Hetzer introduced in 1943

[sillygoose]

What if the Hetzer is developed early and introduced into combat in July 1943 during Kursk?
Technically there was no reason it couldn't have been developed earlier other than someone not thinking of it sooner. The Marder design was only a stopgap and replaced ASAP IOTL, so it wasn't like there was any need to keep that model in production. The Hetzer was also quite cheap and easy to make, as IOTL despite being introduced in July 1944 over 2,800 units were produced until May 1945. That despite the horrible economic situation by the 2nd half of 1944 and the factory being bombed during the war. Had it been developed a year sooner they'd have likely hit the 1000 per month production plan set IOTL, as the bombing and other disruptions reduced output:

Jagdpanzer 38 (Hetzer) - Tank Encyclopedia

The light Jagdpanzer 38(t), often called the Hetzer, was a well-armed tank hunter built in Czechoslovakia under Nazi rule.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

Here is the OTL production schedule:

https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80_38_%D0%A5%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80#%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE

It seems like it was surprisingly effective as well:

WWII Weapons: The Hetzer Tank Destroyer

The Hetzer provided lengthy service on all fronts where the German Army was engaged during World War II.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer#%D0%9E%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0

Though I don't expect they'd make much of a different during Kursk due to no more than 100 likely being available over the course of the rest of 1943 and into 1944 having large numbers could make an impact. Assuming they hit that 1000 units per month number by the beginning of 1944 what sort of impact would they have had do you think? I'd imagine they could better supply their allies with AFVs if they had sufficient number of these.

As an aside I'm assuming these replace some of the wackier projects that turned out to be duds:

7.5 cm PaK 40 auf Raupenschlepper Ost (RSO) - Tank Encyclopedia

The Pak 40 auf Raupenschlepper Ost was a fast conversion of tracked artillery tractors used on the Eastern front into tank hunters.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

Plus of course all the variants using the chassis could be made in larger numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer#Variants

 

[PsihoKekec]

1000 Hetzers per month is pure fantasy, 600 at maximum effort would be more realistic, but lower numbers are more likely.

 

[ATP]

1000 Hetzers per month is pure fantasy, 600 at maximum effort would be more realistic, but lower numbers are more likely.

True,but thanks to them more german units would survive Bagration.Germans fighting few months longer?
P.S If Hungary buy design and start produce it instead of disaster named Turan 1,then they could fight long enough for british come and get part of Hungary.
Romanian tank destroyer which influenced Hetzer but never get mass produced,Maresako or something,maybe would be mass produced here.

Results - more dead soviets,slighty longer war in Europe,part of Hungary and Czech free,Slovenia and maybe Croatia,too.

 

[sillygoose]

1000 Hetzers per month is pure fantasy, 600 at maximum effort would be more realistic, but lower numbers are more likely.

Why do you think so? It seems IOTL the reason it didn't happen was the bombing, as it destroyed a bunch of the parts suppliers throughout the production run.

True,but thanks to them more german units would survive Bagration.Germans fighting few months longer?

Not just Bagration, but also fighting along the Dnieper and around Kiev as well as further west. The collapse in Ukraine in early 1944 enabled Bagration to succeed by stripping AG-Center of reserves.

P.S If Hungary buy design and start produce it instead of disaster named Turan 1,then they could fight long enough for british come and get part of Hungary.

Hungary was the only nation to get some during the war. I could easily see them producing it as the Germans even gave them the blueprints for the Panther. The Romanians might well get some too, as they were eager for German weapons for oil.

Romanian tank destroyer which influenced Hetzer but never get mass produced,Maresako or something,maybe would be mass produced here.

Results - more dead soviets,slighty longer war in Europe,part of Hungary and Czech free,Slovenia and maybe Croatia,too.

I doubt the Marisal would get produced more than it was IOTL. Instead the Germans, assuming they had enough of the Hetzer, would just sell them some of theirs, as the Romanians wanted weapons for their oil. They badly needed AFVs even the glorified SP AT gun that was the Hetzer. Still it would help them considerably if they could get enough for their infantry divisions in addition to their armored/cavalry ones.

 

[Buba]

1943?
Nothing changes. the IIIrd Reich lasts a week or two longer.

Now, 150 Hetzers a month in 1941 or by mid 1942 latest - that could change things a bit ...

 

[sillygoose]

1943?
Nothing changes. the IIIrd Reich lasts a week or two longer.

Now, 150 Hetzers a month in 1941 or by mid 1942 latest - that could change things a bit ...

Stormartillerivagn m/43 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did wonder about this being a thing early on too.

 

[Buba]

Yup.
That (which includes all Carro Semovente da 75/18 analogs) or a Marder III (preferably with central mounted engine).

 

[sillygoose]

1943?
Nothing changes. the IIIrd Reich lasts a week or two longer.

On reflection I'm not so sure that is all the impact it would have. Certainly it won't change the outcome on its own, but having production starting 12 months earlier and several thousand more AFVs, even if little more than glorified SP AT guns with good survivability if used properly, would still have a pretty important impact. US experience from the war showed that SP AT guns were about 300% more effective than towed guns as well as were more survivable and given the loss rates of the PAK40s in the east a much more survivable and effective AT weapon at the infantry division level would be highly helpful. David Glantz pointed out in his Art of War lecture series that by 1944 Soviet advances only happened when and where tank brigades/corps/armies could be used as battering rams and exploitation units, so the best way to really delay or even stop them would be to have better AT weapons. Plus IOTL by July 1944 when the Hetzer first entered service losses necessitated half trained crews and units be tossed into action repeatedly, while having it ready 12 months earlier that problem would be avoided, so that the crews/units only would go into action after proper training, which would make them even more effective than IOTL.

Even if we assume the 1000 units per month is a pipedream if the steady number of 500 per month (a bare minimum IMHO) is achieved by 1944 that means over the course of the year 6000 would be produced, more than double the OTL output for the whole war and triple what was produced in 1944 IOTL. Factor in 1943 and 45 production and a minimum of 7500 units for the war would be possible. That's 4700 more units than OTL. Even if that means 4700 less PAK40s over the same time frame if we assume the US 300% more effective stat holds then it is a major net gain. Especially since their reliability, established through late war operational rates, seems to have been higher than tanks as the chassis was already quite mature. Having triple the AFVs of this type in 1944 plus a well grooved system of replacement could well see a substantial hike in Allied, especially Soviet, AFV losses. Assuming a virtuous cycle then for the Axis (as an earlier introduction would ensure the Finns, Hungarians, and Romanians would get quite a few and improve their own performance or at least ability to hold out longer) and a vicious cycle for the Allies due to heavier AFV losses then that could substantially slow down the Allied advance.

Conservatively a 2:1 kill count in 1944 would be plausible, which would mean an additional 10,000 or so (factoring out OTL Hetzer kills) additional Allied AFVs could be knocked out. That would certainly have a pretty major impact considering the bulk would be concentrated in the East.

 

[ATP]

On reflection I'm not so sure that is all the impact it would have. Certainly it won't change the outcome on its own, but having production starting 12 months earlier and several thousand more AFVs, even if little more than glorified SP AT guns with good survivability if used properly, would still have a pretty important impact. US experience from the war showed that SP AT guns were about 300% more effective than towed guns as well as were more survivable and given the loss rates of the PAK40s in the east a much more survivable and effective AT weapon at the infantry division level would be highly helpful. David Glantz pointed out in his Art of War lecture series that by 1944 Soviet advances only happened when and where tank brigades/corps/armies could be used as battering rams and exploitation units, so the best way to really delay or even stop them would be to have better AT weapons. Plus IOTL by July 1944 when the Hetzer first entered service losses necessitated half trained crews and units be tossed into action repeatedly, while having it ready 12 months earlier that problem would be avoided, so that the crews/units only would go into action after proper training, which would make them even more effective than IOTL.

Even if we assume the 1000 units per month is a pipedream if the steady number of 500 per month (a bare minimum IMHO) is achieved by 1944 that means over the course of the year 6000 would be produced, more than double the OTL output for the whole war and triple what was produced in 1944 IOTL. Factor in 1943 and 45 production and a minimum of 7500 units for the war would be possible. That's 4700 more units than OTL. Even if that means 4700 less PAK40s over the same time frame if we assume the US 300% more effective stat holds then it is a major net gain. Especially since their reliability, established through late war operational rates, seems to have been higher than tanks as the chassis was already quite mature. Having triple the AFVs of this type in 1944 plus a well grooved system of replacement could well see a substantial hike in Allied, especially Soviet, AFV losses. Assuming a virtuous cycle then for the Axis (as an earlier introduction would ensure the Finns, Hungarians, and Romanians would get quite a few and improve their own performance or at least ability to hold out longer) and a vicious cycle for the Allies due to heavier AFV losses then that could substantially slow down the Allied advance.

Conservatively a 2:1 kill count in 1944 would be plausible, which would mean an additional 10,000 or so (factoring out OTL Hetzer kills) additional Allied AFVs could be knocked out. That would certainly have a pretty major impact considering the bulk would be concentrated in the East.

Allies loosing 10.000 tanks more - it really mean 4 months fighting longer.Becouse ,even with more Hetzer,war would end with muschroom over Berlin.
But,part of Hungary and Czech would remain free.Too late for Poland,snif,snif.

 

[sillygoose]

Allies loosing 10.000 tanks more - it really mean 4 months fighting longer.Becouse ,even with more Hetzer,war would end with muschroom over Berlin.
But,part of Hungary and Czech would remain free.Too late for Poland,snif,snif.

Depends on how things play out differently in the ground war.


As an aside I'm curious why the Germans didn't develop a 60mm cannon given that they had 60mm barrel making equipment captured in France:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandt_Mle_1935

The 60mm HVMS cannon was my inspiration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60mm_HVMS

The Zis-2 AT gun was very effective and a 60mm L70 cannon would be excellent for the Hetzer as well as reduce the weight at the front end of the AFV while also reducing recoiling force. With a slightly improved penetration over the Zis-2 due to the wider diameter and heavier weight it would be plenty good at knocking out T-34s and Shermans at over 1000m while being very flat shooting at that distance vs. the 75mm L48 that started dropping off in accuracy after 500m due to the lower muzzle velocity.

 

[Buba]

An infantry mortar barrel and an AT cannon barrel are in two different leagues when it comes to working pressure.

There was some sort of industrial bottleneck involving cannon barrels which made putting 75mm mle 97 barrels on PAK 5cm mounts a good idea.

The Hetzer with the 8cm PAW 600 could be better - and IIRC such a variant was looked at

Spamming the 8cm PAW from mid '43 forward (i.e. first mass issue in the summer) might produce a result similar to that of hordes of Hetzers. At c.600kg it is still light and "manhandable" as to be issued down to Battalion level yet with a punch enough to kill almost any tank. In most of Europe fighting tanks are ranges larger than 800 metres would be rare.

 

[sillygoose]

An infantry mortar barrel and an AT cannon barrel are in two different leagues when it comes to working pressure.

Of course, but the inner measuring equipment is what matters AFAIK. They can increase the thickness of the barrel without issue so long as the internal diameter is correct. Though I could be wrong with that perception.

There was some sort of industrial bottleneck involving cannon barrels which made putting 75mm mle 97 barrels on PAK 5cm mounts a good idea.

Rather than designing a new carriage they thought they could get away with using a design they already had in production so they could spam cheap, though short ranged AT guns to all their infantry units so they could deal with KVs and T-34s.

The Hetzer with the 8cm PAW 600 could be better - and IIRC such a variant was looked at

The 105mm variant would be much better, but wasn't ready in time. Same with the discarding sabot ammo, which would have dramatically increased the range and accuracy. There was the E-5 with a double PAW 600 barrel IOTL, but it was deemed too short ranged by the time the mock up was ready in 1944. As it was the PAW 600 wasn't developed in time to really matter anyway.

Spamming the 8cm PAW from mid '43 forward might produce a result similar to that of hordes of Hetzers. At c.600kg it is still light and "manhandable" as to be issued down to Battalion level yet with a punch enough to kill almost any tank. In most of Europe fighting tanks are ranges larger than 800 metres would be rare.

Certainly better against the opposition of the time than the 37mm or arguably even the 50mm PAKs. But it was a regimental weapon due to the short range and need to also fill the infantry gun role; agree that it would have been decent, but then an E-5 type weapon with the double barrel would be better so it had a better chance of hitting at its range limit:

Though again the 105mm with discarding sabot using a 81mm projectile would have been best.
Again doomed by not being ready in time to matter.

 

[ATP]

Depends on how things play out differently in the ground war.


As an aside I'm curious why the Germans didn't develop a 60mm cannon given that they had 60mm barrel making equipment captured in France:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandt_Mle_1935

The 60mm HVMS cannon was my inspiration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60mm_HVMS

The Zis-2 AT gun was very effective and a 60mm L70 cannon would be excellent for the Hetzer as well as reduce the weight at the front end of the AFV while also reducing recoiling force. With a slightly improved penetration over the Zis-2 due to the wider diameter and heavier weight it would be plenty good at knocking out T-34s and Shermans at over 1000m while being very flat shooting at that distance vs. the 75mm L48 that started dropping off in accuracy after 500m due to the lower muzzle velocity.

As @Buba said,PAW 600 would be better.And,there is no reason why not made it before war,becouse it used 81mm mortar barrel,used by germans army.
It would not save them,but,if they use it from 1941,in 1945 they still could hold soviets on Dniepr river when A bomb drop - which mean free Poland.

 

[sillygoose]

As @Buba said,PAW 600 would be better.And,there is no reason why not made it before war,becouse it used 81mm mortar barrel,used by germans army.

For the barrels sure, but the hard part was the hi-low pressure system and figuring out elements of HEAT shells that weren't realized until 1943 (importance of smooth bore barrels, stand off distances for the shell).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High%E2%80%93low_system

It would not save them,but,if they use it from 1941,in 1945 they still could hold soviets on Dniepr river when A bomb drop - which mean free Poland.

The value of the A-bomb was pretty mooted by 1945 given the levels of bomb damage that already existed in Germany and the need for it against Japan.

Plus if butterflies from the changes mean that D-day doesn't work or stays contained then the Normandy bridgehead area then the vital breach of the radar defenses won't happen. IOTL those and changes in electronic warfare had swung the strategic air war back to Germany (the Battle of Berlin of 1943-44 was a serious defeat for the RAF which forced them to focus on France so they could recover from attrition). If they hold the Dnieper and France they have the resources to keep fighting it out at much better odds, especially since trade with Spain and Turkey, not to mention Finland, wouldn't be cancelled due the course of the fighting.

 

[ATP]

For the barrels sure, but the hard part was the hi-low pressure system and figuring out elements of HEAT shells that weren't realized until 1943 (importance of smooth bore barrels, stand off distances for the shell).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High%E2%80%93low_system

The value of the A-bomb was pretty mooted by 1945 given the levels of bomb damage that already existed in Germany and the need for it against Japan.

Plus if butterflies from the changes mean that D-day doesn't work or stays contained then the Normandy bridgehead area then the vital breach of the radar defenses won't happen. IOTL those and changes in electronic warfare had swung the strategic air war back to Germany (the Battle of Berlin of 1943-44 was a serious defeat for the RAF which forced them to focus on France so they could recover from attrition). If they hold the Dnieper and France they have the resources to keep fighting it out at much better odds, especially since trade with Spain and Turkey, not to mention Finland, wouldn't be cancelled due the course of the fighting.

Allies would land in Normandy just like in OTL,and bigger german forces would contain them longer - but,till september 1945,they get France and break german AA.
Destroing Berlin with one bomb and killing Hitler would end war.

Problem is - democratic presidents like Truman love giving Poland to Moscov for free,so we would end enslaved anyway.