Richard III Posted November 18, 1999 Share Posted November 18, 1999 Somewhere Fionn had posted a trivia question about the Hetzer, viz "How many Pz IVs could be armored with the same material used in one Hetzer." Well, I don't know and now I can't find the original post. What's the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 18, 1999 Share Posted November 18, 1999 4 All to do with the surface area of a Hetzer and thickness of armour. Obviously this would only apply to Pz IV Hs and Js though. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted November 19, 1999 Author Share Posted November 19, 1999 4?? Good grief, another illusion shattered. I always thought the Hetzer a 'cheap' vehicle. I have often wondered how to measure the relative construction costs of WWII vehicles. This fact makes me wonder about it that much the more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 I've just done a series of admittedly rough calculations and come up with the following figures: Hetzer armour: 7.8m^3 total Pz IV H armour: 10.0m^3 total So I get roughly 3 PzIVs' for every 4 Hetzers - not 4:1 ??? Something has gone wrong somewhere?? Also found combat weights: Hetzer: 15750kg Pz IV H: 26000kg (I know this doesn't equal the armour weight because of fuel, ammo, armament, engine, transmission, etc, but those will be approx the same for both vehicles, so the comparison gives a valid gross error check for the armour calculations - I think!) Or abour 2 Pz IVs for every 3 Hetzers - reasonably close to 3/4 which would seem to indicate that my calculations for gross armour volume were roughly correct. have I missed something? Help, now I'm really confused! Jon p.s. I used http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1084/ as a source ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme [This message has been edited by JonS (edited 11-18-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 JonS, Well your figures are interesting but they miss a crucial point. I didn't ask about volume or weight but of the amount of armour. I know sometimes it gets counter-intuitive but if you look at the Hetzer you'll see that all of its body is absolutely covered in armour. The Pz IV has lots of joins etc which aren't also a LOT of the PZ IVs weight is taken up by the heavy turret etc etc.. In any case I quoted this from a German staff report on the feasability of producing the Hetzer and never bothered calculating it out myself as I am pretty sure the Germans got it right themselves . It'd probably be interesting to track down again to check it out but I don't have the book I read it in anymore... Sorry, wish I could be of more help. BTW the reason the Hetzer was built was that the width of the PZ III chassis was such that it couldn't accept a large enough turret to fit an AT 75mm gun (turret ring couldn't be big enough). THUS the Pz III chassis was no longer a good AT weapon (hence the Pz III N ( 75mm L24 anti-personnel gun) ). Anyways, since you can put MORE armour and a bigger gun in a turretless vehicle and still keep the weight down (so as not to overstress automotive components) the Pz III chassis production lines (which couldn't be retooled at that time) were switched to making Pz III chassis for the Hetzer and other TDs. IF Germany had had the luxury of retooling time etc then these factories would ahve been switched to Panther production (same goes for the Pz IV chassis factories). In that sense the Hetzer was a cheap weapon.. It used resources which would otherwise have gone to waste BUT it wasn't a CHEAP weapon in real terms. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Fionn, I want your library... *envious look* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Fionn yeah, I know you asked for the amount - I equated that with volume. Seems (seemed?) reasonable. I also know you didn't ask about weight - as I said I used the weight ratio as a gross error check on the volume calculations. The ratios came out roughly the same which gives me confidence that I wasn't too far out. I treated each side of the Hetzer (hull and superstructure seperated) as a flat surface, then calculated the area of each, then volume using armour thickness. Then I did the same for the Pz IV. The Hetzer calcs were probably more accurate because of the cubic shape, and there were definately approximations around the Pz IV turret. BTW, shouldn't the turrent be treated as part of the 'amount' of armour in it? You seem to indicate not. Anyway - as you point out - the Germans probably did get it right :Þ I'm surprised that the calcs were SO far out though ... maybe it was a financial thing - ie the hetzer armour cost 4 times as much to produce? Jon ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 From a production standpoint the Hetzer was cheaper. I can't comment on the steel for the armor, but the vehicle was MUCH more simple than the PzIV. Fewer axels, wheels, no turret (that is HUGE), simple weld seams, fewer plates, smaller footprint in factory, less man hours of labor, etc., etc. So even if the steel cost more, I bet it was more than offset by other cost savings when all was said and done. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Producing a tank (or anything) generally breaks down into two parts, cost of labor and cost of capital. The Hetzer obviously uses less raw materials because it weighs less. I have no idea about how costly the various materials were but with the Germans, simple availability was a problem. I remember reading in one of my Econ textbooks that the Americans were bidding up the price and buying as much of a strategic metal (tungsten?) that was only mined in a few countries as possible to try and keep it out of the hands of the Axis. I don't know how long either of the two vehicles took to construct, but German vehicles were relatively complex. In any case, I would guess that the Hetzer was easier simply because it didn't have a turret. Does anyone have any information on how long it took to construct various weapons in WWII? Jason Just my luck. Steve and I were composing our comments at the same time. My message doesn't make as much sense now. [This message has been edited by guachi (edited 11-19-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Correction: When I said the Hetzer used the Pz III chassis it was 4 am and typed in the wrong facts. It did, of course, use the czechoslovakian Pz 38 (t) factories and chassis. DOH ! ANY turetless vehicles is simpler to produce. Also the Tiger took the same as two panthers and 3 Me-109s to produce (time-wise). It's interesting to see the Germans could have built a whole load of U-boats for the few Tigers they built ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts