Field modifications and conversions to Allied vehicles.

ABOVE: LVT(1) Number 49, "My Deloris" at Tarawa. Notice the metal plates that have been welded over the front and side windows of the cabin. This field-modification was done to most of the Alligators, in New Zealand, after Guadalcanal and before Tarawa.

 

"United States Marine Corps tank crews also devised effective ways to use sandbags to protect their vehicles. The Marines layered sandbags over engine covers and rear decks to fight Japanese attacks with satchel charges and thrown antitank mines." Despite wide approval of the practice, there were also dissenting opinions. "
"
Marine Corps crews from C Company, 4th Marine Tank Battalion expanded the concrete modification to extreme levels. The Marines fitted two inch by twelve inch wooden planks to the sides of their Shermans with four inches of space left open between the planks and the sides of the tanks. The Marines poured concrete in the void. They wanted the concrete to defeat Japanese antitank guns and the wooden planks to defeat magnetic antitank mines. Forces in the Pacific found “that canvas or neutral materials applied on the tanks made the magnetic mines slide off.” The modifications proved effective in adding protection to the tanks but the added weight often caused problems transporting the vehicles in Navy transport craft. Marine Corps tank crewmen in the Pacific responded to the unique nature of the Japanese methods of antitank warfare in some unusual ways. In order to prevent direct contact with tank hatches by hand emplaced mines and explosive charges, the men of C Company, 4th Marine Tank Battalion, mounted steel mesh cages on hatch covers. Additionally, some Marine units welded common nails, with the pointed end up, to the tops of their turrets and other surfaces of their tanks. The intended effect was to impale Japanese troops attempting to destroy American tanks from extremely close range. In some cases, armored vehicle crews did not have to look far for material to attempt to improve the armor of their vehicles."

Field Expedient Armor Modifications to US Armored Vehicles


I hadn't heard of the nail expedient used in the Pacific.

 

Newport News, Va. : U.S. Army Signal Corps, Hampton Roads Port of Embarkation, May 27, 1943.
Capt. W. Young, 0-291543, M.T.O., examining exhaust pipe on 6x6 truck for amphibious driving. This exhaust is used on vehicles which, after processing, are to be driven for short distances in the water. This vehicle accompanied the 45th Division when it sailed from H.R.P.E. early in June for service in Africa, Sicily and Italy.
C1:2/05/042 [Capt. W. Young, 0-291543] [picture] Library of Virginia

 

Medical Dept. Field Optic Lab

 

The coolest conversion that I have seen must be this one:


A M26E4 Pershing upgrated with(a lot of) extra armour. Where is some info on it:
Super Pershing - Build Features
Super Pershing vs. King Tiger - Dessau

Cunha

 

Interesting post, the evidence of the type of tank remains somewhat obscure however. Neither tank were hit in an area that would challenge a T15E2 gun In both cases even a 75mm would have done the job.

Steve

 

Not to go off topic. The Pershing was discussed awhile back in another thread. I posted this there,
U.S. 3rd Armored Division in Cologne, World War II

COLOGNE PANTHER STILL-FRAME SEQUENCE
Sgt. Jim Bates's Classic Movie Camera Work

Sgt. Jim Bates - Cologne Panther Sequence

 

A greatly feared modification, a CCKW dental unit -in this case a French version

View attachment 5373

 

Jeep Ambulance pertaining to the Medical Detachment of the 32d Armored Regiment
(3d Armored Division), note extra Geneva Convention markings

 

More hedgecutters




M-10

 

OK. Saw this on another discussion about the Cullin's devices. Any more info?

"The 116th regiment (29th Division) used Shermans with hollow pipes attached to the front to ram a hole in the bocage banks during the attack on Saint Lo.
Combat engineers then placed explosives in these holes.
Apparently several other regiments used a similar tactic."

 

T-34 with welded on extra armor?

 

BARV

 

Just like the British to develop a vehicle so specialized that it is entirely useless!

 

It just looks so cute!!! LOL

"The original BARV was a Sherman M4A2 tank which had been waterproofed and had the turret replaced by a tall armoured superstructure. Around 60 were deployed on the invasion beaches during the Battle of Normandy. Able to operate in 9-foot (2.7 metre) deep water, the BARV was used to remove vehicles that had become broken-down or swamped in the surf and were blocking access to the beaches. They were also used to re-float small landing craft that had become stuck on the beach. Unusually for a tank, the crew included a diver whose job was to attach towing chains to stuck vehicles.
The vehicles were developed and operated by the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. The Sherman M4A2 model was chosen as a basis for the BARV as it was thought that the Sherman's welded hull would make easier to waterproof than other tanks. The M4A2, unlike other Sherman models, was powered by a diesel engine and it was believed this would be less affected by the sudden temperature changes caused by the tank repeatedly plunging into cold water.
A few Sherman BARV's continued to be used until 1963, when they were replaced by a vehicle based on the Centurion tank."

BARV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Then there is the Cruiser Tank Mk.VII Cavalier ARV

 

Wouldn't be unheard of. The Ivans were just as savvy as the next guy... even the raving Barbarian hordes are capable of rational thought sometimes...

 

Didn't say it was. Though you don't see anyrhing about it very often. Definately different then the T-34 in post #79.

 

View attachment 5389

The applique was mentioned in books from the 1960s, your last post was interesting in that it covered the sides of the turret only. I suspect that the relatively thin applique may have been applied to defeat cap balistic shot and may be applied in special circumstances -possibly the armour being weak due to manufacturing problems. Soviet metallugy was probably the best in the world at the time but disruption of industrial capacity may have caused armour of varibable quality.

 

What exactly is wrong with the BARV? It effeciently did what it was modified to do, its job was to recover bogged down vehicles, push landing craft off and carry anchors of beached LST into deep water. It is so useless that as a type it is still in service with British and Dutch forces.

In hindsight the only problem with the BARV was that no Sherman gun tank should have been converted to secondary roles ideally redundant tanks such as RAMs or M3 mediums should have been converted to ARVs BARVs etc. The Canadian Army in UK actually converted a Ram to a BARV
View attachment 5390
(called Dolphin) and towards the end of WW2 when sufficient capacity was available some Ram tanks were converted to a Mk2 ARV which was similar in capacity to the M32 ARV. It has to be remembered that unlike the USA and Canada there was no spare capacity to remanufacture M3s Rams and old Shermans, without remanufacturing capacity it was necessary to use newly delivered tanks for conversion. Even the US did this M4 capacity was used for M32 production rather than gun tanks.

Steve