Sherman dry or wet stowage

Modeling Subjects Armor
1

Hello,

I see the terms dry or wet stowage when reading about the Sherman Tank. What are these terms referring to?

George

2

It was discovered that one of the weak points of the Sherman was unprotected ammo lockers in the hull. If penetrated, live ammo in the bins could be punctured by shrapnel and set afire and explode. This contributed to the bad reputation of “Tommy Cookers” or “Ronson lighters” for the Sherman. To counteract this, US designers developed ammo lockers which were surrounded by a glycol liquid (therefore the term “wet”) which diminished the threat of secondary fires and exploding ammo rounds.

For the 75mm armed tanks, the M4A3 later hull tanks got the wet ammo bins. All 76mm armed tanks (M4A1, M4A3, M4A2) had wet ammo bins. They also had all their ammo moved to the hull floor which also reduced their chance of being hit and set afire.

The 105 howitzer tanks had dry bins as well as the rest of the 75mm gun tanks.

3

I thought that the late 75mm M4A1s and M4A2s also had the wet stowage. The ones that had the late model hulls with the new glacis and larger angled hatches.

4

Thanks Roy,

Are there any pictures out there of these ammo lockers? So the ammo was not submerged directly in the liquid but the locker walls were is this correct?

George

5

Nope! The late 75mm M4A1’s had additional cast-in armor over the ammo bins on the hull sides while the late M4A2(75) still used welded on applique plates.

6

Chris is correct. The adoption of the large hatches in the M4A1 and M4A2 did not mean the adoption of wet ammo lockers for the 75mm gun tanks. As I said before, all 76m gun tanks had wet ammo stowage, regardless of sub variant.

George: that’s right. The glycol filled cavities in the external locker walls. The ammo themselves remained dry.

If you are curious as to why Tamiya included hull applique patches in their original M4A3 75W kit, it’s because they had seen pictures of M4A2 75 (large hatch) and thought that meant that some M4A3 75 (large hatch) had applique as well. Just not the case.

7

Thanks Roy.

George

8

The 105mm M4A3’s had dry stowage but they did not have the extra applique armour because it was deemed unnecessary correct?

9

Yes, all 105mm tanks had dry stowage only. I don’t recall why applique was felt unnecessary: maybe b/c they weren’t really “assault” tanks, slugging it out on the front? Maybe 105mm cartridges were less liable to catch fire? I dunno.