Field expedient armor for SU tanks vs Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck

[Bulletpoint]

9 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

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.

The skirts in the game already protect very well against shaped charges. I've seen many Pz IV and Panthers survive bazooka flank shots on their Schurzsen.

[Bulletpoint]

Here's something I found on Wikipedia:

"An analysis by British staff officers of the initial period of the Normandy campaign [...] also found that once German tanks had been fitted with armoured skirts that detonated shaped charge ammunition before it could penetrate the tank's armour, the weapon became much less effective."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[John Kettler]

Bulletpoint,

Call protection versus shaped charge attacks an unexpected but delightful bonus from fitting protection against ATR fire. Interestingly, I believe the first spaced armor on German AFVs was the standoff second bow plate used on ACs such as the 231 series 8-rad, which originally only had integral armor. 



Regards,

John Kettler

[RockinHarry]

12 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

The skirts in the game already protect very well against shaped charges. I've seen many Pz IV and Panthers survive bazooka flank shots on their Schurzsen.

 

Haven´t tested that in particular. Generally I stay clear (or try to) of any enemies potentially wielding HEAT ammunitions at their combat ranges.

 I´d be equally concerned sitting in a Panther vs. Zook or PIAT than I´d be sitting in a Sherman/T-34 facing Schreck and Fausts. 

 

11 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Here's something I found on Wikipedia:

"An analysis by British staff officers of the initial period of the Normandy campaign [...] also found that once German tanks had been fitted with armoured skirts that detonated shaped charge ammunition before it could penetrate the tank's armour, the weapon became much less effective."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT

 

 

Hard to tell if and why PIAT should be less effective on spaced armor. Warhead designs were different with quite a couple influencing factors for each individual design (warhead shape and size, explosives type and its shape, fuze at noze or rear end, shape and length of ballistic/standoff cap etc.)

 

Some more Wiki quotes (confirming the Osprey book analysis):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerschreck

Allied armored units frequently attempted to add improvised protection to their tanks, e.g., sandbags, spare track units, logs and so on to protect against HEAT rounds. Another defense was to rig metal mesh and netting around the tank, resembling the German Schürzen auxiliary plates. In practice about 1 meter of air gap were required to substantially reduce the penetrating capability of RPzB, thus skirts and sandbags were virtually entirely ineffective against RPzB and Panzerfaust.[7]

( 7. Chamberlain, Peter (1974). Anti-tank weapons. Arco. ISBN 0668036079 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust

In urban combat later in the war in eastern Germany, about 70% of tanks destroyed were hit by Panzerfäuste or Panzerschrecks. The Soviet forces responded by installing spaced armour on their tanks from early 1945 onwards. Western allied tanks were modified in the field in order to provide some protection against Panzerfaust, including to logs, sandbags, track links, and wire mesh like German skirts. In practice about 1 metre of air gap was required to substantially reduce the penetrating capability of the warhead, thus skirts and sandbags were virtually entirely ineffective against Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust, but the additions did overburden the vehicle's engine, transmission, and suspension systems.[13]

( 13. Chamberlain, Peter (1974). Anti-tank weapons. Arco. ISBN 0668036079 )

Edited June 17, 2020 by RockinHarry
formatting

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

15 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

The skirts in the game already protect very well against shaped charges. I've seen many Pz IV and Panthers survive bazooka flank shots on their Schurzsen.

 

Haven´t tested that in particular. Generally I stay clear (or try to) of any enemies potentially wielding HEAT ammunitions at their combat ranges.

 I´d be equally concerned sitting in a Panther vs. Zook or PIAT than I´d be sitting in a Sherman/T-34 facing Schreck and Fausts. 

Well, in the game at least, a Panther is much safer against a bazooka than a Sherman is VS the German RPGs. I believe the front plate can deflect a hit, and the skirts definitely work, too.

[RockinHarry]

41 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Well, in the game at least, a Panther is much safer against a bazooka than a Sherman is VS the German RPGs. I believe the front plate can deflect a hit, and the skirts definitely work, too.

thanks. I´ll have a closer look at this in my next test games. Just recently I´d seen a 30 model Faust fired frontally at a Sherman Crab, hitting the chain rotating device and not doing any damage to the tank hull. But that was to be expected since the stand-off range from the device was increased to more than 1 meter. 

[c3k]

I wonder whether the "cheese grater" effect is what works? E.g., as the projectile meets the steel mesh, the mesh peels back part of the thin sheetmetal warhead. This would unbalance the shaped charge and have a greater effect than just standoff detonation. Hanging a stationary charge and detonating it is not the same as one flying into this type of device.

This is not the same as the chain-link fencing effect on Soviet RPG fuses by crushing the front part of the warhead.

(As mentioned upstream, the Soviet wire-mesh was NOT a spring. It was called "bedspring" because it looked like a bedframe, not because it acted like one.)

Food for thought.

[JulianJ]

Having seen the first video, I am moved to write to the British MOD:

Dear Sirs,

Please find enclosed my design for uparmouring Challengers and Warriors with copier paper. This would be a cost-effective measure in times of budgetary cutbacks. You're welcome! Please put my OBE in the post, yours faithfully, JulianJ.

[RockinHarry]

the latter part (0:35) of this short YT video is quite interesting as well. Particularly where cone shape and length is factored into the overall effectiveness of a HEAT warhead.

The referenced book can be found for free here:  Walters & Zukas - Fundamentals of Shaped Charges

 

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

- German addon skirts were introduced to tackle the Soviet ATR threat in order to interfere with the projectile before making contact with the main hull. It seemed to work good, also good effectiveness was reported against 76mm HE which also was used against vehicles. It was never designed with HEAT protection really in mind as primary.

- With the arrival of the Western Allies and its HEAT based portable launchers it was reported to offer (some) protection "by accident". It seems there was no real consesus even back in the days about how effective it is and it remaints a controversial topic to this very day. A typical problem is also that alot of individuals also approach this topic with this "all or nothing" or "x-yes/x-no" mindset ala "is skirt X protecting from HEAT weapon Y" which is simply not working when talking about many topics of real warfare. Overall evaluating the additional protection value with "low" might be the safest bet.

- Ít was later replaced by Thoma Drahtgeflecht Skirts because production of these were easier and they achieved the same effect against ATRs as it was already stated in this threat. If they were really more succesful in specifically interfere with fuzes remains in the unclear.

- As mentioned there was a widespread use of field armour including logs, sandbags, welded replacement tracks and wheels. There effectiveness might be even evalued lower than skirts at least against HEAT due to the little standoff it usually provided.

- There is also this consideration that some measures might even improved the HEAT penetration i. e. made it words as due to production and technological limitations alot of these weapons were designed with less than optimal standoff ranges which then could be evened out by the addon armour when pre-detonated by it properly.

- all of this is was in use in many post-WW2 conflicts that featured RPG systems, recently by Western Coalition in Afg and Iraq in order to specifically tackle the popular single stage RPG warheads & its various copies, and in Syria everything that is loose is welded onto tanks. Does it mean it must be super-effective? Not really.

However:

- Could a skirt/wire mesh interfere enough with a HEAT charge in order to fault its fuze or to make its superplastic jet less efficient in penetrating the main hull? Sure. Did a wooden log, a sandbag, or welded tracks, or tank wheels safe the day for a crew somewhere somewhen? Sure there are accounts claiming that. Was it worth the complete fuss especially when taking into account the additional burden on industry, the vehicle engines, transmission, fuel consumption? Nobody might every know and there might be no universal answer.

More important:

- even wide-spread measures weren´t done because some super-brain scientist came over and told them but because of the psychological effect. In the end soldiers are also humans and might try everything to ease their mind or to find some protection against a lethal threat no matter the effectiveness. Im am pretty sure there were commanders and also higher leadership that knew about the little "hard" effect some of this measures would bring but still ordered them because they counted on the psychological effect.

CM specifically:

btw I also did some testing on the single-stage RPG warheads vs Cage Addon Armour in CMSF2. It was a small batch size but it seems that the angle is also calculated into the odds of defeating the charge so it might be not just random luck.

Furthermore I think that CM only shows a single hit message, so if you read (Partial)Penetration doesn´t mean the skirt was doing nothing but didn´t provide enough protection to stop the penetration. Vice versa if you read "HIT: Skirt" doesn´t mean that the charge never made contact with the main hull but that it in no way managed to penetrate it. Furthermore this could mean that there might be a chance that a complete penetration ended up being a partial one because of the skirt. It is a theory might be different.