±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: Harold_Biondo
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6644

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 147
Total: 147
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Community Forums
03: Community Forums
04: Home
05: Home
06: Home
07: Community Forums
08: Home
09: Photo Gallery
10: Community Forums
11: Photo Gallery
12: Community Forums
13: Community Forums
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Home
17: Community Forums
18: Home
19: Photo Gallery
20: Community Forums
21: Your Account
22: Community Forums
23: Community Forums
24: Home
25: News
26: Home
27: Community Forums
28: Your Account
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Home
33: Community Forums
34: CPGlang
35: Community Forums
36: CPGlang
37: Community Forums
38: Community Forums
39: Photo Gallery
40: CPGlang
41: Community Forums
42: CPGlang
43: Community Forums
44: Home
45: CPGlang
46: Community Forums
47: Photo Gallery
48: Community Forums
49: Your Account
50: Community Forums
51: Home
52: Community Forums
53: Photo Gallery
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Home
57: Community Forums
58: Community Forums
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Photo Gallery
62: Home
63: Home
64: Community Forums
65: CPGlang
66: Home
67: Community Forums
68: Home
69: Community Forums
70: Home
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: CPGlang
74: Community Forums
75: Home
76: Photo Gallery
77: Photo Gallery
78: Home
79: Community Forums
80: Home
81: Community Forums
82: Photo Gallery
83: Home
84: Submit your Banner!
85: Photo Gallery
86: Community Forums
87: CPGlang
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: Home
91: Community Forums
92: Community Forums
93: CPGlang
94: CPGlang
95: Photo Gallery
96: Home
97: CPGlang
98: Community Forums
99: Home
100: Home
101: Home
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Home
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Home
108: Community Forums
109: Community Forums
110: Home
111: Community Forums
112: Community Forums
113: Home
114: Home
115: CPGlang
116: Community Forums
117: Member Screenshots
118: Community Forums
119: Home
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Your Account
123: Community Forums
124: Community Forums
125: Downloads
126: Community Forums
127: Community Forums
128: Home
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Home
132: Photo Gallery
133: Community Forums
134: Photo Gallery
135: Home
136: Home
137: Community Forums
138: Community Forums
139: Community Forums
140: Home
141: CPGlang
142: Home
143: Community Forums
144: Community Forums
145: Community Forums
146: Home
147: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Schurzen Question
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Steve_Adamski
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 09, 2009
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:57 am
Post subject: Schurzen Question

I'm a little behind the times and only have recently been made aware of Thomas Jentz's assertion that schurzen were developed to protect against anti-tank rifles NOT hollow charge weapons as had been previously thought.

My main question for you all is regardless of original intention, wouldn't schurzen still provide protection against hollow charge weapons?

It seems to me that it would. Spaced armor should weaken the jet of hot material. I would expect that the Germans figured this out and that is why so many later war vehicles still carried the schurzen ... long after antitank rifles were able to do anything serious. The development of the more open spaced Thoma shields and the "bed-spring" kits for the Soviet T-34s seem to me to point in this direction.

Am I correct in this thinking? If they do weaken the penetrating ability, any idea by how much on average?

Thanks,

Steve
Back to top
View user's profile
Kurt_Laughlin
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 577

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:41 am
Post subject: Re: Schurzen Question

It might or might not, depending on the optimal standoff of the weapon vs. the actual standoff. For a 2.36 inch bazooka, probably yes. For a later Panzerfaust, it probably would improve penetration.

German vehicles - especially the Panther - had very unbalanced armor protection. While the glacis was nearly impenetrable to Allied weapons the lower hull sides could be penetrated by ATRs at decent ranges. Consider that to the very end the Panther never mounted schurzen except to protect the armor between the suspension and the sponsons. If it was for shaped charge protection it would've made sense to protect the sponson and turret sides as the basic armor could be penetrated by existing shaped charges.

The Thoma screens were an effort to save steel. Same effect though.

The Soviets probably did not consult with the Germans on their bedspring kits, so it's a good bet they had different motivations for adopting them.

KL
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Steve_Adamski
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 09, 2009
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Schurzen Question

Thanks for the info and thoughts. This makes a lot more sense to me now.
Back to top
View user's profile
clausb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Schurzen Question

- Steve_Adamski
My main question for you all is regardless of original intention, wouldn't schurzen still provide protection against hollow charge weapons? It seems to me that it would. Spaced armor should weaken the jet of hot material.


They would. I'm not aware of any German tests suggesting that the Germans were aware of it*, but the British were looking into Schürzen as protection against HEAT weapons in 1944 and their results show that the German setup of Schüurzen on Panzers III and IV and StuG III and IV would likely defeat the 95mm HEAT shell fired from a gun and hits by the PIAT on most parts of the vehicle protected by Schürzen. But larger, un-spun HEAT rounds could probably bridge the gap, so to speak, and penetrate the main armour.

- Steve_Adamski
I would expect that the Germans figured this out and that is why so many later war vehicles still carried the schurzen ... long after antitank rifles were able to do anything serious.


The Schürzen protected the 30mm side armour of the German AFVs mentioned above and that armour remained 30mm right up to the end of the war, just as the Soviets continued to use large numbers of anti-tank rifles until the end of the war. Even the Panther had to wear a "miniskirt" to deal with the menace of the Soviet 14.5mm AT-rifle

Am I correct in this thinking? If they do weaken the penetrating ability, any idea by how much on average?


Judging from the British tests, it would appear that the PIAT with its 100mm armour penetration could defeat a 6mm skirting plate, 30cm of space and then 32mm of armour + 14mm of mild steel (target was a Centaur). It was soundly defeated by 6mm of skirting plate, 48cm of space and 32mm of armour plate with 14mm mild steel backing. With the same setup and 38cm of space, it would make a bulge in the main armour, but not penetrate.

Results would of course be different with thicker skirting plate, more or less space and thicker or thinner main armour, so finding an average based on this would be rather difficult Smile

Claus B

*They did test their own gun-fired HEAT against a 20mm armour plate spaced some 10-15cm from the main armour of a Panzer IV. It defeated the round, but the armour was shattered and broken, so it would've been a one-shot protection. Same thing with the 6mm plates in the British test - the gun-fired 95mm round made a complete mess of the plates but failed to penetrate the main armour. But with half the 6mm plate gone or knocked off its rails, it may not have worked well against the next round Smile
Back to top
View user's profile
Steve_Adamski
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 09, 2009
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Schurzen Question

Claus,

Thanks for the info. It was very helpful. I have never seen hard numbers before on this one.

Steve
Back to top
View user's profile
T26E4
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Apr 14, 2006
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Schurzen Question

Another clue as to the ATR focus of German Shurzen: look at later war designs that used them. Kurt mentions how they protected the gap below the Panther sponsons. Note also the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzers and Tiger IIs and Jagdtigers. Where was their shurzen? Above the tracks and below the sponsons- - weak areas that needed beefing up against ATR rounds.

I interviewed a German tanker who commanded Pz IIIs, Pz IVs and Stug IIIs and he was well aware that up to war's end, the Sov AT rifle bullet was a very dangerous threat.

(on a side note, in the PC online game "Red Orchestra" playing a Soviet AT rifleman is a very interesting role -- you really can pound German tanks -- you might get hosed w/their MG34s but it's still very fun)
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum