The simple fact that Germany was being swamped with T-34's from the East and Shermans from the West meant that the Stug spent all of its career as a tank destroyer in a target rich environment. By 1944 the Germans were supremely good in defensive battle tactics allowing the Stug to exploit its positive attributes to rack up huge kill scores.
They also had a screen of Infantry to both warn them of incoming tanks, attack and distract tanks, while also keeping Anti Tank infantry away from closing with the Stugs. The Stug was after all an Infantry Support weapon first...so they always had a lot of Infantry to watch their backs and sides.
Ehhh saying they're supremely good in defensive battles was a stretch. It was like they ever really halted the allied advance outside of Market Garden but that was more because of British Mistakes than anything.
Who recorded these "huge kill scores"? Oh it was the T34s that swamped Nazi armour and been doing so since 1942. Shermans in comparison were made in fewer numbers and having petrol engines had the depressing propensity of catching fire
@@toddlogg They were good, at the Battle of Kharkov II, Stalin sent 750k troops to attack 350k German. Soviets lost close to 300k Germans only lost 30k. The defensive campaigns after Kursk, while all defeats were hugely damaging to the Soviets.
Another benefit, they could cross about any bridge they came to without collapsing it. Tigers (A & B) often crushed bridges and the Panther was not far behind. For a country chronically short of fuel, the gas mileage was fantastic.
Tiger's 1 and 2 could cross any river by railway. They also had engineers with them and bridge layers and low rider trailers. They were a specialist breakthrough tank and only ever conceived production runs of 1000-1500. If the Panzer IV and StuG III couldn't handle the job then the Tiger's could be brought forward a day or two latter. Fuel was an issue but I doubt a few hundred Tigers would have made a difference to the fuel shortages.
@@williamzk9083 Unfortunately, in the East, railroad bridges were extremely far apart, forcing them to attempt automobile bridges on numerous occasions. This even happened during the battle of the bulge in the West. In a fairly recent TIK History video a Tiger crushed a bridge and due to weather/roads/etc. the bridging equipment was not available and they had to move elsewhere. It has also been reported in Glantz, etc. I think it better to say they could cross almost any railroad bridge, but not any river, and specifically not at just any point. I also remember a Battle of the Bulge documentary saying in the initial allied retreat they blew up the railroad bridges, but not the automobile bridges, so they could counterattack later, but the main German armor could not pursue them. Some of their heavy tanks were equipped with snorkel equipment because they knew railroad bridges would not be available often enough.
Imagine the Germans using their precious fuel on hordes of POS crudely manufactured tanks like the T-34. Or on heavy 4-engined bombers! But the armor was heavy and they couldn't cross the bridges off the main roads! Germany had a lot of problems in WWII but their armored vehicles were well-designed, superior to their enemies' armored vehicles.
The men handling the machines had a lot to do with it, after all, many of the tigers and panthers were carpet-bombed before Operation Goodwood, their crews shell-shocked, but the kludged together vehicles made out of old french chassis were able to still stop the British.
@@2ndavenuesw481 That might be true up through the Mark IV, but it is not true of the Pather or Tiger A or B. Their final drives were well under designed and broke all the time, unless they were babied. The interleaved road wheels iced up badly in the winter, and made servicing them very time consuming. To replace the final drives required you to disassemble a large part of the tank. There were fuel system issues and a host of other problems, only some of which were addressed by the end of the war. Not being able to cross most bridges meant wasting time going around, or waiting for bridging crews, which often were not around due to logistics. These consumed so many resources and cost so much that only a very few could be produced. I recommend several of the videos by The Chieftain on the Sherman and T-34 because they had many advantages. However, most people only look at the gun diameter and armor thickness to make a simplistic assessment.
@@TheTexasmick Yeah Wittman Started on on Short 75mm STUGS. As a STUG commander he was actually originally part of the artillery group and wore an artillery uniform, not a Panzer one (till later).
Whitman Started Out As A STUG-3G Commander, Then He Moved Up To Become A Tiger Commander & He Died In Tiger #007, August 8th 1944, His Tank Was Hit By A Sherman Firefly Tank & It's Gunner Was Joe Ekins, At A Range Of 800 yds...
Ah Wittmann (note spelling) that unapologetic Nazi who was known to exaggerate his claims. At least he was presented with awards by his hero, non other than Adolf Hitler
The StuG III is by far my favorite German vehicle, followed closely by the Tiger. I don't know what it is (probably the looks), but I think it's such a cool and versatile chassis.
@@FactBytesIs 10 000 Stug's efective with destroying only 20 000 tanks,ac and other vehicles? 1:2 or less is not the "most efective" ratio. Same money vs effectiveness ratio had panter or Tiger. Stug was NOT most efective its Bull..hit. stug was Simplus most efficient but people font understand IT.
Correction: The StuG never fought in the 1939 Poland campaign. In all 5 prototypes had been built several years earlier but they had mild steel armour and were used only for training. The StuG’s first campaign was in France in 1940, where a small number (30, all of the Ausf. A model) fought in the assault gun role.
The Stug mirrors the Sherman on the U.S. side: not the best weapon, but cheap and reliable. The German were hindered by the large number of varied vehicles, all of which used different parts.
The Pz III/IV and STUG III/IV were way more versatile than the Sherman...the Sherman was upgradable but the US really made no effort to do so until the end [ie britiah 17 pdr]...where the Germans were MEGA versatile with the III/IV
@Dr.G.-pw8me Thank you for the jaw-dropping information on the Stug. III and it's Eastern Front battlefield prowess. Will check out both recommended docs in the links provided. Cheers.
@@davidcolley7714 Yeah, it took US, UK, Canada, Australia and Russia plus a dozen other allied countries 6 years to defeat Hitler and Co. They have to gang up one enemy to win. Same with Russia today. US plus 30 NATO members has to support Ukraine in its war with Russia.
I wish that the same patriotism and devotion to duty still exists in Germany. My impression is that the majority of today's Germans are adherents to socialism. I no longer live there!
Not really the case for the Panther. 6,000 were produced and it had effectively taken all production from the Mk IV. It was also not much more expensive than a Mk IV. The Panther was rushed into combat in mid 1943. Early 1944 is within 6 months of production. All of the good things that you say about the Stug are IMHO valid. It was a great design.
@@Ocker3 The reliability issues were mostly resolved within 6 months. Final drive remained an issue for the life of the tank. As for the crews, any German tank was going to suffer from that. No really the tank's fault.
Not really true, Mk IV production continue until the end of the war. Mk III production was stopped but they did have a factory continue producing Stg III's. Panther production started in 1943 and Mk IV production reached its peak during the Panther production run.
@@Ben_Sahar My comment stated that the Panther wasn't much more expensive to produce than the Pz IV. You are correct that the Pz IV was in production until wars end. The Pz IV was a good tank and one does not switch production lines all at once.
German Panther and Tiger tanks were so effective in combat that there are recorded and accurate instances on both the eastern and western fronts during World War II where just a single Tiger and/or Panther was able to blunt, halt or even repulse a battalion size, or even larger, British, American or Red Army attack. No tank ever fielded by the Allies during the war can boast such a record.
As so often happens, you got it all a bit lopsided perpetuating the myth of German armor. Yes, as an individual tankdesign Tiger I and II as well as the Panther were formidable, yet the Allies were capable of overcoming the German armor threat for a number of reasons. Because the Allies were primarily advancing after operation Torch in Afrika, the first significant victory at El Alamein and the subsequent landings in Italy and France as well as the Russian victory at Stalingrad and the onslaught on German forces in Russia that followed, German forces could do not much more than try to stem the tidal wave of Allied offensives and thus sometimes succeed in stalling or blunting them, never fully repulsing them. From the Russian theater there is one report of a single KV-2 succeeding in holding back the 6th Panzer division at the Battle of Raiseinei for a whole day, untill the crew were finally killed. Being a part of Operation Barbarossa in 1941 there were no Tigers or Panthers involved yet. During the last German offensive in the Ardennes there were also a number of heroic defences mounted. At Bastogne a small number of M10 tankdestroyers were able to thwart a german armoured column, which was instrumental in being able to organise the defence of Bastagne in time to prevent the town to be overrun. It's just not so clear cut as people (even historians) sometimes want things to be.
@@BlackWit11 Another point to bear in mind is by the time of the Ardennes Offensive, The Russians had over run the oil fields in Romania leaving Germany with only their synthetic oil plants which were (along with the rest of German industry) getting plenty of attention from the RAF and the USAAF so they were running on fumes. Possibly the biggest turn around in the West was in late 1942 , the U Boat menace was contained so supplies and soldiers could flood in to Britain. A close thing as in early 1942 we were nearly beaten. (Germany put a 4th rotor on the Naval Enigma which rendered Bletchley Park blind)
@@g8ymw No the effect of Hitler is overstated. German ordnance department, the army and manufacturers are all to blame. There was a chronic lack of "adult supervision" when it came to military production. Engineers were too proud to follow input from troops in the field, military commanders censored bad feedback from the troops for fear of negative backlash from their superiors. Guidelines were often reset as projects went on. Tiger went at least through three separate iterations before they settled on a final design making major upgrades as field experience and expected projection of enemy tank development prompted the Germans to try to get ahead of Allied tanks. The problem is that Tiger was developed as a specialist tank, to be carted to the battlefield and help force a breakthrough and then taken back to Germany to be completely overhauled and readied for the next battle. The reality was that this was impossible in practice and the lovely theory went out the window. On the other hand the true unsung heroes are the field repair units who performed miracles to keep as many Tigers in the field as possible. The Panther was a heavy tank specifically designed for medium tank operations. They were never under the illusion that this was some kind of superior medium tank, it was a heavyweight boxer everyone pretends is just like all the other welterweights. But at least the Germans did err on the side of armour and firepower which could give it a serious advantage if used properly. Unfortunately by 1944 Germany was running out of skilled tank crews. Normandy and Bagration were the swansong of the German Panzertruppen. Many German units were thrown in battle with "superior" equipment, but were destroyed by Allied formations in battles like Arracourt and Dompaire where that advantage on paper were costly defeats on Paper. When is German performing at its very best, early in the war with 1/3rd of their tanks not even equipped with a cannon and still outfighting everyone else. But it shocks everybody when the Allies develop a pool of skilled troops with good enough tanks with good leadership, good tactics, proper combined arms and support and defeat the Germans in straight fights. Given their situation the decisions were not as bad as some suggest. With limited resources and limited access to fuel, a few really good tanks capable of fighting is far better than many average tanks most of which don't have the fuel to even contribute to the fight. Germany in WWII is the story of the really big and strong guy who could beat up everybody else until he got into a fight with some professional boxers, he got in some really nasty blows, but once they started fighting back he had no chance to stay on his feet.
Some of the details are way off. The Stug III had the same armor as the PZ III, and later up armored at the front to the same level as the PZ IV. Side armor was the same as the PZ III. The sight for the gun was mounted to the side of the gun carriage, on the PZ IV the sight is mounted to the turret, more or less the same mounting. The Stug had better optics as it was an artillery weapon, and the PZ IV was not as fine, but suitable for its application. The numbers of T-34's built in WWII was not 84,000, but closer to 50,000. It has been said that 90% of all T-34's produced by May 1945 were lost, which is a staggering number. Keeping in mind of course that German losses were 100% (they lost the war). It is important to mention how many were in combat if you are going to say one type destroyed more than another. If 5 Tigers knocked out 30 tanks that is a kill ratio of 6. If 10 Stugs knocked out 40 tanks that is a kill ratio of 4. By the summer of 1944 the number of Stugs produced was around 9,000. By that time they had claimed 20,000 tanks in Russia, we get a kill ratio of 2.2, which is about what it remained at until the war ended. German studies of tank combat indicated that the ability of a tank to rotate its gun allowed it to better engage targets. That is also why the US chose not to create a Stug like vehicle.
@@rich1483 Probably 5 if you factor in the factory requirements as well. None the less, the Tiger 1 had a much better kill rate than the Stug III. All in all, the Germans needed a medium tank that was easy to maintain, easy to operate and simple to manufacture. A PZ IV sized tank with improved armor and a 75mm L60 cannon would have been a better vehicle than either the Tiger or the Panther. Compared to the Russians and the US, the Panther is in the heavy tank category.
@Dr.G.-pw8meFrom the records I have, the Sturmartilleiri, as of September 1st, 1944, on the Eastern Front, had been credited with 18, 261 tanks destroyed, of all types. This is from June 22nd, 1941. Per these records, selecting the best month in 1944, July, 1019 enemy tanks were destroyed by 909 Stugs, with a loss reported of 138, for a kill to loss ratio of 7.4 to 1. However, in March of 1944 578 enemy tanks were destroyed by 511 Stugs, with a loss of 177 reported, for a kill to loss ratio of 3.3. I did make one error, Stugs produced by September of 1944 is closer to 6,000, not 9,000. Total production by May 1945 was about 9,000. A very rough calculation can be made that shows by 1945 22,600 tanks were destroyed on the Eastern Front by the Stugs by May 1945. As Germany lost all Stugs by that time the kill to loss ration is around 2.5.
And hopefully, one last comment, the author states that the STUG had to come to a halt to fire ... exactly like almost every other combat vehicle that fought during WW2. A gyrostabilized gun wasn't a common feature at that time, the most notable exception was the Sherman.
I wonder if the Germans concentrated on the Stug and Panzer IV and poured the savings into the Luftwaffe, how the war would have ended. As much as I am a tank fan, the German initial victories and eventual loss were in the skies.
This doesn't solve the real problem. Germany did not have the natural resources to make a lot of inferior tanks and planes, nor the gas to run them or the manpower to control them.
Simple fact is that Germany needed to invade England early in the war prior to declaring war on the u.s...and he should have done everything to keep the u.s. out of the conflict
Seems like longer range bombers would've served them well. They could've continued to harass the Brits, and also had a shot at some of the Soviets' factories further East.
@@cpfs936 The British were on the ropes in the Battle of Britain. A German bomber had a bomb inadvertently drop on a civilian center. The British acted in kind by bombing a German city, with little damage. The bombing enraged Hitler and directed the Luftwaffe to start a terror campaign against only civilian centers, ignoring the RAF airfields and aircraft plants. It gave the British much needed breathing room for the RAF and changed the course of the war. But yes, a long range bomber in the East would have been useful. After the opening months of the war, Russian factories east of the urals operated with impunity. However, the Germans were always short on oil, so it was always a tradeoff on what weapon platforms to build. The Germans lost ww2 the moment they stepped into Russia
The Germans spent vastly more on the Luftwaffe than on their Panzers. From memory it was something like 4 to 7 times more. The Panzer arm cost only about 8% of the entire war budget, so any cuts to the Panzers would have had a trivial impact on Luftwaffe efficacy.
With a low height sturmgeschutz III or IV has a very low profile making it very hard to detect for the enemies tanks until it was too late. With a low profile & a potent pak 40 it was deadly.
It destroyed the most tanks, because this stug was massively manufactured, i think in the range of 20k. Also they were mainly being used as an ambush vehicule, hiding somewhere. Its low profile was advantageous in this regard.
Of course, the Stug as a tank destroyer was an effective fighting vehicle. The author of the channel spoke perfectly about the merits of these combat units. However, the Americans and Russians had similar and sometimes more formidable self-propelled guns. In general, the Shtug self-propelled crews could hardly feel superior to the enemy, but they really wanted this for various reasons . Thank you for an interesting and professional story about another "workhorse" of the German tank forces of World War II.
@@thomasbaagaard A battalion or battery of assault guns, supported by a sufficient number of infantry, could storm the enemy's defenses like a tank unit. This is a textbook example for any commander of a tank or mechanized division, known since the Second World War. So the use of Stugs with infantry is equivalent to a tank attack on enemy positions. Perhaps this is exactly what Manstein wanted when he built the concept of such combat vehicles. And where the material part of these units belonged, let it remain on the conscience of the artillery and tank commanders.
@@thomasbaagaard Indeed the StuG III was conceived of a self propelled artillery piece designed to support Infantry assaults. What makes it unique is that it was for 1 direct fire support (rather than howitzer style) and 2 given heavy Armour 3 Great efforts were put into lowering its profile. These features also made it a great anti-tank gun when given the long barrel 75mm gun. The US Tank destroyers were conceived of as highly mobile fast light weapons with powerful long range guns that could rapidly intercept a tank breakthrough and then engage from behind cover at long range to blunt the attack. They needed cover and range for safety due to their light Armour. The Germans also had such a concept eg the Nashorn (on a Panzer IV chassis with a Panzer III drive train) with the powerful 1000m/se L71 PAK 42. One of these destroyed a T-34 at 4.1km (lost bragging rights to a Challenger I that hit a T-55 at 4.6km). These often fired at such distance the Commander would leave the vehicle and direct fire by headphone while standing a 100m away. Again manned by Arteilley men with special long range optics.
In war, the ability to mass produce weapons is an important issue, and the Tiger tank was a good performer, but the fact that there were so few of them was probably the reason for their defeat.
At 4:42 is spoken; "the only other German tank....to be continuously built from 1939...." Aside from prototypes, production of Stugs began in January 1940 according to "Encyclopaedia of German Tanks". At 10:42 it is said that the Stug's optics "were coaxially mounted, not above the gun..." Neither the Panzer IV nor any other Panzer had its optics "above the gun". What is the reference to? Anyway, the Stug's optics were NOT coaxially mounted. You can see this in museum Stugs, and there are plenty of photos online. The optics were on different bearings to the gun, i.e. they were not "coaxial". Connecting levers ensured that the optics tracked with the gun.
Never thought highly of this vehicle but the statistic clearly showed Stug was indeed a remarkable vehicle. I didn't know there was a shift in doctrine from infantry support to tank destroyer. I think the low profile of Stug is only rivalled by Jagd Panther which is dealy potent for defensive role.
My grandpa served at the eastern front and had been rescued with his unit (they where encircled by Russian overhelming troops) by three StuGs. He told me when i was a little boy.
The Panzer IV with the Long 75 mm L/48 gun ( the same gun of the StugIII) was more than enough to deal with any allied Tank in the West,and the majorety of Russian Tanks on the Eastern Front. The 75 mm L 48 was a variant of the 75 mm L46 Pak 40 AT gun,which was the most Successfull AT of WW2.
The Tiger had an operational rate similar to the Panzer IV. It's front plate was not a flaw. Extremely tough to penetrate due to its nickel steel and 265 Brinell Hardness.
Honestly it's not surprising considering that they distributed Stugs mostly to infantry divisions to counter enemy armor and protect infantry furthermore it was their most produced vehicle based on a tank chassis. But the sheer casualties this vehicle inflicted over the enemy will probably be never surpassed in the future at least not any time soon.
The Germans should have then in September 1942, a Panzer Division (With 245 Pz.IIIs, 125 Pz.IVs, 45 Tiger Is, 125 Half - Trucks, 45 Masden IIIs, 45 Elephant SPs, and 36 155 mm Guns, 72 105 mm Guns, 36 Bofors AAG, 1500 Trucks, about 500 Vehicles, 125 Jeep.). Organising 24 of these Panzer Division. Then Add to each 150 Tiger Is and 150 Panther Is. Creating 24 New Panzer Division ( In 1943 -1944).
Tiger 1 had an excellent 88MM Gun. Tiger II had an even better 88MM Gun and sloped armor. The Tiger I had mobility issues The Tiger II even more so as it was a heavier tank with the same engine.
It doesn't take a tank to kill a tank. After Kursk the Soviets analysed German tank losses. The number one killer of tanks was artillery and anti-tank guns. The second largest cause of German losses? Abandonment. Tanks broke down or ran out of fuel - isolated from support (tank recovery and maintenance) and sustainment (logistics). Soviet tanks were responsible for the third largest number of German tank losses.
Same on the Western front. By far the majority of tank losses on the Allied side were due to AT guns. Don’t know how it looked for the Germans but I wouldn’t be surprised if heavy artillery shelling accounted for as many tanks as lack of fuel, with tank vs tank combat coming in a distant third.
question: your in WW2 as a Tanker. Which tank would you want to be in? Tiger2, Tiger, Panther, T34, Sherman, Churchill, Sturm III, Jagpanther. KV1> Most undoubtedly the choice will be the Tiger or KT2 just for the fact you were more likely to walk away from a fight. Me I want to be in the Tiger I
Always preferred the panther to the tiger but will always respect the stug Thought the stug didn't come out until later it was cheaper and easier to mantain Some German stuff was over engineered
One of the reasons Allies won the "tank war" was because they only a couple of main types mbt's, whereas the Germans had a number of different tanks and different model numbers making for a logistics nightmare
The Germans simply upgraded older tanks with heavier guns by removing the turret and mounting the guns in the hull. These could be older tanks or, new hulls direct from the production line. Depending on use and gun size, they were given enclosed gun house such as the StuG or JagdPanther, or open gun compartment such as the Marder or Hummel. In this way the Germans got more use out of their tank designs than the allies.
The magnificent Germans were well-trained and the men were amazing fighters. Without the Lend-Lease act and help from Britain, (intelligence) the USSR would have struggled to hold back the German advances. Some USSR soldiers & generals have admitted it but most will never accept that.
The Tiger was never meant to be produced in large numbers. The Tiger 1 - which actually was regarded as a stopgap solution - was meant to be produced in small numbers until the proper heavy tank, the Tiger II, was ready. 1,500 of the latter were ordered, but most of them were destroyed by heavy bombers even before they left the factory. 40% of the potensial 10,000 Panthers were also destroyed on the factory floor.
Well the soviets won with a lot of things that are "good enough", the mongols got the biggest land empire by using horse archers and lancers. In a straight-forward man... I think simplicity, eficiency, reliability, and adaptability are the most important things in war or perhaps life...
The M4 and T34 were just good enough, considering the huge numbers they were produced. Additionally, since they were advancing throughout the last war years, disabled vehicles were recovered and often repaired.
Also, it used far less fiel. After 1944, Germany had very little fuel available and much of their armor was abandoned due to lack of fuel and ammo, which couldn't be transported due to lack of fuel.
It shouldn't even be a debate... The Panther was objectively the BEST Tank from the WW2 era. "In 1944 most of the deficiencies of the Panther had been corrected and before casualties had drained the by now well-trained and experienced crews and declining manufacturing standards had affected their dependability, it was arguably the best German tank. The Tiger family was still around but their performance was erratic." Many people argue that the Panther was the inspiration if not the first MBT, competing with the British Centurion for this title. People downplay the Panther a lot because of it's early, and later end war, teething problems of it being a rushed design but the Panthers and their crews that managed to be "Updated" and trained were some of the most terrifying Tanks for Allied ground troops and tanks. Kinda off topic but wanted to add my piece on "What was the best German Tank in WW2"
Pz-III was a mistaken production since it was deeply flawed design from the start of the war with a very bad suspension arrangement that had to be replaced 4-5 times before they ironed out many of the problems. Even then a couple hundred models still had to be scrapped after the war began; but the Pz-III tank was supposed to account for 3/4 of all tank production from 1940-1944. So they bargained on failure. The german tank inventory 1939 = 199 Pz III + 223 Pz-IV +143 Pz 38t + 1155 Pz-II + 1305 Pz-I [ total 3024] I8% 1940 = 857 Pz 38t+ 386 Pz-IV + 589 Pz-III + 947 Pz ii + 1047 Pz-i [3826] 45% 1941 = 830 Pz Pz III + 511 Pz-IV +586 Pz 38t + 881 Pz-II+ 728 Pz-I [3536] 55% All the Czech tanks were limited to 37mm tank guns ; anything more would require removing the turret and rebuilding as an ''open top'' tank destroyer. The Pz-III also had a 37mm gun but the design had enough space to replace it with a 50mm gun and through 1941/42 most were rebuilt & upgunned to a 50L42 gun with a new mantle and bolt on armor. If Pz-IV is built instead of Pz-III then possibilities are big but at the price of future plans. In theory in 1941 germany produced 62600 tons of tracked AFV, but also managed 3200 tons of wheeled AFV construction. plus 7300 tons turret construction.
With hindsight, the Germans would have probably done "better" in all theatres if they built nothing but slightly simplified Panzer Mk IVs with 75mm high velocity cannon, and Stug IIIs, or barring that, nothing but Panthers and Jagdpanthers and skip the Tiger and Tiger II completely.
The Germans were never in a position to make large numbers of tanks (or planes) They lacked not only gasoline and lubricants to run them, but also rubber and other critical materials. Hence their focus on quality rather than quantity.
Yes with lots of hindsight and a lot of re-work. Work on Tiger I started in 1938 as a breakthrough tank. And by the time it reached the battlefield, Germany was still thinking offensively. Even work on a new medium tank (eventually Panther) started before the war, but it only became a bit more urgent due to certain events. According to German doctrine, both tanks made perfect sense. No country had idiots at work. They all had their doctrines and they all put a lot of thoughts into it. And here's the bonus question: Why didn't they "just" produce a simlified Pz IV ? Because the design had reached its's limits - the suspension to be precise - and couldn't take any more armor or bigger guns. Mind you Pz IV only had 50mm of frontal turret armor. Now we're talking a new suspension, a new armor layout and probably a new turret design. All in all a new tank. Redesigning and re-tooling would have led to a significant decrease in production. There were plans, but they couldn't afford to realize them. Even StuG III was about to be replaced, but it had to stay in production for the same reason. Heck, T-34 was about to be replaced if Germany hadn't invaded. And if you can't fuel 1300 Tigers, how are you supposed to fuel x times the amount of Stugs and Pz IVs ?
@@ottovonbismarck2443 After the defeat of France, Hitler stopped development work Silly schoolboy error, in war if you stop development, you go backwards (your enemies catch up and overtake you)
The various models of the Stug were not tanks. They were self-propelled guns. Self-propelled guns may appear similar to tanks to the untrained eye, but they are distinct weapons systems with their capabilities and uses.
@@romaboo6218 The tank is an offensive weapon designed to take on anything from enemy infantry to tanks ideally it has a turret mounting a cannon and one or more machineguns. The Tank Destroyer concept was to have a mobile fighting force of troops equipped with anti-tank, held in reserve to stop enemy armoured attacks. The vehicle you describe as a tank is the M10 Tank Destroyer which was a self propelled gun that was focused on destroying enemy tanks. It was open topped for better vision etc. But a towed anti-tank gun was a Tank Destroyer too. A 37mm on a light truck was also a Tank Destroyer. Now the Mark I is a very early tank and they hadn't figured out the kinks yet. The consensus was that a tank would be best as a turreted vehicle as mentioned above. Now the M10 is very near a tank and due to circumstances was used as a tank. The MK I is also a primitive tank. The proof is in the pudding. The German StuG was added to tank units at the end of the war and they usually performed very poorly since a tank with a turret proved to be far more effective at being a tank than a self-propelled gun as good as the StuG was in its dedicated role. M10's had disadvantages tanks didn't have like machineguns and lacked overhead cover and were designed to shoot mostly AP and their HE against infantry, soft skin vehicles, armoured cars, guns and buildings and bunkers was pretty poor compared to say the 75mm HE of the US tanks like the M4 Sherman. They were used as tanks with a bit more success, but everyone agreed they kinda sucked. In such a battle the MK I would have performed very poorly indeed. The differences do add up sometimes. So a proper tank is better than a TD which is better than a StuG which will beat a Mk I easily. But the M10 is a successful tank killer, so is the StuG and the MK I was relatively effective support for trench warfare and a good enough proper tank generally can do most jobs if needed.
@@williamzk9083 Jagdtiger, Nashorn, ISU 152, SU-76, StuG, Jagdpanzer I, and the M3 GMC or the M6 GMC are all self propelled guns. One is massively armoured, another is just a Dodge light truck with a 37mm gun. Self Propelled guns come in all shapes and sizes and intent. The M10 was assumed to fight from an ambush position using cover and concealment. The armour was kept low because they figured it wasn't their job to do a tank's job of advancing and fighting enemy forces. The M18 Hellcat, Bruce's dream project had very thin armour and turned out to be the deadliest TD.
As Stug factories were getting close attention from the RAF and USAAF, the Germans turned to the Czech Panzer 38t to create the Hetzer (sp?). As with the Stug, a proven engine and drivetrain turned into a self propelled gun (a lighter Stug with a shorter 75mm gun and a remote controlled machine gun on the roof)
Oh, and saying that Tiger's a Panthers weren't produced in significant enough numbers to have had a strategic impact, it was precisely at the strategic level that these threats had the greatest impact. If they had been insignificant then the Allies would never have put 90mm, 14PDR, 85mm, and 122mm guns into their tanks and tank destroyers. And let's not talk about the British reaction to Wittman's actions at Villiers Bocage.
I have read in noumerous reports that the total number of tanks destroyed on the Western front was arround 10.000. So that would mean that 10.000 Stugs produced would be credited with a total of 40.000 tank kills in total.
I have some issues; Foremost, an assault gun or tank destroyer isn't a tank. Now you can queue the people spouting the dictionary definition of a tank but they are wrong to use it because they do not understand and are not waiting to read the context of the comment. That context is in the following where I explain why it's not about the physical description of what a tank is, it's about the differences in how a tank is employed vs how the German's employed the STUGs and other assault guns/tank destroyers. It's about how they are used. This also calls into question the author's comments on Tigers, that they weren't often used and that they were used more in defense than offense. This was partially due to doctrine and greatly influenced by necessity. German doctrine demanded that tanks were used offensively and en-mass. To do this, tank units had to be withdrawn from front line areas of contact, refitted, replacement crewmen trained, supplies gathered, and the operationally deployed to staging areas prior to the upcoming effort. So what was left to hold off enemy tanks? AT Guns, Tank Destroyers, STUGs. And what was more prevalent and assigned to Infantry Divisions, STUGs whenever possible. Sure, Tank formations were kept near by in locations so they could be used to counter Soviet breakthroughs. And when the breakthroughs were serious enough, and the geographic area critical enough, even Tigers were held in positions to support the defense. But the STUGs wonderful performance record isn't because the STUG was such a super machine, superior to tanks, but because STUGs were simply the equipment being used more frequently because the tanks were being withdrawn from the front for refit and reorganization prior to the next season's offensive plans. Leave a STUG Company in frontline service, twice as long as you leave a tank company in operational service, and you'll see a different outcome when assessing their "impact". Try and use STUGs as the "tip of the spear" and your spear isn't going to be nearly as effective. And this is why a STUG isn't a tank.
They had the quality / quantity equation way too far on the quantity side, but then they needed them PDQ Crude castings, no radios (signalling other tanks by semaphore flags) Most problems were sorted on the T34/85
Only the Stug3 has more tank kills than all German tanks combined. How good this cheap and straight design,with the Best AT gun of the war,the 75 mm Pak40 became the Ultimate tank destroyer of WW2.
I feel the stugs pro's far out weighed the con's. They did make a large amount but not enough. They needed to learn how to make them simpler to produce so they would be able to pump them out a lot quicker.
This strategy doesn't work, when your countries population is so small as Germanys was, in relation to its enemies (Soviet Union and the USA). You can never build - and more importantly - crew enough cheap tanks as your enemy can. So they focused on quality instead of quantity.
Germany needed Tigers for FEAR!! They had to plant FEAR in the Enemy!! And only a good Tiger could to do that job well!! The Earth been shacking when the Tigers Rolled!! All Americans, Russians, British remember well the Thunder of the Tigers!! Seen many veterans talk about the Tigers!!
Now, some other problems with the information from this video. After the campaign and conquest of France, Hitler ordered the creation of more Panzer Divisions, but there were not enough tanks to go around. The Germans, in all but six of the Tank Divisions, Tank Regiments from 2 to 1, and cut the number of tank Battalions in each regiment from 3 to 2, although each Battalion was increased to 90 tanks each. Later on, Germany replaces Tanks Battalions with Assault Gun Battalions in order to return the Panzer Divisions to their previous capability. Therefor, not all Assault Guns are under the Command of the Artillery Force.
Germany’s major downfall was not putting enough resources into AirPower and anti aircraft guns, by the end of the war their tanks had almost no protection from allied aircraft.
No, Germany’s main downfall was in not having enough access to raw materials, especially oil. With little crude oil, they had to make transport fuel from coal, which is costly. Getmany’s artillery for its infantry divisions was mostly pulled by horses until the end of the war.
@@jerry2357 that’s true by the end of the war, but their main loss was a lack of production compared to the allies, the war for them was lost in the factories long before it ever came to that. Look at the number of planes and tanks and even men they had versus the allies, they were simply outnumbered in all categories…
@@ronb7931 Actually German production went up significantly after Albert Speer took over as Minister of War Production in 1942. It was only later that Allied bombing had a significant effect on production. The issue with the Luftwaffe was that they were running out of experienced pilots by 1944. Germany didn’t really have anywhere away from the battlefront to train new pilots, unlike the Allies, who trained pilots in North America. And killing experienced pilots in the dangerous Me-163 and early Me-262 models didn’t help. But to get back to the resources issue, the Germans had a shortage of tungsten, which was needed for some of the more effective types of anti-tank rounds. IIRC, there were other metals used in the armour plate used for tank production that were in short supply, so German tank armour got more brittle as the end of the war approached. But the shortage of transport and aviation fuel were the most significant factors.
The best thing that happened to Germany was when AH took control of the Generalship of the Military. One debacle after another and no one to blame but his Generals. Me ? but you told me to attack.
The historians are quite unified with the conclusion that the Second World War was decided by the overwhelming resources of war material and soldiers of the Allies and especially the United States of America and Soviet Union. Germany couldn't prevail in the end in a war of attrition despite how gallantly their well trained soldiers fought and despite their usually technically better arms.
That old saying simple is always best. That is why you need a Swiss Army knife, AK47, and a LADA car. Oh and some cans of Baked Beans in Tomato Sauce :)
The simple fact that Germany was being swamped with T-34's from the East and Shermans from the West meant that the Stug spent all of its career as a tank destroyer in a target rich environment. By 1944 the Germans were supremely good in defensive battle tactics allowing the Stug to exploit its positive attributes to rack up huge kill scores.
They also had a screen of Infantry to both warn them of incoming tanks, attack and distract tanks, while also keeping Anti Tank infantry away from closing with the Stugs. The Stug was after all an Infantry Support weapon first...so they always had a lot of Infantry to watch their backs and sides.
Ehhh saying they're supremely good in defensive battles was a stretch. It was like they ever really halted the allied advance outside of Market Garden but that was more because of British Mistakes than anything.
Who recorded these "huge kill scores"? Oh it was the T34s that swamped Nazi armour and been doing so since 1942. Shermans in comparison were made in fewer numbers and having petrol engines had the depressing propensity of catching fire
@@toddlogg They were good, at the Battle of Kharkov II, Stalin sent 750k troops to attack 350k German. Soviets lost close to 300k Germans only lost 30k. The defensive campaigns after Kursk, while all defeats were hugely damaging to the Soviets.
@@deruiz1478well to be fair karkohv was more of an offensive made by manstein to encircle and destroy soviet supplies and encircle enemy forces
Another benefit, they could cross about any bridge they came to without collapsing it. Tigers (A & B) often crushed bridges and the Panther was not far behind. For a country chronically short of fuel, the gas mileage was fantastic.
Tiger's 1 and 2 could cross any river by railway. They also had engineers with them and bridge layers and low rider trailers. They were a specialist breakthrough tank and only ever conceived production runs of 1000-1500. If the Panzer IV and StuG III couldn't handle the job then the Tiger's could be brought forward a day or two latter.
Fuel was an issue but I doubt a few hundred Tigers would have made a difference to the fuel shortages.
@@williamzk9083 Unfortunately, in the East, railroad bridges were extremely far apart, forcing them to attempt automobile bridges on numerous occasions. This even happened during the battle of the bulge in the West. In a fairly recent TIK History video a Tiger crushed a bridge and due to weather/roads/etc. the bridging equipment was not available and they had to move elsewhere. It has also been reported in Glantz, etc. I think it better to say they could cross almost any railroad bridge, but not any river, and specifically not at just any point. I also remember a Battle of the Bulge documentary saying in the initial allied retreat they blew up the railroad bridges, but not the automobile bridges, so they could counterattack later, but the main German armor could not pursue them. Some of their heavy tanks were equipped with snorkel equipment because they knew railroad bridges would not be available often enough.
Imagine the Germans using their precious fuel on hordes of POS crudely manufactured tanks like the T-34. Or on heavy 4-engined bombers! But the armor was heavy and they couldn't cross the bridges off the main roads! Germany had a lot of problems in WWII but their armored vehicles were well-designed, superior to their enemies' armored vehicles.
The men handling the machines had a lot to do with it, after all, many of the tigers and panthers were carpet-bombed before Operation Goodwood, their crews shell-shocked, but the kludged together vehicles made out of old french chassis were able to still stop the British.
@@2ndavenuesw481 That might be true up through the Mark IV, but it is not true of the Pather or Tiger A or B. Their final drives were well under designed and broke all the time, unless they were babied. The interleaved road wheels iced up badly in the winter, and made servicing them very time consuming. To replace the final drives required you to disassemble a large part of the tank. There were fuel system issues and a host of other problems, only some of which were addressed by the end of the war. Not being able to cross most bridges meant wasting time going around, or waiting for bridging crews, which often were not around due to logistics. These consumed so many resources and cost so much that only a very few could be produced. I recommend several of the videos by The Chieftain on the Sherman and T-34 because they had many advantages. However, most people only look at the gun diameter and armor thickness to make a simplistic assessment.
As Michael Whittman famously once said, " I didn't choose the Stug Life, the Stug Life chose me".
@@TheTexasmick Yeah Wittman Started on on Short 75mm STUGS. As a STUG commander he was actually originally part of the artillery group and wore an artillery uniform, not a Panzer one (till later).
Whitman Started Out As A
STUG-3G Commander, Then He Moved Up To Become A Tiger Commander & He Died In Tiger #007, August 8th 1944, His Tank Was Hit By A Sherman Firefly Tank
& It's Gunner Was Joe Ekins, At A Range Of 800 yds...
Ah Wittmann (note spelling) that unapologetic Nazi who was known to exaggerate his claims. At least he was presented with awards by his hero, non other than Adolf Hitler
Michael Wittman & Kurt Knispel were great tank commanders. Heroes RIP
@@waynelittle646 They were also Nazis
The StuG III is by far my favorite German vehicle, followed closely by the Tiger. I don't know what it is (probably the looks), but I think it's such a cool and versatile chassis.
The fact that the crews were actually artillerymen that became specialists in killing tanks is an often forgot little fact
No doubt about it,but the STUG family was highly successful and punched well above its weight and initial design....👍
Right on
@@FactBytes Your German pronunciation on certain words is abit off, but a part from that , it doesn't matter so much also great vidoe
@@michaelhawkins7389 Its an AI voice bro
@@armjack420 I guessed that later lol AI is being used too much for youtube vidoes and music lol
@@FactBytesIs 10 000 Stug's efective with destroying only 20 000 tanks,ac and other vehicles? 1:2 or less is not the "most efective" ratio. Same money vs effectiveness ratio had panter or Tiger. Stug was NOT most efective its Bull..hit. stug was Simplus most efficient but people font understand IT.
Correction: The StuG never fought in the 1939 Poland campaign. In all 5 prototypes had been built several years earlier but they had mild steel armour and were used only for training. The StuG’s first campaign was in France in 1940, where a small number (30, all of the Ausf. A model) fought in the assault gun role.
My dad was a tank commander of an M4 Sherman in WW2, in Italy and yes we were surprised by the Stug!
The Stug mirrors the Sherman on the U.S. side: not the best weapon, but cheap and reliable. The German were hindered by the large number of varied vehicles, all of which used different parts.
Same with ammunition of small arms
And making for logistics nightmare
Once Albert Speer took over he had a committee of tank producers to help take care of the maintenance and spare parts issues.
The Pz III/IV and STUG III/IV were way more versatile than the Sherman...the Sherman was upgradable but the US really made no effort to do so until the end [ie britiah 17 pdr]...where the Germans were MEGA versatile with the III/IV
Thank you for a fantastic vid. Very informative & well articulated, with great footage too ; learned something new today.
Glad you enjoyed it
@Dr.G.-pw8me
Thank you for the jaw-dropping information on the Stug. III and it's Eastern Front battlefield prowess. Will check out both recommended docs in the links provided.
Cheers.
What the German Soldiers achieved with so little , is a testimony to their Skill and Devotion for their Fatherland.
In the end they achieved nothing because they lost and with their country in ruins
@@davidcolley7714 Yeah, it took US, UK, Canada, Australia and Russia plus a dozen other allied countries 6 years to defeat Hitler and Co. They have to gang up one enemy to win. Same with Russia today. US plus 30 NATO members has to support Ukraine in its war with Russia.
@@davidcolley7714 yet they’re back on top in the EU today
@@sharebear421 Yes indeed, but only after the Red Army with some help from the western allies destroyed the Nazis
I wish that the same patriotism and devotion to duty still exists in Germany. My impression is that the majority of today's Germans are adherents to socialism. I no longer live there!
Not really the case for the Panther. 6,000 were produced and it had effectively taken all production from the Mk IV. It was also not much more expensive than a Mk IV. The Panther was rushed into combat in mid 1943. Early 1944 is within 6 months of production.
All of the good things that you say about the Stug are IMHO valid. It was a great design.
It was rushed into production and had huge reliability issues. Also it suffered because of a lack of trained crews.
@@Ocker3 The reliability issues were mostly resolved within 6 months. Final drive remained an issue for the life of the tank.
As for the crews, any German tank was going to suffer from that. No really the tank's fault.
Not really true, Mk IV production continue until the end of the war. Mk III production was stopped but they did have a factory continue producing Stg III's. Panther production started in 1943 and Mk IV production reached its peak during the Panther production run.
Panther didint take all production from Pz4. Panther had taken production of Pz3.
@@Ben_Sahar My comment stated that the Panther wasn't much more expensive to produce than the Pz IV. You are correct that the Pz IV was in production until wars end. The Pz IV was a good tank and one does not switch production lines all at once.
The best German tank wasn't a tank, it was the StuG.
Tanks are gay anyway, call it an assault gun when you mean business.
But Stug 3 was a Pz3, just without the turret😎.
German Panther and Tiger tanks were so effective in combat that there are recorded and accurate instances on both the eastern and western fronts during World War II where just a single Tiger and/or Panther was able to blunt, halt or even repulse a battalion size, or even larger, British, American or Red Army attack.
No tank ever fielded by the Allies during the war can boast such a record.
Prone to lunching their transmissions.
Most down to Hitler tampering with the designs instead of leaving such matters to the engineers
As so often happens, you got it all a bit lopsided perpetuating the myth of German armor. Yes, as an individual tankdesign Tiger I and II as well as the Panther were formidable, yet the Allies were capable of overcoming the German armor threat for a number of reasons. Because the Allies were primarily advancing after operation Torch in Afrika, the first significant victory at El Alamein and the subsequent landings in Italy and France as well as the Russian victory at Stalingrad and the onslaught on German forces in Russia that followed, German forces could do not much more than try to stem the tidal wave of Allied offensives and thus sometimes succeed in stalling or blunting them, never fully repulsing them.
From the Russian theater there is one report of a single KV-2 succeeding in holding back the 6th Panzer division at the Battle of Raiseinei for a whole day, untill the crew were finally killed. Being a part of Operation Barbarossa in 1941 there were no Tigers or Panthers involved yet.
During the last German offensive in the Ardennes there were also a number of heroic defences mounted. At Bastogne a small number of M10 tankdestroyers were able to thwart a german armoured column, which was instrumental in being able to organise the defence of Bastagne in time to prevent the town to be overrun.
It's just not so clear cut as people (even historians) sometimes want things to be.
@@BlackWit11 Another point to bear in mind is by the time of the Ardennes Offensive, The Russians had over run the oil fields in Romania leaving Germany with only their synthetic oil plants which were (along with the rest of German industry) getting plenty of attention from the RAF and the USAAF so they were running on fumes.
Possibly the biggest turn around in the West was in late 1942 , the U Boat menace was contained so supplies and soldiers could flood in to Britain.
A close thing as in early 1942 we were nearly beaten. (Germany put a 4th rotor on the Naval Enigma which rendered Bletchley Park blind)
@@g8ymw I fully agree with your point.
@@g8ymw No the effect of Hitler is overstated. German ordnance department, the army and manufacturers are all to blame. There was a chronic lack of "adult supervision" when it came to military production. Engineers were too proud to follow input from troops in the field, military commanders censored bad feedback from the troops for fear of negative backlash from their superiors. Guidelines were often reset as projects went on. Tiger went at least through three separate iterations before they settled on a final design making major upgrades as field experience and expected projection of enemy tank development prompted the Germans to try to get ahead of Allied tanks.
The problem is that Tiger was developed as a specialist tank, to be carted to the battlefield and help force a breakthrough and then taken back to Germany to be completely overhauled and readied for the next battle. The reality was that this was impossible in practice and the lovely theory went out the window. On the other hand the true unsung heroes are the field repair units who performed miracles to keep as many Tigers in the field as possible.
The Panther was a heavy tank specifically designed for medium tank operations. They were never under the illusion that this was some kind of superior medium tank, it was a heavyweight boxer everyone pretends is just like all the other welterweights. But at least the Germans did err on the side of armour and firepower which could give it a serious advantage if used properly.
Unfortunately by 1944 Germany was running out of skilled tank crews. Normandy and Bagration were the swansong of the German Panzertruppen. Many German units were thrown in battle with "superior" equipment, but were destroyed by Allied formations in battles like Arracourt and Dompaire where that advantage on paper were costly defeats on Paper.
When is German performing at its very best, early in the war with 1/3rd of their tanks not even equipped with a cannon and still outfighting everyone else. But it shocks everybody when the Allies develop a pool of skilled troops with good enough tanks with good leadership, good tactics, proper combined arms and support and defeat the Germans in straight fights.
Given their situation the decisions were not as bad as some suggest. With limited resources and limited access to fuel, a few really good tanks capable of fighting is far better than many average tanks most of which don't have the fuel to even contribute to the fight.
Germany in WWII is the story of the really big and strong guy who could beat up everybody else until he got into a fight with some professional boxers, he got in some really nasty blows, but once they started fighting back he had no chance to stay on his feet.
Some of the details are way off. The Stug III had the same armor as the PZ III, and later up armored at the front to the same level as the PZ IV. Side armor was the same as the PZ III. The sight for the gun was mounted to the side of the gun carriage, on the PZ IV the sight is mounted to the turret, more or less the same mounting. The Stug had better optics as it was an artillery weapon, and the PZ IV was not as fine, but suitable for its application.
The numbers of T-34's built in WWII was not 84,000, but closer to 50,000. It has been said that 90% of all T-34's produced by May 1945 were lost, which is a staggering number. Keeping in mind of course that German losses were 100% (they lost the war).
It is important to mention how many were in combat if you are going to say one type destroyed more than another. If 5 Tigers knocked out 30 tanks that is a kill ratio of 6. If 10 Stugs knocked out 40 tanks that is a kill ratio of 4. By the summer of 1944 the number of Stugs produced was around 9,000. By that time they had claimed 20,000 tanks in Russia, we get a kill ratio of 2.2, which is about what it remained at until the war ended.
German studies of tank combat indicated that the ability of a tank to rotate its gun allowed it to better engage targets. That is also why the US chose not to create a Stug like vehicle.
Interesting.
Thanks!
But you can have 4 stugs for one tiger
@@rich1483 Probably 5 if you factor in the factory requirements as well. None the less, the Tiger 1 had a much better kill rate than the Stug III.
All in all, the Germans needed a medium tank that was easy to maintain, easy to operate and simple to manufacture. A PZ IV sized tank with improved armor and a 75mm L60 cannon would have been a better vehicle than either the Tiger or the Panther. Compared to the Russians and the US, the Panther is in the heavy tank category.
@Dr.G.-pw8meFrom the records I have, the Sturmartilleiri, as of September 1st, 1944, on the Eastern Front, had been credited with 18, 261 tanks destroyed, of all types. This is from June 22nd, 1941.
Per these records, selecting the best month in 1944, July, 1019 enemy tanks were destroyed by 909 Stugs, with a loss reported of 138, for a kill to loss ratio of 7.4 to 1. However, in March of 1944 578 enemy tanks were destroyed by 511 Stugs, with a loss of 177 reported, for a kill to loss ratio of 3.3.
I did make one error, Stugs produced by September of 1944 is closer to 6,000, not 9,000. Total production by May 1945 was about 9,000. A very rough calculation can be made that shows by 1945 22,600 tanks were destroyed on the Eastern Front by the Stugs by May 1945. As Germany lost all Stugs by that time the kill to loss ration is around 2.5.
Good channel , just found it out , keep making more videos on different tanks .
And hopefully, one last comment, the author states that the STUG had to come to a halt to fire ... exactly like almost every other combat vehicle that fought during WW2. A gyrostabilized gun wasn't a common feature at that time, the most notable exception was the Sherman.
The Stug with the long barrel 75mm were built in large numbers ... more than any other German Armored fighting vehicle.
Vraiment un excellent documentaire, merci pour le job. La prochaine vidéo sur le Jagpanther .???
The Stug is a underrated tank, prove me wrong.
sure, it isnt a tank to begin with
@@sinclair2469 AFVs are literally tanks… it’s like saying tank destroyers aren’t tanks 💀
@@PrussianPoe tanks should have turrets. But honestly im just messing with you, idc myself actually that much about the exact definition.
Found your channel today and subscribed to it today. I'm loving world war ll tanks ❗️👍
I wonder if the Germans concentrated on the Stug and Panzer IV and poured the savings into the Luftwaffe, how the war would have ended. As much as I am a tank fan, the German initial victories and eventual loss were in the skies.
This doesn't solve the real problem. Germany did not have the natural resources to make a lot of inferior tanks and planes, nor the gas to run them or the manpower to control them.
Simple fact is that Germany needed to invade England early in the war prior to declaring war on the u.s...and he should have done everything to keep the u.s. out of the conflict
Seems like longer range bombers would've served them well. They could've continued to harass the Brits, and also had a shot at some of the Soviets' factories further East.
@@cpfs936 The British were on the ropes in the Battle of Britain. A German bomber had a bomb inadvertently drop on a civilian center. The British acted in kind by bombing a German city, with little damage. The bombing enraged Hitler and directed the Luftwaffe to start a terror campaign against only civilian centers, ignoring the RAF airfields and aircraft plants. It gave the British much needed breathing room for the RAF and changed the course of the war. But yes, a long range bomber in the East would have been useful. After the opening months of the war, Russian factories east of the urals operated with impunity. However, the Germans were always short on oil, so it was always a tradeoff on what weapon platforms to build. The Germans lost ww2 the moment they stepped into Russia
The Germans spent vastly more on the Luftwaffe than on their Panzers. From memory it was something like 4 to 7 times more. The Panzer arm cost only about 8% of the entire war budget, so any cuts to the Panzers would have had a trivial impact on Luftwaffe efficacy.
With a low height sturmgeschutz III or IV has a very low profile making it very hard to detect for the enemies tanks until it was too late. With a low profile & a potent pak 40 it was deadly.
Good program. Very interesting.
It was way ahead of it's time looking at it's kill ratios.Quite an important development in armoured warfare.
It destroyed the most tanks, because this stug was massively manufactured, i think in the range of 20k. Also they were mainly being used as an ambush vehicule, hiding somewhere. Its low profile was advantageous in this regard.
10000 and some , not 20000!
Of course, the Stug as a tank destroyer was an effective fighting vehicle. The author of the channel spoke perfectly about the merits of these combat units. However, the Americans and Russians had similar and sometimes more formidable self-propelled guns. In general, the Shtug self-propelled crews could hardly feel superior to the enemy, but they really wanted this for various reasons . Thank you for an interesting and professional story about another "workhorse" of the German tank forces of World War II.
only the stug was not part of the german tank force. It was part of an artillery unit in the regulars infantry divisions.
@@thomasbaagaard A battalion or battery of assault guns, supported by a sufficient number of infantry, could storm the enemy's defenses like a tank unit. This is a textbook example for any commander of a tank or mechanized division, known since the Second World War. So the use of Stugs with infantry is equivalent to a tank attack on enemy positions. Perhaps this is exactly what Manstein wanted when he built the concept of such combat vehicles. And where the material part of these units belonged, let it remain on the conscience of the artillery and tank commanders.
@@thomasbaagaard Indeed the StuG III was conceived of a self propelled artillery piece designed to support Infantry assaults. What makes it unique is that it was for 1 direct fire support (rather than howitzer style) and 2 given heavy Armour 3 Great efforts were put into lowering its profile. These features also made it a great anti-tank gun when given the long barrel 75mm gun. The US Tank destroyers were conceived of as highly mobile fast light weapons with powerful long range guns that could rapidly intercept a tank breakthrough and then engage from behind cover at long range to blunt the attack. They needed cover and range for safety due to their light Armour. The Germans also had such a concept eg the Nashorn (on a Panzer IV chassis with a Panzer III drive train) with the powerful 1000m/se L71 PAK 42. One of these destroyed a T-34 at 4.1km (lost bragging rights to a Challenger I that hit a T-55 at 4.6km). These often fired at such distance the Commander would leave the vehicle and direct fire by headphone while standing a 100m away. Again manned by Arteilley men with special long range optics.
You don't choose Stug Life, it chooses you...
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Thank you
@@FactBytes You're welcome and keep up the great work!!!
I also heard the Panzer III turrets were converted into Stug so it can host the 75mm gun.
III and IV were more assaulting than most tank destroyers later in the war.
It's a bigger success than most assaults on other tanks
Stug Life: when you spend the afternoon lighting up T-34's while wearing your stalhelm.
depending on the varient, the pz3 and 4 had 30-80mms of frontal armour, the stug 3 had 50-80mms of frontal armour,
ah yes definitely less armour
Best thing about the Sturmgeschutz is the name ...roughly translated it's "Storm 'n go shoots!
In war, the ability to mass produce weapons is an important issue, and the Tiger tank was a good performer, but the fact that there were so few of them was probably the reason for their defeat.
Superb run of original clips - ye gods, it’s almost panzer pornography. And the general point is very well supported. Excellent.
At 4:42 is spoken; "the only other German tank....to be continuously built from 1939...."
Aside from prototypes, production of Stugs began in January 1940 according to "Encyclopaedia of German Tanks".
At 10:42 it is said that the Stug's optics "were coaxially mounted, not above the gun..."
Neither the Panzer IV nor any other Panzer had its optics "above the gun". What is the reference to?
Anyway, the Stug's optics were NOT coaxially mounted. You can see this in museum Stugs, and there are plenty of photos online. The optics were on different bearings to the gun, i.e. they were not "coaxial". Connecting levers ensured that the optics tracked with the gun.
Never thought highly of this vehicle but the statistic clearly showed Stug was indeed a remarkable vehicle. I didn't know there was a shift in doctrine from infantry support to tank destroyer. I think the low profile of Stug is only rivalled by Jagd Panther which is dealy potent for defensive role.
Very cool 💯
My grandpa served at the eastern front and had been rescued with his unit (they where encircled by Russian overhelming troops) by three StuGs. He told me when i was a little boy.
The Panzer IV with the Long 75 mm L/48 gun ( the same gun of the StugIII) was more than enough to deal with any allied Tank in the West,and the majorety of Russian Tanks on the Eastern Front.
The 75 mm L 48 was a variant of the 75 mm L46 Pak 40 AT gun,which was the most Successfull AT of WW2.
the tigers main flaw was its fuel consumption, mechanical unreliability and front flat glacis plate
The Tiger had an operational rate similar to the Panzer IV. It's front plate was not a flaw. Extremely tough to penetrate due to its nickel steel and 265 Brinell Hardness.
Honestly it's not surprising considering that they distributed Stugs mostly to infantry divisions to counter enemy armor and protect infantry furthermore it was their most produced vehicle based on a tank chassis.
But the sheer casualties this vehicle inflicted over the enemy will probably be never surpassed in the future at least not any time soon.
Yep plus you couldn't run stugs independent they need the infantry for support.
great video
Thanks!
The Germans should have then in September 1942, a Panzer Division (With 245 Pz.IIIs, 125 Pz.IVs, 45 Tiger Is, 125 Half - Trucks, 45 Masden IIIs, 45 Elephant SPs, and 36
155 mm Guns, 72 105 mm Guns, 36 Bofors AAG, 1500 Trucks, about 500 Vehicles, 125 Jeep.). Organising 24 of these Panzer Division. Then Add to each 150 Tiger Is and 150 Panther Is.
Creating 24 New Panzer Division ( In 1943 -1944).
Tiger 1 had an excellent 88MM Gun. Tiger II had an even better 88MM Gun and sloped armor. The Tiger I had mobility issues The Tiger II even more so as it was a heavier tank with the same engine.
It doesn't take a tank to kill a tank.
After Kursk the Soviets analysed German tank losses. The number one killer of tanks was artillery and anti-tank guns. The second largest cause of German losses? Abandonment. Tanks broke down or ran out of fuel - isolated from support (tank recovery and maintenance) and sustainment (logistics). Soviet tanks were responsible for the third largest number of German tank losses.
Same on the Western front. By far the majority of tank losses on the Allied side were due to AT guns. Don’t know how it looked for the Germans but I wouldn’t be surprised if heavy artillery shelling accounted for as many tanks as lack of fuel, with tank vs tank combat coming in a distant third.
question: your in WW2 as a Tanker. Which tank would you want to be in? Tiger2, Tiger, Panther, T34, Sherman, Churchill, Sturm III, Jagpanther. KV1>
Most undoubtedly the choice will be the Tiger or KT2 just for the fact you were more likely to walk away from a fight.
Me I want to be in the Tiger I
Early war KV2
tiger 2 because I'd run out of fuel early on and get to abandon it, and go home. T34 if I hated myself and wanted a fast/easy death.
Always preferred the panther to the tiger but will always respect the stug
Thought the stug didn't come out until later it was cheaper and easier to mantain
Some German stuff was over engineered
One of the reasons Allies won the "tank war" was because they only a couple of main types mbt's, whereas the Germans had a number of different tanks and different model numbers making for a logistics nightmare
The Germans simply upgraded older tanks with heavier guns by removing the turret and mounting the guns in the hull. These could be older tanks or, new hulls direct from the production line. Depending on use and gun size, they were given enclosed gun house such as the StuG or JagdPanther, or open gun compartment such as the Marder or Hummel. In this way the Germans got more use out of their tank designs than the allies.
The magnificent Germans were well-trained and the men were amazing fighters. Without the Lend-Lease act and help from Britain, (intelligence) the USSR would have struggled to hold back the German advances. Some USSR soldiers & generals have admitted it but most will never accept that.
Yes, the silence guy who does all the work.
The highest kill/loss ratio still belongs to the Ferdinand.
Highest kill ratio. In sunny weather and flat terrain.
what could have happened if all these armoured wheekle were produced in great numbers
If the Germans had the same amount of tanks as the Russians then the Germans would have destroyed USSR
The Tiger was never meant to be produced in large numbers. The Tiger 1 - which actually was regarded as a stopgap solution - was meant to be produced in small numbers until the proper heavy tank, the Tiger II, was ready. 1,500 of the latter were ordered, but most of them were destroyed by heavy bombers even before they left the factory. 40% of the potensial 10,000 Panthers were also destroyed on the factory floor.
Not perfect, but super good enough.
Well the soviets won with a lot of things that are "good enough", the mongols got the biggest land empire by using horse archers and lancers.
In a straight-forward man... I think simplicity, eficiency, reliability, and adaptability are the most important things in war or perhaps life...
how MANY did they build? There is a certain ... victorious charm in sheer numbers of mech.
In offense and defensive role, it would be better for the stugs to be in the center and medium tanks in the right and left flank.
The M4 and T34 were just good enough, considering the huge numbers they were produced. Additionally, since they were advancing throughout the last war years, disabled vehicles were recovered and often repaired.
i think the Stug came to life once it had the L48 gun . It might have done better with wider tracks .
Imagine if these tanks Tigers, Panthers, Stugs III and IV were produced in large numbers and started during operation Barbarossa
Tank destroyer vs apocalypse
Also, it used far less fiel. After 1944, Germany had very little fuel available and much of their armor was abandoned due to lack of fuel and ammo, which couldn't be transported due to lack of fuel.
It shouldn't even be a debate... The Panther was objectively the BEST Tank from the WW2 era.
"In 1944 most of the deficiencies of the Panther had been corrected and before casualties had drained the by now well-trained and experienced crews and declining manufacturing standards had affected their dependability, it was arguably the best German tank. The Tiger family was still around but their performance was erratic."
Many people argue that the Panther was the inspiration if not the first MBT, competing with the British Centurion for this title.
People downplay the Panther a lot because of it's early, and later end war, teething problems of it being a rushed design but the Panthers and their crews that managed to be "Updated" and trained were some of the most terrifying Tanks for Allied ground troops and tanks.
Kinda off topic but wanted to add my piece on "What was the best German Tank in WW2"
You don't choose the Stug lyf.
The Stug Lyf choose you.
Pz-III was a mistaken production since it was deeply flawed design from the start of the war with a very bad suspension arrangement that had to be replaced 4-5 times before they ironed out many of the problems. Even then a couple hundred models still had to be scrapped after the war began; but the Pz-III tank was supposed to account for 3/4 of all tank production from 1940-1944. So they bargained on failure.
The german tank inventory
1939 = 199 Pz III + 223 Pz-IV +143 Pz 38t + 1155 Pz-II + 1305 Pz-I [ total 3024] I8%
1940 = 857 Pz 38t+ 386 Pz-IV + 589 Pz-III + 947 Pz ii + 1047 Pz-i [3826] 45%
1941 = 830 Pz Pz III + 511 Pz-IV +586 Pz 38t + 881 Pz-II+ 728 Pz-I [3536] 55%
All the Czech tanks were limited to 37mm tank guns ; anything more would require
removing the turret and rebuilding as an ''open top'' tank destroyer. The Pz-III also had a 37mm gun but the design had enough space to replace it with a 50mm gun and through 1941/42 most were rebuilt & upgunned to a 50L42 gun with a new mantle and bolt on armor.
If Pz-IV is built instead of Pz-III then possibilities are big but at the price of future plans. In theory in 1941 germany produced 62600 tons of tracked AFV, but also managed 3200 tons of wheeled AFV construction. plus 7300 tons turret construction.
El mejor blindado alemán...pequeño, barato, fácil de producir y muy poderoso.
With hindsight, the Germans would have probably done "better" in all theatres if they built nothing but slightly simplified Panzer Mk IVs with 75mm high velocity cannon, and Stug IIIs, or barring that, nothing but Panthers and Jagdpanthers and skip the Tiger and Tiger II completely.
I don't think hindsight is needed. The longer production times, the greater break downs were probably noticed.
And they would have ran out of fuel and tank crews even faster...
The Germans were never in a position to make large numbers of tanks (or planes) They lacked not only gasoline and lubricants to run them, but also rubber and other critical materials. Hence their focus on quality rather than quantity.
Yes with lots of hindsight and a lot of re-work. Work on Tiger I started in 1938 as a breakthrough tank. And by the time it reached the battlefield, Germany was still thinking offensively.
Even work on a new medium tank (eventually Panther) started before the war, but it only became a bit more urgent due to certain events. According to German doctrine, both tanks made perfect sense. No country had idiots at work. They all had their doctrines and they all put a lot of thoughts into it.
And here's the bonus question: Why didn't they "just" produce a simlified Pz IV ? Because the design had reached its's limits - the suspension to be precise - and couldn't take any more armor or bigger guns. Mind you Pz IV only had 50mm of frontal turret armor. Now we're talking a new suspension, a new armor layout and probably a new turret design. All in all a new tank. Redesigning and re-tooling would have led to a significant decrease in production. There were plans, but they couldn't afford to realize them. Even StuG III was about to be replaced, but it had to stay in production for the same reason. Heck, T-34 was about to be replaced if Germany hadn't invaded.
And if you can't fuel 1300 Tigers, how are you supposed to fuel x times the amount of Stugs and Pz IVs ?
@@ottovonbismarck2443 After the defeat of France, Hitler stopped development work
Silly schoolboy error, in war if you stop development, you go backwards (your enemies catch up and overtake you)
The Stug was the most produced German armored fighting vehicle of WWII.
More were produced than any other German tank.
The various models of the Stug were not tanks. They were self-propelled guns. Self-propelled guns may appear similar to tanks to the untrained eye, but they are distinct weapons systems with their capabilities and uses.
holy shit bruh who knew!?
Tank destroyers are tanks... was the british Mark1 not a tank!?! You know the first fucking tank
@@romaboo6218 The tank is an offensive weapon designed to take on anything from enemy infantry to tanks ideally it has a turret mounting a cannon and one or more machineguns. The Tank Destroyer concept was to have a mobile fighting force of troops equipped with anti-tank, held in reserve to stop enemy armoured attacks.
The vehicle you describe as a tank is the M10 Tank Destroyer which was a self propelled gun that was focused on destroying enemy tanks. It was open topped for better vision etc. But a towed anti-tank gun was a Tank Destroyer too. A 37mm on a light truck was also a Tank Destroyer.
Now the Mark I is a very early tank and they hadn't figured out the kinks yet. The consensus was that a tank would be best as a turreted vehicle as mentioned above.
Now the M10 is very near a tank and due to circumstances was used as a tank. The MK I is also a primitive tank.
The proof is in the pudding. The German StuG was added to tank units at the end of the war and they usually performed very poorly since a tank with a turret proved to be far more effective at being a tank than a self-propelled gun as good as the StuG was in its dedicated role. M10's had disadvantages tanks didn't have like machineguns and lacked overhead cover and were designed to shoot mostly AP and their HE against infantry, soft skin vehicles, armoured cars, guns and buildings and bunkers was pretty poor compared to say the 75mm HE of the US tanks like the M4 Sherman. They were used as tanks with a bit more success, but everyone agreed they kinda sucked.
In such a battle the MK I would have performed very poorly indeed.
The differences do add up sometimes. So a proper tank is better than a TD which is better than a StuG which will beat a Mk I easily. But the M10 is a successful tank killer, so is the StuG and the MK I was relatively effective support for trench warfare and a good enough proper tank generally can do most jobs if needed.
Calling them a self propelled gun is not quite right. Unlike Self Propelled Guns or the US tank destroyers they had heavy Armour.
@@williamzk9083 Jagdtiger, Nashorn, ISU 152, SU-76, StuG, Jagdpanzer I, and the M3 GMC or the M6 GMC are all self propelled guns. One is massively armoured, another is just a Dodge light truck with a 37mm gun. Self Propelled guns come in all shapes and sizes and intent. The M10 was assumed to fight from an ambush position using cover and concealment. The armour was kept low because they figured it wasn't their job to do a tank's job of advancing and fighting enemy forces. The M18 Hellcat, Bruce's dream project had very thin armour and turned out to be the deadliest TD.
It was very good chassis to work with different weapons systems. I d argue PzKpf IV F is the best German tank.
As Stug factories were getting close attention from the RAF and USAAF, the Germans turned to the Czech Panzer 38t to create the Hetzer (sp?).
As with the Stug, a proven engine and drivetrain turned into a self propelled gun (a lighter Stug with a shorter 75mm gun and a remote controlled machine gun on the roof)
The German “W” is pronounced like a “V.” Therefore Wehrmacht is pronounced Vehrmacht.
A German pronounces it Vehrmacht; a GI pronounces it Wehrmacht. Do I need to explain why?
Oh, and saying that Tiger's a Panthers weren't produced in significant enough numbers to have had a strategic impact, it was precisely at the strategic level that these threats had the greatest impact. If they had been insignificant then the Allies would never have put 90mm, 14PDR, 85mm, and 122mm guns into their tanks and tank destroyers. And let's not talk about the British reaction to Wittman's actions at Villiers Bocage.
Hitler should have built 30,000 Stug 3's instead of the Tigers.
Whit what fuel??
And yet the 2,000 Tigers took out circa 10,000 enemy AFVs.
I have read in noumerous reports that the total number of tanks destroyed on the Western front was arround 10.000.
So that would mean that 10.000 Stugs produced would be credited with a total of 40.000 tank kills in total.
I have some issues; Foremost, an assault gun or tank destroyer isn't a tank. Now you can queue the people spouting the dictionary definition of a tank but they are wrong to use it because they do not understand and are not waiting to read the context of the comment. That context is in the following where I explain why it's not about the physical description of what a tank is, it's about the differences in how a tank is employed vs how the German's employed the STUGs and other assault guns/tank destroyers. It's about how they are used. This also calls into question the author's comments on Tigers, that they weren't often used and that they were used more in defense than offense. This was partially due to doctrine and greatly influenced by necessity. German doctrine demanded that tanks were used offensively and en-mass. To do this, tank units had to be withdrawn from front line areas of contact, refitted, replacement crewmen trained, supplies gathered, and the operationally deployed to staging areas prior to the upcoming effort. So what was left to hold off enemy tanks? AT Guns, Tank Destroyers, STUGs. And what was more prevalent and assigned to Infantry Divisions, STUGs whenever possible. Sure, Tank formations were kept near by in locations so they could be used to counter Soviet breakthroughs. And when the breakthroughs were serious enough, and the geographic area critical enough, even Tigers were held in positions to support the defense. But the STUGs wonderful performance record isn't because the STUG was such a super machine, superior to tanks, but because STUGs were simply the equipment being used more frequently because the tanks were being withdrawn from the front for refit and reorganization prior to the next season's offensive plans. Leave a STUG Company in frontline service, twice as long as you leave a tank company in operational service, and you'll see a different outcome when assessing their "impact". Try and use STUGs as the "tip of the spear" and your spear isn't going to be nearly as effective. And this is why a STUG isn't a tank.
84,000 T34! Imagine!
They had the quality / quantity equation way too far on the quantity side, but then they needed them PDQ
Crude castings, no radios (signalling other tanks by semaphore flags)
Most problems were sorted on the T34/85
And some of them were driven off the end of the assembly line straight into battle!
@@g8ymwonly a few problems sorted, far more werent fixed. The t34 was trash.
4:23 Before he became a Hollywood legend, John Wayne was a tanker in the Waffen-SS 😂😂
They where the backbone of the Wheremacht. also they where not Panzerwaffe, but in the artillery as support
Only the Stug3 has more tank kills than all German tanks combined.
How good this cheap and straight design,with the Best AT gun of the war,the 75 mm Pak40 became
the Ultimate tank destroyer of WW2.
Enjoyable video
Glad you enjoyed it
@@FactBytes Thanks a lot
In my opinion is because the stug is more used as a defensive artillery tank
Sometimes quantity is its own quality
I feel the stugs pro's far out weighed the con's. They did make a large amount but not enough. They needed to learn how to make them simpler to produce so they would be able to pump them out a lot quicker.
This strategy doesn't work, when your countries population is so small as Germanys was, in relation to its enemies (Soviet Union and the USA). You can never build - and more importantly - crew enough cheap tanks as your enemy can. So they focused on quality instead of quantity.
The best german tanks in Wehrmacht : Pz3 with the turret(as a Pz3), and Pz3 without the turret as a Stug3.
Germany needed Tigers for FEAR!! They had to plant FEAR in the Enemy!! And only a good Tiger could to do that job well!! The Earth been shacking when the Tigers Rolled!! All Americans, Russians, British remember well the Thunder of the Tigers!! Seen many veterans talk about the Tigers!!
But how many of those 80,000 plus T-34s were made during ww2 as they continued production after the war for a time
Would be my AFV of choice .
Now, some other problems with the information from this video. After the campaign and conquest of France, Hitler ordered the creation of more Panzer Divisions, but there were not enough tanks to go around. The Germans, in all but six of the Tank Divisions, Tank Regiments from 2 to 1, and cut the number of tank Battalions in each regiment from 3 to 2, although each Battalion was increased to 90 tanks each. Later on, Germany replaces Tanks Battalions with Assault Gun Battalions in order to return the Panzer Divisions to their previous capability. Therefor, not all Assault Guns are under the Command of the Artillery Force.
Never be stuck in front of a stug...
My Grandpa chose the StuG Life.
What turned the tide in WW2 was Airpower not armour
This...
I was taught that it is "VAR Maak" .. W pronounced as V, V as F (Volkswagen = Folks VA gan)
Germany’s major downfall was not putting enough resources into AirPower and anti aircraft guns, by the end of the war their tanks had almost no protection from allied aircraft.
No, Germany’s main downfall was in not having enough access to raw materials, especially oil. With little crude oil, they had to make transport fuel from coal, which is costly.
Getmany’s artillery for its infantry divisions was mostly pulled by horses until the end of the war.
@@jerry2357 that’s true by the end of the war, but their main loss was a lack of production compared to the allies, the war for them was lost in the factories long before it ever came to that. Look at the number of planes and tanks and even men they had versus the allies, they were simply outnumbered in all categories…
@@ronb7931
Actually German production went up significantly after Albert Speer took over as Minister of War Production in 1942. It was only later that Allied bombing had a significant effect on production.
The issue with the Luftwaffe was that they were running out of experienced pilots by 1944. Germany didn’t really have anywhere away from the battlefront to train new pilots, unlike the Allies, who trained pilots in North America. And killing experienced pilots in the dangerous Me-163 and early Me-262 models didn’t help.
But to get back to the resources issue, the Germans had a shortage of tungsten, which was needed for some of the more effective types of anti-tank rounds.
IIRC, there were other metals used in the armour plate used for tank production that were in short supply, so German tank armour got more brittle as the end of the war approached.
But the shortage of transport and aviation fuel were the most significant factors.
Their downfall was trusting hitler
The best thing that happened to Germany was when AH took control of the Generalship of the Military. One debacle after another and no one to blame but his Generals. Me ? but you told me to attack.
The historians are quite unified with the conclusion that the Second World War was decided by the overwhelming resources of war material and soldiers of the Allies and especially the United States of America and Soviet Union.
Germany couldn't prevail in the end in a war of attrition despite how gallantly their well trained soldiers fought and despite their usually technically better arms.
3:15 Germany didn’t have to manpower nor the fuel for theses tanks anyway
I didn’t choose the Stug life, the Stug life chose me
That old saying simple is always best. That is why you need a Swiss Army knife, AK47, and a LADA car. Oh and some cans of Baked Beans in Tomato Sauce :)