Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (184626)	3/1/2022 4:52:02 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 218005

Re <<vehicle in first photograph is from Molotov bottles fires of several cocktails thrown on it short range from behind>> ... Yes, that I believe is good guidance, of course, now that you mentioned the low tech thing, easy to double check, and so I did ... whatever the case, drones did not do the damage english.palinfo.com quora.com How do modern tanks protect themselves from Molotov cocktails?In what aspect do you mean? As far as armor is concerned, even WW2 tanks were impervious to Molotov coctails (invented during the Soviet invasion of Finland, improvised explosive device fielded by Finnish troops named after Soviet foreign minister Vyascheslav Molotov). The way in which a Molotov cocktail or similar liquid chemical energy weapon would be employed against armor involved throwing it either a) in an open crew hatch and hoping it would burn the crew directly or ignite ammunition in the crew compartment, either way, crews tend to bail out of burning tanks in a hurry or b) throwing it on top of the (typically) rear engine deck, where the burning liquid drips through the grating down into the engine, in hopes of starting a fuel fire. Modern Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) are still susceptible to tactic a): even the most obsolete of weapons will be effective if the holes leading to inside the armor are left open. However, the engines or powerplants of MBTs are sufficiently more isolated from the outside environment. They are both laterally armored better (the rear of tanks in WW2 getting almost no armor comparatively to the front due to weight considerations) and also employ some method of separating the cooling system (which is why there must be a series of “holes” in the armor panel to begin with, for air movement) from the rest of the power plant. Modern tanks also tend to use diesel fuel, which is almost impossible to catch fire using flame alone, compared to all German, US and many other allied tanks in WW2 using petrol/gasoline (indeed, the diesel engine of the T34 was one of its revolutionary features) in steel/metal tanks, whereas modern tanks/airplanes/military vehicles of all types use some sort of composite self-sealing materials for fuel storage cells. You can see in this mostly accurate scale model of a Pzkw VI Tiger that the engine, in the middle of the rear, draws its air through three top mounted carbs, which draw from the open air of the armored comparment: rather than having the compartment lid have to be grated to supply this clean air, the Tiger makes use of filters on the rear to feed air into the compartment (see the four vertical cylinder-shaped items paired on the outside of the rear). Where the Tiger runs into problems isnt with the air intake/exhaust exit system, but rather the compartments on either side of the engine which each having a petrol tank and a radiator/cooling system. The Mayback series Tiger engines (also seen in Panther, Tiger II, Jagdtiger) had both a hot water exit and return hose on each side of the engine, providing for cooling units on both sides of the tanks, where a radiator was placed under the armored deck lid with fans and a coolant reservoir behind it. In the forward portion of this same compartment, however, is also the fuel tank, which held, when full, several hundred liters/125 gallons. For comparison, look at this scale model of the M1A1 Abrams, a US MBT famed for its use in the Gulf War in 91 and Iraq and Afghanistan from 03 and 01 on respectively. On the Abrams, you will notice the jet power pack is modular, contains all of its cooling systems in the modular unit which is designed to be removed and replaced in battlefield conditions in around 4 hours, and handles most of its air intake, exhaust and radiator airflow through grates facing the rear, which externally have downward facing slats over them to prevent anything running into them. The only air intakes on the rear deck of the vehicle are far forward, at the front of the power pack bay, and are covered by the rear of the turret when the turret is oriented forward. The power plant area is still a weak point on modern MBTs, and it is still not armored as well as the crew compartment against enemy kinetic and chemical rounds, but it is not nearly as susceptible to top-down burning liquid attacks as its WW2 ancestors were.