Was just thinking about what could have been done (aside from a complete redesign)
to the Sherman to make it less of a 'death trap' for the tankers during the war. Reactive
armour is one of those "why didn't I think of that" type of things that might actually have
been thought up...maybe

Just a subject for chewin' on that's all.

my two cents.

Tread

During WWII, US tanks were primarily used for infantry support. Reactive armor is very dangerous to dismounted troops near the tank when the armor goes off. Reactive armor also defeats high explosive rounds (like HEAT or HEP) or explosive missiles (like panzerfaust, TOW, LAW, Bazooka) not kinetic energy rounds (basically big @ss, fast bullets). An 88's or 76mm's high velocity round would tend to go through the reactive armor and into the tank any way.

Good point regarding ground troops, but I was thinking primarily about some way to improve
the 'life expectancy' of the Sherman when up against the more superior German armour.
Something that could have conceivably been invented in 1943. Also, wouldn't the same
principles you mentioned in your response apply to modern armour also?

I often wondered that too TH. I always thought why couldn't the men apply more armor to the tanks. Make them thicker. I understand that too much becomes too heavy for the suspension and the power to weight ratio become too stressed. I still can't believe the US kept mass producing these negligently armored tanks. What if the US pushed a tank like the M26 quicker into mass pro.. And what if the US Army realized the effectiveness of "schurzen" or spaced armor, which was able to relive some of the blasts effect by pre-detonating on the plates and using the air between the plates to help reduce it's force. Than again they were flimsy at best and would not survive rough driving conditions. Heck, even the Russians used it, and they even used wire mess much like a chain link fence to some extent.
All in the continuing arms vs. armor race...

Not being a tanker myself, what actually is reactive armor. I have often heard of the term, but have always wondered what it is.

Reactive armor is basically boxes of plastic explosives mounted on the outside of tanks. When and explosive round, like a missile or HEAT (high explosive anti tank) round hits the outside ERA, the plastic explosives detonate, negating or dispersing the explosive round's deadly jet of molten metal.

In modern tactics, troops are not in close proximity to the armor. Tanks tend to be bullet magnets. Additionally, troops don't ride on top of or the sides of tanks any more since they are mainly mechanized and have IFVs and other purpose-built APCs to ride in.

OKay that puts your response into perspective!!

Not a kind mechanism for infantry!

What would you consider sandbagging a Sherman then (which was done very often)? Spaced out armor or add on armor? Just want to know how you would rate that one.... It was a very simple to add and quite effective form of protection. And the wet stowage was a big improvement also, before that the Shermy was a real fire hazard...
The addition of some form of (primitive) reactive armour would not have been a big improvement as the Sherman gun (75 or 76mm) even at close ranges had trouble penetrating the Panther's, Tiger's and King Tiger's armour. It simply didn't pack the needed punch....

I actually was reading a post on the AFV board (shame on me) saying that adding sandbags may have had an adverse effect against long-range fire from German 88's. That being the sandbags prevented some deflection and almost ensured that a hit was able to penetrate instead of glance off. Interesting. Of course my personal feeling is that the Sherman crews were more confident of stopping the panerfaust then the Panther and Tiger rounds.

Jim

You've got to remember, when the Sherman hit the drawing board, it was invisioned to be an infantry support tank. Tank killing duties fell to the anit-tank guns and later to the SP versions (on M3 half-tracks) and eventually to the lightly armored M-10 and M-36 tank destroyers (based on Sherman chassises). It wasn't until the T-26 Pershing was produced that the US made a tank to kill another tank.

For the reasons that Jim stated, was why Patton did not allow his 3rd Army tanks to have the "gypsy wagon" look with all the sandbags and log armor. Plus it didn't look "military" enough.

When dealing with the Tigers, Panthers and all the smaller German tank destroyers like the Hetzer, Jadgpanzers, etc., the sandbag armor really doesn't do a heck of a lot for stopping kinetic energy rounds. Just look at the Iraqi tanks that were destroyed with APFSDS (sabot) rounds fired by the M1A1s. Some of those high energy rounds went right through berms and even multiple tanks, much like the Tigers did to the Shermans.

Sandbag or spaced armor works only against shaped charges like the panzerfaust or a bazooka. Gives the blast a "stand-off" from the tank's real armor.

Indeed, most 88s and tanks that fired upon tanks used APs or APCs, which basically are like a bullet. Solid metel with it's force coming from behind the cap. The other rounds fired on armor was like a HEAT round, shaped charge, which uses a chemical explosion which directs it's force forward of the shell into a concentrated point. Like a blow-torch. Panzerfaust, bazooka, used this.
Sandbags and the like served as more of a psycological barrier than a physical one.
The idea behind shcurzen (skirt) or spaced armor was an attemtp to redirect or cool a shaped charged round. The actual "air" between the skirt and the tank's hull or turret was used for this. The skirt acted as the "trigger" for the round, to set it off before the body of the tank.
Unfortunatly, sandbags helped to "direct" them into the tank. Acting like a "primer" surface.

I can see the point that the sandbags might help to "guide" the AP(C) round into the armor and reducing the chance of deflection, but wouldn't the sandbags cause a HEAT round to detonate prematurely? It had to have some effect, otherwise the crews wouldn't go through the trouble of modifying their vehicles (and often having to scrounge up some "duckbill" trackextenders to compensate for the weight of the sandbags and restore flotation on soft ground).
I also read somewhere that Shermans would also profit of increased mobility compared to the relatively slow German armor, but I guess this has nothing to do with the topic
Addition to what the Major said :
I read in a book somewhere that Patton did not want his Sherman crews to add armor (sandbags or otherwise) because this would mean "that the crews do not have confidence in American made products". How's that for patriottism!?
Also, on Tiger rounds going through multiple tanks, I also read that the rounds sometimes went through the tank without doing real damage!!! I.e. they would punch a hole and go out the other side of the tank, but not destroy it and often not even injuring the crew! And with the wet stowage they would not even cause a fire! They would really have to hit something important (like the transmission or the engine) or kill one or more of the crew, to disable the tank. Guess they were too good, huh?

That was the other point made on the AFV board. Adding all that weight (with the sandbags) actually made the tanks less speedy and manuverable. I would have to agree on examples like the one in FSM recently. There must have been between 50-100 sandbags on that tank. That could add up to a lot of additional weight on the vehicle.

Jim