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

Most survivable tank

Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by Hummel, Aug 6, 2010.

  1. Hummel

    Hummel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    34
    Okay, this one has been niggling at me.
    What do you think was the most survivable tank of WW2? I figure it this way:
    You're in a tank and it takes a catastrophic hit. It IS going to explode in the rather immediate future. What tank would be the best to be in so that you survive the experience.
    Forget that you might be an SS guy bailing out at Kursk where you don't have much chance once you have gotten out of the tank. Just the immediate getting out. You might consider the different positions in the tank -- I would imagine that being the commander would be the best, no? Right near a hatch in most tanks, right? I would also imagine that being the gunner would be the worst place, buried way down deep among all that high explosive ammo and a really heavy gun that might fall on you.

    Anyway, thanks for responding.
     
  2. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Some that wouldn't make the list:

    Pz III: No hatches for the driver and hull machinegunner. They have to crawl back into the turret to get out.

    M3 Stuarts. The two hull crew have to open the flaps in front of them to crawl out. The hull machinegunner in particular has a very small area to crawl through.

    T34/76 the hull gunner is trapped in the tank and must exit through the turret. The driver can open his flap but it is fairly large and heavy so if he is dazed or wounded this would be very difficult to accomplish. The large single hatch on the 41 and 42 models is hard to open due to size and weight.

    Most British tanks. Small hatches are a major problem on most of these. They also tend not to put many, particularly for the crew in the hull in odd spots making getting out difficult even on normal entry and exit occasions.
     
  3. Hummel

    Hummel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    34
    Yah, I was thinking of one of the well-designed super-heavy tanks such as an IS-III or an M-26 or maybe a Konigstiger. Any thoughts on them, please? Oh, along the same line . . . does anyone have any idea on tank crew casualties in Europe please? Even a website showing them would be welcome. Okay, off I go to take care of the wife. Ciao again.
     
  4. Jaeger

    Jaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    223
    I'm reading Tank Men just now. According to the book the wireless man and the gunner were the most likely to be killed in a brew up.

    As for tank type it varied from 3-9 seconds before the thing went up.
     
  5. Sentinel

    Sentinel Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    47
    From the shots of the M3 Medium "Grant" tank in the movie Sahara, it seemed to be generously endowed with side hatches, and not very cramped. I don't know if the tank was modified for the film, but it seemed more easily exited than most others - despite its shortcomings in other factors.
     
  6. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    460
    I would guess any tank using gasoline would be more prone to explode than one using diesel.

    The T-34s, however; used high explosive shells which would serve as a double edged sword when getting hit.
     
  7. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    The big danger is ammunition. Storing it in the turret is highly dangerous so, tanks that do that are more likely to detonate. Seperate ammunition is also far more dangerous so tanks like the IS series or the Jadgtiger are far more prone to explode when hit.
    Gasoline generally just burns and diesel will too if it gets hot enough. But, comparatively, this is minor compared to ammo. The T 34 didn't detonate easily mainly because the ammunition is all stored in the bottom of the vehicle in metal suitcases so it is well protected in the event of a hit and not likely to explode.
     
  8. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    460
    A good point T.A.
     
  9. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    The casualty surveys found that it made no difference where you were in a tank. Casualties were equal for all the crew.
    And of course the safest place was IN your tank. More tank crew were killed OUTSIDE their tanks than in (this includes those who bale out and are killed by gunfire ect when escaping)
     
  10. Duckbill

    Duckbill Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    23
    So according to your surveys the tank commander up in the turret was just as likely to be killed or wounded as anyone else in the tank if they hit an antitank mine. This is counter-intuitive, but very interesting.

    Do these surveys differentiate between killed and wounded based on position in the tank? Are they differentiated by type of tank, and causality?

    Do these surveys of yours include tank casualties sustained during exploitation operations or are they limited to the less mobile fighting in Normandy?

    Are these surveys statistically reliable? Have they been examined using multiple regression analysis?

    Duckbill
     
  11. Hummel

    Hummel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    34
    See now, that leads me to yet another, albeit related, question: If you were going to bail out of your tank into a combat environment, which tank would you want to bail out of and where? No weasel behavior here such as "I would bail out of my tank as the last bomb fell from a Lancaster just as we crossed into Switzerland and escaped the crazy nazi regime". You're in a tank with your buddies. Your tank gets hit. It WILL explode in 30 seconds. What nationality would you most survive as, and what in what battle would you have the best chance to survive?
     
  12. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    I dunno. You better ask the authors.
    One of them lives in the Virginia area last time I contacted him. L. Van Loan Naisawald is the name. I am sure you could track him down .
    However his conclusions can be found in ORO-T-117. A Survey Of Allied Tank Casualties In World War II. Section-'Personel Casualties', pages 33-43 and Tables XX-XXV
    Examples:
    Table XXV
    753rd Tk Bn had 7 killed in tanks and 13 outside. 758th 11 outside and 12 inside. 760th 20 inside 29 outside.

    Casualty by Position Table XXI. Based on 48 Light Tanks (192 crewmen)
    30 Commanders
    31Gunners
    32 Drivers
    32 Bow Gunners

    A nice little graphic (Figure 8 between pages 5 &6) shows Percentage of tank crew casualties broken down by crew position.
    Medium tanks ranged from 57% commanders to 47% drivers and Light Tanks 67% bow gunner /driver to 63% drivers.



    Other information gathered by the Canadian South Alberta Regiment August 1st 1944-May 4th 1945 found that 10 men were killed by Artillery/AT shot inside the tank and 20 outside. 6 died of small arms fire in the tank and 16 of small arms fire outside the tank.
     
  13. Duckbill

    Duckbill Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    23


    Seriously, until we get the answers to my questions, there is no way of knowing the statistical validity of the survey, much less its applicability to the total population od armor casualties suffered by the Western Allies during the course of the war in the ETO.


    I am all in favor of nice little graphics and percentages, but without some hard data to back them up, they don’t really tell us much.

    As a statistical sample, this is far too small to be of any use when applied to the total population of tank casualties suffered by the Western Allies in the ETO. I must point out that the number of men who were killed inside the tank vs outside the tank carries no surprises. However, this is the alleged experience of a single regiment. Please explain how this information might be accurately extrapolated to represent the larger population to which you previously referred.

    Duckbill
     
    kerrd5 likes this.
  14. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225

    I can do no more than use your own words to explain this to you:


    You have been provided with a source.

    Refutation of this source is your responsiblity, not mine. Nor am I required to provide the author's sources for your examination.

    If you wish to refute the source I've cited, then have at it.


    One bit of help. The Survey overall is based on a sample of 12,140 Allied tank casualties from all theaters of operations. Thus it is by far the largest survey ever carried out on the subject.
     
  15. Duckbill

    Duckbill Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    23
    Sources you have provided, but they do not support your contention that they apply to all armor casualties sustained by the Western Allies in the ETO. Thus, it is not your sources that I have to refute, it is merely the manner in which you misuse them. Please tell me how your sources can provide a viable statistical basis for the vast extrapolation you have made.

    The sample size of the survey is important, as is its provenance. A sample of armor casualties taken from all theaters of operation cannot from a purely statistical standpoint be used in the manner you claim. Simply put, it has to be evaluated in terms of many statistical variables in order to be valid. One which I previously mentioned is the variable of exploitation vs the more static warfare seen in Normandy. Another might be found in the penetration of the West Wall, or for that matter urban warfare. These, and many other variables are highly relevant to any reliable statistical outcome.

    Duckbill
     
    kerrd5 likes this.
  16. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    Please consult ORO-T-117. The information you seek is contained within.



    You are mistaken. I gave data for a sampling of 3 US Tk Bns as well

    Table XXV
    753rd 7 killed in tanks and 13 outside.
    758th 11 outside and 12 inside.
    760th 20 inside 29 outside.


    Please read more carefully in future.
     
  17. Duckbill

    Duckbill Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    23
    I see you have resorted to selective editing to make it seem that I have missed something. Of course, anyone who goes back to read my post will see that I was specifically using the numbers you gave for the Canadian South Alberta Regiment to make a point. Please do not resort to such simplistic shenanigans in the future.

    Rest assured that the addition of the casualties from three tank battalions still falls far short of the statistical requirements demanded by the broad extrapolation you attempted to make.


    Duckbill
     
  18. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    Please post the data you have (or its location) that refutes or contradicts the findings in ORO-T-117 in regard to Allied Tank Crew Casualties I posted earlier.

    I suggest you consult First US Army, Report Of Operations 23 Febuary to 8 May 1945, Annex 6, Appendix 4 before forming any hasty conclusions.
     
  19. Duckbill

    Duckbill Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    23
    As previously stated, the problem is not with your source. It is your attempt to use it as a basis for a broad extrapolation to encompass all armor casualties suffered by the Western Allies in the ETO.

    Your attempt to include a report from a single army is equally misleading, as it can only be used to infer total armor casualties, not as a basis of statistical proof.

    Duckbill
     
  20. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    7545 of the casualties were suffered June 1944-May 1945 In Western Europe.

    Total ETO Tank losses for the same period (Rounded, 23 tanks adrift))

    UK 4500
    US 6000

    Using the rough guide of 2 casualties to 1 total loss gives a casualty total of 31500.
    Thus roughly 25% of ETO casualties surveyed in ORO-T-117.
     

Share This Page