RE: StuG BS discussions (Full Version)

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



Message


Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/20/2010 5:50:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Early war to October 10th 1943.  This time period is typical of facing Soviet 76mm 'A' rounds.
The Soviet BR-350A round fired by the T-34's weapon didn't have a particularly high first round P(hit) vs. the StuG. Using my theoretical to-hit program comparing the 75mm/L48 PzGr39 to the 76.2mm firing 'A' round. On the second and more shots correcting for a miss would bring the % up by a SWAG of at least 10%.

[image]local://upfiles/21308/A9CE29D6572F455E8232473701BB0B4D.jpg[/image]




Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/20/2010 7:47:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

LOL!  Yeah, ok. I was in the mall and sitting on Santas lap and he said he was a StuGIIIF8 commander.

Here's some 'concrete' evidence...

quote:

But take heart, Old School Cav is here. The WWII-vintage .30-06 M2 AP round, often called Black Tip ammo, launches a 165.7-grain hardened steel alloy FMJ projectile at just over 2,700 feet per second. The old Army small arms cartridge manual says: "Penetration, fired at a 7/8-inch thick homogeneuous armor plate at 100 yards, will not be less than 0.42 inch." That's the minimum. The same manual says the round is good for penetrating a half inch of homgeneous armor plate and 0.3 inches of face-hardened armor plate at 200 yards, and 0.3 and 0.2 inches respectively at 600 yards.

In The Ultimate Sniper, Major John Plaster conducted some informal media tests and found that single rounds of M2 ball AP could, at 100 yards, penetrate 19 inches of sand, 48 inches of timbers, 14 inches of rubble, and 7 inches of concrete. I have an old WWII training film, Infantry Weapons and Their Effects, that clearly shows a soldier with an M1 punching holes through a 4-inch concrete wall at 200 yards. I've personally tried the stuff on stacked railroad tie plates and old farm plow shanks and it went right on through. About 15 years ago (I think I was 8 at the time) we had an old concrete farm silo due for being torn down. I fired several M2 APs from my Garand at a range of fifty yards. On the exterior of the silo, there was a tiny .30-caliber hole with the copper jacket mushroomed out around it. On the interior of the 4-inch concrete wall, the exit wound was spalled out in a shallow dish-shaped crater about 8 inches in diameter. The penetrators themselves, still sharp on the end, were about halfway through the far wall and had to be removed with pliers. During WWII, it was reported that this stuff would go through the German armored halftracks at close range and I've read of a Korean War vet who claimed he could penetrate the light armored gunshields of the Chinese heavy machine guns at ranges of 300-350 yards.

M2 AP loaded ammo and projectiles used to be a dime-a-dozen just a few years ago but now there are getting very hard to find. If you come across some at a gunshow or on the 'net, they might be a wise purchase. There are also still some 7.62x51mm M61 147-grain Armor Piercing projectiles still around from a few sources as well. The manual says it can be used: "against personnel and light armored or unarmored targets, concrete shelters, and similiar bullet-resisting targets." Also identified by a black tip on the projectile, its performance is roughly 10% less than the .30-06 AP.



I am not really even gonna address your comment, as it looks like you have all the answers, and I would say that this is the closest thing to one person calling another a liar without having the guts or balls to actually do so.
What's the problem, don't you have anyone where you hail from with enough guts to have ever fought in an actual battle, or do they all just read about it like yourself. What were you doin' in Santa's lap anyhow?... cheap thrills?
Now back to the subject, the old guy never said that he had actually used it, but they had had conversations within their group about things that would give them all a better chance at getting through the dust-ups with all their parts intact. They were all most afraid of burning up inside. He has stated that crews would use whatever they felt would give them an edge, no matter how small, in surviving. I never stated that it was a great thing that was done, but did state that their crew had chatted about different things and that concrete had been part of that conversation in both ATmines and enemy tank encounters. Apparently his crew did not care how many tanks that they went through,as long as everyone survived. I thought that everyone might actually be interested in what someone who was there actually had to say, right or wrong. I mean it is just an opinion, and a one sided one at that. But it sounded to me like they all were very interested in what some might be doing that would increase the survival rate. Did it actually increase the survival rate, do not have a clue, but it would seem that there might be some legs to the stories as there are alot of sandbagged, logged, and other such stuff in pictures out there, and I am sure that the crews did what they had heard worked, whether it did or not is not part of my statement. We shared a couple theories, mostly his with me being a set of ears only for the most part.




Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/20/2010 12:20:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ratzki
but did state that their crew had chatted about different things and that concrete had been part of that conversation in both ATmines and enemy tank encounters. Apparently his crew did not care how many tanks that they went through,as long as everyone survived. I thought that everyone might actually be interested in what someone who was there actually had to say, right or wrong.
That's important to another subject. Many gamers want their bailed out crew to continue the fight as weakly armed infantry. Once a tank bails out in PCO they are gone and take no further part in the game.

This shows the crew does want to continue the fight , but when they can come back armed properly - in another tank.




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/20/2010 2:38:53 PM)

Oh, I see, its a story, of a guy, who met another guy, that had discussed some things with some other guys.  But never did the things in the first place?  Why did you not say that in the first post?  Ratzki, good luck with your shooting.  Will you be using ammunition like the 'black-tip' M2 AP ammunition I posted information about?  What is the goal of your experiment?  What can it prove? As a person that has worked as a Test Engineer, my advice is that you might want to state upfront what exactly you are abstracting. And, if you are trying to model something on a smaller scale, use comparable materials like a AP projectile. This way your small 'cannon' is modeling something.

Mad Russian...I believe you are recalling my remarks as far as 'to hit' chances and trying to relate hand held weapons to that issue. This is a different issue. Its called the penetration issue. But I don't know how the discussion has drifted into concrete, since the Germans did not use concrete on StuGs for the most part in the time frame 1942-early 1944. The false claims by Prince and yourself regarding widespread use of concrete are unsubstantiated. So to have a discussion about something that wasn't used, well, its not really a discussion but a disfunctionality. So, where do you hunt bear???

Mobius, I suppose that Close Combat got that right, CMx1 got that 'gamey'. Crews are typically in bad shape when they have bailed. I suppose one exception to this is the supposed Japanese. But I doubt they had many replacemeent tanks they could get to anyway. Another real world occurance is officers and senior NCOs baling out but they will take over another tank. To be clear, they will tell a TC to get out and take that tank.







Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/20/2010 5:51:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Oh, I see, its a story, of a guy, who met another guy, that had discussed some things with some other guys.  But never did the things in the first place?  Why did you not say that in the first post?
Well, I can see how some ex-soldier talking about cement use on WWII Shermans or having to bail out of 6 of them would equate to bragging about winning the CMH or VC to some folks.
[8|]




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/20/2010 7:07:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Was out Christmas shopping tonight and am sitting in Walmart at the little McDonalds in the store chatting with this older fellow when I find out that he was a tank driver who landed on D-Day and fought with the Canadian Army. All his experiences were with the sherman tanks and he had gone through 6 of them by war's end, losing most to mines. So I get around to this concrete as armour talk that we have been having here and he says that it was added to reduce casualties from AT penetrations into the tank shell. He said that they were told that concrete added significant protection from molten shards of projectile and armour if a penetration occured. And he said that it was very effective vs German AT rounds but unsure how it acted vs other AT rounds. It would be placed where the tanks armour was most suseptable to penetration and that concrete is able to handle compression forces quite well and guessed that it might be very effective vs HEAT rounds. Just thought that I would let you all know, for what it is worth. Not very scientific, but interesting. Only had about a half hour chat, very interesting fellow.



But he never put it on his own tank(s)? Who 'told' him this information? He knew about compression forces? Did you tell him about shooting concrete with your rifle? So, did Canadians put concrete on thier tanks?

To be honest, I think you added a bit of your own opinion into the conversation you had and now are backtracking a bit. Am I calling you a liar? I wouldn't bother. I just am taking the story you are selling with a big grain of salt.




Mad Russian -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/20/2010 8:16:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Mad Russian... The false claims by Prince and yourself regarding widespread use of concrete are unsubstantiated. So to have a discussion about something that wasn't used, well, its not really a discussion but a disfunctionality. So, where do you hunt bear???


My claims about the widespread use of concrete? I must have missed those.

A discussion is when at least two differing points of view are reviewed for their merit. I can see why you might not recognize that format. You like to lecture those less well informed than yourself. You don't really discuss anything that I've seen so far.

Good Hunting.

MR




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/20/2010 11:47:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

To be honest, I think you added a bit of your own opinion into the conversation you had and now are backtracking a bit. Am I calling you a liar? I wouldn't bother. I just am taking the story you are selling with a big grain of salt.


[8|]To be honest?[8|]

For our reader's benefit, I'd point out to you all that Lewis is to sockpuppets what Frito Lay (TM) is to salted snacks. And don't bother to spend too much time reading his posts, as he is constantly edits them. He also routinely plagiarizes web-content and calls it his own. Hence "his" peculiar and inexplicable reference in a post further up the thread to a mysterious "green-wheel." In other words, if his babble sounds as though there's more than one persona rumbling around inside, there is!

IMHO, Michael Dorosh put it right when he composed this indictment of Lewis at the Gamesquad forum:

quote:

Did any of you guys ever post at BFC when a complete moron named Lewis was there? He was sort of like POS in that he had multiple personality disorder. He wasn't a ladder player, he fancied himself a game designer. He was banned for obnoxious behaviour eventually, and game back in several guises - Mr. Tittles, :Username: and some others. His claim to fame was that he drove a bulldozer in the army and tried to use his "real life experience" as the basis for a bunch of his posts and got laughed out of a bunch of conversations.

He showed up on the Matrix boards as well and got banned from the Panzer Command conversations as well, his handle there was Yoozername. His M.O. was to go online and find these hideously long and irrelevant quotes on technical stuff - I think he was in the engineers - and bombard the forum with quote after quote on technical stuff, then throw in some tactical innuendo and eventually talk in circles, in between barrages of personal insults of people.

I haven't seen anyone lobbying for bulldozers in CMx2 yet so I don't think he's returned there, but I know Steve was always vigilant for his return. Of course, he was never very bright about concealing his identity - too much of an egomaniac not to let people know who he was.


Yes, Lewis, it's that Michael Dorosh.[sm=character0229.gif]

But, let's take a look at some more concrete-enshrined Stug in Russia:








[image]local://upfiles/21246/6066840317AA402D9644DA9E45D501F6.jpg[/image]




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/20/2010 11:50:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

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



Can you post some of the 'thousands of photographs' from 1942-early 1944?




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/20/2010 11:53:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

To be honest, I think you added a bit of your own opinion into the conversation you had and now are backtracking a bit. Am I calling you a liar? I wouldn't bother. I just am taking the story you are selling with a big grain of salt.


[8|]To be honest?[8|]

For our reader's benefit, I'd point out to you all that Lewis is to sockpuppets what Frito Lay (TM) is to salted snacks. And don't bother to spend too much time reading his posts, as he is constantly edits them. He also routinely plagiarizes web-content and calls it his own. Hence "his" peculiar and inexplicable reference in a post further up the thread to a mysterious "green-wheel." In other words, if his babble sounds as though there's more than one persona rumbling around inside, there is!

IMHO, Michael Dorosh put it right when he composed this indictment of Lewis at the Gamesquad forum:

quote:

Did any of you guys ever post at BFC when a complete moron named Lewis was there? He was sort of like POS in that he had multiple personality disorder. He wasn't a ladder player, he fancied himself a game designer. He was banned for obnoxious behaviour eventually, and game back in several guises - Mr. Tittles, :Username: and some others. His claim to fame was that he drove a bulldozer in the army and tried to use his "real life experience" as the basis for a bunch of his posts and got laughed out of a bunch of conversations.

He showed up on the Matrix boards as well and got banned from the Panzer Command conversations as well, his handle there was Yoozername. His M.O. was to go online and find these hideously long and irrelevant quotes on technical stuff - I think he was in the engineers - and bombard the forum with quote after quote on technical stuff, then throw in some tactical innuendo and eventually talk in circles, in between barrages of personal insults of people.

I haven't seen anyone lobbying for bulldozers in CMx2 yet so I don't think he's returned there, but I know Steve was always vigilant for his return. Of course, he was never very bright about concealing his identity - too much of an egomaniac not to let people know who he was.


Yes, Lewis, it's that Michael Dorosh.[sm=character0229.gif]

But, let's take a look at some more concrete-enshrined Stug in Russia:








[image]local://upfiles/21246/6066840317AA402D9644DA9E45D501F6.jpg[/image]


That is what you come up with? A grainy tarp-covered vehicle? Its also covered in hay? If there are so many SLATHERED (nice word choice flamer), then you should be able to come up with some during the period of 1942 to early 1944.

By the way, you sound like such a weenie with your childish posting style. In fact, you act very much like the banned Dorosh, now that you mention it.




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:02:50 AM)

In a discussion, when one party makes a claim such as 'Tsk, oh you know nothing!  Its the concrete that was so important!', then the onus is on THEM to prove:

1.  Concrete WAS used during the time period the discussion is about
2.  Concrete was effective AND was used by most if not all of the StuGs

Its is fine by me if the person that makes the initial claim can't back it up and must revert to underhanded tactics.  Its fine that they ignore posts by Mobius that even the Germans discouraged its use. 

Prince cant do 1. nor 2.  He is desperately posting any pics from whatever late war years he can to try and save his dying argument. He needs to attack people personally also. He is not like any Texan I have met.




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:04:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

That is what you come up with? A grainy tarp-covered vehicle? Its also covered in hay? If there are so many SLATHERED (nice word choice flamer), then you should be able to come up with some during the period of 1942 to early 1944.

By the way, you sound like such a weenie with your childish posting style. In fact, you act very much like the banned Dorosh, now that you mention it.


Snap!

It's always good to get an image of Lewis' post before he can edit it repeatedly.

Nice to have a baseline of his words, early on in the exchange.




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:06:06 AM)

LOL!  < Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 12/21/2010 12:05:13 AM >




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:06:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

In a discussion, when one party makes a claim such as 'Tsk, oh you know nothing!  Its the concrete that was so important!', then the onus is on THEM to prove:

1.  Concrete WAS used during the time period the discussion is about
2.  Concrete was effective AND was used by most if not all of the StuGs

Its is fine by me if the person that makes the initial claim can't back it up and must revert to underhanded tactics.  Its fine that they ignore posts by Mobius that even the Germans discouraged its use. 

Prince cant do 1. nor 2.  He is desperately posting any pics from whatever late war years he can to try and save his dying argument. He needs to attack people personally also. He is not like any Texan I have met.


'Nuther quick picture of Lewis at work, early on.l




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:07:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

LOL!  < Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 12/21/2010 12:05:13 AM >



LOL, caught you Lewis, you were too late![X(]




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:10:53 AM)

No need to be concerned about Lewis, however, as we have something of an expert to address with a legitimate question...

@Mobius,

I'm going to post an image below. Could you venture a guess as to what model of Stug III it might be?

[image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/21246/AFBFB0EE229B4F9B93FDB42D9B15567A.jpg[/image]




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:13:09 AM)

F. But that is a drawing from where? copyright?

Is that considered 'slathered'?




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:14:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

F


Well done, Lewis.[:D]




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:15:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

F


Well done, Lewis.[:D]


Mobius, do you concur?




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:18:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

F. But that is a drawing from where? copyright?

Is that considered 'slathered'?


I can't hope to respond to this, as I already responded to the unedited version.

Shall we do a little research of this thread as to what percentage of your posts are so altered?[&:]




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:21:13 AM)

The German Sturmgeschutze in World war II
1939-1945
A Photo Chronicle

There is not one F or F8 StuGIII that shows any 'puttying' like that line drawing shows.  I suppose that drawings are the basis of your arguments?




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:24:59 AM)

[image]http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc212/NoelP_2007/Winterkette20on20stug.jpg[/image]




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:25:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

The German Sturmgeschutze in World war II
1939-1945
A Photo Chronicle

There is not one F or F8 StuGIII that shows any 'puttying' like that line drawing shows.  I suppose that drawings are the basis of your arguments?


I'd prefer to wait on a call from Mobius, as he actually knows what he's talking about. But, it's clearly not a "late-model" Stug III.

Pretty, scary huh?

BTW, as of a few minutes ago, you had edited at least 38 messages in this thread?

Can you post a quick count on me?[:D]




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:26:05 AM)

[image]http://digilander.libero.it/ita_101cp/immagini/stug_iii_f_02.jpg[/image]




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:27:33 AM)

I guess real StuGIIIF units didn't get your 'line-drawing' memo!!!!




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:33:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I guess real StuGIIIF units didn't get your 'line-drawing' memo!!!!


For our readers, let me post a link to a beautifully modeled Stug III.F.

I know that it doesn't "prove" anything, but I think that you'll enjoy the workmanship:

http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2000/st3fGbg.html




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:38:38 AM)

[image]http://images.mocpages.com/user_images/16920/1249753559m_SPLASH.jpg[/image]




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:40:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

[image]http://images.mocpages.com/user_images/16920/1249753559m_SPLASH.jpg[/image]


Is that supposed to be a Stug III or your bulldozer that Dorosh alluded to?




Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:55:30 AM)

I think my WWII pics trump your drawings and scale models. But I like how you think you have an actual argument.




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/21/2010 12:56:03 AM)

Let me post an image of a Stug III.F below.

Can anyone date the uniforms for our readers?

My, but I do love researching armored vehicles!

[image]local://upfiles/21246/8A9B7D9534B54DE7A5E3048FCAA7F607.jpg[/image]




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125