While watching this, I started thinking "didn't I once see a picture of a soldier posing from inside the gun barrel of this vehicle?" Minutes later 6:40 you guys came through. Thanks, now I don't have to go look for it.
You'd think the StuH 42 with its 105mm howitzer and the Brummbar with its 150mm howitzer would have been enough. I get the Sturmtiger would have a much larger shot for shot destructive ability, but imagine the difference in rate of fire. The StuH 42 and Brummbar could have pumped their entire stock of ammunition into the target by the time the Sturmtiger reloaded.
Isn't that a bit like comparing a machine gun with a tank's main gun though? The 105 Howitzer is mostly for anti-infantry use, not so much block clearing. This thing is for taking complete buildings down.
@@nctpti2073 originally the Germans used the 75mm to take out ground targets. These shells contained a little over a pound of explosive. The 105mm contained around 5 pounds of explosive. That's quite the upgrade. I'm not sure what effect it would have on building sized targets but I'm sure 5 or 10 would have caused huge damage. The 150mm on the other hand contained over 15 pounds of explosive. A few of these would have been devastating! Plus you cod have shot 3 or 4 150mm a minute.
@@joshmeads Originally pretty much everyone had 37mm guns. A 75mm howie is not bad at all against infantry in the open and lightly or unarmored vehicles but not particularly good against anything substantial. "Pretty sure" is not particularly good evidence. You can fire rather a lot more machine gun rounds but don't expect to get through concrete with them. Volume only goes so far
@@nctpti2073 In referring to the 75mm, I was taking about the gun on the early stugs and panzer 4s, which were used to support infantry in fighting pill boxes, machine gun emplacements, ect. My point is that there's a diminishing return on size of gun for support. This is supported by the very few Sturmtigers built and the lack of guns over the 150mm range used by Germany and the othe countries at war. Eventually the gun just gets too big for its own good.
@@joshmeads Yes, that is partially what it was intended for but only against wooden bunkers or lightly armored vehicles. Mostly against relatively unprotected infantry directly. Your comparison is like saying that because grenades are explosive, that infantry can take down buildings with them. They are not really designed for that. They decided the short 75 was not sufficient, so tried to up-gun the Howitzer version to 105 mm with the SturmHaubitze 42 (StuH 42). They built about 1300 of those and decided they were not useful enough so upgunned again to the SturmInfantriegschutz 33B (SIG 33) with a 150mm. To hear you talk, they should have stuck with the Pz II's 20 mm gun or Pz III's 50 mm gun since they were fine against most early war vehicles. They managed to beat the French tanks essentially on maneuver and superior logistics and they would not meet KV-1's until later.
The problem with Sturmtiger is... well, tbh as everybody knows the whole thing😅 The only way such armor and armament would be supported by transmission and suspension is if you had mass production of E-100 chassis available. But at least it provides a window into "Hershel's Elefant" aka if Henshel too was forced to convert first 100 hull into casemate SPGs. In this case the 10,5cm gun of Dicker Max would have been a likely armament and the armor would have been a bit thineer as that was still in 1943 unlike Sturmtiger. Would have been an interesting comparison.
They didn’t make many of those guns it’s just a warthunder hypothetical A rocket assisted 180mm sturmpanzer type barrel and less armor would’ve been perfect for cutting weight down and still plenty destructive
I would like to find out more about how/ were the ammunition was made and delivered to where it was used. Also, how and where other rocket artillery ammunition, actually material raw sourced, created, and transported to these amazing weapons. From my grandfather, " a pistol without bullets is nothing but a truly crappy hammer".
the sturmtiger as it was done was vastly overdone, i think something based around one of the heavy howitzers/mortars already in heer service (let's say, 21 cm Mrs 18) would have been more practical and successful, as that alone would probably have helped with the weight issues, as well as permitting faster loading and greater ammo capacity as well as simplifying logistics while retaining a great punch
Hillary Doyle has claimed, in an interview, that according to original documents from Panzer Sturmmörser Kompanien commanders, the biggest complaint from the Sturmtiger's crews was that the 38cm RW61 main armament was simply too powerful for an assault gun and that it actually threatened to destroy the vehicle itself if an enemy target was too close. The commanders suggested that the weapon be mounted onto a lightly armored tank chassis and used for indirect fire as a SP-Artillery instead.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I'll try to find it. I think it was with an interview with the Chieftain a couple years ago. I don't remember specifically though. It's going to probably take some time because, if I remember correctly, it was an incidental comment on another topic.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Ok, I found it. It's actually from an old video called "Operation Think Tank" (Part 6) at 14:48 on The Chieftain's Channel. I misquoted Doyle a bit. The Sturmtiger commander stated that using the 38cm RW61 in an assault gun role was overkill because the weapon was so overwhelmingly powerful that it threatened to destroy the Sturmtiger itself. He suggested that the weapon would be better served mounted on a lightly armored chassis (like a Hummel) and used in an indirect artillery role instead.
Interestingly enough, As far as i know, all Sturmtiger’s were made with the Late war Ausf. E variant of the tiger, which was basically a more “simplified” Chassis of the Already existing Tiger Tank
Sometimes infantry is dug in well enough that artillery has only minimal effect and you need a bigger boom to destroy the positions. In modern times we use glide bombs and other precision weapons but during ww2 Germans didn't have those and so Sturmtiger is what they came up with.
The 600mm Karl-Gerat mortar was the largest of these German self-propelled armored fortification assault tools. There were seven Karls in all, six were fielded. They were used against the fortifications of Sevastipol and against the Warsaw Uprising. A near miss from one of the shells could literally undermine and tilt a bunker, causing it's firing apertures to become misaligned and useless. The Soviets faced the same problems when they attacked fortified German positions later in the war.
Brits used to have their Hobart Funny Churchill AVRE in much greater numbers: By the time of the invasion of France in June 1944, 180 AVREs had been converted. They were first deployed in Normandy by the 79th Armoured Division on D-Day.[2] They were extremely successful and served until the end of the war. A further 574 followed.[7] While the driver came from the Royal Armoured Corps, the five other crew were drawn from the Royal Engineers. One of the RE crew was a demolitions NCO sapper responsible for priming the "Flying dustbin" and who led the crew when they dismounted from the tank to place demolition charges ("Wade" charges). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialist_Churchill_tank_variants .. by these tanks making a difference in front dervice
Sure, it didn't have much effect on the War, but it's so cool....It looks like it's going BOOM! when it's not even firing. Which is ironic, because I assume those rocket shells made some sort of 'whoosh' noise when they left the barrel.
They should’ve added thick aluminum sloped armor on their tanks although soft a thick belt would weigh dramatically less than steel and slow down shells before hitting the main rha armor But they needed it for airplanes and I guess it could also be a fire hazard
As a specialised assault gun and if it had been made in quantity this vehicle would have been very dangerous. I read an account of one firing at a group of Sherman’s late in the war and it killed/disable 3-4 with a near miss. The war in Ukraine is showing us how deadly drones and artillery are to tanks and I can see us coming back to the heavy assault gun principle again, but only because of the tactical niche it could fill. As soon as there was a counter to negate it, it would disappear into history.
I don't see how a Heavy Assault Gun would be particularly suited to the modern battlefield. Too big, too slow, too vulnerable and not sufficiently able to evade. For example, consider the Booker/MPF that the US Army is now adopting. (I mean, yes, it's forty tons, but that *is* light by US Army standards.) The philosophy behind it is clearly that mobility and flexibility is the key to survivability.
@@mikefischer8576 but not something the Germans were facing at the end of WWII. So it was a waste of resources for them, and not something they should have "made in quantity." Ukraine is a different story, as it is more like WWI western front, than late war WWII in Europe.
@@diestormliethey don’t need to be slow though the t80s turbine makes about 500 more hp than the HL Look at the Koalitsya S it has a 152mm gun but weighs 20 tons less than Abrams Most tanks on the Russian side are being used as assault guns because tank vs tank fights are rare so thick top armor for drones and relatively light hull armor could work That’s basically what the 2S4 heavy mortar being used in Krasnahorivka right now is used for but it’s a much lighter vehicle incapable of direct fire
It was designed when retreat wasn't yet the standard its design was deemed useful to fight heavy fortifications. When it was finally in combat, the front situation had changed but weapons available were used anyway often due to shortage of alternatives.
Why has this video so many errors? Here are a couple corrections only regarding Stürmmörser Kompanie 1002: They did not blow up their vehicles in mid march 1945. They fought at least until early april as an organized unit. One of the most famous Sturmtiger engagements was fought by them on march 28 when they ambushed an American column near Dorsten. They allegedly blew up their vehicles a couple of days later when they were out of rockets. But the Menden Sturmmörser, which you attributed to Komapnie 1000, fought on until the final days of the Ruhrpocket. The Menden Sturmmörser was also captured on April 14, a couple of days later than it was claimed here. Up to 3 vehicles that were lost outside the Ruhr pocket in April 1945 are linked to Kompanie 1002 too. It is unkown if these vehicles escaped the closing Ruhr Pocket or were taken from barracks where they were initially left behind due to needed repairs.
5.38 Min: You just said that only the protoype vehicle had rubber tire wheels, this one has not, so this is a production model with add on armour. So here needs to be some fine tuning ;)
The prototype Sturmtiger was the only model of the 18 with extra armor added on the LFP. Sometime in 1944, it was modified and given the same steel rims all the others had.
Actually they seem to have been incredibly good vehicles for their crews. It seems like they didnt make it on time to most battles and when they did they just fired a few shots from far away and then bailed out. 100% survavility for the operators, at least while they were inside...
The project was useful for siège warfare as it allowed to assist troops at a relatively close range with descent protection. As usual, the vehicle came too late and was not well used (like the Ferdinand). This was an artillery vehicle conceived to assist troop in urban warfare. It would have been best to integrate it closely with foot soldier. Now, the number of vehicle was pathetic, the german were in a defensive war and in retreat (mobility and adaptability are more important. Giving ground up, to increase tactical operation is more sensible than trying to keep ground at all cost) with no control of the sky, impaired logistic. This vehicle helped the allies to win the war by waisting german ressources and strategic thinking.
At that point in the war I'm surprised the nazis had the optimism to believe that they would need such a specialized assault vehicle. Even moreso when ordering that batch in late 44.
Urban. These are meant for urban warfare and we need to get at troops hiding in built up areas. Tigers even are easy prey in street fighting, so this one takes out those areas.
Here you go, here are some some options in self propelled artillery with direct fire capability up to 150 cm. WW2 German Army: no, bigger, more expensive, and way more impractical please
It was not mentioned in this video, but there are various sources that claim a single shot from a Sturmtiger knocked out a full company of parked Shermans during the battle at Remagen.
Pretty sure there isn't a, "recoil" with a rocket projectile. The holes in the barrel did serve a purpose, but not for that. Otherwise, nice vid, thanks.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Rockets in recoilles rifles have little recoil because the projectile pushes itself off against the atmosphere behind the hollow tube, hence backblast. With the back of this tube being inside the vehicle, it pushes itself off of a part of the vehicle, forming recoil. The holes at the end of the barrel likely also help in evacuating the noxious fumes so they don't enter the fighting compartment.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I didn’t expect a response; it was a harsh comment but one out of frustration. I’m a former U.S. armor Company Commander and I do appreciate your channel. I’ve found your assessments, detailed, balanced, accurate and insightful. @44 seconds there is an artist’s rendition of what looks to be a StuG III with an ugly “TANKS-ENCYCLOPEDIA” watermark stamped over it. I’ve noticed this on several more recent uploads. In relation to this vid: I have a LOT of emotional commentary regarding the corrupt armor agendas of WWII. Hitler was a puppet who repeatedly destroyed Germany’s advantages but Germany’s aggressive imperialism was the result of the parasite of Nazism. My opinion is that the most effective platform-protection, lethality and ease of production-was the T-34-85 which is ironic because it was based on the brilliant U.S. Christie chassis that was turned-down by Army brass in favor of the gasoline inferno Ronson death-trap known as the M4 Sherman (named after the Civil War general who needlessly burned his way through the South). Am I overly cynical? Then why were the M4’s shortcomings ignored and the M26 (which still utilizes a gasoline powerplant) delayed? Lastly, (in my opinion), the finest platform of the war was the Panzer V “Panther”, marred only by it’s interleaved roadwheels which were a massive pain for crews to service, keep clean and repair (especially accessing recessed wheels). If you could show artist schematics without a watermark promotion, that would be awesome.
Johnny, it has the Tank Encyclopedia watermark because it is our illustration, made by us, for us. We've got several thousands of the things on our website. On that particular one, we lost the version without the watermark (it's an old illustration, about 10 years old), so we just used what we had.
Imagine being in a sturmtiger crew and seeing the allied might swarming over towards you ,the smell of shite in the vehicle must have been strong ,what a piece of shit vehicle, useless
Image being a infantry soldier when you see a 38 cm rocket flying at your position
Worse imagine you survived the Warsaw ghetto, formed an armed resistance, and then have a 38 cm rocket fly at you.
Life flashes before their eyes
Even an AT rifle can do nothing to the moving hell
Pretty sure that in that situation you do not have time to stop and think about shell size
@@nctpti2073 you see a gigantic shell flying at your head
While watching this, I started thinking "didn't I once see a picture of a soldier posing from inside the gun barrel of this vehicle?"
Minutes later 6:40 you guys came through. Thanks, now I don't have to go look for it.
CO : You see that Restistance Nest?
Sturmtiger : Yes?
CO : I dont want to anymore
@trycoldman2358 i love you're lego video.
@@german_maus6864thanks, but I'm no Lego video
I like these wild, impractical designs the war produced, especially when they see action
Its 5:37am just got done playing Famring Simulator. This is a good way to finish off my night snack and go to bed lmao
I don’t understand the games about work. Don’t you get enough of work at work?
@messyjessem.3108 hell yeah keep up the grind!
@@TheCrapOnYourStrapOn nope I enjoy work to much so I gotta do more work.
Vibe and a Half
You'd think the StuH 42 with its 105mm howitzer and the Brummbar with its 150mm howitzer would have been enough. I get the Sturmtiger would have a much larger shot for shot destructive ability, but imagine the difference in rate of fire. The StuH 42 and Brummbar could have pumped their entire stock of ammunition into the target by the time the Sturmtiger reloaded.
Isn't that a bit like comparing a machine gun with a tank's main gun though? The 105 Howitzer is mostly for anti-infantry use, not so much block clearing. This thing is for taking complete buildings down.
@@nctpti2073 originally the Germans used the 75mm to take out ground targets. These shells contained a little over a pound of explosive. The 105mm contained around 5 pounds of explosive. That's quite the upgrade. I'm not sure what effect it would have on building sized targets but I'm sure 5 or 10 would have caused huge damage. The 150mm on the other hand contained over 15 pounds of explosive. A few of these would have been devastating! Plus you cod have shot 3 or 4 150mm a minute.
@@joshmeads Originally pretty much everyone had 37mm guns. A 75mm howie is not bad at all against infantry in the open and lightly or unarmored vehicles but not particularly good against anything substantial. "Pretty sure" is not particularly good evidence. You can fire rather a lot more machine gun rounds but don't expect to get through concrete with them. Volume only goes so far
@@nctpti2073 In referring to the 75mm, I was taking about the gun on the early stugs and panzer 4s, which were used to support infantry in fighting pill boxes, machine gun emplacements, ect. My point is that there's a diminishing return on size of gun for support. This is supported by the very few Sturmtigers built and the lack of guns over the 150mm range used by Germany and the othe countries at war. Eventually the gun just gets too big for its own good.
@@joshmeads Yes, that is partially what it was intended for but only against wooden bunkers or lightly armored vehicles. Mostly against relatively unprotected infantry directly. Your comparison is like saying that because grenades are explosive, that infantry can take down buildings with them. They are not really designed for that.
They decided the short 75 was not sufficient, so tried to up-gun the Howitzer version to 105 mm with the SturmHaubitze 42 (StuH 42). They built about 1300 of those and decided they were not useful enough so upgunned again to the SturmInfantriegschutz 33B (SIG 33) with a 150mm.
To hear you talk, they should have stuck with the Pz II's 20 mm gun or Pz III's 50 mm gun since they were fine against most early war vehicles. They managed to beat the French tanks essentially on maneuver and superior logistics and they would not meet KV-1's until later.
the brummbär's bigger bro:
The problem with Sturmtiger is... well, tbh as everybody knows the whole thing😅
The only way such armor and armament would be supported by transmission and suspension is if you had mass production of E-100 chassis available.
But at least it provides a window into "Hershel's Elefant" aka if Henshel too was forced to convert first 100 hull into casemate SPGs. In this case the 10,5cm gun of Dicker Max would have been a likely armament and the armor would have been a bit thineer as that was still in 1943 unlike Sturmtiger. Would have been an interesting comparison.
They didn’t make many of those guns it’s just a warthunder hypothetical
A rocket assisted 180mm sturmpanzer type barrel and less armor would’ve been perfect for cutting weight down and still plenty destructive
Technically it’s not a gun, it’s a depth charger projector.
I would like to find out more about how/ were the ammunition was made and delivered to where it was used. Also, how and where other rocket artillery ammunition, actually material raw sourced, created, and transported to these amazing weapons. From my grandfather, " a pistol without bullets is nothing but a truly crappy hammer".
the sturmtiger as it was done was vastly overdone, i think something based around one of the heavy howitzers/mortars already in heer service (let's say, 21 cm Mrs 18) would have been more practical and successful, as that alone would probably have helped with the weight issues, as well as permitting faster loading and greater ammo capacity as well as simplifying logistics while retaining a great punch
Some Wehrmacht doofus looked at a Bismarck shell and said to himself: "Ja. I could make zis vork!"
Hillary Doyle has claimed, in an interview, that according to original documents from Panzer Sturmmörser Kompanien commanders, the biggest complaint from the Sturmtiger's crews was that the 38cm RW61 main armament was simply too powerful for an assault gun and that it actually threatened to destroy the vehicle itself if an enemy target was too close. The commanders suggested that the weapon be mounted onto a lightly armored tank chassis and used for indirect fire as a SP-Artillery instead.
Could you link us to that statement?
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I'll try to find it. I think it was with an interview with the Chieftain a couple years ago. I don't remember specifically though. It's going to probably take some time because, if I remember correctly, it was an incidental comment on another topic.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Ok, I found it. It's actually from an old video called "Operation Think Tank" (Part 6) at 14:48 on The Chieftain's Channel. I misquoted Doyle a bit. The Sturmtiger commander stated that using the 38cm RW61 in an assault gun role was overkill because the weapon was so overwhelmingly powerful that it threatened to destroy the Sturmtiger itself. He suggested that the weapon would be better served mounted on a lightly armored chassis (like a Hummel) and used in an indirect artillery role instead.
Thank you
Interestingly enough, As far as i know, all Sturmtiger’s were made with the Late war Ausf. E variant of the tiger, which was basically a more “simplified” Chassis of the Already existing Tiger Tank
Sometimes infantry is dug in well enough that artillery has only minimal effect and you need a bigger boom to destroy the positions. In modern times we use glide bombs and other precision weapons but during ww2 Germans didn't have those and so Sturmtiger is what they came up with.
Pretty cool to see mace as one of your helpers for this video 😁
The 600mm Karl-Gerat mortar was the largest of these German self-propelled armored fortification assault tools. There were seven Karls in all, six were fielded. They were used against the fortifications of Sevastipol and against the Warsaw Uprising. A near miss from one of the shells could literally undermine and tilt a bunker, causing it's firing apertures to become misaligned and useless. The Soviets faced the same problems when they attacked fortified German positions later in the war.
Brits used to have their Hobart Funny Churchill AVRE in much greater numbers: By the time of the invasion of France in June 1944, 180 AVREs had been converted. They were first deployed in Normandy by the 79th Armoured Division on D-Day.[2] They were extremely successful and served until the end of the war. A further 574 followed.[7] While the driver came from the Royal Armoured Corps, the five other crew were drawn from the Royal Engineers. One of the RE crew was a demolitions NCO sapper responsible for priming the "Flying dustbin" and who led the crew when they dismounted from the tank to place demolition charges ("Wade" charges). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialist_Churchill_tank_variants .. by these tanks making a difference in front dervice
Sure, it didn't have much effect on the War, but it's so cool....It looks like it's going BOOM! when it's not even firing. Which is ironic, because I assume those rocket shells made some sort of 'whoosh' noise when they left the barrel.
Great Video!
Very interesting.
They should’ve added thick aluminum sloped armor on their tanks although soft a thick belt would weigh dramatically less than steel and slow down shells before hitting the main rha armor
But they needed it for airplanes and I guess it could also be a fire hazard
As a specialised assault gun and if it had been made in quantity this vehicle would have been very dangerous. I read an account of one firing at a group of Sherman’s late in the war and it killed/disable 3-4 with a near miss. The war in Ukraine is showing us how deadly drones and artillery are to tanks and I can see us coming back to the heavy assault gun principle again, but only because of the tactical niche it could fill. As soon as there was a counter to negate it, it would disappear into history.
I don't see how a Heavy Assault Gun would be particularly suited to the modern battlefield. Too big, too slow, too vulnerable and not sufficiently able to evade.
For example, consider the Booker/MPF that the US Army is now adopting. (I mean, yes, it's forty tons, but that *is* light by US Army standards.) The philosophy behind it is clearly that mobility and flexibility is the key to survivability.
10 minutes reload time, along with being slow and maneuverable, would have greatly limited its usefulness against anything but static targets.
@@flarvin8945 static defensive postion are making a return in Ukraine
@@mikefischer8576 but not something the Germans were facing at the end of WWII. So it was a waste of resources for them, and not something they should have "made in quantity." Ukraine is a different story, as it is more like WWI western front, than late war WWII in Europe.
@@diestormliethey don’t need to be slow though the t80s turbine makes about 500 more hp than the HL
Look at the Koalitsya S it has a 152mm gun but weighs 20 tons less than Abrams
Most tanks on the Russian side are being used as assault guns because tank vs tank fights are rare so thick top armor for drones and relatively light hull armor could work
That’s basically what the 2S4 heavy mortar being used in Krasnahorivka right now is used for but it’s a much lighter vehicle incapable of direct fire
It was terrible in an anti tank role, however, it could make a hole in the ground too big for a tank to drive out of.
Cod ww2 zombies music was a good choice for the video.
There is such a thing as too much dakadaka.
Don't you mean "daka...( go make a coffee )...daka" 😊
@@gordonfraser8020 No time für a Koffee. Zat Shell will not load itself, Helmut!
What use was this beast when a retreat was in progress? Enemy fortifications were getting further and further away.
It was designed when retreat wasn't yet the standard its design was deemed useful to fight heavy fortifications. When it was finally in combat, the front situation had changed but weapons available were used anyway often due to shortage of alternatives.
Second to the show!
Why has this video so many errors? Here are a couple corrections only regarding Stürmmörser Kompanie 1002:
They did not blow up their vehicles in mid march 1945. They fought at least until early april as an organized unit. One of the most famous Sturmtiger engagements was fought by them on march 28 when they ambushed an American column near Dorsten. They allegedly blew up their vehicles a couple of days later when they were out of rockets. But the Menden Sturmmörser, which you attributed to Komapnie 1000, fought on until the final days of the Ruhrpocket. The Menden Sturmmörser was also captured on April 14, a couple of days later than it was claimed here.
Up to 3 vehicles that were lost outside the Ruhr pocket in April 1945 are linked to Kompanie 1002 too. It is unkown if these vehicles escaped the closing Ruhr Pocket or were taken from barracks where they were initially left behind due to needed repairs.
5.38 Min: You just said that only the protoype vehicle had rubber tire wheels, this one has not, so this is a production model with add on armour.
So here needs to be some fine tuning ;)
The prototype Sturmtiger was the only model of the 18 with extra armor added on the LFP. Sometime in 1944, it was modified and given the same steel rims all the others had.
Actually they seem to have been incredibly good vehicles for their crews. It seems like they didnt make it on time to most battles and when they did they just fired a few shots from far away and then bailed out. 100% survavility for the operators, at least while they were inside...
The project was useful for siège warfare as it allowed to assist troops at a relatively close range with descent protection. As usual, the vehicle came too late and was not well used (like the Ferdinand). This was an artillery vehicle conceived to assist troop in urban warfare. It would have been best to integrate it closely with foot soldier. Now, the number of vehicle was pathetic, the german were in a defensive war and in retreat (mobility and adaptability are more important. Giving ground up, to increase tactical operation is more sensible than trying to keep ground at all cost) with no control of the sky, impaired logistic. This vehicle helped the allies to win the war by waisting german ressources and strategic thinking.
Hehehez, the Funni German Bunker Buster
At that point in the war I'm surprised the nazis had the optimism to believe that they would need such a specialized assault vehicle.
Even moreso when ordering that batch in late 44.
Urban. These are meant for urban warfare and we need to get at troops hiding in built up areas. Tigers even are easy prey in street fighting, so this one takes out those areas.
💥🐯👍
Doesn't sound like they were ever much used for what they were intended for.
Here you go, here are some some options in self propelled artillery with direct fire capability up to 150 cm.
WW2 German Army: no, bigger, more expensive, and way more impractical please
So next what happened kv6 work ?
600mm 的卡爾巨砲： ......不，沒有我的事
❤
an interesting vehicle. but, it came to late to matter.
It was not mentioned in this video, but there are various sources that claim a single shot from a Sturmtiger knocked out a full company of parked Shermans during the battle at Remagen.
Pretty sure there isn't a, "recoil" with a rocket projectile. The holes in the barrel did serve a purpose, but not for that. Otherwise, nice vid, thanks.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Rockets in recoilles rifles have little recoil because the projectile pushes itself off against the atmosphere behind the hollow tube, hence backblast.
With the back of this tube being inside the vehicle, it pushes itself off of a part of the vehicle, forming recoil.
The holes at the end of the barrel likely also help in evacuating the noxious fumes so they don't enter the fighting compartment.
It's not wasteful if it looks cool.
Is anyone surprised this was Hitlers doing?
Epic Incredible Comment Censorship
Ofcourse It’s The History Channel
Churchill AVRE was a far more capable vehicle, but not German so no fans 😔
I love the avre it’s just rare in historical photos, they should at it to war thunder to get it out there
Because big guns are cool and Churchills are pretty lame altogether
@@off6848 Churchill AVRE had a big gun tho. It was also a success operationally.
you clowns watermark the schematics?!
What are you talking about?
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I didn’t expect a response; it was a harsh comment but one out of frustration.
I’m a former U.S. armor Company Commander and I do appreciate your channel. I’ve found your assessments, detailed, balanced, accurate and insightful.
@44 seconds there is an artist’s rendition of what looks to be a StuG III with an ugly “TANKS-ENCYCLOPEDIA” watermark stamped over it. I’ve noticed this on several more recent uploads.
In relation to this vid: I have a LOT of emotional commentary regarding the corrupt armor agendas of WWII. Hitler was a puppet who repeatedly destroyed Germany’s advantages but Germany’s aggressive imperialism was the result of the parasite of Nazism.
My opinion is that the most effective platform-protection, lethality and ease of production-was the T-34-85 which is ironic because it was based on the brilliant U.S. Christie chassis that was turned-down by Army brass in favor of the gasoline inferno Ronson death-trap known as the M4 Sherman (named after the Civil War general who needlessly burned his way through the South).
Am I overly cynical? Then why were the M4’s shortcomings ignored and the M26 (which still utilizes a gasoline powerplant) delayed?
Lastly, (in my opinion), the finest platform of the war was the Panzer V “Panther”, marred only by it’s interleaved roadwheels which were a massive pain for crews to service, keep clean and repair (especially accessing recessed wheels).
If you could show artist schematics without a watermark promotion, that would be awesome.
Johnny, it has the Tank Encyclopedia watermark because it is our illustration, made by us, for us. We've got several thousands of the things on our website.
On that particular one, we lost the version without the watermark (it's an old illustration, about 10 years old), so we just used what we had.
Imagine being in a sturmtiger crew and seeing the allied might swarming over towards you ,the smell of shite in the vehicle must have been strong ,what a piece of shit vehicle, useless