""Building Guderian’s Duck", The Jagdpanzer IV" Topic

I never knew that it was known as "Guderian's Duck". And this was written by a USN officer . Robert

Building Guderian's Duck: Germany's response to the Eastern Front antitank crisis, 1941 to 1945.

"The appearance of the T-34 in 1941 caused a crisis for German antitank forces. Existing antitank guns were nearly impotent against the new Russian tank, while antiaircraft and artillery pieces, though successful when pressed into action, were insufficiently mobile to accompany mechanized forces. The German Army Ordnance Office, the Heereswaffenamt, was responsible for development of new weapons and would be responsible for countering the threat of Russian armor. The Heereswaffenamt would need to not only counter the T-34, but also do so in an environment of shifting political relationships and with an increasingly stressed industrial system. Utilizing lessons from the bitterly contested battlefields of western Russia, the Heereswaffenamt developed a tankdestroyer, the Jagdpazer IV, using the existing chassis of the Panzer IV tank, and the guns of both the Panzer IV and Panther tanks. The Jagdpanzer IV, known by its crews as Guderian's Duck, proved to be a capable tank killer against both the T-34 threat of 1941 and 1942, as well as the improved versions of 1943 and 1944. "

PDF link

I think only the version using the longer 7.5cm L70 gun is called the Duck, because the heavier gun makes the vehicle front-end heavy and making it less maneuverable.

You can certainly see the length here,

I'm pretty sure that the JagdpzIV only entered service in 1944, so the sentence "The Jagdpanzer IV, known by its crews as Guderian's Duck, proved to be a capable tank killer against both the T-34 threat of 1941 and 1942, as well as the improved versions of 1943 and 1944" must be mistaken. Taskforce58 is correct in his assertion that the later more numerically important IV/70 version was known as the Guderian Ente (duck) due to the difficulties keeping the front heavy vehicle straight, leading it to seem to 'waddle' like a duck in the eyes of the landsers.
CJ

Rosenheimer, the phrase is awkward, but I don't think that is what he is saying. I think he is saying that it was a capable killer of the T-34/76 models M1940, M1941, M1942, and was still potent against the T-34/76 model M1943 and the T-34/85 models M1943, M1944 and M1945.

Damon.

If it used the gun of the Panzer IV and Panther tanks, where's the muzzle brake?

That was my understanding too Garand.Robert

Only the early versions have the muzzle brake. Crews then discovered that because the gun is so low to the ground, when it fired the muzzle brake directed some of the gas down towards the ground blowing up a cloud of dust and dirt, betraying the vehicles position. Later production models have the muzzle break removed.

Tim. I think that problem was inherent to quite a few designs. Just too low to the ground. Robert

The gun was mounted so far forward the length was excessive. The vehicle had problems with trees and other obstructions. The book written by a man who served in them

link

says the commonest form of damage was the gun being displaced by collisions.

the commonest form of damage was the gun being displaced by collisions.

I just finished a 15mm Jgpz IV/70 from Peter Pig and it was always a worry the barrel get caught on something while I'm working on it.

"says the commonest form of damage was the gun being displaced by collisions."

I bet it was. Too long and too close to the ground. Robert

July of 1944 was when the short, L48 versions were in combat in Normandy.

Why where the L/48 versions even build? I dont see much advantage to them over a normal MK IV, other than they may be cheaper. Now the L/70, sure it had a very definate advantage. Lots of problems as well, but hey all tanks are compromises.

Owen

Normandy

"Why where the L/48 versions even build? I dont see much advantage to them over a normal MK IV, other than they may be cheaper. Now the L/70, sure it had a very definate advantage. Lots of problems as well, but hey all tanks are compromises."

Yes, cheapness and ease of build were the considerations here. The Germans tried cost-cutting measures to get more combat AFV's in service.

They had the capability to build the L48 versions earlier than the L70 versions, so they built them.

Now at Samur

With the armor cracked like that I think it shows how fragile some armor can be. Robert

Can you imagine getting them off a railroad car LOL. Robert

Tim one time in Reforger, we captured LTC Abrams JR in his M-1 because he got caught on a narrow german road with an ammo truck in front of hm and an 8 onch howitzer behind him.He claimed he would just shoot the truck until he found out how many tons of arty shells it was carryinfg. He refused to pop the hatch and get his picture taken.

One of my favorite restraunts got badly damaged when another unit put a barrel through the front window because the street was much narrower than they thought.

Also saw the barel shroud ripped off of an M-60A3 when they didnt get the travel lock locked on a rail move and thee turret rotated sideways until they hit a train station. Komrad was not amused.

We always had trouble moving M109s around in the trees. I always felt sorry for the few units of the old 175mm guns, those things looked like a narwal.

Owen

Robert one time I had to back my M577 off of a truck because my driver was to scard to do it. nobody had checked the platform height and ther was a drop of almost 24" when you backed off. I did it because while I probably could have forced him to do it a terrified driver does not make good decisions. Scared the crap out of me when it tipped all I could see was sky, not even the ground guide. I had some unfriendly words with the S-3 NCO when i cuaght up with him.

Owen

See, there were some advantages to the wee 2pdr!

Here is one on the back of a transporter,

link

Robert – that may well be a captured example, as it's an allied truck/trailer combination. It looks like a Dyson trailer & probably a big Mack hauling it.

This jagdpanzer breaks with tradition by having a cross on the front glacis …

Thats what it is Etranger. It gives a good idea as to the angle the barrel had to be just to get it on a trailer. Robert

It is also one of the rare variants with the angled superstructure simply welded to the underlying Pz IV hull (Jagdpz IV 70(A) iirc). I shall have to dig out my old Jagdpanzer IV book, but iirc they were also a stopgap untuil 'proper' Jagdpanzer IV 70/Vs could be manufactured.

I think next to the Hetzer the Jagdpanzer IV does look like a hunter. Robert

Jagdpanzer IV destroyed by air attack near Dasburg.

link

link

"View of German soldiers aboard a Jagdpanzer IV/70 tank destroyer from the 12th SS Panzer Division during the Battle of the Bulge"
link

Soviet captured Jagdpanzer IV
link

link

I thought it was the other way around: the JPz IV with the high superstructure was built late in the war when they were desperate to get "tanks" out. That guy is awfully warmly dressed for Normandy, and there aren't any leaves on the bush in front of the JPz. Can anyone confirm the where and when of the photo?

A Missing-Lynx forum member, Claude Gillono says:

Panzer Voran issue 19 (7-8-9/2003) published the findings of Didier Kamowski (Salut Didier !) about this Panzer IV/70 (A) now preserved in the Saumur Museum.

The ECPA-D has many photos of the AFV whortly after its capture in running condition and we have captions to go with them.
The Panzer IV was lost near Rudin (in the sector of the 3e DIA – 3rd Algerian Infantry Division – French 1st Army) to the West of Colmar in December 1944 (from 14 to 27/12).
Two German columns attacked the French positions and II/Pz Regt 2 apparently lost one of the 11 Alkett variants received on 16/11/44 (or 11/16/44 if you prefer).In support of the troops were units from CC5 (Combat Command 5 from 5e DB – 5th French Armored Division) and they should have fielded at the time only 75mm armed Shermans and 76.2mm M10s.

link

link

link

link

link

JPIV, Paris area

link