• TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

    Right, but you are going to want to choose a fuel that has the least chance of flaming up if you’re making a military vehicle.

    Why? If something has gotten through the armour, your fuel is the least of your worries. I mean you are sitting next to a stack of shells filled with high explosives.

    • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      Well if the fuel is compromised there’s a larger chance it’ll ignite and reach the shells if it’s hydrogen as opposed to petroleum.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 days ago

        My point is that if your tank’s armour is compromised by modern antitank weapons, it doesn’t really matter where it hits you. You’re going to be turned into chunky marinara, or your shells are going to cook off.

        A pressurized fuel cell is already more protected than any fuel tank, and is smaller and lighter and more efficient than any ice engine. Which means you can add and divert even more armour to protect the cell and the occupants of the tank. Basically any danger associated with hydrogen is vastly overshadowed by the fact that tanks already carry high explosives. And that’s not so dangerous that we’re trying to replace them with non combustible weapon systems.

        It’s not like Rotem is new at making tanks, the K2 is one of the best tanks currently in production. If the engineers thought fuel cells increased the likelihood of catastrophic failure, I highly doubt they would have tried it with the K3.

        Personally, I think most people are just buying into the propaganda that shut down hydrogen power in the first place. To my knowledge there hasn’t ever been a death associated because of an explosion or fire involving a vehicle with h2.