• 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.
M8 Scott was an SPG not a TD...


Honestly for steel division just give the Panzer 4 and Stug 3s 1200 range AP rounds and keep 1000 range HE. and make the Marder and Stug 4s have 1000 range HE as a counter nerf to the 1200 range AP Panzer 4s.

The line is extremely blurred between SPG and TD

Not mutually exclusive roles

Also: Stugs better on attack just means they're better at supporting infantry, which makes perfect sense.
 
Since this was derailed anyway, I am looking forward to some evidence backing up those mighty statements.

I'm being snarky, but it's not that terribly far from the truth.

You are looking for the value of sub 5%, and that is just the first battle at Kursk.

So yes, 25% is that terribly far from the truth.


Military history will be well served if people stopped memorizing pointless trivia in favor of developing actual analytical skills.

Blustering about the Panther's engine compartment is entirely pointless when the fires were caused by hydraulic fuel pooling at the floor of the Panther (which happens outside the engine compartment), which tends to set off the ammunition near the floor which is the real cause of vehicle loss.

Engines are not the main cause of fire loss in any tank. It's the ammo stowage going off that's the problem.


Engine problems connected to defective gaskets and seals leaking fuel was exactly what caused the engine fires according to every single source you could find on the internet. Literally everyone from Niklas Zetterling through Thomas Anderson to Michael & Gladys Green to British Royal electrical and mechanical engineers would tell you that.

I dont even dare guess where you made this up from.



Heck, the Russians found that the Tiger II could be set on fire using a single 122mm HE round - because even if the round technically did not penetrate the spalling damage was nonetheless enough to set the hydraulic fuel pooling on the floor on fire (which was the same issue with the Panther),

Completely false.


This is why games presently pretend that non-penetrating shots have little to no effect, when in reality American and Soviet tankers simply "fired twice" - often hitting the same spot if the target hadn't moved - and the cumulative damage of two AP shells was enough knock out vehicles with even the hardest armor.


I dont think you have any idea how penetration, dispersion, and simple weather works in this context.



. For instance one of his biggest problems with the Panthers was that its gun was too long for the narrow hedgegrows and they couldn't turn the turret. Why bother with a turreted tank if the terrain was too narrow for a turret with a long gun?


"Memorandum on the Führervortrag dated 26 June 1944.
Changeover of PzKpfw IV to StuG L/48 resp. L/70

I.) Tactical and technical matters.

The 7.5cm KwK L/48 firing PzGr 39 is sufficient to fight all known British, American and Russian tanks at combat ranges from 600 to 1,200m, including the British ‘Cromwell’ tank. After-action reports dealing with the deployment of PzKpfw IV in comparison to the Sturmgeschütz, imply that the latter, when operating in mountain areas or on coastal roads in Italy or in the narrow, deep, hedge-lined lanes [bocage] of Normandy, is tactically inferior to the PzKpfw IV. Firing to the side is possible but is very limited, since the terrain does not allow the vehicle to turn on to the target… Furthermore, the low position of the gun impedes firing over hedges."


This might be the reason.


It's not about armor thickness or penetration.

Yes, it is.

Assault guns were not worse in the attack. This was often contended by Guderian and many post-war British publications (who often took Guderian's word at face value) but never proven by any statistic; and it's worth noting that Guderian and other Panzer officers had plenty of political reasons to naysay Stugs as the assault guns belonged to the artillery arm which was a rival of the Panzers.

They were worse in attack.

The Stug was better than pretty much all German tanks because it had an extra periscope for spotting and a rangefinder for accurate long-ranged shooting. It was not until the war was almost over that a Panther variant was developed to have these two critical features.

I think you mean the actual periscopic guns-sight, the only one in the vehicle, and scissor periscope, which was used at extremely long ranges.

What is this.

Finally, if the Stugs were so bad then why did the Panzers start getting their own Stug units and used them on the attack? Economy is part of the reason certainly but the Stug-armed units were never proved to have performed significantly worse than the Panzer IV-equipped ones.

Because of economic reasons and 3 were formed/reformed as heavy Panzer divisions with integral StuG units.


How can one be so wrong that correcting him would double the word-count of a thread?
 
The line is extremely blurred between SPG and TD

Not mutually exclusive roles

Also: Stugs better on attack just means they're better at supporting infantry, which makes perfect sense.

Uh no the line is pretty clear M8 Scotts were meant to support infantry and destroy fortifications and AT guns M8 Scott is in the same category as M7 Priest. TD or tank destroyers were meant to knock out tanks, M10 and M18s are TDs M8 Scotts were never tank destroyers. But you may be confused sense there was a prototype TD M8A1 but it was never produced.


Stugs arent better on the attack, turrets now and then were a big deal. I dont know why you think they werent. M10s and M18s are far better combat vehicles then Stug 3s and 4s

IV and 4 are the same number Stug 4s were Panzer 4 chassis were Stug 3s were Panzer 3 chassis.
 
Uh no the line is pretty clear M8 Scotts were meant to support infantry and destroy fortifications and AT guns M8 Scott is in the same category as M7 Priest. TD or tank destroyers were meant to knock out tanks, M10 and M18s are TDs M8 Scotts were never tank destroyers. But you may be confused sense there was a prototype TD M8A1 but it was never produced.


Stugs arent better on the attack, turrets now and then were a big deal. I dont know why you think they werent. M10s and M18s are far better combat vehicles then Stug 3s and 4s

IV and 4 are the same number Stug 4s were Panzer 4 chassis were Stug 3s were Panzer 3 chassis.

"were meant" is a loaded term. Part of supporting infantry is shooting at tanks if need be, like on defense. TD/SPG are guns that move. Tanks are moving guns with armor. Assault guns are tanks with no turret. Roles were very blurry.

The profile of the stug was low, it was accurate, had a high power to weight ratio, it had better optics, it was cheaper than the panther, and it was easier to train crews. It was better at attacking than turreted tanks because attacks were carried first by infantry, and the stug was made to support infantry.

Turrets are an advantage in tank on tank fights because you can use cover and terrain better-and nobody is going to attack a place where there are tanks. So you don't really need a turret to attack.

Stug is more survivable vs paks and infantry than both p4 and panther, which is what an attack would be carried out on. It's really not rocket science. Tanks counterattacked and exploited holes, stug attacked, and infantry/paks defended ground.

If you're attacking a position, its not going to be guarded by a significant number of tanks-so comparing the stug armor and penetration values is a moot point. The stugs low profile was nice once a point was taken, though.
 
Last edited:
"were meant" is a loaded term. Part of supporting infantry is shooting at tanks if need be, like on defense. TD/SPG are guns that move. Tanks are moving guns with armor. Assault guns are tanks with no turret. Roles were very blurry.

The profile of the stug was low, it was accurate, had a high power to weight ratio, it had better optics, it was cheaper than the panther, and it was easier to train crews. It was better at attacking than turreted tanks because attacks were carried first by infantry, and the stug was made to support infantry.

Turrets are an advantage in tank on tank fights because you can use cover and terrain better-and nobody is going to attack a place where there are tanks. So you don't really need a turret to attack.

Stug is more survivable vs paks and infantry than both p4 and panther, which is what an attack would be carried out on. It's really not rocket science. Tanks counterattacked and exploited holes, stug attacked, and infantry/paks defended ground.

If you're attacking a position, its not going to be guarded by a significant number of tanks-so comparing the stug armor and penetration values is a moot point. The stugs low profile was nice once a point was taken, though.

You realize a StuG and a Panzer IV had the same gun, right? and nearly identical frontal armor profiles? A StuG was little to no more accurate than a Panzer IV sporting the same gun in this regard. It was cheaper than a Panther, and even a Panzer IV, which is why Germany, whose economy was breaking under the strain of wartime production almost from day one, built so darn many of the things. For all their criticisms of the T-34, the Germans built an awful lot of StuGs. Strategic reality dictates tactical necessity--The Wehrmacht didn't use StuGs because they were more suited for the task, they used them because they were cheap! Non-turreted tanks will always be inferior because they can't use terrain, as you have stated; they also have a worse view of the battlefield due to height, and can't reacquire targets as easily because without a turret, the entire tank must rotate to get the gun on target, lowering the tank's flexibility even when attacking as it is more difficult and takes more time for a StuG to acquire a new target after its initial target is destroyed, and even then, must expose itself to at least one flank in order to support a line other than its own.

In terms of hardware, the only thing over a Panzer IV a StuG had going for it was an enhanced rangefinder--something which is more suited to tank hunting than to attacking fortified positions, I'd wager--and its lower profile makes it better at hunting other tanks. Just because the Wehrmacht uses something one way does not mean it is or was the best way to use something. The Allied and Comintern tank divisions used largely medium tanks, and when the situation called for it, medium tanks with bigger guns, which far and away was superior to the German doctrine both on a tactical and strategic level; they had more, and more useful tanks than the Germans.

And as for your exact reasoning why the StuG is better at attacking: "because attacks were carried first by infantry, and the stug was made to support infantry"--a tactical doctrine does not make innate hardware better. A Panzer IV can do what a StuG can do just as well, but because medium tanks are more expensive than a gun on treads, Germany built more StuGs and so those were more commonplace and the German strategic reality dictated tactical necessity.
 
You realize a StuG and a Panzer IV had the same gun, right? and nearly identical frontal armor profiles? A StuG was little to no more accurate than a Panzer IV sporting the same gun in this regard. It was cheaper than a Panther, and even a Panzer IV, which is why Germany, whose economy was breaking under the strain of wartime production almost from day one, built so darn many of the things. For all their criticisms of the T-34, the Germans built an awful lot of StuGs. Strategic reality dictates tactical necessity--The Wehrmacht didn't use StuGs because they were more suited for the task, they used them because they were cheap! Non-turreted tanks will always be inferior because they can't use terrain, as you have stated; they also have a worse view of the battlefield due to height, and can't reacquire targets as easily because without a turret, the entire tank must rotate to get the gun on target, lowering the tank's flexibility even when attacking as it is more difficult and takes more time for a StuG to acquire a new target after its initial target is destroyed, and even then, must expose itself to at least one flank in order to support a line other than its own.

In terms of hardware, the only thing over a Panzer IV a StuG had going for it was an enhanced rangefinder--something which is more suited to tank hunting than to attacking fortified positions, I'd wager--and its lower profile makes it better at hunting other tanks. Just because the Wehrmacht uses something one way does not mean it is or was the best way to use something. The Allied and Comintern tank divisions used largely medium tanks, and when the situation called for it, medium tanks with bigger guns, which far and away was superior to the German doctrine both on a tactical and strategic level; they had more, and more useful tanks than the Germans.

And as for your exact reasoning why the StuG is better at attacking: "because attacks were carried first by infantry, and the stug was made to support infantry"--a tactical doctrine does not make innate hardware better. A Panzer IV can do what a StuG can do just as well, but because medium tanks are more expensive than a gun on treads, Germany built more StuGs and so those were more commonplace and the German strategic reality dictated tactical necessity.

The enhanced rangefinder is perfect for lobbing HE shells from a good distance away. I'll summarize your argument but mix it with mine.

The stug was worse in armored warfare because it could only ambush-think the battle of Brody, or Arracourt- and was used to replace actual panzer losses. This did not change its primary role, though, of basically being an armored support gun.

I don't get what you're saying when you bring up the Wehrmacht being the best-that title belongs to America. America didn't need support guns because of our artillery advantage.

And finally, crews are trained on doctrine, and vehicles are made to adhere to it. The ergonomics of the stug allowed it to have a pretty high rate of accurate fire, which could be lobbed from far away.
 
Somehow this is all nice and funny, but I can't help but wonder if the communauty has moved from the official forums to the SD discord in order to talk less about this kind of stuff and more about the game.

Just my 2 cents, don't mind me.
 
discuss the game where it's convenient - that will never change. I discuss things amongest friends on my discord and seemingly discuss more historical things in here. Some places are simply more convenient for discussing certain things.

von Luck
 
Panzer IVs are really only cost-effective in 1v1. That's also true for Sherman 75s to a lesser extent, although its aim time makes it useful in close quarters. Think about it, it's stupid to use the Panzer IV or Sherman 75 with its 1000m range, when the enemy relies heavily on 1200m tanks - especially if you are an average player that can't micro well.

Keep in mind that tank vs tank fights were not as common during the actual war as they are in SD (especially in team games), and if you are only fighting soft targets, it doesn't matter whether you have a Sherman 75 or 76. 1v1 games feel more like the real war in this regard, which is why I prefer 1v1 over team games in SD.
.

Lmao what? The Sherman 75 is the most cost effective and overall best tank in the entire game. The short 75mm’s HE power and the prevalence of 3 MG’s make it fantastic for quickly pinning and mopping up infantry squads, and it’s AP rounds are adequate for destroying anything with less armor than a Stug reliably. It also has a decent amount of armor per price point that allows it to survive low AP pop guns. The Sherman’s having stabilizers and thus obscenely fast aim times is the cherry on top. The lack of a 1200m range gun doesn’t matter because the Sherman 75 is to be used as a close range brawler that uses its mobility, gun handling, HE power, and availability to dominate even the big cats, especially when using multiple angles of fire.

The Panzer IV is completely different, it doesn’t have the armor to survive a frontal hit by basically any AT gun even at max ranges, it’s not really great at killing infantry, not really great at killing tanks, and actually has a higher chance of losing to its equally priced allied counterpart, the Sherman 75. The doctrine for axis is also different, fire support generally comes from dedicated support vehicles, whereas with allies my fire support generally comes from my tanks. In the vast majority of axis decks that have a Panzer IV, they also have a much better tank in the same phase, so there is even less point in bringing out such a fragile tank. The Stug is better for tank killing and better armored, there are vehicles cheaper and much better at infantry killing in the support tab, the Panzer IV is a glass cannon without much of a cannon.
 
Two very quick things. Gameplay wise, the Panzer IV is stuck in an unfortunate and uncomfortable position in most decks, not cheap enough to be mindlessly spammed, but also not really good enough to operate on its own, independent of any other AT assets. It's usually just a good tank slot pick up for a cheaper alternative that gets decent per card availability. I SS has what I would consider the optimal Panzer IV H price, and a sub optimal Panzer IV J price, being 5-10 points to cheap.

Second thing, on the turret-less vs. turreted tanks. Turret-less tanks and tank destroyers were very effective and an easy solution to a very toddler stage of tank and tank doctrine development, putting larger and heavier hitting guns on smaller platforms, without sacrificing armor or power to weight ratios. Turrets are heavy and create additional weak points and mechanical issues to deal with. The Panzer IV upgrades are an excellent example of this trading mobility and mechanical issues for not losing armor and getting a heavier gun. The Germans and the Soviets had the most experience with the concept and it worked, if it didn't, further concepts would not have been developed. That being said, the turret-less tank destroyer losses its luster as the Main Battle Tank comes into its own, as it can do everything in one package. Advances in gyro-stabilization and composite armors are what really put the bullet in the turret-less TD concept though.

This is mostly theorizing on my understanding of tank and tank doctrinal development during the period, so not providing any sources.
 
The Panzer IV is ok, but as I said in other threads, its context is very different- the Sherman much more effectively shrugs off pak 38 fire than the Panzer IV does 6pdr fire.
 
Because of various drawbacks and competing slot choices the Panzer IV remains a poor choice for most decks. The confluence of protection, firepower, and affordability simply don't do any favors to the venerable Panzer IV.

von Luck
 
If you can keep a Panzer IV at max range and it has vet, it can actually be pretty potent. At any range a Panzer IV is more likely to penetratre a Sherman, and equally as likely to penetrate a Cromwell or 11FA Sherman while also boasting higher accuracy, especially with good veterancy. The Sherman's aim time makes up for this deficiency but it really needs to engage within 600m for it to really shine. The Panzer IV is comfortable with max range engagements and can devastate infantry with its 3 MG42's when within 400m or so, providing you manage to get that close.
It has its weaknesses but the Panzer IV is far from terrible. They work better in teams, as with all Axis units, and if there is something else to shoot at.
But then, that's tactics. Everything does alright when artillery has softened up an enemy position first.
 
It's more than disadvantaged - it's borderline worthless. Something needs to be done to either nerf the shermans into line or buff the p4 in some way that lets it do its main job - infantry support.
All the armored decks that field p4's also have marders, jagdpanzers, or panthers to handle long-range engagements, so it's superfluous in that regard. That fact relegates it to a close combat/infantry support role that it should be well suited for. It's obviously not however, because of the massive sherman powercreep that has taken place since the beta which means that unlike Allied decks that enjoy the full benefits of their quick aim time and potent mg lineup, Axis armored decks' main tank is little more than a point sink that is outclassed by cheaper shermans in every category that is relevant to their roles...for some reason.

To sum up, you have a tank that's superfluous in the long range role, bad at close range, more expensive than its counterparts, and can't bounce 57mm AT guns. Let me ask you this question - when is the last time you saw an effective p4 push outside of a 1v1 scenario against competent players? If your answer isn't never, you're lying to yourself.
 
I actually see Panzer IVs far more often than Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers, especially after that last update. The trick is to be offensive in A. Your opponent will then bring in one Mark IV a minute to try and stabalise the situation instead of massing Panthers, which is only done when he is going to push and has the time and resources to gather for one. The Mark IV is the main opponent of my tanks, and also the main prey of my Fireflies and AT guns. Mark IVs are meta.

The Mark IV is bad because it is an old tank constantly upgraded. It has flat armour, not sloped, and a 75mm gun with fairly good penetrating power. The Mark IVG and Mark IVJ have hand cranked turrets so they take longer to aim.
 
I actually see Panzer IVs far more often than Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers, especially after that last update. The trick is to be offensive in A. Your opponent will then bring in one Mark IV a minute to try and stabalise the situation instead of massing Panthers, which is only done when he is going to push and has the time and resources to gather for one. The Mark IV is the main opponent of my tanks, and also the main prey of my Fireflies and AT guns. Mark IVs are meta.

The Mark IV is bad because it is an old tank constantly upgraded. It has flat armour, not sloped, and a 75mm gun with fairly good penetrating power. The Mark IVG and Mark IVJ have hand cranked turrets so they take longer to aim.

The Panzer IVG had electric turret traverse. The main difference between the Panzer IVG and IVH is that the IVG was equipped with the 75mm L/43, but I don't think this is reflected in the game.
 
The Panzer IVG had electric turret traverse. The main difference between the Panzer IVG and IVH is that the IVG was equipped with the 75mm L/43, but I don't think this is reflected in the game.

Actually majority of the Panzer IV ausf. G series had the L48 gun althought there is no clear numbers. There is lot of changes to Panzer IV G during the production so there is bit everything between F and H variants.
 
Actually majority of the Panzer IV ausf. G series had the L48 gun althought there is no clear numbers. There is lot of changes to Panzer IV G during the production so there is bit everything between F and H variants.

That makes sense. I do remember the Panzer IVF2s and early IVGs had 50mm front armor, while most of the Panzer IVGs produced had 80mm.