It might be asked, but I think that by asking such a question you automatically neglect the other advantages and disadvantages of the two alternatives. I mean, let's say that OK, having a quick-moving aiming point for your main gun is not worth the increase in height. Now, what if we add the advantage of having a crew commander that can focus on the battle instead of on firing the gun? Is the no-turret choice still the best alternative?
Assault Guns vs. Tanks
- Thread starter Chengar Qordath
- Start date
It might be asked, but I think that by asking such a question you automatically neglect the other advantages and disadvantages of the two alternatives. I mean, let's say that OK, having a quick-moving aiming point for your main gun is not worth the increase in height. Now, what if we add the advantage of having a crew commander that can focus on the battle instead of on firing the gun? Is the no-turret choice still the best alternative?
How about adding a tank commander who does not fire the gun? But, back to the issue, it seems that Stug-III, for example, could pack a 75 L/48 gun into Panzer III chassis, SU-100 could pack 100mm D-10S into T-34 chassis. The weight loss might be used for more mobility or more armor.
The British and Americans both made 80 ton assault guns towards the end of the war. The British Tortoise had the 3.75inQF gun the American T28 their 105mm gun. neither went into production although they both worked quite well.
In 1940 and 43 Britain made two 80 ton monsters TOG 1 & 2 These were equipt with turrets though and both eventually worked.
This is how the Russians dealt with the VK3011 Elefants
Found that on a Russian website,(good old Foxlingo)
Equipment is a compromise and the Assault gun had it's time and place. The heavyweight AFVs had mobility issues but the worlds current batch of MBTs all weigh in between 50 and 70 tons so what has happened to improve the mobility of heavyweight vehicles?
In 1940 and 43 Britain made two 80 ton monsters TOG 1 & 2 These were equipt with turrets though and both eventually worked.
This is how the Russians dealt with the VK3011 Elefants
Found that on a Russian website,(good old Foxlingo)
Equipment is a compromise and the Assault gun had it's time and place. The heavyweight AFVs had mobility issues but the worlds current batch of MBTs all weigh in between 50 and 70 tons so what has happened to improve the mobility of heavyweight vehicles?
A commander that does not fire a gun is a fifth crewman; therefore you are asking for more internal volume. Without a turret, more internal volume means a taller casemate.
In fact, the assault guns and tank destroyers did not simply put everything in the basic chassis. On top of the chassis they added a casemate. The casemate solution is not as tall as a turret, but it's still taller than the basic chassis alone. This is what the vehicles you mention did. And the four men manning a StuG were already very cramped; as to the Hetzer, it's surprising they managed to squeeze four crewmen in that.
Now, if you want a fifth crewman, and maybe more ammo (or the same ammo but with much bigger rounds), you can – but you will be throwing away the one advantage you seem interested in, the low silhouette. You can have turretless vehicles with five men and plenty of ammo, but their casemate will be more or less as tall as a turret.
Indeed, it is not a given that a turretless vehicle is small with a low silhouette. Cfr. the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger, for tank destroyers, and the Brummbär and Sturmtiger, for assault guns.
Heavy civilian traffic probably brought about more heavy bridges all over the place (both road and railroad bridges).
The other thing I'd look up is the weight/power ratio. Some WWII heavy vehicles simply piled on more weight on already existing engines, which caused much of the trouble. Others came with new engines, but the requirements were underestimated.
But a wise new design might have an extremely powerful engine, able to carry around more weight with more ease. Note that a more powerful engine normally is also a heavier engine, so this is not entirely a solution; but with the improvements in tehcnology, you gradually get more kWs for the same weight, or less weight for the same kWs.
Redbeard
Banned
Hi Michele
Enjoy reading your posts - informative, competent and civilised
But back to the subject, I think the most important factor for adding a 5th crewman would be internal length of the crew/gun compartment. The larger designs like Brummbär, Sturmtiger and Jagdpanther so had a 5th crewman.
As to how overworked the commander will be I think the reliability of the radioset will be significant. In early tanks the 5th crewman usually had the double function of manning the bow MG and servicing the radioset(s). The last not at least because contemporary radiosets (tubed) needed constant attention, calibration, tuning etc. By mid-late war reliability had much improved and contributed to making the 5th crewman superflous. radiosets typically moved to the rear turret and were serviced by the commander and/or the loader.
In that context it ought not be impossible to have a four man assault gun where the commander can focus sufficiently on commanding. The 5th crewman on an assaultgun would IMHO be neccessary with guns in the 15cm range. Manhandling a shell weighing in the region of 100lbs./45kg inside a narrow fighting compartment is close on impossible for one man, it is difficult enough for two or more (I've been on a M109 SPH).
I attach an imaginary 1940 assaultgun design I made for an ATL. It is based on the chassis of a turreted medium tank (50mm cal 55 gun) and the gun is a 75mm/cal 45 gun design originally a naval AA gun from the 1920s. Hull length is 5,50m, width 2,60m and hull height 2,08 incl. cupola. Please not that the comamnder is placed in the rear fighting compartment and clear of the gun recoil and with radiosets in reach. The rediosets are modelled on US WWII AN-GRC series, which with some skill could be operated by the commander alone. The other crew functions are: gunner, loader and driver. The loader also operates the hull MG.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
When considering WWII circumstances, many so-called professional military experts and authors just seem to parrot each other without examining things for themselves .
For instance, is it known what the turret speed was for individual WWII tanks? Some of them were mechanically operated by hand, others had electrical systems. How does the turret speed compare with the time necessary to turn the entire vehicle as would be necessary if an assault gun faced a threat to its flank? Perhaps a Sherman would need more time to turn its turret than a StuG needed to wheel left or right?
And is it really better to face a flank threat by traversing the turret? That would still expose the weaker side armour to the threat and under WWII conditions, one-shot one-kill does not apply. Wouldn’t it be better to present the threat with your thicker frontal armour as a StuG would do ?
Are there any anecdotal examples known of assault guns suffering tactical disadvantages from having a fixed gun instead of a turret? I have often read military authors claim so but without offering any proof. I have used StuG’s in war games and have not found any great disadvantage nor do I know any set of rules that really penalize the assault guns. Yes, you have to turn the entire vehicle but that’s it. And some of these war games rules are anal beyond comprehension, calculating every aspect imaginable under the sun.
What I do know is that the artillery crews in StuG’s were an elite arm and took great pride in their ability to hit the target quicker with less wasted shells than the panzer arm. As to the lack of the 5th man, the crew consisted of a vehicle commander, a gunner, a loader, and a driver so situational awareness was not compromised because the vehicle commander had more than 1 task.
. For instance, is it known what the turret speed was for individual WWII tanks? Some of them were mechanically operated by hand, others had electrical systems. How does the turret speed compare with the time necessary to turn the entire vehicle as would be necessary if an assault gun faced a threat to its flank? Perhaps a Sherman would need more time to turn its turret than a StuG needed to wheel left or right
?And is it really better to face a flank threat by traversing the turret
? That would still expose the weaker side armour to the threat and under WWII conditions, one-shot one-kill does not apply. Wouldn’t it be better to present the threat with your thicker frontal armour as a StuG would do ?Are there any anecdotal examples known of assault guns suffering tactical disadvantages from having a fixed gun instead of a turret? I have often read military authors claim so but without offering any proof. I have used StuG’s in war games and have not found any great disadvantage nor do I know any set of rules that really penalize the assault guns. Yes, you have to turn the entire vehicle but that’s it. And some of these war games rules are anal beyond comprehension, calculating every aspect imaginable under the sun
. What I do know is that the artillery crews in StuG’s were an elite arm and took great pride in their ability to hit the target quicker with less wasted shells than the panzer arm. As to the lack of the 5th man, the crew consisted of a vehicle commander, a gunner, a loader, and a driver so situational awareness was not compromised because the vehicle commander had more than 1 task.
Found this piece of info: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/german-assault-gun.html
Road bridges, moving heavy loads you consult the highways authorities to plan a route. I used to move loads of 54 tons civilian and military and it had to be preplanned or go on previously recced routes. This applied in the UK and mainland Europe. It was easier on mainland Europe as many of their bridges had been destroyed either by the Allies or Axis forces and the replacements were higher capacity.
In the UK however it was surprising how many quite old bridges could take heavy loads. As railway locomotives and the trains have always been heavier than road vehicles it was the loading and clearance gauge that would have been the problem. So width and height rather than weight or length.
Ground loading must enter into this as well. I notice modern tracked vehicles have wider tracks than older models and presumably the suspension systems today spread the load better and produce better traction with less effort.
When considering WWII circumstances, many so-called professional military experts and authors just seem to parrot each other without examining things for themselves
For instance, is it known what the turret speed was for individual WWII tanks? Some of them were mechanically operated by hand, others had electrical systems. How does the turret speed compare with the time necessary to turn the entire vehicle as would be necessary if an assault gun faced a threat to its flank? Perhaps a Sherman would need more time to turn its turret than a StuG needed to wheel left or right
But if the Sherman driver rotated the vehicle in the right direction for some twenty degrees AND at the same time the gunner rotated the turret... there will always be a faster response by the turreted vehicle.
And is it really better to face a flank threat by traversing the turret
In fact, the above was standard practice. Then again, it is probably wrong to talk about "the threat", singular. If you are facing one way and you come under fire from the side, chances are you are facing the _threats_, plural, one at 12 o'clock and another to the flank.
Are there any anecdotal examples known of assault guns suffering tactical disadvantages from having a fixed gun instead of a turret? I have often read military authors claim so but without offering any proof. I have used StuG’s in war games and have not found any great disadvantage nor do I know any set of rules that really penalize the assault guns. Yes, you have to turn the entire vehicle but that’s it. And some of these war games rules are anal beyond comprehension, calculating every aspect imaginable under the sun
Ah well, then you know more than those so-called experts, since you played wargames.
Do you remember who handled the radio? Did those wargames explain in what a WWII-era radio is different from a modern cell phone?
There's more. What is lacking in the arrangement you described? Something that is not needed as long as the vehicle is indeed used for its initially intended use, as self-propelled direct-firing artillery. But once you start using it like any other tank, some anti-infantry capability becomes useful in order to prevent those pesky tank hunters from closing in. So, let's list them again: commander, gunner, loader, driver. What's lacking?
Now I know what brought the assault gun about. Need to bring artillery into the battle line to take out pill-boxes etc.
Also that they were later used as tank destroyers.
Looked up the Pz IV, apparently it was given a low velocity 75 mm gun to deal with infantry - does the same applies to the French Char 1B and Lee/Grant? Later it was fitted with a high velocity 75 mm gun to counter tanks.
Radios in tanks: early on in the war I read the Germans had one-way radios in every vehicle except in those from platoon commander and up the chain of command. Why? - simple, being in the lowest part of the food chain you just need to be told where to go or where the thread is. Commanders of UNITS make decisions and passes those on to subordinates and superiors! Having your subordinate tank commander blabbling on the air is a waste of time.
Allied tanks, to my knowledge, did not have radios.
Later in the war this may have changed but I know too little on the subject.
Where do this take us?
Early in the war assault guns had a specific artillery role. Tanks had another role. Each would be used in its role.
Later in the war German assault guns would also be used as tank destroyers.
Perhaps! somebody would have thought different - using an assault gun in the tank role, but didn't (at least I don't know of)
Turret traverse contra vehicle traverse: some tanks of the early part of the war was hand traversed others had electric machinery. I haven't found traverse time for assault guns - can't compare the two.
Issue of radio for tank commanders wouldn't really have applied for the early part of the war like 1939-40/41 as they would only have to listen to it - not respond. Except when being a unit commander. An allied tank commander wouldn't have one to listen to.
Thus the same would apply to an assault gun commander.
The radio situation might have changed later in the war - I don't know.
Were AP rounds supplied for assault guns early in the war - without no idea in using them in a tank role.
Given the above (and not being a tank or assault gun commander) I won't find probable that anybody would switch the roles of tanks and assault guns.
In the clarity of hindsight (still not being a tank or assault gun commander) somebody could decide for a design of modified WWI Tank or Char ending up with a kind of assault gun or rather turretless tank design carrying a bigger gun early in the war than OTL for anti-tank purposes - resulting in a lighter vehicle, cheaper, discarding the costly process of making turret rings with a lower profile - still without, early on, no use for a separate radio-OPERATOR. This could result in more German tanks/turretless vehicles at the outset of war with more anti-tank punch. (but still I'm not qualified to judge the overall effect of such policy...)
Also that they were later used as tank destroyers.
Looked up the Pz IV, apparently it was given a low velocity 75 mm gun to deal with infantry - does the same applies to the French Char 1B and Lee/Grant? Later it was fitted with a high velocity 75 mm gun to counter tanks.
Radios in tanks: early on in the war I read the Germans had one-way radios in every vehicle except in those from platoon commander and up the chain of command. Why? - simple, being in the lowest part of the food chain you just need to be told where to go or where the thread is. Commanders of UNITS make decisions and passes those on to subordinates and superiors! Having your subordinate tank commander blabbling on the air is a waste of time.
Allied tanks, to my knowledge, did not have radios.
Later in the war this may have changed but I know too little on the subject.
Where do this take us?
Early in the war assault guns had a specific artillery role. Tanks had another role. Each would be used in its role.
Later in the war German assault guns would also be used as tank destroyers.
Perhaps! somebody would have thought different - using an assault gun in the tank role, but didn't (at least I don't know of)
Turret traverse contra vehicle traverse: some tanks of the early part of the war was hand traversed others had electric machinery. I haven't found traverse time for assault guns - can't compare the two.
Issue of radio for tank commanders wouldn't really have applied for the early part of the war like 1939-40/41 as they would only have to listen to it - not respond. Except when being a unit commander. An allied tank commander wouldn't have one to listen to.
Thus the same would apply to an assault gun commander.
The radio situation might have changed later in the war - I don't know.
Were AP rounds supplied for assault guns early in the war - without no idea in using them in a tank role.
Given the above (and not being a tank or assault gun commander) I won't find probable that anybody would switch the roles of tanks and assault guns.
In the clarity of hindsight (still not being a tank or assault gun commander) somebody could decide for a design of modified WWI Tank or Char ending up with a kind of assault gun or rather turretless tank design carrying a bigger gun early in the war than OTL for anti-tank purposes - resulting in a lighter vehicle, cheaper, discarding the costly process of making turret rings with a lower profile - still without, early on, no use for a separate radio-OPERATOR. This could result in more German tanks/turretless vehicles at the outset of war with more anti-tank punch. (but still I'm not qualified to judge the overall effect of such policy...
)Well, if the turret can be moved only very slowly, then it doesn't have to mean it would be faster than a assault gun swinging round. So what are the turret speeds Mr. Smarty Pants
? If you are facing multiple threats (one from the front and one from the side) you are already in trouble. A turret isn't going to help you because you will be presenting your weak armour side to one of the threats, presumably the one on your flank. The assault gun would presumably present his weak armour side to the threat to his (original) front side. So what's the difference?
I am indeed an avid wargamer but I would be the last the claim any military expertise on those grounds. My point is that many authors claim things without giving their reasoning or verifiable facts. In this case, we have all heard that assault guns are less flexible and therefore tanks were better in WWII but is there any proof? Where are the battle reports that show that assault guns were less flexible in battle and therefore vulnerable? Wargame rules tend to have a lot of research poured into them in order to simulate combat. But in the end, it's still just a simulation.
Yes, the assault gun lacked a dedicated radio operator. Was that really a battle deciding issue? How much chatter was going on during combat between different vehicles? Where they calling out targets and threats to each other (like fighter pilots might do)? The battle reports I have read don't really mention that aspect and tend to describe the platoon or section being used as a maneuvre element, controlled by radio communications. Surely, that could also be done by the tank commander albeit with a reduction in situational awareness.
And for your final comment, the (later) assault guns were actually equipped with a MG, operated by the vehicle commander when necessary. Last but not least, StuG's were habitually accompanied by infantry to keep enemy tank-hunters away. In fact, many StuG units had a dedicated infantry unit, known as begleitgrenadiere.
Then you haven't read all the messages above carefully. There is one stating that the Germans indeed used StuGs in the tank role. They gave StuGs to the armored battalion of Panzergrenadier divisions, and even to some of the "Panzer" battalions of some Panzer divisions.
You miss the point. The assault gun only rotates the whole hull (and, well, a few degrees its cannon). The tank rotates _both_ the whole hull _and_ the turret. Likely result: no matter if the turret rotates slowly. Add the two rotations and the tank will always be faster.
So what are the turret speeds Mr. Smarty Pants
I can quote you some data if you kindly withdraw that way of addressing me.
The difference is that the tank commander can choose. He can engage to 12 o'clock and present the thicker armor to 10, if he so decides. or viceversa. Or he can have both the armor and the gun to 10.
The assault gun commander can only choose the latter.
I gather this is an implicit admission you do not know how much attention was needed by a radio set of the era.
Exactly. Thank you for proving the point. A 4-man crew overworks the commander.
Now before you point out that a tank commander in a 5-man tank might well also have his own MG, keep in mind that would be the third or fourth MG of the vehicle. In the case of many assault guns or tank destroyers, the tank commander's was the first and only MG of the vehicle.
Yeah. What kind of StuG units do you think had dedicated accompanying infantry, and by what time in the war?
Hi there Michele,
No insult was intended and I apologize if you thought so. But you did side step my question on turret speeds. Just like you are doing now. Just what exactly is the turret speed compared to the time necessary to pivot an assault gun. Once we know that, it makes it clear that a turret is indeed tactically more flexible. Until we have that comparison, all you say is just supposition. And that means "you say, I say".
Being able to chose which threat to engage would indeed be preferable. But again I ask you, has it ever been a decisive disadvantage. Where are the reports that assault guns suffered in combat conditions? The usual tactic when encountering any AFV is to engage from the front with fire while another maneuvre element works its way around the flank for a flank or rear shot. Any AFV, not just an assault gun is vulnerable to that.
Another consideration is that during war there is simply the pressure to produce a weapon for the war without too much worry about getting everything correct right of the box. Which is why the crews of the M4 Sherman's stacked sandbags or welded tank treads on the outside for extra protection added to their limited OEM armor belts.
A modern example is the US Army's Strykers being equipped with slat armor in the field to protect them from RPG rounds that weren't expected to be as effective as they were.
Also, modern main battle tanks like the Abrams or Challenger have the luxury of being deployed for a decade or more before having to face combat. This is really great for working all those little bugs out of the design, well, hopefully.
MrP
Banned
*thinks to himself if x+1 is greater than x, then . . . *
Let me see if I have any figures.
MrP
Banned
Blessed be the Axis History Forum!
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=70861
See the link for more details.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=70861
See the link for more details.
No, it doesn't mean that.
Take a Pz III. You can find one belonging to a version whose weight is the same as that of a StuG III. So same weight, same engine, same drivetrain, same transmission.
Now put a target out to the same degree to the flank of the PzIII and the StuG III.
The StuG III will have to rotate the whole hull (the driver operating one track in one direction, the other in the other). Plus the gunner can put in a few degrees of left/right movement of the gun itself.
Now what about the Pz III. It can rotate the whole hull. At exactly the same rate as the StuG, since it weighs the same and has the same specifications.
In addition, it can rotate the turret. More than a few degrees.
As another poster stated x+1 is always better than x, no matter how large x is.
Got that?
Everything else being equal, the turreted vehicle will always beat the turretless one.
Having stated that, I'll come back with some data as to turret rotation.