The German Jagdtiger

Someday I'll have my shrink to explain to me this fixation with nazi tanks. Is it the Hugo Boss uniforms? Heck, the JS-II packed a gun as big at 45 tons total weight plus the benefit of a rotating turret. Of course the ammunition load was smaller, but you have to make a compromise somewhere. And production was 250 a month, that is, for each JT made in its entire life, the Russians were making 3 every month, not making any more 'coz they felt no need!

 

The picture is of two Jadgtigers from S. PzJr Abt 512 outside Letmathe Germany. The vehicles are faced in opposite directions and were destroyed by their crews after being abandoned.

As a vehicle the entire JadgTiger concept was a waste of effort. Here was a massive vehicle that really did not bring any great combat strength over the Tiger itself. Because it also required different engineering and logistics to build and maintain it was simply an additional sap on an already overstressed economy. The Germans would have been better off with more Tigers than building this specialist vehicle.

It also proved very difficult to maintain. For example, to repair the transmission required the maintenance crews to remove the top of the fighting compartment, remove the main gun (a 7 ton assembly), remove the top of the driver's compartment, remove the transmission, and then repeat the process to make the vehicle operational. This required about a week to accomplish.

 

A rough count comes up with about 40 that were blown up or otherwise sabotaged by their crew after the tank broke down to 30 lost in combat (some of which were subsequently blown up too). Only 5 surrendered in the West at the end of the war (2 from S. PzJr Abt 653 and 3 from S. PzJr Abt 512 from Kp. Ernst). About a half dozen or so were rounded up on various test grounds, proving grounds etc. Another half dozen were abandoned after breaking down without being destroyed.
So, all told about 60% were lost through mechanical breakdown with about 10% to other causes and 30% to combat loss.
The most common breakdowns were in the transmission and steering systems. These were badly overloaded as they had been designed for the King Tiger while the JadgTiger added about 8 tons to the vehicle weight.

 

Is that king tiger missing the end bit of its gun. Seen that before in another picture somewhere...

 

The picture is of two Jadgtigers from S. PzJr Abt 512 outside Letmathe Germany. The vehicles are faced in opposite directions and were destroyed by their crews after being abandoned.

As a vehicle the entire JadgTiger concept was a waste of effort. Here was a massive vehicle that really did not bring any great combat strength over the Tiger itself. Because it also required different engineering and logistics to build and maintain it was simply an additional sap on an already overstressed economy. The Germans would have been better off with more Tigers than building this specialist vehicle.

It also proved very difficult to maintain. For example, to repair the transmission required the maintenance crews to remove the top of the fighting compartment, remove the main gun (a 7 ton assembly), remove the top of the driver's compartment, remove the transmission, and then repeat the process to make the vehicle operational. This required about a week to accomplish.

The Wehrmacht produced Armor as if for show rather than practicality. I agree that allocation of resources could have been better spent on modifying the Panther G. Better armor, high traverse rate, and a main gun with high armor penetration values.

Had the Germans had the time to evolve their creations their inventory of firepower would have been unparalled.

 

The Wehrmacht produced Armor as if for show rather than practicality. I agree that allocation of resources could have been better spent on modifying the Panther G. Better armor, high traverse rate, and a main gun with high armor penetration values.

Generally I agree with you with the proviso that you add in better mechanics too. I wonder why a better main gun as the 75 L70 was more than a match for anything the Allies had.

 

The Wehrmacht produced Armor as if for show rather than practicality. I agree that allocation of resources could have been better spent on modifying the Panther G. Better armor, high traverse rate, and a main gun with high armor penetration values.

Had the Germans had the time to evolve their creations their inventory of firepower would have been unparalled.

The real mod they should've done to Panther was to simplify it and lighten it. It was already an effective fighting tank - some say the best allrounder of WW2 - but they were in a position where it scarcely mattered any more how good their weapons were individually. There was just no way they could get anywhere near the combined industrial outputs of GB, USA and USSR.

Even if a tank did have a 6 to 1 kill ratio (and I don't think it's been established that Panther did) in tank v tank battles, that doesn't mean it's worth 6 of those opposing tanks when it comes to covering ground, supporting infantry and holding territory against enemy infantry.

But if they could've substituted a Christie-type suspension for the interleaved wheels and torsion bars, they'd've simplified it and maybe saved 5 or 6 tons. Instead of 5000 Panthers at 45 tons and 29mph. there might've been 8000 at 40 tons and 32 mph. They still couldn't've won, but it'd've been even harder for the Allies.

Regards,
MikB

 

What the Germans really should have done was follow the way the US went with immediate follow-on designs to the M 4 Sherman. That is, they cleaned up and improved the design while continuing to use a substancial amount of components from the previous model.

In the German case, the way to go would be to improve the Pz IV in 1942 - 43 rather than even develop the Panther at all. The Tiger I could have still been produced as a specialist heavy tank in limited numbers as it was.
To improve the Pz IV the Germans could have:

Redesigned the hull to incorporate sloped armor. By introducing a sloped 50 to 60 mm glacis and sloped sides above the tracks at 25 mm (versus the 30 mm in use) the overall hull weight would have remained about the same with greatly increased protection.

The track and suspension are improved by first adding an additional leaf spring or beefing up the ones on the vehicle to take about an additional 5 tons weight. The bogies, which bolt on, are then spaced out from the hull (simple horseshoe shaped plates to do this). The drive sproket is widened likewise. A new track increasing the width by about 10 to 15 cm is introduced.

The engine is upgraded or replaced to give another 50 or so horsepower. The transmission is strenghtened to take the additional power and weight of the vehicle.

A new turret with more ring overhang is introduced with armor on it to match the new hull in protection. Use of a saukopf mantle would be recommended.

The main gun is a 75L55 or so in caliber. This gives a good compromise in weight and performance. With a penetration (based on that of the L48 and L70) of around 160mm max this is more than enough for taking on enemy vehicles.

Pz IV returned from the field could be upgraded or used for parts on a new build hull. This makes far more sense than developing a whole new tank with the attendent teething problems and slow build up to full production.

 

I still love the idea of a supercharged Christie Panther though! (I feel the PantherII with it's schmalturm and simplified suspension was heading that way.)

They were moving in that direction though were'nt they. The E25/50/75 (etc.) concept seems to have been them finally admitting that commonality was essential over individual uberweapons (though the E100 shows logic wasn't quite kicking in fully :wink, realising that the modern concept of a 'family' of vehicles with variants based on interchangeable parts and as few major chassis variations as possible is essential for truly succesful designs; but, as you say, they (thankfully) started way too late.

No, they weren't. The Germans came up with new designs from virtually whole cloth, so to speak, with each new generation of tank. The US tank designs had far more commonality. For example, on many tracks and other suspension components were interchangable. Engines and transmissions likewise. Turret ring sizes were standardized making interchangable turrets possible. Hatches, periscopes, and a myriad of other smaller components were identical.
None of this is true with German tanks of the period. Each is a unique design of the company that was the primary contractor. Componets shared a minimum, if any, commonality between vehicles.
On the E series this is still true. The E100 used a unique belleville washer suspension seen on no other German tank. The tracks were unique to the vehicle. The turret was unique as the original concept to use the Maus turret proved impractical due to weight.
On the lighter vehicles the same holds true. Completely new components. Wholly new suspension systems.
It is simply a result of the German industrial and design process that causes this. Unlike the US (or Britain and Russia for that matter), the German system had the primary contractor designing the vehicle as a propriatory item. That is, the design firm built what it considered to the the optimum vehicle without much input from any other source.
Heer / Wehrmacht technical staffs only gave generalized specifications as to what they wanted as an end product. The individual firms worked out the details for themselves. There was little inter-firm cooperation on designs and no nationalized system of commonality on parts.
In the Allied states such information was shared between design groups and a very high degree of commonality resulted.
Using the US as an example, you see the same suspension on virtually all AFV. The switch to torsion bars only results in a new group of equally common suspension parts compared to the older volute suspensions. All US medium tanks shared a common turret ring size and design. Hence the ability to stick an M36 turret on an Sherman hull.
The contrast is a stark one. The Germans did not manage to get their act together in manufacturing during the war; and it was a very costly mistake.

 

Adam,

It does show the strength of the overlapping wheel system.

Being able to cope with several torsion bar axles missing is very impressive.

Regards
Tom