StuG BS discussions

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

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.

Respectfully, if you research this, I think that you'll find that the concrete that's been built-up on those two locations is consistently described as a form of applique armor.

[Yoozername]

This StuGIIIG pic suggests winter 43/44. No slatherings I see. Perhaps the pics Prince has seen are all later war slatherings?

[Yoozername]

I still have no idea what the intent of Prince's first 'CONCRETE' post.  Is he insinuating that concrete armor was the secret to the StuG's success?  Is he implying that concrete is proof that StuG's are vulnerable to 76mm F-34 rounds?  What exactly is his argument? 

This is very much like dealing with women that think other people can read thier minds....

[Yoozername]

battle of Cassino, early 1944

[Yoozername]

Nice close up. Note the greeness....

http://image55.webshots.com/155/8/72/36 ... lXv_fs.jpg

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Note the greeness....

I don't think that "greeness" is a word, lewis.

Or is this somehow related to the "green handwheel" that you made reference to up the thread?

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
I still have no idea what the intent of Prince's first 'CONCRETE' post.  Is he insinuating that concrete armor was the secret to the StuG's success?  Is he implying that concrete is proof that StuG's are vulnerable to 76mm F-34 rounds?  What exactly is his argument? 

I didn't see a reference to 76mm F-34 rounds. Maybe it was defense to 85mm rounds?

[Yoozername]

I suppose its just an ad hominem attack by Prince along the lines of 'you don't know what everyone knows..'.  I am still waiting for his explanation of how late war concreted vehicles, including one that appears to have been concreted by US troops, has much to do with the StuG vs. T34 debate.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I have seen such God-Awful BS discussions regarding the StuGIII over the years that its just tiresome. I would like to finally shut up both sides and hopefully get some realism in a game that handles these weapons.

Obviously the 'CM' crowd at BF is just spinning wheels.

The whiners at CM 'GAMESQUAT' can't do anything but rehash whinerages.

I think a fresh look at the issue of the StuGIIIG vs. Soviet 76mm ammunition is a discourse that needs settling.

I hate quoting myself also. This is the first post in this thread that is un-edited.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I think a fresh look at the issue of the StuGIIIG vs. Soviet 76mm ammunition is a discourse that needs settling.

I hate quoting myself also. This is the first post in this thread that is un-edited.

So F-22, F-32, F-34 and ZiS-3 are in. And BR-350A, BR-350B and BR-350P are in as well? But No 85mm ZiS-S-53?

[Yoozername]

Sounds about right to me.  The big StuG debate, in CMBB is the over-modeling of the armor.  Since PCO has more 'granularity' on hit location, it is certainly worth discussing how the various parts of the vehicle are armored and the effects they may have. 

And just so I am clear, the StuG has weaknesses as well as very strong armor combinations. Like any vehicle that hung around in WWII production, it had its heyday and its decline.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Now, I understand. You've haven't been describing a "late-model" Stug.III, but rather, the "Bob Fleming" vehicle:"

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531016/ps531016.html

What total tripe Lewis.[8|]

Is your sole intent to simply confuse your readers, or is this the continuation of your Jabberywocky/Snark routine by other means?

I really think you are confused. Read what the link, that you provided, has to say:

The StuG is restored to the original German colour-scheme and the condition it was in when arriving in Finland in 1943. Well, except for the gun's travel lock, which in this particular case is a Finnish post-war addition, and the Schürzen brackets ("teeth") that are of a later model than the ones originally attached to this StuG.

So this is a 1943 StuGIIIG. I fail to see what point you are making here?

[Yoozername]

Check out the instructions and drawings available on this website for a detailed StuG interior...
 
http://www.cmkkits.com/en/detail-sets-accessories/stug-iii-interior-set/

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

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.

Also note the U shaped brackets (there are four of them, two below not visable in pic) that attaches the mantlet to the StuK40 gun. I saw these in the model instructions posted above. These could possibly serve as a device that allows some amount of 'sprung' armored mass. It appears the mass of the mantlet, which includes that cylindrical barrel protector, front 50mm shield and back 50mm shield are hung by these brackets.

This pic shows the mounting points...

[Yoozername]

late model StuGIIIG cast mantlet, compare cast mantlet to superstructure thickness. Note thickness of the 'inverted-U' top bar that connects one side of the superstructure to the other along the top of the vehicle. Note overlap of mantlet and superstructure itself.

[Yoozername]

Excellent shot of the ammunition area. Note that superstructure wall extends to sponson. The superstructure wall above the ammunition itself has the steeply sloping 'roof' armor in front of it. So there is some overlap between the steeply sloped armor and the superstructure itself.



Same vehicle outside shot. If you blow this up (I am using microsoft picture manager), you can see a hit and ricochet off the right 'steeply-sloped-roff' armor over the driver's compartmnent. Possibly a 76mm class weapon?

[Mobius]

There aren't a lot of scenarios featuring the StuG G in PCO. Maybe its important to some other game with ladders and contests.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Lewis,

What you've posted below is a copyrighted image (as indicated by the water-mark).

After you edit it out, I'll remove my link to it as well.

As members in good standing of the forum, it's incumbent on us to respect the legal position of our host, Matrix Games.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

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.

Also note the U shaped brackets (there are four of them, two below not visable in pic) that attaches the mantlet to the StuK40 gun. I saw these in the model instructions posted above. These could possibly serve as a device that allows some amount of 'sprung' armored mass. It appears the mass of the mantlet, which includes that cylindrical barrel protector, front 50mm shield and back 50mm shield are hung by these brackets.

This pic shows the mounting points...

Edit: Removed the quote-link to a copyrighted photograph that was illegally posted to the forum. In the absence of effective moderation of the group, there was nothing else that I could do to set things right.

[Yoozername]

Troll of Eckmule

I have asked permission.  But nice try.

Mobius

I don't understand your comment regarding the StuG IIIG in the game?  Are you saying that it isn't featured very much in the game and it does not deserve proper modeling?  The StuGIIIG was easily one of the top stars of the Eastern Front in WWII.  It was used in Sturmartillerie units, panzer units and attached to infantry divisions themselves.  Its a fair statement that the Soviets thought that it was 'featured'.

Care to share how it IS modeled as far as centimeter rounded off numbers and hit locations?

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

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.

Respectfully, if you research this, I think that you'll find that the concrete that's been built-up on those two locations is consistently described as a form of applique armor.

So its armor, then? Armor against what? And how effective. I suggest that you start researching and posting up some data to back up your guess-work.

Photograhic evidence, that can be dated to time periods during WWII, shows that your outlandish CONCRETE claims are misguided. Please don't just look at pictures and post knee-jerk speculations.

Thanks