Earlier Hetzer?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Ideally you have a Forward Observer with a radio connection to the Divisional artillery, but I'd like the individual anti-tank companies to have their own organic fire support - just like infantry companies got during WWII in most armies. A section with two 80 mm mortars is cheap (you could get 20 80mm mortars for one 105mm howitzer), easy to command and supply and can instantly give sufficient firepower to have a tank unit button up. If you add a few GPMG for each ATG platoon (which was usual) your anti-tank company/bataljon is extremely potent in blocking any intrusion into the Divisional position.
Not really a discrete AT unit then, rather a combined arms task force. I think the Kampfgruppe system could build something like that. If they could find a way to mount a 120mm mortar on a Pz I chassis like the Panzerjäger I, they'd have as much punch as a 105mm howitzer round.

Edit:
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CGSC/CARL/nafziger/939GXID.pdf
Looks like the standard 1939-43 division had an AT battalion with 18 LMGs and 36 AT guns attached to the division. The mortars aren't needed because they aren't a force to extend in front of an infantry regiment, they are the units to be sent out as extra support for the defense or offense.

For the regimental AT company, which would never get Hetzers, because that requires too many to be made to provide them all around and the PaK38 was used for (later the PAK 40 as they became available, and later still the PAW 600), while they also had an infantry gun company and various units of battalion mortars. I think adding any mortars to any AT unit within an infantry or panzer division is pointless in that case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not really a discrete AT unit then, rather a combined arms task force. I think the Kampfgruppe system could build something like that. If they could find a way to mount a 120mm mortar on a Pz I chassis like the Panzerjäger I, they'd have as much punch as a 105mm howitzer round.

Edit:
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CGSC/CARL/nafziger/939GXID.pdf
Looks like the standard 1939-43 division had an AT battalion with 18 LMGs and 36 AT guns attached to the division. The mortars aren't needed because they aren't a force to extend in front of an infantry regiment, they are the units to be sent out as extra support for the defense or offense.

For the regimental AT company, which would never get Hetzers, because that requires too many to be made to provide them all around and the PaK38 was used for (later the PAK 40 as they became available, and later still the PAW 600), while they also had an infantry gun company and various units of battalion mortars. I think adding any mortars to any AT unit within an infantry or panzer division is pointless in that case.
There was prototype of Morsertrager (heavy mortar carrier) on chases of 38 Ausf M. nice picture is in Kliment, Francev: Czechoslovak Armored Fighting Vehicles 1918-1948 p.221

Of course 15cm sIG 33(Sfl) auf Pzkpfw 38 (t) Ausf H Grille with 15 cm gun was manufactured (90), 110 Ausf K and some 192 Ausf M
 
always wonder if they had large numbers of Hetzers (they built 100s of them late war in dire situation) whether they soldier along with Panzer IV? or has no impact on that decision?

Not sure what you mean? They were basically a self propelled anti-tank gun with an armored enclosure as opposed to the Marder series

sorry that was not very clear. how do you think it would affect armored vehicle development overall, it eclipses the Marder types and nothing more?
 

Deleted member 1487

sorry that was not very clear. how do you think it would affect armored vehicle development overall, it eclipses the Marder types and nothing more?
Not much to be honest, but then it doesn't need to to have an impact.
 
IMHO they are a much better investment than the Panther. Add in some 105mm howitzer variants or even PAW 1000s and they might well have significant impact on the situation in Africa, Italy, and the West. Butterflies could be quite substantial.

this was what was in back of my mind questioning tank development, just scratch Panther ... or delay it ... as well as your suggestion to use Tiger chassis (at least in part) to move heavier guns?
 

Deleted member 1487

this was what was in back of my mind questioning tank development, just scratch Panther ... or delay it ... as well as your suggestion to use Tiger chassis (at least in part) to move heavier guns?
I think the Panther delay is for the best, I just don't see how this POD gets there.
 
The US determined that an SP AT gun was 10x more useful as a towed gun
You mean more useful than a towed gun, right?

At the end of the War, the US towed AT had far higher losses for fewer kills than the GMCs.
That they were less powerful and far heavier than the German or Soviet equivalents sure didn't help
 
Design drawings of "Hetzer" were presented on December 17th 1943 and by January 24th 1944 mock up was ready.

Well Romanians were fester with their Maresal. According to article on Maresal first prototype was built in summer 1943 and by October 1943 3 more were built.




tier-5-maresal-m-05-axworthy.jpg
The Poles had the PZInz.160 tank destroyer in 1939.

http://derela.republika.pl/tkd.htm

pzinz160-model-pojazd.jpg


PZInz160.jpg
 
One other point, the Hetzers were not very ergonomic for the crews, and had terrible outside vision


Due to the limited area defined by the narrow chassis/hull width and highly sloped casemate, internal space was very cramped. The driver, gunner and loader were all placed on the left side, in a row. The only escape hatch there was a small trap below the loader, barely accessible by the two others. Due to the main gun being positioned on the far right of the hull, the loader had to work in an awkward position, which was not practical and obliged him to reach under or across the gun and into the recoil path of the gun in order to access the safety lock or the ammunition, whereas the commander, installed in a niche at the rear, was cutoff from the others.

Vision was generally poor, there were twin periscopes of the driver in the front plate (it was later discovered they formed a shot trap), the main slf ZF sight for the gunner, a periscopic sight for the machine-gun, another for the loader, plus the SF14Z scissors periscope for the commander. The vehicle was literally blind on the right side, which was especially problematic since protection there was minimal. Attempts to correct this with a fully traversing periscope (Starr) for the commander never took place
 
At work.

Yes, had heard about the loader discomfort. Basically was because gun is 'Unmodified' from being a towed piece (I hazard a guess).

When the Swedes(?) Took over building them (Up until the 90's?) They had time to iron out the 'Bugs' and go on to purpose build their 'S Tank' to replace their 'Not Hetzers, honest' machines.

I've seen on a doco that late Stugz got a commander cupola mounted on the top deck. How much 'Extra' would such a thing be on the Hetzer? I would think, perhaps, 'Too much' since neither the Swedish after war machines or S Tanks had cupola s.

Just some thoughts.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Not really a discrete AT unit then, rather a combined arms task force. I think the Kampfgruppe system could build something like that. If they could find a way to mount a 120mm mortar on a Pz I chassis like the Panzerjäger I, they'd have as much punch as a 105mm howitzer round.

Edit:
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CGSC/CARL/nafziger/939GXID.pdf
Looks like the standard 1939-43 division had an AT battalion with 18 LMGs and 36 AT guns attached to the division. The mortars aren't needed because they aren't a force to extend in front of an infantry regiment, they are the units to be sent out as extra support for the defense or offense.

For the regimental AT company, which would never get Hetzers, because that requires too many to be made to provide them all around and the PaK38 was used for (later the PAK 40 as they became available, and later still the PAW 600), while they also had an infantry gun company and various units of battalion mortars. I think adding any mortars to any AT unit within an infantry or panzer division is pointless in that case.

Mortars have the big advantage that you can place them out of sight and still put fire on the enemy. Just have the section commander in personal contact with the infantry commander and with a signal connection to the mortars, and you have instant fire support without revealing your position - ie. being discrete. Infantry guns reveal themselves at first shot and are generally more worth vs. pillboxes and other point targets.

AT units as: "the units to be sent out as extra support for the defense or offense" is not a precise description and certainly not at regimental or Divisional level. The AT units here had their great utility in quickly establishing PAK-Fronts where an enemy breakthrough was developing. That is why AT units always were motorised, even if practically the rest of the Division was horsedrawn or foot marching. But it was also experienced, that AT guns were extremely vulnerable beyond the first few shots and that tanks accompanied with infantry had a much better chance vs. AT positions. This is exactly why a few medium mortars (and GPMGs) at a very low cost would make a big difference. They gain the AT guns some valuable extra minutes to fire until the Divisional or higher level artillery can be brought to fire.

In offense the AT units can rarely have the decisive role but rather like the anvil and the more mobile units as the hammer. An AT gun also would be nice in taking out point targets, and with the much flatter trajectory of the shell much easier to hit with than with an infantry gun. But of course the infantry gun would only cost a fraction and be easier to manhandle into firing position.

In theory Kampfgruppe doctrines could compose any unit from what was available in the Division and that certainly created some unseen and impressive flexibility but it must also be remembered that Kampfgruppe doctrines were developed because Gertman combat units always were short on everything and you had to have everything engaged all the time. That gave some very impressive combat performances against enemies apparently very superior, but also help to explain why Germans units often were reduced to cadres only after short time at the front. How much to include in the standard organisation and how much to deploy according to circumstances is a fine balance and has no given answer covering all situations, but my point is, that mortars are extremely cost effective and increase the AT units combat value much beyond the extra cost and effort.

I also think it would have to be medium mortars only. The heavy 120mm mortar indeed was an extremely impressive weapon, but it would require a much too heavy and expensive vehicle to have it fire from the vehicle. A 80 mm mortar would fire from a SdKfz 250 halftrack and be fine enough in the decisive minutes between spotting the enemy and until field artillery can be brought on. The 120mm mortar IMHO was ideal however as the organic firesupport at bataljon or regimental level - or in an emergency to replace Divisional artillery.
 
The thing is, at this time the Hetzer is just going to be a smaller and more uncomfortable Stug Ie an infantry support weapon, it wasn't until later that Stugs were more used as AT guns. I dunno really what it would do apart from mean more Russians are killed but its not a war winner.
 

Redbeard

Banned
The thing is, at this time the Hetzer is just going to be a smaller and more uncomfortable Stug Ie an infantry support weapon, it wasn't until later that Stugs were more used as AT guns. I dunno really what it would do apart from mean more Russians are killed but its not a war winner.
A single weaponsystem very rarely wins wars, not even battles. But the right combination of weaponsystems at the right time and places win battles, even if the individual weaponsystems are mediocre, and when you have won enough battles you have won the war...
 
The Poles had the PZInz.160 tank destroyer in 1939.

http://derela.republika.pl/tkd.htm

pzinz160-model-pojazd.jpg


PZInz160.jpg

Ah, there's our POD then. Romania could buy or get at least the plans for it even before the war, and perhaps the TACAM conversion are designed along the lines of this polish machine in the first place. Hungary and Italy could convert/build similar vehicles too.

Same goes for the germans, let's say when they occupy Poland, they find the plans or even a prototype of this thing, and someone has an Evrika moment, so you have Hetzers in 1942 (or even earlier).
 

Deleted member 1487

The thing is, at this time the Hetzer is just going to be a smaller and more uncomfortable Stug Ie an infantry support weapon, it wasn't until later that Stugs were more used as AT guns. I dunno really what it would do apart from mean more Russians are killed but its not a war winner.
Only if misused; it was designed to be a self propelled AT gun, not an assault gun. It was supposed to be used to fire from ambush, not a well armored assault vehicle to spearhead and infantry attack.

One other point, the Hetzers were not very ergonomic for the crews, and had terrible outside vision


Due to the limited area defined by the narrow chassis/hull width and highly sloped casemate, internal space was very cramped. The driver, gunner and loader were all placed on the left side, in a row. The only escape hatch there was a small trap below the loader, barely accessible by the two others. Due to the main gun being positioned on the far right of the hull, the loader had to work in an awkward position, which was not practical and obliged him to reach under or across the gun and into the recoil path of the gun in order to access the safety lock or the ammunition, whereas the commander, installed in a niche at the rear, was cutoff from the others.

Vision was generally poor, there were twin periscopes of the driver in the front plate (it was later discovered they formed a shot trap), the main slf ZF sight for the gunner, a periscopic sight for the machine-gun, another for the loader, plus the SF14Z scissors periscope for the commander. The vehicle was literally blind on the right side, which was especially problematic since protection there was minimal. Attempts to correct this with a fully traversing periscope (Starr) for the commander never took place
Sure, but again it was a self propelled AT gun mean to fire from ambush and cover so that any issues of it were minimized, just like a towed AT gun.
 
Sure, but again it was a self propelled AT gun mean to fire from ambush and cover so that any issues of it were minimized, just like a towed AT gun.

But almost every SPG got misused as tanks and assaulted with them, rather than defend/counterattacked, because they had armor and tracks.

This is one area I sort of agreed with McNair on, open top to remind the crew constantly they aren't tanks.
With that said, should still have had flip open splinter guards, like the last M36 Sluggers.
K.jpg

Samohodni_top_M36_Jackson.JPG

So for a proper SPG to take the place of an AT gun, Open top/ big hatches, and even though it reduces protection, give the driver large, direct vision port/hatches
08524.jpg


like on this Ram. Also helps with ventilation, rather than being in a closed up oven

You do want to shoot and scoot, not slug it out. I'd even think about dual driving positions, like some of the Panhard or German 8 wheeler armored cars, and have the same number of gears in reverse.

Do you want a highly mobile gun with decent crew protection, or a sorta mobile pillbox? Hetzer was a tiny pillbox on treads
 

Deleted member 1487

But almost every SPG got misused as tanks and assaulted with them, rather than defend/counterattacked, because they had armor and tracks.

This is one area I sort of agreed with McNair on, open top to remind the crew constantly they aren't tanks.
With that said, should still have had flip open splinter guards, like the last M36 Sluggers.


So for a proper SPG to take the place of an AT gun, Open top/ big hatches, and even though it reduces protection, give the driver large, direct vision port/hatches


like on this Ram. Also helps with ventilation, rather than being in a closed up oven

You do want to shoot and scoot, not slug it out. I'd even think about dual driving positions, like some of the Panhard or German 8 wheeler armored cars, and have the same number of gears in reverse.

Do you want a highly mobile gun with decent crew protection, or a sorta mobile pillbox? Hetzer was a tiny pillbox on treads
So you're a fan of the ASU-57, huh?
asu57aj_title.jpg


The problem with open tops is shrapnel and blast, which a piece of sheet metal on planks doesn't fix. Part of the reason the Marder had problems in practice (besides the high sihouette. I agree that as a proper SPG it should probably have had less frontal armor to make mobility better, as well as reduce strain on the suspension among other things. Part of the advantage of the Hetzer not acknowledged yet in the discussion was that the small size, besides making it cheaper, make it a very hard target to even see and target, especially when the opponent is buttoned up. It apparently was a superb ambusher for that reason and able to fire repeatedly before being spotted as a result. And it was preferred by crewed to towed AT guns because it could bug out if needed, plus it really did protect against shrapnel and other counterfire, unlike even a dug in position that could be easily flanked and forced the crews to abandon under fire, which did not end well. I agree that the Hetzer as a mobile pillbox and was for that reason superior to the towed PAK 40, though as you say it could have been better with less armor and thus more mobile, while IMHO with a rear drive, which frees up space up from, like the E-10, it could have been much better and solved tons of issues with the Hetzer. It would have even lower height and weight, making it even harder to target, have more weight balancing due to the rear drive, and be thus faster.
84aff3b4.jpg


And the Hetzer for comparison:
Cutaway.osprey.jpg


One interesting option IOTL is like the post-war low pressure guns like the Cockerill 90mm on the AML-90, which were developed versions of the PAW600, would have been to mount the PAW 600 on an armored car like the Puma and ambush with that. Or the PAW1000 on a Hetzer type set up. Smaller gun than the PAK40, less recoil (both factors meaning it would take up less space inside), able to kill anything within 1000m.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard_AML#AML-90
 
The Poles had the PZInz.160 tank destroyer in 1939.

http://derela.republika.pl/tkd.htm

pzinz160-model-pojazd.jpg
Ah, there's our POD then. Romania could buy or get at least the plans for it even before the war, and perhaps the TACAM conversion are designed along the lines of this polish machine in the first place. Hungary and Italy could convert/build similar vehicles too.

Same goes for the germans, let's say when they occupy Poland, they find the plans or even a prototype of this thing, and someone has an Evrika moment, so you have Hetzers in 1942 (or even earlier).
You got earlier Pod. Czechoslovakia did built for yugoslavs something similar wit 47 mm gun. And it was actually built. But I believe it was Skoda made, not CKD. However Swedes built on 38 chases something similar in 1942 or 1943.
 
Top