Ach! Ich habe meinen Schlussel meine panzer verloren! Boohoo

[Goanna]

From Username:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually stugs were regarded as better infantry support than tanks. They were manned by artillerymen and fought against infantry more effectively.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy, it sure would be nice when people post these kinds of "truisms" if they could also post some kind of reference.

I don't know anyone who wouldn't want to have a tank using the same gun as a StuG (like the PKW 1V) let alone a Panther or a Tiger to use for infantry support in place of a StuG other than you Lewis.

Who cares about the low profile od a StuG when you are just taking on infantry, unless they have AT gun or armour support?

Lewis your idea of what constitutes infantry support is also missing a bit something. From the German training circular "Panzers Forward! (but with intelligence), that I agree with:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>24. In combined operations with infantry or armored infantry, you must make certain that the arms stick close together; only so can they help each other and achieve success. Which of the two is leading is a secondary matter; what must be known is that it is the intention of the enemy to separate them and that you must prevent this in all circumstances. Your battlecry must be "Protect the Infantry!" and the infantry's battlecry is "Protect the Tanks!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Support is supposed to go both ways, and I don't think it would be too fun to be an infantryman in a Battalion you were running, Lewis.

As far as the Panzerfaust goes, I also don't see it as ineffective, even in the Beta Demo, if you place them just right. The key is to locate the guys so that they don't have any infantry targets to engage and they will go for the armour.

------------------

desert rat wannabe

[scoop88]

Regarding CE as the Germans ...

Played as the Germans against the AI Friday night and was able to get an Allied surrender, not lose a Stug, and absorbing relatively few casualties in doing so. Guess I just got lucky.

Anyway, I put two Stugs behind the hill outside the town so they could cover the road as it crested the hill just past the church, yet not be seen by the Shermans. I put the third Stug in the scattered trees to the left of the road just past the church so it covered the road all the way into town. Put a Regular Pzschreck, a Green MG42 and a regular platoon commander on the second floor of the church. I put another Pzschreck and a couple squads of Regular infantry and a Regular platoon commander in the woods at the top of the hill so the Pzschreck covered the roads in the town. Then I had everybody hide.

When the first Sherman came within range of the church the Pzschreck there took it out. The remaining Shermans went nuts and starting pumping tons of shells into the church, setting it on fire. While they were doing that the Stug in the scattered trees took out another Sherman, and the Pzschreck in the woods on the hill took out two more Shermans. I had to abandon the church and the Pzschreck in the woods ran out of ammo. I moved up another Pzschreck into the woods and he finally took out the last Sherman. Meanwhile, the infantry in the woods repulsed 2-3 infantry attacks.

After all the Shermans were gone I counterattacked with all three Stugs and all infantry, routing the Allies and forcing them to surrender.

The keys, at least this time, were hiding everybody, not exposing the Stugs, and letting the Pzschrecks take out the Shermans. Next time I probably won't be so lucky.

Can't wait for the full game. I've worn out the three beta scenarios!

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Played as the Germans against the AI Friday night and was able to get an Allied surrender, not lose a Stug, and absorbing relatively few casualties in doing so. Guess I just got lucky.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's not luck. Check out the Heroes Corner at the CMHQ. You will find a horde of StuGs with 4-5 Sherman kills

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Goanna:

From Username:

Support is supposed to go both ways, and I don't think it would be too fun to be an infantryman in a Battalion you were running, Lewis.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gowannabe

I have nothing personal against you except that you are jumping in here sticking in two cents when you never addressed the earlier issues in this same thread.

I can supply references that are appropriate and support the "truisms". You don't appreciate the difference between sturmartillerie and panzers. "Panzers Forward" deals with panzers I would presume.

What battalion were you ever in? How much fun was it?

Lewis

PS The way you repeatatly use my name in your posts (3 times?)is, to say the least, annoying.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Infantry support is, in my understanding of the concept during WWII, for an AFV to add firepower to the strength of the infantry in order to allow it to obtain its objectives against primarily infantry based opposition (including fortifactions). This was the original design for both the StuG and the Sherman, but both by the end of the war were more geared towards AT role than infantry support.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

Thanks for the attention to this thread.

Perhaps what I am getting at is something that is beyond the scope of the games focus. German infantry (The following is my recollection from a book on the eastern front..I believe it was called 'War in the East' or something very close) prefered stugs to panzers just due to the fact that they would stick around. The panzers would all to often be called away to other sectors, withdrawn because they were too valuable to take losses, or pursue the enemy and bypass points of resistance (guess who was to take care of them?). Panzer Grenadiers would be more understanding to the tankers actions but the German grunt in a infantry division would see it differently. This of course doesnt come into play in a game like CM.

The sturmartillerie were better trained in tactics such as creating airbursts in trees against walls, etc. They relied on HE as the primary firepower and the german infantry they were supporting had plenty of MG firepower of their own. I think the L48 and stump 75mm on the stugs fired a HE shell that was the same (different case of course) so the explosive content would be equal but the L48 would get it where it was needed (but carry less rounds).

The fact that stugs were low to the ground is vital when supporting infantry. WWII russian infantry brought ATGs/ATR everywhere, swamps, houses, etc. American units all had ATG/bazookas while fighting the Germans. Its a given that you are facing some antitank ability (or the mere presence of armor would normally make the oponent bolt for the hills). Height of a vehicle plays against it in two ways. First concealment is lost when you are sticking up over cover, second a larger target is more easily hit. Stugs were to fight from cover overwatching the advance of infantry. They would identify targets, quickly aquire and destroy them, then move to another position. The fact that the gun is low to the ground allows you to expose less of yourself and also engage targets that are very close (less dead zone) if need be.

Numbers of vehicles are also a factor. Stugs might have been the most numerous german AFV (not counting halftracks). Given a choice of 3 stugs, 2 PIV, or 1 panther (1/8 King Tiger) what would you choose? The PIV with its weak turret frontal armor is not my choice. The single panther is great till its loss means no armor.

In closing, I agree with you. Stugs are great. It took an obsolete hull from a tank that could not really fight anymore (PIII) and created an economical, successful dual purpose weapon that fought till the end of the war. In a war where Germany had to make artificial gasoline, the stug found a home.

Lewis

PS If what you say is true, then the 5 shermans against 3 stugs would give the americans an advantage in Chance Encounter?

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, good discussion here. Let's try to keep it from getting testy

I think you are correct Lewis, some of what you say is outside the scope of CM. StuGs that were organically assigned to infantry formations were, as you say, better able to support and be supported. However, a HUGE number of StuGs were in independent Brigades (something like 50 existed) or were used in place of turreted tanks.

As the war went on the StuG Brigades began to suffer from lack of infantry/armor coordination due to declining training standards and constantly being tossed about from one sector to another. To rectify this the Germans allocated one organic squad to each StuG of an independent Brigade. However, this really only happened on paper as it was late in the war when they came up with the concept and the men were not to be found.

But when we come right down to it, the role of the StuG absolutely, and officially, changed after 1943. Prior to that its anti-armor role was clearly secondary, after 1943 it was clearly primary. This effected everything, including training. If you only have x liters of petrol, y numbers of shells, and z time you concentrate on aspects of training needed to use the vehicle in question in its primary role. So I am sure that the level of training and ephasis on a true infantry support role for StuGs declined significantly as the war went on. The decline in braodbased training was true for all branches of the Wehrmacht as the war went on, so why should StuGs crews been special in this regard?

As for your comments about numbers of vehicles, I tend to like more rather than fewer but better (I agree with the US Sherman development policy for the most part). However, PzIVs and Panthers were not meant to be deployed in ones and twos any more than StuGs were, so your point is not really relevant as more vs. less has nothing to do with inherent StuG use per se. Circumstances would find infantry supported by a single StuG probably more frequently than three, and even more frequently by no AFV of any type. Also, this blends in nicely with your last question:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If what you say is true, then the 5 shermans against 3 stugs would give the americans an advantage in Chance Encounter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It totally depends on the circumstances as there is no one blanket answer. Going into the battle I'd say that both sides are roughly equal (which was a design goal for that scenario) and therefore all bets are off. However, luck and skill can quickly change the balance. As I said in previous posts in this thread, I would much rather have a couple of surving Shermans than a couple of surviving StuGs (assuming I am the owner of each). But again, the scenario was designed to be balanced, so there is no one right answer.

Steve

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PS If what you say is true, then the 5 shermans against 3 stugs would give the americans an advantage in Chance Encounter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I a straight fight between armor, the Americans do have the advantage. The balancing factor is the German infantry force. It is both much larger and contains numerous Panzerschreck teams. Also in the German favor is the 81 battery (for its smoke laying capability)

[Woody]

I have had good success on the german side using smoke to cover advance of Stugs. Get them in position, and wait till the smoke clears. I also transport Shreck teams on the tanks and move them into forward positions under smoke in case plan A fails.

[Username]

Steve

I am glad you agree that part of this is outside the scope of the game. Its obviously not relevant then. I am basing my opinions on doctrine and books I read and not assumptions about training. I guess tanks and armor can be like fighter aircraft in that the men and training allow the whole weapon system to push the envelope of performance. Such as Tiger battalions only recruiting "proven" combat personnel for as long as they could. I would assume that the stug units belonging to the artillerie were the elite and might be manned accordingly, ie drawing on men who had experience facing the enemy.

What I would rather discuss then is my contention that a smaller vehicle like a stug in the game as a harder to spot and hit target? Does it get any bonus towards attaining hull down status? Does it have a smaller dead zone in front of it?

Also,I know the 75mm sherm is regarded as having a powerful punch. Is there any documentation that can compare the HE filling between a german 75 and an american? I would assume the US figured out the bare minimum steel casing for the low velocity 75 and maximized the HE content. I don't disagree or think this is untrue, just wonder if there is data to base this on.

Well, I appreciate your time and look forward to playing the final demo.

Lewis

PS I believe later in the war panthers, panzer IVs and all armor had to be used in very small sections and platoons just out of desperate situations. Doctrine like that "single panzers are lost" stuff doesnt apply when all you have is one or two runners. In fact the game is at the scale where these actions are showcased. Will you have large company sized armor/mixed arms type of scenarios?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Lewis,

In general I agree that the armored vehicle training probably remained a bit higher than that of infantry, but after the bloodletting of the summer of 1944 all training was drastically curtailed. The Luftwaffe, for example, still had pick of the litter but its pilots were in the "sink or swim" category of trainees. Same for Flak gun crews, which were also under Luftwaffe control. During Bodenplatte (the last Luftwaffe offensive during the Bulge) the poor training of pilots was plain to see, and so too were flak gun crews who wound up shooting up their own planes (worst was a bunch of JU52s loaded with paratroops). Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that all branches of service had fairly short (i.e. inadequate) training standards compared to even one year earlier. Quality of the recruit was a seperate issue.

CM's vehicles are all rated for size, weight, horsepower, armor angles and thicknesses, etc. These come into play where you would expect, and it is why CM's tanks feel different from each other. It is also why you can duplicate real world strengths and weaknesses so well in CM. For something like what you asked about, the StuG's size is accounted for during spotting and when being shot at. I can tell you that trying to whack the tiny little Hetzer is pretty tough if it is in hull down and under cover. Gotta get that little bugger in the side or you are SOL in such a circumstance.

As for shells and their effects, Charles has a very detailed book on ballistics and shell compositions. He computed the values for each shell type based on a scientific study. And as I mentioned above somewhere, there were US crews that actually prefered the short 75 because it was so destructive. Er... against soft targets that is

Using one or two vehicles at a time was certainly common for the Germans in 1945, but it happened all throughout the war for all sides. There was a famous pocket battle in the East (Korsun IIRC) during the 43/44 winter that was spearheaded by a Tiger Battalion that had betwen 0 and 12 tanks functional at any given time. Of course the material rich Western Allies tended to keep their formations more or less up to strength as they had the luxury of materials and time on their side.

Company sized armored engagements certainly can be simulated in CM. Unfortunately this might be a bit slow to resolve turns for lower end systems. Each vehicle adds a burden and when you start talking having 15 vehicles per side it starts to take its toll on the CPU to a noticable degree.

Steve

[Username]

http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/Stug.html#SS

Heres a pretty good site with a list of stug units and an overview of sturmartillerie. He mentions that they had different sighting equipment than other stug units.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Nice site you stumbled upon. I have that data for the most part, even though it has no use for CM

The optics he mentioned were (I think) the standard "rabbit ears" used by artillery FOs. They poked up through the top of the vehicle and were exposed to small arms fire. Oddly enough these were also found in the Jagdpanzer IV, which was a "pure" tank killer, so I am not sure what the significance of that is.

Steve

[Jochen]

Hrghmmmm!

Now the teacher speaks - you would tried to say:

Ach, ich habe meinen Schlüssel (für) meinen Panzer verloren! or Ach, ich habe den Schlüssel meines Panzers verloren!

Sorry, my english is so bad, that I´m really happy, to see somebody doing mistakes in the (very difficult) german language!

Greetings to all - Jochen

[Thomm]

Ich habe den Schlüssel für meinen Panzer verloren!

[Mostro]

Hi! I'm one of the Heroes Corner contributor with a 5 Sherman kills StuG.

The primary inconvenient of StuG against Sherman is reaction speed. If your StuG is moving and the Sherman is unbttoned waiting for you, you have little chances of even aim your gun against it before receiving 2 or 3 shots, probably deadly.

So, the best use of StuGs vs Shermans is ambush, in group if possible.

In CE I put my StuGs on the road at left, looking at right, waiting for the Shermans coming down from the little hill.

The result was that every Sherman received at least 3 shots before it could rotate and aim at one of the StuGs. Total victory.

Salut!