Interior layout of Hetzer

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=009942;p=2

Heres the thread discussing the scissor scopes. The main point is that the commander had a way of MEASURING range. This, coupled with accurate weapons, allows serious shooting and first round kills.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

You'll note on StuGs and several JpZs the foreward part of the commander's hatch can flip back in order to use scissor binoculars as well. Those extended binocs appear to be pretty much 'standard issue' among assault guns.

More importantly than being periscopic binoculars, they were stereoscopic rangefinders as well. For long range shooting, they could be scissored out and this allowed ranges to be measured fairly accurately (the TC would have to be able to see stereo).

In the case of the stug, where the TC is right behind the gunner physically, the hunter/killer principle is being used.

[rune]

Andrew hedges brings up a good point, youi need a meter separation at the top of the scissors for good range finding. Can the set in the hetzer do that, it doesn't look like it, but who knows for sure?

Rune

[flamingknives]

They clearly pivot about the base of the periscope bits, so you can get quite a reasonable baseline. Given the maximum range of the gun is short compared to artillery, the baseline doesn't need to be so big, as the angles at closer ranges are less acute.

[rune]

Not being an expert, will still ask, but from a meter, to what in that picture, a couple cms at most? however, do those binoculars in the Hetzer scissors out?

Rune

[Mr. Tittles]

On the vehicles that had them installed, they actually slide up and down in most cases. So they could scissor out once they were 'up-periscoped'.

Its pretty obvious these were expensive items to manufacture and to not have them used for what they were designed for seems odd.

Heres the jagdpanzer IV commanders station...

Picture 4:

We are up on the vehicle roof now, looking down through the commander's open hatch. The Sfl.4Z ranging periscope has been mounted on the long wall bracket which, as I mentioned before, allows the periscope to be raised or lowered on the long geared bracket via the use of a small hand crank next to the periscope.

Given the accuracy of a weapon like the 75mmL70 gun (IF the range was known), these scissor scopes 'close-the-loop' on the gunnery equation. Devices like the strich triangles built into the gunners sights, were very dependant on seeing a target of a known height. These scissor scopes were independant of target height/width/etc and relied on focusing in the target and reading a range directly.

[ July 21, 2004, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[rune]

Some information I found on the gunner's sight from afvinteriors website.

Here is some information I found on the gunner's sight.

A close-up photo from the German sight training manual shows most of the major components of the Sfl.ZF 1/1A direct fire sight. At the bottom of the sight is the Zieleinrichtung 37 (Z.E.37) sight bracket with cross leveling, deflection, and range adjustments. Notice the three ranging rings mentioned earlier for the different ammo types, with a pointer that indicated the elevation on the scale for each shell. Each ring has numbers printed in different colors that correspond to the different types of ammo. Once the commander called out the approximate range and ammo type, the gunner elevated the gun until the pointer touched the correct range number for the ammo ordered and then traversed the gun onto target, usually doing both actions simultaneously with both hand wheels. To the left of the range rings is the monocular for the periscope and below that the adjusting knob for side tilt. Up above the rings is a small bubble level gauge (determines tilt or cant) and above the sight is a slightly inclined knob that tightens the telescope in its mount. Sights were typically painted black or field green in most German vehicles in WWII and stored carefully in padded cases generally mounted near the gunner's location in the AFV. German optics were some of the best in the world at this time--clear from edge to edge, bubble free and very accurate--and therefore carefully studied by both Soviet and western powers when captured vehicles and equipment became available to intelligence units.

So the commander called out the apporx range and ammo type, which the gunner fed into the sight. trying to find out more ont he commander's sight.

Rune

[Kingfish]

Thanks to all for explaining, and especially the Pics, which helped a lot.

Of course, this all leads me to ask another question: Given how bad the interior was laid out, why go ahead with the production, when other SPGs worked just as well and had a better internal arrangment? The StuG in particular had been in production far longer than the Hetzer, and its potential as a tank killer was well known, not to mention how it performed in its intended role as an Assault gun. Why not ramp up StuG production?

[Mr. Tittles]

Stug production was already among the highest of the german afvs in WWII. In fact, it was expanded by introducing a StugIV.

The Germans were probably looking for a way to continue using the Panzer38t chassis beyond the makeshift SPATs like the Marder. It would not be easy to convert the existing production line from Marder to StuG.

The Hetzer was a very light and compact vehicle. It saved gas. It was very low and could get hull down easy (and should because the lower front was not extremely sloped like the upper). It could show just a 1 meter high target to the enemy and that being a very well sloped target at that.

By 1944, the StuGs armor was not very good when it was tasked to hunt tanks. The Hetzer could field the same gun and have a chance with its 60mm sloped armor. Again, I would want to engage the enemy at maximum range with a hetzer in 1944/45.

Hetzers were built in pretty good numbers in a short period of time actually. They should have been available sooner (late 43).

My own opinion is that the Panzer IV production should have been cut back sooner, converting to Jagdpanzer IV. This weapon, much better than the StuGIV, had the familiar StuG layout and gave a good account for itself in defensive battles and featured decent sloped armor.

[ July 21, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Of course, this all leads me to ask another question: Given how bad the interior was laid out, why go ahead with the production, when other SPGs worked just as well and had a better internal arrangment?

You have to have the total war situation of 1943-45 in mind...

On the 26th of November 1943 the allies dropped 1424 tons of HE and fire bombs on the Alkett factory in Berlin bringing the production of StuG III’s to a grinding halt. Although production resumed at the factory it was not until September 1944 that the production figures of the previous year were reached again. When alternative production facilities where scouted (read: feverishly sought out) it was clear that the facilities at BMM (Böhmisch-Märischen Maschinenfabrik) were too small to handle production of StuG III chassis. Instead it was decided to develop a new type of tank destroyer based on the Pz 38 chassis which, as previously discussed on the forum, was a superb construction by virtue of it’s exceptional reliability and agility. On the 17th of December the drawings for the new design were presented. On the 24th of January a full scale model was made and on the 28th Hitler declared that the development and production of the Hetzer to be the most vital goal of 1944 for the war industry.

The bombing of the Alkett factory also played role in the development and production of the StuG IV.

M.

[ July 21, 2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Mattias]

double post

[Mr. Tittles]

Hetzer was being designed before the bombing of the StuG werke. Guderian had ordered it earlier in 43 to replace Panzerjaeger Marders. The StuG IV WAS rushed to help the StuG shortage (till Jagerpanzer IV could be fielded).

Hetzers were built at a number of sites? They also had a different school than the sturmartillerie StuG school.

Hetzers would not be as good as StuG in the infantry support role. The later StuG, with a coax MG, was much better suited to assist infantry assaults than the Hetzer. The StuGs also had better commo equipment.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Hetzer was being designed before the bombing of the StuG werke. Guderian had ordered it earlier in 43 to replace Panzerjaeger Marders. The StuG IV WAS rushed to help the StuG shortage (till Jagerpanzer IV could be fielded).

Mr. Tittles are you aware of any sources that go beyond the statement that Guderian, in March 1943, demanded that a light tank destroyer be produced that could replace all interim solutions. What exactly did that demand result in? How specific were the requirements and did they result in actual development contracts?

It seems to me that it was not until the Alkett factory was bombed, and after which the OKH investigated the possibility to producing Sturmgeschütze at BMM but found that the factory could not handle the 24 ton vehicle, that the idea of producing the light Pz Jäger there really came to fruition.

And that it was not until after that, that the design solutions that BMM at some point must have initiated where presented and accepted.

In my primary sources on the Hetzer, Spielbergers “Die Panzer-Kampfwagen 35(t) und 38 (t) und ihre Abarten” and “Leichte Jagdpanzer, Entwicklung-Fertigung-Einsatz”, and on German tank destroyers in general, Fleischers “Die deutschen Panzerjägertruppe 1935-1945”, there is no mention of Guderians involvement in the project, directly or indirectly. Obviously he had a large impact in these matters on the strategic level but I have yet to see a source that shows a clearly what happened between the strategic/conceptual stage and the actual production of the Hetzer.

As it is the answer to the original question still stands, I think. The Germans had to go with whatever solutions they had ready to run at this stage, the Hetzer was simply the best available design for a light tank destroyer at that point. There were all kinds of attempts at standardisation of the development and production of armoured vehicles but only small parts of those could be implemented before the war ended.

M.

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Hetzers were built at a number of sites?

Yes, two. Skodawerken (Škoda) and BMM (CKD). BMM in Prague, Skoda in Pilsen.

Every produced vehicle had to be accepted by the Waffenamt and reported as such. Thus production is rather easy to track.

Detailed production statistics for Panzerjäger 38/Jagdpanzer 38, including Bergepanzerwagen 38 and Jagdpanzer 38 starr as one cannot separate them in the records, and including only production accepted by Heeres Waffenamt:

- March 1944 3 produced by BMM, 0 produced by Škoda

- April 1944 20 produced by BMM, 0 produced by Škoda

- May 1944 50 produced by BMM, 0 produced by Škoda

- June 1944 100 produced by BMM, 0 produced by Škoda

- July 1944 100 produced by BMM, 10 produced by Škoda

- August 1944 150 produced by BMM, 20 produced by Škoda

- September 1944 190 produced by BMM, 30 produced by Škoda

- October 1944 133 produced by BMM, 57 produced by Škoda

- November 1944 298 produced by BMM, 89 produced by Škoda

- December 1944 223 produced by BMM, 104 produced by Škoda

- January 1945 289 produced by BMM, 145 produced by Škoda

- February 1945 273 produced by BMM, 125 produced by Škoda

- March 1945 148 produced by BMM, 153 produced by Škoda

- April and May 1945 70 produced by BMM, 47 produced by Škoda

Of course, this might include the 157 G13.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

They also had a different school than the sturmartillerie StuG school.

Yes, but this was merely because the Sturmgeschützschule Burg (and Lehr abteilungen) belonged to the artillery, whereas the Panzerjäger units (from creation in 40, as per AHM 353/1940 vom 2) belonged to the Schnelle Truppen, then the Panzertruppen (from april 43, as per 309/1943). Panzerjäger personnel thus attended the schools of their own arm of service. That is - Panzerjäger crews/privates would not normally attend any school at all, but normally undergo basic training in regular Ausbildungs- und Ersatz units.

However, the concepts naturally merged when the 75 became standard antitank gun.

The StuG, initially (10.8.1944) called Sturmartillerieabteilungen, then (7.2.1941) renamed Sturmgeschützabteilungen, then back again (10,6,1944) to Sturmartillerieabteilungen, was created in order to provide the infantry with armoured support (capable of direct fire support) after all ARV had been withdrawn and concentrated in the newly born Schnelle Truppen (i.e. the Panzerdivisions). The Panzerjäger (before 16.3.1940 called Panzerabwehr) were of course intended to provide the infantry (and armour) with antitank capability. When both units used the same 75, there was no real point in separating them anymore.

Thus the fact that they attended different training units and schools did not mean any significant difference in training (though the StuG crews were real artillerymen and had almost twice the amount of weeks on ballistics and gunnery). End product was largely the same and both vehicles and personnel were interchangeable in line organisations.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Mr. Tittles]

---------------1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944

Pz 38(t)-----153---367---678---198

Marder 138-----------------------110---783--323

Marder 139-----------------------344

Grille-------------------------------------225--346

Hetzer-----------------------------------------1687

1335 Hetzer in 1945

[ July 22, 2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

The Jagdpanzer IV WAS in development prior to the bombing of the StuG factory. Panzer IV chassis were redirected due to the need to manufacture Stug IV as an expedient in December 44. The StuG IV WAS continued in manufacture even when JagdpanzerIV was finally produced. In other words, the StuGIV took up any slack in the need for StugIII in early 44 and later with about 1000 in 44 (the StuGIII production in 44 total was greater than 43 total btw--without counting StuG IV).

The Hetzer was not really fielded till early summer of 44? Marders and Grille were produced in early 44 I believe. Is someone saying the Hetzer was a knee-jerk reaction to a bombing in November 43? Vaguely at best but the real story is the StuGIV cutting into Panzer IV chassis. They would have been better off being used as jagdpanzer or even Panzer IV or AA tanks, etc. The plant for the StuGIV needed major subassemblys to be delivered from different parts of the reich. It was also bombed itself more than a few times.

The 38(t) chassis was never produced in numbers like the StuG till late in the war. To think that it could change chassis type to panzer III AND ramp up production is just silly. Just going from producing Marder/Grille to Hetzer (AND increasing production) probably took major efforts.

The Hetzer only helped StuG production (and that help was HALF a year after the Stug bombing) by taking over a dedicated antitank role. Like the Jagdpanzer IV, Hetzer were designed to be a tank fighter primarily. StuGs were second stringers and best left (by summer 44) to Sturmartillerie orginizations. Ideally, the panzer divisions should get the jagdpanzer IV and infantry divisions the Hetzer and the Sturmartillerie would still get StuGs with more StuG105s being brought on to help the 75mm armed Stugs. Prior to this, Stugs were being used as Sturmartillerie, panzerjaeger and even substitute tanks.

This reorg should have been the case but in the state of affairs of 44/45, this was often not the reality. Towards the end of the war, with kampfgruppen thrown together, anything could happen. Even tanks like the King Tiger might be offered to an infantry antitank unit.

If the StuGIII plant was so damaged, maybe they should have taken the opportunity to redesign the vehicle. A Jagdpanzer III if you will. Sort of an improved StuG armor package.

[ July 22, 2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Dandelion]

If I was unclear as to the sources for productionfigures in my post, allow me to elucidate. Those are the WaSTab [1] WaJRü(WuG 6) [2] figures, exactly as reported by the BfV [3] to the Jn 6 [4]. Retrievable from microfilm at the BA/MA, probably even more readily so from the USNA and perhaps from Bath as well.

But - I now fear I will encounter but yet another post with capital lettering. If this is to be an interested exchange of knowledge, quality must improve.

I believe Mattias has already unsuccessfully requested your revealing some sort of reference to sources.

I now find myself desiring the same presentation. Your statements contradict the sources at my hand, and apparently those of Mattias, and in the interest of furthering everyones knowledge in this field, it would of course be of some value to know your material in depth.

Sincerely

Dandelion

[1] [stab des Heeres Waffenamts]

[2] [Amtsgruppe für Industrielle Rüstung - Waffen und Gerät]

[3] [beauftragger des WaA für die Vereinheitlichung von Waffen und Munition]

[4] [inspektion der Panzertruppen]

[Mr. Tittles]

Are you asking me where I got the production figures from? (no offense, its just hard to understand what you are really saying).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_production_during_World_War_II#Panzer_38.28t.29

Are these numbers so different than the month by month you posted? In any case, I think your numbers show the Hetzer did not aleviate the StuG 'shortage' since it wasnt being delivered to units till half a year after the bombing.

[Mr. Tittles]

In March 1943, Col. Gen. Heinz Guderian demanded a light tank destroyer to replace all existing "interim solutions" (e.g. Marders) and towed anti-tank artillery (e.g. 75mm PaK 40 guns). The result of this was the Panzerjägerprogram or G-13. The new vehicle resulting from it was to equip tank destroyer units of infantry divisions. The Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) chassis was chosen as a base for this new Panzerjäger. It was first known as "Leichtes Sturmgeschutz 38(t)", then "Jagdpanzer 38(t) für 7.5cm Pak 39 L/48", and finally "Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer". It appears that the name Hetzer was not an official name but used by troops and then used in post-war publications. On December 17, 1943, designs were ready and, on January 24, 1944, a wooden mock-up was finished. In March 1944, the first three proto-types were produced by BMM (Boehmish-Mährische Maschinenfabrik) and it was decided to start production. From March to April of 1944, prototypes were extensively tested, while preparations for production were made at BMM (Praga/CKD-Ceskomoravska Kolben Danek) in Prague and then at Skoda Works at Pilsen.

Hetzers were to equip tank destroyer units (Panzerjaeger Abteilung / Panzerjaeger Kompanie) of infantry divisions, panzergrenadier divisions and independent units. Main center for training of future Hetzer crews was located at Milovice - Panzerjaegerschule. Majority was issued to Wehrmacht infantry divisions (starting in July of 1944) with 15th and 76th Infantry Division) and Volksgrenadier divisions. Hetzers were also issued as replacements for Marders and other Jagdpanzers to other units.

In last months of the war, Hetzers were often issued as replacements for lost battle tanks, a role they were not intended for (e.g. Panzer Division Kurmark and Feldherrnhalle). Some were issued to improvised units created in the last days of the war from various military personnel. Hetzer was also one of the last German armoured fighting vehicles that remained in production and was issued to the troops until the last days of the war.

Hetzers equipped all types of formations of the Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS (10 divisions), Luftwaffe (1 division), Kriegsmarine (2 divisions), RAD (3 divisions) and ROA (Russian Liberation Army) and saw service on all fronts. Large number of Hetzers took part in the German offensive in the Ardennes in late 1944.

First Hetzers entered service with 731st and 743rd Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung in May/June of 1944. Each unit received 45 Hetzers and both units saw service on the Eastern Front. Following, Hetzers were issued to three more independent units - 741st (1944), 561st (1945) and 744th Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung (1945). Waffen-SS received small number of Hetzer and first unit to be issued with Hetzers was 8th SS Cavalry Division Florian Geyer in September of 1944. Some 200 were issued in 1944 and 1945 to 10 Waffen SS divisions, mainly panzergrenadier.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/hetzer.htm

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

They also had a different school than the sturmartillerie StuG school.

Thus the fact that they attended different training units and schools did not mean any significant difference in training (though the StuG crews were real artillerymen and had almost twice the amount of weeks on ballistics and gunnery). End product was largely the same and both vehicles and personnel were interchangeable in line organisations.

Cheerio

Dandelion </font>

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The Jagdpanzer IV WAS in development prior to the bombing of the StuG factory...

Is someone saying the Hetzer was a knee-jerk reaction to a bombing in November 43? Vaguely at best...

To think that it could change chassis type to panzer III AND ramp up production is just silly...

If the StuGIII plant was so damaged, maybe they should have taken the opportunity to redesign the vehicle. A Jagdpanzer III if you will. Sort of an improved StuG armor package.

It seems reasonable to assume that the bombing of the Alkett factory, and subsequent disruption of the StuG III production there, wasn’t the one and only factor that led to the production of the Hetzer. I am assuming that you present the information regarding the production of vehicles based on the Pz IV chassis to show that there was no dire need for a StuG III replacement based on the Pz 38 chassis. And if that is the case, I agree with you. The JgPz IV was a different project, while the StuG IV was indeed produced directly as a replacement for the lost StuG III production (the StuG IV concept having been proposed and rejected in early 1943).

What I am wondering is, just how much a “knee jerk reaction” it was? how far had the plans for a light tank destroyer, based on Guderians demands, progressed when the Alkett factory was bombed?

The Achtung Panzer site says that, there was a demand and that there supposedly was a program called the “Panzerjägerprogram or G-13”, which supposedly led to the Pz 38 chassis being chosen as the basis for at least one light tank destroyer design. But that information seems a thin if it cannot be further substantiated. When, on the other hand, a writer like Spielberger who’s concept is to drag out every little fact available in the archives fails to in any way mention these supposed background facts I get genuinely curious. As I have pointed out Spielberger makes a connection between the Alkett bombing and the production of the Hetzer. He states that because of the bombings OKH investigated (silly or not) on several occasions and in detail, the possibility of producing StuG III’s at BMM but found the production facilities to be to small in dimension. Because of these findings Hitler on the 6th of December agreed with the proposal to shift the production at BMM to a new light tank destroyer that had been suggested by BMM. Nothing is said about the status of this design at that time, but on the 17th the basic design was presented and accepted.

The first documented mention of what was to become the Hetzer that Spielberger presents is made on the 7th of January 1944, when it is referred to as “leichter Panzerjäger auf 38(t)”. Obviously it must have been mentioned in some form in earlier documents, but is seems significant that this first mentioning is in 1944, rather than say in August 1943.

I don’t think the Hetzer was a direct StuG replacement vehicle and I do believe that there existed conceptual requirements for a new tank destroyers, that BMM designers might have pondered. I have yet to see though any documentation that directly contradicts the theory that the design and production of the Hetzer was given a decisive push by the sudden loss of production capacity in what at the time was one of Germany’s most important anti tank assets, the StuG III. Further information regarding the “Panzerjägerprogram or G-13” could clarify. Personally I have not seen a single JgPz (not SPG’s that is) design solution based on the Pz 38 chassis that predates the Hetzer wooden mock-up of early 1944.

But really, the original question was why the Hetzer was produced with all it’s obvious flaws. And the answer is still, there was a need, there were production facilities and the Hetzer could be fielded in a reasonable time.

M.

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

If you are saying a StuG trained crew could just leap into a Hetzer then I beg to differ.

No I meant a Hetzer with crew could fill the role of a StuG with crew and vice versa.

The StuG was initially meant ot fill the gap created in an infantry assault, when preparatory bombardment was completed and the troops advanced, and sudden threats appeared in their way (that mortars or IG could not deal with). German artillery was not entirely capable of dealing flexibly with such threats using heavy indirect fire (of which followed a certain focus on IG and mortars), and in fact it is only with modern communications and targeting equipment that this has become facile. So the more primitive but functional method of dragging artillerysupport along and firing directly - via tracks per StuG or wings per StuKa - was used instead (just like the Soviets did). With time, this assault role dimnished of course. Initially organised in army level units (enabling concentrations for assaults), they became part of the divisional antitank weaponry, and were deployed mainly in that role instead. Two companies in the divisional Panzerjäger-Abteilung were renamed "Sturmgeschütz" and some even equipped with such. Others with JgdPz variants.

Thus the StuG had labored on as defensive tankdestroyer for quite a while by the arrival of the Hetzer. And conversely 75mm had proven adequate as support weapon for infantry assaults, unless heavily fortified positions were encountered. So they could fill eachothers shoes, which was what I meant with interchangeable.

Returning also to the point I was pursuing that the projects had merged, the initially separate ideas of assault guns and tank destroyers had become one and the same in the scope of planning - if not in the frame of reality. The JgdPz IV (like the Hetzer, it was initially named Sturmgeschütz) was created to replace all Jpz and StuG. The Sturmartillerie was to continue life only in a drastically reduced size of a handful of army level assault gun brigades - also fated to disappear.

StuG trained (read sturmartillerie) means Juterborg trained artillerymen.

There was a specific Sturmgeschützschule in Burg (actually in Zinna, near Burg, but it was called "Burg" anyway), which had attached training units (Sturmgeschütz-Ersatz-Abteilungen 200, 300, 400, 5400, 600, 700) in other (over time changing) localities, plus a specific attached Lehr unit (Sturmgeschützschule Burg Lehr-Abteilung). In addition, there were the Lehr battallions in Sturmartillerie-Lehr-Brigade 111. All of these units trained StuG crews.

In Jüterbog was the Artillerieschule I, II and III plus Artillerie-Lehr-Regiment Jüterbog. Every WK then had its own set of artillery training units, attached to divisions or corps, in some cases armylevel. Panzerartillerie trained here, among many others of course. StuG crews who were experienced artillerymen from other branches of the artillery will have attended courses there.

The branch of service within the artillery was, formally, "Panzer- und Sturmartillerie" (Thus a general officer had the suffix Gen.d.P-.u-.St.A, not d.A.). Within the artillery arm only the Nebeltruppen enjoyed formal separate status, as indicated by deviating Waffenfarbe. Formal separate status meant you couldn't be reposted outside your branch unless retrained. Theoretically that is.

Comment on the AP webpage there: At Milowitz (Milovice) was a Panzerzug-Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung. No doubt fully capable of training panzerjägers as well so Hetzer crews might very well have been sent there. But it was not a specific Panzerjägerschule. Only the Waffen SS had a such, if you do not count the army Panzerjäger Ersatz (und Ausbildungs-) Abteilungen 1-10,13,17,20,33,43 and 48 as such. The Milowitz "battallion" (it was much larger than that) formed part of the Reserve army and was tasked with resupplying the Field army with AFV crews with up to platoon training (aka basic training, thus no company or battalion training performed there, which was supposed to take place in their new parent unit once posted). No specific AFV, the unit was at the disposal of the Panzertruppen in its entirety.

Sincerely

Dandelion

[Dandelion]

Mattias

You old galosch! Are you having problems with your e-mail again, or are you outright ignoring me?

Needless to say, any ignoring motivated by malice beyond the absolutely necessary measure will result in the direst of consequences. We are nearing the time when Swedes eat rotten fish, and such can be purchased legally by anyone and sent through the mail (papermail). You try and ignore that thumping down on your hallway floor like a five year old Icelandic corps!

Cheers (fancy a beer? I'm sooo bored o'er here)

Dandelion

[Mr. Tittles]

Agreed. There is scant evidence about what was going on with Hetzer before its design was drawn up. But having a bombing at the end of November 43 and a Hetzer design on December 17 43 seems awfully quick.

If the Jagdpanzer IV was any indication, with its long drawn out development, getting a vehicle off the boards and onto the production line takes time. Guderian supposedly did not like this vehicle but ate his words in the end. The requirement for this vehicle may have predated his rule of the panzer troops but its stated that he did not like the use of turreted panzer IV chassis diverted. In any case, 1944 saw more StugIV, JagdPanzerIV, AA, SPAT, etc on Panzer IV chassis than actual Panzer IV.

Some sources claim the StuGIV was an interim design for the jagdpanzerIV. Since they were produced concurrently, this is not true. The StuGIV was an expedient way to plop a StugIII superstructure onto a chassis. It largely filled in for the StuGIII.