Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/24/2005 7:07:20 AM EDT
After doing some reading, and watching the history channel on the subject, all the authors make a big deal of the fact that the Germans planned to use captured US gasoline to fuel their vehicles. Here is the kicker, most German vehicles, and all of their tanks, ran on diesel fuel. American tanks and almost all of their vehicles ran on regular gas. WTF?
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:11:45 AM EDT
I always wondered the same thing.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:16:22 AM EDT
Any Army staff types out there?
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:18:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2005 7:18:25 AM EDT by metroplex]
I thought the US used gasoline BRIEFLY and switched over to diesel to prevent Glock-like KaBOOMs? They made fun of gas powered tanks saying they were Ronsons/Zippos... lights up every time.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:19:35 AM EDT
no, most ran on gas. look up engine specs on there tanks
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:21:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ring:
no, most ran on gas. look up engine specs on there tanks



+1

Tiger tanks, both I and II used V-12 Maybach gas engines.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:22:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2005 7:27:13 AM EDT by PBIR]
Most of the reading I did years ago about wwII suggested that the Germans lost that battle due to their lack of fuel (I think this is fairly evident) which crippled their armor advantage and their logistics support. Since they were so lacking in practically all supplies by that point, it makes sense they would be looking longingly on any FARPs but I don't recall reading that being the primary objective of any actions by the nazi's. Not saying it didn't happen, just saying I haven't read it.

edit, btw, this is an excellent read on the battle for the Ardennes.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:24:42 AM EDT
I thought the US used gasoline BRIEFLY and switched over to diesel to prevent Glock-like KaBOOMs? They made fun of gas powered tanks saying they were Ronsons/Zippos... lights up every time.




The Sherman ran on gas, as did most of our trucks. Not sure about the Pershing, but that was not yet introduced. The fires on Shermans were mainly caused in not protecting the Ammo storage areas inside the tanks. Later modifications corrected this.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:29:04 AM EDT
The whole petrol/diesel thing is a myth perpetuated to try to explain why Shermans kept brewing up and Panzers didn't.

The true answer lies primarily in the ammunition stowage.

NTM
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:36:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ring:
no, most ran on gas. look up engine specs on there tanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




+1

Tiger tanks, both I and II used V-12 Maybach gas engines.




This is why I love this forum. You are right, I looked up the specs, and not only were the Tigers powered by gas, but so were the Panthers! Not sure yet on the Mk IVs. I had always been tought that German tanks were diesels. You learn something new every day!
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:47:08 AM EDT
I thought the whole point was to make a breakout and threaten Paris.

The Panther and Tiger ran on gas, but how many were there, and what about support vehicles?
I'm sure they could've made use of the captured fuel, but was it really the point?
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:50:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By uncle_frank:
This is why I love this forum. You are right, I looked up the specs, and not only were the Tigers powered by gas, but so were the Panthers! Not sure yet on the Mk IVs. I had always been tought that German tanks were diesels. You learn something new every day!



All german tanks AFAIK were gas powered, as well as most of their smaller trucks... it was, as said above, ammo storage on the Sherman's that was the major cause of fire. Google "Sherman tank wet storage and Sherman tank dry storage" and you should find the dif.

BTW Pershings were gas powered.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:53:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Stryfe:
I thought the whole point was to make a breakout and threaten Paris.

The Panther and Tiger ran on gas, but how many were there, and what about support vehicles?
I'm sure they could've made use of the captured fuel, but was it really the point?



The whole point was to threaten Antwerp and split the allies. Hitler wanted to cause a rift between us and the Brits and sue for peace. He would then divert all of his forces to fight the Russians.

The Germans needed that gas. At one point, Jocham Peiper was very near a US fuel dump and went the other way instead. He didn't know it was there but if he had found it, he would have had enough gas to go a long way. Another one was blown up in his face. However, there is no way the offensive would have panned out even with the fuel. Eisenhower was shoring up the shoulders to cut off the penetration. The offensive would have died out from attritionand there is not way reinformements could have been brought in.

Patton said it well when he said this is what the allies needed.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 8:05:33 AM EDT
Paris, Antwerp, they're all cities in Europe.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 8:10:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By redleg13a:

Originally Posted By Stryfe:
I thought the whole point was to make a breakout and threaten Paris.

The Panther and Tiger ran on gas, but how many were there, and what about support vehicles?
I'm sure they could've made use of the captured fuel, but was it really the point?



The whole point was to threaten Antwerp and split the allies. Hitler wanted to cause a rift between us and the Brits and sue for peace. He would then divert all of his forces to fight the Russians.

The Germans needed that gas. At one point, Jocham Peiper was very near a US fuel dump and went the other way instead. He didn't know it was there but if he had found it, he would have had enough gas to go a long way. Another one was blown up in his face. However, there is no way the offensive would have panned out even with the fuel. Eisenhower was shoring up the shoulders to cut off the penetration. The offensive would have died out from attritionand there is not way reinformements could have been brought in.

Patton said it well when he said this is what the allies needed.



Air superiority is a bitch.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 8:15:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 8:25:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2005 8:27:29 AM EDT by Merlin]

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
This highlights another problem with people whose whole knowledge of WWII is based on the movie, "Patton"



And I'm glad I'm not one of them.

MY knowledge is based on something far more accurate: THE Difinitive History of the Battle of the Bulge

Thanks,

Merlin






­

Link Posted: 8/24/2005 8:28:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 8:29:37 AM EDT
Ah yes, video games make for great history lessons.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 8:32:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
This highlights another problem with people whose whole knowledge of WWII is based on the movie, "Patton"



I think the "History" Channel is drawing upon that masterful 1965 work, The Battle of the Bulge.

We won the battle because Henry Fonda and Telly Savalas set fire to that Nazi Robert Shaw.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 8:35:43 AM EDT
"cut the engine"
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 8:40:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2005 8:42:12 AM EDT by CamperDad]

Originally Posted By Merlin:
[MY knowledge is based on something far more accurate: THE Difinitive History of the Battle of the Bulge



One of the all time worst WWII movies ever made.



- CD
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 9:00:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CamperDad:
...

One of the all time worst WWII movies ever made.



- CD



As a historical movie, I'd agree with you. Germans driving Pershings and/or Patton's in a Texas Army base (Ft. Bliss?) is pretty funny, though.

Just as an entertaining movie, it wasn't half bad. Robert Shaw, Dana Andrews, Henry Fonda (despite his bitch daughter) and the German General: all good actors acting well.
Top Top