A truly excellently researched, produced and narrated documentary on one of lesser famous German weapons of WW2. I had a long cross- purpose argument with another viewer a few months ago after I had said that the main weakness of German tank destroyers was that they had open topped turrets. He said no they didn't but in the end we realised that he was talking about the StuG III and I was talking about the Marder and we were both right - or wrong, depending how one views it. 😂
Most tanks, 60-70 percent were knocked out by anti tank infantry weapons, tank destroyers are overrated for acrually killing tanks- they just limited movement with long firing arcs
That's the classic German naming mess for ya-technically both "tank destroyers," but a Marder crew and a StuG crew lived in two completely different worlds of misery.
I was getting ready to start my training at Fort Knox back in 1971. I remember there was a German tank destroyer setting on display in front of one of the barracks. I got to looking at it you know how curious things are and I managed to get into the drivers hatch looking around all of the instruments was written in German which I couldn't understand but anyway I knew then and there that's what my MOS would be armor and sure enough it was. Armored reconnaissance specialist. Ben many years ago.
Good to see you talked about the stug 4 and jadgepanzer 4 everyone seems to forget about them, tho you did miss a couple prototypes like sturter Emil and dicker max and so on but goood video
@MoShmungus A burger made from good quality ingredients is a good meal. The problem is eating too many of them, and then sitting on your butt most of the day.
Most of the people that lived through WWII are dead. That, in my opinion, is why wars are popping off all around the world. And, the leaders starting these wars, have never been in combat themselves.
@jayklink851 Many of the leaders of WWII had mostly been personally involved in WWI, something that did not stop them doing it all-over again. Unfortunately.
In 1940 the StuG 3 was part of the artillery and designed to support infantry while the Panzer 4 was only assigned to armored Panzer Divisions. The training and optics for the StuGs was far different and superior than the training and equipment given to Panzer 4 crews even though they fielded the same cannon for basically the same assignments. Within a couple years assault guns and Panzer 4s were given long barreled high velocity 75 mm anti-tank guns for their new principal anti-tank role. StuGs were also often assigned to armored divisions to make up for the shortages of tanks while also supporting infantry divisions in a anti-tank role.
If I recall correctly, the crews in the first couple of years of the war were highly trained artillerymen who were excellent shots compared to later Panzer crews with lesser training.
Yes, although attached as independent battalions and batteries, later independent brigades with the stuh42. but often so ingrained as an attachment in extended campaigns to motorised or panzer divs to make up for armour losses they were essentially organic units
@SNP-1999 you say "..highly trained artillerymen". It was very often surveyors in those positions (*cough* drafted). This is the same across all countries but it's rarely mentioned. Think about it - get someone who's daily job consists of calculating angles, distances, bearings, heights and offsets - or some random that wouldn't know linear algebra from trigonometry if they were smacked over the head with it. A lot of surveyors left the industry after the war because of what they were forced to do.
The Stug's low silhouette and better optics made it a way deadlier ambush predator than the Pz IV, even after they both ended up stuck with the same 75mm gun.
Interesting that an AP shot hit a track and instead of splitting the links and smashing the wheel it made a clean hole exactly the same shape as the one in the glacis above.
The Panzer IV’s 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 and L/48 were closely related to the PaK 40, but they were not the same gun. They shared projectiles and ballistic performance, but differed in cartridge case, chamber, recoil system, and overall design.
Question from a casual observer whose tank experience was building plastic models as a child: regardless of how much or how little armor these machines had, weren’t the treads the universal weak - extremely weak - point on every tracked vehicle? Granted, they were on the lower portion of the machines, but wouldn’t only modest firepower cripple a tracked vehicle and make those, especially ones without a turret, the proverbial sitting ducks?
I believe (as an infantry vet whose tank experience involves looking at them while thinking about how nice it would be not to have to walk everywhere) that while it is true that they are a weak spot, there are some mitigating factors. From the front the tracks are quite a small target, less than a meter square. At long range with WW2 anti tank you wouldn’t be able to reliably hit such a small target. Speaking from experience, even modern infantry-held anti tank is going to struggle to hit such a small target at anything other than suicidally close range (remember these things generally have machine guns). Tank crews also like to be “hull down”- they use obstacles or terrain to conceal or cover as much of their tank as possible. In that scenario, the treads are the first thing to be hidden. Tanks are weaker at the top, sides, and especially rear, so I imagine that tank crews are fanatical about always facing the front to the enemy, so unless you have out manoeuvred them you won’t get to shoot at the sides. Keep in mind as well that a de-tracked tank can still fight. Even immobile, it’s still an armoured box covered in guns. Ideally when taking on a tank you want to destroy the vehicle and kill the crew. If you don’t have the ability to get through the armour then a mobility kill is better than nothing, but that’s a pretty desperate situation to be in.
Glass cannon logic at its peak-if that 88 didn't end the fight at 2,000 meters, those thin plates weren't saving anyone from even a stray mortar round.
A Question. How did the Flak 88 get ‘pressed into service’ against tanks? Surely it needed the armour piercing ammunition which implies prior planning?
I suspect they mean its place in the Order of Battle was in mixed flak battalions, whereas there was an anti-tank company in each infantry regiment. So while it was deployed officially as flak at the battalion level, it started to be used widely for AT fire, and also eliminating bunkers etc from range due to its excellent accuracy. Just guessing of course. Cheers
Because it was hard to move on the Battlefield. The early Flak 88s had no wheels attached for mobility. Large steel supports in 4 directions to keep it stable meant it was not moving anytime soon. Once in place though it was a real killing machine.
One point to remember is that most German artillery was horse drawn. It was therefore impossible to keep up with advancing troops. A self propelled gun didn't need to be dug in, then packed up and dragged slowly along. It could just drive up, fire and advance with the foot soldiers.
Actually it was that the infantry and the artillery couldn't keep up. Infantry was on foot also, early in the war. Germany had very few mounted divisions for infantry and really never overcame that issue throughout the war.
True, but relying on horses in 1944 was a death sentence when a Stug could just "shoot and scoot" before the Soviet counter-battery fire leveled the whole grid.
@ww2hidden101 The death sentence was invading Russia in 1941. The Germans believed 2 things when they entered Russia. That Russia's population was slightly bigger than Germany's, when it was 3 times bigger and that Russia's Army was slightly larger than Germany's which it was 1.5 the size. They relied on horses because they had to. Germany didn't have the resources to produce Tanks and Vehicles on the scale that the allies could. Iron had to be imported from Sweden, while Rubber and Oils were in short supply. It's cheaper to make anti tank guns than a tank and much faster.They relied on horses because they had to.
People always obsess over the "invincible" Tiger or Jagdpanther, but we forget the terrifying reality: most were abandoned or blown up by their own crews because they simply broke down. Is a "masterpiece" still a masterpiece if it can't even reach the battlefield?
Nice piece. One observation: when you "clean" the clips with filters, the surfaces become "clean" and uniform, and it actually removes much of the feeling of authenticity that most history buffs value. JMHO, thanks.
The Ferdinand or the elephant tank would not even go 10 me without breaking down😂 it was seriously disappointed when they brought those tanks to Russia. Once they hit on level ground they had to climb a hill that's when they overheated
the crews loved the ferdinand even with its troubles. Not having a bow gun was not much of a problem. they had gun ports in the sides. Mines were the most cause of losses. They still managed to knock out 1600 plus russian tanks and 57 out of 80 made it back.
Yes, there seems to have been some unfair propaganda directed against this machine. Considering its bad reputation after Kursk, it soldiered on for a surprisingly long time.
@rasmuswittsell10 exactly, of course it gets a bad reputation if it is put as breakthrough, forced to drive on 30 degree hills. but this just goes to far it was a really good tank destroyer. my favorite tank
precisely, the losses at kursk were more due to them being misused by panzer crews as tanks who pushed forward and lost their tranks to soviets in foxholes from at rifles and mines due to infantry being pinned down. the ferdinands that were crewed by ex stug crews fared far better at kursk for that exact reason, who knew what to do with that machine. and the redesign with the MG addressed that anyway (ferdinand's was still the name when the MG was introduced, the Elefant renaming was due to different reasons)
+1 for the Jagdpanzer IV. Many documentaries about assault guns do not even mention this vehicle. More produced units than the Tiger I. but history forgot about this tank destroyer................ and only 1,85m height? Dang, that´s a real "low rider". 🤣🤣🤣
The 88mm. came in more than two calibre lengths. 88mm. L.35 = WW1 FlaK gun & U-Boat deck gun. 88mm. L.56 = FlaK.18, FlaK.36, FlaK.37 & KwK.36 88mm. L.71 = FlaK.41 & PaK.43. 88mm. L.74 = FlaK mounted on Waffentrager (a friend has a 1:76 scale 1980's Roco model of this for wargaming). 88mm. L.98 = FlaK.43 (Intended for reaching high flying American day bombers). The 88mm. FlaK was gradually being superceded by the 105mm. L.56 FlaK.39, which out performed it in both altitude reach (using wooden saboted FlaK ammunition) and armour penetration. Fujimi make a 1:76 scale model of this gun.
German 88mm guns go all the way back to the pre-WW1 8.8 cm SK L/35 (SK - Schnelladekanone) anti-torpedo boat guns used on German naval vessels from the turn of the century.
Ah...another ignoramus. Fuel was the problem. Not the heavier and superior Panzers. Tigers, Panthers, JagdPanthers and JagdPanzers IV killed enemies out of their effective range, meaning German manpower survived, go more experienced and killed more of enemies, thanks to thick frontal armour of their armoured vehicles.
Wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever, except get a lot more crewmen killed. Germany was already losing BEFORE the Tigers and Panthers were deployed. Tigers and Panthers weren't responsible for Stalingrad and El Alamein. None were in either of those battles.
And are you a Nazi ? Why are you wishing they won?. You just like the weapon designs and evil SS uniforms? ‘They’re just cool bro”. They needed living space to make evil costume’s oh and commit genocide . Bro ! never fantasise about Nazis winning. Some alt history is forbidden.
A word on the 88 Flak - they used armor penetrating rounds against tanks. Would those be rounds have been useful against planes? no. Airburst for planes, AT against armor. So the "improvised" theory doesn't hold up.
Crazy how necessity drove innovation back then basically “we need more firepower NOW” and they just slapped bigger guns onto anything that could move. 😳 Makes you realize how fast warfare evolves under pressure. Which one do you think was the most effective, Marder, StuG, or Jagdpanzer?
35:47 and 35:57 those aren't German tank destroyers, they're prototypes of the Romanian Maresal, a TD built on top of the Russian T-60 tank hull rather than the Pz. 38(t). Allegedly, a Waffenamt representative was present when these were being tested and liked the design, which lead to the development of the Jagdpanzer 38t. The Maresal itself never really made it into serial production due to lack of resources, and I think only about 10 different prototypes were ever built, with different weapon configurations; the ones in the photos you shared seem to be the version fitted with the 75mm Resita model 1943.
Eventhough it is an incredibly sweeping statement, I agree. The world's most experienced, veteran, battle-proven army in 1941...simply got chewed up and consumed due to the iron laws of logistics and a good amt of arrogance that being the proven best can create. Meanwhile, the Russians kept learning, and literally were the only nation willing to take stupendous casualties to get the win. And large enough manpower base coupled with their own communist ideological views towards their own population, to accept such losses. The fact that the nearly 4million man Wehrmacht lost almost a million men by the time they were pushed back from Moscow is simply the preamble to what set up 1942's plan and what foreign replacements were thrown into the OstFront out of necessity. 1943's Kursk should never have happened either. Ive often wondered if Kursk never happened, what would that mean? Or was it too late strategically considering what the Western Allies would be doing? Eastern Front was the war the Germans couldnt handle in actuality. In hindsight, we can speculate all they might have done differently...
5:50 "The Panzer I was already quite obsolete as a fighting tank..." The Panzer I was never a fighting tank, it was a training vehicle weighing less than 6 tons (and only armed with machine guns), built to train crews in secret to man actual tanks. The acute lack of actual tanks forced a number of them into an actual combat role, which didn't go very well.. it only had 13mm of frontal armor, and anything larger than a rifle bullet more or less went straight through. The Panzer II wasn't much better (also primarily a training vehicle)... the Panzer III and Panzer IV were the "real" tanks.
I disagree, panzer 2 performed admirably as a recon tank and the 20mm cannon was superb for dealing with infantry in the open or light cover, better than a 7.5cm for that I'd say. pz3s remained in use as scout tanks in panzerauflkarung units till the end of the war. (forgive the lack of an umlaut)
The vanity of hitler and the german reich, they had caputured tons of t34s and still didnt adopt the more simple and reliable solution. Same with shermans and other fighting vehicles, standarized ammo across field and so on.
Great point. They used French stuff, but viewed the French and Brits chivalrously, while they hated the Soviets in every manner possible, so there was no way they would make themselves re-use the brutally simple T34 chassis...couldnt make themselves do it.
Again, wrong wrong wrong. The stat boys are wrong again. Too much is made of the STUG III's performance. They were either assigned to Infantry Divisions, which are not particularly offensive oriented, and you don't win by playing defense alone. But others were assigned to PZ Divisions and took the place of PZ IVs, a job for which they were not suited. These vehicles accounted for more tank kills because in Infantry Divisions, they were left out in contact with the enemy for more months out of the year, VS PZ Divisions which would get rested up, trained on new vehicles, and grouped up for several months of offensive operations, then pulled back to the rear or at least pulled off the line and placed into a reserve status awaiting an enemy offensive in "the off season". The STUGs got a decent gun in mid 1942, and not everyone got them, it took time to deploy them and not every Infantry Division got them. But they also filled some PZ IV positions in a couple of divisions sometimes replacing a few tank platoons, sometimes an entire PZ IV BN was instead replaced with STUG IIIs in at least two PZ Divisions. But by mid 1943, PZ IIIs are being replaced with Panthers, so now PZ Divisions have a single PZ Regiment with a BN of Panthers and a BN of PZ IVs. Some of the PZ IV BNs still had some STUG IIIs, and not every division was getting Panthers. By '44, STUG IVs are showing up. And when the STUG III factory was bombed, the Hetzer was the answer. The STUG II was great for Infantry Divisions, and they gave those units some excellent service. They were useful in PZ Divisions in Defensive operations, less so in Offensive operations. But people need to realize that comparing the two is a fool's game. A PZ IV BN did not fight the same type of fight as the STUG BN normally. You can not compare the stats of a STUG BN in defensive prepared positions with a PZ IV BN in the attack, driving into minefields, into prepared AT positions dug in and camouflaged, and facing dug in T-34s and other enemy armored vehicles or running directly into counterattacks by enemy armored formations or drawing unwelcome concentrations of enemy air power and artillery because the hot spot in the war is right there, and not hundreds of miles away in a quiet area that the generals happen to forget about mostly, and all anyone is doing on either side is hoping to hold the line while the glory boys win the war somewhere else.
You have thought this through. But I don’t agree that too much has been made of the stugs success. It took out far more kills than the competent pziv . Germanys desperation meant I would have cancelled the pziv for the stug because it was generally more successful and you could make far more of them. Follow it up with the jag iv in 44. But by jan45 they had to produce jagdpanthers or lightened tiger2s ( reliability issues remember) with 88mm guns to counter Centurians,Pershing’s,JS 2-3s in big numbers.(thick armour)
@Muzz-d3hOK, I do appreciate your acknowledgement. Are you aware that German Generals admitted that they were jealous that the US was able to equip infantry divisions with turreted tanks? The reason Germany's Generals valued tanks more than STIGs isn't because they were idiots, turreted tanks are better. Not having enough of them hurt they're efforts, and that inhibited they're offensive operations. Which cost them tanks, which hurt tank stats.The most difficult operations and the riskiest are offensive operations, and by mid war, Germany did not excel at them. Even putting STUGs in the Panzer Divisions didn't help because they really are not superior. And you can't win a war only playing defense. You don't have to be convinced. If you are interested enough you'll give it a harder look. The question you have to satisfy is, would PZ IVs have done better in place of STUGs? The key is not a lower silhouette, but vehicles can enter hull down and turret down positions. And while it's generally easier for STUGs to find suitable positions, a turreted tank can make better use of them. You can decide for yourself, you might have fun doing it.
@piperp9535what you say makes complete sense. But stugs are 20% cheaper and quicker to produce. Don’t forget they were up against the Americans and Russians who could make far more tanks . They had to cut corners and the stug had a higher kill ratio. The Germans had to gamble. You’re right, the pz iv wouldn’t have made much difference. The Hetzer was too cramped. But stugs or pziv up against Centurians, Pershing,JS 2-3s in 1945? How daunting would that be.😮
@Muzz-d3h You are correct, STUGs were cheaper and easier to make. But they were not authorized for use in the Panzer Regiments of the Panzer Divisions until late '44, and the war ended May '45. The only Panzer Divisions to receive them in leu of PZ IVs were the 9th SS, 10th SS, 116th, Panzer Lehr, 17th SS Panzer Grenadier and Feldherrnhalle Panzer Grenadier both had STUGs but were not Panzer Divisions and were not issued tanks, but the Panzer Divisions above all had a Battalion of Panthers issued so they were equipped that last year with Panthers and STUGs in their Panzer Regiment, or a mix of STUGs and PZ IVs. This was not because STUGs are so good, it's because STUGs were what they had. These are all units of the Panzer Truppen and not the Infantry Divisions, and so the stats that make up the STUGs fame are pretty much entirely due to the two years prior, from '43 to early '44 when Infantry Divisions held the line and ambushed enemy reconnaissance forces and armored attacks notably on the Eastern Front and in the long Italian Campaign and prior to that in Sicily, and yes, in the West against the Allies in France, Belgium, and Germany. I'll try to wrap it up with this, does anyone really think that STUGs were really great, and German Generals were just too stupid to realize it, or Tank Snobs who could stand to replace Panzers with none turreted tanks even if they performed much better? I think people need to reconsider this, and stop believing the youtube video hype. STUGs were good for the job they were intended for, and that is the role they filled by design, on purpose, not from being forced into it in desperation. Replacing Tanks in offensive formations with STUGs was desperation, and while on the defensive, these Panzer Divisiojns probably made good use of them. I'd say study these Panzer Divisions and their actions during '44 and '45, see how well the STUGs worked for them. 9th, SS 10th SS, 116 Panzer, and Panzer Lehr notably.
@piperp9535well written. I just think they were more stealthier.considering most tanks had to stop and fire . This evened things out more. But I will say that General Heinz Guderian was on your side in response to turret vs non turret . He said similar and his my favourite General . In my opinion it was the workhorse of the army. All the best
Doesn't the (t) in Pz.38(t) stand for "tschechisch" which means "Czech/Czechoslovak" in German? At 11:10 you said "38 tonne chassis" and it got me a little confused. I doubt this little demon weighted 38 tonnes, lol
the ferdinand is one of the tanks with the highest kill to death ratio propaganda fucked up this tank, it actually had good reliability, but it was a breakthough tank. so FORCED TO DRIVE ON SOFT, MUDDY TERRAIN,CROSS WEAK BRIDGES, CLIMB 30 DEGREE HILLS. WHILE BEING 65 TONS!!! it had mg ports on the angled 80 mm sides, so they shot infantry from there, it was impenetrable towards ANY TANK during ww2 (at atleast 1 km) mines were the biggest reason it got abandoned. NOT BREAKDOWNS!!! the ferdinand is overall an extremely survivable tank decent reliability, strongest ww2 canon. thickest flat armor (200 mm). this is a real heavy tank destroyer it got its bad reputation because it was used as an breakthrough tank. if they put it on a hill, 3 kilometers away from the front, covered in leaves and bushes, professional crew would give it a 40 K/D ratio its my favorite tank for a reason
I always liked tanks but never paid much attention to tank destroyers and i have to say... these are some of the dumbest looking ugliest vehicles ive ever seen😂😂😂 its actually like something out of a videogame like worms 3d or something
Oh come on, really??! A Stug3 is a brutal combat vehicle and Pz3 tracks and roadwheels are very balanced aesthetic. That low chassis height is the key difference in the video, he says over and over again, regarding protecting the crew. And a Jagdpanther is one of the finest looking and deadly AFVs to come out of ww2. Its the ultimate development of the sloped armor first seen on Russian T34s.
There's one issue with the soviet glazing. The T-34 was not quite what the propaganda and pop culture has made it out to be. Sure, the design specs on paper are impressive. But the issue was production. For every T-34 they got right, that took many hits and survived, there were 10 T-34 tanks that either had transmission grenade itself before getting to the battle, and those that had manufacturing flaws in the armor. And instead of penetrating the armor, the T-34 would just either come undone at the seams, or the poorly manufactured steel itself would crack from hits that could never pierce that amount of armor in theory. It was not a flaw in the design of the T-34. It was simply that the USSR used to be the Russian empire, which was mostly feudal and not very industrial. And to fix that, the soviets just kind of forced everyone into cities to make tanks. What do you expect when you want peasant farmer alcoholics to make proper tanks by the thousands with a quick on the job training?
A truly excellently researched, produced and narrated documentary on one of lesser famous German weapons of WW2. I had a long cross- purpose argument with another viewer a few months ago after I had said that the main weakness of German tank destroyers was that they had open topped turrets. He said no they didn't but in the end we realised that he was talking about the StuG III and I was talking about the Marder and we were both right - or wrong, depending how one views it. 😂
The ol' assault-gun vs tank-destroyer vs mobile artillery ambiguity Lol.
The Stug III was an assault gun and not a tank destroyer. At least the early types.
Sad
Most tanks, 60-70 percent were knocked out by anti tank infantry weapons, tank destroyers are overrated for acrually killing tanks- they just limited movement with long firing arcs
That's the classic German naming mess for ya-technically both "tank destroyers," but a Marder crew and a StuG crew lived in two completely different worlds of misery.
I was getting ready to start my training at Fort Knox back in 1971. I remember there was a German tank destroyer setting on display in front of one of the barracks. I got to looking at it you know how curious things are and I managed to get into the drivers hatch looking around all of the instruments was written in German which I couldn't understand but anyway I knew then and there that's what my MOS would be armor and sure enough it was. Armored reconnaissance specialist. Ben many years ago.
Good to see you talked about the stug 4 and jadgepanzer 4 everyone seems to forget about them, tho you did miss a couple prototypes like sturter Emil and dicker max and so on but goood video
Tnx. Impressive amount of research. 🌻
GREAT VIDEO LOVE THE WAY HE EXPLAINS EVERYTHING EXCELLENT VIDEO 💪💪💪
Please never stop making videos
Thank you for putting this together!
Greatest tactical new info for me in years
I love your analysis here. Hats off, you put in a great deal of effort, I'm looking forward to more!
I knew all of this but this was still a very good video
Which frontline military role is not a horror job?
Like asking which fast food burger isn’t bad for you lol
@MoShmungus A burger made from good quality ingredients is a good meal. The problem is eating too many of them, and then sitting on your butt most of the day.
Most of the people that lived through WWII are dead. That, in my opinion, is why wars are popping off all around the world. And, the leaders starting these wars, have never been in combat themselves.
@jayklink851 Many of the leaders of WWII had mostly been personally involved in WWI, something that did not stop them doing it all-over again. Unfortunately.
Love your videos bro👍
What an excellent documentary on subject. Truly fascinating and well put together.
Excellent and informative.
I love how you stories are really well researched and put together
Thanks bro
In 1940 the StuG 3 was part of the artillery and designed to support infantry while the Panzer 4 was only assigned to armored Panzer Divisions. The training and optics for the StuGs was far different and superior than the training and equipment given to Panzer 4 crews even though they fielded the same cannon for basically the same assignments. Within a couple years assault guns and Panzer 4s were given long barreled high velocity 75 mm anti-tank guns for their new principal anti-tank role. StuGs were also often assigned to armored divisions to make up for the shortages of tanks while also supporting infantry divisions in a anti-tank role.
If I recall correctly, the crews in the first couple of years of the war were highly trained artillerymen who were excellent shots compared to later Panzer crews with lesser training.
I believe the stug was the one that killed the most tanks by the German military
Yes, although attached as independent battalions and batteries, later independent brigades with the stuh42. but often so ingrained as an attachment in extended campaigns to motorised or panzer divs to make up for armour losses they were essentially organic units
@SNP-1999 you say "..highly trained artillerymen". It was very often surveyors in those positions (*cough* drafted). This is the same across all countries but it's rarely mentioned. Think about it - get someone who's daily job consists of calculating angles, distances, bearings, heights and offsets - or some random that wouldn't know linear algebra from trigonometry if they were smacked over the head with it. A lot of surveyors left the industry after the war because of what they were forced to do.
The Stug's low silhouette and better optics made it a way deadlier ambush predator than the Pz IV, even after they both ended up stuck with the same 75mm gun.
The Hornet was the 88mm. L.71 mounted on a modified Hummel SP howitzer chassis. The Nashorn was a unique design, of its own.
I thought the hornisse and nashorn were the same. Interesting
You need to put a thank you button so we can tip you
Well done....
Really good video, however Jagdpanzer (38t) is the correct designation and you using the misnomer Hetzer only helps to prolong the this inaccuracy
good protection all around 👍😀👍
Interesting that an AP shot hit a track and instead of splitting the links and smashing the wheel it made a clean hole exactly the same shape as the one in the glacis above.
Wow, but when did that happen?
The Panzer IV’s 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 and L/48 were closely related to the PaK 40, but they were not the same gun. They shared projectiles and ballistic performance, but differed in cartridge case, chamber, recoil system, and overall design.
This was fantastic. When the story got to JgdPzIV I wanted to ask why Hetzer wasn't mentioned, but my question is obsolete. Subscribed.
I had thousands of hours in CoH2 on pc. they paid so much detail to historical accuracy when balancing the armour
good channels
absolutely brutal
35:47 this is a Romanian tank hunter, Mareșal and you also used another picture of it a few seconds later. Great video though
Very believable!
The image at 8:54 is a PZ IV, not a PZ III, count the road wheels.
Good eye bro
When world of tanks was still decent, the $tugg3 was so much fun to play with. Fast, hit hard, and could bounce a decent amount of abuse.
I remember those days
Question from a casual observer whose tank experience was building plastic models as a child: regardless of how much or how little armor these machines had, weren’t the treads the universal weak - extremely weak - point on every tracked vehicle? Granted, they were on the lower portion of the machines, but wouldn’t only modest firepower cripple a tracked vehicle and make those, especially ones without a turret, the proverbial sitting ducks?
I believe (as an infantry vet whose tank experience involves looking at them while thinking about how nice it would be not to have to walk everywhere) that while it is true that they are a weak spot, there are some mitigating factors. From the front the tracks are quite a small target, less than a meter square. At long range with WW2 anti tank you wouldn’t be able to reliably hit such a small target. Speaking from experience, even modern infantry-held anti tank is going to struggle to hit such a small target at anything other than suicidally close range (remember these things generally have machine guns). Tank crews also like to be “hull down”- they use obstacles or terrain to conceal or cover as much of their tank as possible. In that scenario, the treads are the first thing to be hidden. Tanks are weaker at the top, sides, and especially rear, so I imagine that tank crews are fanatical about always facing the front to the enemy, so unless you have out manoeuvred them you won’t get to shoot at the sides.
Keep in mind as well that a de-tracked tank can still fight. Even immobile, it’s still an armoured box covered in guns. Ideally when taking on a tank you want to destroy the vehicle and kill the crew. If you don’t have the ability to get through the armour then a mobility kill is better than nothing, but that’s a pretty desperate situation to be in.
A Nashorn crew had one advantage: shoot first. Because if they got hit, it was usually over.
Same with the Hellcat.
same with AT guns though
@lyndoncmp5751 Same with the Wolverine M 10 open turret.
The crew was not protected. There were over 2 times more M10 Wolverines in WW2 than Hellcats.
Glass cannon logic at its peak-if that 88 didn't end the fight at 2,000 meters, those thin plates weren't saving anyone from even a stray mortar round.
Good video. The common narrative is nearly entirely that the german tanks were far superior tank to tank but reality was far differerent.
Way above usual youtube historical content,
35:55 looks like a tesla cybertruck... lol
Interesting and well researched.
Very interesting! If you like the topic.
Some tank grew´s shooted mg´s through the barrel of Ferdinand.
The HORRORS!!!
A Question. How did the Flak 88 get ‘pressed into service’ against tanks? Surely it needed the armour piercing ammunition which implies prior planning?
I suspect they mean its place in the Order of Battle was in mixed flak battalions, whereas there was an anti-tank company in each infantry regiment. So while it was deployed officially as flak at the battalion level, it started to be used widely for AT fire, and also eliminating bunkers etc from range due to its excellent accuracy.
Just guessing of course.
Cheers
Because it was hard to move on the Battlefield. The early Flak 88s had no wheels attached for mobility. Large steel supports in 4 directions to keep it stable meant it was not moving anytime soon. Once in place though it was a real killing machine.
its a shame you never mentioned the sturer emil. it had a 128mm and only 2 were built.
One point to remember is that most German artillery was horse drawn. It was therefore impossible to keep up with advancing troops. A self propelled gun didn't need to be dug in, then packed up and dragged slowly along. It could just drive up, fire and advance with the foot soldiers.
Actually it was that the infantry and the artillery couldn't keep up. Infantry was on foot also, early in the war. Germany had very few mounted divisions for infantry and really never overcame that issue throughout the war.
True, but relying on horses in 1944 was a death sentence when a Stug could just "shoot and scoot" before the Soviet counter-battery fire leveled the whole grid.
@ww2hidden101 The death sentence was invading Russia in 1941. The Germans believed 2 things when they entered Russia. That Russia's population was slightly bigger than Germany's, when it was 3 times bigger and that Russia's Army was slightly larger than Germany's which it was 1.5 the size. They relied on horses because they had to. Germany didn't have the resources to produce Tanks and Vehicles on the scale that the allies could. Iron had to be imported from Sweden, while Rubber and Oils were in short supply. It's cheaper to make anti tank guns than a tank and much faster.They relied on horses because they had to.
Die jagdpanzer IV Lang 💪
the drivetrain wasn't the only problem with the ferdinand,
it also had no forward machine gun
so infantry just swarmed it
Hey that’s just like what he said in the video!
Not after Kursk. After Kursk it was a defensive long range sniper. Infantry never got near it again.
@lyndoncmp5751 after kursk
they had hull mounted machine guns fitted
and they wwhere transfered to the italian front
Small correction - "two point sixteen" isn't quite right, it's "two point one six".
good enough, not everyone is an engineer, or scientist.
@mamasitamba It's not engineering, it's how numbers work in the English language.,
People always obsess over the "invincible" Tiger or Jagdpanther, but we forget the terrifying reality: most were abandoned or blown up by their own crews because they simply broke down. Is a "masterpiece" still a masterpiece if it can't even reach the battlefield?
Nice piece. One observation: when you "clean" the clips with filters, the surfaces become "clean" and uniform, and it actually removes much of the feeling of authenticity that most history buffs value. JMHO, thanks.
KWK36 was off the Flak 36 not 18
Why would the Ferdinand need a machine gun? It was meant to be used at ranges of 800m +? It was an Excellent tank destroyer when used as such.
Only the StuG III numbered over 10,000, every other Tank Destroyer numbered less than 1,000.
Not the Jagdpanzer IV and Hetzer. Over 1,000 built of each.
Ferdinand human grill jaghtiger sunk into the ground every time it rains
The Ferdinand or the elephant tank would not even go 10 me without breaking down😂 it was seriously disappointed when they brought those tanks to Russia. Once they hit on level ground they had to climb a hill that's when they overheated
the crews loved the ferdinand even with its troubles. Not having a bow gun was not much of a problem. they had gun ports in the sides. Mines were the most cause of losses. They still managed to knock out 1600 plus russian tanks and 57 out of 80 made it back.
Yes, there seems to have been some unfair propaganda directed against this machine. Considering its bad reputation after Kursk, it soldiered on for a surprisingly long time.
@rasmuswittsell10 exactly, of course it gets a bad reputation if it is put as breakthrough, forced to drive on 30 degree hills. but this just goes to far
it was a really good tank destroyer. my favorite tank
it is 57 out of 89 tho, 2 didnt go to the front because they tested them. so basically 91
precisely, the losses at kursk were more due to them being misused by panzer crews as tanks who pushed forward and lost their tranks to soviets in foxholes from at rifles and mines due to infantry being pinned down. the ferdinands that were crewed by ex stug crews fared far better at kursk for that exact reason, who knew what to do with that machine. and the redesign with the MG addressed that anyway (ferdinand's was still the name when the MG was introduced, the Elefant renaming was due to different reasons)
Problem of Ferdinand was enemy team carrying too much gold while having bad RNG on a top of it:)
I've heard the name hetzer originated in the late 40s
helo
The stugg 3 was lethal as atank destroyer work tank of the German army
Na, there's also the navy's different version of the 88
argh... Cha-see...
What about Hetzer!?
What about it?
@Unbelievabletruestories1 Never mind, Just realised talk about it at the end of video....
Battle Tactics
Ferdinand -> Elephant
"Elepanzer"??
How many can name these tanks from wot or war thunder
I hated playing the Ferdinand
+1 for the Jagdpanzer IV. Many documentaries about assault guns do not even mention this vehicle. More produced units than the Tiger I. but history forgot about this tank destroyer................ and only 1,85m height? Dang, that´s a real "low rider". 🤣🤣🤣
The 88mm. came in more than two calibre lengths.
88mm. L.35 = WW1 FlaK gun & U-Boat deck gun.
88mm. L.56 = FlaK.18, FlaK.36, FlaK.37 & KwK.36
88mm. L.71 = FlaK.41 & PaK.43.
88mm. L.74 = FlaK mounted on Waffentrager (a friend has a 1:76 scale 1980's Roco model of this for wargaming).
88mm. L.98 = FlaK.43 (Intended for reaching high flying American day bombers).
The 88mm. FlaK was gradually being superceded by the 105mm. L.56 FlaK.39, which out performed it in both altitude reach (using wooden saboted FlaK ammunition) and armour penetration. Fujimi make a 1:76 scale model of this gun.
33:41 R.I.P his granny 🙏🙏😭
The Germans remembered well having to face the Char Saint-Chamonds in the trenches of WW1.
German 88mm guns go all the way back to the pre-WW1 8.8 cm SK L/35 (SK - Schnelladekanone) anti-torpedo boat guns used on German naval vessels from the turn of the century.
More Pz 4s...more STuG 3s... more portable 88s.. less larger vehicles and maybe, just maybe
Just maybe if Nazi Germany wasn't Nazi Germany and wasted so much on SS and war.
Ah...another ignoramus.
Fuel was the problem. Not the heavier and superior Panzers.
Tigers, Panthers, JagdPanthers and JagdPanzers IV killed enemies out of their effective range, meaning German manpower survived, go more experienced and killed more of enemies, thanks to thick frontal armour of their armoured vehicles.
Wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever, except get a lot more crewmen killed.
Germany was already losing BEFORE the Tigers and Panthers were deployed. Tigers and Panthers weren't responsible for Stalingrad and El Alamein. None were in either of those battles.
@lyndoncmp5751 the resources and time saved would have most def made a difference. They had limited resources and wasted much of it in over-designed.
And are you a Nazi ? Why are you wishing they won?. You just like the weapon designs and evil SS uniforms? ‘They’re just cool bro”. They needed living space to make evil costume’s oh and commit genocide .
Bro ! never fantasise about Nazis winning. Some alt history is forbidden.
"Almost unbeatable... Until it ran out of ammo."
...I mean, yes, obviously.
The name of the Czech made Pz38t comes from "tschech tank model '38", it doesn't mean 38 tons. It weighed less than 10 tons.
A word on the 88 Flak - they used armor penetrating rounds against tanks. Would those be rounds have been useful against planes? no. Airburst for planes, AT against armor. So the "improvised" theory doesn't hold up.
@RobertH60 obviously.
Stug 3 had massive effect at tali-ihantala 1944. Thanks to germans for help.
See…Evasive of Panzer IV effectivity….
Crazy how necessity drove innovation back then basically “we need more firepower NOW” and they just slapped bigger guns onto anything that could move. 😳 Makes you realize how fast warfare evolves under pressure.
Which one do you think was the most effective, Marder, StuG, or Jagdpanzer?
hetzt ist schit tank jagpahter ist best
StugLife
You know if they had nuclear power back then the Germans would have built a giant tank battle ship
No one liked to close the turret hatch regardless
35:47 and 35:57 those aren't German tank destroyers, they're prototypes of the Romanian Maresal, a TD built on top of the Russian T-60 tank hull rather than the Pz. 38(t).
Allegedly, a Waffenamt representative was present when these were being tested and liked the design, which lead to the development of the Jagdpanzer 38t.
The Maresal itself never really made it into serial production due to lack of resources, and I think only about 10 different prototypes were ever built, with different weapon configurations; the ones in the photos you shared seem to be the version fitted with the 75mm Resita model 1943.
Ayoo Bros pet pooped near that Tank
the stug isnt a AT
Barbarossa was the greatest single mistake of the 20th century. WWI is a close second.
Eventhough it is an incredibly sweeping statement, I agree. The world's most experienced, veteran, battle-proven army in 1941...simply got chewed up and consumed due to the iron laws of logistics and a good amt of arrogance that being the proven best can create. Meanwhile, the Russians kept learning, and literally were the only nation willing to take stupendous casualties to get the win. And large enough manpower base coupled with their own communist ideological views towards their own population, to accept such losses. The fact that the nearly 4million man Wehrmacht lost almost a million men by the time they were pushed back from Moscow is simply the preamble to what set up 1942's plan and what foreign replacements were thrown into the OstFront out of necessity. 1943's Kursk should never have happened either. Ive often wondered if Kursk never happened, what would that mean? Or was it too late strategically considering what the Western Allies would be doing? Eastern Front was the war the Germans couldnt handle in actuality. In hindsight, we can speculate all they might have done differently...
Btw you are underratted do you get paid by yt
Of course, he gets paid.
@THEWW2BRIEFnot that much he isn't getting sponsors
@executorlateran2982How about RUclips monetization?
5:50 "The Panzer I was already quite obsolete as a fighting tank..."
The Panzer I was never a fighting tank, it was a training vehicle weighing less than 6 tons (and only armed with machine guns), built to train crews in secret to man actual tanks. The acute lack of actual tanks forced a number of them into an actual combat role, which didn't go very well.. it only had 13mm of frontal armor, and anything larger than a rifle bullet more or less went straight through. The Panzer II wasn't much better (also primarily a training vehicle)... the Panzer III and Panzer IV were the "real" tanks.
I disagree, panzer 2 performed admirably as a recon tank and the 20mm cannon was superb for dealing with infantry in the open or light cover, better than a 7.5cm for that I'd say. pz3s remained in use as scout tanks in panzerauflkarung units till the end of the war. (forgive the lack of an umlaut)
People remember the famous tanks, but many battles were fought with improvised vehicles.
The vanity of hitler and the german reich, they had caputured tons of t34s and still didnt adopt the more simple and reliable solution. Same with shermans and other fighting vehicles, standarized ammo across field and so on.
Great point. They used French stuff, but viewed the French and Brits chivalrously, while they hated the Soviets in every manner possible, so there was no way they would make themselves re-use the brutally simple T34 chassis...couldnt make themselves do it.
Again, wrong wrong wrong. The stat boys are wrong again. Too much is made of the STUG III's performance. They were either assigned to Infantry Divisions, which are not particularly offensive oriented, and you don't win by playing defense alone. But others were assigned to PZ Divisions and took the place of PZ IVs, a job for which they were not suited. These vehicles accounted for more tank kills because in Infantry Divisions, they were left out in contact with the enemy for more months out of the year, VS PZ Divisions which would get rested up, trained on new vehicles, and grouped up for several months of offensive operations, then pulled back to the rear or at least pulled off the line and placed into a reserve status awaiting an enemy offensive in "the off season". The STUGs got a decent gun in mid 1942, and not everyone got them, it took time to deploy them and not every Infantry Division got them. But they also filled some PZ IV positions in a couple of divisions sometimes replacing a few tank platoons, sometimes an entire PZ IV BN was instead replaced with STUG IIIs in at least two PZ Divisions. But by mid 1943, PZ IIIs are being replaced with Panthers, so now PZ Divisions have a single PZ Regiment with a BN of Panthers and a BN of PZ IVs. Some of the PZ IV BNs still had some STUG IIIs, and not every division was getting Panthers. By '44, STUG IVs are showing up. And when the STUG III factory was bombed, the Hetzer was the answer. The STUG II was great for Infantry Divisions, and they gave those units some excellent service. They were useful in PZ Divisions in Defensive operations, less so in Offensive operations. But people need to realize that comparing the two is a fool's game. A PZ IV BN did not fight the same type of fight as the STUG BN normally. You can not compare the stats of a STUG BN in defensive prepared positions with a PZ IV BN in the attack, driving into minefields, into prepared AT positions dug in and camouflaged, and facing dug in T-34s and other enemy armored vehicles or running directly into counterattacks by enemy armored formations or drawing unwelcome concentrations of enemy air power and artillery because the hot spot in the war is right there, and not hundreds of miles away in a quiet area that the generals happen to forget about mostly, and all anyone is doing on either side is hoping to hold the line while the glory boys win the war somewhere else.
You have thought this through. But I don’t agree that too much has been made of the stugs success. It took out far more kills than the competent pziv . Germanys desperation meant I would have cancelled the pziv for the stug because it was generally more successful and you could make far more of them. Follow it up with the jag iv in 44. But by jan45 they had to produce jagdpanthers or lightened tiger2s ( reliability issues remember) with 88mm guns to counter Centurians,Pershing’s,JS 2-3s in big numbers.(thick armour)
@Muzz-d3hOK, I do appreciate your acknowledgement. Are you aware that German Generals admitted that they were jealous that the US was able to equip infantry divisions with turreted tanks? The reason Germany's Generals valued tanks more than STIGs isn't because they were idiots, turreted tanks are better. Not having enough of them hurt they're efforts, and that inhibited they're offensive operations. Which cost them tanks, which hurt tank stats.The most difficult operations and the riskiest are offensive operations, and by mid war, Germany did not excel at them. Even putting STUGs in the Panzer Divisions didn't help because they really are not superior. And you can't win a war only playing defense. You don't have to be convinced. If you are interested enough you'll give it a harder look. The question you have to satisfy is, would PZ IVs have done better in place of STUGs? The key is not a lower silhouette, but vehicles can enter hull down and turret down positions. And while it's generally easier for STUGs to find suitable positions, a turreted tank can make better use of them. You can decide for yourself, you might have fun doing it.
@piperp9535what you say makes complete sense. But stugs are 20% cheaper and quicker to produce. Don’t forget they were up against the Americans and Russians who could make far more tanks . They had to cut corners and the stug had a higher kill ratio. The Germans had to gamble. You’re right, the pz iv wouldn’t have made much difference. The Hetzer was too cramped. But stugs or pziv up against Centurians, Pershing,JS 2-3s in 1945? How daunting would that be.😮
@Muzz-d3h You are correct, STUGs were cheaper and easier to make. But they were not authorized for use in the Panzer Regiments of the Panzer Divisions until late '44, and the war ended May '45. The only Panzer Divisions to receive them in leu of PZ IVs were the 9th SS, 10th SS, 116th, Panzer Lehr, 17th SS Panzer Grenadier and Feldherrnhalle Panzer Grenadier both had STUGs but were not Panzer Divisions and were not issued tanks, but the Panzer Divisions above all had a Battalion of Panthers issued so they were equipped that last year with Panthers and STUGs in their Panzer Regiment, or a mix of STUGs and PZ IVs. This was not because STUGs are so good, it's because STUGs were what they had. These are all units of the Panzer Truppen and not the Infantry Divisions, and so the stats that make up the STUGs fame are pretty much entirely due to the two years prior, from '43 to early '44 when Infantry Divisions held the line and ambushed enemy reconnaissance forces and armored attacks notably on the Eastern Front and in the long Italian Campaign and prior to that in Sicily, and yes, in the West against the Allies in France, Belgium, and Germany. I'll try to wrap it up with this, does anyone really think that STUGs were really great, and German Generals were just too stupid to realize it, or Tank Snobs who could stand to replace Panzers with none turreted tanks even if they performed much better? I think people need to reconsider this, and stop believing the youtube video hype. STUGs were good for the job they were intended for, and that is the role they filled by design, on purpose, not from being forced into it in desperation. Replacing Tanks in offensive formations with STUGs was desperation, and while on the defensive, these Panzer Divisiojns probably made good use of them. I'd say study these Panzer Divisions and their actions during '44 and '45, see how well the STUGs worked for them. 9th, SS 10th SS, 116 Panzer, and Panzer Lehr notably.
@piperp9535well written. I just think they were more stealthier.considering most tanks had to stop and fire . This evened things out more. But I will say that General Heinz Guderian was on your side in response to turret vs non turret . He said similar and his my favourite General . In my opinion it was the workhorse of the army. All the best
sturm morser wasnt meant for destroying tanks, it was made to destroy bunkers, buildings and everything non tank combat and engagement related.
I like the added patch. Puts a little spark in the picture...
hi
Hello
11:11 37 tons? Don't think so.
So what are the horrors now?
it's pronounced "shtook"
Doesn't the (t) in Pz.38(t) stand for "tschechisch" which means "Czech/Czechoslovak" in German? At 11:10 you said "38 tonne chassis" and it got me a little confused. I doubt this little demon weighted 38 tonnes, lol
the ferdinand is one of the tanks with the highest kill to death ratio
propaganda fucked up this tank, it actually had good reliability, but it was a breakthough tank. so FORCED TO DRIVE ON SOFT, MUDDY TERRAIN,CROSS WEAK BRIDGES, CLIMB 30 DEGREE HILLS. WHILE BEING 65 TONS!!!
it had mg ports on the angled 80 mm sides, so they shot infantry from there, it was impenetrable towards ANY TANK during ww2 (at atleast 1 km)
mines were the biggest reason it got abandoned. NOT BREAKDOWNS!!!
the ferdinand is overall an extremely survivable tank
decent reliability, strongest ww2 canon. thickest flat armor (200 mm). this is a real heavy tank destroyer
it got its bad reputation because it was used as an breakthrough tank. if they put it on a hill, 3 kilometers away from the front, covered in leaves and bushes, professional crew would give it a 40 K/D ratio
its my favorite tank for a reason
I always liked tanks but never paid much attention to tank destroyers and i have to say... these are some of the dumbest looking ugliest vehicles ive ever seen😂😂😂 its actually like something out of a videogame like worms 3d or something
Yeah, dumbos are everywhere, especially in YT comments LOL
Oh come on, really??! A Stug3 is a brutal combat vehicle and Pz3 tracks and roadwheels are very balanced aesthetic. That low chassis height is the key difference in the video, he says over and over again, regarding protecting the crew. And a Jagdpanther is one of the finest looking and deadly AFVs to come out of ww2. Its the ultimate development of the sloped armor first seen on Russian T34s.
There's one issue with the soviet glazing. The T-34 was not quite what the propaganda and pop culture has made it out to be. Sure, the design specs on paper are impressive. But the issue was production. For every T-34 they got right, that took many hits and survived, there were 10 T-34 tanks that either had transmission grenade itself before getting to the battle, and those that had manufacturing flaws in the armor. And instead of penetrating the armor, the T-34 would just either come undone at the seams, or the poorly manufactured steel itself would crack from hits that could never pierce that amount of armor in theory.
It was not a flaw in the design of the T-34. It was simply that the USSR used to be the Russian empire, which was mostly feudal and not very industrial. And to fix that, the soviets just kind of forced everyone into cities to make tanks. What do you expect when you want peasant farmer alcoholics to make proper tanks by the thousands with a quick on the job training?
3:55 ...was not named "door knocker" (Türklopfer);
real nickname was "Panzer Anklopf Kanone" (PAK)
which translates to "Tank tapping cannon"!
I think he said "nicknamed" (for the pak37's poor performance). Yes, actual PAK initials are well known, exactly as you said.