Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You being high as a kite explains a lot about the extra helping of incoherence you've been serving up today.

I genuinely hope that you root the neo-Nazis out and we can have a rational discussion about German engineering.
I also hope for @Lord_James to come visit Germany again and see how it has changed in regard to discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I genuinely hope that you root the neo-Nazis out and we can have a rational discussion about German engineering.
I also hope for @Lord_James to come visit Germany again and see how it has changed in regard to discrimination.

 

Please give an exact figure of how many jews you believe died in the holocaust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I also hope for @Lord_James to come visit Germany again and see how it has changed in regard to discrimination.


You failed to understand my comment, so I’ll make it more clear: 

 

Germans are not Nazi’s. This is obvious to anyone who has the required amount of brain cells to think rationally and objectively. Nazism is not an ethnicity, bound to a certain group of people based on heritage; it is an ideology, and was present in many countries at the time, not just Germany and the axis powers. Trying to pin nazism on one group of people is ridiculous and dishonest, which is why I now refer to Nazi’s as Nazi’s, not as Germans. 

 

“Germans today are not Nazi’s” isn’t (or, at least, shouldn’t be) some huge revelation or shocking fact to anyone who has the slightest amount of cultural or historical knowledge. Even the imperial Germans in WW1 weren’t Nazi’s, despite what a lot of people are lead to believe (American standard education is... lacking), and the Nazi’s should only be remembered as a mistake, like many young peoples’ goth/emo phase. That one dark and self-destructive point in history is not the sole defining feature of Germany or Germans.
 

Now take the hint, shut up, and grow up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Sure that's not just more "allied propaganda?" After all, how can we be sure the Battle of Arracourt occurred?

You want to squeeze that with the Jews, eh? ccc

"Battle of Arracourt" is, afaik, a recent invention of certain US authors in  desperate attempt to portray US tank units in a positive light. Likely part of a plan to sell books. Nobody, US army nor Wehrmacht called it so and the events are part of what is called "Lorraine campaign" in US historical literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, delete013 said:

You want to squeeze that with the Jews, eh? ccc

"Battle of Arracourt" is, afaik, a recent invention of certain US authors in  desperate attempt to portray US tank units in a positive light. Likely part of a plan to sell books. Nobody, US army nor Wehrmacht called it so and the events are part of what is called "Lorraine campaign" in US historical literature.

 

Nope, you're just ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, delete013 said:

You want to squeeze that with the Jews, eh? ccc

"Battle of Arracourt" is, afaik, a recent invention of certain US authors in  desperate attempt to portray US tank units in a positive light. Likely part of a plan to sell books. Nobody, US army nor Wehrmacht called it so and the events are part of what is called "Lorraine campaign" in US historical literature.

 

It doesn't matter at all how the battle is called, what matters is the beating the Nazis suffered around there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

It doesn't matter at all how the battle is called, what matters is the beating the Nazis suffered around there.

 

I think my favourite Western front moment is when the Nazis pulled some Wimp Lo shit, got their noses bloodied in the battle of the bulge and then decided that it was a tactical victory which slowed down the allied advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Toxn said:

I think my favourite Western front moment is when the Nazis pulled some Wimp Lo shit, got their noses bloodied in the battle of the bulge and then decided that it was a tactical victory which slowed down the allied advance.

 

Mine is when the Germans lost tanks to a Piper Cub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lord_James said:


Oh? Sounds like an amusing read, got any links? 

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/bazooka-charlies-grasshopper-180974445/

 

Bazooka Charlie and his Piper Cub went tank busting in that battle that Delete here claims never happened.

 

5efe0a16e8e4c.image.jpg?resize=1200,800

 

The restoration was finished last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, RobotMinisterofTrueKorea said:

Bazooka Charlie and his Piper Cub went tank busting in that battle that Delete here claims never happened.

 

Honestly, he's done more damage to my psyche than he knows. I'm beginning to doubt the truth of the Holocaust...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Honestly, he's done more damage to my psyche than he knows. I'm beginning to doubt the truth of the Holocaust...

 

Since he really admires Nazi technology so much, maybe he boned up on the only thing they were both technologically cutting edge on, and good at implementing. Mass Murder and the tools used to do it. It's easier to understand than a torque converter too! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours 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.

For the record, the design to which I was referring as poor was the final drives, not the Panther per se. Going over all of its inherent pluses and minuses would take a longer post. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DogDodger said:

For the record, the design to which I was referring as poor was the final drives, not the Panther per se. Going over all of its inherent pluses and minuses would take a longer post. :)

I know.

Why don't you make a comprehensive review? I am interested in what others think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, delete013 said:

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

 

Because, as I stated in my sarcastic suuuure line, the final drive is a very small target (and it's only exposed from some angles!). You'll note other armies have a conspicuous lack of 'oops all our final drives were hit by arty what a shame'. So either the man is bullshitting as to why the final drives broke, or the allies are actually putting their very best marksmen on artillery teams - with strict orders to aim only for final drives.

 

It's rather comparable to exclaiming that the enemy was scoring nothing but headshots on your infantry.

 

20 hours 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.

 

You'd think the Germans would realize that it's a wee bit unlikely that Karl and Ko destroyed *more tanks than they carried ammo combined*. Seriously, each JT carries 40 rounds at 100% stowage. Where did the ~30 extra kills come from, repeatedly limping into them with the JT's famous agility?

 

19 hours 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.

 

Thankfully, we have the soviet combat logs - Körner was ran over in a few hours, and they don't even bother to record meeting the vehicles in their logs. They spend more time whining about Panzerfausts.

 

https://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/05/cheating-at-statistics-7-korner-conjurer.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Because, as I stated in my sarcastic suuuure line, the final drive is a very small target (and it's only exposed from some angles!). You'll note other armies have a conspicuous lack of 'oops all our final drives were hit by arty what a shame'. So either the man is bullshitting as to why the final drives broke, or the allies are actually putting their very best marksmen on artillery teams - with strict orders to aim only for final drives.

The key to that report is that artillery can damage drive train and that recovery was usually impossible. Allied tanks featured similar problems if hit by artilley, only that German artillery wasn't much present in the west.

 

16 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

You'd think the Germans would realize that it's a wee bit unlikely that Karl and Ko destroyed *more tanks than they carried ammo combined*. Seriously, each JT carries 40 rounds at 100% stowage. Where did the ~30 extra kills come from, repeatedly limping into them with the JT's famous agility?

Or is it because Körner was in a tiger B?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

Thankfully, we have the soviet combat logs - Körner was ran over in a few hours, and they don't even bother to record meeting the vehicles in their logs. They spend more time whining about Panzerfausts.

 

https://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/05/cheating-at-statistics-7-korner-conjurer.html

I'm not sure you know what you posted. This is one of those articles, where in comments, critical mass dismantles tankarchives. He provides a good answer to Körner's mistery. The latter only claimed 11 tanks and 39 possible. Secondary sources then misinterpreted it. But in the words of critical mass:

 

"The bottomline is that the credited claims do indeed match soviet losses on this day in general and 5th SA and 2nd GTA losses in particular."

 

@Beer You might want to read it too. It is basically how most panzer ace myths came about. Wrongly attributed kill claims and missing reports on Allied losses. The improbable story is blamed on the soldier, instead of on book writers. The same goes to Wittmann, perhaps the most slandered soldier of ww2.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I'm not sure you know what you posted. This is one of those articles, where in comments, critical mass dismantles tankarchives. He provides a good answer to Körner's mistery. The latter only claimed 11 tanks and 39 possible. Secondary sources then misinterpreted it. But in the words of critical mass:

 

"The bottomline is that the credited claims do indeed match soviet losses on this day in general and 5th SA and 2nd GTA losses in particular."

 

@Beer You might want to read it too. It is basically how most panzer ace myths came about. Wrongly attributed kill claims and missing reports on Allied losses. The improbable story is blamed on the soldier, instead of on book writers. The same goes to Wittmann, perhaps the most slandered soldier of ww2.

 

You're ignoring the part where critical mass founds his argument on the Soviet losses of that entire part of the front for that day, then elides his way into the two numbers being similar and that therefore Korner's account is somehow legit.

 

Peter goes into this at length.

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...