>literally doesn't even come with a turret so it's fucked if the enemy is approaching from any direction besides charging straight toward them
Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?
Tank Destroyers
Dylan Gray
Jeremiah Campbell
Seeing as the StuG was arguably the best/most versatile German armoured vehicle of the war, id say it wasnt a bad idea.
Also:
> lower profile
> easier to mount a bigger/better gun
> cheaper to produce
> easier to up armour
Bentley Lopez
Stug III had the best kill count in the entire war.
Aaron Carter
I meant kill-death ratio, of course.
Lucas Evans
E C O N O M I C S you dumb fucker.
Germany didn't make Casemated TD because they wanted to, it was because making a STuG was really cheap, did its job as an assault gun pretty well, and could put a hole in a tank as good as anything else with the same size gun.
Austin Turner
Lots of tank destroyers had turrets, m10 etc
My favorite class to play in world of tanks because I can sit behind a bush watch heat on repeat while waiting for idiots to appear
Liam Hall
That's because the Germans were sticking the damn things behind a line of trenches while Soviet tanks charged literally right at them.
Any situation that requires that the StuG actually have to maneuver and engage targets coming from any direction besides straight at them would end badly.
Caleb Torres
In the Elephant's case, Porsche had started production of their loosing entry in the competition for the Tiger, so some use was made out of the hulls. In general, the turret was the most costly thing out of a tank back then.
Evan Green
>Hey Hans, we’ve got 50 obsolete panzers, what do we do with them?
>Why that’s easy Otto! Just take off the turret and requisition a bunch of those newer guns, then mount it to the hull for a fraction of the resources to get new tanks!
James Howard
I'm talking about tank destroyers in general.
I understand the StuG not having a turret because it was intended as a self-propelled artillery piece and thus didn't need a rotating turret, but tank destroyers are designed to as the name implies, engage tanks at comparatively close distances, where the ability to engage targets coming from any direction was crucial to survival.
Jason Butler
>Any situation that requires you to play to your weaknesses and your opponents strengths will end badly
Yes, that's why you try to avoid those situations, by using your expensive tonks for the things they're good at, and your cheap tonk destroyers for the things they're good at. Not the other way around.
Jonathan Hall
>but tank destroyers are designed to as the name implies, engage tanks at comparatively close distances, where the ability to engage targets coming from any direction was crucial to survival
They were used as mobile and (in some cases) somewhat armored anti tank guns.
Samuel Nelson
> StuG was intended as a self propelled artillery piece
Nope. Based off the Panzer chassis was the StuG (assault gun), StuH (assault howitzer) and Grille (self propelled artillery). Unless you technically consider all vehicles mounted with a field gun as artillery.
Joseph Brooks
Are you retarded
Easton James
The Finns killed 87 Russian tanks with their stugs, while only losing 8 of them. You really don't need a turret if have recon and infantry support, especially when urban combat is out of the picture.
Jeremiah Wright
>I understand the StuG not having a turret because it was intended as a self-propelled artillery piece and thus didn't need a rotating turret, but tank destroyers are designed to as the name implies, engage tanks at comparatively close distances, where the ability to engage targets coming from any direction was crucial to survival.
stug wasnt SPG, it was a infantry assault gun, designed to provide close range fire against bunkers and buildings while trundling next to infantry
unlike a tank, which can be used for independent action, the stug is permanently attatched to an infantry battalion
german TD doctrine, however, emphasized long range combat from a concealed position
essentially an AT gun on tracks
as they were defensive or ambush oriented, a turret was not required, but a powerful and long range gun was
the US had fast, turreted TDs because the tank destroyers were intended to rapidly attack an enemy armored offensive, where a turret was needed to flank the enemy or engage moving targets, rather than hanging back and sniping
Ian Thomas
Someone needs a tank destroyed?
Robert Morris
>I understand the StuG not having a turret because it was intended as a self-propelled artillery piece
Incorrect
Benjamin Gray
Good lord what a terrible post.
Jason White
>I understand the StuG not having a turret because it was intended as a self-propelled artillery piece
nope
>tank destroyers are designed to as the name implies, engage tanks at comparatively close distances
Well first of all, nothing in the term "tank destroyer" implies engaging tanks at close range. The whole point of a tank destroyer is to kill the tank before it can shoot at you. That's why vehicles like the Marder series, Nashorn, Elephant, Jagdpanther, M10, M36, SU-85, SU-100, etc. (actual tank destroyers) were designed around cannons fielded pretty much entirely for their long-range killing power.
>where the ability to engage targets coming from any direction was crucial to survival.
No, it really isn't if you know what you're doing. This isn't WoT or War Thunder; vehicles don't just suddenly appear on your flank with no way to deal with them. TDs operate with infantry and other tanks. They have situational awareness. They have support on their flanks. If you've put yourself into such a situation as to be flanked at close range by enemy armor in a casemate tank destroyer, the fault is entirely your own.
Also, regarding your earlier point on the matter of tank destroyers not having turrets, pic related. And keep in mind that the British, and Germans also worked with the same idea in vehicles like the Deacon, Achilles, and several proposed Waffentrager designs.
Daniel Butler
That and why dispose of a perfectly good factory tooling when the chassis is still useful.
However they should have made all the non-tank stuff with Pz.III chassis instead of wasting Pz.IV chassis for anti-air / tank destroyer stuff.
And Pz.IV K should have been made asap.
Carter Hill
Germany needed to field the 7.5cm L/70 gun to deal with heavier Soviet armor. The Jagdpanzer IV was already overweight and having issues with its suspension; trying to slap the same gun onto a Panzer III chassis would have been problematic. Likewise, the Panzer III's turret ring wasn't large enough to accommodate the turrets for the Wirbelwind and Ostwind flakpanzers. This is not to say that any of these things were really worthwhile investments (none of it was, since Germany was fucked) but the point is that they couldn't have done the stuff they did to the Panzer III which they did to the Panzer IV.
Logan Roberts
Designing an armored vehicle marginally better than the one that was already modified from an infantry tank isn't a good idea. A new design was needed.
Nathaniel Richardson
While what you say about L/70 is probably true, the Pz.III could have easily accommodated the 2cm and 3.7cm Flaks for AAA duty. Turret ring size isn't an issue when all its doing is holding a light box with a (relatively compared to its former hardware) light gun.
It would be like the T-54/-55 chassis MBT vs the ZSU-57-2, huge as shit “turret” compared to its original mbt turret.
Oliver Powell
Designing two separate armored vehicles for anti-tank and infantry support, then making both your primary battle tank through most of the war also wasn't a good idea. A new design wouldn't, and didn't, save Germany from their inevitable defeat.
Caleb Reyes
>A new design was needed.
a relatively modest design, because radical changes need years to design, whereas germany has months
just widen the hull by the amount needed to use the L/70
slope the front armor of the IV, but reduce thickness to compensate
widen the tracks to accomodate extra weight, but dont use interleaved wheels
if all goes well, the tank should have greater fire power, a moderate increase in speed, and only a few tons increase in weight
Luke Bell
No shit, but a better idea is a better idea even if it can't fix something that nothing can.
Kayden Davis
the size of a tanks turret ring does not simply dictate the weight of the turret it can mount. The 2cm and 3cm flak guns were large by volume, and needed to be easily accessible by the crew from both sides of the weapon. Yes, it probably could have been done on the Panzer III, but the fact was that it would have either been far too complex, hindered the vehicle's ability to perform in combat, or some mix of the two. As it was the StuG III was an invaluable asset to the German army. Flakpanzers allowed the Germans to make use of complete Panzer IV hulls, whereas jagdpanzers and assault guns required a different configuration than the standard gun tank.
Jose Russell
Checked and the StuG III had a low profile allowing rounds to deflect and other variants could be used to support infantry in a mobile artillery role.
Asher Lewis
"Useless" is just as useless as "better but still useless", especially when the latter involves a complete retooling of your already over stressed and over complicated manufacturing industry.
Hudson King
Out of curiosity, where is it that you checked to find these two statements, both of which are wildly inaccurate?
Lincoln Torres
I believe he's checking post numbers, not facts.
Cameron Lopez
>involves a complete retooling of your already over stressed and over complicated manufacturing industry.
The PzIV was not an easy vehicle to manufacture and it was at the end of its evolution in '43, a replacement would've been a logical decision. Hell, panthers were easier to build they just required a larger amount of materials.
Ryder Myers
All StuGs were for support, they just got better anti tank capabilities later on.
Colton Rodriguez
mid-to-late war, many tank battalions were issued stugs instead of tanks due to lack of replacments
Camden Harris
Yes but they didn't stay tank battalions.
Isaiah Brown
>Hell, panthers were easier to build they just required a larger amount of materials.
So now it's "useless" versus "more expensive and useless" plus the bonus of "by the way we're running out of money and materials and fuel."
Like I said, there was no good option here, but the Panther definitely didn't help things.
Dylan Gonzalez
Ah, well that would explain a lot.
Josiah Ramirez
All I'm saying is that a new medium to replace the Pz IV would be a good move looking at it from industrial and military standpoints. The panther clearly wasn't what they needed, but it wouldn't really make sense to rely exclusively on the Pz IV.
Carter Wilson
panthers biggest problem was that it had a complex engine that was bottlenecked in a single factory, while actual welding was faster, its individual components could be more intensive to produce
they also cut corners to reduce upfront price like reduction of spare parts that made it more costly in the long run
they also skipped out on heat treating certain internal parts which could lead to more frequent break downs later on
there is no such thing as a free lunch
Isaiah Lee
Apparently both the brits and americans tested this thing and it worked just fine
even firing on the move
Nathaniel Wright
>Posting an MBT in a TD thread
Ouch, my autism.
Hudson White
you have to have the last word even if its utter l
bullshit, eh kiddo?
Cooper Perry
>can't refute the point
>"lol, you're just mad"
Two other people already replied with well thought out and intelligible responses. This isn't about getting the last word in, it's about having a discussion on the subject. Besides, you can't really have the last word on a topic as long as people like you can just post memes to cope and call it a response.
Jack Sanders
You're trying to be all logical and decent and results-oriented and shit. Maybe even intellectually honest.
Which begs the question: Do you even know where you fucking ARE?
Robert Fisher
I'm on a board where intelligible discussion, can, has, and will continue to occur; albeit less frequently than it should thanks to people like you.
In any case, if all you can do at this point is poison the well, then I feel like we can finally settle on a conclusion to the initial discussion; the Panther, despite being a better tank than the Panzer IV, was no less a waste of strategic resources and manpower, regardless of the benefit of hindsight.
Justin Hernandez
Informed discussion actually does exist in small quantities here.
Jordan Roberts
7-1 k/d Allies btfo
Nathaniel Lewis
the supreme race apparently
Kayden Turner
please don't
Tyler Reyes
Why is a turret necessary when you can just twist the fucking tracks?
Big brained replies only please
Jayden Sullivan
Discord tranny please stop trying to bait people into faggy arguments. Thank you
Jeremiah Myers
Nathaniel Wood
Gonna go ahead and dump a few neato/obscure TDs
Charles Robinson
Thomas Edwards
Parker Richardson
Interesting note on this one; This M36 actually has the engine of a T-55, used during one of the 90s Balkan conflicts.
Landon Gomez
Aaron Green
Similar sort of thing here
Elijah Parker
Carter Perez
Nathaniel Martinez
Connor Price
Mason Walker
Aiden Lee
Leo Gray
Jose Sanders
Jonathan Perez
Benjamin Hall
Zachary Collins
But this is an Assault Gun not a tank destroyer.
Evan Barnes
>Why is a turret necessary when you can just twist the fucking tracks?
>Big brained replies only please
This is probably why to some extent, ww2 turrets have awful traversal speeds and their ability to fire while moving is pretty limited. Not having a turret isn't such a massive downgrade back then.
Jacob Russell
Asher Harris
I mean powered turrets were highly desirable. Their absence was pretty much entirely technical, not from some preference against them. Hell, the only time you ever saw it removed was for the retrograded Panzer IV J.
Andrew Reed
Jackson Sanchez
Hunter Parker
Aaron Powell
Connor Torres
Nicholas Garcia
Cooper King
Liam Smith
Brody Robinson
Mason Rivera
Nolan Davis
Carter Morgan
Easton Sanchez
Ian Morgan
Jaxson Foster
>the turret was the most costly thing out of a tank back then.
Still is to this day...
Joshua Bell
>Any situation that requires that the StuG actually have to maneuver and engage targets coming from any direction besides straight at them would end badly.
StuG are mobile artillery. They're absolutely not designed to maneuver and engage enemies, but rather to defend fixed positions and retreat to the next firing position.
Samuel Hill
>StuG are mobile artillery. They're absolutely not designed to maneuver and engage enemies, but rather to defend fixed positions and retreat to the next firing position.
That's literally the opposite of what a StuG was designed to do. StuG is short for Sturmgeschutz, or Assault Gun. The StuG was developed as an infantry support weapon, accompanying infantry into battle to deal with bunkers, anti-tank guns, and other such targets. While they may have been useful in the defensive operations Germany saw in the later half of the war, their design far predates any such combat (and World War II itself) and was intended to support fast, offensive mechanized combat.
Tangentially related, despite higher velocity guns being mounted to the StuG, they would still retain the role of assault guns in terms of intended use throughout the war. A testament to this is the fact that, despite being nearly identical, the Germans made a point to designate the StuG's long 7.5cm gun the StuK 40 (Sturmkanone, "assault cannon"), the Panzer IV's long 7.5cm gun the KwK 40 (Kampfwagerkanone, "fighting vehicle cannon"), and the anti-tank gun mounted to vehicles like the Marder and Jagdpanzer 38(t) the PaK 40 (Panzerabwehrkanone, "Anti-Tank Cannon").
Matthew Sullivan
>stridsvagen 103
>MBT
fuck your autism, you're making my autism flare up now
Aiden Ward
>Still is to this day...
Not anymore. The most expensive things have been the FCS and optics, specifically quality thermal imagers (These can run from 1-2 million each)
Well he's right, it's an MBT.
Carson Cook
>just widen the hull by the amount needed to use the L/70
>slope the front armor of the IV, but reduce thickness to compensate
>widen the tracks to accomodate extra weight, but dont use interleaved wheels
Except it doesn't work that way. All of this would need an entirely new suspension or god forbid an entirely new engine just to make it work.
Are you really expecting them to be able to widen the hull, mount a new much-heavier gun, slope the armour, and still get a speed increase just from using wider tracks? God simply changing from interleaved to non-interleaved would fuck the entire design process up and that's just one part of it.
Jason Fisher
Well no shit. Lemme guess, you probably don't want to engage enemies at 400m with a shotgun, right? You fucking idiot. You don't even understand the purpose of TDs and how fucking effective they actually were.
Robert Robinson
>Be Germany
>make expensive, overcomplicated tanks that nevertheless were very effective
>get shit on by armchair generals 70 years later
>ok, fine
>make cheap, simplified tanks that could slug it out with literally any armored vehicle at long range without getting scratched
>STILL get shit on by armchair generals 70 years later
Jonathan Jones
A big hinderance to this conversation is that while the general idea of "Tank Destroyers" was universal, different countries had differing doctrines and vehicles; US doctrine for their tank destroyers was that they were mobile anti-tank guns to counter enemy tanks in the event of a break-through where-as the Germans actively used their Tank-hunters to support offensives and defend against tanks.
Also, the Stug III was originally intended as an assault gun, having the same low velocity 75mm gun as the Early Panzer IVs, but much like the Panzer IVs got a high velocity 75 after T-34s and KV-1s became more common to face against (thus again, like the Panzer IV, going from an infantry support role to an Anti-Tank role).
Adam Campbell
For an example in differing purposes/employment for TDs
>US doctrine for their tank destroyers was that they were mobile anti-tank guns to counter enemy tanks in the event of a break-through
This is why US TDs have practically no armour
>where-as the Germans actively used their Tank-hunters to support offensives and defend against tanks.
This is why the germans, when designing TDs from the ground up, usually had them fully or near fully enclosed in armour
Charles Butler
>I don't know the difference between Jagdpanzer and PanzerJager
Leo Hughes
One is enclosed and armored
And one is an old tank with it's turret removed and a gun strapped on top
Owen Phillips
This only proves the point that while both were designed to fit an AT gun onto an AFV, and both are "Tank Destroyers", they were used in different ways for different purposes.
Tank-hunter was a bad choice of word (Only the US officially used the term "tank-Destroyer"), but you should still get the point.