Shermans and Burning Too easily.....

[flamingknives]

Actually, I believe that the Germans called the Shermans "tommy-cookers". "Ronson" was an exclusively Allied term (the Jerries didn't have Ronson lighters)

I can't believe I missed the octane bit - sage2 is quite right.

As to awful British armour - I was under the impression that the Cromwells and Comets weren't that bad. The Cruiser tanks used in the desert however... Should have been thrown into the Med.

[MikeyD]

As to catastrophic explosions in T34s, you reminded me of an earlier post. Someone mentioned that Russians used a more powerful (and more unstable) explosive filler for their HE shells than the Germans... or was that more unstable propellant?

Well, anyway. The debate's rather difficult if we don't distinguished early radial-engined dry-stowage Shermans from late diesel engine wet stowage Shermans. I've got the feeling the late HVSS 76mm gun Sherman was actually one of the best tanks of WWII (gasp!). They certainly beat the pants off the T34-85 in Korea.

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

I agree. I've seen many pictures of T-34s reduced to unrecognizable scrap from the HE shells exploding and not one of a Sherman. Every KO'd Sherman i've seen is either just sitting there with a hole in the turret or some charred paint around the hatches.

[BK6583]

"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".

I've read that book as well and recall that part. What's not mentioned is that at that demo in England (I believe around Jan/Feb '44), Patton and company were shown a film of a prototype Pershing on an Aberdeen Proving Ground test track - I believe no factory had really been 'ramped up' to go into full rate production yet. So this was somewhat of a case of 'a bird in hand worth two in the bush'. As it turned out, the Pershings that arrived in the ETO had mechanical problems right until the end of the war. Those problems followed the Pershing to the Korean War, where US tankers often preferred the 'Easy Eight' Sherman to the Pershing. Lastly, given the Pershing's slower speed, bigger gas-guzzling engine, and the aforementioned mechanical problems, would Patton have gone racing thru France in Aug '44 like he did with Shermans? Cooper's book is a must read but it struck me that he had some axes to grind in writing it.

[aka_tom_w]

Gas Vs Diesel

is this a big issue really?

ALL WWII tanks had AMMO in them and I thought that when it detonated the tank exploded.

Simple NO?

Given that they had HE (Thats HIGH explosive) ammo on board does it really matter all that much if the Diesel or Gas fuel tank (which is ususally at the rear of the tank) gets hit or not???

When I read this thread my first thought was...

"Its the AMMO"

but thats only my non-grog non-amour/tank engineer opinion (BUT.. I am currently reading Death Traps and it is a GREAT book about the U.S. WWII Allied Shermans and their battle readiness and their in service field maintenance )

Carry on!

-tom w

[ October 03, 2002, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[busboy]

There were Shermans that were utterly devistated...but they were far fewer than the T-34s. I can only recall seeing 2 pictures of Shermans with a turret blown off, other than that, yes, its just a hole in the armor and blackened paint if it burned.

"I've got the feeling the late HVSS 76mm gun Sherman was actually one of the best tanks of WWII (gasp!). They certainly beat the pants off the T34-85 in Korea."

Everyone always says that the Sherman was a rotten tank...but they base that on how German high velocity guns performed against the Shermans.

The German tanks were sort of apples compared to the rest of the world's oranges. They were big, expensive, complex gas hogs that were designed to give 'n take a licking and keep on ticking. The rest of the world just had a different philosophy...not one that disregarded crew safety, but one that ment that they weren't going to build ubertanks like the Germans.

As a result, the Sherman is considerd awful. Well, compared to the Panther, it was fairly inferior...so were most tanks of WW2.

The fact is that the late war M4A3E8/76(w) tanks WERE some of the best in the war. Thick and fairly well shaped frontal armor, high velocity gun, wide tracks and a good suspension system, and outstanding reliability.

Tank vs tank, the Panther may have been superior, but which was the better tank for an army to field? I'd say the late Shermans.

I do admit, however, that sending early mark Shermans with the short 75 against Tigers was a bad skew of the odds.

[MikeyD]

Is Diesel vs Petrol a real issue, you ask? It is according to modern weapon designers. You'd be hard-pressed to find an armored vehicle today that isn't diesel-engined, and petrol-engined vehicles (mostly small armored cars) make designers cringe with worry.

I recently saw one weapons manufacurer proudly boast that his product could ignite diesel fiel on impact. For petrol it would simply be taken for granted.

[Renaud]

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.

I know on some german tanks they had an ingenious hand-crank flywheel system (like in old cars before electric starters) for starting the tank in cold weather or when the battery was dead. Two crewmen would hook up the big handle and swing it around until the flywheel stored enough energy by reaching a certain RPM. Then, the driver would engage the engine and the flywheel would turn the motor over, starting it.

Someone mentioned crewmen standing ready with a fire extinguisher when fueling up. I know we still did that as of 1990 even though we were using diesel in tanks. Don't know if it was always (or still) practiced though.

Ren

[Shosties]

The most unfortunate thing about the Sherman in my opinion was that, once it was realized they needed to be upgunned, the Ordance Department settled firmly on the 76mm despite offers from the British to allow license building of 17-lbers. and the fact that a 90mm really could be fit in there (as proved by the M36B1 with the turret top).

[sage2]

"Is Diesel vs Petrol a real issue, you ask? It is according to modern weapon designers. You'd be hard-pressed to find an armored vehicle today that isn't diesel-engined, and petrol-engined vehicles (mostly small armored cars) make designers cringe with worry."

I feel like I'm picking on MikeyD... but doesn't the M1 use a gasoline turbine powered engine? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure the designers cringe with worry. They just put a lot of armor on it.

Sage

[ October 03, 2002, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: sage2 ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by sage2:

I feel like I'm picking on MikeyD... but doesn't the M1 use a gasoline turbine powered engine? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure the designers cringe with worry. They just put a lot of armor on it.

Sage

As does the T-80 (not that they don't blow in alarmingly violent catastrophic ways, but so do diesel-fueled T-72s).

The problem with Petrol in modern armour is that you have to bring all that fuel you are burning up, the yanks don't seem to mind but we europeans are more sensitive to that (no wonder with gas price being what it is round here ).

[busboy]

If I recall, the M1 uses a hybrid engine that can run on most any oil byproduct you put into it... but I think it mainly runs on diesel.

As for petrol vs. diesel...yes its an isse.

Ammo explodes, it doesn't catch fire. Is a hit to the gas tank going to cause an explosion? Not likely, though theoretically possible.

However, a hit to the fuel which causes a fire destroys the tank, and if it burns long enough, eventually the ammo "cooks off" as well.

If a tank burns, its gone. If I recall from the aforementioned book "Death Traps" by Sgt. Cooper, the reason for this is the heat of a fire effects the metalurgical properties of the armor. Even if you could take a burnt out tank and restore it, its armor wouldn't be worth anything.

Secondly, restoring such a tank would be more trouble then just getting a replacement.

In short, diesel tanks are less inclined to burn in the event of a hit on the fuel, and that can be the difference between a recoverable tank, and a hulk.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

The most unfortunate thing about the Sherman in my opinion was that, once it was realized they needed to be upgunned, the Ordance Department settled firmly on the 76mm despite offers from the British to allow license building of 17-lbers. and the fact that a 90mm really could be fit in there (as proved by the M36B1 with the turret top).

Not their bad, well not only. The 76 worked fine with the ammo used in tests, against the armour used in test. Unfortunatly the production ammunition was of rather less quality and german armour tuned out to be harder than test-plate

Also more HVAP, and especially a better distribution of HVAP between tanks and TD's would have made a big difference...

[gunnergoz]

kking199-

Disagree with what? Where did I say that the Sherman was optimized for AT purposes? It wasn't. With the 17 pounder, it could hold it's own with a good crew getting off the first shot...but that's about it.

No, my point, which seems to have been missed, was that the Sherman's beauty lie in it's producability, reliability and global mobility (i.e. it could be shipped anywhere and could operate almost everywhere). It was well suited to the American style of mass production, had the right amount of reserve space for later upgrades and could be counted upon to keep going when other, better engineered tanks were sitting ducks waiting for new transmissions or other fancy components.

No one in their right mind would try to describe the Sherman as some sort of uber-tank. It could and did toe it out with enemy tanks of course, but it wasn't primarily designed to do that. And if you had to go after enemy armor, you did it with numbers and manouver and knew you'd pay a price for your efforts, but it was a job that had to be done and those wonderful guys back then did just that.

The fault lies not with Patton, as some seem to think, but with Army Ground Forces, led by General Leslie McNair (who later died in the over-bombing accident in Normandy at the beginning of Cobra). These gentlemen, including McNair, saw tanks as exploitation weapons, designed to rampage about the enemy's rear and destroy men and materiel. They wanted to fight tanks with specialized guns and vehicles, and so we ended up with the Tank Destroyer force. The error of their thinking was not immediately apparent in the early war years.

Patton, known for hyperbole, exaggeration and flights of fanciful boasting, is not one General I'd quote much on. I might follow him into battle, but I wouldn't let him design or produce my weapons because he was not very good in that deparment.

The debate about the Sherman will never end, because some people will always look at this era (WW2) with their feet firmly planted in the present day, when tanks are known to be among the best tank killers. These folks will not be able to look at the situation WW2 planners and producers had to cope with, given limitations in resources, manpower, time and technology. Those people came up with the Sherman, and used it as one tool to pummel their enemies into submission. Were there tanks that could whip the Sherman? You bet! Was there ever a tank that a lucky Sherman couldn't take out? Probably not. That's not really the point, though. The main point is, the Sherman and the T-34 for that matter, were both war machines designed for mass production and mass application. The Germans' vaunted superior engineering and technology might have had merits one-on-one, but the war was about numbers as much as anything else.

Put it another way: Put a few excellent men in excellent tanks, and you have the German Army. Put a lot of very good men in very serviceable tanks, and you have the Allied forces. Script a nice war and see what happens...Bottom line: we all know how this movie ended, folks.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by busboy:

If I recall, the M1 uses a hybrid engine that can run on most any oil byproduct you put into it... but I think it mainly runs on diesel.

You're probably thinking of the "europowerpack" a replacement for the M1's normal petrol-fueled turbine engine. It's intended for export customers. as the US Army runs its M1's on petrol exclusively.

[wodasini88]

You have to remeber that the panther was designed for mass production the major problem was that german industry hadn't geared up for war as quickly as their allied opponents. And when they started too they were getting bombed round the clock. The german tank designers didn't just disregard the advantages mass production gives.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by busboy:

Ammo explodes, it doesn't catch fire.

Propellant burns if it's loose. This, specifically, is what wet storage was supposed to prevent. There was a passage in Loza's book where he described being near a burning Sherman where the ammo didn't cook off; he states that in a T-34 the ammo would have exploded to the detriment of all nearby troops. Burning tanks are bad, but exploding tanks are much worse. (Of course, they can burn, and then explode )

[busboy]

I remember on the History Channel they interviewed Cooper in the episode of "Suicide Missions" and I think it was he who noted the difference between German and American mass production (though it might have been someone else on a different show.)

Anyhoo, they noted that the U.S. and the Germans both had 105mm howitzers. The German breech had something like 100 moving parts in it, while the American version had 28. (numbers as well as I can remember.)

Just because the Panther was designed for mass production doesn't mean it was ideal for it.

On Patton: During the inter-war years, Patton was one of the champions for bigger and better tanks. He constantly went to bat witth Christie trying to get the army to understand that tanks would replace horses, and that the tank was not only an infantry support vehicle.

Between a traditionalist army and a depression torn congress that thought the last war ever ended in 1918, there was little support for tank development. What there was might as well have been clandestine.

Patton never subscribed to the idea that AT guns and tank destroyers were designed to deal with tanks, while tanks bypassed other tanks. The army had a series of wargames just before WW2 to test test the idea that AT guns made tanks ineffective. Supposedly the tank was going to be proven obsolete.

Patton's 2nd Armored division not only proved the AT gun ideas wrong by winning the wargames, he did it spectacularly by concluding games ment to take days into a decisively winning the games in hours. (In one game, in fact, Patton's forces captured the opposing general of the opposing infantry division.)

Patton wasn't a traditionalist. He was a cavalryman who wanted to see the cavalry evolve.

It must also be noted that Patton and Chaffee were THE experts of tanks in the American Army. Patton was literally the first American who could drive a tank. When the U.S. tank corps got their tanks delivered to them in France, 1918, Col. Patton had to personally take each tank of the train cars because none of the recruits had seen an Ft-17 yet.

If the question to mount a 76mm gun in a Sherman had been raised when war was still months away, I'm sure Patton would enthusiastically say hell yes. If the question was to develop the Pershing tank to replace the Sherman, if there were time to do it, he'd have said yes.

However, once in war I'm sure he felt that you don't change horses in midstream. Theoretically, if we had pulled all the Shermans and started mounting 76mm guns in all of them before Normandy, tank for tank the U.S. forces would have done better, sure. However, the German tanks would still inflict heavy casualties on the Americans.

The Sherman (and T-34) did not the war because they were good enough to go toe to toe with German tanks and, if used correctly, win, even though they could. They won the war because the Allied armies could afford to go toe to toe with the Germans, and lose tanks in the process.

Patton, in short, was probably concerned that trying to get bigger and better tanks would only result in fewer tanks on the front against other tanks that were still superior in firepower and protection. Result: American tanks get KOed at the same rate, but with no replacements. This WOULD have been disastrus.

And, if we had dropped Sherman production to develop the Pershing , we probably would have suffered until the Pershing became reliable and numerous enough to not only compete with German tanks tactically, but strategically as well.

Finally, Patton was a cavalryman. He loated the idea of the super-heavy tank. After WW he noted in his diary about the plans he had seen for a WW1 era super tank. It was massive, with 75mm guns mounted in sponsons all over the hull, machine guns everywhere, a crew of something like 30. It was called a "mobile fortress." The last thin he notes was the diagram allotted only a tiny section of the middle of the tank for a small box labeled "powerplant: not yet devised." Patton went on to note that as splitting the atom was not yet possible, the proposed tanks was a ludicrus fantasy.

On a similar note, Patton noted in his diary about seeing a Tiger tank for the first time. He called it "the worst piece of self propelled artillery of the war."

Patton was a military realist. You do the most harm to the enemy by hitting him where he isn't, destroying his supplies, and once he's off balance you advance so fast that he can't hope to recover. This method of mobile warfare is simply the most efficient method of combat to date, deciding the issue quickly with the fewest casualties.

You cannot mount a strategic end run when your main battle tanks can do only 20mph on roads, have short range, and need constant maintinance. To Patton, ubertanks may have been tactical beasts, but they were strategic jokes.

I think Patton, as much as any other man, knew his tanks and tank design. However, he supported armored development as he thought it would best suit his style of fighting. Unfortunately not many other Anglo-American Generals shared such an agressive philosophy, and the Sherman was forced to be used as an assault weapon as well as a cavalry weapon. That is its failure.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by wodasini88:

You have to remeber that the panther was designed for mass production the major problem was that german industry hadn't geared up for war as quickly as their allied opponents. And when they started too they were getting bombed round the clock. The german tank designers didn't just disregard the advantages mass production gives.

I agree and so did the Germans

German estimates retold by Spielberger 'According to rough estimates the labour hour relation in comparison to the Panzer III stood at approximately 1 to 1.25 hrs i.e. 4 Panther for 5 Panzer III tanks to be built. Cost (without weaponry) PzKpfw III RM 96,100; Panther RM 117,100. (1993 Spielberger p23)

[busboy]

One thing I forgot: thanks for the note on the M1 engine. I knew that a while back a couple of NATO countries tried to develop such a hybrid but they gave up on it.

No doubt the Panther was a superior mass production machine than the earlier PzKw III. Also, production was a key reason for the Germans to not use sloping armor early in the war as I recall. Once you're tooled up for sloping armor, its not so hard, but when you're looking to make your Tiger and all previous tanks have had vertical armor, you're not tooled up for sloped just yet.

The Germans get sort of a bad rap for being perfectionists tinkering on the perfect tank with armor so perfectly sloped it might as well be 400mm thick protected with a forcefield with a main gun that could KO a battleship at 4 miles, all the while being forced to work iwith no more than 3 nails and a bent spoon in a factory with no roof while the allies bomb day and night.

The Germans were, for the most part, practical. Furthermore, history gravely misinterprets the effects of level bombing on German production. No doubt bombing hurt German production, but it was not a fatal wound. The highest levels of German production were actually during the height of the Allied bombing.

The Allies could only bomb so many cities each day and night, such bombing was not utterly devistating in all cases, and you could not bomb every day or every target when you wanted.

So many little things contributed to the defeat of the German forces in WW2. Incredable odds were just one of them (I believe that the worst setback for German victory was Hitler himself.) If odds were Germany's only problem on the Eastern front, Germany probably would have KOed Russia early in the war, but winter interviened.

Really, its almost like Victor Hugo's discription of Waterloo in Les Miserables. A few big things occured to decide the battle, but it would have been nearly as decisive if all of the little things hadn't played into it; and so many little things played into it in just such a way that Hugo credits the reason for the outcome of Waterloo as God.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by busboy:

You cannot mount a strategic end run when your main battle tanks can do only 20mph on roads, have short range, and need constant maintinance. To Patton, ubertanks may have been tactical beasts, but they were strategic jokes.

.

Panthers managed 45km/h (30mph).

The Germans also managed the 1940 battles in France with tanks of only 25 mph top speed that broke down alot and required constant maintance.

[ October 03, 2002, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Appart from the Comet of course, oh and the Crusader (not bad for 1940), and the 16 ton Valentine that was only half the weight of the Sherman (more or less!), and the Matilda 2 (also lighter than the Sherman).

British tanks weren't particularly worse than the US ones of the same era at the start of the war(1942 for the USA!!) - but they lacked the huge industrial might of the US to develop them and construct improved designs, and sensibly decided to use what was on offer.

Eg Churchil I with 3" howitzer and 2 pdr vs Grant, Church 3 with 57mm vs Sherman, Valentine was arguably vastly superior as a light tank to the Stuart, and the M2 that the USA had befoerthe M3 Lee/Grant was at least as much of a joke as the various failed UK designs.

Nuthin' wrong with that.

Actually they used it because they couldn't get enough tanks of any design at all!

as you say - and what use would a tank be without a decent gun?

[busboy]

"Panthers managed 45km/h (30mph).

The Germans also managed the 1940 battles in France with tanks of only 25 mph top speed that broke down alot and required constant maintance."

Panthers are not "ubertanks." I invented the term as a rhetorical joke.

The Germans did excellently in the battle of France and, by Dunkirk, I think they were operating on only 25% of their full armor strength due to mechanical breakdowns.

They were able to achieve this kind of success because they kept moving before effective resistance could be rallied and mounted.

Think if the German tanks of 1940 were reliable and were backed up by a fully mechanized logistical system.

There is a difference. France doesn't prove otherwise. If anything, the Fall of France only proves that focus of force and rapid movement are the replacement for massive overwhelming advance.

It is interesting to draw similarities between German tank crews fighting Char B1 Bis', Sumoa 35s, and Hotchkiss 39s to the Sherman equipped Americans and English later in the war.

Where the Sherman was used as an assault tank, or used in slow methodical advance, they did poorly (as would German vehicles in '40.) When they were focused and kept moving, they did very well (ditto 1940 Germans.)

Actually, The Germans had considerable atvantages as well. French tanks were most deployed piecemeal and were ineffective with one man turrets. The 25% strength didn't matter because they were STILL going to have tactical numerical and communication superiority.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by busboy:

"Panthers managed 45km/h (30mph).

The Germans did excellently in the battle of France and, by Dunkirk, I think they were operating on only 25% of their full armor strength due to mechanical breakdowns.

They were able to achieve this kind of success because they kept moving before effective resistance could be rallied and mounted.

Actually, The Germans had considerable atvantages as well. French tanks were most deployed piecemeal and were ineffective with one man turrets. The 25% strength didn't matter because they were STILL going to have tactical numerical and communication superiority.

Well actually France shows that neither high speeds road nor mechanical reliability were paramount requirements for successful armour operations.

saying shouda coulda woulda, or how would the Germans have done with PIV langs or even better Higher speed Panthers is frankly irrelevent.

[busboy]

"Well actually France shows that neither high speeds road nor mechanical reliability were paramount requirements for successful armour operations."

High road speeds? No, its of relatively minor importance, I agree, though logically faster tanks can get to the front faster, and allow a slightly faster advance, but in the long run it is not the deciding factor.

Add to the above phrase "...against a foe with dated tactics or completely disorganized" and I will agree with you wholeheartedly.

Could the Anglo American forces have performed their lightning thrusts with tanks that required constant maintence or broke down? No. Their advance would have been, by necessity, slower and more methodical.

In short, the Anglo-American advance would have looked like the Russian one, and probably suffered proportionate casualties.

I am not trying to play "what it." At no point have I proposed "what if Germany did this" or anything like that. All I have tried to do was comment on mobile warfare. That is not pointless speculation, its a discussion of reality.