![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in Bulgarian. (March 2009) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
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)
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)
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)
Hetzer | Sherman | |
---|---|---|
Frontal | 60mm@60° | 51mm@56° |
Side | 20mm@40° | 38-45mm@0° |
Rear | ? | 38mm@0-22° |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Most of the online translations refer to Hetzer as agitator rather then chaser. Jokem ( talk) 19:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure which one to use, thoughts? DynCoder ( talk) 21:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in Bulgarian. (March 2009) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
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)
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)
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)
Hetzer | Sherman | |
---|---|---|
Frontal | 60mm@60° | 51mm@56° |
Side | 20mm@40° | 38-45mm@0° |
Rear | ? | 38mm@0-22° |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Most of the online translations refer to Hetzer as agitator rather then chaser. Jokem ( talk) 19:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure which one to use, thoughts? DynCoder ( talk) 21:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
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)