Quoted Text

---

My 2¢

M-1 Tank with Diesel? Probably not.

M-1 Tank with JP-5? Probably so.

etcetera and so on

---

I love the belief that Diesel is some how not going to burn. JP-5 is used in the Navy and Abrams due to the treatment to raise the flash point to a higher level. Thus it is less likely to flash than diesel.
The myth that gasoline tanks burn more often than diesel tanks has been studied and disproven. (please do not try to debate the Sherman "tommy cooker" issue, that was ammo not fuel) Diesel is used in tanks due to the energy density of the fuel not its likely hood to not catch fire.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

My 2¢

M-1 Tank with Diesel? Probably not.

M-1 Tank with JP-5? Probably so.

etcetera and so on

---

I love the belief that Diesel is some how not going to burn. JP-5 is used in the Navy and Abrams due to the treatment to raise the flash point to a higher level. Thus it is less likely to flash than diesel....

---

TM-9-2350-255-10-1

p1-43

DO NOT turn on SMOKE GENERATOR SWITCH if tank is using MOGAS or JP4 for fuel. The MOGAS or JP4 will cause explosions instead of smoke generation and could kill you or damage your tank.



My bad, I said JP-5

Never said a word about the diesel not burning

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

My 2¢

M-1 Tank with Diesel? Probably not.

M-1 Tank with JP-5? Probably so.

etcetera and so on

---

I love the belief that Diesel is some how not going to burn. JP-5 is used in the Navy and Abrams due to the treatment to raise the flash point to a higher level. Thus it is less likely to flash than diesel....

---

TM-9-2350-255-10-1

p1-43

DO NOT turn on SMOKE GENERATOR SWITCH if tank is using MOGAS or JP4 for fuel. The MOGAS or JP4 will cause explosions instead of smoke generation and could kill you or damage your tank.



My bad, I said JP-5

Never said a word about the diesel not burning

---

You imply that the use of diesel would have some effect in the survivability of the tank. The only effect the fuel in a tank can have is the perceived burning of the tank.

As for your TM.. you do understand that the smoke generator simply puts raw fuel in the exhaust to cause smoke. Yes Mogas (regular gas) and JP 4 have a lower flash point and will flame up when you attempt this.

Some one asked if the M1 abrams had a diesel in it. The answer is it has always had a turbine. The turbine in abrams will run on almost anything that burns.

In the end the fuel in a tank has almost nothing to do with its survivability when hit.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

My 2¢

M-1 Tank with Diesel? Probably not.

M-1 Tank with JP-5? Probably so.

etcetera and so on

---

I love the belief that Diesel is some how not going to burn. JP-5 is used in the Navy and Abrams due to the treatment to raise the flash point to a higher level. Thus it is less likely to flash than diesel....

---

TM-9-2350-255-10-1

p1-43

DO NOT turn on SMOKE GENERATOR SWITCH if tank is using MOGAS or JP4 for fuel. The MOGAS or JP4 will cause explosions instead of smoke generation and could kill you or damage your tank.



My bad, I said JP-5

Never said a word about the diesel not burning

---

You imply that the use of diesel would have some effect in the survivability of the tank. The only effect the fuel in a tank can have is the perceived burning of the tank.

As for your TM.. you do understand that the smoke generator simply puts raw fuel in the exhaust to cause smoke. Yes Mogas (regular gas) and JP 4 have a lower flash point and will flame up when you attempt this.

Some one asked if the M1 abrams had a diesel in it. The answer is it has always had a turbine. The turbine in abrams will run on almost anything that burns.

In the end the fuel in a tank has almost nothing to do with its survivability when hit.

Stuff like Leopard I, AMX-30, T54/T55 and maybe T62 should still be valid targets for the various 88mm incarnations. The US 90mm tank gun in M26/M47/M48 plays in the same power range and those where it's targets. With T62 being "hit the side please"

And those things still make up a large number of the tanks world wide.

Quoted Text

---

Stuff like Leopard I, AMX-30, T54/T55 and maybe T62 should still be valid targets for the various 88mm incarnations. The US 90mm tank gun in M26/M47/M48 plays in the same power range and those where it's targets. With T62 being "hit the side please"

And those things still make up a large number of the tanks world wide.

---

Exactly. Think of ARVN M41s against NVA T54s. In favorable tactical situations the main gun on the M41 was adequate for defeating the heavier T-54s. And that gun was less powerful than the KwK 43.

I was home chasing a beautiful brunette when those events happened. I do know that the ARVN actually were successful using the basic M72 LAW on armor (T34-85 and T59's). How they did this is still beyond me, but figure they must have been in the fifty foot range. The generic 90mm gun would literally rip the turret off a T34 at 400 yards, and probably do the same with a T54/T59. Especially if the round hits the breech as it passes thru.
The Isrealies made many 1000 meter one shot kills on T62 and even some T72 (export model) in the Baka Valley many years back. Certain they used a SABOT, but they were using something similar in WWII. So why not?
gary

Quoted Text

---

---

That's cool.

Your opinion is the only one that matters. Got it.

Don't bother replying.

Now if we throw a modern AFPDS shell into the 88 things get more interesting. Why hand cuff the 88 to old solid shot AP. Still unlikely it can punch through the face of modern turrets, but the sides come into play.

So, I say mine then maybe I'm wrong, starting from the assumption that modern tanks if stripped of the various additional ERA type armor, so for example an Abrams, I am quite convinced that if hit sideways from about 800 meters it would certainly penetrate the hull and perhaps also in the turret, frontally I also think that there is no game.
Modern tank are designed for a war of movement whose exposed side is and must be only the front one, always taking the Abrams as an example, this has practically no armor on the hull side or rear, while this is massive only on the turret and hull front. my two cents
Lucio

The sides of the turret are much thicker than they appear. There's a picture floating around of a blown out turret showing the inner and outer skin. The space between the two is several inches thick. They obviously removed the armor that filled the space, probably for security reasons. With the advanced armor the equivalent thickness in RHA used in WWII would be much greater.

I don't believe the 88mm would be able to penetrate it.

I have doubts it would do too much damage to the side of the hull either because of the spacing of the outer armored skirts, tracks and side hull.

The 88mm most likely would be able to take one out from a shot to the rear thru the rear bulkhead and into the engine.

The advances armors of today would shrug off an 88 with out too much damage.

Found the picture I was looking for.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e2/99/4b/e2994b49d0b60e35bad77813944a5f77.jpg

There is no such thing as overbuilt.