OK I know people hate general questions, I will try and be specific as I can! This is one for all you armour buffs (inlcuding you RB). Both these weapons were late war assault guns. Which was more affective weapon? (ok not very specific but let me know your thoughts anyway!) Cheers
StuG - good all round weapon system, decent a/t capability reasonably well armoured, low silouette. Hetzer - Good a/t capability, good frontal sloped armour, very small target and quite nippy! Both suffer from a limited frontal arc but are good 'defensive' weapons. The Hetzer is particuarly suited to 'hit and run' attacks...
Not a whole lot of difference between the two.The StuG factory was leveled by allied bombings and the available factory able to produce tanks didn't have the lifting capability to make them.Hence, the 'leichte Panzerjager' or Hetzer.15 tons and a low/small target.
As a mobile artillery piece, infantry support weapon and, defensive anti-tank weapon the StuG is far better than the Hetzer. The Hetzer has some very serious deficencies in its design. These include: * Horrible visibility when buttoned up. A Hetzer is virtually blind when in this condition. Anything not right in front of the vehicle is not going to be noticed. The late model StuG's had a commander's cupola installed to rectify this problem to a large degree. The Hetzer's driver has just two small vision blocks for a view. The commander is so far back on the vehicle it is difficult for him to see over it unless he exposes himself to a dangerous degree. * The Hetzer is extremely cramped. The loader, for example, has to load over the recoil deflector of the gun. With the gun at maximum left traverse it is nearly impossible for him to even load it at all! * The Hetzer has the least traverse of its gun of any German Self-propelled gun; 11 degrees right, 5 degrees left. This makes it nearly impossible to fire on a crossing target successfully. * The remote machine gun has just the 50 round assault drum on it. Changning drums is difficult and can only be accomplished from certain positions leaving the loader exposed in the process. The control handles are awkward and represent a significant obstruction inside the fighting compartment. * The Hetzer's hatches are small. This means in an emergency (like the vehicle being hit and on fire) the gunner and driver are very likely to die in their seats. These two crew have no hatch and must wait for the loader to exit the vehicle before they can in all conditions. Of course, a penetrating (likely given the thin side armor) hit on the left side of the vehicle is also likely to be fatal to all three as they are crammed in a row one behind the other on that side. * The postioning of the commander on the right rear of the vehicle behind the gun further complicates controlling the crew in action.
Hi Guys thanks for the info, great detail, the Hetzer is getting the thumbs down. I used some in a wargame the other night for the first time and thought they were nice unusual pieces, the low silouette seems to be their main advantage(you get a better chance to save as a consequence. I think Defensively and protected on the flanks is the way to go with either these or the the stugs! Thanks again for the info.
Improvements? None. The only differences between the Wehrmacht's Hetzers and a Swiss G-13 are that the later had a muzzle brake added and the original radios moved from behind the commander to a shelf on the left side of the vehicle next to the gunner. Oh, another little problem for the loader I failed to mention: All the ammunition is on the right side of the vehicle behind the gun or under it. This means he is trying to retrieve rounds from over the gun or from under it between the gunner and the vehicle commander. Neither is something easy to accomplish nor can it be done while the gun is firing. With full traverse right the ammunition is almost out of reach above the gun and there is virtually no room underneath to get at those rounds. This makes the ROF very low indeed.
