Pz IV cheaper than Stugs?

[IMHO]

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

That I disagree. There was no particular problem pumping up production. Here's the tank production numbers as an example. Trust me other weapons production numbers will look similar except for some exotic stuff (these I took from wikipedia but they look good - you can cross check).

Pre-war 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945

3,503 370 2,799 3,623 5,530 13,657 18,956 4,406

The thing is the Germany was a peaceful economy until Speer implemented economy mobilization in 1943. Before that there were a lot of unused reserves in terms of production capacity allocated to peaceful means. Plus women - even at the end of WWII women labor in Germany was quite rare. And that was quite an unused reserve.

As far as I remember - hard to look up the numbers at this hour - forced labor was not massively used for then-hi-tech military production. It was mostly employed at infrastructure projects and low-tech or supporting staff. That was actually why it was a death row - they made people haul heavy things and hardly fed them. But FREE local labor at heavy industries at France, Czech, Hungary DID contribute much of high quality stuff.

In general quality for things like armor or shells fell firstly because delivery of non ferrous metals were cut out.

Wehrmacht counts I took from something like axishistory.com - google it and you'll find. I have some paper sources for the German WWII production/imports but if google stuff looks good I don't cross check to save time.

If you're interested an "Inside the Third Reich" by Speer book might be a nice source. It does not have too many numbers but it reads like a thriller and gives the most accurate perspective of German economy.

[IMHO]

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.

1. I wouldn't mix StuG performance with JPzIV. Almost all JPzIV had 7.5 L70 (probably the best AT gun of WWII) whereas StuG - 7.5 L48 tops. JPzIV had very sloped armor whereas StuG's glacis is a mess. JPzIV, if I'm not mistaken, had lower gun depression angles than StuG.

2. I don't have after action reports at hand at the moment but I remember even in Eastern front soldiers preferred PzKpfW IV to StuG. One reason, if I'm not mistaken, was gun depression angle - StuGs are difficult to put into hull down.

[DavidFields]

As one poster has already mentioned, given that the point costs are somewhat arbitrary, I guessed that this was revenge for the supposed super Stug of CM1. (If I peeked over into the CM1 forums, I wouldn't be suprised if there was still an active thread on Stug frontal armor supposed mismodeling....wait for it...wait for it....someone is going to pose an indignant post on my use of the word "supposed.")

[Sgt Schultz]

I keep slipping back into CM1 thinking, when JPzIV wasn't available at certain times.

Yes, the IV and later JagdTiger were clearly superior to StuG. The "li'l PzIII variant that could" still has a place in my heart though.

[Michael Emrys]

If you're interested an "Inside the Third Reich" by Speer book might be a nice source. It does not have too many numbers but it reads like a thriller and gives the most accurate perspective of German economy.

Read that 35 years ago. As for "most accurate"...well, maybe not. Speer spent a lot of ink grinding his own ax.

Have you read Wages of Destruction by J. Adam Tooze? If not, you should run not walk to your nearest copy and you will see where I am coming from. Not necessarily the absolute last word on the German war economy, but probably the best book in English on the subject at the present moment.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Yes, the IV and later JagdTiger were clearly superior to StuG.

And I'd rate the Jagdpanther better than either of them.

Michael

[IMHO]

Read that 35 years ago. As for "most accurate"...well, maybe not. Speer spent a lot of ink grinding his own ax.

Have you read Wages of Destruction by J. Adam Tooze? If not, you should run not walk to your nearest copy and you will see where I am coming from. Not necessarily the absolute last word on the German war economy, but probably the best book in English on the subject at the present moment.

Michael

Wow, 35 yrs ago I was... Well... I actually wasn't here at all Sorry for my lame advice

I didn't read Tooze - will run first thing tomorrow.

Can you elaborate on what he/you think on the topic? I mean the production numbers show increase in output across the board, Germans are able to put into production ever more sophisticated weaponry. Sure we face the lack of non ferrous metals and oil but that's the plight we can't avoid once we started to go this path. So?

[wokelly]

Could the StuG cost more because they were rarer in Normandy than the Mark IV. Buckley (citing Zitterling) puts StuGs committed at under 600, which is slighly less than the Panther numbers (650) which served and much less than Mark IVs (900). I know there is a rarity cost thing but maybe the moderate difference was just represented in the cost category rather than the rarity part.

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.

Why did StuGs get lower grade armour?

[Michael Emrys]

Wow, 35 yrs ago I was... Well... I actually wasn't here at all Sorry for my lame advice

No prob. I've done worse.

I didn't read Tooze - will run first thing tomorrow.

Can you elaborate on what he/you think on the topic? I mean the production numbers show increase in output across the board, Germans are able to put into production ever more sophisticated weaponry. Sure we face the lack of non ferrous metals and oil but that's the plight we can't avoid once we started to go this path. So?

Hard to summarize a book that is 848 pages long, but the key point of the moment is that the increases were due to changes instituted by Speer's predecessors, he just took credit for them. And in fact, Tooze argues that Speer's interference actually made things worse in some areas.

The shortages of critical materials—and even iron and steel—were a predictable consequence of going to war and having a blockade imposed. Which is why some people in the know were sweating bullets about Hitler's obvious march towards war. The others mostly swept their misgivings under the carpet because they were doing so well personally by the situation as it was developing. But that's not news.

Michael

[Narses]

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.

Probably why the Stug did so well on the Eastern Front where ranges were usually much longer. Another important advantage for the Stug was it had better sighting equipment from what I've read.

[argie]

Probably why the Stug did so well on the Eastern Front where ranges were usually much longer. Another important advantage for the Stug was it had better sighting equipment from what I've read.

I think so too. Not being part of the Panzers, but Artillery, the StuG had a pretty good optic and range finding system in its top.

[MikeyD]

StuG's optics were (was?) its undoing in Normandy. All those close fields and raised bocage bases, the gunsight well above the gunline causing a parallax problem. The gunner sees the distant target. The gunner fires. The round drills into the ground right ahead of the StuG. Heck, I've done that myself in the game!

[Sakai007]

Just like the iron sights on an M16/M4 assault rifle. If you are aiming at a target closer then the 300 meter zero, you have to aim BELOW your target to hit it. I believe that the sweet spot ranges where you can put sight on target and shoot are at both 75 meters and 300 meters. The sights are raised so far above the barrel that the bullet leaves the end and raises to meet the sight line at 75 meters, travels in an arc, and descends to meet them again at 300 meters. That is how I was taught to zero my rifle in the Army, and I remember having to force myself to aim at the ground to hit targets center mass at 50 meters!!!

[Michael Emrys]

StuG's optics were (was?) its undoing in Normandy. All those close fields and raised bocage bases, the gunsight well above the gunline causing a parallax problem. The gunner sees the distant target. The gunner fires. The round drills into the ground right ahead of the StuG. Heck, I've done that myself in the game!

Thing is, I saw a couple of my Shermans doing the same thing last night. It caused some shells that should have passed over the heads of my infantry to strike the ground nearby, creating casualties.

Michael

[IMHO]

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

Michael

I found the source. http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

[LemuelG]

I'm guessing.. it's because Pz.IVs are more likely to operate in formation, maybe?

German commanders actually moaned about the Panther's performance in bocage country, the long barrel became a genuine liability. Jagdpanzer IVs also suffered from these issues - one unfortunate collision between your long long gun and, anything at all - it's now useless. Maneuvering these vehicles in confined spaces required a lot of care and co-ordination from the crew.