A Jagdpanzer too far?

[davebender]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[davebender]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.