Tank Hunter and Tank Destroyer

[LC-]

Whats the difference between these two types of vehicles? Or are they the same only the Germans decided to change the classification of these units halfway through the war?

[Pzman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LC-:

Whats the difference between these two types of vehicles? Or are they the same only the Germans decided to change the classification of these units halfway through the war?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they didn't change they are two diffrent type of tanks. The tank destroyer is more for siting a waiting for the enemy tanks to show up. Tank hunters are more for attacking.

[David Aitken]

I think, generally, tank hunters are fully enclosed assault vehicles, whereas tank destroyers are usually open-topped and more in the spirit of self-propelled guns.

[Stuka]

I think, if you have a honking great big gun, you can call yourself a Tank fondler if you want.

[Stalin's Organ]

Indeed you could Stukie, but WHY would youcal yourself a tank fondler as opposed to a tank destroyer or hunter?

All German Tank Hunters were open topped, lightly armoured, and not much use if anyone got to shoot back.

All the Tank Destroyers, on the other hand, weer closed top, heavily armoured, and able to duke it out with enemy AFV's with at least some chance of surviving - often with little chance of actually getting KO'd at all in fact!

Tank Fondlers are a compromise between the two. They are of course all Australian (but that's only a problem anywhere else in the world), thick-skinned, and open topped. This last feature allows the sun to beat down and cook their brains.

[PzKpfw 1]

A German report on cause of enemy tank losses on all fronts, from August - October 1944 reported that Sturmgeschutz & Panzerjager destroyed 22 - 32 % of all enemy AFVs destroyed, & tanks were credited with 22 - 26% of all enemy AFVs destroyed.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Username]

Marders and later Nashorn were like hunters. Stalking, siting and killing. They needed to overmatch whenever possible and discretion is the better part of not getting killed. They couldnt loiter and arty, mortars, infantry couldnt be tolerated. They could bolster a fixed defense by drawing armor onto ATGs and infantry.

Hetzers, jpnnzIV, jagdpanther and even stugs (at one time) were sluggers. They could , if they had to, trade blows.

In very close terrain, this is all semantics. If they get so close than armor isnt an advantage.

Lewis

[Stuka]

Of course if you can fondle your opponent into a sense of false security, then while their guard is dropped you Smack! them over the back of the scone with a large halibut, the battle is won and the day is carried.

Then its over to David Aitkens place for Tea and biscuits.

If your'e really lucky, you might get to go down the pub later and then maybe out for a curry after that.

This armoured warfare bizzo is such a breeze, I really should have been a General.

[PJungnitsch]

The books I just looked in seem to call them all 'tank destroyers' in English. However if I have this right in German the early lashup types, where they basically stuck an anti tank gun on top of whatever chassis they had spare (Marder I, II, and III) are called 'Tank Hunters' 'Panzerjaeger' the same as the anti tank PAK gun crews were, and for the same reasons. Really they weren't hunting anything, they were defending, but the Germans gave them the term 'Tank Hunter' to boost their morale. 'The tank is not your enemy, you are the tanks enemy!' type of thing. A bit of the military psychology at work, especially valuable for crews like that that are quite vulnerable.

The the later purpose built creations (Jagdpanzer Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV, JagdPanther, JagdTiger) were called 'Hunting Tanks' 'Jagdpanzer', a small difference in wording but signifying the more aggressive tactics possible by the heavier armour and longer range, harder hitting guns.

Stugs are an inbetween category, with elements of both types. Nashorns fit more in the former, Elephants in the latter.

Interesting question

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: machineman ]

[David Aitken]

Be careful with your terminology, Stucco, you'll confuse the Yanks. Biscuits are cookies, unless they're crackers, in which case they are biscuits, but so are scones, which is bloody confusing and it takes a true Brit to properly identify a biscuit at 100 paces without any of this whiz-bang capitalist Yankee nonsense. Right lads, in with the cold steel, and we'll spread that fascist butter all over the scone!

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>machineman wrote:

Really they weren't hunting anything, they were defending, but the Germans gave them the term 'Tank Hunter' to boost their morale.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the same way that antitank rifles were not for 'defense against tanks' but for 'attacking tanks'...

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Be careful with your terminology, Stucco, you'll confuse the Yanks. Biscuits are cookies, unless they're crackers, in which case they are biscuits, but so are scones, which is bloody confusing and it takes a true Brit to properly identify a biscuit at 100 paces without any of this whiz-bang capitalist Yankee nonsense. Right lads, in with the cold steel, and we'll spread that fascist butter all over the scone!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only a resident of the United Kingdom could make an issue out of the terminology used to describe wafers eaten with bland and poorly brewed tea

[David Aitken]

Wafers! I forgot that one. Now you're getting a bit complex.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:

Stugs are an inbetween category, with elements of both types. Nashorns fit more in the former, Elephants in the latter.

Interesting question

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stugs, for a short time, were the best armored and best armed german AFV. Since they were predominately used by artillerymen, they were a bit different than Marders/hetzers/etc.

They went from infantry support weapon, to tank killer, to jack-of-all trades. German infantry assaults that lacked proper stug support usually came to greif in the later part of the war.

Lewis

[heckler_rider]

In the same vain....as the difference between pazerjager and jadgpanzer....

Whats the difference between chips and fries? They are both potatos cooked in hot oil.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olebooya:

In the same vain....as the difference between pazerjager and jadgpanzer....

Whats the difference between chips and fries? They are both potatos cooked in hot oil.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very few Panzerjagers were cooked in hot oil.

[heckler_rider]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon

Very few Panzerjagers were cooked in hot oil. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true, unless the crew ran out of butter. Which was a common occurance near the end of the war.

[Doug Beman]

Slappy, I thank you for making me laugh more tonight than I did all week.

Hot oil, indeed!

DjB

[Sergei]

StuG (SturmGeschutz) is not a Tank Hunter or Tank Destroyer or Hunting Tank, it is an Assault Gun. StuG was originally not intended to AT role at all, it had a short 7.5 cm gun (like early-war Pz-IV). Later it was upgunned to L48 so that it could deal with T-34's.

And let's not forget PzJäger-I with its awesome 47mm gun...

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergei:

StuG (SturmGeschutz) is not a Tank Hunter or Tank Destroyer or Hunting Tank, it is an Assault Gun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For all intents & purposes after the Stug F was fitted with the 7.5 cm L/43,& later 7.5 cm L/48, its main role switched to an AT role.

Stug's were more often then not German Inf's only mobile AT defense. So while they retained the title of 'Assault gun', they were generaly tacticly employed in an tank destroyer role.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[PJungnitsch]

From what I understand while the 75mm L/43 and L/48 Stugs went to the anti tank role, the 105mm L/28 StuH carried on the 'pure' infantry support tradition of the original Stug assault guns.

On the note of Stug effectiveness I've come upon some interesting accounts from Drs S and R Hart:

"244th Assault gun brigade, which distiguished itself (Battle of the Bulge) by destroying 54 American tanks for the loss of only 2 assault guns"

"190th Assault Gun Brigade..defensive fighting in West Prussia..on 26 February 1945 alone, claimed a staggering 104 tank kills for the loss of only 4 vehicles...3rd March passed its one-thousandths tank kill since it's debut."

These would be of course exceptional accounts, but not bad for a vehicle in the last year of the war that production wise was basically a simplified Panzer III.

[Sergei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Stug's were more often then not German Inf's only mobile AT defense. So while they retained the title of 'Assault gun', they were generaly tacticly employed in an tank destroyer role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true. It just shows that staring blindly into the the types of these AFV's won't reveal the whole story. Often turretless vehicles were used in roles of Panzers in lack of anything better, like Ferdinand's in Kursk. Sometimes it worked.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:

From what I understand while the 75mm L/43 and L/48 Stugs went to the anti tank role, the 105mm L/28 StuH carried on the 'pure' infantry support tradition of the original Stug assault guns.

On the note of Stug effectiveness I've come upon some interesting accounts from Drs S and R Hart:

"244th Assault gun brigade, which distiguished itself (Battle of the Bulge) by destroying 54 American tanks for the loss of only 2 assault guns"

"190th Assault Gun Brigade..defensive fighting in West Prussia..on 26 February 1945 alone, claimed a staggering 104 tank kills for the loss of only 4 vehicles...3rd March passed its one-thousandths tank kill since it's debut."

These would be of course exceptional accounts, but not bad for a vehicle in the last year of the war that production wise was basically a simplified Panzer III.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats true to a point Machine but the Germans also developed an SC round for the 105mm armed Sturmhaubitze specificly to give them AT capability. It was found when they attempted to use the 105mm Sturmhaubitze in an AT role they faired poorly.

This led to the decision to discontinue the 105mm version. As the 7.5 cm Stugs were able to fill both roles & as the war progressed the AT capability took an higher priority, then HE/SC capability. Stug's alone are credited with the destruction of over 20,000 AFVs during WW2.

Theirs an report * from Pz.Rgt 36 from the Eastren Front from Oct,28 - Dec 01 1943. III./Pz.Regt 36 consisted of 2 Co of PzKpfw IV lang, & 2 Co of Sturmgeschutze. The Regt had a total of 49 PzKpfw IV & 44 StuG.

In 16 days of combat The mixed Abt was credited with the destruction of 211 tanks, 176 AT guns, 101 ATR, 54 Arty pieces, 41 motor vehichles & 1700 enemy personel.

III.Pz.Regt 36 losses as in total write offs for 16 days of operations was, 20 PzKpfw IV & 16 StuG. The workshop Plt reapired an total of 52 PzKpfw IV & 74 StuG, in this period.

*See Jentz, Thomas L,Panzer Truppen Vol 2 p.122

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

In the same way that antitank rifles were not for 'defense against tanks' but for 'attacking tanks'... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And "Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank" became "Projector, Infantry, Tank-Attack".

As a point of interest, I've always wondered, how do you pronounce the "jagd" in "jagdpanzer", "jagdpanther" and "jagdtiger"?

[Username]

I had a knock down drag-out multi-threaded fight with Steve from BTS over this. My contention is that the 75L48 still retained its infantry HE capabilities because the shells were the same (although at the cost of some stowage), artillerymen, (the sturmartillerie), manned these and many had previous training/experience and were good shots (although panzermen also manned some).

Stugs, and the roles they performed, were really a seperate arm/function. Its a subtle point because the average CM type battle doesnt care where the assault gun came from. They did excel at tank killing because of the changing tide of war, but retained the artillerie function to support the infantry.

Since the german arty was never as good and flexible as the US, german infantry assaults came to rely on the stealthy assault guns to "shoot them onto the target".

Lewis