HarryB Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I think it is an interesting and fairly unique vehicle and fun to play around with. It was not included in CMBO, and we had to wait for CMBB for it to be released in CMx1. I am hoping that we will be able to play around with it in Normandy this time around. I have done some poking around on the net and it appears that there was a unit of Brummbars in Normandy at the time of the Allied invasion. According to Achtungpanzer.com "Sturmpanzerabteilung 217 was formed from April to June of 1944 at Grafenwohr. In July of 1944, it was send to Normandy, south-east of Caen. Part of Sturmpanzerabteilung 217 was destroyed at Falaise, while the rest withdrew into Holand and took part in defence of Aachen." This from http://www.lerenfort.fsnet.co.uk/page39N.htm "Another remarkable find from Normandy below is the 15cm main armament from a Sd.kfz 166 or Sturmpanzer IV "Brummbar". This would have belonged to a Brummbar of Sturm Panzer Abteilung 217 that fought in Normandy during the Summer of '44 and is one of two to be found in the same collection!" There is a picture of the recovered barrel below the text. So, I'm going to make a personal plea that it be included when you introduce the Brits. Come on Battlefront, don't make me wait until the Russian Front this time around to play with the Brummbar, it's just too cool not to be included in the next module! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Be aware that your link has an extraneous ":" at the end - link works if this is deleted though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryB Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 Be aware that your link has an extraneous ":" at the end - link works if this is deleted though Cheers, the colon was part of the sentence, didn't mean for it to be part of the link so I just deleted it. If they are digging up pieces of them in Normandy, you know they took part in the fighting. I definitely think that the vehicle is unique and interesting enough to be worth including in the next module. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryB Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 An interesting thing to note is that in the picture of the Brummbar's barrel at the link above, there is a shell from a Sherman imbedded in the gun mantlet. A very clear indicator that these vehicles were not only present in Normandy, but actively engaged in the fighting. Would anyone from Battlefront like to make a comment as to whether the Brummbar might be included in the next module? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 A very clear indicator that these vehicles were not only present in Normandy, but actively engaged in the fighting. Or the wreck simply used as practice target... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryB Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 Or the wreck simply used as practice target... Even if it was a wreck used as a practice target, something had to wreck it in the first place. We will never know the exact circumstances that lead to this AFV's destruction, but it looks like it met a violent end at the hands of the Allies, one way or another. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I love the "Wham" of the 15cm StuH 43 L/12 :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Ah the Brummbar, takes me back to my SL days (before Advanced). Too bad I was trying to take out enemy armour with it... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I believe the term Brummbar was never used by the Germans, who designated it Sturmpanzer IV or it's nickname Stupa, having said that it is a favourite of mine and would love to see it represented (Arnhem?). Even better, Stupas, Ferdinands and Stugs, battling through the forward Northern Front defences in July 43, but that looks at least 4 years away...sigh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Grey Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Especially when the Eastern Front module will start in '44 with Bagration... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 If the Brummbar doesn't make the Commonwealth Module it certainly is a good candidate for the 3rd "Battlepack" module. If the Germans didn't call it the Brummbar during the war is this another case of marketing by plastic model manufacturers similar to M-36 "Jackson" ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryB Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 It's just a fun vehicle to use, nothing else quite like it; great for blasting infantry in built up areas. I built a model of one as a kid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Of course when the Battle of the Bulge game comes out we can start asking for the Sturmtiger. By the way, I keep telling everybody this, but it was mentioned we will be getting King Tigers and Jadgpanzers with the Commonwealth Module so there will be new German vehicles along with all the British stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I believe the term Brummbar was never used by the Germans, who designated it Sturmpanzer IV or it's nickname Stupa, having said that it is a favourite of mine and would love to see it represented (Arnhem?). Even better, Stupas, Ferdinands and Stugs, battling through the forward Northern Front defences in July 43, but that looks at least 4 years away...sigh Likewise I believe the Jagdpanzer 38(t) was not called as Hetzer by Germans at the time. There was some confusion at the factory at the time they started producing the vehicle, with the call name for E-10, a similar vehicle, being used instead. This led Guderian to write a memo erroneously claiming that frontline troops had given it that name, and later historians relied on this document. Still, calling it Hetzer is probably more handy and better recognized than Jagdpanzer 38(t) by now... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.