>>61961426Stugger is our word but you can call me Stugga
>>61961426With how relatively weak the armor was, how slow it moves, and having the tooling lines of a PZ4 for over a decade the Stug is just the right tank at the right time.>reliable tracked systemcheck>effective guncheckJust pure sex.
>>61961426These should still be in service. Fuck the M10 (gi)Cooker. Just make stugs, exactly as they were 80 years ago.
>>61961491My stugga
we gotta bring assault guns back lads, fuck turrets
>>61961426Still not a tank.
>>61961671>Still not a tank.
>>61961683StuGs were part of the artillery arm, organized into batteries, operated by artillerymen, and were doctrinally (most important) not tanks.
>>61961664>monkey paw curls
>>61961731Then why was the commander called a "Tank Commander"?
>>61961426yea because it was good at urban assault, which is strangely where most tanks get usedapparently no armor designer got the memo and they keep building mbtsit's a lot like stg44/ak47 design where everyone adopted the wrong gun(ars) for what is mostly urban fighting within 300m
>>61962002"Panzerkommandant" doesn't actually mean "tank commander", because "Panzer" doesn't really mean tank (or at least, it doesn't mean the hyper-specific definition of tank that people insist on using)Panzer's just a generic word for anything armored - could be an APC (Transportpanzer), IFV (Schützenpanzer), self-propelled howitzer (Panzerhaubitze), SPAAG (Flakpanzer), armored recovery vehicle (Bergepanzer), and so on.It'd be more accurately translated as AFV rather than tank (or even better, if "tank" just got switched to mean what AFV means now, and people came up with a more-specific term like Maneuver Combat Vehicle or something along those lines for what it's supposed to mean, so you're not in this awkward situation where the simple short word that everyone knows is also simultaneously a hyper-specific term that a gun autists are constantly malding about being misused)
>>61962067I concede. Thank you for the new information.
>>61961426>stug>tanklmao
>>61961664Drives me crazy that Romania is sitting on around 40+ SU-100s that could be used in Ukraine.
>>61961426Not a tank
>>61962653It would be cool for them to renter service but they would get destroyed almost immediately in a fight not mention spare parts for a vehicle that old are going to be nightmare to find
>>61961426>StuG>Tank3/10 b8, besides pic related is peak tank design.
>>61961671Define "tank".
>>61961731Yes, artilleryman makes the best tank crew
>>61961491Dont call me Chaffee... StuggerDont call me Stugger... Chaffee
>>61963066Not a tank Swigger
>>61962067The word you're looking for is armo(u)r, both in direct and indirect translation. Used to mean medieval armour in a couple languages, but nowadays it's mostly used to refer to anything with armour. Armoured personel carrier is still armoured, ergo an armour commander could command it. Assault guns are basically armoured field guns, so armour commanders command it. Don't need to make it more complicated than it is, especially since "armo(u)r" is sometimes used in a very similar context in English too.
>>61961682i really like how soft some of the french tanks look, no edges, all round
Goddamn you niggers are stupid.
>>61961558>With how relatively weak the armor was,There were variants with extremely effective armor.If you only have to armor the front and have a very low profile you can get some amazing angles/thickness.
>>61961731>StuGs were part of the artillery arm, organized into batteries, operated by artillerymenThis isn't even true.
>>61962067It is tracked, has a big gun, is armored. It is from the genus: Tank, species: assault gun. For too long we have let people say MBT=Tank.
>>61964870It is though
>>61966037>is tracked, has a big gun, is armored.Behold, a tank!
>>61964870Later in the war, StuGs got dragooned into an ad hoc tank destroyer role, but they were originally conceived and implemented as part of the artillery. Being repurposed late war was a consequence of shortages in tanks and the German army increasingly fighting defensively when its doctrine and organisation was largely based on being the attacking force.
>>61966079This. A and B were explicitly part of the so-called "Sturmartillerie", assault artillery.Then through C to E until the F version it slowly grew into the TD role. Then they produced several thousand of the G variant, which was definitely a tank destroyer.
>>61966097Ausf. G is definitely the most widely known StuG and what most posters would identify as a StuG. The earlier variants are like the panzer 2 and 38t in terms of recognition, ie ww2 nerd tier not pop culture tier like the G. Same applies to the Pnazer 4. People know the long barrelled 75mm F2/G and beyond, probably because they look more like modern tanks than F1 and earlier.
>>61966097>which was definitely a tank destroyer.the G filled out tank battalions in the Panzerkorps when there was a shortage of Panzer IIIs, IVs and Vs, so I wouldn't call it "definitely" a tank destroyerhowever I agree that the lack of turret means that IDEALLY, it would not be considered a tank
>>61961985assault barns don't have ammo
>>61964567Yes it is
>never got an internal mgwill always trigger me, cost the krauts the battle of brecourt, as seen in band of brothers. The stug missed its shot, giving ample time for some paratroopers to run right into the field and send off two bazooka rounds into the lead tanks because there was no mg supression going on.Yes, they had an mg on top which the commander was supposed to get out and use but who the fuck does that while incoming rounds are pinging off of your armor?
>>61966361>who the fuck does that while incoming rounds are pinging off of your armor?super Second Armored Sherman
a SdKfz 142/2 is fine too
>>61962040I think that an assault gun with very thick front armor would be better than mbts in a lot of the skirmishes we have seen in Ukraine. When you remove the turret you also get more space for anti drone solutions on the roof.
>>61966361The top mg could also be controlled from the inside; at least on some models.
>tfw trying to post pictures of StuGs because I love them but some subhuman piece of shit got the whole range banned from posting picturesI swear a holy oath that if I ever find you, I WILL kill you.
>>61966585catbox it?
>>61966585Someone at my old workplace got the IP perma'd for schizoposting on /x/ and I still occasionally obsessed about who it might have been.
Someone explain to me in the most simple terms why the Stug and Hetzer were so successfulDid tank v tank happen as rarely as it does nowadays and that's why most kills were done by TDs lying in ambush?
>>61966660Arty StuG>excellent doctrinal use>did exactly what it was supposed to do at a time when nobody expected itTD StuG>flat russian steppe in a vehicle not higher than a man lying in wait>vs bad vis T-34 with a crew that needed less shots to hit an enemy>???>PROFIT!
>>61966660>whythe Germans were on the defensive in the West and fighting morons in the EastANY defensively-emplaced tank in the West from 1943 onwards, Allied or Axis, had disproportionately favourable KDRs, whether they were Stugs, Shermans or Tigersin the East, it had favourable KDRs; the Soviets just threw zerg swarmed the problem>>61966672>less
>>61966693>lessTank you, grammer wheraboo
>>61966727The actual main problem with that line is that you made it sound like the T-34 has the crew with a crew that needs fewer shots
>>61966762Ah, now I see how it could be misleading. That happens when you just add stuff to actually finished sentences. But you understood what I meant.
>>61966067That's an armored train. If it could move off the trails it would be a tank, yes.
>>61966361StuG III had a coaxial MG for the later variants, with most variants having a rooftop MG behind an armor shield. Later on there was even remote-controlled MG turrets ontop, operated by handles that poked into the crew compartment.
America stug
>>61966780It literally runs on tracks, bigot!
>>61966833I wish the T28 had at least 1 instance of use for no reason than seeing the reactions it would have generated by the receiving party
>>61967077If the stupid generals on our side weren't so damn concerned with "effective equipment" and "trying to protect the operators' lives", we could have the surviving prototype shoot at T-55s in Ukraine
>>61966972kek gottem
Why were stug-like tanks so successful and why were they immediately canned after the WW2?
>>61967674Forgot pic
>>61967674>slug-likethey're clearly snails
>>61967674They were pretty much conceptually btfo by the mbt, which does everything they do plus other stuff they aren't suited for.
>>61967077The reaction to getting ACKed from a massive distance wouldn't be much different if it was from a regular Sherman or a super heavy autism box
>>61961426man imagine seeing some ww2 german tanks in the current Ukraine conflict. Would really want to see how they perform
>>61968114>Would really want to see how they performPoorly.
>>61968123if the war in ukraine teached me one thing it's that it's full of unexpected surprises. Maybe the ukies would have pimped the tanks to make them better
>>61966051Guderian disagreed and won that struggle.>>61966079That late role is exactly what gave them their good reputation, anon.>>61966097>>61966212>>61966237Multitasking aside, the dedicated StuG role was taken over by the StuH later, which was very capable with its much larger caliber.>>61966361>>never got an internal mg>will always trigger me,You can untrigger yourself, it's not true.
>>61968125Ww2 German tanks already fought in Ukraine and did worse than contemporary Russian tanks with the mud and terrain.
SEXOOOOOO!
>>61968237>Ww2 German tanks already fought in Ukraine and did worse than contemporary Russian tanks with the mud and terrain.It got better once winter tracks were introduced.
>>61961426>Still the best t-ACCCCCKKKKKKKK!
>>61968426Not a tank, according to doctrine. Sorry :^)
>>61967674Their idea and concept wasn't entirely canned, up until the late 60's IIRC, germans had the Kanonenjagdpanzer, which is the closest thing you'll get to the spiritual sucessor of tank destroyers and stug-like designs
>>61968498>>61967674
>>61968506this shit is so fucking cute
>>61968498>Kanonenjagdpanzerthey made sure to call that to differentiate it from the Raketenjagdpanzer
>>61968506VGH.... What could've been....
>>61968528>has a cannon >called cannon tank destroyer>has rockets and not a cannon>called rocket tank destroyer>anon doesn't understand that concept
>>61961426>Still the best tank
>>61968528>raketenjagdpanzer>it doesn't hunt rockets????????
>>61961426I love the StuGs and their wonderful record of exterminating both soviets and Anglos, but it's not really a tank.
>>61968528>they made sure to call that to differentiate it from the RaketenjagdpanzerIndeed
>>61968778>>61969055I just found it amusing because as a kid I was reading about the long series of Jagdpanzers from WW2 to the Cold War, and then you come to this point where the term gets more specific: KANONENjagdpanzer and RAKETENjagdpanzerprobably quite prosaic to a German because it is simply the nature of the language but there it isjust like >>61969018 is funny to us non-speakers
>>61969128It's the same in English actually>rocket hunting tank>cannon hunting tankCan be interpreted both ways
>>61966067>fire gun>recoil damages engine's boiler
>>61964859>variants with extremely effective armor.I mean, sort of. 80mm is nothing to scoff at but as far as specifically armour goes it gets mogged by the JPz IV and the Hetzer. The advantage of the stug over them is mostly is due to soft factors owing to it being derived from the Pz III chassis (torsion bar suspension, less wear on parts in comparison to late model Pz IVs, surplus of spare parts, ease of production etc). The stug never really had particularly impressive armour though, mostly due to the fact that by the time it inherited iterative armour improvements from Pz III models, it was usually because those hulls had become surplus to requirement (which is why so many stugs got produced after the high velocity 50mm idea, and by extension Pz IIIs being the workhorse of the wehrmacht, got dumpstered)
>>61966660Readily available superfluous hulls (Pz III and Pz 38 (t)) meant you could build a lot of them, low profile meant that they were difficult to spot when stationary in defensive positions and the high velocity 75mm gun meant that they had reasonably good chances of killing pretty much all light and medium tanks of the war as well as some heavies. The concept wasn't super innovative for the most part, it just iterated on things like the Marder series in a way that worked a lot better for the war the Germans were fighting from late 42 onwards
>>61966660the largest man portable field gun was the 5 cm Pak 38, but its a bit too weak.7.5 cm Pak 40 has adequate power and range, but is heavy enough to essentially require the use of truck to move it.the problem arises that to set up or relocate a towed gun takes too long, and you also have to hide the presence of its tow vehicle.most solutions to this mobility problem dont have allot of armor to protect the crew, and some are too bulky to be easily concealed.
>>61961985>Monke paw curlsFTFY.
>>61961712Even in Cold War, Hetzers gonna hetz
>>61972399Is that one of those swiss ones?btw the Finns used their StuGs into the cold war as well.
>>61962653Drives me crazy keyboard warriors are just sitting around when they could volunteer to fight in ukraine
>>61972709what's it like being a subhuman russian piyavka?
>>61961426Hetzer gang here, we support our stUg lyfe brudas, cheers xD
>>61971530>the problem arises that to set up or relocate a towed gun takes too long, and you also have to hide the presence of its tow vehicle.Yeah well that was the original idea behind the StuG; to have artillery that can advance along the infantry. But it's not necessarily applicable for the later variants. Although one could argue that the open-topped tank destroyers were merely self-propelled AT guns.
>>61967674>Why were stug-like tanks so successful and why were they immediately canned after the WW2?They were for the most part built as a solution to a specific problem. At the start of the war most tanks were small, weighed 10-20t, lightly armored and packing a 37-50mm cannon. By the middle of the war heavier armored tanks that were 25 tons and up basically became the standard and to punch through you needed more firepower.For the Germans who had a lot of lighter vehicles in full production, grinding production to a halt so you can design and retool for bigger tanks wasn't really viable in the face of the T-34 problem. So the expedient solution was to modify any lighter vehicle design into a tank killer. Picrel is the Panzer 38(t) line, at first conversions were crude with the Marder before settling on a more purposeful design with the Hetzer. These projects were popular, especially in Germany where they were being outproduced, a cheaper, quicker to build vehicle that works best on the defensive suited their needs.After the war though, there was peace, well "peace" in that the big powers were not actively hammering each other. To put it simply there was little urgency. If you wanted to build armor you could spend the time and money to give it a turret. If you wanted more armor or a bigger gun, you build a tank that does that. No half measures needed because no one was on the frontline begging for more armor. These casemate anti tank vehicles were mostly an act of desperation and primarily a defensive weapon, a tank could operate about as well on the defensive while not sacrificing on the offensive so there was no reason to build these.
