Why no Allied StuGs?

Why no Allied Sturmgeschütze or more precise why not Western Allied casemate tanks? Why did the Western Allies used mostly turreted tank destroyers and assault guns (like the Sherman 105)?

DISCLOSURE D: I was invited by the Deutsche Panzermuseum in 2018, 2019, 2020 & 2023.
DISCLOSURE A: I was invited by the Tank Museum at Bovington in 2017, 2018, 2019 & 2023.
DISCLOSURE F: There is a Panther joke somewhere.

Unknown U.S. Army soldier, StuG III with American markings, Public domain
Cover Colorization: vonKickass.

»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««

»» SUPPORT MHV ««

»» MERCHANDISE ««

»» SOURCES ««

Pöhlmann, Markus: Der Panzer und die Mechanisierung des Krieges: Eine deutsche Geschichte 1890 bis 1945, Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, Germany, 2016.
Doyle, Hilary L./Jentz, Thomas L.: Panzer Tracts No.7-1: Panzerjaeger (3.7 cm Tak to Pz.Sfl.Ic) development and employment from 1927 to 1941, Panzer Tracts: Boyds, Maryland, USA, 2004.
Ogorkiewicz, Richard M.: Technology of Tanks II, Jane’s Information Group: Coulsdon, Surrey, UK, 1991.

0:00 Intro
0:30 Few Allied Casemate “Tanks”
3:03 Why the Germans & Soviet built so many?
3:11 XMAS Sale
3:20 Weaknesses StuGs
6:02 Strengths StuGs
8:08 Urgency for Firepower
10:31 Price
14:08 Examples of Western Wealth
17:19 Doctrine/Leadership Preference
22:18 Allies had “Assault Tanks not Guns”
23:13 Summary

#stug #stuglife #whynoalliedstugs #ww2 #tanks

[MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Some people argue it was about shipping space. I checked with Chieftain, he noted he is not aware of that being a concern in the discussions at the time. If you have a source that states otherwise, please let us know which.

[awesomehpt]

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

[StephenBadger]

"You can use pretty much any weapon for indirect fire. Swords might be a problem I guess"

*Unscrews pommel*

[vladimpaler]

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

[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.

[ronaldgray]

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.

[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.

[crownprincesebastianjohano]

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

[RonGardener]

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

[ghostofmarx]

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

[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.

[tarab]

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

[MB-nnjw]

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.

[whiskey_tango_foxtrot__]

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

[mensch]

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.

[crownprincesebastianjohano]

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.

[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.

[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.

[steveclarke]

I think there is a misunderstanding regarding the British CS tanks with the 3" Howitzer (those on Matilda, Churchill and the earlier cruiser tanks).
This gun was mainly used to fire smoke ammunition not HE before 1942- not that they can't, but initally they were not supplied with that ammunition. Its use was to cover movement of the squadron against observed guns to allow tanks to get close enough to use the MGs on the crews.
This changed as the British tactics changed and the Grant became available in 1942, because they had seen how the Germans/Italians had used HE to great effect against them in the desert.

[EsotericResearcher]

The answer is that we didn't need them. The Americans and Russians vastly outproduced everyone else and we had no trouble producing turreted vehicles. We also didn't need to save money as much as the Reich did.