Most survivable tank

I think that would depend which member of the crew you were. In the US Lee with 7 men, there's quite a wait to use a hatch, and the interior is more cramped than the size of the vehicle might indicate.

IIRC none of the M3s had wet ammo storage, and they carried quite a lot of ammo.

There are many stories of injuries in an early M3 being caused not by penetration, but by rivets breaking off and flying round inside.

The Russian nickname for the M3 was 'Coffin(grave) for 6 brothers', which says something.

 

I've also heard that the Soviets applied that name to quite a few tanks simply changing the number to fit the tanks crew. Some stats I've seen indicate that the Soviets tended to have a higher number of fatalities per tank loss than other countries giving them more rational for such names.

 

that certainly sounds possible.

If it's true that the Soviets had higher crew fatalities/tank casualty, do you have any idea why? some guesses...

could it be more vulnerable/lower quality ammunition perhaps?
shortage of things like fire extinguishers?
possibly German tactic of deliberately targeting crews as they baled out?
or some different AT ammo used on Eastern Front?
Some Soviet method/equipment that meant hatches were often obstructed?
different octane rating fuels?
Could that just be due to poorer medical care later, rather than casualties at time of tank destruction?

Just guesses but it sounds like an interesting concept to explore - might give some good insight into tank crew safety?

 

Yes, but there is one more guy to get in your way on the way out. What about the wet storage on the Sherman...slows down or reduces possibility of fire/explosion. Do we have to assume the tank is on fire already? Hmmm.

 

I think any hit on the tank that causes the crew to bale out counts - doesn't have to be a fire necessarily

 

IIRC none of the M3s had wet ammo storage, and they carried quite a lot of ammo.

Good point.

There are many stories of injuries in an early M3 being caused not by penetration, but by rivets breaking off and flying round inside.

True of any tank with rivets.

The Russian nickname for the M3 was 'Coffin(grave) for 6 brothers', which says something.[/QUOTE]

In all fairness to the tank the Soviets were given the M3 which we considered obsolete to fight an enemy that clearly understood the virtue of high velocity anti tank weapons. The Soviets were also prone to a fair amount of propaganda so knocking an American tank while claiming the T-34 the greatest armored vehicle in the world would be expected, but not completely accurate. They never knocked SPAM though, LOL.

 

Some stats I've seen indicate that the Soviets tended to have a higher number of fatalities per tank loss than other countries giving them more rational for such names.[/QUOTE]

I'd be curious about the cause for this. I just acquired T-34: Mythical Weapon and a quick glimpse at the intro indicates the author(s) believes the Soviets used inferior materials for this tank...which I would assume carries over to others as well. Is it possible they were experiencing such a high degree of spalling that the survival rate from a penetration would go down due to more fragments flying about the tank?

 

This little video shows a good selection of different tanks getting hit and crews bailing out;

http://www.pakistan.tv/videos-ww-tank-kills-[c7LL5ESgckI].cfm

doesn't answer the question exactly, but some food for thought

 

This little video shows a good selection of different tanks getting hit and crews bailing out;

http://www.pakistan.tv/videos-ww-tank-kills-[c7LL5ESgckI].cfm

doesn't answer the question exactly, but some food for thought

 

The book is written by Poles who have a deep loathing for everything Soviet. The book has a lot of good photos and technical data but the relentless disparaging of the T-34 that infests nearly every page destroys what could have been an excellent volume.
It is a victim od Polish-Russian score settling.
It was published in Polish in 2 volumes prior to the English edition and the WW2 one would be a better and cheaper choice. You get all the good bits (pics/plans/data) and can leave the Polish text to those still fighting the cold war.

 

Too many people inside an M3 for a fast bail out, I would vote the Churchill that had reasonably sized hatches, including side ones, lots of armour and no especially vulnerable ammo storage.

 

Churchill a good choice - I think the early models had some serious vulnerabilities in the fuel system, but that was sorted before major use. Easy exits for sure.

 

Good points about the Lee. On the other side of the equation, there is probably a "least survivable tank". My vote goes to the Hetzer, even though it's not technically a tank. But the incredibly cramped interior and easily blocked hatch really deserve recognition.

 

Didn't the Hetzer have a floor escape hatch? and there were 2 hatches on the top

http://www.pzfahrer.net/hetzstorage2.html

 

For "least survivable tank", I think it all depends on where you are in the vehicle when it comes time to bail out. Regardless of the tank model, a driver/radio's operator's position had to be the worst.

Even on the heavy tanks, I have read stories about the crewmen in the front being unable to escape while the crew in the turret all made it out. I forget the name of the book, but I read the the turret of the Tigers had to be turned a certain angle (90 degrees, I think) to permit the crew members in the front to evacuate without a possibly of the turret blocking their hatches. And don't forget the enemy will most likely be shooting at the front of your tank - if you're in front, you had better hope it has thick armor, (or the enemy has bad aim)!

 

The Tiger was particularly known for that - it was almost guaranteed to have one of the two front hatches blocked.

 

Could the French Mediums be considered, thick armor for their size, crew of two each with their own hatch?

 

The Hetzer is a real death trap for the crew. The commander is the only guy that can get out of his hatch. The main gun cuts the rest of the crew off from being able to use that route to escape.

The driver, gunner and loader are lined up front to rear on the left side of the vehicle. Any hit on that side or the driver's side front of the vehicle is almost certain to result in multiple casualties to the crew.
All three of these crew have to exit through the loader's hatch. To do so also requires that the loader has turned the remote control machinegun on top of the vehicle to 90 degrees to one side or the other otherwise he cannot open his hatch. The driver must crawl over the gunner's seat to get to the hatch after managing to turn around in his own seat.

Both hatches on top of the vehicle are also relatively small making things even more difficult. Then there is that machinegun again. The control handles and sight stick down into the fighting compartment forming a real snag hazard to anyone moving on that side of the vehicle. I can bet more than one loader cursed that device simply because he hit his head on it more than once in normal operation.

All-in-all the Hetzer is really just a coffin if it gets hit. The only guy likely to survive is the vehicle commander.

 

I'm pretty sure it's none of those.
Like the fuel octane rating. Soviets (like the USMC) used diesel for thier tanks.
1) Perhaps due to training and/or political officers the Soviets may have tried to continue fighting a disabled tank longer.
2) The conditions of war on the Eastern front may have allowed the Germans to bring more mg, rifle, or artillery fire on Soviet crews that were bailing out.
3) Could be a training issue. The Soviets may not have stressed evacuating damaged tanks.

It's been a while since I saw the numbers but I think it held for Shermans, i.e. US and British crew casualties per Sherman knocked out were lower than Soviet losses per Sherman knocked out. This would tend to rule out many of the above. That pretty much leaves it to something the Soviets were doing different and/or something the Germans were doing different and/or the environment.

In regards to the latter. The survival proablity of an injured Soviet who bailed out of tank in the winter would likely be lower than that of someone in the west who did the same just due to temperature.

 

Do we consider time as a factor? When a vehicle is deployed has an impact. A Tiger in late 1942, early 1943 is much tougher to kill than in the fall of 1944, if for no other reason than the Soviets/Allies have more leathal weapons deployed. Then again a Pzkw IV D in may 1940 was hard to kill with the standard 37mm/2 pdr guns used at the time.