>A big problem for each army is the fuel supply (may be except the
>US Army). It's not only the price for the fuel at home, it costs
>much more money (and blood) to bring the fuel to the combat zone.
>Rommel got big trouble in Africa because the fuel supply was cut
>and the Battle of the Bulge ended because the TIGERS and KING
>TIGERS run out of fuel.
Hi All,
The history of the RASC makes for interesting reading on this point
showing just how quickly a supply in terms of millions of gallons could
be established and transported to the front line even with the infamous
"flimsies" and small trucks by todays standards. I'll supply the book
details if you're interested.
I have an aged relative who was shot out of two Stuarts and a Grant in N
Africa(guarding Mersa Matruth without food, water or ammunition) without
a fire, although the Stuarts were hit in the engine compartment, petrol
or AVGAS for the aero engined tanks was so plentiful they used it for
washing clothes, water was a different matter altogether and priceless.
The biggest problem was in fact the 2 pdr "pop-gun" he tells me, and not
really addressed until the arrival of Shermans, they were told in
training apparently not to open fire beyond 400yds with the 2 pdr. . . .
. . . . . .
Surely the Battle of the Bulge ended when the fog lifted and air power
cut the "fuel" supply, diesel power would have made a negligible
difference. It is true that the German tank crews called the Sherman a
"Tommy Cooker" though owing to its propensity to "brew up".
Joe Baker makes the valid point about the heat signature although this
has no bearing until the relatively recent arrival of thermal imaging,
the cold-start diesel cloud is visible though with the Mk 1 eyeball and
lets not forget the diesels of W.W.II and shortly after are very
different from the compact and high-powered beasts of today which even
so have power/weight/size parameters apparently unacceptable for the
Abrams which uses a gas turbine.
The fuel fire hazard now appears inconsequential since a hit by modern
ammunition or a shaped-charge missile seems to brew-up a diesel tank
quite effectively from the pictures I recently saw of the last desert
conflict. Diesel does burn fiercely when heated beyond the flash-point
and is in fact more difficult to extinguish than petrol (gas).
Richard
(Southampton UK)
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.