"Did schurzen actually work?" Topic

I'm asking because in 15mm models, they can be a real PITA.
Some manufacturer's models come in with all the space filled in with casting metal.
Some with plastic sheets and frames, are incredibly flimsy when used in gaming.

Of course the answer is that because it was German, that automatically made it a war winning idea. Oh, wait…

Or was it like Zimmerit, a solution in desperate search for a non-existing problem?

My understanding it they were designed to defeat mostly AT rifles, which the Soviets deployed in droves. Late war it was useful against some shaped charges like in RPGs. I don't think it would stop a round from a T34 but it wasn't really designed to. It was a cheap fix to fight a cheap threat.

Probably all those "fixes" may have been better than nothing. Which so often is the case …

But I think Extra Crispy's comments are valid.

It worked very well at it's intended purpose.
The soviet atr were a substantial threat to the pz3 stug and pz 4.
9 atr all fired at the one tank could do serious damage. Also pretty scary.

It was never intended as protection against heat.

Even though thin mild steel, the plates could also strip those fancy caps off ap rounds and alter their direction a bit. Not a huge effect but some's better than none.

I think it was the same idea as covering your vehicle with logs, sandbags, etc. Not gonna stop a big shell, but could save you getting peppered with ATRs, fausts, etc.

Agreed – it was a solution to the problem of infantry anti-tank weapons; of no use against a tank, but the Russians did have a awfully lot of infantry anti-tank weapons

Interesting article on this subject
panzerworld.com/add-on-armor

It was not intended to counter HEAT rounds. During WWII the ideal stand-off distance for maximum HEAT penetration was understood to be about 2 caliber diameters for 1st gen WWII warheads. This allows about 3-4 caliber penetration of armor under optimum circumstances. IE 3" warhead should penetrate about 9-12" armor with 2 diameter standoff. Once this standoff is increased by a spaced plate – the effective penetration drops steadily from peak to 2-3 diameters penetration @ 4-5 diameters standoff – down to 1 diameter penetration at over 6 diameters standoff.

In some cases, the Schutzen could function as the ideal stand-off distance to let the HEAT jet form for maximum penetration and effect or have the opposite effect. It would depend on the distance between the Schutzen and the tank armor and the HEAT warhead design. In WWII HEAT rounds had a base fuse so were not compromised when hitting a hard surface.

HEAT round performance can also be affected when hitting storage boxes, tow lugs, headlights, bolts, etc. In game terms, I make HEAT penetration variable and not often ideal.

Here is an example of how a 100mm HEAT round performs measuring standoff distance and penetration in cm. Unfortunately, I'm unsure of the source but it may be a post-WWII Rusian HEAT round.

It could probably defeat 75mm and smaller HE rounds set with a super-quick fuse but not a delay fuse as the delay would allow the round to penetrate the Schutzen and explode against the tank. It would provide suspension protection against fragments from close HE bursts.

Wolfhag

As noted, they worked fine against the Anti-tank rifles they were designed to protect against. Russian AT rifle were quite powerful and used en masse.

As a side benefit, they also had some effect against HEAT rounds.

But yes, they were a PITA in real life too – getting caught up on terrain items, falling off etc.

Not a huge effect but some's better than none.

Yep ! I agree as I said better than nothing …

they were a PITA in real life too

Yes as posted, in many cases you see photos with parts of the Schutzen missing, damaged, etc.

I think it was the same idea as covering your vehicle with logs, sandbags, etc.

Yes, we even sandbagged our M113s, M35 and M54 Cargo Trucks, etc., on DMZ in the ROK in the mid '80s. Based on lessons learned from Vietnam, etc. Even if it only increases your chances of getting out alive by only 1 %(?), etc., …

The link in a posting above provides very interesting references to field reports. Here below is the information I have managed to gather on WaPruf test firings.

The better researched sources generally agree that schuerzen was an effort to defeat Russian ATRs. But they often miss that there was a secondary intent (as correctly mentioned above) to defeat HE from medium guns too. Most secondary sources on the effects of schuerzen on ATR projectiles point back to the original 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.

Note: the word "schuerzen" translates literally into English as "apron", but for our purpose here I retain the German word for its current relevance to our discussion. Also note that when I write, for "ü" I make every effort to either retain the umlaut (the two dots over the "u") in the original German, or I write it as "ue" when transliterating to English lettering. Otherwise, I would be mis-spelling the word. Which is not to say I don't make spelling errors. Just that I try to get it right.

I have never been able to find an original of the Kummerdorf 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. His books on Pz III, Pz IV, Panther, and StuG III all provide information from the Kummersdorf 2/43 testing. I do not know if the larger, more expansive "Panzer Truppen" also contain details of these tests.

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 75 / 76.2mm HE rounds. It is my understanding that no other types of weapons were included in these tests.

Schuerzen was developed as a response to two key aspects of the fighting conditions on the Eastern Front in 1942. The February 1943 Kummersdorf tests were constructed to test for these specific conditions. First was that ATRs (both PTRS-41 and PTRD-41) had become common over the course of 1942. Second was that Soviets had experienced 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 up-armored on the front, the chassis were becoming overloaded, and up-armoring the sides (a substantially larger surface area than the front) 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. It appears the key effect 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 a follow-up, another set of firing tests were conducted at Kummersdorf to test its effectiveness against HEAT projectiles. This test used of Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck HEAT projectiles against wire-mesh schuerzen, and was conducted in December of 1944. I have a copy of an article from "Waffen Review", the 1. Quarter 1981 issue (Nr 40), which describes the WaPruf test firings.

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 worthy of checking because, well, I'm not fluent in German) translation of that passage:

On 21.12.1944 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: I believe, but am not certain, that this reference to "suspension" is a reference to the mounting of the schuerzen, and not to the running gear of the vehicle.

In any case, the German WaPruf conclusion was that schuerzen was a wasted effort if the purpose was defense against HEAT projectiles.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

The publication can be found here (Russian language website): link . Scroll down to 6457 to find the article in question.

Hmmm. The link seems to be a dead-end. Oops. Well as I mentioned I grabbed the full article. Now if I actually can find it, I'll try to post it here if anyone is interested…

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Of course it works, how many models have been sold because the person looking at the artwork on the box thought that schurzen makes that tank look cool.

Oh, you meant in warfare, not marketing. My bad.

😆 Too true !

I like schurzen, it covers up the model details so I don't have to paint them.

I'm thinking it actually helps HEAT rounds as it provides a perfect perpendicular surface for the warhead eliminating the chance of hitting something that could ricochet the round. It may give a more desirable stand-off distance too.

Wolfhag

I'm thinking it actually helps HEAT rounds as it provides a perfect perpendicular surface for the warhead eliminating the chance of hitting something that could ricochet the round. It may give a more desirable stand-off distance too.

Wolfy you may be right. But it's hard for me to reach any specific conclusion.

The Boffins (hmm, German Boffins … so Die Boffinen?) at WaPruf clearly concluded it was not effective against HEAT. But they did this based on an assumption that US Bazooka and British PIAT rounds were roughly equivalent to German Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek rounds, and I'm not sure that's a good assumption.

On the other hand the US Army 5th TD Group HQ did firing tests with the Bazooka against a captured Panther. I suppose they had nothing better to do, as the US Army in ETO never really used TDs in Group (ie: Brigade)-sized actions.

I have some of the materials from those test firings. They were NOT conducted to test schuerzen, 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. But all hits on protrusions failed to penetrate the armor. I find the outer road wheel hits particularly relevant. These were not armor-grade steel. The rounds clearly detonated (so they were 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 differing results from this test and the WaPruf testing. The US 5th TD Group test firings were not against schuerzen. And, as different questions were driving the tests, the conclusions make no remark about spaced armor and it's effect in general, much less about schuerzen in particular. But it did test US bazooka projectiles.

Looking at their results, though, to me it is pretty clear that the bazooka's likelihood of punching through armor was in doubt when round struck just about ANYTHING other than the plate you wanted to penetrate.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Hmmm. The link seems to be a dead-end. Oops. Well as I mentioned I grabbed the full article. Now if I actually can find it, I'll try to post it here if anyone is interested…

Found the magazine in question. I don't have a mechanism for hosting the full magazine (although I'm sure many here might be interested in the articles it contains, not only on schuerzen but also on the P.08 Luger pistol, on the different WW2 German Manpack Flamethrowers, and on the British PIAT). Even just the article on schuerzen is 11 pages long.

But if I don't post the whole document, at least I can provide an image of the key passage. Here it is, with an indicator of where the parts I quoted and translated appear.

If anyone is just itching for some light German-language reading, and wants a PDF of the whole magazine (14+ MB), let me know via PM. I'm happy to share it.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Mark,
My cousin is in the German Navy, I think he'd be glad to have a look at it. He owes me a few favors. I don't have PM.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:
I would be more than pleased to provide it to you. How shall we effect the transfer?
I shy away from posting my email addy (addies -- got half a dozen by this point) in open fora for fear of the spambots. Although quite honestly the spambots are everywhere anyways, so I don't know if I gain anything from such a piddly safeguard…
Any case, I'm happy to send it however/wherever you want to receive it.
-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Mark,
You could upload it to a Dropbox account that and give me access. If you are in the Pleasant Hill area you could come by and give it to me on a thumb drive or we could meet halfway.

Wolfhag

Mark,
Try going to this link and upload it:
link

Wolfhag

Wolf:

I tried uploading to that linked page. Not sure if it worked. Let me know if you can access it.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Didn't work. You can email to

treadheadgames AT G----