Talk:Sturmgeschütz IV

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sturmgeschütz IV article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / European / German / World War II

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Tank destroyer

I'm hesitant to categorize this as a tank destroyer as well as an assault gun. I realize that the distinction between the two isn't very large, but if we change it here, we'd have to do it for most of the other assault guns (IIRC, the StuG III was also used as a tank destroyer on numerous occasions). Oberiko 13:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of this problem but it's fact it's original designation is/was Assault gun. But during the war with the long-barreled gun its use shifted more over to tank destroyer roles (StuG III, StuG IV affected as well). That's why they created the Panzer III Ausf.M for infantry support roles using the short 75mm gun previously used by old Panzer IV. To complicate this all the Jagdpanzer IVs first official designation was "Sturmgeschütz neue Art". --Denniss 16:15, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

To what basis should we distinguish then? May I suggest we copy www.onwar.com , which, AFAIK, is one of the more respected sites that deal with the topic? Oberiko 19:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's easy: leave it as Assault gun as well as tank destroyer. That's what they had been used for. Neither assault gun nor tank destroyer was their main operational use - they had been used as both. It's a bit different to, say, russian assault guns - they had AT capability as well but their main use was asault gun/infantry support. BTW onwar is nice but has errors like many sites covering this area. -- Denniss 15:41, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

StuG IV vs. Jagdpanzer IV

Can anyone tell me the conceptual difference between the StuG IV and the Jagdpanzer IV? They seem to have fulfilled the same purpose, built more or less the same way, and having very similar specifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwinther (talk • contribs) 22:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jagdpanzer IV, at least the later versions, had heavier frontal armor and much more powerful gun as it used the Panther's Kwk 42 L/70 gun. The Jagdpanzer IV was similar to the StuG, but purpose-built for tank-hunting (hence the name) rather than being adapted into the role like as a result of coincidence like the StuG initially was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.110.174 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are other StuG

I saw a StuG in Helsinki War Museum (Sotamuseo). Is it a IV ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.63.165.5 (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a StuG III --Denniss (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number surviving?

The text says four but appears to list six. Dabarkey (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]