WI Allies adopt concept of Assault gun in WW2
- Thread starter tigercat
- Start date
Deleted member 1487
Sorry was posting way too early in the morning.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/m4a3e2-jumbo-assault-tank
It was just too much and even the M10 tank destroyers were sufficient for long range support.
They found they could also put a 105mm howitzer into the regular Sherman at get good effect:
http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/56014sherman/sherman_expl.htm
So the answer is the Americans DID have their StuG; it was called the Sherman tank!
Let's try this again. Why would the Allies need to? The Germans tried to StuG idea because they were cheaper and easier to build and they could put a heavier howitzer in them for close support. The thing is a turreted tank is always superior. So they developed other ideas that worked just as well:
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/m4a3e2-jumbo-assault-tank
It was just too much and even the M10 tank destroyers were sufficient for long range support.
They found they could also put a 105mm howitzer into the regular Sherman at get good effect:
http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/56014sherman/sherman_expl.htm
So the answer is the Americans DID have their StuG; it was called the Sherman tank!
Last edited by a moderator:
Obergruppenführer Smith
Banned
wiking, I know you are really addicted to small arms these days, but this is the assault gun (not assault rifle) discussion
Deleted member 1487
Just woke up, hadn't had coffee, and that title read assault rifle in my head...sorry.wiking, I know you are really addicted to small arms these days, but this is the assault gun (not assault rifle) discussion
Obergruppenführer Smith
Banned
Anyway, going back to the topic: What is the point? Assault guns were built to mount big guns on the cheap. When you have the greatest industrial capacity and capability in the world, but bother with such half-measures? What, you're bringing the T28/95 around or something?
If this is referring to the "allies", then the USSR already did it, with the SU-76, SU-85, SU-100, SU-122, SU-152, ISU-122, and ISU-152.
Hence I presume you make reference to the Western Allies.
The easiest way is no Fall of France so the Somua SAu 40 and the ARL V39, which are French self-propelled assault guns, are brought into service. They are roughly equivalent to the Stug, and were planned to be entering into production at the end of 1940. The Char b1 could be viewed as a self-propelled gun if one wanted to stretch the definition a bit...
Once it becomes the Anglo-Americans there is little reason for it since they have enough industrial power to build all of the tanks they want. I suppose the T28/T95 might count for the Americans, but otherwise the only the only thing they had was the Churchill Gun Carrier which was an emergency project.
FBKampfer
Banned
They're not strictly poor-man's tanks.
Proper employment of tanks leaves the infantry rather unsupported except right at the schwerpunkt.
The StuG is at its core a motorization of organic infantry support weapons, specifically designed to improve tactical and operational mobility, what had always been the glaring weakness of suck weapons. In modern terms, the StuG is like the Striker mortar carrier, or more at a stretch, the Striker MGS.
However, they're similar in design to tank destroyers, and so naturally they get pressed into service as TD's.
Proper employment of tanks leaves the infantry rather unsupported except right at the schwerpunkt.
The StuG is at its core a motorization of organic infantry support weapons, specifically designed to improve tactical and operational mobility, what had always been the glaring weakness of suck weapons. In modern terms, the StuG is like the Striker mortar carrier, or more at a stretch, the Striker MGS.
However, they're similar in design to tank destroyers, and so naturally they get pressed into service as TD's.
Just to nitpick the SAU 40 was intended as a field artillery weapon. Set up for longer range fires the concept was the weapon would operate in 12 cannon battalions, and mass their fires on targets beyond 1000 meters. One of the prototypes was set up as a CP, with extra communications and observation equipment, something akin to what the US Army called a FIST vehicle in the latter 20th Century.
The small turrets or cupolas atop the vehicles were not for a MG but protection for range and direction finding optics.
French doctrine placed at least one 12 cannon battalion well forward in the divisions sector to support the outpost or forward defense zone, & accompanying artillery was emphasized for the offense. Obviously a armored SP artillery weapon would be superior to the 75mm & 105mm cannon available. For close infantry support the infantry tanks were the doctrinal method. Like the US Army the French provided groups of independent tank battalions to the individual armies and corps. Those would be distributed to the Divisions or Regimental combat teams as needed.
The heavy B series tanks were the French equivalent of a armored assault gun. Those were intended and designed for attacking heavily entrenched or fortified defenses. people are often confused about the role of the B series since they were eventually assigned to armored divisions, and did on a few occasions fight German tanks directly. That the B series tanks had a turret on top confuses people further.
A final point of confusion is in that the SAu-40 prototypes were hastily fitted with AT guns and sent into the June battles as tank destroyers.
I suspect this misconception gets bandied about because the Germans did press their assault guns (and tank destroyers for that matter) into the role of tanks in the mid and late-war but this was a function of their shortage of tanks. The Soviets, by contrast, had a surplus of tanks by the time they also acquired large numbers of assault guns and tank destroyers and hence never (deliberately) used them in the tanks role.
Last edited:
FBKampfer
Banned
Quite plausible. I think a lot of material issues impacts the way Germany is viewed from a strategic, operational, tactical and technological standpoint as well.
Everyone says the Germans were so successful and impressive because of their technology, but what they accomplished is tantamount to killing a pissed off polar bear singlehandedly with a stick, and so few people realize it because all they see is the Panthers, and Tigers, and the 262.
The StuG wasn't a poor design, it was an outstanding one that was used poorly.
German artillery doctrine didn't suck, they just didn't have the shells to expend like the Allies.
Everything is logistics and matériel.
Everyone says the Germans were so successful and impressive because of their technology, but what they accomplished is tantamount to killing a pissed off polar bear singlehandedly with a stick, and so few people realize it because all they see is the Panthers, and Tigers, and the 262.
The StuG wasn't a poor design, it was an outstanding one that was used poorly.
German artillery doctrine didn't suck, they just didn't have the shells to expend like the Allies.
Everything is logistics and matériel.
Driftless
Donor
A tracked vehicle with a 25lber for use in New Guinea? Or still too much jungle and mountain slope for that to work?
I wouldn't say everything. There are plenty of examples where the side with superior logistics and material got their ass handed to them because they failed to properly exercise soldiering and/or command skills. It's certainly half the battle though.
I turned to World of Tanks, since they tend to bandy about a lot of prototype and concept vehicles, for possible Anglo-Americans and while there was nothing promising in the US tree, the UK's AT-15 seem to offer the best possibility to serve as the basis for a mid/late-war WAllied assault gun program that isn't just a regunned Sherman or what-have-you.
I don't see an American assalt gun being to useful in Europe.But in the Pacific it would allow greater firepower per ton to be brought ashore, they'd be very useful at taking out Island fortifications.
A 75mm from a Sherman ot a 105mm mounted on a M-2 or a short 155mm or a 203mm if doable placed on a M-4 would have been welcomed by the troops in the Pacific.
Yanking the 37mm turret off a later model M-3 could free up some space for a bigger gun.
A 75mm from a Sherman ot a 105mm mounted on a M-2 or a short 155mm or a 203mm if doable placed on a M-4 would have been welcomed by the troops in the Pacific.
Yanking the 37mm turret off a later model M-3 could free up some space for a bigger gun.
Last edited:
Forgive the elementary question, but just how much are they better? Evidently having a turnable turret gives some tactical advantage - you don't need to turn the entire vehicle to engage a target that appears at 40 degrees, say - but has anyone ever crunched any numbers on this?