Best Tank of WWII

[Andrey Egorov]

The fuel itself - surely, that's the main reason for placing them along sides of hull. But fumes of solar oil detonate the same way that fumes of gasoline.
I'll try to translate that report in the evening if someone interested. It claimed that tank filled up to 10-15% multiplies explosion energy by 2-4, thus making 76.2 mm AP shell equal to 152 mm AP

[Triple C]

Interesting. Diesel fuel tanks when properly arrayed could be used actually as a form of extra protection, but this does not seem to be the case here.

[Andrey Egorov]

Diesel fuel tanks must be full to form a protection. The moment you start to comsume the fuel, fuel tank becomes a bomb. The more you consume, the more explosive tank become.

[zraver]

Diesel fuel tanks must be full to form a protection. The moment you start to comsume the fuel, fuel tank becomes a bomb. The more you consume, the more explosive tank become.

The reason full tanks are more protective than tanks that are less than full is where the air/fuel line is. A tank that is 1/4 full but gets hit below the air/fuel will not explode acting as if it was full. But the chance of a round hitting above the line increases with each gallon consumed.

Vapor suppression systems and tank baffles can reduce this even further. If you can keep the fuel from sloshing around its less likely to aerosol inside the tank. And if you can keep the vapors evacuated the round has a harder time sparking a fire.

[Andrey Egorov]

I just finished the translation.

It's 2 AM, I slept 4 hours during last 40, so sorry for errors, misprintings and overall lack of skills. Inside {} - my comments.

Ref. № 632/3
11/IX-44 y.

Report of spec.lab. NKV № 101-1 on theme:
Examination of hitting features of T-34 tank fuel tanks with armor-piercing/high-explosive and cumulative (armor-burning){HEAT} shells of german fascist army.
Resp. executors: Rozov, Kaminsky, Shchurov
Superviser: Sarafanov

1. History of question
In the battles of spring-summer 1943 tank army, tank corps and tank brigades commanders begin to note that cases of T-34 tanks combat losses with catastrophic explosions of fuel tanks or fire in engine compartment became more frequent. For instance, cases of burn T-34 tanks in battles of summer 1943 near Kursk exceeded those of T-70 tanks by 4-9%...
By order of chief of BTU GBTU of Red Army engeneer-colonel Afonin, 11 Sept. 1943 a comission was formed to study this problem.
Our group studied possibilities of T-34 fuel tank explosion with various armor-piercing tools and valuation of its probable impact on crew and inner equipment.

2. Target setting
Comission's survey of 72 destroyed during Kursk battle tanks on SPAM {field repair} bases have shown that most of them (68%) were destroyed by fire originated in result of fuel tank depressurization with subconcious inflammation of diesel fuel.
All mentiond tanks have breach in hull side or underskirt by AP, armor-burning shells or field charge.
About 1/3 abovementioned tanks lack one or two front fuel tanks and have demolition inside or partial, or even complete destruction of hull's welded seams, caused by internal explosion.
Only little part (8%) of tanks have signs of inner explosion with singns of flames, whereas 24% of machines were destroyed with explosion without any signs of iner flames. Often even ordinance was completely unharmed in chest. According given order our group researched this particular type of destruction - fuel tank explosion.
Members of comission engeneer-colonel Gurov and MVTU associate professor Krutov assumed after inspection of exploded tanks that given damage was caused by explosion of front fuel tanks placed inside crew compartment of T-34 after impact of some specific german ammunition.
Engeneer-major Firsov expressed opinion that such explosion could happen in result of burst of high temperature ammunition based on thermite or electron {aluminium or alloy powder and mixed with rust}
Group of com. Sarafanov recieved a task personally from chief of GBTU to explore the possibility of T-34 fuel tanks detonation after hit by various types of armor-piercing ammunition of german fascist army
{part missing}

4. Study equipment.
To verify assumtions of coms. Gurov, Firsov and Krutov, three sections layouts of 35 mm thick armoured steel with 135 l. {35 gallons} fuel tank established inside were built by NII-48 and Uralmashzavod. Also according to cover letter № 312-a from 21.IV-44 y. a T-34 hull with turret and equipment but without weapons was put to testing ground by BTU.
{part missing again}

5. Experimenting on location.
First shelling of layouts was on 12/XII-43y. from ballistic cannon m.40 from 30 meters distance.
1. During the test fuel tank was full of diesel fuel, recieved by cover letter of com. Afonin from 5/XII. Total spent 8 m.38 shells, 5 m.39/40 shells and 5 armor-burning shells. The results are the following:

• During tests fuel tank was completely destroyed 3 times, diesel fuel was flamed 4 times. Explosions were not recorded.
• When the fuel tank was hit by fragments of m39/40 shell they were abruptly dragged. Many of fragments did not break through.

Conclusions: 100% filled fuel tank of T-34 tank cannot be a source to inner explosion of T-34 tank, but even serves a protection from fragments of armor and cores of m.39/40 shells. {Guess it's the exact meaning of these fuel tanks}
2. Since com. Krutov expected that petrol cannot explode either if tank is full, with com. Fedin sanction a tank of petrol was installed into section. 3 shots was fired with m.38 shell and one armor-burning. Explosions were not recorded, in 2 tests petrol flamed.

Second stage of trials was began 9/II-44y. For trials the same weapons were used with addition of 88mm recoilless cannon m.1943, firing 88mm armour-burning mines.
According to trials program partially filled tanks were tested. Prior to the test shootings the tank was carried on a truck for 1-2 hours on service roads on testing area. After that fuel was poured off according to test conditions and tank was being installed on layout.

4th series of shooting. Tanks filled to 10-25%. Tank exploding from hit of coherent jet being filled to 25% or less. Equivalent bursting power was near 30-50 gramms of trotyl. The hatch cover on roof of layout made to lift off the tanks was smashed out. In case of filling with petrol explosiveness reducing on avearge 1.5 times comparing to diesel fuel. Fuel tank detonation caused hatch cover to open. Welded seams of layout remained intact.
Another picture is observed when inside almost empty tank a high explosive part of 75mm armor-piercing shell with red ring (80 gramms of trotyl with detonator of 20 gramms of phlegmatized tan{I don't know how to translate it, it seems to be acronym. Pretty sure some one of military or defence professionals would recognize it, but I' not} in aluminium cup) is bursting. In this case exploding effect of the shell is heavily (several times) increasing. Welded seams of underskirt was destroyed by explosion, after that shock wave ripped underskirt offand partly destroyed the roof of layout. Layout admitted off.

6. Conclusions:
The best ratio for detonation of T-34 fuel tank is when it's 10-15% full and AP shell m.38 bursting inside. Burst causes immediate detonation fuel's vapour which adds to shell's explosion, mmultiplying it by 2-4, which corresponds with effect of 105-122mm AP shell.
Even better summary effect is reached when domestic 76.2mm AP shell БР-350А which contains 150 grmms of trotyl bursts. Summary effect corresponds with 152mm AP shell БР-540Б type, which contains 400 gramms of trotyl.
With reducing caliber of AP shell probability of fuel tank explosion decreases dramatically. 37mm and 45mm AP shell cause almost non existing detonation. It should be noted that further increasing of AP caliber do not lead to significant increase explosive power of ammunition bursting inside the fuel tank. The presence of 75-85mm containing 50-100 gramms of trotyl or less amount of morre powerful blasting substances (for instance, 30-80 gramms of A-1X-2 mixture or 25-50 gramms of phligmatized gexogen) is optimal, The capacity of fuel tank should not be less than 100 litres. 30-50 litres do not make significant increasing of AP ammunition blasting power.

Countermeasures:
1. Do not allow placing of fuel tanks in crew compartment
2. During action spend the fuel from rear tanks first as their hit is less probable
3. Try to lessen accumulation of fuel vapour and formation fuel vapour of high concentration inside tank with constructing measures.
4. Lessen volume of fuel tanks inside crew compartment at least twice.
5. Place fuel tanks behind armoured leaktight wall

Rozanov {such as in document}
Kaminsky
Shchurov
Chief of the group Sarafanov

So now I clearly see that not only fuel tank ventilation system, but even simple dividing one tank into two or three smaller ones could greatly improve crew protection of T-34. Thus the idea of protecting crew with fuel tanks becomes more resonable. The point is configuration of the tanks.

[zraver]

It's 2 AM, I slept 4 hours during last 40, so sorry for errors, misprintings and overall lack of skills. Inside {} - my comments.



So now I clearly see that not only fuel tank ventilation system, but even simple dividing one tank into two or three smaller ones could greatly improve crew protection of T-34. Thus the idea of protecting crew with fuel tanks becomes more resonable. The point is configuration of the tanks.

That is why modern fuel tanks are baffled, to reduce the amount of fuel turning into an aerosol from sloshing around.

[Yermak]

The best all around tank was definatly the T-34, but if I could only manufacture the same quantaties of one tank throughout the war I would rank them in the following order:
1. Tiger
2. Panther
3. T-34
4/5. PzIV/Sherman (depending on modifications of each)
6.Churchill

Oh and don't forget the KV-1 and 2's that scared the crap out of Germans in the early stages of the war. Probably more of a fear factor than the T-34-76. And also the IS-2 and 3 tanks which where a good match against the Tiger. Of course the American Pershing was a nice heavy tank too.
Just my 2c.

[Kernow]

Challenger II fuel tanks are baffled and is also fitted with fuel bags. Real git to change mind. They also have breathers so the tanks do not implode.

[Triple C]

Now that I am a lot more acquainted with Russian tanks than I first posted on this thread, where do we stand on JS-122?

[Andrey Egorov]

Into the prototypes? It differed from JS-2 only with muzzle brake

[bugs]

Low ammo load .
the js-1 had a effective load of ammo despite his gun, being inferior to the 88'th.

[Andrey Egorov]

With its firing rate JS-2 could not spend more ammo during one battle anyway

[dalem]

I'm reading Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt", a nice, and authoritative, counter to Belton Cooper's axe-grinding "Death Traps". Very informative.

-dale

[Triple C]

I suppose IS-2 M44 is a much less confusing nomelcature. I felt the IS-2 was the best breakthrough tank of WWII, far better than the Tiger E and I see Tiger B as basically an abject failure. The ammunition load of 39 rounds was not an issue for an offensively line-breaker, as the expoitation and mopping up would be handled by the T-34s. It probably had the best tank gun of the war in terms of striking a balance between HE and AP performance. All that in a package about the weight of the Panther. Not bad!

[bugs]

I suppose IS-2 M44 is a much less confusing nomelcature. I felt the IS-2 was the best breakthrough tank of WWII, far better than the Tiger E and I see Tiger B as basically an abject failure. The ammunition load of 39 rounds was not an issue for an offensively line-breaker, as the expoitation and mopping up would be handled by the T-34s. It probably had the best tank gun of the war in terms of striking a balance between HE and AP performance. All that in a package about the weight of the Panther. Not bad!

Triple C may i remind you that the Tiger tank first appeared on the battlefield on September 1942 (near Mga) and the Is-2 on February 1944.
The 122 mm gun has obvious better HE performance but the tiger tank carried 92 rounds opposed to 28 in the Is-2.
The soviets had stick to the IS-2 until the end of the war as opposed to the germans who discontinued Tiger I production in august 1944. One could argue that the resources used in the Tiger B could be used in fielding another thousand Tiger I in late 44/ early 45.
The two tanks engaged each other on rare occasions and at combat ranges which favored the tank who could reload faster and bring his gun to target quicker.