Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer - MINI Tank Destroyer that caused BIG TOUBLE for the Allies (‘44 - ’45)

[@billballbuster7186]

The Jagdpanzer 38t Hetzer was a very effective update of a Skoda tank designed in 1935. The German practice of turning old tanks into Tank Destroyers was to prove very effective, and the Hetzer was one of the best. Small and easy to operate yet able to destroy the Sherman and T-34 at long ranges. These up-gunned ex-tanks helped mitigate the disastrous policy of building super heavy tanks in ever dwindling numbers.

[@Desertduleler_88]

Amazing stop gap vehicle, where desperate measures were needed.

[@americanpatriot2422]

Always an outstanding video and presentation.

[@zillsburyy1]

STUG 3 was the best of the war

[@tonymanero5544]

Bovington Tank Museum essay on the Hetzer provided a less than rave review. As I recall, the sloped sides resulted in very cramp fighting space for the crew, the gunner’s position wasn’t ideal, the commander had poor visibility, the gun position put stress on the vehicle front (so did the JagdPanther 88), and was vulnerable to infantry attack if no infantry was protecting them. All in all, it was rated as a mediocre vehicle that was cheap to build,

[@redtobertshateshandles]

The English aren't noted for excellent tanks. They should know. 😂

[@simongee8928]

​@@redtobertshateshandlesThe 38T was noted for it's cramped crew area and only the driver had direct vision periscopes. The TC had to make do with a periscopic viewer which stuck out of his hatch rather than being equipped with a multi scope cupola as in most other German tanks by that time. But it was still a grand looking wee tank destroyer - !

[@uic505050]

So they claim. Guys back then were build smaller, it was a SP AT gun that was built specifically for the conditions in the East so many of the claimed issues weren't really a downside for the role, and the initial teething issues were worked out as they were figured out.

[@ottoheinrichwehmann2252]

The Sd.Kfz. 124 Wespe, also known as Leichte Feldhaubitze 18/2 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II (Sf.) was based on a modified Panzer II chassis.

[@i-a-g-r-e-e-----f-----jo--b]

Fun trivia, in the 1977 American/German film, Twilight's Last Gleaming, Hetzers are used in a 1970s time frame. "The vehicle used to portray a USAF tank is actually a German Jagdpanzer 38(t) "Hetzer" tank destroyer that saw service in the Swiss army in post-war years."

[@THX11458]

Yeah, I remember seeing that movie as a kid. It had something to do with Soviet infiltrators taking over a US ICBM silo and Americans trying to retake it. Even then, I thought it was pretty weird that the US units were using "Hetzers" to attack the enemy.

[@GA-br8wj]

The Swiss army seemed to like them, a lot

[@evilstorm5954]

It’s light, reasonably armoured, fast and has a low siloutte, perfect for winding mountain roads. Try drive a Tiger 2 in the same teraine.

[@VC-THE-MAN_87]

The fact they completed the engineering by January 1944 and got production going by summer is a amazing feat. Hindsight is always great. But at the time. They needed to he proven in battle before changes to be made on a larger level.

[@stephenhigginson5061]

Some of the best hetzer photo's that I've seen.

[@projecttwentytwentyfiveisgreat]

Having seen a Hetzer in person, was shocked at how small it was. Had the Krouts updated that platform with some small tweeks, couldve changed the course of several decisive battles, maybe the War.

[@stephenkeen6039]

"Krouts"? Oh, you mean the "Krauts".

[@projecttwentytwentyfiveisgreat]

@@stephenkeen6039 Krouts, its rusdian for spell checkers are coontz.

[@uic505050]

Ok, how so?

[@nzmonsterman]

Great little tank destroyer. They are very small in comparison to the panzer IV and above models. Nice video as always

[@redtobertshateshandles]

Funny how the master race relied on Czech stuff. 😂

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Wasnt really czech 50/50%

[@drstrangelove4998]

They didn’t rely on anything, the Alkett Stug factory was bombed flat so they had to disperse manufacturing. Two other factories took in Stug construction in Germany and the PMM factory in Prague the also. But their factory cranes couldn’t handle the Stug so the obsolete Czech chassis which just happened to be available, so why not use it for a Hetzer. Source: Hillary Doyle.

[@thedolt9215]

Although you have a heavy accent, you’re perfect annunciation makes your videos very watchable… Keep it up!

[@Dilley_G45]

Accent but slow and really tries to pronounce clearly. Thereby better than some amerimumblicans

[@josephpercente8377]

Romania had a similar prototype that germany copied. Guderian said he had a hand in designing.

[@drstrangelove4998]

No they didn’t

[@MrNaKillshots]

Excellent post.

[@lawLess-fs1qx]

Germans built 1000 king tigers.They could have had 30,,000 Hetzers for the same price.They could have put the long barrell 75 of the panther in the Hetz Imagine 5000 of these at the battle of the bulge instead of Tigers and Panthers getting bogged down in the Ardennes.

[@georgestone6807]

Simple answer to a wider and broad problem Germans didn’t have enough men left to man 30,000 tanks and didn’t have enough fuel to run thousands of tanks They still build 10,000 stug3 4-5000 hetzers 10,000 panzer 4 indicating where their priorities were so few hundred Royal tigers ( less than 600). May seem like a foolish thing to do ) but it actually made sense in broader strategic terms since they were mainly for defensive purposes and had better chances of survival as compared to others ( ddnt work out that way exactly 😅) For example Luftwaffe was only operating with 10% operational fuel by 1944 thus crippling day to day operations and pilot training When Allies invaded German territory the airfields were littered with thousands of intact aircraft but with no fuel and not enough pilots to fly them So reading axis powers fuel crisis will give u tremendous insight of the decisions they made and why they made them So I don’t agree with your simple assessment Sorry

[@fetusofetuso2122]

I doubt the KwK 42 would have fit. The Hetzer's Pak 39 already made the interior super cramped

[@Eric-kn4yn]

​​@@fetusofetuso2122 and weight hetzer at the very limit of weight limitations

[@Eric-kn4yn]

500 KT2s

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Hitler also viewed new submarines XX1s april 20 44 birthday but subs kept afloat with airbags as they were not combat ready did he have a birthday cake ?

[@ronaldbobeck9636]

Hey built in a factory that built railroad locomotives, when the plant on Germany was bombed they shifted production to the plant in Czech Republic. The crane in that factory could only handle 8 tones

[@AKUJIVALDO]

Then they wouldn't be able to lift even original T-38(t).. I read 14 ton and 16 ton cranes on 2 separate sources

[@ronaldbobeck9636]

@@AKUJIVALDO Look up how much does a locomotive weights from WWII. And that would be why they had to build them there.

[@chrisschultz8598]

I was told by my German teacher that Hetzer means bushwhacker or ambusher. And in this case, it fits.

[@0Turbox]

"Hetzen" means a prolonged hut, like a fox hunt on horses till the game is caught or breaks down in exhaustion. Not really a fitting name for this ambush vehicle, which was rather designed as a more mobile ATG.

[@chrisschultz8598]

@@0Turbox And so the name remains a mystery to us native English speakers.

[@davidkoehler136]

Fun little tank, very tight on the inside , almost owned one

[@rainersieling5512]

German the best Tank Konstructors

[@GaveMeGrace1]

Thank you.

[@jamienevill1768]

A good little tank destroyer made from an out of date tank. I think it's fairly pretty too as armoured fighting vehicles go. And in the last picture, there should be a traffic warden/ enforcement officer standing in front of it, saying "You can't park that there, mate. I don't care if there's a wheel missing. Move it, or I'll book you!"

[@edvineyard1143]

Interesting video, thanks.

[@josephpercente8377]

It was called the maresal. Marshall in english.

[@madigorfkgoogle9349]

You made some errors, let me correct you. First of all the gun mantled was indeed called Saukopfblende, since on early versions of "Hetzers" it really looked like a wild boars head. The Topfblende, you showing on the picture, was a part of modernization effort to make the vehicle lighter (you spoke about it). You can see the Saukopfblende on picture at 5:20 in your video. Second you are wrong about the muzzle brake, all "Hetzers" had a muzzle brake mount and could be fitted with one. Indeed some units are documented to have one on in days of German surrender. Why was this so? Its simple, "Hetzer" didnt use KwK gun (specialized guns for vehicle mounts), but instead used regular "of the shelf" Pak 39 anti tank gun. All Pak 39 guns used the muzzle brake, otherwise the gun would roll over the infantry operating it. The "Hetzers" gun mount was so strong that it was able to withstand shots from a experimental Pak 39 missing the recoil system, so a regular Pak 39 did not need the slow down of the muzzle brake, and since muzzle brake makes the gun to reveal its position easier, it was not used most of the time.

[@BlueCollaredGrit]

Cool story bro

[@0Turbox]

You mean from a PAK 40.

[@madigorfkgoogle9349]

@@0Turbox yes, the towed version is Pak40.

[@mauricio-wq5lu]

Great video. This design is imortal. Proof are all the scale model kits.

[@JohannesBerning]

Sweet litten Tank! I live IT! Perhaps something for a Hobby!

[@MrNaKillshots]

They could have made a lot more, but crews were the problem.

[@nobbytang]

Yeah sure more of these than panthers and Tigers but the inevitable end was the same because of the huge advantage Allied air power had over the Luftwaffe in 1944 & 1945

[@Eric-kn4yn]

14tonnes thats like armored car but powerful gun front armour better and off road cross country betterb

[@oscardelta1257]

It doesn't have a turret. I assume they had to turn the entire vehicle to target a tank not in line with the cannon?

[@guillaumepare9651]

Yes and no. You had to turn the tank but the gun was able to turn a bit left and right. See below as someone wrote the details.

[@ronaldbobeck9636]

They mostly fought in a Dig in position with a infantry screen. As they had a very bad blind spot.

[@garywheeley5108]

Grandfather of the Swedish s tank 🤔

[@UHMOutreachCollege]

background music, so annoying

[@harcovanhees394]

Does anyone know how far the gun could turn to left and right and also up and down (in degrees) Thanx

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Not very

[@Roger14540]

Remember reading about 5 degrees each way.

[@mikepj67]

-6 depression +12 elevation, 5 degrees left 11 degrees right (encyclopedia of German tanks of ww2)

[@chadmysliviec8449]

Its basically just a stug III but with better frontal armor. These tank destroyers were perfect for fighting on the western front against the Americans and British. The heavily sloped 60mm of frontal armor gave it complete protection against Sherman 75mm AP rounds and british and American 6 pounder 57mm guns could only have a slight chance to penetrate at point blank range. Even the American 76mm anti tank gun struggled to penetrate the frontal armor. The 17 pounder could penetrate the glacis plate but only at relatively close distances. Its greatest weakness was its side protection. Its sides were not actually armor plate, it was just mild steel. 20mm of of angled steel, able to be penetrated easily by 37mm guns and bazookas.

[@cdgncgn]

pak 39 not 38 afaik.