extra fuel drums on russian tanks

[ParaBellum]

While reading Glantz' "The Battle of Kursk" I stumbled upon the following:

From the divisional history of Das Reich division.

"Russian tanks carried on their rear decks a metal drum containing reserve fuel supplies. A hit on the drum ignited the fuel and caused the tank to "brew up".

Now my question: how often did russian tanks carry these "extra-fuel"-drums while in combat.

Are there accounts of higher casualties due to this practice?

Could these drums be penetrated by small arms or arty shrapnel?

[offtaskagain]

Liquid diesel fuel is pretty tough to ignite. Its not likely to explode from a penetration by bullets or shell fragments. As a matter of fact you can put out cigarettes in the stuff. Modern Soviet/Russian MBTs carry the same thing but i believe they are the first fuel burned off by the crew. Ive also heard they can be dropped with the flick of a switch.

[Michael Emrys]

One point, I believe most Soviet AFVs carried not one, but two of these tanks. And yes they could be dismounted without going outside the vehicle.

Michael

[ParaBellum]

Thx for the replies, guys.

Any information about SOP for these things? Were they usually dropped before battle and were they issued to all tanks or only to "breakthrough" formations which were expected to cover larger distances?

I also thought that the diesel fuel shouldn't endanger the tank too much, but according to this report it seems that russian tanks rather often brewed up once that fuel drum was hit.

I mean, if PaK crews were instructed to aim for such small targets like hatches or the turret ring, it seems quite probably to aim for such a "vulnerable" point, if it really was.

I agree that small arms fire usually wouldn't ignite the diesel. But what's with tracer ammo?

[ May 12, 2002, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Måkjager]

A SdKfz 251/10 armed with the 37mm Pak 38 gun destroyed a T-34 from 1000m by hitting such a fuel tank while serving under Peipers command in Russia. ( or so it says in the "Jochen Peiper "book by Patrick Agte )

Regards

Måkjager

[ May 12, 2002, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Måkjager ]

[Madmatt]

This comes up every so often. We have researched this issue internally and found several things.

#1 It wasn't always fuel that those drums carried. It could be anything from Lubricating Oil, Diesel Fuel, Water or just packed with dry supplies.

#2 On some late war vehicles the drums could be "jettisened" from inside although it was in reality probably just an ad hoc latch release. Some sources indicate that it was in fact some sort of explosive bolt retention system evidenced by the presence of wires leading from the internal hull to the latches. Probably dependant on the vehicle though. What is known is that the internal fuel cells could not normally be refilled directly from the external drums as there is no connection between the two. This was changed in the T-54 and beyond which of course not relevant to CMBB's time frame.

#3 Depending on what was in the drums normally dictated if they were removed before the unit was deployed in action but even so it could occur that a unit went into battle with tanks still attached with potentially flamable contents.

#4 The flash temperature of Soviet diesel fuel is extremely high (I dont have the numbers right here anymore) and much higher than the flash temperature of comperable Allied or Axis fuel.

#5 While the most common fuel drum was a 200 liter drum, it was not the only one deployed and I have seen configurations from a single drum on one side to upwards of 6 drums lashed to both sides of the hull of varying sizes and volumes.

#6 They look cool! As such some models in CMBB will show them but we dont model any enhanced vulnerability due to them being attached (or hit) nor is there enough evidence to show that we should.

Madmatt

[Runyan99]

Interesting. I wondered about those fuel drums also. I can rest easy knowing that the BTS guys are on the case.

[Andreas]

Like Makjager says, there is some anecdotal evidence that in some cases the tank caryying the drum was vulnerable. The one I have read is a case where 75L24 equipped Panzer IVs take out a few Red Army heavies by firing HE at them while defending against a counter-attack during the border battles (I think it is in Glantz 'Initial Period').

Unsurprisingly, in a duel where the Germans have to use low-velocity guns to hit a very small target (the drum), while the Russians use high velocity AP at a large target (the tank), the Germans lose and have to scurry off. I am sure CMBB will model this outcome historically correct.

Overall, I think BTS has it right by ignoring this except for visual modelling.

[Brian]

Interestingly, one of the first "kills" by Australian troops in Korea, occurred when a Sergeant fired his Bren gun at the external fuel tanks on the back of a T34/85.

As to the matter of "flash point" temperatures, I think you'll find that might well because Russian crude is what is called a "heavy" oil, as against most others, notably Arabian oils, which were/are a "light" oil. Heavy oils require more effort to convert to either Diesoline or Petrol. Dieso, which is what was used exclusively in Soviet tanks, has a considerably higher "flash point" than Petrol, by quite a margin. One should also remember, its not the liquid fuel that burns but the fumes.

Perhaps someone might like to hazard a guess when petrol is utilised to actually put out fires? Its quite a common practice here in Australia.