Pz IV cheaper than Stugs?

[raz_atoth]

Pz IV H(late)-248 points;rarity cost:0

Stug III G(mid)-293 points:rarity cost:0

Is there a reason why the Pz 4 is cheaper?It carries more AP/HE rounds (even the MG ammo load is higher) and if my memory stands correct both have the front armor of 80mm(with the turret of the Pz 4 being 50mm).And above all the Pz 4 is a tank-thus has a turret-unlike the stug?

Am i missing something here,or-less likely-it's something that BFC overlooked?

Regards,

Raz.

[panzermartin]

Game wise, stug is a more tough opponent for allied tanks - extremely low profile and no paper thin turret like the Mark4. Still its a bit overpriced, given that the uber Panther is just 50-60pts more expensive! I'm not impressed with the Stug's hull armor either seems rather easy to knock them out from the front with plain 75 Shermans at the ranges of most normandy maps. Maybe reducing their price 25-30pts would make them a little more desirable.

[Sakai007]

IIRC Stugs killed more tanks then the PzIV. They were for different roles, in a sense. The PzIV was a tank, and therefor designed to support Infantry units and exploit break through operations. The Stug was an assault gun, operating in a role similar to JagdPanzers and defending infantry from enemy armor. In the defense, the Stug was an out standing tank killer. True, later role designed JPs has better frontal armor, but the Stug had already been there for quite a while and crews were very experienced in their use and commanders were well versed in their deployment. I would place the Stug higher on a price list then the PzIV. IMO

[Wego McPbem]

Honestly so far I've found stugs more useful than pz iv's. They seem to survive more frontal hits than my pz iv's have and they seem harder to hit with their lower profile. Sure they aren't great vs infantry but thats why you bring along one of the 105mm howitzer variants

[raz_atoth]

They do have a lower profile-that's true-thus are harder to spot,i assume. I do believe,though,the advantages of the Pz 4 (turret &higher ammo count) outweighs the marginal spotting advantages of the stug. I for one would take -even at equal costs- a Pz 4 over a stug any time.

The only advantage-in game terms-of the stug would be the lower cost which is not the case at the moment. That's why,i guess,i haven't seen-and i played quite a few pbem games-anyone purchasing stugs.

[Sergei]

The PzIV was a tank, and therefor designed to support Infantry units and exploit break through operations.

I don't think I agree with that definition of tank - mainly the part that it was designed to support infantry units. Some tanks were, but the mid-to-late war PzKpfw IV was intended to be used that way only under exceptional circumstances. Tanks are offensive weapons, and infantry would ideally support them in the battle - this was the secret of the Blitzkrieg that brought the Panzer arm so much success during the early war years.

StuG was much harder to use effectively in the offense (or in a defensive "dogfight") because once a hostile was spotted, it would have to come to a full halt and the driver would need to steer the whole vehicle to face toward the enemy before the gunner could do anything. This made them useful for defensive operations where they could snipe from prepared positions or acting as infantry direct support, but it would take highly experienced crews to see them act as the tip of the spear like a true Panzer. Of course, like any German AFVs, situation often necessitated using them as Panzer-replacements...

[panzermartin]

Yes but you do know that a PzIV can lose an armor duel even with a Stuart?

[Wego McPbem]

They do have a lower profile-that's true-thus are harder to spot,i assume. I do believe,though,the advantages of the Pz 4 (turret &higher ammo count) outweighs the marginal spotting advantages of the stug. I for one would take -even at equal costs- a Pz 4 over a stug any time.

The only advantage-in game terms-of the stug would be the lower cost which is not the case at the moment. That's why,i guess,i haven't seen-and i played quite a few pbem games-anyone purchasing stugs.

Only time I would take a pz iv over a stug is when I know I'm going to have to do a lot of fighting on the move. The turret is an advantage in some ways but it's also a liability. Going hull down in a pziv is usually just inviting a shot through the thin turret, put a stug hull down and its hard to hit and has a better chance of surviving frontal hits from 75's. Maybe its just a playstyle thing though, I am more of an overwatch and sniping guy when it comes to afvs.

[IMHO]

"Cost of single Ausf G was 82500RM making it cheaper than both PzKpfw III Ausf M at 103163RM and PzKpfw IV Ausf F2 at 115962RM."

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/sturmgeschutz-iii-sturmgeschutz-iv.htm

Production numbers

9,408 StuG III

8,800 PzKpfW IV (estimate)

wikipidia.org

[slysniper]

it is just a plot to get rid of Stugs in PBEM games, way to many were played with in CMx1, its time to get the PzIV into the action also.

Lets have red on red testing and see which is truly better. The same test that you see for sports cars and stuff, testing all situations of course.

[Sergei]

Yes but you do know that a PzIV can lose an armor duel even with a Stuart?

And a Sherman can lose to a Stummel. I still wouldn't take a Stummel over a real tank, though.

[Sergei]

wikipidia.org

I have doubts over your source.

Oh and by the way, building a grown man with full military training is even more expensive than building a metal tank, and an infantry squad has 9-12 of them compared to 3-5 in a tank crew. w00t, infantry is underpriced!!!

[IMHO]

I have doubts over your source.

Well... You can find another Seriously, Stugs were more plentiful and cheaper by all means. Actually less armor (read nickel, manganese that were so difficult to get for the Germany), no precision-made gun mantlet bearings, no traverse mechanism. I guess if you count in terms of critical materials and man-hours the difference will be even more drastic than in terms of simple reichmarks.

Oh and by the way, building a grown man with full military training is even more expensive than building a metal tank, and an infantry squad has 9-12 of them compared to 3-5 in a tank crew. w00t, infantry is underpriced!!!

I doubt that even for the start of WWII. For mid to end of WWII that would be grossly untrue - people were thrown into the battlefield with very basic to no training at all.

[Sergei]

Well... You can find another

Such as Wekepedea.org? Nah, I think I'll pass!

I doubt that even for the start of WWII. For mid to end of WWII that would be grossly untrue - people were thrown into the battlefield with very basic to no training at all.

Still, you must put a price to the years of upbringing - it is work that could have been put into use in the factory had the infant not shamelessly required food, fostering and schooling for all those years. The foremost duty of a man is to pay taxes to the state, and all of that is lost if he dies in a war at the age of 20.

[IMHO]

Such as Wekepedea.org? Nah, I think I'll pass!

Other sources will actually give even higher counts for Stugs, if I remember correctly. Weh-keh-pedia gives a strangely low number.

Still, you must put a price to the years of upbringing - it is work that could have been put into use in the factory had the infant not shamelessly required food, fostering and schooling for all those years. The foremost duty of a man is to pay taxes to the state, and all of that is lost if he dies in a war at the age of 20.

OK, for infantry let's count in the costs of defending the German land from the Roman invasion. That will improve the infantry side of the equation

Anyway, I see you're truly an awesome opponent Let's close the discussion.

[MikeyD]

In contemporary German documents the German high command was not happy with the performance of StuG and Jpz in Normandy. They were considered a failure while Panther and PzIV were praised. The nature of the terrain really limited the utility of those low-mounted guns with rof-mounted sights.

[IMHO]

In contemporary German documents the German high command was not happy with the performance of StuG and Jpz in Normandy. They were considered a failure while Panther and PzIV were praised. The nature of the terrain really limited the utility of those low-mounted guns with rof-mounted sights.

I support that. Even for Russian steppe they were a pain in the ass due to the difficulty of going hull-down. Plus Germany normally used lower-grade armor on Stugs. But for Normandy they were close to a disaster as LOS was normally severely limited. So you sprint to the next bockage and you get a side penetration from the fast rotating Sherman turret.

May be Stug dominance is a conscious game design choice.

[panzermartin]

Got to admit this is well portrayed in the game. Assault guns are not that useful in the bocage. They take ages to pivot in those narrow lanes and the close combat ranges make them vulnerable to average US guns. Stugs will have to wait for the ostfront modules..

[Michael Emrys]

Still, you must put a price to the years of upbringing - it is work that could have been put into use in the factory had the infant not shamelessly required food, fostering and schooling for all those years. The foremost duty of a man is to pay taxes to the state, and all of that is lost if he dies in a war at the age of 20.

But you are failing—let me repeat that, FAILING—to take into account that people are having babies and raising kids anyway. As far as the army is concerned, all those warm bodies are just freebies; whereas, to get an AFV of any sort they have to go through the process of letting a contract, allocating resources, and generally shuffling mountains of bureaucratic paperwork (although admittedly the Germans were great lovers of the latter). I think any reasonable person would have agreed that the warm bodies were much easier come by...at least until they started running out of them. Which didn't happen until...oh, about the third quarter of 1941. Oops.

Michael

[IMHO]

But you are failing—let me repeat that, FAILING—to take into account that people are having babies and raising kids anyway. As far as the army is concerned, all those warm bodies are just freebies; whereas, to get an AFV of any sort they have to go through the process of letting a contract, allocating resources, and generally shuffling mountains of bureaucratic paperwork (although admittedly the Germans were great lovers of the latter). I think any reasonable person would have agreed that the warm bodies were much easier come by...at least until they started running out of them. Which didn't happen until...oh, about the third quarter of 1941. Oops.

Michael

Actually I'd say they run out of bodies only in 1945. Stats are given below. 1945 numbers looks good (greater than 1942) but they include volksturm, hitlerjugend and other "hopeless" units. Bodies were never and issue. First and foremost the problem was industrial production capacity and access to critical materials. Second is military decision making - command structure and decision making, weapons production priorities, research and development etc.

Wehrmacht

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1939: 4,722,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1940: 6,600,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1941: 8,154,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1942: 9,580,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1943: 11,280,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1944: 12,070,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1945: 9,701,000+

[Sergei]

But you are failing—let me repeat that, FAILING—to take into account that people are having babies and raising kids anyway.

And YOU are failing to take into account that a man who lives to the retirement age and dies is going to make the state better off, whereas a man who lives to the age of 20 and dies is only going to cost money in lost tax revenue!

[Michael Emrys]

And YOU are failing to take into account that a man who lives to the retirement age and dies is going to make the state better off, whereas a man who lives to the age of 20 and dies is only going to cost money in lost tax revenue!

I think rather it was the Nazi regime that failed to give that due consideration. Just one of their many gross blunders. Another example would be failing to consider the economic consequences of having their cities blasted to hell.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Actually I'd say they run out of bodies only in 1945. Stats are given below. 1945 numbers looks good (greater than 1942) but they include volksturm, hitlerjugend and other "hopeless" units. Bodies were never and issue. First and foremost the problem was industrial production capacity and access to critical materials. Second is military decision making - command structure and decision making, weapons production priorities, research and development etc.

Wehrmacht

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1939: 4,722,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1940: 6,600,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1941: 8,154,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1942: 9,580,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1943: 11,280,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1944: 12,070,000+

In Wehrmacht Service*, 1945: 9,701,000+

I figured somebody would make that argument. The thing is, all those guys were being pulled out of jobs that they would otherwise be doing, including in defense industries. As more and more skilled laborers were drafted into uniform, they had to be replaced on the production line with less skilled German workers and then with slave labor. And despite stringent measures to counteract that, efficiency and quality continued to drop. This was actually somewhat of a problem all through the war, and became critical in 1944, the name year your numbers peak out.

Interesting numbers, BTW. Where did you come across them?

Michael

[Sgt Schultz]

Once we are out of the bocage, yonder StuGs will shine like the stars they are at range.

Hilly semi-wooded terrain with long shots. The StuG is a bush until the Amis get the "flaming datum" of a Zippo going up. Then try to hit the thing at 800+ meters as it backs away to take up another position 200 meters even further down the line.

In any non-constricted defensive battle, I would choose a StuG/JPzIV over almost any turreted vehicle.

[Narses]

Only time I would take a pz iv over a stug is when I know I'm going to have to do a lot of fighting on the move. The turret is an advantage in some ways but it's also a liability. Going hull down in a pziv is usually just inviting a shot through the thin turret, put a stug hull down and its hard to hit and has a better chance of surviving frontal hits from 75's. Maybe its just a playstyle thing though, I am more of an overwatch and sniping guy when it comes to afvs.

According to German reports from Normandy and the Bocage areas the troops did not like the Stug as it was very difficult to use effectively they said in the Bocage - profile too low and without a turret it was difficult in that restriced area to bring the gun to bear. This was in Jentz, Panzer Truppen Vol 2.