Gasoline warfare

Everything else!

Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k

Post Reply
User avatar
dbt1949
Posts: 25688
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
Location: Hogeye Arkansas

Gasoline warfare

Post by dbt1949 »

I was watching Green Berets and as they were defending the camp somebody yelled "foo gas" and they lit a ditch full of gasoline or something. And I got to thinking...........
What the hell is "foo gas"?
And secondly, as I have since seen defensive forces use this trick in other movies..........How do you keep gas or oil or whatever is a ditch and viable for when it's needed? Isn't it either going to evaporate over time or more likely get absorbed in the ground? In modern times of course they can use a plastic tarps or trash bags or something. They can prepare for this way a head of the time. But what of olde days? How did, say the Romans keep the "fuel" in the ditch and viable?
Castles of olde kept boiling oil pots on the walls to dump on the attackers. I never heard of a moat full of oil tho.

And the second part of my question.
During WW 2 the Russians had a very food tank called the T-34 that they used most of the war and updated to use after the war. The design called for up to four gas cans/tanks to be carried on the back.
Wasn't this very dangerous? Wouldn't those gas cans be igniting the first chance they could? Were they bullet proof? If I was a German soldier and saw these coming (and assuming I didn't run away) I would be shooting for the viewing slits of maybe down the cannon barrel and these gas cans.
If ruptured would this gas not flow into the engine?
I can understand the Russians not caring too much about the crewmen but it would be a waste of a good tank if this happened a lot.
Or did they remove the gas tanks before the battle and only use them to carry the gas around between battles?
Ye Olde Farte
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Isgrimnur »

It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Isgrimnur »

It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Blackhawk »

dbt1949 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:31 am And the second part of my question.
During WW 2 the Russians had a very food tank called the T-34 that they used most of the war and updated to use after the war. The design called for up to four gas cans/tanks to be carried on the back.
Wasn't this very dangerous? Wouldn't those gas cans be igniting the first chance they could? Were they bullet proof? If I was a German soldier and saw these coming (and assuming I didn't run away) I would be shooting for the viewing slits of maybe down the cannon barrel and these gas cans.
If ruptured would this gas not flow into the engine?
I can understand the Russians not caring too much about the crewmen but it would be a waste of a good tank if this happened a lot.
Or did they remove the gas tanks before the battle and only use them to carry the gas around between battles?
The T34 carried its gas on the back sides, not on top of the engine grates, and they were spare tanks, not connected to the engine. And they weren't always gas - they also carried oil in them from time to time. If it were punctured it would run down the sides of the mudguards. And if it caught fire... it really wouldn't do much. I guess if they sat in it long enough it might mess with the rubber on the wheels, but that's about it.

Image

The actual engine grill is where the crate is sitting.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
dbt1949
Posts: 25688
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
Location: Hogeye Arkansas

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by dbt1949 »

I know that liquid gas doesn't catch on fire. Or at least is hard to light. It the gaseous gas above the liquid that catches fire. In the army I used to watch some smartass throwing lit cigarettes into a bucket of gasoline all the time. Because it was out in the open no concentrated gaseous gas was above it.
Interesting about the T-34.
I would still shoot at it if the tank was assaulting me (assuming I didn't run away).
I knew foo gas was a real thing but I still don't know how it or the ancients version was kept viable more than a little while.
Ye Olde Farte
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Blackhawk »

If you could get the fuel tanks to explode, they'd do pretty much nothing. They're not going to have any effect on the almost two inches of solid steel they're mounted on. You might get lucky and splash something in the engine or melt a road wheel, which would mostly just annoy them afterwards. Your best bet is to get the hell out of dodge and hope there's a better target. You'd stand a slightly better chance if you were close, as they only have two machine guns (one on the front, the other on the front of the turret), and the turret takes about 15 seconds to go all the way around, so you could run back and forth around it - but they do have pistol ports on the sides. Now, if you can get close and have anti-vehicle grenades or explosives, you could knock out the tracks or engine, which makes them an easy target for other tanks/TDs.

And this is why they don't generally operate alone. They support infantry, the infantry protects the tanks, and if you're running in circles around tank A, the coaxial guns on tanks B, C, D, and E are dealing with you.

Anything that is likely to explode with enough force to destroy the tank is inside of the tank, behind the armor, and for good reason.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Apollo
Posts: 1789
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Gardendale, AL

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Apollo »

The T-34 used diesel fuel, which is not flammable (at least, not nearly as flammable as gasoline). The US and Germany primarily used gasoline, which made their tanks much more flammable. In fact, some German soldiers referred to the US Sherman Tanks as "Ronson's", since they would often burst into flame after only one hit.
User avatar
dbt1949
Posts: 25688
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
Location: Hogeye Arkansas

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by dbt1949 »

I remember one summer we had some extra diesel fuel and I tried to use it to start a fire and burn some branches. Had one hell of a time doing it.
Ye Olde Farte
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949
Jeff V
Posts: 36414
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Jeff V »

I think Mythbusters addressed the exploding gas tank thing. It's a Hollywood thing, not a real thing.
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Blackhawk »

There's nothing to make it explode. There's no pressure and the reaction isn't strong enough to create the kind of burn speed required. Gas fumes in an enclosed space, sure, but there has to be exactly the right gas/oxygen ratio, and while it may blow the walls off of a house with the pressure, there won't be much of a fireball, as it's all consumed almost instantly. The gas explosions you see in films are jugs of gas on top of normal explosives that turn the gas into a mist as it ignites. The biggest danger is that a very small gasoline explosion can rupture the container and spray liquid gasoline around, causing a nasty fire. Gas tanks simply don't explode, and most stories about cars exploding while on fire are simply headline dramatizing 'burst into flames' when the tank ruptured. A lot of stories about explosions are actually the tires exploding (popping like balloons) which can, again, spray a bunch of gasoline around it if is on the ground near them. I had a car burn once, and I can tell you that those exploding tires are loud.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
McNutt
Posts: 12368
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:57 pm
Location: What's the opposite of the Twittersphere

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by McNutt »

I did see a show that demonstrated a Soviet technique for destroying German Panzers. The Soviets hiding in buildings would drop Malatov cocktails over the engine grates and that would usually be enough to completely disable the tank.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Blackhawk wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:06 pm If you could get the fuel tanks to explode, they'd do pretty much nothing. They're not going to have any effect on the almost two inches of solid steel they're mounted on. You might get lucky and splash something in the engine or melt a road wheel, which would mostly just annoy them afterwards. Your best bet is to get the hell out of dodge and hope there's a better target.
Shoot a hole in the bottom of the gas tank and then run. You'll cut down on their range and cost them some fuel. Minute strategic victory.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Kasey Chang
Posts: 20750
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:20 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Kasey Chang »

Apollo wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:09 pm The T-34 used diesel fuel, which is not flammable (at least, not nearly as flammable as gasoline). The US and Germany primarily used gasoline, which made their tanks much more flammable. In fact, some German soldiers referred to the US Sherman Tanks as "Ronson's", since they would often burst into flame after only one hit.
Frankly, that's probably a myth invented by the Brits well after the war. Why would a German soldier name a Yank tank with a BRITISH lighter's brand? Also keep in mind that Ronson lighters were premium stuff that only officers can afford. As for why Brits would do such a thing... Probably has to do with why they had to take American tanks in WW2 as their last "decent" WW2 tank was the Matilda.

The Chieftain, sorta historian for World of Tanks and a former US Cavalry tank commander himself, said that whether the Ronson name was used were "inconclusive". But logically it really made no sense.

Finally, keep in mind that by 1944 Shermans were redesigned to move the ammo into the main body, and are stored in "wet stowage" (the ammo racks are armored with water-filled jackets around the rounds) so the turrets cooking off is even rarer.
My game FAQs | Playing: She Will Punish Them, Sunrider: Mask of Arcadius, The Outer Worlds
User avatar
Kasey Chang
Posts: 20750
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:20 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Kasey Chang »

Mostly unrelated... Check out the trailer for T-34 where the Russian director decided to add fast and furious type moves and Matrix bullet-time to tank battles. It's... oddly engaging. And you can watch it on Youtube free with ads.
My game FAQs | Playing: She Will Punish Them, Sunrider: Mask of Arcadius, The Outer Worlds
User avatar
dbt1949
Posts: 25688
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
Location: Hogeye Arkansas

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by dbt1949 »

I don't know if this counts but the flame thrower version of the Sherman was called a Zippo.
Ye Olde Farte
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949
User avatar
Kasey Chang
Posts: 20750
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:20 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Kasey Chang »

dbt1949 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:12 pm I don't know if this counts but the flame thrower version of the Sherman was called a Zippo.
By Yanks, absolutely. Brits called them Ronsons, which is only supposed to refer to the flamethrower variants, which was actually developed by the Canadians.

Brits never really made their own design. Their "own" flamethrower tank, the "Matilda Frog" was designed by the Aussies. Brits eventually got their own As the Murray FT (Matilda Variant) but it wasn't soon enough to join the war.
My game FAQs | Playing: She Will Punish Them, Sunrider: Mask of Arcadius, The Outer Worlds
Jeff V
Posts: 36414
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Jeff V »

Enlarge Image
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
DOS=HIGH
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:06 am

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by DOS=HIGH »

Kasey Chang wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 9:40 am
dbt1949 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:12 pm I don't know if this counts but the flame thrower version of the Sherman was called a Zippo.
By Yanks, absolutely. Brits called them Ronsons, which is only supposed to refer to the flamethrower variants, which was actually developed by the Canadians.

Brits never really made their own design. Their "own" flamethrower tank, the "Matilda Frog" was designed by the Aussies. Brits eventually got their own As the Murray FT (Matilda Variant) but it wasn't soon enough to join the war.

You forgot about the Churchill Crocodile.
Image
User avatar
dbt1949
Posts: 25688
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
Location: Hogeye Arkansas

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by dbt1949 »

I was thinking the same thing. Probably the most "famous" flame thrower tank of WW 2.
Ye Olde Farte
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949
User avatar
Kasey Chang
Posts: 20750
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:20 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Kasey Chang »

dbt1949 wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:40 pm I was thinking the same thing. Probably the most "famous" flame thrower tank of WW 2.
Forgot about the Churchills and the other "Hobart's Funnies" that made it to Normandy.

But Only 5600 Churchills were made. UK received 17000 Shermans during WW2, not to mention all the other tanks it got.

Cromwell was outdated as it entered service. Comet was like the M26... Barely made it into the end of WW2. Centurion ended up a post-war design.
My game FAQs | Playing: She Will Punish Them, Sunrider: Mask of Arcadius, The Outer Worlds
User avatar
Apollo
Posts: 1789
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Gardendale, AL

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Apollo »

Kasey Chang wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:47 pm
Apollo wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:09 pm The T-34 used diesel fuel, which is not flammable (at least, not nearly as flammable as gasoline). The US and Germany primarily used gasoline, which made their tanks much more flammable. In fact, some German soldiers referred to the US Sherman Tanks as "Ronson's", since they would often burst into flame after only one hit.
Frankly, that's probably a myth invented by the Brits well after the war. Why would a German soldier name a Yank tank with a BRITISH lighter's brand? Also keep in mind that Ronson lighters were premium stuff that only officers can afford...
Nope, that's actually from the lips of a German Tank veteran from WWII. This was from one of the many shows about tank warfare that I used to watch on the History Channel many years ago when they were much more focused on History. Of course, he could have been lying for some inexplicable reason, but that's what he claimed.

Furthermore, Ronson was founded as a US company in the late 19th century, though I believe the national origin of Ronson lighters had little to do with the Germans calling the Sherman tanks by that name, especially since they were used by both the US and Britain anyway.
User avatar
Brian
Posts: 12553
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:51 am
Location: South of Heaven
Contact:

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Brian »

I'd always heard that it was the American tank crews themselves that referred to them as being Ronsons.
That sort of black humor that always finds its way among those fighting the battles.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Kasey Chang
Posts: 20750
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:20 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Re: Gasoline warfare

Post by Kasey Chang »

Brian wrote: Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:52 pm I'd always heard that it was the American tank crews themselves that referred to them as being Ronsons.
That sort of black humor that always finds its way among those fighting the battles.
I'd thought they'd say "Zippos" instead.
My game FAQs | Playing: She Will Punish Them, Sunrider: Mask of Arcadius, The Outer Worlds
Post Reply