Question about those Sturmgeschütz III volunteers!

[anonymous individual]

I believe I saw a World War Two documentary mentioning something about German infantry volunteerly operate Sturmgeschütz III tanks in battles. It especially stressed that those men were dressed in regular infantry uniforms as oppose to the tank crew uniforms. They were all volunteers to combat as a tank crew in battles. Does anyone have any information related to it? If so, would that person kindly share it, Please? Thank you.

By the way, Please correct any information I have given. I fairly sure something of my information posted are incorrect.

[Marxist203]

I believe I saw a World War Two documentary mentioning something about German infantry volunteerly operate Sturmgeschütz III tanks in battles. It especially stressed that those men were dressed in regular infantry uniforms as oppose to the tank crew uniforms. They were all volunteers to combat as a tank crew in battles. Does anyone have any information related to it? If so, would that person kindly share it, Please? Thank you.

By the way, Please correct any information I have given. I fairly sure something of my information posted are incorrect.

StuG's are mobile guns, their place is with the infantry. Stugs never served in Armoured Divisions, but with Mechanized infantry and what not.

[Marxist203]

I believe I saw a World War Two documentary mentioning something about German infantry volunteerly operate Sturmgeschütz III tanks in battles. It especially stressed that those men were dressed in regular infantry uniforms as oppose to the tank crew uniforms. They were all volunteers to combat as a tank crew in battles. Does anyone have any information related to it? If so, would that person kindly share it, Please? Thank you.

By the way, Please correct any information I have given. I fairly sure something of my information posted are incorrect.

StuG's are mobile guns, their place is with the infantry. Stugs never served in Armoured Divisions, but with Mechanized infantry and what not. They were cheap to make...Infantry support vehicles is what they were.

[PsihoKeke]

Sturmgescutz were part of artillery. Crews were all wolunteers from artillery and wore artillery uniforms.

[Loco]

In this site,
www.feldgrau.com you´ll have plenty of this information.

[mustamato]

StuG's are mobile guns, their place is with the infantry. Stugs never served in Armoured Divisions, but with Mechanized infantry and what not. They were cheap to make...Infantry support vehicles is what they were.

But they were effective tank-killers which was found out already in France 1940 and many of the following models were intended to be tank destroyers. They were thus used as that many times despite that they didn´t belong to Armoured Divisions. German ally Finland used them (succesfully) against Soviet tanks as part of an Armoured Division

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531010/531010074.jpg
"This Alkett-built StuG with it's crew (commander Börje Brotell, gunner Olli Soimala, driver Sulo Kauppi and loader Armas Launikko) is the one that scored the most victories during the hard fighting in the summer of 1944. With 11 confirmed tank-kills this StuG now stands as a monument at the Finnish Armoured Brigades garrison area in Parola, Finland.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/fstcrew.jpg
From left on commander Börje Brotell, loader Armas Launikko, gunner
Olli Soimala and driver Sulo Kauppi. Side logs can be seen in this picture.
That "box" on logs is holder for spare roadwheel. Picture is taken 7.7.1944

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531033/53103302.jpg
"Ps.531-33 restored and showing all the modifications made during the (late) summer of 1944."

More finnish "Sturmi´s" (as they were nicknamed).

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/4406Rynn%E4kk%F6tankkiSaaT%E4ydennyst%E4.jpg
"Assault tank receiving ammo supply in Tali end of June 1944."
Largest battle fought in the Nordic countries with 50.000 troops on
the defending finnish side vs 150.000 from the Red Army.

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/4406SturmRynn%E4kk%F6tykitEnsossa.jpg
"German-supplied assault guns in Enso june 1944". Note
finnish modification with the shield. It mounted a captured DP
machine gun, original german machinegun was not used due
to the calibre, and MG34 was not considered as realiable as
the DP anyway.

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/4407KannasSaksalainenRynn%E4kk%F6tykkiSiirtyyAsemiin.jpg
"German assault tank going to new position July 1944 Karelian Isthmus."
(The southern parts of Finland). The germans sent in reinforcments to
support the finns during the Soviet offensive, this included armour such
as this one on the picture. The finns didn´t use the Schürzen side armour
but used logs instead.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/fststug.jpg
Note DP and logs instead of Schürzen. Schürzen is harder, but logs are
thicker. Visible on the picture is also the concrete around the gun mantle.

[Clay]

Whats witht he logs? more armour?

[mustamato]

Whats witht he logs? more armour?

Yes. The germans used Schürzen. Made the grenades of the PIAT and the Bazooka go of too early, and the allies used captured Panzerfausts as well. Don´t know why the finns didn´t use Schürzen, but I guess that the Red Army troops on the finnish front didn´t have all too much of those US-supplied Bazookas anyway (due to the finnish lack of armour, most they had were actually captured from the Red Army!). The main threat against the finnish Sturmis (StuG´s) was from the cannons of russian tanks. The most common was the 76/85 mm of a T-34 or KV, and the 122 mm of a JS-II as well as the 100/122/155 mm from a SU-series, and I guess they figured out that logs were better. The russians used magnetic anti-tank handgrenades as well, that wouldn´t attach very well too woods. Logs are easier to repair as well than the Schürzen obviously.

[Marxist203]

Yeah, actually adding debris like that was such a cost effective, Ingenius idea that it probably saved alot of lives and won them the war. Considering the Fins weren't occupied at the end of the war, they obviously managed to make conquering Finland an unpopular idea.

[mustamato]

Yeah, actually adding debris like that was such a cost effective, Ingenius idea that it probably saved alot of lives and won them the war. Considering the Fins weren't occupied at the end of the war, they obviously managed to make conquering Finland an unpopular idea.

Well, there are trees everywhere in Finland, so of course they were used to all kinds of things. Including armour and protection. It´s readily available and doesn´t really cost anything, more than the sweat of the soldiers making something out of it. I don´t think that the danger of flying debris of wood was/is considered as anything really, since there are trees everywhere there would be it anyway if there was an artillery barrage or such. Trees stop small and light shrapnel better than steel, that might just bounce it away.

More examples:

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/43V%E4riSotilaatAsemissaan.jpg
1943 on the Finnish-Russian front.

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/4406IT-tykkiValmiinaAmpumaanKannaksella.jpg
Swedish-made 40 mm Bofors dug in.

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/4406VihollisenTulikeskitys.jpg
During the russian offensive in 1944 that started with a pretty intense
artillery bombardment. Only during the first five minutes (after that 215
bombers and 135 attack planes had softened the finnish defences up a
bit) 5500 Red Army cannons/howitzers/rocket artillery and mortars of
atleast 76 mm calibre opened fire, supported by 881 mortars and 175
guns from the navy with calibres from 130 to 406 mm fired 17.000
grenades, and that was just the first five minutes...

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/4407KannasPolkusillanTekoaKavantsaaressa.jpg
Very charactheristic to finnish tactics during the summer was to
use marshes and swamps too move troops to the enemies flank
during the nights. The only way to move heavy equipment and supplies
was to build roads like these, attacking straigth on is not very finnish
since the enemy had/has too much firepower.

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/4408IlomantsiVen%E4l%E4inenAntautuu.jpg
A russian soldier surrenders in 1944, they widely used wooden bunkers as well on the
Finnish-Russian front. The finnish term is "korsu".

http://www.warlinks.com/pages/images/korsu.jpg
"A korsu, or front-line dugout. It consisted of a timber frame sunk in
the ground and covered by a layer of logs, then waterproofing, sand
padding and more logs. To make the structure withstand a direct artillery
or mortar shell hit, the topmost layer comprised of biggish stones. This
particular dugout seems to be quite low. The probable reason is that to
avoid ground water or due to the omnipresent bedrock it could not be
dug deeper. It is quite dark, too, because windows would have provided
a path not only to light but to enemy shells."

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/43KirjeSielt%E4Jostain.jpg
Reinforced trenches. Good during the wet fall/autumn.

[Va_Dinger]

Sturmgescutz were part of artillery. Crews were all wolunteers from artillery and wore artillery uniforms.


100% correct!

[Marmot1]

AFAIK at the end of the war Sturms were used also in panzer units like in Herman Goering and others since there was lack of tanks... I remember I read somewhere that when in april 1945 polish 2 army was atacked near Budziszyn (curent polish german border) by the panzer division or rather by remains of it and "main battle tank" was Sturmgeshutz since there was lack of other armour...

[Haiw]

That's propably because (at least to my knowledge) there were simply more StuGs than Panzers.

[California Joe]

Lots of tankers in all countries added "debris armor" All those old pics of Shermans have sand bags, logs, extra wheels, etc. on them.

[AFG]

not to mention pieces of hedgehog obstacles in normandy

[hank]

The over abundance of STUGs was an early problem for Guderian and the dedicated Panzer officers. Guderian argued against deverting resources from Panzer production to make them b/c STUGs, from a doctrine standpoint, just did not fit with his ideas about massed armor and daring advances.

Later in the war, though, when Guderian took over the job of overseeing arms production and trying to simplify production and supply, he actually increased STUG and other assault gun production. By 1944 there was a glaring lack of anti-armor capability on the Eastern Front and he saw assault guns as the fastest way to fix the problem. Matthew Cooper discusses this at length in The German Army 1939-1945. Good book but a long and difficult read.

[XASA]

Hugo Primozic's heroics in a STuG III on the Russian Front were well publicized in Germany during the war. I think his actions prove it's more the man behind the gun than the gun that makes a difference.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8662/primozic.html