Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

And for reference, here is Noak's commentary from the later period. Final drive and track failures come back with a vengeance (yes, I'm suuure all of your final drives, the tiny targets that they are were miraculously hit by enemy artillery and that is why they failed).

 

 

SdK1dIi.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DogDodger said:

As we discussed previously, the design itself was poor because it was known that the available materials were not up to the task. Spielberger says that a higher-strength steel was intended for the gears, but after this was "unexpectedly" replaced no alterations in the design were made (and depending on when this replacement occurred, alterations may have been impossible).

I wouldn't call it a bad design. Rather no other choice. I agree that from an engineering point of view the vehicle was not very suitable for the situation in 1944-45. That is, imo, the principal criticism of a panther.

 

Choosing the "right" type of vehicle would inevitably mean operating with inferior vehicles. The choice was therefore between larger share of vehicles stuck out of action due to repairs and larger share destroyed in combat. Both versions decrease battle performance and ultimately result in an undesired situation. I can't say to what extent. From a (German) military point of view, the former is imo preferable. It is much harder to replace good crews. Those can compensate for numbers as well as equipment attrition. Weaker vehicles require greater numbers, greater numbers consume more fuel and potentially more spare parts.

 

The question is then, whether Daimler Benz prototype wouldn't decrease performance as much. It could be a plausible choice for 1944, if it could compensate for a lack of artillery and air support on the battlefield. So this is my opinion, design was not a problem. Evaluating German choices, one comes faster to the conclusion that war shouldn't continue beyond 1943, than to a design change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

I wouldn't call it a bad design. Rather no other choice. I agree that from an engineering point of view the vehicle was not very suitable for the situation in 1944-45. That is, imo, the principal criticism of a panther.

 

Choosing the "right" type of vehicle would inevitably mean operating with inferior vehicles. The choice was therefore between larger share of vehicles stuck out of action due to repairs and larger share destroyed in combat. Both versions decrease battle performance and ultimately result in an undesired situation. I can't say to what extent. From a (German) military point of view, the former is imo preferable. It is much harder to replace good crews. Those can compensate for numbers as well as equipment attrition. Weaker vehicles require greater numbers, greater numbers consume more fuel and potentially more spare parts.

 

The question is then, whether Daimler Benz prototype wouldn't decrease performance as much. It could be a plausible choice for 1944, if it could compensate for a lack of artillery and air support on the battlefield. So this is my opinion, design was not a problem. Evaluating German choices, one comes faster to the conclusion that war shouldn't continue beyond 1943, than to a design change.

 

Literally no one here cares what you would call it.

 

It was a bad design.

 

(Don't think I didn't notice the horrendous false dichotomy you threw in there - "it was a choice between being reliable and being combat effective". Bullshit that does not deserve to be addressed, like 80% of everything you say.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

And for reference, here is Noak's commentary from the later period. Final drive and track failures come back with a vengeance (yes, I'm suuure all of your final drives, the tiny targets that they are were miraculously hit by enemy artillery and that is why they failed).

 

 

SdK1dIi.png

It is even stated! Perhaps not all but clearly enough to be exposed as a reason. Why would he lie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Literally no one here cares what you would call it.

If you don't care, why do you respond?

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

(Don't think I didn't notice the horrendous false dichotomy you threw in there - "it was a choice between being reliable and being combat effective". Bullshit that does not deserve to be addressed, like 80% of everything you say.)

Oh why? Because reliability of Allied tanks killed so many panzers in ww2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

The same reason everyone in that country lied all the time, presumably.

Where is the logic here? Germans have no pathological need to prove themselves and their tools better than everyone else. Have you even met a German in your life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, delete013 said:

If you don't care, why do you respond?

Oh why? Because reliability of Allied tanks killed so many panzers in ww2?

More like killed a bunch of Germans. And encircled German armies. And darkened German skies with long-range aircraft. Reliability and availability (ie: numbers at the fight, on the move, pressing the advantage) are more or less the sina quo non of industrial warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Where is the logic here? Germans have no pathological need to prove themselves and their tools better than everyone else. Have you even met a German in your life?

I think "Yes, Minister" had the pithiest answer to this conundrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

Where is the logic here? Germans have no pathological need to prove themselves and their tools better than everyone else. Have you even met a German in your life?

 

This is also humble Nazi reporting... On 29th April 1945 Karl Körner from SS S.Pz.Abt 503 was awarded a Knight's cross for destruction of over 100 tanks in the past week including an encounter in which he claimed destruction of 39 tanks in  matter of several minutes (that was supposed to be part of an encounter in which his platoon of three Königstigers allegedly destroyed 11 IS-2 and 120-150 T-34 at once, i.e. roughly 3 brigades destroyed with 3 tanks). 

 

Not John Rambo, not even Topper Harley could do this. With all seriousness the only person ever walking this Earth capable of something like that is Chuck Norris and he's the only one. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

If you don't care, why do you respond?

 

Entertainment value, my dude.

 

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

Oh why? Because reliability of Allied tanks killed so many panzers in ww2?

 

Yes, they killed most of them that were ever built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

Where is the logic here? Germans have no pathological need to prove themselves and their tools better than everyone else. Have you even met a German in your life?

 

The Nazis sure as fuck did, homie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

Where is the logic here? Germans have no pathological need to prove themselves and their tools better than everyone else. Have you even met a German in your life?


This is quite telling. We’re talking about Nazi’s, which are most definitely different from Germans. I would know, my Jewish great grandparents left Germany in the 30s to get away from them... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord_James said:


This is quite telling. We’re talking about Nazi’s, which are most definitely different from Germans. I would know, my Jewish great grandparents left Germany in the 30s to get away from them... 

 

He knows full well he generalized to "Germans" to avoid confronting the fact that the Nazis were perhaps the most mendacious nation to have ever blighted the face of planet earth.

 

What's most amusing is that he sees this as some deft maneuver which he performed on us, instead of an amateur mistake that we're going to absolutely gobble him up for.

 

When we finally do drive him off the forum with his little rat tail between his legs, he'll tell himself he chose to leave because he got bored, but lying to himself won't help then, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

This is also humble Nazi reporting... On 29th April 1945 Karl Körner from SS S.Pz.Abt 503 was awarded a Knight's cross for destruction of over 100 tanks in the past week including an encounter in which he claimed destruction of 39 tanks in  matter of several minutes (that was supposed to be part of an encounter in which his platoon of three Königstigers allegedly destroyed 11 IS-2 and 120-150 T-34 at once, i.e. roughly 3 brigades destroyed with 3 tanks). 

 

Not John Rambo, not even Topper Harley could do this. With all seriousness the only person ever walking this Earth capable of something like that is Chuck Norris and he's the only one. 

 

 

I also think these numbers are extreme. I'm not sure historians are clear on what happened there. To my info Körner encountered dozens of tanks rearming and refueling in a counter attack. There he could have begged many. I would never choose such unclear case to prove some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, delete013 said:

I also think these numbers are extreme. I'm not sure historians are clear on what happened there. To my info Körner encountered dozens of tanks rearming and refueling in a counter attack. There he could have begged many. I would never choose such unclear case to prove some point.

 

It's not unclear case. It's complete nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Lord_James said:


This is quite telling. We’re talking about Nazi’s, which are most definitely different from Germans. I would know, my Jewish great grandparents left Germany in the 30s to get away from them... 

..and those Nazis suddenly changed profile with the new state? This breaks some established sociological theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

Yes, they killed most of them that were ever built.

Wait, where are accusations of horrible reliability? Weren't half blown up by their crews or captured in workshops?

 

Allied tactics tell me that what they destroyed was mostly artillery, air support or tank destroyers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Wait, where are accusations of horrible reliability? Weren't half blown up by their crews or captured in workshops?

 

Allied tactics tell me that what they destroyed was mostly artillery, air support or tank destroyers...

 

Do have dementia? Be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

he'll tell himself he chose to leave because he got bored, but lying to himself won't help then, either.

You may ask nicely for me to stay away from ww2 topics and let you and your minions use them for entertainment. That was partially their intent, was it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, delete013 said:

You may ask nicely for me to stay away from ww2 topics and let you and your minions use them for entertainment. That was partially their intent, was it?

 

On the contrary, I intend for us to shake you until dead.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


×
×
  • Create New...