PaperModelers.com

Go Back   PaperModelers.com > Papermodelers' Bar and Grill > The CardBoard Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-23-2020, 01:29 AM
hirondelle hirondelle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 304
Total Downloaded: 26.66 MB
M4 Sherman shell storage

So as not to clutter Igors fine build thread I wanted to add this to the discussion on whether shells are ever stored nose down...

I have not seen any evidence in any WW2 tank manuals (of any nation) to suggest that this is a common or advisable practice (damage, separation, detonation etc).

The comments of y66 on caliber & handling ease are not logical in context of operational & safety considerations.

In agreement with KevinWS observations -
Operationally the need for speed of selection & loading over-rides the suggested advantage of gripping the rim end. There is no time for reversing & identifying individual shells in combat.

However, I suspect that there is one reason that the shells depicted are 'reversed', I believe I read something about the need to save brass (around the time of the Hurtgen battles), & there may be other reasons why a crew might not have time to dump spent casings but need them out of the way. Filling an empty rack tidies up & reversing them makes it easy to see they are spent. They can then be easily removed when rearming.
Reply With Quote
Google Adsense
  #2  
Old 04-23-2020, 08:44 AM
Kevin WS's Avatar
Kevin WS Kevin WS is offline
Eternal Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Currently Southern Africa.
Posts: 7,121
Total Downloaded: 425.92 MB
Quote:
Originally Posted by hirondelle View Post
However, I suspect that there is one reason that the shells depicted are 'reversed', I believe I read something about the need to save brass (around the time of the Hurtgen battles), & there may be other reasons why a crew might not have time to dump spent casings but need them out of the way. Filling an empty rack tidies up & reversing them makes it easy to see they are spent. They can then be easily removed when rearming.
hirondelle - I am 100% in agreement with that!

Your comment also made me check further in my literature on ammunition handling and disposal and I found the following comment "On WW2 era tanks as well as later tanks without automatic ejection ports or systems, spent shells are returned to the shell storage areas after ejection" R P Hunnicutt.

I then realised also that I did have contacts at an armoured regiment here I could also ask. I phoned and spoke to someone I know and was told spent shells were returned to stowage - base up. Failure to do this was a SHE issue and also made the vehicles difficult to work as space inside was extremely limited.

While this is a modern scenario, it basically does confirm a similar operating process.

Actually a very interesting discussion as little appears in the literature in the actual use of shell storage.

---------------------------------------------

Referring to the original photo of the shells in the M4A3, I noted that they were in "wet storage".

The Sherman tank in 1943 underwent a major redesign. One of the concerns was the damage resulting from stowing ammunition in the sponsors and as an alternative to armoured boxes, water protected racks were designed. The water requirement ended up as roughly half a gallon for each round stored.

In the new design, ammunition was also relocated from the sponsons to wet stowage on the turret floor and the hull floors (on either side of the driveshaft). The boxes directly below the turret were used for "ready" rounds.

Use of the wet storage caused its own problems - freezing had to be avoided, so ethylene glycol had o be added to the water in the correct quantities. Later, rust inhibitors also had to be added.

These aspects are covered in the Technical Manuals.

Wet storage came to an end during the Korean War when maintenance became troublesome and the value of wet storage was also questioned. Manuals for this period advise the wet tanks should be drained and plugged.
__________________
The SD40 is 55 now!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-23-2020, 08:52 AM
romanmodels's Avatar
romanmodels romanmodels is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Nr Devizes Wilts uk
Posts: 2,320
Total Downloaded: 14.63 MB
i will be turning my shell to be base down in the angled ready rack, also stowage is different in the fireflies as they where British conversions.
__________________
David........... paper modelling gives you a happy high. currently building. castle Zleby, GAZ 51 ALG 17, wagon 111a.

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-24-2020, 03:58 AM
hirondelle hirondelle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 304
Total Downloaded: 26.66 MB
@Kevin WS - Sounds like we might have solved the mystery.
Lucky you were able to check deeper into it.
I don't like the thought of wet storage in winter, I wonder how late into the first freeze, post-implementation, it was that someone realized their shells were frozen solid in the rack? Hopefully not when they were in action...
Korea would have been a similar winter to the 44-5 one I guess, coldest on record at the time IIRC.

My late great-uncle was in armor in WW2 but unfortunately I cannot ask him about that winter of the Bulge & shell storage now.
I do recall him saying it was a mad rush up to meet the advancing Germans & they lost more than few vehicles & men due to the ice. He was affected by seeing a comrades tank slide over a cliff due to the icy road & regretted no-one could stop to check for survivors as orders demanded zero delay. Never saw those guys again.


@romanmodels - Good to hear, otherwise it'll be jankers for you luvly boy!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-24-2020, 04:38 AM
CharlieC's Avatar
CharlieC CharlieC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,225
Total Downloaded: 16.12 MB
Umm.. that isn't how wet ammunition stowage works. There were a couple of designs but the simplest was that the cartridge plus projectile was stored dry in a tube which had a concentric tube around it. The space between the tubes was filled with water/glycol/rust inhibitor. The idea was that if the tubes were penetrated by shrapnel the water would leak over the cartridge and lessen the chance of a propellent fire.
The stowage on the turret floor was a fluid filled box with tubes for the shells - in the same way as the tube design the cartridges would be flooded with water if shrapnel managed to penetrate a cartridge case.

Found an image of the wet stowage in an M4A3(76).

Regards,

Charlie
Attached Thumbnails
M4 Sherman shell storage-turret-wet_stowage.jpg  

Last edited by CharlieC; 04-24-2020 at 04:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
Google Adsense
  #6  
Old 04-24-2020, 06:43 AM
hirondelle hirondelle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 304
Total Downloaded: 26.66 MB
@CharlieC I now have this image of fish swimming around my shells to make the tank a bit more 'homey', a real 'fish-tank'

I was thinking of the issues having wet-acid batteries caused in WW2 armor, any little defect or damage to that battery case was potentially nasty for anyone in the tank.
The same could apply to a liquid filled rack, leaks onto ice-cold metal+condensation I suspect could be potentially nasty, if a frozen leak could hold a shell in place, even a few seconds messing about could be a big problem.

& OT talking of problems, gotta luv the guy in front of this tank, his posture just seems to say 'OK you got me...'
Attached Thumbnails
M4 Sherman shell storage-oops.png  
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-24-2020, 06:55 AM
Kevin WS's Avatar
Kevin WS Kevin WS is offline
Eternal Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Currently Southern Africa.
Posts: 7,121
Total Downloaded: 425.92 MB
Sorry, hirondelle - my explanation was not that clear.

Thanks, Charlie for helping clarify.

I attach two more photos of wet storage.

In the first picture, you can also see clearly the plugs used to fill and top up the water compartments that wrap around the tubes holding the shells.
Attached Thumbnails
M4 Sherman shell storage-rij1nli.jpg   M4 Sherman shell storage-m4a375w_7.jpg  
__________________
The SD40 is 55 now!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-25-2020, 03:19 AM
hirondelle hirondelle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 304
Total Downloaded: 26.66 MB
No problem I'm still not 100% health-wise & may not be being as clear as I think I am
Anyhoo...
I've not seen any actual schematic for any wet racks yet. I've assumed it is a liquid-filled matrix. Like an engines radiator, this wouldn't be fool proof. Spalling could crack or pierce it & produce small leaks as well as the more obvious damage from direct hard strikes from shell penetration. I expected 'rot' to be a major issue, & apparently was - see below.
This on M4 is quite informative altho slow loading for me.

I did discover -
The wet racks held 38.1 gallons of water Red circles show filler caps.


&
"It was found that the wet stowage system actually did not work as intended (dampening any exposed propellant and theoretically preventing or slowing its ignition), and that it was actually the relocation of basically all the main gun ammunition to the very floor of the tank (away from its center of gravity), where it was less likely to be hit regardless, that caused the reduction in fire risk. The pre-Korean War revisions of the technical manuals for the M4A3 Sherman (by this time the only model in widespread U.S. service) and the M24 Chaffee ordered that the liquid containers be drained of any fluid and that containers that had deteriorated severely enough be removed and the spaces plugged with appropriately sized wooden blocks"

"The T-55 and T-62 had their front ammo racks inside the fuel tank; wet racks were used in the Chieftain and Challenger1 MBTs, but it did not work with more modern propellant types, which burn hotter and faster.
"

So there is more to this story to be tracked down

Last edited by hirondelle; 04-25-2020 at 04:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-25-2020, 07:36 AM
GWC GWC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 102
Total Downloaded: 46.23 MB
I'm going to add a few cents to this. I was a tank crewman in the Canadian Armoured Corps in Germany late 70's early 80's. At that time we had the Leopard C1, the gun basket (behind the main gun) could hold 4 empty casings, but we always threw out the casings as fast as we could. As stated, no room in the turret. If a casing dropped on the floor it had potential to jam the turret - not a good thing in combat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin WS View Post
hirondelle - I am 100% in agreement with that!

Your comment also made me check further in my literature on ammunition handling and disposal and I found the following comment "On WW2 era tanks as well as later tanks without automatic ejection ports or systems, spent shells are returned to the shell storage areas after ejection" R P Hunnicutt.

I then realised also that I did have contacts at an armoured regiment here I could also ask. I phoned and spoke to someone I know and was told spent shells were returned to stowage - base up. Failure to do this was a SHE issue and also made the vehicles difficult to work as space inside was extremely limited.

While this is a modern scenario, it basically does confirm a similar operating process.

Actually a very interesting discussion as little appears in the literature in the actual use of shell storage.

---------------------------------------------

Referring to the original photo of the shells in the M4A3, I noted that they were in "wet storage".

The Sherman tank in 1943 underwent a major redesign. One of the concerns was the damage resulting from stowing ammunition in the sponsors and as an alternative to armoured boxes, water protected racks were designed. The water requirement ended up as roughly half a gallon for each round stored.

In the new design, ammunition was also relocated from the sponsons to wet stowage on the turret floor and the hull floors (on either side of the driveshaft). The boxes directly below the turret were used for "ready" rounds.

Use of the wet storage caused its own problems - freezing had to be avoided, so ethylene glycol had o be added to the water in the correct quantities. Later, rust inhibitors also had to be added.

These aspects are covered in the Technical Manuals.

Wet storage came to an end during the Korean War when maintenance became troublesome and the value of wet storage was also questioned. Manuals for this period advise the wet tanks should be drained and plugged.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-25-2020, 09:29 AM
Kevin WS's Avatar
Kevin WS Kevin WS is offline
Eternal Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Currently Southern Africa.
Posts: 7,121
Total Downloaded: 425.92 MB
Thanks, GWC. It's always nice to have practical input!
__________________
The SD40 is 55 now!
Reply With Quote
Google Adsense
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Parts of this site powered by vBulletin Mods & Addons from DragonByte Technologies Ltd. (Details)
Copyright © 2007-2023, PaperModelers.com