Schürzen, for the Pz-IIIm and others

[rjs28023]

Thank you for updating the Generic Data in 1.08.01beta to account for Spaced Armor.

It appears you added 3mm to many vehicles when its actual thickness was 5mm. Yes, I know it was not hardened armor like the hull sides, but it did have an effect over and above an additional 5mm hardened steel plate.


The following points are quoted from a Report prepared on Spaced Armor by Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. The Report was done in November 1950 with tests done with ammunition being used in WW II.

A big point to keep in mind is that the Soviet 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle has a Penetration Value of 36 in WITE, and is still able to defeat the upgraded vehicles. Schürzen ended the AT-Rifle's usefulness, and further enhanced the vehicle's survivability against other weapons as well.

As such, any vehicle with Schürzen should have Side Armor of at least 37.

Quoting from the Report prepared by the Ballistic Research Laboratories of Aberdeen Proving Ground immediately below.

"The function of this relatively thin plate was to decap the attacking projectile so that it would be shattered and consequently defeated by the heavy face-hardened belt armor of the vessel".

"Spaced armor was first used in World War II by the Germans who, in 1943, fitted some of their tanks, assault vehicles, and motorized artillery mounts with auxiliary armor consisting of thin plates suspended by means of brackets along the sides of the hulls and turrets of the vehicles."

"Tactical and Technical Trends* No. 40, 16 December 1943, reported that the 1/8" to 1/4" thick side plating of the type shown above provided protection against hollow charge shells and moderately small caliber tungsten carbide cored ammunition, and may cause high velocity AP shot to deflect and strike the main armor sideways or at an increased angle."

"The function of the skirting plate is not to absorb any significant proportion of the kinetic energy of attacking projectiles, but to so affect the projectiles that their performance against the main armor is drastically reduced."

We now come to the consideration of the function of the thin skirting plate in reducing the effectiveness of projectiles which perforate it.
The skirting plate may affect projectiles in any or all of the following ways:

a. The armor-piercing cap may be removed, see Figure 3, thus Causing the shot to be shattered against the heavy main armor.

b. The shot may be turned or yawed, see Figure 4, so that it impacts the main armor at an increased angle.

c. The shot may be fractured upon passage through the skirting armor, see Figures 5 and 6. The loss of the point and the dispersal of the fragments result in a marked decrease in the penetration performance.

Although tungsten carbide has other characteristics which make it excellent for projectiles, the material is unfortunately very brittle. It is very rare that a carbide core is recovered Intact after perforating armor, even when the impacts are at 00 obliquity. As part of a program aimed at improving the performance of carbide cored projectiles, the
Watertown Arsenal arranged, some years ago, trials of the standard 90mm HVAP M304 shot against a number of spaced armor targets. The main armor consisted of 6" thick wrought homogeneous armor at 30* obliquity. The skirting plate was placed 12" in front of and parallel to the main armor,
and the variable was the thickness of the skirting plate. The results of
the tests are shown in Figure 7.

Placing a 1/2" thick plate in front of the 6" thick armor reduced the range at which the target could be defeated from 2900 yards to 350 yards!

The addition of the 1/2" thick plate more than doubled the energy required to defeat the target which was heavier by only 9-1/3%. The 6-1/2" spaced armor target provides the same protection against the 90mm, HVAP M304 shot as a single solid plate 11-1/2" in thickness. The utilization of spaced armor effects a weight savings of 43.5% in this case.


Thanks,

Randy

[Denniss]

Schürzen were easily lost in combat, raising overall side armor to 37 is too much as it also affects rounds from AT-Guns which were seldomly affected by Schürzen (due to their higher mass projectiles).
The current addition is only a workaround for this issue, ideal would be a marker set for vehicles to have an additional Schürzen check in combat starting in spring 43. No idea if that's possible in WitE. This marker could also be used for Panther/Tiger tanks as their roadwheel setup was made with additional side protection in mind.

[rjs28023]

Denniss,

So we are saying that the Soviet 14.5mm PTRD At-Rifle can still penetrate the side armor of the Pz-IVh because maybe the skirt armor fell off?

Check the penetration ratings of the following small bore Soviet AT weapons:

45mm M32/34 Gun: 54
45mm M37/38 Gun: 54
45mm M42 Gun: 74
57mm ZiS-2 Gun: 119

I do not see how a Side Armor Rating of 37 defeats these small caliber anti-tank guns.

I am asking 2by3 to take the Soviet 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle out of the list of effective weapons from a side shot at a vehicle with skirt armor. The time has come to get this right.

Randy

[Denniss]

These guns do not usually fire at the close ranges these AT-rifles are typically used. As said above and in the patch notes, the full 5mm have not been applied because it's not a permanent installation, just hinged onto the sides and were easily lost in combat or torn off.

[morvael]

Maybe it's better to keep the PTRD fire at tanks and waste most of their shots? If the target selection code will determine the rifles can't damage tanks, all this fire will be redirected against armored cars and halftracks.

[rjs28023]

Dominik,

I would rather lose an armored car or halftracks than a panzer. Tanks make a difference. The others don't.

Think logically. If I'm a Soviet soldier, and I have figured out from experience that I cannot shoot through 5mm of soft armor and then 30mm of face hardened steel, then I will pick another "light skinned" vehicle, and hope my "buddy" deals with the panzerkampfwagen.

Randy

[morvael]

I did a short test using GC 42. In a failed German hasty attack 510 PTRD managed to damage 1 armored car plus two Panzer IIf, of which one was destroyed by another shot. I have noticed that we shouldn't worry at all - since minimum range at which shooting is calculated is 50m, penetration of the PTRD drops to 34. I think this value is not enough to pierce shurzen-protected Pz IV.

[rjs28023]

Dominik,

That is great news!

I'm Happy.

Merry Christmas!

Randy

[rjs28023]

Oh, Don't forget to give the Pz-IIIm the spaced armor benefit in the next patch. It was missed.

[Denniss]

IIIm got them as refit and is not included, same with earlier Pz IVg/StuG III F series. Additional side armor was not available in 42.

[rjs28023]

Denniss,

Spaced armor (20mm) was introduced with the Pz-IIIL. The 20mm spaced armor was bolted to a sub-frame attached to the mantlet and hull front for maximum protection.

The picture of the Pz-IIIL in WITE is actually a Pz-IIIj L60 of the 24th Panzer Division.

In the Pz-IIIL the turret front armor plate was increased to 57mm. Additionally, the Pz-IIIL had the 20mm of spaced armor on the gun mantlet and hull front. Why is the Front Armor Rating of the Pz-IIIL only 52? It seems a Front Armor Rating of 66 (like the Pz-IIIm) would be the right number.

The Pz-IIIL looks like a Pz-IIIj L60 in the picture, and its front armor rating of 52 would be the right number for the Pz-IIIj L60. The Pz-IIIj L42 has identical armor ratings to the Pz-IIIL.

The Pz-IIIL is not correct in WITE. Its' Front Armor Rating should be equal to the Pz-IIIm. The only major difference between the Ausf L and Ausf M was the provision for deep wading.

It would also be nice to see a Pz-IIIm 1943 with schürzen with a Side Armor Rating of 34 to protect against the Soviet 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle. The Pz-IIIm is receiving credit for the spaced armor on the front of the vehicle. Why make a distinction as to the Side Armor?

Thanks,

Randy

[Denniss]

The Pz IIIL is actually the IIIJ L/60 (was renamed in/after March 42). The spaced armor was gradually introduced but at a very low pace. From March 42 on one can assume most got the driver front plate either in the factory or as front refit, by 5/42 it's assumed both driver and turret front armor plates are installed. The latter is simulated by upgrade conversion of IIIL to IIIM and the moving-forward of the the IIIM to 5/42.
Front armor of both IIIJ and IIIL has already been inceased by 3 points over 1.07 to cover the strengthened turret front
I do not want to add another model of the IIIM, IVG 43 and StuG IIIF/8, this has all kinds of side effects with just another (upgrade conversion only) model injected into the production/upgrade path.

That's why I hope for an .exe based solution as this may cover far more vehicles than the current ones.

[rjs28023]

Denniss,

I got it.

I think some re-naming is in order in WITEast. I recommend using the vehicle names already found in WITWest.

WITE changes:

Panzer IIIj renamed to Panzer IIIj L/42 (available 4/41 - 4/42)
Panzer IIIL renamed to Panzer IIIj L/60 (available 12/41 - 4/42)
Panzer IIIm renamed to Panzer IIIL L/60 (available 5/42 - 1/43)

From my perspective the Panzer IIIm L/60 is not even in WITEast. You have Panzer III production armed with the Kwk 39 L60 ending in January 1943 when production of the 50mm armed Panzer III did not end until August 1943 when the chassis were used for the production of StuGs.

(Let me amend what I just said above. Panzer III production ended in August 1943. The 50mm equipped Panzer III's were refitted with the short 75mm Kwk 37 L/24 then being removed from Panzer IV's as they were refitted with the longer 75mm guns. I am not sure how long the Panzer III 50mm gunned tanks should continue, but ending in January 1943 seems too early.)

I would add a "new vehicle", the Panzer IIIm L/60 (available 2/43 - 8/43 ?) This vehicle would have the schürzen on the sides increasing the SA Rating from 31 to 34.

The picture for the Panzer IIIL L/60 should be changed to reflect no "skirt armor", but have the spaced armor on the hull front and gun mantlet.

The picture for the Panzer IIIm L/60 would be the current picture being used for the Panzer IIIm.

BTW, the Front Armor Rating of the Panzer IIIj L/42 and Panzer IIIj L/60 in WITWest needs to be increased from 49 to 52 to match WITEast.

Randy

[Denniss]

The only Pz III produced until 8/43 was the IIIN with short 7.5cm gun. IIIM production ceased in 2/43.