Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Why Panzerartillerie? Why Armored Artillery?" video.

A helmet will not save you from being killed if someone fires a rifle bullet directly into your hear. But a helmet can prevent you from getting killed from other things - like stones and metal pieces that are flying around after some bombs and grenades hits the ground around you. So are helmets worthless? No. They give you some cheap life protection, but they will not protect you against everything. If someone fires a cannon directly towards you head, then it will not save you. Same goes with armor protection on some artillery or armored personnel carriers. They can stop rifle bullets, machine gun fire, stones and shrapnel from killing you. But if you get hit by a gun from a tank, then your vehicle will be wrecked. Tanks can perhaps even survive a hit from a big tank gun. But they will not survive a hit from battleship gun. So everything is about the appropriate level of protection. Not every soldier can carry armor thick as a battleship, because that would be too expensive. And armor is also heavy so you cannot carry too much of it. A tank will become slow if it have too much of it - and thereby become a big, slow, easy target to hit. And the more armor you have, the less weight can you carry of something else - so you cannot carry a big gun if your turret is already too heavy by all armor. So what is the best amount of armor on artillery? -It depends. Having a big gun is probably the most important for artillery. And some armor that gives if some ability to survive machine gun fire and shrapnel from enemy planes and artillery and infantry would be good. And keeping the weight low so it can move fast on the battlefield and not be an easy target is also good. And low production costs means that you can afford to build more of those vehicles and have more of them on the battlefield.
8
You might just get a shot that combines the worst things of the two. More expensive and heavy than the 105mm and less fire power than the 150mm. And you the bigger shots you have, the longer time it will take to reload, and the less space fewer rounds can you carry inside a tank. And a round with a twice as large caliber does not have twice as much explosives. Rather it have like 4 times more since the amount of firepower rather grows exceptionally (If I remember things correctly). So the fire power of one shot is much greater with a Hummel than a Grille. You can easily wipe out buildings. While that might be hard to do with a shot with a smaller caliber. And replacing a small gun with a bigger one, means that reload takes long, you can carry less rounds of ammo in your tank. And you overkill small soft targets with big expensive ammo. And this leads to a logistical burden. And with tank guns things do get even more complicated. A long gun barrel means high muzzle velocity. A high muzzle velocity is good. It allows you to kill enemy tanks, since the high speed of a round makes it easy for it to punch through enemy armor. And a higher speed also means longer range and better precision of the gun. But the drawback is that not all ammo can endure the violent treatment that comes with high muzzle velocity. The ammunition can then explode inside the gun barrel and kill its own tank crew. There is one solution to this problem, and that is to make the metal skin of the ammunition thicker so it doesn't break. But the drawback of this is that your ammo now have more metal and less explosives in it. So when you hit a target you will not have the same big explosion as before. M4 Sherman crews discovered this in World war 2. The newer versions of the tank had a longer gun barrel (of the same caliber) that could kill German tanks pretty easy. But the High explosive shots on this tanks did suck. So many tank crews therefore preferred the old version of the tank instead, because its ammunition contained more explosives so it easier could kill enemy infantry and destroy bunkers and buildings.
3
The are also good because you can also fast and easy get them to move so they will not get hit by enemy fire, after you have fired your shots and the enemy now know your position and wants to take revenge by firing big guns on the place where the fire came and send some Aircrafts to bomb that place. Moving a heavy gun without a motor can be difficult and you might not have time to get into safety before the enemy starts firing.
2
Russia have their terminator tanks
2
"Wasn't the whole ISU-152 and SU-152, inspired by the Stugs?" The reason why SU-152, SU100 and SU85 entered service was because they carried the only guns that could effectively fight Tiger tanks. All those tanks were late war designs, so of course could the Russians then use the many things they had learned from tank production such as sloped armor. And a tank without a turret meant a cheap vehicle that could carry a bigger gun. So Russia could thereby quickly get some new vehicles into service that could kill Tigers when all allied tanks were too weak to do that job. New Russian tanks were under development, but it would take many months before those tanks that could kill Tigers would enter service, such as the IS-2 and T-34/85. Russia could not afford to wait so long. They needed something here and now to deal with the Tiger threat. So they built those cheap Tank destroyers with big guns, and used them until the new generation of medium tanks and heavy tanks could take over. You could say that history repeated itself. Germany was in the same situation in late 1941, when all German tanks had no chance against KV-1 and T34 tanks. Germany was saved in 1941 because the enemy thankfully had too few of those "super tanks" to make any difference. But Germany rightfully feared that 1942 would be a horrible year, if Russia would start to produce those tanks in large numbers and get better crews and tactics when they used them. So a fast solution was needed. PzIVH and Tiger 1 was tanks that needed months of further development before they could go into service with the German army. So Germany needed something instantly that could kill Russian monsters. And the solution was to remove the turret from crappy weak tanks. That saved weight. And now you could mount a heavy gun instead. So you got a powerful tank killer with a big gun that was fast and cheap to build. But the problem was that they lacked both armor and a turret. Those vehicle needed to remain hidden for their survival. So their use in offensive warfare was a bit limited. Never the less would I say that Nashorn was probably one of the most successful tanks that Germany built. Stug was a stealthy vehicle with a gun of the size of light artillery. And its armor protection was moderate. ISU-152 was meant for two jobs - killing Tiger tanks and turning office buildings into rubble. And its armor was thick enough that it could do close combat fighting with enemy tanks and did not have to stay hidden like stug. Stug was a long range sniper tank. Only the Panther had better optics among all German tanks. While SU152 with its short fat gun had terrible precision of its gun at longer ranges. The slow speed of its shots and the high air resistance meant that winds easily could pull the projectile a bit of course and make it miss its target. "serve in the role of a Sturmpanzer or Jagdpanzer." I guess that is a fair description. "With both direct and indirect fire capabilities" I do not think they were good as SPGs. Their precision was bad and their reload time was awfully slow. But they were excellent at doing other things - like killing Tigers and blow up buildings in Berlin that was 4 floors tall with just a single shot. Their effect on fighting morale on both sides must also have been large. Even some King Tigers backed up by elite paratroopers would probably pissing their pants if they saw a few of these beasts turning up.
2
@katrinapaton5283 IVF and IVH was surprisingly quick to enter service. It entered service in the summer of 1942. But then had the war on the eastern front already been raging for a year. And meanwhile did the Germans develop Marder tank destroyers as a stop gap measure. And in January in 1942 could the Germans not be sure that their upgraded Panzer IV tanks would work good with a better gun. Researching new tanks doesn't work like in computer games where you can know in before hand what you get by investing money into a project. You can instead get lots of delays and oftentimes do research projects fail completly, and many German projects ended that way - as you can see on all prototype tanks that exist in world of tanks. But the Germans were lucky this time. They could fit a big gun into the old panzer IV. The new tank became so succesful that it became the best tank in the world that summer. And the tank would remain the only tank that would serve throughout the entire war. It was built as a support tank to deal with infantry while Panzer III was supposed to do the job of fighting other tanks and do the main typical tank jobs on the battlefield. But with Panzer IVs succesful upgrade, and Panzer III getting too old and weak to be frontline tank - then the roles got reversed. And panzer IV became the workhorse for the German army throghout the war. But by 1944 it started to become obsolete. T34/85 (which was built on the old T34 chassi) had become more powerful than its old foe with the new upgraded variant. And also IS2 was built on the same hull as its predessesor KV1. And it too was a superior monster on the battlefield. So Panzer IV was good as a temporary solution for the Germans. But the tank begun to ageing at the end of the war.
2
Stug was originally intended as a infantry support vehicle. It had a short fat gun. Short guns are worthless against enemy tanks because the shots it fires are so slow that they cannot punch through the armor. But if you only want to blow up cars, trucks, humans and wooden houses with explosives, then this isn't a problem. The speed of your projectile doesn't matter, what matters then is how fat your gun barrel is. The caliber matters, because the larger it is, the larger shots can you fire. And the big rounds of ammunition carry more explosives and cause a bigger BOOM!!. And a heavier round will also punch trough armor much easier than a low weight shot. So StuH42 would have been great for helping foot soldiers blowing up buildings filled with enemy soldiers. It got some armor so it can drive close to them with its thick armor that can resist machine gun fire. And then it can fire its big gun and blow up the building so nothing but bricks remains. But this gun would be useless against enemy tanks with thick armor. The StuG III (G version) had a long gun and excellent optics so it was able to destroy enemy tanks at long range. But it was not as good at blowing up buildings.
2
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I agree. The StuH gun was probably useful against some tanks, but not all. While StuGIII G was good both against tanks and infantry and other soft targets. It was good against everything I guess. The only thing I guess had a problem dealing with would be the most powerful Russian heavy tanks that was used late in the war.
2
I don't hear much difference in my crappy headphones. Both I know that the acoustics in most music studios suck because they use too much damping materials on the walls that adsorbs all high frequency sounds so the recording you make sounds like it has been done inside a wardrobe. Another common error is if you have too many hard surfaces - that will make sounds bouncing back towards you. And when your sound and the eco waves hits the microphone at the same time, then it becomes difficult to hear what people say. The position of the microphone also matters. If you have positioned it far back in the rear in a church, then you will hear much eco, but very little of what the guy on the scene actually says. But if you move your microphone forward, then you will hear less eco that phase out all sound waves, so you will therefore hear the man speaking more clearly.
2
Except hummel and m107
1