Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Sturmgeschutzen!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • broderickwells
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    A relatively early StuG IIIG towed by a M 31 ARV.

    You can tell it is an early model by the bolted on applique armor and smoke dischargers and boxy gun mantle.
    You're right. It's not an F/8 as it has a vertical rear to the fighting compartment and a commanders cupola, both indicative of the III G.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roddoss72
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    An old fable from the fifties broadcasted by Klein,Speer and such persons .
    Actually I got my info from the BBC History Magazine dated May 2013 I on their "Great Misconceptions of World War Two". I extrapolated two articles from this called "Germany boasted a highly mechanised fighting force" which was debunked by James Holland and the other article "The Axis could have won the war" covered and debunked by Joe Maiolo.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by The Purist View Post
    Mmmmm. Tough one. The lower hull sides lack the small escape hatches that were on models up to the Pz IIIG and most StuG IIIF/8 had bo;ted armour. The box shaped mantle was pretty much standard on the StuG III models. The STuG IV had the boars head (rounded) mantle if memeory serves.

    While it may not be a late model G I don't think it was an earlier conversion. Without more resources at hand I will wager an F/8 or (as you noted) early G model.

    Any takers?
    The hull could be a later one with the superstructure being earlier as the two simply bolt together. It could well be an F8 that was rebuilt with a new superstructure. It might even be a rebuild from a Pz III return to the factory.
    Late StuG III and IV both get the saukopf mantle. Very late ones have a coaxial machinegun added in the upper left of the mantle as well. Late model vehicles also have an added bit of armor in front of the cupola for the commander to eliminate that shot trap and frequently have added concrete armor in front of the flat plates.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Purist
    replied
    Mmmmm. Tough one. The lower hull sides lack the small escape hatches that were on models up to the Pz IIIG and most StuG IIIF/8 had bo;ted armour. The box shaped mantle was pretty much standard on the StuG III models. The STuG IV had the boars head (rounded) mantle if memeory serves.

    While it may not be a late model G I don't think it was an earlier conversion. Without more resources at hand I will wager an F/8 or (as you noted) early G model.

    Any takers?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    A relatively early StuG IIIG towed by a M 31 ARV.

    You can tell it is an early model by the bolted on applique armor and smoke dischargers and boxy gun mantle.

    Leave a comment:


  • OpanaPointer
    replied
    Can you good folks ID this one for me, please?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post

    Germany was never prepared for Total War in 1939 and it when it finally went over to Total War it was far to late.
    An old fable from the fifties broadcasted by Klein,Speer and such persons .

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Fraser
    replied
    Originally posted by The Purist View Post
    Only if fodder is available and the horses rested and replaced as required. The problem for the horse drawn guns is that the horse could not maintain 20-25 mile/day advances for long nor once fodder was left behind at depots and replacement horses failed to arrive. Some guns could keep up but not all guns. Batteries and battalions would often have to take a day or more off to rest the horses and bring up fodder and replacement animals while the infantry pressed on with a few regimental guns towed by motor vehicles and their mortars.

    The guns often did not close up until a defended position was met and the division forced to deploy and prepare an assault. This was not limited to horse drawn guns, even units with trucks could have guns fall behind for want of spares and fuel.
    This is equally true for the Red Army.

    Both armies were heavily dependent upon horses to pull guns and wagons, late into the war. The animals required regular fodder and water and rest, as well as a cadre of farriers and veterinarians to care for them. Both armies moved at the pace of a draught horse. Their operations were similarly constrained by the need to supply their horses, as well as their vehicles.

    Regards
    Scott Fraser

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
    Some 20,000+ Soviet tanks (all kinds) were destroyed by the Stug III and IV during the war.
    If this is based on the analysis of destroyed enemy vehicles, then it is an unsustainable claim. That kind of analysis could tell, often with some considerable approximation, if the hole had been made by a 75mm AP round - but such rounds could be fired by ATGs and tank guns too, and by guns in different AFVs, not just by StuGs.

    If this is based on the kill claims of German units, then it is an unsustainable claim, because those claims were always exaggerated. It's like taking as true the kill stats of the fighter pilots.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by von einem View Post
    Wrong as the infantrydivisons lagged far behind the vanguard mobile diviions and therefore the artillery of the infantrerydivisions would not lag behind the infantrydivisions.It certainly did not move slower than the infantry.
    You don't get it. The question is: where was the front line at this time? Was it where the Panzer divisions were? If so, the majority of the artillery lagged behind the front line. Got it now?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Purist
    replied
    Originally posted by von einem View Post
    Wrong as the infantrydivisons lagged far behind the vanguard mobile diviions and therefore the artillery of the infantrerydivisions would not lag behind the infantrydivisions.It certainly did not move slower than the infantry.
    Only if fodder is available and the horses rested and replaced as required. The problem for the horse drawn guns is that the horse could not maintain 20-25 mile/day advances for long nor once fodder was left behind at depots and replacement horses failed to arrive. Some guns could keep up but not all guns. Batteries and battalions would often have to take a day or more off to rest the horses and bring up fodder and replacement animals while the infantry pressed on with a few regimental guns towed by motor vehicles and their mortars.

    The guns often did not close up until a defended position was met and the division forced to deploy and prepare an assault. This was not limited to horse drawn guns, even units with trucks could have guns fall behind for want of spares and fuel.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    This is claimed by the Germans, which is an exaggeration like pretty much all of their kill claims. The same caution should be put in regard to soviet claims. Of their actual 'kills', a lot of these tank kills were in fact knock outs that were eventually recovered/repaired since the soviets were generally the ones holding the battlefield.

    Soviet armor was generally knocked out 2-3 times before they became total losses. The armor was cleaned, then repaired, then put back into action with a new crew.

    Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
    Some 20,000+ Soviet tanks (all kinds) were destroyed by the Stug III and IV during the war.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigerivan
    replied
    Originally posted by Michele View Post
    Save that sometimes the position of the front was determined by the motorized/mechanized vanguards. In that case, the Panzer and motorized infantry divisions would have had their artillery with them, but they were a minority of course; the majority of the units were infantry, and therefore the majority of the artillery - the artillery of those leg infantry units - would indeed have been somewhat lagging behind, if the front's position was determined by motorized vanguards speeding forward.

    In short, in some cases during Barbarossa Draco would have been right in this.
    Wrong as the infantrydivisons lagged far behind the vanguard mobile diviions and therefore the artillery of the infantrerydivisions would not lag behind the infantrydivisions.It certainly did not move slower than the infantry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roddoss72
    replied
    Some 20,000+ Soviet tanks (all kinds) were destroyed by the Stug III and IV during the war.

    The main problem was that as mentioned that the Germans were never a high yield industrialized nation as many think she was in fact Germany was almost backward in the field of mass production techniques.

    Germany was never prepared for Total War in 1939 and it when it finally went over to Total War it was far to late.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by von einem View Post
    Hardly, as the horsedrawn artillery of the infantrydivisions would certainly not move slower than the infantry.
    Save that sometimes the position of the front was determined by the motorized/mechanized vanguards. In that case, the Panzer and motorized infantry divisions would have had their artillery with them, but they were a minority of course; the majority of the units were infantry, and therefore the majority of the artillery - the artillery of those leg infantry units - would indeed have been somewhat lagging behind, if the front's position was determined by motorized vanguards speeding forward.

    In short, in some cases during Barbarossa Draco would have been right in this.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X