Panzer IV armour layout.

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Yoozername » 11 Jul 2020 22:44

Many of these thicknesses seem to be nominal numbers. In reality, I would expect the plates to have variances as per manufacturing methods and acceptances.

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 13755
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 11 Jul 2020 22:48

Yoozername wrote:
11 Jul 2020 22:44
Many of these thicknesses seem to be nominal numbers. In reality, I would expect the plates to have variances as per manufacturing methods and acceptances.
Indeed. The tolerances were -0 to +5 percent.

phillip burke
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Dec 2004 02:18
Location: united kingdom

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by phillip burke » 12 Jul 2020 10:37

Hello all,if you go to site called Panzerfabrik they are making a panzer IV using original plans and manufacturing process s . They ve managed to re produce the suspension components perfectly and are using original pieces as reference,well worth checking out.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Peasant » 27 Nov 2020 16:18

A Stug III examined by the soviets presents a 20mm plate sloped at 70° to vertical above the driver's position. Since this vehicle was originally manufactured with 50mm thick frontal armour, I assume that 20mm/70° is equivalent to 50mm/0-20°, at least against small caliber shells.
Since this part was not reinforced with add-on plates, like the vertical parts were, it would still present a vulnerable target for the guns which 50+30mm of armor would protect from, until it would be upgraded to 30mm/69-70° when StuG IIIs with organic 80mm of frontal armour entered production.

Image
Last edited by Peasant on 27 Nov 2020 18:38, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Yoozername » 27 Nov 2020 18:23

I don't see the image you posted. It might be this?
stugjentz.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Yoozername » 27 Nov 2020 18:28

Note that the sponson armor, viewed from the front, is actually spaced armor of 50mm@15deg and 30mm@50deg. The sloped 'glacis' of 50+30mm@52 deg gives very good protection. I think the armor layout gives varying degrees of protection. generally better than the Panzer IV though.
Another drawing

Image

Peasant
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Peasant » 27 Nov 2020 19:15

I've re-uploaded the original image on imgur, tell me if that did it for you.
For some reason the schematic shows the addon 30mm plate covering the sponsor as angled only 30° instead of 50°. It matches the drawing though so its not just an error of writing "30" instead of "50". Maybe some early uparmoured stugs had this armor layout before the later one was standardized.

Thanks for the link to that thread on heroesandgenerals forum, very interesting read.

Because the superstructure is made up of many small armor plates welded together, the protection provided, in most cases, is still less than that of a solid plate with the same thickness.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Yoozername » 27 Nov 2020 20:04

Peasant wrote:
27 Nov 2020 19:15
I've re-uploaded the original image on imgur, tell me if that did it for you.
For some reason the schematic shows the addon 30mm plate covering the sponsor as angled only 30° instead of 50°. It matches the drawing though so its not just an error of writing "30" instead of "50". Maybe some early uparmoured stugs had this armor layout before the later one was standardized.
yes, thanks, it appears to show an early G version? It has the split extra armor for the driver that allows him to use his small scissor scope?
Because the superstructure is made up of many small armor plates welded together, the protection provided, in most cases, is still less than that of a solid plate with the same thickness.
That depends on the slope also. 30mm at 70 deg induces ricochets and gives a fairly good multiplier for penetration protection.

The driver always had the additional 50+30 mm scheme, and also the driver vision folding port. Perhaps the weakest frontal area in the later G versions.

This cutaway shows the upper and lower hull. Clearly the upper hull is superior.

Image

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Yoozername » 27 Nov 2020 20:24

Different versions showing evolution of driver area. Note the pannier versions. The WarSpot drawing seems to confirm a very early version 1942.

Image

AKahl
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: 01 Jul 2012 00:50
Location: California

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by AKahl » 30 Nov 2020 20:20

So the difference between the 20mm plate at 72 degrees vs 25mm at 73 degrees would be approximately 65 mm (64.72) LOS equivalent vs about 85mm (85.51) LOS equivalent, right?

Even the lower figure could have been viewed as better than the 50mm turret face, and thus not worth upgrading. A 25mm plate would make more sense, though, given the overall frontal hull armor scheme.

As stated, it would be great if somebody could measure an actual surviving tank.
Remain yourself, in spite of all the mighty do.

Goethe

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Yoozername » 02 Dec 2020 09:04

My thought is that the Panzer IV sort of did not develop much after the G/H model. Compared to the StuG III, which showed improvements, the Panzer IV stayed a 1943 model till the somewhat downgraded J model.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Peasant » 24 Apr 2021 10:57

It is interesting to note that the hull roof plate under the turret is listed as 15mm thick, while the frontal part of the hull roof, on that vehicle, is only 11mm thick. I wonder if they ever carried out the intention of strengthen this part to 16mm? Anyone got more info?

Source: "Panzer Tracts 4-3".

Edit: On the topic of thickness for glacis plate on late Pz.IVs:
....a VOMAG made Panzer IV ausf. J produced at the end of their production in May 1944.
The upper nose is 20mm and provides access for the steering brakes and differential/transmission.
Source: https://www.panzerfabrik.net/post/repro ... off-week-1
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Peasant » 03 Aug 2021 11:49

Image

45mm Mod.32/37 gun. Distance: 500m, S.V. 660m/s. Service AP round.
Target: german tank (model not listed) front. Armour thickness: 50mm.

Description: "The shell hit the highly sloped part of the armour, left a small dent and ricocheted into the frontal plate and left a small dent there."

If this was a Pz.IV, It looks like the glacis plate was not considerably weaker, if at all, against soviet blunt tipped shells than the vertical parts.

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: 20 Jan 2019 10:14
Location: Australia

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 03 Aug 2021 15:56

That's a 45mm projectile, I wonder how it fared against blunt nosed 76mm projectiles.

In War Thunder such projectiles have an eerie ability to punch through it like butter, while failing on the flat parts.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Panzer IV armour layout.

Post by Peasant » 18 Oct 2021 11:01

20mm/73° is almost the same as Pz.IV glacis plate. Interesting.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”