Guys,
These are the well-known photos of the StuG III recently hoisted from a peat bog, somewhere in Europe. Now a discussion is going strong in one forum of another language, about whether those thousands of spots of rust and chipped paint were caused by decades of immersion in the peat or are simply the usual marks from wear and tear caused by the boots of the crew, load, etc.
So what do you think, a peat bog is to be regarded as a perfect time capsule, which kept intact the Stug’s painting and wear marks as she was almost seventy years ago?
TIA,
Carlos
PS:
I noticed a curious pattern undulating around the hatches in the ceiling and enhanced it for clarity. Is it some chemical reaction caused by contact with acidic substances of the peat debris or would it be the spot where part of camouflage once was?
Hosted by Darren Baker
Your opinions on this Stug III, please? (pic)
Blazurgo
Joined: July 01, 2007
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 11:32 AM UTC
vonHengest
Texas, United States
Joined: June 29, 2010
KitMaker: 5,854 posts
Armorama: 4,817 posts
Joined: June 29, 2010
KitMaker: 5,854 posts
Armorama: 4,817 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 12:43 PM UTC
The paint on this vehicle is remarkably well preserved, which would lead me to believe that the vehicle is largely as it appeared when it first entered the bog.
However that pattern that you highlighted looks looks very fluid and is directionally biased, which leads me to believe that it is some sort of flow pattern that was created while the tank rested in the peat bog.
However that pattern that you highlighted looks looks very fluid and is directionally biased, which leads me to believe that it is some sort of flow pattern that was created while the tank rested in the peat bog.
Whitey
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: September 20, 2010
KitMaker: 137 posts
Armorama: 100 posts
Joined: September 20, 2010
KitMaker: 137 posts
Armorama: 100 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 01:30 PM UTC
12 years in the Army, and I've never seen paint chip like in this photo. I'd say it was the peat.
sauceman
Ontario, Canada
Joined: September 28, 2006
KitMaker: 2,672 posts
Armorama: 2,475 posts
Joined: September 28, 2006
KitMaker: 2,672 posts
Armorama: 2,475 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 02:04 PM UTC
I would say it's from the peat bog.
I would also say it was two tone, looking at this pic.
cheers
I would also say it was two tone, looking at this pic.
cheers
vonHengest
Texas, United States
Joined: June 29, 2010
KitMaker: 5,854 posts
Armorama: 4,817 posts
Joined: June 29, 2010
KitMaker: 5,854 posts
Armorama: 4,817 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 04:54 PM UTC
Quoted Text
12 years in the Army, and I've never seen paint chip like in this photo. I'd say it was the peat.
I agree with this area of the tank, and any other area that resembles such a pattern.
Quoted Text
I would also say it was two tone, looking at this pic.
I do see a distinct green in the pattern on that picture as well. Also of note are the redone numbers, particularly the 1 over the 0. This would suggest multiple paint jobs, and if this is true would also suggest that the top paint may not have been applied in the best conditions which could easily result in poor adhesion in areas, which brings us back to the weird patterns around the hatches which could have easily been caused by moisture getting under areas of paint where the adhesion was poor or where their were knicks.
ericadeane
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 06:58 PM UTC
My vote is the peat affecting the paint. Note that it seems to wear more on horizontal surfaces -- maybe this is an indication? Also, note that the wear patterns aren't on areas that a crewman would wear out the paint i.e. the hatch edges.
vonMarshall
United Kingdom
Joined: July 30, 2010
KitMaker: 192 posts
Armorama: 165 posts
Joined: July 30, 2010
KitMaker: 192 posts
Armorama: 165 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 11:47 PM UTC
I am not so sure that it is the peat.
As far as I am aware, things immersed in peat do not rust. There is no oxygen hence the preservation qualities of peat. I would say the big rust marks are actually likely to be in place before it got stuck, or at least the paint was chipped and the metal exposed prior to immersion.
If it is the effect of the peat I do not really see why the horizontal surfaces would get more wear than the vertical ones. Surely the effect the peat has is consistent so there should not be variation between upper and side surfaces.
However the amount of rust / primer showing through does not look like it was normal wear and tear then preserved immaculately.
My bet would be on a combination. The upper surfaces did get walked on a lot more and knocked and scratched so there may have been tiny scratches that the peat has then magnified as it slipped under the paint. Where there were no scratches the peat could not get under the paint and therefore there is no real damage.
On another note, love the Ostketten (I think or maybe they are Winterketten).
Thanks for posting.
As far as I am aware, things immersed in peat do not rust. There is no oxygen hence the preservation qualities of peat. I would say the big rust marks are actually likely to be in place before it got stuck, or at least the paint was chipped and the metal exposed prior to immersion.
Quoted Text
My vote is the peat affecting the paint. Note that it seems to wear more on horizontal surfaces -- maybe this is an indication
If it is the effect of the peat I do not really see why the horizontal surfaces would get more wear than the vertical ones. Surely the effect the peat has is consistent so there should not be variation between upper and side surfaces.
However the amount of rust / primer showing through does not look like it was normal wear and tear then preserved immaculately.
My bet would be on a combination. The upper surfaces did get walked on a lot more and knocked and scratched so there may have been tiny scratches that the peat has then magnified as it slipped under the paint. Where there were no scratches the peat could not get under the paint and therefore there is no real damage.
On another note, love the Ostketten (I think or maybe they are Winterketten).
Thanks for posting.
vonMarshall
United Kingdom
Joined: July 30, 2010
KitMaker: 192 posts
Armorama: 165 posts
Joined: July 30, 2010
KitMaker: 192 posts
Armorama: 165 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 11:55 PM UTC
Just thinking about it a bit more, if the effect was caused by the peat, why would the rear and the sides be almost untouched?
SDavies
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: January 09, 2010
KitMaker: 979 posts
Armorama: 959 posts
Joined: January 09, 2010
KitMaker: 979 posts
Armorama: 959 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 12:11 AM UTC
Hi All,
To aid the discussion more pics of this Stug can be found here:
http://dishmodels.ru/wshow.htm?np=1&p=1022&lng=E
It looks like the tank was upside down in the bog, here are pics of the recovery:
http://www.detektorweb.cz/index.4me?s=show&i=2988&mm=1&vd=1
Steven
To aid the discussion more pics of this Stug can be found here:
http://dishmodels.ru/wshow.htm?np=1&p=1022&lng=E
It looks like the tank was upside down in the bog, here are pics of the recovery:
http://www.detektorweb.cz/index.4me?s=show&i=2988&mm=1&vd=1
Steven
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 01:32 AM UTC
well, if dragged out of the peat upside down, that would really tear off some paint, especially on the top deck. I think this pretty much answers the question.
Jacob
Jacob
panzerbob01
Louisiana, United States
Joined: March 06, 2010
KitMaker: 3,128 posts
Armorama: 2,959 posts
Joined: March 06, 2010
KitMaker: 3,128 posts
Armorama: 2,959 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 01:57 AM UTC
This is the COOLEST! A wholly and well-preserved StuG!
I think that this thing should certainly be informative and instructive to armour modelers in regards to chipping and weathering!
The paint is very interesting:
Looks to me like there are two very distinct things going on- a notable minimum amount of wear at the most-exposed points (crowns of hinges, edges of hatches and plate-joins, etc.- places where there was likely frequent contact with and abrasion from boots and people and stuff dragging around, etc.), and a rather heavy randomized and shot-gun flaking of mostly flat plate surfaces - a flaking which appears to expose intact primer.
The minimum corner and edge wear suggests not much had occurred before this thing got buried.
The appearance seems to differ between the two sets of blems... that's the real informative part, I think: the worn hinge-crowns and other exposed hi-points look like the wear seen on construction equipment and on modern armor (a great place to see wear on the general class of objects), and on handled models (which actually wear and soil on the hi-points, and probably constitute "good models" of "the real thing" in more ways than one!). I would offer that looking closely at these wear-points would be most instructive for showing wear on builds- where does it occur, how much occurs, and what do the worn spots look like... like, it does extend down thru the primer and expose the metal (dark- not heavily-rusted)?
The chips on flat plates clearly show simple "passive" (non-abraded) flaking of the paint. They look much like paint flaking off of a wall where someone has simply slapped another layer on over a poorly-prepped surface. The new coat WILL flake. Paint will crack and lift as its adhesion fails. The prior painted surface will be exposed... in this case, appears to be primer.
As to the storage environment... a peat-bog is essentially anoxic, low-pH and substantially laden with organic acids- "tannins". These tannins are the sorts of chemistry used to "tan" skins and hides to make leather. A stabilizer of proteins and debilitator of most bacterial action, among other things. Bogs are also wet.
Even good paint well-applied will fail after many years of emersion in mild acid solutions- any small hole or imperfection in the surface will allow the acid solution (bog water) to seep beneath, break the adhesion, and lift the paint. Same thing as happens to the sides of your well-painted house- even the finest house exterior paints will eventually lift- the surface is NEVER perfectly-sealed. So, I would expect the general paint surface to start flaking after 60+ years of swimming!
As others have noted, a lot of this flaking (as distinct from the clearly-abraded bits) is on the flat surfaces. The question may be "why not equally or more so flaked on those exposed points?" This evident pattern may well reflect another interesting (to me, anyway!) aspect of the vehicle .... the hinges and corners and castings and weld-lines may offer better adhesion surfaces than do some flat plates- the rolled plates will be smoother and offer less texture for paint to bite on to.
This pattern of flaking more on flats and pressed surfaces versus on castings and weld-beads and the like is consistent with that often seen in industrial and other equipment, and has plagued the car industry for almost a century - where final coats appear to flake off the primer coat beneath.
Metals are primed to provide uniform surfaces for other paints to consistently adhere to. As the flaking here has revealed primer, the failure is NOT in the primer adhesion to the metal, but rather in the outer paint coat adhesion to the primer surface.
More paint flaking off flats would be consistent with a model where primer surface quality is even all over, but the additional structural (metal) texture varies between smooth flats and rougher welds, castings, etc. These latter rougher areas should retain paint longer than flats will, given equal priming.
So, to me, Mr. Preserved StuG shows BOTH modest actual wear and tear AND the effects of general surficial paint failure after 60+ years of emersion!
Bob
I think that this thing should certainly be informative and instructive to armour modelers in regards to chipping and weathering!
The paint is very interesting:
Looks to me like there are two very distinct things going on- a notable minimum amount of wear at the most-exposed points (crowns of hinges, edges of hatches and plate-joins, etc.- places where there was likely frequent contact with and abrasion from boots and people and stuff dragging around, etc.), and a rather heavy randomized and shot-gun flaking of mostly flat plate surfaces - a flaking which appears to expose intact primer.
The minimum corner and edge wear suggests not much had occurred before this thing got buried.
The appearance seems to differ between the two sets of blems... that's the real informative part, I think: the worn hinge-crowns and other exposed hi-points look like the wear seen on construction equipment and on modern armor (a great place to see wear on the general class of objects), and on handled models (which actually wear and soil on the hi-points, and probably constitute "good models" of "the real thing" in more ways than one!). I would offer that looking closely at these wear-points would be most instructive for showing wear on builds- where does it occur, how much occurs, and what do the worn spots look like... like, it does extend down thru the primer and expose the metal (dark- not heavily-rusted)?
The chips on flat plates clearly show simple "passive" (non-abraded) flaking of the paint. They look much like paint flaking off of a wall where someone has simply slapped another layer on over a poorly-prepped surface. The new coat WILL flake. Paint will crack and lift as its adhesion fails. The prior painted surface will be exposed... in this case, appears to be primer.
As to the storage environment... a peat-bog is essentially anoxic, low-pH and substantially laden with organic acids- "tannins". These tannins are the sorts of chemistry used to "tan" skins and hides to make leather. A stabilizer of proteins and debilitator of most bacterial action, among other things. Bogs are also wet.
Even good paint well-applied will fail after many years of emersion in mild acid solutions- any small hole or imperfection in the surface will allow the acid solution (bog water) to seep beneath, break the adhesion, and lift the paint. Same thing as happens to the sides of your well-painted house- even the finest house exterior paints will eventually lift- the surface is NEVER perfectly-sealed. So, I would expect the general paint surface to start flaking after 60+ years of swimming!
As others have noted, a lot of this flaking (as distinct from the clearly-abraded bits) is on the flat surfaces. The question may be "why not equally or more so flaked on those exposed points?" This evident pattern may well reflect another interesting (to me, anyway!) aspect of the vehicle .... the hinges and corners and castings and weld-lines may offer better adhesion surfaces than do some flat plates- the rolled plates will be smoother and offer less texture for paint to bite on to.
This pattern of flaking more on flats and pressed surfaces versus on castings and weld-beads and the like is consistent with that often seen in industrial and other equipment, and has plagued the car industry for almost a century - where final coats appear to flake off the primer coat beneath.
Metals are primed to provide uniform surfaces for other paints to consistently adhere to. As the flaking here has revealed primer, the failure is NOT in the primer adhesion to the metal, but rather in the outer paint coat adhesion to the primer surface.
More paint flaking off flats would be consistent with a model where primer surface quality is even all over, but the additional structural (metal) texture varies between smooth flats and rougher welds, castings, etc. These latter rougher areas should retain paint longer than flats will, given equal priming.
So, to me, Mr. Preserved StuG shows BOTH modest actual wear and tear AND the effects of general surficial paint failure after 60+ years of emersion!
Bob
SDavies
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: January 09, 2010
KitMaker: 979 posts
Armorama: 959 posts
Joined: January 09, 2010
KitMaker: 979 posts
Armorama: 959 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 02:16 AM UTC
There are some reports on other forums that this stug is now in a rather sad state, although there are no pics to back this up. Apparently she has been left to decay in the open and now most of the original paint it missing along with anything that could be carried away to be sold.
These pics were taken in 2006 shortly after the tank destroyer was recovered.
These pics were taken in 2006 shortly after the tank destroyer was recovered.
Blazurgo
Joined: July 01, 2007
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 07:57 AM UTC
Many thanks to all who have spent some time answering my question. My opinion is the same as the majority here.
The main point of discussion in another forum is whether this Stug should be the ideal reference on which to paint a scale model from. I mean a wartime German AFV in regular condition of use. I don’t think so but a few modelers over there say otherwise.
Cheers,
Carlos
The main point of discussion in another forum is whether this Stug should be the ideal reference on which to paint a scale model from. I mean a wartime German AFV in regular condition of use. I don’t think so but a few modelers over there say otherwise.
Cheers,
Carlos
SDavies
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: January 09, 2010
KitMaker: 979 posts
Armorama: 959 posts
Joined: January 09, 2010
KitMaker: 979 posts
Armorama: 959 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 08:02 AM UTC
It will be great for photo reference and you dont see a WW2 tank in original camo that often, but should you replicate the paint scheme on a model? only if you are trying to depict that that your model has spent 70 years upside down in a bog.
Gabriello
Komarom-Esztergom, Hungary
Joined: September 08, 2009
KitMaker: 8 posts
Armorama: 7 posts
Joined: September 08, 2009
KitMaker: 8 posts
Armorama: 7 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 08:42 AM UTC
Hi guys!
Check out this video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFhhheOZxYI&feature=related
See the magic
Check out this video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFhhheOZxYI&feature=related
See the magic
Blazurgo
Joined: July 01, 2007
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 08:50 AM UTC
Quoted Text
only if you are trying to depict that that your model has spent 70 years upside down in a bog.
Steven, That's exactly what I said to the guys there!!
Cheers,
Carlos
BigfootV
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 11:58 AM UTC
Very Interesting. I'd like to throw my two cents in if I may.
First, I'm not an expert on German armor, but there are a few things that I'd like to bring to light that will raise some more question.
All these are based on the photos provided by SDavies in his post here.
1. Did anyone note the condition of the rubber piece for the anttena's? You'd think after all that time they'd be rotted out or badly cracked. Also on the Commander's hatch as well.
2. As was pointed out about the Hull number 1 over 0, if you look on the right side, you'll find the 2 is a 9 and the 1 over 0 are still there. The rear deck number is same as left side. Which leads to the question, what is the real number.
3. Their are number of some sort placed on the Right rear access hatch of the engine compartment. These read either 91695 or 91645. See photo three in Carlo's post.
4. I noticed a plate on the top, in front of commander's hatch has been replaced, different color from rest of top. More rust colored. Does not appear to have been painted. Why is this? Repair?
5. In comparing the photo's of this being pulled out of peat bog and cleaned up, it is my opinion that this was in WHITEWASHED camo, check the lower hull which still retains the brush marks.
6. Right side Iron cross has a gray/white outline.
7. Also one of the photo's show a close up of an impact mark on the left side
These are just some of the things that popped out at me in reviewing the photo's.
Let the rivet counting begin!!!! LOL.
See ya in the funnies...............
First, I'm not an expert on German armor, but there are a few things that I'd like to bring to light that will raise some more question.
All these are based on the photos provided by SDavies in his post here.
1. Did anyone note the condition of the rubber piece for the anttena's? You'd think after all that time they'd be rotted out or badly cracked. Also on the Commander's hatch as well.
2. As was pointed out about the Hull number 1 over 0, if you look on the right side, you'll find the 2 is a 9 and the 1 over 0 are still there. The rear deck number is same as left side. Which leads to the question, what is the real number.
3. Their are number of some sort placed on the Right rear access hatch of the engine compartment. These read either 91695 or 91645. See photo three in Carlo's post.
4. I noticed a plate on the top, in front of commander's hatch has been replaced, different color from rest of top. More rust colored. Does not appear to have been painted. Why is this? Repair?
5. In comparing the photo's of this being pulled out of peat bog and cleaned up, it is my opinion that this was in WHITEWASHED camo, check the lower hull which still retains the brush marks.
6. Right side Iron cross has a gray/white outline.
7. Also one of the photo's show a close up of an impact mark on the left side
These are just some of the things that popped out at me in reviewing the photo's.
Let the rivet counting begin!!!! LOL.
See ya in the funnies...............
Wunderwaffe
Ontario, Canada
Joined: July 30, 2009
KitMaker: 9 posts
Armorama: 8 posts
Joined: July 30, 2009
KitMaker: 9 posts
Armorama: 8 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 02:34 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I can not see the YouTube video, something wrong with the link?.
Greetings to everyone.
JC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFhhheOZxYI&feature=related
should work now
SdAufKla
South Carolina, United States
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 04:30 AM UTC
Here's a link to another set of photos of this vehicle. This time, the photos are from 2006-7:
http://legion-afv.narod.ru/StuG-40_Saratov.html
FWIW, I think a comparison of the photos from the recover, through Alexander Adamsov's 2004 series, to these clearly show the gradual and progressive deterioation of the original paint. I also think the majority of the upper surface "chipping" is more a result of agressive power-washing and scrubbing, coupled with tourists' tennis shoes flaking off the weakly adheared 60 year old paint (as nicely explained by Bob Woodman) than wear from the original crew.
Close comparison of specific areas shows progressively more and more paint loss. Note how when recovered, the tactical number was clearly "20" with the "0" over a painted out , invisible number, but in the 2004 photos, the original number "1" appears under the "0," and finally in 2007, the "0" is only barely visible. A similar progression can be seen with the Balken crosses, which in the later photos have none of their white outlines left. The paint flaking off the sides of the gun mantlet is particularly instructive.
(I love the white stenciling that is visible on the side of the main gun barrel in the 2007 photos! Also note the slight difference in the styles of the tactical numbers from one side to the other.)
Also note in these later photos, the vehicle is being dissassembled, hopefully for restoration and preservation and not for "parting out" to the highest bidders like some car theaf "chop shop."
Does anyone know of any interior photos from this StuG or what its chassis number is?
Finally, does anyone have an explantion for the numbers painted on the various hatches ("91720" on the commander's hatch, "91552" on the loader's hatch, "91645" - twice - on the engine hatch, and "9???0" on the glacis hatch)?
Mike
http://legion-afv.narod.ru/StuG-40_Saratov.html
FWIW, I think a comparison of the photos from the recover, through Alexander Adamsov's 2004 series, to these clearly show the gradual and progressive deterioation of the original paint. I also think the majority of the upper surface "chipping" is more a result of agressive power-washing and scrubbing, coupled with tourists' tennis shoes flaking off the weakly adheared 60 year old paint (as nicely explained by Bob Woodman) than wear from the original crew.
Close comparison of specific areas shows progressively more and more paint loss. Note how when recovered, the tactical number was clearly "20" with the "0" over a painted out , invisible number, but in the 2004 photos, the original number "1" appears under the "0," and finally in 2007, the "0" is only barely visible. A similar progression can be seen with the Balken crosses, which in the later photos have none of their white outlines left. The paint flaking off the sides of the gun mantlet is particularly instructive.
(I love the white stenciling that is visible on the side of the main gun barrel in the 2007 photos! Also note the slight difference in the styles of the tactical numbers from one side to the other.)
Also note in these later photos, the vehicle is being dissassembled, hopefully for restoration and preservation and not for "parting out" to the highest bidders like some car theaf "chop shop."
Does anyone know of any interior photos from this StuG or what its chassis number is?
Finally, does anyone have an explantion for the numbers painted on the various hatches ("91720" on the commander's hatch, "91552" on the loader's hatch, "91645" - twice - on the engine hatch, and "9???0" on the glacis hatch)?
Mike
SDavies
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: January 09, 2010
KitMaker: 979 posts
Armorama: 959 posts
Joined: January 09, 2010
KitMaker: 979 posts
Armorama: 959 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 05:18 AM UTC
Why are they taking it apart ??
If they are doing a restoration job I hope that they doing it properly and are not leaving it open to the elements.If that was 2006/7 its probably a pile of rust now I wish they just left it in the bog
I have pieced the history of this Stug together from various websites, I cant confirm if its 100% accurate.
It was part of Stug Brigade 226. This unit reported 2 stugs lost in the Poskov area in winter 1943/4. Apparently it was crossing the swamp which was covered with ice but the ice cracked and the stug went in and turned upside down. Unfortunately 2 members of the crew could not escape and their remains were in the tank when it was recovered.
The recovery was not authorised by the Russian government and the tank was stripped out by those who recovered it before it could be siezed. Parts, including the radio, MP40 and maps were then sold to private collectors.
Apparently the stug is now in a public park
Just discovered this recovery of a Stug IV:
http://grzegorzew.pl/galeria/czolg/index.html
If they are doing a restoration job I hope that they doing it properly and are not leaving it open to the elements.If that was 2006/7 its probably a pile of rust now I wish they just left it in the bog
I have pieced the history of this Stug together from various websites, I cant confirm if its 100% accurate.
It was part of Stug Brigade 226. This unit reported 2 stugs lost in the Poskov area in winter 1943/4. Apparently it was crossing the swamp which was covered with ice but the ice cracked and the stug went in and turned upside down. Unfortunately 2 members of the crew could not escape and their remains were in the tank when it was recovered.
The recovery was not authorised by the Russian government and the tank was stripped out by those who recovered it before it could be siezed. Parts, including the radio, MP40 and maps were then sold to private collectors.
Apparently the stug is now in a public park
Just discovered this recovery of a Stug IV:
http://grzegorzew.pl/galeria/czolg/index.html
BigfootV
Colorado, United States
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 04:15 PM UTC
Juan, Ty.
Mike, In talking to other about the said number on the hatches. It has been suggested that this Stug was, at one point during the war earlier, damaged, recover, send back to factory, rebuild, and set back to the front to other unit. This might explain the numbers. AGAIN, I'm not a German Armor expert, this is just an opinion.
Steven, the story you've been able to piece together may have some truth to it, like you said, it can't be confirmed 100%. What bothers me is the fact that this Stug has two hit marks on it and no mention of this.
Just somethings to think about.
Mike, In talking to other about the said number on the hatches. It has been suggested that this Stug was, at one point during the war earlier, damaged, recover, send back to factory, rebuild, and set back to the front to other unit. This might explain the numbers. AGAIN, I'm not a German Armor expert, this is just an opinion.
Steven, the story you've been able to piece together may have some truth to it, like you said, it can't be confirmed 100%. What bothers me is the fact that this Stug has two hit marks on it and no mention of this.
Just somethings to think about.