Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! – Russia 1941-42» Forums » General

Subject: Sturmgeschütz rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ivo
Finland
Espoo
flag msg tools
hi!

this is a wonderful game! thanks Uwe & co for this. as i'm very interested about WW2 history, i was wondering why there aren't any "Sturmgeschütz" anti-tank vehicles in the game??? they were quite legendary. there maybe some clear historical explanation for that, but i'm interested about this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Filip Labarque
Belgium
Kortrijk
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The StuG III G was the first widely used type. It was produced from the end of 1942 onwards. Since Awakening the Bear is situated in 1941-42, that is probably the main reason why there are no StuG's.

There are some StuG III G's in Storms of Steel.


And there is a StuH 42e in Monster Tanks of the Eastern Front.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Flupperdeflup wrote:
The StuG III G was the first widely used type.
On the Eastern front maybe, but there were over 500 of the earlier models deployed in France & the low countries.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keegan Fink
United States
Havertown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Two words: expansion fodder
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivo
Finland
Espoo
flag msg tools
Quote:
The StuG III G was the first widely used type. It was produced from the end of 1942 onwards. Since Awakening the Bear is situated in 1941-42, that is probably the main reason why there are no StuG's.


Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
uwe eickert
United States
Fremont
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We also added the Panzer Jäger 35R, DaMag D7, and the ZiS-30 to the second edition Awakening the Bear game.

You will see more of the PzJg in our mid to later campaign games. Even in 1941, the Germans had no idea how badly they would need these units. Then they ran into the T-34. The PzJg often had a lower silhouette, were less expensive to make and sported high velocity AT guns.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse LeBreton
United States
Kingsford
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
A nice working one here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzNAdL_SW2M


I wonder how many more of these they could have built had they not produced heavy tanks. Is my guess close that they could make 4 of these for every Tiger I they made? And maybe 8 for every Tiger II?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pavlos Germidis
Greece
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Ah jesse,

... don't even start trying to make sense of the teutonic obsession with heavy tanks. Half of the Tiger tanks lost in Italy were because of... not combat
Maus, E-100, Ratte, Tiger II... all those useless towers of Iron just freak me out ! See what the Soviets could do with their IS-2, mounting a 122mm gun with massive well-profiled protection on the displacement of a Panther tank !

The German stuff was just never really geared towards mass production: it seems the companies producing tanks were more interested in charging more money to their client than anything else.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse LeBreton
United States
Kingsford
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
"it seems the companies producing tanks were more interested in charging more money to their client than anything else."

Bingo. Now we got the same problem here in America. Our massive industrial complex, as Eisenhower put it, has sucked us dry. Everything they do for us, whether it be Halliburton or Lockheed, is all overpriced services and war gear.

But on another note, isn't the E-100 just a sweet design. I got a model of it. A much better design than the Maus I think.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Carey
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Didn't Guderian complain at one point about the proliferation of different vehicles in the German Army?

The US method, then and now, is for a few basic types of vehicles with variants and such. It allows one to concentrate design and engineering resources more effectively as well as efficiencies in terms of production and logistic support.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pavlos Germidis
Greece
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I agree with you Dan, it makes complete sense.

Trouble exists when procurements are distorted or the vehicles are not viable. Look at the Stryker issue, how hard it was to replace the old M113 and how the amphibious vehicle design history in the US is such a mess. It is not just the Germans that could not control their industries.

Eisenhower in effect saw it coming, but clearly would never have imagined projects like the B-1, Future Combat System, the AH-56 Cheyenne, the Commanche, the Crusader, the laser-armed 747, the A-12, the F-22 (A or B), the F-35, the new navy destroyers, the marines' EFV, the airforce refueling tanker and the new nuclear submarines that all either pathetic failures, cancelled or will in service be able of much less than advertised for many times the pricetag.

Back to topic, I did not serve in the army inside a fighting vehicle myself, and I am wondering how safe I would feel in a vehicle devoid of turret. I mean, if turretless vehicles where so great, how come we did not see more tanks like the Strv 103 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103) ?

Guderian did get pissed off by the proliferation of types, but do not forget that the Wehrmacht had to incorporate foreign models, quick lash-ups and at the same time hastily upgrade its obsolete models. I wonder what the Entwicklung series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwicklung_series) could have done...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PavlosG wrote:
Back to topic, I did not serve in the army inside a fighting vehicle myself, and I am wondering how safe I would feel in a vehicle devoid of turret. I mean, if turretless vehicles where so great, how come we did not see more tanks like the Strv 103
Remember though that the StuG and all the other German Tank Destroyers/Assault Guns were not deliberate turretless designs, but attempts to put a big gun on a small tank - big tanks really didn't exist then! There's an upper limit of how big a gun can be mounted in a turret, primarily limited by the diameter of the turret ring (both to physically contain the breech mechanism, and to absorb the recoil).

British tanks were stuck with the weedy 2 pounder in part because, to keep the tank as low as possible, but still fit onto rail cars & through tunnels, the turret ring had to fit between the tracks. The M3 Sherman was much taller, because it fitted a higher superstructure and a turret ring wider than that measurement. Germany avoided the issue by bolting guns direct to the hull, thereby keeping the silhouette low, and enabling small chassis to mount MUCH bigger guns that a turret ever could.

The S-tank, lovely though it is, was built on a different basis. With a defensive mindset, you can lie low (very low...) and train your gun on likely avenues of approach in ambush. Also a tactic used by Germany in WWII with tank destroyers, but with a different set of initial necessities.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse LeBreton
United States
Kingsford
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the low profile might make the crew feel a little safer.

The E series would certainly have helped Germany's tank production problems, but we would have needed to see the war go into 1946.

Enjoy this model of the E-100 Krokodil. It would have had a 170mm gun!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.