Skilled, well trained crews...that was the key point that made the difference for the Germans. Excelent video, the best I've seen so far regarding the Stugs.
Great footage, questionable commentary. "Only after the war was the futility of shooting on the move recognised". At no time in history were there more men using tanks in combat on a daily basis, yet they had no idea what they were doing?! The reason for the high kill counts for the StuG were production numbers, unit dispersal, how they were used, and doing most of their fighting on the very favourable terrain of the eastern front. Crew skill didn't hurt, of course, but by late 1944 nobody was being well trained.
The Stug gunners came from the artillery and were trained differently. They would aim their initial shot infront of the target, see where the round hit. And make an adjustment. It took a Stug 3 shots to get a hit. A tank needed an average of 5 shots to get a hit. And a Stug could get off the 3 shots before a tank could get off its first shot. One Stug unit got over a thousand kills in a yr with 35 Stugs in the unit.
thats the point... people forget that Michael WIttman killed his firsts T34's... with an EARLY STUG with the artillery short 75mm and explosive ammo! he just make the shoots land on the T34 E N G I N E that was awesome, he did not penetrated but burned them.
@@Willing_Herold poop ballitics was an advantage... because STUG CREWS were not tankers... were artillery crews they need 3 shoots for 1 hit, when tankers needed 5!
As can be seen in Ukraine today… Vastly superior western tanks are being spanked due to their usage. No air cover, limited numbers, terrain, supporting arms and services…. The list goes on….
@@johnhughes4147 I beg to differ. The most obvious advantage of most Western designs is crew survivability. Tanks get killed all the time on battlefields.
@@urviechalex9963 i would agree with the survivability point, however kinda means nowt when all your crews survive, but run out of fresh vehicles for them… then they just become badly trained infantry…. The whole matrix needs to work together to succeed ….
3 месяца назад+2
Stug III in War Thunder was so fast and could take so ridiculously amount of punishment, it’s not even funny.
Ironic how a tank rejected by the Panzer corps became the most effective tank for the army and how the best Tank Commander started his career in the Stug. 🤣
It wasn’t a tank dunzel. It served as an infantry assault gun for neutralizing pill boxes and bunkers,, hunter / killer anti-tank gun and with the larger barrel, even as effective artillery.
@@haroldfiedler6549 by your logic, every Turret-less 'tank' is s not a tank, which includes: Jagpanther, Jagtiger, Jagpanzer iv, hetzer, isu, etc. Using your logic, Stuart and mkv11 Tetrarch are tanks but the above-mentioned are not? A human being with a disability (Turret-less) is still a human being.
The Stug's low profile made it into a armored sniper. It sat lower than the Jadgpanther, Nashorn, and Marder SPG's. Also, by mid-war, it was cheaper and faster to manufacture than conventional turret tanks.
The StuG was a competent mobile armoured artillery/anti tank gun that could be either used in a defensive or restricted offensive capacity. The Soviets utilised numerous captured examples.
The most important attribute of the StuGs for the majority of German soldiers was that there was enough of them built and distributed to support the poor infantry divisons which were always placed at the back end of the queue for any armored fighting vehicles.
@@tvgerbil1984correct Without there being a permanent armored force behind you just waiting to move forward and fight of enemy tanks the infantry would have been overwhelmed with no problem The first really effective and rather longrange infantry anti tank weapon was the panzerschreck that could penetrate even the most armored Soviet tanks from the front but it only came out in late 44
Very good account on the development of the StuG series, especially the doctrinal arguments among the German senior leaders about it. It was highly effective given the training of its crews and the circumstances in which it was employed, but we shouldn't exaggerate its capabilities. Yes, some assault type guns have been produced since WW2, but the tank still turned out to be the more effective general purpose fighting vehicle. And not just against other tanks.
I think there are many people who misunderstand the greatest reason that STUGs achieved such high kill counts. It's not that a STUG is better than a PZ IV or any other tank, it's because of how the STUG was originally fielded, to Infantry Divisions and not Panzer Divisions. Look, the Panzers were doctrinally the German Army's offensive maneuver arm. And in the offense, the Panzers were deployed forward and would see intense combat, but as soon as offensive operations ceased, the Panzers would be pulled back to rest and refit, and prepare for the next offensive. And yes, they also so a lot of action in defensive counterattack operations being thrown in to stop Soviet breakthroughs. But the Infantry and their STUG Battalions were always out there for months while the Panzers were many miles to the rear. And when it came time to begin the new offensive operations, the Infantry with their STUGs were involved in those as well. Simply put, STUGs saw more operational combat time. STUG crews were more experienced, their vehicles were easier to maintain. The STUGs got more kills because they spent more time forward facing the enemy, and that's just the truth of it. People need to wise up to this idea and stop thinking the STUG was somehow magically blessed. STUGs spent more time in contact with the enemy, and they were presented more often with defensive engagements vs the Panzers who were charged with conducting the brunt of the offensive engagements, far riskier situations for certain. STUGs weren't nearly as often being pushed forward into enemy mine fields or attacking prepared enemy antitank positions. Think it through and it'll become clearer.
@@andrewholdaway813 Let's be clear, first off, I appreciate your praise of my initial comment, and second, I was trying to be humorous with my second so please don't get defensive. And third, you aren't actually correct that I don't have anything to go on regarding people's knowledge. They've given me hundreds of examples in this thread. Honestly how many here actually understand that the STUG wasn't that great and that PZ IVs would have performed as well or better in the same assignment, which I might add is exactly how the American's handled it with the M4 Shermans that were assigned to Infantry Divisions. The Germans were greatly impressed, and a little jealous, that their enemy could afford to deploy turreted medium tanks in their Infantry Divisions. The other real piece of knowledge, that while seemingly known, is underappreciated, is the beauty that the STUG III made better use of an obsolete chassis, the PZ III, then the actual tank it was developed for did. But even if the Germans had, when the PZ IV F2 was fielded, halted PZ III Tank production and boosted PZ IV and gone "All In" on that vehicle model, I doubt they had the capacity to produce enough of the L43 and L48 guns.
An eye-opener for WWII buffs who thought Germany’s Tiger tanks were the ultimate track-propelled deliverers of death. Well written and narrated, with authentic German-sourced video, we become acquainted with a mobile howitzer able to penetrate at long range the armor of Russia’s finest tank, T-34, whose futuristic design was up to that point was unassailable by all guns that could be carried by Panzers. The Stug 3 mobile (tracked) howitzer was so good, its 75mm Pak 40 gun and its successors so deadly, the Germans did not feel required to “improve” it - a wasteful process that seriously compromised large-scale production of Panzer tanks over the duration of the war. Hugely armored and ground-huggingly low at only 76”, this versatile and speedy platform was an ideal ambush weapon, saving untold numbers of German infantry during attacks. The Stug’s overall fitness humiliated later-generation Panzers, over-sized and over-complicated, and prone to breaking down at the most desperate moments. As the Wehrmacht retreated westward from Russia, more Panzer tanks were abandoned due to mechanical failure than were destroyed by Russian armor. The Stug was the key element of mobile artillery that saved German divisions from obliteration as Operation Barbarossa was transformed, due to Hitler’s interference, from a quick and decisive summer-long campaign to a protracted, agonized retreat as Zhukov’s tank armies attacked from multiple directions. From Wikipedia: “In 1942 and 1943 the StuG was one of the most effective tracked fighting vehicles fielded by the Germans in terms of enemy vehicles destroyed. Over 10,000 StuGs were eventually produced.”
German StuG, as with its other jagdpanzers, served mainly in tank destroyers role past mid-war. Its 75 mm L48 gun was no doubt effective till the very end, but in tactical situation the StuGs were like infantry machine guns - MG good at stopping infantry, like StuG stopping enemy AFV, but only when not moving and targets in the firing arc. When these weapons were on the move, they were much vulnerable on their own and required friendly support. Once StuGs got its track blown off it was over for them. What StuG was to Panzers is similar to what MG to rifles, SMG, assault rifles etc - it was powerful in terms of direct head-to-head combat, but when it came to fire and maneuver, they were much subpar. Which was why the StuGs and Jagdpanzers could never really replace the Panzer IV or Panther, though their defensive role did become more prominent in last years of war.
Obviously you missed the part where they remarked as to how fast a StuG could pivot. They were best at long range engagements, true, but were still capable at medium range. Only at CQB did they have a disadvantage.
@@OldGrayCzechWolf While of course StuG could pivot to engage targets, likely faster than its heavier counterpart like Elefant or Jagdtigers, but that doesn't mean it was a good method. Relying on pivoting to engage targets outside its arc of fire had its own practical difficulties. Again, the main problem of StuGs weren't about ranges, but the nature of operations, where its turretless design made it ill-suited for more-fluid offensive battle. For a StuG to pivot towards its target, comes with multiple critical disadvantages: 1. The StuG, if moving or charging ahead, had to stop dead in its tracks to pivot, and then fine-tuning the gun afterwards, and after finishing engaging it had to pivot back to original direction before it could resume advance. The process took was much longer than a turreted panzer would, and risking breaking off from the advancing formations, which itself was already difficult to keep in chaos of battle - A StuG separated from its infantries or other vehicles could be detrimental to both parties. 2. Exposing its more vulnerable side armor when pivoting. Let says, if a StuG had to pivot at 10 o clock direction to engage, in doing so it had to expose its thin side armor (which was vulnerable to even the short US 75mm at long range), at close to 90 angles to enemies at 2 o clock direction. In an attack where enemy guns could be well-camouflaged, such pivot moves were incredibly risky for StuG commanders. However, for a Panzer commander such situation would actually be advantageous: The Panzer turret could turn towards the targets at both sides while keeping the front armor forwards, which would be even more effective since the enemy guns would be hitting it from a angle. 3. Could be more restricted by the environment of the battlefield. Unlike turreted tanks where its turret could turn more freely, only seldom having its long gun barrel catching on stuff, for a StuG to pivot, the entire vehicle length, plus the gun pointing forward, will have to be accounted for and there were risks of StuGs getting stuck or gun barrel getting blocked, since remember StuGs and its gun were lower than Panzers, good for hiding but bad for well, firing over obstacles. In defensive battle StuGs could select and prepare more suitable environment, but in offensive no such luxuries for them. Not to mention StuGs and other turretless tank destroyers were incapable of "firing around the corner". Say an enemy target was known but blocked by obstacles in the vehicle current position; it had to driving forward to obtain a line of sight. A tank performing this could pre-rotate its turret to the side, drive forward and immediately fire at the target. A StuG could not do this, it could not "pre-rotate" its vehicle - it had to drive forward, then stop and pivot while being exposed, easily allowing the enemy to get the first shot. All in all, it wasn't much about ranges, but StuGs needing more "set-up" than Panzers to be effective, same as support weapons like MG and Mortar, they need set-up, and not good at instant-action as firearms like SMG or rifles.
@sthrich635 - usually you engage the enemy who is shooting at you, so tank can turn the turret and fight to the flank... but it's vulnerable there as enemy can hit weaker side armor. So in most engagements tanks also were facing enemy front on. And tanks also had to came to dead stop to shoot, so not so much difference.
@@adaslesniak Big difference between tanks' "stopping to fire" and StuGs' "stopping to fire". First off, tanks' turret and hull could be pointing at different directions based on what they need to - the gun could be pointing at the target while the hull pointing at the direction to drive at the same time. A better word would be tanks only need to hit the brake for the gun to stabilize and some fine-tuning, and at any time the hull to immediate continue advancing or retreat backwards to cover. StuGs, as mentioned before, could not be pointing towards two separate things due to lack of turret - they have to stop for much longer time than a tank would ever have to - They have to stop AND turn, and turn back again after firing to continue the advance. The stark difference in reaction times of these two type of vehicles could spell victory or doom in an offensive battle, especially considering the "first hit" rule in tank engagement - the vehicle being hit first had on average lower chance to win or survive the engagement between the enemy hitting it.
The StuG did not outperform Panzers at their own game; they had separate games. There is ample evidence to show how the Stug and Hunting IVs were terrible when they were in a tank role, but toward the end of the war, necessity put them there. When the Stug classes were in ambush roles, they were devasting. There were a large number of them against an endless wave of T34s to knock out; it is expected that their numbers would be higher overall compared to something like a Tiger which fielded only 1,000 by war's end. StuGs were great killers but they depended on Panzers to engage the enemy in the frontline role. Much of the U.S. success against the Germans was our inability to ship heavy tanks. We were operating within shipping restrictions, so we created GMC and similar vehicles in anti-tank roles. We matched Germany's game.
Maybe the U.S. Marine Corps should look at standing up an Assault Gun Battalion in each of its four Division's Artillery Regiments, instead of ditching tanks completely.
@@carlsmagula I think that the American general staff has long since forgotten how to wage a parallel war. They're just collecting a salary at this point lol
@FactBytes ....just thought I pass this along to you. As I watched this with my 100 year old father, a tanker with the 3AD, who doesn't say much when watching something like this on RUclips. But this time he did, he went on to say that this was one of those damn things that knocked three Shermans out from underneath him and was responsible for his worst battlefield injuries. Because of their low height they were very hard to pick up until it was to late. He went on to tell me that after 80 years, he still has nightmares of being ambushed by those damn things. So now I know why he was so glued to the screen while watching your video. Thanks for the outstanding work.
A very informative video and well described in detail. The one comment by the video author quoted the Stug could turn just as quick to engage a target that’s a traditional tank having olive the turret to engage the same target. It should also noted that this was a true quote. Micheal Wittman originally served in Stugs. And he also drew on the experience in the Stug. He would often move the Tiger into firing position instead of moving the turret. I don’t know if this attributes to his big kill ratio. But it’s interesting nonetheless the less that he chose to operate the Tiger in a similar fashion where possible.
Great informative video on the Stug. Loads of relevant information on the behind the scenes on the Role and development of an Great Tank Killer and support Role it played.
I totally disagree with the comments on firing on the move. Standard German (and Italian) doctrine was to fire while halted. The British were really the only country that practiced firing on the move with the 2pdr which was elevated by the gunner, and even they eventually realised that firing on the move was basically a waste of ammunition. Even the M4 medium which had a vertical plane stabilizer generally fired while halted.
The doctrine is one thing, but plenty of acounts of firing on the move being necessary to make the enemy shot harder or due to being in close proximity
It was an incredible and amazing historical coverage video about assault StG3 gun armor vehicles as infantry supporters and decisive enemy tanks ....thank you,( 🙏Factbytes) channel for sharing ...video clearly explained important and successful exists in battlefields and Wermakht infamous general minds
The StuG was good, but it didnt "outclass" the panzers. That claim is wrong. Panzers did a lot of operations which the StuG did and cannot participated. StuGs were mostly used defensively So it is not astonishing that their kill ratio was better
When you have 10,000+ Stugs and it's introduction was at the start of the war then yes it will statistically beat tanks that came much later and were in much smaller number.
The tank killing stugs came way later, after the attack to the Soviet Union. At pretty much the same time as Panzer 4's got their gun upgraded to the long 75mm. Stugs got so many kills because after Kursk all Germany did in the eastern front was defensive warfare (with a few limited exceptions).
Awesome video, the stug was the perfect tank for the germans given its roles. Only if they adopted the sloped armor earlier would it would have added to its affectivness.
Battle Tanks didn't fight tanks if they could avoid it.. They were opposed by AT guns and STUGS or Tank Destroyers in the US. Tanks on offense avoided combat and drove to the rear. The idea that the best tanks jousted each other like knights is a huge myth
It may sound weird but it is true, a tank's main role is not to kill other tanks, there is more suited equipments for te job. Even today, tanks have a tank vs tank ability, they can eventualy take on a fight, but most missions won't be targetting enemy tanks, planes helicopters and missiles are far more efficient against a tank.
StuGs, like all tank destroyers, are defensive weapons. You put them in good covered and concealed positions, and wait for the enemy to come to you. You have all the advantages, as opposed to tanks, which are supposed to attack into enemy territory. A Panzer Mk IV advancing against T-34s are going to take higher losses then a StuG, which will kill more because they survived longer. American TDs often didn't even have roofs, very risky in the attack as they were vulnerable to almost anything.
The first 14:50 mins refused to address the exam question. One other contributing factor that aided the high numbers was production figures. Stugs were the most produced German AFVs of WW2.
Panzers and other tanks initially had little armor. Small defensive antitank guns could be man-handled by their crews to quietly lay the gun. As these weapons increased in size and lethality, they became less useful to their crews. Eventually, the larger guns had to be transported by vehicles. To keep up with offensive operations, the crews just mounted the guns on their vehicles, which were not well armored. Finally, the guns were installed into vehicles with armor, but to keep them inexpensive, no turret was used. Thus, a larger gun could be mounted, because a turret might not accommodate the recoil. So the whole vehicle had to move to lay the gun. This is difficult in an offensive. An assault gun had a powerful antitank gun, but was less successful in offensive combat. As Nazi Germany began to fight only on the defensive, the assault guns were able to make a larger impact. However, a Stug is not a Panzer any more than a torpedo boat is a Battleship. They were a cheaper substitute that shined in a defensive battle.
I used to play the" company of the hero's" video game..When playing the Germans you can build up to the Kings Tiger..But holy cow you can win the game just producing Stug 3s they dish out mass damage and can take hits other tanks can not. Plus they are inexpensive..
The early Pz.IV.A, B & C models had a small hatch, in front of the commander's cupola, for the exclusive use of a scissors range finding scope. This hatch was not included on the Pz.IV.D and later models.
It appears to be much shorter than the turret tanks so more easily hidden and lighter and more nimble, with enough gun for close surprise shots. Looks ideal for the terrain of hedgerows.
One of the biggest, if not the biggest, reasons that tank destroyers assumed a bigger role in the priorities of German armored production was cost. Producing a Stug or Hetzer, etc . . . was nowhere near as expensive as cranking out a Tiger or Panther. After cost the Germans were quick to realize that the low profile of these vehicles was invaluable, their ability to be up-gunned with the same 7.5 cm cannon as the Panther and Mk. IV equally so. The chassis of these vehicles were Czech designs which for awhile were out of range for Allied bombers, this too appealed to the Germans. When the Germans decided to produce home-grown, as it were, assault guns the results were very powerful but larger, more complex vehicles which, while still maintaining reasonably low profiles and carrying even 8.8 cm guns (and larger), were quite expensive to manufacture and, due to bombing, produced in small numbers. Cheers!
The STUG MK IV was a full 3 feet shorter and built with a Deadly 7.5 Cm L48 with enough punch and loaded in seconds as a one piece ammunition. The Russians would sacrifice 3 to 1 in combat. More times even more for the Germans on the Eastern Front. Supply and Demand ruined the Germans.
Russia was the only country in history to win wars but lose more soldiers than the losing side ,twice! That was against Finland in 1939 and Germany 1945. Nothing to be proud of.
It seems the non rotating turret forced the stug to be implemented more strategically which made it more effective than “let’s rush over there” tank strategy
Easier to manufacture, lower silhouette, one less crew member - great defensive weapon. I don't understand why though the Swedish S tank, is considered a tank.
The constant narrative is how good the Panzer divisions were along with the Mark 4, Panther and tiger series. And of course the Stug in this video. But it was then men who manned them that made them so great. They were superbly trained .
In the Finnish movies "Beyond the Front Line" and "Tali-Ihantala 1944" (excellent movies!), they use 4 working Stug III Ausf. G. Andreas Larka has a registry on his webpage "Finnish WW2 armour". Andreas thinks they used PS-531-4 (Lisbeth) and PS-531-45 in "Beyond the Front Line" and PS-531-4 (Lisbeth), PS-531-14 (Vappu), PS-531-18 (Kirsti) in "Tali-Ihantala 1944". All from the Finnish armour museum in Parola. 38 of the 59 Stug III which Finland bought survives, 20 in Finland and the remaining in England, Estland, USA, Germany. There is 1 in the Tank museum who also have a Finnish T-34. All 14 Finnish T-34:s and their crews survived the war. 10 Stug III was hit and abandonded. I counted to around 2 wounded and 2 casualties in Andreas Larkas registry. I get the impression the Finnish were very skilled and careful, hence the high survival rate.... Another thought is that Finland bought Stugs, but not Panzers, because they saw themselves as carrying out a defencive war, they had no ambition to invade russia, except taking back land they lost in the Winter war. So roughly the same as in your video, skillful use from defensive position. From the movies and videos about the stugs, i get the impression they were nice to operate for the crews, comfortable and i think that is a great advantage.. E.g. the T34 looks like a rat trap for the crews internally.. Check out "Beyond the Front Line" (2004) & "Tali-Ihantala 1944" (2007), both are on RUclips and really excellent... (There is a Mosfilm with the same name, but pls check out the Finnish movie..) The movies are very correct historically. In Tali-Ihantala 1944, they also fly a FW190, a plane now now based at Omaka Aerodrome in New Zealand.
@@cat-im4vvIn the movies mentioned, you only see Stugs, so at least that gives you the impression that the Stugs were their main armour. But i double-checked & sure, acc. to Larkas page, Finland bought 15 Panzer 4 Ausf J, in Aug 1944. But the armistice was in september, so they never saw any action in the war. Just a quick count, of pic count count (with a Finnish unit number), gives following result: Medium & Light tanks: 2 Renault FT-17 3 Komsomolets 4 Landsverk 11 T-26 4 Vickers 1 BT-42 1 T50 Heavy tanks: 7 Panzer 4 (they obviously bought 15). 2 T-28 7 T-34 5 T-34-85 2 KV-1 2 ISU-153 38 Sturmgeschütz It is cool to see actual, operating, German armour in movies. But there are not many available, i have a feeling, if you made an international summary, Finnish Stugs is the type where most units, & most working units, exist.
From Dec 41 Germany was fighting a defensive war. The 'stug' was a cheap defensive weapon with better eye site and armor than their turreted kin, but free from their 'offensive' doctrine.
idk about that. fighting in defense while still attavking massive in 1942 with fall blau... id argue at the end of 1942 or even summer 1943 (after kursk) the complete movement swtichted to defense completly
The 75mm L/46 Pak 40 AT was the most Successfull AT gun of WW2. The StugIII and Panzer IV used a version of the 75 mm L 46 Pak 40,the 75 mm L/48. A real Killer of a gun.
@@aramisortsbottcher8201 "Stayed the same through millenia" are you on drugs? We are far healthier, live longer, more knowledgeable, more intellectually capable and more technologically savvy. SO no, we have not stayed the same in anything at all - including war. Not that your comment had any relevance to the OP!
@@csjrogerson2377 I bet you could take a child born in 1000 and it would become a normal person, if raised in our time. Yes, our surroundings have changed, we have medicine, better food and education, but a human is a human. We are not stronger or faster than our ancestors, and to think that they were stupid is just ignorant. What do you think where our knowledge comes from?
Skilled, well trained crews...that was the key point that made the difference for the Germans.
Excelent video, the best I've seen so far regarding the Stugs.
Thank you very much!
Great footage, questionable commentary. "Only after the war was the futility of shooting on the move recognised". At no time in history were there more men using tanks in combat on a daily basis, yet they had no idea what they were doing?!
The reason for the high kill counts for the StuG were production numbers, unit dispersal, how they were used, and doing most of their fighting on the very favourable terrain of the eastern front. Crew skill didn't hurt, of course, but by late 1944 nobody was being well trained.
was it crucial for the Germans? All this fascist shit was ground up by the Russians!!! As well as in our days in Ukraine
Very good video with excellent content regarding why the Stugs were so dangerous!
The Stug gunners came from the artillery and were trained differently. They would aim their initial shot infront of the target, see where the round hit. And make an adjustment. It took a Stug 3 shots to get a hit. A tank needed an average of 5 shots to get a hit. And a Stug could get off the 3 shots before a tank could get off its first shot. One Stug unit got over a thousand kills in a yr with 35 Stugs in the unit.
thats the point... people forget that Michael WIttman killed his firsts T34's... with an EARLY STUG with the artillery short 75mm and explosive ammo! he just make the shoots land on the T34 E N G I N E that was awesome, he did not penetrated but burned them.
@@SargentoDukeWow…… ingenious use of it’s poor ballistics and velocity round.
@@Willing_Herold poop ballitics was an advantage... because STUG CREWS were not tankers... were artillery crews they need 3 shoots for 1 hit, when tankers needed 5!
@@SargentoDuke lets not forget, Werner Wolff killed a t34 commander with his own dagger. Totally unrelated to the conversation, just a badass factoid.
@@SargentoDuke I imagine these numbers changing a lot in differing situations.
The quantity and quality of weapons are important. But the way they are used transcends everything.
Like shepherd would say: "Sure, it matters who's got the biggest stick, but it matters a helluva lot more who's swinging it."
As can be seen in Ukraine today…
Vastly superior western tanks are being spanked due to their usage.
No air cover, limited numbers, terrain, supporting arms and services….
The list goes on….
@@johnhughes4147 I beg to differ. The most obvious advantage of most Western designs is crew survivability. Tanks get killed all the time on battlefields.
@@urviechalex9963 i would agree with the survivability point, however kinda means nowt when all your crews survive, but run out of fresh vehicles for them… then they just become badly trained infantry….
The whole matrix needs to work together to succeed ….
Stug III in War Thunder was so fast and could take so ridiculously amount of punishment, it’s not even funny.
Ironic how a tank rejected by the Panzer corps became the most effective tank for the army and how the best Tank Commander started his career in the Stug. 🤣
The tank was invented for one purpose. It's been mission creep ever since.
Stug was a sub-tank, just like a sub machine gun, it was not the preferred choice of weapon until the enemy was dragging out for attrition
@@johnye4433 smfh civi
It wasn’t a tank dunzel. It served as an infantry assault gun for neutralizing pill boxes and bunkers,, hunter / killer anti-tank gun and with the larger barrel, even as effective artillery.
@@haroldfiedler6549 by your logic, every Turret-less 'tank' is s not a tank, which includes: Jagpanther, Jagtiger, Jagpanzer iv, hetzer, isu, etc.
Using your logic, Stuart and mkv11 Tetrarch are tanks but the above-mentioned are not?
A human being with a disability (Turret-less) is still a human being.
The Stug's low profile made it into a armored sniper. It sat lower than the Jadgpanther, Nashorn, and Marder SPG's. Also, by mid-war, it was cheaper and faster to manufacture than conventional turret tanks.
The StuG was a competent mobile armoured artillery/anti tank gun that could be either used in a defensive or restricted offensive capacity. The Soviets utilised numerous captured examples.
...but with poor results due to their crews' faulty training.
The most important attribute of the StuGs for the majority of German soldiers was that there was enough of them built and distributed to support the poor infantry divisons which were always placed at the back end of the queue for any armored fighting vehicles.
@@tvgerbil1984correct
Without there being a permanent armored force behind you just waiting to move forward and fight of enemy tanks the infantry would have been overwhelmed with no problem
The first really effective and rather longrange infantry anti tank weapon was the panzerschreck that could penetrate even the most armored Soviet tanks from the front but it only came out in late 44
No. It was assault gun
Very good account on the development of the StuG series, especially the doctrinal arguments among the German senior leaders about it. It was highly effective given the training of its crews and the circumstances in which it was employed, but we shouldn't exaggerate its capabilities. Yes, some assault type guns have been produced since WW2, but the tank still turned out to be the more effective general purpose fighting vehicle. And not just against other tanks.
I think there are many people who misunderstand the greatest reason that STUGs achieved such high kill counts. It's not that a STUG is better than a PZ IV or any other tank, it's because of how the STUG was originally fielded, to Infantry Divisions and not Panzer Divisions. Look, the Panzers were doctrinally the German Army's offensive maneuver arm. And in the offense, the Panzers were deployed forward and would see intense combat, but as soon as offensive operations ceased, the Panzers would be pulled back to rest and refit, and prepare for the next offensive. And yes, they also so a lot of action in defensive counterattack operations being thrown in to stop Soviet breakthroughs. But the Infantry and their STUG Battalions were always out there for months while the Panzers were many miles to the rear. And when it came time to begin the new offensive operations, the Infantry with their STUGs were involved in those as well. Simply put, STUGs saw more operational combat time. STUG crews were more experienced, their vehicles were easier to maintain. The STUGs got more kills because they spent more time forward facing the enemy, and that's just the truth of it. People need to wise up to this idea and stop thinking the STUG was somehow magically blessed. STUGs spent more time in contact with the enemy, and they were presented more often with defensive engagements vs the Panzers who were charged with conducting the brunt of the offensive engagements, far riskier situations for certain. STUGs weren't nearly as often being pushed forward into enemy mine fields or attacking prepared enemy antitank positions. Think it through and it'll become clearer.
Well put - Until that last "I know you're all a bit thick but" sentence.
@@andrewholdaway813 I've always been a "if the shoe fits" sort of fellow. But I try not to be cruel ... Needlessly
@@piperp9535
But you are addressing an audience of who you have no knowledge.
We are fine with your opinion but not your inferred prejudgement.
@@andrewholdaway813 Let's be clear, first off, I appreciate your praise of my initial comment, and second, I was trying to be humorous with my second so please don't get defensive. And third, you aren't actually correct that I don't have anything to go on regarding people's knowledge. They've given me hundreds of examples in this thread. Honestly how many here actually understand that the STUG wasn't that great and that PZ IVs would have performed as well or better in the same assignment, which I might add is exactly how the American's handled it with the M4 Shermans that were assigned to Infantry Divisions. The Germans were greatly impressed, and a little jealous, that their enemy could afford to deploy turreted medium tanks in their Infantry Divisions. The other real piece of knowledge, that while seemingly known, is underappreciated, is the beauty that the STUG III made better use of an obsolete chassis, the PZ III, then the actual tank it was developed for did. But even if the Germans had, when the PZ IV F2 was fielded, halted PZ III Tank production and boosted PZ IV and gone "All In" on that vehicle model, I doubt they had the capacity to produce enough of the L43 and L48 guns.
@@piperp9535
"Well put" is not "agreed".
An eye-opener for WWII buffs who thought Germany’s Tiger tanks were the ultimate track-propelled deliverers of death. Well written and narrated, with authentic German-sourced video, we become acquainted with a mobile howitzer able to penetrate at long range the armor of Russia’s finest tank, T-34, whose futuristic design was up to that point was unassailable by all guns that could be carried by Panzers.
The Stug 3 mobile (tracked) howitzer was so good, its 75mm Pak 40 gun and its successors so deadly, the Germans did not feel required to “improve” it - a wasteful process that seriously compromised large-scale production of Panzer tanks over the duration of the war.
Hugely armored and ground-huggingly low at only 76”, this versatile and speedy platform was an ideal ambush weapon, saving untold numbers of German infantry during attacks. The Stug’s overall fitness humiliated later-generation Panzers, over-sized and over-complicated, and prone to breaking down at the most desperate moments. As the Wehrmacht retreated westward from Russia, more Panzer tanks were abandoned due to mechanical failure than were destroyed by Russian armor.
The Stug was the key element of mobile artillery that saved German divisions from obliteration as Operation Barbarossa was transformed, due to Hitler’s interference, from a quick and decisive summer-long campaign to a protracted, agonized retreat as Zhukov’s tank armies attacked from multiple directions.
From Wikipedia: “In 1942 and 1943 the StuG was one of the most effective tracked fighting vehicles fielded by the Germans in terms of enemy vehicles destroyed. Over 10,000 StuGs were eventually produced.”
Erich Von Manstein was the brains behind the idea of adopting the Stug Assault Gun.
And the Ardennes 1940
He is widely considered the best strategic mind of the Wehrmacht .
But wasn't aware they could turn and fire faster than a turret could
@@loneranger5349
That was Grudarian who said that
@@stargazer1744 - but they lost.
German StuG, as with its other jagdpanzers, served mainly in tank destroyers role past mid-war. Its 75 mm L48 gun was no doubt effective till the very end, but in tactical situation the StuGs were like infantry machine guns - MG good at stopping infantry, like StuG stopping enemy AFV, but only when not moving and targets in the firing arc. When these weapons were on the move, they were much vulnerable on their own and required friendly support. Once StuGs got its track blown off it was over for them.
What StuG was to Panzers is similar to what MG to rifles, SMG, assault rifles etc - it was powerful in terms of direct head-to-head combat, but when it came to fire and maneuver, they were much subpar. Which was why the StuGs and Jagdpanzers could never really replace the Panzer IV or Panther, though their defensive role did become more prominent in last years of war.
More more like a sharpshooter's rifle.
Obviously you missed the part where they remarked as to how fast a StuG could pivot. They were best at long range engagements, true, but were still capable at medium range. Only at CQB did they have a disadvantage.
@@OldGrayCzechWolf While of course StuG could pivot to engage targets, likely faster than its heavier counterpart like Elefant or Jagdtigers, but that doesn't mean it was a good method. Relying on pivoting to engage targets outside its arc of fire had its own practical difficulties. Again, the main problem of StuGs weren't about ranges, but the nature of operations, where its turretless design made it ill-suited for more-fluid offensive battle.
For a StuG to pivot towards its target, comes with multiple critical disadvantages:
1. The StuG, if moving or charging ahead, had to stop dead in its tracks to pivot, and then fine-tuning the gun afterwards, and after finishing engaging it had to pivot back to original direction before it could resume advance. The process took was much longer than a turreted panzer would, and risking breaking off from the advancing formations, which itself was already difficult to keep in chaos of battle - A StuG separated from its infantries or other vehicles could be detrimental to both parties.
2. Exposing its more vulnerable side armor when pivoting. Let says, if a StuG had to pivot at 10 o clock direction to engage, in doing so it had to expose its thin side armor (which was vulnerable to even the short US 75mm at long range), at close to 90 angles to enemies at 2 o clock direction. In an attack where enemy guns could be well-camouflaged, such pivot moves were incredibly risky for StuG commanders. However, for a Panzer commander such situation would actually be advantageous: The Panzer turret could turn towards the targets at both sides while keeping the front armor forwards, which would be even more effective since the enemy guns would be hitting it from a angle.
3. Could be more restricted by the environment of the battlefield. Unlike turreted tanks where its turret could turn more freely, only seldom having its long gun barrel catching on stuff, for a StuG to pivot, the entire vehicle length, plus the gun pointing forward, will have to be accounted for and there were risks of StuGs getting stuck or gun barrel getting blocked, since remember StuGs and its gun were lower than Panzers, good for hiding but bad for well, firing over obstacles. In defensive battle StuGs could select and prepare more suitable environment, but in offensive no such luxuries for them.
Not to mention StuGs and other turretless tank destroyers were incapable of "firing around the corner". Say an enemy target was known but blocked by obstacles in the vehicle current position; it had to driving forward to obtain a line of sight. A tank performing this could pre-rotate its turret to the side, drive forward and immediately fire at the target. A StuG could not do this, it could not "pre-rotate" its vehicle - it had to drive forward, then stop and pivot while being exposed, easily allowing the enemy to get the first shot.
All in all, it wasn't much about ranges, but StuGs needing more "set-up" than Panzers to be effective, same as support weapons like MG and Mortar, they need set-up, and not good at instant-action as firearms like SMG or rifles.
@sthrich635 - usually you engage the enemy who is shooting at you, so tank can turn the turret and fight to the flank... but it's vulnerable there as enemy can hit weaker side armor. So in most engagements tanks also were facing enemy front on. And tanks also had to came to dead stop to shoot, so not so much difference.
@@adaslesniak Big difference between tanks' "stopping to fire" and StuGs' "stopping to fire".
First off, tanks' turret and hull could be pointing at different directions based on what they need to - the gun could be pointing at the target while the hull pointing at the direction to drive at the same time. A better word would be tanks only need to hit the brake for the gun to stabilize and some fine-tuning, and at any time the hull to immediate continue advancing or retreat backwards to cover.
StuGs, as mentioned before, could not be pointing towards two separate things due to lack of turret - they have to stop for much longer time than a tank would ever have to - They have to stop AND turn, and turn back again after firing to continue the advance. The stark difference in reaction times of these two type of vehicles could spell victory or doom in an offensive battle, especially considering the "first hit" rule in tank engagement - the vehicle being hit first had on average lower chance to win or survive the engagement between the enemy hitting it.
In an earlier life I was a Stug 3 commander…with a general’s rank…when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank
StuGs were really awesome. Especially on defense.
In defence a turretless design works
It also worked for bunker busting (infantry support).
Best vid on Stug III I ever saw. Ghosts of StuG III crew may likely agree.
Great footage and info. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it
❤❤❤❤❤
The StuG did not outperform Panzers at their own game; they had separate games. There is ample evidence to show how the Stug and Hunting IVs were terrible when they were in a tank role, but toward the end of the war, necessity put them there. When the Stug classes were in ambush roles, they were devasting. There were a large number of them against an endless wave of T34s to knock out; it is expected that their numbers would be higher overall compared to something like a Tiger which fielded only 1,000 by war's end. StuGs were great killers but they depended on Panzers to engage the enemy in the frontline role. Much of the U.S. success against the Germans was our inability to ship heavy tanks. We were operating within shipping restrictions, so we created GMC and similar vehicles in anti-tank roles. We matched Germany's game.
German optics were the difference hands down the best sites of ww2 and still a massive company to this day
You mean "sights".
@@stargazer1744 Ha u r correct
Carl zeiss ag manufacture & polished lens for german tanks & warships for both world wars I & II.
@@sebastian-FX357Z1 The optical advantage ruclips.net/video/VFzNtqJ7tpY/видео.html
Zeis optics!!
Very thorough, many thanks for all your hard work. Subscribed!
Maybe the U.S. Marine Corps should look at standing up an Assault Gun Battalion in each of its four Division's Artillery Regiments, instead of ditching tanks completely.
That would be wise but between major conflicts the US military has often failed to adequately organize its battle formations.
@@carlsmagula I think that the American general staff has long since forgotten how to wage a parallel war. They're just collecting a salary at this point lol
No way to make a modern battle tanks amphibious. Just too massive. Can't make a brick float.
@@jurfas4741 ...and teaching their troops about 'White Rage'.
Great video very informative with great footage 😊👍
Thanks 👍
Michael wittmann and Kurt knispel They should make a movie about this guys
Great show. Thanks for doing it.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent study,,,Keep it up!
.... Wunderbar !. Brilliant presented video sir 🥰😎!. Loved all original footage, i have never seen before, clear too !.
Many thanks
@FactBytes ....just thought I pass this along to you. As I watched this with my 100 year old father, a tanker with the 3AD, who doesn't say much when watching something like this on RUclips. But this time he did, he went on to say that this was one of those damn things that knocked three Shermans out from underneath him and was responsible for his worst battlefield injuries. Because of their low height they were very hard to pick up until it was to late. He went on to tell me that after 80 years, he still has nightmares of being ambushed by those damn things. So now I know why he was so glued to the screen while watching your video. Thanks for the outstanding work.
A very informative video and well described in detail.
The one comment by the video author quoted the Stug could turn just as quick to engage a target that’s a traditional tank having olive the turret to engage the same target.
It should also noted that this was a true quote.
Micheal Wittman originally served in Stugs.
And he also drew on the experience in the Stug.
He would often move the Tiger into firing position instead of moving the turret.
I don’t know if this attributes to his big kill ratio.
But it’s interesting nonetheless the less that he chose to operate the Tiger in a similar fashion where possible.
Great video. Excellent footage and narration!
Thank you very much!
Great informative video on the Stug. Loads of relevant information on the behind the scenes on the Role and development of an Great Tank Killer and support Role it played.
The low profile looks cool
not to forget the moral boost it was to infantry to have stugs around.
Wow ! I’m glad I watched. I never knew that. Thank you for the video.
You're welcome!
German infantry loved the Stug. Just have a couple guarding their positions made a big difference.
Amazing to see new historical content like i am amazed how many legendary battles you bring out with the very high equality
I totally disagree with the comments on firing on the move. Standard German (and Italian) doctrine was to fire while halted. The British were really the only country that practiced firing on the move with the 2pdr which was elevated by the gunner, and even they eventually realised that firing on the move was basically a waste of ammunition. Even the M4 medium which had a vertical plane stabilizer generally fired while halted.
The doctrine is one thing, but plenty of acounts of firing on the move being necessary to make the enemy shot harder or due to being in close proximity
Excellent, thanks for this.
My pleasure!
It was an incredible and amazing historical coverage video about assault StG3 gun armor vehicles as infantry supporters and decisive enemy tanks
....thank you,( 🙏Factbytes) channel for sharing ...video clearly explained important and successful exists in battlefields and Wermakht infamous general minds
As the war shifted to a defensive war it’s no surprise the low profile and great gun made a great vehicle.
The Tiger will always grab the limelight, But the Stug killed more armour by along way.
The StuG was good, but it didnt "outclass" the panzers. That claim is wrong. Panzers did a lot of operations which the StuG did and cannot participated. StuGs were mostly used defensively
So it is not astonishing that their kill ratio was better
They did in tank kills.
@@Stratigoznot if the statistic is read with all context
It had more kills. That’s what he means. And it did
the stugs were the most producer of all German armored vehicles, and there kill ratios speak for themselves.
@@jsharpe45 no. Kill ratio alone is not an argument for claiming that they were better than a tank.
Good vid on a great work horse of war👍
09/11/24: Superb narration! Thank you.
Thank you too!
Thanks for this 👍
Welcome 👍
Fantastico video, y Fantásticos los STUG 3.
Stugs have always been my favorite tank destroyers! I also like the Hezter and the Jagdpanzer IV
When you have 10,000+ Stugs and it's introduction was at the start of the war then yes it will statistically beat tanks that came much later and were in much smaller number.
The tank killing stugs came way later, after the attack to the Soviet Union. At pretty much the same time as Panzer 4's got their gun upgraded to the long 75mm. Stugs got so many kills because after Kursk all Germany did in the eastern front was defensive warfare (with a few limited exceptions).
Awesome video, the stug was the perfect tank for the germans given its roles. Only if they adopted the sloped armor earlier would it would have added to its affectivness.
Thanks for the visit
@@FactBytes Anytime.
Battle Tanks didn't fight tanks if they could avoid it.. They were opposed by AT guns and STUGS or Tank Destroyers in the US. Tanks on offense avoided combat and drove to the rear. The idea that the best tanks jousted each other like knights is a huge myth
Both the Tiger and the Ferdinand had a far higher kill ratio, per numbers built.
You'd like to think so, otherwise it was pointless building them.
You dont choose Stug Life, it chooses you.
Eine sehr gute Doku. Dankeschoen!
It may sound weird but it is true, a tank's main role is not to kill other tanks, there is more suited equipments for te job.
Even today, tanks have a tank vs tank ability, they can eventualy take on a fight, but most missions won't be targetting enemy tanks, planes helicopters and missiles are far more efficient against a tank.
Tank geeks love such a innovative, effective and cost effective vehicles like the STUGS 3/4. I admit to being a Armored Vehicle geek of geeks.
Well researched, well narrated, and highly informative. Research into WWII details continues to yield surprising insights.
great video. Thanks!
Love the StuGIII (Ausf B Stug 1941 version) it looks so dope
StuGs, like all tank destroyers, are defensive weapons. You put them in good covered and concealed positions, and wait for the enemy to come to you. You have all the advantages, as opposed to tanks, which are supposed to attack into enemy territory. A Panzer Mk IV advancing against T-34s are going to take higher losses then a StuG, which will kill more because they survived longer. American TDs often didn't even have roofs, very risky in the attack as they were vulnerable to almost anything.
Excellent Presentation, Synopsis and Fabulous footage of this shamefully ignored arm of the PanzerWaffe!
The Germans made about 1347 Tiger tanks and around 6,000 Panthers. They had over 11,000 Stugs which accounts for some of the disparity in kills.
started as self-propelled infantry gun. ended war as self-propelled anti-tank gun.
My favorite piece of German armor...
Great history lesson. Thanks for your Diligence
My pleasure!
The best and most useful armored vehicle of the entire Wehrmacht.
❤❤❤❤❤
Thankyou for that: I found that very informative and have subscribed.
That was one impressive and captivating presentation. Very well done sir!
first-rate presentation
Great video
Glad you enjoyed it
Interesting analysis
I see the stug coming back - Terminator is an excellent adaptation of a ( modern ) stug.
The first 14:50 mins refused to address the exam question. One other contributing factor that aided the high numbers was production figures. Stugs were the most produced German AFVs of WW2.
Good one
Thanks
Panzers and other tanks initially had little armor. Small defensive antitank guns could be man-handled by their crews to quietly lay the gun. As these weapons increased in size and lethality, they became less useful to their crews. Eventually, the larger guns had to be transported by vehicles. To keep up with offensive operations, the crews just mounted the guns on their vehicles, which were not well armored. Finally, the guns were installed into vehicles with armor, but to keep them inexpensive, no turret was used. Thus, a larger gun could be mounted, because a turret might not accommodate the recoil. So the whole vehicle had to move to lay the gun. This is difficult in an offensive. An assault gun had a powerful antitank gun, but was less successful in offensive combat. As Nazi Germany began to fight only on the defensive, the assault guns were able to make a larger impact. However, a Stug is not a Panzer any more than a torpedo boat is a Battleship. They were a cheaper substitute that shined in a defensive battle.
The stug could turn and fire faster than a turret could
while keeping the front armour facing the target
And it still has a 24 degree of horizontal gun movement for adjustment .
You have a good trained up Stug crew you are a lethal weapon.
I think you need to refer to Guderians duck The Jagdpanzer IV. He loved the Stug concept.
Whitman certainly had good luck shooting on the move...
I used to play the" company of the hero's" video game..When playing the Germans you can build up to the Kings Tiger..But holy cow you can win the game just producing Stug 3s they dish out mass damage and can take hits other tanks can not. Plus they are inexpensive..
The early Pz.IV.A, B & C models had a small hatch, in front of the commander's cupola, for the exclusive use of a scissors range finding scope. This hatch was not included on the Pz.IV.D and later models.
Great video, many thanks
Thank you too!
It appears to be much shorter than the turret tanks so more easily hidden and lighter and more nimble, with enough gun for close surprise shots. Looks ideal for the terrain of hedgerows.
StuG indeed was a brilliant weapon on field.
nice footage
Thanks!
Absolut accurate video 🙂
30,000 tank kills during the war! I had no idea. The epitome of "workhorse" of German armor vehicles.
I guess the old saying is correct use the right tool for the right job .
Super Legend !
Stugs were just moving anti tank guns. I believe anti tank guns killed more tanks then tanks anyway.
6:40 The German interservice debate on the Stug sounds somewhat like the US debate on the A-10.
One of the biggest, if not the biggest, reasons that tank destroyers assumed a bigger role in the priorities of German armored production was cost. Producing a Stug or Hetzer, etc . . . was nowhere near as expensive as cranking out a Tiger or Panther. After cost the Germans were quick to realize that the low profile of these vehicles was invaluable, their ability to be up-gunned with the same 7.5 cm cannon as the Panther and Mk. IV equally so. The chassis of these vehicles were Czech designs which for awhile were out of range for Allied bombers, this too appealed to the Germans. When the Germans decided to produce home-grown, as it were, assault guns the results were very powerful but larger, more complex vehicles which, while still maintaining reasonably low profiles and carrying even 8.8 cm guns (and larger), were quite expensive to manufacture and, due to bombing, produced in small numbers. Cheers!
The STUG MK IV was a full 3 feet shorter and built with a Deadly 7.5 Cm L48 with enough punch and loaded in seconds as a one piece ammunition. The Russians would sacrifice 3 to 1 in combat. More times even more for the Germans on the Eastern Front. Supply and Demand ruined the Germans.
Russia was the only country in history to win wars but lose more soldiers than the losing side ,twice! That was against Finland in 1939 and Germany 1945.
Nothing to be proud of.
@@Crashed131963yeah they shouldn't be proud of defeating the Nazis...
A qualidade e a quantidade dos armamentos são importantes. Mas a maneira que vocês os usam transcende a tudo.
16:19 - get the loader hit by the breach?! 😮
It seems the non rotating turret forced the stug to be implemented more strategically which made it more effective than “let’s rush over there” tank strategy
More tactically.
Easier to manufacture, lower silhouette, one less crew member - great defensive weapon.
I don't understand why though the Swedish S tank, is considered a tank.
The constant narrative is how good the Panzer divisions were along with the Mark 4, Panther and tiger series. And of course the Stug in this video.
But it was then men who manned them that made them so great.
They were superbly trained .
In the Finnish movies "Beyond the Front Line" and "Tali-Ihantala 1944" (excellent movies!), they use 4 working Stug III Ausf. G.
Andreas Larka has a registry on his webpage "Finnish WW2 armour". Andreas thinks they used PS-531-4 (Lisbeth) and PS-531-45 in "Beyond the Front Line" and PS-531-4 (Lisbeth), PS-531-14 (Vappu), PS-531-18 (Kirsti) in "Tali-Ihantala 1944". All from the Finnish armour museum in Parola.
38 of the 59 Stug III which Finland bought survives, 20 in Finland and the remaining in England, Estland, USA, Germany. There is 1 in the Tank museum who also have a Finnish T-34. All 14 Finnish T-34:s and their crews survived the war. 10 Stug III was hit and abandonded. I counted to around 2 wounded and 2 casualties in Andreas Larkas registry. I get the impression the Finnish were very skilled and careful, hence the high survival rate.... Another thought is that Finland bought Stugs, but not Panzers, because they saw themselves as carrying out a defencive war, they had no ambition to invade russia, except taking back land they lost in the Winter war. So roughly the same as in your video, skillful use from defensive position.
From the movies and videos about the stugs, i get the impression they were nice to operate for the crews, comfortable and i think that is a great advantage.. E.g. the T34 looks like a rat trap for the crews internally..
Check out "Beyond the Front Line" (2004) & "Tali-Ihantala 1944" (2007), both are on RUclips and really excellent... (There is a Mosfilm with the same name, but pls check out the Finnish movie..) The movies are very correct historically. In Tali-Ihantala 1944, they also fly a FW190, a plane now now based at Omaka Aerodrome in New Zealand.
Finnish bought Panzer 4 as well...
@@cat-im4vvIn the movies mentioned, you only see Stugs, so at least that gives you the impression that the Stugs were their main armour.
But i double-checked & sure, acc. to Larkas page, Finland bought 15 Panzer 4 Ausf J, in Aug 1944. But the armistice was in september, so they never saw any action in the war.
Just a quick count, of pic count count (with a Finnish unit number), gives following result:
Medium & Light tanks:
2 Renault FT-17
3 Komsomolets
4 Landsverk
11 T-26
4 Vickers
1 BT-42
1 T50
Heavy tanks:
7 Panzer 4 (they obviously bought 15).
2 T-28
7 T-34
5 T-34-85
2 KV-1
2 ISU-153
38 Sturmgeschütz
It is cool to see actual, operating, German armour in movies. But there are not many available, i have a feeling, if you made an international summary, Finnish Stugs is the type where most units, & most working units, exist.
From Dec 41 Germany was fighting a defensive war. The 'stug' was a cheap defensive weapon with better eye site and armor than their turreted kin, but free from their 'offensive' doctrine.
idk about that. fighting in defense while still attavking massive in 1942 with fall blau... id argue at the end of 1942 or even summer 1943 (after kursk) the complete movement swtichted to defense completly
The 75mm L/46 Pak 40 AT was the most Successfull AT gun of WW2.
The StugIII and Panzer IV used a version of the 75 mm L 46 Pak 40,the 75 mm L/48.
A real Killer of a gun.
And the germans still lost
@@davidforbes7772 and....??!!!
Its amazing how something so primitive can be so accurate and deadly.
Not so primitive.
I'd like to see you build one in your garden shed.
Are you talking about humans? They are the only part of war that stayed the same through millenia till now.
@@aramisortsbottcher8201 "Stayed the same through millenia" are you on drugs? We are far healthier, live longer, more knowledgeable, more intellectually capable and more technologically savvy. SO no, we have not stayed the same in anything at all - including war. Not that your comment had any relevance to the OP!
@@csjrogerson2377 I bet you could take a child born in 1000 and it would become a normal person, if raised in our time. Yes, our surroundings have changed, we have medicine, better food and education, but a human is a human. We are not stronger or faster than our ancestors, and to think that they were stupid is just ignorant. What do you think where our knowledge comes from?
You should be naming names when you're saying "One general..."
It's bad when you can't aim due to a thrown track.