what tank is this

[user1000]

the caption said it was found in italy and is a stuk tank? Never heard of it and too small to be a stuG.

[landser]

Looks like a StuG to me. StuG III Ausf. F?

[user1000]

If it's a StuG, that soldier makes it look like a toy.

Edited April 14, 2016 by user1000

[landser]

Well, there were StuGs built on Mark III and Mark IV chassis.  More StuG IIIs were produced making it somewhat more common.  The StuG IV became operational in early '44.

[Splinty]

1 hour ago, landser said:

Looks like a StuG to me. StuG III Ausf. F?

I think it's a Stug III G early.

[landser]

32 minutes ago, Splinty said:

I think it's a Stug III G early.

It could be. I guessed Ausf. F because it has no Shurzen, or Topfblende mantlet. And I suppose that most of the changes in the G were on the superstructure, which is hard to make out in this shot. Early G's had neither of these things so could be. What identifies it as a G?

[landser]

1 hour ago, user1000 said:

If it's a StuG, that soldier makes it look like a toy.

Now that I look at it.... using my very unscientific measurements, the man standing is about the same height as the vehicle. StuG IIIs were 7 ft high, That's a big bloke. And I also saw that the thread you posted in CMBN forum shows a Stug III and the crew look much smaller in relation. I won't say that pixeltruppen are too small

[user1000]

He wouldn't make a good tanker

[Splinty]

10 hours ago, landser said:

It could be. I guessed Ausf. F because it has no Shurzen, or Topfblende mantlet. And I suppose that most of the changes in the G were on the superstructure, which is hard to make out in this shot. Early G's had neither of these things so could be. What identifies it as a G?

It is hard to see, because they have camouflage over but I was going by the shape of the upper hull. And like you the lack of schurzen and the topfblende.

[landser]

And I think many more G's were produced, so by extension making it more likely than not I suppose.

[StieliAlpha]

On 13. April 2016 at 1:27 AM, user1000 said:

the caption said it was found in italy and is a stuk tank? Never heard of it and too small to be a stuG.

That's at least clearly a StuG III. Count the three support rollers and six idlers.

The Pz III had a height of 2.5m, a little less for the StuG. So, the height seems to match the standing guy.

Keep in mind: It seems to stand in a 45deg angle from the picture plane. I.e., you see only "half" of it's length.

[StieliAlpha]

2 minutes ago, StieliAlpha said:

That's at least clearly a StuG III. Count the three support rollers and six idlers.

The Pz III had a height of 2.5m, a little less for the StuG. So, the height seems to match the standing guy.

Keep in mind: It seems to stand in a 45deg angle from the picture plane. I.e., you see only "half" of it's length.

Found it the StuG height was 2.16m.

[user1000]

57 minutes ago, StieliAlpha said:

Found it the StuG height was 2.16m.

wow that is low profile, I bet it worked good in high fields. Same with StuH 42 I see.

Edited April 19, 2016 by user1000

[Odin]

As Splinty says it's definitely an early Stug G. The Ausf F had a different shaped upper hull (the F's upper hull projected out further around the point where the man standing with his back to camera is). If you look at models of the G and F in CMFI you can see the difference in shape

Edited April 21, 2016 by Odin

[John Kettler]

Guys,

The keystone mantelet is an instant identifier of the StuG IIIG. It's very crowded in there, as you can see from the painstakingly duplicated interiors this guy's done.

http://s140.photobucket.com/user/louisuni/library/Stug%20III?sort=3&page=1

But this is the picture which says it all. Why this AFV's height is so low is clearly evident in this cutaway I'm sure was done at APG. This pic is Public Domain.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited April 21, 2016 by John Kettler