One solution is to use a binary explosive where the two components are stored and pumped separately only being mixed as they enter the hose and fill it.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
some gelified version of amfo?
you can make a hose with powdered ammoniumnitrate and when in position pump the diesel in. can have mesh dividers in the hose that keep it in place, but that let the fuel through(think of sections like in bamboo)
Last edited:
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
Put something big and heavy enough which isn't resting on the ground on one end of a tank, and centre of gravity issues start to emerge...
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
For those who have read Flame Thrower by Andrew Wilson MC, and I would thoroughly recommend it to those of you who haven’t read it yet. He as a troop commander of Churchill Crocodiles, mentioned in his memoirs watching some mad sappers during the assault on Cap Gris Nez, driving a Bren Carrier. That was fitted with a rocket deployed hose pipe and had a tank of nitroglycerin to be pumped into it, and they were desperately rocking the carrier back and forth as it had become stuck in a shell hole. So it seems that they managed to get the system to work after a fashion and it was deployed in action, if his memories are true.
RR.
RR.
Think that's wrong, Python, unless they reused the name, is the modern system. Think it was Conger ( liquid explosive WW2) , Giant Viper ( plastic explosive Cold War) and then Python ( modern day ) in British service.
Oh, yeah. Vigorously sloshing nitroglycerin. Excellent plan. What could go wrong?
Well, it would be one way of rapidly exiting the shell hole...
An unscheduled rapid cross battlefield transit, if you will...
Last edited:
As long as there is no airspace to allow it to slosh around, Nitroglycerin in liquid form is quite safe.
Nitroglycerin is sensitive to jerk, i.e. a high enough rate of change of acceleration. There is no need to have a liquid-gas boundary to create a high jerk in a fluid, although the relative compressibility of the fluid is a factor and glycerins are relatively low-compressibility. But, a fluid entirely filling a closed container that's locally rigid in its thickness direction will experience the same shock as the container, plus a multiplication effect due to the fluid mass and elasticity, and possibly focus effects due to shape.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
A brilliant film, and parodied in the puppet series Joe 90, when in episode 5 Colonel McClaine has to drive a truck loaded with highly sensitive explosives. I always loved the pictures of the barrels of explosives suspended on springs in the back of the truck, bouncing about as Joe drove the truck through difficult terrain. 😁
RR.
Hey People. OK wisdom of crowd here. We've all been arond in circles on this forum or others on the What ifs and errors/ rabbit holes of 1930s British tank design. It often comes down to engines ( as well as money and hindsight but lets partly suspend those). Oft cited is Napier Lion or Kestrel as a solution in mid 30s. I've been digging into the Hall Scott Invader - a superb, crazy reliable , easily services mostly marine big I-6 designed in 1931 that was still in production in the 60s. 16L , raw arond 260 hp ( various versions from Hall& Scott - Easily confused with Hall&Oates I know ) - lots of torque...but fantastically modern in overhead CAm, Aluminium block with American machined dimensioned interchangeable parts ( not liberty still file to fit). Hall helped design the liberty for Packard but 15 years later did the Invader. Now the Brits knew about it and came in around 35/36 to ask if he could do a V-12 version for motor launches.
So what about the I-6 in the Mid 30s? It's cheap - $ is low and it's in "mass production" - ie hundres easy per year in 1930s which is more than Briths Army can afford anyway but enough to make a dent in 7th Panzer Regiment in May 1940 , which is all that matters.
High torque which is a mixed blessing - you want it but you don't want your transmissions to snap - which is what obsessesed the Germans with thier front sprocket and frankly mid 30s not very good ZF Transmissions hence hte low torque but higher RPM HL120.
To the theme of this amazing channel - not about creating a MBT in 1935. But a Valentine esque Vickers 15 ton ish with room for a decent gun and armour - ie an Arras winner.
Any thoughts on the Hall and Scott engine... besides Say No Go?
So what about the I-6 in the Mid 30s? It's cheap - $ is low and it's in "mass production" - ie hundres easy per year in 1930s which is more than Briths Army can afford anyway but enough to make a dent in 7th Panzer Regiment in May 1940 , which is all that matters.
High torque which is a mixed blessing - you want it but you don't want your transmissions to snap - which is what obsessesed the Germans with thier front sprocket and frankly mid 30s not very good ZF Transmissions hence hte low torque but higher RPM HL120.
To the theme of this amazing channel - not about creating a MBT in 1935. But a Valentine esque Vickers 15 ton ish with room for a decent gun and armour - ie an Arras winner.
Any thoughts on the Hall and Scott engine... besides Say No Go?
Marine engines are designed with different cooling needs than on a land vehicle based engine. When you have the water surrounding you to help cool the engine, whether you are using a heat exchanger to water outside or are pumping water in and out of a radiator arrangement, you might have to look at what the radiators would be on a vehicle.