Where is my assault gun in 40K?

Isnt OP's pic of a STUG with the long-barreled 75mm gun?

If you want to call it a tank destryer rather than an assault gun fair enough. Vindicator still fits though. As would a Medusa used in the direct-fire role (especially if it had closed crew compartment - of course then it COULDNT fire indirectly so meh.)
.

...

Nowhere, because the game was created by people specialising in fantasy and for them infantry is all you ever need.

...

Because 40k is grim-derp, and only Guard get "tanks". All of which look like they're stuck in interwar year design, where "MORE GUNS" and "MORE SPONSONS AND TURRETS" seem to actually work. In reality, it made the inside of the tank a confusing mess.

Also, because the vehicle rules in 40k are fucking terrible.

too true, mate.

the Pug could work as one

40k also doesn't distinguish the differences in shells... Because it's such a shitty system. There are no "anti-tank" shells, or "high explosive" shells. Just this weird ass in-between round they fire. If 40k was to actually have decent vehicle combat rules, the first step would be to make all main guns on a tank (e.g. Battlecannons, demolishers, etc) have multiple statlines based upon the shell they're firing. Like how the Hammerhead does it with the submunition round. The next step would be to come up with a better armor/strength system with greater ranges than Armor 10 to 14, and strength 1 to 10.

The rules for different shells are in IA1.

So, you want to play Bolt Action?

Tell me GW wouldn't put an ONTOS lookalike in 40k though.

Hydra flak tank with the guns pointing forwards

this
or the manticore

>dem undrilled barrels

>Assault gun
Salamander Light Tanks, fixed guns, smaller calibers for light vehicles or infantry.

>Tank Destroyers
Destroyer Tank Hunters.

Fond memories of those little fuckers from Wargame:ALB. Stuck a couple in a forest once and saw them route an entire mob of Mechanised Infantry with sustained fire. Shit was hilarious.

Similar memories involving Wiesels as well.

Basalisk, especially the Armageddon pattern. While traditionally used as artillery they are perfectly serviceable assault guns.

>The difference is the velocity and firing rate.

No, the difference is that an assault gun is a gun or a howitzer mounted on an armoured vehicle in a fixed position, while an anti-tank gun is just the gun on some sort of carriage which is not self-propelled.

Kind of looks like an ISU-152.

Funny note, assault guns proved to be very effective at knocking out heavy armor. A 155mm in direct fire could fuck up a panther.

That's what we need, more rules. Lets give all lasguns different power settings, etc.

It's not so impressive when you consider there's one T-70 with its 45mm gun that took out two panthers.

Which in turn isn't that impressive when you consider how many Panthers caught fire for no readily apparent reason...

After post war studies both the Allies and the Soviets found out that almost WW2 german tanks are really just "good" at best.

come to imperial armor my son

we have so much to show you

I seem to remember some US study that found the 17pdr. British gun to be insufficient at punching through a Panther.

In terms of the basic shit, the sides were not that different. Shermans, Cromwells, T-34s and Panzer IVs were pretty equal. Some were better in some things than others, but all were medium tanks with roughly similar guns. All sides has shitty light(er) tanks and all sides had strong heavy tanks.

Big problem for Germany was that it didn't have resources to compete with the US and Soviet production capacity so they had to rely on quality over quantity. But at the same time they were being crippled by politics. Engineers were not allowed to make what the military needed, they had to make what the party wanted. Both the Tiger and the Panther got way heavier than they were suppose to because of Hitler's orders, which caused a lot of the problems they faced. And when the army requested more StuGs with short 75's (which was perfectly fine for vast majority of situations), all the resources went into wonder weapons, because no way can a superior weapon be defeated by a lesser weapon, just like the superior Aryan race will defeat the inferior sub-humans.

Do you even Thunderer siege tank faggots?

>dem undrilled barrels

>Big problem for Germany was that it didn't have resources to compete with the US and Soviet production capacity
Incorrect. Germany had more steel production than the Soviet Union. The problem was inefficiencies in production and corruption.

Ant regiments need not apply.

Fuck you. There are a brazillion different close combat weapons but somehow having different tank shells is too much detail for you?

the different russes all shoot different types of shells, plus in IA vol 1 there are rules for certain tanks to have alternate shell types

embrace the armored battlegroup my friend

Ok.

So you got more steel than the US. Now what? Build a wall with it? You need rubber, nickel, oil, etc. All manner of materials. Oil especially was in short supply. Your wonder weapons won't be doing shit without juice to run them.

>Why do you even play 40k if you want good rules, get out!

We power our machines with ground Jew you ignorant fuck.

Plus the aforementioned diverting of resources into developing giant bomber squadron magnets like the Ratte.

>There are a brazillion different close combat weapons

Yes, and how many of them have several different profiles? There's a brazillion different ranged weapons too, if you weren't aware.

Oh get real. You're weirdly defensive about this.

Different ammo for tanks would not even be in the top half of things that are tedious to keep track off in 40k.

It's not like it's more work to remember an extra ammo type on a vehicle that already has several different weapons and options already.

You're weirdly aggressive about this.

You yourself said 40k has tedious amounts of rules and you want to add more to it. Go play armoured company if you're so in love with different tanks ammos. Nobody's stopping you. Or better yet, go play any number of historical wargames.

Banned by Clinton

The Soviets really needed to THIN.

...

>So you got more steel than the US
I didn't say that. I said the Soviet Union, you blind shit-for-brains.

Germany had both high energy and steel production. Despite this, their tank output was below what it should have been. The reason for this is what you can see in the pic. Does this look conducive to mass production?

How about this? If you need to put marks on the tank to tell you just exactly what you've done, something's wrong.

Strictly speaking the Hydra and Manticore are a SPAAG and MRLS, respectively.

Compare it to this. See how much more the factory is set up for mass production? Note the grooves in he ground.

And this. You can tell that the Soviet production methods were geared for mass production, but were a bit unsafe, and certainly unpleasant to work in.

Hydra is more inspired by pic related than an Ontos desu

IG has a lot of Soviet Army aesthetics, Chimera is basically a BMP

And to take the same point in production from the American side. Do note the turret basket, it's an overlooked feature but absolutely priceless in actual use.

I always wondered why they didn't use zeks for factory labor during the war. i guess it made more sense to send them to the front.

Hydra is closer to a quad barreled Tunguska than a ZSU.

user, "resource" is more than just steel. Factories, production capabilities, materials, personnel, etc. etc. Call it bad management, bad priorities, whatever. Bottom line was that Germany was not putting out tens of thousands of tanks the way US and USSR were. And if they had, without oil the run them all, all they would have had was the prettiest parking lots of tanks.

An interesting video that supports this argument. youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ The relevant speaker begins at around 26:17

>user, "resource" is more than just steel.
Germany had the RESOURCES of all sorts to produce more tanks than it did historically. The reason it didn't is because it didn't go to the lengths the US and USSR did to promote mass production. I just posted all these pictures to show you this, but no, you're too fucking retarded to understand this.

The fuel shortages were at their worst later in the war. Germany had been at war for 5 years by that point, and had been rearming to a decent degree for several years before that.

The guy speaking at the start of this whole thing just got awarded France's Legion of Honor today.

Didn't help that they didn't switch to a war economy until several years after the war started, despite having shortages pre-war due to the massive rearmament.

That's half the issue, yes.

That welding job makes me unreasonably angry.

assault cannons

str 6 ap 4 heavy 4 rending. basically the kind of machine guns you'd mount on a blackhawk

That's nothing like an assault gun, user.

oh, was the assault gun related to OP's pic? in that case he probably wants a leman russ with a battle cannon.

Why do you speak when you have no knowledge of what you're talking about?

literally just to piss you off.

No, I'm honestly curious. What motivates you to do it?

Are you telling me that if Germany had forgone all ideology and tampering from higher-ups, and let their factories and engineers really get into squeezing every penny, they could have competed with the production output of the US and the USSR? Try to remember, that the US was not only making tanks for themselves, but for the Russians and Brits as well, and even then they had to cut back because they were making too much. Was Germany really capable of making the amount of vehicles to compete with this AND the production in the USSR?

>The fuel shortages were at their worst later in the war.

Shortage, yes. But even the Germans knew when invading Russia that if they don't get their oil fields, they'll be running out of juice, and that's what ended happening. Surely someone there crunched the numbers on fuel consumption, production and stores and could produce a number on how long they got to go before it runs out.

Germany could have, with better engineering, have had a serious production advantage from '38-'41 when the US wasn't really in the war in any way.

Your point about the US is solid. Germany simply couldn't match the productivity of the US.

Did I say anything of the sort? I said they'd be a far sight better than they were historically. Considering the fact that even the choice of the manufacturers left out the two companies with any real mass production expertise, the whole thing was laden with problems from the very start. Even so, production doubled from the years 1942 and 1943. It nearly doubled again in 1944. All the while, the Western Allies were bombing the factories, sources of materials, and transportation. The Germans certainly could have produced more than they did. Would that be enough to match the US or the Soviets 1:1? Probably not.

And my point was that on top of the politics, Germans could have never competed with both the US and the USSR in quantity and would have had to rely on better quality vehicles. Of course they could have simplified and streamlined the fuck out of their production lines (hence the political aspect fucking them over), but they simply could not have made tanks in the numbers US and USSR were making them together, not without making such shitty tanks there's no point in even making them.

>And my point was that on top of the politics,
It isn't about the politics, it's the fact that German production practices proved to be the antithesis of mass production. Had that not been the case, you would have seen German tank production be significantly higher than you did historically.

>and would have had to rely on better quality vehicles
I'd like to point out that until mid 1943 or so, the Soviets had superior tanks to the Germans. Significantly so. Just comparing statistics, a Pz. III with a 50mm gun, even the later high velocity 50s, was no match for the T-34 or KV-1. Hell, even in the invasion of France, the German tanks were outmatched by just about everything the French had barring the leftover stocks of WW1-era FT17s.

>It isn't about the politics

So what is it that kept German factories from going full mass production and designing better tanks with less waste?

That is a bit harder to nail down. Mostly, I'd put it down to two or three factors, all boiling down to a bias against doing true mass production and more towards a desire of the best possible tanks.

The first of these is the "tinkering" mindset of the German high command. The Germans, in contrast to the Americans and Soviets, constantly were changing the specifications of their tanks as they identified problems or whenever someone had a bright idea. The American and Soviet way of making these upgrades was to do so in big blocks. Rather than make the change immediately, which slows production each time you do it, they'd just write them down, and at some point implement them all at once. The Soviets, for example, didn't add a three man turret to the T-34 until February 1944, after two and a half long years of combat. The Americans were much the same way, with modifications occurring after hundreds or thousands of tanks were produced, not just a handful.

Then, we have the German fascination with Wunderwaffe. This contributed to the problem above, but also led to such problems as the road wheels on the Panther. While the capabilities provided by them were fantastic, they proved to be somewhat unreliable, particularly in the mud and snow. And then, of course, the resources, time, and design teams wasted on flights of fancy.

And then there is quite simply the fact that Nazi Germany was corrupt as fuck, and many of the industrialists were more concerned with profit than winning the war. This certainly wasn't helped by the fact that the Nazi Party officials often encouraged this or took part in it themselves.

Didn't the krauts figure out a way to turn coal into a passable substitute for petroleum?

Yes. The use of synthetic oil was crucial to the German war effort. Even so, there were shortages.

Another thing to note about Allied tanks, especially American made ones, was that there was an insane amount of interchangeability between different vehicle's parts. You could gut a Lee to fix a Sherman or salvage stuff from an A2 to fix an A3, a Priest, or even most Jacksons.

With German tanks...you have some shared parts between the Panther and Tiger II, but other than that the only things with shared parts were between tanks and AFVs built on the same chassis. They had plans to make some with shared parts, like the theoretical Panzer III/IV, but the concept didn't really catch on for them until the war was almost over with each type of vehicle having its own supply line to supply the maintenance companies.

Much like how the US rubber shortage, courtesy of Japan, pushed the development of vulcanized rubber?

>You could gut a Lee to fix a Sherman or salvage stuff from an A2 to fix an A3, a Priest, or even most Jacksons.
It's because they shared so many features. The M3's hull was based on the M2 for ease of manufacture. The M4's hull was a modified M3 hull, for ease of manufacture. The M36 itself was based on the M10's hull, which was based on the M4, but had a number of changes. This doesn't count the M36B1, which was a conversion of several M4A3 hulls. The Priest was based off the M3's hull.

As for the differences between the Sherman variants, there were very few differences between them. The most significant difference is the M4A1's cast hull as opposed to the welded hulls on everything else. The real difference was the engine installed in each variant. Two variants (IIRC) had lengthened hulls to accommodate larger engines. The interiors you could pretty much mix and match. This did happen often in the repair depots.

Love the 2nd edition-esque paintjob on this one.

The fit and finish on Soviet tanks was fucking terrible, as were the ergonomics and reliability. They make a whole lot of them though.

Makes me wanna play Generals

Fuck this is great.

Saved.

What is better?
>Single, state-of-the-art high tech tank that can fight off five enemy tanks alone
>Fifteen cheap, quick-to-build and easy to repair on field tanks
And then ask yourself who won that war

They did even before war. But the requrements for fuel vs their maximum production capacity was... well, let's say they would have to build twice as much refineries to cover just for aircrafts.

Said that, their technique was fucking great in terms of efficiency, but they had simply very, very high needs. That's why Romanian petrol was so useful.

The video linked earlier explains exactly why.

Soviets did the math and figured their tanks would last about 6 months in the field, about 14 hours during actual engagements. It was deemed actually spending time on building their tanks properly was a waste of time, and thus cut production cost in half.

Those shit wield and fits are a strategic choice. Nazis are just gonna blow it up anyway.

Though do keep in mind the TOTAL production capabilities were also extremely different.

If the allies had had even just twice as many people, etc as Germany, then it would've been more like 3 cheap tanks to the one Panther V, with very different results.

They were good stuff, it's just that german strategies were bad and they were massively, massively, MASSIVELY outnumbered by half the fucking world.

Even today a lot of russian tech has that "lower quality" to it. Even in aircraft. But the looser tolerances only marginally impact the vehicle's performance. Granted that means it's less good, but it's also a mere fraction of the cost, and not always as failure-prone either.

If you can survive being a mm out of alignment, that's a lot better than what the perfect alignment was bringing you.

This is a brilliant lecture. Thanks user.

Wasn't there some bit about an old German tanker looking at some miniatures and noting that the paintjobs were way too elaborate than what they had in the field? I also remember some video where they fixed a Panzer IV, I believe, in the field and fitted new skirts to it, and one dude just takes an airbrush and waves it around the sideskirt before the thing rolls out.

Then there's the late war Panther with its paintjob consisting of a rust red primer and a few khaki stripes, because fuck you, get out there and kill some commies.

...

>They are the middle ground between a anti tank as they have low velocity.

What? The StuG in the OP has virtually the same 7.5cm kwk 40 as the later PzIV models. Or, like, the SU-85 and SU-100. You seem to be falsely conflating "assault gun" and "howitzer".

>Even today a lot of Russian tech has that "lower quality" to it. Even in aircraft. But the looser tolerances only marginally impact the vehicle's performance.

Nobody buys Russian aircraft or cars for a reason. The reliability is far worse then western counterparts.

>aircraft or cars

Guns, on the other hand...