Post World War 2 this chassis simply disappeared but the Factory for production Skoda Works became truly awesome in both scope and scale during USSR Warsaw Pact times.
Let’s not forget that the Swedish used a variant of the 38t well into the Cold War called the Strv 41. It was the basis for both a tank destroyer and an apc.
Sweden originally wanted to buy 50 LT vz.38, but after the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, all tanks were confiscated by the Germans. However, since the Germans needed Swedish iron ore, they agreed to grant the license. Strv 41 was then produced under license in Sweden.
@@phoenix-bv7bw It was a licensed version since Germany confiscated the 38t the Checks had built for Sweden. Rommel got them for example. The swedish version, including those the germans confiscated, had improved frontal armour, both the front plate and the turrets gun shield. Sweden had realized the armour was too thin so these tanks got 50mm frontal armour and for the gun shield.
The Swiss version G13 of the Hetzer staied in servive till 1973. Most of the Hetzers you can see in museums are actually Eidgenossen, enjoyed a peaceful life in the Alpes and have never seen WWII action.
It was designed to face German Pz III’s and early models of IV’s in case of Czechoslovak - German war. So technically it was still a light tank but it was able to face early German medium tanks. Not surprised that Germans used them like that.
@@saiien2 Right -it had the same firepower as a Panzer III, and the Germans couldn't build enough of those anyway so that's where they plugged them in.
@@saiien2the Polish 7TP was also another light tank but the cannon on it could knock out the Panzer IV. I like that mix of light armor but heavy firepower.
@saiien2 wasn't the Pz. 4 and Pz. 3 properly produced until after the takeover? Iirc they didn't really get production of either going fully until around 1940
tbf, nearly anything could knock out early Pz. 4 and Pz. 3s (let alone the Pz. 1 and Pz. 2s), heck iirc, a .50 cal could pen it. it wasn't really until mid-late war where the armor became adequate.
A little error. We (Czechoslovakia) didnt agree with giving up our land (sudetten) for maintaining peace. We didnt even had a voice in it. The allies together with Hitler made the Munich agreement (we call it about us without us) and they agreed that they wont help our army if we defend ourselfs. Hitler wanted parts of Czechoslovakia just because of the arms industry - like these legendary tanks
I consider myself having a basic but comprehensive knowledges of WW2 history and I wondered at this statement too. There didn’t seem to be a whole lot of “agreeing” on Czech part.
Exactly they stabbed us in the back then did the same to the Polish. They had the greatest strategic opportunity of the war when the Germans invaded Poland and then they got gun shy.
I attribute this to part of colonialism. The major powers spent centuries assuming they were the most capable and, therefore, most valuable. The arrogance of deciding other nation's fates without their input.
@@alecmiller2270he’s not wrong, the 37mm and other weapons in the same size range, like the 2 pounder, were decent at the start. The Tiger’s gun was very good when introduced, and still decent at the end of the war.
37mm was only ever really useful against other light tanks and scout cars (and probably the SU-76, but only if you shot first). That's why the Germans moved onto 50mm and 75mm anti-tank guns as soon as the war started, their 37mm rounds just bounced off the French tanks.
When I was told the T means it was made in Czechoslovakia, it can cross distances quickly, and it was vital in the early stages of the blitzkrieg, I felt that...
@@johnneill990 "Beutepanzer" is, iirc, the German word for captured stuff. The WW2 German habit was to append a lower-case letter at the end of the designation: (f) = ex-French, (r) = ex-Russian etc, etc. AND the Panzer 38T is properly the Panzerkampfwagen 38(t). The Germanic spelling of Czechoslovakia just happens to be Tschechoslowakei. The Germanic adjective for Czech is "Tschechisch". (Slovakia was, for much of WW2, a puppet pro-Nazi separate state). Indeed, in 1992, I bought an Austrian map of Czechoslovakia, and it was spelt with a "t" at the start ... Furthermore, the current Germanic spelling of "Czech Republic" is "Tschechische Republik" - again with that "t".
I appreciated that Steven Spielberg included a pair of Pz. 38-derived Marders in Saving Private Ryan. In the ending battle, both their strengths and weaknesses were demonstrated, with Jackson's sniper position being destroyed by the powerful gun, but the open-topped fighting compartment being exploited by a couple of Molotov cocktails.
The Marder 3 in both Private Ryan and Band of Brothers was a Scania-Vabis Stormartillerivagn m/43 (Sav m/43), a Swedish assault gun developed from the 38(t). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormartillerivagn_m/43
@@flitsertheo I had figured that they were German, but Swedish stand ins make a lot more sense. I had heard that the Sdkfz 251s were actually Czech OT810s.
@@gardener68 Yes, almost every "Sdkfz 251'" you see in movies is a post-war OT-810. It is an improved version of the original Sdkfz 251 made in the same factory. So not a mock-up. The Hetzers based on the 38(t) are usually made for Switzerland post-war G-13 versions. No mock-ups either.
The Stuart might be a close equivalent. It performed quite well in the Indo-Pacific theater against the Japanese especially in the rough terrain where heavier tanks couldn't go
Having played with the Pz38t in various games and seeing its stats and performance in curiosity afterwards, I'm honestly so happy this little beast gets some deserved time in the limelight on this channel.
The older computer game World War 2 Online had the 38t as a German starter tank. I always chose it over the Panzer 2 or 3. It had a gun that was better able to deal with allied armor.
ive played both MoW/GoH and WT, in WT its pretty decent, just a genericlow tier tank that gets explosive filler AP, in the Strat games tho, its meh, prefer a Pz. 2 imo, the 20mm HE goes hard @@V3RTIGO222
The 38t was an important stopgap between the PII and with the PIII & P IV being up gunned. Its chassis continued to be used for Marders & Hetzers later. I agree a very underrated tank. Its only problem is its riveted armour & flat construction
Lovely video. I would like to add a few points tho: 1) the letter T in the name stands for 'tchechishen', meaning Czech. 2) What I find interesting is despite being a light tank, it has performance, gun and armor of a medium tank. It was toe-to-toe with the earlier versions of Panzer 3. 3) Despite being used in the whole WW2, engineers strugles to create an improved variant of Pz38t. The biggest problem was the gun - after capturing of first T-34s, Germans realised the original 37mm was not performing well enough against its sloped armor. Germans tries to install a larger caliber gun into Pz38t failed simply because of the small original turret. And creating larger turret was unnecesary because of enough Pz3 on the front that didn't have the same fitting problem. Also, the bigger turret would corrupt the performance of the chassis. 4) Pz38t also struggled with another problem - despite the armor was good in terms of thickness, it was too hard, therefore fragile (appearently, too much carbon in the steel plates). According to some sources, it was possible for a shell to went through the armor if it was hit again in the same place. The first hit shattered the armor plate, making it easier for the second shot. And one more thing that is REALLY IMPORTANT for us, Czech and Slovakian people - in 1938, we didn't "agree" to let go of our territory, we were literally sold out as a part of "The conduct of appeacement" by French and British political leaders WITHOUT ANYONE ASKING! This is called the Munich agreement, signed in late September 1938 and is still considered as the biggest treason ever for both nations. Check the Wikipedia for more...
No they were not. Stop lying. There were basically only 2 modification made and even they did not lead to new variant being produced. Nothing one could describe in any dimension as a many different variations.
@@thedevilneveraskstwice7027 Huh? As for the proper tank models, sure, there were only a few and they were basically all just having extra armor. But the reliable PzKpfw 38(t) chassis became the basis of many mid- and late-war designs; Marder III, Grille, Jagdpanzer 38(t) (commonly known as Hetzer), Flakpanzer 38(t) and Aufklärungspanzer 38(t).
The German panzer commanders liked the 38t for being reliable, easy to repair and getting decent gas mileage. I had a book about Barbarossa that showed a turretless 38t that had a wheeless PAK 38 mounted on top of the fighting compartment which probably led to the Marder series. The Hetzer was a more robust version that was popular for the same reasons. American GI's said the only tanks the Germans were using when the war ended were Hetzers and Panzer 3's. Their users told the GI's that was due to them not breaking down often and not guzzling gas.
Honestly having see Simon show actual personality during the Keeps Ad threw me off guard... but I love it. 14:05 That Marder in the picture is early Marder III, where the gun is from captured soviet F-22 76.2mm guns. 14:40 Why did y'all put black and white filter on this? That picture is for sure from Bahna or similar event at Lešany tank museum, and is at most 20ish years old - you can see Czech T-72M4CZ tank in the background, which is still in service today.
I would say that this tank epitomises Czech engineering, being thoroughly competent. The Czechs armed the Austria-Hungarian Empire in the Great War, including making the guns for the Empire's battleships (I saw an exhibition about this when I was in the Czech Republic a few years ago). The Czechs had a strong tradition in engineering. Also, don't forget that the standard British Army light machine gun of the Second World War (the Bren) was based on a Czech design. The name "Bren" comes from Brno and Enfield.
Yes! Finally, somebody who recognizes how innovative the Czechs were. You should have included that they were the largest arms exporter in the interwar period and had the highest defense spending percentage of any democracy in that time
Brent wasn't "based on the Czech design." It was a Czech gun made in England under licence. British army tested several machine guns, and none came close to LK vz 26. Brits have brought in a few Czech engineers to modify the gun to use the standard cartridge used in the Commonwealth. The LK vz.26 (identified as ZB-26) was used before and after the WW2 by something like 24 different armies in it's standard form, or modified to suit a different cartridge. Wehrmacht and SS designation of the gun is MG 26(t). Numerous versions chambered for NATO round were still used by NATO in 1990s. Copies were made all over the world, including Russia, China and Japan.
I guess I can say I did my fair share of appreciation for the panzer 38t since I found it kinda interesting when I was grinding it through in wot like 10 years ago :D
Pz. III was better tank at the time overall and kind of underrated as well, overshadowed by Pz. IV later - that said 38(t) was great in its own right and it's more appropriate to compare it to german lights and not mediums
@@lordmartinakIMO the Panzer III didn’t become truly great until the Ausf. F, though I could see an argument for the armor upgrades the Ausf. D brought
Simon ! This is likely one of your most in depth and correct WWII based offerings , very well done , very correct , and just deep into WWII combat arms minutiae , very much appreciated , keep up the hard work , you have truly become an accomplished UA-cam Historian , whom earned the respect of lifelong Historians that find relaxation and happiness from this type of in-depth analysis .
Ah... Your comment is a lot like mine -- as you would see if you could find it. I also thought it was a quality video and very well done. But you were first! 👍
The last user of the Pz. 38(t) (actually, the LT vz. 38) was Peru, which bought 24 units (equivalent to 2 tank companies) in 1938-39 and designated it as the Tanque 39. It was used in many of Peru's military operations, like the Equador-Peru War of 1941, notably the Battle of Zarumilla, up to counterinsurgency operations agains the Shining Path guerrillas. These tanks were retired in 1988. A few of these are preserved and now on display, notably in Callao.
Peruvian army used the tank in the battle of Zarumilla and paratroopers to occupy the port city of Guayaquil, prompting the Ecuadorians to complain to the League of Nations that Peru was in alliance with Germany. Laughable, but true
@@drbichat5229 well, the Ecuadorians got paddled at Zarumilla; the Tanque 39 was overkill against horse-drawn arty and horrendously ill-suited antitank guns (little more than field guns) and with no tanks of their own.
What is ironic is that Churchill and Czech President Benes opposed the partition of Sudatenland while France and Poland were for it. At the time, Germany had only 2 armored divisions and was in no condition to fight its way through the heavily fortified Czech frontier. The Czechs had tanks that could match the Panzer IIs that made the bulk of the German forces and with Anglo-French and possibly Soviet support, WWII would have lasted a month or two before Hitler was humiliated and possibly brought down by his own General staff. Ironically France and Poland were overrun by the weapons they handed Hitler without a fight.
The 38t is one of my favorite tanks, but there is one thing to note. Germans found Czech armor to be too brittle and found that its thicker armor only offered comparable armor protection to the Panzer 2. Still, it was definitely the primary workhorse tank for most of Germany's early war.
I had always thought this was a great little tank, and definitely one of the most underrated tanks of the war before seeing this, namely because it could absolutely compete with, if not entirely outperform far more well known designs of the era, such as the Panzer II and BT7...
While it was definitely better than the Panzer II (much better gun) and T-26 (more armour), the BT-7 could run circles around it. It was easily the fastest tank in the war, and its gun could defeat the 38t's armour. The 38t really shined in its later derivative forms though, such as the Hetzer, long after the BTs had left the stage.
I'm so glad to see this tank get the attention it deserves. Wonderful video. What this tank gets made into usually overshadows the original, but the 38(t) has a special place in my nerdy heart. Thanks again!
What a great video on the much passed by little 38T..Also being a modeler I’ve got a 1/35 38T to build in my stash..So thanks Simon,as you’ve just made my choice of next project for me and I’m on it today.!👍
40 years ago, I played miniature war games with a couple of gentlemen. We focused on WWII both land and sea and I remember that the Pz38(t) was a surprisingly good tank in the early war, far superior to the Panzer I and Panzer II.
I appreciated the Czech 38 because in 1973 a friend gifted me with a 1940 Infantry ROTC four-volume manual. If I remember correctly, those books featured a Czech 35 tank--the 38 was an improved model. The Czech 38 was the backbone of the Panzer armies that conquered Poland, crushed France, and then invaded the USSR. The US tanks in that ROTC manual (printed in 1938) were not competitive.
@@katywalker8322Can you give me a good reference? Both had four-man crews and a pair of 7.92x57mm machine guns and a 37mm main gun. One had better engines, better armor, and was otherwise more modern. At first glance I cannot tell the two apart.
@@alancranford3398 very different suspension . The 35t was designed by Skoda, the 38t by ckd (Českomoravská Kolben-Daněk) , although Skoda built some of them. The 38t was lighter, shorter, wider and lower
The only tank the US Army had in 1938 was the light M2. They did have the Christie based Combat Car that ran on wheels or tracks and a newer version that used a Wright radial engine and only ran on tracks. It was declared obsolete a few months later in 1939 so Chrysler could start designing a more robust tank for the upcoming war.
@@ServusCruxMost WW2 tanks, save for the heaviest, would be quite reliably taken out by a 75. The difference is that Sherman was easier to escape and the crew could almost always get a replacement.
@@ServusCrux I meant o point out that being "easily taken out with anything 75mm and above" feels like a strange criteria to me, since most tanks of the period would struggle surviving that. Sherman wasn't notably less resistant to a 75 mm PAK than any contemporary medium tank.
@@crazymachinima1 it wasnt just 75 mm guns, it was AT rifles to, even sometimes destroyed by a simple 50 mm, and panzerfausts. The purpose of them wasnt quality so much as it was quantity, although later models became more competent, like the firefly (which is actually british, ironically, and the americans refused to use them)
Thank you, what a great program. I think the Hetzer, the Stug's, Panzers, Panthers, Tigers were all great and now I will add the 38T into my list along with the Mk4 Sherman and Panther........and ok if I must add the dirty T-34.
It used to be my favorite tank in WW2 online long ago on dial up lol, It is a testament to the skill and wit of Skoda Works in the pre war days. They had an excellent high velocity 37mm main turret and could fire HE and AT and quite swift and had good off and on road speed. The only limiting factor was the quite common riveted armor at the time, one "right" hit on those spots on those rivets then you basically had a death can full of many bouncing BBs!
..also the Czech industry of that time could only make armour akin to a WW1 type of plate, that was more fragile Carburised Face Hardened (CO2 forced vapour) Steel (WW1 'Krupp Steel' equivilent), and was prone to fracturing for a given thickness, than early war German & British/Allied WW2 metallurgical recipes of steel armour plate. Also late war the Germans had plans to produce the 38(D), an evolved specification of the 38 variant with double thickness armour, uprated suspention herpas a newer Tatra engine variant, or a HLTRM type engine, and a slightly larger dimensions and some differing sloping angles, were to be made in German factories - hence the (D). As they [the Natzis] understood that the Czech/WW1 style of armour plate needed at a minimum to be roughly twice as thick to have a durable enough softer core armour matrix to withstand the impact shock without shattering so easily to have a better chance of inflicting more damage to the enemy whilst being able to tolerate more itself. Luckily the 38(D) model itself never entered mass production
I've often heard what you say about tank rivets, and I've come to believe it, but it's actually very hard to find first-person primary source accounts of this rivets-bouncing-around-in-a-tank phenomenon. A lot of what you'll discover if you look around is only what people have heard or read somewhere and repeated, and that source will have gotten it from someone else, etc. I think I've only read one person state that they had experienced it first-hand and knew it to be true. Makes me wonder how serious the problem really was.
@@joerussell9574 That would be interesting to find & read. I guess they'd say, though, back then: "We already know welding is better for other reasons (good seal, less weight, etc.), and that's the direction we're moving, so what's the point?" They just couldn't foresee the development of a vast future tank fandom that wants to know! Also, as an aside, I've discovered that a great majority of the things we do in life haven't been officially studied. Usually, the fact that some practice has evolved and become common, though (like in cooking), hints that trial and error has supported its development -- even if no one can really explain it otherwise.
@@polarvortex3294 Very good points and food for thought. Always a nice pleasure to converse with well thought out people with good solid points. I wholly agree with You on not trying to find multiple sources and relying on one of few sources.Thanks again!
Czech Genius, bridging the gap between the initial German Panzers and the panic to develop and effective medium tank. Vital in early 40s German victories
The first version of the Marder used a rechambered version of the Russian 76.2mm field/anti-tank gun, which is what is depicted in the video, not the PaK 40, which wasn't available then.
Sweden produced them as well, and used the chassis for an 105 mm anti tank gun and even a Infantry Fighting Vehicle produced in the 1960's. So really a welldesigned piece of mechanic😁
Someone probably mentioned it already but the allied equivalent of this would probably be the M3 Stuart. Idk if you have done a video on it but I'd bet that would make for an interesting video
@@tomhenry897 Uh oh... seems like you're tangling (or should I say "tankling"?) with some serious tank nerds here -- and there's no telling how deep their knowledge goes. They probably play war games, have books, and tons of toys, um, I mean models, too. Save yourself and give up now!
The Czech's had a small but very effective armament industry. The Bren gun was also a Czech designed weapon. The Pkw 38(t) did soldier on in it's original form quite awhile in second rate divisions of the German army on "quite" fronts where partisans and recon units were the main foes.
A Peruvian mission went to Europe in 1935 and looked at tanks from several major manufacturers before settling on the Czech LTP. Peru bought 24 of them. They were delivered in 1938-1939 and designated Tanque 38 (then Tanque 39).
Many years ago, I saw one of these as a ‘gatekeeper’ in front of a military installation in the Lima area. Too bad I could not snap a few photos in those pre-cellphone times……
It was a menace in Battlefield V. There was an upgrade for it that put a 20mm auto cannon on it and when the game was first released the auto cannons were very op. That thing if left alone would terrorize the enemy team.
The Hetzer (not called that in Germany during the war) was NOT just built on existing 38T hulls. The hetzer hull is longer and wider. And the Chexc (SP?) Did NOT agree to give up land to Germany. That area had most of their military factories and the border first. They had their land given away by the league of nations to keep Hitler happy and try to avoid war
@@executivedirector7467you’re right, the name wo as originally for the E-25 (I think) but got confused with the similar Jagdpanzer 38, and the name stuck.
That appeasement might have been good for the Czechs, in the end. No vicious fighting for their homeland one-on-one with Germany, and they got all their land back post-war. The real losers, I think, were the Sudeten Germans, whom I think were not treated well after Germany lost.
It also shows up in movies. Shaving Ryan's Privates used the " hollywoodidzed version of the Marder 3 to shoot the Church tower. And Band of Brothers had a Hetzer in the Battle of the Bulge show.
One correction, the matilda II served the whole war in different theatres but definitely not the matilda 1, look them up they are shit, lightly armoured and armed with a vickers machine gun
@declansalisbury5698 matilda I is not lightly armored. It had more armor than any German tank during the fall of France. Also it made some sense being cheap stopgap while proper tanks develop. Is it good? No. But don't mislead people.
@@declansalisbury5698 the pz 38t wasnt used through the whole war but dirrevitives of it were. By your logic factboy is wrong. Imma side with the lovable bald man on this one.
@@declansalisbury5698 Matilda 1 was equivalent to the Panzer 1. In fact slightly better. Matilda 2 was introduced at Arras trouncing the Germans. Matlida 2 was much heavier than the 38t.
@@declansalisbury5698 The Maltilda 1 was very heavily armoured, lightly armed with just a machine gun, but heavily armoured. it was the epitome of a cheap infantry tank. The matilda 2, the one we're most familiar with, retained the same hull, but with added on armour which makes it look absolutely fantastic
Good call! The fact that after it's days as a tank in front line service formed the basis for a bunch of AFV's in different roles is a testament to the quality of the basic design. I would imagine, having it come with production/maintenance facilities in place in the heartland of the Reich at the beginnen of the war (as opposed to a peripheral locatio somewhere) also was an advantage that helped it soldier on well after it's days as front line tank.
Bollocks. When the most reliable tank of WW2 was being designed, they put 3 tons onto the A10 to make sure its mechanical components could cope. It did. Further, after the Debacle in Flanders, the Bartholemew report stated that the RAC should have heavy cruisers. The only heavy cruiser in france was the A10. @@executivedirector7467
@@executivedirector7467 The A10 did perfrom very poorly in the desert, but so did German tanks. It had a gun that could effectively take out axis armour, and the speed to be able to exploit gaps. The only negative stories about the A10 were about crew conditions during the North African campaign, or when crews gave up their advantage of speed in combat.
It did not perform badly. The 5th Royal Tank Regiment considered it easily their best tank. It could easily travel 1100 km's without any real servicing, and that's in the desert. Unfortunately, when the tanks were handed over to the 3 RTR for Greece, they had traveled 2000 km's in their campaign against the Italians, and were clapped out. Apart from the slightly inferior commanders position, it was from equal to completely superior to the Panzer III, including gun, armour and reliability. @@ethanedwards422
@@ethanedwards422 The A10 broke down everywhere it was used, to such an extent that units were ineffective. The German tanks generally ran OK even if, on paper, they were no better than an A10.
Thank you for this video. I knew that the 38T built as the Hetzer but thought the Marder 3 was on a panzer 2 chassis. Did not know of the artillery component
38 (t)'s early models continued to used on armored trains throughout the war. They were carried on rail road flat cars with drop down sides. They could then drive off the flat car and engage the enemy, who were usually partisans so the 38 (t) armor and fire power were still adequate.
As light tanks go the British Valentine was the best. The British were to discontinue the tank, but the Soviets requested it be kept in manufacture as they found it very useful. It was also made in Canada, with the Canadians installing an engine from Detroit just across the border, rather than ship one from Britain.
1:55 - Chapter 1 - The tank 2:55 - Mid roll ads 4:05 - Back to the video 5:55 - Chapter 2 - Combat history 14:00 - Chapter 3 - A 2nd lease of life 16:25 - Chapter 4 - Analysis
There was also a reconnaissance version which used the old 38T chassis just reworked little to fit a 2cm.KwK38 and 7.92 MG34/42 Hangelafette turret. 70 to 100 were made depending the source. And there were many Munitionspanzers created by the removing the turret. These turrets were used in fortification mounts.(nearly 400 by wars end)
@@nickellison2785no that would be the big heavy beasts of krupp steel and all the veriants, reason: they waisted material and time that could been used to make more usefull panzers.
The 38 (t) was as versatile in WW2 with all its variants as ia the M-113 today boh have so many variants to fill niche roles that it id no surprise that both are underrated
As a lightweight tracked chassis, suitable for multiple modifications and utility roles, it serviced that requirement very well. Reliable, simple, tracked utility chassis are always in demand within a military/combat scenario. Cheap and easy to manufacture too - other very valuable characteristics.
I commented on his other video and got roasted but if Germany had focused on a greater number of good tanks like the panzer IV and stugIII and stugIV rather than a smaller number of heavy tanks like the Tiger then it would have been much more difficult for the Allies
Yes Lindybeige just made a good video underscoring this point. Germany just wasn't even on the same scale as the Russians and Americans when it came to tank production. Here's the video: ua-cam.com/video/8BxXApcfCNU/v-deo.html Basically the Americans were able to use their tanks as tanks while the Germans treated theirs as precious cargo to be protected. They kept them out of risky situations and put extreme efforts into recovering and repairing knocked out tanks.
To an extent, but they just didn’t have the people or the industry to make more tanks. Quantity is not always a good th8mg, especially when it comes to logistics.
@@nickellison2785 not entirely true. Their capacity was maxed out. However, their obsession with “wunderwaffes” (sorry if I spelled that wrong) was a waste of resources. If they had doubled down on their more practical tank models and not so much on having a million tank destroyer variations, increasingly heavy tanks that were flawed in many ways they have had more tanks on the field and more tank units to play with. It wouldn’t have changed the out come mind you, but they could’ve spanked us a lot harder before they went down had they just stuck with more of good enough.
I think the biggest part contributing to this tanks success is that it got all the features of a light tank correct before anyone else had it figured out and then combined that with being relatively well armed for its time period
The Tiger (C tier) and Panther (D tier) are probably contenders for the most _overrated_ tanks of WWII. I would say that the Sherman (S tier) is actually the most underrated tank of WWII. Check out The Chieftain's channel for validation of this contention. That's not to discount the 38t (B tier). It's kind of like the Locust (C tier) in many regards - it's really not a _very_ good tank, but it is very mobile, very portable, fairly cheap in labor and materiel, and if you can have a working, reliable, combat-capable tank supporting your infantry where your opponents do not, that's always a win.
I’d drop the Locust and the 38(t) down both by one tier, the 38(t) did have some issues relating to its armour, and the locust was very outclassed when it was made.
Not a word on the Pzkw III. VERY similar story. Same design development till the end of the war. And it was also classed as a light tank when it started out.
"most underrated tank"... The 38T is literally plastered all over every single documentry and book about the fall of france lmao and how extremely helpful it was for the Germans in the early years/battles in Europe. If anything it could be argued to be overstated even at times. Underrated I would put the Valentine or A13 cruiser tank. The Valentine was produced in massive numbers, saw battle on every front pretty much and generally loved, the A13 was a vital stepping stone for British armour and filled the gap in a few crucial years while other designs were being tooled for and rarely, if ever is mentioned even in its own good years and overshadowed by the Matilda II. "its nowhere", bruh obviously didnt watch the history channel during the early 2000s lol.
It is also notable that a small piece of the original LT. vz. 38 actually served the Allies as well. The Czechoslovakian ZB-53 medium machinegun designed for these tanks gained popularity in Great Britain and became a machinegun of choice for their Cromwell tanks. The british have only changed the caliber and renamed it from ZB-53 to BESA.
the 38 was good because utilized existing industrial resources well. There is always a loss of productivity when retooling manufacturing lines, so keeping the Czech factories producing what they already knew how to build was smart, as was repurposing the hull for auxiliary combat roles.
No doubt an ultra tank nerd would find some errors to correct about the info in this video. But overall, based on my own slightly less nerdy knowledge of tanks and the war as a whole, it seems a rather good presentation -- well balanced and proportioned, without going down any unnecessary rabbit holes. And Simon does a good job of making it seem like he knows what he's talking about, so it's easy to get lost in the flow of the video. Makes me think (as I have several times before) that Simon is, in his own way, one of the most underrated UA-cam and internet-culture stars. There's no telling how much interesting information he has, by his prodigious efforts, brought to light here and elsewhere, presenting a great deal of it (or all of it?) himself.
I was in Normandy this week and Second World War history aside, I couldn't help but think that the Mont Saint Michel would make for an excellent megaprojects video.
Good video. While I agree, some additional remarks on my behalf: the Pantzer III has a similar history; after the beginning of the war, the tank became obsolete but the chassis remained in production - resulting in a number of variants like the 38t. One big difference: the 38t could never support a three man turret and therefore never was a true "modern" tank.
Another fun thing with the swedish version was that Sweden re-built some to assault guns and tank destroyers. But the most creative re-use was when Sweden needed an APC. There was a construction the works but it would be a few years of. What to do. Well, there were lots of Strv m/41 around and the were technically very dependable. So the turrets were removed but now used in pillboxes and other kinds of fortifications. And the hulls were rebuilt into what was named PBV 301 and the first tracked swedish APC. However, having looked at the US M113 and the russian equivalents, the swedish army wanted some extra firepower. And there were plently of 20mm autocannons lying around that had been used by older swedish airplanes. So these guns were re-purposed and so the PBV301 really became an IFV, infantry fighting vehicle with a gun that could easily make swiss cheese out of the other APC:s rolling around at the time. In the 1960:s the replacement, the PBV302 was taken into service but a for a few years the PBV301 filled the role and gave the swedish armed forces valuable expirience in the operation of tracked IFV:s. Not bad for a light tank designed in the 1930:s.
Even though I was a WWII history nut growing up, I hadn't heard about the 30t until I started playing Panzer General in the 90s. I thought "what the heck is this tank?" Looked it up and was surprised to see it's performance and usage. You are correct. it is a highly overlooked tank considering it's impact on the battlefield.
The German crews for the most part, liked the tank very much. Their only beef with it was when it got hit, the rivets at times would shatter into small bits of shrapnel flying through the interior of the tank.
KOLACHES!!!!! I'm from Texas and German on Mother's side =) Our Czech friends have outdone themselves with Kolaches and the 38t! Funny but I "knew" the 38t was a good tank from.......playing Panzer General back then. Panzer 1...(shudders) I could mount a 12 gauge to a riding lawn mower and be on par with the Pz 1..heh
I'd venture that the British Valentine is heavily underrated. It was highly reliable at a time when all tanks really were not that reliable. While a slow top speed, it could keep that top speed off road. It was able to be up gunned from the 2pdr (40mm) up to the 75mm QF. It remained in service up to the end of the war both as a gun tank in the Far East and in Europe as a specialist vehicle (including as a 17pdr mount).
I seem to recall reading of the Valentine crews loving them. Also the Soviets liked them depending on the weather due to not being optimized for Russia of course. Only issues were basic quibbles from certain aspects of combat suitability, but one tank cant do everything. Archer was so badass using the chassis.
I've always been curious why the Germans never tried to scale up the 38t as a basis of design for a medium mounting a long 75mm. Scaling up the chassis to 25-30 tons, welded construction, and mounting a new turret? The key being the running gear, suspension design, and how synchronized/rationalized it was for the size and weight of the tank. Scale up that part with a new armor layout, welded, new turret, 75mm tank killer.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 Comparing 38t running gear, power to weight, etc. to Panther is not favorable to Panther. Using the best of 38t's simplicity in a t34 style layout would have been a better option.
It's an interesting question, because there are so many candidates to consider - but so many criteria to judge them by. They have a running example of a 38T in the Australian collection and I was watching it being driven around the hall for some reason. In many ways, it's a good design. But that depends on what you NEED a tank to do.
Pz 38(t) outmoded as a battle tank after 1941, still useful as recon vehicle. Basic engine and chassis so good, made great Sp guns, AA tanks, and TDs. Ability to be modded into aHetzer. Was also to be the E(10) series o😂standard light AFVs.
I developed my appreciation for the Panzer 38 (T) while mastering the PC game "Panzer General" in the 1990's / 2000's. Always a reliable military asset.
For underrated tanks, I propose the Valentine (British). Slow (very), not that well armoured, only averagely gunned. Yet it gained a reputation for reliability (the best tank is the one that actually works ...), and it was the basis for quite a variety of conversions and "special" tanks. Crap, yet extremely important to the "War Effort".
Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/MEGAPROJECTS to get a special offer.
The irony of a bald man selling hair loss treatment.
Lean into there Mr whistler.
They should use Elon in the before and after photos.
😮😢dd Dr e 🎉🎉😮zq🎉a😮🎉😂😂🎉😂😂🎉😂😂😂
Post World War 2 this chassis simply disappeared but the Factory for production Skoda Works became truly awesome in both scope and scale during USSR Warsaw Pact times.
The Pz38(t) is my favorite tank in Panzer General and War Thunder. Great tank!
Let’s not forget that the Swedish used a variant of the 38t well into the Cold War called the Strv 41. It was the basis for both a tank destroyer and an apc.
I always thought the strv 41 looked quite similar to a 38t, I never knew it was literally a version of the 38t
@@phoenix-bv7bwwell IT was same type of vehicles light tank thats inspired t38
Sweden originally wanted to buy 50 LT vz.38, but after the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, all tanks were confiscated by the Germans. However, since the Germans needed Swedish iron ore, they agreed to grant the license. Strv 41 was then produced under license in Sweden.
@@phoenix-bv7bw It was a licensed version since Germany confiscated the 38t the Checks had built for Sweden. Rommel got them for example. The swedish version, including those the germans confiscated, had improved frontal armour, both the front plate and the turrets gun shield. Sweden had realized the armour was too thin so these tanks got 50mm frontal armour and for the gun shield.
The Swiss version G13 of the Hetzer staied in servive till 1973. Most of the Hetzers you can see in museums are actually Eidgenossen, enjoyed a peaceful life in the Alpes and have never seen WWII action.
The 38(T) was used as a Panzer III substitute in 1940-41. It’s closer in capability to that than to the app II.
It was designed to face German Pz III’s and early models of IV’s in case of Czechoslovak - German war. So technically it was still a light tank but it was able to face early German medium tanks. Not surprised that Germans used them like that.
@@saiien2 Right -it had the same firepower as a Panzer III, and the Germans couldn't build enough of those anyway so that's where they plugged them in.
@@saiien2the Polish 7TP was also another light tank but the cannon on it could knock out the Panzer IV. I like that mix of light armor but heavy firepower.
@saiien2 wasn't the Pz. 4 and Pz. 3 properly produced until after the takeover? Iirc they didn't really get production of either going fully until around 1940
tbf, nearly anything could knock out early Pz. 4 and Pz. 3s (let alone the Pz. 1 and Pz. 2s), heck iirc, a .50 cal could pen it. it wasn't really until mid-late war where the armor became adequate.
A little error. We (Czechoslovakia) didnt agree with giving up our land (sudetten) for maintaining peace. We didnt even had a voice in it. The allies together with Hitler made the Munich agreement (we call it about us without us) and they agreed that they wont help our army if we defend ourselfs. Hitler wanted parts of Czechoslovakia just because of the arms industry - like these legendary tanks
I consider myself having a basic but comprehensive knowledges of WW2 history and I wondered at this statement too. There didn’t seem to be a whole lot of “agreeing” on Czech part.
Exactly they stabbed us in the back then did the same to the Polish. They had the greatest strategic opportunity of the war when the Germans invaded Poland and then they got gun shy.
Kinda sounds like Put-ler trying to claim that Ukraina had ceded the Crimea and other territories to him.
@@andrewallason4530 ya no joke dude and before that in 2008 when they made up that bs excuse to invade Georgia.
I attribute this to part of colonialism. The major powers spent centuries assuming they were the most capable and, therefore, most valuable. The arrogance of deciding other nation's fates without their input.
37mm was pretty decent gun when it was first used in tanks and anti tank guns. The war progressed armour and guns at a rapid pace.
tiger 1 moment
@@alecmiller2270he’s not wrong, the 37mm and other weapons in the same size range, like the 2 pounder, were decent at the start. The Tiger’s gun was very good when introduced, and still decent at the end of the war.
No shit.. Who told you?
@azynkron the gun did, but I also spoke to 7 tanks of the era, and they agreed.
37mm was only ever really useful against other light tanks and scout cars (and probably the SU-76, but only if you shot first). That's why the Germans moved onto 50mm and 75mm anti-tank guns as soon as the war started, their 37mm rounds just bounced off the French tanks.
When I was told the T means it was made in Czechoslovakia, it can cross distances quickly, and it was vital in the early stages of the blitzkrieg, I felt that...
Thanks Yukari
T means Trophy as in captured equipment.
@@johnneill990 The T stands for Tschechien (German for the Czech state)
@@johnneill990that it would be P for Preis
@@johnneill990 "Beutepanzer" is, iirc, the German word for captured stuff.
The WW2 German habit was to append a lower-case letter at the end of the designation: (f) = ex-French, (r) = ex-Russian etc, etc. AND the Panzer 38T is properly the Panzerkampfwagen 38(t). The Germanic spelling of Czechoslovakia just happens to be Tschechoslowakei. The Germanic adjective for Czech is "Tschechisch".
(Slovakia was, for much of WW2, a puppet pro-Nazi separate state).
Indeed, in 1992, I bought an Austrian map of Czechoslovakia, and it was spelt with a "t" at the start ...
Furthermore, the current Germanic spelling of "Czech Republic" is "Tschechische Republik" - again with that "t".
1:50 the tank
4:05 end of sponsorship
5:52 combat history
13:57 a second lease of life
16:22 analysis
I appreciated that Steven Spielberg included a pair of Pz. 38-derived Marders in Saving Private Ryan. In the ending battle, both their strengths and weaknesses were demonstrated, with Jackson's sniper position being destroyed by the powerful gun, but the open-topped fighting compartment being exploited by a couple of Molotov cocktails.
Nice point!
The Marder 3 in both Private Ryan and Band of Brothers was a Scania-Vabis Stormartillerivagn m/43 (Sav m/43), a Swedish assault gun developed from the 38(t).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormartillerivagn_m/43
@@flitsertheo I had figured that they were German, but Swedish stand ins make a lot more sense. I had heard that the Sdkfz 251s were actually Czech OT810s.
@@gardener68 Yes, almost every "Sdkfz 251'" you see in movies is a post-war OT-810. It is an improved version of the original Sdkfz 251 made in the same factory. So not a mock-up.
The Hetzers based on the 38(t) are usually made for Switzerland post-war G-13 versions. No mock-ups either.
@@flitsertheothere's also the Bf 109s the Czechs sold to Israel iirc (the S-199), very interesting
The Stuart might be a close equivalent. It performed quite well in the Indo-Pacific theater against the Japanese especially in the rough terrain where heavier tanks couldn't go
Yeah, I think the British found it really useful too. Pretty solid design from the dependability standpoint.
Stuart was well used in N.African campaign.
It also get second life as a panzerjeger in Yugoslav partisans army in WW2. They dropped the turret and bolted pak-40 on top
Valentine is a closer equivalent
@@TringmotionCoUk The Valentine was much more heavily armored than a 38(t) or Stuart.
Having played with the Pz38t in various games and seeing its stats and performance in curiosity afterwards, I'm honestly so happy this little beast gets some deserved time in the limelight on this channel.
*gremlin
@@Shinzon23 gremlin tank? I assume that's a reference to WT gameplay... I don't play War Thunder, never have lmao.
Real time strategy games like MOWAS2 and CtA: GoH
The older computer game World War 2 Online had the 38t as a German starter tank. I always chose it over the Panzer 2 or 3. It had a gun that was better able to deal with allied armor.
ive played both MoW/GoH and WT, in WT its pretty decent, just a genericlow tier tank that gets explosive filler AP, in the Strat games tho, its meh, prefer a Pz. 2 imo, the 20mm HE goes hard @@V3RTIGO222
The 38t was an important stopgap between the PII and with the PIII & P IV being up gunned. Its chassis continued to be used for Marders & Hetzers later. I agree a very underrated tank. Its only problem is its riveted armour & flat construction
Do a mega projects video on Simons beard
LOL 😂😂😂
Known by all as Simons thick luscious beard!
decoding the unknown...why breads grant yourubers mystical powers
Love it! Needs to happen.
To call Simon's beard just a beard is a disservice. Hence forth is shall be called UA-cam's lion mane.😅
thank you to keeps for sponsoring the show.
Lovely video. I would like to add a few points tho:
1) the letter T in the name stands for 'tchechishen', meaning Czech.
2) What I find interesting is despite being a light tank, it has performance, gun and armor of a medium tank. It was toe-to-toe with the earlier versions of Panzer 3.
3) Despite being used in the whole WW2, engineers strugles to create an improved variant of Pz38t. The biggest problem was the gun - after capturing of first T-34s, Germans realised the original 37mm was not performing well enough against its sloped armor. Germans tries to install a larger caliber gun into Pz38t failed simply because of the small original turret. And creating larger turret was unnecesary because of enough Pz3 on the front that didn't have the same fitting problem. Also, the bigger turret would corrupt the performance of the chassis.
4) Pz38t also struggled with another problem - despite the armor was good in terms of thickness, it was too hard, therefore fragile (appearently, too much carbon in the steel plates). According to some sources, it was possible for a shell to went through the armor if it was hit again in the same place. The first hit shattered the armor plate, making it easier for the second shot.
And one more thing that is REALLY IMPORTANT for us, Czech and Slovakian people - in 1938, we didn't "agree" to let go of our territory, we were literally sold out as a part of "The conduct of appeacement" by French and British political leaders WITHOUT ANYONE ASKING! This is called the Munich agreement, signed in late September 1938 and is still considered as the biggest treason ever for both nations. Check the Wikipedia for more...
Respekt 💪😤
Munich Agreement is called Munich Betrayal for a reason in Czechia.
Well, the Pz-38 was put through many different Variations, and tests, but it’s actually a very useful tank, as said in this nice video. 👍
You forgot the (t)
@@filipbitala2624 😂 sorry!
No they were not. Stop lying. There were basically only 2 modification made and even they did not lead to new variant being produced. Nothing one could describe in any dimension as a many different variations.
@@thedevilneveraskstwice7027 Huh? As for the proper tank models, sure, there were only a few and they were basically all just having extra armor. But the reliable PzKpfw 38(t) chassis became the basis of many mid- and late-war designs; Marder III, Grille, Jagdpanzer 38(t) (commonly known as Hetzer), Flakpanzer 38(t) and Aufklärungspanzer 38(t).
If you are a WWII board wargammer, you know & appreciate the Pz35/38.
I just started Flames of War and I don’t think I have any. I have enough Panthers, Tigers, P4s, and Stugs to shake a stick at. Should I get them?
It's a really good early tier tank in war thunder good gun, good mobility and decent armor.
I'm a ww2 board wargamer. I wish I had a girlfriend
Pz 38(t) is better than girlfriend
One of my favorite tanks
The German panzer commanders liked the 38t for being reliable, easy to repair and getting decent gas mileage. I had a book about Barbarossa that showed a turretless 38t that had a wheeless PAK 38 mounted on top of the fighting compartment which probably led to the Marder series. The Hetzer was a more robust version that was popular for the same reasons. American GI's said the only tanks the Germans were using when the war ended were Hetzers and Panzer 3's. Their users told the GI's that was due to them not breaking down often and not guzzling gas.
Honestly having see Simon show actual personality during the Keeps Ad threw me off guard... but I love it.
14:05 That Marder in the picture is early Marder III, where the gun is from captured soviet F-22 76.2mm guns.
14:40 Why did y'all put black and white filter on this? That picture is for sure from Bahna or similar event at Lešany tank museum, and is at most 20ish years old - you can see Czech T-72M4CZ tank in the background, which is still in service today.
I would say that this tank epitomises Czech engineering, being thoroughly competent. The Czechs armed the Austria-Hungarian Empire in the Great War, including making the guns for the Empire's battleships (I saw an exhibition about this when I was in the Czech Republic a few years ago). The Czechs had a strong tradition in engineering.
Also, don't forget that the standard British Army light machine gun of the Second World War (the Bren) was based on a Czech design. The name "Bren" comes from Brno and Enfield.
Yes! Finally, somebody who recognizes how innovative the Czechs were. You should have included that they were the largest arms exporter in the interwar period and had the highest defense spending percentage of any democracy in that time
Brent wasn't "based on the Czech design." It was a Czech gun made in England under licence. British army tested several machine guns, and none came close to LK vz 26. Brits have brought in a few Czech engineers to modify the gun to use the standard cartridge used in the Commonwealth. The LK vz.26 (identified as ZB-26) was used before and after the WW2 by something like 24 different armies in it's standard form, or modified to suit a different cartridge. Wehrmacht and SS designation of the gun is MG 26(t). Numerous versions chambered for NATO round were still used by NATO in 1990s. Copies were made all over the world, including Russia, China and Japan.
@@rickj8859 "to modify the gun to use the standard cartridge used in the Commonwealth" it's modified.
@theEWDSDS Mods done by CZ Brno designers hired by the Enfield factory as part of the deal.
I guess I can say I did my fair share of appreciation for the panzer 38t since I found it kinda interesting when I was grinding it through in wot like 10 years ago :D
I have just returned from a wikipedia hole about the 38(t) which I thougth was the best tank of the early war, so I'm on the right wavelength.
Pz. III was better tank at the time overall and kind of underrated as well, overshadowed by Pz. IV later - that said 38(t) was great in its own right and it's more appropriate to compare it to german lights and not mediums
@@lordmartinakIMO the Panzer III didn’t become truly great until the Ausf. F, though I could see an argument for the armor upgrades the Ausf. D brought
Simon ! This is likely one of your most in depth and correct WWII based offerings , very well done , very correct , and just deep into WWII combat arms minutiae , very much appreciated , keep up the hard work , you have truly become an accomplished UA-cam Historian , whom earned the respect of lifelong Historians that find relaxation and happiness from this type of in-depth analysis .
Ah... Your comment is a lot like mine -- as you would see if you could find it. I also thought it was a quality video and very well done. But you were first! 👍
Thank you for covering the 38(t)!
The last user of the Pz. 38(t) (actually, the LT vz. 38) was Peru, which bought 24 units (equivalent to 2 tank companies) in 1938-39 and designated it as the Tanque 39. It was used in many of Peru's military operations, like the Equador-Peru War of 1941, notably the Battle of Zarumilla, up to counterinsurgency operations agains the Shining Path guerrillas. These tanks were retired in 1988. A few of these are preserved and now on display, notably in Callao.
Peruvian army used the tank in the battle of Zarumilla and paratroopers to occupy the port city of Guayaquil, prompting the Ecuadorians to complain to the League of Nations that Peru was in alliance with Germany. Laughable, but true
@@drbichat5229 well, the Ecuadorians got paddled at Zarumilla; the Tanque 39 was overkill against horse-drawn arty and horrendously ill-suited antitank guns (little more than field guns) and with no tanks of their own.
What is ironic is that Churchill and Czech President Benes opposed the partition of Sudatenland while France and Poland were for it. At the time, Germany had only 2 armored divisions and was in no condition to fight its way through the heavily fortified Czech frontier. The Czechs had tanks that could match the Panzer IIs that made the bulk of the German forces and with Anglo-French and possibly Soviet support, WWII would have lasted a month or two before Hitler was humiliated and possibly brought down by his own General staff. Ironically France and Poland were overrun by the weapons they handed Hitler without a fight.
The 38t is one of my favorite tanks, but there is one thing to note. Germans found Czech armor to be too brittle and found that its thicker armor only offered comparable armor protection to the Panzer 2. Still, it was definitely the primary workhorse tank for most of Germany's early war.
Orai Girls Acadamy's tankery club makes great use of their 38t. althought they did convert theirs to a Hetzer.
Ive always loved the 38t it was a very versatile little killer
I had always thought this was a great little tank, and definitely one of the most underrated tanks of the war before seeing this, namely because it could absolutely compete with, if not entirely outperform far more well known designs of the era, such as the Panzer II and BT7...
While it was definitely better than the Panzer II (much better gun) and T-26 (more armour), the BT-7 could run circles around it. It was easily the fastest tank in the war, and its gun could defeat the 38t's armour. The 38t really shined in its later derivative forms though, such as the Hetzer, long after the BTs had left the stage.
I'm so glad to see this tank get the attention it deserves. Wonderful video. What this tank gets made into usually overshadows the original, but the 38(t) has a special place in my nerdy heart. Thanks again!
I knew the Pz38(t), but by name only. Thank you for bringing it unto light !
What a great video on the much passed by little 38T..Also being a modeler I’ve got a 1/35 38T to build in my stash..So thanks Simon,as you’ve just made my choice of next project for me and I’m on it today.!👍
Doing a video on the the Flak 88 (maybe a side projects one) would be cool. The flak 88 is arguably a "wunderwaffe" and a rather successful one
40 years ago, I played miniature war games with a couple of gentlemen. We focused on WWII both land and sea and I remember that the Pz38(t) was a surprisingly good tank in the early war, far superior to the Panzer I and Panzer II.
Was the game Advanced Squad Leader?
I remember this tank. I always considered it solid and useful. Leadership and logistics are part of a tanks value.
I appreciated the Czech 38 because in 1973 a friend gifted me with a 1940 Infantry ROTC four-volume manual. If I remember correctly, those books featured a Czech 35 tank--the 38 was an improved model. The Czech 38 was the backbone of the Panzer armies that conquered Poland, crushed France, and then invaded the USSR. The US tanks in that ROTC manual (printed in 1938) were not competitive.
The 35t and 38t were barely related.
@@katywalker8322Can you give me a good reference? Both had four-man crews and a pair of 7.92x57mm machine guns and a 37mm main gun. One had better engines, better armor, and was otherwise more modern. At first glance I cannot tell the two apart.
@@alancranford3398 very different suspension . The 35t was designed by Skoda, the 38t by ckd (Českomoravská Kolben-Daněk) , although Skoda built some of them. The 38t was lighter, shorter, wider and lower
@@katywalker8322Thanks.
The only tank the US Army had in 1938 was the light M2. They did have the Christie based Combat Car that ran on wheels or tracks and a newer version that used a Wright radial engine and only ran on tracks. It was declared obsolete a few months later in 1939 so Chrysler could start designing a more robust tank for the upcoming war.
The Sherman used to be one of the most underrated tank and now it's seen as one of the best, if not the best.
That's ironic because they were easily taken out with anything 75 mm and above, however it was really reliable
@@ServusCruxMost WW2 tanks, save for the heaviest, would be quite reliably taken out by a 75. The difference is that Sherman was easier to escape and the crew could almost always get a replacement.
@@crazymachinima1 yes, hence why i said shermans were reliable, if not destroyed, which often times they were, very easily
@@ServusCrux I meant o point out that being "easily taken out with anything 75mm and above" feels like a strange criteria to me, since most tanks of the period would struggle surviving that. Sherman wasn't notably less resistant to a 75 mm PAK than any contemporary medium tank.
@@crazymachinima1 it wasnt just 75 mm guns, it was AT rifles to, even sometimes destroyed by a simple 50 mm, and panzerfausts. The purpose of them wasnt quality so much as it was quantity, although later models became more competent, like the firefly (which is actually british, ironically, and the americans refused to use them)
Thank you, what a great program. I think the Hetzer, the Stug's, Panzers, Panthers, Tigers were all great and now I will add the 38T into my list along with the Mk4 Sherman and Panther........and ok if I must add the dirty T-34.
It is one of my favorite tanks from a simply aesthetic point of view. It just looks cool.
For somewhat similar reasons I like the Matilda II tank.
So glad you did a piece on this great little tank. I've always held it in high regard. Right up there with Panzer3L (kwk50)
With the exception of the early models, the Panzer III outclassed the 38(t) in pretty much every regard.
Finally some one has recognized this versatile tank. Way to go.
From one bald man to another. Your keeps sponsorship and your humor about it cracks me up. Love the videos and other channels. Great stuff.
It used to be my favorite tank in WW2 online long ago on dial up lol, It is a testament to the skill and wit of Skoda Works in the pre war days. They had an excellent high velocity 37mm main turret and could fire HE and AT and quite swift and had good off and on road speed. The only limiting factor was the quite common riveted armor at the time, one "right" hit on those spots on those rivets then you basically had a death can full of many bouncing BBs!
..also the Czech industry of that time could only make armour akin to a WW1 type of plate, that was more fragile Carburised Face Hardened (CO2 forced vapour) Steel (WW1 'Krupp Steel' equivilent), and was prone to fracturing for a given thickness, than early war German & British/Allied WW2 metallurgical recipes of steel armour plate.
Also late war the Germans had plans to produce the 38(D), an evolved specification of the 38 variant with double thickness armour, uprated suspention herpas a newer Tatra engine variant, or a HLTRM type engine, and a slightly larger dimensions and some differing sloping angles, were to be made in German factories - hence the (D).
As they [the Natzis] understood that the Czech/WW1 style of armour plate needed at a minimum to be roughly twice as thick to have a durable enough softer core armour matrix to withstand the impact shock without shattering so easily to have a better chance of inflicting more damage to the enemy whilst being able to tolerate more itself.
Luckily the 38(D) model itself never entered mass production
I've often heard what you say about tank rivets, and I've come to believe it, but it's actually very hard to find first-person primary source accounts of this rivets-bouncing-around-in-a-tank phenomenon. A lot of what you'll discover if you look around is only what people have heard or read somewhere and repeated, and that source will have gotten it from someone else, etc. I think I've only read one person state that they had experienced it first-hand and knew it to be true. Makes me wonder how serious the problem really was.
@@polarvortex3294 Good point. I wonder if it was ever documented in testing trials of riveted armor at any point.
@@joerussell9574 That would be interesting to find & read. I guess they'd say, though, back then: "We already know welding is better for other reasons (good seal, less weight, etc.), and that's the direction we're moving, so what's the point?" They just couldn't foresee the development of a vast future tank fandom that wants to know!
Also, as an aside, I've discovered that a great majority of the things we do in life haven't been officially studied. Usually, the fact that some practice has evolved and become common, though (like in cooking), hints that trial and error has supported its development -- even if no one can really explain it otherwise.
@@polarvortex3294 Very good points and food for thought. Always a nice pleasure to converse with well thought out people with good solid points. I wholly agree with You on not trying to find multiple sources and relying on one of few sources.Thanks again!
Czech Genius, bridging the gap between the initial German Panzers and the panic to develop and effective medium tank. Vital in early 40s German victories
The first version of the Marder used a rechambered version of the Russian 76.2mm field/anti-tank gun, which is what is depicted in the video, not the PaK 40, which wasn't available then.
great video and i'm so glad you touched on all the variants used later
Sweden produced them as well, and used the chassis for an 105 mm anti tank gun and even a Infantry Fighting Vehicle produced in the 1960's. So really a welldesigned piece of mechanic😁
Always one of my favorite tanks. So cool and archaic looking.
Someone probably mentioned it already but the allied equivalent of this would probably be the M3 Stuart. Idk if you have done a video on it but I'd bet that would make for an interesting video
No
Didn’t use the M3 as a base for other models
@@tomhenry897 they absolutely did use it for the basis for several spgs
@@tomhenry897...they 100% did do so.
@@tomhenry897 Uh oh... seems like you're tangling (or should I say "tankling"?) with some serious tank nerds here -- and there's no telling how deep their knowledge goes. They probably play war games, have books, and tons of toys, um, I mean models, too. Save yourself and give up now!
The Czech's had a small but very effective armament industry. The Bren gun was also a Czech designed weapon. The Pkw 38(t) did soldier on in it's original form quite awhile in second rate divisions of the German army on "quite" fronts where partisans and recon units were the main foes.
A Peruvian mission went to Europe in 1935 and looked at tanks from several major manufacturers before settling on the Czech LTP. Peru bought 24 of them. They were delivered in 1938-1939 and designated Tanque 38 (then Tanque 39).
Many years ago, I saw one of these as a ‘gatekeeper’ in front of a military installation in the Lima area. Too bad I could not snap a few photos in those pre-cellphone times……
And used in wars well into the 80s.
It was a menace in Battlefield V. There was an upgrade for it that put a 20mm auto cannon on it and when the game was first released the auto cannons were very op. That thing if left alone would terrorize the enemy team.
The Hetzer (not called that in Germany during the war) was NOT just built on existing 38T hulls. The hetzer hull is longer and wider. And the Chexc (SP?) Did NOT agree to give up land to Germany. That area had most of their military factories and the border first. They had their land given away by the league of nations to keep Hitler happy and try to avoid war
There is WW2-era documentation using that name. Maybe it wasn't "official" but the name was used.
@@executivedirector7467you’re right, the name wo as originally for the E-25 (I think) but got confused with the similar Jagdpanzer 38, and the name stuck.
@@executivedirector7467
There is ONE WWII document that has that name used. Check The chieftains channel
That appeasement might have been good for the Czechs, in the end. No vicious fighting for their homeland one-on-one with Germany, and they got all their land back post-war. The real losers, I think, were the Sudeten Germans, whom I think were not treated well after Germany lost.
Love this vid, a versatile chassis that served welll during the war
Matilda II remained in service from start to finish of WW2 also.
It also shows up in movies. Shaving Ryan's Privates used the " hollywoodidzed version of the Marder 3 to shoot the Church tower. And Band of Brothers had a Hetzer in the Battle of the Bulge show.
I checked the "Battle of Foy" scene and there is a mock-Tiger and a mock- Stug 3 but I didn't see a Hetzer.
The Matilda was another tank that was used through the whole war although only later against Japan.
One correction, the matilda II served the whole war in different theatres but definitely not the matilda 1, look them up they are shit, lightly armoured and armed with a vickers machine gun
@declansalisbury5698 matilda I is not lightly armored. It had more armor than any German tank during the fall of France. Also it made some sense being cheap stopgap while proper tanks develop. Is it good? No. But don't mislead people.
@@declansalisbury5698 the pz 38t wasnt used through the whole war but dirrevitives of it were. By your logic factboy is wrong. Imma side with the lovable bald man on this one.
@@declansalisbury5698
Matilda 1 was equivalent to the Panzer 1. In fact slightly better. Matilda 2 was introduced at Arras trouncing the Germans.
Matlida 2 was much heavier than the 38t.
@@declansalisbury5698 The Maltilda 1 was very heavily armoured, lightly armed with just a machine gun, but heavily armoured. it was the epitome of a cheap infantry tank. The matilda 2, the one we're most familiar with, retained the same hull, but with added on armour which makes it look absolutely fantastic
Good call! The fact that after it's days as a tank in front line service formed the basis for a bunch of AFV's in different roles is a testament to the quality of the basic design. I would imagine, having it come with production/maintenance facilities in place in the heartland of the Reich at the beginnen of the war (as opposed to a peripheral locatio somewhere) also was an advantage that helped it soldier on well after it's days as front line tank.
38t, Valentine, Stuart and A10 certainly spring to mind as truly underrated.
The A10 was junk.
Bollocks. When the most reliable tank of WW2 was being designed, they put 3 tons onto the A10 to make sure its mechanical components could cope. It did.
Further, after the Debacle in Flanders, the Bartholemew report stated that the RAC should have heavy cruisers. The only heavy cruiser in france was the A10. @@executivedirector7467
@@executivedirector7467 The A10 did perfrom very poorly in the desert, but so did German tanks. It had a gun that could effectively take out axis armour, and the speed to be able to exploit gaps. The only negative stories about the A10 were about crew conditions during the North African campaign, or when crews gave up their advantage of speed in combat.
It did not perform badly. The 5th Royal Tank Regiment considered it easily their best tank. It could easily travel 1100 km's without any real servicing, and that's in the desert. Unfortunately, when the tanks were handed over to the 3 RTR for Greece, they had traveled 2000 km's in their campaign against the Italians, and were clapped out. Apart from the slightly inferior commanders position, it was from equal to completely superior to the Panzer III, including gun, armour and reliability. @@ethanedwards422
@@ethanedwards422 The A10 broke down everywhere it was used, to such an extent that units were ineffective. The German tanks generally ran OK even if, on paper, they were no better than an A10.
Thank you for this video. I knew that the 38T built as the Hetzer but thought the Marder 3 was on a panzer 2 chassis. Did not know of the artillery component
Marder I was built using a selection of captured vehicles, mostly Lorraine tractors, Marder II was the Panzer II, and Marder III was the Panzer 38(t)
Bring back the neon SW sign.
38 (t)'s early models continued to used on armored trains throughout the war. They were carried on rail road flat cars with drop down sides. They could then drive off the flat car and engage the enemy, who were usually partisans so the 38 (t) armor and fire power were still adequate.
Hetzer gonna hetz... Love that little TD. Had a model of one I put together when I was a kid.
As light tanks go the British Valentine was the best. The British were to discontinue the tank, but the Soviets requested it be kept in manufacture as they found it very useful. It was also made in Canada, with the Canadians installing an engine from Detroit just across the border, rather than ship one from Britain.
The Valentine got used as a light tank but it was meant to be an Infantry tank- a very different requirement
@@executivedirector7467
The British and Soviets had different requirements from the Valentine.
@@johnburns4017 That's one way to put it.
if you haven't already done this, could you do an analysis of different soldier kits during ww2?
really appreciate your episodes.
1:55 - Chapter 1 - The tank
2:55 - Mid roll ads
4:05 - Back to the video
5:55 - Chapter 2 - Combat history
14:00 - Chapter 3 - A 2nd lease of life
16:25 - Chapter 4 - Analysis
There was also a reconnaissance version which used the old 38T chassis just reworked little to fit a 2cm.KwK38 and 7.92 MG34/42 Hangelafette turret. 70 to 100 were made depending the source. And there were many Munitionspanzers created by the removing the turret. These turrets were used in fortification mounts.(nearly 400 by wars end)
The Sherman is something we should look on very positively.
Absolutely, it’s got to be the best tank of the war.
@@nickellison2785no that would be the big heavy beasts of krupp steel and all the veriants, reason: they waisted material and time that could been used to make more usefull panzers.
My wife and I love your videos Simon! As informative as usual.
The 38 (t) was as versatile in WW2 with all its variants as ia the M-113 today boh have so many variants to fill niche roles that it id no surprise that both are underrated
Always loved the 38T in all its versions, nice video, shame not more footage but nice to see and hear about this tank
Bob Semple tank: "Am I a joke to you?!"
As a lightweight tracked chassis, suitable for multiple modifications and utility roles, it serviced that requirement very well.
Reliable, simple, tracked utility chassis are always in demand within a military/combat scenario.
Cheap and easy to manufacture too - other very valuable characteristics.
I commented on his other video and got roasted but if Germany had focused on a greater number of good tanks like the panzer IV and stugIII and stugIV rather than a smaller number of heavy tanks like the Tiger then it would have been much more difficult for the Allies
Yes Lindybeige just made a good video underscoring this point. Germany just wasn't even on the same scale as the Russians and Americans when it came to tank production. Here's the video: ua-cam.com/video/8BxXApcfCNU/v-deo.html
Basically the Americans were able to use their tanks as tanks while the Germans treated theirs as precious cargo to be protected. They kept them out of risky situations and put extreme efforts into recovering and repairing knocked out tanks.
You are absolutely correct.
To an extent, but they just didn’t have the people or the industry to make more tanks. Quantity is not always a good th8mg, especially when it comes to logistics.
@@nickellison2785 not entirely true. Their capacity was maxed out. However, their obsession with “wunderwaffes” (sorry if I spelled that wrong) was a waste of resources. If they had doubled down on their more practical tank models and not so much on having a million tank destroyer variations, increasingly heavy tanks that were flawed in many ways they have had more tanks on the field and more tank units to play with. It wouldn’t have changed the out come mind you, but they could’ve spanked us a lot harder before they went down had they just stuck with more of good enough.
not really they did not have the resorces or crews for more tanks
I think the biggest part contributing to this tanks success is that it got all the features of a light tank correct before anyone else had it figured out and then combined that with being relatively well armed for its time period
The Tiger (C tier) and Panther (D tier) are probably contenders for the most _overrated_ tanks of WWII. I would say that the Sherman (S tier) is actually the most underrated tank of WWII. Check out The Chieftain's channel for validation of this contention.
That's not to discount the 38t (B tier). It's kind of like the Locust (C tier) in many regards - it's really not a _very_ good tank, but it is very mobile, very portable, fairly cheap in labor and materiel, and if you can have a working, reliable, combat-capable tank supporting your infantry where your opponents do not, that's always a win.
I’d drop the Locust and the 38(t) down both by one tier, the 38(t) did have some issues relating to its armour, and the locust was very outclassed when it was made.
Not a word on the Pzkw III. VERY similar story. Same design development till the end of the war. And it was also classed as a light tank when it started out.
I think Panzer III started az medium tank and end service as light
"most underrated tank"... The 38T is literally plastered all over every single documentry and book about the fall of france lmao and how extremely helpful it was for the Germans in the early years/battles in Europe. If anything it could be argued to be overstated even at times. Underrated I would put the Valentine or A13 cruiser tank. The Valentine was produced in massive numbers, saw battle on every front pretty much and generally loved, the A13 was a vital stepping stone for British armour and filled the gap in a few crucial years while other designs were being tooled for and rarely, if ever is mentioned even in its own good years and overshadowed by the Matilda II.
"its nowhere", bruh obviously didnt watch the history channel during the early 2000s lol.
It can basically only be seen & experienced in World of Tanks, for example. A handy piece of kit! And the Hetzer was very good, indeed!
The Hetzer was alright, but I wouldn’t call it ‘very good’
nice video it's nice to be polite about our 🇨🇿 Tank even in the wrong hands It was still a very successful model Jagdpanzer 38 (Sd.Kfz. 138/2
It is also notable that a small piece of the original LT. vz. 38 actually served the Allies as well. The Czechoslovakian ZB-53 medium machinegun designed for these tanks gained popularity in Great Britain and became a machinegun of choice for their Cromwell tanks. The british have only changed the caliber and renamed it from ZB-53 to BESA.
the 38 was good because utilized existing industrial resources well. There is always a loss of productivity when retooling manufacturing lines, so keeping the Czech factories producing what they already knew how to build was smart, as was repurposing the hull for auxiliary combat roles.
No doubt an ultra tank nerd would find some errors to correct about the info in this video. But overall, based on my own slightly less nerdy knowledge of tanks and the war as a whole, it seems a rather good presentation -- well balanced and proportioned, without going down any unnecessary rabbit holes. And Simon does a good job of making it seem like he knows what he's talking about, so it's easy to get lost in the flow of the video. Makes me think (as I have several times before) that Simon is, in his own way, one of the most underrated UA-cam and internet-culture stars. There's no telling how much interesting information he has, by his prodigious efforts, brought to light here and elsewhere, presenting a great deal of it (or all of it?) himself.
I was in Normandy this week and Second World War history aside, I couldn't help but think that the Mont Saint Michel would make for an excellent megaprojects video.
It's amazing, would make a great vid
Good video. While I agree, some additional remarks on my behalf: the Pantzer III has a similar history; after the beginning of the war, the tank became obsolete but the chassis remained in production - resulting in a number of variants like the 38t. One big difference: the 38t could never support a three man turret and therefore never was a true "modern" tank.
Another fun thing with the swedish version was that Sweden re-built some to assault guns and tank destroyers. But the most creative re-use was when Sweden needed an APC. There was a construction the works but it would be a few years of. What to do. Well, there were lots of Strv m/41 around and the were technically very dependable. So the turrets were removed but now used in pillboxes and other kinds of fortifications. And the hulls were rebuilt into what was named PBV 301 and the first tracked swedish APC. However, having looked at the US M113 and the russian equivalents, the swedish army wanted some extra firepower. And there were plently of 20mm autocannons lying around that had been used by older swedish airplanes. So these guns were re-purposed and so the PBV301 really became an IFV, infantry fighting vehicle with a gun that could easily make swiss cheese out of the other APC:s rolling around at the time. In the 1960:s the replacement, the PBV302 was taken into service but a for a few years the PBV301 filled the role and gave the swedish armed forces valuable expirience in the operation of tracked IFV:s. Not bad for a light tank designed in the 1930:s.
Awesome vid Simon & team! I love the WW2 content, keep it coming and I’ll keep watching!
Even though I was a WWII history nut growing up, I hadn't heard about the 30t until I started playing Panzer General in the 90s. I thought "what the heck is this tank?" Looked it up and was surprised to see it's performance and usage. You are correct. it is a highly overlooked tank considering it's impact on the battlefield.
The German crews for the most part, liked the tank very much. Their only beef with it was when it got hit, the rivets at times would shatter into small bits of shrapnel flying through the interior of the tank.
KOLACHES!!!!! I'm from Texas and German on Mother's side =)
Our Czech friends have outdone themselves with Kolaches and the 38t!
Funny but I "knew" the 38t was a good tank from.......playing Panzer General back then. Panzer 1...(shudders)
I could mount a 12 gauge to a riding lawn mower and be on par with the Pz 1..heh
I did know about all of the facts you presented, I must admit I never really considered it in that light.
Another great job.
It's this type of equipment that can really wins a war. What it doesn't do directly, it does indirectly. And on a decent budget, delivers
I'd venture that the British Valentine is heavily underrated. It was highly reliable at a time when all tanks really were not that reliable. While a slow top speed, it could keep that top speed off road. It was able to be up gunned from the 2pdr (40mm) up to the 75mm QF. It remained in service up to the end of the war both as a gun tank in the Far East and in Europe as a specialist vehicle (including as a 17pdr mount).
I seem to recall reading of the Valentine crews loving them. Also the Soviets liked them depending on the weather due to not being optimized for Russia of course. Only issues were basic quibbles from certain aspects of combat suitability, but one tank cant do everything. Archer was so badass using the chassis.
I’d agree, Valentine is one of my favourite tanks and definitely more underrated than the 38(t)
I've always been curious why the Germans never tried to scale up the 38t as a basis of design for a medium mounting a long 75mm. Scaling up the chassis to 25-30 tons, welded construction, and mounting a new turret? The key being the running gear, suspension design, and how synchronized/rationalized it was for the size and weight of the tank. Scale up that part with a new armor layout, welded, new turret, 75mm tank killer.
They did. It was called Pz V Panther 😂
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 Comparing 38t running gear, power to weight, etc. to Panther is not favorable to Panther. Using the best of 38t's simplicity in a t34 style layout would have been a better option.
It's an interesting question, because there are so many candidates to consider - but so many criteria to judge them by. They have a running example of a 38T in the Australian collection and I was watching it being driven around the hall for some reason. In many ways, it's a good design. But that depends on what you NEED a tank to do.
Pz 38(t) outmoded as a battle tank after 1941, still useful as recon vehicle. Basic engine and chassis so good, made great Sp guns, AA tanks, and TDs. Ability to be modded into aHetzer. Was also to be the E(10) series o😂standard light AFVs.
EXCELLENT WORK. Thanks
I developed my appreciation for the Panzer 38 (T) while mastering the PC game "Panzer General" in the 1990's / 2000's. Always a reliable military asset.
For underrated tanks, I propose the Valentine (British). Slow (very), not that well armoured, only averagely gunned. Yet it gained a reputation for reliability (the best tank is the one that actually works ...), and it was the basis for quite a variety of conversions and "special" tanks. Crap, yet extremely important to the "War Effort".
The Vz.38 tanks definitely proved an ergonomic balance of good tank features put together into what was at the time a medium tank.
For us who have played the PC games panzer general and the modern version Panzer corps 2 this amazing tank is a must in the early campaigns