Side Skirt Thickness on StuGs

[Diceman]

Can anyone tell me the thickness of the sheet metal sideskirts on StuGs?

Cheers

Eric

------------------

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Mattias]

*ah, the StuG, was thinking PzKw IV. The StuG would use hull plates only of course*

The original plan (ordered in Feb. 43) was for 5 mm thickness on the hull sides and 10 mm around the turret (total weight around 600 kg).

Seems resonable but I'm not 100% sure that was the version that went into production (From ausf. G, April 43).

M.

[This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-12-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-12-2001).]

[Sgt Schulz]

Hiya Dice according to encyclopedia of german tanks of WWII the Schurzen or skirts were 5mm thick.

------------------

"D-Day was a nightmare. Even now it brings pain to recall what happened there on June 6, 1944. I have returned many times to honor the valiant men who died on that beach. They should never be forgotten. Nor should those who lived to carry the day by the slimmest of margins. Every man who set foot on Omaha Beach that day was a hero."

General Omar Bradley-

[Guest Mikey D]

The skirts were originally designed to disrupt Russian anti-tank rifle rounds before they hit the armor itself. Stopping Bazooka rounds was just a side benefit. Effectiveness against cannon AP rounds was just about negligable.

[Diceman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikey D:

The skirts were originally designed to disrupt Russian anti-tank rifle rounds before they hit the armor itself. Stopping Bazooka rounds was just a side benefit. Effectiveness against cannon AP rounds was just about negligable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea I know. I just needed to get a good idea of how thin the sheet styreen needed to be on the DML StuG I'm building.

Thanks

Eric

------------------

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Guest Madmatt]

From personal experience playing on an actual StuG III in Koblenz, I remember being SHOCKED at how thin the skirts where. 5mm seems about right.

Or put another way for those meterically challenger, about 1/2 thickness of a CD case, if not a wee bit thinner.

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 01-12-2001).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikey D:

The skirts were originally designed to disrupt Russian anti-tank rifle rounds before they hit the armor itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This I confess I don't understand. Why should the Germans care if antitank rifle rounds hit the armor? They could only do damage if they scored a critical hit against optics, say, or the tracks.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt:

From personal experience playing on an actual StuG III in Koblenz, I remember being SHOCKED at how thin the skirts where. 5mm seems about right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On some very late model Mk. IVs (and perhaps other AFVs as well) the plate was actually replaced with a kind of heavy wire screen. Roughly equivalent to what I know as Hardware Cloth, I suspect. It worked as well as sheet metal in foiling standoff weapons such as the bazooka, and used less materials.

Michael

[Talorc]

The Panzerfaust website has good information on the subject, and why the schurtzen is effective against hollowcharge rounds. (Fausts, Schrecks, Zooks etc) Im pretty sure though that stopping hollow charge rounds was the intended effect of the schurtzen, not an unintended side effect.

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust1.htm#spaced

Basically the hollow charge rounds are extremely deadly to anything in front of them when they go off. If you can get them to prematurely detonate on the shurtzen, the destructive potential is wasted on the air between the hull and schurtzen. (You get a big hole in your schurtzen, but who cares right )

[Mattias]

The schürtzen were mounted, as has been said, in order to counter the threat of Russian AT-rifle fire, not much point in debating this fact really.

This for exactly the reasons mentioned by Michael Emrys.

While one hit to one piece of external equipment might seem like a minor problem you may rest assured that dozens of them, to every tank, was not.

Add to this the fact that the AT-riflemen were trained to hit weak spots and openings in particular, and you'll see that the Germans didn't just mount them in anticipation of a suspected future threat (as was the case with Zimmerit).

M.