A locomotive steam boiler is not just a kettle with a fire under it. The water surrounds four of the six sided of the fire box, and the hot gasses exit through numerous tubes (flues) that run the length of the boiler. The area of the flues determines the power output of the boiler, so they are packed into the boiler as densely as possible. It would take a fairly lucky hit to the steam boiler NOT to hit a flue or the firebox wall.
If a bullet pierces the firebox wall, or one or more of the flues, then 100 psi superheated water and steam are going to go blasting into the firebox. On a wood or coal fired train, most likely the door to the firebox is open with the fireman tending the fire. This means that superheated steam and combustion gases and hot coals are going to come blasting across the foot plate into the cab, and into the coal bin on the tender. Because the boiler holds a lot of water and a lot of stored heat, this is going to go on for a long time, and even if they are not quickly killed or maimed, the engineer and fireman are not going to be able to close the firebox door.
Even on an oil fired steam engine, there will be a blast of steam out the grates that will extinguish the fire.
So probably not a fireball, but a huge cloud of white steam would be released, and the hot coals ejected through the grate and out the firebox door could well ignite flammable material around the track.
My late brother-in-law flew F-80s and/or F-84s during the Korean unpleasantness; he flew primarily ground support IIRC and he had some gun camera films that he said he personally took. I never doubted him as the view was certainly what you would expect to see from a cockpit. I was a bloodthirsty 12 year old at the time and i was super impressed by those films. Now I wonder if my sister still has them?
Fire tube or water tube boilers? In both, you have sort of an outer jacket, plates at each end, and tubes running from one plate to another. In a fire tube boiler, the outer jacket is at full steam pressure. I think of a balloon and a pin. My bet is that by WWII. most boilers were water tube. Bullets would make holes in the water tubes and result in the steam in the firebox mess described above. I don’t a quick quick repair of either design if many tubes were holed.
a friend of mine who looks forward to TEOTWAWKI makes armor piercing loads for his .357 magnum that go through the 1/2 inch steel of the old propane tank he made into a smoker. ww2 planes were loaded with heit rounds, a mix of high explosive, incendiary, and tracer rounds that would penetrate an inch of armor. my dad was a b-24 tail gunner and loved his twin fifties, but the truth of the air war over europe in winter 44-45 was that almost the entire luftwaffe was back east fighting the russians, german opposition was so light the gunners on the american heavy bombers only carried enough ammo for 5 seconds of firing. american war movies w/o exception are completely divorced from reality and redtails is a farce, but you can blow up just about anything you see on the ground with those big ol bullets. and the planes are p-51s…
If I’m remembering the red-tail trailer correctly the lead steam engine is blown up and off the tracks like a car in every Hollywood stunt movie. It’s not that the engine explodes, it’s that it is launched off the tracks like there is a Saturn 5 booster underneath it. And I had the same reaction seeing it. Give me a frickin break. I was looking forward to seeing the movie but I’m already disappointed in it.
If thisis the trailer I saw I’d say it’s been edited. Even this trailer looks like something out of star wars and not a realistic portrayal of aircraft flight. I expect a lot finer rendition in CGI then what I saw in the trailer. I was waiting for the Millennium Falcon to fly by.
Oh, and add the scene where the plane deliberately flies through the ship explosion 10 feet off the deck as another example of stupid personified.
oh, won’t be seeing the movie and was just thinking about their action over europe in the p-51. i like things that go fast and blow other things up, i can’t believe i’m still so effing primitive.
interesting. It feels like they didn’t invest a lot of new money refining aircraft flight. Look at something like the flight of the hippogriff scene in Harry Potter. They put a lot of effort into creating the creature and the flight characteristics. This movie looks like they phoned a buddy and borrowed some flight code out of a computer game.
Just based on the trailer the special effects are going to take me out of the movie instead of sucking me into the scene.
So the consensus is “Yes, such armament could take out a locomotive in an impressive fashion, at least temporarily, but probably not send the whole thing tumbling.”
For what it’s worth, I’d expect the locomotive to have a healthy head of steam going if they were trying to avoid getting shot at. Dunno if those things can build up pressure quickly when someone sees enemy air coming down on them.
Also, the P-40s and P-51s carried more or less the same armament: Six .50 caliber machine guns (actually, at various points in their careers, they both shared the same gun arrangements too: 2/2/2 in the wings and nose, and 3/3 in the wings). Did some poking about, and it seems that when they sank the destroyer/torpedo boat, the pilots were flying a P-47 Thunderbolt, the spiritual ancestor to the A-10 Thunderbolt II.
Wasn’t really looking to turn this into an in-depth debate of the movie (loved it) or George Lucas (I’ve enjoyed most of what he’s produced, even if it wasn’t exactly Casablanca). I figure there’s already threads floating around here for that (the Red Tails one, like I said, has been pretty much dormant for a few weeks).
Now, what if the plane and train were both on treadmills?
As long as we are on the subject, for comparison here is a superb fighter-attack-on-a-train from John Frankenheimer’s The Train (1964), which, IMHO, beats the Red Tails sequence for drama in just about every way. Sorry about the less-than-stellar image quality.
I am surprised. So surprised I did some digging. All the references I found confirm fire tube. It seems to me that it would be impractical to build such large boilers as fire tube requiring a huge pressure vessel. Water tube boilers can use small pipes easy to build to withstand high pressures. The large outer shell can then be relatively flimsy only needing to withstand the heat of the fire.
So I doubt the locomotive boilers were overbuilt enough to take multiple 50 cal punctures.
I agree. They used a REAL airplane and a REAL train in the visual depiction of an event. I have absolutely nothing against CGI but if it doesn’t fool my senses then it takes me out of the movie and ruins it.
I was going to nitpick by saying that this is not a correct usage of the word “superheated”, and then I googled and discovered that it actually is. So a little ignorance has been fought and defeated.
Confusingly, this means that a liquid in a pressure vessel, below its saturation temperature but above its “normal” atmospheric boiling point, may simultaneously be described as superheated and subcooled.
