Opinons on Scenario Balance

[Bastables]

Major

The HE shell for the 75mm L48 was the same as the earlier 'stump' version. It would also be alot more accurate. It would put the HE where it was needed. It was also an adequate AT weapon against most armor. It would probably have less ammo because of the longer case, is this what you are refering to? I would like to know if you are quoting from any source?

The stugs in CE are designed for the infantry support role and more.

Lewis

But the 7.5cm L/48 fires that same HE/Sprgr round at a higher velocity. This higher velocity mean's that the round will dig into the ground a fair bit further before the contact fuse decide that it's show time: Result much of the blast and frag is swallowed by mother earth, realtive to a lower velocity round. The Major is quite correct in stating that the HE of the later StuG's was less useful than the earlier Stubby StuG's.

Were is JonS when you need him. Dam gunners, never actully around when you need support

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-07-2000).]

[Username]

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

But the 7.5cm L/48 fires that same HE/Sprgr round at a higher velocity. This higher velocity mean's that the round will dig into the ground a fair bit further before the contact fuse decide that it's show time: Result much of the blast and frag is swallowed by mother earth, realtive to a lower velocity round. The Major is quite correct in stating that the HE of the later StuG's was less useful than the earlier Stubby StuG's.

Were is JonS when you need him. Dam gunners, never actully around when you need support

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-07-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you tell me the difference in depth? I believe we are getting way into conjecture land here.

Sturmartillerie stugs were trained artillery men. They were well versed in gun practice and the benefits of airbursts/wallbursts for defeating infantry and using HE to attack harder targets.

Lets take the scenario of shooting at an antitank gun or an artillery piece. Its 2 thousand meters away. The L48 is going to get HE on target faster than the L24. That is the major concern. The target will be suppressed and destroyed faster. Your chances of living are greater. The L48 had a much greater range also for christsake!!

I believe the projectiles were the same with different brass stuck on the back for ALL the 75mm German weapons. I know the weights are the same.

Lewis

[Bastables]

Yes, quite.

JonS said:

quote:

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

Now we just need to convince BTS of the need to change the shape of HE explosions from a dome to a 3D 'V' shape. Methinks this won't happen anytime soon ...

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

"Yeah, how the center of mass of the fragment cloud continues moving along the path of the shell, which is why you really need airbursts, and thus mechanical time fuses, for best effect against troops

-Bullethead"

Draw some conclusions based upon the fact that incresing the volocity of the shell narrows the "v".

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-07-2000).]

[Knaust]

I would really like to play CE me as germans with only one Tiger against those 5 Shermans|

[Knaust]

I would really like to play CE me as germans with only one Tiger against those 5 Shermans|

[Knaust]

I would really like to play CE me as germans with only one Tiger against those 5 Shermans|

[Knaust]

I would really like to play CE me as germans with only one Tiger against those 5 Shermans|

[Knaust]

yikes....sorry....there was no connection..then 4 reports...sorry again!

[Username]

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

Yes, quite.

JonS said:

quote:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bastable

what quite are you refering to? You have lostme..where are you quoting from?

Lewis

[Ron]

Username,

There was a great big discussion on artillery and the HE effectiveness/gun velocity relationship awhile back, hence the reference. A search will give a lot of useful information from guys with real-world experience.

Ron

[Guest Big Time Software]

Various answers...

SSPL, point spreads for Design Your Own games are preset depending on the parameters. I have no "chart" to say what that is since it is highly variable. If you designate one side has to be "crappy" (this is an option), then they will get more points because they will have to purchase more stuff just to survive. Kinda like CE where the Germans have lots of units but the quality is marginal.

Lewis, in terms of experience that is what the Experience rating is there for An Elite StuG crew should kick ass very nicely. All the tools are in CM to make various realistic scenarios. If you want to simulate that M4 Sherman crew that somehow managed to survive from North Africa to the West Wall, or a StuG crew that saw Poland the first time around, just bump up the experience rating. There doesn't need to be, nor should there be, anything hardcoded beneath the surface to make x crew better at y when going against z target. WAY too subjective.

As far as the reasons why the later model StuGs are better AT vehicles than traditional Infantry Support... it is because the Germans changed the role of the vehicle and therefore changed the performance of it. This is *very* well documented. So the later model StuGs are not as good at the Infantry Support role vs. earlier ones because the Germans SPECIFICALLY decided to change certain aspects of the vehicle to be more AT than InfSup. Again, the change in role is not subject to question as any book on the StuG will make it clear that this was indeed the case.

So the question should be, how did the Germans change the vehicle to be better at AT, and why did that have a negative effect on its traditional role (even if doctrine hadn't changed employment to that of the AT role)?

The low velocity vs. the high velocity gun is the key. First of all, the ammo was *not* the same. The muzzle velocity also was almost 1/2 as much on the earlier models. As Charles can tell you, there is a HUGE difference between the impact of a low velocity shell and a high velocity shell, even if the explosive charge and frag capability is exactly the same. This is why the the original Shermans had the low velocity 75mm gun. As you have all seen, that thing kicks ass against soft targets, and it is why huge numbers were still in use all the way through the end of the war.

Another reason why the later StuGs aren't good at the Infantry Support role is the ammo loadouts. One designed for the AT role went out with the bulk of its ammo being AT. The earlier StuGs had the opposite. And since the earlier round was smaller, they could fit a lot more of them inside the earlier StuGs. So not only was the gun/round more effective against infantry, but they had many more rounds at their fingertips.

So, the StuGs in CE were there as the Germans had inteneded them to be in 1944/45. AT role. The mission concept, BTW, was that the German force was supposed to move into the x-roads and assume a defensive posture, which would have been perfect for the StuG. However, as fate would have it the Americans were just about to enter the same spot and therefore the StuG's main advantage was not so great.

BUT!!!! Check out Rude's message. This is exactly what I and others were talking about. First time playing is more or less a flip of the coin as to who might win, even against the AI. And that is the best a balanced scenario can hope for.

Steve

Steve

[Username]

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

Lewis, in terms of experience that is what the Experience rating is there for An Elite StuG crew should kick ass very nicely. All the tools are in CM to make various realistic scenarios. There doesn't need to be, nor should there be, anything hardcoded beneath the surface to make x crew better at y when going against z target. WAY too subjective.

{Lewis: I guess I am making a hard to comprehend or subtle point. I am saying that sturm stugs would be better against infantry than lets say PZG or PZ stugs. They wouldnt be that much greater at AT missions. Is this really that hard to understand?}

As far as the reasons why the later model StuGs are better AT vehicles than traditional Infantry Support... it is because the Germans changed the role of the vehicle and therefore changed the performance of it. This is *very* well documented. So the later model StuGs are not as good at the Infantry Support role vs. earlier ones because the Germans SPECIFICALLY decided to change certain aspects of the vehicle to be more AT than InfSup. Again, the change in role is not subject to question as any book on the StuG will make it clear that this was indeed the case.

{Lewis: Oh boy.. I still contend that they could do the initial mission BETTER but had less ammo to do it with. Cite some books, I got plenty of time to read.}

So the question should be, how did the Germans change the vehicle to be better at AT, and why did that have a negative effect on its traditional role (even if doctrine hadn't changed employment to that of the AT role)?

The low velocity vs. the high velocity gun is the key. First of all, the ammo was *not* the same. The muzzle velocity also was almost 1/2 as much on the earlier models. As Charles can tell you, there is a HUGE difference between the impact of a low velocity shell and a high velocity shell, even if the explosive charge and frag capability is exactly the same. This is why the the original Shermans had the low velocity 75mm gun. As you have all seen, that thing kicks ass against soft targets, and it is why huge numbers were still in use all the way through the end of the war.

{Lewis: Steve you mix up things here. I am saying the 75mm HE projectile that came out the end was the same for ALL German 75mm weapons. KWK40, KWK42, PAK40, STUGS all had the same shell (read projectile). Please don't throw in the sherman into the mix..the 75mm and 76mm had different HE projectiles. I hate apples and oranges types of technical discussions.}

Another reason why the later StuGs aren't good at the Infantry Support role is the ammo loadouts. One designed for the AT role went out with the bulk of its ammo being AT. The earlier StuGs had the opposite. And since the earlier round was smaller, they could fit a lot more of them inside the earlier StuGs. So not only was the gun/round more effective against infantry, but they had many more rounds at their fingertips.

{Lewis: Well I agree with the ammo (read this to mean brass and projectile)loadout because its true. The L48 ammo is longer than the L24. I completely disagree with the simplistic assumption that the "round" is more effective. You are not considering in my opinion the following.

1. L48 will get that HE round more accurately to a target.

2. Time of flight is shorter (fractions of a second mean life or death)HE is walked in faster.

3. Easier to get a tree burst or wall burst or slope burst when you can get the shell where its needed.

4. Longer range and stand off capability

5. Crack-Boom phenomena (whats that?)

6. Finally. I hate to throw this back at you but you brought it up in our earlier thread about shermans/stugs. That is, Later Stugs had machine guns. Sometimes two. I would like my infantry support weapon to sport these .}

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So in conclusion, I still say the the mighty stug (long) RETAINED its excellent infantry support capabilities (If used in true sturmartilerie fashion)while sporting a very capable AT weapon in a low slung stealthy economical chassis. It also was a succcessful AT dedicated weapon in the hands of panzermen.

It could vary its loadout to accomplish the mission at hand albeit a smaller amount of ammo than the earlier non-MG equipped, tank-fearing, pop-gun version. The sturmartillerie progressed from StugL24 only to a mix of stug L24/L48 to exclusive StugL48s (wit MGs) to the final (hopefully) StugL48/stug105 mix (wit lots of MGs and hopefully dedicated infantry assigned.

It wasnt a good meeting engagement weapon (in any form) but sometimes had to do this role with finesse as seen in the excellent Chance Encounter scenario.

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-08-2000).]

[Username]

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

Username,

There was a great big discussion on artillery and the HE effectiveness/gun velocity relationship awhile back, hence the reference. A search will give a lot of useful information from guys with real-world experience.

Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ron

Thanks for clueing me in. I was wondering if I skipped a groove or something. What would I search under?

Believe it or not I have alot of real world experience and technical training and unfortunately am also a tenacious debater (and I am a self admitted asshole).

I am a motion control engineer and have used fuzzy logic. I am a army veteran and cartographer. I have worked with US armor as an engineer. I have consumed books regarding armor/WWII/military/etc for some 30 years.

I have had the nasty experience of someone using firepower against me and have used various weapons myself. Believe me there are no 'rules' during 'war'.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

We are just going to have to agree to disagree about later war StuGs. All the reference material and ballistics data is on my side so far as I can tell. So far you have only produced personal opinions on its role while I have plenty of sources here that clearly indicate that the StuG was not considdered an infantry support tank in the same sense as it was earlier in the war. Once again, the Germans CHANGED the nature of the vehicle to AT, and that is fact that any book on the StuG will spell out loud and clear.

It is interesting to note that your high velocity arguments can just as easily apply to the King Tiger, and an infantry tank that most certainly was not. The StuH42 is a true infantry support tank, and it does quite a Hell of a job on soft enemy targets.

As for MGs, we have two models of StuGs. The early G has only the remote controlled roof mounted MG, the later G has both a coax and the roof one.

Steve

[Bastables]

Incredible. Gentlemen I present to you specious reasoning;

L48 will get that HE round more accurately to a target.

Well By this reasoning the Pzgr 39 APCBC for the 7.5cm Kwk is more effective as a HE round than the Sprgr. After all the Pzgr 39 had a small HE component which coupled with its higher velocity means that it will be ‘on’ before the slower Sprgr. Why then did the German’s continue to manufacture the short barrelled 10.5cm and 7.5cm for IG work? When they could have issued the PaK 40 to all the IG units. Quiet as it’s kept increased velocity actually decreases the effectiveness of HE, you decrease the ‘3d V’ of the blast, as JonS described it = you make the explosion smaller and therefore less effective. I don’t understand how one can miss this, “As Charles can tell you, there is a HUGE difference between the impact of a low velocity shell and a high velocity shell, even if the explosive charge and frag capability is exactly the same.”

6. Finally. I hate to throw this back at you but you brought it up in our earlier thread about shermans/stugs. That is, Later StuGs had machine guns. Sometimes two. I would like my infantry support weapon to sport these .}

Allah ya Tuan. So the Panzer IV/70 (V) with its 2 MG was an infantry support weapon after all ‘ A Panzer-Kompanie with five Panthers, A Sturmgeschuetz-Kompanie with nine Panzer IV/70’. An excerpt from a Report by Hauptmann Hanemann OC pf Pz Abteilung 2105 located in Jentz book Germanys Panther tank: The quest for combat supremacy. Actually the P IV, Panther and Tiger were infantry support weapons, they posses 2 MG’s as well. Crap the rearming of the Elephant with MG’s changed it in to an infantry support weapon. I’m at a loss your epistemology is so far removed from mine. It’s like the astrologer arguing with an astronomer both are located in the same ontology but have run in opposite directions. It’s grotesque.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-09-2000).]

[DEF BUNGIS]

Off topic.

How does everyone pronounce STUG

stewg?

stew - g? (this is how I pronounce it)

S_ T_ U_ G (4 seperate letters)

stugg?

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

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Is actually an abbreviation for

STURMGASHUTZE ( hope I didnt butcher the spellig too bad) why the M is left out I dont know

[Bastables]

I'll fetch my coat then shall I?

[Username]

I pronounce it "Sturm-ges-shootz"

Or just "shtoogs"

Lewis

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-09-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-09-2000).]

[Bastables]

How exquisite, he resorts to personal insults.

I guess I will fetch my coat.

[Knaust]

Hi guys,

I have got a lot of original German movies on Stugs, Tigers, Panthers and many others.

The STURMGESCHUETZ (this is the correct spelling) (Assault Gun) was originally conceived by VonManstein in 1936.They were produced by Halkett in Berlin and were used in an infantry support role only till 1941. After Barbarossa Hitler decided that the Stugs could counter effectively the Russian T34 and KVs. Therefore it was produced the StugF (75mm L40):it was first seen in a parade in Paris on July 29th,1942 before VonRundstedt, Hausser and Dietrich, the commander of the parading LAH Division. In Russia it was used in an AT role, its good optics, low profile and high-velocity muzzle were a must against russian tanks: in a movie I see a bunch of stugs taking T34s at 1800+mts.

At long distance they were very good in their AT role and Steve is definitely right…proof?….at the end of the war the Stugs had taken 30000 (thirty thousand) Russian tanks…quite a good work for an assault gun originally designed for an infantry support role.

[PanzerLeader]

Def, to be correct I guess you'd have to pronounce that :"shtoog" (with a fairly short "oo" though.)

[Username]

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

Lewis,

We are just going to have to agree to disagree about later war StuGs. All the reference material and ballistics data is on my side so far as I can tell. So far you have only produced personal opinions on its role while I have plenty of sources here that clearly indicate that the StuG was not considdered an infantry support tank in the same sense as it was earlier in the war.

{Lewis: I can agree to disagree if we can agree on what I am at least trying to say. You patently refuse to use the term sturmartillerie. Again, I think the 'role' as you say (mission to us military types) is dependant on the unit it was assigned to. Its mission in the PZ, PZG units is much as you say. In the sturm units its much as I say. Now what you mean by 'later war stugs' seems to mean any long barrelled stug. I will supply reference data to support my case please do likewise if you can.}

Once again, the Germans CHANGED the nature of the vehicle to AT, and that is fact that any book on the StuG will spell out loud and clear.

{Lewis: They changed the capabilities to be better to handle AT since the early stugs found themselves running into this mission. They didnt exclude the origional mission.}

It is interesting to note that your high velocity arguments can just as easily apply to the King Tiger, and an infantry tank that most certainly was not. The StuH42 is a true infantry support tank, and it does quite a Hell of a job on soft enemy targets.

{Lewis: I think the Tiger II had an 88mm and the Stu42 had a 105mm. Again I dont like to mix apples and oranges. I think we can agree at this point that theres no point in going on with this.}

As for MGs, we have two models of StuGs. The early G has only the remote controlled roof mounted MG, the later G has both a coax and the roof one.

{Lewis: Excellant. That makes them better infantry support weapons.}

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In closing I will not reiterate my contentions because they arent being addressed but skirted.

I will say this. German infantry were given Panzerfaust later in the war. Did that ever change their origional mission? Did it make them better at their origional mission? Did it make them ALOT better at the AT mission while slightly hindering their origional mission? Was the effectiveness of the weapon a function of the squad? In CM terms they might have less infantry ammo because they are carrying the fausts. I might contend that certain tank killer squads should be represented to have alot of fausts and be better with them. But I imagine it would be an uphill tooth and nail struggle just for you to use the term tank killer squad (I forget the german word).

Jeeessh

Lewis

[Username]

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

Incredible. Gentlemen I present to you specious reasoning;

L48 will get that HE round more accurately to a target.

Well By this reasoning the Pzgr 39 APCBC for the 7.5cm Kwk is more effective as a HE round than the Sprgr. After all the Pzgr 39 had a small HE component which coupled with its higher velocity means that it will be ‘on’ before the slower Sprgr.

{Lewis: I am at a loss as to your specious reasoning. Why are you throwing the AP round into the mix? If anything, the L48 could put the AP round into a tank or position better than the L24. Your reasoning is baffling.

Allah ya Tuan. So the Panzer IV/70 (V) with its 2 MG was an infantry support weapon after all ‘ A Panzer-Kompanie with five Panthers, A Sturmgeschuetz-Kompanie with nine Panzer IV/70’. An excerpt from a Report by Hauptmann Hanemann OC pf Pz Abteilung 2105 located in Jentz book Germanys Panther tank: The quest for combat supremacy. Actually the P IV, Panther and Tiger were infantry support weapons, they posses 2 MG’s as well. Crap the rearming of the Elephant with MG’s changed it in to an infantry support weapon.

{Lewis: Again, I find it hard to follow what point is being made here. JGDPIV were assigned as tank destroyers manned by panzermen. They were sometimes used in place of turreted tanks. Sturmartillerie probably never got them. Do you know the difference between Panzer crews and sturmartillerie?}

I’m at a loss your epistemology is so far removed from mine. It’s like the astrologer arguing with an astronomer both are located in the same ontology but have run in opposite directions. It’s grotesque.

{Lewis: You said something here.}

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-09-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Username]

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/quarters/8662/stug2.html

I like the afteraction report at the end of the page. Seems the stug unit was doing its infantry support job nicely as well as wrecking soviet armor. Not bad for a late war stug unit even though its panzerjaeger and not sturmartillerie.

Lewis