Stugg Assault Tank (From Mechanized Asault Doc.)
Posts: 2819
In my opinion this unit is just utterly shit.
The argument; "hey mate it doesn't cost a dime, so it shouldn't be powerful" is ok, but what's cool about a doctrine that has a useless ability?
Posts: 1003
Stugg E need barrage for 60 muni.
Posts: 2819
Or make it available early game against scout cars and shit.
But it's just a weak gun wrapped in a tank uniform.
Relic, y u not make sens
Posts: 409
Yes, is weak. Peoples who insult T-34/85, will write soon "it should be weaker, because it does not need teching". I dont think it.
Stugg E need barrage for 60 muni.
I like that idea. Right now the unit is essentially worthless.
Posts: 952 | Subs: 1
Posts: 1571
Currently the III E does not have the extended range of the SU-76 so it is not as survivable.
I see it as a waste of fuel. It is better just to buy a proper Stug.
Posts: 4928
Posts: 177
Posts: 4928
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Agreed, I think the StuG III E could use a larger blast radius, plus get a free barrage ability (like the SU-76). It's supposed to be an Assault Gun, a howitzer on tracks, the least it can do is act like one!
Umm, no, you're confusing it with StuH and brummbar.
III E didn't had any howitzer, only low velocity gun. It was meant to be close infantry support and destroy soft targets and fortifications. Basically things that soviets don't have.
Also(yes, I'm going to say it, because why not, its used as argument in soviet case) you pay no tech costs to get this cheap armor.
Posts: 2779
Umm, no, you're confusing it with StuH and brummbar.
III E didn't had any howitzer, only low velocity gun. It was meant to be close infantry support and destroy soft targets and fortifications. Basically things that soviets don't have.
Also(yes, I'm going to say it, because why not, its used as argument in soviet case) you pay no tech costs to get this cheap armor.
You pay no tech cost for IS2, Y U No make IS2 armor like tissue paper
Posts: 2819
Umm, no, you're confusing it with StuH and brummbar.
III E didn't had any howitzer, only low velocity gun. It was meant to be close infantry support and destroy soft targets and fortifications. Basically things that soviets don't have.
Also(yes, I'm going to say it, because why not, its used as argument in soviet case) you pay no tech costs to get this cheap armor.
Dude..
IS-2, IS-152, T34/85, Tiger & Elefant doesn't require teccing so the armor has to be cheap.
Nice argument MVgame
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Posts: 952 | Subs: 1
Umm, no, you're confusing it with StuH and brummbar.
III E didn't had any howitzer, only low velocity gun. It was meant to be close infantry support and destroy soft targets and fortifications. Basically things that soviets don't have.
Also(yes, I'm going to say it, because why not, its used as argument in soviet case) you pay no tech costs to get this cheap armor.
From thefreedictionary.com:
Normally a cannon with a tube length of 20 to 30 calibers; however, the tube length can exceed 30 calibers and still be considered a howitzer when the high angle fire zoning solution permits range overlap between charges. See also gun; mortar.
The StuGIIIE has low velocity gun of 24 calibers long, firing a shell with comparatively high explosive content compared to the higher velocity variants of the 75mm guns. You could charitably call it a gun-howitzer.
The Soviets also have plenty of soft targets- they're called 'infantry'.
Posts: 41
Problem with this guy is that by the time it can come out - it is outclassed and is not useful - it might be viable if there was just infantry on the field.
Even if you could dodge the AT gun range - the first decent tank will kill it quickly.
CP 3 may be too early CP 4? even then it wont last long as an option ...
Posts: 4928
The other day someone called an 'E against me, and my Conscripts just stood there and captured a point while it shot at them the entire time. Then I threw an AT 'nade at it and walked away. It's crap.
Posts: 41
You admit it's worthless, yet you want it moved back?
The other day someone called an 'E against me, and my Conscripts just stood there and captured a point while it shot at them the entire time. Then I threw an AT 'nade at it and walked away. It's crap.
forward ... its a 5 cp call in maybe a 4 ... well I really would want it buffed - but I know what happens when the germans ask for buffs
Posts: 1571
Posts: 157
Umm, no, you're confusing it with StuH and brummbar.
III E didn't had any howitzer, only low velocity gun. It was meant to be close infantry support and destroy soft targets and fortifications. Basically things that soviets don't have.
Also(yes, I'm going to say it, because why not, its used as argument in soviet case) you pay no tech costs to get this cheap armor.
I don't see how it couldn't have an ability like the SU-76 for an appropriate munitions cost, it's has roughly the same size gun (76mm vs 75mm) and loaded with HE rounds. This would definitely make the unit more viable. Obviously the barrage shouldn't have the power of 150mm howitzer haha.
Posts: 166
Permanently BannedLivestreams
116 | |||||
70 | |||||
40 | |||||
19 | |||||
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.921405.695+5
- 5.634229.735+8
- 6.276108.719+27
- 7.306114.729+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.17146.788+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger