Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Sturmpanzer IV - \"Brummbär\"" video.

  1. I believed in my ignorance that its speed did not matter as it was just a street fighting machine travling by rail where it is needed, and then just move the last part by tracks and slowly and methodically clean city block after city block of enemy resistence. My only complaint would rather be that I think its frontal armor is quite unimpressive. 3cm at the lower front is not much. And Neither is the 4cm angled part of the tank, and even with some angling its still unimpressive. Sherman have 2 cm thicker armor that is angled as well, and that tank is not even designed to be a slow moving bunker and a shell magnet in close combat. This machine is however. And if someone fires an anti-tank gun at point blank range I believe chances are good that it will get through the armor. And a guy with a bazooka from a roof top could probably also get through that thin angled armor.
    6
  2. But if this tank was so succesful, then why did no one latch on onto the concept after this war?
    4
  3.  @czwarty7878  Well they said the Swedish S-tank was a bad tank because the concept was never copied. So if that is their own criteria about what is a good tank then they must say this tank was junk as well.
    2