Mr. Tittles

This pic shows a StuG w/saukopf mantlet and the gun raised very high. Notice that the back of the mantlet has a vertical piece just like the early mantlet does on a StuG B. The reality might be that all StuGs had 'double-protection' where the flat mantlet piece overlaps the fighting compartment wall (50mm+50mm). According to reports, the mantlet was face hardened (not the cast pigs head though). Even the G version with 'box' mantlet may be better armored than many think. Its a complicated layout of armor on the vehicle, and it is such an important axis weapon, and deserves proper modeling.

The lighting here clearly shows that there would be a path to the very back armor behind the gun (50mm) on these box mantlet StuGs. Its a small area but still a weakness. Edit: That area is actually part of the mantlet! Behind it is the front fighting coompartment wall (also 50mm). The main potential weakness would be the front of the mantlet box. Behind it may be the gun itself and a path to the interior. The pigs head mantlet would eliminate this weakness. [ September 29, 2004, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Well how about a Let-you-all-in-on-the-ground-floor statement? Or would that have too much of an impact on the fragile creative process?

I would certainly agree that guns alignment would be thrown off and traversing and elevation gears damaged also. This also damages the counter balance mechanism. Guns can be thrown off trunnions too. Just driving around a long barrelled gun messes up the alignment. Fine gear systems do not like to be back driven (moving gun barrel starts to reverse the gears). The early StuG mantlet appears to be held on with U shaped brackets that look as if they are designed to give somewhat.

This shows the later L48 box mantlet. Is there actually another mantlet behind the front armor of this box also?

The early StuG shows that the gun mantlet shield overlaps another plate behind it which is also 50mm. Note that the gun mantlet is inset and sits behind the front driver plate armor.

Hold the presses. The StuG investigation by the Military Gollege (Chobham) has an excellent cutaway drawing of a early StuG. The mantlet, like most mantlets, covers an already armored area in most cases. So the Box mantlet is not THAT weak. It would still have issues like a shot trap around it, etc. I like the 'panther-weak-area' idea.

GERMAN RESEARCH WORLD WAR II LESLIE E. SIMON Major General, Ordnance Department U.S. Army, Retired Former Director, the Ballistic Research Laboratories A third service of research consisted of advising development people in the more technical phases of problems. For example, when the Army Ordnance Office decided to adopt the air forces' 8.8-cm flak gun for a tank gun they found that dispersion was enormous. It was not until the tank adaptation was tried in the high-altitude firing range at LFA that the reason for the dispersion was discovered. It was found that the development people had added a muzzle brake without making allowance for initial yaw of the projectile, and that the rotating band of the projectile was striking the muzzle brake. I would assume that the Germans then developed a AP round for the 88mm KWK that would not yaw. [ September 27, 2004, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The developers are clearly taking a top down approach since they have started with the moon and the stars and such.

210mm Nb.W. 42 ~1500 produced 150mm Nb.W. 41 ~5800 produced These were the predominant type it seems. They were probably easily repaired once damaged and could probably still be used with limited damage anyway.

Sights A most important component of an anti-tank gun is its sight, a 'sighting telescope' in British terminology. With the exception of the 25-pdr which also had a telescope, field and medium guns would engage tanks using their normal dial sight. In poor light or when the target couldn't be seen through an optical sight then an open sight (basically the same sort of thing as a rifle sight) was used. Range was set using a range drum that was part of the sight mount. This range drum 'clicked' when changed so that the layer could change the range by feel without removing his eye from the telescope. The graduations on this range drum determined the maximum possible anti-tank range, longer range indirect fire was possible but required a field clinometer to lay in elevation according to the data in the Range Tables. 6-pdr - initially had a 900 yard range drum, subsequently modified to 1200 yards. 17-pdr - from early 1944 3000 yard range drum, 1 click 100 yards to 1500 yards, 50 yards over 1500 yards. The normal pattern for anti-tank telescopes was 'cross-hairs' their full height and width and vertical graticules aligned in a horizontal row that measured an angle (usually graduated at 30 second intervals). These marks were on a movable diaphragm in the sight that could be adjusted as part of the sight testing and zeroing procedures. Early model telescopes such as the No 22C used with 6-pdr and 25-pdr had a ×1 magnification and 21 degree field of view and that for 17-pdr initially had ×1.9 but popular demand led to greater magnification. In late 1943 the No 51 with ×3 magnification became available for 17-pdr. The issue was that magnification reduced the field of view, making it more difficult for the layer to acquire the target, particularly at shorter ranges. Later model telescopes also had graticules that could be illuminated for night shooting. An added complication was that British drills required the layer to keep layed on the target when firing, this meant a sight that wouldn't cause damage if the gun moved suddenly back when firing - black eyes were common among layers newly converted from 2-pdr to 6-pdr. Guns were fitted with an open sight for use in conditions here visibility was poor. These comprised an open forsight blade and rear 'aperture that were part of the sighting telescope mount with the range drum. The rear aperture could be set with lead using lead drum with 'clicks' in the same manner as the range drum http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/anti-tank.htm#Sights

I think a mission statement about the game (or a Combat Mission statement..) from the developers could certainly show the path for what to expect (and what to suggest). A general statement about scope, scale, etc. would help. PS: Remember, a proper Mission Statemnt must contain at least two run-on sentances.

The Tiger Fibel should take a back seat in light of recent discussions. Reports from the battlefield will show the real methods of use of weapons. Troops will quickly ascertain the best methods under battle conditions driven by the best motivater; that is, saving ones own life and winning. I think the whole German text book method of antitank shooting is suspect. The need to do those silly calcs for the needed added range (half the target height times..etc) would not last under battle conditions. If there was a faster/better way, it would certainly be used. When attacking and entering new terrain that has not been 'ranged', a quick and dirty method like keeping a set range and varying the aim point leads to very fast response from the attacker on quickly ID'd targets that present themselves (AT guns, MGs, TANKS/SPs). The Tiger Fibel discourse about the gang-range estimation effort seems highly suspect and not very practical under most battefield situations. Other Fibel 'data' needs to be weighed against battlefield reports also.

A. There was a range plate and a sighting plate B. The range plate had the main armament scale marked around the outside amd rotated about its own axis C. The sighting plate, which contained the triangles, moved up and down D. Both plates turned together E. To select a range the range wheel was turned until the marker was opposite the correct range F. Then the sighting mark was laid on the target using an elevating wheel and traverse That's how Forty describes the process (page 103). And this backs up what I am saying. You set the range, then aim at the bottom. If you reverse the order, then the triangle will move off the aim point since they 'turn' together. I read that British sights had the range scale outside the sight itself. The gunner had to go by feel of clicks. He would set the sight at a range and when the gun commander called out corrections, he would mentally count clicks to get the new range. If he lost count, he had to switch his eye from looking through the sight to looking on the outside of the sight itself. Vastly inferior to German sights which had a readable scale in the gunners vision superimposed.

These units did sustain heavy losses as they were required to be close to the front line so as to give support to the infantry. As an example the 51st Regiment which had been one of the first Nebelwerfer regiments to be formed was destroyed 3 times in little over a year. During a 5 month time span between July and December 1943 the 51st Regiment fired 68,344 HE rounds of 15 cm calibre and 8,325 of 21 cm. The targets had been 43 tank groupings , 342 forming up areas , 145 Soviet Infantry assaults and 42 enemy gun positions. The average target gets about 100+ rounds typically. The average missions were 3.8 a day or so. The majority target type is really a non-CM type target. That is, its a forming up area or a tank grouping or a gun position. They are more akin to airpower than indirect firepower for front line troops. [ September 26, 2004, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I challenge anyone to find a pic of a StuG III's steeply sloped upper armor being penetrated. I have never seen one. Steeply sloped armor is very hard to penetrate.

75mm Pak 40 Pzgr 39 ===================== 0-200m (0-200) 0-400m (0-400) 0-600m (0-600) 0-800m (0-800) 620-1000m (750-1000)* 1020-1200m (1020-1200) 1240-1400m (1260-1400) 1360-1500m (1375-1500) This data shows that using a true battlesight technique was not preferable. It would lead to hits along the very top or bottom (or misses) when better results could be obtained. Notice that hits could be achieved at 0-800m (zone 4 lets say), but if the target was truly closer, and could be 'ranged' as such, then one of the closer 'zones (0-200m or 0-400m) would be used. This may be because the Germans were aware of the scatter and the goal of focusing as much probability towards the center of the target mass is being investigated. Just to be clear, the parenths denote a 75mm KWK firing a 39 (APCBC) projectile? This would seem to indicate that PAK 40 and KWK had different velocities? [ September 24, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The StuG is a self propelled gun in that the gun is actually mounted to the floor of the chassis like a naval weapon is mounted to a ship deck. That armored box mantlet or even the pigs head mantlet does not cradle the weapon. The Hetzer of Jagdpanzer IV or Jagdpanther give a much better armor envelope. The gun is actually mounted to the front armor. A gun hit on the mantlet of a StuG would actually throw the weapons zero off even if it did not penetrate. The use of tracks as armor and its protection level is not very well understood. The Germans certainly used concrete and tracks (even T34 tracks) as protection. They must have felt it was worth it and I would be surprised if it did not offer some protection. The very steeply sloped upper armor may have offered good skip protection. I have not seen any pics of this armor penetrated.

I would like to test a zeroed weapon as follows: 1. Fire at a target at the zeroed range (lets say 1000m) with 10 rounds at a normal battlefield rate. 2. Record the shots by number and distance from point of zero. 3. Alllow weapon to cool and repeat test 3 times after cooling each time. What you might find is that the succesion of the shots leads to greater scatter. That is, the first few rounds would be more accurate than the next 7 rounds. To give each round equal weight is a pitfall. Another pitfall is to decide that the rounds follow a distribution of mathematical nature and therefore the most improbable outliers are achievable. If 10 rounds are fired at 100m intervals out to 2000m, you are starting to get into the realm of wear of the gun barrel. So these outliers are not the real expectation of a gun in the front lines that has only 50 rounds through it. By testing, you have impaired the test too much. You have looked at the Gorilla too closely and he is wondering, Why is this guy looking at me? An example would be the British test shoot of a Tiger I gun. It managed 5 rounds into the so called 50% zone. Rexford would claim this to be an outlier. Its like tossing a coin 5 times and getting heads each time (after calling it). But it could be that the next 5 rounds would start to disperse due to barrel heating, transfer of heat to propellent, etc. [ September 24, 2004, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

After I use common sense and simple logic I then apply analytical and testing methods [ September 24, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Does setting the range MOVE the triangle is the point.

100% dispersion data is not real in the sense that weird wild rounds can always be just a little further out if one goes from 1 million to 10 billion rounds. The 90% zone for 17 pdr APCBC at 1000m is 1.19m high and 1.01m wide. The corresponding 68.26% zone dimensions are 0.73m vertical and 0.61m lateral. The 50% zones for 17 pdr APCBC at 1000m would be 0.49m high and 0.41m sideways. The 50% zones for 88L56 APCBC at 1000m are 0.4m and 0.2m. Keep in mind that the German figures are averages, so many guns would be vastly superior and many would be really awful looking. </font>

This is what I thought they were doing also. Notice the 'forgiveness' in ascertaining range with precision. The Germans criteria for passing gunner's school did not place any testing at stationary targets at less than 1000m range. I think the reason is that there was enough technology to determine ranges to a acceptable precision, and the guns performance using that range precision allowed forgiveness within a certain 'band'.

I mentioned this also. I made a point about how to set battlesight range with you. That is, you set the range to 1000m (or whatever range) and THEN point at the bottom of the target. You can not point at the bottom of the target and THEN set the range to 1000m. After awhile, gunners would see the relation to range changes and how the triangle would move. An example would be; gunner points at target bottom (bottom of hull). He fires and over shoots target. He then adjusts fire down 200m. He notices that triangle (which moves with range correction), is now pointed at level with bottom of tracks instead of level with bottom of hull. He has to adjust the aim now to bring the triangle up. The obvious time saving measure would be to move the triangle instinctively instead of the two part adjust range setting/readjust triangle drill.

This was brought up in the other optics thread about the scissorscopes (SF14Z Gi). I wondered if the TC had binoculars that had strich information also (so he could relate objects to the gunner as you say).