Immobilisation by flames

[asgrrr]

Originally posted by Velovich:

Why *won't* the firewall contain the fire? What convinces you of this?
V-man

---

An engine is never completely isolated from its environment, if it is to do any good at all. There are things leading from it, like the transmission, electric wires, fuel line etc. If you are familiar with the behaviour of fire, you know it explores all such avenues, especially a fire of this nature (confined, with oily/rubbery food). Besides, the high temperature warps the metal, creating cracks. The flames also leap outside, burn the paint, rubber wheels, and where are the fuel tanks? They are often close to the engine, and they cannot take much heat. Also, the heat can set off ammunition inside the fighting compartment, and in any case renders it uninhabitable for the duration of the fire.

Originally posted by Velovich:

Will a radiator hose still work after it gets set on fire? Will the voltage regulator, ofter made of a plastic housing, still work after being burned?
V-man

---

That is not the point. The point is whether the tank will be destroyed.

Originally posted by Velovich:

A remote fire extinguisher is an easy thing to arrange.
V-man

---

Maybe, but one that actually works? Anyway, that is not the point. The point is, DID WW2 tanks have it?

Belisarius: This was the conclusion of the investigating commission. I am not 100% sure what type of vehicle it was, just that it had a carburettor. So, what do trucks have? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[V-man]

Originally posted by Penetrator:


Maybe, but one that actually works? Anyway, that is not the point. The point is, DID WW2 tanks have it?

---

I can't address the fire extinguisher issue but i *can* address the issue o the fire spreading.

The engine compartment is no teh same as one for a car. It is armored. This is to protect the engine and to protect the crew. I know that a Sherman's engine firewall was proof vs small arms and small caliber AP. Was it peirced by controls? No. Those ran around it, via other routes, ISTR. And they went through a seal, desinged to limit teh damage fire would cause. Thing with a rubber seal in a hole in metal is that once the layer exposed to fire has bunrt, it's carbonised remains give some protection from the fire burning further.

Also, these engines are not as filthy as an automobile's. They aren't allowed to get that dirty. Filler tubes for the fluids are not right on the crankcase, they are long tubes extending away from the engine. Spillage goes into the bilge of the vehicle, where it will either drain out (if permitted) or be easily sopped up. Funnels are easily available (as opposed to Joe Average that doesn't think that real men need a funnel to put oil in the car).

V-man

[valdor17]

The Sherman had two 10lb fixed fire extinguishers that could be activited by pulling a handle near the driver's seat or a second handle on the back deck. It also carried two portable 4lb fire extinguishers.

[csmz]

take main battle tanks as example, throwing a molotov onto the engine vents can quite possibly render the engine useless. this is also still a vulnerable hot spot on modern armor, which has just recently been adressed in a satisfactory manner with the swedish beefed up version of the leopard 2, named Stridsvagn (Strv) 122.
this, possibly the best in service main battle tank to this date, features a very sophisticated fire protection. here is a snipped of info:

"The engine compartment is constantly cooled to reduce the IR signature, and heat sensors installed in the engine compartment would automatically cut off fan and air intake operation if the Strv 122 should come under attack by napalm. "

i hope that helps a bit, and if not, its still interesting to know <img src="smile.gif" border="0">