Sturmtiger an answer for a tough question

fat tony

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
111   0   0
[youtube]SCbFyIaVOPA[/youtube]

:eek:

A modern hypothetical incarnation would be something like a Anti Submarine Mortar Mk 10 adapted to a modern (ish) tank hull with a single barrel. *I know, I know I sound like the back up sks fat kid*. :D

Not sure if Canada has anything like the M-60 Engineering tank with the 165mm Demolition gun. I understand that some Churchill(?) tanks were outfitted with the 165 mm gun post WWII.
 
Last edited:
Ah you are refering to the Churchill AVRE (Armoured vehicle royal engineers). It was equipped with the Petard, a 290 mm Spigot mortar, throwing the 40 lb (18 kg) (AKA the dustbin) with its 28 pound high explosive warhead; a weapon designed for the quick levelling of fortifications.
 
Hitler had an amateur's fascination with Big. He spent a lot of time interfering with the design process of good weapons and diverted huge amounts of scarce resources into dead-ends like the Maus tank. That one weighed 200 T, had impenetrable armour and the most powerful gun on the battlefield - it could've taken on a squadron of Centurions or Pershings. But so could have a squadron of Panthers, and the effort the Maus project (which never actually got anywhere) seriously impeded production of normal weapon systems. There was a 1,000 T concept that would've been even worse - a turret with two 12" guns and 14" armour.

The Sturmtiger was not much better. Impressive as all get out, but simply not worth the effort. A 2km rocket range, one round maybe every 10 minutes, it had to move after every shot because it was a direct-fire weapon with a massive firing signature. Big, bulky, slow and under-powered. For all the fuss, they could've built many more normal tanks or artillery that would've made a far bigger contribution to their war effort.

The thing was a dinosaur. Impressive, but a dead end.

Oh, the only thing that this thing had in common with the naval antisub mortars was the big calibre. The bombs are long, long since gone and in any case had a much shorter range, totally different fuzing, etc.
 
Ah you are refering to the Churchill AVRE (Armoured vehicle royal engineers). It was equipped with the Petard, a 290 mm Spigot mortar, throwing the 40 lb (18 kg) (AKA the dustbin) with its 28 pound high explosive warhead; a weapon designed for the quick levelling of fortifications.

Yeah, the AVRE was pretty cool. I have not seen pics of the firing mechanism, however I heard it incorporated a huge spring.

The Churchill AVRE (Assault Vehicle, Royal Engineers) was developed after the Dieppe raid in an attempt to make combat engineers less vulnerable while they were attempting to destroy enemy defences.

The AVRE was developed from a suggestion made by Lieutenant J. J. Denovan of the Royal Canadian Engineers, but attached to the Special Devices Branch of the Department of Tank Design.
His idea was for a tank with as much of the standard internal equipment as possible removed and replaced with storage space for the sapper's equipment, tools and explosives. The Churchill was chosen because of its combination of a large interior, thick armour and side access door, and a prototype was developed for the Department of Tank Design by the 1st Canadian M E Company.

A demonstration on Hankley Common on 25 February 1943 showed what the engineers had in mind. A Churchill tank with the internal ammunition storage removed and a new side door that unfolded to become an armoured screen was driven up to a concrete wall. The sappers emerged from the tank, placed and lit General Wade explosive charges on the wall, and then retreated in the tank. The resulting hole was large enough to drive a tank through.

The 290mm muzzle loading mortar was developed separately, by Colonel Blacker, the designer of the Blacker Bombard, a spigot mortar built for the Home Guard. He was asked to design a version of the mortar that could be mounted on a tank, and produced a mortar that could fire a 40lb high explosive shell known as the Flying Dustbin. A massive spring soaked up the 20 tons of recoil and used the energy to recock the mortar. At the Hankley Common demonstration this mortar was mounted to a Churchill tanks. After using shells fused for air burst to clear a 28ft wide gap through a minefield, the mortar then fired twelve shells directly at a 6ft thick concrete wall, creating a gap wide enough for a tank.

The two designed were merged to create the AVRE. Around 700 were produced by converting Churchill Mk IIIs and IVs, of which 180 had been completed by the D-Day landing, where they were used by the 1st Assault Brigade of the 79th Armoured Division. The AVRE was given standard attachment points that could be used to carry a wide range of specialised equipment, including fascine carriers that could drop their brushwood bundles into ditches or at the base of barriers, a variety of mine sweeping devices, a Small Box Girder bridge, 'bobbin' carpet laying tanks and the 'Goat' explosive device.

The AVRE played an important part in the success of the British and Canadian landings on D-Day, where their spigot mortar was especially valuable, destroying a number of German strong points, the most famous being the Sanatorium at Le Hamel. They continued to operate successfully during the campaign in north-western Europe, and later versions of the AVRE tank remained in use long after the Churchill had been retired.

I have seen some pics around of perhaps an (?) Australian Churchill AVRE with the 165 mm gun installed. let me take a peek. . .

http://freespace.virgin.net/chris.shillito/a22new/articles/ident/ident.htm

^This site has pics of the Churchill w/165mm gun.

It looks like it's ready to blow up your bunker with 6 foot thick walls, then burn you all to death lol.
DSC_0251.jpg


^Here you go, this is what you need for the mother of all battles against the zombie hordes - mine flail / Churchill AVRE with no track guards, and 165mm gun! :D
 
Last edited:
The Sturmtiger was not much better. Impressive as all get out, but simply not worth the effort. A 2km rocket range, one round maybe every 10 minutes, it had to move after every shot because it was a direct-fire weapon with a massive firing signature. Big, bulky, slow and under-powered. For all the fuss, they could've built many more normal tanks or artillery that would've made a far bigger contribution to their war effort.

The thing was a dinosaur. Impressive, but a dead end.

Oh, the only thing that this thing had in common with the naval antisub mortars was the big calibre. The bombs are long, long since gone and in any case had a much shorter range, totally different fuzing, etc.
i disagree, the sturmtiger was not a bad decision early in the war when it was developed and it used limited resources because they were all built on damaged tigers, not new ones it was also a logical advancement of the brummbar which was used effectively against dug in and fortified positions

as to its rate of fire, i doubt any of them were fired rapidly but would bet it was more like one round every 2 minutes, not bad for such a huge effect
 
Also,

A sturmtiger has been noted for being pretty much the only vehicle in history for having destroyed 3 tanks (shermans) in a single shot during the ardennes offensive.

Thats pretty impressive.
 
A sturmtiger has been noted for being pretty much the only vehicle in history for having destroyed 3 tanks (shermans) in a single shot during the ardennes offensive.

Thats pretty impressive.

Not really.

Had it done it twice, now that would have been impressive. If it had been able to do that on demand, I would agree that the Sturmtiger was a worthwhile system.

Hitler had a fascination with wonder weapons. The Sturmtiger is to my mind like the V2 rocket. At vast expense, it took one ton of explosives to London. At the same time, thousands of B17s were hauling four tons of bombs to Berlin - each. It's generally concluded that the effort spent on the V2 - however technologically advanced and no matter now 'ooh-ahh' at the time - would have been far better spent on conventional weapons. The Karl 600mm mortar is another example - terrible on the receiving end, no doubt, but consuming a disproportionate amount of resources to make, maintain, move and use.

It's significant, IMO, that only 18 Sturmtigers were ever made. The Germans made 9,000 Mk IVs, 6,000 Panthers, 1,300 Tigers and 500 King Tigers. Add to that as many more self-propelled guns and tank-destroyers. Even the Brummbar was made in quantity - 500 of them, each with a 150mm conventional cannon. But only 18 Sturmtigers... One would've thought that a successful weapon would've been more common.
 

Yeah. The Yanks made a 280mm cannon in the 1950s specifically designed to launch atomic warheads. The thing was 84 feet long. As soon as they could miniaturize nukes to the point where they would fit in a 203mm or 155mm gun, the M65 was ditched - too big, too hard to hide, clumsy to move and, all in all, too much gun for the benefit provided.

The ultimate obscenity: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...B5A39CEBBA97E23D88F3B5A39CEBBA97E&FORM=LKVR12
 
Last edited:
Ah you are refering to the Churchill AVRE (Armoured vehicle royal engineers). It was equipped with the Petard, a 290 mm Spigot mortar, throwing the 40 lb (18 kg) (AKA the dustbin) with its 28 pound high explosive warhead; a weapon designed for the quick levelling of fortifications.

last used in the invasion of Iraq, great way to breach an anti tank ditch, or wipe out a bunker.
 
i would like more info on this if you have it

the main disadvantage of the churchill petard set up was that it was loaded from the muzzle by an exposed crewman

The Brits came up with a 165mm breach-loading gun firing a squash-head projectile with about 18kg of high explosive fill. Range of a squash ball (2,400m in theory, but good luck with that), trajectory like a rainbow - but it did a number on barriers, bunkers and so forth.

The Yanks bought it from them, as I recall, for their engineer vehicles.

Not sure if it's still in service.
 
Are you thinking of the Engineering Centurion instead of the Churchill???

It used the same 165mm demolition gun as the M60.
 
lawn gnome - I believe that, in UK service, it was used on variants of both the Churchill and the Centurion. And, yes, there was an M60 variant in US service.
 
Here's a better pic. Shows the exhaust vents on the launcher and the projectile.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Sturmtiger_frontal.jpg/220px-Sturmtiger_frontal.jpg

Grizz
 
lawn gnome - I believe that, in UK service, it was used on variants of both the Churchill and the Centurion. And, yes, there was an M60 variant in US service.

On our TOW Pedestal mount course, one of the lessons incorported was the story of an American M-60 Engineering tank w / 165mm gun squaring off against an NVA PT-76 Amphibious tank in Vietnam. I guess there were some spare parts for a PT-76 readily available after that particular engagement. :p
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom