Armored vehicles of Germany in the Second World War. Tank destroyer Jgd Pz 38 (t) "Hetzer"

41
By the end of 1943, the command of the Wehrmacht, it became clear that light anti-tank self-propelled guns of the Marder family no longer fully meet the tasks assigned to them. This was due to the emergence of new opponents of Germany tanksbetter armored and armed. In turn, the "Marders", who also had quite powerful weapons, were protected by armor only nominally. A new, well-armored, compact, self-propelled gun was required - a tank destroyer.

Acceptance by German crews of new SAU Marder III


At the same time, a crisis came in the release of assault artillery. In November 1943, Anglo-American aviation subjected to a powerful and highly successful bombardment of the Berlin factory company Alkett. As a result of the airstrike, the workshops and equipment of the largest manufacturer of the main anti-tank weapon, the assault guns, were seriously damaged. The plan for the production of assault guns for 1944 was in jeopardy. To prevent this, Krupp joined in their release in December 1943. Since the latter was the general contractor for the manufacture of medium tanks Pz.IV, it is not surprising that, starting to manufacture assault guns, the Kruppists relied on the "fours". Thanks to the use of the cabin from StuG III, both self-propelled guns were unified by almost 20%. But the new StuG IV assault gun, firstly, turned out to be quite expensive, and secondly, the chassis of the Pz.IV tanks, which the Wehrmacht also lacked, were used for their production. A different solution was needed, for example, involving other enterprises in the production of assault guns. Specialists from the Armed Forces of the Ground Forces (Heereswaffenamt) turned their eyes to the Prague BMM plant (before the occupation - CKD).

Armored vehicles of Germany in the Second World War. Tank destroyer Jgd Pz 38 (t) "Hetzer"
Column of assault guns StuG 40 in anticipation of the team on the march. In the foreground the assault gun Ausf. G with a direct machine gun shield and additional on-board armor plates, which began to install 1942 on modifications from December. In the background the assault gun Ausf. F / 8, September – October 1942 release early modification


The factory was instructed to begin production of the StuG 40 assault gun. But this 23-ton combat vehicle was obviously too tough for him. It was then that they recalled the draft design of the new type of ACS - StuG PA - “the assault gun of the new sample” developed by VMM firm back in August - September 1943. Then it didn’t arouse much interest in the military, but now the factory received an urgent order to finish the project in a very short time.

17 December 1943, the military was introduced to the project documentation of the new combat vehicle. Its design was based on the units of both the Pz.38 (t) serial tank and the prototype TNHnA reconnaissance tank. It was supposed to use a recoilless weapon as a weapon, however, because of its unavailability, the anti-tank 75-mm Cannon 39 cannon was installed on the machine. By January 24 1944 was made a full-size wooden model of ACS, and soon the Arms Directorate ordered two prototypes, assigning the self-propelled gun the traditionally long name “Assault gun of a new type with 75-mm 39 Cancer chassis Pz.38 (t)”. As for the tank forces, the self-propelled unit was given the short name Leichte Panzerjager 38 (t) - a light tank destroyer on the Pz.38 (t) chassis. This mess of names ended in November 1944 with the assignment of the new self-propelled gun the name Jagdpanzer 38 (fighter tank) and the code Sd.Kfz.138 / 2. Finally, December 4 1944, by order of Hitler, the car was given the name Hetzer ("hetzer").

Jagdpanzer 38 (Fighter Tank) Hetzer


Most often in the literature this name translates as “hunter”, which in general does not contradict the truth, but to be more precise, the “hetzer” is a huntsman, canker, because “hetze” is harassment, that is, dog hunting. The first prototype of the self-propelled gun was made in March 1944. According to its layout, it represented a reckless machine with the placement of weapons in the front hull plate. The hull was made completely welded, with large angles of inclination of armor plates. Thus, the upper front sheet of the hull, which had a thickness of 60 mm, was inclined at an angle of 60 °, 40-mm lower frontal sheet had a slope of 40 °. The side sheets, the thickness of which did not exceed 20 mm, were located at an angle 15 °. The same thickness of the feed sheet - at an angle 40 °. Unlike all previous combat vehicles of the Czechoslovak design, the place of the Hetzer automatic engineer was to the left of the machine’s longitudinal axis. Behind him were placed the gunner and loader, and the place of the commander of the car was at the starboard side of the combat compartment. For the landing of the crew in the roof of the hull, which was made removable and attached to the sides and the front sheet with bolts, there were two hatches that were closed with double flap and single flap. The first was intended for landing the driver, the gunner and loader, the second - the commander.



Apparently, in order to reduce the cost, the Hetzer was not very well equipped with surveillance devices. The driver had two viewing slots with triplex glass blocks in the upper front hull sheet. The gunner could observe the terrain with the Sfl.Zfla periscope sight, and the loader through the periscope sight of the machine-gun mount on the roof of the hull. In addition, in the left hatch of the landing hatch, above the charging point, at an angle 90 ° to the axis of the hull (at the “9 clock” position), a periscopic observation device was rigidly fixed. Another such device was at the disposal of the commander of the machine. It was installed in the hinged cover of the overhead hatch in the position of the “6 clock”, that is, allowed to conduct observation in the stern. The commander could use a stereo tube, but only with the hatch open. With the hatches closed, the car was almost “blind” on the starboard side.

Jagdpanzer 38 (t) Hetzer


As mentioned above, the 75-mm Anti-tank Cannon 39 / 2 with a barrel length 48 caliber was used as the main armament on the Hetzer. It was installed in a narrow embrasure of the front sheet of the body slightly to the right of the longitudinal axis of the machine. The small size of the fighting compartment with a fairly massive breech of the cannon, as well as its asymmetrical installation in the fighting compartment led to the fact that the tool pointing angles to the right and left did not match (5 ° to the left and to 10 ° to the right). Vertical guidance was possible in the range from -6 ° to + 12 °.

It must be said that for the first time in German and Czechoslovak tank building such a fairly large-sized gun was able to fit into such a small combat compartment. This was made possible by the use of a special cardan frame instead of the traditional gun machine.

Trophy SU-85


Cancer 39 / Cancer 40 designed such a frame for an instrument in 1942 - 1943 for engineer K. Shtolberg, but for some time it did not inspire confidence in the military. However, after studying the Soviet SAU SU-1943 and SU-85 captured in the summer - autumn 152 of the year, the instruments of which were installed as part of the framework, the German command believed that the design was working. The Germans applied the frame first on the medium fighter jets of the Jagdpanzer IV and Panzer IV / 70 tanks, and later on the Jagdpanter. The frame, together with the 39 / 2 Cancer tool and the movable armored vehicle, was borrowed for the Hetzer from the SAG Jagdpanzer IV. By design and ballistics, the 39 / 2 Cancer was identical to the KwK 40 and StuK 40 guns. An armor-piercing projectile leaving the cannon with an initial speed of 790 m / s, at a distance of 1000 m, pierced 88-mm armor located at an angle of 30 °. A piercing projectile with an initial speed of 990 m / s at the same distance was piercing armor with a thickness of 97 mm.

Soviet convoy heavy ACS SU-152 on the march, Karelian Isthmus


Since the nose of the Hetzer turned out to be heavily overloaded (the empty ACS had a trim to the bow, leading to subsidence of the front section to 8 - 10 cm relative to the stern), the designers tried to make it easier. For this, in particular, in the early-production serial cars, the swinging armor of the gun was cut from the sides and sides, and then the suspension of the front support rollers was strengthened.

SAU Jagdpanzer IV


Cannons Cancer 39 / 2 equipped with a muzzle brake. However, on ACS Jagdpanzer IV in combat units, it was usually dismantled. When firing, due to the low height of the line of fire, the work of the muzzle brake raised a thick cloud of dust, which made it difficult to aim and unmasked the self-propelled gun. In a battle with enemy tanks, both were very significant. Serial self-propelled guns "Hetzer" left the shop without the muzzle brake of the gun - it was simply screwed, but in the factory.

The defensive machine gun MG 42 was placed on the roof of the ACS in front of the left hatch on the Rumdumfeuer installation and was covered with a corner shield. The fire from it led the loader.
Ammunition of the gun consisted of 40 - 41 shot, machine gun - from 1200 cartridges.

The 6-cylinder carburetor four-stroke in-line liquid-cooled Praga AE engine with a power of 160 hp was installed in the power compartment of the Hetzer. at 2600 rpm The use of this engine brought about changes in the exhaust system. Unlike the Praga EPA engine, which was installed on Pz.38 (t) tanks, the exhaust manifold on this engine was discharged upwards through the roof of the SAU power compartment, and not through the rear wall of the hull, like on a tank. The radiator with a capacity of 50 l was located in the power compartment behind the engine. The power was taken to the fan located behind the radiator from the engine crankshaft. The fuel used was leaded gasoline with an octane rating not lower than 74. It was also allowed to use an alcohol-gasoline mixture and dicalcol. The power system consisted of two gas tanks with a capacity of 220 L (left) and 100 L (right). In the course of engine operation, fuel from the right tank flowed into the left one. The fuel supply was carried out using an electric pump Solex Autopulse. The engine was equipped with two Solex 46 FNVP carburetors. The capacity of the fuel tanks ensured a power reserve of up to 185 km.

The torque from the engine to the gearbox was transmitted using a multi-disk main friction dry friction and propeller shaft. The Praga-Wilson gearbox is a five-speed planetary gearbox with a pre-selected gear. The speed range ranged from 4,1 km / h on 1-th gear to 42 km / h on 5-th, reverse gear provided the movement at a speed of 6,1 km / h. In front of the gearbox were differential, side clutches, final drives and brakes. It should be noted that during the tests of the captured “Hetzer” in the USSR, on a country road with solid ground, the self-propelled gun developed the maximum speed of 46,8 km / h.

The chassis, structurally similar to that of the Pz.38 (t), as applied to the code board, consisted of four single rubberized support rollers with a diameter of 810 mm, borrowed from the TNHnA tank. The track rollers were interlocked in pairs in two balance trolleys suspended on reinforced semi-elliptical leaf springs (the thickness of the sheets was increased from 7 to 9 mm). A cast drive wheel with two removable gear rims along the 19 teeth in each was in front. The guide wheel together with the caterpillar tensioning mechanism was located at the rear. On each side there was one single rubber-supported single skating rink. Each track had 96 - 98 tracks. Track width - 293 mm. The Hetzer track, compared to the Pz.38 (t), has been increased from 2140 mm to 2630 mm. The combat weight of the SAU was 16 t.

A German Hetzer tank destroyer (Jagdpanzer 38 (t) “Hetzer”) captured by Polish rebels on a barricade on Napoleon Square at the beginning of the Warsaw Uprising


The first serial self-propelled guns Jagdpanzer 38 left the gates of the plant in April MMN 1944. The initial order for the 1944 year was 1000 combat vehicles of this type. However, it quickly became clear that the production capacity of the VMM plant would not be enough to carry it out. Therefore, in July 1944 of the year, Skoda plants in Pilsen joined the production of ACS. The appetites of the military increased accordingly: in September, they wanted to get 400 “hetzerov” - 300 from VMM and 100 from Skoda! Further * production growth plans are striking both in their scope and unreality. So, in December, the Wehrmacht wanted 1944 XHUMX (700 + 400) 300, and 1945 1000 machines from each manufacturer in March 500! In reality, the production successes of Czechoslovak enterprises were much more modest. In April, 1944 “Hetzer” were made 20, in May - 50, in June - 100, in July - 110 (10 of them at the Skoda plant). Until February, 1945, both plants transferred only 2000 self-propelled guns to the Wehrmacht. Production reached its peak in January. The 1945 of the year when the 434 “Hetzer” (289 + 145) was manufactured. In March and April, both companies were heavily bombed by American aircraft, and the pace of release of combat vehicles began to subside. In April, managed to make only 117 machines. In total, for the year of production, the factory workshops left the 2827 self-propelled Hetzer units. Baptism "hetzer" received in the 731-th and 743-th anti-battalion battalions of the reserve of the main command (Heeres Panzerjager-Abteilung) in July 1944. Each battalion consisted of 45 vehicles: three companies of 14 vehicles and three self-propelled guns at the battalion headquarters. In August, the Hetzer companies of 1944 began to enter into service with infantry, chasseurs and militia divisions of the Wehrmacht and the SS forces. Each company had 14 machines. In addition, by the end of the war several more anti-tank battalions of the reserve of the main command had been formed. The Hetzer was actively used on all fronts until the last days of the war. On 10 on April 1945 of the year in the combat units of the Wehrmacht and the SS troops there were 915 SAU "Hetzer", of which 726 - on the Eastern and 101 - on the Western Front.

Hetzers were exported only to Hungary. In December, 1944 - January 1945, 75 machines of this type entered service with self-propelled artillery units of the 1 of the Hungarian tank division. They took part in battles in the Budapest area.

15 cm sIG 33 / 2 auf Jagdpanzer 38 (Hetzer-Bison)


On the basis of the Hetzer ACS, 20 flamethrower tanks Flammpanzer 38, 30 ACS Hetzer-Bison with 150-mm infantry guns sIG 33 and 181 BREM Bergepanzer 38 were manufactured. In addition to these machines, the Hetzer served as the basis for the manufacture of prototypes or the design of a whole series of prototypes of reconnaissance tanks, assault howitzers and anti-tank SAU. The most curious of them can be considered tank destroyer Hetzer Starr ("Hetzer-Starr"). The German word "Starr" is translated as "hard" or "fixedly fixed." In this variant, the 75-mm cannon barrel was rigidly connected to the frontal hull sheet, and there were no anti-recoil devices. To ensure horizontal and vertical guidance gun housed in a ball mount. The first prototype was made in May 1944, three more cars in September. All of them were sent to Alkett for further testing. In the winter of 1944 / 45, the VMM factory manufactured an experimental batch of ten Hetzer-Shtarr machines. And some of them were equipped with a Tatra 103 diesel engine with an 220 horsepower, with which the speed of the car increased slightly.

Flammpanzer 38 (t) Hetzer


The story of the "Hetzer" will not be complete without mentioning the post-war fate of this combat vehicle. 27 November 1945, the headquarters of the Czechoslovak Army Tank Forces decided to use for the needs of the national defense of the former German combat vehicles - the fighter of the Hetzer tanks, which received the new ST-I index, and the Marder, renamed ST-II. In addition, an unarmed version of the Hetzer, called the ST-II, was adopted by the post-war Czechoslovak Army to train the personnel of the tank forces. Over Czechoslovakia, more than 300 “Hetzers” were found, suitable for restoration and completion.
In February, 1946, the company CKD received an order for the manufacture or overhaul of 50 SAU ST-I and 50 training machines ST-III. The order was executed during 1946 - 1947's. At the same time, the ST-III kept the chassis and powerplant unchanged, while the casing underwent several modifications. A rectangular wheelhouse was installed on its roof, an instructor's turret took the place of the gun, and a rectangular access hatch was cut opposite the driver’s place in the armor.

In February, the 1947 of the year was followed by an order for the 20 ST-I, placed at Skoda, and at the end of the 1949 of the year, by another 30 machine. As a result, the army received 100 new ST-I and 50 self-propelled guns ST-III training machines. In total, taking into account the remaining from the Wehrmacht and the repaired cars in the Czechoslovak army as of 1 in January 1949, there were 246 SAU and three BREM Bergepanzer 38.

All of these combat vehicles entered service with the 21 and 22 tank tanks, which were to become the basis for the formation of motorized divisions. However, in 1948, they were transformed into the 351 and 352 regiments of self-propelled artillery. In these parts, the ST-I tank destroyers and the StuG III assault guns (the Czechoslovak designation ShPTK 40 / 75) were operated until the beginning of the 1950-s. Later, as Soviet-made military equipment arrived at the Czechoslovak People’s Army, the German vehicles were transferred to the reserve and then written off.

In February, 1949, the company CKD began to develop a flamethrower tank on the chassis ST-I. It was planned to arm 75 combat vehicles with flamethrowers. In the prototype, the standard 75-mm gun was dismantled, and its embrasure was muffled by the armor plate. A rotating cylindrical turret was placed on the roof of the hull, in which the German flamethrower Flammenwerfer 41 and the Soviet machine gun DT were located in two separate ball units. The prototype, designated the PM-1, was made by February 1951. However, his tests were not very encouraging - the range of flame throwing was clearly insufficient, only 60 meters. Prague factory Konstrukta took up the modernization of the flamethrower. At the end of May, the 1953, a tank equipped with a new flamethrower with a firing range of up to 140 m, entered testing. However, the military soon said that they were no longer interested in this type of combat vehicle.

G-13 Hetzer. Swiss Hetzer G-13


After the end of World War II, interest in the ST-I tank destroyer was shown by Switzerland, which was armed with Czechoslovak-made tanks. 15 August 1946 Switzerland ordered eight machines of this type, giving them the designation G-13. Skoda quickly manufactured the required machines, using the groundwork left by the Germans. However, another order for 1946 machines, which followed in November 100, was on the verge of collapse, as there were no 39 / 2 Cancer tools available. Nevertheless, a solution was soon found: it was proposed to install the guns StuK 40, which were produced by the Skoda plant during the war years, into the SAU building. After some constructive refinement, this tool was able to be placed in the combat compartment of the self-propelled gun. In addition, at the request of the customer, instead of the Praga AE gasoline engine, starting with the 65 machine, they began to install Sauer-Arbon diesel horsepower 148. To improve the view, the commander's hatch in the G-13 was moved from the starboard to the left (the commander and loader changed places) and was equipped with a turning periscope. And instead of a defensive machine gun on the stern of the ACS, an anti-aircraft turret was installed. All cars were equipped with Swiss-made radio stations.

ACS liked the Swiss so much that in 1947, they also ordered 50 units G-13. The latest 20 machines were transferred to the customer only February 16 1950 of the year. In service with the Swiss army, these tank destroyers consisted until the 1968 year.

In the acquisition of ST-I was interested and Israel. The Czechoslovak Ministry of Defense was preparing the transfer of 65 self-propelled guns and 6000 75-mm shots. However, the seller and the buyer did not agree on the price and the transaction did not take place.

Led by artillery and destroyed by an internal explosion fighter of tanks "Hetzer" (Jagdpanzer 38). The aircraft's A-011 board number, which was typical of the Hungarian units. In addition, the name Hokosh (Hokos) is inscribed on the front of the hull. The number of the Soviet trophy team "14". One of the canals in the Lake Balaton area


German tank destroyer Hetzer in Prague


"Hetzer" anti-tank company of the SS division "Florian Geyer." Hungary, 1944 year


Undercarriage G-13 in private collection, close to Wehrmacht's Hetzer, but issued by the commander's Swiss viewing instrument


SAU Panzerjager 38 (t) "Hetzer" in the Armored Museum in Kubinka
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Brother Sarych
    +3
    20 August 2012 09: 45
    A small and effective self-propelled gun - it’s a pity that it was created by the enemy ...
  2. +1
    20 August 2012 09: 50
    It would be interesting to read about combat use ...
    1. +8
      20 August 2012 09: 57
      And what about the combat use - from an ambush she fired on skis, if she had time. Or did not have time.
      1. DIMS
        +2
        20 August 2012 10: 09
        Quite an effective tactic. She helped a lot during the Balaton defensive operation. After it, the Sherman tankers still scolded, it was difficult to hide because of the high altitude
        1. +2
          20 August 2012 10: 32
          Quote: DIMS
          After it, the Sherman tankers still scolded, it was difficult to hide because of the great height

          Let’s you better talk about howitzers?
          1. DIMS
            +1
            20 August 2012 10: 44
            Nevertheless, this fact is mentioned in the book of Isaev and Kolomiyets. You can write an angry letter to the authors

            The share of American M4 "General Sherman" got predominantly formidably abusive epithets. Perhaps this was also connected with some political aspects, but the tanks in the conditions of the January and March battles turned out to be rather inactive, unstable on muddy-icy roads and muddy soil, and also too bulky with medium combat capabilities. The use of these "houses" (as tankers called them) in conditions of undersized shrubs and single-story Hungarian buildings that prevailed in the area of ​​Lake. Balaton was problematic even for ambush fights.
            1. 0
              20 August 2012 10: 51
              Quote: DIMS
              You can write an angry letter to the authors

              Why should the authors? They simply retold the words of the tankers who had censored and postwar downplayed the role and quality of the Lend-Lease technique, and the authors mention this in their manuscripts.
              But to retell this knowing that Sherman is a few centimeters higher with the appearance that he is a meter and a half higher, for me personally, this is bad manners.
              1. DIMS
                +1
                20 August 2012 11: 02
                I have already suggested that you write an abusive letter to them.
                In addition, 234 Shermans, 292 IS-2, 177 T-34 76/85 and 207 self-propelled guns took part in the operation. Not surprisingly, the Shermans were compared primarily with the IS-2, which, having a comparable height, had clearly higher characteristics.
                1. 0
                  20 August 2012 11: 04
                  Quote: DIMS
                  write to them

                  Veterans?

                  And so everything is already described
                  Driving practice and tactics took place on the T-26 and BT-7, and shot from the tanks on which they were trained. First from “Matilda” and “Valentine”, and then from T-34. Honestly, we were afraid that they might let us out on foreign tanks: “Matilda”, “Valentine”, “Sherman” are coffins. True, their armor was viscous and did not give splinters, but the driver was sitting separately, and if you turned the tower, and at that time you were knocked out, the driver will never get out of the tank. Our tanks are the best. The T-34 is a wonderful tank. ”

                  It seems that both front-line soldiers received instructions on how to answer questions on Lend-Lease technology in the same office. However, there is nothing surprising - a stamp is a stamp, it was driven into people’s consciousness, and as it really was, no one thinks. You might think that driver mechanics jumped out of our tanks easily and simply. Especially from the IS-2, which had no driver's hatch at all! As regards the aforementioned foreign tanks, Burtsev’s statement regarding the British vehicles is perplexing, since the design of the hatches allowed the driver to leave them at any position of the tower. Only at the "Sherman", in the event that the gun’s barrel is on the driver’s hatch, it is impossible to open it. However, to conclude on this basis that imported cars are “coffins”, and “our tanks are the best” are somewhat hasty. The KB driver could have found himself in exactly the same situation, and somehow you hadn’t heard that on the T-34 the driver, due to the design of his hatch, died less often than the rest of the crew. By the way, on most domestic post-war tanks, when the gun barrel is located above the driver’s hatch, the latter cannot leave the tank. True, despite this, they are also considered the best in the world.

                  1. DIMS
                    -2
                    20 August 2012 11: 16
                    Especially from the IS-2, which had no driver's hatch at all!


                    And therefore "Sherman" is better than the IS-2 ... Original.
                    1. +1
                      20 August 2012 11: 19
                      Quote: DIMS
                      Therefore, the Sherman is better than the IS-2 ...

                      Where is it written? For your information, Is and Sherman are usually not compared, these are tanks of different classes.
                      1. DIMS
                        +2
                        20 August 2012 11: 29
                        Then you gave the wrong quote? Or did Baryatinsky "confuse" something in the heat of the discussion?


                        view of the place of the driver IS-2


                        By the way, it's hard not to compare. I have indicated above the number of tanks and self-propelled guns that fought at Lake Balaton. The IS-2 was by no means a "rare bird" among the troops.
                      2. 0
                        20 August 2012 11: 38
                        Quote: DIMS
                        Then did you quote the wrong one?


                        What is mixed up? Where is better worse? Communicating with you, I'm starting to think worse about the military.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Especially from the IS-2, which had no driver's hatch at all!

                        Did he have a driver's hatch or not? And the fact that you are making a generalized conclusion on this phrase makes me perplexed and doubtful about your adequacy.
                      3. DIMS
                        0
                        20 August 2012 11: 48
                        You have a problem reading. Baryatinsky wrote in black and white:
                        You might think that driver mechanics jumped out of our tanks easily and simply. Especially from the IS-2, which had no driver's hatch at all!

                        Cool, it turns out that the IS-2 MV had problems with quickly leaving the car. The fact that the emergency hatch in the IS-2 was immediately behind the MV seat, Baryatinsky did not prudently indicate.

                        Communicating with you, I am starting to think worse of the military.

                        And communicating with you, I affirm the opinion of specialists in everything that is possible
                      4. 0
                        20 August 2012 11: 58
                        Quote: DIMS
                        MV IS-2 had problems with quickly leaving the car

                        There were, the fur had water --- either two hatches of the user, or one.
                        Quote: DIMS
                        that the emergency hatch in the IS-2 was right behind the MV seat

                        And in this phrase that I brought up there is a debriefing where there are emergency hatches for different tanks? This is a personal mech.water hatch.
                        Quote: DIMS
                        And communicating with you, I affirm the opinion of specialists in everything that is possible

                        And watching you, I see that I am not the only one who expresses doubts about your qualifications, I liked reading on Tornodo G
                      5. DIMS
                        0
                        20 August 2012 12: 09
                        And in this phrase that I brought up there is a debriefing where there are emergency hatches for different tanks? This is a personal mech.water hatch.

                        This phrase indicates that the CF had problems with emergency abandonment of the tank. And that’s it. Read carefully.

                        And watching you, I see that I am not the only one who expresses doubts about your qualifications, I liked reading on Tornodo G

                        And I read your opus about torpedoes and stuff and frankly pinned. Militant amateurism.
                      6. 0
                        20 August 2012 12: 16
                        Quote: DIMS
                        This phrase indicates that the CF had problems with emergency abandonment of the tank. And all

                        Is that all?
                        Quote: DIMS
                        And therefore "Sherman" is better than the IS-2

                        Great conclusion.

                        Quote: DIMS
                        about torpedoes and stuff, and frankly pinned

                        You are seen in this as an amateur, but submariners adhere to my point of view. As well as the axiom that armor-piercing torpedoes with uranium tips and copper melting rings do not exist.
                      7. DIMS
                        +2
                        20 August 2012 12: 30
                        Is that all?

                        Can't you read? I will quote again:
                        You might think that driver mechanics jumped out of our tanks easily and simply. Especially from the IS-2, which had no driver's hatch at all!


                        You are seen in this, you are an amateur, and submariners adhere to me and my point of view

                        Of course amateur. And so I did not go into the discussion. Unlike you, an expert in everything that is possible.
                      8. 0
                        20 August 2012 13: 10
                        Quote: DIMS
                        Can't you read? I will quote again:
                        You might think that driver mechanics jumped out of our tanks easily and simply. Especially from the IS-2, which had no driver's hatch at all


                        And what is it if it's true? More important is this quote
                        Quote: Kars
                        It seems that both front-line soldiers received instructions on how to answer questions on Lend-Lease technology in the same office. However, there is nothing surprising - a stamp is a stamp, it was driven into people’s consciousness, and as it really was, no one thinks

                        Quote: DIMS
                        Unlike you, an expert in everything that is possible

                        Well, not in everything, but about the torpedoes I was quite interested in it. And as for the expert, in principle, the administration of this resource did not disdain to contact me with questions.
                      9. DIMS
                        0
                        20 August 2012 21: 26
                        And as for the expert, in principle, the administration of this resource did not disdain contacting me with questions.


                        What do you think of the Hicks bason? What are scientists doing wrong and what are the causes of problems with the LHC?
                      10. 0
                        20 August 2012 22: 24
                        Quote: DIMS
                        What do you think of the Hicks bason?

                        I don’t think about him.

                        I was more interested in this)))))
                        Quote: DIMS
                        And I read your opus about torpedoes and stuff and frankly pinned

                        Quote: DIMS
                        You are seen in this, you are an amateur, and submariners adhere to me and my point of view
                        Of course amateur.


                        So why could you be kidding yourself? From yourself? If you yourself admit that you are a delitant, and for some reason make fun of a topic? Or was it for fun ..opus .. one friend about the armor-piercing copper core of RPG 7? (These are not my words, but then you’ll start clever)
                        Quote: DIMS
                        What do you think

                        so that you won’t break your head looking for clever words I will say that they asked me about the armored vehicles of the WWI.
                      11. DIMS
                        0
                        20 August 2012 23: 01
                        So why could you be kidding?

                        With your boundless confidence in your rightness. You can judge the guns without knowing the loading density. About tactics without reading the combat manual. About the radar without knowing about the radio horizon. About "Genocide", considering it a howitzer.

                        so that you won’t break your head looking for clever words I will say that they asked me about the armored vehicles of the WWI.

                        Are you not an expert in everything else?
                      12. 0
                        20 August 2012 23: 09
                        Quote: DIMS
                        With your unlimited confidence in your innocence

                        About the fact that the MK-48 is not an armor-piercing torpedo, I'm sure.
                        Quote: DIMS
                        About the radar without having a clue about the radio horizon.

                        I cited the data that the radar of the boat is more than Oleg ascribes to the destroyer.
                        Quote: DIMS
                        About "Genocide", considering it a howitzer
                        if you quote my quote where I wrote that Geocint howitzer, I admit that I was wrong.
                        But I argued that modern self-propelled guns such as Donar, G6, Slamer are guns that have been given the opportunity to shoot at large elevation angles.
                        Quote: DIMS
                        Are you not an expert in everything else?

                        On other issues, there are more competent people who do not attribute the sub-caliber shells to the D-30 howitzer.
                      13. DIMS
                        0
                        20 August 2012 23: 19
                        But I argued that modern self-propelled guns such as Donar, G6, Slamer are guns that have been given the opportunity to shoot at large elevation angles.

                        Megaprikol.

                        On other issues, there are more competent people who do not attribute the sub-caliber shells to the D-30 howitzer.

                        One mistake, is that all you can show me? Not much.
                      14. 0
                        20 August 2012 23: 38
                        Quote: DIMS
                        Megaprikol.

                        This is you. Who even does not know the basics of artillery, and believes that the projectile trajectory does not depend on the elevation angle of the barrel.
                        Quote: DIMS
                        One mistake, that's all

                        It’s too lazy to list everything, but it’s clear that you studied worse in art school than I did on an urgent trip to Hyacinth.
                      15. DIMS
                        0
                        20 August 2012 23: 48
                        This is you. Who even does not know the basics of artillery, and believes that the projectile trajectory does not depend on the elevation angle of the barrel.

                        No, it's me from the fact that you just repeated the "mistake" with 3A36. There is no howitzer on the G6.

                        It’s too lazy to list everything, but it’s clear that you studied worse at art school than I did in urgent hyacinth

                        And then. especially if there is only one mistake. And how did you and "Hyacinth" burst after serving on it?
                      16. 0
                        21 August 2012 00: 05
                        Quote: DIMS
                        that you just made a mistake with 3A36. There is no howitzer on the G6

                        Really?
                        G6 "Rhino" (Russian "Rhinoceros") - a modern South African 155-mm self-propelled artillery mount (SPG) of a class of self-propelled howitzers. It can fire at targets from closed positions and direct fire. The self-propelled gun G6 is an armored chassis with a 6 × 6 wheel arrangement and a rotating turret mounted on it with a 155 mm howitzer.

                        HV angles, deg. −5 ... + 75 °
                        Corners GN, hail. −40 ... + 40 °

                        But from the long-range cannon of which Chislits Hyacinth it differs (art part) only by a large elevation angle
                        Quote: DIMS
                        And how did you and "Hyacinth" burst after serving on it?

                        You didn’t bring it like I was mistaken, so you are lying, even though it is from a .. jackal .. (officer) is expected.
                      17. DIMS
                        0
                        21 August 2012 00: 15
                        Really?

                        Truth. This is a howitzer gun. You do not call Hyacinth-S self-propelled howitzer?

                        You didn’t bring it like I was mistaken, so you are lying, even though it is from a .. jackal .. (officer) is expected.
                        Open the topic yourself and see.
                      18. DIMS
                        0
                        21 August 2012 00: 19
                        even though it’s from a .. jackal .. (officer) expected


                        Clear. I wrote to you in a personal read.
                      19. 0
                        21 August 2012 00: 29
                        I replied.
                        And the question of bringing evidence where I think you went with Hyacinth remains valid.
                2. 0
                  20 August 2012 16: 12
                  Quote: DIMS
                  The Shermans were compared primarily with the IS-2

                  No one ever compares the IS-2 and Sherman, their application is radically different, and the structure of the units is also different. It's about the same as comparing the Tiger and T-34-76, although in principle this is not the first time for you as a noble specialist
                  1. DIMS
                    0
                    20 August 2012 21: 24
                    Participants in the battles must have contacted you before comparing. They, unlike you, were not Yksperts in everything that is possible.
                    1. 0
                      20 August 2012 22: 18
                      Quote: DIMS
                      Those participating in the battles should definitely contact you

                      And do you try to prove that these are the words of those participating in the battles, and not the political officer from the rear? A term such as - average firepower is enough
                      and once again I focus on this phrase--
                      Quote: Kars
                      It seems that both front-line soldiers received instructions on how to answer questions on Lend-Lease technology in the same office. However, there is nothing surprising - a stamp is a stamp, it was driven into people’s consciousness, and as it really was, no one thinks
                      1. DIMS
                        0
                        20 August 2012 22: 51
                        These are not the words of the political instructor, this is the book of Kolomiyets. And he immediately speaks of a possible political background, without resorting to feints with his ears, as Baryatinsky did. And so I believe him.
                      2. 0
                        20 August 2012 23: 04
                        Quote: DIMS
                        this is a book of Colomian

                        I hope you do not ascribe it to the participant in the events?
                        Quote: DIMS
                        about a possible political background

                        That's it.
                        Quote: DIMS
                        without resorting to feints with ears as Baryatinsky did.

                        Was this the type of hiccup-water hatch on Is-2 that disappeared? Is it clear in the text that Sherman is the coffin, because at a certain position of the tower the mech of water cannot use the hatch --- like ARGUMENT. Why not pay attention to the HF itself on the IP it does not exist at all. The very same height is 5 cm higher, but it is written as if 150 cm, the same feint.
                      3. DIMS
                        0
                        20 August 2012 23: 15
                        I hope you do not ascribe it to the participant in the events?

                        He is a man trying to deeply understand the issue before writing a book.

                        The height itself is 5 cm higher, but it is written as if 150 cm, the same feint

                        Or can tanks compare in height of antennas?
                      4. 0
                        20 August 2012 23: 40
                        Quote: DIMS
                        He is a man trying to deeply understand a question before writing a book.

                        I like his books, but he relies, like everyone else, on the testimonies of the participants, and for those who are too narrow-minded you even openly write about political overtones.
                        Quote: DIMS
                        Or maybe by the height of the antennas tanks compare

                        Generally compared on the roof of the tower. Although you will become.
                      5. DIMS
                        0
                        20 August 2012 23: 45
                        and for those foolish as you

                        All of us, except you, a great expert, are not far, I have long understood this.

                        Generally compared on the roof of the tower

                        But from this place more
                      6. 0
                        20 August 2012 23: 53
                        Quote: DIMS
                        All of us

                        Quote: DIMS
                        I have understood this for a long time

                        You have two or three such people on the site - and you had to shove your nose.
                        Quote: DIMS
                        But from this place more

                        really on the antennas?
                      7. DIMS
                        0
                        20 August 2012 23: 59
                        You are two or three such people on the site - and you had to shove your nose

                        Try to shove. But not very good due to lack of knowledge.

                        really on the antennas?

                        Let's compare the Sherman and the T-34-85 on the turret roof.
                      8. 0
                        21 August 2012 00: 10
                        Quote: DIMS
                        Try to shove. But not very good due to lack of knowledge.

                        Shoved, shoved - not I retold the old bike about
                        Quote: DIMS
                        After it, the Sherman tankers still scolded, it was difficult to hide because of the great height

                        Quote: DIMS
                        Let's compare the Sherman and the T-34-85 on the turret roof.

                        I gave you a comparison of frontal projections.

                        And whatever you think that the roofs of the towers is not a running parameter, I will give it a mention.
                        Combat and technical characteristics of the T-72B
                        Combat weight - 44,5 t
                        Crew - 3 people.
                        The height on the roof of the tower - 2226 mm
                        Cannon - 125 mm smoothbore - launcher
                        Ammunition - 45 shots
                        Types of ammunition - BPS, BKS, OFS, guided missile
                        You do not see the antenna as you thought.
          2. +1
            20 August 2012 10: 44
            Kars,
            Andrey, visually Sherman really seems taller, he reminds me of a one-humped camel,
            1. +1
              20 August 2012 10: 53
              It’s necessary to watch at least 200 meters,
              1. 0
                20 August 2012 11: 10
                Quote: Kars
                It’s necessary to watch at least 200 meters,

                , why with 200, where I was t 34 and the Sherman is standing next to it, the Sherman only has the case above correctly put it, and from the ground to the highest point are almost the same, as I couldn’t get into 34 through the emergency hatch and into the Sherman , at the Sherman, it is located in the middle of the tank, crawled on the back, in short, as well as in the 34th high
                1. 0
                  20 August 2012 11: 22
                  Quote: igor67
                  why with 200

                  That would reveal the difference in dimensions, whether or not there is a glaring huge tall Sherman next to the little T-34.
                  In general, it is simply not clear why Sherman was dragged here into the Hetzer theme.
                  1. 0
                    20 August 2012 11: 25
                    Kars,
                    Quote: DIMS
                    After it, the Sherman tankers still scolded, it was difficult to hide because of the great height
                    just for that, slid toward Sherman.
                    1. +1
                      20 August 2012 11: 31
                      justify the video
                      1. 0
                        20 August 2012 12: 29
                        This is most likely a post-war Czech.
                        and here is how the German war ended.
              2. spd2001
                0
                20 August 2012 14: 31
                This is a disguise! It's five! Clearly between two trees good How "native" entered
          3. Brother Sarych
            0
            20 August 2012 21: 19
            So the difference of 4 cm is obtained, but the T-34-85 is from the top of the head on the commander’s cupola, but with the usual T-34 the difference is 30 cm (this is, in fact, a lot) and the top of our tank is much narrower, although the tank itself is noticeably wider ...
            As a target, Sherman is simply a miracle, a sin to miss ...
            1. 0
              20 August 2012 22: 28
              Quote: Brother Sarich
              but with the usual T-34 the difference is 30

              and there were a lot of them in 1944-45? and 30 cm is not enough, at a distance of over 300 meters - and there wasn’t much difference in German optics.
              German statements about the ease of defeating the Shermans should be sought in the year when they faced them en masse ---- and this happened in 1944, when the Germans went through rearmament of their artillery, the mass anti-tank gun PAK-40, elongated guns on tanks, meet the Shermans in 1941 descriptions would be similar to the panic reviews of the T-34.
      2. +1
        20 August 2012 10: 21
        Hi drinks
        namely, cheap, practical, good in defense, (when it is unlikely to advance already), a weighed machine. not ideal, but not a nightmare.
        This is my IMHO.
      3. 0
        20 August 2012 10: 34
        In principle, it also had the function of supporting infantry, and so the situation on the fronts exerted its influence.
    2. 0
      20 August 2012 11: 41
      fortunate to have a late release ... always liked the hatzer
  3. +3
    20 August 2012 11: 02
    A good car drank a lot of blood for us, a light. Powerful gun, low silhouette. Low production costs quite massive — ideal self-propelled guns. It would have been harder for our tankers to arm up the T-34.
  4. borisst64
    +3
    20 August 2012 12: 27
    Here is a technique made by the Czechs.
    Quote from a modern Czech newspaper:
    "Workers of Czech factories, in protest against fascism, went to work only in black clothes. History knows no examples of more massive and fearless resistance to the enemy."
    Critters !!!
    1. spd2001
      0
      20 August 2012 14: 38
      Too bad it wasn't brown. It would be "the most fearless of the most"
    2. +1
      20 August 2012 14: 46
      Quote: borisst64
      Critters !!!


      Not all cases were when sheets were extracted from Czech books during bombing from unexploded German bombs.
    3. 0
      20 August 2012 22: 26
      Bullshit! Is that really written? The Czechs simply fell under the Fritz. I read the memoirs of veterans, the only ones who spoke with respect (soldier’s, if I may say so) are Hungarians.
    4. +1
      12 February 2014 18: 17
      Quote: borisst64
      Quote from a modern Czech newspaper:
      "Workers of Czech factories, in protest against fascism, went to work only in black clothes. History knows no examples. more massive and fearless resistance to the enemy"
      And more useless!
  5. 0
    20 August 2012 21: 12
    "Hetzer" (German Hetzer - "Huntsman") or Jagdpanzer 38 - German light self-propelled artillery unit (ACS) of the class of tank destroyers. It was used during the Second World War. According to the German departmental designation system, military equipment bore the index Sd.Kfz.138 / 2. It was developed by the Czechoslovak company BMM on the chassis of the light tank Pz.KpfW.38 (t) in November 1943 - January 1944 as a cheaper and mass replacement for the StuG III assault guns, but later it was reclassified as a tank destroyer, intended primarily for manning anti-tank units of infantry and cavalry divisions.
    The Hetzer series production began in April of the 1944 of the year, all in all, at least 2827 self-propelled guns of this type were produced before the war ended. Self-propelled guns were actively used by German troops at the final stage of the war, mainly on the Soviet-German front. 75 "Hetzer" in December 1944 - January 1945 of the year was also transferred to Hungary. After the war, the production of the “Hetzer” was resumed in Czechoslovakia, where self-propelled guns were produced for the needs of their own army under the designation ST-I / ST-III, and also by order of Switzerland under the designation G-13. In total, from 1946 to the beginning of the 1950's, another 318 self-propelled guns were released. Although the Hetzer were retired in Czechoslovakia a few years after the end of production, in Switzerland they remained in service until the 1972 year.
  6. +2
    20 August 2012 21: 50
    The animal was beautiful and biting.
    I like books / articles by M. Svirin.
    About him - "Hetzer" - A small but terrible beast. Accurately and succinctly said.

    Who is interested - I advise you to read.

  7. 0
    20 August 2012 22: 17
    And we alone hetzer fascists nastilyat! angry
  8. +1
    21 August 2012 09: 10
    Quote: borisst64
    This is the technique used by Czechs. A quote from a modern Czech newspaper: "Workers of Czech factories, in protest against fascism, went to work only in black clothes. History knows no examples of more massive and fearless resistance to the enemy" Beasts !!!

    This is what. The French resistance in response to the fact that the Germans limited the time for the sale of alcohol added laxatives to the Germans in food. The struggle was not for life but for death.
    1. 0
      12 February 2014 18: 19
      The French resistance in response to the fact that the Germans limited the time for the sale of alcohol added laxatives to the Germans in food.
      Brothers, is this really not a post-war joke?

      And after that they are WINNERS ?? !! ...
  9. 0
    12 February 2014 18: 20
    An interesting car, but in shape it looks more like coffins on wheels.
  10. 0
    14 February 2020 22: 33
    The hatzer was small and manoeuvrable and could quickly change positions.