Armor modifications to US armored vehicles

[Kyt]

Probably floating around somewhere on the forum but anyway:

Field expedient armor modifications to US armored vehicles

This thesis examines field expedient modifications to US armored vehicles by US Army and US Marine Corps armored vehicle crewmen during World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

Two major categories of modifications are examined. They are modifications to improve the primary protection of armored vehicles and modifications to improve the secondary protection of armored vehicles.

Some of the specific types of modifications analyzed are hedgerow cutters, sand bagging, addition or modification of ancillary weapons, communications improvements, camouflage, rocket propelled grenade screens, and addition of concrete.

This thesis determines that field expedient modifications to improve the primary protection of armored vehicles against the enemy's primary armor killing weapons were not effective during all three wars under study.

Additionally, this thesis shows that field expedient modifications to improve the primary and secondary protection of armored vehicles against lesser threats were successful in some cases. The positive psychological impact on armored vehicle crews or field expedient modifications justified the time and resource allocation required for crews to conduct field expedient modifications during all of the conflicts considered.

<o></o>

[von Poop]

You and your damned interesting 100+ page pdf's!
I'm going to have to buy a toner cartridge to get the laser printer going now...

[Kyt]

[T. A. Gardner]

This is what passes for higher education?!!! Far to generalized for my tastes. Where is the empherical data on the effectiveness of these modifications. Many are barely discussed. On the whole, not worth printing out.....maybe the biblography; there might be a gem or two in it.

[Kyt]

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

This is what passes for higher education?!!! Far to generalized for my tastes. Where is the empherical data on the effectiveness of these modifications. Many are barely discussed. On the whole, not worth printing out.....maybe the biblography; there might be a gem or two in it.

It's a Masters' thesis, not an book.

[T. A. Gardner]

As this is a WW 2 board, just on the WW 2 part: Passing mention of concrete armor, applique armor (very important mod along with wet stowage), and no emperical discussion of the effectiveness of these methods. The discussion of add-on armor packages to vehicles is given passing attention. This is particularly noteworthy as there were glacis add on packages that many M4 got giving them more armor there than a Panther and making them invulnerable to the 75L48.
Nothing is mentioned for example of the 7th Army mod to put an armored roof on all of their M 36 and M 10 tank destroyers (post war a better kit was adopted). Nothing on use of screens and fencing as an anti-panzerfaust / lunge mine defense (well, a very brief mention).
On the other hand much is made of the Culin hedgerow cutter, a modification that while effective, was necessary for a very short period of fighting compared to the above.
Even a thesis should try to present the topic with an eye to thorough coverage and, more importantly, a showing by the writer of analytical ability rather than just recitation of facts.
The author's conclusions are in part just wrong (the primary threat in Europe was infantry AT weapons not tank and towed guns...look at kill percentages and causes) and in part gloss over the utility of improvised armor. He basically dismisses it as not worth the effort while giving grudging approval for its "limited" ability to protect vehicles.

When you go beyond WW 2 he does the same thing. No mention of the add-on armor shields that eventually wound up as the ACAV mod kit for the M113. It is obvious one of the biggest threats to crews of AFV in Vietnam was small arms fire, probably far more than the RPG. The crews reacted to this appropriately. Yet, this is missed. And, today in Iraq you see the same kinds of improvised armor on vehicles yet again for essentially the same reason.....fragments and small arms not AT weapons.

If anything, a better conclusion would be that crews quickly see the threats to their lives and act to do what they can to counter those threats. The recommendation should be that the official response is to quickly issue semi- or expert instruction on which and how to best utilize improvised armor rather than dismiss it as officially "worthless."