The "myth" of burning Shermans and non-burning Panzers.....

[Ryan Crierie]

Every reference to the M-4 Sherman series

ALWAYS seems to include a quip about it

burning.

Guess what?

The Mark III and Mk IV Panzers

had this engine in various forms:

Maybach HL 120 TRM / 12-cylinder / 265hp

Looking it up on the net.....it was....

GASOLINE POWERED!

Even those indomitable monsters of germanic

engineering, the Panther and Tiger, were also

GASOLINE POWERED!

Why then, did the sherman gain such a horrible

reputation, while the Panzer IV (of which it

was nearly identical to in many respects)

didn't?

Simple.

For the same reason the Queen Mary,

Indefatigable, and Invincible blew

up at Jutland:

Improper ammunition stowage.

Most US Sherman crews crammed ammo

into every nook and cranny they could

find, ignoring their purpose-made

glycol-surrounded ammo racks.

The Germans, being punctual to the letter,

didn't suffer from a need to cram ammo

everywhere, and their tanks didn't

spontaneously combust.

[Warmaker]

I'm sorry, but when your own tank crews give it a bad name and reputation for lighting up then there's something wrong.

In CMBO's terms, the shermans with "W" have the wet ammo storage so it's not as catastrophic.

And yeah, it was the British who gave it the lovely name of "Ronson Burner" since it always lit on the first try.

And I never believed that Panzers were powered by water! What a way to fireproof your gear!

[Brian]

This has already been mentioned before in the forum. There are several other factors to consider.

The British found that the real cause of fire in most tanks was not ammunition stowage (that caused catastrophic explosions) and it wasn't fuel, either. It was much more mundane - crew personal clothing and effect. This finding was discovered as a consequence of extensive tests, including taking tanks out into the desert, stowed "as is" and firing guns at them and then observing what happened. It is detailed in Fletcher's book, "The Great Tank Scandal" Crews tended to stuff blankets, Greatcoats, small packs, and anything else they felt would make their lives a little more comfortable inside the vehicle. The British response was the provision, which continues to this day, of external stowage bins, where all superflous equipment will be stowed.

Further, the British in response to those tests, began fitting first armoured and then wet stowage bins to their vehicle's ammunition racks. Prodded by British requests and their own limited experience, the US followed suit. The Germans on the otherhand, had been fitting armoured bins since about 1941.

Another factor which has to be considered is the different types of fuels used by the combatants. The British and Americans used 98-100 Octane petrol, which is basically AvGas. The rating of German fuels was quite variable, being anything, from memory, between about 70-80 Octane, which had a slightly higher flashpoint, compared to the American and British fuels.

The Germans were though, well aware of the prospensity of their vehicles to catch alight. One Weapons Branch report, detailed in the Schliffer book on the Panther made the point that a hit on the engine deck was likely to result in a fire. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Tiger had similar problems.

[Redwolf]

From my reading the Panther is very prone to buring as well. I made my way through the divison history of 12th SS, and when Panthers were shot, they constantly burned. I didn't make a real list, but my impression was > 50%.

Diesel fuel doesn't really solve the problem, BTW, while it is harder to ignite, it burns nicely afterwards.

[ASL Veteran]

I seem to recall, in the distant reaches of my brain, that the Israelis complained about the M-60 tank burning easily during the 73 war and that it had something to do with the hydraulic fluid that was used. I think it was some kind of cherry colored fluid or somefink - although I'm kinda thinking right now that hydraulic fluid is normally red. Well, I did say it was from the distant reaches of my brain now didn't I?

[PJungnitsch]

A punctured hydraulic line would certainly be bad, firewise. Not only is all hydraulic fluid I know of petroleum based and quite flammable (its a lightish oil), but (in the heavy construction and ag equipment I'm familiar with anyway) the lines are under at least 2500 psi pressure when under use. That is a lot of pressure considering a car tire runs around 28psi. Any puncture and there is hydraulic oil sprayed everywhere.

[Gyrene]

The true cause of most tank fires was poor ventilation in tanks and excessive and dangerous build up of fart gas.

The Allied forces partially solved the problem by removing beans from the diets of tank crews and forbidding smoking in the tanks after meals.

Gyrene

[Bastables]

Originally posted by redwolf:

From my reading the Panther is very prone to buring as well. I made my way through the divison history of 12th SS, and when Panthers were shot, they constantly burned. I didn't make a real list, but my impression was > 50%.

Diesel fuel doesn't really solve the problem, BTW, while it is harder to ignite, it burns nicely afterwards.

Much like the Sherman the Panthers propensity to burn was due to ammo stowage bins being right beside the the upper and lower side hull armour. Punch through the armour and hit the cartridges.

[Chosun-few]

I thought the real problem with the Sherman was the positioning of the fuel tanks, high on the side, combined with weak side armour. Any hit in that general are would either direcly ignite the fuel or chip chunks off the inside of the armour and ignite the fuel. All tanks burn but the impression is (i wasn't there my father was) that the Sherman would mostly be destroyed by fire rather than immoballised or blown up. Anyone know better??

[jgdpzr]

Along these lines, I have seen references that fuel leakage and pooling was a considerable problem for the Panther, especially early in its development. I also seem to remember that the ventilation in the engine compartment was less than optimal, thereby adding gas vapors to the mix. If a round entered that compartment, an explosion or burning was to be expected, especially if the round had a bursting cap. Not sure if this was a problem for the Tiger.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Bastables:

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

From my reading the Panther is very prone to buring as well. I made my way through the divison history of 12th SS, and when Panthers were shot, they constantly burned. I didn't make a real list, but my impression was > 50%.

Diesel fuel doesn't really solve the problem, BTW, while it is harder to ignite, it burns nicely afterwards.

Much like the Sherman the Panthers propensity to burn was due to ammo stowage bins being right beside the the upper and lower side hull armour. Punch through the armour and hit the cartridges.</font>

[MikeyD]

The early Sherman radial engine was derived from an aircraft engine and used very high octane fuel (by very high I mean something like today's 'premium'). This also contributed to the fuel's volatility.

Panthers certainly were known to burn. The early ones would burst into flame spontaneously! But they were also known to occassionally withstand bazooka penetrations without burning, so some areas of the vehicles were more succeptible than others.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Brian:

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

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

From my reading the Panther is very prone to buring as well. I made my way through the divison history of 12th SS, and when Panthers were shot, they constantly burned. I didn't make a real list, but my impression was > 50%.

Diesel fuel doesn't really solve the problem, BTW, while it is harder to ignite, it burns nicely afterwards.

Much like the Sherman the Panthers propensity to burn was due to ammo stowage bins being right beside the the upper and lower side hull armour. Punch through the armour and hit the cartridges.</font>