Field expedient armor for SU tanks vs Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck

[John Kettler]

Have been seeing accounts, plus the rare and blurry pic occasionally, for years, but here is a crisp clean pic of a T-34/85 (shot at Brandenburger Gate in 1945) with two different kinds of protection: one for the turret and another for the upper hull. Below pic expands when clicked.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited March 21, 2020 by John Kettler

[LukeFF]

Yes, these photos have been around forever online. Nothing new or unusual, despite what you may think.

[John Kettler]

LukeFF,

It's the best quality one I've ever seen. AsI indicated in the OP, I have seen others, but the image quality was poor. Even as thumbnail, this one is very good and shot from close range. Ironically, my understanding is that these screens really didn't help, other than give the crews a certain amount of comfort. My understanding is that the distance was helpful to the HEAT threats, rather than imeding them. Certainly, the air gaps are considerably less than for German skirt armor. Nor did either the Panzerfaust or the Panzerschreck projectiles use the RPG style inner and outer gapped nose cone construction wherein fuze defeat could result from hitting chain link fencing other than directly nose on. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Freyberg]

11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Yes, these photos have been around forever online. Nothing new or unusual, despite what you may think.

I hadn't seen this image before - thanks Mr Kettler for your always interesting historical finds

13 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Have been seeing accounts, plus the rare and blurry pic occasionally, for years, but here is a crisp clean pic of a T-34/85 (shot at Brandenburger Gate in 1945) with two different kinds of protection...

 

[MikeyD]

Awhile ago I stumbled across an account of this, or perhaps it was of similar American tests, I forget which. The upshot was (to the best of my recollection) the Faust's contact fuse would fail to detonate as the impact was absorbed by the mesh screen. I want to say it worked 50% of the time but my recollection is on really shaky ground here. There are other reports that claim the stand-off distance from the hull was enough to weaken the shape charge's ability to penetrate. Anyway, the 'bedsprings' on the T-34-85 in the game is more than just eye candy.

 

 

[akd]

These were manufactured stand-off screens.

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/06/panzerfaust-protection.html

Edited March 24, 2020 by akd

[John Kettler]

MIkeyD and akd,

Since I don't own that game (and haven't been able to play ANY CM since late August), I wasn't aware the mesh screens were in CMRT or were modeled. From what I can see, in akd's and the one in that to another article, these screens were almost exclusively BoB period, with anything earlier being the usual story of crews desperately improvising. Appreciate the pic and the links.

Regards,

John Kettler



 

[akd]

15 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

MIkeyD and akd,

Since I don't own that game (and haven't been able to play ANY CM since late August), I wasn't aware the mesh screens were in CMRT or were modeled. From what I can see, in akd's and the one in that to another article, these screens were almost exclusively BoB period, with anything earlier being the usual story of crews desperately improvising. Appreciate the pic and the links.

Regards,

John Kettler



 

Next module.

[MikeyD]

Not just in the coming module but they don't show up until April for Berlin-only fighting. So its a VERY late war addition.

[Bulletpoint]

On 3/22/2020 at 1:38 AM, John Kettler said:

My understanding is that the distance was helpful to the HEAT threats, rather than imeding them. Certainly, the air gaps are considerably less than for German skirt armor. Nor did either the Panzerfaust or the Panzerschreck projectiles use the RPG style inner and outer gapped nose cone construction wherein fuze defeat could result from hitting chain link fencing other than directly nose on. 
 

Maybe hitting the soft springy mesh would prevent the fuze from firing? If it was designed to trigger when striking a hard metal plate...

[MikeyD]

We're of course talking about Fausts but there was also the threat of grenades, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails, sticky bombs - any number of 'desperate measures' you'd prefer to bounce off the screen rather than explode against the hull side. Note the panel that's horizontal on top of the turret. That ain't there to intercept fausts!

[Bulletpoint]

4 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Note the panel that's horizontal on top of the turret. That ain't there to intercept fausts!

Could be. Panzerfausts fly in an arc...

[akd]

On 4/10/2020 at 4:23 AM, Bulletpoint said:

Could be. Panzerfausts fly in an arc...

They will also go straight in to the top of tank from a raised urban position.

[RockinHarry]

from Ospreys Panzerfaust vs. Sherman it says standoff (spaced) armor even increased the Faust´s effectiveness and penetration ability. So that mesh armor on russian AFV more than likely was a morale thing. Maybe russians have mistaken the german use of mesh armor for anti HEAT protection, while it still was vs. russian AT rifles. Who knows.

[Bulletpoint]

On 6/13/2020 at 3:14 AM, RockinHarry said:

from Ospreys Panzerfaust vs. Sherman it says standoff (spaced) armor even increased the Faust´s effectiveness

What do Osprey base that claim on? Were any tests ever carried out?

I've read several times that the hollow charge physics were not fully understood at the time, but I still find it difficult to believe that the Germans would not be smart enough to do a couple of tests to find the optimal standoff distance for their shaped charge warheads?

Also, I could imagine the purpose of the springs would be to prevent the fuze from triggering - a bit like a modern RPG cage.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[akd]

Oh my gosh, no one reads my links...

Quote

Metal meshes with bars 0.5-0.8 mm were used for this purpose, forming 4 cm by 4 cm squares. Use of these tanks in battle showed that the mesh usually saves the tank and suffers little damage (torn opening, 10-12 cm in diameter). These meshes are welded on top of special carriers made from round metal 15-20 mm in diameter, 200 mm away from armour, with the intention that the focus of the blast is aimed outside of the armour.

 

[RockinHarry]

7 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

What do Osprey base that claim on? Were any tests ever carried out?

I've read several times that the hollow charge physics were not fully understood at the time, but I still find it difficult to believe that the Germans would not be smart enough to do a couple of tests to find the optimal standoff distance for their shaped charge warheads?

Also, I could imagine the purpose of the springs would be to prevent the fuze from triggering - a bit like a modern RPG cage.

just a short chapter on soviet armor, but fairly detailed on any the western allied measures on (hoped for) shaped charge protection, like sandbags, concrete or sand filled jerrycans and such. Final conclusion that soviet "experiences" very much contradict US and CW experiences here.

Germans (and others) were surely aware of the stand-off thing, but I lack details on any of that. The Osprey book also doesn´t tell on the why´s and what´s of german developments. Since the late war Panzerfaust 150 was more optimized in this regard I just can guess it had something to do with production and easy handling of the faust in the field. The 150 warhead was more than 50cm long (overall) with long conical head, while the same time having less diameter (100mm something), but better explosive filler. Penetration effects were the same as previous models (200mm). This was attributed to the better filler and the longer cone (for stand-off). The UK Piat round also shows that a certain stand-off was needed for best effect. Another guess of mine would be germans figured the standard 140mm diameter head (30, 60, 100 model) beeing effective enough, even without any head design optimizations. So they´d likely kept it just simple, easy to use and best suited for mass production.

The Osprey book (I think) also mentioned a minimum of 76cm for any anti Faust stand-off measures to have any decisive effect. The russian experience and measure might be something very specific to the Berlin (or late war city) fighting. The angled mesh armor ( @akd ´s link above) might have deflected the Faust´s warhead enough so that the metal jet stream hit the armor at very flat angles. Still I wonder western allies and germans didn´t came to a similar solution.... if it really worked. Zimmerit coating was introduced to counter possible allied magnetic HEAT charges, but didn´t bother with any technical measures to protect vs. PIAT or Zook rounds. Hm....

mentioned Osprey book btw: https://ospreypublishing.com/panzerfaust-vs-sherman

[Bulletpoint]

14 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

just a short chapter on soviet armor, but fairly detailed on any the western allied measures on (hoped for) shaped charge protection

Thank you for the detailed reply. I'm wondering if it is not only the extra distance, but if the combination of just a bit extra spacing and the metal cage might help to break up the shaped charge jet? That it breaks up the symmetry of the situation just a tiny amount?

It seems unlikely to deflect the power of that molten jet, but then again, it also seems unlikely that a mesh screen could do anything to deflect AT rifle bullets..

Edited June 15, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[RockinHarry]

49 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Thank you for the detailed reply. I'm wondering if it is not only the extra distance, but if the combination of just a bit extra spacing and the metal cage might help to break up the shaped charge jet? That it breaks up the symmetry of the situation just a tiny amount?

It seems unlikely to deflect the power of that molten jet, but then again, it also seems unlikely that a mesh screen could do anything to deflect AT rifle bullets..

No further ideas on the russian "solution". I just can refer to Zaloga´s book which is quite an interesting and well founded read. I was surprised on the mesh armor effects on AT rifle bullets as well. Think I read in some Panzer Tracs book on Pz-IVj about that. The tight mesh screen was figured to either slow the bullet down enough to not let achieve full pentration, or make it tumble or something. Maybe it was just few mm required to not let the bullet penetrate for more serious damage. Still looks like a big effort, but maybe mass employment of AT rifles made germans think it was necessary. They´d surely saved lots of steel wasted on the standard schurzen when they´d come to it sooner.

Edit:

From Panzer Tracts No 4-5 (PzKw IV Ausf. H - Ausf.J, 1943 to 1945:

"...from a test report shows the results of 14.5mm antitank rifle rounds hitting the 5mm plate and the 5mm diameter mesh. The conclusion was that both the 5mm plate and the 6mm diameter mesh had similar properties in absorbing the energy of the projectile before it impacted the main armor."

Edited June 15, 2020 by RockinHarry

[Bulletpoint]

Here is a video I found that might interest people interested in shaped charges.

How many packs of printer paper does it take to stop a shaped charge? Fewer than you might imagine. I'm thinking maybe those sandbags on the tanks had at least some effect after all.

 

[RockinHarry]

35 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Here is a video I found that might interest people interested in shaped charges.

How many packs of printer paper does it take to stop a shaped charge? Fewer than you might imagine. I'm thinking maybe those sandbags on the tanks had at least some effect after all.

 

interesting experiment for sure. But I doubt the selfmade charges and testing condition is comparable with anything military. This comment on YT gives the clue:

Darrell Leber - 2 years ago

"As a general rule, the depth of penetration for a shaped charge it defined by the length of the cone. Obviously the target, cone angle, explosive velocity, and properly directing the shock wave into the copper have significant effects as well, though assuming a properly designed charge against a target of similar hardness to steel (ok, so not this case), the length of the cone is a limiting factor. Also, the spacing between the target and the detonation is important."

But that´s a fun video and the science behind all that is surely bits more complicated.

[Bulletpoint]

4 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

"As a general rule, the depth of penetration for a shaped charge it defined by the length of the cone.

Interesting. I think I read somewhere that it's about the diameter of the charge - that the depth of penetration is roughly equal to the diameter. But I'm no interest at all in this stuff.

Also, yes, it's true that it's not a scientific test. I was just surprised it didnt go through more paper. Also, I thought the paper would be burnt or at least discoloured from the heat - but it seems the damage is much more like a physical punch than a burning molten stream.

[RockinHarry]

just found this very interesting YT video: 

 

[akd]

This article is a broader look at Soviet experience with stand-off armor, include thin plates versus 75mm heat before the advent of panzerschreck / panzerfaust:

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2013/05/research-into-soviet-armour-protection.html

Even more detail on early Soviet experiences with uparmoring with stand-off plates on T-34s:

Quote

As a result of trials, it was determined that the best measure against HEAT and subcaliber shells is spaced armour, located 100-600 mm from the main armour. In order to protect against HEAT shells, an iron plate only 4-5 mm thick is enough. To protect against subcaliber ammunition, 16 mm of armour is necessary.

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2015/08/t-34-spaced-armour.html

This is 1942, so likely 75mm HEAT.  These were abandoned after field experience because 75mm HEAT and 50mm and less APCR were a small threat compared to 75mm and 88mm AP, which totally overmatched the additional armor.  

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2013/10/up-armoured-t-34s.html

But you can see how these experiences may have informed later use of HEAT screens.  This goes into some detail on experiments with “schurzen” style plate skirts:

Quote

The additional armour was 6-8 mm thick and positioned 600 mm away from the main armour. A hit from a Panzerfaust created a 30 mm breach in the screen, but did not penetrate the main armour.

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/05/soviet-schurzen.html

[RockinHarry]

6 hours ago, akd said:

This article is a broader look at Soviet experience with stand-off armor, include thin plates versus 75mm heat before the advent of panzerschreck / panzerfaust:

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2013/05/research-into-soviet-armour-protection.html

Even more detail on early Soviet experiences with uparmoring with stand-off plates on T-34s:

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2015/08/t-34-spaced-armour.html

This is 1942, so likely 75mm HEAT.  These were abandoned after field experience because 75mm HEAT and 50mm and less APCR were a small threat compared to 75mm and 88mm AP, which totally overmatched the additional armor.  

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2013/10/up-armoured-t-34s.html

But you can see how these experiences may have informed later use of HEAT screens.  This goes into some detail on experiments with “schurzen” style plate skirts:

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/05/soviet-schurzen.html

that´s some interesting articles, thanks. Yes, mentioned german rounds were increasingly rare and HEAT in particular had certain problems when beeing fired from rifled guns (standard case).

The soviet Schurzen case (vs. Faust) is interesting. The desired 60cm stand-off at the side hull comes close to the 76cm I read about elsewhere. Though when looking at the sketches it´s more like between 30 to 50cm at average due to the sloped armor. The test beeing made in 1943 indicates it was vs. the Panzerfaust "klein", the first model distributed to the frontline. So in some cases and lucky circumstances that screen might have prevented some damaging penetrations to the main armor.

The 1945 soviet solution looks like something slightly different to me. Think it had little to do with standoff (still too little) and skirt material, but maybe rather the angle those skirts were attached to the tank and that combined with expected german firing positions (from buildings, maybe upper floors). Guess that´ll remain uncleared. Otherwise I´m in line with what MikeyD said further above:

No idea on reliability of the Faust´s fuze  though. Yet the Fausts were fired at all sort of targets (soft ones included) and I haven´t read about serious reliability issues (duds). If BFC implemented any "effects" from the schurzen, then I´d guess it´s more sort of a "luck" (random) factor and not physical simulation.