ITT: well loved and thought-to-be-excellent-performing vehicles that are actually quite crap
ITT: well loved and thought-to-be-excellent-performing vehicles that are actually quite crap
ITT: well loved and thought-to-be-excellent-performing vehicles that are actually quite crap
Victim of the rapid progress in aircraft design during the 1950s, yet somehow has a massive cult following.
>interceptor that requires over 20 minutes of preflight checks and calibrating shit
Don't all aircraft require that. And the ones gejd at readiness will be all set ready to go.
Well I dunno what the official procedure is, but I can take a MiG-21 from cold to taxi in under 2 minutes in DCS.
They never got a chance to prove if the were any good in combat or not, but they were designed to go fast, and they were fast.
How is being one of the most effective German tank destroyers pound for pound crap
To increase the chances of you replying to the thread
Was the hetzer really better than the late model marders (also based on the 38t hull) ? it had enough armor to tank sherman or t-34 rounds from the front, but it was also cramped, blind and the suspension was overloaded
The Marders automatically suck for having an open superstructure
there must be a reason, both czech and swiss continued building it postwar.
The marders were limited because they could not advance close to the front line to engage/flank/finish off an enemy attack, they had to hold back to stay safe. Being fully enclosed made the hetzer massively more flexible, not to mention survivable. Marders were prone to taking bad casualties. By the end of the war they were not making marders anymore, but they were sending new hetzers to both infantry and tank panzerjager companies.
?si=9M2zTcPdSq316AWE
By being the same or worse in all ways but frontal armor than the StuG III&IV. On the western front it was one of the best ways to turn trained crews into dead crews because it's armor was paper thin everywhere but the front, and the interior visibilty was among the worst for german AFVs. On the eastern front, it didn't kill subanimal hordes appreciably better than it's contemporaries.
It's only saving grace was coming from a factory that was not regularly bombed.
>On the western front it was one of the best ways to turn trained crews into dead crews
You are overstating it. The hetzer has to be compared to the towed AT guns, marders, and converted halftracks which it was largely replacing. All of which were noted as being extremely dangerous jobs, mostly during disengagement where there soft nature left them vulnerable to any artillery fire. If you want to compare it to a stug disfavorably that's fine, but at the end of the day the hetzer's whole concept is to be a cope stug and that's all right because it did a very good job at being a cope stug.
Its job was to cost less than the StuGs and still kill tanks, which it achieved
also stuka
also w.allies fighters in ground attack role
Please, Jugs, Tyffies, and Coursairs did unholy things to Axis troops.
>cheap
>effective
>quite respectable frontal armor
Towed guns then and now are pretty much guaranteed write offs if the position they're in is contested or taken, these little shitters are ideal. Can't be wasting IVs baby sitting infantry for assault gun duty.
The Hetzer is the macnasty of tank destroyers. It has a better gun and actually has armor unlike the M18 Hellcat.
- Excellent Interceptor but would have been shit at everything else
- Would have vored Canada's entire Air Force Budget, leaving no money left over for the Multi-Role fighters they needed for their NATO commitment or for maritime patrol aircraft
- Soviet bombers were soon overshadowed by ICBMS and SLBMs as the primary threats
- It's cancellation killed Avro Canada, if it got put into service it probably still would have killed Avro Canada by being a useless boondoggle.
- Would have never seen action and would have been retired and replaced by F-18s anyways.
- It's only purpose is to be a masturbation aid to Canadian plane boomers
This is my absolute favorite tank in War Thunder, so you must be wrong.