Comments on: Challenger’s Panzer IV Video

By: jakub_czyli_ja

jakub_czyli_ja — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:16:37 +0000

All that claim that Schurzen were not for HEAT protection – can you simply try to imagine, what would happen if HEAT warhead hit Schurzen?

Hint: mesh Schurzen and http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/06/panzerfaust-protection.html – looks like tests have made by themselves during the fights.

By: Ner_Vens_Aege

Ner_Vens_Aege — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:52:39 +0000

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.

By: mobius

mobius — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:42:42 +0000

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.

By: vojtasTS29

vojtasTS29 — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:23:25 +0000

you are right

By: Herman_der_German

Herman_der_German — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:16:56 +0000

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.

By: Urie van Kerr

Urie van Kerr — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:54:37 +0000

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 !

By: bojan

bojan — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:45:49 +0000

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.

By: Qrmu

Qrmu — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:30:19 +0000

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.

By: Argysh

Argysh — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:46:16 +0000

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.

By: Rakyth

Rakyth — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:29:26 +0000

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