Com-Central.net

As per request,....







Enjoy
Don

That just seems like an obvious Bad Idea on so many levels....

You wouldn't have any shots of the 2 barrel rack that was fitted to M24s, would you? Thanks.

Super! Thank You Dontos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Doug! Hi Folks!

- Doug_Kibbey

That just seems like an obvious Bad Idea on so many levels....

Does that mean you think drop tanks on a fighter plane is a bad idea?

The way I see it, that was a way to adopte an fighter phane's drop tanks to an armored vehicle.

A tank would used the fuel in the rack while moving up to the line of departure. The racks would be dropped in a secure location where they could be recovered.

Keep the following info in mind:

M46 cruising range approx 80 miles
M47 same
M48 cruising range approx 70 miles with jettion fuel tanks, approx 135 miles
M48A2 and A2C cruising range approx 160 with jettion tanks, approx 250 miles
M48A3 approx 300 miles. The jettion system was no longer needed.

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts out!

Arguably better than the fixed, external tanks on many Russian AFVs or carting lose barrels on the rear decking!

Thanks Don. That was an interesting approach to a problem. I remember a series of photos from RIA that showed these racks under test. The tank would make a hard slew to one side and drop two barrels, then a hard slew to the other side to drop the final two, then proceed on its mission. The first few minutes of Elvis Presley's "GI Blues" shows a 3rd Armored Division M48A1 on maneuvers with the fuel rack fitted.

When I worked on M60's I remember a wire inside the right rear of the hull that dead-ended. I looked it up on a schematic and it said "Fuel Jettison".

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Doug! Hi Folks!

- Doug_Kibbey

That just seems like an obvious Bad Idea on so many levels....

Does that mean you think drop tanks on a fighter plane is a bad idea?

Sgt, Scouts out!

Well, drop tanks on aircraft are not flimsy 55 gal. drums positioned immediately over the hot exhausts of a vehicle vibrating/bouncing over roads/uneven ground out of view to the crew and subject to anybody with an antique firearm taking potshot at them. That's rather my point.

Gas is more safely transported in sturdy, purpose-built trucks that can follow in the trains behind the tanks in advance. It worked well enough in every war from WWII to Desert Storm...assuming your side had the fuel and the means to move it.

Hi Doug! Hi Folks!

- Doug_Kibbey

..........Gas is more safely transported in sturdy, purpose-built trucks that can follow in the trains behind the tanks in advance. It worked well enough in every war from WWII to Desert Storm...assuming your side had the fuel and the means to move it.

I have to agree with that. But here is my problem, at what point did "purpose-built" fuel trucks become stardard TOE issue to tank, armored infantry(Mech Inf) and Armored Field Artillery (SP) units?

AFAIK, the first "purpose-built" fuel truck was the M559 (Goer) tankers which where only issued to tank bns in Europe around 1977 or so and only served for a few years. The next fuel truck was the M978 (Hemmt) tanker while carring JP-8 jet fuel did work very well during DS/DS and OIF.

As I understand it, the 5 gallon can and the 55 gallon drum was the standard up until the M54 5 ton 6x6 cargo truck was issued with a twin aluminum pod and pump/hose reel kit.

The only TOE that I have showing a "purpose-built" tanker are the ones showing the M978 (Hemmt). That is why I feel that these racks could have been a workable idea. Not prefect, but just workable.

My 2 cents, which could be very wrong!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Roy, Did armor units ever have the M-49C?

PHOTO FROM: www.olive-drab.com/

- MarkHolloway

Roy, Did armor units ever have the M-49C?

PHOTO FROM: www.olive-drab.com/

Yes. I still have a license for it, from my early days as a tanker...but I won't say how many years ago that was!

Chuck

In my 'earlier days',(1985-86) I remember being attached to Infantry units that were still running in M113A2's. (No Bradleys,...yet).

My Platoon was heading into a refuel point the the Inf Company had set up. I pulled up next to a 5 ton with a 500gal fuel pod and the (Inf) 1SG indicated that we should all fill up, before the remainder of 'his' vehicles got there.

I asked him where the other 3 trucks were for the balance of my Platoon (ie 4 tanks for 4 refuel trucks...) We were running the 'slick' M-1s which had a fuel capacity of 505.3 gal each.

The 1SG sort of 'snorted' when he informed me the single 500 gal pod was for the entire Company 'Team'....!! ( I was a mere PFC, so he didn't take to me too well,....?!)

I called my Plt Sgt on the radio and told him the situation, and that the (former 'Light' Inf) 1SG was clueless to our fuel requirements....!?

A 'deal' was worked out, we drained his fuel pod, and the 'Grunts' had to request an emergency fuel resupply, early the next morning.

('Light' Inf guys tend to be clueless to Mech Inf / Tank Team operations,.....IMHO)

Just a blast form my (not so) distant past...

Regards
Don

I guess it's not always as easy as someone keying a set and saying "Spool up a couple a' them CH-47's and fly us some fuel blivets out here to YD 705101."

Hi Mark! Hi Folks!

- MarkHolloway

Roy, Did armor units ever have the M-49C?

M49C? The reference I have states the "C" was build to carry aviation fuel.

That is part of my problem. I have not see a TOE listing for anything in support/transport units except cargo trucks. In that photo, that looks like a Transportion unit. Notice the tractor trailier rigs up the colume.

Hey Chuck! Any chance you have some idea when the M49s where replaced by the M54 with a pod system?

A follow up to Dontos post about Infantry supporting armored units.
After the first FTX with the 4th Bn (Lt)(Abn) 68th Armor as part of the 82nd Abn Div, the word came around that Division G4 was shocked. The battalion used more gasoline and diesel fuel in ten days than the entire division had used during the pass year prior to our arrival from Ft Riley.

Sgt, Scouts Out!