Sherman with sandbags

[Francesco]

Hi!

Is there the Sherman version with lateral and frontal sandbags? If not (as I think) does a mode exists?

------------------

Veni Vidi Vici

[Pvt.Tom]

There might be a mod that makes the Sherman look like it has sandbags, but I would love to be able to get a Sherman where the sandbags are modeled into the armor values, I know it isn't going to happen but it would be neat. On second thought maybe not, then everyone would only buy Shermans with sandbags and no one would ever use the regular one and we would get into a whole gamey thing on the over use of sandbagged Shermans, ect, ect. Oh well.

Pvt.Tom

[Francesco]

Why?

It may be done, well just model a Shermn vesrion (historical-approved, obviously) with sandbags put on racks on the front and lateral parts of Sherman's hull and turret and add these value to the game conditions for that vehicle, then make ot a little more resistant than normal Sherman (they were 76s) and add some points to make it a bit more expensive, then make sure that it is very rare to find (only some were made) and the game is done!

------------------

Veni Vidi Vici

[saru3000]

I believe that tanks with additional "armor" are already in the game.In the selection screen they are marked with a "+".I'm not positive though.

As for mods,I think I may have seen one floating around but I don't know if it was released.

[poolman]

How about being able to purchase sandbags like you do pillboxes and bunkers. And then being able to mount them on your vehicle... CM2?

[Phoenix]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

...then make ot a little more resistant than normal Sherman (they were 76s) and add some points to make it a bit more expensive, then make sure that it is very rare to find (only some were made) and the game is done!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Francesco, it's just not this simple. This would require BTS make a new version of the vehicle in question, and they are not going to do this now.

Simply put, there will be no further vehicle additions/changes or any other major changes to CM anymore. CM2 is now the primary focus for BTS. Patches will only be for serious game play issues (mostly all resolved now) or identified bugs.

[Phoenix]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by poolman:

How about being able to purchase sandbags like you do pillboxes and bunkers. And then being able to mount them on your vehicle... CM2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While a neat idea, this isn't really possible with the current CM "engine". Unit values are hard coded in the game so you can't just "add" more armor (sand bags etc) on the fly.

CM2 is going to be based on CM, so don't expect to see that kind of stuff for now.

[jgdpzr]

I can foresee all sorts of problems with adding sandbags. I would suspect data for how sandbags increase the armor protection are extremely hard to come by. And if they can't do it by the numbers (or at least a reasonable approximation thereof) then BTS isn't going to do it.

[Doug Beman]

Sandbagging tanks has had its corners worn down over the last year. Try a SEARCH for some info, but the basic aswers were:

1) this was a non-standard mod that, contrary to the pages of pictures in Sherman books, was the exception

2) it is really damn difficult to figure out accurately what effect a sandbag layer would have on armor, and BTS chose to not do this rather than do it with a possibly grossly inaccurate abstraction

3) sandbags would have different effects against different incoming projectiles, whether HE, AP Hollow Charge or (should the Germans ever have it) APDS.

DjB

[A Arabian]

Doug's right. This one, although not quite as notorious as showing dead soldiers and picking up enemy weapons, came up a number of times "back in the day". The discussions on it (as I recall) were excellent, and I'd like to add one more point to the conclusions that Doug listed:

4. The effectiveness of sandbags in preventing armor penetration, regardless of the ammo type, was next to nil, and was possibly actually counterproductive in certain cases. Its effectiveness (roughly quoting BTS) was "in (artifically) inflating the crew morale". So basically, it really wouldn't have different effects with different ammo, it pretty much had no effect with any ammo (this due to the relative strength of the sandbags vs. armor penetration properties).

I seem to recall that in certain cases (shaped charges?) it actually made the penetration of the weapon BETTER as it provided a standoff distance such taht the charge would have superior penetration.

But a search would give you better information than my feeble memory . Suffice it to say this one was done to death, and although a mod would be cool, don't expect it to show up anytime soon in CM....

[Crank_GS]

The sandbags did not alter the penetration of AP rounds a whit. But, the sandbags did help offset the penetration of shaped charge weapons. If the weapon is farther away from the armor itself (which the sand did accomplish) the energy of the shaped charge was dissipated, thereby reducing it's effectiveness. There were a number of sources quoted in "The View From the Turret" that touched on this - guys that were there. I do not remember the author (it is not in front of me), but it is the story of the 743rd Tank Battalion. They went on to say that Patton specifically ordered his armored divisions to remove the mods, as they added weight to the tanks, and slowed them down. The 743rd (and the other "independent" tank batallions) was not a part of an armored division. They were tasked with support of specific infantry divisions, and were to remain with them, so speed of advance was not a consideration with them, as it was for Patton's fast moving armored divisions.

As for adding it into the current CM, I would not hold my breath. It was not a tiny exception, as most of the independent battalions had them, but we probably will not see them. It would be nice, but...

Pretty much like the difference between German tanks with zimmerit or without it. It was designed to prevent anti-tank magnetic mines from sticking, but the Allies never used them, so there is no real precedent for modelling it.

------------------

Capt. Byron Crank, US Army

[busboy]

Patton noted in his diary that towards the end of WW2 in Germany, he came across some of his tanks with sandbag armor on them. He ordered the men to take the sandbags off at once. (at once probably meaning with much profanity and elequence ) He then went on to note that adding sandbags did almost nothing to incease armor protection, and put a greater strain on the suspension system. That made tanks slower (a BIG Patton no no) and less mechanicly reliable.

On the other hand, I just finnished reading a book on some armor battalion, and it credits sandbags directly for saving tanks. However, the book gives the impression that a well organized layer of sand bags makes a sherman invelnerable to panzerfausts and 88s. Oh yes, and the book also kept saying that the Panther had an 88mm gun. The book was nice for personal accounts and "play by plays" of a few fights, but I don't trust any of its armored vehicle data.

In my opinion, sandbags are useless on tanks. If I recall, you're average panzerfaust could penetrate 7 inches of armor. A premature detonation of one on a sandbag is just not going to make that much of a difference. I think modeling them for historical accuracy is needed (I think the + vehicles are designed to represent all the "oh my god" armor inhancements) and I think that sandbag/log/concrete/extra welded armor would make for some good mods. But I still think they're next to useless practicly, and therefore don't deserve more than the relitive footnote that they do and will get.

------------------

busboy

CO, 99th Dragons

A Warbirds Squadron

'We will heat you up'

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it."

-Robert E. Lee

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I would hate to see what would happen to a tank with three layers of sandbags when it starts raining.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the book gives the impression that a well organized layer of sand bags makes a sherman invelnerable to panzerfausts and 88s. Oh yes, and the book also kept saying that the Panther had an 88mm gun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This book must be by Ambrose.

Tiger

[Guest Germanboy]

I read in (I believe) 'Tank Tracks' that the track parts welded to the turret front of Churchills were quite dangerous, because they gave the German gunners a good indication where to aim at. Apparently there were a few Churchills found with a neat 88 hole through welded track and turret armour. D'uh.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Chupacabra]

IIRC sandbags actually made shaped charge rounds more effective by focusing the plasma jet.

Don't ask me for sources or a decent explanation, I'm sick and hopped up on Robitussin

------------------

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Xavier]

May be the main goal of the sandbags was just to give a good morale to the crew. They obviously feel more protected with this stuff.

I have seen pictures with Sherman protected by large piece of wood and pictures of a stug in Normandy with an additional concrete protection!

[Francesco]

Hey!

StuGs with a grat concrete frontal protection were used by Finns (in 43/44) they were SuG IV Ausf.G mid/late prod.

I wonder if they will be included in Cm2....

[tss]

Francesco wrote:

StuGs with a grat concrete frontal protection were used by Finns (in 43/44) they were SuG IV Ausf.G mid/late prod.

Yes, they were (that is, concrete was used, but the Stugs were IIIG s, not IV). However, I haven't been able to establish how much concrete was added. I guess that the added protection was quite insignificant.

Also, during June '44 nearly all Finnish Stug crews added logs to sides of the vehicles. Here again, the effect was neglible. (At least on Stug, alik. Rastas's 531-5, was knocked out by a T-34-85 side hit while having added logs).

The ironic thing is that Finns removed the original armor skirts that would have helped against anti-tank rifle rounds (at least two Stugs were damaged by ATRs aimed at the track-wheels). The skirts were found to be too cumbersome while driving in a forest.

- Tommi

[This message has been edited by tss (edited 01-12-2001).]

[Francesco]

Hi Tommy!

What do you think about adding Finnish armour to CM2?

[A Arabian]

Whew. Thank goodness I'm not the only one to remember that, Chupacabra. Could still be completely wrong, though...

[tss]

Francesco wrote:

What do you think about adding Finnish armour to CM2

That's pretty easy to do. All but three tank models in Finnish service were also used by either Soviets of Germans, or both. The three exceptions are:

- Renault FT-17. These were so obsolete that they were used only in Winter War as dug-in MG and gun (37 mm) turrets. Their use was so limited, that there's no need to model them.

- Landsverk-anti. A open-topped self-propelled 40 mm Bofors AA gun. Pretty nifty AA vehicle, but there were only 6 of them and exactly one was used exactly once in the front line, and that was not during a battle. (It was a field test against Soviet fortifications in Summer '43). The Landsverks downed few dozens of Soviet aircraft in Summer '44, though. Again, no special need to model it.

- BT-42. The only Finnish-made tank (though it was designated as an assault gun) of the whole war. It had a 114 mm howitzer attached to a BT-7 chassis. Pretty good as self-propelled artillery, completely obsolete in front-line tank battles, from start. However, in 20 June '44 they were used against Soviet tanks, with poor results.

As for other tanks, Finns did some modifications, like replacing stugs' MG34s with captured DTs, but nothing big.

- Tommi

[Guest Big Time Software]

Crank_GS:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But, the sandbags did help offset the penetration of shaped charge weapons. If the weapon is farther away from the armor itself (which the sand did accomplish) the energy of the shaped charge was dissipated, thereby reducing it's effectiveness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chupacabra is correct. While armor plate (or another hard surface) away from the main armor, with an airgap inbetween, can have some positive effect. The key is the airgap.

Like most lazy things in this world the plasma jet goes the path of least resistance. The less resistance around the main armor, the less of the energy will be focused on it. That is the basic principle at work here. So there is no argument that air offers the least resistance of any substance you care to choose. So there should be no argument that the denser the material inbetween the stand off point and the main armor, the less positive effect it will have on protecting the main armor. This is just simple laws of physics here.

It is most likely the case that the sand INCREASED penetration abilities of something like a Panzerfaust. Not only did it optimize the standoff range, but it kept the energy focused. But at the very least, it probably was a dense enough material that effectively it had no net-positive effect.

One of the first discussions we had about this involved some guys with knowledge of physics related to this topic. Basically, sand is probably a really bad substance to have used. I don't remember the specifics, but the heat changed the properties of the sand to a much harder state. I know this isn't correct, but kinda like changing the sand into glass. So this actually helped contain and channel the plasma blast to be right on target under optimal conditions. And even if it had a 50% positive effect (which would be HUGE) a Panzerfaust is still plenty capable of knocking out almost any Allied tank from the side.

From time to time we have read "accounts" where sandbags supposedly helped. So far we have not seen one that couldn't have been explained in some other way. In other words, it is likely that if the tank had NO sandbags the same outcome would have happened. So like many things in human history, people falsely credited something with the success that it had nothing to do with creating (like the rains finally came because the God of Rain was pleased with the sacrifice last night).

And the negative reaction against sandbags, as well as the lack of widespread adoption, also points to there being no clear case for their effectiveness. If a couple of cases were shown to have DEFEATED a full force Panzerfaust hit, I am sure any armored unit going into dense urban fighting (or woods for that matter) would have taken on the extra weight as the benefits would have certainly outweighed the negatives (overloading the tank).

So... sandbags...

1. Did not do jack squat against any form of AP round used by the Germans in 1944-45.

2. Obviously it had no net positive effect against small arms fire for a tank. Sandbags on the sides of a lightly armored vehicle, such as an M3 HT, might have done some good. But I for one have never seen them applied in such a way.

3. Most likely increased the effectiveness of hollow (shaped) charged rounds. At the very least, it certainly didn't help.

4. The extra weight DID have negative effects, such as reducing mobility and increasing mechanical unreliability. They also needed to be maintained since vehicles often sideswiped things that would rip open the sandbags.

5. All positives and negatives aside, only a small number of Allied vehicles used sandbags. And, from what we can tell, only for a small period of time.

Steve

[Harry Yeide]

Tankers were convinced by their day-to-day experiences that sandbagging worked, which was why they did it and Patton had to throw a fit. They had a tad more expertise on the subject of what would save their lives than we do. As for the 743rd Tank Battalion (subject of "The View from the Turret" by William Folkestad), the unit's archived records show that the battalion sandbagged every single tank between 18 and 22 July 1944. Subsequent entries show the battalion re-sandbagging old tanks or sandbagging new tanks repeatedly during down times, so the technique had become SOP for the outfit. Again: THEY concluded sandbagging added meaningful protection.

Cheers

[Dbroe]

It takes 3 sandbags deep to stop a 30-06 or 7.62 round.So with that as a refernce how much sand do you think it would take to stop a 75mm,or an 88mm with a mv of over 1000 meters per sec.?