Sturmtiger

[Cuirassier]

In combat mission, this vehicle is exceedingly rare, so I assume few people use it in realistic scenarios or H2H games. However, while designing my own, unrealistic scenarios just to explore the capabilities of this strange assault gun, I was astounded at the firepower the 380mm gun provides. It can obliterate half a company with one round!

Here is a picture of it lofting a 380mm round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sturmtiger_4.jpg

Now that is just a crazy sight!

Anyway, I am wondering if this vehicle was actually used in combat. If so, how did it perform, where was it tasked, what formations used it?

Also, if one were to make a realistic scenario with the Sturmtiger, what would a realistic force composition be for it? I am just wondering for curiosity's sake.

[ww2steel]

Hi,

Wow, cool pic.

It is debated if these are used in combat. If I remember correctly the only confirmed use of these was against an uprising of the Warsaw ghetto.

Use in the game is just SOOOO gamey.. 'a whoosh, then suddenly every man within 150m is dead.'

I'll see what else I can find,

Mike

[JasonC]

No relation to reality whatever. Everyone knows large HE is way overmodeled in CM. The 150mm stuff is far too powerful, especially when accurately delivered, direct. (Only scatter makes the stuff up to the 210 range even remotely realistic).

There were a few sent to the west, and they were readily taken out by ordinary Shermans.

[John Kettler]

Cuirassier,

The converted rocket propelled 38cm ex-antisubmarine projectile had as much explosive content as a 250 lb. bomb, which goes a long way toward explaining why it's so nasty in the game.

ww2steel,

While I believe you're correct on the Eastern Front end, the Americans had several run-ins with them, including one reported case where Shermans (type unknown to me) were on the receiving end of a 38cm rocket, resulting in the loss of two Shermans. ISTR the blast knocked them clean over. Have also seen U.S. Army imagery in which a Sturmtiger looks like it took three 75mm or 76.2mm HVAP penetrations smack dab through the rear armor plate. While the vehicle was rare, there are quite a few official photos of Sturmtigers after combat.

Wanted to also mention that someone has a Panzer footage site (don't recall URL) on which there's video of a Sturmtiger firing. Spectacular!

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 21, 2006, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[ww2steel]

Okay,

18 of these wree converted from existing Tiger chassis from Aug - Dec '44. The weapon came from a 1943 attempt to make a mortar for U boats to attack land targets. KM dropped project, but Heer finished it for this function. 4.6km range. Issued to Sturmmorser companies 1001, 1002, 1003. "employed mainly in defense of the German homeland" (Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII)

German Tanks of WWII: 6km range of a 761 pound projectile. Must be reloaded at zero elevation = very slow rate of fire. Four men, including the gunner, were required to load. "only useful employment ... was in the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto, though seven were present during Operation 'Wacht am Rhein". ...further back in the same book it shows a 5.5km range. They used rebuilt battle damaged vehicles. In late '44 employed on East front and Italy. Dec'44 1000, 1001 companies (with their seven combined STigers) were to be used in Ardennes OFfensive, but could not keep up with front lines.

The Encyclopedia of Tanks and Armored Fighting Vehicles: shows 14 rounds carried, says they were only build because the navy had no ships to put the finished launchers into (though I personally doubt this).

That should be enough info

Mike

[ww2steel]

Kettler-

Cool, it's obvious that even to the very knowledgable writers of my books that knowledge of their combat use in the theaters they were known to be in is very limited.

No doubt this round could be a 'tank flipper'!

Mike

[ww2steel]

To add- some books say that they are depth charge launchers, some say they are U boat land assault mortars. Though it's less common, I tend to believe the latter, especially given the book I took it out of (Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII, a VERY good book that needs to be in any collection).

Mike

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Wanted to also mention that someone has a Panzer footage site (don't recall URL) on which there's video of a Sturmtiger firing. Spectacular!

Regards,

John Kettler

Ask and you shall receive!

[ww2steel]

Cool story.. the CMBB version:

We heard this whoosh, and all that was left was one guy with a BAR who paniced and ran off the map... all of the tank commanders were dead too.

Mike

[Cuirassier]

Thanks for the quick replies. Since, as I suspected, the Sturmtiger has little to no combat history, my next question is about the next most powerful assault gun-the Brummbar.

From my knowledge, this assault gun was used, though successful, I am not sure. Perhaps someone can enlighten me...

In my "Kursk: The vital 24 hours" by Will Fowler, detailed drawings and descriptions of the Brummbar are given, though litte is given of its combat record, unlike the more common vehicles associated with Kursk, like the Tiger and Panther. Did the Brummbar have success? Which units employed it? Were incorporated into Model's Ninth Army, or in the south, or both?

Again, I find that this assault gun is rarely used in CM scenarios. Is this because it was uncommon, or that a designer must be careful when incorporating over-modelled HE into a scecnario? Infact, I don't even see very many Sturmhaubitze 42's around. Maybe I am playing the wrong scenarios...

Anyway, since messing around with these assault guns in QB's and homemade scenarios, I have found that assault guns are pretty attractive in CM, from the baseline Stug III to the Sturmtiger. Turreted tanks are no longer my favorite.

[ww2steel]

The Grizzly Bear was a great weapon, especially once they gave it an MG. The problem was that by the time it was ready, they were no longer attacking fortified cites. Its combat history was limited by this.

Mike

[l.cassidy]

Cuirassier,

if you want to play a good scenario that includes the Sturmtiger, try "HSG - A Tiger by the tail".

I had fun playing it as Axis vs. the AI (with some experience bonus to the AI).

You can find it at http://www.the-proving-grounds.com/ or http://www.the-scenario-depot.com/

Have fun!

Cassidy

[John Kettler]

MeatEtr,

Thanks much! It wasn't the site I remembered, which had lots of Panzer video clips, but it definitely has the same video clip I saw.

ww2steel,

Von Senger und Etterlin's GERMAN TANKS OF WORLD WAR II, a standard reference if ever there was one, flatly states that the 38cm Raketenwerfer 61 was developed as an antisubmarine weapon, which to me seems far more reasonable than the proposed U-boat mortar. As an ASW weapon, it thus forms a kind of German counterpart to the Allied Squid system.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Buq-Buq]

John, et al:

The 380mm rocket launcher of the Sturmtiger was indeed designed as a depth-charge projector. TankPower #16, "PzKpfw VI, vol. IV, Tiger/Sturmtiger"* has this to say about the weapon (p. 28):

"The 38 cm Raketen-Tauchgranatenwerfer L/5,4 (38 cm RTgW L/5,4) was a breech-loaded rocket depth charge (38 cm Raketen-Tauchgranate, 38 cm RTg) launcher, designed for the Kriegsmarine by Rheinmetall-Borsig of Duesseldorf at their Soemmerda ammunition plant. The 38 cm RTgW L/5,4 was designed to defend protected harbors and naval bases against submarines and assault submersibles, and thus had been designed with a view to its being mounted on the ground, in concrete bunkers overlooking the harbor entrances, rather than on board naval vessels. Its short range, not exceeding 3 000 meters, meant that the field of fire was rather on the smallish side so the Navy had already, in late 1941 and early 1942, planned to design a tracked chassis to mount the 38 cm RTgW L/5,4 in order to extend the zone defended by each launchers [sic] by making them mobile."

Mark

* This issue of TankPower is probably the definitive source on the Sturmtiger. There are 30 pages (8" X 11" format) of English and Polish text on Sturmtiger genesis, development, production, technical details and combat use (including the most comprehensive accounting of the actions for each of the three Panzersturmmoerserkompanies/batteries — to include the combat testing of the prototype in Warsaw in August 1944 — that I have ever seen). Additionally, for the technically minded, there are a further 28 pages of Sturmtiger line drawings, mainly consisting of 5-view spreads of individual Sturmtiger, showing the various differences between 9 (out of a total of 18!) individual production vehicles. Finally, for those with a modelling-bent, there are 8 pages of beautiful side, top, front and rear color renderings of Sturmtiger showing various color schemes of existing vehicles, and a "3D" computer rendering of a 38 cm projectile. This work is a "must-have" for any serious Sturmtiger buff.

[JasonC]

The Brummbars at Kursk were all in the 216 Sturm Panzer battalion, which was with the Elephants in the 656 Pz Jgr regiment, spearheading the northern attack. There were 45 of them in 3 companies.

The original idea was that they would work with Elephants in the same way StuHs worked with StuGs. But instead of mixing them into each platoon, the Elephants mostly went first without them.

They were in the massive fight for Ponyri from the second day on (July 6, 7 and 8 almost exclusively), working with the 292 infantry division (originally they supported the 86th, but the 292 fought for the town proper and they were sent to help support that). 17 of them were lost (TWO).

The overall plan in the north was for a strong reinforced corps of infantry (though designated "panzer" at the corps level) to make the actual break-in, and then the panzer corps proper would exploit it.

The break in corps had 90 Elephants, 45 Brummbars, 52 StuGs and 18 StuH in two battalions plus one company, and a single PD with 70 tanks (about 40 Pz IV and 30 Pz III). An assault division from the corps to its left had another 58 StuGs and 4 StuH, 24 Marders, and 4 extra battalions of infantry at corps level. These combined also had 20 battalions worth of higher HQ artillery or rockets, doubling the organic arty of the 4 divisions involved.

They drove for Ponyri. The first exploitation corps wound up being committed just to the right of them rather than immediately behind, when they failed to break through. This force had 3 full PDs plus a Tiger battalion and 2 StuG battalions, giving 45 Tigers (by the 8th, last company committed at the height of the battle that day), 53 StuGs and 9 StuH, a whopping 162 Pz IVs, and 75 Pz IIIs. Instead of fighting for the ruins of a long village, these fought on open hills just west of it, dotted with a few smaller villages. They did considerably better, but faced tons of Russian reserve armor.

Each had around 350 AFVs, but the mix between thick front assault guns and turreted tanks was reversed, 80-20 assault guns in the first wave on the left, and 20-80 in the exploitation group just afterward, on the right.

In practice, the assault guns didn't have enough infantry-suppressing firepower because they lacked MGs (low ammo flexibles don't count - tanks need to be able to hose anything for hours). The heavy assault guns took 40% losses, TWO. The corps and adjoining assault division lost about 6500 men in the first few days, most of it from 23 infantry and 3 pioneer battalions. Which amounts to comparable losses among the infantry engaged, around 40%.

The Russians lost much more, certainly. The front line division in front of Ponyri collapsed on the first day, and the main fight for Ponyri was carried by the second line RD in the sector. It was burnt out within 2 days, reinforced in place by 2 airborne divisions, which held.

But the breakthrough assault gun idea failed in the execution. To get them forward the friendly infantry had to live through barrage fire and heavy soft firepower of all kinds. When they advanced beyond that they lost heavily to infantry AT weapons. Moderated to the pace of the infantry advance, they still lost vehicles to AT mines and to flanking AT fire, from towed guns and from tanks. Vehicles also fell out due to damage from artillery fire, ATRs, non-penetrating hits, etc.

[John Kettler]

Buq-Buq,

Danke mucho! That's a level of detail I've never seen before. Had absolutely no idea the weapon was ever intended for harbor defense; I'd always believed it was for a naval mount.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

About why so few Sturmtigers in scenarios: First they're so darned expensive. How many Stug platoons could you buy instead of that monster? Second, it has a nasty habit of getting bogged - then immobilized - while pointing AWAY from the enemy, or just out of LOS.

[Beorix]

What about to do a skin for that "monster" MikeyD ?

Ambush pattern would be perfect, like the Stuh42 late,that you made some weeks ago.

Please

[Beorix]

up !

[mrpwase]

Down?