To schurzen or not to schurzen

[tigerman]

On a side note of the comment about the spare tracks and spaced armor, that doesn’t refer to the effect of AP rounds from an AT rifle but from the more common;y encountered and deadlier sources…AT guns or other tanks, hence why the tracks are mounted where they are…hull front, turret front, glacis. [:D]

.

Hmmm… that’s giving me some ideas on a new series for the Military Channel, something along the lines of Myth Busters! Where they actually recreate these scenarios to try and determine once and for all some of the questions and answers to the things we’re still debating today. [8D] Oooo… I also want to see which armor is more effective, the Tigers better steel verticle plates, or the lower quality, yet thicker steel of the King Tiger… oh, and the punching power of the Tigers 88mm compared to the Panter’s 75mm… doh… I digress… [;)] [(-D]

Well, not to go to far OT here, but say in Tiger VS Panther armor, I must think there was something in the steel on those Tigers. I’ve seen numerous photos of pock-marked Tigers, but not quite the damage on the Panthers, even though they had superior sloping armor.

As for the Thoma shields, I go back to my earlier comment about them. Makes sense against hollow charged rounds. According to Squadron books, it states on page 46 that Thoma shields were referred to as antibazooka skirts made of heavy wire mesh that added protection while using less metal. Continue the debates. hehehe

[espins1]

OKay… Schurzen v. Thoma Shields. Seeing how Shurzen were the initial equipment and hollow charge AT weapons not widespread, the AT rifle countermeasure makes sense. But the later Thoma shields, being made from mesh screen makes little sense against an AT rifle due to the gaps in mesh. It does make sense as a stand off/spaced armor against hollow charge projectiles. Any thoughts on this???

The Thoma Shields were strictly to counteract hollow charged armor. What’s interesting is that several references alude to the Thoma Shields serving the same purpose as the Shurzen, but with reduced weight, implying that it was an evolution of the shurzen. Who knows. The more I think about it though the more I’m thinking that not only were the Shurzen for added protection from AT rifles, but also to help in the same manner versus the Soviet 45mm Anti Tank gun of the period. I’d be willing to bet the idea was to break up the AP shell similar in concept to how track sections were used as “spaced armor” to break up AP shells from the bigger guns later in the war. Much to think about… we need that
WWII Myth Busters show now! [;)] [(-D]

[NikToo]

And all I wanted to know was if I should put shurzen on my Jagdpanther… Interesting thread though, so kep it going.

One anecdote about the Barret is that in the Swedish Army it’s mandated that a second soldier lie on top of the shooter because of the recoil. The main purpose of the gun is to snipe enemy commanders from long distance. Most people otherwise remember them from Robocop where Boddicker and his henchmen use Barrets like they’re cork guns.

[T26E4]

Hi Nik: All Panther variants were fitted with the 5mm plates. Now how long they stayed on given the use of the tank is another matter. At least leave the brackets on your Jagdpanther.

[espins1]

And all I wanted to know was if I should put shurzen on my Jagdpanther… Interesting thread though, so kep it going.

I’ve seen pictures of Jagdpanthers with them and without them. My 1/35 Jagdpanther I built last year is without Schurzen. [:)]

[NikToo]

The excellent Tank Power 24 also has plenty of pictures with schurzen and without, so not really sure if it was factory fitted. However, I’ve decided my tank is from late 1944 and almost new out of the factory, so it gets to keep its schurzen (but no extra air intake on the back).

(Two months on this forum and I’m becoming a nut counter…)