Why Armor Skirts & why only Germans? (with Panzermuseum Footage)

[@reganmahoney8264]

I love the fact that you use primary sources and you point out where you dont have one. That’s a great sign of good historian.

[@typehere6689]

Those sound like fun books to read. Where can I find English copies of them?

[@Bukubands223]

@@typehere6689 lol

[@finscreenname]

Sure as hell will never work for CNN or MSNBC with that attitude.

[@siddharthkalra5114]

yeah but primary sources can be just as wrong as secondary sources

[@JackTalyorD]

@@siddharthkalra5114 I think U really misunderstanding what a primer source is.

[@Andy-wc5xw]

The Scottish tanks didn't have skirts. Quite disappointing

[@01Bouwhuis]

Scottish tanks had kilts!

[@footieballer]

Gentlemen, you are just sporran for an argument.

[@adamcsermak2114]

@Matthew Littlejohn they wear the skirts themselves

[@powerslave6944]

But the Scots themselves wear kilts right.

[@TotalRookie_LV]

Tourist: Why are you calling your skirt "a kilt"? Scotsman (after a moment of silence and intense staring): Because a lot of pi'pl got kilt' foR calling it "a skiRt".

[@markkelly9621]

Why skirts? Because trousers would have been ridiculous.

[@The_Murder_Party]

Mark Kelly aprons actually...

[@DZ-1987]

I can imagine a hollow half cylinder that has to be fastened to the chassis. Hey, they're angled. Expect bounces left right and... mein gott, i have to try it.

[@StaleDoritoCrumb]

Because we are in England and we're not allowed to wear shorts.

[@ETAlnes]

Bravo!

[@Nafinafnaf]

Even more so underwear

[@lilpenpusher]

Real Life: "Yes, this spaced armour was literally designed to defeat small-calibre anti-tank rifles War Thunder: Gets penetrated by machine guns

[@Kenshi_2900]

Haha .50 cals go ratatatatataatatataata

[@Mr-Ad-196]

I also hate when someone shot off my skirt armour off.....now my tank looks become unbalanced.......

[@dad2909]

Video game logic

[@robertharris6092]

Guns have far better penetration at close range. IRL the shermans 75mm can pen the tigers front plate to about 200 or so meters. But the tiger irl is a tank built for sniping. Not CQB. And the 76mm gun waz designed to be able to counter snipe the tiger.

[@threadworm437]

@@robertharris6092 the sherman with the 75mm could not penetrate the tiger frontally, even at 200m. I think its maximum penetration was about 90mm

[@SSPObeserver]

German - Armour Skirts Americans - Sandbags Soviets - *Red Army Soldiers*

[@conceptalfa]

Haha, you nailed it!!!

[@kyle857]

The sandbags were such a bad idea. They didn't really increase protection but they sure as shit hurt the transmission.

[@CrazyNikel]

@@kyle857 Thats not how it works guy.

[@livinglifeform7974]

The tank was protecting the soldiers; not the other way around you twat.

[@olenickel6013]

@@livinglifeform7974 He's obviously making a joke on the Soviet tactic of tank desant, the practice of having infantry ride on top of tanks into battle.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Corrections: 1) it is not a molten jet of metal, just a jet of metal. 2) The modern armor that defeats warheads is called "slat armor" and is not really "spaced armor", although some might argue it is a category of spaced armor.

[@MaxRavenclaw]

Slat armour, bar armour, cage armour and, confusingly, standoff armour. And, while I did previously argue that it's not spaced armour, it is armour that is spaced away from the main armour, so I think that technically makes it spaced armour after all.

[@USSChicago-pl2fq]

Military History not Visualized didn’t the Americans do a similar thing as the Russians but with sandbags also didn’t they also put wood skirts on the side of their Sherman in the Pacific similar to the idea of Zimmerit?

[@USSChicago-pl2fq]

Military History not Visualized also did the German think about putting sandbags in between the Armor and the skirt?

[@MaxRavenclaw]

As I said in another comment, sandbags, wood, and other similar addons only served to weight down the tank. They did not provide any improvement to the protection. Some US commanders let the soldiers do it for morale, but Patton, IIRC, chastised it. The Soviets carried logs to help tanks get out of mud though, I'm not sure they used it as armour.

[@DC9622]

USSChicago1943 they put on concrete. After action reports on the King Tiger from the troops was add concrete to the turret, if the thing was not heavy enough.

[@BartJBols]

Metal under enough kinetic pressure (the impact) does not need to melt to basically turn into playdoh. The metal does not melt, it becomes plastic due to the kinetic energy unloading on it.

[@johnsamu]

Kinetic energy will be transformed into an increase in pressure and therefore temperature resulting in molten metal.

[@momsspaghetti9970]

@@johnsamu Metal acts like plastic if subjected to a lot of pressure. Im certain the vapourization effect is still there though in a small area.

[@seneca983]

@@johnsamu: I think with such pressure gradients the metal will flow like a liquid even if the melting temperature is not reached.

[@noctisumbra2749]

@@seneca983 This is correct, APFSDS penetrate the same way which is why the equations involved are mainly dependent on L/D of the rods and the densities of the materials.

[@catnium]

i'm not sure you all understand what the term plastic means kids. everything has a plasticity level . even iron or steal but generally speaking: Plasticity (physics), in physics and engineering, the propensity of a solid material to undergo permanent deformation under load and : Plastic: Generic term used in the case of polymeric material that may contain other substances to improve performance or reduce costs. Note 1: The use of this term instead of polymer is a source of confusion and thus is not recommended. Note 2: This term is used in polymer engineering for materials often compounded that can be processed by flow. i think ya all might be getting these 2 things confused huh

[@sevenproxies4255]

If you make a weaker tank look like a tiger, isn't that a small strategic benefit? It might fool enemy recon and make the enemy act in a different (hopefully desirable) way.

[@haomingxia2109]

"look, they have 30 Tigers!" "Ah. i see, bring more shermans"

[@sevenproxies4255]

@@haomingxia2109: Meaning they brought the shermans from elsewhere, to fight weaker tanks that weren't tigers. So that the actual tigers can be deployed in an area where the shermans are not. In strategy it's often beneficial to make the enemy think you have certain weapons in a specific location that you do not, just as it's beneficial to make the enemy think you do not have certain weapons in an area which you do.

[@seanseanston]

Reminds me of how the Sherman Firefly had its barrel painted so it would break up the outline and look more like a normal one.

[@maxwell120L55]

@@sevenproxies4255 Also how the allies fooled the germans by dressing a random drunk dude's coprse like an officer, and giving him forged documents explaining the invasion to be in crete, when they actually planned on invading Sicily

[@riograndedosulball248]

@@maxwell120L55 not in Crete, it was in that other Italian island in the Mediterranean near Corsica which i have no idea on how to call it in english (therefore called Sardenha because this is the name in my language :-DDD)

[@DC9622]

The reports of No2 Operational Research Section, Northwest Europe 1944 1945 are worth a read. The key reports, are Report 12 Analysis of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties suffered Between 6th and 10th June 1944. This concluded, that adding extra armour was counter productive and that if weight was to be added, get a bigger gun eg Firefly. The argument was to increase German tank vulnerability not to seek to diminish that of the Allies tanks. It gets further complicated, with tankers fitting sand bags, old track and space armour on the Sherman, which the engineers apposed has it made the tank more vulnerable. Report 17 Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France 6th June to 31st August 31st 1944 in detail. In particular they looked at and found the Panther was particularly vulnerable to flank engagements also the Tiger lower hull. An argument is the Germans Tanks were designed and upgrade for the Eastern Front. These, became a disadvantage in combat with the western Allies in Normandy at significantly reduced range and the Allies use of different tactics.

[@le_floofy_sniper_ducko]

ya the Softer Steel Track made the shell dig in and negated the angle of the frontal glacis of the M4 Sherman American Doctrine goes Shell Velocity then bigger caliber due to reasons to preserve ammo capacity on another note Firefly is kinda overrated tbfh sure it was a good gun but it wasnt a good tank if you have seen the inside of it, its like they decided do we have an effective fighting crew with a worse gun or a gun that sure will punch holes but it came the expense of the crew's fighting ability

[@DC9622]

Jacob Clark yes, I see you are a follower of the Chieftains theory of the Firefly and the 76mm. The British didn’t rate the 76mm not as good has the 75mm with HE, couldn’t fight the cats. The 76mm that did arrive were sent to Italy but with Firefly to baby sit them. The Firefly was a make do and mend, tank following the British strategy I referred to. Biggest Gun Mobility and armour, so take the best tank available and up gun, has Comet was not available to late 44 followed by the game changer, Centurions 45. Commanders of Guard Armour wanted 3 Firefly to 1 75mm, because there where never enough Firefly’s available they attached the Royal Artillery, Achilles the up gunned M10 with a 17 pounder. General Jacob L. Devers had concluded the same late 1943, he wanted Pershing deployed similarly to Firefly 1 per Troop. This is covered in detail, with the debate over the Pershing, by the red book THE ROLE OF ARMY GROUND FORCES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF EQUIPMENT. study No. 34.

[@DC9622]

Blah b yes so right, the official stop gap was Challenger 17 pounder on the Cromwell hull, not a successful design. The importance of Firefly with all the issues it was available for Normandy when nothing else was and if used correctly with the 75mm Sherman was deadly. The interesting fact from David Fletcher is, it had the lowest lost rate of the Sherman’s version possibly because of the range of the gun, No2 quotes 1150 yards twice that of the 75mm tanks and the repositioning of the ammunition so less likely to burn. The Firefly is like the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain not ideal but with greater advantages than disadvantages.

[@nirfz]

@@le_floofy_sniper_ducko Do get that right: what you describe with "dig in" is the same as a handgun bullet does when hitting a windhield from outside a car. Due to the angle and the physical properties of the glass and the bullet, the bullet alter its path downwards at an angle on impact. In this case if they added plates on the tanks and would have angled them "outward" (the other way the underlying armor was angled) this then should increase the effect of armour in a direct hit.

[@donaldgrant9067]

DC good summarization. But again for the Sherman to kill a Panther or Tiger it had to shoot them in a special spot while the Panther and Tiger could kill a Sherman any where. Guess which tank I want to be in.

[@billalexander8011]

I built a Panzerkampfwagen Mk IV model when I was a kid in the 70s. You could build it with or without the side skirts. For a while I had the skirts on but they blocked the view of much of the tank detail. Eventually I took them off. If it was 1944 and I was the guy sitting in the real tank I would have left them on. Its funny how these videos bring back certain memories. Thanks for all of your work to make the great videos! I appreciate your efforts.

[@radeni]

Cracking open a cold one (Panzer) with the Boys (AT rifle)

[@pokiparkassistent]

Rad in fact the brits had an At-rifle nicknamed the Boy

[@philipp66176]

Paul Hanswursten yes that was the joke he knew that

[@nylkul9933]

it was Boyes AT rifle

[@alltat]

@@pokiparkassistent It wasn't a nickname. The anti-tank rifle was named after captain Henry Boys, who was part of the team that designed it. He died during development, so they named the rifle after him.

[@carrollshelby8690]

@@nylkul9933 It's Boys. I shoot one once or twice a month.

[@mr.l6615]

Good English for someone who is I believe German themselves! It's nice to see an actual human being reading to me rather than the typical robot voice. Interesting video!

[@The_Murder_Party]

Mr. L agreed, and I thought he was Austrian, but I was shocked when I came to Germany (learning German.) that everyone speaks excellent English, like I can discuss complex topics without any difficulty.

[@Paul-NH]

@@The_Murder_Party Yayy

[@Kai-bj5ol]

@@The_Murder_Party "If you want to dominate someone make him speak your language"- unknown quotation. Most German speak "OK" english.

[@Bullet_Tooth84]

@@Kai-bj5ol it's always good to speak more languages. Especially one that is spoken nearly all over the world. Ever been to Scandinavia? They don't even synchronise movies because everyone speaks English.

[@haldir3120]

@@The_Murder_Party Austrian and German is the same thing

[@daveybernard1056]

I suppose the schurzen represents a sufficient obstacle to the ATR projectile's flight that it loses stability and tumbles, causing penetration to drop substantially. Hunters sort of run into this issue, when they fire a projectile through a thin screen of brush at their quarry. If the bullet contacts a pencil sized branch, it can be deflected or tumble off at an angle. Those clever Germans.

[@lv.99mastermind45]

"I-Infantry-kun..... please don't laugh" *raises skirt, only to reveal another skirt*

[@подчиненныйзаместитель]

why

[@yuhhhguy]

s t o p

[@mex_I.M]

I asume this is the plot of Girls und Panzer.

[@WingMaster562]

@@mex_I.M ^that would be Panzermadels. If I have to be degenerate, I'll do it right.

[@red_amoguss]

cursed comments

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

Because the tank is a female

[@AlexanderSeven]

Or a Scot.

[@AndrewVasirov]

Actually these tanks were male. Only those who had only machine guns were female.

[@nirfz]

the tank may be female, but "der Panzer" is always male, even if it has "Schürzen" (aprons) ;-) The german language uses male, female and neutral articles for things, "der" is usually male (first person singular), "die" is female and "das" is neutral.

[@TactfulWaggle]

y'all are just saying bullshit, its actually just a jacket to make the tank warm in soviet lands

[@AndrewVasirov]

It's funny that diminutive words in German are neuter. For example, you have "das Mädchen" or "das Madel" which both mean girl. Quite sexist, don't you think? xD

[@MondusMondus]

I'll save you 7 minutes: the skirts were protection against Soviet anti-tank rifles.

[@shieldde6209]

Oh thanks I mean tanks

[@fraychiken]

I still watch the entire video, because is informative

[@BenXu1]

I know this is quite harmless, but the internet is promoting this kind of blind belief in information... it's not good to believe in someone's point without listening to their reasoning first. What if his reasons for saying so were completely false? This is how 'fake news' spreads.

[@MondusMondus]

@@BenXu1 Do you believe there is a lot of fake news circulating about WWII-era military equipment?

[@DGARedRaven]

@@MondusMondus Yes.

[@maarten9022]

Nice video, just 1 big misconception: the liner (eg copper) from a shaped charge does NOT melt Upon explosion of the charge. It instead deforms plastically, keeping making a solid "Rod" that stretches the further it goes. The reason: The front of the Rod is called the "jet" and has a velocity of around 10km/s, whilst the speed of the backside - the "slug" - only goes around 3km/s. So while the whole Rod moves forward internally it gets stretches apart because of a difference in speed. Hence the spaced armour creates a Gap for the Rod to stretch even more before it hits the Main armor, weakening and/or even breaking up the Rod and impacting its penetrating capabilities.

[@w0lfgm]

Seen photo ofT-34-85 in Berlin during the battle with wire mesh.

[@camo7886]

I read that soviet tank crews used bed springs from mattresses to foil panzerfausts.

[@w0lfgm]

@@camo7886 I dont know about that - photo was poor, but looks like industrial mesh made for fence today.

[@Senbei01]

Weren't those grenade screens to prevent thrown explosives from making contact with the hull though?

[@camo7886]

@@w0lfgm I think I read about the use of mattress springs in Cornelius Ryan 1966 book 'The Last Battle', although it was only a brief mention and the book has since been shown to contain errors. So who knows.

[@platoonmexx9278]

cous the russians didnt know the purpose

[@KuraIthys]

I've heard spacecraft (those used longterm, such as the ISS particularly) use a variation of spaced armour. Possibly not the exact same idea as used by tanks, but still... I can already hear you ask though, why does a spacecraft need armour? Well, micrometeorites, basically. Space, especially in close orbit to a planet isn't actually empty. And this gets even worse if there are lots of artificial objects in orbit, since they often produce tiny fragments for various reasons (not just collisions, but also other reasons) So... For larger objects, they track their trajectory and move the craft (yes, the ISS can move too. It's not a 'station' in the sense of being completely static). But it's impractical to move a craft to avoid small debris like flecks of paint, a millimetre chunk of metal, and so on... And as it turns out, a fleck of paint impacting at 20,000 km/h can do a surprising amount of damage. But... Spacecraft have extreme weight limitations. Every kg is extremely expensive. So you can't just strap thick armour plates to something. Instead, they noticed that simply placing something as thin as a piece of foil about 30 cm from a second protective layer disrupted the motion of small objects enough that they wouldn't penetrate the second, thicker layer. It's hard to imagine foil being 'armour' but in the right context, turns out it is...

[@johneverson354]

I liked your replies it was very informative, I read one time where the space shuttle had a crack in the outer layer of one of its windows that was caused by paint chip from debris floating in orbit around the Earth

[@scrubsrc4084]

I studied hollow charge ammunition at uni, its fascinating stuff. The idea that the soviet bed spring armour would increase the effectiveness of panzerfaust is that they were not sturdy enough to deform the warhead but wouldnslownit enough to ensure the warhead isn't squashed on impact with the armour face before the fuse detonated so it has its maximum theoretical penetration rather than its maximum practical penetration I was always curious as.tonwhy the germans used zimmerit to counter magnetic mines but nobody but the germans used magnetics in any numbers

[@kstreet7438]

Another great video to watch. Thanks

[@chuckschillingvideos]

My heart goes out to those poor Maybach engines and transmissions, having to labor under all that extra weight!

[@chuckschillingvideos]

@Matthew Caughey Ummm.....the Maybachs broke down constantly. They were notorious for it. The only question a Tiger maintenance crew member ever wondered was whether the engine or running gear would fail first.

[@Deathbyreality1]

Thanks for making this video idk how many time I had to argue with people that German side skirts were not bazooka plates.

[@Lord-Snowflake]

I like your channel a lot. Thank you for being so thorough, along with citing your sources.

[@Darrylx444]

Just need to upset the orientation of the projectile, which was often accomplished by the thin skirt, especially if hit on a slight angle. Then it has a bit of space to turn sideways before striking the main armor, thus spreading out the force over a much greater area, preventing full penetration.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

Yup. It's the buffer zone that's critical. If you slam the skirt right up against the part of the tank it is supposed to protect, it provides little to no protection. But if you employ standoffs of about 6-12 inches, that nasty shaped charge for the most part becomes ineffective.

[@Darrylx444]

@@chuckschillingvideos Wasn't talking about shaped charges. Anti-tank rifle rounds.

[@edi9892]

AFAIK, HEAT and HESH suffered from poor primers. In case of a HEAT you want the shell to explode as soon as it touches the target. A split second later the shell would crush like an egg on impact and the tiny explosion (compared to a HE shell of the same caliber) would do little to no damage. If the ignition occurs a bit faster, then the spacer on the warhead would get partially crushed and the jet would be less effective or deflected. Similarly, both HEAT and HESH can bounce off, especially at odd angles if they don't explode in time. At the time, the state of the art was pretty much that an APHE would penetrate armour and explode within the tank. This however didn't require that ammount of precision in timing. Still, it was not uncommon for a shell to penetrate the armour and penetrate the other side as well and explode on the outside. The most amazing shell developed at the time IMHO was the air burst proximity shell for the American 90mm anti aircraft cannon. Just imagine building this without transistors and making it small enough to fit in and to top it all off make it robust enough to withstand the forces of explosion that accelerate the shell to 1000m/s!

[@Darkerloaf]

I have a question! If the effectiveness of anti-tank rifles was good enough that it caused policy change in the Wehrmacht, does that mean that anti-tank rifles were more effective than I was lead to believe? How effective were anti-tank rifles? They must have worked a good number of times, it seems.

[@kirgan1000]

USSR did produce a enormous amounts of anti-tank rifles over 470 000!?, hence it increased the probability of a anti-tank rifle was in the right/wrong postion to get a flank or rear shoot.

[@graemes813]

They were pretty effective; even the commanders of later war vehicles such as Panthers complained how they could degrade combat efficiency by hitting vision ports, causing damage to running gear and so on. I think some 1.5 million were produced. And the Red Army apparently often like to use them en masse against single vehicles where possible.

[@Internetbutthurt]

Effective enough, especially against non heavy tanks. Soviet antitank rifleman were also quite good shots who could pick out weak spots.

[@smitfraudc3896]

Its not much a question about effectiveness but more a question of capabality since the sowjet union was the only side which could employ sufficient amounts of tungsten(carbide) which was needed to produce the needed ammo en masse.

[@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl]

The Russian AT rifles could penetrate the side armour of Panzer III and all the armoured cars and half-tracks.

[@madmusial]

Just wanted to say I adore your videos thank you so much for what you do. I work in logistics and I love that a lot of your videos mention its importance.

[@jintsuubest9331]

Also, that little space between the main armor and the shaped charged projectile did not have enough space and time to dissipate most shaped charged.

[@alphabravodelta42]

Makes it actually worse. Only HEAT weapon it might work against would be their own panzerfausts. This was shown when they tried mesh screens in a test against various HEAT weapons.

[@Eisengeboren]

In fact IIRC skirts are proven to largely be an infeasible means of defeating HEAT because the spacing required to actually dissipate is around 1-2m, and although sufficient spacing can degrade the performance of the penetrator somewhat it generally isn't worth the additional weight. This is why a lot of modern "skirt" designs such as slat armor try to work by degrading the warhead. Even these methods are only statistically about 50% effective against the warhead they're specifically designed to handle though and are more of a "better than nothing" approach. The most cost-effective spaced armor arrangement in terms of weight, and one generally used to improve HEAT resistance on tanks IIRC is to just alternate small air pockets with plates as many medium transitions has a dramatically better impact on performance than just stand off. Another interesting concept covered by Drachinifel that utilizes spaced armor in maritime use is the concept of a decapping layer for capital ships prior to WW2. The idea being that by creating a just thick enough layer of armor at a optimal stand off distance from the main belt you can decap a shell's ballistic cap, and maybe make the shell tumble, messing with its ability to normalize against the armor and improving the main belt's effectiveness. Far from a researcher or historian in the field though, just some engineer who likes military history.

[@Melcherst]

The last things you mention about wire mesh which may improve effectiveness of certain shaped charge projectiles comes from the book "Panzer vs. Bazooka - Battle of the Bulge 1944" by Steven Zaloga. The point being made in that book is that, although not known at the time, Thoma-Schürzen may improve effectiveness of the Bazooka. "One of the main shortcomings of the bazooka's warhead design was that there was too little time between impact and detonation (...). Detonation of the warhead against a skirt provided more time for the fuze to trigger (...)."

[@Dave5843-d9m]

The side skirts also made it harder to aim an anti tank gun on weaker areas like the turret ring. British increased the size of their AT guns throughout the war. However their 57mm Six Pounder was very effective, well liked and operated throughout the war. It needed a small crew and was quick to move and set up. However, as tanks got better armoured, the gunners had to shoot at the weaker points like the turret ring. Side skirts (1) weakened the incoming solid shell and (2) made it impossible to get an accurate sighting on the weak areas.

[@hanzup4117]

Thank you for the upload. This is something I always wanted to know.

[@Eulemunin]

It’s always good to hear a scholar talk about sources, thank you.

[@cpmenninga]

“Quality” sources.

[@thomasmoore4723]

I seem to recall some russian tanks used bed springs as skirts on some t-34s

[@shitoryu8]

Which make sense to use.

[@WildBillCox13]

Soviet tankees festooned IS2 tanks (photographic evidence easy to find) with box springs to act as schurzen in pre-detonating HEAT rounds from PzF and PzS (and the greatest weapon never told: Puppchen).

[@happymeme1329]

Zimmerit is a paste that wouldn’t allow magnetic bombs to stick as well,I don’t know if this is right or not.

[@CaptainGrief66]

It is, the problem is that pretty much only the germans used magnetic mines.

[@tomhutchins1046]

@@CaptainGrief66 The Russians were using them against the Germans in WW2

[@tomhutchins1046]

@@CaptainGrief66 They would run up and stick them to the outside of the tank

[@tomhutchins1046]

@@CaptainGrief66 Different than a Mine it was more of a magnetic charge/bomb designed to penetrate armor. Tanks have to be used with infantry or they are fairly blind and can be snuck up on. but in a real shoot out infantry is very vulnerable so the tanks were vulnerable.

[@tomhutchins1046]

@John Cornell Im taking your word on the dates. They realized they had a problem it took time to come up with a solution and update production. i seem to remember hearing they stopped using it towards the end of the war. What do you think it was for Stealth? So the tank would not show up on radar LOL.

[@norwegianwiking]

The reason added armour against shaped charge warheads can be iffy, comes from the stand-off distance the round has designed into it. shaped charges have a optimum stand-off distance where they get the most penetration, but this may be to far to be implemented in a projectile, so instead a less optimum stand-off is accepted. With any added armor, you run the risk of actually bringing the warhead out to optimum stand-off distance, increasing its effect rather than creating a space where the jet can break up and become ineffective.

[@MaxRavenclaw]

Yes. But optimal stand off distances increases with charge diameter, so it might have helped with very small warheads... it's not very clear.

[@norwegianwiking]

@@MaxRavenclaw someone must have done studies on the ideal standoff distance of the different faustpatronen, its just about digging up the report. Or get Sidney Alford to play around with some experimental archeology.

[@bill8791]

There's some irony in listing the Panzerfaust as weapon the Wehrmacht would defend against. I jest. :). The Centurion MkIII did in fact come with similar spaced armour skirts, it's a post war tank but a war time design. Annecdotally, the side skirts on German tanks seemed to last about 10 minutes. Finding images of say a Panther or Tiger II with a complete set of skirts is quite hard.

[@thearisen7301]

I'm pretty sure Poland also used anti-tank rifles but of course they didn't hold out as long.

[@seneca983]

IIRC at least the Polish cavalry had anti-tank rifles.

[@tomuhawk96]

Note he said in large numbers.

[@ECESW]

​@@tomuhawk96 It depends what you mean by a large number. Poles had anywhere between 3500-6500 of them. Post Polish campaign most sources state 800 sent to Italians and rest pressed into German service. I believe the imperial war museum has an example with serial number in the 3800 range. The British Boys anti-tank rifle was built in the tens of thousands.

[@CATASTEROID934]

They utilised a novel 7.9mm cartridge that was elongated to provide additional propellant to produce muzzle velocities necessary for puncturing armour of the day, many wound up in German inventory as the Panzerbusche 35(p) but they were virtually obsolete at the beginning of the war and were quickly discarded.

[@johnmiller5580]

Lol Polish

[@hughbo52]

Thank you for your diligent research and taking the time to make and post this insightful video.

[@raymondkisner9240]

DO THESE SKIRTS MAKE. ME LOOK FAT?

[@501Mobius]

Also during those tests 75mm high explosive shells were fired at the sides by a field gun. No hull penetrations occurred, however skirts of mesh or plates were penetrated and sometimes torn away. - Sturmgeschutz by Spielberger.

[@lionheartx-ray4135]

If they wanted the Panzer IV too look like Tiger it differently worked.

[@claudiodiaz9752]

*to

[@claudiodiaz9752]

*a

[@fulcrum2951]

*b

[@panzerkampfwagenvausf.g9469]

*c

[@MlTGLIED]

*d

[@Fretti90]

Before i "state" my comment i just want to point out that i am not saying this because i want to be an ass/picky. But... @ 2:02 when talking about the shape charge it does not melt the liner. The liner is still solid parts as it hits the armor. The shaped charge works purely with a kinetic effect, no melting involved.

[@101jir]

3:55 I love how "Panthers" sounds like "Pandas"

[@mrflibble9783]

Another source in David Render 'tank action' It does have a first hand account of old tank tracks used as applique armour successfully prevent a panzerfaust from penetrating a Sherman tank.

[@lysanderxiii2335]

Okay, so why did they keep them on tanks in France and Italy? No, 14.5 AT rifles there. There is another reason the skirts were used on tanks employed against US and British forces. The spaced armor acts as a de-capping plate. Most US and British AP shells were "capped" which improves AP shot performance against hardened armor, a plate thickness approximately 1/12 the caliber of the attacking shell (for a 75mm this would be 6mm), with at least a 1 to 2 caliber stand-off will reliably de-cap a capped projectile and reduce the penetrative ability by having the shot shatter on the hardened armor. Navies have known of this for ages and incorporated it into ship's armor layouts for a long time. The US studied this problem in 1944 looking for ways to improve cap retention even after passing through a de-capping plate. See PRINCIPLES OF PROJECTILE DESIGN FOR PENETRATION, Watertown Arsenal, Sept 1944

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

the Germans also applied for a very long time Zimmerit to their armor to protect against magnetic mines, which nobody but themselves used in large quantity.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

generally, interesting points, yet, unless I see something in German documents from the time, it is very likely a coincidence.

[@bastik.3011]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized its probably that, the skirts were originally designed to counter the Russian Antitank Guns, then some of the eastern Front Tanks were moved to Italy and they noticed that it worked for Capped AP Shells aswell. History is full of coincidence like that

[@patchbunny]

I'd read somewhere they also offered protection against 76mm HE shells. Has anyone ever tested Schurzen against bazooka fire? The game ASL gives quite a benefit to tanks with Schurzen against HEAT, and it would be nice to know what effect it truly had against weapons of the time.

[@shanerooney7288]

Zimmerit If I remember correctly, it is to stop the enemy from placing magnetic mines on the side of your tank.

[@Mig29-MF]

U remember right

[@kittyhawk9707]

And the Brits used sticky bombs.. basically bombs in bags coated with glue or grease .. I think Zimmerit also stopped those sticking ..not 100% sure .. End of Saving Private Ryan ..they used similar to blow a wheel off the Tiger.

[@sevenproxies4255]

The lady of my heart, only wears armoured skirts.

[@Floreal78]

Hungarian tanks and assault guns got perforated skirts for turret and hull late war (1944).

[@ivch9027]

I would assume the soviet wire meshes were introduced to counter grenades and mine being placed on the armour, which you had covered in another video.

[@tiexiaowang7939]

Germans: meshes are too hard to produce USSR: I had some spare bed frames

[@thediddymen1408]

Hence the name 'Bed Spring Armour'..............

[@edwardmancuso9741]

don't have the book in front of me, but the enhanced lethality of a panzerfaust when firing through skirts is described in Panzerfaust vs Sherman: European Theater 1944-45 (Duel) by Steven J. Zaloga, Alan Gilliland, et al.

[@Freiburg1919]

I think, the Wehrmacht and WaffenSS had Problems with reinforcement and suply. So that a better armord tank was mor worthy and cheaper than a new tank. The skirts are easy to produce, cost nearly no mony and stael and doubeld the armor of the tank. The USSR and the US (including UK and France) had no problems to build a new tank andtrain new solders.

[@arumatai]

modern spaced armor like on the lepard 2 turret is most useful against apdfs rounds. it makes the dart tumble and ricochet of the main armor.

[@SpartanA054Moose]

Auto generated english subtitles make this even better!

[@cgaccount3669]

I would assume side armor would also help against regular shells? Was spacing just because it was easier to mount or did it help with anti tank bullets? Also, I've herd that allied tanks sometimes put water jugs around the turret as fire protection. Not sure if it helped but I imagine it would make me feel better

[@patrickkenyon2326]

Anti tank rifles were .50 calibre or so? A bullet penetrating the armor skirt would start to tumble. this will reduce its ability to penetrate the main armor. Water jugs might disperse a Molotov Cocktail?

[@mikehoshall6150]

I do believe that the Russians are still using that 14.5 as a long range rifle. From what I’ve heard they had a few of them captured by the Afghans in Afghanistan. That thing would make one hell of a long range sniper rifle as it dwarfs a 50BMG.

[@lukatomas9465]

They are also using it as a heavy machine gun on APCs.

[@GenghisVern]

I wonder if the skirts had any effect on light AT guns such as 37mm or 2-lb?

[@edi9892]

I'd think so. All they need to do is to cause the projectile to tumble and when it hits with the side on the main armour it won't penetrate. However, it won't be enough to make main tank cannons tumble.

[@GenghisVern]

@@edi9892 That matches what I've heard too. I was just wondering if guns from light tanks, like M3 Stuart or Soviet light tanks would be affected by side-shots... From what I heard, the shurzen fell off and was more a problem than not

[@TheOriginalShakuraz]

Ich würde das gern in englisch schreiben, aber da müsste ich es zu stark vereinfachen, da mein Schulenglisch nur fürs Nötigste taugt: Hohlladungsgeschosse/Granaten funktionieren NUR mit extrem zähen Metallen, die sich problemlos kaltverformen lassen. Am besten geeignet wäre Gold, da es das zäheste Metall ist und schon bei Raumtemperatur weicher ist als Blei. Durch den enormen Druck der Detonation, der auf der Außenseite des Metalls (Kupfer), welches den Strahl aus flüssigem Metall bilden wird entsteht, wird der Kupferkegel in die Gegenrichtung umgewölbt und zu einem Strahl konzentriert. Trifft dieser Strahl nun auf andere kaltverformbare Objekte, schneidet er sich hindurch, wie ein Laser durch Schokolade. Nur entsteht dieser Effelk nicht aufgrund der Hitze, sondern durch den absurd hohen Druck, der sich auf eine winzige Stelle konzentriert.

[@triumphant39]

I think that the only way the sideskirt or wire mesh would improve the effectiveness of a shaped charge, is if it provided a more reliably flat surface for it to strike against. Assuming the projectile would have hit correctly in either case, the sideskirt would be purely beneficial. In a worst case scenario, it's only going to perform as badly as the vehicle without sideskirts, likewise with it's protection factor against antitank rifles, or guns.

[@BarManFesteiro]

I thought it had to do with anti tank granedes, magnatic granades or stick granades etc..

[@edged1001]

Some modern tanks like the M1 and the Merkava have armor skirts. Is this to provide protection against shaped charges?

[@sillygoose210_6]

Yes, it also performs secondary things; like reducing dust signature and protecting the suspension components.

[@TheIfifi]

@@sillygoose210_6 It also makes them feel pretty. Very important for the morale of the crew.

[@johnnypopulus5521]

Shirts & skirts! Panzer IV special! Zimmerit coating!

[@c7zr179]

Another fantastic video.

[@raudhel2429]

What if they used it not just for tactical reason but for tactiCOOL reasons??? Gotta admit, the tanks with the skirts looked pretty badass though

[@Chironex_Fleckeri]

Why is a penetrating hit from a panzerfaust or similar weapon such a huge problem? It's a relatively small hole and jet of metal. What are the effects inside the tank?

[@jameshenderson4876]

Because armour slacks would have been so unfashionable.

[@BelleDividends]

I read the soviet mesh side armor in 44-45 was due to a rumour in the soviet army protecting it from panzerfausts, without it actually performing well and not really delivering any real protection. Mesh side armour was never officially implemented, but because panzerfausts increasingly becoming a threat many tank crews modified their tanks on their own with side meshes. At least, that's what I read, but I'm not sure that it was a high quality source. I can't remember where I read it.

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

The Soviets employed wire meshes mainly during the Battle of Berlin, because many Panzerfausts were distributed amongst the Volksturm, they posed a serious risk to Soviet tanks. Especially when they hide in the rubbles on the streets. The Soviet tank crews employed anything that can give them some form of protection, even if the chances of survival were increased only slightly. It was worth a shot. In previous battles, Soviets used logs as a makeshift appliqué armour to protect against shells of German tanks. (iirc) Related: Philippine armour crews in the Battle of Marawi used wood to protect against RPG’s. Many cases were shown that it prevented the RPG from destroying the vehicles.

[@MaxRavenclaw]

Logs, sandbags, and similar improvised armour proved to be utterly useless, in fact detrimental as they weighted down the tank for no added protection. BTW, don't confuse the logs Soviet tanks carried to help with getting the tanks out of mud with armour.

[@EstellammaSS]

IIRC philippine rebels didn’t have actual HEAT warhead, but HE-FRAG and those sorts with very limited penetration to begin with. But even those are enough to rip a normal M113. In this context the logs could very much be sufficient to soak up the blast

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

MaxRavenclaw I am aware of that, but I am trying to recall a battle where they used logs as improv armour. I heard of it, just couldn’t remember or I might be thinking of a different war/battle.

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

Graff_Zitel Yeah, perhaps, or maybe I am not aware of the variant they used. Nevertheless, they stacked wood on the vehicles and it successfully prevented the vehicles’ destruction...

[@SamuBlackeart]

They use a same technique for the ISS an external layer of kevlar and the inner layer made of aluminium. So when a small rock, nail or anything less than 10mm (I think) it will just desintegrate on the outside layer.

[@seneca983]

Though is space it's called a "Whipple shield".

[@Gruntilda-Winkybunion]

i was there in Munster and i touched THAT zimmerit tank! yes i am proud

[@kimprisbrey368]

Thank you! Great video.!!!

[@joegrcz7151]

Alright I respect you SO MUCH because of the fact that you said at the end that you are NOT sure by the proper answer and not just be like: "WHAT I SAID IS TRUTH ANYTHING ELSE YOU HEAR IS BULLSH*T!" I had to like this video instantly for this because really that was awesome from you because no matter how much books you have read, how much movies (or documentaries) you saw you can never be sure if the info you just got is true or false and it is sometimes really difficult to know what is what. Also as example of false information I mean: Pearl Harbor - being HUGE VICTORY for japanese or Italians being traitors who switch sides constantly and things like that. And I'll shut up now thanks for reading this bye! (also sorry for any problems with my english)

[@onyxdragon1179]

I read somewhere and saw on a video that the armored skirts would actually make the Bazookas more effective when shooting at those plates. It had something to do with a delayed fuse that caused bazooka rounds to bounce off some surfaces before even having a chance to detonaten, but that when you hit an armored plate the fuse would be ready as soon as the round made contact with the actual armor and detonate just right

[@irongeneral7861]

How can you tell the gender of tanks? You look under their skirts!

[@maggyyolokraut1941]

Iron General actually at the gun under the skirt then you know

[@jackd1582]

By how many ways they can be penetrated

[@jack_copperz]

Fun fact: the Mark V Landships (the first tanks) had both male and female variants so this is valid kinda

[@vwerlg9954]

@@jackd1582 😩😳

[@slick4401]

I've always wondered how shaped charges work against water. The moment the jet of hot metal hits water, it might be assumed that the water instantly vaporizes and expands explosively as it supeheats, creating a powerful reaction against the jet. Does anyone know?

[@alphabravodelta42]

it's not a hot jet of metal it's just really fast metal that pushes through the armour. Friction from that creates hot metal fragments. As for water and HEAT charges , the water deforms the jet very quickly and is a good defense if only it wasn't so damn heavy.

[@ZorroComputers]

By listening to your English I think I will learn German.

[@guywithamosinnagant547]

Zimmerit is a paste applied to the armor of a tank that has several magnetic materials mixed in, as it was designed to defeat magnetic anti-tank grenades. I do not know if it ever really worked, but it does look cool.

[@Buran3009]

But why the germans fitted it also to the tanks on the western front?

[@IO-hh2fz]

They were probably already fitting them in the factory before they knew where the tank would be deployed

[@nuclearjanitors]

The British had anti-tank rifles. Boys or boyz

[@TheIfifi]

@@nuclearjanitors yeah but they were not widely used on the western front 44-45

[@nuclearjanitors]

@@TheIfifi i get that but they had mo reason not to deploy them without them. That and what the other dude above me said, combinef leaves zero reason to send them out without jt.

[@TheIfifi]

@@nuclearjanitors The reason you wouldn't deploy them without is the cost efficiency argument. If the ONLY reason to deploy them with skirts would be fear of Boys, I think they would simple go "meh" not worth the time/resources. It wasn't the only reason though, so they stuck with it.

[@HaqqAttak]

I wonder if the Schurzen helped against air attack from IL-2s? It might have stopped 20mm rounds at the right angle, but would it ever stop 23s?

[@balazsmejzer4213]

The Panzer III and IV were invulnerable to the 23mm cannon even without the side skirts, in a real life situation at least.

[@mrcs1037]

@@balazsmejzer4213 The IL-2 could easily penetrate i think even the Tiger in it's turret top

[@balazsmejzer4213]

@@mrcs1037 it would only penetrate in a top down attack at close range at which it would require a very skilled pilot to know when to pull up, but mission kills were still possible, like damaging gun barrel or destroying tracks

[@mrcs1037]

@@balazsmejzer4213 Don't forget about it's rockets and bombs

[@maximus5668]

Why Armor Skirts... Soviet Anti tank rifles

[@tombrunetti3000]

Correct me if I’m wrong (guaranteed) I thought that the skirting on German tanks was to help protect the tracks. I remember reading in Otto Carius’ book Tigers in the Mud that tanks either stuck/disabled which were unrecoverable were destroyed. So my logic is that if a tank gets significantly damaged the hopes of protecting the tracks would let the tank be able to retreat and fight another day.

[@theverysimpleelectronicpro6918]

Well protection of the track just a small additional benefit, the main problem is the lower hull of the tank because there is the armor weakest. Good part of the lower hull is covered by wheels but not not all and a good hit above the wheels can kill the cat. Very embarrassing when your brand new tank can be killed with an overnight developed anti tank rifle...

[@CheezyDee]

Why did the Germans use skirts? Because calling it a kilt would be weird.

[@MayDayMei98]

I've seen various examples of the allies using unoffical things like logs, sandbangs, or even wood planks to bolster Shermans. When the allies needed to improve their tanks, they just made variants (Firefly, E8 Sherman, etc)

[@hondagaharu2325]

It would be cooler if he is wearing a german officer uniform.

[@sugarnads]

Honda Gaharu no. It wouldnt. Nazi regalia is illegal in germany

[@tomaspabon2484]

Man i did not expect AT rifles to be so effective that late in the war, neato!

[@HomeworldChanal]

Deine Videos sind echt super interessant, jedoch möchte ich dich bitten, dir bei der Aussprache etwas mehr Mühe zu geben, bzw. mehr Zeit zu lassen. Ich fand es stellenweise recht schwer dir zu folgen. Ansonsten kann ich bloß sagen: Toll dass du das hier machst. :)

[@p.herrmann4538]

Ja seltsam... die englischsprachigen scheint es nicht so zu stören, aber mir rollen sich die Fußnägel hoch bei so ner Ausssprache.

[@skylerblake1925]

Just to clarify a misconception, the sandbags and such placed on tanks weren't for extra armor but to protect dismounts around the vehicle. Tanks are bullet/shell magnets and all the bits and shrapnel riccochetting off them are dangerous to anyone nearby especially off sloped armor like an M4. So you stick sandbags on it and they act just like a grazing log on a foxhole.

[@V4zz33]

Hence we use mesh against mosquitoes and adore birds.;))))

[@ohnenamen2843]

Wasn’t Zimmerit the anti magnetic paste, against shape charges?

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

No it was against magnetic mines, ie some suicidal nutter runs up to your tabk, slaps the mine onto your armour and then legs it before it goes off. From memory the Germans where the only army to use magnetic mines in any number but they thought the opposition might. When they realised no one they were fighting was that daft they stopped applying it as it was uneccessary time, cost and resources.

[@pitcheralex1262]

So does that mean German tanks are female? Okay, all jokes aside, great video. You guys should write a book or two y'know.

[@pitcheralex1262]

@@MAAAAAAAAAA123 Who said that's a dick. I mean, it's above the skirt, not below it. There are a lot of pointy parts that aren't dicks.

[@bificommander7472]

Well, the Panzer 1's only had machine guns, so by WW1 nomenclature they would be. Shame they didn't get the skirts.

[@jessicakrios9382]

How effective was the jagdtiger actually? I know the pak 44 saw great success in the African front for awhile but how did it do as a tank's primary armament.

[@kendicus7640]

Additional protection and better defense from HEAT shells, which no one use the said type of ammunition

[@chuckschillingvideos]

You use what you got. If you're surprised by the appearance of the enemy, you may not have time to change loads. You just have to shoot what you have and hope for the best.

[@thedeathwobblechannel6539]

so for shaped charges, we need to know the length of the jet and the distance it is effective. when you cut steel with oxy acetalene and oxygen, if you are too close to the steel it pops and cant cut well. if you hold the torch too far away it cant cut. so if one knows the length of the jet from the point of detonation and creation of the jet and how far it can extend and penetrate, you can sort out what kind of air space needed to defeat it with skirt or heavy mesh. my reference to teh torch is the same with a plasma cutter.

[@thedeathwobblechannel6539]

just read on charge diameter. so 75mm US bazooka penetration could be say 5x the diameter.modern can be up to 7 and beyond. so 75 us 3 inches. x 5 is 15 inches. so 24 inches of air space could stop it? but i read the jet is a kinetic energy means of penetration. so now time and distance comes to play to make this jet unable to penetrate the tank. so velocity and temp of the jet will become the variables. so how to slow it and change the temp to make it lose it's ability to penetrate.

[@justincancelosa5773]

The channel name is “Military History not Visualized” WHY AM I SEEING VISUALS?!?

[@christophersmith8316]

The instruction manual tells you quite clearly to shut your eyes in chapter 27.

[@curtisrodgers5326]

You mentioned panzer 4s, panthers and stugs, but I've seen panzer 3s with the skirts aswell. Is this just an oversight?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

yeah

[@radwanderer6165]

Am I the only one who's having issues to follow the speaker because of his accent? o.O

[@Gruntilda-Winkybunion]

i think his accent is german and yes though i am german i have really hard issues

[@regular_being]

@@Gruntilda-Winkybunion Wenn du selber so nen schlimmen Akzent wie ich hast,verstehst du das :D