Panzer Armor

[Erwin]

That is impressive Kwazydog. Thanks for clearing the question up.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Dan thanks. I happily stand corrected.

Bil.

[Kwazydog]

Dan thanks. I happily stand corrected.

Bil.

No probs Bil...its one of those things that youd hardly notice in game directly hehe, though the results will show...wheels, tracks and weapons mounts are tracked individually also for instance

[John Kettler]

Kwazydog,

Excellent news! The in-game reality is as I hoped it would be. Was in the defense business (Hughes, made the TOW) when the fold out gill armor showed up and we began to ponder the implications. Not good. It provided considerable (and from certain aspects layered) forward flank protection vs most of the infantry HEAT munitions (Carl Gustav, 90mm RR, LAW, Dragon) of the time. Not sure about the cannon launched HEAT or the TOW.

Bil and MikeyD,

The Schuerzen were developed and deployed specifically to counter the Soviet 14.5mm ATR threat and, I've just shockingly learned, Soviet 76mm HE. Degrading/stopping HEAT munitions was a bonus, not the planned design. Here's a good discussion of the matter.

http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/tank-side-skirts.htm

The skirts were armor plate, not mild steel. U.S. period intel says so explicitly. Had it not been armor plate the tungsten cored 14.5mm projectile would've simply sailed through. Cool site.

http://stugiii.com/schurzen.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[wokelly]

The western allies in 1944 didn't have or use any ATRs, yet the Mark IV still has the skirts in the west too. The skirts add a lot of weight to the vehicle and from what I remember the added weight made the vehicles difficult to steer. One would think that if the skirts had no effect on HEAT rounds the Mark IV wouldn't keep their skirts on in the west. :eek:

If memory serves, by 1944 the Mark IVs were factory built with the side skirts on, at least on the turret. Given the constant transfer of Panzer units from one front to another, I imagine the side skirts were on simply out of convenience. Also entirely plausible it was psychological, to make the Allies think they were tigers. The Mark IV crews by 1944 had a rather low opinion of the tanks armour protection (there was some nickname, 'something thin beard' or other), probably felt every bit helped.

Again I have never seen any kind of tests to show the side skirts were ever effective at degrading the effectiveness of HEAT rounds. Given the American's reaction to finding their guns inadequate in Normandy (many tests done on captured panthers), you'd think you would see similar panic if the primary infantry AT weapon was rendered useless (bazooka and rifle grenades).

[ASL Veteran]

Why do you suppose the Germans waited until late 1943 to start giving their tanks skirts? ATRs were in common use since before the war started - the British used the Boys ATR and there were several Swiss designs that were being used by various nations. The Poles had a decent ATR design as well. Even the Germans used ATRs up until 1942 or 1943 or thereabouts. The Finns even had a 20mm ATR design. It seems like the Germans started adding skirts at about the same time ATRs were being phased out in most armies. Even the Soviet Union started doctrinally using their ATRs for purposes other than Anti Tank by 1943.

[MikeyD]

I think skirts were somone's 'lightbulb' moment. Remember they were in the process of completely redesigning the Panther as Panther II just to thicken it up enough to be proof against ATR rounds. Skirts weren't even on their radar. But someone came up with a way to attach soft metal skirting that caused the ATR round to tumble. A real Eureka! moment for them.

[John Kettler]

ASL Veteran,

The Poles did have a very good (was SECRET, in fact) new ATR called the Maroszek, but the Poles didn't last long. Ditto the BEF in Belgium and France. A few Boys vs huge Panzer formations? Hardly worth considering. No French ATRs I recall. North Africa was a sideshow, with most of the antitank work done with the 2-pdr and the 25-pdr until El Alamein fights. Long LOS and tough German armor made the Boys effectively useless in very short order against tanks.

The reason, methinks, for the introduction of skirts was the bitter combat experience at the hands of enormous numbers of Russian PTRS and PTRD ATRs as the Russians began to get their tank defense act together. The skirts weren't proactive but reactive in nature, which is why they took so long to be formally required, developed and fielded.

There's also the matter of the sheer potency of the Russian 14.5 x 114 cartridge. If you look at the upper left corner here, you can see the Boys, 13.9 x 99, and other ATR cartridges in the same frame as the Russian one. The Boys looks like a sickly sibling by comparison. Anthony Williams is a world-renowned expert on this stuff.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankammo2.htm

And if you look at the Data Table, what your eye told you is fully confirmed by the list. The Boys is putting out a smaller projectile, at considerably lower velocity, than the Russian 14.5 x 114.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ammotable1.htm

Restated, the 14.5mm threat was both quantitatively and qualitatively something the Germans needed to address. Tigers got no skirts because they were so well protected overall, whereas the Panthers got skirts only where their vulnerable vertical lower hull side was exposed to ATR attack.

MikeyD,

You completely missed one of the points I tried to make. The skirts were made from armor plate, not mild steel. Our own period intel says this explicitly, and I provided the link so you didn't have to take my word on the matter. Mild steel would've slowed down the projectile a bit, but the point of using armor plate was to degrade, better yet defeat, the tungsten carbide penetrator before the projectile encountered the tank proper.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

Wow, look at how that Russian 14.5x14 ATR round towers over the .50 cal! That is one big freakin' rifle round. 8mm flat sheetmetal is not going to defeat an ATR round of that size. PzIII and IV skirts may have been armor steel, Panther used soft steel, by war's end PzIV and Jpz chassis were moving to woven mesh. The primary benefit of standoff armor came from the round starting to tumble after penetration, just a little bit spelled the difference between drilling a hole and making a dent.

[George MC]

The Mark IV crews by 1944 had a rather low opinion of the tanks armour protection (there was some nickname, 'something thin beard' or other), probably felt every bit helped.

Rotbart der hauchdünne - that was the nickname; also seen them referred to as 'messtins'

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

Indeed! And that 14.5 x 114 is the same round used for decades and still used in the 14.5mm KPVT, found on the BRDM-2, BTR-60,70,80, etc. A WW II Russian Rifle Regiment had 27, but for real fun, take a look at what specialist antitank units had when they came into sector. 36 in an antitank rifle company!

At Kursk, an entire Tiger Company was sidelined afterward because all replacement vision block stocks were used up there and at Abteilung, forcing a two week wait until Regiment could provide some. Additionally, multiple TCs had eye and facial injuries, some serious, even TCs requiring weeks of hospitalization following having the entire block and bracket assembly driven into the face. Yes, the cartridge was that powerful!

How I wish I still had that printout or the URL!

Also, (and OT) would you or someone else there at BFC please take a look at the still not responded to by BFC 3-inch ammo change thread? I raise some substantive issues on what's used, what was used, how it performed, etc. Tactically significant, since one type of AP performs far better than the other vs. face-hardened armor.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110055

Regards,

John Kettler

[iMolestCats]

Why do you suppose the Germans waited until late 1943 to start giving their tanks skirts? ATRs were in common use since before the war started - the British used the Boys ATR and there were several Swiss designs that were being used by various nations. The Poles had a decent ATR design as well. Even the Germans used ATRs up until 1942 or 1943 or thereabouts. The Finns even had a 20mm ATR design. It seems like the Germans started adding skirts at about the same time ATRs were being phased out in most armies. Even the Soviet Union started doctrinally using their ATRs for purposes other than Anti Tank by 1943.

Forgot the Italian 20mm ATR, those things are SWEET.

[John Kettler]

iMolestCats,

Good point, but the Italians were German allies until late in the game, as were the Finns and the Japanese, both of whom had ATRs.

Regards,

John Kettler

[StieliAlpha]

"The skirts were armor plate, not mild steel. U.S. period intel says so explicitly. Had it not been armor plate the tungsten cored 14.5mm projectile would've simply sailed through."

What do you mean with "armor plate"? Something like nowadays Hardox? Unfotunately I have never seen a material spec, but looking at the desperate German suplly situation, I strongly doubt the they would have wasted an ounce of "special materials" on minor things like skirts.

To my understanding those things were to protect against ATRs, fend of simple Infantry AT weapons (like hand grenades, satchel charges etc.) and to bring HE shells to an early explosion.

One finds sufficient photos, which show how AP rounds just pierced nice holes into skirts.

In fact late in the war, instead of steel plates, even skirts from mesh wire, similar to modern cage armour, were used.

[Wicky]

Mild Steel seems to be the consensus. Face hardened was more likely used on the extra plates bolted directly to hulls.

Panzerkampfwagen: German Combat Tanks 1933-1945, by Chris Ellis and Hilary Doyle states that schurzen was mild steel.

This is from Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.G, H and J 1942-45 by Tom Jentz and Hilary Doyle.

[ASL Veteran]

iMolestCats,

Good point, but the Italians were German allies until late in the game, as were the Finns and the Japanese, both of whom had ATRs.

Regards,

John Kettler

The point is that the Germans wouldn't have been surprised by the sudden appearance of ATRs on the battlefield at any point in the war. ATRs were a known weapon and were used by all combatants including Germany and their allies, so the open question would be - why not start putting skirts on in 1939 instead of 1943? The issue of ATRs was a known one.

The only weapon that suddenly made an appearance on the battlefield around the time it was decided to apply the skirts was the Bazooka after the Americans invaded North Africa in December of 1942 (note that with the article above that's the approximate time where it was decided to add the skirting). There was no Panther tank in December of 1942 and the Mark 4 was the most effective main battle tank for the German army at that time. The Tiger was only barely getting off the factory floors.

1. Skirts are applied to the German army's best main battle tank at the time the decision is made.

2. The decision to add the skirts is made around the time the Germans would be first encountering the American Bazooka

3. The ATR had been around since before the war even started so it was a known weapon by all combatants, yet no skirting is applied to any vehicle prior to 1943. The Germans had even been fighting in Russia for two years by the time the decision was made - if it's Russian ATRs in specific then why wasn't the decision to add skirts made in July of 1941?

4. Skirts are heavy and detract from the performance of the vehicle both mechanically and from a situation awareness perspective for the crew. If the intent of applying the skirts was to defend against ATRs, then wouldn't it have been cheaper and lighter to simply up armor the sides of the tanks in question? With these performance questions in mind, why are the skirts applied to tanks in the west? The Germans later switch to mesh skirting - seriously would you attempt to stop a bullet sized projectile with a mesh?

5. There were Soviet attempts to add skirting to their vehicles in 1945. They added what looks like screen doors to the sides of their T34s and it looks kind of pathetic. This Soviet attempt to add skirting to their vehicles is explicitly stated as being an attempt to defend against Panzerfausts. Certainly nobody could argue that the Germans were using ATRs in 1945.

A clear correlation could be drawn between the sudden appearance of the Bazooka on the battlefield and the sudden German decision to apply skirting. It's practically on the same day. The decision to add skirting could not have been made for a trivial reason because of the performance hit to the vehicle and the extra materials used. The ATR was a weapon that was known since before the war started yet no skirts are added until the Bazooka makes it's appearance on the battlefield. The Soviets make a failed attempt to add skirting to their tanks in 1945 in an explicit attempt to defend against Panzerfausts.

If skirts are for protection against ATRs then something just isn't adding up or making any sense.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't have access to the original source listed, so I will trust in our old friend Jeff Duquette

From: Walter Speilberger’s “Sturmgeschutz & Its Varients”, Pg. 92 - 93

Schurzen Side Skirts

The previously mentioned Schuzen side-skirts became a

topic of discussion during the Fuhrer's conference on 6

and 7 February 1943. Hitler was quite in agreement with

mounting skirts on the Panzer III, IV and Sturmgeschutz

to provide protection against Russian anti-tank rifles.

Test firings on Schurzen protective skirts (wire and steel

plates) were reported on February 20, 1943. Firing tests

utilizing the Russian 14.5mm anti-tank rifle at a distance

of 100m (90 degrees) showed no tears or penetration of the

30mm side armor, when protected either by plates or wire

mesh. When testing was conducted with the 75mm high

explosive shell (Charge 2) from a field gun, there was no

damage to the sides of the hull armor when protected by

the wire or plates. Wire mesh and plates had indeed been

penetrated and even torn away, but, they sdll remained

usable.

The decision to utilize the plates as opposed to the wire

mesh (although both had proven effective and the mesh

was lighter) was based on the fact that the wire mesh

required the design of a new mount, which would have

required additional time to be developed.

Additionally, the procurement of wire mesh for the side

skirts was difficult. The skirts were not tested against

shaped charges, nor were they intended as protection

against shaped charge (HEAT) shells.

On March 6 1943, Hitler indicated that he was satisfied

with the favorable results of the firing tests against the

Schurzen side skirts. In addition to outfitting all newly

produced Sturmgeschutz, Panzer IV and Panthers with

side skirts, all armored vehicles of these types currently

deployed and those undergoing maintenance, were to be

backfitted with them. The schedule for fitting Schurzen

was to be expedited.

The manufacturing firms beganof Schurzen side skirts

for Sturmgeschutz for the purpose of retro-fitting had

already been sent to the Eastern Front. In early June 1943

the first front-line units retrofitted their Sturmgeschutz.

With this modification, the Sturmgeschutz were ready to

begin the Kursk offensive.

[ASL Veteran]

Hitler's involvement could mean anything. After all, they were producing and testing the Stg 44 assault rifle without him even knowing about it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Hitler's involvement is besides the point. What weapons the Germans tested schurzen against to measure their effectiveness is much more interesting.

[MikeyD]

Somehow this story reminds me of zimmerit and how it was applied to thwart non-existent magnetic mines. Apparently, just because a threat didn't exist didn't stop German bureaucracy from rolling forward

[ASL Veteran]

Hitler's involvement is besides the point. What weapons the Germans tested schurzen against to measure their effectiveness is much more interesting.

Yes, that's true, but like I said - the ATR was a well known weapon system whose usefulness was known to be questionable at the time the skirts were added to the vehicles. Where is the 'trigger' that caused the Germans to suddenly decide in December of 1942 that it was a useful addition to their tanks? Are there extensive reports by the German army from 1938 or later indicating that something had to be done about the threat of ATRs? What caused the tests to be conducted in the first place?

It's pretty safe to assume that the Bazooka would have been a revolutionary development in the balance between infantry and armor - a role the ATR was supposed to be filling. The fact that the Panzershrek and the Panzerfaust were developed shortly after the American Bazooka was encountered is evidence enough that the Bazooka was a revolutionary development in infantry anti tank weaponry. The ATR had been around since 1918 and by the time the skirts were being added the ATR was being phased out in most armies. The addition of skirts to German vehicles corresponds with this Bazooka 'trigger' event. As far as I can tell there is no corresponding 'trigger' event for the ATR other than it was known to have questionable usefulness.

[Michael Emrys]

The only weapon that suddenly made an appearance on the battlefield around the time it was decided to apply the skirts was the Bazooka after the Americans invaded North Africa in December of 1942...

And the PIAT, which was also an HEAT weapon that was used in Tunisia and later. Your point still stands that by the beginning of 1943 the number of HEAT weapons in a man-portable form were proliferating on the battlefield.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

As far as I can tell there is no corresponding 'trigger' event for the ATR other than it was known to have questionable usefulness.

The trigger event for the addition of schurtzen could have simply been their invention. To best of my knowledge they had not been used by anyone prior to 1943. We know that they were effective against ATRs, so there seems to be an assumption in your theory that the Germans knew of the effectiveness of schurtzen vs. ATRs prior to 1943 but chose not to use it. I find that hard to believe given the evidence that the Germans specifically tested ATRs against schrutzen immediately prior to their introduction.

[John Kettler]

The relevant issue of Tactical & Technical Trends, reproduced at link on Lone Sentry, specifically states that both German and Allied sources refer to "additional armored skirting."

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/german-panzer-armor-skirting-ww2.html

Similarly, in the Catalogue of Enemy Ordnance, at the Jagdpanzer IV (L/48) description, it directly states "spaced plates of 5mm armor are bolted to brackets..."

http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/tag/german/page/42

Armored skirting is NOT the same as mild steel skirting, and the latter would've been practically useless while still exacting a weight and maneuverability penalty. Here are some actual test firing results using the AP (black-tipped) cartridge from an M1 rifle.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-498219.html

From these, it's quite clear that even the puny, when compared to the 14.5mm, 7.62 can punch clear through mild steel plate far thicker than the 5mm skirt armor panels. Further, mild steel does little to degrade the penetrator, which is the whole point of having armor plate for skirts in the first place.

The facts simply do not support the views of some here. The skirts, as seen on the Panzers III and IV, StuG III and IV, etc., were made of armor plate and were specifically intended to defeat the Russian 14.5mm ATR threat. The skirts were never intended to defeat a HEAT threat. That they did degrade or prevent such attacks was an unintended outcome, as opposed to a design goal.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

Hmm, I just came across this little snippet in a book I do own:

Starting in April 1943, Schuerzen (protective skirts made from soft steel) were mounted to prevent penetration of the 40 mm thick lower hull side by rounds fired at close range from Russian anti-tank rifles. The Schuerzen were tested and proven to be effective against direct hits from 75mm high-explosive shells as well as anti-tank rifles. The invention of Schuerzen saved the Panther I. If the Panther I hadn't been able to cope with anti-tank rifles, production would have been converted to the Panther II. The Schuerzen were not intended to defeat and were not initially tested against hollow charge rounds.

-- Germany's Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy by Thomas L. Jentz, pg 35