So if the skirt armor was for use against AT Rifles and not ATRL why did the Pz IVJ use Wire Mesh skirts? Not sure what mesh would do vs AT rounds but even today they're using form of Mesh to defeat RPGs. What am I missing?
What you are missing … is the original source materials about Schurzen: why it was developed, how it was tested, when and where it was fielded.
The skirts would be effective vs. both PIAT and bazooka rounds.
We easily fall into the trap of assuming the Germans in 1943 were doing what makes sense to us in 2020.
They weren't.
They were doing what made sense to them in 1943. Everything else is an ex post facto rationalization.
You don't need to go through extensive rationalization exercises, because the historical documentation IS available to those who are interested in understanding the history.
The history of Schurzen is probably best understood through tracing back to the WaPruf reports of testing at Kummersdorf in February of 1943. It was based on this test reporting that the orders for Schurzen production, and fitting of Schurzen to PzIII, PzIV, and StuG, were given.
This is why the first major appearance of Schurzen is in the spring and early summer of 1943.
I have never been able to find an original of the Kummelsdorf reports online. Doesn't mean it's not there somewhere, but if it is I haven't found it.
But the tests are reasonably widely described in well-researched secondary sources. The most widely accredited secondary sources are the various books by Jentz. His books on PzIII, PzIV, Panther A, and StuGIII all provide information from the Kummersdorf 2/43 testing. I do not know if the larger, more expansive "Panzer Truppen" volumes also contain details of these tests.
From reading secondary (and tertiary) sources I understand that the February 1943 tests assessed the impact of BOTH 5mm non armor-grade plates, and wire mesh screens, on Russian 14.5mm ATRs at a range of 100m, and on 75mm HE rounds. It is my understanding that NO OTHER types of weapons were included in these tests.
These tests were conducted due to the fighting conditions that the Panzerwaffe had experienced on the Eastern Front in 1942. ATRs (both PTRS-41 and PTRD-41), which had both just entered production when Barbarossa began, had ramped up to very high production quantities and had become common over the course of 1942. At the same time, the Soviets had experienced shortages of AP production for larger guns the first half of 1942 (as factories were torn up and relocated), so it was relatively common throughout 1942 for Soviet gunners to fire HE at German tanks. The 30mm armor on the sides of PzIII and PzIV was shown in combat to be vulnerable to both ATRs and 76.2mm HE rounds. As both models were up-armored on the front, the chassis were becoming overloaded, and up-armoring the sides to provide effective protection levels was simply not in the cards for these vehicles.
The findings were that both 5mm steel and wire mesh were effective. The effects on 14.5mm ATR projectiles was to induce wobble so that the rounds side-struck the armor behind, and failed to penetrate. The HE rounds detonated at a distance from the armor, preventing damage to both the interior of the tanks (preventing penetration or significant spalling from non-penetrating HE hits) and also reducing damage to the running gear.
As both plate steel and wire mesh were found effective, it was concluded that the lower weight of the wire mesh would be a superior solution. However the lack of rigidity in the wire mesh meant that more complicated mounting mechanisms were needed. So the plate went into production immediately, and the wire mesh skirting did not go into production until more than a year later.
I have never seen a reference to primary source materials of German testing of Schurzen against larger AT projectiles. Assertions that it could strip off caps of AP rounds may, or may not, be true. But I have found no German testing to show they were aware of, or even concerned with, that affect.
I have a copy of an article from a German periodical, "Waffen Review", the 1. Quarter 1981 issue (Nr 40), which describes further WaPruf test firings against wire-mesh Schurzen, conducted in December of 1944. This time Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck HEAT projectiles were tested.
The article title is: "Schürzen zur Verstärkung der Panzerung" ("Schurzen to Reinforce the Armor") -- Note: the word "schurzen" translates literally into English as "apron", but for our purpose here I will retain the German word for it's current relevance to our discussion.
Here is a key portion of the article:
Am 21.12.1944 wurde in Kummersdorf ein Versuchschießen durchgeführt, allerdings nur mit den Schürzen aus Maschendraht und Panzerfaust bzw. -schreck. Ergebnis:"Das Verhältnis der beschleunigten Masse beim Auftreffen zur Masse der Schürzen, die durch ihre Trägheit das Geschoß bremsen sollen, ist derart unterschiedlich, daß die Schürze die Geschoßwirkung nur unwesentlich beeinflussen kann. Alle Schürzen sind mit der Aufhängevorrichtung beim ersten Schuß zerstört worden." Auch wenn die Schürzen aus 5mm Blechen und nicht aus harten Drahtnetz sind, wird die Wirkung der Hohlladunggeschoße nicht bzw. kaum gemindert, wobei die allierten Hohlladungsgeschoße in ihrer Wirkung den dt. nicht nachstanden. D.h. die dt. Schürzen waren unwirksam, behinderten das Fahrzeug, teilweise sogar den Höhenrichtbereich des Geschütze, waren nicht sicher befestigt und eine Verschwendung von Material."
Here is MY translation of that passage. I welcome corrections from those with more highly developed German language skills….
On 21.12.1944 a trial shooting was carried out in Kummersdorf, but only with schurzen made of wire mesh and Panzerfaust or -schreck. Result:"The ratio of the faster striking mass to that of the schurzen, whose inertia is supposed to slow the projectile, is so different that the schurzen impinge only marginally on the effect of the projectile. All the schurzen were destroyed along with the suspension* by the first shot. Even if the schurzen are of 5mm sheet and not hard wire mesh, the effect of hollow charge projectiles is reduced barely or not at all, the allied hollow charge projectiles not lagging behind the German in their effect. That is, the German schurzen were ineffective, obstructed the vehicle, sometimes even the elevation of the gun, were not securely fastened and a waste of material."
*Note: I can not dis-disambiguate this -- I do not know if "suspension" is a reference to the mounting of the schurzen, or the running gear of the vehicle.
In any case, the German WaPruf conclusion was that Schurzen was a wasted effort if the purpose was defense against HEAT projectiles.
I find that a bit hard to reconcile with the results of test firings of the bazooka against the Panther conducted by the US Army 5th Tank Destroyer Group command, which I also have.
That test firing was NOT conducted to test Schurzen, but rather only to determine the profitable aiming points if a Panther was the bazooka-man's target. But during those tests several objects attached to the tank that projected out from the actual armor plating were struck.
To wit:
a. Ricochet into wheel rim completely severing the tire and blasting an 8" hole in the wheel. There was no damaging effect upon the inner wheel immediately behind the one hit. b. Direct hit upon a wheel. A 3 x 5" hole was blasted out of the wheel and two 10" radial cracks were made. There was no damaging effect upon the wheel immediately inside the one hit.
c. & d. Direct hits upon wheels. 6" diameter holes blasted – no effect upon inner wheels.
…
j. A hit upon the towing-jack device on the rear of the tank. A small portion was chipped away, but there was no effect upon the armor plate.
k. A hit upon one of the exhaust pipes, completely blasting it away, but there was no effect upon the armor plate inasmuch as the blast had been dissipated upon the exhaust pipe.
…
p. A hit upon the towing hook on the front of the tank. No damaging effect upon the armor plate.
All hits that landed squarely on the side or rear armor plate penetrated with damaging effects inside. All hits on the upper front slope (the glacis plate) failed to detonate, as the early bazooka projectile fuzes did not work well when striking at sharp angles. But all hits on protrusions also failed to penetrate the armor. I find the outer road wheel hits particularly relevant. These were not armor-grade steel. The rounds clearly detonated (not fuze failures), and yet the HEAT jet did not even damage the inner road wheels, much less the hull side.
I don't think there is enough information to fully reconcile these two differing results.
So it may well be that Schurzen would offer protection against PIAT and Bazooka rounds.
And it may be that the crews in combat in ETO were aware, or became aware, of this.
But it is also clear that the REMFs that made decisions about who got Schurzen and who didn't, and the WOGs who promulgated the regulations for when to install or remove it, did NOT have protection against PIAT and Bazooka rounds in their decision process.
It seems pretty clear that the German test firings on Schurzen were done to test it against what the Germans considered to be a key problem, and the decisions to produce and deploy Schurzen were made as a result of the test reporting, and Bazooka and PIAT did NOT appear in their thinking, their testing, or their decision process.
Even 2 years after deploying Schurzen, WaPruf did not test US bazooka projectiles, only making assumptions about their effectiveness. And they concluded Schurzen was not useful for defense against HEAT.
I have test results from other firing tests, such as Bazookas against Panthers, or US 37mm, 57mm, 75mm and 105mm rounds, including 105mm HEAT and 75mm HE and WP, against various test targets. But I have no primary sources for testing of US or British HEAT or AP projectiles against Schurzen.
The test firings of the bazooka against Panther does tend to lead one to the conclusion that just about ANYTHING between the projectile and the target plate will help defend against penetration. Wheels, tires, exhaust pipes, even tow hitches were struck by projectiles in those tests, and while bazooka rounds clearly penetrated with lethal effect when striking the armored plate cleanly on sides or rear, when they struck these various stand-off protrusions the side or rear armor provided some measure of protection from penetration. But these protrusions did not have the same characteristics of Schurzen, which was deliberately thin and light to allow attachment to cover large areas of tanks without overloading already taxed suspensions and power trains.
I am not convinced that Schurzen provided effective defense against HEAT rounds. But neither I am not fully convinced that it had no effect. I lean towards Schurzen as likely being marginally useful vs. HEAT.
But however WE view it, the Germans at that time did not view it that way. At least not the guys who made doctrinal, production, and distribution decisions.
Or so I've read.
-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)
shows off the U.S. infantry from the Flames of War starter set.
