What was a better SP AT platform: StuG III or Hetzer?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Post Reply
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

What was a better SP AT platform: StuG III or Hetzer?

#1

Post by stg 44 » 30 Aug 2014, 01:23

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

RandJS
Member
Posts: 324
Joined: 04 Oct 2008, 12:36

Re: What was a better SP AT platform: StuG III or Hetzer?

#2

Post by RandJS » 30 Aug 2014, 02:06

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


User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14027
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: What was a better SP AT platform: StuG III or Hetzer?

#3

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 30 Aug 2014, 23:49

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.

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”