StuG BS discussions

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

LOL!!!!! I always knew he never saw drawings of the Soviet AP ammo.

The BR-350A was APC, the BR-350B was the improved APCBC (ballistic cap), which significantly improves penetration against sloped armor in particular. The BR-350P is APCR, tungsten penetrator. Of these only the last is exlicitly shown as a separate type of round in CM - the T ammo. The others are lumoed together as AP, and the improvement fielding the B type involved has to show up as improved ammo modeling etc.

BR-350A is APBC, BR-350B is APBC.

Jeesh, gamey. The game mis-models turn rates.

As for the StuGs, take some 57s, or make a network of 76s with cross fire. And make them turn - vehicle rotation is very slow in CM, the one place turretless actually makes a difference. Beware also of the StuG showing only front armor, angled inward so one flank is deep inside German lines, and at an edge so the other is protected by the bottomless pits at the map edge.

You're going nuts again with the edits, Lewis.[:-]

[Yoozername]

You're going back into troll mode.  That must mean the truth is getting to you?  Go back and do more searches in the Battlefront archives.  Its amusing.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

You're going back into troll mode.  That must mean the truth is getting to you?  Go back and do more searches in the Battlefront archives.  Its amusing.

Any comment on the BR-350P?[&:]

[Yoozername]

Yeah, do a search.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Yeah, do a search.

I already did, but not of the Internet. I found several references to the shell in my T-34 books, including it's penetration qualities. Hopefully, Mobius can flesh the subject out for our readers.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Well, I guess it's time for my revelation of the day.[8D]

I'll post an image below of a III.g that's busted up. Suffice it do say, it's got a healthy coat of concrete slathered over it's vulnerable areas. What caught my attention in regard to this particular vehicle was the caption, a portion of which reads as follows:

The assault gun has concrete armor on the front of the casemate and has other late production features, such as 80mm-thick bow and glacis plates[...].

What I find so interesting about the phrasing is that it explicitly associates the application of concrete to the casemate as one of several "late production features."

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Why has the BR350P round gone unmentioned? It was available October 1943. I don't think the type is even available in PCK.

We didn't have the Russian APCR in Kharkov because at the time we didn't have a way of phasing it in by year and month. 76mm gun data in Kharkov extended just until the end of 1942. It is added now in PCO. In addition we have an APBC round.

As for the Germans thinking tha StuGs are vulnerable up to 500m against the Russian 76mm. There are all kinds of StuG models so nothing specific not even a time frame is given. Besides the Germans thought the reason the 37mm PaK wasn't effective against T-34s was a training issue.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Why has the BR350P round gone unmentioned? It was available October 1943. I don't think the type is even available in PCK.

We didn't have the Russian APCR in Kharkov because at the time we didn't have a way of phasing it in by year and month. 76mm gun data in Kharkov extended just until the end of 1942. It is added now in PCO. In addition we have an APBC round.

As for the Germans thinking tha StuGs are vulnerable up to 500m against the Russian 76mm. There are all kinds of StuG models so nothing specific not even a time frame is given. Besides the Germans thought the reason the 37mm PaK wasn't effective against T-34s was a training issue.

In reading JasonC's passage, I recognized that there was more than one iteration of Stug in play. Like yourself, I suspect that his characterization of the interaction between Soviet gun and German armor appears to be an over-simplification.

Further up the thread, I stated my belief that the evolution between threat (gun/shell) and reaction (up-armoring) was actually quite a complex process. Measure and countermeasure appear to have evolved over a period of time, and analyzing these relationships is complicated by multiple configurations of armor placement and depth.

I'd attempt to outline the path/sequence that the photographic evidence suggests ensued as German designers attempted to offset advances on the part of the Soviets, but this has been something of an ordeal, given Lewis' attempt to subvert the discussion to his pre-conceived end.

Maybe tomorrow.

Any thoughts on the BR-350P and how its introduction would have effected the survivability of the various models of Sturmgeshutz?

[Mobius]

Well here's the thing. The APCR has a good chance of going through most of the StuG armor out to what looks like 600m. It doesn't stand a very good chance of hitting. The arrowhead shot is unbalanced and the dispersion is high. The 50% chance of a first round hit on a StuG is around 400m.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Well here's the thing. The APCR has a good chance of going through most of the StuG armor out to what looks like 600m. It doesn't stand a very good chance of hitting. The arrowhead shot is unbalanced and the dispersion is high. The 50% chance of a first round hit on a StuG is around 400m.

I posted the image below earlier, sans caption. Sincerely, I can't help but think that the Germans began slathering heavier applications of concrete over the casemate of the Ostfront III.G because of the introduction of BR-350P.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Besides the Germans thought the reason the 37mm PaK wasn't effective against T-34s was a training issue.

And they were right! The Pak36 crews were definitely trained incorrectly for dealing with T-34's. The correct procedure was to slowly back away from the gun and lie face down on the ground so as not to get hurt when the gun blew up.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Yoozername]

New speculations to go along with previously posted pics?  Who would have guessed?
 
HVAP works great on sloped armor then huh?

[Yoozername]

While PRINCE flip-flops with his revisionistic writhing regarding what he NOW thinks he has been talking about, enjoy this Kursk 1943 picture of a StuG. I believe its the commander's StuG for the remote control unit Panzer Bn 302.

[Yoozername]

Alterations to the Sturmgeschütz IV
On January 24, 1944, the Inspektor der Artillerie determined that supplementing armor protection by adding concrete had been shown by test firing to be without benefit. It only increased the vehicle weight and framentation effect (on the armor piercing round striking the plate) was less favorable. The Waffenamt was not in favor of concrete for supplemental protection.

I hope that this quote is understood fully. The 'fragmentation effect' is in reference breaking up the incoming rounds. In other words, the concrete acts like a 'cap' on a shell. It reduces the shock the shell suffers when the point hits the armor. The fact that it mentions test firing outweighs any grog's half-baked suspicions.

[Mad Russian]

Half baked suspicions? There is photographic evidence that concrete was used. The documentation shows that, for that applied to the outside at least, it was a field expedient. Obviously, that was taken seriously enough for them to do trial tests on it. Your stand on the concrete issue is like saying Sherman crews didn't use sand bags on their tanks because sand wouldn't stop a German 75mm shell. There's plenty of evidence the US tankers used sand bags too.

None of that is an issue. What is at issue is that the Germans did use concrete. No matter now ineffective. They used Zimmeritt as well and it was ineffective too. They still used it.

Time to go back to the basics of this thread. The concrete issue is getting old. I think it's being used as a simple expedient to make derogatory comments and attacks on others POV's.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Alterations to the Sturmgeschütz IV
On January 24, 1944, the Inspektor der Artillerie determined that supplementing armor protection by adding concrete had been shown by test firing to be without benefit. It only increased the vehicle weight and framentation effect (on the armor piercing round striking the plate) was less favorable. The Waffenamt was not in favor of concrete for supplemental protection.

I hope that this quote is understood fully. The 'fragmentation effect' is in reference breaking up the incoming rounds. In other words, the concrete acts like a 'cap' on a shell. It reduces the shock the shell suffers when the point hits the armor. The fact that it mentions test firing outweighs any grog's half-baked suspicions.

I don't take it as meaning that. I take it as meaning it reduces the behind armor effect of the shell. A similar thing was noted in the US survey. The tankers thought it somehow lessened the damage of a penetration or near penetration.

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Alterations to the Sturmgeschütz IV
On January 24, 1944, the Inspektor der Artillerie determined that supplementing armor protection by adding concrete had been shown by test firing to be without benefit. It only increased the vehicle weight and framentation effect (on the armor piercing round striking the plate) was less favorable. The Waffenamt was not in favor of concrete for supplemental protection.

I hope that this quote is understood fully. The 'fragmentation effect' is in reference breaking up the incoming rounds. In other words, the concrete acts like a 'cap' on a shell. It reduces the shock the shell suffers when the point hits the armor. The fact that it mentions test firing outweighs any grog's half-baked suspicions.

I don't take it as meaning that. I take it as meaning it reduces the behind armor effect of the shell. A similar thing was noted in the US survey. The tankers thought it somehow lessened the damage of a penetration or near penetration.

And there lies the real issue here that some of us fail to talk about..."The tankers thought it somehow lessened the damage of a penetration or near penetration." If there was no issue with the frontal armor in these locations, there would be no reason to fix them. And the fact that the Russians are predominantly firing 76.2mm APwhatever means that the armor of the StuG was not performing up to standards, reguardless of what these standards were, the Germans felt the need to find a solution to the problem, so much so that both field fixes and factory applied concrete was used to try to FIX the situation. Whether it worked or not is immaterial, Prince had stated that concrete may have been the reason for the resistance to shell penetration, I thought that it might help as well, and still feel that there would be some effect due to the continued use over the years. Yuzzer has stated that concrete has no value and that the armor of the StuG was the best out there and would be almost impervious to 76.2mm penetration. I think that he has failed in his statement, it is obvious an issue existed and a bunch of theoretical data does little in the way of proof, but the logic that the situation existed and the fixes employed state clearly that the StuG was not impervious to the Russian 76mm.

[Mobius]

The problem with the high angle plates of only 30mm is that a dip of only 5-6 degrees would reduce the effective armor basis of 10-20mm. Considering battles aren't held on a pool table flat plane some extra armor there would help with protection.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Alterations to the Sturmgeschütz IV
On January 24, 1944, the Inspektor der Artillerie determined that supplementing armor protection by adding concrete had been shown by test firing to be without benefit. It only increased the vehicle weight and framentation effect (on the armor piercing round striking the plate) was less favorable. The Waffenamt was not in favor of concrete for supplemental protection.

I hope that this quote is understood fully. The 'fragmentation effect' is in reference breaking up the incoming rounds. In other words, the concrete acts like a 'cap' on a shell. It reduces the shock the shell suffers when the point hits the armor. The fact that it mentions test firing outweighs any grog's half-baked suspicions.

I don't take it as meaning that. I take it as meaning it reduces the behind armor effect of the shell. A similar thing was noted in the US survey. The tankers thought it somehow lessened the damage of a penetration or near penetration.

Uh, no. This is from the Inspektor der Artillerie and he is saying the fragmentation effect is less favorable. The fragmentation effect...is ON THE ARMOR PIERCING ROUND. He is speaking of shells breaking up on contact.

Why would the Inspektor der Artillerie make mention of it somehow reducing the post penetration effects? He has determined through testing that it is without benefit.

See? Its bad. It increases vehicle weight AND reduces protection. That is what is said.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Half baked suspicions? There is photographic evidence that concrete was used. The documentation shows that, for that applied to the outside at least, it was a field expedient. Obviously, that was taken seriously enough for them to do trial tests on it. Your stand on the concrete issue is like saying Sherman crews didn't use sand bags on their tanks because sand wouldn't stop a German 75mm shell. There's plenty of evidence the US tankers used sand bags too.

None of that is an issue. What is at issue is that the Germans did use concrete. No matter now ineffective. They used Zimmeritt as well and it was ineffective too. They still used it.

Time to go back to the basics of this thread. The concrete issue is getting old. I think it's being used as a simple expedient to make derogatory comments and attacks on others POV's.

Good Hunting.

MR

I never said it wasn't used. I have been clear on my stance. Some one else's is constantly evolving it seems.

But, yes, I have made multiple requests that the CONCRETE proponents start a seperate thread. Obviously the sock-puppet argument started by PRINCE is nothing more than some ego-driven attempt to derail this thread further.