Tango01 | 09 Dec 2020 4:19 p.m. PST |
…or a Killer? "By 1943 it was obvious to the Germans that their tank production could not keep pace with battlefield losses. One of their efforts to expedite weapons production was the conversion of old, outdated tank chassis into tank destroyers, or Jagdpanzers. Early efforts demonstrated the rushed and sometimes rough mating of a small, old tank with a large, powerful gun. The Marder series especially appeared cumbersome and top heavy. The most successful conversion was the Jagdpanzer 38(t), commonly referred to as the Hetzer…."
Main page link Amicalement Armand |
14th NJ Vol | 10 Dec 2020 7:42 a.m. PST |
Scary looking no. About the size of a small SUV. A killer, yes with the right crew. That gun was dangerous to most allied vehicles. |
Legion 4 | 10 Dec 2020 9:50 a.m. PST |
|
donlowry | 10 Dec 2020 10:20 a.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 10 Dec 2020 12:19 p.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 10 Dec 2020 3:49 p.m. PST |
Yes if you are going to be technical about it… it can be considered an Assault Gun. But generally it's a light TD … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer |
deadhead | 11 Dec 2020 8:37 a.m. PST |
An A/T gun that was pretty lethal just pulled around on two wheels had to be even better once self-propelled and any armour protection is just the icing on the cake. Best of all, the low profile means it is almost as easy to conceal as the towed gun. |
deephorse | 11 Dec 2020 9:18 a.m. PST |
it can be considered an Assault Gun. By whom? |
Legion 4 | 11 Dec 2020 9:35 a.m. PST |
By whom? Obviously not you … but … linkFrom the link … German and Soviet assault guns introduced during World War II usually carried their main armament in a fully enclosed casemate rather than a gun turret.[6] Although this limited the field of fire and traverse of the armament, it also had the advantage of a reduced silhouette and simplified the manufacturing process.[6] So some could consider the Hetzer an Assault Gun. Even though it's role was primarily a TD or even a SPAT … However, I'm sure if need be it would have been used in direct support infantry, depending the terrain and situation, etc. E.g. we use TOW AT missiles to take out bunkers, etc., not just for AT … You were an Infantry Plt Ldr, yes ? So you know about using what you have on hand to do the job, if need be, yes ? Were you a Company Cdr ? I was a Mech Co. Cdr with 14 M113s plus two M901 ITVs. I'd use the ITVs if I had to to support my Infantry if assaulting a bunker(s) or even in MOUT. Anything to keep my losses as close to 0 as possible. And keep the enemies losses as high as possible. I've seen footage of a TOW being used to take out a sniper in A'stan in the mountains. It worked ! |
donlowry | 11 Dec 2020 11:13 a.m. PST |
It generally used to equip panzerjager companies in Volksgrenadier divisions -- so it was a tank-destroyer (jagdpanzer). |
Andy ONeill | 11 Dec 2020 12:38 p.m. PST |
Panzerjager in german, tank destroyer in english. Some tank destroyers had turrets. Not a defining feature of tank destroyers though. |
Legion 4 | 11 Dec 2020 5:25 p.m. PST |
It generally used to equip panzerjager companies in Volksgrenadier divisions -- so it was a tank-destroyer Yes I know that but it does resemble the type of AFV considered an Assault Gun. But it is used as a TD because that is what it was designed for and the main gun is an AT weapon. And yes it was generally used in that role. Again, German and Soviet assault guns introduced during World War II usually carried their main armament in a fully enclosed casemate rather than a gun turret.[6] Although this limited the field of fire and traverse of the armament, it also had the advantage of a reduced silhouette and simplified the manufacturing process.[6] ----------------------------------------------------------- Panzerjager in german, tank destroyer in english. Some tank destroyers had turrets. Not a defining feature of tank destroyers though. Yes, I have a working knowledge of German, especially some military terms. And yes, some TDs like the US M18, M10 and M36 had turrets. Where, e.g. the Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger and the Hetzer had a fully enclosed superstructure[sometimes referred to a fully enclosed casement] "similar" to an Assault Gun. |
Col Piron | 12 Dec 2020 8:35 a.m. PST |
These were known as Panzer IV/70 (V) & (A) , just to confuse things .
|
Legion 4 | 12 Dec 2020 8:46 a.m. PST |
Yes, I also remember reading about/seeing photos, etc., of those. Even made some 1/72 scale models of them in my youth. They were basically a Pz IV with built up casement/superstructure and an AT Gun as a main weapon. Not really an Assault gun, but it certainly looked like one. But again, Assault Guns generally have lower velocity weapons for direct support of Infantry. But as I tried to convey, you may have to use what you have on hand. A TD could end up being used in the direct support of Infantry role, and Assault Guns may have to take on tanks. |
donlowry | 12 Dec 2020 9:22 a.m. PST |
A TD could end up being used in the direct support of Infantry role, and Assault Guns may have to take on tanks. True. And U.S. Tank Destroyers were often used as tanks or even self-propelled artillery, just to add to the confusion. |
jdginaz | 12 Dec 2020 11:37 a.m. PST |
The "Hetzer" was designed to be and was used as a SPAT. The armor used to produce it was and older half as efficient type according to Hilary Doyle. YouTube link Starting at 17:30 |
Wolfhag | 12 Dec 2020 12:22 p.m. PST |
The original StuG had a short 75mm gun designed to support infantry assaults and take out defensive positions with HE fire, not engage tanks. That was the job of the Panzer IIIs. The short barrel and low muzzle velocity was more accurate and easier to bracket with than a high velocity gun when attempting to hit a point on the ground, not a vertical target like a vehicle. Once the StuG had a long 75 gun it would no longer be ideal for the assault role but evidently was still called an assault gun. Maybe because it was under the influence of the artillery branch. I'd think it would then actually be a mobile anti-tank gun used in the anti-tank role. Since it was designed to support infantry assaults it would be called an assault gun. Anything with a high velocity gun would most likely not qualify as an assault gun as it would not normally be used in the assault role but than any gun could when needed even if not designed for that role. When needed the StuG short 75 could engage enemy tanks with HEAT rounds but I don't think it would qualify as an anti-tank gun. Wolfhag |
Tango01 | 12 Dec 2020 12:47 p.m. PST |
Thanks!. Amicalement Armand
|
14Bore | 12 Dec 2020 1:08 p.m. PST |
As I do watched a video not long ago on the Hetzer, it showed it was quite the death trap if one needed to get out in a hurry. |
deephorse | 12 Dec 2020 2:32 p.m. PST |
Were you a Company Cdr ? No. I left and got a proper job before that point. ;) |
HMS Exeter | 12 Dec 2020 5:08 p.m. PST |
Scary? Try darling. Come on, these were the "Herbie the Love Bug" of sp guns. |
jdginaz | 12 Dec 2020 9:00 p.m. PST |
The HEAT round for the 7.5cm L24 had serious accuracy problems and was not used much. |
Garand | 12 Dec 2020 9:45 p.m. PST |
When the Hetzer was first developed, it was originally called Leichte Sturmgeschuets 38(t), & went through a number of namechanges (such as Leichte Panzerjaeger 38(t)) before settling on Jagdpanzer 38(t). So the distinction wasn't exactly clear back then either. These vehicles along with the StuG III & StuG IV were integrated into infantry divisions to give them organic armored support, so would have been used in the AT as well as infantry support roles when necessary. Damon. |
Legion 4 | 13 Dec 2020 10:27 a.m. PST |
No. I left and got a proper job before that point. ;) Good for you ! I preferred staying in the US Army 10+ years. I don't like being a civilian all that much. But that was a long, long time ago … The "Hetzer" was designed to be and was used as a SPAT. Yep said that already … "So some could consider the Hetzer an Assault Gun. Even though it's role was primarily a TD or even a SPAT". --------------------------------------------------------- Yes Wolf that is the way I understood it. From much study and wargaming. And I built models of all of those and more in my youth ! ----------------------------------------------------------
The HEAT round for the 7.5cm L24 had serious accuracy problems and was not used much. Yes it is a short barreled cannon and initially was used in a support role along with other Panzers that had "better" AT weapons, e.g. the Panzer IIIs, 35ts and 38ts. In the early battles of the the blitzkrieg in e.g. France, Belgium, etc. -----------------------------------------------------------
it was originally called Leichte Sturmgeschuets 38(t), & went through a number of namechanges (such as Leichte Panzerjaeger 38(t)) before settling on Jagdpanzer 38(t). So the distinction wasn't exactly clear back then either. Yes that is what I was getting at. Bottom line again, it looked similar to an assault gun but mounted an AT weapon. These vehicles along with the StuG III & StuG IV were integrated into infantry divisions to give them organic armored support, so would have been used in the AT as well as infantry support roles when necessary. BINGO !!!! -----------------------------------------------------------
True. And U.S. Tank Destroyers were often used as tanks or even self-propelled artillery, just to add to the confusion. And as we see, in many cases in the field you don't get wrapped up in "it was designed as a TD but can't be used as weapon to support an Infantry attack", or vis versa. In many cases use what you have available on hand. E.g. the example I posted about using my ITVs to support an Infantry attack. |
chironex | 15 Dec 2020 4:37 a.m. PST |
The Australian Armour and Artillery Museum once had a T-shirt in black, for girls, with the Hetzer image and the words "Because it's cute!" Printed in PINK. Doesn't look so scary.
|
deadhead | 15 Dec 2020 5:52 a.m. PST |
Would any Australian Army units have ever faced a Hetzer, let alone the King Tiger in the photo background? My recall is that all ground units were called back in 1942 because of the Japanese threat. But so often my absolute convictions prove misplaced! |
Legion 4 | 15 Dec 2020 8:39 a.m. PST |
Neat ! The "ANZACs" may have run into the Hetzer or even Tiger II in the ETO. But I have never heard of that ever occurring ? The ANZACs served in Italy, so they certainly could have run into German Armor of some types. I'm sure ANZACs were fighting in Italy in '44 at e.g. Monte Cassino. link And were not all deployed back home in case of an IJF's invasion. Albeit the NZ Div was at Cassino … So ? As well as in NA, before Italy, where they even used captured Italian armor for a short time at the beginning of the campaign. |
4th Cuirassier | 15 Dec 2020 12:00 p.m. PST |
I've long thought Hetzers, PanzerJaeger Is etc should get a higher defensive value than their armour connotes to reflect their dinky, harder to hit size. |
Murvihill | 15 Dec 2020 12:40 p.m. PST |
Classifying German armor will give you headaches. For practical purposes: An AFV with a high-velocity gun and poor armor is a panzerjager. An AFV with a high-velocity gun and good armor is a jagdpanzer. A medium or low velocity gun and heavy armor is an Assault gun A medium or low velocity gun and poor armor is self-propelled artillery. The Germans used the same hulls for many different variants so you'll find examples of all these in numerous combinations. |
Mserafin | 15 Dec 2020 2:32 p.m. PST |
And just to confuse things further, recall that the original nomenclature of the Ferdinand/Elephant was " Sturmgeschutz mit 8.8 cm," until Guderian found out about them and had them read-designated as Jagdpanzer so he would have control of them. |
Legion 4 | 15 Dec 2020 4:19 p.m. PST |
Agree with all 3 of you! I started building models and studying WWII AFVs in High School. The Germans were masters at over engineering and their language reflects that as well. As I said, as we see, in many cases in the field you don't get wrapped up in "it was designed as a TD but can't be used as weapon to support an Infantry attack", or vis versa. In many cases use what you have available on hand. |
donlowry | 15 Dec 2020 4:45 p.m. PST |
I'm sure ANZACs were fighting in Italy in '44 at e.g. Monte Cassino. Those were New Zealanders, not Australians. |
deadhead | 16 Dec 2020 2:29 a.m. PST |
Yes, read up on it since. No Australian ground troops in ETO after 1942….not unreasonably! I think Murvihill has summed it all up beautifully. |
Warspite1 | 16 Dec 2020 4:23 a.m. PST |
Just to add my two pennies worth… Most modern assessments of the Hetzer are that it was a death trap on wheels. The interior was very cramped, due to the slope of the sides, and the vision equipment was very poor. The commander would spend a lot of his time with his head out of the hatch to be able to see anything. Lindybeige is quite scathing about: YouTube link The Chieftain says the commander's position is 'miserable' and things only get worse as you go inside. YouTube link The second link shows that the interior was an ergonomic nightmare. The Chieftain says the breech operation lever is on the wrong side of the gun for the loader who has to lean over the weapon – and the tank's drive shaft – to eject a spent round. The Chieftain says the floor escape hatch 'would only suit an octopus' but: "if you are sufficiently motivated you CAN get out of anything…" |
Legion 4 | 16 Dec 2020 9:19 a.m. PST |
Those were New Zealanders, not Australians. For the record I said that already… " Albeit the NZ Div was at Cassino … " … And it is clear to me now that the only "ANZACs" in the ETO were NZlanders. A fact I must have forgot. As I have played many games about WWII Italy in the past.👴 My badd … 😕 Mea Culpa ! 🙏 I throw myself on the mercy of the court … Warspite1 +1 … Having spent some time in various AFVs while the 10+ years when on active duty. I can say some were better ergonomically, etc. than others. E.g. some of the Russian AFVs would be better suited if crewed by Dwarves ! 😕 |
Wolfhag | 16 Dec 2020 11:50 a.m. PST |
I've seen the Chieftains video, it's very good. Any AFV design is full of tradeoffs and will have special characteristics. The Hetzer could be considered a mobile armored anti-tank gun. If you use tactics and situations that play to their strengths you should be fine. If you try to fight as an AFV you'll lose. With a mission of supporting the infantry, the tactics are to conceal and hopefully get a flank shot or ambush. An attached infantry unit is your eyes and ears to keep you from getting flanked so the thin side armor is not a factor. A level of surprise should allow 2-3 shots before the enemy detects you. Then you execute your pre-planned strategy to pop smoke, fall back, Shoot & Scoot, to another prepared ambush position. If you can execute those tactics the fact that the TC is blind to the right and restricted when buttoned up is not a factor. The gun can start with a round in the chamber and one in the loader's lap. That means you can get two shots off in about 5-6 seconds and three in about 15 seconds. After that, you are most likely going to relocate so the poor loader position and ergonomics are not a real factor. If engaging an enemy formation from its flank while it is in a skirmish/line ahead formation the limited gun traverse will not be a factor either. If the Hetzer was in an ambush position long enough it would have a range card knowing the distance to specific locations eliminating the range estimation error and significantly increasing the chance of first-round hits. The German's use of flashless powder will make it even harder to spot in a concealed position, especially if the enemy is flanked and buttoned up. This could allow 1-3 more shots before being detected and forced to move. With a Hetzer on each enemy flank, you have one open fire. When they turn to face it and shoot it pulls back and the one on the other flanks open fire targeting their rear. With the Hetzer's small size and sloped frontal armor and mantlet, it has a good chance of surviving a hit from a Russian 85mm AP round from 600m+. So yes, it was a death trap on wheels even more than most AFV's were in WWII. The ergonomics were terrible but keeping the action to 30 seconds or less would not be a fatigue factor. The right tactics make it a very cost-effective, dangerous, and survivable vehicle when used correctly. In our games, we have experienced Hetzer players pulling off these tactics all the time. Wolfhag |
Gauntlet | 16 Dec 2020 2:36 p.m. PST |
What fog of war system do you use to allow proper ambush tactics wolfhag? |
Murvihill | 16 Dec 2020 3:03 p.m. PST |
Hetzers may have been ergonomic nightmares, but the choice was a Hetzer or nothing. |
Wolfhag | 16 Dec 2020 3:58 p.m. PST |
Gauntlet, There isn't a specific "system", we just use hidden deployment. We allow units to acquire a target and then track it before shooting. So a concealed anti-tank gun that cannot be spotted over 200m away can acquire a target at 1200m that is moving towards a road junction. The AT gun has ranged in (zeroed in) on the junction at 600m. As soon as the target gets to the junction the gun opens fire. So "proper" ambush tactics involve being concealed, ranged into locations you expect the enemy to move to (Range Card), acquire at long range, track him and open fire at the right time. Enemy units beyond the AT gun spotting range (normally 200m) will need to spot your flash with their Situational Awareness Check to return fire. I guess you could say you just use real-life tactics, nothing special. The overall game system uses a Game Clock and OODA Loop Action Timing (how long it takes to shoot). So if an enemy came into the AT gun LOS when the clock shows 3:27 and it takes 12 seconds to acquire the target and shoot he'd normally shoot at 3:39. However, when the clock "ticks" to 3:39 the player can choose to "Hold Fire & Track" allowing him to shoot immediately in any future turn as long as the target is still in his LOS and FOF. This is unknown to the opposition. Immediately after shooting, he determines how long it will take to reload, aim and shoot again (OODA Loop Action Timing), normally 5-10 seconds depending on the gun, crew, and longer if suppressed. This is all unknown to the opposition which creates more Fog of War. This system eliminates the need for unit activations, initiative, and special opportunity fire rules. Wolfhag |
Gauntlet | 16 Dec 2020 7:26 p.m. PST |
That sounds pretty complicated but very interesting! |
Wolfhag | 16 Dec 2020 10:49 p.m. PST |
Gauntlet, Yes, it's very complicated, especially for older and experienced players as they seem to have the hardest time. Why? Well, it seems that in most games that are some version of IGYG, unit activations, and sequenced initiative action, the player can sit there and wait to be told what he can do and when. I've played some games where you don't have to watch the action very closely (especially if all your units are already activated) and can be on your cell phone until the GM tells you it's your "turn" to do something like move or shoot. Since your move and shoot orders are executed immediately you don't really have to think or plan ahead. You just roll the dice and shoot at any targets the rules allow you to when it is your turn. Sometimes enemy units can move right past you and there may be nothing you can do about it. Most games have some type of opportunity fire rules. This is a real generalization; I know there are exceptions and some games portray the action better than others. The Game Clock: It's just a player operated device (paper and pencil are fine) where the game seconds are "ticked off" one by one and announced to all players. Any player can "stop" the game clock to perform an action like shooting or reacting to enemy activity (it's not played in real-time). If no one stops the clock it continues to "tick" for any number of seconds until a player stops it to perform an action. So the game clock is always moving to the next player action without the need for initiative and activations. That's very complicated for some people to wrap their heads around. How can you play a game without initiative, IGYG sequences, and unit activations? In an OODA Loop Action Timing system, all units are active as they would be on a real battlefield and both sides can stop the clock to react to enemy shooting or moving the second (game time not real-time) it happens, including changing your order. A player might be controlling up to a dozen vehicles and needs real "Battlefield Situational Awareness" and skill because at any second the situation can change, just like on a real battlefield. Reactions are mutual for both sides when an action occurs or a new LOS appears. If he misses a chance to react at 2:33 and realizes it at 2:37 he just gave his opponent a 4-second timing advantage (initiative you might say). You snooze – you lose. In our games, no one is on their cell phone or walking away. No one knows from one second to the next what will happen or who will shoot. Fast-moving units can disappear from your LOS before you shoot. The catch is, just as on a real battlefield, you may notice an enemy threat you want to shoot at but it may realistically take 5-15 seconds to get your crew into action, engage and shoot. So in the game when you want to shoot, interrupt the game clock, roll a D6, add or subtract 2-4 variables and that tells you how long (in game seconds) it will take. Better crews are quicker, poor crews slower. The game clock then continues to tick. If the clock showed 3:13 when you stopped it and your D6 result was 12 seconds you stop the clock again to shoot when 3:25 is announced – if you are still alive. Those 12 "game seconds" could take in real clock time from 10 seconds if there are no other players stopping the clock to shoot or 2+ minutes if there are many players shooting. Each unit is operating in its own OODA Loop Action Timing "bubble". As soon as you execute an order/shoot immediately determine what to do next and how long it will take. That's another concept some people find complicated. Now if an opponent stops the clock to shoot at you when it shows 3:24 and blows you up, too bad, you are dead and don't get to shoot as you were one second too slow. Seconds count in real combat and in the game too. You could say the game is a version of IGYG, "I go before you go because I'm quicker. You go after me if you are still alive". I could explain how movement synchronizes moving and shooting allowing each moving unit to simultaneously advance on the table at its true movement rate on a second to second basis with the game clock but that's too complicated. However, it's the easiest part of the game and the players rarely must touch the model. The game really intimidates some people but it is simple enough for a 12-year-old to play. Wolfhag |
Gauntlet | 17 Dec 2020 7:12 a.m. PST |
Are the rules online somewhere? I'm curious to read more. How long does it take to play a normal sized engagement? |
donlowry | 17 Dec 2020 10:02 a.m. PST |
I'm impressed! Very interesting system. Are these rules published? |
Wolfhag | 17 Dec 2020 1:53 p.m. PST |
Gauntlet, I'll have a free print & play download version ready next month, hopefully. Also instructional videos. This version has been played by teenagers with no wargaming experience. I'm not sure what a normal size engagement is. It's not difficult for new players to control 4-6 vehicles but you can control 10+. Two-player games take 1-2 hours. I've had 9 player games take 4 hours. It's very playable for solitaire games too. Micro and 10mm scales is 1" = 25m, 15-20mm is 1" = 10m. 28mm 1" = 2m. Large games are best with the smaller scales. I'll have combined arms rules in late 2021. donlowry, Most of the games were played at conventions in the SF Bay area with new players. I needed to develop the game so we could start playing with a 10-minute overview, some move/shoot examples, and how to navigate the customized vehicle data cards. There were no rules to read but I will have Quick Start rules for the free Print & Play version. The data cards use the historic weapons platform performance with a minimum of abstractions. That allows a more realistic engagement time and rate of fire. A key difference in the system is how Situational Awareness is portrayed. You can react to an enemy event but poor Situational Awareness (suppressed, buttoned-up, blind spot, flanked, two-man turret, poor crew, etc) may mean it could take up to 15 seconds (Engagement Delay) to actually notice the threat and go into action (some abstraction here). An Engagement Delay gives additional time for your opponent to go into action while you can not. It's a "time competitive" type of initiative. A typical engagement could be an enemy that pops into your LOS in your overwatch direction and you are unbuttoned with a Vet crew. You both "stop the clock" and immediately take an SA Check (roll 1-3 D6 with 2-4 modifiers). Your SA Check will most likely result in 0-2 seconds delay and if you already have a round in the chamber about another 4-6 seconds to engage, aim and shoot (that's an ideal example). If your target is being flanked, moving, and buttoned up he could have a 5-10 second Engagement Delay before he notices you. The surprise could be complete with your target first noticing you as an AP round bounces around the inside of his compartment. While most games have rules with a % chance of performing an action or activating, a "time competitive" (OODA Loop Action timing) game allows your crew to do almost anything, it's just a matter of how long it will take (better crews are faster, poor crews slower) and if the enemy will interrupt it before they are finished. The Game Clock synchronizes all units OODA Loop Action Timing allowing all units on the table to interact with each other on a second-to-second basis with a minimum of rules. Really. When a unit finishes a "loop" he immediately begins a new Action Timing Loop to shoot again at the same target (roll 1D6 with 2-3 modifiers) or an SA Check to engage a new one. To move place a movement marker. Forget it is a game and think and act like a real tank crew, the play aids, and data card will guide you. There was a more detailed discussion in the Game Design section: TMP link Ask any questions there. I don't want to hijack the thread more than I already have. I can post a graphic of movement, it's easier than explaining it. Wolfhag |
donlowry | 18 Dec 2020 10:26 a.m. PST |
|