Mad Russian Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 While doing a scenario in Normandy I find that Shermans don't explode when killed by a Panther. Now that is interesting news to me. I was under the impression that the Sherman exploded a good 20% of the time if not more when hit. When I hit a Sherman with my Panther I want it to EXPLODE!!! Any comments? Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 As an old Sherman crewman, I find this topic disturbing.... Regards, Badger Trained on Sherman (M4A2E8) & Centurion Group 3 Gunner (RCAC) Group 2 Driver Mechanic Tracked (RCAC) Group 2 Signaler (RCAC) CC and Trooper Leader Instructor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 And which Shermans are you shooting up? If they have a (W) in their name, then they have wet ammo storage and are much less apt to ignite. The Americans realized that having exceedingly flammable tanks was by and large a bad idea and took steps to fix the problem and save the lives of crewmen with wet ammo storage bins and armor reinforcement over the ammo storage areas. If you want to torch things, shoot at either the 105 close support tanks or flamethrower tanks. - b. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 I just tried out a version of Barkmann's Corner in CMAK - while I didn't see any explosions on being killed, a Sherman that was burning for about two turns did happen to explode. I don't believe this was the result of an airstrike (no sound of airplane engines) and none of my Germans were shooting at him. Does CM now model secondary explosions from burning tanks (ie ammo cooking off inside a fire)? If so - cool. If not - guess I have a bug to report? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 Originally posted by photon: And which Shermans are you shooting up? If they have a (W) in their name, then they have wet ammo storage and are much less apt to ignite. The Americans realized that having exceedingly flammable tanks was by and large a bad idea and took steps to fix the problem and save the lives of crewmen with wet ammo storage bins and armor reinforcement over the ammo storage areas. If you want to torch things, shoot at either the 105 close support tanks or flamethrower tanks. - b. Yes these Shermans do have a (W) in their name. BUT I have playtested the Barkmann's Corner scenario MD is refering to at least 6 times killing more than 20 Shermans in the process and not a single one of them blew up. A couple of them caught fire after a moment but no brew ups. If I was shooting at T-34's some of them would have blown up hitting them from less than 300 meters. And as we all know the T-34 is a much better tank than the Sherman... Just an observation. Not sure if it is right or a bug or what. :confused: Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entrecote Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Does anyone here know how the wet storage system works physically ? after reading this thread, i kinda got to wondering, and couldnt think of anything that would stop bullets exploding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Originally posted by Entrecote: Does anyone here know how the wet storage system works physically ? after reading this thread, i kinda got to wondering, and couldnt think of anything that would stop bullets exploding. Wet Stowage was a mixture of glycol and (water?), nothing fancy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entrecote Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 was the glycol used to keep the temp of the water down ? i just wondered if keeping ammunition behind jackets of semi-boiling fluid would be very safe ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entrecote Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 no edit ? bearing in mind how hot the desert is, that is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarker Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Glycol in water raises the boiling point and lowers the freezing point. By itself, a glycol / water mix does not cool - but it does absorb heat, and may help keep the shells below ignition temperature for a while. I'm guessing the glycol was added to prevent freezing in cold temps, however. Found this on line: ...“late” tanks are called “wet stowage” as their racks were ensconced in fluid-filled bins which would put out any fires caused due to damage, lessening the chance of an explosion. [ December 28, 2003, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Snarker ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Where are the "Normandy Scenarios" for CMAK? is Barkmann's Corner on the CD? Are there any newly released ETO, Bulge related or Normanyd scenarios for CMAK available somewhere? sorry I have been "out of it" for a while For CMAK whats new and whats Good? (scenarios for the ETO and the Bulge and Normandy?) Thanks -tom w Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I just tried out a version of Barkmann's Corner in CMAK - while I didn't see any explosions on being killed, a Sherman that was burning for about two turns did happen to explode. I don't believe this was the result of an airstrike (no sound of airplane engines) and none of my Germans were shooting at him. Does CM now model secondary explosions from burning tanks (ie ammo cooking off inside a fire)? If so - cool. If not - guess I have a bug to report? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Originally posted by Panther Commander: If I was shooting at T-34's some of them would have blown up hitting them from less than 300 meters. And as we all know the T-34 is a much better tank than the Sherman...The explosive used in Soviet HE shells was more potent than that used in Western shells, and also less stable. Therefore, not only would they cook off with a bigger bang, they'd be more likely to. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: [QB] Where are the "Normandy Scenarios" for CMAK? is Barkmann's Corner on the CD? Are there any newly released ETO, Bulge related or Normanyd scenarios for CMAK available somewhere? sorry I have been "out of it" for a while For CMAK whats new and whats Good? (scenarios for the ETO and the Bulge and Normandy?) Thanks -tom w No Barkmann's Corner is mine. I have it posted on The Proving Grounds at the moment getting playtested. If you want to try it go to The Proving Grounds and download it. Be aware that it is in the Beta version as of yet though. There has been some playtesting done on it already and it plays well. TPG playtesting is just to make sure it is good to go. You can find A Paratrooper Party on TPG at the moment also. It is a Normandy scenario. I am working on some Bulge scenarios as well. They should be ready to go in awhile. Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 The wet stowage was meant to douse any ammunition powder fires. Powder burns hot and fast and the wet stowage would flood the ammunition bin if penetrated. The anti-freeze was just that, so the liquid would not freeze and burst the bins. Sherman tanks used gasoline and a hit in the fuel tanks would still lead to a burn out. [ December 29, 2003, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcovt Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Hit them from the side or from an angle either front or back, if possible use two panthers in "strike" formation and ........ let the fireworks begin !!!!!!. I just love to see the Shermans run like hell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 i read an account of a russian tanker in a lend-lease sherman. can't remember which book. his tank was knocked out and on fire. he exited through the bottom hatch and was pinned down under the tank. he knew this would be certain death in a t34 because they "always" blew up if they caught fire. he expected the same with the sherman, but it never exploded and he eventually made it back to safety. that story was repeated many times by other russian tankers lucky enough to get knocked out in a sherman. so my conclusion is that shermans don't explode as often as t34s when they burn... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I just tried out a version of Barkmann's Corner in CMAK - while I didn't see any explosions on being killed, a Sherman that was burning for about two turns did happen to explode. I don't believe this was the result of an airstrike (no sound of airplane engines) and none of my Germans were shooting at him. Does CM now model secondary explosions from burning tanks (ie ammo cooking off inside a fire)? If so - cool. If not - guess I have a bug to report? If this is the case that is neat. I haven't noticed that yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRSutton Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Originally posted by Entrecote: was the glycol used to keep the temp of the water down ? i just wondered if keeping ammunition behind jackets of semi-boiling fluid would be very safe ? The primary purpose of the wet stowage was to deny oxygen to the ammo storage area. No oxygen, no explosion, no fire. At least in theory. The glycol would keep the stowage from freezing up in severe weather. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Many tanks use reinforced ammo bins also. The brass in the tank shells is very easily penetrated. Once the powder starts burning, it will chase anyone out of the tank. If enough powder from enough shells go off in rapid succesion, it will lift off the turret. Gasoline fires are very hard to combat. The T34 was a diesel powered vehcile so it had this advantage. Supposedly the high explosive used in the T34 tank shells would cook off and detonate. A single HE shell detonating in the confines of a tank is bad enough, but it would then detonate all others by sympathetic detonation and the tank would literally blow to pieces. Most well made explosives do not do this. Fuses may also cook off or go off if actually hit/penetrated by a fragment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Two greatly overlooked reasons for tank cookoffs: 1. Hydraulic fluid (typically for power traverse): the Sherman's hydraulics were notoriously likely to burn. Later fluid formulas may have had an improved resistance to flash and heat. 2. Ordinary grease, fuel and trash buildup in the turret, fighting compartment and engine bay. These things get FILTHY really quick. Once a fire starts on the gunk and crud underfoot, it is not likely to be easily put out. It's not just the fuel and ammo that goes up, boys and girls...and diesel powered tanks can get just as gunky as the rest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted December 30, 2003 Author Share Posted December 30, 2003 Originally posted by gunnergoz: Two greatly overlooked reasons for tank cookoffs: 1. Hydraulic fluid (typically for power traverse): the Sherman's hydraulics were notoriously likely to burn. Later fluid formulas may have had an improved resistance to flash and heat. 2. Ordinary grease, fuel and trash buildup in the turret, fighting compartment and engine bay. These things get FILTHY really quick. Once a fire starts on the gunk and crud underfoot, it is not likely to be easily put out. It's not just the fuel and ammo that goes up, boys and girls...and diesel powered tanks can get just as gunky as the rest. Don't get me wrong here guys...I get Shermans to burn. I just can't get one to explode!! If I hit a Sherman at a range of under 200 meters with a Panther I expect there to be fireworks by the time I have killed over 20 of them. So far not a single one has exploded. If I killed that same number of ANY other tank in CMBB there would be fireworks for at least a quarter of them. Something is funny I tell you... Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Isenberg Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 it is a jacket arounnd the ammo bin with water under pressure when the ammo bin is penatrated the water floods in helping to stop ammo from detonating Originally posted by Entrecote: Does anyone here know how the wet storage system works physically ? after reading this thread, i kinda got to wondering, and couldnt think of anything that would stop bullets exploding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.