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 (12/13/2010 4:08:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

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.


Respectfully, if you research this, I think that you'll find that the concrete that's been built-up on those two locations is consistently described as a form of applique armor.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 4:19:10 AM)

This StuGIIIG pic suggests winter 43/44. No slatherings I see. Perhaps the pics Prince has seen are all later war slatherings?

[image]http://forum.valka.cz/files/stugiii-g.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 4:23:56 AM)

I still have no idea what the intent of Prince's first 'CONCRETE' post.  Is he insinuating that concrete armor was the secret to the StuG's success?  Is he implying that concrete is proof that StuG's are vulnerable to 76mm F-34 rounds?  What exactly is his argument? 

This is very much like dealing with women that think other people can read thier minds....



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 4:28:13 AM)

battle of Cassino, early 1944

[image]http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/StuG_III_Ausf_G.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 4:49:58 AM)

Nice close up. Note the greeness....

http://image55.webshots.com/155/8/72/36/2925872360084341647trglXv_fs.jpg
[image]http://image55.webshots.com/155/8/72/36/2925872360084341647trglXv_fs.jpg[/image]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 5:26:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Note the greeness....


I don't think that "greeness" is a word, lewis.

Or is this somehow related to the "green handwheel" that you made reference to up the thread?



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 7:15:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
I still have no idea what the intent of Prince's first 'CONCRETE' post.  Is he insinuating that concrete armor was the secret to the StuG's success?  Is he implying that concrete is proof that StuG's are vulnerable to 76mm F-34 rounds?  What exactly is his argument? 
I didn't see a reference to 76mm F-34 rounds. Maybe it was defense to 85mm rounds?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 1:55:47 PM)

I suppose its just an ad hominem attack by Prince along the lines of 'you don't know what everyone knows..'.  I am still waiting for his explanation of how late war concreted vehicles, including one that appears to have been concreted by US troops, has much to do with the StuG vs. T34 debate.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 1:56:50 PM)


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.


I hate quoting myself also. This is the first post in this thread that is un-edited.



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 3:04:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

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


I hate quoting myself also. This is the first post in this thread that is un-edited.
So F-22, F-32, F-34 and ZiS-3 are in. And BR-350A, BR-350B and BR-350P are in as well? But No 85mm ZiS-S-53?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 3:14:16 PM)

Sounds about right to me.  The big StuG debate, in CMBB is the over-modeling of the armor.  Since PCO has more 'granularity' on hit location, it is certainly worth discussing how the various parts of the vehicle are armored and the effects they may have. 

And just so I am clear, the StuG has weaknesses as well as very strong armor combinations. Like any vehicle that hung around in WWII production, it had its heyday and its decline.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/13/2010 3:31:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

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?



I really think you are confused. Read what the link, that you provided, has to say:

quote:

The StuG is restored to the original German colour-scheme and the condition it was in when arriving in Finland in 1943. Well, except for the gun's travel lock, which in this particular case is a Finnish post-war addition, and the Schürzen brackets ("teeth") that are of a later model than the ones originally attached to this StuG.


So this is a 1943 StuGIIIG. I fail to see what point you are making here?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/14/2010 1:49:01 AM)

Check out the instructions and drawings available on this website for a detailed StuG interior...

http://www.cmkkits.com/en/detail-sets-accessories/stug-iii-interior-set/



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/14/2010 1:54:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

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]




Also note the U shaped brackets (there are four of them, two below not visable in pic) that attaches the mantlet to the StuK40 gun. I saw these in the model instructions posted above. These could possibly serve as a device that allows some amount of 'sprung' armored mass. It appears the mass of the mantlet, which includes that cylindrical barrel protector, front 50mm shield and back 50mm shield are hung by these brackets.

This pic shows the mounting points...

[image]https://panzerfaust.sslpowered.com/planetArmor/stug3_files/stug7a.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/14/2010 6:15:05 PM)

late model StuGIIIG cast mantlet, compare cast mantlet to superstructure thickness. Note thickness of the 'inverted-U' top bar that connects one side of the superstructure to the other along the top of the vehicle. Note overlap of mantlet and superstructure itself.[image]http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/dmitry_kiyatkin/stug_iii_fk/images/stug_iii_fk_51_of_56.jpg[/image]



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/14/2010 11:21:19 PM)

Excellent shot of the ammunition area. Note that superstructure wall extends to sponson. The superstructure wall above the ammunition itself has the steeply sloping 'roof' armor in front of it. So there is some overlap between the steeply sloped armor and the superstructure itself.

[image]http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/erik_torp/stug_iii/images/stug_iii_39_of_39.jpg[/image]

Same vehicle outside shot. If you blow this up (I am using microsoft picture manager), you can see a hit and ricochet off the right 'steeply-sloped-roff' armor over the driver's compartmnent. Possibly a 76mm class weapon?

[image]http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/erik_torp/stug_iii/images/stug_iii_32_of_39.jpg[/image]



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/15/2010 3:40:01 AM)

There aren't a lot of scenarios featuring the StuG G in PCO. Maybe its important to some other game with ladders and contests.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/15/2010 3:44:11 AM)

Lewis,

What you've posted below is a copyrighted image (as indicated by the water-mark).

After you edit it out, I'll remove my link to it as well.

As members in good standing of the forum, it's incumbent on us to respect the legal position of our host, Matrix Games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

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.



Also note the U shaped brackets (there are four of them, two below not visable in pic) that attaches the mantlet to the StuK40 gun. I saw these in the model instructions posted above. These could possibly serve as a device that allows some amount of 'sprung' armored mass. It appears the mass of the mantlet, which includes that cylindrical barrel protector, front 50mm shield and back 50mm shield are hung by these brackets.

This pic shows the mounting points...


Edit: Removed the quote-link to a copyrighted photograph that was illegally posted to the forum. In the absence of effective moderation of the group, there was nothing else that I could do to set things right.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/15/2010 5:22:50 AM)

Troll of Eckmule

I have asked permission.  But nice try.

Mobius

I don't understand your comment regarding the StuG IIIG in the game?  Are you saying that it isn't featured very much in the game and it does not deserve proper modeling?  The StuGIIIG was easily one of the top stars of the Eastern Front in WWII.  It was used in Sturmartillerie units, panzer units and attached to infantry divisions themselves.  Its a fair statement that the Soviets thought that it was 'featured'.

Care to share how it IS modeled as far as centimeter rounded off numbers and hit locations?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/15/2010 5:26:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

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.


Respectfully, if you research this, I think that you'll find that the concrete that's been built-up on those two locations is consistently described as a form of applique armor.



So its armor, then? Armor against what? And how effective. I suggest that you start researching and posting up some data to back up your guess-work.

Photograhic evidence, that can be dated to time periods during WWII, shows that your outlandish CONCRETE claims are misguided. Please don't just look at pictures and post knee-jerk speculations.

Thanks



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/15/2010 6:02:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Are you saying that it isn't featured very much in the game and it does not deserve proper modeling? 
Why would anyone say that? It is just not the most important vehicle in the game. It doesn't deserve anymore or any less attention than dozens of other vehicles. Every one should have proper modelling.




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/17/2010 3:20:22 AM)

I am speaking from a time/resources perspective.  But in any case, difficult analysis is, by nature, not as easy as 'givens'.  The StuG requires above average analysis.

I would not say that it was something like 10 times more important that a KV-2. Even though its production numbers far out weighed that and its actual combat hours might be 10-20 times that?



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/17/2010 3:48:41 AM)

I think I have certainly demonstrated some strengths regarding the internals and externals of the StuGIIIG.  Strengths
There is spaced armor.  The sponsons are definitely spaced armor.  There is also spaced armor protection on the 'boxed' mantlet.  The overlapping armor protection has not been appreciated or modeled.  Also, the steeply sloped 'roor' armor on the front of the vehicle (over the driver and ammo) has SOME overlap with the superstructure.

There may have been increase in superstructure armor.  My thought is when the 'loaders' sider 'vertical' armor was solid 80mm. This would be a substantial increase in protection given the above mentioned overlapping armor issues.




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/17/2010 5:50:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I think I have certainly demonstrated some strengths regarding the internals and externals of the StuGIIIG.  Strengths


Wrong again, Lewis, Mr.Tittles, Username and your other sock-puppets...

When this outdated design proved incapable of surviving close-range armor penetration as an infantry support vehicle, the German army turned to as crude a make-shift solution as can be imagined:

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531033/53103301.jpg

Yet again, our readers can witness, via the link above, the massive application of concrete to the areas that you've repeatedly made reference to as being a strength of the type. Were this the case, no cement/aggregate composite material would have been applied to the vehicle in question.

BTW, have you ever played Panzer Command: Kharkov?



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/17/2010 7:41:29 AM)

The concrete adds to the protection. It need not just be against frontal attack. That 30mm armor on some frontal areas might not be so good if hit while the StuG is going down a slope or hit from above.
As for concrete. It depends on the concrete. As backing to armor it is only 4% as good as armor vs heavy shells. But reinforced concrete can be a lot better vs. smaller shells like the 45mm-76mm size. (Though I don't know if that could be considered to be reinforced concrete.)




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/17/2010 7:10:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

The concrete adds to the protection.


I understand the limitations of the concrete, but even if the 4% figure is correct, it's going to have an impact. In observing the vehicle that I linked I our readers to directly above, it would appear that the material would have a depth of at least 600mm through parts of the horizontal plane. That would constitute the equivalent of 24mm of steel, about an inch.

quote:

It need not just be against frontal attack. That 30mm armor on some frontal areas might not be so good if hit while the StuG is going down a slope or hit from above.


The material was also applied to the roof, although certainly not in the truly copious amounts as that depicted in the vehicle at the Andrea site. BTW, I'd encourage our readers to visit the website and check out the other examples of Stug that are cataloged there, including several other vehicles with obvious applications of concrete.

quote:

As for concrete. It depends on the concrete. As backing to armor it is only 4% as good as armor vs heavy shells. But reinforced concrete can be a lot better vs. smaller shells like the 45mm-76mm size. (Though I don't know if that could be considered to be reinforced concrete.)


I've tried not to drift into hypotheticals in my exposition here. While I believe that's if fair to assume that the Germans would have done everything possible to reinforce the concrete with other materials, I can't prove it so, I'll leave it at that. Were you aware of the fact that Axis forces hung logs on the side to superstructure in order to limit the effectiveness of smaller-caliber weapons?


[image]local://upfiles/21246/3D639B4CD3B343919CD7FBD6FE15FF23.jpg[/image]



Mad Russian -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/17/2010 10:14:29 PM)

Logs, track links, road wheels, ANYTHING to help boost the armour of the vehicle.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/17/2010 11:37:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
I understand the limitations of the concrete, but even if the 4% figure is correct, it's going to have an impact. In observing the vehicle that I linked I our readers to directly above, it would appear that the material would have a depth of at least 600mm through parts of the horizontal plane. That would constitute the equivalent of 24mm of steel, about an inch.

I have a second hand source that gives the reinforced concrete penetration of the 75mm Pak 50 at 1000m as 181mm. In the same table the armor penetration is 121mm at the same range. That penetration value is the US Aberdeen test value. I don't know where the concrete penetration comes from though. I've never seen a reinforced concrete penetration table with such numbers. So I'm hesitant on accepting it as there is a mild steel penetration of 314mm. Hard to say how mild steel gives less protection than concrete.





Lieste -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/18/2010 1:34:31 AM)

I think I have the same source. I agree that it looks like an error somewhere - 121mm RHAe, 181mm Mild Steel, 314mm Concrete seems more in keeping with other resistance estimates I have.



Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/18/2010 4:44:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I think I have certainly demonstrated some strengths regarding the internals and externals of the StuGIIIG.  Strengths


Wrong again, Lewis, Mr.Tittles, Username and your other sock-puppets...

When this outdated design proved incapable of surviving close-range armor penetration as an infantry support vehicle, the German army turned to as crude a make-shift solution as can be imagined:

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531033/53103301.jpg

Yet again, our readers can witness, via the link above, the massive application of concrete to the areas that you've repeatedly made reference to as being a strength of the type. Were this the case, no cement/aggregate composite material would have been applied to the vehicle in question.

You really need to develop logic skills since you can not follow threads and support your claims.

BTW, have you ever played Panzer Command: Kharkov?


Our readers can witness that you make claims about the German use of concrete and then post pics of US troops using a concreted vehcile. Now you post a pic of another non-German used vehicle.? That is obviously a Finnish vehicle!

The fact is that concrete is rarely seen on German used StuGs during the time period this thread is discussing. In case you have completely lost track of the discussion going on, I will reiterate, it concerns Soviet 76mm vs. StuGIIIG's. I have reviewed hundreds of StuGIIIG photos and your outlandish claim about them being slathered in concrete is just plain false.

I suggest that anyone can also read that the Finnish use of concrete appears during the summer of 44.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.875