Questions about the internal structures of WW II tanks.

Stovepipe

Hi all,
When I read about WW II tanks, particularly Shermans, it is often mentioned how they "brewed up" rapidly. How did they go up so fast? were the fuel and engine not seperated from the fighting compartment?

regards
Stovepipe

Jawgap

Combination of factors -
- the design of the tank - developed quickly, rushed into service and confined by certain parameters to make it easy to transport in large numbers
- thin armour
- crap gun (meaning it had to go close to get a hit, when the Germans could stand-off and hit from greater ranges
- crap engine, initially

The tank itself was designed to swarm and overcome defences - American doctrine at the time saw the tank as a means of breaking through and exploiting collapsed defences. The Sherman wasn't designed to take on other tanks (someone forgot to tell the Germans), tank destroyers were supposed to take care of them.

The Americans wanted a tank that was fast, reliable - which meant a powerful engine or a light hull. Given they didn't develop a proper tank engine until the middle of the war which meant Shermans were either going to have to be light or slow - they went with light!

It was also designed to be mass produced and quickly - again this led to design compromises. The initial shape was determined by the engine, and even when better engines came on stream they stuck with that shape to keep the production lines rolling.

It had it's merits - it was fast, reliable, fuel efficient, relative to other tanks it was easy to maintain. It had a powered turret that could traverse very quickly.

Used in a coordinated fashion with infantry and tank destroyers it was quite effective, but as you say in one-on-one, or even several-on-one engagements with German tanks, the "tommy cooker" came off second best quite frequently.

They were also referred to as 'Ronsons' - after the lighters - "Lights up the first time, every time!"

It had it's moments though - for example at the Battle of Arracourt, an outnumbered 4th Armoured Division, took on and beat Fifth Panzer Army - admittedly there were factors in the Americans' favour, but I suppose you can only fight what's put in front of you!

Jawgap

Footage of a Sherman taking out a Tiger*

*may not be actual footage:)

BlaasForRafa

Jawgap wrote: »

Footage of a Sherman taking out a Tiger*

*may not be actual footage:)

Was that Tiger a T34 in disguise by any chance? or one of the extremely rare lesser-spotted diesel-engined hollywood-tigers?:D

Delancey

One of the chief problems of the Sherman was the tendency of the ammunition to cook off when the tank was hit in the turrett which was where the ammo was kept.
Late in 1944 the fitting of water jackets to the turret did a lot to reduce this tendency.

IMO the description of the Sherman as '' one of the greatest tanks of WW2 '' is quite undeserved. It was easy to build and maintain compared to other tanks but its high profile , poor gun and tendency to catch fire were huge drawbacks.

Impossible to say which tank was best , they all had good points and bad points - T 34 was reliable and easy to build but uncomfortable and exhausting for its crews , Tiger was almost shell proof but was over-engineered and almost impossible to recover when damaged or broken down on the battlefield.

Ease of production was a huge factor , as Stalin said '' Quantity has a quality all of its own '' - under that measure the T 34 was a winner.

zom

Jawgap wrote: »

Combination of factors -
- the design of the tank - developed quickly, rushed into service and confined by certain parameters to make it easy to transport in large numbers

They were brilliant on Asian theater of 2 World War. No Japanese could cope with them. And they were easy to transport on the big sea distances.
German and Russians tanks haven't been transported this way (imagine 70 tones Tiger2 to be loaded on the vessel in the port). Of course European countries had bigger experience and develop power than USA in that matter (even Brits), although USA had much more developed aircraft technology.

zom

Delancey wrote: »

Ease of production was a huge factor , as Stalin said '' Quantity has a quality all of its own '' - under that measure the T 34 was a winner.

Again - demographic difference between Russia and Germany. Germany just couldn't cope with loosing big number of trained crews so they came with higher engineering quality. Russians were producing tank drivers almost as fast as just tanks, so their machines were simpler in build and use. Especally in the end of the war it was big German problem and lot of very old/young man were dramatically mobilized.

Jawgap

Delancey wrote: »

One of the chief problems of the Sherman was the tendency of the ammunition to cook off when the tank was hit in the turrett which was where the ammo was kept.
Late in 1944 the fitting of water jackets to the turret did a lot to reduce this tendency.

..........QUOTE]

The design, while rushed, did have some positives. One was the ergonomics of vehicle - compared to something like a T34, it was quite comfy.

They also wanted the tank to be quick firing so the ammunition was stored high up and close to the loader to minimise re-load times. I think it was initially stored in the side-sponsons over the tracks, rather than in the turret which obviously was a disastrous place given it's where any enemy tank would be aiming in a fight.

In later designs, it was stored on the floor of the hull and the water-jackets were introduced for added safety.

as for being one of the best tanks in WWII - it would probably depend on the category / feature considered - they were fuel efficient, and reliable - easy to transport and maintain, but for all that.....

....would you want to go to war in it......


.....and would you want it in your Top Trumps hand (the acid test for any weapons system:))

Stovepipe

Hi all,
Nice replies, thanks. A lot of the combat reports in various books, including those of veterans, state how quickly the Sherman used to brew up. One report said that it could be ablaze entirely, to the point of trapping the whole crew, within ten seconds. My question is: was there any protection for the fuel tank(s)? If the fire was in the rear, how would it reach the fighting compartment, if not thru a penetration?

regards
Stovepipe

Cork boy 55

I think this a BMP brewing up in Syria heavy ****
I think the BMP also has a reputation for fires

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un8OJrbKe8w

tac foley

ALL the earlier versions of the BMP - the BMP-1 and 2 - carried fuel in the hollow MAGNESIUM rear doors, 90L in one and 70L in the other. In addition, the eight outward-facing soldier occupants sat on a LARGE central fuel tank that was their internal seating.

The idea is to put a rifle grenade through either of the back doors, and then when the occupants try and escape ther resultant fire, to hose them down with tracer straight into the open doors. It usually blows up at that point...

In the Chechen war, this caused 99% casualties in the Grozhnyy urban battles.

tac

Stovepipe

Hi all,
Russian BMP crews adopted the tactic of filling the doors with sand, as well as covering the floor with sandbags. Apart from that, they made sure to hose everything down with tracer and HE at the slightest threat. All APCs are vulnerable, really.

regards
Stovepipe

BlaasForRafa

Stovepipe wrote: »

Hi all,
Russian BMP crews adopted the tactic of filling the doors with sand, as well as covering the floor with sandbags. Apart from that, they made sure to hose everything down with tracer and HE at the slightest threat. All APCs are vulnerable, really.

regards
Stovepipe

In Afghanistan mines were seen to be the greatest threat to the BMP's so the troops tended to sit on top of the BMP during movement, the idea being if they hit a mine they'd be safer being thrown off the top than being stuck inside. The driver didn't have that choice though.

Delancey

tac foley wrote: »

ALL the earlier versions of the BMP - the BMP-1 and 2 - carried fuel in the hollow MAGNESIUM rear doors, 90L in one and 70L in the other. In addition, the eight outward-facing soldier occupants sat on a LARGE central fuel tank that was their internal seating.

The idea is to put a rifle grenade through either of the back doors, and then when the occupants try and escape ther resultant fire, to hose them down with tracer straight into the open doors. It usually blows up at that point...

In the Chechen war, this caused 99% casualties in the Grozhnyy urban battles.

tac

Magnesium doors ? :eek: Did they design it to be a fire trap ? What was the rationale for Magnesium ?

CerebralCortex

Jawgap wrote: »

Footage of a Sherman taking out a Tiger*

Definitely not a Tiger.

tac foley

Delancey wrote: »

Magnesium doors ? :eek: Did they design it to be a fire trap ? What was the rationale for Magnesium ?

To keep the weight down.

tac

tac foley

The 'Tiger' in the movie is, as most of you have figured out by now, a converted T-34. But a 75mm shot through the rear of the engine compartment would have taken out a Tiger. That is how many of them were stalked in Normandy - using five Shermans. The Sherman had a power-operated turret that was able to make a full revolution almost three times faster than the Tiger, and the strategy was to manoever the Shermans in such a way as to blind-side the Tiger and achieve either a flanking shot or a rear-end shot. Usually at least two of the Shermans would get plotzed doing this...

tac

BlaasForRafa

tac foley wrote: »

The 'Tiger' in the movie is, as most of you have figured out by now, a converted T-34. But a 75mm shot through the rear of the engine compartment would have taken out a Tiger. That is how many of them were stalked in Normandy - using five Shermans. The Sherman had a power-operated turret that was able to make a full revolution almost three times faster than the Tiger, and the strategy was to manoever the Shermans in such a way as to blind-side the Tiger and achieve either a flanking shot or a rear-end shot. Usually at least two of the Shermans would get plotzed doing this...

tac

The Tiger's turret traverse may not have been as quick but it could pivot on its own axis which the Sherman couldn't and this is how many Tigers got their kills. Its also how the Stugs and Jagdpanzers could be extremely effective in defensive and ambush roles.

On the other hand the Tiger was vulnerable in the open, its how Wittmann was killed, by leading his troop of tigers across a vast open field with high hedgerows and walls on either side from which a Sherman firefly put a round through the side of his tank and allegedly set the ammo off and blew the turret clean off.

BlaasForRafa

tac foley wrote: »

To keep the weight down.

tac

Are you sure the BMP-1 used magnesium? I know the BMD-1 used magnesium but that was an apc designed for airborne use so it had to be light. Given that magnesium is quite a bit more expensive than steel I can't imagine the Soviets wasting money on vehicles for ordinary conscripts.

bluecode

If you're interested Stovepipe and others, there's an excellent book: Tankmen by Robert Kershaw. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Men-Robert-Kershaw/dp/0340923474

Makes you rethink any notions you might have had about becoming a Tanker. Mind you one look around a Panhard years ago had a similar effect.

I came across this site with raw footage of the well known clip of an Panther being hit at Cologne Cathedral by a Pershing. The commander tries to get out but doesn't make it.
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675075883_3rd-Armored-Division_United-States-soldiers_German-tank-exploded_firing-machine-guns

FiSe

That footage of that famous Panther is not complete... The Panther destroyed Sherman with some casualties to the Sherman crew, I think tank commander lost his leg and bled to death - captured on camera.
After that Panther itself is hit by Pershing following the unlucky Sherman. There is a full video footage and elaborate step by step screenshot study, but have lost the link when my PC died a while ago.

I think that Panther commander gets out alrite as does driver and some other crew members, I think that radio operator never made it. The German tank commander gets back to his tank and helps driver to get out. Panther itself is hit 3-4 times and you can see projectile entry points as those light circular dots when the ammunition starts exploding.

Nice footage though.

Stovepipe

Hi all,
In the Cologne Panther/Pershing fight, the Panther had already knocked out one and maybe another Sherman (the footage of the crewman crawling out of the turret, who survived losing a leg and getting burned) and the infantry called up the Pershing and warned the crew of the Panther's location. The Pershing commander is recorded as having begun to traverse his long barrel before he caught sight of the Panther and got off the first shot. The Panther is said in one account to have had extra ammunition aboard, which might account for the speed with which it flared up. The Pershing fired three rounds, which had become practise at the time.It had been found that a single shot from even the deadly 90mm was no guarantee of success against a Tiger or Panther. All of the Panther crew died, the two who escaped falling dead within a few feet of the tank.
regards
Stovepipe

FiSe

Both accounts are here side by side the one as told by War correspondent, the other as seen on the film:

http://planetarmor.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3646