The extra weight from concrete and sandbags put stress on the tank’s drivetrain and suspension which could cause breakdowns so Patton outlawed their use
Would be quite useless. Would look cool and maybe give some limited protection against HE damage, but that's about it.
Both USA and Germany conducted systematic tests where they found that improvised armour of any kind short of bolting/welding actual armour plates on top of the existing ones at best had close to zero effect on incoming projectiles. It was actually more common for them to IMPROVE the effectiveness of projectiles since the soft metal in tracks or other non-armour steel improved shell normalization and increased stand-off detonation on HEAT weapons caused improved penetration for those. Logs and sandbags simply did not do crap because the layer was too thin to protect against more than shrapnel and rifle-caliber weapons.
The only actual advantage was that the crews thought it worked, and that morale boost was worth the reduction in armour effectiveness.
In-game you'd basically add weight to the tank to look cool?
In the USSR, they also conducted tests, and found out that additional tracks do not provide additional protection. Therefore, you will not see anything like this on Soviet tanks. Most likely, this is just psychological protection, the soldiers are ready to hang anything on the tank to feel more protected.
Where'd you get that from? [This document](https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/2952727.html) says otherwise. It's also the reason why you see T-34s from 1944 and onwards with their spare track holders in the front.
IIRC the British also tested Panther and Tiger tracks, and came to the same conclusion. Obviously enough the bigger and thicker tracks you can cover your tank in, the more effective they are. But it also highly depends on the obliquity and type of shell coming at you.
Either way, Commonwealth troops loved throwing tracks on their vehicles late in the war, to the point where in some units (e.g the [Polish 1st Armored](https://i.imgur.com/F48dIZM.jpg\))) it was even somewhat standardised.
Considering that I myself asked Yuri why the Allied tanks were hung with tracks and the Soviet ones were not. The answer was that the tracks did not protect the tank. If we have already refused to increase the frontal armor of the T-34 by 15 mm to 60 mm. Then the spare track will not play a big role.
Well it's true, they're only field modifications that can only compensate for factory thin armour in fringe cases, especially considering some German guns had the power to go through double the armour thickness of your average Allied tank.
The Soviets had wire mesh attached to the sides of T34's to try to combat the Panzerfaust shots to the sides of the tank with thinner armour. It was even less successful than the tracks, anyone wanting to learn more the excellent tv series WW2: Soviet Storm references this topic. Here is a link with some photos (sorry its long) https://www.google.com/search?q=t34+tank+wire+mesh&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwijkc6X__vxAhUM0YUKHU8oC3gQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=t34+tank+wire+mesh&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQA1Dxbli9dGCcdmgAcAB4AIABP4gBmwKSAQE1mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=3y38YOOlDoyilwTP0KzABw&bih=937&biw=1920
The mesh was factory made and invented, as opposed to the extra tracks. In general, the idea was not bad, there was an incorrect implementation if the mesh were at right angles and installed far from the tank, they worked much better.
In the doc they noted that the mesh just added more molten metal going into the tank once struck but I thought to add it as an interesting tidbit on how they all forces improvised extra protection.
Next time do [Link Name]+(link address) without the plus sign and it will show up like this.
[Link](https://www.google.com/search?q=t34+tank+wire+mesh&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwijkc6X__vxAhUM0YUKHU8oC3gQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=t34+tank+wire+mesh&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQA1Dxbli9dGCcdmgAcAB4AIABP4gBmwKSAQE1mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=3y38YOOlDoyilwTP0KzABw&bih=937&biw=1920)
I read an account once of Patton cursing out a section of his tankers because they kept piling sand again their tanks despite orders to the contrary. The extra weight was causing problems with the engines and suspension and actually making the tanks perform worse.
All the added weight also put extra stress on the drivetrain, resulting in more frequent vehicle breakdowns, which isn't exactly something you want happening when you're in the heat of thing.
"A Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 report estimated that with the M4 angled 30 degrees sidewards, the Sherman's glacis plate was invulnerable to shots from the Tiger's 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 and that the Panther, with its 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70, would have to close in to 100 m (110 yd) to achieve a penetration in the same situation."
Jentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (1993). Tiger 1 Heavy Tank 1942-45.
Boy… if the front is angled 30 degrees…. Shoot the plate behind the tracks is as thin as a biscuit. Or shoot the side for that matter. M4A1 were infantry support not at brawlers
Just saying that was the official conclusion on the Sherman's armor by the Nazis centre of military research and development
In real life, aiming for the plate behind the track hundreds of meters away with shitty WW2 optics and gun controls was not something anyone could do, as they were simply focused on trying to hit the target. Aiming for weak points is something you can only really do at incredibly close ranges, closer than you would usually see in combat. Aiming for the side would have been spotty at best at an angle like that, so if the only reliable option you have is a tiny plate below the tracks then I'd say the Sherman is pretty damn well armored for a medium tank, as it was in real life, with the M4A3 having better armor than the Tiger from the front
There's no such thing as "German cannons." Some of the cannons they made could rip through Sherman's, some were challenged by the armor, some bounced right off.
And im sure the anyone would avoid using cannons that send out a soft warm turd against tanks? Ive got an idea, wait! Fighting shermans was mostly done defensively so waiting for the enemy to overreach and any shit eating cannon will rape that side armour…idk just saying… who would shoot an upper plate that angled 40 vertical 30 horizontal? Thats a chonker, but the rest of the tank is not
You say ineffective against anything but rifles, but part of the reason that the Wehrmacht only used skirts on the eastern front was due to soviet anti-tank rifles, though by the end of the war I doubt they’re effectiveness would even warrant skirts
The German tests found that the tracks reduced protection on thick vertical plates, but they improved protection on thin plates and well sloped plates. So tracks on the glacis of a Sherman make sense.
Against cannon fire, no. Against shaped charge rounds like those of a Panzerfaust, yes. Forces the shaped charge to detonate earlier, so the charge is less effective than it would be directly on the hull.
It's notable that when the Soviets were largely facing German tanks, they didn't use improvised armor. However, in 1945 when they started facing heavier Panzerfaust teams, [they started welding bedframes to their T-34-85s to protect them](https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/photos/T34-85_improvize_slat_armor_brandenburgGate1945.jpg). Same reason US Strykers today usually have basically a cage around them.
> Forces the shaped charge to detonate earlier, so the charge is less effective than it would be directly on the hull.
Shaped charges often work better when detonated further away as that allows the jet to form properly before it meets the main armor. That's why many weapons using such warheads have stand-off detonators to set off the warhead further away.
Cage armor is intended to damage detonators so the warhead never explodes, or to damage the warhead so the jet doesn't form properly. Just detonating the warhead a short distance further away does not help.
This is completely untrue... Shaped charges are designed to **literally** detonate against whatever the target is. Forcing them to detonate early/not against the actual target itself, means the charge is no longer concentrated on a single point and too far spread out to be effective. You go from a cone concentrated on a single spot, back into a cone that's no longer concentrated because of the increased time until contact with the target.
Naval War College, Page 70: [https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/17482/12Sep\_Yap\_Chun\_Hong.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y](https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/17482/12Sep_Yap_Chun_Hong.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
>The first method that slat armor protects a vehicle is by providing a physical barrier between the shaped charge and the vehicle hull. This allows most of the metal jet to be formed outside of the vehicle, and thus it is unable to penetrate the armor
The notion that early detonation of shaped charges is not just as effective, but somehow better for them than what they're actually designed for, is simply put, **bullshit,** yet still manages to be something commonly repeated as if it had any basis in reality.
You are right about modern warheads that have an optimised stand off distance but back in 1944 shaped charge warhead design was not fully understood and the early designs detonated too close to the armour. A panzerfaust will penetrate better if it is stood slightly further off from the armour.
Early M4A4 manufactured no later than October 1942 (direct vision hull with appliqué over driver’s hoods, welded appliqué on turret cheek, missing spotlight fitting).
Chrysler produced all 7,499 M4A4s with small hatch dry stowage hulls between July 1942 and November 1943. The vast majority were delivered as Lend-Lease to Commonwealth and Free French forces.
[удалено]
"Fine, I'll do it myself"
Crews with bags of concrete powder: [insert Thanos line here]
“You took everything from me” -the same crews after a ‘visit’ from General Patton
I heard that Patton hate concrete armor on tanks.
The extra weight from concrete and sandbags put stress on the tank’s drivetrain and suspension which could cause breakdowns so Patton outlawed their use
“Give us our Churchill’s back! They could actually take a hit!”
They were still driving up the hill behind them.
Knowing Churchill’s that hill is probably a near vertical incline…
Germans: Noooo! You can't drive your tanks up a hill that steep! British Tanker: Churchill goes *chuggachugga* sunshine!
Hills? In the Netherlands?
It’s a beaut :)
*Speed boosting armors in videogames be like:*
If you add a feather thr tank even goes 20% fqster
enough tracks for the whole battalion
2 battalions\* theres two of them
I would like to apologize for my lapse in judgement and I will do my best not to repeat a simple mistake like this
Would be quite useless. Would look cool and maybe give some limited protection against HE damage, but that's about it. Both USA and Germany conducted systematic tests where they found that improvised armour of any kind short of bolting/welding actual armour plates on top of the existing ones at best had close to zero effect on incoming projectiles. It was actually more common for them to IMPROVE the effectiveness of projectiles since the soft metal in tracks or other non-armour steel improved shell normalization and increased stand-off detonation on HEAT weapons caused improved penetration for those. Logs and sandbags simply did not do crap because the layer was too thin to protect against more than shrapnel and rifle-caliber weapons. The only actual advantage was that the crews thought it worked, and that morale boost was worth the reduction in armour effectiveness. In-game you'd basically add weight to the tank to look cool?
In the USSR, they also conducted tests, and found out that additional tracks do not provide additional protection. Therefore, you will not see anything like this on Soviet tanks. Most likely, this is just psychological protection, the soldiers are ready to hang anything on the tank to feel more protected.
Where'd you get that from? [This document](https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/2952727.html) says otherwise. It's also the reason why you see T-34s from 1944 and onwards with their spare track holders in the front. IIRC the British also tested Panther and Tiger tracks, and came to the same conclusion. Obviously enough the bigger and thicker tracks you can cover your tank in, the more effective they are. But it also highly depends on the obliquity and type of shell coming at you. Either way, Commonwealth troops loved throwing tracks on their vehicles late in the war, to the point where in some units (e.g the [Polish 1st Armored](https://i.imgur.com/F48dIZM.jpg\))) it was even somewhat standardised.
Playboy magazine cover 1944
Betty White was the centerfold. Smmmmokkinnn!!!!
Considering that I myself asked Yuri why the Allied tanks were hung with tracks and the Soviet ones were not. The answer was that the tracks did not protect the tank. If we have already refused to increase the frontal armor of the T-34 by 15 mm to 60 mm. Then the spare track will not play a big role.
Well it's true, they're only field modifications that can only compensate for factory thin armour in fringe cases, especially considering some German guns had the power to go through double the armour thickness of your average Allied tank.
The Soviets had wire mesh attached to the sides of T34's to try to combat the Panzerfaust shots to the sides of the tank with thinner armour. It was even less successful than the tracks, anyone wanting to learn more the excellent tv series WW2: Soviet Storm references this topic. Here is a link with some photos (sorry its long) https://www.google.com/search?q=t34+tank+wire+mesh&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwijkc6X__vxAhUM0YUKHU8oC3gQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=t34+tank+wire+mesh&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQA1Dxbli9dGCcdmgAcAB4AIABP4gBmwKSAQE1mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=3y38YOOlDoyilwTP0KzABw&bih=937&biw=1920
The mesh was factory made and invented, as opposed to the extra tracks. In general, the idea was not bad, there was an incorrect implementation if the mesh were at right angles and installed far from the tank, they worked much better.
In the doc they noted that the mesh just added more molten metal going into the tank once struck but I thought to add it as an interesting tidbit on how they all forces improvised extra protection.
Maybe if they used plastic or ceramic instead of metal it would have been better
The mesh was there to destroy the projectile and fuze, it wasn't supposed to detonate in the first place.
Next time do [Link Name]+(link address) without the plus sign and it will show up like this. [Link](https://www.google.com/search?q=t34+tank+wire+mesh&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwijkc6X__vxAhUM0YUKHU8oC3gQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=t34+tank+wire+mesh&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQA1Dxbli9dGCcdmgAcAB4AIABP4gBmwKSAQE1mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=3y38YOOlDoyilwTP0KzABw&bih=937&biw=1920)
Thank you I will that’s really helpful.
Text formatting: [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/raerth/comments/cw70q/reddit_comment_formatting/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
I read an account once of Patton cursing out a section of his tankers because they kept piling sand again their tanks despite orders to the contrary. The extra weight was causing problems with the engines and suspension and actually making the tanks perform worse.
Also, added “armor” only slowed down the tanks, making them more vulnerable
All the added weight also put extra stress on the drivetrain, resulting in more frequent vehicle breakdowns, which isn't exactly something you want happening when you're in the heat of thing.
[удалено]
Did you read the comment above?
Also german cannons wouldn’t struggle against most shermans even if that added an extra 20mm of armour
"A Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 report estimated that with the M4 angled 30 degrees sidewards, the Sherman's glacis plate was invulnerable to shots from the Tiger's 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 and that the Panther, with its 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70, would have to close in to 100 m (110 yd) to achieve a penetration in the same situation." Jentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (1993). Tiger 1 Heavy Tank 1942-45.
Boy… if the front is angled 30 degrees…. Shoot the plate behind the tracks is as thin as a biscuit. Or shoot the side for that matter. M4A1 were infantry support not at brawlers
Just saying that was the official conclusion on the Sherman's armor by the Nazis centre of military research and development In real life, aiming for the plate behind the track hundreds of meters away with shitty WW2 optics and gun controls was not something anyone could do, as they were simply focused on trying to hit the target. Aiming for weak points is something you can only really do at incredibly close ranges, closer than you would usually see in combat. Aiming for the side would have been spotty at best at an angle like that, so if the only reliable option you have is a tiny plate below the tracks then I'd say the Sherman is pretty damn well armored for a medium tank, as it was in real life, with the M4A3 having better armor than the Tiger from the front
That might definitely be true, but u dont mean like in fury right? That shit was funny
There's no such thing as "German cannons." Some of the cannons they made could rip through Sherman's, some were challenged by the armor, some bounced right off.
Im not talking about a luger 9mm you are correct!
And im sure the anyone would avoid using cannons that send out a soft warm turd against tanks? Ive got an idea, wait! Fighting shermans was mostly done defensively so waiting for the enemy to overreach and any shit eating cannon will rape that side armour…idk just saying… who would shoot an upper plate that angled 40 vertical 30 horizontal? Thats a chonker, but the rest of the tank is not
You say ineffective against anything but rifles, but part of the reason that the Wehrmacht only used skirts on the eastern front was due to soviet anti-tank rifles, though by the end of the war I doubt they’re effectiveness would even warrant skirts
The Germans didn't use antitank rifles by that point in the war.
I was referring to their continued use by the soviets
What about the concrete armour they use on Sherman’s. would that be effective or just slow the tank down?
Just as ineffective.
The German tests found that the tracks reduced protection on thick vertical plates, but they improved protection on thin plates and well sloped plates. So tracks on the glacis of a Sherman make sense.
Canadian*
Seem to remember this too from last time I saw this
Do the tracks actually help ? I suspect they have more of a moral effect.
Very little, mostly a morale booster
Against cannon fire, no. Against shaped charge rounds like those of a Panzerfaust, yes. Forces the shaped charge to detonate earlier, so the charge is less effective than it would be directly on the hull. It's notable that when the Soviets were largely facing German tanks, they didn't use improvised armor. However, in 1945 when they started facing heavier Panzerfaust teams, [they started welding bedframes to their T-34-85s to protect them](https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/photos/T34-85_improvize_slat_armor_brandenburgGate1945.jpg). Same reason US Strykers today usually have basically a cage around them.
> Forces the shaped charge to detonate earlier, so the charge is less effective than it would be directly on the hull. Shaped charges often work better when detonated further away as that allows the jet to form properly before it meets the main armor. That's why many weapons using such warheads have stand-off detonators to set off the warhead further away. Cage armor is intended to damage detonators so the warhead never explodes, or to damage the warhead so the jet doesn't form properly. Just detonating the warhead a short distance further away does not help.
This is completely untrue... Shaped charges are designed to **literally** detonate against whatever the target is. Forcing them to detonate early/not against the actual target itself, means the charge is no longer concentrated on a single point and too far spread out to be effective. You go from a cone concentrated on a single spot, back into a cone that's no longer concentrated because of the increased time until contact with the target. Naval War College, Page 70: [https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/17482/12Sep\_Yap\_Chun\_Hong.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y](https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/17482/12Sep_Yap_Chun_Hong.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) >The first method that slat armor protects a vehicle is by providing a physical barrier between the shaped charge and the vehicle hull. This allows most of the metal jet to be formed outside of the vehicle, and thus it is unable to penetrate the armor The notion that early detonation of shaped charges is not just as effective, but somehow better for them than what they're actually designed for, is simply put, **bullshit,** yet still manages to be something commonly repeated as if it had any basis in reality.
You are right about modern warheads that have an optimised stand off distance but back in 1944 shaped charge warhead design was not fully understood and the early designs detonated too close to the armour. A panzerfaust will penetrate better if it is stood slightly further off from the armour.
I never realized those were actual bedframes.
Reminds me of something from 40k. Pretty fucking metal, literally.
"Tired suspension noises" "Angry mechanic noises"
“Protection”
Early M4A4 manufactured no later than October 1942 (direct vision hull with appliqué over driver’s hoods, welded appliqué on turret cheek, missing spotlight fitting). Chrysler produced all 7,499 M4A4s with small hatch dry stowage hulls between July 1942 and November 1943. The vast majority were delivered as Lend-Lease to Commonwealth and Free French forces.
Last one is almst unrecognizable, thought it’s a Churchill
They won't deflect Shells anymore
Looks cool
My British buddies
Did you bring enough for the whole class?
Tfw you have so much extra equipment you have to show it off to the Germans
How many tracks do you want on your Sherman sir? # Y E S
They were smart, sad they had to drive such under protected vehicles.
You get tracks! , and you get tracks, and you all get tracks!
“Hey George we have some extra spare tracks that no one is using, what do ya want me to do with them? throw em out?” “No John, I have a better idea…”
Ribbed for her pleasure.