The propensity of the M4 Sherman to burn on getting hit (apparently even by 20mm shells) is well known. Can anyone tell me the specific reasons why this happened?
Imad
The Tommy Cooker
Moderator: John W. Howard
The Tommy Cooker
Cry 'havoc' and let slip... the dogs of war
Re: The Tommy Cooker
Too much stuff (often flammable) packed in the tank on the way of shell fragments/molten metal after penetration.Imad wrote:The propensity of the M4 Sherman to burn on getting hit (apparently even by 20mm shells) is well known. Can anyone tell me the specific reasons why this happened?
Imad
The later Shermans (W for Wet) with one-piece glacis [except the latest M4A2 75mm] had no more ammo stocked over the level of the sponsons and the bins were designed to drown any beginning fire with water (hence the Wet).
The fuel used (gasoline or Diesel) in the engine did not matter much, contrary to what is often said/written.
Source : official Allied reports quoted by various authors.
HTH
Amateurs talk tactics, historians study logistics, but what about amateur historians?
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Hi
Traditionally the Sherman's propemsity in the early marques to brew up was due not to the type of fuel...but rather how it was used....remember, it was powered by a modified rotary aero engine running on petrol, with a multiplicity of heat-warping carbs and flanges and a spiders' web of little leaky brass fuel lines....all relatively unprotected at the rear of the vehicle behind the engine louvres. (Diesel {derv} is a much heavier fuel without the propensity to aerosol, thus a diesel fire is smoky, nasty, but much "cooler" , doesnt spread and is easily extinguished)
Note also "TOMMY cooker"...its reputation as such grew out of the British use of early models in the Western Desert before any fire-preventing developments were incorporated. If the Americans had first used it in numbers in anger it would of course have been called something else!
(which it was - GIs called it the Ronson, after their official issue and very leaky cigarette lighters. Which could spontaneously combust if they as much as tipped over if overfilled. Now if THIS isnt reference from those in the know to a fuel issue, what is???)
Phylo
Traditionally the Sherman's propemsity in the early marques to brew up was due not to the type of fuel...but rather how it was used....remember, it was powered by a modified rotary aero engine running on petrol, with a multiplicity of heat-warping carbs and flanges and a spiders' web of little leaky brass fuel lines....all relatively unprotected at the rear of the vehicle behind the engine louvres. (Diesel {derv} is a much heavier fuel without the propensity to aerosol, thus a diesel fire is smoky, nasty, but much "cooler" , doesnt spread and is easily extinguished)
Note also "TOMMY cooker"...its reputation as such grew out of the British use of early models in the Western Desert before any fire-preventing developments were incorporated. If the Americans had first used it in numbers in anger it would of course have been called something else!
(which it was - GIs called it the Ronson, after their official issue and very leaky cigarette lighters. Which could spontaneously combust if they as much as tipped over if overfilled. Now if THIS isnt reference from those in the know to a fuel issue, what is???)
Phylo
Re: The Tommy Cooker
Imad wrote:The propensity of the M4 Sherman to burn on getting hit (apparently even by 20mm shells) is well known. Can anyone tell me the specific reasons why this happened?
Imad
It seems the sherman was not any worse at crew cas than any other CW tank. At least according to one study of CW unit diaries done after the war.