StuG BS discussions

[Yoozername]

I am pretty sure we have already established that the F8 didn't have 'capacious recesses'.  It was very similar to the G. 

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

If you had to set a value for 6"-10" of concrete how would you rate it? Or just something like sandbags?

The depth is going to be difficult to discern because there was more than one apparent standard of application, and these changed over the course of the war. Again, I'll post a modeler's image below that depicts several locations/depths/shapes for the G model. In researching the matter, it would appear that the type of application is evolutionary and can be categorized by year as it becomes considerably more substantial over time. In terms of the early models, the pictorial record suggests that it was being applied to the frontal recesses as early as 1942.

[Yoozername]

The concrete that covers the armor bolts around the driver's visor is especially stupid.  It appears to be less than two inches thick and would make changing those bolts a nightmare.

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

The concrete that covers the armor bolts around the driver's visor is especially stupid.  It appears to be less than two inches thick and would make changing those bolts a nightmare.

I remember a post from Battlefront's forums where JasonC, I think, quoted a German operations manual from WW2 and it stated that life span in a StuG is short but full of interest. I would have to find it again over there, but I would bet those bolt's ease of removal probably mattered diddly-squat.

[Yoozername]

Yes, the same JasonC that is so impartial regarding this subject.  Ok, Ratski, please do that and post some pictures of Canadian tanks using concrete armor.

I suppose keeping 30mm of REAL armor on the vehicle equates to diddly-squat.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Mobius

If you had to set a value for 6"-10" of concrete how would you rate it? Or just something like sandbags?

The depth is going to be difficult to discern because there was more than one apparent standard of application, and these changed over the course of the war. Again, I'll post a modeler's image below that depicts several locations/depths/shapes for the G model. In researching the matter, it would appear that the type of application is evolutionary and can be categorized by year as it becomes considerably more substantial over time. In terms of the early models, the pictorial record suggests that it was being applied to the frontal recesses as early as 1942.

So the answer is...You don't know.

So what is the evolution of the 'standard'? Is it the model on the bottom right....followed by the model on the bottom left ... and then culminates into the 'Blob' on top?

If this is so 'evolutionary' then please explain the apparent extinction of it in the large numbers of photographs in this thread? Mind you, I have posted photos from the whole war. Is it some genius behaviour that dies out when the StuG unit gets wiped-out? Some secret StuG cults that popped up randomly? You can ignore the evidence. Just don't expect others to.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

So the answer is...You don't know.

You've been confronted with a small mountain of evidence suggesting vulnerability in the areas that were concreted. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem.

So what is the evolution of the 'standard'? Is it the model on the bottom right....followed by the model on the bottom left ... and then culminates into the 'Blob' on top?

The photographs speak for themselves. I included the captions in the last round so that you can't claim it to be otherwise.

Further, our readers aren't stupid. I'm not going to insult them by reposting twenty-five or thirty images that they've already seen, compelling as the visuals might otherwise be.

If this is so 'evolutionary' then please explain the apparent extinction of it in the large numbers of photographs in this thread? Mind you, I have posted photos from the whole war. Is it some genius behaviour that dies out when the StuG unit gets wiped-out? Some secret StuG cults that popped up randomly? You can ignore the evidence. Just don't expect others to.

Once again, you're purposely ignoring the previous photos that I've posted to this thread, many of which contain captions citing a season and/or year. The overwhelming majority of those photos, not to mention my understanding of the subject at hand, come from a shelf full of books sitting to my right.

Conversely, virtually every "fact" that you've posted to this thread, including your responses to Mobius and others, is attributable to GOOGLE (TM), rather than any more substantial and credible source of facts regarding armored fighting vehicles. But, that's your way of doing business on game forums, isn't it? Were it not so, our readers wouldn't still be scratching their heads over the mystical "green wheel" of which you are so enamored.

Wiped out?

As I've already documented, entire units were slathered in reinforced concrete. If they weren't "wiped out," it may well be because they were properly armored:

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Yes, the same JasonC that is so impartial regarding this subject.

Well, I'll tell you who isn't impartial at all, and that's Mad Matt:

One more thing that will come from this patch Mr. Tittles is that it has reminded me to reban you once again "Lewis".

Yeah, we knew it was you for some time but were too busy to take care of you in the manner needed.

Remember, bans are non-negotiable and it doesn't matter if you re-register with a new name or not. Your still the same old Lewis, and that means your still banned.

Bye bye...

Madmatt

MadMatt's rejoinder is located here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/sh ... stcount=13

It came in response to Mr. Tittles, one of Lewis' sockpuppets, trolling the CMAK forum on the release of the 1.03 patch.

I don't doubt that you've got some HS ROTC drill-team moonies that will follow you over here and muck the forum up, Lewis, but the outcome will be the same.

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Yes, the same JasonC that is so impartial regarding this subject.  Ok, Ratski, please do that and post some pictures of Canadian tanks using concrete armor.

I suppose keeping 30mm of REAL armor on the vehicle equates to diddly-squat.

I have one better, why don't you post the countless pictures that you should have of 76mm strikes to the front of some StuGs that failed to penetrate then more pictures of the reverse side of the same StuGs armor to verify that no penetrations occured from a spalling plug, then back it up with crew survivability data from non-concreted StuGs vs StuGs with concrete applied. If you are unable to do so, you are doing nothing more then talking through a orifice that is not intended for talking.
The facts are, 1)concrete was used, how often... unknown but enough that model kits have it as an option and several photos are in existance. 2)Sloped face hardened armor plate fails at lower velocities then it would take to penetrate if struck at 90deg. 3)Two plates that add up to 80mm are less protection then one 80mm plate. 4)Extra armor in the form of tracks, logs, concrete were applied to areas that were vulnerable and seeing as how the Russians had more 76mm guns out there it is logical to conclude that the StuG was having some issues stopping the round, enough to warrent the application of extra armor in whatever form they had at hand. If there was no vulnerability in this area, there would be no need to add protection in any form.

[Misty99]

Finnish StuG:

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531044/ps531044.html

[Lieste]

Has anyone considered that the problem round was the 'universal' 14.5mm ATR - if fired down (from upper stories for example) they would perforate the front slopes fairly easily - and only marginal additional armour would provide immunity - the same reasoning for the thin mild-steel or mesh schurzen.

The upper slopes would probably be vulnerable to perforation by most tank rounds hitting these small areas from the front - the overlap with the superstructure might stop the tail-plug, but will have minimal effect on spalling entering the fighting compartment, especially where the shell bursts on or in the first plate.

Concrete would have minimal effect in the thicknesses involved against large calibre impacts - and would instead offer a significant increase in fragmentation hazard for the supporting arms. There would certainly be no second hit protection added.

[Mobius]

The image on post #305 seem to have taken at least 3 hits. Maybe even one in the slope above the driver.

[Yoozername]

Are you saying the shadow under the GI on the right?  I don't think so.  Compare the sun shadows under the other GI.

But that StuG actually looks like it was in a state of being repaired.  The two hits on the bottom right would certainly damage the brakes/drive and it appears that tracks and parts have been removed.  Maybe it was over-run and lost.

In any case, when facing US guns in the later ETO, the StuG was at a big disadvantage and pavement/putty/brick-face/etc. was not going to help.

[Mobius]

On the slope below the right knee of the guy on the right.
A third hit could have sheared off the left drive wheel.

[Yoozername]

I do get a chuckle from PRINCE's trolling posts where he harkens back to Combat Mission glory days.  I hope he knows MadMatt left years ago.  And his 'Dorosh' reference is certainly odd since that person was banned from BF, and that has been years ago.  So maybe HE should stop Googling the Battlefront board? 
 
 

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

On the slope below the right knee of the guy on the right.
A third hit could have sheared off the left drive wheel.

It still could be a shadow. Look at the shadow angle at the guy sitting on the gun tube. It fairly bright sun.

The whole drive wheel and final drive are gone. So are the tracks and some return rollers. You really think a AP hit can do that?

In any case, it does show that there is no concrete present and that its a late ETO pic.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


Again, LEWIS, buy yourself some books and stop cluttering up the forum with your nonsense.

I call BS on this picture. As I posted before, there appears to be some fuzzy shape around the supposed concrete 'head' over the driver's area. The height of the concrete seems to go over the roof of the vehicle itself.

Maybe PRINCE can let us know where he gets these supposed photos?

[Yoozername]

Nice shot of a F. Photo shows the much more horizontal nature of the roof armor over the driver. The area seems to be used to store tarps or some other soft material. I don't know if the F and earlier StuGs, that had this type of roof armor, had its thickness at 30mm yet. It may be something like 12-17mm like the top roof armor is.

edit, no concrete

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


Again, LEWIS, buy yourself some books and stop cluttering up the forum with your nonsense.

I call BS on this picture. As I posted before, there appears to be some fuzzy shape around the supposed concrete 'head' over the driver's area. The height of the concrete seems to go over the roof of the vehicle itself.

Maybe PRINCE can let us know where he gets these supposed photos?

Probably the same place as the folks who made this concrete mod:

[Mobius]

You are not going to be able to prove that a large number of StuGs had concrete applique by showing photos with it added or not any more than you can prove that a lairge number of Shermans had sandbags with photos showing Shermans with and without sandbags.