Firepower Overhaul | Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.F and F/8

Рет қаралды 41,228

5 ай бұрын

During the invasion of the Soviet Union of 1941, the German anti-tank and tank units came into contact with the KV-series and the T-34 tanks. To their shock, the available anti-tank armaments proved almost powerless against these new Soviet vehicles. Luckily for the Germans, they were well-trained, experienced, and better supplied in the early stages of the war in the Soviet Union. The Soviet tanks lacked logistical support, were often poorly used and led, had horrendous reliability issues, and their crews were not sufficiently trained. But, as time went on, the Soviets began to rapidly increase the production of their tanks, and their crews and command staff gained more and more experience. Thus, the Germans slowly lost the advantage that they had in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa. Relying solely on experience and better tactics was not enough, and stronger armament was needed, not only for the Panzer IV, but also for the Sturmgeschütze. While primarily designed to act as an infantry support weapon, they showed great anti-tank potential. So it was logical for the Germans to use this potential by giving them even stronger armament in the form of the longer 7.5 cm (2.95 in) guns, creating two new and almost identical versions, the F and F/8.
Join this channel to get access to exclusive perks:
/ @tanksencyclopediayt
If you liked this video, please consider donating on Patreon or Paypal!
Patreon: / tankartfund
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/tanke...
Article: tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/na...
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/na...
Sources:
D. Doyle (2005). German military Vehicles, Krause Publications.
D. Nešić, (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka, Beograd
Walter J. Spielberger (1993) Sturmgeschütz and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (1999) Panzer Tracts No.8 Sturmgeschütz
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2006) Panzer Tracts No.3-2 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. E, F, G, H.
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2011) Panzer Tracts No.23 Panzer Production from 1933 to 1945
P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two - Revised Edition, Arms and Armor press.
H. Scheibert (1994) Panzer III, Schiffer Publishing
Walter J. Spielberger (2007) Panzer III and its Variants, Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
B. Carruthers (2012) Sturmgeschütze Armored Assault Guns, pen and Sword
M. Healy (2007) Panzerwaffe Volume two,Ian Allan
T. Anderson (2016) Sturmartillerie Spierhead Of the Infantry, Osprey Publishing
T. Anderson (2017) Sturmgeschütz Panzer, Panzerjäger, waffen-SS and Luftwaffe Units 1943-45, Osprey Publishing
K. Sarrazin (1991) Sturmgeschütz III The Short Gun Versions, Schiffer Publishing
F. Gray (2015) Post War Panzers German Weapons in Czech Service, Guideline Publications
L. Miguel García Ruiz (2014) Africa 1941-1943 D.A.K. Profile Guide AK Interactive
F. V. De Sisto (2008) German Sturmartillerie at War Vol.I, Condor Publication
N. Számvéber (2016) The Sturmgeschütz Abteilung 202, PeKo Publication
Tank Encyclopedia Magazines and Books: payhip.com/TankEncyclopedia
Reddit: / tankencyclopedia
TE Shop: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Goo...
Our website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com
Gaming News Website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/games/
Facebook: / tanksencyclopedia
Twitter: / tanksenc
Discord: / discord
Email: tanks.encyclopedia@gmail.com
An article by Marko P
Narrated by Wood
Edited by Stan
Sound edited by Wood

Пікірлер: 108

@OasisTypeZaku 4 ай бұрын

STuG 3/4: Does all the work. Tiger 1: Gets all the credit😂

@kenth151 4 ай бұрын

Lol

@ottovonbismarck2443 4 ай бұрын

Credits well earned. Tiger I kill/loss ratio roughly 6:1, StuG roughly 2:1. StuG killed more tanks overall, but they were also built in "slightly" bigger numbers.

@OasisTypeZaku 4 ай бұрын

@@ottovonbismarck2443 STuG K/D is 4-1 bro. When you lose roughly 11,000 vehicles to 40,000+, it's actually 4.something:1. And the Tiger had roughly 1500 built. The STuG was cheaper, way cheaper, and they built almost 12k of them. And the Germans had almost 2k STuGs in fighting trim at the end of the war. When you do the math, 6-1 pales in comparison. Tiger got roughly 9k? Something like that. Great, but if you're talking other armored vehicles, the STuG gets further ahead, but since it's just tanks and tank destroyers, the STuG still comes out the scrappier fighter and that's due to their crews. Hugo Primozig was a beast. And the STuG does it all lacking a turret.

@brancaleone8895 4 ай бұрын

stug life

@OasisTypeZaku 4 ай бұрын

@@brancaleone8895 The Best Life.

@manoelalmeidajunior6203 4 ай бұрын

Another great video! Congratulations!! Suggestion: make a video about the first Panzer IV-H project, which would have sloped frontal armor and a new suspension capable of supporting the additional weight.

@brennanleadbetter9708 4 ай бұрын

“I didn’t choose the Stug life, the Stug life chose me.”

@herptek 4 ай бұрын

Are you glorifying violent assault gun culture?

@jimmylight4866 Ай бұрын

@@herptekgawd i hope so

@lexington476 4 ай бұрын

I've always loved the Stug for some reason.

@shinra2755 4 ай бұрын

It just looks so cool 😎

@nickthenoodle9206 4 ай бұрын

Panzer Tracts 8 is probably the best reference for these two varients.

@juslitor 4 ай бұрын

The Stugs served in the finnish army until 1966. Finland bought in all 59 units, of which only 29 participated in ww2. Those 29 units destroyed 87 enemy units in exchange for 8 losses.

@ropeburn6684 4 ай бұрын

You don't choose StuG life, StuG life chooses you.

@grandpaweber2097 4 ай бұрын

A timely video. I recently got the excellent Takom 1/35 StuG III aus.F/8 and imformation was hard to come by, until now. Many thanks and Much respect.

@kawaiiarchive357 4 ай бұрын

They make for a low-profile target and can be a pain to hit in WT especially if it's in an ambush position.

@doodskie999 4 ай бұрын

Such an under appreciated tank. This tank destroyer basically carried the panzer division

@johnserrano9689 4 ай бұрын

I closed the cabinet door on my zucchini again....

@chadrowe8452 4 ай бұрын

The stug wasn't in the panzer division was it?

@danijelkasunic7572 4 ай бұрын

Stug III was sometimed used in Panzer Battalions of Panzergrenadier Divisions and in Panzer Division that were wiped out and recreated. So, a mix of Stug III and Panzers. @@chadrowe8452

@theromanorder 4 ай бұрын

Please do a video on the evaluation of tank veiw ports and evaluation of tank doctrine from different countries

@cosmoray9750 4 ай бұрын

President Jimmy Carter ........... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aZ2RrciJp9C9epc.html

@erikracz4162 4 ай бұрын

Good video, the Stug is a great tank, only second to the tiger. Every army group should have both tanks in their fleet, so they could handle any situation.

@brooksroth345 4 ай бұрын

I learned something new. Great video.

@billballbuster7186 4 ай бұрын

The StuG III was really an easy way to mount the 7.5cm KwK.40 type gun into the Panzer III, the gun being too large to mount in the turret it was mounted in the hull. This practice continued with all German tanks - Hetzer, Marder, Jagdpanzer IV. Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger etc

@ottovonbismarck2443 4 ай бұрын

They tried to mount an upgunned Pz IV turret on a Pz III chassis; the chassis couldn't take the additional weight, although the "hybrid" (Ausf.K) technically worked. Nevertheless, by that time Panzer III production was about to cease in favour of Panther. A similar practice was followed by Russia with SU-76, SU-85 and SU-100. The US also went down that path with TDs getting the bigger guns: M-3 GMC, M-10 GMC and M-36 GMC.

@billballbuster7186 4 ай бұрын

@@ottovonbismarck2443 Certainly StuGs and Jagdpanzers lengthened the life of obsolete hulls and it is almost certain the Soviets copied the idea on the T-34 and IS hulls. I would love to have seen a Cromwell 17 Pdr "Jagdpanzeri" n 1943 lol

@rubberwoody 4 ай бұрын

well, the valentine archer was an example of this. @@billballbuster7186

@jamesdalton2014 4 ай бұрын

@@billballbuster7186 The British did build a "Stug", a long 3" gun in a turretless Churchill (50 built). Unfortunately, it wasn't very good and it never saw combat. It was later superseded by the Archer (17 pdr on a Valentine chassis) and Achilles (17 pdr on an M-10 chassis).

@ottovonbismarck2443 4 ай бұрын

@@billballbuster7186 They had one in 1944, Challenger, IIRC. Cromwell chassis lengthened by one roadwheel. 🙂

@talpark8796 4 ай бұрын

TYVM for another *'interesting'* upload 🫡 🍻🇨🇦🥶😁

@americanpatriot2422 4 ай бұрын

Great video

@kimjanek646 4 ай бұрын

Any armored vehicle mostly enganged soft targets. If the enemy has 10 tanks they probably also have 200 soliders and 20 trucks. So spending twice the number of HE rounds isn't really an indication for mostly playing the role as infantry support. With the long gun the StuG role was kinda shifted to that of a Jagdpanzer while the StuH 42 was supposed to take on the original role as infantry support. Similiar to the Pz III N now taking over the Pz IVs role before the production of Pz IIIs was stopped.

@aleksaradojicic8114 4 ай бұрын

On top of that, use of HE in anti tank role is really not that unheard off as way to conserve AP ammunition after tank was hit few times already.

@ottovonbismarck2443 4 ай бұрын

It is a good indication if you consider that on average it took anything between 12-17 rounds to kill an enemy AFV. Hitting with the first round was highly unusual. So, 400 rounds spent to kill 40 tanks in about one month is not that much AT work at all. Which essentially proves your first point 100% correct. StuH42 served in assault gun battalions together with StuG IIIG. Both were still used in the old infantry support role, but G was also needed for AT duties, so their ammo loadout wasn't all about HE anymore. It had to do with branch rivalry as well. A Jagdpanzer-ish AFV would fall under tank branch whereas an infantry support gun was still considered artillery. For this very reason Jagdpanzer IV became a TD and not - as initially planned - a new StuG. And StuG III is not StuG III. The ordinary StuG was crewed by artillery men and used an artillery radio set, StuGs in Panzer divisions were crewed by tankers and used a tank radio set.

@rochrich1223 4 ай бұрын

Quite right. It is a rare tank that didn't use more HE to shoot up un-armored targets than armor piercing to destroy enemy tanks. The larger number of HE rounds that could be carried by the 75mm US Shermans than the 76mm Shermans that had marginally better anti-armor power was one of the main reasons the 75mm was retained.

@rubberwoody 4 ай бұрын

that and the 76mm came late in the war after thousands of 75mm shermans were already built and still perfectly functional@@rochrich1223

@rm5902 4 ай бұрын

GREAT. Video

@janwitts2688 4 ай бұрын

One of the German AK stug lll was recently restored by a UK chap.. there's a series of videos on u tube covering it

@jpmtlhead39 4 ай бұрын

The StugIII is/was the most Successfull Tank Killer of WW2. Destroyed more allied Tanks that all Panzer models put together. A very cheap,Simple and Devastating Tank Destroyer. The StugIII 75mm L/48 Pak 40 main gun was capable of take any allied Tank at 500 Meters. That gun was based on the most Successfull AT gun of WW2,the Towed 75mm L/46 Pak 40.

@shinra2755 4 ай бұрын

Amazing video. G version next please!

@scottpecorino6320 4 ай бұрын

The height of the Stug is very low

@kimjanek646 4 ай бұрын

"At the same distance"... which is? 😂

@lexington476 4 ай бұрын

Do you happen to have a video on the Stug IV?

@CT-045 4 ай бұрын

Simple yet deadly, why replace with heavier yet same purpose tanks, strength in numbers

@georgecristiancripcia4819 4 ай бұрын

Vey nice video

@joekammer6180 8 күн бұрын

Concrete wasn’t for armor protection, it was for magmatic mine protection

@christineshotton824 4 ай бұрын

StuG III: I'm an infantry support gun. Sure, I got the most antiarmor wins of any German AFV, but that's just my side job. 🤔

@Boskov01 4 ай бұрын

Hippo Team represent!

@jayfelsberg1931 4 ай бұрын

Any plans to do the StuG III/105?

@dnocturn84 4 ай бұрын

You're talking about the StuH 42, not a StuG III, right?

@jayfelsberg1931 4 ай бұрын

@@dnocturn84 TY for the correction

@JuergenGDB 4 ай бұрын

Technically the L/48 could penetrate 77-80mm @ 30* degrees of Angle (DOA) at 1500+ meters, or around 5,000 feet using Pzgr.Ptr.40 If the crew were using Pzgr.Ptr.39 had a better range but less penetration value of about 30mm.

@davidlodge681 4 ай бұрын

Given the long and successful use and development of the Stug III, I’ve always wondered at the sense of Germany not just converting Pz III production fully to the Stug III. Improved cost per unit, resources, fabrication, logistic simplification. Focus ALL Pz IV production on tank only. From early on the German forces found the need to support infantry with tactical firepower and antitank early in the war. Thus rationalisation IMO would have been beneficial to their resource / supply issues.

@norbertopineda1167 4 ай бұрын

Desde principios de la guerra los alemanes combatieron en inferioridad numérica, esto los llevó a poner cañones en cuanto bastidor tuvieran y les impidió detener las producciones de los distintos tipos de carros en las diferentes fabricas para homogeneizar su parque blindado

@alexvonrom7942 2 ай бұрын

The reason is that its not as simple to convert lines of productions to something else, its not like in hoi4 where you can just switch production. Not only do you need all the required tooling machinery (which isnt so hard to build for one line of production, but it is to do in such a short time without warning). The reason why the Pz4 variants even exists has to do with numbers of productions and available factories/lines of production, you may want 800 Stugs III every month, but if the factories you have now can produce 300 max, either you more than double your factories (which btw are being bombarded every day) or you settle for 300 Stugs III and maybe 200 Pz IV variants, it isnt pretty having soo many variants but it all comes down to being a last ditch effort to fix unfixable problems. You are right, standardizing production models and just having a couple of tanks being produced would have helped a lot, problem is the industry couldnt do it since it would have meant reshaping most of the tank production lines, which would mean wasting months of production, something which wouldnt have made the situation worse

@robertsolomielke5134 4 ай бұрын

TY-Good detail at 9:39 ; strange skirts , perhaps unique to all STUG's , very rare at least. * No , I've studied Panzers before most of you were born, these Skirts are unlike anything ever seen. *unique or fake photo***-where 'd you get this ?

@genericpersonx333 4 ай бұрын

As Germans tended to make armored vehicles in small batches, they frequently would make a number of changes to a batch and ask the crews to report back on how well the changes did, rather than testing in the factory or on the proving grounds. If a change was considered successful, they would adjust the tooling to make the change a standard feature of future batches. A lot of such changes would only ever exist on the one or two batches, as few as a handful of vehicles out of the thousands made. Odds are that skirting was just one of several forms of skirting tested using this batch technique.

@robertsolomielke5134 4 ай бұрын

TY- I forget how small the German Panzer force was , odd ball stuff happened all over for supply issues. Surprised they did what they did.

@robertsolomielke5134 4 ай бұрын

Yes, and mobile workshops that travelled with the Pnz.. divisions would also add their work to the repair system. This may explain the odd skirts, an yes I've seen the 'scalloped' skirts before, just not these lower hull models.@@genericpersonx333

@zillsburyy1 4 ай бұрын

STUG 3 = BEST

@timurm2197 4 ай бұрын

Самые лучшие и мощные самоходки Вермахта германские.

@alhemicaribastovani9029 4 ай бұрын

❤

@tasman006 4 ай бұрын

Deffinatley the workhorse of the German army and overshadowed buy other German tanks like the Tiger and Panther tank. It destroyed a lot of the so called invinsible T34 tanks which where in my opinion Iconic but overated. But just like in the west with the Sherman tank they had so many of them but if it wasn't for the Stug the Russians would have gotten to Berlin a lot quicker.

@Arnor2207 4 ай бұрын

I mean the pz3 with the 50mm was killing t34's and kv's all the way until it was retired as designated AT tank in 42

@schwatzy6362 4 ай бұрын

HE shells were also effective at countering Soviet infantry

@Huy-G-Le 4 ай бұрын

At the start of Barbarossa, the Soviet troops was better at anti-tanks combat using anti-tank rifle, mines, IED, and environments to their advantage, the BT Soviet main tanks are designed for quick hits and retreats to reducing loosing life in long engagement proves to be less successful than intended. But by the mid period of Barbarossa, the Soviet had adapted to combating Axis German Mechanized warfares and counter Axis German armors by making better armor and better gun, doesn't mean they are still lacking in many other aspect, since the USSR had only exist for a few decades starting as a primarily agrarian society and already under invasion by multiples forces since the 1918.

@displacedyankee7819 4 ай бұрын

What's up with the weird armor thats just covering the space between the roadwheels and the return rollers??? Never seen that before

@markusfrombgen2967 4 ай бұрын

Schutz aus Holzplatten gegen russische Panzerbüchsen

@genericpersonx333 4 ай бұрын

Probably an early attempt to deal with the alarming problem of Soviet 14.5mm antitank rifles being just powerful enough to able to penetrate the side armor of the Panzer III and Panzer IV chasses with a clean hit. Adding just a few millimeters of steel a few centimeters in front of the plate would prove a cheaper and lighter way to stop the 14.5mm than making the side of the hull itself thicker.

@explorer1968 4 ай бұрын

When possible, the Soviet forces were ordered to avoid combat with the German Stugs, given the difficulty of destroying them and easiness of being destroyed by them.

@Swellington_ 4 ай бұрын

they couldnt compete with 50,000+ T-34's,no matter how effective

@cjclark1208 4 ай бұрын

10:10 - 10:12 “T60s & T70s?” Am I having a brain fart or is this misquoted?

@TanksEncyclopediaYT 4 ай бұрын

What's wrong with T-60s and T-70s?

@captain0080 4 ай бұрын

T-60 and T-70 were soviet light tanks used by the red army at the time.

@cjclark1208 4 ай бұрын

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I wasn’t aware they’re both designations for light tanks, is all.

@2DC24 4 ай бұрын

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-60_tank#:~:text=The%20T%2D60%20scout%20tank,at%20the%20Kubinka%20Tank%20Museum

@genericpersonx333 4 ай бұрын

In fairness, a lot of people forget the T60 and T70 existed during the war because they were just small scout tanks that mostly served in the shadows of the bigger KV and T34 tanks. The T70 was the third tank design that the Red Army would keep in production and develop vehicles off of during the Great Patriotic War, alongside KV and T34. In addition to several thousand T70s being built as tanks, the T70's chassis was the basis of the SU-76.

@SmokinLoon5150 4 ай бұрын

C'mon man... READ SOME ACTUAL NARRATIVES FROM GERMAN MILITARY LEADERS AND TANKERS FROM BARBAROSSA!!!! German anti-tank guns were not "almost powerless", they simply had to close the distance before firing. The T34 and KV-1 simply proved to be able to take hits at longer ranges that would otherwise destroy the bulk of what the Russians otherwise had. With the superior optics, cohesive attacks thanks to radios, and better quality and better trained crews the Germans didn't have any real issue handling the early T34's or the KV-1's with the Panzer III's 5 cm KwK 38 L/42 (and Pak 37). I cringe every time I hear or read someone falling for that very common misconception.

@markopantelic3088 4 ай бұрын

If you have to approach an enemy tank from a very short distance in order to do anything, that is very worrying and an indicator that something is wrong with your weapon. The short 3.7 and 5 cm guns could do something from a very short distance, while the Soviets could snipe German tanks from over a 1km. The Germans mentioned this fact in their documents from late 1941 and early 1942. If I was driving a Pz.III or IV the tank guns could do little beyond 50 or 100 m distance, that would be a big Red Flag that their effectiveness was marginal against the T-34 and KVs. If they could destroy Soviet tanks with these guns, why bother and produce longer and stronger guns? Real combat is not a game.

@Atlas-hu9wk Ай бұрын

The Pak 37 was insufficient to take out t-34 let alone kv-1.

@SmokinLoon5150 Ай бұрын

@@Atlas-hu9wkCorrect. The 3.7cm Pak 36 at best had 66mm of AP ability, if a T34 or KV-1 came in to their field of fire all focus went to the tracks. Good thing 90% of Soviets tanks were of the "light" variant and that the Pak 36 had no trouble with them at any range. By late 1940 the 5cm Pak 38 was on scene and at 1000m it had 62-74mm AP ability, not bad.

@GerardScroogeGoes 4 ай бұрын

Whould you please stop speaking in abriviations ! Ausf. is short for Ausfurung, wich just translates to Mark in English. Wich is perfectly fine in an English text.

@dnocturn84 4 ай бұрын

Agreed. No German would spell it as an abriviation. It is completly alien doing this and therefore serves no one. I guess people nowadays do this to imply staying true to the original names and pronouncation, but fail do do it correctly. But "model" is a better translation for Ausführung than "mark".

@comentedonakeyboard 4 ай бұрын

The sad thing is that there are probably some weraboos who insist that Ouusfftss is the correct pronounciation

@TanksEncyclopediaYT 4 ай бұрын

We will again mention that saying Ausf has entered the vernacular for most tank related channels and experts in the English language, including but not limited to Bovington, the Chieftain, etc. We will continue using it, as both options presented, namely translating to English (which is not used for any other German AFV word) or using the full German name (we don't hate our narrators enough to torment them with that) are inferior in our opinion. Also, how are all you people upset over Ausf, but StuG, Panzer, Flak and Pak are accepted?

@dnocturn84 4 ай бұрын

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Me being German, can tell you, that StuG, Panzer, Flak and Pak (or Stuka) are names / abriviations, that we Germans actually use to spell as such. We spell out those abriviations, because they are designed / meant to be spoken, instead of the longer word. They were used by the soldiers back then as well, because it is shorter to use them in the middle of a hectic battle. "Ausf." is not one of those. This abriviation is only meant to shorten the word in written form (such as tables, letters, books, etc.) and not be spelled as such. This has either to be spelled out entirely as "Ausführung" or it has to be adressed in a different/alternative way. This is just like "Mr. Smith" -> you do say "mister Smith", instead of just saying "mr Smith", right? See how awkward this is? Well, this is just as how awkward it sounds, when you say "Ausf" too. And as a tip: you can tell this, because there is a "." behind the "Ausf." -> if there is a "." in German, then it is not meant to be spoken. It has only been shortened for literature. If others do it, they do it wrong as well. To make that clear, I'm personally not offended by this, but it is annoying anyway.

@aazz9676 4 ай бұрын

An actual grammar nazi complaining about German WW 2 AFV grammar. Roflmao