A question on assault guns...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

A question on assault guns...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> A question on assault guns...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A question on assault guns... - 8/17/2001 7:58:00 AM

Mentant

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/7/2001
Status: offline

OK, I am relatively new to this game, and having no time to play makes my learning curve drag out even further, but oh well... I am just curious as to the "proper" historical and practical in game usage of assault guns... (i assume that game usage has to differ somewhat from the historical use.)
In the past, I assumed rather incorrectly, I think now, that Assault guns were a hybrid of a CS tank, that also could pose a credible threat to enemy armour.... sortof like a wierd hybrid of a tank destroyer/infantry support vehicle. Experience is starting to tell me that this is not the case, and its best to fight armour with armour, or at least hidden infantry, AT units. In addition the Pz-IV seems better suited for infantry support to me, than does the early Stugs... (ie. ausf B) Trying to figure out the intended role for this unit then, I turned to the manual, which has the ambiguous line that direct fire attacks on hexes with an unspotted enemy will have a higher chance of casualties when using an Assault Gun, then other weapons. (This is not an exact quote, but was implied) So then, am I to assume that the role of the AG is only to help clear out entrenched infantry, and unspotted AT guns, at least early on in the war... For some reason I have it in my mind that the Germans used Stugs in an anti-tank role... is that just me hallucinating again, or is there truth to that? Anyways, thank you in advance for any help you can offer me, as well as for putting up with my ramblings

HURRY UP WITH MCLV! IM ALMOST DONE WITH MISSION 1 OF MCNA!!! hehe

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 8/17/2001 8:56:00 AM

sinner

Posts: 174
Joined: 5/7/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Hi Mentant, In early stages of the war (Stugs with 7,5 cm Kurtz gun), they were mobile artillery for infantry units. Later, when the Wermach started beign on the defensive, they changed they role to infantry unit's self-propelled anti-tank gun. If you check the Encyclopedia of the game and read the notes, you'll see this. I just changed some infantry guns 7,5 cm to Stugs, so they are mobile and protected by some armour. Hopefully, they will survive and become JadgPanthers or something.
Salut

_____________________________

Sinner from the Prairy<br />"Thalassa! Thalassa!"

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 2

- 8/17/2001 10:08:00 AM

Mentant

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/7/2001
Status: offline

Ok, so I will just treat the earlier versions as a mobile infantry gun, and the later ones as mobile AT guns then... tks!

_____________________________

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 3

- 8/17/2001 3:31:00 PM

Sunray

Posts: 30
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline

See http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8662/stug.htm and http://www.gamesofwar.de/History/section4.html (point 4b gives the official German doctrine for the "attack by mechanized and motorized forces")
from the Handbook on German Military Forces, published by the US War Department.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 4

- 8/17/2001 4:33:00 PM

Mai Thai

Posts: 95
Joined: 4/21/2001
From: Switzerland
Status: offline

To Mentant: StuG's were supposed to give close support to foot troops like infantry gun in a more mobile way.
During the war things have changed and StuG's proved to be also good and cheap tank destroyers, so they were spread into two categories:
1)assault guns:
StuG III A to E with 75mm short barreled gun (StuK 37 L/24)
StuG III F with 75mm L/43 or L/48 gun (indicated as StuG III F/8) was used in both roles
StuG 33 B or E armed with 150mm sIG33 L/11
StuG 33 F/8 armed with 150mm sIG33 L/11
StuG 42 G armed with 105mm StuH 42 L/28 2)tank destroyers
StuG III F, F/8 and G armed with 75mm StuK 40 gun
StuG IV - 75mm StuK 40 L/48 Glossary:
Sturmgeschuetz (StuG) - Assault Gun (the tank)
Sturmkanone (StuK) - assault gun (the gun itself)
Sturm-Infanteriegesch�tz (SIG) - Assault Infantry Gun
Sturmpanzerhaubitze (StuH) - Assault Howitzer
L/- (kaliber/lange) - Caliber Length Hope this would help you
Bye By the way for the people interested in the Sealion operation it was planned by the Germans to convert 12 StuG III into submersible assault guns, but, as history has teached, this has never happened. [ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: Mai Thai ]

_____________________________

-- occupy it, administer it, exploit it

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 5

- 8/17/2001 9:23:00 PM

Mentant

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/7/2001
Status: offline

Thanks alot guys, I really appreciate it!

_____________________________

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 6

- 8/17/2001 9:45:00 PM

lnp4668

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline

I found that the stug F & F8 are much better than the Pz III and early IV (before the long gun version) They are cheaper, hit harder and better armored to boost. The trick is not to move them before shooting

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 7

- 8/18/2001 3:50:00 AM

Kluckenbill

Posts: 278
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Lancaster, PA, USA
Status: offline

I think that the later model StuG's are some of the most cost effective units in the game. I usually buy at least a few of them in every PBEM game. They have pretty good frontal armor.
They have a gun capable of taking out all but the heaviest Allied tanks at moderate ranges.
They are reasonably accurate, reasonably mobile and reasonably cheap.

_____________________________

Target, Cease Fire !

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 8

- 8/18/2001 4:15:00 AM

SAMWolf

Posts: 141
Joined: 7/30/2000
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Mai Thai:
To Mentant: By the way for the people interested in the Sealion operation it was planned by the Germans to convert 12 StuG III into submersible assault guns, but, as history has teached, this has never happened. [ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: Mai Thai ]

The Germans did however convert some PZ III's to be submersible for Sealion and ended up using them in the initial invasion of the Soviet Union to cross the Bug.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 9

- 8/18/2001 5:36:00 AM

Supervisor

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline

speaking of SeaLion, can we get that as a campaign/scenario at some point?
I know its a lot of "what if", but that'd kinda be cool!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 10

- 8/18/2001 8:30:00 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by SAMWolf:
The Germans did however convert some PZ III's to be submersible for Sealion and ended up using them in the initial invasion of the Soviet Union to cross the Bug.

Aren't these in the German OOB? Tauchpanzers?

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 11

- 8/18/2001 9:06:00 PM

john g

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Klaus von Stauffenberg:
speaking of SeaLion, can we get that as a campaign/scenario at some point?
I know its a lot of "what if", but that'd kinda be cool!!

Someone has already announced that they were working on a Sealion campaign.
thanks, John.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 12

- 8/18/2001 10:02:00 PM

James P

Posts: 58
Joined: 3/1/2001
From: Bedford, UK
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Kluckenbill:
[QB]I think that the later model StuG's are some of the most cost effective units in the game. I usually buy at least a few of them in every PBEM game.

Agree 100% about buying Stug's instead of over priced Tigers and Panthers. When your facing paper thin Shermans they more than do the job. Going back to the orginial point, this raises something I've been thinking about....Does anyone out there ever buy CS tanks? I really struggle to find a role for them in the game. In tank vs tank combat their main gun lets them down, and vs leg troops I hardly ever get kills with the main weapon. The MG's seem much more effective. This is a shame as I would like to buy units like Brummbars and Shermans 105's just break up the boring "standard" formations I end up with. Any one found a way to effectivly use these CS units?

_____________________________

Cheers, JP

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 13

- 8/18/2001 10:34:00 PM

lnp4668

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by James P:

Going back to the orginial point, this raises something I've been thinking about....Does anyone out there ever buy CS tanks? I really struggle to find a role for them in the game. In tank vs tank combat their main gun lets them down, and vs leg troops I hardly ever get kills with the main weapon. The MG's seem much more effective. This is a shame as I would like to buy units like Brummbars and Shermans 105's just break up the boring "standard" formations I end up with. Any one found a way to effectivly use these CS units?

The only CS units that I found effective is the Sturmtiger. Those things could really wreck havoc on infantry formation. However, it only have 13 or so shots, so ammo trucks are a must.

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 14

- 8/18/2001 11:21:00 PM

Mentant

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/7/2001
Status: offline

Hmm.... can Stugs overrun? I have never tried it, but i know that Pz-IVCs can overrun, as can all tanks.... It might be a difference between being an assault gun (which I cannot see overrunning infantry in light of these facts) and a CS tank... It seems to me that CS tanks should follow the infantry closely, overrunning enemy infantry to allow the MBTs to exploit the breach... assault guns seem to be more like mobile artillery...
I could be all wrong though, my experience being so limited with SP, but it makes sense in my mind.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 15

- 8/18/2001 11:37:00 PM

Jack

Posts: 309
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

On the fourth post Sunray included some links. Any of you guys go to them? The reason I am asking is because in one of the pictures there is a tanker with a pair of binoculars mounted to the vehicle. Now is that for the crew commanders own benifit? Is it an Arty vehicle to call it in? Or is it to sight targets for the gunner? Anybody know for sure? [ August 18, 2001: Message edited by: Jack ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 16

- 8/19/2001 10:05:00 AM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by James P:
Going back to the orginial point, this raises something I've been thinking about....Does anyone out there ever buy CS tanks?

Always, they are a great addition to an Infantry Co. Why I even like the little 75mm Inf Guns, they are wonderful against light Soviet tanks, even the HE. They are excelent for taking out MGs. The SIG 33 in all it's variations is great. Just shoot into a group of infantry and cause all sorts of havoc. The late war 251/9's are great too, good infantry suppression and an AT capability that should not be laughed at. Just the other night I had one take out an SU122 at a range of 2 (side shot) and not get spotted (one Iron Cross coming up).
The Americans 105 Sherman just shoot into a group of German infantry and instant suppression. Oh yea for a bunker buster it's great if there is no AT in the bunker. And to think the Germans thought it unfair of the Americans to use the 105 SPA's in direct fire mode to suppress bunkers then attack with engineers. [ August 18, 2001: Message edited by: pbear ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 17

- 8/20/2001 5:27:00 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Jack:
On the fourth post Sunray included some links. Any of you guys go to them? The reason I am asking is because in one of the pictures there is a tanker with a pair of binoculars mounted to the vehicle. Now is that for the crew commanders own benifit? Is it an Arty vehicle to call it in? Or is it to sight targets for the gunner? Anybody know for sure? [ August 18, 2001: Message edited by: Jack ]

As far as I can see, the binoculars are for the commander's benefit. (or gunner..) StuGs had periscopes and binoculars, thus eliminating the need for a vision slit in the frontal armor. Call in arty? Heck, StuGs ARE arty

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 18

- 8/20/2001 7:05:00 PM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Belisarius:
As far as I can see, the binoculars are for the commander's benefit. (or gunner..) StuGs had periscopes and binoculars, thus eliminating the need for a vision slit in the frontal armor. Call in arty? Heck, StuGs ARE arty

You are correct. References state that the gunner's sight was moved from the frontal slope to the top to eleminate that weak spot in the armor. And yes, they are artillery. The references go into that in interesting detail I recommend reading them all.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Mentant)

Post #: 19