billcarey Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 I have noticed something: The German tanks are much better against other tanks than the US tanks. However, this is offset by the fact that the US tanks absolutely *ruin* infantry. Is this a function of some overall difference in tank doctrine or just the luck of the units in the beta demo? Do the Germans have any competent anti-infantry tanks? As the Americans my strategy is usually: Hiden until (Almost) all German heavy AT is gone. Destroy the German army with my shermans supported by infantry. This never works as the Germans because they don't have any tank of Sherman caliber agains t infantry Is there a good German infantry killer in the wings? - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 Hmmn I find the german tanks to perform exceptionally well against infantry the Tiger in particular maybe I'm just having some good luck -- I'll be happy to play you an ICQ and I'll take germs in CE if you lIke Im here all day today ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 The Sherman (75MM) fired an excellent HE round. Far superior to the one fired by the 76MM. Also, the Tiger fired a very good HE round. By comparison, I'm not sure about the quality of the HE fired from the 75 L/43 or 48, and I have read that the HE fired by the L/70 was not nearly as effective as that fired by the Tiger. Still, any of these guns should prove devestating to most infantry, particularly when caught in the open or from tree-bursts when in woods. You may just be experiencing some bad luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcarey Posted January 18, 2000 Author Share Posted January 18, 2000 It's not that my rounds are hitting and not doing anything, it's that I run out! The StuG has 20 some, the Tiger ~40. The shermans are all up in the 60s and 70s while only having 20 or 30 AP rounds. Do any german tanks carry that kind of load? Ss_Panzer - what is your ICQ address? - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 bill, this indeed a doctrinal difference. US armor policy split armored forces into two halves: tanks, who would support infantry, and tank-destroyers (guess what their function was!) The US planners had the impression that TDs would always be available when needed, so the tanks weren't given truly potent AT firepower. Hence the poor showing of the Shermans against the heavier German tanks. Ironically, the TDs were given better guns, but most were very thinly armored and open-topped, making them vulnerable to virtually everything on the battlefield (as many have found in LD) I'm not sure if technical or economic reasons led to this quality, or if it was maybe caused by the rigid mindset that "tanks need to fight close up, so should have better armor. TDs stay farther back, so need less armor." In all, the US armor policy in WW2 has been indicated by many as a main justification for the high casualties among US tank crews. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 I've noticed the same thing as Bill- The Sherman's seem to be great anti-infantry platforms. I'm not talking one specific engagement, I'm talking from dozens of games, vs. both the computer and humans. The Turret traverse speed, coupled with the large amounts of HE and two very effective MG's make an unbuttoned Sherman a very valuable asset anti-personell. Stug's on the other hand (don't play around much with the Tiger, but from what I've seen, it has similar problems) HE limited in both number and effectiveness, and is much more vulnerable to a concentrated infantry assault do to its limited field of fire (or turret traverse speed in case of the Tiger). basically, in CE, once I knock out the Shermans I don't find much use for my stugs, a few shots to spook enemy troops, then its mostly keeping them hidden so they aren't taken out by a lucky zook. When playing as the Americans on the other hand, Once the Stug's are knocked out, I use and rely on the Shermans to Decimate the enemy forces and break them before launching any form of infantry assault. just my experience.... -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 I've noticed the same thing as Bill- The Sherman's seem to be great anti-infantry platforms. I'm not talking one specific engagement, I'm talking from dozens of games, vs. both the computer and humans. The Turret traverse speed, coupled with the large amounts of HE and two very effective MG's make an unbuttoned Sherman a very valuable asset anti-personell. Stug's on the other hand (don't play around much with the Tiger, but from what I've seen, it has similar problems) HE limited in both number and effectiveness, and is much more vulnerable to a concentrated infantry assault do to its limited field of fire (or turret traverse speed in case of the Tiger). basically, in CE, once I knock out the Shermans I don't find much use for my stugs, a few shots to spook enemy troops, then its mostly keeping them hidden so they aren't taken out by a lucky zook. When playing as the Americans on the other hand, Once the Stug's are knocked out, I use and rely on the Shermans to Decimate the enemy forces and break them before launching any form of infantry assault. just my experience.... -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 I'll whole-heartedly agree that Shermans are great anti-infantry tanks. I've said this before: Massive amounts of HE and MG ammo make for a devastating firing platform. While the Sherman doesn't have the best armor, it does have thick, angled frontal armor. The fast turret traverse of the Sherman means it can react faster to possible threats. Overall, I think a Sherman is clearly superior to a StuG and even a little better than a PzIV. And in CM terms here are the blast FPs of various guns: 50 mm (Puma, from alpha AAR) 15 76mm (Hellcat) 29 75/L48 (StuG) 32 75mm (Sherman) 37 75/L70 (Panther, from alpha AAR) 38 88 mm (Tiger and 88 FlaK) 48 Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heibis Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 I guess if the germans in CE had PzIVH in stead of StuGIIIGs you would get a more balanced view on the armour / infantry tactics. Fact is that while StuGs where built to support infantry they where not intended to race for "the enemy rear". That was the task for the tanks. The americans, on the other hand had so many tanks that they could give every tank only 20 rounds of AP ammo, and still come ount strong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 guachi Your assessment pretty much matches the opinion of those who served in Shermans which I have gleaned from reading numerous accounts. Allied tank crews felt they were more than a match for the MkIV and StuG. Interestingly the Panther doesn't seem to be held in quite the same fear that one would expect especially in close terrain, not quite sure why. The big nasty was the Tiger. If you read Tout's account of the fighting around St Aignan the sense of elation when they knock out 3 Tigers without losing any of their own is palpable and indicative of their knowledge that they had probably saved themselves 12 of their own tanks. Of course every Brit tank troop had a Tiger antidote (a Firefly) while the poor Yanks had none. On the subject of the anti-infantry capability of the StuG the comments on this thread are very interesting. Doctrinally the StuG was a mobile infantry support weapon which was operated by the artillery arm. Thus it was intended for direct fire support of infantry assaults and therefore the delivery of HE. It's AT capability was something of a bonus. As such it was probably a failure in its intended role. The absence of a suitable infantry support tank with a turret mounted gun with a good HE capability has been identified by a number of historians as a significant failing in Guderians' prewar organisation of German armoured forces. Of course later in the war with Germany largely on the defensive the StuG came into its own as an AT weapon. However, this effectiveness was diluted somewhat as it continued to be operated by the artillery arm and not under the organistaion of the Panzertruppe. If you think the Sherman has a good HE capability I can't wait to get my hands on the Sherman 105 'assault gun' variant which were highly valued by the units employing them but never around in sufficient numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 Heibis, the ammunition loadout given to line Shermans had nothing to do with the number of Shermans out there. The Shermans (and other American tanks, as opposed to tank destroyers) got very high HE:AP ratios due to American doctrine. Shermans (and Grants and Stuarts and even Pershings) were designed primarily to support infantry by killing enemy infantry. They weren't set up as anti-tank vehicles (hence the plethora of US tank destroyer types) and that is why they have the devastating anti-infantry capability they do. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 Simon Fox; I'm not sure that your inference that the StuG's anti armour capability is 'an added bonus' is correct. If anything I would argue that in the later versions of the StuG line, (F-8 and G) that it is the HE capability which is the added extra. Why is this so? Well the Pak/KwK 40 was designed as a tank killer and it's inclusion as the main weapon of the StuG family indicates the revised role of the StuG. The direct HE fire role of the previous versions of the StuG's (armed with the 7.5cm L/24) was revised with the design and manufacture of the StuH 42 armed with a 10.5cm gun. Doctrine as reflected by OOB was that one of the batty of StuG's in a battalion were to be equipped with the 10.5cm StuH's. I'm not sure how StuG's being crewed by artillery men in any way dilutes there effectiveness (StuG), after all the StuGs were crewed by artillery men on the basis of trials which showed that the cannon cockers were more accurate in placement of shot relative to the Panzertruppen who crewed the other 2 StuGs. [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-19-2000).] [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-19-2000).] [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-19-2000).] [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 Simon, I think Bastables has hit upon the reason why the StuGs in CE aren't up to snuff when it comes to infantry support. Their role was changed sometime around 1943 or so. The main reason was that the Germans couldn't produce enough tanks fast enough to defeat the hordes of Soviet equipment. The early StuGs that went into Barbarossa were pressed into the AT role out of pure despiration. They did an OK job so their contribution in the AT role was noted. As the situation on the Eastern Front got worse and worse, and Germany's ability to make tanks further and futher behind, the role of the StuG was changed to be AT more than antipersonnel infantry support. It is also interesting to note what happened to the earlier, short 75mm guns that were on PzIVs. Their original purpose was more like the Sherman's, but the Germans quickly learned that AP capabilities were what needed to be emphasized in future designs. So what happened to all these old guns? They went onto various armored vehicles (250/8, 251/9, 234/3, etc.) for the role of infantry support. Point is that when you combine the two thoughts above it becomes clear that the Germans made a very deliberate change in the role of the StuG around 1943 and kept it moving further towards AT role with each and every version that came out. Otherwise they would have left them with the short 75s they were originally armed with as they proved an effective infantry support weapon all the way up to the end of the war. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 Good point, Steve. The short-75 was also tossed into the last run of PzIIIs (the N) to completely reverse the roles of the III and IV from what they had been since the time the two vehicles were designed. I wonder what CE would be like if the Germans had a StuH/105 (either in addition to the 3 StuGs or in replacement of one) DjB ps: enough tomfoolery on the forum, Steve. Back to programming/coding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 My 'bonus' comment was principally directed at the original intended application for this design. Sure, I agree their actual role became more AT. But organisationally and operationally they weren't efficiently employed in this role as they could have been. A point which was clear to Guderian who tried desperately to get them under his control. It's an organisational point that might not be clear at CMs scale but which results in divisional AT and artillery units both being equipped with AT weapons thereby diluting the ability for direct HE fire support. As others have pointed out on this thread the turretless AFV is very vulnerable to infantry assault so it's OK in defense but not so good in attack. The Shermans advantage was it's flexibility as an essentially infantry support tank with a moderate AT capability which was able to deal with most German AFVs (there weren't that many Tigers and Panthers). This is what people are finding (apparently to their suprise), of course it would be nice if it were a bit more survivable That extra MG and the benefits of the turret can be seen in the infantry support role which is why the German employment of turretless vehicles in that role has often been seen as a mistake. My comment about artillery was an organisational one not what type of troops were manning them I agree that's largely irrelevant. The idea being that the Sturmartillerie which was supposed to support infantry assaults should not have been employed in the AT role which was really the role of the Panzerjager units when the. Would you swap a StuG for a StuH in CE or LD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeathome Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 IRC the early Pz-IV's with the "short" 75's ewren't ther e for infantry support - they were there as either heavy tanks or as HE support for the 37mm armed mediums, much as the British used close support tanks with 3.7" or 3" howitzers to support their 2 pdr "gun" tanks of the same era. As a side note - much is made of the lack of HE for the 2 pdr, but if hte Germans felt the need to support their 37mm gun tanks with a 75mm howitzer, then the 2 pdr (40mm) HE probably wouldn't have been all that wonderful anyway! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 Yea, the 2pdr HE might have been nice but what they really needed was better cooperation between their armour and arty. You could try pinging away at a dug in 88 1/2 a km away with 2pdr HE or you could call in a battery of 25pdrs on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 Excerpts from Gurderians reports dealing with experiences in Normandy: "The Pz.Kpfw IV IV, V, VI have proven to be successful. (snip) ..... The height of the guns in the Sturmgeschutz is too low for the terrain in Normandy." He does not demarcate Panzerjager/StuG with his terminology, but then again maybe only the StuG's found this problematic. Excerpt from combat report of Hauptmann Hanemann commander of Pz Abteilung 2105 september: A Panzer-Kompanie with 5 Panthers, a Sturmgeschutz-Kompanie with 9 Panzer IV/70 (V) and a Panzer-Grenadier-Kompanie was in action west of Thuze." How odd, hmmmmm here's my inference on why a Panzerjager is referred to as Sturmgeschutz: Well these units PzJager and Sturmgeschutz, were focused upon killing tanks, this of course led to a vagueness in their description's in official reports as manifested in the great man himself lumping all turrentless Panzers in the Sturmgeschutz descriptive. We can both agree upon that, I'm just being pedantic . Your point of contention, as i see it, is that arming Sturmartillerie units with an anti-tank weapon was a wasteful exercise. But the Sturmgeschutz Brigades trained and operated as shields for the infantry Div/corps against enemy tanks i.e. they were elite anti-tank units = they were efficiently employed. Also the point that StuGs were part of divisional artillery is false. Sturmgeschutz Brigades were only integral to select elite divisions such as the 3 Germanic SS divisions, as such they were an over strength feature which did not lessen the number of Artillery assets available to a division. Besides direct fire (HE) support was the domain of the IG-Kompanie which were supposed to be integral to the Infantry Regt, which the old StuG's with the StuK 37 7.5cm l/24 guns were attached to during 1940, 41 and 42. [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-21-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 I wasn't actually referring to the Brigades which I think were a Corps or Army resource but to the Abteilung which were divisional I think, don't have the refs with me now. A lot of authors have commented on German infantry reliance on assault guns when attacking so I don't think you can equate them with IG functionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Besides direct fire (HE) support was the domain of the IG-Kompanie which were supposed to be integral to the Infantry Regt, which the old StuG's with the StuK 37 7.5cm l/24 guns were attached to during 1940, 41 and 42<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, the StuGs were never part of the IG companies. They were either in independent StuG battalions or companies and battalions within select formation such as LSSAH and Großdeutschland. The IG companies were equiped mostly with IG18 (StuK 37 in SP version) and sIG33's either towed or self propelled depending on the type of division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 StuG Abteilung became Brigade's in 1943, it was a paper change. They remained Corp/army resources with only the exception's of those attached permanently to elite divisions or sent to Panzer and Panzer grenadier Divisions as poor man Panzers. Perhaps you're referring to the few sent to select Panzerjagerabteilungen in the infantry divisions? Although by August 1944 these were being supplanted in ever increasing numbers by Hertzers Yes Berl's correct sorry my fault [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-21-2000).] [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-21-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts