Reaper Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Hey all, So I know my German armor inside and out, but I know very little about the various U.S. tanks (beyond the basics). Can anyone illuminate the 'W' and 'W+' designations at the end of some of the U.S. tank names in the game. The best info I have been able to find so far on the web is that it might mean 'wet' for wet stowage. What was this, and why do the vehicles with this designation have such heavy armor on the hull sections compared to those without. Were vehicles with this mystery designation common, or were they some sort of field refit? I'd like to get an idea of how often they saw action against German armor compared to their more generic kin. Thanks in advance for any insights. Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 There are others here with more in-depth knowledge, but basically yes the 'W' means wet ammo stowage. Early Shermans tended to burn easily and the ammo would cook off. To counter this tendency, later models stored the rounds in what I think was a sort of antifreeze solution, which made the Shermans less susceptible to catastrophic loss. The '+' designator is AFAIK a BTS designation for tanks that had various field-upgrades to improve their armor protection. ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 You're right with the "W" meaning that this particular Sherman carries Wet ammo. It considerabely lower the chance of burning out. The "+" means that the tank's crew has added on the field additional armour plates on their vehicule. That explain the higher armor hull. Magnus ------------------ Venez visiter le seul site consacré à Combat Mission en français : Appui-feu http://appui-feu.panzershark.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Yes, "W" is for wet stowage I believe. By immersing the rounds in liquid they greatly reduced the chance of them cooking off if the tank was hit. They often called the Sherman the 'Ronson' (after the lighter) because of its tendency to brew up. The Germans called them 'tommycookers'. Wet stowage helped to prevent brew ups (and the aforementioned name-calling). As far as the difference in hull thickness, I only know that a variey of hulls were produced for the Sherman. Some welded, some cast and some hybrids. GAFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Do the '+' models with the increased hull armor account for variable armor thickness? The applique armor only covered about 1/4 (at best) of the total side area. Is this handled by random shot allocation (x% of shots hit the thicker armor, x% don't)? (Gee, sounds like the gun mantlet of a Tiger...) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 30, 2000 Author Share Posted August 30, 2000 Thanks for the quick responses. So the '+' is basically what I thought it was (thus the 2 extra tons on the weight along with the higher armor values). I am curious about the armor angle remaining constant with these +Models. I have encountered several illustrations in my web search for Sherman information that displayed catastrophic results caused by that field modification. Many of the illustrations showed that the modified armor was closer to 0 degrees which upped the chances of penetration (http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/ga/bd/bd.htm) [click the link under M4 Sherman (Wibrin) for an example]. In the game there is no variation in angle between the '+' and non-plus models. Oversight? Abstraction? Just continuing to be curious. Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 31, 2000 Author Share Posted August 31, 2000 Shamelessly moving my post to the top, hoping it doesn't get lost amid the hamster chatter before it dies. Anyone? Bueller? =) Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 The most common standard applique armor that I have come across (for the Sherman) is a squarish plate welded on the forward side upper hull. It is at the same angle as the armor under it, which happens to be vertical. I confess I am a bit puzzled over the claim at the website you pointed us to that the applique "caused" the rounds that struck it to penetrate the armor beneath. How is it known that those shots wouldn't have penetrated as well, if not better, if the additional armor hadn't been present? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: How is it known that those shots wouldn't have penetrated as well, if not better, if the additional armor hadn't been present?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good question. I do know that it was officially forbidden for Germans to weld anything (hooks, tracks, whatever) to the hull of the Tiger as the welding process damaged the heat-treating and weakened the armour. I wonder if the same was true for the Sherman. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 Some of the 'up-armoured' Shermans had a big plate of metal attached to the front glacis plate (leaving a hole for the bow MG). It was designed for the relatively flat welded hull, but I have seen some attached to cast hulls. In the latter case, the plate would 'sit on top' of the forward-jutting assistant driver and driver cupolas. This added armour, but did decrease the slope of the front of the tank somewhat. This may be what you read about. GAFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 Applique armor should not, in and of itself, cause the armor to lose effectiveness by changing the slope. First off, except for plate added to cast hulls (actually I should say except for armor added to the front of the early hulls that had the nearly verticle hatch contours), it would be at the same angle as the armor below. Secondly, even if there is a difference in the angle, that shouldn't affect it's penetration angle or potential regarding the plate below it (other than reduce it since it has absorbed some of the initial kinetic energy). I believe the references to added plates being problematic relate to what would happen if a round were to strike just below the plate on the hull's front. Although the plate below might induce some deflection of the round, sending it an in upward angle, if the round would then strike the edge of the added plate, a shot trap might result, preventing the round from being deflected and instead helping it penetrate the original steel. That's how I've understood it, but I'm far from an expert so counter information is certainly welcomed by this very amateur armor buff. [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 08-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted September 1, 2000 Share Posted September 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jgdpzr: Applique armor should not, in and of itself, cause the armor to lose effectiveness by changing the slope. First off, except for plate added to cast hulls (actually I should say except for armor added to the front of the early hulls that had the nearly verticle hatch contours), it would be at the same angle as the armor below. Secondly, even if there is a difference in the angle, that shouldn't affect it's penetration angle or potential regarding the plate below it (other than reduce it since it has absorbed some of the initial kinetic energy). I believe the references to added plates being problematic relate to what would happen if a round were to strike just below the plate on the hull's front. Although the plate below might induce some deflection of the round, sending it an in upward angle, if the round would then strike the edge of the added plate, a shot trap might result, preventing the round from being deflected and instead helping it penetrate the original steel. That's how I've understood it, but I'm far from an expert so counter information is certainly welcomed by this very amateur armor buff. [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 08-31-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That would be my assumption as well, but the photographs at the website that Reaper posted clearly show penetration well above the weld line. I admit I'm puzzled by the claim that the applique armor "caused" the penetration. My suspicion, though I could be wrong, is that the round in question would have penetrated anyway, and the captioner is simply talking through his hat. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted September 1, 2000 Share Posted September 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: Good question. I do know that it was officially forbidden for Germans to weld anything (hooks, tracks, whatever) to the hull of the Tiger as the welding process damaged the heat-treating and weakened the armour. I wonder if the same was true for the Sherman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good question. Does anybody know if the Tigers had face hardened armor? I am inclined to think that they did and that the Sherman's was homogenous, but my recollection on this issue is too fuzzy to be reliable. In any event, the Americans at least were not shy about welding. Furthermore, if welding caused a weakening of the armor, would we not be justified in expecting to see fracturing along weld lines? In the photos of penetrated Shermans I've seen thus far, I cannot recall seeing this. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EScurlock Posted September 1, 2000 Share Posted September 1, 2000 The were also armor plate kits that covered the entire front glasis. I do beleive the + is ment to reflect vehicles with these kits installed. There were Ordinance produced armor kits designed to be installed in the feild, as well as ad hoc kits made by maintenance troops in the field. The factory produced kits added an inch of armor to the front glasis. Wet stowage and appligue armor added to protect ammo storage wracks were installled in both the field and at the factory. Squadron/Signal's "Sherman in Action" has some nice pictures of Shermans with these kits. It has a picture of an M4A1 with not one, but two of these kits installed. The book is written with modelers in mind but has some good info in it also. ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts