During WW2 many tank crews (especially those of Shermans) would improve their protection against AP shells and rockets by fixing all manner of stuff to their tanks. Timber or concrete railway sleepers were favourite, as was the welding on of extra armoured plating, but I have also seen photos of Shermans having up to 3 or 4 inches of concrete smeared all over their glacis plates. The wiring on of sandbags was also thought to help. If anyone can direct me to photos of tanks with this type of modification, I'd be very grateful, especially if the pics. were of types other than Shermans. I'd also like to discuss the viability of these mods. with any interested parties. Cheers, Malladyne
While it's doubtful that these field modifications would have much beneficial effect against kinetic energy penetrators there is no doubt that they were useful against shaped charge warheads like the panzerfaust or panzerschrek. Anything that detonates the shaped charge warhead prematurely or increases it's standoff from the armor plate can help reduce it's effectiveness.
Hi, Heres a Stug 3 with logs along the side. They might not have been used as armour but the tank commander had decided he wanted a new log cabin. We have discussed the previous but seen few photos. I agree that the additional stopping power of a log against a solid penetrator will be almost nil but it could cause havoc with HEAT charges and other such devices. FNG
I'd imagine there was also the added bonus that the extra strain on the suspension might mean your tank packed up before you got anywhere near the enemy. :-?
Armour uprating. Thanks for your replies. They do,however,beg a few more questions :- 1. It seems that this topic has been discussed before. Will it be possible for me to access these earlier posts and where should I start to look ? 2. Did the contributor who sent in the pic of the log adorned Stug. believe it to be a way of improving the armour/camouflaging the vehicle/whatever ? 3. Yes, the loading of several inches of concrete, for example, did cause many problems with the suspension of AFV's, but generally speaking was thought to give enough protection to offset that. I am also looking for any photographs of Sherman "Firefies" that may have had their deadly 17 pdr. gun barrels disguised in order to fool the enemy that it was only a 75 or 76 mm. Apparently many Firefly crews fixed large empty coffee cans halfway along to barrel to make it look like a muzzle brake. They then also painted a wavy line camouflage pattern on the length of barrel in front of the can. I am not sure how they tried to conceal the turret bustle wherein Fireflies housed their radios. Malladyne
Re: Armour uprating. In this topic: http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=862 Hmmm, pretty sure we have pictures of Fireflys with the painted barrel on here somewhere - never heard of the coffe can idea though - sounds ingenious!
17 pdr. barrel mods. I know that the coffee can mod sounds to be really off the wall, but given that Wehrmacht tankers were tasked with searching out and destroying "Fireflies" first. then it is possible to understand why desperate measures were justified. Talking about "desperate measures", years ago I saw a pic. in a magazine. It featured what appeared to be a close aerial shot ( or it might have been taken from a bell tower ) of a large open monastery building and its compound, which was accessible by a gate that appeared to have been blown off its hinges. Bermed up behind a pile of rubble in the centre of the compound was a smouldering "Tiger" and partly on top of it and the pile of rubble was a "Firefly", also smouldering. Nearby in front of the "Tiger" were two other "Fireflies" in various degrees of destruction. Now, that looks like a tale worth the telling ! Anyone know the pic or the action report ? Malladyne.
Check this here link for ways the British hid the 17pdr cannons. http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra ... ly-cam.htm
Re: 17 pdr. barrel mods. I haven't heard of this story, but Fireflies were not applied in concentration; they were generally distributed by unit. It is doubtful that a larger unit, such as a tank brigade, would simply send in unit #2's only Firefly after unit #1's only Firefly was knocked out by a well-hidden Tiger.
"Firefly" allocation. Yes, I accept that "Fireflies" were generally "rationed"- one per tank troop was the normal number, but there is much photographic evidence to support the contention that some were gathered together on certain combat conditions. Certainly the photo to which I refer confirms that they did fight in small groups when necessary, and ,in the absence of suitable air strike capability, what would be more necessary than the need to tackle a "Tiger" in a hull down position ? Malladyne.
