Jump to content

Sherman Tank: What Went into It


Recommended Posts

Was trying to find out if Russia's beloved Lend-Lease Emchas had wet stowage, when I came across this great article on the over 1000 other items (not ammo) that came with a Sherman and had to go inside it. It's a look at armored warfare I'd not encountered before, and it's on a lose your mind grade site, to boot. Wet ammo storage is but a small part of this excellent article.

http://www.theshermantank.com/category/wet-storage/

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

I notice that it says that a tank would have 5 "greaseguns".  If accurate, we need that in CM2.

Don't know about that. Tank crews have an uncanny ability already with just pistols to be super crack shots and awfully effective. Some of the things they do make them supermen after bailing out. 

Give them 4 grease guns and they will end up being as deadly as the British Paras armed with stens 

In my recent Grosshau battle the flame tank was hit by a hidden panzerfaust and sure enough the bailed out crew with 2 pistols and 1 tommygun killed a lot of Germans by themselves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had no idea bailed tank crewmen were so effective with small arms. For me, whenever I have bailed tank crewmen, their morale state is usually so poor that I cannot command them for a number of turns, and even when I can they are simply too brittle to stand up in a firefight. Plus, I always try to evacuate them to the edge of the battlefield, as I feel that's the most realistic thing to do with them. 

6 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

When crew bail out of tanks in the real world they normally don't take anything they are not wearing. The greases guns could be legitimately used for foot recon but bailed crews would not have them.

This is a really good point I never even thought of, but makes perfect sense. I imagine attempting to escape from a rapidly burning vehicle does not give much time for thinking about all the extra things to collect and bring along with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the time the grease gun was in service the Sherman already had a reputation for catching fire quickly when hit so I'm sure the last thing on a crewmans mind was grabbing a grease gun...

In game terms it's ethically correct to move bailed out crewman to the rear. Doesn't always happen and players often use them as scouts or infantry. It is irritating when you see a bailed out crewmen hosing down one of your infantry sections, especially when armed with just pistols and your men have rifles, SMGs and MGs. I've seen this happen too many times. Gun slinging tank crews with six shooters Wyat Erp style...

Unless specifically mentioned in house rules I've decided to join them if I can't beat them and not retreat my bailed out crews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now here's a thing, statistically the Sherman wasn't all that much more prone to catching fire than any other tank in its class.....However, there were an awful lot of them and the side that used them won. 

QED there were a lot more accounts from surviving Sherman crewmen than there were from crew of the more or less equally combustible Panzer IV.....Hence the legend of the 'Ronson'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't dispute the statiscal fact the PZIV is as combustible as the Sherman but perhaps the nature of the combustibility was what made the Shermans rep. 

Not all tanks burn the same. The Panther used gasoline not diesel and could burn but probably burned in a different way?

The M-60 Patton didn't have a reputation for being a burner to my knowledge but also read when given a choice Israeli tankers would choose the Centurion over the M-60 because the M-60 used hydraulic fluid that could spray the inside of the tank with highly flammable fluid if hit while the Centurion used electrical powered systems that were safer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall it was the ammo stowed in the sponsons rather than the fuel that was the issue of most concern with the Sherman, hence the various extra plates welded or cast onto those locations prior to the introduction of wet stowage hulls.....I'm not disagreeing with your points at all, just suggesting that a large part of the Sherman's reputation is a result of it's sheer omnipresence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

I had no idea bailed tank crewmen were so effective with small arms. For me, whenever I have bailed tank crewmen, their morale state is usually so poor that I cannot command them for a number of turns, and even when I can they are simply too brittle to stand up in a firefight. Plus, I always try to evacuate them to the edge of the battlefield, as I feel that's the most realistic thing to do with them.

My experience matches what you describe the vast majority of the time. I only rarely see tank crews winning in fire fights. Occasionally if they get lucky and hit the guy with the MG the don't all die as they run but they still run.

Yes, several of my regular players have a house rule that says crews must evac to a safe place (exception being HQ crews which can mount a radio equipped vehicle to take command again). I also have a few regular opponents who are more then happy to buddy aid better weapons and send them into the fray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe both would be equally accurate historically, although the former would probably be more common practice.....German crews could dismount the AA/radio operator's MG (nominally it's the same gun, moved between positions) quite easily, but I don't believe this was the case with most Allied AFVs (never checked TBH, is there a tripod in the Sherman's stowage?).

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to give my own bailed crews safe-ish jobs like observation posts if they are not totally Broken. If I am on the attack I will stick them in a halftrack or other vehicle since it doesn't make sense to just leave them behind to fend for themselves. I don't much care what my opponents do. If they want to use them as front line infantry I'll happily accept the easy victory points.

RE: Sherman. The reason for the Sherman's outsized reputation as a burner is simple: it was the most widely used tank among English-speaking armies and was therefore the most prevalent in post-war accounts. 

Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

As I recall it was the ammo stowed in the sponsons rather than the fuel that was the issue of most concern with the Sherman, hence the various extra plates welded or cast onto those locations prior to the introduction of wet stowage hulls...

Indeed. AFAIK, in all tanks it was stored ammo that was the first concern as a fire hazard for crewmen. It tended to go off explosively within seconds of the armor penetration, so hasty evacuation was in order. Usually the fuel caught fire in a more leisurely fashion and was not stored in the crew compartment anyway.

BTW, unless I am mistaken, the appliqué armor on the Sherman sponson was continued for the remainder of the production run. So, regrettably, was the application of the five pointed aiming point (never could understand that practice).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

When crew bail out of tanks in the real world they normally don't take anything they are not wearing. The greases guns could be legitimately used for foot recon but bailed crews would not have them.

I strongly disagree, all but the most inexperienced crewman would have their best weapon-Grease gun, Tommy gun, carbine, etc- close by in CASE they had to "abandon ship".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Splinty said:

I strongly disagree, 

Pausing to grab weapons or supplies only happens in training. That grease gun won't put the fire out.

"Crews were well aware of the likelihood of their tanks, specially the Shermans, 'brewing up' once penetrated, and that when hit or under fire, survival could be measured in seconds. To increase their chances of surviving being hit in combat tank crew paid great attention to the task of bailing out, some even going as far as entering combat with all hatches open to expedite escape... Moreover, although tank crews were drilled not to bail out until the commander had issued such an order, most learned to abandon the tank as soon as it had been hit or had struck a mine. Indeed, commanders often bailed out as fast as possible, without giving orders to abandon, for the tank crew might require them to get out first, there being insufficient turret hatches in some tanks."

--John Buckley, British Armour in the Normandy Campaign

Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Suddenly, there was one terrific explosion. A shower of sparks, smoke and dust clouded my eyes as I screamed, 'Bail out!'

Instinctively I shot out of my seat and was through the open hatch without touching the sides. However, I nearly broke my neck as the headphone plug snapped from its socket when I dived from the top of the tank into the road and rolled over into the dyke alongside. What a predicament! Only two or three minutes ago, I had been taking pot shots at the enemy. Now I was alone in a water-filled dyke. Having shed my suit of armour, I was unarmed and at the mercy of the enemy infantry."

...

"The lone tank, mentioned before, had sneaked close and while our turret is still being swung to the three o’clock position a shell hits the front right and like a flash the chief’s panzer is engulfed in flames.  Hatch covers fly open, the gunner bails out to the left in flames, the loader dives out to the right.  The chief wants to get out through the top turret hatch but is caught by the throat microphone wire.  He then tries to make it through the loader’s hatch to the right but bumps heads violently with the radio operator who could not open his own hatch.  The barrel, having been turned half right is blocking it.  The chief has to move backward.  He pushes the radio operator through the hatch, is engulfed in flames for some seconds, in danger of fainting.  Still, he manages the jump to freedom but he still has the steel boom of the throat microphone at his neck.  He cannot pull it over his steel helmet.  So he is hanging at the panzer skirt, almost strangling himself, while machine gun salvos are slapping against the panzer.  With a desperate jerk, he rips loose.  The wire, almost finger thick, dangles in front of his chest.  In the hollow, scene of the attack at night, the crew assembles except for the driver, Sturmmann Schleweis, who remained in the burning panzer.  He was probably wounded or killed by the impact.  His hatch was free, he would have made it out otherwise.  The gunner lies on the ground still in flames."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

BTW, unless I am mistaken, the appliqué armor on the Sherman sponson was continued for the remainder of the production run. So, regrettably, was the application of the five pointed aiming point (never could understand that practice).

I think this may be one of those yes & no Sherman things.....I believe on the M4A1 they beefed up the sponson armour when they introduced wet stowage, so it's not seen on the M4A1(76)W and later.  I don't recall ever seeing appliqué armour on the hulls of mid/late production USMC 75mm M4A3s, but TBH I'd have to check 'The Sherman Bible' to find the broader story (more than happy to do so).

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The burning thing is one of those Sherman myths that just won't die.

Pre-wet stowage, if a Sherman's crew followed proper ammo stowage guidelines, the tank burn rate was average compared to other tanks (including German).

Post wet-stowage, it was significantly better than average (better than the Tiger, even) and maybe the best of the war.

The Sherman also had one of the best crew survival rates.

The T-34/76 was terrible on both counts (burn and crew survival).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Yeah, Soviet tanks didn't just burn, they would explode. It wasn't the tank itself but rather the type of powder the Russians used in ammunition.

I was going to say something similar except blame it on the HE they used in their shells, which was—according to this version—more powerful but less stable than that used in Western shells. Of course, it could have been both propellent and filler.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I don't recall ever seeing appliqué armour on the hulls of mid/late production USMC 75mm M4A3s...

I doubt that tankers in the Pacific, whether USA or USMC, were overly concerned with Japanese armor or ATGs, so likely no Shermans in that theater received appliqué armor.

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

...TBH I'd have to check 'The Sherman Bible' to find the broader story (more than happy to do so).

I don't have that book, but I did pull out my copy of Chamberlain & Ellis to see what they had to offer. Maddeningly, most of their photos were taken from the right side so would fail to show any on the left side too, but a few of the photos taken of late production Shermans did show appliqué armor.

So I took a trip down Google Lane and turned up this site, which was usefully informative if a trifle confusing. Anyway, this guy does seem to agree with you in that his final statement was, "...M4A3(75) (Wet) tanks did not have hull appliqué!"

https://www.scribd.com/doc/30827701/Applique-Armor-on-M4-Series-Medium-Tanks

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry was in hard-core modeller mode there, referring to Hunnicutt's 'Sherman - A History Of The US Medium Tank'.

Haven't checked yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they used thicker plates on the sponsons in the M4A3(W) series, the late production Sherman really was a half decent tank, ask the Japanese.....Or the Israelis!  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...