StuG BS discussions

[Ratzki]

I see again that you are missing the point or ignoring it. I don't care if concrete or silly putty was used, the fact remains that something was used , therefore something needed to be used; why?... because the performance vs Russian guns was sub-par and seeing as it is the front where it has been stated that there should be no issue, yet this is where we find the concrete. Can I prove that Russian 76mm guns can penetrate the StuG's front armor, nope, I do not think that there exists any test firings that can disprove it either. All there is is theory and firings against 90deg plate. Simple logic says that if field fixes are there, and this is not a simple "throw a couple sand bags on" fix, then there must be an issue, reguardless of theoretical programs and live test firings vs plate that does not represent the suface that we are talking about accurately. Pretty simple to follow. Penetration test vs 90deg armor plate, meaningless in this case. This is face hardened plate where it is known that this type of plate is less effective at sloped applications then is non-face hardened and that the ammunition used by the Russians was an effective round vs sloped face hardened plate and could cause failure without penetration as well as penetrate. Then there is the "plug" effect as well.

[Yoozername]

Ratzki, you must be addressing Mobius I assume????  He is the one that has:
1. Provided information that the German testing found the concrete not worthwhile
2. Is using data to design the game
 
I have given up on addressing you. 

[FNG]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Ratzki, you must be addressing Mobius I assume????  He is the one that has:
1. Provided information that the German testing found the concrete not worthwhile
2. Is using data to design the game

I have given up on addressing you. 

Given that this is a forum for the latest in the Panzer Command series of games, perhaps you would like to share with us your test data from the game that supports your postition that the StuG is under-performing against Soviet 76.2mm AP ammunition? And then compare and contrast with the hard data from battle damage assessments that show what was knocking StuGs out in real life?

If you can't do that, then I suggest that you are posting in the wrong place. Just out of interest, have you ever even played PC:W or PC:K?

[Yoozername]

That isn't my position at all.  I doubt you have read through the thread. 

FNG: You clearly have some agenda. I notice your posts are typically complaining and whining and hostile.

[FNG]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

That isn't my position at all.  I doubt you have read through the thread. 

Wrong. I have read through the thread. From page one:

"Its my contention that this area, the frontal sponson sloped armor, is backed up by the superstructure armor. Its also my contention that at least some photographic evidence shows the superstructure armor to be greater than 50mm. In any case, this area represents spaced armor. To be succinct, its sloped face hardened armor that is backed up by vertical 50mm or possibly 80mm armor.

In either case, it would represent some of the best protection against soviet 76mm ammunition in 1943 and possibly 1944.

Armor Piercing rounds have a trait of 'bouncing' downward once they make it through angled armor. The Soviets called it 'normalizing' but can be generally understood as something taking the path of least resistance. This applies mostly to full-bore sized projectiles. Its even seen when a handgun bullet passes through a windshield that is sloped. The bullet makes it through easily but is defledted downward.

In the case of the sponson, the Soviet round might make it through, but is then attacking the next plate at a downward angle. The cap has been stripped from the penetrator and it is possibly destabilized and cracked after hitting face hardened armor.

The StuG needs to be appreciated. The Soviets rightly feared it. The assembly plant was certainly targeted by air attack at the end of 1943. "

Now, given your thread title, "StuG BS discussions", one would assume that you feel the StuG has been under-modelled in games and you seek to redress this balance. Fair enough. But nowhere have you linked this in to your experiences of this game and how it differs from your hypothesis. I won't cut and paste my previous post but I'd be interested by your data from PC:W/PC:K regarding the StuG and its performance.

I doubt I will get it because you are a troll, plain and simple. You have form for it on other Matrix forums and on other wargaming sites. Your tone is contentious and pompous. I rarely feed the troll but on this occasion I will, so that any newcomers to this forum may see that your 'style' is not the way that the vast majority of members here behave.

[Yoozername]

The Soviet HVAP BR-350P
This arrow-head design 'featured' a follow-on slug of steel material. Evidently to save tungsten. Arrowhead designs were dropped by the Germans. The HVAP were not very effective vs. sloped armor since they would 'land' on the soft outer carrier material, typically aluminum, and destabilize. The Soviet round, with its steel 'follow-on' was unstabile even further. This design is best used against vertical armor. Actual penetrator is 27mm in diameter.

[Yoozername]

FNG: Now, given your thread title, "StuG BS discussions", one would assume that you feel the StuG has been under-modelled in games and you seek to redress this balance. Fair enough. But nowhere have you linked this in to your experiences of this game and how it differs from your hypothesis. I won't cut and paste my previous post but I'd be interested by your data from PC:W/PC:K regarding the StuG and its performance.

You are assuming something to try and set up a red herring and troll further.

[FNG]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

FNG: Now, given your thread title, "StuG BS discussions", one would assume that you feel the StuG has been under-modelled in games and you seek to redress this balance. Fair enough. But nowhere have you linked this in to your experiences of this game and how it differs from your hypothesis. I won't cut and paste my previous post but I'd be interested by your data from PC:W/PC:K regarding the StuG and its performance.

You are assuming something to try and set up a red herring and troll further.

Nope. I have merely asked you a few direct questions which you have failed to even attempt to answer. There is however a rich irony in you accusing pretty much anyone of trolling.

So do you have any response to the question about how your data compares to the game data/experience, and how the game should be updated to reflect this?

[Yoozername]

Ask Mobius. 

[Mad Russian]

I do. All the time. His is the opinion I seek when I need technical data answers.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

Part of this location represents the sponson area.

Code: Select all

    <location position="8" location="SuperS" front="8/10s12" side="3" rear="3" />
 

[Yoozername]

Does the game model side angle for the AP model?   As an example, side angle is combined with the normal slope the armor has?  A simple example is the Tiger tactic of never directly facing the mass of opponents. 
 
Side angle would also play havoc on hit locations on the odd surfaced StuG.  As an example, on a StuGIIIG that is at a side angle of only 25 deg to a firer, one of the sponsons could not even be hit. 

[junk2drive]

Sounds like Steel Beasts Pro would be your choice.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

The Soviet HVAP BR-350P
This arrow-head design 'featured' a follow-on slug of steel material. Evidently to save tungsten. Arrowhead designs were dropped by the Germans. The HVAP were not very effective vs. sloped armor since they would 'land' on the soft outer carrier material, typically aluminum, and destabilize. The Soviet round, with its steel 'follow-on' was unstabile even further. This design is best used against vertical armor. Actual penetrator is 27mm in diameter.

Data?

I understand that specifics aren't your strong suit, so Mobius is welcome to respond.

[Yoozername]

Or you can post your supposed data you claimed you researched from your model books?  Are you such a duck-in-a-shooting-gallery IRL????  LOL!

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Ask Mobius. 

Why so touchy Lewis?

You directed FNG to "ask Mobius," so why shouldn't I?

Apart from your grasp of the hidden secrets of the "green wheel," isn't he as well-informed as yourself?

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Why so touchy Lewis?

He has StuG envy, shhhh, he does not like to talk about it.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Does the game model side angle for the AP model?   As an example, side angle is combined with the normal slope the armor has?  A simple example is the Tiger tactic of never directly facing the mass of opponents. 

Side angle would also play havoc on hit locations on the odd surfaced StuG.  As an example, on a StuGIIIG that is at a side angle of only 25 deg to a firer, one of the sponsons could not even be hit. 

Yes, at the 30° mark the variable penetration goes to the deflection table. So from 30°-60° it uses this table then switches back to normal full side-on at 60°. Between 30° and 60° the side or the front can both be hit. I think it switches % chance of either at the 45° mark but was told that years ago and things might have changed with PCO as many original things in PCOWS didn't work exactly as described.

The StuG wouldn't be so lucky as it's side armor is only 3 so even doubling this gets to just 6 which is far less than its front.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

The Soviet HVAP BR-350P
This arrow-head design 'featured' a follow-on slug of steel material. Evidently to save tungsten. Arrowhead designs were dropped by the Germans. The HVAP were not very effective vs. sloped armor since they would 'land' on the soft outer carrier material, typically aluminum, and destabilize. The Soviet round, with its steel 'follow-on' was unstabile even further. This design is best used against vertical armor. Actual penetrator is 27mm in diameter.

We don't call Soviet Arrowhead 'HVAP'. We call it APCR. As we have separate penetration adjustment tables for subcaliber shot of APCR, HVAP, APDS and now APCNR.

They are slightly different. US HVAP has the most deflection on sloped armor, APDS the a little less and APCR and APCNR the least. Though these all have much more deflection than the full sized rounds.

When the game starts up and you are waiting for it to load little tip bits of info are shown the player. Some of the messages are about things like APCR and its origins.

If we were to do a modern game mod (as some suggest) we would need a variable penetration table for APFSDS. It wouldn't have much deflection as instead of a sharp nose like APDS as it has a blunt nose like APBC. I guess you could even use the APBC table in a pinch.

[Misty99]

A Stug (without concrete) in a German Army museum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzNAdL_S ... re=related