Feedback about StuG III

[Baron_Mijail]

I want to ask for some thoughts about the StuG III ingame, since i found it to be too expensive for what it offers.

First of all, its more expensive than a panzer IV, but it has the same firepower and only a bit more armour, wich can still be pierced by shermans at max range.
Their availability is pretty bad in the luftlande division, but maybe that's something based on historical data so i accept that.
StuG III has no turret, so in AT duties is worse than the wolverine, wich is chaeper.
If we compare him with the Marder its worse in AT duties, wich is suposed to be it's main role.

So, wich utility has the StuG? i'm missing something?. Post your experience with this unit if you agree/disagree.

 

[snakeeater337]

The price hike of the Panzer IV H is probably due to the 2 extra front armour, which while it doesn't prevent it being pierced by Shermans does reduce the probability of it happening by quite a measure. The fact that it is turret less seems honestly quite negligible as all tanks turn to engage anyway and do so on a dime.

It's the 1/4 of the availability of the IV H in phase B which seems a bit ludicrous to me, especially as it is the only usable tank they have at that point. I can accept that divisions are designed based on historical information but honestly, even doubling the availability to 2 per card would go a long way.

 

[mitchverr]

Not having a turret in this game isnt that bad tbh given tanks dont fire on the move anyway other than MGs. Also, though it can still be "penned", it is significantly less, 2 armour more literally reduces it by at the very least 20% or so chance to pen, thats a significant number.

Personally i would say more per card is the thing needed.

 

[Rocksitter]

I think the Stug should be harder to spot maybe make it so you can hide or get a ambush that would be historically accurate with the low profile.

 

[Mountsorrel]

The STuG gets "Bad" stealth vs "Very Bad" for the Marder and Wolverine, its two closest analogues. AFAIK all battle tanks have "very bad" with only a few light tanks getting the same "bad" stealth rating as the STuG. I agree though, that for the cost, its performance needs a boost, perhaps through a better stealth rating given that its ability to ambush from a hull-down position is why it was Germany's most produced AFV of the war. In fact, given that historical stat, an availability boost could help, although in the 91. Luftlande deck I always take enough cards of Marder and STuG (phases B and C) to never run out or be in desperate need of more.

 

[Rocksitter]

It was also the most successful tank destroyer of the war.

 

[Mountsorrel]

Hmmm, define "successful" because I have a feeling that for kills vs losses the Jagdpanther may beat it there...

 

[Sotahullu]

Hmmm, define "successful" because I have a feeling that for kills vs losses the Jagdpanther may beat it there...

Stug units had more kills in 1944 then Panther and Tiger combined and half of the tank losses suffered by Allies in Normandy were credited to StuGs.

And some StuG Abteilungs had similar perfomance as the elite Heavy tank battalions.

 

[Rocksitter]

Success = most tanks killed in ww2 .

 

[Destraex]

It's fine. I find a lot of the prices seem to be based on their rarety and value to the division. STUGs would have been high value units to these infantry.
It's not purely about combat capability but also about the play style of the division.

In red dragon this would have been an airborne deck and therefore tanks would have been expensive to that deck.

 

[Rocksitter]

It's fine. I find a lot of the prices seem to be based on their rarety and value to the division. STUGs would have been high value units to these infantry.
It's not purely about combat capability but also about the play style of the division.

In red dragon this would have been an airborne deck and therefore tanks would have been expensive to that deck.

Yes for this particular division this might be true but I am referring to the StuG 3 performance over all I think it will have the same stats no matter what division it will be in.

 

[IronHat]

well, maybe the stug should have a longer First aim time to reflect the lack of turret?

the stug have better stealth and armor to reflect its lower profile, but in exchange it has a longer aim time to reflect the lack of turret. This would make it clumsy to use offensively, but defensively you can work around the longer aim time.

 

[Rocksitter]

well, maybe the stug should have a longer First aim time to reflect the lack of turret?

the stug have better stealth and armor to reflect its lower profile, but in exchange it has a longer aim time to reflect the lack of turret. This would make it clumsy to use offensively, but defensively you can work around the longer aim time.

Well having no turret is already represented in the game it has no turret and all that comes with it its not like the StuG can fire from all angles .hahahahah

 

[XanderTuron]

Hmmm, define "successful" because I have a feeling that for kills vs losses the Jagdpanther may beat it there...

Kill to loss ratio can be a bit skewed; the Ferdinand/Elefant had something like 10:1 but few were ever actually made.

 

[IronHat]

Well having no turret is already represented in the game it has no turret and all that comes with it its not like the StuG can fire from all angles .hahahahah

but it doesn't reflect the different control. in most cases the gunner would need to work fine horizontal adjustment after the driver point the front of the tank roughly at the enemy. right now the game pretty much assume the driver and the gunner of a stug coordinate perfectly.

 

[Rocksitter]

but it doesn't reflect the different control. in most cases the gunner would need to work fine horizontal adjustment after the driver point the front of the tank roughly at the enemy. right now the game pretty much assume the driver and the gunner of a stug coordinate perfectly.

Maybe that is why they have such bad accuracy now but unfortunatly it stays after the first shot hahahahaha.

 

[Bougnas]

What bothers me is why the BEF Stug IIIG has less front armor than the regular Stug. Side skirts add armor but AFAIK both had 80mm of armor at the front and as such should have the same front armor.

 

[Sharkey Ward]

Kill to loss ratio can be a bit skewed; the Ferdinand/Elefant had something like 10:1 but few were ever actually made.

Stugs were responsible for nearly 25% of all british tank losses in the ETO being even more effective than AT guns.

Taken from "The Comparative Performance of German Anti-Tank Weapons During World War II" by H. G. Gee

 

[mattebubben]

What bothers me is why the BEF Stug IIIG has less front armor than the regular Stug. Side skirts add armor but AFAIK both had 80mm of armor at the front and as such should have the same front armor.

There are differences between them though that would justify the extra armor.

The StuG III Ausf. G was built in several different variations (but all having the name StuG III Ausf. G)

The Initial StuG III Ausf. G had 80mm front armor consiting of a 50mm plate + a 30mm plate bolted ontop of it
where as later production had a 80mm armor plate instead.

But the biggest change i see between the Bef. StuG III and the StuG III G we have in the game is that the
Bef Stug uses the earlier trapezoid-shape mantlet where as the StuG III G is equipped with the later Topfblende mantlet
which is much more effective at deflecting shots against it.

That change alone probably justifies the additional 2 armor.

 

[Mountsorrel]

Stugs were responsible for nearly 25% of all british tank losses in the ETO being even more effective than AT guns.

Taken from "The Comparative Performance of German Anti-Tank Weapons During World War II" by H. G. Gee

SPG does not just mean STuG, it covers Panzerjager, Marder, Hetzer etc etc. Besides, most kills by a type does not mean most effective, a high k/d ratio does.

Kill to loss ratio can be a bit skewed; the Ferdinand/Elefant had something like 10:1 but few were ever actually made.

Towards the end of the war, for Germany, success would be measured in resources spent to enemy forces destroyed. Thus, while the Elefant/Ferdinand was mechanicaly a poor tank, 10:1 made it "successful" for Germany's needs; they had the hulls lying around anyway from the Porsche Tiger proposal.