The use of Stug (as IV and so on)

Hello all. I am new in the buisness of the Tank warfare in WWII. Though, I have a question. How much was the Stug used in the war?

- It's rare I read about the Stug in the battles, so I began wondering. Hope you can answer

- T

 

Here is a website with some StuG info

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/stug.htm

 

Ahhh... Thank you lad!

 

werent the stugs used as infantry anti-tank support

 

Yes they were but they were also decent at taking out tanks.

 

The StuG III was actually one of the most numerous German armoured vehicles of the war; more than 10,000 of them were built. They were very effective initially as assault guns in support of the infantry, and later as low-profiled, small, light but powerful tank destroyers.

Pound for pound this vehicle was probably the best to be made in World War II, though I am biased strongly in its favour.

Sturmgeschütze were organized in dedicated Assault Gun Regiments which were often attached to divisions or Army Corps for anti-tank defence or infantry support. They fought on all fronts during the entire war.

 

Do not forget the StuG were mostly artillerymen manned.
They also went to the Pänzerwaffe to fill the ranks but late in the war.

 

I always wondered why they bothered with the StuG IV. The StuG III carried the same gun, and was smaller. The Panzer IV chassis also had its own Jadgpanzer IV - with a better gun IIRC. So why all that divided effort?

 

Because Alkett was bombed, which forced the design of the Jagdpanzer 38 and Sturmgeschütz IV.

 

The Jagdpanzer 38(t) was also designed to find use for Czech factories that could not handle too heavy AFVs and use the excellent chassis of the Pz 38 (t) series.
The 'Hetzer' was a miniature Jagdpanzer IV with serious shortcomings though: cramped interior, hard to load gun (wrong side for the load) and paper thin side plates. But they were mainly intended for infantry divisions and they were their only real hope of armour support at the time...

 

It wasn't really a matter of finding a use for the Pz.Kpfw.38(t) chassis (which was not compatible with German production standards as it was, which is why a modified version was designed but never manufactured), but rather that the factory couldn't make anything heavier.

 

I think we can easily reach agreement as I wrote 'to find use for Czech factories that could not handle too heavy AFVs '.

 

I agree

The main point is what prompted the design.

 

Hang on... a factory was bombed and it stopped production permanently? So why is this fact never mentioned in discussions of Allied bombing vs the German War Effort? All I ever read is that factories were back up & running withing minutes/hours/days of being bombed.

 

No, not permanently, but enough to seriously reduce the production numbers. Based on the production figures prior to the bombing and the peak of production after production was normalised, I would estimate that the production loss was between 1 300 and 2 000 Sturmgeschütz IIIs.

 

Where did you hear minutes and hours?

Anyways, I guess the worst quality I would have to say for the jagdpanzer 38t was the fact everyone was so cramped together that if a shell with an HE filler penetrated, well it would probably be pretty devastating for the crew.

On a side note I remember hearing something about low quality armor for the jadgpanzers side armor, something about .50 cals penetrating it even though they shouldn't. Don't know if its true, anyone know anything about this?

 

Uhm, yeah, though that obviously goes for most armoured vehicles.

As far as I know, the .50 cal machine gun could penetrate 30mm of armour at 100 meters easily. Stories about this weapon penetrating the sides of the Jagdpanzer 38(t) should not be too surprising.

 

Well I think that depends. Generally for turreted tanks the location mattered more. For example a hit to the turret would likely result in the deaths of the occupants while the driver and hull gunner would likely be okay. Of course luck plays a role and there are cases of a 75mm hitting a tank and the entire crew bailing out fine, and other cases of a 75mm hitting and no one getting out of the tank.

Hetzer, in my opinion and not backed by and facts mind you, probably traded crew survivability if penetrated for low profile and compactness. I just don't envy checking in that tank after a sherman 75mm shell penetrated. It afterall had 4.6x more explosive filler then an German 75mm, about 4.6 ounces.

But I guess that goes for most tanks.

 

You're right that crew vulnerability is less in a vehicle with several compartments, but since these compartments are usually connected (for example men in the turret of most tanks are actually standing in the hull) any penetrating round with any amount of HE filler will cause carnage in all vehicles.

 

Whell,in WW II comon AP ammo was pury FMJ,withouth any blast efect and worst scenario for crew was that shell smash on impact and act like u fired shootgun trought the hole in 2 tank.( dont count hit in ammo,etc what can cause explosion of whole AFV)

Sry for bad english:/