StuG 38(t)?

Around 1935 the German army identified a need for an assault gun to support the infantry. At that point the best available platform was the Panzer III, and several prototypes were produced in 1937. Panzer III production got underway very slowly - only 98 of them had been produced by the outbreak of war in 1939 - and they did not start building assault guns on the Panzer III line until early 1940; the first 30 were available for the French campaign. StuG comprised about 1/5 of Panzer III production 1940-41.

Meanwhile of course Germany had occupied Czechoslovakia and taken over that nation's extensive arms industry. The CKD plant had just begun building the LT vz 38 tank, which the Germans adopted as the Panzer 38(t) and kept in production. It was used in lieu of Panzer IIIs although it was not considered to be as effective.

The Germans were thus in the odd position of producing inferior tanks for the panzer divisions while devoting a share of Panzer III production to assault guns for the infantry. As noted the Czech plant was building tanks under German control before the Panzer III line started producing operational StuG. I wonder if anyone thought of making the 38(t) the assault gun platform? It would not seem difficult to adopt an upper hull structure similar to that already designed. The hull and tracks had to be widened a bit for the Hetzer, with its sloped armor and 75mmL48 gun - would this be necessary for a 75mmL24 assault gun? Even if it was it would not seem a major issue.

The infantry should be able to get their StuG no later than they did, possibly earlier and, based on 38(t) production figures, in greater numbers. While the 38(t) was distinctly inferior as a tank, there would not be much qualitative difference as an assault gun.

The panzer force would benefit by having more of the tank they really wanted, the Panzer III, and by standardizing logistics and maintenance. There would actually be a temporary decline in total numbers of tanks since more Pz38(t)s were produced (1940-41) than StuGIIIs, but the qualitative improvement should offset this. The long-term goal was to phase out all the stopgaps, PzI, II, 35(t), and 38(t).

 

Remember that the Stug IV was to replace the Stug III and only did so very late war in the independent Stug Abteilungs and the Stug Abteilungs within the Infantrie Divisions as Panzerjagd units this was also done to reinforce the weak Volksgrenadier Div's as well. Personally I think keeping the old Pz III chassis for the Stug III was brilliant

 

I agree with Erich. The Hetzer would be the closest in silhouette. In the assault gun catagory, the only attempt using the Czech chassis was the Grille.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Grille_Aberdeen.00044ijk05.jpg

The Czech chassis was too small to make a suitable assault gun with a low silhouette. Your idea is sound but difficult to put into practice.

 

the Hetzer again more of a hide me and wait than the Stug III which originally used in the artillierie support role, as you said friend that low silhouette in the East German marshes and low lands really pounded the Soviet armor through the small independent Battalions in 45.

 

As in - the Marder III/Sd.Kfz.138 Ausf H and Ausf M? And the Marder III/Sd.Kfz.139 Panzerjaeger 38(t) fur 7.62cm?

Marder (Marten) Series

 

The StuG III produced at the time was an assault gun for infantry support. Both the Hetzer and Marder were designed for anti-tank operations.

 

ah but then self-supporting for itself as a tank destroyer unit in the Abteilung and later Brigade roles, though being called on repeatedly to fill gaps when the Panzers could not.

 

Yes, Yes!

 

slightly OT but a good read on the Independent late war Stug units make-up

Sturmgeschützabteilung 1357 Information - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums

 

The Heer's requirement in the late 1930s was for a 75mm direct fire support weapon in a fully enclosed armored vehicle. I'm not clear if this was intended to supplement or supplant the towed 75mm infantry guns supplied on a basis of two per battalion, but the original scheme was to provide each infantry division with an Abteilung of 18 StuG, i.e. 2 per infantry battalion. The infantry also had 150mm guns, two per regiment; and there were a separate series of SP 150mms on Panzer I, II, III, and other chassis, culminating in the Grille introduced IIRC in 1943.

The closest thing to an assault gun on the 38(t) was the Hetzer; this demonstrates both that a 75mm StuG38(t) was feasible and that it would be very cramped. The StuGIII may have been the better vehicle, but again the key point is that diverting a share of Panzer III production to StuG meant equipping a substantial proportion of panzer units in 1940-41 with inferior tanks.

Whatever decision was made in 1939, by 1942 both 38(t) and PzIII production would be shifting to assault guns or tank destroyers.

StuGIV was basically the Krupp version of StuGIII, based on the chassis they were building. It came about largely because of the bombing of the Alkett plant which produced StuGIIIs; there was a strong perceived need to keep up production of assault guns.

 

Because they were much cheaper to produce, the assult guns were increasingly given to the armored divisions in lieu of tanks. Both the later Stugs and the Hetzer could fulfill both the AT role and the infantry support role so they were very cost effective vehicles.

In my mind, the Hetzer not only had a good gun, it also had excellent sloped forward armor that saved weight and gave good protection. Speed and acceleration were its forte. The only quibble I have about it was that loader was on the right side of the gun (looking forward) so that he had to load with his left hand-not great if you're right handed. Naturally, it wasn't a good match against the heavy armor the Soviets were putting out toward the end of the war, but it was a danger to everything else.

IMO, the only goof-up the Germans did in relation to the assult-guns was to give them to the older panzer divisions while giving the new tanks such as the Panther to new, cobbled together formations such as we faced in Alsace-Lorraine in late '44.

However, the Hetzer was used post-war by at least one country so it had something going for it.

 

I agree that issuing assault guns to panzer divisions in lieu of tanks was a mistake, though I'm not sure how much that happened - anyone?

SS panzer divisions often had an assault gun battalion in addition to a "full" complement of tanks, good for them, but it meant that some infantry unit was doing without assault gun/antitank support.

There was a need for armored support for the infantry; the other major mechanized armies, US, Britain, USSR, and the allies they supported attached tanks and tank destroyers to infantry divisions; often the same Shermans or T-34s used by armored formations. In this respect the Germans economized by using StG, Hetzers, etc., but assigning them to panzer divisions was a disservice to both groups.

The production of StG/Jagdpanzer IVs was IMO a mistake, the Pz IV chassis should have been reserved for tanks, with the one exception of SP artillery - Hummel - for panzer divisions.

Sloped frontal armor on the Hetzer was a great feature, but I wonder about the sloped sides. The basic tactic for such a vehicle is to avoid exposing oneself to side shots. Of course you can't always avoid them, and on vehicles like the SU-85 or Jagdpanther it's just as easy to continue the side slope all the way up; but on the Hetzer the slope aggravated the cramped conditions inside. Flat sides with the same sponson width would literally give the crew some elbow room. The vulnerability is mainly to shots directly from the side; it's less of a problem at say a 45-degree angle. I've never seen the flat sides of the StG III described as a weak point.

 

I don't know how much the issuing of assult guns was done, but Guderian, in his first major conference as Inspector of Armored Forces, advocated such action. This was to be done as a temporary stop-gap until "real" tanks could be produced to equip the Panzer Divs. I suspect that this "temporary" measure probably became widespread and permanent for many Pz. Divs.

 

Thought I'd have a shufti in Spielberger - 'Pz.35/38(t) & variants 1920-45'. Below cribbed from there:

Two prototypes for the 7.5cm PaK 40 & 6.5cm Assault gun 40 ... were mounted on the chassis of the type G Pz.38(t) tank."
p.230
There's a picture in there, but I can't find one on the web.
Very 'Marder III', but with a more stug-ish gun stance.

There was also the SdKfz.140/1 reconnaissance project. That was envisioned with support vehicles carrying 7.5 L24 on a straight unmodified 38t chassis. Prototyping done (again, photos in there but can't find on the web) but never mass-produced.

More assault jobs planned/done on the Panzerjager 38 (Hetzer) arrangement as well:
15cm 33/2 was successfully squeezed in, and the reconnaissance idea re-flowered with a 7.5 L24 fitted.
Plans for a 'Howitzer carrier' (very stug-like in appearance) with a 10.5cm StuH 42/2 fitted, and even a 12cm GraW 42.

Firmly into Paper panzer territory, but 'Jagdpanzer 38D with 8cm PAW 600' might be worth a Google - Doyle sketch in there looks, again, very Stug-like.
Looks like they were envisioning quite a range of 38t based assault guns, but as they were desperate enough to be working on steam-powered versions at that point... it's all rather moot.

~A

 

IMHO,it all was a wast of means :Germany was in a situation that it had to produce,not what it needed (or what a lot of lobbying parties said it needed),but what it could afford .Germany had a limited production capacity,and was producing ...a lot of things in limited numbers .Pursuing standardization was better .
I don't see the wisdom of producing in 1943 the
Marder II
Wespe
Marder 138
Grille
StuG III(l)
StuH 42
StuG IV
StuPz IV
Hornisse
Hummel
Elefant
As I posted in an other forum:it was as every salesman who was visiting Rastenburg with a map full of beautiful pictures,and who had the gift of the gab,could expect an order .
While Sears can afford to have a lot of things in stock,Germany could not .
In 1944,it was producing the Panzer IV,and ....9 (NINE) variants .

 

LGAd,

I agree that standardization was NOT a German strong point! In fact, by 1943 the German armored forces were in such a poor state that Hitler had to take the step of re-hiring Guderian as Inspector of Armored Forces in order to get the muddle straightened out. By that time it wasn't feasible to re-tool the entire Czeckoslovakian armor industry and thus had to make do with what they had. They still had to make assult guns, self-propelled artillery, self-propelled light AA guns etc. in a hurry. Therefore, ad hoc extemporization became the order of the day. Guderian did make some order out of the chaos however. What was probably worse was that the Germans never did have a standard truck to haul supplies. It had several German models plus a hodge-podge of foreign makes from the conquored countries. That had to be a logistic nightmare, plus the fact that many of those trucks weren't robust enough for the war in the East!

 

it was as every salesman who was visiting Rastenburg with a map full of beautiful pictures,and who had the gift of the gab,could expect an order.

Good phrase! One example which strikes me is the restart of Panzer II production at the FAMO plant in Poland. Panzer II, as described by Guderian, was just a stopgap until the tanks they really wanted could be developed; production had slowed to a trickle by September 1939 and ought to have been phased out entirely. Unlike the Czech plant which continued to produce the 38 (t) for the Heer, the Polish factory was to be re-tooled for a standard German design. This should have been the Panzer III or IV, which were intended to be the standard equipment of panzer units. There was no defined role for the Panzer II as there was for say the Stuart in American organizations; it was purely a stopgap and its time had passed. Devoting new capacity to an already obsolescent tank smacks of exactly what you suggest, a slick sales pitch and probably some political connections.

The Pz II chassis did prove useful for SP guns, but a factory producing additional real tanks would have been far more valuable.

 

It was the same with the tanks:in 1944,they produced and the Tiger,and the Panther,and the PzIV(IMHO,they could not afford this)
And,also in 1944,they produced the V I and the V IIne of both would be enough.I am sure,that,if the war lasted,they also would produce the V III.
The difficult situation of Germany demanded priorities,= harsh decisions,but,these never were made .
The problem also is that the research and development were living in separate universum of the production boys :in 1945,the R+D boys still were making plans,blue-prints for tanks/SP's that never would be build,as the Maus (a tank of 200 ton)and a monster tank of 1500 ton .

 

About the trucks,in 1939,a standardization program was started by the chief od the WM motorization,general von Schell,but the results were negligible.
Number of types in 1939 in 1942
motorcycles :150 26
passenger cars :55 29
trucks :131 23
passenger car trailers:658 3
truck tralers:1367 8

 

They only made stug IV's late in the war because Panzer III hull's were in short supply