STUGS

[Jim von Krieg]

Or some Shermans in the Cava Gap.... whoops.

LR

Larry, you may need to go see the eye doctor... Doesn't look like a Sherman... LOL...

Nah, you said some StuGs burning from air-strikes, the ones I shot up were burning courtesy of Sherman 75mms....

LR

Okay, I was confused... Yes, you would be correct. There are some burning in the Cava Gap as well...

[Jim von Krieg]

Gents: :smoke:

Curious on the reasons behind the development of the German STUGs? :chin:

I know it was originally designed as an infantry support AFV... but was the decision to mount the gun to the hull with a limited traverse... in order to eliminate the turret, reduce the overall profile of the vehicle, and develop an AFV design that was easier to mass produce then a turret-mounted vehicle? Yes?

In CS game terms... I have found it better to have a turret-mounted tank (in regards to shoot & scoot) then a tank destroyer / assault gun.

Excerpted from Wiki-pedia... Pretty much captures the answer for you...

Historically the custom-built fully armored assault guns usually mounted the gun or howitzer in a fully enclosed casemate on a tank chassis. The use of a casemate instead of a gun turret limited these weapons' field of fire, but provided a simpler construction that was cheaper to build and less prone to mechanical breakdowns. The increased space and reduced weight of the turretless design also allowed for the mounting of a larger weapon and heavier frontal armour on any given chassis. In most cases, these turretless vehicles also presented a lower profile as a target for the enemy.

Battalions of assault guns, usually StuG IIIs, commonly replaced the intended panzer battalion in the German panzergrenadier divisions due to the chronic shortage of tanks, and were sometimes used as makeshifts even in the panzer divisions.[citation needed] Independent battalions were also deployed as 'stiffeners' for infantry divisions...

My comment: Basically, the assault gun developed out of need for more firepower at a time that tank production and technical capabilities could not meet demand or "immediate" requirements of the battlefield... turrets of existing vehicles could not support the larger guns needed to defeat the threat... and designing a new turret took too much time... if it was at all possible on the smaller chassis...

German and Russian development seemed to mirror each other as the war progressed... while US due to its vast resources didn't really follow their armored box concept...

Essentially, stick a larger gun on an open topped chassis... least amount of engineering... next, box the gun to protect the crew... I have all these older tank chassis that are of limited value with a turret, so I remove the turret, stick a box with a 75mm gun on it and viola... I can creates lots of armored vehicles that can hold their own on the battlefield without disrupting my ongoing and future tank production... are there drawbacks? Of course, but assault gun IMO follows the philosophy of perfect is the enemy of just good enough...

As there were multiple schools of thought as to the needs of the requirement... it spawned a menagerie of different vehicle types... example, it's mobile artillery... it's a tank destroyer...

Assault guns and tank destroyers started out as separate requirements, but as time went on they pretty much became mirror images of each other so that there was little to distinguish them from each other.. though a true TD, normally had the longer barrel with the gun that fired at a higher velocity to defeat the heavier armor of tanks...

Assault guns brought a lot of needed firepower to the battlefield, but it was not the optimum solution... Turrets give you more flexibility and as a result the assault gun died off during the post-war... I think the S-tank is the last of the turretless armored vehicles... and its tailoring for very specific circumstances of Sweden limited its export viability...

Well, I hope this answers some of your questions and makes you delve a little deeper into the topic...

Regards,

Jim

[Kool Kat]

Gents: :smoke:

Curious on the reasons behind the development of the German STUGs? :chin:

I know it was originally designed as an infantry support AFV... but was the decision to mount the gun to the hull with a limited traverse... in order to eliminate the turret, reduce the overall profile of the vehicle, and develop an AFV design that was easier to mass produce then a turret-mounted vehicle? Yes?

In CS game terms... I have found it better to have a turret-mounted tank (in regards to shoot & scoot) then a tank destroyer / assault gun.

Excerpted from Wiki-pedia... Pretty much captures the answer for you...

Historically the custom-built fully armored assault guns usually mounted the gun or howitzer in a fully enclosed casemate on a tank chassis. The use of a casemate instead of a gun turret limited these weapons' field of fire, but provided a simpler construction that was cheaper to build and less prone to mechanical breakdowns. The increased space and reduced weight of the turretless design also allowed for the mounting of a larger weapon and heavier frontal armour on any given chassis. In most cases, these turretless vehicles also presented a lower profile as a target for the enemy.

Battalions of assault guns, usually StuG IIIs, commonly replaced the intended panzer battalion in the German panzergrenadier divisions due to the chronic shortage of tanks, and were sometimes used as makeshifts even in the panzer divisions.[citation needed] Independent battalions were also deployed as 'stiffeners' for infantry divisions...

My comment: Basically, the assault gun developed out of need for more firepower at a time that tank production and technical capabilities could not meet demand or "immediate" requirements of the battlefield... turrets of existing vehicles could not support the larger guns needed to defeat the threat... and designing a new turret took too much time... if it was at all possible on the smaller chassis...

German and Russian development seemed to mirror each other as the war progressed... while US due to its vast resources didn't really follow their armored box concept...

Essentially, stick a larger gun on an open topped chassis... least amount of engineering... next, box the gun to protect the crew... I have all these older tank chassis that are of limited value with a turret, so I remove the turret, stick a box with a 75mm gun on it and viola... I can creates lots of armored vehicles that can hold their own on the battlefield without disrupting my ongoing and future tank production... are there drawbacks? Of course, but assault gun IMO follows the philosophy of perfect is the enemy of just good enough...

As there were multiple schools of thought as to the needs of the requirement... it spawned a menagerie of different vehicle types... example, it's mobile artillery... it's a tank destroyer...

Assault guns and tank destroyers started out as separate requirements, but as time went on they pretty much became mirror images of each other so that there was little to distinguish them from each other.. though a true TD, normally had the longer barrel with the gun that fired at a higher velocity to defeat the heavier armor of tanks...

Assault guns brought a lot of needed firepower to the battlefield, but it was not the optimum solution... Turrets give you more flexibility and as a result the assault gun died off during the post-war... I think the S-tank is the last of the turretless armored vehicles... and its tailoring for very specific circumstances of Sweden limited its export viability...

Well, I hope this answers some of your questions and makes you delve a little deeper into the topic...

Regards,

Jim

Thanks Jim! Good information on STUGs.