»» GET OUR BOOKS «« » Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com » Panzer: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com » IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com » StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de » Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de » Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
I am making that into a t-shirt. As an occasional instructor, I often butcher names.
ปีที่แล้ว +88
It is very nice to see how much good can come from a comment section. I also very much appreciate how you engage with this critique instead of brushing it aside.
I can understand his approach. But the germans organized their divisional artillery different. Every Abteilung should be equiped with 2 batteries of Wespe and 1 battery of Hummels. You could make an approach to compare divisional artillery as it is, so M7 vs Wespe and Hummel. Leaving out 1 third of the firepower which also significantly out ranged the M7 would change the result of the assessment in some areas.
@@HaVoC117X Mind, the US divisions rarely had significantly less than nominal strength in their organic artillery units and their logistics rarely failed to keep pace with the armored formations, ensuring regular support on demand. The M7 also began service in early 1942, so it was available in large numbers by the time US Army formations were engaged in major operations. Panzer divisions only acquired Wespe and Hummel later in the war and their units were often well below nominal strength. A critical shortage of ammunition carriers also meant they frequently were incapable of having any impact on the battle for want of shells. So, historically speaking, US formations had less firepower on paper but they usually had more firepower in practice. Near-complete units of M7s actually firing are worth more than understrength units of Hummels and Wespes sitting idle while ammunition is scrounged.
@@genericpersonx333 Agreed, but these are logistical issues. I doubt that an M7 priest was significantly cheaper or less resource intensive during production than a Wespe or a Hummel.
I like that the SU-76M got a shout out as not having a direct analog in Axis or Western armies. I'm still fascinated by the Soviet's early push for highly mobile artillery down to such a small caliber. I also found the aggressive use of the SU-76M to boarder on Assault Gun status, but it's rarely talked about how close they were pushed to opposing troops.
My understanding is that the Red Army used artillery up to 152 mm in direct fire mode. The Soviets started out the war with few radios, and without radios, there was little ability to send fire missions from a forward observer to an artillery battery. That would help explain a lot of Soviet vehicle designs, including the KV-2. Radio parts were one of the most important things the USA supplied to the Soviets; and this was one of those reasons
@@pacificostudios My understanding is that without US radios they would have had basiclly no radios. I think the 40.000 trucks were more inportant but thats just my thoughts.
You were not wrong in your original video, it is just that we like comparisons, and opinions will always differ on what should be compared. So thanks for this video. :)
I wouldn't compare the Hummel to the M12 or M40 GMCs. The Hummel has a 15 cm sFH 18 Howitzer, which is roughly comparable in role to the US M1/M114 155mm Howitzer, used as Divisional Heavy Artillery, hence the Hummel equivalent would by the T64 and M41 HMCs, whereas the M12 and M40 used the 155mm GPF and M1 Guns, much heavier and longer range guns primarily used at the Corps level for counter-battery. The closest German equivalents would be the 15cm K 16, 15cm K 39 and 17cm K 18 guns, although I don't believe any self-propelled versions of these were made. Given the 155mm M1 Gun was a component of an artillery duplex using the same carriage as the 203mm M1/115 Howitzer, so the German duplex of the 17cm K 18 and 21cm Morser anre probably the best equivalents, especially when you consider that post war-the the Americans replaced the 155mm M1 Gun with the M113 175mm Gun, which formed as self-propelled duplex with the M115 203mm Howitzer as the M107 and M110 SPGs.
Without watching either of aforementioned videos, I’m inclined to agree with you, the Wespe/M7 comparison is much more appropriate due to gun calibre size, where as a more appropriate comparison for the Hummel would probably be the M12 (again based on calibre of gun)
I think its the case of to many people comparing stats vs reality. And some butthurt wehraboo's who couldnt stand the M7 was a better SPG than the wespe. So they chose the Hummel, comparing apples to oranges. Probaly some freedomboo's will now yell "Y U NOT COMPARE M12 TO HUMMEL"
I found both videos very interesting. I am curious as to how the Sexton, or the Bishop with their 25 pounder would compare with both the wespe and the Priest. I realise it's a smaller calibre weapon, but it seemed quite capable.
Hmm, your description of the M-8's role sounds very much like the original intended purpose of the Panzer IV with it's 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24, I.E. A close support tank organic to the panzer battalion...
The Panzer IVs were in a dedicated tank company and far greater in number than the M-8 Scotts. I actually have a book on said company: Panzer: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com So, not a match neither.
An M-8 corresponds better to an assault gun like the StuG III, except that the M-8 was open top and it's armor was lightweight. Simply put, the Americans never developed a doctrine for an assault gun, and never fielded a StuG counterpart until very late in the war. An M4 Medium platoon tended to always be available to reinforce infantry, however.
I tend to agree the M8 role and early Panzer IV missions within the armored divisions was the same. HE. The number of early Panzer IV was 10 per battalion. Its role became a tank vs tank one mainly due to the inadequacy of the Panzer III. The number in a tank battalion increased when its role as a medium tank changed with the 1943 change to tank companies with 22 Mk IV and no Mark III. In 1942 there still were only 10 Panzer IV in the battalion but now including a mix of Panzer IV Kurst and Lang. By Kursk there were Panzer IV (lang) tank battalion and it was the last year (1943) the Panzer III was the Heer main battle tank. Except in Norway.
@Mike Reese The Pz IV as outlined in the manual also had anti-tank roles as well. Additionally, the M8 was a light tank, meanwhile the Pz IV was a medium or even heavy tank back then. The organization in a dedicated company instead of in the headquarters company for me also indicates that it was far more a "regular" thing than a "add on". Similar maybe, same, nope. Pretty sure that this Panzer: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com and the relevant manual for the employment of the M8 Scott differ widely.
Regarding fragment weight and number, I don't know exactly what the Germans aimed for here. BUT for what it's worth evidence based on the prewar lethality criterias of the German and British military, suggests that, atleast immediately before the war, the Germans called for fragments to have about twice the energy of what the British criteria called for - > the latter considering 1 gram fragments ideal vs infantry. That said I'd assume either side investigated the subject atleast as much as the US did. So I think it's pretty safe to assume that US artillery shells had no overall advantage here, at least Ive seen no evidence of it. Additionally I know the Germans usually used a mix of Hexogen(RDX) , TNT & amatol as explosive filler. The Germans also used HMX (octogen), a slightly more powerful version of RDX, in some of their HE rounds (30mm HE(M) for example), which is 1.7 times as powerful as TNT. I believe Hexogen was used in the prewar 10.5cm Gr.38 round (TNT equivalent factor = 1.6), explaining the smaller filler, where'as an amatol/hexogen mix (1.1-1.3) was used in the wartime 10.5cm FH GR Fern with its almost twice as large filler. Meanwhile basically all WW2 US artillery HE shells used a amatol TNT mix afaik.
I have a question regarding artillery research and development. In ww2 Why did the Germans NOT use previously developed and improved guns? This question I relate to how Rheinmetall developed a 45mm gun in a contract with the soviet union, yet the germany army used 37mm. Same question arises when discussing why the Germans went with 75mm instead of the 77mm guns they already had extensive range tables, and even penetration values for the armor piercing shells during ww1.
I do wonder if, in some part, the differences in shell filler (explosives) and casing thickness doesn't also have something to do with concussive effects versus shrapnel? I'm completely spitballing here, so this is 100% conjecture. But if it has been noted by you that an artillery barrage is only successful if friendly troops have fragments falling on their helmets like rain, would it not be possible to hypothesize that, much like grenade design, some of the HE shells might be geared more towards less fragmentation and move concussive damage? It would sync, with the doctrine. Just a thought. Also, I should point out that we are/should be smart enough to know that you can't directly compare anything 1:1. You've got differences in deployment, subordination, use, technology, shell size, application of the shell, terrain, temperature, etc. There are so many nuances, that videos like this have to be enjoyed as high level comparisons. The second that we, and I'm including your community in this, go too deep, everything starts to fall apart. This is fun and informative, which is and should be the point. Keep up the great work, Berhard.
The US Army replaced the M7 with M4'S with the 105mm howitzer so it would be more useful for urban fighting. That conversion wasn't difficult to do since the 75mm cannon used the 105mm carriage due to being stronger and allowing the barrel to be swapped out with an 105 barrel if one was needed. The Army provided the comanies with 105 conversion kits in a crate that held the barrel, mantlet and other stuff so it could be done in the field.
Apparently, if the explosive in the shell is too powerful, it will pulverize the casing. So, it might be better to use Amatol rather pure TNT since it will produce larger fragments.
Hi, have u ever considered the possibility of doing a video that explains the roles of the various military ranks and what forces do they command? It would also be a pleasure just a reccomendation of some books that talk about this topic. Thanks
Personally I like the videos on the SPG's and stuff that isn't just traditional "tanks". It's nice to hear about stuff that's not talked about so much once in awhile.
Hummel: "Wenn ich an einem schönen Tag Durch eine Blumenwiese geh' Und kleine Bienen fliegen seh′ Denk' ich an eine die ich mag" Priest: "I will stand, I will fight You'll never take me alive I'll stand my ground I won't go down You won't break me You won't take me 'Cause I'll fight you under blood red skies"
The idea that you can't compare the Wespe to the M7 because the M7 cost a lot more is suspect. By that standard you can't compare a BF109G to a P-47D because the Thunderbolt cost a lot more.....
Your fragment size analysis was in terms of incapacitating personnel, which are not the only targets of these weapons. Larger fragments cause more damage to equipment and structures. A fragment that might kill a soldier may not penetrate the shield or recoil mechanism of an enemy gun, yet larger fragments would be much more likely to do so. Ask the curators at the tank museum, they will likely show you damage caused by large fragments. A fairer comparison would have been to compare the Wespe and the British Bishop since both made use of obsolete vehicle designs that were closer in size. The British weapon was lighter, true, but that was what the British chose instead of the 10.5 cm. Unless you want to call the Bishop a "unicorn" to avoid a better comparison......
You're Fired. Now quit flailing yourself and do more videos. I'm not sure, but I think the "Special Shell" you referred to was first sent to North Africa,to give more range to German guns.
Perhaps the reason the Hummel has no Allied counterpart is that the Allies had air superiority during most of the War. Whenever an Allied armored unit outpaced the heavy artillery, they could call up fighter-bombers, or even medium bombers like the B-26 or A-20. The Germans didn't have such options, especially after most fighters were withdrawn to defend the Reich from Allied bombers.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Panzer: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
“If I pronounced your name wrong; you’re welcome”
I am making that into a t-shirt. As an occasional instructor, I often butcher names.
It is very nice to see how much good can come from a comment section. I also very much appreciate how you engage with this critique instead of brushing it aside.
You vs. the guy she told you not to worry about
He's got so tired of explaining in the comments why he was comparing _Wespe_ to M7 Priest that he made a video just to put an end to this! :D
Yeah, but it was also a clear oversight on my part.
I can understand his approach.
But the germans organized their divisional artillery different. Every Abteilung should be equiped with 2 batteries of Wespe and 1 battery of Hummels.
You could make an approach to compare divisional artillery as it is, so M7 vs Wespe and Hummel. Leaving out 1 third of the firepower which also significantly out ranged the M7 would change the result of the assessment in some areas.
Could almost sense it in the past video, reading the comments
@@HaVoC117X Mind, the US divisions rarely had significantly less than nominal strength in their organic artillery units and their logistics rarely failed to keep pace with the armored formations, ensuring regular support on demand. The M7 also began service in early 1942, so it was available in large numbers by the time US Army formations were engaged in major operations.
Panzer divisions only acquired Wespe and Hummel later in the war and their units were often well below nominal strength. A critical shortage of ammunition carriers also meant they frequently were incapable of having any impact on the battle for want of shells.
So, historically speaking, US formations had less firepower on paper but they usually had more firepower in practice. Near-complete units of M7s actually firing are worth more than understrength units of Hummels and Wespes sitting idle while ammunition is scrounged.
@@genericpersonx333 Agreed, but these are logistical issues. I doubt that an M7 priest was significantly cheaper or less resource intensive during production than a Wespe or a Hummel.
I like that the SU-76M got a shout out as not having a direct analog in Axis or Western armies. I'm still fascinated by the Soviet's early push for highly mobile artillery down to such a small caliber. I also found the aggressive use of the SU-76M to boarder on Assault Gun status, but it's rarely talked about how close they were pushed to opposing troops.
My understanding is that the Red Army used artillery up to 152 mm in direct fire mode. The Soviets started out the war with few radios, and without radios, there was little ability to send fire missions from a forward observer to an artillery battery. That would help explain a lot of Soviet vehicle designs, including the KV-2. Radio parts were one of the most important things the USA supplied to the Soviets; and this was one of those reasons
@@pacificostudios My understanding is that without US radios they would have had basiclly no radios. I think the 40.000 trucks were more inportant but thats just my thoughts.
@@martinbaumgardner4432 i think closer to 400,000 US supplied trucks
Even your rectifications are educational and fun to watch. Well done and thanks!
You were not wrong in your original video, it is just that we like comparisons, and opinions will always differ on what should be compared. So thanks for this video. :)
I wouldn't compare the Hummel to the M12 or M40 GMCs. The Hummel has a 15 cm sFH 18 Howitzer, which is roughly comparable in role to the US M1/M114 155mm Howitzer, used as Divisional Heavy Artillery, hence the Hummel equivalent would by the T64 and M41 HMCs, whereas the M12 and M40 used the 155mm GPF and M1 Guns, much heavier and longer range guns primarily used at the Corps level for counter-battery. The closest German equivalents would be the 15cm K 16, 15cm K 39 and 17cm K 18 guns, although I don't believe any self-propelled versions of these were made. Given the 155mm M1 Gun was a component of an artillery duplex using the same carriage as the 203mm M1/115 Howitzer, so the German duplex of the 17cm K 18 and 21cm Morser anre probably the best equivalents, especially when you consider that post war-the the Americans replaced the 155mm M1 Gun with the M113 175mm Gun, which formed as self-propelled duplex with the M115 203mm Howitzer as the M107 and M110 SPGs.
Without watching either of aforementioned videos, I’m inclined to agree with you, the Wespe/M7 comparison is much more appropriate due to gun calibre size, where as a more appropriate comparison for the Hummel would probably be the M12 (again based on calibre of gun)
I think its the case of to many people comparing stats vs reality. And some butthurt wehraboo's who couldnt stand the M7 was a better SPG than the wespe.
So they chose the Hummel, comparing apples to oranges. Probaly some freedomboo's will now yell "Y U NOT COMPARE M12 TO HUMMEL"
I found both videos very interesting. I am curious as to how the Sexton, or the Bishop with their 25 pounder would compare with both the wespe and the Priest. I realise it's a smaller calibre weapon, but it seemed quite capable.
I would like that too, mainly the Sexton as it's on the same chassis as the M7 I think?
@@Simon_Nonymous Yes, that's right.
Much awaited, much appreciated looking forward to excellent insights as usual.
Hmm, your description of the M-8's role sounds very much like the original intended purpose of the Panzer IV with it's 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24, I.E. A close support tank organic to the panzer battalion...
The Panzer IVs were in a dedicated tank company and far greater in number than the M-8 Scotts. I actually have a book on said company: Panzer: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
So, not a match neither.
An M-8 corresponds better to an assault gun like the StuG III, except that the M-8 was open top and it's armor was lightweight. Simply put, the Americans never developed a doctrine for an assault gun, and never fielded a StuG counterpart until very late in the war. An M4 Medium platoon tended to always be available to reinforce infantry, however.
I tend to agree the M8 role and early Panzer IV missions within the armored divisions was the same. HE. The number of early Panzer IV was 10 per battalion. Its role became a tank vs tank one mainly due to the inadequacy of the Panzer III. The number in a tank battalion increased when its role as a medium tank changed with the 1943 change to tank companies with 22 Mk IV and no Mark III. In 1942 there still were only 10 Panzer IV in the battalion but now including a mix of Panzer IV Kurst and Lang. By Kursk there were Panzer IV (lang) tank battalion and it was the last year (1943) the Panzer III was the Heer main battle tank. Except in Norway.
@Mike Reese The Pz IV as outlined in the manual also had anti-tank roles as well. Additionally, the M8 was a light tank, meanwhile the Pz IV was a medium or even heavy tank back then.
The organization in a dedicated company instead of in the headquarters company for me also indicates that it was far more a "regular" thing than a "add on".
Similar maybe, same, nope.
Pretty sure that this
Panzer: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com and the relevant manual for the employment of the M8 Scott differ widely.
Regarding fragment weight and number, I don't know exactly what the Germans aimed for here. BUT for what it's worth evidence based on the prewar lethality criterias of the German and British military, suggests that, atleast immediately before the war, the Germans called for fragments to have about twice the energy of what the British criteria called for - > the latter considering 1 gram fragments ideal vs infantry. That said I'd assume either side investigated the subject atleast as much as the US did. So I think it's pretty safe to assume that US artillery shells had no overall advantage here, at least Ive seen no evidence of it. Additionally I know the Germans usually used a mix of Hexogen(RDX) , TNT & amatol as explosive filler. The Germans also used HMX (octogen), a slightly more powerful version of RDX, in some of their HE rounds (30mm HE(M) for example), which is 1.7 times as powerful as TNT. I believe Hexogen was used in the prewar 10.5cm Gr.38 round (TNT equivalent factor = 1.6), explaining the smaller filler, where'as an amatol/hexogen mix (1.1-1.3) was used in the wartime 10.5cm FH GR Fern with its almost twice as large filler. Meanwhile basically all WW2 US artillery HE shells used a amatol TNT mix afaik.
I have a question regarding artillery research and development. In ww2 Why did the Germans NOT use previously developed and improved guns? This question I relate to how Rheinmetall developed a 45mm gun in a contract with the soviet union, yet the germany army used 37mm. Same question arises when discussing why the Germans went with 75mm instead of the 77mm guns they already had extensive range tables, and even penetration values for the armor piercing shells during ww1.
Loved the video of the "stumpf" halftrack with the short 75. We're these attached to Panzer Grenadier units, or Regular infantry units?
PzGren
2 in the Pzgr heavy platoon in the Pzgr company. 6 in the heavy weapon battalions. Starting in 1943.
I do wonder if, in some part, the differences in shell filler (explosives) and casing thickness doesn't also have something to do with concussive effects versus shrapnel? I'm completely spitballing here, so this is 100% conjecture. But if it has been noted by you that an artillery barrage is only successful if friendly troops have fragments falling on their helmets like rain, would it not be possible to hypothesize that, much like grenade design, some of the HE shells might be geared more towards less fragmentation and move concussive damage? It would sync, with the doctrine. Just a thought.
Also, I should point out that we are/should be smart enough to know that you can't directly compare anything 1:1. You've got differences in deployment, subordination, use, technology, shell size, application of the shell, terrain, temperature, etc. There are so many nuances, that videos like this have to be enjoyed as high level comparisons. The second that we, and I'm including your community in this, go too deep, everything starts to fall apart. This is fun and informative, which is and should be the point. Keep up the great work, Berhard.
Good repost. As always, you nailed it.
The US Army replaced the M7 with M4'S with the 105mm howitzer so it would be more useful for urban fighting. That conversion wasn't difficult to do since the 75mm cannon used the 105mm carriage due to being stronger and allowing the barrel to be swapped out with an 105 barrel if one was needed. The Army provided the comanies with 105 conversion kits in a crate that held the barrel, mantlet and other stuff so it could be done in the field.
I think a larger discussion of the artillery doctrines of different countries during WWII would be very welcome.
3:20 Was that an Office reference?
Priest? All that we need now is a UDES and we can form a band!
A Judas Priest reference? In a MHV comment section? More likely than you think!
Apparently, if the explosive in the shell is too powerful, it will pulverize the casing.
So, it might be better to use Amatol rather pure TNT since it will produce larger fragments.
Great voice for narration.
Quality work as always.
Could you make a video about the small 75mm gun on the Pak chassis, that is beside the SPW?
Hi, have u ever considered the possibility of doing a video that explains the roles of the various military ranks and what forces do they command? It would also be a pleasure just a reccomendation of some books that talk about this topic. Thanks
Kinda: th-cam.com/video/cjzdCfkXNYM/w-d-xo.html
Whats about the 15-cm-sIG 33 (Sf) auf Pz. II ?
Personally I like the videos on the SPG's and stuff that isn't just traditional "tanks". It's nice to hear about stuff that's not talked about so much once in awhile.
heavy artillery batteries ?
so does that include rocket artillery halftrucks / vehicles
Hummel:
"Wenn ich an einem schönen Tag
Durch eine Blumenwiese geh'
Und kleine Bienen fliegen seh′
Denk' ich an eine die ich mag"
Priest:
"I will stand, I will fight
You'll never take me alive
I'll stand my ground
I won't go down
You won't break me
You won't take me
'Cause I'll fight you under blood red skies"
4:59 when you're in hurry but there is high speed camera... Let's censor the license plate
No Sexton? 😥😥😥😥
I think it would be neat to so a similar comparison with organic anti-aircraft assets.
Most people do not know the difference between marketing and sales…
Hence the hate.
This much footage with the jump cuts is giving me motion sickness :-( I hope this one gets redone with infographics when you have a bit more time.
Hello, please compare MG42 to Bren gun next :D
Lol 😂
You don't know if they're comparable unless you compare them.😉
We all know that the true reason for comparing them is that they are an iconic match-up in Battlefield 1942 😎
👍👏
Thank you.
The idea that you can't compare the Wespe to the M7 because the M7 cost a lot more is suspect. By that standard you can't compare a BF109G to a
P-47D because the Thunderbolt cost a lot more.....
The virgin Hummel vs Chad thiccboi Priest
Nice👍
Did u ask yeat to make the thumbnail wth
?
the M7 is my favorite vehicle in BF1942
Both SPs
One heavy one medium
I can't understand any of this without a pretty force organization chart in front of me. T_T I am so sorry.
Artillery can’t be compared because of army doctrine.
Why would people directly compare them? They are very different.
we compare tiger to sherman every day.
Your fragment size analysis was in terms of incapacitating personnel, which are not the only targets of these weapons. Larger fragments cause more damage to equipment and structures. A fragment that might kill a soldier may not penetrate the shield or recoil mechanism of an enemy gun, yet larger fragments would be much more likely to do so. Ask the curators at the tank museum, they will likely show you damage caused by large fragments. A fairer comparison would have been to compare the Wespe and the British Bishop since both made use of obsolete vehicle designs that were closer in size. The British weapon was lighter, true, but that was what the British chose instead of the 10.5 cm. Unless you want to call the Bishop a "unicorn" to avoid a better comparison......
It is all wront.
Because not right
You're Fired. Now quit flailing yourself and do more videos.
I'm not sure, but I think the "Special Shell" you referred to was first sent to North Africa,to give more range to German guns.
Second
Perhaps the reason the Hummel has no Allied counterpart is that the Allies had air superiority during most of the War. Whenever an Allied armored unit outpaced the heavy artillery, they could call up fighter-bombers, or even medium bombers like the B-26 or A-20. The Germans didn't have such options, especially after most fighters were withdrawn to defend the Reich from Allied bombers.
Wröng
Given the casualties to the Allies during WWII, I’m inclined to think that German artillery shells were plenty deadly.
Hummel based.
Priest cringe.
Simple as.