Shurzen
 

I have a comment on how the game system models HEAT attack. Here is an excerpt from a post made by Randall in the old DOS form for this game.

"I did run across some interesting passages in a book I was reading the other day.

The book is U.S. War Department Handbook on German Military Forces, which has been republished by the Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0-8071-2011-1

In a couple of instances they comment on the performance of some German hollow charge weapons.

On the 46mm Hollow-Charge Rifle Grenade (Gewehr Panzergranate 46) on Page 406 to 407
qoute
(3) Perfomance. Static test indicates that the penetration at long ranges is approximately 90mm of homogeneous armor. At short range (approximately 18 feet) the penetration was 70mm. A 1/4-inch mild steel plate, spaced 11 inches in front of the armor, completely nullified the effect.

On the 61mm Hollow-Charge Rifle Grenade (Gewehr Panzergranate 61).
quote
(3) Perfomance. Static test indicates that the maximum penetration of homogeneous armor at the extreme range of 220 yards will be approximately 126mm. At a range of approximately 18 feet the penetration falls to 100mm. A 1/4-inch mild steel plate, spaced 11 inches in front of the armor, completely defeats the grenade "

Now points to note are
1. The German 61mm Hollow-Charge Rifle Grenade has the same penetration as Bazooka both are HEAT weapons.
2. "A 1/4-inch mild steel plate, spaced 11 inches in front of the armor" is the spec for shurzen armour.
3. So according to this test shurzen plate should defeat bazooka. Unfortunately in-game bazooka defeats shurzen armour.
Can we fix this?
Best Chuck.

Re: Shurzen
 

While I have the greatest respect for Chuckforth's attention to detail and his tenacity in persuing possible problems in the OOBs, we need to remember that the issue of shurzen, HEAT and ATRs was debated by several parties, in great detail, at great length and with some heated emotion in the old DOS forum.

If there is significant new information about HEAT, ATRs or anything else to add to that previous discussion, I respectfully request those concerned wrap it up into to one coherent, well supported post preferably drawing on primary and secondary sources.

Can we please avoid yet another round of increasingly acrimonius debate that results only in a locked thread?

Thank you.

Re: Shurzen
 

(cough) sChurzen!

Re: Shurzen
 

(double cough) Schürzen (Schuerzen)

Re: Shurzen
 

Heres something else of relevance.
see
http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html

4 bazooka hits on Panther road wheels. All made a hole in the wheel but left -no- impression on the inner wheel. ie the space between the wheels absorbed the blast, working exactly like schurtzen. The space between the wheels is less than the space schurtzen stands off at.
This is of course additional to the test mentioned in the first post (showing schurtzen defeats bazooka)
I still hope that one day schurtzen could be modeled correctly in the game, ie the HEAT value of the armour being greater than the bazooka/PIAT pen value.
I mean is there any example anywhere of a bazooka or PIAT penetrating shurtzen and the tanks main armour behind, no.
Best Regards Chuck

Re: Shurzen
 

We have alreeady been provided with some detailed research in this regard and we will be reviewing the info and likely making some adjustments to the HEAT armour values of tanks with add on plate armour.

Don

Re: Shurzen
 

Chuck
Man your on a roll thats 2 posts in a roll being looked at this & the Hs 129 one.
Think carefully about your next post if you can make it 3 that would be awesome:D

Re: Shurzen
 

It is somewhat disapointing, that after four years, all you can bring up are these old examples that were discussed extensively on the old DOS forum back in 2005. :)

The odd thing about the effect of Schürzen vs HEAT is that even though it has been a hotly debated topic on the Internet for at least 15 years, I've never seen anyone bring forward actualy firing tests or combat reports dealing with the effect of WWII HEAT weapons against Schürzen.

As we know, the Germans didn't employ Schürzen to protect their tanks against HEAT, the 5mm plates were intended to defeat Soviet anti-tank rifle rounds.That may be the reason why no tests of HEAT vs Schürzen have so far emerged from German Archives, even though they have been intensely researched over the past 15-20 years.

Anyway, a while ago while researching for my thesis, I came across some British tests from 1944, where a setup of plates similar to Schürzen were tested against a wide range of contemporary HEAT-type weapons. Even though these tests were not conclusive, according to the people doing the testing, they do shed some light on the problem.

That is the data Don and Andy is looking at, I believe.

The tests shows, among other things, that static tests do not always give the same results as tests where the warhead is fired at the target and that Schürzen does not react to a hit by HEAT in the same manner as a Panther roadwheel :)

They also show that the effect on Schürzen of an impacting HEAT round depends a lot on whether the round is a rotating shell, fired from a gun or a slow moving, non-rotated round like PIAT og Panzerfaust. The latter tends to leave neat little holes, while the former ripped the plates apart and would likely have knocked the off a vehicle.

Another find was that a British made copy of the German 3kg magnetic charge performed vastly better than the mass-produced German original. Some of the other rounds used misfired or behaved erratically.
With hundreds of thousands of German HEAT weapons being returned to the factory and complaints about the Bazooka causing it to be withdrawn from service for a short period in 1943, that is hardly surprising, but still worth remembering when talking about these weapons in game terms.

The dangers of trying to extrapolate from something like the Panther roadwheel incident to the effect of Schürzen is made obvious by these tests. The roadwheel incident would suggest that the HEAT warhead would waste itself on the plate, leaving very little residual penetrative effect.
Against the array of plate and armour in the British tests, however, most of the un-spun HEAT rounds made a hole in the skirting plate, bridged the space of air behind and impacted the main armour with various degrees of penetrative power.
In one test, a PIAT round would make a hole in the 6mm skirting plate, cross nearly 50cm of space and knock a hole in the 32mm armour plate main armour. It would, however, do very little damage behind the armour.
At the other end of spectrum, the British made 3kg charge would knock a 15cm hole in the skirting plate, breach an air gap of 50cm and then blow a 4cm hole in the 50mm main armour, making a complete mess of whatever was behind the armour.

What this seems to show, is that WWII HEAT did not somehow magically loose its power if hitting a skirting plate. It was perfectly capable of maintaining a fairly focused stream or jet across a considerable distance of air and thus do damage to the main armour behind the skirt.

What the tests also seems to show, is that the German setup of skirting plates - Schürzen - would in many cases be sufficient to defeat the smaller WWII HEAT warheads like the PIAT or the small Panzerfaust, at least at the points where the Schürzen were at the greatest distance from the main armour. But they also show that gun-fired HEAT shells would likely destroy the Schürzen plate with the first hit, making it a one-shot protection.
The real challenge facing the game designers, is how to interpret these results within the framework of the game.

Claus B

Re: Shurzen
 

I know exactly how I'm going to do it I just haven't tested it yet becasue I've got more than enough to do ATM with the winSPMBT patch. There will be an increase in the side armour HEAT armour values of Schürzen equipped tanks to bring those numbers somewhere between 9 and 11 up from the 6 they are now. Whether it's 9, 10 or 11 will depend on test results.

Don

Re: Shurzen
 

In MBT this would be ERA right?will it be put in WW2 as well, or just raise the heat armor?

Re: Shurzen
 

It's not like ERA and I've already explained what I'm going to do

Don

Re: Shurzen
 

For my 2 pfennings worth, I wasn't involved in the previous disussions. Two thoughts occur, what about the screen type Shurzen in the latter part of the war, it would seem these were not aimed at ATR's but HEAT rounds? As well how many Panzers and StuG's actually retained their Shurzen once in battle, their seems to be a lot of photos that show some if not all missing. The Soviets even took to mounting bedsprings at least on some tanks. I have to wonder whether these measures were more to give the crews some sense of protection, as the addition of sandbags and tracks did for the crews using them.

Just some thoughts, Bob out:D

Re: Shurzen
 

Hi Claus
Very interesting, here is something relevant from
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ped-charge.htm

"A Monroe-effect shaped-charge warhead can be expected to penetrate armor equal to 150-250% of the warhead diameter. "

All WWII HEAT munitions are 'simple' Monroe effect types. So the -theoretical maximum- range/effect against armour plate of any of the WWII munitions is 2.5 times the Munitions diameter.
This is because
"At larger standoff ( >2.5*WH diameter), the jet is broken into many small particulates".(See 1) ie its become straightforward HE blast

So the maximum space a bazooka HEAT can cross and still have its armour penetrating jet effect is 2.36 * 2.5, thats 5.9 inches. Any further and the jet has lost its focus and is more akin to blast than blowtorch.

Now PZ IV track width is about 15 inches so the schurtzen side plate is at least 15 inches from the lower hull.
Looking at pictures its clear that the upper hull and turret is at least 11 inches behind the schurtzen plate.
see for example
http://www.steeldragons.net/PanzerIVbuildpageone.html
So shurtzen is clearly far enough away from the armour proper to protect 100 per cent from bazooka and PIAT.

If we work this in reverse we get what the HEAT value of the schurtzen should be
lets say the shurtzen plate is a very conservative 11 (28cm) inches from the hull, we get
28 / 2.5 = 11.2
So Schurtzen should have minimum HEAT armour value of 11, assuming that the HEAT round is working at its theoretical maximum and youve hit part of the shurtzen that is in front of close armour, not in front of the lower hull for instance.

Looking at some HEAT rounds that were in use if we divide the penetration by W/H diameter we get a good idea how far from the theoreticl maximum of 2.5 the pratical penetration ratios were.
German 61mm rifle grenade is 126/61 = 2
Bazooka is 4.7/2.36 = 2
PIAT is 75/88 = 1.1
Panzerfaust 60 = 200/140 = 1.4

Yes Yes I realise some of this has been posted elsewhere. its here for ease of access.

(1)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...2-warheads.htm

Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Shurzen
 

The effect of Schürzen vs HEAT has been discussed hundreds of times.
I'm wondering why nobody asked the real question regarding Schürzen in all these years:
Do Schürzen protect against anti tank rifles in-game?

Everybody (almost) agrees Schürzen were originally designed to defeat russian anti tank rifles, the protection against HEAT was an unexpected benefit.
A quick search showed no increase in steel armor for tanks equipped with Schürzen in-game.
Is there a reason for this?

Re: Shurzen
 

Seems heated debate this but I will chuck my 2 penneth in with Panzer Bob.
It was easily damaged, a trip into the trees for instance so should not be modeled as complete vulnerability even if it is as parts could be missing.
So if stopped the majority the others could be considered to strike an exposed area

Re: Shurzen
 

I don't think so, Schürzen in fact WAS designed to defeat ATRs, but in game the only defense against AP,HE,and SABOT rounds is steel armor, as there's no "side skirts" armor in the game.

Re: Shurzen
 

Nope, both types of Schürzen were designed to defeat ATR rounds. When tested in February 1943, both the solid plate and the wire-mesh types were tried out and both worked against ATRs. The solid plates were choosen, because the brackets for the wire-mesh type was not ready. Later, that problem was solved and the wire-mesh type introduced as a weight saving measure, AFAIK

AFAIK the "bedsprings" were in fact specially designed anti-HEAT shields, the purpose being to catch the slow moving PzFaust wearhead without detonating it. The distance between the shield and the main armour was insufficient to prevent penetration if the round went off.

Claus B

Re: Shurzen
 

This is far to simplistic a statement. Penetration can be a lot more and a lot less depending on design, liner material, quality of manufacture, coneshape and what not.

Again, far too simplistic and you seem to be confusing standoff with penetration?

Reality is that penetration varies with stand-off. Some figures from Journal of Battlefield Technology suggest that a HEAT warhead with a steel liner (as most WWII rounds, AFAIK) would penetrate 2.8 cone diameters with a standoff of 1.0 At 3x standoff, penetration would rise to 3.5 conediameters, then dropping back to 2.1 cone diameters at 6x standoff.
This is of course a simplifaction and penetrations would probably apply more to post-war rounds than the WWII items, but it does show that the relationship between standoff and penetration is a complex one.

The problem with these idle speculations is that they dont fit with reality. Note the British test showing that the PIAT could, on a good day, in fact penetrate a 6mm plate, reach across 50cm of space (that's about 20") and still penetrate a 32mm armour plate.

This is exactly why circumstantial evidence like hits on Panther roadwheels and speculative arithmatic is not sufficient evidence to warrant changes to the game - in my view. :)

You need the results of actual tests with the actual weapons involved if you want to come anywhere near the truth of the matter. And note, that even the British ordnance people doing these tests did not think that they were conclusive!

Claus B

Re: Shurzen
 

The only other thing I will add is while it may have been origionaly designed to stop ATR the Germans would have realised just as the allies did the benefits against HEAT

Re: Shurzen
 

Thanks Claus, certainly makes sense, and certainly explains what he idea behind the "bedsprings" was. Interesting how decisions made can have effect all out of perpective to the orginal intent. The Soviets retained their ATR's when other forces had dumped them. Figuring any weapon was better than none and they would at least usefull against light armoured vehicles. The result was causing the Germans to waste even more resources defending against them and causing the invention or at least the first particial stand-off armour. And people question how can WWII history can remain interesting!!!???

Bob out:up:

Re: Shurzen
 

So far, no evidence have surfaced suggesting that the Germans ever considered Schürzen as anti-HEAT shields.

However, I think you are right that the Germans knew that they would some effect. About a year before they employed Schürzen, they tried firing HEAT at the spaced armour on the front of the Panzer IV. Basically 20mm thick plates spaced a short distance from the front turret and superstructure similar to what you see on many Panzer IIIs. They were originally designed to damage enemy AP rounds before they hit the main armour, particularily be de-capping capped rounds.
Anyway, the result was that the spaced plate would indeed stop a gun-fired HEAT round from damaging the main armour, but it would destroy or remove the spaced plates in the process. So just like the British found with thin skirting plates, it was a one-shot protection.

I would venture a guess, that the Germans probably knew that Schürzen would have some effect on HEAT weapons, but that they probably drew the conclusion that

- Against gun-fired HEAT, it was a one-shot protection
- Against un-spun HEAT rounds, they were only effective up to a point. British tests showed that Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust were both capable of penetrating the skirting plate, breach any meaningfull air-gap and still penetrate 70-100mm on the other side. As we have already seen, the German Schürzen setup barely protected against the PIAT and could probably be defeated by anything bigger.

Had the US fielded the 3,5" bazooka in WWII, no one would probably bothered considering the Schürzen as anti-HEAT shields anyway :)

cbo

Re: Shurzen
 

Given that the effect of stand-off was not yet fully understood in those days, it could well be that adding a small spacing could in fact increase the effect of an enemy HEAT shell by inadvertently optimising the stand-off for the round :)!

Cheers
Andy

Re: Shurzen
 

Cbo
Slightly off topic but as you seem to know quite a bit why did the PzMkIV recieve minimal improvements to its turret armour. Was this due to the fact that the long barrel 75 was a tight squeeze meaning the glacis could not be improved, in other words the turret was at its design limits or maximum weight for traverse possibly?

Late war it was not a great tank to have on the defence either dug in or on a hill due to the comparativly weak turret.

Re: Shurzen
 

Hi
Well I guess someone better put the con argument for AT shurzen heres what John D Salt has to say at
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...tary.moderated

"1. There is no need to hang the outer plates at such a distance
from the main armour (with the attendant difficulty of having
them knocked off) unless one wants to increae stand-off distance;

and

2. There were no 14.5mm ATRs or anything comparable on the
Western or Italian fronts, yet German AFVs continued to wear
Shurzen there.

It also seems to me that, whereas an outer plate struck at an
angle might succeed in reducing the penetration of a 14.5mm APCR
round, it would make little difference with a normal impact. The
performance of the 14.5mm against the 30mm side armour of the Pz
III or Pz IV is so marginal that I would have thought it would
mostly fail at any great angle anyway. While not disputing that
Shurzen might indeed reduce the effect of 14.5mm (though, as
mentioned in another post of mine, it might not), it beggars
belief that anyone would put such engineering effort into a
counter to such a marginal threat when there are plenty of other
things to worry about.

Finally, I have yet to hear any basis for the statement that
Schurzen were intended to protect against 14.5mm apart from a
misreading of a single Spielberger book, which is nicely
contradicted by the same author in a companion volume. Does
anyone have any evidence they can point to of Pz IIIs and IVs
going down like flies to 14.5mm ATR teams, at any time in the
war? I'd be fascinated to hear about them. "

Makes sense to me.

Im sure that plenty of bazooka and PIAT rounds got fired at shurtzen in the brocage etc, now if these weapons could penetrate the plate and the armour behind dont you think the germans might have changed the configuration slightly? or just left them off?
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Shurzen
 

Hi Claus
I think this is a copy of the new British test results we are talking about?

http://home19.inet.tele.dk/cbo/div/heat/wo194-755.htm

I notice one odd thing here.
In this Forum you says this
"PIAT could, on a good day, in fact penetrate a 6mm plate, reach across 50cm of space (that's about 20") and still penetrate a 32mm armour plate"
However the test results say that the space was 38cm.
Have you made a mistake here Claus?
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Shurzen
 

Chucky...... did you notice anything at all familar about that website's URL ??? Perhaps the "DK" and "CBO" is a hint

Don

Re: Shurzen
 

Of course not :)

As Don points out, this is actually a compilation made by me with the data from one of the tests. There are two additional tests that I found.

But why dont you try taking a look at the figures in 194/755, for starters:

You argued previously, that Schürzen were about 15" from the hull of the Panzer IV - i.e. 38cm. If you look at PIAT shots 3-5 fired at target 5-6, they actually penetrated the 6mm skirting plate, breached the 38cm of space and just managed to make a hole in the 32mm armour plate. Shot #6 just made a bulge. The report concluded that this was probably a critical target for the PIAT, i.e. the target where some hits would fail and other succed in penetration (IIRC 50/50).

In another test, the 6mm skirt was penetrated, 48cm of space crossed and the 32mm armour just penetrated while the third hit nearly made it through. Again showing that the PIAT could do the job, but with very little damage behind the main armour.

While the sample is small, one could draw several tentative conclusions from these tests. One being that there were considerable variation in the performance of individual PIAT rounds, another that spacing between plates might not have mattered that much, at least not until you reached distances which were impractical on tanks anyway.

As for John Salts comments, I suggest you read through the entire thread and the other threads on that page. Then it will become pretty obvious what the point of Schürzen was. Hint: It wasn't to stop HEAT. :)

But if you want to believe that they were, I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise. :)

Claus B

Re: Shurzen
 

Hi Claus
In your paraphrased document
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/cbo/div/heat/wo194-755.htm
you say this
"PIAT with improved filling"
So do you have a service entry date for the -new- improved pait round? did it even get used during WWII?
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Shurzen
 

Hi
Firstly from
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.h...c45cd330025628

"150% was typical for WW2 HC weapons and 250% for (early) 1950s HC weapons -- at that time already called "HEAT" for "High Explosive, Anti-Tank" in US Milspeak, I believe. Modern penetration optimized hollow charge weapons can reach up to ten times (1000%) the warhead diameter, although 7-8 times is a more common figure for weapons in actual service"

This is important because,
http://knygos.sprogmenys.net/knygos-...%20Walters.pdf
or
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6193899/An...Charge-Concept

"Due to the presence of a velocity gradient, the jet will stretch until it fractures into a column of particles. Jet breakup or particulation occurs at the peal penetration. Once the jet has particulated, the individual particles are no longer perfectly aligned and usually result in side wall collisions with the previously formed crater and do not act to increase the penetration depth. ... The standoff is the distance between the front of the shaped charge (the liner base) and the target."

So...
the typical 150-250% (of WH diameter) penetration for WWII munitions is the depth penetrated because any deeper and the jet has dissipated and the hole is getting wider not deeper. So the key issue here is Geometric. It makes very little difference what medium the jet is travelling through, air or metal the Geometry of the jet limits its range/cutting depth to 1.5 to 2.5 cone diameters, this is why schurzen works.

and from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(...ank_.28HEAT.29

"A HEAT charge is most effective when detonated at a certain, optimal, distance in front of the target and HEAT shells are usually distinguished by a long, thin nose probe sticking out in front of the rest of the shell and detonating it at the correct distance, e.g., PIAT bomb."

So the following comment is wrong.
"Given that the effect of stand-off was not yet fully understood in those days, it could well be that adding a small spacing could in fact increase the effect of an enemy HEAT shell by inadvertently optimising the stand-off for the round"

PIAT at a 3-1/4 (9.53cm) cone diameter and at the best penetration of 2.5 cone diameters can reach out/cut to a depth of 9,1/2 inches (24cm) Max.

The paraphrased results posted by Claus show that PIAT can cross 15 (38cm) inches and still penetrate a 32 cm armour plates 50% of the time (3 out of 6 attempts).
This would indicate to me that that 38 cm is the maximum air space PIAT can cross and still hole a pz 3/4 side armour. As the Lower Hulls and Turrets of shurtzen clad vehicles are much further away than that the only possible vulnerable parts are the upper hulls. A small to neglible target on pz IV but larger on stug. I'll have a look to see exacly what the distances are.
The tests also show that 51cm (20 inches) air gap defeats PIAT.
Also though the armour may be penetrated the effect (size of hole) may be neglible.

In any case the British test results seem odd to me, either they are using a precision made munition of perhaps the munition conatained a test type of explosive unable to be produced in Britian or too expensive or difficult to mass produce, hence never reaching the troops.

Claus please note the use of Quotes I am supplying the other authors coments, not my interpretation of what they have said.

Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Shurzen
 

I find it highly amusing that you are willing to believe all sorts of speculative arithmatic and undocumented opinion you find on the internet over actual test results from WWII using the weapons and armour of the day. :)

And that you conviniently pick whatever results fit your prejudice and ignore the rest :)

You posts has a hamster in a wheel quality to them: Never going anywhere, but kinda cute to watch in small doeses :)

With regards to how much WWII HEAT could penetrate measured in terms of cone diameter, it is simply bollocks to state that:

WWII HEAT was a lot of different things and developed a lot during the war. May I remind you that German gun-fired 75mm HEAT went from something like 0.5 cone diameters penetration to about 1.5 cone diameters?

Or that the Panzerfaust penetrated about 1.8 cone diameters, the Panzerschreck about 2.3 cone diameters or the 3kg Hafthohladung about 1.2 cone diameters?

The actual figures might differ depending on which source you use for penetration data, but they are still all over the place.

Real life just isnt as simple as some people seem to think.

Your calculations might improve if you tried to understand the terms you are using.

First of all, I'm unaware of the arithmatic which translates 3 1/4 inch to 9.53 centimeters? May I suggest that you meant 3 1/2 inch corresponding with ~89mm?

Secondly, it is the warhead of the PIAT that was about 90mm in diameter. But warhead diameter is not cone diameter.....

It is rather amusing you keep repeating this old wives tale, as I debunked it thorougly on the old SPWWII forum back in 2005.
But OK, lets debunk it again. :)

Panzerschreck penetrates about 160mm of steel armour - figures differ, but lets run with this one. With a cone diameter of 70mm, that is 2.3 cone diameters.

So according to the impaccable chuckalogic, the "jet" would move about 175mm through any type of material, even air, after which it would fizzle out, expanding sideways rather than forward.

When the British fired captured Panzerschrecks at their skirting armour test target, it managed 6mm of steel plate, 380mm of air and 100mm of armour plate. Hmmm, that is 6.9 cone diameters....:)

The US Army experimented with plastic armour panels using HCR2, a mix of quartz gravel, asphalt and wood flour boxed in by aluminium plates. They fired Panzerschrecks at these panels mounted on a Sherman, resulting in penetration of 25mm aluminium, 250mm of HRC, another 25mm of aluminium and still penetrated the 38mm side hull of the Sherman. That is 4.8 cone diameters.

As for the improved filling in the PIAT used for the tests in 194/755, it was 50/50 RDX and TNT. I'm not aware that either type was in short supply during the war and in any case, it only improved the performance of the PIAT by about 12%. Other tests were performed with the standard explosive and performance was, if anything, better. That probably had more to do with individual variations in the rounds than the different fillings, though.

If you actually read the data, it might improve you interpretations. Of the 6 rounds fired, two were detonated while static in front of the target. Four where fired from the launcher.

The reason why they tried firing the rounds instead of simply detonating them, was because experienced had shown that HEAT rounds generally performed better when fired from the launcher.

So the real deal here is that 3 out of 4 rounds penetrated the target when fired from the launcher.

Gee - that is exactly what the British concluded on the test described in 194/755. As I said previously.

However, in another test, one round actually breached the 50cm gap and still penetrated the 32mm of armour on the other side while two other rounds failed to breach a gap of only 38cm. Which again shows that the difference in performance of individual rounds was considerable. Still, it would be a reasonable bet to conclude that the 38cm gap was about critical for the PIAT round.

No they dont. 194/755 shows that 6mm of skirting plate + 51cm of air gap + 50mm of armour defeats PIAT.

Now, I'm sure you will continue this thread or revive the issue endlessly, but I'm leaving the field now. :)

Don and Andy has the data, know what to do with it and how to use it to improve the game and that is what's important.

I dont think our continued headbutting is going to change anything :)

cbo

Re: Shurzen
 

A few illustrations from 194/755

Target I: 6mm skirting armour + 51cm air gap + 50mm armour:

http://home19.inet.tele.dk/cbo/div/h...rtingplate.jpg

Notice how the PIAT has made two neat little holes in the 6mm skirting plate while the British-made copy of the German 3kg magnetic charge have blasted a 15cm hole in the plate.

http://home19.inet.tele.dk/cbo/div/h...50mmarmour.jpg

Here are the results on the 50mm armour. The two PIAT hits has pitted the armour, while the 3kg charge have penetrated the armour completely.

http://home19.inet.tele.dk/cbo/div/h...itingplate.jpg

And this is the damage caused to the skirting plate by a hit from a 95mm rotated shell fired from 100 yards.

Here is something you dont see everyday - a British Centaur tank with "Schürzen":

http://home19.inet.tele.dk/cbo/div/heat/centaur-1.jpg
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/cbo/div/heat/centaur-2.jpg

In one test, 25-pdr HE was fired at the "Schürzen"-clad Centaur.

Before...
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/cbo/div/heat/centaur-3.jpg
Note the holes in the armour and skirt from previous tests.

After.....
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/cbo/div/heat/centaur-4.jpg

cbo

Re: Shurzen
 

And with that the thread is closed. Further "debate" is pointless. The point has been made and the OOB's have been adjusted.

Don