Had to get one of the StuG shirts. StuG and the Hetzer became my favs in Darkest Hour, a mod for Red Orchestra 1, really the best FPS WW2 tanking I have ever played, much better than WarThunder and WoT's arcadey-ness. In DH, much like in the real war, the low profile of the StuG makes a big difference when playing against other human players in the mulitplayer.
StuGs could not breed fast enough to meet the supply demands or replace their losses. Today, StuGs are all but extinct except for a few that survive in tank zoos. No StuGs have been born in captivity since the 1940s despite an active StuG breeding program.
My Grandfather was in the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion in WWII. They used M-18 Hellcats. He used to say that he hated the StuG more than anything else, even the Tiger. He used to say that you could see the other types of tank, but you never knew a StuG was there until it fired. He didn't even know the name of the vehicle when he used to talk about it. He just called them those low to the ground rascals. I figured out he was talking about the StuG after doing my own research later.
Another very well done video. You touched on repeatedly the fact that Stugs were owned by the artillery branch. Well done. Most people don't realize that. It really caused problems at the higher levels of command for the Armor Branch and the Artillery Branch. Even the Artillery Branch wasn't immune. As you noted instead of placing the Stugs organically with Infantry Branch controlled Infantry Divisions they kept control of the Stug Battalions further diluting their effectiveness due to unfamiliarity when operating together as originally intended. This was just another one of the arguments raging over equipment and tech going on at high command levels in the various branches that really put the Germans at another disadvantage. A video on the actual tactics used by Stugs in support of troops would be informative.
Cole Rape Yes, this was true. Hitler would declare to an argumentative Guderian - as Inspector of Armour - that his hands were tied by 'economics and the demands of other branches'. There were many complaints from Inspector Generals of Air Artillerie [FlakArtillerie] about the use of 88mm Flak cannons being used as Pak as the troops were not awarded medals for destroying tanks on the same scale as a proper anti-tank unit as they were meant, originally, to be used as Flak guns and scores - and medals/awards - were not earned in the same degree as destroying aircraft! Then there were the complaints of Artillerie Generals, declaring that the Stug was meant to be utilised as a SP artillerie gun, then Infanterie Generals' demanding their infantry needed the Stug as mobile armoured support to reduce losses of men to dug-in MG nests/bunkers and its firepower in cases where the enemy uses tanks when not expected! There's no doubt, though, that all sides of the conflict had their teething troubles with the introduction of more mobile armoured elements to what used to be quite simply Infantry, Mountain, Artillery, Panzer-Cavalry [or Fast/Light units], Engineers... the sudden introduction of new unit types such as Airborne-Parachute/Airlanding/Motorised/Mechanised/Commando/Frogmen etc created a bewildering array of demands for specific equipment that sometimes already existed... Even more laughable was the British government's approach to their higher commands' demands about their branch's sole responsibility; The British 3.7inch Flak cannons simply were not used in an anti-tank role because, for example, a Flak company CO simply refused to fire at German tanks in North Africa and a stunned British General [I believe it was General Tuker] couldn't believe his eyes as columns of German Pz II and IIIs moved by at 700m range, east, of this British Flak company [part of the Battallion's position] and he demanded to know why his guns were not firing upon the enemy. The CO of the company declared that his gunners were not rewarded for 'shooting up tanks but shooting down aircraft!' and the Flak Coy CO couldn't be persuaded to use his excellent cannons for anything more than "what they were designed for, sir!" The 3.7inch cannons were the equal of the 88mm and could easily have destroyed many of the lightly armoured PzII and IIIs and it is an astonishing fact that he British Army didn't recognise this lack of duty as the Germans at least utilised the 88mms and it gained a well deserved reputation as a devastating gun of remarkable power and accuracy [whether under protest or not, if you are in the path of a T-34 Brigade, i don't think you would waste time arguing that your guns and their power is meant only for the enemies' aircraft alone and hope the enemy tanks bypass you with a nod and a wink!??!]
Could you cite the story of the 3.7 inch flak guns? I'd be interested to read it. It sounds apocryphal. One incident to explain the lack of use of that weapon system in the AT role throughout the war seems dubious. These were not "teething" problems. The US Army issued 3 official doctrinal changes from 41 to 45. The FMs (field manuals) are available to read on the net. The Heer or even Wehrmacht could have changed thier doctrine; they had been at war for 2 years longer than the US. It was the internecine Byzantine nature of the Werhmacht that caused the greatest problem.
I am not OP and I cannot confir his story about those really nice 3.7 inch pieces. I can, however, give you some data that is in line with what he is telling. "During Operation Battleaxe from 15th to 18th June 1941 the Commonwealth forces are known to have lost 92 AFVs including 82 tanks to the I./Flak-Regiment 33, a Luftwaffe mixed flak battalion with 12 88s. The only other heavy flak battalion available to Rommel through 1941 was the identical I./Flak-Regiment 18. By the end of 1941 these two Luftwaffe flak battalions (authorised a total of 24 88s) had destroyed 264 tanks and 42 aircraft. During this period the Allied forces had over three times as many 3.7inch AA guns available as the Axis forces had 88s, yet the German and Italian tank crews probably never even got to see one." Taken from: www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-eighty-eight-anti-aircraft-anti-tank-and-anti-social/ Specific sources to the paragraph in question: T. L. Jentz. Tank Combat in North Africa: February 1941-June 1941, Schiffer Military History, Atglen, PA, 1998, pp. 187 and 188. E. B. Westermann, Flak: German Anti Aircraft Defences, 1914-1945, University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 2001, p. 121. J. Norris, M. Fuller, 88mm FlaK 18/36/37/41 and PaK 43 1936-45, Osprey Publishing, Oxford, 2002, p. 21.
These things are soo disgustingly op in HOI4. I mean... 70 soft attack without upgrades as early as 1937? With armor? Fast? I'll take a few tens of thousands of these, yes please!
Well that is because most players have only experienced playing vs ai. If you place anti tank support in all the army, you will kill more of those soft armored things than even germany can produce. And if you happen to find real tanks with some cas, they go down as fast as russian soldiers in the eastern front xD
They are very good against tanks since they can have their turret weight in aextra armor and fit a bigger gun. They dont work as MBTs though and gunships are a hatder counter, so they died out.
For a second there I though we're referring to the Kali worshipping Thuggee ( or simple known as Thugs) that terrorized the Indian subcontinent in a bygone era.
In one video about the invasion of polad he said something like "the retreat had to be organized, and not just because they were Germans" :D I love the suddle humour thrown in the mix.
According to British studies of their armor combat losses in Italy (1943-45) and NW Europe (1944-45) 25.0% was caused by German assault guns or SPGuns, 24.8% by mines, 20.4% by AT-guns while only 13.7% by German panzers.
There is a big difference between a StuG assault gun and a SP AT gun. The StuG was much easier to conceal and also had heavier Armour compared to a SP AT gun.
show them to your boss, he will understand. Well, if your boss is female, don't to it, cause well I have less female subscribers than Jingles and GeneralsGentlemen. I think 1.9 % or something, they have around 3 %.
+Anonymoose xD StuGLife is a pretty common meme, read it several times on /r/warthunder and the only RU-vidr that I watch and remember using it was MagZ, which is my favourite "lets player". I know Baron von Gamez by name, but thats about it.
I love history in general,and more specifically ww2. I am a miniatures wargamer and I find your videos entertaining and super useful! keep up the great work,thank you!!
Stuart Fowler I really like GDW' s command decision, it's approximately battalion level and larger, and it works great with the 20mm collection I have (each miniature vehicle/gun is a platoon/battery of 4to6 actual machine) I've been playing over 20 years now,and had made up "homegrown " rules some time ago ,same scale as CD. it really depends on what YOU like and what kind of space &collection you and friends have. (we use 9x5 ping-pong table, and I've got a 1 to 5 scale panzer division +extras. feel free to to email me if you've got more questions anytime. good luck!
One thing that the Germans got right, the value of close direct fire support of attacking infantry. The Western Allies never seemed to understand the value of such support, the Americans with their insistence that anything anything armoured had to have a rotating turret, the British with their failure to adequately gun what they used. I would love to know how quickly a good German StuG crew could bring their gun to bear compared with a tank.
The Soviets understood that quite well, it's nice to have a SU-76 demolish a room that a panzerfaust armed soldier is hiding in instead of storming the building with men and grenades.
@@01Bouwhuis Yes, ISU-152 best tank, or assault gun, or support artillery, or tank destroyer depending on what you're aiming at. But then I'm biased because it's just a gorgeous piece of craft IMO.
At the beginning of the war, it was how well the army was in combined arms fighting. Schwerpunkt with Kiel und Kessel doctrine with the infantry infiltrating the front line at the Schwehrpunkt. The Panzers with Artillery and Luftwaffe (mobile artillery) punching the hole and getting into the rear. Infantry rushing in behind the Panzers to secure the sides of the break through and surrounding enemy troops to force a surrender or annihilation. They were just better trained with superior tactics.
"thug life vs stug life" love that line! Brilliant, Sir. Hahahaha. love your channel and the complete and comprehensive details you provide. Thank you.
I was just reading "Stug III Brigade 191" and it's a fascinating look at a unit I've found interesting since my first plastic model of a Stug III when I was a kid. I appreciate your videos - I always learn something!
I just want to say thank you! I absolutely love your channel/videos and sometimes watch them multiple times to absorb everything. Keep up the great work!
Such a remarkable video. Thank you, sir. Can you, please, make a video about halftracks? People usually don`t know how they were exactly used and what was the difference between Sd.Kfz.251 and Sd.Kfz.250 in terms of role.
The sug.iii was a very effective as an anti-tank weapon. So much so, the U.S. 8th airforce made the factories where they were produced a priorty target.
When StuG III production was decimated by USAAF bombing it was seen as such a big loss that production shifted to the Panzer IV StuG IV. This impacted Panzer IV production as Guadarian bemoanded and also Jagdpanzer IV production. Why would one compromise Panzer IV in favour of StuG IV. Lower profile, more Armour (the turret on panzer IV had only 50mm). The jagpanzer had the potential for carrying the panthers 7.5cm L70.
Just because you're German, don't worry about overly complex paper TO+E. As a platoon leader on the Korean DMZ, my "Platoon" often consisted of 8 soldiers and a single M60 machine gun. Insane.
A slightly interesting thing that I recently thought of is that the Swedish IKV 91 from the mid 70's was used pretty much the same way as the original plan for the StuG's. A vehicle organically part of the infantry brigades, designed for infantry support. Hell, IKV stands for infanterikanonvagn, not something a German speaker would have to much trouble deciphering I think, and is what a StuG would be called in Swedish. This makes it the most recent use of this concept I can think of, but I am willing to be corrected on this.
The Stug was apparently underutilized as a result of how it was deployed. Thank you for the research. Always interesting. Also, I truly enjoyed your Top 5 assessment over on the Tank Museum page. Great stuff.
ok, I like your video's....just found them 2 days ago so I have many to watch but the part I really like is most of them are only 10 minutes so you can watch one here and there and still get stuff done during the day
That's it! This is way too interesting to pass up! I'm liking it and subbing to you now, sir! Now, if only you would cover the development history behind 'Scud' developments?
Parallel development also had a lot to do with using captured factories with minimal retooling, sometimes getting a factory back online fast was more important than getting the best product out of it.
Another good effort. I appreciate all the facts and fine details you bring to the table, no matter how dry such statistics can be. A true nerd, such as myself, is seldom more elated than when he hears the minutiae on a given subject. Your attempts at humor are well received, sterling in fact. (Ha ha...ziemlich lustig. My German blood impaires my normally strict composure with laughter. ha ha.)
I am half German, so some of it made sense to me. :) Being 1/4 Dutch I am worried that it did not come with tulips on it. That low velocity gun came in quite handy on pill boxes, machinegun nests, fortified positions and entrenchments. It did not give all the infantry around it an ear ache like the 75mm would. You want just a little bit of plunging fire sometimes. I imagine it also helped against counter-battery fire by not staying very long in one position.
It is ironic how Stug became most important German armored vehicle of the war when it was used in role it was never designed for (anti tank). Then again, it originally was Panzer 3 which was designed for anti tank role, but quickly became obsolete in that role...
Well, not entirely. The StuG was still the Army's main infantry support vehicle, even though it was used as a very effective tank destroyer. StuGs accounted for 18,261 Red Army tanks and AFVs in 1943/44.
thank you, I copied so stuff about the Maus, but interest in it is still limited. I guess I will do the Pz III / IV / V / VI before them, more information and also more relevant, but well, you never know :)
Did they ever consider "downgrading" Marder tanks to have 7.5cm short-gun/howitzers? A Panzer III chassis is kinda overkill for infantry support, you mainly just need something that's resistant to machine guns and artillery fragments. Panzer I and II should be able to fit a short 7.5cm gun in an armoured casemate for direct fire on bunkers, pillboxes, occupied buildings and so on.
> A Panzer III chassis is kinda overkill for infantry support, you mainly just need something that's resistant to machine > guns and artillery fragments. no, it is not an overkill.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Okay maybe "overkill" is the wrong term, I mean a 7.5cm Howitzer in a little Panzer II chassis is way more mobile and protected than having to move around a 400kg 7,5 cm le.IG 18 by hand. Looks like a 7.5cm Howitzer would fit in a Panzer II quite well, especially as the Panzer II took humongous 75mm high velocity AT guns and 105mm howitzers. Why were Panzer II only used with either the 20mm auto-cannon in a turret or a huge AT or large howitzer, nothing trying to emulate early assault guns?
Hello everybody, a few annotations from my side to this video: 1. In your video you mention a few exotic german vehicles of WWII (Bison, Sturmtiger, Grille). These were all improvisations and not an original design! (Bison --> Original SIG - even with Wheels - in an armored hull; Grille SIG on an outdated chassis of the Pz38; Strurmtiger were not produced just refurbished Tigers were used). IMHO it would be better to speak about the Hetzer with 10,5 cm gun, or the Brummbär, which was actually organized in Sturmpanzerabteilungen, or maybe even the Ferdinand which was at least used at Kursk as some sort of Sturmgeschütz. 2. You speak of the original use of Stugs as an attack weapon and it "was pressed into the role of a tank destroyer". I think on the Ostfront in 1943/44 you just couldn´t choose! Stug commander: "Hell! A pack of T34s is charging at us!" Gunner: "I am an artillery man! I will just shoot at infantery and bunkers! But I won´t shoot at tanks!" Stug Commander to Gunner: "You are right! The Soviet will see it the same way and won´t shoot at us!" :-) 3. One question was not answered: Was it effective? Was the job done? (I know WWII was lost for Germany .... but hopefully you know what I mean) Was the machine Stug III effective? Was the organization of Stug-Abteilungen or Stug-Brigades effective? Why was there an Infanterie-"Batterie" in the Stug-Brigades? Wasn´t it supposed to help attacked infantery on its new defensive role? So why did it need its own infantery? Where there alternatives? (Technically like Hetzer / Jagdpanzer IV / Nashorn .... or in organisation like schwere Panzerjägerregimenter?) I really like your videos. With this sort of minimalistic style information is transported very good. But perhaps you could insert some original photographs (like you did in your "500 men for 12 howitzers" video). I think seeing a Stug with a L24 cannon and then another one with L43 or L48 would show the uninformed viewer the difference better than just symbolic pictures. P.S: This post uses a few german Begriffe! If you can´t understand them perhaps "you are just not g..... enough" :-)
_"3. One question was not answered:_ _Was it effective? Was the job done? (I know WWII was lost for Germany .... but hopefully you know what I mean)_ _Was the machine Stug III effective? Was the organization of Stug-Abteilungen or Stug-Brigades effective?"_ Yes. Steve Zaloga answers this in his book _"Armored Champion"_ on pages 202-05.
after playing it a few times and playing loads of BICE, I am not that happy with HOI 4, it is great in showing the meat grinder and economic side in the war, but basically no micromanaging each of your divisions... I really loved that in BICE. Also they messed up the air war completely... It still is addictive, but once you played some black ice, it feels wrong, it is still fun, but something is just wrong.
Thanks man, i think i will wait till some exceelent mods get done for it, did you ever try the H.P.P mod? Or kaiserriech? Plus, paradox has always botched release of HOI
Military History Visualised Yes, i have played HOI2 and i particularly enjoyed HOI3 with a few mods and some alterations i had to make for the ludicrous Red army bug but i have not tried HOI4 yet. I noticed they have added the counter intelligence section? and since WW2 had many crucial decisions made by military Intel or countered by a particular counter intelligence manouevre, i think it should make the game more 'in-depth'. But i have heard of some bugs so i think i'll wait. What IS BICE??? Is it a mod for HOI4? I'll google it, see what it comes up with. Thanks for the great videos! I do understand it is very difficult to find definitive accuracy in certain details and often you have to 'go by the book' when doing research as there are so few old WW2 veterans still alive so it IS appreciated when you say, "take these details with a pinch of salt". It is rare to find such sincerity with historians as they are often quite partisan in their opinions... US historians will often say, "the Americans were the FIRST to use radio controlled artillery in WW2" which is obviously BS as German troops were using radios - a very complex radio/signals service - to call in air or artillery support for advancing units during initial engagements. In fact, i'm certain WW1 nations used radio to determine the effect of artillery and the French Army certainly had some very effective barrages laid down upon enemies no more than 100 meters ahead of them so they could take advantage of a still stunned enemy unit, directly after a short but powerful barrage.
In my opinion, the stug was better off as an anti tank unit than as an assault artillery, especially once the German army was on defensive. A combination of tried and tested stugs and panzer 4 were, IMO, more effective than a formation of hastily built and faulty Panthers (they had potential but were rushed into action and developers never had the time to properly develop it). That's just my opinion though, what do you guys think about it?
At 7:00, i always wondered why sturmgechutz, and stuhs existed when there were already, open top artillery vehicles like the nashorn and its little counterparts. Same with the panzerjagers, jagdpanther and jagdtiger etc., i guess the stug was a hybrid amongst the panzer divisions. I play alot of Men of War AS2, and i always have a hard time choosing units, lol.
It kind of reminds me of how the 88mm Flak Cannon designed for anti aircraft but pressed into an anti-tank role. Lots of weapons used for purposes not intended, also shows, however brilliant Germany was at deployment and attack with tanks, they have a huge deficiency in fighting Allied tanks. This was a bug problem against The French, British, Russian, and American tanks which had tanks of higher quantity, sometimes higher quality, and more supporting arms like air force, naval, and artillery.
SU-85 kinda, different doctrine and purpose, I think it was also weaker armored. It does not help that the StuG changed (mostly) from infantry support to anti-tank.
I heard that Soviet tankers were told not to engage Stugs. Avoidance was preferable whenever possible. Maybe Bcuz or the higher trained Gunnery skills in Stub crews.
Currently History channel is showing a series called 'Scorched Earth'. Seems very similar to the 'Line of Fire' series. But I can't decide if it is complementing you our you are complementing it.
You might compare a present day US Army Brigade Combat Team to a German Division in World War II. The similarities are striking and differences very informative.
Please may I have a little help with pronunciation? When Sturmgeschütz is abbreviated to StuG, is the correct pronunciation Stoog(like Thug in English) or Stoo-Gay? I just need to get this to be German enough.
Could you please make a video about how many materials it took to make each countries (US, USSR, UK, Nazi Germany, China and Japan) main battle tank, how long it took to make them, how well they performed and any issues they? I know that the main battle tank probably changed over the years for some countries, so pick a year of your choice for them.
I hope this doesn't sound like a really stupid question, but what was the purpose of the transport unit in the 42 battery and 44 battalion, given the Ammo supply units are separate.
Thanks for a great video as always. I can't get my head around why Germany started the war before it was ready? If the beginning had been delayed by about 2 years, then the equipment would have been ready and able...can someone explain what was the rush please? The war was started Before German industry was put on a 'war footing', which makes even less sense.
