The StuG III

No Pomme de Terre is a Patatoe
Looks like these things..


A Pomme is an Apple
Those are these things!

 

Yes of course, but "ge" on itself doesn't mean anything in German. I cannot find the word "Geschnauze" in any German dictionary online or in my posession. I really don't think this word exists.

 

Might have been slang, when was the last tiem you seen truthiness in a dictionary?

 

The word "truthiness", or the concept of "truth"?

 

The world.....

 

Nope, I have never seen an entire world in any dictionary.

 

You should know I cant type I ment word.


By the way i know what a pomme de terre is I was using it as an example, you have to translate the wholething and not just part of it. because if you translate word for word you get apple of the earth and not potaoe. Everyone loves potatoes and when they say they dont it means thet are in denial.

 

well in russian tomatoes are called golden apples as they are in italian !


The stug III was only good on the defensive , in an attack mode it got it's
arse chewed bad unless it was corsetted with proper panzers
but yeeh it was a most cost effective and efficient machine , much better
per pound of steel than this big dodo the " king tiger "
as for the turf war between the artillery and the panzer arm,
it was driving guderian , as inpector of the panzer , absolutly insane !

.
.

 

That is untrue. There are numerable cases of Sturmgeschütz III's being succesfull in attack. In the Ardennes Offensive, the 244th Assault Gun Brigade destroyed 54 American tanks --- for the loss of two of it's own, for example.

It is after all, an assault gun, and not a defense gun

 

I'm a BIG stug fanatic. But it has to be said that the stug had some major issues when attacking without adequete panzer support.

 

They were made for infantry support, not to attack on their own... could someone back up the statements about the StuG III being "hopeless in attack" with something?

I have provided an example of success, and can provide more...

 

( feet shuffle ) I'm looking , I'm looking !

the statement was " hopeless in attack on their own against other tanks ,
etc , etc "

most panzer division had organic stugs batallions and as attrition
took it's toll the ratio of stugs increased , they were excellent for holding a
ridge or leading a couple of companies to take a strong point .
To describe them as good for an armored offensive of any depth is
more of a credit to the men who drove them than to the common sense
of anyone who would order it !!

 

They're definitely not made for armoured exploitation of a gap in the enemy front line, but on the other hand they are perfect for (and were in fact designed for) the creation of said gap. Therefore you can't say they are bad for attacks unless you're willing to support the statement that all British infantry tanks were poor attackers - both played a similar, specific role in assaults that normal MBTs would not be able to take off their shoulders.

 

FM Panzerman: How would you guys rate it against the Hetzer?

The latter is lighter if I am not very much mistaken, has sloped armor, and carries the same gun. It has less ammo stowage capacity and crewspace, though. I would rate the Sturmgeschütz as a better allround vehicle.

Although the StuG was undoubtedly a good weapon, the Hetzer must have had something going for it as the last working (and unchanged) examples were finally withdrawn from service in Switzerland in 1970! Not bad for an old girl.

Tilly

PS. I'm a computer biff and I didn't know how to add a statement from someone else so I did an old fashioned cut and paste. Soz

 

Use the quote button in the upper right corner of the other member's post or cut and paste or use the "Quote" button in the "Post a reply" box, or type it out yourself:

"[-q-u-o-t-e-=-"tilly042"-]" paste in the statement here, then
"[-/-q-u-o-t-e-]" (leaving out the dashes obviously).

 

I split off the discussion about Switzerland & Neutrality - it is now in the WW2 area.