Stug III(abilites,and price)

[Canadian_Pride33]

From my earlier threads i have found out that many people believe that a long-barreled stug III has the ability to take on a sherman no problem, but does it have the armor to withstand one? I would like to know what you guys would think a Stug III's capabilites would be.

StugIII Cost.(18-22)
infantry-support unit

Infranty.7/6/6
vechicles.13/11/10

Low silhouette-maybe extra on cover roles?

no turret-can only attack units infront

[Andras]

The L24 and L43 versions had 50mm of armor.

The Ausf G L48 version had 80mm of armor.

From 1943, 10% of StuG III production was armed with a 10.5cm L28 howitzer (StuH 42)

No secondary MGs for any versions of the StuGIII

It doesn't have a lower silhouette then A/T guns.

[NEVjr]

stug III Ausf G, would have same defense as a 4g, and same attack, and same etended range, no turret, only veh in front, i dont think a cover bonus is warrented, its about as tall as a churchill. id cost it at 22 points

[Canadian_Pride33]

stug III Ausf G, would have same defense as a 4g, and same attack, and same etended range, no turret, only veh in front, i dont think a cover bonus is warrented, its about as tall as a churchill. id cost it at 22 points


The Stug III in fact did have a very low silhouette and was even smaller than the panzer II in height.

but with facts from one of my books let me re-due its specifications.

it had a long barreled 7.5cm L/48 gun capable of dealing with many allied tanks and with maximum armour of 50mm was not bad in defending itself.

It also says hear that the stug 3's low silhouette and feul ecomony made it a perfect tank killer, with amazing capiblites on hilly terrian.

[NEVjr]

The Stug III in fact did have a very low silhouette and was even smaller than the panzer II in height.

but with facts from one of my books let me re-due its specifications.

it had a long barreled 7.5cm L/48 gun capable of dealing with many allied tanks and with maximum armour of 50mm was not bad in defending itself.

It also says hear that the stug 3's low silhouette and feul ecomony made it a perfect tank killer, with amazing capiblites on hilly terrian.
according to onwar, a panzer 2 c is 1.99 meters tall, a stug 3 g is 2.19m tall

[Canadian_Pride33]

according to onwar, a panzer 2 c is 1.99 meters tall, a stug 3 g is 2.19m tall


well according to German Tanks of World War II, the Panzer Model F(sdkfz121) was 2.02m(6ft 7in)

While the Sturmgeschutz III Model A (Sdkfz142) was 1.95m(6ft 5in)

[Lynx7725]

From my earlier threads i have found out that many people believe that a long-barreled stug III has the ability to take on a sherman no problem, but does it have the armor to withstand one? I would like to know what you guys would think a Stug III's capabilites would be.

StugIII Cost.(18-22)
infantry-support unit

Infranty.7/6/6
vechicles.13/11/10

Low silhouette-maybe extra on cover roles?

no turret-can only attack units infront
StuG III is not well known for its ability to fight off infantry, even when it had a L/24 gun; it didn't have an MG and relied on infantry support. What I propose is this:

StuG III G (?)
Vehicle - Tank Destroyer
SPD 3 (Need to look up historical data first)
DEF 3/3 (same as basic chassis)
Infantry: -/-/-
Vehicles: 15/13/11

Extended Range 10
Transport
Fighting Platform (might be pushing things)

I think.. 20 points?

[NEVjr]

stug 3g has the same armour thickness as the 4g, (50+30mm), and about the same speed as a 4g as well

[Lynx7725]

Well, just bump it up to 5/3 then, and then up the points to what.. 22?

[Pasalades]

I plugged in the numbers and I got... love?

No, seriously. The cost is pretty much the same as the 4G sadly. The problem is how the extended range SA is costed. If it's costed at say 3 or 4 points and transport is dropped then you have a 22 point tank destroyer.

[dakeyrus]

The Early Stugs, up to variant D i think, did not have a hull mounted MG. The only MG they caried was once stowed inside the vehicle, which meant someone had to pop the hatch to fight off the infantry. As it was initially only an infantry support vehicle this was little problem as there were always freindly infantry around to help out. Variants from the E onwards had hull mounted MGs which did help in its anti-intantry role, especially now as it had taken on the role as 'tank-hunter'.

The F variants saw the introduction of the long barrelled 75mm, which continued on to the G. These variants would be from 1942 onwards.

The armor as already pointed out went up on the G variant to a frontal armor of 80mm from the 50mm on previous variants.

Heres a few ideas that i came up with

Stug A-D (1939) - Short-barrelled 75mm (L24)
Vehicle - Infantry Support
Points 22
SPD 3
Def 4/3
Infantry -/4/4
Tank 12/10/9

Shrapnel 2
Schnell (like Exert Will but only for freindly infantry units)
Low Silhouette 1 - This unit gets +1 to all cover rolls.

Rationale: Early Stugs were basically infantry support. Their support and morale effects on German infantry were very significant, and hence the Schnell ability. Low silhouette is obvious. Early stugs did have anti-infantry capability, but only at range. The shrapnel ability was included as Stugs often carried high proportion of HE rounds. Once the infantry got close they were gone, and hence the 0 dice for close range.

StuG III F8/G (1942) - Long-barrelled 75mm (L48)
Vehicle - Tank Destroyer
Points 35
SPD 3
DEF 5/3
Infantry: 7/6/5
Vehicles: 15/13/11

Extended Range 10
Schnell (like Exert Will but only for freindly infantry units)
Low Silhouette 1 - This unit gets +1 to all cover rolls.

Rationale: The Extended Range replaces the Shrapnel to show the shift in roles from Infantry SUpport to Tank Hunter.

Obviously, both of these units had the limitation of being only able to fire in front arc only.

[Pasalades]

I like those units you came up with. Accurate, nifty abilities and priced just right. I may just want to play test these.

[Joisey]

This is one unit where WOTC really should release two versions, an earlier version with the short barrel assault gun and anti infantry HE rounds and the later version with the long barrel, schurzen, and designated a tank destroyer.

Either way, I think we can count on this unit having the transport SA.

[Herbavida]

Why would this thing have transport?

[jiminy_fatal]

yeah, no kidding? This is a good thread, keep it up! someone should make a card so I can field this unit tonight against my British opponent

[Canadian_Pride33]

Why would this thing have transport?

I have seen many pictures where their are German soliders riding on the backs on these tanks, similair to what you see with the Russians and the T-34 going into battle.

But to make this tank fair and desent.
Stug 3 Long barreled(doesnt matter which long barreled version)
Cost- (24-28) no more
Infantry-5/5/0
Armour-15/13/11
Defense-5/3

No Turret- this tank can only attack units infront of it
Low silhouette- this tank gets +1 on cover roles.
(maybe)Transport- can transports one infranty, but can only load and unload during a attack fase.

Just some idea's

[Remember-OWS-]

In Russia, the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS did copied the way the Russian soldiers would carry their troops.

See this image:

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/Remember/stugiiihungarianrussianfront60.jpg

['panzer' Mayer]

In Russia, the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS did copied the way the Russian soldiers would carry their troops.

See this image:

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/Remember/stugiiihungarianrussianfront60.jpg

thats a nice pic of a stug any way I would have wanted a stug more than the onazer3 in set 2(but thats me)

[Remember-OWS-]

This is your stats card... Minus the Exert Will that I don't see relevant because it is not a SS version of the Stug III.
If you are building a Stug Battalion you will need a commanding Vehicle that can Influence other Stug III or maybe some Infantry attach to the Battalion.

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/Remember/stugiiiausf.jpg

[NEVjr]

This is your stats card... Minus the Exert Will that I don't see relevant because it is not a SS version of the Stug III.
If you are building a Stug Battalion you will need a commanding Vehicle that can Influence other Stug III or maybe some Infantry attach to the Battalion.

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/Remember/stugiiiausf.jpg
why pay 5 more points for a 4g with no turred and a cover bonus?

[Remember-OWS-]

You are right about the "Price"... It should be lower to let say 25, because mainly it was extensively use in WWII. Over 7720 were built in these years...

So yes, a better price should be seen... (When I got Time, I will redo it ok ;) )

[dakeyrus]

Ok i have had a little more time to think on this and divulge some of the comments made. One comment that stood out was the one about having a command Stug. What a good idea. Actually early Stugs were commanded by a Sdkfz 253, whihc was basically an armoured car that coordinated the Stugs in their support role. I have included this as follows so you can have a 'Stug Company' (ie. 2x stug, 1x Sdkfz). These command vehicles were only used with early war Stugs.

Stug A-D (1939) - Short-barrelled 75mm (L24)
Vehicle - Infantry Support
Points 15
SPD 3
Def 4/3
Infantry -/4/4
Tank 12/10/9

Shrapnel 2
Low Silhouette 1 - This unit gets +1 to all cover rolls.
No Turret

Rationale: Early Stugs were basically infantry support. Low silhouette is obvious. Early stugs did have anti-infantry capability, but only at range. The shrapnel ability was included as Stugs often carried high proportion of HE rounds. Once the infantry got close they were gone, and hence the 0 dice for close range.

Sdkfz 253 (Stug)
Vehicle - Command
Points 9
SPD 5
Def 2/2
Infantry 7/6/4
Initiative +2

Rationale - initiative allows the Stugs to be able to take advantage of battlefeild conditions more effectively.

StuG III F8/G (1942) - Long-barrelled 75mm (L48)
Vehicle - Tank Destroyer
Points 30
SPD 3
DEF 5/3
Infantry: 7/6/5
Vehicles: 15/13/11

Extended Range 10
No Turret
Low Silhouette 1 - This unit gets +1 to all cover rolls.
Shurzen - When a close assault attack is made, roll dice equal to the close assault attack. For each 6 rolled cancel one success.

Rationale: The Extended Range replaces the Shrapnel to show the shift in roles from Infantry Support to Tank Hunter. Most of these tanks were equiped with Shurzen which was helped to stop hollow charge weapons like bazookas.

Just modified the points slightly and some of the abilities. Let me know what you think.

[Remember-OWS-]

The Schürzen- Side Skirts was intended to prevent the Russian Tank bullet that hit behind the road-wheel. They do not prevent nor really protect the side at 5mm thickness from any Shells. 5mm thin steel skirts (schurzen) were hung from brackets along the hull sides and turret sides and rear, intended to detonate anti-tank shells before they struck the body of the tank itself, but it did not make its proof on the battlefiled, but rather a Booste moral.

[XAos]

The Schürzen- Side Skirts was intended to prevent the Russian Tank bullet that hit behind the road-wheel. They do not prevent nor really protect the side at 5mm thickness from any Shells. 5mm thin steel skirts (schurzen) were hung from brackets along the hull sides and turret sides and rear, intended to detonate anti-tank shells before they struck the body of the tank itself, but it did not make its proof on the battlefiled, but rather a Booste moral.
The side skirts were intended to detonate HEAT rounds at a "safe" distance from the hull armour. And were if anything a liability against kinetic AT-rounds (by improving the angle of impact against the main armour).

[Canadian_Pride33]

This is your stats card... Minus the Exert Will that I don't see relevant because it is not a SS version of the Stug III.
If you are building a Stug Battalion you will need a commanding Vehicle that can Influence other Stug III or maybe some Infantry attach to the Battalion.

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/Remember/stugiiiausf.jpg

I really like the picture and as you said, you should lower the price, but what program do you use to generate that card?

[NEVjr]

The side skirts were intended to detonate HEAT rounds at a "safe" distance from the hull armour. And were if anything a liability against kinetic AT-rounds (by improving the angle of impact against the main armour).
this is not true, the first testing and design for the skirts were to stop russian antitank rifes, the ptrd and the ptrs, because they were easy to hide, and able to penetrate panthers side armour. the schurzen simply sets the bullet tumbling and it looses almost all its penetrating power. the fact that it set off piat and bazooka rounds well was a bonus

[dakeyrus]

why pay 5 more points for a 4g with no turred and a cover bonus?

Well becasue 50% of the time you are only disrupting it.......

[Pasalades]

Well, how much do you think a Low-Silhouette SA to be worth? 2? 4 points? If it's worth 4 points I could see your Stug being worth 32 points. Remeber that with your modified anti-infantry stats, it's going to have a lot of trouble being effective against soldiers at any range that doesn't put it in danger. The loss of the turret makes it prone to flanking as well. I believe that this is offset by the new SA, but... a 35 point stug suggests that the Low-Silhouette is worth 7-8 points; as much as the much-maligned Extended Range is probably worth.

[Remember-OWS-]

I am a Old fashion Photoshop Guy

[Stojakovic]

I am a Old fashion Photoshop Guy

I wish I had photoshop :(

[Remember-OWS-]

This is the latest Stug III Ausf. G 1942 Stat Card.

I did lower the price for 30, and did not add the Schürzen spec, mainly because if you take a look at the Basic Pz IV, it does not show on the Stat card.

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/Remember/stugiiiausf_1.jpg

[Ben W]

Great card by the way. I wish I had the ability to do such things :)

I am guessing the actual cost will probably be cheaper.

No problem with the SA's of extended range and no turret.

Low silhouette might be more appropriate on the Hetzer. Maybe the Stug will get something else. Some new SA like close support, Stug's worked closely with infantry and were very experienced at what they did.

As for the transport ability. Not sure it is wholly appropriate. I have no doubts that all sides used any kind of vehicle to transport troops.

But tank riders are more a Soviet trait.

The tanks are being used as defacto mechanised vehicles, because you have nothing else to use. The Soviets put men on tanks as a stop gap measure, they did not have an armoured personnal carrier of their own or did not have enough lend lease vehicles during the war.

These tank riders were Tank Desant troops. They rode a tank into battle and dismounted to continue the battle on foot. It was dangerous and casualties were high. Soviet Command was willing to endure the losses.

Now every army rides on tanks or armoured vehicles all the time. This is normally during routine patrols or going from point A to B. Not for specifically attacking the enemy.

Which I believe is the flavour behind the SA for Russian tanks. As most gamers have heard about tank riders.

Really the SA should also have something about losses to the tank to be taken by the infantry aboard first. Rather than making them safer. A disrupt or hit kills the tank riders as well as hitting the tank.

Sure I read a post and somebody had made a better transport rule for tanks to show the dangers of riding on the outside.

Ben.

[Canadian_Pride33]

I think if you take away the low silhouette than it could bring the cost down to about 25, because right now its too similar the panzer 4.

[XAos]

30pts is too much for a Pz-IV. It's way to much for a Pz-IV with the additional liability of "No Turret". Make the cost 15pts and drop the spurious "Transport" SA.

[DocD]

I agree with the others. Transport is more Soviet SA. Mind you every country did it, but not to the extent of the soviets.

30pts is way to much. Remove Transport and drop points to 20.

[Remember-OWS-]

So! This is the latest version of the 75mm Stug III Stat Card.

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/Remember/stugiiiausf_2.jpg

[Remember-OWS-]

And it's front End!!!

http://www.picturehosting.org/images/Remember/stugiiiausf_3.jpg

[Canadian_Pride33]

thats very nice you should try submitting that to WOTC, or AH and see what they think of it. :p really

[XAos]

The fixed gun is a major liability. Comparing this Stug to the Ho-Ni (which also has a fixed gun). It would need to be between 16-18 points to match the cost-effectiveness. Since the Ho-Ni is barely playable. The Stug should be at the cheap end of that points range. As is, it would be just be another unplayable german AFV that was paying too many points for extended range :rolleyes:

[Herbavida]

The fixed gun is a major liability. Comparing this Stug to the Ho-Ni (which also has a fixed gun). It would need to be between 16-18 points to match the cost-effectiveness. Since the Ho-Ni is barely playable. The Stug should be at the cheap end of that points range. As is, it would be just be another unplayable german AFV that was paying too many points for extended range :rolleyes:

I disagree, I like the stug where it is, points-wise. The Ho-Ni is a poor example for comparison with no anti-soldier attack and weak 3/2 armor.

[Domhnall101]

I think it priced a point of two too low but a great job.
maybe add

Schurzen: Non-Artillery Soldiers that attack this unit recieve -1 on each attack die.
and make it 24pts

[XAos]

I disagree, I like the stug where it is, points-wise. The Ho-Ni is a poor example for comparison with no anti-soldier attack and weak 3/2 armor.
My software factors in the probabilities of allied AFV's hitting 3/2 armour accuratly. So I'm not sure what your disagreement demonstrates... :confused:
The Tactical liability of a fixed gun is not as easy to give a mathematically rigourous value for. Hence my choice of the HoNi for comparisson.

As for the difference in the anti-personnel. I suppose that a pitifully low ap value is better than none. But it would be worthless against a "parabomb" force. So it's not worth an extra 20-30% on the cost of the Stug.

[Remember-OWS-]

XAos, your point of view is very interesting, but if you take into account that the sIG33 is 15 point, for a 2/2 and a mediocre 8/6/4 in matter of Anti-Tank efficiency, you cant lower more the price of the StuGIII that I depicted here.

It is purely a hypothetical view of what should come in, and what some of us what to see, but as I see it, WOTC has built the German around a low-level industry that was not able to fulfill the demand in matter of Tank. This is a respectable point of view, and I have turn the card into this reality.

[Herbavida]

XAos, your point of view is very interesting, but if you take into account that the sIG33 is 15 point, for a 2/2 and a mediocre 8/6/4 in matter of Anti-Tank efficiency, you cant lower more the price of the StuGIII that I depicted here.

It is purely a hypothetical view of what should come in, and what some of us what to see, but as I see it, WOTC has built the German around a low-level industry that was not able to fulfill the demand in matter of Tank. This is a respectable point of view, and I have turn the card into this reality.

Good points. The sIG makes a better comparison, the Brummbar better still. The Stug is essentially a Brummbar with flipped AV/AS values. The Brummbar is lacks the low silhouette and extended range but has better armor and blast/bombardment, so it is pretty much a wash.

[Pasalades]

Although I've come to the conclusion the my efforts before the holidays are a bit of a wash, I still believe the WotC has guidelines when it comes to costing units, and with a little reverse engineering the costs of each of a unit's attributes can be discovered. It is the easiest way to cost, and to balance units in a game. If you cost everything individually, then you run into the problems that we have here, always comparing one unit to another, and another and another. It might help us if we devised our own system of costing units. I could just be out of my tree and the dev team does just exactly what I suggested would be a problem and cost units on a case by case basis. Sigh. It's a complicated issue, but at the very least I find it makes for lively discussion and debate on this board. As for the cost of the stug, 26pts is my own call.

[XAos]

XAos, your point of view is very interesting, but if you take into account that the sIG33 is 15 point, for a 2/2 and a mediocre 8/6/4 in matter of Anti-Tank efficiency, you cant lower more the price of the StuGIII that I depicted here.

SIG-33 (and Brummbar) are a poor comparisson to derive the points cost of a STUG-III.
The reason players use the SIG/Brumbar are the SA's {Blast & Bombardment} neither of which the Stug has. Computer software can accuratly & precisely evaluate the effect of varied attack/defense factors (e,g, Stug compared to Ho-NI). But it can't give accurate values for SA's(blast & bombard).
Consider; if the Stug-III were 22pts then a force of 3 Stugs + 1 Brummbar would cost more than 4 shermans. Do you really think that 3 Stugs could beat 4 shermans.? And if the axis force drops the Brumbar for a 4th Stug. It would have no chance against a force with a moderate amount of infantry.
If the Stug-III was only 15pts, then 4 stugs+brummbar is about 50/50 against 4 shermans, given the Stugs serious weakness of No Turret. The axis player is still relying on the shermans never getting behind even one of the Stugs. If the allied player is that inept, he'd deserve to loose.
The Stug is essentially a Brummbar with flipped AV/AS values. The Brummbar is lacks the low silhouette and extended range but has better armor and blast/bombardment, so it is pretty much a wash.

Did you just claim that extended range/low silhouette are not mearly as good as Blast/bombardment, but enough better that they compensate for the 7/4 defense of the Brumbar.? :rolleyes:
The Brummbar has both better SA's & better defense so just how is that "a wash" with the much weaker SA's of the Stug.

[Autarch]

Although I've come to the conclusion the my efforts before the holidays are a bit of a wash, I still believe the WotC has guidelines when it comes to costing units, and with a little reverse engineering the costs of each of a unit's attributes can be discovered.

I also was investigating unit costing. I think I finally hit on the formula for light tanks and vehicles. Every single tank I applied the formula to worked out perfectly!

Then when I tried to apply it to medium and heavy tanks it went to crap. :mad:

[Herbavida]

SIG-33 (and Brummbar) are a poor comparisson to derive the points cost of a STUG-III.
The reason players use the SIG/Brumbar are the SA's {Blast & Bombardment} neither of which the Stug has. Computer software can accuratly & precisely evaluate the effect of varied attack/defense factors (e,g, Stug compared to Ho-NI). But it can't give accurate values for SA's(blast & bombard) blah blah blah.

Jeez, enough of your fancy-pants "computer software" stuff--it's only as good as the programmer. 22 points FEELS right. If you don't like the Brummbar for comparison, consider the Archer, it's 21 points--same AV values--lower armor, AS values, speed. I think SF1 and low profile are somewhat comparable, although I'm sure you'll disagree with me. Given all this, I think that 22 points is about right. The Stug is too tough (frontally anyway) and its AV values are too high for it to be any lower.

You know what though, none of this matters, because AH is probably coming out with this unit in the next set and it does not have, or seem willing to use, your fancy software for logically computing unit values and seem to tack any value they want through some unknown system.

[XAos]

Jeez, enough of your fancy-pants "computer software" stuff--it's only as good as the programmer. 22 points FEELS right.
I'm a very good programmer thanks. (but not modest :D )
and 22pts feels unplayably awefull. If the Archer is worth it's 21pts it's because of the Strike & Fade ability.
I'm well aware that A/H don't get the probability analysis accurate on their points cost, the 21pt sherman proved that. :( And they may well already have the Stug-III cards printed. So by your logic every post on this thread is worthless (including yours). But at least this forum lets us tell them what they are doing wrong. So they can get it right in set-5.

[Pasalades]

I also was investigating unit costing. I think I finally hit on the formula for light tanks and vehicles. Every single tank I applied the formula to worked out perfectly!

Then when I tried to apply it to medium and heavy tanks it went to crap. :mad:

So have I. Want me to email you a copy of my work? I works pretty well and reflects what I feel were the guidelines WotC was following. There are some issues I found with how some SAs were costed. But you could look for yourself and tell me what you think.

[Shaposhnikov]

Guys, quit trying to hype the herrenvolk up. They already have too many "supertanks", a 1942 cheapo (22 points!) with good anti-armor values, no way.

Unless I get (Uncommon) T-34/76 @ say, sixteen points?

And the early version IOC (Ausf A-E) should be 1940, the first thirty were rushed into sevice in the spring of 1940. If you don't understand what IOC means, you have no business commenting on this kind of thread, except in a general, "Gee, that sounds cool" way.

IOC = Initial Operational Capability.

[Joisey]

Just went through this thread. I hereby award to ROWS the "Silver Photoshop Star" with brevet ribbon for his fantastic graphics work! :D

My thoughts on this unit:

AV stats will be similiar to the pzr IV G, but the AI stats on the late war model are non-existent like the Ho Ni because it has no intrinsic MG (only a handheld stowed, meaning somebody would have to pop his head out of the hatch and pull a rambo against surrounding infantry--AS IF!). The long barrel gun on the late war model was for killing tanks, not infantry.

I think this unit should absolutely get a Low Silhouette SA as well as the HHR "Exposed Transport" SA. Doctrinely, the infantry were always paired with and rode this vehicle for anti-infantry defense. PLUS, it was originally designed as an infantry support vehicle, both firepower and transport-wise. Why do you think it was built wide, flat, and low to the ground? Of course everyone used this thing for a ride from the very beginning! In fact, you'd have a darn hard time finding a photo of this vehicle that DOESN'T have some ground pounders catching a ride on it.

The Stug III's role changed from the early years as an infantry assault gun to a tank hunter (when it got the long barrel gun) so really we are talking about two distinctly different units and very different stats. The early war version had a low velocity anti-infantry gun with HE, so this would have much better AI stats than the later one, which all but abandoned the original role.

Carry On!

[crash beedo]

Yeah, if they make a Stug III I'm personally hoping for an anti-infantry version with transport. We already have a few fixed-turret AT vehicles, and there are plenty more that could be made (Marder, Hetzer, Wespe, Jagdtiger, that Halftrack with an AT gun - Schlepper I think?)

There are fewer German answers to allied infantry than allied tanks... although that Stuka or ME could be pretty good for it.

[XAos]

Unless I get (Uncommon) T-34/76 @ say, sixteen points?

I certainly want an uncommon T34/76. :cool:
A fair(ish) points value would be about 20 + whatever the Transport-SA is worth, say 24 total ?
Note the T34/76 is about 10% better than a sherman in a tank fight. But 50% worse V's infantry. So (excluding the transport) it should be cheaper than a sherman. My guess is the transport-SA is worth about +4 points (on a speed:4 tank). A T34 with a cossack captain or Bazooka is fairly fearsome.

If you want a 16pt russian equivalent to the Stug or Ho-Ni I'd guess the Su-85 or Su-76 would be close.

[Joisey]

Yeah, if they make a Stug III I'm personally hoping for an anti-infantry version with transport. We already have a few fixed-turret AT vehicles, and there are plenty more that could be made (Marder, Hetzer, Wespe, Jagdtiger, that Halftrack with an AT gun - Schlepper I think?)

There are fewer German answers to allied infantry than allied tanks... although that Stuka or ME could be pretty good for it.
Actually, bad news there: The Ju87G was specifically designed to hunt tanks, not infantry.

While a fighter could always strafe infantry, I wouldn't count on it to be cost effective in that role.

[Canadian_Pride33]

Thnx everyone for the postings. I thank many of you put time and effort into giving everyone your ideas for this post.and I can finally say we have our Stug III

[kormoran]

Well , I think we are far from over in one respect.

Do we want a super panzer at 30-35 pts or just a good buy at 22?

Historically, the virtue of the Stu-III was effectiveness, cheapness and availability because its P-III chassis was already in production and could have a potent standard gun dropped in an easy to build (as opposed to turretted AFV) armored box. Accordingly this was the most build Reich's AFV (exept half-track).

Appx 10,500 Stu-III were build while 5,640 P-III, appx 8,500 P-IV, 5805 Panther and 1350 Tiger-I with 485 Tgr-II were build. About 3,700 contraptions of various use were produced on czech build chassis while 5,213 Wespe and 700 jaeger were build on P-II chassis. On the P-IV or mixed III-IV chassis we have 473 Nashorn 666 Hummel and 1850 JagdPz IV (I cant find the # of Brumbar) build. 230 Jagpanther were built.

Forget fancy options, 22 pts for a 4G with only front firing wpn and 6/6/5 against infantry, (with no great defesive cover bonus) will have it fill its historical slot of readily available assault gun-tank substitute/destroyer best operated in conjunction with infantry.

It was used either in armoured gun Btn of PzrGrnd div as initially intended or as substitute to P-IV in Pzr Rgt.


Kormoran

[Quel]

Well , I think we are far from over in one respect.

Do we want a super panzer at 30-35 pts or just a good buy at 22?

Historically, the virtue of the Stu-III was effectiveness, cheapness and availability because its P-III chassis was already in production and could have a potent standard gun dropped in an easy to build (as opposed to turretted AFV) armored box. Accordingly this was the most build Reich's AFV (exept half-track).

Appx 10,500 Stu-III were build while 5,640 P-III, appx 8,500 P-IV, 5805 Panther and 1350 Tiger-I with 485 Tgr-II were build. About 3,700 contraptions of various use were produced on czech build chassis while 5,213 Wespe and 700 jaeger were build on P-II chassis. On the P-IV or mixed III-IV chassis we have 473 Nashorn 666 Hummel and 1850 JagdPz IV (I cant find the # of Brumbar) build. 230 Jagpanther were built.

Forget fancy options, 22 pts for a 4G with only front firing wpn and 6/6/5 against infantry, (with no great defesive cover bonus) will have it fill its historical slot of readily available assault gun-tank substitute/destroyer best operated in conjunction with infantry.

It was used either in armoured gun Btn of PzrGrnd div as initially intended or as substitute to P-IV in Pzr Rgt.


Kormoran


I have a book that states that 382 Jagdpanthers were built, not 230. For reference, the book is titled Armored Fighting Vehicles, and it is by Philip Trewhitt.

[fifleche]

Forget fancy options, 22 pts for a 4G with only front firing wpn and 6/6/5 against infantry, (with no great defesive cover bonus) will have it fill its historical slot of readily available assault gun-tank substitute/destroyer best operated in conjunction with infantry.Well, 22 pts for the unit you describe would underwhelm me... Let's not forget the Sherman *IS* 21 pts, 4 speed, def 5/4, 9/9/7 infantry 13/11/9 vehicles... Could the Axis have ONE tank that is cost-effective :confused:

[kormoran]

My figure for Jagdpanther are from B.T. White (Ian Allan). I will not argue the sources for the point that production of the more prestigious model was quite inferior to the humble Stu-III is as well made with your source.

Yes, german armour are expensive. But the 15-13 -11 is significantly better than the Sherm AT. Ok, I love the Stu-III and will be glad if we get it at 20 pts. If we are entitle to one cheap good AFV, historical logic says Stu-III has to be.

Kormoran

[Canadian_Pride33]

I was think at around the price of 25-27 would fight in right.