RE: StuG BS discussions (Full Version)

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



Message

Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/19/2011 5:55:53 PM)

Part of this location represents the sponson area. 
    <location position="8" location="SuperS" front="8/10s12" side="3" rear="3" />



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 2:42:23 AM)

Does the game model side angle for the AP model?   As an example, side angle is combined with the normal slope the armor has?  A simple example is the Tiger tactic of never directly facing the mass of opponents. 

Side angle would also play havoc on hit locations on the odd surfaced StuG.  As an example, on a StuGIIIG that is at a side angle of only 25 deg to a firer, one of the sponsons could not even be hit. 



junk2drive -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 3:03:23 AM)

Sounds like Steel Beasts Pro would be your choice.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 6:04:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

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]

Data?

I understand that specifics aren't your strong suit, so Mobius is welcome to respond.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 6:11:41 AM)

Or you can post your supposed data you claimed you researched from your model books?  Are you such a duck-in-a-shooting-gallery IRL????  LOL!



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 6:31:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Ask Mobius. 


Why so touchy Lewis?

You directed FNG to "ask Mobius," so why shouldn't I?

Apart from your grasp of the hidden secrets of the "green wheel," isn't he as well-informed as yourself?



Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 7:09:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Why so touchy Lewis?


He has StuG envy, shhhh, he does not like to talk about it.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 7:27:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Does the game model side angle for the AP model?   As an example, side angle is combined with the normal slope the armor has?  A simple example is the Tiger tactic of never directly facing the mass of opponents. 

Side angle would also play havoc on hit locations on the odd surfaced StuG.  As an example, on a StuGIIIG that is at a side angle of only 25 deg to a firer, one of the sponsons could not even be hit. 

Yes, at the 30° mark the variable penetration goes to the deflection table. So from 30°-60° it uses this table then switches back to normal full side-on at 60°. Between 30° and 60° the side or the front can both be hit. I think it switches % chance of either at the 45° mark but was told that years ago and things might have changed with PCO as many original things in PCOWS didn't work exactly as described.

The StuG wouldn't be so lucky as it's side armor is only 3 so even doubling this gets to just 6 which is far less than its front.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 7:46:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

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.
We don't call Soviet Arrowhead 'HVAP'. We call it APCR. As we have separate penetration adjustment tables for subcaliber shot of APCR, HVAP, APDS and now APCNR.

They are slightly different. US HVAP has the most deflection on sloped armor, APDS the a little less and APCR and APCNR the least. Though these all have much more deflection than the full sized rounds.

When the game starts up and you are waiting for it to load little tip bits of info are shown the player. Some of the messages are about things like APCR and its origins.

If we were to do a modern game mod (as some suggest) we would need a variable penetration table for APFSDS. It wouldn't have much deflection as instead of a sharp nose like APDS as it has a blunt nose like APBC. I guess you could even use the APBC table in a pinch.



Misty99 -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 2:15:57 PM)

A Stug (without concrete) in a German Army museum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzNAdL_SW2M&feature=related



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 2:57:04 PM)

Misty
Nice video.  It certainly dispells the myth created by CMBB that StuGIII turned like KV-2.  I have seen other video that shows a StuGIII that is jerked about even quicker.  The video I posted earlier showed combat footage of StuGIII fighting Soviet tanks.  The tactic was to constantly shift position after an 'engagement'.  This engagement could be 3-4 rounds fired for effect.  Once a hit was secured, the StuG would shift position.  Sometimes forward and back at an angle so that they presented a different range and position to an enemy firer (this was in flat open terrain).   I always wanted some command like that in a game besides 'shoot'n'scoots'.

Mobius
I am not sure if we are discussing exactly the same thing but I will post a more detailed question later.  I think you are talking about aspect of facing and I am speaking of 'slope' from fire that comes at a plate from an angle. 

Trolls
I consider your snippy-sniping to be a mark of victory.  Keep up the lame work. 



Mad Russian -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 3:28:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Misty
Nice video.  It certainly dispells the myth created by CMBB that StuGIII turned like KV-2. 



You mean like that lame KV-2 you were talking so much about in my thread?

Good Hunting.

MR



Josh -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/20/2011 9:32:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misty

A Stug (without concrete) in a German Army museum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzNAdL_SW2M&feature=related



It's certainly more agile than I ever anticipated, expected it to be more sluggish. Nice vid.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/21/2011 2:36:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Mobius
I am not sure if we are discussing exactly the same thing but I will post a more detailed question later.  I think you are talking about aspect of facing and I am speaking of 'slope' from fire that comes at a plate from an angle. 
For the armor basis the slope is included in the armor value. 


front="8/10s12

For example the 10s12 means that the total armor basis is 10cm. The s12 means the basis is spaced armor worth 12cm vs a HEAT shell.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/21/2011 3:32:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Ask Mobius. 


Why so touchy Lewis?

You directed FNG to "ask Mobius," so why shouldn't I?

Apart from your grasp of the hidden secrets of the "green wheel," isn't he as well-informed as yourself?


You are getting as mysterious as Ratski. I have no clue what you are going on about....again.

I did a little back-reading in this thread and caught this little nugget of yours...

quote:

And if there's a less extensive supply of extant photos from contemporary German museums, it's because there's no German facility that's equivalent to that which is found in Finland.

A German facility and exhibits, with concrete applique, or without, simply doesn't exist.


It seems that proof of German use of CONCRETE is held in Finnish museums? I find your odd thought processes and stilted use of words amusing none the less.

Now, I have been to the museums in Sinsheim and I highly recommend them. I believe there are a couple of StuGs there.

[image]http://soltor.de/Photogallery/images/Sinsheim/stuh42.jpg[/image]

Edit: Mobius, would the F model, like the StuH in the pic above, have different hit areas to reflect the greater vertical superstructure armor visable?




Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/21/2011 4:58:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Edit: Mobius, would the F model, like the StuH in the pic above, have different hit areas to reflect the greater vertical superstructure armor visable?

Yes. This is from the F1. 
    <location position="10" location="SuperS" front="8u" side="3" rear="3" />
    <location position="9" location="SuperS"  front="5" side="3"   rear="3" />
    <location position="8" location="SuperS"  front="5/8u" side="3" rear="3" />
    <location position="7" location="SuperS"  front="5+3" side="3"  rear="3" />

The '5' armor locations are for the sponson, gunshield and vertical superstructure surfaces.

There is only one variant of the StuH42 in PCO and is based on the StuG IIIG chassis.



Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/21/2011 5:56:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

You are getting as mysterious as Ratski. I have no clue what you are going on about....again.


Ah mystery, I like reading and commenting here, it's like dangling a carrot from a string in front of a mule with you, I know what is gonna happen next, and you never fail to deliver, but it always makes me smile.

And here I thought that you said that you were done talking to me. I think that what we have here is a failure to communicate, so I will put it to ya one more time, and maybe you can answer the questions that pertain to your statements early in the thread. Thusfar you have avoided them. So here goes, and I am not gonna search through this thread for posts, you know that they arre there, youcan look for them if you need to.
1)Your statement about the sloped face hardened plate being grerat and then the 50mm plate behind being the best protection against Russian shells. I put out a quote from a naval study that would show this to be incorrect. What would be your answer to this?
2)From this naval study, it would appear that a capped round would perform better against this face hrdened plate, not only with penetration but blowing a plug out the back side as well. I believe that you stated that a capped round would perform worse as to the shoulder striking the plate instead of the tip. Could you prove your statement?
3)You stated that this armor configuration would stand up against all but bigger calibres and higher velocities. Again, I go back to the naval study that says that lower velocities would cause face hardened plate failure. Plus the statement is not even remotely factual as there are several smaller rounds that outperform larger calibres. I do not know why you would even make this statement as it is a false statement across the board. Can you enlighten how bigger and faster is always better, as this is what you statement's logical conclusion is?
4)Why did the Germans add the 30mm of additional armor over the 50mm that was already there?
5)Why did the Germans add (in this case concrete, but it could have been anything) again over this spot that you claim to be a superior armor configuration?
6) Can you explain how sloped face hardened plate is superior as you stated when again the naval study says that sloped face hardened plate performs poorly and is really only mean to stop perpendicular shell penettration?
7)80mm of solid plate is superior to 30mm+50mm, I think that we can all agree to this. So why are you so hung up on the plate total thickness? I seem to recall seeing somewhere that this configuration would yield somewhere about 70mm protection, I do not have this number for a fact, but I might look for it again and see if I can find it. Mobius would be better to comment on this then I. If this is the case, would then the Russian 76mm be able to penetrate fairly reasonably within it's effective range? If you disagree, can you explain?

This is a start, now I have poked fun at you from time to time, but you have to admit, that from the start of this thread you have come across like an al-knowing pompous a-hole. If you can't see that, I truely feel sorry for you. Here is a chance to answer my questions, that I think are valid, and if you are as knowledgable as you claim to be, they should be no problem. This is your chance to show me what you know and produce the tests and facts to back your claims up. I for one would not be oppposed to being shown that you have been right all along. Education is good for everyone. Having a discussion is what this is all about, think about it, I ventured out into the bush with a mosin-negat, and shot at some concrete blocks to see what would happen. I was a little suprised, I would have liked to have recovered some full metal jacketed bullets and had a couple more chunks of concrete to test out some other things, but it does show that some of us are willing to learn. Now do your bit, you have made some statements, now like the concrete shoot-out in the snow, produce some facts to prove your arguements.

Thanks



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/21/2011 6:00:37 AM)

Eh, why not just read Mobius' armor descriptions and present questions if you feel they do not meet your expectations? 

y'welcome

edit: I think you need to be exposed to the website's discretion. I do not think you have followed issues and it is not my concern to correct you.



Enigma6584 -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/21/2011 5:39:19 PM)

@Yoozername:  Your answer is as big a cop-out as I've ever seen.  Go ahead, answer Ratzki's questions.  They are legitimate.  What are you afraid of? 



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/21/2011 7:09:11 PM)

This drawing shows the overlap of the superstructure and other armor on the StuGIIIG







[image]local://upfiles/20015/7794AD35C9EF4474B8C0E5F1501FF2E5.gif[/image]



Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/21/2011 7:43:26 PM)

The reason that I do not ask Mobius about things is that I undersatnd that he is making a game. Certain things cannot be modelled accurately as there is no way of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that fire shell A at plate B will give result C. Alot is speculation and educated guess. I have full trust that Mobius will produce results that will not dissappoint us all. You on the other hand, the self proclaimed Expert Genious on the StuG are talking about real world results as if they are factually provable beyond a reasonable doubt, so I am giving you the oportunity to do so. Mobius is a smart guy and I have read all his posts here in this thread and a good many in other threads, he is always enlightening and ready to discuss diffferences in opinions. He even let me trudge into the bush with some bricks and shoot'em up when I figure that he already knew the end results, this was not done to humour me but I suspect that he figured that there might be something that I might find out that he might not have been aware of, some little tidbit, maybe not important but still. Mobius has made comments in this thread that are efforts to prove both sides correct, not so that he can show everyone that he is right but to forward evryones knowledge on the topic. So here is you chance to come out and answer some valid question s on statements that you have made.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/21/2011 11:08:30 PM)

Yoozer I would count only the sponson and area around the gun shield as overlaping armor. The roof isn't as once the shell gets through the first plate it's inside the vehicle. Whether or not it makes it through the superstructure plate isn't going to help the driver or the ammo bin.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/22/2011 4:31:50 AM)

As far as true AP type rounds, I see your point...to a degree.  But for HEAT type rounds, I think you might consider otherwise.  It's spaced armor in some sense.  I would also argue that hits up very near the edge of the steeply sloped armor might have point penetration yet still be within the sloped armors 'grasp'.  The ass-end HE being 'external' to said armor envelope to the StuG.

The driver's head is somewhere about the upper bow armor.  He is not looking 'through' the visor in other words.  The 'powderkeg' on the other side is always in my thoughts.




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/22/2011 6:03:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

The driver's head is somewhere about the upper bow armor.  He is not looking 'through' the visor in other words.  The 'powderkeg' on the other side is always in my thoughts.


[sm=00000280.gif]Any prayers to be said for the vehicle commander, Lewis?[sm=00000280.gif]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/23/2011 6:44:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

The driver's head is somewhere about the upper bow armor.  He is not looking 'through' the visor in other words.  The 'powderkeg' on the other side is always in my thoughts.


[sm=00000280.gif]Any prayers to be said for the vehicle commander, Lewis?[sm=00000280.gif]


I suppose the prayers are answered at pg.64 'The German Sturmartillerie at War'.......



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/23/2011 4:53:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I suppose the prayers are answered at pg.64 'The German Sturmartillerie at War'.......


Gadzooks!

I've heard of stopping bullets with bodies, but that vehicle commander has gone too far.[sm=00000116.gif]

I suspect that the riders would've encouraged the VC to reconsider, and adopt something more substantial.[:-]

From page 64 of the volume in question:


[image]local://upfiles/21246/9C1D6F35DDE84C26B4A0390615DA75A4.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/26/2011 12:56:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Does the game model side angle for the AP model?   As an example, side angle is combined with the normal slope the armor has?  A simple example is the Tiger tactic of never directly facing the mass of opponents. 

Side angle would also play havoc on hit locations on the odd surfaced StuG.  As an example, on a StuGIIIG that is at a side angle of only 25 deg to a firer, one of the sponsons could not even be hit. 

Yes, at the 30° mark the variable penetration goes to the deflection table. So from 30°-60° it uses this table then switches back to normal full side-on at 60°. Between 30° and 60° the side or the front can both be hit. I think it switches % chance of either at the 45° mark but was told that years ago and things might have changed with PCO as many original things in PCOWS didn't work exactly as described.

The StuG wouldn't be so lucky as it's side armor is only 3 so even doubling this gets to just 6 which is far less than its front.



I don't know what to say. I guess I will have to flank StuG's once your done?



Mad Russian -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/26/2011 2:23:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I guess I will have to flank StuG's once your done?


Absolutely not! Feel free to go head to head with a StuG anytime you like. [:D]


Good Hunting.

MR



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/26/2011 3:21:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

BR-350B
APBC

[image]local://upfiles/20015/2634A917C4DB43658B762CF2831AC6BD.jpg[/image]

The reference that this is from has some errors in it. I think it was made from ammo captured during GW1. They mistook the BR-365K for the BR-365 round. Other diagrams must be crossed-checked.



ezzler -> RE: StuG BS discussions (1/27/2011 12:39:32 AM)

{Repeat post..
Sorry about that but I find repeating a point 100 times makes it more believable.}

I would like to bring something to the developer's attention. I see this game is almost ready for publication. However you have still not addressed a very serious problem.
Specifically the stats for the PzIIf.

I have, after meticulous research, discovered that when this tank was deployed with the Spanish Blue Division a modification was made. The Spanish maintenance crews suggested a way to increase the armour of the PzIIf.
This consisted of them making a batch of Paella and smearing it on the front armour. Now this , sometimes with added Chorizo, greatly increased the ability of the vehicle to withstand AP shells. By as much as perhaps 25mm...No, make that 60mm.

I travelled to the Canary islands, and at Fuertoventura discovered a small WWII museum. I immediately checked the PzIIf there. It had greasy, slimy, food stains right across the front armour. Also a ceramic plate, metal knife, wine bottle,and a small cloth banner had been added to the turret. I asked the museum's curator to comment.

"Hmm.. it looks like the janitor has been having his lunch. Look, there's his tablecloth."

HAH! WRONG!

After much research I can assure you that the German Panzer regiments also made up a Paella/Pea Sausage/150g of crackers, modification locally. This unauthorised up-armouring had the effect of making the front armour of a PzIIf the equivalent of a KV-1. Far from ripping the turret off and flinging it 100m into the sky, a 76mm shell would bounce harmlessly off.

I ask the developer this.

1.Will the new 'ration covering,' unofficial armoured modification, be included in this game. For historical accuracy it can hardly be ignored!
2. Will the modification now permit the PzIIf to be impervious to all but rounds fired at close range from an IS-2 ?
3. Would you like some information on the rocket propelled, high impact, wooden AP projectile that some special rifles were adapted to fire? I have a picture of a modified Kar-98 stool-leg that I can post.
{Some claim it is in fact a rifle resting by a chair. But that is opinion only for the uniformed..}

I await your reply with a mix of amusement, outrage, schizophrenia, humour, bile, breathlessness and incredulity.
{Incredulity only if you fail to grasp my genius.}

Uzi-name.



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.717773