.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $9.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPWW2 > TO&Es
Notices


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 7th, 2009, 03:00 PM
cbo's Avatar

cbo cbo is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 303
Thanks: 4
Thanked 40 Times in 26 Posts
cbo is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Shurzen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp View Post
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
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
  #2  
Old March 7th, 2009, 06:08 PM
Mobhack's Avatar

Mobhack Mobhack is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundee
Posts: 5,988
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,922 Times in 1,250 Posts
Mobhack is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Shurzen

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp View Post
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
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
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
  #3  
Old March 7th, 2009, 09:06 PM
Imp's Avatar

Imp Imp is offline
General
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Uk
Posts: 3,308
Thanks: 98
Thanked 602 Times in 476 Posts
Imp is on a distinguished road
Default 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.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.