I ended the Pt. 1 of this article with assumption that the prominent sponson racks on early Shermans were an attractive target for enemy gunners. ORO-T-117, Survey into allied tank casualties in WW 2 seems to comfirm this assumption.
Apart from forward side of the turret and driver's position, researchers noted that german gunner also favored the sponson stowage on early M4 Shermans.
And again, this analysis is showing a rather high number of burned-up tanks. However, it is not that simple. as the statistic of "burned because of charge" is ambiguous and does not seem to directly indicate whether it is a hollow charge or demolition charge. Considering that researchers are only counting with the categories of tanks destroyed by gunfire and tanks burned up because of hits in simillar studies involving german tanks, I will apply the same logic here.
Which means that if 42 tanks out of 72 burned, it is 58%.
Compare this to Pz. III and Pz. IV:
20 out of 59 burned, which is 34%.
And the study about Panthers and Tigers.
12 out of 30 tanks destroyed by gunfire burned, or 40%.
Well, let's not hang on one study. Here is another report from 1945 that claims 60% - 90% of
75 mm Shermans are lost by burning. Armoured bins seem to reduce the risk of fire nearly tenfold.
In cocnlusion, it certainly looks like Shermans that were not modified with protected ammunition storage were in a very high risk of fire from penetrations.
No comments:
Post a Comment