Military Review

The use of captured German self-propelled guns in the Red Army at the final stage of World War II

134

At the final stage of the war, when the battlefield remained with our troops, it was quite often possible to capture various self-propelled artillery mounts abandoned by the enemy due to lack of fuel or having minor malfunctions. Unfortunately, it is not possible to cover all German SPGs in one publication. And in this part of the review, we will focus on the most interesting and most common captured SPGs.


Heavy anti-tank artillery mount ACS "Ferdinand"


Perhaps the most famous German anti-tank self-propelled gun is the heavy self-propelled gun "Ferdinand". Which had the official name 8,8 cm StuK.43 Sfl.L / 71 Panzerjäger Tiger (P). And it was created on the chassis of a heavy tank VK4501 (P) developed by Ferdinand Porsche.

The self-propelled artillery unit "Ferdinand" is armed with an 88-mm cannon 8,8 Kw.K.43 L / 71 and is protected by 200-mm frontal armor. The thickness of the side armor was the same as that of the Tiger tank - 80 mm. A machine weighing 65 tons could accelerate on a paved road up to 35 km / h. On soft ground, the self-propelled guns moved at the speed of a pedestrian. Slippery climbs and funnels often became insurmountable obstacles. Cruising range over rough terrain is about 90 km.

The most powerful 88-mm cannon was ideal for destroying enemy armored vehicles at any distance, and the crews of the German self-propelled guns really scored very large accounts of destroyed and knocked out Soviet tanks. The thick frontal armor made the self-propelled gun practically invulnerable to 45-85 mm caliber shells. The side armor was penetrated by 76,2 mm tank and divisional guns from a distance of 200 m.

At the same time, the overweight self-propelled gun, which originally did not have machine-gun armament, was vulnerable to anti-tank infantry weapons. Poor maneuverability on soft soils led to the fact that "Ferdinands" sometimes got stuck on the battlefield.

Many legends are associated with this self-propelled gun. As in the case with the Tiger tank, according to reports submitted to higher headquarters, our troops managed to destroy the Ferdinand self-propelled guns several times more than they were released. Often, servicemen of the Red Army called any German self-propelled gun with a rear-mounted fighting compartment "Ferdinand". A total of 1943 Ferdinand self-propelled guns were built in May – June 90, of which 8 vehicles in varying degrees of safety were captured by the Red Army.

The use of captured German self-propelled guns in the Red Army at the final stage of World War II
PT ACS "Ferdinand" captured by the Red Army.

One captured vehicle in the USSR was dismantled to study the internal structure. At least two were shot at the range in order to develop countermeasures and identify vulnerabilities. The rest of the vehicles participated in various tests, and subsequently all but one were scrapped.

Anti-tank self-propelled artillery mount "Nashorn" and self-propelled howitzer "Hummel"


Our fighters often confused the Nashorn (Rhino) tank destroyer with the Ferdinand, which had the official designation 8.8 cm PaK.43 / 1 auf Geschützwagen III / IV (Sf). Until January 27, 1944, this ACS was called "Hornisse" ("Hornet").


Anti-tank self-propelled artillery installation "Nashorn".

"Nashorn" was produced in series from the spring of 1943 and almost until the very end of the war. A total of 494 self-propelled guns of this type were produced. The base for the "Nashorn" was the unified Geschützwagen III / IV chassis, in which the road wheels, suspension, support rollers, idler wheels and tracks were borrowed from the Pz.IV Ausf.F tank, and the drive wheels, engine and gearbox were from the Pz. III Ausf.J. 265 hp carburetor engine from. provided a car weighing 25 tons with a speed of up to 40 km / h. The cruising range on the highway was 250 km.

The main armament of the tank destroyer was the 88 cm Pak.8,8 / 43 L / 1 anti-tank gun, the characteristics of which were the same as the 71 Kw.K.8.8 L / 43 gun mounted on the Ferdinand. To combat enemy infantry, there was an MG.71 machine gun.
Compared to the Ferdinand, the Nashorn self-propelled gun was much weaker protected, and the wheelhouse did not have an armored roof. The frontal armor of the hull was 30 mm, the side and stern were 20 mm. The armor protection of the cabin 10 mm thick protected the crew from bullets and light shrapnel.

The anti-tank self-propelled artillery mount was capable of successfully knocking out armored vehicles from ambushes at a distance of more than 2 m. However, the weak armor of the Naskhorn could be easily penetrated by a shell fired from a gun from any Soviet tank.

The self-propelled 150-mm howitzer "Hummel" ("Bumblebee") was in many ways similar to the tank destroyer "Nashorn". The full name is 15 cm Schwere Panzerhaubitze auf Geschützwagen III / IV (Sf) Hummel. This vehicle was also built on the Geschützwagen III / IV universal chassis, but was armed with a 150 mm sFH 18 L / 30 field howitzer. A 7,92 mm MG.34 or MG.42 machine gun was used as an auxiliary weapon. The protection and mobility of "Hummel" approximately corresponded to the ACS "Nashorn". From February 1943 to March 1945, it was possible to build 705 self-propelled guns, armed with 150-mm howitzers. Also, 157 ammunition transporters were produced on the Geschützwagen III / IV chassis. In the army, a number of transporters were converted into self-propelled howitzers.

The range of a direct shot from a 150-mm howitzer was approximately 600 m. The calculation of the self-propelled gun, in addition to armor-piercing and cumulative shells against tanks, could use sufficiently powerful high-explosive fragmentation shells. At the same time, the effective firing range reached 1 m. The combat rate of fire was 500 rds / min.


Captured self-propelled guns "Hummel" 366th GSAP, 4th Guards Tank Army, 3rd Ukrainian Front. 1945 g.

Soviet troops captured several dozen self-propelled guns "Nashorn" and "Hummel", which in the Red Army received the designation SU-88 and SU-150. So, as of March 366, 4, the 16th Guards Self-Propelled Artillery Regiment (1945th Guards Army) included: 7 SU-150, 2 SU-105 and 4 SU-75, as well as 2 Pz.Kpfw tanks .V and one Pz.Kpfw.IV. These captured vehicles were used in the battles at Balaton.

In a separate SAP (27th Army), which was considered as an anti-tank reserve, as of March 7, 1945, there were 8 SU-150 (Hummel) and 6 SU-88 (Nashorn). These vehicles were lost in repelling a German counteroffensive in the Scharsentagot area.

Self-propelled artillery mounts StuG.III and StuG.IV


The most common captured German self-propelled gun was the StuG.III, which received the designation SU-75 in the Red Army. Captured self-propelled guns, armed with 75 mm StuK.37 cannons with a barrel length of 24 caliber, were actively used by the Red Army in the initial period of the war.

In March 1942, the StuG.III Ausf. F gun, which was armed with a 75 mm StuK.40 / L43 gun with a 43 caliber barrel. The main reason for the creation of this self-propelled gun was the low efficiency of the short-barreled 75-mm StuK.37 cannon against new types of Soviet tanks. On late-production vehicles, 50mm frontal armor was reinforced by installing 30mm screens. In this case, the mass of the ACS was 23 400 kg.

In September 1942, the delivery of the StuG.III Ausf. F / 8 with StuK cannon. 40 / L48 with a barrel length of 48 calibers. A self-propelled gun armed with such a gun could hit all existing Soviet tanks at a distance of more than 1000 m.In addition to enhancing the armament, this ACS in the frontal projection was covered with 80-mm armor, which Soviet 76,2-mm tank and divisional guns could penetrate at a distance less than 400 m. The thickness of the side armor, as in the previous modifications, remained the same - 30 mm.

The most massive modification was the StuG.III Ausf. G. A total of 1942 vehicles were produced from December 1945 to April 7. An increase in protection against 824-mm PTR bullets and 14,5-mm cumulative shells of regimental guns was provided by 76,2-mm armor screens that covered the chassis and sides of the vehicle. To combat the infantry, a remotely controlled machine gun was installed on the roof.

ACS StuG.III Ausf. G in firing position weighed 23 kg. 900 hp carburetor engine from. could accelerate the car on the highway to 300 km / h. Tanks with a volume of 38 liters were enough for 310 km on the highway and 155 km on the dirt road.

Strengthening the armament and protection of the StuG.III ACS went in parallel with the Pz.Kpfw.IV medium tank. At the same time, with the same thickness of armor and an identical 75-mm cannon, a self-propelled gun, when conducting a fire duel with enemy tanks at medium and long distances, looked preferable to the "four". The frontal armor of the hull and wheelhouse had a slope, and the relatively low silhouette of the self-propelled guns reduced the probability of hitting. In addition, the StuG.III SPG was much easier to camouflage on the ground than the taller Pz.Kpfw.IV tank.

75 mm StuK cannon. 40 / L48 was quite adequate for fighting tanks. Through penetration of the frontal armor of the T-34-85 tank hull with a caliber armor-piercing projectile at a course angle of 0 ° was achieved at distances up to 800 meters, and at a course angle of 30 ° - up to 200-300 meters.

Close to these data was the recommended range of fire on tanks for 75-mm guns, which was 800-900 meters. And also the results of a German study of statistics on the destruction of tanks and self-propelled guns in 1943-1944, according to which about 70% of targets were hit by 75-mm guns at distances of up to 600 meters. And at distances over 800 meters - only about 15%. At the same time, even in the absence of through penetration of the armor, 75-mm shells could create dangerous secondary chips from the rear side of the armor when fired from a distance of 1000 m. The 75-mm cannon's capabilities in the fight against heavy tanks were significantly more limited. So, the IS-2 was considered sufficiently resistant to fire from German 75-mm guns with a barrel length of 48 calibers at a distance of more than 300 m.

Taking into account the fact that more than 10 StuG.III self-propelled guns of all modifications were built, this self-propelled gun became the most massive example of German armored vehicles used in World War II. Self-propelled guns of the StuG.III family, armed with StuK.000 guns, were very good tank destroyers and successfully combined sufficient firepower with a relatively low cost.

Similar to the StuG.III Ausf. G characteristics were the StuG.IV self-propelled guns, created on the chassis of the Pz.Kpfw.IV medium tank. The reason for the design of this combat vehicle was the insufficient number of well-proven self-propelled guns StuG.III. The production of the StuG.IV ACS was carried out at the production facilities of the Krupp-Gruzon Werke company, which was engaged in the production of the Pz.Kpfw.IV medium tank.

In terms of security and firepower, the self-propelled guns created on the basis of the "troika" and "four" were equal. The StuG.IV self-propelled gun was armed with the same 75 mm StuK.40 L / 48 cannon. A rifle caliber machine gun was installed on the roof of the wheelhouse. Frontal armor thickness - 80 mm, side armor - 30 mm. A vehicle with a combat weight of about 24 tons could accelerate along the highway to 40 km / h. The range on the highway is 210 km, on the dirt road - 130 km.

From December 1943 to April 1945, 1170 StuG.IVs were produced. It is noteworthy that since the second half of 1944, German enterprises produced more self-propelled guns on the chassis of the "four" than the Pz.Kpfw.IV tanks. This is due to the fact that ACS were much cheaper and easier to manufacture.

Tank destroyer Jagd.Pz.IV


In January 1944, the serial production of the Jagd.Pz.IV (Jagdpanzer IV) tank destroyer began. As follows from the designation, the chassis of the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf. H.

Tank destroyers of the first transitional modification were armed with a 75-mm cannon with a barrel length of 48 calibers. From August 1944 to March 1945, the Panzer IV / 70 tank destroyer was produced, with a "Panther" gun. A tank destroyer with such a powerful weapon was seen as an inexpensive alternative to the Panther.


PT ACS Panzer IV / 70 (V) at the collection point of emergency vehicles.

PT ACS Panzer IV / 70 were produced at the enterprises "Vomag" and "Alkett" and had significant differences. In total, the German tank industry managed to deliver 1 self-propelled guns.


Tank destroyer Panzer IV / 70 (A), knocked out during the battles on the streets of Budapest. February 1945

The thickness of the frontal armor of the Panzer IV / 70 (V) self-propelled gun with a 70 caliber gun was increased from 60 to 80 mm, and its weight increased from 24 to 26 tons and exceeded the load limit for the PzKpfw IV chassis. As a result, the car was overweight and the front rollers were overloaded. Due to the large length of the gun barrel, the driver had to be very careful on rough terrain, since there was a high risk of damaging the barrel against an obstacle when turning or scooping up the soil with the muzzle.

Even with the reliability problems of the chassis and mediocre mobility on the battlefield, the Panzer IV / 70 tank destroyer was a very dangerous opponent. An armor-piercing projectile fired from the 7,5 cm Pak.42 L / 70 gun could hit Soviet medium tanks at a distance of up to 2 km.


Trophy tank destroyer Jagd.Pz.IV (V)

During the war, our troops captured several hundred serviceable StuG.III, StuG.IV and Jagd.Pz.IV. In the official reports submitted to the higher headquarters, no difference was made between these machines and were referred to as the SU-75.


Captured self-propelled guns armed with 75-mm guns, along with other German and domestic self-propelled artillery installations, were operated in self-propelled artillery and tank regiments of the Red Army. They were also armed with separate battalions, equipped with captured armored vehicles.


Trophy SPG StuG.IV

Now it is difficult to establish how many SU-75s were at the final stage of the war in the Red Army. Apparently, we can talk about several dozen cars. Apparently, these self-propelled guns did not often participate in direct collisions with enemy armored vehicles. And for the most part they were seen as a mobile anti-tank reserve.


Trophy SPG StuG.III

Nevertheless, there are cases when captured SU-75 self-propelled guns were actively used in hostilities.

On March 12, 1945, in Hungary, in a battle in the vicinity of the city of Enying, the command of the 3rd Ukrainian Front tried to use a consolidated tank battalion, in which, in addition to other armored vehicles, there were SU-75s. However, even before the captured self-propelled guns entered the battle with the enemy, the battalion was attacked from the air by Soviet attack aircraft, as a result of which two vehicles burned out, and five got stuck trying to get out of the fire.

In the 366th GTSAP in the battles near Balaton, the SU-152 fought along with the ISU-75 self-propelled guns, and in the 1506th SAP one battery was armed with 6 captured SU-75 and 1 SU-105.

Unlike the Pz.Kpfw.V and Pz.Kpfw.VI tanks, the mastering of the SU-75 did not have any particular problems for well-trained Soviet crews. Against the background of the capricious Panthers and Tigers in operation, the ACS based on the Troika and Four were quite reliable and maintainable. In this regard, captured self-propelled guns with long-barreled 75-mm cannons were used as tank destroyers until the last days of the war.

The StuG.III and StuG.IV captured from the enemy (along with the Pz.Kpfw.IV tanks) were also used in the Red Army as armored recovery vehicles, tractors, armored vehicles of forward artillery observers, fuel and ammunition transporters.

To do this, in field tank repair shops, guns were dismantled from self-propelled guns, and towers were removed from tanks. The freed up useful volume inside the armor space and the capacity reserve made it possible to install additional equipment on the machines: a winch, a crane boom, a welding machine or an external fuel tank.

In the first post-war years, captured demilitarized armored vehicles were used in the national economy.

Self-propelled artillery StuH.42


In addition to the StuG.III self-propelled gun, the StuH.42 self-propelled gun was also produced on the Pz.Kpfw.III tank chassis, armed with a 10,5 cm StuH.42 cannon with the ballistics of a light 105-mm leFH18 / 40 field howitzer.


ACS StuH.42

During the combat use of the StuG.III assault self-propelled guns, it turned out that sometimes the destructive effect of a 75-mm projectile is not enough to destroy field fortifications. In this connection, an order was received for an SPG with a 105-mm gun capable of firing all types of standard rounds of a 105-mm light field howitzer with a separate-case loading. Production of the StuH.42 self-propelled guns was launched in October 1942. Until February 1945, 1 212 cars were delivered.

To combat tanks, the ammunition load included HEAT shells with 90-100 mm armor penetration. In order to increase the rate of fire, a unitary shot was created with a cumulative projectile in a special elongated sleeve. The firing range at visually observed targets with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile is up to 3 m, with a cumulative projectile - up to 000 mm. Combat rate of fire - 1 rds / min.

At the final stage of hostilities, the Red Army had several StuH.42 self-propelled guns, which under the designation SU-105 were used in conjunction with the SU-75.

Self-propelled artillery installations Marder III


In the first half of 1942, it became clear that the light tank PzKpfw. 38 (t) (Czech LT vz. 38) was hopelessly outdated and had no prospects in its original form. In this regard, at the production facilities of the Boehmisch-Mahrish-Maschinenfabrik in Prague (the former Czech CzKD), several types of ACS were produced using the PzKpfw.38 (t) chassis.

In April 1942, the first serial tank destroyer, designated 7,62 cm Pak (r) auf Fgst, left the assembly shop of the Prague plant. Pz.Kpfw. 38 (t). In March 1944, the self-propelled gun was renamed Panzerjager 38 fuer 7,62cm Pak.36. But much more this SPG is known as the Marder III.


Tank destroyer Marder III with 7,62 cm Pak.36 (r) gun

The main armament of the self-propelled gun was the 7,62 cm Pak. 36 (r) L / 51,5, which was a modernized and modified version of the captured Soviet 76-mm divisional gun of the 1936 model (F-22). For self-defense against infantry, there was a 7,92 mm MG.37 (t) machine gun.

Since the F-22 gun was originally designed for a much more powerful ammunition and had a large margin of safety, at the end of 1941 a project for the modernization of the F-22 was developed. The captured guns mod. 1936, the chamber was bored, which made it possible to use a sleeve with a large internal volume. The Soviet sleeve had a length of 385,3 mm and a flange diameter of 90 mm. The new German sleeve was 715 mm long with a flange diameter of 100 mm. Thanks to this, the powder charge was increased by 2,4 times. Due to the increased recoil, a muzzle brake was installed. In fact, German engineers returned to the fact that V.G. Grabin proposed in 1935.

Thanks to the increased muzzle energy, it was possible to significantly increase the armor penetration. German armor-piercing tracer with a ballistic tip 7,62 cm Pzgr. 39 weighing 7,6 kg had an initial speed of 740 m / s and at a distance of 500 m along the normal could penetrate 108 mm armor.

In smaller numbers, shots were fired with the 7,62 cm Pzgr. 40 APCR shell. With an initial speed of 990 m / s, a projectile weighing 3,9 kg at a distance of 500 m at right angles pierced 140 mm armor. The ammunition load could also include cumulative shells 7,62 cm Gr. 38 Hl / B and 7,62 cm Gr. 38 Hl / C with a mass of 4,62 and 5,05 kg, which (regardless of range) normally provided penetration of 90-100 mm armor.

For completeness, it is pertinent to compare the 7,62 cm Pak. 36 (r) with a 75 mm 7,5 cm Pak anti-tank gun. 40, which, in terms of cost, a set of service, operational and combat characteristics, can be considered the best mass produced in Germany during the war years. At a distance of 500 m, a 75-mm armor-piercing projectile could normally penetrate 118-mm armor. Under the same conditions, the armor penetration of a sub-caliber projectile was 146 mm.

Thus, it can be stated that the guns had practically equal armor penetration characteristics and confidently ensured the defeat of medium tanks at real firing distances. It should be admitted that the creation of the 7,62 cm Pak. 36 (r) was, of course, justified, since the cost of conversion was much cheaper than the cost of a new gun.

The "Marder III" cannon was mounted on a cruciform carriage, mounted in a fixed low-profile riveted wheelhouse open at the top and rear. The gun itself was covered with a U-shaped shield 14,5 mm thick, which protected from bullets and shrapnel. The frontal part of the hull and the front of the cabin were 50 mm thick, the sides and rear of the hull were 15 mm, and the side of the cabin was 16 mm.

The vehicle with a combat weight of 10,7 tons was equipped with a 140 hp carburetor engine. from. and could move along the highway at a speed of 38 km / h. In store down the highway - 185 km.

Serial production of tank destroyers Marder III, armed with a 7,62 cm Pak gun. 36 (r), continued until November 1942. A total of 344 new self-propelled guns were built, and another 19 self-propelled guns of this type were converted from linear light tanks Pz.Kpfw. 38 (t).

The reason for the termination of the production of "Marder III" was the lack of captured 76-mm divisional guns F-22 in the warehouses.

The need of the Wehrmacht for tank destroyers on the Eastern Front was so great that the production of "Marders" not only could not be stopped, but also had to be increased monthly.

From November 1942 on the Pz.Kpfw. 38 (t), instead of the 7,62 cm Pak 36, they began to install the 7,5 cm Pak anti-tank gun. 40/3. This modification of the "Marder III" was originally called the Panzerjäger 38 (t) mit Pak. 40/3 Ausf. H. And in November 1943, the tank destroyer received its final name - Marder III Ausf. H.


Tank destroyer Marder III Ausf. H with the 7,5 cm Pak gun. 40/3

As in the previous modification, the open-type fixed wheelhouse was installed in the middle of the hull.

The visual differences between the models with 76,2 mm and 75 mm guns were in the structure of the wheelhouse and in the external differences of the guns.

The security of the car remained almost the same. Combat weight - 10,8 tons. Speed ​​on the highway - 35 km / h, cruising range on the highway - 240 km.

Serial production of tank destroyers Marder III Ausf. H lasted from November 1942 to October 1943. During this period, 243 self-propelled guns were produced, another 338 self-propelled guns of this type were converted from linear light tanks.

In May 1943, a new modification of the Marder III Ausf. M with a fixed wheelhouse of an open type in the aft part of the armored vehicle hull. The Marder III Ausf. H and Marder III Ausf. M were absolutely identical.


Tank destroyer Marder III Ausf. M

This tank destroyer was well suited for ambush operations. By reducing the thickness of the armor plates in the frontal projection to 20 mm, it was possible to reduce the production cost, and the combat weight became 300 kg less. 150 hp engine from. accelerated on the highway to 42 km / h. In store down the highway - 190 km.

Self-propelled installation Marder III Ausf. M turned out to be the least protected modification, but the most mobile, speedy and passable, as well as the least noticeable. In general, despite the design differences, Marder III Ausf. H and Marder III Ausf. M had almost the same combat effectiveness.

Until May 1944, 975 self-propelled tank destroyers Marder III Ausf. M. In total, until June 1944, 1 self-propelled artillery units Marder III, armed with 919 and 76,2-mm guns, were delivered to the customer.


Taking into account the fact that the Marder III tank destroyers of all modifications were very actively used in hostilities on the Eastern Front, they were sometimes captured by the Red Army.

In terms of the level of protection of the cabin, the Marder III was approximately on the same level with the Soviet ACS SU-76M. At the same time, the anti-tank capabilities of the German self-propelled gun were significantly higher. It is known that several captured Marders were in service in 1943-1944. in units with T-70 tanks and SU-76M self-propelled guns. At least one tank destroyer Marder III was captured by the partisans.

Anti-tank self-propelled artillery mount Hetzer


By the end of 1943, it became clear to the Wehrmacht command that the Marder III light anti-tank self-propelled guns no longer fully meet the tasks assigned to them. "Marders", which had powerful weapons, were covered with bulletproof armor. The open top and rear wheelhouse did not protect the crew from mortar mines and fragmentation grenades.

Due to the fact that the Eastern Front was grinding self-propelled guns built on the Pz.Kpfw.III and Pz.Kpfw.IV chassis faster than they could produce them, at the beginning of 1944 the question of creating a new adequately protected tank destroyer, capable of acting in the same battle formations with line tanks.

The new anti-tank self-propelled gun was supposed to be as simple as possible, cheap, suitable for production in large quantities, and effective on the battlefield. Since German tank-building enterprises, due to bombing and lack of resources, were chronically unable to cope with the production of the required amount of armored vehicles, in order not to reduce the production of German tanks, it was proposed to build a new vehicle on the basis of the outdated light tank Pz.Kpfw 38 (t). The Pz.Kpfw.V. tank was taken as the technological standard. For the same man-hours spent on the production of one "Panther", it was necessary to make 3 self-propelled guns with equal firepower.

Much credit for the creation of the new tank destroyer belongs to the engineers of the Boehmisch-Mahrish-Maschinenfabrik (BMM) company in Prague. The design and assembly of the machines proceeded at a rapid pace. The first 3 test vehicles were manufactured in March 1944, and already in April the tank destroyer was put into service under the name Sd.Kfz.182 Jagdpanzer 38 (t) Hetzer. Skoda also joined the production of the Hetzer, which delivered the first 1944 cars in July 10. The data on production volumes vary greatly, but with a high degree of probability it can be argued that by April 1945, BMM and Skoda managed to build about 3 Jagdpanzer 000 (t) self-propelled guns.


Anti-tank self-propelled artillery installation "Hetzer"

The Hetzer's main armament was the 75-mm PaK.39 / 2 cannon with a barrel length of 48 calibers. Ballistic characteristics of the PaK.39 / 2 are identical to the KwK.40 and StuK.40 cannons. Sights allowed for firing with armor-piercing caliber projectiles at a distance of up to 2 meters, sub-caliber projectiles up to 000 meters, and high-explosive fragmentation projectiles up to 1 meters. On the roof in front of the left hatch was an MG.500 machine gun with remote control.

ACS protection was differentiated. Frontal armor 60 mm thick, installed at an angle of 60 °, held 45-76,2 mm armor-piercing shells well. Onboard 15-20 mm armor protected from bullets and shrapnel. The relatively small size and low profile contributed to the decrease in vulnerability.

PT ACS "Hetzer" was driven by a 150 hp carburetor engine. from. The highest speed is 40 km / h, the cruising range on the highway is 175 km and 130 km on rough terrain. Since the mass of the vehicle was relatively small - 15,75 tons, the specific ground pressure did not exceed 0,76 kg / cm². Thanks to this, the Hetzer's cross-country ability in off-road conditions was higher than that of most German tanks and self-propelled guns.

Like any armored vehicle, the Hetzer had flaws. Crews complained about the cramped working conditions and poor visibility from the car, which was not typical for the Panzerwaffe. At the same time, this self-propelled gun showed itself well in combat. The modest size, mobility and maneuverability made it possible to feel confident on rough terrain and in street battles, and the power of the weapons was sufficient for most tasks.


At the final stage of the war, the Red Army captured several dozen serviceable and recoverable Jagdpanzer 38 (t). However, there is no reliable information about the use of trophy "Hetzer" in the Red Army.

Anti-tank self-propelled artillery installation Waffentrager


Another interesting SPG, built using the PzKpfw.38 (t) base and captured by our troops during the hostilities in Germany, was the Waffentrager 8,8 cm PaK.43 L / 71. The terms of reference for the development of this combat vehicle, which in the German classification was called the Waffentrager (weapon carrier), was formulated by the artillery and technical supply department at the end of 1942.

Initially, it was planned to create an inexpensive single universal platform for 88-127-mm anti-tank guns and 150-mm howitzers. However, due to the overload of design bureaus and factories with other orders, it was only possible to bring the tank destroyer project armed with the 88-mm PaK.43 anti-tank gun to the stage of practical implementation. In February 1944, the final version on the chassis of the Jagdpanzer 38 (t) Hetzer serial self-propelled gun was approved.

The choice of armament was due to the fact that the 8,8 cm Pak.43 cannon in the combat position weighed 4 kg, and its rolling onto the battlefield by the crew was almost impossible. To transport the Pak.400, a sufficiently powerful tractor was required. The cross-country ability of the tractor-implement hitch on soft soils was unsatisfactory. At the same time, the 43 mm Pak.88 gun was very powerful and ensured a confident defeat for all Soviet tanks used in World War II.

The anti-tank gun 8,8 cm PaK.43 L / 71 was mounted on a pedestal mount and could fire in a circular sector. True, shooting on the move was not allowed. To protect against hitting bullets from a light rifle weapons an armor shield with a thickness of 5 mm was installed. The SPG hull was welded and assembled from rolled armor steel sheets 8–20 mm thick.


Anti-tank self-propelled artillery mount Waffentrager 8,8 cm PaK.43 L / 71

100 hp carburetor engine from. was in the front of the case. The combat weight of the vehicle was 11,2 tons. The maximum speed on the highway was 36 km / h. The power reserve on the highway is 110 km, on the dirt road - 70 km.

Overall, the SPG armed with the 88mm PaK.43 gun turned out to be quite successful. It cost less than other German tank destroyers produced in 1944-1945, and the efficiency when used from pre-selected positions could be very high. In case of mass production, the Waffentrager had a chance to become one of the best light SPGs in the final period of the war.

After the capitulation of Germany, the captured Waffentrager 8,8 cm PaK.43 L / 71 self-propelled guns were tested at a training ground in the USSR. The test report stated:

“The German self-propelled artillery mount with the RAK-43 cannon belongs to the class of open self-propelled guns with circular fire. By weight (11,2 t), it can be classified as a light SPG of the SU-76 type, and in terms of its firing power (52500 kgm), it can be classified as a heavy SPG of the ISU-152 and Ferdinand type.

At a distance of 1 meters, the probable deviations of the projectile in height and direction did not exceed 000 m. The armor-piercing projectile confidently pierced the armor of the main Soviet tank T-0,22-34 from all projections and the heavy tank IS-85 from the side and rear projections.

The rate of fire was 7,4 rounds per minute. The work of the gun crew was also facilitated by the fact that, due to the low line of fire, the gun could be loaded even while standing on the ground.

In addition to this, two of the crew members did not have clearly assigned seats. When firing, the commander was outside the vehicle, and the loader could be to the left or right of the gun.

High maneuverability of fire, provided by all-round fire and a unitary shot.

The installation was quickly transferred from the traveling position to the combat one.


It is now not possible to establish how many Waffentrager anti-tank self-propelled guns were built. Probably, before the termination of the work of the German factories engaged in the production of armored vehicles, it was possible to assemble several dozen self-propelled guns.

Two self-propelled guns were captured in May by units of the 3rd Army (1st Belorussian Front) during the storming of Berlin.

In 1945, one of the captured Waffentrager was presented at the exhibition of captured weapons and equipment at the Central Park of Culture and Leisure named after Gorky in Moscow.

In the spring of 1946, this car was sent to the Kubinka training ground, where it was subjected to comprehensive tests.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Use of captured German pistols in the USSR
The use of German captured submachine guns in the USSR
The use of captured German rifles and machine guns in the USSR
The use of captured German machine guns in the USSR
The use of captured German tanks and self-propelled guns in the initial period of the Great Patriotic War
Use of captured "Panthers" and "Tigers" at the final stage of the Great Patriotic War
134 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. polpot
    polpot 27 January 2021 18: 03
    +31
    Thanks for the article, great photos, we look forward to continuing.
    1. Alien From
      Alien From 27 January 2021 18: 53
      +12
      I join you! An interesting and informative series of articles!
    2. vkl.47
      vkl.47 27 January 2021 19: 58
      +2
      We are waiting for the yagtiger
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 27 January 2021 20: 54
        +1
        Quote: vkl.47
        We are waiting for the yagtiger

        That's right ... "needed" and "Jagdtiger" ... By the way, it would be nice, at the same time, to clarify about the names "Ferdinand" and "Elephant" ...
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 27 January 2021 21: 27
          +6
          Well, I think "Ferdinand / Elephant" is known to everyone.
          In Warsaw, in the museum, I saw a broken Hetzer. I was shocked! How small she is! Where can four fit in there ?!
          Thanks to the author for the article.
          1. Civil
            Civil 28 January 2021 09: 29
            +2
            Excellent article, but will there be a series about armored vehicles of the 3rd Reich after the war, application and operation? The same "Hetzer" in Switzerland was in service for a long time.
            1. Bongo
              29 January 2021 04: 15
              +6
              The next part will focus on the use of German armored vehicles in the postwar period. The final part of the cycle will be about captured artillery. hi
              1. Civil
                Civil 29 January 2021 07: 05
                +2
                Quote: Bongo
                The next part will focus on the use of German armored vehicles in the postwar period. The final part of the cycle will be about captured artillery. hi

                Looking forward to good
              2. Alf
                Alf 29 January 2021 19: 31
                +3
                Quote: Bongo
                it will focus on the use of German armored vehicles in the post-war period.

                This is very interesting, we know about planes, and very little about tanks. We are waiting ...
              3. PilotS37
                PilotS37 29 January 2021 21: 10
                +2
                Quote: Bongo
                The next part will focus on the use of German armored vehicles in the postwar period. The final part of the cycle will be about captured artillery.

                "We are waiting's!" (with)
          2. kytx
            kytx 29 January 2021 02: 56
            +3
            watched an American program about tanks there the guy shows Hetzer's insides and how the crew works
            loading, etc.
            so ergonomics well, just no
            the loader needs to bend over the breech to send the projectile and close the bolt
            and terrible tightness
        2. Catfish
          Catfish 27 January 2021 21: 31
          +6
          Vladimir, hello, otherwise you don't know what Porsche's name was since childhood. ))
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 28 January 2021 04: 58
            +5
            Quote: Sea Cat
            what was the name of Porsche since childhood

            I wish you good health, Konstantin! Duc, I'm nothing for myself! Everything for people! Some are confused or misunderstood ... recourse
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 28 January 2021 05: 15
              +3
              Good morning! smile Well, let's give Sergei this opportunity, he started, let him finish. drinks
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 28 January 2021 05: 35
                +5
                Frets yes ...No question ! No.
            2. Bongo
              28 January 2021 13: 01
              +6
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              Some are confused or misunderstood ...

              Vladimir, hello!
              Sorry, but the publication turned out to be quite voluminous, and I did not mention something that most of the readers certainly know.
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 28 January 2021 13: 33
                +3
                Quote: Bongo
                did not mention what most of the readers certainly know.

                Accepted and understood! hi
        3. Bongo
          28 January 2021 02: 26
          +6
          Quote: vkl.47
          We are waiting for the yagtiger

          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Right ... "needed" and "Jagdtiger" ...

          Unfortunately, it is not possible to cover all German SPGs in one publication. And in this part of the review, we will focus on the most interesting and most common captured SPGs.

          hi
  2. Maki maki
    Maki maki 27 January 2021 18: 27
    +28
    On March 12, 1945, in Hungary, in a battle in the vicinity of the city of Enying, the command of the 3rd Ukrainian Front tried to use a consolidated tank battalion, in which, in addition to other armored vehicles, there were SU-75s. However, even before the captured self-propelled guns entered the battle with the enemy, the battalion was attacked from the air by Soviet attack aircraft, as a result of which two vehicles burned out, and five got stuck trying to get out of the fire.

    Thanks for the stuff.
    Did I understand correctly - our attack aircraft attacked ours with captured vehicles?
    1. Avior
      Avior 27 January 2021 18: 55
      +14
      It was a serious problem
      Pay attention to how many stars you drew so that yours would not get under the distribution. They were often identified by their silhouette. They did not identify their own, it means moisture.
      The same problems of friendly fire were not only among captured vehicles, but also among the crews of armored vehicles supplied by Land Lease, especially if they were not used on a very large scale, Loza writes about this in his memoirs.
    2. bairat
      bairat 27 January 2021 20: 16
      +8
      In a mobile front, friendly fire from their own attack aircraft was not uncommon. It got to the point that reports went upstairs that when the IL-2 appeared in the sky, our fighters scattered and looked for cover.
    3. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 27 January 2021 21: 31
      +4
      My grandfather on T 34/85 fell under the distribution of attack aircraft!
      Ours did not want to burn in vain and asked for aviation assistance before attacking the skyscrapers. The year was already 1944.
      And the brigade commander was in a hurry and drove into the attack.
      The flyers flew in and considered that the enemy would counterattack. They gave the heat. Tankers obscenities let's shout on the air. The stormtroopers understood and flew away, waving their wings.
      1. Jager
        Jager 28 January 2021 01: 18
        +3
        They were shouting into a megaphone or something? Radios are completely different ...
    4. Catfish
      Catfish 27 January 2021 21: 36
      +7
      You got it right. And it was not only with us, and not only tanks, they attacked and sank their ships, shot down their planes. During the landing in Normandy, the "Fortresses" dumped all their cargo onto their own infantry, a lot of people died, including general. War, stress, adrenaline.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 28 January 2021 12: 06
        +5
        Quote: Sea Cat
        During the landing in Normandy, the "Fortresses" dumped all their cargo onto their own infantry, a lot of people died, including general. War, stress, adrenaline.

        Perhaps the most famous case of Yankees' friendly fire is Operation Cobra. On July 25, 1944, the V-17 and V-24 of the 8th VA, used as a "substitute for artillery" in handling enemy defenses on the front line, were a little mistaken - and together with the Germans they hooked up their troops. 111 dead, 490 injured. Among the dead was the commander of the United States Army, Lieutenant General Leslie James McNair.
        Well, the landing on Sicily, yes ... but there the British worked on the Yankees.
  3. Avior
    Avior 27 January 2021 18: 50
    +11
    Good article. Thanks to the author.
    About Waffentrager
    1 the crew is completely sad, both in summer and in winter
    2 from the ground, it was probably difficult to charge overhead
    3 and where is her ammunition? As I did not peer, I did not understand.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 27 January 2021 19: 50
      +12
      Quote: Avior
      1 the crew is completely sad, both in summer and in winter

      Yes, but everything is easier than that of conventional anti-tank gunners. Who periodically had to pull these holes on themselves.
    2. bubalik
      bubalik 27 January 2021 20: 05
      +17

      Avior
      Today, 19: 50



      Ardelt's waffentrager gun loading at a course angle of O degrees, rear view. The shots are fired from the right stern box, with the loader's left foot resting on the folded stern platform.
      1. Avior
        Avior 27 January 2021 20: 41
        +6
        Thank you.
        Doesn't look like a lot of ammunition
        1. Mister X
          Mister X 27 January 2021 21: 54
          +8
          Quote: Avior
          Doesn't look like a lot of ammunition

          Ammunition 32 rounds, 18 in each box
          1. Avior
            Avior 27 January 2021 21: 56
            +6
            not divisible :))
            like in a joke about cheburashka and oranges
            1. Mister X
              Mister X 27 January 2021 22: 02
              +4
              Quote: Avior
              not divisible :))

              but at 16?
              I missed a bit on the keyboard wink
      2. Catfish
        Catfish 27 January 2021 21: 46
        +4
        Hello, Sergey. Normal cannon, everything is not to its hump on positions to drag. smile
        How much she had in ammunition, don't you remember?
        1. bubalik
          bubalik 27 January 2021 21: 54
          +4
          20 shots.
          1. Avior
            Avior 27 January 2021 21: 58
            +4
            basically normal, only imperceptibly somehow :)
          2. Catfish
            Catfish 27 January 2021 22: 03
            +5
            And that's okay. As much as they had time, they shot as many, and they didn’t have to change position yet. And along the way, you can replenish the ammunition.))
          3. bubalik
            bubalik 27 January 2021 22: 10
            +10
            Error. 30 shots, 12 in boxes in the stern and 6 in a box on the inside of the shield.
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 27 January 2021 22: 39
              +6
              ... 6 in a box on the inside of the backboard.

              One successful bullet from DShK and "death to the enemy - zvizdets calculation." Somehow it doesn't inspire. request
              1. Bongo
                28 January 2021 13: 05
                +6
                Quote: Sea Cat
                One successful bullet from DShK and "death to the enemy - zvizdets calculation." Somehow it doesn't inspire.

                Konstantin, welcome!
                Duc, in any case, this self-propelled gun was superior in mobility to the 8,8 cm PaK.43 tank gun and in terms of protection it was not an armored tractor. This is not an "artillery assault", but a tank hunter.
                1. Catfish
                  Catfish 28 January 2021 15: 58
                  +4
                  Sergey, hello! hi
                  This is all true, it's just that I, as a tanker, albeit a former one, felt a little uncomfortable at the sight of ammunition, which was absolutely not protected from any accidental bullet.
                  1. Bongo
                    28 January 2021 16: 32
                    +3
                    Quote: Sea Cat
                    This is all true, it's just that I, as a tanker, albeit a former one, felt a little uncomfortable at the sight of ammunition, which was absolutely not protected from any accidental bullet.

                    Duc tanks on the march were often also loaded with boxes of ammunition and barrels of fuel.
                    1. Catfish
                      Catfish 28 January 2021 16: 52
                      +3
                      So then on the march.
                      And the barrels with solarium are garbage, you also have to manage to set it on fire, he himself dragged his "Half-Four" in the stern, but the shell is somehow not very good.
                      1. Bongo
                        28 January 2021 16: 58
                        +3
                        Okay, diesel fuel, besides, our tanks had a greater range at one gas station. And the Germans, especially at the end of the war, loaded barrels of gasoline on their cars, or trailers for tanks.
                      2. Catfish
                        Catfish 28 January 2021 17: 02
                        +4
                        barrels of gasoline were loaded onto their cars,

                        Yes, you really can't envy here, a barrel of gasoline near the engine compartment, it is, read, suicide bombers, with the complete domination of the allied aviation in the air.
                      3. Bongo
                        28 January 2021 17: 05
                        +3
                        Duc of the "allies" it was aviation that was the main anti-tank weapon. Although our "Ilys" did not frolic too badly.
                      4. Catfish
                        Catfish 28 January 2021 17: 09
                        +3
                        They had Thunderbolts with Typhoons in their tank hunters, if I'm not mistaken. From them "Tiger" Vitman and blew up, like a missile strike.
                      5. hohol95
                        hohol95 28 January 2021 18: 05
                        +3
                        And the Canadian tank crews assured that they had burned Whitman's Tiger from the guns of their Shermans.
                      6. Catfish
                        Catfish 28 January 2021 18: 25
                        +3
                        "The sky is blue over Canada ..."
                        "To lie, Maleshkin, you also need to be able to" (c)
                        "Sherman" can burn "Tiger" only in American films, and even then, if the tank commander is played by Brad Peet himself. laughing soldier
                      7. hohol95
                        hohol95 28 January 2021 18: 42
                        +3
                        And the pilots do not like to lie? They "killed" so many enemies that 15 times they destroyed the entire air force of the enemy. That ours, that the Germans, and the allies could not lie? tongue
                        Top Gun to help them with Tom Cruise! tongue
                      8. Catfish
                        Catfish 28 January 2021 19: 19
                        +4
                        ... that 15 times they destroyed all the enemy's air forces.

                        Of course, roughly how ours destroyed more German tanks by December 41 than the Reich industry produced. wink
                        As for Vitman, there were witnesses of his death, the wreckage of his tank is still lying near some French village, there is also the grave of Vitman and his crew.
                      9. hohol95
                        hohol95 28 January 2021 20: 17
                        +3
                        Of the 4 enemy tanks that broke through to our shore, 8 were destroyed !!!
                        In one of the films about reconnaissance, the company commander asked the platoon about the number of destroyed tanks. He answered him. To which the commissars asked, and the gunners fired at the tanks, the platoon commander answered. How many tanks will they write for themselves? - asked another question from the commander.
                        And so it happened. The infantry recorded 3 tanks and the gunners recorded 3 tanks for themselves. A total of 6 tanks!
                        War. soldier
                      10. Catfish
                        Catfish 28 January 2021 20: 22
                        +4
                        Yes, it is clear, we are all human, all human.
                      11. hohol95
                        hohol95 28 January 2021 20: 31
                        +4
                        The motto of the brave tailor is "I am a strongman not for nothing - 7 in one blow!"
                        drinks
                        The well-known ace replied to the wingman's protests against attributing to him the German aircraft shot down in battle - "You provided the downing for me, covered me."
                      12. Alf
                        Alf 29 January 2021 19: 34
                        +2
                        Quote: hohol95
                        The well-known ace replied to the wingman's protests against attributing to him the German aircraft shot down in battle - "You provided the downing for me, covered me."

                        Well, yes, well, yes .. The principle "you to me, I to you" flourished in the Luftwaffe, hence the 2-3 hundredth "victory" of the "experts" ...
                      13. hohol95
                        hohol95 30 January 2021 23: 02
                        0
                        Actually, this verbal skirmish was between Soviet pilots! Alas, I forgot who and with whom had this conversation!
      3. Bongo
        29 January 2021 03: 35
        +3
        Quote: Sea Cat
        They had Thunderbolts with Typhoons in their tank hunters, if I'm not mistaken. From them "Tiger" Vitman and blew up, like a missile strike.
        That's right. yes
        I don't know if you've read this. It might be interesting:
        Aviation against tanks
        https://topwar.ru/129395-aviaciya-protiv-tankov-chast-11.html
      4. Catfish
        Catfish 29 January 2021 14: 24
        +1
        Thank you, I will definitely look. hi
  • Catfish
    Catfish 27 January 2021 21: 39
    +6
    1 the crew is completely sad, both in summer and in winter

    Sergei hi , but what about mother infantry, she generally has no "roof". smile
    1. Avior
      Avior 27 January 2021 21: 50
      +6
      I imagine on the march in the fall, spring, winter, the caterpillars throw snow and mud back.
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 27 January 2021 22: 05
        +5
        So after all, the calculation of the self-propelled gun rode on it, and the rest of the infantry, what, shit, or something, follow the tank closely. laughing
        1. Avior
          Avior 27 January 2021 22: 20
          +5
          As for me, all this will also be thrown on the back two. In any case, judging by the car :)))
          However, if necessary, you can sit in front of the shield, the speed is low, the wind will not blow much.
          Mehvod also has no roof, right? And where did he hide during the battle?
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 27 January 2021 22: 36
            +7
            In any case, it is better to drive "badly" than to go well. At the exercises, us, tankers, the infantry envied with black envy, both in winter and in summer.))
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 27 January 2021 18: 53
    +7
    In 22 (70) SABR there was a freelance self-propelled artillery division of 11 105-mm self-propelled guns, most likely Vespe.
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 27 January 2021 19: 04
    +2
    hummel is a prototype of modern self-propelled guns, but not an anti-tank gun, maybe there have been attempts to use it somewhere, but this is not the artillery system
  • Undecim
    Undecim 27 January 2021 19: 14
    +16
    The author missed another sample.

    Jagdpanzer V.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 27 January 2021 19: 55
      +2
      Quote: Undecim
      Jagdpanzer V.

      Isn't that she in the photo, where our soldiers are sitting on the armor? Trophy tank destroyer Jagd.Pz.IV (V).
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 27 January 2021 20: 05
        +10
        No, of course, you can see it on the chassis.
        The Jagdpanzer IV is based on the PzKpfw IV chassis.
        Jagdpanzer V on the chassis of the "Panther" tank PzKpfw V Ausf. G.
    2. Catfish
      Catfish 27 January 2021 21: 40
      +5
      Hi Vic, the sequel is promised, maybe there will be.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 27 January 2021 22: 12
        +5
        Perhaps the author mentioned only those SPGs about which he has reliable information.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 27 January 2021 22: 28
          +5
          Perhaps, but in general he is a meticulous man, let's wait.
    3. BAI
      BAI 27 January 2021 22: 00
      +4
      Most likely, the author did not miss anything. An article about the use of captured SPGs in combat.
      And there is no information about the use of Jagdpanther (as well as Jagdtigrov (if another question arises on him)) in the Red Army in battles against the Germans. And if there is, then somewhere very well hidden.
      1. John22
        John22 29 January 2021 19: 49
        0
        In the USSR, it was forbidden to comment on and mention the use of captured equipment. Moreover, even the use of the Lend-Lease technique was not recommended. In photo albums about the Second World War, you can only see tanks from afar from behind - no specialist will understand.
    4. Bongo
      28 January 2021 02: 31
      +6
      Quote: Undecim
      The author missed another sample.

      Unfortunately, it is not possible to cover all German SPGs in one publication. And in this part of the review, we will focus on the most interesting and most common captured SPGs.

      Unfortunately, I could not find information about the capture of serviceable Jagdpanzer V by our troops, and photographs of the Red Army soldiers are captured next to these machines. request
      1. Mister X
        Mister X 28 January 2021 15: 39
        +4
        Quote: Bongo
        could not find information about the capture of serviceable Jagdpanzer V by our troops

        hi
        Because the Jagdpanthers fought mainly on the Western Front, against the allies.
        They were badly battered there, the Germans suffered huge losses.
        The Red Army could capture the Sd.Kfz. 173 only in the last months or even weeks of the war.

        The most massive use of "Jagdpanther" on the Eastern Front in 1945 was noted during the battles in Hungary (January-March).
        It is noteworthy that on March 6-15, during the battle at Lake Balaton, the 521st heavy tank destroyer battalion suffered such heavy losses that it was disbanded shortly after the failure of the offensive.
        As of March 15, 1945, only 34 Jagdpanthers took part in the fighting on the Eastern Front.
        Before the storming of Berlin, only 16 serviceable "Jagdpanther" remained in the ranks.

        1. Bongo
          28 January 2021 16: 34
          +4
          Quote: Mister X
          Quote: Bongo
          could not find information about the capture of serviceable Jagdpanzer V by our troops

          hi
          Because the Jagdpanthers fought mainly on the Western Front, against the allies.
          They were badly battered there, the Germans suffered huge losses.
          The Red Army could capture the Sd.Kfz. 173 only in the last months or even weeks of the war.

          The most massive use of "Jagdpanther" on the Eastern Front in 1945 was noted during the battles in Hungary (January-March).
          It is noteworthy that on March 6-15, during the battle at Lake Balaton, the 521st heavy tank destroyer battalion suffered such heavy losses that it was disbanded shortly after the failure of the offensive.
          As of March 15, 1945, only 34 Jagdpanthers took part in the fighting on the Eastern Front.
          Before the storming of Berlin, only 16 serviceable "Jagdpanther" remained in the ranks.


          Michael, hello! In terms of security and firepower, few could compare with the Jagdpanther. But the technical reliability of this machine was clearly no better than that of the Panther.
          1. Mister X
            Mister X 28 January 2021 17: 22
            +2
            Quote: Bongo
            Michael, hello!

            Hello, Sergey!
            Quote: Bongo
            the technical reliability of this machine was clearly no better than that of the Panther.

            Naturally, they just spent less time and resources on the production of ACS.
            And the disadvantages "below the tower" are inherited from the progenitor wink
  • svp67
    svp67 27 January 2021 19: 15
    +5
    The range of a direct shot from a 150 mm howitzer was approximately 600 m.
    Not the biggest drawback of the howitzer ...
    1. Toucan
      Toucan 28 January 2021 07: 19
      +2
      When firing at armored vehicles, especially considering the relatively low rate of fire, it is large.
      1. svp67
        svp67 28 January 2021 11: 12
        +1
        Quote: Tucan
        When firing at armored vehicles, especially considering the relatively low rate of fire, it is large.

        Of course it is, but howitzers have different fire missions.
        1. Toucan
          Toucan 28 January 2021 11: 20
          +3
          I do not argue yes But on the other hand, you can remember who we call "St. John's wort".
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 28 January 2021 12: 16
            +1
            Quote: Tucan
            But on the other hand, you can remember who we call "St. John's wort".

            So on the "St. John's wort" was not a clean howitzer, but a howitzer-gun. Its muzzle velocity (and direct firing range) is higher than that of a pure howitzer - but the price for this is the mass of the gun and the forces acting upon firing.
            Just for comparison: the 152-mm towed howitzer was packed in a weight of 4,5 tons. And the howitzer-gun of the same caliber - 8 tons.

            In addition, the "St. John's wort" was originally planned not as a fire support self-propelled gun, but as an assault one, working precisely with direct fire. They initially wanted to put a 152-mm Br-2 cannon on them, but when they found out the situation with their availability and production, they stuck the ML-20 - for lack of better.
            1. Toucan
              Toucan 28 January 2021 12: 18
              +2
              Thank you, but you haven't discovered anything new. You can also compare the range of a direct shot ML-20 with a 150-mm German howitzer.
              1. Bongo
                28 January 2021 13: 09
                +2
                Quote: Tucan
                Thank you, but you haven't discovered anything new. You can also compare the range of a direct shot ML-20 with a 150-mm German howitzer.

                In terms of firing range, the German 15 cm sFH 18 howitzer was inferior to the Soviet ML-20, although in terms of weight (about 5400 kg) it was lighter than the ML-20 (7200 kg).
            2. John22
              John22 29 January 2021 19: 53
              0
              The Su-152 also did not have a self-defense machine gun, like Ferdinand. But everyone is silent about this, and Ferdinand is considered a big drawback.
  • Alf
    Alf 27 January 2021 19: 44
    +2
    A self-propelled gun, armed with such a weapon, could destroy all existing Soviet tanks at a distance of more than 1000 m.
    75 mm StuK cannon. 40 / L48 was quite adequate for fighting tanks. Through penetration of the frontal armor of the T-34-85 tank hull with a caliber armor-piercing projectile at a course angle of 0 ° was achieved at distances up to 800 meters, and at a course angle of 30 ° - up to 200-300 meters.

    In the first paragraph, over 1000 meters, in the second, up to 800.
    But the thickness of the forehead of the case is the same for both the T-34-76 and the T-34-85 ... What's the difference?
    1. Bongo
      28 January 2021 02: 39
      +4
      Quote: Alf
      In the first paragraph, over 1000 meters, in the second, up to 800.
      But the thickness of the forehead of the case is the same for both the T-34-76 and the T-34-85 ... What's the difference?

      Vasily, hello!
      The defeat of the internal units and the crew of the tank is possible without breaking through the armor with chips when a shell hits. At a distance of 1000 m there was a fairly high probability of penetrating the T-800's armor, and at 100 m it was almost 90%. In addition, the first paragraph deals with an earlier period. By the end of the war, our tanks were better protected. The 34-mm frontal armor of the T-85-75 turret was not penetrated by the XNUMX-mm shell at the indicated distances.
      1. Alf
        Alf 28 January 2021 18: 30
        +1
        Quote: Bongo
        Vasily, hello!

        Good evening !
        Quote: Bongo
        the first paragraph deals with an earlier period.

        But as I said, the thickness of the forehead of the T-34 case is the same regardless of the year of manufacture.
    2. Alf
      Alf 28 January 2021 18: 50
      +1
      German armor-piercing tracer projectile with a ballistic tip 7,62 cm Pzgr. 39 weighing 7,6 kg had an initial speed of 740 m / s and at a distance of 500 m along the normal could penetrate 108 mm armor.

      The thickness of the armor of the forehead of the T-34 hull is 45 mm at an angle of 60 *. Reduced to normal, such a plate gives a thickness of 100 mm. Well, there is no way the Four's cannon can penetrate such armor at 800 meters, and even the possibility of a ricochet.
      Now on.

      What is the probability of finding a sub-caliber projectile in the ammo?
      1. Toucan
        Toucan 29 January 2021 02: 40
        0
        The thickness of the armor of the forehead of the T-34 hull is 45 mm at an angle of 60 *.

        Where does 60 degrees come from? what The angle of inclination of the T-34's frontal armor is 45 degrees. Those. on the normal it is about 60 mm.
        It should also be understood that not only the angle of inclination matters, but also the ratio of this value to the thickness of the armor.
        The frontal armor of the T-34 defended well against 37 mm shells. 50-mm pierced it with a high degree of probability, and 75-mm posed a danger at a distance of more than 1000 m.
        1. Bongo
          29 January 2021 03: 46
          +3
          Quote: Tucan
          Where does 60 degrees come from? what The angle of inclination of the T-34's frontal armor is 45 degrees.

          Actually, the forehead really had an angle of inclination of 60 degrees, and the side of 40 degrees.
          Quote: Tucan
          It should also be understood that not only the angle of inclination matters, but also the ratio of this value to the thickness of the armor.

          I agree with that. yes
      2. Bongo
        29 January 2021 04: 10
        +3
        Quote: Alf
        The thickness of the armor of the forehead of the T-34 hull is 45 mm at an angle of 60 *. Reduced to normal, such a plate gives a thickness of 100 mm.

        This protection is true for smaller caliber shells. If the caliber of the projectile is significantly higher than the thickness of the armor, then the angle of inclination is already less important, and in relation to the 75-mm armor-piercing projectile, the given thickness of the armor will be much less. With a high degree of probability, a 75-mm gun with a barrel length of 48 calibers at a distance of 1000 m pierced the forehead of the T-34. As you rightly pointed out, much less APCR shells were fired than armor-piercing and cumulative shells (we had 76,2-mm shells only in the ammunition load of regimental guns), and their production peaked just in 1943. But after all, subcaliber shells at the time of the start of production of self-propelled guns with the StuK gun. 40 / L48 were still in the ammunition load, right?
        Let's see what the publication says:
        In September 1942, the delivery of the StuG.III Ausf. F / 8 with StuK cannon. 40 / L48 with a barrel length of 48 calibers. A self-propelled gun, armed with such a weapon, could destroy all existing Soviet tanks at that time at a distance of more than 1000 m.

        When an armor-piercing projectile hit the frontal armor of the "thirty-four", even without penetration, there was a high probability of internal armor chips, which posed a danger to the crew, internal equipment and ammunition. And for that matter, the article does not say anywhere about the projection of the StuK gun. 40 / L48 could hit tanks at a distance of 1000 m.
        Perhaps this is my oversight. request But no one is perfect, and it seems to me that you are picking on a little. hi
        1. Alf
          Alf 29 January 2021 19: 29
          +3
          Quote: Bongo
          But after all, subcaliber shells at the time of the start of production of self-propelled guns with the StuK gun. 40 / L48 were still in the ammunition load, right?

          POSSIBLY there were, it is enough to count the number of shells released by the PC industry and demolish them with the number of guns fired, and these shells were also for anti-tank crews.
          Count for yourself, 23000 guns and 40 shells.
  • Constanty
    Constanty 27 January 2021 20: 22
    +12

    Is the captured Turan tank visible from the front in the photo from the article?
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 27 January 2021 21: 41
      +5
      Wow, and the Hungarian was involved.))
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 27 January 2021 21: 34
      +5
      To compete in what?
      The SU / ISU-152/122 guns were inferior to the German guns in the rate of fire. But they destroyed a German tank with almost one single hit (the main thing is to get there).
      At the same time, the Soviet SUs were more powerful in the destruction of permanent structures.
      For the battles in Warsaw, the German did not use a single Elephant / Ferdinand. And they threw there "something" called "SturmTiger". For the destruction of barricades and other blockages created by the Akovites.
      1. stepet
        stepet 27 January 2021 23: 15
        -6
        Quote: hohol95
        To compete in what?

        In armor penetration.
        Quote: hohol95
        But they destroyed a German tank with almost one single hit (the main thing is to get there).

        Tales of the Vienna Forest.
        In fact, the armor penetration of the 152 mm BBS was at the level of the 75 mm KwK42 cannon (Panther).
        As for the breakout effect of a 152 mm blank, there are mostly fairy tales.
        Quote: hohol95
        At the same time, the Soviet SUs were more powerful in the destruction of permanent structures.

        These were Self-propelled Artillery.
        And the Ferdinands were Tank Destroyers.
        BTT of different classes.
        The USSR Tank Destroyers (PT ACS) had SU-85 and SU-100.
        Quote: hohol95
        And they threw there "something" called "SturmTiger". For the destruction of barricades and other blockages created by the Akovites.

        Not surprising.
        The Jagdtiger had a 128 mm gun. It is much more powerful than 88 mm.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 27 January 2021 23: 24
          +2
          You are confusing a 600mm mortar at the SturmTiger with the 128mm at the JagdTiger!
          1. stepet
            stepet 27 January 2021 23: 42
            -2
            Quote: hohol95
            you hide a mortar of 600 mm at the SturmTiger and 128mm at the JagdTiger!

            Did I write about Sturmtiger somewhere?
            Would you like to argue that the power of 128 mm OFS is greater than the power of 88 mm of OFS?
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 28 January 2021 00: 19
              +2
              I wrote about SturmTiger and its use in suppressing the Warsaw Uprising!
              It makes no sense to dispute the power of the OFS 128 mm gun. But was the JagdTiger used to destroy permanent defensive structures?
              And since this gun was created on the basis of an anti-aircraft gun, it was all right with flatness. Only when pillboxes and other fortifications are destroyed, other qualities of the projectile are often important. And here the Brumbar, Vespe, Hemmel, Grille and Sturmhaubitze 42 howitzers come out on top.
              It was not for nothing that, having got stuck in Stalingrad, the "Teutons" began feverishly to invent assault vehicles armed with 105 or 150 mm howitzers.
              Only none of them made it to Stalingrad.
              StuIG33B was the first in this "salad".
              Some of these vehicles were "assault tanks", some were "support vehicles" (Grille and Vespe, Hemmel).
              Our self-propelled vehicles were more versatile. They are not ideals, but they coped with fortified defenses and armored vehicles of the enemy.
              1. stepet
                stepet 28 January 2021 00: 32
                -2
                Quote: hohol95
                It was not for nothing that, having got stuck in Stalingrad, the "Teutons" began feverishly to invent assault vehicles armed with 105 or 150 mm howitzers.

                150 mm.
                105 (10.5cm K18 (Sf) auf Pz Sf Iva) and 128 (12.8cm K40 (Sf) auf VK3001 (H)) mm did not go beyond experiments.
                And the 15cm sFH18 / 1 (Sf) auf Pz Kpfw III / IV was mass-produced since 1943.
                714 units were produced before the end of the war.
                These were the German analogues of our SU / ISU-152. Which, by the way, were also produced only since 1943. In the sense, not by design, but by purpose.
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 27 January 2021 23: 44
          +2
          Did the "Panther" 75 mm have weak armor penetration?
          1. stepet
            stepet 28 January 2021 00: 20
            -2
            Quote: hohol95
            Did the "Panther" 75 mm have weak armor penetration?

            Everything in the world is relative.
        3. Jager
          Jager 28 January 2021 01: 30
          +4
          Comrade, leave all these anglicisms.
          A blank weighing 50 kg flying at a speed of 600 meters per second is much more serious than a projectile flying at a speed of 800 m / s weighing only 10 kg. And if 8.8 had to hit the vulnerable zone to destroy the vehicle, then the 152 mm projectile was absolutely all the same, its energy was enough to destroy the seams and displace the armor plates, even if they were not pierced.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 28 January 2021 10: 08
            0
            The hoses in the MTO are torn to the pile, with the prospect of a fire, and the stunned crew. A 10 kg round is powerful, for a 76 mm gun the entire EMNIP cartridge weighed 6 kg. A three-inch sub-caliber is generally light.
            1. Alf
              Alf 28 January 2021 19: 05
              +4
              Quote: EvilLion
              for the 76 mm cannon, the entire EMNIP cartridge of 6 kg weighed

              The weight of the ZIS-3 shot is 9,12 kg, what you mention is the weight of what flew out of the barrel.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 29 January 2021 08: 25
                0
                Means confusing. The tables usually write a strange "shell weight". Either it is the weight of the cartridge, if we are talking about the cartridge case, or only the projectile ...
                1. Alf
                  Alf 29 January 2021 19: 24
                  +3
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  Means confusing. The tables usually write a strange "shell weight". Either it is the weight of the cartridge, if we are talking about the cartridge case, or only the projectile ...

                  No no. The tables indicate exactly the weight of what flew out of the barrel, the weight of the shot is very rarely indicated. Therefore, according to German artillery, the God of War of the Third Reich, Shirokorad, is indispensable, as is his Encyclopedia of Russian Artillery.
        4. your1970
          your1970 29 January 2021 12: 14
          +3
          Quote: stepet
          As for the breakout effect of a 152 mm blank, there are mainly fairy tales.

          On a conscript in 1989, he twice participated in firing at tanks (7 pcs) from a D-1 howitzer of the 1943 model. Distance 500 meters, shot OF direct fire, 15 rounds per gun
          After the shooting, it was terrifying to look at the tanks. Breaks in the armor, broken guns, several torn off towers.
          They fired with the forces of one battery (6 guns) 1 ADN.
          I don't know what kind of tanks they were (I don't even remember the silhouettes, let alone the model) - but they were post-war Soviet tanks from Afghanistan. Definitely not the T-34-85.
          And I will immediately note that the tanks were whole and there were towers on the ground. And then decide that they have already been beaten / burned in Afghanistan. No!!!
  • Mikhail Zakharov
    Mikhail Zakharov 27 January 2021 20: 37
    -4
    yes, here on the pictures are all the tanks from the world of tanks))
    1. Mister X
      Mister X 27 January 2021 21: 15
      +4
      Quote: Mikhail Zakharov
      all the tanks from the world of tanks in the pictures

      Conversely wink
  • ccsr
    ccsr 27 January 2021 21: 20
    +1
    Very interesting and informative work - apparently the author has studied this topic well, so we look forward to continuing.
    For many, it will be interesting to learn from the article that only the number of the captured self-propelled guns went to hundreds since 1942, and therefore it would be nice for those who speculate on Lend-Lease to take into account, especially knowing how the weapons from the allies came over the years. And we fought on captured equipment until the end of the war - the author clearly showed this.
  • Mister X
    Mister X 27 January 2021 21: 21
    +3
    Author, thanks for the article!
    It was not easy for you to deal with a zoo such as Rhino, Hornet and Bumblebee
    or StuG, StuH and StuK
    It is a pity that not all models with pictures

    ... ACS StuG.III Ausf. F gun, which was armed with a 75 mm StuK.40 / L43 gun with a 43 caliber barrel.
    ... the frontal armor was enhanced by installing 30mm screens
    Author: Linnik Sergey

  • BAI
    BAI 27 January 2021 21: 36
    +4
    1.
    One captured vehicle in the USSR was dismantled to study the internal structure. At least two were shot at the range in order to develop countermeasures and identify vulnerabilities. The rest of the vehicles participated in various tests, and subsequently all but one were scrapped.

    One Ferdinand starred in the movie "At Your Doors". 1962 year.

    (The film is about the battle near Moscow. In the background is the Tiger, but the film also contains real equipment (of the Germans) that took part in the hostilities at that time).
    2.
    The data on production volumes vary greatly, but with a high degree of probability it can be argued that by April 1945, BMM and Skoda managed to build about 3 Jagdpanzer 000 (t) self-propelled guns.

    2.1 The Czechs developed Hetzer on their own initiative.
    2.2 There is evidence that the last Hetzer left the factory on May 5, 1945.
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 April 9 2021 11: 42
      0
      Quote: BAI
      2.1 The Czechs developed Hetzer on their own initiative.
      2.2 There is evidence that the last Hetzer left the factory on May 5, 1945.

      Hetzer was not developed by the Czechs. This is the work of German engineers.
  • Gorynych_1977
    Gorynych_1977 27 January 2021 21: 50
    0
    Will there be a Dicker Max? Just wondering:-)
  • Catfish
    Catfish 27 January 2021 21: 50
    +8
    Sergey, thanks for another great article. Read with pleasure and interest. good
    An epigraph could have put a ditty from the magnificent film "In War, As In War":
    "Tank self-propelled gun loved,
    She took her to the forest for a walk.
    From such a romance
    The whole grove is broken. "(C) smile
  • Siberian54
    Siberian54 27 January 2021 21: 53
    +4
    They were awarded for the "Ferdinant", that's why they were "destroyed so many"
  • Revolver
    Revolver 27 January 2021 21: 58
    +4
    Many thanks to the Czech Slav brothers for outstanding engineering developments and hard work for the good of the Reich. angry
    For those who are especially dumb: it's sarcasm.
  • Incvizitor
    Incvizitor 27 January 2021 22: 11
    +4
    I saw Panzer IV / 70 for the first time, a wonderful one, as if a part of YAKPZ 4 had been welded onto the ST base ...
  • Petro_tut
    Petro_tut 27 January 2021 22: 17
    +3
    The people then sought to quickly finish off the enemy by any methods, any weapon, the main thing is to quickly
  • Jager
    Jager 28 January 2021 01: 34
    +2
    Interestingly, a rare late Stug.III with a "pig's snout" cannon mask
    1. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor 29 January 2021 03: 49
      0
      105 mm which?
  • yehat2
    yehat2 28 January 2021 09: 53
    +4
    it seems to me that the most valuable trophies were hummels and pieces-3
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 28 January 2021 10: 04
    0
    A total of 1943 Ferdinand self-propelled guns were built in May – June 90, of which 8 vehicles in varying degrees of safety were captured by the Red Army.


    As for the Fedya, after the Battle of Kursk, a well-known report was drawn up on the study of 21 vehicles left on the battlefield, of which one received a heavy bomb from a Pe-2 and was de-integrated to the point of being unable to determine the serial number. I don't know, maybe 8 pieces are those in respect of which it was still possible to speak about the possibility of repair. But how could one say about the burning scrap metal that it has some degree of preservation.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 28 January 2021 10: 32
    -1
    The effectiveness of the "waffle" should not be overestimated, in fact, it is a self-propelled gun carriage, its resistance to shelling is minimal, unlike even the "Nakhorn", which at least protects the crew from shrapnel.

    Pictures of broken "Hetzers" usually look gorgeous, just soft-boiled. How many Germans just because of this could not get out of these coffins. :)
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 April 9 2021 11: 40
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      unlike even the Nakhorn, which at least protects the crew from shrapnel.

      protection is formal rather than real. Protected only from small fragments.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 28 January 2021 12: 38
    +3
    Similar to the StuG.III Ausf. G characteristics were the StuG.IV self-propelled guns, created on the chassis of the Pz.Kpfw.IV medium tank. The reason for the design of this combat vehicle was the insufficient number of well-proven self-propelled guns StuG.III.

    And the reason for the insufficient number of StuG.IIIs was problems with the chassis, which arose after in November 1943 RAF worked twice at their manufacturer (Alkett).
  • kupitman
    kupitman 28 January 2021 17: 27
    +3
    Thank. Great article.
  • certero
    certero 28 January 2021 23: 49
    +3
    Great article just great! I haven't read such interesting ones for a long time. I didn't even think that the Germans had heaped up so many self-propelled guns.
    1. Alf
      Alf 29 January 2021 19: 40
      +5
      Quote: certero
      I didn't even think that the Germans had heaped up so many models of self-propelled guns.

      The Germans are thrifty and economical people, they did not lose anything ... if they even used SUCH ...

      If my memory serves me, their counterparts, the T-27, in the USSR had already been written off by the beginning of the war, and this is something with our not sorting out grubs.
  • kytx
    kytx 29 January 2021 02: 50
    0
    "The new anti-tank self-propelled gun was supposed to be as simple as possible, cheap, suitable for production in large quantities, mobile effective on the battlefield. Since German tank-building enterprises, due to bombing and lack of resources, were chronically unable to cope with the production of the required number of armored vehicles, so as not to reduce production German tanks, it was proposed to build the new vehicle on the basis of the outdated light tank Pz.Kpfw 38 (t). "

    As far as I know, Hetzer is an initiative development of the Czechs, but I won't insist :)
  • Romka47
    Romka47 29 January 2021 14: 27
    0
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    By the way, it would be nice, at the same time, to clarify about the names "Ferdinand" and "Elephant" ...

    Before "modernization" / and after. machine gun added
  • PilotS37
    PilotS37 29 January 2021 21: 33
    +3
    Many thanks to Sergey and for the cycle of his articles in general, and for the fact that here the readers do not argue with each other, but greet each other. You rarely see this on VO, but "Sergei's" is the norm! drinks
  • zenion
    zenion April 9 2021 19: 07
    0
    They pressed the Nazis from all sides, and they continued to release advanced military equipment.