When the stug was invented would of it been more practical to

>>32791480
>Would it of
Also they produced a fucking SHITLOAD of stugs dude fuck you mean
Traverseable turrets are fucking important, the Stug was just a way to have a gun, keep it's crew armored, and move up to fuck things

>so fucking complicated shapes on the front

It's like Germans fucking love unnecessary welding.

File: is this sodomite serious.jpg (24KB, 288x252px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 288x252px

>>32791646
>it's like germans love unnecessary ___

>>32791646
In all fairness they were quite easy and cheep to produce

>>32791480
Sorry but tanks and gun motor carriages do very different jobs. Or rather, tanks are capable of doing far more than what gun motor carriages can do.

>>32791583
They could have produced a shitload more of them. It was a highly successful vehicle.

File: Jagdpanzer38.jpg (311KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1920x1280px

>>32791968
As a whole sure but look at all those seams like holy shit man.

Atleast they wizened up a bit later.

>>32792007
People always say this but what exactly can a tank really do that an assault gun can't?

>>32792104
More armor, being able to turn its turret means it doesn't have to be pre-positioned, etc.

File: Hetzer_lesany.jpg (367KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1024x768px

>>32792124
>More armor

How come? I mean isn't it the other way around? Tanks have turrets that add weight. I mean just look at this Hetzer, 100mm of frontal armor for the weight of only 15 tons.

>being able to turn its turret means it doesn't have to be pre-positioned

Other than the enemy possibly seeing an assault gun because it is turning i don't see how this is really a problem.

>>32792176
And it's side armour is nonexistent
Take it into an urban area or try fighting in bobcages with it and you will loose

It not having a turret also makes it incredibly hard to engage infantry
The main purpose of a tank

File: Hetzer_lesany turret.jpg (19KB, 250x104px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 250x104px

>>32792218
I'm not really sure why it would fare much worse than a turreted tank in urban combat, it's not like you're supposed to be peeking corners or something in a tank.

>It not having a turret also makes it incredibly hard to engage infantry

But anon, for infantry purposes it essentially does have a turret.

>>32792288
Does that thing have a periscope attached to it?

>>32792176
Hetzer does not have 100mm plates.

File: hetzer turret.jpg (61KB, 500x390px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x390px

>>32792350
yeah

>>32792366
It has 60 mm plates angled to an effective thickness of a bit over 100 mm.

>>32791480

Turreted tanks are more useful in a wider variety of situations.

Germany had bigger problems than what tank they used. They did not lose the war because they didn't build enough StuG's.

>>32792376
>tfw M1 Abrams used to have this as standard for the commander, but it got removed so that he could get a bunch of maps and displays instead, only for them to add the feature back in later on

>>32792376
>Those grip positions

I wonder how effective it was. Or how effective the bow machine guns were as well. You never hear about the radio operator receiving a medal for 25 confirmed kills or stuff like that

File: Panzerjäger_G_13_-_Steel_Parade_2006.jpg (573KB, 2336x2160px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 2336x2160px

Is there an argument to be made for abandoning the heavier tank designs and focusing on up gunning and simplifying the Panzer IV, and being able produce more of them?

Could said hypothetical tank then take over the roles of tank destroyers and assault guns aswell?

>>32792409
Can you even upgun it while using the same turret? And if you change for a bigger turret it's gonna get heavy, can the chassis handle it?

>>32792399

Looks like one level is for up/down, and the other to assist in rotating, along with the trigger. So maybe after a bit of practice you'd probably be able to be pretty accurate since it's hard mounted to a damn tank.

>>32792409

The whole reason heavier tanks exist is because they can mount bigger guns.

There is a relationship between the size of the turret ring and the maximum size of the gun you can mount within it. The bigger the ring, the bigger the hull and turret. The IV's great weakness in the long run was its small turret ring.

The Tiger's turret ring (74") was eight inches wider than the Panzer IV's (66"), for example. For comparison, an M1's is 85". You can cram a LOT more gun into that space.

Something else people forget about this particular facet of tank design is that the size of the gun isn't just its barrel diameter and length, there is a whole bunch of stuff on the breech end that has to fit inside and move within the turret. The size of the ammunition is also important - it's possible to put a gun that will fit into a turret that uses ammunition that is too long to actually be loaded into the breech (because it just bumps into the back of the turret).

A Panzer IV's turret had to fit three people, the gun, and some ammo/enough room to maneuver it. It really didn't have a lot of space.

>>32792399
The obvious downside of the one on the hetzer is that you'd have to lean out to reload it after using up the ammunition.

I expect it was only designed to suppress the enemy, perhaps to cover the vehicle's withdrawl.

>>32791480
>of it been more practical to focus solely on producing them rather than other types of tanks or to continue as they did?
Tanks and Stugs went into different branches of arms, anon.

File: 1390661441799.jpg (67KB, 282x341px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 282x341px

>>32792487

What an informative post.

Did I enter the wrong board?

File: IMG_3340.jpg (527KB, 1185x803px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1185x803px

>>32792124
>more armor

>>32793633
non_stop_warfare.jpg

>>32792104
Traverse

>>32791968
They were a dumbed down PzKw 3. Same chassis/hull, larger gun. No turret because the Pz3 turret ring was too small to accomodate larger guns.

StuG was a stopgap measure. Highly effective, but stopgap nonetheless.

>>32793438
He's new. He'll learn how to shitpost soon enough.

>>32792376
holy shit this is news to me

>>32794002
Not sure how its a stop gap considering it doesn't perform the same role as the Pz III, which was primarily to fight other tanks where as the StuG was an assault gun that later became a tank destroyer as well. In fact, the Pz IV could be considered a stop gap as it was removed from its original role of infantry support and fitted with a larger gun in order to have an alternative for the under gunned Pz III as medium tank after the Germans found Soviet armor a bit tougher than they had anticipated.

File: 1472141326049.jpg (415KB, 1024x840px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 1024x840px

>>32793633
Camo so great it took 27 years to find.

>>32791480

The StuG was a competent design that made clever use of the ineffective design of German manufacturing.


The Panzer 3 was clearly obsolete, but the StuG could make use of many common parts while producing in inexpensive, versatile AFV that can interchangeably swap between being a light assault gun and a tank destroyer.


The problem- the issue with all casemate vehicles- was that it's lack of a turret was damning in any sort of maneuvering that would be conducted in organized, prolonged assaults.

>>32792024
They did you fucking mong, it was the most produced armored fighting vehicle of the war that the Germans fielded.

>>32792409
The Panzer IV was already on its last legs during WWII. Its suspension just couldn't handle all of the extra upgrades the German kept slapping on it. The IV would have needed a major redesign, or the Germans should have put more focus into working out the Panther's kinks.

>>32795144
I just want to know how you lose a tank. I mean, did the crew just vanish? Whoever was in charge of that operation must have shit.
>Dear diary,
>fuck

File: tank advance.jpg (34KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 720x576px

>>32795144
>>32795271

>In 1974 the last prototype was discovered abandoned in a field at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. It is unknown where it spent the intervening 27 years.

Wait, what? Did it just show up overnight? Was it hidden behind a cow? Explain

>>32795178
The suspension on the PZ IV wasn't as over loaded as the "cats", but leaf-spring just isn't very good. The problem with the Pz IV was that it became a dead end pretty quickly (which isn't surprising considering it was supposed to be an infantry support tank forced into another role), the hull layout and turret ring diameter meant only so much could be changed.

>>32795271
I think it was being moved and it broke down, it was a dead project any way so they just left it there.

File: 1467868315859.jpg (185KB, 1039x1280px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1039x1280px

>>32795862
> It was reported that one tank burned up during trials, and the other was broken up for scrap during the Korean War. Yet, in 1974, a T28 was found sitting on a range at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. It is still a mystery as to where this tank spent the years 1947 to 1974. The tank was dismantled and shipped to the General Patton Museum at Fort Knox, Kentucky, where it is on prominent display.

They probably drove it out into a field and it broke down. Then they didn't want to deal with it anymore and reported it destroyed. Finally decades later some hunter just stumbles upon it and reports it to the army.

>>32795862
Isn't that obvious to you? Alien abduction. They landed it back after they were done with probing its ass. The sick fucks.

>>32792088
arnt those based on czech tanks?

>>32797074
Panzer 38(t)

>>32794874
pz/iv's role was never infantry support. that was the stug's role

>>32798163
It became the Stug's role because Germans couldn't make enough tanks. Germans wanted to have 2 tank battalions for each infantry division similar to how the US army was equipped, but had trouble scraping together 2 tank battalions for their tank divisions.

>>32798253
it was always the stug's role. that was manstein's idea behind the stug. i can fetch the quotes from spielberger if you'dl ike

>>32798329
Manstein didn't have the kind of influence over the German army that you apparently think he had.

yes, of course. much more likely that panzers were used for infantry support and the assault guns were only diverted to that purpose once production difficulties set in due to allied air strikes. you're quite astute, anon.

>>32798163
The Panzer 4 was originally an infantry support vehicle equipped with a low velocity gun intended to vomit HE rounds.


The original design Guderian came up with even called for a short barreled 75mm howitzer-like gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_37

>>32798163
Wrong.

>>32799728
panzer iv was to support TANKS, not infantry

>>32792409
I think they should have continued to produce the Pz IV and StuGs until the Panther could be fully developed. No need to build expensive Tigers and other wunderwaffe.

>>32799785
You want to try explaining that again?

The Panzer IV was originally conceived as a support vehicle to provide firepower assistance to infantry movements, it was not meant for tank engagement until they gave it a high velocity gun later on.

>>32799813
>You want to try explaining that again?
were the words too big to understand? I'm not sure i could make it more clear. the panzer iv was to support light tanks, not infantry. it's 7.5 cm gun had better AP performance than the 3.7 cm gun and was comparable to the 42-caliber 5 cm gun; the panzer iv was the preferred antitank vehicle in france, for example. go back to world of tanks.

>>32799873
You're retarded
>>32799813
You're right

File: 1428669809295.jpg (27KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x480px

>>32799873
>the panzer iv was to support light tanks

>>32800107
>panzer-divisionen supporting infantry, just as guderian intended

>>32796046
Id bet some dude wanted to keep it, and stashed it. Then never managed to recover it and died/forgot it was there

File: 1939-panzer-division.png (41KB, 822x434px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 822x434px

>>32800138
Panzer divisions contain infantry you drooling retard.

>>32799873
You're a fucking idiot. What paint huffing high school history teacher taught you that horse shit?

>>32800233
thomas jentz and walter spielberger

>>32800265
Alrighty dude, page number and book name.

File: pzld.jpg (486KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1200x900px

>>32800300
why not go right to the source? guderian, Panzer Leader, first da capo press edtion, 1996. p.27

>>32800396
>it's 7.5 cm gun had better AP performance than the 3.7 cm gun

And that paragraph you're showing me says you're wrong, and physics say's your wrong too. Velocity is the big nigger when factoring in a projectiles ability to penetrate armor.

>>32800396
He was anxious that they be equipped with a 50mm.

The 50mm was to be used for AT duty. The 7.5cm was not, as you are claiming it is.

>>32800414
>>32800423
i'm going to go run, so you dipshits will have to look up penetration data by yourselves if you're curious before i get back. i'll help you out, though, since you're both obviously incapable of critical thought or the basest amount of research: http://web.archive.org/web/20001213135800/http://wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/germany.html

>>32800396
Panzer Leader is not a source of anything other than Guderian's tank theories.

File: 10399011_562432887267013_1447562105693635292_n (2).jpg (14KB, 297x331px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 297x331px

>>32800454
>>32800464
I just think there's some kind of communication error going on. I think everyone here agrees that:

a) The Panzer IV was originally conceived as a support tank.

b) The Panzer IV provided support to armored and infantry formations as shown in >>32800230.

What >>32800423 is trying to say is the 75mm short barrel cannon on the early IV was inferior for AT roles versus the upgraded Pz III with the 50mm longer barrel, which has superior penetration performance as shown in >>32800454's link and is not talking about the 37mm the other guy is using to compare to the 75mm.

>>32792487
Different anon, here--what if they had up-gunned with a high-low pressure gun? Soviet tanks were vulnerable to both HEAT and HESH, so rifled and smooth bores would both have been in play.

>>32792104
fuck, it's this guy again.
you're almost as bad as that armored gunboat faggot

>>32800537

This confusion stems from people never understanding what "support tank" means.

1. Infantry takes ground.
2. You want your tank to help them take ground.
3. The enemy also has tanks.
4. The enemy wants his tanks to help his infantry take ground.
5. Ergo, your support tank will bump into other enemy support tanks.

So engaging enemy tanks was always part of a support tank's mission. The "cruiser" tanks were actually the specialized ones; meant to be fast and zippy and mounting *only* AT armament (a high-velocity 37mm, usually) to tackle enemy armor. The speed was supposed to allow for super swift ~maneuverings~ and shit.

Didn't work out that way in practice, but, you know.

File: 1479532794881.jpg (272KB, 1431x835px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1431x835px

>>32798253
>>32799728
>>32799750
German tanks were never supposed to support infantry Stugs one the other hand were specifically designed to that role.

Emphasis:
>Contrary to this it can be determined that although armor and assault artillery can be viewed as very similar weapons in a technical sense, they must be considered completely different branches in regards to tactics. No one in earlier times thought of attaching the Infantry to the Cavalry on the attack. And just as few people would have asked a Cavalryman to attack in cadence with the Infantry.
>...
>In any case, in order to attack independently they must have the necessary tools to fulfill the mission. As soon as one tries to couple them with other units, they lose the value of their very nature.
Burdened by infantry support tanks lose their nature.

>Above all, it can be seen that the Sturmartillerie should not be utilized in the sphere of armor units, but rather in that of the normal Infantry Division. A clean separation of the two branches is necessary if the two do not want to operate according to the improper doctrines.
>A clean separation of the two branches is necessary if the two do not want to operate according to the improper doctrines.
>if the two do not want to operate according to the improper doctrines.

Another
>It must also be able to knock out enemy tanks, in comparison to them it has inferior armor, but a superior ability to observe and shoot first.
StuG had antitank requirement from the very beginning, before first vehicle was made. So when people say that German AFVs with 75mm shorty were not supposed to fight tank they can be more wrong. Also they are wrong when say that installation of long 75mm changed doctrine of StuG. No. Its was necessary upgrade of firepower to meet Sturmartillerie requirements in the new conditions of heavily armored tanks.

>>32800681

HEAT wasn't that great yet in WW2, and the germans really liked shooting people at long range. They had good optics with high-velocity guns, which allowed them to outrange their enemies in many situations.

The ISU-152 was used to engage tigers for instance, but scoring a hit was quite hard. The reloading of such high calibers is also hard, the ISU carried 21 rounds, and the shells were 40+ kgs.

Ultimately very few tanks were fitted with low-velocity guns. I know some 105 shermans existed, but I'm not sure if the 105mm Hetzer is real. These guns were always used as anti-infantry or anti-structure weapons too.

>>32803400
>HEAT wasn't that great yet in WW2
were they not saying shit like "HEAT will make tanks obsolete any day now!" because it was so great?

>>32803516
>were they not saying shit like "HEAT will make tanks obsolete any day now!" because it was so great?

Not him, but considering the design concepts in early cold war tanks (particulary the Leopard 1), people at least were very much aware of the potential.
The main problem with HEAT in WW2 simply was that it was hard to produce compared to normal rounds. Much like HVAP rounds for the Americans, German tank crews were lucky if they could get their hands on 2-3 of them if at all.
Another possible factor might have been that at the time they maybe didn't work as well with high velocity guns, which meant a shorter effective range. Although I'm not sure about that, after all nowadays HEAT works fine with guns like the 120mm Rheinmetall.

>>32803516
That was after world war 2 when they found out that HEAT works great when it does not spin and a new type of electrical fuze was developed so the HEAT round would detonate faster then before so you could have higher velocity.
Before they had to be low velocity since the fuze was too slow to react otherwise and the round spinned so performance was less then normal AP rounds.

File: Jagdpanther_B_Garage.jpg (433KB, 1388x770px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 1388x770px

The sexiest.

>>32792409
The conventional explanation is that the hull was too small to put a bigger engine into it.

>>32792487
They didn't need to upgun the Panzer IV. It was roughly equivalent to the 76mm and 17 pounder.

>>32803624
>HVAP
heat needs no spin guns. its hy the Chely2 has rounds that have literally s wivel in the middle preventing the hollow charge from spinning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzu9xfGWUFg

disregard the title.

>>32792350
The Sherman's radio operator had a periscope sighted for the ball turret.

>>32803726
> its hy the Chely2 has rounds that have literally s wivel in the middle preventing the hollow charge from spinning.

That's interesting to know.
The reason I mentioned HVAP before was to roughly compare how scarce both of these types of ammunition were, of course they work completely different.
Perhaps part of the scarcity was what >>32803647 mentioned (who wants inferior ammo after all), then again, if it would've been completly inferior compared to normal AP rounds it certainly would've begged the question why to produce it in the first place. It's only use would have been to give short guns some token AT capability.

It was Hitlers creation.

It was good but Dont forget that Hitler killed all funding for Jet engine developement.

I wounder, was he against invading Turkey or was not invading Turkey the Rech's undoing?

(Turkey valuable metle manufacturer that china wishes it had to this day).

>>32803813
The Turks were already selling the Germans certain ores that were difficult to obtain otherwise, that and the Germans were dangerously over extended as it was.

>>32792409
The Panzer IV was a tank designed to weigh 17 tons that ended the war weighing 25 tons.
Along with the complicated manufacturing procedure it was found that the thank was just getting too heavy to upgrade anymore. The weight was mostly on the front as well, due to armor increasing from 15mm in 1938 to 80mm in 1943, causing the tank to "lean" forwards and heavily overtaxing the transmission specifically, but also the tank in general. It also led to the tank digging itself into soft ground because of the extremely un equal weight distribution.

Redesigning a new tank similar to the PzIV would be one thing, but the PzIV was a design stemming from the 30s. Only so many band aids could be applied.

By comparison the King Tiger was a much more solid overall design. It had a great turret, its power to weight ratio and weight distribution was good, the armor was solid, and in general the hull rather simple to manufacture.
Its issues really stem from just how heavy it was, and how big it was. Although its design was solid on paper in practice the weight problem rendered theory pointless.

It's the same reason the IS-3 and 4 were so bad, it just got too heavy.

Tank design in the 40s had a sweet spot of 30-40 tons. That's the area you could achieve the best armor and armament without killing your reliability and maintenance costs.

Any lighter and it wasn't fit for tank duty, any heavier and it wasn't fit for combat at all.

If the turks where selling the Germans certain Ores then why did the 004's die between 1.5 and 4 hours of use?

They where melting, because the turks obviously did not suply as You say.

Mordern technology and the internet can teach us how and why but back then the germans Obviously did not have a wartime luxury per se.

File: 123141245.jpg (7KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x225px

>>32803908
Nigga what are you talking about

Im talking about regular steel melting when it is a Jet engine without adding allos resistent to heat.

The germans did not have supply of ores resistent to heat, but an apearant abbundance of steel to make tanks instrad.

But "Nigga" was that the case? did germany do what it did because of avaliable resources (progress in technology) or was it Hitlers Stupidity.

File: 14232757191.png (10KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 429x410px

>>32803963
English isn't your first language is it?

Also do you not know how to reply to posts? Click on the numbers at the end of a post to reply to someone.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here but uh, why are you even talking about jets in a thread about tanks to begin with?

=/ sorry

>>32803673
>mfw angled hulldown bouncing shits from 120mm all day erryday

File: Capture.png (139KB, 1108x693px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1108x693px

>>32804025
No no it's fine, but seriously, see these numbers I circled?
Click on those if you want to directly respond to someone. Makes conversations flow a lot easier and it's less confusing for everyone.

I'm not sure what your format is exactly but it should be pretty close to mine.

>>32804062
Why are you responding to an obvious troll? Jesus, how stupid are you?

File: 1e6a5effa88d3246bc01bd62d415eca3.jpg (42KB, 600x634px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x634px

>>32804160
I don't see how he's a troll man, he just comes across as foreign. This is an international site and his typing pattern makes it seem like he's using a translator of some kind.
But he's hardly shitposting. Not maliciously at least, seems to just be Google butchering whatever he's trying to say.

>>32803809
Well for starters it does the same penetration regardless of range and has anti infantry capabilities unlike normal AP rounds since it is explosive so that's a good start.

World war 2 was a testing ground for weaporny and ideas. Even old 37mm gun was made relevant when a special HEAT round was developed for it. The power for HEAT rounds in world war 2 was dependent on the diameter of the round. A HEAT round from a ISU-152 could penetrate a wooping 250mm of RHA which is alot more then what guns at that day could do regardless of range.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stielgranate_41

HEAT rounds for tanks got to it's best after world war 2 due to many technological improvments and the penetrative power you could get from a HEAT round vs APDS rounds was far greater.

File: 1458346144145.jpg (684KB, 1596x2192px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1596x2192px

>>32803647
>Before they had to be low velocity since the fuze was too slow to react otherwise
Soviet 115mm HEAT round for U-5TS gun (T-62 tank), initial velocity 900 m/s worked with spit-back fuse, same type German WWII rounds had.

>>32791480
>would it have been
You illiterate fucking imbecile

>>32800681
HEAT and HESH were literally invented during WWII, technology was implanted as soon as it matured. Using this technology earlier requires to much of hindsight.

>>32804392
Well damn.

Well I might have mixed up my cards so to speak. When looking up the source the new type of fuze enabled heat rounds to have a velocity of 1200 meters to ensure that the HEAT round reliably detonates fast enough.

Too be fair the 115mm HEAT round is not spinning. Having high velocity for a round fired in a rifled gun with nothing to counter the spin would impare the performance of the HEAT jet.

File: 7c1e3a1d4e516335186a40e1ab604b7f.jpg (14KB, 234x216px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 234x216px

>>32800694
>you're almost as bad as that armored gunboat faggot

>zeppelins
>gliders
>militarized barges
>armored gunboats
>StuG-style assault guns

What's next, armored trains?

>>32800681
>Soviet tanks were vulnerable to both HEAT
every tank is vulnerable to HEAT. it's fucking metal going Mach 20.

File: sibirak.jpg (107KB, 800x501px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 800x501px

>>32804744
eat shit fag

>>32794874
I was unclear on what I was trying to say. The StuG started life as an infantry support platform, then morphed into a TD with the addition of the long barreled gun, and probably got pressed into tank roles later in the war when it was the only thing available to local commanders.

The design wasn't stopgap, the applications often were.

>>32793733
>Traverse

verb
1.
travel across or through.
"he traversed the forest"
synonyms: travel over/across, cross, journey over/across, make one's way across, pass over, go across, negotiate; More

I'm confused by what you are trying to say with your post.

>>32805025
>then morphed into a TD
StuG was tank destroyer (among) other things from the birth. >>32803328

>>32791480
>enter hostile urban environment without turret
>reach crossroads
>JUST.jpeg