RE: StuG BS discussions (Full Version)

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



Message

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 4:37:39 AM)

Sorry about that pic size.  but it demonstrates the overlap of even the box mantlet with the superstructure.

It also shows the 'toe-in' from the vertical 'shields' on either side of the mantlet area.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 5:28:38 AM)

Excellent photo showing how StuK40 weapon was changed out. Note the 'U-Shaped cross bar' laying on vehicle front near visor. It would seem roof had to be removed, cross-bar removed, gun carriage unbolted and then the old weapon was removed and new weapon installed.

Again note superstructure armor and the mantlet, once installed, overlapping that armor.

[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-154-1991-24A%2C_Russland%2C_Sturmgesch%C3%BCtz%2C_Ausbau_der_Kanone.jpg[/image]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 5:50:10 AM)

Now, I understand. You've haven't been describing a "late-model" Stug.III, but rather, the "Bob Fleming" vehicle:"

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531016/ps531016.html

What total tripe Lewis.[8|]

Is your sole intent to simply confuse your readers, or is this the continuation of your Jabberywocky/Snark routine by other means?

In "Mr Tittles" honor, let me post an image of the Stug's true source of invincibility, CONCRETE:

[image]local://upfiles/21246/39A55EAA4E7E41C0827C0BAA21A4961A.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 6:22:02 AM)

Pat yourself on the back prince.  You are the texas-troll on a saturday night!

Eh, no hot-dates lately? That's Ok, I see that yappy lapdog in the picture and feel I know everything about you.

Edit: I have to be honest, your trolling, while desperate and obviously 'long' thought out has me puzzled. Try to explain to me, using your extensive texas education, what you think you are saying, what you think it accomplishes, and how anyone would care. Thanks. Troll.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 6:22:03 AM)

quote:

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

[image]local://upfiles/21246/39A55EAA4E7E41C0827C0BAA21A4961A.jpg[/image]
From that photo it looks like the source of invincibility would be the white stars.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 6:39:32 AM)

Yeah white stars.  Nice one Mobe.  US forces used captured StuG in 44 and 45.  What that picture, and 'lapdog-texan's' rant has to do with the discussian of the StuGIII and Soviet t34/76mm can only be explained by a texan.  With a lapdog?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 2:29:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
[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.


I suppose 2000 fps might represent a T34/76 firing at approx. 200 meters or so? Its interesting that your results show the shell has lost over half its energy from striking the first plate. I would assume this plate is face-hardened armor.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 4:01:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
[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.

I suppose 2000 fps might represent a T34/76 firing at approx. 200 meters or so? Its interesting that your results show the shell has lost over half its energy from striking the first plate. I would assume this plate is face-hardened armor.

That test was on remake of M79apclc, Okuns rolled plate penetratrion program. Sadly it doesn't match most actual test results so I would not use it for game data. It does give interesting engineering info on penetrations. I did run the same shell vs. face hard armor and got similar results.



Mad Russian -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 4:13:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Sorry about that pic size.  but it demonstrates the overlap of even the box mantlet with the superstructure.

It also shows the 'toe-in' from the vertical 'shields' on either side of the mantlet area.


It doesn't demonstrate anything. It's too big to see anything.

Resize it.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 4:51:25 PM)

For some reason the angled armor is over rated in engineering formulas vs actual tests. I don't know the reason why. But as can be seen in some photos the Germans put tracks over the 70 degree high angled superstructure armor to add protection where it shouldn't be needed.

During the early 1950s (maybe 1953) The Yugoslav army had access to vehicles, guns and ammo from several WWII participants. They made side by side test of guns on various targets. In one case a T-34/85 was used as a target for a US 76mm gun and German Pak40 gun.
quote:

T-34/85: Hull 46@60° 350BHN, Turret 90mm rounded.
Yugo standard penetration is 50% of shell weight passes behind armor.

76mm M1 (from M4A3E4 tank) firing AP and HVAP.
M79 AP penetrates glacis @ 1100m
M53 subcalibre penetrates glacis @ 1200m

M79 AP penetrates front turret @ 900m
M53 subcalibre penetrates front turret @ 1500m

Yugoslav Pak40 vs. T-34/85 renamed German ammo to 'M' code.

75mm M40 PaK40 firing AP, HVAP.
M39 AP (PzGr.39) penetrates glacis @ 1300m
M40 subcalibre (PzGr.40) penetrates glacis @ 1200m

M39 AP penetrates front turret @ 1000m
M40 subcalibre penetrates front turret @ 1250m

Theoretically the rounded 90mm turret would be penetrated at far longer range than the high angle 45mm glacis. But it doesn't.
As the saying goes:
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they aren't."



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 7:01:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Forged Steels?  Do you mean Rolled Homogenous Armor?


Maybe be means CONCRETE:




[image]local://upfiles/21246/AFBFB0EE229B4F9B93FDB42D9B15567A.jpg[/image]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 7:06:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

For some reason the angled armor is over rated in engineering formulas vs actual tests.


Concrete perhaps?

No shortage of it on this one:





[image]local://upfiles/21246/C38D3F44B1904808B6B471C9228964DE.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 7:18:27 PM)

Prince, what are you even trolling about?  Do you have some point you are trying to make?



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 7:33:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Prince, what are you even trolling about?  Do you have some point you are trying to make?


More so than any other vehicle that I'm aware of, these things were slathered in concrete. I doubt that this is modeled in PzC (or any other game). That doesn't particularly trouble me. The FACT that crews went to such lengths to protect these vehicles will likely surprise none of our readers, excepting yourself of course. Then again, I don't find myself driven to speculate on the arcane when dealing with the obvious:




[image]local://upfiles/21246/788D9B0350D94FFAB71D54A1C09D754F.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 7:44:33 PM)

Maybe you need to start a new topic regarding your observations on concrete?

This thread is mainly concerned with the T34/76mm vs. StuG debate.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 7:53:25 PM)

Nice shot showing the overlapping armor even on a box mantlet...

Note that there appears to be overlap from the front piece of the mantlet and the rear large piece. There is also overlap between this structure and the vehicles superstructure.
[image]http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531010/2004_53101028.jpg[/image]




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 8:01:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Note the green handwheel for the gun.

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


Why is the green handwheel noteworthy?



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/12/2010 9:33:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
More so than any other vehicle that I'm aware of, these things were slathered in concrete. I doubt that this is modeled in PzC (or any other game).

Armor steel to cement value is 25 to 1. 25 inches of cement equal 1 inch of armor value. So they have to slather on a lot to make it worth while.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 12:17:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


Why is the green handwheel noteworthy?



Why is the concrete slathered?



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 2:21:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Why is the concrete slathered?


I always hate to quote myself as it seems so immodest, but this comes from #44 directly above:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

More so than any other vehicle that I'm aware of, these things were slathered in concrete.[...}The FACT that crews went to such lengths to protect these vehicles will likely surprise none of our readers, excepting yourself of course.


I suspect that our other readers understood those comments completely.

On the other hand, you asked your readers to make note of "the green handwheel," but never explained why it was noteworthy.

My, but you certainly do struggle with matters of substance, lewis.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 2:29:35 AM)

And look lewis, you can even buy after-market "simulated concrete" to glue to your models:



[image]local://upfiles/21246/8EDD6F3D4D654D51B928C4F53988C6A6.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 2:32:31 AM)

You still haven't explained why the concrete was slathered.  If it has something to do with soviet 76mm AP rounds, please share that with us.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 2:59:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
You still haven't explained why the concrete was slathered. 
It is one of the ways to apply concrete. It doesn't look like they had a form which they filled with concrete so they have to apply it on in layers.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 3:02:40 AM)

I am not questioning how but why.  He seems to infer something everyone knows. 



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 3:05:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

If it has something to do with soviet 76mm AP rounds, please share that with us.


I've addressed that twice, already.[8D]

If you'd spend more time studying these vehicles, and less time watching "Sarah Palin's Alaska," no one would have to lead you around by the saukopf.

And look, here's more concrete:




[image]local://upfiles/21246/EEA93F567F834C528DA769768B85B973.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 3:15:03 AM)

You have not addressed it at all.  You claim that concrete makes the StuGs 'protection' better?  Better from what?  Mobius has already pointed out the dubious nature of the concrete from protecting against AP fire. 



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 3:27:45 AM)

I can easily find many more pics without 'slatherings'. This one from July 1943. Which is a time frame that this discussion is about.\

[image]http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9340/germanstugiiikursk6hv.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 3:33:10 AM)

Karkov Mar 43

[image]http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/5lpl2b7inpftfk/images/21-b79ecf5643/000.jpg[/image]



Mad Russian -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 3:34:11 AM)

I'm certainly not an expert on the StuG or armour plate, but the use of anything and everything to upgrade the value of the vehicles armour plate by the crew is documented in thousands of photographs.

Everything from bolted on plates, to sand bags, to extra track links, to anything else the vehicle crew thought might help. If a concrete filler stopped a single shell from penetrating then the crew was successful in their attempts to upgrade their vehicle. No matter how little the added bits and pieces actually added to the protection value of the vehicle. There would be no way of knowing under combat conditions if anything helped or not. Only testing site results would tell you actual benefits gained.

So, in the end it may well only have been crew morale that was actually impacted with all the field expedients added.

However, in this case, I think the concrete was being used as a poor mans zimmerit and not an attempt to upgrade the armour plate.



Good Hunting.

MR



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 3:56:04 AM)

One of the things the concrete does if fill the gap above the slanted front plate to the roof. Thus protecting the vertical front armor, even though it may be 80mm. This must of caught ricochets off the slant. So concrete on the slant would ward off this. It would be over a foot lengthwise so that would be a 1/2" worth of extra armor protection. It might degrade HE shell hits too by being blown off absorbing the energy.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.546875