STUGS! Part 1: Turretless Light Tanks are Born in Germany

The Germans created turretless STUGs BEFORE WW2 to insure infantry had fire support against fortified enemies. That they became great turreted tank killers was an unintended positive consequence. Turrets are a combat vulnerability:

Turreted Tank vs. ATGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk61LxejXnk

So why don't we have turretless light tanks with big guns in the U.S. Army today?

1.) we are arrogant and stupid
2.) we disbanded tank destroyer branch
3.) we dont know actual military history and sound practices

These videos will solve the first and last listed problems, since we lack both a CAVALRY and a TANK DESTROYER branch of dedicated professionals who would by institutional excellence keep sight of WHAT RIGHT LOOKS LIKE.

http://www.combatreform.org/cavalryandidontmeanhorses.htm

The Germans back in 1936 realized that you can get a bigger gun with more armor on any given tracked TANK chassis if you are turretless; such that you could even use LIGHT tanks as the basis for their STUGs. Today, with the threat from precision guided munitions (PGMs) growing, we need every ounce of armor and small size evasiveness we can muster.

30, 000 Allied tanks fell prey to the turretless STUGs in WW2. Even more thousands of our men died when STUG shells blasted their fighting positions and buildings they were trying to take cover in or behind. One would think that this PROVEN tank formula would warrant our attention and emulation except for Reason #1 getting in the way.

http://www.combatreform.org/ARMORHISTORY/index.htm

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• tank
• stugs
• assault
• guns
• light
• tanks
• m113
• gavins
• german
• army
• infantry
• fire
• support
• ww2

[revolrz22]

dynmicpara, do you have a source for your statement that StuGs killed 30,000 Allied tanks in the west?

Because according to WO 291/1186 only 24.4% of Western Allied tanks were confirmed to have been from Self Propelled Guns. That would mean that all told, at least 120,000 Western Allied tanks were lost in total, and that's more than the total production all medium tank types in the United States combined.

[dynmicpara2]

@revolrz22 The Wiki web page and the Osprey book on STUGs. Obviously, the number of tanks killed by SP assault guns is wrong since a 75mm shell could come from them or a turreted Mark IV tank; tankers in western bureaucracies have a prejudice against turretless tanks and will always credit their pet.

[nokuhobune]

nice sync but dosent rly matter anyways ty for a good doc

[Zalzany]

@revolrz22 M4 Sherman alone had over 50,000 produced, and "Allied" means not just US, but Britain, and France and any one else who had a tank. There were several US models mass proceed into the tens of thousands during the war for other countries and for itself. We had to throw barrages of tanks at the Germans in order to win, that is kind of why the US came out on top, we were already streamlined for mass production, and one of the few countries with factories that weren't bombed into dust.

[redreaper2020]

@dynmicpara2 I'd be inclined to agree very readily with you on this one. An M113 or (for other armies) a bmp or MT-LBu would be an excellent vehicle to convert to a light StuG, and an M113 would be the ideal vehicle to convert in this case. With a new engine, and the banded track they're trying out on them, they could reach hellcat-type speeds and deliver a heavy punch.

[BusterXXXL]

I am not so sure about what you assume to be the main reasons for abandoning the assault gun concept. These seem to be a little to america-centric.

If you look at the russian army, they had lots and lots of experience with their SU-series, but still abandoned the concept after WW2.

The german armourers likewise abandonded their Kanonenjagdpanzer (the final STUG-sucessor) in 1983 for a TOW-armed variant. It weighed 25 tons and fielded only 90 mm cannon, so your ideas of 155mm under 20 tons?.



[dynmicpara2]

@TheJojo45678 or America, we desperately need a LIGHT STUG under 20 tons for our Airborne/Air Assault/Light Infantry Brigade Combat Teams using plentiful M113 Gavins with a 105mm M119 howitzer or LRF tank gun. SOLTAM has a M113-based 155mm SPH but crew fires it exposed. LIGHT STUG must be C-130 and CH-47 trasportable and cross-country mobile in closed terrains (less than 8 PSI). FCS-NLOS prototype was 155mm crew covered so its possible...

[dynmicpara2]

@TheJojo45678 America does't have T-55s to convert but your idea is sound and would work for the IDF that does. The IDF needs such a turretles STUG offering no turret/hull junction weak spot and better armor protection to get LOS to blast urban structures with 155mm shells; their M109s are too vulnerable to use in DF mode; you have a war winner 

[TheJojo45678]

@dynmicpara2 Reasonable enough. What calibre weapon and what chassis would you use?

I personally would go with a 155mm weapon conversion for any tank chassis (sort of how the Markman system works). I'd perhaps mount it on a T-55 chassis to make use of out-dated, and perhaps underused resources.

What would you suggest?

[dynmicpara2]

@TheJojo45678 The whole point of an ASSAULT gun is infantry fire support not tank killing. You have a 360 dgree swiveling remote weapon system (I advocate a 30mm autocannon) on top to help handle close-in attacks along with the STUG's crewmen firing out from open hatches cued by microcameras etc.

[TheJojo45678]

@dynmicpara2 Ah, but what is to become of the vehicle, if it get's flanked on the sides not covered by the main gun? True you could have infantry to cover, but what of side amushes with handheld anti-tank weapons? And can a modern battle tank not fire the same rounds all the while using a turret? An assault gun has its uses, but urban warfare is not one of them my friend.

I would say reserve the role of an assault gun to open areas for anti-tank operations.