Missing Allied Vehicles -1 reply

Please wait...

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#31 16 years ago
ArtieThe only real difference between the two models is that the T-34 Model 1943 had 70mm of frontal turret armor and the 1941 Model had 52mm.

Depending on the factory the early versions had either 52mm on welded or 60mm on cast, but yes the model 1943 pressed turret was 70mm front.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

55 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#32 16 years ago
Anlushac11...needed highly flammable aviation fuel, was faster than any tank in the desert, hitting speeds as high as 40mph. M5 Stuart had a welded hull of better ballistic shape and had 2 x Cadillac V-8 automobile engines. Same gun, better hull design, used regular gasoline.

Somewhat off the original topic, but would you mind expounding on the differences in fuel there? I can't seem to reconcile aviation fuel being more flammable than gasoline, unless I'm thinking of the wrong type of fuel.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#33 16 years ago
C38368Somewhat off the original topic, but would you mind expounding on the differences in fuel there? I can't seem to reconcile aviation fuel being more flammable than gasoline, unless I'm thinking of the wrong type of fuel.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/fuel/Tech21.htm

I may be wrong. I was under impression that avgas was easier to ignite. Thought I read that somewhere.




ManiK

Dance the dance of life!

50 XP

10th November 2003

0 Uploads

2,134 Posts

0 Threads

#34 16 years ago

I've read that most crews prefered the M3 to the M3A1, due to the lack of a cupola and I think the lack of the gunsight that the M3 had, the M3 should also be used eraly in the pacific, in the phillipenes, guadalcanal and others.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

55 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#35 16 years ago
Anlushac11http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/fuel/Tech21.htm I may be wrong. I was under impression that avgas was easier to ignite. Thought I read that somewhere.

You may well be right, as I have only intuition here. I've little doubt that jet fuel does not ignite do easily as gasoline, but I'd always assumed that avgas would, if anything, be less likely to ignite than standard auto gas simply due to it's higher octane content, which is a retardant. *shrug* It's not a big deal either way, just raised my curiousity. :)




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#36 16 years ago

Well, todays jet fuel ( kerosine ) is just light diesel fuel.

You can throw a burning cigarette in a pool of it and nothing will happen. For it to ignite, it has to be raised to a high pressure/temperature. The gasses that come out of that fuel when it is raised to high pressure/temperature are explosive however. Some older jetliners were leaking kerosine out of overflow valves while they were taxiing.....no cause for panic, not the right pressure/temperature to ignite......

I have been long enough in these fumes in my former job......i had to coordinate all kinds of runway maintenance work ( asphalt repair, runway lights, runway marking ) in the landingzone area with the traffic control tower in a yellow van, and manouvered alot between taxiing jet liners sometimes being caught by one powereing up a little more then idle to when they were in a hurry. Not only dangerous because these jet liners can make your 2000 kg van fly like a toy, also inmidiatly causing headaches since these fumes entered the van anyway regardless of internal circiulation airco. Funny side note : these were really powerfull engine vans.......had to get out of the way in emergencies like hell.....despite that, i have been to the airport authorities office several times becasue a taxiing jetliner had to brake for me, or the workers i was supposed to be coordinating.....

But back ot : so the germans did not use special high octane fuel, but ordinary petrol fuel the tanks used also.......kind of explains why WWII aircraft so readily exploded when shot with standard incendary rounds.




Lt. Valentine

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

20th September 2003

0 Uploads

1,679 Posts

0 Threads

#37 16 years ago

man if i had mod powers i'd ban people who suggest every fucking tank in the world for this mod, yeah that would be so awesome.




Who_Flung_Poo?

No I don't know who did.

50 XP

4th November 2003

0 Uploads

5,360 Posts

0 Threads

#38 16 years ago

Lord stop your damn bitching and go away if you don't like it.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#39 16 years ago
C38368You may well be right, as I have only intuition here. I've little doubt that jet fuel does not ignite do easily as gasoline, but I'd always assumed that avgas would, if anything, be less likely to ignite than standard auto gas simply due to it's higher octane content, which is a retardant. *shrug* It's not a big deal either way, just raised my curiousity. :)

Octane slows the rate at which the fuel burns so you dont get an uncontrolled flame front in the cylinder. When you haev a uncontrolled burning you get tthings like detonation and pinging which damages engine parts. As I understood it avgas was more volatile.

Getting fuel at all was a problem for the Germans, I read somewhere that instead of relying on more expensive and more time consuming high octane avgas they used a regular avgas and relied on the MW50 water injection at high boost to prevent detonation in the engine.




NoCoolOnesLeft

My Blood Is Olive Drab

50 XP

19th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,329 Posts

0 Threads

#40 16 years ago

Just a thought, Malsa has modeled an M5 tank for Op Ov. which is now FH's (I think) so we may see it in the future.