How about Su 76 getting a movement speed near infantry

The it would be a true assualt gun.

Assault gun provide support fire from a distance. They no do not move with infatry.

It gets a 20% acceleration veterancy bonus in the patch.

Assault gun provide support fire from a distance. They no do not move with infatry.

This is not entirely correct. The stug(original short barrel assault gun) at least was originally created to provide DIRECT fire support for infantry and maintain close distance to them.

Assault guns in general are supposed to provide direct fire support rather than indirect compared to other SPGs.

The su76 is a bit of an exception to this as it has an extreme amount of elevation to its gun allowing for indirect fire unlike other assault guns such as the ISU152. That said the SU76 often relied on close infantry support to help cover its flanks particularly in urban environments.



But I dont see the point in giving su76 a speed buff when near infantry as its already fairly fast and it would be counterproductive since the Su76 would outrun the infantry even faster.

This is not entirely correct. The stug(original short barrel assault gun) at least was originally created to provide DIRECT fire support for infantry and maintain close distance to them.

Assault guns in general are supposed to provide direct fire support rather than indirect compared to other SPGs.

The su76 is a bit of an exception to this as it has an extreme amount of elevation to its gun allowing for indirect fire unlike other assault guns such as the ISU152. That said the SU76 often relied on close infantry support to help cover its flanks particularly in urban environments.



But I dont see the point in giving su76 a speed buff when near infantry as its already fairly fast and it would be counterproductive since the Su76 would outrun the infantry even faster.

It not incorrect.

Assault gun where not tank and did not move in close with troops. The fired from a distance where the lack of turret did not make difference. The fire they provided could be direct or indirect.

Stug-E had a gun with high elevation and could fire both direct and indirect fire.

When German where low on tanks and tried to use assault gun as tanks they vehicle failed in the role.

"Assault guns" provide support fire for the infatry to "assault" rather then do the assault themselves.

It not incorrect.

Assault gun where not tank and did not move in close with troops. The fired from a distance where the lack of turret did not make difference. The fire they provided could be direct or indirect.

Stug-E had a gun with high elevation and could fire both direct and indirect fire.

When German where low on tanks and tried to use assault gun as tanks they vehicle failed in the role.

"Assault guns" provide support fire for the infatry to "assault" rather then do the assault themselves.

You are confusing vehicle use. Assault guns were used to give INFANTRY mobile howitzers and bunker busters. This is a very different role than "tanks". In the Assault gun role, the vehicle moves up with the infantry to blow up bunkers and clear soft targets in a direct fire role. But this is different than other forms of self propelled artillery such as the priest, hummel and sexton which were almost exclusively indirect fire units.

Historically, the concept of assault guns was very similar to that of the infantry tank, as both were combat vehicles intended to accompany infantry formations into battle.

Tanks were used as a mobile and independent force not meant to operate with foot infantry. You are correct when you say that assault guns pressed into the tank role were not very effective at this, but you do not seem to understand the actual role of assault guns.


I know it seems intuitive that assault guns would fire from a long distance, but the reality is that operationally they were used in close support with infantry particularly when on the offensive.


Please read up on the actual operational use of the early stug variants and the soviet assault guns like the isu and su76 instead of relying on your intuition.


As a light assault gun, the SU-76M was well-regarded by Soviet infantrymen (in contrast with their own crews). It had more powerful weapons than any previous light tank for close support and communication between infantry and the SU-76M crew was simple due to the open crew compartment.

The important thing to take away is that it was used for CLOSE support, and mouth to mouth communication was used with infantry.

It not incorrect.

Assault gun where not tank and did not move in close with troops. The fired from a distance where the lack of turret did not make difference. The fire they provided could be direct or indirect.

Stug-E had a gun with high elevation and could fire both direct and indirect fire.

When German where low on tanks and tried to use assault gun as tanks they vehicle failed in the role.

"Assault guns" provide support fire for the infatry to "assault" rather then do the assault themselves.

Assault guns, like StuG-E or StuH were used as DIRECT FIRE infantry support.

Only later StuGs were refitted with anti tank guns and used as poor mans tanks.

Their whole concept started as support guns moving in WITH infantry against entrenched infantry and fortifications.

Western allies have used infantry support tanks instead as they weren't concerned as much with costs as germany.

Soviets however were all over the place, with direct, indirect, casemate and tank mounted howitzers, low and high velocity guns used as both, direct and indirect support pieces.

KV-2(which is also an assault gun, that designation is primarily used to describe application of the direct fire unit and its, most of the time, high explosive armament tailored to kill fortifications) was actually used directly with infantry, just like short barreled StuGs were.

You are confusing vehicle use.

No I am not.

Assault guns were used to give INFANTRY mobile howitzers and bunker busters. This is a very different role than "tanks". In the Assault gun role, the vehicle moves up with the infantry to blow up bunkers and clear soft targets in a direct fire role. But this is different than other forms of self propelled artillery such as the priest, hummel and sexton which were almost exclusively indirect fire units.

Historically, the concept of assault guns was very similar to that of the infantry tank, as both were combat vehicles intended to accompany infantry formations into battle.

The concept might be similar they implementation was different Assault guns did not move in like infatry tanks the fired from a distance with both direct and indirect fire. In addition the majority stugs server in "Sturmartillerie" which was a branch of artillery and not armor.

The assault was done by infatry with support fire and not by assault gun supported by infatry.

Tanks were used as a mobile and independent force not meant to operate with foot infantry. You are correct when you say that assault guns pressed into the tank role were not very effective at this, but you do not seem to understand the actual role of assault guns.


I know it seems intuitive that assault guns would fire from a long distance, but the reality is that operationally they were used in close support with infantry particularly when on the offensive.

Please read up on the actual operational use of the early stug variants and the soviet assault guns like the isu and su76 instead of relying on your intuition.

I suggest you do the same. The assault gun did not operate with infantry like infatry tank did, it supported infatry.

As a light assault gun, the SU-76M was well-regarded by Soviet infantrymen (in contrast with their own crews). It had more powerful weapons than any previous light tank for close support and communication between infantry and the SU-76M crew was simple due to the open crew compartment.

The important thing to take away is that it was used for CLOSE support, and mouth to mouth communication was used with infantry.

The Su-76 was used for both direct an direct fire support, especially since its gun could use high angle of fire.

Assault guns where not breakthrough vehicles so they did not attack with infatry the provided support fire direct or indirect.

Point is that "assault guns" did not spearheaded "assault" the supported the and thus having speed bonus while near infatry does not really make sense.

I suggest you do the same. The assault gun did not operate with infantry like infatry tank did, it supported infatry

They absolutely operated with infantry, you're way off on this one. Support units can still move with infantry, and that's exactly what assault guns did

They could be used for long range support fire, but that wasn't their only role at all. Or even their main one. They were supposed to be near infantry to make coordinating their their direct fire support easier

This is not entirely correct. The stug(original short barrel assault gun) at least was originally created to provide DIRECT fire support for infantry and maintain close distance to them.

Assault guns in general are supposed to provide direct fire support rather than indirect compared to other SPGs.

The su76 is a bit of an exception to this as it has an extreme amount of elevation to its gun allowing for indirect fire unlike other assault guns such as the ISU152. That said the SU76 often relied on close infantry support to help cover its flanks particularly in urban environments.



But I dont see the point in giving su76 a speed buff when near infantry as its already fairly fast and it would be counterproductive since the Su76 would outrun the infantry even faster.

I really wish they would change stugIIIa to Stuh42 and give it that 105mm gun. Of course adjust the cost, but at them moment that stug is useless to use, it's really slow, cumbersome and it's AI isn't anything good enough for the cost of fuel. Other is maybe drop even more the fuel cost to reflect it's weak effect on the battlefield as it's too high cost compared to what it can actually do.

In comparison su76 is much more useful to build as it again can do both jobs sniper tanks and barrage infantry/mg's.

ps. final small change to stugIII would be to give it ammo swapping so it can change HEAT&HE ammo like sherman does with AP&HE. Like what is this game that allies can shoot all kinds shots from their tanks and german tanks are duh we only shoot this one version, when they carried AP,Smoke,HEAT, Tungsten ammo in some tanks for different situations.

They absolutely operated with infantry, you're way off on this one.

Read more carefully I did not say they did not operate with infatry, what I have said it that they did not spearhead attacks

Support units can still move with infantry, and that's exactly what assault guns did

A mortar will also move with infatry but it would also not spearhead an attack.

They could be used for long range support fire, but that wasn't their only role at all. Or even their main one. They were supposed to be near infantry to make coordinating their their direct fire support easier

An assault gun does not have to be in shouting distance of infatry to provide support that is why they had telescopic sights and radios.

The fact the assault guns where branch of artillery says it all.

Read more carefully.

I read what you said. It is not correct

No one used the word spearhead except you

A mortar will also move with infatry.

Correct. This has nothing to do with the discussion

An assault gun does not have to be in shouting distance that is why radio are for.

Read more carefully. No one said it was required, I said it made easier. It makes it MUCH easier

The fact the assault guns where branch of artillery says it all.

It literally doesn't. What you mean to say is that SOME assault guns were a branch of artillery

Context matters

I read what you said. It is not correct

No one used the word spearhead except you


Correct. This has nothing to do with the discussion


Read more carefully. No one said it was required, I said it made easier. It makes it MUCH easier


It literally doesn't. What you mean to say is that SOME assault guns were a branch of artillery

Context matters

The Germans come up with the dogma of the assault gun or "Sturmgeschütz" (in German) and they had stugs serve in artillery units.

Here is also the Wikipedia article:
"An assault gun is a form of self-propelled artillery[1] which uses an infantry support gun mounted on a motorized chassis, normally an armored fighting vehicle.[2]"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gun

Now do actually have a point?

The Germans come up with the dogma of the assault gun or "Sturmgeschütz" (in German) and they had stugs serve in artillery units.

Here is also the Wikipedia article:
"An assault gun is a form of self-propelled artillery[1] which uses an infantry support gun mounted on a motorized chassis, normally an armored fighting vehicle.[2]"

You should read the whole article instead of picking the parts you like. The article literally gives examples of stug 3s as replacing tanks:

"Battalions of assault guns, usually StuG IIIs, commonly replaced the intended panzer battalion in the German panzergrenadier divisions due to the chronic shortage of tanks, and were sometimes used as makeshifts even in the panzer divisions.[10]"

Now do actually have a point?

Yes, I made it very clearly for you. Assault guns were not only used for long range artillery. It wasn't even their main role

Suggesting otherwise is completely false, even based on your own source

You should read the whole article instead of picking the parts you like. The article literally gives examples of stug 3s as replacing tanks:

"Battalions of assault guns, usually StuG IIIs, commonly replaced the intended panzer battalion in the German panzergrenadier divisions due to the chronic shortage of tanks, and were sometimes used as makeshifts even in the panzer divisions.[10]"

Yes but just because they where used in the role of a tank (and failed) that does not mean that assault gun where designed to be used in that role or that they where good at it.

Yes, I made it very clearly for you. Assault guns were not only used for long range artillery. It wasn't even their main role

Never said there "were long range artillery" so pls stop making things up.

Suggesting otherwise is completely false, even based on your own source

Since you seem to have trouble understanding let me make even more clear again. "Assault guns" do not lead assaults, they support assaults of infatry with support fire (both direct and indirect.)

"Assault gun" do lead assault they support fire (both direct and indirect.)

This is the opposite of what you said

Never said there "were long range artillery" so pls stop making things up

You said they do not close in with infantry (a false statement) and that they fire from a distance. That clearly implies long range artillery

Nobody said anything about spearhead either... And don't lecture me about how "i can't understand your posts", I've had to accommodate for multiple edits during this conversation that happened after my replies...

This is the opposite of what you said


You said they do not close in with infantry (a false statement) and that they fire from a distance. That clearly implies long range artillery

Nobody said anything about spearhead either... And don't lecture me about how "i can't understand your posts", I've had to accommodate for multiple edits during this conversation that happened after my replies...

Ok at this point the only reason you posting is to prove I made mistake and you are grasping so much that come up with "long range artillery" something I have never posted but you have imagined.

I have clearly explained what assault gun were and how they where used.

Feel free to disagree.

Ok at this point the only reason you posting is to prove I made mistake and you are grasping so much that come up with "long range artillery" something I have never posted but you have imagined.

But you did post that clearly though. SkysTheLimit is right, don't tell he is imagining things. The source you show contradicts your posts too. It is your posts are written using evasive, unclear, and confusing English. Also you keep editing your posts AFTER they have been posted and changed things quickly! All of that kind of allows you to change your point really easily. You made a mistake, just accept it and move on.

Ok at this point the only reason you posting is to prove I made mistake and you are grasping so much that come up with "long range artillery" something I have never posted but you have imagined.

You said very clearly that they "do not close in with infantry". That was the incorrect part

It's fine that you didn't mean long range artillery. You still said they don't close in with infantry. The source YOU provided shows that to be false