The concept of the Jagdpanzer IV was fantastic - but probably didn't achieve its full potential due to late war attrition; lack of high quality materials and number of experienced crews became fewer and fewer. And then the VOMAG plant bombings were the final nail in the coffin. Ofcourse the STUG 3 had better track record because it served years before when materials and experienced crews were still plentiful and enemy tanks weren't as strong yet either. But the Jagdpanzer IV with its super low silhouette yet spacious fighting compartment made it an excellent TD.

@rogershaftly6976

6 ай бұрын

Yeah it was similar with the other axis powers, eventually they got starved of basic material and it had a huge impact. Quite literally if you happened to be in a tank with cheap armor lol

@Drownedinblood

4 ай бұрын

Almost like logistics is what wins wars....people forget Romans's weren't actually good fighters by the man, they just had good logistics to replenish any losses almost immediately and keep going.

@rogershaftly6976

4 ай бұрын

@@Drownedinblood yeah when Italy tried that in WW2 it was particularly bad for exactly that reason, Mussolini wanted to do a second Roman empire with none of the infrastructure lol

@Drownedinblood

4 ай бұрын

@@rogershaftly6976 yea which always made me question how fast a Italy vs Germany War would happen had they won, and how bad it'd go. You can't both claim to be a revival/continuation of the Roman's

The Stug is like...fooken new guy!

A few of corrections: The initial production Jagdpanzer-IV's had 60mm thick glacis and upper hull front plates - not 50mm (only the lower front hull plate was 50mm thick). Furthermore, its the glacis was sloped at 50 degrees from vertical not 45 degrees, although the upper front hull plate (incorrectly referred to here as the glacis) was sloped at 45 degrees. The lower front hull plate sloped at 55 degrees. In May of 1944 (mid-production) the Jagdpanzer-IV's glacis and upper hull front were increased to 80mm thickness at the same angles. Also, it's not quite true that Vomag was the only manufacturer to produce the Jagdpanzer-IV, at least if we consider the Panzer-IV/70(V) as a Jagdpanzer-IV. In June 1944 the Waffenampt ordered Alkettt to produce a taller modified "Ubergangsaufbau" (transitional) version of the Panzer-IV/70(V) superstructure for mounting directly onto a largely unmodified Pzkpfw-IV Ausf.J chassis in order to create a more powerful replacement for the Pzkpfw-IV tank. The resulting vehicle, initially known as the Sturmgeschütz auf PzKpfw-IV Fahrgestell, would later be renamed by Hitler to Panzer-IV/70 Alkett or Panzer-IV/70(A) (also known as the Panzer-IV lang (A)). These vehicles were quite similar in design to the Pz-IV/70(V) but with a noticably taller & boxier superstructure. Most were deployed to StuG Brigades but some were sent to Panzer Regiments. In combat they were used in same manner as the Pz-IV/70(V). The Pz-IV/70(A), being about two to three tons heavier than the Pz-IV/70(V) performed less satisfactorily in combat than earlier Vomag versions. Consequently, Guderian deemed them "nicht fronttauglich" or not combat serviceable ordering production cancelled in January 1945 (despite this fact, the vehicle remained in production until the end of the war anyway). So in practice these vehicles ended up being a kind of supplement to the Pz-IV/70(V) despite the fact its original design purpose differed from the Jagdpanzer-IV. sources: Jentz, Thomas & Doyle, Hillary "Panzer Tracts No.9 Jagdpanzer: Jagdpanzer-38 to Jagdtiger" Darlington Publications, 1997 Jentz, Thomas & Doyle, Hillary "Panzer Tracts No.9-2 Jagdpanzer: Jagdpanzer IV, Panzer-IV/70(V) and Panzer-IV/70(A)..." Panzer Tracts, 2012

My favorite tank destroyer

@Damian-03x3

10 ай бұрын

Same, it's a great vehicle.

@User69420l

10 ай бұрын

It’s indeed great! Although I’ve got to say that I like the jagdpanther more

@Damian-03x3

10 ай бұрын

@@User69420l Jagdpanther is cool too but it's too big imo and it has panther's reverse.

@agridley1116

10 ай бұрын

Jagdpanther but better

@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378

10 ай бұрын

​@@Damian-03x3 Jagdpanther sucks irl

The shape of the sub-armor on the side of the engine room is wonderful.

Finally, a Jagdpanzer IV documentary!!

Note that the production of Panzerjager IV/L48 with increased 80mm frontal armor from the 60mm plate first used and 40mm side armor instead of 30mm plate. This took place before the introduction of the same vehicle with the 75L70 gun, due, as mentioned by the shortage of 75L70 guns. These vehicles are often overlooked. About half of the vehicles made had the increased 80mm frontal armor and 40mm side armor starting in May 1944 until November 1944 when the 75L70 gun version began deliveries.

what a treat for saturday morning coffee and smoke ❤

Making jagdpanzer IVs cut into production of PzKpfw IVs. Making StuG IIIs did not; and the StuG III did most of what the Jagdpanzer IV/70 did; arguably, the StuG did everything the Jagdpanzer IV with the L48 gun did at a lower price.

@adlerarmory8382

10 ай бұрын

Alkett in Berlin was bombed frequently by the Allies, reducing the StuG III production, the StuG IV then IV/70 were introduced to make up for the loss of Stug III production. PzJgr 38t at BMM was also a remedy to loss of production at Alkett.

@Paciat

10 ай бұрын

StuGs were better quality and had better suspension so you are wrong about the price. Front wheels were overweight in JPzIV and it was harder to drive it with such a gun. Finally, try finding a copula on a Jagdpanzer. It dosnt have it. Its not wit the infantry when they attack, cause its not a StuG. Germans gave away much of their offensive capabilities when they replaced StuGs witch Jagdpanzers.

@briankorbelik2873

8 ай бұрын

Except for the Panther L/70 gun, that is. Made mincemeat out of the enemy. @@Paciat

Good to hear somebody that can pronounce most German words.

I like the jagdpanzer 4 .

WONDERFUL JOB guys.!!!!

Excellent video and accurate commentary. One of my favorite Krautmobiles.

Your videos seem to be well done with a refreshing emphasis or “take” on the subject. In addition to a description of the technical aspects of each AFV, a history and explanation of events that influenced decisions related to them are given.

I waited eagerly for a video on my favourite tank hunter, and here it is!!🎉

In basic good design for defensive weapon, but problem is the fact that not well trained units used it wrong as tanks substitute and suffer heavy losses. Good video as always. Next part of T-62? Any plans about its modernisation?

@atanasijesimic4651

10 ай бұрын

Part 3 is being edited at the moment

@w0lfgm

10 ай бұрын

@@atanasijesimic4651 Good news.

@Paciat

10 ай бұрын

They used it wrong? They used it as they needed (like Stugs, not just for destroying tanks) and it did poorly. The whole tank destroyer concept is in most cases wrong cause its price is not much lower than a do it all tank. And you didnt need much training on the vehicle if its role was to ambush approaching tanks. You can do stuff like good camo training without wasting fuel and crews didnt decide where they would sit on the defensive. So training was far less of a problem on Jagdpanzers than on Stugs.

@w0lfgm

10 ай бұрын

@@Paciat The STUG and Jagdpanzer were crew by the artillery not by the tank force. The second handicap was the fact that they were used instead of tanks even though that vehicles lack the turret. It is much easier to ambush it, like the US Army did at the battle of the Bulge.

@Paciat

10 ай бұрын

@@w0lfgm And how does a lack of turret make you easier to ambush? Commander of a Stug had a copula while the gunner of a Panther only had a 3x periscope witch gave him only a small shaking cone. And Panthers rarely turned their turrets when driving cause the gun was so long and turret unbalanced so the gunner had similar view on Stugs and Panthers when driving. Only if it was immobilized stug had a disadvantage. Also tank ace Witmann drove an armored car, than a Stug, and then Tiger. You think he had inferior skills in an artillery uniform, and then when he got his panzer pants he got better? Finally you think there were 0 Panthers ambushed at the battle of the Bulge? You are making stuff up. You didnt read any of that from a reliable source.

This probably would have been the best Minor Axis Tank for licenses if it was done earlier. Especially if it had that roof machinegun of the hetzer.

The best as usual

It is good to understand that the greatest issue the German army was suffering in the final months of war was a total lack of fuel not so much from lack of war material or inexperienced crews. That said those tanks, if handled correctly, where formidable opponents against the enemy. Good job as always 👍👍👍

@chriscarbaugh3936

10 ай бұрын

Chrome used for exhaust vlvs and Cobalt used for vlv seats had all but dried up. To say nothing of Tungsten, which impacted AT ammunition to a great extent!!

@paoloviti6156

10 ай бұрын

@chriscarbaugh3936 of course you are right 👍

@sussinhardrn1048

5 ай бұрын

Ill have to look at the reports, it's been a few years since I read them. If I remember right, the total amount of experienced crews wasn't necessarily short, but short enough that rotations and even short-term leave for active crews became less and less common.

@paoloviti6156

5 ай бұрын

@sussinhardrn1048 it's okay but the far superior material quantity of allies has been the downfall of the Third Reich...

Well done

Thanks for the vid.

The 70 in L 70 refers to the calibre length of the gun.

@ulfenburg7539

10 ай бұрын

@@davidells6760 70 cm? are you mad? It refers to the caliber of the barrel aka length of the barrel. Which what the caliber is times the diameter of the shell. (70*75)

@timyo6288

10 ай бұрын

The 70 in L70 refers to the length in ur mom.

@wb1772

10 ай бұрын

Mostly, but I thought it referred to the number of times the projectile spun down the length of the barrel.

@user-nn7mb4ip4l

5 ай бұрын

I posted a comment as you had done prior,I was not trying to be insulting but to explain what you had correctly pointed out..I am bracing for hateful replies 😅

@user-nn7mb4ip4l

5 ай бұрын

​@wb1772 seriously?

jagdpanzer iv my beloved

great vid

No mention of the panzer IVL70(A)? It had the jagdpz style upper hull mounted on a traditional pz4 lower hull. These were built by the Alkett company, thus the"A"This made it tall and even heavier but still capable. Less than 300 were built.

The jagdpanzer IV is my favorite spg to play in warthunder glad to see it here

1:01 看看這轉速 !! 看看著旋轉!! PV 的底盤一點都不慢也不愚蠢的卡頓 這才是我認識的Panzer jager

Is a video about the Alkett variant coming up?

nice

Guderian’s decision May have been based on need. Once Sturmgeschutes became a tank destroyer, the offensive capability of the Wehrmacht suffered greatly. I love the lines of the Jagdpanzer IV and it was effective in its role. But, turretless AFV’s are better suited to defense.

Like all german armoured vehicles, the majority of them ended up as scrap metal at wars end. They were used to make up the short fall in tank production in an ever increasing desperate situation. Some of the Mark 4s and Mark 4 Stugs went on in use in the Syrian army, where they met the Israeli Centurion tanks and were taken out in the Golan Heights in the 1967 conflict. The 105 mm guns of the Centurions put paid to them, penetrating their armour.

I like the vehicle, but the Stug IV, together with the Stug III was already in production with a proven history. The Hetzer was another low cost alternative.

Guderian really stole the funny Stugs for anti-tank use while they didnt know how to operate it, nice idk if having it named "StuG" IV would have actually made a difference in the frontlines

@adlerarmory8382

10 ай бұрын

StuG crewmen came from the Artillery branch, they tended to be patient and methodical. Panzerjaeger were mostly Panzer branch, tended to be more aggressive, took the fight the enemy. That combined with the violation of doctrinal use, the continual substitution of the StuG and PzJaeger for actual tanks, resulted in the heavy attrition. Even so, after 1943 Germany would never been able to produce enough Panzer of all models to have changed the course of the war. PzJaeger 38(t) Hetzer was my Father-in-Law's favorite chassis, having operated/driven PzKwIII, IV, V, VI even T-34 in the 2. Komp. FBB. He said it was like driving a sports car.

@williamzk9083

10 ай бұрын

The StuG IV existed as a Panzer IV with a StuG III casement replacing the turret. The Jagdpanzer was supposed to be a StuG (had only 4 crew) but became called a jagdpanzer due to Guadarian stealing them from the Artillery Branch for the Panzerwaffe. What would it have been called" StuG IV Ausf B? StuG IVB?

Great video on a moderately over looked S.P.G.The 70 represents the length of the barrel in calibers..The L48 was 48 calibers long,as the L70 was 70 calibers long..I am not trying to be insulting, but thought you should know.If I am incorrect, please let me know. Great video!

this is a classic example of the in fighting that massively hampered Nazi war production. the Jgdpzr IV was not needed, the Stug was doing just fine in that regard and they needed Panzer IVs not a NEW stug that took up valuable production capacity.

@username_3715

10 ай бұрын

No the alkett plant that produced the stug 3 was destroyed, barely any stug could be produced

IE this is the vehicle people think about when they cream all over how cool Hetzer was. Hetzer was crap, this one was good. Especially the version without the "fishing rod" of Panther that was too heavy for frontal wheels.

@quan-uo5ws

10 ай бұрын

Hetzer was cheaper and was pretty much the same thing

@TheArklyte

10 ай бұрын

@@quan-uo5ws Hetzer was taller, it was a gas chamber for the crew, the hatch rested on commander's head and price argument is completely lost since Germany was okay with using medium 20 ton chasis's of Pz IV for a bloody flakpanzers instead of using LT vs 35 ones. It's like saying that T-34 was cheaper then KV-1 when in reality they use same engine, same gun and T-34 is harder to weld due to damned angled sides.

Guderian made a mistake, which overall was a good thing for the allies.

Guderian’s duck!

I don’t understand why they didn’t replace all tanks with these. Having a turret just makes everything more complicated and costly. Is it really worth having a swiveling gun?

Does anyone know what was the largest gun put into a Panzer 4? Not the Jagpanzer 4, I'm referring specifically to the Panzer 4 with the turret.

@TanksEncyclopediaYT

7 ай бұрын

Largest in what way? They tried the long 88 (paper project, article soon), short 105, long 75, medium 75, short 75, long 50 and God knows whatever else.

@John14-6...

7 ай бұрын

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I didn't mean largest in caliber. Sorry if I was unclear. I meant specifically the 75 and the length of it

The best TD in CoH: Blitzkrieg

Hello

Is this Leopard?

Way too little way to Late !

Where is Jagdpanzer 4 Aufs. F ?

Самые лучшие самоходки Вермахта германские.

Guderians duck

I can never understand why there was so much politicking in a name and which branch gets what. If it is used in both, its just a multirole vehicle...

The Stug III and Panzer 4s were good enough, they should only have focused on them. There were no need for other side projects and defo no for heavy tanks.

@rubberwoody

10 ай бұрын

this put the L70 gun into action for a lot cheaper than a panther

@williamzk9083

10 ай бұрын

The video made clear that the Jagpanzer IV was nose heavy and this effected reliability. The first 3-4 wheels on each side had to have their rubber replaced by steel. The suspension springs increased. This effected rough ground mobility as well as reliability and frequency of maintenance. Up armored Panzer IV already had this issue and received stronger springs in the front wheels to stop it drooping nose down. -Hence the decision had to be taken to develop a new Chassis. That Chassis was the Panzerkampfwaggen V (Panther) . With the Panzer IV chasis you were limited to 21.5 tons and 25tons with overloaded front wheels. Sherman M4 and T-34 were able to operate in the 30-35 tons range. -There really was not other choice. The Germans managed to get remarkable use out of the Panzer III and Panzer IV as StuG III/IV, Jagepanzer and various SPG. -One could argue that Panther could have been lighter say a 35 tons tank. This might have cured its one problem which was the weakness of the final sprocket drives. Once could argue that if the Tiger I/II had not of been built there would be nearly 1600 reliable final drives from Tiger production available for the 4000 Panther. The issue was that there appaer not to have been enough gear cutting machines to make enough planetary gear final drives (like the Tiger) for the Panther and it received a simple straight cut main and pinion gear.

@Paciat

10 ай бұрын

@@rubberwoody Thats the thing. You didnt need this gun in action. Its like Germans believed simplifying logistics can only benefit the Jews.

rough sounding but generally mostly correct German BUT it's *Ausführung* and not just Ausf. just like a PanzerKampfwagen shouldn't be reduced to a literally unspeakable PzKpfw, a Ausführung is to be called a Ausführung and not only a Ausf ........Ausf. as a word doesn't exist.... there is a famous word (or title) related and spoken in a similar fashion to Führung which could be used as a pronunciation guide

@feldgeist2637

10 ай бұрын

and very important, since it's a thing destined to return, Panzer is pronounced Puntser and not Penzor sends shivers of linguistical discomfort down my spine everytime I hear Englishers calling them Pänsers (btw Panzer doesn't have a real plural - ein Panzer, viele Panzer......just if you're surrounded by more than one Panzer it's "umstellt von Panzern" but let's not dive too deep into complicated german grammar and leave it with zhe Puntser.....

@rubberwoody

10 ай бұрын

youtube commenter discovers abbreviations for the first time. Just let the english speaker speak english words

@feldgeist2637

10 ай бұрын

@@rubberwoody the english words in those cases would be version or, in a military context, maybe mark for Ausführung and tank or more precisely armor for Panzer

@rubberwoody

10 ай бұрын

@@feldgeist2637 Panzer has become an english word in its own right by now. It is in the english dictionary.

The technical name for this formidable vehicle is "lil jaggy-poo" according to my Executive Officer BurndAngel in World of Tanks. Iron Sharpens Iron 😊

@Kevin-mx1vi

10 ай бұрын

Me and my old WoT buddies used to call it the "Flatpanzer".

@vapormissile

10 ай бұрын

@@Kevin-mx1vi yeah. Solid aesthetics.

me is powah

Is this another name for the Stug IV? I mean it at least sure looks like a Stug. Or is this some totally different. Video does not really say.

@ottovonbismarck2443

10 ай бұрын

StuG IV was an interim emergency solution when Alkett was bombed. It was a StuG III casemate on an ordinary Panzer IV chassis. Jagdpanzer IV is a completely new design and was supposed to replace StuGs in anti-tank units. The war situation meant that they were all built parallel for some time. It's not wrong to say it was an improved StuG IV, which was basically the same as a StuG III ...

@TanksEncyclopediaYT

10 ай бұрын

tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/sturmgeschutz-iv.php

@williamzk9083

10 ай бұрын

@@ottovonbismarck2443 The StuG IV was supposed to have an L70 but the project stalled due to the technical challenges of mounting this huge gun. By compromising and mounting the StuG III casement on the Panzer IV chassis the StuG IV project could thus continue albeit with a 7.5cm PaK 39 gun. This coincided with bombing of the Panzer III/StuG III factory which devided the matter. The StuG IV project with 7.5cm L70 continue but was renamed Jagdpanzer. It was supposed to be called a StuG but guardian stole them from the artillery branch and the first step was renaming them. The problems were solved for the L70 StuG IV but renamed Jagdpanzer IV. -One could imagine an Infantry Battalion with a embeded StuG IV L70 (ie Jagpanzers IV) helping them. They had direct fire support form vehicle with 100mm @45 degree Armour that had a gun capable of taking on any T-35/85 and even IS-2 up to 500m head on. The low profile making them very hard to see. (less than half the height of a M4 Sherman)

"equilivator" ... wtf is that?

Hi (first)

Nein! Jagdpanther more superior!

please do not use this unhistorical grey camo Wot footage, this is really unprofessional to show camo which was never used after Feb43 really ...

Hard nope.. excellent defensive vehicle.. rubbish in the attack.. they could have been used by the panzer force as support guns but not for exploitation...

@terraflow__bryanburdo4547

10 ай бұрын

Which meant it was only needed 1942-45😂

@janwitts2688

10 ай бұрын

@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 Kursk and battle of the bulge?

@terraflow__bryanburdo4547

10 ай бұрын

@@janwitts2688 The two worst battles for destroying the panzerwaffe.

I would say this vehicles is complete garbage. The Panzer IV was already and over strained imbalanced chassis that had more and more issues with each subsequent variant. The Panzer IV was already terribly imbalanced which affected the reliability of many components, its an aspect many people neglect but can play a major part in a vehicles reliability. The Jagdpanzer IV's only strain that further with more excess weight to the front without a counterbalance to the rear. Besides becoming more unreliable, the it'll making driving its both more difficult and strenuous. It can even be more noticeable how bad it is considering that the usual all-steel roadwheel setup usually placed it on the first two roadwheels, however, some show them with the steel roadwheels on the first 4, and they are always in the front end. Particularly having more issues due to frontal imbalance. The weak garbage suspensions are one things, but terrible design is another. Additionally, the roadwheels are too small, this makes them prone to failures. The rubber for the time was fragile yes, but the roadwheels themselves were too small, even for the early Panzer IV variants, the smaller wheels had effectively a higher ground pressure, and all of it traveling through a small point, aiding in the destruction of the rubber rims. I would always take a StuG III, actually I'd always take a Panzer III chassis, so many things about the Panzer IV chassis design hurts. For a vehicle, I'd personally state its engineering just fails. I cant even imagine how bad aiming the gun would be considering the vehicles weight transfer/shifting would be horrendous. To understand what I'm saying here, you can look at the image examples in this website. driver61.com/uni/weight-transfer/

@williamzk9083

10 ай бұрын

I don't think you can say that. The steel tyres would have increased track wear and required more maintenance. (More track changes and wheel changes) but increased frequency of maintenance does not make a vehicle more unreliable so long as the maintenance intervals are shortened. -Given the vehicle was supposed to be a StuG provide direct fire support to infantry while protecting said infantry from enemy tanks it would not have been conducting rapid armored thrusts deep into enemy lines the prevent maintenance. It was an acceptable solution using Panzer IV production infrastructure until something better could be evolved.

@jerryudonneedtoknow3903

10 ай бұрын

@@williamzk9083 You misinterpret. The design is frontally imbalanced. This causes excess strain on the front wheels thus the rubber rims would break often, the vehicle "could" drive without a rubber rim, but it would be practically for emergencies as doing so for long periods would very likely result in permanent suspension or roadwheel damage or both! if you replace the rubber rimmed wheels with all steel, you reduce the breakage unreliability, however, you increase the chances of failure rates on the track, terrain crossing, final drive damage, and transmission damage. Steel roadwheels add more frontal weight. This aid in the frontal imbalance. This is important because of ground pressure from the wheel directly to the individual track. a vehicle should try to achieve a relatively even ground pressure on all roadwheels, if imbalanced frontally, more weight would be distributed towards the frontal wheels and less towards the wheel, this put excess load and could go over the rating threshold it is supposed to handle. in addition it could risk an extreme high intensity shock that could decrease its lifespan massively. There are many more factors, but much of them would relate to one things, too much stress and load in the front which could lead to premature wearing or even breakage. Routine maintenance is not easily done because the unbalanced natures causes non-uniform component fatigue. Regardless of rapid armor thrusts, the vehicle would be terrible to drive, even on slow speeds. As said before, there is extra load on the front, this makes the rear have a lesser load, the unbalanced nature making traction uneven, it can be too much in the front and too little in the rear, this would necessitate the engine, gearbox, and final drives work harder to overcome the extra traction. On the rear, it would have less traction, in some cases, not gripping the ground enough causing slippage of the tracks, thus like before, the drive train would need to work harder to try to propel the vehicles forwards. This can also put excess strain on the gears of the transmission and sometimes cause high initial shock that can reduce the lifespan or break the gears prematurely. Additionally due to uneven balancing, another issues would be turning, turning the vehicles which would be of key importance for a turretless tank, would be awful. This deals with more traction and I'm a bit lazy to explain the physics behind it, but again the drive train would work harder. The turning would not only be sluggish, but possibly is slower, less controllable, and bad initial acceleration. The Panzer IV had many final drive failures, unlike the panthers, its design should have been able to cope with issues much more, yet it didnt, its easily de notable when compared to this, now consider the Jagdpanzer IV with its worse frontal weight distribution

@williamzk9083

10 ай бұрын

@@jerryudonneedtoknow3903 I don't 'misinterpret' anything. You've overstated a long list of genuine but relatively minor issues and made them out to be major problems. These issues were mainly identified with the aborted development of the 7.5cm L70 version of the StuG IV and informed the modifications of the chassis that made the Jagpanzer IV viable. The penalty was increased maintenance intervals (around the track area) and a 10% drop in speed but these don't make it 'complete garbage'. The vehicle was mainly used in a StuG like role and didn't even have the mileage of a tank.

@jerryudonneedtoknow3903

10 ай бұрын

@@williamzk9083 You still misinterpret, I'm stating two issues, not one. Both for reliability and for combat handling. Whether it be used in a StuG role, Panzerjager role, or by some chance, breakthrough or support tank role. The vehicle would be hindered by what I had listed previously. Disregarding reliability, the combat handling would be greatly inferior to that of the StuG III. Primary factor being the hull balance. the Jagdanzer IV has effectively 20mm of rear armor, with the radiators and engine in the rear as extra notable weight. The front has 60mm of armor for upper and lower glacis, the transmission, the gun barrel (consider the permanent overhang), the gun mantlet, and the guns various other system such as the breech, trunnion, recoil system, gun carriage/mounting. What exactly is there to fully counterbalance the weight on the front end? Nothing much, and the suspension was already inadequate. The gun steadiness would be far worse with an imbalanced chassis as the weight transfer would make the tank bob up and down with even the slightest of movements regardless of low or high speed. Whether driving at low gear or high gear, after braking, an imbalanced hull will make both have vehicle sway, require more time for the suspension to stabilize the hull. If shooting on the move, low gear would be far less efficient compared to other vehicles. If the vehicles is to react quickly, make turns, move and brake quickly, and so forth. it would take longer to engage the target as the gunner has to wait for the vehicle (as well as gun since its on a separate mount) to stabilize. If they try to shoot quickly after a stop, the chances of hitting the target may be lower compared to say operating the StuG III since you have to effectively fire as the sight is swaying up and down. If you have a firearm (airsoft with still get the job done too), try dashing a distance, stop in place, then aim at a target that is some distance away, observe how well you can maintain the sights on the target. Then do the same things again and try attaching, taping, or so something heavy to the front of the firearm. Again do the dash, stop in place, and then aim at the target, even if you can aim it at the target, take notice of how much more you have to readjust your arms to maintain the sight on the target, depending how heavy the weight is, it may take longer to get the sight on target since the weight imbalance partly makes your arms and the muzzle sway. Take this as an example of the gun mount and chassis, your arms acting as the vehicle and the firearm acting as vehicles gun. Sure you could still aim, but aligning your sights to the target takes a bit longer. When every second counts, whether to get a shot of before the enemy, or to get a shot off quickly eliminate the enemy and reduce friendly casualties, that sway can be problematic. Whether the reliability issue is major or minor, is still a more significant problem then what the StuG III had, additionally its handling of driving and weapon would be worse because of the aforementioned issue. I may overstate by saying garbage, but comparison with the StuG III is just far better in most regards.

Guderian was just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I can only handle that voice for so long ... 🙄⚠️

@ymishaus2266

10 ай бұрын

#WeStanTony

@rubberwoody

10 ай бұрын

what's wrong with it?

@Ihavpickle

10 ай бұрын

What