Gas- and diesel-powered AFVs in the Allied armed forces

[Crewman]

Hello,

At first quotation from the GOC 4th Canadian Armoured Division Maj.-Gen. George Kitching's memoirs:

Once we were ashore in France and had set up our headquarters, I went to see General Simonds. He invited me into his caravan where he was in conversation with General Dempsey who commanded 2nd British Army. I knew Dempsey from Italy and although he greeted me very pleasantly, it was obvious that he was under a considerable amount of strain. His first words after greeting me were, "Are your tanks petrol or diesel?" When I told him they were petrol, he seemed disappointed. I did not understand the significance of this remark until after he had gone when Guy Simonds told me that only two days before over 150 tanks of three British divisions had been knocked out during an all-out attack to gain the high ground south of Caen. Since many of the tanks were petrol-fuelled Shermans, they had caught fire more easily and more rapidly than those fuelled by diesel. General Dempsey wished that our tanks were diesel and, as we became involved in battle, so did we.


Source:
George Kitching
Mud and Green Fields. The Memoirs of Major-General George Kitching
Vanwell Publishing Ltd., St. Catharines, Ontario, 1993
ISBN 0-920277-73-X
page 188

It sounds a little like the Allies in the ETO had wide offer of the tanks and other AFVs to select gas- or diesel-powered vehicles for them. In fact majority of the vehicles were gas-powered. What the GOC of armoured division could do? Almost nothing, if I am not mistaken but maybe I am wrong? The Army's offer was not so great:

▪ M3A1 Stuart (or Stuart Mk. IV) powered by the Guiberson T-1020-4 Diesel engine

▪ M4A2 Sherman powered by GM 6046 diesel engine

▪ M10 tank destroyers and their Achilles versions powered by GM 6046 diesel engines


Did I miss any model? Was there a possibility for the GOC to select the tanks for his division?


Best regards

C.

[Tony Smith]

They may have been obsolete by the time the Allies were in Normandy, but there were diesel versions of the Matilda (Leyland diesels) and Valentine (Val II and Val III with AEC diesel, and Val V with GM 6-71), as well diesel versions of the Lee/Grant with GM 6-71.

[Crewman]

Tony,

Thanks for additional info!

But what about the commander's right to choose for his unit the tanks with optimal powerplant? I have never met an information that somebody in the ETO chose the tanks for his unit. I understand that General Dempsey's wishes for Maj.-Gen. Kitching were pure theory...?


Best regards

C.

Originally posted by Crewman
Hello,

At first quotation from the GOC 4th Canadian Armoured Division Maj.-Gen. George Kitching's memoirs:



It sounds a little like the Allies in the ETO had wide offer of the tanks and other AFVs to select gas- or diesel-powered vehicles for them. In fact majority of the vehicles were gas-powered. What the GOC of armoured division could do? Almost nothing, if I am not mistaken but maybe I am wrong? The Army's offer was not so great:

▪ M3A1 Stuart (or Stuart Mk. IV) powered by the Guiberson T-1020-4 Diesel engine

▪ M4A2 Sherman powered by GM 6046 diesel engine

▪ M10 tank destroyers and their Achilles versions powered by GM 6046 diesel engines


Did I miss any model? Was there a possibility for the GOC to select the tanks for his division?


Best regards

C.

I think these commanders at the time had faulty understanding, and the myth continues today, that petrol fuelled tanks were intrinsically prone to instantaneous fuel fires when hit.

In fact once ignited diesel has more heat output and is more difficult to extinguish, the main reason for the petrol fire myth is poor design in ammunition stowage.

The initiator is shell propellant and far more dangerous than petrol or diesel oil, it really makes no difference what the fuel is when just one case is ruptured and the resulting virtual aerosol of propellent charge is ignited.

German tanks did not catch fire readily at all and almost entirely owing to good design and therefore protection of the main gun ammunition. So much so that the average lay-man here at least has a belief that WWII German tanks were all diesel powered because when hit immediate fires didn't occur.

I think Hanno can add something to this, especially the Sherman mods that saw appliqué armour placed in the vulnerable places and IIRC some research that suggests American crewed Shermans went on fire at a rate 5 times greater pro rata than equivalent British operated vehicles because of the US practice of sneaking in extra main gun rounds wherever they could be tucked away.

R.

[John McGillivray]

The German Panther tank was just as prone to catching fire, if not more so, than the Sherman. Its ammo storage was similar to the Sherman with the rounds carried in the sponsons. Its petrol tanks were in vulnerable positions and would catch fire if the tank was hit in the engine compartment. There was also a problem with the hydraulic fluid in the steering system and in the power traverse.

In a report on the situation of the German armoured forces in Normandy, given to Hitler on the 28th of June 1944, the General Inspector of Panzer Troops, General Guderian wrote;

“…,but the Panther catches fire very quickly and in an astonishing way.”

Herbert Walther, who was the ordnance officer in the 2nd Bn of the 12th SS Pz Regt, wrote in his history of the 12th SS Panzer Division;

“The fact that the "Panther" could catch fire quickly was attributed to the hydraulic fluid in the steering system. A few days later a "Panther" caught fire immediately from a hit on its bow plate that did not break through the armor at all.
Later, when an experienced English tank sergeant was taken prisoner, he made a show of turning away before striking a match. When asked why, he said with a wink of his eye that it was better to look all around in case a "Panther" was in the vicinity, as it would burn and explode immediately.”

[Crewman]

Well, the only one small problem was to hit and pierce this Panther. On August 8th, 1944, a mile east of Saint-Aignan-de-Cramesnil small elements of the "Kampfgruppe Waldmüller" smashed three Polish armoured regiments killing 36 tanks without any loss. Next day the "Kampfgruppe Wünsche" smashed the BCR and Algonquin Regts. also without any loss and killing 47 tanks. Etc., etc.,...


Best regards

C.

[Neil Ashley]

Crewman

If you are interested in which units actualy used the Diesel engined Sherman 111 (M4A2), can I recommend Peter Browns article in 'Tracklink' number 41 (contact Tank Museum for copy).

To summarize, Peter notes that the Sherman 111 was principaly restricted to the independaent armoured brigades.

In June 1944 8th AB had 95, 27th AB 126, 2nd CdnAB 95, and 150 were with the Armoured Replacement Group.
Total 466.

The most commom model in service was the Sherman V (M4A4) with 940 with units or ARG (not including Fireflies on same chassis).

After this date unfortunately Shermans were only identified by gun type in the offical records.

[Crewman]

Neil, thank you very much!

That is the info I looked for, among others. The info for the hobbyists, not necessarily easy to find in the Generals or classic historians' books.

Are there any memoirs of the tank crews using diesel Shermans in the ETO and theirs opinions about possible advantage of the diesels over gas-powered Shermans?


Best regards

C.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

My interest in wartime diesels is because the General Motors Limited Southampton Plant was possibly going to assemble 6-71 diesels for the Royal Navy from 1941 but it was bombed 30 November 1940. However this is a quote from my text, based on GENERAL MOTORS WORLS April-May 1948, concerning the imediate post-war Southampton Plant activities:

[American manager] Hardy told GMW that the U.S. and Canadian Products Division expected to finish the post-war period to the end of 1947 with the best net-sales record and corresponding operating profit since the days of assembly at Hendon. The post-war activities restricted because of continuing wartime controls of imports, exchange restrictions and regulations, had had little or no connection with the pre-war job of importing G.M. U.S.-sourced products. Many profitable activities had been developed by capitalising on uses for war-surplus stocks of G.M. manufacture remaining in the U.K. However, in addition to the U.K. Government supplies, lots of surplus parts acquired included the bulk of the U.S. Army vehicle stocks at their main base in the U.K., the Admiralty’s surplus Detroit Diesel marine engine parts, parts for Detroit Diesel Series 71 Diesels as used in “Sherman”, “Vanguard” and “Valentine” tanks , and parts for the Cleveland Diesels. Series 71 parts from two depots alone was to amount to between U.S.$4 and $5 million U.S. list value [but in line with the disposal of U.S. parts, these would have been acquired at 25% value].

Originally posted by John McGillivray
The German Panther tank was just as prone to catching fire, if not more so, than the Sherman. Its ammo storage was similar to the Sherman with the rounds carried in the sponsons. Its petrol tanks were in vulnerable positions and would catch fire if the tank was hit in the engine compartment. There was also a problem with the hydraulic fluid in the steering system and in the power traverse.

Possibly so, but to hit it and penetrate was a problem. However, the Panther did have an intrinsic fire problem caused by exhaust design and reputedly caused a substantial loss until either modifications or technique were applied.

Owing to an exhaust leak, shutting the engine off as "normal" with the ignition would regularly cause a huge backfire since the engine momentum will fill the system with a quantity of ignitable fuel/air mixture, with a very hot exhaust system and probably some glowing carbon deposits therein, a backfire will have flame pass through at least one cylinder to the inlet manifoldand cause a carb fire. The received wisdon was to stall it at idle and then switch the ignition off.

The design of the Stalwart system does this also but the nature of the sealed carb and intake with oil bath air cleaners seems to preclude carb fires; plus with only 8 pots the chances of a cylinder resting on the valve overlap period is reduced.

I have had it do a very passable imitation of a 25pdr some considerable time after shut down, having clambered out of the cab and walked some distance away from the vehicle. In sensitive locations I also choose to stall it at idle in a high gear. Its a well known trait amongst operators.

R.

[John McGillivray]

but to hit it and penetrate was a problem

The Panther was not a super tank. It was not that difficult to hit and destroy as some authors will have you believe. First it was a much larger tank than the Sherman. In other words it was a larger target. While the frontal amour was between 80 and 100mm thick, it could be penetrated by the 17pdr gun as well as the 6pr gun with APDS ammunition at the usual combat ranges (800 to 1000m) found in the Normandy battles. The armour was only 45mm thick on the turret sides and 40mm on the hull sides. (Auf D and A, 50mm upper hull side on the Auf G). This could be penetrated by the Sherman’s 75mm gun at similar ranges. You can also add to this the shot trap formed by the Panthers mantle and the effects of spalling, as indicated by the comments of Herbert Walther.

The first encounter between a Panther and a Sherman occurred in Italy on the 24th of May 1944. A Sherman tank of the British Columbia Dragoons, commanded by Lt. Nigel Taylor, met a Panther near the Melfa River. His gunner Tpr. Cecil Shears fired two quick shots from their 75mm gun at a range of about 1000 yards and the Panther was finished.

In the Panthers first actions in Normandy on the 8th and 9th of June near Bretteville-l’Orgueilleuse and Norry-en Bessin, the Panther came off second best. The 12th SS Pz Regt Lost 12 Panthers destroyed, with another three or four damaged, but could only claim one Sherman destroyed.

In a three day period (20 July -22 July) Sherman tanks commanded by Maj. S.V. Radley-Walters destroyed 22 Panthers along the Verrieres Ridge. This is confirmed in the records of 1st SS Panzer Division “Leibstandarte” which had 46 Combat ready Panthers on the 17th of July. This dropped to 24 Combat Ready Panthers on the 22nd of July.

The Panther was at its best when it was in a defensive hull down position where it could pick off allied tanks at longer ranges. However, the Germans had an obsession with counter-attacks. They persistently sent their Panthers out onto the attack where combat occurred at shorter ranges, resulting in high losses.

[RichTO90]

Originally posted by John McGillivray
In a three day period (20 July -22 July) Sherman tanks commanded by Maj. S.V. Radley-Walters destroyed 22 Panthers along the Verrieres Ridge. This is confirmed in the records of 1st SS Panzer Division “Leibstandarte” which had 46 Combat ready Panthers on the 17th of July. This dropped to 24 Combat Ready Panthers on the 22nd of July.

I agree in general with your comments (although the range expectations for the 17-pdr and 6-pdr frontally may be a wee high) , but it should be clear that what is "confirmed" by these records is that 22 Leibstandarte Panthers went non-operational between 17 and 22 July, not that 22 were destroyed. A subtle distinction perhaps, but important, since it is likely the majority of those were simply damaged or required mechanical repair. Sadly because of the German reporting methodology and scant available records it is difficult to judge how many tanks were "destroyed" during this period.

[Alex Blair (RIP)]

Originally posted by Crewman
Hello,

At first quotation from the GOC 4th Canadian Armoured Division Maj.-Gen. George Kitching's memoirs:



It sounds a little like the Allies in the ETO had wide offer of the tanks and other AFVs to select gas- or diesel-powered vehicles for them. In fact majority of the vehicles were gas-powered. What the GOC of armoured division could do? Almost nothing, if I am not mistaken but maybe I am wrong? The Army's offer was not so great:

▪ M3A1 Stuart (or Stuart Mk. IV) powered by the Guiberson T-1020-4 Diesel engine

▪ M4A2 Sherman powered by GM 6046 diesel engine

▪ M10 tank destroyers and their Achilles versions powered by GM 6046 diesel engines


Did I miss any model? Was there a possibility for the GOC to select the tanks for his division?


Best regards

C.

The M3A1 White Scout car came in gas with the JXD Hercules engine or the BUDA Deisel..
While not a tank it is an AFV....