• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
snappahead

support tanks

181 posts in this topic

Ok, I play allies, support tanks have machine guns. I play axis and support tanks are stugs? You're kidding me right? Is this some kind of joke? Why not just give both sides light tanks with machine guns? Why is it if you want to play axis you have to do it with one arm tied behind your back? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The STUG is an assault gun and it was not normally equipped with an MG until later in the war, and even then not all the time. When you say light support tank the axis have plenty, Pz IIs and even the Pz IIIN later in the war/game. 

WW2OL models equipment as it was historically. Look up the STUG III on Tank Encyclopedia for more information. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

The STUG is an assault gun and it was not normally equipped with an MG until later in the war, and even then not all the time. When you say light support tank the axis have plenty, Pz IIs and even the Pz IIIN later in the war/game. 

WW2OL models equipment as it was historically. Look up the STUG III on Tank Encyclopedia for more information. 

Infantry brigades do not have p2's, that's the point. Oh yeah,  that historical thing for axis.....still allies get 1944 tanks....that's the balance thing right?

 

Edited by snappahead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, raptor34 said:

The STUG is an assault gun and it was not normally equipped with an MG until later in the war, and even then not all the time. When you say light support tank the axis have plenty, Pz IIs and even the Pz IIIN later in the war/game. 

WW2OL models equipment as it was historically. Look up the STUG III on Tank Encyclopedia for more information. 

The StuG IIIG was modified - it was given an open mg with a gun shield on top of the ammo loader’s hatch not too long after going into combat.  Later on the germans replaced that with a mg that was inside  a small remotely-controlled turret on top of the vehicle.  You can find real ww2 photos of both variants on the internet.

The StuG III B never had a mg.  But the STuG III G probably should have one.  

I haven’t researched the new StuH 42 yet,  so not sure about mg on that one.  But I don’t understand why the 42’s main ammo loadout is so low in game.  It is almost useless without an ammo box.

Edited by krazydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hardlead said:

In this original manual, page 22, you can see the StuH 42 with shield and Mg.

StuH 42 with Mg

 Here you can see that it carried 54 10.5 cm rounds and 600 Mg rounds.

Not bad long range penetration; Armor penetration 10.5 cm L28

What AP grenade is modeled in game?

Actually, with the StuH 42 I was not talking about MG ammo.

I was referring to the main Ammo loadouts:   If I remember it has only 4 AP and 16 HE ammo in game -(plus some smoke and heat).  Seems kind of low to me.

But these numbers are only from my recollection.  I am not in game right now, so it might be +/- a little bit from what I mentioned.

Edited by krazydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 HE / 4 HEAT / 4 AP / 2 SMK . . . and yes, I drove out and place an ammo box before I spawned the unit so I could stay in the field just a little longer. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tex64 said:

26 HE / 4 HEAT / 4 AP / 2 SMK . . . and yes, I drove out and place an ammo box before I spawned the unit so I could stay in the field just a little longer. :)

Thanks!

26 + 4 + 4 + 2 = 36 rounds.

So I guess that is a bit low ammo loadout   for the StuH 42 - based  on what Headhead said - that it could carry 54  105mm rounds of ammo.  The AP ammo in particular seems a bit too low.  4 rounds will usually be used up by most people after facing  only one enemy tank. 

Not to mention it should have a MG too.

 

Edited by krazydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like some more smoke, and HE.
I usually try to keep it far enough from ET's that the AP and HEAT don't become terribly useful, if one engages me, usually i try to hit it with smoke, and put the stug in reverse keeping my good side forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah! Realistic gameplay! What's wrong with you?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stug might be classified as an assault gun. But the Germans figured out that it is better suited in a defensive/ambush role.

 

3 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

I'd like some more smoke, and HE.
I usually try to keep it far enough from ET's that the AP and HEAT don't become terribly useful, if one engages me, usually i try to hit it with smoke, and put the stug in reverse keeping my good side forward.

You might want to hang out with a few players that use that platform with great success. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dre21 said:

You might want to hang out with a few players that use that platform with great success. 

The IIIG is, i usually use the StuH 42 in a support role though.
Think the only thing i have killed with it's anti tank rounds was a sapper who was trying to chase me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doyle and Chamberlain puts the StuH 42 ammunition at 36. I'm more inclined to believe them over unnamed sources at any old website. The StuH 42's primary historical role was infantry support using that big gun, hence the dominating HE loadout. Remember the StuG is kind of cramped and the 105mm shells are rather much bigger than 75mm.

External MGs for StuG's is in the works, however not for the B. Even so, you might not want to peg your hopes too high as the traverse on that thing is very limited, akin to the Sdkfz 251.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, snappahead said:

Infantry brigades do not have p2's, that's the point. Oh yeah,  that historical thing for axis.....still allies get 1944 tanks....that's the balance thing right?

 

IMO itt's a misconceiving of what sort of units brigades are modeling and what Allied units were like vs. Axis.

 

US units look like what infantry divisions looked like with attached units, Axis infantry doesn't have the kampfgruppe style of attached units.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

IMO itt's a misconceiving of what sort of units brigades are modeling and what Allied units were like vs. Axis.

 

US units look like what infantry divisions looked like with attached units, Axis infantry doesn't have the kampfgruppe style of attached units.

 

 

Yeah agreed , axis need more horse drawn guns.......

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

Yeah agreed , axis need more horse drawn guns.......

+1

I've always thought that the Axis need more horsepower!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, raptor34 said:

The STUG is an assault gun and it was not normally equipped with an MG until later in the war, and even then not all the time. When you say light support tank the axis have plenty, Pz IIs and even the Pz IIIN later in the war/game. 

WW2OL models equipment as it was historically. Look up the STUG III on Tank Encyclopedia for more information. 

Yeah the axis light support tanks, none of them are in the inf flags, you know, the guys they are meant to support.......

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, goreblimey said:

Yeah agreed , axis need more horse drawn guns.......

I wonder how that would go down.

Axis surround town with horse drawn guns, AO town ,  Allies spawn Tanks like no tomorrow,  Tanks get destroyed. 

Allies are in forum complaining that the horse drawn guns don't make enough sound and are to easy to set up without anyone noticing.  Hence why more Allied players are leaving the game ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ian77 said:

Yeah the axis light support tanks, none of them are in the inf flags, you know, the guys they are meant to support.......

 

S! Ian

I get it but that’s modelling a German infantry brigade correctly - at least in the early and mid war to my understanding. You do have (good) armour support, it just don’t have an MG. It’s up to the accompanying infantry to protect it. HC can also bring armoured units in to support and attack or defence, that’s up to the players.

I know you disagree on somewhat on the historical TOE, but at the same time it’s not like having access to the B1 and Matty have allowed us (Allies) to win on the spot either; in fact, we are still losing. 

1.36 is going to be change all of this again and will likely address most of these issues in the short term. Personally, I’m at least hoping quite realistic ratio numbers for the town flags and historic numbers/TOE for the mobile flags. 

At any rate, I only replied to this thread to say that no, the STUG IIIB should not have an MG - “balance” or otherwise if simulation is the goal. Later war STUG G and so on is already being addressed. 

See you on the battlefield @ian77 S! 

Edited by raptor34
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BMBM said:

Doyle and Chamberlain puts the StuH 42 ammunition at 36. I'm more inclined to believe them over unnamed sources at any old website. The StuH 42's primary historical role was infantry support using that big gun, hence the dominating HE loadout. Remember the StuG is kind of cramped and the 105mm shells are rather much bigger than 75mm.

External MGs for StuG's is in the works, however not for the B. Even so, you might not want to peg your hopes too high as the traverse on that thing is very limited, akin to the Sdkfz 251.

Sound reasonable.  If those guys said the StuH 42 carried 36 ammo then I would trust them more too.  I have Chamberlain and Doyle’s book on german tanks and it is an excellent reference.

Not sure how you guys decide the mix of AP / HE loadouts.  I guess you have to make that call.  I would agree with the emphasis on HE, but only 4 AP ammo still seems a little bit low too me - but I can understand your reasoning.

More importantly,  I am glad to hear the MGs are in the works.  And I agree the stug III B never had one, but the later ones did.  I just hope you guys give this task a higher priority now, because CRS has made the SruG a bigger issue these days with the new supply lists.

Edited by krazydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Kilemall references above, and as discussed in another thread recently, German forces often fought as kampfgruppen, British forces as battlegroups, and French and US forces as divisions or division elements with attached support units. Effectively the same thing.

The recent push to differentiate forces based on historical division TOEs without attached support elements was well intended, but not how such forces historically fought except in instances of command error or when there weren't enough support elements available locally.

Here's the key part of BMBM's response in that other thread:

Quote

 

True. The differentiation between infantry and armor in the current setup, albeit much watered down from the original much stricter version, is/was meant to provide greater variety in gameplay - ie more infantry vs infantry battles. A vocal minority dislikes that wheras a silent majority accepts it.

The KG approach, while historical, apt and true, represents a return to tit-for-tat balanced gameplay with pretty much the same setup everywhere. We are there already and headed further that way, both in terms of the watering down process and in terms of 1.36 garrisons. 

 

Supposedly there will be moveable combat elements in 1.36, in addition to the garrisons. A way to accomplish @BMBM's discussed goal while remaining consistent with history would be to have all of the garrisons be based on infantry division TOEs, containing (in 1940) no armored gun platforms, with all the pure tank elements and armored divisions as moveable units. Then a garrison that needs tank or SP gun support maybe has it assigned, if enough resources are available in its area of the line and its priority is high enough.

If HC control of such units is undesired or unreliable at times, add a voting assignment/positioning system.

An addition benefit of such a system, if implemented with history in mind, would be variety...the heaviest tanks would exist in only a few support elements, and therefore would be found there in reasonable numbers but would not be present anywhere else...leading to a desirable level of expletive-laden expressions of dismay when such tanks are spotted.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garrisons will be battlegroup-like, with all sorts of equipment. Consequently there will be more of everything everywhere, with less variety except for that provided by the individual and very different platforms. Consequently there will be less pure inf-inf battles, except when everyone is attrited down to the bone - which is perhaps less likely to happen with multi-AB towns, overstock and movable flags in the picture. Spawnlists will still be subject to historical timeline, budget equality and established item costs, while striving to keep discrete numbers as equal as possible.

Garrisons cannot be INF only as that would place an undue burden on not-permanently-present HC to move flags, AND because people expect, want and should have gear to provide value for money and time invested. Maybe not a whole lot of gear, but gear nonetheless.

The single most unbalancing item in the early tier lists, cost-wise and capability-wise, is the flak 36 and its prime mover. If Germany had had a comparatively cheap but effective medium AT gun like the 2pdr or the 47mm, cost-based balancing would have been much easier. Premium stuff, and stuff that enters early or is unique in capability (e.g. the 251 and the Sdkfz SPAA) drives up cost which must be balanced by other (expensive) stuff on the opposing side. Folks may not appreciate the added cost but forget that this same cost yields added clout/capability/advantage that the other side doesn't have. And, as history and business tells us, quantity is a quality of its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give one side tanks from 1944 and then say "Spawnlists will be subject to historical timeline" is contradictory. I don't want to hear "historical timeline" when crs throws that out for "balance" when it's convenient.

You have one side with infantry support tanks that carry heavy machine guns, the other with tanks without and say "historical, that's the way it was". Then when it's pointed out that the Sherman 76 and firefly didn't see combat until 1944...."well, it's like this, we need balance" The imbalance in the air war gets pointed out and I'm told "historical, that's the way it was", yet, crs will be damned if the historical fact that the German tanks were far superior is going to play out historically.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, snappahead said:

To give one side tanks from 1944 and then say "Spawnlists will be subject to historical timeline" is contradictory. I don't want to hear "historical timeline" when crs throws that out for "balance" when it's convenient.

You have one side with infantry support tanks that carry heavy machine guns, the other with tanks without and say "historical, that's the way it was". Then when it's pointed out that the Sherman 76 and firefly didn't see combat until 1944...."well, it's like this, we need balance" The imbalance in the air war gets pointed out and I'm told "historical, that's the way it was", yet, crs will be damned if the historical fact that the German tanks were far superior is going to play out historically.

 

Axis get a tiger in T2, later can be properly adjusted to T2.5 (This campaign started in T3)
In T2 allies have Sherman M4A2's with 75mm guns for tanks
S76 and firefly dont come in until T3, because presently T3 is the end of the line, anything and everything not T2 either lands there or does not exist at all.
If there was a Tiger II, presently it would land in T3 also, cause it would not have any place else to go, RDP ceases to advance at T3

Once the US faction has proper RDP cycling so it can continue beyond T3, then things can further move to proper orientations, along with early year and later year tiers for even better entry times.
Until then, T3 is simply the place where everything after T2 goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't you manually place them when tier 4 hits?  That way they don't have to exist in 1943, when they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.