Talk:Hetzer

Name 'Hetzer'

Do we have a reliable source on the origin of the name 'Hetzer' ? The current language in the article is ambiguous. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That depends on if you think http://www.achtungpanzer.com/jagdpanzer-38t-hetzer.htm or http://www.panzerworld.net/facts are reliable. The second, although a tertiary source, cites some good secondary sources.

Edit: google book reference Jagdpanzer 38 'Hetzer' 1944-45, Osprey. Hohum (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice book, not a single proof of the name Hetzer" as official or unofficial usage. --Denniss (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Remarkable conclusion; I have the Osprey book sitting in front of me right now. The authors include Hilary Doyle and Tom Jentz, two of the most highly-respected authors on WW2 German armor.

On pages 4 and 5, the authors state all of the following:

* That the name Hetzer was given to a competing design

* That this may have been misunderstood by the manufacturers at the time

* That the first unit to get the vehicles referred to them as Hetzers originally, before changing over to calling them jagdpanzer 38s

* That Guderian told Hitler the name came from the troops (he was wrong about that)

None of this can lead to the conclusion that the name 'Hetzer' is a postwar nickname. On the contrary, it demonstrates that the name was in use in 1944. It is very clear that it was in use during WW2, even if it may have been for a limited time, and even if it was 'wrong', i.e. never official. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I should add that the current state of the article captures all this quite nicely, so the editor may have based it on the Doyle/Jentz book from Osprey. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Inspired by Mareșal tank destroyer

In May 1944, lt.col. Ventz, the delegate of the Waffen Amt, admitted that the Jagdpanzer 38(t) had followed the Romanian design solution. There is an entire paragraph that describes this in Axworthy's book "Third axis, fourth ally". Also, Cornel Scafeș and Ioan Scafeș, two of the best researchers in this field in Romania, say (in several places in their book about the Romanian armored forces) that the germans themselves admitted the Hetzer was heavily influenced by the Mareșal tank destroyer.Mircea87 (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Failings

Most of the failings originally noted were not found to be the case by Spielberger in the book "Light Jagdpanzers". Ken keisel (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

By "comparatively thin armor" the article presumably means surprisingly thick frontal armour, designed for this tank destroyer to use from a defensive ambush position.Aforandy (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it did have thin armour, it just had a very sloped glacis plate which gave it a greater effective thickness. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would call it moderately effective armor for late-ish WWII. To put this in perspective, compare Hetzer to Sherman:

	Hetzer	Sherman
Frontal	60mm@60°	51mm@56°
Side	20mm@40°	38-45mm@0°
Rear	?	38mm@0-22°

These are all referring to the hull. The Hetzer had no turret.

The Sherman's turret was more heavily armored than the hull, but then again it stuck up painfully high.

Keep in mind that the Hetzer was only half the weight of the Sherman.

Even an 0.50 caliber M2 armor-piercing ball round can penetrate 19mm@0.

.30 caliber M2 armor-piercing ball can penetrate 10-11mm@0°.

In terms of comparing tank destroyers (i.e., apples to apples), the Hetzer's armor made a sick joke out of the M18 Hellcat's.

Fnj2 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Surviving Hetzers

The statement about Hetzers being present today in large numbers due to the numbers built seems erroneous to me. Or rather, the part about it being the most abundant today. Sturmgeschutz III was the most built tank/assault gun of the Germans (the G variant being by far the most common), by a factor of more than 4 over the Hetzer, and a lot of StuGs still survive today. Of course I don't know how many Hetzers and StuGs exist exactly, but I'd be very surprised if Hetzers outnumbered StuGs. And StuG is the one generally seen in re-enactments/movies, and is the more known vehicle.

I am also less than convinced by the unreferenced opining. (Hohum ^@) 22:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Both vehicles are actually present today in large numbers.(~80+ each, wrecks included, and StuG III with StuH). The statement is indeed erroneous. Nonetheless, the Hetzer has more functional vehicles because of the postwar variants.--Mircea87 (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

On the translation of "Hetzer"

I have seen claims of people that the name "Hetzer" is a corruption on "Hetzhund", a hunting dog. Other simply translate the name as "Baiter" or "Chaser". Translating "Hetzer" in online translator often ends up with words as "agitator" or similar words with negative connotations. When the German soldiers coined the name, I suppose they meant it in a positive connotation.

Can anyone explain this? 189.226.195.116 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A (bulky) English-German dictionary gives Hetze as stress and hetzen the verb as 1) course/bait/chase/hunt and figuratively as hurry/rush/pursue/hound or 2) figuratively as "cause discord" or "make mischief". Room for various connotations but to much room for interpretation (ie synthesis) so best to stick to what the sources give. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for your help. (Also bumping in hopes to have someone else post their take on this :P)189.226.195.116 (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hetzer originates from the verb "hetzen" which is in this context some hunting term (chase/bait an animal). Agitator is related to the verb "aufhetzen". Moot anyway as the name was never used for the Jagdpanzer 38, a myth invented by postwar authors. --Denniss (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Okay, I admit I was a bit too reckless before, but now I re-posted the "Inspiration" and I sourced it, according to the Wiki principles. What's the matter now, why it got deleted? What's the matter, can't take the truth?

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You copied the text word for word from your source. That is copyirght violation and plagiarism. That could result in major legal claims against Wikipedia, so for that reason alone any such text must be removed.

Secondly, the site you used is a commercial blog. It is not clear to what extent the information on that site is provided by experts. I looked around a bit and could find not justification of materials. This makes the source a self-published source which is generally not acceptable. So in fact you neither created the text nor sourced it following the Wikipedia principles. Arnoutf (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder, why just "inspired"?

The Hetzer was "inspired" by the Romanian Mareșal, but that's too little for it's own good. What I mean is...why did the Germans replace the Romanian 75 mm Reșița AT gun with...that? The Reșița had a muzzle velocity of over 1 km per second, while Hetzer's gun barely reaches 750 meters per second. Couldn't the Germans just copy the Romanian gun, if they also copied the overall design? I'm not saying that the Hetzer was not good, but it would have been better, if it had more Romanian in it. But no, in a desperate plea for "originality", they downgraded it. Pathetic. -_- Romanian-and-proud (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The inspiration/copy claim is still a claim, not backed-up by anything. Do you also claim Vomag used the Maresal to develop the similar-looking Jagdpanzer IV? One could also claim the Romanians were inspired by the StuG IIIG, just created a better ballistic shape for their vehicle. The Germans did not copy the Resita as they had similar guns already in production. The muzzle velocity comparison is likely made with subcaliber/tungsten core ammo vs standard ammo on the german gun, with Panzergranate 40 the PaK 40 family had 990m/s.--Denniss (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Denniss Ah..*sighs* Another iredeemably Germanophile skeptic. The first Maresal was made in July 1943, while the first Hetzer in March 1944, and they have the exact same body style. You know, there's this thing, it's called "logic", you should really try it. Because unless you're blind, retarded or biased against Romania, you don't really need more evidence. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

And you have no idea what you are talking about. The Maresal was first presented the germans in 12/43 but by then BMM had already presented plans for their vehicle and had a wooden model in late December or early 44. --Denniss (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

That was just the official presentation. There were German troops in Romania all throughout the war. How do you know some of them didn't just report to Germany the specifications and layout of the Maresal? Romania couldn't even take a dump without Germany taking interest, you really think they didn't know? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

A German commission was present when the Maresal prototype was tested. They admitted to using some technical features from Maresal (armor design mainly I guess, but not the engine/armament/vehicle role). I remember reading it in lt. col. Valerian Nestorescu's book I think? He claims that the German officer said about the Maresal prototype something like (excuse my German): eine grosse hetzer whatever that means. The Germans simply had a bigger team, bigger economical potential and thus they made the Hetzer way faster than the Romanians designed and built the Maresal. The Maresal didn't even have the 75 mm Resita gun when the Germans first saw it I think?2A02:C7D:B5F5:F800:3D32:6742:2FB3:9E27 (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the "Maresal question"

I'm a naval guy, so I reckon I'm stepping out of my field here. But I couldn't help but notice the commotion around this subject. I spotted it when I provided the picture for the Maresal, in my early days as an editor. Well, in my opinion, it simply seems to be a "first come first served" case. The Romanians made their thing first, and Hetzer came months later. Now, to address the concerns of my fair colleague here, the similarity with the Jagdpanzer IV is significantly reduced. If we examine the front we can see that it looks more like a pair of stairs, rather than the single-piece side of a trapezoid displayed by Marsal and Hetzer. Dimensions are also different, but what I find even more remarkable is the number of road wheels powering the tracks. When the Romanians made the first prototype, they used an unaltered T-60 Soviet light tank chassis, which had 4 road wheels. The Germans also used as a base a light tank with 4 road wheels. I found this thing, called "Tanks encyclopedia", which puts digital side-view models of Maresal and Hetzer near each other. Besides the striking similarity, we can even see that the Hetzer pretty much resembles a Maresal that had its rear and front swapped (the more sloped part is in the rear at the Hetzer, while at the Maresal is in the front: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/Jagdpanzer-38_Hetzer.php). I reckon it's not a claim supported by all sources, but the similarity and timeline of production difference between the two make this claim largely reasonable. Torpilorul (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The road wheels are irrelevant, the light tank chassis was used by BMM because it was their current chassis and their factories couldn't handle heavier chassis like Pz III/IV (otherwise they would have built StuGs instead). Design of JPz 38 and Maresal is nothing special, it could simply be traced back to Assault guns like StuG III/SU-122 but with heavy use of angled armor plates. On a rather small light tank chassis you'll get something more turtle-like, the JPz IV would look very similar if you cut 25-33% from its chassis length. --Denniss (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Name 'Hetzer' round 2 electric boogaloo

there have been a few official documents found using the name 'Hetzer' to describe the Jagdpanzer 38 since Jentz and Doyle's book from 2001. Perhaps that part should be changed now?

There is also a Romanian document that quotes a German describing the Maresal as "ein grosser Hetzer" which suggests that 'Hetzer' was also used as the name of a class of vehicles, but not sure about this one.

Documents using 'Hetzer': https://imgur.com/a/qDGmiwE LeCharCanon 06:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Per official announcement in "Nachritenblatt der Panzertruppen" from 17th November 1944 its name was supposed to be Panzerjäger 38 from former leichter Panzerjäger 38(t) - even that is intermixed in the message. Note that Hetzer is placed in parantheses, the message had it only for clarification so that they don't get Marder III instead. --Denniss (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The article states that 'Hetzer' was never used in any official document to refer to the Jagdpanzer 38, and those are 2 official documents that do. That is what I'm talking about, not saying 'Hetzer' was an official name LeCharCanon 20:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Not an official document, just someone asking someone else for information. Plus that someone did not directly ask for Hetzers but used that just for clarification. --Denniss (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

what is an "official document" then? Also, it doesn't really matter if it was just for clarification, the point is that it was still used (Marder III is actually Panzerjager 38, afaik the Hetzer is the only vehicle named Jagdpanzer 38 T). Edit: just checked, in the book cited it doesn't even say no official documents use the name, it even says some units used 'Hetzer' (albeit incorrectly) to refer to the vehicles in strength reports early on. LeCharCanon 04:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Translation

Most of the online translations refer to Hetzer as agitator rather then chaser. Jokem (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Then they are missing the context of a tank hunter chasing its prey. --Denniss (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

US or UK English?

Not sure which one to use, thoughts? DynCoder (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

As european subject it would fall under british english. I believe there are some exception such as if the major part of the article was written in US english. --Denniss (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Per ENGVAR, since Germany is not an English-speaking country, the variant of English is to be whatever variant was used by the original author. Since it was converted from a redirect here, and the word "armoured" (vs "armored") is British English, British English should be used. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

gun training / elevation?

There seems to be no mention of the limits of traversal or elevation of the main weapon. I know such platforms typically had some (but not much) training available to its otherwise fixed gun. DulcetTone (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)