Assault artillery: StuG III and its descendants

62
Assault artillery: StuG III and its descendants
StuG III Ausf. F / 8 in Tunisia. Source: Panzer Tracts


Speaking of World War II, we are used to the fact that the most important and massive tracked armored vehicles usually seem Tanks. These are primarily Soviet T-34s and American Shermans. But self-propelled guns were on the sidelines. And really, what is 5 SU-100s compared to 31 T-34-85s?



However, in Germany the situation is different. The most massive tracked armored vehicle among the Germans was the StuG III - together with the StuH 42, 10,5 thousand of them were produced. Only StuG III Ausf. G assembled 7 vehicles - more than all the "long-barreled" Pz. Kpfw. IV combined.

StuG III not only became the most massive, but also gave rise to a number of other German self-propelled guns. And not only German ones - with an eye on the StuG III, the Italian Semovente da 75/18, the Hungarian Zrinyi, as well as the Soviet SU-122 were created.

In this article, we will trace the path from the idea of ​​the future StuG III to the final plans of Nazi Germany in 1945.

Creation of assault artillery


The French campaign of 1940 was not just a battle between German tanks and French. Different doctrines clashed on the battlefield. The Germans assembled tanks in large groups, created an advantage and seized the initiative. But the French infantry command "smeared" the tanks over the infantry units in small groups. True, the cavalrymen disposed of their equipment much more reasonably, but this could not turn the tide of the war.

We know that the German approach was better. But this does not mean that the infantry can be left without support. Back in June 1936, the future Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, then a colonel, proposed a new look weapons - assault artillery, in German Sturmartillerie.

Unlike tanks, assault guns (Sturmgeschuetze) operated in small groups and were assigned to infantry units. Their main task is to follow the infantry into the attack and cover it with fire, hitting enemy machine guns and tanks with direct fire. These requirements determined the features of assault guns: powerful frontal armor, a closed wheelhouse, a small gun elevation angle, and the optional presence of a machine gun.


One of the first five prototypes of the Pz. Sfl. III on the Pz. Kpfw. III Ausf. B. Source: Panzer Tracts

Von Manstein's proposal solved several problems at once. The infantry received mobile and protected artillery - something that it lacked so much during the First World War. The crews of the assault guns trained separately from the tankers, so each type of weapon was used according to its own doctrine. Finally, a serious dispute was resolved by itself. General Oswald Lutz advocated the independent use of tanks, with which the more conservative Chief of Staff, General Ludwig Beck, disagreed. After the creation of assault artillery, the supporters of General Beck were calm about the technical equipment of the infantry.

Work on the assault gun began on June 15, 1936. They didn’t reinvent the wheel - Daimler-Benz was given the task of installing a wheelhouse on the Pz. Kpfw. III, and Krupp redesigned the 75-mm Pz. Kpfw. IV under the cabinet. By the fall of 1939, five experienced assault guns Pz. Sfl. III on the Pz. Kpfw. III Ausf. B. These machines were used only for training, as their cuttings were made of mild steel.

So began story Stug III.

The most massive


Chassis Pz. Kpfw. III Ausf. B with weak armor and spring suspension was only a temporary measure. A large series of Sturmgeschuetz was planned based on the new ZW.38 chassis with torsion bar suspension. It promised enhanced armor and high speed, but problems with a tricky transmission and bad tracks thwarted the plan. The Germans wanted to release a series of 96 Pz. Kpfw. III Ausf. E by September 1938, but only one car was delivered for the whole year. And this is on the eve of a big war! There was an acute shortage of tanks, in addition, serious childhood illnesses got out of the released cars.

In general, the ZW.38 project was still a technical adventure, but this topic deserves a separate article.


The first StuG III Ausf. F with a long gun, 9 March 1942. Source: Panzer Tracts

Problems with the production of tanks were also reflected in the production of StuG III, because there was simply not enough chassis for self-propelled guns. The first self-propelled guns StuG III Ausf. A managed to make war in France in 1940 and showed themselves very well. Further, the Germans produced assault guns in small batches, gradually improving the chassis. This went on until the autumn of 1941, when German specialists inspected the T-34 and KV-1 tanks near Moscow. Soviet innovations made it clear that all German tanks were outdated in terms of armor and weapons. This also applied to the StuG III with its 75 mm "cigarette butt".

The solution was found quickly. In the wheelhouse StuG III Ausf. E installed a 75-mm StuK 40 gun with a 43-caliber barrel, similar to the new Pz. Kpfw. IV. Already in March 1942, the production of StuG III Ausf began. F "with a long arm". Now German self-propelled guns could hit any Soviet tank. And in December, the last, most massive series of StuG III Ausf appeared. G. Frontal armor was increased from 50 to 80 mm and a commander's cupola was added. In this form, assault guns were produced until the end of the war.

In other countries


The Soviet military did not immediately see the potential of assault artillery. They knew that the Germans had used new weapons in France, but did not attach much importance to this. In the autumn of 1941, the StuG III hit Kubinka for the first time, but even with the trophy in front of their eyes, the Soviet specialists at first made, to put it mildly, strange conclusions. They mistakenly defined the role of self-propelled guns and clearly underestimated them:

“The artillery attack tank is designed for operations in the first echelon of tanks.
<...>
The armor protection of the tank is affected by artillery of all calibers.


Captured StuG III Ausf. B in the Soviet Union. Source: warspot.ru

Very belatedly, in September 1942, fire tests were carried out. It turned out that the Soviet 45 mm gun could not penetrate the 50 mm frontal armor even at close range. The British "two-pounder" was also useless. The American 37mm cannon was still able to penetrate the StuG III head-on from 100 meters, and only the Czech 37mm cannon confidently worked with sub-caliber shells. The result is quite predictable, because 50 mm is the minimum level of anti-cannon armor. Unlike the German tanks, the StuG III immediately received such frontal protection.


The result of shelling, 1 and 2 - non-penetration of 45-mm shells. With the vulnerability of StuG III, Soviet specialists clearly got excited. Source: warspot.ru

There is reason to believe that the StuG III directly influenced the Soviet self-propelled guns. Middle-class self-propelled guns were developed in the USSR even before the war, but they were completely different vehicles - with an 85-mm cannon in open turrets. In April 1942, it was decided to create an assault gun with a wheelhouse. The result was a self-propelled howitzer SU-122 based on the T-34. The machine had serious shortcomings, for example, the extremely low accuracy of cumulative projectiles and separate vertical and horizontal guidance drives. As a result, it did not become mass, but on its basis successful self-propelled guns SU-85, SU-85M and SU-100 were developed.

The StuG III also affected Germany's allies. At the end of 1940, the Italians decided to create their own German-style assault guns. And they did not fail: Italian tanks quickly became outdated, but Semovente M40 da 75/18 self-propelled guns turned out to be perhaps the best model of Italian armored vehicles. They boasted a 75 mm gun and a low silhouette. Later, assault guns Semovente da 105/25 of 105 mm caliber appeared, but the Italians themselves fought little on them. After the Allies landed in Italy, most of the self-propelled guns went to the Germans.


Semovente M40 da 75/18. Source: tanks-encyclopedia.com

In 1942, Hungary also decided to organize its own assault artillery. Hungarian engineers put a wheelhouse with a 105-mm howitzer on the extended chassis of the Turan tank. This is how the 40 / 43M Zrinyi rohmtrack appeared - the Zrinyi assault howitzer. The car turned out to be successful, with a low silhouette, a smooth ride and a planetary transmission.

However, the Hungarian industry was late and could not produce armored vehicles in large quantities. Modification "Zrinyi" with a 75-mm anti-tank gun and did not go beyond one prototype.

In general, the Italian and Hungarian experience shows that the creation of assault guns could extend the life of obsolete chassis and partly make up for the lack of modern tanks.


40/43M Zrinyi rohmtrack. Source: reddit.com

Rebranding according to Guderian


In 1942, the Germans decided to create assault guns on other chassis. On the one hand, they saw the successful use of the StuG III. On the other hand, Pz. Kpfw. III was definitively obsolete, and stopping its production was a matter of time. Along with this, the question arose about the prospects for StuG III on the same chassis. In September 1942, Vomag was given the task of developing a new design assault gun based on the Pz. Kpfw. IV – Sturmgeschuetz neuer Art. Against the background of a square-nested predecessor, it looked elegant.

If on the StuG III the gun was mounted on a pedestal, now it is hung on the front plate. This reduced weight and improved protection. Part of the armor plates were placed at an angle, and the total height decreased to 1,86 meters. Finally, in the front sheet provided for the installation of a machine gun. Of all the German self-propelled guns with a 75-mm cannon, the development of Vomag turned out to be the most successful. And at the same time, self-propelled guns were assembled at only one plant, and low-quality armor was used for felling. It is surprising why the Germans treated a successful car with such disdain.


The second sample of the Jagdpanzer IV was later used as a training one. Source: Panzer Tracts

And here readers will notice: what a Sturmgescheutz nA, this is the well-known Jagdpanzer IV! However, the self-propelled gun did not immediately receive the usual name. At first, it passed as an assault gun and was conceived as a complete analogue of the StuG III. However, General Guderian was unhappy with the fact that the new self-propelled guns were subordinated to the infantry, and he got the Marder tank destroyers based on outdated chassis with light armor. Therefore, he defended the renaming of assault guns into tank destroyers. Accordingly, the Sturmgescheutz nA became known as the leichter Panzerjaeger IV, a light tank destroyer. And later the usual name Jagdpanzer IV appeared.

A similar path was followed by other self-propelled guns. At a meeting in September 1942, the future Jagdpanther was called Sturmgescheutz auf Panther. Later it was renamed schwerer Panzerjaeger auf Fgst. The Panther I is a heavy tank destroyer based on the Panther I chassis. Ferdinand and Jagdtiger also originally came out as Tiger-Sturmgeschuetz and schweres Sturmgeschuetz mit 12.8 cm Kanone. Please note: the Germans divided tank destroyers with closed cabins only into light and heavy ones, so the Jagdpanzer IV was called light, and the Jagpanther was called heavy.

As much and as cheap as possible


Throughout the war, German industry could not produce as many tanks as the Allies assembled. Under these conditions, the StuG III took a very important role as a mass, cheaper and simpler substitute for the Pz. Kpfw. IV. The Alkett and MIAG factories continued to increase their production rates and in October 1942 almost 400 StuG IIIs were delivered. However, a month later, the Allies bombed the Alkett workshops, and the production of self-propelled guns sank sharply. The Germans in the shortest possible time set up the assembly of the StuG IV, redoing the wheelhouse of the StuG III under the Pz. Kpfw. IV, but it was only a temporary solution. For the production of self-propelled guns, a spare platform was required.


Jagdpanzer 38 in its natural habitat. Notice how inconvenient the commander's seat is. Source: warspot.ru

Then the Germans turned to the Czechs. At the BMM plant, which produced the Pz. Kpfw. 38(t) and vehicles based on it, there was no equipment for assembling self-propelled guns of the 20-ton class, so the engineers had to limit themselves to altering the chassis of a light tank. The project was originally called leichtes Sturmgeschuetz auf 38(t) - a light assault gun based on the 38(t), later it was renamed lechter Panzerjaeger 38 and Jagdpanzer 38.

The weak chassis led to a questionable compromise design. The engine was boosted to the limit, but it was still barely enough. The final drives often broke, and the overweight nose required strengthening of the suspension. The jobs were cramped and blind, and the loader was to the left of the gun, which was designed to be loaded from the right. Because of this, reloading turned into an acrobatic performance. Fragile Czech steel easily split, and in terms of silhouette, it seemed like a small self-propelled gun turned out to be even higher than the Jagdpanzer IV.


Comparison of Jagpanzer 38(t) and 38 D hulls, as well as engine layout options. Source: Walter Spielberger. Die Panzerkampfwagen 35 (t) Und 38 (t) und ihre abarten (Band 11 der Reihe "Militarfahrzeuge") - 1990

With all its many shortcomings, the Jagdpanzer 38 had a decisive advantage - it could be mass-produced here and now, and at a low price. Given that many of the shortcomings were technically fixable, the light Czech self-propelled gun looked promising. In September 1944, the Germans decided to stop assembling the StuG III at the Alkett factory and start producing the improved lechter Panzerjaeger 38 with a Tatra diesel engine at a rate of 1 vehicles per month.

On October 4, 1944, an even more radical plan arose.

In order to unify production as much as possible, the Germans decided to deal with their "zoo" and leave only three types of chassis: Jagdpanzer 38, Panther and Tiger II. Accordingly, StuG III, StuG IV, Jagdpanzer IV and other self-propelled guns were discontinued, at the same time the Panzerjaeger III / IV program on a single chassis (Einheitsfahrgestell) was terminated.

However, the Czech design was foreign to German factories, so Alkett began the Jagdpanzer 38 D project, the German analogue of the Jagdpanzer 38, correcting its shortcomings. The 38 D chassis received a wider and more spacious body, reinforced suspension, a new gearbox and a 220 hp Tatra diesel engine. With. At this base, it was proposed to assemble tank destroyers, reconnaissance vehicles, ZSU and BREM.

In April 1945, the Germans tried to have time to assemble two Jagdpanzer 38 D prototypes, but the end of the war crossed out all plans.


Dreaming is not harmful: plans for the production of armored vehicles in 1945. It can be seen what a big role was assigned to self-propelled guns. Source: Interrogation report of Gerd Stieler von Heidekampf, 28 June 1945

***
We have looked at the path from the idea of ​​assault artillery in 1936 to the latest plans for the German tank industry in 1945. By the middle of the war, the Germans were betting on the mass production of self-propelled guns, and at the end they drew obviously unrealistic plans for 2 light tank destroyers a month. Of course, our story is far from complete. In addition to the usual assault guns, the Germans created a whole line of assault howitzers, which culminated in the monstrous Sturmtigr with a rocket-propelled mortar. However, this topic deserves a separate article.

Sources:
Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle. Sturgmeschuetz: s.Pak to Sturmmoerser (Panzer Tracts Nr. 8) – Darlington Productions, 1999
Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle. Jagdpanzer: Jagdpanzer 38 to Jagdtiger (Panzer Tracts Nr. 9) – Darlington Productions, 1997
Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle. Jagdpanzer: Jagdpanzer IV, Panzer IV/70 (V) and Panzer IV/70 (A) development and production from 1943 to 1945 (Panzer Tracts Nr. 9–2) – Panzer Tracts, 2012
Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle. Paper Panzers: Panzerkampfwagen, Sturmgeschuetz, and Jagdpanzer (Panzer Tracts Nr. 20–1) – Panzer Tracts, 2001
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    10 February 2023 05: 34
    Strange, but the author did not understand the question of interest to him. "Stugi" and "Yaga" are self-propelled guns of DIFFERENT CLASS and PURPOSE. The former were intended to support infantry and were part of infantry formations, while the latter were intended to fight enemy tanks, but as part of tank and mechanized formations.
    In the prewar period, all countries were looking for ways to develop such artillery systems, the Germans turned out to be more perspicacious, but for a long time we had the concept of an "assault tank", the brightest representatives of which were the BT-7A and KV-2 tanks, but their main purpose was to support the actions of tank divisions and units
    There was an attempt to develop the T-26A for the infantry, but this project did not go beyond prototypes, like the AT-1
    1. +2
      10 February 2023 05: 50
      Quote: svp67
      "Stugi" and "Yagi" are self-propelled guns of DIFFERENT CLASS and PURPOSE

      Well, what were they intended? Shtug-3 with long barrels is quite fun and was very often used just as anti-tank, so the author simply did not additionally prescribe this moment in the operation of these self-propelled guns. After all, articles often have a limited size than they are better perceived by the reading public.
      1. +1
        10 February 2023 06: 56
        Quote: venaya
        Shtug-3 with long barrels is quite fun and was very often used just as anti-tank

        So what? They acted in the interests of the INFANTRY. And if it comes to that, then the same Stugs, but with "cigarette butts", were also involved in the fight against our tanks, for which purpose cumulative shells were included in their b / c.
        But the Yagis are purely anti-tank guns of German MOBILE formations. The tactics of the same Panzerwaffe was based on the constant interaction of advanced tank units and anti-tank units, and for this they were required to have the same mobility
        1. +4
          10 February 2023 07: 41
          Quote: svp67
          They acted in the interests of the INFANTRY.

          Too general phrase. Almost all types of troops act in the interests of just the infantry, for it is the infantry that is the QUEEN OF THE FIELDS!
          Quote: svp67
          the same Stugs, but with "cigarette butts", were also involved in the fight against our tanks, for which purpose cumulative shells were included in their b / c.
          But the Yagi waters are purely anti-tank guns of German MOBILE formations. The tactics of the same "panzerwaffe" was based on the constant interaction of advanced tank units and anti-tank units

          But after all, this is an example of a narrower specialization in the application of this technique, and the author simply does not focus his attention on this issue, he has another task, rather, the task of the article is to focus on the fact that today it is time to remember the hasty use of good protected armored vehicles as just for artillery tasks. You can’t cover everything at once in one article, limited in scope, you have to sacrifice something, and in that sense I agree with him. Today, artillery is really obtained by the God of War, and this is precisely the focus of this article.
          1. +1
            10 February 2023 08: 19
            Quote: venaya
            Too general phrase.

            Then I will specify - "in the interests of infantry units, units and formations." Division "Shtugov" was organizationally part of the infantry division of the Wehrmacht
            Quote: venaya
            But this is an example of a narrower specialization in the application of this technique.

            Now all these tasks are successfully solved by MBTs - main battle tanks, now it is a more versatile and effective "tool of war"
            The role of "Yags" is now played by mobile anti-tank systems, often on light vehicles, and in our country on a tracked base
          2. 0
            15 February 2023 10: 19
            venaya
            today is the time to remember the hasty use of well-protected armored vehicles as just for artillery tasks

            Well-protected armored vehicles are called tanks)) And they, both in the NWO and in local wars, are most often used specifically for artillery tasks
        2. +1
          10 February 2023 07: 42
          Yes, it’s just enough to look at the names - an attack aircraft and a hunter. The Germans are usually not smart with names, but they call it as it is - according to the task-application winked
          1. 0
            15 February 2023 10: 21
            mat-vey
            The Germans are usually not smart with names, but they call it as it is - according to the task-application

            Not this way. They were called more for pathos. And yet, the developer had to receive an order and therefore had to "sell" his product, under the most beautiful name possible
        3. +1
          10 February 2023 08: 11
          The article is good, but without covering the topic "Hetzer" is a bit incomplete. And the hatzer was also produced after the war ...
          1. +3
            10 February 2023 16: 16
            Jagdpanzer 38 (t), 38 D and at the same time Jagdpanzer III / IV deserve a separate article, there are a lot of materials.
      2. +1
        10 February 2023 16: 15
        Shtug-3 with long barrels is quite fun and was very often used just as anti-tank, so the author simply did not additionally prescribe this moment in the operation of these self-propelled guns.

        I quote the article retelling the ideas of von Manstein:

        "Unlike tanks, assault guns (Sturmgeschuetze) operated in small groups and were assigned to infantry units. Their main task is to follow the infantry into the attack and cover it with fire, hitting enemy machine guns and tanks with direct fire."

        The anti-tank role was already designated in 1936.
    2. +5
      10 February 2023 16: 13
      Strange, but the author did not understand the question of interest to him. "Stugi" and "Yaga" are self-propelled guns of DIFFERENT CLASS and PURPOSE.

      It's like you didn't read the text. This article is about the StuG III and the development of its idea. Jagdpanzer historically started as assault guns and only then were reclassified, which is the subject of an entire section of the article.

      The first were intended to support the infantry <...> the second were intended to fight enemy tanks

      This is not entirely true. Von Manstein already in 1936 saw assault guns as an effective anti-tank weapon. They were originally conceived as fairly versatile machines. If we talk only in terms of infantry support, then the mobility of the StuG III is clearly excessive, compare with British infantry tanks.

      we have had the concept of an "assault tank" for a long time

      These are artillery tanks, their closest relative among the Germans is the early Pz.Kpfw.IV.
    3. 0
      15 February 2023 10: 16
      svp67
      Strange, but the author did not understand the question of interest to him

      What do you want? The site was created by amateurs and amateurs write on it. If you want serious materials, these are magazines no lower than "Technology and Armament" and "Aviation and Cosmonautics"
  2. +5
    10 February 2023 06: 41
    The topic of assault artillery is becoming relevant today. Now its tasks are carried out by tanks destroying the enemy's opposing forces and clearing the way for the infantry. It would not be bad to develop an effective self-propelled gun to support attack aircraft, and not spend money on Armata.
    1. +1
      11 February 2023 14: 39
      Quote: Glock-17
      Now her tasks are carried out by tanks destroying the enemy's opposing forces and clearing the way for the infantry. It would not be bad to develop an effective self-propelled gun to support attack aircraft

      Everything is correct. I think it would be quite possible even for the T-62 hulls to develop a combat module with a 152mm howitzer instead of the native 115-ki. For example, taking as a basis the swinging part of the gun from the "action". But, most importantly, with an artillery-type FCS and a crew of artillerymen. So there will be an assault gun capable of working on LBS next to the infantry. In fact, today infantry armed with BMP-3s have guns capable of firing from the ground, like howitzers. But in the state of the MCP, where there are almost a division of these guns, there are no artillery officers capable of organizing the preparation of data and the firing of this "division", and there is no corresponding training for each gun (if something has not changed radically in the training programs for the last year in textbooks). The MoD has already announced changes in combat training based on the experience of the NWO. But what exactly?
  3. +2
    10 February 2023 06: 42
    And what kind of open self-propelled guns with an 85 mm cannon were developed in the USSR before the war?
    1. +2
      10 February 2023 07: 23
      According to Svirin, in the fall of 1940, the GAU formed a TTT for self-propelled guns based on a medium tank with a medium anti-aircraft 85-mm gun mod. 1939 By the beginning of 1941, everything had calmed down.
    2. +3
      10 February 2023 16: 18
      U-20 projects based on the T-34 with an open turret and an 85 mm gun. Yuri Pasholok has an article on them on Warspot.
  4. +4
    10 February 2023 07: 49
    The StuG III is a great car. During the French campaign and in the summer-autumn of 1941, it coped well with the task of direct infantry support. However, it was not suitable for storming a saturated field defense and for storming cities. Back in the spring of 1941, the Heerswaffenamt (Army Ordnance Office) decided to adopt assault tanks armed with a 105-mm howitzer with ballistics corresponding to the Le.FH 18M. Such a self-propelled gun under the StuH 42 index appeared in the middle of 1942. And an assault tank with a 150-mm short-barreled gun based on the PzKpfw III in the fall of 1942 was used during the battles in Stalingrad.
    But the main purpose of the StuG III since 1942 was the fight against Soviet tanks, for which modifications of the E8 and later were armed with 75-mm StuK 40, which, with sin in half, made it possible to fight the T-34 and KV. Here history played a cruel joke on the Germans. In an attempt to saturate the troops with a large amount of anti-tank weapons, they released a huge number of ersatz tank destroyers armed with the StuK 40, and related to it PaK 39/2 and PaK 39/2. The weak ballistics of these guns did not allow tank destroyers to fight duels at long distances, and at close range they were vulnerable to return fire, inferior to the enemy in maneuvering. The only use that gives a chance for survival is an ambush action (if the enemy does not detect this ambush in advance).
    The only German gun that effectively solved the problem of destroying enemy tanks was the famous 88-mm PaK-43. But the huge mass and dimensions did not allow creating a decent towed version, and the self-propelled version required a powerful chassis based on the main tank.
    1. 0
      10 February 2023 08: 40
      To fight the T-34-76, this was more than a sufficient option, you should not combine the KV and T-34
    2. +2
      10 February 2023 15: 45
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      But the main purpose of the StuG III, starting from 1942, was the fight against Soviet tanks, for which the modifications of the E8 and later were armed with the 75-mm StuK 40, which, with sin in half, made it possible to fight the T-34 and KV

      The ballistics of the StuK 40 is close to the Pak 40. So, not "with sin in half", but quite successfully with everything except the late IS-2.
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      The only German gun that effectively solved the problem of destroying enemy tanks was the famous 88-mm PaK-43.

      Why, and the Germans had too many anti-tank guns.
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      self-propelled required a powerful chassis based on the main tank.

      The most massive chassis with this gun was the same trio-quadruple, Nashorn. In total, 1490 vehicles with this gun were made. For comparison, 122 were made ISU-1735 (790 of them in the 45th), IS-2 - 3395 (1150 of them in the 45th).
      1. 0
        10 February 2023 17: 13
        Hornisse/Nashorn produced according to M. Baryatinsky 494 pcs. Jagdpanther - 419 pcs. Ferdinand/Elephant - 90 pcs. Total: 1003 pcs. Or did you and Tiger B record there?
        1. +1
          10 February 2023 17: 25
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          Or did you and Tiger B record there?

          Certainly. I'm looking at the gun.
          1. +2
            10 February 2023 18: 04
            There is a problem here, Konigstiger - he is actually a heavy tank. And the main activity of a heavy tank is a breakthrough in enemy defenses. So the hunt for stalinpanzer is still a side activity. Another thing is that by 1944 Germany was on the defensive and used tanks mainly for counterattacks of enemy tank formations. However, I consider arming the Konigstiger KwK-43 a serious mistake (as well as the Panther KwK 42).
            Well, since you are counting on guns, it is appropriate to add 1350 D-10s installed on the SU-100 from September 1944 to April 1945.
            1. 0
              10 February 2023 18: 22
              However, I consider arming the Konigstiger KwK-43 a serious mistake (as well as the Panther KwK 42).

              Why? The best anti-tank weapon is the tank itself.
              1. +1
                10 February 2023 19: 40
                That's right, BUT!
                The tank is fighting against the enemy tank FORCED. If you need to fend off an enemy breakthrough (like Katukov in 1941), or if you ran into an enemy counterattack. But the fight against enemy infantry, equipment, the breakthrough of prepared defenses - all this requires powerful high-explosive shells, which neither Konigstiger nor Panther can boast of. Meanwhile, back in May 1941, the 105-mm caliber was determined as the most suitable for these tasks.
                1. +1
                  10 February 2023 22: 00
                  Quote: Victor Leningradets
                  all this requires powerful high-explosive projectiles, which neither Konigstiger nor Panther can boast of. Meanwhile, back in May 1941, the 105-mm caliber was determined as the most suitable for these tasks.

                  When the Germans needed high-explosive shells, he had 15 cm. There were no complaints about 7,5cm and 8,8cm land mines, this is a problem with the American 76mm and the British 2lb and 6lb.
                  1. 0
                    11 February 2023 08: 34
                    We are talking about the main thing, i.e. universal tank, which, in fact, was the Panther. And this means everything: breaking through the enemy's long-term defense, cruising raids, oncoming battles with tanks. And if the Germans had made a panther gun based on the SK C / 32, then in spite of other shortcomings, they would have received a completely perfect machine.
                2. +3
                  11 February 2023 08: 51
                  In addition, a tank, as an anti-tank weapon, is terribly expensive. This, by the way, is the main drawback of the Jagdpanther.
                  1. 0
                    11 February 2023 11: 56
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    We are talking about the main thing, i.e. universal tank, which, in fact, was the Panther

                    We are talking about a cruising tank and at the same time a highly mobile means of strengthening anti-tank guns, which was the Panther. The Shtug was just an infantry tank. The concept of a universal tank is the Centurion, on which in the first versions there was an English panther cannon, in subsequent versions - the English Pak 43.

                    The German approach to the assault tank was the first tiger - and I can't say that it turned out badly. By the way, also with 8,8, and this is natural. Higher calibers had too large and heavy unitar, even Pak 43.
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    would get a completely perfect car.

                    They already got the best (in terms of quality) tank of the war from the mass ones.
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    as an anti-tank weapon - terribly expensive. This, by the way, is the main drawback of the Jagdpanther.

                    Tiger B may be expensive, but the Jagdpanther is what you need. An almost perfect car for its role. Unless the ISU-122S can argue with that.
            2. +1
              10 February 2023 19: 32
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              And the main activity of a heavy tank is a breakthrough in enemy defenses.

              Here everyone has fun as he wants. The German had the same brumbar for defense breakthroughs, for example. The Americans generally worked mainly with mounted fire and aircraft. The Germans fought against an enemy many times superior in number of armored vehicles and solved their tasks.
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              However, I consider arming the Konigstiger KwK-43 a serious mistake (as well as the Panther KwK 42).

              For my taste, the whole Tiger B was a big mistake. For Panther, I would choose a tiger gun. However, the Germans chose what they chose and it turned out not bad on the whole.
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              add 1350 D-10s installed on the SU-100 from September 1944 to April 1945

              I counted specific guns, A-19 against Pak 43. For the sole purpose of showing that there were not so many Pak 43s, but not so few either. As for the Su-100, it should not be considered at all. Due to problems with 100mm AP shells, the combat debut of this vehicle in the role of anti-tank missiles took place only in the spring near Balaton and the vehicle did not have time to exert any noticeable influence on the course of the war. So it is on the list of the best war machines that did not fight, to the T-44, IS-3, Pershing, etc.
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              The Germans are not idiots at all (like our ancestors, by the way), which is why they chose the PaK-43 (and our D-10 and D-25S) to fight a guaranteed battle for 2 or more km

              I won’t speak for their ancestors, and even more so yours, but a modern tank with a modern FCS at a distance of 2+ kilometers does not fight very much, and not a particularly modern tank, such as the Soviet-made T-72, does not fight at all.
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              Hornisse / Nashorn is much more effective than all these ersatz

              As it turned out - no. They write from the fields that a crystal machine with a sledgehammer required too high-quality command, which even the Germans could not always provide. If the command could not ensure the implementation of the range of destruction, then write wasted. Stug was not so demanding.
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              About PaK-44 you are in vain! There is something to argue about, but the Germans were again too ahead of their time

              It's better to say "stuck". Yes, a lot can be done with such a jerk, but one such beast is a rude brigade of hatzers.
    3. +1
      10 February 2023 16: 20
      Oh, if memory serves, you are again with fairy tales about German guns. Sorry, there's no other way to call it.

      The only German gun that effectively solved the problem of destroying enemy tanks was the famous 88-mm PaK-43.

      What's to be modest? 128 mm L/55 gun! Everything else does not take from five kilometers, in short, the ballistics let us down.
      1. 0
        10 February 2023 17: 02
        Tales for you!
        You liked to extol the 75 mm fart with an effective range of 800 m!
        The point is not that at this distance she will take the notorious 82 - 90 mm with an armor-piercing normal. The fact is that at this range you are in the zone of destruction by enemy fire, and he, unlike you, freely maneuvers and turns the tower. So the oncoming battle for all StuGs and other Hetzers is death. And you have to go into it with the appropriate attitude (how to jump out of this Hetzer in time, but there are not enough hatches!).
        The Germans are not idiots at all (like our ancestors, by the way), which is why they chose the PaK-43 (and our D-10 and D-25S) to fight a guaranteed battle for 2 or more km. And Hornisse / Nashorn is much more effective than all these ersatz, despite the complete defenselessness from enemy shells, since at these distances it still needs to be hit. And among all these ersatz machines StuG III - and the most massive and well-deserved, it must be admitted.
        About PaK-44 you are in vain! There is something to argue about, but the Germans were again too ahead of their time. This gun is the forerunner of all post-war heavy tank guns, and the role of post-war heavyweights is in many ways similar to the tasks that the Jagdtiger solved.
        1. +1
          13 February 2023 10: 15
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          You liked to extol the 75 mm fart with an effective range of 800 m!

          HCI, the effective range of the 8,8 cm was about the same. smile
          600-800 m for anti-tank guns is not the range of armor penetration, but the effective range of a confident hit in the tank. Fire from it was opened not because it was impossible to penetrate further, but because the risk of misses, unmasking the position of the leading fire of the gun and its subsequent defeat by return fire increased further.
  5. +2
    10 February 2023 11: 10
    The Sturmtiger was generally a unique machine. But for some reason, no one repeated it, although in the first Chechen one there was a lack of such a machine capable of laying down a high-rise building or demolishing a strong point with one shot, yet 120 kg of explosives in a shell is a lot.
    1. +3
      10 February 2023 13: 14
      In the 90s, such tasks should have been solved by missiles, and not by armored vehicles. Such a machine will be the first to collect all the RPGs and anti-tank guns, and if the enemy has communications and helicopters, then it will not have time to enter the city
      1. +2
        10 February 2023 16: 23
        Sturmtiger, interestingly, was just launching missiles, it was just that then there were no technical possibilities to make them highly accurate and controllable, they had to be hit close.
        1. 0
          15 February 2023 23: 54
          This would be good for a modern Sturmtigr - a cheap unguided rocket with a centner of explosives. Since there are not enough "points" for all high-rise buildings in Kyiv. And even before Lvov ... in general, NURS of a huge caliber will be needed. Or in extreme cases, control by wiring, it is cheaper than "laser in the ass."
          The most important plus of all self-propelled guns is the savings on the turret rotation unit, which is complicated and expensive to manufacture, and gives a weak spot in the junction of the hull with the turret, it is extremely difficult to protect a huge annular bearing from a well-aimed projectile.
    2. +1
      10 February 2023 16: 22
      You can make a separate article about assault howitzers, because there is also a whole line of vehicles. The Sturmtiger is unique among them, of course, because it is technically a Raketenwerfer - a rocket launcher, and not a conventional mortar. Yes, and with a marine pedigree and a marine caliber.
  6. +2
    10 February 2023 14: 16
    We know that the German approach was better. But this does not mean that the infantry can be left without support. Back in June 1936, the future Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, then a colonel, proposed a new type of weapon - assault artillery, in German Sturmartillerie

    Here the author "missed" a whole decade. The Reichswehr raised the issue of creating a mobile artillery gun for infantry escort back in 1927. Krupp LSK and 7,7 cm FK 96 L/23 auf WD Schlepper 50 PS were the first attempts to implement this concept.

    1. +2
      10 February 2023 15: 26
      Quote: Ruyter-57
      Krupp LSK and 7,7 cm FK 96 L/23 auf WD Schlepper 50 PS were the first attempts to implement this concept.

      Why on our Bunshu SU-2 looks like it! © smile
    2. +1
      10 February 2023 16: 28
      These are self-propelled carriages - machines of a different class. It is appropriate to compare them with the Waffentraeger. The StuG III could follow the infantry, reliably protecting the crew from 45 mm guns and machine guns. Under these conditions, the Krupp LSK calculation will simply be killed.
      1. 0
        10 February 2023 18: 56
        These are self-propelled carriages - machines of a different class

        For now, we are not talking about classes, but about the stages of the process of creating weapons for direct infantry support, which culminated in the creation of an assault weapon. In 1926, there were no classes yet, there were only attempts to create this assault gun in one form or another.
        By the way, you are lost in space and time.
        in October 1942 almost 400 StuG IIIs were handed over. However, a month later, the Allies bombed the Alkett workshops, and the production of self-propelled guns sank sharply. The Germans in the shortest possible time set up the assembly of the StuG IV, redoing the wheelhouse of the StuG III under the Pz. Kpfw. IV
        1. 0
          10 February 2023 19: 19
          For some reason, a clumsy comment was inserted. So I'll repeat myself a bit.
          in October 1942 almost 400 StuG IIIs were handed over. However, a month later, the Allies bombed the Alkett workshops, and the production of self-propelled guns sank sharply. The Germans in the shortest possible time set up the assembly of the StuG IV, redoing the wheelhouse of the StuG III under the Pz. Kpfw. IV

          The Altmark factories were seriously damaged in September 1943, and work on installing the StuG III cabin on a BW (Panzer IV) chassis began in December 1943.
          1. +1
            10 February 2023 21: 00
            Thanks, we'll fix it. The year is mixed up, of course, this is the end of 1943.
        2. +1
          10 February 2023 21: 45
          In 1926, there were no classes yet, there were only attempts to create this assault gun in one form or another.

          This is not an attempt to create an assault gun, this is an attempt to create a specialized self-propelled carriage - Motorlafette. Such a self-propelled gun cannot adequately fulfill the role of an assault weapon.

          Yuri Pasholok noted in my comments, however, on a different occasion:
          Very good in terms of the Shtugs, the report of the Marder division is sobering, which is crying that they are dying, and the neighbors on the Stugs stuffed a bunch of everything with minimal losses.


          If we talk about history, then the predecessors of the StuG III are the French Schneiders and Saint-Chamon during the WWI. Even though they were called tanks.
          1. 0
            10 February 2023 23: 30
            Could or could not - this is the second question. That's what prototypes are made for.
            Therefore, it was an attempt to create a self-propelled gun, which was called Motorlafette only at the initial stage, then the project was called LSK (leichte Selbstfahrkanone).
            The Germans also called the tank Kleinetraktor.
            1. 0
              11 February 2023 18: 18
              Quote from: geraet4501
              In 1926, there were no classes yet, there were only attempts to create this assault gun in one form or another.

              This is not an attempt to create an assault gun, this is an attempt to create a specialized self-propelled carriage - Motorlafette. Such a self-propelled gun cannot adequately fulfill the role of an assault weapon.

              Yuri Pasholok noted in my comments, however, on a different occasion:
              Very good in terms of the Shtugs, the report of the Marder division is sobering, which is crying that they are dying, and the neighbors on the Stugs stuffed a bunch of everything with minimal losses.


              If we talk about history, then the predecessors of the StuG III are the French Schneiders and Saint-Chamon during the WWI. Even though they were called tanks.


              So B1 / B1bis, in the basic version, is the thing in French.
              But then someone came up with a brilliant idea to make "two in one" by sticking a full-fledged turret from a medium tank into the car ...
              1. +2
                11 February 2023 21: 04
                Quote: deddem
                So B1 / B1bis, in the basic version, is the thing in French.

                This is the whole idea of ​​​​an infantry tank in different versions. M3 Lee with a cannon in the corner, early Churchills with a cannon in the muzzle, Soviet multi-turreted vehicles.

                Actually, plus the Germans - two cars with different balances on a unified chassis. And most importantly, an organizational breakthrough, a constant bunch of armor and infantry. The Americans, for example, came to this only in the 45th, already following the results of the war in Europe.
  7. 0
    10 February 2023 14: 23
    The crews of the assault guns trained separately from the tankers, so each type of weapon was used according to its own doctrine.

    The doctrine of the separation of tank forces and assault artillery was developed and promoted by von Fritsch, at that time the commander of the ground forces.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. Eug
    +1
    10 February 2023 18: 38
    How interesting .. already at the end of the war, the Germans created an almost unified platform for several types of combat vehicles ... and about the creation of self-propelled artillery - the Germans created it to strengthen the capabilities of the infantry, and in the Red Army, on the eve of the war, the T-26 tanks were taken from the infantry for manning fur .corps, thereby sharply weakening the anti-tank capabilities of rifle divisions ...
    1. 0
      13 February 2023 16: 20
      The Red Army had enough brains, based on its own experience, to stop wasting tanks organizationally for formations that did not know how to handle them, but to concentrate them where they would receive qualified service and repairs. And the infantry and where they need to be allocated from tank formations as needed. The Germans had little experience with tanks and tank-like ones, they had not yet reached that point.
    2. 0
      15 February 2023 10: 13
      Eug
      the Germans already at the end of the war created an almost unified platform

      Where did they have a single platform? Look at the self-propelled zoo the Germans had!
      1. 0
        17 February 2023 05: 23
        Well, they also had a zoo with common platforms. Mehrzweckpanzer and Einhetsfahrgestell III / IV (not to be confused with GW III / IV, it has its own platform!) Krupp, 38 D Alkett, Porsche and Rheinmetall had some developments.
  10. 0
    13 February 2023 16: 16
    The Soviet military did not immediately see the potential of assault artillery. They knew that the Germans had used new weapons in France, but did not attach much importance to this.


    No, the Soviet military decided that in the presence of the KV-2, they would have such a misunderstanding for chickens to laugh at. And the KV-3 was on the way…
    1. +1
      17 February 2023 05: 20
      The KV-3 was on its way to the grave. Already during the tests of the 62-ton T-220, the engine and gearbox fell apart, and here it was practically the Soviet Royal Tiger. What kind of reliability would he have than pulling him out of the mud and towing? Were there many platforms and bridges under it?

      KV-2 was generally created to carry Finnish bunkers. You can also compare QMS with Shtug.
      1. 0
        22 February 2023 17: 50
        All these are the tales of the Vienna Woods. And I didn’t come up with this, but the head of the armored forces told the red commanders at a meeting why the Red Army abandoned the idea of ​​\u152b\u2bcreating self-propelled guns - because, in particular, they created a tank with a XNUMX-mm howitzer. It was called KV-XNUMX.
        What does the Finnish pillboxes have to do with it at all? When the serial production of the KV-2 began, the Finns no longer had any pillboxes, all the pillboxes had already been taken from the Finns by that time.
        Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks No. 548-232ss of March 15, 1941 named object 3 after the KV-150.
        Learn materiel, in general. Then write. Not vice versa.
  11. 0
    15 February 2023 10: 12
    In fact, the Germans had a huge zoo of a variety of self-propelled guns, on a variety of chassis - both tank and half-track. And the border between "assault" tanks, tank destroyers and self-propelled anti-aircraft guns was very shaky. In combat, they used what was "at hand", especially starting from 1943. However, there was no less a zoo in aviation. The Germans experimented a lot, and apparently believed that the "Aryan spirit" and "Teutonic genius" would defeat everyone else, but they miscalculated ... On the one hand, the "zoo" allowed the use of any equipment that came across, including captured ones, on the other hand , equipment was not always used "for its intended purpose" (for example, anti-aircraft guns against infantry and tanks). Yes, and there was also a "logistic nightmare". Sometimes, equipment for which there were no shells and / or spare parts was easier to abandon
  12. +1
    15 February 2023 11: 01
    "Shtugi" became the most massive model of the German BTT for a very trivial reason - the laboriousness of their manufacture was several times lower than the laboriousness of manufacturing the "Panther" or "four, this is one, the second - after the cessation of production of the Pz.III, considerable production capacities were released, which and were involved in the release of StuG.Thirdly, after the transition of the Wehrmacht to the strategic defense of the StuG40 / StuGIV were exactly the equipment that was required - capable of both fighting Soviet tanks and supporting infantry in a counterattack with fire.Fourthly, it was reliable, convenient in the operation and maintenance of equipment.
    That's how the stars converged on the "shtvrmgeshyuts".
    1. 0
      17 February 2023 05: 13
      after the cessation of production of Pz.III, considerable production capacities were freed up, which were involved in the production of StuG

      Significant capacities were transferred to the Tigers and Panthers. Pz.Kpfw.III at one time were assembled at as many as 8 factories, StuG III at two.
  13. 0
    3 May 2023 10: 21
    [quote] Self-propelled guns of the middle class in the USSR were developed even before the war, but they were completely different vehicles - with an 85-mm cannon in open turrets. [/ quote
    Hmm? And what, it would be interesting to know?
  14. 0
    1 December 2023 19: 02
    The author would explain what an assault gun is and how it differs from a tank destroyer?