I don`t think so. I believe that is nothing more than a name. STG44 is another comparison, at first it was classified and called sub machine guns, while all the time it was assault rifle despite being classified as sub machine gun.
Assault Gun Love?
- Thread starter BurdenedWarrior
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No I mean.... at what point did it become a tank destroyer, at what point did OKW start classifying the stug as a tank destroyer and consider it a tank destroyer in the same capacity as the jagdpanzer, hetzer etc.
Once again, you fail to understand the circumstances. The STG44 was misnamed because Hitler intervened in Germany's small arms development by decreeing that all rifle development be stopped to encourage submachine gun development, and the Waffenamt re-designated it from the MKb 42 to MP 43 so that work could be continued in spite of this. It was not because they actually viewed it as a submachine gun, it was to ensure it was not canceled by the Fuhrer.
- 1
Tell me, what is difference between Stug 3G and tank destroyer? Is there any? Just becouse it is classified as assault gun does not mean it is assault gun anymore. That is my point. If you want to say Stug 3 G is assault gun, please tell me why is it assault gun and not tank destroyer. Differences are what?
I'm not arguing your point, I'm arguing your logic of the previous posts, which was "other things in the German army weren't what they were designated", which is circumstantial at best, and logical fallacy at worst. As for the StuG III Ausf. G, the way it was used depended on what kind of unit it was in. Most units that received these tanks were likely using it in place of Panzer IIIs or IVs. Meaning it would fill a generalist role rather than solely be focused on anti-tank or infantry support. Anti-tank units receiving them would use them as tank destroyers, of course. It all just depended on the situation.
- 1
Who says that, you? It was never designated and it never became a tank destroyer. It was always used as an assault gun first and foremost. Same with the Soviet Assault guns. Modern tanks are not Heavy tanks, even though they weigh 80 tonnes.
But we digress. What you said was:
They were assault gun battalions. Assault gun battalion literally means Stug battalion in German.
These Stug battalions didn't just contain Stugs, but other vehicles like the StuH and the Sturmpanzer IV, as well as other assorted vehicles.
So what I was trying to say, assault gun battalion and Stug battalion is the absolute same.
- 1
- 1
As gundammerc already pointed out, it depended on the formation it was assigned to.
Looking at design differences though, the gun used is the biggest difference (taking the StuG IIIG, the JgdPz IV).
The StuG IIIG (and F/8) series had the 7.5cm StuK 40 L/48 gun, this gun was performance wise similar to the Pz IV G and H's gun.
The JgdPz IV/70 (most produced variant being the L/70) carried the Pak 42 L/70 gun, which performance wise was more similar to the panthers gun.
First difference you will notice is classification difference, this is because a gun assigned to the StuG was not considered an anti tank gun, it was considered a Sturmpanzerkanone, which means storm tank cannon, while the gun the jagdpanzer had was considered a panzerabwehrkanone which means tank deterrence cannon.
Performance wise the the L/70 generally outperformed the L/48 in almost all anti tank respects.
Along with this a tank means nothing without the doctrine around it, and the doctrine surrounding allocation and deployment of StuGs generally differed from that of the jagdpanzer, with the StuG being intended to be deployed in well StuG battalions, or in other words assault gun battalions, while the jagdpanzers were to be assigned to well Pz jäger battalions (yes these names are really original aren't they?) both were more often then not assigned to tank divisions later on in the war though.
- 1
Also what Rutger9 said as he posted before I finished mine.
StuG is short for Sturmgeschütz, literally "Assault Gun". The MP44/STG44 first named the Maschinenpistole 44 (Machine Pistol 44) later renamed the Sturmgewehr 44 (Assault Rifle 44).
The StuG III literally means Assault Gun Three same with the StuG IV meaning Assault Gun 4. They were designed to be Assault Guns and they were primarily used as Assault Guns, their main ammo was HE not AP though they did have some AP it was not their primary focus. Likewise how TDs got AP as their primary and HE as a secondary.
Tying in to how I said Assault Gun is an open term you could very well take a StuG III with the Stuk 40 L/48 gun and instead of giving it low velocity HE as it's main round give it High Velocity AP rounds and then instruct that unit(s) to engage tanks only then yes is it a Tank Destroyer
However, the StuGs were still mainly supplied with HE for Direct Fire Support purposes and would only engage Tanks in defense depending on the situation (IE availability of other AT weapons versus there being more Armored Targets than Soft Targets). So yes they could act as a TD only as a secondary role much like how TDs can act like an AG in a secondary role.
You can use an Assault Rifle as a melee weapon by bashing people in the face with it, but that doesn't mean that is its main role.
TLDR: If it's designed as an AG, supplied as an AG and used primarily as an AG, then it is an AG.
StuG is short for Sturmgeschütz, literally "Assault Gun". The MP44/STG44 first named the Maschinenpistole 44 (Machine Pistol 44) later renamed the Sturmgewehr 44 (Assault Rifle 44).
The StuG III literally means Assault Gun Three same with the StuG IV meaning Assault Gun 4. They were designed to be Assault Guns and they were primarily used as Assault Guns, their main ammo was HE not AP though they did have some AP it was not their primary focus. Likewise how TDs got AP as their primary and HE as a secondary.
Tying in to how I said Assault Gun is an open term you could very well take a StuG III with the Stuk 40 L/48 gun and instead of giving it low velocity HE as it's main round give it High Velocity AP rounds and then instruct that unit(s) to engage tanks only then yes is it a Tank Destroyer
However, the StuGs were still mainly supplied with HE for Direct Fire Support purposes and would only engage Tanks in defense depending on the situation (IE availability of other AT weapons versus there being more Armored Targets than Soft Targets). So yes they could act as a TD only as a secondary role much like how TDs can act like an AG in a secondary role.
You can use an Assault Rifle as a melee weapon by bashing people in the face with it, but that doesn't mean that is its main role.
TLDR: If it's designed as an AG, supplied as an AG and used primarily as an AG, then it is an AG.
- 2
- 1
I think the point is that because it functioned inside formations where it wasn't technically supposed to be as a full time TD and it functioned in that role perfectly fine, it should be a TD.
Now if we somehow could specifically increase the soft attack of a TD i'd be fine with that, except for the fact we'd just end up with a normal tank then... There is no right answer until we see how the game actually handles this I think.
Now if we somehow could specifically increase the soft attack of a TD i'd be fine with that, except for the fact we'd just end up with a normal tank then... There is no right answer until we see how the game actually handles this I think.
- 1
- 1
The designation is not important, the type of vehicle and its use is however. Would you compare a Marder II to a StugIII ? One is extremely thin skinned and has a high silhouette and no sane commander would send them over open fields, instead he would use them as highly mobile ATG. Then the other has a low profile, thick armor and would be sent directly toward a enemy position or to smoke out a bunker. THAT is the main difference, although they may both use the exactly same gun.
So how you could actually use it tactically should determine its type.
low armor / low breakthrough / high AT / low SA (early types) / low hardness = TD
examples: M10 / Marder II+III / SU-76 / Nashorn ...
high armor / medium breakthrough / low AT ( early types ) / medium SA / high hardness = AG
examples: StugIII/IV, Su- 152, SIG33B ...
SPG and SPAA fill their own roles which do not touch the others IMO.
- 1
The org values on that page are no longer correct. We don't know the correct values though.
The way it works is like this:
A battalion of infantry might have 40 org. A battalion of artillery might have 30 org.
Say you have a division with a single battalion of infantry. The division will have 40 org. Then you want to add a battalion of artillery to it. The average organisation of a battalion in the division is then 35 org, so the tooltip shows you that the artillery will give you minus 5 org.
The name doesn't necessarily designate an objects purpose. And an objects purpose does not always have to fit its name.
Wheres the Assault Gun Love??
Wheres the Assault Gun Love??
I understand now, thank you all for this civil discussion 
Rated your posts as helpful.
Rated your posts as helpful.I'm not going to get into the discussion of STUGs, but it is ridiculous that PI ignored the huge family of Soviet Assault guns, namely SU-76, SU-122, SU-152 abd ISU-152, which all were produced in thousands.
And no, those weren't TDs, Soviet TDs are SU-85 and SU-100.
And no, those weren't TDs, Soviet TDs are SU-85 and SU-100.
Due to Soviets focusing on tanks more than assault guns, Germans actually built almost as much assault guns as Soviets. Germans built some 10 000 Stug 3s, compared to 14 000 SU-76s.
You can see the stats here: (7:17)
What I said is true, arty gives negative org. Maybe -5,9 is not the final stat, because there may be other variables, but that was not the point.
Last edited:
- 1
From reading through this thread and myself being a fan of StuG and StuH use in the games where they are available, I think we've touched on something that's more significant in the current techs available. Namely that there isn't a way to make a cheaper, less effective choice. Each of the 3 current techs, AA, SPArt, and TD each increase the cost of the original vehicle while also specializing the vehicle, but what about a way to reduce the effectiveness of the design and make it cheaper? Turretless vehicles were made specifically for this reason were they not? What about having an additional tech available that fills that spot? Not sure how different it would have to be to make it not the best option all around, but it would certainly let people have their various StuG variants on a chassis that would make more sense than starting from a TD or SPArt which had different intents.
No, arty doesn't give negative org, strictly. It has lower org than infantry battalions do, which means the average organisation of a given battalion in the division will be lower after the artillery battalion is added, but it doesn't have a negative organisation value.
I thought like you did once - that you gained organisation for adding battalions like infantry and lost it for adding artillery, but if you take a look at the early Hungary games you'll see that the organisation of a division doesn't increase when Daniel adds infantry battalions to it.
It's certainly confusing since stuff like soft attack for a division is additive, while division organisation is an average.
Well, add in 600 SU-122, 600 SU-152 and 3200 ISU-152.
Soviets had the most AGs by quite a long shot, and those were actually, on average, more potent ones, as both SU-152 and ISU-152 were on heavy tank chasis with 152mm gun.
Sure, Germans were behind by only 1:2 as opposed to 1:4 in tanks, but still 1:2 is not close