Why no Allied StuGs?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

All our books are %15 off until Dec 25 including yours www.lulu.com/spotlight/mhg/

[@rogersheddy6414]

Love this guy! "No unicorns." T- Shirt. MERCH !!!

[@awesomehpt8938]

Because you don’t choose the Stug life. The Stug life chooses you!

[@vladimpaler3498]

The US military industrial complex would just say, darn the cost, give them turrets.

[@אלכסנדרהברעקוסטי]

“Low profiles are for losers and cowards.” -The Americans (probably)

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

Yep! Just like they said STS for the entire ship!

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

One also adds to that McNair's meddling in doctrine that greatly dissolved the differences in usage of tanks and tank destroyers.

[@ewok40k]

Meanwhile Soviets: su-85/100/122/152 machine go brrrrrrrt

[@werttrichen]

Also the limit for tanks in Europe for the US was the amount they could ship there, thus quality could be raised without quantity loss

[@CplBurdenR]

16:00 indeed, this is something I noted when researching Soviet armoured vehicle "lifespans" at it were. You see older designs in the US Army and British Army phased out as the war progresses. The Germans, essentially they are either sent into combat until extinction, or converted *then* sent into combat until destruction. The Soviets, it's somewhere between the two, with older tanks sent to quieter fronts. You still see M3 Stuarts, M3 Lees, Valentines, T-26s etc in use in 1944 in Finland.

[@joshuasutherland6692]

SU-76M: "Am I a joke to you?" Soviet tanker: "No you are cyka."

[@bradenhagen7977]

I find endearing that everyone whose operated machinery or worked on it can relate to hating very specific vehicles. Even within the same model.

[@ronaldgray5707]

I went to a war college seminar on this topic, turreted and turretless tanks in the American forces. They said it had more to do with the length of the American logistics train. A turreted tank could fill in the role of a turretless tank (not as well, but it could), but a turretless tank would be hard press to fill in when a turreted tank is needed. And there was only so much space on a ship, might as well fill it with a turreted tank. Germany and Russia did not suffer this restriction. American Sherman tanks were also used in indirect fire roles. Again, not as well as proper artillery but we had a lot of them.

[@RonGardener4142]

2:25 "You can use any weapon in indirect fire - though maybe swords are a bit of a problem" Skallagrimacing intensifies ⚔️

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

Explain please. I’m very curious

[@meanmanturbo]

@@yarnickgoovaerts Skallagrim is a sword nerd youtuber

[@jonesy279]

You can you use a sword for indirect fire, but only once 😂

[@henrihamalainen300]

​@@yarnickgoovaertsYou should check his video of how to end opponent rightly. I don't remember the exact name of the video but it was somewhere along those lines.

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@jonesy279 Twice, if you use the pommel first.

[@whiskey_tango_foxtrot__]

"Let's talk about disadvantages...it has no turret..." THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT!

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

Ze Germans didn't choose the StuG life. The StuG life chose zem.

[@ghostofmarx867]

Worth noting the slope on the Jagdpanther was increased, increasing effective thickness for the same nominal thickness

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

Hermann Balck writes extensively on the failures of war-planning and how the War was lost already in 1940 because of the lack of tank building industrial base and that the Germans were so far below actual AFV requirements that it was impossible to redress. As others noted, to really have the defensive stopping power necessary to stalemate the Soviets, each German Infantry Division would have needed an Assault Gun/Panzerjager battalion as well as 50+ AT guns with transport.

[@looinrims]

Bit hard to say the war was lost in 1940 when the two main forces that would defeat the Germans weren’t in the war I think After all, within outside support (especially American) the Soviets wouldn’t have survived the war, whether or not the Germans lost

[@mp4373]

They were increasing Hetzer production toward the end of the war to do this. The Allied bombing campaign delayed this.

[@flarvin8945]

⁠@@looinrims the Soviets stop the Germans in 1941, well before any significant aid came from the west. And the vast majority of western aid did not reach the Soviets until after Stalingrad. The Soviets were not going to lose to the Germans in ww2, with or without western aid. But western aid did make the massive Soviet offensives of 1943-45 possible.

[@looinrims]

@ wrong, tell that to the starving Soviet citizens “Hey, you guys wanna lose out on 40% of our food supplies? We are already suffering significant hunger” Or the Air Force “hey guys wanna lose almost all of our aluminum and aviation fuel supplies because we don’t make that kind of fuel?” I humbly disagree with this myth Or the factories “hey guys wanna lose out on our machine tool suppliers?” Or the guys making explosives “hey guys wanna lose out on 2/3s of our materials for making explosives?” The Soviets didn’t stop them in 1941, considering they continued pushing in 1942, besides 40% of all medium+ armor was western sourced at the battle of Moscow. I humbly disagree

[@flarvin8945]

⁠@@looinrims the Soviets stop the Germans in the winter of 1941 at the gates of Moscow, and then pushed them back with a front wide offensive. That was without any significant aid from the west. Only ~16% of western aid reached the Soviets by the time they crushed the Germans at Stalingrad. Those are facts.

[@Magicannon_]

Before diving in, I'm going to go with logistics. Only so much space on so many ships to get them over the Atlantic and the Channel. May as well make the vehicles you can get over to the fight as versatile as possible. Turrets are more versatile than casemates. The Germans and Soviets were connected via land as well as in dire need of efficient to produce vehicles, so casemates were an answer. Plus, once the offensives properly got going there were few situations where specialist assault vehicles would really outshine normal armored formations. The Siegfried Line was the prime concern where some concepts were tested, but it turned out they weren't needed. On top of this, vehicles like the Sherman were fairly easy to modify in small numbers to improve on some needed capabilities like the Jumbo.

[@tomw9875]

I came here to type the exact same thing; "why waste shipping on a less capable vehicle?"

[@awesomehpt8938]

This is a Stug it Stugs

[@Losowy]

This is a FockeWulf It fockes wulves

[@firstoffproductions1462]

Zis is a flammenwerfer. It werfs flammen.

[@Cragified]

Another part that factors in under doctrine is that the Germans and Soviets relied way more on field artillery (artillery firing in direct) working directly with the infantry and indirect artillery was more divisional level. Compared to the American and therefore by extension the British who prepared artillery maps in advance and a squad could call for a fire mission. This meant that infantry could work directly with indirect artillery and didn't need 'assault guns'. If the 75mm couldn't handle it then you could call in 105mm or more and directly guide it in. Only in specific situations was larger field artillery needed and hence the 105mm and 95mm variants of the usual tanks. Usually when it wasn't possible to have artillery setup such as the D-day landings and operations in the pacific.

[@Cohen.the.Worrier]

I think you underestimate the turret ring. It is a big and precise part of machinery so the capacity to produce them is rather limited.

[@brumby92]

I imagine it has to be cast as one piece, and that requires a big forge and bigger factory.

[@puff7145]

Moving parts are expensive parts.

[@88porpoise]

@@puff7145 See also the efforts to disrupt ball bearing production. The Pazer IV used well over a hundred of them in its turret alone.

[@colosseumbuilders4768]

When Infantry regiments typically had a Sherman tank company, there was little need for assault guns.

[@akula9713]

There is report where a panzer commander wrote a report on tank destroyers. He highly rated the Achilles and M10.

[@PotatoeJoe69]

And why wouldn't he.... mobile, light, powerful guns, reliable, and share parts commonality with the Sherman's meaning if something mechanical breaks, parts are readily available. Unlike German tanks... heavy, unreliable, and essentially no parts were shared between different model tanks...

[@jaredlucev2705]

We had the M10, the M18, and the glorious M36. Who needs silly casemates?

[@The_Conspiracy_Analyst]

Came here to say this. The only reason for the Stug was to cram a bigger gun on a chassis with limited space. I'm shocked this guy doesn't understand this. Some "expert"

[@bradenhagen7977]

​@The_Conspiracy_Analyst he literally spent like 5 minutes on that point. Don't be disingenuous.

[@hiruharii]

@@The_Conspiracy_Analyst you ok dude?

[@pavelslama5543]

Germans: "StuG III and IV - a nice way to make a Panzer IV on budget." USA: "Budget? Why should we bother with that?"

[@JamesEvans-ow1wc]

Got me a soft pretzel with mustard..... time for Military History Visualized

[@skankhunt_4319]

awww sick dude that dont combine at all

[@j_pn]

@@skankhunt_4319 I see you're not from Philly

[@chrisbeer5685]

Because you don’t choose the StuG life: The StuG life chooses you.

[@gr8990]

The Sherman with the 105mm howitzer, M4(105) and M4A3(105), are the closest thing I can think of to a "US Stug" as in an armored self propelled gun meant to support the infantry. However, this is why the Sherman had such a good HE shell with the 75mm gun. Perhaps the lesson here is that a versatile modular platform can actually be better than specialized vehicles? And you are of course correct about what you can afford and make effective versus what you want. Stug was an excellent balance of that.

[@DruidTimer]

The Sturmgeschutz concept was really born in WW1, the first type being the French St. Chamond, with a forward firing 75mm gun.The requirement for the Stug. III was laid out in the 1930's, and was never intended to be what it became, which was a necessity for Germany, as the war went on. The U.S. had the luxury of not needing a dedicated Stug. The Sherman was intended for Infantry support, and "tank destroyers" were supposed to deal with tanks.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

M3 Lee is technically a casement tank, right?

[@MrZauberelefant]

Not tactically employed as one

[@rvail136]

Stuff. Thoroughly enjoy your channel for the solid information you impart. Thank you for what you do.

[@Alte.Kameraden]

I'd argue is because the Americans didn't need to. Most older chassis were often converted into other vehicles like SPGs like the Priest which is built on the Lee/Grant Hull and recover vehicles, or scrapped entirely.

[@kilianortmann9979]

Regarding production quality vs quantity, I would also say that the US and UK generally had more tanks than they could transport to the front line (or transport spare parts for). If you can put 150 tanks on a ship across the Atlantic (or Mediterranean), you want those to be the best tanks possible and if takes spare parts weeks to arrive, you want to have as much commonality as possible.

[@tarab9081]

2:38 "maybe swords are a bit of a problem" - gotta love a dry sense of humor 😂

[@katyusha1283]

The M3 Lee was so close to being an American StuG but a 37mm in the turret was requested for anti tank work.

[@wochee]

I want to thank you so much, as your videos as superbly researched. Frohe Weinachten aus Australien!

[@shaneintheuk2026]

You didn’t mention the British Portee which fulfilled a similar role when they were desperately trying to stop the Africa Corps. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portée_(military)

[@MrZauberelefant]

You could argue that's a halfway between truck limbered AT and half-tracks having AT guns. If it ain't armoured, it don't count

[@shaneintheuk2026]

@ ​​⁠very true. The reason I mentioned it was that at that stage of the war Britain was in real trouble and couldn’t make tanks fast enough so they used the Portee. Much like the Germans reason for making Stugs. Later in the war things improved and then they were able to focus solely on tanks.

[@billrockwell6916]

I always enjoy your stuff thanks.

[@manfredconnor3194]

The echoes coming out of that old metal are crazy.

[@CplBurdenR]

The M3 SPM (75mm French 75) and the T30 HMC (75mm Howitzer) were tank destroyers and assault guns respectively. However, they were interim designs and replaced with the M10 GMC and the M8 HMC, both turreted SPGs. So, the US did have them but understood they were temporary solutions.

[@Tekisasubakani]

Nice touch with the disclosures. :D

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thanks!

[@watcherzero5256]

There was also various designs of Assault Guns from the British based on a tank chassis with the 3" Matilda mortar, 95mm armed Churchill (nearly 500 produced), Centaur (just over a thousand) and Cromwell VI (340) models and the Churchill AVRE's super heavy mortar. Prototypes were produced of a ground up heavy assault gun design in the Valiant and Excelsior before they switched to development of casemate designs ultimately leading to the fielding of the Tortoise. US just used the 75mm M8 Motor Carriage (about 1,500) and the 105mm Sherman (about 5,000). They were not all just unicorns. As to why the Germans didnt have them, yes they were cheaper but I believe the main issue even after cost was manpower, they could produce the casemate designs faster using less workers and they needed to maximise production speed to compensate for their smaller production capacity.

[@PointyHairedJedi]

Can't believe he didn't mention the Churchill Gun Carrier, clearly the best casemate TD of the war! /s

[@watcherzero5256]

@@PointyHairedJedi Yes! 50 were built and it comfortably passed trials and was approved for service in Europe but the 17pdr was starting to be widely deployed by then as was the low velocity 76mm (the QF 75mm) so its QF 3 inch AA gun mounted on a casemate vehicle offering slightly more firepower than the 17 pdr at the cost of mobility was considered superfluous. When you compare it to the 90 Elephants, 70 Jagdtiger or 18 Sturmtiger it was at the same production level.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I mentioned the Churchill Gun Carrier.

[@Johnnyynf]

I mean, if we ditch the casemate and non turret criteria M10, M3 half track and M4A3E2 Jumbo is basically the anwser

[@gr8990]

Agreed. What are your thoughts on the 105mm Sherman in that role?

[@Johnnyynf]

@@gr8990 I absolutely forgot the thing existed. To be fair I only properly herd about it in Eta320's video on Sherman and a few snip bit on the Chieftain's channel and I don't think I have enough information on the thing to make a judgement.

[@looinrims]

Because the Stug life didn’t choose the west

[@MB-nn3jw]

Arguably, you could say the US Lee and Grant were a form of stug, although not developed for the same reasons as the Germans developed the stug-type vehicles.

[@reallyidrathernot.134]

absolutely not idea what a "unicorn division" is lol, but I'm here for it.

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

8:48 Thats only half right, as they werent standart captured Soviet AT guns, they were the Pak 36(r) which was a gun with modified modernised mount with both elevation and traverse on 1 side, lower double plate shield, the gun was drilled out to accept the bigger 714mmR casings similar (but not interchangable) to the Pak 40s 718mmR casings, as well as a added muzzle brake. This resulted in a much greater velocity of 720m/s with the 7,6 kg Pzgr.39 Rot.

[@McRocket]

Simple (before viewing this). The Germans were on the defensive from late '42 onwards. The StuG was a defensive vehicle. Plus, they were simpler to make than tanks as the Allies were massively outproducing them. None of this applied to the Allies from late '42 onwards. Though I am quite sure this video explains it better and in hugely more detail than I ever could. ☮

[@scockery]

Because the Allies weren't jack-booted Stugs.

[@MsZeeZed]

20:20 - I think I’m quoting a Chieftain livestream on Tiger production timelines here, “When the Germans tried to produce a Panther II [up-gun, up-armor] the makers realised it was too similar to the Tiger II [King Tiger] and so it was discontinued after they had only built an up-armored hull [which is in an American museum].” Hence the production ‘Panther II’ was just a bigger gun.

[@DmdShiva]

It was also discontinued because they discovered that relatively thin schurzen hung on the hull sides to hang above the suspension provided the additional protection against small-caliber AP rounds that the Panther II design was intended to address, which meant they could get the increase in protection without the disruption of starting new production lines.

[@patgray5402]

Because they kept getting stug in the mud

[@The_Greedy_Orphan]

You did have American Tank destroyers like the M18 Hellcat, the M10 and the Achillies as well, but those were made with existing chassis. I guess it would've been a waste of resources to create a whole new chassis when you had ones like the sherman chassis available in large numbers.

[@znail4675]

They also had turrets and not case mates. They were essentially just tanks with a focus on firepower and mobility over armor.

[@YoBoyNeptune]

True but one has to wonder why they never tried to mount a 105mm AT gun on a sherman chassis in a casemate

[@dylanmilne6683]

8:10 revelation: M3 Lee was a stug 😉

[@keithplymale2374]

Basically the USA according to everything I have read never made a Stug because we made so many M4's that it performed the same role.

[@Lustanda]

But what about the M3 Lee? Its main armament is mounted on a sponson and have limited firring arc as well. Although it do have a turret but the armament on the turret get way way outclass early on and the M3 mainly relies on its 75mm for damage.

[@DmdShiva]

The M3 Medium was a stopgap because US production at the time was not capable of producing turrets/turret rings big enough for the 75mm gun, and waiting for the production capability would have seriously delayed availability.

[@mitchverr9330]

Kind of a shame the British feel a bit glossed over here. The British chose to put guns on car/truck chassis instead, Portees/Decons etc. The UK was producing trucks at an extremely high rate and was 100% motorised to the point of it being a hindering factor in a couple campaigns due to a lack of mules (Burma/India/Ethiopia iirc). The UK also put multiple sized guns on trucks for use in anti tank roles (such as the 101mm/4 inch mobile naval gun, but found that many were simply not necessary and you could just tow anti tank/field guns if needed too. Sure, the UK had "the sea", but the UK also had a vital need of every full tank it could get its hands on for the first to mid years of the war in Africa, the UK didnt really have the "option" of using tank hulls for a more limited role until later on which likely explains the sheer weight of "tank numbers" the UK had, simply put being at a massive equipment lag from the fall of France, the UK traumatised itself into producing "tank, any tank, just make tank".

[@quasimodo1914]

The wonderful thing about Stugs is that Stugs are wonderful things!

[@mchrome3366]

Thanks again for your work.

[@ideadlift20kg83]

Also, if the enemy generally only comes from 1 direction in areas you already control a turret becomes less important. Swedens S tank was designed with defense in mind.

[@brianford8493]

Brilliant as per usual ✌️

[@mensch1066]

Talking about indirect fire swords (which made me laugh when you mentioned it), I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Tipu Sultan (the leader of the state of Mysore in what is now southern India) used rockets that had blades attached to them when he fought enemies like the East India Company. Since rockets in the Napoleonic era were mostly just demoralization weapons anyway and had very limited accuracy, I suppose that attaching a long blade on them would scare unprepared troops even more regardless of how janky the flight path became.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

lol what

[@sealpiercing8476]

Ah, so the sword missile isn't only a modern development given at least a little utility by precision guidance, it's a modern reboot of a very old weapon. I bet some literal unmodified swords were launched out of early cannon also. People would try anything once back then, I think.

[@rvanhees89]

You are correct. From the sources it seems they were also really effective

[@mattshriner4897]

Hmm... don't like that.

[@Pikilloification]

Why would they settle for an inferior design?

[@rvail136]

Because they could afford to build more of them. That's why the Germans built the StuGs.

[@rileyanoid8444]

The Stug 111 was one of the most prolific tank killers of WW2. Cheaper and easier to produce than a conventional tank and able to accommodate a more powerful gun. It certainly wasn't inferior, just a different approach. Perhaps if the British had done something similar with its cruiser tanks coupled with the 17pdr, or even possibly the 3.7 inch AA gun...who knows?

[@nathanpierce7681]

this is a subtle nod to the allies not wanting to waste their time and money on sending turretless death traps to the frontlines

[@podemosurss8316]

15:50 In Spain the T-26 (T-26B to be precise) is associated with the Spanish Civil War, particularly with the Republican loyalists (while the Nationalists used modified Panzer I and Panzer II tanks).

[@markymark3572]

The US had its dedicated tank destroyers, which performed the same job against enemy armour.

[@czwarty7878]

StuG was not a dedicated tank destroyer. It did sometimes serve in tank destroyer role, but it was not built as dedicated tank destroyer

[@markymark3572]

It wasn't, but it ended up being used as such, as Nazi Germany never had enough tanks to go around & the Stug was cheaper & simpler to build than conventional tanks.

[@chadrowe8452]

Many of the tank destroyer battalions were towed at guns

[@awesomehpt8938]

Well in the latter half of the war Germany was in defense mode. A Stug works really well in preprepared defensive positions where you know where the enemy is coming from so you don’t need to turn the gun as much. The Allies wanted to attack and liberate Europe and that requires the flexibility that a turret provides so you can rapidly turn your guns against any ambushing units. And the turret crew can operate semi-independently from the driver if you have a moving turret.

[@88porpoise]

The Stug was designed and produced well before that and was definitely an offensive weapon. They also adopted many casemate tank destroyers while they were primarily in the offensive. Further, the Soviets made extensive use of casemate vehicles throughout the war while they were on the offensive. For the US, it seems far more of a combination of logistics and economics. They could afford to use turreted vehicles and the other benefits were not worth the costs of shipping it overseas and maintaining it in their supply chain. For the British it is likely much the same, although less extreme.

[@Andy-co6pn]

The British probably didn't have the manpower to crew all the vehicle types they built so could be more choosy in what they deployed

[@Treblaine]

The term StuG means "Assault gun", the whole point of the 7.5cm cannon being on a vehicle is to move it around, if you just wanted to sit tight and wait you could have just stuck with the old 7.5 cm le.IG 18F or mortars. The StuG wasn't part of Panzer units, they were part of infantry units expected to work in close coordination with infantry. The Germans still believed in the value of mobility and attack, even when giving ground.

[@A_barrel]

With how the US Army entered the war, and the experiences with the m3 Lee, I think the army probably realized early on there was no need for turret less designs

[@David-e1b3t]

6:00 "And of course, the famous Swedish S-stug"

[@namvet_13e]

America had the M3 Grant with a 75mm gun in the hull, which was a stopgap vehicle until they could develop a large turret for the M4 Sherman. Later they had open turrets on their tracked tank destroyers.

[@johnlinley2702]

These self-propelled guns played a significant role in the Allied victory, providing mobile firepower and flexibility on the battlefield. They were used in various theaters, including Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific, and were often employed in conjunction with infantry and armor units: M3 75mm Gun Motor Carriage: The first American self-propelled gun, introduced in 1941. It mounted a 75mm field gun on a half-track chassis, providing mobile firepower for tank destroyer battalions. M10 Wolverine: A tank destroyer based on the M4 Sherman chassis, armed with a 3-inch (76.2mm) gun. It saw action in Europe and North Africa, and was also used by the British as the Achilles. M18 Hellcat: A tank destroyer designed to counter German armor, featuring a 76mm gun and a lightweight, agile chassis. Although it lacked penetration power, it was effective against lightly armored targets. M12 155mm Gun Motor Carriage: A self-propelled howitzer based on the M3 tank chassis, mounting a 155mm gun. It was used in Italy and Europe, providing long-range firepower for artillery units. M7 Priest: A self-propelled howitzer based on the M3 Lee tank chassis, armed with a 105mm howitzer. It was widely used in Europe and the Pacific, providing mobile artillery support. M37 105mm Gun Motor Carriage: A self-propelled howitzer based on the M24 Chaffee light tank chassis, mounting a 105mm gun. It was used in the final stages of World War II and in the Korean War.

[@billpitney755]

I believe since the US never had to fight in a sustained defensive, they forgot the utility of the Tank Destroyer as a 'sharpshooter' against attacking armor. The Tank Destroyer could be used to screen the flanks during an offensive, but since there was so few Axis troops south of the Allied advance in France, that need was also forgotten. After the war, they simply assumed an MBT would work for every situation.

[@JimTempleman]

The simplicity of having no turret would have improved reliability as well.

[@reedvending2384]

It would mainly be another supply line. Not to mention the Sherman chassis would still be quite tall.

[@matthewcoleman1919]

Great video, as always. The 2nd Amendment reference got a "Yeehaw!" over here.

[@captiannemo1587]

There was a plan, briefly, to build a Sherman based casemate vehicle. But it lasted all of about a month.

[@captiannemo1587]

Specifically it shows up at the start of Jumbo. But is quickly dropped.

[@tallaster-g7s]

It was the British had a vehicle like the stug. It was the archer tank destroyer. It was a converted valentine tank. With a qf 17 pounder in a open superstructure facing the rear.

[@KristianKumpula]

Having a rotating turret is nice, but it seems to me like having a low silhouette is even nicer

[@richardstephens5570]

Nice, but having to turn the whole vehicle to aim was a disadvantage.

[@coachhannah2403]

Low profile had disadvantages, too! Harder to poke over obstacles.

[@HereticsRight]

Haven't finished the video so maybe you mention this later on, but I think that you are completely forgetting about the M3 Medium tank, which did have a small turret on top but the primary weapon was hull mounted to simplify production while the M4 turret was being designed. It was quickly phased out of service as the M4 became available in bulk but it served well in North Africa and the Eastern Front.

[@MarchHare59]

What about the U.S. Army M3 Grant and Lee tank? It did have a turret but that housed only a light 37mm gun which was useless against tanks. The main 75mm cannon was in the hull.

[@Bass_Playa_Two_Point.O]

The M3 halftrack was a stop-gap. The American automotive industrial capabilities didn't require a compromise, as well as the operational requirements of the attack are different than those of defense.

[@embers7905]

I also think a potential reason would be strategic relevance, I’m not sure if that’s the correct term but I’m going with it. By that I mean that the Western Allies were largely fighting an offensive war, meaning the flexibility of the turret to acquire targets at non-ideal angles (like from the side) is more important for the Americans than for the Germans which were largely fighting defensively at the end of the war. The obvious hole in this theory is the Soviets which although engaging in largely offensive actions still made heavy use of turretless tanks. One potential excuse for this is the Scoeit’s famously shoddy industry and thus the reduced cost of a turretless tank is more appealing.

[@waynerobert7986]

It's worth thinking about US Tank Destroyers. Open topped turret. lighter armour and heavier firepower, using a proven chassis for the M-10 and M-36 and new chassis for the M-18 Hellcat which was lightly armoured using speed for protection.

[@henrycobb]

Americans in Korea used ramps to tilt their tanks up for indirect fire. Where the StuGs ever fired on a ramp for higher angle fire?

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

Aren't you forgetting the M3 medium tank with the 75mm in the hull? It's also worth remembering that the StuG was originally intended as an assault asset for infantry units. It was only when things went to hell on the Eastern Front and they needed as many AT assets as possible that the StuG became an AT vehicle. Also, the StuG makes more sense in a defensive role, which was the German priority after 1942. On the other hand, Peiper would have probably been better off with StuGs than King Tigers in the Battle of the Bulge -- StuGs were less thirsty and could cross bridges the Tigers couldn't. The true American equivalent of the ORIGINAL StuG was the M4 medium tank with the 105mm gun. Aside from the taller profile, who wouldn't rather have a 105mm in a turret than one of the German options?

[@geodkyt]

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized - I suspect the reason the Societs didn't go in for turreted tank destroyers, despite them passing evaluation testing, was probably cost and production time. After all, a turreted TD is closer in terms of production cost & difficulty to a *tank* than it is to a casemated assault gun/TD. Youve already invested almost as much time and effort as it would take to push it over the line into a true tank. Plus, as you pointed out, you can get a bigger gun on the same chassis.

[@randolphstead2988]

Guderian disliked the Stug so much that he would not let their crews wear the black panzer crew uniform. Stug crews were regarded as belonging to the artillery branch.

[@jackthunderbolt4307]

They did. They're called the m10, m18 and m36 tank destroyer

[@Treblaine]

StuG: 24 tonnes Bazooka: 15 lbs You don't really need to drag around a massive cannon to penetrate a 4-inches of armor, a Bazooka can do that. Or a PIAT. The need for any big-gun turret is less important with the combination of rocket launchers and mortars. Any armored infantry-support vehicle needs to offer some firepower that the infantry doesn't already have like heavy canister rounds or auto-cannons.

[@billrockwell6916]

Thanks!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you!

[@mwanderson667]

There is also the Sherman Jumbo, with upgraded armor leaving gun (which was good enough) alone. I have seen it called an assault gun in terms of being able to better survive approaching defensive emplacements. But I'm not sure if this is true.

[@Stlaind]

A few things to consider here are that the US produced the M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers based on the M4 Sherman chassis as well as the M18 with a purpose built chassis. All three of those being turreted designs is perhaps misleading because when you work backwards from the main reasons you discussed for building and designing casemate designs: The US already had such expansive production of varying M4 chassis of various versions that it was almost certainly cheaper to just build more chassis with turret rings and then build the turrets separately, mating them up later in production. Further, with the M10, being turreted is almost a misnomer because of how slow the traverse was because of a lack of a power traverse - leading to many of the same practical issues as a casemate. Similarly, since the US had plenty of design experience with the M4 chassis, the M4 mechanically was very very reliable, and practically the entire US logistical train was optimized for moving things that were M4 shaped (and the parts for things that are M4 shaped), it would mean the US would be able to ship and supply those far easier as well as be able to have more portions of vehicle training be generalized. All of that adds up to a huge difference when you're shipping across an entire ocean to where the troops are making use of them. Add in that the US was providing not just tanks and TDs for themselves but for the Commonwealth as well (and shipping a not insubstantial number to the Soviets) and you have a question of production at scale that's very different. On top of that, the US (and Commonwealth as well), just didn't have the hulls of obsolete tanks sitting around. The British mostly left their obsolete tanks in Dunkirk, and the US was ramping up production from having almost nothing to start with. And even the swap from M3 to M4 medium tanks as the base chassis didn't change much - the M7 SPG you mentioned briefly swapped from M3 to M4 chassis without a major redesign. So, it's probably less correct to say that the US could just "afford to build them with turrets" or that the US wasn't faced with any of the same design pressures as the Soviets and Germans. Instead, I'd say that the same design pressures mixed with the American manufacturing situation had a different result - new turrets instead of omitted turrets.

[@js-willard4014]

M3 Lee-Grant could be considered a TD , it was critical stop gap until the Sherman could be mechanically reliable, and debugged. 🤔 food for thought, I enjoy your analysis and opinions ty

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

2:25 The Wespe with the 10,5 cm LeFH 18 L/28 is also a Dual purpose gun, superseding the LeFK type, which was discontinued in favour of more (and more powerfull) LeFH, it was equipped with a wide array of AT/AP ammo, beeing: Pzgr. APHE (14 kg) Pzgr. Rot Abcbc (15,56kg) Gr.39 Series Heat (12,95 kg) Pzgr.Ts Apcbc DS (7,7/6,4 kg) With the gun and its decendants also beeing mounted to turreted and more heavily armored vehicles such as the B1 Bis and StuH 42 G.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

All divisional German artillery guns had ap ammo, but this does not make them dual purpose. It was the exception.

[@Uchilsson]

There was idea for M3 Lee build without turret. That would be US StuG. But Army wanted more guns and MG.

[@DmdShiva]

Particularly if you look at the early M3s and recognize that the two fittings on the lower front plate on the left side were for the two drive-operated machine guns. The fixation of the Army on more machine guns on the early tanks is absurd looking back with the benefit of hindsight.

[@mk-ultraviolence1760]

Well see the allies had things like: A functional industrial base, a robust economics not entirely based around stealing everything that wasn't nailed down, workers who weren't kidnapped slave labourers, also 2 out of 3 leaders they had weren't violent psychopathic ideologues who started fights with everyone else they met. All this culminated in not having to take every bit old scrap metal with an engine bolted and attaching a big gun to it.

[@mathiasbartl903]

A Sherman with a 105 howitzer was called an assault gun in US parlance, or am I wrong?

[@ronboe6325]

I suspect the US didn't press for a casement turret less assault gun carriage because they would have to ship it across the Atlantic and support it - and the need/requirement for one was not there. What they had was working good enough.

[@stovetopicus]

It's very surprising that a nation that was originally focused on blitzkrieg ended the war with heavy and highly immobile weaponry - and to their great detriment.

[@davidjernigan8161]

Could another issue with the US be that the powers that be did not want to disrupt production of the Sherman which they were supplying to all the allies?

[@Absaalookemensch]

The closest the US had was the Grant/Lee. It was very successful in North Africa.

[@michaelmoran4891]

I have always wondered why the M3 Grant/Lee did not drop the turret with the 37 mm gun and just have the 75 mm gun in hull. Could have reduced crew size from 7 to 4 or 5, increased armor in front and reduced silhouette. Turret with 37 mm gun could have been replaced with M@ machine gun with limited reduction in firepower.

[@gj1234567899999]

I wonder if there was some kind of hard limitation for German industry like ball bearing manufacturing used in turret ring. Wasn’t ball bearings a target for allied bombing?

[@thryce82]

want to laugh at him for saying VeHeecle then I try to prounce german compounds like Rechtsschutzversicherung and shut my mouth.

[@rvail136]

Basically, it come down to doctrine. Neither the Brits nor the Americans needed assault guns.

[@CthulhuInc]

they also had the alecto spg

[@williamkoppos7039]

Allies did not need a Stug they had the Tank Destroyers. M-10, 35 and Hellcat. Used for anti tank and Inf. Support.

[@FrankJmClarke]

The Germans already had the StuG III as an artillery vehicle. The T-34 forced the conversion to an antitank vehicle, since it was easy to do and didn't have the 50mm turret armor limit of the PZ IV. The western allies got the Sherman in time to deal with the L43/L48 PZ IV/Stug.