Assault Guns vs. Tanks
- Thread starter Chengar Qordath
- Start date
It seems so, but with the methodical approach of Germans to anything technical (or other matter) there must be some thoughts behind the sustained use of assault guns...
MrP
Banned
Yeah, they were easier to produce and Germany was facing the Soviets who had a seemingly inexhaustible supply of AFVs. I dunno how methodical one can call certain German military projects of WWII. Some were just plain bonkers, others genius, and still others somewhere in between.
For starters, I'd like to say that the very name of the thing we're talking about should give a pointer at its origins and the purposes it was initially intended for. Though it is certainly true that armored vehicles with casemate-mounted guns were less vulnerable in the defense rather than in the offense, it is naïve to ignore the fact that they are still called, well, _assault_ guns.
The assault gun was initially meant not as a replacement for tanks, nor as a tank destroyer (though many tank destroyers later would feature a casemate mount for their gun). It was a piece of _armored self-propelled artillery_, only conceived to support the infantry in the assaults. True armored self-propelled artillery are howitzers firing indirect, on a curved trajectory; they are self-propelled to avoid the set up, unlimber and limber times of a towed howitzer; they are tracked to improve off-road mobility over a truck towing the howitzer; and their armor is minimal, its main purpose being protecting the crewmen from a riposte in kind: artillery fragments delivered by indirect fire.
The assault gun, OTOH, was armored self-propelled artillery but: it was meant to fire direct, engaging from relatively close distance its target; and its armor was thicker (and normally featured a top enclosure, unlike most SPA), exactly because it was going to face direct-firing gunnery.
The reason why the Germans, the inventors of this piece of equipment, needed assault guns was simple: they had too few tanks that could support the infantry with a sizable enough HE round. In 1939-1940, a French bunker with a small ATG and a MG would be enough to stop both German infantry and any Pz I, Pz II or Pz III. The Germans had the Pz IV, which was exactly born as a tank capable of carrying a 75mm, but there were too few of those, and were needed to provide that kind of support to armor-only formations. Therefore, here comes the StuG III, built on the Pz III chassis, with exactly the same 75mm in a casemate mount. Given its task, a turret would have been an extravagant expense; bunkers do not move, so a restricted field of fire is OK. StuG, obviously, means Sturmgeschutz – "assault gun".
Could a StuG equip whole armor formations? Yes, absolutely, considering that this is exactly what happened in RL, in OTL. Not up to divisional level, but the armored battalion in German armored infantry divisions (Panzergrenadier) from mid 1943 on was officially equipped with StuGs. Plenty of panzer battalions in Panzerdivisionen, too, though officially allotted with tanks, had whatever was available from late 1943 on: StuGs, or tank destroyers.
Why didn't the Germans stop, or never begin, building Panthers and Tigers, and concentrate on assault guns? Plenty of reasons. Some are those already listed, that is, they wanted armored vehicles more capable of offensive operations, capable of taking out targets to their flanks.
But there are others. One is a matter of protection, i.e., armor. Late StuG versions were already as up-armored as possible with the engine these vehicles could contain, and they still were much thinner than the front armor of a Panther or Tiger.
Another is a matter of size. Yes, the Germans did mount longer (and therefore heavier and bulkier) 75mm guns on the StuGs, and then 105mm howitzers, and even 150mm ones. But as the weight went up, the transmission, engine and train became more and more overloaded. Additionally, with the caliber going up, the size and weight of the individual round also went up, which meant less and less could be carried. The StuH 42 carried just 36 105mm rounds (likewise, consider that a Pz IV H would carry 87 75mm rounds, while the corresponding gun mounted in a StuG III G would have only 54 rounds). The same problems would have plagued a StuG carrying a 75mm/70 gun or, even worse, an 88mm gun.
Size also affected another aspect. The StuGs all had a crew of four. One of the reasons of German tank warfare superiority always was the fact that their tank commanders could concentrate on doing that, commanding. They had all the time for situational awareness and taking tactical decisions. That was a great edge over overworked French or Soviet tank commanders. But a StuG commander would not have that advantage.
Generally speaking, anyway, one should not assume that if a combatant chose something, it was because he was convinced that it was the best choice possible. More often than not, production problems affected the decision. The lines producing the Pz III chassis were up and running, and building Panther and Tigers was extremely costly. The lines producing the Pz 38 chassis also were available, and though that tank itself was no longer very useful, using the chassis for the Hetzer was a clever way of exploiting those lines. Things like those were happening on both sides of the hill.
The assault gun was initially meant not as a replacement for tanks, nor as a tank destroyer (though many tank destroyers later would feature a casemate mount for their gun). It was a piece of _armored self-propelled artillery_, only conceived to support the infantry in the assaults. True armored self-propelled artillery are howitzers firing indirect, on a curved trajectory; they are self-propelled to avoid the set up, unlimber and limber times of a towed howitzer; they are tracked to improve off-road mobility over a truck towing the howitzer; and their armor is minimal, its main purpose being protecting the crewmen from a riposte in kind: artillery fragments delivered by indirect fire.
The assault gun, OTOH, was armored self-propelled artillery but: it was meant to fire direct, engaging from relatively close distance its target; and its armor was thicker (and normally featured a top enclosure, unlike most SPA), exactly because it was going to face direct-firing gunnery.
The reason why the Germans, the inventors of this piece of equipment, needed assault guns was simple: they had too few tanks that could support the infantry with a sizable enough HE round. In 1939-1940, a French bunker with a small ATG and a MG would be enough to stop both German infantry and any Pz I, Pz II or Pz III. The Germans had the Pz IV, which was exactly born as a tank capable of carrying a 75mm, but there were too few of those, and were needed to provide that kind of support to armor-only formations. Therefore, here comes the StuG III, built on the Pz III chassis, with exactly the same 75mm in a casemate mount. Given its task, a turret would have been an extravagant expense; bunkers do not move, so a restricted field of fire is OK. StuG, obviously, means Sturmgeschutz – "assault gun".
Could a StuG equip whole armor formations? Yes, absolutely, considering that this is exactly what happened in RL, in OTL. Not up to divisional level, but the armored battalion in German armored infantry divisions (Panzergrenadier) from mid 1943 on was officially equipped with StuGs. Plenty of panzer battalions in Panzerdivisionen, too, though officially allotted with tanks, had whatever was available from late 1943 on: StuGs, or tank destroyers.
Why didn't the Germans stop, or never begin, building Panthers and Tigers, and concentrate on assault guns? Plenty of reasons. Some are those already listed, that is, they wanted armored vehicles more capable of offensive operations, capable of taking out targets to their flanks.
But there are others. One is a matter of protection, i.e., armor. Late StuG versions were already as up-armored as possible with the engine these vehicles could contain, and they still were much thinner than the front armor of a Panther or Tiger.
Another is a matter of size. Yes, the Germans did mount longer (and therefore heavier and bulkier) 75mm guns on the StuGs, and then 105mm howitzers, and even 150mm ones. But as the weight went up, the transmission, engine and train became more and more overloaded. Additionally, with the caliber going up, the size and weight of the individual round also went up, which meant less and less could be carried. The StuH 42 carried just 36 105mm rounds (likewise, consider that a Pz IV H would carry 87 75mm rounds, while the corresponding gun mounted in a StuG III G would have only 54 rounds). The same problems would have plagued a StuG carrying a 75mm/70 gun or, even worse, an 88mm gun.
Size also affected another aspect. The StuGs all had a crew of four. One of the reasons of German tank warfare superiority always was the fact that their tank commanders could concentrate on doing that, commanding. They had all the time for situational awareness and taking tactical decisions. That was a great edge over overworked French or Soviet tank commanders. But a StuG commander would not have that advantage.
Generally speaking, anyway, one should not assume that if a combatant chose something, it was because he was convinced that it was the best choice possible. More often than not, production problems affected the decision. The lines producing the Pz III chassis were up and running, and building Panther and Tigers was extremely costly. The lines producing the Pz 38 chassis also were available, and though that tank itself was no longer very useful, using the chassis for the Hetzer was a clever way of exploiting those lines. Things like those were happening on both sides of the hill.
Yes, the silhouette is very low, which had some advantages prior to computerized fire control and ability to fire when moving. The ultimate turretless tank was the Swedish S-tank, which had the misfortune to materialize just when computerized fire control came around and largely eliminated the advantages gained by low silhouette when in advance, and gyro-stabilization enabled accurate fire when moving.
Another misfortune was, that while S-tank would have been still good vehicle as an anti-tank weapon, it was used to equip armoured brigades in Southern Sweden which had the wartime mission of counter attack against Soviet bridgeheads.
StuG-IIIG was virtually the only modern AFV of the Finnish Armored Division during summer of 1944, and managed in counter attacks quite well against Soviet T-34/85's.
I think, in WW II context, the question might be asked, was the tank turret worth the increased silhouette? Tanks could still not fire when moving, and outside urban encounters the direction of enemy was known, and overwatch could be arranged via other means. Say, a Sherman based assault gun could have packed more punch in smaller silhouette, thus better able to support infantry in attack and could have better protected infantry against German tanks in defense.
The Anti-tank missile has to some extent eliminated the need for the tank-destroyer role of the assault gun.
There was a proposed re-incarnation of the assault gun, mounting a 105mm howitzer in the hull of an M-113 APC.
The life of some older tank designs is being extended by converting them to heavily armored personnel carriers - which is more necessary in some urban combat arenas.
Because of the speed & mobile nature of combat today and the integration of resources, you really need systems with 360 degree arcs of fire.
There was a proposed re-incarnation of the assault gun, mounting a 105mm howitzer in the hull of an M-113 APC.
The life of some older tank designs is being extended by converting them to heavily armored personnel carriers - which is more necessary in some urban combat arenas.
Because of the speed & mobile nature of combat today and the integration of resources, you really need systems with 360 degree arcs of fire.
Is there not also the matter that you can use older chassis? from Pz III and IVs? How many assault guns were made with brand-new chassis??
MrP
Banned
Interestingly, I was reading through an AFV book of mine t'other day, and it noted the Bundeswehr had just such a vehicle. Let me get the book. Yes, the Jagdpanzer Kanone.
p.272 said:
There's a Wiki page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanonenjagdpanzer
MrP
Banned
Aye, the Germans were always big on recycling their (and everyone else's) old AFVs in WWII, since they hadn't enough production.
I'm afraid its been 20+ years since I was a bit of a war nut but I am sure from memory that the majority after 1943 were new built rather than conversations of older chassis.
Sorry, I can't give you a direct reference, it's just one of those facts that for some strange reason has stuck in my mind.
MrP
Banned
I think the Hetzers, at least, while using the same chassis as existing stuff, were new builds. But I'm a bit too lazy to look it up. Stuff like the Elefant must've been, since she was freaking enormous.
There were two main types of SPG with direct-fire casemated guns.
The first was the true assault vehicle, which featured thick armour and a large-calibre low-velocity gun. Its role was to support the infantry by blasting defensive works while shrugging off hits from most anti-tank guns.
The second type were the tank-hunters, usually lighter and with thinner armour but with high-velocity guns. The best example at the end of the war was the German Hetzer, a compact and agile vehicle.
There were also some heavy, thickly-armoured vehicles with powerful guns which were dual-purpose (assault and tank-hunters) used by both the German and the Soviets. The Jagdtiger and the JSU-122 are examples of these.
After WW2 Germany fielded a more modern vehicle similar to the Hetzer, the Jagdpanzer Kanone.
The Soviets also field light anti-tank SPGs for airborne deployment, the ASU-57 which was replaced by the ASU-85
However, apart from the Swedish S-tank (which differed from all others in having a fixed gun, aiming being done by adjusting the sophisticated suspension) everyone has stuck with turreted tanks as offering superior tactical flexibility.
The first was the true assault vehicle, which featured thick armour and a large-calibre low-velocity gun. Its role was to support the infantry by blasting defensive works while shrugging off hits from most anti-tank guns.
The second type were the tank-hunters, usually lighter and with thinner armour but with high-velocity guns. The best example at the end of the war was the German Hetzer, a compact and agile vehicle.
There were also some heavy, thickly-armoured vehicles with powerful guns which were dual-purpose (assault and tank-hunters) used by both the German and the Soviets. The Jagdtiger and the JSU-122 are examples of these.
After WW2 Germany fielded a more modern vehicle similar to the Hetzer, the Jagdpanzer Kanone.
The Soviets also field light anti-tank SPGs for airborne deployment, the ASU-57 which was replaced by the ASU-85
However, apart from the Swedish S-tank (which differed from all others in having a fixed gun, aiming being done by adjusting the sophisticated suspension) everyone has stuck with turreted tanks as offering superior tactical flexibility.
I think the Hetzers, at least, while using the same chassis as existing stuff were new builds. But I'm a bit too lazy to look it up. Stuff like the Elefant must've been, since she was freaking enormous.
was that the one which was too heavy for most bridges? or am I mixing it up with something else?
MrP
Banned
Well, I remember the Maus was too heavy for bridges, and required a second Maus and a sophisticated breathing apparatus to cross streams and such.
The Heffalump is the tank hunter that was deployed without secondary armament en masse at Kursk, and the bulk of them were eaten alive by Russian tank hunters.
Ah, my book does mention they suffered in the Italian campaign because of bridges unable to take their weight - you're right!
Well, I remember the Maus was too heavy for bridges, and required a second Maus and a sophisticated breathing apparatus to cross streams and such.
The Heffalump is the tank hunter that was deployed without secondary armament en masse at Kursk, and the bulk of them were eaten alive by Russian tank hunters.
Ah, my book does mention they suffered in the Italian campaign because of bridges unable to take their weight - you're right!
I think I'm thinking of both, as it were-the Maus definitely rings bells and Italy and the Elefant are connected in the mess that is my memory
Recycling existing chassis assemblies was something the Germans did, but even more important was recycling existing chassis designs and existing chassi production lines. Which means some of the assault guns and tank destroyers were new vehicles - but benefited from all the research, development and design having been done for their chassis, and from the production lines already up and running.
I think the Hetzers, at least, while using the same chassis as existing stuff, were new builds. But I'm a bit too lazy to look it up. Stuff like the Elefant must've been, since she was freaking enormous.
The Elefants were new designs and new vehicles, but they still were a form of recycling. They were built out of the 90 or so chassis that Porsche had built for the heavy tank project that would later be the Tiger (the Henschel model having won the contest).