Farley Mowat's Stug

[Ed Storey]

There were at least two in Canada, this one was taken off the Meaford ranges in the 1970s and saved by the CWM. They did a nice job of doing a cosmetic restoration and integrating it into their Italian Campaign display when the new museum opened in 2005. It seems Canada kept the wreck and gave away the runner.

Destroyed Stug III w.jpg

[David Herbert]

It might be argued that the wreck above is a more interesting exhibit to the general public than an intact runner if the runner is just going to be a static exhibit.

David

[James P]

Originally Posted by David Herbert

It might be argued that the wreck above is a more interesting exhibit to the general public than an intact runner if the runner is just going to be a static exhibit.

David

Wrong ! Both of the StuGs (the range wreak/diorama at the CWM and the one now in the UK) should have remained in Canada AND as running (or made running) vehicles and not either blasted and shot up or "sold" off in some slippery, self serving deal that is now lost to time.

https://www.wealdfoundation.org/Insi...ley-Mowat-StuG

[David Herbert]

Actually James I totally agree with you. I was making a different point altogether !

David

[David Dunlop]

I suppose any given military mirrors the society it is part of. If that society has little regard for old things and a ‘disposable’ mindset, we should not be surprised when old things get targeted for destruction on a range somewhere.

What has always struck me odd, however, with anti-armour weapons, is that they always get tested against armour technology that is 30 or more years older than the weapon being tested. And then everyone gets excited about how nicely the armour gets blown to bits. There is something innately wrong with that. If you have just developed and built a new antitank weapon today, why don’t you test it against a brand new Abrahams? Transportation Safety Boards do testing to destruction with brand new vehicles each year and has anyone looked at the average price for a brand new pickup truck these days?

David

[Niels V]

David
I think there is a difference, between testing Anti tank weapons during development and the training of troops in the use of anti tank weapons.

During development the weapons are test on the intended adversary, but these test are not for the public eye, (sometimes promotion videos are shown afterwards). I have passed by one development test once during my service time, It was very hush hush and held in the furthest part of the training grounds and everything covered up.

Training of troops in the use of the weapon, does not require much of the target, though it is helps with the recognition, if the target is the material used by adversary or the shape of a tank etc.
But any old tank will do, and normally they are bit more robust, and will take the beating better than a plain steel plate.
Furthermore there is nothing more annoying, than having to stop in the middle of a firing exercise, and then go out and repair the target plate, because some penetrated it and hit the structure holding it.

[Perry Kitson]

So was perhaps the wartime Jagdpanzer IV traded to the Germans for the Kanonenjadgpanzer 90 that sits as a gate guard now, or a least the last time I was out there.

As a note of consolation, the Stug is in great hands, receiving the kind of restoration and care it deserves.

I guess having a military that a few years ago deemed the modern tank as useless, and not being too particular about preserving it's own historical vehicles, it is not surprising that they would care little about properly preserving our former enemies armour.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Ed Storey

There were at least two in Canada, this one was taken off the Meaford ranges in the 1970s and saved by the CWM. They did a nice job of doing a cosmetic restoration and integrating it into their Italian Campaign display when the new museum opened in 2005. It seems Canada kept the wreck and gave away the runner.

Another picture of this StuG. IIRC, it was Don Dingwall who restored this wreck to a very interesting exhibit.

0D169702-E269-4BE7-B511-404215E0D56A.jpeg

[George Bradford]

Hi All;

Just to acknowledge the Pz.IV/70(V) that used to sit in front of the old Canadian War Museum way back in 1988. It is likely the one that appeared in the Lefthand photo at Shilo, near the beginning of this thread.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by George Bradford

Just to acknowledge the Pz.IV/70(V) that used to sit in front of the old Canadian War Museum way back in 1988. It is likely the one that appeared in the Lefthand photo at Shilo, near the beginning of this thread.

Hello George, thanks for the reply and good to see you on this forum!

With your AFV News background, I'm sure you have been following many surviving AFVs even long before many members on here could read.

Regards,
Hanno

[Perry Kitson]

Here is a recent photo of the machine inside the new museum. Sorry, can't seem to rotate the photo. (any hints on how to do that?)
It has an interesting mixture of rubber and steel rimmed roadwheels.

[James P]

The late war version was front heavy and had steel road wheels at the front stations, that and possibly a case of making due with what was available during the last days of the reich.

[Ed Storey]

I found this article in an old copy of IPMS RT and it cases some light on the events behind the sale of the Stug to the States.

Stug 40 Ausf G - Vol. 21 No. 4 RT.pdf

[lynx42]

Originally Posted by Perry Kitson

Here is a recent photo of the machine inside the new museum. Sorry, can't seem to rotate the photo. .

Easy, save it to the desk top and rotate it, save the now rotated photo and upload it.

IMG_1285 (480x640).jpg

[Ed Storey]

I spotted this short notice about the Stug III while looking through some back issues of AFV News and perhaps may help fill in some of the details about this vehicle.

AFV News - Vol. 22 No. 2 May-Aug. 1987.jpg