Stugs......

[dgk196]

I always wondered about the firing cost for stugs, etc....!

I have this DVD series and one of the titles is 'War the Archive Collection, Stug III and IV Assualt guns. Anyway it has really good action footage. One part of the program shows Stug III's moving up and engaging a target. The commentary goes on to say that one of the things that made these weapons effective was the "highly trained crews" which placed a premium on bringing the weapon into a firing position and rapidly firing and destroying the target.

So, should the Stugs have a lower cost for firing? I hope that the assignment of a higher firing cost was'nt some 'perceived' notion of a turretless vehicle compensation factor!


Dennis [;)]

[Warhorse]

Good point, according to what I have, most StuG crews were volunteers, and highly trained.

Mike

[Borst50]

I agree with your assessment..however you are fprgetting one thing....STuG's were built on either a PZ 3 chassis or a 4 chassis....albeit modified. This in turn is going to lead to more unit losses, especially when faced against higher caliber weapons, especially late in the war. Evan with the addition of armored side skirts, a shell from a T34/76 even at medium range would penetrate the armour of an STuG III. On the Western Front, US tanks did not have the capability until the Losheim Gap battles to pebnetrate German armour. I am not so sure of british weaponry of the same time period., add to this, their orginal design and purpose was to provide infantry support to PZ Gren Division, and PZ Divisions, in lieu of tanks, makes them a second class citizen, so to speak. I do not theink the German High Command envisioned the StuG's as tank hunters...rather, their mission was infantry support. I cant remember which General said this quote, but I do remember reading this 30 so odd years ago..."The best tank destroyer....is another tank!"

Now after having said this... I wish also to voice my opinon. I believe that STuG's are just fine the way they are...I believe it relfects....arguably, so degree in historical accuracy, within the context of this simulation.I think, higher losses should be expected with them accordingly.especially if they meet up with allied armor formations. If you are looking for a good tank hunter....look to the JgPz V, or VI...now There's a killing machine!

[Jason Petho]

Something else to keep in mind is that StuG's in the anti-tank role are primarily designed as defensive weapons. Ambush, attack, pull back to the next position. Reducing their rate of fire would provide too much offensive flexibiliy.

Offensively, as infantry support attacking fortified (trenches, bunkers) positions provides ample offensive power while keeping pace with the infantry

Jason Petho

[Przemos19]

Orginaly their role was infantry support - when they had short-barrel L/24 75mm gun. However when they were equiped with long-barrel 75mm Pak40 everything changd. First of all because there were only Panzer IV F2/G in 1942 available with this gun they were pressed to anti-tank role - and in offensive, because in Russia in that period Germans were attacking, not defending. What is more StuG's were much cheaper than tanks, so they were "ersatz" products. Later in the war however they were excellent defensive weapon. Accorgind to battle reports when defending in 1944/45 they slaughtered enemy. But when they attacked they suffered some losses. However some losses does not mean being slaughtered, what happened for example to Hetzer's when they attacked.
 

[dgk196]

Visual food for thought...

If you can get a copy, buy or borrow, check out this DVD.

"War, the Archive Collection, Stug III & IV Assault Guns."

The footage and commentary might just change your mind about 'assault guns'!

Dennis [:)]

[Grell]

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for the advice, if I get a chance I'll check out the DVD.

Regards,

Greg

[Legionaer]

ORIGINAL: Przemos19

Orginaly their role was infantry support - when they had short-barrel L/24 75mm gun. However when they were equiped with long-barrel 75mm Pak40 everything changd. First of all because there were only Panzer IV F2/G in 1942 available with this gun they were pressed to anti-tank role - and in offensive, because in Russia in that period Germans were attacking, not defending. What is more StuG's were much cheaper than tanks, so they were "ersatz" products. Later in the war however they were excellent defensive weapon. Accorgind to battle reports when defending in 1944/45 they slaughtered enemy. But when they attacked they suffered some losses. However some losses does not mean being slaughtered, what happened for example to Hetzer's when they attacked.

Very well said, i agree complete with this. And at the last months of the war the StuG´s were often the only available "tanks".

[countblue]

"what happened for example to Hetzer's when they attacked."

Well, one could argument that the Hetzer has a much lesser and better shaped profile specially so its more of a tankhunter than the StuGs were.
It should have performed better in direct fire role since it should have been harder to hit.


Countblue