Abandoned tanks

[Guest Babra]

Germanboy, can you edit that link? Use the URL button.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

good stuff re M4 Sherman fires.

[QB][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks!

-dale

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Once a propellant fire broke out the crew had little choice but to abandon the vehicle as quickly as possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er, my impression has thus far been that once the ammo propellant ignited, further "choice" on the matter was speedily removed: the crew was usually rather forcefully ejected through the nearest handy opening in the hull, frequently in the form of man-shaped charcoal briquettes. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Michael

[Andrew H.]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Er, my impression has thus far been that once the ammo propellant ignited, further "choice" on the matter was speedily removed: the crew was usually rather forcefully ejected through the nearest handy opening in the hull, frequently in the form of man-shaped charcoal briquettes. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sort of wondered about that myself. Zaloga's british, though; maybe that's just an example of British understatement.

It could also be that a penetration caused some shells to break open, spilling propellant around the tank, and this spilled propellant caught fire first, and then spread to the intact shells. Which might give the crew a couple of seconds. There is a reference to "spilled propellant" in the thing I posted, although "spilled" is sort of an unusual word to describe powder violently liberated from its brassy confines by the impact of an AP round.

The post also doesn't completely answer Brian's question about why German tanks didn't brew up as much (and I've never seen any evidence suggesting that German tanks burned that much). It may be that penetrations on Shermans were simply more catastrophic -- the Zaloga piece talked about how almost any frontal penetration on a Sherman would bring the AT shell into contact with stowed ammunition. Perhaps most frontal penetrations by US tanks against German tanks did not invariably hit the stowed ammo. Possibly the HE filler used by the Sherman was less likely to cause propellant fires, or else the propellant used by the Sherman was more likely to catch fire. Of these two possibilities, which are not, of course, mutually exclusive, the latter seems more likely, as German propellant was significantly different from US propellant. HE fillers, by contrast, were more similar.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

The post also doesn't completely answer Brian's question about why German tanks didn't brew up as much (and I've never seen any evidence suggesting that German tanks burned that much).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would suggest that the answer might be found in the location of the ammunition stowage.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

The post also doesn't completely answer Brian's question about why German tanks didn't brew up as much (and I've never seen any evidence suggesting that German tanks burned that much).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I regret I cannot speak to the relative frequency of German brew ups, but brew they did. For instance, I believe I still have in my library a photo of a Mk. IV taken, I think, during or immediately after the Bulge. Its turret, blackened on the inside, is lying in the snow beside it. No mention of the crewmen that I recall, but if they were inside at the time, surely they must have left all their worldly cares behind.

Michael

[Stalin's Organ]

Didn't early Shermans use Wright Cyclone aircraft engines using real high-octane fuel?

as an aside I read something about Diesel recently - it's harder to set on fire, but apparently when it does burn (and it will in many battlefield conditinos) it's much harder to put out and inflicts much worse burns than petrol on anyone who is contacted by it.

[Guest Babra]

Just finished going over drawings for most of the major tanks. Seems from day one the Germans stowed their ammo below the sponson whenever possible. This feature wasn't incorporated into the Sherman until the advent of wet stowage, though it had been recommended early in the design process. I suspect this would account for the Sherman's poor reputation in this regard.

[Brian]

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

Just finished going over drawings for most of the major tanks. Seems from day one the Germans stowed their ammo below the sponson whenever possible. This feature wasn't incorporated into the Sherman until the advent of wet stowage, though it had been recommended early in the design process. I suspect this would account for the Sherman's poor reputation in this regard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If by this, you mean the hull sponsons, then you're only partially correct. All late model Panzers stowed their ammunition in the hull sponsons (Panther, Tiger, etc).

However, other Allied vehicles also stowed their ammunition there - the Cromwell, Churchill and Comet, to name the three main late British ones.

I think the difference though is that whereas the Sherman stowed its ammunition in the hull sponsons, it also made those sponsons great slap-sided things and stowed the ammunition vertically, so they had to be that high. Then they failed to provide adequate armour protection to prevent them being penetrated.

All the other vehicles stowed them horizontally - particularly the German ones.

So, it would appear that perhaps the problem wasn't so much in that the ammuntion wasn't stowed in wet storage nor necessarily that the vehicles were petrol engined. Rather it was the actual manner and location of the ammunition stowage whilst the sealing of the engine compartments left a great deal to be desired.

[Guest Babra]

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

I think the difference though is that whereas the Sherman stowed its ammunition in the hull sponsons, it also made those sponsons great slap-sided things and stowed the ammunition vertically, so they had to be that high. Then they failed to provide adequate armour protection to prevent them being penetrated.

All the other vehicles stowed them horizontally - particularly the German ones.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, the height of the Sherman rounds would be higher in the tank. After every few rounds fired by a Pz IV, the uppermost height of the ammunition within the vehicle drops as each layer of ammo is used. However, in a Sherman, since the rounds are stored vertically, the uppermost height of the ammunition remains constant until the last round is taken from the sponson bin.

[Triumvir]

Another factor may be the amount of ammunition carried by a Sherman. If I remember correctly, the ammo loadout is about 1.5 times that of a Pz IV, giving that many more chances for a cookoff.

[Herr Oberst]

German tanks did indeed cook when hit sufficiently.

the History Channel show on the Sherman tank had a bit in it about a Jackson tank commander who took out a Panther.

IIRC:

After the 1st hit, one crewman bailed out.

Second hit rocked the Panther, no-one else exited.

Third hit lit the Panther, with flames coming two or three feet up out of the turret and engine compartment, and the Jackson commander's report was that the tank burned for three days.

[Andreas]

Bah German tanks cooking off, propaganda. Whatever next, you want to tell me Germany lost the war???

Here is another link to a book I just ordered. In German, and I bet you all wish we had won now, so you would be able to read it. So there.

German language book dealing with GD Division

[Hanns]

Germany lost?!?!? Which country in Europe has the best economy, best weapons, best cars, best music and best porn? Liechtenstein baby!

[Michael Emrys]

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

Germany lost?!?!? Which country in Europe has the best economy, best weapons, best cars, best music and best porn? Liechtenstein baby! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah? Where can I pick up some Liechtensteinian porn? [insert lecherous leer here]

Michael

[Doug Beman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the difference though is that whereas the Sherman stowed its ammunition in the hull sponsons, it also made those sponsons great slap-sided things and stowed the ammunition vertically, so they had to be that high. Then they failed to provide adequate armour protection to prevent them being penetrated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also contributing to the Sherman's slab-sided nature (or so I read in Squadron Signal's books) was the use of the big radial engine in early versions, requiring a very tall hull. Later Sherms used engines of a lower profile, but production-quantity concerns dictated against redesigning the hull to chop down the silhouette

DjB

[Diceman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

The post also doesn't completely answer Brian's question about why German tanks didn't brew up as much (and I've never seen any evidence suggesting that German tanks burned that much). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From "Steel Inferno": "After bailing out, the wounded, mostly more or less seriously burned, tried first to reach the cover of the railroad...", and: "Seven Panthers failed to return from what can best be described as the "raid"; two soldiers were definitely killed, seventeen officers and men wounded, most of them badly burned, and fourteen members of the Company were missing-most of them probably killed. Max Wunsche, who had just returned from receiving medical treatment near Caen when he saw the burning tanks, later wrote..."

This history of the 1st Panzer Corps in Normandy has many references to Panthers in battle. Whenever the Panthers got themselves into a vulnerable possition the result was always the same: badly burned tank crews. The author does also addresses the Panther's propencity to burn dirrectly, athough I can't find it right now.