ostheer medium tanks

[TacticalNuke]

My guess is that is exactly what they're going to do. I'm curious as to what what the doctrines are going to be. I'm hoping that its not going to be the basic three "armor, mobility, defense". In their capable hands though I'm sure it will be cool one way or the other.

[BurroDiablo]

The vCoH doctrines are quite regimented, so you go Infantry, don't expect Armour call ins. If you go Armour, don't expect Infantry call ins.  If you go Scorched Earth, don't expect to be making daisy chains. If you go Terror, don't expect muffins... that sort of thing.
Obviously the Ostheer is wip so stuff is subject to change, but the doctrines will mix things up more, it's not black and white 'Infantry, Air, Armour, Defensive, etc'.

/off topic

Back on track

[Aouch]

Nice to hear, Burro! 

Back to the MTB-discussion:

When I said that StuG III shouldn't be part of the Ostheer, I took into account, that the StuG IV is already part of the WH.
In the WH-faction, it's neither a really powerfull tankdestroyer nore a great MTB.
Therefore, it would be very, very stupid and disappointing to see a StuG III, which is more powerfull than its successor.

Following this idea, the StuG III for OH would be nearly the same as the StuG IV. (Otherwise, it would not make any sence at all.)
Now, I thought that a fully upgraded PzKpfW. III Ausf. J (that's the one we saw on the WIP-screens), will fit exactly into the role vCoH gave to the StuG: Early tank-support which can be devastating in groups of 3 or more vehicles.

You see where I'm going? PzIII and StuGIII would fulfill the same role in OH, at least in CoH's terms.


However, I can still imagine seeing a Sturmgeschütz in the Ostheer. But not as buildable unit. It can be a doctrinal combined arms call-in, similiar to the soviet tankriders. The StuG was originally designed as an infantry-support-gun for assault purposes, thus it would make sence. Instead of infantry using the tank as transporter, the tank should be like an additional "armour" for the infantry-soldiers.
An ability, which enables the infantry to "lock upon" the StuG, like CW's Lt., that's what I thought about. Once the inf is "locked" to the tank, the StuG moves slower but functions like a massive wall to hold bullets and other dangers off the following soldiers.

[maxi1991]

Back to the MTB-discussion:

When I said that StuG III shouldn't be part of the Ostheer, I took into account, that the StuG IV is already part of the WH.
In the WH-faction, it's neither a really powerfull tankdestroyer nore a great MTB.
Therefore, it would be very, very stupid and disappointing to see a StuG III, which is more powerfull than its successor.

Stug3 and Stug4 were not really much different in means of armour, firepower(depends on ausf) and speed. So you could basically use the same stats but give the stug3 some nice abilities like camo and let's say it uses better ammunition

there you got your tank destroyer without beeing unrealistic

[Loupblanc]

 Historically the Pz3 came earlier than the StuG3.
 You're assuming here than the Pz3 is an early Pz4, which it
 isn't. The Pz3 has 50mm and the StuG3 has 75mm.
 
 Fully completed Pz3 were even recalled from combat to
 be converted to StuG3's. Aye. Give it better ammo, and
 camouflage. Make it an upgrade to the Pz3, and problem
 solved. Perhaps for 100 ammo?

 If Pz3 comes earlier, it can't very well be Panther Strenght,
 now, can it?

  Who is with me on this idea?
 
 The Pz3 to StuG3 conversion helps the Pz3 not
 becoming overly obsolete as technology evolves onwards.


Post Merge: September 08, 2010, 03:37:40 PM
 Shermans convert from 75mm to 76mm...
 Why should Pz3 50mm to Stu3 75mm be an idiotic
 upgrade?

[Akalonor]

I agree Loupblanc , the StuG IV was a result of the Germans losing ground in the war, adding the Stug III as an upgrade to the PzIII seems good, maybe from the HQ as a global upgrade.

[Aouch]

In my opinion, a PzIII->StuGIII-upgrade makes no sense.
The Sturmgeschütz was original designed to give the fast advancing troops artillery-support. So they put a 75mm cannon on the chassis of a PzIII. Because artillery don't need a turret, the StuG hadn't one, thus was cheaper to produce than PzIII.
However, later in the war, the StuG proved itself also as very usefull tankdestroyer, because of its flat design. It could also carry the long 75mm KwK, again due to the fact it hadn't a turret.

Of course some PzIII were converted to a StuG, but most of them were just build as one and came out-of-factory as an assault gun.

Also, it should be still possible to build PzKpfW. III in late-game, a thing which will be impossible when globaly upgraded. A single upgrade for every produced Panzer would be dumb, since it's not a simple cannon-change as with the Sherman, but a complex re-design.

So, after all the best would be to have PzII Ausf. L as early tank and late-game recon vehicle (as shown in the teasers), PzIII (Ausf. J) as MBT (as shown in the teasers), which is weaker than T34 but has either camouflage-ability like the PaK38 with bonus for the first shot or some kind of tank-zeal.
Upgrades are Panzerschürzen and upgrade to Ausf. N (as shown in the teasers), which adds the short 7.5cm Stubbygun, gains better AI-capability and loses the armour-penetration.
Additionally, a tankdestroyer, perhaps Marder II or Nashorn.
Depending on the doctrine you choose, you'll gain access to on out of three Panzer-call-in-abilities, either Panther, Elefant (already seen a sreen of it) or a StuGIII with infantry (+ ability to "lock behind the tank").

[Killar]

It makes no sense to "upgrade" the panzer III to Stug III. Should be vice versa.

Why not replace the Panzer III with the Panzer IV as an doctrinal ability? Could be included in the tank doctrine where the elephant is.
Panzer IV would be produced out of factory as a Ausf. H (model) with 50 Mun. cost for upgrading with sideskirts (raises HP).

Has the ability to use the "Panzergranate 40" for 20 sec.
to deal with soviet tanks better. The ability costs 50 mun also.

[Loupblanc]

 It's in reply to Aouch which says that StuG3 isn't needed,
 because Pz3 fills that role. Same way Pz5 and Stug4 aren't
 needed, because Pz4 fills that role, hm?
 
  Well, StuG were #1 killer of T34's I believe, and the
 StuG3 is the natural (and successful) evolution of the
 Pz3, as war wore on. Ok, fine. You're right in that not
 all Pz3 should just insta-pop as StuG3. I know no more
 were built at that point (Native Pz3). How about this :
 Unlock which makes all new Pz3 come out as StuG3
 (No new Pz3 are buildable), and can convert existing
 Pz3 to StuG3 for, say, 75 munitions?)(50?)

  That way, you get a fast, early Pz3 for a chance for
 a quick knockout win, and if it fails, switch 'em to
 StuG3 for defensive warfare?

 Give them camouflage and first strike. Similar to Hetzer.

 I like the idea of StuG3 being used as an infantry wall.
 Actually, I think everyone should be capable of doing that :p
 But would fit very nice with OstHeer, especially.

 Make it an unlock for all ostheer tanks to be capable
 of that? And make infantry associated with said tank
 to be immune from MG suppresion? (From a direction?.
 Can that be done?)

 --
 Killer : It makes no sense to upgrade the Pz3 50mm to
 a StuG3 ? You're right. We should be able to upgrade
 Pz4 to Puma Yup. StuG3 is a lot more effective
 against Soviets than Pz3. Better armor, 50% larger gun.
 Reloads faster, etc.

  StuG3 had a very large place in the war and in the kill
 ratio. Plus, it's where all the Pz3 went. If you go Pz4/Pz5,
 why not go Wehr?

 - I don't think people want to lose their Elefant in exchange
 for a 'Put wehr unit in Ostheer faction'
 

[Killar]

@Loupblanc

Yeah but this solution allows you to have the Panzer IV in the ostheer too. The PIV was the main battle tank at the eastern front, not Panther or tiger.

I didn´t said to disclaim elephant for the panzerIV 
the replacement for PIII should be in the same doctrine!

[Aouch]

When I said that a StuG III isn't needed, I meant it isn't needed as the MBT of the Ostheer.
I want it, too. But as doctrinal call-in.

Also, I ehm, would hate an upgrade like you all suggested. Why should the DEVs put so much work in a new model which is immediatly switched out in 10 minutes with an old acquaintance, the StuG?
Just because it was tank-killer #1, doesn't mean anything. I think engine-breakdowns where #1 mission-killers for Tigers etc.
And US for sure knocked more axis tanks by close-air-support than tankdestroyers. How often do you see that ingame? 

And most Pz3 didn't went to StuG3 but total destruction by 1943/'44.

EDIT: I hope they don't add the Pz4. Would be very very boring. It's already part of PE and WH. Plus it solves no real porpuse, the DEVs can make the Pz3 be nearly as effective on the battlefield as the Pz4.
Than again, Panthers are also part of those factions, but you can't make a Pz3 as strong as a Panther.

[Killar]

Right, when you can switch to a better tank, why using panzerIII anyway?

[Aouch]

Because it's cheaper and perhaps solves an other porpuse?

Anyway, look. Panzer 3 and StuG 3 should be two total different units, tacticwise.
Pz3 can be used as a large group of tanks hunting down by far better tanks thanks to it's availability in great numbers.
A classic tank.
StuG3 should be an infantry-support-gun. For assault. JUST like its name. And maybe as tankdestroyer.
But not in groups etc.
Not a classic tank, but an assault gun.

Also, why should anyone choose the Hotchkiss as reward unit instead of the Pz4? The German tank is "normally" better than the French, isn't it? Still there are people who tends to use it above the Stubby...

[Ghost]

Anyway, look. Panzer 3 and StuG 3 should be two total different units, tacticwise.
Pz3 can be used as a large group of tanks hunting down by far better tanks thanks to it's availability in great numbers.
A classic tank.
StuG3 should be an infantry-support-gun. For assault. JUST like its name. And maybe as tankdestroyer.
But not in groups etc.
Not a classic tank, but an assault gun.

couldn't say it better 

[Loupblanc]

 - Ok, I agreed about the USA Sherman-style
 turn all Pz3 into StuG3 conversion. Which is why I
 proposed a munitions-based voluntary conversion.
 
 Fine, Stug3 looks like Stug4, but so does Pz3 look like Pz4
 a lot. I've read at lenght on the internet about the Pz3
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III
 In the past few days.

 Once upon a time...
 Pz3 tank killer. Pz4 infantry support.
 Then ... Roles reversed
 Pz3 Infantry Support. Pz4 Tank killer.
 (Which is where the N version comes in)
 The StuG3 was a tank destroyer conversion.
 
 By the end of the war the Pz.III had almost no frontline use and many exemplars had been returned to the factories for conversion into turretless assault guns StuG, which were in high demand due to the defensive warfare style adopted by the German Army by then.

 The Panzer III chassis was the basis for the Sturmgeschütz III assault gun, one of the most successful self-propelled guns of the war, and the single most-produced German armored fighting vehicle design of World War II.

 To meet the growing need to counter these tanks, the Panzer III was upgunned with a longer, more powerful 50-millimetre (1.97 in) cannon and received more armour although this failed to effectively address the problem caused by the KV tank designs. As a result, production of self-propelled guns, as well as the upgunning of the Panzer IV was initiated.

  It was intended to fight other armoured fighting vehicles and serve alongside the infantry-supporting Panzer IV. However, as the Germans faced the formidable T-34, stronger anti-tank guns were needed. Since the Panzer IV had a bigger turret ring, the role was reversed.
 
 ----
 I propose this :
 Make the Pz3 into a puma (ie: I'm not saying put a Puma
 instead. I'm saying give it role of Puma - which it has)
 As an early MBT, it will need a considerable upgrade
 as tech moves along. This is what StuG3 and J, L and N
 versions are for. Plus it's historical.

  You disagree with that, might as well put Pz4 and Stg4.
 And give up on OH, and make it Wehr 1.5.

 StuG3 was used more defensively, as the fortunes of
 war turned for the germans. Plus it packed a hell more
 of a punch.

 Early Pz3, then shift on to StuG3. At least this way,
 they're not wasted and to be thrown away.

 Anyone with me on this?

Post Merge: September 09, 2010, 12:41:49 AM
 Addendum :
 StuG4 is an early quasi Panzer4. Cheaper, with less
 capabilities. Pz3 to StuG3 is a radically different tank :
 - More armor.
 - Upgrades from 37mm to 50mm to 75mm!
 - More AP capabilities.
 - Can annoy IS2 where Pz3 is - totally - outclassed.

 It's to the Pz3 what the Sherman 76 is to the Sherman 75.

 Pretty much all the surviving Pz3's were converted to StuG3.
 And, it was the most numerous german of WW2.

 Shouldn't that count for something?

Post Merge: September 09, 2010, 12:44:29 AM
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgesch%C3%BCtz_III

 The Sturmgeschütz III (StuG III) assault gun was Germany's most produced armoured fighting vehicle during World War II. It was built on the chassis of the proven Panzer III tank. Initially intended as a mobile, armoured light gun for infantry support, the StuG was continually modified and was widely employed as a tank destroyer.
 
 : Tank destroyer.
 : Infantry support.
 : MOST PRODUCED AFV of germans during WW2.

  What you are saying is like taking away the American's
 Sherman, for #$($*($!#

Post Merge: September 09, 2010, 12:50:14 AMAs the StuG III was designed to fill an infantry close support combat role, early models were fitted with a low-velocity 75 mm StuK 37 L/24 gun to destroy soft-skin targets and fortifications. After the Germans encountered the Soviet KV-1 and T-34 tanks, the StuG III was equipped with a high-velocity 75 mm StuK 40 L/43 main gun (Spring 1942) and later – the 75 mm StuK 40 L/48 (Autumn 1942) anti-tank gun. These versions were known as the Sturmgeschütz 40 Ausführung F, Ausf. F/8 and Ausf. G.
 
 : 1942. So by default it's the tank destroyer role.

 Overall, Sturmgeschütz series assault guns proved very successful and served on all fronts as assault guns and tank destroyers. Although Tigers and Panthers have earned a greater notoriety, assault guns collectively destroyed more tanks. Because of their low silhouette, StuG IIIs were easy to camouflage and a difficult target. Sturmgeschütz crews were considered to be the elite of the artillery units. Sturmgeschütz units held a very impressive record of tank kills – some 20,000 enemy tanks by the spring of 1944.[2]

 It's fascinating read, really. I suggest it to all

 - Most numerous tank.
 - Most numerous kills.

  Pz3 should be convertable to StuG3.
 StuG3 should be buildable.

 Case closed.

Post Merge: September 09, 2010, 12:55:46 AM
 Bombing raids on Alkett factory resulted in significant drops in StuG III production in November 1943. To make up for the loss of production, Krupp displayed a substitution StuG on Panzer IV chassis to Hitler on 16–17 December 1943. From January 1944, the StuG IV, based on the Panzer IV chassis and with a slightly modified StuG III superstructure entered production.

 Just an interesting tidbit