Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A LOT of German stuff is basically 'cannons mounted on mobile platforms for ease of movement'. They're not assault tanks, they're just mobile, minimally protected guns. Brummbar was designed to be in the enemy's face blasting away. Stummel not so much. So you shouldn't use Brummbar combat tactics with Stummel. Yeh, German training doctrine can be very aggressive. But remember they lost 27 thousand dead and 110 thousand wounded in just 46 days of fighting when they invaded France. Germany's aggressive tactics weren't tailored to minimize casualties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stummel was about as typical as Assault Guns got and that was a category of weapon system many Armies found extremely useful. It's just crucial that you know what you're using it for and against what. It's easy to accuse the Stummel of many things that it certainly was with its limited traversing and weak Stuk L/24 gun mounted on a vulnerable half-track chassis without so much as a machine gun. Why then did so many  vehicles like it exist nonetheless? The SU-76 was also an open top gun carrier that the Soviets built the hell out of so why build so many examples of an ostensibly inferior AFV?

It's because like MikeyD says, it wasn't a tank, it's a gun carrier. It's a way to get the infantry the StuK L/24 gun fighting right alongside them and as a bonus, the weapon's crew is even protected from basic return fire such as a mortars, rifles and machine guns. This is a job that the far superior Sturmgeshutz used to perform but unfortunately because the StuG was so superb it was frequently held at higher levels for more important tasks. 

In the Red Army the SU-76's job was originally assigned to light tanks like the T-70...but the Red Army ended up deeply unsatisfied with the performance of light tanks. They were too expensive and demanding on logistics for which the return was the unimpressive firepower of their light guns. So they got rid of the turret and duct taped a ZiS-3 to the chassis. That's just the nature of the war's economy-of-force rules lol. 

 

Edited by SimpleSimon
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

It's because like MikeyD says, it wasn't a tank, it's a gun carrier. It's a way to get the infantry the StuK L/24 gun fighting right alongside them

+1  The reason folks find Stummels less useful in the CM2 games is that most of the ranges in the maps are not long enuff for proper deployment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/7/2020 at 3:27 PM, SimpleSimon said:

It's easy to accuse the Stummel of many things that it certainly was with its limited traversing and weak Stuk L/24 gun mounted on a vulnerable half-track chassis without so much as a machine gun

As long a one uses it like this, it's a great asset IMO. 
Also in urban terrain. Have it hide behind some buildings close by your infantry. When a target is known, give it a shoot and scoot orders. For overwatch duties it is generally also fine against infantry, but it can certainly be overpowered by things like a .50 on a jeep if it opens up first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly some attitudes toward the class expressed here are identical to the feelings of American Commanders after their experiences with mounting the 75mm pack howitzer and M1897 gun on half tracks. "This doesn't seem too useful". For the Americans it was simply that the emergency was less acute. They didn't see any need to bother with awkwardly trying to fit a howitzer to a half track when they had plenty of Stuarts and Shermans around to fully equip Armored Divisions with ready vehicles, reserve vehicles, and still have enough hardware left over to disperse Tank Battalions among Infantry Divisions. 

On the other hand, American Commanders had a distinct tendency to push the M10 and M18 into the Assault Gun role. Certainly they were better protected than a half track but not much better, and certainly no better off against a Pak 40 or an 88. They were also huge, as vehicles based on the Sherman's hull tended to be. Not sure if anyone has seen one in real life before but the StuG is ridiculously short. Shorter than a Jeep Grand Cherokee. I'm sure this enabled it to-literally-squeeze into some curtain calls other AFVs would have had trouble with. 

Edited by SimpleSimon
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to say coming from Fortress Italy, I've found that the Allied halftracks with guns and howitzers are very useful. I know they are conceptually similar to the Stryker MGS, but in practice I've been able to get much better use of them. Having a big gun with Commonwealth armoured car formations is a tremendous boon to their ability to recce and screen, and when used with motorized infantry, a powerful direct fire weapon that can keep up with them and fire from under armour is incredibly valuable.

I can see why the StuH and Sherman 105 are better, but when those aren't available, it's much better than towing guns into action or redirecting a tank platoon to neutralize a stubborn trench.

Any thoughts here on the Autocar SP 75mm or the M3 and T30?

Edited by DougPhresh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...