# A Jagdpanzer too far?



## davebender (Jul 14, 2012)

*Jagdpanzer IV.* Entered production January 1944.





24 tons. 300hp engine.
Simple leaf spring suspension.
7.5cm/48 main gun. Plus one or two machineguns.
60mm frontal armor. Nicely sloped.
6.85m long x 3.17m wide x 1.85m high.
…..Suspension aside I think this vehicle was state of the art at the time it entered service. Main gun could defeat contemporary threats. Very low profile plus excellent armor made it difficult to kill with weapons available during 1944. Unlike the 15 ton Hetzer this vehicle was large enough to allow ample crew space. Power to weight ratio similar to many contemporary armored vehicles and it was mechanically reliable. Like the Hetzer it was designed for inexpensive mass production.



*
Kanonenjagdpanzer.* Entered service 1965.




27.5 tons. 500hp engine.
Torsion bar suspension.
9cm/40 main gun. Plus two machineguns.
50mm frontal armor. Nicely sloped.
6.24m long x 2.98m wide x 2.09m high.
…..Would this vehicle be competitive vs T-62 tanks? I have my doubts. It may be a Jagdpanzer too far.


----------



## starling (Jul 16, 2012)

Hey guys,I think(although it's a great T.D)the jagdpanzer4 arrived at a time when the stug 3 long barrelled 75mm assault gun already proved itself in the A/T role.I think more mk4 panzers could have been produced,instead of the jagdpanzer4.Starling.


----------



## davebender (Jul 16, 2012)

Consider the time frame.

Panther tank was supposed to completely replace Panzer IV production during 1944. It didn't happen because the German economy started falling apart during 1944 but that was the plan.

Jagdpanzer (with 7.5cm/48 main gun) was supposed to replace the StuG III. Originally it was to be built on the Panzer III chassis using the same production facilities. However the StuG III G was considered so valuable that Germany could not afford to temporarily shut down production and retool for the improved Jagdpanzer. So they decided to build the Jagdpanzer on the Panzer IV chassis as that tank was supposed to end production anyway.

IMO German armor production plans for 1944 were logical but like so many plans they didn't survive enemy contact. 
- The Panther was an excellent tank and it was inexpensive to mass produce. 
- Jagdpanzer was superior to StuG III (especially armor protection) and it was less expensive to produce. 



The 1965 Kanonenjagdpanzer looks a lot like a dusted off and updated 1944 Jagdpanzer. I'm not convinced that was smart even if the vehicle was inexpensive to mass produce. It could probably kill BMPs but main battle tanks would make short work of it.


----------



## mikewint (Jul 16, 2012)

I would tend to agree with dave’s title post, i.e.: “too far” the Jagdpanzer IV. It was developed against the wishes of Heinz Guderian, the inspector general of the Panzertruppen. Developers had intended it as a replacement for the Sturmgeschütz III. Guderian objected because its development and production caused a needless diversion of resources from Panzer IV tank production. Guderian felt that the Stug III and IV, though not “state of the art” were still more than adequate for their role as tank destroyers. Additionally the installation of the much heavier Pak 42 meant that the Jagdpanzer IV was nose heavy, especially with the heavy frontal armor. This made them less mobile and more difficult to operate in rough terrain, leading their crews to nickname them Guderian-Ente "Guderian's duck". The nose-heavy Sd.Kfz 162 often caused the rubber rims of the roadwheels to become dislocated by the weight of the vehicle. As a result some later versions had steel roadwheels installed on the front.
They were very successful tank destroyers but performed badly when used out of role as substitutes for tanks or assault guns, as most tank destroyers were. In the later stages of the war however, they were increasin


----------



## davebender (Jul 16, 2012)

1.85m Jagdpanzer IV/48 vehicle height.
2.85m Jagdpanzer IV/70 vehicle height.
It also significantly increased vehicle height which decreased vehicle survivability. 

IMO Germany should have left well enough alone and mass produced the Jagdpanzer with a 7.5cm/48 main gun right to the end of the war. That weapon was powerful enough to kill T-34s and Sherman tanks @ 1,000 meters.

Better yet Germany should have introduced the Jagdpanzer during December 1942 ILO the StuG III G on the Panzer III chassis as originally planned. That way you get a better chassis with torsion bar suspension. By the spring of 1943 all Panzer III production capacity should have been churning out inexpensive (and badly needed) Jagdpanzer. Won't win the war by itself but life for Allied tanks will become even more dangerous.


----------



## mikewint (Jul 16, 2012)

Now if you want to carry the "too far" idea to its extreme conclusion one only has to look at the Jagdtiger
Tiger ace Otto Carius in his memoir Tigers in the Mud stated that Jagdtigers were not utilized to their full potential due to several factors: (1) Allied air supremacy made it difficult to move. (2) The massive gun needed to be re-calibrated from jarring after traveling off-road for even short distances. The types manufactured with the more modern Henschel type suspension system did not have this particular problem. (3) It was slow and consumed 5L of gasoline per Km. (4) Transmissions and differentials broke down easily because the whole 72 tonne vehicle needed to rotate to traverse. (5) The massive gun had to be locked down, otherwise mounting brackets would have worn too much for accurate firing. (6) A crewmember had to exit the vehicle in combat and unlock the gun before firing. However, there are positives to such a massive vehicle and gun (1) A 128 mm projectile went through all the walls of a house and destroyed an American tank behind it. (2) Near Unna, one Jagdtiger climbed a hill to attack five American tanks six-hundred meters away and below; two withdrew and the other three opened fire. The Jagdtiger took several hits, but they could not penetrate the 250 mm (9.8 in) frontal armor. (3) On 17 January 1945 two Jagdtigers used by XIV Corps engaged a bunker line in support of infantry near Auenheim. On 18 January they attacked four secure bunkers at 1,000 meters. The armored cupola of one bunker burned out after two shots. A Sherman attacking in a counterthrust was set afire by explosive shells. The total combat included 46 explosive shells and 10 anti-tank shells with no losses to the Jagdtigers. (4) During April, s.Pz.Jäg.Abt.512 saw quite a great deal of action. On the 9th of April 1945, the 1st company managed to engage an Allied column of Sherman tanks and trucks from dug-down positions, and managed to destroy 11 tanks, with some of the enemy tanks having been knocked out from a distance of more than 4,000 m away. The combat unit only lost 1 Jagdtiger in this incident as Allied ground attack P-47s appeared. During the next couple of days the 1st company managed to destroy a further five Sherman tanks before having to surrender at Iserlohn. (5) On the 19th of December 1944 in the early days of the Battle of the Bulge. Two Jagdtigers were overwatching the town of Noville. An American armored column consisting of eighteen Shermans were on their way to counter attack the attacking German forces, according to military records nine Sherman tanks were destroyed and three were disabled from a range greater than 2 miles. The Sherman column never identified what was engaging them and were forced to fall back.


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

I agree.

The 24 ton Jagdpanzer /48 was effective, reliable and inexpensive to mass produce. Leave well enough alone and churn them out like hot rolls. Germany did not need the Panzerjager Hornisse, Jagdpanzer /70, Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger. If Germany produces enough Jagdpanzer /48 they won't need the dirt cheap but inferior Hetzer either.


----------



## mikewint (Jul 17, 2012)

Dave, I might argue that point. While the Jagdpanzer 38(t) was certainly a “light” German tank killer, the 75 mm PaK 39 L/48 gun of the little Hetzer was able to destroy nearly all allied or soviet tank types in service at long ranges (except heavy tanks) and its fully enclosed armor protection made it a safer vehicle to crew than the open-topped Marders II and III. It was available in relatively large numbers and was generally mechanically reliable and its small size made it easier to conceal than larger vehicles. Additionally the later versions mounted a remote-control machine gun mount which could be fired from within the vehicle which was highly appreciated by its crews. Unfortunately reloading the gun required a crewmember to exit the vehicle exposing himself to enemy fire.
The little “hunting dog” also gave Hitler his wish for a flame-thrower “tank”. In November 1944 a number of Jagdpanzer 38(t)s were refurbished straight from the factory with a Keobe flamethrower and accompanying equipment instead of the normal gun. The flame projector however, was easily prone to damage. Less than 50 of these vehicles, designated Flammpanzer 38, were completed before the end of the war, but they were used operationally against Allied forces on the Western Front.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 17, 2012)

1) Don't mix up ton with tonne, 24t for the L/48 vehicle and 25.8t for the L/70 vehicle (also known as Panzer IV/70).
2) It's for me a mystery how the L/70 variant gained 1m of height unless it's somewhat related to the 70A variant with superstructure bolted onto a standard Panzer IV chassis. The 70V variant had the same dimensions as the L/48 vehicle regarding height.
3) It was not really developed against advice by Guderian, it was actually him who changed the vehicle from "Sturmgeschütz neuer Art" to "Jagdpanzer", otherwise he would not gained control over development and use (StuGs were under control by the Artillery guys).
4) The cannon was a rather bad choice for the Kanonenjagdpanzer, although 90mm caliber it had only a caliber length of 40 so it was in no way comparable to the excellent Panther or Tiger II gun and was ineffective against T-64 and T-72 (only at ranges of 1000m or less)


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

That pretty well sums up why Germany should build the 24 ton Jagdpanzer rather then the 15 ton Hetzer. Both vehicles have similiar weapons and armor protection. However the additional 9 tons allows the Jagdpanzer to have a well laid out compartment for the gun crew.

Amazingly enough the 24 ton Jagdpanzer is lower in height then the 15 ton Hetzer. Lower = more survivable.
1.85m Jagdpanzer /48
2.17m Hetzer


----------



## mikewint (Jul 17, 2012)

Denniss, the ton - tonne confusion usually occures when the words are pronounced. The tonne or metric ton is somewhat of an oxymoron mixing weight and mass. The tonne is 1,000 kilograms of mass. At or near the Earth's surface a kilogram weighs about 2.2 avoirdupois pounds. The tonne has been standardized to 2,205 avoirdupois pounds. The TON (actually short ton) is an English unit of weight and is 2,000 avoirdupois pounds. so the two, tonne and ton, are close at or near the Earth surface.
The LONG TON or 35 cubic feet of salt water, used in ship displacement, is 2,240 avoirdupois ponunds.
Avoirdupois pounds, are of course not to be confused with TROY pounds. Thus a pound of feathers is much heavier than a pound of silver. Thus 12 shillings (silver) to an English Pound (silver). Ain't the English system FUN!!!


----------



## Denniss (Jul 17, 2012)

The 38(t) chassis did not really have sufficient space to mount the gun thus they were forced to increase height. It was rather cheap to produce, Skoda and associated facs were able to mass-produce it and it stayed within the weight limits of the factory cranes. It wasn't possible for Skoda et al to produce heavier vehicles because their factory buildings were not able to cope with the increased weight. (cranes or buildings too weak for the increased weight?!?)

EDIT: a difference of 204.6 pounds is noticable just for one ton/tonne, gets even worse the higher the weight of a vehicle is. The situation is similar with PS and hp - most often you find a literal translation from one to the other instead of a proper transformation/recalculation.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2012)

Denniss said:


> 2) It's for me a mystery how the L/70 variant gained 1m of height unless it's somewhat related to the 70A variant with superstructure bolted onto a standard Panzer IV chassis. The 70V variant had the same dimensions as the L/48 vehicle regarding height.



Probably a misprint from a secondary source. 



Denniss said:


> 4) The cannon was a rather bad choice for the Kanonenjagdpanzer, although 90mm caliber it had only a caliber length of 40 so it was in no way comparable to the excellent Panther or Tiger II gun and was ineffective against T-64 and T-72 (only at ranges of 1000m or less)



The gun used the same cartridge case as as the 90mm gun in the M-47 and M-48 tanks and some of the same projectiles although the HEAT (shaped charge) projectile may be different. Part of it's "problem" is a too protracted development ( prototypes were running in 1960 which means initial design started several years before) and peace time budgets which meant equipment was often kept in service several years after it had ceased being really useful. 

When considering some of these vehicles there seems to be some confusion as to the roles of some of these "anti-tank" vehicles. Since both doctrine and actual use changed,even within the same army, several times during WW II, and not all these vehicles were even intended for the same role it is hard to say that one or two vehicles could or should have replaced all the others. 

It is way too simplistic to say their role was to kill enemy tanks. That is sort of obvious. It is how, under what circumstances, and under who's control that that show the differences. Some of them were intended to support the regular tanks by carrying a bigger gun and firing from longer ranges than the tanks themselves could manage. Some, in desperation (lack of suitable numbers of tanks) were used as ersatz tanks to fill out tank formations/units. Some were intended as self propelled anti-tank guns for mechanized or motorized forces than did not have ( and were never intended to have) tanks. Self propelled anti-tank guns are just what the phrase says. Anti-tank guns that can propel themselves and not have to be towed. Their tactical employment is way different than heavily armored turret-less tanks that take an active and forward role in the armored battle. Playing games with the names (tank hunter or hunting tank) for morale reasons confuses things but in the German Army of WW II those were actually 2 different _classes_ of vehicle.


----------



## mikewint (Jul 17, 2012)

Original design plans are like OPLANS, they never survive contact with the enemy. STUGs were not tanks but if you don't gots no actual tanks you use what you have. Out of bullets, throw rocks. The German Army was almost always supply poor. They made do with what they had at the time


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

> Playing games with the names (tank hunter or hunting tank) for morale reasons confuses things but in the German Army of WW II those were actually 2 different classes of vehicle.


German doctrine changed during 1944. The Jagdpanzer /48 was supposed to replace StuG III assault artillery (i.e. direct fire HE for infantry support) in addition to serving as a SP AT gun.


----------



## psteel (Jul 17, 2012)

Jagd Panzerkannone was paired with the Jagd PanzerRakette, which was the designated ATV with its SS-11 ATGM and later the HOT missile. JPK was to be used as a mobile infantry fire support weapon for the Infantry Brigades and Mountain brigades of the Bundeswehr. This freed up Leopard tanks to function in the pure Panzerbattalions of the PanzerGrenadier and Panzer Brigades. These JPK were not to be used as tanks, In fact when discussions on replacing their roles, the JPK were to have the guns removed and ATGM mounted on top [TOW], so each Heer Brigade could have a full ATGM Company assigned. At this time the Leopard II was rapidly replaceing the Leopard I and it was proposed to reassign these surplus Leopards to the Jagd Panzer units for infantry support. To prevent their use as Tanks the Leopard I turrets would be limited to a traverse in the 180° arc forward.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2012)

mikewint said:


> Original design plans are like ORPLANS, they never survive contact with the enemy. STUGs were not tanks but if you don't gots no actual tanks you use what you have. Out of bullets, throw rocks. The German Army was almost always supply poor. They made do with what they had at the time



True, however an enclosed vehicle, like the Stug, can perform duties that would be extremely hazardous to an open topped vehicle. Likewise the provision of a machine gun that can be fired from under cover also marks a change in a vehicles capability as does the basic armor. The Stug vehicles had armor that was in the same class as the _common_ German tanks for most of the war. It was only in 1944 or so that they fell behind with the Panther becoming _common_ and the Jagdpanzer IV being better protected than a MK IV tank. They could use many of the tank tactics with about the same likely hood of success ( or failure). Trying to use open-topped Marders II and III or even the Hornisse as ersatz tanks is going to result in a lot of lost vehicles for nowhere near the same result. 

While the Hetzer MG did need to be reloaded from out side it beat the heck out of the Stug III and majority of Jagdpanzer IV having to have a crew member stick head and shoulders out of a hatch to fire the unmounted MG 34/42. Granted some Stug IIIs had a metal plate with a hole in it that offered some protection if firing to the front.


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

Sounds like it inherited the StuG III mission. Assault artillery fire support to eliminate machinegun nests and other such defensive strongpoints. Were they normally parcelled out with a platoon or company attached directly to an attacking infantry battalion?


----------



## Denniss (Jul 17, 2012)

psteel said:


> Jagd Panzerkannone was paired with the Jagd PanzerRakette, which was the designated ATV with its SS-11 ATGM and later the HOT missile. JPK was to be used as a mobile infantry fire support weapon for the Infantry Brigades and Mountain brigades of the Bundeswehr. This freed up Leopard tanks to function in the pure Panzerbattalions of the PanzerGrenadier and Panzer Brigades. These JPK were not to be used as tanks, In fact when discussions on replacing their roles, the JPK were to have the guns removed and ATGM mounted on top [TOW], so each Heer Brigade could have a full ATGM Company assigned. At this time the Leopard II was rapidly replaceing the Leopard I and it was proposed to reassign these surplus Leopards to the Jagd Panzer units for infantry support. To prevent their use as Tanks the Leopard I turrets would be limited to a traverse in the 180° arc forward.


Do you have a source for this strange claims? The Kanonenjagdpanzer had always been assigned to anti-tank platoons, often accompanied by the Raketenjagdpanzer 2 based on the same chassis. In the early 1980s 165 JPK were rebuilt into the Jaguar 2 while the others had their gun removed to serve as command or observation vehicles. 
The claim regarding Leo1 and semi-locked turrets is even more strange, also infantry support is not the typical mission task for Panzerjäger companies.


----------



## psteel (Jul 17, 2012)

Yes they had the traditional STuG role and usually a platoon would be down attached to a battalion or company for a mission. The JPK had a ROF of 12 rpm , which meant they could out shoot all Soviet tanks 3:1. They were not meant to shoot it out with enemy tanks, just use their rapid firepower to hit and run and buy the infantry company time to disperse and take cover in a hasty defense.


----------



## psteel (Jul 17, 2012)

Denniss said:


> Do you have a source for this strange claims? The Kanonenjagdpanzer had always been assigned to anti-tank platoons, often accompanied by the Raketenjagdpanzer 2 based on the same chassis. In the early 1980s 165 JPK were rebuilt into the Jaguar 2 while the others had their gun removed to serve as command or observation vehicles.
> The claim regarding Leo1 and semi-locked turrets is even more strange, also infantry support is not the typical mission task for Panzerjäger companies.



Yes when attached to Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Brigades. But W Germany also had Mountain Divisions and regular Infantry Divisions back then and they used the JPK in the traditional STuG role. The info came from magazines in the 1970s 80s.


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

What difference does that make if they are providing direct fire support for infantry battalions? They will be firing HE at enemy field fortifications, not APDS or HEAT at enemy armor.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2012)

From 1960 when the prototypes first ran to the early 80s in over 20 years. What the _intended_ mission of the vehicles was vs what they were used for in their final years of service may not be the same thing. 

A lot of US tank destroyers in WW II wound up doing an awful lot of infantry support ( due to a lack of tank targets), that doesn't mean they were designed for it or even very good at it but at times they were better than _NO_ big gun armor support.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

I agree. We need original German Army specifications that dictated vehicle design.

On a side note....
How did they squeeze a 90mm gun into such a small vehicle? The interior must have been as cramped as a 15 ton Hetzer with a 75mm cannon.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 18, 2012)

I'd suspect it didn't take as much room as the 75mm L/70 gun of the Pz IV/70.


----------



## psteel (Jul 18, 2012)

Speed of shooting is critical especially if your covering retreats etc. The side that shoots first- hits first and kills first. These JPK had mixure of HEAT and HE shells and could quickly shift fire from one target to another.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

Assault artillery covers infantry attacks. AT guns (SP or otherwise) break up attacks by enemy armor. WWII era Jagdpanzer IV and StuG IIIG performed both missions.

Which brings us back to an unresolved question. What was the purpose of the Jagd Panzerkannone? The title suggests anti tank. I have my doubts how effective that 90mm cannon would be against late 1960s MBTs but it could certainly kill BMPs. For that matter the original 1944 Jagdpanzer could also kill BMPs.


----------



## psteel (Jul 18, 2012)

JPK covered both missions as well for Infantry brigades. For Panzer Grenadier brigades it fills the heavy gun SPW role, freeing the Panzer Battalions for counter attack and counter stroke. When the JPK was designed the Main German tank was the M-48 with its 90mm gun, while its main opponent was the T-54/55 line of Tanks. In that mission it was adequately designed to fill its role.

The previous line of infantry AFVs were the full squad HS-30 and a 1/2 squad variant, just like the SPW line. Other Versions of the Hs-30 were planned to include ATGW versions and even a gun variants [90mm or RR?] ,again like the SPW variants that materialize in WW-II. So when the Marder became the center piece AFVs a new AFV was selected to cover these roles that wasn't based on the Leopard chassis.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

The Leopard (both I and II) were excellent tanks but they are too expensive for infantry support. You could never afford enough. Same problem WWII era Germany had with the Panther tank.

What happened to the 10s of thousands of Sherman tanks? Germany could mount that same 90mm gun on refurbished Sherman tanks for infantry support. Should work as well as a JPK and it might be less expensive then building a new vehicle.


----------



## psteel (Jul 18, 2012)

Why would Germany in the 1960s use obsolete gas powered slow WW-II Tanks? The JPK had a 500hp diesel giving the AFV 43mph top speed and cruise distance of 293mi.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmxOQgwtw4A_

As you see in this video , the JPK is about 1/2 the height of the Sherman tank as it passes infront of it.


----------



## mikewint (Jul 18, 2012)

Don’t know if you all intended to wander beyond WWII, but going back to the original theme how about another jagdpanzer “too far” though in some respects “just far enough”. The Elefant, classified as a schwerer Panzerjäger, built in 1943 under the name Ferdinand, after its designer Ferdinand Porsche. In 1944, after modification of the existing vehicles, they were renamed Elefant. The official German designation was Panzerjäger Tiger (P) and the ordnance inventory designation was Sd. Kfz. 184.
Porsche AG had manufactured about one hundred chassis for their proposal of the Tiger tank. Since the competing Henschel Tiger design was chosen for production, the Porsche chassis were no longer required for the Tiger tank project. It was therefore decided that the Porsche chassis were to be used as the basis of a new heavy tank destroyer, mounting Krupp's newly developed 88 mm Pak 43/2 anti-tank gun. This precise long-range weapon was intended to take out enemy tanks before they reached their own range of effective fire.
September 1943 all surviving Ferdinands were recalled to be modified based on battle experience gained in the Battle of Kursk. During October and November 1943, 48 of the 50 surviving vehicles were modified by addition of a ball-mounted MG 34 in the hull front (to improve anti-infantry ability), a commander's cupola (modified from the standard StuG III cupola) for improved vision and the application of Zimmerit paste. This and other minor armor changes increased the weight from 65 to 70 t (that’s tonne or metric tons, 70,000kg or 1.7t lighter than the jagdtiger). These improved vehicles were then unofficially called Elefant, and this became the official name by Hitler's orders of May 1, 1944. 
89 Ferdinands were committed to combat in the Battle of Kursk. Able to knock out a T-34 at a range of over 3 miles it was highly effective at destroying Soviet tanks. However, in this original configuration without a machine gun as secondary armament it was vulnerable to attack by infantry. While this was a disadvantage, most combat losses were from mine damage and mechanical failure. Within four days nearly half of the vehicles were out of service, mostly due to technical problems and mine damage to tracks and suspension. Combat losses to enemy action were very low as the very thick armor protected the Ferdinand from almost all Soviet antitank weaponry. Almost of the vehicles destroyed or captured had been abandoned by their crews after mechanical failure (sound like a familiar theme for German heavy tanks). 
Although the Elefant modifications improved the vehicles, some problems could never be fully fixed. In 1944, the Elefants served on the Italian front but were rendered rather ineffective, as their weight of nearly 70 tonnes did not allow them to use most Italian roads and bridges. Due to a permanent lack of spare parts most of the units were not destroyed in battle, but abandoned and blown up by their own crews (once again sound familiar?).
In spite of all that, the Ferdinand/Elefant may have been the most successful tank destroyer employed during the war in kills per loss, reaching an average ratio of approximately 10:1. During the Battle of Kursk, the 653rd schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung, knocked out 320 enemy tanks, for the loss of 13 Ferdinands. This impressive average ratio was due to its extreme firepower and protection, which gave it an enormous advantage when used in head-on combat or a static defensive role.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2012)

davebender said:


> What happened to the 10s of thousands of Sherman tanks?


 Most were in scrap yards if not aready melted down.




davebender said:


> Germany could mount that same 90mm gun on refurbished Sherman tanks for infantry support. Should work as well as a JPK and it might be less expensive then building a new vehicle.



It might be cheaper but all you are saving is the hull and turret shell. New engine, new transmission, new tracks, new or re-manufactured suspension. New radios, vision equipment and so on. For modern engines only the Shermans with liquid cooled engines would work (larger, longer hull had room for the radiators). Only the 76mm armed tanks had a turret with a hope of holding a 90mm gun and that is with modification. Most NATO armies had requirements for NBC sealing and pressurization that might be difficult for a Sherman to meet. 

Middle Eastern or South American armies might be willing to put up with less extensive modifications.

> The Germans may have learned something form their motley collection of WW II vehicles. The 1960 era vehicles were design for easy maintenance, fast engine and barrel changes. The Jagdpanzer Konone was supposed to part of a family of vehicles that included the rocket/missile version, a turreted recon tank (not proceeded with) and the Marder MICV which eventually evolved into a somewhat more different vehicle. How many common parts were left ( running wheels, suspension, etc) I don't know. Refurbing WW II tanks would have none of those advantages.<


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2012)

Not mass production vehicles such as the Jagdpanzer and Hetzer were.

91 Elefant SP AT guns were built using existing tracked vehicle chassis that otherwise would have been scrapped. Such expedients make sense during wartime.


----------



## mikewint (Jul 19, 2012)

The ever practical Germans: Waste not want not


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2012)

Have you examined the German Navy? At the start of WWI they still had naval vessels dating to the 1860s in the mothball fleet.

M140. A 500 ton German coal fired mine sweeper.
.....1919 Launched too late for service in WWI. Rebuilt as ferry.
.....1922 Sold to Britain.
.....1927 Sold to Italy.
.....1972 Rebuilt as restaurant ship. Still existing as of 1994.

Buy German equipment and it can be rebuilt forever!


----------



## mikewint (Jul 19, 2012)

Off to the Navy. The US had a fairly modern Navy in 1914:
In August of 1914 the US Navy had 10 modern Dreadnoughts. The oldest 4 ships were the South Carolina class (2) and the Delaware Class (2) dated from 1910.
There were 23 pre-Dreadnought battleships. The Indiana class (3) 1895; the Iowa 1897; the Kearsage class (2) and Illinois class (3) dating from 1900; and the good old Maine class (3) from 1902
There were 12 Armored Cruisers. The oldest was the ACR.3 Brooklyn 1896
Protected Cruisers (24) dated from 1887 to the newest St.Louis class (3) 1905
Plus 50 Destroyers dating from 1902 to 1912


----------



## psteel (Jul 19, 2012)

mikewint said:


> Don’t know if you all intended to wander beyond WWII, but going back to the original theme how about another jagdpanzer “too far” though in some respects “just far enough”. The Elefant, classified as a schwerer Panzerjäger, built in 1943 under the name Ferdinand, after its designer Ferdinand Porsche.....
> 
> In spite of all that, the Ferdinand/Elefant may have been the most successful tank destroyer employed during the war in kills per loss, reaching an average ratio of approximately 10:1.



The original question of the thread actually refered to the "Jagdpanzer Kanone", not the WW-II tank destroyers.

With regards Kursk and Ferdinand, I gather that Marder Battalions did just as well getting 10:1 kill ratios. It was the training and experience of the gunner that made the difference , not so much the gun and massive tank chassie it was mounted on. What they needed was more not better.There training would do the rest.

How many more Marders or other tanks could have been built /converted instead of the tonnage/labor and funding involved in the Ferdinand produciton.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 20, 2012)

German leadership was somehow obsessed with heavy tanks and they had these heavy chassis already present so they found some use instead of scrapping them. They indeed failed to notice how valuable these rather cheap Marder vehicles were. They had the StuG III but this was controlled/manned by the artillery guys, not by the armor guys, so couldn't be used in AT units.


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2012)

Apparently some StuG commanders didn't get the message. 
panzerace.net | michael wittmann biography


> On 12 July, Wittmann's StuG III was ordered to move to a vantage point on a hill, designated Point 65.5. After reaching their objective - after nearly running into a ditch! - Rottenführer Klinck, Wittmann's gunner, spotted a number of enemy Panzers rapidly approaching. After moving into a postion offering additional visual advantage, eighteen T34/76 tanks were spotted, one group of twelve and another group of six. After ordering his driver Koldenhöff to reposition the vehicle on the left side of the hill, Wittmann prepared his crew for the onslaught, and the gun was set to take the Russian Panzers head-on. After repositioning again in order to gain a view over the hill, the first of the T34/76s was quickly taken out with one round of armour-piercing shot from the 75mm KwK. As the StuG III was not equipped with a rotating turret, all of the responsibility was placed on the driver Koldenhöff, who with consummate skill quickly rolled the vehicle into a suitable vantage point, allowing Klinck to obtain an accurate bead on a second T34/76, which was quickly engulfed in flames. Within seconds, loader Petersen had slammed the next round into the hot and oily breech. After a close escape from another T34/76 (and a Russian gunner with a very poor aim!), Wittmann managed to reach the edge of a small wood in order to plan his next move. While carrying out a quick recce on foot, Wittmann spotted a third enemy vehicle. Assuming that he had not been spotten, Wittmann was rocked off his feet when a terrific crash sounded around him. After dusting himself off, he found himself looking at the destroyed T34/76, its turret completely blown off and now sticking out of the ground like a flag-pole. Klinck's powers of observation, initiative and gunnery skills had been the obvious factor here: while both vehicles had fired simultaneously, Wittmann's gunner had been alert enough to locate, sight and hit the target. On returning to his cupola, Wittmann was the first to praise his skillful gunner.
> 
> After another near miss, following two misplaced shots from an itinerant T34/76, Wittmann quickly spotted another Soviet vehicle. Kicking the powerful Maybach engine to life, Koldenhöff skilfully manoeuvred the StuG III to allow Klinck a crack at the enemy Panzer. In a flash, the fourth Russian tank was obliterated. After another close encounter with a rather deceptive water crossing, expertly negotiated by Koldenhöff, Wittmann set out to locate three Russian vehicles he had seen earlier. After scanning the area, he saw the three T34/76s sitting with engines running on top of a hill. After Koldenhöff quickly moved the StuG. III to within 500 metres of the last Soviet Panzer, Klinck, quickly reacting to Wittmann's command, let off a round of 75mm armour-piercing shot, which found its way to the Russian vehicle with a resounding crack. The remaining T34/76s quickly directed their aim towards Wittman's vehicle, and Koldenhöff desperately moved the StuG III into position. Klinck let go another round - which bounced off the enemy tank. Loader Petersen was working overtime, and Klinck evetually managed to get a shot in, which seemed to have disabled the turret of the enemy machine. While all of this was happening, the third T34/76 had decided to head for safety. Their work seemingly done, Wittmann and his crew begin to head off, only to see the turret of the second T34/76 crank back into life! Petersen quickly slammed in another round into the breech, and the resulting shot saw the Russian vehicle burst into flames, its crew desperately trying to escape the inferno. On this day, in addition to the tremendous courage shown by Wittmann and his crew in the destruction of six Soviet vehicles, the brave Waffen-SS Unterscharführer was to show a spirit of humanity that was otherwise lacking in this terrible conflict. Seeing three of the Russians in obvious pain, he ordered his crew to smother the flames engulfing them with their bed rolls.
> 
> The evening of 12 July 1941 was to see Unterscharführer Wittmann being awarded the first of what would be many decorations, the Iron Cross Second Class, which he received from an elated 'Sepp' Dietrich. As a testament to the humanity of this brave soldier, on being asked by Dietrich if he had a special wish, Wittmann requested that the three wounded Russians be given the best medical treatment. The newly-decorated StuG III commander was warmly received by his loyal crew - a warrior had truly been born.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> Have you examined the German Navy? At the start of WWI they still had naval vessels dating to the 1860s in the mothball fleet.
> 
> M140. A 500 ton German coal fired mine sweeper.
> .....1919 Launched too late for service in WWI. Rebuilt as ferry.
> ...



most of the time, but not always. Australian army purchased 120 leopard Is in 1974, and regretted ever buying them. Basically useless junk. Armour crystalizzed with heat within 10 years of purchase. we could only ever use them for lightweight training....they were never sent on any of the major excercises in the 80s. many of my friends in the RAAC were scathing in their comparison to the centurions they had replaced. We had used Centurions in Vietnam successfully, but the govt scrapped them with indecent haste in favour of that German junk.

In the late nineties we looked at the german Marder APCs. they cost a bucket to buy, over 8 times the cost of the ASLAVs and 30 times the cost of the bushamasters that we also bought. They are very good, but if you are only able to afford to mechanize 1/8 of your force structure, i hardly see the advantage


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm under the impression the Leopard I had rolled homogeneous armor. Normally that stuff is stable forever (except for rust).

Do you have additional details concerning the Leopard I tank armor?


----------



## mikewint (Jul 20, 2012)

Since this thread is posted in WORLD WAR II - GENERAL I assumed that was what we were discussing.
While the Marders were certinly cheap they had some serious flaws especially for the crews. The Marder II came in two major versions. The first version, Sd.Kfz. 132, was based on the light Panzer II Ausf. D/E and Flammpanzer II chassis with Christie suspension. It was armed with captured Soviet 7.62 cm guns, re-chambered to accept German 7.5 cm Pak 40 ammunition, which improved its penetrative capabilities. These Marder IIs had a very high silhouette of 2.60 m high, thin armor of only 30 mm in the front and 10 to 15 mm on the sides. Worst of all there was no armour on the top or rear, *leaving the crew with very little protection*.
The second version Sd.Kfz. 131 was based on Panzer II Ausf. A to C removed from active service (Waste not want not) but later also newly produced Ausf. F chassis were used. This second version had a redesigned fighting compartment and used the German 75 mm Pak 40 anti-tank gun. The silhouette was lowered by about 40 cm to 2.20 m, but the armor remained thin and the *fighting compartment was still open to the top and rear*. Quite obviously the Marder's major weakness was survivability both of the vehicle and crew. The combination of a high silhouette and open-top fighting compartment made the Marders vulnerable to indirect artillery fire, shrapnel, and grenades. The thin armor also made them quite vulnerable to enemy tanks or infantry. The open top also meant that operations in urban areas or other close-combat situations were very risky. They were best employed in defensive roles. However, they were still much more effective than the towed antitank guns they replaced.


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2012)

That's not high by WWII armored vehicle standards. About the same as a Panzer IV.

However I agree WWII era Marder SP AT guns were nothing but inexpensive improvisations. They compare poorly to a StuG III G and even more poorly to the Jagdpanzer /48. Without the immediate need for large numbers of SP AT guns they would not have been built. 

Here's an even more desperate attempt to produce SP AT guns.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2012)

mikewint said:


> Since this thread is posted in WORLD WAR II - GENERAL I assumed that was what we were discussing.
> While the Marders were certinly cheap they had some serious flaws especially for the crews. .................The combination of a high silhouette and open-top fighting compartment made the Marders vulnerable to indirect artillery fire, shrapnel, and grenades. The thin armor also made them quite vulnerable to enemy tanks or infantry. The open top also meant that operations in urban areas or other close-combat situations were very risky. They were best employed in defensive roles. However, they were still much more effective than the towed antitank guns they replaced.



That is what I was referring to earlier. Even to the Germans in WW II they were two different and distinct classes of vehicle. The Marders were _NOT_ a cheap and cheerful version of the Jagdpanzers. They filled a different role.


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2012)

170 Marder I built on captured French 37L artillery tractors.
24 Marder I built on captured French H-39 tank.
10 Marder I built on captured French FCM36 tank.

576 Marder II built on new Panzer II chassis.
75 Marder II built on converted Panzer II tank. (presumably ausf C)
201 Marder II built on converted Flammpanzer II and Panzer II ausf D chassis.
.....835 Wespe and Wespe ammo carriers built on Panzer II chassis. 
.....Production of Panzer II chassis ended during August 1944.

177 Marder III built on new Pz 38(t) ausf G chassis.
410 Marder III built on new Pz 38(t) ausf H chassis.
194 Marder III built on converted Pz 38(t) ausf H tank.
975 Marder III built on new Pz 38 (t) ausf M chassis.
…..Marder production ended during May 1944.

2,584 Hetzer built April 1944 until end of war. All new construction.
…..The 15 ton Hetzer is built on an enlarged Pz 38(t) chassis with a newly designed upper hull. It replaced Marder III on the production line.


----------



## psteel (Jul 20, 2012)

The apparant vulnerablity of the Marder is not significant in the combat results of 1943/44, they still got high kill ratio comparable to other AT units. It was and always is crew training Command ability that determines the effectiveness of any asset. Just like people critize Hetzer due to its cramp quarters, but it was feared by the Russians due to its small size making almost invisible. 

Sending Marders in as 'Tanks' to lead an attack or counter attack is as poor a decision as using Hvy tanks as mobile TD for an front line infantry division.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2012)

The Marders were self propelled anti-tank guns. They equipped the anti-tank units of formations (Divisions) which did not have tanks. They were very useful in defense (letting the tanks come to them). Because of their mobility they could easily be re-positioned in a fighting withdrawal, or set up to stop a a break through. They were near useless at leading an attack, although they may provide fire support to an infantry attack from hundreds of yds to the rear. They were not intended to stand and slug it out with enemy armor. Shoot and scoot was more the likely tactic. 
The long barreled Stugs and the Jagdpanzers were also of limited value in leading an attack. They were much more suited to stand-up fights with enemy armor than the Panzerjeagers as they often had frontal armor equal to the contemporary German medium tanks (MK III MK IV). Because of the roof protection they were better suited for supporting the infantry at a closer distance than the Marders. 
German supply problems sometimes lead to vehicles being used by units that normally were not issued to them. Expedient field use should _NOT_ be confused with either original intent or with proper tactics.


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2012)

German assault artillery doesn't lead attacks per se. They support attacks. Similiar to the Soviet Su-76, U.S. Sherman /105mm and British Churchill Mk V (95mm howitzer).

WWII Germany had to face hordes of enemy tanks on a regular basis. That wasn't an issue for the Soviet Union, USA or Britain. Consequently German assault artillery evolved into a dual purpose weapon that could defeat enemy tanks while performing the assault artillery mission. There's no such thing as a free lunch though. A high velocity 75mm shell is inheritly less effect vs MG nests then a low velocity 105mm artillery shell. If Germany had enough tanks to go around then all StuG III Gs would probably have been armed with a 10.5cm howitzer rather then just a few.

I see some of this trade off in the 1965 German Jagdpanzer. The 90mm/40 cannon was effective vs enemy infantry but not as effective as a 105mm howitzer. However with APDS rounds it was also effective against the hordes of Warsaw Pact BMPs and T-55s. Hull design was similiar (in fact almost identical) to the WWII Jagdpanzer so I assume it was equally inexpensive to produce.


----------



## psteel (Jul 21, 2012)

Traditional STuG role was to move as part of the infantry advance and provide fire support and instantaneous counter fire to emerging/surprise targets. In the case of WW-II eastern Front and the WARPACK the vast majority of the units the Germans would face would be Rifle Regiments with some tank support. So the main target they are going to be shooting at would be enemy infantry and troop positions, field artillery mortars etc. For both the JPK and STuG the main armament was fine with supplementary MG fire.

BTW the JPK 90mm gun was a medium pressure gun @ 40 calibre lengths. I could not fire APDS but fired HE and HEAT rounds. For the 60s-70s planned targets that would have been sufficient.


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2012)

That seems strange to me.

BMPs had AT3 missiles with a max range of 3km. A 1965 Jagdpanzer needs a weapon which can reach out that far. APDS is more accurate then HEAT at such long ranges.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 21, 2012)

BMP-1 go in production in '66 probably when designed JPK they have no idea of that IFV with ATGM


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2012)

Ruhrstahl X-4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Germany invented the wire guided anti tank missile during 1945. 

SS.11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
France fielded the SS.11 anti tank missile during 1956.

Vickers Vigilant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Britain fielded the Vigilant anti tank missile during the late 1950s.

Surely it must have occurred to 1960 Germany that the Warsaw Pact would eventually field a wire guided anti tank missile of their own.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 21, 2012)

my point was not that CCCP would not field a ATGM (as actually did in 60s), but a IFV with ATGM i think at time of JPK design this was a very limited possibly


----------



## psteel (Jul 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> Surely it must have occurred to 1960 Germany that the Warsaw Pact would eventually field a wire guided anti tank missile of their own.



Yes it probably did occur to them, but they would 'cross that bridge when they got to it', which is probably why they had the Jagd Panzer Rakette [SS-II ATGM] built alongside the JPK. The solution later adopted was to convert remaining front line JPK into missile units and then progressively add Milan ATGM to the Marder ICV as needed.




Vincenzo said:


> my point was not that CCCP would not field a ATGM (as actually did in 60s), but a IFV with ATGM i think at time of JPK design this was a very limited possibly



Yes exactly. At this point ATGM were something of a novelty that had to prove themselves, which they did in the 1973 Arab Israeli War. After that every one went missile crazy.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2012)

I might also note that a 1973 missile was a far cry from even a 1956 missile let alone a a 1945 missile. Early guidance systems needed a lot of skill on the part of the operator, an awful lot of skill. 

They also had a _MINIMUM_ range of hundreds of meters. 
And a rather slow rate of engagement. Time of flight plus time to reload launcher/s meant 1 to 2 rounds per minute at the longer ranges. 
For a while the gun armed and missile armed vehicles could complement each other. The early missles only reaching a high hit probability at ranges where the 90mm hit/effectiveness was falling off. 

The Germans had the Jagdpanzer Rakete (Jpz 3-3 with SS-11 ATWG) on the Spz 12-3 (HS 30) chassis in service before the later Jagdpanzer Rakete (RJPZ-2). The larger heavier later model only had room for 14 SS 11 missiles but could hold 20 when the missile was changed to the HOT.


----------



## DonL (Jul 21, 2012)

> most of the time, but not always. Australian army purchased 120 leopard Is in 1974, and regretted ever buying them. Basically useless junk. Armour crystalizzed with heat within 10 years of purchase. we could only ever use them for lightweight training....they were never sent on any of the major excercises in the 80s. many of my friends in the RAAC were scathing in their comparison to the centurions they had replaced. We had used Centurions in Vietnam successfully, but the govt scrapped them with indecent haste in favour of that German junk.



What is to me realy curious is, that the other states with the Leopard I hadn't this massive problems. The Bundeswehr was realy happy with the Leo I and it was in service till 2005-2006. 

So I think there should be something with the extreme climatic terms at Australia cause I haven't heard of the same problems from other states.
But at Brasilia and Chile are also not the same climatic terms as in Europe, so I'm a little bit confused that the australian army had that much problems with the LeoI


----------



## psteel (Jul 21, 2012)

People can read more at the following sites.

Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Raketenjagdpanzer 1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HS 30 Walk Around Page 1


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2012)

Why didn't Germany build this IFV on the same chassis as the Jagdpanzer? That way you get economy of scale by building a single tracked vehicle chassis in large numbers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2012)

Because the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 predates the Jagdpanzer by a number of years (about 5)?

Economy of scale only works so much, a 15 ton vehicle vs a 27 ton vehicle. The 27 ton one is _NOT_ going to be cheaper unless you build a crap load of them. With just under 2200 of the smaller chassis built the scale of production for the larger chassis would have to be enormous. 

The Jagdpanzer chassis was not ideal for an MICV but it provided the _starting point_ for the Marder MICV which was wider, longer ( added one road wheel) swapped ends ( engine and drive sprocket went from back to the front) and used a different engine and transmission in the end.


----------



## psteel (Jul 21, 2012)

If you follow the wiki like there was some kind of scandal surrounding this production which came from Swiss/UK design. The vehicle had reliability problems and strange layout for infantry sections. They had to dismount and mount through the hull top? Germans probably wanted to get control of their own designs/production since 10,000 were initially planned. 

BTW The Jagdpanzer production did exceed 900 units.


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2012)

The 1965 Jagdpanzer is essentially just a 1944 Jagdpanzer with torsion bar suspension, modern engine and different cannon. Why can't Germany update the Jagdpanzer during 1955 rather then waiting until 1965? They could build an IFV or APC variant on the same chassis as the gun armed version. The 1944 Jagdpanzer was designed for low cost mass production so I doubt it would cost more then designing and building the new Hs.30 vehicle.


----------



## psteel (Jul 22, 2012)

Not exactly PC at that time to revive any WW-II Designs. War ended only 20 years before.


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2012)

So 1950s Germany should pay more for an inferior design just to be politically correct?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 22, 2012)

davebender said:


> So 1950s Germany should pay more for an inferior design just to be politically correct?


The Bundeswehr wasn't even allowed to form till 1955, so i'm sure they didn't feel it'd be too smart to immediately start just dusting off old 3rd Reich designs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2012)

You are off subject. You asked why didn't the Germans make a huge production run of the 1960-65 Jagdpanzer chassis and use them as APCs (MICVs) to lower the unit price. The answer is that the HS 30 design was ordered in the mid/late 50s and was being manufactured and issued about 5 years before the Jagdpanzer chassis vehicles would have shown up. 

The HS 30 chassis had a rather bewildering number of variants, both prototypes ( 12 different?) and paper proposals. It was also a bit small to be really practical at some of them and even made a rather poor APC/MICV. As would any updated 1944 Jagdpanzer without major modifications which rather blows a good deal of the supposed savings. 

The German army may have wanted a better vehicle than the 1944 Jagdpanzer in 1960 or 65 no matter how cheap it was. While the Hs 30 used a gasoline engine NATO was moving towards diesel (unfortunately with a side detour with _multi-fuel_) but it did have an automatic transmission with 8 forward speeds. this 14600kg vehicle had a speed of 58kph and a range of 270km, both well beyond the capabilities of the 1944 vehicle. The 1965 Jagdpanzer used a V-8 500hp diesel to drive it's 27500kg weight at 70kph and had a range of 400km on the road. It also had an automatic transmission. While automatic transmissions are more expensive to build and buy to begin with they really cut down on the number of vehicles sidelined with blown clutches and wind up with lower costs over 10-20 years in maintenance and with a higher percentage of vehicles available for duty at any given time.


----------



## psteel (Jul 23, 2012)

Can you imagine how angry the soviets would get if the Germans started to build thousands of improved Panther tanks with diesel engines and 17lb or 20lb guns firing APDS?


----------

