Has ASL evolution left behind "ART" pieces, like 10-3s?

[witchbottles]

I know that the Germans organized them in the artillery branch, but were StuGs ever commonly used firing indirectly?

Designed as SPA weapons, organized into inherently attached artillery to the battalion level formations, crewed by trained artillery crews and commanders, designed for direct fire HE support from the beginning. I do not think they were commonly designed or considered for indirect fire, there is some evidence of use in an ad hoc manner similar to the Flame Dragons of Korea (angled slope earth ramps for elevation of the gun tube in order to gain range and a parabolic arc in order to cause plunging fire) , but in both cases, that was an exception rather than the norm. The poster (Vinnie) cited Allied SPA as being used more often in a direct fire role, not indirect fire. The StuG III was used more often than any other SPA weapon of WW2 in direct fire, so my assertion stands. As the war progressed, they also were, by force of scarcity, really, to become tank destroyers. It became something the design was quite good at, once armed with a suitable gun and ammunition.

As an all-purpose AFV, it is hard to classify the StuG as anything less than as important to the German cause as the Sherman series was to the Western Allies and the T-34 series to the Soviets. These "Big 3" were the main resources for the war in Europe. The Soviets tended to favor purpose-built SPA in their SU series, but there was never enough of them to fill the need, so T-34s found themselves pressed into direct fire HE roles from 1942 on, regularly. the Sherman series was purpose-built to be a dual purpose weapon, much like the StuG, and given armament appropriately. The major difference being that Sherman crews were trained in armor tactics primarily, with supporting artillery training taking a back seat, the StuG crews were reversed in that role, artillery first, armor second.

 

[Brian W]

Designed as SPA weapons

They were Assault Guns, which are often considered a subcategory of SPA, but comparing them to SPA designed for indirect fire is not apt. An accurate comparison of use of SPA in direct fire role would be how often a Wespe or Hummel were used purposefully in the direct fire role compared to the Priest or Bishop or Sexton; or, comparing them to the US's M8 HMC or M8 HMC or M12 CMC. That is the essence of the question, not comparing purpose built direct fire weapons.

And while the StuG may have been the best of the AGs, the class itself wasn't the most efficient, which is why they are now rare for the most part, while dedicated indirect fire SPA still commonly exist.

 

[von Marwitz]

I know that the Germans organized them in the artillery branch, but were StuGs ever commonly used firing indirectly?

Without having doublechecked that, I believe the organization in 'Batterie' rather than 'Zug' and 'Abteilung' rather than 'Bataillon' was a historical rudiment. The former are the designations for artillery units, the latter that for infantry and tank units. The thinking behind them was to have artillery being able to directly support the infantry when attacking strongpoints. Thus also the name 'Sturmgeschütz' which translates to 'Assault Gun'.

Of course, for this role, guns would be much more effective if they could be moved around quickly and their crews protected. This was archieved by - one could say - attaching tracks and armor. The result was, that they more resembled a tank rather than a gun.

Notably, the first Stug i.e. the StuG III B hat a short barreled 75mm gun, which was not designed as an AT weapon. But it suited the role of the direct support gun which was intended for the StuGs. Only later, when the scarcity of German tanks became a pressing problem, the StuGs role shifted to include the anti-tank role for which they were suited quite well on the defensive due to their low silouhette. StuGs were markedly cheaper and quicker to produce than tanks, too. They were also pressed to double as tanks but for that role they were less suited.

So in my opinion, the StuGs were most often used in the direct fire role. For indirect fire purposes, there were other vehicles like the Wespe, Grille/Bison, Hummel, sIG II, and sIG 38(t). These were open topped which made the guns much easier to service. And for the indirect fire role, they did not need all-around protection for the crews as opposed to the StuGs which operated in areas that would be much more exposed to enemy fire.

von Marwitz

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The Germans themselves wrestled with how best to organize and use them, and like many other branches, renamed them several times during the war - from assault guns to assault artillery, etc. and they get mixed up with the anti-tank artillery (which was also renamed, from panzerabwehr einheiten (Tank Defence Units) to panzerjäger einheiten (Tank Hunter Units) with some being called Zerstörer units (Tank Destroyer units).

It is probably a mistake to think the Germans were horribly single-minded about any of this - they of course were not, and found just as the Allies did with the Sherman, there is a gulf between what you want your AFVs to do under your doctrine, and what they are actually forced to do in battle conditions. There were many categories of open topped, non turreted AFVs (anti-tank, artillery, self-propelled gun) just as there were far too many vehicle types - which can also be attributed to the poorly organized German war economy.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

There is little posted above about StuGs that I would disagree with, so I will add a little pre StuG history.

What became known as Blitzkrieg has its roots in the von Hutier or Stormtrooper (Stoßtruppen/Stosstruppen) tactics that developed from the mid WW1 period. One of the early limitations that was recognised was the lack of artillery support to deal with behind the lines strong points. The Germans developed light artillery pieces that could be dragged by men. While WW1 is not my strong point, I vaguely remember those included ex Russian guns with their barrels cut down and lightened.

In the inter war years you saw the development of the lIG 18 (ASL 75* INF). However despite being one of the lightest and most deployable guns in the 70mm range it still was not felt to be mobile enough. The infantry demanded tank support and initially Panzer Brigades were organised that might have ended up as Army or Corps level units that could be attached to divisions as needed. The Panzer folk did not want to have to share their toys with mere Infantry and anyway the 15mm to 30mm 1939 period armour was not suited to slugging it out with fixed defences. Whatever was the relative chronology of demand and technical development, the appearance of the StuG let the Panzer folk keep all their toys, yet gave the Infantry their fire support. Of course mid war when Guderian wanted to sweep the StuGs into his command as Inspector of Armour Forces the Artillery branch objected on the grounds that only through StuGs could artillerymen earn Iron Crosses. Politics!

I have yet to read of StuGs or even StuHs being used in the indirect fire role. I'm sure it happened occasionally but StuG units (batteries, abteilungen, brigades) don't seem to have the sub-units (OP, spotters) that would necessary for indirect fire. As others have pointed out StuGs initially were manned by artillery and in pre or very early competition shooting vs Pz IVs the StuGs were on target far quicker than their Pz IV rivals despite using the same gun but without a turret. That training could well have enabled some ad hoc indirect fire to be used effectively.

Once '43 was well in its stride you begin to see StuGs in non StuG units. StuGs first crept into Panzerjager (tank hunter) units and by late '44 were substituted in Panzer units, often replacing unavailable Pz IVs. During their development stages the Ferdinands, Jagdpanzer IV and Jagdpanthers were sometimes referred to as StuG successors. In theory a Jagdpanzer type could substitute for a StuG, but a recent reading about 12th SS Pz brought to light a possible problem with that. The 560th sPzJG Abt which was attached to 12th SS for Wacht am Rhein to make up for their lack of tanks had to be prodded into supporting 12th SS's advances as they said they were trained to be tank hunters not assault artillery.

So how would I classify StuG units and their role? I would say they started as turretless assault tanks (infantry tanks in British terms) and continued that role while also assuming a tank destroyer role. They are not Self Propelled Artillery.

 

[jrv]

I have yet to read of StuGs or even StuHs being used in the indirect fire role.

This says that the StuGs were used for direct fire and the StuH were employed as indirect fire:

I can't say if that is accurate. The elevation of the gun was limited to 20°, so it was not going to be able to be used like a Wespe or Hummel. Probably use was flexible.

JR

 

[62nd Army]

Incorrect. Joe is a Dispatches guy and plays from both MMP and 3rd Party. Can design a mean scenario too. Speaking of which Joe, sounds like you are now contractually obligated to design a scenario with ART and a 10-3 leader.

Oh no!!!!

 

[Paul M. Weir]

This says that the StuGs were used for direct fire and the StuH were employed as indirect fire:
I can't say if that is accurate. The elevation of the gun was limited to 20°, so it was not going to be able to be used like a Wespe or Hummel. Probably use was flexible.

JR

StuH, hmmmm?

When the StuG were first fielded (France '40) a 75mm was pretty big ju-ju on a vehicle, indeed that calibre was still the standard field artillery calibre for most nations, only the Germans and US had taken 105mm as the baseline artillery calibre. On AFVs the Soviets had the T-28, BT-7A, first KV-1, the French had the Char B1 bis and the Germans the Pz IV and those were the only production vehicles with 75mm or better.

By the time the StuH was designed (sometime mid-late '42, production Apr '43) 75mm was pretty "meh", everyone and their dog fielded some form of 75mm. The StuG had reached its Ausf F, F/8 and G models with the L/48 75mm that turned the StuG III into a good tank killer. Still the intent was that StuG units were supposed to be assault artillery and the Germans decided that 105mm would be a good idea.

It was intended that StuH would reinforce StuG units, apparently a common organisation was a battery of StuGs would contain a command StuG, 2 platoons each of 3 StuG and a platoon of 3 StuH, the abteilung having 3 such companies and a command StuG for a total of 31. For a reinforced abteilung of 45 StuG you would have 3 battalion command StuG and 3 companies with 2 command StuG, 8 StuG and 4 StuH. Within a 45 StuG unit a company might have 3 platoons of 3 StuG and a StuH but much more likely 2 platoons of 4 StuG and 1 Platoon of 4 StuH, both with a company HQ of 2 StuG. Of course giving the constant scarcity of German replacements any combination of StuG and StuH might be seen, but always with StuG being the majority.

Like with StuG, I see StuH as primarily a direct fire weapon, though inventive and adept commanders could do better, so I pretty much agree with jrv.

 

[witchbottles]

Assault Guns are a form of Self-propelled Artillery.

Bull, Stephen. Encyclopedia of Military Technology and Innovation (2004 ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 229

 

[Brian W]

Assault Guns are a form of Self-propelled Artillery.

Yes, I pointed that out back in post #42, but the discussion was about artillery normally used in the indirect fire mode. StuGs were not artillery used in the indirect fire mode, so inclusion of them in the discussion is beside the point.

 

[witchbottles]

Yes, I pointed that out back in post #42, but the discussion was about artillery normally used in the indirect fire mode. StuGs were not artillery used in the indirect fire mode, so inclusion of them in the discussion is beside the point.

Perhaps my mistake there, I presumed my discussion point was in reference to The poster (Vinnie) citing Allied SPA as being used more often in a direct fire role, not indirect fire, than Axis SPA. I disagreed as the Assault Gun, while not necessarily utilized in indirect fire roles often, was still classified (* and remains so) as a form of SPA. So my contention remains that the StuG III, as a form of SPA, was used in direct fire roles far more often than all Allied SPA forms put together, really. ( With the possible exception of the Soviet Union gaining a majority of use in direct fire SPA after the Bagration offensive in 1944.)

"You'll see mobile arty more often than towed as the Allies used them in direct fire roles more often."

 

[Paul M. Weir]

The last few posts bring us to what is the distinction between the various non turreted gun armed vehicles. That question comes down to their expected roles, IE doctrine.

Self Propelled Artillery: Generally with light armour, designed for both direct and indirect fire with the main emphasis on the later. It needs all the skill of towed artillery and the personnel to conduct indirect fire like battery fire plotting personnel, observation and spotting people. A SPA is basically a conventional artillery piece that has an engine to move it from battery firing position to another. Tactics and procedures used would have been recognisable to a WW1 artillery man. Though capable, like any artillery piece, of direct fire, such use for other than emergencies would be regarded as misuse. Today's SPA are capable of "shoot'n'scoot" to avoid indirect counter battery fire.
WW2 examples: Wespe, M7 Priest, Bishop, 155mm M12.

Tank Destroyers: A heavy AT weapon mounted on a light or obsolete chassis. Basically a defensive mobile AT gun, not really designed for or capable of attacking. Like towed AT guns best used for ambush. The modern BRDM-2 "Malyutka", TOW armed Humvee or a "Technical" would be TDs.
WW2 examples: Marder I/II/III, M10, M3 75mm GMC, Deacon, 2lbr Portee.

Tank Hunters/Assault Guns: A heavy gun mounted on a heavily armoured chassis. Can be used offensively defensively, IE either as an assault tank or a TD. Though not as good as a tank in a general offensive, for more deliberate set piece assault it can do the job just as well. Mainly direct fire infantry support. Though turreted the BMPT "Terminator" might be the closest modern equivalent.
WW2 examples: StuG, Jagdpanther, M4 (105), ISU-122/152, SU-85/100, Brummbär.

Light Assault Guns: The left overs. Usually a method of getting a decent sized gun on a mobile chassis. Though intended as an infantry support weapon, it would be too light for anything other than overwatch fire. I can't think just now of a modern equivalent, though a RR armed "Technical" might fit. Most were built simply because that's the best the manufacturers could do. Eg the SU-76 was the only way a decent gun could be put on a chassis that was the limit a truck factory could produce which otherwise would only produce obsolescent light tanks. Usually direct fire only, though some nations could do indirect fire if needed.
WW2 examples: SU-76, M8 HMC, the various Grille on Pz38(t) chassis.

The last category is a bit of "neither fish nor fowl or good red herring". I suppose cannon or automatic Grenade Launcher armed "Fire Support" vehicles would be a match. Indeed the modern IFV could be said to combine the APC and Light Assault Gun functions. Battling Taxis as opposed to Battle Taxis .

 

[Eagle4ty]

The last few posts bring us to what is the distinction between the various non turreted gun armed vehicles. That question comes down to their expected roles, IE doctrine.

Of course there's always the following to contend with (paraphrased, as I can no longer readily find the actual quote):

"The difficulty with fighting the Americans is that they have no doctrine of modern warfare; or if they do, that anyone is aware of it; nor if they were, is there any compunction to implement it."

Attributed to the commander of the 11th PzDiv I believe.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Actually I would say the US had a well defined doctrine, it's just that that doctrine did not mesh well with reality (eg tanks were not supposed to fight other tanks). They did,in time, learn and evolved methods, as opposed to doctrine, that worked reasonably well.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Actually I would say the US had a well defined doctrine, it's just that that doctrine did not mesh well with reality (eg tanks were not supposed to fight other tanks). They did,in time, learn and evolved methods, as opposed to doctrine, that worked reasonably well.

Yeah, but still a great quote, even if I only vaguely remember it!

 

[RobZagnut]

You've not played too many large HASLCG's where 6+1s abscond in droves by CG's end. Try a Cg III of Fest Buda , check out all those 6+1's.



KRL, Jon H

PS totally agree about the PiF leaders, btw. absolutely marvelous.

CGs don't count. Anyone can ELR a bunch of 7-0 down to 6+1 in a 20 scenario CG.

We're talking about scenarios where designer's starting OB include ART, 10-3, 6+1 and even 10-2 are getting pretty uncommon.

 

[witchbottles]

Yeah, but still a great quote, even if I only vaguely remember it!

close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and 155 artillery rounds...

 

[witchbottles]

CGs don't count. Anyone can ELR a bunch of 7-0 down to 6+1 in a 20 scenario CG.

We're talking about scenarios where designer's starting OB include ART, 10-3, 6+1 and even 10-2 are getting pretty uncommon.

you can roll up dozens of them, also, in the RG charts, before the first WC DR of the game begins. Especially with Axis Minor RGs.

 

[Robin Reeve]

WO22 The Cost of Non-Compliance has a IeFH 18 105 ART in the German OB.
That is a 2017 scenario.

 

[witchbottles]

From a practical standpoint, designing a scenario with multiple artillery or mortars >=75mm on board means you are typically looking at a three full board scenario (due to minimum ranges for a lot of these weapons), and a lot of play testing to get the balance right. A single 120mm Mtr piece is a deadly tool on a hilltop overwatch across 2-4 boards in ASL, same for an 81mm Mtr firing across 6-20 hexes it can see without too many hindrances. Same goes for most artillery in the game. Festung Budapest even showed that 81mm Mtrs placed on rooftops gives a deadly accuracy to them even in highly built up urban terrain. (witness the Mei defense for Cg I and II there ).

It can be done, and done well, but it is far easier and less time consuming to keep a scenario size and OoB down to smaller caliber weapons or direct fire ATGs, esp in light of the fact that most scenarios are ( by some unspoken player preference) designed as tournament size (ie <=6 hours to finish, smaller OOBs and board layouts.)

KRL, Jon H