AHC: StuG Sherman

StuH or StuG

Actually from 1942 the StuGs were mostly dedicated AT vehicles and the StuH with the 105mm took over the infantry support role (assuming we're talking about the SdKfz 142/1 and 142/2 family). Since the Sherman is a 1942 tank, it's natural to assume a tank killer version, along with a fire support partner with a 105mm. The US prefered their guns (and howitzers) on turrets, so they had the M10, M36, and the 105mm Shermans, all on the M4 chassis.
They were probably right.
 
oop sorry. I really thought the IDF stug Sherman was an OTL thing. Also I wasn't reading carefully enough, didn't realize that the Stug sherman's had to be in WW2

Wow! thanks :) That is really great to hear as it means my model looks plausible enough to be mistaken for real. No modeller can ask for a better compliment! :)
 
Last edited:
Actually from 1942 the StuGs were mostly dedicated AT vehicles and the StuH with the 105mm took over the infantry support role (assuming we're talking about the SdKfz 142/1 and 142/2 family). Since the Sherman is a 1942 tank, it's natural to assume a tank killer version, along with a fire support partner with a 105mm. The US prefered their guns (and howitzers) on turrets, so they had the M10, M36, and the 105mm Shermans, all on the M4 chassis.
They were probably right.

Indeed and this is why I converted my original finish for my StuG Sherman to an IDF vehicle as I could not really find a justification as to why the US would go for a casemated mounting (flying in the face of their turreted doctrine). It also explains why I went for the 17pdr-armed M7 in British service as they did dabble with fixed mounts.

The central drive shaft is always going to be the biggest problem for a centrally mounted gun and explains the relatively tall profile of my StuG design - I actually spent some time and effort to place the main gun in a realistic position in the hull so that it would not interfere with the drive train - a lot of other designs have the gun way too low.

I don't think the Western Allies ever really found a need for a true infantry support StuG, settling instead for the StuH/SPG concept instead with the M7, Sexton, M40 and alike.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the Western Allies ever really found a need for a true infantry support StuG, settling instead for the StuH/SPG concept instead with the M7, Sexton, M40 and alike.

I agree my Standard Guide To US WWII Tanks and Artillery tanks about that. Less though the SP guns though, more the US having enough tanks to use some for infantry support. The Stewart light tanks seem to have been a favorite as they became less capable of fighting other tanks as the war went on.
 
I don't think the Western Allies ever really found a need for a true infantry support StuG, settling instead for the StuH/SPG concept instead with the M7, Sexton, M40 and alike.

The Western Allies handled their Infantry support with turreted tanks. I believe the use of casemated support guns was a way of stretching limited industrial capacity. Turrreted vehicles are much more complex and when you are running at maximum capacity you can build more casemated weapons for a given amount of labor and industrial capcity.

The US (and Commonwealth) non turreted SP guns were primarily a mobility solution to allow the attached artillery to keep up with fully mechanized formations. They were not really designed for use in direct fire roles (where they would be subject to infantry weapons) The StuG (and the StuH) were designed to be employed in direct support and provided armored fighting compartments to protect the crews from opposing infantry weapons. The US was able to produce enough Shermans to be used in a similar role.
 
I agree my Standard Guide To US WWII Tanks and Artillery tanks about that. Less though the SP guns though, more the US having enough tanks to use some for infantry support. The Stewart light tanks seem to have been a favorite as they became less capable of fighting other tanks as the war went on.

The Western Allies handled their Infantry support with turreted tanks. I believe the use of casemated support guns was a way of stretching limited industrial capacity. Turrreted vehicles are much more complex and when you are running at maximum capacity you can build more casemated weapons for a given amount of labor and industrial capcity.

The US (and Commonwealth) non turreted SP guns were primarily a mobility solution to allow the attached artillery to keep up with fully mechanized formations. They were not really designed for use in direct fire roles (where they would be subject to infantry weapons) The StuG (and the StuH) were designed to be employed in direct support and provided armored fighting compartments to protect the crews from opposing infantry weapons. The US was able to produce enough Shermans to be used in a similar role.

All makes a lot of sense.
 
Top