Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: StuG BS discussions

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> RE: StuG BS discussions Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/15/2011 10:53:49 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1823
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Has anyone considered that the problem round was the 'universal' 14.5mm ATR - if fired down (from upper stories for example) they would perforate the front slopes fairly easily - and only marginal additional armour would provide immunity - the same reasoning for the thin mild-steel or mesh schurzen.

The upper slopes would probably be vulnerable to perforation by most tank rounds hitting these small areas from the front - the overlap with the superstructure might stop the tail-plug, but will have minimal effect on spalling entering the fighting compartment, especially where the shell bursts on or in the first plate.

Concrete would have minimal effect in the thicknesses involved against large calibre impacts - and would instead offer a significant increase in fragmentation hazard for the supporting arms. There would certainly be no second hit protection added.

(in reply to Misty99)
Post #: 331
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/15/2011 2:56:00 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

The image on post #305 seem to have taken at least 3 hits. Maybe even one in the slope above the driver.

(in reply to Misty99)
Post #: 332
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/15/2011 4:21:19 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
Are you saying the shadow under the GI on the right?  I don't think so.  Compare the sun shadows under the other GI.

But that StuG actually looks like it was in a state of being repaired.  The two hits on the bottom right would certainly damage the brakes/drive and it appears that tracks and parts have been removed.  Maybe it was over-run and lost.

In any case, when facing US guns in the later ETO, the StuG was at a big disadvantage and pavement/putty/brick-face/etc. was not going to help.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 1/15/2011 4:22:47 PM >

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 333
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/15/2011 4:55:05 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
On the slope below the right knee of the guy on the right.
A third hit could have sheared off the left drive wheel.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 334
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/15/2011 5:02:09 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
I do get a chuckle from PRINCE's trolling posts where he harkens back to Combat Mission glory days.  I hope he knows MadMatt left years ago.  And his 'Dorosh' reference is certainly odd since that person was banned from BF, and that has been years ago.  So maybe HE should stop Googling the Battlefront board? 


(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 335
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/15/2011 5:11:13 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

On the slope below the right knee of the guy on the right.
A third hit could have sheared off the left drive wheel.



It still could be a shadow. Look at the shadow angle at the guy sitting on the gun tube. It fairly bright sun.

The whole drive wheel and final drive are gone. So are the tracks and some return rollers. You really think a AP hit can do that?

In any case, it does show that there is no concrete present and that its a late ETO pic.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 336
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/15/2011 5:46:05 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


Again, LEWIS, buy yourself some books and stop cluttering up the forum with your nonsense.






I call BS on this picture. As I posted before, there appears to be some fuzzy shape around the supposed concrete 'head' over the driver's area. The height of the concrete seems to go over the roof of the vehicle itself.

Maybe PRINCE can let us know where he gets these supposed photos?

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 337
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/15/2011 9:00:24 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
Nice shot of a F. Photo shows the much more horizontal nature of the roof armor over the driver. The area seems to be used to store tarps or some other soft material. I don't know if the F and earlier StuGs, that had this type of roof armor, had its thickness at 30mm yet. It may be something like 12-17mm like the top roof armor is.

edit, no concrete






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 338
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/16/2011 5:33:53 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


Again, LEWIS, buy yourself some books and stop cluttering up the forum with your nonsense.






I call BS on this picture. As I posted before, there appears to be some fuzzy shape around the supposed concrete 'head' over the driver's area. The height of the concrete seems to go over the roof of the vehicle itself.

Maybe PRINCE can let us know where he gets these supposed photos?


Probably the same place as the folks who made this concrete mod:






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 339
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/16/2011 10:03:30 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
You are not going to be able to prove that a large number of StuGs had concrete applique by showing photos with it added or not any more than you can prove that a lairge number of Shermans had sandbags with photos showing Shermans with and without sandbags.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 340
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/16/2011 4:03:36 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
PRINCE actually has to prove the following.....

quote:

PRINCE: let me post an image of the Stug's true source of invincibility, CONCRETE


He has not provided any tangible information regarding the standing policy of Sturmartillerie, Panzer or Panzergrenadier or any users of the vehicle. He wants to scan pictures from his model books and post pictures of models, etc. He claims 'invincibity' but doesn't say from what. He refuses to name the sources for the information.

Mobius: Perhaps you could post the StuGIIIG armor locations and values for PCO and maybe that can serve to help get this thread on track. I would still like to discuss the Soviet 76.2mm Soviet threat to the StuG.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 1/16/2011 4:05:28 PM >

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 341
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/16/2011 4:58:50 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

You are not going to be able to prove that a large number of StuGs had concrete applique by showing photos with it added or not any more than you can prove that a lairge number of Shermans had sandbags with photos showing Shermans with and without sandbags.


Well, let's cite another website then (as that's all that Lewis has to go on):

http://stugiii.com/sturmartillerie.html

And I quote:

quote:

A very common field practice was the addition of a layer of concrete added over the armor plate above the driver's position to improve the protection.


If you don't want to read the whole article, simply do a "find" for the world concrete.


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 342
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/16/2011 5:23:57 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
Your case gets weaker with each of your snarky remarks.  It's funny how you acuse other people of certain behaviour and then exhibit it yourself.

edit: All those websites cut and paste. So spare us the rehash.





< Message edited by Yoozername -- 1/16/2011 5:25:41 PM >

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 343
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/16/2011 5:43:05 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
Berlin 1945


(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 344
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 2:57:20 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
Did you look at that website he linked to?

Did you see this:

A very common field practice was the addition of a layer of concrete added over the armor plate above the driver's position to improve the protection.

I don't remember his ever saying EVERY StuG had concrete just that it was a common practice. His showing photos of StuG's with the concrete I believe proves his point.

I believe it is your point the concrete was ineffective. Which I believe you have proven your point.

They are two very different points though.

Good Hunting.

MR


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 345
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 3:05:15 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Mobius: Perhaps you could post the StuGIIIG armor locations and values for PCO and maybe that can serve to help get this thread on track. I would still like to discuss the Soviet 76.2mm Soviet threat to the StuG.
I can't put a value on the armor as it is unknown. Nor can I make a mod before release. Somebody could do it later though. It might be 9+1 or 9s10. But that would be giving an armor plus which it hasn't shown to do.

If we had a way of doing it I would have it reduce the chance of behind armor penetration damage a slight amount which is what the Germans and US survey at most seem to indicate.


< Message edited by Mobius -- 1/17/2011 3:06:25 AM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 346
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 3:26:19 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
A website says one thing and a book says another. Supposedly PRINCE thinks books have magical knowledge. So lets go with this book.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 347
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 3:28:09 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Mobius: Perhaps you could post the StuGIIIG armor locations and values for PCO and maybe that can serve to help get this thread on track. I would still like to discuss the Soviet 76.2mm Soviet threat to the StuG.
I can't put a value on the armor as it is unknown. Nor can I make a mod before release. Somebody could do it later though. It might be 9+1 or 9s10. But that would be giving an armor plus which it hasn't shown to do.

If we had a way of doing it I would have it reduce the chance of behind armor penetration damage a slight amount which is what the Germans and US survey at most seem to indicate.



Mobius

No, I mean just a non-concreted or 'tracked' StuGIIIG. I just would like to know how the StuGIIIG is modeled in PCO in a 'factory-new' form.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 348
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 4:52:13 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

A website says one thing and a book says another. Supposedly PRINCE thinks books have magical knowledge. So lets go with this book.


Thank you, Lewis, for once again having demonstrated your mastery of Google in all it's troll-sustaining wonder.

Unfortunately, my books will always defeat your superficial and uninformed web-exposes.

Below, I'll re-post an image from my "summary" sequence a couple of pages back. If our readers will take a moment to read the caption, they'll be visited by the following passage, and I quote:

quote:

Of special interest are the cement-filled niches in the upper body to both sides of the cannon. They were used as shell catchers and were added to the later models, at first by the troops in makeshift fashion, then in requipping, and finally by adding cement or armor plate during manufacturing.(BA)


Clearly and unequivocally, the issue being addressed by the supplemental protection is a vulnerability in the surfaces in question.

And one more thing before the image appears below. I respect Mobius and believe that he means well. Like most normal human beings, I can have a discussion with someone with whom I disagree without a hint of rancor or discord. You, on the other hand, appear to be incapable of doing so, which explains why you can't post at BF or Gamesquad.

For you, mon petit chou:



< Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 1/17/2011 4:55:39 AM >


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 349
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 5:57:43 AM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

A website says one thing and a book says another. Supposedly PRINCE thinks books have magical knowledge. So lets go with this book.


Thank you, Lewis, for once again having demonstrated your mastery of Google in all it's troll-sustaining wonder.

Unfortunately, my books will always defeat your superficial and uninformed web-exposes.

Below, I'll re-post an image from my "summary" sequence a couple of pages back. If our readers will take a moment to read the caption, they'll be visited by the following passage, and I quote:

quote:

Of special interest are the cement-filled niches in the upper body to both sides of the cannon. They were used as shell catchers and were added to the later models, at first by the troops in makeshift fashion, then in requipping, and finally by adding cement or armor plate during manufacturing.(BA)


Clearly and unequivocally, the issue being addressed by the supplemental protection is a vulnerability in the surfaces in question.

And one more thing before the image appears below. I respect Mobius and believe that he means well. Like most normal human beings, I can have a discussion with someone with whom I disagree without a hint of rancor or discord. You, on the other hand, appear to be incapable of doing so, which explains why you can't post at BF or Gamesquad.

For you, mon petit chou:

I agree Prince, and the one thing that I have learned thanks to this thread is that the StuG must have had a weak spot in the armor where the additional protection in the form of concrete was added. It's effectiveness is not so easy to determine, but as StuGs would mostly be shot at by Russian 76mm, you have to conclude that it was this round that the StuG's frontal armor on either side of the gun was not performing to satisfaction. If there was no problem, there would be no need to try to fix it. End of story.
I think that over the several pages of this thread, Yoozer has done more damage to his arguement then he has supported it. His arguement is easy to find on the first page, and though very proficient at posting pictures, he mostly avoids responding to posts that do not support his theory which is that the StuG's frontal armor "that is angled at this 20 degrees makes the sides of the AP shell make contact first. Add a little side angle and these areas are proof against anything but the biggest fastest shells that might revert to a crushing mechanism to make the plate fail." Shown not to be true with the facts of increased armor spalling for face hardened plate, increased chances for some rounds not to bounce of but to penetrate vs face hardened as oposed to regular plate, and armor plate failures at low velocity impacts with reguards to face hardened plates.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 350
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 7:08:26 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Mobius

No, I mean just a non-concreted or 'tracked' StuGIIIG. I just would like to know how the StuGIIIG is modeled in PCO in a 'factory-new' form.

These numbers.
    <location position="13" location="Cupola" front="8u/5r" side="5r" rear="5r" />
    <location position="12" location="Top Turret" front="2.5" side="2.5" rear="2.5" />
    <location position="11" location="Top Deck" front="1.5"  side="1.5" rear="1.5" />
    <location position="10" location="SuperS" front="8u" side="3" rear="3" />
    <location position="9" location="SuperS" front="8r" side="3"  rear="3" />
    <location position="8" location="SuperS" front="8/10s12" side="3" rear="3" />
    <location position="7" location="SuperS" front="8/5+3" side="3"   rear="3" />
    <location position="6" location="Hull"   front="13u" side="3"   rear="2" />
    <location position="5" location="Hull"   front="13u" side="3"   rear="2" />
    <location position="4" location="Track"  front="2"   side="2^5" rear="2" />
    <location position="3" location="Hull"   front="9"   side="3"   rear="5" />
    <location position="2" location="Hull"   front="9"   side="3"   rear="5" />
    <location position="1" location="Track"  front="2"   side="2"   rear="2" />

Might I add we use numbers not colored bars or symbols.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 351
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 1:35:10 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
Thanks Mobius.

PRINCE

I did read that caption. Unlike yourself, who has been confused by the differences between the A-F and F8-G, I understood it.

quote:


quote:

Of special interest are the cement-filled niches in the upper body to both sides of the cannon. They were used as shell catchers and were added to the later models, at first by the troops in makeshift fashion, then in requipping, and finally by adding cement or armor plate during manufacturing.(BA)

Clearly and unequivocally, the issue being addressed by the supplemental protection is a vulnerability in the surfaces in question.


Bold added so that no one misses it. The F8 and G added sloped armor to cover the area AT THE FACTORY. The plate was redesigned. Hence the word FINALLY.

You are so desperate and confused in what you are trying to argue. Your uncivil tone and pompous affectation do not help. But it does amuse me when it fails at technical matters. Like reading comprehension.

quote:

Unfortunately, my books will always defeat your superficial and uninformed web-exposes.


Oh, that's right, you still do not reveal the sources. That's OK. I won't flame about copyrighted material like you did. But books are for reading. They aren't just for looking at the pictures.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 1/17/2011 1:50:36 PM >

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 352
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 2:13:39 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Misty

Finnish StuG:

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531044/ps531044.html



Yes, this has been discussed before since PRINCE posted Finnish StuG pics to try to make his axis claims. Now PRINCE must repost pictures to try and bolster his 'case'. I am hoping that others don't repost these same pictures also.

In any 'case', the Finns used StuGIIIG successfully against the Soviets PRIOR to this gross application of concrete. They were successfully battling the 1943 Soviet weapons (Read: 76mm). During the summer of 1944, they were facing the newest T34/85 and Soviet 122mm weapon systems and AFTER initial battles added the concrete. Whether this was to provide AP protection of HE protection is not stipulated but after some brief battles, the war was over.

The StuGs remaining in Finnish service had the concrete removed after the war. But it seems that everyone has the impression that all Finnish StuGs had this application and that it was used for any length of time.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 1/17/2011 3:44:53 PM >

(in reply to Misty99)
Post #: 353
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 6:07:58 PM   
FNG


Posts: 514
Joined: 1/3/2002
From: Devizes, UK
Status: offline
How many PC forums does Yoozer have to troll before getting banned? Every time he shows up, it's the same style and same result. Personally I believe that he adds nothing to the Matrix forums, which are usually polite, reasonable and well-mannered.

Just my 0.02 of your local currency.

_____________________________

FNG
Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 354
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 9:49:52 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
I think I would like to move on with the discussion and focus on the Soviet 76.2mm weapons.  These are the weapons that are most prevalent during the time period of 1942-early 1944 that the StuGs would face.
This is what I get from my penetration program. It uses normalized actual data and is not an engineering formula.







So basically, the modeling is quite in the favor of the StuGIIIG as far as these rounds?

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 355
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/17/2011 11:22:42 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
So basically, the modeling is quite in the favor of the StuGIIIG as far as these rounds?
Of course. The BR350A appears to be able to penetrate 8cm out to 150 meters. Only about 3 out of the 8 body locations are vulnerable.
Though the way the game works with probabilities there is an 8% chance the vulnerable range extends out to about 650 meters.

< Message edited by Mobius -- 1/17/2011 11:31:03 PM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 356
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/18/2011 2:02:19 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

The BR350A appears to be able to penetrate 8cm out to 150 meters. Only about 3 out of the 8 body locations are vulnerable.
Though the way the game works with probabilities there is an 8% chance the vulnerable range extends out to about 650 meters.


Why has the BR350P round gone unmentioned? It was available October 1943. I don't think the type is even available in PCK.

BTW, JasonC is rather more circumspect of the Stug's survivability that some of the locals:

quote:

Original: JasonC

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=439405&postcount=2

Russian weapons are systematically undermodeled in CM. I call it the "German physics" factor. Anything they could actually do historically, multiple by a factor of about 0.80 to account for the fanboys advising BTS. Just so you know what you are dealing with. Now to the particulars.

The BR-350A was APC, the BR-350B was the improved APCBC (ballistic cap), which significantly improves penetration against sloped armor in particular. The BR-350P is APCR, tungsten penetrator. Of these only the last is exlicitly shown as a separate type of round in CM - the T ammo. The others are lumoed together as AP, and the improvement fielding the B type involved has to show up as improved ammo modeling etc.

In reality, the Germans themselves state that the front of a StuG - 80mm - was readily penetrated by the Russian 76mm out to 500 yards. In CM, they will bounce down to point blank range. We call this the UberStuG, a phenomenon no one knew about until CMBB appeared (because, natch, it is wrong). StuGs are also given tiny rariety numbers even at the time they were the best couple percent of the German fleet (late 1943 e.g.), and very low prices for lack of turret low MG ammo etc. Expect to see about 40 gazillion times more of them than the Germans actually had.

The T-34s get APCR ammo in CM only starting in 1944. Right in time for it not to make much of a difference because the T-34/85s are already out. Combined with the previous, this makes all the 80mm plates encountered in 1943 much tougher than they actually were.

But at least the Russians have the first SU-85s in the second half of that year. Oops, no not really. Because the ammo modeling of the 85mm in calendar 1943 is so poor, you can bang away at a 30/50 StuG from the front at 800 yards, and see one "shell broke up" result after another. Even the guys who advised them on the ammo model admit that is flat wrong. This also applies to the 85mm AA, which the Russians historically used from the Kursk era on as a tank and mech corps heavy AT weapon. In 1944 the ammo modeling improves and they perform like the stats in the window. Before then, they are barely better than the undermodeled 76mm, instead of being the "animal killers" they ought to be.

The only 1943 animal killer is the SU-152. It is given a ROF of 2 rounds a minute. The SU-122 would be fine with HC (HEAT ammo), so it gets 0 to 4 of them, usually the lower. Towed 122s and 152s aren't in the game, direct fire, so those are out as well.

Historically the performance of the Russian 85mm was better than the US 76mm, but both were roughly the same. The US 76mm suffered from "shatter gap" against roughly 100-110mm plate at medium range, that is accurately modeled but extends to too many other weapons and match ups.

Historically, the US 76mm with plain AP penetrated Panther turret fronts at 400 yards. The theoretical penetration was enough to do so at more like 1000 yards, but the shells failed due to the energy of the collision. That is shatter, and it shows up in CM as "shell broke up" results. The larger 85mm that gets more of its basically similar energy from mass (rather than velocity I mean) was much less susceptible to it. That is not shown in CM until 1944.

Historically you'd kill Tigers by flank and close with T-34Cs. You can in CM, but you need ranges around 100m or APCR or both, and flat side angles. In addition, behind armor effect is poor against large tonnage vehicles. You can expect to need 3-5 penetrations to get a kill result. A single T-34C with T ammo placed 100m from a Tiger side facing it and ready to fire, has approximately a 1 in 5 chance of killing the Tiger before the Tiger kills it.

Which is nonsense of course, Tigers had about that operational record against them without such placement, but we simply put up with it.

In 1944 you can use T-34/85s against Panthers. The 85 is OK by then and will KO them through the turret front out to about 600 yards. Occasional partial penetrations at 800, but you really don't want to trade those. Sides are good against the Panther with 85s or 76s.

As for Tigers in 1944, the T-34/85 can do them, but watch out for the hull down ones. The front turret of the Tiger I is modeled as about 200mm about 2/3rds of the time. (That is what the "reinforced turret front" entry means). The upper front hull is only the real 100mm.

As for Tigers in 1943, forget about the real answer the SU-85, they are neutered by ammo modeling. Forget about the large caliber towed gun solution, since the big ones simply aren't shown and the 85mm AA has its ammo neutered. Forget about SU-122s because they have no HEAT. SU-152s work, with dismal rate of fire.

The best answer though is the 57mm ATG, which can kill them under 400m front aspect or more like 600m side aspect, and is stealthy enough to actually get the shots off. Sometimes you need 3 penetrations etc for behind armor effect reasons.

The other useful 1943 weapon is the T-34/57, when rariety is off. Otherwise the rariety forbids it in expense terms.

Some LL items are useful. The 75L38 Shermans will KO StuGs are 500m when the 76L42 Russian guns will not. The Valentine IX is an affordable 6 pdr when rariety is on, though it is less effective than the Russian 57mm and otherwise a pretty crappy tank by midwar (slow, no MG, limited HE, etc). Captured StuGs can do what SU-85s actually did.

The CM counters to cats are assymmetric fighting. Air support is seriously overmodeled in CM and the IL-2 benefits from that more than any other plane in the game. They aren't sufficient against Tigers, but anything less they simple shred (unhistorically, I might add).

The Russian infantry tank hunter teams get RPG grenades starting in mid 1943, 2/3rds of them. Those regularly hit and kill out to 40m. (Molotovs on the other hand are completely useless). AT minefields and pioneer demo charges and flamethrowers are other cat killers. High caliber arty can do it (usually gun damage or immobilization results rather than KO) if they are directly on a TRP, otherwise the responsiveness makes it impossible.

As for the StuGs, take some 57s, or make a network of 76s with cross fire. And make them turn - vehicle rotation is very slow in CM, the one place turretless actually makes a difference. Beware also of the StuG showing only front armor, angled inward so one flank is deep inside German lines, and at an edge so the other is protected by the bottomless pits at the map edge.

You cannot simply apply the Russian historical tactics against German armor in CM. You have to systematically make more use of the air force, of infantry AT and winning the infantry war more generally, of crossfire and ATG ambush, and of a few relatively rare weapons that are CM effective - the 57mm ATG, the SU-152, the T-34/57, LL vehicles. Mass T-34C rushes at Tigers will get masses of T-34s killed and warm the hearts of the Tiger fish-story fanboys who did all this - don't give them the satisfaction.



_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 357
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/18/2011 2:13:17 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
So basically, the modeling is quite in the favor of the StuGIIIG as far as these rounds?
Of course. The BR350A appears to be able to penetrate 8cm out to 150 meters. Only about 3 out of the 8 body locations are vulnerable.
Though the way the game works with probabilities there is an 8% chance the vulnerable range extends out to about 650 meters.


I think this fits in quite well with the information I posted as far as the Soviets testing of thier own weapons against captured Tiger side armor. I am glad to see it.

Does the game model side angle as far as decreasing penetration further?

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 358
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/18/2011 2:18:47 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
LOL!!!!! I always knew he never saw drawings of the Soviet AP ammo.

quote:

The BR-350A was APC, the BR-350B was the improved APCBC (ballistic cap), which significantly improves penetration against sloped armor in particular. The BR-350P is APCR, tungsten penetrator. Of these only the last is exlicitly shown as a separate type of round in CM - the T ammo. The others are lumoed together as AP, and the improvement fielding the B type involved has to show up as improved ammo modeling etc.



BR-350A is APBC, BR-350B is APBC.

Jeesh, gamey. The game mis-models turn rates.

quote:

As for the StuGs, take some 57s, or make a network of 76s with cross fire. And make them turn - vehicle rotation is very slow in CM, the one place turretless actually makes a difference. Beware also of the StuG showing only front armor, angled inward so one flank is deep inside German lines, and at an edge so the other is protected by the bottomless pits at the map edge.


< Message edited by Yoozername -- 1/18/2011 2:20:08 AM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 359
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/18/2011 2:33:22 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
BR-350B
APBC




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> RE: StuG BS discussions Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.313