Sherman´s engine dangerous?

They were justmad because they were so easily overrun and that they didnt have tanks

 

By the way, I just to make it clear that while the think the Panther was the best all around tank, my favorite isthe much maligned Sherman. I case you couldn't guess.

Yeah I know, waaaay off topic and there's another thread for that.

 

This is actually about the Poles fighting alongside the Allies in the North-West Europe campaign. It has nothing to do with their defeat in 1939, three years before the Sherman entered service.

 

Another question: Did US tanker usually put additional ammo in their tanks which had to be stored “dry”? I was told the Brits did it in the time just after D-Day – with well known consequences.

 

Yes, it was common practice, with well known common consequences.

 

Why did they do that? Didn´t they know the consequences? Was "overloading" limited to "dry storage"-Shermans or was it done by crews of Shermans with "wet storage"? By the way: What was the ratio of "dry" to "wet storage" Shermans by the time of D-Day?

 

Not many 75mm-armed Shermans were equipped with Wet Storage. The first 76mm-armed Shermans to arrive on the Western Front did so on July 22nd 1944. So I think the ratio of dry to wet-storage Shermans by the time of D-Day was 1-0.

 

It was done becasue most crews feared running out of ammo more than they feared the tank burning. They typically tried to use the extra ammo first, so that the remaining ammo would be in standard stowage. Most crews also felt it was more imoportant to get to ammo quickly, than to have it stowed "safely". The fires were not apparently always explosive or immediate, so crews may have felt that they a resonable chance of getting out before any explosion or the fire got too big. It has been estimated that 60-80% of dry storage Shermans burned when hit by AP or Panzerfaust, compared to 10-15% of wet. Given the inability of the Shermans armor to withstand any common German AT weapon of 1944, the crews probably rightly decided that their best chance was to get in the first shots and to keep up a high volume of fire. Advance by fire was a common tactic, especially in US Thrid Army (Patton).
Production of the 8183 M4A1/2/3(76)W Shermans with wet stowage didn't start unitl Jan 1944 (Feb 1944 for the 3071 M4A3(75)W Shermans). A few very late model M4A1 may have had wet stowage. While 76mm Shermans with wet stowage were available in Britain by D-Day, they didn't actually enter combat until July as Roel has said, meaning there were zero wet stowage Shermans in Normandy in June 1944, including D-Day.

 

IMO that indicates M4 with "wet storage" were usually not overloaded or they were lucky enough to have fired all the extra ammo before being hit?

 

Really good point Markus.
The simplest explanation is better field craft, not overloading the Shermans as you say. It would be interesting to see the time distribution of the stats. Almost all units suffered far greater casualities in their early combats. Maybe by the time the wet stowage Shermans showed up, the crews were battle savvy enough to avoid the problem. It seems a bit of a strectch to believe that crews with wet sotwage were luckier than those with dry.
Damage control (fire extingushers an the like) may also have improved but the difference is so large that this seems insufficient to explain it.