Beyond The Sprues

Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Land => Topic started by: Kerick on February 22, 2016, 12:15:56 AM

Title: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Kerick on February 22, 2016, 12:15:56 AM
I'm considering converting a Tamiya M-41 Walker Bulldog into a Cold War era assault gun. I have a 90mm gun from an M-48 and the 105mm gun from an M-51 Isherman. I'm thinking the 90mm might work better. The super structure would be sheet plastic and a new engine compartment would be pattered after the M-48, M-60 series. What do you think?
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Kelmola on February 22, 2016, 01:39:08 AM
But the idea did survive, at least partially, as Kanonenjagdpanzer and Stridsvagn 103 can attest :)
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: LemonJello on February 22, 2016, 02:54:41 AM
I think I'm looking forward to seeing some photos of this project.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Crbad on February 22, 2016, 05:06:51 AM
I had an idea to make an American hetzer/jagdpanzer using a turret from a M-48 in a fixed gun position. I couldn't decide on a cast hull Sherman or a M-24 Chaffee for the body.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Kerick on February 22, 2016, 05:19:49 AM
The M-41 hull is close to the StuG III hull in size so I thought it would be a good candidate. And much like the StuG it would follow the same path as a reuse/adaptation of a tank hull that wasn't really up to the task any more. I think I'll go with the 90mm gun as the StuG's mission as designed was infantry support. A 105mm would be excessive.

But the idea did survive, at least partially, as Kanonenjagdpanzer and Stridsvagn 103 can attest :)

I had forgotten about those two, thanks.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Volkodav on February 22, 2016, 09:53:16 AM
I have always liked the concept and see them as a replacement for towed guns.  Even in WWII towed and pack, infantry support, howitzers and guns, of around 75mm were still pretty common and towed anti tank guns became very common, following the war they pretty much disappeared, replaced with recoilless rifles if anything. 

To have Stugs survive all you need is for these towed infantry support guns and AT guns (and their tow vehicles) to be replaced with casemate type Assault Guns / Tank Destroyers, either as platoon embedded in mechanised battalions, or battalions supporting Infantry Divisions.  Armoured and Cavalry units and formations would use close support versions of what ever tank they operate, i.e. CS Infantry and Cruiser Tanks for the British Armoured Regiments and M8s or 105mm Shermans for the US Armoured battalions and Cavalry Regiments.  I believe the 165mm L9 demolition gun was originally designed and intended as a replacement for the 95mm gun as the CS counterpart to the 17 (or perhaps 20) pdr.  Perhaps this could be an option for a post war casemate assault gun.

Love the idea and looking forward to the result, you will probably finish long before I start my planned Australian post war Stug.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Gingie on February 23, 2016, 12:23:20 PM
RB barrels make a very nice JgPzK 90mm gun in brass.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Volkodav on February 23, 2016, 10:26:04 PM
Thinking one of these would look good on an E-10
http://www.bnamodelworld.com/military-vehicles-tanks-gun-barrels-bronco-models-ab3507 (http://www.bnamodelworld.com/military-vehicles-tanks-gun-barrels-bronco-models-ab3507)
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Kerick on February 25, 2016, 10:50:03 AM
Thanks for the comments! I've been searching for StuG pics to see just how to go about this. Plus rebuilding the M-41 engine compartment should make this an interesting build. I wonder if the engine deck from a 1/48th M-48 or M-60 would fit the M-41.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Gingie on February 26, 2016, 11:13:28 AM
Kind of stuggy looking M113...probably not much of a stretch from an assault howitzer to a direct-fire assault gun...

(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q14/rafaelgonzalez65/M-113%20Howitzer/m113assaulthowitzerfscv_003.jpg)
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Kerick on February 26, 2016, 11:25:26 AM
Wow, I've never seen that before! Thanks.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 27, 2016, 04:10:17 AM
Proposed back in 1977 by FMC/Krauss Maffei/Rheinmetall as the M113 Fire Support Combat Vehicle:

(http://www.combatreform.org/fscv_005.jpg)
(http://www.combatreform.org/fscv_001.jpg)
(http://www.combatreform.org/fscv_002.jpg)
(http://www.combatreform.org/fscv_004.jpg)
(http://www.creativecrash.com/system/photos/000/367/987/367987/big/Stug_3.jpg?1397512716)
(https://img-new.cgtrader.com/items/87849/large_m113_stug_3d_model_fbx_obj_max_4ce0f3bd-c556-4f13-add7-550cf81b578a.jpg)
(http://www.creativecrash.com/system/photos/000/367/991/367991/big/Stug_7.jpg?1397512743)
(http://www.creativecrash.com/system/photos/000/367/989/367989/big/Stug_5.jpg?1397512729)

It was to be armed with a 105mm gun.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Gingie on February 29, 2016, 04:38:02 AM
I don't see any room for traversing the barrel though.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Old Wombat on February 29, 2016, 07:16:09 AM
You traverse the vehicle, instead.

For anti-tank roles the traversing gun is essential but for fire-support it's just as easy to traverse the vehicle, & reduces the number of components required for the gun system.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 01, 2016, 02:29:41 AM
Dare I say that if you adhere to the original function of the StuG III the lack of traverse is not an issue.  The StuG III was designed to fill an infantry close support combat role.  It was only later, as the German military situation deteriorated that StuGs took on more of the tank destroyer role.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Kerick on March 01, 2016, 11:17:21 AM
Thinking of the gun from the Sheridan or M60A2. Minus the missile of course. That round might work well for infantry support.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on March 01, 2016, 11:24:59 AM
Thinking of the gun from the Sheridan or M60A2. Minus the missile of course. That round might work well for infantry support.

Include the missile so your StuG can have a long-range anti-tank capability in addition to the usual role of BSU.  :)





BSU = Blowing Shit Up
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: ysi_maniac on July 07, 2018, 07:11:46 AM
Stug III '46

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawTanks/Stug-105.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawTanks/Stug-105.jpg.html)
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Gingie on July 13, 2018, 11:40:53 AM
You traverse the vehicle, instead.

For anti-tank roles the traversing gun is essential but for fire-support it's just as easy to traverse the vehicle, & reduces the number of components required for the gun system.

Nah mate, traversing the vehicle doesn't give you the fine tuning for bearing that need for accurate fire support. It might get you within a hundred mils, but over 5km range that kind of error puts you out half a grid square.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Rickshaw on July 13, 2018, 06:10:47 PM
You traverse the vehicle, instead.

For anti-tank roles the traversing gun is essential but for fire-support it's just as easy to traverse the vehicle, & reduces the number of components required for the gun system.

Nah mate, traversing the vehicle doesn't give you the fine tuning for bearing that need for accurate fire support. It might get you within a hundred mils, but over 5km range that kind of error puts you out half a grid square.

Depends on how fine the gearbox is.  Both the Char-B(bis) and the Strv-103 were capable of being used as AT weapons with their fine tuned gearbox.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Kerick on July 14, 2018, 05:52:41 AM
If and when I ever build an M-41 StuG I’ll have to use the 90mm gun as the 105 I had was used on another project. I actually bought a StuG kit to better understand how it was constructed.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Gingie on July 14, 2018, 10:42:54 PM
You traverse the vehicle, instead.

For anti-tank roles the traversing gun is essential but for fire-support it's just as easy to traverse the vehicle, & reduces the number of components required for the gun system.

Nah mate, traversing the vehicle doesn't give you the fine tuning for bearing that need for accurate fire support. It might get you within a hundred mils, but over 5km range that kind of error puts you out half a grid square.

Depends on how fine the gearbox is.  Both the Char-B(bis) and the Strv-103 were capable of being used as AT weapons with their fine tuned gearbox.

Ahh, I always wondered how the S tank dealt with accuracy! Cheers.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Rickshaw on July 15, 2018, 11:27:43 AM
You traverse the vehicle, instead.

For anti-tank roles the traversing gun is essential but for fire-support it's just as easy to traverse the vehicle, & reduces the number of components required for the gun system.

Nah mate, traversing the vehicle doesn't give you the fine tuning for bearing that need for accurate fire support. It might get you within a hundred mils, but over 5km range that kind of error puts you out half a grid square.

Depends on how fine the gearbox is.  Both the Char-B(bis) and the Strv-103 were capable of being used as AT weapons with their fine tuned gearbox.

Ahh, I always wondered how the S tank dealt with accuracy! Cheers.

They handled it with a combination of their adjustable hydro-pneumatic suspension and their gearbox.   The number of roadwheels was also important (they only have 4) which allowed them to be more manoeuvrable than a vehicle which had more.  The S-tank's development is interesting.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: elmayerle on July 15, 2018, 01:40:59 PM
I can't help but wonder how that suspension combined with a non-elevating version of the US T92's low-height cleft turret would work; it would seem that solely needing to adjust elevation while the turret traversed might be faster.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Rickshaw on July 15, 2018, 02:20:10 PM
I can't help but wonder how that suspension combined with a non-elevating version of the US T92's low-height cleft turret would work; it would seem that solely needing to adjust elevation while the turret traversed might be faster.

The Swedes looked at all sorts of designs before deciding on the Strv-103 design.  They revisited a lot of them when thinking about it's successor accepting that improved technology made what hadn't worked in the late-1950s-early-1960s did by the 1980s.   Some of their designs were rather interesting.  They looked at elevating, rotating guns, which then came back into the hull for reloading.   They look at fixed external "crowbar" traversing mechanisms.   Perhaps their most interesting developments were the UDES-XX designs, which had a split hull, with separate track systems and twin engines with an elevated gun which could traverse.   I feel that some potentially interesting development ahead for it but they plumbed for a conventional design, with a 140mm gun, with a 40mm gun coaxial.   

The S-tank was the best design they could produce in the early 1960s.   The British and Germans tested some of them and decided that while it had interesting potential, the problems of using a fixed gun on a primarily defensive vehicle couldn't be overcome.   You have to dig your defensive berms very wide to allow it to traverse and you have to take considerable care not to expose your weaker armour on top of the vehicle when it was depressed.   How it was meant to operate on the offensive was somewhat of a mystery to me.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Volkodav on July 15, 2018, 03:59:57 PM
How it was meant to operate on the offensive was somewhat of a mystery to me.

The only way I can see it is fire and movement bounds, one vehicle sprinting to the next firing point while covered by the second, with pairs of vehicles working with other pairs, providing mutual support.  I think rapid acceleration may have been the reason for the GT.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Rickshaw on July 15, 2018, 04:25:02 PM
How it was meant to operate on the offensive was somewhat of a mystery to me.

The only way I can see it is fire and movement bounds, one vehicle sprinting to the next firing point while covered by the second, with pairs of vehicles working with other pairs, providing mutual support.  I think rapid acceleration may have been the reason for the GT.

That'd work, particularly on broken, open plains/steppes.  In far northern Sweden which is covered in forest and marsh?  Still not sure.   However, you've given me an idea...  ;)
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Old Wombat on July 15, 2018, 05:23:14 PM
Saw a series on NetFlix not long ago which included a description of battle from a StuG commander & they used them almost like tanks. They were, apparently, quite manoeuvrable & able to bring their guns to bear as fast as the T-34's they were opposing. Their problems came if forced to withdraw from the battle, as to keep their guns on the enemy they had to reverse all the way.

Of course, you have to remember that, unlike S-tanks, they had limited traverse & the full range of elevation on the gun.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Volkodav on July 15, 2018, 06:52:43 PM
Saw a series on NetFlix not long ago which included a description of battle from a StuG commander & they used them almost like tanks. They were, apparently, quite manoeuvrable & able to bring their guns to bear as fast as the T-34's they were opposing. Their problems came if forced to withdraw from the battle, as to keep their guns on the enemy they had to reverse all the way.

Of course, you have to remember that, unlike S-tanks, they had limited traverse & the full range of elevation on the gun.

In battle the idea is to keep you frontal armour facing the enemy.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Old Wombat on July 15, 2018, 08:22:23 PM
Saw a series on NetFlix not long ago which included a description of battle from a StuG commander & they used them almost like tanks. They were, apparently, quite manoeuvrable & able to bring their guns to bear as fast as the T-34's they were opposing. Their problems came if forced to withdraw from the battle, as to keep their guns on the enemy they had to reverse all the way.

Of course, you have to remember that, unlike S-tanks, they had limited traverse & the full range of elevation on the gun.

In battle the idea is to keep you frontal armour facing the enemy.

Yep, but sometimes you just have to turn tail & run as fast as you can or get chewed up & spat out.

Oops, forgot a line: In a turreted tank you could then, at least, turn the turret & fire at the enemy to keep them occupied while you bolted - couldn't do that in a StuG.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Rickshaw on July 16, 2018, 12:11:32 PM
The S-tank takes care of that problem by having it's auxiliary driver face to the rear.  It allows it to drive as fast in reverse as forward.  This makes retreats much easier.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 27, 2019, 04:05:38 AM
Thinking of the gun from the Sheridan or M60A2. Minus the missile of course. That round might work well for infantry support.

Include the missile so your StuG can have a long-range anti-tank capability in addition to the usual role of BSU.  :)

BSU = Blowing Shit Up

Maybe do this in the form of a Kanonenjagdpanzer with the M81/MGM-51 instead of the 90mm gun.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: Kerick on April 27, 2019, 01:18:40 PM
Thinking of the gun from the Sheridan or M60A2. Minus the missile of course. That round might work well for infantry support.

Include the missile so your StuG can have a long-range anti-tank capability in addition to the usual role of BSU.  :)

BSU = Blowing Shit Up

Maybe do this in the form of a Kanonenjagdpanzer with the M81/MGM-51 instead of the 90mm gun.

Although, a 90mm gun with modern ammunition could be quite convincing on the battlefield. Maybe with a Bradley style TOW launcher. 
Maybe with more internal room than the M551 to be able to carry more rounds.
Title: Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 28, 2019, 03:14:45 AM
Maybe.  I'm not sure of the internal layout/space etc for the Kanonenjagdpanzer so can't say.