Whats The Diffrence Bettween The Jagdpanther And Pzr 4

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by ruskisniper@gmail.com, Dec 12, 2005.

  1. ruskisniper@gmail.com

    ruskisniper@gmail.com Junior Member

    can anybody tell me the diffrence bettween the the jagdpanzer 4 tank destroyer and the normal panzerkampfwagen 4 medium tank. i mean they both had the same 7.5cm gun but what was the major diffrence between making a tank distroyer and the medium tank, did germany use up much needed resources on making useless tanks can anybody tell me the diffrence between them.
     
  2. Gibbo

    Gibbo Senior Member

    Although both had a 75mm gun, I think that the Jagdpanzer IV had a higher velocity version than that in the PzIV. A tank destroyer does have a couple of advantages over a tank. It has a lower silhouette, which is particularly useful in ambushes, & the turret mechanism is one of the more complex & expensive parts of a tank, making the tank destroyer cheaper. Few armies have prodcued tank destroyers since WWII, suggesting that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
     
  3. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    Weren't tank destroyers also used as rapid mobile artillery?
     
  4. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Hi Russian,

    From....... http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz10.htm

    Jagdpanzer IV with its low profile, good mobility and firepower was liked by its crews. It was a difficult target and dangerous opponent, especially when on defensive. Its main gun, especially 75mm L/70 was able to destroy all Allied tanks other than Soviet JS-122 (JS-2) tank at safe distances. The main problem was that lack of turret, forced the vehicle to face its target in order to function, but since at the time Germans were already on the defensive it was not as problematic as in the offence. Jagdpanzer IV was a great defensive weapon but was produced too late and in too small quantity to have greater impact on the war situation.

    Jagdpanzer IV in Action !

    The most notable Jagdpanzer IV ace was Knight's Cross holder SS-Oberscharfuehrer Roy from the 12th SS Panzerjaeger Abteilung of 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend". He accounted for 36 tank kills with his Jagdpanzer IV, since the D-Day only to be killed by an American sniper, while looking out the cupola on December 17th of 1944, during the Ardennes Offensive.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Panzerkampfwagen IV was the most numerous German tank of World War II, but its production in comparison to the Soviet T-34 or American M4 Sherman was very limited. The main drawback of Panzerkampfwagen IV was its not well sloped armor along with overall low speed for its size, but eventhough it proved to be a versatile and reliable tank.

    Since the beginning of the war, Panzerkampfwagen IV became tactically the most important German tank of World War II that saw service until 1967.


    On February 7th of 1944, few remaining Panzer IV tanks from the 5th SS Panzer Division "Wiking" spearheaded the attempt to breakout from the Cherkassy Pocket against largely superior Soviet force. During the breakout, SS-Untersturmfuehrer Kurt Schumacher commanded two Panzer IVs, which counterattacked a Soviet tank company destroying in the process some 8 T-34 tanks. On the next day, Schumacher alone engaged another Soviet tank company and during both actions destroyed some 21 Soviet AFVs. For his achievement, he was awarded the Knight's Cross.

    On the afternoon of June 11th of 1944, the 8th Company of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment (12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend") counterattacked the attempt by Canadian 6th Armored Regiment (along with support units) to capture the area of Le Mesnil-Patry. The 12th SS Panzer Regiment commanded by SS-Obersturmfuehrer Hans Siegel destroyed some 37 Shermans, while losing 2 Panzer IVs and forcing Canadians to retreat.

    SS-Unterscharfuehrer Willy Kretzschmar, who commanded Panzer IV of the 5th Company of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment (12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend") destroyed some 15 Allied tanks during the Normandy battles, including the heavy fighting at Caen area.

    During the Normandy campaign in the Caen area, some late model PzKpfw IVs (e.g. 21st Panzer Division) were dug in only with their turrets showing. Such obstacles were hard to detect and destroy, while they took heavy toll on the approaching Allied armor.
     
  5. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    Welcome to the forum Russian

    Jagdpanzer IV:
    [​IMG]
    Panzer IV (G)
    [​IMG]

    Hope that helps.

    Good post Spidge.
     
  6. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Welcome to the crew, Russian! You'll enjoy it here! :)
     
  7. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Was there a severe disadvantage with not having a turret? Seems to me it would be very difficult to get precision out of aim using the independent braking system verses a gearing that you had with turrets. Anybody know?
     
  8. Gibbo

    Gibbo Senior Member

    Tank destroyers are basically self propelled anti tank guns. They ought to take up a concealed defensive position, fire on advancing enemy tanks & then use their mobility advantage compared with a towed anti tank gun to relocate before the fighter bombers or artillery get them. Shortage of tanks, however, made armies, especially the Germans, use them as substitutes for tanks.
     
  9. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Gibbo @ Dec 12 2005, 01:24 PM) [post=43029]Tank destroyers are basically self propelled anti tank guns. They ought to take up a concealed defensive position, fire on advancing enemy tanks & then use their mobility advantage compared with a towed anti tank gun to relocate before the fighter bombers or artillery get them. Shortage of tanks, however, made armies, especially the Germans, use them as substitutes for tanks.
    [/b]
    So if I understand you correctly, you are saying they are a defensive weapon? They must wait for an opposing tank to move into their line of fire and time the shot?
     
  10. Gibbo

    Gibbo Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Dec 12 2005, 10:34 PM) [post=43035](Gibbo @ Dec 12 2005, 01:24 PM) [post=43029]Tank destroyers are basically self propelled anti tank guns. They ought to take up a concealed defensive position, fire on advancing enemy tanks & then use their mobility advantage compared with a towed anti tank gun to relocate before the fighter bombers or artillery get them. Shortage of tanks, however, made armies, especially the Germans, use them as substitutes for tanks.
    [/b]
    So if I understand you correctly, you are saying they are a defensive weapon? They must wait for an opposing tank to move into their line of fire and time the shot?
    [/b]
    In theory yes, but I think that in practice the Germans, & perhaps others, used them as tanks because of a shortage of genuine tanks
     
  11. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Did the tank destroyers without turrets have any horizontal barrel movement at all?
     
  12. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    Yes, some do. Although it isn't very much (I think about 10 degrees either way). They also had some up and down movement, which is expected. I think they could move their barrels more up and down than they could side to side.
     
  13. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Gnomey @ Dec 13 2005, 09:41 AM) [post=43080]Yes, some do. Although it isn't very much (I think about 10 degrees either way). They also had some up and down movement, which is expected. I think they could move their barrels more up and down than they could side to side.
    [/b]
    I think it would be a tremendous liability to not have sufficent movement. This would mean that you would have to have your engine running to get a course aim correction, giving away your position. Once you fire, you would have to scoot. You can't stay in view because other tanks can get a bead on you. It would take a lot of practice to use one in battle. Hit and run would be your only chance. Plus they were probably as blind as a bat once buttoned up.
     
  14. Mikko

    Mikko Junior Member

    Generally tank is a favorable choice over turretless a/t or spg vehicle with a good margin. Assault gun and t/d concept really became such a big business during WWII only because they were considerably more easily produced and could be used to fill the ranks and the need for constant flow of new afv's to balance the losses (especially true for Germans). Also few doctrines and concepts empasized the need of such turretless vehicles, but as the idea to mobilize and mount the integral a/t artillery of infantry was good the deployment of turretless vehicles often called for them to be used more like armoured tank units due to constant lack of real tanks, which they were totally unsuitable for.

    Turretless vehicles were particularly limited to single vehicle or few vehicles at the time action, piecemeal kind of direct support. They gained some success, at times huge successess, in that role which they played well. However, as the modern fast pace warfare relied on use of massed armoured formations as the operational force group of decision tanks were needed, not necessarily turretless vehicles.

    In assault and mobile warfare the superiority of the tank to be used in groups, to rapidly deliver fire, to rapidly maneuver and face the enemy with the best protected part is obvios. But also in static defense, tanks were really better than assault guns, being able to track horizontally moving fast targets much more easily (actually, with turrettless vehicles this was kind of a hard procedure, as most had only around 5 to 10 degrees of fine tuning gun movement each side) while still not presenting their vulnerable flanks to enemy, able to open fire more rapidly, able to aquire targets more rapidly etc. It was stated that tank in the battlefield (WWII) had 2.5 times greater potential and pace for aimed shots in varying situations (i.e. tank got 2.5 aimed shots done for every t/d's one). Given the slim differences in protection and gun power between the two, it's really a huge difference - not to mention the unsuitability of t/d for large scale group ops.

    JgdPzIV as such was one of the better of the worse concept. The biggest problem with it was in my opinion the fact that the Panther production priority constantly required a large volume of L70 guns supposed to be used with JgdPzIV. Accordingly, many were fitted with L48's which makes little sense, as much more potential PzIVH-J models had adopted similiar main armament. PzIV of the late war was ok, but nothing really special anymore. It was surpassed in capabilities by the later model of soviet mediums and also in west better tanks became to approach little by little - even though there still were mainly older models in the field. But very usefull until the end, anyway.
     
  15. MikB

    MikB Senior Member

    I think the lack of a turret is a most serious disadvantage. Once closed down, the ability to engage enemies outside the arc of traverse - generally about 15 degrees - would need conspicuous manoeuvreing and rapid departure after firing. The idea seems nightmarish compared to a fully-traversing turret. It means the commander must co-ordinate and inform both driver and gunner to bring the weapon to bear.

    The Swedish S-Tank, which has brought the turretless concept into recent times with added modern features, has certainly not swept the world - or anything much for that matter - before it.

    Regards,
    MikB
     
  16. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Panzer IV (G)
    [​IMG]

    sorry to drag this rave from the grave back out into the daylight but a pedant's gotta do what a pedant's gotta do.
    (seriously. No offence Gnomey. I'm just a godawful tank nerd.)
    :)
    that aint a straight Pz. IV... what we've got there is a much rarer beast, it's a pz.4 that was fitted with an experimental hydrostatic drive(I believe at the request of the SS in an endeavour to increase space inside as much as anything), It's the one at Aberdeen proving grounds, totally unique and looks like no other German tank you've ever seen from the rear, I only mention this 'cos I've always been fascinated by the thing and pictures of it are extremely hard to find,
    View attachment 107
    So cheers for that.
    (wonder how things are going with dragging the Aberdeen stuff inside, they've got some superb vehicles that have just sat ouside for 60 years, anyone been recently?)
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page