Earlier Hetzer?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
It was longer, because unlike the Marder series the gun overhung the chassis. The superstructure and tracks were widened, not the basic chassis. Plus of course all the alterations were IOTL done in 6 months, from concept to production.
Length of Pz 38(t) was 4.54 m/ 4.61 m. Length of Hetzer was 4.87 m and with gun 6.8 m!
Width of Pz 38(t) was 2.12 m, Marder III 2.16 m and Hetzer 2.63 m. So it was definitely wider.
Also when looking at picture of Marder Ausf M and Hetzer in Czechoslovak Armored Fighting Vehicles 1918-1948, page 225 it is clearly visible Hetzer is wider. Tex on page 227 clearly states
The width increased from 2.14 m of the PzKpfw 38(t) to 2.63 m

I would say slight increase in the length could be explained but different design and shape of the front of the hull. Also larger wheels were used so maybe bit there.
 
Length of Pz 38(t) was 4.54 m/ 4.61 m. Length of Hetzer was 4.87 m and with gun 6.8 m!
Width of Pz 38(t) was 2.12 m, Marder III 2.16 m and Hetzer 2.63 m. So it was definitely wider.
Also when looking at picture of Marder Ausf M and Hetzer in Czechoslovak Armored Fighting Vehicles 1918-1948, page 225 it is clearly visible Hetzer is wider. Tex on page 227 clearly states


I would say slight increase in the length could be explained but different design and shape of the front of the hull. Also larger wheels were used so maybe bit there.


that means a new chassis which has to be designed and factories re-tooled even if just a few months....1942/43 before production begins.
 
Not much to be gained by parsing the difference between assault guns vs. SP AT when Germans were often out-numbered. When the communist/commonwealth hordes attack your lines, you push whatever guns you have as far forward as quickly as possible to support your poor bloody infantry .... er .... panzer grenadiers.

As for criticizing Hetzer Mark I as cramped and crude .... guess what? Everybody's Mark I is crude. The difference was that the German Army was quick to adapt tactics to counter new threats and German industry was quick to modify existing weapons too.

WI we discuss a fictitious Hetzer Mark 2 with better ergonomics and visibility?
Hetzer Mark 2 would also rotate the breech 90 degrees counter-clockwise to ease the loader's work.

WI we discuss a ficticious Hetzer Mark 3 with a 75mm L70 gun?
Would the longer barrel require displacing the breech farther aft?
Would this need the engine moved forward to balance?
How closely would the Hetzer Mark 3 resemble a Swedish S Tank?

Would Hetzer regiments enjoy the support of other vehicles based on Czech 38 T chassis?
How many Katzchen APCs could be produced?
What about Katzchencarrying 80mm mortars?
Would KatzchenMark 2 have forward engines?
 
Last edited:
that means a new chassis which has to be designed and factories re-tooled even if just a few months....1942/43 before production begins.
Why retooled? Hetzer was using app. 80% of PzKpfw 38 parts, according same book. Building technology actually improved. Instead of using rivets Hetzer was first vehicle in CKD build with welded armor. Chassis was not new. It was widened, simplified, some parts were strengthened. Hetzer chassis was improved a bit and widened - armored tube was widened which means bit more of steel plates were used. Shape at the front changed etc.

If we consider in 1944 production of Merder III was still running CKD and Skoda shifting production was by numbers pretty smooth in my opinion. Number of Marders was decreasing and number of Hetzers increasing. Total number of manufactured vehicles was actually increasing every month. There was nothing lost with switch OTL.

For example in November 1944 CKD and Skoda manufactured total 406 Hetzers (Berge and Staar including). Skoda manufactured some 89.

In comparison in November 1943 some 142 Marders of all versions were manufactured in CKD.

CKD by itself more then doubled production.
 
Not much to be gained by parsing the difference between assault guns vs. SP AT when Germans were often out-numbered. When the communist/commonwealth hordes attack your lines, you push whatever guns you have as far forward as quickly as possible to support your poor bloody infantry .... er .... panzer grenadiers.

As for criticizing Hetzer Mark I as cramped and crude .... guess what? Everybody's Mark I is crude. The difference was that the German Army was quick to adapt tactics to counter new threats and German industry was quick to modify existing weapons too.

WI we discuss a fictitious Hetzer Mark 2 with better ergonomics and visibility?
Hetzer Mark 2 would also rotate the breech 90 degrees counter-clockwise to ease the loader's work.

WI we discuss a ficticious Hetzer Mark 3 with a 75mm L70 gun?
Would the longer barrel require displacing the breech farther aft?
Would this need the engine moved forward to balance?
How closely would the Hetzer Mark 3 resemble a Swedish S Tank?

Would Hetzer regiments enjoy the support of other vehicles based on Czech 38 T chassis?
How many Katzen APCs could be produced?
What about Katzen carrying 80mm mortars?
Would Katzen Mark 2 have forward engines?
Hetzer was actually front heavy due to cannon. Gun position to the right also ment right side of the suspension was more stressed by weight of the gun. Soviets had similar problems with theirs Su-100. There was few other nitpicks.

Germans got from Czech chassis as much as it could. And after war Czechoslovakia too.

After all Switzerland bought over 100 of them and operated them till 70- ties.
 
Would Hetzer regiments enjoy the support of other vehicles based on Czech 38 T chassis?
How many Katzen APCs could be produced?
What about Katzen carrying 80mm mortars?
Would Katzen Mark 2 have forward engines?
I knew of the Swedish APC based on the LT-38 but had not heard of the Katzen before. What were its advantages and disadvantages in comparison to the Sd.Kfz.251?
 
I knew of the Swedish APC based on the LT-38 but had not heard of the Katzen before. What were its advantages and disadvantages in comparison to the Sd.Kfz.251?
I would say much simple and cheaper construction. Katzen was really nice looking. Unification of parts would be another adventage.
On other side Czechoslovakia after war started to built improved Sdkfz 251, among crew valled Hakel. Fully cowered. Over 1000 were built for Czechoslovak army. They didn't even try to go with Katzen prototype.
 

Deleted member 1487

I would say much simple and cheaper construction. Katzen was really nice looking. Unification of parts would be another adventage.
On other side Czechoslovakia after war started to built improved Sdkfz 251, among crew valled Hakel. Fully cowered. Over 1000 were built for Czechoslovak army. They didn't even try to go with Katzen prototype.
Maybe they should have?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sd.Kfz._251
OT-810 - Czechoslovakian produced version, made by Praga and Tatra. This version had an air cooled diesel engine, and an armored roof over the troop compartment. The vehicle was not liked by those who used it and was nicknamed "Hitler's revenge".

The Soviets apparently stopped the Czechs from domestically making armor designs, so perhaps the Katzchen fell victim to that?
 
This is another post war development of the Pz.38, I don't remember if its Swiss or Czech but I think its Swiss. A nice APC if not a bit cramp looking.
Can you imagine the Axis with a vehicle like this during WWII?

kONBR3S.jpg
 
This is another post war development of the Pz.38, I don't remember if its Swiss or Czech but I think its Swiss. A nice APC if not a bit cramp looking.
Can you imagine the Axis with a vehicle like this during WWII?

kONBR3S.jpg
According to Wikipaedia about 15,000 Sd.Kfz.251 were built 1938-45 plus about 9,000 Sd.Kfz.11 unarmoured half-tracks over the same period. It's probably ASB but 15,000 Katzen and 9,000 unarmoured artillery tractor versions (or even more if they were easier to build) in their place would be interesting.

I have occasionally wondered if a development of the AH-IV would have been better and easier to produce than the smaller German unarmoured half-tracks.
 

Deleted member 1487

I have occasionally wondered if a development of the AH-IV would have been better and easier to produce than the smaller German unarmoured half-tracks.
AH-IV? You mean a troop transport Pz IV version? Better is debateable given cost, but in terms of size sure. It would probably have to have a Merkava style layout:
410WFDYYMAL.jpg
 
AH-IV? You mean a troop transport Pz IV version? Better is debateable given cost, but in terms of size sure. It would probably have to have a Merkava style layout:
410WFDYYMAL.jpg
No. I meant the Czech AH-IV tankette.

However, I did think of a scaled up LT-38 as an alternative to the Panzer III and IV before I learned about Alien Space Bats. This is a longer and wider hull, an extra set of road wheels and a more powerful engine to maintain the power-to-weight ratio. There would have been an unarmoured artillery tractor version in place of some of the larger German unarmoured half-tracks, an SPG and an APC capable of carrying 10-12 troops.
 
According to Wikipaedia about 15,000 Sd.Kfz.251 were built 1938-45 plus about 9,000 Sd.Kfz.11 unarmoured half-tracks over the same period. It's probably ASB but 15,000 Katzen and 9,000 unarmoured artillery tractor versions (or even more if they were easier to build) in their place would be interesting.

I have occasionally wondered if a development of the AH-IV would have been better and easier to produce than the smaller German unarmoured half-tracks.
I think the Pz.II could have been converted into an APC here's a pic of a Wespe I've converted into one.

ClGCtLr.jpg

The engine on the Wepse has already been moved forward and that would leave room for about six to eight soldiers to ride in the back.
Note: the MG may not be to scale, I added it at the last moment because I thought it should be there but I also think the turret from a Pz.I would work well too.
 
Last edited:
As this is evolving into an earlier LT-38 derivatives thread may I nominate the earlier development of the Jagdpanzer 38(d) plus the Leichte Einheitswaffentrager and Mittlere Einheitswaffentrager. According to the notes I have from Chaimberlain and Ellis both einheitswaffentrager were to have been based on the 38(d).
 
No, Sturmgeschütze was assault guns, so were used as assault weapons to support infantry and engineer assault units, not specifically as anti-tank weapons. Remember the original gun on the StuG was a short howitzer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgeschütz_III#Variants

The Hetzer IOTL was initially conceived after StuG III production was damaged, by which time the StuG was shoehorned into the AT role as it was accidentally discovered in Russia that it was a fine AT weapon with a higher velocity 75mm gun to help infantry deal with enemy tanks. But it was not a self propelled AT gun in the sense that the Hetzer was, as the Hetzer was not an assault gun, it was an ambush weapon as an alternative to a towed AT gun. Remember too that it replaced the Marder III entirely in production and service (the Marder II had been phased out earlier for the Wespe). It took over the Marder's role as the self propelled AT weapon of an infantry division, but didn't tank over the StuG role, except when badly misused for lack of any alternative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer

Again, Hetzer was designed as a substitute of StuG from the beginning, and in fact it was designated 'tank destroyer' only because Guderian stepped in. Same story for Jagdpanzer IV. The anti-tank troops used StuGs just fine for many years. 'Sturmgeschütz' was by all means 'Jagdpanzer'. Okay, initial concepts weren't anything like that, but the idea of Sturmgeschütz was eventually transformed and ended up into the Jagdpanzer. In many cases assault gun units were simply transferred and rebranded as 'anti-tank'.
 
Again, Hetzer was designed as a substitute of StuG from the beginning, and in fact it was designated 'tank destroyer' only because Guderian stepped in. Same story for Jagdpanzer IV. The anti-tank troops used StuGs just fine for many years. 'Sturmgeschütz' was by all means 'Jagdpanzer'. Okay, initial concepts weren't anything like that, but the idea of Sturmgeschütz was eventually transformed and ended up into the Jagdpanzer. In many cases assault gun units were simply transferred and rebranded as 'anti-tank'.
Waan't issue alos rivalu between artillery and Panzer units? Didn't in early days of war StuGs been asigned to artyllery units and thats why Guderian came with Panzerjagger? As artyllery would be trying to claim manufactured vehicles if called StuGs?
 

My mistake...

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.

The original version had the same 75mm L/24 as the early Panzer IV's, later versions had a 105mm howitzer. Some were fitted with the 75mm L/48 for AT use. The Hetzer was fitted almost exclusively with the 75mm L/48 although a few had flamethrowers and two had a 150mm L/18 gun
 
The Ford Model 18 was intended to carry either an MG or a 37mm cannon, but my understanding is that the MG crowded the crew while the 37mm and its ammo took up too much space to be practical...
 
Maybe they should have?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sd.Kfz._251


The Soviets apparently stopped the Czechs from domestically making armor designs, so perhaps the Katzchen fell victim to that?
Actually there was a lot of development between 1945 and 1950. Only then it was decided, under Soviet pressure, to abandon tank design and start T-34 and SU-100 production in Slovakia. That soon switched to T-54/55s. Interestingly manufacturing facilities where they were built were basically in locations where already bedore Munich relocation of strategic factories started. CKD in Town Martin.

However design and manufacturing of home designed armored vehicles continued adterwards. But reorientated towards wheeled APC of Czechoslovak/ Polish design or SPG Dana which later developped into Zuzana. There were also some wheeled APCs on Tatra chassis and AA vehicle, lightly armored on Praga V3S chassis.

Ast to 810s they have been seen as stop gap. I guess crews didn't like dificulties of German chassis maintaince.

On other side for example East German trucks IFA were called "Revenge for Sudety".
 
Top