External Fuel Tanks

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/photo2.html
last photo right hand coloumn, caption under picture "WW II, T-34 attack" so possible sometimes the fuel tanks were worn in combat...

 

a lot of russian military photos and films were staged btw, so this might not be accurate

FNG

 

under reservation of being wrong , and there must have been cases of
carrying fuel in a shooting zones ,
I go with FNG , the photo seems somewhat stagged ,
a not uncommon occurence for some front line journalists .

 

Well, that is the first such picture I have ever seen with the fuel tanks in place, so that does make me more able to accept that they quite probably were installed.

Combat or no combat - no idea. As FNG says, most Soviet photoshoots were heavily staged, so who knows?

 

This was possible 1 of the few pictures in combat that I have seen the external fuel tanks used.

 

To be honest it strikes me that if you feel that you need external tank the best place for them is above and behind the engine deck as with that picture reference I gave. As long as it is at least harden again small arms fire. From the side it offer to small an area to be viable target at anything other than point blank. With fresh air all round the fuel tank if you miss it the odds are you’ll miss the vehicle completely.

Even those fuel tank on the T34s above are very small targets compared to the rest of the tank and any tank getting shot in the side is in trouble anyway.

 

The fuel tanks would be highly vulnrable to MG fire and light AA/AT fire.

Whilst the tanks would normally shrugg that sort of attack off, the tanks would attrack a lot of medium and small arms fire regardless as the enemy would be trying to get lucky track and periscope hits and supress the commander and driver looking to button them up reducing their effectivness.

Did you notice the infantry in the photo are also carrying their packs, would that be normal to charge into combat with your pack or would they normally be dropped and stored?

 

the photographs seems posed to me: infantery carriing full pack. Inf advancing in front of tanks rather than on their wing or behind them (extra cover and away from the bow machine gun, i cannot imagine infantery walking in front of that)
i've never been in the military and might be mistaken, but the photograph seems posed to me

contiued from the Maus discussion: the external fuel cans could be jettisoned from inside the vehicle by bowden cable. that would indicate that the tanks were carried unitl the tank came under fire (or had a good chance of coming under fire), makes sense to me.

aglooka

 

I have a model of the Jagdpanther that seems to have two external fuel tanks on the rear hull slope outside of the exhaust stacks. They would have been vulnerable to fire only from the direct rear of the TD and the engine compartment would have protected the crew from fire. I wonder if the Panther had the same arrangement?

There's a picture at this link that shows it quite well.
http://www.hubhobbyshop.com/word34.htm

 

I would also like to note that it is unlikely that the fuel would explode if the fuel tanks were punctured, unless then HEs are used at the rear of the tank.

 

what about mg tracers? or phosphorus rounds which were often fired at tanks. Then you have heat rounds like bazookas, piats and panzershrecks. Not to mention flamethrowers.

Besides it was fairly common to fire HE rounds at tanks especially if you AP rounds did not do as labled againsted heavy armour like panthers and tigers as it disorientated the crew

Yes plain bullets will not ignite fuel but their is an awful lot of nasty stuff knocking around a battle field.

FNG

 

It looks like the Panther did have the same setup as the Jadgpanther. On the host main-page http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm there are three rear view photos of the Panther. The fuel tanks were obviously vulnerable, as in each of the photos at least one of the tanks is demolished.

 

What you see in those photo's are not fuel tanks, they are stowage bins for equipment. The Panther's fuel tanks were situated either side of the engine within the hull. It is known that Tigers sometimes carrried fuel drums lashed onto their engine decks but these were rolled off onto the ground before going into combat. (I have seen a photo of this but not one of the Panther)

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

And here, fresh from Brussels, are pictures of the fastenings that hold the JS-3's external fuel tanks in place:

Holding the tanks to the engine deck:


Securing the bottom of the tanks:


As you can see, the clasp at the top seems to have a quick-release mechanism, though it appears that it can only be done manually, by omebosy sitting on the engine deck. The bottom seems to be simply slotted into place, ready to fall off when the top clasp is released.

Oh, and the tanks seem to still be full! Oil (or similar) was apparently leaking onto the side of the tank - you could see and smell it.

 

In the basement of the Canadian War Museum in Ottowa they had many vehicles leaking oil and fluids. Unfonrtinutely I could not see the tanks cause the army was doing something for some Australians. :angry:

 

.
.
.

on a side issue , the tanks at the bruxelles museum could do with a roof and
a coat of paint , esspecially the ones like the JS3 in the central group ,




So, storage or auxilliary tanks ??


..

 

Yes, many of them are decidedly rusty. :cry:

Auxiliary - there are pipes from the tanks into the engine compartment.

 

yea ive always wondered why that was so i mean any axplosion that penetrated the fuel can would explode right there making the tank immoilized and could even act as a signal smoke to the enemy

 

Which is why they could ditch them so easily - Preferably before the battle.