Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Forged Steels?  Do you mean Rolled Homogenous Armor?

Maybe be means CONCRETE:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

For some reason the angled armor is over rated in engineering formulas vs actual tests.

Concrete perhaps?

No shortage of it on this one:

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

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:

Maybe you need to start a new topic regarding your observations on concrete?

This thread is mainly concerned with the T34/76mm vs. StuG debate.

Nice shot showing the overlapping armor even on a box mantlet...

Note that there appears to be overlap from the front piece of the mantlet and the rear large piece. There is also overlap between this structure and the vehicles superstructure.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Note the green handwheel for the gun.

Why is the green handwheel noteworthy?

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
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).

Armor steel to cement value is 25 to 1. 25 inches of cement equal 1 inch of armor value. So they have to slather on a lot to make it worth while.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


Why is the green handwheel noteworthy?

Why is the concrete slathered?

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Why is the concrete slathered?

I always hate to quote myself as it seems so immodest, but this comes from #44 directly above:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

More so than any other vehicle that I'm aware of, these things were slathered in concrete.[...}The FACT that crews went to such lengths to protect these vehicles will likely surprise none of our readers, excepting yourself of course.

I suspect that our other readers understood those comments completely.

On the other hand, you asked your readers to make note of "the green handwheel," but never explained why it was noteworthy.

My, but you certainly do struggle with matters of substance, lewis.

And look lewis, you can even buy after-market "simulated concrete" to glue to your models:

You still haven't explained why the concrete was slathered.  If it has something to do with soviet 76mm AP rounds, please share that with us.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
You still haven't explained why the concrete was slathered. 

It is one of the ways to apply concrete. It doesn't look like they had a form which they filled with concrete so they have to apply it on in layers.

I am not questioning how but why.  He seems to infer something everyone knows. 

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

If it has something to do with soviet 76mm AP rounds, please share that with us.

I've addressed that twice, already.[8D]

If you'd spend more time studying these vehicles, and less time watching "Sarah Palin's Alaska," no one would have to lead you around by the saukopf.

And look, here's more concrete:

You have not addressed it at all.  You claim that concrete makes the StuGs 'protection' better?  Better from what?  Mobius has already pointed out the dubious nature of the concrete from protecting against AP fire. 

I can easily find many more pics without 'slatherings'. This one from July 1943. Which is a time frame that this discussion is about.\

Karkov Mar 43

I'm certainly not an expert on the StuG or armour plate, but the use of anything and everything to upgrade the value of the vehicles armour plate by the crew is documented in thousands of photographs.

Everything from bolted on plates, to sand bags, to extra track links, to anything else the vehicle crew thought might help. If a concrete filler stopped a single shell from penetrating then the crew was successful in their attempts to upgrade their vehicle. No matter how little the added bits and pieces actually added to the protection value of the vehicle. There would be no way of knowing under combat conditions if anything helped or not. Only testing site results would tell you actual benefits gained.

So, in the end it may well only have been crew morale that was actually impacted with all the field expedients added.

However, in this case, I think the concrete was being used as a poor mans zimmerit and not an attempt to upgrade the armour plate.



Good Hunting.

MR

One of the things the concrete does if fill the gap above the slanted front plate to the roof. Thus protecting the vertical front armor, even though it may be 80mm. This must of caught ricochets off the slant. So concrete on the slant would ward off this. It would be over a foot lengthwise so that would be a 1/2" worth of extra armor protection. It might degrade HE shell hits too by being blown off absorbing the energy.