Author Topic: Tracer Advantages (Read 2682 times)

Denholm · « **Reply #30 on:** December 21, 2006, 09:55:03 AM »

Yet it would be a step closer to realism.

fireplug1111 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 22, 2006, 10:35:56 AM »

HMMMMM interesting subject...
First, from a fire service standpoint- It is TOTALLY impossible to get a fire started inside a fuel tank. There are 4 things needed for a fire to burn, #1 heat source ( Your tracer rounds in this seneriao) #2 Fuel ( your fuel in your fuel tank) # 3 oxygen ( air ) We'll get back to the air part. #4 Chemical chain reaction.( fire burning after it is started). This whole concept is called a FIRE TETRAHEDRON. All 4 MUST be present for self sustained combustion- FIRE-. Now inside your fuel tank you have FUEL (gas) HEAT SOURCE
( tracer round). But inside your fuel tank you have gas fumes and no oxygen, hence no air so no fire. Now if you get a leak then the gas leaking should burn. This has been proven, that cars gas tanks will now explode like in the movies, there are several videos in the fire service that show gas soaked rags stuffed into the fill port of cars and iginted and it never blew up, as you see inthe movies. They have even used fuses put all the way into the fuel tank and lit and nothing happened. No air no fire. As far as bullets blowing up a airplane from sparks-hmmmmm- there too. Most fuel tanks in the war were of the self-sealing or made of aluminum.
But it is an interesting subject, all I think it would do is get rid of the people RAMMIN and HOOOIN out there. It would just let them find a new way to get easy non-dogfighting kills.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #32 on:** December 22, 2006, 11:56:12 AM »

How does an actual tracer round work? I was under the impression it was something like phosphorous that actually ignited in the base of the round. Is this correct?

Bronk · « **Reply #33 on:** December 22, 2006, 12:04:44 PM »

OK where is Tony Williams when you need him ?

Maybe the just the mention of his name will bring him .

Bronk

fireplug1111 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 22, 2006, 01:51:56 PM »

A tracer round has phosphorous in the bullet itself. If you look at the projectile part of a tracer round the bullet is hollowed out at the rear of it and it has red phosphorous in it. This gives it the red look as it travels down range. When I was in HONDO we had received enemy fire and it was green tracers coming up out of the jungle at us.

Slash27 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 22, 2006, 03:42:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Denholm
Krusty, the only reason that the fuel would explode is because it is concealed within a tank where there is no means to expand. So when the gasoline ignites in a tank it causes pressure to rise, considering that a tank does not have enough room to contain this pressure, the tank blows its top and the flaming vapors escape which are the actual explosion.

um....... no

Bronk · « **Reply #36 on:** December 22, 2006, 03:54:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Denholm
Krusty, the only reason that the fuel would explode is because it is concealed within a tank where there is no means to expand. So when the gasoline ignites in a tank it causes pressure to rise, considering that a tank does not have enough room to contain this pressure, the tank blows its top and the flaming vapors escape which are the actual explosion.

"

Umm actually it's the vapor in the tank that causes the explosion.

If the tank was full a round is more likely to pass through and not explode the tank . It may or may not cause a fire depending on the round .

Bronk

Stoney74 · « **Reply #37 on:** December 22, 2006, 05:17:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by fireplug1111
When I was in HONDO we had received enemy fire and it was green tracers coming up out of the jungle at us.

What you should have said was "although I can neither confirm nor deny that I was ever in HONDO as a member of the U.S. military..." then finish the story.

Its kind of like me saying "This Gunny I knew never shot Stinger missiles at Russian aircraft in Afghanistan..."

fireplug1111 · « **Reply #38 on:** December 22, 2006, 05:30:22 PM »

OK

I shall be more precise.. When I was in HONDO with the 223rd we flew close to the border of N********* and the N********ians would shoot up at us. All the jungle looks the same when your on the ground and you cant tell where the border is, so hence the "receiving fire from below".

That better.

Anyways back to the VAPOR in a fuel tank. Vapor in a fuel tank is WAY WAY to rich to burn. If you can get a fire to start inside a confinded space with nothing but fuel vapor you will make history. You need an oxidizing agent (Oxygen or better known as air).
This topic is getting way to complicated. We can go all day and fuel in a tank with vapor will not ignite, there is no air in a fuel tank. If you fill it full and then drain it down as you burn it off nothting but vapor is left, no air no fire.
But interesting topic.

Bronk · « **Reply #39 on:** December 22, 2006, 05:56:18 PM »

Hmm didn't think of the oxidizer. Good catch.

Bronk

Tony Williams · « **Reply #40 on:** December 22, 2006, 07:29:27 PM »

Someone called?

A few comments:

First, it is correct that fuel does not burn, it is the mixture of fuel vapour and the oxygen in air that burns. However, I believe that fuel tanks are not usually sealed from the atmosphere but have "breathers" to link them to the air; as fuel is used up, the empty space will be filled with a vapour which is a mixture of air and fuel particles, which can explode if ignited. This risk was always considered high, and it was not unusual for arrangements to be made to replace the fuel used up in tanks with a gas other than air to prevent it happening. I know that the Russians even went to the trouble of pumping exhaust gas into the fuel tanks of some of their combat planes for this very reason.

It is also correct that a steel-cored AP bullet can create sparks when it hits some suitable hard material, so these could in theory set off the fuel tanks. However, the impression I have is that this happened very rarely.

Tracers would stand a higher chance of igniting fuel, but again practical experience in WW2 showed that this didn't often happen. Tracers were not all the same: in the BoB the RAF made some use of the .303 B Mk IV "Incendiary Tracer". This was an incendiary which ignited on firing, leaving a smoke trail behind. But by then, most incendiaries ignited on impact with the target, such as the .303 B Mk VI "De Wilde", which was copied in a simplified form for the US .30 and .50 incendiaries.

The British tested RAF .303 and Lufwaffe 7.92 incendiary ammunition, as described in Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45:

"Comparative British tests of British .303" and German 7.92 mm incendiary ammunition held in 1941 against the self-sealing wing tanks in a Blenheim bomber, fired from 200 yards (183m) astern, revealed that the .303" B. Mk IV (based on the First World War Buckingham design) and the 7.92 mm were about equal, each setting the tanks alight with about one in ten shots fired. The B. Mk VI, which contained 0.5 grams of SR 365 (a composition including barium nitrate) was twice as effective as these, scoring one in five. The 7.92 mm API completely failed to ignite the tanks."

I expect that a .50 calibre incendiary would have done better than this due to the larger quantitiy of incendiary material carried.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum