Author Topic: What if the StuG III idea survived?  (Read 3571 times)

Offline kerick

  • Responsible for all surrendered booty....Arrrr!!!!
What if the StuG III idea survived?
« 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?

Offline Kelmola

  • Seeking motivation to start buillding the stash
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2016, 01:39:08 AM »
But the idea did survive, at least partially, as Kanonenjagdpanzer and Stridsvagn 103 can attest :)

Offline LemonJello

  • MARPAT Master
  • Member number 100...WooHoo!!!
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2016, 02:54:41 AM »
I think I'm looking forward to seeing some photos of this project.

Offline Crbad

  • I'd buy that for a dollar!
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #3 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.
Craig's Bureau of Aeronautics Design: Shoddy engineering and marginal skill for the undiscerning modelling enthusiast.

Offline kerick

  • Responsible for all surrendered booty....Arrrr!!!!
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #4 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.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #5 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.

Offline Gingie

  • The LAV sausage-maker…goes nice with a home made beer I understand
  • Has been to Tatooine...
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2016, 12:23:20 PM »
RB barrels make a very nice JgPzK 90mm gun in brass.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2016, 10:26:04 PM »

Offline kerick

  • Responsible for all surrendered booty....Arrrr!!!!
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #8 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.

Offline Gingie

  • The LAV sausage-maker…goes nice with a home made beer I understand
  • Has been to Tatooine...
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #9 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...


Offline kerick

  • Responsible for all surrendered booty....Arrrr!!!!
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2016, 11:25:26 AM »
Wow, I've never seen that before! Thanks.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2016, 04:10:17 AM »
Proposed back in 1977 by FMC/Krauss Maffei/Rheinmetall as the M113 Fire Support Combat Vehicle:










It was to be armed with a 105mm gun.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Gingie

  • The LAV sausage-maker…goes nice with a home made beer I understand
  • Has been to Tatooine...
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #12 on: February 29, 2016, 04:38:02 AM »
I don't see any room for traversing the barrel though.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #13 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.
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #14 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.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline kerick

  • Responsible for all surrendered booty....Arrrr!!!!
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #15 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.

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
    • SketchUp 3D Warehouse - My Digital Models
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #16 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
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2018, 07:11:46 AM »
Stug III '46


Offline Gingie

  • The LAV sausage-maker…goes nice with a home made beer I understand
  • Has been to Tatooine...
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #18 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.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #19 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.

Offline kerick

  • Responsible for all surrendered booty....Arrrr!!!!
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #20 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.

Offline Gingie

  • The LAV sausage-maker…goes nice with a home made beer I understand
  • Has been to Tatooine...
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #21 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.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #22 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.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #23 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.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #24 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.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #25 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.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #26 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...  ;)

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #27 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.
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #28 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.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #29 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.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 08:29:15 PM by Old Wombat »
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: What if the StuG III idea survived?
« Reply #30 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.