Kuma of Finland Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 MadMatt was really kind and posted a Finnish StuG III G bone. Thank you for that, you're my hero! Question: are there different kinds of StuG's available for purchase? There are the early models with no important extra (some toolboxes etc. were added) added to them and there are the late models which have concrete in front armour and gun mantlet and logs on the sides. The armour modifications with concrete and logs would affect on AP rounds (that's why they were added there in the first place). I would guess that this is issue especially with hollow charges hitting concrete or a log. And front armour would also reflect more shots as it doesn't have any 0 degree surfaces anymore. The obvious shot trap is seen in under the gun, upgrade doesn't affect that. The picture below should give the idea. /kuma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 I remember a discussion from way back, where some übergrog apparently proved the US sandbag padding of Shermans actually INCREASED a chance of penetration. Me? I just glanced at the complex formula and went "ehhh?". No idea if the same would be the case with concrete&logs. Seems impossible, but what do I know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrapGame Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 I would certainly think that the relative "softer" surface of sandbages or even concrete versus face-hardened steel would reduce the likelihood of a ricochet, thereby increasing the overall # of penetrations. In general, the greater the number of penetrations, the greater the # of kills, no??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zitadelle Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 An opinion that is becoming more prevalent amongst the military historians- like Jentz and Zaloga- is that the addition of sandbags, logs, concrete, tracks, or what-have-you does not actually provide additional armor protection. They argue that the only advantage added was an improvement in morale as the tankers felt that they had additional protection. Moreover, both Jentz and Zaloga have gone further by stating that in some cases the addition of supplmental armor was acutally detrimental. The example that Jentz provides is with the PzKW VIB (KingTiger) and the mounting of spare track links on the side of the turret. The Germans initally mounted the tracks on the side in the hope that additional protection would be provided. However, when the tested this they discovered that armor pentration was actually improved when it hit the track links. The German command immediately recommended that the practice of mounting tracks on the side of the King Tiger's turret be dis-continued. Jentz stated that the German test did not speculate why pentration was improved. Jentz has continued by discussing the mounting of tank tracks on the PzKW III and PzKW IV- hanging from the front lower hull- as well. Steven Zaloga gives the example of the notorious "bedsprings" (which they actually were not, but fabricated in the field...) mounted on the sides of the T-34/85 and IS-2 in the Berlin city fights. These were to serve as Panzerfaust shields. Unfortunately, they were only mounted a few inches from the side of the hull/turret. The distance was too close, and when the shield was hit by a panzerfaust the shaped charge detonated earlier, and had just a little extra space to create a better HEAT blastcone before contact with the armor. The result was better pentration of the armor. So, in this case supplemental armor actually was a detriment. This case was very similar to the result created by the TOW II warhead (1980s ATGM) where the detonator was mounted at the end of a rod in front of the warhead. The warhead detonated before contact with the armor and created a better blastcone. So, the value of supplmental armor is current in dispute, and the "uber-grogs" are arguing that it only helped tanker moral- not the actual effectiveness of the armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zitadelle Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 One more thought in reference to "logs". I have fired numerous rifle and handgun rounds through logs the diameter that are on the sides of the photographed StuG III. Somehow, I don't think that that diameter is really going to stop, or even slow down, a 75mm round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 The logs in that use weren't actually invented by Finns, nor were they meant against AP shells. No, they were taken into use by Soviets against Finns who put them on T-34's and ISU's as a countermeasure for Finnish toothpicks. The idea was that Finnish toothpicks were too short to penetrate a thick log. This very much explains the initial Soviet success in their summer onslaught in '44. Finns just mimicked it from them, thinking that the Russkies had some good reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 Looking at the concrete-added Stug pict, it resembles many other concrete Stugs I've seen in the literature. This added protection was definitely much more than a one-off. If you consider the Stug mostly needed to protect itself from a 75mm gun Sherman or 76.2mm gun T34, a little reinforced concrete at a highly oblique angle might just be enough protection to do the trick against these medium pressure guns. I think CMBB has pretty well every type of Stug that was made in the game (very impressive!), but I don't believe a concrete Stug is on that list. Perhaps a late G(?) model in '45 could have an upped armor table without a change to the polygonbut I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 The effects of the Soviet ATR's should not be forgotten. The concrete and the logs may be of little use against tank guns but they sure as hell will deflect the 14,5mm ATR rounds. Check out http://www.geocities.com/~fi1877/sturmi.html and the modifications list. I do not recall if the Germans for example added extra armour plates bolted to the sides of the lower hull. The Germans did use Schürzens. Since the Finns did away with the German plate system I can't think of any other reason for them being put there but to combat the ATR's. [ September 05, 2002, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: tero ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuma of Finland Posted September 6, 2002 Author Share Posted September 6, 2002 Originally posted by Sergei: The logs in that use weren't actually invented by Finns, nor were they meant against AP shells. No, they were taken into use by Soviets against Finns who put them on T-34's and ISU's as a countermeasure for Finnish toothpicks. The idea was that Finnish toothpicks were too short to penetrate a thick log. This very much explains the initial Soviet success in their summer onslaught in '44. Finns just mimicked it from them, thinking that the Russkies had some good reason...Not the toothpicks, nooo! It's too horrible! There's only one weapon more mightier than Finnish toothpicks and that's a bun! Even the mighty IS's and ISU's would run for their lives if they ever saw a hint of a one day old bun waiting to be thrown at them! /kuma - ROFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuma of Finland Posted September 6, 2002 Author Share Posted September 6, 2002 Krhm, now back to the business again (shudders the dust from the floor off from clothes). About logs: I agree they wouldn't make any difference with 75 (and larger) AP rounds except maybe for few very rare situations where a shot would come from front in extremely low angle to the side. Against MG's they would give a little bit peace of mind (sound of MG hitting your hull can be quite unnerving I guess) and add some protection against ATR's. About concrete: I think they'll add some protection as they enhance the propability of ricochet. See picture below. But I agree that using steel instead of concrete would give a much better result! I have to say all thanks to Andreas Lärka, the creator of the www-page The Sturmgeschütz in Finnish Service. /kuma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prinz Eugen Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 Originally posted by Kuma of Finland: Ai hitto, tämähän on KarPr:stä, siitä JvAuK:in edestä ! Tulee vanhat hyvät ajat mieleen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts