Oddball_E8 Posted April 19, 2014 Author Share Posted April 19, 2014 Huh? What cans? There are two sheet metal stowage bins (sometimes) mounted near the exhaust pipes, just above the treads on the rear hull. They were NOT fuel tanks. Sorry... meant soviets Was talking about these cans: http://www.pmilona.cz/788-851-thickbox/t-34-76-pidavne-palivove-nadre.jpg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Doing a quick look between games and errands. Saw something interesting-when the Panther G was tilted the gas tanks exploded. Have no idea what that is about... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted April 19, 2014 Author Share Posted April 19, 2014 What do you mean tilted? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Sorry... meant soviets Was talking about these cans: http://www.pmilona.cz/788-851-thickbox/t-34-76-pidavne-palivove-nadre.jpg IIRC-from my model building days I remember a Revell T-34 I built that had 2-4 long cylindrical cans on the rear sides. I thought they were gas cans that could be jettisoned or they could have just been storage bins. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 What do you mean tilted? Don't know that is what it says and doesn't say any more-this is from the World Tank Museum illustrated reference book-a very fine piece of work. From the looks of the reference and illustrations it looks like it may be in the context of the problems with engine overheating and the automatic fire extinguisher system which was supposed to automatically come on if that happens malfunctioned-which was often was the case. I'm also now wondering if that was another reason to try and attack a Panther from the rear. Not only is the armor weakest, but it you tilted the tank slightly upwards from the rear the fuel tanks would explode-the illustration sorta implies that. The heat from the engine was piped via fan system on top of the engine grill into the crew compartment to heat the tank-don't think that would be very pleasant if a flamethrower was used against it. All sorts of other interesting tidbits about the Panther and other tanks in this book. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I thought they were gas cans that could be jettisoned or they could have just been storage bins. They were external fuel tanks and I have read that they could be jettisoned from within the fighting compartment but I never learned the particulars of how that was done. Probably a simple mechanical arrangement would be my guess. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petergottlieb76 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Huh, I've taken out a t-34/85 with a flamethrower. It didn't blow up, but the crew abandoned ship pretty quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Russian tanks run on diesel, and crappy Russian diesel at that. So it would be considerably more difficult to set fuel ablaze on a Russian tank than say the high octane petrol used by a radial engine Stuart. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 So it would be considerably more difficult to set fuel ablaze on a Russian tank than say the high octane petrol used by a radial engine Stuart. You do know, don't you, that the octane level of a fuel has nothing to do with its volatility or flammability? The octane level refers to its anti-detonation (anti-knock) characteristics, allowing the engine to run at a higher compression ratio. Unless I am mistaken, the aircraft engines used in tanks were even detuned to operate at a lower compression ratio. The gain in reliability was thought to outweigh the loss of performance. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Cylindrical tanks on the engine decks of Soviet AFV's were/are fuel tanks. I am not sure about the specifics on which ones could be (or were) able to be jettisoned. SOP was to run on them first. (Similar concept to aircraft external tanks: you always want to keep your internal tank topped off.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted April 19, 2014 Author Share Posted April 19, 2014 Huh, I've taken out a t-34/85 with a flamethrower. It didn't blow up, but the crew abandoned ship pretty quickly. In all my tests (and there were around 80-90 of them in different variations) not once did the crew abandon the tank or get any increase in morale. The times the tanks were taken out were when the engine was hit and a partial penetration was scored. That would blow the tank up in a catastrophic explosion (like what you get when the ammo gets damaged from a penetration). Never once did they leave the tank tho. Not even when immobilized with damaged optics and radio while surrounded by 10 flamethrowers firing at them. No difference in the morale either then. So I'm wondering if there wasn't something else to the incident you describe. Maby they were already on the verge of panic or planning to dismount anyway before the flamethrower hit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Funny, someone asked for PTO anecdotes. I was just reading about this today. From the Army history of the battle for Guam: A bazooka man and a flame-thrower man became casualties in quick succession when they attempted to use their weapons against the tanks. Another soldier with a flame thrower moved up but bullets hit both him and his weapon. Some of the riflemen retreated in the face of the tank fire, but Pfc. Everett W. Hatch and Pfc. Joseph P. Koeberle, manning a light machine gun, held their ground. When the leading tank was within five yards of the men, they closed in and poured machine-gun fire into its 6- by 10-inch aperture. The two men kept up the fire until the machine-gun barrel burned out. There was no more sign of life within the tank. The Americans finally were able to put bazooka and rifle grenade fire on the second tank, knocking it out of action. A third tank pulled it away. Eighteen dead Japanese, including three officers, were found in the vicinity the next morning. The 3d Battalion's casualties were 6 killed and 16 wounded. And yes, these were the obsolete Type 39 (?) tankettes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
76mm Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 ...poured machine-gun fire into its 6- by 10-inch aperture... Sounds like a significant design flaw... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petergottlieb76 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 In all my tests (and there were around 80-90 of them in different variations) not once did the crew abandon the tank or get any increase in morale. The times the tanks were taken out were when the engine was hit and a partial penetration was scored. That would blow the tank up in a catastrophic explosion (like what you get when the ammo gets damaged from a penetration). Never once did they leave the tank tho. Not even when immobilized with damaged optics and radio while surrounded by 10 flamethrowers firing at them. No difference in the morale either then. So I'm wondering if there wasn't something else to the incident you describe. Maby they were already on the verge of panic or planning to dismount anyway before the flamethrower hit. Oddball, I suppose from their perspective they were in a pretty uncomfortable place, in amongst buildings and being shot at by infantry. They might have just been missed by a panzerfaust, but I don't think they had taken damage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted April 20, 2014 Author Share Posted April 20, 2014 Funny, someone asked for PTO anecdotes. I was just reading about this today. From the Army history of the battle for Guam: A bazooka man and a flame-thrower man became casualties in quick succession when they attempted to use their weapons against the tanks. Another soldier with a flame thrower moved up but bullets hit both him and his weapon. Some of the riflemen retreated in the face of the tank fire, but Pfc. Everett W. Hatch and Pfc. Joseph P. Koeberle, manning a light machine gun, held their ground. When the leading tank was within five yards of the men, they closed in and poured machine-gun fire into its 6- by 10-inch aperture. The two men kept up the fire until the machine-gun barrel burned out. There was no more sign of life within the tank. The Americans finally were able to put bazooka and rifle grenade fire on the second tank, knocking it out of action. A third tank pulled it away. Eighteen dead Japanese, including three officers, were found in the vicinity the next morning. The 3d Battalion's casualties were 6 killed and 16 wounded. And yes, these were the obsolete Type 39 (?) tankettes. That really says nothing of the effectiveness of flamethrowers against thanks other than "well, they die real easy if the tank sees them". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted April 20, 2014 Author Share Posted April 20, 2014 Oddball, I suppose from their perspective they were in a pretty uncomfortable place, in amongst buildings and being shot at by infantry. They might have just been missed by a panzerfaust, but I don't think they had taken damage. Yeah, my point was that I am 100% sure that flamethrowers do not affect the morale of tank crews. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.