StuG BS discussions

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

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.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
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.

Seems I have additional pictures of the same StuG.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

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.

Is that supposed to be a penetration?

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
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.

Since we like speculating...It might be that the layer of concrete, layed over face hardened armor, acts as not only a guide but also a buffer to the shock of being hit. Much like a AP cap. So instead of shattering or ricocheting, the AP doesn't shatter or ricochet. It penetrates instead.

I can't subscribe to that thin layer of concrete being worthwhile and, as it was historically, it should be left off.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
I can't subscribe to that thin layer of concrete being worthwhile and, as it was historically, it should be left off.

The point I was making with the posting is that the StuG was delivered from the factory with 50mm of concrete already on it. Then someone stepped in to find out if it was doing any good. When the tests showed that it wasn't then the practice was stopped. Though I wonder if the test was done on this 50mm paver thick block? I don't see how that would register as any protection.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Apparently, entire units were characterized by heavy applications of concrete:

[Yoozername]

No date, huh?  I mean that zug, not you.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

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.

Hi Ratzki,

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to do this. And I'd be wrong if I didn't acknowledge that it clearly undermines the desirability of concrete as armor, ersatz or otherwise. I can only imagine being in the vicinity of a concrete-encrusted Stug when a .50-caliber round struck it, and sent fragments slicing through flesh and bone. Your little experiment helps us understand the nature of the material being discussed and it's very, very cool of you to have shared the results with our readers.[8D]

Thanks again!

[junk2drive]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

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.

Is that supposed to be a penetration?

That's what... never mind

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
I can't subscribe to that thin layer of concrete being worthwhile and, as it was historically, it should be left off.

The point I was making with the posting is that the StuG was delivered from the factory with 50mm of concrete already on it. Then someone stepped in to find out if it was doing any good. When the tests showed that it wasn't then the practice was stopped. Though I wonder if the test was done on this 50mm paver thick block? I don't see how that would register as any protection.

I agree. And as I speculate, it may have been counterproductive. Tracks, on the other hand, were beneficial IF put on a sloped surface or if the AP round was at an angle. I just read that the Brits tack welded them on as sacrificial armor. They would take one hit and slew off and deflect the AP round (again, probably needed a glancing blow). But from the technical paper I have read on concrete, AP does not behave like the 'paver-experiment'. It will leave a shallow crater on the concrete and bore in just like it was very weak armor. In effect, it is being guided and side-forces stops it from deviating from the course.

The odd-shaped concrete field 'slop-jobs', even if thicker, were probably put on in less than controlled environments. They would certainly be vulnerable to fragmentation and bullets degrading them further.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Is that supposed to be a penetration?

That's what... never mind

There's no "green wheel" visible on the kill, but the absence of concrete is noteworthy.

Do you have any photos of properly adorned, concrete-Stug III.G that have suffered a penetration through that surface?

[Stridor]

Sure looks like a penetration to me.

Yoozer, do you have that feeling in the pit of your stomach that the game is starting to slide away from you now?

S.

[Yoozername]

I guess your logic eludes me.  But I can't tell from that grainy picture if that is a penetration.  It might be a ricochet or an oil stain? 
 
Perhaps your frustration is that all I have to do is post pics WITHOUT concrete, which is easily done, while you must look everywhere and find them with concrete (and in the correct time frame set forth in the first post of this thread)?  I suppose the fact that you must also prove somehow that the concrete helped 'protection' doesn't help your frustration.  the Germans discontinuing manaufacturing application of concrete didn't help much either.
 
But I fail to see how my providing a picture of a concreted StuG with a penetration in a well known protected area serves any purpose?  My premise is that area is ALREADY well protected.  What does it accomplish besides providing you with another concrete pic?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I guess your logic eludes me. But I can't tell from that grainy picture if that is a penetration. It might be a ricochet or an oil stain?

Perhaps your frustration is that all I have to do is post pics WITHOUT concrete, which is easily done, while you must look everywhere and find them with concrete (and in the correct time frame set forth in the first post of this thread)? I suppose the fact that you must also prove somehow that the concrete helped 'protection' doesn't help your frustration. the Germans discontinuing manaufacturing application of concrete didn't help much either.

But I fail to see how my providing a picture of a concreted StuG with a penetration in a well known protected area serves any purpose? My premise is that area is ALREADY well protected. What does it accomplish besides providing you with another concrete pic?

"Everywhere that I look, I see Stug-crews who went to work without their armor."

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Stridor

Sure looks like a penetration to me.

Yoozer, do you have that feeling in the pit of your stomach that the game is starting to slide away from you now?

S.

Nah, I just figure Prince will spin out of control like a spoiled child.

Edit: I spoke too soon...there he goes!

[Yoozername]

Here is a StuG that has surrounded itself with concrete...and an air-gap!

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Looks like a good penetration. The drivers sloped roof area has track links for protection. I wonder if this roof did too?
It looks like the vertical plate below took 2 hits but they failed to go through.
And just to the side on the sponson half a diameter above the upper smoke mortar there could be a penetration as well.

[Yoozername]

Just out of curiousity, what weapon do you think did all that?  I don't see the sponson 'hole'?  Those smoke launchers came in threes? 

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Just out of curiousity, what weapon do you think did all that?  I don't see the sponson 'hole'?  Those smoke launchers came in threes? 

They're still there.

If you save the JPG and then open it in "Windows Photo Viewer," they are clearly present.

Simply scroll to zoom.

[Mobius]

Probably need a better scan.
1. Looks like a penetration.
2. Looks like a bounce. Shallow penetration. Not very deep. Something an HE round might do?
3. Hard to tell. Could be a bounce or could be a bolt or just the bolt hole.
4. Above the upper smoke mortar tube is a dark area. Either the upper mortar tube is split in two or there's another object right next to or behind it.

As to the size. The hole doesn't look very wide. 3" at most. Maybe less.