28 January 2022, 10:30:42 *

Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to War and Tactics!    War and Tactics Forum is currently undergoing some modifications that might disable features you are used to. This is unabvoidable as we have to update the forum engine to a new structure that is incompatible with many of the features we had used so far. The good news: WaT will be more secure and stable, and most of the features we uninstalled will be a natural part of the new structure anyway. For the rest we will be looking for solutions. (APR 23, 2018)
   
  Home   Forum   Help ! Forum Rules ! Search Calendar Donations Login Register Chat  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on MySpaceShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on TechnoratiShare this topic on TwitterShare this topic on Yahoo
Author Topic: Panzerhaubitze "Hummel" SdKfz 165  (Read 11709 times)
Alan65
The Postcard man
Captain
***

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Seattle
Posts: 765




View Profile WWW
« on: 17 January 2009, 06:47:15 »
ReplyReply


Postcard from the Panzer museum in Munster Germany.  Caption on the back says "Schwere Panzergaubitze 'Hummel'"  Gaubitze is "Howitzer", I believe; what's 'schwere' in this case?.  I know this wouldn't be called a 'tank' since there's no turret but how would you differentiate a Self-propelled Gun from an Assault Gun.  (in this case anyway, or is this an arbitrary designation that needn't concern us here.)

edit: Koen: it's PanzerHaubitze
« Last Edit: 17 January 2009, 22:13:37 by Koen » Logged
Heinrich505
Staff Sergeant
**

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Woodbridge, Virginia USA
Posts: 103


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 17 January 2009, 07:00:56 »
ReplyReply

Alan65,
  Schwere is the normal designation for "Heavy," and this baby was nicknamed "bumblebee."  Since it fell into the category of mobile artillery or self propelled gun, I believe schwere was the designation given it because of the gun it carried.  It mounted a 15 cm howitzer.  As it was open topped, and mainly meant to perform as artillery, it was not an assault gun.  These weren't as efficient as the "Nashorn" which carried the famous 8.8 cm gun, same as the Tiger I, and was pressed into AT service even though open topped as well.   

                 Heinrich505
Logged
Alan65
The Postcard man
Captain
***

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Seattle
Posts: 765




View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: 17 January 2009, 07:13:51 »
ReplyReply

thank you, Heinrich, I guess when I stop and think about it, 'assualt gun' implies some sort of offensive intent so this wouldn't do (at least for the crew!)  I believe I have a postcard of a Nashorn laying around here somewhere. . .
Logged
Heinrich505
Staff Sergeant
**

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Woodbridge, Virginia USA
Posts: 103


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: 17 January 2009, 22:28:54 »
ReplyReply

Koen,
  Excellent shots.  Thanks for posting them.  The shot with the antennae is deceptive.  I think that was an antennae set up beyond the Hummel, but from the angle of the shot it appeared to be on the vehicle.  I've never seen any shots where antennae such as those were on a Hummel.

  From reading about the Hummel, I get the impression that they weren't all that well received by the crews.  They were a sort of stop-gap creation, with the 15 cm gun not all that well conceived on a movable platform.  They were supposed to be fast, movable artillery, when in reality, they were fairly slow, with only light armor for the crew.

  Ah, but the 8.8 cm gun on the Nashorn was perfect.  I am also guessing that the Hummel was pressed into service as an AT gun, and wasn't designed for that purpose, whereas the Nashorn was, with that amazing 88.  The Soviets tried to avoid Nashorns at all costs, just like they did the StuGs.

                         Heinrich505 
Logged
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4215




View Profile
« Reply #4 on: 17 January 2009, 22:34:21 »
ReplyReply

what I read is that Hummel was 100% build for artillery purposes and NOT for any engagements.

The Nashorn had indeed the 88 which was THE ATgun for WWII!

(if only I could learn to use them in Combat Mission, lost a complete platoon without a single kill)

nice thought: was the antenna ON or BEHIND the Hummel?
Logged
Heinrich505
Staff Sergeant
**

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Woodbridge, Virginia USA
Posts: 103


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: 17 January 2009, 22:47:31 »
ReplyReply

Yep, you are so right.  In CM they are difficult to use.  I was able to use them in your Beasts scenario fairly well, as I lined them up for long shots down the road through town while partially concealed in the woods below the town.  They managed to get one kill each before being blown up.

          Heinrich505
Logged
Mad Russian
Guest

« Reply #6 on: 17 January 2009, 23:57:13 »
ReplyReply

The only way to effectively use Nashorns in CM is with TRP's. They can't hit the side of a barn without them which is absolutely crazy. They were the most effective vehicle tank killer at long range the Germans ever made.

The Nashorn and Hummel both use the same chassis. Which used both PzIII and PzIV parts.

Good Hunting.

MR
Logged
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4215




View Profile
« Reply #7 on: 18 January 2009, 00:01:27 »
ReplyReply

The only way to effectively use Nashorns in CM is with TRP's. They can't hit the side of a barn without them which is absolutely crazy. They were the most effective vehicle tank killer at long range the Germans ever made.

The Nashorn and Hummel both use the same chassis. Which used both PzIII and PzIV parts.

Good Hunting.

MR


so, what you're saying is that CM doesn't give them credit?
Logged
Heinrich505
Staff Sergeant
**

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Woodbridge, Virginia USA
Posts: 103


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: 18 January 2009, 03:22:20 »
ReplyReply

Koen,
  I second MR on that.  The Nashorn was an incredibly effective weapon.  I hadn't thought about the use of TRP's for CM, but of course that makes sense.  They should have been modeled better.

                  Heinrich505
Logged
von Staudt
Sergeant
*

Offline Offline

Location: Houston, Texas USA
Posts: 45


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: 18 January 2009, 16:02:28 »
ReplyReply

Here is a Hummel and Wespe side by side at the Panzer Museum in Munster.  The Hummel is probaby the same one shown on the postcard in the first post.

Logged

***von Staudt***
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Unique Hits: 38366169 | Sitemap
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page 9 December 2021, 16:08:20