like… if a round penetrate the fuel tank, and oxygen went into the fuel tanks!!!
air will not go into the tank as fast and with the volume that it is needed… when the the tank fails what happens is that fuel is proyectad outside of the fuel tank, which makes it way more likely to combust as it is airboned and has a much larger surface area , that doesn’t happens inside of the fuel tank, again as it shows in the video there is no combustion in or after of the fuel internal fuel tank is penetrated, it happens on the external one because fuel is ejected though the ports of the tank.
this is 1 video
it is an official test…
1 video
Diesel can and has been detonated. British trials on T-34s found that their solid shots were able to do it, as long as the tank was partially depleted. Detonating a full tank required it to be punctured beforehand.
1 Like
You guys are aware that DU-W alloys for example are pyrophoric, I’m not saying it would be sufficient to cause an explosion on its own but certainly would contribute, considering that fuel sloshing may atomize it sufficiently to start a reaction there is certainly the conditions for a reaction to occur.
1 Like
Its interesting how some people can get an opinion on something and refuse to change it even when shown its wrong.
im not questioning that these rounds cant set fuel on fire, but that it is unlikely for them to be able to actually detonate a fuel tank when it is full, sure due to cavitation fuel will vaporize but those cavities collapse extremely fast but that by itself wont detonate, as diesel need oxygen, like @Wiggly_Armed_Man said a partially empty tank can detonate, as long as the round or some super-heated parts of the round reach the “empty” space of the tank, as there is a preexisten air-fuel mixture there. again Swedish trials clearly shows it.
@My_Name_Is_Bear has a complete misconception of it, though. According to science diesel can absolutely explode and has, many times. If the fuel tank is partially empty then it will and is where using fuel tanks as spaced armour can fail, especially when it’s near ammunition, and that’s exactly what the British tests on the T-34 were done for and also showed in their results. The percentage chance in-game of a fuel tank explosion is to simulate that chance, since the amount of fuel you take into ground battle can’t be set like it can in air battles.
1 Like
Not “detonated”. Deflagration. Big difference. There is no shockwave. It burns like in the engine but the pressure builds up which bursts the walls of the tank. Then if there is enough residual heat and pressure to ignite the liberated fuel mixing with the air in the compartment is the ultimate IRL RNG.
The Soviets found the risk worth while for the benefit of being able to trap fragments (oh noes its a spall liner!!!). The engine oil tanks were also likely to suffer fire as well BTW.
2 Likes
In either case, it would still disable the tank. It might be more accurate to model it as the tank being “burned down,” instead, but there’s nothing wrong with a fuel tank causing a death in-game.
Fuel tanks besides being effective spall liners as well liquids being surprisingly effective at negating shaped charge jets, diesel fuel relatively inert nature was reason why some of the ammo stowage was INSIDE conforming fuel tanks like in T-72 between carousel and engine as wet stowage. Is it as good/safe as “proper” wet storage using water/glycol or more advanced mixes? No, but it was deemed “good enough”, just like anti radiation liner used since T-55A as standard issue in Russian tanks was deemed “good enough” spall liner to not add dedicated one.
Yeah this is why i’ve said that there are no Depleted Uranium rounds in warthunder.
and you keep thinking a gas tank won’t explode. crazy.
Yes at this point I’m pretty sure you are crazy.
Gasoline tank can explode ( if there’s a specific fuel-air mixture [fume concentration] within )
self-sealing fuel tank would be enough to prevent that. Unless the fuel tank are rupture which will spread the fuel everywhere. And due to gasoline evaporates quickly it could lead to fireball inside tank compartment if they catch fire. Then there are fire suppression system to help with that.
Diesel tank can be made to explode if you spray it in fine mist and then apply large amounts of pressure or temperature to it as Wiggly_Armed_Man mention. But if fuel-air mixture is a not quite right it’ll be rapid burning rather than an explosion.
Due to diesel evaporates less quickly. If fuel tank are rupture which would lead to the tanks compartment being covered in diesel oil. Imagine crew had to work in that condition and while they could also catch on fire. Then again there are fire suppression system around.
So fuel tank explode rn are a bit silly given how Gaijin did nerf ammo catch fire / burning change.
3 Likes
The auto loaders for china and russia are just massive bombs ready to explode, they have the slowest reload in game, its impossible to survive a single penetrating shot.
This ^
IMO one of the better solutions would be to just remove these fuel tank explosions entirely and replace them with faster burning fuel fires. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, when a soviet tank’s fuel tank is pierced, it spews often-burning fuel all across the interior of the vehicle rather than just explodes. Gaijin could emulate this by just increasing how much damage an internal fuel tank fire causes, meaning you have to put it out quickly or the fire will either set off your ammo or kill your crew.
I think it’s a much more fair, a bit more realistic, and also a balanced solution to the problem. The chance of dying to a fuel tank being ruptured is greatly decreased, but it’s still a high risk if you don’t respond to it properly. At the same time, the fuel tank does what it’s supposed to IRL and absorbs spall, but the projectile can still go on to do other damage to the tank that might still kill it, so a well-placed shot is still rewarded.
2 Likes
You know what also is a bad idea?