31 Aug 20 Garand Picture of the Day

[Daan Kemp]

Diesel fuelled armoured vehicles burn just as easily as petrol ones. Diesel has better fuel consumption and usually less finicky than petrol vehicles. I'm generalising.

[Bob Seijas]

Diesels have higher torque, that's why almost all semi's are diesel and why Boone Pickens's proposal to build nat gas trucks wasn't even considered.

[Bill Hollinger]

From Kendrick Oil:

The flashpoint of gasoline
Gasoline’s flashpoint is at about -49°F (or -45 °C). Depending upon the composition of the fuel and other conditions, this can vary slightly. But, this fuel is reliable as a combustible fuel and easier to ignite than other fuels, like kerosene. This is why it has been used to power vehicles for decades.

The flashpoint of diesel fuel
Diesel’s flashpoint can vary depending upon the type of diesel being used. The most common type, known as #2, has a flashpoint of around 125°F to 180°F. It is important to remember that these numbers can change (for any fuel) based on the air and pressure around the liquid.

[Daan Kemp]

Combat indicates diesel fuelled armoured vehicles burn just as quickly as petrol. HEAT and APDS penetration create more than ample heat. At those temperatures the fuel actually is unimportant, those inside have restricted survival in any case.

[Bill Hollinger]

Do you have any links that support that? I've always heard the opposite. Thanks

[Daan Kemp]

Sorry, no. I look at development considerations as published in many books and articles; armoured vehicle losses in battle, such as Middle East, India/Pakistan. All of them diesel engined. WWII a mix with more diesel to the end.
Main considerations in armour engines as I can remember from 30 years ago when I last worked with it, are power to weight ratio, loiter time, acceleration, consumption, repair, maintenance, reliability; then such items as smoke signature, smoke generation, noise, etc. Petrol engines weren't even considered due to higher consumption.
Flammability concerns mainly compartmentalisation for fuel and ammunition storage for crew and vehicle surviveability.
All big/large/huge vehicles are diesel for a reason not based on flammability.
We can discuss this at length but I fear the thread has been hijacked enough?

[CINDERS]

The power plant on the M4 was a weak point even though allot of them went up from poor ammo storage (Hence the nik Ronson) when the hull was penetrated. Having a gasoline aero engine pushing you along that needed high octane gas was asking for trouble. Although there were 3 variants that had diesels - M4A2 - M4A2(76)W GM 6046 diesel (conjoined 6-71s) and M4A6 diesel Caterpillar D200A radial

But it filled a gap very well until better tanks came along even though the 88's took a terrible toll on them I for one would not have wanted to be a tanker in a 1-1 face off with either of those tank killers like the Tiger 1, Panther of the duel role Flak 88 be like kicking an elephant up the rear and hope he does not mush you.

[Mark in Rochester]

another opinion

Next up is the legendary "Ronson" moniker. People often point to the fact the Sherman uses an aircraft engine as evidence of how the Sherman would light up "first time, every time", as per the tag line of the source lighter. Now the engine may have been an aircraft engine, but that does not mean it must run on high octane fuel as this famous Youtube personality erroneously explains. Instead of high octane gasoline the Sherman used more often than not around 80 octane fuel, that's a lower octane rating than the lowest octane rated gasoline available at a gas station today, not to mention the ratings for octane differ on the type of vehicle being used. The standard 110 aircraft octane rating fuel is actually more around 130 octane fuel for ground vehicles. Now the Ronson myth does however have a bit of truth to it. Early Shermans had very vulnerable ammo racks which were stored in the "humps" near the front of the hull. The placement of these ammo racks made it easy for German gunners to know where to hit for catastrophic kills on the Sherman tanks. The army knew of this problem and moved immediately to fix it. The army developed "wet" ammo racks which involved putting the ammo racks inside of water filled jackets to douse any embers or fires immediately, and they also moved the ammo racks to the bottom of the tank to reduce the chances of them being hit by AT weapons. Wet stowage reduced the chances of an ammo rack fire or detonation in Sherman tanks to only 15% compared to 60-80% of dry stowage Shermans. The conclusion on the Ronson myth is that while there is truth behind it, the myth has been so overblown as to rival the invulnerability myth of the Tiger.

[Daan Kemp]

Evidently the 'Ronson' myth appeared post WWII?

[Tom in N.J.]

Mash barrel and condenser, coil is in one of the barrels.