Tigers? Bah...Panthers? Dont need 'em...We have the StuGIIIF!

[Talenn]

Hey folks,

Ok, first of all, I'm not a source-quoting, stat-memorizing, uber-grog like some around here. I have a fair share of knowledge of WW2 in general and vehicles effectiveness, but there are definatly holes in my knowledge-base. This could be one of them...

That said, I'm going to post an observation and the 'uber grogs' out there can either see if I'm on the right track, or (politely, if possible) refute it and say why.

OK, to me, it appears that the 'uparmored' StuGIIIF and F8 are a bit over the top in terms of, if not historical effectiveness (on which I'm fuzzy), then on a 'per point' basis (which is easier to dispute).

They seem to merrily trash almost any Soviet vehicle that is realistically available until the appearance the the T34/85. They come down to a reasonable 'rarity cost' in the Fall of 42 and remain 'dominant' until somewhere around Spring of 44. Their game cost is a VERY modest 102/103 points base.

My problem with them is that easily dispatch the T34s in one shot while remaining almost immune to return fire beyond point-blank range. Were they REALLY that effective? If so, why did Germany feel the pressing need to get Tigers and (later) Panthers into service? Why not just build more StuGIIIFs which were cheaper, easier to build, and more reliable? Obviously a tank has some advantages over an assault gun when attacking, but the IIIF seems to be the ultimate in terms of cost effectively annihilating Soviet armor.

By that rationale, also why didnt the Russians develop a 'counter' to it earlier? The T34/85 was widely thought to exist as a counter the Tiger's appearance. Why didnt they notice this earlier AFV that they couldnt kill and respond?

FWIW, I'm completely pleased with the new engine, particularly in the area of AFV combat. But no system is perfect and there definately exist plenty of places for errors to creep in.

So, my first question would be:

Were they REALLY that effective? if so, then my second would be:

Were they REALLY that common? A +10-20% rarity tag indicates that they were fairly widespread. If so, then my final question would be:

Are they REALLY priced correctly in points? 102 seems like a real bargain for a vehicle that can kill almost all opposition with relative impunity.

I will grant you that its mediocre ammo loadout, lack of MGs, and turretless nature are all disadvantages, but do they really offset the ability to neatly win AFV vs AFV combat for a cheaper cost (T34/M41-43s cost around 111). All the extra MGs, cannister rounds, and HE rounds in the world wont help the T34s when they are reduced to smouldering heaps by the Wonder-StuG.

Finally, I acknowledge that a 'static' point system is never going to be 100% accurate. A T34 will obviously be worth at least 111 points if all the enemy has is 37mm ATs, while its so much useless scrap in the face of heavy German armorin the open plains. So how to quantify that into one point value is a definate challenge. That said, I'd lobby for a vehicle to be 'overpriced' and seldom seen rather than underpriced and in every battle where its rarity is remotely low. And that is the route I'm pretty sure these StuGIIIF/F8s will be taking. They are just too good an AT platform NOT to take in a competitive battle.

If you read this far, thanx for your time. If you havent already done so, test out those StuGs for yourself and see what you think. Then come back and let me know if they are underpriced, overpowered, or if I'm just missing something crucial in my analysis.

Thanx again,

Talenn

[Bruno Weiss]

Hmm, I see. Anything else?

[Mattias]

At the time there were a lot of discussions about increasing production of StuG type vehicles at the cost of tanks. Though it wasn't deemed a great idea, the tank still retaining the best offensive capacity, sheer necessity forced the AFV production in this direction.

The need to keep up production and lack of resources meant that the most cost effective weapon systems were kept on line. And the StuG's definitely was among those, especially considering the now defensive nature of the fighting for the Germans.

If deployed correctly they were indeed that effective. In the early days of Barbarossa it was fair to say that it was the best tank killer among all German (production) AFV's, and that's with the short 75mm gun. Thicker armour, low signature and ambush tactics all played a part...

The long 75mm gun was powerful enough to kill a T-34 as seen in the game and the Russian 76 mm guns was perhaps the principal threat envisioned when upgrading the armour.

As for it's availability... No other German, gun carrying, AFV was produced in greater numbers than the StuG III. Almost 8000 of the "G" model was produced, for example.

On any day in 44 and 45 the StuG is likely to be the most numerous vehicle in service.

M.

[ October 05, 2002, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Redwolf]

You are focussing on the armor battle too much.

The StuG III lacks machineguns, it lacks a turret which is badly needed for offensive purposes the Germans still intended to pursue. The ground pressure at least as modeld in CMBO leads to noticable shortcomings on anything but dry open ground and roads. There are also minor differences like less ammo load compared to tanks.

So the turret to "upgrade" it to a Pz IV with similar armor costs 40 points regular, which is, as in CMBO ,pretty much. In CMBB the turret is controllable and the MGs are useful, so it is not as clear as in CMBO that the turretless AFVs are the better buy.

Historically it is all correct. The Soviet union had very good tanks initially, but they concentrated on mass-producation. Exclusivly. Any other concern than simiplification for the purpose of making more of them in the same time was very hard to press into the tank designs.

Consequently, they lost their advantage ,it took them until Kursk to realize that something had to be done. But it is historically correct that the Soviets were at a substancial armor quality disadvantage. I think this period is somewhat emphasized in CMBB compared to reality as it starts after the Stalingrad encirclement and the T-34/85 comes pretty late, where some summary history books assume a shoter period of 1943. I have to assume BFC looked closer, though.

[zukkov]

i haven't tested the stugs yet, but what you said scares me. like most non-grogs that enjoy reading/playing wargames about ww2, i had the impression that the t34 was the top dog in the early war. the only thing that kept it from being more effective was the poor use of it by the russians. i find myself wondering what the russians can do to counter this threat. they already have the disadvantage of lower average experience(talking early war here) and harder to use artillery on the fly. oh well, guess we'll have to human wave em! lol...

[Talenn]

Hey guys,

Thanx for the input so far.

Ok, I have no 'beef' (if you will) with the StuGs taking out the T34s. That fits with my reading and other tactical gaming escapades just fine. Its the immunity to damage that I wonder about. At anything more than 100-120m, its almost impossible for any Soviet AFV to kill the StuGIIIF (and on up) frontally.

I've never seen them modeled this way in any other system and I dont ever recall Russian concern over their guns be totally ineffective until the Tiger showed up.

If they really WERE practically immune to return fire, shouldnt the price (in game) reflect that somewhat more heavily? That is a HUGE tactical advantage that outweighs many of the other disadvantages, especially given the more open nature of the maps on the Eastern Front.

redwolf:

Agreed, that I am focusing on the armor battle. That is what concerns me in the game. Infantry modeling appears excellent. Real-world tactics are now required and it feels 'right'. Throw in armor, and it gets a little bit fuzzy. The 75mm on the StuG IIIs has little trouble routing out entire platoons of infantry even without MGs in the mix. ~30 rounds of HE do more than their share of damage, especially if the enemy armor has been eliminated or neutralized. Since infantry are now less 'powerful' than in CMBO, AFVs take a step up.

So, in summary, the StuGs immunity feels a little off and if that is indeed historically correct, the cost should reflect that type of advantage that it enjoys.

Has anyone tried QBs and seen the StuGs in action yet? Have any Russian players come up with a way to counter them yet (assuming the StuGs are on the defensive).

Thanx again,

Talenn

[Denizen]

Talenn, the simple answer to issue of the StuG's invulnerability is that historical data of armor quality is generally highly speculative and often contradictory. BFC has attempted to make sense of the issue, but naturally the CMBB system has flaws since virtually every source of data on this issue is very heavily biased, especially for this theatre.

[ October 05, 2002, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Denizen ]

[WWB]

I have said it before, FEAR the stug. Especially on the defensive it was a weapon to be reckoned with. The 75mm gun has very nice reach out and touch capabilities and the sloped armor is proof against the 76.2mm gun. Throw in very good optics and very well trained crew (strumartillery was artillery, had lots of gun training) and you can see why they were so effective.

This also attested to in the historical record. A battery of stugs taking out ten T34s is not an altogether uncommon occourance.

WWB

[Mace]

Originally posted by Talenn:

Why not just build more StuGIIIFs which were cheaper, easier to build, and more reliable? Obviously a tank has some advantages over an assault gun when attacking, but the IIIF seems to be the ultimate in terms of cost effectively annihilating Soviet armor.

They did.

The Sturmgeschutz was produced in numbers exceeding those of the Pz IV, Panther or Tiger.

Secondly, the Stug was upgunned from the 75/24 to the longer 75/43 or 75/48 in response to the T34 and KV series of tanks.

Mace

[JPSeiler]

I can just say "Flank them" they have no turret and when you attack them from two side you can hit them in the side´.

And Infantry can handel them easily too ... .

(Ok not that easy when they have MGs and are covered well by infantrie)

Dont forget the T-34 is realy fast, i managed in a medium sized map at 1500 points to attack my enemy from behind with 3 T-34-85 at the 7 round.

(His Panthers werent that happy )

Greetings

jean-Pierre

[aka_tom_w]

I'm suprised that someone who knows about this or who has the game has not indicated which Soviet tanks or AT guns can penetrate the StuG III....

"They seem to merrily trash almost any Soviet vehicle that is realistically available until the appearance the the T34/85. They come down to a reasonable 'rarity cost' in the Fall of 42 and remain 'dominant' until somewhere around Spring of 44. Their game cost is a VERY modest 102/103 points base."

This is VERY interesting...

other folks here have said this is historically accurate so my question is...

If you have to dual head to head with a StuG III from distances greater than 100 (so it seems) and you don't have any T34/85's what else is there that can penetrate this "monster" frontally?

any more comments??

this is a very interesting thread

Sounds like the StuG is Cheap and up until the spring of 44 it is invulnerable from tanks or AT guns directed at the frontal aspect from any distance above 100m?

Is this true???

-tom w

[offtaskagain]

The only weapon I can think of to kill a Stug F is an 85mm AA gun. Works fine if the allied player is defending but not so hot on offense.

[Redwolf]

Talenn,

I think what you are asking for, a truely appropriate price depending on opponent equipment, would require to change the price of identical equipment for individual months. This is not what BFC does. A price may change in months because an "invisible" capabilty changes, for example the tungsteen-availablity dependent pricing of certain vehicles in CMBO. But in no event will BFC make prices depend on what opponents will face this equipment in this month.

The whole thing is highly volatile and it is very difficult to balance. For example, what is the price difference of a Pz IV versus a Panther if you face nothing but infantry without guns? They have practically the same value.

I am fiddling with a pricing scheme for TacOps, which spans a much bigger timeframe than CM, which will make prices of tank dependent on what the heaviest common tank in oen particular game is (which is defined as being equal to an infantry platoon). But such a scheme is not to be expected in any Combat Mission game.

Personally I would make the prices loadable from a user-supplied ASCII file or DLL or somefink, and the knockout points from a seperate file, but this isn't going to happen either.

[ October 05, 2002, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Warmaker]

A lack of MGs is of concern to me. You never know when infantry is creeping nearby and at times I don't wish to waste a whole 75mm round on an easily removed target.

Turretless AFVs are only of use as TDs on the defensive. On the offensive there are big problems that can really pop up:

- If the turretless AFV becomes bogged/immobile it is effectively useless to a changing situation.

- Without a turret, it just seems so much slower to adjust to unexpected surprises or changes in the battlefield. Big problem when on the offensive.

You want a real terror for Soviet armor? The Tiger I in late'42 or early'43. With the long ranges of the steppe, the heavy armor, and the superb '88 the Tiger I is an absolute terror. Managed correctly I've had a worn Tiger I company eat a full T-34/76 batallion with KV-1S's for breakfast and ready to eat infantry for a snack. The Soviet 76mm is for all intents and purposes useless against the Tiger I. I have yet to lose a Tiger I from various playing to a '76. The '85 on the other hand...

[jgdpzr]

IIRC, the Stug accounted for more armor kills than any other German AFV. Most of these came on the Eastern Front. I'm fairly certain that Stug batteries formed the backbone of the 'fire brigades' dispatched to armor-infested hotspots, at least prior to the introduction of the Tiger and the Schwere Abteilungs.

As others have alluded, the Stug was produced in large quantities. Three of the principal reasons were: 1.)Factories were still geared up to produce the Panzer III chassis in good numbers, but the chassis was incapable of accepting a turret with a long 75. 2.)German experiences in Russia proved that the long 75 (initially the L43, and then the L48) was needed to combat the T34 and KV series. 3.)In addition to the larger gun, the absence of a turret meant more armor could be placed up front. Plus, at least part of the front aspect of the vehicle could have well-sloped armor. Add these up and you have a recipe for a wonderful tank-killing machine, especially before the Soviets could mount a gun capable of defeating the frontal armor at longer ranges (the 85mm).

As an aside, if anything, I was a little surprised at the ease with which 75mm Shermans could defeat the frontal armor of the Stug in CMBO. I'm not saying there may not be a little room for improving the CMBB model as I'm not well enough acquainted with the penetration tables of the Soviet 76.2 gun. However, I think part of the issue may be we are facing an adjustment from the way the Stug was modelled in CMBO. As wwb_99 said, fear the Stug.

[ October 05, 2002, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

[Talenn]

Great stuff in here!

Ok, so the general gist of what most of y'all are saying is that for all intents and purposes, the StuG IIIF and up WAS unkillable frontally until mid '44? Is that the case?

It just strikes me as odd that no prior simulation has ever modeled them that way. It also strikes me as odd that the Russians were never concerned (at least in account that I have read) about the StuG at all. The Tiger, sure...Panthers...yup...the StuG? Doesnt seem to make it on to the 'feared' list.

wwb_99:

You mentioned that it was not uncommon for a battery of StuGs to take out 10 T34s. Is that due to superior crew quality, optics, gun, tactics, all of the above or because the T34s couldnt kill them frontally. If it was true (and I'm not disputing that), then shouldnt the vehicle cost be raised to to reflect that capability?...ie, if 3 can kill 10 without breaking a sweat and the 3 costs you ~360 points to the 10's 1110, there is something wrong with a formula somewhere.

aka_tom_w:

Yes, this is exactly what I'm looking for. It appears to me that in QBs set from 9/42 till mid 44, Russian armor is SOL. And it isnt going to be the highly priced Tigers shutting them down, but the humble StuG.

redwolf:

Obviously a 'dynamic' changing point value system would be ideal, buts its not realistic to believe that its really even possible to create. So, as per above, IMO, I'd rather err on the side of a vehicle to be too pricey and rarely bought (unless random rarity makes it a bargain for that battle) than a buy that is so good no one will pass it up. I see this being the new 'Hetzer', only worse. There WERE things in the Allied arsenal in CMBO that could take out the Hetzer frontally...not so with the StuG in CMBB.

Warmaker:

I can accept the Tiger being a terror to the Soviet Armor until mid 44. It should be. And you pay the price for it...its not cheap to field them in the game. But it seems strange that its NOT the Tiger that will be terrorizing them...why bother? For the cost of 1 Tiger, you can get 2 StuGs and I'd rather have another 75mm than a few MGs any day.

FWIW, would any of y'all actually spring for a MkIII or MkIV if StuGIIIs are available? MAYBE on an attack, but even then, dead tanks are worse than live assault guns. Either of those tanks can be killed by a T34 at most ranges, so why buy them and worry about it?

Anyways, I'd like to see some 'battle reports' from folks fighting with and against the StuGs. I'd also be curious to see what shows up your QBs more often...StuGs or PzIII/IVs...I know which my money would be on.

Thanx again for the discussion...its been educational and interesting.

Talenn

[Bastables]

A reason why Panzer truppen preferred turreted tanks or AFV with ability to neutral steer like the Panther/Tiger chassies.

Excerpt from a report by III. /Panzer regt 36 then operating mixed units of PIV and StuGs: ‘The Sturmgeschuetz must always turn its front towards the enemy. For example it must turn half left in order to engage an enemy target located towards the left front. The driver must often steer by repeatedly driving backwards and forwards in order to bring the gun into the necessary field of fire. The many steering manoeuvres overtax the transmission and especially the brakes. In a few cases things have gone so far that the tracks have been thrown in heavy ground.’

[ October 06, 2002, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Warmaker]

Which further proves the StuG is more suited for defense where movement is minimized. Find a good hull down position and it really can be a handfull.

There is one role where the StuG can excel on the offensive I believe: Infantry support. The grunts spot the target(s), suppress it, and let the StuG blast it. Or the StuG can pin the target(s) and let the infantry close in and assault.

P.S.- I really do like the canister shot.

Oh, someone mentioned cost... IIRC from a recent QB game, a veteran platoon of early Tiger I's costed maybe 1300 pts +/- 100 pts, set at standard costs for March '43. So yes, there is a price to the fancy toys.

[Danny Chung]

This thread reminds of the time (pre-CMBB) when I started a thread regarding the 20,000 kills by assault guns by May 44(?).

During the course of the thread, somebody (I forget who) mentioned that since the Germans by the end of 42 were going on the defensive, this meant that whenever StuGs were deployed, they came up against target rich situations. StuGs were killing 3 tanks for every StuG lost. Lots of bang per buck.

I recently got an Osprey Publishing Book, Sturmgeschutz III & IV 1942 - 1945, great book by the way, and it quotes German field reports in saying that StuGs were ideal for defensive operations and for operating with panzer grenadier. Not so when on the attack. This quote from the same book:

A high-placed commander was heard to say:"I would rather have one Sturmgeshutz-Abteilung than an entire Panzer Division."

Another book I have, the Combat History of Sturmgeschutz Brigade 276, by JJ Fedorowicz Publishing, says that StuGs were often deployed without infantry support in violation of the established principles for deployment of StuGs.

[Nippy]

Oh the things I do for you people. I just finished up using the Mission editor to test out the STUG(s) in Question:

Round 1: STUG-F & STUG-F8 vs five 57mm AT guns at 500m.

Result: Both knocked out in a single turn.

Round 2: STUG-F & STUG-F8 vs 5 57mm AT guns at 1000m.

Result: STUG-F knocked out. STUG-F8 had a single penatration at a weak point and one track damaged. No fatal hits though.

Round 1: STUGIII-F & STUG-F8 vs 5 76.2mm AT guns at 500m.

Result: STUG-F knocked out & STUG-F8 was mangled to hell (no tracks or gun) but was never knocked out.

Round 2: STUGIII-F & STUG-F8 vs 5 76.2mm AT guns at 1000m.

Result: STUG-F knocked out & STUG-F8 lost main gun but suffered no penatrating hits.

Conclusion: On offence us 57mm Equipted T-34's and on defence us 57mm AT guns.

[Nippy]

Originally posted by Keef:

I recently got an Osprey Publishing Book, Sturmgeschutz III & IV 1942 - 1945, great book by the way, and it quotes German field reports in saying that StuGs were ideal for defensive operations and for operating with panzer grenadier. Not so when on the attack. This quote from the same book:

A high-placed commander was heard to say:"I would rather have one Sturmgeshutz-Abteilung than an entire Panzer Division."

"Steel Storm" By Tim Ripley makes many mentions of the SS formations using STUG's as replacments for other (turreted) tanks lost in combat.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Nippy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Keef:

I recently got an Osprey Publishing Book, Sturmgeschutz III & IV 1942 - 1945, great book by the way, and it quotes German field reports in saying that StuGs were ideal for defensive operations and for operating with panzer grenadier. Not so when on the attack. This quote from the same book:

A high-placed commander was heard to say:"I would rather have one Sturmgeshutz-Abteilung than an entire Panzer Division."

"Steel Storm" By Tim Ripley makes many mentions of the SS formations using STUG's as replacments for other (turreted) tanks lost in combat.</font>

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Talenn:

It just strikes me as odd that no prior simulation has ever modeled them that way. It also strikes me as odd that the Russians were never concerned (at least in account that I have read) about the StuG at all. The Tiger, sure...Panthers...yup...the StuG? Doesnt seem to make it on to the 'feared' list.

I don't have the exact quotes in front of me but I have definitely come across references where the Soviet side expresses great concern over StuG's, to the point of ordering their units to avoid engagements with them whenever possible.

M.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Talenn:

It just strikes me as odd that no prior simulation has ever modeled them that way. It also strikes me as odd that the Russians were never concerned (at least in account that I have read) about the StuG at all. The Tiger, sure...Panthers...yup...the StuG? Doesnt seem to make it on to the 'feared' list.

Didn't make it onto their 'feared' list?! What have you been reading? The StuGs were universally feared by the Soviets. The appearance of a StuG brigade in a sector was a matter of great concern for them

[PJungnitsch]

These quotes caught my eye:

"one of the most effective assault gun formations...190th Assault Gun Brigade...26th Feb 1945 alone claimed 104 tank kills for loss of four vehicles...3rd March 1945 it passed its one-thousandth tank kill since its debut" Drs S and R Hart

No doubt not typical, but gives an idea of how effective they could be.

"The biggest advantage over a conventional tank was the low, squat, shape. A good driver could tank advantage of the low silhouette against the skyline and use the countryside....to minimize the risk of being a target" Max Flemming

It has been suggested that one of the reasons that Wittman was so effective was that he started off in Stugs and learned to use the terrain extremely well. He also kept his rangefinding scissors binocs from his Stug days, AFAIK.