Your Favorite Sherman...

I've never heard it explicitly stated that it was something unique to the Sherman that made it prone to internal fuel explosions - this is generally just a wild claim made to explain the fact that Shermans, like all tanks, were not invincible wonderweapons and were destroyed quite easily by some of the more powerful German AT guns. The Sherman did not use any other type of fuel than other Allied tanks, or even German tanks for that matter.

Only the M4A1, M4A2 and M4A3 (and its variants) ever recieved the T23 turret, as far as I know.

 

I beleive that Germans claimed that sometimes the armour of the Shermans did not have to be penetrated for the tank to be destroyed. Also they seen a video on the discovery chanel(not the best source) of a shell bouncing off a Sherman than the tank bursting into flames after the shell was deflected. Also lead to the German soldiers naming it the Tommy cookers.

 

Ah - basically if you penetrate pretty much any WW2-era tank there is a good chance of it catching fire - especially if you use AP shot with an explosive filler (as the Germans did, and the British did not).

I have never seen any reason (beyond a nickname) to assume that the Sherman was particularly prone to catching fire. It was just the main Western Allied tank, and was up against some very powerful AT weaponry.
Possibly its high shillouette (compared to other western allied tanks) singled it out as easier to hit?

 

az abuv

the Germans did nickname them 'Tommy Cookers' we called them 'Ronsons', after the Ronson cigarette lighter advertisment,
"LIGHTS EVERY TIME".

 

ronsons

The full advertisment was,
"RONSON, Lights First Time, Every Time"

 

Yes, yes, great nicknames, and thanks to the Discovery Channel now everyone knows them. But what is really true about it? Was the Sherman really more prone to catching fire than any other tank? I have yet to see a reason why that would be so. Just a nickname earned in turkey shoots like Kasserine Pass doesn't have to be accurate.

Gunter: how cold a tank blow up if no part of what was fired at it reached anything that might explode? Unless, of course, the fuel or ammunition would sometimes explode on its own, whatever the circumstances.

 

ronsons

Sorry ROEL, didn't know every one had Discovery Channel, I haven't, just going from memory.

 

The story of Shermans catching fire without even shot at, just because of the unreliable engine can be found very often in the german speaking internet, but not at all in the enlsih speaking one. So I decided to do some research. Result:

Nobody had ever heard about self igniting engines! But ammo in dry storage was universally considered the No.1 danger for fire once the tank´s armour was penetrated. This was the case with any tank of any nation, just remember of the “Cologne Panther”.

And now take a look at the early M4:

-dry storage
-overloaded with ammo
-could be easily penetrated by almost all guns in the german arsenal

German tanks on the other hand were a) rare, b) hard to kill and c) believed by allied tankers to have diesel engines. It seems it was the allied tankers who are responsible for the myth of the M4 catching fire because of it´s gas engine. The myth is busted by some US reports on lost tanks, proving wet storage Shermans were 75% less likely to catch fire after a hit than dry storage ones. And both tanks had gas engines.

edit:

Not to forget the situation on the battlefield. I suppose most M4 were hit in the front armour, behind that is not the engine, but a rather small room with some ammo. The same when the tank is hit from the side. I suppose german gunners aimed at the center and when the turret was hit, the engine can definitly be excluded as the culprit for a fire.

 

The common German tanks of the time when the Sherman was first introduced didn't have more armour than it. The Sherman's 75mm gun was more than capable of dealing with, for example, the Panzer III's 50mm of frontal armour.

 

The Sherman was actually very good when first introduced compared to its contemporaries.

The error was that improvement was skipped because:
1. it was good enough as it was at the time (true)
2. produce the max number of standard models

the second point is valid in many cases (see warships, arty, infantery weapons) where standardisation often outweighed the little extra performance from new developments. Apparenly the staff tought that tanks also fitted in this category. Unfortunately the evolution of tanks in WWII was much faster than that and was more like that of planes: improve constantly or you'll get behind.

if the Sherman had gone trough its upgrade programme much faster, which was certainly possible, one could have seen the E8 variants in large number by the time of Normandy with plenty of HVAP supplies. In that case the Tiger and Panther would have become footnotes in tank development ......

Aglooka

 

was it any different from other tanks in this respect ? Every tank diagram i see has ammo stowed into every conceivable place. Possibly the sherman was more vulnerable when introduced due to the larger charges of its 75mm gun compared to short/long 50mm, 37 mm, 40mm and short 75mm which most of its Brit/German contemporaries had ?

Aglooka

 

That's a pretty telling statistic. I'v never been able to exactly figure out how fuel system layout was responsible for so many fires, now I guess I know why.

 

Not at all. I was told the Germans always overloaded their AFV, because they were uncertain how much they would need and when they would get new ammo. So they stuffed in as much as possible.

Upps, when I was refering the "early M4" I meant the dry storage, 75mm gun Models, that were standard right after D-Day.

 

Well, I'm not Gunter but...
Shock from non-penetrating hits could cause armour plate to splinter and these splinters could ignite ammunition.

 

tommy cooker

oK ROEL, tell me these are on Discovery Channel too!
Great sense of humour those Germans!

 

They actually showed a video of a Sherman being hit, the round bouncing off and than a split second later the tank burst into flames.

just to note majority of tanks that werte destroyed were hit in the turret, largely because, it is possible for a secondary explosion to occur.

 

Re: tommy cooker

Seems along with all those tanks, trucks, ammo, fuel, uniforms, food, cigarettes and alcohol the Germans also captured some humour from the Brits.

 

In that case the problem is armour, not ammunition or fuel storage, is it?

Merlin: that is funny. I hadn't seen that before.

 

Could a splinter really ignite ammunition?
How?

And surely then this is possible in any tank (depending on armour type, etc)

 

sherman

GOOD QUESTION RICKY, can't see it my self unless splinter hit exactly in centre of detonator, I have taken AP rounds to pieces to make blank ammo for a funeral and we treated those shells terribly!
To save a question, as I'll be away for some time, you first unscrew, withdraw, detonator, grip AP projectile in vice and waggle it about until loose,then pull it out, remove some of the cordite sticks, (make great fireworks if you light the end) pack the top with some thing (cleaning waste) tap the brass open end over, replace detonator, cross fingers and hope for the best!
The result was not too good, pipers played the 'Flowers of the Forest', Brigadier was lowered into grave at UDINE Military Cemetary, Bays tank fired salute and a bloody great firework display as burning sticks of cordite
and cleaning waste shot over Italy!!
We later found that there is black powder I believe in blanks, perhaps Tony can tell us.
The funeral was of Brigadier 'De Winton' shot by lady from Split not too happy about carving up of Trieste and Jugoslavia.
(Off to German Karnevals now, Bye Bye.)