Why didn't Germany just build a million stugs?

stug a shit

>>33384340
Because they would have lost the war anyway

>>33384340
Because they got nerfed after the update

>>33384340

No offensive capability.

>>33384340
no rotating turret means vulnerability.

>>33387108
But they're so much cheaper
3 stugs for the price of one Pz3

>>33387117
If germany produced only stugs, they would still be outnumbered by combined shermans and t-34s (both of which are superior to pz 4 let alone a fucking stug).

They would have still lost the air war too.

>>33385422

Try again. Finnish Army used its Stug IIIG mostly for counter-attacks and achieved kill ratio of about 1 : 11 (8 Stug IIIG lost for 87 Soviet tanks & assault guns knocked out). For its cost the vehicle was highly effective.

>>33385422
THEYRE FUCKING ASSAULT GUNS
ASSAULT = offensive capability

>>33387117

there is no way a stug is 1/3 the cost of a pz3

Although the Finns used them to great effect offensively, they were fighting mediocre Soviet units and were using favorable terrain to do so.

The StuG itself was excellent at shooting whatever was in front of it, however, its lack of a turret limited its flexibility in an evolving battlefield scenario. They could operate offensively, and did, but generally not offensively against enemy armor due to them being highly vulnerable to flanking or counterattacks against them. They were also very poor at fighting inside a city, even moreso than turreted tanks were.

The Germans used them very effectively as mobile anti tank guns, but that was in a defensive posture. Offensively StuGs did not perform well against the Western Allies.

>>33384340
I'm assuming you are retarded.

If they focused on a single platform, it would've been easier for the allies to produce a single counter.

They were short on manpower anyway so trying to train 3x as many tank crews is pushing it.

They were low on spare parts and fuel and even though the stug was more reliable and fuel efficient than say the tiger, it wasn't 5 times worth.

No rotating turret means harder flanking maneuvers and firing on the move (other than forward) which greatly reduces tactical flexibility.

>>33387456
Not an expert but I'd wager turrets are expensive, as is armor if the Pz.3 had more.

The problem wasn't stugs, the problem was not capturing Stalingrad when they had the chance and not reaching Moscow in time.

>>33387463

Not really. Soviet units that Finnish assault guns faced in 1944 (the only year when Finnish Army Stug IIIG assault guns saw combat use) included units varied from mediocre to elite (such as 30th Guard Tank Corps) in Soviet scale.

It's debatable if terrain was really favorable either. Sparse road network with plenty of forests & swamps and every now and then small open fields. This sort of terrain forced assault guns to be pretty much used only along at roads, while Soviet tanks due to their better mobility were not quite as severely limited. Due o to terrain practically all tank vs. tank engagements happened from short or relatively short distances.

>>33387228
Pz 4, T-34, and Sherman are about equal.

T-34 is tough as shit but doesn't have good aiming capability.

Sherman is reliable machine, had numbers, but had thin armor and short range (but upgrades and variants ironed this out over time).

Pz. 4 is lower numbers cuz quality machine, good cannon (on later variants) not easy to repair though (cuz muh quality).

Putting all this together they are roughly equal machines and the question moves on to economic, crew training, and strategic factors.

>>33387424
They were termed as such because their original intent was to serve as direct fire artillery, to operate close to the infantry.

I wouldn't say that they had 'no' offensive capability. However, if we're to compare the StuG III or IV to their turreted equivalents, we find that the turreted tanks carry more ammunition. This is something that often gets overlooked, and is important when carrying out an offensive operation.

The lack of a turret is also a big deal, as when in an offensive posture, enemy threats and antitank defenses can show up anywhere, and everywhere. A turreted tank will be able to react faster, and more effectively, to such a sudden change. There's also the issue of being able to use terrain to your advantage, which a turreted vehicle will have an easier time doing while in an offensive posture.

The reality of the war, of course, had StuGs in a defensive posture being the most efficient vehicle. That being said, you don't win a war by remaining on the defensive, and large scale offensive operations with the StuG as the primary form of offense might well not have ended very well for the Germans due to a more frequent need to restock ammunition (resulting on units having to halt) and an inability to respond to threats revealing themselves outside of their limited cone of fire.

>all those geometric shapes in the front of the tank

It's like the Germans loved useless welds.

>>33387977
meh, Napoleon captured 'cow, except the burnt it to the ground before he got there. Russia is big man. They shudda pushed more south and grabbed oil/wheat fields w/ the same industrial strength as north.