Talk:Sturmgeschütz III

Continuous modifications & usage as 'tank destroyer'
We've been changing one of the leading sentences back and forth.

"It was built on the chassis of the Panzer III tank. Initially intended as a mobile, armoured light gun for infantry support, the StuG was continually modified and was widely employed as a tank destroyer"

The previous edit implied that it was modified until 1942 at which point it became widely used as a tank destroyer. Neither the previous version nor the current one is perfect.... and this can still be improved. My objections to the previous version are:

a) Stugs were used in the antiarmor role before 1942.

b) Stugs continued to be modified with different features long after 1942. For example, the late 1944/early 45 Stugs are very different from those produced in 1943.

c) We might want to avoid the term 'tank destroyer' altogether since it is a US term that might imply US doctrine for these types of vehicles.

So maybe we can work together to come up with a sentence that captures all the meanings we intend. Certainly the fitting of the longer 75mm in 1942 made it more effective in the antiarmor role, but that's not really what the lead paragraph says (yet)....DMorpheus 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

75 l43/l48 weren't especially high velocity
So I changed the line "After the Germans encountered the Soviet T-34, the StuG III were armed with the high-velocity 75 mm StuK 40 L/43 (Spring 1942) or 75 mm L/48 (Autumn 1942) anti-tank gun." to "higher-velocity", since the L/43s and L/48s were pretty average in terms of antitank guns. Compare to the 75 L/70 which was a truly high-velocity gun. SenorBeef 13:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They may have had average muzzle velocity but were far above average in performance for their caliber. Compared to US or Soviet guns of the same or similar caliber they performed better. The current text sort of mixes two distinct things together; I suspect the original author meant that the longer guns were more effective, which they certainly were. DMorpheus 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "...average muzzle velocity?" What does that mean? Average as opposed to what? Please explain.  "...far above average in performance for their caliber?"  Your statement clearly indicates that the gun in question demonstrated a performance that violates the laws of physics.  Did this weapon fire a magic bullet?  Please explain. Thank you. 14thArmored 2000 Hours 11 December 2006


 * In comparison to the old /L24 gun the L/43 and L/48 were high velocity guns. That's all that statement intended to say. --Denniss 01:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to read DMorpheus' statement more carefully. His point is quite clear, and it is that the weapon "had an average muzzle velocity," and was "far above average in performance for their caliber." If you know anything about ballistics, you will understand that these two things are mutually exclusive in a weapon of this type unless there is some other scientific explanation, which in this case, there is not.  Let's just wait and see if DMorpheus manages a cogent and convincing reply to my questions. 14thArmored 2000 Hours 12 December 2006


 * The muzzle velocity on the KwK 40 for standard ABCBC-HE was 770 M/S. Certainly faster than infantry guns, but not "high speed" relative to the higher-end tank guns. The KwK 42 has a MV of 920-950 M/S, a significant difference. The KwK 40 is closer to the F-34 gun of the T-34 tank than the KwK 40. So, really, it's medium-high velocity, relative to other guns. To revert what I wrote was pretty anal - the point of the the language was to indicate that the new gun had a higher velocity on its shells, which "higher-velocity" certainly conveys. SenorBeef 08:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following: Thanks! DMorpheus 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remain polite per WP:Civility.
 * Solicit feedback and ask questions.
 * Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
 * Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Asking you to justify your statements is not uncivil. However, it is uncivil and intellectually dishonest when you avoid answering honest, straight-forward questions about your statements. Please answer my questions, and stop crying wolf about being attacked or treated without civility. 14thArmored 2006 Hours 11 December 2006

Finnish StuGs
Thirty Sturmgeschütz 40 Ausführung G assault guns (Ps 531-1 to 30) arrived in late spring 1943. This was according to contract #1189 with Germany (that stipulated a delivery of 45 tanks). They arrived in Pori in three shipments: 6 July (10), 13 August (8) and 3 September 1943 (12). The purchase was not presented to the Ministry Committee until 8 October 1943. The Stu 40 assault guns were new production vehicles with standard German equipment. They were produced at Alkett (Altmärkische Kettenwek GmbH) in Berlin (10) and at MIAG (Mühlenbau und Industrie AG) in Braunschweig (19). The hull of one assault gun was manufactured by MAN (Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg) to the PzKpfw III Ausf. M specification. The assault guns delivered in 1944 (Ps 531-31 to 59) were Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. G models. The reason for the new designation was that a new assault gun based on the PzKpfw IV entered production at the beginning of the year. So to tell the two assault guns apart, the hull designation (III or IV) was added. A total of 29 StuG III Asuf. G assault guns were delivered to Finland before the German arms aid finally was canceled. These last guns arrived in five batches on 29 June (5), 2 July (7), 6 July (3), 3 August (6) and 6 August (8). More assault guns were on their way but returned when the armistice begun. --MoRsE 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It started as StuG III and ended as StuG III, Sturmgeschütz 40 was just something like a nickname because of the longer Sturmkanone 40 it used from Ausf. F onwards but it was rarely used in official documents. The StuG IV was never called StuG 40. What is a Stu 40K ? --Denniss 23:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The names changed during production and it was not until after the introduction of the StuG IV, when the "III" part was introduced for earlier models:

--MoRsE 06:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sturmgeschütz Ausführung A: Known as StuG III Ausf. A after January 1944.
 * Sturmgeschütz Ausführung B
 * Sturmgeschütz Ausführung C
 * Sturmgeschütz Ausführung D
 * Sturmgeschütz Ausführung E
 * Sturmgeschütz 40 Ausführung F: Armed with a 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43 or L/48. The "40" part started to appear when the new long barrel gun was introduced.
 * Sturmgeschütz 40 Ausführung F/8: Armed with a 7.5 cm StuK L/48
 * Sturmgeschütz 40 Ausführung G
 * Sturmgeschütz III Ausführung G: "Stu 40" was changed into "StuG III" when the new StuG IV (based on the PzKpfw IV chassis was introduced in January 1944. Subsequently the different models were known as StuG IIIs and IVs
 * Sturmhaubitze 42 Ausführung G: Abbrevated as "10.5 cm StuH 42 Ausf. G"
 * Sturmgeschütz IV: Abbrevated as "StuG IV", please observe that no "Ausführung" was used for this model

Remote-control MG mount
Hello from Germany here! I've heard about remote controlled machine guns on different SPGs by now, including at least the Hetzer and I was wondering if that's one of those in the picture. 84.134.244.141 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)MrCuda


 * Yes, the mounting was the same as the one on the jagdpanzer 38(t). DMorpheus (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply. May I ask why there's no mention of it in the article then? I think it's rather interesting to know that they had remote controlled MGs for their SPGs back then. 84.134.220.135 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)MrCuda


 * Why not add it yourself? FYI, not *all* Stugs had the remote-control MG, only very late models of the Stug-III and Stug-IV. Even today remote-control machinegun mounts are rare. There's one on the US Stryker - the RWS or 'Remote weapons station' includes a bunch of capabilities including the remote-control firing of the weapon. DMorpheus (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I could but I don't want to interfere with the work of the article's author. :> Plus I don't have any proper information about it right now. Anyway, I didn't mean it like that. I was just surprised to see a version with the RC on the page and couldn't find anything in the article itself and thus asked about it. FYI, I'm well aware that it wasn't the usual equipment for every StuG out there ;) 84.134.220.135 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)MrCuda

video on page
The video on the page of a STUG III maneuvering is not a real STUG, its actually an FV432 APC with the body modified to look like a Stug.

A replica like this was built for the movie Band Of Brothers, they took two half of FV432s and merged them together so it could have 6 road wheels and be the right size. This replica here only has 5 road wheels. The video should probably be taken off the page since its a replica built off of a modern day APC and not the real thing. Pokeoddsponge (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it is simply not a Stug so I removed it. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Germany
Under "Operators", Germany is not listed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.106.3 (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

General von Mastein was a well-known problem?
"The artillery of the time was heavy and not mobile enough to keep up with the advancing infantry to destroy bunkers, pillboxes, and other minor obstacles with direct-fire. Although the problem was well-known in the German army, it was General Erich von Manstein who is considered the father of the Sturmartillerie. This is because the initial proposal was from (then) Colonel Erich von Manstein and submitted to General Ludwig Beck in 1935, suggesting that Sturmartillerie ("assault artillery") units should be used in a direct-fire support role for infantry divisions."

Those sentences need to be re-worked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.136.0 (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Operators: Sweden (Few operational Postwar) No - Norway (Few operational Postwar) Yes
Me knowingly Sweden only had a couple for testing and evaluation post war. No operational. Whereas Norway actually had some operational http://www.achtungpanzer.com/norwegian-panzers.htm.

Kind regards

Hans

158.169.9.14 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge: Sturmgeschütz → Sturmgeschütz III
I think the Sturmgeschütz page should be merged into this one, as they are both intrinsically and substantially the same article.86.178.3.143 (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And the Sturmgeschütz IV? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well looking at the umbrella article Sturmgeschütz, it is pretty poor in comparison to the article about the specific weapons! Logically if a merge is not the answer, the article about the other weapons should be expanded and improved to list the other examples of the type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.208.6 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, if a merger is to take place it should be between Sturmgeschütz and assault gun. Andyvphil (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the Sturmgeschütz article is that is doesn't refer to it as a SERIES. Most of the time it's talking about the StuG III instead of the SERIES. If the working continually refers to the SERIES of Sturmgeschütz vehicles then no merging is necessary. MTWEmperor (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've modified the StuG article to be about the StuG SERIES as it's completely redundant to have a "StuG" and "StuG III" article about the same vehicle. I'll ad more about the StuG IV and get this cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ausführung
This word really just means "design" or "model". Ausf B is "Model B" or "B Model". Not sure how to deal with the many instances of this abbreviation that come up in the article. Leaving them untranslated creates a reading difficulty. Rumiton (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced photo caption
"This vehicle likely suffered a catastrophic internal explosion, detaching the casemate from the hull". This is classic synthesis and/or original research. Editors are not here to guess what the facts are - we require references, despite what may appear obvious in this case. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 12:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Stug 3 replacing the Panzer 3 production completly by 1943
After the battle of Kursk Hitler received reports that Stug III performed better than Panzer 3 and 4 tanks with certain limitation about its employment. After this battle, Panzer 3 production was stopped and all Panzer 3 chassis production wes entirely dedicated to Stug III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0C:20BF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:8B76 (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sturmgeschütz not III?
Is this article named incorrectly? This edit by has removed the pesky "III" from most of the article, which now starts with The Sturmgeschütz (StuG) family of assault guns was....  Is this article about the Sturmgeschütz family, not the Sturmgeschütz III, and needs to be renamed? Or is this edit in error? Something else? --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We already have an article about the StuG IV. This article discusses specifically the variant built on the Pzr III chassis. Mainspace here does not discuss the StuG IV at all. There are undeniably two significantly different weapon platforms that we already have articles on here, although they both need improvement. It is an obviously GF but I think unhelpful edit in terms of reader understanding. It is also making an unsourced assertion that the StuG III was unknown as a descrete type except as the StuG III F flamethrowing version. As the article admits, the StuG IV's introduction in late '43 made the StuG III a specific contemporary titling for the vehicle. So for a significant period of its production it did have the designation StuG III. It appears to be an honest attempt to create the concept of a StuG "family" which would possibly fall foul of WP:OR. The StuG III was produced by Daimler-Benz and the IV by Krupps. We do not have a family, rather ad-hoc developments of different tanks. I have reverted it and would like to get a consensus on this. Cheers colleagues. Irondome (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have linked Sturmgeschütz in the lede also, so that the reader can get a broad overview of it's history and tactical usage, thus eliminating the potential distraction of discussing the concept of a weapons "family" in the mainspace of a specific article about a StuG variant. Irondome (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Sturmgeschütz was not given the appellation III until the Sturmgeschütz IV arrived on the scene, with the Sturmgeschütz III Ausf.G. Officially the earlier "IIIs" retained their original designations. Colloquially they were known as Sturmgeschütz, Sturmgeschütz III, Sturmhaubitze 42 or Sturmgeschütz IV. I have a reference giving the full official designations and alternatives which i forgot to add to the article. See:- — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Petebutt (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2016‎ (UTC)
 * For the reader's convenience, WP tends to use current common names, not names at the time, especially where later events have overshadowed the original use. E.g., it's World War I, not the Great War.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sturmgeschütz III
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sturmgeschütz III's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Panzer Tracts 23": From Panzer IV:  From Marder III:  From Panther tank:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Performance against enemy vehicles: gun: 122 mm A-19
Why is this given a column in the table? It's a Soviet gun, not a German one. It is not mentioned anywhere else in the article so I infer that this was not a regular variant of the StuG III.

It might be nice to add a row to this table specifying an estimate of the number produced of each variant. That would be an indication of its importance. Of course it might be hard to find those numbers. DHR (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Performance of StuG III vs IS-2 (IS-122) and vice versa --Denniss (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)