Sturmtiger

This is tank, spg or mortar?

The German name is Sturm (meaning assault) Tiger. It's role and actual use seems to be as an assault gun rather than artillery.

That's a very powerful gun against fortifications. The problem was - German in those period didn't attack. They had only defence. I'd call it as SPG, kinda Brummbar. But German called it as "Sturmpanzer". As I know "panzer" means tank. It's complicate for me

The Stugs are also called assault canons but they were originally considered to be primarily intended for fire support -artillery type interventions not antitank warfare. It's by sheer necessity that they became very effective antitank armoured vehicles. Their crews were considered part of the artillery not of the Panzerwaffe. The ST was designed to provide artillery support against heavily fortified defensive positions and in urban areas. Even if the Germans were not on the offensive they still launched lots of counter attacks or limited offensive East and West.

Panzer just means armored doesn't it?

Yeap, but "armor" is a common sense. I mean "armor jacket" is not a panzer=tank. I mean, I want to suggest the base point. Let's say:
- tank must has a turret. This is axiom. If we get an agreement(axiom), then we may continue on our discussion. We must have a "base points".
The next sentence is:
- SPG is an armored vehicle, equipped with a gun, but without turret.

Right. I meant armored fighting vehicle. I agree that my conception of a tank is that it must have a turret.

Anyway, back to your original question, in my opinion, it is more of an assault gun than a mortar. I'm not sure how much elevation that gun was capable of.

This is from the wiki:

During the battle for the bridge at Remagen, German forces mobilized Sturmmörserkompanie 1000 and 1001 (a total of 7 units), and attached them to the 6th SS-Panzer Armee to take part in the battle. The Sturmtigers were originally tasked with using their howitzers against the bridge itself, though it was discovered that they lacked the accuracy needed to effectively hit the bridge. During this engagement, some reports suggest that one round from one of the howitzers managed to land between or nearby a group of Sherman tanks, obliterating them. However, given the inaccuracy of the Sturmtiger's gun, as well as the involvement of dive bombers and a railway gun in the battle, this story has never been confirmed. After the bridge fell to the Allies, Sturmmörserkompanie 1000 and 1001 were tasked with bombardment of allied forces to cover the German retreat, as opposed to the bunker busting for which they were originally designed.

Tanker wrote:Right. I meant armored fighting vehicle. I agree that my conception of a tank is that it must have a turret.

OK, then we've the first axiom: tank must has the turret.

Then let's go on!
What does vehicle? Or even more: what does armored vehicle? Then we'll try to find out what the diff. is between fighting and assault vehicle.
As for wiki, then why we need to have a talk? WIKI it is the same guys as we're. I'd like to contribute what exactly WE DO THINK!
I'd like to use WIKI as an argument, but not as a base sentence.

lockie wrote:

Tanker wrote:Right. I meant armored fighting vehicle. I agree that my conception of a tank is that it must have a turret.

OK, then we've the first axiom: tank must has the turret.

What about M10 GMC, M36 Jackson and M18 Hellcat ? They had turrets (however open, coz Americans love cabriolets), but were classified as tank destroyers, not tanks.
But in Soviet and German terminology "tank destroyer" means  a sub-class of the SPG.

And what about WW I tanks?

So different countries and epoches have different definitions (and axioms) of armoured forces  doctrine.

I would argue that the M10 ,M36 and M18 are in fact tanks , specialised ones exactly as the British cruiser tanks which were designed for a specific purposes. The concept of the main battle tank (MBT)which is the modern one did not come about until the 1950s.In WW2 they still believed in having tanks for specific purposes: breakthrough tanks , tank destroyers, cruiser tanks, recon tanks etc.

To Lockie's definition of a tank that it must have a turret I would add it must be a tracked vehicle. Which why the Puma and M8 are AFVs not tanks despite having a turret.

Pointer wrote:
What about M10 GMC, M36 Jackson and M18 Hellcat?
And what about WW I tanks?

Good question! As my point, we've exclusion , which confirms the rule. U've to agree SPG with turret was not a common case.
So, M10/M36 it is SPG equipped with a turret (there were variants cap presented/absent). M18 I'd call it as a light tank, but let's follow the exclusion. It is SPG also.
So, I'd like to suggest the next axiom: SPG are always without turret, but in case of tank destroyer, it could be equipped with a turret.

Pointer wrote:
And what about WW I tanks?

I think it is the same classification. The main difference is sponson instead turret.

So different countries and epoches have different definitions (and axioms) of armoured forces  doctrine.

It's OK. We're just trying to classify the vehicles according to our internal Community requests.

frinik wrote:
I would add it must be a tracked vehicle. Which why the Puma and M8 are AFVs not tanks despite having a turret.

I'd like to suggest er title as addition(amendment?). There are tanks with/without tracks, like BT-7.

The BT 7 did have tracks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT-7#/media/File:Bt7_3.jpg

Yes Panzer in German simply means armour. It's actually connected to the English verb to pounce through Norman French.

If the army fielding it called it a tank - indicating its role in battle was one of those that tanks were expected by that army to fulfil - it's a tank. Whatever it's got, or not got.

The Swedish S Tank is a tank, mainly because that's it's role. Even though the Germans in WW2 and later - eg Jagdpanzer Kanone -  called similar vehicles 'jadgpanzers'. Doesn't mean the S Tank is not a tank. If I bought a book called, say 'Modern Tanks', and the S Tank was not included, because the author decided that it was REALLY an SP gun in the technical sense, I would think it silly and unsatisfactory. You expect to find something called and operated as a tank, in a book on tanks.

So the M36 is a Tank Destroyer, despite having a turret, and one with a roof in the B2 variant. The M18 is also a TD, not a light tank.  For SF ME purposes, these, StuGs, Jagdpanzers, SP AA, Stumpanzers etc can all be classified as 'Self-Propelled Guns'.

Same for the US T95 Gun Motor Carriage...unless you choose to use its earlier, technically less accurate designation, T28 Tank in which case it's a tank - one case where both designations were actually applied to the same AFV.

It all seems a matter of semantics.
To paraphrase the US Supreme Court Justice when asked to give a definition of pornography,
I can't define a tank, but I know one when I see it.