ATG shields' thickness for all major forces?

[Zalgiris 1410]

I am interested to know the thickness of ATG shields of all major armies and how this is or could be relavent to CM and the reality of the importence of these qualities historically, given the vital role they serve against tanks.

I can get this started initially by presenting the German PAKs' shield thickness numbers from an authentic (enough Alex Buchner) source.

37mm PAK 40 50mm thick shield.

50mm PAK 38 2 24mm thick shields with a 25mm gap.

75mm PAK 40 2 24mm thick shields with a 25mm gap.

[RMC]

Are you sure on that 50mm for the 37mm gun? At a time when the germans were building tanks with that level of armor I find it hard to believe that they would give that kind of protection to a small AT gun. Maybe 15mm.

Photos of the pak35/36 show a shield that is much thinner than the 37mm bore diameter.

[krill]

I can get this started initially by presenting the German PAKs' shield thickness numbers from an authentic (enough Alex Buchner) source.

I believe Alex Buchner (German infantry handbook) got these numbers wrong. They are just to incredible.

More credible are the stated two 4mm plates at 25mm interval for the PAK38 and PAK40 and a single 5mm plate for the 37mm PAK. Sufficient to defeat incoming MG fire and not much else.

[ July 14, 2005, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: krill ]

[MikeyD]

I believe the U.S. 37mm gun shield was considerably lighter than the German shield, and with a 0 degree angle (or would that be 90 degree?) to boot. MUCH lighter to tow and easier to manhandle but that much less protection. Sorry I'm not near my references for actual thicknesses.

As to gun shields, you may notice the Russian 45mm guns are little more than copies of the 37mm Rheinmetall gun shield. That's because Russia was license manufacturing the Rheinmetall gun for awhile.

[John Kettler]

Zalgiris 1410,

There's more to this than meets the eye. Not only must you consider thickness, but also hardness, armor plate quality, slope (sometimes compound), construction details, etc., but a panoply of data

regarding the exact nature of the threat. There is, for example, a huge difference between the flat relatively vertical Russian ZIS-3 76.2mm

gun shield and the steeply raked, sharply angled back sandwich shield on the German 75mm PaK 40, which was specifically designed to defeat not just the usual small fragments and rifle/LMG fire, but also the powerful 14.5mm Russian antitank rifle by breaking up the projectile after impact. BTW, I believe the German 37mm is a "36" not a "40."

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

Ah, You're right! I had never considered that! Those unusually heavy (compared to other nations) 50mm and 75mm gun shields were designed following German experience with them pesky AT rifles. Funny how it only becomes obvious after you state it.

[Guest Mike]

50mm thickness of steel on a gunshield is wrong!!

Steel weighs between 7.75 and 8.05 gm/cc depending upon alloy - call it 8 for ease of calculation.

So 1m x 1m of 50mm thick steel would weigh about 400 kilos - usually more than the rest of the gun put together!!

[MikeyD]

No no no! I meant the 50mm Pak38 tank gun, not 50mm thickness gun shield. 50mm is a PzIV turret front! :eek:

[Guest Mike]

I wasn't referring to your post - the original one had

37mm PAK 40 50mm thick shield.

50mm PAK 38 2 24mm thick shields with a 25mm gap.

75mm PAK 40 2 24mm thick shields with a 25mm gap.

[David I]

Damn near 2" of steel on a 37mm gun shield, no way. I've got a friend that owns a 37mm door knocker, I'll give him a call and ask him to measure. I doubt it's more that 1/4" (14mm +-).

DavidI

[JasonC]

Someone missed the decimal points. 5.0 mm, not 50 mm.

[Guest Mike]

that would make the "24mm" shields 2.4mm.....and I don't think that's right either!!

[JasonC]

Why not? That is a tenth of an inch. Two plates each a tenth of an inch thick, with a tenth of an inch separation between them.

[JasonC]

Standard sheet metal thicknesses run from as thin as a millimeter or two up to 6mm or so. That is thin enough to be spot welded, not needing to be treated as plate. 12 gauge sheet steel is about a tenth of an inch, 6 gauge is twice that. Perfectly believable thicknesses for a gun shield. It is not meant to add lots of weight.

[junk2drive]

David, 14mm is a standard spark plug thread.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by David I:

I doubt it's more that 1/4" (14mm +-).

j2d has a point. A quarter of an inch would be slightly over 6mm, 6.35mm to be a bit more precise. A thickness of 14mm on the other hand would be equal to about 0.55".

Michael

[Guest Mike]

2.4mm is useless as a shield if it's intended to actually shield you from anything except sight.

2.4mm steel could be penetrated at short range by arrows for heaven's sake!!

BTW my understanding of "guage" is that it invariably refers to teh number of somethign that can fit into a set measure.

In the case of sheet steel it is usually the nubmer of sheets that make up 1" - so 12 guage would be 0.083", 10 guague would be .1", 8 guage is .125".

For shot it is often the same - ie the guage of the shot (a 12 guage shotgun) is, AFAIK, reference to the nubmer of "0" sixed pellets that would add up to 1".

For some otehr things it was the number of items that would add up to 1 pound weight - thus, IIRC Napoloeonic British musket balls were sometimes refered to as 12 gauge or 14 gauge...but I digress

Anyway - 2.4mm - even 2 layers of it isn't thick enough to stop rifle-calibre ball amunition let alone any sort of AP.

[David I]

Michael & Junk,

Absolutely right, it's been ages since I had a Metric Project. I change my statement to "I doubt it's more than a 1/4" (7mm +-). " Either way 2" is straight out.

DavidI

[JonS]

Originally posted by Mike:

that would make the "24mm" shields 2.4mm.....and I don't think that's right either!!

Why? A 5mm shield on the earlier 37mm PAK, and 24mm shields on the later 50mm and 75mm PAKs makes sense to me.

[krill]

This is the gunshield of a Pak40, and those are not two 24mm plates you see.

I stand by my previous post.

Edit: typo, and;

The 2x 2,4 mm is probable but the only two sources I have contradict each other on this. 2x 2,4 mm or 2x 4mm ?

[ July 14, 2005, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: krill ]

[Florian Gross]

no matter how thin it is, it is ridiculous sitting behind THAT thing and hoping to survive. These shields were no good at keeping you alive, were they?

[Florian Gross]

Ok I know what this double layer thing is. The NASA still uses double layered armour against mini-meteor hits in space, but you can't expect to survive even little time in a fight. Am I wrong? I have no military training at all. This CM thing is just a hobby of mine. But it still seems utter madness to me,cowering behind one of these PAKs and not be scared sh$&less. My 2 cents, not that they are on topic.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Florian Gross:

no matter how thin it is, it is ridiculous sitting behind THAT thing and hoping to survive. These shields were no good at keeping you alive, were they?

No good? It would stop a bullet. Would you perhaps rather serve in the crew of an Italian 47mm gun that has no gun shield? Oh joy, it's lighter! On the downside, there's nothing to stop the gun's blast from throwing sand and stuff at your faces, you can be seen by the enemy all the time unless you lie down, and you are also going to FEEL helluva more vulnerable and thus will hesitate more to do your job.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

...24mm shields on the later 50mm and 75mm PAKs makes sense to me.

Edit your posts, because uncorrected typos mean the terrorists win.

Ahem.

Michael

[Stalin's Organ]

1/4" (6mm) or even 2 x 4mm maybe - but those whields look considerably thicker than the attachments on hte inside - so I'd be betting the highter end of that range.