Assault guns vs. tanks

[Anton]

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?

[Wiking]

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).

[jivemi]

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.

[Wiking]

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.

[Griefbringer]

Originally Posted by Anton

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.

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.

[scorpio_rocks]

Originally Posted by Griefbringer

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.

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

[Wiking]

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.

[Mobhack]

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!).

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! - 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.

[Wiking]

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.

[Mobhack]

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.