What a fascinating presentation. I now know more about Stugs than I ever thought was possible. Great job Pete and Woody, thanks for putting on another great show!
I totally disagree with you, and more importantly so did the vast majority of viewers. And no I will not take the hat off, it's become a kind of trade mark, I wear it at history conferences too. Basically Gann, if you don't like my content or my hat, you can always leave
Howdy folks. Pete gives his usual expert presentation on German fighting vehicles. One of the Top 10 armor shows of the best channel ever on RUclips. Thanks Woody.
From what I remember from 1971 when I was in training the German tanks had electrical priming and the artillery had percussion primers which did the Sturmgeschütz use.
As a rule, you're right. The 7.5cm guns of the StuG were essentially the same as those fitted in tanks, the differences being the gun sights and mounts. The 7.5 guns in the StuG fired shells with electric primers. Regarding the 10.5cm howitzer, I'm not sure. When this weapon was fitted to vehicles, it seems to have continued to fire shells with percussion primers. I'm not sure if the version fitted to the StuG was modified to take an electric primer. Given the different front-line role of the StuH42 & the fact it had an enclosed casemate with much more limited crew space, it would make sense to have done that. I note the Tanks Encyclopaedia entry for the StuG says the 10.5cm used an electric firing system, but I've yet to see any other sources say the same.
Damn it guys, another fantastic show! I don't have enough superlatives. A little something for all the military history geeks, nerds and whatnots. Enjoy Pete's presentations every time and the sidebar was rockin today. Thank you Pete and Paul.
My knowledge of the Sturmgeschutz comes from the Avalon Hill Game Company's Squad Leader and Cross of Iron board games. A wonderful weapon to use in a fantasy situation. By the time G.I. Anvil of Victory, covering the Normandy and ETO, came out the STG-III's were passe and not up to snuff anymore.
Well that was a good & highly enjoyable presentation by Pete. This episode shows you don't have to be a Wheraboo to love a StuG, with great chat in the sidebar, and everyone contributing to a lively show. That was fun.
Great again. For the plunging fire question; if your gun does not elevate above 45°, you don't have a choise. It will be a bit more plunging at greater distances, and more direct at short ones. For "the end of Stug's"; with the development of extremely powerful engines, it was possible to have very big guns and armor combined with speeds of a 1940's sports car, all made during long peace time without time stress or material limitations. So the main battle tank now is a tank, tank destroyer, infantry support and possibly more.
Thankyou, Paul and Pete! Great presentation! Always thought the StuG III just 'looked right'! Also it was an early Airfix model that I made, iirc their Series 1 models were still in the polythene bags rather than the blister packs!
I wondered how the early Stugs managed to take out T-34s as I read a Wittman report about how he killed several. Using HE which possibly gave them an advantage over the smaller shells of the Panzer III ?
Learned the StuG-IV came about due to Allied Air raids! As to "Aces", not mentioned were any of the other Axis powers, like Finland in the Continuation War. Hmm. Things to ponder. Great video presentation!
Should have replaced the pziv at the start of 1943. The unit commanders were begging for them over the iv's.the stugs started using 75mm L43early 1942.Hi from Australia
This a perfect presentatie to listen to in parts before bed. I'll fold out my centerfold of a Stugg en dream of some well shaped Stuggs all night long....😊
I appreciate the idea that the many variants blurred the lines but the definitions are clear: The Sturmgeschütz was a rare German departure from expensive and complex to somewhat less expensive and complex (though the Panzer III and IV were not as complex as the V and VI). Taking a Panzer's turret off and replacing it with a more static main armament allowed for easier manufacturing and the emplacement of a more powerful weapon system with the trade-off being the small arc of traverse. The difference between a Sturmgeschütz and self-propelled artillery is in the weapon and its employment: the same is true for the "Assault Gun" vs. the "Tank Destroyer". Artillery is normally assigned to lobbing indirect fire. Higher velocity weapons were preferred for piercing armored targets in line-of-sight. The "Assault Gun" was in between, preferring lower velocity high explosive rounds for destroying obstacles.
GERMAN ARMORED VEHICLES OF WW2. In that book Thomas Jentz points out there were four different versions of the Jagdpanzer IV. The Jagdpanzer IVL70 (V) and (A) were two. The original Jagdpanzer IV/L48 had 60mm frontal armor. The newer Jagdpanzer IVL70 (V) increased the frontal armor to 80mm. Production of chassis outpaced deliveries of the 75L70 guns so part of the production were equipped with the 75L48 gun. Jagdpanzer IV/L48 60mm armor, Jagdpanzer IV/L48 80mm armor, Jagdpanzer IVL70 (V) and Jagdpanzer IVL70 (A). I find this is overlooked a lot.
Just to add a really nerdy point that I did not hear in this excellent presentation. As changes were made to the base hulls coming from Pz-III production that also appeared on Stug_IIIs. Enjoying this channel a very great deal.
Michael Whitman started out in a STUG! The ability to keep your heaviest armor plate on the front of your vehicle pointed towards the enemy is paramount to survival in Tank warfare! He used this tactic religiously!
Excellent video on one of my favourite armoured vehicles of WWII, based on aesthetics only. It just looks so cool. As to the question of whether it was a dead end after the war, you could argue it already was during the war, having shifted from being an assault gun only to mostly being used as a tank destroyer and even replacement tank, with its intended role increasingly of secondary importance. Perhaps not surprising if it was designed based on experiences from WWI and for that type of war, which we all know didn't happen in the next one. So while there is still need for a heavily armoured gun vehicle that can support the infantry with direct fire, in most situations a normal tank is just as good and there's little need for a specialised vehicle. The introduction of bazookas/piats/panzerfausts and their post war developments didn't help either. No need for a stug to clear a machine gun nest if a well aimed bazooka shot can do it just as well...
Thank you Pete & Woody for a great discussion/presentation on the development and uses of the Sturmgeschütze family of AFVs . The subject has always fascinated me and how, by necessity they became multi-role for German Forces on all fronts. I guess another point is that they may well have been so good in the multi-role use due to the skills of the crews? Keep up the great work and looking forward to the shows on WW1TV as well!!
Would have loved to catch this live. I wish I could have asked Peter if there was a difference in training of the crews (if there was one) for these vehicles going to the different branches. I remember reading in Zolgas book on the Battle Of The Bulge (from your channel) that’s Stugs filled out a lot of panzer divisions because not enough tanks were available to disastrous results. It begs the question when the crews and their commanders are being asked to use their vehicles to do things they can’t really do…where that disconnect comes from. Another great episode
Hi, indeed there would have been a difference. StuGs used in Panzer Regiments (instead of tanks) would have been manned by Panzer crews, those used in Panzerjäger Abteilungen manned by Panzerjäger personnel and those used in Sturmartillerie units (ie StuG Abteilungen/Brigaden) would have crewed by artillerymen. And logically, each of those groups were trained differently according to their branch.
My modelling mat has the schematics of a Stug III. purely because I wanted something different. One day, I will get around to building a Stug kit or three. It's great that you did this episode. I really enjoyed it. 😊❤❤❤😊
Love your videos. I put the ear buds in go to your channel hit play and just go about y daily chores. I get stuff done and I learn at the same time. Win win.
Pete gives an outstanding presentation with incredible detail. I am glad that the Germans did not follow the US model of picking one good tank and producing them in numbers. Otherwise, the war in Europe may have dragged out for longer.
Good point mate , but you wo uld have to have increased numbers of crews to man the larger numbers of vehicles.I dont think they hsd them .All the best from OZ.
Kurt Knispal.. Was a so called top stug crew member ie gunner. Reverting back to the stug 4 they were also used by the Volks grenadier battalions. Who were really Volkssturm with armour.. 👍
Its not just performance of the 75L48 its also the reliability. Their were less Stug III in repair from Mechanical failure than any other vehicle other than the Pz IV chassis vehicles which were also reliable mechanically. Great presentation on a Vehicle I am very familiar with
Hi Paul, a few of us are highly in favour of you doing a show on tank "aces" and their claims to kills. I think this kind of show would garner a very large audience. 👌
When does artillery become a TD? Sometime. When does a TD become a tank? When it does. When does an APC become an IFV About then. When does an UAV become an attack helicopter? When we want it to. Glad we could clear that up!
3rd SS Panzer Division also got some Stug IV's part of II. Abt SS Pz Rgt. 3 according to records in late 1944 when they were assigned to IV SS PzKorps based on weekly/monthly strength reports from August 44 thru Nov 44.
Hi. I wasn't aware of this but I had a look myself this morning and you're right; seems 3. SS did use the StuG IV. The status reports clearly show them in the Panzerjäger Abteilung (as substitutes for Jagdpanzer IVs), though it's unclear whether the StuGs within the Panzer Regiment were IIIs or IVs (I assume they're IIIs as they're not called out as IVs). Many thanks for bringing this up - much appreciated.
@@PeteBlanchard Correct I just looked again. 3.SS Pz were using StuG III's and Jgpz IV's integrated into their Panzer Abts. Also their was an attached remnant for a Stug Abt that might have been disbanded and integrated into 3.SS Pz it's unclear. So after listening to your lecture again I am surmising that as you pointed out the use of the name Sturmgeschütz to identify even the jagdpanzers creates confusion in reading those reports even though the reports state the difference their are a few reports that just used the StuG term. Thanks Pete this was a very informative and excellent presentation. Especially on naming conventions. Which now has me wondering if Sturmpanzer, Sturmartillerie, and Sturmgeschütz were used to classify them based on the branch and the doctrine they were used. I guess at the end if it was a turretless vehicle mounted on a Pz III or Pz IV Chassis they designated it as a Sturmgeschütz. Just when you think you understand German naming and classification conventions you end up wrong lol.
You know the drill by now ... excellent ! I have a theory that increasing frontal armor on StuG, Pz III and IV to 80mm was what really "inspired" the Russians to think about a bigger gun - the 85mm - on their tanks, not Tiger and Panther. The old 76,2mm couldn't reliably deal with the additional armor. I think it's safe to say that the Russian "StuG" SU-122 (which led to SU-85) was a direct adaption of the very concept. As Peter said, everybody was looking around to see if the other side had any useful ideas. The same way Germany simply copied the Russian 120mm mortar and inofficially adopted the PPSH SMG.
Stug IIIs with the 80mm front were already encountered in 1942 with the ausf G, but the Soviets didn't make any effort to up gun their T-34s until after the Tigers started showing up in early 1943. The Soviets performed tests on a captured Tiger in mid April 1943 trying to decide which gun would be best. However it was only after Kursk and the appearance of the Panther that Soviet Red Army command insisted on a quicker pace of this up gunning development. It really does appear it was the Tiger and Panther. Its a good theory though.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Thank you, Lyndon ! Tigers first showed up in August 1942, which isn't that long after the up-armored "lesser" tanks had been encountered. Maybe a coincidence. I agree that Tiger probably made a bigger impact on the decision to get 85mm SPGs (SU-85) to the front (mind you, the 85mm AA gun had already proven itself as well as the 88). When you take effective range into consideration, my theory holds some water. Germans not only up-armored their ordinary tanks to the point that Russian guns might struggle frontally, they also up-gunned them, which increased effective range. The Russians were out-gunned, so the demand for better guns was there even without Tiger and Panther showing up. Considering how keen the Russians were on production changes not interfering with production numbers, they wouldn't risk anything with a major change. Also, 85mm gun production was slow even in late 1943, let alone earlier, so they wouldn't get the numbers anywhere before 1944. Panther and Tiger as well as their own ever increasing production could just have been the final push towards T-34/85, whereas StuG III&Co. might have implemented the idea in the first place. If I'm not wrong, the ZiS-2 57mm AT gun was the best Russian armor piercing gun, but it was deemed too expensive (both gun & ammo) for the kind of mass production they had in mind. And of course the 57 lacked effective HE compared to an 85mm. As said, a theory until proven right or wrong.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Well don't forget, it was only a handful of Tigers (just 4) of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 encountered around Leningrad in September 1942. They got stuck in swampy ground and their impact was negligible. 3 were recovered but the 4th was left there until it was blown up by the Germans in November. So the Soviets weren't on the receiving end of Tigers and couldn't examine any, in 1942. Abteilung 502 didn't see any other significant action for the rest of 1942. Tigers didn't really show up next on the Eastern Front until early 1943 when Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 began having significant impact in tank v tank battles in southern Russia near the Manysch River at the beginning of January 1943, followed by the deployment of the Tiger companies of 1st, 2nd and 3rd SS and Grossdeutschland for the Kharkov counter attack in February/March. So really it wasn't until January to March 1943 that the Soviets really found out about the Tigers the hard way. They captured one intact on 18th January 1943, from Abteilung 502. It got stuck in a peat bog. As I said, it's a good theory regarding the up armoured Stugs and Panzer IVs but looking objectively it does seem to be the appearance of the Tigers, and then Panther, which really got the Soviets moving. Otherwise they would have begun the move to up gun in 1942, surely? They'd encountered lots of up armoured Stugs in 1942. Glad you mentioned the SU-85. That began being developed in spring 1943 and I believe it was deployed in combat in autumn 1943. September I think. That does seem to be a response to the Tiger, yes. Yes, quite so regarding the Soviet 57mm. I don't know offhand how many T-34s were converted and pictures are rare. Cheers. Great discussion. 👍
@@lyndoncmp5751 The Russians might have just received enough information from that Tiger wreck to be concerned, but no chance they could have had any info on Panther. One point pro and contra (at the same time) to my theory is that work on SU-85 started the same time that Tiger appeared in noticable numbers around Charkov as you've mentioned. That's either the quickest reaction of military burocracy in history or they already had something in the cupboard (analogue to Tiger and Panther already on German minds before they knew about KV-1 and T-34). As far as planning goes, work on the "next generation" usually starts before the actual generation enters service. I can't see why Russia wouldn't go the same path, which also undermines my theory. That's also why some things become obsolete before they enter service. Thinking of KV-2, Tiger II, Comet etc., all of which made perfect sense by the time work started. I also enjoy this discussion very much, Prost !
Well yes definitely the Soviets would have had 'plans' to already improve their own tanks but it usually takes something the enemy actually has to wake them from a slumber and actually get going. I really do think the Tiger did that first with the SU-85 and KV-85 and then the Panther with the T-34/85. In the same way, the British were already planning the A30 Challenger but after the appearance of the Tiger in Tunisia it very much worried them and they began thinking of the 17 pounder on the Sherman and to also begin designing the Centurion. Perhaps the up armoured and up gunned Stugs and Panzer IVs were part of the overall thinking in 1943 to get things rolling, if not the main reason. Prost!! 🍻
When does an armored vehicle become a "tank destroyer"? A: doctrine. When does an armored vehicle become an infantry support vehicle? A: doctrine. What makes a "tank" a "tank"? A: doctrine.
@@WW2TV Agreed. It was the realities of the battlefield which determined how armored vehicles were used in end effect, often "on the spot decisions" dictated by combat, and often disregarding the "official doctrine" decided at some green table. 👍
Does anyone know how the RAF managed to damage the Alkett factory so heavily in Nov. 43? Typically speaking, the factories and equipment involved building things like tanks are heavily built themselves and aren't all that susceptible to blast damage. That the RAF managed to hit the factory hard enough to entirely knock out production was something of an achievement and I've long been curious as to exactly what went down.
@@WW2TV Yeah. That's one of the reasons why it's perplexing to me that the factory took so much damage that it was basically a write-off. My best guess is that the RAF started a fire, which goes along with what I know about Bomber Command tactics. But, again, such factories are usually built out of steel and concrete, not flammable materials like wood. They have to be to handle the weight of the vehicles they're producing. After all, the RAF bombed the hell out of Essen, but the factories there largely held up and for the most part all the air attacks achieved were relatively short disruptions in production. But in this instance, and it's the only instance that I'm aware of, a factory producing heavy vehicles was totally wrecked. That makes me wonder exactly what happened and it's not something that I've been able to find out on my own.
@@silentotto5099 Was thinking the same thing as i watched the excellent presentation. Having read Speer's book long ago i seem to remember him writing that despite the air raids they were usually able to get factories up and running again relatively quickly. He also points out that German armaments production generally and greatly increased year on year right till the end. So the Alkett factory's slowness to recover raises questions considering how important it was. I'd like a video on this topic alone. Cheers
@@silentotto5099 Usually built out of steel and concrete, but not so much for Alkett's main production facilities, which were brick and wood. In the attack part of the plant completely collapsed onto the floors below it, which can't have helped.
@@kewlwarez That's exactly what I wanted to know. So, a factory of wood and brick construction, RAF raid, huge fire and no more StuG IIIs from Alkett. Thanks.
Because they wanted to open another production line and the factory was already making panzer IV chassis so they just decided it was easier for that factory to just keep making that chassis rather than build what would be for them a brand new production line. I mean it’s already set up for the Panzer IV chassis and it’s not too hard to adopt that to make Stugs as was seen when they made something like 1500 of the Stug IV
Germans were and still remained THE BEST ENGINEERS of this planet, they were really kind of wizzards in ww2 time, going for impossible tasks and succeded most of the times. Not only in armoured vehicle, but in ALL DOMAINS involved in war efforts.
@@WW2TV Keep in mind they becoming more and more creative as the allied bombing were increasing in intensity and raw materials shortages affected more and more their war efforts. They literally worked with "trash" to build WONDERS. Just imagine how was to build flotila of jet airplanes able to FIGHT almost entirely using recicled materials, imagine how they manage to engineering vampyr, or systems of controll from V2 in those times when TRANSISTORS were inexistent, look back at fuel injection engines, NOS systems, methanol injection, rocket engines excellence, first assault rifle, first submarine with (at least in project) capability to carry and launch rockets and to remain underwater long period, First real HYBRID propulsion OPERATIONAL in real combat (porsche)... etc, etc.
Not related to the subject, strictly speaking, but Greece did not surrender to the Germans, most of our army did capitulate, but the rest, the Airforce, the Navy and some army units that managed to escape from Crete (as well as the country itself) continued fighting until almost 1945
1:39:21 Interestingly, one could make an argument for calling the new m10 booker an assault gun. It is turreted, but the intended doctrine for it is similar to that of early stugs.
They should have built more StuH 42s Better shaped charge round and HE performance .. and more true to the point. Syria retired the StuH's in the '90s.. they still are relevant, just that military men are biased and all want that rotating turret. The StuG/H chassis also should have been used in a recovery/engineering vehicle (bloody plow/blade on the front)
They didn’t have enough of anything, that’s sort of what happens when you have to fight a war while your industry is being bombed continously. However, the far majority of Panzergrenadiere were not supposed to be armoured. Mechanised infantry was only a subsection of Panzergrenadiere (designated as gepanzert - armoured). Prior to the name change, the infantry of tank divisions were designated as Schützen, and were trained to fight alongside tanks. A fraction of said Schützen were armoured in half-tracks (gp). Then you had the motorised infantry divisions that were not supposed to have tanks nor be armoured in half tracks. When the term Panzergrenadier was introduced in 1942 it became an umbrella term covering all three of those roles: Schützen (mot), Schützen (gp), and Infanterie (mot). A higher proportion of Schützen were actually armoured early in the war, like in France, because they kept expanding with new motorised units without making more mechanised. It’s a similar story with tanks, where they created multiple new tank divisions without actually producing more tanks.
When The Finns (my Family Home Orgins Country, though Sweden is part of my generations Legacy) Fought for 2nd Time With the Germans, they got lots off stuff like Panzerfausts, Pak-40, Heavy Artillery & a handful of Stug III or Stug IV, which can be see in a Finnish WW2 movie called"Tali-Ihantala 44".afer seeing this Movie..well Lets just say I got into the Stug Life.
The M4 Sherman 75 mm was used extensively as an artillery weapon, a tank killer, an exploitation tank, an infantry support tank, …… every modern weapon system is part of a larger weapons system, which is based on a statement of need, which is then combined with like statements of need….. money is allocated when the need becomes a requirement…. Requirements are based on the possible, not the infinite. The timeline for production, training and fielding of systems within systems is not done without the enemy developing and fielding capabilities that influence the effectiveness and implementation of your capabilities. This induces stress in the optimization of what your timeline, industry and doctrine produced. This reality dictates the system you field will have to take in new requirements in the field, as the end user, under duress, will endeavor to survive as best he can, with whatever is at hand. Thus the confusion on doctrine versus dogma versus minutia versus reality. The machine was capable, it’s users were stressed, and used it beyond its statement of requirements. So well in fact, decades later we are still trying to figure out why we can not figure it out.
Whether or not the Stug influenced the SU-85 is hard to tell I would guess yes it did. However the SU-76 was totally a Soviet invention it’s really not like the Stug at all. Light armour, open topped. It was more like the Wespe Self Propelled Gun the Germans had. But I’d say it was deployed in the direct fire mode much like a Stug rather than the indirect fire like the howitzer equipped Wespe.
Not exactly right with the reason for the A and V versions of the panzer IV/70. A stood for Alkett, and it was to pump out more panzer IV/70, because Vomag who produced the standard Panzer IV 70 had to reduce production because of bombing and other demands, and Hitler wanted extra production for a push against the western allies. It was not because it couldn't fit in the standard Panzer IV 70, which was a modified Panzer IV chassis. But yes that was the artillery branch finally got their long guns. Great presentation
Short answer is, I don't know. As I mention in the talk, the Artillerie did keep records on the number of tank kills made by StuG units. I believe this figure was recorded in good faith, but of course, it depends on the StuG unit claims being accurate. Kill claims from all units on all sides have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Were the StuG claims any more/less inaccurate than those from Panzer units? I don't know. Were Artillerie claims inflated for propaganda/political purposes? It's possible, but again, I can't say.
Hi. I don't usually list sources for presentations as I tend to use a lot of sources, including many I use to check, confirm or triangulate data. Plus, such listings were never requirement for my presentations at work! But you've specifically asked, so here are my main ones: • Sturmartillerie - Anderson • Panzer Tracts 8 (Sturmgeschütz) - Jentz/Doyle • Panzer Tracts 23 (Panzer Production 1933-45) - Jentz/Doyle • Various Bundesarchiv files, including RH10/150, 153 & 66K • Sturmgeschütz - Recio/de Diego Hope that helps.
@@WW2TV Battle Cruiser or Battleship is an oft debated thing with certain naval nerds. Fairly clear cut in WWI, less so later. Esp. after conversions, etc. Comparable to this tank or not a tank thing.
Absolutely the best explanation of StuG development and employment I've come across so far. Well done Guy's.
What a fascinating presentation. I now know more about Stugs than I ever thought was possible. Great job Pete and Woody, thanks for putting on another great show!
Thank you Woody and Pete for an incredible presentation!
A total engrossing presentation, out friggen standing! Thanks to both of you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@ganndeber1621 It may not have been new to you, but it was to many. Plus, no-one made you watch
I totally disagree with you, and more importantly so did the vast majority of viewers. And no I will not take the hat off, it's become a kind of trade mark, I wear it at history conferences too. Basically Gann, if you don't like my content or my hat, you can always leave
I'm a big fan of the StuG. They were the backbone of Finland's armored corps during WW2.
Howdy folks. Pete gives his usual expert presentation on German fighting vehicles. One of the Top 10 armor shows of the best channel ever on RUclips. Thanks Woody.
From what I remember from 1971 when I was in training the German tanks had electrical priming and the artillery had percussion primers which did the Sturmgeschütz use.
As a rule, you're right. The 7.5cm guns of the StuG were essentially the same as those fitted in tanks, the differences being the gun sights and mounts. The 7.5 guns in the StuG fired shells with electric primers.
Regarding the 10.5cm howitzer, I'm not sure. When this weapon was fitted to vehicles, it seems to have continued to fire shells with percussion primers. I'm not sure if the version fitted to the StuG was modified to take an electric primer. Given the different front-line role of the StuH42 & the fact it had an enclosed casemate with much more limited crew space, it would make sense to have done that. I note the Tanks Encyclopaedia entry for the StuG says the 10.5cm used an electric firing system, but I've yet to see any other sources say the same.
Damn it guys, another fantastic show! I don't have enough superlatives. A little something for all the military history geeks, nerds and whatnots. Enjoy Pete's presentations every time and the sidebar was rockin today. Thank you Pete and Paul.
My knowledge of the Sturmgeschutz comes from the Avalon Hill Game Company's Squad Leader and Cross of Iron board games. A wonderful weapon to use in a fantasy situation. By the time G.I. Anvil of Victory, covering the Normandy and ETO, came out the STG-III's were passe and not up to snuff anymore.
Well that was a good & highly enjoyable presentation by Pete. This episode shows you don't have to be a Wheraboo to love a StuG, with great chat in the sidebar, and everyone contributing to a lively show. That was fun.
Even the Soviets loved them. Imo the stug is an assault gun(self propelled arty) not a tank destroyer but it performs both roles well
I love it when it is used as an add-on with infantry in the early days of the war...in pc games it is a joy to use it that way. 😊
Wonderful show, gents. Conversational tone draws one in completely. I learned a great deal, thanks.
Great again.
For the plunging fire question; if your gun does not elevate above 45°, you don't have a choise. It will be a bit more plunging at greater distances, and more direct at short ones.
For "the end of Stug's"; with the development of extremely powerful engines, it was possible to have very big guns and armor combined with speeds of a 1940's sports car, all made during long peace time without time stress or material limitations. So the main battle tank now is a tank, tank destroyer, infantry support and possibly more.
And a fuel eliminator
Brilliant… as always 🥂
Thankyou, Paul and Pete!
Great presentation!
Always thought the StuG III just 'looked right'!
Also it was an early Airfix model that I made, iirc their Series 1 models were still in the polythene bags rather than the blister packs!
I wondered how the early Stugs managed to take out T-34s as I read a Wittman report about how he killed several. Using HE which possibly gave them an advantage over the smaller shells of the Panzer III ?
Learned the StuG-IV came about due to Allied Air raids! As to "Aces", not mentioned were any of the other Axis powers, like Finland in the Continuation War. Hmm. Things to ponder. Great video presentation!
Should have replaced the pziv at the start of 1943. The unit commanders were begging for them over the iv's.the stugs started using 75mm L43early 1942.Hi from Australia
Man, I just love geeking out like this. Great program!
well researched and wonderfully done presentation!
This a perfect presentatie to listen to in parts before bed. I'll fold out my centerfold of a Stugg en dream of some well shaped Stuggs all night long....😊
I appreciate the idea that the many variants blurred the lines but the definitions are clear:
The Sturmgeschütz was a rare German departure from expensive and complex to somewhat less expensive and complex (though the Panzer III and IV were not as complex as the V and VI).
Taking a Panzer's turret off and replacing it with a more static main armament allowed for easier manufacturing and the emplacement of a more powerful weapon system with the trade-off being the small arc of traverse.
The difference between a Sturmgeschütz and self-propelled artillery is in the weapon and its employment: the same is true for the "Assault Gun" vs. the "Tank Destroyer".
Artillery is normally assigned to lobbing indirect fire. Higher velocity weapons were preferred for piercing armored targets in line-of-sight. The "Assault Gun" was in between, preferring lower velocity high explosive rounds for destroying obstacles.
GERMAN ARMORED VEHICLES OF WW2. In that book Thomas Jentz points out there were four different versions of the Jagdpanzer IV. The Jagdpanzer IVL70 (V) and (A) were two. The original Jagdpanzer IV/L48 had 60mm frontal armor. The newer Jagdpanzer IVL70 (V) increased the frontal armor to 80mm. Production of chassis outpaced deliveries of the 75L70 guns so part of the production were equipped with the 75L48 gun.
Jagdpanzer IV/L48 60mm armor, Jagdpanzer IV/L48 80mm armor, Jagdpanzer IVL70 (V) and Jagdpanzer IVL70 (A). I find this is overlooked a lot.
Danke ! Ausgezeichnete Dokumentation !!!
Excellent guest, great overview of a great tracked armoured vehicle.
Just to add a really nerdy point that I did not hear in this excellent presentation. As changes were made to the base hulls coming from Pz-III production that also appeared on Stug_IIIs. Enjoying this channel a very great deal.
Fantastic show. Great to have such a detailed and interesting explanation of such an iconic vehicle
Raging I missed the live feed! Superb detail & presentation from Pete.
Excellent presentation! Very informative.
Michael Whitman started out in a STUG! The ability to keep your heaviest armor plate on the front of your vehicle pointed towards the enemy is paramount to survival in Tank warfare! He used this tactic religiously!
That is why you see 2 versions of the Panzer IV L70, the Panzer IV 70 A, Alkett, and Panzer IV L70 V, for Vomag
Yes very detailed, thanks very much indeed Paul and to Pete.
Very enjoyable .
Excellent video on one of my favourite armoured vehicles of WWII, based on aesthetics only. It just looks so cool. As to the question of whether it was a dead end after the war, you could argue it already was during the war, having shifted from being an assault gun only to mostly being used as a tank destroyer and even replacement tank, with its intended role increasingly of secondary importance. Perhaps not surprising if it was designed based on experiences from WWI and for that type of war, which we all know didn't happen in the next one.
So while there is still need for a heavily armoured gun vehicle that can support the infantry with direct fire, in most situations a normal tank is just as good and there's little need for a specialised vehicle. The introduction of bazookas/piats/panzerfausts and their post war developments didn't help either. No need for a stug to clear a machine gun nest if a well aimed bazooka shot can do it just as well...
Thank you Pete & Woody for a great discussion/presentation on the development and uses of the Sturmgeschütze family of AFVs . The subject has always fascinated me and how, by necessity they became multi-role for German Forces on all fronts. I guess another point is that they may well have been so good in the multi-role use due to the skills of the crews?
Keep up the great work and looking forward to the shows on WW1TV as well!!
Would have loved to catch this live. I wish I could have asked Peter if there was a difference in training of the crews (if there was one) for these vehicles going to the different branches. I remember reading in Zolgas book on the Battle Of The Bulge (from your channel) that’s Stugs filled out a lot of panzer divisions because not enough tanks were available to disastrous results. It begs the question when the crews and their commanders are being asked to use their vehicles to do things they can’t really do…where that disconnect comes from.
Another great episode
Hi, indeed there would have been a difference. StuGs used in Panzer Regiments (instead of tanks) would have been manned by Panzer crews, those used in Panzerjäger Abteilungen manned by Panzerjäger personnel and those used in Sturmartillerie units (ie StuG Abteilungen/Brigaden) would have crewed by artillerymen. And logically, each of those groups were trained differently according to their branch.
My modelling mat has the schematics of a Stug III. purely because I wanted something different. One day, I will get around to building a Stug kit or three.
It's great that you did this episode. I really enjoyed it. 😊❤❤❤😊
Thank you this was really great 😊
Love your videos. I put the ear buds in go to your channel hit play and just go about y daily chores. I get stuff done and I learn at the same time. Win win.
Love it!!
Pete gives an outstanding presentation with incredible detail. I am glad that the Germans did not follow the US model of picking one good tank and producing them in numbers. Otherwise, the war in Europe may have dragged out for longer.
Good point mate , but you wo uld have to have increased numbers of crews to man the larger numbers of vehicles.I dont think they hsd them .All the best from OZ.
Kurt Knispal.. Was a so called top stug crew member ie gunner.
Reverting back to the stug 4 they were also used by the Volks grenadier battalions.
Who were really Volkssturm with armour.. 👍
Super lecture, not only about Stugs)
Its not just performance of the 75L48 its also the reliability. Their were less Stug III in repair from Mechanical failure than any other vehicle other than the Pz IV chassis vehicles which were also reliable mechanically. Great presentation on a Vehicle I am very familiar with
Hi Paul, a few of us are highly in favour of you doing a show on tank "aces" and their claims to kills. I think this kind of show would garner a very large audience. 👌
Well we did one on Tank Aces in the very early days, maybe time to revisit
@@WW2TV If you put Hitler’s tank aces in the title the algorithm will run riot.
Excellent as always.
Thanks for making this
You are the best
When does artillery become a TD? Sometime.
When does a TD become a tank? When it does.
When does an APC become an IFV
About then.
When does an UAV become an attack helicopter?
When we want it to.
Glad we could clear that up!
3rd SS Panzer Division also got some Stug IV's part of II. Abt SS Pz Rgt. 3 according to records in late 1944 when they were assigned to IV SS PzKorps based on weekly/monthly strength reports from August 44 thru Nov 44.
Hi. I wasn't aware of this but I had a look myself this morning and you're right; seems 3. SS did use the StuG IV. The status reports clearly show them in the Panzerjäger Abteilung (as substitutes for Jagdpanzer IVs), though it's unclear whether the StuGs within the Panzer Regiment were IIIs or IVs (I assume they're IIIs as they're not called out as IVs). Many thanks for bringing this up - much appreciated.
@@PeteBlanchard Correct I just looked again. 3.SS Pz were using StuG III's and Jgpz IV's integrated into their Panzer Abts. Also their was an attached remnant for a Stug Abt that might have been disbanded and integrated into 3.SS Pz it's unclear. So after listening to your lecture again I am surmising that as you pointed out the use of the name Sturmgeschütz to identify even the jagdpanzers creates confusion in reading those reports even though the reports state the difference their are a few reports that just used the StuG term. Thanks Pete this was a very informative and excellent presentation. Especially on naming conventions. Which now has me wondering if Sturmpanzer, Sturmartillerie, and Sturmgeschütz were used to classify them based on the branch and the doctrine they were used. I guess at the end if it was a turretless vehicle mounted on a Pz III or Pz IV Chassis they designated it as a Sturmgeschütz. Just when you think you understand German naming and classification conventions you end up wrong lol.
Would love you to do a show on the German tanks that could’ve been: namely the ‘Sturer Emil, Dicker Max, etc.
You know the drill by now ... excellent !
I have a theory that increasing frontal armor on StuG, Pz III and IV to 80mm was what really "inspired" the Russians to think about a bigger gun - the 85mm - on their tanks, not Tiger and Panther. The old 76,2mm couldn't reliably deal with the additional armor.
I think it's safe to say that the Russian "StuG" SU-122 (which led to SU-85) was a direct adaption of the very concept. As Peter said, everybody was looking around to see if the other side had any useful ideas. The same way Germany simply copied the Russian 120mm mortar and inofficially adopted the PPSH SMG.
Stug IIIs with the 80mm front were already encountered in 1942 with the ausf G, but the Soviets didn't make any effort to up gun their T-34s until after the Tigers started showing up in early 1943. The Soviets performed tests on a captured Tiger in mid April 1943 trying to decide which gun would be best. However it was only after Kursk and the appearance of the Panther that Soviet Red Army command insisted on a quicker pace of this up gunning development.
It really does appear it was the Tiger and Panther.
Its a good theory though.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Thank you, Lyndon ! Tigers first showed up in August 1942, which isn't that long after the up-armored "lesser" tanks had been encountered. Maybe a coincidence. I agree that Tiger probably made a bigger impact on the decision to get 85mm SPGs (SU-85) to the front (mind you, the 85mm AA gun had already proven itself as well as the 88).
When you take effective range into consideration, my theory holds some water.
Germans not only up-armored their ordinary tanks to the point that Russian guns might struggle frontally, they also up-gunned them, which increased effective range. The Russians were out-gunned, so the demand for better guns was there even without Tiger and Panther showing up.
Considering how keen the Russians were on production changes not interfering with production numbers, they wouldn't risk anything with a major change. Also, 85mm gun production was slow even in late 1943, let alone earlier, so they wouldn't get the numbers anywhere before 1944. Panther and Tiger as well as their own ever increasing production could just have been the final push towards T-34/85, whereas StuG III&Co. might have implemented the idea in the first place.
If I'm not wrong, the ZiS-2 57mm AT gun was the best Russian armor piercing gun, but it was deemed too expensive (both gun & ammo) for the kind of mass production they had in mind. And of course the 57 lacked effective HE compared to an 85mm.
As said, a theory until proven right or wrong.
@@ottovonbismarck2443
Well don't forget, it was only a handful of Tigers (just 4) of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 encountered around Leningrad in September 1942. They got stuck in swampy ground and their impact was negligible. 3 were recovered but the 4th was left there until it was blown up by the Germans in November. So the Soviets weren't on the receiving end of Tigers and couldn't examine any, in 1942. Abteilung 502 didn't see any other significant action for the rest of 1942.
Tigers didn't really show up next on the Eastern Front until early 1943 when Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 began having significant impact in tank v tank battles in southern Russia near the Manysch River at the beginning of January 1943, followed by the deployment of the Tiger companies of 1st, 2nd and 3rd SS and Grossdeutschland for the Kharkov counter attack in February/March.
So really it wasn't until January to March 1943 that the Soviets really found out about the Tigers the hard way. They captured one intact on 18th January 1943, from Abteilung 502. It got stuck in a peat bog.
As I said, it's a good theory regarding the up armoured Stugs and Panzer IVs but looking objectively it does seem to be the appearance of the Tigers, and then Panther, which really got the Soviets moving. Otherwise they would have begun the move to up gun in 1942, surely? They'd encountered lots of up armoured Stugs in 1942.
Glad you mentioned the SU-85. That began being developed in spring 1943 and I believe it was deployed in combat in autumn 1943. September I think. That does seem to be a response to the Tiger, yes.
Yes, quite so regarding the Soviet 57mm. I don't know offhand how many T-34s were converted and pictures are rare.
Cheers. Great discussion. 👍
@@lyndoncmp5751 The Russians might have just received enough information from that Tiger wreck to be concerned, but no chance they could have had any info on Panther.
One point pro and contra (at the same time) to my theory is that work on SU-85 started the same time that Tiger appeared in noticable numbers around Charkov as you've mentioned. That's either the quickest reaction of military burocracy in history or they already had something in the cupboard (analogue to Tiger and Panther already on German minds before they knew about KV-1 and T-34).
As far as planning goes, work on the "next generation" usually starts before the actual generation enters service. I can't see why Russia wouldn't go the same path, which also undermines my theory. That's also why some things become obsolete before they enter service. Thinking of KV-2, Tiger II, Comet etc., all of which made perfect sense by the time work started.
I also enjoy this discussion very much, Prost !
Well yes definitely the Soviets would have had 'plans' to already improve their own tanks but it usually takes something the enemy actually has to wake them from a slumber and actually get going. I really do think the Tiger did that first with the SU-85 and KV-85 and then the Panther with the T-34/85.
In the same way, the British were already planning the A30 Challenger but after the appearance of the Tiger in Tunisia it very much worried them and they began thinking of the 17 pounder on the Sherman and to also begin designing the Centurion.
Perhaps the up armoured and up gunned Stugs and Panzer IVs were part of the overall thinking in 1943 to get things rolling, if not the main reason.
Prost!! 🍻
Excellent
When does an armored vehicle become a "tank destroyer"?
A: doctrine.
When does an armored vehicle become an infantry support vehicle? A: doctrine.
What makes a "tank" a "tank"?
A: doctrine.
But when does practical use supersede doctrine? I am not disagreeing with you but it gets really complicated
@@WW2TV Agreed. It was the realities of the battlefield which determined how armored vehicles were used in end effect, often "on the spot decisions" dictated by combat, and often disregarding the "official doctrine" decided at some green table. 👍
Does anyone know how the RAF managed to damage the Alkett factory so heavily in Nov. 43? Typically speaking, the factories and equipment involved building things like tanks are heavily built themselves and aren't all that susceptible to blast damage. That the RAF managed to hit the factory hard enough to entirely knock out production was something of an achievement and I've long been curious as to exactly what went down.
November was when Harris's plan to hit Berlin began, so the factory hits were a result of area bombing rather than precision
@@WW2TV Yeah. That's one of the reasons why it's perplexing to me that the factory took so much damage that it was basically a write-off.
My best guess is that the RAF started a fire, which goes along with what I know about Bomber Command tactics.
But, again, such factories are usually built out of steel and concrete, not flammable materials like wood. They have to be to handle the weight of the vehicles they're producing.
After all, the RAF bombed the hell out of Essen, but the factories there largely held up and for the most part all the air attacks achieved were relatively short disruptions in production.
But in this instance, and it's the only instance that I'm aware of, a factory producing heavy vehicles was totally wrecked.
That makes me wonder exactly what happened and it's not something that I've been able to find out on my own.
@@silentotto5099 Was thinking the same thing as i watched the excellent presentation. Having read Speer's book long ago i seem to remember him writing that despite the air raids they were usually able to get factories up and running again relatively quickly. He also points out that German armaments production generally and greatly increased year on year right till the end. So the Alkett factory's slowness to recover raises questions considering how important it was. I'd like a video on this topic alone. Cheers
@@silentotto5099 Usually built out of steel and concrete, but not so much for Alkett's main production facilities, which were brick and wood. In the attack part of the plant completely collapsed onto the floors below it, which can't have helped.
@@kewlwarez That's exactly what I wanted to know. So, a factory of wood and brick construction, RAF raid, huge fire and no more StuG IIIs from Alkett.
Thanks.
Thank you very fucking much from California.
Always wondered why they made the Stug IV since it was not an advance over the Stug III.
Because they wanted to open another production line and the factory was already making panzer IV chassis so they just decided it was easier for that factory to just keep making that chassis rather than build what would be for them a brand new production line. I mean it’s already set up for the Panzer IV chassis and it’s not too hard to adopt that to make Stugs as was seen when they made something like 1500 of the Stug IV
Germans were and still remained THE BEST ENGINEERS of this planet, they were really kind of wizzards in ww2 time, going for impossible tasks and succeded most of the times. Not only in armoured vehicle, but in ALL DOMAINS involved in war efforts.
Interesting take. For me, they over engineered everything and should have kept things simpler and more efficient
@@WW2TV Keep in mind they becoming more and more creative as the allied bombing were increasing in intensity and raw materials shortages affected more and more their war efforts. They literally worked with "trash" to build WONDERS. Just imagine how was to build flotila of jet airplanes able to FIGHT almost entirely using recicled materials, imagine how they manage to engineering vampyr, or systems of controll from V2 in those times when TRANSISTORS were inexistent, look back at fuel injection engines, NOS systems, methanol injection, rocket engines excellence, first assault rifle, first submarine with (at least in project) capability to carry and launch rockets and to remain underwater long period, First real HYBRID propulsion OPERATIONAL in real combat (porsche)... etc, etc.
PS: I almost forgot about facilities which produced fuel from coal, or the (possibly) first time when synthetic engine oil was produced and used.
Learnt so much!
Das StuG ; Great knocking devise . !
Sounds a lot like the logic the US Army uses in saying the M10 Booker isn't a tank
the picture has 8 road wheels and short barrel 75 mm, but it says PZKW 111. DWG. shows 6 wheels?
Not related to the subject, strictly speaking, but Greece did not surrender to the Germans, most of our army did capitulate, but the rest, the Airforce, the Navy and some army units that managed to escape from Crete (as well as the country itself) continued fighting until almost 1945
1:39:21 Interestingly, one could make an argument for calling the new m10 booker an assault gun. It is turreted, but the intended doctrine for it is similar to that of early stugs.
STUGLIFE ROCKS !!
They should have built more StuH 42s Better shaped charge round and HE performance .. and more true to the point. Syria retired the StuH's in the '90s.. they still are relevant, just that military men are biased and all want that rotating turret. The StuG/H chassis also should have been used in a recovery/engineering vehicle (bloody plow/blade on the front)
The Germans never had enough armored half tracks to fill the TO&E for armored units.
They never had enough of anything
@@chpet1655Except Idiots that supported a insane Fascist!
They didn’t have enough of anything, that’s sort of what happens when you have to fight a war while your industry is being bombed continously. However, the far majority of Panzergrenadiere were not supposed to be armoured. Mechanised infantry was only a subsection of Panzergrenadiere (designated as gepanzert - armoured). Prior to the name change, the infantry of tank divisions were designated as Schützen, and were trained to fight alongside tanks. A fraction of said Schützen were armoured in half-tracks (gp). Then you had the motorised infantry divisions that were not supposed to have tanks nor be armoured in half tracks. When the term Panzergrenadier was introduced in 1942 it became an umbrella term covering all three of those roles: Schützen (mot), Schützen (gp), and Infanterie (mot). A higher proportion of Schützen were actually armoured early in the war, like in France, because they kept expanding with new motorised units without making more mechanised. It’s a similar story with tanks, where they created multiple new tank divisions without actually producing more tanks.
I'll take GERMAN ARMORED VEHICLES OF WW2 for $200.
This German Field Marshal took credit for proposing the idea of the Stug.
Who is Manstein?
❤
When The Finns (my Family Home Orgins Country, though Sweden is part of my generations Legacy) Fought for 2nd Time With the Germans, they got lots off stuff like Panzerfausts, Pak-40, Heavy Artillery & a handful of Stug III or Stug IV, which can be see in a Finnish WW2 movie called"Tali-Ihantala 44".afer seeing this Movie..well Lets just say I got into the Stug Life.
Overall nicely done ;)
The M4 Sherman 75 mm was used extensively as an artillery weapon, a tank killer, an exploitation tank, an infantry support tank, …… every modern weapon system is part of a larger weapons system, which is based on a statement of need, which is then combined with like statements of need….. money is allocated when the need becomes a requirement…. Requirements are based on the possible, not the infinite. The timeline for production, training and fielding of systems within systems is not done without the enemy developing and fielding capabilities that influence the effectiveness and implementation of your capabilities. This induces stress in the optimization of what your timeline, industry and doctrine produced.
This reality dictates the system you field will have to take in new requirements in the field, as the end user, under duress, will endeavor to survive as best he can, with whatever is at hand.
Thus the confusion on doctrine versus dogma versus minutia versus reality.
The machine was capable, it’s users were stressed, and used it beyond its statement of requirements. So well in fact, decades later we are still trying to figure out why we can not figure it out.
The Sherman 75 may have been used as a tank killer but did it perform well? I used a brick as a hammer... the hammer worked better
@@chadrowe8452 Your hammer is useless as a saw, so what’s your point?
Whether or not the Stug influenced the SU-85 is hard to tell I would guess yes it did. However the SU-76 was totally a Soviet invention it’s really not like the Stug at all. Light armour, open topped. It was more like the Wespe Self Propelled Gun the Germans had. But I’d say it was deployed in the direct fire mode much like a Stug rather than the indirect fire like the howitzer equipped Wespe.
Not exactly right with the reason for the A and V versions of the panzer IV/70. A stood for Alkett, and it was to pump out more panzer IV/70, because Vomag who produced the standard Panzer IV 70 had to reduce production because of bombing and other demands, and Hitler wanted extra production for a push against the western allies. It was not because it couldn't fit in the standard Panzer IV 70, which was a modified Panzer IV chassis. But yes that was the artillery branch finally got their long guns. Great presentation
Claimed kills. The German panzer divisions regularly discounted their kill claims by 30 to 50%. Did the German artillery forces do the same.?
Short answer is, I don't know.
As I mention in the talk, the Artillerie did keep records on the number of tank kills made by StuG units.
I believe this figure was recorded in good faith, but of course, it depends on the StuG unit claims being accurate.
Kill claims from all units on all sides have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Were the StuG claims any more/less inaccurate than those from Panzer units? I don't know. Were Artillerie claims inflated for propaganda/political purposes? It's possible, but again, I can't say.
Hit that like button!
So why didnt the germans armour their infantry till 1941 at the earliest???
StuG life
That was a blast..
Watched it again. 👍😂
Ahhhh, the Stug 3 was designed deliberately out of the P 3! I see
The German swiss army knife of tank killing.
STUG LYFE
ruclips.net/video/Y-5ZmzlGhlo/видео.html, Sturm/jagdpanzer in a local counterattack.
No references provided, be good to have this provided
Hi. I don't usually list sources for presentations as I tend to use a lot of sources, including many I use to check, confirm or triangulate data. Plus, such listings were never requirement for my presentations at work!
But you've specifically asked, so here are my main ones:
• Sturmartillerie - Anderson
• Panzer Tracts 8 (Sturmgeschütz) - Jentz/Doyle
• Panzer Tracts 23 (Panzer Production 1933-45) - Jentz/Doyle
• Various Bundesarchiv files, including RH10/150, 153 & 66K
• Sturmgeschütz - Recio/de Diego
Hope that helps.
Much like the post WWI question of BC or BB? Who cares?
?
@@WW2TV Battle Cruiser or Battleship is an oft debated thing with certain naval nerds.
Fairly clear cut in WWI, less so later. Esp. after conversions, etc. Comparable to this tank or not a tank thing.
@@duwop544 gotcha thanks
What about the Stridsvagn 103 ?
the new american M10 Booker is a rather good examble of a modern StuG