Talk:Sturmgeschütz III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

[edit] Continuous modifications & usage as 'tank destroyer'

We've been changing one of the leading sentences back and forth.

"It was built on the chassis of the 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"

The previous edit implied that it was modified until 1942 at which point it became widely used as a tank destroyer. Neither the previous version nor the current one is perfect.... and this can still be improved. My objections to the previous version are:

a) Stugs were used in the antiarmor role before 1942.

b) Stugs continued to be modified with different features long after 1942. For example, the late 1944/early 45 Stugs are very different from those produced in 1943.

c) We might want to avoid the term 'tank destroyer' altogether since it is a US term that might imply US doctrine for these types of vehicles.

So maybe we can work together to come up with a sentence that captures all the meanings we intend. Certainly the fitting of the longer 75mm in 1942 made it more effective in the antiarmor role, but that's not really what the lead paragraph says (yet)....DMorpheus 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 75 l43/l48 weren't especially high velocity

So I changed the line "After the Germans encountered the Soviet T-34, the StuG III were armed with the high-velocity 75 mm StuK 40 L/43 (Spring 1942) or 75 mm L/48 (Autumn 1942) anti-tank gun." to "higher-velocity", since the L/43s and L/48s were pretty average in terms of antitank guns. Compare to the 75 L/70 which was a truly high-velocity gun. SenorBeef 13:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

They may have had average muzzle velocity but were far above average in performance for their caliber. Compared to US or Soviet guns of the same or similar caliber they performed better. The current text sort of mixes two distinct things together; I suspect the original author meant that the longer guns were more effective, which they certainly were. DMorpheus 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"...average muzzle velocity?" What does that mean? Average as opposed to what? Please explain. "...far above average in performance for their caliber?" Your statement clearly indicates that the gun in question demonstrated a performance that violates the laws of physics. Did this weapon fire a magic bullet? Please explain. Thank you. 14thArmored 2000 Hours 11 December 2006

In comparison to the old /L24 gun the L/43 and L/48 were high velocity guns. That's all that statement intended to say. --Denniss 01:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to read DMorpheus' statement more carefully. His point is quite clear, and it is that the weapon "had an average muzzle velocity," and was "far above average in performance for their caliber." If you know anything about ballistics, you will understand that these two things are mutually exclusive in a weapon of this type unless there is some other scientific explanation, which in this case, there is not. Let's just wait and see if DMorpheus manages a cogent and convincing reply to my questions. 14thArmored 2000 Hours 12 December 2006

The muzzle velocity on the KwK 40 for standard ABCBC-HE was 770 M/S. Certainly faster than infantry guns, but not "high speed" relative to the higher-end tank guns. The KwK 42 has a MV of 920-950 M/S, a significant difference. The KwK 40 is closer to the F-34 gun of the T-34 tank than the KwK 40. So, really, it's medium-high velocity, relative to other guns. To revert what I wrote was pretty anal - the point of the the language was to indicate that the new gun had a higher velocity on its shells, which "higher-velocity" certainly conveys. SenorBeef 08:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! DMorpheus 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking you to justify your statements is not uncivil. However, it is uncivil and intellectually dishonest when you avoid answering honest, straight-forward questions about your statements. Please answer my questions, and stop crying wolf about being attacked or treated without civility. 14thArmored 2006 Hours 11 December 2006