Aiming of Stugs and JagTiger

Hi,

I was looking through some photos I have and started to wonder.

How did Stugs and JagTiger aim in a defensive anti tank role as they lacked the movement of a turret.

Did they just wait till someone rolled past their sights or did they have some movement?

How accurate where they when compared to a traditional turreted tank or tank destroyer?




FNG

 

No, their guns could move slightly to either side, and also up and down offcourse. However if it was 'close in' combat, they would swing the whole chassis towards the enemy.

At long distance they could rely on the limited traverse of their gun.

KBO

 

looking at the pictures was the gun mount a weak spot armour wise?

FNG

 

Yes, that's why it usually had the thickest armour and, as you can see on the StuG, flank protection plating.

 

Just noticed.....that bottom Stug I knew had GI's sat in so I had always assumed it was souvenier picture. But it has Stars on it so presumable has been remarked up and was being used by the americans.

No wonder the air boys had so many problems with each side using each others vehicles. Just shoot them all up and let god sort them out!

FNG

 

That last Stug was probably from Gen Rose's division in the Ruhr. His men kept everything that they ran across, even German engineering vehicles.

 

If you play the game WW II Online you get to see pretty accurate depictions of the various types of gunsights in use with acurate rendering of the reticle and (for the most part) accurate magnification. In the game the stug is more difficult to use than a turreted tank however you pretty quickly get used to pivoting the vehicle as needed. As pointed out by another poster there were several degrees of lateral movement allowed by the gunmount before it became necesary to pivot the vehicle.

Icidentallya Tiger had rather slow turret traverse when compared to most other tanks however for a 56 ton tank it was known to be quite nimble, with power steering (and a steering wheel) which permitted the tank to be steered with one finger, so they say. i.e it could be pivoted quickly if the need arose rather than wait for the turret to traverse.

 

Grieg, do you have a link to tat game, it sounds cool


''No, their guns could move slightly to either side, and also up and down offcourse. However if it was 'close in' combat, they would swing the whole chassis towards the enemy.

At long distance they could rely on the limited traverse of their gun.

KBO''


The gun could traverse a little, but didn't they also just moved the tank left and right to aim?

Just like the Swedisch STRV-103...

 

They swung the whole tank around when this was needed, of course, as it provided relatively quick full traverse. However when you're lying in ambush, moving the whole vehicle kinds of ruins everything.

 

yeah that was my point. In ambush and defensive situations where your tank is buried up to the gun swiviling to get a shot could be a bit awkward

FNG

 

However, a Stug was most effective in defensive role.

 

http://www.wwiionline.com

I played for 2.5 years..am taking a needed break before I go back for some more. I had a lot of fun and learned alot about WW II hardware in the process. BTW it is a massively multiplayer online game with a monthly subscription fee.

 

I believe they had fairly heavy armour and it's low profile made them awkward to hit especialy when hull down.

Still when hull down I would assume that its limited turret traverse would cause it problems.

FNG

 

Frontal armor was good and added armor was bolted on later in war. Side armor was not so good so if you have to fight one try and flank him Also lack of MG makes it vulnerable to enemy infantry unless you have friendly infantry to protect you.

 

But some Stugs had one MG on top of them, right? At least one in Band of Brothers.

 

Exactly.

 

Yes, a remote-controlled "Rundumsfeuer" MG42, but these were in short supply; most StuGs didn't have one.

StuGIII-crews were quite adept at finding ways to add armour, by the way. Examples of concrete added to the front hull are not uncommon.

 

Although (surely!) they were supposed to be deployed in groups, so no area is not covered by at least one gun.

 

The Tiger I could traverse its turret 360 degrees in 60 seconds.

The main disadvantage of the fixed superstructures was not so much the time loss of turning the vehicle, but rather the wear on the running gear.

Regarding the Sutrmgeschütz, it had relatively weak armour, except for the frontal armour of the late-war versions. They didn't need thick armour, though, since they were infantry support vehicles and not intended to combat other tanks. They were quite succesful in the offensive role, though.

 

They were not originally intended to fight tanks, but when the Germans learned that few things could handle the T34 as well as the StuG it was quickly upgraded to the new long-barreled 75mm gun and given the secondary role of tank destroyer, in which it was most succesful (and famous!).

Or is this all complete rubbish?