Sturmgeschütze

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The little StuGs were always there and always hard to find, I know that. But you say the Pz.IVs get mention - not really. I've found the greater mentions go to the big guns of the Wehrmacht like the King, Tiger and Panther ... it's a shame, really ... because the Pz.IVG - J were still big hitters in the late years.
 
Yes the Pz IV's in communique in 45 although for the most part they were being phased out....not really just depleted so much that the Stugs were occupying at Kompanie strength in the Heer and W-SS Panzer regiments during the lat 6 months of the war.
 
Certainly were in the end of their days, the Panther was in larger numbers during the Ardennes Offensive ... but the Western Allied, and major tanks of the Red Army still had trouble against the Pz.IV ... only, really, the IS-2 of the Red Army was in a comfortable position against them. And even then .. comfortable is an over-statement,
 
Stug III's and their 9th W-SS crewmen on manuevers pre Ost front ~ 1943
 

Attachments

  • panzer73_164.jpg
    panzer73_164.jpg
    157.2 KB · Views: 270
A lot of stories I was told when I was a kid were about Stugs, Hetzers, Panthers and IV's - suppose I'm lucky?

Some Stugs were made of mild steel, unhardened. - Wouldn't have wanna been in those! :shock:

Also all PzIV production was converted to JgdPz/StuG IV's and StugIII production anhililated.

Anyone got that photo of a Stug crew ragging a T34 crew out after ramming it with their Stug? Think I saw it on here - Titled; Desperate means, desperate measures.


I disagree with you PlanD about the PzIV. The T34/76 and Sherman 76 were superior. But they were used well and as you said could even wreck an IS2 head-on in the right hands! :shock:
 
The Pz. Kpfw IV Ausf G - J were superior to the T-34/76 and M4 (76W) they had superior optical equipment. A heavier punch. Were more durable. And had the agility that provided no problems. The armour was weak, but the Pz.IV had the hitting power to nullify that by striking the enemy before the enemy could strike it.

You may not have wished to be in a StuG but they were deadly opponents. Compact, small and robust ... with the striking power of some of the best tanks in the field. StuG Abts. as has been stated by Erich were devestating on the Ost Front ... in the West ... well, a single StuG supported by 30 or so men could hold up a whole Allied column.

Care if I share some StuG pictures, Erich?
 

Attachments

  • stu10_151.jpg
    stu10_151.jpg
    13.9 KB · Views: 245
  • stu13_622.jpg
    stu13_622.jpg
    14.6 KB · Views: 231
  • stu19_432.jpg
    stu19_432.jpg
    18.8 KB · Views: 253
  • stug3_06_575.jpg
    stug3_06_575.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 237
  • stugc_101.jpg
    stugc_101.jpg
    25.4 KB · Views: 245
They won't all be StuG III Gs ... I'll post some early As and Ds too ... okay if I post some StuHs too, Erich?
 

Attachments

  • stu12_108.jpg
    stu12_108.jpg
    15 KB · Views: 219
  • stu14_910.jpg
    stu14_910.jpg
    17 KB · Views: 213
  • stu15_147.jpg
    stu15_147.jpg
    19.5 KB · Views: 222
  • stug3_09_940.jpg
    stug3_09_940.jpg
    14.2 KB · Views: 231
  • stuh01_206.jpg
    stuh01_206.jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 223
anothjer kicking foto from the Fl. von Aufses archiv
 

Attachments

  • rkkochanowski_213.jpg
    rkkochanowski_213.jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 197
Erich, do you have any information or stories about the StuGs in the early war years? Mainly preceding 1943? I ask because it seems all modern accounts of the war center around the "dying war" for Germany. Recently my interest has been focused on the days of German might and supremecy, the days where Germany could have won the war.

For example, Fall Gelb is largely forgotten from the German point of view. It's more taken to be a French and British mistake. But, in reality, Fall Gelb is one of, if not the, greatest military campaign in history!

More StuGs and StuHs for all the viewing pleasure:
 

Attachments

  • stuh42f_02_988.jpg
    stuh42f_02_988.jpg
    18.9 KB · Views: 204
  • stuh42_01_119.jpg
    stuh42_01_119.jpg
    19.2 KB · Views: 203
  • stugc_951.jpg
    stugc_951.jpg
    25.4 KB · Views: 198
  • stug10_797.jpg
    stug10_797.jpg
    18.8 KB · Views: 200
  • stug8_154.jpg
    stug8_154.jpg
    23.7 KB · Views: 200
Plan no I do not have any pre-43 materails or fotos sadly ........ unless I go through several German language Stug ABt. histories which would take a large amount of time
 
PlanD don't know if this'll interest you but early (L24 armed) StuG's used concrete-piercing rounds to knock out MatildaII's.

Were more durable. And had the agility that provided no problems.

Of course I had to disagree on some points! :lol:

The armour was weak, but the Pz.IV had the hitting power to nullify that by striking the enemy before the enemy could strike it.

The same was true of the Hornisse - but I woudn't want one! :)

You may not have wished to be in a StuG but they were deadly opponents.

I meant the mild steel cheapo versions.
 
That's a shame, Erich. I'm sure there'll be information out there in English, I'll keep a keen eye out for it.

Schwarz, the Hornisse would splatter anythin' it saw. And it did so on many-many occasions. The fact it had little armour protection did not matter, it would destroy enemy armour before the enemy could destroy it. It's not a case of whether you'd like to be in it or not - the facts speak for themselves, the superior weapon on the Pz.IV Ausf F/2 and onwards allowed it to remain a competitor throughout the war.
 
What exactly are you wanting PlanD?

Who knows - I may have something?

it would destroy enemy armour before the enemy could destroy it.

Not necessarily true, it's armour could be penetrated by tanks at ranges it itself could engage at. I know you'll inevitably mention optics yada, yada, yada but it was like the Sherman in being a big, easy and weak target.
 
Well you can pm me the stuff and I can try and translate it into English. Will take quite some time though because I leave on Tuesday and will not be home for quite some time.
 
Schwarz, you're obviously not that keen in armoured conflict if you descredit the important of optical equipment in armoured warfare. The Hornisse could hit and destroy enemy armour of both Soviet and Allied build outside the range that they could strike back.

I'd be surprised if a Sherman could even launch a shell 3km and have a hope of hitting a barn door, let alone destroy it.

Think of it as this; the Hornisse is a sniper with a K98 4x Optical Scope and the Sherman is a GI with a Colt .45. They spot each other at 600 metres apart ... who's going to win?
 
You get used to the quirks of a particular weapon/sight, so long as it hasn't got a wandering zero.

High-velocity cannons are easier to fire, yes, but barrels need to be replaced often (a failure of the KwK36 43, particularly early 1-piecers) maybe changing the zero and requiring re-adjustment.

The recoil mechanism of the early 88's also did not suit an AFV.

I'd be surprised if a Sherman could even launch a shell 3km and have a hope of hitting a barn door, let alone destroy it.

The Hornisse is larger than your average barn door. ;)

Think of it as this; the Hornisse is a sniper with a K98 4x Optical Scope and the Sherman is a GI with a Colt .45. They spot each other at 600 metres apart ... who's going to win?

That's an unfair comparison. It's not about accuracy, more lethality. The .45 was effective at 150m (theory) 50m (practical) the K98 Sniper 2 miles (theory) 800m (practical). The ranges a T-34 and Hornisse could kill each other were roughly equal, but even putting all that aside...

If the GI is hiding behind armour? If the GI is running and zig-zagging before getting in range?

The Hornisse was offensive only, it had to be camouflaged/concealed.

If it was seen 1st - it was dead. If it saw an enemy 1st - they were dead.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back