I love how you always select these stories that feel personal but not small. Like your videos about the Canadians in Normandie, and the battles in Belgium in '40 and '44. It's a story about the men, but there's always the sense of how they fit in the big operations going on around them. Very well done.
@@PaulHigginbothamSr Stugs didn't get the L/43 upgun until March '42 and the L/48 that summer, so at least 2 1/2 years were with lower-velocity gun, and by that time he might have been in a Pz III. So until he got in the Tiger in '43 he was not in superior vehicles for the most part.
Michael Wittmann Stug lll with short 75 mm main gunn engaged 6 Bolsheviks T-34 His crew's Man did present high fighting spirit For His bravery Herr Wittmann getting trained as Tiger commander (500 Tigers Battalion)
The short-barreled StuG III variants(Ausf. A-E) are definitely my favourite. I have to say that the Corps commander deployed his StuG Abt. poorly in the initial attack, by parceling out the the separate batteries to each of his divisions. It would have made more sense to keep them together for the river crossing. The unit certainly racked up a lot of experience early on. I seem to recall that one of the batteries of the 226th was later used to set up the elite Grossdeutschland StuG Abt. in 1942.
About the deployment. From my experience senior officers are like children when divying up prime support assets. They will argue in person and on the radio that they can use the Stugs better than the other guy. Its somewhat comical.
@@destroyer0685 And senior infantry commanders at corps and divisional level would not have any experience in using AFV support. Later in the war, StuG crews would be so experienced that when they were sent to support an attack by a company or battalion, the most experienced man in the room when it came to planning the attack would be the StuG platoon leader.
Stugs were actually quite limited in what they could and could not do. Turret rotation was non existence on the Stug, and lead to many being destroyed. Far from the best support you say they were. Do your research before making such an absurd idiotic blanket comment.
Wrote: “... well damn. Fighting for 24 hours.. it’s so difficult to imagine something like that, but it happened all the time.” - Are we supposed to fill bad for those who came to kill and pillage?
@@princeofcupspoc9073 wrote: “Methamphetamine. UA army fights for about 72 hours before a rest.” - How about fighting in Brest Fortress that lasted 32 days? Or Defence of Sevastopol that lasted 250 days, or Defence of Leningrad city near 900 days. No drugs, hardly any food or ammo supplies.
I have a hard time fighting in tanks that don't have a turret. The Stug's barrel only moved about 15 degrees either way and then you had to move the whole tank if you needed more!
Wow it must have been a crazy battle. 40 hours of fighting!! Reloading StuGs on the fly? How many rounds do they carry? Another interesting video Ace!! Thanks for the beauty morning! Coffee and a great vid!! Thanks
Tank Encyclopedia says 54 rounds. But it changed depending on model and short vs long gun. Plus crews would stash extra rounds wherever they could. I've also seen pics of StuGs pulling ammo trailers.
@@kaletovhangar then, against T-34s, the early T-34s in particular had weak spots on their turrets, right? a good StuG gunner could find the weak points on the T-34s. additionally, the StuG carried some kind of early HEAT ammo? agreed that the AP ammo could take out all of the AFVs you listed...
Good video, these short story’s you produce so well, balanced footage maps etc, From this example I can see roughly 10km between each of the three battalions?
Can somebody identify the tank at 7:23, to the left under the tree? Either my brain is blocking a specific memory or I can't remembre ever having seen such a tank used by germany. The slanted frontal armor and two hatches facing forward? And such a high turret.
@@lovrom7671 @The AceDestroyer I don't see it, the plate looks ti be slanted backwards way more then on the 35 or 38, and I don't see the machinegun hatch in the middle. then again maybe it's the light. Edit: oh yeah, I see it now, I thought the whole front was one plate, I see the edge in it now. As well as the mg hatch on the right. The lighting confused my eyes.
I’m curious as to the ammo layout of a Stug III at the start of Barbarossa. How many shells did they usually carry and what was the proportion of HE, HEAT, APCPC, smoke and canister? Did the ammo layout remain essentially the same for the remainder of the war, or did they make some adjustments at the discretion of the individual units, depending upon the perceived threat they were facing, ie: facing infantry vs armour?
Another excellent video. Couple of points about river crossing operations: the initial assault to gain the far bank would be done by infantry in rubber boats. Once the far side was secure from direct fire then you can start to raft as they did the Stugs. You then start to build your bridges as your rafts can be hooked together to make a float bridge. This is the tricky part as traffic control makes the crossing harder. The idea of having the Stugs look for shallow parts is stupid as the river flow could have carried the Stugs away. Also soil conditions impact everybody so a better job could have been done to make the exit points on the far side more trafficable (sappers with chainsaws and axes).
@@CatLegoDiver No turret, no protected machine gun, and the early versions had the short 75. It's mostly useless in a tactical game unless the enemy has no AFVs to oppose it. When used as historically intended (as direct-fire artillery) they work okay, but it's rarely the case in most game scenarios.
🐶 Me at 6AM: It's too damn cold to go make breakfeast. 🐕💪🏻German soldiers: We've started crossing troops across the river at 3AM. It is 5:30AM, and now we have also deployed a ferry ready to haul Stugs across the river.
The thing was downright deadly, especially in prepared defense with a good crew. The Stug III Ausf G with the 40L48 75mm was deadlier to Russian tanks than Tigers and Panthers ever were, the huge numbers of enemy tank kills the Stug was responsible for is just crazy.
So despite planning and preparing for the assault for months the German plan didn't involve checking for bridges, placing units were they could easily cross a river at their starting point and engineers with no equipment to build a bridge to cross it. just wow!
What were the main Russian armor opponents at this time for the stug unit, T-26s?... any T-34 encounters ? I am putting together a Bolt Action Campaign series inspired from this video
There weren't that many T-34's at the start of the invasion. The 226th battalion doesn't mention them anyway. They mainly faced light tanks and armoured cars during the first few days. I think these would indeed be T-26's. Perhaps some BT7's too, but I that I don't know. I also found a very interesting report on an action between the StuG battalion and a KV-2 which they encountered on the 27th of June 1941.
@@billd.iniowa2263 The encounter with the KV-2 wasn't really tank on tank action (in the sense of StuG vs KV-2 firefight). In short the StuG's fired multiple rounds at a retreating 'large tank'. They eventually manage to score a few hits stopping the tank in its tracks. A German tank commander than proceeded on foot and lobbed a few grenades in the turret, knocking out was later found to be a KV-2.
@@TheAceDestroyer I understand when the Germans started running into the KVs and T-34s it quickly became doctrine to just aim for the tracks right off. No sense wasting ammo on bounces with that tough armor. Once a beast like that is tracked, it becomes much less of a threat and can be dealt with later.
Can anyone help me. What is the make up in vehicles of a stug battery at this time including support, command, logistics and observer types etc. Do they operate like a motorised battery or independent ?
militaryhistoryvisualized.com/assault-artillery-history-organization-of-assault-gun-units-stug-life/ The excellent Military History Visualized has an article about the StuG units and the organization. I think this can provide you with quite a few answers already.
I honestly don't have clue. I think it may have come from watching documentaries when I was still very young. I may have picked up a thing or two by trying to mimic the language. That with a mixture of Flemish of course.
G'day, Yay Team ! I didn't realise that the StuGs were in-use early enough to have been participating in Barbarossa from the start...(!) ; I'd thought they were developed rather later... Not that my "Aeroplane Head" ever paid much attention to which Caterpillar-Tracked Mud-mixer & Dust-spreader was what... Do the Soviet Records agree with those German Kill-Tallies - or did the Tank Crews (like the Aircrews of all sides...) imagine themselves to be racking up at least twice as many Enemy units being "Destroyed", as they actually produced ? Adrenaline & Anxiety & Fear & Excitement seem to bring out the "Wannabe" & "Wouldn't It Be Nice If"..., Factors in the minds of everybody involved... Segue warning, Over in AmeriKa they're recording 279,000 total CoViD-19 deaths & rising at 3,000 per day...; so they're only FOUR DAYZE away from Trumpy's (mal)administration of SARS-CoV2 having resulted in more dead US CitiZens than were killed by Italy, Germany, and Japan..., combined, during WW-2 ! The Magic Number is 292,000... In WW-1 there were only 13,000 US War-Dead....., so I heard while Trumpy was only starting to have to resort to Mass Graves in New York, half a year ago. We live in interesting times, indeed. Such is Life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
Unfortunately, the Eastern front is far more difficult to check the losses on both sides. Getting a good overall picture is very hard to establish, certainly as the Soviet records are very hard to come by. Most of the times the tank crews had to guess whether or not they destroyed a hostile tank.
@@TheAceDestroyer Yeah, I thought it might be a bit like that... "The wish is father to the thought..." kinda thing.... When one pilot fires at excessively long range, and sees their Target "immediately start smoking and losing height..." they will almost always interpret as indicating that they've scored enough hits that they've set their Enemy on fire, & shot it down..., and then report that as having happened. Meanwhile, in the other Aircraft..., it's Pilot has seen the Attacker in the Rearview Mirror - or perhaps seen some Tracer going past..., and they've pushed their Throttle "through the Gate" into full Emergency Boost - dumping a big bolus of Fuel into the Cylinders, enrichening the Mixture greatly - as the Engine RPM takes time to increase & burn all that extra Fuel, thus resulting in the Rich Mixture emerging as Black Sooty Exhaust Gasses, full of unburned Fuel... And..., simultaneously, stuffing their Nose down - to trade Height for Speed and get away from whomsoever was wasting Ammunition, at extreme range..., by essentially firing "Warning Shots". My guess is that Tank-Engines, at full Throttle when loaded-up, and or attempting to accelerate to maintain maximum speed..., will likewise be running Full-Rich, and thus blowing out thick black Exhaust-Smoke....(?). Boats & Ships with Reciprocating Engines are well known for it..., and Coal-Fired Steamboats are absolutely notorious for shitting thickly in the Sky - particularly any time they try to go fast...(!). So, in all cases, if a Warrior fires at any distant Enemy, and then the Enemy emits Smoke & retreats at speed ; then it's pretty easy for the Shooter to conclude that they've scored themselves a "Probable (Kill)"...! Defensive Air-Gunners flying in Bombers which practiced Daylight Bombing in Tight-Formations, perhaps, had the greatest opportunity to misapprehend the cascading fleeting sights which they saw, from their various positions located all over the Formation... The US 8th Air Force's Gunners routinely claimed 10 or 15 "Kills" for every Aircraft actually lost by the Jagdwaffe..., but because their Daylight Heavy Bombers were losing at least 10% of Airframes dispatched on an average mission, the USAAC Brass-Hats decided, "for reasons of Unit Morale...", to allow ALL AIr Gunnery Kill-Claims without attempting to cross-check & deduce how many Gunners had all fired at, and claimed, the same attacking Fighter ("last seen to be smoking & losing height...") as having been "destroyed"... Later on in the War, to better tempt their own Fighter Pilots into launching impromptu Strafing-Attacks on German Airfields..., while otherwise returning from Bomber Escort Missions (after having handed the Bomber-Stream over to a relieving Escort Group)..., all organised in Relays, thus providing the Bomber Stream with "Protection" over the entire Route while permitting the Escorts to fly to & from their "Leg" of the Bombers' Track at their most Fuel-Efficient Speed (which was about twice the cruising speed of the Bombers)...; the Fighters were officially informed that they would be permitted to count Enemy Aircraft destroyed on the Ground..., as being a "Kill" which would have equal standing with actual Kills scored in Aerial Combat, against a flying Foeman... All for the purpose of their attaining the required "Five Kills" needed, in order to be called an "Ace (Fighter Pilot)". For a while, it worked, and thereby lots of Airfields in Occupied Europe & Germany were duly strafed - and simultaneously US Combat Losses of Fighters from Anti-Aircraft Ground-Fire, and from Tree-Hits & Propeller-Strikes when misjudging height (due to Target-Fixation) during low Firing-passes, immediately grew to outstrip the losses inflicted in the Air by the Jagdwaffe's choosing to dogfight with the Escorts... Bottom line, the AmeriKans (and all the Allies, actually) could always replace their lost Fighters, and lost Fighter Pilots, much more easily than the Jagdwaffe ever could..., from about 1940 onwards (!). After the War, such "Ground-Kill Aces" were smirked at so hard, by the Pilots of EVERY other Air Force on the Planet..., that most of them went pretty quiet on the topic... Then..., during the Vietnam War, the AmeriKans were so short of "Aces" (compared to the 15 or so North Vietnamese "Jet Aces") that they started awarding "Kills" to their Backseat Radar & Weapons Operators (the "GIBS" - Guy In Back Seat...) any time the Pilot up front scored a Kill...; in a transparently desperate Propaganda manouvre to suddenly manufacture "Aces" by doubling the Count on all Phantom Kills...! Again, all the Pilots in all the rest of the World's Air Forces solemnly pointed at the Convention established in WW-2 when Nightfighter Pilots were awarded "Kills" and Radar-Operators were awarded "Shared Kills"..., but there was a very major distinction made between actually firing the Weapons which made the Hit that scored the "Kill"..., and helping to set up & enable the Shot....; and Radar Aces are not Ace Fighter Pilots..., as it turns out (at least, not upon the great Ziggaurat of Aeronautical Egomania). Overblowing one's Trumpet seems to tempt both Winners & Losers though ; so it's probably all just(ifiably ?) a part of the Game..., or something...(?) ! Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
The cost and over designed tiger and king tiger did nothing but consume a lot of resources, whilst the stugshmutz and panzer4 offered more bang for the reichmark.
Listening to these early battles, you can kind of understand how the Germans thought the Soviets would just continue to fall. Hubris can be a really bad thing.
Unfortunately, all of the German combat footage in WW2 was routed through Goebbels. Our perception of a highly mechanized invasion force isn’t entirely accurate. The Germans required 750,000 horses for Barbarossa. Fuel and ammunition supplies were never really adequate or consistent.
StuGs were not crewed by tankers at this time, but rather artillery crews. In some ways they were considered better for this roll than tankers, and effectiveness of the units dropped after the switch of StuGs to tank crews later in the war.
The Germans probably had a lot on it and their tanks and tank fighters really weren't bad, but against the Russian and his tanks and tanks Jäger Plus diverse no chance. Simply the Reccursen that the Russian has, mass production and Effective Tank and chase tanks and massive Atellery hardly a chance.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I love how you always select these stories that feel personal but not small. Like your videos about the Canadians in Normandie, and the battles in Belgium in '40 and '44. It's a story about the men, but there's always the sense of how they fit in the big operations going on around them. Very well done.
Well said!
Well said indeed!
Michael Wittmann was in a Stug III for Poland, Greece and Barbarossa. Went to a Pz III in '42 and a Tiger in '43.
What was his main battery gun in the StugIII? What if you know were his kills in his first year? Was his PanzerIII a high velocity gun?
@@PaulHigginbothamSr Stugs didn't get the L/43 upgun until March '42 and the L/48 that summer, so at least 2 1/2 years were with lower-velocity gun, and by that time he might have been in a Pz III. So until he got in the Tiger in '43 he was not in superior vehicles for the most part.
Michael Wittmann Stug lll with short 75 mm main gunn engaged 6 Bolsheviks T-34 His crew's Man did present high fighting spirit For His bravery Herr Wittmann getting trained as Tiger commander (500 Tigers Battalion)
Well done young man. It's nice to see they were not forgotten.
You can offer the best topics my wife and I love listening to your uploads thank you very much for this particular one!
The short-barreled StuG III variants(Ausf. A-E) are definitely my favourite. I have to say that the Corps commander deployed his StuG Abt. poorly in the initial attack, by parceling out the the separate batteries to each of his divisions. It would have made more sense to keep them together for the river crossing. The unit certainly racked up a lot of experience early on.
I seem to recall that one of the batteries of the 226th was later used to set up the elite Grossdeutschland StuG Abt. in 1942.
About the deployment. From my experience senior officers are like children when divying up prime support assets. They will argue in person and on the radio that they can use the Stugs better than the other guy. Its somewhat comical.
@@destroyer0685 And senior infantry commanders at corps and divisional level would not have any experience in using AFV support. Later in the war, StuG crews would be so experienced that when they were sent to support an attack by a company or battalion, the most experienced man in the room when it came to planning the attack would be the StuG platoon leader.
Thanks yet again for a fascinating insight into another area of WWII. The amount of detail you provide really brings these stories to life.
The narrative, topic, research, animations and footage are brilliant. The best ww2 channel ever.
I would also recommend World War 2 Week-by-Week with Indie Neidel.
Excellent work Ace! Always eagerly anticipated and always rewarding! Thanks.
My fav armored vehicle. The Stug !!!
Merry Christmas, Ace- No rest for the Stugs. The best support infantry could wish for!
Thanks! Merry Christmas to you as well!
Stugs were actually quite limited in what they could and could not do. Turret rotation was non existence on the Stug, and lead to many being destroyed. Far from the best support you say they were. Do your research before making such an absurd idiotic blanket comment.
Thanx for your work. Stugs are definitely one of the most used AFVs in WWII.
Surprising they didn't have plans in place for crossings from the beginning.
This was a great little vignette. Hope you can do more. Cheers
Once again, well-researched and illustrated. The timeline for this STUG action made this fascinating. Thanks Ace!
Ace I wish you still did videos like this with real footage makes it so much more enjoyable. Thanks for everything you do mate
the 75mm short barrelled guns sound pretty successful in these early fights
Another superb detailed presentation and narration, very much appreciated.
Thank you for the very informative videos and a way for the younger generation to learn actual history
5:47 well damn. Fighting for 24 hours.. it's so difficult to imagine something like that, but it happened all the time.
Methamphetamine. US army fights for about 72 hours before a rest.
@@princeofcupspoc9073
I actually wanted to mention that. No wonder both sides had to take some drugs to keep going.
Wrote: “... well damn. Fighting for 24 hours.. it’s so difficult to imagine something like that, but it happened all the time.”
- Are we supposed to fill bad for those who came to kill and pillage?
@@princeofcupspoc9073 wrote: “Methamphetamine. UA army fights for about 72 hours before a rest.”
- How about fighting in Brest Fortress that lasted 32 days? Or Defence of Sevastopol that lasted 250 days, or Defence of Leningrad city near 900 days. No drugs, hardly any food or ammo supplies.
Yea put ya self there its-not only drugs adriline surving fighters mode
it does alot
Excellent presentation as per usual. The footage, maps and narration come together very well. 👏👏👏Great stuff! Cheers. 👍
GazM-1 at 3:49, well made Soviet redesign of the Gaz A which was a Ford Model A.
Nice work mate, enjoyable, informative and the visuals spot on and engaging. You deserve more subs👌🏻
Excellent Tutorial, Thank You for sharing 👍
I have a hard time fighting in tanks that don't have a turret. The Stug's barrel only moved about 15 degrees either way and then you had to move the whole tank if you needed more!
Wow it must have been a crazy battle.
40 hours of fighting!!
Reloading StuGs on the fly?
How many rounds do they carry?
Another interesting video Ace!!
Thanks for the beauty morning!
Coffee and a great vid!! Thanks
Thanks! And thank you for watching! It is said that between 400 and 600 rounds were fired by the 3rd battery during these engagements.
Tank Encyclopedia says 54 rounds. But it changed depending on model and short vs long gun. Plus crews would stash extra rounds wherever they could. I've also seen pics of StuGs pulling ammo trailers.
Not enough. Without that turret there wasn't as much room for shell storage.
I always like your vids. Good stuff, keep it up.
Thank you very much! I'm very happy to hear that!
Hadn't realised short barrel 75s, presumably firing HE, were such effective tank destroyers.
They were not, facing light tanks early in the campaign they were sufficient. Training, tactics, and optics, were in the Germans favor.
info on the 75mm L/24: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_37
Short 75 still had AP shells with about 50 mm of penetration, more than enough for lightly armored T-26,BT-7 tanks and Ba-6/10/20 armored cars.
@@kaletovhangar then, against T-34s, the early T-34s in particular had weak spots on their turrets, right? a good StuG gunner could find the weak points on the T-34s. additionally, the StuG carried some kind of early HEAT ammo? agreed that the AP ammo could take out all of the AFVs you listed...
I hope you will do more stories of Barbarossa. Your doing great (thumbs up)
Yep, it would be interesting to know how did operation Barbarossa ended with Moscow offensive...?
Did Wehrmacht followed Adolf Hitler directive 21, and get to Archangels-Astrachan line in 1941, 42 or even 1943?
Once again..... BZ ( US NAVY for job well done)....you have the perfect voice for these personal battles during WWll
Thank you very much! It truly means a lot!
Another good one Ace, thank you. Best to you and yours for Christmas and 2021.
Thank you very much! Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you too!
"Soviet tank carcasses" - I'm going to endevour to sneak that into conversation this week. Love your accent!
Good video, these short story’s you produce so well, balanced footage maps etc,
From this example I can see roughly 10km between each of the three battalions?
Always enjoy your presentations. I don't think I've missed any...looking forward to next, thank you.
Time to boot up War Thunder and play with some StuGs!
This is going to be good
Can somebody identify the tank at 7:23, to the left under the tree? Either my brain is blocking a specific memory or I can't remembre ever having seen such a tank used by germany. The slanted frontal armor and two hatches facing forward? And such a high turret.
I think it might be a Panzer 38t
I want to say the Czechoslovakian T-38, but something doesn't seem right.
It's a Panzer 35t or also know by its original Czech designation LT vz-35.
@@lovrom7671 @The AceDestroyer I don't see it, the plate looks ti be slanted backwards way more then on the 35 or 38, and I don't see the machinegun hatch in the middle. then again maybe it's the light.
Edit: oh yeah, I see it now, I thought the whole front was one plate, I see the edge in it now. As well as the mg hatch on the right. The lighting confused my eyes.
Sorry, I meant Panzer 38(t), not T-38.
Nice these vids are excellent
Outstanding analysis video again...Imagine what “might” have happened if the Germans had flanked the salient in Barbarossa.
Very poignant footage with the POW. . . Great vid as usual, nice one.
The river crossing you show at the begining of the video was of Finnish soldiers. You can tell by their field caps.
I love unit histories. More please! :)
I’m curious as to the ammo layout of a Stug III at the start of Barbarossa. How many shells did they usually carry and what was the proportion of HE, HEAT, APCPC, smoke and canister? Did the ammo layout remain essentially the same for the remainder of the war, or did they make some adjustments at the discretion of the individual units, depending upon the perceived threat they were facing, ie: facing infantry vs armour?
Great video!
Thank you!
Another excellent video. Couple of points about river crossing operations: the initial assault to gain the far bank would be done by infantry in rubber boats. Once the far side was secure from direct fire then you can start to raft as they did the Stugs. You then start to build your bridges as your rafts can be hooked together to make a float bridge. This is the tricky part as traffic control makes the crossing harder. The idea of having the Stugs look for shallow parts is stupid as the river flow could have carried the Stugs away. Also soil conditions impact everybody so a better job could have been done to make the exit points on the far side more trafficable (sappers with chainsaws and axes).
The StuG! Loved by the troops and hated by contemporary wargamers! ;)
why are they hated by wargamers? Seemed to be very successful during the war.
@@CatLegoDiver No turret, no protected machine gun, and the early versions had the short 75. It's mostly useless in a tactical game unless the enemy has no AFVs to oppose it. When used as historically intended (as direct-fire artillery) they work okay, but it's rarely the case in most game scenarios.
Nice, could you do whole seriees from stugs at war?
🐶 Me at 6AM: It's too damn cold to go make breakfeast.
🐕💪🏻German soldiers: We've started crossing troops across the river at 3AM. It is 5:30AM, and now we have also deployed a ferry ready to haul Stugs across the river.
Excellent work, thanks for sharing.
Stug life from day one. I like how they put the spare tracks in the back.
STuG -low sllhouete and good gun! Awesome weapon at that time !
The thing was downright deadly, especially in prepared defense with a good crew. The Stug III Ausf G with the 40L48 75mm was deadlier to Russian tanks than Tigers and Panthers ever were, the huge numbers of enemy tank kills the Stug was responsible for is just crazy.
Hello, very interesting movie, do you have more information about further activities towards Bielsk, Bialystok, Minsk?
Thank you! I don't think I have. Doesn't ring a bell anyway.
@@TheAceDestroyer I only know from the stories that one day the Germans defeated the Russians and passed through my village.
I always liked the look of the stug. Especially the long barreled 75's . They look mean and dangerous just sitting still.
Nice One plus keep them rolling! Cheers
Thank you, good job 👍😁☝️😀👌
Amazing video
So despite planning and preparing for the assault for months the German plan didn't involve checking for bridges, placing units were they could easily cross a river at their starting point and engineers with no equipment to build a bridge to cross it. just wow!
What were the main Russian armor opponents at this time for the stug unit, T-26s?... any T-34 encounters ? I am putting together a Bolt Action Campaign series inspired from this video
There weren't that many T-34's at the start of the invasion. The 226th battalion doesn't mention them anyway. They mainly faced light tanks and armoured cars during the first few days. I think these would indeed be T-26's. Perhaps some BT7's too, but I that I don't know. I also found a very interesting report on an action between the StuG battalion and a KV-2 which they encountered on the 27th of June 1941.
@@TheAceDestroyer thanks
That’s what I found too
A lot of t-26s
You have a great channel!
@@TheAceDestroyer I wonder how that went?
@@billd.iniowa2263 The encounter with the KV-2 wasn't really tank on tank action (in the sense of StuG vs KV-2 firefight). In short the StuG's fired multiple rounds at a retreating 'large tank'. They eventually manage to score a few hits stopping the tank in its tracks. A German tank commander than proceeded on foot and lobbed a few grenades in the turret, knocking out was later found to be a KV-2.
@@TheAceDestroyer I understand when the Germans started running into the KVs and T-34s it quickly became doctrine to just aim for the tracks right off. No sense wasting ammo on bounces with that tough armor. Once a beast like that is tracked, it becomes much less of a threat and can be dealt with later.
6:22: now and then: the German Army is taking tank camouflage serious.
No smoking in ir around the haystacks.
@@828enigma6 There you go: tank warefare can actually be good for your health. :->
Thank you.
LOVE Ace Destroyer !! PRIM@ !! ☺😊
🔥💪💥✔💯🙏
can someone publish the scanned pages of a book
Laugier, D. (2018). StuGe en Russie - Barbarossa avec la Sturmgeschütz-Abteilung 226. Caraktère. ?
Great video.
Just subscribed
Thank you very much! Welcome to the channel!
Can anyone help me. What is the make up in vehicles of a stug battery at this time including support, command, logistics and observer types etc. Do they operate like a motorised battery or independent ?
militaryhistoryvisualized.com/assault-artillery-history-organization-of-assault-gun-units-stug-life/ The excellent Military History Visualized has an article about the StuG units and the organization. I think this can provide you with quite a few answers already.
@@TheAceDestroyer cheers old bean many thanks
Great video so we’ll researched yes not good facing a T34 with your Stug pop gun ouch!
At 5:27 there’s, what looks like, a Russian soldier casually watching the tank crew. What’s this about?
Looks like a German propaganda shot of a captured Soviet officer. He does not look very happy does he?
@@Davey-Boyd yeah, that’s what I thought it probably was.
STuGs are Amazingk!
Awesome
The StuG life chose me..
You had me at Stug
Ace, excuse my curiosity,,,I know you are Belgian, but I wonder where you picked up that English accent...it seems to me it was in Ireland !
I honestly don't have clue. I think it may have come from watching documentaries when I was still very young. I may have picked up a thing or two by trying to mimic the language. That with a mixture of Flemish of course.
@@TheAceDestroyer - I see. Thank you.
G'day,
Yay Team !
I didn't realise that the StuGs were in-use early enough to have been participating in Barbarossa from the start...(!) ; I'd thought they were developed rather later...
Not that my "Aeroplane Head" ever paid much attention to which Caterpillar-Tracked Mud-mixer & Dust-spreader was what...
Do the Soviet Records agree with those German Kill-Tallies - or did the Tank Crews (like the Aircrews of all sides...) imagine themselves to be racking up at least twice as many Enemy units being "Destroyed", as they actually produced ?
Adrenaline & Anxiety & Fear & Excitement seem to bring out the "Wannabe" & "Wouldn't It Be Nice If"..., Factors in the minds of everybody involved...
Segue warning,
Over in AmeriKa they're recording 279,000 total CoViD-19 deaths & rising at 3,000 per day...; so they're only FOUR DAYZE away from Trumpy's (mal)administration of SARS-CoV2 having resulted in more dead US CitiZens than were killed by Italy, Germany, and Japan..., combined, during WW-2 !
The Magic Number is 292,000...
In WW-1 there were only 13,000 US War-Dead....., so I heard while Trumpy was only starting to have to resort to Mass Graves in New York, half a year ago.
We live in interesting times, indeed.
Such is Life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Unfortunately, the Eastern front is far more difficult to check the losses on both sides. Getting a good overall picture is very hard to establish, certainly as the Soviet records are very hard to come by. Most of the times the tank crews had to guess whether or not they destroyed a hostile tank.
@@TheAceDestroyer
Yeah, I thought it might be a bit like that...
"The wish is father to the thought..."
kinda thing....
When one pilot fires at excessively long range, and sees their Target
"immediately start smoking and losing height..."
they will almost always interpret as indicating that they've scored enough hits that they've set their Enemy on fire, & shot it down..., and then report that as having happened.
Meanwhile, in the other Aircraft..., it's Pilot has seen the Attacker in the Rearview Mirror - or perhaps seen some Tracer going past..., and they've pushed their Throttle "through the Gate" into full Emergency Boost - dumping a big bolus of Fuel into the Cylinders, enrichening the Mixture greatly - as the Engine RPM takes time to increase & burn all that extra Fuel, thus resulting in the Rich Mixture emerging as Black Sooty Exhaust Gasses, full of unburned Fuel...
And..., simultaneously, stuffing their Nose down - to trade Height for Speed and get away from whomsoever was wasting Ammunition, at extreme range..., by essentially firing "Warning Shots".
My guess is that Tank-Engines, at full Throttle when loaded-up, and or attempting to accelerate to maintain maximum speed..., will likewise be running Full-Rich, and thus blowing out thick black Exhaust-Smoke....(?).
Boats & Ships with Reciprocating Engines are well known for it..., and Coal-Fired Steamboats are absolutely notorious for shitting thickly in the Sky - particularly any time they try to go fast...(!).
So, in all cases, if a Warrior fires at any distant Enemy, and then the Enemy emits Smoke & retreats at speed ; then it's pretty easy for the Shooter to conclude that they've scored themselves a "Probable (Kill)"...!
Defensive Air-Gunners flying in Bombers which practiced Daylight Bombing in Tight-Formations, perhaps, had the greatest opportunity to misapprehend the cascading fleeting sights which they saw, from their various positions located all over the Formation...
The US 8th Air Force's Gunners routinely claimed 10 or 15 "Kills" for every Aircraft actually lost by the Jagdwaffe..., but because their Daylight Heavy Bombers were losing at least 10% of Airframes dispatched on an average mission, the USAAC Brass-Hats decided,
"for reasons of Unit Morale...",
to allow ALL AIr Gunnery Kill-Claims without attempting to cross-check & deduce how many Gunners had all fired at, and claimed, the same attacking Fighter ("last seen to be smoking & losing height...") as having been "destroyed"...
Later on in the War, to better tempt their own Fighter Pilots into launching impromptu Strafing-Attacks on German Airfields..., while otherwise returning from Bomber Escort Missions (after having handed the Bomber-Stream over to a relieving Escort Group)..., all organised in Relays, thus providing the Bomber Stream with "Protection" over the entire Route while permitting the Escorts to fly to & from their "Leg" of the Bombers' Track at their most Fuel-Efficient Speed (which was about twice the cruising speed of the Bombers)...; the Fighters were officially informed that they would be permitted to count Enemy Aircraft destroyed on the Ground..., as being a "Kill" which would have equal standing with actual Kills scored in Aerial Combat, against a flying Foeman...
All for the purpose of their attaining the required "Five Kills" needed, in order to be called an "Ace (Fighter Pilot)".
For a while, it worked, and thereby lots of Airfields in Occupied Europe & Germany were duly strafed - and simultaneously US Combat Losses of Fighters from Anti-Aircraft Ground-Fire, and from Tree-Hits & Propeller-Strikes when misjudging height (due to Target-Fixation) during low Firing-passes, immediately grew to outstrip the losses inflicted in the Air by the Jagdwaffe's choosing to dogfight with the Escorts...
Bottom line, the AmeriKans (and all the Allies, actually) could always replace their lost Fighters, and lost Fighter Pilots, much more easily than the Jagdwaffe ever could..., from about 1940 onwards (!).
After the War, such "Ground-Kill Aces" were smirked at so hard, by the Pilots of EVERY other Air Force on the Planet..., that most of them went pretty quiet on the topic...
Then..., during the Vietnam War, the AmeriKans were so short of "Aces" (compared to the 15 or so North Vietnamese "Jet Aces") that they started awarding "Kills" to their Backseat Radar & Weapons Operators (the "GIBS" - Guy In Back Seat...) any time the Pilot up front scored a Kill...; in a transparently desperate Propaganda manouvre to suddenly manufacture "Aces" by doubling the Count on all Phantom Kills...!
Again, all the Pilots in all the rest of the World's Air Forces solemnly pointed at the Convention established in WW-2 when Nightfighter Pilots were awarded "Kills" and Radar-Operators were awarded "Shared Kills"..., but there was a very major distinction made between actually firing the Weapons which made the Hit that scored the "Kill"..., and helping to set up & enable the Shot....; and Radar Aces are not Ace Fighter Pilots..., as it turns out (at least, not upon the great Ziggaurat of Aeronautical Egomania).
Overblowing one's Trumpet seems to tempt both Winners & Losers though ; so it's probably all just(ifiably ?) a part of the Game..., or something...(?) !
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Thanks very much for that video, very interensting for me. I live just 50 km north of Bielsk - shown on your map :)
5:30 "FML"
I have a photo of my grandfather standing in the snow Russia in front of a kubelwagen.
You use "Die Wonchenshau" for footage?
Yes I do. Combined with the maps I make myself and sometimes also my own footage too.
Odd music but amazing footage.
Panzer Aces in the making within Abtielung 226.
👍👍👍
The french guy Said : thx 🙏 very much .
The Weak must fear the Strong! 🐼
The cost and over designed tiger and king tiger did nothing but consume a lot of resources, whilst the stugshmutz and panzer4 offered more bang for the reichmark.
5:28 Funny, Russian captured officer is watching the work of the German StuG.
Master race
Its good.
Listening to these early battles, you can kind of understand how the Germans thought the Soviets would just continue to fall. Hubris can be a really bad thing.
Unfortunately, all of the German combat footage in WW2 was routed through Goebbels. Our perception of a highly mechanized invasion force isn’t entirely accurate. The Germans required 750,000 horses for Barbarossa. Fuel and ammunition supplies were never really adequate or consistent.
Who cares about a T34 when you have Stug tanks, this was when the tanker crews were well trained units
StuGs were not crewed by tankers at this time, but rather artillery crews. In some ways they were considered better for this roll than tankers, and effectiveness of the units dropped after the switch of StuGs to tank crews later in the war.
@@Combatpzman everything dropped later in the war.
@@nuclearjanitors Of course, in this case most studies I’ve seen directly links the drop in StuG effectiveness to the crew changeover.
Watch the videos where they dig up German soldiers bodies from mass graves. There's nothing quite like being killed by shells.
The Germans probably had a lot on it and their tanks and tank fighters really weren't bad, but against the Russian and his tanks and tanks Jäger Plus diverse no chance. Simply the Reccursen that the Russian has, mass production and Effective Tank and chase tanks and massive Atellery hardly a chance.
I wonder if Hitler had curbed his enthusiasm at Ukraine and listened to his generals what the outcome would have been 🤔
Probably steamrolled by Soviets.
I think Douchebag won in the war of Douchebag vs Douchebag.
Yhumbs down are Russians
Are u promoting nazi.
No I'm not. I try to bring small snippets of history back. I think it would be more suitable to call it promoting to learn about history.
Damn you are stupid. 😂😂 I just can't help laughing at how ridiculous your comment is. Damn, don't embarrass yourself next time.
Lol
Sit down and shut up.
Keep your malicious stupidity for yourself and do not revisit Ace's channel ever again.
@@objectiveopinion1566
An objectively good advice.
Awesome video!
Thanks!
The french guy Said : thx 🙏 very much .