Schurzen??

[Barkhorn1x]

So, to pass the time until we get a CM:N website w/ - hopefully – some new info./screenies, how detailed in schurzen modeled – outside of a pristine appearance on German armor?

- Is it taken into account when hit by a shaped charge weapon?

- Can it be stripped off by terrain features/battle damage?

- Will this be shown graphically?

Perhaps not the most important points from realism perspective, but those Germans sure used a lot of it so it must have had some positive effect.

[MeatEtr]

All doubtful, damage to AFVs are not reflected in-game graphically in any BF developed game. I doubt they'll start now. It's possible the detail of the schurzen could be randomized like the gear on CMSF vehicles.

[slug88]

All doubtful, damage to AFVs are not reflected in-game graphically in any BF developed game.

Except for ERA in CMSF, which can be visibly damaged.

[MeatEtr]

Except for ERA in CMSF, which can be visibly damaged.

Never noticed this, suppose then the schurzen can be treated similarly then.

[Secondbrooks]

Except for ERA in CMSF, which can be visibly damaged.

I think that they were part of program (or just enabled) once, but are not anymore or are being disabled. For a long time i have not seen any ERA-blocks missing from tanks even when they have taken some serious beatings.

[stikkypixie]

I think that they were part of program (or just enabled) once, but are not anymore or are being disabled. For a long time i have not seen any ERA-blocks missing from tanks even when they have taken some serious beatings.

Nope still there. But it's of course situationaly dependent.

[panzermartin]

So, visual damage is there from the start. I hope with the 2nd programmer we will see some suprises in CM:N, like hit marks, blowed tracks and skirts.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I think the purpose of second programmer is to help get the modules out more quickly, not to add more features to the games in production.

[panzermartin]

Yeah but I dont think BFC would say no to enhancing their products if time permits. I think visual damage is on their "to do list", as the era blocks feature indicates. If a second programmer speeds up things a bit they would be more than happy to add some polish to the series.

[Michael Emrys]

I think the purpose of second programmer is to help get the modules out more quickly, not to add more features to the games in production.

Even so, if he frees up more of Charles' time, some of that time can be devoted to producing exotic "goodies" that otherwise we might not have seen.

Michael

[Pvt. Ryan]

I'm certainly not going to refuse those goodies, but I'm not expecting them, either.

[c3k]

Obviously, we'll HAVE to see schuerzen being ripped off by tanks plunging through walls. Or panels hanging loose. Or flying through the air after a nearby explosion...

Ken

[Lanzfeld]

Visions of TOW with actual penetration holes shown on the models.

[GonzoAttacker]

The true purpose of Schürzen

A lot of western literature has after the war named the purpose of the Schürzen as protection against hollow-charge ammunition, such as the PIAT and Bazooka. This myth originates from the western Allied intelligence, which gave two possible uses for the Schürzen - a defence against anti-tank rifles and a defence against hollow-charge ammunition. Because the western Allies didn't use anti-tank rifles, but in stead used hollow-charge ammunition, they opted for the latter guess.

German reports on the Schürzen tell a different story. All German documents name the desire for the development as a defence against Russian anti-tank rifles, and all initial tests were done exclusively with anti-tank rifles. This is but another example of Allied "intelligence", repeated by western authors.

http://www.panzerworld.net/facts

[ChrisND]

The true purpose of Schürzen

A lot of western literature has after the war named the purpose of the Schürzen as protection against hollow-charge ammunition, such as the PIAT and Bazooka. This myth originates from the western Allied intelligence, which gave two possible uses for the Schürzen - a defence against anti-tank rifles and a defence against hollow-charge ammunition. Because the western Allies didn't use anti-tank rifles, but in stead used hollow-charge ammunition, they opted for the latter guess.

German reports on the Schürzen tell a different story. All German documents name the desire for the development as a defence against Russian anti-tank rifles, and all initial tests were done exclusively with anti-tank rifles. This is but another example of Allied "intelligence", repeated by western authors.

http://www.panzerworld.net/facts

Whoever wrote that didn't sound biased at all. Nope, not a bit.

[womble]

Could ATR really penetrate the side armour of the IIIs and IVs that mostly received Schurzen? To sufficient a degree as to be worth the extra effort of putting tin-thin spaced armour (rather than the same weight of applique which would be an easier maufacturing proposition)? I don't see any references in that list that mention the medium tanks much, so it's really difficult to see which ones should be chased up to confirm the original author's point.

[Jonny(FGM)]

According to CMBB the PzIVJ has 30mm flat side armour, the PTRD can penetrate 34mm at 100m, so it would be a bit iffy as to whether in most situations the PTRD could penetrate in the fist place.

My guess would be that it was mainly there to help reduce armour flaking etc.

[Barkhorn1x]

The true purpose of Schürzen

A lot of western literature has after the war named the purpose of the Schürzen as protection against hollow-charge ammunition, such as the PIAT and Bazooka. This myth originates from the western Allied intelligence, which gave two possible uses for the Schürzen - a defence against anti-tank rifles and a defence against hollow-charge ammunition. Because the western Allies didn't use anti-tank rifles, but in stead used hollow-charge ammunition, they opted for the latter guess.

German reports on the Schürzen tell a different story. All German documents name the desire for the development as a defence against Russian anti-tank rifles, and all initial tests were done exclusively with anti-tank rifles. This is but another example of Allied "intelligence", repeated by western authors.

http://www.panzerworld.net/facts

Yea, and the US & Brits had NO anti-tank rifles - but the Germans put schurzen on their tanks anyway. Was this an example of German "intelligence" or was there some other rational at work here?

[MikeyD]

Could ATR really penetrate the side armour of the IIIs and IVs that mostly received Schurzen?

Anti-tank rifles was (were?) the reason why Germany designed the thicker-hulled Panther II, and why they opted for the easier solution of soft metal skirts along the side of Panther instead. So don't underestimate anti-tank rifles.

About the mis-interpretation of skirts by U.S. Lets recall they initially didn't have a clue what zimmerit was being applied for either. I read one contemporary report that speculated it was a camouflage scheme meant to cut the glint of the sun off slab-sided armor, making it harder to spot.

BTW, Zimmerit was to counter non-existant allied magnetic mines. So Zimmerit and skirts were both pretty useless on the western front.

[Michael Emrys]

One thing has puzzled me. If the skirts were only intended to deflect ATR projectiles, why in the last months of the war did the Germans switch to screens instead of sheet metal? Was it found that the screens were equally effective in deflecting the ATRs? It should be obvious that they would be equally effective in detonating shaped-charge rounds outside their effective standoff.

Michael

[flamingknives]

A few things to add.

Anti-tank rifles have two ammunition types, B32 and BS41. BS41 is more expensive but somewhat more effective.

Perforated armour is effective against anti-tank rifles - the projectile will always hit an edge and tumble, breaking up and striking the main armour sideways.

[Michael Emrys]

Perforated armour is effective against anti-tank rifles - the projectile will always hit an edge and tumble, breaking up and striking the main armour sideways.

Okay, that's what I was wondering. Thanks.

Michael