Governors on shermans

I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the 25mph governors placed on Sherman tanks to prevent wear and tear as well as reduce fuel consumption.

From accounts I've seen soldiers who disabled the governor were capable of out running jeeps. However this wasn't recorded as a wide spread modification. In part due to the fact that a soldier would be punished if discovered to have done so. Still if the front line tankers felt it increased their survivability I would expect to hear of it more often.

Pro's for removing it
Faster overall speed when moving from position to position reducing exposure to fire.
When encountering enemy tanks a high speed to close and flank exposing the Panzer's side armor.

Con's for removing it
Increased wear and tear.
Reduced fuel efficiency. Making the supply situation in France even worse.


From some accounts I've heard of tank actions the tanker mentioned the in actual fighting high speed didn't matter very much as tanks moved slowly in order to prevent being ambushed.

From others concerning Stuart the tanker states that the best way to fight successfully was to keep the tank moving quickly as much as possible.

My initial feeling is that installing a governor for use during road marches is fine but I prefer to have the choice of disengaging it for combat.

Thoughts?

 

Is there any information available on the details of the governors?
The Fords used different carbs then the Wrights and the diesels didn't have any carbs at all so there could have been all kinds of variations

I don't think a simple mechancal throttle stop would be practical since it would limit RPMs in lower gears where they may have been needed. Interesting topic that I'd like to know more about.

 

The British had Cromwell tanks which were designed to be fast. Although the speed of the vehicle was sold as a benefit to the crews it didn't have any noticeable effect on their survivability or popularity v the Sherman. There are always stories of soldiers modifying vehicles to make them go faster. Though this is driven by a boy racer mentality rather than military necessity. it is also true that driving less than flat put will also improve serviceability. One of the great virtues of the Sherman was that it enjoyed a serviceability of 95-99%+ .A Sherman unit would arrive at the end of a long move with all its tanks.

Some WW2 military vehicles would go a lot faster than was safe or sensible. The Crusader gun tractor was based on the A15 Crusader tank. Removing the turret made this fast tank even faster. Hand it over to a boy racer driver mech and you have a vehicle which can drag a 17 pdr gun far faster than is safe...There were a series of sharp reminders in WW2 about the safe maximum speed for towing guns. (In the 1980s the British army equipped its medium artillery regiments with Foden gun tractors which were capable of pulling a 9 tonne FH70 at 70 mph. - and occasionally did so at Endex.. You could watch the gun bounce around the motorway occasionally threatening to side swipe any car which dared to overtake

 

Finding info on tank governors has been rather hard. Best I can do right now is a 1936 patent for a general purpose multi engine governor. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGwQFjAN&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com%2Fpdfs%2FUS2062824.pdf&ei=e2IYVJnfC7DisASy8ICwCA&usg=AFQjCNF0pycLy8oAx0TMhHlfgO-ouyOmNg&sig2=X9cYo7u5EDRhtUiddiubXw&bvm=bv.75097201,d.cWc

No idea if it was used on tanks.

Sheldrake you make a very good point. 33 tons of steel going 25mph controlled by an 18 year old sounds a lot better than 33 tons going 50mph.

 

Thought only British tanks had guvnah's...groan.

 

Good try Poppy. At least it was a near miss. Left 25, drop 50, take another shot.

 

Sorry. That's all I got. 1 joke per diem.

 

I have some pix of the 743rd Tank Battalion (attached to the 30th Div) who, instead of souping up the tank for speed molded wet bags of cement around the front of the hull for extra armor. I don't suppose they moved as fast, but maybe more of those guys lived through the war.

 

George Patton would not be happy. So don't tell him.

 

You're right about that. He didn't like the look of improvised armor.

 

Well, as Omar Bradley so frequently said: "Shut up, George!"

 

Always thought he was more concerned with the weight reducing fuel efficiency and makeshift armor promoting a defensive mindset rather than an offensive one.

Though now that I think about it. Considering his strict following of uniform reg's you're probably right.

 

Would even a ton or two really really make that much differnce though on a 35 ton vehicle?

 

The 21 AG OR report stuidied the effects of applique armour and noticed that on no occasion did it stop any hit from penetrating the AFV. Their view was that instead of up armourign tanks it was better to ensure that allied tanks had a better chance of hitting and killing the enemy instead. Fit a 17 pdr or 76mm not applique. .

 

Yes, was referring to the famous picture of GP storming away from a tank that had been covered in- logs(?), sand bags(?), both. The tank crew looked like they just had a good brow beating. ..Anyone have the pic handy?

Was there any proof that sand bags or timber were effective in stopping penetrations, vs the weight penalty?

 

You know, the Panzer IV had 5mm side skirts and an 8mm turret skirt just to change the angle of AT rounds and perhaps stop them from penetrating. They were somewhat effective. I don't see why 8 inches of cement on your hull wouldn't do the same.

 

Thought the skirts were meant to disperse shaped charge?

The first spaced armour?

 

Some testing of applique concrete armour actually found it to enhance shaped charge effects. Had a very interesting chat about it once with the owner of that colander Grant (which he'd spent many happy hours attaching panzerfaust warheads to).

Schurzen were designed to stop shot from AT rifles like the PTRS/D. One can argue their other effectiveness against heavier and shaped shot, and whether the Wehrmacht acknowledged it, was even aware of it, or even if it's actually true at all, but the fact remains it was invented to stop heavy rifles.
Was supposed to be a mesh, as that worked best, but material supply issues made it plate.

Back on Sherman governers/limiters, I'm not sure I recall ever hearing such things mentioned. Will have to have a book dig tomorrow.

 

Nothing yet in Hunnicutt, other than a reference to early M4a4 multibanks only being able to achieve 25mph max.
If anything, the thrust of drivetrain modification was very much towards the increase of power and low down grunt.
Hardly conclusive as I really am skim-reading through a rather large book.

Pat Ware doesn't appear to mention them in the Haynes manual either, and he's normally quite good on engines. (Pretty solid survey of the five main types in there if anyone's interested.)

It would seem to me there are so many good reasons for Engines to be restricted by their intrinsic design from running to melting or transmission-shredding point that this talk of governers might well be a reference to a well-designed engine, rather than what we might think of on, for example, modern small motorbikes, or buses.

Wonder what Zaloga has to say in 'Armored Thunderbolt' - next best book after Hunnicutt on the M4 I think.
I see he makes the reference to crews tampering with governers in an old Osprey book - wonder if they really mean governers, or were just tuning? Such a variety of engine types for M4s, many things're possible I suppose.

I think Ron might have driven Shermans (maybe Radio op... not sure) perhaps he remembers something.
[member='Ron Goldstein']

 

Nothing in an admittedly quick scan of Zaloga either,
So...
I suspect that in order for there to be any point in considering the original query, we'd need to see a manual or diagram confirming that there was indeed a 'limiter' in any serious sense on any marque of Sherman.
That would, for me, have to be something added specifically to choke within-limits ability, rather than aforementioned sensible engineering limits to big engines and already stressed drivetrains.

Hmm... Sherman manuals. Not been there yet. Got a few.