Using panzerjaegers

[Frank W.]

Didn't they have a rotating turret (M-Series)?
So the question for me is (I wanted to ask that for a long time) what qualifies them as TD's (In the German sense = turretless) apart from naming them TD's? Wouldn't you count them as tanks?

american doctrine qualifies them.

also the differences to tanks:

weaker armor, fast, but hard hitting.

while the germans used big vehicles with
much armor like the j.tiger or j.panther.
but also the small ones like marder.

i think the american vehicles are most suited for
hit and run tactics. german light ones for ambushes
etc. ( not good in move + fire ) or the heavy ones
shotting from long range covered postitions.

[Poopyhead]

Okay, according to Panzer Leader, in 1943 Guderian wanted all assault guns, panzerjaeger and jagdpanzers replaced by real tanks (panzer IV or Panthers) in every panzer division. He wanted the assault guns and tank destroyer types to replace every ATG in the infantry units (I read that Rommel wanted 18 ATG's for every one of his infantry battalions in 1942, so you can use that as a guide.). His original orders were modified so that he only controlled heavy (schwere) assault guns, like the Ferdinand and the Elefant (which he thought were of limited use). Some of these vehicles were very dangerous (Jagdpanther), but the basic idea went away. There is no tank destroyer version of the Abrams.

[Losqualo]

I can understand his wish to replace StuGs and TD's in Panzerdivisions, but there weren't enough tanks to replace losses, so they had to fill them up with StuGs and TD's.
I think basically Guderian just wanted more tanks to be produced, even if that would mean less StuGs and TD's in production.

[Poopyhead]

Yes, he also wanted 400 tanks in every panzer division and that no new units should be created until all of the existing units were filled. Perhaps Hitler was the first to say, "I agreed with that, before I disagreed with it."

[Hunpecked]

ORIGINAL: Losqualo

I think basically Guderian just wanted more tanks to be produced, even if that would mean less StuGs and TD's in production.

As I understand Guderian in "Panzer Leader", he had three main problems with AG's and TD's:

1) Overall, tanks were more effective. TD's might be adequate on defense, but they couldn't match the flexibility of tanks in attack, counterattack, and mobile defense. As useful as AG's could be in some roles, they couldn't win the war; only tanks could do that.

2) AG's/TD's took resources from the production of tanks. Production of the early StuG III, for example, reduced production of the Panzer III, the Wehrmacht's MBT at the time. Presumably the lines could have switched to Panzer IV production later, but didn't. The Nashorn used a hybrid Pz III/Pz IV chassis; the line could have made Panzer IV instead. Jagdpanzer IV and Sturmpanzer IV production competed directly with Panzer IV output. The situation was the same with Jadgpanther and Panther.

On the other hand Guderian was all in favor of the Hetzer (Jagdpanzer 38t) because it was based on the obsolete Czech chassis; I assume it was impractical to convert these plants to Panzer IV or Panther production, so no reduction of tank output was required.

3) Although AG's/TD's were at first glance cheaper than tanks, the problems caused by proliferation of vehicle types (development costs, incompatible spare parts, training of mantenance personnel, subcomponent procurement, multiple production lines, etc.) actually made it more expensive to field a wide variety of AFVs, as compared to a few main types. Had the Wehrmacht concentrated on development and production of fewer (but more effective) AFV types, economies of scale and higher field availability rates might have made up the differences in production.

[Losqualo]

ORIGINAL: Hunpecked

As I understand Guderian in "Panzer Leader", he had three main problems with AG's and TD's:

1) Overall, tanks were more effective. TD's might be adequate on defense, but they couldn't match the flexibility of tanks in attack, counterattack, and mobile defense. As useful as AG's could be in some roles, they couldn't win the war; only tanks could do that.

I second that

2) AG's/TD's took resources from the production of tanks. Production of the early StuG III, for example, reduced production of the Panzer III, the Wehrmacht's MBT at the time. Presumably the lines could have switched to Panzer IV production later, but didn't. The Nashorn used a hybrid Pz III/Pz IV chassis; the line could have made Panzer IV instead. Jagdpanzer IV and Sturmpanzer IV production competed directly with Panzer IV output. The situation was the same with Jadgpanther and Panther.

On the other hand, StuG's and TD's were cheaper to produce. Theres a number going around, I can't confirm it, that for every Tiger I produced, Germany could have built 4 Jagdpanzer IV's. I don't want to speculate about the outcoming, but I think that Jagdpanzer IV's would have helped more in the defense of Germany...

3) Although AG's/TD's were at first glance cheaper than tanks, the problems caused by proliferation of vehicle types (development costs, incompatible spare parts, training of mantenance personnel, subcomponent procurement, multiple production lines, etc.) actually made it more expensive to field a wide variety of AFVs, as compared to a few main types. Had the Wehrmacht concentrated on development and production of fewer (but more effective) AFV types, economies of scale and higher field availability rates might have made up the differences in production.

Second that too, with one little doubt: If the OKW (="our Leader") hadn't allowed such developments as the "Elefant", "Maus" and others, that resources could have been more productive by concentrating on developments on the "main" chassis. I don't know Guderian's thoughts about that though

[Tequila]

Yea there's a lot to be said for keeping your line of AFVs as simple as possible like the USSR did. As the saying goes, "quantity has a quality all its own" and that's quite true of the T34 chassis used for their MBT and TDs. It doesn't have to be the best, just versitle and easy to produce. Hard to compete against 2000 T34s produced every month from Tankograd Amazing how long afterwards the T34/85 and SU-100 were still in existence.

[Frank W.]

PZ IV were used by arabs ( syrians ) in the 6 day war still- [;)]

[Maciste]

And the Israeli force used a mixed force of Shermans, Crusaders and even some elderly H-35 french tanks! Though I may be mistaking the 6 days war with some other Arab-Israeli war before...

[Hunpecked]

ORIGINAL: Losqualo

On the other hand, StuG's and TD's were cheaper to produce.

Well, as I mentioned in my third point above, you don't get the full picture just by comparing unit costs.

ORIGINAL: Losqualo

Theres a number going around, I can't confirm it, that for every Tiger I produced, Germany could have built 4 Jagdpanzer IV's.

I found this on the Achtung Panzer! site: "[Re: StuG] Cost of single Ausf G was 82500RM making it cheaper than both PzKpfw III Ausf M at 103163RM and PzKpfw IV Ausf F2 at 115962RM. It is interesting to see that almost four Ausf Gs could be purchased for the cost of single King Tiger."

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/stug.htm

The StuG/Tiger II comparison strikes me as a kind of apples/oranges thing. Data for the JPz IV/Pz IV would be more relevant, since the latter two were competing for the same chassis. In 1944-45 Germany built approximately 3500 Panzer IV and nearly 2000 JPz IV, plus several hundred other Panzer IV-based vehicles. This raises the question of whether Speer could have come up with 2500 or so extra Panzer IV turrets if given the resources that would otherwise have gone into superstructures and chassis modifications for the variant vehicles. I have no information on this, but it wouldn't surprise me if chassis diversion to TD's had left Germany with surplus Panzer IV turret capacity in 1944.

BTW, the same site mentions that Guderian tried to kill or at least curtail production of the JPz IV, because its chassis was needed for Pz IV production, and because the StuG and the Hetzer (which went into production before the JPz IV) filled the same role.

[RockinHarry]

A working tactic for thin skinned Panzer-Jagers (and AT-guns in general) would be to find a "keyholed" defense position, or IOW, a position/hex that provides you with a very limited field of fire that enables you to shoot at the enemy (preferably flank shots), with less danger of more than the targeted enemy unit beeing able to shoot back at you. If you´re lucky the first shot hits and destroys the enemy unit without detecting you and the enemy alway needs to move his units into your field of fire one at a time. It´s also good to know back-up positions, when the initial position is neutralized by flanking moves or smoke. That can be done in the deploy phase of the game, or later by moving (thus testing) less visible units (infantry scouts ect.) to possible new "keyholed" positions.

Re Jagdpanzers vs. Tanks:

I think it would´ve been best if Guderian would´ve had complete control on tank development and doctrine, but the inter army rivalties between SS, army and air force simply did not allow it. As long as guys like Goring or Himmler could march out and order any stuff they see fit directly from the industry independently, it was no wonder that german war efforts were scattered as they were. Also Hitler had his own "ideas" for what might be good for "his" army, so what could someone like Guderian do about it at last, also considering that Hitler didn´t really trust him? Was just the same as with other german military "professionals" like Manstein, Rommel, ect. They were all most capable military professionals, but more and more not allowed to do their "job" properly. The standard "halt at all costs" orders in the second half of the war surely favored the development of less mobile turretless combat vehicles, but IMHO this was just a logical adaption to the general faulty strategy, when it would have been more suited to allow for the mobile and flexible defence hat the german "professionals" were so good at when facing superior odds. Here the turreted tank surely would´ve been much better and flexible. Off course it didn´t quite work anymore properly in the west (and italy) in 1943/44 onwards due to western allied air supremacy. Without any sort of air cover, any movements/attacks at daylight are extremely hazardous, so I would say it doesn´t matter much whether you move/attack with a Jagdpanzer or a turreted tank in this regard.

Thus I would say the early Marders ect. were an emergency measure to deal with superior russian armor in 1941/42 until tanks were upgraded with better guns, while the later Jagdpanzers were an adaption to a wrong strategy (static/hold at all costs vs. elastic/mobile defense)

[Marek Tucan]

ORIGINAL: Losqualo

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

best tank killers: M10,M18,M36 and SU 85.

german ones had mostly some drawbacks made them not as good as the
above. exept that the M series was open topped they were good.

Didn't they have a rotating turret (M-Series)?
So the question for me is (I wanted to ask that for a long time) what qualifies them as TD's (In the German sense = turretless) apart from naming them TD's? Wouldn't you count them as tanks?

Definitely not, it isn't the construction details but purpose what qualifies them as TDs. Rotating turret was only a technical solution, with its pros and cons. But Wolverine, Hellcat and Jackson were definitely TDs. Try to use them as tanks and you'll get piles of burned metal...

[terje439]

My question is how to use panzerjaegers (marders, etc) effectively. Someone mentioned a while ago that they lose a lot of accuracy when moving, my testing bears this out.
Here are some possibilities.

Well I haven't been playing SPwaw that long, but in all other wargames like this, I use the rule of thumb I learned in Panzer General, when using TD's, MOVE offensively, and FIGHT defensively. Also, move your TD's were you expect a enemy attack/counterattack, but do not fire with them, let them stand there and use oppertunity fire. I always deploy atleast one platoon of TD's when I fight defend/delay/meeting advance. So long they have proven their worth by killing almost as many tanks as my 88s.

[Kokoda]

MOVE offensively, and FIGHT defensively

There was a general before Panzer General that said this...Robert E Lee.

One of the factors that characterises a great leader is the capacity to very simply state complex problems for broad application. It means that each subordinate commander has relatively simple rules that apply in many different situations. Lee exemplified this skill.

May be significant enough to nominate Lee as one of the great WWII commanders (on another thread), since these 'rules' clearly still have application a hundred years after he gave voice to them!

[MOTHER]

Yes ,all quite valid historical data and references,and an engaging topic.
The "modern" m1 abrahms afv as poopyhead described may be the 21st century answer :however the panzerjager concept still had alot of merit during the cold war .The S TANK as the swedes designated it ;still had alot of merit and development.Read this compelling article , look at the picture of this baby and imagine trying to destroy this , in defilade!.

[Poopyhead]

Yes, MOTHER, the "S" tank is certainly unique. If I remember correctly, it had hydraulic jacks to raise the whole tank and then turn it to aim the gun. Works great in the frozen north, but I wouldn't try it in the sands of the middle east.

[terje439]

RE: terge 439 (in reply to terje439)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

MOVE offensively, and FIGHT defensively

There was a general before Panzer General that said this...Robert E Lee.



well although I am a big Robert E.Lee fan, that was a well known fact for ages before that, however I learned it when playing Panzer general [;)]

[Roo]

In the turret vs. non-turret debate, the turreted TDs had one advantage over the non-turreted TDs - they could react faster due to the turret - useful when a tank suddenly appears slightly off centre.

[arras]

There is difference between tank destroyer and self propelled gun. At the beginning of war, there were no TDs in any army. StuG was not intended to be TD it was just self propelled gun and as such was “poor man” tank –cheap tank without turret. They were made to support infantry (role for which tanks were originally invented) and as was already sat, they were under artillery not tank command. Armored units were armed with regular tanks.

As post war analysis are showing, Germany was among worst prepared countries for war, especially for long lasting war. Hitler believed that war will be short which resulted to many mistakes. For example that military research projects which should not bring results soon were cut of finances or stopped and resources used elsewhere. This was reason why Germans often choose to modify inadequate equipment instead of spending time and recourses on new development which would not bring effect soon enough.

That’s why they rather continue to produce TDs or AGs on old chasses than switch to new type which would cost time and lower production. This approach one can see on many other examples like continuing of massive Bf109 production while A. Galland (fighters inspector) asked for switching all to FW190 or when Germans stopped development of heavy bombers at the beginning of WWII.

But back to TDs. During fights in France and later in USSR they found to have their tanks outclassed by enemy. Allied tanks were especially better armored than German ones. Ge tanks ruled the battlefield by revolutionary organization, tactic and crew training, not by tanks quality itself. And that was moment when tank destroyers were born. Quick (but not totally sufficient) solution was to put heavier gun on existing chassis. That costed turret and some superstructure of course. There were very small logistical problems since new vehicle used nearly all parts identical than original tank except gun and was in general more simple.

But tank is multipurpose weapon and to destroy other tanks is not its only role. Main role of tank is break through enemy defenses and use its mobility to break deep in to the enemy territory to surround, disorganize and hit infrastructure and supporting units. Remember, most of the German big tank victories were not head on battles but operations where big enemy formations were surrounded by two or three attacking arms and had to surrender. Germans rarely fought what allies did and what can be called “big material battles”.

TD (or AG) cant replace tank and was just used where there was not enough tanks, or where tanks could not manage to destroy enemy tanks. TDs were in general inferior to normal tanks and that is in my opinion quit realistically simulated in game. What cant (or only up to certain point) be simulated is “hit and run” tactic TDs used in war. Typically destroyer fired few rounds from prepared position and then moved to another one to avoid counter fire.

Interesting approach with using them would be to try to get many cheaper units which would bring bigger punch for the same money. I mean to try to organize your forces “economically” since your opponent have to live with the same starting points as you. What about core force of many cheap TDs with cheap supporting infantry to protect them? Of course this can’t be done in jungles of Pacific but in battles with open terrain where is possibility for long range firefight, something TDs were made for [;)]

[POTEMKIN]

Though I have only been playing WAW for a short while, I have seen that moving offensively, and then just before making contact with the enemy moving into a good fire position works best with JPZ'S/TD'S/SU'S but on the whole I would rather have a Pz IV than a Stug III/IV. The only turretless that I consider is the Stuh 42 as the 105mm is better against infatry than the 75's and the bigger guns dont pack much HE wise as they are AT rather than all purpose weapons.

On the PANZER VS STUG issue, I feel that once the descision was made by the insaniacs that NAZI germany there was nothing that could be done. Though it does providing an interesting learning experience much like multiple turrets were proven to be a mistake in the Winter war and early phases of barbarossa.