_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
No Glory For The Self-Propelled Guns?
long_tom
Visit this Community
Illinois, United States
Joined: March 18, 2006
KitMaker: 2,362 posts
Armorama: 2,005 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - 10:09 AM UTC
Tanks seem to get all the glory, but I remember reading that what Allied soldiers faced most often were Stug III guns. I also read that the SU-76 was good for being able to driver over places that were impassible to tanks. Question-why do we hear so much about tanks and almost nothing about them?
18Bravo
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - 10:30 AM UTC
Because Rommel didn't write a book about them, and Patton was a tanker.
GeraldOwens
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,736 posts
Armorama: 3,697 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - 12:59 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Tanks seem to get all the glory, but I remember reading that what Allied soldiers faced most often were Stug III guns. I also read that the SU-76 was good for being able to driver over places that were impassible to tanks. Question-why do we hear so much about tanks and almost nothing about them?

There are plenty of books on the Sturmgeschutz, and kits of every variant in 1/35th, so I'm not sure what the problem is. We have very respectable kits of the Su-76 from Miniart and Tamiya, and there are several books in English that cover it.
grunt136mike
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: November 24, 2012
KitMaker: 1,896 posts
Armorama: 1,858 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - 01:36 PM UTC
Hi;

"Tanks"-- Or Main Battle tanks are always going to get all of the Glory; Self Propelled Guns and Self Propelled Arty, are Support Weapons and in some peoples minds are just Secondary in Importance That's just the Nature of some things !!!!!

CHEERS; MIKE.
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - 03:42 PM UTC
But the STUG series doesn't qualify as a self propelled gun. It's an assualt gun that was never designed to shoot indirect fire. maybe a Wespe or Hummel. Not sure what the Brits used except for the Sexton, and then not sure if it were indirect fire capable. The M40 and M16/M12 are true SPG's. Modern equipment would be something like the M109 or M110 series.
gary
jon_a_its
Visit this Community
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: April 29, 2004
KitMaker: 1,336 posts
Armorama: 1,137 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - 07:26 PM UTC

Quoted Text

But the STUG series doesn't qualify as a self propelled gun. It's an assualt gun that was never designed to shoot indirect fire. maybe a Wespe or Hummel. Not sure what the Brits used except for the Sexton, and then not sure if it were indirect fire capable. The M40 and M16/M12 are true SPG's. Modern equipment would be something like the M109 or M110 series.
gary


The Sexton was a SPG, it carried the 25pdr, a Field Gun/Howitzer designed for indirect fire, but it could be used in the direct fire mode, having combined sights for both roles...
I've fired this in direct fire mode....
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 11, 2020 - 09:37 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

But the STUG series doesn't qualify as a self propelled gun. It's an assualt gun that was never designed to shoot indirect fire. maybe a Wespe or Hummel. Not sure what the Brits used except for the Sexton, and then not sure if it were indirect fire capable. The M40 and M16/M12 are true SPG's. Modern equipment would be something like the M109 or M110 series.
gary


The Sexton was a SPG, it carried the 25pdr, a Field Gun/Howitzer designed for indirect fire, but it could be used in the direct fire mode, having combined sights for both roles...
I've fired this in direct fire mode....


any SPG can shoot direct fire if the event happened, but shooting indirect fire is another thing. Most direct fire is never shot with the sight, per say. It's literally looking down the bore of the barrel if they're that close (1500 yards or less). I've been in that position more than I like to remember, and the trick is to pre-register long before the event ever comes about. Now it gets really interesting when direct fire is under two hundred meters. Most guns won't do all that well contrary to popular belief. That's when you use HE with a second on the fuse. Depress the barrel to as low as it will go (say a minus three to four degrees) and shoot the lowest charge you got. I've also done that with WP, I might add.
gary
marcb
Visit this Community
Overijssel, Netherlands
Joined: March 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,244 posts
Armorama: 1,226 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 11, 2020 - 10:26 PM UTC
If you're talking about the later part of WWII, then the Stug III was used as a Panzerjager, much like the SU-76.(Although the German equivalent of the SU-76 would be the Marder I, II, III series.)
Stug III's get modelled a lot. SU-76's not so much.
Hohenstaufen
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: December 13, 2004
KitMaker: 2,192 posts
Armorama: 1,615 posts
Posted: Friday, June 12, 2020 - 10:10 AM UTC
I seem to remember reading that type for type, Stugs killed more enemy tanks than any other German equipment. There were several well known Stug "aces", here's a link to three:
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/three-germanys-top-stug-aces.html#:~:text=World War Two – Three,the StuG Battalion 202.
The Stug was classed as an SP gun by the Allies, as it was an artillery weapon, that was self propelled. Originally, the short barrelled Stug belonged to the Sturmartillerie, later when it was equipped with the L48 75mm, they were classified as Panzerjager. It was capable of indirect fire, especially the 105mm howitzer equipped StuH 42. Strangely, despite the fact that Stugs were issued to some Panzerregiments as substitute tanks, they did not come under Guderians brief as Inspector of Panzertroops, remaining part of the artillery. One reason for this was suggested to be that crewing a Stug was the only way an artilleryman could gain the Knights Cross!
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, June 12, 2020 - 03:53 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I seem to remember reading that type for type, Stugs killed more enemy tanks than any other German equipment. There were several well known Stug "aces", here's a link to three:
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/three-germanys-top-stug-aces.html#:~:text=World War Two – Three,the StuG Battalion 202.
The Stug was classed as an SP gun by the Allies, as it was an artillery weapon, that was self propelled. Originally, the short barrelled Stug belonged to the Sturmartillerie, later when it was equipped with the L48 75mm, they were classified as Panzerjager. It was capable of indirect fire, especially the 105mm howitzer equipped StuH 42. Strangely, despite the fact that Stugs were issued to some Panzerregiments as substitute tanks, they did not come under Guderians brief as Inspector of Panzertroops, remaining part of the artillery. One reason for this was suggested to be that crewing a Stug was the only way an artilleryman could gain the Knights Cross!


still, I have yet to ever see a photo of a STUGG carrying aiming stakes! That's pretty much what everybody used for the next forty odd years. You of course need an F.O. or a trained infantryman to adjust your fire. The on STUGG I've been close to was a "G", and it had no way to shoot indirect fire. In otherwords the target had to be in the sight picture. Otherwise, it's a coin toss to whether your even in the right county!

Back in the mid sixties the Army in their infinite wisdom did a series of test with M60 tanks shooting indirect fire at Ft. Sill (I assume). It was capable, and had some serious range. The downside was they couldn't just pull off the side of the road an shoot four or five miles out. Even with an F.O. out there is was a coin toss.
gary
vettejack
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Friday, June 12, 2020 - 11:05 PM UTC
Main Battle Tanks will always be the glamor girl in high heels while the SPG will get the hand-me-down, worn out, shoe. Kinda how the modeling world works.
long_tom
Visit this Community
Illinois, United States
Joined: March 18, 2006
KitMaker: 2,362 posts
Armorama: 2,005 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 13, 2020 - 02:34 AM UTC
What prompted the question to begin with was the fact that the North Koreans used the SU-76 so heavily as well as the T-34/85, but ironically I have heard almost nothing about Soviet use of said vehicle during WW2.
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 13, 2020 - 03:45 AM UTC
Plenty of Su-76's in WWll Soviet use, even if you just Google search. Way too many to link to individually:
https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1980&bih=918&ei=nfPkXt21Go2qytMPqZ-1-Ac&q=soviet+su+76&oq=soviet+su+76&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQDDoFCAAQsQM6AggAOgQIABADOgQIABAeUIEZWKlLYOVqaABwAHgAgAFdiAGhB5IBAjEymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWc&sclient=img&ved=0ahUKEwid-JOykP_pAhUNlXIEHalPDX8Q4dUDCAc

It's as has been said: tanks get all the glory, and SPG's get the left-overs!
 _GOTOTOP