RE: StuG BS discussions

RE: StuG BS discussions (Full Version)

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

Message

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/22/2010 7:42:11 PM)
Perhaps some comparisons can be drawn...taken from LoneSentry.com PENETRATION OF GERMAN 88-MM ANTITANK GUN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following penetration figures for the German 88-mm dual-purpose gun, using armor-piercing shell against armor and concrete, have been obtained from a captured German document. Angle of attack is given as 70 degrees. The quality of armor attacked is not stated, but it is believed to be of standard German specifications: Range in Meters Thickness of Armor (mm) Thickness of Concrete (mm) 500 ( 547 yds) 71 (2.80 in) 1,100 (43.31 in) 1,000 (1,094 yds) 67 (2.64 in) 1,000 (39.37 in) 1,500 (1,640 yds) 65 (2.156 in) 900 (35.43 in) 2,000 (2,187 yds) 63 (2.48 in) 800 (31.50 in)

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/23/2010 5:43:58 PM)
[image]http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/540/StugIII_mantlets_026.jpg[/image]

Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/23/2010 9:47:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yoozername Perhaps some comparisons can be drawn...taken from LoneSentry.com PENETRATION OF GERMAN 88-MM ANTITANK GUN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following penetration figures for the German 88-mm dual-purpose gun, using armor-piercing shell against armor and concrete, have been obtained from a captured German document. Angle of attack is given as 70 degrees. The quality of armor attacked is not stated, but it is believed to be of standard German specifications: Range in Meters Thickness of Armor (mm) Thickness of Concrete (mm) 500 ( 547 yds) 71 (2.80 in) 1,100 (43.31 in) 1,000 (1,094 yds) 67 (2.64 in) 1,000 (39.37 in) 1,500 (1,640 yds) 65 (2.156 in) 900 (35.43 in) 2,000 (2,187 yds) 63 (2.48 in) 800 (31.50 in) The numbers for armor penetration are all wrong in this document. It is at odds with the German Datenblatt on the 88mm. Nor does it match later actual tests of captured weapons. I can not normalize the numbers to any angle to other data. As for the concrete penetration numbers. No clue.

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/24/2010 12:28:20 AM)
It's from 1942. I wondered about some of that data. Is the concrete at 70 degrees? In any case, you can see for yourself at lonesentry.com just search 88 and ..i dunno...concrete? Edit: maybe the early 88mm AP round?

Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/24/2010 2:36:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yoozername It's from 1942. I wondered about some of that data. Is the concrete at 70 degrees? In any case, you can see for yourself at lonesentry.com just search 88 and ..i dunno...concrete? Edit: maybe the early 88mm AP round? They might be confused by the way Germans did their angles. They are the opposite the US/UK method. Germans wrote 60-degrees when it would be our 30-degrees. So the 70-degrees might be only 20-degrees. I've never seen any German firing table list penetrations at 70-degrees. There was an early 88mm AP round tested by US/UK 6/1943. But it had a penetration of 5.07"@0-degrees at 500yds.

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/24/2010 2:42:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl quote: ORIGINAL: Yoozername There haven't been that many concrete pictures shown, so I don't follow your 'so many' observation. At some point, you're going to have to assume responsibility for educating yourself Lewis.[sm=fighting0056.gif] Here's another title that you can look at that'll help get you up to speed: Sturmgeschütz & Its Variants, Volume 2 by Walter Spielberger The fact that you, the forums's self-proclaimed "genius-expert," were totally unaware of concrete being applied to vulnerable areas of the Stug III.F/F8/G proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you're an empty suit when it comes to analyzing the limitations of German assault guns in WW2. You've no business, whatsoever, lecturing others regarding the vagaries of the type(s) as you're so patently ignorant of the basics. Pick up a book, read, and heal thyself, Mr. Tittles![:'(] Why, who needs to read when the cover art shows your favorite! A non-SEE-ment nor CONCRETED F!!!!! [image]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GmezupDeL._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/image] Edit: I didn't change anything...just want that edit thingie.

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/24/2010 4:37:48 AM)
http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_StuG_StuH.pdf Please pay close attention to the Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. G (Ps. 531-25) – Ivalo (Finland) Fahrgestell number 95490, built by MIAG in July 1943. The tank was previously located on the Sarriojärvi fire range Page 39 It absolutely proves the overlap of the mantlet and superstructure armor. Unfortunately, it has been hit by post war weapons. Also see pg. 28 for a nice top view that shows the overlap.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/24/2010 7:19:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yoozername http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_StuG_StuH.pdf Please pay close attention to the Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. G (Ps. 531-25) – Ivalo (Finland) Fahrgestell number 95490, built by MIAG in July 1943. The tank was previously located on the Sarriojärvi fire range Page 39 It absolutely proves the overlap of the mantlet and superstructure armor. Unfortunately, it has been hit by post war weapons. Also see pg. 28 for a nice top view that shows the overlap. For our readers, as of this, Lewis' last mindless rant, he has edited fifty-one of the items that he's posted to this thread. This is an important part of his troll going back to his disgraceful presence on the Battlefront forums. Further, to this day, if you go to edit a well-intentioned post at that forum, you'll be asked to justify the act. Perhaps, more so than any other figure, Lewis, aka Yoozername, Username, Mr Tittles and his "others," are responsible for that inconvenience. Draw your own conclusions.

Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/24/2010 2:30:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yoozername PENETRATION OF GERMAN 88-MM ANTITANK GUN Range in Meters Thickness of Armor (mm) Thickness of Concrete (mm) 500 ( 547 yds) 71 (2.80 in) 1,100 (43.31 in) 1,000 (1,094 yds) 67 (2.64 in) 1,000 (39.37 in) 1,500 (1,640 yds) 65 (2.156 in) 900 (35.43 in) 2,000 (2,187 yds) 63 (2.48 in) 800 (31.50 in) I wonder if that is some kind of anti-concrete round? Anti-concrete shells seem to have 'Rot. Be.' or 'Be.' in their name.

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/24/2010 7:59:13 PM)
The following information is taken from Thomas Jentz's " Dreaded Threat". quote: In 1938 the 8.8 Flak 18 was considered for firing against Ground targets, specifically armoured/concrete Pillboxes and enclosures. Armour piercing ammunition would be in service from this time onwards and consisted of the 8.8 cm Panzergranate weighing 9.5 kg (9.65kg is also stated in the text) with Armour piercing cap and ballistic cap with High explosive filler of 160 grams. Muzzle velocity is listed as 810 m/s from the L/56 barrel of the Flak 18 and Flak 36/37. During early 1942 the penetration ability was improved with the introduction of the Pzgr.39 of 10.2 kg weight with reduced HE filler of 59 grams. Muzzle velocity was 800 m/s. 30 degrees Penetration 88mm Pzgr APCBC- Early 88mm Flak Ammo 100....500.....1000.....1500......2000m 98.....93........87.......80......72mm 30 degrees Penetration 88mm Pzgr 39 APCBC- Tiger E Round 100....500.....1000.....1500....2000m 127....117.....106.......96......88mm The early Blitzkrieg up to early 1942 saw the use of the large capacity Pzgr with penetration less than 100mm at 30 degrees. In May 1941 Hitler had demanded a Tank weapon capable of penetrating 100mm at about 1500m and the improved Pzgr.39 could approach that. The 88 was retained for the Tiger I instead of installing the 75 L/70.

fmj -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/24/2010 8:44:54 PM)
Prince of aholes- seriously man give it a rest with your obnoxious bs. stfu and go do something constructive with your time rather than acting like an internet tard. [:-]

Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/24/2010 8:59:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yoozername The following information is taken from Thomas Jentz's " Dreaded Threat". quote: 30 degrees Penetration 88mm Pzgr 39 APCBC- Tiger E Round 100....500.....1000.....1500....2000m 127....117.....106.......96......88mm I have that too. But it doesn't say 'Tiger E Round' The round was used for all 88m/L56. The curious thing is the velocity of the Pzgr39 is listed as 800m/sec and not as accurate as the Pzgr Patr. but a Jentz book on the Tiger I apparently has the 88mm/L56 Pzgr39 with a velocity of 773m/sec and much more accurate. (Unless the guns vs armor site is mistaken).

Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/24/2010 9:32:49 PM)
OK I found the data. quote: 30 degrees Penetration 773 m/s 88mm Pzgr 39 APCBC- Tiger E Round 100....500.....1000.....1500....2000m 120....110.....100.......91......84mm Now what to do about this?

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/25/2010 3:36:57 AM)
< Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 12/25/2010 7:31:10 AM > Aw, all I want for Christmas is my two feet of concrete!

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 5:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fmj Prince of aholes- seriously man give it a rest with your obnoxious bs. stfu and go do something constructive with your time rather than acting like an internet tard. [:-] Are you a lewis?

Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 6:20:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yoozername < Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 12/25/2010 7:31:10 AM > Aw, all I want for Christmas is my two feet of concrete! We could send a man around to fit you for a pair of cement overshoes.[:D]

Ron -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 6:38:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl quote: ORIGINAL: fmj Prince of aholes- seriously man give it a rest with your obnoxious bs. stfu and go do something constructive with your time rather than acting like an internet tard. [:-] Are you a lewis? Well in this thread PoE you are doing a standup troll impression, bravo.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 7:47:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl quote: ORIGINAL: fmj Prince of aholes- seriously man give it a rest with your obnoxious bs. stfu and go do something constructive with your time rather than acting like an internet tard. [:-] Are you a lewis? Well in this thread PoE you are doing a standup troll impression, bravo. Hey, go over to the BF forum and lobby for Lewis and his sockpuppets there. See how far that gets you.[8\|]

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 9:04:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl quote: ORIGINAL: fmj Prince of aholes- seriously man give it a rest with your obnoxious bs. stfu and go do something constructive with your time rather than acting like an internet tard. [:-] Are you a lewis? Well in this thread PoE you are doing a standup troll impression, bravo. It's no impression. He is the real deal. I think he spent his whole Christmas online.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 9:20:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yoozername It's no impression. He is the real deal. I think he spent his whole Christmas online. Look everyone; Lewis posted without editing![sm=happy0065.gif] A New Year's resolution perhaps? Meanwhile, there's much being talked about in regard to the new BF game. However, Lewis and his sockpuppets can't participate at Battlefront.com. It seems Steve won't let poor little Lewis play in any BF games! BTW, there was no shortage of concrete in Normandy: [image]local://upfiles/21246/3C87EA1DB2884DB984D955A79BB8808E.jpg[/image]

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 9:24:41 PM)
BTW, Normandy is June 1944+. See the first post in this thread. You are trolling again. You can't stay on topic nor support your argument, then I suppose you must advertise for Battlefront. Edit: a simple search yields that even in June 1944, the use of concrete is not evident for these Normandy documented pictures. StuGIII and StuGIV evident. Again, the assertion that StuG's used concrete in anything near the degree stated by Prince of Ecktroll is incorrect. http://www.normandy-1944.com/LaFiere03.html

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 9:56:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yoozername BTW, Normandy is June 1944+. See the first post in this thread. You are trolling again. You can't stay on topic nor support your argument, then I suppose you must advertise for Battlefront. Fine, let's take a look at the thread title: quote: Stug BS discussions A sober individual could conclude that the title alone set the tone for what's followed, which is to say that you're incapable of generating anything other than BS. Now let's analyze your first post: 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. The comment above assumes that you have something worthwhile to add to the body of knowledge surrounding this vehicle. That's clearly not the case. quote: Obviously the 'CM' crowd at BF is just spinning wheels. The whiners at CM 'GAMESQUAT' can't do anything but rehash whinerages. Why insult people that are your betters, Lewis, smarter, better-educated, and more accomplished than yourself? Or are you the only person on the planet whose sensibilities are relevant in this regard. quote: I think a fresh look at the issue of the StuGIIIG vs. Soviet 76mm ammunition is a discourse that needs settling So, where in the title or post does it say anything about a date Lewis? Oh, but let me repost a III.G from 1943, which you've conveniently forgotten about: [image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/21246/BDC065EE9D7A4DE9A4A9A6C8D3E245D2.jpg[/image] Mr.Tittles?

Mobius -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 11:04:57 PM)
If we accept that 88mm AP penetration table that shows cement to armor ratio of 6-8%. So 250mm of concrete would be worth less than an inch of armor. Not good. About as much protection as some track links. But better than nothing.

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 11:12:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius If we accept that 88mm AP penetration table that shows cement to armor ratio of 6-8%. So 250mm of concrete would be worth less than an inch of armor. Not good. About as much protection as some track links. But better than nothing. What's the weight of track links to concrete? Tracks can be used for repair or even to help other disabled vehicles be repaired. Concrete is dead weight. Its no surprise that evidence can not be shown that its use was prevalent or prevalent after a certain time frame. The exceptions certainly do not make the rule. I have certainly provided evidence that it was not universally used. And Prince can not do anything but whine and post haphazard information.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 11:31:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius If we accept that 88mm AP penetration table that shows cement to armor ratio of 6-8%. So 250mm of concrete would be worth less than an inch of armor. Not good. About as much protection as some track links. But better than nothing. How the heck can you measure this stuff? [image]local://upfiles/21246/38534B8924F24C7EAB4A99DC83283C7C.jpg[/image]

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 11:35:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl How the heck can you measure this stuff? Same question for a later production vehicle: [image]local://upfiles/21246/559EDB0C651F4F529B71D2000398F800.jpg[/image]

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/26/2010 11:39:31 PM)
That's your problem, not ours. You see, you made the claim that CONCRETE was the true source of StuG invincibility. Now prove it. Edit: And try to date those invincible-StuGs if you can.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/27/2010 12:09:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yoozername Now prove it. There's no photographic or anecdotal evidence that a Stug.III.g was ever penetrated through the concrete-encrusted surfaces. Or does that not coincide with the findings of your ouija board? Let me post a second image of the vehicle depicted in my previous post. Can you find yourself in the photo? [image]local://upfiles/21246/B1F01168A2C54FE7B2B0AD4F541B5154.jpg[/image]

Yoozername -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/27/2010 12:30:10 AM)
That argument is as weak as your humor. And, hasn't that been dealt with before?

Ratzki -> RE: StuG BS discussions (12/27/2010 12:50:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl quote: ORIGINAL: Yoozername Now prove it. Can you find yourself in the photo? [image]local://upfiles/21246/B1F01168A2C54FE7B2B0AD4F541B5154.jpg[/image] I like it, almost a "Where's Waldo" image, just no Waldo. My question is that if applying concrete was totally worthless, then why does it seem to appear with some form of regularity? I just want to know if it was not for protection of some sort, then what was it for?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.484375