Jagdpanzers - The Good, The Bad, and the Elefant

[@freddysband3632]

We gotta applaud the title- The good, the Bad, the ELEFANT

[@boromirhimself7528]

ELEFANT

[@MaxTheLegend_YT]

In german

[@Q-TROOPER]

👏

[@thatguyoverthere9634]

That KD ratio dont lie though

[@thurbine2411]

@@antoniothegunexpert5955 and in Swedish but he writes it like that because it is written like that in german

[@magnus9316]

I never expected the hetzer to be implemented as one of the latest tanks in the war since it was fairly light

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Germany was running out of material resources so the Hetzer was a viable option to have a decent gun and have decent frontal armour on a small and light vehicle, saving on resources.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

Practicality was only ever adopted by the Nazis as a last resort when every form of idiocy had been tried and failed. And even then many were maintained until the last, like the V-2 lol.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@j.f.fisher5318 You may mock but it had a better gun, better frontal armour and crew protection and better silhouette than the M10, despite being only half the weight.

[@Зигвальд]

@@lyndoncmp5751 ну м10 в принципе нелепая хрень ,зачем делать такое корыто с пушкой изначально ...конечно,м18 более продвинутая версия , но почему сразу нельзя понять,что если нет брони,должны быть другие хорошие параметры

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@Зигвальд 👍✌✌

[@PitFriend1]

One key difference between the StuGs and the JagdPanzers is that the StuGs were primarily operated by the artillery branch of the army rather than the panzer troops. Their training involved gunnery more than offensive operations, which made them very good at defensive ambushes the StuGs were famous for. They also due to their association with the artillery were one of the few vehicles with the sights mounted on the roof of the vehicle s opposed to just being in line with the gun.. This allowed them to actually aim at something while completely behind cover and then pop out to fire, as opposed to other vehicles that would have to expose themselves in order to aim.

[@carlotinschert7492]

The Hetzer and Jagdpanzer IV also had sights on the roof, if I am not mistaken. In the glacis plate of those AFV's were the driver's episcopes. I suppose the Jagdpanther also had roof sights.

[@executivedirector7467]

@@carlotinschert7492 Correct.

[@rjp5167]

Didn't know this. Thanks.

[@michaeltelson9798]

As the STuG were considered with the artillery they weren’t part of the Panzer Korps and the crew wore the Feldgrun uniforms not the Black uniforms

[@herptek]

There was nothing to stop them being used offensively either. The German idea to use these kinds of vehicles in the artillery branch is rather unusual, but the product itself was one of the most pragmatic family of fighting vehicles of WW2.

[@RafaMieses]

if the germans had built the maus you bet they would have made a tank destroyer version packing a cannon to kill godzilla

[@generalbones1924]

Jagdpanzer e100 is that what could happen

[@CommodoreRayne.IMP.C-1824]

Jagdpanzer E-100 😂

[@forestgaming3993]

The Hetzer is definitely my favorite now. Really interesting design from a purely visual standpoint.

[@Flacto-vs6np]

TUTEL superioty

[@sy8099]

Hetzer gonna hetz

[@stephena1196]

It was very cramped inside though.

[@carterjones8126]

Angled metallic coffin

[@neutr4l1zer]

Cramped with poor vision but if youre saving fuel and watching strategic positions some of these issues can be alleviated by not buttoning up and getting eyes from outside for example

[@peterpeterson4800]

Great video! You forgot to mention the StuG IV, which is a StuG III super structure mounted on a Panzer IV hull. It was created because the factory that was producing the Jagdpanzer IV was bombed. It was also simpler to use an existing design for the superstructure instead of a new one. Production started in december of 1943 and they made 1141 of these vehicles, so a very substantial number. Edit: Thanks for pointing out my mistake about the factory in the comments. It was actually a shortage of Panzer III hulls that led to the Stug IV.

[@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle]

Is this the StuH42 105mm or different vehicle ?

[@harmdallmeyer6449]

Yes, though the StuG IV is an assault gun, not a tank destroyer.

[@harmdallmeyer6449]

​@@WhatisthisstupidfinghandleNo. The StuH still used Panzer III Chassis.

[@waitasecond5366]

No, it was because not the Jagdpanzer 4 factory's were bombed, but the fatory producing Panzer 3's

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

@@waitasecond5366 Alkett produced most StuG III and the chassis for it; they were bombed so there was a shortage of Pz III chassis.

[@Galaxy-o2e]

I dont get the Germans, I mean... that thing can already penetrate everything on the battlefield- BUT NO THERE MUST BE A TANK DESTROYER VARIANT OF IT.

[@inadequis6132]

Say what you want about the Jagdpanther, but the combination of sloped armor and the full-sized 88 with muzzle brake made it the sexiest

[@azizella2778]

I prefer the Jagdtigers design

[@frammo5896]

​@@azizella2778 I also prefer the Jagdtiger design.

[@riatorex8722]

​@@azizella2778 The Jagdtiger does look cool as heck only if it weren't so gosh dang heavy.

[@Atlas_high-gaming]

​@@riatorex8722 nah just put an Abrams engine in it

[@hhhhhhhhh1071]

It looks like a vintage computer mouse

[@Nursilmaz]

Im from Poland and the most useless discussion about WW II tanks I have seen is about naming of KV-1. People arguing if it should be named KW-1, like in Polish nomenclature, KV-1 like in English or even KB-1 like in russian. Yeah very significant. I really enjoy your style of making videos, informative, no bullshit or clickbaits, pretty short with few jokes here and there. Great content, keep it up.

[@kotletschabowy4169]

But for some reason IS flies under the radar

[@executivedirector7467]

@@dirkschlebusch-sp3hm Since we are posting in English here, "KW" is certainly not correct. "KV" is correct. Russian "B" is english "V".

[@beaclaster]

​@@executivedirector7467 what's a w in russian

[@executivedirector7467]

@@beaclaster I don't know why you'd ask. The question would be, what letter makes the 'v' sound in the Russian language, as in 'Voroshilov'. And the answer is a letter that looks like the English letter 'b', but is pronounced like the English letter 'v'. But there's no way you get to 'w' in english from the Russian 'b'. So: the correct transliteration of the tank's name is "KV" in English. "KW" in German....but we ain't speaking German here.

[@beaclaster]

@@executivedirector7467 how don't you know why i asked. also правда is spelt プラウダ in japanese which reads purauda even though there's フ (fu) and ブ (bu) which often used as substitute for v ik anime is not a convincing source but japanese words are spelt and read strictly how it is so there can't be a mistake outside your reading and writing capabilities

[@gigamoumantai2696]

*"You didn't choose the stug life, the stug life choose you."*

[@michaelhoffmann2891]

I remember seeing an Hetzer decades ago at a show and just standing next to it, I felt claustrophobic. Surprisingly, even shockingly tiny. You had to be a shorty to be chosen for the tank regiments - even in my day, when it was the much spacier Leopard I.

[@What_do_I_Think]

Yes, it is difficult to compare modern tanks (and the Leo 1 is not even really "modern" -- the Leopard II is still a main upgrade) with those former tanks. The first (western) tanks build (in WW1), had the exhaust gases going into the cabin. And even the first T-34 build had no heating. Even in the German Bundeswehr (post-WW2) there was a size limit for tank soldiers until I believe the Leopard II was released (there might be still one, but less restrictive). The soviet tanks where still cramped at least until the 80s, because they had the doctrine, that tanks must have a small silhouette.

[@michaelhoffmann2891]

@@What_do_I_Think heh, yeah, I remember that after my physical for the Bundeswehr, tanks and submarines were explicitly excluded.

[@PerryWarnock]

@@michaelhoffmann2891Do you play war thunder, people have said that real life ranking translates to war thunder skill well. If so, which nation/s do you play?

[@SWEArcher]

Give this man a medal, quality content videos all the time. Keep up the good work Wrenchie boi!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thank you!

[@666bambucia]

Got to applaud you for the use of the rare Warsaw Uprising footage of a captured Hetzer renamed as "Chwat" (the "Ch" at the beginning is pronounced the same was as in the Scottish word "Loch", and W pronounced like the English "V"). Chwat meaning brave in the Polish language.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

As many commenters have told me apparently I can’t even pronounce basic German words so I’m not even going to attempt this! But thank you very much. :)

[@michaeltelson9798]

Parts of it was recovered after the war. It fell when the Post Office that it was defending fell on it.

[@FlyingDienosaur]

Base on my understanding it's pronounced as Lokvat? Something like that?

[@dankeykang868]

This is the first video from this channel that i have watched and i'm very impressed. Very concise and professional

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thank you very much!

[@randytessman6750]

My first time watching your vids and would like to say .... WELL DONE ! As a WW II history nut I already knew most of the facts you said but was impressed with your delivery. Earned another subscriber and I will be going thru your catalogue.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Aw thanks so much Randy I hope you stick around

[@SchleiferGER]

3 Additons to the Ferdinand: 1. The suspension wasn't complicated. It was of a longitudinal torsion bar bogie type. Very simple to maintain but does not give the smoothest ride. 2. The drivetrain wasn't at all that unreliable. The two HL120 TRM which had to run in the medium to high rpm range all the time to provide sufficient electric power were the problem. Ferdinand is also pretty much the only heavy German vehicle which did not suffer from damaged final drives. 3. How come we always hear about the lack of an mg with the Ferdinand, that made it defenseless against infantry when the Stugs pretty much had exactly the same set up for the longest time? The issue must be overblown.

[@captainhurricane5705]

Point 3 is often raised by people as a failure of the Ferdinand. These vehicles were obviously never designed to encounter infantry by themselves, which is similar to most armoured vehicles. Yes of course having an mg at the front is an advantage, but that does not stop enemy troops approaching from the sides or rear either. The battle reports from Kursk give positive not negative views of the Ferdinand.

[@Jim-Tuner]

The proper role of the Ferdinand is a long-distance tank killer. Sending one charging into an area controlled by enemy infantry would make no sense. Most of the criticism about lack of MG originated with Heinz Guderian and his postwar book. It wasn't a perfect weapon. But it was a useful way to use the 100 or so Tank Hulls made by Porsche that would have otherwise been scrapped.

[@HaVoC117X]

​@@Jim-Tuner Tortoises and T95 went no where and never saw action. At least the Ferdinands were put to good use and left an impression. The 110 Jagdtigers were ordered to replace the 90 Ferdinands because it seems worse it to got few tanks with this capabilities. Made a similar post under a Bovington video, ended up being shit stormed.

[@MultiKbarry]

The MG issue probably arose from a few issues that were more pronounced in the Ferdi. The StuG is more more maneuverable, uses a different doctrine and, was probably loaded with more HE than Ferdinand would. The culminations of these things probably gave way to this want of a mounted MG.

[@martind5653]

Stug was probably capable of turning around on the spot and running away. Ferdinand was much bigger, more valuable and slower target. But what do I know I only played some tank games.

[@michaeltelson9798]

A good read on the Jgdpz IV is “Panzer Gunner “ by Bruno Friesen. He was a Canadian Born of Eastern German descent whose family chose to immigrate to Germany when he was a teenager. He was subsequently placed into the Panzer Korps as he was already apprenticed as an electrician. He served as a Jgdpz IV gunner on the Eastern Front and returned back to Canada after the war.

[@Darthjosh91]

The Hetzer and StuG are my two favorites. Hetzer is definitely the coolest looking design and I got a StuG III model from an antique store a few months ago.

[@germanpanzer38t]

As always wrench quality content! Glad to be a patreon

[@mcyte314]

Thank you for this great overview. For completeness you could have mentioned the Kanonenjagtpanzer of the Bundeswehr, which was a derivative of the Jagpanzer IV with 90 mm gun built in the 1960s and used until the early 1990s in reserve formations.

[@haterhated5655]

With how the hetzer was built, I really expected it to come from 1941 or even 1940. Never expected it to be one of the last tanks built in the war. This makes sense because with such a good design the germans could've actually won, too bad it was too late.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

“Too bad”?!

[@haterhated5655]

@@RedWrenchFilms perhaps I worded it wrong

[@Narcan885]

The germans could have NEVER won. There isn't a single combination of factors that could have lead to their victory. It's was always a suicidal, delusional war from the start.

[@membranekeyboard781]

Honestly these videos are so high quality, interesting to see that the hetzer was built last but is put earlier in games such as war thunder

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thanks very much! It surprised me too.

[@brianmyers13]

10:28 LOL. Wasn't expecting a comedy video! Well played.

[@markfryer9880]

He got me as well with his final comment about "Useless discussion" Totally unexpected.

[@alexshaw0704]

Hetzer has always been my favourite especially when they decided to convert 20ish to house a flamethrower as it’s main armourment but there’s something about the Jagtiger I like as well, a tank that insane and mind boggling there’s just something about it

[@ReichLife]

You bring up excellent point regarding Ferdinands/Elefants which nearly all related channels overlook out of mindless mockery (Potential History sensationalist garbage for example). Given what was available, utilization of otherwise useless hulls into mobile PAK bunkers was solid move.

[@viethoangtruong5539]

That doesn’t change the fact that the Elefant is a dogshit tank that is good for nothing. Heavy, expensive, is fucked by literally anything that comes close to it. High kill ratio means nothing when you are so expensive and unreliable in combat. So to answer your question, the Elefant is garbage and that is an universal fact.

[@brianlong2334]

He is very biased a lot of his information is taken out of context to suit his agenda, the cheftan also does this to a degree.

[@ReichLife]

@@brianlong2334 Who? Potential History? That channel is pure sensationalist garbage.

[@Athrun82]

You could say the German army was very good at recycling of used up gear. For example the very first tank destroyer was build on the chassis of shot up Panzer 1's. They simply ripped of the turret, put a 4,7 cm Pak on it with some armor shielding for the crew and you had your first somewhat decent tank destroyer. And this practice continued throughout the war. The best example would be the entire Marder series which were at the end pak 40's grafted onto whatever chassis was available (though the real production Marder was a Panzer 38(t) maried to the Pak). The Hetzer was the improved successor on the same chassis but with better armor protection, better shot deflection thanks to sloped armor and a way lower profile making for an excellent ambush vehicle

[@Tundraviper41]

If I remember correctly, the electric drive worked well on the porche tiger/Ferdinand was sometimes better than the transmission of its contemporarys, the coolant issue and its underpowered engine caused many problems that made it a liability in a conflict, but The maus would be designed with an electric drive for its transmission seeing how electric drive performed well on the proche models.

[@markfryer9880]

"Get involved in the completely usless discussion!" PMSL. Should be a Thumbs Up button just for a great comedy finishing line! Well done! I was enjoying your video and you just slipped that throw away line in at the very end and got me LOL. Totally unexpected. Mark from Melbourne Australia

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Hahah I’m glad you enjoyed Mark :) Thanks for watching

[@MetalX34]

tbh jagdpanthers sound like a better plan to have the long 88 moved around than tigers II. focus on panther hulls, and gauge how many long 88 you need to decide how many should be casemates.

[@dancing_odie]

Im building a 1/56 scale model of the Hetzer for my final project in welding school

[@soul0360]

Sounds cool. Good luck with the project, and your future career.

[@dancing_odie]

​@@soul0360 Thanks

[@retteip8276]

You have a nice profile pic!

[@samiamrg7]

The Hetzer’s biggest drawback was the cramped crew layout necessitated by it’s small size. The gunner and loader basically sat in each other’s lap on the same side of the gun, while the commander’s position was behind and elevated. This made operating the vehicle pretty uncomfortable, especially if the crew were lying in wait for a long time. Entering and exiting the vehicle were also more difficult, which could mean the difference between life and death for the crew.

[@leopoldthedigger7062]

Man you’re growing, congrats! I’m so happy to see how well you’re going!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

It’s all a bit surreal. You’re an OG!

[@lincolntravelconcierge4846]

Great vid mate- concise, informative and humorous!

[@user-fw3fq3de3z]

90 Ferdinand built and 1 by alket.. 48 survived the eastern front and sent back nov 1943 .... all 48 were upgraded dec 1943.. name change to Elefant by order of high command in June 44 long after upgrades... even with all the problems it had highest kill per loss ratio... not a bad failure... also know as a stug and a panzerjager

[@dirtysniper3434]

Yeah when you only make a handful of well armored tanks engaging tanks at a long open range on flat ground with guns that can't penetrate your front. You tend to have a good K/D. For christ sake this like saying the Karl Gustav was the best artillery gun around because it also had a higher K/D.

[@ps1_hagrid_gaming517]

You love it to see that little hetzer, cant wait for the next video❤️

[@MgtowBarbarian]

The jag tiger when used correctly was lethal. Most of the experienced crews were dead by the time it went into service.

[@mikkelhansen3714]

Reliability -_-

[@herpderp7114]

Sure was, but it was also "why". The only vehicle you need that 128mm gun to fight is an IS-3 and that never even made it into the war.

[@void1968able]

Otto Carius (tank ace who lived till around 2017) had to change from his beloved Tiger I to Jagdtiger in the last weeks of the war facing US tanks in the Ruhr Pocket. He wrote about a panicked JT commander who turned his tank around for retreat which then got shot in the back. However they destroyed quite some US tanks from incredible long distances. However the Jagdtiger was totally overkill and a nonsense design.

[@MgtowBarbarian]

@@void1968able i heard the same thing that jt gunners were making some world record shots with that sweet gun. Like i said, when used correctly they were lethal.

[@browncoat697]

@@MgtowBarbarian Used correctly a .50 caliber anti-materiel rifle is also an excellent anti-infantry weapon, but you don't see them issued to every squad because it's total overkill. You use .50 caliber rifles for anti-materiel (e.g., unarmored and lightly armored vehicles). The point is that sure, the Jagdtiger would absolutely annihilate anything else 1v1, but Germany needed *more*, not *better.*

[@mchrome3366]

The jagpanzer 4 with the L70 gun of the panther would have been enough to stop any tank of WW2 without interfering with Panther production but the Germans could never stop with good enough. Good research great video.

[@knot3d_]

Like many ppl, you forget the "soft stats". Those were way more important in reality than ppl think nowadays. This concerns fighting compartment space, ammo storage, crew ergonomics, optics and repair&supply chain capability. Watch Hilary Doyle:s take on the Jagdpanzer IV.

[@carlotinschert7492]

My favourite is the Jagdpanzer IV/70 (Vomag version). Extemely low, capable, good looking and deadly if used the right way, even for a JS-2. Back when i was a kid a built a 1:76 model myself, now I have a 1:35 model built by an award-winning modeller. It depicts a Panzer IV/70, as it was also called, of the 20th Panzer Division, April 1945. Love the video, but I do think the Jagdpanther is a bit underrated here. And true, the capabilities of a StuG III G cannot be underestimated: it formed essentially the backbone of the German armed forces, concerning anti-tank warfare. Circa 9.000 were built, so that is a lot for WWII Germany

[@stevecam724]

The Ferdinand was the most successful German AFV in the war with a 10 to 1 kill loss ratio. Haters love to rip into reliability issues or weight problems but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as they make out.

[@Kurogumo]

Kill ratios are but one statistic in many when considering a vehicles effectiveness. And in every other metric the Ferdinand was woefully subpar.

[@manofsteel8728]

Soviet union could probably easily provide more than 10 tanks for the production and logistics cost of one Ferdinand

[@Jim-Tuner]

The Ferdinand was project to find a useful role for around 90 surplus tank hulls. The entire project to create and deploy the Ferdinand was done in three months. It filled an immediate need in German army in 1943 for a long-distance tank killing weapon. It wasn't an ideal weapons system, but it was better use of those 90 tank hulls that just scrapping them.

[@robertdickson9319]

@@Jim-Tuner Agreed. If they had been built with the MG and cupola, fewer might have been lost at Kursk. And they should never have been sent to Italy. The fact that more were never built would indicate the Germans knew the limitations, but re-using the hulls was more cost effective. From 1943 every German vehicle needed to have a 10-1 K/D ratio for Germany to survive and the Elefants pulled their weight.

[@zachariasobenauf1895]

@@robertdickson9319 if you add up the russian and the us production the kill-ratio should have been 18:1-20:1 - as they reached 5:1 at kursk (as an attacker with many losses to artillery and mines) it may have been worked for a short time (before d-day)

[@SekayKFP]

I just found your channel and as someone who loves tanks, I feel like I found a gold mine

[@TigerBaron]

A video on Germany's tanks such as the Panzer III, IV, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger and so forth would also be nice. Or maybe just the heavy tanks of the war.

[@fubar12345]

The Stug is a great design if you want to draw out a losing war for as long as possible. Not really suited to 'assault' roles at all, better suited to ambush, cheap and relatively simple to make. A tank for losing a war as slowly as possible. Pretty grim really.

[@zachreal-09]

You should do this again but for Soviet heavy tanks or SPGs

[@kewlwarez]

Your description of the Stug III around 1:00-1:30 make it sounds as if they're rebuilt Mark IIIs when these were new built, seperate vehicles on the same chassis.

[@Mitthjerridtidia]

There is a big problem here: There was a military difference between a Jagdpanzer, a Panzerjäger and a Sturmgeschütz. E.g. in 1943 the rivalry between the artillery and the panzer units got so big that the tank branch pulled out a trick by renaming all "assault guns new type" (Sturmgeschütz neuer Art - aka "Jagdpanzer IV" and "JgPz38t") into "Jagdpanzer" and adding them to the Panzer troops. So with the trick they prefent the artillery from the original plans to replace the StuG with the new two "assault guns". SO the story of german casemate tanks is very complicated.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

It is very complicated. I just split them semi-arbitrarily but I’m aware that many of the vehicles in this video are also considered “Panzerjager”.

[@user-fw3fq3de3z]

the Ferdinand was know as a stug and a panzerjager depending on what troops it served with

[@Mitthjerridtidia]

@@user-fw3fq3de3z there are many factors. The big "break" is in late 1942 when the assault artillery was looking for a replacment for the StuG III. The Panzertruppen (Guderian and his gang) werent happy to Lose more production value to the assault artillery arm so they forced Hitler to reclassifiy "Sturmgeschütz" projects like the Ferdinadt assault gun into "Sturmgeschütze neuer Art" (assault gun - new type). All Sturmgeschütze neuer Art were assigned to the Panzertruppen and they renamed them Jagdpanzer. So vehicles like the JgPz IV or JgPz38t shouldnreplace the StuG and should be assigned to the assault artillery but with the new "trick" they formed a new sub Branche in the Panzertruppen.

[@michaeljeffery1937]

I'm an ex-soldier from an Armoured Regiment of the 1970's & 80's, as a serving soldier (a gunner crewman), We had to vehicle recognition mainly those of our supposed counterparts in the eastern block, and I can remember that Hetzer was still in use in the 70's by the DDR and satalite countries within the Communist forces and a recognised target should be go to war and live long enough too take an active part. Proof therefore of the longevity of the service of a WW2 vehicle and its design !

[@samadams2203]

I'm glad you reviewed Ferdinand this way. It has been much maligned both due to its poor performance at Kursk and of course, the fact it uses the Porsche Tiger hull. Realistically, the German military got a useful vehicle that could mount the 88 relatively early, from an otherwise wasted engineering project. Something from nothing is an underrated benefit IMO.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Absolutely, and they went on to have a long service life and were well liked by their crews due to the excellent gun and high survivability level. After Kursk, they were knocked out few and far between. Conversely they took a high toll of Soviet armour.

[@olafkunert3714]

"It has been much maligned both due to its poor performance at Kursk " What were the Ferdinand losses at Kursk and how many Soviet tanks were destroyed by the Ferdinands? Could it be that at Kursk the Ferdinand was a good tank?

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@olafkunert3714 At Kursk all armour ypes had difficulties due to the very nature of the battle. Layers of defensive belts, minefields, anti tank gun emplacements, anti tank ditches. Let's not forget that Soviet tank losses were 3 to 4 times as many as German losses. At Kursk, altogether 26 Ferdinands were total losses by the end of July. They appear to have knocked out over 200 Soviet tanks etc.

[@Gorilla_Jones]

Failure at Kursk is kind of a double edge sword. It's number of kills vs. the number available is kind of nuts.

[@Jim-Tuner]

@@olafkunert3714 About 35 were lost at Kursk out of 89 deployed. One unit at Kursk claimed to have knocked out 320 Soviet Tanks for the loss of 13 Ferdinands. The most serious problems with the Ferdinands at Kursk were damaged vehicle recovery (due to weight and difficulty towing) and maintenance given how few total existed.

[@keithd5181]

Excellent video. Thank you!😀

[@ChrisS-fh7zt]

The American Elephant is at the Bovington Tank Museum in the UK on loan.

[@AverageSpaniard0505]

these are the best videos i've ever seen on ww2 tanks, and i've seen a lot

[@Sullian_dF]

Regarding the final question, I think you're being a bit hard on the Jagdpanther. I definitely agree that the competition with the Panther was a problem, but it was still probably the best way to install a 88 mm gun in an armored chassis, and make use of better performance at long range than the 75 mm KwK 42 in a more manageable package than the Tiger II, and without the Nashorn's vulnerability to basically anything. My heart however still goes to the Hetzer because for once the Germans realized that bigger isn't always better.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I do think Jagdpanther was the best vehicle of the bunch. But logistically it just never really made much sense to me.

[@HaVoC117X]

​@@RedWrenchFilms Panthers was Germanys main MBT. Around 4000 were made compared to just 2500 PZ IV in 1944. Logistically the Jagdpanther was the only logical solution.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@HaVoC117X Wasn’t an MBT really - and yes more were made but the fact that Jagdpanther production and Panther production were happening simultaneously was a bad move.

[@HaVoC117X]

@@RedWrenchFilms Yeah true, I meant main medium tank by this time. According to Hilary Doyle, it was planned from the beginning to base a whole family of vehicles om the Panthers chassis : medium tank, assault gun, ARV, self propelled artillery and later even AA. All that to create part communality. Even the Tiger II should share most parts of the drive train parts with panther. Creating a new vehicle for every role is just stupid.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@HaVoC117X Yes of course but all of the vehicles in this video were based on an existing chassis - it’s a good idea in theory but my point is that it was a waste to use a panther chassis when the panther itself was already a very capable anti tank platform and vehicles like the Panzer IV were showing their age. Making the decision to slow panther production at that point in the war for the sake of a bigger gun seems a poor choice, in much the same way as the Jagdtiger was a poor choice.

[@JohnSmith-se9yl]

Great information, amazing video footage. Keep up the Great work 👍

[@frammo5896]

I know it was pretty useless, but I love the Jagdtiger. Tiger II chassis looks great, and that gun 😮 Shame it broke down every 30 seconds.

[@Millie_oo0]

THE COMMANDER’S CUPOLA is really how to sum this up in three words

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

What I think is it’s a miracle they didn’t try pulling the 11” guns off the damaged Scharnhorst class ship and building tank destroyers around them. I mean they did design the Maus…

[@counterfit5]

I think you just described the Ratte

[@Aaahrg]

Geman here nice video. My grandpa fought the soviets in a StuG in the early days until he was captured. My favorite is the Hetzer.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

That’s so interesting - apologies for the botched pronunciation!

[@Aaahrg]

​@@RedWrenchFilms The pronunciation was actually not bad at all ;)

[@nightshade4873]

the chronological order is certainly uncanny for me, as I have, for the majority of my interest in AFVs thought that the Jagdpanzer 38(t) came around earlier than the bigger behemoths that spawned after. btw did the Jagdpanzer IV sport some other guns other than the Kwk 40 7.5cm L/48? as you presented it was originally meant to use the KwK 42 7.5cm L/70 but i wonder if it had some abberations later on. also, for future video topics, i wonder if you could tackle some perspectives of the Panzer IV being designed as a support gun for the Panzer III, initially being doctrinally employed as a Sturmgeshutz / Assault Tank, and as the war progressed took over the Panzer III as the Panzer V was still in it's R&D while also being in some Trial by Fire.

[@janekmundt579]

I thought so too, based on the fact that the jagdpanzer 4 looks exactly like a hetzer with sideskirts. Interestingly they decided to integrate the sideskirts into the side armor of the hetzer, instead of slapping them on the Hetzer to create a panzer 4. This seems very counterintuitive…

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Very early JgPz IVs had the Pak 39 L/43, then a large number had the Pak 39 L/48. Panzer IV/70s were all given the Pak 42 L/70. That Panzer IV idea is great! But I’ll probably take a break from German vehicles for a while haha

[@j.f.fisher5318]

No. Putting the 8.8cm on it is just a WoT thing. ;) there's probably plenty of room but the tank was already front heavy and the long 75 is a better AT gun.

[@nightshade4873]

@@RedWrenchFilms looking forward to future videos as i find these topics quite interesting. also, i'm still irked that they made the Panzer IV /70 in Company of Heroes 2 a dedicated Anti-Light Vehicle/Anti-structure unit despite the gun being literally far more capable in AT work than the Kwk 40 75mm L48 used in the Stug III.

[@nightshade4873]

@@j.f.fisher5318 i don't know to whom you're replying this, i assume with your wording that it is directed to Red Wrench Films, but might i add my own perspective in this if you don't mind, you can certainly choose not to read this. i find it quite difficult to even compare the Kwk 36 and the Kwk 43 (both 88mm) with the Kwk 42 75mm gun in terms of their AT capabilities, considering both 88mm gun models were already quite capable due to their design being primarily for AA rather than AT, with their ballistic characteristics being favored by their users, and their projectile having greater energy retention over range due to their caliber and also with their weight, i sincerely doubt that the KwK 42 had any advantage over the Kwk 36 and 43 considering that the former was at best a scaled up Kwk 39, which does not diminish it's capabilities but simply doubting it would be of any par to the 88mm guns. i might add some industrial and economic views on the viability of the 88mm at the time, but i refraine in terms of internal volume, with the 128mm gun being quite massive, mainly it's breech, i doubt it had that good of a space for the crews in the superstructure, as some images of the casemate compartment showed, that the crews would likely have had to be capable of similar contortion techniques as that of the crews on a Sherman Firefly i kind of see that it could've mounted the Kwk 42 75mm L/70 earlier or later in the war but i doubt that it would've made alot of sense considering that the JagdTiger as i have learned was more of a knee jerk response to the Soviet Heavies of the time, most likely the IS series above the KV series. may you have a great time reading through many more pieces!

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

The Hetzer was amazing for 16 tons... It suffered from a right handed gun being put to the right, which also reduced traverse to being the least of all Jagdpanzers. Yet it was so effective there was talks of producing only Hetzers and practically nothing else...

[@MadMonk_]

I agree the Jagdpanzer 4 L70 and the 38t have to be the best of the Tank hunter/killers designed by the Germans during WW2. Given the time of its development, the 38t is a much tidier useful designs than either the Jagdpanther or JagdTiger. An interesting comparison would be how many Hetzers could you get for the same amount of materials and person hours?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

It gets very complicated when you start making comparisons like that! Probably quite a few.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

They began mass production of the Hetzer since the 38t factories couldn't be reached by Allied bombers. The Germans did add two more production plants and scattered the factories making the components in their areas once the bombers could reach them.

[@bobsyoruncle4583]

there is a report of a late war engagement in which a dug-in platoon of Hetzers destroyed over 60 T34s' without losing a single vehicle. While they needed shorter ranges than the larger tank destroyers, the Stug3 Gs' and Hetzers were much easier to conceal and capable of taking out any allied tanks - which they did with great success. Stug 3s' and 4s' alone destroyed almost as many enemy tanks as Germany's total tank production during the war.

[@robertbruce7772]

Stug III is the #1 tank killer of all time!

[@AlphaHorst]

I'd argue the Jagdpanther was not a bad idea. It made the ideal support for panthers. Just as fast but more heavy hitting. Both together had no real enemy on the ground as both covered each others weaknesses instead of compounding them like with the King Tiger and the Jagdtiger.

[@theblondesiouxsiesioux]

I heard the biggest problem with the Jagdpanther was that the crews were greener than desired, and made many noob mistakes. But it's not like I was there or anything, so yeah.

[@davidjula7432]

As much as I love my Jagdtiger and Tiger 2, I do storngly believed the germans should've stopped at the Panther and Jagdpanther produced more of those together with Pz4/3s

[@theblondesiouxsiesioux]

@@davidjula7432 I concur.

[@zachariasobenauf1895]

@@davidjula7432 Guderian once proposed to switch to priority production of STUGs - for ressources and their similar suitability for attack & defense

[@gePanzerTe]

​​@@zachariasobenauf1895 It was too late. Multiplication of models, use of abandoned chassis and limited series production only get two things: - proove the industrial deficiences and actual chaos in the end - create logistical mayhem

[@asullivan4047]

Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job.makes it easier for viewers to understand what the orator is describing.

[@korbindallas100]

10:54 Best quote of the video

[@markiemark5696]

Excellent Channel...! Being an avid ww2 armour buff your videos are well researched and delivered well. Very happy in this one to see the very Heter i am actually working on in 1/35th scale. Good to see I am actually doing a pretty good job recreating the ''Light and Shadow'' Ambush patten used on this very tank. I believe it is Stug.Abt 1708 VGD in France late 1944. Keep up the great work... Always good to find research material for my upcomming projects.

[@folly6682]

There's a jadgtiger at Aberdeen Proving Ground (or was, they may have moved it to Ft. Lee) that has an interesting story. It was on a narrow street in some small town when some American Sherman tanks came over a ridge just outside the town. The Germans had to get to the edge of town so they could turn enough to aim while the Americans took shots at them. You can see several marks on the front of the Jadgtiger where the Shermans hit it without doing any damage. But one round hit the right drive sprocket and jammed the track, which caused the Jadgtiger to turn sideways and get stuck. Perfect illustration of what a big stupid machine it was.

[@jammygamer8961]

bruh what? like yea its unreliable but that sprocket hit would of immobilised any tank

[@folly6682]

@Jammy Gamer The point is it was vulnerable because it was crawling down a narrow street unable to aim the main gun, then it went sideways and the gun was stuck inside a building. A tank or a faster tank destroyer would have had a much better chance

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@folly6682 Ähm... A Jagdtiger, was never lost in any tank to tank combat. Just sayin'...

[@folly6682]

@Melchior von Sternberg The US Army Ordnance Museum has one. As I said above, I don't know if it's still at APG or if they moved it to Ft. Lee. You can probably look it up online. I know they planned to move it around 2010, but put it on hold because the contractor didn't have anything that could pull it. The thing has marks on the front from shell hits and they cut the teeth off the right drive sprocket so they could drag it away. The museum has pictures of the site where they recovered it.

[@0Turbox]

@@folly6682 Shit happens. It was never designed for doing crazy maneuvers under fire.

[@mangosaptino]

Thanks for the video. It made me realize I had a lot of the chronology wrong for the jagds. I always thought the Hetzer as earlier than the Elefant. Great work.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thank you so much!

[@rizkidary837]

Tbh I kinda remember when played blitzkrieg 2. When you order a light tank in Germany (during the last campaign of Germany) the game give you hetzer instead of other tank. They're mass produced and light (since the game will give you 5 hetzer per one reinforcement)

[@SubaruPieter]

The Jagdtiger has always been my favourite. It just looks so amazing

[@j.f.fisher5318]

It makes so much more sense as a heavy breakthrough assault gun than as a TD. Not that Germany had much heavy breakthrough assault opportunities by that point in the war. Fun fact, the gun produces more muzzle energy (because of the massive round at quite high MV for the era) than even modern tank guns do.

[@SubaruPieter]

@@j.f.fisher5318 interesting

[@allthingsbrightandbeautiful7]

I agree with you, the Jagdtiger is my favorite German tank too, it looks awesome and it packs a heavy punch, it's my favorite unit in Company of Heroes 2.

[@SubaruPieter]

@@allthingsbrightandbeautiful7 yeah! 😃

[@stayhungry1503]

@@j.f.fisher5318 but it was super slow and broke down all the time, not good for a breakthrough vehicle.

[@garybiggs4614]

Great video!!! The comparison of the different tank destroyers was very interesting and astute. Thank you for the excellent research you did to produce this informative and interesting video. Keep up the good work.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thank you Gary! Very kind words.

[@MGB-learning]

Great Video and presentation. The Elephant Jag Tiger were monsters. I was fortunate enough to get a chance to climb into Elephant at the Aberdeen proving grounds.

[@christopherwebber3804]

The Hetzer's name was popularised by a Japanese model maker (who also made up the "Jackson" name for the M-36) It may not have had that name during the war.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

It definitely had the name during the way, albeit unofficially (by the troops) and erroneously (was originally the name for the E series vehicle of similar design).

[@petercolson2990]

Any chance we'll get a companion piece on some of the other self propelled and/or assault guns? I wanna see some attention paid to the Brummbär, just because it's a cute boxy chonker =)

[@ratte6090]

Aw heck yeah, SPGs! I was looking for the Grille since there've been so many videos on the other 38t-hulled vehicles...

[@Careoran]

Another well done video 👍🏻another comment from me here too, despite all the criticism and laughs about the Ferdinand and later Elefant. It had by far the highest loss to kill ratio of all armored fighting vehicles of WW2 incl all allied ! Followed by the M18 Hellcat. The Elefant was actually liked by its crews fighting in Russia, despite the losses they had , they noticed they had a significant impact in battles with their unit and were well protected. See also the unit history Abt 653.

[@zachariasobenauf1895]

for around 30 years i trusted the narrative of the ferdinands in-efficiency - the first fact-based & detailled analysis of their battlefield performance i found was made in Roman Toeppels book Kursk - he reported they were not knocked out by molotov-throwing brave russian infantry-men but by mines and artillery and for their role as breakthrough-STUG they worked out well (despite the general german problem of under-powered heavy-weights and technical "divas" in the later war)

[@George_M_]

I'd take the Elefant over the JT - a practical weapon, and going from WoT the armor layout is pretty effective vs WW2 weapons. Better in defensive terrain like Italy.

[@soul0360]

Never take WoT stats as gospel. Most if not all tank stats are tweaked, for gameplay and balancing purposes. For easy reference, I'd suggest you look up the Hetzer in game. And compare it, with what's said in this video. 12:38 . While games can help spark interest for real world subjects. Which is great. They are sadly also a great source of misinformation. And a reason for many hopeless discussions in communities, such as those surrounding weapons and history. Please don't fall into that trap, while broading your horizon, and fueling your curiosity online. Best wishes.

[@carterjones8126]

That'd be a question of which one takes longer to break down, or catch fire (Elefant was infamous)

[@xv12commander]

​​@@soul0360 the hetzer is great in game tho, probably the best tank I've used at his own tier.

[@michaeltelson9798]

Elephant was the original proposed name for the vehicle and is why the rebuilt ones were given the name.

[@SJKile]

Excellent Video with exceptional history. It just makes me wonder if Germany had kept using & modifying the Panzer IV exclusively, not seceding to Hitlers whims, then not invading Russia, then kept Japan from doing what they did? Well it’s a lot of what ifs, but it would be fun to go down the rabbit hole & extrapolate what might have happened.

[@jwolf4948]

This was a great way to show each vehicle and where it fell in terms of everything (weight, armor, weapons, and ability to change the battlefield situation). The problem the Germans had was that they were perfectionists. If they would have cut a few corners and skimped in some areas, we might all be speaking German right now.

[@Appletank8]

Not necessarily, Shermans alone outnumbered all of Germany's tank production like 50:1, and a much larger population space to draw crew from.

[@jwolf4948]

@@Appletank8 The only reason that the allied invasion in France worked was because the battle in Russia had come to a stalemate. The battle for Moscow started is Sept of 1941, 3 months before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and a year before the Sherman entered production, let alone before it got into combat. Had the Germans had more tanks and artillery instead of better, there is a good chance that Moscow would have fallen before the Soviets could get there tanks into the fight in any meaningful way. The Soviets by comparison made the T-34 which had a flaw in production that made it so it didn't have a retaining clips in the pins to keep the tracks in place. Instead of fixing the problem and adding a pin, they just welded a block of metal to the side of the frame that was wedged and would push the pin back in place as it moved. If the Germans would have produced tanks cheaper and quicker, they might have been able to surround Moscow and have enough extra forces to finish off Leningrad and/or Stalingrad and then move those forces towards the factories in the Ural mountains or possibly to one of the other cities to finish it off. The Shermans weren't a factor in the war until Russia had already beaten the German army back. It would be nearly a year after Moscow that the allies invaded Morocco, 2 years before the allies invaded Sicily, and another year after that before Normandy.

[@nmwvideos2393]

I really loved those two videos, looking forward to another

[@robveenenberg7053]

The Ferdinand or Elephant was formidable and at Kursk only ONE was lost to enemy infantry.

[@wolfcraft484]

you could also count a postwar west german jagdpanzer, the KanonenJagdpanzer armed with a 90mm BK90 cannon Developed in 1960 during the cold war

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I had this in the script but it didn't make the video! Maybe I'll do a post-war video.

[@ThatbotLeniex]

The good, the bad, the most questionable

[@luisdelvalle4862]

Well done video. I am a Warthunder gamer and history enthusiast yet I learned new facts e.g. the Hetzer came later in the war. Thanks

[@Fluffypancakes-o7q]

Do Soviet heavys plssss 🙏🙏🙏

[@FullcircleZA]

Thank you red wrench for fuelling my interest with WW2 era tank design!

[@peterhoffmann2231]

tutel 🎶

[@lockstockc2575]

This and your other videos are fantastic! Thank you.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

I think the Hetzer was viewed by its crews as a moving coffin. Even if he fought very successfully, it was at the expense of the men. Incidentally, you have completely suppressed the existence of the StuG IV. In fact, the StuG IV was an accidental product born out of necessity, but it underlines very clearly how good the pre-war tank development was and how flexible the German defense industry could be. Because of an air raid, production of the StuG IIIG practically came to an end at Alkett. A resourceful suggestion then led to combining the structure of the StuG with the chassis of the Panzer IV. Only a few small changes were necessary. In fact, more StuG IV units were built than the Jagdpanther/Tiger, Elefant and Ferdinand combined. From the end of 1943 until the end of the war there were almost 1150 units. And there is another remarkable fact about this armored vehicle. Generaloberst Guderian, the creator of the German armored force, was convinced that the StuG IV could also fulfill all the tasks intended for the Jagdpanzer IV and thus the production of the Jagdpz. IV, would not be needed... You could also have mentioned the StuH 42. Although this weapon was not explicitly intended for anti-tank combat, it replaced the StuG III in its role as infantry support. It was also used only rarely, in emergencies, to fight tanks. However, the StuH 42, with its 10.5 cm cannon with shaped charge projectiles, had a penetrating power of 100 mm of armor steel...

[@harmdallmeyer6449]

Good comment, although I understand why he left out the StuG IV. It's an assault gun, like the StuG III. The latter was simply braught Up, because it inspired so many Jagdpanzer designs.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

2 point. This is a video about JPz not StuG. Also, everything Germany had was a coffin by the time it was produced. Just that it probably felt like more of a coffen since it was half the size of the StuG 3 and even smaller compared to the JPz 4 (seriously, the JPz 4 was nearly 2x as wide, let alone the other dimensions).

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

@@j.f.fisher5318 What are we arguing about here? You know very well that the transitions are fluid here. Especially when you look at the area of application. When we consider that the German assault guns alone destroyed a good 30,000 enemy tanks (not 20,000+ X as reported here), then that becomes abundantly clear. And of course the StuG IV were also used as tank destroyers. Heinz Guderian, the creator of the German Panzerwaffe, was even opposed to building the Jagdpanzer IV because the StuG IV could do the job just as well. Precisely because the StuG III with its armament turned out to be too weak for its original design in the course of the war, the StuH 42 was designed in 1942 with its clearly powerful 10.5 cm cannon for infantry support. If we remember, when the attack on the Soviet Union began, the Wehrmacht had only 250 of these assault guns in their troops. Therefore the production of more than 1300 of these assault howitzers represents an adequate compensation. Around 10,000 of the StuG III were built, making it the most frequently built armored tracked vehicle on the German side. And certainly not for the original deployment framework...

[@mry7226]

Can't believe I made it this early, love your vids.

[@infernec]

General advice, I recommend talking about ergonomics if the tank you're mentioning is cramped. It's not necessary, but it can be very important for a tank's performance.

[@pavarottiaardvark3431]

Heh, you could do a whole video on versions of the 38(t). The little Czech Tank that could.

[@bayarsejar5831]

The Ferdinand deserved all the hate because it had a major problem of an under power engine which is why it did not work as a tiger because the engine exploded and the same thing happen in Kursk.

[@adrianradu2332]

I don't necessarily agree that Jagdpanther was a hinderance to the Germans. Tank destroyers in general are very specialized vehicles. To this day, we build specialized vehicles out of MBT hulls. I don't think this was an issue. Panther was an all-round good and versatile tank, with Jagdpanther playing the role of a specialized tank killer. I think the real issue here is how many tank types Germany was producing even during late wars. The problem was not that you had Jagdpanther taking up resources from the Panther production, but rather the whole Panther line production taking up resources from other tank productions aswell, such as Panzer IV and Tigers, and vice-versa! My point is that there was no standardization of production. With so many vehicle types, still being produced, it's impossible to keep a constant stream of tanks. To me it's amazing the Germans even managed to go this far with what they had left, considering the constant allied bombing and lack of resources. By 1944, the allies pretty much standardized their tank production, with the Americans mass producing mostly Shermans and its variants, and the soviets mass producing T-34's, with some specialized lines for heavy tanks, mostly the IS-2. Meanwhile, Germany was producing Panzer IV's and its variants (including Stugs and Jagdpanzers), producing Panthers and its variants, and Tigers! All of this combined with a general lack of resources. This is why I think it's unfair to say Jagdpanther was a waste, but rather a victim of on overcomplicated and highly overpressured chain of production. The design itself was very competent!

[@GhilliedMarauderGameplay]

For the mechanicals problems with JagdPanthers, first models had problems with final drive (mechanism that basically converts engine power to the front leading wheel) because it was such a heavy nose tank. It was quickly adressed and later variants were suprisingly reliable. (i hope i said everything clear, english isnt my native lenguage so i lack technical terms) Hetzer was a good TD for its prize and simplicity... I was actually surprised that it came last and in the most numbers! It had some issues, it was cramped and the loading process of the gun was extremely uncomfortable. It was design for gunner sitting on the left and loader being on the right of the gun, but in final design gun was placed all the way to the right so loader needed to lean through gunner and also lean through gun gueard so you can now imagine how difficult and exhausting loading heavy shells was... Often times commander was helping loading the gun but then you are loosing awareness...

[@frederikdemoor8172]

the vehicle witch took the bulk of "tank kills" was the stugIII... they where also not part of the Panzerwaffe, but in the artillery, so the use (most of it in 39 - 43), was in a completely different role

[@zachariasobenauf1895]

the marders (even those equipped with captured russian 7.62 anti-tank guns) seem to be often "forgotten" in their tank-kill efficiency

[@DovahFett]

You should mention that the Hetzer was absolute hell to drive and operate because of its lack of internal space. The Chieftain once climbed inside of one and said it was one of the worst experiences he’s ever had inside a chassis. The ergonomics of the vehicle are nonexistent, and ergonomics do matter.

[@questlove_satx]

I've been anxiously waiting on this video

[@Igzilee]

It's really interesting to see just how many applications the Germans found for the chassis they had. A Panzer IV could be turned into two different tank destroyers, an 'artillery' piece, or one of many anti-air vehicles. Even the humble Pz. 38(t) was converted into multiple tank destroyers. Same with the Sd. Kfz 234 and 251. The Soviets also had a similar approach with all of their casemate SU/ISU series. The US tended to simply upgrade their chassis over time, occasionally mounting different turrets or adding armor.

[@Sturmpionier]

The Hetzer also had a variant called the Flammpanzer 38t which saw limited service during the Battle of the Bulge

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

I wonder what a Jagdmaus would have looked like. Of course they'd have built that, had they managed to produce a significant amount of Maus !

[@donbeary6394]

I would have argued that the Jagdpanther was the best mounting of the high velocity version of the 88 like was used in the Tiger II , but you make a valid point, that it used up chassis that could have been used for the Panther (that 75mm gun in the Panther was no slouch, it could penetrate more armor than the much lauded Tiger I's 88 )

[@MOTA_KRAMPUS]

Fantastic video, I love them ALL :) But... If I'd have to choose, it'd be a Jagdtiger monster.

[@mattbowden4996]

A good summary, but you've missed something essential about the Jagdtiger. It's point was not to destroy Shermans and T34s - it was to destroy Tortoises and T28 GMCs and especially IS-3s. This is not to say the Germans knew what the western allies were cooking up in their super-heavy assault gun programs (of which at least the Tortoise almost certainly would have been fielded if the war had dragged on much longer) but they did know that they were in an arms race and also that each time they had come up with a new heavy anti-tank gun, the Soviets had countered it with ever more thickly armoured heavy tanks. As such, the obsolescence of the long 88mm was considered inevitable and the 128mm was designed to counter the next generation of Soviet heavy tanks that we know with the benefit of hindsight were absolutely coming soon. Viewed in that light, stuffing the 128mm into a Jagdpanzer based on the only chassis that could possibly mount such a massive gun makes perfect sense and only looks foolish in hindsight because the war ended before the IS-3 entered frontline service.

[@0Turbox]

No, it was designed as a mobile pillbox to defend crucial areas like bridges and at ranges. If they had heavies in mind to counter, they would not have ordered only 200 pieces.

[@mattbowden4996]

@@0Turbox My point is about what the gun and by extension the vehicle was designed to counter. You are talking about how the vehicle was intended to be used on the tactical level. As such, your point does not invalidate mine.

[@0Turbox]

@@mattbowden4996 It wasn't designed to counter anything, it was just a tool for certain purposes. The Germans did know zilch about the allied weapons program.

[@mattbowden4996]

@@0Turbox They didn't need to know anything about any allied weapons programs to be able to predict that these programs existed and that they might need to counter the products of them. They only needed to know they were in an arms race and extrapolate that forward - and we know, with the benefit of hindsight, that the threat that they anticipated was real although perhaps not as advanced in development as they expected. Further, we know that is exactly what the Germans were thinking because we still have the records of why these weapons were ordered. We know for a fact that the 128mm Pak 44 was developed to counter an expected next generation of Soviet tanks even through the Germans had no detailed intelligence on and were probably straight up guessing about what those tanks might be like. We know for a fact that the Jagdtiger existed out of a desire to put the Pak 44 in a heavily armoured, self propelled mount similar to the Elephant. Or are you saying that the Germans were wrong to believe that the Soviets were going to come up with a replacement for the IS-2 capable of resisting the long 88mm and the IS-3 never existed?

[@0Turbox]

@@mattbowden4996 Again, if they had built the JTiger as a counter for any upcoming allied heavies, they would have put out a contract of far more than 200 units. Penetration wise, the 128 mm wasn't that much of an improvement to the long 88 anyway. They just put together, what they had left over. No significant navy, no need for the navy gun. Putting a casemate on a Ktiger hull wasn't a big deal either. It was just a tool for point defense. For everyone, it was very clear, that this behemoth wasn't able to participate in any kind of mobile warfare.