A Jagdpanzer too far?

[psteel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[psteel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Most were in scrap yards if not aready melted down.

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]

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]

The ever practical Germans: Waste not want not

 

[davebender]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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