| capnvic | 27 Feb 2017 8:39 p.m. PST |
What was the doctrine for jettisoning the external fuel drums on Soviet MBTs? |
| Mako11 | 28 Feb 2017 1:07 a.m. PST |
My understanding is they could be jettisoned, though if kept topped up, they didn't present much danger. |
| 7dot62mm | 28 Feb 2017 2:42 a.m. PST |
They were full of diesel fuel which is not very flammable. An unlikely explosion of a fuel drum would not explode / set alight the vehicle itself. For example I believe the T-55, T-64 and T-72 have unarmored fuel tanks on their side sponsons. |
| Khaki08 | 28 Feb 2017 6:13 a.m. PST |
I think I read somewhere that the fuel in the side sponsons not only would not explode if impacted, but also offered a degree of 'armour' as the liquid contents dissipated the impact of chemical energy rounds. Can anyone back this up? |
 Legion 4  | 28 Feb 2017 9:17 a.m. PST |
As 7.62mm posted. Yes, generally Diesel is much less flammable than MOGAS. Unlike you sometimes see on TV …  I have not heard that Khaki08. But sometimes who knows what the Russians were thinking at any given time ? Just from my past experiences, etc. I know I'd rather not depend on those/any fuel tanks of any type for armor protection. Even though with Diesel, the probability of them catching fire/blowing up, etc., is small. Call me – not wanting to push my luck. I know all our fuel trucks in the ARMY, whether diesel or MOGAS, had "FLAMMABLE" markers/placards, etc., on them … Again No need to tempt fate … |
| Vostok17 | 28 Feb 2017 10:01 a.m. PST |
Before the battle, all the fuel from the auxiliary fuel tanks drained. |
| capnvic | 28 Feb 2017 11:48 a.m. PST |
I know that the external fuel tanks posed little problem. I have seen T-64's and T-80s with or without the aft fuel drums. I didn't understand the inconsistency… Thanks for the information! It was helpful. |
| willlucv | 28 Feb 2017 2:11 p.m. PST |
Diesel fuel is very flammable, it just takes longer to ignite, but burns slowly and consequently develops more heat, in comparison to petrol which gives off a vapour which is explosive. This is why partially empty fuel tanks are dangerous in certain conditions, an ignition source will send up the vapour, turning the fuel vessel into a bomb. |
| Legion 4 | 28 Feb 2017 3:22 p.m. PST |
Yes, that is why the "recipe" for Molotov Cocktails is : 2/3 oil or diesel
1/3 gasoline With the neck of the bottle empty for the vapors, which is very explosive. *Disclaimer : Don't try this at home (or at all for that matter) … |
| seneffe | 28 Feb 2017 3:32 p.m. PST |
I also recall that the diesel was drained from the aux fuel tanks before battle by Syrians/Egyptians too. Possibly a waste of time as Sov diesel had a high combustion point. External fuel was not a usual primary cause of Sov tank loss according to the Israelis, although as willlucv says- once it got started it burned very well. Much more important was risky ammo storage plus close proximity of electrics and hydraulics- result of design compromise to get a lot of fighting power into a small package. WWI British battlecruisers on tracks. |
| Mako11 | 28 Feb 2017 5:54 p.m. PST |
I've read that it's better to have them filled, so there's no chance of fumes, if they are hit, so less chance of combustion. I imagine if they do go up in flames, they can just be jettisoned, assuming the gear to do that isn't damaged by the impact. Yea, various nations even factor in fuel as "armor", and a buffer against projectiles. I was reading just last night though, that supposedly the T-55s had side armor to protect their over the tread, gas tanks. If that's true, then I imagine later Soviet/Russian tank models had similar arrangements. The M-1 tank has side fuel tanks, and they're considered to be part of the vehicle protection system as well. |
| capnvic | 28 Feb 2017 9:21 p.m. PST |
The Syrians and the Egyptians had concerns regarding the rear fuel tanks on the BMP-1. |
| capnvic | 28 Feb 2017 9:33 p.m. PST |
Most catastrophic explosions of Soviet tanks were due to the ammunition brewing up. Look at the photos of destroyed T-72M's during Desert Storm. Not a pretty sight. I don't have the hang of posting pics yet. |
| capnvic | 28 Feb 2017 9:43 p.m. PST |
link I like the way the T64BV looks without the auxiliary fuel tanks. link |
| Vostok17 | 28 Feb 2017 11:37 p.m. PST |
With diesel fuel there is one unpleasant thing – if it is on fire, it is not extinguished (in any case, with the help of available funds). So that the use of rack-tank as additional armor – it is only in extreme cases.
And yes – the main problem of Soviet tanks in a very dense package. Oh, and for the T-64/72/80 – in the "Morozov cigarette lighter", more precisely in the shells in the combustible cases. |
| Legion 4 | 01 Mar 2017 9:44 a.m. PST |
On our old Tank ID charts, it showed where ammo, fuel, etc. was stowed in Russian AFVs. As we see from some recent footage of former Russian AFVs in Mid East service. They can become quite a "fire works" show if hit by the "right" weapon in the "right" place … But generally that could be said about many AFVs. But NATO AFVs seem to be designed to have more "survivability". I know the M1 is … The M-1 tank has side fuel tanks, and they're considered to be part of the vehicle protection system as well.
Yes, but the M1 has better fire extinguishing tech. I've seen it. However, no Tanker I ever worked with said, "Yeah, we got extra armor when our fuel tanks are topped off !". Like I said, no need to push the envelope. And we certainly didn't feel that way about the M113 !  |
tries out the expansion roads set.
