The Stug´s first steps

Primeros paseos por el patio del Museo Militar de Cartagena

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• cartagena
• stug
• III
• Museo
• militar

[beetstreet4]

Purrs like at cat!!!

[wboquist]

Another survivor! Cool!

[USSRman45]

When does it kill it's first T-34?

[AndrewGmaing]

Awwwwww! :'3 Its first steps! the little one is growing up so fast! :D And... Notting beats a stug!

[Zyworski]

@astrialkil I had known for a while that land based batteries performed superior to naval batteries, but had never thought that this would apply to tanks in defensive positions, but now that you mention it, stabilizing the chassis makes total sense. The German/Hitler's obsession with offensive engagement no doubt denied them this tactical advantage.

[astrialkil]

@Zyworski You also got to realize that in WWII all tanks had to stop to fire or they would miss. Even those with stabilization, they just fired faster after stopping then non stabilized. In modern times a lack of a turret (depending on your tactics) probably is a disadvantage. But that doesn't mean its not usable ! In ambush, infantry support, en mass, it can still be effective. Cheaper,easier to build, use less resources.

[Zyworski]

@astrialkil I didn't think of that, a tank does turn on its tracks pretty fast. I would have thought that being on a ring gear the turret would use an electromechanical motor for rotation. I and many others still feel that the lack of a 360° turret has its disadvantages like you can't run and fight at the same time, and on narrow roads with limited maneuverability. Good point about being able to pivot.

[astrialkil]

@Zyworski WWII turrets were slow, you could turn the tank on a dime faster then turning the turret. The main engine is much more powerful then the turret motor or hydraulics.

[Zyworski]

@PkayerZxz2 With only about 10k Sturmgeschütz produced it is highly unlikely that their kills exceeded 20k. You may glaze over a glaring deficiency for the sake of nostalgia, but I prefer to keep my opinions subjective. I cannot imagine any tactical doctrine that is going to compensate for a field of fire that is only 25% of your opponents.

[PkayerZxz2]

@Zyworski Yet as Swede pointed out, proper doctrine makes the trade offs irrelevant. You can't criticize the StuG for it's lack of a turret when despite that shortcoming it's destroyed tens of thousands of enemy AFVs.

[Zyworski]

@GrecoSwede Everything you say is true, I was just trying to exemplify the virtue of an omni directional gun. Even our own Hellcats had deficiencies of their own with an underpowered gun and paper thin armor. There is no such thing as the perfect mobile armor unit, so people like me will always have a field day pointing out the trade offs that were made.

[GrecoSwede]

@Zyworski... so don't move in a canyon with it. This was a tool for a specific job: Its a weapon designed to work in defensive positions against Soviet tanks. The Swedish S-Tank was meant to do the same thing. The Stug was cheaper to make than a turreted tank, so they could make more (important when you are short on resources), and had a lower profile so easier to conceal (important when the Russians are kicking your ass). And these killed a lot of T-34s. So your criticism is a bit out of place.