- Posts: 645
- Joined: 30 Mar 2002 01:38
- Location: Toronto
To me it seems to be a waste of resources. Why would you want a 15" shaped charge? It's not like they had room for a couple of rounds in case of armor opposition.
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002 22:26
- Location: Stavanger, Norway
It didn`t use regular gunpowder and cartridge, but something called Diglycol-pulver. And the shell itself was not a grenade , more like a rocket.
The rocket itself had a weight of impressive 345 Kg, so it would take a HUGE load of diglycol to fire a direct shot.
- Posts: 1414
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
- Location: Romania
However, even it's high-explosive shell could destroy more tanks in a shot, if closely spaced(in January 1945, a single round from a PzStuMrKp 1001 Sturmtiger reportedly destroyed three American M-4 Sherman tanks located in a targeted village).
It was more or less an equivalent to the British 290mm "Dustbin", but while the British shell could fire just 50-60m(due to a 57mm cartridge to propel the huge round), the Sturmtiger could fire up to 4500-6000m, bombing it's targets from long range like a siege gun.
There was a hollow-charge/shaped-charge developed for the monster(the Hohlladungsgranate 4582) but this, just like the standard Sprenggranate 4581, was built to engage fortifications, not tanks. The 4582 shell could penetrate up to 2.5m of reinforced concrete !!!