RE: StuG BS discussions (Full Version)

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



Message

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 2:34:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

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.


You're going nuts again with the edits, Lewis.[:-]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 2:38:15 AM)

You're going back into troll mode.  That must mean the truth is getting to you?  Go back and do more searches in the Battlefront archives.  Its amusing.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 2:41:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

You're going back into troll mode.  That must mean the truth is getting to you?  Go back and do more searches in the Battlefront archives.  Its amusing.


Any comment on the BR-350P?[&:]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 2:44:42 AM)

Yeah, do a search.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 2:48:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Yeah, do a search.


I already did, but not of the Internet. I found several references to the shell in my T-34 books, including it's penetration qualities. Hopefully, Mobius can flesh the subject out for our readers.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 3:05:08 AM)

Well, I guess it's time for my revelation of the day.[8D]

I'll post an image below of a III.g that's busted up. Suffice it do say, it's got a healthy coat of concrete slathered over it's vulnerable areas. What caught my attention in regard to this particular vehicle was the caption, a portion of which reads as follows:

quote:

The assault gun has concrete armor on the front of the casemate and has other late production features, such as 80mm-thick bow and glacis plates[...].


What I find so interesting about the phrasing is that it explicitly associates the application of concrete to the casemate as one of several "late production features."


[image]local://upfiles/21246/ECB7C82762FE4EC99413CEE52D0C09DF.jpg[/image]



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 4:55:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Why has the BR350P round gone unmentioned? It was available October 1943. I don't think the type is even available in PCK.
We didn't have the Russian APCR in Kharkov because at the time we didn't have a way of phasing it in by year and month. 76mm gun data in Kharkov extended just until the end of 1942. It is added now in PCO. In addition we have an APBC round.

As for the Germans thinking tha StuGs are vulnerable up to 500m against the Russian 76mm. There are all kinds of StuG models so nothing specific not even a time frame is given. Besides the Germans thought the reason the 37mm PaK wasn't effective against T-34s was a training issue.




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 5:18:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Why has the BR350P round gone unmentioned? It was available October 1943. I don't think the type is even available in PCK.
We didn't have the Russian APCR in Kharkov because at the time we didn't have a way of phasing it in by year and month. 76mm gun data in Kharkov extended just until the end of 1942. It is added now in PCO. In addition we have an APBC round.

As for the Germans thinking tha StuGs are vulnerable up to 500m against the Russian 76mm. There are all kinds of StuG models so nothing specific not even a time frame is given. Besides the Germans thought the reason the 37mm PaK wasn't effective against T-34s was a training issue.


In reading JasonC's passage, I recognized that there was more than one iteration of Stug in play. Like yourself, I suspect that his characterization of the interaction between Soviet gun and German armor appears to be an over-simplification.

Further up the thread, I stated my belief that the evolution between threat (gun/shell) and reaction (up-armoring) was actually quite a complex process. Measure and countermeasure appear to have evolved over a period of time, and analyzing these relationships is complicated by multiple configurations of armor placement and depth.

I'd attempt to outline the path/sequence that the photographic evidence suggests ensued as German designers attempted to offset advances on the part of the Soviets, but this has been something of an ordeal, given Lewis' attempt to subvert the discussion to his pre-conceived end.

Maybe tomorrow.

Any thoughts on the BR-350P and how its introduction would have effected the survivability of the various models of Sturmgeshutz?



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 6:35:29 AM)

Well here's the thing. The APCR has a good chance of going through most of the StuG armor out to what looks like 600m. It doesn't stand a very good chance of hitting. The arrowhead shot is unbalanced and the dispersion is high. The 50% chance of a first round hit on a StuG is around 400m.

[image]local://upfiles/21308/C37136679C4448408D9ED21EECFBC8B7.jpg[/image]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 7:06:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Well here's the thing. The APCR has a good chance of going through most of the StuG armor out to what looks like 600m. It doesn't stand a very good chance of hitting. The arrowhead shot is unbalanced and the dispersion is high. The 50% chance of a first round hit on a StuG is around 400m.

[image]local://upfiles/21308/C37136679C4448408D9ED21EECFBC8B7.jpg[/image]


I posted the image below earlier, sans caption. Sincerely, I can't help but think that the Germans began slathering heavier applications of concrete over the casemate of the Ostfront III.G because of the introduction of BR-350P.


[image]local://upfiles/21246/78DF5316F31E400E9176EA56F06A91A7.jpg[/image]



Mad Russian -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 2:42:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Besides the Germans thought the reason the 37mm PaK wasn't effective against T-34s was a training issue.


And they were right! The Pak36 crews were definitely trained incorrectly for dealing with T-34's. The correct procedure was to slowly back away from the gun and lie face down on the ground so as not to get hurt when the gun blew up.

Good Hunting.

MR



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 3:30:44 PM)

New speculations to go along with previously posted pics?  Who would have guessed?

HVAP works great on sloped armor then huh?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 5:05:43 PM)



While PRINCE flip-flops with his revisionistic writhing regarding what he NOW thinks he has been talking about, enjoy this Kursk 1943 picture of a StuG. I believe its the commander's StuG for the remote control unit Panzer Bn 302.

[image]local://upfiles/20015/5D07E098366C404FB9C981A9EC66DDD9.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 7:05:18 PM)

quote:

Alterations to the Sturmgeschütz IV
On January 24, 1944, the Inspektor der Artillerie determined that supplementing armor protection by adding concrete had been shown by test firing to be without benefit. It only increased the vehicle weight and framentation effect (on the armor piercing round striking the plate) was less favorable. The Waffenamt was not in favor of concrete for supplemental protection.


I hope that this quote is understood fully. The 'fragmentation effect' is in reference breaking up the incoming rounds. In other words, the concrete acts like a 'cap' on a shell. It reduces the shock the shell suffers when the point hits the armor. The fact that it mentions test firing outweighs any grog's half-baked suspicions.



Mad Russian -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 7:57:16 PM)

Half baked suspicions? There is photographic evidence that concrete was used. The documentation shows that, for that applied to the outside at least, it was a field expedient. Obviously, that was taken seriously enough for them to do trial tests on it. Your stand on the concrete issue is like saying Sherman crews didn't use sand bags on their tanks because sand wouldn't stop a German 75mm shell. There's plenty of evidence the US tankers used sand bags too.

None of that is an issue. What is at issue is that the Germans did use concrete. No matter now ineffective. They used Zimmeritt as well and it was ineffective too. They still used it.

Time to go back to the basics of this thread. The concrete issue is getting old. I think it's being used as a simple expedient to make derogatory comments and attacks on others POV's.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/18/2011 10:28:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

quote:

Alterations to the Sturmgeschütz IV
On January 24, 1944, the Inspektor der Artillerie determined that supplementing armor protection by adding concrete had been shown by test firing to be without benefit. It only increased the vehicle weight and framentation effect (on the armor piercing round striking the plate) was less favorable. The Waffenamt was not in favor of concrete for supplemental protection.


I hope that this quote is understood fully. The 'fragmentation effect' is in reference breaking up the incoming rounds. In other words, the concrete acts like a 'cap' on a shell. It reduces the shock the shell suffers when the point hits the armor. The fact that it mentions test firing outweighs any grog's half-baked suspicions.

I don't take it as meaning that. I take it as meaning it reduces the behind armor effect of the shell. A similar thing was noted in the US survey. The tankers thought it somehow lessened the damage of a penetration or near penetration.



Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 12:21:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

quote:

Alterations to the Sturmgeschütz IV
On January 24, 1944, the Inspektor der Artillerie determined that supplementing armor protection by adding concrete had been shown by test firing to be without benefit. It only increased the vehicle weight and framentation effect (on the armor piercing round striking the plate) was less favorable. The Waffenamt was not in favor of concrete for supplemental protection.


I hope that this quote is understood fully. The 'fragmentation effect' is in reference breaking up the incoming rounds. In other words, the concrete acts like a 'cap' on a shell. It reduces the shock the shell suffers when the point hits the armor. The fact that it mentions test firing outweighs any grog's half-baked suspicions.

I don't take it as meaning that. I take it as meaning it reduces the behind armor effect of the shell. A similar thing was noted in the US survey. The tankers thought it somehow lessened the damage of a penetration or near penetration.

And there lies the real issue here that some of us fail to talk about..."The tankers thought it somehow lessened the damage of a penetration or near penetration." If there was no issue with the frontal armor in these locations, there would be no reason to fix them. And the fact that the Russians are predominantly firing 76.2mm APwhatever means that the armor of the StuG was not performing up to standards, reguardless of what these standards were, the Germans felt the need to find a solution to the problem, so much so that both field fixes and factory applied concrete was used to try to FIX the situation. Whether it worked or not is immaterial, Prince had stated that concrete may have been the reason for the resistance to shell penetration, I thought that it might help as well, and still feel that there would be some effect due to the continued use over the years. Yuzzer has stated that concrete has no value and that the armor of the StuG was the best out there and would be almost impervious to 76.2mm penetration. I think that he has failed in his statement, it is obvious an issue existed and a bunch of theoretical data does little in the way of proof, but the logic that the situation existed and the fixes employed state clearly that the StuG was not impervious to the Russian 76mm.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 1:16:07 AM)

The problem with the high angle plates of only 30mm is that a dip of only 5-6 degrees would reduce the effective armor basis of 10-20mm. Considering battles aren't held on a pool table flat plane some extra armor there would help with protection.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 2:52:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

quote:

Alterations to the Sturmgeschütz IV
On January 24, 1944, the Inspektor der Artillerie determined that supplementing armor protection by adding concrete had been shown by test firing to be without benefit. It only increased the vehicle weight and framentation effect (on the armor piercing round striking the plate) was less favorable. The Waffenamt was not in favor of concrete for supplemental protection.


I hope that this quote is understood fully. The 'fragmentation effect' is in reference breaking up the incoming rounds. In other words, the concrete acts like a 'cap' on a shell. It reduces the shock the shell suffers when the point hits the armor. The fact that it mentions test firing outweighs any grog's half-baked suspicions.

I don't take it as meaning that. I take it as meaning it reduces the behind armor effect of the shell. A similar thing was noted in the US survey. The tankers thought it somehow lessened the damage of a penetration or near penetration.


Uh, no. This is from the Inspektor der Artillerie and he is saying the fragmentation effect is less favorable. The fragmentation effect...is ON THE ARMOR PIERCING ROUND. He is speaking of shells breaking up on contact.

Why would the Inspektor der Artillerie make mention of it somehow reducing the post penetration effects? He has determined through testing that it is without benefit.

See? Its bad. It increases vehicle weight AND reduces protection. That is what is said.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 2:57:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Half baked suspicions? There is photographic evidence that concrete was used. The documentation shows that, for that applied to the outside at least, it was a field expedient. Obviously, that was taken seriously enough for them to do trial tests on it. Your stand on the concrete issue is like saying Sherman crews didn't use sand bags on their tanks because sand wouldn't stop a German 75mm shell. There's plenty of evidence the US tankers used sand bags too.

None of that is an issue. What is at issue is that the Germans did use concrete. No matter now ineffective. They used Zimmeritt as well and it was ineffective too. They still used it.

Time to go back to the basics of this thread. The concrete issue is getting old. I think it's being used as a simple expedient to make derogatory comments and attacks on others POV's.

Good Hunting.

MR



I never said it wasn't used. I have been clear on my stance. Some one else's is constantly evolving it seems.

But, yes, I have made multiple requests that the CONCRETE proponents start a seperate thread. Obviously the sock-puppet argument started by PRINCE is nothing more than some ego-driven attempt to derail this thread further.



Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 3:21:01 AM)

I see again that you are missing the point or ignoring it. I don't care if concrete or silly putty was used, the fact remains that something was used , therefore something needed to be used; why?... because the performance vs Russian guns was sub-par and seeing as it is the front where it has been stated that there should be no issue, yet this is where we find the concrete. Can I prove that Russian 76mm guns can penetrate the StuG's front armor, nope, I do not think that there exists any test firings that can disprove it either. All there is is theory and firings against 90deg plate. Simple logic says that if field fixes are there, and this is not a simple "throw a couple sand bags on" fix, then there must be an issue, reguardless of theoretical programs and live test firings vs plate that does not represent the suface that we are talking about accurately. Pretty simple to follow. Penetration test vs 90deg armor plate, meaningless in this case. This is face hardened plate where it is known that this type of plate is less effective at sloped applications then is non-face hardened and that the ammunition used by the Russians was an effective round vs sloped face hardened plate and could cause failure without penetration as well as penetrate. Then there is the "plug" effect as well.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 4:43:28 AM)

Ratzki, you must be addressing Mobius I assume????  He is the one that has:
1. Provided information that the German testing found the concrete not worthwhile
2. Is using data to design the game

I have given up on addressing you. 



FNG -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 9:19:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Ratzki, you must be addressing Mobius I assume????  He is the one that has:
1. Provided information that the German testing found the concrete not worthwhile
2. Is using data to design the game

I have given up on addressing you. 


Given that this is a forum for the latest in the Panzer Command series of games, perhaps you would like to share with us your test data from the game that supports your postition that the StuG is under-performing against Soviet 76.2mm AP ammunition? And then compare and contrast with the hard data from battle damage assessments that show what was knocking StuGs out in real life?

If you can't do that, then I suggest that you are posting in the wrong place. Just out of interest, have you ever even played PC:W or PC:K?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 2:35:57 PM)

That isn't my position at all.  I doubt you have read through the thread. 

FNG: You clearly have some agenda. I notice your posts are typically complaining and whining and hostile.



FNG -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 3:17:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

That isn't my position at all.  I doubt you have read through the thread. 


Wrong. I have read through the thread. From page one:

"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. "

Now, given your thread title, "StuG BS discussions", one would assume that you feel the StuG has been under-modelled in games and you seek to redress this balance. Fair enough. But nowhere have you linked this in to your experiences of this game and how it differs from your hypothesis. I won't cut and paste my previous post but I'd be interested by your data from PC:W/PC:K regarding the StuG and its performance.

I doubt I will get it because you are a troll, plain and simple. You have form for it on other Matrix forums and on other wargaming sites. Your tone is contentious and pompous. I rarely feed the troll but on this occasion I will, so that any newcomers to this forum may see that your 'style' is not the way that the vast majority of members here behave.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 3:18:16 PM)

The Soviet HVAP BR-350P
This arrow-head design 'featured' a follow-on slug of steel material. Evidently to save tungsten. Arrowhead designs were dropped by the Germans. The HVAP were not very effective vs. sloped armor since they would 'land' on the soft outer carrier material, typically aluminum, and destabilize. The Soviet round, with its steel 'follow-on' was unstabile even further. This design is best used against vertical armor. Actual penetrator is 27mm in diameter.



[image]local://upfiles/20015/44CCBA173D4448BF9977B89F6E68EEC4.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 3:22:26 PM)

quote:

FNG: Now, given your thread title, "StuG BS discussions", one would assume that you feel the StuG has been under-modelled in games and you seek to redress this balance. Fair enough. But nowhere have you linked this in to your experiences of this game and how it differs from your hypothesis. I won't cut and paste my previous post but I'd be interested by your data from PC:W/PC:K regarding the StuG and its performance.


You are assuming something to try and set up a red herring and troll further.



FNG -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 3:31:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

quote:

FNG: Now, given your thread title, "StuG BS discussions", one would assume that you feel the StuG has been under-modelled in games and you seek to redress this balance. Fair enough. But nowhere have you linked this in to your experiences of this game and how it differs from your hypothesis. I won't cut and paste my previous post but I'd be interested by your data from PC:W/PC:K regarding the StuG and its performance.


You are assuming something to try and set up a red herring and troll further.


Nope. I have merely asked you a few direct questions which you have failed to even attempt to answer. There is however a rich irony in you accusing pretty much anyone of trolling.

So do you have any response to the question about how your data compares to the game data/experience, and how the game should be updated to reflect this?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 3:53:28 PM)

Ask Mobius. 



Mad Russian -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 4:34:29 PM)

I do. All the time. His is the opinion I seek when I need technical data answers.

Good Hunting.

MR



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625