Hetzer - Jagdpanzer 38 (t): The most cost-effective German tank hunter

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,356
South of the barcodes
#11
What that doesnt show is the silhouette from the front.

The Hetzer is over a foot narrower than the Stug and because of the tapered crew compartment its lower and maybe a third narrower in the roof. It also has a flat and angled front plate unlike the Stug which has too many shot traps.

The Stug is probably a better vehicle overall because of placement of the sights and better commanders visibility unless your using the scissor periscope.

But that thing is tiny, well armoured from the front and has a great gun (even if it is a pig to reload) so its great ambush weapon. Its just not something youd want to be driving round in, the side armour is like a tin can.
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,356
South of the barcodes
#13
I do ;)

since i couldn't get them lined up last time i was tank hunting i'll have to drag out my house pets.





Sherman Firefly seems to have lost a headlight in the last dusting and the Hetzer needs a bit of work on the splinter pattern.

If you include the remote control MG on the Hetzer and the commanders cupola on theStug 3 theyre the same height but the difference in width and mass is very noticeable.
Then again if you ever get a chance to look inside one the space inside the Stug 3 is a lot better. You might get a better ambush in a 38t but youd be better fighting in a Stug 3
 
Likes: sailorsam
Jun 2019
24
USA
#14
I feel the Germans screwed up, not impossible to put the driver on the Right, and offset the gun so the loader is on the correct side of the cannon. The Flakpanzer 38T had the driver on the Right, after all.
Then a real cupola with 360 vision blocks for the TC, and hatches for the crew to bail quickly.
 
Jul 2016
9,305
USA
#15
What that doesnt show is the silhouette from the front.

The Hetzer is over a foot narrower than the Stug and because of the tapered crew compartment its lower and maybe a third narrower in the roof. It also has a flat and angled front plate unlike the Stug which has too many shot traps.

The Stug is probably a better vehicle overall because of placement of the sights and better commanders visibility unless your using the scissor periscope.

But that thing is tiny, well armoured from the front and has a great gun (even if it is a pig to reload) so its great ambush weapon. Its just not something youd want to be driving round in, the side armour is like a tin can.
The Hetzer only has 20mm side armor, right? With armor that light, why even bother sloping it? It is already too vulnerable to basically all AT weaponry, and on top you lose interior space.
 
Likes: marathag

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,356
South of the barcodes
#16
Havent got a clue.

That late in the war it might simply have been easier for production to cut single slabs of steel? The only hatches and access are on the rear hull to allow access to the engine and the hull roof to allow for crew hatches and the sights. Its about the simplest structure known to mankind.

If you look at a Panzer 3/Stug 3 hull theres a lower front plate to the nose, the semi-vertical nose plate, the sloped upper plate of the nose then the upper deck of the nose with access points for the transmission and gears, then the vertical front plate with the drivers visor. Thats at least five plates that need cutting, welding, fitting, hinges, fitting hatchways into access points, locks etc before you move back behind the drive sprocket..

So the Stug has better armour but im wondering how quicker it is to produce the Hetzer?

Or it might simply be that theyd heard about the T34 myth?

Last time i managed to get a look inside a Stug 3 and Panzer 3, although i might have done some rust damamge to the floor by drooling too much and the Stug still had its original zimmerit so you werent allowed to be too active climning on it. the Hetzer was a static display and sealed up, no playing around, so i've looked inside the Stug, im clueless about the inside of the Hetzer except for photos and poking round the outside.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,714
Stockport Cheshire UK
#18
'Better than pushing a PaK 40 thru the mud'
That statement reminded me of the British SP gun the Archer, first introduced in late 44.
This was a 17 pdr gun mounted facing the rear on a Valentine tank chassis. This was designed to overcome the difficulties of moving heavy AT guns into position quickly to defend newly taken territory.
As such it was operated by the Royal Artillery rather than the Tank Corps . 610px-Archer.jpg
 
Likes: andyferdinard

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,491
Sydney
#19
the sturmgeschutz were also part of the artillery branch as assault guns
this was consistent with general Estienne WW1 concept of armor providing artillery support to the infantry