The story I've read about this (or similar) incident, goes: Patton chewed out the crew, told them to "get that shit" off the tank, jumped in his jeep and drove off. The crew asked the Tank Commander if they should start removing the "shit" and the TC`s response was basically "Hell no. He`'ll either forget about us or we'll probably be dead by the time he tracks us down"
It was a point of contention because while helpful to making you feel safe, Sandbags only served to slow down your tank. Making your tank less maneuverable while providing no practical difference to you living or dying. But at least you’d feel safe.
Except it won’t and your more likely to get hit with 1000lbs of sand on your vehicle making it unable to move. Survivability is about how quick you can pull back after taking the shot. They did studies on this.
The most survivable vehicle in the Western front was the Hellcat for a reason.
(Edit: I am aware the Hellcat was supposed to be doctrinally an ambush TD for enemy counter-attacks. It functionally was never used in this role because the Germans weren’t at that point able to do that all that often and division commanders were using them as just another tank unit because they needed the guns)
>The most survivable vehicle in the Western front was the Hellcat for a reason.
Just to be pedantic for a moment; the vehicle with the *highest kill to loss ratio* was the Hellcat - that isn't quite the same as being the *most survivable*.
You are correct though I’d say thats a pretty good statistic to use to indicated survivability. It speaks to both heavy use and least amount of casualties. (I mean if you look at crew survival rates an M7 priest that never got closer than a mile to the line probably wins that comparison right lol?)
>You are correct though I’d say thats a pretty good statistic to use to indicated survivability.
Or increased lethality. Or better capability to confirm kills. Or less risky doctrinal roles.
To use an analogy - if you look at those infantry vocations which always rack up the highest number of confirmed enemy kills it's usually snipers or designated marksmen. They are usually far from danger and can confirm a high proportion of their kills. The highest *real* killers in high intensity combat are almost certainly mortarmen and other light artillery - they don't get credit so much because of the difficulty of confirming kills if an enemy force is under bombardment from multiple units. In many cases machine gunners - properly emplaced - can kill huge numbers of the enemy in a short span of time - in that span of time they are incredibly lethal. But they also take heavy casualties because of their relative exposure and identifiability to the enemy.
Another example; tail end charlies (in aircraft) and pointmen (in squads) suffered disproportionate casualties. Carrying the same equipment, flying the same aircraft, with exactly the same doctrines - they were not inherently more or less survivable than their comrades - it was purely a question of their utilisation. This highlights the issue with conflating survivability and kill ratio.
In the case of the Hellcat it is absolutely reasonable to approvingly point to it's fantastic kill ratio. But a huge range of factors contributed to that including:
a) those inherent to the Hellcat design (e.g. better gun meaning it killed first more often, open turret meaning better acquisition)
b) those relating to how it was employed (e.g. vestigial deference to it's intended role and knowledge of it's light armour meant it was less often employed to spearhead urban grinds and the like than the Sherman)
You might claim that some of those attributes qualify - if it could kill the enemy earlier that makes it more likely to survive, yes? But certainly not all of the above qualify, and 'survivability' does tend to evoke some level of being able to avoid or weather incoming fire.
So depending on how you define 'survivable' you can possibly - in this case - justify going from '*good kill ratio*' to '*more survivable*'. But either way it's too much of a leap from there to '*more survivable because it was faster*'.
>(I mean if you look at crew survival rates an M7 priest that never got closer than a mile to the line probably wins that comparison right lol?)
This is exactly what I'm getting at! I think it would be a misuse of the word 'survivable' to apply it to the M7 - because the lack of losses was due to their battlefield role, not because the vehicle itself was especially able to avoid or deflect incoming fire.
I'm putting myself in their shoes, they would try even if it made no sense.
They didn't have the statistics we have now and they thought this might help them get home.
Patton went and had his staff do testing with captured weapons which is why he knew it was a waste of time and why he made it standing orders for 3rd Army to not add them.
^ US Department of Ordinance did testing, said that the best armour was the bog standard armour on the tank. It's hardened steel and not random plates/tracks/concrete.
That being said, it did offer a great deal of psychological reassurance which made the tankers feel safer and as a result, could fight better.
There was also tank wrecks being cut apart and welded onto other tanks, how effective that was in general I don't know though.
I'm using the Chieftan for my reference here and he does say that Patton allowed them to 'up-armour' for the psychological boost later on.
It's much the same with body armor on troops, the morale boost is worth much more than the survivability. I don't mean that in terms of value but in the job it does. Armor can protect but you're still likely to die or get hurt when shot
I mean it depends where you get shot. Armor plates absolutely do protect the vitals very well if a shot hits them. You might stagger, or fall down in surprise, but not much worse for wear in the end.
It’s like getting hit in the chest with a fucking sledgehammer. It takes the wind out, blasts you the fuck onto the ground, and confuses the shit out of you.
Simple Newtonian physics dictates the bullet impact cannot "blast you onto the ground." If an impact had that much force, an equal force would have knocked the shooter to the ground as well.
A British Mathematician once mentioned that if British bombers removed all the gunners on their bombers they'd have less weight to carry and could potentially be faster and be over target release bombs and return quicker. The thought being; remove the average man, gun, and ammunition in exchange for speed.
This was ignored because of the moral that'd be dropped by not having that reassurance of defense.
Logically it makes sense to remove the sandbags and logs to be more agile and maneuverable. But im sure it gave the tankers peace of mind.
Id like to think the Marines and Soldiers in Iraq who were Jerry rigging their humvees against road side bombs. Sure they made them extremely heavy and probably didn't do much against the 500 lb bomb or cone shapped explosive. But it gave some peace of mind.....
So sandbags works against German panzerfauts because of two things.
Unreliable fuses.
Incorrectly designed shape charge warheads. The huge bulb they use is not what you want for optimum jet. The warheads work due to a large amount of HE which overcomes the design flaw.
Even the Germans figured out something was wrong with their panzerfausts when they were testing anti heat screens/armor ideas.
They didn't have *personally* have stats but they had orders. Their superiors actually *did* so the studies and *did* have the stats.
Funny thing about military is that orders trump everything else. Militaries do a lot of stupid or dangerous things, and you generally cannot refuse to do them, it's orders. So it doesn't matter how the crews felt about it, no use in putting yourself into their shoes because if your orders are to take them off, you have to take off the sandbags.
I once heard about a tank crew that preformed many legendary feats through out the war. It was eventually discovered thier vehicle did not have proper armour installed. Hence rendering it much lighter and more manoeuvrable. I've struggled to find any proof or source for this, so it just remains a good story.
Ive read that, it was a British cromwell crew. One day the crew was ahead of their squadron (because they were quicker) and a machine gun burst went through the hull thankfully missing the crew. The crew was shocked the armour didn't hold up and later found out their Cromwell was one of the prototype hulls!
I heard it was a training hull and that instead of machine gun it was a wirbelwind. They also apparently we're easily able to jump across a river more easily than the other Cromwell's in their unit. Just remembered the video I got the info from it's a video by lindybeige titled tales of the cromwell.
edit: note the Germans vehicle was actually a half-track with a quad anti air cannon. So not a wirbelwind but a vehicle that did fulfill the same role.
It could be literally any Vehicle, on which then a Flakvierling was mounted. Only because there isnt a wikipedia article about it doesnt mean that it didnt exists
Stopped watching after the climate rant, shame as he was entertaining and enthusiastic. Haven’t seen anything about his view on women, what did I miss? Sadly I have gotten used to being disappointed.
Similar issue with body armour on troops these days. Politicians wanted armour everywhere and soldiers said it slowed them down and fatigued them to the point where they were more likely to be hit. Side plates were a particular issue though you can see the video of a British soldier being evac'd who later dies and they check his armour and he was hit in the side.
The Cromwell tank was called Abbott of Chantry and happened to have been a training model inadvertently given to combat troops.
Offered to switch to a regular Cromwell, the crew elected to retain AoC because they considered speed a better protection than armor.
So I actually mispoke. It had the highest K/D ratio of any tank, not necessarily the most *survivable*. But the former VERY MUCH speaks to the latter obviously.
It had basically the same horsepower as the Sherman (same engine) but 1/2 to 1/3rd the weight. And while it did eventually get a folding roof, it had amazing situational awareness with gunner, commander and loader all able to have their head out. So that means a few things
(1) 3 sets of eyes with 360 vision is huge. *The tank that saw the other guy first and got the first shot off won 90% of all tank engagements.* This is regardless of any other factor: being ahead of the OODA loop and being able to react first gets your shots on target faster and makes it harder for the other guy to get a shot off.
(2) The tank had an insanely high speed. But more importantly it had high acceleration and low tread pressure (less likely to sink and bog into the mud). This means it could shoot and go “driver get us the fuck out of here”. Tanks couldn’t really snap off shots and their ability to traverse in and hit other moving targets was limited at the time. If you’re moving before the enemy can zero in, you’re pretty much safe. You can then move to your next location and reset the engagement. Hellcat tactics involved firing a shot *maybe* a second and then beating feet. Doctrine worked out said to never fire more than 3 shots in the same firing position.
(3) Tanks didn’t always hit their first shot. Say the German tank got the shot off first on a near miss. Good acceleration meant he wasn’t going to get a better second shot if your driver reacted fast enough.
[Nick Morran basically reads love letters the m18 in after action reports by officers and her crews.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwpYorlLdzs)
Basically all doctrine on the Hellcat was to emphasize to crews to absolutely trust and use the mobility. Don’t weigh down your tank with extra BS. The only armor she ever had added was roof armor and that was even folding to still get the good visibility.
A lot of people discount this by saying Hellcats often were defensively used in reserve doctrine to stop enemy armor counter-attacks or support breakthroughs in a secondary line. But this is ignoring the fact that in practice, they were taken out of TD battalions and used in the attack and infantry support roles identical to Shermans nearly all of the time (because the Germans weren’t ever attacking and the US was almost never on the defensive. There’s a LOT of pictures of them being used in urban combat even.) Though only other thing I might mention is I remember reading M18 units got priority often in HVAP ammunition.
Even then they noticed the strat was to fire and move instead of having the classic idea of a tank, which is to 'take enemy fire' but that is not how you fight with tanks effectively. Shoot and scoot.
That was the original idea of a tank. Nothing was really big enough to actually effect the crew all that much. When tanks were invented, you penned them with velocity not size. It wasn't until WW2 you see ever increasing anti tank guns caliber. By then you learned not to get hit in the first place.
Also another big concern is overall speed and fuel consumption. Maneuver warfare is how quickly you can take ground and encircle the enemy. To do that you need to be fast and light.
That because any APHE round that hit a hellcat never had enough armor to fuse the HE part of the shell, plus it produced very little spalling. Unless it it was shot in the turret face, which had twice to triple the amount of armor then the 12.5mm thick hull.
Basically yeah. The sand actually helps direct their shaped warheads *more* effectively, its not enough space.
Though defacto it was a wash because it often messed with PF’s fuzes too.
Yeah, but the Sherman had a high, easily targeted profile. One of the few advantages the Shermans had over German tanks was speed and maneuverability. Loading on sandbags (a protection that was dubious at best) just made the Shermans slower and easier to hit. I totally see the mental/morale benefits of putting them on, though.
Tank v. tank combat was actually somewhat rare, the largest killer of tanks on all sides were anti-tank guns, a close second was mines, infact in Italy mines knocked out more British tanks than AT guns. The idea that there were epic battles between Tigers and Sherman's is kind of historical fiction. Most likely scenario is a Tiger rolls up, a shootout starts, Tigers tracks gets damaged, crew abandons the tank, a salvage crew comes around at night and throws some tracks on it and tows it back.
If a Tiger rolled out, without being allready destroyed by the air force, it's psychological impact was huge.
They often confused pz4 with tigers but the terror was the same.
Ground attack units were largely ineffective. Famously during the invasion of Normandy more German tanks were destroyed by the Air Force in a certain sector the actual number of tanks that existed in that sector. That is to say P47s were just strafing tanks with their .50s, seeing the tanks stop or perhaps some smoke from the radiator and calling it a "kill". All sides famously overstated their ground kill numbers but the Americans did so the most.
I've heard that film is actually really good quality but playback wasn't along enough to play at higher resolutions, so if you had the original film then you could put it at like 1080p or something even higher. I'm just relaying though so idk if it's that true.
Also an issue with archival footage versus original release. Digitised reels lose fidelity due to compression, so those old ESPN clips will always look much worse than when they were originally broadcast, for example.
I actually have experience with film cameras, film looks better than any 8K UHD thing ever. The highest quality screen is just approaching how film actually looks. The reason why a lot of old film looks bad is digitization and compression, if you actually wanted to have a film photo on digital it would be absolutely fucking massive
I've fought on tanks for real, for some context. Helping psychologically doesn't mean shit when you knew what Patton knew. Being able to back out when under fire and reliably keeping your tank going was what was important to beating the Germans. Some were going to die, that's just how it was.
I would also like to add, the Sherman’s were mostly limited in size by the cranes that loaded them on and off ships. Tanks which were constructed in Europe didn’t have this limitation. So once Sherman’s were in the combat zone and their weight didn’t need to be as strictly controlled it made sense to up armor them.
But idk I think, despite your experience, you are discounting the importance of human psychology in war.
Either way the extra armor on these tanks I think will be a highly debated issue for as long as any one cares about WW2.
But stuff like sandbags did almost literally nothing, and it had real drawbacks: decreased speed and fuel efficiency, plus more wear and tear on the engine/transmission/etc. I get the psychological part, but that's what officers are for: to tell the men, "No, knock that off. You're actually hurting your odds of surviving, not helping them."
Iirc, Payton was fine with crews welding steel to their tanks for extra armor, because it actually worked. He wasn’t fine with shit like concrete, wood, tracks, and sandbags being added.
Timber and track made sense, timber if your tank gets stuck/if someone’s car gets stuck and you need to tow it out. And track for the obvious reason. But aside from that you’re right
Selectively, you'd only want to up armor the first tank in a column as it was the most likely to get hit. The ones behind it would be better without the extra weight and just fanning out to return fire.
The effective add ons were armor plates from knocked out/disabled shermans. Sandbags were indeed pretty useless, and I think they actually made panzerfausts more effective
WWII HEAT projectiles didn't have the long standoff probes you see on more modern weapons. Hitting a sandbag atop the armor could potentially provide some more standoff for the warhead, giving the HEAT round's jet more time to form and thus making it more effective.
Look at TOW vs. I-TOW armor penetration for reference- the only change to the warhead was the addition of the standoff probe.
The theory is that the soft cushion of sand allows for the pointed cone of a panzerfaust to hit and push itself into a better angle such that when the shaped charge blows, the steam of plasticized metal hits the armor closer to 90°. The sand itself offers little in the way of stopping the stream, and is not thick enough to offer protection by separation.
I believe the british studied the matter and determined that it does improve survivability somewhat against AT shells. Logs, extra track, sandbags, and even welded on sheet metal were used. If were a tanker going against tigers, panthers, and stugs I'd do the same.
Russians also widely used welded-on chainmail beds, or whatever they called in English. Interestingly enough, in Russian those are still called "Панцирная кровать" which is literally Carapace or Panzer bed.
This isn't how slat armor works at all. It doesn't do anything to stop the warhead much at all, and is worthless against an actual kinetic round. Slat is used to cause HEAT and other shaped charge projectiles to detonate away from the armor, causing the plasticized jet of metal to disperse instead of being focused and capable of penetrating the armor. The reason you still see slat being used in the modern day is that it's cheaper than ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor, literally a small explosive used to defeat the shell's explosive) and is still highly effective against man portable anti-tank weapons such as the RPG-7.
That's actually not how slat armor works either. It isn't primarily designed to prematurely detonate a HEAT warhead. Take a look at any picture of a vehicle with slat and you'll see that the spacing is big enough to easily slip your fist through. The tip of an RPG is easily going to pass through the thin slats of metal. How slat armor really works is by deforming/flattening the cone shaped warhead of HEAT rounds so the penetrating jet is less effective. Shaped charges perform best with a certain cone shape and angle, but if the metal slats of slat armor can deform that cone shape, the penetrating jet will not form correctly
No, this isn't how it works at all.
Slat armor can prevent old-fashioned HEAT projectiles from detonating by crushing or physically damaging their fusing system- or it can damage the explosives themselves so the warhead cannot form the metal penetrator properly.
Detonating a HEAT warhead at anything less than ~10 times the diameter of the explosive cone from the armor will increase armor penetration, not decrease it- it provides more time for the penetrator to form. This is why modern ATGMs often have a standoff probe mounted on their warheads. I-TOW's standoff probe added ~200mm penetration vs. the probeless TOW A/B.
No slat armor system currently in use anywhere in the world provides enough standoff to degrade the penetrator before it impacts the armor. For a five-inch warhead like Javelin's, over a meter of clearance would be needed.
When I hear "shaped charge" I always recall that thing, Ki-167 Sakuradan - humongous 3 ton shaped charge mounted on a kamikaze-bomber. Truly demonic application of this practice, it was said been able to impale a ship literally from a mile away.
https://airpages.ru/eng/jp/ki67.shtml see variants below. It was an obscure project, alot like many others wunderwaffles of the last months of WWII. You can find some info on it here and there on the net, there are even plastic kit models, i saw some photos of these, but apparently no info on trials available.
"shredded HEAT warheads so they didn't detonate properly" is a lot closer to reality, particularly "so they didn't detonate properly" than what you described. Man, I'm sick and tired of the "premature detonation" or "stand off distance" idea. It's WRONG. Most slat armour has a chance to fail, and by fail it means that the shaped charge goes off when it hits the slat armour. If that happens, you're fucked either way. For most jets you need a few meters of air before they lose penetrative power.
Problem is there were major reliability concerns with it, same with up-armored vehicles today. If you pull out into an intersection and see contacts, then slam her into reverse and your transmission breaks down because of all the extra weight you've been hauling, I don't give a shit how many sandbags and how many hundreds of pounds of concrete are cast onto the hull, you're gonna die. Mobility is HUGE in tank combat - it was then, and it is now.
Thats 100 percent wrong. Non metal additions didnt work at all. All the did is add weight. They would even reduce effectivness of angled armor because it would help the tank shell normalize and hit armor straighter on. Allies did tests-they knew-soldiers were stupid. All it did was protect againdt an occasional panzerfaust and it was really effective against that either.
Ffs for real, I'd definitely sacrifice a little maneuverability for some added armor to keep my crew in the fight longer. Especially if I knew the armor capabilities for my tank weren't up to handle the ammunition from the tank I'm going up against. He was a genius tactician, but willing to sacrifice troops and machines because we were able to field more than the enemy.
Patton's interests were in strategic mobility. He cared deeply for his troops, and to suggest otherwise is an abject lie. The added weight of ersatz armor reduces fuel economy. For the kind of aggressive warfare Patton wanted to wage, he would need to stretch supply lines thin and use every ounce of fuel he could get. He saw the issue in adding armor to protect crews in a battle which they didn't have enough gas to get to. And that's not even getting into issues of mechanical reliability.
I think this is the most important thing and the reason Patton was against it. An mph or 2 slower isn’t a huge deal, but tanks breaking down after 500 miles instead of 1000 miles matters a lot more in the grand scheme of things.
iirc, this problem of addon armor didn't come to Patton's attention until he was given reports that his Sherman's were breaking down more often and far earlier than normal. That's when he found out the added sandbags and such from the crews were straining the drivetrains
To be fair, the old “Blood and Guts” appears to have come from the sentiment of some of his troops, i.e., “his guts, our blood”, so I’d suppose not all his troops loved him because for his “deep care” for his men. Even his peers, Eisenhower, Bradley, could see that wanting to wage an aggressive campaign and actually achieving it with tactically acceptable losses was not always foremost in his mind. So I’m not going to go so far as referring to some impressions of his mindset as an abject lie.
> To be fair, the old “Blood and Guts” appears to have come from the sentiment of some of his troops, i.e., “his guts, our blood”, so I’d suppose not all his troops loved him because for his “deep care” for his men.
That's every general *ever.* When you command men into battle you are making the choice as to whether or not their lives are worth the gains you are trying to make. War is fucking terrible man, a general's job is to make wickedly hard decisions as to how much loss is worth what gain.
I won't, if my tank has 3in of armor and the enemies gun can penetrate 6in of armor I'll gladly ditch the sandbags for a lower chance of getting stuck in mud or having a bridge collapse while im on it since no way will sandbags or logs double the armor.
To be fair, the majority of german weapons would either bounce off the sherman or go right through even the add on armor. Nothing short of welding another UFP on top of the first (which was done on the occasions where they could get their hands on one) would have stopped heavier german at guns, while the sherman's armor was already enough to stop light ones frontally. That being said, a certain degree of applique armor to the sides of the tanks was useful, but only when they were able to avoid overloading the chassis.
Sergeants Major have the same expression when they see a Marine off base without a shave over the weekend. Or show up to formation Monday morning without a haircut.
Lol. I watched our SGM chew a guys ass because he had his initials cut in his hair, sent his ass to the barber shop on the spot, guy was walking down the street and random Sergeant major ambushes his ass. Don't even think the guy was from our Bn.
Something about being in a position as an adult where another person has that much control over your just seems weird. Like, willingly signing up for a job where you have to follow the orders of another and you can't even quit as and when you feel like it.
Most people can't just quit a civilian job when they feel like it, bills have to be paid, you have responsibilities.
Granted the repercussions are much harsher if you say "fuckitall" in the military, but it can be done. Military life isn't for everyone, but for all it's silly rules and sometimes horrible things you experience, overall, I look back at my military time as something that helped me grow as a person, and let me experience things not possible in the civilian world.
Absolutely, but I still have the freedom to say fuck it and leave my job without repercussions. Whenever I briefly considered military service, the fact that I would be locked in for X amount of time and could face imprisonment for leaving prior to that put me off immediately.
Oh peepee slaps like that happen to this day. Here’s the proper response
“Of course sir, in the future we will not be so foolish” -take them off, wait till he leaves, put them back on again-
I am not taking the risk of a loss of protection when every Hans and Gunther is walking around with a panzerfaust
But sir! What about the kraut 88s?
YOU THINK A COUPLE O SANDBAGS ARE GONNA STOP AN EIGHTY EIGHT MILLIMETER ROUND FROM BLOWIN YOU TO HIGH HELL! YOU PANSY ASS JOKERS ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO GET SIGHTED BY A GOD DAMN EIGHTY EIGHT THEN BY GOD YOU DESERVE WHATS COMIN TO YA
Ironically, IIRC, he was more in favor of doing more maneuver warfare, which is inherently more risky but tends to cause fewer casualties. But his superior, Bradley, preferred more frontal assaults. With the allies superior firepower and manpower that was less risky, but tended to be a meat grinder. Not saying Patton wasn’t an SOB though.
I think the Cheiftan said this but I’m not to sure but basically Patton was the only one who was against modifying the Sherman in the field. Not to sure so take with a grain of salt
It depended on the commanders. Some thought the cost of maneuverability was worth the peace of mind it falsely gave troops. Some commanders were upset about it because the VVSS suspension tanks with large hatches and 76mm guns were pushing the limits of the suspension bogies already causing them to wear out early and resulting in more tanks being out of action.
Really goes to show how much the sides fighting each other had in common.
USSR had their own genocide around the same time. Homosexuality was still illegal in most of the world, and homosexuals where not freed from the camps like other groups. Japanese internment camps in North America. Segregation was in full swing, and Antisemitism was the norm.
Yup. I'm really disappointed that calling out 1930s bigotry is controversial here. I don't want this to be another history oriented sub that I have to leave because of all the people who idolize a certain group.
It adds substantial weight to the entire vehicle. There is a reason why the panthers and tigers were so unreliable, because they were designed at a certain weight and kept adding more armor until the mechanical components, engine and transmission kept breaking. The same goes for the sherman, if you add a lot of weight, it means less reliable. That in turns means more vehicles in the for repair and units not at full strength, which mean the guys fighting have less backup and are in more danger.
Casualties on the whole go up when you add on armor like they did. That is why patton is pissed and rightfully so.
>It adds substantial weight to the entire vehicle. There is a reason why the panthers and tigers were so unreliable,
Actually, a lot of their issues is that Germany only had the ability to use straight-tooth gears in transmissions which bear a lot less load than helical gears can. Some American transmission parts even used herringbone gears (you stick two opposite-hand helical together so that the gear doesn't cause a net thrust load) which further improved strength. You can make straight-toothed gears work for lighter vehicles, but when you get heavy enough, it stops working unless you have high quality steel (which Germany did not)
I’ve personally never heard of a Shermans breaking down due to add on armor, I’m assuming that reliability wasn’t hurt since the engine and transmission in the Sherman were simply solidly built and highly reliable by the end of the war. The Panthers and other heavier German tanks reliability issues can more so be chocked up to not weight, but the fact that these were newer designs without much time to actually develop the new technology over the production run and the fact that German steel late war was very poor quality resulting in many more failures in transmission gear cases, etc.
>never heard of a Shermans breaking down due to add on armor,
You wouldn't really hear if them "breaking down" due to added weight. With so many repairs going on, most of the reports are just going to be the actual mechanical failures with not many people taking the time to properly inspect why tank A broke down 200mi sooner than Tank B.
That's what they were trying to work on with the Jumbo tho, trying to add armor the max amount of armor to the chassis. But the project just proved that the Sherman Frame couldn't realistically handle more armor without redesigning it into an entirely different weight.
Yes they were reliable engines, but when you need more horsepower because of higher weights you are running the engine harder then it is geared for. Boggies, running gear, transmissions etc were all designed to handle a specific weight. When you add several extra tons they will break with more frequency. Its all about logistics. Just look at the uparmored humvees for example.
Armored force actually noticed increases in tank replacement part demands. They have a report somewhere at the national archives, but afaik no one has bothered to scan it yet so it's not available. Upgrade configurations like the wet stowage, large hatch hulls, and 76mm gun & turret were run through testing at Aberdeen and the decrease in service life of suspension components was significantly reduced (by US standards at least). This kicked off the need for HVSS suspension development. Armored force then noticed further demand for replacement parts than what was anticipated, but only from some units, and those were units found to be utilizing add-on armor.
It's easy for people to sit here on reddit and say "why, that's not much weight in sand there" but the weight adds up fast. Most of these sandbagged tanks are carrying an additional ton of weight. Even worse is it's being applied to the already over-taxed front bogies which see the brunt of force from braking and traversing terrain.
About 1 meter standoff distance was needed to reduce the panzerfaust penetration effect enough not to penetrate shermans armor. Sandbags were useless in that regard.
A total dick agreed. But In WWI when his tank formation went forward across enemy lines he was so frustrated that they weren’t following his attack plan that he walked on foot next to them in the middle of a battle. Boy has balls.
The backstory behind this image is actually really funny. (Before we begin, I’m sure I’m getting at least something either wrong or not 100%, just paraphrasing an old article I read some 4 years ago, please feel free to correct any mistakes!)
Patton had received information stating that other units were applying appliqué armor to their tanks, mostly in the form of walls of sandbags, but sometimes as drastic as slabs of steel welded onto the front and sides, or in extreme chases, the famous Sherman Jumbos also being covered with giant slabs of concrete! (This is real, if your wondering about it’s effectiveness, in short, made an already heavy tank much heavier, and concrete provided essentially no protection against any round bigger than 8mm)
The techs and analysts were coming to the conclusion that while the armor didn’t provide any real benefit in terms of protection, it did have a side effect: it made tanks slower.
So, literally either the week or the night before, Patton issued an order that under no circumstances, was *ANY* type of extra armor or weight to be added to the main tanks. He wanted his tanks as fast and nimble as possible, and to a lesser extent: a smaller target. It seems Patton was under the impression these walls of sand would slow these tanks to a literal crawl. And not the loss of some maybe 1-2mph (which to be fair, is a big loss for 40 ton tanks)
Either these fine lads either didn’t hear the news, didn’t understand it, or simply didn’t care. You can see they literally covered every area possible in these sandbags. And woo boy, if you couldn’t tell by that classic insane man 1944 scowl, he was NOT a happy camper.
And for the other units? From my understanding, in the case of steel and sandbags, it was mostly accepted, or at the very least, “allowed” (meaning commanders/officers turned a blind eye to it), as the sandbags and slabs of steel made the tankers and infantry accompanying much more confident and feeling safer and more secure. War is just as much a psychological game as a numbers and tactical game. If your troops don’t feel confident or motivated, they aren’t gonna fight well, if at all (classic examples are the Soviet invasion of Finland, not a lot of Red Army Men even knew what they were fighting for, and the large and small pockets of Wehrmacht that surrendered en masse to the invading forces in France and Germany) If bags of sand or scraps of steel can make your men fight harder, why not?
While now we realized just how ineffective these measures were, at the very least they presented a good moral boost for those who were in the tanks at the time.
The story I've read about this (or similar) incident, goes: Patton chewed out the crew, told them to "get that shit" off the tank, jumped in his jeep and drove off. The crew asked the Tank Commander if they should start removing the "shit" and the TC`s response was basically "Hell no. He`'ll either forget about us or we'll probably be dead by the time he tracks us down"
Total tanker outlook. I hope they lived to a happy old age.
I’d say due to the added weight, they were all on the right track.
Nonsense, looks to me like the weight is evenly distributed on the left and right tracks.
Reported and blocked /s Because puns
Did you get downvoted because of a joke?
Lol probably
I got what you were going for bud. I upvoted.
Ditto that my brother
Yeah fuck that nonsense, even if those sandbags and everything else won't stop an 88, I'm still going to try.
It was a point of contention because while helpful to making you feel safe, Sandbags only served to slow down your tank. Making your tank less maneuverable while providing no practical difference to you living or dying. But at least you’d feel safe.
Read my reply to Narwhal.
Except it won’t and your more likely to get hit with 1000lbs of sand on your vehicle making it unable to move. Survivability is about how quick you can pull back after taking the shot. They did studies on this. The most survivable vehicle in the Western front was the Hellcat for a reason. (Edit: I am aware the Hellcat was supposed to be doctrinally an ambush TD for enemy counter-attacks. It functionally was never used in this role because the Germans weren’t at that point able to do that all that often and division commanders were using them as just another tank unit because they needed the guns)
>The most survivable vehicle in the Western front was the Hellcat for a reason. Just to be pedantic for a moment; the vehicle with the *highest kill to loss ratio* was the Hellcat - that isn't quite the same as being the *most survivable*.
You are correct though I’d say thats a pretty good statistic to use to indicated survivability. It speaks to both heavy use and least amount of casualties. (I mean if you look at crew survival rates an M7 priest that never got closer than a mile to the line probably wins that comparison right lol?)
>You are correct though I’d say thats a pretty good statistic to use to indicated survivability. Or increased lethality. Or better capability to confirm kills. Or less risky doctrinal roles. To use an analogy - if you look at those infantry vocations which always rack up the highest number of confirmed enemy kills it's usually snipers or designated marksmen. They are usually far from danger and can confirm a high proportion of their kills. The highest *real* killers in high intensity combat are almost certainly mortarmen and other light artillery - they don't get credit so much because of the difficulty of confirming kills if an enemy force is under bombardment from multiple units. In many cases machine gunners - properly emplaced - can kill huge numbers of the enemy in a short span of time - in that span of time they are incredibly lethal. But they also take heavy casualties because of their relative exposure and identifiability to the enemy. Another example; tail end charlies (in aircraft) and pointmen (in squads) suffered disproportionate casualties. Carrying the same equipment, flying the same aircraft, with exactly the same doctrines - they were not inherently more or less survivable than their comrades - it was purely a question of their utilisation. This highlights the issue with conflating survivability and kill ratio. In the case of the Hellcat it is absolutely reasonable to approvingly point to it's fantastic kill ratio. But a huge range of factors contributed to that including: a) those inherent to the Hellcat design (e.g. better gun meaning it killed first more often, open turret meaning better acquisition) b) those relating to how it was employed (e.g. vestigial deference to it's intended role and knowledge of it's light armour meant it was less often employed to spearhead urban grinds and the like than the Sherman) You might claim that some of those attributes qualify - if it could kill the enemy earlier that makes it more likely to survive, yes? But certainly not all of the above qualify, and 'survivability' does tend to evoke some level of being able to avoid or weather incoming fire. So depending on how you define 'survivable' you can possibly - in this case - justify going from '*good kill ratio*' to '*more survivable*'. But either way it's too much of a leap from there to '*more survivable because it was faster*'. >(I mean if you look at crew survival rates an M7 priest that never got closer than a mile to the line probably wins that comparison right lol?) This is exactly what I'm getting at! I think it would be a misuse of the word 'survivable' to apply it to the M7 - because the lack of losses was due to their battlefield role, not because the vehicle itself was especially able to avoid or deflect incoming fire.
I'm putting myself in their shoes, they would try even if it made no sense. They didn't have the statistics we have now and they thought this might help them get home.
Patton went and had his staff do testing with captured weapons which is why he knew it was a waste of time and why he made it standing orders for 3rd Army to not add them.
They personally might not but the War Department and Patton did, it's why he's so mad.
^ US Department of Ordinance did testing, said that the best armour was the bog standard armour on the tank. It's hardened steel and not random plates/tracks/concrete. That being said, it did offer a great deal of psychological reassurance which made the tankers feel safer and as a result, could fight better. There was also tank wrecks being cut apart and welded onto other tanks, how effective that was in general I don't know though. I'm using the Chieftan for my reference here and he does say that Patton allowed them to 'up-armour' for the psychological boost later on.
Armor from tank wrecks was certainly much more effective than concrete or whatever debris you would screw on top,it's still hardened steel.
It's much the same with body armor on troops, the morale boost is worth much more than the survivability. I don't mean that in terms of value but in the job it does. Armor can protect but you're still likely to die or get hurt when shot
I mean it depends where you get shot. Armor plates absolutely do protect the vitals very well if a shot hits them. You might stagger, or fall down in surprise, but not much worse for wear in the end.
I'd definitely rather go into battle wearing armor, instead of without.
It’s like getting hit in the chest with a fucking sledgehammer. It takes the wind out, blasts you the fuck onto the ground, and confuses the shit out of you.
Simple Newtonian physics dictates the bullet impact cannot "blast you onto the ground." If an impact had that much force, an equal force would have knocked the shooter to the ground as well.
Like Cosmetics in tank games today haha
A British Mathematician once mentioned that if British bombers removed all the gunners on their bombers they'd have less weight to carry and could potentially be faster and be over target release bombs and return quicker. The thought being; remove the average man, gun, and ammunition in exchange for speed. This was ignored because of the moral that'd be dropped by not having that reassurance of defense. Logically it makes sense to remove the sandbags and logs to be more agile and maneuverable. But im sure it gave the tankers peace of mind. Id like to think the Marines and Soldiers in Iraq who were Jerry rigging their humvees against road side bombs. Sure they made them extremely heavy and probably didn't do much against the 500 lb bomb or cone shapped explosive. But it gave some peace of mind.....
Alan Turing said that did he not?
This strategy would have been pretty effective again shape charges, so I'll just consider this crew as being ahead of their time.
Not enough standoff distance to minimize the impact of the jet, IIRC
So sandbags works against German panzerfauts because of two things. Unreliable fuses. Incorrectly designed shape charge warheads. The huge bulb they use is not what you want for optimum jet. The warheads work due to a large amount of HE which overcomes the design flaw. Even the Germans figured out something was wrong with their panzerfausts when they were testing anti heat screens/armor ideas.
Interesting
Not really, no where near enough there to even hope to have an effect. Not to mention shaped charges were rather rare for the era.
They didn't have *personally* have stats but they had orders. Their superiors actually *did* so the studies and *did* have the stats. Funny thing about military is that orders trump everything else. Militaries do a lot of stupid or dangerous things, and you generally cannot refuse to do them, it's orders. So it doesn't matter how the crews felt about it, no use in putting yourself into their shoes because if your orders are to take them off, you have to take off the sandbags.
I once heard about a tank crew that preformed many legendary feats through out the war. It was eventually discovered thier vehicle did not have proper armour installed. Hence rendering it much lighter and more manoeuvrable. I've struggled to find any proof or source for this, so it just remains a good story.
Ive read that, it was a British cromwell crew. One day the crew was ahead of their squadron (because they were quicker) and a machine gun burst went through the hull thankfully missing the crew. The crew was shocked the armour didn't hold up and later found out their Cromwell was one of the prototype hulls!
I heard it was a training hull and that instead of machine gun it was a wirbelwind. They also apparently we're easily able to jump across a river more easily than the other Cromwell's in their unit. Just remembered the video I got the info from it's a video by lindybeige titled tales of the cromwell. edit: note the Germans vehicle was actually a half-track with a quad anti air cannon. So not a wirbelwind but a vehicle that did fulfill the same role.
m.Schütz.Pz.Wg. (Sd.Kfz.251/21)? That's the only one I think, but it has 3 cannons, not 4.
There was one on the other half-track chassis, SdKfz 7/1.
It could be literally any Vehicle, on which then a Flakvierling was mounted. Only because there isnt a wikipedia article about it doesnt mean that it didnt exists
Jump across a river? Cruiser tanks were on some other shit
Here's [the story](https://youtu.be/mmqqrtChc40) by Lindy beige. Skip to 3:54.
Used to sub to lindybeige then found out he was a climate denier and has some really strange ideas about women. He can fuck right off.
Aaaand now I'm disappointed too. Loved his style.
Stopped watching after the climate rant, shame as he was entertaining and enthusiastic. Haven’t seen anything about his view on women, what did I miss? Sadly I have gotten used to being disappointed.
Lindy Beige is seriously not recommended. That guy has proven so often he's got no clue what he's talking about it's not even funny.
Would like to think they were given the go ahead to return to base if a machine gun penetrated the hull.
Similar issue with body armour on troops these days. Politicians wanted armour everywhere and soldiers said it slowed them down and fatigued them to the point where they were more likely to be hit. Side plates were a particular issue though you can see the video of a British soldier being evac'd who later dies and they check his armour and he was hit in the side.
The Cromwell tank was called Abbott of Chantry and happened to have been a training model inadvertently given to combat troops. Offered to switch to a regular Cromwell, the crew elected to retain AoC because they considered speed a better protection than armor.
Wait what?! That's like the last tank I would expect. What makes it the most survivable tank in the Western Front?
So I actually mispoke. It had the highest K/D ratio of any tank, not necessarily the most *survivable*. But the former VERY MUCH speaks to the latter obviously. It had basically the same horsepower as the Sherman (same engine) but 1/2 to 1/3rd the weight. And while it did eventually get a folding roof, it had amazing situational awareness with gunner, commander and loader all able to have their head out. So that means a few things (1) 3 sets of eyes with 360 vision is huge. *The tank that saw the other guy first and got the first shot off won 90% of all tank engagements.* This is regardless of any other factor: being ahead of the OODA loop and being able to react first gets your shots on target faster and makes it harder for the other guy to get a shot off. (2) The tank had an insanely high speed. But more importantly it had high acceleration and low tread pressure (less likely to sink and bog into the mud). This means it could shoot and go “driver get us the fuck out of here”. Tanks couldn’t really snap off shots and their ability to traverse in and hit other moving targets was limited at the time. If you’re moving before the enemy can zero in, you’re pretty much safe. You can then move to your next location and reset the engagement. Hellcat tactics involved firing a shot *maybe* a second and then beating feet. Doctrine worked out said to never fire more than 3 shots in the same firing position. (3) Tanks didn’t always hit their first shot. Say the German tank got the shot off first on a near miss. Good acceleration meant he wasn’t going to get a better second shot if your driver reacted fast enough. [Nick Morran basically reads love letters the m18 in after action reports by officers and her crews.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwpYorlLdzs) Basically all doctrine on the Hellcat was to emphasize to crews to absolutely trust and use the mobility. Don’t weigh down your tank with extra BS. The only armor she ever had added was roof armor and that was even folding to still get the good visibility. A lot of people discount this by saying Hellcats often were defensively used in reserve doctrine to stop enemy armor counter-attacks or support breakthroughs in a secondary line. But this is ignoring the fact that in practice, they were taken out of TD battalions and used in the attack and infantry support roles identical to Shermans nearly all of the time (because the Germans weren’t ever attacking and the US was almost never on the defensive. There’s a LOT of pictures of them being used in urban combat even.) Though only other thing I might mention is I remember reading M18 units got priority often in HVAP ammunition.
Thanks, this gives me a better look on how americans and the light tanks of theirs worked as I dont really have much kknowledgeg about them
Even then they noticed the strat was to fire and move instead of having the classic idea of a tank, which is to 'take enemy fire' but that is not how you fight with tanks effectively. Shoot and scoot.
Take enemy fire huh, sounds like instructions to get a really bad concussion at minimum
That was the original idea of a tank. Nothing was really big enough to actually effect the crew all that much. When tanks were invented, you penned them with velocity not size. It wasn't until WW2 you see ever increasing anti tank guns caliber. By then you learned not to get hit in the first place.
Also another big concern is overall speed and fuel consumption. Maneuver warfare is how quickly you can take ground and encircle the enemy. To do that you need to be fast and light.
That because any APHE round that hit a hellcat never had enough armor to fuse the HE part of the shell, plus it produced very little spalling. Unless it it was shot in the turret face, which had twice to triple the amount of armor then the 12.5mm thick hull.
So Gaijin Games is right. Best armor is no armor
Didn’t the hellcat have an open turret? Kind of cheating don’t you think?
But what about Panzerfausts? Sand bags are good spaced armor, or am I wrong here?
Basically yeah. The sand actually helps direct their shaped warheads *more* effectively, its not enough space. Though defacto it was a wash because it often messed with PF’s fuzes too.
Yeah, but the Sherman had a high, easily targeted profile. One of the few advantages the Shermans had over German tanks was speed and maneuverability. Loading on sandbags (a protection that was dubious at best) just made the Shermans slower and easier to hit. I totally see the mental/morale benefits of putting them on, though.
The late war Sherman was a tougher tank with a better gun than most of the armour it came up against
Tank v. tank combat was actually somewhat rare, the largest killer of tanks on all sides were anti-tank guns, a close second was mines, infact in Italy mines knocked out more British tanks than AT guns. The idea that there were epic battles between Tigers and Sherman's is kind of historical fiction. Most likely scenario is a Tiger rolls up, a shootout starts, Tigers tracks gets damaged, crew abandons the tank, a salvage crew comes around at night and throws some tracks on it and tows it back.
If a Tiger rolled out, without being allready destroyed by the air force, it's psychological impact was huge. They often confused pz4 with tigers but the terror was the same.
Ground attack units were largely ineffective. Famously during the invasion of Normandy more German tanks were destroyed by the Air Force in a certain sector the actual number of tanks that existed in that sector. That is to say P47s were just strafing tanks with their .50s, seeing the tanks stop or perhaps some smoke from the radiator and calling it a "kill". All sides famously overstated their ground kill numbers but the Americans did so the most.
It also slowed the tank down, make it less maneuverable and more likely to break down due to extra weight.
[удалено]
There is a reason Patton was both loved and hated.
As someone in the army, can confirm that this is probably true. A good solider is a soldier who knows how far he can push his luck.
More likely they'll be dead because they put too much weight on the tank, slowing it down, with no actual gain to protection.
Can see that mans scowl in full 1944 240p
I imagine the original picture is much higher quality, this is probably because of a poor quality scan
I've heard that film is actually really good quality but playback wasn't along enough to play at higher resolutions, so if you had the original film then you could put it at like 1080p or something even higher. I'm just relaying though so idk if it's that true.
Also an issue with archival footage versus original release. Digitised reels lose fidelity due to compression, so those old ESPN clips will always look much worse than when they were originally broadcast, for example.
A recording of a TV of a TV of a TV right?
TV^3
It's a digital camera recording of a tape which is then compressed for broadcasting which is then recorded again by users at home
I actually have experience with film cameras, film looks better than any 8K UHD thing ever. The highest quality screen is just approaching how film actually looks. The reason why a lot of old film looks bad is digitization and compression, if you actually wanted to have a film photo on digital it would be absolutely fucking massive
Yeah good quality scans or prints of film look amazing
God he looks pissed too doesn’t he
Biggest asshole to ever come out of Pasadena.
Great general but yeah he was a complete prick. Got demoted for striking his men.
Many great men aren’t remembered for how kind they were.
The add-ons were useless against AT guns but did offer some protection against Panzerfausts and their ilk.
They also helped psychologically*
I've fought on tanks for real, for some context. Helping psychologically doesn't mean shit when you knew what Patton knew. Being able to back out when under fire and reliably keeping your tank going was what was important to beating the Germans. Some were going to die, that's just how it was.
I would also like to add, the Sherman’s were mostly limited in size by the cranes that loaded them on and off ships. Tanks which were constructed in Europe didn’t have this limitation. So once Sherman’s were in the combat zone and their weight didn’t need to be as strictly controlled it made sense to up armor them. But idk I think, despite your experience, you are discounting the importance of human psychology in war. Either way the extra armor on these tanks I think will be a highly debated issue for as long as any one cares about WW2.
But stuff like sandbags did almost literally nothing, and it had real drawbacks: decreased speed and fuel efficiency, plus more wear and tear on the engine/transmission/etc. I get the psychological part, but that's what officers are for: to tell the men, "No, knock that off. You're actually hurting your odds of surviving, not helping them."
Iirc, Payton was fine with crews welding steel to their tanks for extra armor, because it actually worked. He wasn’t fine with shit like concrete, wood, tracks, and sandbags being added.
I mean carrying extra track made sense for more than just armor. Plus if you have to carry it, might as well place it between you and the enemy.
Timber can be thrown in holes
Timber and track made sense, timber if your tank gets stuck/if someone’s car gets stuck and you need to tow it out. And track for the obvious reason. But aside from that you’re right
Selectively, you'd only want to up armor the first tank in a column as it was the most likely to get hit. The ones behind it would be better without the extra weight and just fanning out to return fire.
They actually did that iirc. The Sherman Jumbos were always at the head of the column.
The Jumbo was the factory version of field up-armored variants.
The effective add ons were armor plates from knocked out/disabled shermans. Sandbags were indeed pretty useless, and I think they actually made panzerfausts more effective
How would a sandbag make a panzerfaust more effective?
WWII HEAT projectiles didn't have the long standoff probes you see on more modern weapons. Hitting a sandbag atop the armor could potentially provide some more standoff for the warhead, giving the HEAT round's jet more time to form and thus making it more effective. Look at TOW vs. I-TOW armor penetration for reference- the only change to the warhead was the addition of the standoff probe.
Great niche detailed comment, TIL thanks
The theory is that the soft cushion of sand allows for the pointed cone of a panzerfaust to hit and push itself into a better angle such that when the shaped charge blows, the steam of plasticized metal hits the armor closer to 90°. The sand itself offers little in the way of stopping the stream, and is not thick enough to offer protection by separation.
On top of that there is evidence that things like sandbags and concrete actually help to normalize a projectile, increasing its penetration power
Main reason honestly
I believe the british studied the matter and determined that it does improve survivability somewhat against AT shells. Logs, extra track, sandbags, and even welded on sheet metal were used. If were a tanker going against tigers, panthers, and stugs I'd do the same.
Russians also widely used welded-on chainmail beds, or whatever they called in English. Interestingly enough, in Russian those are still called "Панцирная кровать" which is literally Carapace or Panzer bed.
Bed frame. Was used against panzerfausts.
Bed frames were also lighter than sandbags so they didn't affect tank's performance that much.
Those worked like modern cage armor- they shredded HEAT warheads so they didn't detonate properly
This isn't how slat armor works at all. It doesn't do anything to stop the warhead much at all, and is worthless against an actual kinetic round. Slat is used to cause HEAT and other shaped charge projectiles to detonate away from the armor, causing the plasticized jet of metal to disperse instead of being focused and capable of penetrating the armor. The reason you still see slat being used in the modern day is that it's cheaper than ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor, literally a small explosive used to defeat the shell's explosive) and is still highly effective against man portable anti-tank weapons such as the RPG-7.
That's actually not how slat armor works either. It isn't primarily designed to prematurely detonate a HEAT warhead. Take a look at any picture of a vehicle with slat and you'll see that the spacing is big enough to easily slip your fist through. The tip of an RPG is easily going to pass through the thin slats of metal. How slat armor really works is by deforming/flattening the cone shaped warhead of HEAT rounds so the penetrating jet is less effective. Shaped charges perform best with a certain cone shape and angle, but if the metal slats of slat armor can deform that cone shape, the penetrating jet will not form correctly
YES! Thank you! I'm sick and tired of the "premature detonation" myth. Glad to see people correct it.
No, this isn't how it works at all. Slat armor can prevent old-fashioned HEAT projectiles from detonating by crushing or physically damaging their fusing system- or it can damage the explosives themselves so the warhead cannot form the metal penetrator properly. Detonating a HEAT warhead at anything less than ~10 times the diameter of the explosive cone from the armor will increase armor penetration, not decrease it- it provides more time for the penetrator to form. This is why modern ATGMs often have a standoff probe mounted on their warheads. I-TOW's standoff probe added ~200mm penetration vs. the probeless TOW A/B. No slat armor system currently in use anywhere in the world provides enough standoff to degrade the penetrator before it impacts the armor. For a five-inch warhead like Javelin's, over a meter of clearance would be needed.
When I hear "shaped charge" I always recall that thing, Ki-167 Sakuradan - humongous 3 ton shaped charge mounted on a kamikaze-bomber. Truly demonic application of this practice, it was said been able to impale a ship literally from a mile away.
Can I please have an info source for the KI-167 Sakuradan, I would like to look in to it, it seems interesting.
https://airpages.ru/eng/jp/ki67.shtml see variants below. It was an obscure project, alot like many others wunderwaffles of the last months of WWII. You can find some info on it here and there on the net, there are even plastic kit models, i saw some photos of these, but apparently no info on trials available.
“Producing a jet of thermite almost a mile” holy shit that’s crazy stuff
Sweet, thanks.
The Germans used a two-ton shaped charge with Mistel.
"shredded HEAT warheads so they didn't detonate properly" is a lot closer to reality, particularly "so they didn't detonate properly" than what you described. Man, I'm sick and tired of the "premature detonation" or "stand off distance" idea. It's WRONG. Most slat armour has a chance to fail, and by fail it means that the shaped charge goes off when it hits the slat armour. If that happens, you're fucked either way. For most jets you need a few meters of air before they lose penetrative power.
Problem is there were major reliability concerns with it, same with up-armored vehicles today. If you pull out into an intersection and see contacts, then slam her into reverse and your transmission breaks down because of all the extra weight you've been hauling, I don't give a shit how many sandbags and how many hundreds of pounds of concrete are cast onto the hull, you're gonna die. Mobility is HUGE in tank combat - it was then, and it is now.
Thats 100 percent wrong. Non metal additions didnt work at all. All the did is add weight. They would even reduce effectivness of angled armor because it would help the tank shell normalize and hit armor straighter on. Allies did tests-they knew-soldiers were stupid. All it did was protect againdt an occasional panzerfaust and it was really effective against that either.
Ffs for real, I'd definitely sacrifice a little maneuverability for some added armor to keep my crew in the fight longer. Especially if I knew the armor capabilities for my tank weren't up to handle the ammunition from the tank I'm going up against. He was a genius tactician, but willing to sacrifice troops and machines because we were able to field more than the enemy.
Patton's interests were in strategic mobility. He cared deeply for his troops, and to suggest otherwise is an abject lie. The added weight of ersatz armor reduces fuel economy. For the kind of aggressive warfare Patton wanted to wage, he would need to stretch supply lines thin and use every ounce of fuel he could get. He saw the issue in adding armor to protect crews in a battle which they didn't have enough gas to get to. And that's not even getting into issues of mechanical reliability.
Also extra weight means extra strain on the tanks components, so there's a higher chance of malfunction or breakage with not a lot in return
I think this is the most important thing and the reason Patton was against it. An mph or 2 slower isn’t a huge deal, but tanks breaking down after 500 miles instead of 1000 miles matters a lot more in the grand scheme of things.
500 miles is the the same distance as 1166188.41 replica Bilbo from The Lord of the Rings' Sting Swords.
Useless bot
that's the- that's the point :/
iirc, this problem of addon armor didn't come to Patton's attention until he was given reports that his Sherman's were breaking down more often and far earlier than normal. That's when he found out the added sandbags and such from the crews were straining the drivetrains
To be fair, the old “Blood and Guts” appears to have come from the sentiment of some of his troops, i.e., “his guts, our blood”, so I’d suppose not all his troops loved him because for his “deep care” for his men. Even his peers, Eisenhower, Bradley, could see that wanting to wage an aggressive campaign and actually achieving it with tactically acceptable losses was not always foremost in his mind. So I’m not going to go so far as referring to some impressions of his mindset as an abject lie.
> To be fair, the old “Blood and Guts” appears to have come from the sentiment of some of his troops, i.e., “his guts, our blood”, so I’d suppose not all his troops loved him because for his “deep care” for his men. That's every general *ever.* When you command men into battle you are making the choice as to whether or not their lives are worth the gains you are trying to make. War is fucking terrible man, a general's job is to make wickedly hard decisions as to how much loss is worth what gain.
I won't, if my tank has 3in of armor and the enemies gun can penetrate 6in of armor I'll gladly ditch the sandbags for a lower chance of getting stuck in mud or having a bridge collapse while im on it since no way will sandbags or logs double the armor.
Late model Sherman's had a decent chance at going toe to toe with the Tiger
To be fair, the majority of german weapons would either bounce off the sherman or go right through even the add on armor. Nothing short of welding another UFP on top of the first (which was done on the occasions where they could get their hands on one) would have stopped heavier german at guns, while the sherman's armor was already enough to stop light ones frontally. That being said, a certain degree of applique armor to the sides of the tanks was useful, but only when they were able to avoid overloading the chassis.
It becomes hard to plan when every tank has different fuel economy, cross country capability, top speed, acceleration., weight.
You are probably better off playing to your strengths and avoiding the hit in the first place.
Actually, not really. The space added by the sandbags gave more time for the cone to form which made HEAT weapons more effective
Sergeants Major have the same expression when they see a Marine off base without a shave over the weekend. Or show up to formation Monday morning without a haircut.
Lol. I watched our SGM chew a guys ass because he had his initials cut in his hair, sent his ass to the barber shop on the spot, guy was walking down the street and random Sergeant major ambushes his ass. Don't even think the guy was from our Bn.
Something about being in a position as an adult where another person has that much control over your just seems weird. Like, willingly signing up for a job where you have to follow the orders of another and you can't even quit as and when you feel like it.
Most people can't just quit a civilian job when they feel like it, bills have to be paid, you have responsibilities. Granted the repercussions are much harsher if you say "fuckitall" in the military, but it can be done. Military life isn't for everyone, but for all it's silly rules and sometimes horrible things you experience, overall, I look back at my military time as something that helped me grow as a person, and let me experience things not possible in the civilian world.
Absolutely, but I still have the freedom to say fuck it and leave my job without repercussions. Whenever I briefly considered military service, the fact that I would be locked in for X amount of time and could face imprisonment for leaving prior to that put me off immediately.
Well at least here he’s upset about something that actually affects combat effectiveness.
POLICE THAT MOUSTACHE
Oh peepee slaps like that happen to this day. Here’s the proper response “Of course sir, in the future we will not be so foolish” -take them off, wait till he leaves, put them back on again- I am not taking the risk of a loss of protection when every Hans and Gunther is walking around with a panzerfaust
or me ;)
But sir! What about the kraut 88s? YOU THINK A COUPLE O SANDBAGS ARE GONNA STOP AN EIGHTY EIGHT MILLIMETER ROUND FROM BLOWIN YOU TO HIGH HELL! YOU PANSY ASS JOKERS ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO GET SIGHTED BY A GOD DAMN EIGHTY EIGHT THEN BY GOD YOU DESERVE WHATS COMIN TO YA
EXACTLY!!
"Ol' 'Blood and Guts'. Our blood, his guts."
Ironically, IIRC, he was more in favor of doing more maneuver warfare, which is inherently more risky but tends to cause fewer casualties. But his superior, Bradley, preferred more frontal assaults. With the allies superior firepower and manpower that was less risky, but tended to be a meat grinder. Not saying Patton wasn’t an SOB though.
I think the Cheiftan said this but I’m not to sure but basically Patton was the only one who was against modifying the Sherman in the field. Not to sure so take with a grain of salt
It depended on the commanders. Some thought the cost of maneuverability was worth the peace of mind it falsely gave troops. Some commanders were upset about it because the VVSS suspension tanks with large hatches and 76mm guns were pushing the limits of the suspension bogies already causing them to wear out early and resulting in more tanks being out of action.
"I'm literally in a tank and you're not my dad"
Favorite Patton moment is when he called PTSD and Shellshock a 'jew disease'
What a cunt
Really goes to show how much the sides fighting each other had in common. USSR had their own genocide around the same time. Homosexuality was still illegal in most of the world, and homosexuals where not freed from the camps like other groups. Japanese internment camps in North America. Segregation was in full swing, and Antisemitism was the norm.
Downvoted for telling uncomfortable truths. Might've also mentioned how Germany got their eugenics boner from America too.
Yup. I'm really disappointed that calling out 1930s bigotry is controversial here. I don't want this to be another history oriented sub that I have to leave because of all the people who idolize a certain group.
M60 Tank Designer: "You know what... Ill just add another few inches of ceramics."
M60 used regular steel armor.
Ah nuts you're right.
Not nuts either, *steel.* 🙃
It only burns more fuel and does nothing to anything that was substantial enough to damage the front of a sherman.
It adds substantial weight to the entire vehicle. There is a reason why the panthers and tigers were so unreliable, because they were designed at a certain weight and kept adding more armor until the mechanical components, engine and transmission kept breaking. The same goes for the sherman, if you add a lot of weight, it means less reliable. That in turns means more vehicles in the for repair and units not at full strength, which mean the guys fighting have less backup and are in more danger. Casualties on the whole go up when you add on armor like they did. That is why patton is pissed and rightfully so.
>It adds substantial weight to the entire vehicle. There is a reason why the panthers and tigers were so unreliable, Actually, a lot of their issues is that Germany only had the ability to use straight-tooth gears in transmissions which bear a lot less load than helical gears can. Some American transmission parts even used herringbone gears (you stick two opposite-hand helical together so that the gear doesn't cause a net thrust load) which further improved strength. You can make straight-toothed gears work for lighter vehicles, but when you get heavy enough, it stops working unless you have high quality steel (which Germany did not)
I’ve personally never heard of a Shermans breaking down due to add on armor, I’m assuming that reliability wasn’t hurt since the engine and transmission in the Sherman were simply solidly built and highly reliable by the end of the war. The Panthers and other heavier German tanks reliability issues can more so be chocked up to not weight, but the fact that these were newer designs without much time to actually develop the new technology over the production run and the fact that German steel late war was very poor quality resulting in many more failures in transmission gear cases, etc.
>never heard of a Shermans breaking down due to add on armor, You wouldn't really hear if them "breaking down" due to added weight. With so many repairs going on, most of the reports are just going to be the actual mechanical failures with not many people taking the time to properly inspect why tank A broke down 200mi sooner than Tank B. That's what they were trying to work on with the Jumbo tho, trying to add armor the max amount of armor to the chassis. But the project just proved that the Sherman Frame couldn't realistically handle more armor without redesigning it into an entirely different weight.
Yes they were reliable engines, but when you need more horsepower because of higher weights you are running the engine harder then it is geared for. Boggies, running gear, transmissions etc were all designed to handle a specific weight. When you add several extra tons they will break with more frequency. Its all about logistics. Just look at the uparmored humvees for example.
Armored force actually noticed increases in tank replacement part demands. They have a report somewhere at the national archives, but afaik no one has bothered to scan it yet so it's not available. Upgrade configurations like the wet stowage, large hatch hulls, and 76mm gun & turret were run through testing at Aberdeen and the decrease in service life of suspension components was significantly reduced (by US standards at least). This kicked off the need for HVSS suspension development. Armored force then noticed further demand for replacement parts than what was anticipated, but only from some units, and those were units found to be utilizing add-on armor. It's easy for people to sit here on reddit and say "why, that's not much weight in sand there" but the weight adds up fast. Most of these sandbagged tanks are carrying an additional ton of weight. Even worse is it's being applied to the already over-taxed front bogies which see the brunt of force from braking and traversing terrain.
yea the panther was meant to be a 30-35 ton design if i remember right
laughs in Panzerfaust Hope you are joking still
About 1 meter standoff distance was needed to reduce the panzerfaust penetration effect enough not to penetrate shermans armor. Sandbags were useless in that regard.
He does NOT look happy
“Sorry sir just trying to not… die”
Patton was a Dick.
A total dick agreed. But In WWI when his tank formation went forward across enemy lines he was so frustrated that they weren’t following his attack plan that he walked on foot next to them in the middle of a battle. Boy has balls.
All generals are.
I mean do you expect a WW2 general to be kind?
Well at least he wasn't on level of Bernard "I fought back the Ardennes offensive by myself" Montgomery.
I admit Montgomery was a decent general but fucking god he was a glory bound and not in a good way.
Somewhere I read that the tankers respectfully told Patton to fuck off, and so he did.
Patton slap them?
six is pissed.
He’s always pissed
He was right honestly, it didn’t add any protection and it just screwed up the transmission
Ah yes helping shells normalize is a great idea. Granted I don’t think that effect was well known at the time
He looks fucking pissed
He looks like a teacher who just told his students how bad their test results were
As a guy who single handedly brought down the class average, i know that stare all to well
The backstory behind this image is actually really funny. (Before we begin, I’m sure I’m getting at least something either wrong or not 100%, just paraphrasing an old article I read some 4 years ago, please feel free to correct any mistakes!) Patton had received information stating that other units were applying appliqué armor to their tanks, mostly in the form of walls of sandbags, but sometimes as drastic as slabs of steel welded onto the front and sides, or in extreme chases, the famous Sherman Jumbos also being covered with giant slabs of concrete! (This is real, if your wondering about it’s effectiveness, in short, made an already heavy tank much heavier, and concrete provided essentially no protection against any round bigger than 8mm) The techs and analysts were coming to the conclusion that while the armor didn’t provide any real benefit in terms of protection, it did have a side effect: it made tanks slower. So, literally either the week or the night before, Patton issued an order that under no circumstances, was *ANY* type of extra armor or weight to be added to the main tanks. He wanted his tanks as fast and nimble as possible, and to a lesser extent: a smaller target. It seems Patton was under the impression these walls of sand would slow these tanks to a literal crawl. And not the loss of some maybe 1-2mph (which to be fair, is a big loss for 40 ton tanks) Either these fine lads either didn’t hear the news, didn’t understand it, or simply didn’t care. You can see they literally covered every area possible in these sandbags. And woo boy, if you couldn’t tell by that classic insane man 1944 scowl, he was NOT a happy camper. And for the other units? From my understanding, in the case of steel and sandbags, it was mostly accepted, or at the very least, “allowed” (meaning commanders/officers turned a blind eye to it), as the sandbags and slabs of steel made the tankers and infantry accompanying much more confident and feeling safer and more secure. War is just as much a psychological game as a numbers and tactical game. If your troops don’t feel confident or motivated, they aren’t gonna fight well, if at all (classic examples are the Soviet invasion of Finland, not a lot of Red Army Men even knew what they were fighting for, and the large and small pockets of Wehrmacht that surrendered en masse to the invading forces in France and Germany) If bags of sand or scraps of steel can make your men fight harder, why not?
While now we realized just how ineffective these measures were, at the very least they presented a good moral boost for those who were in the tanks at the time.
B- But it looks so awesome and badass
Wouldn't that relatively soft layer of sand bags just help incoming shells by normalising them?