could also mean building1500 more needed Panzer III through 1940-42.
Germany had a deficiency in artillery throughout the war. The US poured out many more AFV's, as did the Soviets. The Soviets somehow figured out self-propelled guns far better than Germany, giving mobility and protection for crews for guns 85, 100, 120 up to 152. The relative poverty of the German effort was reflected on their old chassis with guns already obsolescent when they were introduced to the field.
SU-152 was based on the older KV Chassis and there was no SU-120 anyway??? They also scooped up captured Panzer III ; built new superstructure to house old 76mm ATG...sounds like a good way to recycle old captured AFV's....perhaps that was proof of concept ?
BTW the Russians did copy the Germans Wespe with their Su-76.
WESPE & HUMMEL were only built for the Panzer Divisions , no other units had them....except a few hyped SS Panzer Grenadier Divisions.
It was an expedient utilizing smaller tank production factories, and it was achieved with out cutting into major tank production. But its overall effect could never have been much because of the limited numbers.
The Waffentragger concept had much much more potential as improvised mechanized artillery for all mobile forces especially non divisional artillery.+
To that end the 72 Jagdtiger built at the end of the war , would have been much better invested in Geschutzwagen for 170 Kanon 150 Kanon as well as 210 Mortar....In fact all the Tiger chassis production could have mechanised 300-400 of these guns at in 44/45.
I live in Australia, I've never heard this vehicle called the Wasp only Wespe ......... the Wasp was a universal carrier with a flamethrower
Mathew Kelly - Wespe = Wasp ... (in German)
I know know mate, fuckin' hard to believe, but there 'ya have it !!
EDIT : - Just to clear some tyhings up, my rael name ismy business, and it's NOT some joker
named "Karl Muller", ooooohhh FARK NOE !!!
EDIT : - (No.2) I was born in Rural South Western New South Wales, but Iv'e lived in Sydney
for mopre than 45yrs
Is there anyway to make a video on how German TOEs were made with captured equipment? Like is there idk an infantry division whose regiments had exclusively French gear?
not sure there is much to say there.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized huh, yeah now that I think about it I’m not sure what I expected
I just thought it’d be a cool subject, sorry
You could read up on Alfred Becker and the 21st Panzer division.
Alfred Becker is the guy, who created most of those whacky conversions of former French vehicles to artillery, tank destroyers and transports.
The 21st p. Division was known to be reequpied with many of those conversion vehicles, while in northern France. Before they fought in Africa and afterwards in Normandy. (Though even they were not equipped soley with French vehicles. I dont think there is a division, that did that.)
I love those vehicles. They are fascinating.
@@looinrims to clarify I have seen some TOEs, I only gave them a glance but in some cases one vehicle replaced another not much else.
In German service, captured equipment tended to be used by the unit that captured it, if it fit their TO&E, or passed on to a higher HQ if not, with the anomaly of Soviet 120mm mortars. The Germans loved it so much, they set up factories in Germany to produce their own copies and ammunition, and added it to most late war division equipment tables. German produced one had pneumatic tyres, whereas the soviet produced one had solid rubber tyres
A good proof-of-concept for the Hummel
not really, since both were developed in parallel unless I am mistaken.
While the panzer 4 chassis might have been preferred it makes sense that they used the panzer 2 chassis. After all, once the panzer 2 is no longer useful as a frontline tank you want to do something with all of those hulls so they don't go to waste, and using them as SPGs would seem to be the thing to do. Of course that assumes that they are taking existing panzer 2 hulls and converting them to wespes. If the wespe chassis is slightly different from the panzer 2 chassis then that suggests that they are producing brand new hulls based on the panzer 2 design (or at the very least are going through a more complicated conversion process), in which case I would think it would be better to go with the panzer 4 chassis as per the recommendation of that battalion commander after Kursk.
they used a Panzer IV like chassis* for the Hummel; *it looks Panzer IV, but has some Panzer III components.
Wespe should have been produced more than Tigers and Panthers instead.
more likely all Marder production should have been Wespe production.
You were comparing Priests built in 3 years against Wespe who who was built only for 1 year. More correct number is that USA built twice as many SPGs than Germans.
We need a :Militaryhistory more or less visualized ,channel!
May not have been a perfect weapon but Im assuming this was relative inexpensive and quick to produce compared to other more complicated weapon systems the germans produced. Sometime cheap and easy to build and use go a long way. A little surprised more of these were not built.
Well, I mean what else are you going to do with the high number of otherwise unused Panzer II chassis you have lying around?
Powerful, compact size, pretty light.
Might I suggest in the future that your "Good In Theory" icon be a Fairy, in recognition of the infamous "Good Idea Fairy"?
Sir you are my Top 3 favorite Austrians now.
Very interesting.
Thank you.
peace.
difference between wespe, hummel and marder pls
Although I suppose you'd like a response from MHV, I'll give a quick answer. Wespe is self propelled 105mm howitzer on a modified Panzer II hull. Hummel is a self propelled 150mm howitzer on a panzer IV hull. Marder were a series of self propelled anti tank guns. Marder I on French Lorraine carriers and some based on old French tank hull maybe as well. Marder II were based on various versions on panzer II. Marder III were based on various modified chassis of the 38t
@@marctorres7182 nope, thanks, that was just perfect. they kinda looked the same to me, ya know
Fully rotating turret ?
Soviet KV2. 360 degree traverse vs 34 degrees. That silhouette? Certainly not ideal, but it was a "start".
bunker buster not self-propelled artillery
So it was a mobile artillery and was not meant to engage other armor or to work as an infantry support vehicle?