Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
Does anyone have any information on the survivability of tank crews in World War 2 and what the most common injuries/causes of death were. I have always thought it would be pretty low if I giant shell pierced the armour and exploded inside the tank but apparently a lot did survive.
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
Here is a snip from a U.S. Army website discussing WWII tank injuries..
Compared to infantry, injuries to those inside or around armored vehicles are characterized by:
Decreased overall frequency.
Increased severity of injury and mortality (up to 50%).
Increased incidence of burns and traumatic amputations.
http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/oth ... ffects.pdf
Compared to infantry, injuries to those inside or around armored vehicles are characterized by:
Decreased overall frequency.
Increased severity of injury and mortality (up to 50%).
Increased incidence of burns and traumatic amputations.
http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/oth ... ffects.pdf
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
Take a look at Montefiore's Dunkirk or Roy Farran's Winged Dagger. For all the years of AP or APC munitions in the first half of the war - the rounds actually entering tanks were solid shot, albeit at ballistic velocities!I have always thought it would be pretty low if I giant shell pierced the armour and exploded inside the tank but apparently a lot did survive
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
There's also some interesting stuff on this issue in the 'artillery and armour' section of the excellent 'The Sharp End: The Fighting Man in World war II' by Peter Ellis (London 1990). It tends to concur with the info that JamesL found.
Cheers.
Cheers.
"It was like Hungary being between Germany and the Soviet Union. What sort of choice was that? Which language would you like your firing squad to speak?" Tibor Fischer 'Under the Frog'.
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
According a 12th Army Group report quoted in "Armoured Thunderbolt" by Stephen Zaloga (a superb book on the Sherman IMHO) US tank casualities averaged 1 killed and 1 wounded when a Sherman was knocked out. A US 1st Army study found that of tank crew casualities, the ratio was roughly one quarter were killed to three-quarters wounded.
Also mentioned in the book was a British battlefield study conducted just after the (costly) Caen battles. It was found that German tank and anti-tank guns accounted for almost 90% of Shermans lost, and that tank crew losses averaged 1 killed and two wounded for each tank destroyed. This in part was identified to the Shermans propensity to 'brew up'. Later, with teh advent of 'wet storage' the loss rate dropped to 1 killed and 1 wounded for each tank loss.
Also mentioned in the book was a British battlefield study conducted just after the (costly) Caen battles. It was found that German tank and anti-tank guns accounted for almost 90% of Shermans lost, and that tank crew losses averaged 1 killed and two wounded for each tank destroyed. This in part was identified to the Shermans propensity to 'brew up'. Later, with teh advent of 'wet storage' the loss rate dropped to 1 killed and 1 wounded for each tank loss.
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
I thought the majority of the "wet ammo storage" Shermans went to the Russians? And what the ETO DID get was Shermans after the Upgrade Program, with the welded-on extra armour over the ammo stowage in the sponsons...
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
I was fooling around inside a Sherman a while back.
The roof was about a foot over my head.
I recall feeling that if you were hurt it would be very hard to get out in any kind of hurry.
The escape hatch was off somewhere covered by stuff.
There was no good or easy way to climb up and out.
If you were hurt and on the floor you were in trouble.
One reason I was a paratrooper. Tanks are dangerous.
The roof was about a foot over my head.
I recall feeling that if you were hurt it would be very hard to get out in any kind of hurry.
The escape hatch was off somewhere covered by stuff.
There was no good or easy way to climb up and out.
If you were hurt and on the floor you were in trouble.
One reason I was a paratrooper. Tanks are dangerous.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3211
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
- Location: UK
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
Starace,
Some notes I took at the British National Archives a few years back that may be of interest:
"Source: WO205/1165 - Survey of Casualties amongst Armoured Units in NW Europe
Jan 1946 – Capt H.B. Wright, RAMC & Capt R.D. Harkness, RAMC
Medical Research Council Team attached No 2 ORS Main HQ 21 Army Group
24 March – 5 May 1945
333 AFV and 769 personnel casualties sustained by 19 Br Armd Regts equipped with Cruiser tanks…comprises all the casualties in tks and crews sustained by these rgts during this period.
50% Sherman, 22% Cromwells, 16% Comets, 3% Challengers, 8% Stuarts and 1% ARVs.
41% of casualties caused by A.P. shot, 33% by H.C. weapons, 21% by A Tk mines, 3% by H.E. shells and 2% unknown.
Attention is drawn to high proportion of casualties due to H.C. Available figures suggest that this was never higher than 10% in actions prior to the Rhine Crossing.
Casualties amongst the crews of these vehs numbered 371, 38% of which were fatal. A.P. caused 51% of the casualties (1.4 cas per tk), H.C. caused 37½% (1.3 cas per tk) and mines caused 8% (0.4 cas per tk).
No significant difference in distribution of hits on different types of tk, but…30% of all A.P. hits…on the turret against 50% of H.C. hits. For both wpns the proportion of hits that penetrated was 50-60%…The average range of engagement was about 600 yds for A.P. and the most prevalent gun was the 7.5cm KwK 40."
Tom
Some notes I took at the British National Archives a few years back that may be of interest:
"Source: WO205/1165 - Survey of Casualties amongst Armoured Units in NW Europe
Jan 1946 – Capt H.B. Wright, RAMC & Capt R.D. Harkness, RAMC
Medical Research Council Team attached No 2 ORS Main HQ 21 Army Group
24 March – 5 May 1945
333 AFV and 769 personnel casualties sustained by 19 Br Armd Regts equipped with Cruiser tanks…comprises all the casualties in tks and crews sustained by these rgts during this period.
50% Sherman, 22% Cromwells, 16% Comets, 3% Challengers, 8% Stuarts and 1% ARVs.
41% of casualties caused by A.P. shot, 33% by H.C. weapons, 21% by A Tk mines, 3% by H.E. shells and 2% unknown.
Attention is drawn to high proportion of casualties due to H.C. Available figures suggest that this was never higher than 10% in actions prior to the Rhine Crossing.
Casualties amongst the crews of these vehs numbered 371, 38% of which were fatal. A.P. caused 51% of the casualties (1.4 cas per tk), H.C. caused 37½% (1.3 cas per tk) and mines caused 8% (0.4 cas per tk).
No significant difference in distribution of hits on different types of tk, but…30% of all A.P. hits…on the turret against 50% of H.C. hits. For both wpns the proportion of hits that penetrated was 50-60%…The average range of engagement was about 600 yds for A.P. and the most prevalent gun was the 7.5cm KwK 40."
Tom
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
I thought I saw somewhere reports that small arms and artillery caused significant numbers of fataliteis in tank crews after they abandoned thier vehicles when hit.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
You were always far safer inside your tank than anywhere else. In Donald Grave's Book 'South Alberta's A Canadian Regiment at War' detailed figures are given for the Regiments dead. Of 82 men killed only 24 were in a tank at the time of death. This was more a less the same for every Regiment I have seen with breakdowns of cause of death.
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
A short two page topic which has a good bit of info about this topic.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&t=123000
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&t=123000
-
- Member
- Posts: 2512
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
Tom,
H.C means? High Capacity? I always thought high capacity was just a naval term for H. E.
H.C means? High Capacity? I always thought high capacity was just a naval term for H. E.
MikeTom wrote:41% of casualties caused by A.P. shot, 33% by H.C. weapons, 21% by A Tk mines, 3% by H.E. shells and 2% unknown.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
Hollow Charge
-
- Member
- Posts: 2512
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
Tom,
Tanks! Tanks A Lot!
Mike
Tanks! Tanks A Lot!
Mike
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 3724
- Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Re: Tank Crew Survivability And Injuries
Something from combats of the Polish 1st Armoured Division under command of gen. Stanislaw Maczek in France, Belgium, Germany in years 1944 / 1945 (the division had got mainly "dry" Shermans and some Cromwells):
"It turned out, that on average per each 5 destroyed tanks one tank crew is killed, so more or less 5 men."
Source: "Od podwody do czołga" by gen. Stanislaw Maczek, p. 187
Despite heavy tank losses in the battle of Falaise, not so many tank crews were killed. More of course were wounded. But still as the result Maczek's division had got surplus of trained tank crews in comparison with the number of tanks.
Losses of Maczek's division tank regiments during the entire war (since Normandy in 1944 until the end):
1. Pułk Pancerny - 56 (10) killed, 4 missing, 147 (26) wounded
2. Pułk Pancerny - 65 (9) killed, 253 (51) wounded
Polish forces in the East had got similar experiences, maybe losses of tank crews were a bit higher when compared to tank losses than in Polish tank units in the West. For example Polish 4th Armoured Brigade had got 65 tanks (T-34) and 325 members of tank crews before the battle of Bautzen (16.04.1945). Irrecoverable losses until the end of the battle (01.05.1945) were 30 tanks. Irrecoverable losses of tank crews (not only KIA but also MIA & POW) were 55.
Both Polish units mentioned above were using tanks with 5 men crews (Cromwells, Shermans, T-34/85). I suppose that in tanks with smaller crews (4 - 3) there were less fatalities on average per each destroyed tank. It also should be noted that all figures posted above refer to all losses of tank crews, not only those who died inside their tanks.
"It turned out, that on average per each 5 destroyed tanks one tank crew is killed, so more or less 5 men."
Source: "Od podwody do czołga" by gen. Stanislaw Maczek, p. 187
Despite heavy tank losses in the battle of Falaise, not so many tank crews were killed. More of course were wounded. But still as the result Maczek's division had got surplus of trained tank crews in comparison with the number of tanks.
Losses of Maczek's division tank regiments during the entire war (since Normandy in 1944 until the end):
1. Pułk Pancerny - 56 (10) killed, 4 missing, 147 (26) wounded
2. Pułk Pancerny - 65 (9) killed, 253 (51) wounded
Polish forces in the East had got similar experiences, maybe losses of tank crews were a bit higher when compared to tank losses than in Polish tank units in the West. For example Polish 4th Armoured Brigade had got 65 tanks (T-34) and 325 members of tank crews before the battle of Bautzen (16.04.1945). Irrecoverable losses until the end of the battle (01.05.1945) were 30 tanks. Irrecoverable losses of tank crews (not only KIA but also MIA & POW) were 55.
Both Polish units mentioned above were using tanks with 5 men crews (Cromwells, Shermans, T-34/85). I suppose that in tanks with smaller crews (4 - 3) there were less fatalities on average per each destroyed tank. It also should be noted that all figures posted above refer to all losses of tank crews, not only those who died inside their tanks.