Path: spln!rex!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!gemini.tycho.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Approved: sci-military-moderated@retro.com Return-Path: news@superman.mobilixnet.dk Delivery-Date: Sat Oct 27 07:50:02 2001 Delivery-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:47:27 -0700 for <sci-military-moderated@retro.com>; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:46:10 -0700 (PDT) id 15xUTJ-0004ra-00 for sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:30:02 +0200 Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:29:53 +0200 To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org From: "Claus B" <shermanrules@tankers.net> Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated References: <i3qB7.152293$5A3.52800604@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com> <a516ee75.0110252036.230ea683@posting.google.com> <5dcb47db.0110260556.1019019@posting.google.com> <de5bf54f.0110261517.55877d2d@posting.google.com> Subject: LONG: Schuerzen: Was WWII Armor types X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: <AxzC7.1483$MP2.350801029@news.orangenet.dk> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:27:35 +0200 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.97.237.12 X-Complaints-To: abuse@orangedk.com X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:29:52 CEST Organization: Orange Internet -- http://www.orangedk.com/ Content-Length: 14085 Lines: 279 NNTP-Posting-Host: 40aca008.newsreader.tycho.net X-Trace: 1004203395 gemini.tycho.net 431 205.179.181.194 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tycho.net Xref: spln sci.military.moderated:39870 In regards to the Schürzen used on German armoured vehicles from 1943 onwards, it might be interesting to look at how these are described by authors Jentz and Spielberger in the last 40 years or so. Jentz and Spielbergers version of events is as follows: ********' 17. February 1943: The "Panzerkommision" decides to propose to Hitler that tanks (model and type not mentioned) be equipped with 5mm plates on the sides and 10mm plates on the turret. Extra weight: 600kg. 20. February 1943: Driving tests at Kummersdorf followed by firing tests. Both 5mm plates and wiremesh skirts are tested. Both succesfully defeats Soviet 14.5mm AT-rifle rounds at 100 meters and 7,5cm HE with contact detonator fired with charge 2. Plates were preferred because the attachments were already designed. Wiremesh were just as effective and even lighter but would have taken longer to get in production. 6. March 1943: Hitler is briefed on the results from Kummersdorf. All Panthers, Panzer IIIs, Panzer IVs and Stugs are to have skirts mounted during production. Vehicles already delivered should have skirts retrofitted ASAP. ********** The authors continuously stresses that HEAT/Hollow charge ammunition was not tested and that Schürzen was not intended to protect against this type of ammunition. Lets take a brief look at the story as it develops in the Jentz/Spielberger books. I am pretty shure that they are first mentioned by Spielberger in an article in the German magazine "Feldgrau" in 1963 that Senger- und Etterlin copied for his book "Die Deutschen Panzer 1926-1945" that appeared in the mid-60ies. My example is a 3. Auflage from 1968. There is no development in the story when it is repeated in Spielbergers book on the Panzer III which is, I believe, from the late 1970ies. My copy is 3. Auflage from 1990. In this version it is said that the purpose of Schürzen was to strengthen the armour protection of the sides of the tank, primarily against anti-tank rifles ("Panzerbüchsen") and hits by hollow charge ammunition ("HL-treffer"). It only refers to the presentation of the tanks with Schürzen to Hitler on March 19th 1943, not the actual tests. A very interesting comment is found in Spielbergers book on the Panther. My copy is 4. Auflage from 1994, but obviously the 1st print is earlier, perhaps the late 1980ies? Anyway, on page 86 Spielberger discusses the various forms of additional armour used as part of a general discussion on armour and weldings etc. Here he mentions tests in 1942 of the so-called "Schottpanzerung" which I believe can be translated simply as spaced armour. These tests were conducted with APCR as well a hollow-charge weapons. Later it is said that this Schottpanzerung was usefull against hollow charge ammunition and magnetic mines ("Hafthohlladungen"). But there is no references to actual documents, dates and places, it is simply a general comment by the author. The next development comes with Spielbergers book "Sturmgeschütze" in the early 1990ies (my copy is 2. Auflage from 1994). Here Tom Jentz is credited as well. In this version, Schürzen is first discussed at the Führerkonferenz February 6./7. 1943. It then goes on to described in some detail the firing tests at Kummersdorf on February 20th mentioning only AT-rifles and high-explosive ammunition. The author adds that Schürzen were not tested against HEAT nor were they intended to protect against this type of weapon. In other words, Spielberger has now changed his mind about the Schürzen being intended to protect against "HL-treffer". Why we may ask. I can only guess, but it seems to me that in the 1960ies, Spielberger only had the references from the Führerkonferenz to go by, not the February 20th Kummersdorf data. So he choose to repeat the Anglo-American contention that Schürzen was intended for protection against HEAT as well. But please notice that AT-rifles has been mentioned all along. Then in 1995 comes Tom Jentz' book on the Panther where Schürzen becomes a very important component in the development of the Panther tank. On page 35 Jentz refers to Schürzen and again says that they were tested only against 75mm high explosive rounds and anti-tank rifles and "The invention of Schürzen saved the Panther I. If the Panther had not been able to cope with anti-tank rifles, prodcution would have been converted to the Panther II. Schürzen were not intended to defeat and were not *initially* tested against hollow charge rounds." No reference is given, but later, on page 50ff there are some vague references to conferences with Speer early in 1943 in conjunction with Schürzen. In reference to a meeting in Speers ministry on April 29th 1943 it is said that the Panther I with Schürzen now had sufficient protection against close range fire from the Soviet 14.5mm anti-tank rifle. It does not have the character of a direct quote, so it is difficult to see what is take directly from the documents and what is Jentz' own opinion. Moving on, we reach what I believe is the latest on the matter from Spielberger/Jentz, "Begleitwagen Panzerkampfwagen IV" where the story appears like the quote at the start of this post. This time the references are clear but basically restates what was said in Spielbergers book on Sturmgeschütze. This book is from 1998. If you consider the actual references to original documents in Spielberger and Jentz books to be true, then there can be little doubt that Schürzen were originally intended as protection against the Soviet 14.5mm AT-rifle and direct fire by high explosive ammunition. That does not rule out that they were effective against HEAT. If you want to refute the development history of Schürzen as portrayed by Jentz and Spielberger, you would need some documentation that they have either misunderstood what they read or that the data they have are incomplete and of course produce the documents that would show this. As far as I know, no one has done this. The next thing we might want to look at is how the story emerged that Schürzen were designed to combat HEAT-type weapons. Robert Livingston has suggested the following explanation: ************************ A reprint of US Army intelligence reports (1944-45) on German weapons says: "The Germans have recently begun attaching thin skirting armor plate of from 5 to 8mm thickness on various fighting vehicles, including the Sturmgeschutz. The following theories have been advanced for this development: 1) to break up or deflect 20mm tungsten carbide core ammunition 2) to defeat hollow charge shells 3) to defeat the 14.7mm (sic) Russian antitank rifle 4) to defeat the American Bazooka" Now, by the time Col. Robert Icks completed _Tanks And Armored Vehicles_ in 1945, he had decided that the plates were for "protection against the American "bazooka"." This book was probably the first work available to the public describing the major and minor WWII tanks. The photos are first rate, even by today's standards. It was printed on thin paper due to wartime restrictions. A huge number of copies were printed and one can still find copies for sale today. A compilation of sheets detailing the Aberdeen Museum collection, dating from right after the Korean War, states the plates were "antibazooka" shields. The myth was firmly in place. I think it was American myopia which fostered and spread this myth. They thought the Bazooka was so effective that the Germans must have been threatened enough to haul around a few thousand pounds of extra steel to protect themselves. It was accepted wisdom in those circles that the anti tank rifle was dead, obsolete. ********************* Returning for a moment to John Salts post he lists 4 reasons why the story brought forward by Spielberger and Jentz is not to be trusted: *************** 1. Look at the material. Shurzen were made of thin mild steel or wire mesh. In terms of ballistic protection, this is next to worthless (and possibly worse -- but we'll come to that later). As a burster plate to detonate HEAT rounds, though, it's fine. ************** Apparently the tests at Kummersdorf proved otherwise. Any particular reason to discount those? Paul Lakowsky can explain these things better than I can, but the protection element seems to be that Schürzen will cause slow down the projectile, damage the 14.5mm round and cause it to tumble. In other words, reduce it to an ineffective lump of metal. **************** 2. Look at the positioning. If the intention were to act as spaced armour and do the normal job of cap-stripping or penetrator-breaking, there would be no need to mount the Shurzen plates on those cumbersome rails far from the main armour. It would have made more sense, and saved weight, to mount the armour closer, in the style of the Pz III driver's plate. There is no need to undergo the risk of plates getting knocked off in close country -- as often happened in Normandy -- unless it is desired to obtain a good, long stand-off distance, as one would against HEAT. ****************** Placing Schürzen in between the roadwheels and return rollers of the Panzer III and IV would require a lot more work on the plates, it would require different plates for different vehicles, it would hamper maintenance and repair and would very likely cause problems with mudpacking. It would be a vastly more complicated affair than simply hanging the Schürzen on a rack as it was done. ******************' 3. Look at the HEAT threat. It has been alleged that there was no significant HEAT threat to German tanks on the Russian front when Schurzen were first fitted. Not true; apart from artillery weapons, the Russians fielded the 82mm aircraft rocket and the similar LMG rocket-mine. Bazookas were also sent to Russia by lend-lease, and captured Panzerfausts were used when obtainable. ****************** I dont know how many Bazookas were sent to the USSR, but according to Zaloga, they did get 1000 PIATs. However, I dont think it would have been an issue in February 1943, and certainly not a "significant threat". A more likely HEAT threat in the east would be the HEAT rounds fired from 76.2mm and 122mm artillery pieces. But you really dont need a threat. Zimmerit was applied to counter magnetic mines that, to my knowledge, was never developed or used by allies. ******************* 4. Look at the ATR threat. The penetration performance of PTRS and PTRD rounds was marginal against the 30mm side armour of the Pz III or Pz IV Ausfs of the mid-war period onward (I cheerfully refer readers to Tony Williams' excellent book, "Rapid Fire", Appendix 1, which gives the most generous penetration performance for these weapons of any source I know). It must be borne in mind that a significant overmatch of the armour is needed to stand a good chance of a kill. ****************** I've seen figures giving 35mm and 40mm at 300 meters against vertical plate. Reduce range to 50 meters, I think both the Panzer III/IV and Panther would be at risk. The point is that AT-rifles was available in some numbers and they were used by the infantry when in immidiate contact with armour (at least this is the situation I've seen in German training films). So just like the Panzerfaust, PIAT and Bazooka, it is a close defense weapon. We may also consider that Schürzen was used on other vehicles like the Jagdpanzer IV and the Hetzer. In case of the Hetzer, they only protect the lower hull which is a measly vertical 20mm. They do not protect the upper hull which is an equally measly 20mm albeit with a 40 degree slope. Would not the upper hull be easily penetrated by Bazookas, captured Panzerfausts or HEAT artillery rounds? Does not the same apply to the Jagdpanzer IV (40mm at 30 degrees)? To say that the AT-rifle was not a threat is to refute the documents qouted by Jentz and Spielberger. So the issue really becomes a matter of whether you believe those quotes or not. Mind you, niether author says that Schürzen was not effective against HEAT, the argument is that they were not developed to counter that specific threat. John, do you have any contemporary German evidence suggesting that Spielberger and Jentz are wrong? Claus B Paul Lakowski <psl@interchange.ubc.ca> skrev i en nyhedsmeddelelse:de5bf54f.0110261517.55877d2d@posting.google.com... > cray74@hotmail.com (Mike Miller) wrote in message news:<5dcb47db.0110260556.1019019@posting.google.com>... > > > > > > That's two people now who have claimed the Schurtzen plates were > > to disrupt Soviet 14.5mm anti-tank rifles, while another has > > called it nonsense. What's the story? I've only heard of the > > armor skirts being used to defeat HE and HEAT. > > > Yes this is true , read Speilberg on Stug development, he states they > were tested to defeat 14.5 HVAP which shattered resulting in no > damage to the 30mm side hull armor. HE rounds were also tested but he > specifically states that no shaped charges where tested against these > spaced plates before they where ordered into production in feb 1943. > > Robert Livingston traced the rummor of anti heat sheilds to a post war > US analysis that seems to have persisted for decades.Infact these > space plates would have increased the penetration of some HEAT > warheads as they had insufficent standoff to start with. > > BTW John Salt, I must say I like your website. From what I've read the > hardened plate is essential in destroying the nose of sharp > penetrators which is at the heart of their success.With the caped > penetrator the nose became blunted and there was less of a shock to > the penetrator. I gather it has to do with the 'plastic wave velocity' > of the penetrator material being exceeded. The more pointed the > penetrator the easier this is to achieve. Once started it won't stop > until the penetrator has a cylindrical nose shape. > > On the other hand once a certain level has been exceeded harder plates > shear off like adibatic shear in DU penetrators ...so their easier to > 'plug'. > > Its really surprising how much difference these nose shapes make to > penetration of armor.