Is it just me, or does it drive others crazy that the panzer 4 and the stug have Identicle stats?

Granted, the Germans were using stugs as regular tanks toward the end because they were cheaper to build but they hardly filled that role as well as a panzer did.

I dont normally disagree with FFG, but this is something that really bothers me.

Only bothers me from a gamemechanics point of view.

The little Stug performed quite well, despite its obvious shortcommings.

I corrected this by forbidding StuG from executing "fire and movement" action, to take into account their lack of turret.

Though historicaly they performed best when shooting and scooting.

StuG's were assault guns to help infantry take objectives not shoot n' scoot. Shoot n' scoot is more in the realm of M10's. I myself like the no movement and fire rule myself.

M10 is a dedicatet tankhunter, while the StuG was a medium tank substitute. The StuG Had to shoot and scoot, as it did not have sufficient armor to duel with opposing tank formations. It was mostly operated as an infantry support tank. Giving the infantry Some tank support.

The M10 didn't have a strong armor either, and suffered heavy casualties when used as tanks.

No tank hunter is designed to *duel* with tanks (that's what tanks do !), but to *destroy* them. One of the most favourable tactic was to hide them at an ennemy tank passing point, open fire by surprise, and quickly retreat. On the offense, they were strong enough to support infantry, but not agile enough to effectively engage other tanks.

yup - the M10 was an adequat if uninspired attemt at covering the shermans main weakness - lack of antitank capability.

making comparisons between a StuG and a M10 is like compaing peas and oranges.

Maybe just take 4 movement away from them when they fire and move instead of just 2. Then they could still move one hex.

tisander said:

If I were to be going into that design direction, I would reduce the penalty by one. Deducting 3 points from movement instead of 2 would still allow them to fulfill their role as support for the infantry or as tank hunters. Otherwise, they would be reduced to sitting ducks. After all, in the time it took some of the heavier tanks to rotate their turrets, you could almost also rotate the whole vehicle. In the ToI scale, where a turn ist roughly 1 to 2 minutes, the difference is not as big as in a game where turns are 10 seconds or less.

The numerical steps in ToI stats are quite big, so many of the minor differences between armored vehicles will be lost at that "resolution".

We simply play with the StuG armour as it was written. The lack of a turret makes for a lower profile which is reflective in the higher armour rating.

StuG's were originally assault guns (they are actually artillery not part of the armoured corps at all!). They were designed to give infantry close artillery support on the advance. They soon proved useful as anti-tank guns and were more and more converted to that role. Strong on the defence, they weren't as good as tanks on the offence (due to the lack of turret).

As for the 'shoot n scoot' concept of the M-10 quoted above, I think would be more accurate in describing the M-18 Hellcat, the fastest AFV of WWII.

The difference between the Stug and M10 is more like comparing apples and apples (as in galas to grannies). Both have their feet in the artillery world, are supporting SP ATunits that have been used extensively for close infantry support...one with turret the other without. As stated the StuG excelled in the defensive role, whereas the M10 was more flexible due to the turret and attached recon teams, using well scouted, concealed approaches to flank the better armored panzers (not a shoot and scoot tactic).

StuG idea: Allow full FP if the StuG shoots first, then moves, but with loss of an additional MP (i.e. -3). A requirement that the StuG be initially in cover providing terrain could be added to dilute the advantage. If the Stug moves then fires, original ToI rules or those mentioned in this string of posts can be used (i.e. 1/2 FP...).

M10 idea: I've mentioned before allowing this unit to use the "concealed squads" rules when in cover providing terrain.

M18 idea: Definitely shoot and scoot...maybe allow full FP for all move and fire actions but subtract an additional MP (i.e. -3)?

well the stug III f and g models had the exact same gun as panzer IV g,h and j. the stug's where built on panzer III chasis since the Germans didn't want to waste perfectly useful parts. the stug IV with the 105 became the primary infantry support tank with the stug III's marders,hetzers and panzer IV tank destroyers becoming the mobile anti tank guns for the infantry formations. the m-18 will need some special rules to portray it and it's abilitys

bill jaffe