FAST FILL F

[RANGER]

The reason for the larger filler pipe appearing on CCKWs produced during 1943 and later was to r. The larger fuel tank necks allow the tanks to accept fuel at the rate of 5 gallons every 40 seconds.
This aeration.

[pfarber]

I thought the standard 3 inch fuel tank neck was adopted so it would not require a nozzle for jerry cans.

From my readings, the VAST majority of vehicles were fueled from 5 gallon jerry cans. And doing away with the small 2 in fuel neck was in support of not needing the nozzle.

The CCKW could carry more fuel in jerry cans than in 5 gallon drums, or towed in gas trailers. POL dumps were few and far in between and the specialized fueling gear used pretty standard commercially available fueling nozzles.

[RANGER]

GI refueling trucks used a larger nozzle that we are familiarck nozzle had. The Small neck fuel tank fill pipes would cause back pressure to build up in the fuel tank when refueled by a tanker at the full flow rate. Increasing the size of the opening allowed the tank to breathe and not have the fuel "blowback".
A

[pfarber]

Jerry cans had vents to eliminate the 'glug glug' effect, and I can only imagine the speed at which a driver was able to refill with jerry cans... they did it A LOT.

I will try and dig up the cite for the jerry can reason of the large necks.

CCKWs were not generally used for fueling operations. They did have gas tank bodies, but little provision for fueling individual vehicles. They would be more for transferring to holding tanks. Their biggest draw back is that they would only have one nozzle. maybe two.

They were used quite a lot at airfields, but not for direct fueling of vehicles.

More common was to dump the CCKW fuel into a tank, or plumb it up to a refueling station (4 or 8 nozzle IIRC) and fuel vehicles that way. A CCKW makes for a poor gas station. Plus as I already said, a CCKW can carry more gallons of fuel in jerry cans than they could in dedicated gas tank trucks.

[pfarber]

Heres a QM article about fueling up for the D-Day invasion.. the vast majority of the D-Day assault force was fueled this way.

The complete article is at: http://www.qmfound.com/fueling_up_for_d-day.htm

At each dump's eight delivery points, there was kept a stack of 500 filled cans of gasoline and a proportionate number of five-gallon cans of lube oil, oil measures, and cans of grease. Only one grade of gasoline was dispensed--eighty--octane. There were two grades of lube oil: 30 HD for cars and trucks and 50 HD for motorcycles and medium tanks. There was also some diesel oil.

When a convoy came to a stop at a group of eight delivery points, each driver jumped out and checked his oil. The assistant driver hustled to the can dump and started emptying cans into the gasoline tank. When the driver found out how much oil he needed, he was handed a five-gallon can of oil with the top off and a funnel in the can.

The net result was that three men were servicing each vehicle.When the convoy moved on, supply trucks picked up the empties and left full cans. They took the empties to a nearby point for refill from tank cars at railroad sidings.

[pfarber]

Found it.. its bases on a fuel study from korea, but the trucks are the same as are the containers:

Container Men Time Gallons
5-gallon can 3 25 minutes 1200
55-gallon drum 2 10 minutes 954

[RANGER]

But the GI can does not have a flow rate that will equal the puroads where I had to carry two full GI cans for over a mile.

[pfarber]

You are correct, a gravity flow container will not match the volume of a pressurized hose.

That is not the point.

The point is the reason why the large mouth fuel tank was adopted. You keep saying for faster flow rates. I have never seen that reason stated as main issue for adoption.

I HAVE read, and posted above that the reason the large mouth fuel tanks were standardized was due to the MASSIVE amount of forward fueling from jerry cans, and the elimination of the jerry can spout.

I think you are confusing who said what.. you said the large mouth was for fasting pumping of fuel. I said that it was to directly support the 5 gal jerry can and eliminate the jerry can nozzle.

Do you have any supporting evidence that the reason for the new standard fuel tank mouth to be for anything other than directly supporting the jerry can?

[RANGER]

les and aircra from a 5 Gallon GI can into a filler pipe dangerous and results in waste..
In my day we used the M-49 and M49C for aircraft.
I do not

[pfarber]

From the report I cited above in KOREA the move was AWAY from 5 gallon cans as they were labor intensive to fill and move. Also, the 55 gallon drum and hand pump was more efficient as it left less than a quart of fuel in the barrel. While fueling from a jerry can you could spill that amount easily.

BUT IN WWII, AND THE REASON FOR THE LARGE NECK GAS TANK was to DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE 5 GALLON CAN and remove the need for the gas can spout. Read the links I posted. The 5 gallon jerry can was the most common refueling method for vehicles. The cite about fueling convoys for OVERLORD was to put depots of 5 gallon cans on the side of a road and fill the empty cans from a fueling truck. You can only fuel 1-2 vehicles from a tanker truck, but can have 100's of cans laying about (500, to be exact).

The Army changed dramatically after WWII.. so to say you did it one way in the 50s-60s has no real bearing on WWII techniques.

[RANGER]

Jerry cans had vents to eliminate the 'glug glug' effect, and I can only imagine the speed at which a driver was able to refill with jerry cans... they did it A LOT.

I will try and dig up the cite for the jerry can reason of the large necks.

CCKWs were not generally used for fueling operations. They did have gas tank bodies, but little provision for fueling individual vehicles. They would be more for transferring to holding tanks. Their biggest draw back is that they would only have one nozzle. maybe two.

They were used quite a lot at airfields, but not for direct fueling of vehicles.

More common was to dump the CCKW fuel into a tank, or plumb it up to a refueling station (4 or 8 nozzle IIRC) and fuel vehicles that way. A CCKW makes for a poor gas station. Plus as I already said, a CCKW can carry more gallons of fuel in jerry cans than they could in dedicated gas tank trucks.

"Truck 2-1/2 Ton 6X6 , Tank, Gasoline, 750 Gallon. Originally developed as a tactical vehicle to refuel other vehicles, or to diospernse gasoline into 5 Gallon Drums, Thisa truck is a basic transport unit of the Quartermaster Gasoline Companies, -------------------tank built in two separate units, and one gravity hose assembly for servicing two vehicles or filling two two containers.-"

As far as the large fill pipes, it was to enable rapid fill from a fuel source as the small neck would not vent sufficiently and the pressure would cause blow back. Post WWII Quartermaster reportsreports do not cite the reason for the change. They are found in reports from the Chief or Ordnance and bulletins in wartime publications suchas Army Motors.

Atempting to fill MVs from the 5 Gallon GI can without the spout are next to impossible. Anyone who has attempted to do so will understand.

[pfarber]

So the entire ETO filled its fuel tanks from CCKW tankers two at a time?

With a TOTAL production of ONLY 4133 CCKW fuel tankers how quick can you fuel a mechanized army?

I quote:

"As Patton's Third Army swept westward into Brittany and south to Le Mans, it burned up an average of more than 380,000 gallons of gasoline per day."

If every CCKW tanker was in use just for pattons vehicles, they would need to be completely fueled and emptied 92 times PER DAY to support the fuel needs. That JUST for Pattons 3rd Army.

Face it, CCKWs were not the front line choice for fueling operations. The Army standardized on large mouth gas tanks becuase there were 29million jerry cans brought to France for fueling needs. There are portable, stackable, a CCKW cargo could carry 1200 gallons of fuel, and just about every vehicle had at least one can on it.

So, with those facts, you still are going to say that the large mouth was NOT PRIMARILY for jerry can refueling, but for pumping gas from CCKW tankers? I will agree (and physics dictates) that the larger mouth will allow for faster fill rates, but thats just a side benefit.

Did the jeep switch from small to large mouth tanks for faster flow rates? Not primarily.

I've posted references and cites, stats and facts. Please do the same. Or are we all going to wait for another inane factiod that is most likely of dubious value?

[RANGER]

This is what happens when history is replayed years after the

I hear my CCKW calling me.

[pfarber]

You are the one rewriting history my friend.

I will not post on this topic anymore.

I leave you with this quote "S**t Cobb, you didn't fight in Normandy either".

[RANGER]

XX