Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#31

Post by Michael Kenny » 18 Feb 2023, 03:53

In 1944 Stugs were considered not able to defend themselves properly against Allied tanks and it was intended to attach Jgd Pz to Stug Units for AT protection.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#32

Post by Yoozername » 18 Feb 2023, 06:16

Michael Kenny wrote:
18 Feb 2023, 03:53
In 1944 Stugs were considered not able to defend themselves properly against Allied tanks and it was intended to attach Jgd Pz to Stug Units for AT protection.
I am sure. But maybe someone could conjecture that the panzer IV was also? What is your point? Or source? the StuG design is clearly better armored and a lower target.

The StuG was born as infantry support. it became, luckily, a platform for the StuK 40. It could then be both an infantry support, and an antitank weapon. Most arms did this. Infantry became an antitank weapon. Stukas became...you get the point. Of course the Germans developed better antitank weapons. But this helped the Sturmartillerie since these developed weapons were under the panzer rule.

The Germans clearly embraced the turretless design. Stopping Panzer III production for StuGs. Diverting Panzer IV production for StuGs and JPZ and such. They did this for Panther and Tiger II.


Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#33

Post by Yoozername » 18 Feb 2023, 08:01

Stiltzkin wrote:
18 Feb 2023, 03:13
Assualt guns are tactically inferior to tanks. The Stugs combat rating was below that of many fielded AFVs during WWII. The comparison of reliability and losses of SPGs and tanks is meaningless if they are not properly adjusted to exposure, vulnerability, and the tasks they had to fulfill. This issue was addressed in Notiz zum Führervortrag Aug. 1944, Gen.Ins.d.Panzertruppen, Umstellung Pz IV auf Stg. L48 and 70.
Really? Guderian didn't like StuGs? What a NEWSFLASH! Sour grapes since he didn't get control of stuG IIIs?

I have read that, and comprehended it, quite a number of times. He is talking about panzer IV vs. StuG IV&JGDPanzer IV. That report shows just how bad the Intel is BTW. And the one thing it gets right, is that in MID-1944, the KWKL48 (and StuK 40) WERE potent weapons available to deal with known adversaries AT THAT TIME

As previously stated, with a previous posted report, the panzer grenadiers would disagree with Guderian. The best description I have read of him is that he was just another stuffed-uniform officer bothering people at the front.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#34

Post by Stiltzkin » 18 Feb 2023, 08:22

As previously stated, with a previous posted report, the panzer grenadiers would disagree with Guderian. .
It is stated that it was a unanimous decision by the Panzer-Regiments. Armoured spearheads vs infantry support in combat march may rely on different concepts. Besides, Grenadiers should probably worry more about their APC/IFVs to keep up with the advance.
The best description I have read of him is that he was just another stuffed-uniform officer bothering people at the front
He is definitely overrated.

User avatar
Westphalia1812
Member
Posts: 575
Joined: 03 Jul 2019, 21:01
Location: Germany

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#35

Post by Westphalia1812 » 20 Feb 2023, 20:27

Stiltzkin wrote:
18 Feb 2023, 03:13
This issue was addressed in Notiz zum Führervortrag Aug. 1944, Gen.Ins.d.Panzertruppen, Umstellung Pz IV auf Stg. L48 and 70.
Do you have an archival reference for that document? I would be very interested in reading the original.
I love myself way more than I love you

And I think about killing myself

So, best believe, I thought about killing you today

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#36

Post by Stiltzkin » 23 Feb 2023, 06:43

Do you have an archival reference for that document? I would be very interested in reading the original.
It is located in NARA T78 R623.
____________________________

There is a general tendency, for reliability: heavy -> light and in terms of staying power, light -> heavy. Maintenance and spare parts availability have to be taken into consideration as well. The sum of the losses from combat and defects must outweigh the increased investment, in order to break-even.

Here is the translation of the report:
Accompanying notes to the Führervortrag on the 28.6.44

Transition from Pz.Kpfwg. IV to Sturmgesch.L48 and L70 respectively

I. Tactically and Technologically

The 7.5 cm KwK L48 featuring the Panzergranate 39 is sufficiently powerful enough to deal with all British, American and Russian Armour types that have been fielded so far, from average combat distances of 600-1200 m (including the British "Cromwell" (Anlage 1).

Field reports comparing the utilization of the Pz.Kpfwg.IV and the Sturmgeschütz from Sicily, Italy and Normandy attest the conceptual inferiority of the Assault gun on coastal roads, in mountainous terrain, carved paths and the bocages of Normandy, vis the Pz.Kpfwg., the limited traverse and impact of the terrain puts the Assault gun at a disadvantage.

Report Gen.Thomale from Paris based on the most recent experiences

According to Panzer-Officer Ob.West the employment of the Assault Gun in tight spaces and bocages of Normandy is impeded by the low arc. The steeper angle and the ability to turn the turret allow the tank to fire effectively from paths and over hedges.

II. Losses.

The higher losses of Pz.Kpfwg. IV as opposed to the Sturmgesch. are primarily a consequence of the completely different tasks they have to fulfill.

While the Assault gun accompanies the Infantry during combat march, the tank as a purely offensive weapon operates in fully motorized, autonomous tank companies.

Therefore the number of breakdowns of tanks is already greater from increased stress on the gear and higher speeds.

The Assault Gun operates jointly with the Infantry, while the tank thrusts into the enemy lines.

A flexible conduct of tank operations is unthinkable without the availability of a rotating turret. To this has to be added, that the Assault Gun is rendered inoperable the moment its running gear is damaged, i.e. immobilized and incapacitated, while the Pz.Kpfwg., even if it should bog down somewhere, remains in the fight.

III. Automotive technicalities.

1.) The Pz.Kpfwg. IV as of right now represents our most matured tank design, to which the Panzer troops have utmost faith. The Sturmgesch. based on Gestell IV has to be regarded as a stop gap solution, considerably inferior to the Sturmgeschütz on Gestell III.

2.) The final drive is a flaw in the Fahrgestell IV, the process of aiming involves the Assault Gun to turn, inducing frequent breakdowns through perpetual strain of the brakes as well as the transmission.

3.) Lateral transmissions constitute an overall bottleneck in the Pz.-spare parts inventory.

4.) A transition from Pz.Kpfwg. IV to Sturmgesch. would only increase this strain further with an expected increase of failures.
A swap from KwK L 48 to L 70 would accelerate this development (nose-heaviness).

5.) At the suggestion of the Inspector General of the Panzer forces the installation of the L 70 on le.Pz.Jg. IV Vomag was performed successfully. The output starts after the information was passed on to Colonel Audörsch at the end of August.

//Specifications on enemy ordnance and tactical information follow […]

Final Assessment

1.) All existing combat experiences unequivocally speak for the tank with a rotating turret without dissent of the troops, which should remain in service with the panzer troops and is generally preferred over the assault gun inside the Pz. Regiments.

2.) All existing enemy Tanks and Assault gun types are to be engaged and combatted with the existing armour piercing weapons including the 7.5 L 48.

3.) In case of a transition to Sturmgeschütz from Pz.Kpfw. IV, the existing Panzer companies would have to be replenished with assault guns to prevent an attrition of the formations. This would leave the Pz. IV companies again with the burden of combining two different vehicle types of profoundly different operational nature.

Inspector General of the Panzer forces thus proposes to continue the production of Pz.Kpfwg.IV, which is currently sufficient to cover the losses of the Field-Coy., until the necessary output of Pz.Kpfwg. V (Panther) to equip a 2nd Panther-Coy. inside of the Pz.Reg. is attained.

Ultimately, Panther production will have to be set at about 900 per month.

It is also proposed that in addition starting from August, depending on the availability of the gun 7.5 cm L 70, to upgrade the le.Pz.Jg. IV and from November all Pz. Jg. III/IV (standardized undercarriage) with the 7.5 cm KwK L 70.

The transition from Pz.IV to Panther will be carried out at a ratio of 1 to 1.

[…]

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#37

Post by Yoozername » 09 Mar 2023, 03:09

I gotta call BS when I read it...and I have read this before....
While the Assault gun accompanies the Infantry during combat march, the tank as a purely offensive weapon operates in fully motorized, autonomous tank companies.
Suddenly, Mr. Blitzkrieg Guderian, thinks tank companies act alone?????? Not combined arms?

My take is that he would want StuG IV/JagdPanzer IV in the AT units in Panzer Divisions, but is making some senseless case against these vehicles being in panzer battalions.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#38

Post by Stiltzkin » 09 Mar 2023, 20:42

My take is that he would want StuG IV/JagdPanzer IV in the AT units in Panzer Divisions, but is making some senseless case against these vehicles being in panzer battalions.
I think this whole debate revolved around concept and design, as there was nothing which would have stopped them from pressing the Assault guns into the specified role. Regardless, this would have resulted in greater attrition of the Panzer arm during offensive action. The Allies would have ended up with a conceptual advantage due to rotating turrets in TD platoons and infantry support. This may be less of an issue if they were employed in the AT role.
Successful designs are of course not always the most potent weapons, and if reliability and performance are taken into account, the Stug.III ranks highly on the list.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#39

Post by Yoozername » 14 Mar 2023, 07:27

No, you are disregarding tactics. StuGs/Assault Guns etc, could provide superior over watch. They don't have to march like wooden soldiers.

This is similar to late war US tactics of assigning a TD platoon to a company of shermans.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#40

Post by Yoozername » 14 Mar 2023, 08:13

Michael Kenny wrote:
18 Feb 2023, 03:53
In 1944 Stugs were considered not able to defend themselves properly against Allied tanks and it was intended to attach Jgd Pz to Stug Units for AT protection.
Post your 'Saucers'

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#41

Post by Michael Kenny » 14 Mar 2023, 08:48

Yoozername wrote:
14 Mar 2023, 07:27
No, you are disregarding tactics. StuGs/Assault Guns etc, could provide superior over watch. They don't have to march like wooden soldiers.

This is similar to late war US tactics of assigning a TD platoon to a company of shermans.
By 1944 the Stugs also needed 'overwatch' and it was decided JgdPz were needed to protect them from Allied tanks.

Sturmgeshutz III Development-Production-Design 1, Muller & Zimmermann 2009, Pgs 217 & 218
Zimmermann (217)b.jpg
Zimmermann (218) b.jpg
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 14 Mar 2023, 08:49, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#42

Post by Yoozername » 14 Mar 2023, 08:49

Yeah, read the thread. Already covered, 1944 was a long year.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#43

Post by Michael Kenny » 14 Mar 2023, 08:52

Stug problems:

Zimmermann (223).b.jpg

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#44

Post by Michael Kenny » 14 Mar 2023, 08:57

When the flight began Stugs were often left behind and seemed to suffer just as much drive-train problems as the tanks.:
Zimmermann (228)c.jpg

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Was the Stug.III the most successful German armoured vehicle of WWII?

#45

Post by Yoozername » 19 Mar 2023, 01:12

Post your sources. And I post mine, either upfront, or if asked. History Forum and all.And, of course, given we are not hiding behind moldy books...a link if possible.

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”