Matrix Games Forums

Interesting late war, battle of the Bulge, German vehicle wearing US markings and bad attempt at camo to look like a US vehicle. Note, no concrete over front armor.

This rather lively discussion has clearly demonstrated how tough it is to model an AFV like the StuG III in any combat simulation.

I look forward to the release of PCO. I have both of the previous games and, it will be very nice to have the upgrade at no cost.

Thanks.

Below our readers will find an image of a Stug III.G that it's my understanding was photographed in the Fall of 1943.

BTW, there are numerous books that have been published about this family of vehicles.

They are absolutely chock-full of photos of concrete encrusted vehicles.

Two that I'd recommend are:

Sturmgeschutz 40: The Long Gun Versions by Horst Scheibert

German Sturmartillerie at War Vol. 2 by Frank V. De Sisto

And here's an earlier vehicle on the Russian front; photo is spring of 1943.

While the application of concrete is less dramatic than that from the vehicle above, it does reflect an anxiety on the part of crews regarding the survivability of their vehicles.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

And here's an earlier vehicle on the Russian front; photo is spring of 1943.

While the application of concrete is less dramatic than that from the vehicle above, it does reflect an anxiety on the part of crews regarding the survivability of their vehicles.

Hey, that looks like one of Ratzki's pavers.[:D]

BEFORE he shot it!  [X(]

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Hey, that looks like one of Ratzki's pavers.[:D]

Yeah, the application is almost too clean. In fact, it looks as though it might have been applied at the factory. That seems implausible, however, because your post from yesterday made it sound as though the upper echelons were rather circumspect about the practice. And of course, the concrete is awfully thin in that example.

BTW, it hasn't been easy to document this. Finding the images via Google is easy enough, and yielded upwards of sixty results which found their way to my desktop. But, then I had to match them to one of my books. THAT has proven to be somewhat tedious. In order to get posted to this thread, the photo has to include a caption that describes the material as concrete.

Regrettably, the captions rarely include dates. I'm still looking though, and will post additional images as I'm able to verify their relevance and authenticity.

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.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

And here's an earlier vehicle on the Russian front; photo is spring of 1943.

While the application of concrete is less dramatic than that from the vehicle above, it does reflect an anxiety on the part of crews regarding the survivability of their vehicles.

So...it's not slathered


And so any concrete...however its on a vehicle....supports your theory that CONCRETE made the StuGs superior? How do you explain that it was discontinued?

Pass in Review! No Slatherings...No slatherings...No chocks of slatherings!

1943

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Hey, that looks like one of Ratzki's pavers.[:D]

Yeah, the application is almost too clean. In fact, it looks as though it might have been applied at the factory. That seems implausible, however, because your post from yesterday made it sound as though the upper echelons were rather circumspect about the practice. And of course, the concrete is awfully thin in that example.

It seemed to me that some factory had started to apply concrete. That touched off the concern by those in charge and prompted the test. Which resulted in the orders to halt applying any more concrete at the factory.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

It seemed to me that some factory had started to apply concrete. That touched off the concern by those in charge and prompted the test. Which resulted in the orders to halt applying any more concrete at the factory.

I had actually considered something along these lines when you posted that passage. However, 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.

BTW, I enjoy your scholarly approach to these matters. You participation adds an immense amount of credibility to Panzer Command.

The massive applications are much, much rarer....

Edit: You have yet to prove concrete was for antitank rounds. So please clear up one speculation before developing it into another speculation.

I have come across a couple of references that state the F8 had a different superstructure than the F. the F was really just the E superstructure.

http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/pictures_StuG_III_Ausf_F8_10-ZW.html

So, it was actually similar to the G and I think that F8 pictures need to be examined closely before accepting the 'putty-prince' application.