"Schurzen - not worth the trouble?" Topic

Copied from a FB group I belong to, and translated from the original German document. Not by me I hasten to add!

Archiv Signatur RH 10/48 Ausstattung, Verwendung und Einsatz von Kriegsmaterial bei der Truppe.- Panzer, Funklenkpanzer, Sturmgeschütze, Panzer-Jäger sowie Selbstfahrlafetten Apr. 1943 – Juni 1944 inlcudes a 2 page experience report from the 20. Panzer Division on trials with Panzer Schürzen dated 27 May 1943.

There is nothing but negative experiences stated:
- mud buildup between hull, tracks, wheels and the Schürzen
- dust is circulated between the hull and Schürzen and due to this, gets sucked into air intakes
- The Schürzen make maintenance work more complicated. Replacing wheels or track work, as well as refueling, require removal of Schürzen first
- The Schürzen impede vision out of the visors in the sides
- The Schürzen impede use of M.P. Stopfen
- Schürzen actually make it easier for enemy infantry to get onto the tanks
- The Schürzen work as collecting baskets for explosives thrown onto the tank
- On 24 May, an egg-handgrenade was thrown onto a tank with Schürzen during trials, which landed between the turret and Schürzen. This led to a penetration larger than hand-size in the hull roof plate
- The Panzer Schürzen add to the weight, putting more strain on an already overstressed engine

The conclusion is that the drawbacks greatly outweigh the benefits.

That's very interesting. The Germans were pretty good at tweaking their designs though, so I would have thought that the schurzen would have been deleted in a reasonable time if they were more trouble than they were worth. Instead they were in use for about 2 years up until the end of the war.

That being said, mesh versions were introduced later in the war, and even some hinged ones. So that implies that they were valuable in regard to certain anti-tank weapons.

Both schurtzen and zimmerit were discontinued before the end of the war, though I don't know if for military reasons or manufacturing reasons.

An interesting little read.

But they look cool.

Zimmerit was discontinued when they realized there was no significant threat from magnetic bombs.

German source documents from the period show pretty clearly that it was not added to protect from bazookas, and in the late war period it was considered to be not worth the trouble.

Note: the word "Schürzen" translates literally into English as "apron", but for our purpose here I retain the German word (transliterated into English lettering) for it's current relevance to our discussion. Germans capitalize the first letter of most nouns, but the English practice is just to capitalize proper nouns. And as English generally does not use accents over vowels, a "u" with an umlaut (ü) is generally written as "ue". Hence schuerzen.

-----

Most secondary sources on the effects of schuerzen on ATR projectiles point back to the original WaPruf testing reports from Kummersdorf in February of 1943. It was based on this test reporting that the orders for schuerzen production and fitting to Pz III and IV were given.

(Leading to schuerzen appearing on many Pz III and IV tanks around the time of Kursk.)

I have never been able to find an original of the Kummersdorf reports online. Doesn't mean it's not there somewhere, but if it is I haven't found it.

Perhaps the most widely accredited secondary sources are the various books by Jentz. I am told his books on Pz III, Pz IV, Panther A, and StuG III all provide information from the Kummersdorf 2/43 testing. (I do not have all of these books.)

From reading secondary (and tertiary) sources I understand that the 2/43 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 on the Eastern Front in 1942. ATRs (both PTRS-41 and PTRD-41) had become common over the course of 1942. For larger guns there were shortages of AP production in 1942, so it was relatively common for Soviet gunners to fire HE at German tanks. The 30mm armor on the sides of Pz III and Pz IV was shown in combat to be vulnerable to both. As both models were progressively 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 cracking/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 thought 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 a download of a German periodical, "Waffen Review", the 1.Quarter 1981 issue (Nr 40), which has an article describing WaPruf test firings of Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck HEAT projectiles against wire-mesh schuerzen, conducted at Kummersdorf in December of 1944.

The publication can be found here (Russian language website): link

Scroll down to 6457 to find the article in question.

The article title is: "Schürzen zur Verstärkung der Panzerung" ("Schuerzen to Reinforce the Armor").

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 (as in mine, as in there is no one else to blame for errors!) translation of that passage:

On December 21, 1944 a trial shooting was carried out in Kummersdorf, but only with schuerzen made of wire mesh and Panzerfaust or -schreck. Result:

"The ratio of the faster striking mass to that of the schuerzen, whose inertia is supposed to slow the projectile, is so different that the schuerzen impinge only marginally on the effect of the projectile. All the schuerzen were destroyed along with the suspension* by the first shot. Even if the schuerzen 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 schuerzen were ineffective, obstructed the vehicle, sometimes even the elevation of the gun, were not securely fastened and a waste of material."

*Note: My German skills are not sufficient for me to dis-ambiguate this -- I do not know if "suspension" is a reference to the mounting of the schuerzen, or the running gear of the vehicle.

-----

So two points:
1) Schuerzen was NOT added to tanks to protect against HEAT warheads. No HEAT warheads were even considered in the testing that led to the production and installation of schuerzen.

2) By the end of 1944 HEAT warheads were definitely one of the key things the Germans were testing for. But by that time opinion, even of the technical assessment team, had pretty clearly shifted to be against schuerzen, in either it's plate or mesh forms.

Or so it seems to me.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

As ever, a great contribution Mark.

"Aufhängevorrichtung" means in this context the mounting of the schuerzen.

Interesting article. Thanks.

A really interesting post, Mark. Thanks.

The term Aufhaengervorrichtung refers to the attachments of the Schuerzen themselves. The word for suspension in the sense of running gear is Federung.

We had that passage come up before IIRC

TMP link

I wonder how many pieces of Lost/Abandoned Schuerzen are still around in Eastern Europe.

At least some schurzen was still factory produced up to the end of the war. Here is a latest production Stug IIIG supplied to the Oder Front 1945.

The Russians officially introduced mesh supplementary armor (the so-called bed spring armor – tho actual bed springs were banned) during the final battles to help pre-detonate the huge quantities of panzerfausts.

The implication is that if a vehicle fitted with skirts takes an HE hit, it may be immobilised by the skirts getting wrecked, and / or the skirts hit will have no further defensive value in that game.

They had them on Shermans as well

Both schurtzen and zimmerit were discontinued before the end of the war, though I don't know if for military reasons or manufacturing reasons.

Both may have been true but as far as zimmerit was concerned it might have had a lot to do with the fact that the Germans eventually realised they were the only ones seriously using magnetic anti tank mines!

Kind of made it a bit pointless!

For such a useless piece of equipment, it is odd that so many modern armoured vehicles still have skirt armour over the running gear.

link

mkenny's photo of the Firefly is extraordinary. I have never seen "skirts" like that around an ETO Allied tank, especially around the turret. Sandbags, tree trunks, tracks and spare wheels yes, but not then sheet metal.

By then Allied tanks were at far more risk of contemporary infantry used RPGs than were Axis AFVs (it is a defensive weapon after all). But skirt armour was almost unknown (almost this shows)

Its a set of German plates still in original camo. Probably from a Jg.pz IV. It is a Canadian M4, a screen grab and not a photo.

Zimmerit was discontinued after (false) reports that it could ignite and cause fire.