Increase to German armor thickness

[Poopyhead]

I believe that in late ’40 (or certainly by ’41) the Germans took extra sections of steel track for a panzer and welded it to the front end of Mk III’s to increase armor thickness. I know that Rommel did it, and I have seen pictures of Mk III’s on the Russian steppe with it. I am not certain whether this was done with other panzers types. Does the game reflect this at all, or are all armor thicknesses taken only from the design specs? It was a “field fix” not an actual upgrade, like H to J. It’s not like the German’s need any more advantages, but it is an historical fact.

[Puukkoo]

It seems that its merely a field innovation. A hidden message from the panzer crews: build better tanks!

[minefield]

If I'm not mistaken tanks of quite a few nations were like this. If they didn't actually weld the tracks to the front, they stored spare tracks at the front. Some had logs tied all over them. Not a historian but I thought I remembered something like this...

I think it would be impossible to figure out how to account for such modifications.

[Poopyhead]

I also don't know how prevalent this practice was. I knew that Rommel had done it, but when I saw a show on the Military channel with a MK III in Russia that had the same appearance, I wondered if it had spread throughout the Wehrmacht. If it had, this would affect the historical accuracy of a lot of scenarios. It is pretty much an armored skirt to the front, but I don't know if one can edit this.

[FNG]

With some models of AFV, it actually decreased the overall effectiveness of the front armour because the track sections created a 'shot trap' that prevented an incoming AP round from being deflected by the slope of the armour. Maybe we can pretend that the net effect averages out to zero, and that's how the game engine handles it [:)]

[m10bob]

ALL German tanks had optional plates (made in home front factories) to increase front armor.They were sent to the front to be applied to the tanks.
They did not create "shot traps" as a shot trap is on a surface which might curve down, (like the turret on the Porsche Tiger, or under the turret gun mantlet of the earlier Panther.)
The plates were applied to the front, (flat) superstructure wall, which also had the drivers port and gunners port.
Source:Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two, Chamberlain and Doyle.........
Note: This was apparently after 1942.To the best of my knowledge, the armor used in the game is the "average" thickness of known armor.

[Poopyhead]

Yes, from what I’ve read, these thick plates were riveted to the tanks in the field. The problem with this was that a direct hit sometimes shattered the rivets and the plates fell off. The tracks, however, were thin enough to weld to the flat surfaces. I have several books where this is apparent in pictures of III’s, IV’s and even StuG’s and a Wespe (I even have a picture of an Italian M.13 with sandbags the size of hay bales in the front.). The question remains, is the actual historical armor thickness correctly represented in the game? The game says the long barreled Mk IV has 54 mm of armor sloped at, I believe, 12 degrees in the front. Anyone who looks at a picture of a Mk IV can see that a lot of the surface in the front is not sloped at all. So is this game number already a compromise? If an engineer tank gets extra forward armor for the dozer blade (which seems to be the case), then maybe some of the other tanks (Allied as well) deserve to get extra armor too. This may seem like a can of worms, but no more than any other tweak for the sake of realism.

[m10bob]

At least one of the American Shermans has been given the sandbags, (it just was never labelled as such.)
Those German plates were more effective than the treads, (which were used by nearly all nations to break up certain shot.)
Again, IIRC, the armor on those German tanks has already been compensated by "averaging" the known/common armor thickness.
(I questioned these things myself about 18 months ago, if you care to look back that far.)
Ref the sandbags, it was found that while they helped American tanks (which nearly all had them by 10/44!), they tended to wear out out the leader sprockets much sooner, and slowed the tank down and hurt its' maneuverability, (the 2 real values of the Sherman vs German tanks).
The speed and maneuverability of the Sherman may have been compensated for (downward) on that one "sandbag" Sherman.
They also interfered with the turret being able to revolve once the sand got "loose" !!!

[Poopyhead]

Thanks. I guess like minds think alike. Now I can finally go back to wrapping Christmas presents.[:D]