Assault guns vs. tanks
 

Hello, all

Upon completing the scenario #2 (Stonne) for both sides I should like to know more about the way winSPWW2 reflects the distinction between assault guns and tanks.
At Stonne the French have H-39's, Char-B1's, and Char-B1 bis's, which the Germans counterpose with Stug IIIa's.

Assault guns are different from classic tanks in that they a) have a lower profile, giving them better cover and worse field of view, and b) do not have a turret, which makes them slower in sighting (?) and engaging enemy units not directly in front.

Does winSPWW2 take them into account?

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

As far as I can remember, the main mechanical differences in the game are that turretless AFV's are less likely to perform op-fire if flanked compared to turreted vehicles. They are also generally (but not always) cheaper than their turreted cousins. If any of that is incorrect feel free to slap me around a bit, Don. ;)

Incidentally, in some cases it would also be rather more 'historical' to field assault guns than tanks to support your non-motorized infantry. This is especially true for normal German Grenadiers and Russian line infantry past 1942 (SU-76's especially).

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

AFAIR assault guns don't do so well against tanks. They seem more effective than tanks against infantry though, so they complement each other very well.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

Depends on which ones you mean. The Soviet ISU/SU series are only middling due to their large caliber guns, they're mostly meant for breakthrough attacks against infantry. They'll smash most German mediums just fine, but not always very accurately.

The StuG III and IV with the medium L/43 - L/48 guns do just fine, and even late in the war can probably beat all but the heaviest tanks that oppose them. Generally they'll rack up a nice amount of kills if you can keep them alive.

The Sturmpanzer and Grille of course, are a different matter altogether, and if that's what you meant then I agree they are not really suitable for anti-tank duties.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

The differences in profile and size are represented by the Size characteristic, and the assault guns tend to have a bit lower values than tanks based on same chassis. For example, Stug III is size 3 while Panzer III is size 4. Similarly, T-34 is is size 4 while SU-85/100/122 assault guns are size 3. Smaller size makes unit harder to spot and hit with shooting.

One significant in-game restriction with assault guns is that immobilisation damage tends to make them something of sitting ducks in a lot of situation, if the enemy can avoid entering their field of fire and move to their flank for the final shot.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

The other in game difference is spotting from turreted vehicles is slightly better than non-turretted ones.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

I was away from my desktop at the time so I could not recall if there was a size difference or not, so thank you for confirming that. I also didn't know that about spotting but it makes sense. Learn something new about this game every day. :D

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

All of the above is why I really dont like casemated SP-guns

for a few points less for the turret
a) They don't react as well to flank attacks - less chance to turn to face firers
b) When stuck due to track or engine hit, then they are only effective where the guns currently pointing

The German case where Stugs have a decent 8 armour at the front, whereas the versions of the Pz4 that have the long 75s don't carry more than 5 armour (the turret could not handle any more weight - it was at maximum) is about the only reason to stick with them until panthers arrive. (If up on a hill or dug in and so hull down, more hits will register on the turret, which in the Pz4s case is somewhat less optimal situation than desired!:hurt:).

I do stick with Soviet Su's - the later one has more ammo than the IS2 (but a stuck IS-2 may be able to sweep a useful zone), and the 152 one with all HE ammo is nice, as I really like great big bangs. Lobbing 6 inch bricks into infantry formations, trucks, tanks carrying riders - what's not to like:smirk:! - so I usually take some 15cm sturmpanzers if German, as well. The Su-76 are cheap direct support for a soviet rifle company, better than a little light T-70 tankette anyway.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

I've yet to play much past 1943 so we'll see if I feel the same as you do later on. Certainly from 1941 through 1942 the StuG is pretty sturdy and as long as the ammo holds out it can deal with most Soviet armor handily. I haven't really played the Western Desert since the days of Steel Panthers 1 so I can't comment on their performance out there, but I would imagine it to be rather less good at those long ranges.

I do agree with the argument of StuG vs. Panzer IV though, as I always felt like the Mark IV is pretty fragile in a straight up fight, even though I am very fond of it anyways.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

The panzer 4 are like the battle cruisers - they have the punch, but carry a fatal "glass jaw" vulnerability against anything in thier own class.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

Those big bangs are certainly very impressive, and can spell bad news for lightly armoured vehicles! AP version tends to be quite nasty against more heavily armoured targets, if you manage to hit something - they are not usually very accurate when I am in command.

That said, Soviet assault guns tend to lack machine-guns (until the late war versions with 12.7 mm AAMGs), which means that once they run out HE ammo they cannot do much against enemy infantry.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

I've had that problem when I played Soviets as well. Its similar to the German's problem with the Ausf A and B StuG's which don't even have machineguns!

My big debate with my current campaign is whether I should upgrade my StuG's to Jagdpanthers and all of my PzKw IV's to PzKw V's or not when I hit 1944. Although it is definitely more attractive than trying to fight "realistically", I always feel a bit guilty going top-heavy like that.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

Those early StuGs tend to be a bit of a poor man's Panzer IV: no MG, no turret, less ammo for the main gun. Better armour, though.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

Hence why I tend to pair them with my pioniers as either a reserve force or as the spearhead for an assault. I don't tend to use StuG's as a regular combat unit until they recieve the L/43 guns because they frankly just don't have the combat endurance or capabilities to hold off a Soviet tank company on their own. They need close support to do so, but their heavier armor can help out when the majority of your other AFV's are boasting 3 frontal armor at best. :)

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

I have to agree that those StuGs with long guns are pretty respectable, especially when they are in a good defensive position where it is difficult to outflank them (so immobilisation is less of a problem).

As for keeping assault guns in reserve, they can also be used for moving your infantry reserve into a position. For example, SU-122 assault gun can carry a full infantry squad and has the same speed as a GAZ truck, but better cross-country mobility outside roads. Both tend to provide pretty meager protection to your infantry though, so better not to keep them loaded or even very close to the transports unless really necessary.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

Absolutely! A common tactic for me when I'm doing assaults or advances is to not buy a truck company for the Pioniers and just pile them onto the StuG's to ride them until just before the point of contact. I'll usually dismount and sweep ahead on the road or path with the engineers about where I estimate to be running into mine belts or ambushes.

For assaults I tend to go Pioniers in the lead, StuG's right with them or right behind them, and a company of SS-Panzergrenadiers or regular Grenadiers bringing up the rear along with a Panzer company. If I'm feeling frisky sometimes I'll pick up some of those engineering tanks and lead with those too :)

The ISU/SU series with the enclosed fighting compartments are very very good at this, much better than even the StuH 42 because of the larger gun. Especially with experienced crew, I find that enemy defenses practically vaporize if you give them the time to work over an area properly and keep the engineers looking around.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

So far I haven't been very impressed with the results I have obtained with the big ISU/SU guns against dug-in infantry, maybe that has something to do with the limited crew experience. They certainly tend to keep those defenders pinned, but I tend to find that they are more effective against enemy that is not dug in - such as those taking cover in woods and buildings in advance/delay scenarios.

Against bunkers the 152 mm AP round tends to be very bad news, if it manages to score a hit - easiest done by driving close by (if the engineers have managed to clear mines under smoke cover) and then opening fire on next turn when the assault gun is no longer moving.

Re: Assault guns vs. tanks
 

Yeah you definitely need better crew experience. Which can be hard to get as the Soviets unless you have a handle on their quirks (I cannot say that I entirely do).

Its much easier with a longer campaign as it gives your crews more time to get proficient. A shorter campaign or a single scenario means they'll likely be best used for suppression.