Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "Sturmgeschütz (StuG): German Assault Artillery" video.

  1. You misunderstood.
    3
  2. +Kawaiiser Wilhelm II Von Hohenzollern Excellent post. Nailed it. The only things I can add to this are: 1) the German manufacturing systems never matched those of the Allies. They relied a lot more on piece-by-piece manufacture, rather than production lines. This was a lesson the British learnt with the Merlin. The Germans never quite cottoned on; 2) German focus on mega tanks like the Tiger came at a very significant cost to industry and to tank development. The Heer was still waiting for a replacement for the PzKpfw IV when the war ended and 3) Allied bombing had wrecked the German rail system, making transportation of any of these things well nigh impossible. That included steel. Speer cited this as a major reason for the loss of quality in German steel.
    2
  3. "3. One question was not answered: Was it effective? Was the job done? (I know WWII was lost for Germany .... but hopefully you know what I mean) Was the machine Stug III effective? Was the organization of Stug-Abteilungen or Stug-Brigades effective?" Yes. Steve Zaloga answers this in his book "Armored Champion" on pages 202-05.
    2
  4. Well, not entirely. The StuG was still the Army's main infantry support vehicle, even though it was used as a very effective tank destroyer. StuGs accounted for 18,261 Red Army tanks and AFVs in 1943/44.
    1