Earlier Hetzer?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
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.


Yes thanks for the break down, but the Germans would have to retool the Pz-II production to also build the Hetzer since you are going to need thousands per year to build them for the infantry Korps.
 
Yes thanks for the break down, but the Germans would have to retool the Pz-II production to also build the Hetzer since you are going to need thousands per year to build them for the infantry Korps.
Maybe they will not need to.
Production of Pzkpfw II or Pzkpfw 38 was not today car production. Not even at the time Ford's car production. Engine, transmission and gun are hardest to manufacture. Hull, wheels that's nothing. Engine used is not some complicated aircraft engine and same goes for transmission.
There is guy in Czech republic who build LT-35 (Pzkpfw 35(t)) in his garage. Did he retool? I guess mostly in local pub over few Pilsners.

I was talking conservatively only about early production of Hetzer. If you are heading so far as building vehicles for Panzergrenadiers that would be Katzen, not Hetzer. It could be even easier. Gun out, much less equipment necessary to locate and aim the target as well as no need of periscope for commander. Ketzen would be even easier to manufacture if there was time and its design come early. Hetzer and Katzen were relatively simple vejicles by design.

BTW CKD developped on chassis of LT-38 after war for Swiss armored tractor and recovery vehicle Praga DT III. Pretty cool looking machine too.

ckd_dt3_2.jpg
 
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.
Correct, but it does not answer my question, which was does an earlier Hetzer also mean an earlier 38(d).

IIRC the 38(d) project was started because it was expected to be cheaper and easier to build than the Panzer III and IV based vehicles then in production. If brought forward by 2 years does that mean an overall increase in German AFV production over 1943-45? My guess is that it depends on how much production is lost during the change over period from the Panzer III and IV based vehicles to the 38(d). My guess is that the same applies if an earlier 38(d) and 38(t) lead to the Katzen replacing the Sd.Kfz,251 in production in 1943 or 1944.
 
If the earlier Hetzer and 38(d) did lead to an earlier Katzen would there also be an unarmoured version of the Katzen for use as an artillery tractor and high mobility load carrier?

If it was it seems to me that the unarmoured Katzen would be developed and produced instead of the Schwerer Wehrmachtschlepper, which was intended to replace the Sd.Kfz.6 and Sd.Kfz.11.
 
Correct, but it does not answer my question, which was does an earlier Hetzer also mean an earlier 38(d).

IIRC the 38(d) project was started because it was expected to be cheaper and easier to build than the Panzer III and IV based vehicles then in production. If brought forward by 2 years does that mean an overall increase in German AFV production over 1943-45? My guess is that it depends on how much production is lost during the change over period from the Panzer III and IV based vehicles to the 38(d). My guess is that the same applies if an earlier 38(d) and 38(t) lead to the Katzen replacing the Sd.Kfz,251 in production in 1943 or 1944.
I am not sure how much production would be lost. CKD/ BMM went from Marders to Hetzers by manufacturing both, decreasing production of Marders and increasing of Hetzers and basically it seems there was not production loss - no less vehicles comming out then before switch. Actually as production of Marders was cutting down, overall monthly production was increasing. Question is if German would manage something like that also in factories manufacturin Pz III/ IVs. Continue production of one while starting Hetzer. Increase production of Hetzer and decrease of Pz. As you said. Hetzer was easier to manufacture so I don't see why it shouldn't be possible without vehicle production loss. I am curiouse if bigger issue wouldn't be training of units where PzIII/ IVs would be replaced by Hetzer as Pz III/ IV production would be decreasing.

Also let say somebody come with Hetzer design sometimes in 1942. Wouldn't idea to cut production of Pz III/ IVs in 1943 and to replace them with Hetzer required change in thinking of German higher command including Hitler. Hetzer is more suited for deffense and you start to manufacture them let say in 1943 you basically acknowledge Germany can't take Soviets out of war and needs tongo on deffensive. All this before Stalingrad and Kursk! And I am mentioning Stalingrad because preparations needs to be made right as Hetzer would show up in early 1942, if we want to see desired effect in 1943.

As artillery tractor. Look at pic of Praga III for Swiss. Engine front, very lightly armored. If armored at all. This Could actually serve as even better Katzchen if made bit longer. No engine at the back, bigger back doors for infantry to get out in hurry. Engine serves as kind of protection from front.
 
Question is if German would manage something like that also in factories manufacturin Pz III/ IVs. Continue production of one while starting Hetzer. Increase production of Hetzer and decrease of Pz. As you said. Hetzer was easier to manufacture so I don't see why it shouldn't be possible without vehicle production loss. I am curiouse if bigger issue wouldn't be training of units where PzIII/ IVs would be replaced by Hetzer as Pz III/ IV production would be decreasing.

Also let say somebody come with Hetzer design sometimes in 1942. Wouldn't idea to cut production of Pz III/ IVs in 1943 and to replace them with Hetzer required change in thinking of German higher command including Hitler. Hetzer is more suited for deffense and you start to manufacture them let say in 1943 you basically acknowledge Germany can't take Soviets out of war and needs tongo on deffensive. All this before Stalingrad and Kursk! And I am mentioning Stalingrad because preparations needs to be made right as Hetzer would show up in early 1942, if we want to see desired effect in 1943.
This addresses those points the wrong order.

AFAIK some of the increase in AFV production in Germany and Czechoslovakia from 1943 was the result of new firms being brought in rather than existing factories increasing their output.

If the above statement is correct if the JPz 38(d) and (t) are begun in 1942 and come into production in 1943 I expect that the firms being brought into the programme will simply tool up to build them rather than the Pz III or IV based vehicles they tooled up to build IOTL. Therefore my guess is that they will build as many AFVs from those sources in 1943 as IOTL.

IOTL production of the Panzer III as a tank ended in 1943 anyway. AFAIK all the factories building the Panzer III tank switched over to the Panzer III based StuGs. I think there would have been some loss of production from these factories in 1943 ITTL if they stop building the Panzer III chassis altogether and turn over to the JPz 38(d).

Production of the Panzer IV as a tank would still continue until the end of the war if the JPz 38(d) went into production in 1943. However, I think that the factories already building the Panzer IV would concentrate on the tank version instead of producing the JPz, StuG and Kubelblitz versions too. There should be no need for them because in common with IOTL those roles were to be filled by the JPz 38(d) and derivatives of it.
 
What if before the war even began the Germans had converted the Pz.38 into a StuG like assault gun and called it the StuG-38?

3KXY8J2.jpg

And what if after the war began they up-gunned the StuG-38 with the TAZ 75mm 1939mle, Czech 75mm AA gun?

Ak7TdU5.jpg
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm fairly sure the Pz 38t would have too small a fighting compartment to make that work.
 
I'm fairly sure the Pz 38t would have too small a fighting compartment to make that work.
Probably,it is 3ft. shorter than the Pz-III. I should have checked the dimensions before I made I but I had a pic of the two in scale and just went with it but what if they used a smaller gun?
 

Deleted member 1487

Probably,it is 3ft. shorter than the Pz-III. I should have checked the dimensions before I made I but I had a pic of the two in scale and just went with it but what if they used a smaller gun?
They'd probably have to move the final drive to the rear to open up the fighting compartment and keep the engine-drive package as a discrete unit.
Something along these lines:
E10.jpg
 
This addresses those points the wrong order.

AFAIK some of the increase in AFV production in Germany and Czechoslovakia from 1943 was the result of new firms being brought in rather than existing factories increasing their output.

If the above statement is correct if the JPz 38(d) and (t) are begun in 1942 and come into production in 1943 I expect that the firms being brought into the programme will simply tool up to build them rather than the Pz III or IV based vehicles they tooled up to build IOTL. Therefore my guess is that they will build as many AFVs from those sources in 1943 as IOTL.

IOTL production of the Panzer III as a tank ended in 1943 anyway. AFAIK all the factories building the Panzer III tank switched over to the Panzer III based StuGs. I think there would have been some loss of production from these factories in 1943 ITTL if they stop building the Panzer III chassis altogether and turn over to the JPz 38(d).

Production of the Panzer IV as a tank would still continue until the end of the war if the JPz 38(d) went into production in 1943. However, I think that the factories already building the Panzer IV would concentrate on the tank version instead of producing the JPz, StuG and Kubelblitz versions too. There should be no need for them because in common with IOTL those roles were to be filled by the JPz 38(d) and derivatives of it.
Partial increase in Protectorate in 1944 can be indeed explained by additional factories brought to productions of Hetzers - Skoda. But if I remember correctly their highest monthly production was only some 98 pcs.

In my opinion if switching from Pz III cassis to 38 wad done gradually and not at once loose of manufactured hulls could me minimal or non existant.

However. Issue is gun for Hetzer. Would be enough acailable in 1943. To move production of Hetzer to 1942 we need 7.5 cm Pak 39 L/48 much sooner.
 
They'd probably have to move the final drive to the rear to open up the fighting compartment and keep the engine-drive package as a discrete unit.
Something along these lines:
E10.jpg
The E-10 was a much more complicated vehicle, it had an adjustable suspension that allowed it to lower its hull about foot to Ft 1/2 but I see what you mean.
 
The E-10 was a much more complicated vehicle, it had an adjustable suspension that allowed it to lower its hull about foot to Ft 1/2 but I see what you mean.
What the f was wrong with German Engineers? They really put these interlocking wheels even on that?
Crews has to love them.
 

Deleted member 1487

What the f was wrong with German Engineers? They really put these interlocking wheels even on that?
Crews has to love them.
From what I understand the fabled maintenance issues didn't actually happen that often IRL. They gave a smoother ride, which made the crews MUCH more comfortable for significant travel than say a Soviet tanks, while the bars didn't break often or at all due to the load being well distributed over more bars (important due to the lack of quality metals later in the war), they gave better fuel economy due to the smoother ride, and they weren't really any harder to construct than other types of suspensions. From what I gather what drove the post-war move away from it was improved regular torsion bar suspension which negated any benefit of the interweaving.
 
From what I understand the fabled maintenance issues didn't actually happen that often IRL. They gave a smoother ride, which made the crews MUCH more comfortable for significant travel than say a Soviet tanks, while the bars didn't break often or at all due to the load being well distributed over more bars (important due to the lack of quality metals later in the war), they gave better fuel economy due to the smoother ride, and they weren't really any harder to construct than other types of suspensions. From what I gather what drove the post-war move away from it was improved regular torsion bar suspension which negated any benefit of the interweaving.
I see. It coul offset dificultirs with maintnance then. Harder to do but not so often reqyired. Still mud between them could prove difficult, especially when frozen.
 

Deleted member 1487

I see. It coul offset dificultirs with maintnance then. Harder to do but not so often reqyired. Still mud between them could prove difficult, especially when frozen.
Sure, but the question is how often that actually happened and how quick the solution was in the cases that it did. From what I gather about the adaptations to cold weather things like creating a fire underneath the engine to keep it warm/thaw it also would help to loosen things in the road wheels.
 
From what I understand the fabled maintenance issues didn't actually happen that often IRL. They gave a smoother ride, which made the crews MUCH more comfortable for significant travel than say a Soviet tanks, while the bars didn't break often or at all due to the load being well distributed over more bars (important due to the lack of quality metals later in the war), they gave better fuel economy due to the smoother ride, and they weren't really any harder to construct than other types of suspensions. From what I gather what drove the post-war move away from it was improved regular torsion bar suspension which negated any benefit of the interweaving.
My understanding is that it was really difficult to replace a broken inner wheel but I don't know how often that happened.
 

Deleted member 1487

My understanding is that it was really difficult to replace a broken inner wheel but I don't know how often that happened.
Not that hard, just relatively harder than with regular torsion bar layout
 
Top