Tango01 | 29 Aug 2021 9:54 p.m. PST |
"Why build the "Hetzer" (Jagdpanzer 38 (t)) in the first place? Why don't continue the productions of Stugs – Sturmgeschütze regular assault guns? For this we talk to the director of the Panzermuseum Munster Ralf Raths." YouTube link Armand |
Frederick | 30 Aug 2021 5:48 a.m. PST |
Great piece and I did not realize the issue with the factory cranes – which explains a lot; thanks for sharing |
donlowry | 30 Aug 2021 8:21 a.m. PST |
I got no sound when I tried to watch it. |
Thresher01 | 30 Aug 2021 9:03 a.m. PST |
I hadn't heard about the cranes issue either. Not sure why they couldn't just make new ones. I imagine a lot of the issue was also the use of existing hulls, and wanting to do something with those. Interesting info about how cramped it was internally, which makes sense, and perhaps needs to be considered in various rules to make using the Hetzer a little more difficult, instead of it being the superfast, supersmall, uber-weapon many consider it to be. Perhaps a bit harder to get it aimed and to fire on targets, or to reload, since it is so cramped. Thinking especially for the "What a Tanker" rules here. |
John the OFM | 30 Aug 2021 10:01 a.m. PST |
A lot may have to do with how Hitler was always trying to have every service compete with each other, and duplicate each other. A StuG is an "assault gun", thus technically artillery. A Hetzer was developed to use the Czech chassis, which stayed in production for a long time. The 38(t) may have long been obsolete, but the chassis was still worthwhile, and the factory was still out of bomber reach. So if both could be produced, why not? It's irrelevant how the StuG was used. It was still considered "artillery", while the Hetzer was considered a pure tank destroyer. Don't blame me. Blame Wehrmacht bureaucracy. |
Andy ONeill | 30 Aug 2021 10:46 a.m. PST |
It's the entire production line they'd need to change. Then the component suppliers. It's a big deal changing the type of tank a line makes. They also started making stug 4 at the same time. Panthers were intended to replace pz4 in the main tank role. |
Mserafin | 30 Aug 2021 11:58 a.m. PST |
The StuG 4 was an interim design to make use of existing StuG 3 components after the main StuG producer (Alkett). I think someone else made the superstructure that Alkett joined to the chassis. Since the other factory was still making the superstructure, it was decided to fit some on Pz 4 chassis so there wouldn't be an interruption in StuG production. |
Tango01 | 30 Aug 2021 3:54 p.m. PST |
A votre service mes amis…. Armand
|
Mark 1 | 30 Aug 2021 4:12 p.m. PST |
I imagine a lot of the issue was also the use of existing hulls, and wanting to do something with those. It has some relationship to the existing hull design, but not the existing hulls. Hetzer hulls were different in detail from the prior hulls, and were uniquely built for Hetzer production. It was not identical to the older 38t or Marder hulls, and was not a retro-fit. I hadn't heard about the cranes issue either.Not sure why they couldn't just make new ones. I have read that it was not only the cranes. They were a part of it, but it was also the load-bearing structural beams of the factory that the cranes were mounted upon -- these are not cranes that you drive around like in a putting up a building, but are built-in to the factory structure. And it was also the hall sizes (the production halls, not hallways connecting parts of the building) and doorways/archways into the hall(s). In total the production facility was simply not suited to building bigger (wider) and heavier vehicles. So if you wanted to use that factory, you needed to stay small. If you wanted to build bigger, you needed to build a bigger factory. Which drives the other point. The German planning / acquisition process was notably different from the US and Soviet approaches. During the war the German government issued contracts to the various suppliers to build some number of tanks. It was up to the suppliers to put up their own factories and bid on when they could complete the batch in the contract. This led to incrementalism in production capacity. A shiny large-scale tank factory is really not very useful for building anything other than tanks. So private industry is loath to build new factories for tank production. Far better to propose tanks that use existing factories, and just expand capacity by 10 or 15% as needs arise. The Soviets, being a state-run economy, did not suffer this limitation. In the US the Government took two approaches. They went to existing industry (mostly locomotive and car makers) for production contracts, but they also BUILT huge new factories to achieve specific rates of production (500 tanks per month, 1,000 tanks per month), then let industry bid on RUNNING the factories. The closest the Germans got to this was with the Nibelungenwerk, a large scale modern factory put up in Austria that was funded by Reichswerke Hermann Goering, essentially a government-run corporate conglomerate. This facility was about half devoted to production of Pz IVs (allowing the Pz IV to achieve the highest volume production of any German tanks) , and half devoted to Ferdinand Porsche's pet projects. But Nibelungenwerk was rather unique in the Nazi production program. All the other production came from factories funded by their own corporate management (even when that management had a large component of political appointees). The Germans did not think in terms of a flow of tanks, but rather in terms of a specific number of tanks on a specific target date. No one at any place in the Nazi hierarchy seems to have asked what it would take to build 1,000 or 2,000 tanks per month. All they asked was can we get a batch of 1,000 or 2,000 tanks. It's a different question, and it led to different answers. At least that's what my readings have shown me. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Garand | 30 Aug 2021 4:13 p.m. PST |
It's irrelevant how the StuG was used. It was still considered "artillery", while the Hetzer was considered a pure tank destroyer. Don't blame me. Blame Wehrmacht bureaucracy. I believe anti-tank artillery was still part of the artillery branch, whether the Hetzer was with the 2 JagdpanzerAbteilungen formed in June 44 in Russia, or as part of the divisional anti-tank battalions of the infantry divisions (which is where a few StuG IIIs & a large number of the StuG IVs went). Keep in mind, while the Germans were trying to figure out what to call the Hetzer, they first started calling it the "liechte Sturmgeschuetz 38(t)" before landing on the "liechte Jagdpanzer 38(t)." Just to add more confusion to the situation… Damon. |
arealdeadone | 30 Aug 2021 6:12 p.m. PST |
StuG may have been considered "artillery" but more served in regular Panzer battalions as a tank replacement than any Jagdpanzer 38(t). |
Wolfhag | 30 Aug 2021 9:49 p.m. PST |
The original StuG had a 75L24 gun that was designed to take out fixed positions from up to 2,000m. It was not an anti-tank gun or vehicle but did have some self-defense capability for that but it's muzzle velocity was very low of just under 400 m/s. I think it was capable of indirect fire too and I've seen pictures of it with the scissors binocular that can be used as a range finder. That's a different MOS than a tank commander or gunner. I think that's why they were trained as artillerymen and in general had better crews than panzer units and wore different uniforms. Of course, politics and money always enters the equation. Training school for StuG crews, located near Magdeburg which is near the Krupp manufacturing facilities. There was also a lot of sabotage at the factory: link Wolfhag |
mildbill | 31 Aug 2021 3:27 p.m. PST |
Russia kept building T-70s for a long time after they were not that useful because the factories could build nothing bigger. |
Tango01 | 31 Aug 2021 4:00 p.m. PST |
|
donlowry | 31 Aug 2021 4:52 p.m. PST |
Pretty sure that panzer-jager battalions were manned by panzer troops, not artillerymen. |
Mserafin | 01 Sep 2021 7:43 a.m. PST |
Russia kept building T-70s for a long time after they were not that useful because the factories could build nothing bigger. Yes, but they modified the chassis and created the the SU-76 from it, which they made from 1943 on, instead of T-70s. SU-76 was a the second most-produced Soviet AFV of the war. But it is an excellent of keeping production lines open because they were already producing stuff. Like how the Germans kept the Pz II chassis in production long after that tank became obsolete by making them into Wespes. Or, in fact, the original topic of this thread, the StuG, which kept the existing Pz III production lines in service after that tank became obsolete. |
John the OFM | 01 Sep 2021 10:37 a.m. PST |
Sounds like Union "make work" jobs. |
Wolfhag | 01 Sep 2021 11:26 a.m. PST |
Beats being in the Gulag. Wolfhag |
Mserafin | 01 Sep 2021 1:56 p.m. PST |
More like "make stuff, make any stuff, because there's a war on." |
Heedless Horseman | 01 Sep 2021 11:32 p.m. PST |
That's about right with European nations in WW2 If a plant can produce 'stuff' which can have use… shutting it down for retooling would result in 'less stuff' available when needed. US was not getting bombed and had enormous capability… but would still continue to use 'older 'design… just to get vehicles 'out, until new production line set up. Russians, having reorganised industry could 'change'… but did not choose to.. much kit was 'fit for purpose'. Brtain was able to retool once Luftwaffe seen off. Axis nations… increasingly under pressure.. from demand, bombing and scarce resources… make do… unless 'Special Projects' from Top. I rather find the German 'conversions' of whatever was availble in a location, rather more interesting than some of the more 'popular' AFVs. Re Normandy. If something 'still works'… use it. You CAN contrast with several 21c 'projects'! lol. |
Augustus | 05 Sep 2021 6:55 p.m. PST |
I am convinced the entire German production line was some sort of Byzantine ass-backwards musical chairs nonsense. These guys were great at machinery but still seemed to count on a cottage industry basis for producing anything. Did the American production line exist in a vacuum? Methinks so. |
deephorse | 06 Sep 2021 2:37 a.m. PST |
In the automotive industry, its success was dominating, and quickly spread worldwide. Ford France and Ford Britain in 1911, Ford Denmark 1923, Ford Germany and Ford Japan 1925; in 1919, Vulcan (Southport, Lancashire) was the first native European manufacturer to adopt it. Soon, companies had to have assembly lines, or risk going broke by not being able to compete; by 1930, 250 companies which did not had disappeared. From Wikipedia So it's not as though German industry was unaware of the concept. Probably more to do with their system of issuing contracts, as explained above, and their not realising that you have to keep producing until you have won. |
Wolfhag | 06 Sep 2021 7:50 a.m. PST |
Tiger tank assembly lines: link Wolfhag |