Opinons on Scenario Balance

[Moon]

Username - from the site you gave:

Since the later versions of the StuG III with the longer barreled 7.5cm Stu.K. 40 (L/48) were mostly used in an antitank role, more armored artillery-vehicles were needed. Therefor 1144 StuG III with the 105mm L/48 were build between 1942 and 1945. This version of the StuG was the Sturmhaubitze (StuH) armed with a 105mm howitzer. It had the usual characteristics of the StuG but was confined to a purely anti-personnel role and didn't fire armor-piercing ammunition.

Very interesting...

[Username]

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

Username - from the site you gave:

Since the later versions of the StuG III with the longer barreled 7.5cm Stu.K. 40 (L/48) were mostly used in an antitank role, more armored artillery-vehicles were needed. Therefor 1144 StuG III with the 105mm L/48 were build between 1942 and 1945. This version of the StuG was the Sturmhaubitze (StuH) armed with a 105mm howitzer. It had the usual characteristics of the StuG but was confined to a purely anti-personnel role and didn't fire armor-piercing ammunition.

Very interesting...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I found that very interesting also. Notice it says 'mostly used in the Anti-tank role' not exclusively, as the report at the end of the web page shows.

They didnt build 75mmL24s in addition to 75mmL48s. They went to a heavier weapon for a purely infantry support role. This really only shows the Germans felt ALL stug 75mm HE weapons could be improved upon. I guess the soviet SU122s and US Priests with thier 105mm needed to be matched.

Thats why I find it interesting. Why do you?

Lewis

PS The greater variety of ammunition this howitzer could fire would have been an additional capability. I assume it would be able to fire all 105mm ammo a normal german artillery piece would fire (Giving it timefused capabiltys). I would also assume that it was only used by sturmartillerie units exclusively.

[Bastables]

a Report by Hauptmann Hanemann OC pf Pz Abteilung 2105

A Panzer-Kompanie with five Panthers, A Sturmgeschuetz-Kompanie with nine Panzer IV/70’.

The Crux all AT turrentless AFV were described in offical reports as Sturmgeschtz why all becuse AT was there mission after 1943.

You said

Do you know the difference between Panzer

{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.

It must be a troll

[Username]

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

The Crux all AT turrentless AFV were described in offical reports as Sturmgeschtz why all becuse AT was there mission after 1943.

It must be a troll

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bastables

I still find you hard to follow. I am sorry but maybe you can make your point clearer? I think its a good thing you are trying to quote something from somewhere.

I am not trolling or whatever. I am engaging in a debate in an intelligent and legible manner. Please do so yourself.

Lewis

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

I really have a hard time understanding your argument because it isn't based on any facts, just your own personal conjecture. Guderian made an order in 1943 that forever changed the role of the StuG to being that of an AT role. Also, the *ONLY* reason the artillery branch still held many of the StuGs (and note, many were not under their control) is due to internal politics. However, their depolyment was still in accordance with Guderian's order and the reality on the ground. The role of the StuG was changed. This is fact, not personal opinion. I challenge you to take any book on armor, or StuGs specifically, and prove the facts wrong.

Your arguments about high velocity holds no water, neither does holding up successful use of them against infantry type targets as turreted tanks had both high veolocity guns, MGs, and were used to engage non-armored targets. That was my point about the KT. If high velocity was somehow a beneficial thing for the Infantry Support role, then the King Tiger should be an excellent Infantry Support vehicle because it has a bigger shell and a higher velocity. And of course there is physics that contradict your theory that high velocity is somehow better than low.

Please, unless you have some sort of evidence to prove your point, it might be good to just admit that you are wrong or simply admit that you aren't going to convince anybody that you are correct. I can pluck any one of a dozen books off my shelf here to back up my side, so unless you come up with a similar pile of evidence you will never get me to change my mind.

Of course, you could simply be misusing the definition of "infantry support", but I thought we cleared that up the last time we discussed this. Just to be sure, infantry support is a term specifically covering weapons systems that were designed to support infantry in its role as infantry (i.e. against infantry and emplacements). As I have said about a dozen times before, this was deliberately changed from the top (Guderian) down (the vehicle itself). A vehicle that was assigned to back up infantry does not make it an infantry support vehicle.

Steve

[Bastables]

Lewis

No I don’t think so. You seem to lack a basic understanding of Ballistics and make factious statements to boot. For instance: [KWK40, KWK42, PAK40, STUGS all had the same shell (read projectile).] The Kwk 42 fired a heavier shell and was an entirely different cartridge as in indicated by the suffix /42, such as Pzgr 39/42 . Also the reading of Pak 40 Kwk 40 and Stuk 40 firing the same cartridge is true, because they are the same weapon but mounted either on wheels, Panzers and Turrentless vehicles respectively. The gun titled Stuk 42 or Assault cannon 42 was mounted on the Jagdpanther and Panzer IV /70 (A) and (V). The Gun titled Stuk 40 or Assault cannon 40 was also mounted on the JagdPanzer IV as well as the StuG III and IV. Can you draw the very simple inference that all AT turrentless AFV were described as assault guns, which for some reason you seem to equate with a primary mission of infantry support weapon. No! Past 1943 all Stuk armed Vehicles were AT.

Also there is the fact that the StuH 105 was armed with a low velocity Howitzer, after all they could have converted it to the higher velocity K. 18 10.5 cm gun. Which would be logical under your speciousness reasoning. Unfortunately ballistics show that unless you're firing air burst(only the USA possesed a workable airburst shell for arty, with the manufacture of the VT fuse) low velocity guns possess better performance in maximising the destructive potential of high explosives relative to a higher velocity weapon. The Germans recognise this and armed their direct fire infantry support weapon with a low velocity howitzer.

Oh, very sorry but the JagdPanther mounted the StuK 43 not the StuK 42. Still both antitank weapons were decribed as Assault Kannon's

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

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-10-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-10-2000).]

[Moon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Notice it says 'mostly used in the Anti-tank role' not exclusively, as the report at the end of the web page shows.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it's tough to rule out the use of any piece of equipment during times of war for anything. I have never heard of a "do not fire at infantry whatever the situation" order, but I have seen tank destroyers firing their main gun at infantry before...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They went to a heavier weapon for a purely infantry support role. This really only shows the Germans felt ALL stug 75mm HE weapons could be improved upon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't really follow this assumption of yours. If they felt that all 75mm HE StuG guns were worth improving upon, why did they select a "purely-infanty-support-role" 105mm low velocity gun? This looks much more to me like somebody somewhere thought: these StuGs now really suck as infantry support vehicles, let's make something new and better. Why, for example, didn't they simply produce more StuG's? That's what I would expect if they were so excellent as a dual-purpose weapon.

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

[Username]

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

I can't really follow this assumption of yours. If they felt that all 75mm HE StuG guns were worth improving upon, why did they select a "purely-infanty-support-role" 105mm low velocity gun? This looks much more to me like somebody somewhere thought: these StuGs now really suck as infantry support vehicles, let's make something new and better. Why, for example, didn't they simply produce more StuG's? That's what I would expect if they were so excellent as a dual-purpose weapon.

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

Im sure they would have like to put in as large a weapon with as high a velocity as possible. The chassis had its limitations.

When everyone else is fielding larger caliber guns I guess I would want one also.

Initially sturmartillerie was assigned the task of knocking out MG emplacements, field guns, and other battlefield impediments to the infantry. In light of the street fighting that occured in Russia there was a need for weapons like the Stug105 and brumbar and such to take on pillboxes and reinforced houses. Again, they would also have a greater variety of ammunition types.

I would also suspect that the sturmartillerie arm felt a true howitzer could be handled by atillerymen very effectively in the front lines, perhaps it was their way of keeping political control over the weapon system. But we are both speculating I think.

I am sure the stug factories were producing as much as they could.

Lewis

[Username]

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

Lewis,

I challenge you to take any book on armor, or StuGs specifically, and prove the facts wrong.

{Lewis: I thought we had agreed to disagree but now I am to admit that I am wrong. [snort] Thats funny. I am in the process of moving. When I get reestablished I will get the books out. I guess you have no comment on the website I referenced but thats OK.}

Your arguments about high velocity holds no water, neither does holding up successful use of them against infantry type targets as turreted tanks had both high veolocity guns, MGs, and were used to engage non-armored targets. That was my point about the KT. If high velocity was somehow a beneficial thing for the Infantry Support role, then the King Tiger should be an excellent Infantry Support vehicle because it has a bigger shell and a higher velocity. And of course there is physics that contradict your theory that high velocity is somehow better than low.

{Lewis: King Tigers can give my guys infantry support any time they want! I think I made some good points regarding higher velocity weapons. There is also a ricochet shot that can be achieved with a HV shell on hard ground (like an airburst in effect) but you have some physics so whats the use. Wheres this Physics study again?}

Please, unless you have some sort of evidence to prove your point, it might be good to just admit that you are wrong or simply admit that you aren't going to convince anybody that you are correct. I can pluck any one of a dozen books off my shelf here to back up my side, so unless you come up with a similar pile of evidence you will never get me to change my mind.

{Lewis: Again, give me some titles. I have lots of time and a very good library system. I have already supplied a pretty good website, so peruse it at your leisure. I wont change your mind. You will do that.}

Of course, you could simply be misusing the definition of "infantry support", but I thought we cleared that up the last time we discussed this. Just to be sure, infantry support is a term specifically covering weapons systems that were designed to support infantry in its role as infantry (i.e. against infantry and emplacements). As I have said about a dozen times before, this was deliberately changed from the top (Guderian) down (the vehicle itself). A vehicle that was assigned to back up infantry does not make it an infantry support vehicle.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the stug was designed as an infantry support vehicle. Later in the war it took on an increasingly AT stance just like the infantry did and the artillery did and the airforce did. Guess what people...The war became an armored conflict!!!! All the above still had to do their primary missions also.

As the war progressed to a defensive one and the germans were naturally not assaulting with the infantry as much, the stug became a more defensive weapon, most weapons did. And as the russians attacked everywhere with tanks, guess who the infantry had to rely on stopping them? They didnt need a decree from Guderian.

Now I cant debate or argue or reason with someone that can't see what point I am trying to make (LOL I have to say it one last time.. I like to piss up a rope..)The stugs that were manned by Sturmartillerie performed better at the infantry support mission than the the ones manned by panzermen, they also had a better machine with the L48 gun. Thats my point. If CM ever gets to the Eastern Front, I think that this should be reflected.

So please dont obsfucate the issue with shermans and king tigers and training declining in the airforce and Panzerwaffe decrees and 'scientifical physics' studies. You want me to cite reference than you can to.

Lewis

[Bastables]

'In January 1945 it was decided only to issue Panzer IV/70(A) Sturmgeschütz-Brigaden and . Sturm-Artillerie-Brigaden. The reason was the same as for the Panzer formations: The Sturmgeschütz formations needed the superior firepower of the 75mm L/70 to keep the enemy at bay until the StuG IIIs and IVs could engage him with their less powerfull guns.

In January 1945 two Panzer IV/70(A) was sent to the Sturmgeschütz school at Magdeburg and from late January to late March 1945, 99 Panzer IV/70(A) were issued to Sturmgeschütz formations both in the east and the west.' (Claus)

Why pray tell whould the Sturm-Artillerie-Brigaden need Panzer IV/70 (A) if there main mission was to kill infantry, MG nests, pillboxes and strongpoints. Quiet as it's kept the Sturm-Artillerie-Brigaden and Sturmgeschütz-Brigaden main mission was to kill other AFV's

"Designs by Alkett

The company of Alkett was developing a "Sturmgeschütz neuer Art" in the Winter 1942/43. It appears to have been a vehicle weighing 35 tons based on an Einheitsfahrgestell. It may have been the vehicles described as "Gerät 822 - Sturmgeschütz 43 auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV mit 7,5cm L/70" and "Gerät 823 - Sturmgeschütz 43 auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV mit 10,5cm Sturmhaubitze 42". Alkett is also credited with development of a "Gerät 821 - 7,5cm L/48 Panzerjäger III/IV auf Fahrgestell Panzer IV (Alkett)".note 9. This vehicle shares the Gerät-number with the kleine Panzerjäger (later: Jagdpanzer IV) built by the Vomag company. Alketts proposal may have been a competing design to Vomags vehicle.

In the end, the only Alkett design to see production was a rather crude, interim design, combining the gun and sloped armour of Vomags Panzer IV/70 with the slightly modified hull of the Panzer IV - the Panzer IV/70(A) (see separate profile of this vehicle).

Designs by Vomag

As previously mentioned, the company of Vomag also made a design for a new Sturmgeschütz: Gerät 821 referred to as the "kleine PanzerJäger". It fullfilled the demands for improved, sloped armour, but otherwise utilized standard Panzer IV components and mounted a 7,5cm L/48 PaK 39 gun.

Vomags design showed was approved by Hitler in May 1943, and was developed all through 1943, finally going into production as the Jagdpanzer IVnote 12. in January 1944 (see profile of the Jagdpanzer IV).

The Jagdpanzer IV had only been in production for a few weeks, when it was decided to equip it with the 75mm L/70 KwK 42 used in the Panther tank. On January 27th 1944, it was decided that once the technical problems was solved and a fluent change over from the 7,5cm L/48 PaK 39 could be guaranteed, the KwK 42 should be mounted in the Jagdpanzer IV (see profile of the Panzer IV/70 (V))."(All extracts taken from Claus Bonnesen's page "Home on Armour").

Look both designs were classified as StuG's. They are both Infantry support weapons yes? NO! Again NO! They are tank killers as are the post 1943 StuG III/IV.

Lewis said

Im sure they would have like to put in as large a weapon with as high a velocity as possible. The chassis had its limitations.

When everyone else is fielding larger caliber guns I guess I would want one also.

Guderian did not think so

"Re-arming the Sturmgeschütz with the 75mm L/70 StuK 42 was certainly attractive as the StuK 42 was an excellent anti-tank weapon. On the other hand, the 75mm L/48 StuK 40 could destroy most allied tanks at ranges up to about 800 metres. A lot of design and construction work was wasted in 1942-43 to solve the problem of mounting the StuK 42 in a Sturmgeschütz, and in 1944 production was hampered by the changes from one design to another. It is notable, that the Inspector of Armoured Troops was initially very sceptical about need for arming the new Sturmgeschütz with the 75mm L/70. By 1945 he had accepted that the Panzer IV/70(V) was certainly a usefull vehicle, but there it is evident that in 1943, the 75mm L/48 was his weapon of choice."(Again Claus@ http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/index.htm)

Lewis said

As the war progressed to a defensive one and the germans were naturally not assaulting with the infantry as much, the stug became a more defensive weapon, most weapons did. And as the russians attacked everywhere with tanks, guess who the infantry had to rely on stopping them? They didnt need a decree from Guderian.

They did need the decrees if they were to recive Pzgr 39 and 40 cartridges. Which consituded the greater percentage of cartridges in the all Sturmgeschütz after 1943; post Guderian decree. Think on it.

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

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-10-2000).]

[Username]

Bastables I am still trying to recover from all the mistakes in the previous post by you...take a break there guy!

I see you are from New Zealand? Is English the primary language there? Its just a little difficult distilling meaning from your posts. Sorry. Do you want me to try and respond?

Lewis

[Bastables]

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

Bastables I am still trying to recover from all the mistakes in the previous post by you...take a break there guy!

I see you are from New Zealand? Is English the primary language there? Its just a little difficult distilling meaning from your posts. Sorry. Do you want me to try and respond?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its called sputtering indignation.

Has to be a Troll.

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

[SS_PanzerLeader]

yes bastable I would have to agree - otherwise it would've been dropped by now

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Username]

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

Originally posted by Username:

Bastables I am still trying to recover from all the mistakes in the previous post by you...take a break there guy!

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its called sputtering indignation.

Has to be a Troll.

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

Whats with this kneejerk 'Troll' calling of yours? I was refering to the technical mistakes in that post. If you want I can list them.

I have a hard time following your english. No big deal is it?

Lewis

PS Is 'sputtering indignation' an asiatic language?

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

[Bastables]

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

PS Is 'sputtering indignation' an asiatic language?

(edited 04-09-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why yes it is round eye. We the yellow peril are on the verge of sweeping away longnose American Capitalist’s running dog lackeys barbarians from Allahs Earth. Sarcasm off

Sorry to the other Yanks but I've decided to just breakdown and flame and then leave it.

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

[Username]

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

Why yes it is round eye. We the yellow peril are on the verge of sweeping away longnose American Capitalist’s running dog lackeys barbarians from Allahs Earth. Sarcasm off

Sorry to the other Yanks but I've decided to just breakdown and flame and then leave it.

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

LOL I can't say I understood it but it was kind of funny. Chill out there and don't get ya pantys all in a bunch.

Look Pak40s did not fire the same ammo (cartridge and shell) as stugs and PIV with the L48. They had these long 'strait' ammo and the L48 had this'fluted' ammo.

I contend the shell WAS the same (AP and HE)for all the following:

75mmL70

75mmL48

75mmL43

PAK40

75mmL24

Maybe some others, I know the AP was all 6.8 Kg so its a safe bet. I bet the germans had some field units that collected up all the brass and a rear area point where they were refurbished and reloaded them.

You mentioned JagdPanthers, they had 88s.

There were some other errors but I just got some email turns so cyanarra.

Lewis

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

[Guest mch]

actually spelled

SAYONARA!

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

It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised.

-attr.to Fredrick the Great-

[Bastables]

I'm not replying

Bullet head is. Look under his name and glory in Ubique

'This brings up another shell design constraint . As you increase designed muzzle velocity, you have to increase shell wall thickness or the shell breaks up in the barrel. Thus, higher velocity shells have less room inside for explosive than slower shells of the same caliber.

The 6pdr/57mm was designed as a high-velocity ATG. For its caliber, then, the shell wall had to be pretty thick. OTOH, the short 75s used in the Sherman and some Brit tanks were designed for lower velocities, so they had more explosive inside for their diameter than say the 75 HE of the Panther. Thus, not only was the 57mm a smaller shell, it didn't have much explosive for its size.

This sort of thing is probably why the 76mm Shermans' HE shell was considered inferior to the 75, and why the Panther's HE wasn't as good as the StuG's. I didn't mention it in the StuG 75 vs. Tiger I 88 wall o' text because both those guns were designed for roughly similar velocities.'

-Bullethead

The Spgr shells for the StuK 37 Kwk/StuK 42 and Kwk/StuK 40 may have weighed the same but they carried different amounts of HE

Oh and ignore the fact that I'm of British stock lol

I’ve finally done it, the coat is on my shoulders and I’m off towards the sunset

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

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-10-2000).]

[DEF BUNGIS]

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

Hehe...the STUG IV was produced by "Krupps"

That German company is now the largest Coffee pot maker in Germany.

What a shift in marketing huh.

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

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

[Username]

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

I'm not replying

'This brings up another shell design constraint . As you increase designed muzzle velocity, you have to increase shell wall thickness or the shell breaks up in the barrel. Thus, higher velocity shells have less room inside for explosive than slower shells of the same caliber.

-Bullethead

The Spgr shells for the StuK 37 Kwk/StuK 42 and Kwk/StuK 40 may have weighed the same but they carried different amounts of HE

Oh and ignore the fact that I'm of British stock lol

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whomever

I agree wholeheartedly but still think the germans used the same HE projectiles for all these weapons I listed.

Why? Because they were all in use at the same time. Pak40s , halftracks with stump 75mmL24s, Panthers, PanzerIVlate, Stugs, JagdPanzerIV (I apologize to any weapons I have left out) were all operational at the same time. To say the germans manufactured seperate shells and cartriges for all these weapons boggles my imagination.

well its my lifes work to find out what went on. Maybe I will reanimate Albert Speer and cross-examine him.

Hey Simpsons is on..later limey.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-10-2000).]

[Simon Fox]

Lewis,

Just an observation but I find Bastables posts easier to follow than your own and not just because he talks funny Your rather confusing use of the UBB codes serves only to confound the reader, leaving aside any other sources of confusion for the moment. It is especially difficult to discern what you are quoting and what is your own statement, furthermore your excessive use of bold serves only to obscure the point you are trying to make, whatever the hell that is

[Username]

I am trying to address alot of points so I am embedding my responses with my name after the points.

Example:

{Lewis: blahblahblah}

Sorry if that just completely overwhelmed you. Thanks for contributing so much.

Lewis

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry if that just completely overwhelmed you. Thanks for contributing so

much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, thankYOU. Delighted to be of assistance!

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

"Heaven sent and hell bent

Over the mountain tops we go

Just like all the other GI Joes

EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis, I am going to ask you to keep it away from being personal. You have made too many snippy comments and belittling remarks, which are the hallmark of someone who doesn't want a debate based on facts. I have no idea what you self deleted from the post above, but knowing how close you came to being banned for previous comments I am sure it wasn't pretty. If you are just stalling because have no sources to cite because you are moving, might I just suggest that you stop trying to argue until you do?

So, here are the Facts that you seem to so casually dismiss. I'd be interested to see you counter these POINT FOR POINT using sources and not personal opinion. It would also put you in a better light if you cut out the personal snipes and belittling comments as it doesn't do anything for your standing with me or anybody else (actually, it diminishes it further). So stick to discussing the FACTS if you please, otherwise I see no point in continuing a discussion with you at any level...

1. The term "Infantry Support" is a technical term for a vehicle designed to take on infantry and infantry type targets (pillboxes etc.). This is *NOT* a general term for a vehicle, armored or otherwise, being used against infantry targets in support of friendly infantry formations on a case by case basis. If you bend the definition in this way it applies just as much to a Jagdtiger, King Tiger, Panther, etc. which is ludicrous since these vehicles were designed to kill other AFVs.

2. The role of the StuG was changed on September 28, 1941 when Hitler ordered that the vehicle be changed to be suited to an anti-tank role. This included upgunning and up armoring at the expense of mobility and to some exten reliability. This order produced the model F, the first to depart from the short 75mm L/24. It was followed quickly by the G and then production of the PzIII chasis ceased.

3. Guderian, as Inspector General of Pazner Forces tried to wrestle control of all StuGs away from the Artillery branch since it was a needless waste of resources in his opinion (and the Reich is FULL of such examples). But like the Luftwaffe and its flak guns in ground support roles, sensibilities were pushed aside in favor of politics and as a result the Artillery branch retained large numbers all the way up until the end of the war.

4. Huge numbers of StuGs were deployed in dedicated anti-armor roles, including being organically assigned in place of what should have been turreted tanks or other purpose built AT vehicles (like the Hetzer). The independent StuG battalions were still under the control of the Artillery branch, but they were employed as anti-tank units as their primary function.

5. The ammo for the L/24 was NOT the same as that of the later, longer barreled 75mm guns purpose built for AT combat. You asked for sources so here is one -> Chamberlin's "Encyclopedia of Geman Tanks of WWII". It also states that "none of the parts were interchangable with those of the short gun." There is also the point that Bullethead (a Marine gunner with a lot of knowledge on the subject of artillery) made about the difference between a low and high velocity HE round's shell in terms of effectiveness.

6. If you are trying to argue that the L/4x guns were MORE effective against infantry than the L/24, then that would put the StuG in the same class of Infantry Support as PzIVs and PzJg IVs. Logic would then say that a PzIV G was just as effective in supporting infantry as a StuG G, probably more so because the StuG lacked a turret and 2 full MGs (the StuGs had an ineffectual one on the roof and a later one as coax). This gets back to point #1 about the definition of roles.

7. The StuG's Infantry Support role was removed from it (as staetd above) and given to the StuH 42. Note that the StuH 42 came into service at the SAME TIME as the StuG changed over roles. Cooincidence? Hardly. Quote from "German Tanks of WWII" by Hart states, "...(StuH42 was deployed as) an infantry support role as the German Army increasingily diverted the StuG III to an anti-tank function". The website you cited, and accused me of dodging, clearly backs this up by stating the StuG "...were mostly used in an antitank role". So the ONE source you cited thus far contradicts your position quite plainly.

8. The thought that a high velocity gun is somehow MORE effective in the Infantry Support role (which is your opinion) is not supported by the facts. Charles has this to say...

Higher muzzle velocity does tend to increase accuracy, but mainly on the first few rounds fired. Even a low-velocity gun, given the opportunity

to "bracket" the target with a couple of shells, will eventually "find the range" and land shells on-target consistently. Suffice to say that a gun is not made high-velocity for the *sole* purpose of increasing

high-explosive effect. In fact, to the contrary, high shell velocity wears out the barrel a lot faster than low-velocity, which means that, operationally, a high-velocity gun is often seen as *less* effective than

a low-velocity gun. In fact this is one of the major reasons the original M4 Sherman was given a 75mm gun of only moderate muzzle velocity: the artillery department insisted that the barrel have a certain minimum lifespan which, in retrospect, was absurdly and optimistically long.

Higher muzzle velocity has only two main advantages. The first is

maximum range, which doesn't apply to assault guns like the StuG, which

rarely if ever are involved in a long-range artillery-style bombardment.

The ONLY other advantage is higher armor penetration. It's as simple as

that.

9. The standard loadout for pre-F StuGs was 25% AT and 65% HE. This changed to about 50% AT and 50% HE. More importantly, there was nearly a 50% reduction in ammo capacity when the F was introduced. So why on Earth would the Germans reduce the standard HE capacity by about 50% while keeping the AP at the same number of rounds (roughly 25) if the vehicle was supposed to be engaging infantry targets as its main role? Your claim that they could load out the vehicle any way they wanted STILL means a less HE rounds if an F or G had even if every single round HE than an earlier StuG outfitted with its standard load. And since the Germans CHANGED the role to be that of AT, where is your evidence that the Germans ever did such an unbalanced HE loadout?

-----

I don't know about you others, but I feel like I am not having a discussion but rather talking to a brick wall. I therefore duck out of this because it is an utter waste of time because a) you are clearly not listening, you don't want to listen, and c) the facts are VERY clear that you wrong so why bother since no matter what you think it doesn't change history. If you wish to prove this opinion of mine wrong, knock off the personal crap and belittingly comments, stop dodging documented facts and address each and every point I have just made above. If you can not do that I ask you to simply drop it.

Oh, and if this DOES get personal I will lock it up no matter WHAT stage of discussion it is in.

Steve

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Just too put my two cents in I noticed it also

only chiming now cause I haven't had a thread it a 100

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out