Prevent the "Tommy Cooker"

[Kevin Renner]

In WWII the M4 Sherman* had several unfortunate nicknames. The Germans called the Tommy Cooker. At the same time the British refered to it as The Ronson, because it lit first time every time. With a POD no earlier than 1925 change US Army policy as to the fuels used in armoured vihicles and transport veicles as well in the Second World War. Bonus points for starting with OTL manufactures and some of their actual engine projects.

Early American tanks were primarily designed as infantry support vehicles. The job of taking out enemy tanks was up to the Tank Destroyer units.

 

[von Adler]

The main problem was not really the fuel but rather the unprotected ammunition. The Germans ran their tanks on gasoline, and did not really have the same problem to the same extent.

What we could do is have the US not impound the Republic P2A Guarsman, Seversky EP-106 and Vultee Vengeance planes for Sweden and the resulting industrial cooperation means that the US buys plans for the Landsverk Lago in late 1939 (Sweden was way ahead of the US in tank development at the time). Torsion bar suspension, wet stovage of ammunition, a lower profile, and, most important, welded armour (which Landsverk pioneered in the late 1920s). Add thius tank being shipped to the western desert and used by the Brits and the experiences incorporated, and you have a much better M4 tank coming.

 

[Michele]

In WWII the M4 Sherman* had several unfortunate nicknames. The Germans called the Tommy Cooker.

Did they? I'd like to know the German version of the nickname, not as a re-translation but the original, and with a German source quoted. Thanks.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Did they? I'd like to know the German version of the nickname, not as a re-translation but the original, and with a German source quoted. Thanks.

zB http://www.panzerlexikon.de/akpanzer.htm

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Der Sherman war bei den Besatzungen sehr beliebt. Allerdings hatte die ersten Sherman Versionen auch eine sehr unangenehme Eigenschaft: Der Benzinmotor fing extrem leicht Feuer - und das passierte leider sehr oft. Das Feuer brachte ebenso leicht die Munition im Kampfraum zur Explosion. Die Deutschen gaben ihm deshalb sogar den Spitznamen "Tommy-Kocher". Diese Eigenschaft wurde später ausgemerzt indem die Munition in Wasserbehältern ("wet-stowage") gelagert wurde. [/FONT]

emphasis added

Just googled
M4 Sherman amerikanische tommy
this was the 4th item

 

[Riain]

Britain gets of its own arse and designs a decent tank in the interwar period, preferably using external references as their outer limits. IE; railway width and tunnel size dictates the maximum width and height for the tank, and these dictate the length and bridge requirements dictate the weight. These parameters dictate the maximum size of the turret ring, which dictates the maximim size of the gun. So we use these parameters, and like a Washington Treay heavy cruiser go to the maximims allowed by these external parameters and you'd get a good tank at the end.

 

[Michele]

zB http://www.panzerlexikon.de/akpanzer.htm
emphasis added

Just googled
M4 Sherman amerikanische tommy
this was the 4th item

Thank you. I see I should have explained myself better. By a source, I meant a source of the time.

 

[Admiral Canaris]

In WWII the M4 Sherman* had several unfortunate nicknames. The Germans called the Tommy Cooker. At the same time the British refered to it as The Ronson, because it lit first time every time. With a POD no earlier than 1925 change US Army policy as to the fuels used in armoured vihicles and transport veicles as well in the Second World War. Bonus points for starting with OTL manufactures and some of their actual engine projects.

Early American tanks were primarily designed as infantry support vehicles. The job of taking out enemy tanks was up to the Tank Destroyer units.

It's true that the Sherman was designed primarily for infantry support - which made sense, given that it served that purpose far oftener than in an antitank role. Even so, the Sherman's hardly as bad as it's made out to be; it was a very decent medium tank that served well against its German counterpart, the Panzer IV, and compared favourably in at least some aspects to such hyped stuff as the t-34. Its problem was when it was pitted against heavy German tanks like the Panther or the Tiger (yes, I know the Germans classed Panther as medium, but to American parameters it was heavy). Of course, such is hardly a fair comparison.

 

[Kevin Renner]

There are a couple of direstions the US Army could of gone in the 20s and 30s that would of made a big difference IMO as far as the performance of its armoured. The first of course is to pay somewhat more attention to Walter Christie. But the second is somewhat for fundemental. In 1928 Packard debuted a 9 cylinder diesel radial engine that set a flight endurance record for unrefueled flight that was not broken until the Voyager came along IIRC. A number of US armoured vehicles used gas radial engines so this is not too big a POD

 

[The Dean]

There are a couple of direstions the US Army could of gone in the 20s and 30s that would of made a big difference IMO as far as the performance of its armoured. The first of course is to pay somewhat more attention to Walter Christie. But the second is somewhat for fundemental. In 1928 Packard debuted a 9 cylinder diesel radial engine that set a flight endurance record for unrefueled flight that was not broken until the Voyager came along IIRC. A number of US armoured vehicles used gas radial engines so this is not too big a POD

It wasn't the petrol that made the problem it was, as pointed out earlier, the ammunition storage. Anyway once diesel starts burning it is a lot hotter and much more difficult to extinguish. The IDF modified Shermans proved the basic design was sound it took battle experience to discover what modifications were required.

 

[aktarian]

It's true that the Sherman was designed primarily for infantry support - which made sense, given that it served that purpose far oftener than in an antitank role. Even so, the Sherman's hardly as bad as it's made out to be; it was a very decent medium tank that served well against its German counterpart, the Panzer IV, and compared favourably in at least some aspects to such hyped stuff as the t-34. Its problem was when it was pitted against heavy German tanks like the Panther or the Tiger (yes, I know the Germans classed Panther as medium, but to American parameters it was heavy). Of course, such is hardly a fair comparison.

plus it was mechanically reliable and Germans used captured pieces as recovery vehicles from time to time

 

[Admiral Canaris]

plus it was mechanically reliable and Germans used captured pieces as recovery vehicles from time to time

Reliability was one of the things it compared favourably with the t-34 in; against the unwieldy German heavy tanks, it was no contest.

 

[MrP]

Thank you. I see I should have explained myself better. By a source, I meant a source of the time.

I've yet to check this all the way through, but it contains a five-page discussion starting from a premise of distrust of the historicity of the term's use.

 

[Redbeard]

Redesigning the M4 so that ammo isn't stowed in the bins over the tracks would solve most problems with "overcooking".

But anyway, at its introduction in 1942 the M4 was an excellent tank, but by 1943 it had lacked behind and increasingly became a burden on the confidence of allied crews on their materiel. Not only because of the ammo-fire problem, but also because of the 75mm soon becomming insufficient as an anti-tank gun. That the 76mm, which was hoped so much of, was a disappointment, didn't help matters, and it was a poor comfort that enemy tanks were the responsibility of tank destroyers, if no tank destroyers were around (they were often deployed as infantry support, when no tanks were around).

The Americans had designs with much better protection and firepower, but because of the TD doctrine and a logistic preference for lighter designs, the M4 with the 75mm was retained years after it should have been abandoned. IMHO it was a wrong decision and reflects the sometimes surprising insensitivity to casualties among early war US generals. Sure USA had a large manpower pool, but the young servicemen rightly expected to get home alive and their leaders to do everything possible to ensure that. Better to have one tank survive three battles than two tanks shot away in three battles and crewmen lost each time.

Thank God the allies superiority was so big, that shaken confidence among the tankers did not change the final outcome, but I can't help thinking if better tanks would have changed the outcome of the assaults on Caen or Market Garden in 44 - and thus have shortened the war considerably?

Concerning design details I don't think the Christie suspension was that ideal - it took up valuable space in the sides - limiting turret ring (and thus gun size). The external suspension wasn't that bad, as it didn't take up space in the sides or bottom (torsion bars) and even gave some additional side protection. A lower profile would probably in itself have removed high ammo storage - at the price of less ammo stowage - but that would IMHO have been worth it. Especially if the 76mm, and later the 90mm, had been accepted earlier.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Michele]

I've yet to check this all the way through, but it contains a five-page discussion starting from a premise of distrust of the historicity of the term's use.

Yep, thanks.

 

[Slamet]

I've yet to check this all the way through, but it contains a five-page discussion starting from a premise of distrust of the historicity of the term's use.

From what I've been able to gather from that thread, other than there is a smartass member there, is that the 'Tommy Cooker' nickname didn't originate from WW2, or originated shortly after. The first mention of Tommy Cookers and Ronson Lighters were in (!) 2005.

Same goes for the 'Jug' P-47. It was originally named the 'Thunderjug' or something, but this was rather insulting. As with all political histories, this was changed to the 'Juggernaut'. The actual nickname 'Jug' (shortened version) was first used in 1948.

 

[Wanderlust]

From what I've been able to gather from that thread, other than there is a smartass member there, is that the 'Tommy Cooker' nickname didn't originate from WW2, or originated shortly after. The first mention of Tommy Cookers and Ronson Lighters were in (!) 2005.

Um... Nope :| If anything, the term originated when I saw a programme by professor Richard Holmes on D-Day around about 1995

Oh, and they're also in Max Hastings' book, Overlord.

 

[Slamet]

Um... Nope :| If anything, the term originated when I saw a programme by professor Richard Holmes on D-Day around about 1995

Oh, and they're also in Max Hastings' book, Overlord.

Guess the original poster I quoted never heard of these.

 

[burmafrd]

I think the Japanese crews called their planes Type 1 Lighters (their 2 engine bomber- the Val, right)

 

[hammo1j]

IIRC this term was used in Sven Hassel's Novel Monte Cassino which I read in 1976 so it's at least that old.

Mind you old Sven's reminiscences are under a cloud of suspicion.

 

[Bill Garvin]

I think the Japanese crews called their planes Type 1 Lighters (their 2 engine bomber- the Val, right)

The G4M was the flying lighter, known as Betty in WW2. Val was the D3A1 single-engined dive bomber.

Mind you old Sven's reminiscences are under a cloud of suspicion.

If by suspicion, you mean contempt, ridicule, loathing and disgust, you're right. "Sven Hassel" is a fake and a fraud. His books are fiction, nothing more.