Panzerjäger - How Germany Created The Tank Destroyer 

The problem is that thee St Emils are so unreliable mechanically that they can't position anywhere

@@IanSumallo That is a technical issue, not a doctrinal one. The concept of a bunker buster, a heavy gun on motorized carriage for engagement of fortifications with direct fire was not obsoleted by the fact that the Maginot Line was no longer a strategic consideration. If Sturer Emils had been mass-produced for general service, I am sure they would have done more to resolve the reliability problems.

What kind of person names there tank "dicker max" ?????

The guy with a huge cannon

Or use in Sevastopol.

Discord moderator moment

​@@RedWrenchFilms lmfao

​@@scubajoe3321when joe is scrubbing

​@@fitzachellawhen chella is fitzing

​@@Miller_Davuswhen Davis is Milling

In my opinion, getting shot in the head was underrated.

@@unity3938 True, having only a gun shield to protect you from small arms/heavy fire is scary.

@@haody3494 14.5mm could probably stop most 30 cal rounds except the Russian 54r but 50cal are turning that into a colander!

They were trash, fact.

@@interpl6089 the vehicles or the crew? Trick question, it's both!

Such a lovely comment thank you :)

The Beutepanzer or captured tanks got small letters for the nation they were coming from, because like th eczech tank they got renamed. As the Panzer 38t wasnt called like that in czech but LT VZ 38 or Praga TNH. Panzer 38 (t) for czech, russian tanks got (r) and so on.

Hey I was wondering if you could explain the meaning of "Lafette" in "Selbstfahrlafette"? I would expect the word Geschütz to be used and also the word sounds French which is surprising. I'm guessing this word was just used in the past and caught on.

@@paint4r I copy here a part from Wikipedia: Link: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafette Quote: "Eine Lafette (von französisch l'affût, älter l'affust zum altfranzösischen fust = Schaft, Stange) ist ein meist fahrbares Gestell, auf dem eine Waffe montiert werden kann." English via Google translator: A mount (from French l'affût, older l'affust to Old French fust = stock, pole) is a usually mobile frame on which a weapon can be mounted. So a Lafette is in general a frame where canons/guns etc are mounted on. E.g. for machine guns in german language you sometimes also find the expression "Dreibein" which means "threelegs" (litterally) - correct translation would be tripod. This thing is also called a Lafette. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreibein_(Waffe) "Geschütz" is in German the word for a Canon/gun which is then mounted on a "Lafette" (frame) which is usually carried around. If you add then "Selbstfahr-" (Self propelled" then you have the full name of it. And if you are asking for the historical backgrounds which I'm not to sure of, but my best guess would be that the german/prussian millitary was highly influenced by the Napoleonic wars and by the technic of the time. So I think the expression comes orginally from that time as guns/canons needed to be mobile so they were mounted and dismounted at this to move them around and the word Lafette is just used until today and surely was modified for the german language as we germans are actually pretty good in adopting words from other languages and change them slightly to make them a german word. ;) You can see that in alot of german words not just in millitary expressions. I hope this explains your question? If not then please let me know. Kind regards

@jurgen6902 Yeah that makes sense, it means a frame to mount the gun on. I was assuming it was just another word for gun that is only used in some specific context. Thanks :)

Just finished it, and I am really happy that there's gonna be one about Jagdpanzers, but will they include the Hetzer?

Of course!

Thank you Ian!

Thanks so much Gary! Means a lot.

Thanks so much! Glad to have you around.

True, but a Nashorn could (and at least once, did) kill a T34 at 4000 metres. A 12.7mm HMG wasn't a lot of threat at that sort of range...

Thanks so much Hamish - means a lot :)

@@RedWrenchFilms 1 of the 3 surviving Nashorn is going to Militracks Event in Overloon at 20 / 21th of may 2023!

​@@RedWrenchFilmsOh yeah Expression jager tank seems ridiculos at the end of war. ..No kidding? Tank himself was always underpowered subarmed too thirsty not enough good for sharp turn etc.Only the big tank was too hard to kill easy but not enough nomber built

Yeah it was - destroyed an M26 just before the war ended.

Thanks! I thought so too.

The command that lead to the development of the Panzerjäger Marder series did say: "to counter the threat of the T-34 and KW (that's how Germans called the KV-tanks) tanks". Not actually a word for word quote, just the part that I remember without looking it up again, but I'm very sure the real one inculded both of them. The narrator actually just quoted this popular line. But sure, the Pzkpfw III was able to destroy T-34s, but it required a lot of luck and would lead to many losses. The German war strategy against the SU was based on the asumption of superiority. A German gun had to destroy a good number of enemies, before it was allowed to be killed by the enemy. Otherwise the disadvantage of numbers would not have worked out for the Germans. And it ultimately did not work out. So meeting tanks, that stripped their expected advantage away, was a wake-up-call to quickly develop solutions, to turn the tide again in their favor.

The t-34 was very vulnerable on the sides, as any medium tank, and the visibility was terrible. So Pzkfw III were capable of destroying t-34 by flanking it. The report from the soviets report that most t-34 in 41 (or 42, not entirely sure now) were destroyed by 50mm projectiles.

Hahaha he has the very real advantage of knowing how to pronounce them!

My pleasure, John!

Glad you enjoyed it!

See my Jagdpanzer video!

It was a self propelled gun, not an anti-tank platform. Same with the Hummel, Bison etc.

3/4 of the vehicles in world of tanks existed in blueprint form only. So you can't do a comparison because there is NOTHING to compare them to.

Thanks! Yeah the Romanians turned them into the TACAM R-2 tank destroyer.

Haven't play Panzer General 2 is ages. I still play Panzer General (the old DOS game) but never get Nashorns in campaigns, By they time they show up there's better options. Like the Elephant, which performs better in game than in real life. (But that's true for most games).

@@scockery apologies I misspoke when I said PG II. I meant PG I, the same one you are referring to. I never bothered with Elephants. They were more expensive than a Nashorn and they didn't have actually have higher offensive attack values. Plus their range was quite limited.

i think you misunderstood what he meant

There were a number of waffentrager designs, come artillery pieces and some anti-tank, but none made it into service.

That vehicle wasn’t a Marder II, and it might have even been a one-off. It’s referred to as the Pak 38 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II.

In German, the terms "Jagdpanzer" and "Panzerjäger" will technically result in the same thing. These two terms were often switched around by the German army, when refering to them on the field. Yes, you're theroretically using the wrong official name, when you're mixing them up, but they are indeed interchangable, when it comes to our language. The "Sturmgeschütz" is not interchangable with them. It directly means "assault gun" and refers to an entirely different type of weapon in terms of war doctrine. That's true. The Soviet T-34 and KW-1 (KV-1 in English) threat was real. You're right - not so much, that Germans were unable to take them out, as they did take a lot of them out without the need of a new tank designs, but a "calculative" threat, that altered German war outcome predictions of the war with the Soviet Union against them. All campaigns of WW2 were simulated over and over again in theory and in advance, in order to find a strategy, that could result in success. The campaign for the SU was a close call and was rather "optimistic", when compared to their assumptions with the campaigns against Poland and France. Because Germany was never able to create numbers on the field, that gigant countries, like the USA or the Soviet Union could muster, they took an approach to make up for that smaller number. Some of the important measures were surprise and fast movements. Their take on the Soviet Union was also heavily reliant on "superiority of weapon design". A German tank was supposted to kill X numbers of Soviet tanks, before it was meant to be destroyed by them, in terms of the statistics. Otherwise, smaller German numbers would lead to defeat. They "simulated" this with old Soviet designs and declared this ratio to be fine for them. But the T-34 and KV-1 did ruin these calculations and would lead to a bad outcome. This was immediately visible for the masterminds behind the war strategies, when the reports of the first KV-1 and T-34 encounters came in. That's why they had to quickly develop a new solution, in order to get this right again.

Lack of material. Additionally lack of production plants.

I think they did… the 47mm FT you’re talking about never existed and probably would’ve entered service after the PzJg 1 anyway.

@@RedWrenchFilms oh, i remember the french mounting AT guns on the FT chassis in the interwar period, maybe I was wrong

@@burningtank160 Never came to fruition outside of World Of Tanks

@@RedWrenchFilms well they were the first to have one technically, although in mass production i guess germany would be first

@@burningtank160 Again, the FT AC was never built. The French did design the W-15 TCC but that was after the PzJg 1. The Polish TKS was perhaps the “first” tank destroyer, but saw incredibly limited use for obvious reasons. Tank destroyers are, as the Chieftain says, not a piece of equipment but a mode of use. It’s a doctrinal term. And the Germans were the first to deploy them as “tank hunters”, with everyone else following close behind.

Discord moderator moment

@@RedWrenchFilms The coolest one 😎