Matrix Games Forums

And like I have said...start your own CONCRETE speculation thread.  I DO have good information on that! 

Edit: I haven't said it was worthless. Prince has said it was the secret to the StuG's-Uberness. He can't, of course, prove that.

I love the shadow cast by the raised shield on the side of the gun! HA!!!! How thick does anyone think that concrete is on the sloped roof?

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Now prove it.

Can you find yourself in the photo?

I like it, almost a "Where's Waldo" image, just no Waldo.

My question is that if applying concrete was totally worthless, then why does it seem to appear with some form of regularity? I just want to know if it was not for protection of some sort, then what was it for?

It's consistently described as a form of armor for extra-protection.

Below our readers will find a photo, a likeness of which I've already posted, but this one comes from a Russian language source. The caption appears to confirm that heavy amounts of concrete were being applied above the drivers compartment as early as 1943.

Wow.  Now you are consistantly grabbing at straws.

Edit: Get it? Straws? See the pic? I guess I just wanted the 'edit-thingie' so that Uckbull can continue his strawman agenda...

And, thanks again for posting that same pic from the same unit as the others?  I DO like seeing that shadow from the vertical gun shields that shows how thin the concrete is....

edit: yup an edit..I hope the timer can recognize it as such...but I see superstructure wall...tsk tsk...

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Below our readers will find a photo, a likeness of which I've already posted, but this one comes from a Russian language source. The caption appears to confirm that heavy amounts of concrete were being applied above the drivers compartment as early as 1943.

Let us pause to compare the photo above to a drawing, sans concrete.

Perpendicular to the steel-plate the reinforcing concrete might be only 6-8 inches deep. However, through the horizontal plane, it would be considerably thicker, particularly given the convex application of the material.

Next evasion?

Oh, did you drop the 'might'?  The mighty-might word?  
 
It might actually be much, much less.  In fact, its zero at the superstructure wall.  The picture you, yourself supplied shows it!
 
So, can you or can you not find ANY doctrine or tests on this?  Why are you still stuck on the supposed 'protection' simpleton observation?  Surely you can back up the pictures from a few units with ONE battlefield report? 

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

It might actually be much, much less.  In fact, its zero at the superstructure wall.  The picture you, yourself supplied shows it!

I'm not seeing the zero-depth characteristic, Lewis. Or is this something that's going to be revealed via Wikileaks?

Oh! Look! A picture!



Those extra things must be 'protection'. Those sandbags must be protection against AP40 rounds! And rifle-grenades! And railway guns! It has to be because that 'protection' is there and those weapons were used at some time! Oh, that stuff that looks like pipes on top of the sherman is protection from butterfly bombs!

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

It might actually be much, much less.  In fact, its zero at the superstructure wall.  The picture you, yourself supplied shows it!

I'm not seeing the zero-depth characteristic, Lewis. Or is this something that's going to be revealed via Wikileaks?

Well, I believe that Mobius supplied that pic...but since you are unaware enough to post that again..yes, the superstructure wall is certainly seen in that pic!

Edit: By the way, I showed that pic to a engineer I work with. He pointed out that there appears to be a thin sheet of 'concrete' on the sponson. I looked and since the vehicle shows no zimmerit, I thought that he may be right. He thought it may have been some crude face-hardening material.

But thats conjecture. You might take up that pic with mobius who already commented on it worth? But you won't. I think everyone sees your game at this point.

The cement would do the same job and better as zimmerit.  So in that way its an improvement over track links on the superstructure.

Except that the LEAST likely place a captured magnetic mine will be placed by a un-trained enemy infantryman is on those surfaces!!! Edit: (you knew it was coming...) AND THE REST OF THE VEHICLE HAS NO ZIMMERIT!!!

Soviet captured StuGIII Fall 43

Soviet captured late 44

soviet captured late war

Sort of funny since 'Prince' led out with this pic...at least we can see the US troops now...see comment in book!!!!

http://henk.fox3000.com/achen/stugIII/06.jpg

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

And like I have said...start your own CONCRETE speculation thread.  I DO have good information on that! 

Edit: I haven't said it was worthless. Prince has said it was the secret to the StuG's-Uberness. He can't, of course, prove that.

I love the shadow cast by the raised shield on the side of the gun! HA!!!! How thick does anyone think that concrete is on the sloped roof?

And here is where the problem lies, maybe Prince has not proven his side of the arguement, but you have done little in the way of enlightening us either. My point, that you seem to be purposely avoiding is that you cannot deny the concrete's existence, you cannot deny that it seems to be quite a common practice that lasted for a couple years anyhow, I don't give a squat what the penetration factor is of some shell vs concrete that I know that you are itching to spout about. Tell us what the combined penetration is of a given round vs concrete backed by a STUG's armor. There must be something to it, I am even finding modeling kits with the concrete applications represented.
You seem to have a way with people though, as I found that you were up to the same antics back a few years. I found this while trying to find out why and what effect that the concrete application had. It does not take these guys too long to figure out your game aqand call you on it. Same name different spelling.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/ar ... 13437.html

I disagree.  It has not been proven to be a common practice.  It's sort of like saying "Pig's Heads were painted on all StuG's with cast mantlets".  Then you offer proof by posting a pic that clearly shows 3 or 4 StuGs with pigs-head drawings on the mantlet from Stugs in the same unit.  But that is the unit emblem for that unit.  The fact that someone can post SO many StuG pics from ALL theatres and Time frames in WWII that do NOT have pigs-heads is ignored by the 'pigs-head-proponent'. 

I started this thread to discuss the StuG vs. Soviet 76mm 'classic' argument that has been going on even now at Battlefront (see CMBB forum).  Again, you can start your own 'concrete' thread.  I HAVE offered speculation in THIS thread but you seem to ignore that also. 

ORIGINAL: Yoozername



I started this thread to discuss the StuG vs. Soviet 76mm 'classic' argument that has been going on even now at Battlefront (see CMBB forum).  Again, you can start your own 'concrete' thread.  I HAVE offered speculation in THIS thread but you seem to ignore that also. 

Why do you let him distract you so easily? Maybe it's the burden of being a "genius"?

That must be it.

Good Hunting.

MR

I would like to expand on the low power of the 76mm F-34 gun. This was probably the most common threat to a StuGIII 'long' during the years in question. Examine the following 'Rexford' data:

During WW II, German tank effectiveness was due in large part to the superior effectiveness of the ammunition, which is related to nose hardness considerations.
British tests against homogeneous armor at 610 m/s impact velocity, which are documented in Miles Krogfus' AFV News article, resulted in:

102mm penetration for German 75mm APCBC
90mm penetration for U.S. 76mm APCBC
75mm penetration for Russian 76mm APBC

U.S. penetration tests for Sherman 75mm indicate 89mm penetration at 610 m/s.

It's quite remarkable that this data can isolate one specific parameter, nose-hardness, and nominalize the other parameters. Given the near-equal mass of these AP rounds, and the velocity being held constant...and velocity being the squared term in the energy formula...the following statement can be made:

Even though the kinetic energy of these near-same-diameter and mass rounds is held constant, there is a glaring differential in the penetration performance against like-armor.

It's damning evidence against the soviet projectile as far as its main purpose. Note that the test is using RHA armor. Pretty standard. But the German AFV were sporting face-hardened armor at the time.

Edit: the reader should be aware that to have the velocity constant, each of these weapons would have to be at different ranges. The only thing monitored is the impact velocity at the target, in other words. So, perhaps the F-34 gun was at 200 meters...the German L48 gun was at 1000 meters or something like that.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

During WW II, German tank effectiveness was due in large part to the superior effectiveness of the ammunition, which is related to nose hardness considerations.
British tests against homogeneous armor at 610 m/s impact velocity, which are documented in Miles Krogfus' AFV News article, resulted in:

102mm penetration for German 75mm APCBC
90mm penetration for U.S. 76mm APCBC
75mm penetration for Russian 76mm APBC

U.S. penetration tests for Sherman 75mm indicate 89mm penetration at 610 m/s.

I ran comparisons using my programs on this and get a bit of a difference. I normalize my data to take in different test specs.
BTW, I didn't know the British got their hands on enough Russian APBC to do many tests.
But Miles has a huge amount of source material.

75mm/L46.pzg39..1731m..85mm
76mmM1...M62.....1791m..79mm
76mmF-34.350B....550m...74mm

17pdr....APC........1768m..100mm

I had to eyeball this off some graphs so may be a mm or so off. It does show the Soviet projectile out classed by the others.