In combat with the StuG-Abteilung 226 during Operation Barbarossa | Tank Battles of WW2 

Well said!

Well said indeed!

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)

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.

I would also recommend World War 2 Week-by-Week with Indie Neidel.

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.

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.

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

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...

Thank you very much! Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you too!

Thank you very much! I'm very happy to hear that!

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.

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?

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.

Thank you!

Thanks!

Thank you very much! It truly means a lot!

Thank you very much! Welcome to the channel!

No smoking in ir around the haystacks.

@@828enigma6 There you go: tank warefare can actually be good for your health. :->

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.

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.

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

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.

Yes I do. Combined with the maps I make myself and sometimes also my own footage too.

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 !

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.

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 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.

Probably steamrolled by Soviets.

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.