The Stug kill ratio

I been wanting to see what was the Stug kill ratio was.
Stugs knocked out more tanks then the panther and tiger tanks.

 

An awesome little tank. I'll bet it has something to do with more Stug's produced. Also aren't they more of a defensive tool? More kills prolly later in the war. I dunno.

 

The StuG's original purpose was offensive. It was designed as a mobile piece of field artillery that would support infantry on the attack, hence it was called a storm gun mount*, STUrmGeschutz, or what we would call an assault gun.

Later on it was used defensively because the German armies were on the defensive.

* I'm not sure of the exact meaning of "geschutz", but an online dictionary seems to make this a likely interpretation.

 

Geschütz means gun. Sturmgeschütz means assault artillery.

 

Good info. But wasn't the azimuth limited on the Stug ? Was it more of a direct fire weapon? 'Cause isn't artillery plunging fire?

 

Being that the StuG was in production longer than the Panther or Tiger and in higher numbers, I can see the kill numbers being high. For not being designed as a tank killer, the StuG did not too bad of a job once it got the higher velocity gun. It did have it's limitations but so did the 88mm gun used in the anti-tank role. In the antitank role, it was a defensive weapon.

 

suggest picking up a copy of Sturmgeschütze vor ! now that all of the Wehrmacht and even the W-SS Abteilungs and Batteries are covered, some excellent biographical accounts in brief form of the units. One must take in account that it is from German sources would of been nice to some how cross check Soviet archiv's. some references mention Stug's having 10,000 kills.

an awful tough one to predict especially with the chaos and constant movement of the German ground units in the Ost in 1945 but realistically there is plausibility in the figure the Stugs were ordered and not always successful in plugging gaps where needed, rushed to the front and then pulled back and vice-versa continually daily many many times.
As mentioned months ago several times the II Abteilung in many Heer/W-SS Panzer units, the Pz. IV tank not in sufficient numbers was filled by the Stug III and even then the Pz.-Jäger Abt. still had it's small share of Stug III's on hand as well.

 

I read somewhere that originally the Stug's crews came from the field artillery. One of the effects was that they had more training and emphasis on accurate shooting than the run of the mill tanker. Some sort of stat on hits per shot would help prove or disprove this.

 

Sturmartilliere actually, the Lehr Schulen did just that though in 43-45 this was subject to just working as a Stug crew-member and being sent to the front when and where needed.

 

Also from the PAK units. Anti-tank gunners were incorporated into the jagdpanzer abteilungs when the StuGs were being used in the anti-tank role.

 

correcto Ike, a friend of a friend of the Familie was in Panzerjäger Abt.1 and received the Ritterkreuz for the destruction of 4 Soviet T-34's with the Pz Faust as his 3.7cm supporting unit was being over-run, from this he was moved to the 7.5cm element and then in October of 44 he was commanding a Stug III but cannot find how many victories in that he may have obtained, possibly 5 ?

 

Wouldn't most artillery men jump at the chance to be in a StuG? Or was being in a tank certain death? I would probably choose to be inside a vehicle rather than have to horse it. But, if the odds of surviving in a tank were numbered in days...

 

not really. personal choice some would say they could be self-propelled 105mm's or horse or motro drawn wheeled 105's and bigger 150mm's. there would be transfer within the Artillery Abteilung/Batterie and if already in Sturmartilliere with function in the Stug Kompanie then yes another position within the batterie or Abteilung.

make sense ?

 

Could soldiers choose where they worked? If you were considered good , would they put you wherever they wanted or could you apply for what you wanted to do?..Again, I'd rather be in a StuG protected from the elements. The tankers, I would think , would have been considered elite.

 

This would seem to make sense- I would imagine even the self propelled artillery would still be behind the lines to some extent, while the Stugs and other SPGs/Tank Killers would be right up front. Especially in the later years of the war.

I wonder if those serving in the self-propelled guns would have the same level of "elite" reputation as the tankers, or if the SPGs were looked down on?

Would be interesting to look at the Stug kill ratios being looked for and those of various tanks vs. the reputations and "status" of the crews.

From what I have read in the past, I've had the idea that many StuG or SPG units did rather well in terms of kill ratios- would there be some lesser status for not being a tanker despite said good kill ratios?

 

IIRC Guderian, after his appointment as inspector of Panzer troops, managed to bring the Sturmartillerie under his control. This led to a number of Stugs being diverted to Panzer batallions during the 1943/44 tank shortages and the stugs themselves taking on a "poor man's tank" role.

I think crew's uniforms had the same cut as the Panzer troops but in feldgrau rather than black. Don't know if they had similar training but I doubt it, Stug crews were trained in indirect fire techniques, Panzer crews were not.

Their original role was close artillery support for infantry attacks, though as they were a much better A/T weapon than the standard 37mm Pak 36 they were often used as such when available. The use of part of the initial batch at Stonne by the GD regiment in 1940 is a good exmple and in the USSR the "short" Stugs were credited with a huge amount of tank kills in 1941/42 though most were probably not T34 or KV. BTW GD was pretty unique in having an "organic" Stug unit, normally Stugs operated as independent batallions temporarily attached to infantry divisions.

IIRC the Stug IV was produced in parallel with the PzJaeger IV on the same chassis so the Stug was never meant to be a pure A/T weapon.

 

All true. The StuG was not designed to be an anti-tank weapon but did a pretty good job at it. The low silhouette compensated for the lack of horizontal traverse. Like it was said earlier, better suited for defense.

 

Good info.Thank you gentlemen.

 

For example, my grandfather was a zugfuhrer in the PAK 36 group of the unit when it was still a regiment. When it was refitted as a full Panzergrenadier Division, he was one of those chosen to move over to the StuG IIIs.

 

Assault Gun.