Panzer side skirts & Headphones

[WillyPete2171]

Following the latest AAR I noticed that some of the Panzer IVs had skirts, and some missing a few here and there, which I find is a nice touch, but I wonder if the skirts are modeled to provide any protection or are they strictly eye-candy?

Also, I noticed that all the panzer commanders I've seen so far had their headphones over both ears. I understand that it was common practice to keep one ear open to listen to the engine, combat in the distance and to generally stay better alert. The attention to detail in the models is amazing and thought that might be something nice to add to change things up...

[MikeyD]

Side skirts are rather like Zimmerit, they're designed for a non-existant threat, at least on the Western front. They're soft steel (later wire mesh) meant to cause a Russian anti-tank rifle round to tumble before striking the vehicle. A big tank round wouldn't even notice it was there. There's stories floating aruond that they may have been counterproductive against bazookas, increasing the stand-off distance and making the HEAT jet more efficiently focused. But we might want to take that with a grain of salt.

[GhostRider3/3]

Interesting. Here is something the US said about it in 1943.

A U.S. report on the German practice of mounting armor skirts (Schürzen) on panzers in WWII, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 40, December 16, 1943.

NOTE: taken from "Lone Sentry"

From both Allied and German sources, reports have come in of additional armored skirting applied to the sides of German tanks and self-moving guns to protect the tracks, bogies and turret. Photographs show such plating on the PzKw 3 and 4, where the plates are hung from a bar resembling a hand-rail running above the upper track guard and from rather light brackets extending outward about 18 inches from the turret. What appeared to be a 75-mm self-moving gun was partially protected by similar side plates over the bogies. This armor is reported to be light -- 4 to 6 millimeters (.16 to .24 in) -- and is said to give protection against hollow-charge shells, 7.92-mm tungsten carbide core AT ammunition, and 20-mm tungsten carbide core ammunition. This armor might cause a high-velocity AP shot or shell to deflect and strike the main armor sideways or at an angle, but covering the bogies or Christie wheels would make the identification of a tank more difficult, except at short ranges.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Side skirts are rather like Zimmerit, they're designed for a non-existant threat, at least on the Western front.

I wouldn't call Bazooka's a non-existent threat. Any shaped charge (HEAT) could be affected.

In CMx1 games the side skirts were functional. Hopefully that is also the case in CMBN.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I wouldn't call Bazooka's a non-existent threat. Any shaped charge (HEAT) could be affected.

From the same post you quoted:

There's stories floating aruond that they may have been counterproductive against bazookas, increasing the stand-off distance and making the HEAT jet more efficiently focused. But we might want to take that with a grain of salt.

True, he said "take that with a grain of salt," but if the stories were out there that bazookas were more effective against side skirts, they probably were not less effective against side skirts.

[Stingray]

I had the impression that the side skirts were to cause the shaped charges (bazooka) to detonate prematurely, prior to hitting the main armor thus rendering them harmless.

This is the same reason slat cages are installed around the Strykers in Iraq today.

[GhostRider3/3]

I had the impression that the side skirts were to cause the shaped charges (bazooka) to detonate prematurely, prior to hitting the main armor thus rendering them harmless.

This is the same reason slat cages are installed around the Strykers in Iraq today.

Exactly! As my above post contradicts some other info.. I think it really depended on the distance and situation. But unless the Bazooka or AT round was at close range, the Shurzen could possibly make the round impact abnormaly. However at close range from 600m or less, not sure a Allied APCR from a 76mm would make much difference... on a PZ IV that is or even a Hull shot on the flank of a Panther from 900m or less. (Side shot)

[MikeyD]

This was another instance where we weren't entirely sure why the Germans were doing what they were doing (like zimmerit) so we named them 'bazooka plates'. Russians didn't field Bazookas, though, so that couldn't have driven the design.

Oh, and a thought about Stryker slat. That design's entirely different, its meant to bash the incoming round, denting the case and shorting out the circuit between the nose fuze and base igniter. Its said to work properly about 50% of the time. If it were just standoff sheet steel it would literally do more harm than good.

[Battlefront.com]

Skirt armor was definitely hung to defeat AT Rifle rounds. They were retained because there was a school of thought that "more is always better than less". Well, I think that's just the point... sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

When a Bazooka round hits the lower portion of skirt armor I would guess it does more damage to the suspension system and perhaps even has a greater chance of penetrating the hull than it otherwise would have. But what if the round hits the upper portion of the skirt and detonates early enough that the turret is saved a penetrating round? Dunno, but I think it's possible.

Likewise, if a round is coming at a PzIV from pretty much straight on and glances off the side skirt armor it might skip harmlessly to the rear of the tank. If the skirt wasn't there it might have buried itself into the engine compartment or running gear.

There is also the possibility that skirt armor could make the difference when a distant round is coming in and is largely spent of energy. Skirt armor should also protect the tank better from damage from artillery.

But like I said, it's likely to be a case by case basis. The only thing I think that can be concluded, for sure, is that it didn't offer a significant benefit to the tank overall. Kinda like putting sandbags, extra track, etc. on the hull.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Then how effective were they against the AT rifle rounds they were primarily designed to defeat? I know that it's irrelevant for the Western front, but it will certainly matter for some of the upcoming CMx2 games.

[Battlefront.com]

Spaced armor was quite effective against AT Rifles from what I remember. The primary reason is that the first layer would deform the round enough that it couldn't get through the face hardened second surface it struck.

Steve

[WillyPete2171]

Spaced armor was quite effective against AT Rifles from what I remember. The primary reason is that the first layer would deform the round enough that it couldn't get through the face hardened second surface it struck.

Steve

is this(skirts) modeled in the game to any degree?

[Sergei]

is this(skirts) modeled in the game to any degree?

No, it's always near vertical.

*BADA BOOM*

[Michael Emrys]

I had the impression that the side skirts were to cause the shaped charges (bazooka) to detonate prematurely, prior to hitting the main armor thus rendering them harmless.

I also was led to believe that was the effect. If one assumes (perhaps incorrectly) that the hollow charge round was designed so as to place the fuse such that when it strikes the surface of the armor the round is at the optimum stand off, then causing the round to detonate farther away can only cause greater dispersion of the jet and subsequent loss of penetration.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

That's the theory and sometimes it works. The problem with that theory is that often the optimal standoff distance is greater than what the round is actually capable of producing under normal circumstances. For example, let's say that the optimal standoff range is 18". This would mean you'd have to design the round with 18" of deadspace ahead of the charge. That's not very practical for something like a Bazooka round.

I've asked Charles to confirm exactly how the game handles skirt armor.

Steve

[MikeyD]

The U.S. was having considerable trouble getting much 'oomph' out of their HEAT rounds. It wasn't til the invention of the extended nose probe (mid 60s?) that TOW missile penetration performance finally got above 'mediocre'. I doubt any shaped charge HEAT weapon weapon we fielded before the 1960s detonated at the optimal standoff distance. look at the original Carl Gustav projectile and compare it to the oversize monstrosity they fire out of it today. A bazooka round's got to be portable, got to fit in the firing tube and has got to be aerodynamically stabile. So its an uphill fight to get optimal standoff detonation distance.

[Mattias]

In short:

1. No one on this forum (or any where else as far as I am aware of) has ever been able to produce any 1942/43 era evidence that the Germans considered HEAT type weapons when designing the skirts.

2. What has been shown is that during the design stage the skirts were successfully tested against two threats; 14.5 mm ATR rounds and 76.2 mm HE.

2. The 14.5 mm rounds where defeated primarily by the tumbling caused by the skirts. It caused the round to twist and turn in the air, not hitting the main armour head first. Thereby sufficiently reducing their ability to penetrate the main armor.

3. The HE rounds were prematurely detonated, destroying the skirt element but saving the main armor from serious damage.

Cheers,

M.

[Vanir Ausf B]

So the skirts did protect against HE also?

It will be interesting to hear how Charles has modeled it in-game. I know for a fact that in CMBO skirts did provide a small amount of protection from HEAT (I'm not implying that was correct).

[bodkin]

In short:

2. What has been shown is that during the design stage the skirts were successfully tested against two threats; 14.5 mm ATR rounds and 76.2 mm HE.

Am I missing something, where is the 76.2 mm HE referred to?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I believe referral is to the common Soviet 76.2mm round fired by the ubiquitous 'crash booms' that proliferated the battlefield on the Russian front. I gathered from the post that the Germans tested the skirts against these 2 types of rounds seeing as they were the most common projectiles encountered on that front.

It seemed clear to me that the skirts were originally designed to counter these types of weapons with absolutely no consideration given at the time of their effectiveness against shaped charge weapons.

Regards

KR

[Sergei]

For guys you folks sure like to talk a lot about skirts... can't we just agree that Germans used skirts to show their legs?

[Peregrine]

For guys you folks sure like to talk a lot about skirts... can't we just agree that Germans used skirts to show their legs?

Incorrect.

They had little leather shorts for doing that.

[Gryphonne]

For guys you folks sure like to talk a lot about skirts... can't we just agree that Germans used skirts to show their legs?

Why? Nothing wrong with skirts now is there

Back on topic: I always understood that the side skirts were effective against HEAT rounds, and that this was also the reason for Soviet troops adding all sorts of side skirts to their tanks before the campaign in Berlin 1945 in order to defeat Panzerfausts/Panzerschrecks?

[Magpie_Oz]

Ironically it was the Germans who tended to add side skirts "Schürzen" to defeat HEAT rounds I don't know of any Soviet tanks that had similar side skirts installed.

Western allied tanks like the M4 sometimes had sandbags for similar protection.

[YankeeDog]

As noted, the German AFV skirts were originally implemented as a countermeasure against ATR rounds on the Eastern Front, not as an anti-HEAT round defense. The skirt in and of itself couldn't usually stop an ATR round, but it could slow and blunt it, which greatly reduced the chances of the ATR round causing things like track damage.

As to their effectiveness against HEAT rounds, this wasn't what they were originally designed for, but in some cases the skirts may have helped. In other situations, though, the skirts they may have actually increased the effectiveness of HEAT rounds. A HEAT penetrator requires a certain amount of stand-off distance from the armor in order for the penetration jet to properly form. This is why many modern HEAT rounds have a long probe on the nose; to detonate the charge the ideal distance from the armor.

But this aspect of HEAT warhead design wasn't well understood during WWII, and many HEAT rounds of the era (including the Panzerfaust, Panzershreck, and Bazooka) actually detonated charge too close to the armor plate for ideal performance. So a light, 4-5mm armor plate might actually improve the HEAT round's performance, by detonating it further from the main plate. I can especially see this happening in the case of a HEAT round headed for the lower side hull. In other cases, though, the skirt might be of net benefit to the AFV, as in the case of a round headed for the turret that gets caught by the top of the skirt on the way in -- in this case, the HEAT round will get detonated so far away from the main armor that the penetrator will probably start to loose cohesion by the time it hits the armor.

As for the late-war Soviet skirts, hard to say how effective these were. Same factors noted above apply. But since these weren't standardized, it's hard to say how effective they were, on average.

In any event, with CMBN's literal 3D modeling of impact point and penetrator performance, we should get a good representation of what the skirts actually did, for better or for worse.

Cheers,

YD