Sturmpanzer IV - "Brummbär"

Play War Thunder for free and get a nice bonus pack with vehicles, premium time and more: playwt.link/militaryhistoryvi...
The Sturmpanzer IV also called wrongly "Brummbär" is a heavily armored assault gun with a large 150 mm that was requested by Hitler for urban combat, its predecessor vehicle was directly sent to Stalingrad.
DISCLAIMER: This video is sponsored by the free-to-play game War Thunder.
DISCLOSURE: I was invited by the Deutsche Panzermuseum in 2018, 2019, 2020 & 2023.
/ daspanzermuseum
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» 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 ««
Doyle, Hilary Louis; Friedli, Lukas; Jentz, Thomas L.: Panzer Tracts No.8-1: Sturmpanzer - Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33, Sturmpanzer and Munitionspanzer development and production from 1942 to 1945. Panzer Tracts: Boyds, Maryland, USA, 2014.
Jentz, Thomas L./Doyle, H.L.: Panzer Tracts No.8: Sturmgeschuetz - s. Pak to Sturmmoerser. Darlington Productions: Darlington, Maryland, USA, 2000.
Töppel, Roman: Kursk 1943: The Greatest Battle of the Second World War. Helion & Company: Warwick, UK, 2018.
Hogg, Ian V.: German Artillery of World War Two. Paperback edition, Frontline Books: London, UK, 1975.
Datenblätter für Heeres-Waffen, -Fahrzeuge und -Gerät. Pawlas: Nürnberg, Germany, 1976.
Various stuff from the German Military Archives.
#sponsored #sturmpanzer #stalingrad
00:00 Intro
00:18 Schwere Infanteriegeschütz 33 on Panzer I B [VISUALIZED]
00:49 15 cm sIG 33 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II (Sf)
01:18 Sturminfanteriegeschütz 33
02:05 War Thunder
03:26 Development
04:43 Firepower
07:32 Armor
08:26 Mobility
10:12 Variants
12:45 Operational History
15:02 Naming
17:08 Production
18:42 Summary
19:09 War Thunder

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Play War Thunder for free and get a nice bonus pack with vehicles, premium time and more: playwt.link/militaryhistoryvisualized

[@werechaghin]

Danke für den Warthunder Bonus.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

I scratch built an HO scale model of this critter in 1970, complete with schurtzen. It is one of the few possessions from that age that i still have.

[@TheArklyte]

Pardon for asking, but 1)with what; 2)where would you even get an info on it? Okay, I know that I make it sound like I treat 1970's as neolithic era, but what I mean specifically what have you used as base for casemate as obviously such vehicle wasn't known back then and how did you check if it wasn't something made up? To this day I have a lot of weird myths printed out in various tank and artillery related books and they're form 1997-2004 era.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

@TheArklyte Honestly I wish I could remember the details better. The chassis was a commercial model of a.panzer IV (which I have another in the Ausf E version). I made the casemate out of stock polystyrene cut to proper form. It even has accurate zimmeritt and shovel and ammo box I built despite its tiny size (about 4 in or 90mm long). I obviously had some accrate photos....my friend and I obsessively collected books, magazines and booklets on wwll vehicles and battles, and I made large dioramas with various German and Soviet tanks with other relative obscurity at the time like another scratch built Nashorn, KV2s, etc all duking it out in a Village with flour used as snow, trees made with moss, huts and buildings etc etc. I think I had about 70 vehicles in this scale and hundreds of soldiers all painted in detail. And then there was the aircraft collection...=: - 0 Needless to say the current day extent of youtube historical content is a vast treasure trove to this old history nut 🤪

[@andrewdolokhov5408]

@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 I remember the 1970s---if you went into a bookstore then, it would have a huge WWII section. In the library, likewise. There were Ballantine books about WWII, and many books with excellent drawings by one John Bachelor. I remember a book by one F.M. von Sengar und Etterlin about WWII German tanks. WW II was always well covered by media. Let's not forget the B.H. Liddell Hart series History of the Seoncd World War. It was weekly, and had many illustrations. I think that the problem of a "completely made up vehicle" would not have been great.

[@UncleJoeLITE]

Cool!

[@jimb.942]

I assembled a brumbar also. I was proud of the camouflage scheme. I hope I stumble across it at my folks house.

[@Axonteer]

Shows you how easy one underestimates the weight of small things, in games or movies we see soldiers yoink open hatches at leassure with like one arm but in reality those things required deliberate push or pull due to their weight

[@rolandhunter]

Fun fact: Sturmpanzer had 470 L of fuel, the IS-2 had 820 Liter, and the Tiger B had 860 liter. ;)

[@djscottdog1]

The reasons for differences is probably factorys under pressure to get wepons out the door , production team: " we dont have that part ready for the hatch" reply from management "just use what you have got"

[@treyhelms5282]

"Hans, do you see that building?" "Yes, Commander." "I don't want to see it anymore." "Yes Commander!"

[@jczeus]

There were four different versions of this vehicle: Ausf I to IV, the museum vehicle shown here is a Ausf IV. The Ausf I and II had the the Tiger (P) vision slit, which was was replaced by the boxy structure with periscope in Ausf III, and finally the Ausf IV had the completely different superstructure. I have Panzer Tracts 8-1 mentioned here, but also Nuts & Bolts 46, and the latter contains some pretty damning after action reports. There were complaints about barrel bursts, for example. And the front bogies were overstressed in the Ausf I to III, therefore the Ausf IV was designed to save weight and put the center of gravity further back. The issue with the shredded rubber tyres was only partially addressed by the steel-rimmed road wheels, because these caused the track pins to break more frequently. It's also mentioned that some units saw it as a form of punishment to be issued these vehicles! One could argue that a weapon system, designed primarily for offensive operations in urban areas, is of little use in defensive operations in open terrain.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

> the museum vehicle shown here is a Ausf IV as mentioned, the Ausführung should have a commander's copula, this one does not have one, all other features seem to be inline with the blueprints for the Ausf IV in Panzer Tracts 8-1, but this part is not. Thanks for the info about Nuts & Bolts!

[@SaperPl1]

Oh, my favourite one in WT. Sadly the version without the slanted corners is not in the game (yet, it was suggested though as well as the 33B) which makes angling it not that useful.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Luckily, the variant is in the museum :)

[@SaperPl1]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized If gaijin is actually going to make it into the game, then it'd be useful again :D. The recent forum makeover though made all of older suggestion submissions obsolete so, who knows maybe someone should suggest these missing magnificent beasts again?

[@obsidianjane4413]

@@SaperPl1 It'd be a PTW premiu... oh wait. It already is.

[@doggo3354]

Also the one without the slanted corners has a mg which would be nice when a spg comes at you during your extremely long reload (about a third of a minute)

[@ChrisS-fh7zt]

this Sturmpanzer was actually at the French armor museum at Saumur then was refurbished and given to the Panzermuseum at Munster. There is only 4 left where France, Germany, Russia and finally the USA have them the rest sadly was either destroyed or scrapped after the war, hence why they are so rare.

[@mikebrase5161]

Aberdeen proving ground scrapped one in the '50's during the Korean War.

[@THX11458]

It should be noted that, although the 15cm sIG.33 auf (Sf) Pzkpfw-II prototype was built on a standard Pzkpfw-II chassis, the 12 Versuchs (trial) vehicles that actually saw combat action shared little in common with the Pzkpwf-II other than the suspension parts, steering unit and final drive. The vehicle had a completely different chassis which was longer and wider than any of the Pzkfpw-II series and, as well, had a entirely new engine (an 8 cylinder Buessing NAG vs the standard Pzkpfw-II 6 cylinder Maybach HL62TR) and transmission. PS - BTW - The German's war time nickname for the Sturmpanzer IV was "Stupa" a contraction of Stu-(rm) pa-(nzer).

[@davidk6269]

I became fascinated with the Brummbar as a teenager when I played Avalon Hill's classic "Advanced Squad Leader". Is this vehicle the only German AFV with a hull mounted MG on the left hand side of the vehicle?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Yes, this is the late variant with the MG.

[@davidk6269]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thank you for your reply. Actually, I was asking whether any other German AFV had a hull mounted MG on the LEFT hand side of the hull (as opposed to having a hull mounted MG on the right hand side of the hull)?

[@obsidianjane4413]

@@davidk6269 Germany generally put the driver on the left, which meant the hull MG had to go on the right. On this mod, its high up on the superstructure. I guess because the right side was stacked with ammo. The Panzer IV/70 was supposed to have two hull MGs one on each side, but the one on the left was deleted on production. That's the only one I can think of.

[@davidk6269]

@@obsidianjane4413 Thanks. What you have written is what I thought was the situation. The very early Jagdpanzer IV/48 always fascinated me with the two conical MG hatches--one to each side of the front hull. I am very curious about the crew layout in the Brummbar. The Brummbar had a total credit of 5 with two loaders. Did the gunner or one of the loaders man the hull MG on the left side above the driver (the gunner normally would not man the hull MG in other AFVs)? The commander was also on the left side, presumably behind the loader. Did that put both loaders to the right of the cannon?

[@obsidianjane4413]

@@davidk6269 IDK. Its possible the driver stood up and manned the MG or whomever happened to be handy. This was not the kind of vehicle that did "fire and manuver".

Very nice Video. It is interesting how many interesting things to talk abou there are on every single Tank in that museum. And it was nice to see the interior.

[@Karelwolfpup]

heheh, ah the (not) Brummbar, my favourite SPG in Panzer Corps, these and StuH42s formed the core of my mobile artillery. If only we'd gotten more interviews with actual vehicle crews back in the 60s-80s when most of them were still around.

[@s1nb4d59]

Nice video,just a point,i play warthunder and in here i honestly didnt expect to see game graphics portrayed instead of historical pictures or film footage.

[@causewaykayak]

Lots of these quality history channels get support from gamers. I'm not at all into games but I think we have to accept that an awful lot of people simply love them. I with you on this - but I think we have to be tolerant and appreciate the effort this particular channel puts into the series. Its very professional ❤

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

Artillery/support usually don't have great footage.Propaganda departments prefer to hype up the heavies.

[@s1nb4d59]

@@causewaykayak I wouldnt say an awful lot of people,it just seems to be slipping in more advertising for warthunder tbh and theres just so much material,footage out there that i find more interesting to watch than game graphics.

[@causewaykayak]

@@s1nb4d59 👍🏼

[@proCaylak]

I see what you did there with the disclosures. keep doing such things from time to time :D

[@michaelbevan3285]

there is at least one crewman account out there that I have read; the guy was a loader on these and the shells were so heavy to load that they agreed a policy of lowering the barrel after every five rounds to give the guy a break from having to heft a shell into an elevated breech. Also, crews would bring on board an extra loader to ease the workload.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

There’s a very good reason why crew-loaded tank guns are usually limited to the 4”-5” range. The shells get impractically when you start approaching 6”.

[@thomasadler4277]

Would be interesting to know if the slow speed was considered as an issue or if this is just a postwar "looks bad on paper" opinion.

[@nattygsbord]

I believed in my ignorance that its speed did not matter as it was just a street fighting machine travling by rail where it is needed, and then just move the last part by tracks and slowly and methodically clean city block after city block of enemy resistence. My only complaint would rather be that I think its frontal armor is quite unimpressive. 3cm at the lower front is not much. And Neither is the 4cm angled part of the tank, and even with some angling its still unimpressive. Sherman have 2 cm thicker armor that is angled as well, and that tank is not even designed to be a slow moving bunker and a shell magnet in close combat. This machine is however. And if someone fires an anti-tank gun at point blank range I believe chances are good that it will get through the armor. And a guy with a bazooka from a roof top could probably also get through that thin angled armor.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Prolly not as this is not an exploitation vehicle. It's meant to assault at an infantry pace.

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you Bernhard and Andy for another superb video. By the way, ‘unofficially’, as opposed to ‘inofficially’, is correct English usage. Have a good New Year. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.

[@ThommyofThenn]

I realise this is different than our beloved Brümmbäär but can we just appreciate the design of this vehicle? It has such a stubby, chunky look yet it still has some gorgeous steep armour

[@svendragon8139]

Took the words right from me

[@raxit1337]

Nothing like an in-person look at something like this.

[@Sniper5875]

i really hope we get the late war version in war thunder. ive always loved the look of the late war one

[@ew3612]

I am surprised at how long it took for this video to pop up in my feed. Thanks again Bernhard for the excellent content!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@SillyPillow]

That added bit about the sponsorship stating that it's also for anyone who hasn't played in six months or more... I feel it pulling me in, but I must resist.

[@13thravenpurple94]

Excellent video 👍 Thank you 💜

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

Do you know anything more specific about the Rauchwagen R.W. Krupp? I have seen some mention (in russian source) that it was armed with an 10,5 cm L/16 gun. However the only gun of that length was the pre ww1 LeFH 98/09 which is sometimes noted as L/12 or L/16. This gun however used slightly different ammo and had no smoke shells, unlike the LeFH 16 L/22 which it replaced and was used even in WW2. Could it be that they mistook the year 16 with the barrle length? It was also noted that the 10,5 cm gun would have increased AT performance, however the 98/09 L/16 didnt have any AT rounds nor the velocity to even use one, unlike the LeFH 18 L/22 with having the Pzgr. At 405m/s, Pzgr. Rot at 390m/s and the Gr.39 Hl/B at 420m/s.

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

Guten morgen. Schön das du uns wieder mit 1a Videos versorgst, die haben doch sehr gefehlt. Hoffe dir geht es wieder gut und wir sehen dich wieder öfter. Nur so am Rande, kannst du mal was zu den unterschiedlichen Aufklärungsfahrzeugen und Taktiken des 2 Weltkrieges machen. Ich hab Hans von Luck gerade gelesen, und nicht nur sind da viele Fehler drin (so redet er mehrmals von 20mm Mgs in Stukas und He111 wo eigentlich normale Bordwaffen sein sollten?) sondern auch einige Interessante Aussagen. So schreibt er das die englischen 15mm Besa der Aufklärungsfahrzeuge den deutschen 20mm Geschützen überlegen gewesen seien. Deshalb hätten die Aufklärer so ne Art "Indianer-Planwagen" Taktik angewendet, also die britischen Kräfte versucht gezielt aus mehreren Richtungen zu beschiessen. Das war mir alles neu. Aber zugegeben ist das Buch nicht sehr gut geschrieben, zeitweise bezweifelt man das der Herr dabei war oder er hatte permanent ne Rosa Sonnenbrille auf... Aber wie dem auch sei, danke für deine erstklassige Arbeit! Bleib gesund!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Danke, bin leider noch am auskurieren :( Also es gab sowohl Ju 87 als auch He 111 die mit 20mm MK ausgestattet waren, zB Ju 87 D-5, dabei ist auch War Thunder ziemlich hilfreich, da sehr viele Varianten von den Flugzeugen vorhanden sind. Ich war selbst überrascht wieviele Modelle eine 20mm MK eingebaut hatten bzw. eingebaut haben konnten. Aufklärer kommt vielleicht mal was, aber wird wohl etwas dauern. Zum 15mm vs 20mm kann sehr stark vom Kontext etc. abhängen.

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Sorry, falsch ausgedrückt. Er schreibt das bei der Stuka an der Position des Bordschützen ein 20mm MG verbaut war (er wurde laut seinen Memoiren mit einer Stuka zu seiner Einheit geflogen). Gleiches später als er mit einer He111 von Afrika nach Sizilien gebracht wird, da soll er die Position am Bug MG übernehmen, wieder spricht er von einem 20mm MG. Ich schaue nachher nochmal nach und sag dir die Seiten, aber ich hab schon mehrmals bei dem Buch die Augenbrauen hochgezogen. Entweder war bei dem Buch ein Ghostwriter beteiligt der keine Ahnung hatte oder der Herr hat so einiges Durcheinander gewürfelt. Na dann wünsche ich dir auf jeden Fall schnelle Genesung!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Das ist eine Frage für Military Aviation History bzw. Militär Technik Geschichte, am besten via twitter: twitter.com/MilAvHistory twitter.com/jagdfliegen

[@sapperjaeger]

Great episode!

[@madaprak]

Great video thanks

[@strongback6550]

The Sturmpanzer reminds me a lot of the shape of Panzer 1

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

Would actually be more interesting to contrast it with the early-war Soviet KV-2 with the 152mm.

[@Rendell001]

Yes, I was wondering how the respective guns would compare with one another.

[@czwarty7878]

​@@Rendell001 Soviet M-10T of KV-2 had higher velocity, but with less HE filler (~5.5kg vs ~8.6kg for German 15cm). It could in theory fare better for hitting pre-selected point targets on longer range, but with less destructive effect and worse performance with indirect fire, where German howitzer would excel, able to lob shells over walls and objects even at closer distances. Other than that there's basically no contest, Sturmpanzer IV was an actually well thought-out and balanced vehicle with proper platform. KV-2 had massive problems, it could damage itself if a shot was taken with turret turned anywhere but straight-on (which defeats purpose of having the turret in the first place); it was simply not strong enough to house a weapon of this size. An obvious lesson taken from it was the emergence of SU-152, also a vehicle on KV chassis, closer as a functional platform to what the Sturmpanzer IV was.

[@Rendell001]

@@czwarty7878 thank you for that excellent reply! Yes, the ISU 152 is an absolute beast by comparison and apparently they kept upgrading it even after the war.

[@MGB-learning]

Great video!

[@bebo4807]

We had one of these in high school. We would drive it around on weekends and the cops didn’t know what to do. Sold it for scrap in 1983.

[@agoodpfplayer232]

i kinda hate bovington cuz its just so obnoxious about all the war gaming adds, and i feel like the use of a more realistic game and deep dive videos like this is much funner and more interesting, keep up the good work, i love this format

[@Karelwolfpup]

given that Gaijin and Wargaming kinda put a lot of money into the Tank Museum, only to be expected the Tank museum will ask for some favourable light shown on a major sponsor.

[@jackobrien47]

Next week maybe they could have Raid Shadow Legends lol

[@cheesenoodles8316]

I like tanks, War Thunder and this video.

[@501Mobius]

What was the armor of that driver housing? I remember reading in a book on Kursk an Sturmpanzer IV took a hit to the drivers area and was knocked out. But, that was an early one with a PZIV driver's visor.

[@Oscuros]

Interesting shade of rotbrun. More of a scheissbrun shade. 12:45 I think it was an incomplete example. The Germans were really good at putting commander's cupolas on foreign vehicles, so the only reason I can see for that would be with not having any around would be that the war had already ended. Still a nice example though. The simplifications in construction look consistent with that v Speer mandated regarding manufacture later on in the war.

[@nattygsbord]

But if this tank was so succesful, then why did no one latch on onto the concept after this war?

[@jackobrien47]

Maybe the prevalence of hand held AT made them give up on the idea of urban tanks for bunker busting. Same as the Sturmtiger.

[@czwarty7878]

What a weird question lol. There are hundreds of successful WWII concepts you could say the same thing about. Times and technology changed year by year

[@nattygsbord]

@@czwarty7878 Well they said the Swedish S-tank was a bad tank because the concept was never copied. So if that is their own criteria about what is a good tank then they must say this tank was junk as well.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Peacetime and large number of surplus gear will satiate the need for new dedicated systems. Main battle tanks can fill the need for infantry support when there's no war time attrition forcing you to save costs. Casemate assault guns and tank destroyers are products of heavy attrition and the need to reuse obsolete chassis.

[@MGB-learning]

Great video

[@stirrednotshaken3111]

excellent thank you :)

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

With 200mm/30° penetration the Heat grenade certainly could penetrate pretty much any target. (Source: Intended German Tank and A .TK . Gun developent Summary No. 186 02.09.1945 Appendix C to War Office Technical Intelligence)

[@obsidianjane4413]

The HEAT was for penetrating concrete bunkers. It wasn't intended to fight tanks.

[@kimjanek646]

@@obsidianjane4413Who would use HEAT against a bunker? 🫠

[@obsidianjane4413]

@@kimjanek646 What do you think shaped charges were first developed for?

[@lebien4554]

@@kimjanek646That's how HEAT is often used. Simple HE won't do much against steel reinforced concrete, but they can be penetrated by HEAT.

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

Its a dedicated AT round. They say that even in the Ammo manuals. (...) the ammo is a primary development against enemy armor, however duo the construction can be used against enemy infantry if needed.

[@hmsverdun]

Thank you for your hard work and have the Panzer Museum in Munster offered you a bed to stay the night there yet or do they just wave you in at the gate each morning 🤣? (On a serious note its now become one of my places to visit in Germany list so you are doing something right with them!)

I think he lives in the back of the Sdkfz 251 they have :)

[@bradleyl3]

It would be interesting to know if there are comparisons with the StuH 40. Was the bigger gun worth it compared to the StuH’s lower profile and standard body?

[@kreb7]

What is the ground pressure?

[@Zelectrocutica]

MHV: I play TW quite a bit myself. Over 1,700HR's is indeed quite understatement. I generally like any goofy or derpy vehicle....

[@DONALDSON51]

What a coincidence. Just saw the first museum picture author address. I also live about 5 minutes from Stilton :)

[@KManXPressTheU]

Actually, The Brummbar was made for Street Fighting, Lessons Learned from Stalingrad.

[@RewindCorp]

Can you make a playlist of all your German videos

[@foxen1914]

Did this have any effect on post war soviet/allied spg/arty

[@klindh02]

He seems a real tanker trying not to fall down or hurt his fingers 😂 Good show though

[@JGCR59]

Finally a decent game as a sponsor :)

[@---rz5th]

There is one at Fort lee.

[@crypticreality8484]

Man. I appreciate these videos. I am interested in military equipment. I always have been. It is especially interesting to see how these weapons can be used in Ukraine effectively. Thanks for the content.

[@captain0080]

I've never seen that variant before.

[@dansmith4077]

Comment for the algorithm great video

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thanks for that!

[@davidjernigan8161]

Seems that 1943 was way too late to develop this. It should have been available before Barbarossa started.

[@jackobrien47]

Well vehicles like this and the sturmtiger were a response to those battles so that wouldn't have been possible

[@araynortassadore3056]

Im sure the sturmpanzer gave inspiration to Cold War Combat Engineer vehicle's of NATO. Most had some type of assault gun mounted to them.

[@captainhurricane5705]

The report you quoted (Einsatzerfahrungen mit dem s.Pz.Jäg.Rgt.656, 17. Juli 43)) goes on to say that if used alongside a panzer division's tanks and apcs, that the breakthrough would undoubtedly have resulted in lower casualties.

[@Modellbauer403]

Wasn‘t the Ferdinand only renamed they were improved and not because of. I think at Bacuffz, they have said it.

[@yates667]

Do you know if the Germans ever employed flame tanks in Stalingrad?

[@czwarty7878]

From what is known, no. Short series of Flammpanzer II took part in Barbarossa but were basically all knocked out before Stalingrad, and other types of German flamethrower vehicles (Flammpanzer III, SdKfz 251/16) came into service starting in early 1943. So Stalingrad was just in such moment where no Flamm vehicles were even available. Although some Flamm B2 were in German service, but there is no evidence or even rumors of any being used in Stalingrad

[@yates667]

@@czwarty7878 Thanks for the response. It just seems like giant flamethrowers would have been helpful in an urban environment with lots of wooden homes

[@CB-vt3mx]

one of the most shocking aspects of the German Army was how late they realized the need for a good SP artillery system and how poorly they executed the creation of a system that could be mass produced and standardized across their army...

[@raylast3873]

I mean…but they didn‘t. The StuG was basically conceived to fill that role. It ended up filling other roles more, but the basic principle came up pretty early. And while the StuG wasn‘t pure SPArt and the designs that were never really reached maturity, it was still fundamentally able to fill the role. And I think the real problem with doing any of these things was that the German industry was relatively shit. Sure the designs also weren‘t geared toward mass production but even if there had been, the capacity to actually mass-produce complex vehicles was way too limited. By comparison, the Soviets started the war with almost no self-propelled guns, but they were able to design and build tens of thousands of them within a relatively short time.

[@rickglorie]

That could be a learning point from the war: you can prepare the modernest army of your time, but the realities of war are unpredictable. Look at how russian tanks are losing to drones.

[@tomhenry897]

Did the same for everything Generals asked for a German t34 got the Tiger

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

I wouldn't call assault guns SP artillery, which provide fire support from behind the front line. Assault guns are just discount armored fighting vehicles. Anything they can do can be done by medium /main battle tanks. Their draw is their low cost and the ability to reuse obsolete chassis.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

@@tomhenry897 Instead of a 30t medium tank they got the overweight panther.

[@iangreenhalgh9280]

Wasn't the Brummbar for taking out buildigs in urban combat?

[@jon9021]

16:14 well…nothing confusing about that is there?

[@CthulhuInc]

mmmmmmmmmsturmpanzer iv - so sturmpanzery!

[@ihcfn]

Forgive me if I missed something but does the IV not come from from the panzer IV chassis? I'm tired.

[@aslamnurfikri7640]

Yes. The chassis used is from Panzer IV

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Yes

[@patrickwentz8413]

so the local militia does not walk around with anti tank rifles no more in Munster????? heads will roll for this...

[@Spartan902]

I have a model of the Sturmtiger but not this one.

Der beste Panzer in War Thunder :)

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

:)

[@Modellbauer403]

Sturmpanzer IV because of the CD (400th) video?

[@rosameltrozo5889]

When it comes to the German arms industry in ww2 one hears so often about Hitler demanding, being shown this or that, approving or changing... was it the same with other countries/leaders like say Stalin or Roosevelt? as in did they have a similar degree of influence in their respective arm industries or not at all?

[@tomhenry897]

Roosevelt after being approached ordered 100 extra carriers built of an untested design The navy talked him down to 50 Look at the stalin tanks

[@recoil53]

Roosevelt was a big proponent of the navy and carriers even before the war. But the form of government is different. He pushed through the budgets he could and he had the naval design bureau work on things. He pushed for escort carriers to be built and the conversion of some Cleveland class light cruisers into Independence class carriers as a crash project to quickly get more decks out there.

[@freetolook3727]

Where does the driver sit? I didn't see anything about driving gears when looking inside.

[@frostedbutts4340]

Front left, under the boxy part on the front. He's pretty tucked in there so you can't really see the controls without climbing in

[@carpecanem611]

Imagine the noise and concussion when that gun was fired.

[@JozefZubor153]

It's also interesting how Germans again used former Czechoslovak weapon for their purposes.

[@aldvelothi755]

That's just a tank with a damaged gun due to magnetic thermite grenade

[@flatheadgg2443]

Why didn't they also use this as the basis of the jagdpanzer Vl?

[@frostedbutts4340]

Two reasons, the Jagdpanzer needed to be lower for ambush tactics and the weight was too much for a general use vehicle, really pushed past the limits of what the Panzer 4 should carry.

[@patttrick]

Hitler gave the order to build 40 tanks😮

[@raylast3873]

But just like in Stalingrad, there was no vehicle to make up for the fact that all your battalions are at 40% strength.

[@tomhenry897]

And surrounded by Russians

[@AussieStandsWithRussia]

Finally someone who is sponsored by War thunder and notnthe child friendly version WoT

[@JozefZubor153]

War Thunder is free to play *Sturmpanzer IV "Brummbär" is premium vehicle 😁💰

[@theromanorder]

please do a video on these (this is a copy and paste list for a few channels) units and tactics/evaluation of loadouts of troops (from different jobs (and other branches) the tank doctrine of countries evaluation of tank veiw ports evaluation of tanks/armored vehicles of different countries logistics units of the axes and allied powers in ww2 ww1 estern front tactics Russian Civil war tactics and strategies navil ship cross sections (all the rooms and how it all works) evaluation of types of ships or evaluation of navil warfare air craft carrier strike group formations exsamples (from different countries) ancient persan ships, ancient veneti ships (gauls that fought ceaser) ships used by genoa and the vernesain republic the vernesain republic government all sailing ships, (i know theres many on yt but some contradict each other and i think theres more left out) tactics used so far in the Ukraine war, better for squads to be 2 teams of 5 or 3 teams of 3, and probably the easiest, better to keep troops well feed or starved like an animal how dose age effect comsnders eg napoleon got older so took less risks, ancient urban warfare ww2 tactics in Asia, tactics in the Chinese age of warlords, (and Chinese civil war) tactics in the ruso jap war cold war navil tactics, Korean war tactics, strange tactics or unque battles from the American war of independence and America civil war how were 17th centry sailing ships build types of bombs lunched by drones comands given on sailing ships (like ease the sheets and get ready to chine, or slack n beases, basically things you hear movie capitns say) why did the nazis never return (or a video on best occupations) why did the Japanese empire fall, dont just say "America" like things like how there army and navy argued alot alot more on the Polynesians and māori, but please learn pronounceations if you do this

[@bigsarge2085]

✌

[@cody481]

I really wish I could understand you.

[@TheAsdasy]

>says that "brummbär" and "sturmpanzer IV" were both false names for this vehicle >names the video "Sturmpanzer IV - Brummbär" lol

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Algorithm :(

[@draconian6692]

They needed this to coubter russian armor

[@mathewkelly9968]

A pretty sensible vehicle for the Germans

[@50043211]

History is truly silly sometimes. When you say "... Hilter noted that the fighting in Stalingrad will require ..." Iam 100% certain that you accurately repeat what was recorded, however the thought that nobody but him was aware of that condition and that a solution will be needed is silly to its core. Anyway 😊

[@frankfedison5203]

Anyone else appreciate the Germans took the time to do DOVETAIL welds at the corners? 🤣👍

[@lazaroskordas4397]

Allies players in coh2 have learned to FEAR this thing btw.

[@berserker4940]

baZed

[@kaineuhauser9353]

Wow i'm early.

[@erwin6282]

Deutsch ???

[@patttrick]

German words r 2 long

[@jp-um2fr]

If there is an advert in this video I am about to watch, its UNSUBSCRIBE TIME

[@szasstam5131]

I’m honestly surprised Germans are allowed to make KZbin content about WW2 nazi Germany. I always thought all civilian discussion about the third Reich was banned.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

lol what?

[@szasstam5131]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Well the Nazi flag and images of Hitler are banned in germany so I just assumed almost everything about the Third Reich except "germany bad back then" is banned as well.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@szasstam5131 You might want to do some reading, for historical education they are all allowed etc.

[@UncleJoeLITE]

Again, R&D guys mucking around with a good chassis, wasting more resources. Then we have more stupid arguing between Panzers & Artillerie branches. Concentrating on the StuG/StuH42 makes much more sense to me [I know which one I'd prefer]. Germany really believed that economics were for amateurs, ofc this is only a very small example. Cheers Bernhard. _Honestly, if the team & resources spent on this machine (& all the others) were transferred to the _*_successful, existing_*_ StuG/StuH program, I'm not seeing value in developing this machine in 1943. At least it looks roomy. Cheers._

[@jp-um2fr]

UNSUBSCRIBED

[@mrhitler201]

I subscribe to this❤.

[@UncleJoeLITE]

Having a second watch after the latest (PzH2000 etc} video. Combined arms has gone nuts overall since these. Main problem here seems that Germany by late '43 was on the defensive. Net the most useful AFV. So, even if it had been really good, why build Brumbars over more/easier PzIVs or StuG/StuHs? _pron: "hex-ag-ah-nol". Sehr Austrian. =)_