# Refueling: Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31 and LAV Coyote Replacement



## Colin Parkinson (25 Feb 2013)

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> I
> 
> A troop of Coyotes takes about 3000L in one day of hard driving. Where's the FARR going to come from because Jerry cans won't cut it.
> 
> ...



I present to you the "Folding funnel"
http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~dgrev/dhmg/funnel01.html


The Brits ran their Centurions on Jerry cans for many years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Feb 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I present to you the "Folding funnel"
> http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~dgrev/dhmg/funnel01.html
> 
> 
> The Brits ran their Centurions on Jerry cans for many years.



Colin,

They didn't work worth a damn. Leaked more gas than we put in the tank. We used a flex spout or an actual funnel.

Most times we used a bowser with the one lung pup engine running the pump, but some genius thought that was too loud.

So we went to 'silent refuelling' with jerry cans. Except they were metal back then and it took a considerable effort to load enough fuel to accomplish anything.

263 imperial gallons was a full load and the Centurion burned appox 3-5 gal\mile (not mpg) through the 12 cylinder Rolls Royce Meteor engine.

Fuelling with approx 15-20 metal cans per tank, at night, was anything but silent


----------



## Franko (25 Feb 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I present to you the "Folding funnel"
> http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~dgrev/dhmg/funnel01.html
> 
> 
> The Brits ran their Centurions on Jerry cans for many years.



We have something similar for the present tanks and they work

What I'm trying to get across is the environmental issues with using a cans truck, as each Sqn would need a minimum of two HLVWs converted to carry cans. That's why most, if not all, units have switched over to FARR to refuel. Carry 7000L and there is almost minimal environmental issues compared to a cans truck, which is almost guaranteed to leak at the best of times.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Feb 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I present to you the "Folding funnel"
> http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~dgrev/dhmg/funnel01.html
> 
> 
> The Brits ran their Centurions on Jerry cans for many years.



We had those on our Centurions as well.  Much better piece of kit than the contraption that came with the Leo 1s.  It was stable.  Simple to open up and use.  Held two Jerrycans.  Filter and hose w/tap.  What more would you want?  Always wondered what happened to them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Feb 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We had those on our Centurions as well.  Much better piece of kit than the contraption that came with the Leo 1s.  It was stable.  Simple to open up and use.  Held two Jerrycans.  Filter and hose w/tap.  What more would you want?  Always wondered what happened to them.



We pitched them overboard, as they were junk.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Feb 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We pitched them overboard, as they were junk.



However, much better than the German "tripod" contraption.  

Although we are going with the FARR, a hugh leap forward, there will still be times where a FARR is unavail or unable to get in to refuel and Jerrycans will be the only option.  A device similar to what was used on the Cent would still be a useful tool.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Feb 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Colin,
> 
> They didn't work worth a damn. Leaked more gas than we put in the tank. We used a flex spout or an actual funnel.
> 
> ...



I still can't imagine why they didn't use fuel bowsers or even smaller tanks mounted on pallet sized metal skids that could loaded 2-3 to any truck.


----------



## Tank Troll (27 Feb 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I still can't imagine why they didn't use fuel bowsers or even smaller tanks mounted on pallet sized metal skids that could loaded 2-3 to any truck.



We did we had single pods on MLVWs that was good for a Cougar Sqn and double pods on 5 tons in regimental Transport. Then we (the Strats) made triple pods on the HLVW. We had 4, one to go with each Sqn and 1 for Hq Sqn. they worked well but we were told the FARs were more environmental friendlier and they gave us 3 or 4 to replace our triples. The FARs worked well as you could fuel 4 vehicles at the same time but the were limited to were they could go. The HLVWs and 5 tons were much better and were a lot more versatile. 

Now back to the regular discussion topic  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I present to you the "Folding funnel"
> http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~dgrev/dhmg/funnel01.html
> 
> 
> The Brits ran their Centurions on Jerry cans for many years.



This has been SPLIT FROM the ORIGINAL TOPIC as it ventured down another path that may or may not have some relevance to some.  Fuel is essential to the operations of Armour units.  Refueling is always a concern in the FIELD tactically or non-tactically.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Feb 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We had those on our Centurions as well.  Much better piece of kit than the contraption that came with the Leo 1s.  It was stable.  Simple to open up and use.  Held two Jerrycans.  Filter and hose w/tap.  What more would you want?  Always wondered what happened to them.



I suspect that when you were in they were new, for recceguy they had likely seen better days. I saw kit get tossed, surplussed as it was seen to be "junk or old", but never replaced by anything else. One those was the gear to exercise the recoil systems, found it in the back corner, started using it as per regulations, then some senior NCO decided it was junk and had it tossed, never replaced.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Feb 2013)

Do you not make use of blivets?




























It seems to me almost any flat bed truck (or LAV or TLAV) could be turned into a bowser.  In fact you could carry both water an fuel on the same MLVW/MSVS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Feb 2013)

US army PAM on refueling and re-arming points
http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/atp3_04x94.pdf

and for you modellers
http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=121772

I know the US army has/had dedicated refueling units and even pipeline lying units


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Feb 2013)

We do have the FSDS (Fuel Storage and Delivery System) that can comes with berms to keep spillage to the environment to a minimum

EDITED

Then again they are for static locations, I will try and post up some pics later of it....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> It seems to me almost any flat bed truck (or LAV or TLAV) could be turned into a bowser.  In fact you could carry both water an fuel on the same MLVW/MSVS.



Water and rations don't mix with fuel. Separate vehicles.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (27 Feb 2013)

I certainly remember the fuel hoppers on the Cent. 
One thing you didn't want was fuel leaking on to a hot engine, so the hoppers were very well maintained, ours never leaked, and certainly expedited refueling.
This was circa 73, they may certainly have started falling apart after that.
I remember the commander calling down "How far did we drive?" 
Driver "25 miles". 
Commander "25 cans of gas please".


----------



## Infanteer (27 Feb 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Water and rations don't mix with fuel. Separate vehicles.



You got that before I did.  Sustainment no-no - same with poop.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Feb 2013)

The Strats do the refueling of their Sabre Sqns with jerries - and I wholeheartedly approve


----------



## RCR Grunt (27 Feb 2013)

1 RCR used an HLVW as a can truck last November.  Solution to environmental hazard due to leaky jerrys: put the spill berm (much like the one NFLD Sapper showed pics of, but smaller) INSIDE the cargo bed, fill with  fuel cans.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2013)

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> 1 RCR used an HLVW as a can truck last November.  Solution to environmental hazard due to leaky jerrys: put the spill berm (much like the one NFLD Sapper showed pics of, but smaller) INSIDE the cargo bed, fill with  fuel cans.



Ummmm.  That is what was required in "Cans" trucks as far back as the '80s.  It isn't a solution then; but rectifying a deficiency and correcting an incorrect practice.


----------



## Tank Troll (1 Mar 2013)

The new leopards are hard on fuel 10 litres per km, plus I heard that the FARs we grounded because of frame cracks or something along that lines.


----------



## REDinstaller (1 Mar 2013)

Andy,

Its the tank mounts themselves that have been failing. Right now the whole fleet is under repair, FARs were never meant for cross country travel.

Pat


----------



## Tank Troll (1 Mar 2013)

Thanks Pat

 We knew that they wouldn't hold up when we did the trials on them, and that they were only meant to go forward far enough to fuel the first line units pod trucks. Some one in the Palace of illusion and confusion said that they could replace the HLVW pods and every one jumped on the new shiny truck wagon and ignored the data from the trials. I know, I know shocking isn't it? but this wasn't even our biggest complain it was the single fuel cell that we didn't like. I almost put one of Pacman in 94 because it was half full and the fuel sloshing around in it almost rocked me of the road plus the load was to heavy for the exhaust brake and service brake and torque convert to the point I just tapped the buzzer up because it was always on. Now I know the FARS haul 1000 litres less than the first HLVW fuelers we got but the had a lot more crap on them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Mar 2013)

They built a single fuel tank with no baffles in it?


----------



## Tank Troll (5 Mar 2013)

Well there were some thing that resembled baffles in it but it was designed as a runway refueler not meant to stand up to the pot holed roads of Pac-man and Triangle route.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Mar 2013)

No mobile liquid tank should be built without proper baffles, the stress from unrestrained liquids acting on the tank walls and seals can be substantial. I noted in some video of the French operations in Mali that they had a fuel bowser based on a HLVW sized vehicle supporting their light armour and topping vehicles up directly along with filling cans. Not a containment liner in site, but they looked a tad nervous, running a fuel bowser in such a conflict sure makes you a prime target. One of the ideas I toyed with back in the "thunder run days of Iraq"  was a Stormer/LAV set up, basically a LAV with no body behind the commanders hatch and flat deck with palleted stores, including lightly armoured fuel tanks that could be jettisoned from inside in case of fire.


----------



## Tank Troll (6 Mar 2013)

Surprisingly the fuel cells on the 5 ton didn't light up when it got filled with holes in 94. I also don't remember seeing any tracers going through either.


----------

