Brit Cruisers - Burn Easily?

[...................................]

I was looking at the CMAK cruisers (A9-A15 series) yesterday, and have realised after all this time that every single model has been given the 'burns easily' trait.

I've read a resonable amount but IIRC I can't recall anyone complaining that every model of cruiser tank made brewed up any more often than other models (such as Stuarts or Valentines). The main complaint I do recall about them - apart from the crappy armour and gun of course - was that they were unreliable.

If anyone can educate me as to what the problems were with all of the cruiser tanks series which caused this phenomenon I'd be grateful.

[Sivodsi]

Apart from the fact that the armor is 'wafer thin'?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I keep reading that the 'burns easily' was something of a myth. Any tank burns easily if you have thin armour and get hit by a large caliber high velocity shell. That makes a lot more sense to me but would this actually be correct? Wet ammo stowage makes sense and is sure to help but otherwise I'd assume most tanks loaded with fuel and ammo that get penetrated with a shell with excess energy goes 'WOOOSH' a lot.

[...................................]

Thanks guys. I've pretty much concluded that BFC are in error marking all British cruisers with the 'burns easily' flag myself. I can't find any historical justification so far as to why they should be more likely to explode than other models.

Unfortunately this has a decisive effect in the game for early war scenarios. A penetration of a cruiser is likely to kill it, while they usually have to penetrate even the lowly M13 repeated times to achieve a KO. So the the Brits either field exploding tanks or uber-tanks (Matilda) which doesn't make for much fun. It's a shame it can't be added to the forthcoming patch, but it's probably too far advanced after all this time to have any new requests added .

On a related note, a forum member kindly forwarded me official report No 17 from the ORS part of which relates to brew ups in Normandy. Here's some of it, and it shows some different results as to what might be expected regarding the propensity of tanks to brew up when penetrated:

I post this to relate to Elmar's thoughts that tanks which 'burn easily' are something of a myth. After all it seems that a Pz IV is as likely to brew up as a notorious 'tommy cooker' once penetrated. So then, who wants to start the lobbying for the 'burns easily' trait to be dropped altogether for CMX2?

I don't know what makes Panthers less likely to brew up than the other types, any guesses? This report also shows what deathtraps PzIVs were by this time, requiring less hits per brew up than even a Sherman. I know it's a fairly small survey so if there's anything better out there I'd be interested.

[Sivodsi]

Fascinating stats - any more where that came from?

[c3k]

Pheasant Plucker,

Thanks for digging out the tables and posting them. However, I think it would help to know more on how the stats were collected.

For example, were the tanks examined, in situ, weeks after the battle? Perhaps the crew set them ablaze as they evacuated. Did the original tank set the target ablaze? Or, was the target abandoned (for whatever reason) and then fired upon by every vehicle which came around the bend? After a fire-fight at 800 meters, did the victor then roll up to 100 meters for the coup de grace? Perhaps it was SOP for each gunner to tally the number of rounds fired, hit on target, and total needed to set it ablaze, which was then reported up the chain. Would a gunner who took too many shots be criticised? Would there be bias to under-report? Was the investigating team made up of contractors bidding for a contract for their new behind armor effects round?

Hmmm, I'm going a bit far with this, I know. My point being that it's difficult to INTERPRET any kind of table or statistic without some background information. As interesting as your table is (and I mean that - those results are nowhere near what I would've thought) it would help to flesh it out somewhat...if able.

Thanks,

Ken

[...................................]

Unfortunately I only have a couple of the ORS reports by themselves so have very little to offer in the way of background. My understanding is that the ORS were a British scientific team who collected data in the field for the top brass after actions in Normandy. I would guess that the sites were examined within days at the most to avoid data and site contamination, but I have no supporting evidence or background, just some bald faced tables of data.

I'm pretty sure that those 'brew up' tables were collected during the break-out phase of the Normandy operation (i.e. Cobra-Falaise) but I haven't got the tables to hand at the moment and will post back here tomorrow when I have them.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

I'm pretty sure that those 'brew up' tables were collected during the break-out phase of the Normandy operation (i.e. Cobra-Falaise) but I haven't got the tables to hand at the moment and will post back here tomorrow when I have them.

According to the footnotes under each table the data (at least for the Shermans) was collected 6th June - 10th July, 1944, so it was during the initial battles for the bridgehead and bocage country.

Keep in mind that it was common practice, especially for the Germans, to continue to hammer away at knocked out vehicles until they burned, thereby preventing those vehicles from being recovered and repaired. A scientific team touring the Normandy battlefield would find many burns outs because of this fact, and not simply because the tanks themselves were prone to brewing up.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Keep in mind that it was common practice, especially for the Germans, to continue to hammer away at knocked out vehicles until they burned, thereby preventing those vehicles from being recovered and repaired. A scientific team touring the Normandy battlefield would find many burns outs because of this fact, and not simply because the tanks themselves were prone to brewing up.

But it might also mean that those tanks that had burnt would show lots of hits.

Michael

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kingfish:

Keep in mind that it was common practice, especially for the Germans, to continue to hammer away at knocked out vehicles until they burned, thereby preventing those vehicles from being recovered and repaired. A scientific team touring the Normandy battlefield would find many burns outs because of this fact, and not simply because the tanks themselves were prone to brewing up.

But it might also mean that those tanks that had burnt would show lots of hits.

Michael </font>

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kingfish:

Keep in mind that it was common practice, especially for the Germans, to continue to hammer away at knocked out vehicles until they burned, thereby preventing those vehicles from being recovered and repaired. A scientific team touring the Normandy battlefield would find many burns outs because of this fact, and not simply because the tanks themselves were prone to brewing up.

But it might also mean that those tanks that had burnt would show lots of hits.

Michael </font>

[Andrew H.]

I don't think that there's nearly enough evidence for people to start considering the "burns easily" idea a myth. Although it might be worthwhile to remember that "burns easily" was a problem for Shermans not because they burned, but because they burned so quickly that tank crews suffered higher-than-normal casualties. From this perspective (i.e., that of escaping a knocked-out tank), it matters a lot whether the tank brews up immediately, or after 15 seconds.

[Michael Emrys]

Then the next question is to what extent did palliative mesures such as applique armor and wet storage extend the time between hit and catastrophic ignition? Did they make it more comparable to other tanks? How comparable? Etc.

Michael

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sivodsi:

Fascinating stats - any more where that came from?

Try these, which I posted to a Usenet group back when Usenet groups were worth subscribing to:

I have reference to WO 291/1186, "The comparative performance of German anti-tank weapons during WWII.", an OR report dated 24 May 1950.

The percentage of tank losses, by cause, for different theatres is given as follows:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Theatre (tanks) Mines AT guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka Other Total

NW Europe (1305)22.1% 22.7% 14.5% 24.4% 14.2% 2.1% 100%

Italy (671) 30% 16% 12% 26% 9% 7% 100%

N Africa (1734) 19.5% 40.3% 38.2% nil nil 2% 100%

Mean values 22.3% 29.4% 25.3% 13.5% 6.1% 3% 100%

of which destrd 20.3% 29% 24.4% 12.7% 5.4% - 91.8%

of which dmaged 2% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% - 5.2%</pre>

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I have no idea why Shermans should apparently find tanks more productive of crew casualties than AT guns or SPs, nor why it should be apparently so (relatively) safe to be knocked-out by an AT gun if riding in a Stuart. Overall, though, being in a brewed-up Sherman appears to be not much more dangerous than being in an average brewed-up tank.

What year(s) does the last table reference? If early enough, perhaps the discrepancy comes from ATG's being smaller caliber (37mm / 50mm) than tank guns (75mm)?

[Koenig]

This report seems to indicate two things:

1)Crew losses are affected by the the calibre of the offending gun. This might explain the reason of ligher losses in early war tanks and the discrepancy within AT and tank losses according to the theatre. In the desert war the 88mm 'AT' was king, as most tanks were 50mm Pz III; in Europe the situation was somehow reversed, with tanks armed with 75-88 mm and 50mm AT guns given higher chances by the terrain.

2)Crew losses we see in CMAK are maybe too light.

Generally crews escape wrecks with only one casualty, or 20-25%.

A solid shell penetrating the crew compartment does nasty things to those inside and often kills or injures more than one man.

An explosive shell penetrating can be even worse.

Koenig

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

I have no idea why Shermans should apparently find tanks more productive of crew casualties than AT guns or SPs, nor why it should be apparently so (relatively) safe to be knocked-out by an AT gun if riding in a Stuart. Overall, though, being in a brewed-up Sherman appears to be not much more dangerous than being in an average brewed-up tank.

What year(s) does the last table reference? If early enough, perhaps the discrepancy comes from ATG's being smaller caliber (37mm / 50mm) than tank guns (75mm)? </font>