Mr. Tittles

Here's an excerpt from '7000 Km in a Sturmgeshutz' (Heinrich Engel -Knights Cross holder) All of a sudden, four T34 emerged on our left. The German counterattack had just started on our right The russian tanks wanted to intervene, but they had to move right across our field of fire. We KOd 2 of the tanks right off. The others came into the field of fire of the StuG located just to my right, and another was KOd. The fourth Russian tank thereupon turned around and attempted to move back. At that point, he had to cross our field of fire again, this time right to left. He moved at top speed, but round after round left left the barrel of our gun. He had only 100 m or so to get back to his departure point in the village. However, our 5th or 6th round hit him somewhere. He came to a stop. "He's Stopped!" we shouted, that was as a good as a sure thing. We were very quiet in our StuG. I let the cross-level settle down and corrected the range "1700 m, Fire when ready!". Observing through the scissors telescope, I followed the 2 second tracer path of the AP round. Closer and Closer it came to the tank-a hit!. The turret flew some distance away and the tank burned! The author, a StuG TC, is clearly describing using a scissors scopeto measure range. He is the one that orders the corrected range to the gunner. This example clearly demonstrates how difficult it is to hit a moving target compared to a stationary one also. [ August 05, 2004, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The scissor scopes are clearly used as rangefinders in StuGs. Its preposterous to think they weren't. Evidence exists that they were used as such (again, please read through thread). I have never heard of anyone using a group-estimation method. And besides the Tigerfibel (and not the pantherfibel), can you support its use anywhere else? Does the fact that it is NOT mentioned in the Pantherfibel imply anything? I am sure all combatants used a battlesight method of sorts

Carrius, in Tigers in the Mud, makes it very clear that ATG are deadlier opponents than AFV. The TC must be unbuttoned to battle ATG. He will only get a very brief yellow flash when the ATG fires. It can be picked up using peripheral vision and each TC in a platoon needs to watch his sector.

Heres a lineup of the main German ATG. The shield also helps protect the crew from the guns blast effects. It also hides the crew who would attract attention just from its frantic movements.

There is actually two different effects here. When an AP round pierces sloped armor, it changes direction. That is, its direction of motion and orientation are changed. In other cases, an AP round may strike a thinner object and its direction of motion is not changed but its orientation will change. In other words, it has pitched its nose so that it is not axially lined up with the forward motion. This would have an effect on its ability to penetrate armor since the sharp nose is not striking armor at a favorabe angle. Another effect is the rapid loss of spin. When a spinning object like a AP rifle projectile pierces armor, it must 'stall' out the spin quickly. This results in a force on the projectile.

A scissor scope IS a stereoscopic rangefinder. The TC would adjust the device till the object he was looking at was in focus and then read the range off a small window. It is a measuring instrument and not a guestimator. Have you read this thread?? Also, your claim that a Panther would miss as much as hit at 700m (seems you mean a first round attempt) seems to indicate less than a 50% chance? Even though you never stipulated, I assume the target/firer are not moving.

Ive seen that BS about 'normalizing' (or the round going orthoganal BEFORE entering the armor) on the russian website. Its not physically possible. X Ray photos, like the ones in the Pantherfibel, show that a round changes direction while in the armor. The tracks would have nothing to do with that. The reason the penetrator changes direction while going through sloped armor is that it is actually finding the path of least resistance. Its actually 'bouncing' off the armor plate interior and shooting downwards (on a sloped armor like the T34 upper hull). It will bounce upwards and into the armor against a sloped armor like the lower hull. What tracks CAN do is act as a guide so that sloped armor can be defeated. A AP round that strikes just below a track, or in a space within the track, would be guided into the armor. My own opinion is that steel tracks are effective as long as they dont act as a guide. They will strip off caps at least. The fact that the Germans used them in such quantity must show that they did some testing and found it worthwhile.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=009942;p=2 IF the company attempts to model german optics/rangefinding/etc, I hope they bother to know what effects each of these things have,

Zorki 1 In 1941, in order to produce optical equipment for the Soviet war effort, several workshops were consolidated in a former earthenware factory in Krasnogorsk, a western suburb of Moscow. On June 22 of that year, the Nazis broke their non-aggression treaty by invading the Soviet Union, and by late summer, the German army was within sight of Moscow. The workers in Krasnogorsk were evacuated to safer territories to the East. The Nazis attack stalled outside of Moscow, however, and a counterattack by the Red Army drove the Germans more than 100 miles back by December. Freed from the threat of the German army, the workers were recalled to Krasnagorsk, where the combined optical workshop became Krasnogorski Mekhanicheskii Zavod (KMZ) – Mechanical Factory of Krasnogorsk. At this point in the war, KMZ became the prime supplier of optical equipment, binoculars, rangefinders, gunsights, etc., for the Soviet military. Seems the Soviet optics industry was not over run like many of the weapons/ammunition factories. [ July 27, 2004, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I came across an account of Panther range finding recently. The panther is in a defensive position and uses its coax MG to determine ranges to likely approaches. The TC makes a sketch and records the ranges. A bunch of sherman tanks aproach and he KOs 5 in quick succesion at ranges of 500-700 meters as they come past ranged points.

I am surprised someone hasnt come up with a grenade that works as follows... Shaped like a cylinder the size of a Fosters beer can with a rounded bottom. Device is thrown like an American football in 'spiral' fashion. After a time delay, a small charge deploys a drogue chute that quickly decels the grenade and it drops down, nose first, towards the ground. On contact with ground the grenade explodes sending fragments to all sides. Nose and base are constructed strongly so that preformed fragments get velocity from explosion. The thrower would not have to aim the device for range. He just had to aim it at the direction of the attacking troops. The release from his hand would start the timer burn and as long as he doesnt wimp out, the fragments would not reach back to him. The nose fuse would not work till after the drogue was deployed.

I would agree that the sturmartillerie were relegated towards the end of the war but they did not disappear. The only units that SHOULD have recieved the StuH 105mm would be these units and they made that vehicle in 1944 (903 vehicles)and 45 (98 vehicles) as well as plenty of StuGIII75mm and StuGIV. The sturmartillerie still would have to battle AFV regardless since all attacking armies had superior numbers of AFV. They just had to be very standoffish and defensive. As a seperate type of arm to the Heer, they were slowly fading out. Infantry units, even when backed up by StuGs, were having a hard time attacking late in the war. The allies just had so many tanks and antitank weapons and superior artillery and airpower. The whole sturmarty idea was like the US tank destroyer command. It didnt last after the war.

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.

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>

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

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.

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 ]

---------------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 ]

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.

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 ]

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 ]

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.

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.

It appears that the Hetzer commander, while not in close proximity to the gunner like a StuG commader, still had some contact with the crew besides the intercom. It does not appear that he could get to the other compartment without exiting his hatch and entering the other. The StuGIII layout allowed the AFV crewmen to act like a very closely coordinated team. The commander/gunner/driver 'daisychain' would facilitate pointing the vehicle, targeting enemy, sharing info, etc. Crewmen could replace each other in an emergency. The TC could help the loader. The Hetzer is really a refined SPAT with good frontal armor. It would be best off taking on enemy at maximum range and not exposing itself unless hulldown. It would truly be a troublemaker. The side armor on a Hetzer is so thin that I wonder why they just did not put an extra escape door on the left side. It seems all three crewmen had to exit the vehicle via one hatch. Loader, gunner, driver in that order. Being a driver in one of these things took guts.

The gunners mono sight and commanders scissors sight are seen in this pic. Note that the remote control MG had a periscope also and even if buttoned up, would allow some shooting/observation for the vehicle.