Looks like we will achieve the like goal 82/100 currently so if we can get 18 within 18 Hours more the T-44 Video *will* air Saturday 1 P.M CET Update, we've reached the goal. So there will be a new video saturday👍

The Jagdpanzer IV/70 is one of my favorite AFVs of WWII. Is it a waste of materials? Well, it did require the use of a Pzkw IV chassis, so it seems to me the answer to this question comes down to whether it is best to have an additional Pzkw IV tank or a Jagdpazer IV. Given that Germany was mainly on the defensive by the time this vehicle was leaving production lines, so IMHO I would prefer to have a Jagdpanzer IV over the Pzkw IV.

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

And so did Hitler, but my statement 'was it a waste of materials' is more of a 'was it worth it to develop it' kind of way, because that also costs a lot of resources and if they already have a comparable tank/afv, why make new afv which will perform about the same. Anyway that is partly what I will talk about in this video in the 'my opinion' segment👍

@davidk6269

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningHistoryTogether Thank you for your quick reply! Having too many AFV designs and prototypes was inefficient. Perhaps Germany would have been best served by just focusing on producing as many StuG III/IV assault guns instead of the myriad of turret less tank destroyers (Ferdinand/Elefant, Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Hetzer, Jagdtiger).

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

Yeah no worries, I always do my best to reply to comments considering my channel isn't that big just yet. But yeah I agree with that statement. But maybe I shouldn't spoiler the my opinion segment to much😂

@ottovonbismarck2443

Жыл бұрын

One interesting question is why they didn't rework Panzer IV to the new front similar to this one ? The other question is why they bothered at all given that they already had StuG III and IV ? IMHO the answer is the gun. As it seems to me, Panzer IV was out of question for the 7,5cm KWK L70; there's a limit to everything (nevertheless they tried !). It also seems StuG III and IV couldn't take it, otherwise we'd see pictures of it. Interestingly, during early construction of JP IVs (with 7,5cm L48) the old debate of assigning the new vehicle to the arty branch as "new StuG" or to the tankers as new TD came up. Given that JP IV was to replace StuG III (and IV), there was production capacity available. I also like to think that the new design was more streamlined for mass production, but that's a guess. If I can't have a Tiger or Panther, I'm not going anywhere. Pzkpfw IV is now outdated and its latest cousin has a stupidly heavy nose and is blind to the sides.

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

Yeah the entire reason I was questioning if it was worth it to make the Jagdpanzer was because easier versions had the 75mm L/48 and according to my source they had about similar performance to the StuG III hence why I was questioning if it was worth the effort considering they made 760+ of the 75mm L/48's

5:08 2/3 the height of the JagdPanther so much easier to hide

The Jagdpantzer IV was intended to repurpose the Pantzer IV chassis as the Pantzer IV reached the limits of it's potential for further development. Since the Panther would be it's successor anyway, it would make sense to develop the Jagdpantzer IV to keep using the old chassis, like they did with the chassis of the Pantzer III. If used correctly, it performed very well and it is concidered to be one of the best tank destroyers of the second world war. As long as the Germans believed that the war would last longer and Germany stood a fighting chance, the development of the Jagdpantzer IV was a very logical choice. No country can fight a war if they do not try to make the most of their weaponry, especially when they have a vast numerical disadvantage. If you keep producing outdated tanks while the enemies come with ever more and better tanks, you know how it is going to end.

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

That is a very good take honestly, Personally I am totally in favor of developing newer and better tanks, because I love tanks, but for a country to have so many different tanks/afv all at once will impact the efficiency, the supplies etc. It was a good tank destroyer, so interms of fire support it did a good job, but that is almost the only way you can really use it, so in my eyes it would have been better if Germany would've just made a cheaper version of the Panther, and just poured their resources in that, and either keep upgrading the StuG or make a new concept but don't make: the jagdpanther, jagdpanzer, jagdtiger, sturmtiger, sturmpanzer, sturer emil, dicker max, ferdinand. Just chose 1 or 2 which work well and mass produce them instead of making 400 of each of them

@retepeyahaled2961

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningHistoryTogether Hi... the countries that had the industrial potential to make any number of tanks also had factories that were invulnerable to the enemy. Next, this gave them time to carefully plan their production of new models. The Germans did not have this luxury. They tried to modernize, but they were always forced to make the most of the older factories and production lines. They simply could not afford to stop producing Pantzer III and IV chassis and so on... and they never were able to set up more production lines for the newer models - as the existing ones were continually bombed and constantly needed repair.

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

@@retepeyahaled2961 hey, thanks for sharing. Very interesting. Got a article of some kind which could go into more depth or a book recommendation? It would be cool to know more about the industrial part of World War 2 because honestly my knowledge is lacking in that department currently.

@retepeyahaled2961

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningHistoryTogetherSorry, I do not know of any articles or books on this topic. A few days ago I had a similar conversation and somebody presented a list mentioning which German factories produced which tanks. Russian and American factories all produced the same T34s and Shermans, but nearly every German tank model was produced in it's own specific factory.

@ottovonbismarck2443

Жыл бұрын

The only problem: it's not the same chassis. It literally uses every part of the chassis except for the chassis itself

L70 is a whole different ball game over the L48. Much higher velocity gun that could easily whack an IS2. I understand wanting the L70 but on the Panzer 4 chassis but it made the vehicle very front end heavy and not easy to manuever. Hence the first two roadwheels being steel. Get one into ambush position and its very lethal. Im sure your also aware the first ones only had the L48 due to a shortage of L70's. An L70 could shoot a round clean through a Sherman. It had more penetration than the 88 on a Tiger 1.

A good weapon for an army on the defense

Interesting video as usual! Great job. Looking forward to the t44 video! Thank you 🙏

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching

I've always looked on the Jagdpanzer series as the next evolution generation of the STuG III/IV series in the tank destroyer role. The main waste of resources was using Panzer IV Gs to make them as these were still viable tanks against the medium and light tanks of the Allies. The Germans still had a need for assault guns, and this could have been left to the STuGs or even the Hetzers, but equipped with the short 75mm gun, as it was more effective against infantry. However, by this stage of supply line's were stretched to breaking point, and the production of new vehicles was chaotic at best. So, out of desperation, many vehicles were pressed into roles they were ill-suited for.

They produced that instead of stug iii because the factories producing stug iii were bombed.

Very good LHT ! 👍 It's nice to see you improving.

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

Thank you man✌

I like really like this concept of a beefier StuG and dont see it as a waste of resources. It should have been deployed strictly to the at-units of armored and motorised divisions and the independent battallions. Although I personally like the vehicle I would rather ask if the Jagdpanther was neccessary, the Jagdtiger was for sure not. The Jagdpanther is well regarded, but I doubt it had any impact on the war. If these vehicles would not have been built the Jagdpanzers could have taken over their jobs in the independent at-battalions and more production capability for regular tanks would have been available, so there would have been a lesser need to plug the holes in Panzerregiment with StuGs and Jagdpanzers.

Nice video. Thanks for uploading this.

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for watching!

I would say without the L70 gun, the Jagdpanzer 4 is a waste of resources. May as well build more Stugs.

Interesting points. The way I look at the jagdpanzer/stug/panzer IV discussion is first establishing context. I never entertain any “which is best” discussions when it comes to ww2 equipment (I’m glad nobody did here) since there’s no such thing anyway. I feel it comes down to context in terms of what the vehicle is meant to do. The poor performance of jagdpanzers and stugs usually is attributed to them being used in roles they’re never meant for. They’re not tanks, and that may be obvious to everyone here but they far too often were used in that role when panzer units were short of replacements.

If you are mostly fighting a defensive war then this makes a lot of sense. It can be dug in easily, had a low profile making it easier to camouflage and it is easier to produce. In my opinion Germany should have been making more of this type of vehicle with well proven mechanical system than the complex , expensive and unreliable panther and Tigers

No it was one of the best tanks with the introduction of IS tanks only the L/70 stood a chance to penetrate it. The issue which you raised that it was a waste of resources was really? Did it fail more often than panzer 4? Did it consume so much steel that so many panzer 4 could have been built or did it reduce production time by simplifying the design? What would have happened if stug 3 or panzer 4 got obsolete if the war dragged on? Who is the better successor?

@LearningHistoryTogether

8 ай бұрын

not only the /70 was able to penetrate the IS-2, so could the 88 /71 and the 128 /55, furthermore the 88 /56 was at point blank most likely also able to knock out a IS-2 :)

@celestialexistence3014

8 ай бұрын

@@LearningHistoryTogether yeah but those are heavy and have high silhouette making them vulnerable against other tanks and have poor mobility. Thus only the jagpanzer 4 L/70 had a chance to ambush and even penetrate the tank frontally and escape and be deployed whenever required quickly and had advantage in numbers.

In my personal opinion it was honestly better converting the panzer 4 to the jagdpanzer. The main problem with the panzer 4 was more about its concern about its armoured protection especially the turret and while it was generally well liked vehicle by its crews this was a common concern of the crewmen during the end of the war. The Jagdpanzer kind of removed the turret protection problem and even improved its frontal protection. The panzer 4 was not in any way bad but it was essentially kind of at the very end of its line of future upgrades. The suspension was already strained to its limit with the H upgrade and it didnt help that the panzer 4 had suffered from large amount of losses compared to the Stug for example and was quite cramped. The Panzer 4 is also a bigger target and also took alot of time to produce despite many believing otherwise If there is any problem id say about the jagdpanzer it had to be more about its deployment and that it was already very late when they started using it And while yes there could be an arguement that they could have produced stug 3s if i remember correctly a massive stug 3 factory had been bombed in 1943 to the point it almost halted which is why the stug 4 was made and the intention was to produce stug 4s until a new assault gun from the same chassis could be fielded I dont know where you got the information that they switched back to the 75mm l/48 gun as from what ive heard they started off with that gun and then went to the pak 42 but at the same time im reading off of Tank Encylopedia and Wikipedia so eh Interesting video nontheless

2023 Leopard 2 A6 = 1944 Jagdpanzer 4 = being destroy by strong defence line ! So ....Jagdpanzer 4 was one of the best fighting machine in WW2.

How could anything that looks that bad-ass be a waste of materials?

👍👍👍!!!

the manufacture of strug3 was taken out by allied bombing. When they hit those factories to stop the manufacture of the Strug3. Germany had to find a replacement. That replacement was jadgepanzer4. Due to increased armor protection of allied tanks thus the l/70 gun was placed on jadgepanzer4.

Only issue was mislabeling it as a jagdpanther multiple times

I agree with you. With the 75 L70 it made sense. But as soon as you mount the 75-l48 you may as well have kept the turret.

Great video ! The only things I would add is that the extra weight of the long gun put quite a strain on the front suspension components. It also creates manoeuvrability issues when going down a slope or around obstacles Fun fact the vehicles nickname was Guderian’s duck

@ottovonbismarck2443

Жыл бұрын

Very true ! The issue was also known to a lesser degree with StuG, "Hetzer", SU-/ISU-152/122 and SU-85.

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

Do you know hy any chance how it got the nickname and who gave it?

@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningHistoryTogether Unfortunately I have only seen this anecdotally. This is from Wikipedia “Installing the much heavier Pak 42 meant that the Jagdpanzer IV was nose heavy, especially with the heavy frontal armour. This made them less mobile and more difficult to operate in rough terrain, leading their crews to nickname them Guderian-Ente ("Guderian's duck"). To prevent the rubber rims of the roadwheels being dislocated by the weight of the vehicle, some later versions had steel roadwheels installed on the front.” When reading the article I learned something new. The V is not the Roman numeral 5 but rather stands for Vomag the manufacturer. Apparently some were also manufactured by Allket and have an A designation and had substantial differences to the Vomag version

@williamzk9083

8 ай бұрын

-The Panzer IV became nose heavy with the introduction of up armored long barrel versions. This required stronger spring setting to prevent a nose down attitude. It lead to a instability in high speed driving and other mobility problems. It had insignificant effect on the StuG's. StuG III was rated as more mobile than T-34 by Soviets in obstacle course. -With Panzer IV the nose heavy effect was so significant the rubber rims had to be removed from the front 4 wheels to stop destruction of the poor quality German synthetic rubber which needed small amounts of natural rubber. -Those promoting the claim that the Germans should have made more Panzer IV instead of Panthers should realize that the vehicle was nose heavy at 22 tons, had only 80mm of almost flat Armour (only 50mm on the turret mantlet) and had no chance of keeping pace with 37 ton Shermas and T-34 that had room for improvement. It was neccesary to develop the Panther and get it ready. -It's wrong to talk of German "Tank Destryers". It's a purely American idea. The Germans had two types 1. PanzerJaeger or "Tank Hunters" were vehicles like the Nashorn (Rhinocerous) with an ultra powerfull long barrel 8.8cm L71 gun and special precision long range optics to engage enemy tanks from great distances. The crews had special artillery training, had optical range finders and knew how to survey ranges and map them systematically. These were lightly armored and always carefully concealed behined cover such as the reverse slope of a hill, vegetation or buildings. One of these destroyed a T-34 at 4.3km. They were a little like the American tank destyers by having an open top but lacked the speed though had more powerfull guns. 2 Jagdpanzer (Hunting Tanks) which had full tank armour (or more) and powefull guns. These include trhe Jagpanzer IV, Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger. They evolved out of the StuG III concept. -The Jagdpanzer IV gave the Germans a weapon with the same fire power and Armour as the Panther at half the weight and height profile and less than 40% the frontal area. -So Panzerjaeger (Tank Hunters like Nashorn) and Jagdpanzer (Hunting Tanks like Panzerjager IV)) are different and had different guidlenes and opperational order and also different from American Tank Destroyers. -The Geschützwagen III/IV chasis that was used for the 8.8cm Nashorn Panzerjaeger was also used for the 150mm Hummel Self propelled gun. As soon as the Jagpanthzer IV became available production focus went from Nashorn to Hummel as the 150mm guns was considered more important.

@adlerarmory8382

7 ай бұрын

@@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle The PzKw IV leaf spring suspension was already maxed out with the increase in armor implemented after Barbarossa. The PzKw III had torsion bar suspension. Same for the PzJgr 38(t), its not built on a 38(t) chassis, it looks similar to the chassis but it is wider, taller thicker and heavier than the pre-war 38(t) they had to increase the roadwheel size, and widen the sprocket and track link width for efficient weight bearing capacity, and it still suffered from mechanical issues in the front drive and suspension mechanisms. Leaf spring thicknesses and tempering was increased or changed over the years but the design has a limit to which can be reliably and practically supported. The other tank destroyer SdKfz 164 Nashorn and the SP artillery Hummel were built on a standardized chassis (Geschutzwagen III/IV) made from a combinations of PzKw III and IV sprocket, roadwheel, track and leaf-sprung suspension components. Maybe if the same chassis was also used for the IV/70 they could have made few hundred more but still wouldn't have been enough to effect the war. Granted some of us alive today would never have been created as more Allied soldiers and civilians would have been killed before the war ended.

Thanks ....

In truth the Jagdpanzer IV/70, that I like very much, wasn't such much a waste of resources as it was using the same hull of the Pz.Kpfw IV and using the same 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 of the Panther was the modified version strengthen recoil and was not fitted with the muzzle brake saving lot of labour. It was generally well liked by the crews as it was spacious and had a very precise gun. Of course it suffered the same issues like the StuG IV or III as it was without turret but it was much easier to produce. The biggest issue was that it had to drive carefully so low the gun was and was very nose heavy. All in all it was a cool AFV 😎

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

Yeah it is kind of crazy how some tanks are spacious even though small and others are cramped even though they are massive. The Jagdpanzer was actually very tiny in my opinion, there aren't a lot of Afv's under the 2 meters. But maybe it helps that they didn't put a 5 men crew in there... (looking at you cromwell)

@paoloviti6156

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningHistoryTogether it could be as you say but I've been inside the StuG III some years ago and I found all three positions, that of the commander, aimer and the driver's positions all rather cramped but I never been on the loaders position so my observation is rather limited...

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

i was talking about the Jagdpanzer IV/70, which according to several reports was surprisingly spacious

@paoloviti6156

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningHistoryTogether I apologise as I mentioned as a comparison!!

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

no need to apologise my friend! no worries

The early Jg.Pz. IV's were equipped with the 75mm L/48 because there was a shortage of the 75mm L/70 guns. Hitler was screaming for more vehicles, more vehicles, so the Jg.Pz.IV's were sent out with what they could get their hands on. The Allies had bombed the factory producing Pz.III hulls which crippled StuG III production. As a emergency stop gap measure the upper hull casting was modified to fit the Pz.IV hull to produce the StuG IV. Your right that the StuG IV being produced alongside the Jagdpanzer IV does not make sense but the Jagdpanzer IV was planned for while the Stug IV was a happy accident.

They should have just up-gunned the Stug III with a 75L70.

@jimmylight4866

2 ай бұрын

Man bvb I dont think you can put the L70 in a Stug 3. Hell it stressed out the front of the Panzer 4 chassis.

I tend to agree with your assessment. Interesting vehicle, but why reinvent the StuG III?

@LearningHistoryTogether

8 ай бұрын

Stronger main armament and more frontal armor give it a huge advantage, also the lower profile. In the end, it is a more powerful tank, so they might aswell you know🤷🏻‍♂️

Since adding more or sloping the armor of the PzKw IV tank was impractical, which the turret traverse is slower than the Shermans anyway, converting them to Jagdpanzer IV and upgunning it with the Panther gun (KwK42) is a logical step to make this platform up-to-date. What the Germans should have is uprated its engine and standardized road wheels to simplify logistics. The lower profile has made this AFV harder to hit at a distance beyond 1,000 yards.

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

Yeah it's lower profile is actually insane, it is 1.85m or about 6'1 especially from a AFV of that time its crazy, considering generally this afv was to sit at the flanks giving fire support it would be incredibly hard to hit

@ottovonbismarck2443

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningHistoryTogether One of the first major engagements of JP IV/70 was the Ardennes Offensive with 12th SS where it was used as "Ersatz-Panzer" for the lack of tanks. They were slaughtered at Rocherath-Krinkelt. But Pz IVs and Panthers were slaughtered as well, so ...

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

@@ottovonbismarck2443 yeah I've read about the engagement, I mean if other tanks couldn't have done a better job. Was it really down to the tank/afv or to the operation itself?

@chrissanchez9935

Жыл бұрын

If War in Europe continued much longer, the Jagdpanzer IV/70(V) and the Panther F may the principal AFV's. When the KwK42 is loaded with an APCR round, it has a fighting chance against the JS-2 "Stalin", M-26 "Pershing", and soon to arrive Centurion. The more KwK42 rounds can be carried than 88mm rounds. The only practical 88mm L/71 platform in 1945 (and probably beyond) for the Germans to produce rapidly in quantities are the Waffenträgers.

Can you please do a show about the US T28/T95 “Doom Turtle”? Thank you!

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

thanks for the recommendation! i am currently working on the T-44 Tank, if we can reach the like goal i set up for the T-44 i will talk about the T28 coming Monday! :)

@davidk6269

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningHistoryTogether thank you!

Agreed with your point. Jagdpanzer IV/70 was absolutely waste or resources. Germany could have simply produced more StuG-III instead which server the purpose very well.

@ottovonbismarck2443

Жыл бұрын

Yes and no, it's not easy to tell. JP IV/48 was already an improvement armorwise and the simpler casemate structure had less armor plates thus less welding seams which simplified production. But the L48 gun slowly started to be outclassed by Allied guns and armor. L70 could perfectly deal with anything it faced, including IS-2. The biggest disadvantage IMHO was that it didn't use the exact same chassis as Panzer IV; so instead of rationalizing production with only two (three incl. "Hetzer") major types of chassis in production, Jagdpanzer IV received a redesigned chassis that wasn't compatible with ordinary Panzer IVs except for running gear and engine. I agree on simply producing more StuGs, but instead of StuG III they should have switched to StuG IV, which was 100% compatible.

@livingroomtheatre174

Жыл бұрын

@@ottovonbismarck2443 Thanks for your points, But we need to look at the German situation in 1943-44. They were already losing the war and making new vehicle was something that should have been avoided. Why to waste resources on new vehicles! Secondly, StuG-3 still holds the record for maximum kills. So wise decision was to focus on Panther and StuG-3 rather than continuing making new vehicles!

@Dreachon

Жыл бұрын

@@livingroomtheatre174 Because the StuG wasn't that good, the Panzer IV/70 enjoyed better armour protection, better firepower and was better suited for production. The Jagdpanzer series was meant to replace the StuG series.

@livingroomtheatre174

Жыл бұрын

@@Dreachon "StuG wasn't that good"? Do you know which armoured vehicle has killed maximum Allied armoured vehicles? It is non other than the legendary StuG-III. It is a perfect vehicle with low height, good Mobility with decent armour and armament. If not the best , it was certainly not the worst

@Dreachon

Жыл бұрын

@@livingroomtheatre174 I suggest you actually read up on things and not just repeat a often made claim. The StuG III was finding it harder and harder to tackle enemy armour as these saw a considerable increases in armour protection. There's a reason why it was planned multiple times to be replaced by something else. Even in the plans for 1945 the StuG III would cease to exist and be replaced entirely by the Jagdpanzer 38D.

The L 48's later had 80mm of front armor as well, before L 70.

Disagree. Watch Hilary Doyle's take on the Jagdpanzer IV. People underestimate soft stats. JP IV gives you a profile lower than Stug 3 but way better fighting compartment ergonomics. And at that point, the Pz IV medium tank didn't cost that much less to produce than a Panther, but it requires 5 crewmen, whereas the Jagpanzer IV only needs 4. By that time, Germany was running low on experienced crews, so every bit of efficiency would have helped.

They should have discontinued the STuG 3/Mk III platform MUCH earlier, and concentrated on the Mk IV chassis variants sooner, as this would have standardized the production of all variants across the board. The Mk IV platform was better for more ammo and overall range, and would have allowed for greater consistency in spares and supply issues. A large part of the Germans defeat was their own doing in a failure to streamline their war production.

It was not a waste of resources. My reason for this is if the production lines were already set up retooling them to make something else would take time and incur a loss of production. Combine this with the increased obsolescence of the pz IV and Germany being on the defensive it made sense. This vehicle had much better armor and gun. The more L/70 guns the better. Next to the Jagpanzer 38(t) it is my favorite WW2 vehicle. The (a) variant not the (v). That's because it's ugly.

E10, no1 ever talks about that td.

The Jpz IV was unnecessary. It would have been easier to add sloped armor to the Stug III. Also, the Pz IV performed better on the Western Front than the Panther, primarily because the Schürzen provided good protection against shaped charges and because it was smaller.

The Panzer 4 was the Swiss army knife of tanks. Yes I know about the Sherman variants and funnies.

Is it jadgpanzer as oppose to jadgpanther?

I got your point and agree completely. But coming to a personal preference… I just like it’s ‘body style’. It’s unique and one of a kind! 🎉

I do not believe that this jagdpanzer IV was very bad, though front-heavy. Btw, nice cheesecake at 0:35.😊

Germany had the best tanks designed in WW2 .🏆🎖

@jbol2454

4 ай бұрын

Not really at all.. horribly overengineered.. that's not good design or engineering..

I agree wholeheartedly with your summation. I really don't like the look of the beast, but it did the job!

So, who was this 'leader of Germany' you keep referring to? (Have we really sank so low that we can't even mention Hitler when we are talking about history?!)

@jimmylight4866

2 ай бұрын

Lol, what's crazy is how involved Hitler was in tank specifications. He made armor thickness and gun decisions.

"its popular amongst tank gamers" - hmm, as a german main (WT) I must say I played this thing VERY FEW TIMES, I even failed to fully modify it. Maybe because Jagdpanther is next in line maybe not. Unlike probably ALL OTHER tanks from 3.0. I duno, I just dont like it. Its very long, has same gun as Panther, narrow tracks...

@LearningHistoryTogether

2 ай бұрын

yeah i mean to each their own, i can understand you not liking it in War Thunder, but in world of tanks its kinda overpowered. it has like a DPS of 3 thousands, better than some tier 10 tanks which is nuts. only real downside is its hp count

Its good in WoTb

Jagdpanzer iv, hetzer or stug 🤔 ? That is the question 😟!

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

I mean probably the Jagdpanzer IV still😅

you were mislabeling it as a jagdpanther some times

Yes, too many types. I missed discussion on machine gun armament.

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

The machine gun they used was the Mg42, this was the commonly used machine gun from Germany during ww2, advantage was that you could take off the barrel of the mg42 from inside the tank so you would expose your crew to lesser danger

@rayw3332

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningHistoryTogether I didn't see a port or a top mount...I thought it had a hull MG(?). Thx.

@ottovonbismarck2443

Жыл бұрын

@@rayw3332 Front plate, left to the gun (right when inside the vehicle). The opening is often covered by that distinctive circular plug. The same MG could be mounted in front of the loaders hatch similar to StuGs and "Hetzer" and depending on the mounting could be fired from the inside.

@ottovonbismarck2443

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningHistoryTogether Nope; MG 42 wasn't suited for use inside tanks; the barrel changes sideways which is impossible to use with a "Kugelblende". Also the commonly used MG was the MG-34 (1939-1945). MG-42 as the name suggests only came into service in 1942. Yes, they built more MG-42s, but the 34 saw service in every campaign. Every tank crew can change MG barrels from the inside, that's not a German invention. Albeit maybe not as quick and easy as with an MG-34.

When have the German’s ever done anything EASY?!

@LearningHistoryTogether

8 ай бұрын

fair

This vehicle only makes sense if they were producing nore L70 guns than they had Panther chassis to accommodate them. Tracked TDs are always better than towed AT guns.

@LearningHistoryTogether

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I agree 100%

Can you please research further because i read somewhere before that the reason why jagd pz iv was produced more later in the war was because the pz iv was more costly and complex to produce AND that the stug iii factories were destroyed by allies aerial bombing.