The StuG III | The MOST Successful Tank Destroyer of WWII?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @learninghistorytogether
Massive Shout out to @PanzerInsight from who'm i got most of the footage.
linktr.ee/lear...
Link to my linktree, this includes my Instagram, Discord Server TH-cam and more: linktr.ee/learninghistorytogether
This is the Discord Link from Linktree: discord.com/invite/xYm4cUXuCp
Stuuuuuuugggggggg
STUGGG
Good to see the lowly StuG getting some love!
yeah for sure
Broadly the StuG III wasn't meant to be a tank destroyer. It was designed as a heavily armored self propelled gun to support infantry. It was noticed by the German army that they often had to bring forward guns to support infantry at night since they and their half tracks were vulnerable and this delayed the infrantry advance. The StuG III was the answer. It was not manned by the Panzerwaffe or tankers but by artillery men who used different optics and had the training to survey a target properly.. There was an MG for the commander to operate but no hull gunner/radio operator as the unit wasn't meant to operate in formations behind enemy lines like a tank. The long barrel gun was added out of necessity to defend against ever increasing numbers of Russian tanks but it actually was slightly less effective in its artillery role due to the lower explosive content of the shells. .
The term PanzerJaeger (Tank Hunter) was the term Germany used for "tank Destroyer". The most iconic German "Tank Destroyer" the Nashorn or "Rhineocerous" was in concept similar to the US tank destroyers. The Nashorn was lightly armored but had the extremely powerful 8.8cm PaK 42 gun with a muzzle velocity of 1000m/sec (much higher than the Tiger I 8.8cm KwK 36 of the 8.8cm FLAK 37 which were only 800m/sec).
These PanzerJaeger "Tank Destroyers" were much lighter than tanks and more mobile and had protection against shrapnel and light arms only. The idea is that should there be a breakthrough by enemy tanks the PanzerJaeger "Tank Destroyers" could get near the front lines quickly with no problems with bridges or weight. They would then be positioned behind cover, hillocks, a barn, tress, a ditch and pick of enemy tanks at long ranges. The Nashorn had very good long range optics and their crew were artillery men who knew how to survey distances and create interlocking fire. One Nashorn destroyed a T-34 at over 4km. Commanders often directed fire 100m away from the hidden Nashorn connected by a microphine and head phone.
The other type Germany used was the "JagdPanzer" or "Hunter Tank". like the Jagdtiger, Jagpanther and Jagdpanzer. These were a tank that had the turret removed and replaced by a casement with a heavier gun and Armour. Unlike a StuG they retained the forward gunner/radio operator. These were very powerful vehicles.
That 75mm L/48 High Velocity gun ( the same of the Panzer IV) was capable of knock out any allied Tank at 500 Meters.
It was a slight variant of the most Successfull AT gun of WW2,the 75mm Pak 40.
A small,Simple,Cheap but with a huge Punch weapon of war.
4:07 StuGs doing StuG things
It is probably just me but it is satisfying to see them fire
Greeting's Collin!
Excellent video!
The stuG 3 was very useful in holding off the horde of soviet tanks.
Unfortunately it couldn't do the same for the horde of soviet inf and IL2.
Thank you!
I'd like to see a video on the process the crew went through on a tank without a revolving turret of what was done once an enemy tank was spotted. For instance, I was a tank crew member on an M60A1 tank back in the 70s. When the tank commander spotted a target such as a tank, he'd say "Gunner, tank!". He'd then use his control to turn the turret in the direction of the enemy and when the gunner saw the tank, he'd say "Identified" and take over control of the main gun movement to lay it on target. With a Stug, with no turret, the whole tank has to be turned. Is it the tank commander or the driver who turns it and when it is turned, the gun has only a limited amount of horizontal movement so that initial turning of the tank has to be more precise. So how is this done and what is said by the crew during this time?
It is very interesting to read you experiences so thank you for taking the time to comment it
I am going to be honest with you and say that I haven't read about how a engagement would go when the StuG would have a engagement while driving, however I assume that this would be a rare occurrence considering the StuG was a Ambush tank/ Tank Destroyer which normally would conceal themselves on the flanks to give fire support to the infantry attacking force while they sit back and fire from a great distance
I know a channel called military history visualized that goes into depth about the tactics and inter-crew workings of vehicles like the stug and jagdpanther. You should check out his video on the stug for an in-depth look!
@@adamengeldinger1202 I'll do that. Thank you!
StuG - contrary to German tanks - had a gunner's periscope, which hepled tremendously in finding the target. My GUESS is that the gunner worked together with the driver, who was right in front of him, to lay the vehicle/gun on a target picked by the commander. Standard procedure in WW2 German tanks was the commander to kick or hit the gunner's shoulders according to the direction in which the turret had to be turned. Worked bettet than the intercom.
AFAIK, StuG commanders had no override of any sort.
Good to see that your channel got monetized. I just hope your subs will grow. Love your channel. Oorah
ah yeah thank you!
Great video again! 👍
Too bad they didn’t just make more of these, and less massive man hour and materials black holes. Could’ve concentrated on some air power.
King Tiger was too much of a materials black hole for sure... imagine how many StugS could've been built using the same materials
@@insomniacbritgaming1632 Agreed
Yes, maths says they could have built 5 StuG for 1 Tiger. But maths forgets that they wouldn't have the fuel nor the crews for them. Actually Germany had invested quite a bit in air power. In 1944/45 they had more aircraft than pilots and again no fuel. When you can't support what you have already in the field, how are you supposed to support even more ? And even if you produce more, how does it get to the frontline, when you're already choosing between food, ammo or fuel because you don't have enough trains and trucks ?
@@insomniacbritgaming1632 Many more, but without crews and fuel and trains to get them anywhere. So the real question is if 700 StuG instead of 380 Tiger II would have saved the day ? I guess not.
Tiger II was built with a very clear doctrine in mind, taking the well-known design flaws into account. It was to be a breakthrough tank, designed for brief action and plenty of time to repair and maintain. It was overtaken by a completely reversed war situation when it showed up.
Very clever vehicle, similar logic to the Americans and Russian strategy.
For sure!
10.000 StuG knocked out 20.000 enemy tanks.
1.400 Tigers knocked out 9.000 enemy tanks. Questions ? 🤪
yeah, how many did the panther knock out?
I don't have any numbers on Panther. I'm sure though it wasn't as successful as Tiger for K/L ratio; well, nothing was actiually (thus my strong opinion that Tiger I was a very good & successful tank). If I had to guess I'd say it was about the same ratio as StuG.
Don't get me wrong, StuG had a massive impact ! I have a theory that StuG IIIF and G were the main reason for upgunning T-34 to the 85mm gun because the 76,2mm couldn't reliably deal with StuG's 80mm frontal armor (which was also implemented on late 1942 versions of Pz III & IV) and StuG could kill T-34 at distances where the 76,2 was helpless.
Have you mentioned that StuG had a gunner's periscope ? It's worth mentioning, because no other German tank had it and it helped the gunner a good deal in finding the target.
Hello collin
Hi
Hello talan
StuG III G>Tiger 1 H1
Facts😴😎
@@LearningHistoryTogether 💪✔
STUG
STUG
@@LearningHistoryTogether StuGGGGGG