A two-part tour of the ever popular (and very uncomfortable) German tank destroyer. Discussion thread, NA forum: forum.worldoftanks.com/index.p... Asia forum: forum.worldoftanks.asia/index....
Also better than fighting in an open-topped TD like the Marder series and getting shrapnel in your soup all day. And that's the standard we should be using. The factory building Jgdpz 38s was never going to be building Panthers or any significant number of Jgdpz IV/70s; it was something based on the 38(t) chassis or nothing at all.
I've figured it out. The Hetzer is the Mosin Nagant of tanks. It's got a lot of weird quirks and seems to hate anyone who tries to make it do the job it was made for, but if you get used to it, it's pretty good at that job.
@Old Iron Right, but no one ever says the 98k was a POS. I own one of each (as well as a Rifle # 4 and an Arisaka Type 99) and I think in the hands of the average soldier the difference between any of them would not be terribly significant. The main advantage I see for the 98k is an advantage it also has over the legendary Lee-Enfield series: rimless cases mean you won't jam it by loading it improperly in the stress of combat. However if you do that it is very easy to clear once you realize what's happened. (And it's very unlikely to happen using factory-loaded stripper clips like you'd get in military use; the only way I've done it is by either loading loose rounds or being cheap and reusing stripper clips that were meant to be single use items.) The Mauser is much more accurate, but the vast majority of soldiers aren't snipers and aren't taking advantage of the extra accuracy of the Mauser. The Mosin is hardly garbage, that's just a fanboy overreaction to other equally silly fanboys gushing over what a great rifle is. It got the job done adequately, and was outmoded by 1939 only in the same way every bolt-action battle rifle was outmoded. If you want garbage in widely issued WW2 ETO small arms, Italy is the place you really need to go. And if you want an excellent WW2 battle rifle, skip the outmoded bolt-action Mauser and go to the excellent Garand or the truly superb FG 42.
Are we inside the Hetzer that came from the Patton Museum? If so, I crewed it for over ten years during their annual July 4th WWII simulations. I learned to drive that Hetzer there. I owned one for over twenty years. I began as their loader and became their driver. Theirs had the same problem mine had, both had original gasoline engines. I eventually found why they would quit running. The JPz. originally was fitted with a scissors observation scope, the Swiss removed these and switched the commander to where the German loader sat. Did you try depressing the gun? Hard isn't it? Because when the museum removed the muzzle brake (Swiss option) they did not remove the counter weight at the end of the safety cage. What ever became of the postwar Swiss (US made) radio equipment that was in it? I believe the escape hatch is something that the Swiss added or opted for. When the Swiss opted to move the loader to the right side, they added an extension to the loader's electric trigger/safety switch. Want to know more? Read my book; A BRIDGE TO TIME, A Re-enactor's Journey available from Amazon. The museum folks took the remove MG fittings from another German vehicle. The Swiss used this an a commander's periscope. (dome). I almost always would pull the back to the driver's seat up and remove it to get in and out. In fact I would often drive with the driver's back removed. You can see the ignition and light switches are of later Swiss manufacture. The steering of a G13 is very responsive when going forward, but sluggish while reversing. The Swiss also had the British built Wilson transmissions, same as the pre-war Czech 38s-half-automatic. Like that of British Dingo Scout Cars (pre-selector). Mine had a few original German coded track links. These got upgraded by the Swiss with new tracks that featured removable ice spikes. (Those little round doobies on the tracks (2@). I can vouch for fitting into a garage. It was in my one car garage, I live in a US subdivision, for eight months while being rehabbed-all sixteen tons of it. Tanks!
I have a feeling that in this vehicle that the "Commander" is more like a spare set of eyes than anything. And I guess it's good to have one guy in command over everyone. I also assume that 95% of the combat was done from ambush, long distances, etc; this isn't a tank, meant to bring into combat with everyone shooting at you. I assume that you are knowledgeable enough to be aware that the G-13s supposedly reverted back to having the loader on the right; are you positive that the radios, etc, were actually in these same places in the wartime machine? As for the "escape hatch", I think that is more for throwing empty shell cases out under the vehicle. I really don't see how anyone could fit through that, not with the driveshaft right on top of it. Although I'd be sure to give it a strenuous try if my 38(t) flipped over and went turtle, and it was impossible to open any of the other hatches! That would be a terrible situation to be in.
There is something that hit me about Jgdpz 38(t), Chieftain. That is, yes the manual, or what you tank crew call them, might said that the TC is sitting behind the gun. But I do think that in combat, or realistic setting, the TC of the Jgdpz 38(t) would sit where the loader is. The reason I think that is the case is because: 1st. He have more veiw in front of him when he had his head out. I mean the hatch of the loader is abit forward the the hatch for the TC. I havent been in one, so I cant confirm if that is right 2nd: He has the MG to controll, which means he might have a scope pointed forward. I mean how else could you aim with the MG as remote when you a hatched down (Or what you now call it) 3rd: The loader might have it easier to load the gun from behind. Not really in a way for any of his follow crew members. He might not be able to slam the round in, but the TC or gunner might be able to do that. 4th: Also need to remember that the gun follows when the gunner aims. So the loader will, again, have it easier to load the gun, when e.g. the gunner aiming all the way to the right. I mean he might not about to be crushed by the breech guard and the gunner's back all in all he is trying to load the gun again
If the TC controls the machine gun he could also potentially spotlight targets ( magne for HE rounds) with tracer he can see with his head outside the tank.
Chieftan, your videos are well done and informative, thanks for putting up with the crammed positions you find yourself in to explore/review these tanks in detail. I can't wait for your videos on the Medium tanks of the war. (Pz3, 4, Sherman, Cromwell, T34, ah you get the point.) My grandfather was in a Sherman and fought his was up the East coast of Italy, so it would be interesting to see what he had to deal with.
I've run into a couple of guys who've driven G13/Jpz-38Ts in private collections over the years. I remember one telling me that it must have been impossible to fire at a moving target with it.
I just suffered through what Lindibege had to say about the Jgdpz 38t, but in the whole time in my misery I was thinking, what does 'The Chieftain' have to say about the Jgdpz 38t? So, the Chieftain sets me completely straight on the subject in this video. But even that, despite the technical analysis, doesn't completely shake me free from the notion I had formed from everything that I had ever heard on the subject that the Hertzer was pretty effective in combat because it was: small, heavily armed, and hard to hit. I was hoping maybe for a few more facts about the Hetzer's actual combat performance - despite all of it's design shortcomings. Great video, by the way.
I tend not to delve into combat performance in the "Inside the hatch" videos for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they are plenty long enough as they are, and secondly, it's a lot easier to find information on combat performance if you're interested in it anyway, so a large part of it would be duplication of effort. The vehicle wasn't ineffective at all, but it was not as capable as some would have it. As Hilary said, it was better than pushing a PaK 40 through the mud. Just don't expect a huge rate of fire, reactions to unanticipated situations, or good survivability if hit. But if it gets the first shot off as planned, there's a good chance it'll kill a Sherman.
Funny how he so often complains about the limited interior spaces of many tanks, he's clearly not of standard tanker dimensions. Ideal tankers should be 1,5 meters long yoga-masters able to deadlift 250 pounds.
Very interesting video, Chieftain. Thank you for your continous work. One thing that caught my attention is the audio recording when you speak. When you turn away from the camera it becomes very quiet. Also there appears to be clipping(speaking to loud?) from time to time. Maybe a new mic or one you can clip to your shirt might help there.
Actually he WAS wearing a lavalier mic in this video but he was wearing it on the left side of his shirt but almost always facing to the right when he was talking. I've used these before in TV studios and they are very very depended on where the person talking is facing. Maybe WG could spring for another lavalier for The Chieftain to wear because of all the funny angles he has to be in while reviewing the different tanks.
Good Video, very accurate. It had a low cross country speed which did not seem to be mentioned, although I am uncertain why this is the case so my source could be faulty.
Well with the ammo-rack and the breach operating handle on the gunner side Im pretty sure despite what you "job" was the gunner was the loader too, in fact I suspect its by design.
i think this is a very good vehicle as long as crew comfort isn't too much of an issue. what would be interesting is recreating battle field conditions and see how long the volunteers can stand it.
He might've already. Wargaming releases the videos in an odd order according to WG's decisions. For example, Nick's already done Panzer IV, but WG hasn't posted it.
So you guys have the same dude they hire at most airshows, you know the one that mistakenly thinks you need noise constantly repeating itself in the background to enhance the experience. I mean, think about it,..like here in this example of the subject being discussed, or say, the beauty experienced from hearing the sound of a Rolls Royce Merlin fly past, what moron in his right mind would add anything which competes with the main dialogue?
Call me dense, but... wouldn't it make more sense if the loader sat to the right (you know, on the "correct" side of the rail, and where the ammunition racks are), and the TC on the left side where he can better communicate with the gunner?
I had a lot of luck with this vehicle when I played war games with card board chips in the 1970 and 80s. Cheaper then most German vehicles, I could field enough of them to have a chance against the hoards of Sherman's and T34s when defending. They worked better then getting one or two Tigers or Panthers when the dice were kind enough to give me tanks at all.
I only wish the presenter had not made such a big spiel about how much he hates German armour at the outset. It made it difficult to fully enjoy this interesting look inside of one of the unique Littlefield vehicles. btw: RIP Littlefield! What a great life - born into a huge fortune and whittle it away buying and restoring tanks. Bravo to him
Me too I love German armor its is the best of WWII Its absolutley great however the Hetzer is SO uncomfortable than that excellent gun and armor wich are monstrous for its size (I meam for something so small weighting 15 tons with this Pak 40 gun and 60mm frontal armor actually 80 because its sloped is just minblowing) but they cannot be used in their full potential I mean if it was a bit bigger and it was comfortable it coud be like a small Panther but it is not and still it is better than pushing a Pak 40 through the mud. In fact i really like the Hetzer this is great TD but the crew compartement its it Achilles heel.
This vehicle used a Pak40 rather than a Kwk40? The Kwk40 was used in the PzIV G, H, J because it used a smaller round with less charge to accommodate more rounds IN the space of the vehicle. Besides, with the limited vision of the tanks of the time, most armoured battles occurred at less range than a Pak40 which didn't have any issues with space for its larger, longer rounds and a Pak40 usually had a gunner AND spotter to guarantee accuracy [one of the reasons why Michael Wittmann demanded the 'kill' of an A-T gun should stand for 2 'kills'!]. 600m was the usual range at which a tank could expect to penetrate another [or, in fact, 'see']. The smaller Kwk40 rounds with the smaller charge [shorter round] could perform just as well as a Pak40 up to about 1.2km [if i remember correctly]. The Pak40 had L43 calibres whereas the Kwk40 [tank] cannons had L48 calibre cannons. Either way, they were both very effective armour piercing cannons. Note: I believe Kwk stood for KampfWagenKanone [ie, battle vehicle cannon] and Pak was PanzerAbwehrKanone [ie, anti-tank cannon]
How hard would it have been to hang the gun on the left side of the vehicle and placing the driver on the right hand side? Surely the gunner's ability to properly service his weapon would be more important to a tank destroyer's job than having the driver be on the proper side of the road.
For a last ditch tank destroyer, it certainly validates the value of simplicity in design. Besides the very cramped nature of ANY heavily sloped armored vehicle, criticism of the difficulty of operation can largely be blamed on the rushed design.
It only existed as a prototype, but yes, it did exist. There were a very few built with 150mm howitzers. One can only imagine what a nightmare loading that sucker in that tiny little crew compartment would have been.
4+11 = 15 -- never ment to be 15 + 15 degree of gun travel ... translation error or huge error in understanding of data. Tc was the one who operated the manual breach open and chukin the failed to fire rounds out of tank from top hatch . They did not risk loader behind the gun in case of misfire
If you had to pick between the Jagdpanzer 38 or a Marder III (either of the different variants) What would you pick? (Either if you had to be a part of a crew or just as a part of "your" forces). Since sure the Jagdpanzer 38 might not be perfect but i feel like it should still be better then the Marder III series of vehicles due to armor protection (being Enclosed) and lower silhouette etc. Since sure In the Marder III you have more space to move around in (and no Roof to bang your head into ^^) but instead you are very vulnerable to infantry and any type of armor piercing weapon would have no problem penetrating the thin shielding of the superstructure.
The 38(t) was the only foreign tank the Germans put to use without making any modifications to it. Other than being poorly armored, their crews felt it was a perfectly balanced tank due to being extremely reliable. Many were modified into Marder versions then was produced as the Marder 3. The Jadgpanzer 38(t) was designed as the replacement for the Marder 3.
It might be uncomfortable, but the sloped design and small silhouette were very valuable properties I would imagine. I would prefer survivability over comfort any time.
i understand that point for sure, but imagine sitting 10+ hours in such discomfort, there is a good reason why ergonomics play big role in combat effectiveness
A Wild Bill unpopular position: Jagdpanzer 38(t) is not a weapon of mobile warfare, despite our preconceived notions on topic. Consider it from the perspective of planners. 1) Mobility of Antitank Guns requires a Halftrack and caisson PLUS a gun. 2) Concealability of the towed piece versus the JdPz's advantage in quick relocation (elimination of limbering/unlimbering) coupled with armor protection (for the crew and gun) from the usual enemies of PaK weaponry, namely air bursts and small arms/MG fire. 3) Commonality of weapon and chassis sincerely cheapens and quickens development process. That puts more units in the field sooner. 4) Compact design of a single vehicle of 16 short tons weight versus the need to laager a haltrack prime mover, a limber and sonderanhanger, and the PaK at roughly 20,000lb/10short tons. A lot less room taken up in convoy and in parking space. Fewer separate parts to worry about. Conclusion? Hetzer was a raging SUCCESS.
So wait...the sight "range adjustment" is basically the equivalent of moving the sight on a rifle up or down a few notches to increase the range the sight is zeroed at? The sight itself moves up and down with the elevation of the gun, but where the reticle lies depends on what range you have the dial set to? That must be it; took me a minute to get that, simple as it seems.
Chieftain, I may sound stupid asking but are you sure a document wasn't misinterpreted or something about crew positions? I'm pretty sure (and have seen it shown this way in war thunder too) the loader should be on the right and the TC on the left. It makes a ton more sense (loader on correct side of gun and next to ammunition, commander has access to roof MG) Also standard German layout has the loader on the right on pretty much all their turreted tanks too. Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger etc. Even if the documents said commander should be on the right for Jpz 38T, I'm sure the crews in the field would swap because there's no periscope either side so It doesn't matter where the commander is, but it makes the loaders life easier. Any thoughts?
+ThePeople'sPanzer Given that the mounting for the periscopes was in the right rear position, I would think that the TC would be there regardless of prefernce. Plus, I'm not sure that it isn't too far to the rear of the breech for easy loading anyway. Certainly there can be differences of opinion. For example, occasional units in the US Army would put the truck commander of a HMMWV in the turret, so he could see, whereas most put him in the front right seat. However, I've not seen any reliable reference of the loader being in the rear.
+TheChieftainWoT okay, seems legit. Do you think the rear periscope is the only one present because of the "shoot first then reverse the heck away" use of the vehicles? I dunno the whole nature of this layout makes me realise E25 would have been disgusting to operate.
+TheChieftainWoT found some more conflicting sources putting the TC on the left in line with gunner and driver, like German doctrine (heck Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger have this too) but considering how much misinformation is out there on this vehicle I wouldn't be surprised if someone made assumptions like I did based on ergonomics. Also seen historic images showing open hatch vehicles with the commander on the right as you've shown.
I read an account by a German crewman stating that the gunner and loader had to be very good buddies for they were in close physical contact most of the time.
+rotwang2000 which would imply what the video shows, that the loader is on the left in line with the gunner and driver, which makes little sense from the point of view of design.
It makes me feel a bit guilty about my crew in my 'Hetzer', when playing WoT, as I often get them injured or exploded.... Still never mind I just go back to the garage and they are all well again, but cursing me when I press 'Battle'.....poor buggers...:)
The_Chieftain ... it probably went unnoticed by yourself but thevdefinitive proof that TC was in the back can be seen at 1:23 ... if the racks are used theres no way yoou can push anything forward into the breach from that position all crouched up. And people assume the TC is oj the right side of the gun when there is no right side at all. the racks are readilly acessible to the loador
Rewatching this a couple years later makes me think he somehow mistakingly switched the commander and the loaders locations around... it seems a lot more logical to have the loader behind the gun next to the ammunition and the gun safety switch as well as having the commander next to the radio and be able to operate the roof machinegun
@@MaosSpudFarm - my theory is that the Czech designers, at that point in the war, decided to screw with the Germans. That would also explain the unconventional switch of the brake pedal and the accelerator!
They could've kept the rear of the thing flat and square instead of sloped, moved the engine back and given everything, and everyone, inside more room and spread the weight out a bit better. Odd.
so how exactly does anyone know where they are driving these things must be odd gonna go tape all the windows in my car up n try it with just two slits
One thing that becomes painfully obvious about these chieftain videos is that this guy is MUCH taller than your average WWII tank or assault gun crewman. And 6 or 8 inches can make all the difference in the world when comes to crew ergonomics. This guy is vastly entertaining, but as for accurate assessments, I find him totally lacking. Except when he did the T-34 and found the turret invading the driver's space. That was funny. Dopey Soviets!
I cant help but wonder if the historians have just somehow messed up. Everything about this vehicle says the commander should be on the left, loader on the right. It makes no sense otherwise. The main hatch, periscope, MG, etc, are all on the left. That is also where the TC usually sits, behind the gunner. The position to the right is on the correct side of the recoil guard for loading the gun, for operating the breech controls, etc. Are we _sure_ someone didn't just make a mistake writing a book after the war? All the loader has to do is load from the ready racks on the right. The commander can pass him more to refill the racks, or even to keep fighting, if they get into an intense situation, which they would avoid. It just makes no sense for the commander to be crammed on the right, with the loader on the wrong side of the gun and also running the MG etc.
It's an extremely long distance to reach for the loader of he is behind the recoil guard. Also the mounting point for the commander's rangefinder is on the rear hatch
They should have made the driver also the gunner. It would not be firing on the move. The driver would be driving or stopped and shooting. As the gunner/driver, he would also stop/set up for the best firing position without having to communicate with the driver. Room for more ammo.
How tall are you? By the video a asume 190 - 200 cm ? In ww2 average man hight was 160-170 cm . That all what i can say about complaining not enought space in the tank.
You will find that folks tended to complain about the space in WW2 as well. Besides, there are WW2 vehicles in which I am fairly comfortable. If I'm comfortable, I have no doubt that WW2 crewmen were quite comfortable as well. Certainly more comfortable than those who crewed vehicles I don't fit in
If I may quote this Jpz38 commander. www.pzfahrer.net/armin.html "The main fault lies in the positioning of the crew members, forced by the off-center mounting of the armament, and was by far the worst of any of the numerous German vehicles of the limited traverse category. [...] I am sorry if I disappoint some of our Hetzer fans, but it is one thing to look at a well-shaped vehicle on museum grounds or in photos, than it is to fight in one."
@@TheChieftainsHatch I play a lot of COH2 which features the Puma 5cm Kampfwagenkanone 39 L/60, the OKW players use it a lot and I'd be interested to get your opinion on it. It seems to be a bit overpowered in the game and does quite well against allied medium tanks like the Cromwell.
am the dame height as N.Moran tanks and subs... not comfy even BB35 Texas had some thigt spaces for me.. worth it though.. recomend wearing a cap as prox sensor and very light armor 😉
If you thought the Texas was a tight space you better not join the Navy lol . Texas was a very open space compared to some of the other countries ships.
The commander had a binocular periscope to observe and seek targets. Clearly missing on this example. Surprised that the Chieftain didn't pick up on this.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Aah, my apologies then - ! Must admit that I like the 38T simply because it a purposeful looking tank hunter. Always enjoy your tank talks as your style is entertaining as well as being very informative.
TheChieftainWoT When the Bundeswehr was still conscription you would have never been considered for tank oder grenadier duty. Is it usual to get such tall guys into tanks in your country ?
Abye I'm 189cm tall when I applied for the British Army as a tank crew man the recruiter said I was of a good height for the roll in a challenger 2. I think the main thing for both the M1 Abrams and Challenger 2 is being slim aslong as you're not a giant you will fit in just fine.
Wet Letice The pool of avaiable men was just so much bigger so the branches can be literally picky about who they got. Don't know how they handle it now since they no longer do consription
