ATG shields' thickness for all major forces?

[Zalgiris 1410]

Thanks Krill for the close up photos and yes I mistyped PAK 40 for the 37mm PAK 35/36 in the origional post.

Actually those photos give me an idea, there are plenty of WWII guns around my city, out the front of Returned and Services League Clubs and in War Museaums, I should bloody take a look, hey!

I am now convinced that the heavy figures given in my only source for any ATG shields were completely incorrect. I am interested in the overall effects and implications of the shields on ATGs in terms of protection, penetration and tactical survivability. But also I just want to know for the sake of it!

[John Kettler]

Zalgiris 1410,

Nothing quite like seeing the quarry up close and in person! Was fortunate enough a few years ago to get

out to the U.S. Infantry Museum in Ft. Benning, Georgia, U.S.A. Got to see U.S. 37mm, 57mm, 3 inch

AT guns side by side, plus M-1897 75mm (same gun as on halftrack TD), fully deployed 2-pdr (was amazed by how big it was--tall with huge shield), German 20mm Soluthurn, a German Gerlich 28/20

, RP-43 and RP-54 Panzerschrecks, and many other goodies. Happy hunting!

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

I doubt very much they'd stop a rifle bullet. Pistol or SMG ammo, or shell splinters (the main reason to have them, clearly), sure. A 3500-4000 joule rifle round, I rather doubt it.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Thanks Kettler but I'm downunder, however I've seen plenty of guns around Melbourne.

[ July 16, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by krill:

I believe Alex Buchner (German infantry handbook) got these numbers wrong.

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.

[Michael Emrys]

One thing I've been wondering is how much energy a bullet would retain even after penetration. Granted that varies, particularly with range. But even if you get popped, it seems to me that it would be better to be popped by a bullet that has first been slowed down a lot than by one that still retains most of its energy.

Michael

[krill]

I thought my copy of Alex Buchners' German Infantry Handbook might be mistaken or misprinted but where else are there figures for ATG shields and the tactical implications of their protection or lack thereof for the crews etc?

Zalgiris1410, I got the other figures from ' Handbook on german military forces, US war department', there is an online version somewhere.

I don't have a huge library on books on WWII, and sadly all those books and all the weblinks I find only mention things as anti-tank performance and weight of the guns. So far I have found no references or accounts on survival ability of ATG's on the battlefield.

I would think that a double 4mm plate would give much added protection over a single 8mm plate. It is my understanding that solid rounds tend to 'tumble' after penetrating an armour plate. Thus giving the second plate a much higher probabilty to defeat the incoming round.

That was also the purpose of the 'Schurtzen' later on. Obviously the 2x4mm on the gunshields were not going to withstand hits from ATR's but I think they weren't designed to.

An ATG needs only to surive MG-fire in order to force a tank to a gun-duel. So it would be logical if the gunshield was designed with that in mind.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

One thing I've been wondering is how much energy a bullet would retain even after penetration. Granted that varies, particularly with range. But even if you get popped, it seems to me that it would be better to be popped by a bullet that has first been slowed down a lot than by one that still retains most of its energy.

Michael

This would depend on many things. Being penetrated by a solid bullet going straight, like a pin, is not as bad as being hit by a tumbling rough piece of metal that fragments inside you. But other than that, my self preservation hunch would also tell me to have some cover between me and the enemy. At least it'd make aiming at my bellybutton harder, and the bullet might change its course.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Thanks Krill, if ATG shields weren't designed to resist ATR and APMG ammo then it is not as big an issue as I thought it might have been. That then means that, as described in a few posts above, they were just to protect the crew from regular ammo and shrapnel.

[juan_gigante]

I would think about the shield as I would a helmet. Now, if I take a bullet or hunk of shrapnel right in the dome, a helmet probably won't help much. But if it's just a glancing shot that wings me, the helmet ensures that my head remains intact. I'm sure that some things would go through the shield like butter, but if, say, a mortar round goes off a way away, that shield might protect a few dudes from shrapnel, or would at least provide concealment from small-arms fire from approaching infantry.

[Stalin's Organ]

A slightly different take on the question - but when did field guns adopt shields?

AFAIK they didn't have them in the American Civil War or the Franco-Prussian war, but I've no idea whether they were common by the time of the Boer war.

[Dandelion]

Zalgris you are misquoting Buchner. He states that the Pak 35/36 has a 5mm shield.

Then again Buchner also states that the Pak 38 and 40 used a 24mm doubleshield as you write. That's wrong, should be 4mm plates.

From these pictures, containing humans for relative sizes of things, you clearly see that the space between the shields are not equal to the thickness of the shields (the 24mm shields with 25mm gap claim would entail that). Human proportions also display, IMHO, the 4mm thickness of the shields.

So, those were the German shields. How about the rest of them?

Cheers

Dandelion

[Zalgiris 1410]

Thanks Dandelion for the pictures and I agree that they show the double shields on the 75mm PAK 40s were each of only 4mm thickness with a 25mm gap.

I have come to the conclusion, through reading this thread, that the correct figures AFAIK are of-

a single 5mm thick shield for 37mm PAK 35/36,

2 4mm thick shields with 25mm gap for 50mm PAK 38,

2 4mm thick shields with 25mm gap for 75mm PAK 40.

However, Dandelion I did not misquote my copy of Alex Buchner which has on page 78 "The 37mm PAK had... a small angular shield, 50mm thick, raked sharply backward." IMHO I now believe this to be a misprint and meant to be 5mm thick, the 'small angular shield' hints that it should be 5mm and not a big 50mm of thickness.

Also on page 80 "The 50mm PAK also had...the pair of curved shields, 24mm thick, with straight outer edges and mounted 25mm apart, making a double shield." And on pages 81-82 "Thus the 75mm PAK came...(with) Two low, sharply raked shields of 4mm thickness, with a 25mm gap and an auxiliary partial shield that folded forward, protected the crew." Thus, with these figures of ATG shield thickness not being the same I always new there was a misprint in my copy. I had assumed the 4mm for the 75mm PAK was wronge and the 24mm for the 50mm PAK was right for both of these guns, especially given that it had a 50mm thick shield printed for the 37mm PAK 35/36. This is what I had beforehand always believed, I now understand otherwise.

But that is what threw me and made me start up this thead, strewth, all this from just a bloody printers' error!

Well at least I've been enlightened, thanks.

[ July 24, 2005, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Captain Pies]

Just to confirm the last post, I was at the war and Peace show in Kent this weekend and managed to get up close and personal with a PAK 40 on display there. Definitely 4 - 5mm thickness with a 25mm gap.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Thanks for that Captain Pies, that's pretty well established then, alright.

BTW I have been doing some test with HMGs against ATGs and watching for the protective performance of their shields for their crews. All this with crack troops too, to be sure. I have found that the American Browning M2 .50 / 12.7mm HMGs can knock out German ATGs by what must be the penetriation of their double spaced shields even out to as far as 500m or so, haven't tried farther out yet.

On the other hand other HMGs in the .03 of an inch cal. can only force German ATGs to be abandoned by their crews and it seems to take them longer to do so. Even so the benefits of having a few firing at those ATGs suppresses them quite effectively beforehand anyway and that's in the case of both cals. IMO it is the penetration that unnerves the crew faster done by the .50 / 12.7mm HMGs that may account for the slight time differrence. I stongly suggest using a platoon or more HMGs on each ATG in order for full effect though and reason also that some of your HMGs are likely themselves going to be suppressed.

I also recomend aiming area fire on them for a couple of turns when they become just stars. They can't move safely and eventually abandone the gun, this is easy enough to do against ATGs in foxholes because it is obvious where exactly to target. :cool:

[ July 27, 2005, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]