Earlier Hetzer?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Could early adoption of a Hetzer-like TD by Jr members of the Axis have inspired the Japanese to follow suit? This is the type-5 ho-ru a late war Japanese TD design that has a strong Hetzer resemblance, it was armed with a 45mm gun and I think only one was built in 1945 when I can't imagine it would have been very effective.


If however the Hetzer or Hetzer styled TDs went into service earlier, could something like this TD I made using the Chi-Ha's hull and the gun and upper hull section of an E-10, seen service before the end of the war?
How much contact did any have with Japan?
 
How much contact did any have with Japan?
I don't know but the design of the Ho-Ro leads me to believe that the Hetzer influenced its creation. So I wonder if an earlier appearance of the Hetzer or a similar TD could have led to an earlier Japanese TD of similar design.
I know the Japanese had military personal in Germany during the war, General Yamashita spent some time in Germany in 1940, its possible there were some Japanese personal in Italy but I don't know about Romania or any of the other Axis nations.
I think I read something about Japanese in Finland during the war but I could be mistaken.
 
Did it have a better internal layout than the Hetzer? By all accounts being inside a Hetzer was a real squeezy situation. What about the gun used in the Hetzer, when was that developed?

The Marsael only had a two-man crew, whereas the Hetzer had a three-man crew which lessened the workload.

I don't know but the design of the Ho-Ro leads me to believe that the Hetzer influenced its creation. So I wonder if an earlier appearance of the Hetzer or a similar TD could have led to an earlier Japanese TD of similar design.

Don't forget Italy built something similar on the L6 light tank chassis, the Sevomonte 47 which replaced the turreted 20mm cannon with a bow-mounted 47mm cannon. It and the Ho-Ru were both open-topped. There was a Sevomonte 47 at Aberdeen MD which may be at Fort Lee now...
 
The Marsael only had a two-man crew, whereas the Hetzer had a three-man crew which lessened the workload.



Don't forget Italy built something similar on the L6 light tank chassis, the Sevomonte 47 which replaced the turreted 20mm cannon with a bow-mounted 47mm cannon. It and the Ho-Ru were both open-topped. There was a Sevomonte 47 at Aberdeen MD which may be at Fort Lee now...



pretty sure hetzer had 4 crew


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer
 
The Marsael only had a two-man crew, whereas the Hetzer had a three-man crew which lessened the workload.



Don't forget Italy built something similar on the L6 light tank chassis, the Sevomonte 47 which replaced the turreted 20mm cannon with a bow-mounted 47mm cannon. It and the Ho-Ru were both open-topped. There was a Sevomonte 47 at Aberdeen MD which may be at Fort Lee now...
You mean the Semovente 47/32. Very similar with the Ho-Ru, even the guns are close. I wonder if it would have been possible to used sloped armor on the Semo-47, would probably still be bolted on.
a6ead2aa183a9ab8268ee5f8bfa56776.jpg
 
why is StuG an assault gun but Hetzer is not?
StuG originally had a short barreled 75mm gun for firing HE rounds at fortified positions but was later modified for the anti-tank role. The Hetzer on the other hand had a long barrel for firing high velocity armor piercing rounds at enemy vehicles.
 

Deleted member 1487

why is StuG an assault gun but Hetzer is not?
For one thing the Hetzer wasn't called a StuG, it was called a Jagdpanzer, i.e. a tank hunter, i.e. a self propelled AT gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgeschütz
Here is the article on the Sturmgeschütze types and only the StuG III and IV are listed, none of the Jagdpanzer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdpanzer
Notable tank destroyers of World War II in the Jagdpanzer classification include:

 
So in principle there is no reason the Hetzer could not fill the StuG role, since the long term plans were to replace all PZ-IV/III/StuG production entirely with models of Hetzer. Still not clear on the roles. Going on Manstein's StuG plans, I would have expanded Pz-I production to thousands prewar to build up panzer forces.

Come wartime , I would have converted them to PzJager role but sunk Infantry guns into 1/2 these chassis and 37mm Pak into the rest. After all these are all routed in the mechanized gun concepts of the 1920s. [200-300 farm tractors with either 37mm PAK & 77mm Infantry guns]
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

So in principle there is no reason the Hetzer could not fill the StuG role, since the long term plans were to replace all PZ-IV/III/StuG production entirely with models of Hetzer. Still not clear on the roles.
Armor, crew space, visibility. Though the Hetzer was apparently trialed with a 105/155mm howitzer:
t_sig33_2_a.jpg


Edit:
NVM, it was a self propelled artillery piece built on the Hetzer chassis, not an assault gun, because they didn't have enough 75mm guns, but had left over SiG 33s:
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/15-cm-s-i-g-332-sf-auf-jagdpanzer-38t.php
 
Didn't an assault gun have thicker armour (at least on the front)? Maybe the difference was really that an Assault Gun was allocated to the artillery arm (with artillery sights), while a jagdpanzer wasn't. An assault gun was obviously better in that it could carry more ammunition, had more space for the crew, and probably had a higher rate of fire.
 
Top