Knowing the vulnerabilities of German rear armor on Panzer IVs, Tigers, and Panthers, is there any evidence (photos, documents) of plate armor welded or bolted to those areas? I know there where shields over exhaust pipes, and extra tracks sometimes, but I do not mean those easily penetrated methods.

I know, that if I were a tank commander of a Panzer IV, Tiger or Panther back in the day, I would have supplemented my rear armor by hook or by crook!
Thank you.

None that I'm aware of.

Any tank commander getting shot from behind is doing something wrong. The exhaust armour was to protect from shrapnel during artillery explosions.

Welcome to the site, George.

Obviously I haven't seen photos of every German tank taken on every day of the war but there are some practical considerations when contemplating such things.

The hull rear plate generally had various access hatches for idler adjustment, fan pulley tension adjustment, starting handle etc., so any additional armour there would need to be either not blocking those or removable (and armour plate is heavy).

There is also the fact that analysis of hits showed that the majority came in the frontal arc (unsurprisingly), so going to the trouble of finding and fitting additional armour to the rear was probably not considered worth the effort.

While some modellers like to imagine tank crews welding all sorts of bits of kit to their vehicles, the reality is that such tasks were carried out by workshop fitters (see many tanks with welding sets in te stowage bins?) who fell under a military command structure so there was generally some standardisation across the unit and unauthorised one-offs were not that common. There are loads of examples, such as LAH Panther turret hooks, PR26's rear deck bins, 3CLY's glacis armour plates, the Chieftain unit which fitted M47 bins to the turret side etc..

If adding such armour to the rear were effective, is it not odd that nobody has done it since? How many Soviet tanks with ETA had it on the rear? How about the ROMOR and TUSK kits seen on British and US MBTs? Tank design is a compromise and more armour means more weight and less mobility, so designers and users (who have more to lose) try to concentrate the armour where they perceive that it will do the most good. The best defebce against being shot up from behind is not to let the enemy get there in the first place.

German Tanks always retreated in reverse gear!

Yes, thought provoking, and detailed practical answers such as those I have received here, are indeed the reason I decided to join Armorama!

I thank everyone for their excellent input, but will continue to hope that at least one pic, will one day be found, of supplemental and modestly thick armor--fitted to (at least one) Panzer IV, Panther, or Tiger. Wishful thinking I know.

On a side note, slat armor has been tested (but not adopted) on the Abrams in Iraq :



H.P.

"I know, that if I were a tank commander of a Panzer IV, Tiger or Panther back in the day, I would have supplemented my rear armor by hook or by crook!"

And your platoon leader would remove you from your command for instilling such unwarranted fear and doubt about your equipment into your crew and the unit that you might so incompetently show your arse to an enemy gun.

This isn't teen-agers fixing or souping up old cars in the garage with left-over parts. These are AFVs. While there was some level of autonomy given to "personalization", many things were NEVER ok. Certain tools HAD to be in their perscribed places ON EVERY TANK. Fire Extinguishers HAD to be in their prescibed places ON EVERY TANK. One tank couldn't wildly decorate/camo their vehicle w/o express coordination w/other crews. Safety. Uniformity.

If your tank is bogged down at 4AM on a moonless night, can other crews go over and grab tools to help you? If the Platoon leader's tank is KOd and has to take over your tank, when he sits down and reaches for the mic or headset, is it hanging on the same hook as was in his own tank? If someone grabs a jerry can in the middle of the night, will it be filled with water or petrol?

The military is a funny thing. Uniformity is the rule. Slabs of armor on a tank's rear? I'm extremely skeptical.

The relative usefulness of such armour is pretty doubtful. The number of times a tank is shot in teh arse compared to being shot over the front 30 deg arc is negligable. If it wasn't negligable, the tank would eb better armoured back there.

If you have the wherewithal to carry more armour, you carry it over the frontal arc of the tank. A large number of Panthers and Tigers were knocked out from the sides by Allied guns and tanks, faaaar more than the number that might have been knocked out from behind (Kelly's Heros notwithstanding). I have yet to see a single example of a photo of a Tiger, or Panther, with supplimental armour on the hull or turret sides, yet both tanks could be easily penetrated at combat ranges by 6 pdrs and 75mm guns if they got a clean beam shot at either tank.

No, I'd bet a modest amount that this is a "never" and, if not, is certainly a "very, very nearly never".

It just doesn't make any sense.

Tanks simply can not be equally protected from all angles. Crews know, understand and accept this.

Paul

I definitely have no problem agreeing with you, ericadeane and tankmodeler--since what you both are saying is true.

I've read more than a few books on the tank battles of WWII along while back---as well as the stuff I can find on the Internet today (since my books are long gone)---and the old cliche story of more than one Sherman etc--having to distract a big cat whilst another sneaks up back, must have impressed itself upon my mind a tad too much. These days, I have more or less indeed come to the belief that such scenarios were rather infrequent, and certainly not the norm--as some writers made it out to be.

I also tend to fancy the notion of " the outlandish or oddball implementation of an idea" that saves the day--in times of desperation, occurring as a unique circumstance.

Excepting, of course, 'spare' track links used as armour. Pretty commonly seen on Panthers and Tigers not to mention the medium tanks. Also Schürzen. :-)

I've always had my doubts about the effectiveness of using spare tracks as extra protection TankManNick. Seems like it would help to some degree.
That brings up another question by the way. We are quite familiar with pics of the Panzer IV and Tigers using track as supplemental armor (especially the IV )--so are there any pics of Tigers or Panthers using tracks at the rear--as well as the usual front?
I cannot recollect encountering such a pic of that even!

I also seem to recollect (was it Patton) or some other general, banning the use of all kinds of supplemental material added to Shermans--as being in fact detrimental to protection?

Most of them, anyways. One of the Jagdtigers from Otto Carius' company decided to turn before retreating infront of several Shermans.

George, I belive you're right in thinking it was Patton who banned feild modified armour.

The more important consideration is, do you want to do that with your model? If so, then do it and make yourself happy! I personally have never seen any pictures of rear supplemental armor. That being said, it doesn't mean it couldn't or wasn't done! So have at it and throw some armor back there!!

Exactly! That is what I am going to do Me109G.
So all here will at least see a Tiger 1 with what we have never seen in any pic.
Perhaps it might one day inspire an Unauthorized Supplemental Armor GB--!!!!

I'm not at all sure that the spare track seen on Tigers and Panthers was meant primarily as additional armour. On Allied tanks, it was welded on and definitely used as armour, but the Tigers and Panthers had the links on the hulls and turret, yet these were removable and definitely to be used as actual spare links if need be. Any "armour" properties were incidental.

Schürzen were definitely armour, but against Russian AT rifles only, not main tank guns or AT guns.

On the mediums, when draped across the glacis, yes, it was armour, but even on the mediums you don't see them covering the surfaces like you do on Allied tanks. And even on Allied tanks you don't see them on the rear.

As for the actual usefulness, it's been pretty much proven and was known during the war that the track links had very little actual effect, not being made of armour steel, but crews took a great morale benefit from them and so many units permitted it, useful or not.

Paul

What about the all aspect anti RPG Trophy system on the IDF AFVs? I understand that the Russian equivalent leaves the rear open to incoming. I guess the IDF fights in urban up close enough they expect something from the rear? Trophy radar is less of a weight penalty as well

The deployed Canadian Leopard 2's in Afghanistan were fitted with slat armour all around, and worked quite well, fighting in a 360 environment. There are photos of T-34/85's with bed frames welded all around the hull.

Anthony

Just found a pic at the bottom of the talk section on the Panzer IV--labeled "non standard roof armor". It seems to be the same thickness, or a little thicker than the skirt armor.
It sits on brackets with a space between it and the turret surface. Must be for defense against aircraft strafing.

This one ?



Similar add-ons could be seen fitted to Panthers :



More pics here :

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/325264-air-attack-on-panzer/

H.P.

Yes Frenchy, that is the one!

Great pic of the Panther! First time I've ever seen that pic.
Thanks for posting that!

If memory serves, Patton was against sand bag extra armor. His ordinance officers said it was ineffective. It also added several tons to the tank which strained the transmission and suspension. Patton pushed for added armor plate instead and had erzatz jumbos made for the 3rd Army. Entire glacis plates from knocked out Shermans were welded on. I think it was the 14th Armored Div. which built authorized sandbagged Shermans which drew Patton's ire when they were asigned to the 3rd Army.

Tom

That extra plate on the turret of the Panther would seem to be at least an inch thick--more than Panzer IV side armor.

Vehicles fighting in built up areas do, in fact need armour all round, but it is primarily against a different threat. By the end of WW II the handheld AT rocket (Panzerfaust, bazooka, RPG-2) were in use and in cities tanks could now be taken out by individual soldiers, making all-round armour more useful for the attackers. It makes less sense for the defenders as they are the ones controlling the infantry with the weapons and can fight their AFVs from prepared positions. So T-34s in WW II are seen with the screen armour all round as are modern AFVs in low intensity/urban settings.

Argueably, one can consider the use of all-round emplacements of chain link fencing around lagered AFVs in Vietnam an extension of this theory. The RPGs could come from anywhere and so had to be stopped. But the American AFVs can still eb considered the "attacking" force in these scenrios as they were operating in enemy held territory.

Tigers and Panthers were always on the strategic defensive from 1943 on (counterattacks and local offensives notwithstanding) and had no screaming need for additional arse-end armour. The occassional loss to a rear shot was acceptable.

Paul

That really bothered me about "Saving Private Ryan".
Did they not have any intel to know that Tanks are most vulnerable from the top, bottom and rear? I'm referring to thet last battle scene where Tom Sizemor's character tries firing the bazooka at the fron of, I think it was a Marder, in an urban setting, when they had ample shots from above.

Well Marders are vulnerable to a bazooka from pretty much any angle, so it's not much of a stretch to shoot it from down low.

Paul