Shermans and Burning Too easily.....

[Ryan Crierie]

Did Russian tankers follow the same

practices that US tankers did, IE,

stuffing ammo into every available

nook and cranny, disregarding ammo

stowage practices?

That's what caused the sherman to be

notorious for brewing up so easily...

ammo crammed everywhere outside wet stowage

compartments, NOT the gasoline engines, because

Germany used gasoline engines in all of their

panzers.

[ October 03, 2002, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Ryan Crierie ]

[busboy]

Nope, but thank you for playing.

The Germans used deseil engines in their panzers, while all front line American tanks used regular petrol.

The gasoline in American tanks was much more combustable than deseil fuel and was the main reason the Sherman burned so easily.

Ammo storage, on the other hand doesn't cause much of a fire, but really more of a tremendous BOOM.

Its not that Sherman crews put rounds everywhere they could fit them, there were not loose rounds rolling around on the turret floor. The problem was that the ammo boxes located in the hull were fairly easily pierced which lead to the aforementioned BOOM.

Later Shermans worked to fix this problem by introducing "wet storage." In the event that an ammo box was hit, it would flood with antifreeze, thus hopefully preventing an explosive combustion.

In lieu of this, many Shermans had applique armor welded to their hull sides. You can see these in many pictures of wartime Shermans.

Recap: Gasoline made many tanks more inclined to burn than their deseil powered cousins.

Ammunition storage was a very touchy thing (which is why there WEREN'T rounds rolling around on the floor, unless the crews wanted trouble.) and a penetration of an ammunition box could lead to a catastrophic explosion.

As for the location of Sherman ammo storage..it was about the same layout as in the German Tiger...just thinner armor keeping rounds OUT to begin with.

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by busboy:

The Germans used deseil engines in their panzers, while all front line American tanks used regular petrol.

You sure about that? I cant name a single German vehicle that used a diesel engine. The Russians OTOH used diesels in the majority of their vehicles. Early Panthers were also noted for an alarming tendency to ignite spontaneously, due to gasoline vapor buildup in the poorly ventilated engine compartment.

[busboy]

You're joking? Ok, I'll dig out some sources.

[busboy]

From MBI Publishing's Illustrated Directory of Tanks of the Word from World War I to the Present Day, by David Miller.

PzKw IV- Maybach HL 120 TRM V-12 inline diesel (boy I can't spell) developing 300hp at 3,000rpm.

However, I must admit I was gravely mistaken...all other enteries including the Panther and Tiger used petrol engines according to the source.

Still, there are different levels of combustability for different fuels.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by busboy:

You're joking? Ok, I'll dig out some sources.

You do that, all the Maybach Panzer engines I know of were petrol ones.

Maybach HL 120 TL and TRM were petrol engines. Check Speilberger's Panzer IV book.

or take a look at this page.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/willphelps/Specs-02.htm

[ October 03, 2002, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[gunnergoz]

Russia's Shermans were for the most part diesel powered, the US forces rejecting that version for the gas V-8 they preferred. The earliest US versions used a modified, de-tuned aviation radial engine, giving the Sherman it's distinctive height.

The Brits got the Chrysler multibank gas engine version, BTW.

[ October 03, 2002, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]

[flamingknives]

I seem to recall that part of the reason for the sherman brewing up was that the tankers liked putting their kit in every available space, so the turret was stuffed full of nice dry clothing, stoves, fuel etc.

As a reaction to this, the British installed baskets on the outside of the turret for personal kit, camouflage netting etc.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Russia's Shermans were for the most part diesel powered, the US forces rejecting that version for the gas V-8 they preferred. The earliest US versions used a modified, de-tuned aviation radial engine, giving the Sherman it's distinctive height.

And Diesel was heavily prioritzed for the Navy, so I don't think there was ever a realistic choice for the army (the Marines OTOH got diesel Shermans because they were in the Navy logistics system).

[kevsharr]

The panzerspahwagen 234 eight wheeled heavy armoured car was the only german armoured vehicle to be powered by a diesel engine{I blame the movie Patton for the belief that the german tanks had diesel engine's,remember the part were Bradley is explaining to Patton about the thin armor on the M-3 half-track he also mention's that the german's used diesel engines while we used gasoline.A definate blunder on the part of the technical advisor}Even with wetstorage the sherman's ammo supply was vulnerable,applique armor was welded to the outside of the hull over the vulnerable area's.In the pacific the marines welded rack's to the side's and filled them with log's,or wooden beam's for even more protection.

[busboy]

Yup, seems I'm the one thats wrong (and my source too.) Onwar.com has the PzKw IV using petrol too.

[MikeyD]

One reason for the Sherman's reputation for brewing-up might be the very high octane fuel needed for the original radial engines. Higher octane = more explosive. At the time is was considered remarkably high octane for a vehicle, though I believe it was actually equivalent to modern high-test at our local filling stations.

I recall an article on one of the last tank battles on the Eastern Front in the journal "AFV News" out of Canada. The auhor commented that photos taken after the battle showed a large number of burned-out PzIVs while the abandoned T34s seemed none the worse for wear despite the holes in the armor. This may point up the difference between Petrol and Diesel power.

[ October 03, 2002, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[dd]

weren't sherman's nicknamed "Ronson's" by the Brits?

(As in Ronson cigarette lighters "They light every time!")

[Sitzkrieg]

Originally posted by busboy:

PzKw IV- Maybach HL 120 TRM V-12 inline diesel (boy I can't spell) developing 300hp at 3,000rpm.

An inline V-12 engine. I knew the Germans had great technology but to have an engine be both inline and V configuration at the same time is simply amazing.

That source sounds very bad indeed.

Keith

[Enoch]

Did the Russians have problems in Winter with their diesel engines or did they have techniques for keeping the diesel fuel from geling in cold weather?

When I lived in a colder climate and had a diesel car I had to either put an additive in the fuel to keep it from becoming a gel or plug the engine block in to keep it warm.

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by dd:

weren't sherman's nicknamed "Ronson's" by the Brits?

(As in Ronson cigarette lighters "They light every time!")

They were indeed. Mind you, this comes from the one country besides Italy which could not manage to produce ONE decent medium tank the whole war. Even the Brits admit their tank designs were flawed from the start. The Churchill and Valentine had strong points (pun intended) but were of limited utility.

Funnily enough, the Brits loved the Sherman in use and couldn't get enough of them. In Africa it saved their bacon as the first tank able to take on the "Mark 4 Specials" with the 75mm/43 gun. The Brits used large numbers of Shermans in prefernce to their own poor designs.

The bright spot for the Brits was their gun design of course, the 17 pounder being the best Allied AT capable gun in its class.

I think that the Sherman is fasionably "unchic" these days and knocking it detracts from its actual reputation as a war-winning implement that served gloriously in its day. It was no Tiger, but it didn't have to be. And if a lot of good men died fighting in it due to its flaws, a heckuva lot more were carried into victory thanks to its virtues.

As ususal, my two bits worth...

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by Enoch:

Did the Russians have problems in Winter with their diesel engines or did they have techniques for keeping the diesel fuel from geling in cold weather?

When I lived in a colder climate and had a diesel car I had to either put an additive in the fuel to keep it from becoming a gel or plug the engine block in to keep it warm.

Yes, diesels were a problem in the cold. I have heard tales of them improvising pans to place under the engine compartment and using some sort of fuel (can't remember what) to burn and warm the engine. Also, I'm not sure what role they played, but they had tanks of compressed air that were used to somehow assist in cold-weather starting.

Incidently, even the Germans with their gasoline engines struggled to start them in the coldest conditions. I believe they too resorted to fire under the tank to warm them.

[Kong]

I recently read an excellent book on Armor warfare on the Western Front. Death Traps, by Belton Cooper. Cooper was a Lieutenant in the 3rd Armored Division. His job was to examine battle damaged Shermans and determine if they could be repaired or should be scrapped. Therefore he examined A LOT of Shermans.

He said that one of the key reasons the Shermans caught fire early on was due to the wiring. When the shell penetrates the armor it creates a shower of metal fragments. These would sever the wires and cause a short which would then catch fire. I believe he said at some point they changed the wiring or the way it was protected to reduce this from happening.

GunnerGoz I must respectfully disagree with you. Read this book and you will understand why. The Sherman M4A1 was NOT designed to fight tanks. The greatest shame of it all is that we could have seen the Pershing in numbers must sooner in the war. But Patton did not want them. He feared they might slow him down. Patton was succesful because he used the speed and mobility of his forces. But this could have been done just as effectively and quickly and with A LOT less casualties using the Pershing.

On a side note Cooper also talked about how effective the Priest was at taking out German armor using indirect fire and hitting their weak top armor.

[sage2]

Finally something I know a little about.

"Higher octane = more explosive." <--- This is not the case. In fact, the reverse is true.

Octane is a measure of a fuel's ability to resist knock, i.e. predetonation. Higher octane fuel is necessary in high performance, high compression engines -- such as an aircraft radial engine. Otherwise, the fuel will detonate before a spark has been applied -- robbing performance and eventually destroying the engine.

In other words, higher octane fuel is LESS explosive, is HARDER to combust, and, incidentally stores less chemical energy.

Why do folks -- me -- spend$5/gallon race gas for a race car if the increased octane isn't strictly necessary to avoid predetonation? Because it's not full of state mandated emission reducing addatives, like chewing gum, that reduce the proportion of stored chemical energy.

Unfortunately, this doesn't explain why Shermans zippo'd, either.

Sage

[Robohn]

Before knocking Brits for calling Shermans Ronsons, Americans called them Zippos (another lighter brand). My German playing opponent still hates my prolific use of massed "vanilla" Shermans...then I mention the Germans actually had worse odds in real life than in CM

[dd]

Aye but he's right, us brits had some pretty woeful tanks. Some rare axceptions, some exceptions in certain areas, but overall, woefull... although the atrocious tactics didn't help either.

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of a well known photo of a Stuart in the Western Desert being fueled. One guy was pouring the petrol from the jerrycan, while another guy stood at the ready with a fire extinguisher in-hand! In dry desert conditions a tank could build up enough of a static charge to ignite the fuel while pouring. Talk about a Zippo lighter!

By the way, I had heard the Sherman nickname 'Ronson' had originally come from the Germans. Looks like we've got a case of 'duelling reference books".

[ October 03, 2002, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Private Pike]

So this might explain something. In the demo (still no UK release) I wondered why I didn't get the explosion and fire I was used to (from CMBO), when i knocked out a Tank.

[Shosties]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

One reason for the Sherman's reputation for brewing-up might be the very high octane fuel needed for the original radial engines. Higher octane = more explosive. At the time is was considered remarkably high octane for a vehicle, though I believe it was actually equivalent to modern high-test at our local filling stations.

I recall an article on one of the last tank battles on the Eastern Front in the journal "AFV News" out of Canada. The auhor commented that photos taken after the battle showed a large number of burned-out PzIVs while the abandoned T34s seemed none the worse for wear despite the holes in the armor. This may point up the difference between Petrol and Diesel power.

I agree with sage2 that high octane does not mean more explosive for gasoline.

I'm afraid I will have to kick the other leg out from your post, Mikey. T-34s were apparantly infamous with their crews for exploding like a giant bomb if they did brew. Guards tankers issued Emchas (M4A2 lend lease Shermans) considered theirs' the safer ride in these terms. Not that they wouldn't brew, but that they would not explode and kill the crew that managed to bail from the tank and were pinned down by enemy fire underneath it or in the near vacinity. Dimitri Loza believes this was due to the sensitivity of the HE filler used in Soviet-made 76.2mm ammo compared to the filler in U.S.-made 75 and 76mm shells.

In this interview he describes being pinned underneath his burning Sherman expecting to die at any moment from having the ammo explode. To his puzzlement and relief, he believes that he heard the propellent for the rounds cooking off but not the HE charges within the shells.

So the T-34 *may* have been harder to light up than the Sherman, but if does light up, the results are far more catastrophic.

[ October 03, 2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]

[Shosties]

Originally posted by Private Pike:

So this might explain something. In the demo (still no UK release) I wondered why I didn't get the explosion and fire I was used to (from CMBO), when i knocked out a Tank.

In the CMBB demo, you're mostly dealing with lighter ATGs (37mm and 45mm) vs. tanks, so less havoc takes place when you manage to get a penetration.

Play Citadel Schwerpunkt enough and you should see the occasional spectacular explosion+burn from lucky 45mm hits (I saw this happen once at ~500m on a Mk. IV). The KV-1S's should be able to achieve these too in favorable circumstances.