i'm comming to the end of painting sturmicheust or how ever you spell it and was wondering if german tanks would ever have sand bags planted on the tank, because i can't recall seing one.

Thank you

I've seen several references stating that the Germans used "extensive folige" on their Armor but nothing about sandbags.

hi,

It's Sturmgeschutz (storm-canon)

I've never seen sandbags on any german tank, as far as i know. (and i could be wrong )
I know allied crew used them extensivly, axis crew's didn't in my opinion.

Q

Ps. Can we see some pictures of the finnished model?

Nope the germans never used sand bags on there tanks.
Only foliage, and it is very very rare but there were some tanks wich carried 1 or 2 fuel drums.

SO if you wnat to build a strange ''thing'' then you can choose for the fuel drums..

Sandbags were used on WWII Italian armor, and were often seen on M13/40's and M40 75/18 Semovente's. After 1943, the Wehrmacht confiscated alot of Italian armor, so it is quite possible that the sandbags were still used.

I know that this has no real relation to a German Sturmgeschutz III (or IV), but I was just pointing out a fact.

Cheers !!

Alpen

Before you say never... in the Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two there is a section called Supplemental Armor. While most of it is about zimmerit and spaced armor, there are two pics of PzIII with sandbags on the front

Alan hits the nail on the head (again ). With German Armour you can not discount anything. As much was left to the units in the field, it is quite conceivable that sandbags might have been used on German Armour. The question to ask is 'Why?'. The Allies used sandbags to counter enemy projectiles, because the Armour of the Allied AFV's was not capable of withstanding the German high velocity 75 and 88 mm shells.. on the other hand the Allied guns were virtually unable to scratch the German Armour from any distance other than point blank. I think the reason the Germans didn't take to adding sandbags is mainly because they where not needed, and only added extra weight to what where allready overweight vehicles. The only real threat to German AFV's were shots at the wheels/tracks/suspension, hence the development of the 'skirts'.

Cheers
Henk

Henk:
You're correct when you say that armor on Tigers, Tiger IIs and Panther derivatives were very tough. Tell a Pz IV, Pz III or StuG crew to go head to head against a Firefly, T34-85 or JS-2. Sandbags might not seem to be that bad an idea!

If you're interested in reading how Churchills dominated Tigers in Africa and Italy and Panthers in Italy, may I suggest you read Gerry Chester's memoirs?



Not that he would say that the Churchill was an overall better tank than the Tiger or Panther but when used effectively, his unit was able to overcome the lethal guns and armor of the German cats.

http://www.nih.ww2site.com/nih/index.html

Go to Personal Narrative. Gerry's still with us and provides great info on Churchills even today.

Sorry Quinten but i do not own a digital camera.

And thanks alot for all of your replys.

Exactly what I wanted to say...
I also recommend these two links (sorry forlinking to another forum...)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=6969
http://www.panzerworld.net/additionalarmour.html

greetings, ekke

Thanks alot Ekke that's helped me so much

thanks for everybody beding over backwards to help me.

LOL! Smeagol thinks talking models and tanks is hard work here on the Big A

Actually, it's either Sturmgeschütz or Sturmgeschuetz - but not Sturmgeschutz.

http://www.panzerworld.net/germanletters.html

I asked my Uncle, he was a Tanker on MK III and IV and the Tiger.
He told me it was a crew preference and that it depended on what happened to be handy.
He said he never worried about it in a Tiger, but in Russia he did have a healthy respect for a T-34 and his crew did add Rail Road Ties to the front of his MK IV.
Its great having a history book in the family

No need to bully Alen, i'm just being grateful :-) :-) :-)