Tank Treads Used As Armor Re-Inforcement

LilJoe · Post by **LilJoe** » Fri Nov 09, 2001 6:52 pm

I once saw a picture of Gen. Patton chewing out a tank commander because he had strapped tank treads around his Sherman as a means of extra armor protection. Is anybody aware that this might have been a possible practise? If so, would it be logical to assume that you could increase tank toughness by a certain percentage in light of doing this?

G Van Horne · Post by **G Van Horne** » Fri Nov 09, 2001 10:43 pm

Yes, this type of extra protection was used often. From tracks, sandbags, to logs. It would cetainly provide a little more protection if not a little more confidence. There are a few pictures at http://www.inf.upol.cz/~stepanos/ww2.html that shows some "extra" armor.
Garth

Jeff_Ewing · Post by **Jeff_Ewing** » Fri Nov 09, 2001 11:01 pm

Originally posted by LilJoe:
would it be logical to assume that you could increase tank toughness by a certain percentage in light of doing this?

I've been meaning to suggest this for CL. A possibility of random increase in armor of maybe 1-30mm to account for field-expedient armor (logs, track, sandbags, etc.) and the huge amount of junk that one always seems to see strapped to the sides of US tanks.

Jeff

Tommy · Post by **Tommy** » Fri Nov 09, 2001 11:55 pm

Hey Guys,

I'll bet that this only had an effect on HEAT rounds; by causing premature detonation and a disruption of the molten jet. The AXIS didn't shoot to many of those!

For AP & APCR, they probably went right though it - hardly noticing.

The greatest effect was increasing the courage of the tankers and causing them to fight better.

Tommy

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sat Nov 10, 2001 12:25 am

Actually they ENHANCED the effectiveness of AP shells by reducing the effect of the armor slope. They had marginal utility against HEAT, but needed to be placed on racks about 6in to a foot standoff to really be effctive.

THis seemed to be a case of "if they have to go somewhere, I'll put them between me and the bullets" despite the fact it was of questionable actual effectiveness

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Sat Nov 10, 2001 2:49 am

Speaking of APCR...

How often did tanks actually carry it? And how many rounds.

It seems to me kinda silly to have it set up as a default ammo type for all vehicles all the time. I mean Mk IIs using it in Poland??

I can see most US tanks - maybe most British/Canadian tanks with limited rounds in '44-'45. More, of course, for specific operations.

But the Russians defaulting to it with all units? The USMC - who really didn;t have an armor threat in the PacTheater? The Germans - except maybe for certain SS units? The Italians or Early war British? The French?

Anyone out there an expert? How often did tanks really carry the silver bullets?

Alex

LilJoe · Post by **LilJoe** » Sat Nov 10, 2001 10:10 pm

I am going to increase my tank toughness by 10% to account for additional protective material strapped to the exterior. Does this sound true to life? Tank experts please comment!

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sat Nov 10, 2001 10:48 pm

Well folks armour is my life. Not only did the allies use extra treads but so too did the axis. And the allies armour could also be seen with additional armour plate welded on. They also tended to dump just about anything on the tanks actually, remember this was the home of the crew.

But this was all "in the field" activities. The actions of the crews (who not surprisingly liked any idea that seemed to keep them in one piece). Not all ideas were of course great ones.

Good source for images of this sort is any venue that tends to deal with making armour models. So look up any source that is specifically orriented to the plastic kit modeller.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sat Nov 10, 2001 10:58 pm

Adding 10% to armor toughness assumes they were more effective across the board. Both Allies and Axis issued orders to crews NOT to mount treads as additional armor becasue testing indicated tey casud shot traps for AP rounds that made otherwise ineffective hit effective. HEAT testing was inclucluive, but seemd to give a minor benefit - they could have rendered PFs almost impotent had they ben put on racks with a foot or so standoff. Then they also would have likely had an effect on capped AP too.

I would say as used it was a wash and not change the toughness.

Waylander · Post by **Waylander** » Sat Nov 10, 2001 11:09 pm

The practice has been discussed in many books and comes around all the time in the Mil forums.
The general consensus seems to be that they did as much harm as good. As was previously mentioned they did increase the morale of the Tankers. But the shot-trap incidence as paul pointed out went way up.
On another note, the hanging of "everything bar the garden sink" was generally attributed to the british tankers in the desert war, US tanks in general did not carry huge masses on any available space as their supply train was generally much closer.

regards
Freddie

pax27 · Post by **pax27** » Sat Nov 10, 2001 11:59 pm

Any one interested in modern tanks, or just as a comparison between WWII and modern armour can check out the Makeva hightech tank from Isreal and check out the "high-tech" ball and chain skirt it uses. Just to give you an idea of the different equipment one can use to get your tank to withstand the wear and tear of everyday use <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Sun Nov 11, 2001 1:07 am

It seems to have been a confidence thing. Crews feel the more 'stuff' between me and the enemy, the better. It's also a supply carry thing. I've even seen pix of fuel carried in drums and cans outside ACs and tanks. Which is a stupid thing to do when combat is imminent.

troopie

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Sun Nov 11, 2001 1:52 am

It seems to have been a confidence thing. Crews feel the more 'stuff' between me and the enemy, the better.

Yeah, like rivets and tip cups. Imagine a shell hitting a log for example, and imagine the splinters that must've been flying with some of the shell types. How would you like a tin cup bonking you on the head after it got knocked off? They could, however, pile a bunch of dirt all over the tank, so that when it got hit it would create an instant smoke screen <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> .

john g · Post by **john g** » Sun Nov 11, 2001 4:31 am

Originally posted by troopie:
It seems to have been a confidence thing. Crews feel the more 'stuff' between me and the enemy, the better. It's also a supply carry thing. I've even seen pix of fuel carried in drums and cans outside ACs and tanks. Which is a stupid thing to do when combat is imminent.

troopie

If my tank was to get hit and a fuel tank ruptured I sure would rather it be outside instead of inside the tank. The Soviets used to mount those drum shaped fuel tanks on the back of their tanks. Very important if you can't fuel up while in the midst of a breakthrough. You just keep driving until all that fuel is used up, or your tank gets ko'ed.

In the desert 41-42, those cans had about an even chance of carrying water instead of fuel, you can always not run the engine for a few days, but men require water every day.
thanks, John.

Jeff_Ewing · Post by **Jeff_Ewing** » Mon Nov 12, 2001 9:40 pm

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Adding 10% to armor toughness assumes they were more effective across the board. Both Allies and Axis issued orders to crews NOT to mount treads as additional armor becasue testing indicated tey casud shot traps for AP rounds that made otherwise ineffective hit effective.

Now that is *very* interesting. So now my suggestion for CL would be to have a chance of *reducing* the armor by a small random amount.

Jeff

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Tue Nov 13, 2001 1:32 am

Originally posted by john g:

... The Soviets used to mount those drum shaped fuel tanks on the back of their tanks....

I cannot say for other armies but Soviet diesel fuel did/does not readily ignite. Certainly it will burn but it takes more than tracers or a hot HE frag to ignite it.

Panzer Leo · Post by **Panzer Leo** » Tue Nov 13, 2001 4:37 am

Originally posted by Alexandra:
Speaking of APCR...

How often did tanks actually carry it? And how many rounds.

It seems to me kinda silly to have it set up as a default ammo type for all vehicles all the time. I mean Mk IIs using it in Poland??

I can see most US tanks - maybe most British/Canadian tanks with limited rounds in '44-'45. More, of course, for specific operations.

But the Russians defaulting to it with all units? The USMC - who really didn;t have an armor threat in the PacTheater? The Germans - except maybe for certain SS units? The Italians or Early war British? The French?

Anyone out there an expert? How often did tanks really carry the silver bullets?

Alex

I was searching for some material on this topic. The only good data I found sofar is for German APCR rounds (Panzergranate 40).
Production for 37mm started in 1940 with about 25% of all produced AP rounds.
20mm started in '41 and climbed up to 20% in '42.
The 50mm came also in 1941 with 25%. With the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, they were quite common.
Due to running out of resources (tungsten), production was almost stopped by the end of '42.
Stocks were used up in '43.
For 75mm and 88mm APCR rounds were developed, but never produced in any relevant numbers (can be seen as "non-existend").

The only info I got for Allied use of APCR are from GvA. The U.S. started to use them in August '44 and production number till end of war was at 10.000 per month (76mm). If you look up, how many 76mm guns were in use, it's easy to guess how rare they were.
I have a report of an U.S. tank commander, who was complaining about the tanks in his unit having only 4 rounds HVAP for a full campaign in March '45.

The British seem to have a larger amount available, but I couldn't find any numbers, just complains of U.S. tankers, who were jealeous on the amounts they saw in British tanks.

The only sources on Russian use of APCR I found were on GvA again (thinking they didn't use any during the war, but info is hard to come by) and the "Russian Military Zone", that claims 4 rounds per tank from mid '44 on. But due to the lack of any production numbers and some articles on this page, that seem to be a bit "mysterious" and regarding the usual quality of Russian rounds, I find this a bit hard to believe...

This is all I found and if someone has additional info, please dump it in...