Allied use of Schutzenplatte?

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

No some Stugs carried a 6 inch thick piece of concreat on their lower hull. Concrete has a resistance of about 0.15 steel vs KE and 0.35 verses HEAT.

KE 2.2cm

CE 5.33cm

SO its not much use aggainst 76mm guns but it would be stoppping 75mm rounds and Bazookas when added to the original plate.<hr></blockquote>

Ah thanks - I seem to have a dim recollection of reading this. Age is quickly catching up with me, obviously.

Would that concrete not shatter on the impact of a round, and be pretty useless against a follow-on shot? Also, what are the weight implications? Was it seen as useful?

[Kurtz]

Some StuG IV:s had 6" of concrete in front of the superstructure, on both sides of the gun.

[Chamberlain & Doyle p.102]

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

The reason BTS did not use visual representations of these field modifications is that most tanks did not have them, but if they had been included in the game ALL tanks would have them i.e. if the stock Sherman textures had had sandbags on them, ALL Shermans would have been show with sandbags, which is even more unrealistic than none of them having it.

<hr></blockquote>

Well, this might have a point, if your mixing vehicles (of the same type) from different units. If you're not, its a less valid argument. Obviously it would have been better if individual variations between vehicles could be modelled, creating some degree of individuality but its obvious thats a big ask.

As far as I'm aware, at the scale at which CM occurs, it would be pretty rare in British forces for different armoured regiments to be mixed in the one engagement.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Some things were left out to cut down on polygon counts for performance reasons. You may have noticed that the AAMG on the Sherman is not shown, nor are the "Rhino" attachments, even though both are assumed to be there by the game engine.

<hr></blockquote>

Never having played US (nor interested in doing so), I have no idea about the "prong" being modelled or not.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

There is little point in asking BTS to start producing new artwork for CMBO. There is no chance of this happening. It is also pointless for the reason that any 3rd party mod maker could do what you are asking. In fact, there are Sherman/sandbag mods available now. If you are handy with Paintshop or something similar you could modify the existing textures yourself to add bedsprings or whatever.<hr></blockquote>

SIGH whose talking about "bedsprings"? I'm not. As for asking BTS to make new artwork for CMBO? I'm not. I'm suggesting they should make such things available in the future for future releases of CM. They managed in CMBO to make Schutzen/non-Schutzen available for the Germans. I see no reason why they couldn't make the same available for CMXX.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Well Brian, let's assume it was the regiment - which is far less than your immediate jump to it being the Brigade.

<hr></blockquote>

I've looked back at my postings in this thread cannot find any passage where I claimed it was an entire Brigade. Indeed, my first attempt at qualifying the numbers was when I suggested it was undertaken at the regimental level. Perhaps you'd care to quote back to me where I claimed it was the entire Brigade?

A regiment consists of how many tanks? 64 approximately, according to Forty's British Army Handbook, in 1945. That is over three many as the total production of Sturmtigers!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

So then the questions are how effective was it, and when was it invented.

<hr></blockquote>

Effectiveness? Only material to half of the argument. I have no idea. Obviously at least the 4/7 Dragoon Guards believed it was worthwhile.

As to when it was invented? No idea. Delaforce gives a clue as to when it was applied which I think is a far more germaine question to ask, as against when it was invented.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

There is another picture of 4/7th Dragoon Shermans without that modification in Feb. 1945.

<hr></blockquote>

Is there? However, even if there is, that is not precluded by the passage that Ogadai quoted which read: "Most of the tanks..." Most does not denote all.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

As for effectiveness, there is no mention I could find saying that a bomb bounced off the wire. There is one mention of a 4/7th Dragoon Sherman being hit by a handheld AT weapon, penetrated, and a Sergeant (presumably the TC) killed. There is another mention of a round being stopped by extra armour welded on.

Not an awful lot of data to go by - and that's why I think that your immediate reaction that the Commonwealth got shafted again is hilarious.

[qb]

"shafted"? Where do I say that? I am merely pointing out that the Germans are provided with every weird and wonderful invention in their menagarie as a matter of course but the Allies and in particular the Commonwealth/British more often than not are limited to only the very plain, vanilla weapons/vehicles. This could well be yet another example of this happening.

Thus far, I've seen very little in the way of argument against why this sort of thing should not be dipicted. I have seen the usual effort to ridicule and ignore the passage that Ogadai quoted rather than address it. We have a reference that these modifications were undertaken. Can you refute that? Provide proof that they weren't done?

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

Never having played US (nor interested in doing so), I have no idea about the "prong" being modelled or not.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, you do have an idea about whether or not the Culin hedgerow device is modelled or not. He just told you it isn't. Stop being an ass. Once you've done that, stop kvetching about Sturmtigers. You're positively fixated.

Sounds also like you have an anti-US bias; aren't you the one who keeps bleating about the perceived anti-Commonwealth bias?

Your interest, or lack of it, in the US is irrelevant to the post, though it does, as the law-talking-guys say, go to character, your Honour.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Actually, you do have an idea about whether or not the Culin hedgerow device is modelled or not. He just told you it isn't. Stop being an ass. Once you've done that, stop kvetching about Sturmtigers. You're positively fixated.

<hr></blockquote>

"Kvetching"? Sorry, unfamilar with that term. Yes, he told me but note this, Michael, it was the first time I'd heard about it. I replied, noting that.

I'll put the rest of your criticisms where they belong.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

Now, it may be that it was only an 8th Brigade modification or it might be that the 4th didn't note their application to their vehicles.<hr></blockquote>

You are right, you were not just talking about the 8th Armoured Brigade, you were making immediate assumptions about 4th Armoured Brigade as well.

The rest of your comments is turning out to be the usual ramble. What difference it makes whether it is heavy or light wire is a mystery to me - it will still be ripped apart when you drive through an orchard. You should also stop going on about Sturmtigers - it is pathetic. German Schürzen were a factory accessoire to probably hundreds if not more German AFVs. Your wire cage is a field mod that may have been in place with between 32 and 64 British tanks in the last two months of the war. If you can not see the difference, I am afraid it is beyond me to explain it to you.

Maybe you should address Jeff's post?

Ps. How is that ultimate wargame of yours coming along?

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

SIGH whose talking about "bedsprings"? I'm not.<hr></blockquote>

As you seem to be fond of word games, I will point out to you that I said "begsprings or whatever". Whatever meaning anything you want, including wire.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>They managed in CMBO to make Schutzen/non-Schutzen available for the Germans. I see no reason why they couldn't make the same available for CMXX.<hr></blockquote>

German schurzen were official vehicle features that were at least somewhat effective. There has been no evidence presented that these field modifications had any measurable effect. Therefore what you are asking for is simply a graphics mod. This is more appropriately done by a 3rd party mod maker. If BTS had to make seperate textures for every field modification for every vehicle they would never get anything done.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Never having played US (nor interested in doing so)<hr></blockquote>

Gee, I wonder why that would be...

[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Germanboy Said: Hmm, not sure to be honest. I have almost all of them, but only because I managed to pick them up for £5 in bargain basement sales. He cribs a lot from other people's memoirs. Some of them have indexes, most don't. They are alright if you want to have the service history of a whole division. If you are after quality, you are probably better off getting the original works he is quoting from. He has definitely found a winning formula for writing this stuff.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks Andreas.

[Dan Robertson]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Ah thanks - I seem to have a dim recollection of reading this. Age is quickly catching up with me, obviously.

You can't be that much older than me, you did go to Warwick Uni until recently didn't you

Would that concrete not shatter on the impact of a round, and be pretty useless against a follow-on shot? Also, what are the weight implications? Was it seen as useful?

The Concrete would be totally shattered, if it was not rienforced, however I would be very surpised if it isn't.

In which case the concrete would shatter until it reachs the nearestintact stell bar. Around the impact restance would be nil to KE, HEAT would be proportional to however much concrete is left, minus subtractions for containment.Away from the impact the Concrete would be pretty much intact.

The weight of the concrete would be around the equivilent of 2inchs of steel. So as you can see it is equivilent to steel armour against HEAT (esentially a rough compositie armour) but not against KE. Though obviously it is cheaper than steel to fabricate in the field.

<hr></blockquote>

[Andreas]

Thanks Dan. Learn something new every day.

Jeff, you're welcome. I generally find the works that involve talking to people, as opposed to Delaforce's desktop approach, a lot more interesting and relevant.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I think the underlying question is - if German tanks have options in CM like Schurzen/no Schurzen - why not Allied tanks (ie Sandbags, no sandbags).

I think the answer is that no real data was ever compiled on sandbag armour; perhaps Rexford et al can comment on that aspect.<hr></blockquote>

because for the germans it was a standard practice adopted across the board. not randomly and in peice meal like the allies

[PJungnitsch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Would that concrete not shatter on the impact of a round, and be pretty useless against a follow-on shot? Also, what are the weight implications? Was it seen as useful?<hr></blockquote>

Doing some reading it seems as though the concrete was a pretty standard late war add-on over the drivers plate, which must have been a weak point. I suppose even if it stops one shot it would be enough to warn the crew they are targetted and to get their Stug out of the hot zone. Concrete being concrete it would be easy and cheap to 're-armour' later.

I see the Finns went to much greater lengths, adding concrete as well to the mantlet plus logs to the sides. From Achtung Panzer:

[Spook]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

"shafted"? Where do I say that? I am merely pointing out that the Germans are provided with every weird and wonderful invention in their menagarie as a matter of course but the Allies and in particular the Commonwealth/British more often than not are limited to only the very plain, vanilla weapons/vehicles. This could well be yet another example of this happening.

<hr></blockquote>

Last I checked, I haven't seen the Panther II or Panther F, Maus, Goliath, or round-the-corner-firing SMG's also included. So the Germans don't quite have "every wierd & wonderful invention" either.

Now, does this particular topic's vehicular example prove or disprove your ongoing assertion that BTS is either "pro-German" or "anti-Commonwealth" (or both) in its CMBO game design decisions? No. The valid basis you could make for this one example is if the Allied use of anti-bazooka skirts was comparable in numbers to what the Germans used for their armored vehicles in 1943-45.

Now, on other issues you might have with BTS concerning some "pro-German bent," like the greater overall plethora of vehicle types or of the options of infantry unit organizations for the Germans, why not just ask for BTS to give a direct reply? Steve's answers (if he does) might then suffice for you to understand what choices were made, and why.

[Diceman]

One should also remember that the basic vehicle for the Sturmtiger was already built. Much easier to build a new upper superstucture for a design already in place than to build a vehicle from sratch. Also, unless I'm mistaken, although shurtzen is modeled graphicaly in CM it has little effect on game play. It may add a few mill of side armor, but thats about it. I'm almost certain its alleged anti heat round properties are not modeled. Seems there was a debate as to whether such devises defeated heat rounds, or helped them by provideing a benificial standoff distance for the rounds. JasonC provided a descent link: http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html which give some evidence, supporting the idea that at least for smaller heat rounds such as the bazooka, shurtsen was an effective anti-heat device; but, the argument rages on. What we really need is a weapons engineer that could clear this issue up once and for all.

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Spook:

Last I checked, I haven't seen the Panther II or Panther F, Maus, Goliath, or round-the-corner-firing SMG's also included. So the Germans don't quite have "every wierd & wonderful invention" either.

<hr></blockquote>

Don't leave out the Einstossflammenwerfer!

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Diceman:

I'm almost certain its alleged anti heat round properties are not modeled.<hr></blockquote>

No, it's modeled. My testing has shown the schurzen on the Mk IVH decrease the chance of a bazooka hit penetrating by about 30%. Even the schurzen on the Panther A has a very small effect.

[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

quote:

They managed in CMBO to make Schutzen/non-Schutzen available for the Germans. I see no reason why they couldn't make the same available for CMXX.

German schurzen were official vehicle features that were at least somewhat effective. There has been no evidence presented that these field modifications had any measurable effect. Therefore what you are asking for is simply a graphics mod. This is more appropriately done by a 3rd party mod maker. If BTS had to make seperate textures for every field modification for every vehicle they would never get anything done.

<hr></blockquote>

In part you're correct, which is why I have emphasised from the start that this is an argument which has two sides to it. One, the question of effectiveness, the second, the question of graphic representation.

I am still undecided on the former, but its obvious on the latter some work is required IMO. I cannot see how this can be provided by third parties, when it would require a completely new layer for the vehicle but I admit I could be wrong.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never having played US (nor interested in doing so)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, I wonder why that would be...

[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<hr></blockquote>

And why would that be. Spit it out Vanir. If you want to make an accusation, be man enough to put it out in the open.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

because for the germans it was a standard practice adopted across the board. not randomly and in peice meal like the allies<hr></blockquote>

You have proof that it was "piece meal", Iron Chef?

We have a reference that suggests that at least one regiment was modified, if not more. The picture and the implication is that this was done in an organised manner in field workshops. Hardly what I'd call "piece meal", Iron Chef.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Spook:

Last I checked, I haven't seen the Panther II or Panther F, Maus, Goliath, or round-the-corner-firing SMG's also included. So the Germans don't quite have "every wierd & wonderful invention" either.

<hr></blockquote>

*SIGH* always carrying my comments to the extreme, hey, Vanir. Yet, we have the Sturmtiger, Jagdtiger, Wirbelwind, Ostwind, etc., either already in the game or promised. Now you want "Panther F, Maus, Goliath, or round-the-corner-firing SMG's also included." Production numbers please.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Now, does this particular topic's vehicular example prove or disprove your ongoing assertion that BTS is either "pro-German" or "anti-Commonwealth" (or both) in its CMBO game design decisions? No. The valid basis you could make for this one example is if the Allied use of anti-bazooka skirts was comparable in numbers to what the Germans used for their armored vehicles in 1943-45.

<hr></blockquote>

Yet again, as I predicted, if someone brings the matter of an Allied "rare and wonderful beastie" up, he gets howled down. Yet, how often have I see you putting up the same arguments against the inclusion of German equipment, such as the Sturmtiger? Mmmm, I haven't seen it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Now, on other issues you might have with BTS concerning some "pro-German bent," like the greater overall plethora of vehicle types or of the options of infantry unit organizations for the Germans, why not just ask for BTS to give a direct reply? Steve's answers (if he does) might then suffice for you to understand what choices were made, and why.<hr></blockquote>

That is up to Steve. As usual, he has not thus far graced us with neither his presence nor his explanation. I'd love to read what he has to say.

Until he does, I can only go on the evidence before me, which is the choices available and apparently promised...

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

We have a reference that suggests that at least one regiment was modified, if not more. The picture and the implication is that this was done in an organised manner in field workshops. Hardly what I'd call "piece meal", Iron Chef.<hr></blockquote>

We have no evidence that suggests anything beyond the 'one regiment' -we don't even have that 'most of the tanks', not 'all the tanks in 4/7th Dragoons. You are making the rest of your claims up Brian. There is nothing like what you claim in Delaforce's book. Piece meal is exactly what I would call it.

We have evidence that it was tried in Italy, and totally useless. Why don't you address that I wonder?

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

We have no evidence that suggests anything beyond the 'one regiment' -we don't even have that 'most of the tanks', not 'all the tanks in 4/7th Dragoons.

<hr></blockquote>

Two Squadrons out of how many in a regiment?

Delaforce makes the point, as Ogadai quoted directly, "most of the tanks". "Most" in most people's vocabulary refers to a majority in a group. Which would imply for most reasonably people, that the majority of tanks in the regiment carried this modification.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

You are making the rest of your claims up Brian. There is nothing like what you claim in Delaforce's book. Piece meal is exactly what I would call it.

<hr></blockquote>

"piecemeal" would I think you'll find for most reasonable people indicate an almost "pepperpot" ideal. Here we have a case that on all balance of propabilities, that a whole regiment was thus equipped and at least a hint that it might have been a good part of the brigade.

If I am making my claims up, prove it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

We have evidence that it was tried in Italy, and totally useless. Why don't you address that I wonder?<hr></blockquote>

Because the picture published and the account differ markedly from the picture and account in Delaforce's book. I'd suggest that in fact they were two completely different experiments.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

I cannot see how this can be provided by third parties, when it would require a completely new layer for the vehicle but I admit I could be wrong.<hr></blockquote>

A third party could do it, but BTS could make it look better because they could modify the basic model. If a 3rd party modified the textures the wire would look flat instead of sticking out from the tank. Same thing with sandbags, or almost any other field mod you can think of.

Of course, then you start running into polygon budgets.

The point is that doing this for all the field mods for all the vehicles in the game would require an enormous amount of time. Unless it can be shown that these things actually worked, I can't see how it's worth it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>And why would that be. Spit it out Vanir. If you want to make an accusation, be man enough to put it out in the open.<hr></blockquote>

Well, since I have 'spit it out' into the open for you in previous threads I'm not sure why you're playing ignorant here; but, I was, of course, refering to your thinly concealed and rather obvious distaste for the US in general and the US military in particular.

Is that "man enough" for you? (snicker)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>*SIGH* always carrying my comments to the extreme, hey, Vanir. Yet, we have the Sturmtiger, Jagdtiger, Wirbelwind, Ostwind, etc., either already in the game or promised. Now you want "Panther F, Maus, Goliath, or round-the-corner-firing SMG's also included." Production numbers please.<hr></blockquote>

I don't know why you were addressing me here, as I did not write the words you were replying to. However, as I am already commenting on them ,let me say that I have no clue where you got the idea that Spook actually wanted those vehicles in the game. If you reread what he wrote (or read it for the first time, as the case may be) you will see he said nothing of the sort, nor did he even imply it.

[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

If I am making my claims up, prove it.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

We have a reference that suggests that at least one regiment was modified, if not more. The picture and the implication is that this was done in an organised manner in field workshops.<hr></blockquote>

Delaforce's book does not suggest 'if not more', and nowhere does it say or imply or even mention 'organised manner' and 'field workshops'.

QED - happy to oblige. As I said, you are making the stuff up, because it suits your agenda.

You are jumping to the conclusion that 'most' means the regiment. Even so, one regiment out of three in the Brigade. So less than one third of the Shermans in the Brigade. Shurely this important field mod had an immeasurable impact on the campaign in Europe from the time of the Rhine crossings, when it was implemented on up to 2% of the Commonwealth tank force.

You have also declined to address my point that Delaforce mentions several tank kills from 'Bazookas' after this magical modification was introduced, and not a single case of it defeating a round. He explicitly mentions one Panzerfaust round being defeated by extra (welded) armour plate though. Delaforce also fails to give a source for his claim that 'most tanks were fitted'. The whole sentence does not fit into the para at all, and seems like an editing oversight to me The quotation from Captain Stirling ends in the para before.

So basically your case is resting on one picture (we have been there before) and an unattributed statement in a Patrick Delaforce book, those tomes of learning about the 21st Army Group. Somehow that fails to impress me, and your tendency to compare apples and oranges, as well as jumping to conclusions, or claiming for a book to say things it does not, does not do your argument any good, to put it mildly.

Just jumping to conclusions, immediately complaining about a pro-German bias, and basically withholding the part of the evidence that does not support your argument, or dismissing it if brought up by somebody else, is poor debating. Try harder. You may start to convince someone if you get the war diary from 4/7th Dragoons and start quoting the no doubt numerous occasions the diarist mentions the superb performance of bits of wire against German shaped charges in March and April 1945. Until then, you can as well leave it, as far as I or anyone serious about this is concerned.

[Diceman]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

In part you're correct, which is why I have emphasised from the start that this is an argument which has two sides to it. One, the question of effectiveness, the second, the question of graphic representation.

I am still undecided on the former, but its obvious on the latter some work is required IMO. I cannot see how this can be provided by third parties, when it would require a completely new layer for the vehicle but I admit I could be wrong.

.<hr></blockquote>I was going to call this line of reasoning a non-sequester, but it lacks the specious appeal to be given such dignity. This is a classic absurdity. Non or questionable effectiveness does not in anyway equate to must have.

Modeling sandbags and other 3 dimensional expedients would be a huge pain in the but to model, and a big hit on polygon counts, not to mention a huge consumption of valuable time. Even if sufficient evidence were provided to quantify there effectiveness, these thing would have to be coded without graphical representation, much like the add-on plates for Shermans and the Super-Pershing are coded but not graphically represented.

Shutzen on the other hand were a factory standard, and are fairly easy to model, because they are ostensibly 2 dimensional objects.