questions for the tank nuts

[opposum]

hey I have a few questions about German armor:

1. Schurzen, what was the exact purpose of it? It was to defeat some kind of special round wasn't it? 

2. Did the panzer IV come out before the III or was it proposed before the III or is this false information I have?

3. Was the tiger built in response to the appearance of the T-34? or was it already being planed before the T-34?

4. Was the panthers armor modeled after the T-34 when the germans saw how sloping armor worked?


thanks,


opposum

[Stampf]

1. Designed to defeat shaped charges.

2. False

3. No

4. Yes

[Kostic]

hey I have a few questions about German armor:

1. Schurzen, what was the exact purpose of it? It was to defeat some kind of special round wasn't it? 

From a quick search

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.

Source: http://www.panzerworld.net/facts


Kostic

[Stampf]

The Russian anti-tank rifle fired a bullet that was originally a steel-cored streamlined armour-piercing type, but this was superseded by a non-streamlined tungsten-cored armour-piercing-incendiary pattern.  (shaped).

[Lusche]

The Russian anti-tank rifle fired a bullet that was originally a steel-cored streamlined armour-piercing type, but this was superseded by a non-streamlined tungsten-cored armour-piercing-incendiary pattern.  (shaped).

But that's not the same as a "shaped charge"

[Stampf]

Correct, but it is what the schurzen was designed to foil.

[Lusche]

Correct, but it is what the schurzen was designed to foil.

Shaped charges or russian anti tank rifle ammo?

[Stampf]

Russian Anti-tank - tungsten cored ammo.

Was not sure how technical a response the OP was looking for.  Based on his questions, I did not think, very.

[Lusche]

Russian Anti-tank - tungsten cored ammo.

Was not sure how technical a response the OP was looking for.  Based on his questions, I did not think, very.

Ah ok, so you corrected your answer #1. Thanks for clarification.

[theNewB]

well dont think i could have wrapped that up any better, good replay Stampf.

[Blooz]

Schurzen was designed to defeat shape charged weapons (the Russians got thousands of bazookas through Lend-Lease).

Schurzen panels started being added to German tanks in 1943.

Bazookas and HEAT shaped charge gun rounds were appearing on the battlefied in 1943.

Anti tank rifles have been around since WW1 (1916)

The basic armor on a German tank in 1943 was plenty thick enough to stop an anti tank rifle bullet.

Why would they wait so long if anti tank rifle bullets were a threat for 37 years?

Does it make sense to think that they'd add armor to a tank for a weapon that was out dated at the time the armor came out? Of course not. Bazooka and 75mm shape charged firing ammo weapons were proliferating on the battlefield in 1943 and the Germans came up with Schurzen panels to defeat it.

Most modern tanks have schurzen panels on them. Do you think they are there for protection against anti tank rifles?

Hardly.

Never was.

[Stampf]

Blooz,

The Tungsten - cored Russian ammunition did not come online until later. This is why I used the term "Shaped charge", although Lusche is correct.  Technically it was not a shaped charge but more like the original "Silver Bullet."  The Germans realized the Russians had upgraded their anti-tank rifle ammunition, and developed the schurzen to counter it.

We are all talking the same concept here, just different stages of anti tank ammunition evolution.  Suffice to say, Schurzen was, and is used to defeat, non traditional armor piercing counter measures.

[theNewB]

At the ranges those ATRs were fired they had plenty of punch to go through the sides and rear.


for the PTRD ATR

Caliber: 14.5 mm (0.57");
Weight: 17.3 kg (38.14 lbs);
Length: 2.02 m (6'7.5");
Length of barrel: 1.35 m (4'5.1");
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s;
Effective range: 1000 m;
Rate of fire: 8 - 10 shots/min;
Armour penetration: 25 mm (0.98") at 500 m (547 yards). (cant find any angles for testing so im assuming its at 0°)

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf C, SdKfz 161

Hull Front, Upper
30@7° 
Hull Front, Lower 30@12° 
Hull Sides, Upper 15@0°
Hull Sides, Lower 15@0°
Hull Rear  15@10° 
Hull Top 12@85°
Hull Bottom 5@90°
Turret Front  30@10°
Mantlet: 30@round
Turret Sides 15@25°
Turret Rear 15@0°-24°
Turret Top 10@83°-90°

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf H, SdKfz 161/2

The basic armor on a German tank in 1943 was plenty thick enough to stop an anti tank rifle bullet.

was it?

Hull Front, Upper 80@10°
Hull Front, Lower 80@14°
Hull Sides, Upper 30@0°
Hull Sides, Lower 30@0°
Hull Rear 20@8°,20@78°
Turret Sides 30@26°
Turret Rear 30@15°

StuG IIIBs and Gs, Jagdpanzer IV and IV/70 Are also around 30mm at 0° lower and upper 30mm@30°, Hetzer had 20mm at 15° lower side armour and even the Jagdpanther could be penetrated from the sides/rear, so its safe to say only the heaviest german armour such as tigers, panthers, Elefant/Ferdinand, tiger II, Jadgtiger, ect. would be immune to them. And how many of those were produced compaired to the "standard" battle tanks/ SPGs. This is all ,excluding field modifications, stock from the factory tanks.

so at most reasonable ranges given the man is dug in, covered, and has stomache along with some knowledge of geometry, then a rear/ side shot is very very feasable (knocking it out 100% would prove a bit more challenging, but multiply 2-3 PRTS/PTRD's hitting one tank theres bound to be a casualty among 5 men in cramped quarters).

as for bazookas, no 5mm piece of steel is going to stop a shaped charge from melting its way through and onto the side or rear hull. Granted i bet it did happen but probably not as common as you'd think. Not to mention the bazooka fired an array of different rounds. And as for modern day... depleted uranium... that and i think those skirts are to protect the tracks more then anything, could be wrong.

Why would they wait so long if anti tank rifle bullets were a threat for 37 years?

IMO i believe it would be due to the fact that in a future war youll be facing a well equipped army with plenty of anti-tank guns larger then 37mm. That and the PTRD/PTRS were the most effective ATRs in the war. The Boys .50cal ATR was nothing near the range/penetration that it had nor was the Panzerbüchse 38 or 39. As for penetration data of the boys im not sure, i beleive the PzB 39 could penetrate 30mm@0°/100m. The PTRD/PTRS is IMO king of the ATRs, and as for outdated? the PTRD was made in 1941.

[Blooz]

OK...so according to your numbers a PTRD could just barely penetrate the side of an early war Panzer at close range.

Still...what about the earlier 37 years when antitank rifles were actually dangerous to tanks?

Why didn't light tanks, armored cars, halftracks or sp arty have schurzen armor? They were more vulnerable to anti tank rifle fire than a tank was.

The PTRD was a good antitank rifle , yes but it wasn't the threat the tanks faced when it was introduced in 1943. Shaped charge weapons were.

Unprotected armor vs. shaped charged weapons had no chance at all. Shaped charges could penetrate a foot of armor at ANY range. Unless of course, it hits something before it gets to the main armor..like, say, schurzen?

German tanks in Africa had schurzen, German tanks in Sicily, Italy, France, Western Germany...why? What was the threat? No PTRD's there...but there were bazooks and shaped charge anti tank ammunition firing guns.

No. Schurzen is designed to defeat shape charge ammunition not kinetic energy penetrators. Same then as today.

[19kilo10(ironnite)]

Panzer IV and III came out at roughly the same time........the IV had a short 7.5cm low velocity gun and was envisioned as support tank,while the III had a 3.7cm high velocity gun and was seen as the MBT.