World War 2 Talk - View Single Post - T-34 no better than the M4 Sherman.

T. A. Gardner · 28-06-2007, 08:32 PM

On the ammo issue:

The problem in the Sherman was that the ammunition was stored high in the hull. The locations of the ammo boxes meant that when the tank was penetrated it frequently occured through ammunition storage. This resulted in many of the catastrophic fires that occured. Two solutions were implemented to try and fix this problem.

The first was providing additional patches of armor over the vulnerable areas. In later cast models the actual castings were thickened in these areas to eliminate the need for the add-on armor.

The second was wet storage. The ammunition was now inside boxes that contained water that would burst on a penetration and put out the fire before it could get going. Wet storage Shermans were far less, far less, likely to burn than ANY German tank. As a note, the Jgpz VI was particularly prone to ammunition fires. Its ammo was stored primarily in the superstructure, consisted of two part shells leaving the powder exposed and, had no extinguishing system. Of course, getting a penetration was difficult so it went largely unnoticed.

The T34 by comparison had virtually all of its ammunition stowed very low in the vehicle in three round 'suitcases.' This made the ammunition very unlikely to cook off from a hit leading to a very low probability of the tank burning catastrophically. On the other hand, this stowage meant that the rate of engagement for the T34 was going to be very low as the loader scrambled about trying to retrieve rounds from these suitcases in a moving vehicle with uneven flooring, spent shell casings and empty suitcases bouncing about.

That said, the T-34 and Sherman are very similar in capabilities and both improved as at about the same rate as the war went on. Each had some superior qualities and some weaknesses. For example, the T34/76 was severly handicapped by its two man turret. It had a low engagement rate as a result and poor visibility for the crew. The Sherman until some of the later models was a poor "mudder." That is, its mobility on soft ground was poor. Note how both early models lacked cupolas but how these were later added as another example of improvement.

28-06-2007, 08:32 PM	#11 (permalink)
T. A. Gardner Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 260	On the ammo issue: The problem in the Sherman was that the ammunition was stored high in the hull. The locations of the ammo boxes meant that when the tank was penetrated it frequently occured through ammunition storage. This resulted in many of the catastrophic fires that occured. Two solutions were implemented to try and fix this problem. The first was providing additional patches of armor over the vulnerable areas. In later cast models the actual castings were thickened in these areas to eliminate the need for the add-on armor. The second was wet storage. The ammunition was now inside boxes that contained water that would burst on a penetration and put out the fire before it could get going. Wet storage Shermans were far less, far less, likely to burn than ANY German tank. As a note, the Jgpz VI was particularly prone to ammunition fires. Its ammo was stored primarily in the superstructure, consisted of two part shells leaving the powder exposed and, had no extinguishing system. Of course, getting a penetration was difficult so it went largely unnoticed. The T34 by comparison had virtually all of its ammunition stowed very low in the vehicle in three round 'suitcases.' This made the ammunition very unlikely to cook off from a hit leading to a very low probability of the tank burning catastrophically. On the other hand, this stowage meant that the rate of engagement for the T34 was going to be very low as the loader scrambled about trying to retrieve rounds from these suitcases in a moving vehicle with uneven flooring, spent shell casings and empty suitcases bouncing about. That said, the T-34 and Sherman are very similar in capabilities and both improved as at about the same rate as the war went on. Each had some superior qualities and some weaknesses. For example, the T34/76 was severly handicapped by its two man turret. It had a low engagement rate as a result and poor visibility for the crew. The Sherman until some of the later models was a poor "mudder." That is, its mobility on soft ground was poor. Note how both early models lacked cupolas but how these were later added as another example of improvement.