T-34 and spare fuel tanks

Just read that it was claimed that the spare fuel tanks were a good aiming place for the German gunners. The tank would catch fire and brew up if you hit the spare fuel tanks. Was this a weak point for the T-34? Or just a story? Well, I guess it isn´t that easy to hit them then again during the battle.



Also:

Equipped with a V-2-34, 12-cylinder diesel engine, the T34 generated 450 horsepower at 1,700 rpm. Early issue tanks had 460 liters of fuel in six fuel tanks, and later T34s carried up to 540 liters in eight fuel tanks. One of the eight fuel tanks was usually filled with oil because the V2 engine burned tremendous amounts of oil.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/aam/ah200506107b

http://www.gjames.com.au/chris/t34/t34-service-2.html

 

This might interest you?

http://www.tankmuseum.co.uk/newsart_0603.html

Post-war test on a centurion's external fuel tanks (petrol). Vehicle largely undamaged.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Very interesting link, Herr Poop. And the T-34s ran on diesel fuel, which is much more difficult to deflagrate.

 

That's not correct. You should instead say the T-34 was 'lubricationally challenged'.

 

Very curious.....I was wondering about this exact topic during quite the boring Biology lesson a few days back. I actually saw it being used as a tactic to disable T-34's in a videogame. I dismissed it as more of an exaggeration rather than a tactic that was commonly used.

 

Strange tactics can be used at times, some based on facts some on hearsay.

Didn´t the Red Army tank gunners aim at the bottom of the 75 mm gun of the Panther so that the grenade would ricochet and enter the drivers´ and machine gunners´ compartment? How hard that can be?!!

 

I did hear of a case (I can't remember when, where, or who)(give me time to look it up) when Germans were using captured T-34s and were on a ridge behind advancing Russian tanks.
The Russians were carring fuel drums (55 gal) atop the engine compartment. The Germans first shot these up (so they emptied) (I'm not sure what with), and then shot again to set fire to the tank itself, (made worse by the spilt fuel).
The Russians knew tanks were behind them, but observed them (shape) to be T-34s so thought nothing of danger. It took them a while to realize what was going on, and before they did, they lost more than a few tanks.
The fuel spilt into the engine compartment (through the vents) in this case which was their demise.
I would suspect that as long as the tank is moving, and the burn is on the outside, the damage would be minimal.
I've heard also that the Egyptians lost many good M-48s to the Israelies the same way I mentioned.
As for the shot trap of the Panther mantlet...yes indeed it was an aiming point for lower velocity guns.
There is also an incident in the Battle of the Buldge where a Sherman with a 75 knocked out at least one (perhaps two) Panthers by bouncing his shot off the frozen road to penetrate the bottom(s) of the Panther(s) comming down a steep road.
Big "Atta-boy" for that crew.
They succeeded in blocking the road and getting away.

 

Very interesting stories skunk. Those tank crews had talent.

 

Very hard, I suppose. I never heard of this tactic, it sounds like another myth. First of all it's more common and natural to shoot at the centre of mass of the target. To succeed you would have to be at close range to aim at what is a very narrow target - the space between the bottom front and the ground, and then the ground itself should be rock hard to provide the ricochet, or else your round would dig a long and narrow hole in the dirt.

 

You try to spill diesel fuel on the ground or in any open container and then you can wake me when you succeed in setting fire to the thing. I very much doubt this kind of stories.

Besides, there were not very many captured T-34s in use by the Germans, I remember SS PzDiv Das Reich using less than a company's worth at the time of Kursk.

 

Once when I was a dangerous little kid, I emptied out "eggs" (with just a little hole in the top). I filled them with home heating oil and pretended they were hand grenades.
When we burned off stumps, tree limbs, leaves/branches I threw them into the fire.
The results are most spetacular.
A mini mushroom cloud.
Find yourself a remote area and give it a try.
When the eggs broke and slpashed it created the desired effect.
BOOM
I guess I'm lucky to still be around after stunts like this and worse, and of course living through my Motorcycle days.
I'll find you the chapter and verse.
Nice 85 Kai, almost as good as one of mine.
I'm not a big fan of rubber tracks, but the individual links are dreadfully expensive (the price of the tank). It needs to be beat up more, and have some troops on it!
Za (Panther Mantlets)
This is why the late "G" model had the "Chin" on it.
The Germans recognized this weakness too.
Roads in the Ardennes are similar to the ones around here, cut through and layed upon (or left as) rock. Not exactly farm land. (falling rock signs everywhere)(and they mean it). Probably frozen rock.
Besides, I think a Sherman 75 would bounce off anything. I have a hard time believing it would penetrate anything.

[ 04. May 2006, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: skunk works ]

 

I believe it was Das Reich (2nd SS) that had some T-34s. 15/20 something like that.
It was during Kursk and (sp) Prok-harovka? and that other town that has virtually the same name (but shorter). Das Reich was on the right flank of Liebstandart (1st SS) defending (resting), while the first kept attacking.
More than "Rolling hills" type country, and not "plain" (flat) country. I think it was a name like Strenko/Sterno (whatever) and 1st tank army? attacking from three sides at the Germans.
It was one of these groups that became exposed from behind. The (German)T-34s were not the only ones shooting, just the only ones the Russians originally saw.
The Russians got (lit-up) pretty good, (by their exposed fuel tanks), and retired to lick their wounds.
If fuel doesn't burn....how does the tank run?

Perhaps this is why the Churchill (Crocodile) pullled that trailer full of fuel....behind it aways.... instead of having it on board.

[ 04. May 2006, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: skunk works ]

 

Another method of unusual design I spoke of before, in Belton Coopers book. An alert Sherman commander knocked out two King Tigers by firing WP white phosphorus (knowing his 75 AP was worthless) rounds at them. When they exploded against the tanks, the German crews thought they were on fire, bailed out, and ran off.
The Japanese did bury torpedo warheads (on obvious trails) and wire them to be set off (theoreticaly) from a safe distance to stop U.S. tanks. This turned out to be effective, but almost suicidal.
I doubt anything could stop Bob Semples tank, except 8 hearty portions of "Bangers & Mash".
Necessity is the Mother of Invention.

 

Molotov egg.

 

"You try to spill diesel fuel on the ground or in any open container and then you can wake me when you succeed in setting fire to the thing. I very much doubt this kind of stories."

That is true, however if you get the diesel fuel to mist then you can get a good explosion and fire going. I saw a TV show on how they attempted to stop this happening to jet airliners by adding something to the fuel and then they crash landed an old jetliner and the plane burned really good. The fuel addidive did not work. (the aircraft was radio controlled}
A shell hitting a tank of diesel fuel would cause the fuel to spray and mist.

Similar explosions can be made due to coal dust, wheat dust, rice dust ect.

Glad you live in NY Miller!! If you did that as a kid you must have a job with the Dept. of Defense now.

 

Yes, otherwise diesel wouldn't work in an engine, would it ? I'm not saying diesel fuel doesn't go bang, it does but is a much lesser hazard than gasoline.

"Diesel is used in a high-compression engine. Air is compressed until it is heated above the autoignition temperature of diesel. Then the fuel is injected as a high pressure spray. There is no ignition source. As a result, diesel is required to have a high flash point and a low autoignition temperature. The flashpoint of a fuel is the lowest temperature at which it can form an ignitable mix with air. The high flash point in diesel fuel means that it does not burn as easily as gasoline, which is a safety factor."

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/EileenTang.shtml


As diesel is nearly not as volatile as gasoline, on a partially empty tank there is not such a concentrated air-fuel mix, so the explosion risk with diesel is much less than with gasoline. This was recently discussed in Tanknet but I can't find it

[ 06. May 2006, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Za Rodinu ]

 

You are correct Mr. Za
It is not as volitile as Gas, 3 parts air to 1 part gasolene (or less) = boom (with tiny-est spark)(even static electricity), but then again (aside from Propane & Nitroglycerin) what is?
I was a volunteer Fireman for three years. Mostly we watered the football field, but we did learn what burns, and how to put it out.
Un-volitile flammable liquids abound...Kerosene, Alcohol, cooking/motor/lamp oil, Paint, grease, etc.
Then you get to the nasty ones that give off Poison gas when they burn...exam. Poly-iso-cynuric foam (used in virtually everything from boats, to houses, to furniture, to tennis balls). Why we wore "Masks" (no beards) with oxygen tanks.
Diesel is hard to light, but once lit...
The worst kinds of fires are, grease fires in restaurants , and paint store fires.
Tough to handle, because the water just moves it.
Halon (to smother) is best (other dry/foam inhibiters), but Halon is expensive, and will also smother you (others).
It removes oxygen from the air (fire)(right out of your lungs too), but disperses quickly in open air.

 

I read somewhere they use halon systems on modern tanks and APC's but it did not say how the crew was protected from the halon.

Perhaps the crews are expendable and they just want to save the expensive tank.

 

Surely better the risk of a bit of Halon Inhalation while escaping than trying to get out with an intense fire raging around you and the fuel/Ammunition?.

Back to the T34's external tanks, the Centurion in the link above suffered very little damage when the Fuel tanks ignited. Is there any reason a T34 would suffer more even if Ignition of the diesel/oil was achieved? I'd assume not really as the external fuel tanks continued for so long, If they were a genuine danger wouldn't their use have been discontinued fairly early on? Not sure really.
Cheers,
Adam.

 

Didn´t the Germans drive (later on at least )in war with loads of gasoline tanks on their tanks and did not have diesel? Maybe it was just better to have the fuel with you and not worry about the danger. I recall some Normandy pics with PZ IV´s with extra fuel on deck going towards the front line.