The Hetzer's Useless Uncle? - Marder III Ausf. H.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

IMPORTANT CORRECTION(?) The total number of Marder III Ausf. M is likely "only" about 1009+ both newly produced and converted, NOT 941 + 1009 = 1950+ as noted in the video. It seems I misinterpreted the table, since in some cases the "new+converted" was lower than the "new" per month, but the "new+converted" was those number reported as received. It is a bit confusing, so I am not entirely sure yet. If you like what we do, you can support us on » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv or » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv Or check out our books: » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com » Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com

[@thebigone6969]

You’re the best genius in the world Bernhard!!!

[@Angrymuscles]

I've always had a soft spot for these impromptu or make-do conversions of captured or annexed equipment the Germans had. We have these obsolete tanks laying around that aren't good anymore, but a need for tank killing, so we'll replace the turret with a much larger fixed gun and call it a day. They aren't perfect, but they're an excellent example of pragmatic and improvised usage of available equipment.

[@rolandhunter]

Can you tell me which book talking about the Marder III M 1009 conversion? Because some wikipedia moderator said: "This is nonsense, because the H and M chassis are DIFFERENT, you cant convert it..."

[@nate3270]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I do appreciate when you do not wear a mask so I can see you facial expressions. It provides a more personal viewer experience. That being said we are all bound by our countries laws, the preferences of our hosts and the wants/needs of those around us. taking a non-political stance to masks is respectable. I appreciate your content and however you choose to dress yourself is your own personal choice. any attempt to cast you in a certain political light in relation to your nationality and mask wearing is a touch out of line. TLDR: you do you, I come here for the honest and impartial information you provide about military history and anything else doesn’t really matter.

[@mare2971]

@@TheBelrick "The face covering has nothing to do with health"? I'm sorry to say but you are what you were called. Enjoy the video and shut up. PS: The comment has been deleted.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I think we can have a very long discussion on this next time we link up. I would observe that Marder does seem to meet the requirements set out by the Germans for a Panzerjager (See Panzer Tracts 7-1), suffers many of the same 'limitations' of the Panzerjager 1, which was very popular with the troops, and if used as a self-propelled anti-tank gun (which it was) and not as an assault gun (which the StuG was), I see no evidence it was not as effective as any other such vehicle such as US TDs.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

From my understanding these are early reports, the interesting aspect is that I haven't seen any reference to the Panzerjäger I experience. Those were mainly used in non-divisional AT units if I am not mistaken, whereas the reports about the Marder were from divisional units if I remember correctly. After the video I found instructions on how to use Panzerjäger in contrast to StuGs. So my guess is that these early reports were in many ways due to using these vehicles the wrong way. The popularity of the Panzerjäger I might have several reasons as well: it was basically under the authority of the Corps/Army if I am not mistaken. Additionally it was available already in 1939, so there was time to adapt as well. Also in 1939/1940 it was quite a different campaign than 1941 onward as well.

[@hans6500]

It would be interesting to know by what kind of weapons Marders got knocked out most frequently. I can imagine that during the timeframe Marders where in use they would be more frequently target of liberal artillery fire than the average US TD. And a turreted US TD probably has more usefull all-round armor protecting the gun crew from that than the Marder has, with it’s open rear crew compartment.

[@watcherzero5256]

@@hans6500 I wouldnt be surprised if it was a combination of light artillery and their positions being overrun by infantry rather than enemy armour.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

@darkplace28 Real life keeps getting in the way, I fear...

[@Anty-ux8rx]

@hognoxious german archer time

[@kushanblackrazor6614]

I have a soft spot for the Marder III H since it was the most common armored vehicle you usually had access to in Close Combat 1.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I think I rarely played Close Combat 1, I know I played a lot of 2 and a lot more 3.

[@kushanblackrazor6614]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized In 1 you had limited resources, so having a single StuG or Marder was huge. In 3 you were usually swimming in Panzers by the middle campaign :D

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, in 3 I remember when I had a few heavy tanks lined up and boom boom, the enemy lost half its forces in the first few seconds.

[@SmokinLoon5150]

I remember those days. Now Steel Division II eats up my time. That game does have some accuracy in how the Marder series was used, and how best to use it. If you roll it forward to engage enemy armor it won't do well. If you set it up in cover and within a legit range it can defeat T34's in one shot.

[@Davitofrito]

@@SmokinLoon5150 Yeah I was guilty of doing that with the Marders :( . It gets even worse when in my early games I would send them rolling into towns....on their own....without infantry support. Thats what I get for playing too much Hoi4.

[@mattharrell6880]

I cannot stress how thankful I am for this channel. As a teacher I use it often to teach statistic and (although research and documentation are EXCELLENT), you are the ONLY researcher I "use" that freely admits what is FACT, VS the "educated assumption" of subject experts with documentation, and what is only assumption (although you usually explain that too) Keep it up please

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you! Glad you like it!

[@Lewd-Tenant_Isan]

For those who may be wondering, a Marten is a species of carnivorous weasel-like mammal. I don't know about you, but I think it's quite a fitting name for this tank.

[@micfail2]

This is true, and they are adorable. On a hiking trip one time I made camp a few miles from the peak of a mountain for a rest day and a Pine Marten hung out on the edges of my campsite all day hoping I would give him food. He basically looked like a ferret with long claws

[@TehKarmalizer]

Not a tank, but sure. The name fits.

[@davidgrider4302]

I had a Marder III Ausf H model as a kid. I thought it was awesome. As an adult I understand it's limitations. Man it was so cool looking as a kid. Love the Marder. Thanks for the video.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you! If used properly it was quite deadly.

[@stormthrush37]

Interesting. So the Marder III is more accurately compared to the towed Pak 40 rather than other anti-tank guns. Makes sense.

[@krismakardikan9823]

The Marder has important advantages over any towed piece: it moves under it's own steam, carries it's own ammunition, and even moves it's own crew and all their stuff around. Even with a fighting compartment open to the elements, higher profile, less concealability, and more-or-less only token armour protection, who wouldn't prefer this to a paralyzed, overweight and uncooperative "drunk chick"?

[@daszieher]

And in comparing it to that lies the secret of calling the Marder successful. However, the whole concept of parking expensive equipment, it's expert crew and an engine with as little protection as the Marder gave, pales, when compared to a "proper" TD. In the end, the "cheaper" solution might run higher total costs on the battlefield...

[@paullakowski2509]

@@daszieher so how any tanks did these SPAT KILL?

[@daszieher]

@@paullakowski2509 "real" tanks were not killed by PaK40 ^^ So there's that.

[@paullakowski2509]

@@daszieher not sure what you mean?

[@MetalX34]

the jagdpanzer 38t should have been dubbed the “angry butterfly”. behold the deafening silence of its flapping before it strikes.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

:)

[@legoeasycompany]

Always liked the ingenuity of German conversions of foreign vehicles into their own SPGs, the later Marder series looks so much better than the earlier ones (Looking at you early marder II specifically). Really like how far they came from things like the SPA 10.5 LefH on the Light tank Mk IV towards all the Hotchkiss conversions. Pretty neat and somewhat under appericated probably for the lack of cool factor/looking ugly compared to the normal German vehicles

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Yeah, the go from really ugly to well that is quite a neat vehicle.

[@schullerandreas556]

I like the look of the Marder II more than the Marder III. But the early Marders were ugly as all hell.

[@bezahltersystemtroll5055]

FCM 36 Marder I is the best looking though, so cute >__

[@pecazidle]

@@bezahltersystemtroll5055 I love that cutiepie too.

[@SD78]

The early Marders were hilarious. They basically duct taped a 7.5cm gun and gunshield superstructure on top of whatever obsolescent chassis they had enough units of.

[@88porpoise]

So it sounds like it was a terrible Assault Gun, but a great Self-Propelled AT Gun. The latter being what it was designed for while the former is what the troops were looking for.

[@Warmaker01]

As the war worsened German armor was being tasked to do more odd jobs, misused. I still recall reading of Panzer Divisions put on the frontline in the defense and not in the reserve for a counterattack. IIRC some Pz Divisions got annihilated because of that late in the war, I think at the onset of Operation Bagration, possibly later. The Soviets wound up for a big offensive and it just so happened some Panzer formations were in the front. The Soviets start their offensive with a heavy artillery attack and armor assault, pretty much destroying that Panzer formation right off the bat.

[@jeremy28135]

Bingo

[@elee1086]

Hervorragende Arbeit wie immer! Ich lerne in 10-15 Minuten Ihres Videos mehr als in den Wochen an der Universität. Outstanding work as always! I learn more in 10-15 minutes of your video than I did froms weeks in in University.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Danke, ich versuche eine hohe Informationsdichte zu erreichen :)

[@Buledde]

An welcher Uni wird denn bitte etwas über Panzer gelehrt? Ich hab einen Master in Maschinenbau und keinen Panzer in irgendeiner Vorlesung gesehen.

[@MrSteve280]

An hervorragend video; excellent format, excellent narrative, useful and interesting graphics, new information - all prime beef and no filler. I've been reading books and watching documentaries on such things for 50+ years and this is an exceptional is every regard. I look forward to watching all of your other videos.

[@admiraltiberius1989]

Marder III-- Why must you hurt me this way ?? I never wanted to exist but here I am ... :( Fantastic video nonetheless as always.

[@jamesnigelkunjuro12]

I'd just like to say that I love this video format - as a scale model builder, I really appreciate the walkaround for the vehicle as well as pointing out what the individual parts are for. For the Marder - I only wish that we were able to get more sources on what the view was on its performance after the users (Germans) finally developed the doctrine on it - and what other nations it fought against thought of it (any US/UK/USSR evaluations out there?)

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you! Might come, I actually stumbled across something a few days ago.

[@kimchipig]

A very concise video. The Marder series was typical of the Germans during the war: stopgap after stopgap. It took the best of a year to get any of them to the battlefields.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you!

[@mattmopar440]

Salt from the Jingles Salt Mine :) NICE

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

;)

[@le_floofy_sniper_ducko]

Only the best Koala-tea grains of salt* is allowed here * Disclaimer No guarantee can be given of the Koala-tea of this salt and a possible side effect of misidentification

[@Redlin5]

I humbly contribute my share

[@psikogeek]

Lower-right corner at 6:09 if anyone wants to see it.

[@MegaRazorback]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I hope my triple shift in the mines supplied enough salt for this!

[@baryonyxwalkeri3957]

I didn't know that the Marder III was regarded to be useless. I thought that it was quite useful, and considering that the German Army did not much more than defend from 1943 onwards anyways, I guess it was a good vehicle. Doesn't take that much steel to make and fires potent rounds. Also, I read somewhere that the western allies nicknamed the vehicle "Murder III", on account of it being quite deadly. Do you know if this is true or a myth? Thanks again for your hard work with these videos, very informative, but not at all boring.

[@chrishill3536]

Yes and no though the idea of the marker was a good idea that put less stress on the army.

[@teutonic_crusader1175]

In a broad strategical sense, the german army was on the defense from 1943 onwards, but on a local, tactical level there were hundreds of german offensives, tacctical counter-attacks etc each day, to recapture strategic position, drive the enemy away from your own lines, capture important towns/railway stations etc. So offensive warfare was still conducted by the german army on a daily basis, in which the Marder was obviously quite useless. Fun fact: the usage of the Jagdpanther for defensive purposes was actually forbidden and only allowed in emergency situations, so much for defensive warfare haha

[@mineamagnusson5406]

its not a hetzter or pnzjgr 4 hornisse but wasnt it somethink about knowledge or fuel?🙋

[@bwilliams463]

Your clever little icons are fun. I actually smiled when I figured out what the Ambush Vehicle icon was a picture of.

[@Alexein455]

The czech company BMM (ČKD) from Prague still produce vehicles for germany under name Škoda🤗 the best construction was 1945 Panther prototipe with autoloading cannon, teoreticaly 45 round per minute.

[@geniemiki]

Bruh this thing was AMAZING in Company of Heroes 1. Build a pair of those, some of those elite panzergrenadiers to slow down the enemy armour and let those Marders reap their toll.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

wait, it was in COH 1?

[@najaklar6737]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized yes the panzerelite faction in the addon

[@geniemiki]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized yeah in the first DLC

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

ahh yeah, I rarely played that one, it used those armored cars for point control or something.

[@yosefvonhansom2921]

The Marder is one of the only "tanks" on the Panzer Elite faction Also that thing was at its peak on Highway 69 level

[@americanmade6996]

I always enjoy these analytical videos. Your graphic representations of statistics are excellent.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad you like them!

[@mchrome3366]

I always look forward to your videos and the thorough research you do. Thank you once again for another great effort. .

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

My pleasure!

[@stefanschleps8758]

Thank you, for again taking a deep dive into the subject. Your analysis, and understanding, of both German engineering, and the German politics of the day, is a refreshing change from other channels. Most every military channel on KZbin has something to offer the serious student. Perhaps you can also take a deep dive the last German Uboat series, the Type XXIII. (No pun intended.) Or, if you have already done so, create another video on the subject. Describing what, if any, developments were adopted after the war by the allies. Greetings from Wien.

[@McRocket]

Thank you for this. Very informative. Especially? 1) I had NO IDEA that the 38t made up such a HUGE part of the total Panzers for Barbarossa. 2) The Marder III H - to me - was easily the best looking Marder. ☮

[@steffenb.jrgensen2014]

IMHO the Marder and Hetzer are simply ingenious. While a Panther or even a StuG might have been more versatile the production lines of the Pz 38/Marder/Hetzer could not produce StuGs or Panthers - but did provide some very useful tank destoyers. The problems arose when you tried to use tank destoyers as assaultguns or tanks.

[@nattygsbord]

Diversity is a strength

[@bruceismay5440]

You know you have a lot of tanks when the guy that visits doesn’t even talk about the tiger in the corner

[@nunyabidness3075]

If more scholars would be as honest and transparent as this fellow, we’d have a much better look into the past. It seems easy enough for him to assume there was a change in crew assignments and to admit it was speculation since he could not find a source, but too few of our “finest” historians seem to be able to to this. My compliments.

[@1stMemberEver]

Always appreciating specific historic details and informed opinions!

[@2001lextalionis]

Very nice presentation, thank you so much for the production numbers Clearly the Marder was the "best" tool for the job considering the chassis production challenge for the German army during the war. Were their superior weapons available ? as aptly pointed out that answer is YES. However when considering the vast areas in conflict and a need for AP force projection the Marder did a more than adequate job of "plugging the gap".

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you!

[@bryantkaus6417]

The stugs and the marders are my favorite tanks to use in warthunder, seeing a m48 light up is great!

[@lmyrski8385]

Sounds like they were initially issued to units that were not familiar with how to use them. Common sense would dictate that they are ambush vehicles only yet those complaining about them obviously wanted tanks as they were from tank units. The same holds true with American tank destroyers where there was a constant battle to prevent them from being employed as tanks. This was part of the reason why hull mounted MGs were omitted. Otherwise, the temptation would be to employ them against infantry. And, naturally, when your vehicle is only protected from rifle and MG fire, and you're using it as a tank, you will take losses that Stugs could avoid or survive. Clearly the fault lies with whoever decided to send the vehicles to the units they did without proper training. I found reference to Marder II's being sent to a unit that later received Ferdinands. Previously they only had towed weapons. They received the Marders while the Italians were retreating in panic all around them. Without any training and no gun sights they figured out how to use them and soon started killing t34s. In some cases they attacked T34s after getting information about how they were situated and how to best approach them. A short time later, they were ordered to use the vehicles as tanks and took severe losses until the guys at the top clued in. They are not tanks. Don't use them as such or compare them to tanks. What was left of the unit was then sent home to train on Ferdinands.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

> Sounds like they were initially issued to units that were not familiar with how to use them. well, it was kinda a new vehicle, yes, there was the Panzerjäger I but they only made about 200 of them.

[@edi9892]

The same applies to light tanks too. It's like using a knife as a prybar, or a magazine as a bottleopener (both not uncommon, but far from ideal)

[@lmyrski8385]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Pretty sure if they had been issued to regular AT gun batteries instead of tank units as in the far from perfect deployment I mentioned, they would have fared better. That's my point, they chose the wrong units to give them to, or perhaps they had no choice at the time. Just because they are new vehicles, that does not mean nobody had any indication of their strengths and weaknesses and how best to employ them, which should have dictated that they not go to tankers unless they are retrained to function like PAK units. If they were "useless" they would have stopped producing them long before they did rather than continuously building new variants on multiple hull types and refining them.

[@billwilson3609]

Their gun crews knew how to use those since they were accustomed to finding ways to conceal their AT gun positions on the ground. The Marders came with a trained driver and bow gunner/radio operator that also were the mechanics that kept the vehicle operational.

[@lmyrski8385]

@@billwilson3609 One might hope they would get trained drivers, but that apparently did not happen in December 1942. From 2/panzerjäger abteilung 654, Gefreiter Herbert Hartig, his impression of the Marder II: "Lovely vehicle, fast, maneuverable, and with a good gun. Their only drawback was their relatively thin armor. In spite of this we were as proud as could be. Heretofore we had been a wheeled anti-tank unit - now we had tanks, or at least something like it." His unit received a shipment of Marder II's in December 1942 while supporting Italian troops panicking during a Russian attack by T34s. He had just returned from the hospital and when he arrived at the train station he, with whoever else they could scrape together, took the first 3 operational Marder IIs the unit received into battle directly from the train (the crews were apparently not trained on the vehicles, just halftracks and PAK guns). They immediately destroyed T34's and used the Marders to recover PAK guns that were in danger of being overrun. See pages 18-20 of 'The Combat History of Schwere panzerjäger abteilung 654" by Karlheinze Münch, J. J. Fedorowicz Publishing.

[@Wolfgang-the-Gray]

I used this vehicle often in World of Tanks & had quite good luck with it when firing from heavy forest cover.

[@eshelly4205]

My Opa was a Panzerjager in the 8th Panzer Division. It was the 43rd Abt. They had the Marder and didn’t like it do to the thin armor and open top. He got the Panzerjager 4 L/70 and really liked it

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

well, that is quite an upgrade :)

[@eshelly4205]

I’m not sure what version of the Panzerjager 4 the received first. But I believed it was the L48. I do know they finally got the L/70. He was with them from 1940 to 1945. In the book about the 8th PD by Richard Kindel he shows photos of both.

[@Jonty_Burrow]

A simple solution for a certain problem Simple yet effective and kept being improved

[@grantreichel6870]

I still love the things, they have such a unique profile and origin. Great video.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

As the Chieftain alludes to, these vehicles were also employed in the divisional anti-tank battalions of the infantry divisions. Great for shooting from ambush in defensive positions and then getting out quickly without needing to limber and attach to a 2WD truck, or even horses. Comparing their capabilities to tanks is a fool's errand. Don't be fooled by the name Panzerjaeger - the Germans changed this deliberately to appear aggressive, but the original title better describes what they were for. Panzerabwehr - "armour defence."

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

You might want to listen and read more carefully. > As the Chieftain alludes to, these vehicles were also employed in the divisional anti-tank > battalions of the infantry divisions. Chieftain mentions the Panzerjäger I, which was mostly or only employed in independent anti-tank units likely Heerestruppen those are quite "a bit" away from "the the divisional anti-tank battalions of the infantry divisions" that you mention. From my script: "The first formations to receive them were mostly Panzer-Divisions, a few regular infantry divisions would receive them later as well, especially once other vehicles became available for the Panzer-Divisions and the Marders were replaced." > Comparing their capabilities to tanks is a fool's errand. Well, I did not do that, the German report did: "The report continues that Sturmgeschütz III and Panzer IV with the long barreled 75 mm guns are clearly superior, whereas the Marder can only be used in a defensive role. Although, it is outlined that the Marder is clearly better than the regular Pak 40:" And I made it also rather apparent that the report has a bit of an "agenda": "Additionally, it is without question that the writer of the report wanted Sturmgeschütze, which he thought came close to an ideal solution."

[@dinin_alone]

The best part of your channel is that you can provide accurate pronunciation for all the german vehicles.

[@lawrencehakiwai]

You're missing the point that it was a Marder 3 or nothing. Germany didn't have the ability to retool factories fast enough to switch production from obsolete vehicles to other types. That's why vehicles like the Wespe and Marder were built. They were still better than nothing.

[@Petem7668]

Yes better than nothing but at best, just delaying the inevitable

[@tamlandipper29]

I kind of get your point, but standardisation would have saved so many problems. How can 1000 murder possibly be less effort than retooling once?

[@lawrencehakiwai]

@@tamlandipper29 Retooling to build a completely different vehicle means stopping production, potentially for months. Germany needed every weapon it could get and stopping production wasn't an option.

[@MGB-learning]

Outstanding video and presentation.

[@TickFordAuMont]

Appreciate the detail in your production's. Thank you.

[@bencejuhasz6459]

Greetings! I would love to know which source stated that Marder IIIMs were converted from previously built chassis. The upper hull of the Sd.kfz. 138/1 vehicle was purpose-built, and from about the middle of the production, instead of part riveting,part welding(and part cast for the driver's position),they used an all welded construction. Basically, OKW changed the contract with BMM from light tank to SPG chassis and hull.(If I remember correctly,that is in Panzer Tracts 7-2 as well as in Marder III a Grille, by Vladimir Francev and Charles Kliment.)About the purpose built upper hull,it was different from the standard 38(t) hull,as it used a very sloped frontal upper plate. These hulls were also used as basis for the Flakpanzer 38(t),the Sd.kfz 138/1 Ausf M Grille and an ammo carrier. Since the original 38(t) hulls were riveted while the new ones were welded and using different angles for the armour plates,I found the task of conversion from standard 38(t) hull to 138/1 hull at least problematic.(Of course,not unimaginable or undoeable,just problematic.) About the Marder H crew numbers(is it 3 or 4). They kept the hull as intact as possible,so there was room for two people in the hull,but since you can "replace" the hull MG-gunner with some ammo,it is understandable if some units thought 3 is better than 4. Especially since this vehicles were supposed to be used in defense. The Soviet 7,62 cm field gun in question is the F-22. It was designed by Rheinmetall in the 30ies for the Red Army, so it was rather fitting that they were the ones tasked to refurbish it as a PaK-40 supplement. A Hungarian Armour Enthusiast

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Nuts & Bolts

[@bencejuhasz6459]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Volume 17?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Part II on the Marder, I would get both that are listed in the description, Part II is an update on Part I.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

there is at least one table with the conversions listed per month etc.

[@bencejuhasz6459]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I am going to search for it. Thank you for answering me.

[@Hans013]

I think you can find footage of italian front where german spotter call Marder III. M to move from hiding position to firing position. Also in the end whole point of Marder is come down to tactical mobility of towed gun vs on wheel.

[@amsfountain8792]

Very interesting video. I am confused about the graphic at 1.12. There are 3 Marder III variants but you only spoke about H and M model. What happened to the first one?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

we don't talk about him ;)

[@polmeria465]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized poor guy was left out :(

[@panzerschliffehohenzollern4863]

Probably a prototype version

[@herosstratos]

About 344 Marder III Sd.Kfz. 139 w. FK 7,62 cm (r) (Panzerjäger 38(t) für 7,62 cm PaK 36) were build, some were used in Africa.

[@krismakardikan9823]

I'd always figured if there was an Ausführung F or G, there had to have been C-E before them at some point, even if they were prototypes or limited production runs.

[@-Zevin-]

Ahh yes the Marder, also known as the "tank destroyer" that explodes into a fireball from a stiff breeze in Steel Division 2. I always wanted to make it work but it's a question of do you want a AT gun that has a lower profile, better stealth, and is harder to hit, or do you want a AT gun that has mobility, but why do you need an AT gun with mobility? Generally you want to set it up in a good position for defense or to set an ambush. At least American TD had great speed and a turret, allowing them to quickly flank or move into a advantageous position, they also died to a stiff breeze but at least it seems they had some use. In real life I can see the logistical usefulness of a self propelled AT gun, on the eastern front the lines were constantly moving and the Germans ultimately ended up on a multi year retreat. Having a AT gun that has tracks and won't get stuck in the mud and can pretty much drive anywhere as needed has value.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

The lack of need to unlimber/dismount and relimber/remount is the main advantage of a sp-at gun over a regular one. It allows you to use a wider variety of ambush positions irl and to pull back from infantry. Marders irl had mgs in ball mounts or spintol mounts, allowing them o lay suppressive fore on the move too.

[@Valks-22]

Generally speaking TD's in SD2 are completely inferior to AT guns. Nashorn is passable at best due to superior range to keep it safe if only for a while. Pak40/43 in a forest is always better.

[@madkills10]

i think the issue with SPGs in steel division is there is really no need to move an AT gun. As you said, you set them up and leave them. In real life when u have to actually get that gun to the battle thats when an SPG would come in handy

[@Overlord734]

AT gun is stealthy only until the first shot is fired.

[@Valks-22]

@@Overlord734 (if we're still on the subject of SD2) it has more HP (more crew) and can take more damage and suppression. It's also usually placed in excellent cover while TD's such as Marder fire of a shot or two out of thin forest and even 1v1's within enemy ranges when firing first are a 50/50. Since the second if not first hit on it is a kill. The stiff breeze OP mentioned

[@extraterrestrialfascisti7625]

I was friends with knights cross holder Hardy Svenson (born Eberhard Schmalz). He won the Deutsches kreuz i Gold commanding a Marder III on the Don bend with Pz jgr abt 43, 8 Panzer division. He shot up 9 Russian tanks in December 1942 with a Marder. Ultimately, he did not like being protected only by a shield of “sheet metal”. After officers school he chose to serve in an pz jaeger unit equipped with the Stug III. The stug III he thought was a very fine weapon..

[@extraterrestrialfascisti7625]

The round used to kill the T-34 was a tungsten round that was provided for "last ditch" uses. The gun on the Marder III was the ex-Russian 76mm anti aircraft gun.

This is also the last time* we see him in the "old" setup of the WW2 Hall in the German Tank Museum, as they are just now reshuffeling it to improve the exhibition a bit. In that sense you were lucky because the PaK40 is still right next to the Marder III. A few weeks ago I did one of my first not book review Videos (in German) trying to compare the sizes and weight of the different German PaKs throughout WW2. One only has to look at the difference between the some 450 kgs of the PaK 35/36 to the 4380 kgs of the Pak 43/41 to understand the reasoning for "self propelling" them and also one of the reasons why PaKs were not a big thing in many armies after WW2. Of course a nice topic for a DPM Video would be the Vehicle which used to by right across from the Marder. The Pak 40 on Raupenschlepper Ost. It would be nice to hear what some primary sources have to say on that one, as it doesnt come away that positiv in the Museums Catalog :) *Yes I know that he probably filmed a gazillion other Videos on that trip and so it is not quite the last time.

[@Fowey7]

interesting to see those production numbers, I think more people know about the h variant because of war thunder, when in the end there were more of the m variant made. maybe they should add the m variant to the game too, tho German tech tree is already very big

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Maybe also because the H variant is more recognizable, the M variant looks more like a Wespe or Hummel.

[@DJ118USMC]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I think that the Marder III H is a nicer looking vehicle. To me it's more aesthetically pleasing than the other Marder variants. That being said I would love to see more Marder variants added to War Thunder as I quite enjoy playing the Marder III H.

[@madkills10]

i thought that too when i saw the production numbers. I think the Marder 3 H fits into the early German BR with the other '35/38 (T)' variants abit better than the M

[@rokinz3270]

Love the Marder, for such a strange looking TD its kinda nice. I have a model of the Aust M sitting on my desk at work.

[@CheapoK17]

Wanted to see this one for a long time, thank you!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Hope you enjoyed it!

[@jamesevans886]

From my limited research I was under the impression that eventually the Russian 76.2 gun in German service were eventually rechambered for PaK 40 rounds. Rather than just making a self- propelled anti tank gun on a wider more wholistic view it seemed a down and dirty way to make good panzer losses, especially after Kursk. All up as usual a short but very informative video. As I am a doctrine nut I would like to see more on tactics developed for it. Ie you shown me what it is, now tell me how it was used rather than very broad terms such as it was best used defensively. Was it used in PaK fronts and the like.

[@TheArklyte]

Not exactly. They used Pak40 shells,the cash Ng was unique though. The gun in question was F-22, a failed project to make universal guns. They were replaced by cheaper and yet more modern ZiS-3. But ZiS-3 was 100% artillery gun, there was no modernization reserve. Meanwhile F-22 was on purpose build with too thick chamber walls that were supposed to be redrilled for AA use later on if the project would be approved as universal gun. Germans just captured the plans when they entered Kharkov and basically had done what was already listed in blueprints. There was no development per say involved. Would you claim that you have developed your IKEA furniture?:))

[@jeremy28135]

Bernhard, i hope all is well. Happy New Year and God Bless. Keep the vids coming, we love em!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you! Happy new year to you to!

[@JJ-cf7nb]

Your best video yet! Great research and presented in a very clear and informative manner. Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed every minute of this.

[@stephenresler]

Very excellent scholarship and history. Thank you for translating the meters to feet. Easier for me to understand. A+ grade.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it!

[@BHuang92]

I was surprised how much fun I had playing the Marder III Ausf. F in War Thunder! In one match, I single-handedly denied the cap until I ran out of ammo!

[@benpurcell4935]

If in the right position a marder can wreak havoc. Unless playing arcade and it’s mid to late game. I’ve played the Marder it’s fun until its not.

[@mikepette4422]

Thanks for this look at the Marder. Always had a soft spot for the various Marders as a kid 2 of my best model kits ( ie the best painted) were a 1/35 Tamiya Marder II with a Panzer II hull and a Revell 1/32 Marder III Ausf M. Both painted in various desert camo's

[@mikerequadt9661]

The Marder III Ausf. M, Sd.Kfz. 138, carried the 7.5 cm Pak 40; PzGr. 40 round at 1500 m could penetrate up to 97mm were these rounds not much available? What where the tactics mostly employed by the Marder III crews; did they camouflage, and then shoot and scoot?

[@jrd33]

PzGr. 40 production was halted (in 1943 IIRC) because it required tungsten, which was in short supply and required for manufacturing.

[@AimlessSavant]

i find captured/inherited equipment vehicles to be very interesting. Just attempts to reuse old materials for the sake of efficiency.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I think it was more due to scarcity.

[@AimlessSavant]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized scarcity is the source of many a squeezed lemon. :v

[@markcole5108]

I think it is important to note that after the Marder’s introduction, it became standard practice for the anti-tank battalions of German infantry divisions to receive one company of Marders and have two companies of towed anti-tank guns. It was extremely uncommon for them to be used outside of this structure. In contrast, StuGs were sufficiently armored that they could be used in Panzer regiments when there were not sufficient turreted Panzers to fill the regiment. As the war progressed and additional StuGs were produced, or foreign vehicles, like the Italian Semovente 75, were put into German service, that German infantry divisions started fielding one company of StuGs, one company of Marders, and one towed AT company. As Hetzers were introducing, they started replacing the outdated Marders. So, during 1943 to late 1944, the Marders served the role of mobile AT guns for relatively static infantry divisions very well. They were not typically sent to more mobile Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions that were expected to attack and counterattack enemy forces.

[@retroattic4647]

Good video. In Warthunder at BR 2.7-3.0 the Marder is devastating if used properly. Against M5s, M3s and early Sherman tanks it can outrange and easily penetrate. More often than not, it's enemy air support that gets the Marder.

[@Ad_Valorem]

In the final battle scene in Saving Private Ryan, it appears that Marder III H and Ms are featured in combat. Bernhard states that the maximum elevation of the Pak 40 was 9 degrees. In the movie an Ausf. H elevates its gun way past the maximum to blast private Jackson from the top of a church tower, a display of artistic license, I now realize, for an antitank vehicle.

[@ADITADDICTS]

It was one of the vehicles in the end battle right? The one they hit with the molotov?

[@Ad_Valorem]

@@ADITADDICTS That looked to be an Ausf. M, based on the location of the crew compartment. Late in the battle, Sgt. Horvath bazookas what looks to be a Ausf. H. My understanding is that all of the AFVs were replicas built for the movie, so the builders may not have been perfectly faithful to the details. Another detail: they should not have been able to shoot into the tiger driver compartment because the viewport should have been blocked with ballistic glass. Later, I tried to ID the German AFVs and was astounded at how many they eventually employed, mashups of various carriages, guns, and other parts. It must have been a nightmare to maintain such an inventory. This documentary clears up much of the confusion. Maybe Bernard could confirm all this.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I looked at some images, it seems there was also a mock-up for the Sturmpanzer IV usually called "Brummbär" that aims up: www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/tankdestroyer-02-large.jpg And yes, the Tiger should have ballistic glass there, they also had several spares generally to replace broken ones as well. It seems most of them are converted Swedish Tanks, the Tiger was on a T-34 hull if I remember correctly, see the road wheels. mock-up Marder III Ausf. H: www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/hzdsrb/slightly_modified_swedish_sav_m43_assault_gun/ mock-up Ausf. M: www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/marder3-02-large.jpg

[@ADITADDICTS]

@@Ad_Valorem the luftwaffe did the same thing with planes. Anything that went down, German or allied, if it could be fixed then it was back up in the air. A lot of times with a freshly painted swastika over the other countries markings lol.

[@michaelvs.scorpio7676]

Thank you for speaking a little bit of German in the video!! I LOVE the PHYSICAL APPEARANCE of the German Marders; I think they look really TOUGH and AGGRESSIVE!!

[@Train115]

0:49, the left Marder II has another name that is: Panzwrselbstfahlfette I fud 7.62 PAK 36(r) auf Pzkpfw. II Ausf. D (Sdkfz. 132). The long version is something along the lines of: Panzwrselbstfahlfette I fud 7.62 Panzer Abwher Kanone 36(r) auf Panzerkampfwagen II Ausführung D (Sonderkraftfahrzeug 132)

[@SmokinLoon5150]

One thing many people over look in their discussions of German anti-tank firepower is the quality of the optics. There is no question that the Germans had the best optics in WW2 in terms of quality and clarity. I for one do not understand why the Germans stayed with the original 2.3X (?) for the Panzer IV F2/H, and StG III/IV's, when they could have pumped up to the 5X like the Panther, etc. Do you have the resources to compare German vs Soviet optics ? Perhaps vs US and UK too? Thanks again. :)

[@ryleyrains6836]

That would be a cool video

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

sadly I have not seen anything that was really substantial in that matter, I hear/read it all the time, but over the years I came across so much stuff that is just wrong that I had heard/read all the time that I am bit burnt and hesitant.

[@gizmophoto3577]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized We definitely appreciate your efforts to discern legend from reality. Sometimes they align, but very often don’t.

[@nattygsbord]

Russian optics were bad with much dust in theirs and the inprecision made their guns very unaccurate at long ranges. Having super optics on German tanks was perhaps not super useful. I mean really need a dumb opponent driving open terrain to let him fire at you from long ranges where you cannot fire back. I would try to use hills and buildings to sneak up on my enemy at close range so a fair fight could be had. And if my tank company was ambushed then I would just fire smoke grenades and retreat. And then would the enemy be unable to use his nice optics to destroy allied tanks from long ranges anymore. I would try to sneak up on the flanks on the German tanks and hit their side armor and deny them the chance of a long range fire fight where they can use their superior frontal armor, optics and powerful guns. The Germans in the late war also lacked everything supporting their tanks - they did not have enough recon to know where the enemy were, they did not have enough flak to protect their tanks from air attacks, they lacked artillery support and infantry support to deal with close range threats from enemy infantry, and engineers to deal with mines and make bridges... So even if the Germans for some reason would have been able to assemble lots of panther tanks they would still not be able to use them effectivly because the lack of good support organization - so as an allied tanker I could use this knowledge to my advantage to sneak up on them and outflank them. And if I was lazy, I could just call in air strikes and destroy the German tanks with bombers before they even had the chance to use their nice optics on any allied tank.

[@MarkoftheGhost]

I loved this video. It clarifies so many things about the Marder that I didn’t know.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you, glad you learned something!

[@joshjosh1780]

In steel division (a video game), Marder's are good for one kill if you have good recon units and can lure an enemy tank into it's line of fire from an angle the enemy can not quickly return fire from, otherwise all Marder's/38T's are in fact useless< i don't put them in my division's and only get forced to play with them if I want a challenge and let the game give me random units, it must have been difficult to "work with what you've got" is all I can say for the German commander's who had to make use of these.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, I take the Pak 40 over a Marder nearly always. The Pak 40 can take quite a lot of shots from tanks, can hide etc. I assume if one is good with micro a Marder or better a group of them can be used quite well, but that is hard. What can also work is to have like one or more heavy armored units in front and the Marders behind, at least that is how I use the Grille, since the AI usually fires at the tanks in the front first. But I think in reality they were far more effective. In Steel Division 2 rocket artillery is also really good for counter-battery fire, whereas this seems not to be the case in real-life from all I read. I know Steel Division quite well, I guess you mean Steel Division 2. I did a video on Steel Division 44 a few years ago: kzbin.info/www/bejne/joa7oKWOd9aBo5o

[@ChrisS-fh7zt]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized The Nebelwerfer/Panzerwerfer 150mm rockets only had about a 9,000 meter max range and most 105mm/122mm had about 12-15,000 meter range you can see why most of the German rockets was just simply outranged with the comparable gun types then in use.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

another issue was accuracy, those rockets were all over the place.

[@superbman84]

If it were useless then it wouldn’t have blown up the bell tower in Saving Private Ryan

[@JohnBham]

The vehicle that blew up the Bell Tower in SPR was a repainted Swedish Sav m/43- their version of the Marder/Hetzer family. I'd have to go back and look, but if I'm not mistaken the m/43 in the film is mounted with the 75mm gun, as opposed to the alternate 105mm gun. Also, I believe the Marder 38t shown in the film is also a Sav m/43 with the back of the crew compartment cut off (maybe the same m/43 as the other with a removable section?).

[@ik8970]

Sehr lehrreich - understanding the tank in it’s technik and history… and improving my English

[@warsepticagaming9527]

Huh, i did not know that Marder in English in Marten, I always called it the Murder II/III for the longest time until I corrected myself.

[@w0lfgm]

Idea to recycle old obsolete chassis and move AT gun was useful.

[@kamata93]

After thinking for a bit, it makes sense to have the loader on the left side and the gunner on the right. Its way more comfortable to load a gun from the left side.

[@WhiteWolfeHU]

I used to absolutely love this military stuff, then I started listening to audio books of German soldiers fighting this war…. It makes me sick now, it’s absolutely horrific and god help us from ever having to experience such a thing.

[@someguy7805]

If you think WWII was bad, just wait until Armageddon!!!

[@umjackd]

It's all still interesting stuff: the high degrees of human endurance that people go through, the limits to which they can and can't stand, the horrible and uplifting elements of human nature that come out... None of us should ever actually want to experience it, but it's still something you can learn about from a safe distance.

[@micfail2]

"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - General Robert E. Lee

[@eetutorri8767]

Kinda interesting comment (at 3:22) that Panzer 38(t) was too slow for recon but Germans would end up converting 60-70 (exact number is unknown) old Panzer 38(t) to Aufklärungspanzer 38(t) during 1944.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, I know :D

[@yosefvonhansom2921]

It can simply be summed up to "German logic"

[@DraftySatyr]

The clue might be in the date: when you only have offal, you're not going to prepare a steak dinner.

[@christophervanoster]

I love the marder 38t. In world of tanks, it has a high velocity 75mm with outrageous rate of fire, accuracy, and very good camo factor. I know it’s only a game, but hey, I like it

[@andresdow7687]

I cant remember the source, but i remember reading that the germans loved them in the italian campaign, because they could pop out behind a cliff or alley and fire deadly accurate shots.

[@Rendell001]

I remember having one of these in kit form when I was in my teens - I think it was the Italeri version. Very detailed and a great kit.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I had a few Italeri sets of my own, mostly ships though, like the Graf Spee. I am not sure, but I think either there were no tanks in store or I did not buy them for some reason.

[@Rendell001]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized it’s strange because up until that point I only seemed to have Tamiya kits in 1/35 scale - really should have widened my horizons before the Marder kit!

[@treyhelms5282]

No mention of track tensioning? "Sad Chieftain Sounds in the background"

[@dmh0667ify]

How much of the impetus for this vehicle came from the Soviet ZiS-30s? The original Marder III looks a lot like that in the profile, if nothing else, but was a improvised Tank-Destroyer produced between October and December 1941 and also armed with the 7.62 cm AT Gun.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I don't know, but Tank Encyclopedia notes it at 1941, whereas the Germans already designed the Panzerjäger I in 1939: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerj%C3%A4ger_I I don't consider any of these vehicles particularly revolutionary, use obsolete chassis and put the biggest gun possible on it, see also Sturmpanzer I etc.

[@johnlawrence3781]

Sind einige dieser Panzerkampwagen im Film 'Saving Private Ryan ' gewesen nicht war?

[@stefankaufmann8257]

Wieder mal eine sehr interessante, fundierte Analyse - mit einer kleinen Prise Salz wie immer 👍

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Danke :)

[@billd.iniowa2263]

Been waiting ages for this. Thanx Bernhard

[@johnelliott7375]

Very good and informative video as always and I hope that you have a great Holiday Season and a Merry Christmas to you all! Thanks again for sharing your work with us. Have a great evening.

[@RonLWilson]

Being an avid wargamer I have often wondered how one might best model the effectiveness of a turreted AFV vs one will a hull/fixed mounted gun. Is there any data that you have run across that comperes the effectiveness of the two different gun mounting approaches ?

[@krismakardikan9823]

Avalon Hill's "Panzer Leader" solves that dilemma by only allowing SPGs to fire in the direction of the three hexes immediately in front of it (the same rule applies to towed guns, howitzers, and larger calibre mortars, but not towed AA guns). This reflects the limited traverse of a hull mounted gun and of towed artillery once emplaced. Turreted AFVs can fire in any direction and then move up to half their movement allowance in the same turn. A German tank unit can also transport an infantry unit and execute a "panzerblitz assault". The infantry jumps off the panzers immediately in front of the target, the panzers "overrun" the target and stop in the hex behind the target . Damage inflicted by the panzers is now calculated (hit probability against armoured targets is doubled). The infantry unit then executes a "close assault" on any surviving elements in the targeted hex (their Combat Result dice roll is increased by two columns). If a German engineer unit is close assaulting, it doubles the attack strength of any one other German infantry unit which is also close assaulting the same target during that same turn. Or something along those lines.

[@scifidude184]

Context with the Armor value of those tanks. Those values are effective 90 degrees, taking account line of slight thickness due to sloping. T34 with a 45mm plate at 45 degrees =90 mm. However all penetration values are 30 degrees from vertical, not the 90 degree penetration.

[@kiowhatta1]

It’s so clear to me that the Germans ought to have been attempting to develop Stug’s, jagdpanthers, and Hetzers earlier without these ‘stopgap’ vehicles. Imagine the production numbers had these closed superstructure assault guns and TD’s would have been. Also throw away the Nashorn and go straight to the panther would have seen a much higher confidence in the Panzerwaffe. Although ‘sexy cats’ the entire Tiger series was a waste. The sturer Emil with an closed armoured superstructure along with the Dicker Max would have served as exceptional vehicles for mass production ( under 45 tonnes ) high velocity guns, good armour protection etc. The only remaining problem was how to standardise mobile artillery/rocket launchers , recon vehicles and armoured personnel carriers.

[@kartoffeljager7609]

Romanians had also a type of Marder called TACAM-R2 and the father of the Hetzer was a romanian tank called Mareșal

[@Scott-qq9jd]

So I'll be honest, I appreciate the translation of Marder into English, but I actually had to look up what a Marten is. I thought it was some kind of bird, and boy was I wrong. I suspect that I am not the only English-speaker who has had to look it up.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thanks, I keep that in mind.

[@retroattic4647]

I don't think that's the content providers fault... Your lack of knowledge of your native tounge. I on the other hand appreciated the translation as I'd never been told what it was. For completeness the "Purple Martin" is indeed a bird so you weren't too far off on that one.

[@nekophht]

@@retroattic4647 To be fair, I wouldn't expect everyone to be able to name any animal that exists, let alone what it's called in their native tongue. Had to look marten up myself, but I do appreciate the translation into English from MHV.

[@marjae2767]

@@retroattic4647 Martens are very rare, and with limited ranges, in England and the United States. More common in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and Canada though. Fishers and Wolverines also have restricted ranges, but they're more famous. Maybe "a smaller tree-dwelling relative of the Fisher and Wolverine" might work.

[@Scott-qq9jd]

@@retroattic4647 I never said it was his fault. Just mentioning that I, and likely other English speakers, are unfamiliar with the animal.

[@Psiberzerker]

It's basically a Schlepper. All of the Marders (Can't really call them a series) were Schleppers in both meanings of the word. Their only purpose was "We have a bunch of guns lying around, let's see what we can bolt them to!" and get guns into battle. They all fulfilled that role: Self Propelled Gun, very well. All they had to do was get the guns to the battlefield, because the plan was to mobilize the Entire army. Even the Infantry were supposed to ride in half-tracks. So, schleppen the ATGs around by hand just wasn't going to work. Towing them behind another vehicle just wasn't going to work, and they learned a lot about JagdPanzer design in the process. They practically invented the Assault Gun, and the Tank Hunter concept, again to get guns to the field, and keep up with the Infantry in Half-Tracks. Tiger was more of a failure than this, and KonigsTiger even more of a failure than that. Throughout the war, they needed more guns, and more fuel, to carry the guns. More guns to fight their way to Ukraine, and get the fuel, to schlepp more guns. (Ultimately, the Nazis lost because they had an impossible goal, and went about it in the least sustainable way. Blitzkreig worked, until the Allies learned from it, and the Axis burned up all their fuel.) One of the main reason why the Panzer arm failed was they spent too much time polishing the welds on Panthers to get them into battle (If they didn't break down on the way.)

[@Winthropede]

When you are a moron and you say shit you don't know

[@slartybartfarst55]

Particularly good video. Always liked the Marder visually. the Ausf. M looked somehow extra Badass to me.

[@TheStugbit]

Great video Bernhard. I would like to add that it seems like the Marder II had a PAK 40 gun version arriving in action like in mid 1942, I don't know the correct "ausf" for it. At least I hope so, because I scratched one of these to my wargame model kit forces combating in the Caucasus haha. As for its use in combat, I think it could have been used in attack as well, at least in some sort of covering advancing forces from the distance or the flanks from counter-attacks, things like that. It seems like while fighting on a plain, Marder's gun could outrange the one from the earlier versions of T-34 and KV-1. Mostly because of optics perhaps? Because even with the PAK gun being better than the T-34's in terms of range, it wouldn't be necessary armor piercing shells to knock down a Marder, it might have been possible to use HE shells to counter it, making both vehicles capable of knocking down each other in the distance.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you, the issue is the Marder had 15mm everything goes through that except for rifle ammo. So I can't see a way that a Marder can really outrange a T-34 or KV-1. Covering an attack was possible, but the issue in the report was Soviet tanks showing up and "harassing" German lines from afar.

[@TheStugbit]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized but let me ask you, the Soviet tank optics were bad as some people claim or is this a myth? Because if they couldn't see the Marder, this would be an advantage. And how far could a PAK 40 destroy a T-34 tank? Like around 1500 km, perhaps? One problem would be the Soviet artillery, because the Soviet had it in number, so they could bombard the area around the Marder and I don't know if its armor would be enough to stand against the HE. By the way, seems like Germany was the only country to use this kind of combat vehicle in larger numbers. Those American tank destroyers were quite different for the Marders in many aspects, isn’t it? They had turrets and things like that, and seemed to be faster as well.

[@pecazidle]

Su-76 was common spam, like mentioned in earlier video. That means it was produced in HUGE numbers and it is pretty same - obsolete tank chassis with good gun in static mounting and open top. US can produce good TD because there was no war on their continent so they can aford full solution.

[@TheStugbit]

@@pecazidle was the SU-76 used against tanks? Wasn't it kind of a mobile artillery more keen to the Wespe? Bernhard have a video on it, I have to watch it again, because as I remember, it's focus wasn't primarely on tank combat. It has the Zis 3 mounted on it, which isn't exactly an AT gun, but could have been used for the task. I think the SU-76 can't be directly compared to the Marder because the Marder however was indeed a tank destroyer. SU-76 might have been used against tanks on occasion, just like the SU-152 did. Its gun could fire against tanks just like the 152, but it wasn't meant primarely for AT role like a Marder. The Russians were in a different position than Germany as the Marder was a stopgap to counter KVs and T-34s. As a stopgap solution I wonder if we could compare Marder to the US tank destroyers as well, because I think they would be very different combat vehicles as both have very different design characteristics and may have had also very different combat doctrines. As far as I know, US tank destroyers were meant to counter tanks on the offensive as well. They were conceived to be fast, faster than a tank. Marder may be a light-weight vehicle still compared to a tank, but it wasn't as flexible and quick as a US tank destroyer. Marder is closer to a AT mounting, but on top of a vehicle chassis, while a M10 is closer to these cruiser, "cavalry" tanks, like the Crusader tank, the Somua, Panzer III, BT tank and the like.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I haven't look into optics yet, so I simply can't say. I am not even sure if anyone did a proper study on this topic. I read a lot of "one-liners" over the years. Turrets are expensive, Americans could afford it, Germans couldn't. Same with chassis, the Americans put their 105mm artillery on Sherman chassis, the Germans on Panzer II. See also this podcast on MagzTV particularly the comment by Chieftain: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n36oY4tppZuZgq8

[@Novous]

Something that Enlisted (not a great game) really honed in for me, was how in early WW2, *any tank at all*--if the other side doesn't have a tank or anti-tank gun--is a complete game changer. Even if it's only got a machine gun, if you can't pen it with your rifles and machine gun, it's a rolling, devastating pillbox. The other side can basically do nothing but avoid it, while also having to engage the enemies infantry at the same time.

[@jerryrenn346]

Excellent video. Very informative, like all your other work. I would like to see you do some videos on the less glamorous German units. For instance, maybe you could do a video on the balloon observation units, if any. It would be interesting, to me at least, to see something about the German army's Topographical units " Kartenstelle truppen" I think they were called. As Napoleon once said ' An army travels on it's stomach' so it would be interesting to see something about the organization and equipment of German field kitchen and bakery units. I know interest in this more mundane stuff may be pretty low and maybe not worth the time or effort. I think this stuff is fascinating though. Anyway, Thanks for all the great vids.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you, such aspects are more likely to be covered in my second channel, e.g., here I talk about the German Military Horse: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqeWhJiogqmapNU

[@jerryrenn346]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thanks. The video on German army horses was excellent. Keep up the great work.

[@murray1943]

Awesome video on the Marder III H I'd like to see a following video on all Marder's in the series if you can, thanks for making this!

[@mattheweagles5123]

Is having the commander as gunner a good idea? Is there not a possibility that the gunner/commander becomes focused on a target and looses operational awareness?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I assume they tried it and based on the experiences of the regular AT gun, those had a larger crew, but I think that was also due to hauling the vehicle around. Since they switched to 4 man, I assume it did not play out so well.

[@adolfusknall3341]

Hi, I think there is an error in the section about the gun penetration. You are using the penetration value vs. 30° angled armour and compare this to the effective armour that already has the angling "built -in". It's a bit hard to get correct figures and in reality there are more variables... but as a T-38/85 or Sherman crewman I would not feel comfortable at 1000m in front of a PaK 40.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

discussed already several times in the comments

[@54tisfaction]

"As you can see, there where two Marder II variants, and for the Marder III actually three." This actually makes perfect logical and linguistical sense. 😊

[@Plazmatothemax]

Thanks for the good video! not much to say, since my previous knowledge comes from raw statistics you bring up and just numbers regarding the tank's specifics.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you!

[@philippepanayotov9632]

Great video! All your work is brilliant

[@petrkan8792]

It is absolutely insane to think that the 38 LT chassis was in service throughout WWII and was not replaced by a better chassis.

[@Kepulikeppi]

My favorite tank destroyer in War Thunder. The gun is a masterpiece.

[@brandonbennett6923]

Absolutely love it

[@Rommel_209]

75mm high velocity gun at low b.r., absolute menace... Other than German 20mm & US 50cal.

[@alex_zetsu]

Thank you for this video, I always had a fascination of the Marder III Ausf H even though it was not exactly the most produced or effective tank destroyer of its side. So I'm glad this sees the light of the day. To be honest before watching I thought your title of "The Hetzer's Useless Uncle" seemed about right since I thought it would be best used as a more mobile anti-tank gun than a StuG equivalent, but the lonooog barrel sticking out means the operator could do something silly like bump it into a tree while moving it into cover. I kind of wish you read some of the German primary sources in German and then in English. It wouldn't mean much just repeating the same thing in two languages, but I really liked the infantry anti tank tactics video.