Mots of you probably know this, but I'll mention it anyway. The US tanks were designed to run on gas, which would burn very easily when a tank was hit. The Germans nicknamed the Sherman a "Ronson" after the lighter. German tanks ran on diesel, so were much safer in that regard.
Picture of the day
- Thread starter jwhc
- Start date
the tiger was gas, as was the king tiger, the panther, the jagdpanther, etc and so were the panzer 3s and 4s
the shermans were made in both gas and diesel
"Now for some evidence provided by the US Army’s Ballistic Research Lab which studied WW2 ETO tank vs tank engagements(98 of them if you were wondering) and concluded the following: The most deciding factor of who wins a tank engagement is who engages first. Crew training and other factors also played a large role. The average distance at which a US tank kills a Panzer(late IV, V, & VI) was 893 yards(816 m). Comparatively the average distance Panzers killed US vehicles as 943 yards(862 m). During Panther v. M4 engagements the Panther had a 1.1:1 advantage while on the defensive, however the M4 had an 8.4:1 advantage while on the offensive. Overall the M4 was 3.6 times as effective in combat versus the Panther."
see here: ht tp://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/07/28/please-dont-use-the-5-m4s-1-panther-myth/
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
6th line down, LH column.
The attitude seemed to be if we're going to get hit we'll probably die anyways. Might as well not die from running out of shells, now carry this one in your lap.
The trooper in question lost four Shermans over the course of the war, first one sank on D day, one to a mine, one to an 88 and one to a grenade thrown through an open hatch IIRC.
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
There's a man who knows his lighters!
Somewhere out there, there's an ad that's the right vintage. I believe they used that phrase for a while.
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
As an aside, you may recall Sam Spade had a Ronson Touch Tip desk lighter in The Maltese Falcon:
[youtube]r6nMyAf7KN8[/youtube]
Sure works well. Neat mechanism, too.
[youtube]r6nMyAf7KN8[/youtube]
Sure works well. Neat mechanism, too.
As others have noted most tanks of WWII vintage in the west ran on gasoline. The USSR took a diesel aircraft engine from the 1930s worked in into the T34 and the rest is history, that basic engine was reworked and developed right up to the T72 series of tank. Today everything runs on diesel, even helicopters (at least in the US).
What a great picture makes one want to listen to Paint it Black by the Stones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1zBG2TEjn4 or Gimme Shelter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUqqNLB0_FI some Doors, or Animals, Steppenwolf or CCR. What great tunes back then.Love the pistol grip M14
Next weekend I get out to the range I think I will drag my poor old Colt SP1 along as its not seen the light of day in over a year.
Last edited:
Preeeeeety sure the Apache and Blackhawk run off of JP-4 or JP-5, not diesel and that the Abrams also runs on Jet fuel.
German tanks didn't run on diesel, they ran on gasoline, just like US/British tanks. What made the Panzer V (Panther) so prone to burning was its hydraulic steering fluid (can't remember exactly where I read that, but it was a quote from a German tanker who served in the Panther on the Eastern Front).
The US has according to most stuff I have read gone to great lengths to have one common fuel to run everything from trucks to tanks to helicopters to tentheaters. The M1 tank turbine engine is a multi fuel engine and is made to run on just about any fuel that can pass through a pipe and ignite at the other end. Common fuel types appear to be JP8 and DF2. Besides being able to use just about any fuel in the vehicles it also builds in the ability to use whatever is available when working in a mulitnational theatre. Those with greater insight please feel free to comment.
When I was serving in Germany during the Cold War, the Brits were running their 'Chieftain' with an alleged 'multi-fuel' engine. The Brits told us that it wasn't just a matter of dumping an alternative fuel in the tank, it required some engine work to make the conversion.
In 1957 there was a NATO STANAG put in place that all future NATO tanks (that includes the Chieftain) would be capable to run on multiple fuel types, what adjustments had to be made I do not know and no doubt something had to been done to run on differant fuel types. Even the Leopard tanks I have worked on where multifuel capable diesels not that I ever saw anything other then diesel being used on them as the supply chain was never being bombed and strafed on Fallex. Getting back to British tank design, one joke from back in the day was that "Brit tanks are a great way to convert diesel fuel into noise".
My late brother, a trucker of many millions of miles, once characterised the GM 6-71 as "the Two-Stroke Joke, proving that it is possible to convert Diesel fuel into pure noise while producing NO usable horsepower whatever".
He might have been biased, running Macks and Kennies for so many miles. They even had mufflers.
We had the 6-71s in our Shermans, two of them, originally 180s but uprated to 210 to 230 to 250. Ran them at a solid 2300 - 2350 RPM (they were governed) even though they weren't supposed to run faster than 2150. Gawd, but they were noisy! Run around in the thing for a couple hours and you were half-deaf the rest of the day. No hearing protection, of course; anybody who was in them back then has hearing problems today. Only thing louder'n the damned engines was the MW, a 76.2mm gun with the velocity of a .30-06 and a 17-pound shell. You were supposed to be 100 yards or better BEHIND the thing when they let it off: muzzle brake actually magnified the noise..... and they really didn't need it!
He might have been biased, running Macks and Kennies for so many miles. They even had mufflers.
We had the 6-71s in our Shermans, two of them, originally 180s but uprated to 210 to 230 to 250. Ran them at a solid 2300 - 2350 RPM (they were governed) even though they weren't supposed to run faster than 2150. Gawd, but they were noisy! Run around in the thing for a couple hours and you were half-deaf the rest of the day. No hearing protection, of course; anybody who was in them back then has hearing problems today. Only thing louder'n the damned engines was the MW, a 76.2mm gun with the velocity of a .30-06 and a 17-pound shell. You were supposed to be 100 yards or better BEHIND the thing when they let it off: muzzle brake actually magnified the noise..... and they really didn't need it!
- Location
- Beaverlodge, Alberta
I've read owners manuals for Cat construction equipment from just before the emissions control started getting heavy and they listed suitable fuel as any liquid petroleum product with an octane rating of 40+. I'm sure that's changed now with EGR this and re-gen that but thought it was worthy of mention. I couldn't see the Germans or Russians really wanting to run their iron on diesel, especially after hearing numerous stories of cat skinners building the Alaska highway having fuel gel offs steady. They are pretty rare with our modern winter fuels but freeze offs from water contamination are an ongoing concern. I had a bad one two days ago on a big Deere hoe. -32 will do that when they haven't run for a while.
