|
|
Forums - Research / WW2 |
This WW2 forum is intended for asking and discussing reference or historical related issues pertaining to WW2 (1939-1945) subjects. |
| Topics | 3396 |
| Messages | 15175 |
|
|
| Subject: | Close and personal |  |
| Date: | Mar 5, 2006 |
| From: | Janusz Smolinski | |
Hi Ken
This discussion goes over and over again . Ken the schurzen was so effective that it stays as a "classic" anti HEAT protection even today .
From life fire trails during my military service can tell :
- firing AP round from Mosin , Mauser and DT mg , Kbkak ( don't even want to mention DShK) thin mild steel sheet in short and middle ranges has almost no effect (hot knife and butter) . Makes me wonder how it can "ricochet" , "destabilize" or changed trajectory of AP AT rifle round - if regular one has no problem with it (remember that AT rifle projectile has way much more kinetic energy then those I mentioned before) !
No - I didn't have opportunity to fire Russian AT rifle - but believe me it was more powerful then the above .
And please don't tell me the "mash" , "perforated" or "bar" armour will do it (LOL) .
- firing RPG rocket projectile (Panzerfaust , PIAT and Bazooka works on the same principle) will prematurely detonate on ANYTHING on its way (metal/plastic/wood sheet , wire , bar and so on) that was a proof in WW II and many wars after , this is why you can see this type of amour (space) on modern military vehicles :
"Zelda/Toga" , T-54/55 , T62 , "Warrior" , M1 , "Challenger" , "Merkava" , "Stryker" ....
That's in short - can find more info about it in my previous posts (moons ago on this forum)
Janusz |
| |
|
|
 | How effective WAS shurzen? - Ken Miller - Mar 3, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Kurt Laughlin - Mar 3, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - frank forster - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Jari Lievonen - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - frank forster - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Eric Scurlock - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . Re: It wasn't... - Carl Dembrowski - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Adam Weber - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Viet Nam experience different - Kurt Laughlin - Mar 5, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Juan Contreras - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - David Manning - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Alan Eaton - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . Why go with "Thoma Schild" or mesh screens? - Steve Campbell - Mar 5, 2006 |
| . . . Close and personal - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 5, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Close and personal - Kurt Laughlin - Mar 7, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Close and personal - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Close and personal - Paul Roberts - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . round & rifles - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: round & rifles - Paul Roberts - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . HEAT or AT Rifle? - Frank Forster - Mar 5, 2006 |
| . . . . . . AT Rifle! - Paul Roberts - Mar 6, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: AT Rifle! - frank forster - Mar 7, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Remember the question - Kurt Laughlin - Mar 7, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Remember the question - Bill Goodrich - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Remember the question - frank forster - Mar 10, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for Paul and Kurt - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: for Paul and Kurt - Paul Roberts - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . more about - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 9, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: more about - Paul Roberts - Mar 10, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penetration vs. Stand Off - Kurt Laughlin - Mar 10, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: more about - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 13, 2006 |
|
|
