Talk:Jagdpanzer IV

PaK and KwK
PaK stands for Panzer Abwehr Kanone, tank defense canon. Anti-tank gun. They were guns meant to be used on the ground in emplacements rather than mounted to a vehicle.

KwK stands for Kampfwagon Kanone, tank gun. These were mounted on vehicles.

And so, PaK 39 was the anti-tank gun version of that gun, while the KwK 40 was the tank mounted version of the gun. SenorBeef 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, only tanks with moveable turret used the KwK version of the gun, all others used modified version, StuGs use StuK (Sturmkanone) and Jagdpanzer use PaK. --Denniss 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Change of lead photo
The new photo is of a prototype version that differs significantly from the production vehicles - should we consider putting back the old image or at least finding an image of a production vehicle rather than the A-0 version? DMorpheus 12:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Survivors
The reference to the page: Saumur Tank Museum should really be redirecting to this page: [] Tourist.tam (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why designation change?
Can't we find some explanation for why the earlier ones were called "Jagdpanzer IV" and the later ones "Panzer IV/70"? Seems like a significant move. I can't think of any other case where a vehicle so obviously altered as the Jagdpanzer reverted to the "Panzer" designation. Panzer IV/70 seems to imply a turreted Panzer IV with an L/70 gun installed. Is this a propaganda move? Does it reflect some change in the way the vehicles were being employed? If it's because they were increasingly being used as tanks instead of as tank-destroyers, then why didn't they start calling StuG III's "Panzer III/75", and the StuG IV the "Panzer IV/48" (which of course would conflict with the Jagdpanzer IV/48, which would have the same designation...I think). Are we sure this change is actually reflected in the original documentation, and this wasn't some post-war error that's been perpetuated? It just seems very mysterious, totally inexplicable and not done with any other vehicle in the Heer. The simplest solution I can think of is that they called them the Jagdpanzer IV/70, and somehow someone messed up in the meantime. I also think it strange that they would design an entirely new gun, firing the same shells at roughly the same muzzle velocity, rather than just use the same Stuk guns from the StuG III/IV. I can see designing a whole new weapon if it had greatly improved performance, but this one doesn't seem to be a whole lot different...just a whole different design to tool up for, and another ammo type to worry about in the logistics train. If there was some reason that the old Stuk design wouldn't work in the Jagdpanzer, it would be nice if it were made clear.

64.222.158.24 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment is based on the assumption that these were the same vehicle. They were in fact treated as separate vehicles in the German records. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Were both long-gun versions tracked in records as Panzer IV/70 or just the Alkett/Nibelungenwerk version? Was this name intended from the start or was the name altered later? I know that in 11/44 the name "Jagdpanzer IV" was introduced, changed from the former "leichter Panzerjäger IV" --Denniss (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They were named "Panzer IV/70 (V)" and "Panzer IV/70 (A)", respectively (among other things along the way, like most other German armored vehicles).Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Officially, only the L/48-armed vehicle was named Jagdpanzer IV. The L/70-armed vehicle was named Panzer IV/70." - from where does the "Panzer IV/70 designation come from at all? It seems that this designation is purely existant in English documentation? Any source for this designation? IF there are records for this designation, why not state them? Otherwise it is pure English invention! 80.151.9.187 (talk)

Development
the whole article development makes no sense! "With experience gained during the initial phases of the Battle of Stalingrad, in September 1942 the Wehrmacht's arms bureau, the Waffenamt, called for a new standard for heavy assault guns: 100 mm of armor to the front, 40–50 mm on the sides, wider tracks, ground clearance of 50 cm, top speed of 26 km/h and the lowest possible firing positions. The new Panzerjäger ("tank hunter") design would be armed with the same 7.5 cm gun as fitted to the Panther: the Pak 42 L/70. Initially a new chassis was planned, but that of the Panzer IV had to be used. " 1/ "Experience gained during the initial phases of the Battle of Stalingrad, in September 1942" - September 1942 saw Stalingrad being completely conquered by German Forces, there was no sign of the disaster of February 1943! 2/ "wider tracks" - the Jagdpanzer IV/70 (or what ever it is called in this article had the same tracks as the Standard Panzer IV (at least as a modeller I did not notice any difference in the width) 3/ Obviously the writer does not know the difference between a Panzerjäger and a Jagdpanzer: Panzerjäger = open fighting compartment, Jagdpanzer = closed fighting compartment 4/ Are there any references to what is written here? 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and now what do I read in Article of Sturmgeschütz IV: "During the Führer Conference of 19 to 22 August 1943, after the Battle of Kursk, Hitler had seen reports of the StuG III outperforming the Panzer IV when used in an infantry support role and tactical defence. Convinced that a tank-hunter version would be superior to the tank version, Hitler planned to switch Panzer IV production to "Panzerjäger IV" production as soon as possible. It was to mount the same 7.5 cm L/70 used for the Panther. Another manufacturer, Vomag built a prototype Panzerjäger IV with 7.5 cm L/48 gun and demonstrated it on 20 October 1943. It was later re-designated as Jagdpanzer IV Ausf. F. " - this article is different to what is written here! 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)