Stug. were used in place of tanks because there was a shortage of tanks. It was not a deliberate decision because of any inherent superiority of the Stug. Thet were making the best of what was available.
StuG III
- Thread starter Amsel
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Stug. were used in place of tanks because there was a shortage of tanks. It was not a deliberate decision because of any inherent superiority of the Stug. Thet were making the best of what was available.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I don't doubt that. It's the same reason WWII Germany produced the Marder series of SP AT guns using whatever tracked vehicle chassis were available. It's also why hundreds of captured Soviet T-34s were modified to German standards and then issued to both Heer and Waffen SS units.
Erich
the old Sage
Dave the time frame is 1944, I thought this was somewhat clear, obviously not ..........
The PZ IV was not infantry support vehicles were tanks like others panzer, was not issued a special units, the 75 short gun had best penetration of 37 (with AP) with newest HEAT ammo also best of 50/42
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Any ideas why the Allies didn't adopt the StuG concept?
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The Sherman tank served the same purpose and the western allies had plenty of them.
They did.
French had Char B, USA had M3 medium (Grant/Lee in UK service), Russkies developed SU-85, -100, 122 -152, and ISU-122 152.
Brits also had many CS (= close support) versions of their tanks, with hull mounted 3in howitzer.
Dave just beat me for another reason
French had Char B, USA had M3 medium (Grant/Lee in UK service), Russkies developed SU-85, -100, 122 -152, and ISU-122 152.
Brits also had many CS (= close support) versions of their tanks, with hull mounted 3in howitzer.
Dave just beat me for another reason
Last edited:
Erich
the old Sage
the purpose of the Stug III in later marks changed from support vehicle to active panzer replacement and if need be AT
pick up a copy of one of the Stug unit histories or Sturmgeschütze vor
pick up a copy of one of the Stug unit histories or Sturmgeschütze vor
Erich
the old Sage
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Hello Tomo
British CS tanks usually had their main weapon, early on 3.7in howitzer, then 3in howitzer and later, from Churchill V/Cromwell VI onwards, 95mm howitzer, in their turret, only one early Churchill Mk had the 3in howitzer in the hull and then there was Churchill 3in Gun Carrier in which turret was replaced with 3in cannon in an armoured box, but that was IIRC only a proto or limited production vehicle. British CS tanks were not infantry support vehicles, their function was to give smoke and HE support to gun tanks, which had 2pdr or 6pdr guns which had no or poor HE ammo. Later they just have more effective HE/smoke ammo than gun tanks with 75mm gun.
But British had whole class of tanks specially designed for infantry support, from Matilda I to Churchill Mk VIII, the infantry tanks. In essence heavily armoured but slowly moving mg-nets before they got US 75mm gun with good HE capacity, but lost some anti-armour power, 2pdr was excellent A/T gun up and incl 1940 and 6pdr has good A/T power during 42-43 but was inadequate against front armour of Pz V or VI.
Juha
British CS tanks usually had their main weapon, early on 3.7in howitzer, then 3in howitzer and later, from Churchill V/Cromwell VI onwards, 95mm howitzer, in their turret, only one early Churchill Mk had the 3in howitzer in the hull and then there was Churchill 3in Gun Carrier in which turret was replaced with 3in cannon in an armoured box, but that was IIRC only a proto or limited production vehicle. British CS tanks were not infantry support vehicles, their function was to give smoke and HE support to gun tanks, which had 2pdr or 6pdr guns which had no or poor HE ammo. Later they just have more effective HE/smoke ammo than gun tanks with 75mm gun.
But British had whole class of tanks specially designed for infantry support, from Matilda I to Churchill Mk VIII, the infantry tanks. In essence heavily armoured but slowly moving mg-nets before they got US 75mm gun with good HE capacity, but lost some anti-armour power, 2pdr was excellent A/T gun up and incl 1940 and 6pdr has good A/T power during 42-43 but was inadequate against front armour of Pz V or VI.
Juha
Last edited:
Hello CB
most of Sturmartillery fell under artillery branch, those which were organic in Panzerdivs, at least those in Pz regiments in early 43 when they were used as substitudes to non-exist panzers, belonged to armoured troops. Those which were ad-hoc uattached to panzer divs remained in artillery branch. I cannot recall the status of organic sturmartillery battalions of Panzergrenadierdivs.
Juha
most of Sturmartillery fell under artillery branch, those which were organic in Panzerdivs, at least those in Pz regiments in early 43 when they were used as substitudes to non-exist panzers, belonged to armoured troops. Those which were ad-hoc uattached to panzer divs remained in artillery branch. I cannot recall the status of organic sturmartillery battalions of Panzergrenadierdivs.
Juha
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The StuG series were excellent inexpensive infantry support vehicles. However they cannot compare with the Panther G, which is what all German armored battalions would have had if enough were available during 1944.
