HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Historical Events & Eras > World War II > Armor in World War II

Notices and Announcements

Armor in World War II Discuss all aspects & disciplines of World War II Armor here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 01 Feb 17, 13:17
dutched's Avatar
dutched dutched is offline
Lieutenant General
Pirate
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here there be tigers
Posts: 3,383
dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenose View Post
Out of interest, if the Stug requires fewer man hours and material to build while offering the same main armament, there is not some economic attraction? I am aware that they fulfill a different role to a fully-fledged tank and are intended for a different part of the force, but given the opportunity cost of the 2 designs versus the requirement to get guns to the front, is there not an element of economy in Stug production in terms of providing anti-tank and anti-infantry capability without diverting Panzers to provide this role.
To be quite honest yes, but as per always there are those military doctrines. In effect any military is or should be task driven and will use what is at hand to do the job.
__________________
The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01 Feb 17, 13:21
dutched's Avatar
dutched dutched is offline
Lieutenant General
Pirate
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here there be tigers
Posts: 3,383
dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbo View Post
Perhaps the US Army could've made something like this:

or the Swiss.
__________________
The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01 Feb 17, 13:40
dutched's Avatar
dutched dutched is offline
Lieutenant General
Pirate
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here there be tigers
Posts: 3,383
dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
The 75/70 gun in the Panzer IV burned out barrels quickly and had to have them replaced. The 75 used in the Sturm Panzer IV was not as powerful and could carry more shells. The IV 75/70 was therefor better suited as a Tank Hunter.

It was actually the Germans running the Czech armament factories that came up with the Hetzer. Many T-38's were converted into Marders and the Hetzer was a way to get the main gun under armor.

Pruitt
Not according to some sources, hence my use of the wording ~allegedly~.
My place is literally littered with books opened at reference pages. Luckily I cannot lay may hands on that particular Hetzer book or the quotes would be flying.
__________________
The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01 Feb 17, 14:07
FireGodHamster's Avatar
FireGodHamster FireGodHamster is offline
Lance Corporal
Sweden
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: -
Posts: 41
FireGodHamster is on the path to success [1-99]
That's an intresting model! Totally imaginary I suppose (?) but looks very much like a real thing indeed.

I always thought the main attraction of the turretless assaultguns were ease of production. Unlike the turretless tank destroyer, where I suppose the favored tactic was to wait and ambush, the lack of a turret isn't a problem, however an assault guns job is to attack in an advance along with other forces. Shouldn't the lack of a turret be quite a problem for effeciency?

Were there actual merits of this design? I've only thought of the Stug and the vechicles like it as merely compromises then selected designs. Lacking a turret when attacking is being a huge weakness.

It's weird too that for a tank meant to attack it lacks of a cupola! What's up with that?

Last edited by FireGodHamster; 01 Feb 17 at 14:23..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03 Feb 17, 01:53
NoPref's Avatar
NoPref NoPref is offline
Captain
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Henry R.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston
Posts: 836
NoPref has demonstrated strength of character [100] NoPref has demonstrated strength of character [100] NoPref has demonstrated strength of character [100] NoPref has demonstrated strength of character [100] NoPref has demonstrated strength of character [100] NoPref has demonstrated strength of character [100] NoPref has demonstrated strength of character [100] NoPref has demonstrated strength of character [100] NoPref has demonstrated strength of character [100] NoPref has demonstrated strength of character [100] NoPref has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireGodHamster View Post
That's an intresting model! Totally imaginary I suppose (?) but looks very much like a real thing indeed.

I always thought the main attraction of the turretless assaultguns were ease of production. Unlike the turretless tank destroyer, where I suppose the favored tactic was to wait and ambush, the lack of a turret isn't a problem, however an assault guns job is to attack in an advance along with other forces. Shouldn't the lack of a turret be quite a problem for effeciency?

Were there actual merits of this design? I've only thought of the Stug and the vechicles like it as merely compromises then selected designs. Lacking a turret when attacking is being a huge weakness.

It's weird too that for a tank meant to attack it lacks of a cupola! What's up with that?
Not quite.

Lacking a turret when leading an attack is a weakness.

Lacking a turret when supporting the infantry leading an attack is not a weakness. The infantry have already taken the forward location and maybe even identified good attack positions for the StuG. The StuG or StuG platoon can move into position with coordinated support from the infantry, line up their shot, and destroy the whatever holding up the attack. This is the exact same thing the German infantry did with their regimental 75mm howitzers, but the StuG is much, much, faster and has all-around armor.

I think of StuGs as highly mobile, armored, infantry guns. PzJg are highly mobile, armored, anti-tank guns. They perform the same roles as their towed equivalents, but do it faster and with much less concern for enemy mortars and MGs.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05 Apr 17, 18:40
Merkava188's Avatar
Merkava188 Merkava188 is offline
Major
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Real Name: Doug Williams
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sierra Vista
Posts: 1,000
Merkava188 is on the path to success [1-99] Merkava188 is on the path to success [1-99] Merkava188 is on the path to success [1-99]
The U.S. Army had a vehicle called the T-95 which was a big mother that was planned to be used against the Siegefried Line.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 14 Apr 17, 13:06
Michele's Avatar
Michele Michele is offline
General of the Forums
Italy
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 of the ACG 2017-2018 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Udine
Posts: 6,665
Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100]
Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100] Michele is a pillar of the community [1100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireGodHamster View Post
Were there actual merits of this design?
Apart from being easier to produce and therefore cheaper...

A rotating turret includes more parts that can break or malfunction, which in a casemate simply do not exist.

A turret also has a significant weak point that's difficult to protect effectively (the turret ring).

No turret usually means you can have a lower silhouette, and thus a harder to notice, harder to hit target. The Pz 38 carried a 37mm and was 2.25 m. high. The Hetzer packed a much stronger punch with its 75mm and instead of being taller it was some 10 cms shorter.
__________________
Michele
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02 Aug 17, 17:50
Merkava188's Avatar
Merkava188 Merkava188 is offline
Major
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Real Name: Doug Williams
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sierra Vista
Posts: 1,000
Merkava188 is on the path to success [1-99] Merkava188 is on the path to success [1-99] Merkava188 is on the path to success [1-99]
The Closest thing to an assault the that the west ever produced in WWII was the T 95 by the U.S. and the Tortise in Britain.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08 Sep 17, 18:38
Poor Old Spike's Avatar
Poor Old Spike Poor Old Spike is offline
Colonel
UK
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 1,673
Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
Why didn't the West mass produce assault guns?
Because in a close-quarter armour battle, proper tanks (and infantry with bazookas) could literally run rings round them to hit them in their sides and rear, as any wargamer will tell you.
Sure, they were cheaper and quicker to produce because they hadn't got a turret, but basically they were of limited tactical value unless the enemy obligingly placed themselves in the narrow frontal arc of fire ..

Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09 Sep 17, 04:09
cbo's Avatar
cbo cbo is offline
Captain
Denmark
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign 
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: By
Posts: 748
cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
Because in a close-quarter armour battle, proper tanks (and infantry with bazookas) could literally run rings round them to hit them in their sides and rear, as any wargamer will tell you.
Sure, they were cheaper and quicker to produce because they hadn't got a turret, but basically they were of limited tactical value unless the enemy obligingly placed themselves in the narrow frontal arc of fire ..
Obviously, if you choose to use a weapon for something it wasn't designed for using inappropriate tactics you will fail. But that is like saying 155 artillery pieces are useless because they cannot destroy ICBMs or lead an attack.

Just because wargames cannot model the correct use of a StuG or wargamers are incompetent tacticians does not mean that StuGs were useless in the real world.

StuGs were self-propelled guns - first infantry guns, second anti-tank guns and field artillery as a distant third.

They were intended to operate with infantry, always. And it was the job of the infantry to keep those pesky bazooka teams at a distance. In fact, in the latter half of the war, StuG formations had infantry attached to their organisation with the sole purpose of protecting the StuG. By close support in combat and guarding it during rest (incidentally, the French did something similar with their tank units in 1917).
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #71  
Old 09 Sep 17, 09:35
82redleg's Avatar
82redleg 82redleg is offline
Sergeant Major
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fort Living Room
Posts: 309
82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbo View Post
Obviously, if you choose to use a weapon for something it wasn't designed for using inappropriate tactics you will fail. But that is like saying 155 artillery pieces are useless because they cannot destroy ICBMs or lead an attack.

Just because wargames cannot model the correct use of a StuG or wargamers are incompetent tacticians does not mean that StuGs were useless in the real world.

StuGs were self-propelled guns - first infantry guns, second anti-tank guns and field artillery as a distant third.

They were intended to operate with infantry, always. And it was the job of the infantry to keep those pesky bazooka teams at a distance. In fact, in the latter half of the war, StuG formations had infantry attached to their organisation with the sole purpose of protecting the StuG. By close support in combat and guarding it during rest (incidentally, the French did something similar with their tank units in 1917).
A smart tactician can always find a way to employ a weapons system, regardless of its disadvantages.

But, if you had a choice between a tank and a Stug, would you ever choose a Stug? Of course not, and the Germans produced every tank they could, and used more if they could get their hands on them. They produced Stugs because they couldn't produce tanks. The US, on the other hand, could produce tanks, and so it did.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09 Sep 17, 09:58
Poor Old Spike's Avatar
Poor Old Spike Poor Old Spike is offline
Colonel
UK
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 1,673
Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100] Poor Old Spike has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbo View Post
Just because wargames cannot model the correct use of a StuG or wargamers are incompetent tacticians does not mean that StuGs were useless in the real world. ..
Right, Stugs can do a good job if used carefully, but in the hurly-burly of a mobile tank battle they can't pivot fast enough to bring their gun to bear.
The wargame table (and nowadays computer wargames) in military academies have always been valuable tools for learning tactics and strategy.
The Germans lurved their Stugs to bits, but most other nations preferred to build proper tanks with turrets.
At various clubs, newcomers ask me what should they buy for a given sum of game cash, 20 tanks or 30 cheaper Stugs, and I tell them - "if you want to lose, buy nothing but Stugs. Better to buy mostly tanks with a few Stugs in support"..


Last edited by Poor Old Spike; 09 Sep 17 at 10:20..
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09 Sep 17, 11:59
Emtos's Avatar
Emtos Emtos is offline
General of the Forums
Belgium
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Tournament 1 of the ACG 2017-2018 Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Anton
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Charleroi
Posts: 11,276
Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700]
Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700] Emtos is a glorious beacon of light [700]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
A smart tactician can always find a way to employ a weapons system, regardless of its disadvantages.

But, if you had a choice between a tank and a Stug, would you ever choose a Stug? Of course not, and the Germans produced every tank they could, and used more if they could get their hands on them. They produced Stugs because they couldn't produce tanks. The US, on the other hand, could produce tanks, and so it did.
Germans started produce Stugs in 1940. And it wasn't because they didn't had enough tanks. At time Stug had a better armor than the Pz III. In the later series, the frontal armor of Stug was the same as on Pz III and Pz IV but without a less protected turret. In addition of a better protection, the Stug was lower than the tanks increasing the possibility to hide it.

Quote:
Right, Stugs can do a good job if used carefully, but in the hurly-burly of a mobile tank battle they can't pivot fast enough to bring their gun to bear.
If you're engaged in such a battle, you're probably doing in wrong. The goal is to fire first from ambush or over long distance to destroy the enemy before he can shoot back. Conisering that Stugs could destroy most of Allied armor from range where they were protected from enemy fire, the spped to pivot the gun wasn't important.

Quote:
The wargame table (and nowadays computer wargames) in military academies have always been valuable tools for learning tactics and strategy.
The Germans lurved their Stugs to bits, but most other nations preferred to build proper tanks with turrets.
In wargames both on table and computer, Stugs are usually better than tanks. Soviets build SPGs in large numbers, British had the Archers and Italians the Semovente.
__________________
There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09 Sep 17, 13:47
cbo's Avatar
cbo cbo is offline
Captain
Denmark
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign 
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: By
Posts: 748
cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
But, if you had a choice between a tank and a Stug, would you ever choose a Stug? Of course not, and the Germans produced every tank they could, and used more if they could get their hands on them. They produced Stugs because they couldn't produce tanks. The US, on the other hand, could produce tanks, and so it did.
Faulty and ahistorical reasoning as I've explained earlier in this thread:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...8&postcount=30

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...4&postcount=40

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...0&postcount=50
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09 Sep 17, 13:53
cbo's Avatar
cbo cbo is offline
Captain
Denmark
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign 
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: By
Posts: 748
cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100] cbo has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
Right, Stugs can do a good job if used carefully, but in the hurly-burly of a mobile tank battle they can't pivot fast enough to bring their gun to bear.
The wargame table (and nowadays computer wargames) in military academies have always been valuable tools for learning tactics and strategy.
The Germans lurved their Stugs to bits, but most other nations preferred to build proper tanks with turrets.
At various clubs, newcomers ask me what should they buy for a given sum of game cash, 20 tanks or 30 cheaper Stugs, and I tell them - "if you want to lose, buy nothing but Stugs. Better to buy mostly tanks with a few Stugs in support"..
But StuGs have no place in the "hurly-burly of a mobile tank battle". If they end up there, someone have screwed up royally

The exchange rate between StuGs and tanks in terms of cost are nowhere near 2:3. If you look at StuGs vs Panzer IIIs and IVs, it is more like 4:5. Your wargame should reflect that if it has any aspirations about realism.

The Germans never produced StuGs because they could not afford to make tanks, they made them because they wanted StuGs.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.