Why is STUG a "tank destroyer"?

«1
Hawxxeye
4355 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
edited February 20
I see that according to the vehicle stats the cannons of the STUG have the same stats as the ones of the Panzer IV with only the very limited AP shells having a greater velocity (nod to resuppply station campers then?).
.
So it sacrifices its cannon turret for carrying the same cannon as the Panzer IV.
This leave as its only advantage the 360 degree gunner turret.
.
As much as I love the gunner turret, when an anti infantry seat is the greatest strength of a tank destroyer I cannot help but wonder what train of logic does the dev team follow.

PS: IMHO the gunner turret should replace the exposed suicide gunner seat for all medium to heavy tanks btw and the tank destroyers should have a clear edge over general purpose tank in tank vs tank combat otherwise they are not worth their name.

Comments

  • ProAssassin2003
    2891 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yes the Turret should replace all Tanks Gunner positions.
  • VincentNZ
    1900 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Well it needs to be balanced in some way. With the current vehicle spawn system, you need to be more mindful of the balance otherwise vehicles other than the FOTM are irrelevant.
  • Hawxxeye
    4355 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Well it needs to be balanced in some way. With the current vehicle spawn system, you need to be more mindful of the balance otherwise vehicles other than the FOTM are irrelevant.
    But why is it balanced in reverse?
    Instead of a paper that is strong against a rock it is a paper that is strong against scissors...
    .
    The upcoming archer tank is going to be even more silly. It will have the cannon on its rear side (so we will have to drive it in reverse...) while the AP shell will be worse than the HE shell in both blast and direct damage as well as having the same velocity.

  • Noromiz
    277 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yet another reason the StuG IV should have access to the 10.5 cm Howitzer cannon the StuH 42 had, as it would at least have been a bit more unique then.
    And I miss a Howitzer tank for the Axis.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1525 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    IMHO tank destroyers should be faster versions of heavy tanks, which themselves should be the anti tank tanks. The balancing features of the tank destroyers would be faster speed - say comparable with medium tanks, and lower profile , traded off against a fixed turret and worse rear armour. But DICE seem to have taken the decision that all tanks should do all things, but just not very well. I mean last night I hit one of the transport trucks 3 times in the side with my PzIV and it still didnt explode!
  • Hawxxeye
    4355 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    and worse rear armour.
    They got that one right I guess. My STUG was 2 shoted by a valentine that got behind me in panzerstorm
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    4963 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The whole tank balance in this game is completely wrong and weird.
    For tank vs tank battles it should be this way: Tank destroyers > heavy tanks > medium tanks >light tanks
    For tank vs infantry it's completely opposite of that.
    But in reality the thing is in a mess where tank destroyers can't actually effectively destroy tanks while medium tanks are good at everything.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1525 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    and worse rear armour.
    They got that one right I guess. My STUG was 2 shoted by a valentine that got behind me in panzerstorm

    Which is fair enough seeing as Tank Destroyers were defensive weapons, however how a transport truck takes more hits is a joke
  • Hawxxeye
    4355 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    and worse rear armour.
    They got that one right I guess. My STUG was 2 shoted by a valentine that got behind me in panzerstorm

    Which is fair enough seeing as Tank Destroyers were defensive weapons, however how a transport truck takes more hits is a joke
    Yeah we need clear and consistent balance between the vehicle types as well as how they fare vs infantry
  • Kompura
    219 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Transport trucks ability to take couple hits from a tank is a joke. It should be at least disabled from one shot from destroyers and/or heavy tanks.
  • NLBartmaN
    2656 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Kompura wrote: »
    Transport trucks ability to take couple hits from a tank is a joke. It should be at least disabled from one shot from destroyers and/or heavy tanks.

    When I play with the Stug that is the case?

    First shot on Transport always makes them stop/go very slow and 2nd hit is destroying it.

    BTW I always aim for the side/rear of a vehicle and mostly first shot at the tracks of faster vehicles or first shot on the turret (ring) of heavy tanks.
  • rainkloud
    546 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    I see that according to the vehicle stats the cannons of the STUG have the same stats as the ones of the Panzer IV with only the very limited AP shells having a greater velocity (nod to resuppply station campers then?).
    .
    So it sacrifices its cannon turret for carrying the same cannon as the Panzer IV.
    This leave as its only advantage the 360 degree gunner turret.
    .
    As much as I love the gunner turret, when an anti infantry seat is the greatest strength of a tank destroyer I cannot help but wonder what train of logic does the dev team follow.

    PS: IMHO the gunner turret should replace the exposed suicide gunner seat for all medium to heavy tanks btw and the tank destroyers should have a clear edge over general purpose tank in tank vs tank combat otherwise they are not worth their name.

    If you look at the angle modifiers tab you'll see that the Stug has a .8 front modifier while the PIV and VAL have 1.2 - That makes a huge difference and ensures it will win any head on engagements since it will take significantly less damage. And although the shell stats are almost identical those don't tell the entire story as they may have different material modifiers than do the PIV shells which could make them do more damage. I kinda doubt that is the case but it is possible.
  • Hawxxeye
    4355 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    rainkloud wrote: »
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    I see that according to the vehicle stats the cannons of the STUG have the same stats as the ones of the Panzer IV with only the very limited AP shells having a greater velocity (nod to resuppply station campers then?).
    .
    So it sacrifices its cannon turret for carrying the same cannon as the Panzer IV.
    This leave as its only advantage the 360 degree gunner turret.
    .
    As much as I love the gunner turret, when an anti infantry seat is the greatest strength of a tank destroyer I cannot help but wonder what train of logic does the dev team follow.

    PS: IMHO the gunner turret should replace the exposed suicide gunner seat for all medium to heavy tanks btw and the tank destroyers should have a clear edge over general purpose tank in tank vs tank combat otherwise they are not worth their name.

    If you look at the angle modifiers tab you'll see that the Stug has a .8 front modifier while the PIV and VAL have 1.2 - That makes a huge difference and ensures it will win any head on engagements since it will take significantly less damage. And although the shell stats are almost identical those don't tell the entire story as they may have different material modifiers than do the PIV shells which could make them do more damage. I kinda doubt that is the case but it is possible.
    It is embarrassing but I need to admit that I never noticed there were other tabs!
  • TuxedoBanana279
    342 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    I see that according to the vehicle stats the cannons of the STUG have the same stats as the ones of the Panzer IV with only the very limited AP shells having a greater velocity (nod to resuppply station campers then?).
    .
    So it sacrifices its cannon turret for carrying the same cannon as the Panzer IV.
    This leave as its only advantage the 360 degree gunner turret.
    .
    As much as I love the gunner turret, when an anti infantry seat is the greatest strength of a tank destroyer I cannot help but wonder what train of logic does the dev team follow.

    PS: IMHO the gunner turret should replace the exposed suicide gunner seat for all medium to heavy tanks btw and the tank destroyers should have a clear edge over general purpose tank in tank vs tank combat otherwise they are not worth their name.

    I think the Stug driver should get machine gun ammo
  • Raspu71nG
    64 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    rainkloud wrote: »

    If you look at the angle modifiers tab you'll see that the Stug has a .8 front modifier while the PIV and VAL have 1.2 - That makes a huge difference and ensures it will win any head on engagements since it will take significantly less damage. And although the shell stats are almost identical those don't tell the entire story as they may have different material modifiers than do the PIV shells which could make them do more damage. I kinda doubt that is the case but it is possible.

    which tab? is this on PC?
    on xbox 1 there is not tab or extra info.

  • rainkloud
    546 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Just click on the hyperlink on hawk eye post and it will take you to a google spreadsheet
  • parkingbrake
    2707 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    I see that according to the vehicle stats the cannons of the STUG have the same stats as the ones of the Panzer IV with only the very limited AP shells having a greater velocity (nod to resuppply station campers then?).
    .
    So it sacrifices its cannon turret for carrying the same cannon as the Panzer IV.
    This leave as its only advantage the 360 degree gunner turret.
    .
    As much as I love the gunner turret, when an anti infantry seat is the greatest strength of a tank destroyer I cannot help but wonder what train of logic does the dev team follow.

    PS: IMHO the gunner turret should replace the exposed suicide gunner seat for all medium to heavy tanks btw and the tank destroyers should have a clear edge over general purpose tank in tank vs tank combat otherwise they are not worth their name.

    The real thing existed because it was cheaper to build than a tank with a rotating turret, and originally it was meant to support infantry assaults with direct fire on strong points. Later it got a more powerful gun and became a tank destroyer, and since Germany was increasingly on the defensive such vehicles worked well in an ambush role where the lack of a rotating turret was less of a drawback. Why it's in the game is obvious, DICE already had the PzKpfw IV model so it was relatively easy to make a new vehicle without much additional work. It should really be a Stug III which was built in much larger numbers but that would mean modelling a whole new vehicle from the ground up.

    Another example is the Valentine AA tank--there was no such vehicle, but using the existing Valentine chassis and slapping an AA turret on it (which was actually used on the chassis of a different tank in WWII) was an easy way to create a new vehicle without starting from scratch.

    I think EA has DICE on a tight budget in BFV, thus the recycling and the relative lack of new content. Paid DLC titles like BF4 didn't have this problem, there were new vehicles galore and of course lots and lots of maps. But since the only money coming in from BFV is sales of the game (no skins for sale yet) then we shouldn't be surprised that they're cutting corners like this. So there's your answer, it's in the game because it saved time and money as compared to making a new vehicle.
  • Hawxxeye
    4355 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    I see that according to the vehicle stats the cannons of the STUG have the same stats as the ones of the Panzer IV with only the very limited AP shells having a greater velocity (nod to resuppply station campers then?).
    .
    So it sacrifices its cannon turret for carrying the same cannon as the Panzer IV.
    This leave as its only advantage the 360 degree gunner turret.
    .
    As much as I love the gunner turret, when an anti infantry seat is the greatest strength of a tank destroyer I cannot help but wonder what train of logic does the dev team follow.

    PS: IMHO the gunner turret should replace the exposed suicide gunner seat for all medium to heavy tanks btw and the tank destroyers should have a clear edge over general purpose tank in tank vs tank combat otherwise they are not worth their name.

    The real thing existed because it was cheaper to build than a tank with a rotating turret, and originally it was meant to support infantry assaults with direct fire on strong points. Later it got a more powerful gun and became a tank destroyer, and since Germany was increasingly on the defensive such vehicles worked well in an ambush role where the lack of a rotating turret was less of a drawback. Why it's in the game is obvious, DICE already had the PzKpfw IV model so it was relatively easy to make a new vehicle without much additional work. It should really be a Stug III which was built in much larger numbers but that would mean modelling a whole new vehicle from the ground up.

    Another example is the Valentine AA tank--there was no such vehicle, but using the existing Valentine chassis and slapping an AA turret on it (which was actually used on the chassis of a different tank in WWII) was an easy way to create a new vehicle without starting from scratch.

    I think EA has DICE on a tight budget in BFV, thus the recycling and the relative lack of new content. Paid DLC titles like BF4 didn't have this problem, there were new vehicles galore and of course lots and lots of maps. But since the only money coming in from BFV is sales of the game (no skins for sale yet) then we shouldn't be surprised that they're cutting corners like this. So there's your answer, it's in the game because it saved time and money as compared to making a new vehicle.
    In all honesty, a lazy panzer IV variant is better than an original tank that has its cannon coming out of its rear end.
  • CaptainHardware
    249 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I think EA has DICE on a tight budget in BFV, thus the recycling and the relative lack of new content. Paid DLC titles like BF4 didn't have this problem, there were new vehicles galore and of course lots and lots of maps. But since the only money coming in from BFV is sales of the game (no skins for sale yet) then we shouldn't be surprised that they're cutting corners like this. So there's your answer, it's in the game because it saved time and money as compared to making a new vehicle.

    Umm do you not remember how absurdly crappy the hovertank was in BF4? The thing was so badly implemented it couldn't even aim the gun, and otherwise had the exact same stats as the normal tanks. And that came into the game when it was over a year old.

    BF4 didn't have new vehicles galore, almost every single vehicle or vehicle like gadget was either in the original game at launch, or the last paid DLC pack, final stand. The only intermediate addition was the 'bomber' which you could only use from a designated point on the map, which was on the four China Rising maps.

    New vehicles were pretty rare things most of the other battlefield games too. The last time we got a really serious number of new vehicles in a battlefield game was the Battlefield 1942 expansion packs, and almost nobody ever played those. Nor were they actually that good to play, though some of the stuff was pretty silly. Bf4 had lots of starting vehicles (and also completely insane levels of bugs on launch) but lavish DLC vehicle additions it did not have.

    Vehicles take a lot more work to make then guns, I'm actually surprised battlefield v is getting two new vehicles at this stage of development. Battlefield 1 only got 1 new vehicle in it's first paid DLC pack. Oh and the first BF1 DLC pack didn't drop until March. Between launch and March the only new content was a single free map.

  • narnold700
    282 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    OP is right Stug is pointless as it is just a med tank with no turret and no coax mg for the driver. The only thing it has is slightly better frontal armor, but if you want more armor why not just use the Tiger? It is kind of a shame the devs didn't try to make it stand out more from the other AFVs in the game and to think I did the original challenges to unlock the thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!