German “grizzly”: what the Wehrmacht Sturmpanzer IV assault self-propelled gun was

Sturmpanzer IV is a medium-weight assault self-propelled artillery unit used by Wehrmacht troops during the Second World War. The gun was named “Brummbär”, which means “grizzly” in German. In turn, in the Soviet army these vehicles were simply called “bear”.

The Sturmpanzer IV chassis came from a German medium tank Panzer IV.

The armor of the vehicle is as follows: the lower frontal armor was 80 mm, the main armor was 50 mm plus a 30 mm bolted shield, the sides were 30 mm. In turn, the deckhouse: forehead - 100 mm at an angle of 50 degrees, side slopes - 60 mm, sides - 50 mm, stern - 30 mm and roof - 20 mm.

In addition, 5 mm side screens were installed on the sides of the grizzly.

In fact, in terms of protection, the Sturmpanzer IV was not inferior to the most powerful Tiger tank in the spring of 1943. Although the “grizzly” was not a tank.

Almost in the center of the wheelhouse, with a slight shift to the right, the main 150-mm Stu.H 43 L/12 gun with 38 rounds of ammunition was located. At the same time, such a powerful weapon of the “bear” had a significant drawback. Due to the very short barrel (12 calibers), aimed fire was limited to a range of 450-500 meters. In addition, reloading the Brummbär gun took quite a long time, which forced the vehicle’s crew to “roll back” to cover after firing.

But the range of destruction with a mounted projectile flight path reached 4,3 km. In addition, the high explosive content in the shells provided simply monstrous armor protection.

The weight of the German howitzer was 28,2 tons, while it could reach speeds of up to 40 km/h and had a range of up to 210 km.

The crew of the Wehrmacht assault self-propelled gun consisted of 5 people.

In total, from 1943 to the end of the war, Deutsche Eisenwerke produced 302 of these machines.

Comments

[Semovente7534]

We can also add that the height was not beneficial for the tank at the defensive stage, and also that in the first versions there was no machine gun and the side armor was insufficient.

[Grossvater]

Due to the very short barrel (12 calibers), aimed fire was limited to a range of 450-500 meters.

The author, apparently, confuses the concepts of sighting range and direct shot range, when the trajectory of the projectile does not go beyond the limits of a certain “standard target” and you can fire without bothering yourself with range corrections.

[Grossvater]

In general, a good assault vehicle. For the fight against bunkers and bunkers, that’s it.
Unfortunately, we didn’t have anything like this. The SU-122 was produced in too small a quantity, and the armor was weak, and the famous “St. John’s wort” were much heavier.
Another plus is the short barrel, which was good in urban battles.
I think I didn’t go to the big series because I was simply late.

[lukash66]

[quote=Grossvater]In general, a good assault vehicle. For the fight against bunkers and bunkers, that’s it.
Unfortunately, we didn’t have anything like this. The SU-122 was produced in too small a size... Su122 - 636 pieces, broombar - approx. 700. And where is the difference in quantity?

[futurohunter]

Grossvater
In urban battles, armored vehicles fight well. The caterpillar was killed, and that’s it, the bear won’t go anywhere and won’t shoot anywhere. And tanks with a turret are still capable of firing.
Still, I don’t understand why the 152s weren’t pleased. If one shell doesn’t destroy, another will. And the bear didn’t dismantle long-term fortifications either. Only the RGK artillery could cope there. As for the mounted trajectory - yes, this is a plus. At that time we did not have heavy self-propelled howitzers or mortars. But the “one shot” negated all the advantages. And when firing at direct fire, the vehicle did not last long. Again, because of the “one” shot.
...Yes, and panel houses began to be built after the war. At that time, the most durable houses were “Stalin” houses, or their Western European analogues. But there were few of them, and only in large cities. And most of the 152 mm buildings of that time were completely “disassembled”

[futurohunter]

...any armored vehicle is well immobilized. Damn, I'm writing from my phone.

[Dedok]

Quote: Grossvater

Unfortunately, we didn’t have anything like this.

But what about the SU-152 and ISU-152?
the first one was specifically created for such purposes

[agond]

152 mm is too small to confidently destroy a supporter equipped in a panel house, you need a self-propelled gun with a gun, albeit a single-shot one, albeit a short-range one, but of a LARGE caliber, best of all, a mortar with a mine weighing at least 500 kg on a tracked track and a crew of 2 people, arrived at the position and fired a shot and left to recharge. By the way, medieval bombards threw 700 kg cannonballs at a distance of up to a kilometer, with a dead weight of up to 8 tons.

[futurohunter]

agond
Bombards hit harder due to the large mass of the projectile falling from a height. The destructive ability of gunpowder as an explosive was still too weak compared to modern explosives. Do not forget that modern explosives detonate and create a supersonic shock wave front, and the vice simply burns quickly, and the destructive effect most likely arose due to combustion products that tore the shell of the projectile and large fragments of this projectile.
That’s why they made monstrous calibers to make the projectile as heavy as possible. But one of the “bombs” of that time cannot be compared in destructive power with the same 152 mm projectile

[futurohunter]

agond
You write about the Sturmtiger, but they were made even smaller, and they did not live long. Apparently, the Germans themselves understood the small benefit of such monsters

[Victor Leningradets]

You write about the Sturmtiger, but they were made even smaller, and they did not live long. Apparently, the Germans themselves understood the small benefit of such monsters

But here you are wrong!
Eighteen Sturmtigers completely paid for themselves, both during the suppression of the Warsaw Uprising and on the Siegfried Line.
In general, the disadvantage of the Sturmtiger was the inflexibility of the use of weapons. One shot every 10 minutes, albeit at a particularly important target. Now, if it had an insert for firing 21-cm Nebelwerfer 42 rockets, then 90% of targets could be destroyed by them. The ammunition supply would have increased, and the rate of fire (if we can talk about it in this case) would have increased exponentially.

[futurohunter]

Yeah, it took a monstrous prodigy to suppress the weakly armed partisans. Highest efficiency!
The fact of the matter is that this is a technique against a weak opponent. When a really strong opponent appeared, a completely different technique was required. And the Germans understood this well

[Victor Leningradets]

The weakly armed partisans had at their disposal the Warsaw Arsenal, a Panther and several Hetzers. Plus good urban development, plus a general as a commander.
And both storm tigers were used for their intended purpose - to eliminate the support forces. A shot - and the house collapsed, burying nests in the basement of the building, a hospital in the basement, a barricade across the street, and sniper positions on the roof. Next - clearing with flamethrowers, grenades and automatic weapons.
Assault tanks do not fight against armored vehicles, but clear the way for infantry, and for these purposes the Sturmtiger is quite suitable. Only in the fields and villages you need the 21-cm Nebelwerfer 42 insert.

[futurohunter]

Yes, just mega-forces against the entire German army. And considering what kind of warriors the Poles are, one stormtiger would be enough to disperse an entire uprising of entire Poles.
Despite their mega-arsenal and mega-fortifications, they themselves surrendered. These are not battles for Berlin or Mariupol. General... or even a marshal. This doesn't change much. The same general surrendered his subordinates.
As for the shells from the six-barreled guns, they were simply fired like garbage, unlike the shells for the Sturmtigers. But the problem with the Sturmtigers is the same as with the Bears - long loading times. Even longer than the Bears. Therefore, they successfully fought only with ragged insurgents

[Victor Leningradets]

And considering what kind of warriors the Poles are, one storm tiger would be enough to disperse an entire uprising of entire Poles

Which just proves the effectiveness of their use. By the way, TWO storm tigers took part in the suppression of the Warsaw Uprising - a prototype and the first production one.
But we clearly didn’t have enough of such a vehicle during the assault on Berlin or Breslau. We had to roll out the B-4 under direct fire and suffer unjustified losses.

[futurohunter]

They would have driven the Dora there too. Oh, by the way... If I'm not mistaken, "Carls" were also used there. Is it efficiency?
Efficiency - completing a task with minimal effort. And here we see the use of heavy equipment against a weak enemy. What kind of efficiency are you talking about?

[Victor Leningradets]

Why would it be expensive to bring two platforms with two converted repair tanks to Warsaw and quickly solve the problem?
At the same time, saving a couple of battalions of assault infantry and possibly (the Germans did not know our plans!) crossing the Vistula from Prague (the right bank suburb of Warsaw). Do you know German very well?
And my grandson and I came up with the insert when we were putting together the Sturmtiger model.

[futurohunter]

“Repair tanks” were converted from serial tigers, which themselves were not cheap vehicles. And converting them into assault aircraft is not the same as making a paper airplane or gluing together a scale model! That's why I say that the technology is complex and expensive.
The Germans didn’t know our plans, but to predict an attack on Warsaw when the entire Soviet front is standing nearby - you don’t even need to be a military man here))) Just defending it with a “hornet’s nest” of partisans in the rear is a so-so idea.
You can attach anything to the model))) In the “World of Modeler” store there is a 3-barreled thirty-four)))
If we're going to redo it, the Germans had more interesting shells than those from the Nebelwerfer. Another question is that there were few of them. The spread of all these RSs is large - they are more or less effective only when firing salvos over areas. And here: shoot, hit or miss - reload for half an hour. It is only suitable against urban partisans, who have nowhere to go anyway. In short, for a modeler the object is interesting, for a warrior it is only interesting for a museum

[futurohunter]

Victor Leningradets
Regarding our assault on Berlin or Breslau. You probably forgot about "St. John's wort"? They were precisely used to collapse fortifications. And even IS-2 did this work. As for losses, this is an inappropriate comparison. Did the Poles have anti-tank artillery? Crowds of faustians? Panthers buried in asphalt? Our enemy was orders of magnitude stronger than the Germans in Warsaw

[Victor Leningradets]

You didn't pay attention:
The Poles HAD a Panther and a couple (maybe more) Hetzers. The first one is in the forehead, and the second one is on the side - completely. And the rebels had enough Faustpatrons.
Our ISU-152s were engaged in assault work and suffered losses. A self-propelled gun with 75 mm wheelhouse armor is permeable to 75 mm Hetzer guns, not to mention its “big brothers”.
Sturmtigers would be more useful in these conditions.
However, the article is not about Sturmtigers, but about Brummbers. But they would have been useful in 1941 - 1942. At the final stage of the war, the Germans were more in need of truly effective tank destroyers, which they never created.
Neither the ersatz of the Hetzer family, nor the clumsy Jagdpanzers, nor the Jagdpanthers, which reduced the production of main tanks, nor the monstrous Jagdtigers could help in the fight against our tanks, nor against the allied tanks.

[futurohunter]

Well, what is one Panther and several self-propelled guns against a WHOLE ARMY? Are you serious? And in the hands of unskilled insurgents who don’t even know how to use them.
The Poles had no more than a dozen Faust cartridges.
You yourself wrote that ours suffered losses. Why did they suffer losses? Is it from anti-tank artillery? What I mean is that the Germans in Warsaw fought with extremely weak forces: unskilled and poorly armed. Ours are in Berlin - with a professional, experienced and heavily armed army. Do you think we haven’t tried to come up with something similar to the German mega-spitters? There were projects, but they didn’t even get to the mock-ups. This technique is too expensive, complex and highly specialized.
Sturmtigers would only hinder ours in Berlin. Their maximum would have been enough for one shot, after which they remained standing there. It is no coincidence that even the Germans themselves did not organize their mass production - other types of “armor” are much more needed!
Why “the German tanks didn’t win” has long been dismantled to pieces. I’ll just add that another disadvantage the Germans had was a gigantic zoo of different types of equipment. Why do modelers like to collect Germans? And if you collect them, you still won’t be able to reassemble everything, unlike the USSR and its allies. But this is very bad for war.
As for the Hetzers, this is almost the same as the Japanese kamikazes - weapon of despair

[Victor Leningradets]

As for the Hetzers, this is almost the same as the Japanese kamikaze - a weapon of despair

Absolutely to the point!
Only the abandoned Hetzers in 1945 were more than the ones that were shot down. These are the kind of Krauts who are kamikazes!

[futurohunter]

They are not Japanese, they did not want to follow the destiny destined for them)) And what to do with a car that has broken down, which has run out of fuel or ammunition?

[bayard]

Quote: agond

152 mm is too small to confidently destroy the support installed in a panel house

You saw the result of a 152 mm hit. landmine into a panel house? He can bring down an entire entrance. And with a few shots you can dismantle the whole house.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Dedok

Quote: Grossvater

Unfortunately, we didn’t have anything like this.

But what about the SU-152 and ISU-152?
the first one was specifically created for such purposes

Well, first of all I wrote about them, be careful. Secondly, these are cars of a completely different class, much heavier.

[Grossvater]

[quote=lukash66][quote=Grossvater]In general, a good assault vehicle. For the fight against bunkers and bunkers, that’s it.
Unfortunately, we didn’t have anything like this. The SU-122 was produced in too small a size... Su122 - 636 pieces, broombar - approx. 700. And where is the difference in quantity?[/quote]
Sadly, German armored vehicles, especially generations III - IV, were, in smaller quantities, more effective than ours. At least due to greater reliability.
By the way, Brumbar in some ways repeated the fate of the SU122, our self-propelled gun appeared too early and was mostly knocked out by the start of large-scale offensive operations, and the German too late, when the German armed forces went on the defensive.
If the SU-122 were produced in tandem with the SU-85M, and then hundreds, it would be very good.

[futurohunter]

Where did you find effectiveness?
Yes, at the beginning of the war the Germans had higher qualifications than ours - they managed to fight in Europe. They had higher quality production and better optics, more reliable technology.
But, at the same time, our equipment in the second half of the war had already overcome childhood illnesses, and the soldiers learned to fight.
What a zoo of technology the Germans had! You probably don't collect models. And I'm collecting. Our tanks occupy one shelf. And the German BTT will soon occupy the entire closet

[Grossvater]

Quote: Grossvater

to hundreds,

Sorry, to the hundred of course!

[Victor Leningradets]

The armor of the vehicle is as follows: the lower frontal armor was 80 mm, the main armor was 50 mm plus a 30 mm bolted shield, the sides were 30 mm. In turn, the deckhouse: forehead - 100 mm at an angle of 50 degrees, side slopes - 60 mm, sides - 50 mm, stern - 30 mm and roof - 20 mm.

Dear Author!
Be careful with the translation, this vehicle does not have “main armor” - translated in Russian - on the upper frontal part, but there is a frontal part of the wheelhouse. And it was necessary to write that the lower frontal armor was 80 mm OR - 50 mm plus a 30 mm bolted shield, DEPENDING ON THE BASE CHASSIS.
Now to the point: “Brummbär” is certainly a successful vehicle, intended for assault operations in urban areas or against powerful field structures. The disadvantage is the weak chassis. which determined the cramped conditions in the fighting compartment, and therefore the low rate of fire. For urban conditions, a cumulative projectile weighing 25 kg is an excellent weapon against tanks and self-propelled guns.
As for our SU-152 and ISU-152, they are completely superior to this self-propelled gun, both in armament and protection, and the mass of the installation does not play any role.

[futurohunter]

Let's summarize. The Germans made almost an analogue of the domestic "St. John's wort". The advantage of the German vehicle was the possibility of mounted shooting. But the big drawback that caused the low efficiency was the long reload time, because of which the vehicle was forced to retreat to the rear. This made it almost impossible to use it in offensive operations. And due to the small number of vehicles, the “fire carousel” tactic, when “one shoots - one goes to reload - one reloads, one approaches to shoot,” was impossible

[Grossvater]

Quote: futurohunter

There was a long reload, because of which the car was forced to retreat to the rear.

How's that? Why was it necessary to go somewhere to stuff the shell into the breech first, and then the cartridge case? Where do the firewood come from?

[Grossvater]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

The weight of the installation does not play any role.

What are you talking about!? And it doesn’t work for production either?

[Victor Leningradets]

What are you talking about!? And it doesn’t work for production either?

Absolutely! Mastery plays a role in the production of the base model and compiled weapons. And the SU-152, ISU-152 and ISU-122 have no problems with this.
The trouble is that at birth, each ISU has already destroyed one IS-2 tank, which is an unaffordable luxury. The situation is similar with the Jagdpanther.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

What are you talking about!? And it doesn’t work for production either?

Absolutely! Mastery plays a role in the production of the base model and compiled weapons. And the SU-152, ISU-152 and ISU-122 have no problems with this.
The trouble is that at birth, each ISU has already destroyed one IS-2 tank, which is an unaffordable luxury. The situation is similar with the Jagdpanther.

Yes, what are you talking about? Why then do you lament: “at birth, each ISU had already destroyed one IS-2 tank”?
Yes, make more ISs and it won’t take long!
But suddenly, quite by accident, it turns out that a heavy tank is much more difficult and expensive to produce and there is no way to produce it in the same series as a medium one.

[Victor Leningradets]

The ISU self-propelled gun is never cheaper than the IS-2 tank in terms of armor weight, armament, engine, and chassis. The difference is in the fur processing of the turret shoulder strap. We encountered this at Kirovsky when they revived tank building in 1944 - 1945. And they made MORE of these ISUs than base tanks. However, tanks are more versatile and useful.
And you are wrong about serial production. The IS-2 is an extremely technologically advanced vehicle and most of the factories that produced the T-34 could switch to producing this vehicle. If in 1943, instead of a 122-mm cannon, it would have been possible to install an 85-mm cannon with an initial projectile speed of 920-930 m/s, we could well move on to the production of the MAIN tank from 1944 on a new base with an annual production of 11-12 thousand per year And use the thirty-four base for the SU-122p (D-25) and SU-152g (D-15) with a circulation of 5 - 6 thousand.
This, of course, is pure althistorical history, but there is nothing impossible about it.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

The ISU self-propelled gun is never cheaper than the IS-2 tank in terms of armor weight, armament, engine, and chassis. The difference is in the fur processing of the turret shoulder strap. We encountered this at Kirovsky when they revived tank building in 1944 - 1945. And they made MORE of these ISUs than base tanks. However, tanks are more versatile and useful.
And you are wrong about serial production. The IS-2 is an extremely technologically advanced vehicle and most of the factories that produced the T-34 could switch to producing this vehicle. If in 1943, instead of a 122-mm cannon, it would have been possible to install an 85-mm cannon with an initial projectile speed of 920-930 m/s, we could well move on to the production of the MAIN tank from 1944 on a new base with an annual production of 11-12 thousand per year And use the thirty-four base for the SU-122p (D-25) and SU-152g (D-15) with a circulation of 5 - 6 thousand.
This, of course, is pure althistorical history, but there is nothing impossible about it.

But the cost of a tank is directly dependent on its weight. Approximately 350 thousand for the IS and 135-190 thousand for the T-34-85.
This time. The turret ring is a complex engineering unit that significantly affects the manufacturability of the machine. That's two.
To bore a shoulder strap, and this is actually a specially trained ball bearing that requires bearing manufacturing precision, special machines are required, which simply did not exist in the USSR. Therefore, self-propelled guns were much easier to produce even in such an industrialized country as Germany.
Well, finally realize that the cost and labor intensity of manufacturing directly depend on the thickness of the parts being processed. Other machines are needed, with more rigid frames. Transmissions for moving a heavy vehicle, others, designed for completely different loads. There are more gears, and the gear cutting machines were also a huge hassle.
The IS is a wonderful machine, but it was only high-tech in comparison to the HF.
The torsion bar suspension of the IS, for all its structural simplicity, was much more complex in terms of manufacturing technology. The country did not have the capacity to produce a large number of torsion bars. This stick, imagine, required very complex mechanical and, especially, heat treatment. T-34 springs were much simpler, oddly enough.

[agond]

quote=futurohunter]agond
You write about the Sturmtiger, but they were made even smaller, and they did not live long. Apparently, the Germans themselves understood the small benefit of such monsters[/quote]
No, I meant a medieval bombard made in 1450 that served for 3 centuries in a row, first with the Austrians, then with the Turks, then again with the Austrians, now kept in the Vienna Museum, so it threw stone cannonballs of 700 kg per 1 km, with a caliber of 750 mm has a weight of 8 tons, that is, today, in principle, it could probably fire a modern projectile of the same weight (if its safety allows). It seems that if you wish, you can repeat the achievement of medieval masters and create a weapon with the same characteristics, of course it will be muzzle-loading, but for such a caliber this is not important; by the way, the barrel of that bombard was assembled from forged iron boards with hoops, anyone interested can find more detailed information.

[Victor Leningradets]

It's funny about torsion bars and springs. Of course, a torsion bar is simpler, and immediately after the end of the war, our ENTIRE tank industry unanimously switched to them.
Not in this case. It was just very difficult to break up the laboriously established production, and besides, our industry produces 15000 thirty-fours - this is more than Germany had tanks and self-propelled guns in 1943. And that we are suffering incomparable losses - oh well!
Thank you for telling me about the machines, otherwise I don’t know about it after half a century at Kirovsky. The point is that the same problems arose during the development of the T-34-85 - essentially a new and at the same time already outdated vehicle.
I believe, and I stand by this, that in 1944 we made a mistake by not abandoning the medium tank in favor of the main tank, which was superior to the previous equipment in terms of armament, protection and mobility on the ground. And about the transmission - planetary gears are always less loaded than exhaust gears.
But about the abundance of self-propelled guns created in Germany, I would like to note that among them there are models that we were pretty lacking in that war. These include Hummel, Sturmtiger and the hero of our today's movie (the latter with reservations). I’m not talking about anti-aircraft self-propelled guns; I don’t know their actual effectiveness.
Thank you for the interesting dialogue, good luck and health!

[MSN]

In addition, reloading the Brummbär gun took quite a long time, which forced the vehicle’s crew to “roll back” to cover after firing.

It would be nice to substantiate this statement. The rate of fire of the ancestor - 15 cm sIG 33 was 3-4 rounds per minute. Confinement in a self-propelled gun certainly increases the reload speed, but not by orders of magnitude. To “roll back” for loading. The wedge shutter also again helps the loader.

Due to the very short barrel (12 calibers), aimed fire was limited to a range of 450-500 meters.

According to the shooting tables, the target range for the Kumoi tank is 1200 meters.