StuG III - In The Movies 

StuG Life.

A reference I get. Brought to you by an Austrian man. ;)

That's what the 18-year-old German conscript said in 1944.

Stug life best life.

I didn't pick the stuG life I pick the Panzer life

@Sami Bentrad probably something like an sd.kfz 251. The most popular German half-track.

Michael was an overrated tank commander

@@LordNinja109 Not only that but he was also SS scum. Much more respect for Otto Carius as a German tank ace (if anyone). Who was part of the Wehrmacht.

@@RusskiBlusski Wehrmacht wasn't any better

@@LordNinja109 Wehrmacht wasn't even close to as bad as the SS was, and denying that is Ignorant.

No turret so it's not as tall and the 3 people in there aren't anymore, I'd assume either they store less ammo or the crew was just cramped

At least it's not as cramp as the Hetzer.........

German afv's weren't much worse in ergonomics than most other tanks at the time, except the Churchill I guess.

Actually both the Panzer III and Stuf III are suprisingly spaceous. Of course they aren't comfortable but for a tank, not that cramped. There is a video of Sofilein and Chieftain sitting in one at the American heritage museum. You can check it out on YT.

The Hetzer was a nightmare for the crew. But the Stug III, even with the long 75mm gun, wasn't so bad.

hell yeah

True but allied air power was very good at killing support trucks. No support trucks equalls no spare parts, no amn and no fuel.

@@samuelgordino they were good at bombing support routes and concentrations

The StuG was not a measure to fill in the gaps of tank production, but to give the infantry an effective self propelled support weapon, it's why the StuG were crewed by artillerymen rather than tankers. Only during the second half of the war were StuGs sent to tank units to fill in the gaps and were then crewed by tankers.

Garrison Nichols- You do make Some VERY GOOD Point's. Here is a Few things I Wanna Add though. Yes the Stug-3 Was Good. Though I MUST say an its True, The Stug-4 Was Better. Stug-4 Had SLIGHTLY Better Armor. And Also, Yes the German's could and did hide their Tank's and Tank Destroyer's in Village's an Forest's did Help them SOMEWHAT. But Not enough. As of course the German's would have to take their Armored Vehicle's out of their hiding spot's sooner or later. An then we would be able to destroy them. An also, If some Bomber's or Artillery like destroyed the Hiding spot's where the tanks Were, even if they were not destroyed, They'd still be out the Fight. As if the house or Cave or Tree's or Part of a hill came crashing down on the tank's, They'd be stuck. And also, About Air-Support Attacking the tank's on the Ground, Yes the Number's of tanks taken out By American and British Air-Support, It was Not Big. But it was Still Pretty Good. An also, The American and British Fighter's an Fighter-Bomber's they did Not have to always Get a DIRECT Hit to Take out a Tank. Like, If the Rocket's or Cannon Shell's Fired from the Plane's like say, Knocked out a Track on the tank or Hit Near the engine, its a GOOD Possibility the tank would be stopped. And also, The Fighter-Bomber's could Carry some Pretty Big Powerful Bomb's and even if they did not Directly Hit the Tank's, If they Hit still REAL CLOSE to the Tank, The Shockwave could still Take out the Crew inside an Also REALLY Shake up the tank an mess up it's system's an stuff an the engine. And also With SO Many American an British Air-Plane's Flying around and attacking an dropping Bomb's an Shooting Rocket's, 1 of them was surely bound to Hit a Tank. And also, If the Plane's could not Kill the tank's, Well then they could for sure Kill the truck's an car's an horse pulled wagon's and lightly armored vehicles that were supporting the Tank's by carrying ammo an spare parts an fuel. And also with The American an British Long range Bomber Force constantly and CONSTANTLY POUNDING Germany's city's and SEVERLY Harming Germany's war production power an also Destroying bridge's and railway stations and yard's and also oil production facilities and storage facilities this made the German's situation EVEN WAY WAY WORSE.

STuGs didn't do good in africa iirc

Many years ago, I had a group of friends that used to get together for large, table-top, 1/300 scale Micro Armor wargames. In one game I had a "game battalion" of infantry and a section of three Stug IIIs with long 75mm guns which, to the other players surprise, I used used as an artillery battery in support of the infantry, to control an important river crossing on my flank of the 12 foot x 6 foot game table. My friends later told me they had never considered using Stugs as artillery. But it worked!

I haven't seen it! I love armored trains so I'll add it to my need to watch list and see if I can work it into something!

@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq Strelnikov’s armoured two-car train pulled by a red locomotive in Doctor Zhivago is a good one.

Yad La Shiryon , Israel's armoured corps memorial , and tank museum , located at Latrun , central Israel ( down the road from where I live ) has a whole bunch of former axis tanks and assault guns on display ( as well as MANY examples of the Sherman and Centurion tanks )

The Stug3 was actually an artillery not a tank destroyer.

It often depends on the unit the vehicle belongs to. StuG as part of a panzer unit would be crewed by panzer troops

I totally forgot there were tanks in that movie!

Thanks for popping by twice! I added the Stuart to my to do list 🙂🙏

@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq Try 1970 The Adventurers for M5s in action, also lots of M8s

In the 1943 film 'Guadalcanal Diary' there are a lot of M3 light tanks in the final battle scene, it was filmed at Camp Pendleton only a year after the actual battle.

An old Latin American movie, maybe 1983 "Under Fire" with Gene Hackman and Nick Nolte, has M3 Stuarts. Was filmed in Mexico which was still using them.

There is an episode of The Tilight Zone where a Stuart & crew find themselves at the battle of the Little Big Horn in 1876

Thank you so much 🙏

Shteiner is coming in! Demarkation!!

Not necessarily a fair comparison you are right. Just a good visual for how a low profile can be a major advantage for an ambush oriented tank.

what exactly was the fun part of the fact

@@AremStefaniaK you must be a great mate to have in a party. - Abraham Lincoln

T-34-85 was "Pitkäputkinen Sotka". Long barrel bluebill.

Not bluebill, but common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula). Now called Telkkä in Finnish, Back then it was called Sotka. Confusing enough, sotka now means genys of diving ducks (Aythya).

If you look at the development and it's branches the initial use becomes clear. The original used the 75L24 howitzer (same as early Panzer IV) and where attached to the infantry as mobile gun platforms to deal with bunkers and (using HE) enemy infantry. Similar to the 75mm Infantry gun but with better crew protection. With the war it was modified to carry a longer 75L42 and then 75L48 since it was the fastest way to get that gun (similar to the PAK 40 AT gun) into a tracked and armored chassis. Problem was that now the infantry no longer had a support gun. So in comes the StuH 42, a StuG with a 105mm howitzer

I know right??

It's hard to focus on only one Company in a very large battle and still show the true scale of things. But something of note was that most of the StuGs in that battle were fresh replacements. The sight of enemy tanks that knew what they were doing (regardless of armor and gun stats) could cause green troops to dip.

The scene with the STUGS on a train in 'The Eagle Has Landed' was filmed in Fiinland which still had genuine SRUGS.

ah crap! I totally forgot that scene.

I stop watching the film after that scene. In case you haven't come across this... There is an amusing brief anecdote about that by stuntman Jim Dowdall who worked on the film and had a brief discussion with Michael Caine concerning the Stug during the filming in Finland. From The Tank Museum collection: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-94y-X3uF0wU.html at about 6:50

I wish the there was the Swiss Air Force Cross (That's technically what it is), but the circle and cross had inverted colors, but the American Red Cross gets real pissy about the presence of the red cross in media, and I mean REALY PISSY.

Probably one of my favorite board games. Very cool.

Test played it and added Target Selection on Defense. It really helps balance the Eastern Front.

Thank ya kindly!

@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq Your welcome mate!! Credit, where credits due! You say your an amateur, but you're pretty well researched and a bit humble to boot! Good work. 👍🇦🇺

Thanks for the comment brother

That's original gangster stuff man! I really appreciate it. 🙏👍

Thanks Andrew! I'll try to do another tank video in the next couple of weeks

@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq oh Jonny you spoil me with responding like a real Alfa chad I can’t wait to watch whatever videos you post.

Absolutely would be using that scene.

I knew you'd be a StuG fan.

@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq it is an amazing vehicle and a great help for the soldiers, the StuG was the "poor man's tank". Because of the kind of warfare it needs to perform well it did fit perfect on defensive battle which also favors the soldier in the foxhole.

you must mean the microsoft snail simulator 2013

@@AremStefaniaK since when is gaijin owned by microsoft? No i mean snail thunder

There were also about 1299 StuH 42 with 10.5cm gun produced so its a good mock up.

Panzejraeger like the Nashorn were still opperated by artillery units I think.

The Sturmhaubitze 42 is a StuG with a 105mm howitzer. The choice what any vehicle would become was made very late in production when the gun was fitted and you could change a StuG to a StuH and back at the higher maintenance levels (depot maintenence)

I had been dying to use that clip for a long time. Love that movie.

Compared to T-34 - the main adversary in Finland in 1944 - the StuG III had much better visibility and more room for it's crew.

What? That sounds more like the hetzer

early models although the stug iii ausf g had a good viewing situation do to having a cupola

A small sidenote which you may have known: the finns made the ppsh (or as we know it, Suomi konepistooli --> Finland submachinegun) was made first, in the 1939. The Soviets saw the design and started changing things on it and it became the ppsh-41

@@Viljami32 That's not accurate. Soviets did take a look at the Suomi blueprint, but didn't end up using basically anything from the gun itself. The soviets wanted to make cheap stamped steel weapons in large numbers. A Suomi was not at all what they wanted or needed. Suomi's were quite expensive and required a lot more man hours from highly capable craftsmen to manufacture. They did however copy the drum magazine design.

Not yet but it's on the list! :)

@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq looking forward to it as always. 👋👋👍👍

It's actually related more to the Bergmann's MP-18

Welcome to the channel!

Thanks so much. And welcome!

I'd love to but not a ton out there. I'll have a look!

Forgot to say, but thanks for mentioning the guns rotation limit and how their flanks we're more exposed

@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq I know the LeoPanther in A Bridge to Far. But that and the Jagdpanther in BoB is all I can think off. Funny since there are more working Panther than Tiger and still 131 got to star in that movie with Angelina Jolies Ex.

I don't mess around

Could easily be true as the problem really is that normally only the gunner and commander must be trained to have good coordination at operating the gun but without a turret the driver becomes part of the firing process. Even on modern vehicles there is more or less training in a situation where the turret's power is out and it's faster to move the gun by moving the vehicle and letting the gunner do small adjustments. The Swedish Cold War-era turretless S-tank beat its' counterparts in field trials because before automatic firing control systems the turret made a difference only when the vehicle was attacking as you could fire on the move and keep aiming elsewhere than where you're going.

APOLOGIES Stug....