It used to be, but not in the sense that the shells are in a pool of water. They had containers of water in between the ammo, so that in the case of a hit on the ammo rack, it would soak the ammo and hopefully not turn the tank into a quickbake oven.
Whether or not it worked, or if just moving the ammo out of the line of fire was what helped is up for debate. Modern tanks use faster burning charges, so soaking them probably wouldn’t work anyway, so they have blowout panels instead.
In the short term it would be fine, as long as the shell was wiped down and dried before being put in the breach. But historically, no one ever just had shells sitting in water or liquid. Would make way too much of a mess.
In that case this isn’t as dumb as OP probably thought when they drew it. If your ammo cooks off in 40 or 50C, you have bigger problems. The only thing I’d worry about is what the shells leach into the water.
Wet stowage wasn’t shells immersed in water or other liquids. It was thin walled tanks between the ammo on the racks so if the compartment got hit, water would hopefully spill out of the reservoir where it was hit and douse any sparks or fire before the ammo could cook off. It was effective at the time, but advancements in the charges used mean that just a few decades later water really wouldn’t be able to deal with a fire and the heat in time, so modern NATO tanks use blowout panels instead now to channel any exolision away from the crew compartment.
Is wet ammo stowage a thing?
It used to be, but not in the sense that the shells are in a pool of water. They had containers of water in between the ammo, so that in the case of a hit on the ammo rack, it would soak the ammo and hopefully not turn the tank into a quickbake oven.
Whether or not it worked, or if just moving the ammo out of the line of fire was what helped is up for debate. Modern tanks use faster burning charges, so soaking them probably wouldn’t work anyway, so they have blowout panels instead.
Yeah, superheated steam is really good for the skin, I hear.
That makes sense. I was mildly surprised that shells would be okay to permanently immerse in water.
In the short term it would be fine, as long as the shell was wiped down and dried before being put in the breach. But historically, no one ever just had shells sitting in water or liquid. Would make way too much of a mess.
The USS Arizona has wet ammo stowage.
It’s used in tanks, too. Or was, at least, with the Sherman being a famous example.
Huh.
In that case this isn’t as dumb as OP probably thought when they drew it. If your ammo cooks off in 40 or 50C, you have bigger problems. The only thing I’d worry about is what the shells leach into the water.
Heavy metals that will be absorbed into your skin over a long enough time frame, gradually giving you the sub-dermal armor augmentation from Deus Ex
Wet stowage wasn’t shells immersed in water or other liquids. It was thin walled tanks between the ammo on the racks so if the compartment got hit, water would hopefully spill out of the reservoir where it was hit and douse any sparks or fire before the ammo could cook off. It was effective at the time, but advancements in the charges used mean that just a few decades later water really wouldn’t be able to deal with a fire and the heat in time, so modern NATO tanks use blowout panels instead now to channel any exolision away from the crew compartment.
Woosh
My first response was its a firefighting thing where the mag could be flooded to protect them.
But now you actually asked the question I could actually be full of shit.