StuG BS discussions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront



Message

Yoozername -> StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 4:23:39 AM)

I have seen such God-Awful BS discussions regarding the StuGIII over the years that its just tiresome. I would like to finally shut up both sides and hopefully get some realism in a game that handles these weapons.

Obviously the 'CM' crowd at BF is just spinning wheels.

The whiners at CM 'GAMESQUAT' can't do anything but rehash whinerages.

I think a fresh look at the issue of the StuGIIIG vs. Soviet 76mm ammunition is a discourse that needs settling.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 4:24:55 AM)

And, yes, I am the current StuG 'genius-expert'.



junk2drive -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 4:25:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I have seen such God-Awful BS discussions regarding the StuGIII over the years that its just tiresome. I would like to finally shut up both sides and hopefully get some realism in a game that handles these weapons.

Obviously the 'CM' crowd at BF is just spinning wheels.

The whiners at CM 'GAMESQUAT' can't do anything but rehash whinerages.

I think a fresh look at the issue of the StuGIIIG vs. Soviet 76mm ammunition is a discourse that needs settling.


Really?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 4:29:11 AM)

LOL,uh yeh, REELEE. 




Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 5:50:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

And, yes, I am the current StuG 'genius-expert'.

We did make a change in the G and added the spaced armor on the panniers/sponsons. But the armor basis went down from where we had it before as our best source had 50mm @51° there which it now turned out not to be. But 30mm@51° + 50mm @ 15°.



Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 6:19:01 AM)

I think the definition of an expert is "Someone that knows more and more about less and less, untill he knows absolutly everything about nothing at all.[&o]"



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 6:37:34 AM)

quote:

We did make a change in the G and added the spaced armor on the panniers/sponsons. But the armor basis went down from where we had it before as our best source had 50mm @51° there which it now turned out not to be. But 30mm@51° + 50mm @ 15°.


Thanks. But i am not sure what you mean. Please use some commas or semicolons?

can you cite sources or just expand in general on your answers? Its just a vague way of answering anyone.

WHAT is the 'armor basis'?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 6:48:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

I think the definition of an expert is "Someone that knows more and more about less and less, untill he knows absolutly everything about nothing at all.[&o]"


Really? That's nice, but I am an Expert-Genius. Thanks for playing anyway...



fsp -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 9:37:16 AM)

What exactly is/was the problem with the StuG in CM?



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 1:33:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fsp
What exactly is/was the problem with the StuG in CM?

The problem is the armor model is too general. It seems to have only 3 values representing lower hull, upper hull, and superstructure. The StuG has a complex superstructure but gets a single number as a value.

PCO has 10 locations that have their own armor value. In addition each of those can be subdivded in two. So in effect it is theoritically possible to have 20 unique values. Thus a part as small as 5% of the area can be represented.
On the StuG G there is sponson armor that represents only about 5% of the front area which we recently changed in testing.





WilliePete -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 1:37:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

quote:

We did make a change in the G and added the spaced armor on the panniers/sponsons. But the armor basis went down from where we had it before as our best source had 50mm @51° there which it now turned out not to be. But 30mm@51° + 50mm @ 15°.


Thanks. But i am not sure what you mean. Please use some commas or semicolons?

can you cite sources or just expand in general on your answers? Its just a vague way of answering anyone.

WHAT is the 'armor basis'?



I'll take a shot at this. I'm not sure about what degree of angle the armor plates were set, but the "base" armor of the Stug was 50mm and then it had an additional 30mm of armor plate welded or bolted in place. That makes the total frontal armor of the Stug III Aufs G 80mm thick.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 2:12:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WilliePete


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

quote:

We did make a change in the G and added the spaced armor on the panniers/sponsons. But the armor basis went down from where we had it before as our best source had 50mm @51° there which it now turned out not to be. But 30mm@51° + 50mm @ 15°.


Thanks. But i am not sure what you mean. Please use some commas or semicolons?

can you cite sources or just expand in general on your answers? Its just a vague way of answering anyone.

WHAT is the 'armor basis'?



I'll take a shot at this. I'm not sure about what degree of angle the armor plates were set, but the "base" armor of the Stug was 50mm and then it had an additional 30mm of armor plate welded or bolted in place. That makes the total frontal armor of the Stug III Aufs G 80mm thick.

Right, total armor. PCO handles bolted armor slightly different than single plate armor. A single plate of 80mm thick would be '8' armor. That which is 50mm thick with 30mm bolted on armor is shown as '5+3'. With bolted armor there is a small chance the bolted on armor will fail and the underlying armor will be the only armor used.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/10/2010 5:04:59 PM)

StuG 4 view drawing

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/profiles/pstug3g.htm

For a hull-down StuG, the sponson sloped armor, it would be more like 20% after taking into account both sides.

Its my contention that this area, the frontal sponson sloped armor, is backed up by the superstructure armor. Its also my contention that at least some photographic evidence shows the superstructure armor to be greater than 50mm. In any case, this area represents spaced armor. To be succinct, its sloped face hardened armor that is backed up by vertical 50mm or possibly 80mm armor.

In either case, it would represent some of the best protection against soviet 76mm ammunition in 1943 and possibly 1944.

Armor Piercing rounds have a trait of 'bouncing' downward once they make it through angled armor. The Soviets called it 'normalizing' but can be generally understood as something taking the path of least resistance. This applies mostly to full-bore sized projectiles. Its even seen when a handgun bullet passes through a windshield that is sloped. The bullet makes it through easily but is defledted downward.

In the case of the sponson, the Soviet round might make it through, but is then attacking the next plate at a downward angle. The cap has been stripped from the penetrator and it is possibly destabilized and cracked after hitting face hardened armor.

The StuG needs to be appreciated. The Soviets rightly feared it. The assembly plant was certainly targeted by air attack at the end of 1943.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 1:27:48 AM)

I am starting a seperate post to discuss the next 'upper-hull' area that gives great protection.  This is the extremely well sloped 'roof' sections that are on both sides of the vehicle.  This armor is sloped at 20 degrees and is directly to the right and left of the gun.  While it is only 30mm, the extremeslope gives superior protection to full-bore ammunition. AP shot of WWII has to get its sharpened nose somehow into the plate of the armor.  But the actually contact point for 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.  the Germans would concrete and lay track over this area also.  The addition of impromptu armor is often dismissed by buffs of armor but in the case of extreme angles, it actually works to make the rounds slide off.  The Germans did tests and felt it was worthwhile for Tiger and Panther tanks to use tracks as armor on side turrets.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 1:50:36 AM)

This image is from a gunner's perspective in the StuGIIIG. Note the green handwheel for the gun. The perspective of the camera is approximately the gunner's POV.

Please note the armor plate (superstructure) extends to the very left. The object with the hexagonal holes in it is in the sponson. In front of the superstructure plate is the angled sponson plate that can not be seen (of course).

Note the small size of the 50+30mm 'driver's' plate. It has all those through-hole bolts. More on those bolts later. The driver's head would barely make it into the picture if he was at his station.

Note the extremely angled roof armor. there is some overlap between the roof armor and the superstructure.

[image]http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/franz-repper/HPIM0444.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 2:24:16 AM)

carefully examine this photo....

Note the rectangular weld seams on the side of the vehicle? That is where the superstructure joins into the side armor.

[image]http://svsm.org/albums/stug/PA220055.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 3:30:10 AM)

This shot shows how the top comes together...

Note the thickness of the superstructure armor...I believe later StuGIII had 80mm superstructure armor. Compare side armor to superstructure armor.

[image]http://svsm.org/albums/stug/PA220057.jpg[/image]




Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 3:56:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

This shot shows how the top comes together...

Note the thickness of the superstructure armor...I believe later StuGIII had 80mm superstructure armor. Compare side armor to superstructure armor.
It looks at least twice as thick as the side armor which is 30mm. Someone is going to have to climb up on that exhibit and measure.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 4:04:24 AM)

It is interesting.  I have read of one account saying that cast armor was used in late StuGIIIG.  Not just on the mantlet.....It might mean that superstructure armor, at 80mm (cast), was used in StuGs.  I suspect in those later vehicles.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 4:20:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

It is interesting.  I have read of one account saying that cast armor was used in late StuGIIIG.  Not just on the mantlet.....It might mean that superstructure armor, at 80mm (cast), was used in StuGs.  I suspect in those later vehicles.

I don't think they cast flat plate armor.
I used the pixels of the roof screws as my common unit of measure. I compared the side to the closest screws. Then compared the front plate to the closest screws. 3 sides measures and 3 front measures by pixels calculates the average of 78mm. That is prettty close to 80mm considering the distortion by perspective and angles.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 4:59:41 AM)

My current theory is that when they went to 80mm solid armor for hull and 'loaders' side front, they also went for superstructure 80mm.  Eh, maybe photos show?



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 3:40:25 PM)

Reading through the text of Spielberger's StuG book I came across a passage where it said "After the basic frontal armor of all Sturmgeshutz had been increased to 80mm thickness, the one remaining weak point was the gun mantle." This is some time prior to November 1943 when the cast gun mantle was introduced.

I did come across another upgrade. June 1944 they began adding 30mm plate to the 80mm driver's plate. The factory would add by using bolts. In the field this could only be done with welding the plates on.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 4:17:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Armor Piercing rounds have a trait of 'bouncing' downward once they make it through angled armor. The Soviets called it 'normalizing' but can be generally understood as something taking the path of least resistance. This applies mostly to full-bore sized projectiles. Its even seen when a handgun bullet passes through a windshield that is sloped. The bullet makes it through easily but is defledted downward.

In the case of the sponson, the Soviet round might make it through, but is then attacking the next plate at a downward angle. The cap has been stripped from the penetrator and it is possibly destabilized and cracked after hitting face hardened armor.
This would work against the StuG armor complex. The 30mm plate probably wouldn't change the path very much but even if changed by just 4-5 degrees it would work against the 50mm plate behind it. This plate at about 15 degrees would be impacted at only 10-11 degrees from the path of the deflected shell.

[Edit] I don't know if ogive shaped shells do normalize. I have some strobe shots of armor penetrations in my old Military Technology magazines. Most show modern long rod penetrators normalizing (a little). But I don't recall any ogive shells doing it.

[Edit2] Well running a 76.2mm ogive through my Naval Ballistics program does result in it normalizing. A 2000fps impacting 30mm at 51-degrees show that it exits the plate at 42.6 degrees at 1393fps. So theoretically it normalizes it by 8.4 degrees.



WilliePete -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 5:47:07 PM)

hey Yoozername, just out of curiosity please give us a shot of the full vehicle, front and side. This Stug was lovingly restored and would like to see what it looks like overall. Thanks!



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 9:52:53 PM)

http://www.archive.org/stream/Panther-fibel-BetriebUndKampfanleitung/Panther-fibel-BetriebUndKampfanleitung1944119S.Scan#page/n19/mode/2up

The Panther Bible has some fast film of AP 'normalizing' after penetrating sloped armor of 45 deg.

I believe those photos come from the Littlefield collection. BTW, Littlefield has passed on.

http://svsm.org/gallery/StuGIII-family



Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/11/2010 11:19:10 PM)

The problem with just comparing thickness in mm's of armour is that different types of construction yeilded very different armour toughness and brittleness. Forged steels may approach twice the strength as cast in the same thickness, and the differences are huge around curves, unlike fabricated plate. Cast plates require a lesser technology to fabricate and the process is faster and can be performed at smaller factories, but protection would be very much determined on the size of the metal grains in the poor rather then the thickness of the poor. The grain size can vary considerably and would have probably increased as the war went on and production speed won out over quality. Even comparing rolled steel is not a straight forward look at mm thickness, it is again controlled by final grain size of the steel being used, also the hardening proccesses that it went through, there is also the nickel percentage in the steel as well as a whole list of other factors that would make severe differences in the protective values per mm of thickness, and would not be consistent from one vehicle to the next as sources would vary from part to part, specially as the war went on. Thickness, brittleness, grain size, welding process, alloy composition, hardening technology used, and the list can go on.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 1:31:49 AM)

Forged Steels?  Do you mean Rolled Homogenous Armor?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 1:58:10 AM)

Note above the gun's recuperator there is a 'inverted U' bar (painted white). It is bolted on by the two bolts seen in the picture to its left, and two other bolts not seen but on the right. This bar 'tops' the gun once its installed. It connects the superstructure along the front also. In front of this bar is the mantlet. The mantlet actually overlaps this bar and some of the superstructure. Again, note the thickness of the bar.
[image]http://svsm.org/albums/StuGIII/IMGP2875.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 3:09:10 AM)

Carefully inspect the bolted on armor around the visor. The plates do NOT lay directly on each other. The bolts themselves have conical sections that are in between the plates. That lifting eye is actually a side plate that is welded in and prevents viewing these bolts conical sections.

The other side shows that the bolted on armor IS laying on the armor underneath. This is is a good shot of the 'box' mantlet. Note the front plate is welded to the barrel protector. The gun's barrel actually recoils back into that thick cylindrical section. The vertical 'V' shaped piece at the front of the box mantlet is held on by the bolts that attach it to the 'box'.

[image]http://stugiii.com/images/600_StuG_III_007.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 4:35:42 AM)

[image]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4291623349_a119b4822c_o.jpg[/image]



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.453125