StuG BS discussions

[Yoozername]

The German Sturmgeschutze in World war II
1939-1945
A Photo Chronicle
 
There is not one F or F8 StuGIII that shows any 'puttying' like that line drawing shows.  I suppose that drawings are the basis of your arguments?

[Yoozername]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

The German Sturmgeschutze in World war II
1939-1945
A Photo Chronicle

There is not one F or F8 StuGIII that shows any 'puttying' like that line drawing shows.  I suppose that drawings are the basis of your arguments?

I'd prefer to wait on a call from Mobius, as he actually knows what he's talking about. But, it's clearly not a "late-model" Stug III.

Pretty, scary huh?

BTW, as of a few minutes ago, you had edited at least 38 messages in this thread?

Can you post a quick count on me?[:D]

[Yoozername]

[Yoozername]

I guess real StuGIIIF units didn't get your 'line-drawing' memo!!!!

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I guess real StuGIIIF units didn't get your 'line-drawing' memo!!!!

For our readers, let me post a link to a beautifully modeled Stug III.F.

I know that it doesn't "prove" anything, but I think that you'll enjoy the workmanship:

http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2000/st3fGbg.html

[Yoozername]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Is that supposed to be a Stug III or your bulldozer that Dorosh alluded to?

[Yoozername]

I think my WWII pics trump your drawings and scale models. But I like how you think you have an actual argument.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Let me post an image of a Stug III.F below.

Can anyone date the uniforms for our readers?

My, but I do love researching armored vehicles!

[Yoozername]

If you loved it so much you would know the F and G had different superstructures. You might inspect the rear StuG. But the exception is the rule huh?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

If you loved it so much you would know the F and G had different superstructures. You might inspect the rear StuG.

Lewis, you little devil, you're editing your posts again![:-]

[Yoozername]

That's correct.  And...what about it?  Please explain your trolling?  It can't help the fact that your argument says that concrete was the StuG's real strength.  You can't win since photographic evidence does not support you.  But...maybe that's why you are trolling!
< Message edited by Yoozername -- 12/21/2010 1:10:50 AM >

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Okay, let's make a direct match of the drawing above to a photo of Stug III.F.

The application of concrete is modest in this early war photo, but IMO this proves that Russian anti-tank was already a threat to the vaunted Stug!

[Prince of Eckmühl]

For our readers...

Break time.

I'll return as needed.[8D]

[Yoozername]

Glad you have finally made a statement.  But it's wrong since the StuGIIIF and StuGIIIG had different armoring angle on the steeply sloped front surfaces.

Now prove the concrete did anything.  Answer why there are StuGIIIF photos without concrete.  So your 'slathering' argument now includes ANY concrete whatsoever?

I hope you know the short runs of those vehicles.  The StuGIIIG was the predominant StuG from 1942 on.

[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.

[Yoozername]

I think IF you, or anyone goes back and looks in this thread, I suggested that a different thread be started to discuss concrete.
&nbsp;
The fact that StuGIIIG vehicles did not use concrete for the period of time stated in the beginning of THIS thread (again, see first post ) can not be re-iterated enough.&nbsp; The false claim that ALL StuG vehicles were using concrete can only be attributed to Prince.&nbsp; His argument has petered out but I am sure he will be back to troll some more.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
If you would want to start your own thread and present your findings there regarding using soft point bullets to model hardened WWII armor piercing ammunition, perhaps that would reduce the static level in THIS thread.&nbsp; I promise you I won't post in it.&nbsp; I have found a very good paper that does use testing with hardened projectiles.
&nbsp;
By the way, using the cardboard as you did is called a 'witness board'.&nbsp;

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Prince, what are you even trolling about?  Do you have some point you are trying to make?

More so than any other vehicle that I'm aware of, these things were slathered in concrete. I doubt that this is modeled in PzC (or any other game). That doesn't particularly trouble me. The FACT that crews went to such lengths to protect these vehicles will likely surprise none of our readers, excepting yourself of course. Then again, I don't find myself driven to speculate on the arcane when dealing with the obvious:

I believe this is the post where the fallacy by exaggeration argument starts. Note the Ad Hominem style of post.

The fact that the majority of StuGIII vehicles do not show 'slathering' of concrete during the time period stated in the first post of this thread can probably be attributed to the German policy that Mobius has already uncovered.

[Yoozername]

Nice F version shot without concrete. This shows the extreme roof angle over the driver and the exposed 50mm superstrure that is not seen on a G model.