Incendiary weapons

[Rickshaw]

That is without a doubt one of the fugliest tanks I know of, Grey Havoc.

Arjen, I'd have thought mud might be a worse problem. As most tank development is in Northern Hemisphere, temperate nations, they tend to take into account their climatic problems first and then think about others and heavy rainfall invariably results in mud being a big factor in their thinking.

I've been thinking about this and about the only location I can think of for intakes which could be easily protected both from the elements and incendiary weapons is the upper hull sides. A series of horizontal louvres which could be closed quickly but which would require any incendiary weapons to effectively be fired upwards into them from close beside the hull for them to penetrate the engine compartment. A difficult proposition in most engagements. Side skirts would be required to keep the dust and mud down as well.

 

[Bill Walker]

Just a small comment, based on my experience with large diesel engines. Completely blocking airflow through the radiator takes a minute or two to drive coolant temperatures to a dangerous level. The exact time will depend on the volume of coolant, and the coolant temperature at the time the airflow is blocked. Long enough, perhaps, to drive out of a fire.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There are other, extemporised flame weapons, other than the Molotov Cocktail. A flaming fougasse can be very effective at spreading fire in larger quantities over a larger area.

An extemporised flaming fougasse is basically a trench or hole in the ground filled with oil and set alight. It is pretty much the most ineffective weapon in modern warfare. And against tanks it is even less useful. They certainly didn’t work for Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War when he tried extemporised flaming fougasse on a scale of all of Kuwait.

However a purpose built flame fougasse using a 44 gallon drum (or larger accelerant tank) and a pressurised dispenser can be more effective against less protected vehicles than tanks. But a tank should still be able to motor through the flame cloud as the geometry of attack from below the tank won’t access potentially vulnerable entry points to the engine bay.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

How do you protect an engine which is liquid cooled against flammable weapons? The radiators need to be exposed to cool the engine. The grills on top of most tank engine compartments are there for a reason. They cover air intakes and radiators and fans. And as I keep pointing out, Napalm is only one such weapon.

You make the radiator fire proof. The difference between a Leopard 2 tank and a Panther is immense. The WWII Soviet and German tanks and very simple grill arrangements that were designed to protect the engine bay from kinetic threats. With the lesson of the WWII tanks knocked out by Molotovs and perhaps more strikingly the very successful use of airborne flame attack in Korea tanks were designed with sealed engine bays. While a water cooled motor tank is much harder to seal from flame attacks than an air cooled motor you can build a radiator to be resistant to high temperature external attack. Resistant to a degree being enough to allow the tank to escape the attack area and let fire extinguishers work against less intense threats (like Molotovs).

 

[tround]

Some additional information .
the Leclerc has a fire extinguisher in the engine compartment , the Challenger IIE also .

 

[Avimimus]

Could a faster burning substance be used to overheat a tank that didn't suffer from a mobility kill?

That is without a doubt one of the fugliest tanks I know of, Grey Havoc.

Even moreso when hit... that thing was intended for a nuclear powerplant.

 

[tround]

the thermite is a fast burning substance .
But can you be more precise ? What kind of attack ?