Russian fuel tanks and Ammo

[Generalbullet]

Is it somehow less flamable than every other nation? are the fuel tanks more heavily armoured than everyone elses? Do the russians tanks use some kind of non-flamable propellant?

[Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats]

Originally posted by Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats:

While it's all fine to say stuff like this, if you can provide proof it's much better.
Yes it is obvious there is bias in this game, but if you're just going to make wild accusations with no actual proof you make your self look bad. And no one will take you seriously

My comment^

Originally posted by Generalbullet:

You joined in on this conversation on your own accord, unless your implying he has to present evidence to every single claim he makes regardless of context or who hes speaking to. You don't just say "your wrong" and walk away.

Find where I said he was wrong. Go on, do it (spoiler: I didn't!) I asked for some evidence to back up his claim, otherwise there is no weight to what he has said.
And at what point did I "walk away"?

[MoonPrune]

Originally posted by Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats:

Originally posted by MoonPrune:

I've found this to be happening a lot lately, put a 6 pounder AP shell into the side of a KV-1 and the fuel tank completely absorbs it.

Yes the fuel tank would completely absorb it. You've got a high velocity solid shot, hitting liquid. It's like the same principle of hitting water, the harded you hit it, the more resistance you will face.
i.e. a fast travelling bullet will be stopped by water, but a slower bullet won't.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSgkMF3hOG0&ab_channel=DemolitionRanch

There is a different density and chemical properties to diesel fuel and water, not to mention that the fuel tank on the KV-1's side barely look to be 5cm in width.

The shells from the 6 pounder weigh 2.8 kg and travel at 800m/s, which compared to the 5.56 rounds fired in the video (900m/s at 0.011 kg). Now, using the formula for kinetic energy:

1/2 x Mass x Speed of object^2= kinetic energy

We can see that:

The 6 pounder has 896KJ of energy.

Compared to the 5.56's 4KJ of energy.

There is a very, very large difference between something with almost a megajoule of energy and something with only 4 kilojoules.

EDIT: Forget to add the little ^2 symbol, so the formula was incorrect.

[Generalbullet]

Originally posted by Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats:

Originally posted by Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats:

While it's all fine to say stuff like this, if you can provide proof it's much better.
Yes it is obvious there is bias in this game, but if you're just going to make wild accusations with no actual proof you make your self look bad. And no one will take you seriously

My comment^

Originally posted by Generalbullet:

You joined in on this conversation on your own accord, unless your implying he has to present evidence to every single claim he makes regardless of context or who hes speaking to. You don't just say "your wrong" and walk away.

Find where I said he was wrong. Go on, do it (spoiler: I didn't!) I asked for some evidence to back up his claim, otherwise there is no weight to what he has said.
And at what point did I "walk away"?

I apologize sincerely, you did not at any point say that he was incorrect.

Edit. I disagree on the fuel tank penetration. Thats BS.

[Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats]

Originally posted by MoonPrune:

Originally posted by Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats:

Yes the fuel tank would completely absorb it. You've got a high velocity solid shot, hitting liquid. It's like the same principle of hitting water, the harded you hit it, the more resistance you will face.
i.e. a fast travelling bullet will be stopped by water, but a slower bullet won't.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSgkMF3hOG0&ab_channel=DemolitionRanch

There is a different density and chemical properties to diesel fuel and water, not to mention that the fuel tank on the KV-1's side barely look to be 5cm in width.

The shells from the 6 pounder weigh 2.8 kg and travel at 800m/s, which compared to the 5.56 rounds fired in the video (900m/s at 0.011 kg). Now, using the formula for kinetic energy:

1/2 x Mass x Speed of object^2= kinetic energy

We can see that:

The 6 pounder has 896KJ of energy.

Compared to the 5.56's 4KJ of energy.

There is a very, very large difference between something with almost a megajoule of energy and something with only 4 kilojoules.

EDIT: Forget to add the little ^2 symbol, so the formula was incorrect.

Well you did the science and did it correct, but I personally still don't think that the 6pdr (57mm) would have enough energy left to punch through the other side of the fuel tank, after going through the side armour, then the fuel tank, and the fuel it's self
It really all depends on how thick they (the fuel tanks) are, and how full

[Generalbullet]

Originally posted by Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats:

Originally posted by MoonPrune:

There is a different density and chemical properties to diesel fuel and water, not to mention that the fuel tank on the KV-1's side barely look to be 5cm in width.

The shells from the 6 pounder weigh 2.8 kg and travel at 800m/s, which compared to the 5.56 rounds fired in the video (900m/s at 0.011 kg). Now, using the formula for kinetic energy:

1/2 x Mass x Speed of object^2= kinetic energy

We can see that:

The 6 pounder has 896KJ of energy.

Compared to the 5.56's 4KJ of energy.

There is a very, very large difference between something with almost a megajoule of energy and something with only 4 kilojoules.

EDIT: Forget to add the little ^2 symbol, so the formula was incorrect.

Well you did the science and did it correct, but I personally still don't think that the 6pdr (57mm) would have enough energy left to punch through the other side of the fuel tank, after going through the side armour, then the fuel tank, and the fuel it's self
It really all depends on how thick they (the fuel tanks) are, and how full

I take back my apology. You are an illogical person.

[MoonPrune]

Originally posted by Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats:

Originally posted by MoonPrune:

There is a different density and chemical properties to diesel fuel and water, not to mention that the fuel tank on the KV-1's side barely look to be 5cm in width.

The shells from the 6 pounder weigh 2.8 kg and travel at 800m/s, which compared to the 5.56 rounds fired in the video (900m/s at 0.011 kg). Now, using the formula for kinetic energy:

1/2 x Mass x Speed of object^2= kinetic energy

We can see that:

The 6 pounder has 896KJ of energy.

Compared to the 5.56's 4KJ of energy.

There is a very, very large difference between something with almost a megajoule of energy and something with only 4 kilojoules.

EDIT: Forget to add the little ^2 symbol, so the formula was incorrect.

Well you did the science and did it correct, but I personally still don't think that the 6pdr (57mm) would have enough energy left to punch through the other side of the fuel tank, after going through the side armour, then the fuel tank, and the fuel it's self
It really all depends on how thick they (the fuel tanks) are, and how full

True, but fuel wouldn't stop something with that much energy.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe the fuel counts as steel when the pen values are being calculated, hence why the round stops. (75mm side armour + what appears to be around 5 cm of fuel is greater than the penetration of the AP round on the 6 pounder)

[Generalbullet]

Originally posted by MoonPrune:

Originally posted by Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats:

Well you did the science and did it correct, but I personally still don't think that the 6pdr (57mm) would have enough energy left to punch through the other side of the fuel tank, after going through the side armour, then the fuel tank, and the fuel it's self
It really all depends on how thick they (the fuel tanks) are, and how full

True, but fuel wouldn't stop something with that much energy.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe the fuel counts as steel when the pen values are being calculated, hence why the round stops. (75mm side armour + what appears to be around 5 cm of fuel is greater than the penetration of the AP round on the 6 pounder)

Water is only an effective stopper if it has depth. Fuel is also far less dense than water. (thats why there arent any water armoured tanks).

[AveragePetUser]

The only upside of the diesel is that it has no chance in hell to ever explode in a way that kills you when hit with a shot. It catches on fire just fine when you shoot at it though.

The most explosive effect you can ever get from shooting a diesel tank is that the diesel ignites and pours out of the hole. Which is kind of dangerous.

You know, there is a REASON behind why they pretty much surrounded all the vital parts of tanks with diesel fuel tanks. When filled, it basically completely negates one hit, as the shell will never travel past the actual diesel. Detonating inside the diesel will set the entirety of the tank on fire. BUT the diesel will then pour out of the hole that the shell enter from.

Worst case scenario the crew dies from smoke and heat. typical scenario is that the fire dies out from lack of oxygen and depending on where on the fuel tank you shot, you will be short some diesel...

Russian ammo can sometimes feel like it doesnt detonate, thats on certain tanks, because a lot of russian tanks use two piece ammo. What you are shooting is the Payload, not the part with all the dangerous explosives in them. If you check x-ray on say. IS-2 you can see that one part of the ammo has was looks like just a bag, which is kinda what it is, its a cylinder with the explosives required to fire off the weapon and detonate upon impact(as this cylinder is basically rammed together to form a shell with the head part). The head part as to what i know contain little to no explosives. So shooting it should do nothing but act like more armor.

[AveragePetUser]

Originally posted by Generalbullet:

Originally posted by MoonPrune:

True, but fuel wouldn't stop something with that much energy.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe the fuel counts as steel when the pen values are being calculated, hence why the round stops. (75mm side armour + what appears to be around 5 cm of fuel is greater than the penetration of the AP round on the 6 pounder)

Water is only an effective stopper if it has depth. Fuel is also far less dense than water. (thats why there arent any water armoured tanks).

You are forgetting one vital thing. The shell first has to penetrate the outer armor, which is a minimum of 45mm in a T-34. Then it has to pen the FIRST side of the fuel tank, which is 15mm. Then it has to go through a liquid, which is kinda good at slowing down projectiles. Then it has to penetrate another 15mm AND a tiny plate that is attached to the bulkhead holding the tank and separating it from the crew/engine compartment.

If you have any knowledge of what spacing armor does to a vast majority of shells, especially in WW2. then you'd know that this is a stupid task to try and achieve. Just shoot the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ tank where its weak.

[Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats]

Originally posted by Generalbullet:

I take back my apology. You are an illogical person.

So I'm an illogical person for thinking of everything the shell has to pass through? And how much resistance it would face?
It's fine to think I'm wrong, but to call me illogical when I'm making a logical conclusion is illogical in it's self. lol

[Generalbullet]

Originally posted by TheChairman:

Originally posted by Generalbullet:

Water is only an effective stopper if it has depth. Fuel is also far less dense than water. (thats why there arent any water armoured tanks).

You are forgetting one vital thing. The shell first has to penetrate the outer armor, which is a minimum of 45mm in a T-34. Then it has to pen the FIRST side of the fuel tank, which is 15mm. Then it has to go through a liquid, which is kinda good at slowing down projectiles. Then it has to penetrate another 15mm AND a tiny plate that is attached to the bulkhead holding the tank and separating it from the crew/engine compartment.

So then why is it only effecting soviet vehicles? I shoot any other nations vehicle in the tank or the ammo and its bye bye or atleast a pen through.

[Generalbullet]

Originally posted by Sir Stefan Lord of Kitty Cats:

Originally posted by Generalbullet:

I take back my apology. You are an illogical person.

So I'm an illogical person for thinking of everything the shell has to pass through? And how much resistance it would face?
It's fine to think I'm wrong, but to call me illogical when I'm making a logical conclusion is illogical in it's self. lol

You said the his science was correct, and then still oppossed it, what else but science do we have to work on? your F*cking intuition?

[Generalbullet]

Originally posted by TheChairman:

Originally posted by Generalbullet:

Water is only an effective stopper if it has depth. Fuel is also far less dense than water. (thats why there arent any water armoured tanks).

You are forgetting one vital thing. The shell first has to penetrate the outer armor, which is a minimum of 45mm in a T-34. Then it has to pen the FIRST side of the fuel tank, which is 15mm. Then it has to go through a liquid, which is kinda good at slowing down projectiles. Then it has to penetrate another 15mm AND a tiny plate that is attached to the bulkhead holding the tank and separating it from the crew/engine compartment.

If you have any knowledge of what spacing armor does to a vast majority of shells, especially in WW2. then you'd know that this is a stupid task to try and achieve. Just shoot the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ tank where its weak.

I do indeed understand the benefits of spaced armour, I can't find any sources on fueltank thickness can you please send one? f

[AveragePetUser]

Because Gasoline, when exposed to air and an explosion, DETONATES. meaning it outright kills the tank. Hence why it says "Fuel tanks exploded" when this happens.

Also why these are NOT used for protecting the engine or crew in any of the german or american tanks.

Also gasoline is even less dense than diesel, and this is not even mentioning that due to good reason american and german tanks had smaller fuel tanks, and in the cases where they do carry a lot of internal fuel, they have them divided up in more tanks rather than bigger tanks. These often had NO bulkhead, and NO coverplate also the plate holding the fuel themselves were often minimal. Tiger H and E tank have only 2 "small" internal tanks with 5mm sides and 10 mm bottom. If i remember correctly

[AveragePetUser]

Originally posted by Generalbullet:

Originally posted by TheChairman:

You are forgetting one vital thing. The shell first has to penetrate the outer armor, which is a minimum of 45mm in a T-34. Then it has to pen the FIRST side of the fuel tank, which is 15mm. Then it has to go through a liquid, which is kinda good at slowing down projectiles. Then it has to penetrate another 15mm AND a tiny plate that is attached to the bulkhead holding the tank and separating it from the crew/engine compartment.

If you have any knowledge of what spacing armor does to a vast majority of shells, especially in WW2. then you'd know that this is a stupid task to try and achieve. Just shoot the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ tank where its weak.

I do indeed understand the benefits of spaced armour, I can't find any sources on fueltank thickness can you please send one? f

[Fetching]

Edit: the link for the book i usually go to when it comes to T-34s is currently down, while i dig up a new one. Read this one: http://www.allworldwars.com/T-34%20Tank%20Service%20Manual.html

Gives you a good feeling on how their bulkheads work and although i dont think it mentions thickness of any bulkheads or armor, as this is the accompanying manual to the one im looking for, its all in perfect scale. So there actually are bulkheads that are 45mm just like the side armor on some locations. those are not modelled in game, i think it would be a russian bias outbreak if they did model them.