In fairness, the Sturer Emil and Dicker Max were not obsolete simply because the French fortifications were no longer an issue. There were plenty of big fortified positions in the world that would need to be eliminated for the German Reich's further expansion. The Maginot Line simply was the catalyst to develop the mechanized bunker-buster, not the only reason to have such a bunker buster. Kursk might have gone a bit better in some places if there had been a couple of battalions of Sturer Emils supporting, able to precisely put 128mm shells into positions that historically took more time to reduce.
@@IanSumallo That is a technical issue, not a doctrinal one. The concept of a bunker buster, a heavy gun on motorized carriage for engagement of fortifications with direct fire was not obsoleted by the fact that the Maginot Line was no longer a strategic consideration. If Sturer Emils had been mass-produced for general service, I am sure they would have done more to resolve the reliability problems.
I just noticed this video just got released, i personally love tank content and i also am a tank games fan. Your content also is great, can't wait for the jagdpanzers because i like those tank destroyers the most of all destroyers
Another splendid and thoroughly enjoyable video, and you will never make awful content. As always, I'm keenly looking forward to your next one on the Jagdpanzers! 👍👍
Greetings from Germany - a small hint for all of you. In the clip is mentioned the naming e.g. P.Z. 38 (T). The T is standing for "Tschechisch" meaning "Czech" in english. I don't know why they named it like that but thats what the T stands for as they didn't name the the french captured/procued tanks with an F. So its not a version like with the other tanks. I hope I helped at least a small bit to explain the sometimes weird names ;) At 6:59 the names translated into english mean: 10.5 cm canon armored self-propelled Tank self-propelled gun IV version A (the short description in the brackets)
The Beutepanzer or captured tanks got small letters for the nation they were coming from, because like th eczech tank they got renamed. As the Panzer 38t wasnt called like that in czech but LT VZ 38 or Praga TNH. Panzer 38 (t) for czech, russian tanks got (r) and so on.
Hey I was wondering if you could explain the meaning of "Lafette" in "Selbstfahrlafette"? I would expect the word Geschütz to be used and also the word sounds French which is surprising. I'm guessing this word was just used in the past and caught on.
@@paint4r I copy here a part from Wikipedia: Link: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafette Quote: "Eine Lafette (von französisch l'affût, älter l'affust zum altfranzösischen fust = Schaft, Stange) ist ein meist fahrbares Gestell, auf dem eine Waffe montiert werden kann." English via Google translator: A mount (from French l'affût, older l'affust to Old French fust = stock, pole) is a usually mobile frame on which a weapon can be mounted. So a Lafette is in general a frame where canons/guns etc are mounted on. E.g. for machine guns in german language you sometimes also find the expression "Dreibein" which means "threelegs" (litterally) - correct translation would be tripod. This thing is also called a Lafette. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreibein_(Waffe) "Geschütz" is in German the word for a Canon/gun which is then mounted on a "Lafette" (frame) which is usually carried around. If you add then "Selbstfahr-" (Self propelled" then you have the full name of it. And if you are asking for the historical backgrounds which I'm not to sure of, but my best guess would be that the german/prussian millitary was highly influenced by the Napoleonic wars and by the technic of the time. So I think the expression comes orginally from that time as guns/canons needed to be mobile so they were mounted and dismounted at this to move them around and the word Lafette is just used until today and surely was modified for the german language as we germans are actually pretty good in adopting words from other languages and change them slightly to make them a german word. ;) You can see that in alot of german words not just in millitary expressions. I hope this explains your question? If not then please let me know. Kind regards
@jurgen6902 Yeah that makes sense, it means a frame to mount the gun on. I was assuming it was just another word for gun that is only used in some specific context. Thanks :)
This was an excellent video! Short and concise with each vehicles explanation, but covered everything you needed to! I look forward to the second half!
@@RedWrenchFilmsOh yeah Expression jager tank seems ridiculos at the end of war. ..No kidding? Tank himself was always underpowered subarmed too thirsty not enough good for sharp turn etc.Only the big tank was too hard to kill easy but not enough nomber built
RUclips is a real piece of work but damn am I happy when I get a actually good recommendation, great content man it’s crazy you only have 20k subs, keep it up!!
Well done video! An interesting addition from me, rather uncommon knowledge. The Nashorn was actually also used as artillery, it was fully equipped to function in that role too, it had the necessary specialized radios and optics installed. The reason for that was, that the Hummel was considered important as heavy artillery and they wanted to able to quickly replace Hummel losses with Nashorns by just replacing the 88mm gun with the 150 mm sFH18. And as I said the Nashorn was actually also used as artillery, of course with lighter impact but in a similar role as Flak units were also used in an artillery role. cheers
I accidently watched the second video first. I must say tht this first video abt the early days of panzetjagers was ever as bit interesting and well researched. Keep 'em coming!! I subscribed, by the way. Again, I am vey impressed with your commitment to great research. gb
Modern forces don't really use tank destroyers, but your point of how they already had obsolete tanks, and available big guns, combining the two into an effective weapon makes pragmatic sense. Tank destroyers were a lot cheaper than tanks, about half to 1/3 the price, so having three times the number of vehicles and being able to strategically place big guns where needed added a lot of value to the military force.
Germany captures one good Czech. light tank; turns it into a tank destroyer (marder 38t), an armored tank destroyer (hetzer) and artillery (grille). That's logistical genius.
Great video but you forgot some open topped tank destroyers. The late war 251/22 and 234/4 both had the pak 40. Plus there were panzer 1 A's with the stuk 43/48 cannon.
I wouldn’t really say that Germany “created” the tank destroyer, rather was an early pioneer along with other countries. Considering that the United States had their own type of tank destroyer, the m3 gmc go into production the same year as the panzerjeager 1, the French even had concepts and prototypes built before that with the Lorraine 37l and the soviets with the su-5. I don’t mean to be a pain or anything but I just thought the title seemed a bit misleading to the viewer.
I made a very similar comment but you beat me to it. The M3 75mm GMC did not get developed till after the 1940 campaign. But still - the idea was definitely around in other armies.
Panzerjager is armor hunter, big gun light armor. Jagdpanzer, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger means hunting vehicle name here. Big gun but usually good frontal armor to be able to engage with a reasonable chance of holding position. Side armor was usually a lot weaker so if the vehicle was flanked it was in trouble.
@@Anlushac11 i always wondered why they didn't tow extra armor plates, And attach them when they got into position With a quick release system for when they are ordered to advance?
@@jamesgoldring1052This is Germany, there is no way they could spare the material to do that. The process would also take too much time for the little amount of extra protection it would give.
@@Anlushac11 Sorry, I don't want to be that guy, but: "Panzerjäger" correctly translates to "tank hunter" and was Germanys take on what the Allies would later call "tank destroyers". "Armor hunter" isn't the right translation for it. A "Panzer" is the German term for a "tank". We call "armor" "Panzerung" (when you're refering to medival "armor", we call that "Rüstung", which sometimes also appears in military matters), but the shorter word "Panzer" does sometimes casually also refer to armor as well, so you're not entirely wrong here.
I think it was a Nashorn in a hull-down position that knocked out one of the U.S. Army’s 3rd Armored Divisions’ new M-26 Pershing medium tanks from around 1200 yards. Please correct me if I’m wrong….
After listening to so many videos by Military History Visualized, I am just choked every time you don't say the vehicles full name. As its super satisfying on his channel lol. Enjoyed your video nonetheless.
Nice video. The panzerjager1 is a remarkable vehicle. That is the most footage I have seen on the subject. I noticed you didn't bring up the bison variant. Although it was probably not really a Antitank unit. Its is just nice to see what the Germans mounted on such a small chassis.
You should mention Major Becker who was with the 21 PD, at least later in the war. An engineer by trade and his family’s company produced the shielding he designed the shield used on many Marder I’s. His first attempt s were on captured British MK VI light tanks using the 75mm PAK 40 and the 105 howitzer. They were used around Leningrad and he earned the Iron Cross for his work. Later when the 21 PD was refitting in France prior to the Normandy invasion he took Hotchkiss H39 chassis and built a battalion with the 2 guns mentioned earlier. They fought against the invasion force, I believe in the British sector.
A lightly armoured fast tank destroyer that can take out allied tanks relatively quickly and was an important part in the early years of the blitzkrieg
Im not saying that ur wrong on everything. But the Sturer Emil was dubbed the Stubborn Emil bc of its consistent want to work against the crew. I quote this loosely off of Cone of Ark
It was mainly issues with the kv series tanks that inspires Marders to be made, T-34's were regularly taken out by panzer III's because of technically unpenetrable (by German KwK 38/39) but highly brittle armor
The command that lead to the development of the Panzerjäger Marder series did say: "to counter the threat of the T-34 and KW (that's how Germans called the KV-tanks) tanks". Not actually a word for word quote, just the part that I remember without looking it up again, but I'm very sure the real one inculded both of them. The narrator actually just quoted this popular line. But sure, the Pzkpfw III was able to destroy T-34s, but it required a lot of luck and would lead to many losses. The German war strategy against the SU was based on the asumption of superiority. A German gun had to destroy a good number of enemies, before it was allowed to be killed by the enemy. Otherwise the disadvantage of numbers would not have worked out for the Germans. And it ultimately did not work out. So meeting tanks, that stripped their expected advantage away, was a wake-up-call to quickly develop solutions, to turn the tide again in their favor.
The t-34 was very vulnerable on the sides, as any medium tank, and the visibility was terrible. So Pzkfw III were capable of destroying t-34 by flanking it. The report from the soviets report that most t-34 in 41 (or 42, not entirely sure now) were destroyed by 50mm projectiles.
Good statement of the tactical problem that led to the idea of self-propelled anti tank vehicles. To be fair, the concept was in play in other armies also. Both Belgium and France had self-propelled, armored AT vehicles in the 1940 campaign. So the Germans didn't 'invent' the vehicle class. Still, this minor issue aside, great video.
Super! how about making a video about the interesting American T95E1 tank? or about the Chinese T34-3 medium tank project. It is very similar to the T54, but in World of Tanks it has a 122 mm gun.
I do like the _sneaky, sneaky, I kemp boosh tenks,_ and I'm looking forward to your vijayo on the Jagdpanzer range of pew-pews; it's always cool to get a grounded perspective on the fictional (no matter how they strive for realism) vehicles many of us have experience with, in games. 👍
Really enjoyed the content. Always interested in lesser known AV especially A/T machines built on older chassis like Panzer 1 Czech 38 and the various French tanks. Question ,was the Czech 35 ever converted to an A/T gun platform?
Technically, Poland develop first tank destroyer. And not only one, but at least 2 or 3. 1. TKS-D. Open-top, 37mm AT gun, on TKS tankette chassis. 2 prototypes were made, and that 2 vechicles was used in combat in september 1939, against Germans. 2 TKS 20mm n.k.m. TKS tankette armed with 20mm n.k.m. FK-A autocannon. It was recon vechicle, but often used as a tank destroyer, especially in ambush because of its small size. It proves to be very effective, check out Roman Edmund Orlik, first ace tanker of WW II, 10 german takns destroyed. 3. PZInż 160 (project) - extremly low-profile (main armament was just about 1 meter above ground) tank destroyer armed with 37mm AT gun, on 4TP light tank chassis.
I read a lot of them were basically just guns placed on British and French vehicles taken during fall of France. I realized later those were more for self propelled guns at least but I thought the same for the panzerjager but not anymore.
I feel like the waffentrager should have had an honorable mention here, different kind of vehicle but similar in design and use. Either way, very good video. I actually learned a good bit about panzejagers that I had no clue about.
Will you mention the most numerous, most successful TD of the german army The StuG? Although it was a self propelled gun originally with a short barreled 75mm, later upgraded to the long barreled 75mm. It was superior in many ways compared to all other TDs. It was built during the whole war, had sufficient numbers. It had low profile, was a lot harder to hit.
From what i can tell, the marder 3 ausf M producion ended in May of 44. At the end of the war there was still 350. So attrition wasnt excessive. They arent tank fighters, they are mobile AT guns.
I know what you meant but 2:47 makes it sound like Germany sent one tank destroyer with 3 dudes and an MP40 to invade France on their own, and that's so funny to imagine
This is an excellent production. The clearest explanation yet as to the various Mardel variants, a topic that usually very obscurely explained. Dare we hope for a series on German SPG’s ie artillery not Panzerjager or Jagdpanzers?
It’s really crazy how, at the beginning of the war, Tanks mostly used heavy MG’s and light cannons between 20-50mm , or artillery pieces with short ranges Then, 6 years later We have early proto-MBT’s in the T-44, Centurion MK1 and M26, not only on the drawing board, but being prototyped Or even in full service in the M26’s case Using 80-100 mm cannons with the ability to literally drive over the tanks of the start of the war That’s what wars do though, Korea made the jump from the M26 to the M47 The F-80 to the F-86 Vietnam made the jump from the M14 to the M16 and the H-13 Sioux to the AH-1 cobra F-105 to the F-111
At the start of the war a 37mm anti-tank gun would generally be sufficient to take out an enemy tanks. Difficulties were encountered against some of the latest development Char B1 tans, and of course the British Matilda II. A mere 16 Matilda II tanks backed by machinegun armed Matilda put Rommel and his Ghost Division into a panic at Arras in 1940. By accounts, the Matilda IIs literally ran over Pak 37 anti-tank guns that were little more than door knockers against the thick frontal armor of the Matildas. Only when the Germans fell back to a hastily assembled line of 88mm flak guns were the Matildas stopped. The machine gun armed 2-man Matilda Is were not a bad concept as tanks were quite vulnerable to infantry. The machine gun armed tanks could help keep Infantry from advancing on an armored formation or, if infantry got among them - delousing themselves and the heavier tanks. While a 37mm tank gun could take out other tanks, it's small size and weak bursting charge (with a thick shell casing there isn't much room for explosives) made it ineffective against infantry and soft targets like artillery. The Sherman was an effective design balancing the need for armor penetration and the need to deliver a significant HE shell against soft targets. Later difficulties for Shermans engaging better armored and armed German tanks like the Tiger I, Panther, etc led to adoption of dedicated anti-tank guns in some Shermans but never replacing the short barrel 75mm as Shermans were mostly used against soft targets (German armored vehicles were not that common). Weapons are developed to fit in with doctrine and what is needed. What the other guy is doing can drive what you need, but what else you have is also a factor. Part of the delay in introducing a heavier tank in WW II wasn't seeing that the heavier German tanks posed a problem (Tiger Is in North Africa showed this quite effectively), but figuring out what to do about it. Upgraded tank destroyers like the M18 were the first response. There were questions whether answering heavy German tanks with heavier American tanks was necessary. (Could tank destroyers, ground attack aircraft and artillery do the job?) The M18 wasn't very effective at first as crews were using it more like a tank. It was quite effective in helping Allied forces crush German armor in September 1944 and to move quickly to block the German advance in the Battle of the Bulge. It's often not just a weapon's capabilities but figuring out how to best use it. Defeating what the enemy is doing does not require duplicating their equipment. If an American company had got a hold of the plans for a Tiger I and produced a prototype for the Americans in 1943, I would predict that it would not be adopted into American service. Unreliable, too difficult to maintain in the field, incapable of being transported overseas like the Sherman could be. And the Americans would have been right on this. While a debate about which WW II tank was the best could include the Sherman, it is not as easy an argument as answering the question "What was the best tank for the Americans to produce?". With American industry and the need for a long long logistical supply chain, being easy to mass-produce and easy to maintain was essential. They didn't need a tank that could function like German tanks when they had air superiority/supremacy and superior artillery in a superior combined arms doctrine.
Just came across your channel. Excellent work. Good illustrations, comparison, archive footages, and pronunciations!!! A rare find these days. Keep up the good work!
Firstly, the Nashorn and Hummel were mounted on the III/IV Geschutzwagen. I‘ll never understand why the Waffenamt didn’t develop and refine both the Dicker Max and Sturer Emil into SPAG‘s with fully enclosed superstructures, ditching the erroneous Tiger program in favour of Panthers who I‘m sure could have been mounted with an 88. The Russian IS2 weighed just 45 tonnes as did the panther not to mention nearly 7,000 were built compared with only about 1,500 Tiger I‘s and II‘s.
Tank destroyers were a largely American concept developed in direct response to Blitzkrieg tactics, mobile reserves that were to be deployed to counter tank breakthroughs. That’s much different than the simplistic expedients the Germans employed in a variety of up-gunned AFV chassis that were basically semi mobile anti-tank platforms.
Love all of the Marders. They're such an eclectic bunch, ranging from mass produced to downright Orkish in their amalgamated nature of French hulls and Soviet guns with awkward, bulbous and disjointed plating trying to provide some modicum of protection. I believe there was a specific German officer leading a unit whose entire job was manufacturing useful vehicles from all the captured French equipment. He did a pretty good job.
You're thinking of Alfred Becker, who with his Baukommando would convert some 1800 or so obsolete French, English and other tanks into panzerjagers and self propelled artillery.
In fairness, the Sturer Emil and Dicker Max were not obsolete simply because the French fortifications were no longer an issue. There were plenty of big fortified positions in the world that would need to be eliminated for the German Reich's further expansion. The Maginot Line simply was the catalyst to develop the mechanized bunker-buster, not the only reason to have such a bunker buster. Kursk might have gone a bit better in some places if there had been a couple of battalions of Sturer Emils supporting, able to precisely put 128mm shells into positions that historically took more time to reduce.
The problem is that thee St Emils are so unreliable mechanically that they can't position anywhere
@@IanSumallo That is a technical issue, not a doctrinal one. The concept of a bunker buster, a heavy gun on motorized carriage for engagement of fortifications with direct fire was not obsoleted by the fact that the Maginot Line was no longer a strategic consideration.
If Sturer Emils had been mass-produced for general service, I am sure they would have done more to resolve the reliability problems.
What kind of person names there tank "dicker max" ?????
The guy with a huge cannon
Or use in Sevastopol.
Great job!! nice to learn about the less-mentioned vehicles of WW2, PLEASE keep making more!!!
Just finished it, and I am really happy that there's gonna be one about Jagdpanzers, but will they include the Hetzer?
Of course!
when the wrench is red
Discord moderator moment
@@RedWrenchFilms lmfao
@@scubajoe3321when joe is scrubbing
@@fitzachellawhen chella is fitzing
@@Miller_Davuswhen Davis is Milling
I just noticed this video just got released, i personally love tank content and i also am a tank games fan. Your content also is great, can't wait for the jagdpanzers because i like those tank destroyers the most of all destroyers
Such a lovely comment thank you :)
In my opinion, the Panzerjäger was underrated.
In my opinion, getting shot in the head was underrated.
@@unity3938 True, having only a gun shield to protect you from small arms/heavy fire is scary.
@@haody3494 14.5mm could probably stop most 30 cal rounds except the Russian 54r but 50cal are turning that into a colander!
They were trash, fact.
@@interpl6089 the vehicles or the crew?
Trick question, it's both!
Another splendid and thoroughly enjoyable video, and you will never make awful content. As always, I'm keenly looking forward to your next one on the Jagdpanzers! 👍👍
Greetings from Germany - a small hint for all of you. In the clip is mentioned the naming e.g. P.Z. 38 (T). The T is standing for "Tschechisch" meaning "Czech" in english. I don't know why they named it like that but thats what the T stands for as they didn't name the the french captured/procued tanks with an F. So its not a version like with the other tanks. I hope I helped at least a small bit to explain the sometimes weird names ;)
At 6:59 the names translated into english mean:
10.5 cm canon armored self-propelled
Tank self-propelled gun IV version A (the short description in the brackets)
The Beutepanzer or captured tanks got small letters for the nation they were coming from, because like th eczech tank they got renamed. As the Panzer 38t wasnt called like that in czech but LT VZ 38 or Praga TNH. Panzer 38 (t) for czech, russian tanks got (r) and so on.
Hey I was wondering if you could explain the meaning of "Lafette" in "Selbstfahrlafette"? I would expect the word Geschütz to be used and also the word sounds French which is surprising. I'm guessing this word was just used in the past and caught on.
@@paint4r I copy here a part from Wikipedia: Link: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafette
Quote: "Eine Lafette (von französisch l'affût, älter l'affust zum altfranzösischen fust = Schaft, Stange) ist ein meist fahrbares Gestell, auf dem eine Waffe montiert werden kann."
English via Google translator:
A mount (from French l'affût, older l'affust to Old French fust = stock, pole) is a usually mobile frame on which a weapon can be mounted.
So a Lafette is in general a frame where canons/guns etc are mounted on. E.g. for machine guns in german language you sometimes also find the expression "Dreibein" which means "threelegs" (litterally) - correct translation would be tripod. This thing is also called a Lafette. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreibein_(Waffe)
"Geschütz" is in German the word for a Canon/gun which is then mounted on a "Lafette" (frame) which is usually carried around. If you add then "Selbstfahr-" (Self propelled" then you have the full name of it.
And if you are asking for the historical backgrounds which I'm not to sure of, but my best guess would be that the german/prussian millitary was highly influenced by the Napoleonic wars and by the technic of the time. So I think the expression comes orginally from that time as guns/canons needed to be mobile so they were mounted and dismounted at this to move them around and the word Lafette is just used until today and surely was modified for the german language as we germans are actually pretty good in adopting words from other languages and change them slightly to make them a german word. ;) You can see that in alot of german words not just in millitary expressions.
I hope this explains your question? If not then please let me know.
Kind regards
@jurgen6902 Yeah that makes sense, it means a frame to mount the gun on. I was assuming it was just another word for gun that is only used in some specific context. Thanks :)
This was an excellent video! Short and concise with each vehicles explanation, but covered everything you needed to! I look forward to the second half!
Thanks so much Hamish - means a lot :)
@@RedWrenchFilms 1 of the 3 surviving Nashorn is going to Militracks Event in Overloon at 20 / 21th of may 2023!
@@RedWrenchFilmsOh yeah Expression jager tank seems ridiculos at the end of war.
..No kidding? Tank himself was always underpowered subarmed too thirsty not enough good for sharp turn etc.Only the big tank was too hard to kill easy but not enough nomber built
I like your narration delivery. It's clear, but relaxed and a comfortable speed for listening. Thank you for a great video!
Thank you Ian!
Good overview on the Panzerjägers. Looking forward to your vid on Jagdpanzers!
Very interesting and well-presented. I am sure that your series will cover the WWII German assault guns at some point.
People will get offended over talk of those infamous assault weapons.
It's a big thank you from me for all the work that you put in to your content.
My pleasure! I’m really glad you’re enjoying it
@@RedWrenchFilms not too sure if this a big thing but I did not get a notification off a new upload. Hey keep up the good work kind regards Earl.
@@earlgreen1720 make sure you hit the bell and click all when you just click the bell it defaults to only show what it thinks you wanna see
Brian Jonestown Massacre rules. Long live Anton Newcombe.
Bro these 2 parts about the tanks are so informative. Really enjoyed it both. You should make more of these ! I subbed
Thanks so much! Glad to have you around.
My new favorite Channel about Tanks
RUclips is a real piece of work but damn am I happy when I get a actually good recommendation, great content man it’s crazy you only have 20k subs, keep it up!!
I had 2k subs 6 months ago! So I am just very grateful. Appreciate the comment :)
Well done video! An interesting addition from me, rather uncommon knowledge. The Nashorn was actually also used as artillery, it was fully equipped to function in that role too, it had the necessary specialized radios and optics installed. The reason for that was, that the Hummel was considered important as heavy artillery and they wanted to able to quickly replace Hummel losses with Nashorns by just replacing the 88mm gun with the 150 mm sFH18. And as I said the Nashorn was actually also used as artillery, of course with lighter impact but in a similar role as Flak units were also used in an artillery role. cheers
I accidently watched the second video first. I must say tht this first video abt the early days of panzetjagers was ever as bit interesting and well researched. Keep 'em coming!! I subscribed, by the way. Again, I am vey impressed with your commitment to great research. gb
Thanks so much Gary! Means a lot.
Modern forces don't really use tank destroyers, but your point of how they already had obsolete tanks, and available big guns, combining the two into an effective weapon makes pragmatic sense. Tank destroyers were a lot cheaper than tanks, about half to 1/3 the price, so having three times the number of vehicles and being able to strategically place big guns where needed added a lot of value to the military force.
Thank you for this video, I love your style of presenting vehicles less represented in the modern spotlight
Germany captures one good Czech. light tank; turns it into a tank destroyer (marder 38t), an armored tank destroyer (hetzer) and artillery (grille). That's logistical genius.
Great video! I didn’t know much at all about early tank destroyers.
Great video but you forgot some open topped tank destroyers. The late war 251/22 and 234/4 both had the pak 40. Plus there were panzer 1 A's with the stuk 43/48 cannon.
Thanks Great video.
Great information.
Cheers
Great stuff mate, keep up the great work. :)
I wouldn’t really say that Germany “created” the tank destroyer, rather was an early pioneer along with other countries. Considering that the United States had their own type of tank destroyer, the m3 gmc go into production the same year as the panzerjeager 1, the French even had concepts and prototypes built before that with the Lorraine 37l and the soviets with the su-5. I don’t mean to be a pain or anything but I just thought the title seemed a bit misleading to the viewer.
I made a very similar comment but you beat me to it.
The M3 75mm GMC did not get developed till after the 1940 campaign. But still - the idea was definitely around in other armies.
Nice one for including the captured stuff
Hey
Next video idea after part 2 of the panzerjager vid
Do a video about the EBR, like why they designed it, for what purpose, and how it was used
Good content. Very informative. Really like the kill numbers and survival numbers.
Yet another great video mate! We’re loving them.
Seriously ❤ this channel, thanks fella great content
Well done. Battle records are very interesting.
Thanks! I thought so too.
I always got confused between the Panzerjägers and the Jagdpanzers.
Panzerjager is armor hunter, big gun light armor. Jagdpanzer, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger means hunting vehicle name here. Big gun but usually good frontal armor to be able to engage with a reasonable chance of holding position. Side armor was usually a lot weaker so if the vehicle was flanked it was in trouble.
@@Anlushac11 i always wondered why they didn't tow extra armor plates,
And attach them when they got into position
With a quick release system for when they are ordered to advance?
@@jamesgoldring1052This is Germany, there is no way they could spare the material to do that. The process would also take too much time for the little amount of extra protection it would give.
@@jamesgoldring1052 fuel and logistics
@@Anlushac11 Sorry, I don't want to be that guy, but: "Panzerjäger" correctly translates to "tank hunter" and was Germanys take on what the Allies would later call "tank destroyers". "Armor hunter" isn't the right translation for it.
A "Panzer" is the German term for a "tank". We call "armor" "Panzerung" (when you're refering to medival "armor", we call that "Rüstung", which sometimes also appears in military matters), but the shorter word "Panzer" does sometimes casually also refer to armor as well, so you're not entirely wrong here.
When ever I heard "Max und Moritz" while learning German on Duolingo, I immediately remember the Sturer Emils
I think it was a Nashorn in a hull-down position that knocked out one of the U.S. Army’s 3rd Armored Divisions’ new M-26 Pershing medium tanks from around 1200 yards. Please correct me if I’m wrong….
Yeah it was - destroyed an M26 just before the war ended.
Hello, just found your channel . Very good work. Subscribed and liked. Keep up the solid work
Excellent detail. Great video.
Excellent work! Very informative! Great footage too... Thanks for a well presented video
My pleasure, John!
After listening to so many videos by Military History Visualized, I am just choked every time you don't say the vehicles full name. As its super satisfying on his channel lol. Enjoyed your video nonetheless.
Hahaha he has the very real advantage of knowing how to pronounce them!
Nice video. The panzerjager1 is a remarkable vehicle. That is the most footage I have seen on the subject. I noticed you didn't bring up the bison variant. Although it was probably not really a Antitank unit. Its is just nice to see what the Germans mounted on such a small chassis.
Your videos are so good
Very interesting and informative video. I would have loved to watch about Wespe and Hummel category too.
Just wishing you would continue to other types like jagdpanzer, sturmgeschutz and waffenträger
I now look forward to Friday afternoons for more rather lovely Red Wrench content.
Keep er lit!
3:27 good old
4,7 Centimeter Panzerabwehrkanone (tschechoslowakisch) (Selbstfahrlafette) auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen 35 R 731 (französisch)
You should mention Major Becker who was with the 21 PD, at least later in the war. An engineer by trade and his family’s company produced the shielding he designed the shield used on many Marder I’s. His first attempt s were on captured British MK VI light tanks using the 75mm PAK 40 and the 105 howitzer. They were used around Leningrad and he earned the Iron Cross for his work. Later when the 21 PD was refitting in France prior to the Normandy invasion he took Hotchkiss H39 chassis and built a battalion with the 2 guns mentioned earlier. They fought against the invasion force, I believe in the British sector.
A lightly armoured fast tank destroyer that can take out allied tanks relatively quickly and was an important part in the early years of the blitzkrieg
very well explained. looking forward to the next video
One of the best videos I've seen on this machine.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Dicker Max means fat truck and was a slang for a furniture van. It was also the nickname that was given to the B-17 and B-24
They were basically mobile anti-tank guns. Everything including 12.7 Dushka could take these Panzerjagers out.
True, but a Nashorn could (and at least once, did) kill a T34 at 4000 metres. A 12.7mm HMG wasn't a lot of threat at that sort of range...
Im not saying that ur wrong on everything. But the Sturer Emil was dubbed the Stubborn Emil bc of its consistent want to work against the crew. I quote this loosely off of Cone of Ark
Love this mate. Bravo.
It was mainly issues with the kv series tanks that inspires Marders to be made, T-34's were regularly taken out by panzer III's because of technically unpenetrable (by German KwK 38/39) but highly brittle armor
The command that lead to the development of the Panzerjäger Marder series did say: "to counter the threat of the T-34 and KW (that's how Germans called the KV-tanks) tanks". Not actually a word for word quote, just the part that I remember without looking it up again, but I'm very sure the real one inculded both of them. The narrator actually just quoted this popular line.
But sure, the Pzkpfw III was able to destroy T-34s, but it required a lot of luck and would lead to many losses. The German war strategy against the SU was based on the asumption of superiority. A German gun had to destroy a good number of enemies, before it was allowed to be killed by the enemy. Otherwise the disadvantage of numbers would not have worked out for the Germans. And it ultimately did not work out. So meeting tanks, that stripped their expected advantage away, was a wake-up-call to quickly develop solutions, to turn the tide again in their favor.
The t-34 was very vulnerable on the sides, as any medium tank, and the visibility was terrible. So Pzkfw III were capable of destroying t-34 by flanking it. The report from the soviets report that most t-34 in 41 (or 42, not entirely sure now) were destroyed by 50mm projectiles.
Good statement of the tactical problem that led to the idea of self-propelled anti tank vehicles.
To be fair, the concept was in play in other armies also. Both Belgium and France had self-propelled, armored AT vehicles in the 1940 campaign. So the Germans didn't 'invent' the vehicle class.
Still, this minor issue aside, great video.
Great vid waiting for the second one
Please make a video on the Waffenträgers, yes i know only prototypes and a few were built but i want to see it
Dicker? I barely know her!
Super! how about making a video about the interesting American T95E1 tank? or about the Chinese T34-3 medium tank project. It is very similar to the T54, but in World of Tanks it has a 122 mm gun.
3/4 of the vehicles in world of tanks existed in blueprint form only. So you can't do a comparison because there is NOTHING to compare them to.
I do like the _sneaky, sneaky, I kemp boosh tenks,_ and I'm looking forward to your vijayo on the Jagdpanzer range of pew-pews; it's always cool to get a grounded perspective on the fictional (no matter how they strive for realism) vehicles many of us have experience with, in games. 👍
Around 6:30 I got an ad and red wrench was cut off saying shi-
Really enjoyed the content. Always interested in lesser known AV especially A/T machines built on older chassis like Panzer 1 Czech 38 and the various French tanks. Question ,was the Czech 35 ever converted to an A/T gun platform?
Thanks! Yeah the Romanians turned them into the TACAM R-2 tank destroyer.
Ah red wrench has blessed us with yet another video!
Great video!
Technically, Poland develop first tank destroyer. And not only one, but at least 2 or 3.
1. TKS-D. Open-top, 37mm AT gun, on TKS tankette chassis. 2 prototypes were made, and that 2 vechicles was used in combat in september 1939, against Germans.
2 TKS 20mm n.k.m. TKS tankette armed with 20mm n.k.m. FK-A autocannon. It was recon vechicle, but often used as a tank destroyer, especially in ambush because of its small size. It proves to be very effective, check out Roman Edmund Orlik, first ace tanker of WW II, 10 german takns destroyed.
3. PZInż 160 (project) - extremly low-profile (main armament was just about 1 meter above ground) tank destroyer armed with 37mm AT gun, on 4TP light tank chassis.
Nashorn is a great Jagd panzer. Der dicker Max was just a monster. It was a great demolition device.
I read a lot of them were basically just guns placed on British and French vehicles taken during fall of France. I realized later those were more for self propelled guns at least but I thought the same for the panzerjager but not anymore.
Great video, thank you
Nice video ,next Please explain about rare heavy tank,Neubaufahrzeug in your opinion,is that tank are exsist?,Thank you
Interesting video!
Nice to hear about some less known ww2 stuff, but i think you forgot the sdkfz 124 wespe wich is also a german tank destryer in ww2.
It was a self propelled gun, not an anti-tank platform. Same with the Hummel, Bison etc.
What a great way to divide the vehicles. A third class would be the assault gun, I suppose.
Thanks for this documentary, I like it a lot the PANZER WAFFEN, particulár the Panzer Jager Waffen.
Thanks for an interesting and informative video.y
"Being shot in the head, issue." Amazing line OP
Great Videos keep it up
Fantastic video, lots of information very well shortened into a 10 minute video. Keep it up.
By at least the Marder lll the Germans did mount regular tank periscopes at sides of the vehicle but they did not rotate.
I feel like the waffentrager should have had an honorable mention here, different kind of vehicle but similar in design and use. Either way, very good video. I actually learned a good bit about panzejagers that I had no clue about.
Will you mention the most numerous, most successful TD of the german army The StuG? Although it was a self propelled gun originally with a short barreled 75mm, later upgraded to the long barreled 75mm. It was superior in many ways compared to all other TDs. It was built during the whole war, had sufficient numbers. It had low profile, was a lot harder to hit.
See my Jagdpanzer video!
From what i can tell, the marder 3 ausf M producion ended in May of 44. At the end of the war there was still 350. So attrition wasnt excessive. They arent tank fighters, they are mobile AT guns.
The Tamiya 1:35 scale model Marder was cool.
I know what you meant but 2:47 makes it sound like Germany sent one tank destroyer with 3 dudes and an MP40 to invade France on their own, and that's so funny to imagine
"No Armor is too tough"
-Tank Destroyer.
This is an excellent production. The clearest explanation yet as to the various Mardel variants, a topic that usually very obscurely explained. Dare we hope for a series on German SPG’s ie artillery not Panzerjager or Jagdpanzers?
It’s really crazy how, at the beginning of the war, Tanks mostly used heavy MG’s and light cannons between 20-50mm , or artillery pieces with short ranges
Then, 6 years later
We have early proto-MBT’s in the T-44, Centurion MK1 and M26, not only on the drawing board, but being prototyped
Or even in full service in the M26’s case
Using 80-100 mm cannons with the ability to literally drive over the tanks of the start of the war
That’s what wars do though, Korea made the jump from the M26 to the M47
The F-80 to the F-86
Vietnam made the jump from the M14 to the M16 and the H-13 Sioux to the AH-1 cobra
F-105 to the F-111
At the start of the war a 37mm anti-tank gun would generally be sufficient to take out an enemy tanks. Difficulties were encountered against some of the latest development Char B1 tans, and of course the British Matilda II. A mere 16 Matilda II tanks backed by machinegun armed Matilda put Rommel and his Ghost Division into a panic at Arras in 1940. By accounts, the Matilda IIs literally ran over Pak 37 anti-tank guns that were little more than door knockers against the thick frontal armor of the Matildas. Only when the Germans fell back to a hastily assembled line of 88mm flak guns were the Matildas stopped.
The machine gun armed 2-man Matilda Is were not a bad concept as tanks were quite vulnerable to infantry. The machine gun armed tanks could help keep Infantry from advancing on an armored formation or, if infantry got among them - delousing themselves and the heavier tanks. While a 37mm tank gun could take out other tanks, it's small size and weak bursting charge (with a thick shell casing there isn't much room for explosives) made it ineffective against infantry and soft targets like artillery.
The Sherman was an effective design balancing the need for armor penetration and the need to deliver a significant HE shell against soft targets. Later difficulties for Shermans engaging better armored and armed German tanks like the Tiger I, Panther, etc led to adoption of dedicated anti-tank guns in some Shermans but never replacing the short barrel 75mm as Shermans were mostly used against soft targets (German armored vehicles were not that common).
Weapons are developed to fit in with doctrine and what is needed. What the other guy is doing can drive what you need, but what else you have is also a factor. Part of the delay in introducing a heavier tank in WW II wasn't seeing that the heavier German tanks posed a problem (Tiger Is in North Africa showed this quite effectively), but figuring out what to do about it. Upgraded tank destroyers like the M18 were the first response. There were questions whether answering heavy German tanks with heavier American tanks was necessary. (Could tank destroyers, ground attack aircraft and artillery do the job?) The M18 wasn't very effective at first as crews were using it more like a tank. It was quite effective in helping Allied forces crush German armor in September 1944 and to move quickly to block the German advance in the Battle of the Bulge. It's often not just a weapon's capabilities but figuring out how to best use it.
Defeating what the enemy is doing does not require duplicating their equipment. If an American company had got a hold of the plans for a Tiger I and produced a prototype for the Americans in 1943, I would predict that it would not be adopted into American service. Unreliable, too difficult to maintain in the field, incapable of being transported overseas like the Sherman could be. And the Americans would have been right on this. While a debate about which WW II tank was the best could include the Sherman, it is not as easy an argument as answering the question "What was the best tank for the Americans to produce?". With American industry and the need for a long long logistical supply chain, being easy to mass-produce and easy to maintain was essential. They didn't need a tank that could function like German tanks when they had air superiority/supremacy and superior artillery in a superior combined arms doctrine.
Just came across your channel.
Excellent work. Good illustrations, comparison, archive footages, and pronunciations!!!
A rare find these days.
Keep up the good work!
Thank you very much!
Firstly, the Nashorn and Hummel were mounted on the III/IV Geschutzwagen.
I‘ll never understand why the Waffenamt didn’t develop and refine both the Dicker Max and Sturer Emil into SPAG‘s with fully enclosed superstructures, ditching the erroneous Tiger program in favour of Panthers who I‘m sure could have been mounted with an 88.
The Russian IS2 weighed just 45 tonnes as did the panther not to mention nearly 7,000 were built compared with only about 1,500 Tiger I‘s and II‘s.
I would love to see an analysis on the IS 2 tank
Tank destroyers were a largely American concept developed in direct response to Blitzkrieg tactics, mobile reserves that were to be deployed to counter tank breakthroughs. That’s much different than the simplistic expedients the Germans employed in a variety of up-gunned AFV chassis that were basically semi mobile anti-tank platforms.
Good joke.
I think the 128mm of Sturer Emil was later used on the Jagdtiger, but im not sure.
About the Nashorn, do you know why the Geschutzwagen III/IV had Panzer III transmission and steering?
Were these better than the Panzer IV ones?
i know its an old video, but you missed the marder 2 with the 50mm pak 38
That vehicle wasn’t a Marder II, and it might have even been a one-off. It’s referred to as the Pak 38 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II.
There was also a cold war Bunderswher Panzerjager that carried an American 90mm cannon
The Nashorn was the king of the Panzerjaggers, destroying enemy tanks at even 3 km. away!
I love the asthetic from the Marder III
Love all of the Marders. They're such an eclectic bunch, ranging from mass produced to downright Orkish in their amalgamated nature of French hulls and Soviet guns with awkward, bulbous and disjointed plating trying to provide some modicum of protection. I believe there was a specific German officer leading a unit whose entire job was manufacturing useful vehicles from all the captured French equipment. He did a pretty good job.
You're thinking of Alfred Becker, who with his Baukommando would convert some 1800 or so obsolete French, English and other tanks into panzerjagers and self propelled artillery.
Very good thank you 👍
Marder isn’t “martin” in english.
Marder is an animal in germany that is essentially a ferret but is known for eating sparkplug wires on vehicles.
We call them “martens” in English, though!
How to pronounce Nashorn? Because I keep pronounce it Na Shorn. Is it true or Nas Horn?
Ah the Nashorn, my fav vehicle in War Thunder.