What’s the deal with schurzen? How come they’re sometimes on, sometimes off? Did crews remove them in the field for various reasons or were they never put on in the first place in some cases?
They were basically large sheets of steel mounted onto rails. The rails had triangular “teeth” and the plates had little slots welded on. As the tank rattled through the countryside, the plates could be knocked off or damaged by enemy fire.
They started appearing about midway through the war. They were intended to defeat Soviet AT rifle rounds (think of the first Panthers). Later they were added to Pz III/IVs, Sturmgeschutzen (I don’t know if the skirt armor of the Jgpzr 38 (t) hetzers or Tiger IIs fall in this category too).
They were flimsy so could be knocked or shot off rather easily.
ive heard that some tripulations removed them because they incremented the high profile of the tank, but im not sure.
the schurzen were put in the turret, in the place of the track replacements, no? where they put them if the schurzen was there?
So could one assume that a relatively new Jagdpanther would still have its schurzen? Say a late 1944 version in early 1945?
They were implemented to explode hollow charged weapons, i.e. bazooka rounds before they hit the tank proper.
Bingo, the Shurzen were designed and used so that the power of hollow charged projectiles expended their energy burning through the shurzen, so by the time it reached the actual hull or turret of the tank it’s energy was pretty much expended, and would only do superficial damage to the tank itself.
Hi Tigerman and espins: I have to disagree with you. Schurzen armor was DEVELOPED to defeat Soviet AT rifle rounds in the East where the vast amount of armored conflict was taking place. They were implemented to deflect the high-velocity rounds that could penetrate areas of weakness by blunting the penetration of the round. I can believe that German tankers THOUGHT it to be of some value against Allied hollow charge warheads later but that’s not WHY it was developed.
Remember, while already in development, German hollow charged warheads really didn’t take off until they mimiced the technology found in captured US bazookas. The German hollow charge Panzerschreck entered production in '43 while the ubiquitous Panzerfaust entered in '44. The light Pupphen started in '44, too. Would the Panzerwaffe been so happy to protect against a weapon they had not ever encountered in enemy hands, much less in their the hands of their own troops?
There is verifiable documentation of the development of Schurzen to defeat AT bullets. Even if the fear of Soviet hollow charge weapons (like the German initiated Zimmert to guard against the false fear of Russian magnetic mines) was there, the original impetus was AT rifle protection. No mention is made about Bazookas or PIAT protection either (although again, the schurzen could have been maintained in the belief that it added protection).
The funny thing is that, depending on the distance of the stand off protection, there actually is increased likelihood of HEAT penetration, based on postwar ordnance testing. For a great and very interesting primary document about Bazooka damage, look here:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/message/1149084056/WW2+bazooka+test+report
Actually the Panzerfaust 30 was developed in 1943 and massed produced starting in October of that year. The Panzerfaust 60 was perfected in April of '44.
The reason that schurzen was developed because of Soviet AT’s does ring a bell, therefore I can’t fully argue against your statements and therefore my comments may have been made in haste. I will check my resources some more.
The purpose behind why Schurzen were developed is often a hotly contested debate depending on who you talk to. They were thin plates, 5mm, and were fitted in areas on the Pz III and IV that a Soviet 14.5 mm AT Rifle AP round could penetrate, i.e. the lower hull sides, and in the case of some variants of Pz III and Pz IV, even the turret sides at close range. It’s important to note that the use of Schurzen appeared at the height of the fighting on the Eastern front and that the Soviet forces never developed an infantry portable hollow-charge weapon…so my inclination is to side with the AT rifle theory as the origin behind the Schurzen even they later on had added benefits in protection against such weapons.
Some of the references I’ve got on the Pz IV also note that the hull Schurzen weren’t fitted until the units arrived in the field even while the rails were in place to hold them so they wouldn’t come lose and/or interfer with rail transport due to the added width. The Pz IV In Action put out by Squadron notes this several times and speculates that shots of some Pz IVs in the field with the turret schurzen fitted but not the hull schurzen are due to the fact that the field crews chose to leave them off or went into action without them fitted. Later vehicles that had armor protection thick enough to not be vulnerable to AT rifles didn’t have them fitted. So it’s a case of when the vehicles were designed, what the threats were that they faced, and what their armor protection was like that determined if Schurzen were fitted or not. [:)]
Hmmm… just curious then, if the Shurzen were designed to protect against Soviet Anti-tank rifles, why are there so many photos of German Tanks with Shurzen… in France? [%-)]
The real answer is probably both, maybe they were originally designed to at protection via anti tank rifles, and were later also found to be helpful in defending again hollow charged weapons?
I doubt an AT rifle could really penetrate the armor of a Panther that carried Schurzen. Food for thought.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/german-panzer-armor-skirting-ww2.html
I just pulled out Thomas Jentz’ “Panther: The Quest for Combat Supremacy” on p. 38, regarding the development of the Panther D (the 1st production variant) and its teething problems:
“Starting in April 1943, Schuerzen (protective skirts made form soft steel) were mounted to prevent penetration of the 40mm thick lower hull side by rounds fired at close range from Russian anti-tank rifles. The Schuerzen were tested and proven to be effective against hits from 75 mm HE shells as well as anti-tank rifles. The invention of Schuerzen saved the Panther I. If the Panther I hadn’t been able to cope with anti-tank rifles, production would have been converted to the Panther II. The Schuerzen were not intended to defeat and were not initially tested against hollow charge rounds.”
Jentz is generally considered authoritative and reliable, using primary documents for his statements. His assertion that the schuerzen even saved the Panther D from being scrapped was new to me! Interesting thread!
Good stuff T26E4, thanks for the info! [:)]
Especially when considering where the fuel tanks on most Pzs are located…lower hull, towards the rear…where the armor is thinnest.
This of course begs the question of why mount Schurzen on the turrets of Pz III and IV but not on Panthers/Tigers? Simple answer is the thickness of the turret armor on those variants as well as the use of vision ports/doors. The 14.5 mm AT rifle round was small enough that it didn’t need a large area of weakness to do damage…aiming for vision ports or other areas of similar vulnerability meant you could get penetration in a very crowded space (look at interior photos of any Pz III and IV and you’ll see what I mean) and the likelihood of wounding a crewman and/or causing damage to internal systems becomes a threat serious enough to develop a countermeasure to.
As far as the question of why do you see Schurzen on Pz’s in Normandy/France when there aren’t AT rifles around is one of simple mass-production…once you introduce the modification at the factory, then it becomes a “standard” element regardless of where those units end up serving, either on the Eastern Front or in France. The first Pz IV’s to be fitted with Schurzen were the Ausf G’s which began production in 1942…also at the same time that the Pz III ausf M/Ns were getting the same treatment. The lessons learned from Barbarossa and the winter fighting of 1941 had been learned and were applied accordingly. Fitting of Schurzen were provided for to all variants of the Pz III and IV chassis (including StuG variants) that were produced from 1942 onward. The Pz IV’s right through the final J versions had provisions for this up to the very end of the war, in some cases there were kept and in others discarded depending on circumstances where the different units were fighting, but you can find reference photos that show this. There tends to be this perception that after 1943 Panthers and Tigers ruled the battlefield…when in fact the most numerously produced tank of the war for the Germans was the venerable Pz IV which served on all fronts from 1939 right through to 1945 in it’s role as a medium MBT.
The assertion that Schurzen arose because of Allied hollow-charge threats is due in large part to perception bias and propaganda more than anything else. It was only due to the fact that the Allied units did have hollow charge weapons (bazooka, PIAT) and had encountered Pz III and IV in N. Africa and Italy that didn’t have Schurzen prior to the use of those hollow-charged weapons and that Schurzen appeared in units they did encounter in Italy and France after they did have hollow-charge weapons (and the Germans also had developed their own during same time period) that led to the belief that they were connected.
Thanks for the info T26 and I’m not one to argue with Jentz.
One might conclude they started out for anti-tank rifle defense and morphed into defense against HE and hollow-charged weapons. After all the Panzer IV J’s late chain-link schurzen is seen as defense against hollow-charged weapons only, couldn’t defend against anti-tank rifles.
BTW, how long were anti-tank rifles used?
Tigerman,
The Soviet PTRS and PTRD were in service up through the Korean War for various uses, mostly anti-material and anti-personnel by that point in time but still effective as an AT weapon depending. Took a brave soul though. [:)]
They could still provide defense against AT rounds though, the lattice gaps were sufficient to prevent the 14.5mm from getting a clean hit and either shattering or deflecting the round in the process. Both work just as well from an AP penetration defense standpoint.
Interesting how much differing information is out there, so I can see why there is debate on the topic. I’m presenting this info from the following books merely to share the info and it is in no way intended necessarily refute any of the above points or argue with anyone. [:)]
Here are some references from 3 of my Squadron in Action reference books.
-
According to the “PzKpfw III in Action” book by Squadron/Signal publications, Armor Number 24 book on page 39. And I quote “Late production Ausf Ms were fitted with thin armor turret and hull skirts for protection against hollow-charge anti-tank rounds.” The Ausf M variant of the PzKpfw III were produced later 1942 into early 1943. And only late production models had the Shurzen installed and no other variant of the PzKpfw III had them…
-
According to the “PzKpfw IV in Action” book by Squadron/Signal publications, Armor Number 12 on page 37. And I quote “Almost all Ausf H’s were fitted with additional 5mm space armor skirts (schurzen) to protect the hull sides from shaped charge grenades and bazooka rockets. These skirts were usually left off the vehicles for railway shipment, being installed by the using units after receiving the vehicles.” The Ausf H appeared in the spring of 1943. There is also a reference in a photo on page 35 regarding the effectiveness of using track pieces on the tank for more protection and I quote “Again spare track is used for yet more protection. In some ways, this practice was very useful, since “spaced” armor tends to cause AP shells to shatter on the main armor.” This implying the effectiveness of both tracks and shurzen for breaking up an anti-tank AP round, which would also apply to anti-tank rifle AP rounds. It is interesting to note that sometimes zimmerit was applied to the shurzen, although in comparison only a couple of the photos show zimm on the shurzen so I imagine it was not standard. Some PzKpfw IV J’s also had shurzen, but some J’s had “Thoma Shields” aka “Bazooka skirts” which were wire mesh skirts specificially designed to defeat bazooka rounds while using far less metal, which made the skirts much lighter.
-
According to the “Sturmgeschutz III in Action” book by Squadron/Signal publications, Armor Number 14 on page 29 regarding the changes made on the Stug III G. And I quote “Shurzen antibazooka plates were introduced during production. Many vehicles did not have these fitted, as this was done by the units in the field; the brackets and skirts had to be shipped unassembled because of railroad width clearance limitations”. Again alluding to their purpose to provide improved defense against hollow charged weapons.
Some of the modifications that were made to the Shurzen throughout their use was to install them loosely on a bracket with 3 hooks. They were designed so that if one of the plates got snagged on some brush or terrain or other obstacle, they would fall off and do minimal damage to the mounting brackets. I believe many of the previous 4 bracket mounts would become damaged if the shurzen got snagged and were “torn” off the vehicle. You’ll also see some variants of the shurzen having rounded corners on the bottom to help prevent them from getting snagged and pulled off the brackets.
I meant to grab my “PzKpfw V Panter in Action” book but forgot it this morning. If I can find any references to Shurzen I’ll share the info for those who are interested.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy the info. [:)]
Hey, thanks for backing me up man. [:)]
However, in reviewing my New Vanguard Panther book, it stated on page 10 “From 1943 the factoriesoutfitted new vehicles with thin Schurzen armored skirts to protect the relatively vulnerable tracks and hull sides from Soviet Anti-tank rifles.”
So, it looks as the debates will continue…[}:)]
My opinion (and that’s all it is) is that the better researched and captioned works by Jentz in his Schiffer books and his Panzer Tracts series just ring with more quality academic authority. Of course I’m not crawling around with the guy to Budnsarchiv reading rooms and such but his works are more recent and his citations of actual German documents cuts through many assumptions (like the mythical late Panther ausf D). Knowing that the venerable Sq/Signal “In Action” series is about 20-30 years old, and we can all probably see many captioning errors in those photos given research that’s come to light, I take the info contained therein with a grain of salt. I can remember several Panther and Sherman mis-captions. The “Panzer Colors” series has a separate 20 page corrections/addenda that floats around – the author of which basically caption claims some of the material is just fabrication. Steve Zaloga himself regularly turns people AWAY from assertions he wrote for some older Sq/Signal books given more recent documentation (someone recently cited French camo colors in his “Blitzkreig” book – Steve posted to tell the poster to NOT use that book as a good source).
Again, my point is that Schuerzen was DEVELOPED as protection vs. Soviet AT rifles. It may have been CONTINUED because it was somehow seen as effective against other ordnance (HE and hollow charged weapons) and as a morale booster for the crews.
Thnx for all the good discussion, folks
RC