Sturmpanzer III sIG33 / 15cm Sturm-Infanteriegeschutz 33

[VonReitsch]

According to Spielberger's 'StuG & its Variants' 12 of these vehicles were made in October 1942 (from returned chassis) and another 12 in November 1942 (new vehicles, StuG III F chassis?). The first twelf (panzer-grey) were lost in Stalingrad, while the second 'batch' operated apparently from November 1942 to October 1943.

I am wondering about the colours schemes of the second batch; they may have been panzer-grey as well throughout the winter 42/43, and repainted yellow (plus camouflage colours) in spring 1943. Would it be appropriate to paint these vehicles with a grey base, followed by yellow (etc) so that some gray colours may be seen at certain areas, like the lower chassis?

And a humble request: has someone another picture of these (later) vehicles, if possible with some detail or with attached spare wheels on the front side...

Thanks in advance,

Eric

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Welcome to the forum Eric!

I think you would be safe to paint the first base colour Dunkelgrau, with Dunkelgelb over that for spring-1943 vehicles, however if the scene is in mid or late February, I could imagine that some vehicles would still require new painting...

Christian

[MaisAlto]

Hope these help!!

Regards

[Korbius]

The images that MaisAlto posted aren't working or is it just me?

Anyways, here's a color profile of the Sturm-Infanterie-geschütz 33B
StuIG 33B produced in November '42.

[Marcus]

The images that MaisAlto posted aren't working or is it just me?

They don't show up for me either.

/Marcus

[VonReitsch]

Until now I have found the following pictures (on the internet or in Spielberger's books):

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/s ... %2001a.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/s ... %2002b.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/s ... %2003a.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/s ... %2004a.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/s ... %2005a.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/s ... %2006a.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/s ... %2007a.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/s ... %2008a.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/s ... %2009a.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/s ... %2010a.jpg

I am still looking for other pictures, especially those showing some details of the hatches (inner side commander's hatch, doors at the back side of the fighting compartment). If you have any, I would be VERY gratefull!

Eric

[him.rudkjoebing]

Hi.

As to the question of color, I would say, that it depends on which unit the StuGs were serving in and what time. My own gutfeeling is, that if the unit was engaged in the hectic struggles going on, there was not any time left for major repainting (that is if the paint could be brought forward to the units in action in addition to fuel, ammo and food etc.)

If you consider the actions on the east front during the winter 1942-43 after Stalingrad, it was rather hectic and occupied by the see-saw battles around Kharkov and in the middle section of the front. Personally, I would hazard the guess, that during this period any changing of colorschemes would primarily concern winter whitewashing.

After the Manstein-offensive petered out north of Kharkov, the time came for rest, refitting and repainting in preparation for Zitadelle in july.

Thus until at least the middle of March 1943 I would guess (but it is only my guess) that af fairly accurate colorscheme would be Panzergrau and whitewash (and probably a very used whitewash).

[magicdragon]

Does any body have any ideas why only 24 of theses vehicles where built? While the Brummbar (same calibre but different gun and married with the Pz IV chassis) was built in larger numbers, the Sturmpanzer III was available a good year before the first Brummbar, so logically you would expect a few more to be built if both vehicles filled the same tactical role and the Heer needed them? Was it the same old story of sIG 33 being too heavy even for the Pz III chassis?

[Alanmccoubrey]

Because it wasn't good enough, the weight was too much for the chassis and the armour wasn't as thick as the StuPa IV.

[magicdragon]

Alan

Thanks succinct and too the point.

It seems bizarre they took 3 years to work through 3 different versions and 74 conversions -15 cm sIG 33 (Sf) auf Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf B (38 examples), 15 cm sIG 33 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II (Sf) (12 examples), Sturm-Infanteriegeschütz 33B (24 examples) - to identify the Pz IV chassis was the only viable option to carry the sIG 33? The sIG 33 (Sf) auf Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf B worth a punt to try and make use of the Pz I chassis (although I would have guessed more than one engineer on the project did the math and would have realised it was a fools errand). The 15 cm sIG 33 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II (Sf) and Sturm-Infanteriegeschütz 33B I don't get there were plenty of calls for the Pz II and Pz III chassis why waste so many chassis, half dozen should have been sufficient for a troop trial? Get 6 of each ready (versions based on the Pz II, III and IV chassis) for Barbarossa and you would have a clear idea by the end of 1941 which one to develop further, I know turning them into serial production would have been a challenge because of production capacity.

[Alanmccoubrey]

They took that long because they were using obsolete or near obsolete chassis at first, they certainly didn't have spare production capacity to divert Panzer IV chassis in 1940 when they first used the Panzer I or 1942 when they tried the II and III. Nor in 1940 did they foresee the need for something as heavily armoured, they were just trying to find a way to make a relatively heavy gun more mobile hence the Panzer I and II versions. Stalingrad led directly to the III version and therefore the IV. If you look at it that way you'l see that Stalingrad in late 1942 led to the StuPa IV in Spring/Summer 1943, that is fairly quick really.

[magicdragon]

Stalingrad led directly to the III version and therefore the IV. If you look at it that way you'l see that Stalingrad in late 1942 led to the StuPa IV in Spring/Summer 1943, that is fairly quick really.

Alan I don't think Stalingrad led to the development of the Sturmpanzer III sIG33 as they were at Stalingrad (I wonder if there were any combat reports from the Don front which suggested the Sturmpanzer III was not performing to expectations?), surely the experience of urban fighting at Sevastopol and the upcoming plan to use the 11th Army to attack Leningrad were the prime motivators for the development of the Sturmpanzer III sIG33. I would agree that Stalingrad and upcoming spring offensive in 1943 would have been a motivator for the Brummbar? It is also interesting that most successful version of the 150mm Sturmpanzer - the Brummbar, also had a different 150mm gun (15 cm StuH 43 L/12) to the the standard sIG 33. I wonder if that also played role in the timing of the development of the Brummbar i.e. they were waiting for this gun to be ready?.

[Alanmccoubrey]

All the information that I have ever read about the StIG 33b is that they were hurriedly developed for the street fighting in Stalingrad, what urban fighting in Sevasopol ?

[SIS 5]

Hi,

here is the information about this vehicle out of the book ""Die deutschen Panzer 1926 - 1945" by Dr. F. M. von Senger und Etterlin:
"The Prototype of the sIG 33 B (Sfl) was presented to Hitler 31st March 1941 and then a test series with 12 vehicles was commissioned. These 12 vehicles were finished until 15th September 1941 with the designation ""Sturm-Infanterigeschütz 33". The large series, which was not to be expected until spring 1942, didn´t start."

Regards

Bert

[Alanmccoubrey]

Hi,

here is the information about this vehicle out of the book ""Die deutschen Panzer 1926 - 1945" by Dr. F. M. von Senger und Etterlin:
"The Prototype of the sIG 33 B (Sfl) was presented to Hitler 31st March 1941 and then a test series with 12 vehicles was commissioned. These 12 vehicles were finished until 15th September 1941 with the designation ""Sturm-Infanterigeschütz 33". The large series, which was not to be expected until spring 1942, didn´t start."

Regards

Bert

Thanks Bert, I forgot about that book. So it pre-dates all the battles we've talked about then, and interestingly that particular section of the book starts "In 1941 in an attempt to improve the mobility of the heavy infantry gun sIG33 it was mounted on a Pz Kw III chassis." So eventhough they added "Sturm" to the vehicle name it was never really intended as a Sturmpanzer.