How about a Brummbar?

[Chazman1946]

Are these gong to be depicted in CM2, nothing like rolling up a Brummbar with it's 150mm gun to blow a pack of pesky Russkies out of their foxholes!

[Maximus]

In CM2, probably yes, because the battlefields will be larger. The reason the Brummbar was excluded from CMBO was that the Brummbar is more of a stand-off self-propelled howitzer than a direct-fire weapon. Being a stand-off SP howitzer, it is simulated by the 150mm artillery spotter.

The Brummbar was originally going to be in CMBO, but the above explanation was used as an arguement against it.

------------------

For your dream car click here.

For a Close Encounter click here.

Hey look! I can see my house!

And for all you Hamster Lovers out there, check this out! Kitty, this one's for you!

[Atlas]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015323.html

[Guest aaronb]

Searching on Brummbar gives a ton of return links, including these.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000810.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/006361.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012584.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013538.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015323.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015323.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002626.html

Enjoy.

------------------

my armoured assets have about the half-life of a gnat in DDT

- Germanboy

[Guest Mongo Lloyd]

Actually, the Brummbar was designed to roll right up to fortifications and blast them, hence all the armor. If you want a standoff weapon the Hummel will do the job.

[Tiger]

Aye, I too am hoping to see the Brummbar in CM2. Seems that alot of people get the Brummbar and Sturmtiger confused though. The Hummel and Wespe are more stand-off weapons than the Brummbar, which was designed to take part in assaults.

by the way does anyone know the windows keys to make an umlaut "u"?

-Tiger

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 03-14-2001).]

[Major Belles]

Here for the Brummbar!

The Major

[Freak]

Yes thats correct! The Brummbar and the SturmTiger are heavily armored AFV's with powerful 150 mm guns. Way to lethal for the CM scope I guess. The 150mm hummel is here but it aint no super uber armored vehicle. I think these beasts would have really turned the tables for the axis in BO if you ask me

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Correct on the "grizzly bear". But the Sturmtiger had a 380mm "gun". It actually fired a rocket round that size. Took 10 minutes to reload, though. A seige weapon against fortifications, only. Rather silly actually, but I wouldn't want to face one that is for sure. (Unless it had fired recently...)

[Perchpole]

I would urge caution. In my opinion, the argument about the inclusion of such weapons is a largely subtle one. Let us not forget that vehicles, like the Brummbar and Sturmtiger, fulfilled very specific roles. Both weapons were used - more or less exclusively - for demolishing structures. It's often widely reported that a single shot from the latter could reduce an entire building to rubble.</P>

In CM, however, the temptation may persist to go one step further. If the game were to include the Sturmtiger, for example, its presence would inevitably lead to miss-use and abuse - which in turn would lead to overkill. Anyone who has ever played the game Sudden Strike will be only too familiar with the Sturmtiger. In this game, the vehicle can be used in any role - from infantry support to tank destroyer!</P>

Obviously CM and Sudden Strike are radically different in terms of approach and - above all - application. It is around this very word - application - that the entire debate revolves. The CM game engine must ensure that the application of certain weapons, such as the Sturmtiger, is kept in character and only in accordance with some very strict rules. Failure to do so and we will be left with a 65 ton mobile pillbox, pootling around the battlefield, taking pot-shots at anything that crosses it path! Such paintball-style antics should be left to Sudden Strike.</P>

I have been playing CM for a little under two weeks and I believe it to be a truly marvelous game. Having said that, I would much rather BTS concentrate their efforts on delivering a much wider range of smaller - not bigger - vehicles. This would only serve to encourage far better and more tactical encounters. It's for this reason that I hope any future incarnations of the game will be very much along the lines of "Combat Mission 2: Before Overlord". </P>

------------------

Perch

[Tiger]

The Brummbar was not just for blowing up buildings. Hitler wanted the Brummbar to replace the StuGIIIs, and it went into full production in November 1943 and continued to be produced right up till the end of the war. I wish people would stop asking for the Sturmtiger everytime someone opens up a Brummbar thread. The two vehicles are not that similiar. The Brummbar was a tracked assault gun based on the panzer IV chassis, much like the StuGIV series. The Sturmmorser Tiger was a very specialized demo afv, oddly enough based on the Tiger chassis. The Brummbar was used on the Eastern Front, Italy, and on the Western Front, and certainly not just against towns and cities. The Sturmtiger was used against the ghetto uprising in Warsaw, maybe saw one action in the Western theater. I don't see the need for the Sturmtiger in CM2, unless there's extra time to stick it in as a bonus, like the Super-Pershing was for CMBO, or the JS-III would be for CM2

There were slightly more Brummbars produced than Jumbos or Fireflys (somewhere around 290, IIRC).

jmcw,

-Tiger

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 03-14-2001).]

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

I'd like to add that super-heavy weapons like the sturmtiger would count as strategic weapons, something a lone company commander would never have access to.

If you include Sturmtigers, you could as well include railroad guns or high-altitude bombers (5% chance that the whole battlefield blows up, doesn't sound like game fun to me).

The Brummbaer ist definitivly a direct-fire weapon, much more so than the Hummel. It carries a shorter(!) version of the 150mm infantry gun, its like a late Bison version on a more capable chassis, more frontal armor and much ammo (my book says 38 rounds). I'd like to see it, maybe would prefer a Bison.

Martin

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

http://www.siemers.com/wwii/Germany/Brummbar.htm

298 Brummbars built. They certainly belong in CM-2. So do SiGs with 150mm Infantry guns mounted. Both were used for direct fire against strongpoints, supporting attacking Pz Gdrs or infantry.

The Sturmtiger does not - 18 built, and in a CM time scale they would be a single shot weapon practically. Just take a high caliber rocket FO if you want to simulate the intervention of such weapons in a tactical fight.

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

Originally posted by Tiger:

By the way does anyone know the windows keys to make an umlaut "u"?

Not directly, but Windows 95 can switch between two keyboard layout with a single keystroke (Alt-Rightshift or so), so you can install a German keyboard layout in addition to your english/us one. The umlauts are then on the ;'[- keys for äöü and ß, respecitvly.

If you nedd it for HTML things like this, then use (hope this gets through parsing)

&auml;

&ouml;

&uuml;

&szlig;

[Perchpole]

Originally posted by Tiger:

Hitler wanted the Brummbar to replace the StuGIIIs

Technically, this is incorrect. The Brummbar was designed specifically to replace the SiG 33 (auf PzKpfw III). Whilst this vehicle was almost certainly deployed in a variety of roles, the so-called Sturmpanzer was used primarily for street fighting. In this context, the Brummbar probably has more in common with the Sturmtiger than it does with a true artillery piece, such as the Hummel.</P>

------------------

Perch

[Guest KwazyDog]

No official word yet guys, but I would certainally like to see the Brumbar in there myself

The vehicle list for CM2 is huge, as you guys can guess. There is a lot of work to be done, but we will get there!

Dan

[Simon Fox]

There were slightly more Brummbars produced than Jumbos or Fireflys (somewhere around 290, IIRC).

I cannot speak for Jumbos although I think it was slightly more than 300 but there were definitely a hell of a lot more than 290 Fireflys produced as of D-Day about 350 were in service and by Dec 1944 it was about 750+ climbing to 1000+ by the wars end. Since these are in service figures and do no allow for those lost in combat the production figures would be higher.

Oh and those figures are for the NW European theatre only and do not include Italy etc

------------------

"Stand to your glasses steady,

This world is a world of lies,

Here's a toast to the dead already,

And here's to the next man to die."

-hymn of the "Double Reds"

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 03-14-2001).]

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

I don't think it makes sense to demand a vehicle by its production numbers only.

The reason CMBO has the Hummel, but not the Brummbaer or the Bison is probably more that BTS got it for free when they had to do the Nashorn.

I think we pointed out that the Brummbaer/Bison are important for CM gameplay since they were direct fire infantry support and earlier in the war there were not many other such vehicles.

I still would think the lighter SP variants of sIG33 (Bison etc.) would be better for gaming fun. People seem to prefer fast/light over the fat things (M18/M10, Panther/Tiger).

[Tiger]

The Grille used the Pz Kpfw 38(t) chassis, not the Pz Kpfw III. The other designation for the Brummbar was StuG IV mit 15cm StuH43; also Sturmpanzer IV.

I don't recall it being called the Bison, though this may be due to a bad American translation somewhere along the way(?).

The Brummbar and Sturmtiger have little in common except they both have built-up box like superstructures. The correct designation is Sturmmorser Tiger (umlaut over the o) or Tiger-Morser. The main weapon is a 38 cm mortar, though the weapon in German is called the 38cm Raketenwerfer 61 L/54.

How a 38cm indirect-firing mortar used very few times and a 150mm ball-mounted direct-fire infantry gun employed on three different fronts make these vehicles similiar I have no idea.

I think it's simply b/c the two vehicles have similiar superstructures, though he Sturmmorser Tiger is much larger than the StuG IV mit 15cm StuH43 (Brummbar) .

The Grille (sig/33) should be in as well, as it was a oft-used inf support gun based on the 38(t) chassis.

Info on the Firefly from R.P. Hunnicutt's massive volume "Sherman":

"A rush conversion program at the Royal Ordnance Factories produced enough 17lber tanks by D-Day to provide 12 for each British armored regiment. Nicknamed the Firefly they went into action in Normandy."

Another source list the number of Shermans converted to Fireflys by the British was 600.

245 "Jumbos" were produced, a few were converted in the field.

I was not demanding a vehicle based on production numbers, I was only giving an idea that the Brummbar, while uncommon, was not all that rare, no more so than a Jumbo or Firefly.

-Tiger

[Perchpole]

Originally posted by Tiger:

The Brummbar and Sturmtiger have little in common...

This comment is clearly incorrect. The single most important factor which does bind these two vehicles together is the purpose for which they were designed; namely, street fighting. It was never envisaged that either vehicle would be employed as an open country AFV - in the traditional sense. The Brummbar was developed after the battle for Stalingrad. During the bitter street fighting traditional tanks were proved inadequate. The German army also suffered massive losses whilst trying to capture heavily defended buildings. What was needed was a heavily armored vehicle capable of destroying such strong-points. Enter the Brummbar, followed - some time later - by the Sturmtiger.</P>

To further emphasize this point, it is important to have an understanding of the vehicle designations that existed within the German army. This short list categorizes many of the most common designations:

<BLOCKQUOTE>

Sturmgeshutze - encompasses StuG III & IV variants

Sturmhaubitze - StuH 42

Panzerjaeger - encompasses Marder and Nashorn variants

Jagdpanzer - includes Jagdpanther, Elefant, Ferdinand, Jagdpanzer IV

& Hetzer

Panzerartillerie - includes Hummel, Grille, Bison & Wespe

Flakpanzer - Mobelwagen, Ostwind, et al

Sturmpanzer - Sturmtiger & Brummbar</P>

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Whilst this is by no means a full list, it clearly shows how the Brummbar and Sturmtiger were bracketed within the same vehicle category. Towards the end of the war the Brummbar was often deployed in other roles - mainly due to the fact that intense street fighting was in decline. It's original role, however, was essentially the same as the Sturmtiger's. Therefore, in terms of sheer design and intended purpose, the Sturmtiger and Brummbar did indeed have much in common.</P>

------------------

Perch

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

Originally posted by Perchpole:

The single most important factor which does bind these two vehicles together is the purpose for which they were designed; namely, street fighting.

To further emphasize this point, it is important to have an understanding of the vehicle designations that existed within the German army.

<BLOCKQUOTE>

Panzerartillerie - includes Hummel, Grille, Bison & Wespe

Sturmpanzer - Sturmtiger & Brummbar</P>

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that this is correct as such. The Grille (Bison seems to be a wrong name for same thing or maybe for the same gun on Pz. I or II chassis) was by name a Sturmpanzer as well, all guns (if SP) that were meant for direct fire were named Sturmpanzer, in fact "Sturm"- anything indicated that it was to be exposed to enemy direct fire.

I also doubt that the infantry guns are suitable for house destroying, their shells are meant to produce more shrapnel, less blast. On the contrary, the Sturmtiger was shooting the kind of bombs the Navy uses against submarines, which were made for blast only.

[Tiger]

You're missing the point perchpole. You're saying the Brummbar should not be included because like the Sturmtiger they were very specialized vehicles. Then you go on to list reasons why the Sturmtiger should not be included without special restrictions. Again, I say people get the Brummbar and Sturmtiger confused. Here is your reply:

If the game were to include the Sturmtiger, for example, its presence would inevitably lead to miss-use and abuse - which in turn would lead to overkill. Anyone who has ever played the game Sudden Strike will be only too familiar with the Sturmtiger. In this game, the vehicle can be used in any role - from infantry support to tank destroyer!

(ed..I seriously doubt Sudden Strike models the Sturmmorser Tiger or many other vehicles very correctly. How does this make it apply to CM2?-- John)

Obviously CM and Sudden Strike are radically different in terms of approach and - above all - application. It is around this very word - application - that the entire debate revolves. The CM game engine must ensure that the application of certain weapons, such as the Sturmtiger, is kept in character and only in accordance with some very strict rules. Failure to do so and we will be left with a 65 ton mobile pillbox, pootling around the battlefield, taking pot-shots at anything that crosses it path! Such paintball-style antics should be left to Sudden Strike.

(ed..I fail to see the relevance of comparing CM/CM2 to Sudden Strike. These products are very dissimiliar to start with and I hardly think BTS would turn CM2 into Sudden Strike--John)

You've come to a Brummbar thread and interjected the Sturmtiger (Sturmmorser Tiger) and given reasons why the Sturmtiger should not be included (using Sudden Strike as examples!?). This is exactly what I am talking about why people get the two confused. Hitler did want the Brummbar to be a more powerful StuG, but this does not mean that he was right.

There are three different designations for this : the Brummbar, the StuG IV mit 15cm StuH43, and Sturmpanzer IV. All the same vehicle. These are not the same as the Sturmmorser Tigers.

In the "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two", the type of each of these afvs is listed as:

(Brummbar) "Type: Assault infantry gun on tank chassis"

(Sturmmorser Tiger) "Type: Assault rocket mortar on heavy tank chassis"

Both the Brummbar and the Sturmmorser Tiger were designed by Alkett; the Brummbar in late 1942 and began production in April 1943 (3 months after the end of Stalingrad) and saw its first action in the Kursk offensive. The Sturmmorser Tiger in December 1943 and took part in "defending the German homeland".

18 Sturmmorser Tigers were converted, 298 Brummbar were produced, 8 panzer IVs were converted, for a total of 306. The Brummbar were still in production right up till the end of the war.

They were two very different afvs. Different chassis, different armor, different weapons,

and certainly used very differently. One was an infantry assault afv, the other was a specialized assault mortar.

My point is that you can not lump the Brummbar and Sturmmorser Tiger together and say the need to both be limited in their use, then giving reasons for the Sturmmorser Tiger but not the Brummbar, except that the two were "very similiar". I think this similiarity does not exist beyond their initial design ideas. Many people agree that the Sturmmorser Tiger is an "quite iffy" inclusion in CM2 anyway.

-Tiger

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 03-15-2001).]

[Perchpole]

This one is going around in circles! I'll do my best to paraphrase my earlier comments:</P>

Tiger: This thread originally began with someone asking about the Brummbar. Then, a few entries further down, someone else introduced the Sturmtiger. This is when I became interested. I simply do not see the need for such specialized weapons in the CM game. I attempted to show how the introduction of such vehicles - without some kind of regulation - could ruin an otherwise excellent game engine. I mentioned Sudden Strike purely as an example. This game - though of completely different design - features a Sturmtiger. In the game, this particular Sturmtiger is seen to rule the battlefield - simply because it has been implemented without restraints. It operates just like any other vehicle in the game, moving and firing anywhere and at any thing. My point was that if you were to introduce the same vehicle into CM, how would you control its use? How, for example, would you stop it from taking pot-shots at any target - something the real vehicle simply wouldn't and couldn't do. I went on to say that this and several other AFVs must be kept "in character" otherwise CM would be in danger of becoming some sort of "Boom-Fest" - just like Sudden Strike - where who ever has the biggest gun wins. I don't want to see that happen.</P>

As for the Brummbar; I am perfectly aware of the physical differences of both it and the Sturmtiger. That has nothing to do with the argument. I was simply making the point that the Brummbar was developed to fulfill a specific role. It and the Sturmtiger were designed to take part in street battles. Both vehicles were expected to engage targets at very close quarters and, for this reason, were very heavily armored. Not surprisingly, each vehicle was notoriously difficult to knock-out.</P>

OK, now take this Brummbar and drop it into the CM world. The CM game engine tends to model AFVs quite literally. Because of this the Brummbar now becomes an extremely potent weapon. It has armour comparable to that of a Tiger tank and is armed with a gun capable of firing 150mm shells. As a consequence - and purely in terms of the game - this vehicle would be too powerful. People would be tempted to use it out of character and, as a result, that fragile realistic thread which runs through the heart of CM would be needlessly compromised. Again, I don't want that to happen. My entire argument simply urged caution. Until such weapons could be governed by a stricter game engine, they should be left out.</P>

Finally, Martin: First, the classification Panzerartillerie denotes self-propelled equipment which gave fire support in the field but was not used in an anti-tank role. Secondly, the SiG 33 tag refers to the weapon carried on the particular vehicle. This was the Schwere Infanterie Geschutz or Heavy Infantry Gun. This weapon - at one stage or another - seemed to be fitted to almost every available chassis in the German army. This included the SiG 33 auf PzKpfw I, II, and III - as well as the version fitted to the Czech 38t chassis. As you rightly point out, the names given to variations of this particular AFV can seem confusing. The difference between the Bison and the Grille is largely to do with the position of the gun. Earlier versions of the Bison saw the gun mounted at the front, whereas later adaptations of the Grille saw the gun moved to the rear.</P>

------------------

Perch

[This message has been edited by Perchpole (edited 03-15-2001).]

[Hamsters]

Originally posted by Perchpole:

OK, now take this Brummbar and drop it into the CM world. The CM game engine tends to model AFVs quite literally. Because of this the Brummbar now becomes an extremely potent weapon. It has armour comparable to that of a Tiger tank and is armed with a gun capable of firing 150mm shells. As a consequence - and purely in terms of the game - this vehicle would be too powerful

Perch, have you played Combat Mission? This argument could be put forth for the Pershing, the Jagdtiger, the King Tiger, The PzIV/70, the Jumbo and god knows what other vehicles. The short 1.5cm on the Brummbar isn't nearly accurate enough to risk fighting enemy armor with, that's why the Germans didn't use it in this role. If it was any good at it, don't you think they would have? And the Sturmtiger has a ROF of 1 shot per 12 minutes, so yes it could blow anything up with one shot but then it's FRICKIN DEFENSELESS after that for 12 minutes. I doubt Sudden Strike models that and that's probably why it rocks in that stupid game. To iterate, if the Brummbar was an ubertank, you would have seen the Germans using it as such. In reality, it was just an effective assault gun.

[Tiger]

OK, now take this Brummbar and drop it into the CM world. The CM game engine tends to model AFVs quite literally. Because of this the Brummbar now becomes an extremely potent weapon. It has armour comparable to that of a Tiger tank and is armed with a gun capable of firing 150mm shells. As a consequence - and purely in terms of the game - this vehicle would be too powerful. People would be tempted to use it out of character and, as a result, that fragile realistic thread which runs through the heart of CM would be needlessly compromised. Again, I don't want that to happen. My entire argument simply urged caution. Until such weapons could be governed by a stricter game engine, they should be left out.

I entirely disagree with this. Disallow something because even though it was historical it might be too powerful and you don't think in-game historical forces can deal with it?

The Brummbar is armored slightly less than the Tiger on the sides and rear (almost half as much on the Brummbar).

The Tiger has a turrent, the Brummbar does not.

Disallowing a historical afv because you feel it is too armored and has too big a gun does not make any sense. If this is how CM2 works you're going to have to remove alot more than just the Brummbar. Might as well start with the ISU-152, and what about the KV-2? That gun is certainly too big! As far as people using a vehicle "out of character" (whatever that means), I do not believe that BTS would design CM2 to be that wildly unhistorical.

-Tiger