Of the two major SP AT guns used by Germany in WW2, which preformed better for the cost, the StuG III or Hetzer?
The Hetzer was cheaper, smaller, but too heavy for the chassis and cramped, while the StuG III was more expensive, but didn't have the technical issues and had better ergonomics for the crew, despite having less frontal armor protection in comparison and a higher silhouette.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgesch%C3%BCtz_III
What was a better SP AT platform: StuG III or Hetzer?
Re: What was a better SP AT platform: StuG III or Hetzer?
stg 44,
Several other issues with the Hetzer's: it's narrow traverse for the gun, meaning that the entire vehicle had to be turned to aim it, exposing the more lightly armored sides and the gun being designed for loading from the right side, but due to design, the loader was on the left.
Regards,
Rand
Several other issues with the Hetzer's: it's narrow traverse for the gun, meaning that the entire vehicle had to be turned to aim it, exposing the more lightly armored sides and the gun being designed for loading from the right side, but due to design, the loader was on the left.
Regards,
Rand
- Christian Ankerstjerne
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 14028
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Re: What was a better SP AT platform: StuG III or Hetzer?
On paper, the technical differences were marginal. The gun traverse difference of four degrees is less significant than the additional ten degrees of gun elevation for the Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. G. The Jagdpanzer 38 was underpowered, especially cross-country and in reverse, which could potentially be an issue in hit-and-run tactics.
The frontal armor is better angled for the Jagdpanzer 38, but the thinner nominal armor plate would, unlike that of the Sturmgeschütz III, be overmatched by every gun used by medium tanks in 1944 and 1945. The thinner side armor should only be an issue if employed incorrectly, but incorrect employment was increasingly an issue as the experience of German soldiers declined. As it were, unlike that of the Sturmgeschütz III, the side and rear armor of the Jagdpanzer 38 could be penetrated by 12.7 mm machine guns.
The ergonomics of the Sturmgeschütz III was significantly better, the effect of which is much more difficult to quantify. Again, however, with the decline in the experience of German soldiers, the effect of this discreprency would likely increasingly favor the Sturmgeschütz III.
In the end, the vehicles were sufficiently similar to be considered reasonably equal. The choice of the Jagdpanzer 38 as the planned basis for all future light armored vehicles (assault gun, light tank destroyer, anti-aircraft tank, self-propelled howitzer, and reconnaissance vehicle) was more a matter of the Pz Kpfw III chassis being too heavy to be manufactured in the Czechoslovakian factories without delays than any inherent advantages of the Pz Kpfw 38 (t) chassis.
On a side note, you may find this August 1944 experience report on the Jagdpanzer 38 that I translated earlier today interesting.
The frontal armor is better angled for the Jagdpanzer 38, but the thinner nominal armor plate would, unlike that of the Sturmgeschütz III, be overmatched by every gun used by medium tanks in 1944 and 1945. The thinner side armor should only be an issue if employed incorrectly, but incorrect employment was increasingly an issue as the experience of German soldiers declined. As it were, unlike that of the Sturmgeschütz III, the side and rear armor of the Jagdpanzer 38 could be penetrated by 12.7 mm machine guns.
The ergonomics of the Sturmgeschütz III was significantly better, the effect of which is much more difficult to quantify. Again, however, with the decline in the experience of German soldiers, the effect of this discreprency would likely increasingly favor the Sturmgeschütz III.
In the end, the vehicles were sufficiently similar to be considered reasonably equal. The choice of the Jagdpanzer 38 as the planned basis for all future light armored vehicles (assault gun, light tank destroyer, anti-aircraft tank, self-propelled howitzer, and reconnaissance vehicle) was more a matter of the Pz Kpfw III chassis being too heavy to be manufactured in the Czechoslovakian factories without delays than any inherent advantages of the Pz Kpfw 38 (t) chassis.
On a side note, you may find this August 1944 experience report on the Jagdpanzer 38 that I translated earlier today interesting.