StugIIIs and Stu42s

[Priest]

Stugs and Stuh have to be used correctly that is all.

Lets take a basic example of an action. You have an American platoon in a wooded area. They have two Shermans (M4a3's lets say with the either the short 75mm or the 76mm it matters not.) They have some zooks in the woods too of course.

Now as the German attacker I have one platoon of German infantry (stock rifle troops), a group of three Panzer IV's (I like the 'H' variant so I will use that) and 3 Stug III's.

Just south of the Ami's position is a small strip of light woods. I move my platoon here and engage the Ami infantry, I move my PIV's in for support. I concentrate on the armour versus armour duel, I can supplement my forces with my Stugs if I begin to lose. Once I have dealt with the Ami tanks, I move my Panzer IV's with a half squad each to picket positions within the locale area to make sure no more armour gets through. The remaining squad and a half engages the enemy infantry and the Stugs support them. The Ami infantry is defeated.

Now this is very "clean" op described above but if you are experienced enough in using your overall forces and applying pressure to defending units (thus holding them in place) you can achieve these situations rather easily.

[arax3]

Once upon a time .... . In a scenario battle against the AI, I used a Brit FT in a conceled position on the other side of a bridge. The Tigers and Panthers came roaring across; the FT popped out of hiding and made crispy critters out of both of them. Is defnitly better on the defense. L3

[Woodmeister]

If you want a good tank destroyer, try the Jagdpanzer IV L70 variant. It has an incredibly accurate gun, owing to its high muzzle velocity. This makes them very useful for picking off allied tanks from long range, especially in ambushes.

[PiggDogg]

For the Germans, Hetzers and PzIV/70s in a ratio of 1-1/2 to 2 Hetzers to one PzIV/70 is a most deadly anti-tank combo. Hetzers can kill almost all Allied tin cans. The PzIV/70s can kill the more difficult Allied tanks such as Churchills & Jumbos which the Hetzers can't kill & back away from.

As well known, Hetzers are cheap for the buck. PzIVs/70 are expensive, but can kill what the Hetzers can't.

Of course, if possible, place these fellows up slope, hull down, and overlooking the battle area. In these positions, these guys hard to hit and, even better, they may even have a shell or two bounce off of them. Bouncing a shell or two and then killing that evil shooter is usually the difference between victory & defeat.

StgIIIs & StgIVs carry no allure for me. PzIVs seem to die when hit by pea shooters. These guys will die when hit once. No bouncing shots here. Needless to say, this is bad, bad. I don't like them.

In contrast, Stg42s with that lovely 105mm anti infantry gun are sweet. Keep them away from any Allied AT guns and let them pummel the Allied infantry. Too bad they don't carry quite enough ammo. However, the Germans should have one of these guys around. I like a few of these guys.

Opinions are like noses, everyone has them.

Cheers, Richard

[ May 23, 2002, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[HarryInk]

Well wow! Thanks everyone for the replies and advice...especially the stats, Silvio. Oh, and I join him in welcoming all and sundry to discussions regardless of experience.

I was reading about German assault guns today in a military bookshop. The Osprey book on them stated they were meant to be used more or less as identified by players here (ie. supporting infantry...not from the front but as close support DF near the front...or they were an A/T curtain which battle tanks withdrew behind, hoping the enemy tanks would pursue and get skewered by hull downed A/Guns).

The important difference that it informed me of...and its source was the German Assault Gun commander's handbook ... was that A/Gs were only to be used en masse. Single troops were not to be farmed out. Rather they were a higher level asset to be used by divisional commanders to really beef up their main attacks. We don't get to enjoy that side of them in CM when we're playing 1-2000 point games. Maybe the truly ambitious can get drawn into some enormous 4-5000 point game where you're pushing around regiments and drawing in brigade and division assets. Otherwise, they'll stay as stray 1s 2s or 3s in somewhat unhistorical but still fun combos

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

... Stg42s with that lovely 105mm anti infantry gun are sweet. Keep them away from any Allied AT guns...

The Wespe is more accurate with the same gun, according to the test I did some time ago;

Cheers

Olle

[Patgod]

at least the stuh doesnt get killed by .50cals

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

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

... Stg42s with that lovely 105mm anti infantry gun are sweet. Keep them away from any Allied AT guns...

The Wespe is more accurate with the same gun, according to the test I did some time ago;

Cheers

Olle</font>

[PiggDogg]

The "big" disadvantage of Wespes & Hummels (as compared to Stg42s) is that they die from nearby hits from big arty (155s [my 155s have inflicted this, so I personnally know] &, probably 105s) and, because of their open tops, they die from nearby tree bursts. Stg42s have much less chance of similar destrution. :eek: :eek:

Further, 50 cals will whack Wespes & Hummels. But, wow, those 150s on the Hummels are some sweet (they slaughter infantry), but such a slow rate of fire.

Personnally, I'll take the Stg42s because they are more robust than the Wespes & Hummels.

Cheers, Richard

[ May 24, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by redwolf:

What kind of testing did you do? Please describe. Do you still have the exact results?

I think the image says everything important;

Flat map.

Four SP howitzers, regular troop quality.

Area fire at targets 1560m away (the centre of each road crossing), 18HE each.

Observe the spread.

I've also a test of 81mm mortars presented at Combat mission för svensktalande.

Cheers

Olle

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

I think the image says everything important;

Flat map.

Four SP howitzers, regular troop quality.

Area fire at targets 1560m away (the centre of each road crossing), 18HE each.

Observe the spread.

Sorry, I didn't see the image earlier because I was on a browser with no pictures :-/

That's very interesting, I was so sure assuming that all Axis 105mm would have the same accuracy both against armored and unarmored targets that I never came around to test it. Damn...

[Redwolf]

Regarding the Wespe, the biggest reason I find them to be too fragile are mortars. I don't fear the .50cal too much, at least the Wespe is a lot better than the Hummel.

If you take a CMBO mortar with two bonusses over regular it will most probably hit a Wespe within one turn. And the British come with lots of 2" mortars, if they get into range, all bets are off.

I won't start speaking of VT artillery and open-top vehicles...

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by redwolf:

That's very interesting, I was so sure assuming that all Axis 105mm would have the same accuracy both against armored and unarmored targets that I never came around to test it. Damn...

Hey, Redwolf, buckhead, didn't occur to your that maybe the height of the gun mount is resposible for the bigger spread when shooting at a horizontal target?

Of course, since unarmored targets are always attacked by shooting at the ground nearby that is the most important kind of accuracy you might want.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Hey, Redwolf, buckhead, didn't occur to your that maybe the height of the gun mount is resposible for the bigger spread when shooting at a horizontal target?

Listen to me, tt is none of your freaking business at what height my gun is mounted, man (I assume).

[Redwolf]

So what happens when the StuH is standing on a slight elevantion so that its gun is higher than the Wespe's?

[Redwolf]

I ran some test of precision of StuH versus Wespe.

I could not find that either elevation makes a difference, nor could I reproduce a difference between the two vehicles consistently over more than one test game run.

However, I noticed that individual vehicles in CMBO behave differently, one vehicle over one game. I noticed that before with other things, mainly in the tendency to engage infantry with main guns. In this case individual Wespe or StuH were less precise, consistently over one game, over the full game, but a different characteristic each time you start the game.

It is possible that I am just crazy, but that is what I found in 4 test games with 6 vehicles each, and as I said I noticed things like that before.

[HarryInk]

Hi all,

Thanks for the great posts about Stuh42s and StugIIIs, especial Silvio's stats. And also a welcome! to newbies. I've found the CM crowd very virtually supporting

Regarding the Assault Guns .. though I realise the discussion's strayed a little .. I flicked thru an Osprey book on them in a military bookshop in here Melbourne. The text quoted from the German A/G commander's handbook and noted two types of deployment for them.

1. They're used in the A/T role when situated en masse as a curtain behind which battle tanks retire, hoping to lure the enemy tanks to skewer themselves on the (presumedly well positioned, maybe even dug in Stu's.

2. They're deployed for to support infantry assault, en masse. I emphasise the first point [support] after losing a StugIII and a PIV in a TCP battle the other night cos I brought them unnecessarily within zook range. Moreover, earlier in that battle, I had nerves about a lone zook team that charged toward the tanks' position. I didn't have an infantry screen to protect the tanks and the terrain was going to make it an even contest. So I learnt that tanks kill tanks #1, but do so best when protected from the distraction of enemy inf AT by a friendly infanty screen; and that when they've neutralised the enemy armor, they do well to support the inf assault again.

2. It seems that the Germans virtually refused to deploy the Assault Guns in the numbers we'd usually use them for in CM. The Osprey text made it pretty clear that deploying lone troops of AGs was just not on. They are brigade or divisional level assets, to be used as big steroid injections to major assaults, and must have done their jobs in company+ size formations. In practical terms this would ameliorate the fretting about flanks and traverse. On your flank would have been another AG, and another on its flank, and there would have been a second line behind you to fill the gaps and take out enemy elements that were busily firing at you.

Hmmmmmm

[Silvio Manuel]

Heh, I hope y'all don't think I was spouting those StuG stats off the top of my head...it was more like read stats, hit ESC, type, alt-tab, read stats, ESC, type, etc. Well OK I did have some of them memorized... ;D

[Redwolf]

The intended historical usage and practice soetimes show interesting differences.

Originally, the StuGs were not planned by the "new" German armor warfare planers at all. All the money for expensive AFVs should go into the real tank forces, none should be parcled out to infantry. The infantry was supposed to live with towed guns (especially the 75mm and 150mm infantry gun). Manstein's demands cause the constructuction of the StuGs.

The first intresting edge here is the AT capability. The early StuGs had the short 75mm L/24 gun. The AT capablity is rather neglectable, mosty from a hit probablity standpoint. The short-75mm StuGs were more like the StuH in the CMBO timeframe (just without effective HC round), they were HE shooters for at the time big HE rounds. Nontheless the papers arguing for the introdution of the StuG praise their AT capablity.

For me, that looks like any random marketing lie today, compare the protective capablities of the Striker (yeah, 14.5mm proof within the weight limitation, fill it with Helium or what. Yeah, same speed in "all terrain") or the amphipious capabilties of many lighter AFVs today.

Well, anyway, the StuGs were certainly an improvement over infantry guns strapped on random chassis (wheels and all), and they did not cause a massive redirection of money for this tactical purpose like the British infantry tanks did. The StuGs were not cheap and weakend the real tank forces, but at least they were much cheaper than very thick tanks with turrets.

Regading unit sizes, I think that there was a requirement to use only in sufficient number at a time for almost every piece of equipment except maybe condoms. Amoung AFVs, the StuGs were probably those where it wasn't possible to actually do it. Concentration of tanks and tank hunters had priority. In the CMBO timeframe, the Eastern Front was almost deserted of tanks, especially the northern and middle part. StuGs were used to plug gaps everywhere. Large gaps, few StuGs. Late-war accounts of eastern front soldiers praise appearances of single StuGs like christmas.

[Stalin's Organ]

The 75L24 did not have poor AT capacity for it's time.

Remember that it was introduced when all nations split their tanks into cruisers and infantry tanks (to use the British parlance), and armour was usually in the order of 20-30mm.

Infantry tanks in most armies had a 75mm or equivalent gun firing a decent HE charge (German 75/L24, Brit 3" CS howitzer, Russian 76mm L16 and L26??), while cruisers had 37-50mm guns often without any HE rounds at all early on (such as the Brit 2 pdr, German 37, Russian 45).

The 2 pdr in the Matilda 2 was an odity in the "normal" scheme of things, as was the combination of armour and large calibre long gun in he KV-1 and T34.

The short 75 only came to grief when faced by the thicker armour on T34's, KV's and Matilda's - it was perfectly capable of defeating the vast majority of allied tanks up until 1942 at normal battle ranges - Crusaders, A-9's and A-10's and A-13's, BT-5's and -7's, T-60's, T-26's, etc.

[Stalin's Organ]

Oops - I nearly forgot the poor old French, who arguably had the world's best tanks in service in any numbers in 1940, but F-ed it up with their 1 man turrets - the S.35 of course having good armour and a better gun than average (47mm).

And some of their infantry tanks weer a bit odd - the H35 and R39 (or is it the other way around??) with fairly good armour, and the venerable and vulnerable F17 - all a bit useless really - although dangerous enough given the generally poor state of AT assets in most armies of the time.

But even they had the Char 2B and it's predecessors in teh traditional "infantry" role - with the 75mm hull mounted cannon providing HE support.

[Patgod]

i believe it was R35 and H39. the H39 wasn that bad from what i've heard.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

The 75L24 did not have poor AT capacity for it's time.

[...]

The short 75 only came to grief when faced by the thicker armour on T34's, KV's and Matilda's - it was perfectly capable of defeating the vast majority of allied tanks up until 1942 at normal battle ranges - Crusaders, A-9's and A-10's and A-13's, BT-5's and -7's, T-60's, T-26's, etc.

The penetration may have been fine, but as most close support AFVs it is the hit probablity that kills it.

Don't be mislead by the CMBO numbers look are quite usable for the 75mm L/24. A recently posted report on the British 95mm attributed 1/6th of the hit probablity when compared to the 6pdr at 1000 yards.

Or in other evidence, if the 75mm L/24 is usable as AT weapon, why did the Germans build so many 37mm Pz III and so few 75mm L/24 Pz IV?

[Austrian Strategist]

***HEALTH WARNING: My experience with CM is extremely limited; use of my advice may lead to losing your games.***

Stuh42

Keyword: Infantry Support

Description: Infantry Support AFV

Advantages: Great to kill Infantry Guns, Mortars and such from a distance; good against Infantry; relatively inexpensive

Disadvantage: Useless against Tanks

How to use: Keep hidden until all enemy AFVs are goners, then use it to help your Infantry clean up the board

OR

Use as a bait to draw enemy Tanks into the LOS of your Paks/Flaks/Nashorns/Jagdpanthers/Whatever

StugIII

Keyword: Flexibility

Description: All Purpose AFV

Advantages: Not very bad at anything; inexpensive

Disadvantage: Not very good at anything

How to use: If you have no clue what your opponent is up to, buy a few StugIIIs and use them to back up either your Infantry or AT assets as needed

[Patgod]

you pretty much got it right.