Why Panzerartillerie? Why Armored Artillery?

Why self-propelled armored artillery for the Panzer Forces, why not just used motorized / towed artillery? What were the benefits? What were the reasons? Why not from the start of the war?
For this we look at the Hummel, Wespe, Sturmgeschütz and also the Sturmpanzers as well.
English Channel of the Panzermuseum: / germantankmuseum
German Channel of the Panzermuseum: / daspanzermuseum
Disclaimer: I was invited by the Deutsche Panzermuseum in 2020.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZbin Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Jentz, Thomas L, and Hilary Louis Doyle. Panzer Tracts No.10-1: Artillerie Selbstfahrlafetten. Boyds, MD, 2002.
Töppel, Roman: Panzerhaubitzen im Einsatz bei Kursk 1943. In: Clausewitz Spezial: Deutsche Panzer Teil 3. GeraMond Verlag GmbH: München, 2017, S. 42-49.
BArch, RH 2/2859, Erfahrungen Panzer Divisionen 1943.
BArch, RH 12-6/1: Aufbau, Gliederung und Einsatz der Panzertruppen.- Ausbildungsunterlagen.
BArch, RH 2/2851, Einsatz und Erfahrungsberichte Band 1, Westfeldzug 1940.
BArch, RH 10/56: Erfahrungen Taktische Berichte der Truppe Band 1, 1942-1943.
Fleischer, Wolfgang; Eiermann, Richard: Die motorisierte Artillerie und Panzerartillerie des deutschen Heeres. 1939-1945. Dörfler Verlag: Eggolsheim, Germany, o. J.
Ausbildungsvorschrift für die Panzertruppe - Führung und Kampf der Panzergrenadiere - Heft 1 - Das Panzergrenadier-Battaillon (gp.) - H.Dv. 298/3a (5. August 1944) (Reprint).
Moran, Nicholas: Can Openers. Echo Point Books & Media: Brattleboro, Vermont, USA, 2017.
Oberkommando des Heeres: Allgemeine Heeresmitteilungen, 21. Oktober 1944, Berlin, Germany, 1944.
Glantz, David M.: Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk, July 1943. Combat Studies Institute. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1986.
Spielberger, Walter J.; Doyle, Hilary L.: Panzer I und II und ihre Abarten. Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2014.
Spielberger, Walter J.; Jentz, Thomas L.; Doyle, Hilary Louis: Panzer IV und seine Abarten. Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, 2019.
Chamberlain, Peter; Doyle, Hilary: Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two. Revised Edition. Arms & Armour: London, UK, 1999.
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/na...
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/Na...
#WhyPanzerartillerie,#WhyArmoredArtillery,#HummelWespe

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Want to see more videos with content from museums or historical sites? Want AD-FREE early Access? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. More info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv - » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv

[@MrWoodii]

Way ahead of you.

[@dazedandconfusedstacker9923]

Glad you are wearing a mask. I sure wouldnt want to catch covid from utube

[@PremierHistory]

Love the Sturmgeschütz! Great video as always 👍🏻

[@chrisjones6736]

Off topic. Germans had excellent recovery of knocked put tanks going do far as to return badly damaged vehicles to factories inside Germany. When thoas vehicles were rebuilt did they count as 'new' tanks?

[@Lawofimprobability]

Looking at this from decades later, one of the things I always wondered about was why there didn't seem to be any shock absorbers or a lot of rubber tires on early WW2 artillery pieces from Germany and the USSR. I think that aspect of design might be interesting.

[@Dan-kt1zs]

Because they have hardness while having really good soft attack while being fast. Trust me, Im a HOI4 general and a veteran of the Zimbabwean-Costra Rica war.

[@megas_pastrma8599]

Swedish-Chinese war is over and Germany annexed Bhutan in the peace deal

[@tunderstorm2769]

the ethiopian federation just annexed luxemburg

[@ghostarmy1106]

@@tunderstorm2769 impossible, ethopia must be the one to be annexed, or did god and satan swich roles without me noticing it?

[@arya31ful]

@@ghostarmy1106Blame Italy for being so overconfident Germany switched sides to support Ethiopia.

[@gruguntermench6097]

In soviet Russia, you don't annex Tanu Tuva. Tanu Tuva annex YOU, and then brings Nasbol revolution to entire planet.

[@oddedd7755]

-easier to dodge counterattack -ease relocation issue -provide crew protection from small arm fire and shrapnel -can be use as tank hunter or siege weapon in some cases -looks cool

[@mericemin9058]

Imagine you're infantry and Artillery starts running to you.

[@arya31ful]

Napoleon would be proud.

[@jayg1438]

Depends if the artillery is direct or indirect fire

[@bwiebertram]

It's complicäted

[@guaporeturns9472]

but cool

[@MrRenegadeshinobi]

Always has been

[@mr.potato8000]

i dont get it

[@TheDagraner4576]

Reasons: Gun heavy, human lazy.

[@kast7n336]

Use bear Bear strong

[@BluesJustice]

Gun heavy. Gun move itself.

[@videodistro]

Lazy? Have you ever humped tons of gear around in the hot/cold environment, living outside, in a war zone?? Clearly, no. Dufus.

[@TheDagraner4576]

@@videodistro I have, actually. But that's a whole howitzer my man. Not exactly my saw and iotv.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

@@TheDagraner4576 you lucky bastard only had a SAW... I had four quivers of ammo or tube for an 84mm Carl Gustaf m/48 plus a G3A3 rifle when I joined my countrys part time volounteer national defence militia. A couple of years later, I got shifted to platoon radio operator and swapped the CG with a 10kg field radio set. Now, at 36, 10 years after joining, I've gone full circle to the same station I had during conscript training, signals specialist in a motorized 12cm mortar unit, and only have to carry my rifle and personal issue kit as everything else is mounted in the battery control vehicle ^^

[@MikaelKKarlsson]

Because when you go Artillery Only; you also get Panzer. Totally OP. Would recommend.

[@dr.brigh0275]

iSorrowproductions felt that

[@specialagentdustyponcho1065]

Why armored artillery? In case you get shot at, of course.

[@derrickstorm6976]

The point is, you're not supposed to get shot at by direct fire as artillery

[@jgebhardt75]

@@derrickstorm6976 what about enemy artillery shooting at you. I mean armoured artillery usually is not as armoured as tanks but armoured enough to withstand frag

[@JohnsonTheSecond]

@@jgebhardt75 they are open topped, it's about as effective as a steel helmet but like 1000x as expensive, and enemy artillery firing indirect at your mobile indirect artillery is like very unlikely.

[@jgebhardt75]

@@JohnsonTheSecond they would need to score a direct hit right into the open top. If they hit next to it the armour certainly helps. Of course a hit right into it will be devatating. But today most of them are closed at the top too.

[@JohnsonTheSecond]

@@jgebhardt75 they dont need to necessarily, a really close hit would still do a lot of harm and I wouldn't be surprised if some shrapnel or rocks got flung up into the air and came down inside, additionally like half the examples we have of them are only frontally or half protected from the sides

[@elee1086]

Deine Videos sind sehr professionell und gut gemacht. Sie sind weitaus detaillierter als die Vorlesungen, die ich an der Universität besucht habe. Your videos are very professional and well made. They far more detailed than the lectures I attended in University.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

danke!

[@andreastiefenthaler3811]

Sehr richtig! Vor allem sind Bernhards Videos ohne vordergründige politische Agenda (weder linker noch rechter noch revisionistischer) oder sonstwie voreingenommen.

[@GlaDi02]

He might grew watching History Channel. And today, he has better channel than History Channel and Discovery combined. Kudos.

[@gabork5055]

That doesn't say a lot these days though. Still nice.

[@matteagle42]

We don't have these channels in Austria / Germany

[@n.a.4292]

2:11 General Tödd Höward regarding artillery: "It just works!"

[@therealuncleowen2588]

All I wanted for Christmas this year was self-propelled artillery. But it didn't happen, I guess I'll have to wait until next year.

[@jayg1438]

would you accept an Assault Gun? I know the STuG life isn't for everyone.

[@orange8420]

Wespe : WHO are you? Su 76: im your russian 567th half cousin brother

[@genericpersonx333]

This exchange unrealistic because SU76 is deaf thanks to its unshielded engine. :)

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@genericpersonx333 thats why the wespe had to shout to get his attention, and then the SU-76 read his lips

[@projectpitchfork860]

@@genericpersonx333 Ignoring the fact that 76mm are a bit less then 105mm. But just a bit. Nearly 50% a bit.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@projectpitchfork860 20-30% more like

[@Badbentham]

Su-76, winking at his bigger brothers Su-122 and Su-152: - WHAT did you say?

[@Walker_Bulldog]

" Das Leben eines Mannes in der Angriffsartillerie ist kurz, aber aufregend." - Feldmarschall Erich von Manstein

[@Talon3000]

"The life of a man in the attack artillery is short, but eventful".

[@braceys903]

En mans liv i angreppsartilleriet är kort men uppfriskande

[@jantjarks7946]

Artillerie kennt weder Freund noch Feind, sondern nur lohnende Ziele. Artillery does not know friend or foe, only juicy targets.

[@potatojuice5124]

I’ve always love the Hummel and wespe, idk why. Maybe it’s just aesthetic or something

[@vanxthenecron3059]

german vehicles do have that vibe

[@jayg1438]

my first 1:72 scale model was a Wespe

[@Marcus-rs6fr]

4:44 😂😂😂😂, true germän wörds 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

at the first try I said "auf Selbstfahrlafette auf Panzerkampfwagen I"...

[@Marcus-rs6fr]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized xD yea i stopped the video in an attempt to say that whole word myself, i kinda start to understand the german strategy in vehicle naming

[@BluesJustice]

For some odd reason Germans use space bar less often

[@jorgschimmer8213]

@@Marcus-rs6fr . Believe me. Even as a german you are sometimes surprised how they constructed these words.

[@kingstar0084]

@@BluesJustice Idon'tknowwhatyoumean🤔

[@kinamiqi4025]

These info dumps are very useful, thanks for your work.

[@LewisRenovation]

Not enough ... Statement applicable to everything German in WW2

[@qanon7958]

Usually great, but never enough*

[@jb76489]

@@qanon7958 sometimes good

[@qanon7958]

@@jb76489 When compared to the others...

[@jb76489]

@@qanon7958 like their paratroopers that didn’t have risers? Or their lack of prox fused AA shells? Or sub par radar? Or their horses?

[@qanon7958]

@@jb76489 Well, when you compare Germany against all others it's kinda unfair isn't?, like how much was the allied tech actually a British shared product?

[@CCfiftyeight]

Du hast im Museum doch bestimmt schon eine Inventarnummer! 😁

[@leocrown8627]

My favourite German self propelled artillery piece has to be the Hummel, its looks cool, works reasonably well plus it's really interesting as I believe it has the final drive/sprockets of the panzer 3 and the chassis of the panzer 4.

[@_-.-_-_.._--.-_-_----_-.--_._-]

I think mine has to be 15cm s.I.G 33/2 (Sf) auf Jagdpanzer 38(t). It's cute but packs a sizeable punch.

[@siegfried2k4]

Hummel looks fat... if you get what I mean. The Wespe looks sleeker

[@leocrown8627]

I mean sleeknes doesn't really matter too much though I guess this wespe has a smaller profile

[@mikepette4422]

I always thought they should have made the "bison" with 105 mm rather than that heavy 150 mm which of course was more destructive but was clearly too heavy for the chassis

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

to be fair it was done because that was what was available at hand. they needed their 15cm guns mobile. it wasn't a "we need a SPG lets mate this gun to this chassis" it was "our 15cm infantry guns are not mobile enough we need to make them self propelled, grab some available chassis" they immediately did a crude mounting on panzer Is (36) then a proper mounting on lengthened panzer IIs(12), but found its ammuntion load too small then a StuG variant (sIG 33B) (24) but it was the panzer 38(t) based Grille ausf H & K that got the right mix of mobility, ammunition load and production cost (389 built) for the 15cm sIG 33 gun, and the panzer IV based Sturmpanzer 43 Brummbär (different gun but fired the same ammunition) that allowed for good ammunition load and armour (306 built)

[@matthewcharles5867]

​@@matthiuskoenig3378 like with the anti tank guns Germany then ends up with a dozen different variations making supply and logistics a nightmare. Germany did this with everything planes, tanks, guns.

[@andersandersson5815]

Thanks for a outstanding video as usual. Lots of info and well thought-out arguments. With the Swedish Archer system on a dumpster chassis you have all you need; mobility, off-road capacity, agility, speed, it's cheap, fast shooting, accurate, some armor protection, fast shoot and scoot, easy maintenance, etc. Towed artillery can survive if you have air superiority or hidden out from plain sight.

[@ThePenguinMejia]

The detail in this is spectacular. Its very comprehensive and educational.

[@billd.iniowa2263]

Now I'll never get the Wasp confused with the Hummel again. The wasp has a muzzle break.

[@WanderfalkeAT]

Wasp is Wespe in German! Hummel is Bumblebee!

[@Dodgerambo100]

The Muzzlebrake makes the only Difference? And not the fact, that the "Hummel" is twice as large as the "Wespe"? Panzer 4 vs panzer 2. I could understand if we talk about the "Grille" and the "Wespe". These Tanks are more likely to confound.

[@billd.iniowa2263]

@@Dodgerambo100 You're right of course. But I was thinking about watching archival footage, and you cant always get a sense of scale on the screen. If the two were parked together I wouldnt have a doubt which was which. But that doesnt always happen in doc films.

[@Dodgerambo100]

@@billd.iniowa2263 thats right. But even the undercarriage is way different. ;)

[@jayg1438]

@@billd.iniowa2263 I look for little clues like these so I can better identify things when watching archival footage too

[@Hoot_hoot777]

Thanks for the awesome vid. Love learning about these things. Looking to more awesome content.

[@scavstookmyfood]

You definitely have quite a lot of good videos on these topics!

[@slartybartfarst55]

Another excellent Video. Thank you!

[@frankgulla2335]

Good report. Interesting subject. Explains a lot.

[@user-jq8wr8ru2s]

Good video. Learned a lot. Thank you.

[@JimmyStiffFingers]

Great vid as always.

[@idle_betazoid1990]

Excellent video. I learned something today.

[@WOTArtyNoobs]

Thank you - very much enjoyed the video - especially to find out that I had been pronouncing the German words correctly!

[@candyland195]

Good video! Love your stuff, a niche topic that doesn't get a lot of attention.

[@cannonfodder4376]

A most informative video as always.

[@richardcharay7788]

Interesting and informative, thanks!

[@crystallineentity]

Fascinating video, thank you

[@psicologiaen5minutosconell764]

Great & excellent. Thanks for The video.

[@CritterCamSoCal]

nicely done !

[@mihaildudarov3425]

Very informative!

[@wotviewer]

very good summary, thank you

[@pjnealon3476]

excellent video. thanks

[@zao7035]

Because they ate all the horses in Stalingrad.

[@vladimpaler3498]

Thank you. It is very interesting to see the development of tactics and equipment as the war goes on. The switch from war of movement to war of attrition seems to have shifted some priorities. I wonder what the process was for specific needs to filter up the chain of command to Der Leader. Was there a formal system or did Hittie just pick up scuttlebutt here and there? In the US FDR would not have known self propelled armillary from a hole in the ground, but would have delegated that to someone below General Marshall. I never know when Der Fahrter is really up on something or if he just wants a vehicle with a large gun on it.

[@pbruh]

Hitler’s military related orders to things like production of certain weapons were based on the decisions of his general staff and military organizations. Due to Hitler being the head of state he was simply the one who decreed it, not exactly made the decision himself

[@valkelly8098]

Another great piece! It would be nice to touch on something that isn't much talked about - the more obscure german units in Poland 1939, the composition and strength of Corps HQs, 1st Cavalry brigade etc. Not sure if youve ever done such a thing. I'd find it interesting anyway!

[@christianm.9960]

Thank you for this good video. I wonder if not a great number of the lessons from the first years of WW2 could have already been learned by studying the problems of the artillery in WW1?

[@Ralphieboy]

My grandmother collects Hummel figurines.

[@dylanwhostones]

no fair!!! her HUMMELS built in 1930s....imagining German kid at Christmas ...but I wanted the panzer version , not some silly figurine.....whack in side of head by papa :-(

[@kahunab7400]

I suspect the 'self-propelled' part is far, far more important then the 'armored' part. I hazard a guess that most tank shells blow it up, and the armor is mostly against small arms.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

armor is mostly against other artillery, specifically from shrapnel. the most dangerous thing on the battlefield for any artillery is other artillery (counter battery fire). edit: and aircraft, but bombs and rockets are more or less the same thing as artillery (in terms of protection), aircraft cannons proved to be rather ineffective (due to being too easy of a target for AA). missiles and rotary cannons not being a consideration in ww2

[@Schwarzvogel1]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 Aircraft cannon was not very effective against *tanks*. Even innovations like the Ju-87G weren't the overwhelming tank killers that their designers had hoped, since hitting a small, moving target like a tank in the right spot from a diving aircraft is quite difficult except for a very skilled pilot. That said, aircraft cannon, bombs, and rockets were quite effective against softer targets like trucks, artillery prime movers, and even halftracks. There are accounts of entire German columns being destroyed in the late war by strafing attacks by British fighter-bombers. As for AA defense, well, that assumes that one can even hit the aircraft, much less shoot it down. Aircraft like the Il-2 Sturmovik were quite resistant to 20mm AAA. Bigger guns like the 8.8 cm FlaK 36 could down them, but they didn't have the rate of fire or traverse speed to reliably track and hit a small, fast target like an Il-2. And even if the Luftwaffe flak gunners managed to shoot down a few Il-2s, Yaks, P-47s, or Typhoons, the Allies had plenty more and some of the fighter-bombers would _always_ get through to inflict damage. The best defense against enemy aircraft during WWII was sufficient fighters in the area on CAP. WWII-era AA was nowhere as effective as the systems we have today.

[@MESOHIPPUS]

Nice job.

[@derekbowbrick6233]

Wish you were hier. Nice.

[@jamesvandemark2086]

very interesting! I served with the US Army with SP Arty..... 8", Lance missiles, 155, and 175mm .......

[@gregwarner3753]

Survive the counter battery fire longer than your opponent. Direct hits are rare but shrapnel can devastate unarmored artillery. A centimeter stops most shrapnel.

[@Thirdbase9]

Can recommend any books covering the TO&E of major German WWII formations?

[@ew3612]

I would pay a lot of money to be able to visit Munster and touch those pieces of history. It is my dream vacation for anywhere in the world.

[@fetusofetuso2122]

because sheets of metal stop shrapnel and bullets. And especially when you're attacking fortresses, bullets and shrapnel tend to be plentiful.

[@celynxenergysolutionsgmbh5210]

For the indirect fire, where was the spotter located?

[@robertkaslow3720]

WHAT Horse drawn artillery doesn't keep up with tank!?! WTF???😳😳😳🤯🤯🤯

[@MikaelKKarlsson]

On the other hand, horse is easier to digest.

[@neku9837]

@@MikaelKKarlsson Comrade horse so commited to the war effort it fullfils two roles!

[@colonel_yuri]

@@MikaelKKarlsson good point

[@maximilianodelrio]

You cant eat a tank in winter

[@megas_pastrma8599]

@@maximilianodelrio i wouldnt be sure about that🥴

[@thecanadiankiwibirb4512]

Do you know if any Panzergrenadier divisions received self propelled artillery? I know most didn’t, but flames of war has an article stating that 90.Panzergrenadier and 15.Panzergrenadier were equipped with 1 companie Wespe. This may be because of their origins as “Light” divisions in North Africa. Do you have anything to back this up?

[@laminarflow6072]

I play a game called Blitzkrieg, it's one of my favorite RTS games for PC. I very much appreciate the Hummel and the Wespe. There's nothing like being able to provide artillery fire for unit to a location and then relocate only to have the counter-battery fire utterly miss my artillery that was once there. Before that I use to not understand the point to mobile artillery.

[@imjusttoodissgusted5620]

I have a question for you, what was the effect on moral. of faulty slave labor produced ammunition.

[@felipenunes5240]

wow, I can see graphics and figures in 4k, amazing!!!

[@rhythmmandal3377]

i saw the Hummel in game called coh1 .

[@ewok40k]

main reason: counterbattery fire, happens...

[@siegfried2k4]

Another reason is it’s easier to drive a SPG through muddy terrain than lugging a heavy howitzer with its 30 shells

[@ShanGamer1981]

Needed more of them on eastern front than anywhere

[@thebigone6071]

You’re the greatest military historian in world history Bernhard!!!! The best ever!!!

[@lexington476]

So what is the difference between the two artillery elements of the division?

[@hamleop]

4:42 battlesituation/ grenades exploding: "Heinz!? Wo ist denn unser 15 Zentimeter schweres Infanteriegeschütz dreiunddreißig Selbstfahrlafette auf Panzerkampfwagen eins?!!??" meanwhile war is over Welcome to germany

[@staliniumprojectile]

Cringe

[@spellcaster39ify]

One interesting detail is the the muzzle brake on the Wespe, whereas the Hummel does not have one. Without that muzzle brake, the Wespe would disintegrate with repeated firing. It would also be interesting to point out whether the armor protection was sufficient for different calibres and to AP small arms rounds like the S.m.K.H. - Spitzgeschoß mit Hartkern, how AT rifle rounds performed against it, .50 cal bullets, 20mm cannon, etc. It would be interesting to know how the Forward Observers traveled with the tanks, how command and control was exercised and how ammunition was stored, reupplied, etc.

[@czwarty7878]

He answered some of these things but yeah they're stated "in the background" and not straight away. The armour could only withstand hardened core rifle caliber bullets from range (SmKH could penetrate the Hummel's 10mm side plate from close range), but wouldn't protect from .50cal or higher. Ammo storage and resupply was done via ammunition carrier - Wespe and Hummel had ammo carrier variant that was basically just the hull and there was always at least one per vehicle to accompany it, and also it could take the gun if the primary carrier vehicle was damaged. About forward observers and C&C it was probably all the same as they already had sufficient mobility with cars.

[@tophatcat6424]

I don't need thick armor, all I need is the 15 cm sIG 33 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II

[@dylanwhostones]

150mm infantry gun might have made more sense than 105mm howitzer, in spite of fact its only 1/2 the range.

[@svejobaron]

Man I planned to visit the tank museum in Munster for so long but I still wasn't there...

[@jacob9798]

You need some artillery support fast, so what's faster than artillery on a vehicle, and it's armoured so most places are easy to get to

[@user-sr5ov2tx5y]

So idea of self propelled artillery is good and nice till the moment when you start understanding that ich of units need to have additional support and supply units as well units for repair. All this units must have fuel, lub.oil, spear parts supplies as well it ask longer time for personel training. This questions should be sort out before war. During the war, as we know better to have cheap and simple solutions but with mass production ability.

[@sheeplord4976]

I mean, there are various reasons including shrapnel, protection from strafing, and basic armor incase infantry start to over-run your position.

[@jeremy8715]

I wonder how the panther chassis would work / fit in as a SPA?

[@jeremy28135]

Cant blame em for wanting to live that StuG Life

[@peterdiaz3796]

That one bounced

[@alisilcox6036]

So we can make a tank destroyer variant?

[@thif4722]

Ooh, my favourite army section. Mobile and armored artillery is just so cool!

[@karlmuller3690]

thif 47 - If Artillery/SPG are your deal, then there's a channel I know of that vertually dedicated to them, he goes by the name of .... "Matsimus", he's an ex-pat Brit, was in the British Armed forces, and is now currently in the Canadian Army Reserves, as as gunner. Has a fantastic channel, devoted to all BIG things that go "BOOM".

[@thif4722]

@@karlmuller3690 Checked out some of his videos. Great recommendation. Thanks!

[@desert_jin6281]

- Do you want tanks or artillery ? - Yes. Nice, will have to rewatch to grasp it all though :D

[@StupidRobotFightingLeague]

Your German pronunciation is very good. . . . . . . . :)

[@mandrakevermilyea7488]

The sturmpanzer 2 is one of my favorite early game tanks in WOT it has good gun handling in indrict fire and when using in direct fire the 150mm gun is devastating against light armour, 40mm plates and less direct hits often offering massive damage.

[@jamescurth701]

Does that help you take away enemy HP, like how it works in real life.

[@mandrakevermilyea7488]

@@jamescurth701 HP= hell points, when depleted send your enemy straight to hell!

[@classifiedad1]

I like the M41 and M44 as my mid-tier artillery. Reasonably precise and hard-hitting, and mobile too. And of course it works reasonably well when you need to shotgun a rushing light tank.

[@siegfried2k4]

War thunder and world of tanks players can agree on one thing then. This tank is goooood

[@mandrakevermilyea7488]

@@classifiedad1 the m40/43 is my main artillery now for campaigns. The m44 got me the stuG4 and the m12 got me the t28!

[@Paveway-chan]

I’m curious though, MHV. Where in the organisation of german panzer division artillery do half-tracks with mortars come in? Were they an even later-war idea, or did they just have entirely different roots than the panzerhaubitze?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Mortars are infantry weapons and as such in the Panzergrenadier / Motorized Infantry Regiment. Check this video, where you can see at which level (although in an infantry division, but I think it is the same for motorized infantry) the mortar already shows up: at 7:22 it starts the relevant part: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYeqlYKslN2Nabs

[@Paveway-chan]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Ahhh, I see. Thank you!

[@seanmalloy7249]

And the 15 cm sIG 33 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II (Sf) was a similar stopgap solution to the 15 cm sIG 33 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen I ausf B (Sf), and deemed even more unsuitable, since only a dozen of them were made?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

as mentioned those are not really artillery, they are more close-support weapons.

[@jgranger3532]

The only vehicle that came close to achieving the German specs was the US M 7 chassis it didn't have a turret or dis- mountable gun, but It's ammo carriers could carry the howitzer.

[@Hamchunk1968]

"Wish you were hier" and "1 for the Noobs". Wonderful! 😆😆

[@moonshinerman]

I was waiting for when you would mention the "Marder" artiilery.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Marder was a tank destroyer: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gqq5qnl9gb1kirs

[@ninaakari5181]

Germany also had on late war pure artillery divisions, I wonder if anyone knows how much those had self propelled artillery? I know they had hummels (among other artillery pieces) but did those have more than 6 Hummels/Division?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, I have to look at it in detail, I came across it occasionally, but never it is usually mentioned on the side. I might have seen its organization chart in the archives or a copy of it in a book though, although not entirely sure here, since I looked at a lot of those charts on my last trip in the archives.

[@godweenausten]

If I'm not mistaken, artillery divisions were temporary organizations in German Army, as they usually combined all Corps and Army artillery under one command (the Army artillery general) for a specific task, so that it can be concentrated and centrally controlled. Most Corps already had their own organic artillery regiments, combined into brigades (ArKo - Artillerie Kommando), and this ArKo would then be subordinated to Army-level Artillery Divisions (HArKo - Hoheres Artillerie Kommando). This was the case with German XII Armeekorps, tasked for the siege of Brest fortress, which was subordinated to Guderian's 2nd Panzergruppe in Operation Barbarossa. EDIT: This HArKo included 150mm and 210mm towed howitzers, a towed rocket artillery regiment, and the Karl-Gerät 600mm heavy mortar.

[@tag180rotax]

Thankful for CC lol

[@antiochusiiithegreat7721]

Because you dont need to set them up and take them down. Didn't the panzergrenadiers have self propelled infantry guns attached to the regiment as well?

[@ALMdawgfan]

Development reasons as simple as the beginning of defenses in depth appearing.... Arty always proceeds assaults with the intent of breaking up concentrations of enemy firepower. The increasing depth of defenses prevented proper concentration of the original barrages to achieve the desired effects. In WWI the heavy use of Artillery severely limited attacks in any given area and, compounded by the regular introduction of automatic weapons, reduced the war to a static nature. Later the creeping artillery barrage was among the most crucial artillery developments of that war because it allowed the attackers to arrive before defenses, including their artillery, could recover... The mobility developed during the interwar years had largely avoiding artillery entanglements altogether as one of it's goals. The massed and localized breakouts allowed enemies only short opportunities to respond with concentrated artillery fire. As defenses began to be built in depth it was becoming possible for the defenses to have time to redirect and concentrate available artillery on the area of the narrow front of attack without suppression. The logical "Next step" was to scale up the ability to extend the ability to "Creep" the barrage along the axis of the attack. Enter the Armored Artillery....

[@noepictalesmember1865]

Deine Videos sind so umfangreich und informativ, dass ich mir manchmal wünsche, du würdest sie auch auf Deutsch rausbringen. Dann könnte ich besser folgen. Und dein deutscher Akzent wäre nicht mehr so prominent. 😉

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

danke, leider nicht wirklich möglich, ganze Erklärung hier auf dem Zweitkanal: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmTTZZeLe6eSrLc

[@OldMusicFan83]

155 SPs are really LOUD when they fire!

[@heiakimsunofficialson2639]

And that kids is why I put tank artillery in my tank division in hoi4

[@clapper3530]

meanwhile the soviets developed the SU-152 and ISU-152, which were Self-Propelled-Artillery, Assault-Guns and in many cases also Tankdestroyers. With both direct and indirect fire capabilities. They had the firing range of a heavy SPG like Hummel and decent armor like Stug III G to push with the armored forces and serve in the role of a Sturmpanzer or Jagdpanzer. With either High Explosive rounds, Armor Piercing and concrete breaking rounds. A small silouhette for ambushes and acceptable mobility. Also the tank is closed and protected against plane attacks. The only thing missing is the traversable turret :D

[@karlmuller3690]

Clapper - Wasn't the whole ISU-152 and SU-152, inspired by the Stugs? More or less?

[@clapper3530]

@@karlmuller3690 I dont know thats a good question

[@karlmuller3690]

@@clapper3530 - I meant Stugs, of course!! There, all fixed, see?

[@nattygsbord]

*"Wasn't the whole ISU-152 and SU-152, inspired by the Stugs?"* The reason why SU-152, SU100 and SU85 entered service was because they carried the only guns that could effectively fight Tiger tanks. All those tanks were late war designs, so of course could the Russians then use the many things they had learned from tank production such as sloped armor. And a tank without a turret meant a cheap vehicle that could carry a bigger gun. So Russia could thereby quickly get some new vehicles into service that could kill Tigers when all allied tanks were too weak to do that job. New Russian tanks were under development, but it would take many months before those tanks that could kill Tigers would enter service, such as the IS-2 and T-34/85. Russia could not afford to wait so long. They needed something here and now to deal with the Tiger threat. So they built those cheap Tank destroyers with big guns, and used them until the new generation of medium tanks and heavy tanks could take over. You could say that history repeated itself. Germany was in the same situation in late 1941, when all German tanks had no chance against KV-1 and T34 tanks. Germany was saved in 1941 because the enemy thankfully had too few of those "super tanks" to make any difference. But Germany rightfully feared that 1942 would be a horrible year, if Russia would start to produce those tanks in large numbers and get better crews and tactics when they used them. So a fast solution was needed. PzIVH and Tiger 1 was tanks that needed months of further development before they could go into service with the German army. So Germany needed something instantly that could kill Russian monsters. And the solution was to remove the turret from crappy weak tanks. That saved weight. And now you could mount a heavy gun instead. So you got a powerful tank killer with a big gun that was fast and cheap to build. But the problem was that they lacked both armor and a turret. Those vehicle needed to remain hidden for their survival. So their use in offensive warfare was a bit limited. Never the less would I say that Nashorn was probably one of the most successful tanks that Germany built. Stug was a stealthy vehicle with a gun of the size of light artillery. And its armor protection was moderate. ISU-152 was meant for two jobs - killing Tiger tanks and turning office buildings into rubble. And its armor was thick enough that it could do close combat fighting with enemy tanks and did not have to stay hidden like stug. Stug was a long range sniper tank. Only the Panther had better optics among all German tanks. While SU152 with its short fat gun had terrible precision of its gun at longer ranges. The slow speed of its shots and the high air resistance meant that winds easily could pull the projectile a bit of course and make it miss its target. *"serve in the role of a Sturmpanzer or Jagdpanzer."* I guess that is a fair description. *"With both direct and indirect fire capabilities"* I do not think they were good as SPGs. Their precision was bad and their reload time was awfully slow. But they were excellent at doing other things - like killing Tigers and blow up buildings in Berlin that was 4 floors tall with just a single shot. Their effect on fighting morale on both sides must also have been large. Even some King Tigers backed up by elite paratroopers would probably pissing their pants if they saw a few of these beasts turning up.

[@clapper3530]

@@nattygsbord I agree with you in every single term, but high air resistance is wrong. As an engineer I can say you the following: The higher the mass of a projectile, the less its losing speed over distance and the less it can be effected by wind due to its high inertia.

[@arsenal-slr9552]

Answer: Why Not?

[@Aninkovsky]

Why your outdoor audio is better than studio (presentation) audio?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

what exactly is the difference that you hear?

[@Aninkovsky]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized the outdoor audio seems more natural and better. While the presentation audio seems little bit off (like there is more treble than bass). Don't get me wrong, it's still awesome video...

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

fun fact, my impression is the same, as such I recorded one podcast with the audio I usually use on visits, it was worse than usual, I think it might actually be related to me sitting.

[@Aninkovsky]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized wow, that's interesting. Maybe not the way you sit. Rather your room situation. For example, it creates echo and make your audio detect it's noise, or something like that. It's make your audio less clear than in outdoor situation. I'm not expert with this by the way. So maybe my opinion is completely wrong :D

[@nattygsbord]

I don't hear much difference in my crappy headphones. Both I know that the acoustics in most music studios suck because they use too much damping materials on the walls that adsorbs all high frequency sounds so the recording you make sounds like it has been done inside a wardrobe. Another common error is if you have too many hard surfaces - that will make sounds bouncing back towards you. And when your sound and the eco waves hits the microphone at the same time, then it becomes difficult to hear what people say. The position of the microphone also matters. If you have positioned it far back in the rear in a church, then you will hear much eco, but very little of what the guy on the scene actually says. But if you move your microphone forward, then you will hear less eco that phase out all sound waves, so you will therefore hear the man speaking more clearly.

[@Mr_Bunk]

9:30 Wait a minute, does that real-life PZHB 2000 have insignia with _decal silvering_ on it?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

what?

[@KentuckyFriedChildren]

what?

[@lakechargoggagoggmanchaugg3496]

what?

[@edwardblair4096]

Is he worried that the white outlines on the cross and J symbols are too visible? Does "silvering" mean he thinks they are reflective? Are they?

[@jonathanmoeg1202]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized It's a scale modeling reference. You can see the rectangular background on the letter 'J'. This is considered a flaw on a scale model, should be invisible yet the real-life vehicle has it.

[@cowgoesmoo3850]

Wow, imagine the things that StuG had seen.

[@ShimmeringLeaf]

I think this was a very interesting idea but it didn't answer the critical question, was armored, self-propelled artillery worth the additional cost? How effective was it vs. the alternatives? For example, how many Feldhaubitze 18/1 could be made for the same resources as one Feldhaubitze 18/1 mounted on a Panzer III? That weapon should be a lot more effective to justify the cost.

[@dylanwhostones]

105mm howitzer was 16,000 RM , while the semi tractor was 15,000 RM ...OVER 30,000 RM... panzer II was 52000.with gun and optics , and 49,000 with out. No clue about WESPE but it should be MUCH less than 65,000 RM.

[@Demonkah]

"Why an odd number? '1 for the noobs' 😏"

[@philipryan25]

👍👌