Challenger’s Panzer IV Video

Hello everyone,

for those, who missed it yesterday, the Panzer IV video by WG EU – from Panzermuseum Munster.



Okay, now a few corrections, because some stuff in the video was wrong.

- Schurzen (side armor) were NOT designed to defeat HEAT rounds, they were designed to protect the vehicle against AT rifles, that were widely used on the eastern front and could damage or even knock out the Panzer IV, when firing at vehicle’s flanks. In fact, in some cases, the Schurzen made the effect from HEAT projectile even worse. I kinda expected Challenger to know that.

- Panzer IV was not “so good” as to be used post-war by Romania and Bulgaria (it was used by Czechoslovakia), it was used because there was nothing else available and pretty much every tank in early post-war use came from former foreign units (in Czechoslovak case, the units from UK and Russia), or was salvaged from the battlefield. The vehicles were considered obsolete and were quickly phased out, as soon as T-34′s became available and then sold to Syria.

14 thoughts on “Challenger’s Panzer IV Video

  1. SS, Do you have all this information in your head or do you google?..If you do have it in your head..Why dont you work at a military/tank museum. You would be their own personal encyclopedia

    • The first one is basics and everyone knows that (is supposed to anyway, if he likes tanks). The second I had in my head, because I wrote several articles on Romanian and Bulgarian armor and of course Czechoslovak tanks. Doesn’t make me a historian though :)

      • The 2nd is sort of given, a little disappointed in the Challenger there.
        I prefer the Chieftain, no “sugar-coating” like that there.

      • SS knows a great deal about tanks, AFVs, and the like, but is nowhere close to knowing as much so as to be considered an expert. Regardless, that would mean less time for translations :P

      • Afaik they where designed with both, kinetic energy AT rifles as well as HEAT, in mind. just because there is two different use cases doesn’t make it incorrect to say it was for the one of them.

        But I might be wrong and I’m always eager to learn. If you have a source to prove that Schürzen where not designed to defeat HEAT and actually worsened the effect it would be great if you could share it with us.

        • HEAT fuses were quite slow in 1940s. So the copper cone would always deform a bit when the projectile hit a hard surface, before the fuse would trigger the explosion. Since HEAT works by exploding the copper cone into a liquid jet, any deformation of the cone decreases the penetrating power. Same principle as how water jet cutters work. Any material moving fast enough cuts through steel quite easily. So HEAT working by melting the armor is just another myth spread by people with poor knowledge of physics.

          The deformation doesn’t happen if the fuse triggers before the projectile hits a hard target. Like what might happen if the HEAT round hits soft spaced side armor, like Schürzen, and the spaced armor is a certain distance away from the main armor.

          • Late-war german tests of some “Panzerschreck” showed a penetration of ca 180 mm against a target inclined at 30 degrees. Adding a thin steel sheet some distance in front of the plate reduced penetration to ca 70 mm.

            The sheet was too thin to trigger the fuses in time, but substantial enough to damage the warhead and angle it away.

        • NO, it was designed to protect vs AT-rifles and 76mm HE which could crack 30mm side armor w/o much problem.
          It would not worsen effect of HEAT, but protection it offered was not adequate to protect vehicle as base armor was too thin to deal with residual penetration. Only way it would help was at high angle impacts, but then again at high angle impact most WW2 HEAT would fail to fuse.

  2. After the war Romania was given German equipment captured by the Russians. Most of it was in terrible condition and we had no spare parts so it was eventually scrapped. We later received T34-85 s and after that T55 s.

  3. Very basic information for those who only need/wish basic information….

    as such it does quite well, it is not after all a “historical” study and if you expect that from it then you ask way to much of it…..need more…buy a BOOK !

  4. Richard is a nice enough guy and his presentation skill have improved he needs to get down and dirty with the machine. Try out those crew positions for ease of access and how difficult it would be to fight in. Lift some hatches — kick some wheels — point at things a explain what they are for and how good or bad they where in practice. Its a bit lite on info and heavy on the camera movements and music.

  5. Schurzen were designed to give protection against Russian 14.5mm anti-tank rifles, period. They were tested against those rifles and 75mm HE shells. No tests were done against HEAT shells.