StuGs in Action

Roadwheels is the easiest way to tell...6 to a side = Stug III & 8 to a side was a Stug IV.

The saukopfblende(saukopf) was introduced into Stug III production in November, 1943. However, it was difficult to cast, so saukopf production was not able to meet demand, thus, even in 1945, there were Stug IIIs that were coming of the production line that were not fitted with it.

 

I don't know but I bet it would be a tight fit for the crew since the ammo was a good bit longer, so the receiver and probably the recoil path would have to be longer and the extra length of each component would be cumulative, seems to me.

 

At the risk of lowering the tone, I really like this old 1/32 readymade which I think captures that 'Barbarossa StuG' look nicely......

 

Here is a KwK 37 at Fort Benning in 2013 that had been removed during an upgrade and configured on a pedestal mount for static defense

 

Hm, kind of like to trying to mount the Tiger IIs gun on the Tiger I then?

 

Nice to see Sturmgeschutze Vor! still up, though not apparently updated for a few years.
http://stugiii.com/home.html

As to KwK42 on Stug: Dave's right - that would be Panzerjager, but... I don't really care!
Plenty of interesting Stuggage to be looked at without lurching into Paper Panzers, surely.

Here's a weird Stug that actually got built:
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/10837-german-favour-mark-iv-as-main-battle-tank/?p=133432
Mmmmm... recoilless.

 

Weirder.
Postwar Spanish platform for what looks like a missile system. Allegedly.




I do wonder though...
Lettering seems reminiscent of some middle eastern postwar vehicles. Always found info on Spanish gear sketchy though, so lord knows.

 

Nice. I like the truck with the derrick behind it too. Maybe a loader of some sort?

 

Actually that is a Spanish StuG. It was a prototype designedto launch the G-1 missile, Biggest rocket that Spain had at the time.

http://mavitpzv.tumblr.com/post/117604324355/stug-iii-spanish-rocket-launchers-prototype

 

Nice.
Now looking for dates on Spanish 'G-1' to see if we have a last 'in service' Stug, though that designation is only taking me to a Russki version of the V2 (which is quite interesting, but I dunno if it'd fit on a Stug), or keeps going back to that Stug.
G-series do appear to be rockets rather than guided missiles as there's a G3 MLRS setup.
Sounds like the above still:
View attachment 22547


I also read in passing on AHF: "There was a prototype mounting a 105/26 howitzer as self-propelled artillery, and there were projects for mounting a 122/46 gun or an 88/45 anti-tank gun."
...

 

Oh, and the Stuggiest not-a-stug ever:








M113 Fire Support Combat Vehicle (FSCV) - A little bit of nostalgic prototyping by Krauss Maffei and Rheinmetall in the 70s.

 

Hardly nostalgic, as the "West" Germans had their Kanonenjagdpanzer since the mid-60's.

 

We haven't mentioned the StuG-ish looking evolutionarily dead end,the S Tank.

 

A Jagdpanzer and an ambush Panzer!
Harumph. I want Sturmartillerie.

 

I'm very interested as well, why not mount a larger main gun on the already existing Stug frame instead of introducing a whole new tank which was heavier and slower? What was the pay off except for the fact that you had the largest stink on the battlefield? Course, don't get me wrong, I love the JagdPanzer because of the thicker armor and higher firepower, but the cost. I believe that the larger gun was too powerful for the tiny Stug chassis, no matter what Ausf., and may led to Stugs sliding or being propelled backwards form the great force. That is why I believe they had to remodel the Tiger tank to allow for the larger main gun because such a large force would send the turret mounting into the background. Course now why did they make the Panzer III into a Panser IV? Armor and more advanced technology into the chassis if I'm right. Course we know that the Panzer 38 could be refitted with a Hertzer frame, but it was rare for many other tanks to be so flexible. If I remember, they also would take the basic Panzer II- IV chassis and put hull mounted guns on top. Actually isn't the Stug Ausfs based off of the Panzer III and IV chassis?
The point I'm trying making is why not save some money and meerly improve the already existing frame work to incorporate the larger gun? We know they did it and we know they could have tried to find a workable solution other then create a new Ausf. of tank.



Anyways the Stug is a great tool for its trade and performs buetifully by not being at all too slow nor too lightly armored. It can take a few hits and dish out an amazing amount of fiery metal. I enjoy this idea and would be glade to play around with this concept of a stronger Stug to meet the German standards.

 

A delicate balance between mobility, firepower, and protection.
Wasn't the Stug pretty much at its' pinnacle regarding that balance?...Bigger gun means less mobility.

 

That might of been the reason, just as nearing the end of the war the Pz IV had reached its limits of upgradeability, as demonstrated by the failed attempt at mounting the Panthers gun and turret.

 

IMO there are no modern descendants of the "sturmartillerie" , the M109 and it's likes lack the armour to face even mall calibre AP rounds so can be used for direct fire only under exceptional circumstances and the big gun eight wheel "gun support" rely on speed more than armour for survival. The in the sixties the MBT has replaced both the Stug and the AT gun (both towed and SP) though today where MBT are mostly in the 60 ton range there is probably a need for something lighter with a big gun.

 

Wonder if the Sheridan was an attempt to cover too many bases.
Some Soviet tanks tried with the missile (gun tube) launcher as well, if recalling correct.

 

You recall correctly, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K112_Kobra
for the basic development history.