German Wespe vs M7 Priest - Which one was better?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2024
- In this video we look at self-propelled artillery, namely the US M7 Priest and the German Wespe or wasp in English. For this we will look at some hard values like firepower, mobility and armor protection, but also at ergonomics and the overall impact in the grand scheme of things.
Disclaimer in 2018, 2019 & 2020 I was invited by the Panzermuseum Munster.
/ daspanzermuseum
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» UA-cam Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOURCES ««
Fleischer, Wolfgang; Eiermann, Richard: Die motorisierte Artillerie und Panzerartillerie des deutschen Heeres. 1939-1945. Dörfler Verlag: Eggolsheim, Germany, o. J.
Töppel, Roman: Panzerhaubitzen im Einsatz bei Kursk 1943. In: Clausewitz Spezial: Deutsche Panzer Teil 3. GeraMond Verlag GmbH: München, 2017, S. 42-49.
Jentz, Thomas L./Doyle, Hilary Louis: Panzer Tracts No.10-1: Artillerie Selbstfahrlafetten. Boyds, MD, USA, 2002.
TM 9-731E: Carriage, Motor, 105-mm Howitzer, M7 1944.
FM 6-74: 105-mm Howitzer. M2A1 on Motor Carriage M7B1 and M7B2, March 1954.
Moran, Nicholas: Can Openers. Echo Point Books & Media: Brattleboro, Vermont, USA, 2017.
Zetterling, Niklas: Normandy 1944. German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness. Casemate: Philadelphia, USA, 2019.
Spielberger, Walter J.; Doyle, Hilary L.: Panzer I und II und ihre Abarten. Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2014.
OKH: H.Dv. 298/3a: Führung und Kampf der Panzergrenadiere. Heft 1 - Das Panzergrenadier-Bataillon (gp.) vom 5. 8. 44, Reprint.
Spielberger, Walter J.; Jentz, Thomas L.; Doyle, Hilary Louis: Panzer IV und seine Abarten. Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, 2019.
Zaloga, Steven: Armored Thunderbolt. The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II. Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, PA, USA, 2008.
Chamberlain, Peter; Doyle, Hilary: Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two. Revised Edition. Arms & Armour: London, UK, 1999.
#wespe #m7priest #selfpropelledartillery
00:00 Intro
00:21 Firepower
02:05 Chassis
03:08 Mobility
04:52 Armor Protection
05:26 Ergonomics
06:48 Impact
08:05 Summary
08:50 A Reflection of the Industrial Might
My dad served in a Priest in the Pacific. In his experience, USMC Priests, at least, had a 7-man crew. Maybe the Army added a crew member or maybe some Priests had an extra crew member for specific tasks. He hated the thing because the open top was vulnerable to Japanese infiltration tactics and would have preferred serving in a Sherman, but luckily for me he made it through the war in one piece!
That's really cool,
but shouldn't his vehicle have been at less risk, being artillery and all.
Also, I imagine being in an open toped vehicle might of been more comfortable in the heat.
Really interesting, though.
If he were fighting the Japanese, there would have been a lot more attempts by the Japanese to get in close at night and also more need to use the artillery in direct fire to take out bunkers. Both of these would have led to more exposure to Japanese troops getting a bit too close for comfort.
@@pluemas
I get the Japanese would use asymmetric tactics and that M7 priests would need to do direct fire on bunkers.
However surely the Sherman who would always be on the front line and probably be leading assaults and always providing direct fire support and far more often be the vehicle at most direct risk?
@@studentaviator3756 It could be a case of his father was safer in the Priest, as you point out being being back from the front line, yet it might be that he still felt very vulnerable, despite being better off. I imagine if I were him, I'd suspect every tall tree having a Japanese sniper, patiently waiting to get a good shot at the Americans in their open topped vehicle!
@RogCBrand I guess also lived experience can go against the stastics.
If I saw lots of m7 priest crew in my unit get sniped, a crew dieing to a well thrown grenade. The weak armour being ineffective against a light anti-tank gun.
Yet I personally saw no sherman crewman die. I'd want to be a sherman crewman even if someone told me the odds were worse.
British forces operating the Priest during the Battle of Normandy suffered shortages of ammunition, forcing them to switch to using towed 25-pounders, for which more abundant stocks of ammunition were available. The now-redundant Priest hulls were converted to use as APC’s by having their guns removed, becoming informally known as “defrocked Priests”. These proved to be tremendously useful in allowing infantry to keep pace with advancing tanks during the later battles of the Normandy campaign.
I believe the Canadians were the first to use the converted Priests during the August 8 night attack at the onset of Operation Totalize.
The Priest got its name from the British. All the tracked artillery got a ecclesiastical name (Bishop, Priest, Sexton).
The conversion of the M7 to an APC has its origins with the Ram tank which was a Canadian tank based on the M3 but looking like a Sherman with a conventional turret.
It was never used as tank in service but did have its turret removed and was used as an infantry carrier.
I believe that Rams were used as observation tanks for the artillery.
A friends father trained on the Ram and he told me that the crew door “leaked” machine gun fire. If a sustained burst was fired at the door some bullets could get into the tank and injure the crew.
This was Carl Lowerson and he was a Sherman crewman with the North Nova Scotia Highlanders.
@@Chiller01 With plate from diabled landing craft welded on to them.
Never run low on ammunition or communion wine or you may become a defrocked Priest.
Hi George, I don’t think the defrocking of the Sexton was due to a lack of ammunition because the Sexton used the same barrel as the towed 25 pounder.
What my sources state is that the Kangaroo was a more necessary vehicle because the extreme casualties that the Canadian army was suffering was creating a manpower shortage which ultimately resulted in Canada passing conscription legislation in 1944.
There were only so many Rams and nearly all of them had been converted to Kangaroos.
The Sexton was a useful vehicle, but in most cases towed 25 pounders could do the same job, and require less resources.
The towed 25 pounder had some other advantages in that it was easier to hide, had better road speed. (From personal experience of towing our ceremonial 25 pounder road speed was 35 mph or the tractor limber gun train would start to snake. I learned this the hard way but still got to Guelph without any stains in my shorts!)
The Sexton was much better than the towed gun for quick advances and exploitation, but in Normandy most of the fighting for the Canadian and British armies was more of a slow heavily contested advance and protecting our infantry when we did advance became a priority.
As a German with a lot of Family Members who were WW2 Vets (from 1st and 6th Waffen SS Divisions to Luftwaffe Flak Abteilung) i also have a Relative who served in the Afrika Korps and he ALWAYS complained about the Wespe and at least assumed the M7 Priest was better.
In general i got to say those Relatives of mine had a habit of telling me about everything they hated about several German Tanks they had to work with like the Grandfather (still alive at 104) who was with the 1st LSSAH in the Battle of the Bulge and complained about the Tiger (but praised the Panther immensely).
It's always funny to listen to Veterans who had to work with WW2 Vehicles and compare it to People nowadays who often end up praising/calling it bad while the Veterans have the Opposite Opinion. This is true for most Countries Vehicles and Tanks in my Experience.
Prost & Cheers from the Berchtesgadener Land in the Bavarian Alps
Thank you for sharing, and blessings to you and family. I would be very interested to hear about any of the reasons that your WW2 vet family members liked/disliked the vehicles they served with, if you are willing to elaborate. Thank you. :)
Be warned there’s probably an unknown amount of grass is greener on the other side, it’s easy to point out the flaws in something you know about
@@looinrims yeah people are rarely able to be objective about these things, especially if they simply don't have direct comparison to counterparts of equipment they're assigned. So usually they go one of two routes: either blindly praising their own and ruthlessly bashing the other, or opposite: complaining at your stuff and praising enemy machines, by assuming grass is greener on the other side. And in the end, none of these approaches are really close to truth.
The biggest problem with Tigers was their scarcity. Only a little more than 1000 were in service.
@@elijahFree2000 Maybe the problem was that there were a 1000 in service, consuming large numbers of resources that could have been used to field or keep more other tanks in service? They were not after all tanks useful for a wide array of tasks. Maybe the late war German doctrine of using tanks and tank divisions as mobile fire brigades to counter enemy breakthroughs and plug gaps was the problem. After all it was the exact opposite of how the Germans used tanks in the early part of the war. When they were actually still winning. Maybe using tank destroyers, not tanks to fight enemy tanks, was the correct doctrine, and building insanely heavily armored heavy gas guzzling tanks was the exact opposite of what was needed?
When it come to artillery ranges, it is not only about different way to messure it, but about what one assume is "normal weather". For example Bofors FH77b had a max range i Swedish tables of around 26km, while the same guns in Indian service were shooting the same shells well over 30km as they were used in high, warm and dry conditions. Now, different countries might have different "normal weather", so small differences in theoretical range might just be an artefact of differing standards.
Good point. A slight correction however: by "dry" you might mean "humid": artillery shells go further when the relative humidity is higher, not lower. (Assuming it isn't actually raining, that is)
@@lukeueda-sarson6732 I would have thought range would be greater in dry, warm conditions due to lower air density.
@@awf6554 No, humid air has the lower density, not dry air. A very common misunderstanding! (the molecular weight of water is less than oxygen and nitrogen)
@@lukeueda-sarson6732 Well, there you go! Back to physics 101 for me.
I've always had a soft spot for the M7. I served in an MLRS unit from 2001-2006 and tracing the unit's history back, the 14th Armored Field Artillery Regiment was organic artillery for 2nd Armored Division, meaning my unit landed on Omaha sometime around D+3. The main picture for the M7's Wiki page used to be a picture of a 14th FA M7 rolling through a town in Normandy, mistitled as American Tank in Carentan. B Battery of 1-14 FA is still authorized to wear the Belgian fourragere for action during the Battle of the Bulge.
4:14 I find the "the troops want their old towed batteries back" hilarious
Makes a lot of sense for Italy. It's not like the front moved quickly. Pick the lightest thing that makes the most boom for the least mark and has the greatest elevation. SPGs were wasted on that front. Arguably, so were all tanks, unless an offensive was planned.
I suspect the "understaffedness" of the SPGs vs. towed guns of the same caliber comes down to some of the extra men being ammo runners. Guys whose job it is to go get more ammunition, which is eliminated because the SPGs have integrated ammo stowage.
You also don't need as many hands to manhandle a multi-ton gun around
And to muscle the guns.
We're definitely missing the M7 Priest in War Thunder :)
Maybe someday soon
I think warthunder wants to avoid anything that was primarily used for indirect fire, but considering they have rocket artillery already (not that they are very useful since half of them where designed to fight infantry) its not out of the question.
But not in Battlefield 1942 😉
@@corneliusmcmuffin3256 They have plenty of high tier SPGs, like the Type 75
@@user-do5zk6jh1khigh tier starts running out of vehicles, that's why they dig into artillery to puff out the tech trees.
Both were probably very effective as Artillery carriers, but the M7 Priest was better off in most aspects. Nice comparison
I wonder what is better tho. 8 Wespes or 5 Priests? Same number of men, same payload weight when all guns fire at the same time, similar fuel consumption.
They just never really built that many Wespe. The Panzer Divisions were usually reliant on their towed section of Lefh18 or SfH18 field howitzers for fire support which being towed-had a lot of difficulty keeping up with the Panzer Regiment in a pitched battle. More Hummels were built actually than Wespe were and they would've been much more destructive than a Priest-but between both Wespe and Hummel and even Sturmpanzer 1 total production of Self-Propelled Field Howitzers in the Wehrmacht was again a paltry fraction of what the Allies were pushing out.
What about Superior German technology?!
@@Paciat Germany had a chronic manpower shortage the entire war.
@@chaosXP3RT The biggest myth ever´ there is no such thing as superior german technology in ww2 exept in rocket technology
Sigh, you spoil us with your in depth analysis, I look at other sites and yours just seems like a gold standard. Thankyou for all your work.
My pleasure!
IMO, the M3 Lee deserves a much better reputation as it is, in my mind, the best intentional interim tank in the war.
Not solely due to its own performance, though it certainly brought a number of desperately wanted features to the allies, but because of how efficiently it led to the M4. Even in support vehicles you see the interim shift to the modern without much comment.
And the M3 had a great performance in Sahara. (The Bogart version, obv.)
Not a great tank, but not a terrible tank. I think that’s a good call.
The M3 was a champ in North Africa in 1942, and in Burma and New Guinea right up to the end of the war. An under-appreciated workhorse. Sure, it was big and clumsy, but it worked, it had excellent firepower, and did everything you wanted an infantry tank to do.
@@MrWolfstar8 hey at least they didn't break down if you looked at em funny, unlike some tanks we could mention. A running tank beats a dead tank every time.
@@ryanmccabe1036 I’ve always found it interesting that late into the war German units equipped with Stugs and Panzer 4s tended to be more effective on the attack than Panther equipped units. I don’t know if it was because the Panthers were given the most difficult tasks or if they broke down more often making advances difficult.
I was gunner on a 105 mm gun, and (for a very short time) commander of a 155 mm armoured SFP, about 30 years ago or so...
And as such, I don't understand, what sense the payload comparison is supposed to make. A 105 mm shell is typically around 15 kg - and that is what is usually accounted for in firepower comparisons. The amount of explosive in the shell can vary quit a lot between shell types, specialised AP or HE shells having less and more than for example the dual purpose shell (which would perhaps be categorised as APHE ba NATO?) we used. I can't remember exactly, but around 10% of shell weight for the explosive stuff seems about right. The hand grenades we used had a higher proportion, if I remember correctly. Contrary to a hand grenade, on an artillery shell, the explosive only acounts for part of the cinetic energy of the shell fragments, the rest coming from the flight speed.
So, unless we compare two shells that have exactly the same purpose, comparing the amount of explosive they carry just makes no sense...
Herr Kast, I am surprised to see footage from D-Day Conneaut 2019, where you and I met in person, along with LtColonel Nicholas “The Chieftain” Moran. I do hope someday, the two of us both historians, will meet again. Auf Wiedersehen, mein Freund.
Great! Superb graphics, brisk pacing, tightly sourced analysis and informative as heck. I love these videos, please keep up the excellent work.
Glad you like them!
Well my book on German Artillery by Ian Hogg says that the HE round had the 1.38kg of filler, but the Shaped Charge (HEAT) rounds had the 1.78kg filler.
That is strange.Why would the HEAT have more?
@@naamadossantossilva4736 To guess: The HEAT Rounds would be used for Direct fire/Self Defence, thus are to be employed at a shorter range. HEAT Rounds also don't rely on impact velocity for penetration. So you can (again, speculating) allocate less mass for the propellant, use the saved weight for the payload.
@@diestormlie
I think it has more to do with being able to do so, since you can save space and weight by not needing a thick shell hull to create fragmentation
The HEAT rounds were short range, and shaped charges were very brute force design back then. They wanted maximum penetration.
Excellently done! I love these videos. They take me away from the world's current problems to the happy land of history in the past.
Nice summary/comparison. Thank you
That animation of the shell appearing to spin as it moves across the screen is oddly satisfying.
That was not even intended :D
Interesting video. I learned a lot. I would love to see a similar one doing a Priest to Sexton comparison.
As much as the M7 Priest was the better Arty, the Wespe did make use of the Pz Kpfw II chassis which were no longer fit for use as frontline tanks, only as garrison tanks. So it was turning scrap into frontline SPGs.
It should be remembered that not only were the Americans producing the M7 and the British bought 832 as a stopgap when the Bishop was considered too flawed, the Canadians in Montreal were also using M4 hulls to make the Sexton II for the British and built 2150 of them. Ultimately, the Germans were making and mending old light tank material into new, whilst the Americans, British and Canadians were using new metal to make vast numbers of SPGs from existing successful medium tanks.
lol yea but we could shit out new Shermans, so it wasn't a big issue. While, of course, the unstoppable Wehrmacht could barely make new rifles. GG Nazis.
7:45 and on top of that I believe there were a couple thousand Sextons built during the war.
The Canadian copy of the Priest with a 25-pounder using the hulls of the Canadian version of the M3 and M4 tanks.
Excellent video!
All I know, is the Priest was my biggest nightmare, back when I was playing a German sniper, in Battlefield 1942 - Battle of Tobruk. That British Priest would bump me off so many times! It was very frustrating!
Great video! Another thing to consider in mobility is ground pressure. An AFV with high power to weight but high ground pressure might be less mobile off road than a similar AFV with the opposite.
Weird, I was just thinking about these two last night. Thank you for your thorough and objective analysis.
My pleasure!
I am SO glad this video is made! MHV, are you gonna do an M12 vs Hummel video one day?
Good point made about differing available resources affecting the different designs.
some thought about the weight, payload and range of the HE-shells of the leFH18:
lexikon der wehrmacht, despite not quoting any sources, lists a huge amount of different ammunition types and types of 10.5 cm HE-ammunition with different weight, so it's entirely possible that the different sources measured different versions
I was able to climb around an M7 Priest at the Wyoming National Guard Museum in Cheyenne WY. It was a fun experience which generally it looks like they are kept from the public but if you ask to see them and depending on who is working that day they will open up all the vehicles so you can climb in to check them out. The APC they have is very cramped for someone of my height. Yet I was able to climb all the way up to the commander's position and possibly the Drivers but I didn't want to chance to get stuck.
I wrote this in a reply, but I still feels like it applies to the video, so I'm gonna write it a again.
I'm pretty sure a prerequisite of being in the military is complaining about military equipment. Every soldier I've met or read accounts from, no matter the army, always complained about what they had and insisted the enemy had something better.
If you talk to enough American soldiers, you'll be convinced in the end that everything from the M4 rifle, to the Humvee, to the Stryker and the M1A2 Abrams is absolute trash.
Without knowing anything about the mechanicals or design of both vehicles, I could see no way the Wespe could be better than the Priest because no matter how smart or inventive the German vehicle engineers would be , They were handicapped from the start by what they had to work with, a light tank that has limited size dimensions and fit a large gun that was never intended to fit in a vehicle that small , so the German designer would have to make a lot of compromises vs the American vehicle that is wider and longer with more room to work with and create a more sensible crew friendly vehicle
The Wespe was a good conversion of surplus vehicles. At that, it was amazing. But compared to a dedicated system with vehicles taken from the assembly line and not out of reserves, it was not great.
@@EdVonPelt I agree the Germans got the most they could out of a outdated chassis , it would be interesting to see the American equivariant of the Wespe if they had to use their light tank chassis the M3 Stuart instead of a medium tank
@@bluemouse5039 if I'm not mistaken, they did just that with the m8 light howitzer 😐.
@@aaroncourchene4384 yeah it is overall an apples to oranges comparison like comparing the Sherman to the Tiger instead of the Panzer IV or the M113 to the BMP instead of the M2 Bradley.
Nice video, though I do wonder how the Canadian/UK Sexton compares to them.
Its Priest but with weaker gun
@@petrsukenik9266 Yes, its smaller in caliber. but look how heavy is that shell and whats thre range.I think its pretty close. And maybe can fire faster than 105mm
Sexton wins the beauty contest IMO
@@petrsukenik9266 The 25pdr fires faster - which is what you want when using artillery make the enemy ineffective
I was very pleased to briefly get to say hello to "Military History Visualized" at the recent Tiger Day at Bovington Tank Museum.
thank you!
One thing I miss in the comparison is the radio systems. Of course this might be harder to quantify and their might have had more upgrades during the war. But considering the indirect fire role and communicating within the battery with running engines, it's a vital piece of kit for the system to work to its full potential. Still as ever a good production.
yes
Question: IIRC, ammo carriers were sometimes converted to the SPG, in case the chassis of an SPG was damaged beyond repair. Which was a quick and easy job btw. But did Panzer divisions intentionally convert their ammo carriers into SPGs from towed howitzers ?
One issue that always bothered me about such comparisons is the ammunition description.
I mean that the type of explosive used and the quality of the steel of the shell
. Both combine to either increase or decrease the available power delivered.
Good video Bern. Always waiting for more.
Americans were also using radar proximity shells that would airburst over the target. Quite a bit more deadly than standard high explosive.
I was tempted to write something similar. Fragmentation patterns make a big difference and one needs hard data to compare this. As Derek noted: the ability to deliver rounds with air burst capability also makes a profound difference. Especially against an open top target.
I think your assessment is correct. Standardized equipment in large numbers generally has the advantage on offense given comparable capabilities.
It's not just the equipment that was better on the allied side. The western allied artillery was extremely proficient and accurate. They had sophisticated ordnance, such as proximity fuses, that worked well and delivered a lethal airburst. They also worked out sophisticated firing solutions, such as multiple round, simultaneous impact, that proved devastating to a target and allowed several dispersed batteries to concentrate their fire. Artillery was truly the god of war.
B-but the Germans had cooler uniforms! What about Superior German technology?!
The Germans also had a lot of the firing solutions etc, that wasn't anything new. And use of the proximity fuze on artillery was pretty limited in the war for fear of the enemy getting duds and copying it.
Those things definitely had an impact but I would say the bigger things that gave the US and UK huge advantages throughout the later stages of the war:
1) The simple ability to produce and deploy more guns and shells than Germany could, meaning when calls for artillery came in there were usually guns and shells available (in contrast to the early war where the Germans generally had greater concentrations of firepower at key points).
2) The US proliferation of radios meant there was pretty much always someone that could call in artillery when it was needed..
3) The British system of control from Forward Observers (giving them more authority than other forces) allowed for massive concentrations of fire to be deployed extremely rapidly.
The proximity fuse didn’t appear to the Battle of the Bulge and to much American paranoia in case the Germans copied the technology. German POW’s captured in Normandy often asked the Americans could they see the automatic howitzers, thinking there was a rapid firing artillery gun.
Wespe is a pretty good considering that the equivalence would be for Americans to convert an M2 light tank into a SPG to get some use out of them.
Okay, doesn't hold candle to a priest, but for a makeshift solution it's quite respectable performance.
Agreed. I think bang for Buck the wespe isn’t terrible.
The small size probably helped when hiding it from airplanes
From what I've found in my 10min research, the 10.5cm leichte Feldhaubitze 18 fired an explosive shell with either 1.41 or 1.75kg of explosive, depending on the way it was filled.
Either the explosve was pressed or cast.
I think both leichte Feldhaubitze 16 and 18 fired the same ammunition.
There was also the F.H.Gr Fern with 2,25kg.
@@Ghostmaxi1337 Nah, it's probably just a wehraboo dream of yours 😋
Edit: Oh you're right. Wonder how common that was.
@@kimjanek646 It was main production, but only for those with muzzle brake, but i made an error, it "only" has 2,21 kg filler.
Thanks, I spent far longer with a multitude of sources, but the wrong ones.
I mean I found the proper Merkblatt for its ammo, but that one is not publicly available.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized On the WT forum is also a document foto about some Treibspiegel rounds, where the F.H.Gr Fern is also listed, By Stuhlfleisch in the 12,8 cm Pzgr Ts Report.
You got some figures wrong for the Wespe. First of all regarding the HE shell explosive fillings, the 1.38 kg figure is for the old FH Gr.38 shell used by the first leFH 18. The Wespe on other hand could fire the newer higher velocity FH Gr. Fern shell developed for the leFH 18M, permitted with the use of a muzzle brake. The 10.5cm FH Gr Fern shell weighed 14.25 kg total and featured a 2.10 kg explosive filler. Muzzle velocity & range was increased from 470 m/s & 10,625 m of the FH Gr.38 to 540 m/s & 12,325 m with the FH Gr Fern. So the Wespe did have a range advantage over the M7 Priest, and a similar explosive effect. In addition to this the effectiveness of the HE shells is not as simple as comparing filler weight -> for example the Germans tended to favour thicker walled shells with a smaller but higher brisance explosive filler in order to generate more shrapnel.
Yes, indeed, although it seems that the FH Gr Fern was a special shell, so I am a bit on the fence since I specifically mentioned that I don't really account for them. Do you know if it was the standard loadout of the Wespe?
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized AFAIK the FH Gr Fern became std. after the introduction of the 18M. It wasn't a special shell.
@@hummingbird9149 You have a source for that? Because I have the original manuals and they note that for the max range one uses 6 charges and if I remember correctly, it has a bit of a "this is a special case" to it.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Ian Hogg mentions it, and IIRC it, along with the FH Gr (1.75 kg filling) is listed as the std. round used by the German 10.5cm field guns in a 1945 US report on enemy artillery. It was quite simply just a newer higher capacity shell with more propellant behind it, which along with the FH Gr (no number) superceded the prewar Gr 38 design. It wasn't an emergency use only shell as you speculate, as there was nothing really special about it, e.g. it didn't use the maximum permissable propellant weight (sonder ldg) as for example the Spgr.42TS did (2.1 kg vs 1.83 kg of propellant), which extended the range to 15 km. It was just a new std. shell to be used alongside the FH Gr, and merely required a muzzle brake due to the increase in energy, something all 10.5cm field pieces got as std. starting in late 41. Stocks of the older FH Gr..38 could and were still used ofcourse, but by all the accounts I can find Gr.38 wasn't the standard past 41.
NOTE: Small correction of the info I posted before, the explosive filler in the FH Gr. Fern was infact 2.21 kg, not 2.1 kg.
@@hummingbird9149 Thank you. I looked into Hogg again, he writes "FH Gr Fern: fuzed [...] This was the special long-range shell, about [...]." (p. 50) He also notes 2.1 kg. So either you are referring to a different source or different book from Hogg. He clearly notes it was special and I can't find any indication that it became the standard shell.
You know definitely quite a lot, the problem is, I need a proper source. The intelligence reports are also problematic, I also looked at several of them for the payload and none I looked at, had the value. This was the reason why I reached out to Zaloga.
Still, if you can name me the US intelligence report and page where it is mentioned I would be really glad, I already added you to an upcoming script in the thanks btw.
"Zaloga told me" is a rather great flex :)
Before watching the video, I'm guessing M7 because it's larger, more spacious and based off of the M4
I'd assume it's a bit unfair since the Priest is not a stop gap solution.
@@michimatsch5862 wasp was in service until the end though so not really a stopgap. But I do wonder why the wasp and not the hummel was chosen?
@@bertbert594 The Hummel used a 150mm howitzer, but size wise it is much more of a match to the M7, as it used a hybrid Panzer III/IV chassis, the same as the Nashorn panzerjager.
@@bertbert594 Probably because both were armed with an 105mm artillery piece, thus much easier to compare in their roles and specific usage (light howitzer vs light howitzer).
The Wespe and M7 Priest have the same function, regular artillery in tank divisions. As stated in the Hummel video, there is basically no US equivalent to the Hummel (150 mm), yes there are US self-propelled guns with 150 mm, but they were produced in lower numbers and more importantly they were never organic to the Armored Divisions. Meanwhile, both Wespe and M7 Priest were used organically in divisions.
I always love these examples. "If German machines were so great, why'd they lose the war?"
Example after example, the USA and Russia dwarfed (to the point of being comical) the industrial production rates of Germany and Japan. Assume for a moment the Panther is "better" than the Sherman. So what? We still had literally 8 Shermans for every Panther on the field (ignoring for simplicity P3 and P4s), and ours weren't breaking down every 10 km so they were actually fighting instead of being serviced--further increasing the ratio.
You'll love it even more when you realize the army with the better technical tanks were losing in that phase of the war. France in 1940 had "superior" tanks. Germany in late war had "superior" tanks.
One country fighting everyone else, should be what took them so long.
@@artificialintelligence8328 The French tanks (while some had thicker armor) were also severely handicapped by the fact that the majority of them were using the 37mm SA18 gun, which was simply a reworked infantry gun from WWII with very poor armor penetration. When adding this to the one man turrets, few radios, and inadequate refueling capabilities, it's no wonder the French Army took the losses they did.
Good video. But: what about the M12/M40 GMC vs the SdKfz. 165 (Hummel)? Might as well compare the heavy Self-propelled artillery too 😉
Thank you, very nice.
8:49 Außerdem fehlen die SiGs (bison) und die Hummel als sfl.
Der Vergleich hingt ganz schön. Gerade weil man nicht mal die kadenz erwähnt hat geschweige die Treffer Genauigkeit.
My understanding is that the Wespe was fitted with the 'M' version of the LeFH 18 which has a range of 12,325 m
Yes, but only with a special shell as well.
Chartreux: I've only just read this thread and the comment about your Grandfather's age of 104.
This always surprises me as to how many old soldiers survived into their nineties and beyond.
I can only attribute it to them being very fit when they were young men and their being little obesity in people at that time.
Best wishes to you and your Grandfather. I hope he is still alive as we speak.
Can you do a comparison of similar chassis SPA? I don't think comparing a Wespe with a Priest is a fair comparison. It is like comparing a motorbike with a bicycle, there are similarities, but they are not the same.
Maybe the Priest vs a Panzerfeldhaubitze 18M auf Geschützwagen III/IV (Sf) Hummel, Sd.Kfz. 165.
Nice Video. Interesting that the Wespe wasnt well liked in Italy.
Also now there realy cant be many vehicles in the German Tank museum MHV hasnt done a Video about :)
The Priest has a fifty, thus it has dakka. That makes it better. Ivan out, will actually watch the vid later c:
Stuka Stopper popper
Excellent, as always, but I'd be interested to know the reliability factors for each vehicle.
Not sure much data exists at all.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thank you anyway.
The crosscountry capabilities of the priest are also a lot better. The Sherman tracks were wider and longer than the PzKpfw-2. Something that really helps you get around when you are off road. You can see a similar difference between the T-90 that has more problems with the Ukrainian mud than the much heavier Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 tanks.
Speaking about SPGs, I would love to see a video on the SU-122, a Soviet medium SPG made by combining the 122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30) with the T-34 chassis. Considering its niche in the Red Army, it is surprisingly few in number, only 638 were built from December 1942 until September 1943.
There was also a big "operational" difference in how they were used. This leads to one or 2 area's the waspe was better. Its small size made it easier to camouflage, less likely to spot from the air, and in many cases less likely to spot on the move at night.
Germany also preferred "siege guns" as use for artillery in many rolls. so in cases where the priest would be deployed... the germans might be fielding STuG's instead.
I seem to recall reading that the German army was very restricted in what artillery they could field after WW2, Once they decided to abrogate that options expanded but that was one of the reasons the Luftwaffe concentrated so much on ground attack early on. I don't remember my sources on this so it could be off.
When considering the crew, would the driver become an artillery crew once the shooting started? Was there a co-driver or vehicle commander?
Almost certainly he would remain a driver, in case they had to scoot due to counter battery or change direction. 6 people is more than enough for an artillery piece.
The Wespe also carried extra armor piercing shells for the eventuality that it might face tanks and other SP guns particularly in the Ost front.
Now we also need a video about the long tom M12 155mm howitzer 😅
Another thing about mobility; weight matters. A heavier vehicle will in many conditions (such as mud or soft ground) be more prone to get stuckt then a lighter one, even if they got similar hp/ton. Then there is also possible issues with bridges and the like. So raw weight shold not be ignored when talking mobility.
If I remember correctly the M4-chassis of the M7 has wider tracks than the Pz. II-chassis of the Wespe, which make it better in muddy terrain. But weight is an issue with bridges, in this case I agree.
Raw weight is mostly irrelevant for that, only really mattering for things like dragging it out when it gets stuck or breaks down. That is, after all, the primary point of tracked vehicles.
Ground pressure would be relevant to what you are saying and from a quick google it looks to be roughly the same to slightly favouring the Priest due to longer and wider tracks.
Ground pressure is what matter the most when dealing with non ideal terrain.
Provided it is not on the extreme.
US rubber tread tracks dig less than all steel tracks.
Better on paved roads also.
Please do a video on should tank turret be at front or back
Can you do a video comparing the priest vs the hummel?
Interestingly enough, as the campaign in France continued the US asked for the 105mm guns supplied with the Priest to be returned by the British. The British did and this lead to two interesting developments in the British army. The Priests became armoured infantry carriers known as De Frocked Priests, because of the missing guns. Secondly the British started fielding the Sexton with the 25pdr gun. I believe the 25pdr had less range and was lighter but it fit in with Montgomery's doctrine of combined arms in which the artillery kept up with the advance and provided close support to the troops. This was developed to counter the German tactic of counter attacking positions taken by the British infantry. The British could call in close support and the smaller rounds meant a very tight fall of shot. In fact it became common for the German infantry to lose more men to artillery fire counter attacking than they did when they were forced out of their positions.
Sehr gut.
whats about weight? mobility isnt just hp per tons but alo what bridges it can use (if standard briges fall in the weight range of said vehiicles)
This is why M2 howitzer was ejected from COH 2 and COH3 to five lefh 18 competition
It would be interesting to compare the priest to the sexton, as you mentioned the ammunition shortage
The Germans should've kept a lot of their equipment standardised . Far too many small variants . Converting Pz3's chassis possibly. But they shouldve just stuck with Panthers and Pz4's or Tiger 1's ( I need to learn about them being more reliable than Panther Jagdtigers and Tiger 2's) . Then more Artillery could have have a better impact . My Philosophy is You need Infantry to take land and Artillery is really good for that
Would the Wespe with its smaller enige use less fuel? And would the smaller size make it more manouverable in tight places? easier to transport by train, use more bridges due to lower weight?
Also easier to camouflage, and a smaller target.
And not forget, the rational use of material, which can't bei use further in the orignale role.
It would be interesting to see how the Bishop compared to the Wespe. I think the tables could easily turn in favour of the Wespe
A comparison with the Hummel would have been more appropriate. 22 to 24 ton class.
1:04 You dont have a Primary source on that? The Geschossringbuch sayes the F.H.Gr has 1,75 kg cast. There was also the F.H.Gr Fern which had 2,21kg filler. (I think both Amatol and or TnT.)
Thanks, spent ages searching for various sources and found a Merkblatt that should have the information, but it was in the archives.
Interesting it also differentiates between pressed and cast explosives, that would explain the different values between two sources.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Remembering, the F.H.Gr Fern was aparently so common, that even the american note the max velocity of the LeFh 18 w/muzzle brake at 1,772 fps (520m/s) which is of the mentioned F.H.Gr. Fern. Example: Tank Data July 1958 U.S. Army Handout for Use in Armarment Courses U.S. Army Ordanance School Aberdeen Proving Grounds Maryland.
Great information. I don't think there's a need for "DISCLOSURE" since you're not reviewing these artillery systems for retail purchase from Deutsches Panzermuseum Munster. Or ARE you?🍾
Austrian Law is not something with logic or reason
I thought Military History Visualized was sending everyone who likes his video a fully functional Wespe....
@@damagingthebrand7387 I'd settle for a one-quarter scale version for transport inside my Nissan Cube. It would be great for settling parking disputes.
The M7 typically towed an ammunition trailer, in addition to the on-mount storage.
Don't forget the all important .50 in the priest. It ain't american if you can't shove a .50cal on it. 😂
Cult of the Machinegun
Those 50 cals turned out to be super useful on the Sherman. With someone manning the 50cal while on the move Sherman’s easily spotted and gunned down Germans trying to pop out if the underbrush and ambush using a panzershrek.
Stuka Stoppers
Which was more accurate ? And how many Priests made were sent to the Pacific ?
You should have compared it to Hummel too
Thanks for the video. I am not sure whether you put a statement with respect to gun accuracy. Or is this irrelevant anyway?
Speaking of m3 chassis, I wonder hard it would be to do a comparison of recovery vehicles. Since the m3 was converted into recovery vehicles, I wonder if the germans did something similar.
There were several because you could not pull Tiger with recovery vehicle based on Panzer III or IV.
@@mladenmatosevic4591 True. It would be cool to see a video on all vehicles Germany used then.
Generally they used panzer 4 based recovery vehicles(no armor or turret). Since the panzer 4 was produced until the end of the war I doubt they where conversions.
@@mladenmatosevic4591 You could and they did but it took multiple vehicles which went against common sense, but common sense wasn't that common in Germany at the time.
@@MrWolfstar8 And their problem was they stayed with the Panzer IV when they had heavy tanks like the Tiger. Common wisdom is to make sure one tank can be towed by one ARV.
Given that Ukraine has been given many 105mm howitzers, I was wondering if the MTLB chassis could be modified to make a gun carrier, for mobile artillery. It would seem to me turning the 105mm into a highly mobile artillery to support counter offensive operations, would provide many benefits.
Were both Wespe and M7 suing the same type of explosives in their ammo?
I always find these comparisons fascinating. American doctrine in WW2 was the exact opposite of what it is now. We went from overwhelming an enemy with sheer numbers and materiel, using relatively simple, basic, sturdy equipment, to now using sophisticated, integrated, small force deployment, where superior technology is applied to hit and destroy an enemy before they even know we're there. Interesting how far doctrine changes with the increase in scientific knowledge and application.
Hummel vs M12 next?
What about the guns mounted on half tracks?
2:01 nice
If you want to compare, do it between Priest and Hummel better...
Oddly enough, would the sIG 33 overburden the chassis if they'd cram that in instead of the LeFH 18? That or it turns the Wespe into a Grille or somefin
Yeah that'd literally be the Grille
There was a sIG on an lengthened Pz II chassis.
@@Ghostmaxi1337 aint that the flat-ish Sturmpanzer II? didnt know it was lengthened tho.
was wholly expecting the Pz II's hull as it was can take the weight of the sIG 33 much like the Pz I can with the Bison.. somehow.
@@gings4ever Yes, but it wasnt calles Sturmpanzer II, because it doesnt have the armor and role for that.
Although I agree with your conclusions, I think you should have spent a little more time expanding on why the vehicles are so different. As your thumbnail for the video states, this is not a fair comparison as the Priest weighs over twice as much as the Wespe - and probably cost twice as much too - yet only carries an equivalent weapon (the differences in high explosive effect being down to different doctrinal preferences rather than one weapon being "better" than the other).
In fact, in "British and American Tanks of World War II" Chamberlain and Ellis straight up state that the M7 was under-gunned for it's size (p. 138) and this is evidenced by the Ordnance Department being able to shoehorn a 155mm gun into the same basic chassis with the M12 GMC. As such, the Wespe is arguably the more efficient design and the M7 only "worked" because the massive production capacity of the US armaments industry could overcome the fundamental inefficiency of putting such a relatively small gun in such a large platform by reaping the economies of scale. I was expecting you to be working towards this point at the end of the video and missing it out left the conclusion feeling a little rushed to me.
Ultimately I'd argue that the Wespe was a bit too small whereas the M7 was a bit too large for a 105mm gun making the Wespe ergonomically poor and the M7 economically inefficient. A better solution would have been to use an intermediate sized chassis and that is exactly what we got with the post-war M37 which was based on the M24 chassis.
t had to use more gas which the Germans were short of.
When doing mass production best to select hulls for your SPA from the model you’re making the most of. Eases supply, repair, maintenance, and training issues.
@@MrWolfstar8 Logistics ... the voice of experience.
Yeah. There’s a big problem with your argument that the m7 was “under gunned for its size” and that was all the problems the Germans had from putting their “equivalent” 105mm howitzer on such a small light chassis as the Wespe. In fact the Germans a fair number of issues with the wespe in the field due to such a large gun on such a light/small chassis. Problems which the m7 didnt share.
And sure, had the American designers been allowed to design a tracked howitzer from the ground up they likely could have made the design more efficient, but in some ways the m7 is an interim design too. The Americans had the production capacity to produce m3/m4 hulls in quantity, so that’s the platform they decided to stick a howitzer on. You can say it’s inefficient, but really I’d say it isn’t when compared to setting up a completely new/different production facility for a completely new/different tank chassis.
@@carlpolen7437 Did you not read the bit where I said the Pz II chassis was too small? Also, it is not "my" argument - it is the argument of a pair of well respected published experts, which is why a cited my source. As you say, the M7 was absolutely an interim vehicle and ultimately the US Army replaced it with a chassis about a third lighter and that's pretty strong evidence that even the US Army thought the M7 was inefficiently oversized for the firepower it brought to the fight. The replacement M37 proved to be a satisfactory vehicle but lacked NBC protection hence it's short service life.
It is, of course, fair to point out that there was no intermediate sized US artillery piece that was "just right" for the M7 chassis - the US army jumped straight from 105mm to 155mm as indeed did most armies of the time. I think only the Soviets were using artillery with an intermediate size with their 122mm M-30 divisional Howitzers.
In terms of chassis size and production effort, the German equivalent to the M7 with really the StuH 42 - but that is again an apples to oranges comparison because while their roles overlapped to some degree, the StuH 42 was optimized towards the direct fire support role whereas the M7 was optimized more toward indirect fire support.
A very important set of data that is very important for comparing vehicles during a world war is man hours to produce, resources to produce and tools required to produce. Unfortunately that sort of data is difficult to find.
N/A for US made equipment.
Also you want to look at the logistical footprint. I guess a vehicle that is twice as heavy and has an engine three times as strong needs at least twice the fuel.
So is one priest better than two Wespe?
Nice.
When you take into the calculations the fact, that Germany was getting bombed by thousands of bombers, the stats seem pretty good.
They often name armored vehicles after predators like Tiger, Panther, Leopard and Priest.
Thats a good one.
The better artillery piece, much like tanks, is the one that shows up to the battle. Considering about 7x the number of Priests were produced vs. the Wespe it's not much of a comparison.
Yes, one thing the good old USA can do is mass manufacture weapons. And wars, we can manufacture wars to use the weapons.
I guess it comes down to which one is from "What do we have laying around we can use as mobile artillery?" versus "Here is what we think we need". The USA had more months to look around and investigate what was working before they had to engage. Germany was already under tough constraints.
I think it comes down to money and industrial power, see also assault guns vs turrets. Assault guns are generally considered cheaper, who used them extensively: Germany and the Soviet Union. Meanwhile US used a lot of turrets.
would not be a better comparison if the hummel was used? both chassis were from medium tanks
If Priest is twice as heavy as Wespe then it would be worth to compare tactical benefit of having 1 Priest vs having 2 Wespe.
1943: “The Pope? I wonder, how many divisions does he have?”
1944: “Patton? I wonder, how many Priests does he have?”
What about the Sexton?
How about the M7 priest vs the M4 Sherman 105?
Wespe and Grille can be seen as a good use of outdated chassis. They were of course inferior to other SPGs, just like Marder tank destroyers were inferior to real tanks. But still, a marder is still in many ways better than a tank gun without tracks. Just like Wespe is better than an artillery piece without tracks.
you didnt consider the volume of fire at all, which is a big factor, how many shots/minute, togather with the ammo load its the biggest impact of the useability of these vehicles, since they are the mobile artillery support of the armoured divisions
Kind of a weird thing to forget. Maybe he makes a minivideo as a follow-up since that's vital.