Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: StuG BS discussions

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> RE: StuG BS discussions Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 1:01:42 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
If you loved it so much you would know the F and G had different superstructures. You might inspect the rear StuG. But the exception is the rule huh?


< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/21/2010 1:10:50 AM >

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 151
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 1:08:19 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

If you loved it so much you would know the F and G had different superstructures. You might inspect the rear StuG.


Lewis, you little devil, you're editing your posts again!


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 152
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 1:18:42 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
That's correct.  And...what about it?  Please explain your trolling?  It can't help the fact that your argument says that concrete was the StuG's real strength.  You can't win since photographic evidence does not support you.  But...maybe that's why you are trolling!
< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/21/2010 1:10:50 AM >

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 153
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 1:21:59 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline



Okay, let's make a direct match of the drawing above to a photo of Stug III.F.

The application of concrete is modest in this early war photo, but IMO this proves that Russian anti-tank was already a threat to the vaunted Stug!














Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 154
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 1:29:10 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
For our readers...

Break time.

I'll return as needed.



_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 155
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 1:29:14 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
Glad you have finally made a statement.  But it's wrong since the StuGIIIF and StuGIIIG had different armoring angle on the steeply sloped front surfaces.

Now prove the concrete did anything.  Answer why there are StuGIIIF photos without concrete.  So your 'slathering' argument now includes ANY concrete whatsoever?

I hope you know the short runs of those vehicles.  The StuGIIIG was the predominant StuG from 1942 on.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/21/2010 1:30:09 AM >

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 156
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 7:59:59 AM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline
Well, back from the bush and killing concrete. If it makes a difference to Mobius and others, I was shooting a Speer soft point 180gr bullet at about 50m. I will start off by saying that shooting real concrete is nothing like the store bought pavers and such that have no real pea sized and larger aggrergate. I decided in the morning that I would rid myself of several Home Depot pavers that I had left over from the patio project from a couple yaers ago. So some of the pavers that I shot up were around 3 inches thick. Now when hit these commercial pavers would break into a couple pieces and nothing to note happened, the round passed right through. It was starting to get a little boring so I brought out the 1 inch guys that I had. Took aim and when the dust settled, these 6x6"x1" thick self poured pavers vapourized. The commercial ones would dance around and break, but I was able to always find the pieces, My more coarse aggregate pavers that were larger by about 40-50% would cease to exist. Now to explain, these coarse aggregate pavers would explode and I could hear small pieces landing all over the place in the bush for probably 50+ feet all around where I had them placed. So now, I brought out the two larger chunks of sidewalk that I had been using block the wheels on my Willys when I needed to work on it(my wife has bought me actual wheel chocks, so I was up two nice size 5" thick chunks of concrete). So I line this 1st hunk of concrete up and pull the trigger, next thing I know I am getting pelted by a mixture of rocks and concrete, ok, maybe not pelted but the difference is this thicker piece of concrete fails to stop the bullet like the others, but pieces actually come back at me and a couple whistle through the branches in the trees just over my head. Now I am down to my last real chunk of concrete when I realize that I might be on to something so I set the last piece up, but this time I place a 10" square cardboard target about 4-5" in front of the concrete. The idea is I want to see what is going on in front of the concrete when hit. So below is the result of that last shot. The cardboard in the picture is in 2 pieces, I am just holding it together. Now I was out in about 1" of fresh snow, and for every shot but the last 2, nothing of note was evident, but on these final 2 shots into larger chunks of medium aggregate concrete I got a deffinate fan pattern that aimed right back at my location. I would have argued that it was just the spalling around the impact of the bullet, but it did not happen on the home made pavers, just these two thicker pieces of sidewalk. Don't get me wrong, they too failed to stop the bullets. But it would seem that hitting small rocks in the concrete changed how it reacted when hit, could this blowback cone shaped blast of rock and concrete give some kind of added protection to the tank before the round would impact the plate of the tank?



On a side note, why do I get the feeling that you, Yoozer, are just waiting to pounce about how we are all crazy and only you have the answers to all life's questions. I agree with a statement made a while back that we are all here to discuss things, and in doing so we must entertain the fact that we all can be wrong at times. You seem to fail to grasp this, if you are so right, why not find a better forum where only your opinion matters, say maybe write a book on the subject, that way no one can disagree with you views. There are guys here that have probably forgotten more facts about WW2 topics then most of us will ever know, and they seem to be fine with some of our ramblings and questions, sometimes setting us straight but always eager to see if we might have some snippet of information that they might not know or have not thought of before. So now, you can start bashing this post as you do all the rest as I am off to bed for the night. Then in the morning or some time tomorrow I will sift through your drivel ignoring most of it and look for these other fellows responses that treat everyone like they have an opinion that is just as important as their own.

< Message edited by Ratzki -- 12/21/2010 8:00:40 AM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 157
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 12:43:18 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
I think IF you, or anyone goes back and looks in this thread, I suggested that a different thread be started to discuss concrete.

The fact that StuGIIIG vehicles did not use concrete for the period of time stated in the beginning of THIS thread (again, see first post ) can not be re-iterated enough.  The false claim that ALL StuG vehicles were using concrete can only be attributed to Prince.  His argument has petered out but I am sure he will be back to troll some more. 

If you would want to start your own thread and present your findings there regarding using soft point bullets to model hardened WWII armor piercing ammunition, perhaps that would reduce the static level in THIS thread.  I promise you I won't post in it.  I have found a very good paper that does use testing with hardened projectiles.

By the way, using the cardboard as you did is called a 'witness board'. 

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 158
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 1:09:20 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

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:








I believe this is the post where the fallacy by exaggeration argument starts. Note the Ad Hominem style of post.

The fact that the majority of StuGIII vehicles do not show 'slathering' of concrete during the time period stated in the first post of this thread can probably be attributed to the German policy that Mobius has already uncovered.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 159
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 1:44:24 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline


Nice F version shot without concrete. This shows the extreme roof angle over the driver and the exposed 50mm superstrure that is not seen on a G model.


(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 160
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 1:54:37 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
Interesting late war, battle of the Bulge, German vehicle wearing US markings and bad attempt at camo to look like a US vehicle. Note, no concrete over front armor.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 161
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 3:06:44 PM   
Champagne


Posts: 356
Joined: 9/28/2004
Status: offline
This rather lively discussion has clearly demonstrated how tough it is to model an AFV like the StuG III in any combat simulation.

I look forward to the release of PCO. I have both of the previous games and, it will be very nice to have the upgrade at no cost.

Thanks.

_____________________________

Only the dead have seen the end of War.

-- Plato

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 162
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 5:01:12 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
Below our readers will find an image of a Stug III.G that it's my understanding was photographed in the Fall of 1943.

BTW, there are numerous books that have been published about this family of vehicles.

They are absolutely chock-full of photos of concrete encrusted vehicles.

Two that I'd recommend are:

Sturmgeschutz 40: The Long Gun Versions by Horst Scheibert

German Sturmartillerie at War Vol. 2 by Frank V. De Sisto




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Champagne)
Post #: 163
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 5:04:51 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
And here's an earlier vehicle on the Russian front; photo is spring of 1943.

While the application of concrete is less dramatic than that from the vehicle above, it does reflect an anxiety on the part of crews regarding the survivability of their vehicles.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 164
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 6:46:37 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

And here's an earlier vehicle on the Russian front; photo is spring of 1943.

While the application of concrete is less dramatic than that from the vehicle above, it does reflect an anxiety on the part of crews regarding the survivability of their vehicles.




Hey, that looks like one of Ratzki's pavers.

_____________________________

All your Tanks are Belong to us!
panzer

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 165
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 6:58:21 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
BEFORE he shot it!  

Good Hunting.

MR


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 166
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 7:01:11 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Hey, that looks like one of Ratzki's pavers.


Yeah, the application is almost too clean. In fact, it looks as though it might have been applied at the factory. That seems implausible, however, because your post from yesterday made it sound as though the upper echelons were rather circumspect about the practice. And of course, the concrete is awfully thin in that example.

BTW, it hasn't been easy to document this. Finding the images via Google is easy enough, and yielded upwards of sixty results which found their way to my desktop. But, then I had to match them to one of my books. THAT has proven to be somewhat tedious. In order to get posted to this thread, the photo has to include a caption that describes the material as concrete.

Regrettably, the captions rarely include dates. I'm still looking though, and will post additional images as I'm able to verify their relevance and authenticity.


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 167
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 7:21:18 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 168
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 7:26:46 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
If anyone can post a picture of a penetration of the steeply sloped 'roof' armor, then maybe the 'anxiety' can be justified.  As other people in other threads have pointed out, they have never seen a penetration.  I have just one photo that shows a shattering of both the steeply sloped armor and sponson armor but the vehicle has alos had a catastrophic detonation of its ammunition and is actually missing pieces.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 169
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 7:37:16 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

And here's an earlier vehicle on the Russian front; photo is spring of 1943.

While the application of concrete is less dramatic than that from the vehicle above, it does reflect an anxiety on the part of crews regarding the survivability of their vehicles.





So...it's not slathered


And so any concrete...however its on a vehicle....supports your theory that CONCRETE made the StuGs superior? How do you explain that it was discontinued?

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/21/2010 11:14:48 PM >

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 170
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 7:38:51 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 171
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 7:52:29 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 172
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 7:58:10 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
Pass in Review! No Slatherings...No slatherings...No chocks of slatherings!

1943

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 173
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 8:06:32 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 174
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 8:08:35 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 175
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 8:12:19 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 176
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 8:17:51 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Hey, that looks like one of Ratzki's pavers.


Yeah, the application is almost too clean. In fact, it looks as though it might have been applied at the factory. That seems implausible, however, because your post from yesterday made it sound as though the upper echelons were rather circumspect about the practice. And of course, the concrete is awfully thin in that example.
It seemed to me that some factory had started to apply concrete. That touched off the concern by those in charge and prompted the test. Which resulted in the orders to halt applying any more concrete at the factory.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 177
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 9:00:55 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

It seemed to me that some factory had started to apply concrete. That touched off the concern by those in charge and prompted the test. Which resulted in the orders to halt applying any more concrete at the factory.


I had actually considered something along these lines when you posted that passage. However, it might be that the application in question was so thin as to be ineffective against anti-tank rounds. At the other end of the spectrum you have the massive applications that are much, much thicker. Those may have been provided a degree of protection such that the crews believed warranted the use of the material.

BTW, I enjoy your scholarly approach to these matters. You participation adds an immense amount of credibility to Panzer Command.


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 178
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 9:29:25 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
The massive applications are much, much rarer....

Edit: You have yet to prove concrete was for antitank rounds. So please clear up one speculation before developing it into another speculation.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/21/2010 9:44:29 PM >

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 179
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/21/2010 10:20:39 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
I have come across a couple of references that state the F8 had a different superstructure than the F. the F was really just the E superstructure.

http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/pictures_StuG_III_Ausf_F8_10-ZW.html

So, it was actually similar to the G and I think that F8 pictures need to be examined closely before accepting the 'putty-prince' application.



< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/21/2010 10:59:01 PM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> RE: StuG BS discussions Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984