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  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 12:54:24 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		And like I have said...start your own CONCRETE speculation thread.  I DO have good information on that! 

Edit: I haven't said it was worthless. Prince has said it was the secret to the StuG's-Uberness. He can't, of course, prove that.

I love the shadow cast by the raised shield on the side of the gun! HA!!!! How thick does anyone think that concrete is on the sloped roof?



< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/27/2010 12:57:37 AM >

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 241
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 1:30:41 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


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

ORIGINAL: Ratzki


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Now prove it.


Can you find yourself in the photo?






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?


It's consistently described as a form of armor for extra-protection.

Below our readers will find a photo, a likeness of which I've already posted, but this one comes from a Russian language source. The caption appears to confirm that heavy amounts of concrete were being applied above the drivers compartment as early as 1943.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 242
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 2:17:02 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		Wow.  Now you are consistantly grabbing at straws.

Edit: Get it? Straws? See the pic? I guess I just wanted the 'edit-thingie' so that Uckbull can continue his strawman agenda...

And, thanks again for posting that same pic from the same unit as the others?  I DO like seeing that shadow from the vertical gun shields that shows how thin the concrete is....

edit: yup an edit..I hope the timer can recognize it as such...but I see superstructure wall...tsk tsk...

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/27/2010 2:43:05 AM >

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 243
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 3:05:52 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


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

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Below our readers will find a photo, a likeness of which I've already posted, but this one comes from a Russian language source. The caption appears to confirm that heavy amounts of concrete were being applied above the drivers compartment as early as 1943.




Let us pause to compare the photo above to a drawing, sans concrete.

Perpendicular to the steel-plate the reinforcing concrete might be only 6-8 inches deep. However, through the horizontal plane, it would be considerably thicker, particularly given the convex application of the material.

Next evasion?





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 244
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 3:30:34 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		Oh, did you drop the 'might'?  The mighty-might word?  

It might actually be much, much less.  In fact, its zero at the superstructure wall.  The picture you, yourself supplied shows it!

So, can you or can you not find ANY doctrine or tests on this?  Why are you still stuck on the supposed 'protection' simpleton observation?  Surely you can back up the pictures from a few units with ONE battlefield report? 

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 245
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 3:56:51 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


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

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

It might actually be much, much less.  In fact, its zero at the superstructure wall.  The picture you, yourself supplied shows it!


I'm not seeing the zero-depth characteristic, Lewis. Or is this something that's going to be revealed via Wikileaks?




_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 246
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 4:05:02 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		Oh! Look! A picture!



Those extra things must be 'protection'. Those sandbags must be protection against AP40 rounds! And rifle-grenades! And railway guns! It has to be because that 'protection' is there and those weapons were used at some time! Oh, that stuff that looks like pipes on top of the sherman is protection from butterfly bombs!

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/27/2010 5:21:03 AM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 247
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 4:06:56 AM   
Yoozername

 

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

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

It might actually be much, much less.  In fact, its zero at the superstructure wall.  The picture you, yourself supplied shows it!


I'm not seeing the zero-depth characteristic, Lewis. Or is this something that's going to be revealed via Wikileaks?





Well, I believe that Mobius supplied that pic...but since you are unaware enough to post that again..yes, the superstructure wall is certainly seen in that pic!

Edit: By the way, I showed that pic to a engineer I work with. He pointed out that there appears to be a thin sheet of 'concrete' on the sponson. I looked and since the vehicle shows no zimmerit, I thought that he may be right. He thought it may have been some crude face-hardening material.

But thats conjecture. You might take up that pic with mobius who already commented on it worth? But you won't. I think everyone sees your game at this point.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/27/2010 4:21:45 AM >

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 248
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 4:35:36 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		The cement would do the same job and better as zimmerit.  So in that way its an improvement over track links on the superstructure.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 249
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 4:38:58 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		Except that the LEAST likely place a captured magnetic mine will be placed by a un-trained enemy infantryman is on those surfaces!!! Edit: (you knew it was coming...) AND THE REST OF THE VEHICLE HAS NO ZIMMERIT!!!

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/27/2010 4:45:52 AM >

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 250
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 5:40:44 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		Soviet captured StuGIII Fall 43


(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 251
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 5:41:43 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		Soviet captured late 44


(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 252
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 5:44:35 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		soviet captured late war


(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 253
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 6:03:45 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		Sort of funny since 'Prince' led out with this pic...at least we can see the US troops now...see comment in book!!!!

http://henk.fox3000.com/achen/stugIII/06.jpg

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/27/2010 3:55:43 PM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 254
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 10:07:08 AM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

And like I have said...start your own CONCRETE speculation thread.  I DO have good information on that! 

Edit: I haven't said it was worthless. Prince has said it was the secret to the StuG's-Uberness. He can't, of course, prove that.

I love the shadow cast by the raised shield on the side of the gun! HA!!!! How thick does anyone think that concrete is on the sloped roof?



And here is where the problem lies, maybe Prince has not proven his side of the arguement, but you have done little in the way of enlightening us either. My point, that you seem to be purposely avoiding is that you cannot deny the concrete's existence, you cannot deny that it seems to be quite a common practice that lasted for a couple years anyhow, I don't give a squat what the penetration factor is of some shell vs concrete that I know that you are itching to spout about. Tell us what the combined penetration is of a given round vs concrete backed by a STUG's armor. There must be something to it, I am even finding modeling kits with the concrete applications represented.
You seem to have a way with people though, as I found that you were up to the same antics back a few years. I found this while trying to find out why and what effect that the concrete application had. It does not take these guys too long to figure out your game aqand call you on it. Same name different spelling.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/archive/index.php/t-13437.html

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 255
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 4:03:28 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		I disagree.  It has not been proven to be a common practice.  It's sort of like saying "Pig's Heads were painted on all StuG's with cast mantlets".  Then you offer proof by posting a pic that clearly shows 3 or 4 StuGs with pigs-head drawings on the mantlet from Stugs in the same unit.  But that is the unit emblem for that unit.  The fact that someone can post SO many StuG pics from ALL theatres and Time frames in WWII that do NOT have pigs-heads is ignored by the 'pigs-head-proponent'. 

I started this thread to discuss the StuG vs. Soviet 76mm 'classic' argument that has been going on even now at Battlefront (see CMBB forum).  Again, you can start your own 'concrete' thread.  I HAVE offered speculation in THIS thread but you seem to ignore that also. 


(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 256
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 5:54:49 PM   
vonRocko

 

Posts: 1447
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername



I started this thread to discuss the StuG vs. Soviet 76mm 'classic' argument that has been going on even now at Battlefront (see CMBB forum).  Again, you can start your own 'concrete' thread.  I HAVE offered speculation in THIS thread but you seem to ignore that also. 




Why do you let him distract you so easily? Maybe it's the burden of being a "genius"?

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 257
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/27/2010 10:43:26 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline 		That must be 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 vonRocko)
Post #: 258
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/28/2010 1:18:17 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		I would like to expand on the low power of the 76mm F-34 gun. This was probably the most common threat to a StuGIII 'long' during the years in question. Examine the following 'Rexford' data:

quote:

During WW II, German tank effectiveness was due in large part to the superior effectiveness of the ammunition, which is related to nose hardness considerations.
British tests against homogeneous armor at 610 m/s impact velocity, which are documented in Miles Krogfus' AFV News article, resulted in:

102mm penetration for German 75mm APCBC
90mm penetration for U.S. 76mm APCBC
75mm penetration for Russian 76mm APBC

U.S. penetration tests for Sherman 75mm indicate 89mm penetration at 610 m/s.



It's quite remarkable that this data can isolate one specific parameter, nose-hardness, and nominalize the other parameters. Given the near-equal mass of these AP rounds, and the velocity being held constant...and velocity being the squared term in the energy formula...the following statement can be made:

Even though the kinetic energy of these near-same-diameter and mass rounds is held constant, there is a glaring differential in the penetration performance against like-armor.

It's damning evidence against the soviet projectile as far as its main purpose. Note that the test is using RHA armor. Pretty standard. But the German AFV were sporting face-hardened armor at the time.

Edit: the reader should be aware that to have the velocity constant, each of these weapons would have to be at different ranges. The only thing monitored is the impact velocity at the target, in other words. So, perhaps the F-34 gun was at 200 meters...the German L48 gun was at 1000 meters or something like that.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/28/2010 1:28:16 AM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 259
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/28/2010 4:01:13 AM   
Mobius


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

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
quote:

During WW II, German tank effectiveness was due in large part to the superior effectiveness of the ammunition, which is related to nose hardness considerations.
British tests against homogeneous armor at 610 m/s impact velocity, which are documented in Miles Krogfus' AFV News article, resulted in:

102mm penetration for German 75mm APCBC
90mm penetration for U.S. 76mm APCBC
75mm penetration for Russian 76mm APBC

U.S. penetration tests for Sherman 75mm indicate 89mm penetration at 610 m/s.



I ran comparisons using my programs on this and get a bit of a difference. I normalize my data to take in different test specs.
BTW, I didn't know the British got their hands on enough Russian APBC to do many tests.
But Miles has a huge amount of source material.

75mm/L46.pzg39..1731m..85mm
76mmM1...M62.....1791m..79mm
76mmF-34.350B....550m...74mm

17pdr....APC........1768m..100mm

I had to eyeball this off some graphs so may be a mm or so off. It does show the Soviet projectile out classed by the others.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 260
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/28/2010 4:52:54 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		It would be interesting to see the British test data and details.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 261
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/28/2010 5:23:58 AM   
Mobius


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

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

It would be interesting to see the British test data and details.

It can't be all British tests. 90mm (actually 3.55") is what the graphs of the US technical manual TM 9 1907 is saying.
(I just checked.)
That over states penetration because it uses a poor (or older) standard quality of plate.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 262
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/28/2010 5:41:46 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		All right. The 76mm looks to penetrate 3.6". The 75mm penetrated 3.55".
There is part of the page of the manual TM 9 1907 showing the velocity and penetration of the 76mm M62 APHE round.

The way the graph it works is you look at the 2000 f/s on the left side. Follow the red line over to the 0-degree curve line then down to read the penetration amount.

You can also follow the 2000 f/s line over to the 76mm M1 line that runs from upper left to lower right. Find where it intersects this line and follow that down to the bottom and read the range at which this velocity and penetration occur.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 263
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/28/2010 6:48:19 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		While looking for the above scans I came across this table in an old file archive. I have no idea of what country compiled it so I can't use it. But it does show that the Russian 76mm penetrate FH armor better than RHA. It also show 2 versions of the BR350B shell.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 264
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/28/2010 3:38:57 PM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		What angle is that for? 90?  You don't know where it came from? 

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 265
RE: StuG BS discussions - 12/28/2010 4:52:34 PM   
Mobius


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

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

What angle is that for? 90?  You don't know where it came from? 

It appears to be at 0. And matches close to Russian Certified Penetration values. But the numbers seem a little contrived - like they might be calculated from a formula not test results.

Something wierd goes on when I plug the numbers into my data curve program. The penetration goes down steeply until around 800-1000 meters then levels off magically at long range. This on all the data, even though the BR350 and BR350A do not have the ballistic caps of the BR350B.
[Edit]I guess that's not true. They all have ballistic caps. The 350B is just a longer beefier heavier projectile.

I just downloaded a few more pages from what looks like the same source but haven't read through the text.
[Edit] These new pages are not the same as that Russian penetration page. They are some workup tables for Lorrin Bird's book. It looks like the tables in his book were averages of four different calculation methods and these pages show the individual rows of numbers.

< Message edited by Mobius -- 12/28/2010 8:02:16 PM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 266
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/2/2011 3:49:34 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		I would say that is the most detailed Soviet data I have ever seen.  I agree, that it is interpolated or cranked by a program.  I haven't seen much Soviet penetration data as far as face-hardened armor, especially from the Soviets.  The numbers seem low as far as the 'benefit' of attacking face hardened armor.  4-5mm?

It would seem that your US AP rounds do fit into that data I posted.  I just am wondering about the German 75mm not falling close.  It wouldn't matter what German 75mm AP round I suppose.  I would have assumed 75mmL48, but I suspect that panther, L43 or L48 or even L46 would be about teh same at the chosen velocity.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 267
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/2/2011 4:55:14 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		It does serve one additional useful purpose. It gives me a way of finding the ballistic coefficient of the 350A. As the penetration at 612m/s must be the same for both guns. Since the penetration is 68 at 612m/s then it must be 612m/s at 400 meters when the muzzle velocity is 655 m/s.
I need two velocities at two ranges to derive the BC.

The table appears to be Russian. The Germans or anyone else probably wouldn't have known there were two types of BR-350B rounds. I didn't.

[Edit]The BR-350B was used in the PT-76 tank. So that table could have been made anytime between 1943 and the Vietnam war. And newer BR-350B could have been introduced post WWII.

< Message edited by Mobius -- 1/2/2011 5:15:23 AM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 268
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/3/2011 3:37:56 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline 		I should have mentioned the quote was for a Panther 75mm round...

quote:

During WW II, German tank effectiveness was due in large part to the superior effectiveness of the ammunition, which is related to nose hardness considerations.
British tests against homogeneous armor at 610 m/s impact velocity, which are documented in Miles Krogfus' AFV News article, resulted in:

102mm penetration for German 75mm APCBC
90mm penetration for U.S. 76mm APCBC
75mm penetration for Russian 76mm APBC

U.S. penetration tests for Sherman 75mm indicate 89mm penetration at 610 m/s.

Based on the above figure at 610 m/s, the Panther 75mm penetration is estimated at 188mm at 935 m/s and 0m range (DeMarre equation extrapolation). Actual U.S. tests with Panther 75mm APCBC obtained 190mm penetration at
0m and 935 m/s

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 269
RE: StuG BS discussions - 1/3/2011 4:22:18 AM   
Mobius


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

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Based on the above figure at 610 m/s, the Panther 75mm penetration is estimated at 188mm at 935 m/s and 0m range (DeMarre equation extrapolation). Actual U.S. tests with Panther 75mm APCBC obtained 190mm penetration at
0m and 935 m/s

Ah, ya.
Vs. 220-240 BHN armor.


I'm assuming this is the typical test plate.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mobius -- 1/3/2011 4:49:24 AM >

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> RE: StuG BS discussions Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   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

2.137