A story about the experimental German tank destroyer Versuchs-leichte Panzerjäger IV (Panzerjäger 39), based on the Pz.Kpfw.IV tank
The first German tank destroyers appeared as early as the 1930s. At that time, they were designed as high-speed combat vehicles with bulletproof armor and weapons mounted in a turret capable of rotating in all directions. However, the mass-produced German tank destroyers turned out to be quite different. They were based on the chassis of obsolete light tanks, onto which anti-tank guns and rather awkward cockpits were mounted. Essentially, the result was a self-propelled gun—more mobile than a conventional artillery piece, but with its own set of drawbacks. Furthermore, the production volume of such tank destroyers was not particularly high.
The Pz.Kpfw.IV with the 7.5 cm Stu.G.40—a somewhat surprising design by Krupp. How they managed to reach a combat weight of 28 metric tons remains a mystery.
Although German tank destroyers based on light tank chassis continued to be produced until early 1944, doubts about their practicality had arisen much earlier. It became clear that what was needed was not a “self-propelled gun carriage,” but something more robust—preferably based on a medium tank chassis. This led to the creation of the Versuchs-leichte Panzerjäger IV tank destroyer, which was conceptually very similar to the StuG 40 Ausf. G, but was built on a different platform and designed for slightly different tasks—at least in theory.
Model of a small tank destroyer by VOMAG, spring 1943
The somewhat peculiar situation that arose around German self-propelled artillery is partly due to organizational conflicts. The fact is that there were assault self-propelled guns and tank destroyers for tank units, as well as StuG assault guns, which were assigned to assault gun battalions. StuG units were not subordinate to tank units, but were often attached to them. Destroying enemy armored vehicles was part of the StuG’s mission, but only as one of its functions. At the same time, the StuG had fairly sturdy armor, which was increased to a thickness of 80 mm in 1942, while the “self-propelled gun carriages” were equipped with bulletproof armor.
It was also sometimes designated as a Sturmgeschütz n.A.
The most interesting developments began in the second half of 1942, when “self-propelled gun mounts” became widespread. These were the Marders, most of which were built on the Pz.Kpfw.II and Pz.Kpfw.38(t). At the same time, the StuG 40 Ausf.F/8 began to see widespread use. The guns on these self-propelled guns had very similar characteristics, but their effectiveness varied. Yet they were often used in the same way. And while the StuG 40, thanks to its sturdy front armor, had fairly high survivability in combat, the Marder fared poorly in this regard. This was especially true given that the Marders were noticeably taller than the StuGs, and they were regularly sent on assault missions.
The VOMAG self-propelled gun was distinguished by its very low profile
One of the advantages of “self-propelled gun mounts” was their price, but even here, things aren’t quite that simple. The 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 was only 1,500 Reichsmarks more expensive than the 7.5 cm Pak 40 (12,000 and 13,500 Reichsmarks, respectively), while the price difference between the Pz.Kpfw.II and the StuG was 30,000 Reichsmarks (50,000 and just over 80,000 Reichsmarks). However, the difference in effectiveness was far more significant. Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that by the end of 1942, there was a significant increase in the production volume of the StuG 40. Admittedly, with one caveat. As before, the StuG 40 continued to be assigned to assault gun divisions, while anti-tank divisions continued to use the Marder.
The model was based on the production Pz.Kpfw.IV chassis
The German military first began considering the development of a tank destroyer similar to the StuG as early as the fall of 1942. On October 5, 1942, the tactical and technical requirements for the Sturmgeschütz n.A. were issued. The new self-propelled gun was designated an “assault gun” because, on average, 25% of its ammunition was expended directly against tanks. However, after Heinz Guderian took office as Inspector General of the Panzer Forces, the designation was changed to “kleine Panzerjäger.” Guderian still remembered how he had been unable to take the StuG away from the artillery, and he had no desire to let that happen a second time.
This is the same one, after modifications, May 1943
Most likely, it was the work on the Sturmgeschütz n.A. that led to the development of the Pz.Kpfw.IV mit 7.5 cm Stu.G.40 project, which was presented by Krupp on February 5, 1943. This self-propelled gun was based on the 9./B.W. chassis, a modernization project for the Pz.Kpfw.IV. The only advantage of this design was the front hull panel, which had a rational angle of inclination. Everything else could be described as “very bad.” The StuG 40 Ausf.F/8 turret, featuring a modified front hull plate, was mounted on the 9./B.W. chassis. This increased the combat weight to 28.26 metric tons. Naturally, this project generated no enthusiasm whatsoever.
Prototype of the Small Experimental Light Tank Destroyer IV, Fall 1943
The situation was quite different with another project, the Sturmgeschütz n.A., for which the assignment had been issued even before the tactical and technical requirements were established. The contract was awarded to VOMAG (Die Vogtländische Maschinenfabrik AG), which had been manufacturing the Pz.Kpfw.IV since August 1941. The Plauen-based truck and bus manufacturer proved to be a more capable developer of the new tank destroyer. Instead of a new, complicated chassis, VOMAG used the standard Pz.Kpfw.IV chassis, with a new turret base. Moreover, the engineers in Plauen realized that they could utilize the full width of the hull rather than being limited to the width of the hull’s “tub.”
The design of the gun mount changed constantly
On May 13, 1943, VOMAG presented a scale model of the “kleine Panzerjäger der Firma VOMAG” to Hitler at a demonstration. Even as a scale model, this self-propelled gun looked extremely interesting. VOMAG engineers prioritized providing maximum armor protection while keeping the turret’s dimensions to a minimum, especially in terms of height. The total height of the self-propelled gun was only 1,700 mm, which was a record for medium-class combat vehicles. At the same time, both the frontal armor plate and the side armor had optimal angles of inclination. The side armor was increased to 40 mm, providing reliable protection against anti-tank rifles; even a 45-mm anti-tank gun could only penetrate it at very close range.
Placement of Components on the Cabin Roof
Equally important was the way the gun mount was constructed. The 75-mm 7.5 cm Pak 39 L/48 gun existed only as a mock-up at that time, but the overall concept could be assessed even at that stage. First, unlike the 7.5 cm StuK 40, it was decided to abandon the bulky pedestal mount. The gun mount was mounted on the upper front hull plate, within a frame. This significantly reduced the weight of the mount and saved interior space. Second, the movable armor became noticeably smaller and more reliable. It was cast in a complex shape and of variable thickness.
During a demonstration of the vehicle to Hitler on October 20, 1943, the self-propelled gun was fitted with side armor.
It should be noted that the VOMAG was constantly being refined. Even before the self-propelled gun was presented to Hitler, a number of changes were made to its design. First, the driver’s observation device was redesigned. It, by the way, stood out very favorably compared to the StuG. Two periscopes were mounted in a cast housing, which significantly improved the driver’s protection against shell hits. Second, cast ports for mounting MG 42 defensive machine guns were added to the upper frontal hull plate. This was a better design than the hinged shield for the MG 34 used on the StuG 40 Ausf.G.
A complete set of optical instruments, including a stereomicroscope
The design of the VOMAG’s turret roof was also quite interesting. First, it was made removable, which simplified a number of repair tasks. Second, in terms of visibility, the self-propelled gun was better designed than the StuG 40. Yes, the latter had a commander’s cupola, but most of the time the commander used binoculars, which provided a wider field of view. A separate hatch in front of the main hatch was provided for its installation. However, in terms of observation devices, the “kleine Panzerjäger” from VOMAG clearly outperformed the StuG. Four periscopes were provided on the roof of the turret, one of which—located in the commander’s hatch—could rotate 360 degrees. One of the periscopes was intended for the loader; it wasn’t particularly convenient (they skimped on the 360-degree rotation), but at least it was there.
Panzerjäger 39, the second prototype of the self-propelled gun
It must be said that the design of VOMAG’s kleine Panzerjäger was constantly changing. This applied to the gun mount, the turret, and the chassis. The main problem with the latter was that the current configuration of the hull’s front section looked outdated. It was vulnerable to fire from the F-34 cannon and similar weapons. In February 1943, the idea arose to redesign the front section of the Pz.Kpfw.IV. The redesign was never implemented on the tank itself, but the tank destroyer did receive it. The new, V-shaped front armor plate featured a 60-mm thick upper plate at a 60-degree angle and a 50-mm thick lower plate at a 55-degree angle.
Actually, there are two machine-gun ports here, but one has been painted over
This front hull section was featured on a prototype self-propelled gun designated the Versuchs-leichte Panzerjäger IV. It was made of structural steel, and the vehicle underwent several revisions even before its presentation to Hitler on October 20, 1943. In particular, the design of the gun mount was modified, and side armor plates were added. These, incidentally, turned out to be more effective than those installed on the StuG or Pz.Kpfw.IV.
The vehicle was used for training purposes
Subsequently, in November 1943, a second prototype of the self-propelled gun was built. This vehicle, incidentally, is designated as the Panzerjäger 39; the designation E-39 is sometimes mentioned in this context, though there is no basis for it. This vehicle had some design differences from the first prototype; in addition, it was fitted with a Zimmerit anti-magnetic coating. Since the self-propelled gun was also made of structural steel, it was used as a training vehicle.
She’s the same these days
For a number of reasons, the self-propelled gun was not put into series production in this particular configuration. During preparations for the production of hulls and turrets, it was decided to abandon the curved side panels on the front of the turret. These side panels became a distinctive feature of the prototype vehicles. At the same time, the Panzerjäger 39 was fortunate. As it happened, the vehicle was taken to France after the war and sat rusting away for a long time at a military equipment yard in Somure. Some time later, the self-propelled gun was handed over to the Germans; after being restored, it ended up in the tank museum in Münster.
The combat unit has been partially restored
As of 1943, the Versuchs-leichte Panzerjäger IV was the best German tank destroyer. Of course, the Pz.Kpfw.IV chassis was not ideal, but overall, its mobility was quite adequate. Furthermore, despite a significantly increased level of armor protection, the combat weight remained at 24 metric tons—the same as that of the base tank. In this regard, one can only wonder why the StuG IV was later introduced, as it was clearly inferior to the VOMAG design.
List of Sources:
-
-
- US NARA
- ЦГА Спб
- Panzer Tracts 9-2 Jagdpanzer: Jagdpanzer IV, Panzer IV/70 (V), and Panzer IV/70 (A) development and production from 1945 to 1945, Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary Louis Doyle, 2012
- Panzer Tracts No. 20–1 – Paper Panzers, Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle, Panzer Tracts, 2001
- Light Jagdpanzer: Development — Production – Operations, Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L. Doyle, Thomas L. Jentz, Schiffer Pub Ltd, 2007, ISBN 978-0764326233
-
