Frontal kill on a StuG -- by a Maxim MG!

[Broadsword56]

I used to grumble about RT not yet including the Dshk antiaircraft MG in the game yet, since it has forced me to arm my Guards AA MG companies with Maxims instead -- but I'm not grumbling anymore...

This shot happened from approx 200m range. It was a real kill that made the StuG register as "knocked out,", not just a crew bail:

Neither sburke or I had ever seen this before in RT. Maybe a clever shot through a viewport or some such? The MG blazed away at the front and top of the StuG for the better part of a turn. If the arc of fire plunged a little bit, perhaps that hit a thinner area of armor?

It's ironic, since I watched Sherman AP rounds bounce of sburke's StuGs frontal armor all through Normandy...only to see one finally die from a showdown with a single (very brave) MG.

Order of Lenin will be awarded to Selikanov and his crew, for sure!

[sburke]

I was ready to compliment a brave ATR toting trooper, but an MG? I did see a penetration hit text, but I never thought it had come from this.

[Squatdog]

It's blatantly bugged; I've had several buttoned Stugs being penetrated and having their crew killed by small-arms fire.

It only seems to be from the side, so presumably there has been a coding error that replaced 50mm of rolled steel with 5mm of wet cardboard.

[sburke]

I have had exactly one in god knows how many games. If broadsword or I thought this were at all common it wouldn't have shown up as a thread.

[Squatdog]

Maybe I use Stugs in a cowboy-esque manner, but nearly every time one has it's sides exposed to small-arms fire from under 100m, it gets penetrated and has crew injured.

Woroblin Bridgehead is a great map for this.

[Oddball_E8]

Maybe I use Stugs in a cowboy-esque manner, but nearly every time one has it's sides exposed to small-arms fire from under 100m, it gets penetrated and has crew injured.

Well that sounds like it's easily checked under controled circumstances.

Get to it!

Test your thesis and show us the results

[womble]

Maybe I use Stugs in a cowboy-esque manner, but nearly every time one has it's sides exposed to small-arms fire from under 100m, it gets penetrated and has crew injured.

A swift Google suggests that this might not be such a surprising result. As I say, it was a swift Google, but the thinnest armour on a StuG is listed as 16mm; if that's accessible from the side aspect, full calibre rifle rounds at 100m, especially AP-types will make holes. I'd expect the thinnest armour to be the belly plate though, or the top, so those over-exuberant StuGs might've needed to be subject to some plunging fire to suffer those casualties.

Or maybe there are flaws in the engine that allow rounds to sometimes slip "between" plates. I know I've seen casualties on buttoned 251 halftrack drivers from relatively distant MG fire (which also didn't register "Penetration", or, indeed, any, hit text).

[Squatdog]

A swift Google suggests that this might not be such a surprising result. As I say, it was a swift Google, but the thinnest armour on a StuG is listed as 16mm; if that's accessible from the side aspect, full calibre rifle rounds at 100m, especially AP-types will make holes. I'd expect the thinnest armour to be the belly plate though, or the top, so those over-exuberant StuGs might've needed to be subject to some plunging fire to suffer those casualties.

Or maybe there are flaws in the engine that allow rounds to sometimes slip "between" plates. I know I've seen casualties on buttoned 251 halftrack drivers from relatively distant MG fire (which also didn't register "Penetration", or, indeed, any, hit text).

Oh please...

[SlowMotion]

Maybe not the same thing but I was really surprised in a recent PBEM game where my 57mm AT gun killed a Tiger approaching almost straight ahead. Distance was maybe 300m.

[BLSTK]

Have you checked for hit decals, Broadsword?

[BLSTK]

According to Squadron's Stug III Walk Around, early production models had "spare tracks mounted on the side of the hull (to) augment the armor protection of the thin 30mm hull plates." (page 4).

To say that it was vulnerable to flanking shots would be an understatement.

[Oddball_E8]

Maybe not the same thing but I was really surprised in a recent PBEM game where my 57mm AT gun killed a Tiger approaching almost straight ahead. Distance was maybe 300m.

Eeeh...

Read up a bit son

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_mm_anti-tank_gun_M1943_(ZiS-2)

Cliffnotes: muzzle velocity: 1000+m/s

Armour penetration: @300m: 103mm (109mm with APCBC and 168 with APCR)

Basically something a tiger should stay far, far, far away from.

[YankeeDog]

Might be a bug, or might not... While the StuG side armor isn't great, I don't think there's any way a rifle-caliber round could penetrate the side armor so if this is what is happening in game, then something is probably off. We've had issues before where some small plate somewhere on the vehicle is mis-coded as being too thin.

However, the game does track ricochets, and depending on aspect, it is actually possible for a round to hit something like the side or back of the gun shield, and then ricochet down into the fighting compartment. If this is what happened, you should get a "RICOCHET INTO..." hit detail. Obviously, the hatches have to be open (or the vehicle has to be open-topped) for this to happen.

It's a very unlikely thing to happen, but I have seen this happen a few times in-game, mostly with open-topped vehicles, but a couple of times with unbuttoned fully armored AFVs. Only once have I actually seen it KO a full-out tank --a Panther, no less. Fire was from a slight plunging aspect and must have caught the inside lip of the open commander's cupola, ricocheting from there down into the fighting compartment and registering a KO.

EDIT to add: If someone does have a save file of a *buttoned* StuG taking a crew casualty or getting KO'd by small arms fire, I'd like to see it as this may well indicate a bug. PM me and I will take a look.

Note that there an issue with StuGs that even if ordered to button, when pressed by enemy infantry, a crew member will sometimes unbutton of his own accord to man the top-mounted MG. This is a known behavior and I don't need a save file of this; what I'd like to see (if it exists) is a save file showing a StuG crew member getting hit by small arms *while completely under the armor*.

[Squatdog]

According to Squadron's Stug III Walk Around, early production models had "spare tracks mounted on the side of the hull (to) augment the armor protection of the thin 30mm hull plates." (page 4).

To say that it was vulnerable to flanking shots would be an understatement.

30mm of rolled steel isn't proof against small-arms fire?

[sburke]

let's just leave the supposition aside. Once the battle is done Broadsword and I will take a closer look and see what it shows both both sides. I lost the StuG and you don't hear me calling foul. S**t happens in combat.

[Squatdog]

let's just leave the supposition aside. Once the battle is done Broadsword and I will take a closer look and see what it shows both both sides. I lost the StuG and you don't hear me calling foul. S**t happens in combat.

It's a game.

I've had a stationary tank teleport from underneath a railway bridge to the top.

Teleportation happens in combat?

[sburke]

It's a game.

I've had a stationary tank teleport from underneath a railway bridge to the top.

Teleportation happens in combat?

c'mon dude we all know about bridge pathing issues. Take a look under the map if you want to guess at why, check out the bridge supports. Yes it is a game, a computer game and it struggles to resolve some issues.

This particular one though you have no data on, only Broadsword and I do. For all I know maybe we missed a guy somewhere and an ATR round took it out. The only info you have is in that pic and that isn't enough to conclude anything.

[Pelican Pal]

I remember a post a few months ago of a bullet ricocheting into an abandoned T-34 and causing a catastrophic explosion.

Without us personally viewing what happened we can't really be sure of what caused the vehicle to be knocked out, and without actually viewing the logic that handles vehicle damage we probably won't ever know for sure.

Is it possible for the crew to be panicked and assume their vehicle was knocked out when in fact it wasn't?

[z-warfare]

I like the "perceptual"-vs-"objective" direction this is going in...

In this sense, a "realistic" fog of war effect would be to have every tank identified as a Tiger and every gun identified as an 88mm. Super-Iron mode!

[YankeeDog]

Is it possible for the crew to be panicked and assume their vehicle was knocked out when in fact it wasn't?

I don't think so. AFAIK, the vehicle status indicator is 100% accurate, at least to the player who "owns" the unit. That is, if it says "Knocked Out," the vehicle is damaged and cannot be recrewed, while if it says "Abandoned," the vehicle can at least theoretically be re-manned.

[BLSTK]

30mm of rolled steel isn't proof against small-arms fire?

The OP stated the weapon used was a Maxim, considered a heavy machine gun.

[sburke]

The OP stated the weapon used was a Maxim, considered a heavy machine gun.

In addition, the 30 mm of rolled steel is irrelevant. It appears to be a ricochet into the open loaders hatch. The only question at the moment is what kind of damage it could do that would incapacitate the vehicle.

[Pelican Pal]

In addition, the 30 mm of rolled steel is irrelevant. It appears to be a ricochet into the open loaders hatch. The only question at the moment is what kind of damage it could do that would incapacitate the vehicle.

I suspect, from recent discussion, that it goes to a damage table of some sort. Rather than actually modelling any sort of internal interaction. So it probably rolled a "knocked out" or whatever the CM equivalent is.

[Squatdog]

The OP stated the weapon used was a Maxim, considered a heavy machine gun.

Chambered to 7.62, a standard small-arms calibre.

[Michael Emrys]

It looks to me that the headline for the thread misstated the situation, since it claims a frontal kill and it looks to me like the vehicle was presenting a flank. Can either player clarify this issue?

Michael