"How can you tell if your Sherman model has "wet storage"?" Topic

Is it visible on the model? Pictures, please!

It says so in my scenario brief.

Some later models of Shermans all came with wet stowage as standard, but it was also retrofitted in the field, so there is not a sure external sign.

I thought this was going to be a joke with the top comment the punch line.

"How can you tell if your sherman model has wet storage?"
"Everything you store comes out sopping wet, duh!"

All of my agita, angst and tsorris over whether or not I have the "right" models for my Shermans is rapidly vanishing…

Dunno if it means anything to you, but IIRC it was the wet stowage vehicles that often had applique armor applied to them. Could be wrong on that, but seems to me…

So, it's not like a wet tee shirt contest, I gather.
Or, maybe it is…

NO JUMBOS!

I thought *everybody* knew this one.

The early Sherman M4A3s have a 56° angle to the front plate and dry storage. Some of these had the add-on armor bits and some did not. Starting with the *late production* A3 the angle on the front plate was changed to 47°, they closed the driver / asst driver slits and replaced them with periscopes though the enlarged hatches, and that's when the ammo racks were put into the water/glycol mix.

I understand the early an mid-production A3s didn't have these changes, so if the scenario says M4A3 that's not enough to tell you. You'd think changing the hull and these other features would be enough to bump the model number, but I think the US Army was slightly distracted in 1944 and didn't change the number.

Pictures of actual tanks at this site, but they're not models.

link

Practically, I think you need to look for the slits vs periscopes, because taking a protractor to the front of the tank and looking for a 6° difference is probably what insane miniatures modelers do. The truly loopy ones, of course, knock on the hatch and ask the crew.

Since moviemakers seem to be comfortable using Shermans for any and all tanks with just a coat of paint, I think we can go ahead and allow gamers to proxy any M4 model as any M4 in-game. For that matter, you can be pretty confident that you know more than most opponents and just tell people it's the right tank.

If you *have* to know, I think you're going to need a protractor, a laser pointer, a level, a camera with a macro feature, a couple of bricks or thick books, some thread or dental floss, and some duct tape. But this way madness lies: you may find the modeler made the mini to 51° so they could sell it as either version in the hopes that no one would check. But they didn't count on *you*, did they!

You'd think changing the hull and these other features would be enough to bump the model number, but I think the US Army was slightly distracted in 1944 and didn't change the number.

That's a poor excuse.
Maybe they thought if they changed the model numbers, it would confuse the maintenance people who had to keep track of suspensions and spark plugs.

I normally never proxy, but I've been using my M4s as M4A3s and m4A4 lates. I just don't mix them up- so long as they all represent the same type I am happy. It'd be too confusing to say "THIS M4 is an M4A3, but THIS ONE is an M4A3 (late)"

I also put M4A1 76mm turrets on my M4s and ran them as M4A3 76!

I will be buying actual E8s and Jumbos though- they're definitely different enough to necessitate the differentiation.

link

Played that as an M4A3 late, but it's an M4 with an M4A1 76 turret. Oh well!

Sundance: Dunno if it means anything to you, but IIRC it was the wet stowage vehicles that often had applique armor applied to them. Could be wrong on that, but seems to me…

It's actually just the opposite. Applique "patches" on the hull sides usually indicates dry stowage.

John, the later Shermans with the revised, simplified front plate and larger driver and assistant driver's hatches will usually be wet stowage models. There are exceptions, like the M4 Composite, so this is just a general guideline. For US service tanks in the ETO this would include late model 75 and 76mm M4A3s, the 76mm M4A1, M4 and M4A3 105mm tanks and the M4A3E2 Assault tank.

@indierockclimber:

Oh you mean the Sherman VA.

Turn it upside-down and see if it drips?

The ones with the raised driver hatches are dry stowage like this;

Wet stowage has the flat glacis (M4/M4A2/M4A3) like this;

Bit more difficult to tell with the M4A1 but basically if it's got a 75mm it's dry 76mm wet.

Images from here a useful website on sherman types

link

In model terms the followin OG/Skytrex models are dry;

CD200, 200a, 200b, 200c, 220, 220a, 232 , 241, 241a, 249, 250

And these wet;

CD220b, 220c, 220d, 220e, 231, 232b

Ah!

Look for the diaper?

Doug

Does it matter?

Does it matter?

Only if you care.

EDIT:
In gaming terms, it would mean the difference between the Flames of War V1 "Ronson" rule, or "Protected Ammo".
So, yes. It matters.

Sure, perhaps they will burn less, perhaps making it safer for the crew to bail out, but does the wet storage really provide any more protection from being KO'd by high-velocity rounds?

Well for the difference between Ronson or not, it also has to do with petrol or diesel engines as well.

Mlatch – yup, couldn't remember which way it went. Thanks for correcting that one!

but it didn't always help, as the wet stowage reduced the number of rounds that may be carried and this wasn't generally popular.. so many crews just piled them in loose around the turret wherever..they could.. sort of looked like the inside of Oddballs tank..
and mako. nothing much helped when being penetrated by a high velocity round..it was found that small rounds or splinters ignited the ammunition and I though the petrol.diesel thing was over.?.German tanks were petrol engines and none of them attracted the ronson like appellation..there were plenty of petrol engined tanks around and none of them seem to have the proclivity to burn like the sherman..I think it had to do with the high hull and the ammunition stored higher in the hull..most hits on tanks in action are well to the front of the fuel tanks anyway..

The prime difference that made wet stowage safer was that the ammo bins were moved to the floor of the vehicle, while dry had them in the sponsons. The wet vehicles ammo supply was thus much better protected. Despite crew theories what usually caused a fire in a Sherman was the ammo cooking off, not the fuel. Wet stowage, signified by a (W) included 75 mm versions as well as 76mm and 105s. Many today forget to put the (W) in the vehicle designation. A 75mm armed M4A3 with wet stowage would be listed as an M4A3 75 (W). You can find this info in Hunnicutt's "Sherman, A History of the Medium Tank" and Steve Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt".

Generally speaking, except or a few models of the M4A2 used by the Marines, you can tell a wet stowage vehicle because it does not have the protruding driver's hoods. BTW, it has NOTHING to do with the direct vision slits, which were dropped from production in the M4 very quickly, replaced by a second pair of driver's/co-driver's periscopes.

Did shermans really burn that often or is it simply that, without warning, their largely tgreen crews arrived in Normandy to be horribly outmatched? More tanks knocked out, more tanks burned.

Dana Lombardy at a War College talk at CelestiCon last year (which you can download for *great* listening here: celesticon.com/seminars.php ) mentioned that Soviet success with tank recovery at Kursk taught the Germans to keep shooting at a knocked out tank until it burned so they wouldn't have to fight it again the next day. He mentioned Shermans with up to seven hits when the first was enough to knock the vehicle out. So the higher number of burned Shermans vs panzers was likely because of differences in habits between the two sides. The Germans were simply motivated to make sure they got the fire. I highly recommend those MP3s.

If you slam the model down on the table hard and if it does not explode in a fireball, it probably has wet storage.

Have to remember another improvement was in turret armor which was cast in eliminating the need for applique armor on the turret and protecting the ready ammunition in the turret better.

As I have mentioned before tests after the war showed the design of the storage racks did not substantially alter vulnerability, it was the relocation out of the sponsons.

As to shells reduced I would dispute that. All M4s were dry hull only. All wet stowage M4A1s were 76 (no 75) and no dry stowage M4A1/76s were produced other then prototypes. The same with the M4A2s, all wet stowage were 76s and no dry stowage 76s. Initially all M4A3s shipped overseas (75 or 76) were wet stowage. Only after a shortage late in the war were any 75 dry stowage shipped. And all M4A4s were dry stowage. So crews may well put extra rounds in a tank but it had nothing to do with the upgrade from dry to wet stowage.