"Crude"? Nearly, that applique armor was an modification that is official compensate for the weakpoints created by the raised drivers hoods. The hoods were the thickness that is same the remainder glacis ...
This image with the title of "SS troops rest beside the wrecks of two M4 Shermans in Italy [2000x1435]" is one of a large collection of pictures from the category Tank . We collect quality images, from a social network website reddit.com
Source: To view the original source also read the full comments of the original poster as well as from other redditor, you can click on the following Link.
Some random comments on reddit about SS troops rest beside the wrecks of two M4 Shermans in Italy [2000x1435]
- "Crude"? Not exactly, that applique armor was an official modification to compensate for the weakpoints created by the raised drivers hoods. The hoods were the same thickness as the rest of the glacis but the armor wasn't sloped. The applique armor was intended to mitigate that problem and it did a fair job. Later versions redesigned the glacis which removed the need for such modifications.
- Crude in the sense that it's obviously a modification applied in the field and the plate is somewhat roughly cut.
- The plate isn't roughly cut, you are seeing the weld lines.
- I think "crude" is a suitable adjective to describe this - roughly welding on a thicker plate of armor in a vulnerable are is not what you would call "refined".
- We seem to have a very different definition of "crude". Applique armor is not crude. It was specifically designed to protect specific vulnerable areas on early versions of the Shermans as they became apparent. "Crude" would be all the sand bags, track links, and wooden armor modifications made by troops in the field. I would also point out that those places are not roughly cut, and not being "refined" does not mean something is "crude".
- We're arguing semantics, it's certainly more refined than pouring concrete but to me adding a plate as an afterthought in the field is relatively crude.
- Perhaps, but they weren't an afterthought, they realized that there were issues with the design and made modifications to existing tanks while they redesigned the hull. The applique armor was either applied at the factory, or in tank depots before being issued to the troops. Heck the armor plates were a part of kits just like the modifications to the M34 gun mount. In my opinion you are portraying the applique armor as if it was equivalent to sand bags and concrete, but it wasn't. It was an official modification applied at the factory or in tank depots, they were not applied in the field. Heck the individual plates even have official parts numbers. The two plates that made up the applique kit that went on the turret were E8553A and E8553B for instance. There were four kits in total. The one I mentioned for the turret, a kit for armor over the ammunition racks in the bustles, the one for the front of the hull which can be seen in your picture, and one I mentioned for the M34 combination gun mount. Once again, the applique armor was not applied in the field, it was an official modification applied to the Sherman to address some issues in the original design.
- Fair enough, in that respect I would concede it was not the WW2 equivalent of this .
- Lol indeed not.
- Did both Shermans have their turrets blown off or was this done afterwards? Maybe it was done by the germans in order to make sure they were unoperable and so everyone knew they were knocked out (guessing here).
- It was common to keep on shooting at disabled tanks until they caught fire if they didn't do so on the first hit, and certainly the fuel and ammunition which the Sherman carried was more than sufficient to blow the turret off in the manner seen here. Read more comments