5 types of extra armor that were added to tanks during WWII

5 types of extra armor that were added to tanks during WWII

Share This Article

The technological evolution of warfare is cyclical. As weapons become deadlier, armor becomes stronger. As armor becomes stronger, weapons become deadlier. During WWII, tank technology rapidly advanced from small light tanks to battlefield behemoths like the German Tiger. In order to better protect themselves from enemy fire, tank crews often added extra layers of protection to their tanks. Some added armor was more effective than others, though.

1. Sandbags

5 types of extra armor added to tanks during WWII

An angry General Patton after reprimanding a tank crew for the sandbags on their Sherman (Public Domain)

Related: The Sherman was actually a great WWII tank

Sandbags stop bullets, right? Generally, yes. Short of a high-caliber round like a .50 BMG, sandbags are able to stop bullets. Not tank shells, bullets. Still, this reality didn’t stop American tankers from fortifying the front, sides and turret of their M4 Shermans with an array of sandbags. Arguably more of a psychological armor than a protective one, Sherman crews were desperate for any advantage against the deadly German anti-tank guns they went up against. However, not only did the sandbags offer no additional protection from tank shells, but the extra weight added undue stress to the suspension and drivetrain. By the summer of 1944, General Patton himself banned the addition of sandbags on his tanks. Where sandbags did have some potential is as protection from magnetic mines. Some tank crews placed sandbags on their vehicle’s underside to deter such weapons.

2. Spare tracks

5 types of extra armor added to tanks during WWII

British tank equipped with tracks (Imperial War Museum)

Related: The six most massive tank battles in US history

Seeking additional armor, Sherman tankers took to welding spare track-links to their tanks. Like the sandbags, the tracks were applied to the front and sides of the tank hull as well as the turret. However, the effectiveness of the track armor is doubtful. Tracks were not made of armor-grade steel and offered little, if any, additional protection. In fact, the soft track steel could normalize an incoming AP round and turn it directly into a Sherman’s hull, negating the protective effect of its sloped frontal armor. Again, the added weight put extra strain on the suspension and drivetrain with dubious benefits. Still, this didn’t prevent American, British, Canadian or Polish tankers from slapping spare tracks on their tanks.

3. Logs

A 76mm Sherman with logs strapped to its sides (Public Domain)

Logs were another improvised armor added to tanks during WWII. However, they could also be removed from the tank and placed under the tracks in boggy terrain for additional traction. In fact, many Soviet tanks left the factory with logs mounted for this reason. As armor, however, logs did not offer much protection. Like the sandbags, a full-power AP round could penetrate a log and reach a tank’s hull armor with very little lost velocity. However, it did provide some stand-off distance to protect against shaped charged weapons. Still, the molten jet of copper created by these weapons was generally unfazed by the extra spacing of a log.

4. Spaced Armor

armor

A Panzer IV H fitted with hull and turret SchĂĽrzen (Public Domain)

In order to keep a shaped charge from reaching the tank itself, a layer of armor needed to be placed far enough from the tank to give the warhead enough space to detonate harmlessly. At an angle, the extra layer of armor could also reduce the effectiveness of kinetic projectiles like tank AP shells and anti-tank rifle rounds by altering their angle of attack. Spaced armor could be mounted on the turret and/or the hull. The Germans used spaced armor extensively in the form of SchĂĽrzen. These armored skirts were fitted primarily against kinetic rounds and proved effective against light anti-tank weapons.

5. Tank armor

armor

A 76mm Jumbo Sherman. Note the extra protection on the front resulting in the recessed hull-mounted ball turret. (Public Domain)

What’s the best type of extra tank armor? Actual tank armor. Although Patton banned the application of sandbags to his tanks as extra armor, crews were eventually allowed to cannibalize armor from destroyed tanks and weld it onto their own tanks. The salvaged armor was applied to weak points like hatches, ports and flat sections in general, and proved to be effective. The concept of extra armor on the Sherman culminated in the M4A3E2 “Jumbo” Sherman. From the factory, Jumbos were fitted with thicker armor on the hull front, turret, and gun mantlet. Though the extra armor slowed the tanks down by 3-4 mph, it made them nearly unkillable from the front, even by a Tiger. 5 types of extra armor that were added to tanks during WWII

6 Likes

Concrete was also used as appliqué armor.

There is no rule that says modification to a military vehicle can only be done by people who know what they’re doing, actually that is a lie as there is a rule saying exactly that, but historically many armies struggle to enforce that rule. Often modification to the vehicle is done at the lower echelon. This is the wonderful world of troops and battlefield workshops choosing their own adventure so to speak.

One might question the effectiveness of concrete as extra armor, what’s certain is the crews’ perception that their vehicle is not optimized for the environment they’re operating in. Often this leads to trying something that address the needs they don’t have an adequate answer for.

Concrete appliqué armor

4dtvqq0k69d81
Sherman crew applying concrete as extra armor

4jlaj4eweym21
M4A3E2 “Jumbo” with added concrete armor


M4A3(76)W Sherman

captured StuG III Ausf.G
Captured StuG III Ausf.G


M26 Pershing

T34

T34-1

T34-2

T34-3

T34-4


Concrete sandbags

qo7ob4aj4ez91

5o1DZZk

t9t9zpnytxe71

6 Likes

Wasn’t zimmerit also some sort of concrete paste?

Not that it really would count as armor, but it at least countered magnetic mines right?

The funny thing with the Zimmerit is that it was created to counter a thing only Germans themselves utilized, no other country had magnetic anti-tank grenades (the closest one was the No 74 Sticky Bomb, but it worked completely differently and poorly at that). Now, the question is, was it a stupid waste of resources or 200IQ move to discourage Allies from actually developing such weapons.

2 Likes

Who knows what the answer to that question is - still it looks cool, so i am glad they did it.

Obv, it was stupid. As Allies managed to win war even without usage of magnetic AT grenades.

1 Like

Well, yes, but the Germans didn’t know that.

1 Like

not at all i’d think.

it could be considered ironic how they were the only nation that remotely widely used magnetic mines, and went ahead to prevent other nations of using such mines on their own tanks. ( what is weird though, only half way through the war they decided to apply it. )

mostly hindsight at play here.

2 Likes

its like saying, this is how you beat mag mines, maybe they wanted the soviets to waste money on it

1 Like

The standard application of Zimmerit is only 6 mm. It’s not intended to act as extra armor.

The total required thickness was 6mm. Workers applied a 2mm thick layer and allowed four hours for it to dry before using a blow torch to burn off excess moisture and harden the paste. They then applied the remaining 4mm. The surface was patterned and the blow torch was applied again. [source]


Panther of the 5th SS Panzer Division, “Wiking” showing damage to the Zimmerit layer after a direct hit from a shell

Interestingly the Soviet encountered Zimmerit in January 1944. They didn’t know what the substance was and concluded that it was to counter Molotov cocktail, but inquire further analysis at a laboratory. [source]

As to how effective it is at reducing the effectiveness of magnetic antitank mine, the videos below does a good job at demonstrating it.

1 Like

Grunts and crafts