Beast of War:uhoh: ....i just read there were a staggering 10548 StugIII/IV made during the war.....
That is more numerous then Panzer IV or Panzer III tanks in all variations........
There are already FH maps with several Stug in them, but i guess these numbers suggest they should even be more common.
Here's the rest of it.......a surprising number of Hetzer tankdestroyers. Numbers suggest it defenatly should be in FH.
PzKpfw I 1934-1943 1563 PzKpfw II 1935-1944 1924 (LT-35) PzKpfw 35(t) 1935-1939 424 PzKpfw 38(t) 1938-1942 1411 Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer 1944-1945 2584 PzKpfw III 1936-1944 5733 Stug III/IV 1940-1945 10548 PzKpfw IV 1936-1945 8544 PzKpfw V Panther 1942-1945 5976 Panzerjager V Jagdpanther 1944-1945 425 PzKpfw VI Tiger 1942-1944 1355 Panzerjager Ferdinand/Elephant 1943 90 Tiger II Ausf. B "Konigstiger" 1944-1945 489 Jagdpanzer VI Jagdtiger 1944-1945 85
Ive noticed there is a large number of Panthers, yet to my knowlage they only have them on about four maps. I hope they get the new ones in 0.62 and place them on maps like Kursk, Bocage etc.
I think the KT is not as bad as it looks since: -Usually it is on maps with planes that can either kamikaze or bomb it -1 shot to the side by an IS2 makes pretty flames appear near the engine block...
Ply3r_17Ive noticed there is a large number of Panthers, yet to my knowlage they only have them on about four maps. I hope they get the new ones in 0.62 and place them on maps like Kursk, Bocage etc.[/QUOTE] They will probably replace a lot of Tigers. [QUOTE='[11PzG]matyast']I think the KT is not as bad as it looks since: -Usually it is on maps with planes that can either kamikaze or bomb it -1 shot to the side by an IS2 makes pretty flames appear near the engine block...
Breakthrough and Alpenfestung got planes. Berlin Outskirts and Bulge doesn't.
Matyast, well, two shots from an IS-2 to the side blow it up, but in the time it takes for an IS-2 to fire those two shots, the King Tiger with its faster reload time has blown it to scraps, if the driver knows what he is doing.
Same goes for having to shoot 5-8 shots to the sides and rear of a Tiger with a T-34/76... not very fair, now is it? Or having to shoot 4 shots to a Panzer IV H's side sometimes. Now that was weird, because usually one shot is enough.
Well, you will never have 100% realism on a Dicey engine (pun intended). If we could modify this game to our desires, there would be no health bar for tanks, there would just be vitals such as engine condition, front/rear/side armour condition, and every shot you fire would be like rolling a dice and finding out weather you got lucky or lost (penetrate or bounce). Trooth be told, an T34 should scratch a Panther. It doesnt, it does around 10% damage when hit in the front. 10 hits and your panther is burning. Sure, you could get a lucky hit and hit between the chassi and turret, disabling the turret, or hit the mg ball mount. But that should be done through accuracy, not chance. The main problem with the Stug is that you should be able to drive it with the commanders position (the one currently used for spotting) and than go into the aiming screen to fire or drive fire ready. No Im not saying 2 people can drive a tank, just make it the same position thats all. To make it more interesting, it would be cool if all tanks had a commanders head sticking out when not driving while aiming. It would make things more difficult, sides, if you want the view you gotta pay the price.
Sgt. DinkyDuckthats why you use it as its intended role, its not an assault tank, stay back from front line action and fire from a nice grouping of trees, that thing is devistating if you keep back a little ways and hide. i would like to see more depression on the gun. its really hard to hit something far away when your on a very very slight incline. i almost exclusivly drive stuGs when im on axis, i love the tank and have gotten pretty good with it.
I played a lot with Stug yesterday and also did quite well. Therefore, I looked for old Stug posts on the forums. That's when I stumbled upon this one. Although I generally agree with the notion that the Stug was mainly a defensive weapon (despite being an "assault" gun ;)), I would still like to make a few points: - Stug was the _MOST SUCCESSFUL_ tank-killer vehicle type the Wehrmacht ever had. Almost 10.000 Stug IIIs alone we're manufactured. Forgot the precise number, which is close to 9500. A huge amount by German standards. The Stug III was all over the place. Acting in a fire brigade form helping infantry. On the defense...but also on offense...surprisingly often. Given the number of Stugs manufactured and the way they we're spread into infantry/panzergrenadier/motorized/tanks divisions..they should be all over the place. German tanks should, historically speaking, appear in large numbers on maps involving German panzer divisions...whereas Stugs could, historically speaking, be placed in much more maps. They were the workhorse. They performed very well. There are accounts of 30-40 T34s destroyed by single Stugs over the time span of a few days. SS Sturmanführer Kniep even destroyed 129 Russian tanks over his career. That compares favourably even to most notorious Tiger aces such as Wittmann. The aggregate amount of tanks taken out by Stugs in WW2 amounts to some 20.000, mostly Russian of course. That's a lot of kills for any vehicle type.
Stugs were well armored, had good guns. They were also very reliable and cheap to manufacture. Small size made them hard targets to hit. All in all a very good design. So much so that the Finnish Army retained them in active service all the way until 1966 with modernizations. Back to the point of using them offensively. It was certainly possible. Now, bear in mind that, for example, the Russian T34s had very cramped and small turrets with a crew of only four. Couple that with the lack of commander's cupola and it is easy to understand why the T34s very relatively "blind" in battles at close distances. This is a very well documented phenomenon. Their ratio of fire was also a lot lower than their German counterparts. Throw in the terrible quality of their radios and the fact that only one of the (typically) 11 tanks in a Russian T34 company was equipped with a radio (a bad one too) and you see that the T34 really had some severe operational limitations. In fact, T34s mainly resorted to communication by flags instead of radios. This naturally limits not only the range of communication but also dramatically increases the risk of miscommunication. And it's not even doable when in close contact with the enemy. Now, when you add the fact that T34 crews very generally worsely trained than their Axis counterparts (especially so early in the war), you should understand that a tank like the T34 did not necessarily, despite it having a turret, perform well in close combat against German tanks. In a way, the T34 was a sledgehammer...reasonably good armour (very good early in war), nice gun (although Germans had better) and with very good cross country mobility. German tanks, OTOH, were sophisticated precision instruments with superior radios, visibility, guns, optics, visibility, rate-of-fire, crew quality, crew quantity per tank etc. Back to using Stug IIIs offensively... in the summer of 1944, a single Finnish StugIII took out four...yes four...T34/85s over a time span of about one minute. This is probably a world record of taking out four such beasts with a single vehicle in terms of time. The interesting part of it is that the Finnish StugIII was on the _OFFENSIVE_ it wasn't dug in waiting in an ambush or anything like that. This may surprise some. It was a "night" encounter although it does not really get dark in Finland at that time of year. The distance involved was some 15 meters and the whole success is basically explained by the 1) superior training and skills of Finnish crew 2) vastly superior rate-of-fire by the StugIII 3) better visibility from Stug. All of that apparently more than negated any adevantage the T34/85s may have had because of its turret even at such close distances. Here's some stuff in English about the encounter: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/stug.htm So...in a way...the German tanks...and the StugIII especially...are "nerfed" in FH because FH gives every tank a perfectly working radio, does not give Germans superior gunnery optics, does not reflect that cramped turret conditions and visibility from T34s and gives Russians way too fast firing rates. German tanks should be able to send 2-3 rounds for every round fired by the Russkies. That is lethal. All of this "operational nuances" are left out from FH...which sort of "nerfs" German tanks...especially the Stug. Then again, one could argue that the German tanks are often too numerous compared to their Russian counterparts. take care, LaDigue (Kustjägare).
Someone brought my 3 month old thread back, holy shit.
LOL Driver ;)
Anyways, about what Ladigue said. Well, I'm not sure if the StuG's ROF was that much better, but probably slightly faster than on the T34 series. Of course crew training plays some part here too. But yeah, the visibility thing really isn't represented in the FH tank combat. The StuG is at a definite disadvantage there. It has the commander slot with good visibility, but with just one person usually manning the vehicle, it isn't always as useful as it could be. And on public servers even if someone IS in the commander slot, communication is difficult. I really would like to see the outside views removed, and more realistic inside views added, like realistic commander cupolas/periscopes.
About the attack role of the StuGs... well, they can be used quite well for that. They can roll along with infantry, firing at targets as they move. They can stop to act as a sort of infantry or AT gun, if needed. Remember, that when the StuGs made an assault, they usually had plenty of infantry and/or other tanks/assault guns with them. That doesn't happen in FH usually, so the StuGs are very vulnerable especially with the limited visibility from the driver view, since you only see where you're driving at, while you can drive and look around with turreted tanks.
i just can't get used to the lack of peripheral vision in that lump of metal, i know what they can do though, i just can't do it! i tend to stay away from them when i am in a sherman or an M10 too.
Some things that caught my attention in this thread...
Their were about 1,000 Stug IV's versus about 1997 Jagdpanzer IV's.
The Allies bombing of the Alkett plant disrupted production of the StugIII's. Hitler asked Krupp in December of 1943 to adapt thr StugIII superstructure to teh PzIV chassis.
The Stug IV was intended to be a stop gap vehicle to fill in for the StugIII and til the Jagdpanzer IV was ready. This was due to development delays and slow progress in the Jagdpanzer IV program. Roughly 1,000 Stug IV's produced.
The Jagdpanzer IV was delayed due to avaiability of 75mm L/70 cannons so the first batch of Jagdpanzer IV's had the 75mm L/48 gun.
There were 3 Jagdpanzer IV variants
Jagdpanzer IV - 75mm L/48 main gun. 79 rounds of ammo. 769 produced. 60mm sloped front armor.
Jagdpanzer IV/70 (A) - Produced by Alkett. Had a vertical step then the sloped fighting compartment. Carried the 75mm L/70 found on the Panther. 90 rounds of ammo. 940 produced.
Jagdpanzer IV/70 (V) - Produced by Vomag. Sloped from hull like Jagdpanzer IV but carried the 75mm L/70 from the Panther. 55-60 rounds of ammo. 240 produced. 80mm sloped front armor.
Stug III was not paticularly well armored. It carried 80mm of vertical front armor just like the upgraded PzIV's. What was in its favor was its very low height which made it difficult to hit and easy to hide.
Tiger II production was suffering from lack of additives for making high strength steel. The Tiger II used a new Boron chemical treating process to face harden the steel. The new plates were tough but didnt flex whwen hit like old plates. Result was either a A/T round shattering on the face hardened steel or the armor shattering. Armor was thick enough that it didnt usually shatter unless hit in the sides or from a internal ammo explosion.
Common practice was to grind a vee shaped section into the edges and when welding to fill in this groove with the welding bead. By the time of the Tiger II Germany was using a zig zag welding technique to cheaply and quickly weld the sections together. In one paticular battle a Sherman fired WP at a Tiger II's front armor with enough force to crack the welds loose but didnt not penetrate. Smoke came in teh cracks and the Tiger II bailed thinking thier tank was on fire.