Wasn't that why the BMPs had gas tanks in the rear doors, as a sort of antiradiation protection? Or was that accidental?
Steam voids slow neutrons for capture and fission, and "solid" water keeps them fast, right? It's this doubly-backwards thing I can't ever remember properly.
No. What that came down to was that the Russians just needed the damn things to carry more gas in order to keep up with the tanks; the majority of which had recently had an arguably even-more dubious opgrade to their fuel capacity and put simply; "Needs must when the Devil drives."
What could be more dubious than fuel tanks in the rear doors of your cramped, human-filled light tank? (Which is how the Soviets thought of the BMP)
Remember "Wet Storage" for Sherman (and possibly other allied tanks; I confess my ignorance)? Water or antifreeze in a...call it a perforated holding tank around the ammo to keep it going off?
Well the Russians were less impressed with the operational range of their early T-54/55 series tanks. it seems that basic design was quite pushed to it's limits having been developed from T-34, by way of T-44 and the larger engines that moved the tanks fast enough with their re-allocated (proto-MBT arrangement) armour and very adequate 100mm guns simply burned more fuel than had what was an adequate engine in the T-34. Surely outboard fuel tanks offered something of a solution, but with the turret now flush to the rear deck; it limited how many of those tanks you could strap-on from 6 to 2.
In addition; while these were never the fire/death hazard they appear to be; being outside the armour; they could be easily holed/destroyed, knocked off. And the Russians still had plenty of 76(w)-equipped M4A2s to study, which they had not yet scrapped or sold off.
Yes; they made extra fuel tank(s) by filling the ammo wet storage with more diesel fuel. Yes; this totally negates the purpose of wet storage, but it DID give them the range they wanted. And this feature was retained at least as far as T-62, beyond which it may have got in the way of the autoloaders or otherwise been unnecessary/no-longer worth the trouble.
Limited range was a fault found in many post-war tanks and it was solved, or not, in various ways. The Brits had the same issues with Centurion, for instance and tried a universally despised miniature mono-wheeled fuel *trailer* somewhat like a vestigial Crocodile system, but less fun. Over time, these issues were solved by switching to diesel engines, as in the M103; just *better* tank engines or *better* tank designs; IE: those built from the ground up as MBTs and not medium tanks putting on airs.
