Brewing up the "Ronson" Sherman

[109 Gustav]

Are Shermans more likely to brew up when hit than other tanks, due to their poor ammo storage and gasoline engines? They didn't earn the nickname "Ronson tank" for nothing. I wouldn't expect anything less from BTS, after learning that grenades are modeled differently for Germans and Amis. Keep up the realism, people!

------------------

There is nothing certain about war except that one side won't win.

-Ian Hamilton

[Maximus]

From another thread, I was under the impression that Shermans didn't brew easily due to wet ammo storage. Or did I read that wrong?

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 06-02-2000).]

[Guest KwazyDog]

There are many different models of Shermans in CM, and some definately brew up easier than others. I believe its the ones with the W in the name that indicate wet storage, though I could be wrong there Under unit info you will see that some vehicles are listed as burning easily.

[Maximus]

Thanx Kwazydog, didn't know about the "W" designation reference or the unit info fact.

[Bullethead]

KwazyK9 said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There are many different models of Shermans in CM, and some definately brew up easier than others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The detail unit info page for the M4A3(105)s in VOT says "burns easily." The 105 Shermans didn't have wet stowage. Note that none of the reinforcement tanks, all of which are Ws, have this "burns easily" note.

109G said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They didn't earn the nickname "Ronson tank" for nothing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The earliest Shermans didn't have wet stowage. This was introduced later as a result of battle experience. I believe this experience came from the Brits in North Africa, where IIRC the Germans called Shermans "Tommy Cookers".

This was a year or 2 before Normandy, so I think by then most Shermans were Ws. But even then, none of the 105mm Shermans were Ws. I think the rounds were so big that to hold a decent number, they couldn't waste the space.

BTW, the "Ronson Shermans" were those armed with vehicular flamethrowers built by the Ronson cigarette lighter company. Their official designation was POA-CWS-H1. They were used on Iwo and Okinawa. These had no main gun, so a POA-CWS-H5 was built with the Ronson flamer sorta coax to the main gun. These were too late for WW2 but were used in Korea.

Maximus said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From another thread, I was under the impression that Shermans didn't brew easily due to wet ammo storage<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're refering to something I said in explaining what wet stowage was supposed to do. As to how well it actually worked, I really don't know. I imagine it had to have helped prevent propellant fires to some degree. However, you'd have to think that a shell going through the ammo stowage area would splatter the water like a rifle bullet hitting a soda can, thus removing it from the area of the fire hazard. I think a more important redesign put the ammo in less vulnerable places.

I don't think any later US tanks have had wet stowage. I don't know why this is. Maybe it didn't work that well, maybe the larger rounds of later tanks made it impractical.

But this is just propellant fires. Almost all US and about 1/2 Brit Shermans had gasoline engines, which of course is a much greater fire hazard than diesel. So a regardless of what happens in the fighting compartment, Shermans should brew up easier from rear hull hits than diesel tanks. OTOH, gasoline fires are nowhere near as violent as propellant fires, giving extinguishers a chance to put them out. So I wouldn't expect even Shermans to brew up every time from rear hull hits.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 06-02-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

FYI,

The full version of CM includes the "Crocodile Sherman" with a nasty flamethrower replacing the bow MG...

Charles

[dano6]

The early model Shermans(M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, M4A4) had ammunition storage in the sponsons on both sides of the tank. The storage was above the hull line and was an easy target to hit from the sides, front and rear of the vehicle. In almost every case, a Sherman "brewed up" because of a propellant fire not because of a gasoline tank hit. The nickname "ronson" was a US nickname dubbed to the early sherman models due to ronson's advertising slogan which went something like this: "lights on the first try everytime"(sorry I don't have references at work so I can't provide the exact quote) As for engine hits and gas tank hits, it was fairly easy for the crew to bail out of the tank before fire overtook the fighting compartment or before it could be extinguished. What killed the crews of Shermans was the catastrophic ammunition fire that was caused by hits to the ammo storage. In earlier Shermans the ammo was stored in 3 racks, 2 on one side of the Sherman and 1 on the other side. Hits from many different aspect angles could easily hit the stored ammo and brew up the Sherman. This problem was recognized in 1943 and a solution was developed.

Wet storage became standard on any M4 produced during and after 1943, except for the 105mm armed M4s. Storage ammounts and usage precluded the 105 from getting wet storage. In the Wet storage system, the ammo racks were moved from the sponsons to the hull floor. This lowered the ammo storage below the hull line and significantly lowered the chance of hitting the stored ammo. The racks each were self contained and stored either 5 or 10 rounds each(5 for 76mm, and 10 for 75mm) The tubes that held the rounds in the racks were surrounded by water that would partially rush into the rack itself and wet any exposed propellant due to an AP hit. Each rack was covered by a top cover plate that would help keep the water in the rack after a hit. Only racks that were in use for firing were to left open for use. All other racks were to left closed. The Wet ammo storage system worked very well in preventing ammunition fires in the newer M4s. The lower ammunition storage and the water surrounded rounds reduced the odds of a M4 brewing up instantly after an AP penetration significantly.

dano6

[ThomasZ]

This brings up a FOOLISH question I have had but have been far to self concious to ask it.

I know that some early model shermans had "short guns" and thus though their shell size was larger then latter models the ability of these early models to pierce german armor was significantly reduced (or maybe I'm confusing this totally).

In playing CM it is clear to me the 75's are better tanks then the 105's, but logically the 105's should have more stopping power right? Thus I"ve been assuming that the 75's barrel is the longer version or some such. Could some kind soul not flame me and yet explain *GRIN*.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

FWIW Although the Sherman 105s did not have wet storage I believe they used 'armored ammo bins'. Not sure how much additional armor was added to the ammo bins but it supposedly helped.

ThomasZ:

The difference between the Sherman 75mm and the 105mm is really not the length of the gun but the diameter of the gun and the type of weapon it was. The 75mm is the diameter of the inside of the guns bore, as is the 105mm. Thus the 105 fires a shell over 25% larger in diameter (don't have stats for length handy--out of town now).

But the main thing is the 75 was designed as a general-purpose weapon with good HE and passable armor penetration (medium velocity). While the 105 is basically the same tube/ammo used on the 105 artillery your spotter calls in and fired a low velocity shell.

The 105 was a specialized weapon for bunker busting and rooting out infantry. It was never designed to tackle enemy armor and I would suspect they would flee ASAP when faced with any German armor. They were just WAY too valuable in other roles to be wasted engaging other armor. With that said the HEAT round ("c" in CM) of the 105 will penetrate a LOT of armor...if you can get a hit with it.

Basically the 75mm Sherman is a general-purpose tank, while the 105 should stick with blasting German infantry and bunkers, etc.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[dano6]

Thomas

The 105mm gun in the M4 is a howitzer not an AT gun. Its primary mission was as an assualt gun, used to support infantry. The shaped HEAT round gave the gun some AT capability but its role was typically as an assult gun.

The 75mm M3 gun used in all 75mm armed M4s was a shorter barreled gun that fired a lower velocity AP round that was not very effective against heavier armored German vehicles. It was fairly effective against the Mk.III and Mk.IV series of German tanks but not against the Mk.V or Mk.IV series.

The 76mm M1 and M2 guns used in the 76mm armed M4s was a much more effective AT gun than the 75mm M2 gun. It gave the crews the ability to easily penetrate the Mk.III and Mk.IV series of German tanks. Against the Panther it gave crews some ability to penetrate from the front. The Tiger I could also be penetrated by the 76mm fairly easily at ranges under 800m whereas with the 75mm gun you could not penetrate the Tiger from the front. Against the Tiger II none of the Shermans guns were effective against the front armor.

For a more detailed description of these armaments check out CMHQ and my Sherman Articles.

dano6

[Schugger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ThomasZ:

This brings up a FOOLISH question I have had but have been far to self concious to ask it.

I know that some early model shermans had "short guns" and thus though their shell size was larger then latter models the ability of these early models to pierce german armor was significantly reduced (or maybe I'm confusing this totally).

In playing CM it is clear to me the 75's are better tanks then the 105's, but logically the 105's should have more stopping power right? Thus I"ve been assuming that the 75's barrel is the longer version or some such. Could some kind soul not flame me and yet explain *GRIN*.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, i give it a try but I'm certain that some other members here can be more specific.

The longer the barrel of a tank gun is the higher is the velocity of the shell. The velocity and the calibre of a shell make up

the kinetic energy ( or stopping power) when the round hits an armoured target. The earlier Sherman versions had a 75mm calibre the same one as the Panthers. The same Sherman has a cannon identified as 75L37 (?), which means that the barrel is 37 times as long as it's caliber whereas the Panther has a 75L70 cannon, what explains it's superiot tank killer qualities. Those Sherman 105 are infantry support tanks with very short barrels and very low anti tank qualities ( see their ammo loadouts in VoT which is mainly HE). When they are to up to fight against tanks they use special ammo ( don't know the english name for it) which does not rely on its kinetic energy to pierce through armour, it uses the same process like those bazooka rounds which "burns" through the armour.

hope this may be some help for you,

Schugger(baby)

------------------

Es gibt Tage da verliert man und Tage da gewinnen die anderen.

[Schugger]

Beaten by four minutes! Man, i hate those dictionaries

[ThomasZ]

My thanks for all the info guys. Now I'll think a bit better of those 105's in VOT perhaps.