Guest Guest Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yardstick Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Not something I would be particularly inclined to throw out into a public forum... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Uh... we regularly talk about armor protection of vehicles here. One's in active, front-line service, even. No worries there. Well actually I think you'll find that the people who really know, don't. What does get posted is what others find by trawling the web. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 yes, most of the really interesting stuff concerning armor protection is classified so that the numbers you see in CMSF are basically educated guesstimates based on what little real world data there is. The people who know anything worthwhile, like Gibsonm here, refuse to give us any interesting tidbit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 pretty much exactly what I'm asking for Well then make your own "best guess". The critical issue though I would have thought was what is BTS / BFC's "best guess". If you think the truck should withstand "X" and it doesn't in the game because BTS / BFC reckon its only good for "Y" then you'd better go with "Y" (otherwise your campaign isn't going to work out the way you'd hoped). So why not set up a test range and fire on a truck with a squad from various ranges and that should give you what you are after. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 oiy... there is no hemtt tanker in cm afaik, is there? thanks for the help. Well I was going to ask that. But as there is no truck, the question about tanker protection (at least in CM:SF terms) is pretty mute. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Ya, I learned a long time ago that if you can't find the answer on Wikipedia, Globalsecurity.org, etc., you probably won't find it here. It's not always obvious, but the active and recently-active service guys here are pretty careful about what they'll post here on the forum. They'll tell you stuff that you could have found yourself with some time and good Google-fu, but nothing further. And I suspect BFC would shut things down pretty quickly if anyone did otherwise. And those sites are making educated guesses at the most current, classified stuff -- it's not like the Pentagon is dutifully providing RHA-equivalent ratings for all U.S. Armored vehicles to anyone who asks. It was different back in the early days of CMx1, because there wasn't as much information on the Web, and some of the better print sources on WWII militaria are expensive and/or difficult to obtain. But as to the subject at hand, if you want my SWAG, I wouldn't be surprised if the HMTT has the capability to be fitted with some armor, but my guess is that any armor is limited to the crew cab and engine/drivetrain essentials. Rather than armoring the fuel tanks, which would add a lot of weight and therefore reduce load, my guess is that the tanks are protected by a self-sealing internal bladder, and probably also the capability to fill any airspace in the tanks with a non-oxidizing gas (C02, or even CO from shunted from the vehicle exhaust). With this kind of technology, individual small arms hits to the tanks would do very little; the bladder will seal the hole before more than a few drops of fuel escape the tank, and the lack of oxygen inside the tank means no fire or explosion. The tanks would have to be really catastrophically compromised (as by an explosive round), before an explosion or fire would be likely. Incidentally, this kind of technology has been around since the 1930s; it was originally developed to help keep fuel tanks on bombers from exploding when hit. Weight has always been at a premium on airplanes, and putting heavy armor all the way around something with with a large surface area like a fuel tank simply isn't practical. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Diesel is anyway a pretty safe fuel under most circumstances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Not usually. It doesn't matter how hot the incendiary round is, or how volatile the fuel is, without oxygen, there just won't be a fire. The only exception to this would be a self-oxidizing fuel. But you generally only see self-oxidizing fuels in specialty applications like rockets. So assuming I am right about how the fuel tanks are protected, I think a single, isolated tracer bullet of around 7.62mm size is probably very unlikely to ignite the tank. But the self-sealing bladders aren't infallible, and larger rounds like 12.7mm may be able to cause a large enough hole that the bladder can't seal completely and some fuel is leaking out. And multiple hits to the same area may compromise the bladder to the point where it can't seal anymore; I'm not sure myself where the limits of this kind system lie (and I'm sure the Pentagon isn't going to tell us!). But once the fuel gets outside the tank and in contact with air (or air gets into the tank through open holes), then you have fuel + O2, and it can be ignited. A little on-point trivia: I don't recommend trying it, but you can extinguish a match with gasoline. It's the vapors above the liquid gasoline that ignite, not the liquid itself. So if you plunge the match quickly into the liquid gasoline so it doesn't have time to ignite the vapors, it will extinguish once it's submerged in the liquid as it will have no oxygen. Again, I REALLY don't recommend trying this as the slightest error will result in third-degree burns or worse. But I've seen it done as a demo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 A simple stick and some tape would make it relatively safely to try Outside home 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.