Allied use of Schutzenplatte?

[Ogadai]

I am presently reading the book, "Monty's Marauders: Black Rat and Red Fox" by Patrick Delaforce. It is a history of the British 4th and 8th Armoured Brigades during WWII.

On P.217-8, I found the following passage:

"Most of the tanks had by now unweildy wire netting cages welded on the sides to deflect bazooka bombs."

On the same page, there is a picture (which I'm presently unable to reproduce), with the caption:

"'C' Sqdn., 4/7th Dragoon Guards Sherman, showing the wire anti-bazooka skirts fitted to the tanks at about the time of the Rhine crossing. The bazooka [in reality he's referring to the German Panzershrek] was a real menace; simple to fire & operated by one man who could remain hidden until the tank was right by him. It had a tremendous blast power. Object of the skirt was that it was sufficiently flexible for projectile to bounce off without exploding, or if it did explode the force of the explosion was wasted before it reached the armour..."

From the look of the photo, it appears to be something similar to cyclone wire netting, held off from the side of the hull by about six inches. It only reaches to the top of the suspension and covers the whole side of the Sherman's hull.

This is the first reference I've seen to it use and I was wondering how widespread was it or was it something only the 8th Armoured Brigade did?

[gredeker]

I remember seeing in a WWII modeling book how someone had added bedsprings to a T-34/85 model (along with other extensive customizing touches). The article also showed a picture with a caption explaining that the russians had taken to welding steel bedsprings on the sides and rear of their turrets and tanks by the time of the battle for Berlin, as an anti-panzerfaust measure.

This should give the modders something to work on once CMBB comes out.

[Skipper]

Indeed, it was a commonplace field modifications on soviet tanks in 1944-45. A fashion, almost.

[Sir Uber General]

I have read that the russians used similair wire netting which the allies mistakenly believed were bed springs. According to an interview I have read with a russian tanker they werent, they were custom wire nets just like the allies used. I have seen photos as well, definately not bed springs.

[Simon Fox]

I have read the Delaforce book as well and wondered about that passage and the picture just as you have. I would suggest that more information might be available from the respective regimantal diaries.

[offtaskagain]

I've seen pictures of T-34/85s and IS-2s with sheet metal or heavy gauge mesh welded on metal arms sticking out from the turret, alot like Schurzen. They looked like they were built for the job and fabricated in a field workshop, rather than the bedsprings that looked like they were welded on at a whim.

[John Kettler]

Ogadai,

Russian Battlefield (http://history.vif2/ru) says that the Russians fielded plates much like the ones

the Germans had, but specifically to deal with the Panzerfaust threat. Indeed, there is a poignant passage where a tanker raps on another tank to visit then belatedly notices a kopeck sized hole (small coin) from a Panzerfaust penetration and realizes the occupants are all dead. The site has quite a few photos of these factory built spaced armor installations.

I believe there was also a device which looked something like bedsprings from a mattress. I'm open on whether the Russians "liberated" bedsprings from Germany and Austria for earlier production models. The accounts I've read were from German infantry veterans who doubtless had no knowledge of what the Russians were turning out for special protection against the Panzerfaust threat.

If anyone has a picture of a British tank equipped as Ogadai's quote states, please post it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Graaf Spee]

Hi,

Im wondering just how common this was. Somethng similar (sandbags on shermans) was discussed a long time ago and from what I can remember there was never any proof that it was used on a large scale. Maybe it was used only used in some divisions. I think that if it was very common there would be a lot more pictures of tanks with the modification. But then again it could have been because they looked extremely ugly, and I guess that most photographers want their pictures to look good. Maybe thats the reason I never have seen a picture of it.

/Kristian

[Andreas]

Ogadai, I think he is talking about the Panzerfaust, not the Panzerschreck.

Graf Spee - if you have a look at 'The South Albertas', you will see numerous pictures of ugly-looking tanks with sh*tloads of track welded to them (I'll post one here tonight). Patton's heart would have stopped...

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

I have read the Delaforce book as well and wondered about that passage and the picture just as you have. I would suggest that more information might be available from the respective regimantal diaries.<hr></blockquote>

And we now know where to get them from, don't we Simon?

I've also read the Delaforce book and I noted the picture and the passage but interestingly when I went back and reread the section of the 4th Armoured Brigade, there was no reference to any such "cages". Now, it may be that it was only an 8th Brigade modification or it might be that the 4th didn't note their application to their vehicles.

I suspect its the former rather than the latter. Even so, how many tanks does it need for BTS to take note of its existance and include it in the game? How many Sturmtigers were there again?

[Terence]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

Even so, how many tanks does it need for BTS to take note of its existance and include it in the game? <hr></blockquote>

I'd like to know if it worked, before we have the doubtless spirited "Why doesn't BTS include this in the game?" discussion.

And I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that "it must have worked, otherwise why would they do it."

[Vanir Ausf B]

Good point. I remember BTS catching grief for not modeling US Shermans with sandbags on the front. Turns out the sandbags were mostly a psychological aid, and added little or no protection.

[Andreas]

We could also go down the road of 'do we have more than one picture?' For all we know the TC could have been a loony.

There is this story of the Commonwealth company commander walking around with an umbrella instead of a gun. Do you want that modeled too? All UK company HQs get an umbrella instead of a sixth weapon. Or maybe a Cricket bat?

I have seen a lot of pictures of Shermans, but this is the first I see of this contraption. The real question is not 'Is that something that only 8th Armoured Brigade did?', but 'is this something that anyone else in 4/7th Dragoons, never mind 8th Armoured Brigade did?' I just love it how some people here jump to conclusions.

So, let's answer the real question. If Brian were to pick up the book, he would notice other pictures of tanks in it (no surprises there), including SRY, 13/18th Hussars (the other two regiments in 8th Armoured Brigade), and even two more of the 4/7th Dragoons that have no chickenwire netting on them.

But it is of course easier to just jump on BTS instead of engaging the brain into thinking gear, or indeed going back a few pages in the book.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai:

On P.217-8, I found the following passage:

"Most of the tanks had by now unweildy wire netting cages welded on the sides to deflect bazooka bombs."<hr></blockquote>

As for this passage - most of the tanks in his troop? Squadron? Regiment? Brigade? 21st Army Group? The world? Answers on a postcard please. Hint - the answer is not in the book.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

As for this passage - most of the tanks in his troop? Squadron? Regiment? Brigade? 21st Army Group? The world? Answers on a postcard please. Hint - the answer is not in the book.<hr></blockquote>

Your biggest problem is you are trying to use logic and research Andreas.

There were a huge number of adhoc additions to tanks, from sand bags to grenade shields of chicken wire, with no real proof that they were effective, widespread, or what effect they had on mobility, operations, etc. Chicken wire was mentioned in the great sand bag debates, and it was pointed out that this stuff would not last long on the tank, and that it would only do any good to high deflection rounds anyway.

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Ogadai, I think he is talking about the Panzerfaust, not the Panzerschreck.

Graf Spee - if you have a look at 'The South Albertas', you will see numerous pictures of ugly-looking tanks with sh*tloads of track welded to them (I'll post one here tonight). Patton's heart would have stopped...<hr></blockquote>

Patton had a heart?

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Terence:

I'd like to know if it worked, before we have the doubtless spirited "Why doesn't BTS include this in the game?" discussion.

And I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that "it must have worked, otherwise why would they do it."<hr></blockquote>

Mmmm, I think you have the wrong end of the argument there, Terence. Rather than asking "did it work" you should be asking, "was it used? If so, in what numbers? If the numbers are sufficient, why aren't they in the game?"

The first would indicate the frequency of it needing to be modelled. It doesn't matter if it worked or not, just as in the case of the sandbags. Indeed, German Stugs often had concrete applied to their superstructure front to provide some increased armour. In all cases, it might have had a dubious physical effect but it existed. Therefore, should the game ignore it?

Part of this argument, the part you're coming from, is whether or not it has any actual effect on armour penetrations. The other part is that these things existed and where very physically evident, hence lending "atmosphere" to the game.

I'd be happy to see both parts of the argument answered. If it has little physical effect, its still evident that many crews believed otherwise and visually it needs to be represented, if it was present.

Again, I ask, how many Sturmtigers were there? BTS has chosen to model that and other rare beasts for the pleasure of players. Yet, when a player suggests that a certain side/nationality is being shortchanged in the rare beasties category, invariably I've found he's howled down for some reason.

Of course, we could all fall back on the "its abstracted" thesis but if that was true, why has so much effort been expended on 3-d wireframes with bitmapped "skins" and the "modding" of those skins? If everything is to be "abstracted" then I'd suggest it would be quicker and simpler perhaps to have settled for cubes with symbols on them.

But then, that wouldn't have made the game particularly appealling, over and above all the others on the market, now would it?

Now, Ogadai has raised some interesting questions about this netting. It was applied for a reason, be it physical or pyschological. Either way, it seems to have existed, as did the sandbags/concrete/timber/etc. Why isn't it evident?

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

As for this passage - most of the tanks in his troop? Squadron? Regiment? Brigade? 21st Army Group? The world? Answers on a postcard please. Hint - the answer is not in the book.<hr></blockquote>

I'd suggest at the very least, Regiment. Why?

'cause the caption is made in reference to the 4/7th Dragoon Guards Regiment, as is the passage. Hence implying it was the Regiment. Indeed, the caption mentions C Sqn. while the passage refers to A Sqn. It would be very unlikely that such a modification would have been applied on anything less than a regimental level, and it also suggests by the nature of both that it is common to more than one squadron.

As Simon suggests, we need to see the regimental diaries in order to confirm it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

I'd be happy to see both parts of the argument answered. If it has little physical effect, its still evident that many crews believed otherwise and visually it needs to be represented, if it was present.<hr></blockquote>

The reason BTS did not use visual representations of these field modifications is that most tanks did not have them, but if they had been included in the game ALL tanks would have them i.e. if the stock Sherman textures had had sandbags on them, ALL Shermans would have been show with sandbags, which is even more unrealistic than none of them having it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Of course, we could all fall back on the "its abstracted" thesis but if that was true, why has so much effort been expended on 3-d wireframes with bitmapped "skins" and the "modding" of those skins? If everything is to be "abstracted" then I'd suggest it would be quicker and simpler perhaps to have settled for cubes with symbols on them.<hr></blockquote>

Some things were left out to cut down on polygon counts for performance reasons. You may have noticed that the AAMG on the Sherman is not shown, nor are the "Rhino" attachments, even though both are assumed to be there by the game engine.

There is little point in asking BTS to start producing new artwork for CMBO. There is no chance of this happening. It is also pointless for the reason that any 3rd party mod maker could do what you are asking. In fact, there are Sherman/sandbag mods available now. If you are handy with Paintshop or something similar you could modify the existing textures yourself to add bedsprings or whatever.

[Michael Dorosh]

I think the underlying question is - if German tanks have options in CM like Schurzen/no Schurzen - why not Allied tanks (ie Sandbags, no sandbags).

I think the answer is that no real data was ever compiled on sandbag armour; perhaps Rexford et al can comment on that aspect.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Patton had a heart?<hr></blockquote>

Yeah you're right, let's call it a pump then, shall we?

[Andreas]

Well Brian, let's assume it was the regiment - which is far less than your immediate jump to it being the Brigade. So then the questions are how effective was it, and when was it invented.

There is another picture of 4/7th Dragoon Shermans without that modification in Feb. 1945.

As for effectiveness, there is no mention I could find saying that a bomb bounced off the wire. There is one mention of a 4/7th Dragoon Sherman being hit by a handheld AT weapon, penetrated, and a Sergeant (presumably the TC) killed. There is another mention of a round being stopped by extra armour welded on.

Not an awful lot of data to go by - and that's why I think that your immediate reaction that the Commonwealth got shafted again is hilarious.

Regarding the concrete on Stugs - you don't mean Zimmerit, do you?

Regarding 'many' - well the most we could agree on here would be 45. Out of how many in 21st Army Group in Spring 1945? 2,000?

Comparing this to the Sturmtiger is a bit of a stretch, since one is a vehicle, and the other is a flimsy bit of chickenwire on a vehicle.

BTW - what is the likelyhood of the stuff coming off if your Sherman drives through some trees?

[Jeff Duquette]

I don’t have any of Delaforce’s work, although I have been curious as to how you folks might rate his unit histories. Are they worth the effort in obtaining…bear in mind they are a wee bit more expensive in the United States than they are in the UK? (When I say a wee bit more I mean a lot more expensive).

Regarding British Army approaches to panzerfaust defense, I recall D.Fletcher going on a bit in “The Universal Tank” about the subject. What we refer to as “chicken wire” here in the United States was apparently drapped around an experimental Sherman in an attempt to “catch” the low velocity panzerfaust rounds before they would detonate. It’s a very “rigged” looking setup and was apparently found to be impractical under service conditions. See the picture I posted at:

http://www.geocities.com/jeffduquette/stuff9/anti_faust.html

From: David Fletcher’s “The Universal Tank, British Armour in the Second World War, Part 2”.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Although in Italy they probably never represented the degree of threat attributed to them in the later fighting in Germany, hand-held anti-tank weapons such as the Panzerfaust were quite unpleasant enough to warrant special consideration. Indeed it is rather surprising to discover that in Italy systems to defeat them were improvised a lot more swiftly than they appear to have been in a theatre that was closer to home. By nature, the Panzerfaust is a weapon of opportunity, fired at short range, with only modest velocity, and relying on the hollow charge principle, initiated by an impact fuse, to penetrate armour. Two methods were devised for dealing with it. One was to fit panels of armour, spaced away from the main body and turret of the tank, which would detonate the projectile but dissipate the effect of the hollow charge before it could do any serious damage. This was the method adopted by the Germans against Allied weapons such as the PIAT or Bazooka. The local British answer was to prevent the fuse from firing by, in effect, catching the projectile in flight and holding it. For experimental purposes a Sherman tank was covered all over with a web of wire netting, loosely held in such a way that it would give when the Panzerfaust round hit it. It took quite some time to work out the best method of attaching the material to produce just the right effect, and the result looked very untidy indeed. It looked a good deal worse after one or two unexploded Panzerfaust rounds had hit it, but at least under ideal test conditions it appeared to work. In practice, however, it proved absolutely hopeless. After the tank had been driven through a small wood, or a couple of vineyards, there was hardly enough wire netting remaining intact to protect it at all, so the idea was swiftly dropped.<hr></blockquote>

[Dan Robertson]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Regarding the concrete on Stugs - you don't mean Zimmerit, do you?

<hr></blockquote>

No some Stugs carried a 6 inch thick piece of concreat on their lower hull. Concrete has a resistance of about 0.15 steel vs KE and 0.35 verses HEAT.

KE 2.2cm

CE 5.33cm

SO its not much use aggainst 76mm guns but it would be stoppping 75mm rounds and Bazookas when added to the original plate.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I don't have any of Delaforce's work, although I have been curious as to how you folks might rate his unit histories. Are they worth the effort in obtaining;bear in mind they are a wee bit more expensive in the United States than they are in the UK? (When I say a wee bit more I mean a lot more expensive). <hr></blockquote>

Hmm, not sure to be honest. I have almost all of them, but only because I managed to pick them up for £5 in bargain basement sales. He cribs a lot from other people's memoirs. Some of them have indexes, most don't. They are alright if you want to have the service history of a whole division. If you are after quality, you are probably better off getting the original works he is quoting from. He has definitely found a winning formula for writing this stuff.

They are not high on my list of recommended books. If they are expensive, get something else for the money. If you can get them cheap, get them.

Probably more appropriate for a newcomer to the subject than for you Jeff.

YMMV.