The Artillery Advantage: How StuGs Outperformed Panzers in Tank Kills

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

[@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.

[@FactBytes]

Thank you very much!

[@lllordllloyd]

Great footage, questionable commentary. "Only after the war was the futility of shooting on the move recognised". At no time in history were there more men using tanks in combat on a daily basis, yet they had no idea what they were doing?! The reason for the high kill counts for the StuG were production numbers, unit dispersal, how they were used, and doing most of their fighting on the very favourable terrain of the eastern front. Crew skill didn't hurt, of course, but by late 1944 nobody was being well trained.

[@СергейМарс-м7о]

was it crucial for the Germans? All this fascist shit was ground up by the Russians!!! As well as in our days in Ukraine

[@robertbruce7772]

Very good video with excellent content regarding why the Stugs were so dangerous!

[@wirelessone2986]

I've listened to STUG commanders interviews and as I listened to their experience the Germans used the STUG III/IV for attack at KURSK and other battles...they used them for everything,definitely not just for defense and artillery.

[@blank557]

The Stug's low profile made it into a armored sniper. It sat lower than the Jadgpanther, Nashorn, and Marder SPG's. Also, by mid-war, it was cheaper and faster to manufacture than conventional turret tanks.

[@JoãoCarlosRamos-m5z]

The quantity and quality of weapons are important. But the way they are used transcends everything.

[@thedavistheory7674]

Like shepherd would say: "Sure, it matters who's got the biggest stick, but it matters a helluva lot more who's swinging it."

[@johnhughes4147]

As can be seen in Ukraine today… Vastly superior western tanks are being spanked due to their usage. No air cover, limited numbers, terrain, supporting arms and services…. The list goes on….

[@urviechalex9963]

@@johnhughes4147 I beg to differ. The most obvious advantage of most Western designs is crew survivability. Tanks get killed all the time on battlefields.

[@johnhughes4147]

@@urviechalex9963 i would agree with the survivability point, however kinda means nowt when all your crews survive, but run out of fresh vehicles for them… then they just become badly trained infantry…. The whole matrix needs to work together to succeed ….

Stug III in War Thunder was so fast and could take so ridiculously amount of punishment, it’s not even funny.

[@timothykerr9047]

The Stug gunners came from the artillery and were trained differently. They would aim their initial shot infront of the target, see where the round hit. And make an adjustment. It took a Stug 3 shots to get a hit. A tank needed an average of 5 shots to get a hit. And a Stug could get off the 3 shots before a tank could get off its first shot. One Stug unit got over a thousand kills in a yr with 35 Stugs in the unit.

[@SargentoDuke]

thats the point... people forget that Michael WIttman killed his firsts T34's... with an EARLY STUG with the artillery short 75mm and explosive ammo! he just make the shoots land on the T34 E N G I N E that was awesome, he did not penetrated but burned them.

[@Willing_Herold]

@@SargentoDukeWow…… ingenious use of it’s poor ballistics and velocity round.

[@SargentoDuke]

@@Willing_Herold poop ballitics was an advantage... because STUG CREWS were not tankers... were artillery crews they need 3 shoots for 1 hit, when tankers needed 5!

[@RustyShackleford]

@@SargentoDuke lets not forget, Werner Wolff killed a t34 commander with his own dagger. Totally unrelated to the conversation, just a badass factoid.

[@Willing_Herold]

@@SargentoDuke I imagine these numbers changing a lot in differing situations.

[@johntechwriter]

An eye-opener for WWII buffs who thought Germany’s Tiger tanks were the ultimate track-propelled deliverers of death. Well written and narrated, with authentic German-sourced video, we become acquainted with a mobile howitzer able to penetrate at long range the armor of Russia’s finest tank, T-34, whose futuristic design was up to that point was unassailable by all guns that could be carried by Panzers. The Stug 3 mobile (tracked) howitzer was so good, its 75mm Pak 40 gun and its successors so deadly, the Germans did not feel required to “improve” it - a wasteful process that seriously compromised large-scale production of Panzer tanks over the duration of the war. Hugely armored and ground-huggingly low at only 76”, this versatile and speedy platform was an ideal ambush weapon, saving untold numbers of German infantry during attacks. The Stug’s overall fitness humiliated later-generation Panzers, over-sized and over-complicated, and prone to breaking down at the most desperate moments. As the Wehrmacht retreated westward from Russia, more Panzer tanks were abandoned due to mechanical failure than were destroyed by Russian armor. The Stug was the key element of mobile artillery that saved German divisions from obliteration as Operation Barbarossa was transformed, due to Hitler’s interference, from a quick and decisive summer-long campaign to a protracted, agonized retreat as Zhukov’s tank armies attacked from multiple directions. From Wikipedia: “In 1942 and 1943 the StuG was one of the most effective tracked fighting vehicles fielded by the Germans in terms of enemy vehicles destroyed. Over 10,000 StuGs were eventually produced.”

[@James-e1h8l]

That’s because tiger tanks were the ultimate death delivers. It’s a tank that laid the standards for tanks. The country that fielded the tiger just didn’t have the resources or logistics to keep it running. I don’t think I would count that against the tiger. The tiger 2 was underpowered on the engine so I’ll agree it was not a death deliver because quite a few didn’t even see combat because they broke down.

[@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. 🤣

[@harrymills2770]

The tank was invented for one purpose. It's been mission creep ever since.

[@johnye4433]

Stug was a sub-tank, just like a sub machine gun, it was not the preferred choice of weapon until the enemy was dragging out for attrition

[@minutemanhomestead7214]

@@johnye4433 smfh civi

[@haroldfiedler6549]

It wasn’t a tank dunzel. It served as an infantry assault gun for neutralizing pill boxes and bunkers,, hunter / killer anti-tank gun and with the larger barrel, even as effective artillery.

[@benedictjajo]

@@haroldfiedler6549 by your logic, every Turret-less 'tank' is s not a tank, which includes: Jagpanther, Jagtiger, Jagpanzer iv, hetzer, isu, etc. Using your logic, Stuart and mkv11 Tetrarch are tanks but the above-mentioned are not? A human being with a disability (Turret-less) is still a human being.

[@sthrich635]

German StuG, as with its other jagdpanzers, served mainly in tank destroyers role past mid-war. Its 75 mm L48 gun was no doubt effective till the very end, but in tactical situation the StuGs were like infantry machine guns - MG good at stopping infantry, like StuG stopping enemy AFV, but only when not moving and targets in the firing arc. When these weapons were on the move, they were much vulnerable on their own and required friendly support. Once StuGs got its track blown off it was over for them. What StuG was to Panzers is similar to what MG to rifles, SMG, assault rifles etc - it was powerful in terms of direct head-to-head combat, but when it came to fire and maneuver, they were much subpar. Which was why the StuGs and Jagdpanzers could never really replace the Panzer IV or Panther, though their defensive role did become more prominent in last years of war.

[@marekstanek112]

More more like a sharpshooter's rifle.

[@OldGrayCzechWolf]

Obviously you missed the part where they remarked as to how fast a StuG could pivot. They were best at long range engagements, true, but were still capable at medium range. Only at CQB did they have a disadvantage.

[@sthrich635]

​@@OldGrayCzechWolf While of course StuG could pivot to engage targets, likely faster than its heavier counterpart like Elefant or Jagdtigers, but that doesn't mean it was a good method. Relying on pivoting to engage targets outside its arc of fire had its own practical difficulties. Again, the main problem of StuGs weren't about ranges, but the nature of operations, where its turretless design made it ill-suited for more-fluid offensive battle. For a StuG to pivot towards its target, comes with multiple critical disadvantages: 1. The StuG, if moving or charging ahead, had to stop dead in its tracks to pivot, and then fine-tuning the gun afterwards, and after finishing engaging it had to pivot back to original direction before it could resume advance. The process took was much longer than a turreted panzer would, and risking breaking off from the advancing formations, which itself was already difficult to keep in chaos of battle - A StuG separated from its infantries or other vehicles could be detrimental to both parties. 2. Exposing its more vulnerable side armor when pivoting. Let says, if a StuG had to pivot at 10 o clock direction to engage, in doing so it had to expose its thin side armor (which was vulnerable to even the short US 75mm at long range), at close to 90 angles to enemies at 2 o clock direction. In an attack where enemy guns could be well-camouflaged, such pivot moves were incredibly risky for StuG commanders. However, for a Panzer commander such situation would actually be advantageous: The Panzer turret could turn towards the targets at both sides while keeping the front armor forwards, which would be even more effective since the enemy guns would be hitting it from a angle. 3. Could be more restricted by the environment of the battlefield. Unlike turreted tanks where its turret could turn more freely, only seldom having its long gun barrel catching on stuff, for a StuG to pivot, the entire vehicle length, plus the gun pointing forward, will have to be accounted for and there were risks of StuGs getting stuck or gun barrel getting blocked, since remember StuGs and its gun were lower than Panzers, good for hiding but bad for well, firing over obstacles. In defensive battle StuGs could select and prepare more suitable environment, but in offensive no such luxuries for them. Not to mention StuGs and other turretless tank destroyers were incapable of "firing around the corner". Say an enemy target was known but blocked by obstacles in the vehicle current position; it had to driving forward to obtain a line of sight. A tank performing this could pre-rotate its turret to the side, drive forward and immediately fire at the target. A StuG could not do this, it could not "pre-rotate" its vehicle - it had to drive forward, then stop and pivot while being exposed, easily allowing the enemy to get the first shot. All in all, it wasn't much about ranges, but StuGs needing more "set-up" than Panzers to be effective, same as support weapons like MG and Mortar, they need set-up, and not good at instant-action as firearms like SMG or rifles.

[@adaslesniak]

​@sthrich635 - usually you engage the enemy who is shooting at you, so tank can turn the turret and fight to the flank... but it's vulnerable there as enemy can hit weaker side armor. So in most engagements tanks also were facing enemy front on. And tanks also had to came to dead stop to shoot, so not so much difference.

[@sthrich635]

@@adaslesniak Big difference between tanks' "stopping to fire" and StuGs' "stopping to fire". First off, tanks' turret and hull could be pointing at different directions based on what they need to - the gun could be pointing at the target while the hull pointing at the direction to drive at the same time. A better word would be tanks only need to hit the brake for the gun to stabilize and some fine-tuning, and at any time the hull to immediate continue advancing or retreat backwards to cover. StuGs, as mentioned before, could not be pointing towards two separate things due to lack of turret - they have to stop for much longer time than a tank would ever have to - They have to stop AND turn, and turn back again after firing to continue the advance. The stark difference in reaction times of these two type of vehicles could spell victory or doom in an offensive battle, especially considering the "first hit" rule in tank engagement - the vehicle being hit first had on average lower chance to win or survive the engagement between the enemy hitting it.

[@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]

...but with poor results due to their crews' faulty training.

[@tvgerbil1984]

The most important attribute of the StuGs for the majority of German soldiers was that there was enough of them built and distributed to support the poor infantry divisons which were always placed at the back end of the queue for any armored fighting vehicles.

[@tavish4699]

@@tvgerbil1984correct Without there being a permanent armored force behind you just waiting to move forward and fight of enemy tanks the infantry would have been overwhelmed with no problem The first really effective and rather longrange infantry anti tank weapon was the panzerschreck that could penetrate even the most armored Soviet tanks from the front but it only came out in late 44

[@b4nterontilt]

No. It was assault gun

[@wirelessone2986]

The soviets would change out the L43/L48 for there 7.62

[@MD21037]

Erich Von Manstein was the brains behind the idea of adopting the Stug Assault Gun.

[@chadrowe8452]

And the Ardennes 1940

[@stargazer1744]

He is widely considered the best strategic mind of the Wehrmacht .

[@loneranger5349]

But wasn't aware they could turn and fire faster than a turret could

[@DR.GuntherVonHagen]

@@loneranger5349 That was Grudarian who said that

[@pj1953a]

@@stargazer1744 - but they lost.

[@piperp9535]

I think there are many people who misunderstand the greatest reason that STUGs achieved such high kill counts. It's not that a STUG is better than a PZ IV or any other tank, it's because of how the STUG was originally fielded, to Infantry Divisions and not Panzer Divisions. Look, the Panzers were doctrinally the German Army's offensive maneuver arm. And in the offense, the Panzers were deployed forward and would see intense combat, but as soon as offensive operations ceased, the Panzers would be pulled back to rest and refit, and prepare for the next offensive. And yes, they also so a lot of action in defensive counterattack operations being thrown in to stop Soviet breakthroughs. But the Infantry and their STUG Battalions were always out there for months while the Panzers were many miles to the rear. And when it came time to begin the new offensive operations, the Infantry with their STUGs were involved in those as well. Simply put, STUGs saw more operational combat time. STUG crews were more experienced, their vehicles were easier to maintain. The STUGs got more kills because they spent more time forward facing the enemy, and that's just the truth of it. People need to wise up to this idea and stop thinking the STUG was somehow magically blessed. STUGs spent more time in contact with the enemy, and they were presented more often with defensive engagements vs the Panzers who were charged with conducting the brunt of the offensive engagements, far riskier situations for certain. STUGs weren't nearly as often being pushed forward into enemy mine fields or attacking prepared enemy antitank positions. Think it through and it'll become clearer.

[@andrewholdaway813]

Well put - Until that last "I know you're all a bit thick but" sentence.

[@piperp9535]

@@andrewholdaway813 I've always been a "if the shoe fits" sort of fellow. But I try not to be cruel ... Needlessly

[@andrewholdaway813]

@@piperp9535 But you are addressing an audience of who you have no knowledge. We are fine with your opinion but not your inferred prejudgement.

[@piperp9535]

@@andrewholdaway813 Let's be clear, first off, I appreciate your praise of my initial comment, and second, I was trying to be humorous with my second so please don't get defensive. And third, you aren't actually correct that I don't have anything to go on regarding people's knowledge. They've given me hundreds of examples in this thread. Honestly how many here actually understand that the STUG wasn't that great and that PZ IVs would have performed as well or better in the same assignment, which I might add is exactly how the American's handled it with the M4 Shermans that were assigned to Infantry Divisions. The Germans were greatly impressed, and a little jealous, that their enemy could afford to deploy turreted medium tanks in their Infantry Divisions. The other real piece of knowledge, that while seemingly known, is underappreciated, is the beauty that the STUG III made better use of an obsolete chassis, the PZ III, then the actual tank it was developed for did. But even if the Germans had, when the PZ IV F2 was fielded, halted PZ III Tank production and boosted PZ IV and gone "All In" on that vehicle model, I doubt they had the capacity to produce enough of the L43 and L48 guns.

[@andrewholdaway813]

@@piperp9535 "Well put" is not "agreed".

[@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.

[@Fiasco3]

German infantry loved the Stug. Just have a couple guarding their positions made a big difference.

[@polarvortex3294]

Yes, the infantry loved them, and that brings to mind something that has long bugged me that sometimes other people say. You see, you often hear that the British and the French (and especially the French) were rather slow when it came to understanding the modern role of tanks as the ultimate exploitation weapon, operating in brigade, division, or even field army-sized units, surging through breakthroughs in the battle-lines and causing havoc in the rear areas of the enemy, and sometimes even helping to surround the enemy, which would make them relatively easy to destroy or capture. And the main supposed evidence of this slowness, and of a hidebound stupidity associated with it, was the British clinging to their concept of the so-called "infantry tank," and the French scattering their tanks among the infantry, in so-called "penny packets." But while this may have shown some old-fashioned thinking, I've always also thought that this was mostly a simple recognition by the British and the French of how valuable tanks could be when accompanying the infantry and working in close cooperation with them -- much as the Germans also discovered with the Stug, and, later on, the Americans learned as well, eventually liberally sprinkling in tanks with their infantry -- and with the post-war Soviets going so far as to give each squad a fighting vehicle of its own, to aid in their dismounted infantry assaults. Evidently, even in modern times, the Americans have ordered the construction of a new small tank-like armored vehicle, specifically to accompany their infantry and increase their ability to take on strong defensive enemy positions -- the M-10 Booker combat vehicle. Anyway, it was hard for me to say what I was talking about about in fewer words (that the French and British weren't actually dumb), but I hope you get my point.

[@Marcus-p5i5s]

StuGs were really awesome. Especially on defense.

[@Rob.S859]

A very informative video and well described in detail. The one comment by the video author quoted the Stug could turn just as quick to engage a target that’s a traditional tank having olive the turret to engage the same target. It should also noted that this was a true quote. Micheal Wittman originally served in Stugs. And he also drew on the experience in the Stug. He would often move the Tiger into firing position instead of moving the turret. I don’t know if this attributes to his big kill ratio. But it’s interesting nonetheless the less that he chose to operate the Tiger in a similar fashion where possible.

[@ALEJANDROARANDARICKERT]

Eine sehr gute Doku. Dankeschoen!

[@petermanduca]

excellent doc ,one of the best I've seen

[@babesinclair]

Very thorough, many thanks for all your hard work. Subscribed!

[@barbarossa1983]

Great video very informative with great footage 😊👍

[@FactBytes]

Thanks 👍

[@Caesare9223]

Great footage and info. Thank you.

[@FactBytes]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@lynnmcculloch-m4h]

❤❤❤❤❤

[@kevinpaulson2659]

Great show. Thanks for doing it.

[@FactBytes]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@robertsolomielke5134]

Best vid on Stug III I ever saw. Ghosts of StuG III crew may likely agree.

[@joestiller4270]

Great informative video on the Stug. Loads of relevant information on the behind the scenes on the Role and development of an Great Tank Killer and support Role it played.

[@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.

[@DJJAW11]

.... Wunderbar !. Brilliant presented video sir 🥰😎!. Loved all original footage, i have never seen before, clear too !.

[@FactBytes]

Many thanks

[@robertsettle2590]

​@FactBytes ....just thought I pass this along to you. As I watched this with my 100 year old father, a tanker with the 3AD, who doesn't say much when watching something like this on KZbin. But this time he did, he went on to say that this was one of those damn things that knocked three Shermans out from underneath him and was responsible for his worst battlefield injuries. Because of their low height they were very hard to pick up until it was to late. He went on to tell me that after 80 years, he still has nightmares of being ambushed by those damn things. So now I know why he was so glued to the screen while watching your video. Thanks for the outstanding work.

[@tuscanyjc]

German optics were the difference hands down the best sites of ww2 and still a massive company to this day

[@stargazer1744]

You mean "sights".

[@tuscanyjc]

@@stargazer1744 Ha u r correct

[@sebastian-FX357Z1]

Carl zeiss ag manufacture & polished lens for german tanks & warships for both world wars I & II.

[@tuscanyjc]

@@sebastian-FX357Z1 The optical advantage kzbin.info/www/bejne/jHfdf6enf5ynprs

[@janmale7767]

Zeis optics!!

[@marcusgibson3899]

I am completing a book on RAF Bomber Command - one which revolutionises the history of its effectiveness in destroying the German war economy. One key achievement was the very severe damage inflicted in late 1943 on the StuG factory in Berlin that cut production to a trickle. Hitler, when he heard, ordered all fire engines to abandon all other fires and race to the StuG plant - which only succeeded in causing a massive traffic jam and not put out the fires.. This was in addition to its feat in halting about one third of the Tiger tank's total production, through bombing, and the bombing of component plants, too. The book will be called 'Grand Slam' and should be available in late-March, by Marcus Gibson.

[@harryflower1810]

In defence a turretless design works

[@External2737]

It also worked for bunker busting (infantry support).

[@tomalexander9340]

Great video. Excellent footage and narration!

[@FactBytes]

Thank you very much!

[@Jake-love939]

Maybe the U.S. Marine Corps should look at standing up an Assault Gun Battalion in each of its four Division's Artillery Regiments, instead of ditching tanks completely.

[@Czmnamwlk]

That would be wise but between major conflicts the US military has often failed to adequately organize its battle formations.

[@jurfas4741]

@@Czmnamwlk I think that the American general staff has long since forgotten how to wage a parallel war. They're just collecting a salary at this point lol

[@OldGrayCzechWolf]

No way to make a modern battle tanks amphibious. Just too massive. Can't make a brick float.

[@incomitatus]

@@jurfas4741 ...and teaching their troops about 'White Rage'.

[@marcusgibson3899]

The Bradley is fulfilling a similar role, and very effectively, in the Ukraine at the moment.

[@7ITZDANGER7]

Amazing to see new historical content like i am amazed how many legendary battles you bring out with the very high equality

[@Cherb123456]

Interesting! Enjoyed the watch! Thanks!

[@elisa20vallejo]

Fantastico video, y Fantásticos los STUG 3.

[@newatlantisrepublic6844]

The low profile looks cool

[@luciussander8217]

Excellent, thanks for this.

[@FactBytes]

My pleasure!

[@petergunn-w2v]

30,000 tank kills during the war! I had no idea. The epitome of "workhorse" of German armor vehicles.

[@whisthpo]

Excellent Presentation, Synopsis and Fabulous footage of this shamefully ignored arm of the PanzerWaffe!

[@donreed]

09/11/24: Superb narration! Thank you.

[@FactBytes]

Thank you too!

[@cloneengineer1716]

When attacking, shooting on the move for a suppressive effect was very effective at the suppression, but it also reduces the %shots fired accuracy rate. It's a comparison of apples vs. oranges. The KEY, is that the artillerymen got range determination and gunnery training.

[@man_vs_life]

That was one impressive and captivating presentation. Very well done sir!

[@allgood6760]

Thanks for this 👍

[@FactBytes]

Welcome 👍

[@parker1ray]

Stugs have always been my favorite tank destroyers! I also like the Hezter and the Jagdpanzer IV

[@Gorilla_Jones]

Stugs were ambush predators, the Panzers were offensive units. They would never have a higher kill ratio simply because of that fact. That being said the Stug was a beast of a weapon system.

[@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

[@vladimirtugin8533]

Great job! Thanks 👍

[@tonnywildweasel8138]

Good vid on a great work horse of war👍

[@40beretta1]

There is a serious difference between a Tiger and a StuG... One is a Heavy MBT or simply put a Break Through Tank. The initial design for a Tiger was to break through the main enemy battle lines so the lite tanks, and infantry hand flood out behind the enemy and begin to fan out... After the initial battle break through... the Tigers were suppose to return to the rear and remain into support. There were times when the Tiger went head to head against their enemies... this was rear until the Allies established a beach head and Stalingrad fell

[@jamesbass4154]

The German army did a study comparing the Stug to PaK anti-tank guns. Which was better? The Stug had a 15 to 1 kill ratio. The PaK anti-tank gun had 3 to 1 kill ratio. The Stug was well worth the extra money.

[@unity2155]

Standalone pak does not require fuel and can be concealed in forests and dense bushes. Can be moved with horses and light vehicles btw

[@BobHurls-s3v]

Excellent study,,,Keep it up!

[@fishpoem1433]

Well researched, well narrated, and highly informative. Research into WWII details continues to yield surprising insights.

[@sionbarzad5371]

Love the StuGIII (Ausf B Stug 1941 version) it looks so dope

[@flyfish4fun]

not to forget the moral boost it was to infantry to have stugs around.

[@Schaneification]

It take 5 to 1 to attack , It much hard to attack . So the german ran up most of their kills while running to the REAR :=)

[@Greg-jq1co]

Awesome video, the stug was the perfect tank for the germans given its roles. Only if they adopted the sloped armor earlier would it would have added to its affectivness.

[@FactBytes]

Thanks for the visit

[@Greg-jq1co]

@@FactBytes Anytime.

[@chrisperry4143]

great video. Thanks!

[@victorminkov5183]

As the war shifted to a defensive war it’s no surprise the low profile and great gun made a great vehicle.

[@kniespel6243]

StuG indeed was a brilliant weapon on field.

[@davidfinch7407]

StuGs, like all tank destroyers, are defensive weapons. You put them in good covered and concealed positions, and wait for the enemy to come to you. You have all the advantages, as opposed to tanks, which are supposed to attack into enemy territory. A Panzer Mk IV advancing against T-34s are going to take higher losses then a StuG, which will kill more because they survived longer. American TDs often didn't even have roofs, very risky in the attack as they were vulnerable to almost anything.

[@christophersmith8316]

Battle Tanks didn't fight tanks if they could avoid it.. They were opposed by AT guns and STUGS or Tank Destroyers in the US. Tanks on offense avoided combat and drove to the rear. The idea that the best tanks jousted each other like knights is a huge myth

[@joetamaccio9475]

Wow ! I’m glad I watched. I never knew that. Thank you for the video.

[@FactBytes]

You're welcome!

[@arunta5]

Th4e Stug was ideal for defense when the Germans were forced into withdrawing where they could lie in wait for advancing enemy units.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Both the Tiger and the Ferdinand had a far higher kill ratio, per numbers built.

[@bfc3057]

You'd like to think so, otherwise it was pointless building them.

[@SamiSchuster-g1h]

A very objective, decent contribution👏. By the way, it was easy to see how underarmed the Wehrmacht, i.e. Germany, went into this forced war...

[@Funktastic_Ed]

It may sound weird but it is true, a tank's main role is not to kill other tanks, there is more suited equipments for te job. Even today, tanks have a tank vs tank ability, they can eventualy take on a fight, but most missions won't be targetting enemy tanks, planes helicopters and missiles are far more efficient against a tank.

[@tonyrobinson362]

The Tiger will always grab the limelight, But the Stug killed more armour by along way.

[@RevRMBWest]

Thankyou for that: I found that very informative and have subscribed.

[@josephk4310]

Tank geeks love such a innovative, effective and cost effective vehicles like the STUGS 3/4. I admit to being a Armored Vehicle geek of geeks.

[@khairulhelmihashim2510]

started as self-propelled infantry gun. ended war as self-propelled anti-tank gun.

[@estebanmorales6568]

The Germans made about 1347 Tiger tanks and around 6,000 Panthers. They had over 11,000 Stugs which accounts for some of the disparity in kills.

[@juanzulu1318]

The StuG was good, but it didnt "outclass" the panzers. That claim is wrong. Panzers did a lot of operations which the StuG did and cannot participated. StuGs were mostly used defensively So it is not astonishing that their kill ratio was better

[@Stratigoz]

They did in tank kills.

[@juanzulu1318]

​@@Stratigoznot if the statistic is read with all context

[@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle]

It had more kills. That’s what he means. And it did

[@jsharpe45]

the stugs were the most producer of all German armored vehicles, and there kill ratios speak for themselves.

[@juanzulu1318]

@@jsharpe45 no. Kill ratio alone is not an argument for claiming that they were better than a tank.

[@hoyschelsilversteinberg4521]

When you have 10,000+ Stugs and it's introduction was at the start of the war then yes it will statistically beat tanks that came much later and were in much smaller number.

[@JoriMikke78]

The tank killing stugs came way later, after the attack to the Soviet Union. At pretty much the same time as Panzer 4's got their gun upgraded to the long 75mm. Stugs got so many kills because after Kursk all Germany did in the eastern front was defensive warfare (with a few limited exceptions).

[@454FatJack]

Finland had 29 gun’s in summer 1944 combat. 8 lost. 81 kill’s. Avarage every Stug has 3 ring’s around the main gun.

[@donaldakin2526]

Great history lesson. Thanks for your Diligence

[@FactBytes]

My pleasure!

[@karenstein8261]

Why do most miss the main reason? Studs were deliberately placed where tanks were expected to appear. Tanks, by comparison, were sent off on their own patrols; shooting other tanks was secondary. Also overlooked is the difference the guns made. The usual Stug shell was many times larger than tank rounds, and had a much greater range. The Stug fired from prepared positions at a target that couldn’t hit back. Many tanks could be destroyed before the first tanks got close enough to shoot the Stugs. Only later in the war did the largest German tanks get guns comparable to the gun the Stug had from early in the war. The Stug was also capable of knocking out the larger Soviet tanks, tanks with too much armor for most German tanks to defeat. That bigger, faster shell made all the difference.

[@freddieclark]

I totally disagree with the comments on firing on the move. Standard German (and Italian) doctrine was to fire while halted. The British were really the only country that practiced firing on the move with the 2pdr which was elevated by the gunner, and even they eventually realised that firing on the move was basically a waste of ammunition. Even the M4 medium which had a vertical plane stabilizer generally fired while halted.

[@mgm6708]

The doctrine is one thing, but plenty of acounts of firing on the move being necessary to make the enemy shot harder or due to being in close proximity

[@freddieclark]

@@mgm6708 That is a nonsense statement. First of all 'Plenty' does not substitute doctrine and training, it is merely a strawman (The British trained gunners to fire on the move but discontinued it for two basic reasons, 1 larger guns so no manual target tracking, and 2 they found it to be ineffective). Second, you are trying to make the claim that the necessity of firing on the move overrode everything, but it didn't and there are far more examples showing that a tank is far more effective when firing in the stationary role.

[@mgm6708]

@@freddieclark no, it's not a nonsense statement. You just can't computer someone offering a different perspective. My statement was factually true. There are plenty of accounts of firing on the move, irrespective of doctrine or effectiveness. Go have your meltdown somewhere else

[@freddieclark]

@@mgm6708 You are trying to show that firing on the move was actually relevant, regardless of the number of claims, it was neither doctrine, effective or widely used. By 1943 every (and yes I am including the soviets) military recognised that stationary firing was immensely superior. This is not even being argued, it is just a fact.

[@t.j.payeur5331]

My favorite piece of German armor...

[@williamstel9330]

It appears to be much shorter than the turret tanks so more easily hidden and lighter and more nimble, with enough gun for close surprise shots. Looks ideal for the terrain of hedgerows.

[@whiskey_tango_foxtrot__]

You dont choose Stug Life, it chooses you.

[@TheGrenadier97]

The best and most useful armored vehicle of the entire Wehrmacht.

[@lynnmcculloch-m4h]

❤❤❤❤❤

[@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.

[@Idcanymore510]

A Stug could turn on its axis faster than the Tiger could traverse its turret.

[@thamor4746]

Good video like many others you have done.

[@jpmtlhead39]

The 75mm L/46 Pak 40 AT was the most Successfull AT gun of WW2. The StugIII and Panzer IV used a version of the 75 mm L 46 Pak 40,the 75 mm L/48. A real Killer of a gun.

[@davidforbes7772]

And the germans still lost

[@jpmtlhead39]

@@davidforbes7772 and....??!!!

[@TheDeiness]

Ah yes. The Stug 3 was the most effective armored vehicle ever

[@bajuszpal172]

Yes, an example when not technology but simplicity and professional skills have proven more important. SKils are most difficult if impossible to duplicate in any walk of life. Yet it is the workforce fired as first if companie run into problems......Paul,69

[@blubard6105]

I see the stug coming back - Terminator is an excellent adaptation of a ( modern ) stug.

[@fredflintstome6532]

I think you need to refer to Guderians duck The Jagdpanzer IV. He loved the Stug concept.

[@Rob.S859]

The constant narrative is how good the Panzer divisions were along with the Mark 4, Panther and tiger series. And of course the Stug in this video. But it was then men who manned them that made them so great. They were superbly trained .

[@ohmyrage]

It seems the non rotating turret forced the stug to be implemented more strategically which made it more effective than “let’s rush over there” tank strategy

[@johntechwriter]

More tactically.

[@Idcanymore510]

Who was the leading Stug tank-killer ace and how did their score compare to the likes of Knipsel, Carius and Wittman?

[@giedriustimbaras9780]

Super Legend !

[@011258stooie]

From Dec 41 Germany was fighting a defensive war. The 'stug' was a cheap defensive weapon with better eye site and armor than their turreted kin, but free from their 'offensive' doctrine.

[@theplayerofus319]

idk about that. fighting in defense while still attavking massive in 1942 with fall blau... id argue at the end of 1942 or even summer 1943 (after kursk) the complete movement swtichted to defense completly

[@jerrypiguet2724]

Great video

[@FactBytes]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@buckshot6481]

The StuG III was a great AFV but Der Adolf was manic. Imagine how many StuG and Pnz IV they could have built with the resources taken for Tiger 1 Tiger 2 Panther etc..

[@gew43]

true altho they would not have the fuel to use them also the panther should stay and get rid of the pz iv the panther had issues but was significantly easier to build than the pz iv

[@VoltageLP]

I wish they focused on STUG IIIs instead of jagdpanthers and jagdtigers =(

[@kennethdeveyra3556]

Good one

[@FactBytes]

Thanks

[@carolann3249]

Interesting analysis

[@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw]

You have a good trained up Stug crew you are a lethal weapon.

[@csjrogerson2377]

The first 14:50 mins refused to address the exam question. One other contributing factor that aided the high numbers was production figures. Stugs were the most produced German AFVs of WW2.

[@loneranger5349]

The stug could turn and fire faster than a turret could

[@גוגל.קום]

while keeping the front armour facing the target

[@Crashed131963]

And it still has a 24 degree of horizontal gun movement for adjustment .

[@kirkdavis3929]

I used to play the" company of the hero's" video game..When playing the Germans you can build up to the Kings Tiger..But holy cow you can win the game just producing Stug 3s they dish out mass damage and can take hits other tanks can not. Plus they are inexpensive..