Тёмный

The Artillery Advantage: How StuGs Outperformed Panzers in Tank Kills 

FactBytes
Подписаться 63 тыс.
Просмотров 267 тыс.
50% 1

The battlefields of World War II were the stage for some of the most epic and legendary tank clashes in history.
Germany's famed Panzer forces were frequently at the heart of these intense confrontations.
The German strategy of rapid conquest relied heavily on these tanks leading the nation to invest vast resources and relentless effort into building and perfecting their Panzer divisions.
While Germany’s attention was predominantly on bolstering their panzer forces, the Sturmgeschütz series of vehicles faced significant debates and disapproval before finally being adopted as armored assault guns for infantry support.
As the war drew to a close, the Panzers' once-dominant grip on the battlefield began to falter.
The heavy burden of anti-tank defense increasingly fell to the assault gun and tank destroyer crews. Their remarkable skill and professionalism played a crucial role in stalling the massive Red Army's advance, preventing it from sweeping even further into Europe.
Despite their humble beginnings and initial skepticism, by the war’s end, the StuG emerged as the undisputed champion of tank kills, outshining every other vehicle on the battlefield including the formidable Tiger and Panther tanks.
Join us as we uncover the design features, tactics and unique advantages that allowed StuG crews to outclass Panzer crews at their own game.
#stug #ww2germany #ww2tanks

Опубликовано:

 

9 сен 2024

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 395   
@timothykerr9047
@timothykerr9047 27 дней назад
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.
@SargentoDuke
@SargentoDuke 23 дня назад
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
@Willing_Herold 20 дней назад
@@SargentoDukeWow…… ingenious use of it’s poor ballistics and velocity round.
@SargentoDuke
@SargentoDuke 20 дней назад
@@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!
@RustyShackleford
@RustyShackleford 20 дней назад
@@SargentoDuke lets not forget, Werner Wolff killed a t34 commander with his own dagger. Totally unrelated to the conversation, just a badass factoid.
@Willing_Herold
@Willing_Herold 20 дней назад
@@SargentoDuke I imagine these numbers changing a lot in differing situations.
@stargazer1744
@stargazer1744 Месяц назад
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.
@FactBytes
@FactBytes Месяц назад
Thank you very much!
@user-me7qs9ps2e
@user-me7qs9ps2e Месяц назад
The quantity and quality of weapons are important. But the way they are used transcends everything.
@thedavistheory7674
@thedavistheory7674 28 дней назад
Like shepherd would say: "Sure, it matters who's got the biggest stick, but it matters a helluva lot more who's swinging it."
@johnhughes4147
@johnhughes4147 28 дней назад
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….
@urviechalex9963
@urviechalex9963 25 дней назад
@@johnhughes4147 I beg to differ. The most obvious advantage of most Western designs is crew survivability. Tanks get killed all the time on battlefields.
@johnhughes4147
@johnhughes4147 24 дня назад
@@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 ….
24 дня назад
Stug III in War Thunder was so fast and could take so ridiculously amount of punishment, it’s not even funny.
@benedictjajo
@benedictjajo Месяц назад
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. 🤣
@harrymills2770
@harrymills2770 Месяц назад
The tank was invented for one purpose. It's been mission creep ever since.
@johnye4433
@johnye4433 Месяц назад
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
@minutemanhomestead7214
@minutemanhomestead7214 Месяц назад
@@johnye4433 smfh civi
@haroldfiedler6549
@haroldfiedler6549 Месяц назад
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.
@benedictjajo
@benedictjajo 29 дней назад
@@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.
@blank557
@blank557 24 дня назад
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.
@georgeferguson7114
@georgeferguson7114 Месяц назад
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.
@stargazer1744
@stargazer1744 Месяц назад
...but with poor results due to their crews' faulty training.
@tvgerbil1984
@tvgerbil1984 27 дней назад
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.
@tavish4699
@tavish4699 27 дней назад
@@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
@b4nterontilt245
@b4nterontilt245 20 дней назад
No. It was assault gun
@MD21037
@MD21037 Месяц назад
Erich Von Manstein was the brains behind the idea of adopting the Stug Assault Gun.
@chadrowe8452
@chadrowe8452 Месяц назад
And the Ardennes 1940
@stargazer1744
@stargazer1744 Месяц назад
He is widely considered the best strategic mind of the Wehrmacht .
@loneranger5349
@loneranger5349 Месяц назад
But wasn't aware they could turn and fire faster than a turret could
@drbrainstein1644
@drbrainstein1644 Месяц назад
@@loneranger5349 That was Grudarian who said that
@pj1953a
@pj1953a 28 дней назад
@@stargazer1744 - but they lost.
@sthrich635
@sthrich635 29 дней назад
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.
@marekstanek112
@marekstanek112 27 дней назад
More more like a sharpshooter's rifle.
@OldGrayCzechWolf
@OldGrayCzechWolf 21 день назад
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.
@sthrich635
@sthrich635 19 дней назад
​@@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.
@adaslesniak
@adaslesniak 18 дней назад
​@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.
@sthrich635
@sthrich635 18 дней назад
@@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.
@hansla8608
@hansla8608 Месяц назад
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.
@AndreasAndersson-ve4jx
@AndreasAndersson-ve4jx Месяц назад
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 RU-vid 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-im4vv
@cat-im4vv 29 дней назад
Finnish bought Panzer 4 as well...
@AndreasAndersson-ve4jx
@AndreasAndersson-ve4jx 28 дней назад
​@@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.
@piperp9535
@piperp9535 Месяц назад
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.
@jonowens460
@jonowens460 29 дней назад
Well put
@andrewholdaway813
@andrewholdaway813 29 дней назад
Well put - Until that last "I know you're all a bit thick but" sentence.
@piperp9535
@piperp9535 29 дней назад
@@andrewholdaway813 I've always been a "if the shoe fits" sort of fellow. But I try not to be cruel ... Needlessly
@andrewholdaway813
@andrewholdaway813 29 дней назад
@@piperp9535 But you are addressing an audience of who you have no knowledge. We are fine with your opinion but not your inferred prejudgement.
@piperp9535
@piperp9535 28 дней назад
@@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.
@freddieclark
@freddieclark 29 дней назад
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.
@7ITZDANGER7
@7ITZDANGER7 13 дней назад
Amazing to see new historical content like i am amazed how many legendary battles you bring out with the very high equality
@harryflower1810
@harryflower1810 Месяц назад
In defence a turretless design works
@External2737
@External2737 Месяц назад
It also worked for bunker busting (infantry support).
@Jake-love939
@Jake-love939 29 дней назад
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.
@user-ni7gi8tx7o
@user-ni7gi8tx7o 24 дня назад
That would be wise but between major conflicts the US military has often failed to adequately organize its battle formations.
@jurfas4741
@jurfas4741 23 дня назад
@@user-ni7gi8tx7o 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
@OldGrayCzechWolf
@OldGrayCzechWolf 21 день назад
No way to make a modern battle tanks amphibious. Just too massive. Can't make a brick float.
@robertsolomielke5134
@robertsolomielke5134 28 дней назад
Best vid on Stug III I ever saw. Ghosts of StuG III crew may likely agree.
@christophersmith8316
@christophersmith8316 10 дней назад
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
@user-po3ev7is5w
@user-po3ev7is5w 21 день назад
StuGs were really awesome. Especially on defense.
@tuscanyjc
@tuscanyjc Месяц назад
German optics were the difference hands down the best sites of ww2 and still a massive company to this day
@stargazer1744
@stargazer1744 Месяц назад
You mean "sights".
@tuscanyjc
@tuscanyjc Месяц назад
@@stargazer1744 Ha u r correct
@sebastian-FX357Z1
@sebastian-FX357Z1 Месяц назад
Carl zeiss ag manufacture & polished lens for german tanks & warships for both world wars I & II.
@tuscanyjc
@tuscanyjc 29 дней назад
@@sebastian-FX357Z1 The optical advantage ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VFzNtqJ7tpY.html
@janmale7767
@janmale7767 29 дней назад
Zeis optics!!
@juanzulu1318
@juanzulu1318 Месяц назад
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
@Stratigoz
@Stratigoz Месяц назад
They did in tank kills.
@juanzulu1318
@juanzulu1318 Месяц назад
​@@Stratigoznot if the statistic is read with all context
@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle
@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle Месяц назад
It had more kills. That’s what he means. And it did
@jsharpe45
@jsharpe45 27 дней назад
the stugs were the most producer of all German armored vehicles, and there kill ratios speak for themselves.
@juanzulu1318
@juanzulu1318 27 дней назад
@@jsharpe45 no. Kill ratio alone is not an argument for claiming that they were better than a tank.
@NedkaRokonokova
@NedkaRokonokova Месяц назад
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.
@Caesare9223
@Caesare9223 28 дней назад
Great footage and info. Thank you.
@FactBytes
@FactBytes 27 дней назад
Glad you enjoyed it
@user-ih1mo8vv7o
@user-ih1mo8vv7o 19 дней назад
❤❤❤❤❤
@Rob.S859
@Rob.S859 22 дня назад
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.
@barbarossa1983
@barbarossa1983 22 дня назад
Great video very informative with great footage 😊👍
@FactBytes
@FactBytes 22 дня назад
Thanks 👍
@jpmtlhead39
@jpmtlhead39 28 дней назад
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.
@davidforbes7772
@davidforbes7772 28 дней назад
And the germans still lost
@jpmtlhead39
@jpmtlhead39 28 дней назад
@@davidforbes7772 and....??!!!
@DJJAW11
@DJJAW11 5 дней назад
.... Wunderbar !. Brilliant presented video sir 🥰😎!. Loved all original footage, i have never seen before, clear too !.
@FactBytes
@FactBytes 5 дней назад
Many thanks
@CZ350tuner
@CZ350tuner Месяц назад
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.
@joetamaccio9475
@joetamaccio9475 29 дней назад
Wow ! I’m glad I watched. I never knew that. Thank you for the video.
@FactBytes
@FactBytes 28 дней назад
You're welcome!
@fishpoem1433
@fishpoem1433 27 дней назад
Well researched, well narrated, and highly informative. Research into WWII details continues to yield surprising insights.
@TheGrenadier97
@TheGrenadier97 29 дней назад
The best and most useful armored vehicle of the entire Wehrmacht.
@user-ih1mo8vv7o
@user-ih1mo8vv7o 19 дней назад
❤❤❤❤❤
@kw19193
@kw19193 Месяц назад
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!
@lyndoncmp5751
@lyndoncmp5751 25 дней назад
Both the Tiger and the Ferdinand had a far higher kill ratio, per numbers built.
@kevinpaulson2659
@kevinpaulson2659 Месяц назад
Great show. Thanks for doing it.
@FactBytes
@FactBytes Месяц назад
Glad you enjoyed it!
@estebanmorales6568
@estebanmorales6568 9 дней назад
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.
@Greg-jq1co
@Greg-jq1co Месяц назад
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.
@FactBytes
@FactBytes Месяц назад
Thanks for the visit
@Greg-jq1co
@Greg-jq1co Месяц назад
@@FactBytes Anytime.
@joestiller4270
@joestiller4270 27 дней назад
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.
@whiskey_tango_foxtrot__
@whiskey_tango_foxtrot__ 21 день назад
You dont choose Stug Life, it chooses you.
@craigmason958
@craigmason958 5 дней назад
Stugs were just moving anti tank guns. I believe anti tank guns killed more tanks then tanks anyway.
@neiljaucian5854
@neiljaucian5854 6 дней назад
Michael wittmann and Kurt knispel They should make a movie about this guys
@ScottHendrix-yz3du
@ScottHendrix-yz3du Месяц назад
Its amazing how something so primitive can be so accurate and deadly.
@stargazer1744
@stargazer1744 Месяц назад
Not so primitive.
@csjrogerson2377
@csjrogerson2377 Месяц назад
I'd like to see you build one in your garden shed.
@aramisortsbottcher8201
@aramisortsbottcher8201 29 дней назад
Are you talking about humans? They are the only part of war that stayed the same through millenia till now.
@csjrogerson2377
@csjrogerson2377 29 дней назад
@@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!
@aramisortsbottcher8201
@aramisortsbottcher8201 29 дней назад
@@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?
@mohammedsaysrashid3587
@mohammedsaysrashid3587 Месяц назад
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
@RevRMBWest
@RevRMBWest 15 часов назад
Thankyou for that: I found that very informative and have subscribed.
@blubard6105
@blubard6105 29 дней назад
I see the stug coming back - Terminator is an excellent adaptation of a ( modern ) stug.
@whisthpo
@whisthpo 26 дней назад
Excellent Presentation, Synopsis and Fabulous footage of this shamefully ignored arm of the PanzerWaffe!
@csjrogerson2377
@csjrogerson2377 29 дней назад
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.
@philipliethen519
@philipliethen519 24 дня назад
Excellent content. All the better with what sounds to be a natural voice. 👍
@FactBytes
@FactBytes 24 дня назад
Glad you think so!
@allgood6760
@allgood6760 29 дней назад
Thanks for this 👍
@FactBytes
@FactBytes 29 дней назад
Welcome 👍
@parker1ray
@parker1ray 26 дней назад
Stugs have always been my favorite tank destroyers! I also like the Hezter and the Jagdpanzer IV
@t.j.payeur5331
@t.j.payeur5331 29 дней назад
My favorite piece of German armor...
@archlittle6067
@archlittle6067 Месяц назад
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.
@fredflintstome6532
@fredflintstome6532 9 дней назад
I think you need to refer to Guderians duck The Jagdpanzer IV. He loved the Stug concept.
@monanggirsang267
@monanggirsang267 28 дней назад
The StuGs also look sleek and modern. It seems like modern MBT without traversing turret... or is it modern MBT looks like StuGs with traversing turret?
@SargentoDuke
@SargentoDuke 23 дня назад
imagine if just germany modified the stug with a "giant turret ring" and make the upper glacis just turn... they will invent the MBT on the 40s
@donaldakin2526
@donaldakin2526 12 дней назад
Great history lesson. Thanks for your Diligence
@FactBytes
@FactBytes 12 дней назад
My pleasure!
@user-me7qs9ps2e
@user-me7qs9ps2e Месяц назад
A qualidade e a quantidade dos armamentos são importantes. Mas a maneira que vocês os usam transcende a tudo.
@man_vs_life
@man_vs_life 16 дней назад
That was one impressive and captivating presentation. Very well done sir!
@tomalexander9340
@tomalexander9340 10 дней назад
Great video. Excellent footage and narration!
@FactBytes
@FactBytes 10 дней назад
Thank you very much!
@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw
@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw 5 дней назад
You have a good trained up Stug crew you are a lethal weapon.
@chrisperry4143
@chrisperry4143 29 дней назад
great video. Thanks!
@chrismair8161
@chrismair8161 Месяц назад
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.
@Crashed131963
@Crashed131963 29 дней назад
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.
@K.R.20
@K.R.20 8 дней назад
​@@Crashed131963yeah they shouldn't be proud of defeating the Nazis...
@robertstonebreaker8394
@robertstonebreaker8394 13 дней назад
I guess the old saying is correct use the right tool for the right job .
@edhuber3557
@edhuber3557 2 дня назад
6:40 The German interservice debate on the Stug sounds somewhat like the US debate on the A-10.
@williamstel9330
@williamstel9330 13 дней назад
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.
@luciussander8217
@luciussander8217 25 дней назад
Excellent, thanks for this.
@FactBytes
@FactBytes 25 дней назад
My pleasure!
@eulipion
@eulipion 6 дней назад
In WW1 the Germans were on the receiving end of infantry assaults supported by self-propelled artillery vehicles such as the St. Chamond.
@MattMarshallUK
@MattMarshallUK 12 часов назад
It's crazy to think how much more lethal Panzer units could have been had officers shed ego and been more willing to embrace different ideas. Also the point that the Stug almost didn't happen because they couldn't figure out if it belong to infantry, the tank guys, or artillery guys is such a frustratingly political problem.
@Rob.S859
@Rob.S859 22 дня назад
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 .
@BobHurls-s3v
@BobHurls-s3v 11 дней назад
Excellent study,,,Keep it up!
@kennethdeveyra3556
@kennethdeveyra3556 Месяц назад
Good one
@FactBytes
@FactBytes Месяц назад
Thanks
@jamesstevenson3116
@jamesstevenson3116 11 дней назад
A tank destroyer getting more tank kills than a medium tank. Who woulda thunk it
@markflacy7099
@markflacy7099 Месяц назад
It's bad when you can't aim due to a thrown track.
@victorfinberg8595
@victorfinberg8595 22 дня назад
first-rate presentation
@tonnywildweasel8138
@tonnywildweasel8138 19 дней назад
Good vid on a great work horse of war👍
@volkerp.2262
@volkerp.2262 20 дней назад
16:19 - get the loader hit by the breach?! 😮
@rummelr733
@rummelr733 23 дня назад
It’s an interesting point about the Russians attempting to copy the Stug, but not having the same success. It goes to show that a good piece of equipment still needs a competent well trained crew.
@khairulhelmihashim2510
@khairulhelmihashim2510 26 дней назад
started as self-propelled infantry gun. ended war as self-propelled anti-tank gun.
@marekstanek112
@marekstanek112 27 дней назад
Assault gunsnwere not a out providing infantry with armor, but with firepower to break through reonforced position. "st" is in german pronounced "sht". Ergo "ShtuG", "Manshtein", etc.
@OberstGenosse
@OberstGenosse 9 дней назад
Absolut accurate video 🙂
@carrickrichards2457
@carrickrichards2457 27 дней назад
Stug efficacy is reflected in Offence:Defence ratios which is usually thought to be a ~3x multiplier. Given soviet wave attack doctrine, poor T34 turret ergonomics and lack of radio, that ratio was higher.
@Tconcept
@Tconcept 29 дней назад
Great video, many thanks
@FactBytes
@FactBytes 28 дней назад
Thank you too!
@tsclly2377
@tsclly2377 9 дней назад
And then there was the StuH.. and again was delayed in production.
@carolann3249
@carolann3249 10 дней назад
Interesting analysis
@paulcompton7861
@paulcompton7861 26 дней назад
You need to remember that The Stug's were primarily used in defensive rolls, whilst Germany was in retreat. (Simplistic, I admit, but ......) Where you are attacking, a tank has advantages, and any attacking force will suffer higher losses than a defending formation. You will notice that the 'Tank Destroyer' has vanished, at least partially because a modern tank can fight both defensively and offensively, thanks in part, to stabilized guns and superior fire control, and simply greater versatility. Smart use of TD's in WWII was highly effective however.
@charlesfinnigan3904
@charlesfinnigan3904 22 дня назад
Had they designed a machinegun in the original design it probably would have been as effective as some want to claim. However that was a big draw back to the vehicle that was added later but not sure how effective the external machinegun was in actual close quarters combat. Of course they rack up a nice kill total as most of the war Germany fought on the defensive. Even in 1943 they were on the defensive more than they were on the offensive.
@Funktastic_Ed
@Funktastic_Ed 29 дней назад
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.
@Odd_Krieger
@Odd_Krieger 23 дня назад
Its crazy how throughout history, the less preferred mostly performed better than the preferred ones yet stay underapprciated
@NiSiochainGanSaoirse
@NiSiochainGanSaoirse 9 дней назад
The TAF hurricane fighter is a prime example of this exact issue in aviation. The RAF spitfire still gets all the affection, but the hurricane downed more enemy fighters, fought in more roles, and was produced in far higher numbers than the spit was. Lots of the old RAF pilots have acknowledge the hurricane was the fighter which saved britain, but still, the spit gets all the credit.
@AnthonyTobyEllenor-pi4jq
@AnthonyTobyEllenor-pi4jq 11 дней назад
von Manstein had such a brilliant mind, no Allied leader was as good.
@hoyschelsilversteinberg4521
@hoyschelsilversteinberg4521 23 дня назад
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.
@ronrobertson59
@ronrobertson59 24 дня назад
Making good use of an existing tank in the Panzer Mk 3 that was obsolete by late 1942 because of the guns limitations. The Stug lll could use a HV 75mm gun.
@xisotopex
@xisotopex Месяц назад
Whitman certainly had good luck shooting on the move...
24 дня назад
Stug III in War Thunder runs so fast and can take such ridiculous amount of punishment it’s not even funny
@Marauder1981
@Marauder1981 6 дней назад
Better genetics. It results in better reaction time, intelligence level, resilience and fitness.
@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw
@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw 5 дней назад
Low profile good gun and easy to setup for ambush.
@MGB-learning
@MGB-learning Месяц назад
Great vehicle
@reichsfuehrerniveacreme
@reichsfuehrerniveacreme 8 дней назад
Ausgezeichnet!
@chadrowe8452
@chadrowe8452 Месяц назад
The hetzer is the checkoslavakian stug (38t chassis) sorry i don't know how to spell and its not a country anymore so autocorrect didn't work
@sravans149
@sravans149 24 дня назад
Manstien - Firepower and concealment Guderian - Speed and agility Furher - BANANA , Big tonk is the best tonk Imagine if no tigers or konigs tigers were built instead all production was focused on Panthers and Stugs / Jg pzs ( except Panthers)
@Shroud83
@Shroud83 Месяц назад
Bit like the 88mm gun... began as a anti air gun, ended up as a anti tank gun.
@LaurenceLDN
@LaurenceLDN Месяц назад
Most were actually brought back to Germany to protect against allied bombing. A contributing factor as to why the Wehrmacht struggled so much in the later years of the war
@harrymills2770
@harrymills2770 Месяц назад
I wonder how many 88s with tow vehicles (separate) they could've made for every Tiger or Panzer IV. I think a lot of guys are in love with the idea of the tank, and try to make them do everything, rather than make simple tanks that stick to what tanks are good for. People drool over the M1 Abrams main battle tank, and I just see a boondoggle. Yes, I like the sauna and the gymnasium, but how many can you make and at what cost? If you read Guderian, you quickly learn that every time they reached a city or fortification, they always brought up the 88s to finish the job. In WW II combined arms fighting, your tanks are nothing without infantry and air cover. If you have those other 2 legs of the tripod, it doesn't matter if your tanks are Shermans, Tigers, or T34s, but it does matter how fast you can make them! I think they tried to do too much with tanks, and continue to place too much emphasis on tanks to this day.
@LaurenceLDN
@LaurenceLDN Месяц назад
@@harrymills2770 the flip side to the argument is how much value do we place on the humans inside? The only Challenger 2 tank destroyed in Ukraine was only destroyed after multiple hits, 30 minutes after the crew had escaped. Meanwhile, Russian tanks - cheap though they may be - are essentially mobile ovens for their occupants. In a high tech battle space, I'd rather have a smaller force with the Challengers, F22's, Meteor missiles, NLAW's, HIMARS and other things than be a force that is reliant on conscripted labour to feed the meat grinder.
@paulmanson253
@paulmanson253 Месяц назад
Err,I believe it originally was a naval gun. The largest,heaviest combined shell and cartridge that could be handled rapidly by crew for repeat rapid fire. Add a wide arc of fire and what works on water works against airplanes.
@loneranger5349
@loneranger5349 Месяц назад
The stug could turn and fire faster than a turret could
@ZEZlMA
@ZEZlMA Месяц назад
while keeping the front armour facing the target
@Crashed131963
@Crashed131963 29 дней назад
And it still has a 24 degree of horizontal gun movement for adjustment .
@SargentoDuke
@SargentoDuke 23 дня назад
Sthug life 😎
@ncmorland
@ncmorland Месяц назад
wonder if the Comments are generated by the same AI as the content…
Далее
How Two German Pilots did the Unthinkable
20:03
Просмотров 711 тыс.
Tank Chats #99 | StuG III | The Tank Museum
23:09
Просмотров 1,1 млн
Sigma Girl Pizza #funny #memes #comedy
00:14
Просмотров 1,7 млн
How a 16th Century Explorer's Sailing Ship Works
41:08
Просмотров 846 тыс.
When Only One B-17 Came Home
15:20
Просмотров 1,9 млн
The Only Way Germany Could’ve Won WWII
20:57
Просмотров 992 тыс.
Soldiers Find Man With Shotgun
12:11
Просмотров 713 тыс.
The Tiger Tank Family | Tank Chats Compilation
59:29
Просмотров 132 тыс.
Caen Inferno - The Fierce Struggle for Normandy's Heart
52:25