If Mr Doyle speaks, I listen.😊😊😊😊

@HenrikFredriksson-oi4lz

6 күн бұрын

For sure😊

Excellent video Hillary. I always enjoy your insight on the vehicles. Take care 😁

Always liked the look of the Stugs and yes, a nice tie in to the Australian Museum's restoration.

@wealdfoundation

7 ай бұрын

Or to the two MIAG StuG III we have restored and have it here ourselves :)

Excellent stuff. Even better, this ties into the Australian Armour and Artillery's Museum channel that are at this moment in time are in the process of trying to restore one of these.

Thank you very much, mr. Doyle, for this explanation of another interesting vehicle.

Mr. Doyle is such a nice chap.

Hilary is a hero for those interested in armour. He's not a big man. Looks such a tight fit for each position.

Great video

@wealdfoundation

8 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Lovely to have context and doctrine for a vehicle instead of just the tech details and the like.

I'm a sturrmgeshutz obsessed fruitcake . What an experience for young lads ,thrilling and deadly. Very dependant on working with infantry. Stug brigade 191 is a wonderful book.

Wonderful video :) But no mention of this ones color scheme and tropical air filters ? ... Less than a handful of Stug III's made it to North Africa to serve with the DAK

@Panzermeister36

7 ай бұрын

This vehicle isn't from North Africa. Only 3 StuG III D made it to Africa and only one survives today in a questionably restored condition. This is a vehicle that served in northern Europe, Norway I believe (otherwise Denmark). Such early vehicles survived all the way to the end of the war as they never saw real combat... there's excellent video of these units surrendering to the British. The fitzbal filters were used all throughout Europe, even in the far North. This vehicle also had Zimmerit which is a clear indication it never made it to Africa as Zimmerit was only introduced about 5 months after the surrender of all German forces in Africa.

nice! thank you

@wealdfoundation

8 ай бұрын

Thank you too!

These were great machines, never built in enough numbers, but what the needed was a more powerful engine to do towing. A bit more gun traverse and elevation should have been in the design. In addition the cupola with a MG could have been beneficial as these vehicles ended up on the front line to many times. The PAK 7,5CM was the best gun for the Germans due to manufacturing, production and mobility as both low and high velocity ammunition could be produced in the same factory. I contend that the mechanized transport could have been partially solved if the adoption of steam driven trucks and tracked vehicles based off the British Sentinel DG8 Steam Wagon [doubleboos] would have alleviated much of the transport problems, especially in the 'home front and in the rear areas.. Would have, could have , didn't is what happened, due to timing and leadership of a mad man, over ambition and the real lack of the logistical infrastructure (material, manpower and locomotion) that the Germans were up against. It was a loosing battle almost from day one (Attack on Poland).

@charlesc.9012

7 ай бұрын

Cupolas sound good, the Germans would probably make it more practical than the m60 version, but I think they had success with the remote weapon station on the JPz.38t aka Hetzer. Don't know about the steam wagons. Coal is made of many different grades and quality. The best was Welsh steam coal, and the worst was brown coal. German coal was mostly brown, so not only was it inefficient, but it also burned with huge plumes of smoke, giving away your position to everyone with 20/20 vision. Plus, they also needed a lot of copper and high quality steel to make, and that was scarce in central Europe. Maybe syngas and wood gas would be the perfect compromise, because a petrol engine could burn it with simple modifications, but even then, the level of mechanisation was too far behind, and North Africa was a black hole for German motor transport

@michaelguerin56

6 ай бұрын

@@charlesc.9012There is a WW2 FWD recovery vehicle in Northland, New Zealand. It was brought in by the USAF as an aircraft recovery vehicle and sold as surplus after the war. The current owner has it set up with a gasifier which, according to him, works well because the vehicle has a very low reduction gear-for recovery work.

gut vorgestellt

Stug life

I think I’d have chosen to be in a Stug 3 instead of a Pzkw 3,4, or 5!

The Stummel 75mm gun had an impressive cannister round.

In hindsight, the short barreled version was a waste of resources. They put the same gun on half tracks with 1/3 of weight and horsepower. If you have to use a tank for inf support, they could have put an IG. 18 gun into a Pz. II or put it onto a Czech chassis.

The short barreled Stug III was a serviceable assault gun for the early war German infantry, but why not just produce more Panzer IV as it essentially had the same gun and with a turret, able to do many things the Stug could and some the stug couldn't, more suitable for the offensive-orientated German forces at 1939-42. Despite the increased production costs and complexity of a turret, it could standardize the production lines early on, and make it easier to phase out Pz III chassis due to it accounting smaller numbers of tanks produced in the latter part of the war so the production of more effective Pz IV based tank destroyers, such as Jagdpanzer IV, could be focused on more, instead having to rely on obsolete Stug III G even in 1945 (and having to maintain production lines of 3 "main tank" chassis: Pz III/StuG III , Panzer IV, & Panther)

@hannesromhild8532

7 ай бұрын

Well the cost was one thing. 80.000 for the StuG vs 100.000 for the Pz-IV, both without gun. Also speed of manufacture.

@crapshot321

7 ай бұрын

Also, the Stug III was for the infantry divisions to give them a means of rapid fire support to take out bunkers and fortified positions. That's why they were sectioned as part of the artillery branch, not as part of the panzer arm.

@michaelguerin56

6 ай бұрын

The Panzer III was designed for higher speed work whereas the Panzer IV suspension was designed to carry a greater mass at a slower speed.

@hannesromhild8532

6 ай бұрын

@@michaelguerin56 They have the exact same Engine and the very same top spped off and on road. They are meant to work alongside each ohter.

Umm err. Ummmm

And I thought Chieftain was the worst at spreading mis-information. 2:40. The flak 88 was NOT converted into an anti-tank gun. It WAS an anti-tank gun from inception, as well as a flak gun. Otherwise how do you explain the direct fire sights that shipped with them? But it suffered with the same problem as the US 90mm flak/anti-tank gun, and that is the flat base to give 360 degree coverage. A real pain to find cover, and real slow to pack up and move. 2:50. Wawawawhat? The turret crew consisted of the loader who pulls ammo from storage and loads the gun, the gunner who has the scope, sets the direction and elevation and fires the gun, and the commander who's job is target selection, orders to the driver, and general awareness. 3:10. OK, I'm done. There's nothing to learn here except that there is a lot of bad information on the internet.

@01Laffey

7 ай бұрын

1)It wasn't an anti tank gun from inception, infact in there was no consideration in 1935 for the 88mm to be used in an anti tank role by the German Army, unlike the 20mm or 37mm Flak autocannons . The ZF 20 sights used for direct fire and Armor piercing ammunition were developed from experience in Spain and implemented after 1936. In 1936 and before there were no direct fire sights and it only fired HE shells. 2) He's talking in the context of the medium and heavy anti aircraft guns of the period not the StuG. As with other AAA guns of the time, traverse and elevation were done by seperate people, vs anti-tank guns, artillery or tank guns that have dual controls operated by one person 3) He's talking about the 88mm guns converted for pure anti ground role, these guns had modifications such as dual controls (so the crew went down to 4) and a maximum elevation of 15 degrees. These guns could not be used for anti-aircraft and were towed by armored halftracks or mounted on armored halftracks these were known as Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Flak 18 Sfl respectively

@frostedbutts4340

7 ай бұрын

>Anime dweeb >Runs their mouth without knowing a thing Lmao every time.

@0Turbox

7 ай бұрын

One of its strength was that it had a very fast deployment rate of about 2 minutes to fire readiness.