Реклама | Adv
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
Сообщения форума
Реклама | Adv

Factors in Tank Development

Дата: 14.08.2011 19:27:07
View PostPROACEX1, on Aug 14 2011 - 10:57, said: Nice post Chris!  :Smile_great:


ChrisK:
Thanks!  :Smile_honoring:

Quote I found the tid-bit about Schuerzen to be interesting. Schuerzen was used primarily in response to Russian AT guns (PTRD/PTRS) on the Eastern front. Later Allied propaganda made it out to look like Schuerzen was used as protection against shaped charges when in reality it was quite limited as such protection early on (the impact could transfer enough joules to cause significant spalling). It's amazing how such a tiny thing can have such an interesting history to it! To think both sides became quite confused over such a thing, the Russian's thought Schuerzen was introduced to protect from BS-41 AP rounds with tungsten tips which were a rarity pre-1943. :P


ChrisK:
You're quite correct. I once met with a retired Soviet officer who had been the commander of an antitank rifle company in WW2. He pointed out the many weak spots of the German tanks up to PzKpfw III, but after that they had little success (and what they had was mainly at point-blank range in city fighting!).

The skirts really helped deflect the 14.5mm AP rounds, but later they also helped against both HEAT/HESH by standing-off the plasma jet and other AP rounds by causing them to wobble slightly before impact, making them mildly less effective. Once thing the Germans were good for was defending against their own weapons on the assumption that they would be copied, particularly the Panzerfaust (Schuerzen was great against that) and magnetic antitank mines Zimmerit paste). In neither case were these defenses really warranted, since we never got around to copying those weapons!

Реклама | Adv