Elefant armor outbalanced ? -1 reply

Please wait...

Comrade0Red

Za *TRA*, Za Kommunizma!

50 XP

25th March 2004

0 Uploads

895 Posts

0 Threads

#31 14 years ago

The differance between an assault gun and a tank killer is that Tank killers kill tanks, and an assault gun can hit anything. It's nothing to do with attacking or defending. Usually a tank killer will be moving with tanks or behind them, as tanks are not truely supposed to engage other tanks (That's the Tank Destroyer's job). For simplicities sake they both fall under the catagory SPG.




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#32 14 years ago

tvihEarly-war StuG... out of curiosity, do you consider StuG III G one? It does have one of the best AT guns of its time, yet it was definitely main an assault gun.

And while you say 88L71 is only needed for one purpose... well, it CAN be used for other purposes as well. True, a gun with less AT capability would do against softer targets, but why even in an assault gun use less capable guns than you can? After all, with the better gun an assault gun can, in addition to being an assault gun, also be a tank buster. Being the latter doesn't mean it also couldn't be the former.

The Ferdinand was indeed quite ideal for assault gun role in longer ranges, to take out AT guns that could hurt other tanks but not the Ferdinand itself, at least with frontal hits. Now, with its great gun it was definitely, BUT not exclusively, a great tank buster too.

But all that's just IMO too, just like your post :)

Now that's silly. That's like saying it's stupid to make infantry-operated AT guns and artillery for defensive roles. While assault guns, as the name implies, were originally mostly for just that, assaulting, it doens't mean they can't be defensive units as well.

Now, in open field battles at loong ranges, why would the assault gun need a turret on the defensive? It can just pick off incoming targets with little adjustment to its facing. And being lower profile than normal tanks, they were easier to hide and harder to spot for the attackers. Hetzer anyone?

Fact is, assault guns were cheaper and easier to make than tanks, and on the defensive too they were quite good, since their smaller size could be used to an advantage a lot more than during attacking. So why not make them for defensive fighting too? Do consider the fact that Germany was already starting to lose when StuG III G production was properly up and running, yet they made plenty of StuGs 'til the end of the war. And they sure as hell weren't attacking most of the time. Of course there were the counterattacks etc, but a lot of the time they were on the defensive. Successfully so. Even near Berlin German StuGs caused horrible losses to Soviet armor. One StuG, if I remember correctly from Beevor's book, killed some ~75 enemy tanks in less than 2 days outside Berlin. How "stupid" you think that is then? :eek:

Why use a 88L71 in a vehicle you don't need it? Keep in mind it's WWII germany, everything is short in supply, you only use what you really need, because then you can use the parts you don't need somewhere else, if nothing else only just to keep the price low. The StuG with 75mmL48 imo is an assaultgun. It can stand it's ground against most allied tanks, but compared to other german tanks, like Tiger, Panther, Nashorn, Elefant, JP, .... the gun is seriously lacking. Sure, it hit's hard, but only when compared to Shermans and T34-76. (Don't come with the Hetzer now, that's a very small tankhunter, you can bet they would have mounted a bigger gun if they could)

Most assaultguns were built onto old chassis like BoW stated above, to keep them in service just a little bit longer. StuG3 is the prime example, with the P3 not being able to take on enemy tanks anymore, the number of StuG3s went skyhigh.




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

30th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#33 14 years ago
Major HartmannWhy use a 88L71 in a vehicle you don't need it? Keep in mind it's WWII germany, everything is short in supply, you only use what you really need, because then you can use the parts you don't need somewhere else, if nothing else only just to keep the price low.

Sure, but an 88mm shell still packs more punch for assault gun purposes than a 75mm shell, for example. It's heavier, and hits heavier. More effective against just about any targets - infantry, bunkers, tanks. Of course the bigger shell and gun are more costly to manufacture, indeed.

Most assaultguns were built onto old chassis like BoW stated above, to keep them in service just a little bit longer. StuG3 is the prime example, with the P3 not being able to take on enemy tanks anymore, the number of StuG3s went skyhigh.

Indeed, a good way to "recycle" old vehicle chassis types and keep old factories running without much need to change 'em.




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#34 14 years ago

You wouldn't need to use a 75mm, like shown in the StuH42, a short 105mm is also a good sollution.




evilmedic

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

14th December 2004

0 Uploads

31 Posts

0 Threads

#35 14 years ago

The gun on the StuH 42 , 105 mm L 28 ? ... 495 m/s muzzle velocity...(Shemans 75mm is at ~ 600ish m/s) .......penetration at 100m verticle armor is 106mm with a hollow charge shell.... Compare this with the Stug IIIG 75mm L48... ~800m/s ...penetration at 100m is 131mm....so its not such a good AT weapon..but it should be enough to deal with most allied armor...and a 105 works wonders on infantry..




The_Transporter

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

22nd September 2004

0 Uploads

17 Posts

0 Threads

#36 14 years ago

I Havn't read all the posts but..THE FERDINAND/ELEFANT WAS A TANK DESTROYER...it was/is an anti tank gun mounted on a tank chassis thus meanin it was a tank destroyer i have a book about the tiger tank and its varients sitting next to me......

Cheers, The_Transporter




evilmedic

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

14th December 2004

0 Uploads

31 Posts

0 Threads

#37 14 years ago
The_TransporterI Havn't read all the posts but..THE FERDINAND/ELEFANT WAS A TANK DESTROYER...it was/is an anti tank gun mounted on a tank chassis thus meanin it was a tank destroyer i have a book about the tiger tank and its varients sitting next to me...... Cheers, The_Transporter

Yep.. The hull of the Ferdinand was based on the chasis of the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger (P)...the design for the tiger submitted by porsche... ...the Porsche design was not selected and the 90 or so chasis already build where turned into Heavy assualt tanks.....Ferdinands...they were used an kursk then over hauled.....had a hull mg added then sent he defend the italian front.




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

30th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#38 14 years ago
Major HartmannYou wouldn't need to use a 75mm, like shown in the StuH42, a short 105mm is also a good sollution.

For purely assault gun use, yes. But as I said, why use a gun suitable only for one role (well 105 could kill tanks, but not as well as 75 let alone 88) when you can use one suitable for many? For pure assault gun role 105 was propably the best of the three.




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#39 14 years ago

Well, you can bet the 105 is way more suitable for HE shells then the tiny 75mm. When the StuG was upgraded from L24 to L48 it became a tankhunter Imo, while at pretty much the same time the StuH 42 appeared to fill the assaultgun gap.




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

30th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#40 14 years ago

Indeed, the StuH 42 was meant to complement the StuG III G. The 75mm was deemed not to be as powerful against soft targets as was desirable, so the StuH was also put into production. StuG was used as more as a dual-purpose vehicle after that.