RE: StuG BS discussions (Full Version)

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



Message


Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 7:56:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misty

I have read the book "Sturmgeschütze-Panzer der Infantrie" 2 or 3 years ago. There was a report from StuG commander (late 1943). He said, that the StuG crews used barbed wire with concrete to reinforce the front side of their Stug´s. So a lot of the crews survived.

http://www.die-sturmartillerie.com/seite1.htm



I have seen that website. If you look through all the photos, there is not one concreted StuG.

Did the StuG commander say exactly why he put concrete and barbed wire (I assume as some primitive 'rebar') on the StuG?

This is what was aid way back on page one of the discussion, and I think that this was the original point of the thread, to show the superiority of the StuG's sloped front armor.
Yoozername, you said this:

"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."

Now Mobius said that the armor would be viewed as 50+30mm and treated different then a straight 80mm plate. I think that we are all good with this as two plates are less effective then one plate of the same thickness. So the thread moves on to a rather entertaining chat of why concrete was added, which might not have went the way that Prince thought it might, but you far from proved that the application was worthless. So I do a little digging one night and come up with the following, which you chose to ignore completely:

"Talking about face hardened armor
"... Use of this kind of armor must be restricted to cases where the damage to the enemy weapon caused by the armor reduces its penetration, which is not the case at high obliquity, where a weapon that stays in one piece is more likely to ricochet completely away with minimal target damage than one whose nose is broken off and thus whose middle body and base can continue to punch through the plate even after the nose has ricochetted off. Also, face-hardened armor fails by having the armor in the projectile's path punch through the plate back where it acts as a second solid-shot-type projectile, increasing target damage; this is made worse by the fact that such a "plug" of armor can be ejected from a brittle face-hardened plate at striking velocities well below those where the projectile itself can penetrate the plate, which severely compromises the protection afforded by the plate."

From "TABLE OF METALLURGICAL PROPERTIES OF NAVAL ARMOR AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS"
by NATHAN OKUN (Revised 5/3/98) "

Now we have Misty here saying he read a book that he proves exists by a link. I think that the use of concrete as often as it seems to come up would state that this is not a rare event. You have sang the song of face hardened sloped armor on the StuG being enough to stop any Russian gun firing 76mm shells contrary to the pictures of concreted StuGs that may state otherwise and contrary to what Mobius said about a spalling armor and what I found says the same, that sloped, face hardened armor would allow a shot to eject this "plug" at velocities well below those that would penetrate the armor. This "plug" would then only have to penetrate 50mm of plate or cause another spalling to take place and we have a problem. I think that other then your point that 76mm shells would not penetrate the StuG's front armor, there is still a very good indication that a problem with the StuG's armor existed, and being that the Russians were mostly shooting 76mm shells at it, I think that there is enough evidence that there might be more to this 76mm discussion then a couple of penetration tables and test firings. If I was to make a statement about the StuG's armor vs Russian 76mm guns after looking at the evidnce, it would be this: 50mm is not enough so they designed another 30mm to be added. This improved things but the guys out there were not satified with the performance of 50+30mm and went with a field fix(concrete) that might not have totally fixed the issue with the armor, but did improve the survival frequency of the StuG's crew.




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 11:46:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

No one has to look to a German-language source to confirm the widespread use of concrete on the Stug.III:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/sturmgeschutz-iii-sturmgeschutz-iv.htm

And I quote:

quote:

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.


Of course, If you'd take the time to educate yourself on these matters, the rest of us wouldn't have to shoulder the burden of enlightening you.

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

[image]local://upfiles/21246/A54A9E6BD7DD49B3BF1EFBBE3BFE52C6.jpg[/image]


You are amazing. That website you quote does not have a picture of a German concreted StuG. You post another concreted StuG from another source instead? Why not name the source and date the picture?

So, maybe you need to stop grasping at straws and listen to myself and others...stop being a troll. Or, if you can, prove that the Concrete was as widespread and slathered as you say. Prove it was worthwhile. You just can't do that so you keep trolling instead.




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 12:06:56 PM)

Lets use video now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4yBvt8YcvM

StuGs in video are late in 1945, Seelow Heights battle. No concrete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DFj7pgOKns&feature=related

Very detailed late43-early44 battle footage. No concrete.

Now, again we are back to the puzzle that Prince has presented himself. He has claimed that concrete was the StuGs secret to success. Unfortunately, he can not explain the glaring lack of it in most war periods. If anything, tracks are more prevalent.

Exceptions are not the rule. PRINCE also needs to state the source and dates of those pictures.




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 1:02:17 PM)

StuG 12/44 no concrete







Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 1:19:46 PM)

StuGIIIG no concrete

[image]local://upfiles/20015/1D55468B6EA9430BAC8CB3E7E0ABA164.jpg[/image]




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 1:26:41 PM)

ETO 44 no concrete

[image]local://upfiles/20015/E539025C453B4E018AA6D5AC79F12AB8.jpg[/image]




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 1:58:25 PM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBIIAr3txtY&feature=related

video of F no concrete




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 2:16:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misty

I have read the book "Sturmgeschütze-Panzer der Infantrie" 2 or 3 years ago. There was a report from StuG commander (late 1943). He said, that the StuG crews used barbed wire with concrete to reinforce the front side of their Stug´s. So a lot of the crews survived.

http://www.die-sturmartillerie.com/seite1.htm



Is that book at the web address you provided? Which book is it?




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 3:18:01 PM)

This website is good since it has specific photos for specific units.  As an example, this shows StuGIIIG winter 43/44 with no concrete some tracks (see other photos at wwebsite for this unit Sturmgeschütz Brigade 281).  Its better than a book that might have many pictures from the same unit.  I own '7000 Km in a Stug...' and the pictures are all from the same units the author served in (again no concrete).  So I am enjoying this website.

http://www.die-sturmartillerie.com/konvwilli.htm

 

[image]http://www.die-sturmartillerie.com/konv/willi027.jpg[/image]

cast mantlet, shuerzen
[image]http://www.die-sturmartillerie.com/konv/willi024.jpg[/image]




junk2drive -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 8:06:54 PM)

Obviously snow was better than concrete...




Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 9:31:00 PM)

If you had to set a value for 6"-10" of concrete how would you rate it? Or just something like sandbags?




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 9:50:40 PM)

I would give the crew a +1 in the 'warm&fuzzy-feeling' rating




Misty99 -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 10:24:10 PM)

quote:

Is that book at the web address you provided? Which book is it?


http://www.die-sturmartillerie.com/seite1.htm

No. It´s only a German website about StuG´s.

Here is the book´s website:

http://vdmedien.com/flechsig-verlag-sturmgeschuetze-panzer-infanterie-buch_modellbau-5597.html?language=en




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 11:16:09 PM)

Oh. Ok.  You had Ratzki confused I think.




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/14/2011 11:48:59 PM)

I was looking at PRINCE's last cement-head vehicle. What is that odd 'fur-collar' shape around the mantlet area?


[image]local://upfiles/20015/F80CCC73CCB34499A50EFD523F7981DA.jpg[/image]




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 12:29:35 AM)

To summarize, let's take a look at the pictorial record of the type as it evolved over the course of the war and how concrete was used to enhance its survivability. I've already documented the application of concrete to the these vehicles with line-drawings further up the thread. Early on, it was simply added to the capacious recesses in the frontal armor to either side of the main gun. As time went on, this application was increased and built-up into a convex shape. The shape is relevant because it conferred considerable depth to the application, particularly through the horizontal plane.

First, a short-barreled model, the III.D:





[image]local://upfiles/21246/5B994456D489404C9EA3527AC331A480.jpg[/image]




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 12:37:55 AM)

Devastating losses to the German assault guns in 1941-42 led to the widespread use of the material in all models, including up-gunned models like the F/F8/G:





[image]local://upfiles/21246/1A8C5D26F1684A74ACB505705FE7790E.jpg[/image]




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 12:40:26 AM)

Widespread?  Is that the same as 'Slathered'? 




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 12:40:52 AM)

The ultimate expression of the technique can be found in heavy applications like that illustrated in the photograph below:

[image]local://upfiles/21246/670A0D4105A94DFD88C1F65305697A60.jpg[/image]




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 12:42:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

To summarize, let's take a look at the pictorial record of the type as it evolved over the course of the war and how concrete was used to enhance its survivability. I've already documented the application of concrete to the these vehicles with line-drawings further up the thread. Early on, it was simply added to the capacious recesses in the frontal armor to either side of the main gun. As time went on, this application was increased and built-up into a convex shape. The shape is relevant because it conferred considerable depth to the application, particularly through the horizontal plane.

First, a short-barreled model, the III.D:





[image]local://upfiles/21246/5B994456D489404C9EA3527AC331A480.jpg[/image]



If you are taking a look BACK...why are you starting with a photo from the WINTER 1943/44???? I guess at least the book has to tell the truth....How about citing references? Dates? Units?

That so called concrete looks like horse dung. Your assertion that many early StuGs used concrete flies in the face of hundreds of photos.

Maybe tone down that 'purple-prose' too.




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 12:55:52 AM)

I am pretty sure we have already established that the F8 didn't have 'capacious recesses'.  It was very similar to the G. 




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 12:59:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

If you had to set a value for 6"-10" of concrete how would you rate it? Or just something like sandbags?


The depth is going to be difficult to discern because there was more than one apparent standard of application, and these changed over the course of the war. Again, I'll post a modeler's image below that depicts several locations/depths/shapes for the G model. In researching the matter, it would appear that the type of application is evolutionary and can be categorized by year as it becomes considerably more substantial over time. In terms of the early models, the pictorial record suggests that it was being applied to the frontal recesses as early as 1942.

[image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/21246/8EDD6F3D4D654D51B928C4F53988C6A6.jpg[/image]






Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 1:06:52 AM)

The concrete that covers the armor bolts around the driver's visor is especially stupid.  It appears to be less than two inches thick and would make changing those bolts a nightmare.

[image]local://upfiles/20015/ED51602DE65F4818AD31AC78CBAE7EBB.jpg[/image]




Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 1:22:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

The concrete that covers the armor bolts around the driver's visor is especially stupid.  It appears to be less than two inches thick and would make changing those bolts a nightmare.

I remember a post from Battlefront's forums where JasonC, I think, quoted a German operations manual from WW2 and it stated that life span in a StuG is short but full of interest. I would have to find it again over there, but I would bet those bolt's ease of removal probably mattered diddly-squat.




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 1:27:14 AM)

Yes, the same JasonC that is so impartial regarding this subject.  Ok, Ratski, please do that and post some pictures of Canadian tanks using concrete armor.

I suppose keeping 30mm of REAL armor on the vehicle equates to diddly-squat.




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 2:02:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

If you had to set a value for 6"-10" of concrete how would you rate it? Or just something like sandbags?


The depth is going to be difficult to discern because there was more than one apparent standard of application, and these changed over the course of the war. Again, I'll post a modeler's image below that depicts several locations/depths/shapes for the G model. In researching the matter, it would appear that the type of application is evolutionary and can be categorized by year as it becomes considerably more substantial over time. In terms of the early models, the pictorial record suggests that it was being applied to the frontal recesses as early as 1942.

[image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/21246/8EDD6F3D4D654D51B928C4F53988C6A6.jpg[/image]





So the answer is...You don't know.

So what is the evolution of the 'standard'? Is it the model on the bottom right....followed by the model on the bottom left ... and then culminates into the 'Blob' on top?

If this is so 'evolutionary' then please explain the apparent extinction of it in the large numbers of photographs in this thread? Mind you, I have posted photos from the whole war. Is it some genius behaviour that dies out when the StuG unit gets wiped-out? Some secret StuG cults that popped up randomly? You can ignore the evidence. Just don't expect others to.





Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 4:03:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

So the answer is...You don't know.


You've been confronted with a small mountain of evidence suggesting vulnerability in the areas that were concreted. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem.

quote:

So what is the evolution of the 'standard'? Is it the model on the bottom right....followed by the model on the bottom left ... and then culminates into the 'Blob' on top?


The photographs speak for themselves. I included the captions in the last round so that you can't claim it to be otherwise.

Further, our readers aren't stupid. I'm not going to insult them by reposting twenty-five or thirty images that they've already seen, compelling as the visuals might otherwise be.

quote:

If this is so 'evolutionary' then please explain the apparent extinction of it in the large numbers of photographs in this thread? Mind you, I have posted photos from the whole war. Is it some genius behaviour that dies out when the StuG unit gets wiped-out? Some secret StuG cults that popped up randomly? You can ignore the evidence. Just don't expect others to.


Once again, you're purposely ignoring the previous photos that I've posted to this thread, many of which contain captions citing a season and/or year. The overwhelming majority of those photos, not to mention my understanding of the subject at hand, come from a shelf full of books sitting to my right.

Conversely, virtually every "fact" that you've posted to this thread, including your responses to Mobius and others, is attributable to GOOGLE (TM), rather than any more substantial and credible source of facts regarding armored fighting vehicles. But, that's your way of doing business on game forums, isn't it? Were it not so, our readers wouldn't still be scratching their heads over the mystical "green wheel" of which you are so enamored.

Wiped out?

As I've already documented, entire units were slathered in reinforced concrete. If they weren't "wiped out," it may well be because they were properly armored:

[image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/21246/DD626BA816764A15BAFA6ACD29BFA2B7.jpg[/image]







Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 4:15:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Yes, the same JasonC that is so impartial regarding this subject.


Well, I'll tell you who isn't impartial at all, and that's Mad Matt:

quote:

One more thing that will come from this patch Mr. Tittles is that it has reminded me to reban you once again "Lewis".

Yeah, we knew it was you for some time but were too busy to take care of you in the manner needed.

Remember, bans are non-negotiable and it doesn't matter if you re-register with a new name or not. Your still the same old Lewis, and that means your still banned.

Bye bye...

Madmatt


MadMatt's rejoinder is located here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=585205&postcount=13

It came in response to Mr. Tittles, one of Lewis' sockpuppets, trolling the CMAK forum on the release of the 1.03 patch.

I don't doubt that you've got some HS ROTC drill-team moonies that will follow you over here and muck the forum up, Lewis, but the outcome will be the same.




Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 6:17:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Yes, the same JasonC that is so impartial regarding this subject.  Ok, Ratski, please do that and post some pictures of Canadian tanks using concrete armor.

I suppose keeping 30mm of REAL armor on the vehicle equates to diddly-squat.


I have one better, why don't you post the countless pictures that you should have of 76mm strikes to the front of some StuGs that failed to penetrate then more pictures of the reverse side of the same StuGs armor to verify that no penetrations occured from a spalling plug, then back it up with crew survivability data from non-concreted StuGs vs StuGs with concrete applied. If you are unable to do so, you are doing nothing more then talking through a orifice that is not intended for talking.
The facts are, 1)concrete was used, how often... unknown but enough that model kits have it as an option and several photos are in existance. 2)Sloped face hardened armor plate fails at lower velocities then it would take to penetrate if struck at 90deg. 3)Two plates that add up to 80mm are less protection then one 80mm plate. 4)Extra armor in the form of tracks, logs, concrete were applied to areas that were vulnerable and seeing as how the Russians had more 76mm guns out there it is logical to conclude that the StuG was having some issues stopping the round, enough to warrent the application of extra armor in whatever form they had at hand. If there was no vulnerability in this area, there would be no need to add protection in any form.




Misty99 -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/15/2011 10:02:49 AM)

Finnish StuG:

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




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.109375