Although the code name "Hetzer" is often used about the Jagdpanzer 38, it was in fact the code name for the experimental vehicle E-10, which resembled the Jagdpanzer 38 to some extent. The error most likely occurred due to a misunderstanding at a meeting with the Checz staff at Škoda concerning the Jagdpanzer 38. The name was sometimes used by the German soldiers, but was never an official name.
Brummbär is often named as the sugegstive name for the Sturmpanzer, yet the name was never an official name. The name most like originates from Allied interrogations of German prisoners whom may have used the name as a nickname.
A lot of western literature has after the war named the purpose of the Schürzen as protection against hollow-charge ammunition, such as the PIAT and Bazooka. This myth originates from the western Allied intelligence, which gave two possible uses for the Schürzen - a defence against anti-tank rifles and a defence against hollow-charge ammunition. Because the western Allies didn't use anti-tank rifles, but in stead used hollow-charge ammunition, they opted for the latter guess.
German reports on the Schürzen tell a different story. All German documents name the desire for the development as a defence against Russian anti-tank rifles, and all initial tests were done exclusively with anti-tank rifles. This is but another example of Allied "intelligence", repeated by western authors.
Almost all litterature about the Tiger II states that "Königstiger" was the official name of the Tiger II. There are several reasons given for this myth, however one of the most authorative must be said to be the production reports from Reichministerium für Rüstung und Kriegsproduction, where the name is given as "Königstiger". This ministry had no authority in naming equipment, though - that was the task of Waffenamt 6. A clerical error in an official document does not make it an official name.
Allied "intelligence", which didn't have an understanding of the structure of the German authorities, have named the Tiger II as "Königstiger", or translated it into "King Tiger" or "Royal Tiger". These reports have then been used as a foundation for noumerous books, which have spread the mistake.
Aside from using the wrong name, which may be explained by lack of insight, the Allied "intelligence" comitted another mistake when translating the name into "King Tiger" and "Royal Tiger" - neither name is correct. The correct translation of Königstiger is Bengal Tiger (Panthera Tigris Tigris). Bengal Tiger is more frequently referred to in German as Bengaltiger, but Königstiger is a correct translation.
In addition to the name "Königstiger", post-war litterature has also often referre to the two different types of turrets for the Tiger II - the one with the curved frontal plate and the one with the straight frontal plate - as "Porsche-turret" and "Henschel-turret". This is incorrect, though. It is true, that there were two different chassis types under developement, one designed by Porsche and one by Henshcel, and that the two turrets were designed for each chassis respectively. Neither Porshce nor Henschel had any part in the design or construction of these two turret, though - this was done by Krupp, who also supplied the turret for the Tiger I. The only reason these turrets were manufactured in the first place, was that Ferdinand Porsche was so certain that his factory would get the contract for the Tiger II, that he ordered the turrets build, and by the time Henschel got the contract, the turrets were modified so as to not waste the materials and time used.
The best way to refer to these turrets, capturing this history, would be "Krupp's turret for the Porsche chassis" and "Krupp's turret for the Henschel chassis".
Despite common belief, the name change of the Ferdinand to Elefant didn't occur because of the modifications introduced between 1944-01 and 1944-03, including the addition of a hull machine gun. The name change was suggested by Hitler on 1943-11-29, and was carried out through two orders, dated 1944-02-01 and 1944-02-27 respectively. Therefore, while the events didn't coincide, they were not related.
The Panzer IV/70 (A) was never called Zwischenlösung. Zwischenlösung simply means "interrim solution", and was used in post-war publications because the true name was not know at the time, which was then carried into modern litterature.
The Neubaufahrzeug was never designated either Pz.Kpfw.V or Pz.Kpfw.VI. The mistake originated with German newspapers, who since then fooled British intelligence.
The Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.F2 and Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.G were not seperate vehicles, but merely different designations for the same vehicle. The Ausf.F2 designation appeared in two manuals before the designation was changed to Ausf.G, and thus the designation made it into post-war litterature as being a seperate vehicle.
The term for cast mantlet for the Sturmgeschütz Ausf.G and other such vehicles is not Saukopfblende (pigs head mantlet), but Topfblende (pot mantlet).
The Möbelwagen was only manufactured with the 3,7 cm Flak 43. The full name of the Möbelwagen was Flakpanzerkampfwagen IV (3,7 cm Flak 43) (Sd.Kfz.161/3), and could therefore not have mounted a 2 cm Flakvierling. A single Pz.Kpfw.IV chassis had a 2 cm Flakvierling mounted (2 cm Flakvierling auf Fahrgestell Panerkampfwagen IV) as a trial vehicle, and after the 3,7 cm Flak 43 was decided used for the Möbelwagen, it had the Flakvierling replaced with a 3,7 cm Flak 37. This was, however, not a Möbelwagen.
Unlike what some sources claim, there were manufactured only one or two Porsche Jagdtigers. The correct number is 11, with the chassis numbers 305001 (a prototype vehicle with a soft steel superstructure) and 305003-305012.
There never were any Pz.Kpfw.IX or Pz.Kpfw.X. Two drawings were presented in a Signal magazine as Germany's new Super-Panzers, to fool Allied intelligence - which apparently worked quite well!
The idea of a Sturmgeschütz with a L/33 gun is fiction, and is again the result of Allied intelligence being fooled, this time by photographs of regular Sturmgesch6uuml;tze with their muzzle brakes censored out.
While it appears on a glance that Germans names follow strict rules, there are certainly a lot of exceptions to the perceived rules. Looking at artillery abbreviations, the most common ones are (not including conventional artillery)
with that exact use of lower- and upper-capital letters and punctuation. As can be seen, only Pak, Pjk and Flak seems to follow some kind of standard.
Furthermore, the abbreviations are not consistent. Pak is most commonly used as an abbreviation for Panzerabwehrkanone, and Pjk is used for Panzerjägerkanone. However, for the 4,2 cm Pak 41, Pak is an abbreviation for 4,2 cm Panzerjägerkanone 41. There is no rational explanation given, it's just the way it is.
Vehicle designations are not any better. The vehicle known to most as the "Kettenkrad" is designated as Kleiner Kettenkraftwagen (Sd.Kfz.2) Typ HK 101 on 1941-05-03 and as Kleines Kettenkraftrad (Sd.Kfz.2) Typ HK 101 on 1942-10-28. Both are official designations for the exact same vehicle, and in the same series of manuals from the same publisher.
The Sd.Kfz.-number system is affected too. For most vehicles, the abbreviation is Sd.Kfz.[number], and the name is typically put in parantheses (see above) however for the Leichter Ladungsträger Sd.-Kfz.303, a hyphen is added, and the number is not in parantheses.
There are plenty of other examples, and the only conclusion is, that the only way one can know an actual name of a piece of German equipment is to get it from an authorative source (typically a manual), with the acceptance that it is unlikely to be the only designation.
All contents written by Christian Ankerstjerne unless stated otherwise