Yes, obviously, putting explosives and projectile propellants in an armored vehicle is dangerous and should be avoided
/s
OSHA is not a credible military threat
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.
Hydrogen has (compared to petroleum) a Wider Flammability Range, Lower Ignition Energy (0.02 millijoules) which is really low and much smaller than petroleum, and a higher diffusion rate.
All of which make it more likely to go kaboom.
Silly one, and but do tanks run on diesel?
Every other heavy machine I can think of typically uses diesel for their engines: tractors, lorries, boats.
Also diesel is less flammable then petrol or hydrogen in the event of a spill of leak…
The problem with diesel is that there has been a cap in their efficiency for quite some time. We’ve pretty much tweaked as much speed and efficiency out of what is possible with diesel tanks, which is why the Abrams has a turbine engine.
As tanks become heavier and heavier the only real solution is to migrate to electric motors, which are more efficient and vastly more reliable than diesel or turbine.
Just like with trains, the future of tanks are electric motors, and until we find a battery material more efficient and safe than lithium, hydrogen fuel cells are likely going to be the solution.
Shit I never saw I was in a meme sub lmao. To be fair the comments above mine seemed mostly serious.
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.
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.
