Footage photo: Stug knocked out by gun. ** Updated Picture !! **

[Monty]

Found another photo:

A Stug is knocked out by a gun ( you see the gun firing, but the Stug was knocked out after 3 side hits i have read )

So those Stugs were not so über after all

Monty

[ August 07, 2003, 06:31 AM: Message edited by: Monty ]

[gibsonm]

Serves him right for being flank on and track up.

I’d sack the crew commander.

[MikeyD]

Cool "in-action" shot.

Looks like you might want to go to CMMODS and pick up MikeyD's Tire Tread pack and his 76mm ZIS gun mod... just for more photo-realistic picts, of course!

If CMAK doesn't push the "you-are-there" 3-D quality of the game in its packaging/advertising I'll be disappointed. That's what makes the game so cool!

[bolton]

good shot

[JasonC]

I like the pic.

On the subject of uber-StuGs, I was browsing a book the other day called "the German Sturmgeschutze in WW II", by Wolfgang Fleischer, with Richard Eiermann. Here are some highlights on the controversial topics -

pp 74-76 says with the long 75, fire at enemy AFVs at ranges beyond 1500m was discouraged as ineffective and a waste of ammo, because AP would fail to penetrate even with a hit.

p. 84 says the 80mm front models "could withstand the fire of the 76.2mm tank gun of the Russian T-34 if it did not come within 500m." Says the same was true for the ZIS-3. It also mentions a weakness in the gun cradle armor, only 45-50mm (much like the turret of a Pz IV incidentally).

p. 87 discussing the StuH talks about its weakness vs. enemy armor, because the low muzzle velocity of its HEAT ammo made it effective only at 500m. "At distances under 500m, as was already noted elsewhere, the front armor of the assault gun offered no protection from the fire of tank guns."

p. 117 says flatly that the 75L48 with Pz Gr 39 could not penetrate the IS-2 from the front, even at a range of 100m. Nearby, an AAR mentions a StuG killing an IS-2 with its 5th hit after the first 4 bounced, without specifying which plate was struck.

p. 127 shows an 80mm front StuG-IV model with track sections on its bow and concrete reinforcements.

Later in the book, the improved effectiveness of the later Allied guns, the US 76mm and the Russian 85mm, is described as their new ability to fight from long range, not needing to close. Not as the first ability to penetrate from the front.

Only one source, obviously. But fully fits what I've seen elsewhere, and thought before CMBB elevated 80mm front StuGs to "uber" status.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Serves him right for being flank on and track up.

To say nothing of being silhouetted on a skyline! Sheeze!

I’d sack the crew commander.

The garotte might be more appropriate.

Michael

[BigDork]

Assuming he survives when the tank gets hit.

[Denwad]

Yes.

All German tanks have horrible side armor.

This is showcased in WWIIOL, where even the puny Sa Mle 1934 25mm AT gun can take out a PzIIIH with a side shot.

Early war is cool for the French, pathetic German armor

[rexford]

Jason C posted some good data bites:

"pp 74-76 says with the long 75, fire at enemy AFVs at ranges beyond 1500m was discouraged as ineffective and a waste of ammo, because AP would fail to penetrate even with a hit."

75L48 APCBC would penetrate T34 glacis at 1700m with high hardness armor factor (-24%) and no side angle, based on our calculations. Jentz' Panzertruppen Volume 1 has a similar figure for 75L43.

Some reports in Jentz limit 75L43 range against T34 glacis to 1000m, while Valera Potapov read a Russian firing test report where 75L43 penetrated T34 glacis at 1000m with a 30 degree side angle.

I doubt we'll ever get one final answer for 75L48 penetration range against T34 glacis.

At 1500m, 75L48 APCBC hits on T34 turret front and mantlet would probably succeed.

"p. 84 says the 80mm front models "could withstand the fire of the 76.2mm tank gun of the Russian T-34 if it did not come within 500m." Says the same was true for the ZIS-3. It also mentions a weakness in the gun cradle armor, only 45-50mm (much like the turret of a Pz IV incidentally)."

Based on our calculations, 76.2mm BR-350B APBC penetrates 75mm of face-hardened armor at 500m. At 500m, the ratio of penetration divided by armor resistance would allow some successes.

76.2mm APCR could easily defeat 80mm face-hardened at 500m. What date does the above quotation refer to: would 76.2mm APCR be available at the time?

The flat plate assembly which protected the gun innards was 50mm thick, and very vulnerable.

"p. 87 discussing the StuH talks about its weakness vs. enemy armor, because the low muzzle velocity of its HEAT ammo made it effective only at 500m. "At distances under 500m, as was already noted elsewhere, the front armor of the assault gun offered no protection from the fire of tank guns."

No protection, or an ability to defeat many of the hits? "No protection" implies all hits succeeded.

Maybe they were referring to 76.2mm APCR.

"p. 117 says flatly that the 75L48 with Pz Gr 39 could not penetrate the IS-2 from the front, even at a range of 100m. Nearby, an AAR mentions a StuG killing an IS-2 with its 5th hit after the first 4 bounced, without specifying which plate was struck."

The author of that statement could be referring to the front hull of IS-2 Model 1944. The 110mm mantlet and 100mm turret front would seem vulnerable if one hit where the curvature was low and the range was 500m or so.

"p. 127 shows an 80mm front StuG-IV model with track sections on its bow and concrete reinforcements."

Hits on face-hardened armor tend to severely damage the plates if the penetration is close to the resistance, so anything that slows the round helps insure good armor condition. By the time StuG IV arrived the number of 85mm guns on the Ostfront was probably considerable, and APCR would be more common.

[JasonC]

Thanks, glad they were interesting. One source, as I said, so who knows how accurate his statements are? But certainly something to chew on.

"75L48 APCBC would penetrate T34 glacis at 1700m with high hardness armor factor (-24%) and no side angle, based on our calculations...Some reports in Jentz limit 75L43 range against T34 glacis to 1000m, while Valera Potapov read a Russian firing test report where 75L43 penetrated T34 glacis at 1000m with a 30 degree side angle."

Since in combat, zero side angles to hulls are rare, the 1500m figure and your 1700m figure for flat hits head on might be consistent. Or your estimate of the effect of high hardness might be off marginally. Or there might be 200m worth of difference between the L48 and the L43.

"At 1500m, 75L48 APCBC hits on T34 turret front and mantlet would probably succeed."

On the mantlet, I'd expect so because the plate is flat enough, but elsewhere on the turret front it is much less clear. CMBB may underestimate the angle typically presented by a front turret hit, in its "round" model.

And I think the report was considering turret hits, because it mentions the thicknesses of 60mm to 75mm as being part of the problem, which correspond to T-34 and KV-1 turrets. Also hits on SU-152s, I suspect (since those would engage at extreme ranges sometimes).

"Based on our calculations, 76.2mm BR-350B APBC penetrates 75mm of face-hardened armor at 500m. At 500m, the ratio of penetration divided by armor resistance would allow some successes."

I'm well aware of the controversy. But skeptical of the armor quality modeling, precisely because it suggest much greater protection to 80mm front vehicles than tactical doctrines and contemporary statements. He does not say "some successes". And he is not the only one who gives a 500m figure for effectiveness of Russian 76mm vs. 80mm front vehicles, both StuGs and Pz IVs. Glantz does, too - not an armor grog by any stretch, but informed about tactical doctrines and contemporary statements, certainly.

"What date does the above quotation refer to:"

Right after the 80mm fronts appeared - F/8 models. So late 1942 to early 1943. APCR is not likely to be the cause.

"The flat plate assembly which protected the gun innards was 50mm thick, and very vulnerable."

Yes, I think this is well known. Later attempts to deal with it (via the "pigs snout" and such) were less than perfect. But CMBB does not show this at present. You can get flat hits on T-34 turrets routinely, but snout hits on StuGs only happen on a "gun hit" which still often does nothing, or a "weak point" which only penetrates close, when actually the 50mm portion ought to be occasionally "stuck" out to km ranges.

"No protection, or an ability to defeat many of the hits? "No protection" implies all hits succeeded."

Quite. It is an extreme statement, that is why I quoted it. It is obviously *not* talking about occasional "high rolls". The writer thinks it is tactically accurate that when T-34s got within 500m they could and did kill StuGs from the front, routinely. That is not what CMBB shows. One or the other is in error.

As for the era, it is not long after the StuH appears. The section is about the introduction of the StuH and their incorporation into the StuG fleet, how they were used, why the deployment portions decided for them were settled upon, etc. Again, APCR is not the likely culprit.

"IS-2 Model 1944. The 110mm mantlet and 100mm turret front would seem vulnerable if one hit where the curvature was low and the range was 500m or so."

In CMBB I've killed them at 1000m with partial penetrations of the turret. This again may be the "round" model. The author thinks they couldn't defeat 100m round at 100m, which implies much better typical behavior for "round" than CMBB models.

The AAR does show a kill with the 5th hit. We don't know that wasn't after maneuvering for a side shot. But perhaps it was still from the front, and only ~1/5 hits on "round" are flat enough to go in. Again, that is far superior to what CMBB gives "round". If round were typically like 45 degrees, however, only rarely as low at 30, one can readily understand the author's statement. 100m at 45 degrees should do fine vs. 75L48 even at 100m.

"anything that slows the round helps insure good armor condition. By the time StuG IV arrived the number of 85mm guns on the Ostfront was probably considerable"

I consider the former a weak argument. Crews respond to actual events. They have obviously seen StuG IVs penetrated in the nose. The latter argument is much more plausible.

But one ought to admit it is also consistent with the report that 80mm fronts were penetrable by the most common Russian weapon (by far), the 76mm, if the range fell to 500m.

I think another reason the StuG IVs with reinforced armor make a certain sense is if you see it as an exploitation of the improved suspension. The 80mm front models on the 3 chassis were all quite nose heavy and some had suspension problems as a result.

The chassis had not been designed for so much weight, so far forward. The suspension on the IV was significantly more forgiving. Added weight up front would thus invite serious breakdown problems on IIIs, but not on IVs. So crews might have thought the IV could take the weight of e.g. concrete reinforcement.

[MikeyD]

Jason C writes:

"...Later attempts to deal with it (via the "pigs snout" and such) were less than perfect. But CMBB does not show this at present."

CMBB does model late Stugs upper hulls as 'curved', which can only mean the inclusion of the pig's head mantlet. This may not be the level of detail you want to see for gun hits but it means a general increase in protection with the cast mantlet.

A comment to add to the Stug IV and reinforced concrete armor -- Overloaded Stug IIIG suspension not withstanding, I've seen too many pictures of concrete reinforced armor Stug IIIGs on both fronts not to conclude that this was a general policy - and considering the uniform application it may even have been a factory addition! See the beutiful picture link below:

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/stug_04.jpg

[JasonC]

Right, the game gives them 80mm early, then 80mm plus curved. Meaning 76mm AP has less than no chance - none at first, less than none later. When in fact, the early ones had only 50mm near the gun.

Any way you slice it, StuGs are overmodeled. The debatable question is by how much.

[MikeyD]

I wonder if the Stug's overmodeled or the Russian 76mm gun's undermodeled. Seems like a Lend-Lease 75mm gun Sherman can now pierce a Stug front like a hot knife through butter!

I have concerns about undermodeling of the early war Russian 37mm gun too that everyone's bored hearing me go on about.

[ August 06, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Monty]

Interesting stugg err stuff chaps.......but who needs front penetrations when my pbem opponents give me enough opportunity to kill his tanks with flank shots

Monty

[rexford]

German face-hardened armor had very variable resistance in some firing tests conducted by Americans against 30mm German FHA plates.

But I think I know why the penetration and resistance models don't seem to jive, cause the 80mm armor was bolted on and wasn't face hardened everywhere.

Thomas Jentz' latest book on Panthers has detailed drawings that show where plates were face-hardened, and the face-hardening was not applied to the edges where the armor would be welded (Panther rear hull plate was face-hardened, which we didn't know).

Holes in a plate lower the resistance, and who knows what happens when face-hardening is not applied around the edges.

Some of what Jason C says does suggest that 30mm over 50mm on Pzkpfw IV and StuG III might resist like less than 80mm of FHA plate, although the examples he presented in the past for 30mm/30mm on PzKpfw IIIH front seemed to support more than 60mm equivalent resistance.

There is info that suggests one thing and other factoids that support the other side. I do find it odd that 500m is the magic range for 76.2mm against 80mm FHA, and not 400m or 600m.

[Bastables]

I wonder about relying on Soviet estimates of German tank vulnerability posted to the troops, they seem to be, overstated. For example in his introduction, V.A.Malyshev noted that the victory at the Battle of Kursk cost the Red Army a high price:

"Enemy tanks opened fire on ours at distances of up to 1,500 metres, while our 76 mm tank guns could destroy "Tigers" and "Panthers" at distances of only 500-600 metres. Imagine the enemy has a kilometre and a half in his hands, while we have only half a kilometre. A more powerful gun needs to be put into the T-34 quickly."

Reading this, one could erroneously conclude that the 76,2cm gun was effective on the tiger and panthers 10cm and angled 8cm armour at 600m.

But tests carried out at Kubinka NIIBT 25-30 April 1943 with F-34 guns versus the sides of Tigers had the 7,62cm round failing at even 200m versus RHA of only 8,2cm thickness.

The numbers posted for Soviet troop consumption and that discovered during test seem completely at odds.

[ August 06, 2003, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[REVS]

It was very satisfying the other day to see my Russkie Tank Hunter team sneak up through the woods and take out an STGIII from 30 metres away, which I presume must be out around maximum range for them. As a return on an investment of 14 points, they did nicely.

[JasonC]

If it were only the Russians saying it that would be one thing. But this was a German source. And I've seen similar comments before. In fact, before CMBB, no one I know of had so much as alleged that Pz IV front hulls or StuGs were invunerable from the front vs. Russian 76mm.

It is not exactly an outlandish claim. Many vehicles are routinely awarded .90 armor quality levels. The 500m figure for BR-350B is perfectly consistent with a .95 quality level rating for the Pz IV and StuG front plates, that's all.

If Tiger sides were proof, (a much debated point in its own right, but seperable) perhaps they were just higher 1.00 quality (not to mention actually being 82mm, typically encountering much higher side angle since they are side plates, etc). Nothing says one must imply the other.

I'm still waiting for any tactical report or training document that says StuGs and Pz IV front hulls are invunerable to Russian 76mm. I've been waiting a long time. I've looked for such reports myself and I have not found them.

To the original poster - yes we know it was a side shot, and a fine pic too lol. Please excuse armor grogs invading your thread to fight their old battles.

[Monty]

Originally posted by JasonC:

To the original poster - yes we know it was a side shot, and a fine pic too lol. Please excuse armor grogs invading your thread to fight their old battles.

Go along and fight some more, im happy reading all the posts (understanding is another issue hehe)

Monty

[Monty]

Ok, i updated the photo, do you like it ?

Monty

[Michael Emrys]

How does he do it?!!!

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Monty, if you really want to play around with this some more, I'd suggest that you increase the contrast of the original image and give it a slightly washed-out or over exposed look. Then reduce the blue and give it a slightly yellowed with age look.

BTW, I really like the wear on the corners.

Michael

[ August 07, 2003, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[MikeyD]

As to Stug III vs the 76mm gun, remember the Stug armor was upgraded SPECIFICALLY to counter the Russian gun, just enough to do the trick without overburdoning the chassis. The vehicle wasn't designed in a vacuum. So if the stats differ on whether the armor could just barely defeat the gun or the gun could just barely defeat the armor, we shouldn't be surprised. We're not exactly talking about the difference between PzII level of protection and a Ferdinand here.

Monty, if you're working in Photoshop try out their 'Duotone' feature. Get a nice yellowed photo look from it, probably.

[Monty]

I use Paint Shop Pro 6.0

Ok , this is the best i can get at the moment, cant seem to get a more yellowish color :

Monty

[rexford]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

As to Stug III vs the 76mm gun, remember the Stug armor was upgraded SPECIFICALLY to counter the Russian gun, just enough to do the trick without overburdoning the chassis. The vehicle wasn't designed in a vacuum. So if the stats differ on whether the armor could just barely defeat the gun or the gun could just barely defeat the armor, we shouldn't be surprised. We're not exactly talking about the difference between PzII level of protection and a Ferdinand here.

Good point.