Earlier Hetzer?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
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?

Rivalry was certainly one thing but the main issue was that Guderian attempted to transfer all assault gun units from the artillery branch to the panzer branch, and when this adventure ended up in failure, he tried to procure brand-new assault guns for his anti-tank units by branding these new vehicles as 'Panzerjäger'.
 
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?
That does have ring of familiarity to it, sounds like something I read somewhere else before, probably on an old thread here AH.
 
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.



If I understand the thread correctly this is supposed to happen in 1942, with substituting the Hetzer for new MARDER production, how ever half the Marder production came from Pz-II, those will have to be retooled ,no?
 

Deleted member 1487

If I understand the thread correctly this is supposed to happen in 1942, with substituting the Hetzer for new MARDER production, how ever half the Marder production came from Pz-II, those will have to be retooled ,no?
Marder IIs would instead be used for self propelled artillery, the Wespe or a 150mm SIG 33 carrier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wespe
Perhaps the Marder II carries on until enough Hetzers are available to allow the switch to other production.
 
If I understand the thread correctly this is supposed to happen in 1942, with substituting the Hetzer for new MARDER production, how ever half the Marder production came from Pz-II, those will have to be retooled ,no?
Marder III H and M as well as Marder with Russian gun production was based on 38 chassis and done in Protectorarate CKD, during war called BMM. They were not at all involved in Marder II production based on French tanks or Pz II. There would be minimum need for retooling when switching from LT-38s or Marder III as Hetzer was based on 38s chassis. Max needed would be few extra welding aggregates and more trained welders. I guess that's why production increased so much when switching from Marders to Hetzer. Welding is much faster then rivetting.

I can check exact figures of production in CKD from 1939 to 1944 month by month when switching to Hetzer happened and production doubled. But I have feeling vehicles output in CKD was till mid 1944 app same month by month.

I would bet Hetzer very likely needed much less man hours then Pz 38 or Marder III.
 
For numbers sake Sig-33 would have to older model tanks sent to be rebuilt and instead converted and re-tasked as Sturmartillery. There are just not enough 150L-11 built to waste on infantry guns They are more needed as assault guns. This way you can maximise the number of newest tank models built and leave the specialty models for rebuilds or straight conversions.

Likewise 105mm howitzer is to light for offensive action, you need something with more punch like Hummel. Keep the 105 howitzers for horse drawn infantry divisions , while the 150mm howitzers and vehicles for the mobile/motorized division/units.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

For numbers sake Sig-33 would have to older model tanks sent to be rebuilt and instead converted and re-tasked as Sturmartillery.
The historical mounting of the SiG 33 wasn't as Sturmartillerie, because it couldn't fit nearly as much armor to actually be used as an assault gun with that huge 150mm gun. It was just self propelled artillery, not a Sturmpanzer. Even small arms could defeat the limited armor it had.
 
The historical mounting of the SiG 33 wasn't as Sturmartillerie, because it couldn't fit nearly as much armor to actually be used as an assault gun with that huge 150mm gun. It was just self propelled artillery, not a Sturmpanzer. Even small arms could defeat the limited armor it had.


My mistake ; then Sturmpanzer III/IV, since those rebuilds [Pz-III & Pz-IV]were a waste comparing to new construction of tanks which were desperately needed.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

then Sturmpanzer.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The only effective 150mm SIG sturmpanzer was the Pz IV Brummbär, which was overweight, slow, and unreliable.
 
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The only effective 150mm SIG sturmpanzer was the Pz IV Brummbär, which was overweight, slow, and unreliable.

Then Sturmpanzer III it is and they could mount more armor. Point is its a straight forward conversion not some elaborate new construction.
 

Deleted member 1487

Then Sturmpanzer III it is and they could mount more armor. Point is its a straight forward conversion not some elaborate new construction.
Only 24 were ever built and they were deemed a failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm-Infanteriegeschütz_33B
Hence the Brummbär. That would have been even better had they moved the final drive to the rear and saved a lot of weight, while balancing out the vehicle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brummbär
Compare it to the Su-122 that did just that:
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_SU-122.php
 
don't care , its a secondary consideration, provided it doesn't interfere with main tank construction out puts.

A couple dozen tanks is too small a sample to draw any real conclusions. Had it materialised 6-12 months earlier or had 80mm front protection- it would have been classified a success.

BTW don't see were its classified as a failure in those links.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

don't care , its a secondary consideration, provided it doesn't interfere with main tank construction out puts.

A couple dozen tanks is too small a sample to draw any real conclusions. Had it materialised 6-12 months earlier or had 80mm front protection- it would have been classified a success.

BTW don't see were its classified as a failure in those links.
They made 24 and then built over 300 Brummbar. What does that tell you?
 
AFAIK the name Hetzer was only applied to the Jagdpanzer 38(t). The t stood for tzech and it was only built in Czech factories.

There was also a similar looking but different Jagdpanzer 38(d). The d stood for Deutsch because it was going to be build in German factories. IIRC from reading Chamberlain and Ellis this morning the project was begun in late 1944 after the Panzer III/IV chassis was cancelled and it was going to be built in the factories that were to have made the Panzer III/IV.

If we get an earlier Jagdpanzer 38(t) do we automatically have an earlier Jagdpanzer 38(d)? And because they were based on the 38(d) do both versions of the Einheitswaffentrager also come into service earlier.
 
They made 24 and then built over 300 Brummbar. What does that tell you?
still hadn't found what they were looking for....which don't mean they were no good.

1942= 1812 tanks/AFV were converted or rebuilt about 1/2 were light tanks & the other half were heavier tanks.....none were Sturmpanzer. Instead new construction was wasted on 24 Sturmpanzer-III or 117 Pz III command tanks plus 817 New Pz-I/II/Marder-II & 653 NEW Pz-38T & Pz-38t Marder.....Choices.

If instead these rebuild/conversions are used, then 1421 of the more valuable Pz-III/IV could be rebuilt & converted into command/Sturmpanzer tanks plus more regular Pz-III/IV tanks. That still leaves conversion of 532 Pz-II/38t hulls into Marder SPG.

What's left over is the new construction of 1611 light tanks. The combat record of the light tanks from 1941 was not good with high attrition rates in the combat units . However Light tanks as 'command tanks' or 'recon tanks' seems to have survived well enough. Failing this build as many as SPG as possible.

With those numbers the loss of 6 months to retool would only mean the loss of 600-800 new light tanks. But how many EARLY HETZERS could the Czechs build? If it was based on the Pz-II chassis how many more could be built?
 
Last edited:
AFAIK the name Hetzer was only applied to the Jagdpanzer 38(t). The t stood for tzech and it was only built in Czech factories.

There was also a similar looking but different Jagdpanzer 38(d). The d stood for Deutsch because it was going to be build in German factories. IIRC from reading Chamberlain and Ellis this morning the project was begun in late 1944 after the Panzer III/IV chassis was cancelled and it was going to be built in the factories that were to have made the Panzer III/IV.

If we get an earlier Jagdpanzer 38(t) do we automatically have an earlier Jagdpanzer 38(d)? And because they were based on the 38(d) do both versions of the Einheitswaffentrager also come into service earlier.
Actually 38(d) would be bit larger, with new Tatra 12 cylinder Diesel 220 hp, new drive train, new drive and spocket wheel. Could use 7.5 cm PaK 42l/70. wight 16 t, 80 mm frontal armor, speed 42 km/ h and 220 km range on roads.
 
With those numbers the loss of 6 months to retool would only mean the loss of 600-800 new light tanks. But how many EARLY HETZERS could the Czechs build? If it was based on the Pz-II chassis how many more could be built?
Czech factories don't need to really retool and stop production for 6 months!
Is "retool" some mantra over here or what?

OTL
PzKpfw 38(t) Marder III and others on 38 Chassis Hetzer
1939 153
1940 367
1941 678
1942 198 454
1943 945
1944 680 1687
1945 1355


Czech factories will not built Pz II chassis. They are not trained and equipped to do so.
If prototype of Hetzer showed up in 1942 I guess in 1943 we can see 1687 Hetzers, and if we look at OTL numbers from 1945 (January-April 1355) theoretically in 1944 Germans can have 5052 Hetzers!

Increase of production was also result of learning process and simplifying constructions as well as technological procedures.
 

Deleted member 1487

Czech factories don't need to really retool and stop production for 6 months!
Is "retool" some mantra over here or what?

OTL
PzKpfw 38(t) Marder III and others on 38 Chassis Hetzer
1939 153
1940 367
1941 678
1942 198 454
1943 945
1944 680 1687
1945 1355


Czech factories will not built Pz II chassis. They are not trained and equipped to do so.
If prototype of Hetzer showed up in 1942 I guess in 1943 we can see 1687 Hetzers, and if we look at OTL numbers from 1945 (January-April 1355) theoretically in 1944 Germans can have 5052 Hetzers!

Increase of production was also result of learning process and simplifying constructions as well as technological procedures.
Compared to an equivalent number of towed 75s, they'd do a LOT more damage before being taken out.
 
Top