Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Sherman´s engine dangerous?

Discussion in 'The Tanks of World War 2' started by Markus Becker, Apr 27, 2005.

  1. Markus Becker

    Markus Becker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    30
    via TanksinWW2
    Is it correct that the 425 hp-engines of early versions of the Sherman were so unreliable; they often caught fire without even being hit by anything at all? This criticism can be found quite often in German forums.

    After reading Belton Coopers “Death Traps” and searching the net I found no such information.
     
  2. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Unreliability and the Sherman?
    Nope.

    Engines catching fire? Sure - but no more or less than any other tank engine at the time - excluding diesels, obviously.
     
  3. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Obviously the Sherman was petrol, what the was general concencus of the other nations tanks?

    Was the T-34 petrol or diesal, the panther, tiger, mark II,III,IV and the British tanks?

    FNG
     
  4. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    As far as I am aware (which is not always very far...) only the Russians used diesel fuel for their tanks.
     
  5. Markus Becker

    Markus Becker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    30
    via TanksinWW2
    All German tanks had gas/petrol engines, just like all British tanks except for the some versions of the Matilda II. Early Russian Tanks like the BT-7 and light tanks like the T-60 had gas engines, T-34, KV-1 and the IS series had diesel engines.

    edit:
    Interestingly some Shermans like the M4A2 and M4A2 (76mm) used by the Marines and for Lend Lease had diesel engines.
     
  6. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    So it would seem that most tanks were petrol with the exception of the T-34 and a few other tanks that only appeared in minor numbers.

    I have read several times that the Shermans burnt up when hit but never that they spontenously caught fire. Given the reputation the tank had, which must be founded with some fact or actual experiance, and the fact that the majority of armour on the field also used petrol engines.

    in my opinion it would definitly seem that the sherman had some problem with their tanks which made them particular vulnrable to fire after being hit.

    Did tanks have self sealing tanks? Was the fuel tank badly placed or thin skinned? Any one got any ideas?

    FNG
     
  7. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    We've had this discusion many times -

    Most tank fires are apparently casued by the ammo exploding after the tank is hit. The Sherman was no more or less susceptable to this than other tanks. However, later versions of Shermans - those with a (w) after their name, like M4A3 76(w) - introduced 'wet stowage', which basically ment that the ammo was kept inside a water-lined container, which reduced the chance of it going boom if the tank was hit. The Sherman was the ONLY tank to have this in WW2.

    So why was the Sherman the only tank singled out as flammable?

    Probably because it was the major Western allied tank after 1943.
    When first introduced (although heaps better than its predecessors) it was vulnerable to German AT guns.
    Plus, one rule is to always denegrate your opponant's equipment. Note that all the nicknames are from the German side...
     
  8. Skua

    Skua New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    That would be the Wright-Continental R-975 Whirlwind. The Whirlwind was indeed unreliable and more prone to catch fire because of its tendency to leak oil and petrol. Especially reconditioned engines with chromed cylinders. But, it was only unreliable by American standards, it was still more reliable than most German and Soviet tank engines. And far more durable.
     
  9. Canadian_Super_Patriot

    Canadian_Super_Patriot recruit

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The fuel was .. KABOMM !!!! :D
     
  10. Boba Nette

    Boba Nette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    via TanksinWW2
    KABOMM????
     
  11. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    As in explosive. Though it all depends, a full tank of gas will hardly explode. What matters is the amount of petrol-laden air there is in the tank (that is, how empty it is). And in any case, all tanks had the same problem since fuel is, after all, flammable; only the Sherman tank took the trouble of eliminating the internal ammo explosion problem.
     
  12. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    If only the sherman had protection on the ammo what mades it ammo particulary vulnrable compared to other tanks that never bothered with the additional protection?

    Was it the location or type/make of rounds?
     
  13. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Nothing.
    Nobody else bothered. Dunno why...
    But notice that everybody since has bothered.
     
  14. Markus Becker

    Markus Becker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    30
    via TanksinWW2
    Do you want to know were the shells responsible for the "brewing-up" were stored inside the tank? IIRC some of the 75mm shells were stored inside the turret and German gunners were told to aim at the turret. The result of a hit was devastating and gave the M4 his bad reputation(Tommy-coocker) that lasted longer than the actual problems.


    edit:
    I need some sources(i.e. books) with information about the reliability of the engines of the M4, unreliability and tendency for self-combustion of german tank engines, and so on. I´m just correcting the wikipedia page of the M4 and some books confirming that there was a mix-up would help. Thanks
     
  15. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    Gasoline (vapor) is more likley to combust than diesel, but once it starts burning, diesel burns hotter and is more difficult to extingush. The ammo storage on the Shermans was easy to see in some of the early models because of the patch armor welded on over the ammo storage areas on the side hull. The Germans did indeed use the patches as aiming points. Note that the Panther also had a problem wiht ammo exploding, but for some reason never gets the same recognition as the Sherman.
     
  16. Markus Becker

    Markus Becker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    30
    via TanksinWW2
    I knew that. I was just told the M4 was the only tank that did not have these problems once wet storage was introduced. But it´s still pretty obvious why the Panther did not face the same level of critizism. ;)
     
  17. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yeah, had the Allies had plentyful of guns wich could take on the Panther head on, then History would have told otherwise, but sadly there wasnt.

    KBO
     
  18. Markus Becker

    Markus Becker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    30
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, the armour has to be penetrated first and that was "difficult" with a 75mm gun. Cooper said the 76mm gun could penetrate the Panther´s glacis plate at a distance of 300 yards. IIRC fighting in Normandy was done at close ranges -perhabs under 300 yards?
     
  19. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Only the British 17pdr could penetrate the Panthers glacis at 300y, while the U.S. 76mm M1A1-2 couldnt penetrate even at point blank. So until 45 where the U.S. 90mm M3 came around, the Allies only had one gun wich could pen the Panthers front glacis "The 17pdr".

    No wonder there are no stories of Panthers "Easely catching fire", as it wasnt easy punching a hole in it in the first place.

    KBO
     
  20. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    The 76mm guns would have been able to penetrate the Panther frontal armor out to about 400-500 yards, which was common tank battle range. The 75mm gun could kill a Panther with side shots, and getting in a side or rear shot was the objective of Allied tankers. Panthers were knocked out by Shermans with 75mm guns and the Panthers did burn. While they may have been the best tank of the war, the Panthers were not invulnerable wonder weapons and the Sherman was a (just) adequate tank in 1944.
     

Share This Page