Where would YOU serve in WW2?

Always been one of my "Fave's". Best "Tank Destroyer of the war hands down. My Uncle rode a M-36 in the 10th Armored Division, hence my love of tanks. First in the relief of Bastonge, one of Pattons boys.
He hated his job, and was scared ****less most of the time. Him and my old man used to exchange war stories who was 9th Army Air Force (Mustangs). He fixed radios and set up communications, not a pilot. Definately in a position to eavesdrop on all conversations by radio.
My old man used to berate my uncle by telling him he never fought any tanks, he just called in air support.
My uncle said they didn't want to see any allied aircraft either, because they didn't look for markings or care who they dropped their bombs/rockets on!
It was fun listening to them. He gave me a neat K-98 which I still have.

 

scuze me 11th Armored.

 

A Jagdpanzer "Hetzer";

A StuG IV;

The Hetzer was the 'stop-gap'.

 

Actually, from what I have read, all Hetzer crews loved it. May have been cramped but it was reliable.

 

Der "Hetzer" didn't show up till 44, almost 6-months after.
Stug IV (actually StuK 40)... hybrid of StuG III superstructure on Pz Kw IV chassis. Word for word from - German tanks of world war 2 vonSenger und Etterlin.
Hetzer variants mit "flam" thrower und L-70 (Panther gun) in the 38(d) versions. Used by Swiss post war.
The Hetzer is a "cutie-pie". Good mobility, quite deadly, well sloped & armored, and easy to hide because of its size. A good use of the 38 chassis.

 

I can't see anyone "wanting" to be in one of those death trap Hetzers! Here is a commentary by an ex-Hetzer commander:

Hetzer commentary

 

I've books on the Russian front which say "most" German tankers didn't like assult guns in almost "any" design (x-cept perhaps Erichs mention).
Most attacks against them came from the side, in ambush, from anti-tank guns.
The standard response to this was to go around them and attack them from the side. Hoping your mobility would exceed theirs in getting their guns turned & dug in again.
Almost "all" would have rather had a full rotating turret to enguage these tatgets while performing this manuver. To be specific, the Panzer IV.
The "assult guns" could not do this, and were either forced to face the threat (doing exactly what the enemy wants, in exactly the place they want it to happen), or just "take it" until you get around them. Neither was a welcome option.
I've got a good picture of a American GI (you probably all do) posing with his Bazooka next to his Hetzer victim. It put a neat little hole right in the middle of the side of the upper superstructure.

 

Except for the first one, most (no turret) tank destroyers from the Germans were stop-gap measures.
Bulit up hulls are quicker & less expensive to build than tanks. Turrets with large guns come from years of engineering, and the Germans were pretty much always short on time/money.
Re-gunning a out dated/captured chassis, and adding a gun-shield for use in anti-tank roles (which provided excellent mobility) may be the very deffinition of stop-gap. AKA...desperate.
Even the Russians found merit in this ideology, and participated in it with their SU-series.
76,85,100,122,152

 

T.A. that is an excellent article you found on the Hetzer. There is nothing like the first-hand experiences of someone to help form an opinion. Now we have to wait for PzJgr to give his rebuttal. . .

 

That would be the one with Private Kenneth G. Walker of Company F 142nd Infantry Regiment 36th Infantry Division posing at Oberhoffen Germany on 2/14/45. The Hetzer was from KG von Lüttichau....just in case you were interested.

 

That would be the one with Private Kenneth G. Walker of Company F 142nd Infantry Regiment 36th Infantry Division posing at Oberhoffen Germany on 2/14/45. The Hetzer was from KG von Lüttichau....just in case you were interested.

Can you post a picture?

 

Not the same pic I remember, unless of course it's been shot up a bit after the first one was taken. I'll try to dig out the one I remember, I'm pretty sure it was more in the open, then memories do fade after too much imput, #5
Another cool pic though!

 

Found it. (after looking through 13 books), It's in a book called Tank War by Piekalkiewicz, page 298. Don't ask me to pronounce that. Caption says near Aachen in December 44. I have no way to scan it or post it. I'll have to refer my problem to one of my techie friends, then I will. The hole is on the left side and the Hetzer is on fire. The bazookaman is running by feeling really proud of himself. It is in open country.

 

It would'nt take much to punch through the side of a Hetzer.
<The side and rear armour protection was only adequate to keep out armour piercing bullets fired by small arms and machine guns>

20mm sides and rear were made of low alloy steel.

 

Yes, that indeed is not a neat little hole in the side. At least not on the side we see. Who was it said they wanted to be in one of these? It must be one cramped bit of work inside there. Did they enlist dwarves?

 

If you ever get down to Austin they have a Swiss one at the Camp Mabry museum. It is a pretty good museum and it is free. The Swiss one they have is open on top so tall people will fit but it still is cramped.
http://www.kwanah.com/txmilmus/

 

I'd gladly ride in one of these;

http://www.3d-modelmother.com/StuG.htm

 

Thanks TA for the hint and link to the museum. I will have to come down from Fort Worth and see it. Still think the things are too small, give me an aircraft carrier.

 

And here it is. I agree that first hand experience is significant. Cannot argue with those who have actually fought in one. My comments based on my general research. While the Hetzer was not rated excellent in all aspects of AFV design, looking at general research, it is found to be reliable, fast and effective. Don't shoot the mislead reader.