The success of Jadgpanzer IV as the late war german TD.

[Peasant]

The quote:

While the Jagdpanzer IV was a success, it most likely was a waste of effort. The very vehicle that inspired the Jagdpanzer IV, the StuG III, was in full production when the Jagdpanzer IV was designed, and was in fact the most produced German armored fighting vehicle of the war. The StuG III possessed equivalent firepower to the Jagdpanzer IV in the 75- millimeter PaK 39, and nearly the same armor protection as the early variants of the tank destroyer. It was not possible to simply produce StuG IIIs as tank destroyers, though, because Wa Prüf 4, the Artillery Branch, handled assault gun design while tank destroyer design was the responsibility of Wa Prüf 6. Had the StuG III been produced as a tank destroyer in place of the Jagdpanzer IV, significant savings could have been realized in key materials, notably copper, aluminum, and zinc. Even without the later L/70 gun of the Jagdpanzer IV, the StuG III proved to be an effective tank destroyer. Introduction of the L/70 armed Panzer IV lang came several months after the introduction of the more powerful JagdPanther. The JagdPanther equaled or eclipsed the Jagdpanzer IV in all areas, yet less than 300 were produced, as compared to over 1500 Jagdpanzer IV. Had Jagdpanzer IV development been rendered superfluous by use of the StuG III, far more resources could have been allocated to this more effective weapon.

Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA428697.pdf

After reading the previous paragraph, it got me thinking and I want to hear your opinion on this.

Personally, at the moment, I agree with the author. The early versions of JgdPz. IV were better, but not qualitatively better than Stug III G while latter ones were a bad design and a waste of resources that would've been better employed at producing JagdPanther TDs.

[Michael Kenny]

The Stug book by Muller & Zimmerman has a few paragraphs on the vulnerability of the Stug in 1944 and the decision to attach JgdPz to Stug units to protect them from Allied tanks.

[Alejandro_]

I think it is more complex than what the quote implies. StuG and Jagdpanzer were produced using different tooling in different factories, thus if you stop making one it does not translate in making more of the other. The choice would be between Panzer IV Ausf H/J or Jagdpanzer.

[Mobius]

That seem to take the opposite approach of Ye Olde Panther vs Panzer IV thread. Where the argument went that the Germans should have stuck with building Panzer IVs and not built any Panthers because of the savings in resources and time involved.

[Yoozername]

I believe that paper was discussed before. Basically a melange of numbers, opinion, factoids etc., just so some officer gets a Phd.

The Jagdpanzer IV was meant to be employed within armored divisions. It made sense since they would be logistically compatible with the Panzer IV. The StuG III was meant for the Sturmartillerie branch. To say the StuG III is a TD means nothing. German infantry were tank destroyers, 37mm Stukas were Tank destroyers, Flare guns could be tank destroyers. All weapon systems seemed to have to fight the great numbers of T34s. StuGs would be used in Panzer Divisions as ersatz 'tanks' and also panzerjager, just because there was nothing else, and Marders were death-traps. StuGs were also used in PGD, Infantry divisions and also Sturmartillerie units. Eventually, Hetzers were to be used in infantry divisions and PJ units.

The StuG had the advantage of a cupola for the commander. This is disregarded by many, and they just look at the gun and armor. The Jagdpanzer IV was meant to be more of a defensive weapon. It had better protection than the Panzer IV, and could better fight enemy armor. The Sturmartillerie were meant as an offensive arm of the German Army. That is, they would fight with the infantry. The Sturmartillerie units were sometimes attached to a panzer unit, and they did not like fighting alongside panzers. But, the panzergrenadiers from those PD liked the way the StuGs operated and keeping the casualties low.

As the enemy weapons evolved, the StuG's armor was not really that much better than the Panzer IV. They were smaller, and still useful if used in Sturmartillerie units with StuH. But going up against T-34/85 or M4/76 would be dicey. The jagdpanzer IV would be better. I wonder why there was no Jagdpanzer III that could at least have a simpler sloped armor superstructure. The StuG III design had a lot of welding IMO.

[Peasant]

Thanks everyone, that answers some of my questions.

On the matter of having a simple, monolithic glacis plate: on one hand it would improve protection but would complicate the maintenance and replacement of drive-train components in the front of the vehicle. It seems as the war went on the germans were becoming progressively more willing to accept this compromise, see Stug III and JgdPz.IV vs Jdgpz38(t) and JagdPanther. Since at that point in war they were almost constantly retreating, I would say having all of their AFVs in running condition at all times should've been the top priority.

[Yoozername]

Something like this would have been a better 'TD' if the Germans could interupt the production stream. I feel the same way abouqt the Panzer IV, which really did not get much improvement once the H model came out (maybe less with the J).

https://panzerpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Jag ... ematic.jpg

[Yoozername]

This is a quote from the thesis cited in the OP.

Off all the German weapons available in 1942, only the 75-millimeter PaK 40 and
the 88-millimeter PaK/FlaK series had been found to be adequate to deal with the T-34.
The captured Russian weapons, though powerful, would not be available in sufficient
numbers to arm new tank destroyer models. With improved models of both the T-34 and
KV-1 appearing every year with heavier armor, it became obvious that only a highvelocity weapon of 75-millimeter caliber or greater would be appropriate.

The Naval officer that wrote this thesis is clearly wrong. The KWK 40 and StuK 40 both were available in 1942 and could deal with the Soviet tank threat. The Soviets had dropped the add-on armor for T34 and KV tanks, and would soon decrease the KV armor in the KV-1S.

This thesis is hinged on the L70 version of the 'Panther' gun then. The Germans had fielded this gun in the Panther in mid 1943. They did not field the 'StuK' version in the jagdpanzer Iv till mid 1944.

StuG III, though, especially when armed with the PaK 39, was an extremely successful
tank destroyer. In 1943, the StuG III superstructure was mated to the Panzer IV chassis,
producing the StuG IV. The new vehicle mounted the same 75-millimeter L/48 behind
80-millimeter of frontal armor.3
With the Panther and Tiger designs still in development,
and the StuG IV in service, it was a relatively simple decision for Vomag to develop an
improved variant of the Panzer IV specifically for the antitank role.

The author is clearly mixed up here. The StuG IV was a expedient design in reaction to the bombing of the StuG III assembly plant in late 1943. The Tiger and Panther had been fielded for over a year and 6 months respectively by this point. The Pak 39 was not used in the StuGs.

It was Vomag's decision? Is that how it works?

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi ... dpanzer-IV