SCHURZEN Q

I could be wrong Kenny, but I only recall seeing them on StuG III G's myself. 

Of course we know that Late IV J's had the wire -mesh Thoma Shields.

I could help you if I knew what you mean with 'Scalloped' bottom ?

The Pz IV had several different Schürzen not only the Ausf. J but the Ausf. H as well .

 Do you have a picture of the one you are writing about ?

P.S. it's Schürzen without a T ( I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just like it to you US guys writing German technical terms, I'm from Germany.)

Jumo213A1

I could help you if I knew what you mean with 'Scalloped' bottom ?

The Pz IV had several different Schürzen not only the Ausf. J but the Ausf. H as well .

 Do you have a picture of the one you are writing about ?

P.S. it's Schürzen without a T ( I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just like it to you US guys writing German technical terms, I'm from Germany.)

                                                     ........................................................

Like this one,

I know it is not a Panzer 1V but I would like to do this if it would be corrct. Perhaps 'tigerman' is correct

One reason why the scalloped schurzen may not have been on Pz IVs is due to the area that needed to be protected from Soviet AT rifles is diffrent than StuG/StuH.  If you look at the photo above of the StuH III, you see that the plates hang off of the fender line.  They don't extend much above this.  You see that the StuH has other plates stacked atop the fenders against the upper hull wall to protect the upper superstructure's sides.  I think the fender line is a logical mounting point for the swinging scalloped shurzen due to its reletive firm structure.

With the body of a Mark IV, the area to be protected above the fender line is not very high -- in order for the rotating turret to clear it.  Plus, all Mk IV schurzen had to be mounted on somewhat flimsy rails -- perhaps not worth trying to modify to allow for the swinging scalloped schurzen.

[quote user="T26E4"]

One reason why the scalloped schurzen may not have been on Pz IVs is due to the area that needed to be protected from Soviet AT rifles is diffrent than StuG/StuH.  If you look at the photo above of the StuH III, you see that the plates hang off of the fender line.  They don't extend much above this.  You see that the StuH has other plates stacked atop the fenders against the upper hull wall to protect the upper superstructure's sides.  I think the fender line is a logical mounting point for the swinging scalloped shurzen due to its reletive firm structure.

With the body of a Mark IV, the area to be protected above the fender line is not very high -- in order for the rotating turret to clear it.  Plus, all Mk IV schurzen had to be mounted on somewhat flimsy rails -- perhaps not worth trying to modify to allow for the swinging scalloped schurzen.

                                                 ..........................................................

Roy,quite a good thought. However the schurzen still had the same ground clearence and I wonder if it was done to stop some of the 'snagging' that took place.

The angled edge would help when brushing thro' scrubb and such like...cheers....Kenny

Never say never.  Anything and everything could have been done in the field.

The scalloped/rounded corners were to prevent snagging of the StuG schurzen.  Since much of the StuG schurzen was bolted/welded on it became a bigger repair if it snagged---wheras, on the Mk IV the plates were designed to fall off more easily w/o damaging the set-up... 

That 'Scalloped' shape was not common on any Pz IV .

The standard were even panels with small differences up front .

But I'm sure that no one has seen every variant of this tank including field modifications . Maybe you can find a proper picture in the www .

Until then this is our only reference type , the German army even retrofitted their captured T-34 tanks with schürzen so who knows what you may find , but don't be too disappointed if not .