StuG BS discussions

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Are you saying that it isn't featured very much in the game and it does not deserve proper modeling? 

Why would anyone say that? It is just not the most important vehicle in the game. It doesn't deserve anymore or any less attention than dozens of other vehicles. Every one should have proper modelling.

[Yoozername]

I am speaking from a time/resources perspective.  But in any case, difficult analysis is, by nature, not as easy as 'givens'.  The StuG requires above average analysis.

I would not say that it was something like 10 times more important that a KV-2. Even though its production numbers far out weighed that and its actual combat hours might be 10-20 times that?

[Yoozername]

I think I have certainly demonstrated some strengths regarding the internals and externals of the StuGIIIG.  Strengths
There is spaced armor.  The sponsons are definitely spaced armor.  There is also spaced armor protection on the 'boxed' mantlet.  The overlapping armor protection has not been appreciated or modeled.  Also, the steeply sloped 'roor' armor on the front of the vehicle (over the driver and ammo) has SOME overlap with the superstructure.

There may have been increase in superstructure armor.  My thought is when the 'loaders' sider 'vertical' armor was solid 80mm. This would be a substantial increase in protection given the above mentioned overlapping armor issues.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I think I have certainly demonstrated some strengths regarding the internals and externals of the StuGIIIG.  Strengths

Wrong again, Lewis, Mr.Tittles, Username and your other sock-puppets...

When this outdated design proved incapable of surviving close-range armor penetration as an infantry support vehicle, the German army turned to as crude a make-shift solution as can be imagined:

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531033/53103301.jpg

Yet again, our readers can witness, via the link above, the massive application of concrete to the areas that you've repeatedly made reference to as being a strength of the type. Were this the case, no cement/aggregate composite material would have been applied to the vehicle in question.

BTW, have you ever played Panzer Command: Kharkov?

[Mobius]

The concrete adds to the protection. It need not just be against frontal attack. That 30mm armor on some frontal areas might not be so good if hit while the StuG is going down a slope or hit from above.
As for concrete. It depends on the concrete. As backing to armor it is only 4% as good as armor vs heavy shells. But reinforced concrete can be a lot better vs. smaller shells like the 45mm-76mm size. (Though I don't know if that could be considered to be reinforced concrete.)

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

The concrete adds to the protection.

I understand the limitations of the concrete, but even if the 4% figure is correct, it's going to have an impact. In observing the vehicle that I linked I our readers to directly above, it would appear that the material would have a depth of at least 600mm through parts of the horizontal plane. That would constitute the equivalent of 24mm of steel, about an inch.

It need not just be against frontal attack. That 30mm armor on some frontal areas might not be so good if hit while the StuG is going down a slope or hit from above.

The material was also applied to the roof, although certainly not in the truly copious amounts as that depicted in the vehicle at the Andrea site. BTW, I'd encourage our readers to visit the website and check out the other examples of Stug that are cataloged there, including several other vehicles with obvious applications of concrete.

As for concrete. It depends on the concrete. As backing to armor it is only 4% as good as armor vs heavy shells. But reinforced concrete can be a lot better vs. smaller shells like the 45mm-76mm size. (Though I don't know if that could be considered to be reinforced concrete.)

I've tried not to drift into hypotheticals in my exposition here. While I believe that's if fair to assume that the Germans would have done everything possible to reinforce the concrete with other materials, I can't prove it so, I'll leave it at that. Were you aware of the fact that Axis forces hung logs on the side to superstructure in order to limit the effectiveness of smaller-caliber weapons?

[Mad Russian]

Logs, track links, road wheels, ANYTHING to help boost the armour of the vehicle.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
I understand the limitations of the concrete, but even if the 4% figure is correct, it's going to have an impact. In observing the vehicle that I linked I our readers to directly above, it would appear that the material would have a depth of at least 600mm through parts of the horizontal plane. That would constitute the equivalent of 24mm of steel, about an inch.

I have a second hand source that gives the reinforced concrete penetration of the 75mm Pak 50 at 1000m as 181mm. In the same table the armor penetration is 121mm at the same range. That penetration value is the US Aberdeen test value. I don't know where the concrete penetration comes from though. I've never seen a reinforced concrete penetration table with such numbers. So I'm hesitant on accepting it as there is a mild steel penetration of 314mm. Hard to say how mild steel gives less protection than concrete.

[Lieste]

I think I have the same source. I agree that it looks like an error somewhere - 121mm RHAe, 181mm Mild Steel, 314mm Concrete seems more in keeping with other resistance estimates I have.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I think I have certainly demonstrated some strengths regarding the internals and externals of the StuGIIIG.  Strengths

Wrong again, Lewis, Mr.Tittles, Username and your other sock-puppets...

When this outdated design proved incapable of surviving close-range armor penetration as an infantry support vehicle, the German army turned to as crude a make-shift solution as can be imagined:

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531033/53103301.jpg

Yet again, our readers can witness, via the link above, the massive application of concrete to the areas that you've repeatedly made reference to as being a strength of the type. Were this the case, no cement/aggregate composite material would have been applied to the vehicle in question.

You really need to develop logic skills since you can not follow threads and support your claims.

BTW, have you ever played Panzer Command: Kharkov?

Our readers can witness that you make claims about the German use of concrete and then post pics of US troops using a concreted vehcile. Now you post a pic of another non-German used vehicle.? That is obviously a Finnish vehicle!

The fact is that concrete is rarely seen on German used StuGs during the time period this thread is discussing. In case you have completely lost track of the discussion going on, I will reiterate, it concerns Soviet 76mm vs. StuGIIIG's. I have reviewed hundreds of StuGIIIG photos and your outlandish claim about them being slathered in concrete is just plain false.

I suggest that anyone can also read that the Finnish use of concrete appears during the summer of 44.

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
I understand the limitations of the concrete, but even if the 4% figure is correct, it's going to have an impact. In observing the vehicle that I linked I our readers to directly above, it would appear that the material would have a depth of at least 600mm through parts of the horizontal plane. That would constitute the equivalent of 24mm of steel, about an inch.

I have a second hand source that gives the reinforced concrete penetration of the 75mm Pak 50 at 1000m as 181mm. In the same table the armor penetration is 121mm at the same range. That penetration value is the US Aberdeen test value. I don't know where the concrete penetration comes from though. I've never seen a reinforced concrete penetration table with such numbers. So I'm hesitant on accepting it as there is a mild steel penetration of 314mm. Hard to say how mild steel gives less protection than concrete.

I would think that the projectile hitting steel would pretty much move straight through once it was able to get a bite and dig in, whereas concrete would have portions that are not consistent with other portions in the same pour. Aggregate and hardness might make channels that the projectile would tend to follow, would this not peel off energy as well as maybe make the pojectile more prone to tip one way or the other which might peel off more energy again. Plus the concrete might give somewhat and this recoil type effect might peel off even more energy from the incomming shell. Just a couple thoughts, probably way off though. I am taking my Mosin-Nagant into the bush to fire off a few rounds in the next couple days, I have a couple concrete pavers that are 1 inch thick, will take a couple shots at them and recover the bullet, and see what happens. Will try a couple different angles with the pavers just to see what happens. I know it is not scientific or anything, but am now rather curious.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki
I am taking my Mosin-Nagant into the bush to fire off a few rounds in the next couple days, I have a couple concrete pavers that are 1 inch thick, will take a couple shots at them and recover the bullet, and see what happens. Will try a couple different angles with the pavers just to see what happens. I know it is not scientific or anything, but am now rather curious.

Mosin-Nagant MV=2789fps? At 50m should be 2651 fps. 100m = 2517fps.

[Yoozername]

The Finns removed the concrete from the StuGs after the war.
 
 

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

The Finns removed the concrete from the StuGs after the war.

Yip, yip, yip Lewis.[8|]

Jesus, I feel like I have some misbegotten, adolescent-mut humping my leg.

Do you think that the USA captured that "starp-spangled" vehicle from the Finns?

Look back through the contemporaneous JPG that I've posted you pitiful, monotonous dolt.

And if there's a less extensive supply of extant photos from contemporary German museums, it's because there's no German facility that's equivalent to that which is found in Finland.

A German facility and exhibits, with concrete applique, or without, simply doesn't exist.

Look it up, MR TITTLES.

Do a little research, rather than falling back on your yappy-***** routine.

If you can't afford a book or two, simply do a web-search for the details.

One way or the other, get a grip and stop wasting our reader's time with your "genius-in-residence" (snark, snark, snark) nonsense.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Will try a couple different angles with the pavers just to see what happens. I know it is not scientific or anything, but am now rather curious.

Hiya Ratzki,

From a commercial and homeowners standpoint, I'm truly fortunate in that I live within a few miles of an outfit called "Texas Crushed Stone." They provide all manner of limestone to a fifty-seven county area in central Texas. That said, I've had a pretty good look at their "pavers" which run about two inches in depth. With those as a guide, I have to advise you, that the darn things are 100% pigmented cement. Drop one on a hard surface, and it will simply shatter. Hopefully, your "pavers" are more substantial that those from TCS.

[Ratzki]

I have some left over self poured in place 1" pavers at 4:1 navy jack:portland cement. Been sitting in a pile beside the house. I have been working up some hunting test loads for the mosin-nagant and am off to see how accurate they are more then anything else. My Tula built 1940 straight bolt rifle shoots pretty good for a military rifle, so have been trying to work up a good load to get in a black bear hunt with it in the spring. Here in southern British Columbia, I live in some of the highest black bear densities on the continent. Just have a hankerin' to put the rifle through it's paces and take a nice bear with it.
Mobius, I am looking at 180gr bullet at around 2400 fps. I am not a real believer in the "faster is better" theory. I understand that you can get a 150gr bullet up to 2970 fps, and a Finn buddy of mine says that it should be able to break the 3000 fps with the right powder and bullet. Anyhow, I will have to see if the weather is gonna be good enough to take the chrono with me; it is supposed to snow here over the next couple of days, and I am not too interested in lugging a bunch of junk through the snow, just hoping the snow will hold off a little so that it will be a pleasant day. As for penetration, I know a 30-06 will go through a '48 Willys brake drum at just over 50m and will put about a 3/4 deep gouge in a 2" piece of flat steel I picked up along side the railroad tracks. Seeing as how the -06 and the 7.62x54R are very similar balistically, I would expect the same results.

[Mad Russian]

Where exactly are you going to be hunting black bear?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Yoozername]

Prince

You initially posted a late war photo of a concreted StuGIIIG that has been captured by US Forces.  If you had posted the full picture, it would show US Servicemen on top of the vehicle and that one had a captured MP44.  You somehow claim that concrete was the Germans secret 'armor' for the StuG.  You have disregarded that the thread was started to discuss the Soviet 76mm ammunition and the StuG's armor.  Please explain how the captured StuG used on the Western Front has anything to do with the discussion at hand?  Are you claiming that the Germans are using captured Soviet 76mm weapons against this captured StuG???   Can you prove that haphazard concrete was put on the vehicle by Germans and not by the capturing US Forces (who used concrete on vehicles)?

You then posted late war photos of German vehicles and claim that supports your argument somehow.  Again, the initial post in this thread clearly states the issue at hand is Soviet 76mm ammunition.   The time period being discussed is 1942-1944 (early).  The vast amount of photographic evidence does not support your 'slathering' claim.  Most vehciles during this time period do not show concrete.  In fact, many 1944 photos do not support your 'slathering' thesis.

You post pics of Finnish StuGs and make claims they are German.  again, you can not stay on topic nor even understand the mistake you have made. The concreted StuGs were created in mid 44 by the way. Can you prove the concrete was helpful against the weapons they faced? You are just losing face as far as being knowledgable in the matter at hand and staying on topic period.

It seems you are now trying to cover up your ineptitude with further trolling, name calling and large words. 

[Yoozername]

'7000 Km. in a Sturmgeshuetz'  The wartime diaries and photo album of Knight's Cross recipient Heinrich Engel

Early war to October 10th 1943.  This time period is typical of facing Soviet 76mm 'A' rounds.

Photographic evidence shows no concrete used on either the short barreled or StuGIIIG (box mantlet, 50+30 visor and loaders side).  Tracks are not used on upper superstructure area either.  Sandbags are not used either.  Tracks are stowed across lower front hull sometimes.

[Yoozername]

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/axiscaptured/axiscaptured_SPG_photo.htm
 
No slatherings on these Soviet StuG vehicles.