Where they to defend against shaped charges, or something else? I have
never seen em before on a tank.

Attached Images

PzIV_Saumur_000a5s6s.jpg (114.7 KB, 32 views)

Google 'Schurzen' DF.
These are the later mesh type, that were actually developed/tested at exactly the same time as the solid ones more commonly seen. Material shortages meant the flat plates were chosen instead of the, perhaps surprisingly, more effective mesh.

Popular myth will tell you they were a form of stand-off protection against shaped charges, they may or may not have had some benefit in that role (they may have made things worse) but they were in fact fitted to deflect hits from Anti-Tank rifles such as the PTRS & PTRD.

Bit more recent schurzen discussion on this thread mate.
M-4 with Cement "Armor"

Sensible page from 'Sturmgeschutz Vor' :
http://www.stugiii.com/schurzen.html

~A

What von poop said is true, also they were intended to detonate russian anti tank shells before they hit the main armor. The most common russian anti-tank artillery was the famous 76 mm and its ammo used the shaped charge principle: when the shell hit armor plate, it was designed to creat a superheated mass that concentrated all its energy in a very small area. Thus penetrating the armor with a super-hot melting effect and destroying the tank by detonating the ammo or blowing up its fuel, and/or destroying the crew inside.

The Germans discovered if the anti-tank round hit anything immediately before it hit the armor itself, the round would detonate and the energy dissipated before it could damage the armor. Thus the side shields were of course sacrificial, since the idea was to detonate the shell on the side plate before it could hit the tank's armor. The side plates were also effective against American bazooka rounds and British PIAT anti tank weapon since the principal of their warhead was essentially the same.

The same principle has of course been used quite recently in the American wars in Iraq and Afganistan, particularly on the US Army Stryker APC. Some of these vehicles have been fitted with not plates, but slatted pieces of metal in a cage-like arrangement. The slats are designed for defense against the RPG-7, one of the Mujihideen insurgents favorite weapons. The rpg-7 rocket warhead uses an electrical impulse created by impact to detonate, so the slats are designed to blow up the rpg round before it can reach the vehicle's armor - same as with the side plates from the Panzer Mark 4, of almost 70 years ago.

Wait, von Poop meant that mesh armor was a countermeasure to anti-tank rifle, like the solid skirt armor, right? The skirt armor actually enhanced the danger of HEAT rounds because it provided the ideal stand-off range for detonation.

Modern slat armor works according to different principles.

im not sure about what von poop said "anti tank rifles, PTRS & PTRD" because in that thread von poop recommended it says that schurzen was designed to deflect anti tank rifles, because the anti tank rifles aim for wheels, periscopes and other small essential items on the vehicle. if you ever get your hands on a 1/35 model of a say panzer IV you pretend your an anti tank rifleman when you do you can still see periscopes, wheels and other essential items the vehicle. i reckon schurzen was used to stop HEAT projectiles like the PIAT and bazooka. AND if mesh was more expensive or harder to make why is it on the panzer IV ausf J considering this was produced at the later stages of the war when the germans could ill aford to make expensive products.

just a note, nothing serious

No German source seems to yet refer to initial Schurzen trialling or fitting as a countermeasure against large calibre shaped charge weapons. Only that rather tenuous US report has jumped to that conclusion.
It was tested as a countermeasure against HE and AT Rifle, and deployed as a countermeasure against AT rifles.

You can 'reckon' that they were there to deter PIAT and Bazooka all you like, but as it was first fielded in 1943 in a theatre where such weapons were virtually unknown it is an odd conclusion (a modest amount of man-portable rockets were present in the East from lend-lease... I've got the figures somewhere, it's a largish single delivery, but a very modest amount given the scale of the fighting).

I also said nothing about the mesh being more expensive mate, I referred to 'material shortages' - at the point of introduction around '43 the correct grade of mesh was unavailable in sufficient quantity, presumably either in use elsewhere, or the machinery was working on another higher priority project. Such bottlenecks in production and the compromises they engendered were a 'feature' of German armour production and development for the entire war.

Rather than looking at a model, look at a Schurzen equipped tank in a photograph in some lovely Russian mud somewhere, and then try and visualise yourself as a Soviet Infantryman trying to get a shot in on a vulnerable point from low cover and an oblique angle... they're quite nicely set up to deny most attacks (you have sensibly chosen a position where you're not head-on, that would be foolish) - and the wheels are solid & armoured anyway so not the best target if engaging anything beyond a Mark II.

Spielberger's very good for snippets on Schurzen, he certainly enlightened me, but his books infuriatingly have no index, I really must sit down one day and collate all the scattered references into one lump.

~A

in your link poop it says that AT rifles should be used at ranges of 50 to 100m which is in my experience not very close, im sure russians didnt run up to a panzer III 10m away and try and shoot it with an AT rifle, that would be an oblique angle..... 100m away you could see the commanders coupola from the side. Why not in front, if you have 20 AT rifle infantry shooting all the periscopes im sure the germans inside arent looking through them and when each rifle is 50 metres away the concealed places is infinite for the rifles. and im just guessing here but if I was an AT rifleman i would go for the main gun sight first. so if a gunner, commander sees a rifle behind a bush what are you gonna do inside a tank? it would be almost impossible for tanks to deal with AT filemen by themselves and if they were part of a panzer division im not sure they would have infantry support with them conastantly. i dont think russian AT riflemen would be foolish enough to take on tanks while german infantry are acompaning the tanks.

Some nice links:
An Introduction to Anti-Tank Rifle Cartridges

Russian


Outside of the 'vulnerable point' attacks with such weapons, one wonders how much spalling could be generated on the flanks by these things plinking away at close range? - Away from the books at the moment, so I'm in speculative mode, but this film of smaller calibre stuff someone recently gave a heads up to on HMVF does perhaps make one wonder about cartridges and muzzle velocities like those associated with the Russian ATRs:
YouTube - 1 million fps Slow Motion video of bullet impacts made by Werner Mehl from Kurzzeit

One might not expect any sort of penetration (no matter how much us boys tend to fixate on penetrating things ), but I don't think I'd like to be on the reverse side of any contemporary armour plate with 14.5mm tungsten core projectiles being flung against it by the concentrated efforts of 27 determined AT Riflemen of a Red Army Mechanised Brigade's AT company (1942 'official' issue levels).
Schurzen would increase my confidence perhaps, and assist in relieving one of the many headaches of the Panzer crewman.

~A

considering how thiin the schurzen is wouldnt an experienced AT rifleman only have to move a bit closer and fire at the schurzen just guessing and it would still do the same damage?

poor dogfather me and poop have turned his thread into a discussion about schurzen uses when dogfather doesnt know much about the stuff in the first place lol

OI dont hide poop, respond dam it

__________________
News today, a man has fallen into a chocolate vat in the arnotts factory

In other news arnotts have anounced that there will be 50% more tim in your tim tams.
(p.s. only aussies will get this joke)

OK... why on earth would a man aim at the Schurzen when it will disrupt his AT rifle fire? - that being what it's designed to do.

The plate's thin-ness is irrelevant, it is proven thick enough to disrupt the round's potential for any lethality against the main armour or other vulnerable points, as was the open mesh type - that's the whole point of the stuff. Once the projectile has been touched/disturbed during it's flight it's already limited chance of doing damage is massively curtailed.

If an AT rifleman has learnt what Schurzen does to his shots, he will surely be doing his damnedest to shoot around it?.. Thus finding it harder to hit useful targets. It has been fitted to give him this problem.

~A

just as a side note, on the turret take the panzer IV ausf J as an example. this being after vision ports have been eliminated all round and pistol ports. whats to hit on the turret? considering the coupola is above the plates and the gunners site on the front.

__________________
News today, a man has fallen into a chocolate vat in the arnotts factory

In other news arnotts have anounced that there will be 50% more tim in your tim tams.
(p.s. only aussies will get this joke)

mesh Schurzen was used on the J model of the Pz IV as well as the Stug III on the Ost front. nearly worthless really but could be used for the undertaking of increased foliage for camo needs. In most cases the plated versions just fell off but even the Mesh could easily get entanlged with tree/shrub lines and running through buildings and were bent beyond shape a ripped off the sides of the vehicle.

__________________
E ~

If you would like for a member to reply, this is not the language to use.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW