Simple question about tanks

[advocatexxx 0]

Can anyone please tell me what those big oval canisters in the back of the Russian tanks are ? I've also seen it on Challenger 2.

I've been trying to find an answer to this for the longest time. For the love of God, please tell me !!!

[Tovarish 0]

External fuel tanks

[advocatexxx 0]

Fuel Tanks ? Mounted on the outside of the vehicle ? And so easily visible ?

Wouldn't a hand grenade or .50 caliber ammunition pierce through and ignite them ? I gotta say, all that fuel spilled over the hull of the tank and then catching fire... well.. it can get awfully hot in there.

[Tovarish 0]

First off, they're jetitsonnable, just like on military aircraft. Second, fuel is generally not as unstable as action movies would have you believe. a few bullets are not too likely to ignite it, just cause a leak. Third, it's better IMHO to have extra fuel burning outside the tank rather than inside if it gets hit.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Many of the newer MBT's use a modular fuel cell system, so if the fuel storage area gets hit, you won't lose all of the fuel.

[advocatexxx 0]

Since I already asked a question about tanks, I thought it should be worth mentioning that the radio voice in the game that tells the tank Gunner to change ammo pronounces

"Sabot" the wrong way.

The correct pronunciation sounds just like the words "say" and "bow" spoken together.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

I posted that the way sabot is said in the game is wrong.Its "Say Boat".But also remeber tracers rounds can start fires and i mean MIGHT start a fire.I have seen a vulcan shoot at a paper target and i could see all the tracers then all of a sudden the paper blew up in flames.Same with WWII planes i.e. the zero it had no self selling tanks so in alot of WWII clips i have seen the plane burst into a fireball.Later

[advocatexxx 0]

The "T" is silent, so "Say Boat" interpretation is not really precise.

"Say Bow" or "Sa Bow" are both correct. American English pronounces it as "Sa Bow", but tank crews seem to call it "Say Bow".

English Dictionary Reference

Is this the most minor topic ever discussed ? lol

[Tex -USMC- 0]

"Sabot is actually a French word for a wooden shoe, like those worn by French peasants in the 18th and 19th centuries. Cannonballs and shells of that era were occasionally fitted with wooden pusher plates, to improve the gas seal, and the shells sat in the wooden plate like a foot in a shoe. At some point the pusher plate was nicknamed a 'sabot', and the name has been a technical term in ballistics ever since."

Steel Beasts Manual, Appendix B

Thats the story folks. Its a French word, therefore the A is long, and the T is silent, so the word is pronounced 'SayBo', with the O is long.

[Hilandor 1]

what fuel do such tanks as challenger run on    i thot perhaps it was deisel which isnt anyway near as flammable as petrol, as far as i know deisel has to be under great pressure before it ignites    hence deisel engines work soley on compression causing the ignition in the pistons rather than a spark having to be used to ignite in the chambers

[scout 0]

couple of things:

1. the fuel is ingnitable, a simple tracer or I/T bullet will ingnite it. more over a simple artilery bombardment will ingnite it, or shatter it to pieces. this thing happens a lot in battlefield and what is out, is getting damaged!

2. in the syrian army, in case of external fire, the crew should bail out (im not kidding!

3. in T-62 it wasnt fuel tanks but wood! the reason was that the tank couldnt aim down because the hull interrupted. so u jettison the wood and reverse, and then u have an angle down.

its not so smart because of another thing: the burning fuel leaks into the engine compartment and no need to say any thing else right? thats why u have No. 2!

[advocatexxx 0]

Are these external fuel pods thick enough to withstand a .50 caliber bullet ? If not, then it makes them greatly vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire. Then again, a tank, for the most part anyway, keeps its front aimed at the enemy, not the rear.

Still, I think it's a little awkward for such a heavily armored machine to display its fuel tanks that look like a big wide ass, asking to "shoot me here".

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ April 15 2002,15:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Still, I think it's a little awkward for such a heavily armored machine to display its fuel tanks that look like a big wide ass, asking to "shoot me here".<span id='postcolor'>

Like I mentioned before, these are jetissonable. They are not always fitted, only when long range is needed. If the tank commander finds himself in a situation where he needs to engage infantry at close range, he will jetisson the fuel tanks. These tanks are also the ones that are used up first (again, just linke in military aircraft), so if the idea was to travel long range, by the time the tank gets to its intended destination the external tanks are now empty or close to it. At long-range engagements with enemy armour, storing the extra fuel externally actually improves the crews chances for survival if the tank is hit. (better to have the fuel burning outside than burning inside and leaking into the crew compartment).

*edit* BTW, AFAIK, the T-80 can use both diesel fuel and kerosene. (I may be wrong about the diesel, but it would only make sense since I know for sure that the Su-25 can run on diesel if needed!! ) kerosene  is pretty damn flammable (pretty much jet fuel). The T-90 however, dosen't use a turbine engine, and runs on diesel, so the chances of the fuel igniting are much lower.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

Sorry i asked my dad to say Sabot in slow motion and it came out Say Bow.He said it so fast it sount like Say boat.Also kerosene, im not shure if it is as flamable as standard unlendead fuel.I have a kerosene heater and uses kerosene fuel and if spilled the flames wont spread(so i hear).Also on the M1A1 the engine is almost like a jet engine so it can run off jet fuel.But it runs off diesel fuel to minimize complications.Again sorry advocatexxx.LAter

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Whoever designed Soviet tanks didnt like tank crews very much. The T80 is equipped with bright ideas like external fuel lines, The external fuel tanks, which, if hit by so much as a single incindiary round, can turn the tank into the crew's funeral pyre. remember, if the external tank gets hit, its not just like a barrel exploding behind the tank; the external tank has an open fuel line to the tank, so if the fuel catches fire, it has a free conduit into the tank.

Soviet crews seemed to agree with this viewpoint, as they would use up the fuel in the external tanks first of all, and jettison them as soon as possible.

[advocatexxx 0]

That was my point. Besides, if the fuel inside the tank catches fire, it will very much explode, spraying the burning fuel all over the place, including the tank itself. I'm not sure I'd like to have diesel fuel burning on top of my turret.

Sure they can jettison it, but what if they get his in the rear while the tanks are still attached ?

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whoever designed Soviet tanks didnt like tank crews very much. The T80 is equipped with bright ideas like external fuel lines, The external fuel tanks, which, if hit by so much as a single incindiary round, can turn the tank into the crew's funeral pyre. remember, if the external tank gets hit, its not just like a barrel exploding behind the tank; the external tank has an open fuel line to the tank, so if the fuel catches fire, it has a free conduit into the tank.

Soviet crews seemed to agree with this viewpoint, as they would use up the fuel in the external tanks first of all, and jettison them as soon as possible.

<span id='postcolor'>

Ain't life grand for a U.S. troop.

[advocatexxx 0]

I hear the new M1A3 which is in development will have a color 7 inch tv for each crew member. A VCR playing back-to-back episodes of M*A*S*H for each one of them will be secured in the most heavily armored section.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ April 15 2002,19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That was my point.  Besides, if the fuel inside the tank catches fire, it will very much explode, spraying the burning fuel all over the place, including the tank itself.  I'm not sure I'd like to have diesel fuel burning on top of my turret.

Sure they can jettison it, but what if they get his in the rear while the tanks are still attached ?<span id='postcolor'>

If it ignites the crew is in trouble, yes of course. But, you seem to be forgetting that the external tanks are an optional feature, which is only used when the tank is expected to travel a long time before encoutering the enemy. ie, once the tank gets into action the external tanks should be empty. Just because most games portray T-72's and T-80's as always having the fuel tanks fitted does not mean it is always so. The reason behind this design feature is the vastness of the area of the Soviet Union. in a ground war, tanks would need to travel very long distances, and fuel stops may not always be an option. The external fuel tanks are really not meant as combat equipment, but as transport equipment. No sane tank commander would take a tank which still has fuel in the external tanks into an enclosed area, say, an enemy held village where one guy with a grenade, a molotov cocktail or a machine gun with tracer rounds can quickly barbacue him by taking out the tanks. Now in the case of a long range battle against oposing armour, like I've said, if the tank is caught by surprize and has not jetissoned the fuel tanks, and they still have fuel in them, yes a shell would most likely ignite them, but the crew would likely be able to abandon the tank before the fire engulfed them. However, there have been cases where a tank's internal fuel tank was hit, and the crew was fried instantly.