Another example of the British quest for the finest and I don’t know if you’ve visited the Tank Museum at Bovington yet but if not I strongly encourage you to make the trip. Best wishes.📚☘️
No waffling or treating audience like children is a definitely a good thing. Discovery / History channel productions convey a fraction of information in an hour out of which a quarter is brain dead ads.
Since this is the Top Comment, i wanna share what most WW2 Axis Tank Veterans thought about the Tanks, since i had 3 in my Family (well 4, 1 is now alive at 104 years old) and i met many during Veteran Meetings as well as after my Military Service when i decided to become a Historian and interviewed countless Axis Tank Veterans. So the Sturmgeschütz was beloved by everyone, never any Complaints. Same is true for the Panther and ofc the Panzer III and IV and all of it's Versions. When it came to the Tiger, lots of Complaints. Basically Tiger in a Nutshell "It's amazing until it needs Repairs". There are some great Books like from Otto Carius who was a Tank Ace on that Topic, and he is just being realistic and honest, unlike all the "Wehraboos" nor the ... what do you call the Opposite of a Wehraboo? I know they exist too, i see them all the Time, the People who think everything Axis was Trash. Anyway, can recommend! And always keep in Mind that the best Axis Tanks were the ones that got less Attention than the ones who were the worst! Prost & Cheers from Berchtesgaden in the Bavarian Alps
Sturmgeschutz is my favorite. The StuG always stayed to a good tank design, and never overdid it. It had reliable armor, a tried and tested chassis, and a gun that wasn’t too big, nor too small. Also had the highest kill rate of all German tanks. It’s a little diamond in the rough of Tigers, Panthers and such tanks like those.
Former British cavalry officer and instructor. I remember him speaking at Larkhill RA gunnery school as a guest speaker on use of armour, up from Bovington Armoured School back in the 80s.
@@bobusamogusit was mostly because the czechs had a lot of factories that could quickly build that chassis and it would be too expensive to change the factories to build a better chassis
@@warcrimeswillyhetzer translates as agitator, hetze as rush, when I was a child in Glasgow we used to play chases and someone was “het” presumably from olde English or Norse.
@@alexbowman7582 hetzer was the name of the e-25, the jagdpanzer 38(t) was never referred to as the hetzer in documentation, but the jagdpanzer 38(t) took on the hetzer name after the war
I am not a military history fan in any way, but, I find these videos fascinating. I never miss one. It's a combination of interesting content and brilliant presentation with no gimmicks or unnecessary effects. Well done you !
@@osmacar5331he’s still in the closet but he does appear to be on the precipice of giving up his futile and miserable stance and I feel that a couple of good tank films such as Patton or Fury and he’s gonna join us in the forums and annual events across the channel..😂 seriously though best wishes.📚🎚️👏
I’m literally 20 minutes away from the museum right now and I am heading there while watching this 😂. It is my absolute FAVORITE museum and I haven’t been in a while. So I can’t wait!
Can’t wait to visit Bovington for my second time this summer! Me and my Father are coming down from Manchester, stopping by IWM Duxford , then straight to Bovington and finally wrapping things up at the Historic dockyard in Portsmouth…. Can’t wait , my most fond memories are at museums with my dad
I hope that you enjoy the Portsmouth dockyard. I worked for three years in my spare time to restore the Warrior in Hartlepool. Sadly there is nothing at all on board to tell the story of its keel up rebuild largely by local volunteers in the North East.
You will love Bovingtobn, not been sincelalst october so need to go again and see what has changed and also get into the Vehicle Conservation Hall as that has limited opening hours
German Language makes a distinction between “Tank Destroyers” (termed Panzerjaeger which literally means tank hunter) such as the Nashorn and “Hunter Tanks” (termed Jagdpanzer which literally means Hunter Tank). The Nashorn was a panzerjaeger with its open top and 30mm armour. The Jagdpanther was a Jagdpanzer with extra heavy armour and a bigger gun than the tank it was based on. The difference was mainly the armour but also crewing eg having a radio operator for tactical coordination
yeah this difference is massive, with panzerjaeger being built for long range engagement and jagdpanzer being more of a close range/ambush type vehicle
@@revan22 Broadly: Panzerjaeger for defensive operations (ambushes) using the long range guns and firing from cover such as the reverse slope of a hill. They had special long range optics and were crewed by artillery men with the training to survey ranges. Their light weight made them more mobile. The Jagdpanzer like the jagdpanther were more for offensive operations due to their heavier armour.
@@williamzk9083 aeh... stugs are crewed by artillery men. panzerjäger and jagdpanzer where crewed by the infantry or tank crews, depending on the type of organisation they were placed in. while tank crew makes sense to most of you, the infantry might need some explanation: german infantry regiment had a heavy company for anti tank duty mostly deploying towed pak guns. A pak is a gun sometimes very similar to what artillery can use too - german 7.5cm field gun based on pak40- the crew still is no artillery crew. same goes for the 2nd heavy company fielding infantry gun crewed by infantry men. yes, they received special training. in replacing the towed pak with spg pak like Marder doesn't change the organization and thus the crew type. stugs as a weapon class was not seen necessary by lots of infantry officers early on and the stug initially were planned as kind of special weapon not deployed in regular infantry as with heavy company using infantry guns. tank commanders didn't see the job as one of their task too. so the artillery branch was asked to take over the new guns - stugs - and this is how the stugs ended up as artillery weapon. as this, they artillery stugs only supported but never had been subordinate to infantry or tank regiments. this only happend up from kampfgruppen level which is a combined arms approach sometimes even below brigade level. kampfgruppen always had a ad hoc character compared to the organized company/battalion/regiment/divison/... structure. brigades where used but not on a regular basis as form of organization in german army in ww2
Just the fact that the Stug III alone destroyed more allied tanks ( Armour) than all Panzer models combined,shows how good this small,cheap and deadly vehicle really was. The Stug III main gun,the 7,5 cm KwK L/48 was a modified version of the most Successfull AT gun of WW2. The High Velocity 7,5cm L/46 Pak 40. And that makes from the StugIII the Ultimate Tank destroyer of WW2. PS: despite the Gun of the Jagpanther,Nashorn or Elefant being the most Powerfull AT gun of the war,the High Velocity 75mm L/48 of the StugIII was the most Successfull gun mounted on a Tracked Armoured Fighting Vehicle in WW2.
@@michaeltelson9798 what..??!! Man,do you know what are talking abaut...??!! Artillery units running assault guns, really...??!! Iam pretty sure that you must have heard abaut a guy called Michael Wittmann, right. Do you know where he ( like hundreds other Tank Commanders) learn how to use an armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks like a Tiger Tank. Just go check it out because that "Artillery units" in charge of Assault Guns like the Stug III,is absolutely Ridiculous.
@@LemmingOHW But there is big difference from SS units and Wehrmacht units as to how they operate. In the Wehrmacht, StuG’s were assault guns assigned to support infantry formations, the original gun was 75mm short barrel Howitzer to support infantry against fixed positions, the longer 75mm multiple purpose gun came later with the change to add antitank operations to their duties. In the Wehrmacht, Panzerwaffe troops wore Black, Artillery troops, grey green . SS troops in all categories wore Black. Later StuG’s got assigned to Panzer Divisions. The LSAHH (1st SS Panzer Division) didn’t become a division size unit until later 1942. The StuG’s were operational from mid 1940 and it was in late 1942 that the F variant received the longer 75mm gun. Wittmann operated a StuG in mid 1941, but as I mentioned earlier all SS units wore Black and he moved to a PZ III soon after.
Jagdpanzer iv actually evolved out of the StuG program. It was supposed to be called StuG IV neuerart (new art) . The name change was pushed by Guderian but resisted by the artillery arm that operated StuG. Guadarian wanted the for panzerwaffe.
While some think the technology of tank destroyers made them successful, I'm more of the mind that technology will only be as good as how one uses it. What makes German tank destroyers like the Stug 3 so successful? Ambush tactics. And that's a no-brainer, when you're laying the ambush, you're likely to be the first to land a hit. The low profile does help though in making the ambush easier to do. Reminds me of a page in Ian V. Hogg's old Tanks book which compared German and British tactics. The British liked the cavalry traditions of dash and bravado, so they get chopped up in combat. The Germans use their tanks to draw enemy tanks to the anti-tank guns in ambush, so they do the chopping up.
Regarding the decline of reliability of German tanks. A lot of that is the consequence of the way the war went. When Germany is on the offence, broken down tanks can easily be recuperated, repaired and pressed back into service. Obviously, this changes when Germany is pushed back. Even a broken track pin can now lead to loss of the tank. Add to that the loss of air superiority and dominance of allied artillery on both fronts . . .
Those are good points but you didn't mention the most important thing. That thing is the lack of properly trained drivers as a tank, especially one built on 30's and 40's technology, is only going to be as reliable as the man driving it. People fail to understand that most Germans didn't even know how to drive a car so in many cases they were starting from scratch with new recruits.
And the fact that to the end of the war those pesky allies just wouldn't stop lighting up the factories in which said tanks and their spare parts were produced also didn't help.
I was a conscript with the Panzerjäger when they were still part of the Bundeswehr. The Jaguar 1 and 2 vehicles were carrying guided missile systems like TOW and HOT, yet the history of the Sturmgeschütze was very much alive in the branch in the 80s.
Note the Finnish "Sturmi" Ausf. G on parade in Enso in July 1944 at 22:07, the loader's machine gun doesn't look like an MG 34, though, but rather a Russian DT (Degtyarev tankovyi) which the Finns mounted on StuGs because it used the same ammunition (7.62x54R) as most Finnish rifle-caliber small arms. Finland bought a total of 60 StuG III's in 1943-44 and they were in use as training vehicles into the 1960s; I recall seeing a couple in the Independence Day parade in Helsinki around 1966.
One of the few channels I've got the notification bell on for. Even having been in this rabbithole for many years at this point, there's always some new tidbit you learn from these
Thank you. I very interesting video and following in the footsteps of the 2 Davids is no easy task and yet you've done it and i enjoy your informative and authoritative style. You will always get your nit-pickers who want to draw attention to themselves and then you get those who add a thought,ask a directive question or offer a constructive criticism handed underarm. Very interesting and the Stugs massive kill rate shows how it was way more than an assualt gun and in fact became the most effective tank destroyer. The results and gun size sort of hint at that. Excellent video from every tankers favourite living museum. Keep up the good work!
Fascinating video, explaining the bewildering variety of German tank destroyers etc. The Stug with Pak.40 was eventually supplied to Finland, where it was affectionately known as a 'sturmi' - from the original German name of Sturmgeschütz, though they used it in the role of tank destroyer against the Summer '44 offensive by the Soviets.
Great video. Usual suspects around but also known. And yeah I usually think of the StuG as anti tank even with the StuH42 and such. The primary role was a very good tank killing vehicle that goes against what on paper seems less capable (and suffers in some games, but also those games lack real world inclusion of infantry and other factors (many at least)). Hetzer was also great. But one wonders if the energy and materials spent on the Death Stars of other failed things could have been spent on a sloped armoured StuG III (I know of the Panzer 4 Jagdpanzer but that disrupted both PzIV and StuG production).
Fantastic video, would have been great if we could have seen them in chronological order, or in order of their production quantities. I think that would have given a really nice perspective on the progression and would have given more opportunity for discussion of the impacts of the wider war and Germany itself on the development of these vehicles. Nonetheless, a great watch.
Excellent historical analysis, one of the best from the Tank Museum. Why?. It is important to put armoured vehicle development, production and use into historical context, which includes vehicle design, manufacturing capability, economic power, natural resource availability and the relative positions of the various combatant nations at the time. Many youtube analysis don't or can't do this. A classic example is the current trend to bag the Panther, without reference to the historical context of the war at the time. After 1941, the Germans were desperate to force a result in the east before major western mobilisation, leading them to push new designs into battle without proper testing. This led to great mechanical problems with the early Panther tanks. Some of these issues were fixed by the end of the war. Does this mean that the Panther was a poor design? No, it was an excellent medium tank (MBT) in battle performance. Does this mean that the Panther should have 'won the war'. No, the historical context was overwhelming, no great tank or aircraft design would have changed the economic relationship between the powers. Should post war German designs have ignored the Panther concept as unsuccessful? Have a look at the lines of Leopard I and tell me that is not an upgraded Panther.
My Father was a Tank Commander of a M4 Sherman, Powered by the magnificent Ford GAA V8 18 Litre, 550 hp “Grunt Engine as we would call it here in New Zealand! He was with the 20th Battalion of the 2nd NZEF, probably the most highly decorated Battalion in the British Empire with 3 VC’ s It was decimated in Operation Crusader and then turned into an Armoured Regiment fighting right up to Trieste and even then it had a go at Tito’s Commies. The 20th was a South Island Pakeha Battalion from New Zealand (Pakeha = non Māori). They (20th) fought alongside the well known and respected Māori 28th Battalion. In Italy the most feared beast was the Stug 3, and the Mk 4 Panzer. The NZ 20th suffered a KIA ration 0f 39.7%, it fought in Greece, Crete, North Africa, and as I’ve already said right up to Trieste! Go The South Island of New Zealand!
One of the Hetzel engineers went to Romania long before and saw sketches of a prototype tank destroyer Ro was considering to produce for the E front, called Maresal. It was never produced afaik but he took that idea back & applied it later, producing the Hetzel. Maresal looks very similar.
It's been some years now since I watched a video from the The Tank Museum. *WOW* what an improvement! They were never bad. But these are on another level. Plus the fellow explaining it all *looks at you.* I never could get used to that camera style where the speaker looks at you one moment, and then suddenly is looking off somewhere else. "Hey buddy - who are you talking to?! I'm over here!!" 😂
The Polish 7tp will always be my favorite tank of World War 2 but the Hetzer is by far my favorite tank destroyer. The thing just has something really aestheticially pleasing about it.
An excellent deep dive into the German assault guns OP! I have wondered what the inside of the Jagdpanther was like for years. And i can't imagine being on a Sherman or a Cromwell crew sometime after D-Day and finding yourself on the receiving end of one. Imagine your tank platoon furiously firing round after round at a Jagdpanther only to see every single shot shrugged off like so many flung rocks by that massive plate of sloped armor.
Definitely, especially since there were more of them made than the Nashorn, the Elefant, and the Jagdpanther combined. It's a very strange oversight in an otherwise great video.
@@ScrogginHausen There were several they *did* mention that they also don't have in the collection. I think they were just being their usual sloppy selves.
@@ScrogginHausen As far as I can tell, they don't have a Jagdpanzer IV, but they don't seem to have a Nashorn or Elefant either, so that excuse doesn't work. The video just blatantly ignores the 2nd (or 3rd if we count the StuG) most common German TD of WW2.
According to Jagtiger there are still some myths which get constantly repeaded. Its power to weight raito is not worse compared to other vehicles of the same type and role. Us T28/T95 was much slower, same goes fot the British Tortoise. Even the Churchills power to weight ratio is worse than the Jagtigers (8,7 hp/ton vs 9.7 hp/ ton). Jagtiger could maintain a roadspeed of 12.5 Miles (20 Km/h), well thats Churchill Mk IIIs top speed. The Jadtiger had a 8 Speed transmission, allowing it to make good use of its power (Chuchill just had 4 gears). The interleaved roadwheel system further reduced rolling resistance. US replaced the running gear of a M24 Chaffee with the interleaved running gear of a Sdkfz 9 for testing. The Results show that rolling resistance was up to 40% lower on most surfaces. If you watch original footage of Jagdtigers they actually move quite gently through terrain. The Bergepanthers had no issue in towing Jagtigers or recovering them. During tests the Bergepanthers +100 ton hydraulic winch could pull up a Tiger II a 35° inlcine. But of course because of the late war situation fully equipped bergepanthers were rare. But if those vehicles were in service with the allied, they probably could have provide more ARVs for sure. It was not technical issue to recover Jagtigers it was a resource issue of late war german production. Futhermore there were only 120 or 130 Jagdtigers ordered to replace the 90 Ferdinands, it was a special weapon for what if scenarios (like the russian fielding something like IS3 earlier) and creating strong points in the defensive or in the attack against heavily fortyfight positions. It was never planed to be mass produced. Relying mostly on parts which were already in prodcution, it was a far more practical solution than T95 or Tortoise which should served the same roles and followed the same concept. The success of the Ferdinand and the impression it left with the soviets can justyfy the realisation of those tanks, which did not even made up half a percent of germanies entire WWII tank production and are heavily over represented in the media today.
yes, the mobility of tigers, tiger2, jagdtiger and sometimes even panthers is often underestimated. this mostly is related to the impressive mobility a t-34 or a M18 hellcat can show on fitting surfaces (or even panzer3). still the mobility of the german big cats is adequate and sometimes surprising - i remember 2 things o this: first, n yt somewhere you can find a video where germanbig cats go up a steep slope where ussr t-34/85 and sherman struggle at second, in my hometown (germany, southern palatinate close to french border) an old man sometimes told us "young guys" about him as a boy, too young for war service, guiding a platoon of jagdtigers in early 1945 through some forrest on pathes where halftracks had troubles to follow. on telling the story he always admired the power of the machines and how easy they made their way.
@@lyndoncmp5751 there is even footage done by the British after war on a German testing ground of this particular Jagdtiger presented in this video. Even with some roadwheels missing it was traversing soft ground, does deep wading, crawling into out of the ditches with steep banks, nocking down trees....
@@HaVoC117X If you can't stabilise the gun, stabilise the whole tank. All those interleaved roadwheels were excellent for keeping the crew and the armament steady.
American tank destroyers were supposed to be a direct counter to 'blitzkrieg', small rapid reaction forces that would rush to whichever part of the line was threatened by a concentration of enemy armor to either prevent or contain the breakthrough long enough for other units to move in to plug the gap. Because of that the TD branch wanted vehicles that were fast, open topped for better spotting (they weren't supposed to stay in one position long enough for artillery to hone in on them), turreted for flexibility in firing position, and armed with a powerful gun. Or, in other words, they wanted the M18, even though lots of the units in theater preferred the interim M10 because it had armor resistant to more than small arms. The British, as I understand it, mostly treated their tank destroyers like like self towed AT guns and intended them to largely fight the same way, from ambush, just being less vulnerable to return fire and able to more quickly reposition. The exemplar here is Archer with is rear facing gun. Red Army doctrine was, again as I understand it, largely an extension of their existing artillery doctrine. All towed guns were expected to be able to be move forward behind the infantry to provide precise direct fire against point targets, including but not limited to enemy tanks, and to defend their own lines as anti tank guns if necessary (yes, even the large caliber howitzers). The various SUs just leaned harder into those direct fire roles, often at the expense of indirect fire capability, and were less vulnerable to enemy fure, to varying degrees, doing it.
@@issacfoster1113 The Americans lost nearly THREE TIMES as much armour as the Germans did in combat in the Ardennes. Approximately 50% of German armour losses in the Ardennes were due to running out of fuel, mechanical issues without the resources to maintain them, a thrown track or getting stuck in a ditch etc and no supporting vehicles or troops to sort them out. The Germans were basically running on empty in the Ardennes. Still, a LOT of American armour was taken out.
The first Marder IIIs carried the Pak 36 (r), which was a rechambered (to fire the more powerful Pak 40 round) ex-Soviet 76.2mm M1936 divisional artillery piece. It also used a Pak 38 gunsight and had some other modifications. Based on ammunition expenditure, it was in 1942 a more important German anti-tank gun than the Pak 40. I understand that the Stug III did help to flesh out a shortage of tanks in Panzer divisions later in the war, but it's role largely remained as an assault gun to support infantry throughout. Certainly in that role it was widely used as an anti-tank vehicle but it is its role that makes it an assault gun rather than a tank destroyer. So perhaps the distinction does need to be made. The Stug IIIs then were crewed by artillerymen. I think I am correct in saying that Guderian wanted to employ them as tank destroyers (jagdpanzers) but didn't get his way.
It would be interesting if the video included an analysis of the cost of the various AFV being discussed. A table with the quantities of materials needed to produce the vehicle as well as the number of hours to assemble and finally the actual financial cost. I think this would go a long way to put the "popularity" of niche vehicles like the Jagd Tiger into perspective. Another interesting comparison would be the frontal area of the different vehicles in square centimetres. Obviously the smaller vehicles will be much easier to hide - would be interesting to put a numerical ratio to their comparative sizes.
Putting it up on a chassis also raises it up giving it a bigger profile and making it more difficult to camouflage and dig in behind embankments. It's a tradeoff either way. Still I'd prefer being mobile especially considering many of these german anti tank guns were still being pulled by horses lol.
I think you’re both forgetting the biggest thing one costs sweat the other costs fuel and Germany wasn’t exactly swimming in oil at any point of the war
@@henrypollock7987 They still had enough fuel right up to the end. Certainly not abundant. Plenty of videos of German troops surrendering on their still active vehicles.
@@akula9713 bro you do realise Germany was like 20% mechanised at the height of there power and struggled with only to refuel them let alone if they where as mechanised as the yanks and Brits, having footage of a single tank still running whilst surrendering means nothing in the grand scheme of things, if Germany had more oil they would have won in the east but without it they had to constantly find ways to fight armour without spending fuel
I might already know a lot of what you talk about, but you guys make fantastic videos nonetheless. Love the work you're doing. Great scripts, great presenters, great historical footage, and real tanks to point to for everything! You guys give all the tanks a real fair shake as well. No editorializing and myths either. I really appreciate that.
I read many posts in which someone argues the StuG could have been Germany's savior if only more were built because of the kill ratio. Before people argue numbers, they need to understand the difference between a tank and a StuG. Additionally, this group of vehicles is hard to separate the kill numbers between StuG III, Stug IV, Jagd IV, and the variants. I'm not preach to the choir here. I read some of the posts here, and I, too, wish the museum would spend some time on the Jagd IV.
It wouldn't have mattered they had so many tanks but not enough fuel to keep all them running might as make one beast of a tank than 10-20 tanks and if those only have enough fuel for a couple of them either way they were screwed
The comment about the Hetzer colour scheme made me smile. A Czech friend of mine published some books on the Hetzer and Marder in the '90s and 2000s which I helped with 😁 and I was thinking those colours on that Hetzer look very strange.
The Germans actually had a distinction between so called tank destroyers or Panzerjaeger or more literally "tank hunter" and hunter tanks or Jagdpanzer or more literally "hunter tank." The Nashorn was a tank destroyer with its open compartment and thinner armor and an anti tank doctrine closer to that of the Americans in which it relied on speed and manuverability and range to set up ambushes and then relocate to set up another ambush. The Jagdpanther was a Jagdpanzer and really operated like more of a search and destroy tank killer. Heavier armor and a heavier gun than a vast majority of tanks it also had enclosed crew quarters and a radio operator to coordinate with other hunter tanks and tanks and basically was a much more aggressive tank designed to go after other tanks. Its lack of a turret was made up for with its armor and gun and use doctorine and was pretty effective at tank killing at pretty much all ranges. Remember Wittman actually got his start on a hunter tank and transposed hunter tank doctorine on to the Tigers he commanded. Set up an ambush, or charge across a field, or basically do whatever you can to get your superiorly armored and gunned tanks at the enemy aggressively, any way you can. He was even known to rely on his tank treads to focus on an enemy more so than his turret. Keeping his tanks thicker frontal armor directed at the enemy. Obviously a carry over from when he didnt have a turret at all. Side note the comments crack me up. It's crazy to me that, in 2024, so many people still believe in the myth of vastly superior German armor. "It took 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger..." No. Its just that there usually WERE at least 5 Shermans to a Tiger. Shermans travelled in minimum formations of 5 and Tigers were outnumbered by far more than 5 to 1. I guess the allied commanders should have held back some Shermans so arm chair historians almost a hundred years later wouldnt fan boy over German tanks so much? The fact of the matter is that narrowing tanks down to hard criteria such as armor, firepower, and engine power is a simplistic, video game way of looking at the overall effectiveness of armor in the war. Yes one WORKING Tiger was indeed superior to one working Sherman. Although not nearly as superior as many peoplr make out and upgun that Sherman... But do you know how many more Shermans we had than the Germans had Tigers of anything else? A Sherman wasnt going 1 on 1 against a Tiger. It was rarely going one on one against amything German and Tigers were far from being the main German tank. There were around 1,350 Tiger tanks and 500 Tiger II tanks made during the war. There were over 50,000 Shermans made. Its more of a ratio of 30-1 than 5-1. Moreover soft criteria for tanks is just as important if no more so than hard criteria like armor, gun, engine. Things like crew comfort, visibility, radio, sights, ease of loading, ammo storage, crew escability, ease of repair, the ability of a Sherman over a Tiger to actually get to the front (almost half of all Tigers broke down before they could even get where they were going, Tiger IIs were worse), ease of shipping (Tigers were very hard to ship on rail, Tiger IIs even worse) and most of all cost and ease of manufacture (Tigers were expensive and hard to make and needed expert craftsman to make them, Tiger IIs were even worse). Basically, at the end of the day, the Allies decision to focus on mostly one very good tank was the far better decision than the Germans pursuit of difficult to manufacture, expensive, difficult to repair and maintain and difficult to ship "super tanks." Even looking at the kill totals of tanks is very misleading. Take the T-34 (a tank that is also often praised above its actual combat effectiveness) which while being destroyed at a rate of almost 1-5 was still very much effective because... A: they so often out numbered German tanks at more than 1-5 and B: because Soviet tank crews would often go through 5, 10 or even a dozen or more tanks. Their T-34 would be destroyed and they would jump right in another T-34 waiting for them. Whereas German tank crews would usually end up dead or transfered to the infantry after their one tank was destroyed. (Although, and this is one reason the T-34 is overrated, that had more to do with Soviet manufacturing capabilities than the actual ease of manufacture of the T-34 itself. Which, while certainly easier and cheaper to make than most German tanks, was not the cheapest or easiest to make tank design by any means. Again the Sherman was a better tank in many ways and cheaper and easier to manufacturer PROPERLY than the T-34)
The light armor of the Marder series was not a big problem, because they gone to "Panzerjäger" or tank hunter units. There was a difference in doctrine between tank destroyers and tank hunters.
Thanks great video I play flames of war and have a Romanian army in the works- chose as their air support JU87’s and Stugs as their armour. Hopefully should help them out in a tight spot. Only found your videos today listened to your one A11 Matilda 1’s got some 1/100 Zvezda kits of them just because they looked good. So found your videos very good have sent them onto my Wargaming friends. All the best from down under Lewis Sydney Australia 🇦🇺
Excellent video. Very informative. I had a German relative who was on the Stug III from 1942-1944 exclusively on the Russian front. His first vehicle had the 75mm cannon, but I remember him saying his battalion later had Stug III with the 88mm cannon with some suspension upgrades and took orders directly from OKW in Germany via a special communications section that had long range radio equipment to talk to them. In essence they were a fire brigade that moved about the southern front in late 1943 to fall of 1944 to hot spots in order to add their fire power with the 88's. By autumn 1944 the remainder of this special Stug BN was in Transylvania, and there the last ones ran out of fuel. My relative said he and his crew had to abandon theirs and blow it in place. They were on foot moving west but were captured sometime after losing their vehicle. Does The Tank Museum have any information on this special one of a kind Stug III BN variant that apparently mounted the 88mm anti-tank gun?
I went in a Hetzer (really a Swiss G13) once. You can see at 16.50 how cramped the commander's location is. That's as far as I got before claustrophobia took over.
Good to make use of older kit in other roles as things evolve. Stugs, Mark 4, and Panthers should have been the focus with upgrades as the war went on..No heavy tanks.
The quality of these videos is simply excellent, incredible work. Better than most WWII TV documentaries.
Another example of the British quest for the finest and I don’t know if you’ve visited the Tank Museum at Bovington yet but if not I strongly encourage you to make the trip. Best wishes.📚☘️
Meh
@@chpet1655 sure told them
No waffling or treating audience like children is a definitely a good thing. Discovery / History channel productions convey a fraction of information in an hour out of which a quarter is brain dead ads.
Since this is the Top Comment, i wanna share what most WW2 Axis Tank Veterans thought about the Tanks, since i had 3 in my Family (well 4, 1 is now alive at 104 years old) and i met many during Veteran Meetings as well as after my Military Service when i decided to become a Historian and interviewed countless Axis Tank Veterans.
So the Sturmgeschütz was beloved by everyone, never any Complaints. Same is true for the Panther and ofc the Panzer III and IV and all of it's Versions.
When it came to the Tiger, lots of Complaints. Basically Tiger in a Nutshell "It's amazing until it needs Repairs". There are some great Books like from Otto Carius who was a Tank Ace on that Topic, and he is just being realistic and honest, unlike all the "Wehraboos" nor the ... what do you call the Opposite of a Wehraboo? I know they exist too, i see them all the Time, the People who think everything Axis was Trash.
Anyway, can recommend! And always keep in Mind that the best Axis Tanks were the ones that got less Attention than the ones who were the worst!
Prost & Cheers from Berchtesgaden in the Bavarian Alps
Sturmgeschutz is my favorite. The StuG always stayed to a good tank design, and never overdid it. It had reliable armor, a tried and tested chassis, and a gun that wasn’t too big, nor too small. Also had the highest kill rate of all German tanks. It’s a little diamond in the rough of Tigers, Panthers and such tanks like those.
Hello fellow stug fan!
Yes. I have a Stug Life tshirt
I totally agree 👍
I like the Stug also... reliable, easy to hide,nasty 75mm gun
The Stug isn’t a tank
Hey Tanks Nuts! What did you think of our latest video? Which of these German Tank Destroyers do you think was the best - let us know below
stuh 42 has big boom stick
@@BlahajGaming200110.5 cm boom stick 😊
Great video,I still prefer the stug III
Hetzers gonna hetz
Great video, really interesting to see the wide range of tank destroyers used. I still like the Stug, simple effective and great looking.
I just have to say I'm amazed by the production quality of these videos. Really well done.
Produced by the wonderful team at the Tank Museum. 👏👏👏
I absolutely adore when engineers decide to take the biggest gun they can find and build a vehicle around it
Literally the A10 design philosophy lol
Or put it on a vehicle not designed for it.
Too bad there's a thing called air support
@@PantsofVance needs supremacy.
@@PantsofVancetoo bad FLAK fooks it over LOL
Love the clarity of Chris’s delivery. Another brilliant video.
really? i thought, there was, quite a lot, of, unnecessary, punctuation, in the delivery
Former British cavalry officer and instructor. I remember him speaking at Larkhill RA gunnery school as a guest speaker on use of armour, up from Bovington Armoured School back in the 80s.
@@randomname3109he got out of breath j think 😅
The design of the Stug was spot on. A excellent balance of armour, speed and fire power. I am also a fan of the Hetzer.
В основе Хетцер чешский танк.
И он не удобен для команды.STUG штурмовое орудие и охотник.
Hetzer jast a hunter.
@@spaseman6343 the czech chassis was very very good, it's why the germans kept fielding it so late
@@bobusamogusit was mostly because the czechs had a lot of factories that could quickly build that chassis and it would be too expensive to change the factories to build a better chassis
@@warcrimeswillyhetzer translates as agitator, hetze as rush, when I was a child in Glasgow we used to play chases and someone was “het” presumably from olde English or Norse.
@@alexbowman7582 hetzer was the name of the e-25, the jagdpanzer 38(t) was never referred to as the hetzer in documentation, but the jagdpanzer 38(t) took on the hetzer name after the war
I am not a military history fan in any way, but, I find these videos fascinating. I never miss one. It's a combination of interesting content and brilliant presentation with no gimmicks or unnecessary effects.
Well done you !
So you are a military history fan.
@@osmacar5331he’s still in the closet but he does appear to be on the precipice of giving up his futile and miserable stance and I feel that a couple of good tank films such as Patton or Fury and he’s gonna join us in the forums and annual events across the channel..😂 seriously though best wishes.📚🎚️👏
@@DaveSCameron american propaganda is just as bad. Look at the overall situation. Paper stats is not working stats.
I’m literally 20 minutes away from the museum right now and I am heading there while watching this 😂. It is my absolute FAVORITE museum and I haven’t been in a while. So I can’t wait!
Can’t wait to visit Bovington for my second time this summer!
Me and my Father are coming down from Manchester, stopping by IWM Duxford , then straight to Bovington and finally wrapping things up at the Historic dockyard in Portsmouth….
Can’t wait , my most fond memories are at museums with my dad
I hope that you enjoy the Portsmouth dockyard. I worked for three years in my spare time to restore the Warrior in Hartlepool. Sadly there is nothing at all on board to tell the story of its keel up rebuild largely by local volunteers in the North East.
You will love Bovingtobn, not been sincelalst october so need to go again and see what has changed and also get into the Vehicle Conservation Hall as that has limited opening hours
Duxford is a massive must do. Allow plenty of time to see it all!
Sounds like a fun week.
If you are heading down to Portsmouth, you might also enjoy a visit to the Royal Armouries artillery museum at Fort Nelson.
German Language makes a distinction between “Tank Destroyers” (termed Panzerjaeger which literally means tank hunter) such as the Nashorn and “Hunter Tanks” (termed Jagdpanzer which literally means Hunter Tank). The Nashorn was a panzerjaeger with its open top and 30mm armour. The Jagdpanther was a Jagdpanzer with extra heavy armour and a bigger gun than the tank it was based on. The difference was mainly the armour but also crewing eg having a radio operator for tactical coordination
yeah this difference is massive, with panzerjaeger being built for long range engagement and jagdpanzer being more of a close range/ambush type vehicle
@@revan22 Broadly: Panzerjaeger for defensive operations (ambushes) using the long range guns and firing from cover such as the reverse slope of a hill. They had special long range optics and were crewed by artillery men with the training to survey ranges. Their light weight made them more mobile. The Jagdpanzer like the jagdpanther were more for offensive operations due to their heavier armour.
@@williamzk9083 aeh... stugs are crewed by artillery men. panzerjäger and jagdpanzer where crewed by the infantry or tank crews, depending on the type of organisation they were placed in. while tank crew makes sense to most of you, the infantry might need some explanation:
german infantry regiment had a heavy company for anti tank duty mostly deploying towed pak guns. A pak is a gun sometimes very similar to what artillery can use too - german 7.5cm field gun based on pak40- the crew still is no artillery crew. same goes for the 2nd heavy company fielding infantry gun crewed by infantry men. yes, they received special training.
in replacing the towed pak with spg pak like Marder doesn't change the organization and thus the crew type.
stugs as a weapon class was not seen necessary by lots of infantry officers early on and the stug initially were planned as kind of special weapon not deployed in regular infantry as with heavy company using infantry guns. tank commanders didn't see the job as one of their task too. so the artillery branch was asked to take over the new guns - stugs - and this is how the stugs ended up as artillery weapon. as this, they artillery stugs only supported but never had been subordinate to infantry or tank regiments. this only happend up from kampfgruppen level which is a combined arms approach sometimes even below brigade level. kampfgruppen always had a ad hoc character compared to the organized company/battalion/regiment/divison/... structure. brigades where used but not on a regular basis as form of organization in german army in ww2
Panzerjäger is essentially just a self-propelled anti-tank gun.
Just the fact that the Stug III alone destroyed more allied tanks ( Armour) than all Panzer models combined,shows how good this small,cheap and deadly vehicle really was.
The Stug III main gun,the 7,5 cm KwK L/48 was a modified version of the most Successfull AT gun of WW2. The High Velocity 7,5cm L/46 Pak 40.
And that makes from the StugIII the Ultimate Tank destroyer of WW2.
PS: despite the Gun of the Jagpanther,Nashorn or Elefant being the most Powerfull AT gun of the war,the High Velocity 75mm L/48 of the StugIII was the most Successfull gun mounted on a Tracked Armoured Fighting Vehicle in WW2.
STuG’s weren’t manned by Panzer Troops, they were artillery units and wore the Feldgrun uniforms not Panzer Black.
Some had a 105mm Howitzer instead of the 75mm
@@michaeltelson9798 what..??!! Man,do you know what are talking abaut...??!!
Artillery units running assault guns, really...??!!
Iam pretty sure that you must have heard abaut a guy called Michael Wittmann, right.
Do you know where he ( like hundreds other Tank Commanders) learn how to use an armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks like a Tiger Tank.
Just go check it out because that "Artillery units" in charge of Assault Guns like the Stug III,is absolutely Ridiculous.
@jpmtlhead39 It is actually true. Wittman was Commander of a StuG bevore he got his Tiger.
@@LemmingOHW But there is big difference from SS units and Wehrmacht units as to how they operate. In the Wehrmacht, StuG’s were assault guns assigned to support infantry formations, the original gun was 75mm short barrel Howitzer to support infantry against fixed positions, the longer 75mm multiple purpose gun came later with the change to add antitank operations to their duties. In the Wehrmacht, Panzerwaffe troops wore Black, Artillery troops, grey green . SS troops in all categories wore Black. Later StuG’s got assigned to Panzer Divisions. The LSAHH (1st SS Panzer Division) didn’t become a division size unit until later 1942. The StuG’s were operational from mid 1940 and it was in late 1942 that the F variant received the longer 75mm gun. Wittmann operated a StuG in mid 1941, but as I mentioned earlier all SS units wore Black and he moved to a PZ III soon after.
Jagdpanzer 4? 2000 built…
Guess they don't have one.
@@Chris.in.taiwan 😥
@@ConvetionalHeretic rip
Jagdpanzer iv actually evolved out of the StuG program. It was supposed to be called StuG IV neuerart (new art) . The name change was pushed by Guderian but resisted by the artillery arm that operated StuG. Guadarian wanted the for panzerwaffe.
Iv decided im calling hitler and telling him you have been being annoying.
The Stug and Stug Life will always be the favorite.
👍🏻
While some think the technology of tank destroyers made them successful, I'm more of the mind that technology will only be as good as how one uses it. What makes German tank destroyers like the Stug 3 so successful? Ambush tactics. And that's a no-brainer, when you're laying the ambush, you're likely to be the first to land a hit. The low profile does help though in making the ambush easier to do.
Reminds me of a page in Ian V. Hogg's old Tanks book which compared German and British tactics. The British liked the cavalry traditions of dash and bravado, so they get chopped up in combat. The Germans use their tanks to draw enemy tanks to the anti-tank guns in ambush, so they do the chopping up.
ambush tactics, decent armor, decently powerful gun, also soviet doctrine helped
Regarding the decline of reliability of German tanks. A lot of that is the consequence of the way the war went.
When Germany is on the offence, broken down tanks can easily be recuperated, repaired and pressed back into service.
Obviously, this changes when Germany is pushed back. Even a broken track pin can now lead to loss of the tank.
Add to that the loss of air superiority and dominance of allied artillery on both fronts . . .
Not to mention the constant air attacks on convoys, trains and factories. 👍🏻
Those are good points but you didn't mention the most important thing. That thing is the lack of properly trained drivers as a tank, especially one built on 30's and 40's technology, is only going to be as reliable as the man driving it. People fail to understand that most Germans didn't even know how to drive a car so in many cases they were starting from scratch with new recruits.
And the fact that to the end of the war those pesky allies just wouldn't stop lighting up the factories in which said tanks and their spare parts were produced also didn't help.
I really enjoyed this - love the colour highlights to draw attention to hatches etc. Well done !
I was a conscript with the Panzerjäger when they were still part of the Bundeswehr. The Jaguar 1 and 2 vehicles were carrying guided missile systems like TOW and HOT, yet the history of the Sturmgeschütze was very much alive in the branch in the 80s.
Note the Finnish "Sturmi" Ausf. G on parade in Enso in July 1944 at 22:07, the loader's machine gun doesn't look like an MG 34, though, but rather a Russian DT (Degtyarev tankovyi) which the Finns mounted on StuGs because it used the same ammunition (7.62x54R) as most Finnish rifle-caliber small arms. Finland bought a total of 60 StuG III's in 1943-44 and they were in use as training vehicles into the 1960s; I recall seeing a couple in the Independence Day parade in Helsinki around 1966.
One of the few channels I've got the notification bell on for. Even having been in this rabbithole for many years at this point, there's always some new tidbit you learn from these
Thank you. I very interesting video and following in the footsteps of the 2 Davids is no easy task and yet you've done it and i enjoy your informative and authoritative style. You will always get your nit-pickers who want to draw attention to themselves and then you get those who add a thought,ask a directive question or offer a constructive criticism handed underarm. Very interesting and the Stugs massive kill rate shows how it was way more than an assualt gun and in fact became the most effective tank destroyer. The results and gun size sort of hint at that. Excellent video from every tankers favourite living museum. Keep up the good work!
New Chris Copson video? Happy days! Looking at German tank destroyers? Even better! Excellent video as always!!
4:40 The pak 43 is astonishingly massive
Kruppstahl was centrifugally cast👍
The Girls call me "PAK43".
The quality of this video was much higher than I expected. You earned my subscription. I'm looking forward to watching your other videos on WW2 tanks.
Glad you enjoyed!
Fascinating video, explaining the bewildering variety of German tank destroyers etc.
The Stug with Pak.40 was eventually supplied to Finland, where it was affectionately known as a 'sturmi' - from the original German name of Sturmgeschütz, though they used it in the role of tank destroyer against the Summer '44 offensive by the Soviets.
Great video. Usual suspects around but also known. And yeah I usually think of the StuG as anti tank even with the StuH42 and such. The primary role was a very good tank killing vehicle that goes against what on paper seems less capable (and suffers in some games, but also those games lack real world inclusion of infantry and other factors (many at least)).
Hetzer was also great. But one wonders if the energy and materials spent on the Death Stars of other failed things could have been spent on a sloped armoured StuG III (I know of the Panzer 4 Jagdpanzer but that disrupted both PzIV and StuG production).
New Tank Museum content, yaaaaassssss! Also tank destroyers, one of my favourite subjects.
Fantastic video, would have been great if we could have seen them in chronological order, or in order of their production quantities. I think that would have given a really nice perspective on the progression and would have given more opportunity for discussion of the impacts of the wider war and Germany itself on the development of these vehicles. Nonetheless, a great watch.
Excellent historical analysis, one of the best from the Tank Museum. Why?. It is important to put armoured vehicle development, production and use into historical context, which includes vehicle design, manufacturing capability, economic power, natural resource availability and the relative positions of the various combatant nations at the time. Many youtube analysis don't or can't do this. A classic example is the current trend to bag the Panther, without reference to the historical context of the war at the time. After 1941, the Germans were desperate to force a result in the east before major western mobilisation, leading them to push new designs into battle without proper testing. This led to great mechanical problems with the early Panther tanks. Some of these issues were fixed by the end of the war. Does this mean that the Panther was a poor design? No, it was an excellent medium tank (MBT) in battle performance. Does this mean that the Panther should have 'won the war'. No, the historical context was overwhelming, no great tank or aircraft design would have changed the economic relationship between the powers. Should post war German designs have ignored the Panther concept as unsuccessful? Have a look at the lines of Leopard I and tell me that is not an upgraded Panther.
My Father was a Tank Commander of a M4 Sherman, Powered by the magnificent Ford GAA V8 18 Litre, 550 hp “Grunt Engine as we would call it here in New Zealand! He was with the 20th Battalion of the 2nd NZEF, probably the most highly decorated Battalion in the British Empire with 3 VC’ s It was decimated in Operation Crusader and then turned into an Armoured Regiment fighting right up to Trieste and even then it had a go at Tito’s Commies. The 20th was a South Island Pakeha Battalion from New Zealand (Pakeha = non Māori). They (20th) fought alongside the well known and respected Māori 28th Battalion.
In Italy the most feared beast was the Stug 3, and the Mk 4 Panzer.
The NZ 20th suffered a KIA ration 0f 39.7%, it fought in Greece, Crete, North Africa, and as I’ve already said right up to Trieste!
Go The South Island of New Zealand!
20th Battalion of the NZEF not quiet the unit with the most VC's during WW2. The Royal Norfolk had 4 VCs and 2/48th Battalion (Australia) had 4 VCs.
One of the Hetzel engineers went to Romania long before and saw sketches of a prototype tank destroyer Ro was considering to produce for the E front, called Maresal. It was never produced afaik but he took that idea back & applied it later, producing the Hetzel. Maresal looks very similar.
Great video! Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger were truly mighty beasts. 🙂
The StuG III is my fave armoured tracked vehicle of WWII... together with the Panzer IV.
Brilliant as always - excellent, enthusiastic and knowledgble presentation as we always get from Chris!
It's been some years now since I watched a video from the The Tank Museum. *WOW* what an improvement! They were never bad. But these are on another level. Plus the fellow explaining it all *looks at you.* I never could get used to that camera style where the speaker looks at you one moment, and then suddenly is looking off somewhere else. "Hey buddy - who are you talking to?! I'm over here!!" 😂
So glad Copson's back from Holiday and shifted it into high gear. Love this video. Keep them coming! :)
The Polish 7tp will always be my favorite tank of World War 2 but the Hetzer is by far my favorite tank destroyer. The thing just has something really aestheticially pleasing about it.
Sometimes the simplest design just looks “right”…
@@Rendell001 I guess that's why people like Glocks lol.
@@rc59191 You'll shoot your foot off!
its quite amazing we get this professional Museum content for free
Excellent video again! The Jagdpanther is a beauty, but the STUG .. I love the workhorse of war 👍
Greetings from the Netherlands 🇳🇱, TW.
An excellent deep dive into the German assault guns OP! I have wondered what the inside of the Jagdpanther was like for years. And i can't imagine being on a Sherman or a Cromwell crew sometime after D-Day and finding yourself on the receiving end of one. Imagine your tank platoon furiously firing round after round at a Jagdpanther only to see every single shot shrugged off like so many flung rocks by that massive plate of sloped armor.
I think the Jagdpanzer IV would have been worth a mentioning, but great video! Loved to see those insides.
Awesome video Chris, love your passion and insights. Keep up the great work
Anothers brilliant video 📹 Tank Museum & thank you for sharing.
Also, a big 'Hello' 👋 from Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire, England. 🏴
A visit to the Tank Museum is long overdue to refresh my memory of these fighting machines.
I’ve already watched this video twice and it’s cracking! Great work.
The Jagdpanther is by far the best looking armoured fighting vehicle.
Fond memories of my (long ago) childhood building Airfix model Jagdpanthers.
Sure is. Great lines to it.
By far
Close second for me, I think the StrV 103 is
... There not bad, but a bit high profile(high silhouette). I'm a stug fan very much so!.
The Jagdpanzer IV deserved at least a mention....
Definitely, especially since there were more of them made than the Nashorn, the Elefant, and the Jagdpanther combined. It's a very strange oversight in an otherwise great video.
It always gets ignored :(
Do they have one in the collection? If not, that might be why it's not mentioned.
@@ScrogginHausen There were several they *did* mention that they also don't have in the collection. I think they were just being their usual sloppy selves.
@@ScrogginHausen As far as I can tell, they don't have a Jagdpanzer IV, but they don't seem to have a Nashorn or Elefant either, so that excuse doesn't work. The video just blatantly ignores the 2nd (or 3rd if we count the StuG) most common German TD of WW2.
According to Jagtiger there are still some myths which get constantly repeaded.
Its power to weight raito is not worse compared to other vehicles of the same type and role. Us T28/T95 was much slower, same goes fot the British Tortoise. Even the Churchills power to weight ratio is worse than the Jagtigers (8,7 hp/ton vs 9.7 hp/ ton). Jagtiger could maintain a roadspeed of 12.5 Miles (20 Km/h), well thats Churchill Mk IIIs top speed. The Jadtiger had a 8 Speed transmission, allowing it to make good use of its power (Chuchill just had 4 gears).
The interleaved roadwheel system further reduced rolling resistance. US replaced the running gear of a M24 Chaffee with the interleaved running gear of a Sdkfz 9 for testing. The Results show that rolling resistance was up to 40% lower on most surfaces.
If you watch original footage of Jagdtigers they actually move quite gently through terrain.
The Bergepanthers had no issue in towing Jagtigers or recovering them. During tests the Bergepanthers +100 ton hydraulic winch could pull up a Tiger II a 35° inlcine. But of course because of the late war situation fully equipped bergepanthers were rare. But if those vehicles were in service with the allied, they probably could have provide more ARVs for sure. It was not technical issue to recover Jagtigers it was a resource issue of late war german production.
Futhermore there were only 120 or 130 Jagdtigers ordered to replace the 90 Ferdinands, it was a special weapon for what if scenarios (like the russian fielding something like IS3 earlier) and creating strong points in the defensive or in the attack against heavily fortyfight positions. It was never planed to be mass produced. Relying mostly on parts which were already in prodcution, it was a far more practical solution than T95 or Tortoise which should served the same roles and followed the same concept. The success of the Ferdinand and the impression it left with the soviets can justyfy the realisation of those tanks, which did not even made up half a percent of germanies entire WWII tank production and are heavily over represented in the media today.
yes, the mobility of tigers, tiger2, jagdtiger and sometimes even panthers is often underestimated. this mostly is related to the impressive mobility a t-34 or a M18 hellcat can show on fitting surfaces (or even panzer3). still the mobility of the german big cats is adequate and sometimes surprising - i remember 2 things o this:
first, n yt somewhere you can find a video where germanbig cats go up a steep slope where ussr t-34/85 and sherman struggle at
second, in my hometown (germany, southern palatinate close to french border) an old man sometimes told us "young guys" about him as a boy, too young for war service, guiding a platoon of jagdtigers in early 1945 through some forrest on pathes where halftracks had troubles to follow. on telling the story he always admired the power of the machines and how easy they made their way.
The footage of the Jagdtigers at Iserlohn in April 1945 show them moving along pretty nicely. Much faster than the myth tells us.
@@lyndoncmp5751 there is even footage done by the British after war on a German testing ground of this particular Jagdtiger presented in this video. Even with some roadwheels missing it was traversing soft ground, does deep wading, crawling into out of the ditches with steep banks, nocking down trees....
@@HaVoC117X
Yes I've seen that one. It was even filmed pivoting on the spot. Hardly the static monstrosity we are now lead to believe.
@@HaVoC117X If you can't stabilise the gun, stabilise the whole tank. All those interleaved roadwheels were excellent for keeping the crew and the armament steady.
What a terrific little film. Thanks, chaps!
Great optics helped a lot
It would be interesting to have a video comparing the American+British, German and USSR approaches to tank destroyers
I wouldn't have wanted to be in one of those poorly armoured open topped American ones.
US tank Destroyers on the defensive shut up German Armor in the Bulge
American tank destroyers were supposed to be a direct counter to 'blitzkrieg', small rapid reaction forces that would rush to whichever part of the line was threatened by a concentration of enemy armor to either prevent or contain the breakthrough long enough for other units to move in to plug the gap. Because of that the TD branch wanted vehicles that were fast, open topped for better spotting (they weren't supposed to stay in one position long enough for artillery to hone in on them), turreted for flexibility in firing position, and armed with a powerful gun. Or, in other words, they wanted the M18, even though lots of the units in theater preferred the interim M10 because it had armor resistant to more than small arms.
The British, as I understand it, mostly treated their tank destroyers like like self towed AT guns and intended them to largely fight the same way, from ambush, just being less vulnerable to return fire and able to more quickly reposition. The exemplar here is Archer with is rear facing gun.
Red Army doctrine was, again as I understand it, largely an extension of their existing artillery doctrine. All towed guns were expected to be able to be move forward behind the infantry to provide precise direct fire against point targets, including but not limited to enemy tanks, and to defend their own lines as anti tank guns if necessary (yes, even the large caliber howitzers). The various SUs just leaned harder into those direct fire roles, often at the expense of indirect fire capability, and were less vulnerable to enemy fure, to varying degrees, doing it.
@@issacfoster1113
The Americans lost nearly THREE TIMES as much armour as the Germans did in combat in the Ardennes. Approximately 50% of German armour losses in the Ardennes were due to running out of fuel, mechanical issues without the resources to maintain them, a thrown track or getting stuck in a ditch etc and no supporting vehicles or troops to sort them out. The Germans were basically running on empty in the Ardennes. Still, a LOT of American armour was taken out.
@@StacheMan26
Good, well explained post. 👍
This channel is just amazing. I wish there was an Air Museum equivalent I was aware of.
Schöne Aufnahmen! Danke für den sehr guten Beitrag! Grüße vom Sammelplatz
Informative, no AI voice, great footage and images..
Subscribed
Jadgpanther was the first ever Airfix model I ever built and painted as a child in the ‘70s . Looked very sleek and powerful
The first Marder IIIs carried the Pak 36 (r), which was a rechambered (to fire the more powerful Pak 40 round) ex-Soviet 76.2mm M1936 divisional artillery piece. It also used a Pak 38 gunsight and had some other modifications. Based on ammunition expenditure, it was in 1942 a more important German anti-tank gun than the Pak 40.
I understand that the Stug III did help to flesh out a shortage of tanks in Panzer divisions later in the war, but it's role largely remained as an assault gun to support infantry throughout. Certainly in that role it was widely used as an anti-tank vehicle but it is its role that makes it an assault gun rather than a tank destroyer. So perhaps the distinction does need to be made. The Stug IIIs then were crewed by artillerymen. I think I am correct in saying that Guderian wanted to employ them as tank destroyers (jagdpanzers) but didn't get his way.
I am a lifetime member of the museum. You guys are all awesome. Thank you for content.
It would be interesting if the video included an analysis of the cost of the various AFV being discussed. A table with the quantities of materials needed to produce the vehicle as well as the number of hours to assemble and finally the actual financial cost. I think this would go a long way to put the "popularity" of niche vehicles like the Jagd Tiger into perspective.
Another interesting comparison would be the frontal area of the different vehicles in square centimetres. Obviously the smaller vehicles will be much easier to hide - would be interesting to put a numerical ratio to their comparative sizes.
What I was thinking, thanks for spelling it out.
I just returned from a trip to Britain, unfortunately I did not get to the museum. Thankfully we have these wonderful videos.
Great video, I learned a lot, thanks very much Chris and team.
Drag a PAK40 through mud, bushes, hedges, up hills, or stick it on an obsolete chassis and drive it around? Ooooh difficult choice😂
Putting it up on a chassis also raises it up giving it a bigger profile and making it more difficult to camouflage and dig in behind embankments. It's a tradeoff either way. Still I'd prefer being mobile especially considering many of these german anti tank guns were still being pulled by horses lol.
I think you’re both forgetting the biggest thing one costs sweat the other costs fuel and Germany wasn’t exactly swimming in oil at any point of the war
@@henrypollock7987 They still had enough fuel right up to the end. Certainly not abundant. Plenty of videos of German troops surrendering on their still active vehicles.
@@akula9713 bro you do realise Germany was like 20% mechanised at the height of there power and struggled with only to refuel them let alone if they where as mechanised as the yanks and Brits, having footage of a single tank still running whilst surrendering means nothing in the grand scheme of things, if Germany had more oil they would have won in the east but without it they had to constantly find ways to fight armour without spending fuel
@ The Luftwaffe was the biggest drain on their oil reserves, and synthetic oil output.
Fantastic video!
Thank You!
Much was learned here, and I’ve been a student of armor for most of my life!
Thanks!
貴重な写真が、沢山あるんですね！！有難うございました。
Jagdpanzer is my favourite since I built a model of one 40 years ago. My mate got the T34 instead. Ah to be 12 years old again.
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing ;)
A great video! On my next visit to beautiful Great Britain, I will also visit you.
Love to hear more, jagdpanzer iv and stug iv are the ones tobadd here. Also, can we expect an allied TD video? From M10s to su-100s?
They left SU-100 as the best last treat.
I might already know a lot of what you talk about, but you guys make fantastic videos nonetheless. Love the work you're doing. Great scripts, great presenters, great historical footage, and real tanks to point to for everything! You guys give all the tanks a real fair shake as well. No editorializing and myths either. I really appreciate that.
the stug has always been my favourite "tank". i dont even know why but i just love it. it looks great and it did a good job for its price i guess
I got so see one running at a tank museum lately
Fantastic information as always
I think we've found the next tank for the museum to crowdfund a restoration for! Go jagdpanther!!!
Another excellent video Tank Museum!
Magnifico trabajo de historia...muchas gracias y saludos desde Chile. gracias
i have never been more excited to watch a video
Wow. Just discovered this channel. REALLY good presentations/videos. But what else would you expect from the British?
Greatly enjoying the rebuild series on a StuG 3 by Oz Armour.
I never quite understood what a tank destroyer's mission was. Now I know! Thank you for an outstanding presentation.
Very, very interesting and informative material. Thank you :)
Outstanding video
Very interesting, thank you very much!
I read many posts in which someone argues the StuG could have been Germany's savior if only more were built because of the kill ratio. Before people argue numbers, they need to understand the difference between a tank and a StuG. Additionally, this group of vehicles is hard to separate the kill numbers between StuG III, Stug IV, Jagd IV, and the variants. I'm not preach to the choir here. I read some of the posts here, and I, too, wish the museum would spend some time on the Jagd IV.
It wouldn't have mattered they had so many tanks but not enough fuel to keep all them running might as make one beast of a tank than 10-20 tanks and if those only have enough fuel for a couple of them either way they were screwed
I still want to see a video on "Evolutionary Dead-Ends". I've posted asking for one before but I love the idea so much I want to suggest it again.
Hey, is the inscription on the left side of the gun in your StuG 3 original from WW2? I found that very interesting but don't know what it means.
The comment about the Hetzer colour scheme made me smile. A Czech friend of mine published some books on the Hetzer and Marder in the '90s and 2000s which I helped with 😁 and I was thinking those colours on that Hetzer look very strange.
Great video. Really well done
The Germans actually had a distinction between so called tank destroyers or Panzerjaeger or more literally "tank hunter" and hunter tanks or Jagdpanzer or more literally "hunter tank." The Nashorn was a tank destroyer with its open compartment and thinner armor and an anti tank doctrine closer to that of the Americans in which it relied on speed and manuverability and range to set up ambushes and then relocate to set up another ambush. The Jagdpanther was a Jagdpanzer and really operated like more of a search and destroy tank killer. Heavier armor and a heavier gun than a vast majority of tanks it also had enclosed crew quarters and a radio operator to coordinate with other hunter tanks and tanks and basically was a much more aggressive tank designed to go after other tanks. Its lack of a turret was made up for with its armor and gun and use doctorine and was pretty effective at tank killing at pretty much all ranges. Remember Wittman actually got his start on a hunter tank and transposed hunter tank doctorine on to the Tigers he commanded. Set up an ambush, or charge across a field, or basically do whatever you can to get your superiorly armored and gunned tanks at the enemy aggressively, any way you can. He was even known to rely on his tank treads to focus on an enemy more so than his turret. Keeping his tanks thicker frontal armor directed at the enemy. Obviously a carry over from when he didnt have a turret at all.
Side note the comments crack me up. It's crazy to me that, in 2024, so many people still believe in the myth of vastly superior German armor. "It took 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger..." No. Its just that there usually WERE at least 5 Shermans to a Tiger. Shermans travelled in minimum formations of 5 and Tigers were outnumbered by far more than 5 to 1. I guess the allied commanders should have held back some Shermans so arm chair historians almost a hundred years later wouldnt fan boy over German tanks so much? The fact of the matter is that narrowing tanks down to hard criteria such as armor, firepower, and engine power is a simplistic, video game way of looking at the overall effectiveness of armor in the war. Yes one WORKING Tiger was indeed superior to one working Sherman. Although not nearly as superior as many peoplr make out and upgun that Sherman... But do you know how many more Shermans we had than the Germans had Tigers of anything else? A Sherman wasnt going 1 on 1 against a Tiger. It was rarely going one on one against amything German and Tigers were far from being the main German tank. There were around 1,350 Tiger tanks and 500 Tiger II tanks made during the war. There were over 50,000 Shermans made. Its more of a ratio of 30-1 than 5-1. Moreover soft criteria for tanks is just as important if no more so than hard criteria like armor, gun, engine. Things like crew comfort, visibility, radio, sights, ease of loading, ammo storage, crew escability, ease of repair, the ability of a Sherman over a Tiger to actually get to the front (almost half of all Tigers broke down before they could even get where they were going, Tiger IIs were worse), ease of shipping (Tigers were very hard to ship on rail, Tiger IIs even worse) and most of all cost and ease of manufacture (Tigers were expensive and hard to make and needed expert craftsman to make them, Tiger IIs were even worse). Basically, at the end of the day, the Allies decision to focus on mostly one very good tank was the far better decision than the Germans pursuit of difficult to manufacture, expensive, difficult to repair and maintain and difficult to ship "super tanks."
Even looking at the kill totals of tanks is very misleading. Take the T-34 (a tank that is also often praised above its actual combat effectiveness) which while being destroyed at a rate of almost 1-5 was still very much effective because... A: they so often out numbered German tanks at more than 1-5 and B: because Soviet tank crews would often go through 5, 10 or even a dozen or more tanks. Their T-34 would be destroyed and they would jump right in another T-34 waiting for them. Whereas German tank crews would usually end up dead or transfered to the infantry after their one tank was destroyed. (Although, and this is one reason the T-34 is overrated, that had more to do with Soviet manufacturing capabilities than the actual ease of manufacture of the T-34 itself. Which, while certainly easier and cheaper to make than most German tanks, was not the cheapest or easiest to make tank design by any means. Again the Sherman was a better tank in many ways and cheaper and easier to manufacturer PROPERLY than the T-34)
Awesome show thank you ladies and gentlemen salute!!
The Jagdpanther was a mean machine. The german crews loved it, it had a more than powerful canon, but it was also highly agil and fast.
Great analysis and pictures. 👍🏻 And a fun to look at. 😊
The light armor of the Marder series was not a big problem, because they gone to "Panzerjäger" or tank hunter units. There was a difference in doctrine between tank destroyers and tank hunters.
Well delivered.
The Canadian Tank Museum located in Oshawa Ontario has an operational Hetzer. It’s a former Swiss Army vehicle. Very informative video, thanks.
What a great piece of content!! Thanks Tank Museum ❤❤
German Tank Destroyers are a guilty pleasure of mine. There are lots of important details in this one, with a couple of minor errors. Nice work!
Thanks great video
I play flames of war and have a Romanian army in the works- chose as their air support JU87’s and Stugs as their armour.
Hopefully should help them out in a tight spot.
Only found your videos today listened to your one A11 Matilda 1’s got some 1/100 Zvezda kits of them just because they looked good.
So found your videos very good have sent them onto my Wargaming friends.
All the best from down under
Lewis
Sydney
Australia 🇦🇺
Excellent video. Very informative. I had a German relative who was on the Stug III from 1942-1944 exclusively on the Russian front. His first vehicle had the 75mm cannon, but I remember him saying his battalion later had Stug III with the 88mm cannon with some suspension upgrades and took orders directly from OKW in Germany via a special communications section that had long range radio equipment to talk to them. In essence they were a fire brigade that moved about the southern front in late 1943 to fall of 1944 to hot spots in order to add their fire power with the 88's. By autumn 1944 the remainder of this special Stug BN was in Transylvania, and there the last ones ran out of fuel. My relative said he and his crew had to abandon theirs and blow it in place. They were on foot moving west but were captured sometime after losing their vehicle. Does The Tank Museum have any information on this special one of a kind Stug III BN variant that apparently mounted the 88mm anti-tank gun?
Tank destroyers rule .frustrating really using them well though, without knowing great strategy skill!
I went in a Hetzer (really a Swiss G13) once. You can see at 16.50 how cramped the commander's location is. That's as far as I got before claustrophobia took over.
What a great video, as always.
Thanks for a great Tiger day ❤
Good to make use of older kit in other roles as things evolve. Stugs, Mark 4, and Panthers should have been the focus with upgrades as the war went on..No heavy tanks.