Hummels

dasreich · #1 (**permalink**) July 20th, 2002, 09:09 AM

Any thoughts on this 150mm self-propelled artillery?

mp38 · #2 (**permalink**) July 20th, 2002, 02:40 PM

I really liked the Hummels, and Wespes, as well as other self-propelled artillery. SP artillery was a far better cry than the old horse drawn stuff that they used. The only drawback for the Germans was that they sucked up precious fuel that could be used in thier tanks!

Matt

C.Evans · #3 (**permalink**) July 20th, 2002, 07:05 PM

Agreed and well said Matt. Also, wish me luck on my latest bidding--this is for an original photo of a Wespe in action on the Eastern Front. The bidding is over $50.00 right now

but im still hanging on [img]smile.gif[/img]

dasreich · #4 (**permalink**) July 20th, 2002, 07:12 PM

SP guns (like Hummel and Wespe) tended to be open top too. That made them very vulnerable. But they sure could support infantry.

C.Evans · #5 (**permalink**) July 20th, 2002, 07:29 PM

So were some STUG III's. Bodo Spranz's STUG for example.

CrazyD · #6 (**permalink**) July 21st, 2002, 08:55 AM

I'd say the Hummel was a pretty good vehicle. The gun was a standard, high quality weapon, and the chassis was reliable. And while it was open-topped, the hummel batteries usually worked relatively far behind the front, so they would generally not be in direct fire. COunter-battery fire was still a problem. The main drawback with the hummel was ammo storage... even when stretching their space, the crew couldn't accomodate more than 20 or so rounds. Each hummel in a battery would have its own ammo carrier, which did increase the fuel problem mp38 mentioned. Plus each ammo carrier was usually a striped- down PzIV...
I'd say overall the mobility of the SP artillery made it worthwhile...

C. Evans- an open topped StuG III? I've never heard of that. Info?

[ 21 July 2002, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

Martin Bull · #7 (**permalink**) July 21st, 2002, 08:58 AM

I'm quite confused about German S/P artillery.
When I saw this thread heading, I immediately thought of a photo in one of my 'Bulge' books showing one, post-war, abandoned near Sonlez with its' 15cm gun at full elevation. Looked it up, it's a SdKfz 138/1 ( a 'Grille', not a 'Hummel' ).

dasreich · #8 (**permalink**) July 21st, 2002, 09:03 AM

I first encountered the Hummel in the game Combat Mission. Its firepower against infantry was incredible. I know its just a game, but a 150mm HE shell had to pack a punch. Running out of ammo was a problem, though. All in all, after doing some research on the hummel, I would have to say it is my favorite SP gun.

CrazyD · #9 (**permalink**) July 21st, 2002, 09:45 AM

The Grille was another SP 15cm gun carrier. The grille was based on the ever-popular Pz 38(t) chassis, and followed the same pattern as the hummel and wespe- open topped, light armor, and little ammo- again less than 20 rounds. Smaller chassis than the other two, which led to less popularity. I've read differing reports on how many were produced, but almost certainly less than the hummels or wespes.

And I'd imagine Comabt Mission did a pretty good job- from what I've read both the 15cm and 10.5 cm guns were VERY effective.

Andreas Seidel · #10 (**permalink**) July 21st, 2002, 10:43 AM

Ammo storage always was and is a problem for SPA. The Hummel and Wespe were a step towards the mechanised army. Artillery was almost the only thing not on a tank by then. It made it a lot more mobile than before.

Which was the first tracked artillery gun anyway? Anybody know?

Martin Bull · #11 (**permalink**) July 21st, 2002, 10:58 AM

Interesting question.
The first German self-propelled artillery piece was the sIG33, a strange boxy-looking device mounted on old PzKpfwIb chassis ( these were used in the 1940 blitzkrieg ).

But whether this was the first ever, I don't know ?

CrazyD · #12 (**permalink**) July 21st, 2002, 08:39 PM

I'm pretty sure Martin's right on the SiG33... that's the first one I've heard of. I think the self propelled artillery came about mainly as a part of the german focus on mechanization.

This dosen't really count as "tracked" or even "self" propelled, but I know railway artillery was used as early as the American Civil War...

Bish OBE · #13 (**permalink**) July 21st, 2002, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CrazyD88:
C. Evans- an open topped StuG III? I've never heard of that. Info?[/QB]

Got me on that one as well. The only open topped tracked vehicles i can think of are SP artllery and PzJags.

CrazyD · #14 (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2002, 07:25 AM

I only wonder because the StuG series was prupose-built; most of the open topped vehicles were conversions off the hull of an existing tank...

speaking of this... dasreich mentions the vulnerability of the open topped vehicles, which I've also noted. I wonder though- how significant was this danger? Engagements, especially on the russian front where many of the ad-hoc TDs went, were often long range affairs over relatively open country. The open-topped vehicles didn't have exposed engines, and engine fires I think was the most common fatal hit on armored vehicles. And they could mount a bigger gun than a fully armored vehicle...

dasreich · #15 (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2002, 07:42 AM

One of the drawbacks of an open-topped vehicle is the ease of knocking out with infantry. All an adventurous soldier has to do is lob a grenade in and its all over. Not to mention if the vehicle enters an area of heavy mortar fire, or a stray friendly mortar hits it, the vehicle could easily be neutralized. Also, suppose a hummel goes under a tree and a branch falls down...or lightning strikes inside the vehicle. Obscure, I know. But it would suck to have a branch fall on me while im trying to load a gun...or have lightning strike a shell.

Otto · #16 (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CrazyD88:
*SNIP*... dasreich mentions the vulnerability of the open topped vehicles, which I've also noted. I wonder though- how significant was this danger? *SNIP*

I recall reading German casualty breakdowns on the Russian front. By far the greatest cause of German casualties was soviet artillery. I mean, the Russian fielded entire artillery divisions, and this concentration of fipower helped produce casualty numbers were in the 50% to 70% range! An open topped vehicle would provide little protection against artillery. That's just my theory, and it may or may not be accurate.

Bish OBE · #17 (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2002, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Otto:
I recall reading German casualty breakdowns on the Russian front. By far the greatest cause of German casualties was soviet artillery. I mean, the Russian fielded entire artillery divisions, and this concentration of fipower helped produce casualty numbers were in the 50% to 70% range! An open topped vehicle would provide little protection against artillery. That's just my theory, and it may or may not be accurate.[/QB]

This would depend on the type of shells being fired. If they are airburst, then yes, an open topped vehicle would be more vulnerable. But if not, then as long as the crew keep their heads down, the open top would not really matter, with the exception of debris that might drop into the top. The biggest worry would be the thin armour these vehicles had around their fighting compartment.

But, some Hummels were fitted with anti-grenade screens over the top. This would suggest that there was a threat from enemy troops.

[ 22 July 2002, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: Bish OBE ]

CrazyD · #18 (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2002, 03:43 PM

Artillery would certainly be a problem for the open-topped vehicles- for that matter, anything that produced fragments. Otto, I've also read similar casualty statistics. I was more wondering on a comparative basis- Compare the some numbrs for, say, a Stug III F8 and a Nashorn. Similar chassis, one open-topped with a bigger gun, the other fully armored with a smaller gun...
I also wonder about crews- which ones did they prefer? We would probably assume the one with more armor, but the bigger gun may have meant more...

As soon as I get time, I'll see if I can find some sorts of numbers...

Friedrich · #19 (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2002, 07:34 PM

The "Bison", siG33 was indeed the first German self-propelled artillery. The problem with self-propelled artillery was when it was used as tanks. If tank-destroyers cannot be used as tanks because they do not have a turret, then self-propelled guns with no turret an no thick-armour are used to engage tanks is an insanity. This guns should be at the rear (third line) of the battle field, where they can provide supporting fire with big guns and move quickly. Being at the third line of the front, behind tanks and infantry (supossely) you would not have to worry about facing enemy tanks or infantry...

But when properly used they were lethal, because moving a conventional 150mm gun is horrendous! If the gun moves quickly, then it is going to smash ANYTHING. I like self-propelled guns a lot.

CrazyD · #20 (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2002, 10:17 PM

True, Friedrich. Even the open topped tank destroyers were best suited for long-range engagements. But without anything else, the germans often were forced to press these vehicles into action they were not suited for.
but in the mobile role, self propelled artillery probably was the difference in more battles than we would guess.