Would shooting the flamethrower tank actually make it blow up?

>>34598011
Would shooting a pressurized can of kerosene make it blow up?

There's your answer.

>>34598019

not op, but does it?

>>34598011
real flamethrowers are two canister deals with a mixture that ignites harder near the tip of the nozzle

its basically a sticky solution that isn't a flame gout, its a substance thats on fire that sticks to things and people that burns hotter than jet fuel at contact

tanks are not waterproof, and if the smoke is mitigated the internal fire systems would go off and cause the occupants serious breathing issues (as those systems are hardly lung friendly and blinding)

>>34598011
It would be extremely painful

>>34598011
Generally speaking? No. Your standard bullet isn't terribly likely to ignite the fuel.

>>34598037
no, there's a reason you have incendiary ammo

>>34598106
>real flamethrowers are two canister deals with a mixture that ignites harder near the tip of the nozzle

Bullshit.

>tanks are not waterproof

The crew compartments have been water and gas proof ever since NBC protection became a thing not long after WW2. If there's a breech the crew will be wearing masks inside. Engine air intakes are likewise designed to be resistant to flame-throwers, molotov cocktails, and similar.

File: you are wrong.gif (2MB, 300x204px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x204px

>>34598106
>real flamethrowers are two canister deals with a mixture that ignites harder near the tip of the nozzle
WRONG.

>tanks are not waterproof, and if the smoke is mitigated the internal fire systems would go off and cause the occupants serious breathing issues (as those systems are hardly lung friendly and blinding)
WRONG.

>>34598116
you're a big guy

>>34598106
>tanks are not waterproof, and if the smoke is mitigated the internal fire systems would go off and cause the occupants serious breathing issues (as those systems are hardly lung friendly and blinding)
Modern tanks really don't give two shits about fire unless we are talking intense fires for very long time that it simply start to melt parts.

Live fire testing against a S-tank with 500kg napalm bomb proved practically useless except for setting rubber track pads on fire, didn't even manage to kill the engine despite 1300 degrees Celsius recorded at the engine intakes.

https://youtu.be/MiWCpIJ5dBw?t=1100

>>34598011
Yes, but because of pressure, rather than chemical energy explosion. If the flamethrower wasn't lit, there would be no fire even if the canister was shot at end exploded.

The explosion of a pressurized flamethrower canister would be equal to a small grenade, so it would still kill or seriously injure the wearer.

This video explains how flamethrowers work and some of the myths associated with them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc6Jtupbtic

>>34598238
So how many people normally fit inside the tank that's carried on a person's fucking back hmmm

>>34598011
Would tracers set it off? Like in saving private ryan?

>>34598011
No, but it would cause the unit to stop functioning, due to it venting fuel, nitrogen, or both. If you had HEI, or API ammo, it would ignite if you didn't hit the nitrogen tank alone.

>>34598106
How much hotter than jet fuel?

Could you melt a steel beam with it?

>>34599981
>Modern tanks really don't give two shits about fire
Engines still breathe air. So do the crew.