bfamily33 Posted January 14, 2001 Share Posted January 14, 2001 Here are two interesting webpages I came across that show sandbags, tracks and logs employed for additional vehicle hardening. This one shows extensive use, by Sherman / Firefly, of spare tracks and to a lesser extent sandbags: http://www.cgo.wave.ca/~sbeldam/main11.htm This one shows logs utilized by Finnish Stugs: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/stug.htm I was searching to see if I could find any photos showing the M24 employing sandbags. I had no luck and could find no narrative references. I suspect it was not used on this light tank. Consequently, this mod is probably very unrealistic not to mention ugly: http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1437394&a=10778010&p=37350787 Until someone mods a really nice Chaffee, I've been using these sandbags to coverup an original texture that has grown old IMO. Perhaps Bergman/Moleck could mod a nice Chaffee to match their Shermans/Stuarts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 14, 2001 Share Posted January 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but these tankers themselves probably saw a German tank and assumed it was a Tiger I. A Panzer II thought to be a Tiger I firing its 20mm gun, when thought to be a 88mm will not even penetrate a non-sandbagged Sherman tank. Accounts of troops on the field are not quite as reliable as physicists. Possibly there were other reasons why their tanks weren't holed (ie. mistaking Panzer IV's for King Tigers, 75mm guns for 88mm guns) instead of sandbags being the end result? Also, most of these tankers carried 'good luck charms' which they thought would definitely save their lives in battle (with about as much chance as sandbags!). Should CM model each tank having a rabbits foot/fuzzy dice being able to survive direct 88mm hits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Posted January 14, 2001 Author Share Posted January 14, 2001 Hi! About Finnish armour... I'd like to see expecially modified StuGs III G Mid/Late versions (with all that concrete it would be very nice to see what it would appear). ------------------ Veni Vidi Vici Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted January 14, 2001 Share Posted January 14, 2001 There is no statistcal proof that sandbags aided at all in the protection of Sherman's armor (paraphrasing from my question to a BT employee). As far as modding it goes (and that idea has been presented to me), you can shadow it to look ok (a la the headlight on the KT) from certain angles but it still looks completely ridiculous from others. There would need to be sandbag "bumps" added to the 3D model to make it look right. Kitty ------------------ Hamsters at War! Chicks With Tanks Lorak's FTX "I'd rather the Bees than your Mask of Shame." - Stuka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Yeide Posted January 14, 2001 Share Posted January 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: Yeah, but these tankers themselves probably saw a German tank and assumed it was a Tiger I. A Panzer II thought to be a Tiger I firing its 20mm gun, when thought to be a 88mm will not even penetrate a non-sandbagged Sherman tank. Accounts of troops on the field are not quite as reliable as physicists. Possibly there were other reasons why their tanks weren't holed (ie. mistaking Panzer IV's for King Tigers, 75mm guns for 88mm guns) instead of sandbags being the end result? Also, most of these tankers carried 'good luck charms' which they thought would definitely save their lives in battle (with about as much chance as sandbags!). Should CM model each tank having a rabbits foot/fuzzy dice being able to survive direct 88mm hits? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I think they were much more concerned about Panzerfausts. Wargamers love tanks to run into tanks, but most of the independent tank battalion tankers spent most of their time supporting infantry against infantry. Tanks only cropped up now and again. Any technique that reduced the chances of a Panzerfaust penetration by any percent whatsoever was a good investment. Remember, these outfits were losing tanks and men and a terrible rate. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted January 14, 2001 Share Posted January 14, 2001 I agree with the last comment. The sandbags probably made no difference whatever vs. high velocity AP shells. But HEAT rounds depend on a detonation a certain distance from the armor plate, and the nose-cone of a Panzerfaust or Schreck shell was specifically designed to have the right distance for maximum penetration. (The explosive in the warheads is some distance from the front of the shell with those). An added 6 inches of distance between detonating HEAT round and the armor would reduce the focus of the explosion. And sand is lousy at stopping an AP round, but quite useful to dissipate an explosive jet of hot gas (it is heat-resistent, it "gives", etc). I bet the tankers knew quite well from the hedgerow experiences what Panzerfausts could do and what sandbags could do against them. Remember, in the Normandy fighting, the U.S. was attacking through the bocage and getting ambushed by fausts at very close range regularly. It was the Brits that face most of the German armor. But the Americans were the ones that went whole hog for sandbags. The game effect ought to be to reduce the effectiveness of HEAT rounds only - at a cost in mobility, ground pressure, and acceleration (hp/ton). Whether the CM engine can handle that, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Posted January 14, 2001 Author Share Posted January 14, 2001 Hi! Now the question related to this discussion is: May the additional armours be included in the game? By additional armour I mean all that situation in which tank crew added some armour or other kind of protections on their tanks. An example: it would be great if you could choose M4A3/4 (76) Shermans with additional sand-bags protections for flanks and front of turret and hull, in this case it would be right if the game could select different types of added protections: for example; an AP round couldn't do anything more than trapass very easly the added sand-bags but these could stop with more chanches a HEAT projectile or some shell-slices. On another way: a PZIV with full protected turret and hull front by separeted track-links, in this case the metal of these spare parts should be able to stop all kind of projectiles (because it could be realized as added armour) BUT there should be a difference between these additions and other examples of bolted-on additions (more reliable, obviously), the difference should be this: bolted-on armour consdered simply as more armour but added track links should be considered yes as added more armour but with a chance: not all projectiled hitting the added armour should be stopped with succes, one could take directly the main armour simply bypassing the addon one. And, the hitted addon armour should be represented as lots of pieces that could easly kill some near soldiers, for example. I'mn not sure if I've explicitated well ehat I had like to mean but what do you think about this? (excuse my bad english!) Ragards, Francesco ------------------ Veni Vidi Vici Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted January 14, 2001 Share Posted January 14, 2001 Look at the following thread for a pretty in depth discussion of sandbagging, and why it isn't in the game: www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000381.html Ben Return of the Searchanauts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted January 15, 2001 Share Posted January 15, 2001 I do believe Patton was quite adamant that AFVs under his command would not make use of sandbags. The reason for this was that the extra weight was adding stress to the suspension and the drive, resulting in more frequent maintenance being required. Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted January 15, 2001 Share Posted January 15, 2001 Thankyou Ben ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Posted January 16, 2001 Author Share Posted January 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitty: There is no statistcal proof that sandbags aided at all in the protection of Sherman's armor (paraphrasing from my question to a BT employee). As far as modding it goes (and that idea has been presented to me), you can shadow it to look ok (a la the headlight on the KT) from certain angles but it still looks completely ridiculous from others. There would need to be sandbag "bumps" added to the 3D model to make it look right. Kitty But if it is so, why did US Army units upgrated those Shermans? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Francesco: But if it is so, why did US Army units upgrated those Shermans? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why do people go to church? Because they believe in God, but that does not mean there is one. The tankers believed that sandbags would help. All that this thread is saying is that this was an unfounded belief. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Posted January 16, 2001 Author Share Posted January 16, 2001 That's OK, excuse me for my TESTADURA but I've to change my mind. Thanks all for the clearment! Regards, Francesco ------------------ Veni Vidi Vici Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimorocca Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 Ciao Francesco, anyway the sandbags was used by the Italian tank coffin in the Desert war. And I don't know if with a weak armor and against the early war antitank weapons, 37mm, 2 pdr, At rifles the sandbags was only a "morale" feature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: I do believe Patton was quite adamant that AFVs under his command would not make use of sandbags. The reason for this was that the extra weight was adding stress to the suspension and the drive, resulting in more frequent maintenance being required. Mace<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Patton also was adamant that his tankers wear ties when they dismounted.... Actually I remember the up armoring that was done to the M113 to fight AT mines in Vietnam -- it resulted in 40% drive train casualties a week. Still, maybe as has been said they were good against shaped charges, if nothing else. I found no literature on it one way or the other this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <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> The downside is that the extended wear on the drivetrain is not applicable to the game - that was the reason Patton yelled at his tank crews for using sandbags, spare track, etc. Canadian crews tended to use spare track extensively - the problem is that there are no penalties within the game for adding the track whereas in real life you could expect your engine to wear out more quickly, creating logistical problems beyond the scope of a tactical game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Yeide Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 At least the pro-sandbag forces in this thread can now point to one documented case of the things working. This is from "M4 Sherman," by Michael Green: "A field-expedient way to beef up the Sherman's thin armor was to find spare tracks, sandbags, wooden logs, planks, chicken wire, and any other materials and secure them to the Sherman. These additional items acted as a standoff from the armor to detonate the warheads of the Panzerfaust before they actually struck the vehicle's armor. It didn't always work that way, but it worked often enough to convince many Sherman crews to load down their vehicles with a wide variety of different materials. An example of the effectiveness of this add-on material is described in a wartime report. 'T/Sgt. Heyd, Maintenace Sergeant of Co. E 67th AR has seen and retrieved all tanks of this company which had been hit by enemy tank and anti-tank guns. Of a total of 19 tanks hit, 17 tanks had been penetrated while only 2 tanks had withstood the force of the enemy high-velocity shells and ricocheted. These ricochets were due to the addeed protection of sand bags and logs used to reinforce the armor plate in front of the tank.'" If you don't like them apples, take it up with T/Sgt. Heyd. Cheers. You can call me "junior." What the Hell is that, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts