Shurzen
 

I have a comment on how the game system models HEAT attack. Here is an excerpt from a post made by Randall in the old DOS form for this game.

"I did run across some interesting passages in a book I was reading the other day.

The book is U.S. War Department Handbook on German Military Forces, which has been republished by the Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0-8071-2011-1

In a couple of instances they comment on the performance of some German hollow charge weapons.

On the 46mm Hollow-Charge Rifle Grenade (Gewehr Panzergranate 46) on Page 406 to 407
qoute
(3) Perfomance. Static test indicates that the penetration at long ranges is approximately 90mm of homogeneous armor. At short range (approximately 18 feet) the penetration was 70mm. A 1/4-inch mild steel plate, spaced 11 inches in front of the armor, completely nullified the effect.

On the 61mm Hollow-Charge Rifle Grenade (Gewehr Panzergranate 61).
quote
(3) Perfomance. Static test indicates that the maximum penetration of homogeneous armor at the extreme range of 220 yards will be approximately 126mm. At a range of approximately 18 feet the penetration falls to 100mm. A 1/4-inch mild steel plate, spaced 11 inches in front of the armor, completely defeats the grenade "

Now points to note are
1. The German 61mm Hollow-Charge Rifle Grenade has the same penetration as Bazooka both are HEAT weapons.
2. "A 1/4-inch mild steel plate, spaced 11 inches in front of the armor" is the spec for shurzen armour.
3. So according to this test shurzen plate should defeat bazooka. Unfortunately in-game bazooka defeats shurzen armour.
Can we fix this?
Best Chuck.

Re: Shurzen
 

While I have the greatest respect for Chuckforth's attention to detail and his tenacity in persuing possible problems in the OOBs, we need to remember that the issue of shurzen, HEAT and ATRs was debated by several parties, in great detail, at great length and with some heated emotion in the old DOS forum.

If there is significant new information about HEAT, ATRs or anything else to add to that previous discussion, I respectfully request those concerned wrap it up into to one coherent, well supported post preferably drawing on primary and secondary sources.

Can we please avoid yet another round of increasingly acrimonius debate that results only in a locked thread?

Thank you.

Re: Shurzen
 

(cough) sChurzen!

Re: Shurzen
 

(double cough) Schürzen (Schuerzen)

Re: Shurzen
 

Heres something else of relevance.
see
http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html

4 bazooka hits on Panther road wheels. All made a hole in the wheel but left -no- impression on the inner wheel. ie the space between the wheels absorbed the blast, working exactly like schurtzen. The space between the wheels is less than the space schurtzen stands off at.
This is of course additional to the test mentioned in the first post (showing schurtzen defeats bazooka)
I still hope that one day schurtzen could be modeled correctly in the game, ie the HEAT value of the armour being greater than the bazooka/PIAT pen value.
I mean is there any example anywhere of a bazooka or PIAT penetrating shurtzen and the tanks main armour behind, no.
Best Regards Chuck

Re: Shurzen
 

We have alreeady been provided with some detailed research in this regard and we will be reviewing the info and likely making some adjustments to the HEAT armour values of tanks with add on plate armour.

Don

Re: Shurzen
 

Chuck
Man your on a roll thats 2 posts in a roll being looked at this & the Hs 129 one.
Think carefully about your next post if you can make it 3 that would be awesome:D

Re: Shurzen
 

It is somewhat disapointing, that after four years, all you can bring up are these old examples that were discussed extensively on the old DOS forum back in 2005. :)

The odd thing about the effect of Schürzen vs HEAT is that even though it has been a hotly debated topic on the Internet for at least 15 years, I've never seen anyone bring forward actualy firing tests or combat reports dealing with the effect of WWII HEAT weapons against Schürzen.

As we know, the Germans didn't employ Schürzen to protect their tanks against HEAT, the 5mm plates were intended to defeat Soviet anti-tank rifle rounds.That may be the reason why no tests of HEAT vs Schürzen have so far emerged from German Archives, even though they have been intensely researched over the past 15-20 years.

Anyway, a while ago while researching for my thesis, I came across some British tests from 1944, where a setup of plates similar to Schürzen were tested against a wide range of contemporary HEAT-type weapons. Even though these tests were not conclusive, according to the people doing the testing, they do shed some light on the problem.

That is the data Don and Andy is looking at, I believe.

The tests shows, among other things, that static tests do not always give the same results as tests where the warhead is fired at the target and that Schürzen does not react to a hit by HEAT in the same manner as a Panther roadwheel :)

They also show that the effect on Schürzen of an impacting HEAT round depends a lot on whether the round is a rotating shell, fired from a gun or a slow moving, non-rotated round like PIAT og Panzerfaust. The latter tends to leave neat little holes, while the former ripped the plates apart and would likely have knocked the off a vehicle.

Another find was that a British made copy of the German 3kg magnetic charge performed vastly better than the mass-produced German original. Some of the other rounds used misfired or behaved erratically.
With hundreds of thousands of German HEAT weapons being returned to the factory and complaints about the Bazooka causing it to be withdrawn from service for a short period in 1943, that is hardly surprising, but still worth remembering when talking about these weapons in game terms.

The dangers of trying to extrapolate from something like the Panther roadwheel incident to the effect of Schürzen is made obvious by these tests. The roadwheel incident would suggest that the HEAT warhead would waste itself on the plate, leaving very little residual penetrative effect.
Against the array of plate and armour in the British tests, however, most of the un-spun HEAT rounds made a hole in the skirting plate, bridged the space of air behind and impacted the main armour with various degrees of penetrative power.
In one test, a PIAT round would make a hole in the 6mm skirting plate, cross nearly 50cm of space and knock a hole in the 32mm armour plate main armour. It would, however, do very little damage behind the armour.
At the other end of spectrum, the British made 3kg charge would knock a 15cm hole in the skirting plate, breach an air gap of 50cm and then blow a 4cm hole in the 50mm main armour, making a complete mess of whatever was behind the armour.

What this seems to show, is that WWII HEAT did not somehow magically loose its power if hitting a skirting plate. It was perfectly capable of maintaining a fairly focused stream or jet across a considerable distance of air and thus do damage to the main armour behind the skirt.

What the tests also seems to show, is that the German setup of skirting plates - Schürzen - would in many cases be sufficient to defeat the smaller WWII HEAT warheads like the PIAT or the small Panzerfaust, at least at the points where the Schürzen were at the greatest distance from the main armour. But they also show that gun-fired HEAT shells would likely destroy the Schürzen plate with the first hit, making it a one-shot protection.
The real challenge facing the game designers, is how to interpret these results within the framework of the game.

Claus B

Re: Shurzen
 

I know exactly how I'm going to do it I just haven't tested it yet becasue I've got more than enough to do ATM with the winSPMBT patch. There will be an increase in the side armour HEAT armour values of Schürzen equipped tanks to bring those numbers somewhere between 9 and 11 up from the 6 they are now. Whether it's 9, 10 or 11 will depend on test results.

Don

Re: Shurzen
 

In MBT this would be ERA right?will it be put in WW2 as well, or just raise the heat armor?