Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Pretty sure the Kuznetsov runs on liquidifed coal ash
Oh really when?
Certainly explains the trail of smog perpetually behind it. Either that or she really does catch fire a lot more than ever reported on the news. ![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
It's a coal ash/fuel oil mixture that she runs on yes... its reported to have the consistency of a slurry.
It was my understanding that coal gave way to fuel oil during WW 1.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
It did for the most part because fuel oil is easier to refuel the ship with, and move to the engines.
Coal however is significantly cheaper, and can double as armor where as fuel oil cant.
Russias coal slurry combines the cheapness and bonus armor capabilities with the ease of refueling and ease of pushing into the engine at the cost of leaving a smoke trail sevral km long and single handedly contributing to the fight to destroy the environment.
Oil is not strictly better then coal for ships, it was convenience that caused the switch at the end of the day... a couple hours vs a couple days refueling.
And that whole thing with the Russian fleet turning their ships into fuel-air bombs by double-loading and having to keep the extra coal wherever there was room.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Langley not only ran on fuel oil, but as Jupiter, was the very first turbo-electric ship in US Navy service.
It can? As far as I know the switch from coal to fuel oil was also a survivability measure. Coal is notoriously flammable when struck by impact such as high explosive or armor piercing shells and has a reputation of spontaneously catching fire even when not under fire. The USS Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898 is now believed to have been destroyed by spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunkers next to the ammunition magazine. The same result would've happened in battle as well had something hit those same bunkers. Quite a few ships caught fire and blew up because of coal whether in battle or not.
Fuel oil by comparison is a lot more safe. Kinda like diesel vs gas, diesel is a lot harder to get alight whereas gas is always ready to boom. Coal is always ready to burn, especially in dusty states and conditions, whereas fuel oil requires more specific circumstances. (Though like diesel, if fuel oil manages to catch alight from battle damage you best get that shit sorted and under control right now otherwise I suggest moving to a minimum safe distance.)
Edited by MajorTom on Jun 14th 2020 at 6:14:17 AM
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Diesel being safer than gasoline in combat is itself a myth. Explosions, hot splinters, and things HEAT warhead jets easily set diesel on fire. While it won't catch from a small spark being hit by a shell is a whole other critter. You have to remember the amount of heat and energy in explosives and even hot splinters from AP rounds can easily hit the ignition temperature of pretty much all fuels we use in military vehicles. It is why they modularized fuel storage on modern tanks and aircraft.
Coal had other issues like coal dust explosions from open bunkers, and the storage bins being fire traps from even a small spark.
Who watches the watchmen?
Then why did just about everything that could be fueled by diesel instead of gas go to diesel post-1945? It's well-known that gas-fueled tanks and armored vehicles would catch fire in combat a lot more than diesel ones would (until they developed wet storage then it got a bit more equal). Similar deal with ships, aviation gasoline was notoriously explosive and had severely damaged or even outright destroyed a number of aircraft carriers in the Second World War, subsequent fuels like JP-8 are a lot harder to cause the same thing because of their properties being more akin to diesel than gasoline.
And also historically, fuel-oil and diesel powered ships have rarely blown up as a result of fires in the fuel. Usually it's the ammunition magazines and storage. For example IJN Yamato blew up spectacularly but that was the ammo going off, not the fuel.
Edited by MajorTom on Jun 14th 2020 at 6:41:28 AM
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Diesel became more available for large scale military use for starters and there is a certain amount of efficiency for heavy vehicles using diesel and a few other engine design properties that make it a favorable choice.
JP-8 will still go up just as easily if you hit it with HE or incendiary or a fuel cell catches a hot splinter or even a HEAT jet.
Ships burned down from fuel hits and yes diesel can still explode especially if the fuel container is what eats the hit. Fuel gets vaporized in the process the key condition to making diesel rapidly combust. The diesel will still also be very much on fire even if it doesn't explode.
Ship and armored vehicle designs are what improved safety, not the use of diesel.
Most tanks began to improve their design including the number one risk in the tanks, the storage of ready rounds. The biggest cause of the sudden destruction of tanks in WWII was the often exposed ammunition storage systems in use. The big threat from fuel fires is not a fuel explosion itself but the munitions aboard the vehicle catching fire and cooking off. Modern armored vehicles and military jets use fuel storage systems that keep the fuel stowage from turning into one large bomb. They can still burn down but they are far less likely to do so in a spectacular fashion. In WWII the use of sealed tanks notably reduced the risk of hits to the fuel tanks on aircraft which is why that is such a big deal in design.
Warships getting slagged by their magazines was partly due to limitations of stowing ammo on the ships and also the ship suffering a deep penetrating hit. The Hood had a plunging shell come from above and down into the magazine. The Yamato ate an armor-piercing bomb that penetrated deeply into the ship. Several of the carriers also suffered severe damage from deeply penetrating bomb hits. The magazines were far more likely to take a hit than the fuel because the fuel bunkers on later ship designs were more easily put into the armored citadel of a warship than every part of ammo stowage.
Just for the record, the flashpoints of both Diesel and JP-8 are relatively low. 104 F for Diesel, and 100 for JP-8. Explosives, splinters from armor penetrations, and HEAT jets are well above those temperatures. While safer from say, small sparks, and relatively low-temperature ignition sources, they are not safe from military explosives, HEAT jets, incendiary ammo, and often hight temperature spalling. Diesel vehicles are still lit up and destroyed by fuel fires all the time. Using diesel doesn't save them, better designs do.
Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Jun 14th 2020 at 9:26:38 AM
Who watches the watchmen?
Coal dust explodes, Coal itself is inert and highly boyant.
Go look at old warship designs from when coal was used if you dont belive me, they wrapped the bunkers around the hull as a flotation and armor mesure it's kind if cool really.
The thing to remember is unless your Russia who is engaging in way more stupidity then just there fuel storage, the coal is normally confined to the fuel bunkers where you can keep the dust or air levels low whichever one is easier, and thus keep it from going boom.
If your coal is able to burn on the ship you have handled it wrong, which goes back to what I said any way... fuel oil was switched too because coal was a bitch to handle, and thus being handled wrong happened way more often then you would belive.
Edited by Imca on Jun 14th 2020 at 1:20:24 AM
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
A shot from 16km wouldn't be almost flat it would have some arc as it came in. Not the nice high angle stuff from long range but it isn't going to be flat either. Hood basically turned into the shot while unmasking her own guns.
Who watches the watchmen?
The thing with hood is also that there was quite a bit of luck in that shot as well...
It wasn't JUST hoods failing, at the end of the day luck accounts for more in naval battles then we want to admit.
The impact angle was an estimated 14 degrees. Against the deck, that's such an oblique angle that nobody even bothers to calculate penetration. Plunging fire for Bismarck's guns wouldn't be relevant for about ten thousand more yards, but you're looking at about 18 inches of belt armor penetration at that range, easily enough to penetrate Hood's 12 inch belt, especially because she was turning into the shot to try to use her own X and Y turrets.
Obviously the shell was falling, but describing it as "plunging" implies a hit coming down through the deck.
Edited by Balmung on Jun 14th 2020 at 7:41:57 AM
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
It was over 14 degrees very close to 16 degrees angle of fall and that isn't a flat trajectory. Defining it as plunging may not be entirely accurate but it isn't a flat trajectory either. If anything the Hood was just really unlucky. They turned into it and the shell made into one of the magazines and set off the whole thing shortly after the hit.
Who watches the watchmen?
Going back to the "gasoline cooks off more easily than diesel in WWII tanks" what are we basing that off of? Most tanks in WWII burned gasoline (yes, even the German tanks). IIRC, the only major power to use diesel engines in their tanks were the Soviets, who happened to use diesel in most of their automotive industry. I'm curious if anyone actually did a comparison of gasoline vs diesel vehicles.
As far as coal dust goes, the boomability of coal dust is not a property unique to coal. Pretty much anything that can be A) flammable and B) dust
will do it. There was a case where a sugar plant exploded because powdered sugar is in fact both of those things and it turns out dusting hard-to-reach spots is a very important part of industrial housekeeping.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
The Soviet tanks had just a hard time of it as anyone else.
Someone found and shared a list of Soviet examinations and testimonials of the M-4 and described a tank crew whose vehicle had been knocked out and on fire. They were hiding under their vehicle while taking machine gun fire waiting for the ammo inside to explode and kill them. They were amazed when the ammo deflagrated instead and eventually escaped being cooked under their own vehicle. It is why they started adding wet rack storage in some tanks in the hopes it would reduce fatal ammo cook-offs from hits.
Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Jun 15th 2020 at 7:08:04 AM
Who watches the watchmen?
Wasn't the fuel generally on the less eplosive end of things inside a tank any way? I know a lot of designs store the ammo IN the fuel since under normal conditions even a penetrating hit wont set the fuel off, and it keeps the ammo from burning down...
Which tends to end... poorly for a tank.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
The fuel is less explosive compared to say the propellant or warheads for the shells. A lot of modern tanks either have the ammo in the turret bustle or in the lower body in an armored compartment. Most are the bustle arrangement. Fuel is stored in a separate area.
The old tank designs are cringe-worthy.
Layout of the M-4 The ammo in the sides are in sealed containers and the floor storage is also container protected. However, the ready rounds on the turret step are directly exposed.]] Penetrating hits into those boxes is still very bad news.
T-34 tank cross-section. Notice the ammo stowage is all in the tank body either on the floor or sides
Penetrating hits are still bad in this case.
You see a lot of the same even in German tanks. Basically the ammo stowage in WWII tanks was dangerous as hell.
Fuel is further back in the area of the engine but a hit that carried through in any direction often set the tank on fire in general. Propellant fires from ruptured ammo were very common.
Naval ships on the other hand were comparatively safer. The all or nothing armor scheme plus the advantage of water lines protecting some sections to a certain extent made ships fairly well protected. Buoyancy and balance still dictated where things could go to a point but most warships were comparatively safe in terms of where they put most ammo and fuel.
While digging around I did see a cross-section of warship where the surplus coal bunkers were indeed a pseudo protective layer, this was mostly older designs.
Who watches the watchmen?
Yes, speaking tubes.
Edited by Imca on Jun 30th 2020 at 2:59:33 AM
Also Petty Officers with well-practiced lungs.
^ As far as I know, Langley used fuel oil too. Coal fired ships were long obsolete in 1941 as far as the US Navy was concerned.