The Artillery Advantage: How StuGs Outperformed Panzers in Tank Kills

FactBytes
FactBytes
31,383
0
Published 2024-08-10
The battlefields of World War II were the stage for some of the most epic and legendary tank clashes in history.

Germany's famed Panzer forces were frequently at the heart of these intense confrontations.

The German strategy of rapid conquest relied heavily on these tanks leading the nation to invest vast resources and relentless effort into building and perfecting their Panzer divisions.

While Germany’s attention was predominantly on bolstering their panzer forces, the Sturmgeschütz series of vehicles faced significant debates and disapproval before finally being adopted as armored assault guns for infantry support.

As the war drew to a close, the Panzers' once-dominant grip on the battlefield began to falter.

The heavy burden of anti-tank defense increasingly fell to the assault gun and tank destroyer crews. Their remarkable skill and professionalism played a crucial role in stalling the massive Red Army's advance, preventing it from sweeping even further into Europe.

Despite their humble beginnings and initial skepticism, by the war’s end, the StuG emerged as the undisputed champion of tank kills, outshining every other vehicle on the battlefield including the formidable Tiger and Panther tanks.

Join us as we uncover the design features, tactics and unique advantages that allowed StuG crews to outclass Panzer crews at their own game.

#stug #ww2germany #ww2tanks
All Comments (21)
  • @benedictjajo
    Ironic how a tank rejected by the Panzer corps became the most effective tank for the army and how the best Tank Commander started his career in the Stug. 🤣
  • @user-me7qs9ps2e
    The quantity and quality of weapons are important. But the way they are used transcends everything.
  • @MD21037
    Erich Von Manstein was the brains behind the idea of adopting the Stug Assault Gun.
  • @keithallver2450
    The StuG III was also mechanically reliable, unlike its Panzer counterparts.
  • @georgeferguson7114
    The StuG was a competent mobile armoured artillery/anti tank gun that could be either used in a defensive or restricted offensive capacity. The Soviets utilised numerous captured examples.
  • @stargazer1744
    Skilled, well trained crews...that was the key point that made the difference for the Germans. Excelent video, the best I've seen so far regarding the Stugs.
  • @hansla8608
    Very good account on the development of the StuG series, especially the doctrinal arguments among the German senior leaders about it. It was highly effective given the training of its crews and the circumstances in which it was employed, but we shouldn't exaggerate its capabilities. Yes, some assault type guns have been produced since WW2, but the tank still turned out to be the more effective general purpose fighting vehicle. And not just against other tanks.
  • @aurathedraak7909
    The problem for Germany is, that they have waaaaaay too many anti tank weapons and tanks that destroy other tanks.
  • @tuscanyjc
    German optics were the difference hands down the best sites of ww2 and still a massive company to this day
  • @CZ350tuner
    The early Pz.IV.A, B & C models had a small hatch, in front of the commander's cupola, for the exclusive use of a scissors range finding scope. This hatch was not included on the Pz.IV.D and later models.
  • @user-me7qs9ps2e
    A qualidade e a quantidade dos armamentos são importantes. Mas a maneira que vocês os usam transcende a tudo.
  • @mohammedsaysrashid3587
    It was an incredible and amazing historical coverage video about assault StG3 gun armor vehicles as infantry supporters and decisive enemy tanks ....thank you,( 🙏Factbytes) channel for sharing ...video clearly explained important and successful exists in battlefields and Wermakht infamous general minds
  • @kw19193
    One of the biggest, if not the biggest, reasons that tank destroyers assumed a bigger role in the priorities of German armored production was cost. Producing a Stug or Hetzer, etc . . . was nowhere near as expensive as cranking out a Tiger or Panther. After cost the Germans were quick to realize that the low profile of these vehicles was invaluable, their ability to be up-gunned with the same 7.5 cm cannon as the Panther and Mk. IV equally so. The chassis of these vehicles were Czech designs which for awhile were out of range for Allied bombers, this too appealed to the Germans. When the Germans decided to produce home-grown, as it were, assault guns the results were very powerful but larger, more complex vehicles which, while still maintaining reasonably low profiles and carrying even 8.8 cm guns (and larger), were quite expensive to manufacture and, due to bombing, produced in small numbers. Cheers!
  • @NedkaRokonokova
    The StuG did not outperform Panzers at their own game; they had separate games. There is ample evidence to show how the Stug and Hunting IVs were terrible when they were in a tank role, but toward the end of the war, necessity put them there. When the Stug classes were in ambush roles, they were devasting. There were a large number of them against an endless wave of T34s to knock out; it is expected that their numbers would be higher overall compared to something like a Tiger which fielded only 1,000 by war's end. StuGs were great killers but they depended on Panzers to engage the enemy in the frontline role. Much of the U.S. success against the Germans was our inability to ship heavy tanks. We were operating within shipping restrictions, so we created GMC and similar vehicles in anti-tank roles. We matched Germany's game.
  • @archlittle6067
    Panzers and other tanks initially had little armor. Small defensive antitank guns could be man-handled by their crews to quietly lay the gun. As these weapons increased in size and lethality, they became less useful to their crews. Eventually, the larger guns had to be transported by vehicles. To keep up with offensive operations, the crews just mounted the guns on their vehicles, which were not well armored. Finally, the guns were installed into vehicles with armor, but to keep them inexpensive, no turret was used. Thus, a larger gun could be mounted, because a turret might not accommodate the recoil. So the whole vehicle had to move to lay the gun. This is difficult in an offensive. An assault gun had a powerful antitank gun, but was less successful in offensive combat. As Nazi Germany began to fight only on the defensive, the assault guns were able to make a larger impact. However, a Stug is not a Panzer any more than a torpedo boat is a Battleship. They were a cheaper substitute that shined in a defensive battle.