What exactly is the role of assault guns?

[RikkyB]

They arn't really tanks.. they arn't really artillery... (thinking of the STUG here)

[Splinty]

Think of them as anti-tank guns on tracks. The reason Assault Guns don't have turrets is to reduce their siloette (sp?). They were designed to strike from one position and then move into another one to strike again. Hope this helps.

[Mattias]

Its a long story..

But in short..

The vehicle was ordered in 1936. It's mission was to support the attack with HE and limited AP (penetrate all known armour at 500 meters) attack by means of direct or indirect fire (at least 6000 meter range).

Sturmgeschütz means assault cannon and it sums up the mission pretty well.

The role of the StuG evolved during the course of the war from a direct/indirect HE vehicle to that of a direct HE vehicle with some AT functions to a vehicle that had AT functions as a primary objective with the direct HE following if no armoured threat was present.

It was given a long life because it was a good, relatively cheap design sharing the reliable chassis with a tank that became obsolete, whereas the StuG could mount successively heavier guns, and subsequently absorbed the production of all (along with the StuH42) hulls of that type.

It was the most numerous vehicle produced by the Germans and it also scored the most kills of all German AFV's

M.

[Das Reich]

Originally posted by RikkyB:

They arn't really tanks.. they arn't really artillery... (thinking of the STUG here)

The StuG was designed to offer the infantry divisions its own mobile gun. All the Panzers would be attached to seperate formations, so the StuG, which could be produced very cheaply and in greater numbers than the normal Panzers became the weapon of choice. They were meant to be act as a mobile support to infantry, so that they would not have to always rely on the Panzer arm.

[ February 24, 2002, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Das Reich ]

[JasonC]

There are differences between the theory and the practice, the practice at different points in time, motivations for how extensively they were used, and changes in vehicle types and the roles each filled.

The original idea was simple enough - it was the infantry support tank in all but name. Just as tanks late in WW I had crawled through MG and small arms fire and taken out MG nests holding up the infantry, short 75mm HE-shooting armor was supposed to do much the same in pre-WW II armor planning.

The early StuG - models A through E - were meant for this role. They were organized as artillery formations, and used to support infantry divisions, especially in attacks against built-up defenses (fortifications, cities).

Since the idea was linear fighting (straight ahead on a broad front, systematic reduction of each point of resistence), a turret was not thought to be essential. Anti-tank use was the last thing on their minds, and pillboxes and buildings don't move out of the way.

But during the Russian campaign, the Germans found they had something of an anti-tank crisis. The better Russian tanks were far tougher than the infantry's 37mm towed ATGs could handle, and the 37mm and short 50mm guns of the regular tanks weren't any better off.

First the main tank of the time, the Pz III, was upgraded to a long 50mm gun. But that still proved inadequate. The Germans found a powerful enough gun to deal with Russian tanks in the long 75mm. But then there was a problem about where to mount it.

Understand, up to that time, the Pz III was the dominant German battle tank. The Pz IV supplimented it in smaller numbers, carrying a short 75mm meant for HE work, just like the infantry-support early StuGs. The Pz IV was then less common than the lighter tank models, Pz II (20mm) and Pz38(t) (37mm), taken together.

The small tanks could not mount bigger guns in turrets, and their little guns weren't very useful. So the chassis were switched over to turretless Marders, carrying big long-75mm anti-tank guns. These were then used as self-propelled tank destroyers, though they were poorly armored.

They wanted to upgun the Pz III too, but they found that the long 75mm would not fit in the existing turret, and the overall design could not accomodate a bigger turret sufficient to carry the long 75. For the time being, therefore, the Pz IIIs (again, the largest production vehicle) was stuck with long 50mm or short 75mm guns.

So they revamped the role of the Pz IV. It was large enough to accept the long 75 in a turret. That switch was made, and production of the new model IVs was increased. By mid 43, the Pz IV had become the main tank type in the fielded forces, with most of them the newer models with long 75s.

Meanwhile the StuG could accept the long 75, and was therefore fitted with them, back in 1942. This meant the StuG now had more AT capability than the Pz III did. Just as the gun transition revised the Pz IV from a primarily HE support tank into the main tank killer, supplanting the Pz III as the main battle tank, the same gun transition made the StuG an effective tank killer, more effective than the existing main battle tanks of 1942.

Note that both the Pz III and the StuG were made from the same chassis. (StuG *III*). This goes way back to the initial infantry-support idea in the pre-war period. They had picked the most common chassis because its planned production was the highest, and it was big enough to carry a short 75 (without worrying about a turret).

So, then they had all this Pz III production capacity already on-line. Factories turning them out, parts suppliers, the works. And the turretless StuG version could kill Russian tanks. The turreted Pz III version couldn't (at all well), and couldn't be revised to do so if it kept the turret.

So in early 1943 they canceled the Pz III. The switched over all of the production to StuG. The idea here was simply upgunning, the same motivation that lead to the withdrawl of the light 37mm and 20mm tanks varities in 1942. Everything that could take a long 75 did so.

Marders, StuGs, and Pz IVs were the new mix - all with the same powerful guns (more or less). Only the Pz IVs still had turrets. The StuG and Pz IVs had good armor. Instead of having all turreted tanks with increasing gun sizes as the vehicle got bigger, they all had the same gun size but added other capabilties as the vehicle got bigger - first armor, then a turret.

All of that was motivated by the practical production issues, and by the need to field effective mobile AT guns capable of killing the hordes of T-34s the Russians were by then fielding. It came not from doctrine developments but fundamentally from economic and engineering ones. Doctrinally, the first (Marders) were SPAT (self-propelled antitank), the Pz IVs were tanks, and the StuGs were... sort of floating in between, with an original infantry support mission already in place.

The Germans needed organizational means of employing the new upgunned vehicle types. The homes of the new models were three types of battalions - panzer battalions for turreted Panzer IVs, panzerjager (AT) battalions for lightly armored and turretless Marders, and the existing StuG formations for the newly upgunned StuG.

The last were actually based on artillery unit size organizations. They had "batteries" and "brigades" instead of platoons and battalions. Despite the difference in unit names, the StuG "brigade" was essentially an independent armor battalion at the army level (somewhat like the infantry-supporting independent US tank battalions, outside the ones in armor divisions).

They could be massed to stop a breakthrough, or more often could be attached to this or that infantry division to give it combined arms abilities (including better AT, better attack capabilities, etc). There were eventually around 40 of these independent StuG formations (about the same number as panzer divisions).

This means that by the middle of the war, and the time when they went over to the defensive, the Germans had a portion of their AFV fleet dedicated to supporting the infantry formations, but no longer with the pre-war HE vehicle type, designed only for the assault gun role. Instead, they were effective tank killers as well. And that mission often took precedence, since the Germans were on the defensive.

As a result, the role of the StuG was drifting toward that of a tank-destroyer. The Germans reacted to this by eventually developing dedicated tank destroyer models meant primarily for that mission. The Hetzer replaced the Marder (made from the same chassis as the Marder III, the czech-built Pz38t chassis), adding angled front armor. The Jagdpanzer sported heavier and angled armor, but was made in only limited numbers and confined to the Panzerjager battalions of the panzer divisions.

Meanwhile the StuGs were still being made in large numbers, because Pz III chassis production remained high. It had been the planned main vehicle type and there were relatively few side types being made from the same chassis. (Compared to the Pz IV chassis, which made Pz IVs, Jagds, Nashorns, Hummels, Brummbars, etc). The excess of StuGs available led to their use to fill out gaps in the supply of other vehicle types.

So panzerjager battalions often wound up with a company or two of StuGs, or all StuG in some of the panzer divisions. Panzergrenadier divisions often had StuGs for armor support instead of tanks, making them effectively motorized infantry divisions with a permanent StuG brigade attachment. Sometimes StuG filled out a quarter to a half of a Panzer regiment in a full panzer division, for want of enough Pz IVs. None of these uses exactly fitted German doctrine, they were adaptations to the economic facts - lots of Pz III chassis vehicles. Naturally, many were still used in the independent StuG brigades.

In all of the new roles and in the brigades, the StuGs found themselves used more and more as tank destroyers. The old mission of providing close fire support for attacking infantry still existed, but the StuGs were overstrained trying to do that as well. The Germans provided a number of new vehicles to fill the *old* role.

For assault on fortifications, they found that much thicker armor was sometimes important, and a bigger gun useful. So they fielded a small number of Brummbars, with 150mm guns on heavily armored chassis. These were pure assault guns, in the original HE-support meaning of the term. These were rare enough to act as special weapons. So they were organized as seperate battalions at army level, and sometimes parceled out in company strength.

For more common HE support, from late 42 on they made a portion as StuH, with 105mm howitzers instead of 75mm antitank guns. The larger HE load was more in keeping with the original assault gun idea. They sometimes used there 1 per platoon alongside StuG, sometimes 1 platoon per company, occasionally more. These wound up going where the independent StuG brigades did, more or less.

In the mobile divisions, which had more of everything, the panzergrenadiers got additional assault gun vehicles, to free the more AT-capable types for other missions. 75mm infantry guns mounted on halftracks - SPW-251/9 - had been part of the Pz Gdr heavy weapons from early on. They took over more of the pure assault gun mission.

Also, self-propelled 150mm sIG vehicles were provided, first a wide range of ad hoc types with limited producton runs, and eventually a fairly large number based on the Pz38t chassis ("Bison" or "Cricket"). These were fielded 6 per Pz Gdr regiment.

Note that each of these types wound up following the infantry gun TOE rather than anything to do with armored vehicles. They came about due to the tendency to mount self-propelled the guns that the Pz Gdr formations already had, since they had access to vehicles too. The resulting vehicles then took over much of the old assault gun duty of tossing HE at strongpoints holding up the infantry - but only in the mobile divisions.

Overall, then, the StuG started as infantry support and ended as a tank destroyer, parceled out to stiffen infantry AT defenses in much the same manner as Allied TD formations. It still fufilled some of its old, original function, in infantry formations. Elsewhere, other vehicles had taken over that role.

Its overall importance in the war stemmed less from the original doctrine than from the vagaries of German planning and production. It was simply the surviving type from the main chassis line planned before the war. It survived because it could take a bigger gun than a turreted model on the same chassis. And because the Germans needed to keep all production lines in service, to get all the AFVs and especially all the mobile AT capability they could.

The Pz I was the only production line halted during the war. Pz IIs became Marder IIs and Wespes, Pz 38t became Marder IIIs, Hetzers, and Bison, Pz IIIs became StuG and StuH, Pz IVs made a wide array of other types besides the Pz IV itself.

The rule governing it all was, lose every capability necessary to get at least a long 75 gun, as the only thing that will prove useful. Keep every capability you can, consistent with at least that much firepower. Then make as many as you can of all of them. That the StuG could keep decent armor but had to lose a turret in that logic, was just engineering and the capabilities of the Pz III chassis - not doctrine.

[ February 24, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[IronChef4]

wow, did you write all that yourself??? :eek:

[JasonC]

I write 20 pages a day. If you see some of it, you see some of it...

[Das Reich]

nice post, Jason...

[Bullethead]

Splinty said:

Think of them as anti-tank guns on tracks.

Nope. Think of them as sIGs on tracks. At the time they were invented, arty wasn't flexible or responsive enough to keep up support during a mobile battle over large distances, and mortars light enough to do that weren't powerful enough to deal with serious field fortifications. The Germans has the same gun in the Pz IV, but there were barely enough of these to support the panzergrenadiers. IDs had IG but these were too slow and vulnerable to be much use in mobile warfare. So to make the IDs more effective, the Germans invented StuGs, which they could turn out faster than turreted vehicles.

The 1st StuGs came along between the Polish and French campaigns. But in the Russian campaign, it was soon evident that neither they nor the ID's main ATGs were up to the job of dealing with KVs and T34s. So the Germans started putting long 75mm guns on the StuGs to give them a better anti-tank capability. But even then, they were still primarily intended for infantry support.

[Redwolf]

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

http://www.panser.dk/artikler/id002/stugnadev.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8662/stug.htm

As for their role in CMBO, people use them a lot because they are so cheap, but watch it. They have lower HE load than a Pz IV, no useful MGs (OK, MGs are not *that* useful in CMBO...), the StuG III has a serious problem with ground pressure and the lack of a turret can be a serious factor. Yes I know about the 50mm turret on the Pz IV and the existence of Stuarts, but I find I have more success with Pz IV. In tank duels they tend to live longer than StuGs (even when projected to purchase points) and if they survive they have much higher potential to terrorize enemy infantry. On the other hand, I had quite some immobile (in random weather), out-of-ammo or plain dead StuGs. Just yesterday I shot a StuG in the side with a Stuart because it was immobile and couldn't turns to face the Stuart. At the same time, my immobile and shocked Sherman knocks down houses all over the place to get at more targets.

In any case, I used to complain about the price difference between StuG and Pz IV, but don't do so anymore. But why was the Jagdpanzer IV so expensive, anyway?

[MajorBooBoo]

The assault gun also allows the enemy no respite from when your indirect artillery is letting up during an attack. The artillery keeps the defenders heads down. Once it stops, the enemy can spring into action. Having assault guns in an assault then covers this vulnerable period.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

The Soviet assault guns on paper seem like a more effective weapon. (SU-100, SU-122)

Why did the Germans stick with the stuggs and stuh 42 series? Wasit only because they had a huge surplus of Panzer 3 chasis and parts? I'm sure the Soviets had a stock pile of BT-5 chasis, but that did not stop them from upgrading.

It seems like the German industry had a hard time adapting to new technology, is that true, or is there another reason, ie political or some other factor that cause this? The Stuggs were mnay, an dracked up plenty of kills, but it seems as if they were technologicly and tacticly out classed by their Russian counter parts.

For instance, the Soviets did not have a Marder type vehicle, nor did the Allies. It seemed that it was created out of a desperete necessity. Wich in a way it basicly was, but i was wondering if any thing else played a factor in all of this. The Germans had plenty of good AFV's but they seemed to have a bad habit of producing lots of their weakest link vehicles. I'm not saying the Stuggs were bad, it's just i see an SU-122 as a much more versatile and effective vehicle.

[JasonC]

I will address the comments about the Russians, because I think they were full of purely factual errors I can correct.

The Russians most certainly did not have excess production capacity for BT-5s, because the BT pre-war series had already been phased out when the war began. They had flocks of them, but they weren't making any more. They had been produced throughout the 1930s. (Yes Virginia, they were excellent tanks for the era in which they were made - 45mm guns, fast, etc).

The Russians did have light tank production lines, but they made T-60s and T-70s, both of which were designed after the invasion began. You can think of them as the Russian's Pz II (20mm light tank) and Pz 38t (but 45mm instead of 37mm) respectively. The Germans were still using such vehicles, so the Russians did too.

But later, the Germans phased them out because they found their pop-guns weren't useful anymore. When? In 1942, after the pre-war Russian armor fleet of thin tanks was gone, and the T-34s were pouring out of the factories instead. The Germans made Marders, and in the case of the Pz II a bit later, Wespes. That utilized their light tank chassis production.

Did the Russians "never have anything like a Marder"? Sure they did. They had the SU-76, an open topped self-propelled 76mm gun, mounting their long 76mm divisional artillery piece. Hmm, same gun on some early Marders. Hmm, the 105 on the Wespe was the standard German divisional artillery piece. What did the Russians make SU-76s out of? Discontinued T-60 and T-70 production lines.

When did they stop making the light tanks and switch to SU-76s instead? About 6 months after the Germans, although teething problems until the SU-76m model made it more like a year until all production had switched over. That also about coincided with the Germans cancelling the Pz III; the Russians canceled their last 45mm tanks soon after. They kept making SU-76s right to the end of the war, and fielded tens of thousands of them. They used them as SPA, SPAT, and assault guns (one vehicle, many roles).

The parallel in the handling of light tank production capacity is therefore quite close. Both pulled them in 1942-3 and fielded upgunned SPAT or SPA instead, using the same chassis.

As for the StuG, the Russians certainly copied those German moves too. The SU-122 and the StuH are comparable weapons (limited AT ability, some HEAT to stretch it but still low muzzle velocity guns, good HE chucking, moderate armor). The SU-85 and the long 75 model StuG are also comparable weapons (similar tank killing ability in gun-armor terms). The SU-122 was a bit before the StuH, while the SU-85 was considerably later than the long 75 StuG (but a bit before the Jadgpanzer IV). The Russians also had SU-152s, certainly. The Germans had Brummbars and Nashorns, splitting the heavy HE and heavy AT roles. At the level of the "vanilla" assault guns and TDs, midwar, there was again not much difference in overall types fielded.

The Russians did eventually field much more powerful TD types, but they were only out in the last year really. Those were the ISU-122, ISU-152, and SU-100. The last of those didn't see action until 1945, the others were first used extensively in the summer of 44. They can be compared (roughly) to Jagdtigers, Elephants, Jagdpanthers, and Jagdpanzer-70s. The Russians had more of them, but then the Russian had more of all AFV types.

A more interesting question is why the Russians made so many TDs based on the T-34 chassis, when the T-34 itself was already a success - unlike the German Pz III. Part of it may have been simply copycat moves. The Russians did not want to compete with the Germans in types and doctrine about using them, though they certainly wanted to match the Germans on that score and tried to stay at least even there. They wanted to compete in pure production, in raw numbers fielded, having neutralized the other issues.

When the SU-85 was fielded, it did represent a significant upgunning compared to the T-34/76s then in service. But this was a temporary matter. Soon they had T-34/85s, and thus no extra oomph in return for sacrificing the turret. The SU-122 made more sense, as an HE support type (like the StuH) - more HE in return for less AT and no turret.

In the long run, though, the engineering trade off was similar. Any vehicle could mount a larger gun without a turret than with one. The Russians did not face the Pz III quandry of a main production vehicle too small to carry any useful gun in a turret. But they had periods of similar problems - the small T-34/76 turrets, 2-man only and not really enough AT ability once the Germans uparmored in the course of 1943. The T-34/85 solved many of those problems for them, just as the long-75 Pz IV and StuG mix had solved the earlier German one.

There were of course differences in design philosophy, noticable in the second half of the war. The Russians went for gun caliber while the Germans went for maximum muzzle velocity. That tended to make the German guns better AT weapons, especially at long range (MV is a twofer on penetration and accuracy), while the Russian ones had better HE performance. Since the Russians were attacking and the Germans defending - with fewer AFVs and as many towed guns as AFVs - that difference makes perfect sense.

But the idea that there was some night and day difference in how each dealt with production issues, upgunning, use of TD vs. use of turrets, etc - that is just not accurate. The Russians had their own versions of "Marders", and "StuGs", and "StuHs". They were called SU-76, SU-85, and SU-122.

Also, incidentally, the SU-122 was definitely an HE chucker, not a "versatile" any-role vehicle. It had low muzzle velocity and quite poor AT performance because of it. They used HEAT instead of AP because of this. It was still much harder to get hits at medium to long range with low MV. In a medium to long range duel, the StuG with long 75 would probably win, because it is more likely to get hits. The SU-122 was still a useful AFV, certainly. But more like a StuH than a StuG - let alone an all-around do-everything model.

[ February 25, 2002, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Thomm]

These articles would constitute nice chapters in a CM manual!

[PJungnitsch]

Well, that's going into my Stug reference notes. This bit I liked too:

The Russians went for gun caliber while the Germans went for maximum muzzle velocity. That tended to make the German guns better AT weapons, especially at long range (MV is a twofer on penetration and accuracy), while the Russian ones had better HE performance. Since the Russians were attacking and the Germans defending - with fewer AFVs and as many towed guns as AFVs - that difference makes perfect sense.

I've gotten into some nasty arguments with Russianophiles about the guns that German vs Russian tanks came with, and this makes the most sense, that each made what best suited their particular needs.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by RikkyB:

they arn't really artillery...

Yes they are. StuGs were a natural progression from the standard practice of using small caliber artillery in a direct fire role to support the infantry. Later they were pressed into service in an antitank role... that is still an artillery role. StuGs are part of the artillery, not Panzer, establishment. The crews were artillerymen

[Claus B]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Since the idea was linear fighting (straight ahead on a broad front, systematic reduction of each point of resistence), a turret was not thought to be essential. Anti-tank use was the last thing on their minds, and pillboxes and buildings don't move out of the way.

Anti-tank use was part of the StuGs role from day 1 (see Mattias' post). It was part of the conceptual studies done by Manstein and others in 1935-36 and it was part of the design specification.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The early StuG - models A through E - were meant for this role. They were organized as artillery formations, and used to support infantry divisions, especially in attacks against built-up defenses (fortifications, cities).

The StuG was designed as an infantry support vehicle with three things in mind:

1. Direct fire support using HE

2. Anti-tank fire

3. Indirect fire under command of the divisional artillery

#3 was not used much, but #1 and #2 was part of the curriculum from day 1.

Being able to defend itself and the infantry it was supporting, against enemy tanks was always on the agenda and the upgunning taking place early 1942 was a direct consequence of the heavily armoured Soviet tanks it faced in 1941. The role of the StuG as an infantry support vehicle did not change, nor did the organisation in which it served or its organisational place in the artillery.

You have written a fine story of the problems the Germans faced after meeting the T34 and KVs in 1941, but you are confusing the consequences it had on German AFV development.

The 7,5cm PaK 40 gun was being introduced as the new standard anti-tank gun but was really too heavy for its intended deployment, especially when operating with the Panzertruppe, hence the desire to make a self-propelled version, leading to the production of "Marders".

And of course the Panzer IV was upgraded as the Panzer III had reached the end of its potential.

But the role of the Panzer IV remained that of the tank in the Panzerdivisions, that of the "Marders" remained those of the anti-tank gun in the Panzerjäger Abteilung and as said above, the StuG remained the quintessential infantry support vehicle and was found only in the Sturmartillerie.

It was in fact three different weapons systems reacting to a common threat, but that did not change the role of each system: tank, anti-tank gun and infantry support vehicle.

Originally posted by JasonC:

So in early 1943 they canceled the Pz III. The switched over all of the production to StuG.

Not quite. The Panzer III was replaced by the Panther on the production lines of Daimler Benz, MAN, Henschel and MNH.

Alkett was producing Panzer III and StuG III at the same time and switched to StuGs only as production of Panzer III ran out in 1943.MIAG begun StuG production early in 1943 alongside Panzer III production until the latter ceased.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The Germans needed organizational means of employing the new upgunned vehicle types. The homes of the new models were three types of battalions - panzer battalions for turreted Panzer IVs, panzerjager (AT) battalions for lightly armored and turretless Marders, and the existing StuG formations for the newly upgunned StuG.

There were no organisation change in the Sturmartillerie or Panzertruppe because of the upgunning, and the changes in the Panzerjägertruppe amounted only to a new organization for the Panzerjäger Kompanie (sfl) within the framework of the existing Panzerjäger Abteilung.

In the Panzetruppe, organisation didn't change until 1943 when the light and medium companies were replaced by medium companies equipped with either Panzer IV or Panther.

Originally posted by JasonC:

In all of the new roles and in the brigades, the StuGs found themselves used more and more as tank destroyers. The old mission of providing close fire support for attacking infantry still existed, but the StuGs were overstrained trying to do that as well. The Germans provided a number of new vehicles to fill the *old* role.

If the *old role* is that of the Sturmgeschütz as an infantry support weapon, then I believe you are wrong.

Originally posted by JasonC:

For assault on fortifications, they found that much thicker armor was sometimes important, and a bigger gun useful. So they fielded a small number of Brummbars, with 150mm guns on heavily armored chassis. These were pure assault guns, in the original HE-support meaning of the term. These were rare enough to act as special weapons. So they were organized as seperate battalions at army level, and sometimes parceled out in company strength.

The Sturmppanzer IV "Brummbär" was not intended to fullfull any role hitherto fullfilled by the StuG or the Sturmartillerie. It was a new development, essentially a self-propelled version of the schwere Infanteriegeschütz, heavily armoured to survive when employed in the direct-fire role. They were organized under the Panzertruppe and employed in support of both armour and infantry. With only 300 produced, it was highly specialized weapon that had more in common with the later SturmTiger than the StuG.

Originally posted by JasonC:

For more common HE support, from late 42 on they made a portion as StuH, with 105mm howitzers instead of 75mm antitank guns. The larger HE load was more in keeping with the original assault gun idea. They sometimes used there 1 per platoon alongside StuG, sometimes 1 platoon per company, occasionally more. These wound up going where the independent StuG brigades did, more or less.

Yes, they did because they were designed and built to increase the HE firepower of the Sturmgeschütz Abteilung/Brigade. They were an integrated part of the Sturmartillerie.

Originally posted by JasonC:

In the mobile divisions, which had more of everything, the panzergrenadiers got additional assault gun vehicles, to free the more AT-capable types for other missions. 75mm infantry guns mounted on halftracks - SPW-251/9 - had been part of the Pz Gdr heavy weapons from early on. They took over more of the pure assault gun mission.

No, they did not. They were a new development and did not replace StuGs anywhere.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Also, self-propelled 150mm sIG vehicles were provided, first a wide range of ad hoc types with limited producton runs, and eventually a fairly large number based on the Pz38t chassis ("Bison" or "Cricket"). These were fielded 6 per Pz Gdr regiment.

Note that each of these types wound up following the infantry gun TOE rather than anything to do with armored vehicles. They came about due to the tendency to mount self-propelled the guns that the Pz Gdr formations already had, since they had access to vehicles too. The resulting vehicles then took over much of the old assault gun duty of tossing HE at strongpoints holding up the infantry - but only in the mobile divisions.

No, they did not replace StuGs or take over their role in any way. They were simply the old towed 15cm sIG 33 on tracks, in effect regimental artillery. Their development is similar to that of the anti-tank weapons of the motorized divisions, the tendency going towards self-propelled mounts rather than towed guns. These developments had nothing to do with StuGs or the Sturmartillerie.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Overall, then, the StuG started as infantry support and ended as a tank destroyer, parceled out to stiffen infantry AT defenses in much the same manner as Allied TD formations. It still fufilled some of its old, original function, in infantry formations. Elsewhere, other vehicles had taken over that role.

As seen above, the StuG in the Sturmartillerie remained in the same role from its conception in 1935-36 to the end in 1945. No other vehicle took over that role anywhere in the German Army organisation.

Rather, the StuG vehicle proved so versatile that it could be used as a self-propelled anti-tank gun in the Panzerjäger Abteilung of Panzer- and infantry divisions.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Its overall importance in the war stemmed less from the original doctrine than from the vagaries of German planning and production. It was simply the surviving type from the main chassis line planned before the war. It survived because it could take a bigger gun than a turreted model on the same chassis. And because the Germans needed to keep all production lines in service, to get all the AFVs and especially all the mobile AT capability they could.

I am not shure what you point is here. The importance and succes of the StuG vehicle came exclusively from doctrine, the original doctrine that it should be an infantry support vehicle that could do three things:

1. Direct fire support using HE

2. Anti-tank fire

3. Indirect fire under command of the divisional artillery

The concept and doctrine of the StuG proved so succesfull that it lead to the development of a series of similar vehicles like the Jagdpanzer IV and Hetzer that both shared the dual capability (#1 and #2) of the original design.

As early as 1936, it was considered that a StuG Abteilung in the infantry division could replace the Panzerjäger-Abteilung. This did not happen due to insufficient number of StuGs, but this was in fact what started to happen in 1943, when the StuG and its brethren the Jagdpanzer IV and Hetzer found their way into the Panzerjäger Abteilungen of the Panzer and infantry divisions.

Here they were employed according to their dual nature as self-propelled anti-tank guns as well as infantry support vehicles, a fact made clear by German training films and combat reports.

Originally posted by JasonC:

That the StuG could keep decent armor but had to lose a turret in that logic, was just engineering and the capabilities of the Pz III chassis - not doctrine.

This sums up the error of your argument - it was doctrine that dictated the removal of the turret and the hull mounted gun. It was the only way to achieve one of the design parameters, low height. And this was done long before the upgunning issue ever came up - in fact 5 years before.

Claus B

[Gates-slut]

Originally posted by RikkyB:

They arn't really tanks.. they arn't really artillery... (thinking of the STUG here)

Send me a 1500 point QB, human pick, and I will SHOW you what StuGs can do.

The Gates-slut formerly known as Peng

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

they arn't really artillery...

Yes they are. StuGs were a natural progression from the standard practice of using small caliber artillery in a direct fire role to support the infantry. Later they were pressed into service in an antitank role... that is still an artillery role. StuGs are part of the artillery, not Panzer, establishment. The crews were artillerymen</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Claus B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

This sums up the error of your argument - it was doctrine that dictated the removal of the turret and the hull mounted gun. It was the only way to achieve one of the design parameters, low height. And this was done long before the upgunning issue ever came up - in fact 5 years before.

Claus B</font>

Very interesting post Claus. I think a fact supporting your argument is that the Bundeswehr used the Jagdpanzer Kanone for a long time in the 60s and 70s. There was a clear doctrinal role for this vehicle by the looks of it, and this may well have been a continuation of the role that the Panzerjaeger had towards the end of WW II - tank hunting in support of the infantry. Incidentally, the German 'National Guard' (Territorialheer) had it in use until 1991.

Jagdpanzer Kanone info

The beast in all its beauty

[Cauldron]

I would love to see any evidence of a Stug Panzer division....

One thing no-one seems to mention and could make a bit of a dent in such an idea is that they used completely different radio frequencies from the other type of AFV.

This was drawn to my attention by a tank modeler many years ago and shown in the data that comes with such kits.

The German's also had some really wierd mine clearing tanks, as well as having 88mm on SPW chasis.

The book Hitler's War : Germany's Strategic Decisions 1940-45 by Heinz Magenheimer shows the MAIN problem with WW2 was the fact that Germany just did not have the industry to support it.

The Stug was rather a successful stopgap thought up by Von Manstien which due largely to German brilliance in using them as (in Manstein's words) "fire brigades" exceeded expectations:)

[Redwolf]

Claus, I think your remarks Jason's post are a bit over the top.

While it is true that the reasoning for the planning of the StuG had the AT role in it, it occurs to me that this is rather an exaggeration like anybody in any office makes to his boss when he wants a new toy. The short 75mm just doesn't cut it and they knew in 1936, that's why the Pz IV with the same gun got a little teethy brother. There was no StuG 37mm. They wanted lots of 75mm HE shells.

[Michael Dorosh]

Germany did have an industry to support it, it can be argued, but they didn't bother to mobilize it until 1944, when it was far too late. Rther than admitting to a state of war ("krieg"), they called the war a "state of national emergency" and left the women to work as hairdresses rather than in munition plants.

Cottage industries producing worthless items like collar patches for uniforms, and duplication of efforts (ie Porsche vs. Henschel King Tigers) added to the loss of productivity.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Cauldron:

I would love to see any evidence of a Stug Panzer division....

One thing no-one seems to mention and could make a bit of a dent in such an idea is that they used completely different radio frequencies from the other type of AFV.

This was drawn to my attention by a tank modeler many years ago and shown in the data that comes with such kits.

The German's also had some really wierd mine clearing tanks, as well as having 88mm on SPW chasis.

The book Hitler's War : Germany's Strategic Decisions 1940-45 by Heinz Magenheimer shows the MAIN problem with WW2 was the fact that Germany just did not have the industry to support it.

The Stug was rather a successful stopgap thought up by Von Manstien which due largely to German brilliance in using them as (in Manstein's words) "fire brigades" exceeded expectations:)

They had the industry to support it, it was Alber Spier who did not set the German economy to a war time economy until late '43 that was the problem. You'll notice at the peak of allied bombing raids on German factories, German production actualy increased a large part despite all the massive bobming attacks.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I will address the comments about the Russians, because I think they were full of purely factual errors I can correct.

The Russians most certainly did not have excess production capacity for BT-5s, because the BT pre-war series had already been phased out when the war began. They had flocks of them, but they weren't making any more. They had been produced throughout the 1930s. (Yes Virginia, they were excellent tanks for the era in which they were made - 45mm guns, fast, etc).

The Russians did have light tank production lines, but they made T-60s and T-70s, both of which were designed after the invasion began. You can think of them as the Russian's Pz II (20mm light tank) and Pz 38t (but 45mm instead of 37mm) respectively. The Germans were still using such vehicles, so the Russians did too.

But later, the Germans phased them out because they found their pop-guns weren't useful anymore. When? In 1942, after the pre-war Russian armor fleet of thin tanks was gone, and the T-34s were pouring out of the factories instead. The Germans made Marders, and in the case of the Pz II a bit later, Wespes. That utilized their light tank chassis production.

Did the Russians "never have anything like a Marder"? Sure they did. They had the SU-76, an open topped self-propelled 76mm gun, mounting their long 76mm divisional artillery piece. Hmm, same gun on some early Marders. Hmm, the 105 on the Wespe was the standard German divisional artillery piece. What did the Russians make SU-76s out of? Discontinued T-60 and T-70 production lines.

When did they stop making the light tanks and switch to SU-76s instead? About 6 months after the Germans, although teething problems until the SU-76m model made it more like a year until all production had switched over. That also about coincided with the Germans cancelling the Pz III; the Russians canceled their last 45mm tanks soon after. They kept making SU-76s right to the end of the war, and fielded tens of thousands of them. They used them as SPA, SPAT, and assault guns (one vehicle, many roles).

The parallel in the handling of light tank production capacity is therefore quite close. Both pulled them in 1942-3 and fielded upgunned SPAT or SPA instead, using the same chassis.

As for the StuG, the Russians certainly copied those German moves too. The SU-122 and the StuH are comparable weapons (limited AT ability, some HEAT to stretch it but still low muzzle velocity guns, good HE chucking, moderate armor). The SU-85 and the long 75 model StuG are also comparable weapons (similar tank killing ability in gun-armor terms). The SU-122 was a bit before the StuH, while the SU-85 was considerably later than the long 75 StuG (but a bit before the Jadgpanzer IV). The Russians also had SU-152s, certainly. The Germans had Brummbars and Nashorns, splitting the heavy HE and heavy AT roles. At the level of the "vanilla" assault guns and TDs, midwar, there was again not much difference in overall types fielded.

The Russians did eventually field much more powerful TD types, but they were only out in the last year really. Those were the ISU-122, ISU-152, and SU-100. The last of those didn't see action until 1945, the others were first used extensively in the summer of 44. They can be compared (roughly) to Jagdtigers, Elephants, Jagdpanthers, and Jagdpanzer-70s. The Russians had more of them, but then the Russian had more of all AFV types.

A more interesting question is why the Russians made so many TDs based on the T-34 chassis, when the T-34 itself was already a success - unlike the German Pz III. Part of it may have been simply copycat moves. The Russians did not want to compete with the Germans in types and doctrine about using them, though they certainly wanted to match the Germans on that score and tried to stay at least even there. They wanted to compete in pure production, in raw numbers fielded, having neutralized the other issues.

When the SU-85 was fielded, it did represent a significant upgunning compared to the T-34/76s then in service. But this was a temporary matter. Soon they had T-34/85s, and thus no extra oomph in return for sacrificing the turret. The SU-122 made more sense, as an HE support type (like the StuH) - more HE in return for less AT and no turret.

In the long run, though, the engineering trade off was similar. Any vehicle could mount a larger gun without a turret than with one. The Russians did not face the Pz III quandry of a main production vehicle too small to carry any useful gun in a turret. But they had periods of similar problems - the small T-34/76 turrets, 2-man only and not really enough AT ability once the Germans uparmored in the course of 1943. The T-34/85 solved many of those problems for them, just as the long-75 Pz IV and StuG mix had solved the earlier German one.

There were of course differences in design philosophy, noticable in the second half of the war. The Russians went for gun caliber while the Germans went for maximum muzzle velocity. That tended to make the German guns better AT weapons, especially at long range (MV is a twofer on penetration and accuracy), while the Russian ones had better HE performance. Since the Russians were attacking and the Germans defending - with fewer AFVs and as many towed guns as AFVs - that difference makes perfect sense.

But the idea that there was some night and day difference in how each dealt with production issues, upgunning, use of TD vs. use of turrets, etc - that is just not accurate. The Russians had their own versions of "Marders", and "StuGs", and "StuHs". They were called SU-76, SU-85, and SU-122.

Also, incidentally, the SU-122 was definitely an HE chucker, not a "versatile" any-role vehicle. It had low muzzle velocity and quite poor AT performance because of it. They used HEAT instead of AP because of this. It was still much harder to get hits at medium to long range with low MV. In a medium to long range duel, the StuG with long 75 would probably win, because it is more likely to get hits. The SU-122 was still a useful AFV, certainly. But more like a StuH than a StuG - let alone an all-around do-everything model.

Intersting, thanks, i forgot the SU-122 and the ISU-122 were different vehicles, i think thats where i got the misconceptions. Thanks.