|
|
|
Trooper
 
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 11/3/2006 11:23 PM
Posts: 918,
Visits: 83
|
|
With the auto companies focusing on Hybrid engines, would it be plausible to put a diesel/electric hybrid engine in?
Even if the electric motor is only powerful enough to power the tank's electric and diesel takes over when moving it would save alot of fuel.
I have nothing against mankind, its people I can't stand.
|
|
|
|
|
Masters of Hard Knocks from the University of Gravity
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: Today @ 5:13 PM
Posts: 2,515,
Visits: 3,036
|
|
You can add one other point for the design of the Abrams. It was designed for the European theater more then the desert. The design for Europe was great because even though we would fight both offensive and defensively there were fuel storages everwhere.
During the First Gulf War we stay relatively close to the fuel entry point in Saudi.
This time we've penetrated hundreds of miles inland and must truck all of our supplies or fly all of our supplys in land. The logistical challenge has always been there for this theater of war. I don't care if it was the M60 with its desiel or the M1 with a turbine. All tanks are gas hogs.
The question about the Challenger or the Mek or any other tank is this:
What is the fuel capacity?
What is the fuel usage?
Most US military vehicles are designed around the 300 mile range. Meaning that the size of the fuel tanks on the vehicle are designed for the vehicle to move about 300 miles before it needs to be refueled.
So how big are the fuel tanks on the Challenger and how far before it needs to be refuelled?
"Si Vis Pacum Para Bellum"
If you want peace prepare for war!
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/31/2004 11:42 AM
Posts: 121,
Visits: 1
|
|
quote:
I would like to see the 7.62mm coax replaced by a 7.62mm mimi gun with some type of turret or armor shielding.
Why? The M240 coax is as reliable as granite, and the rate of fire is actually too high already. The only thing a minigun does for you is eat ammo faster and force reloading much more often. It also won't fit. Ever been in an Abrams? There isn't very much space inside, most of it is taken up by the breechblock.
quote:
Maybe replace the commanders weapon with a 40mm grenade launcher.
You can fit the Mk19Mod 3 to the commander's mount, it replaces the M2 50cal. You see this on occasion, depends on where the unit can steal the Mk19's from, as they are not normal T/O, AFAIK. S/F...Ken M
"It's easy to be hard, it's hard to be smart"
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Registered User
Last Login: Today @ 9:45 AM
Posts: 2,361,
Visits: 2,460
|
|
Sorry echo, I meant to say replace the loaders 7.62mm with a mini gun
of the same caliber. Upgrade the coax to .50 cal.
It is clear the turbine engine is 60's technology and needs to be replaced. There is no question about this. A new engine is necessary
and I think due to the cost savings to the Army's long term budget a diesel will replace the turbine. Fuel consumption on all diesels are roughly the same and again there is no doubt that it alot less than the turbine. For the Turkish Army an M1 has been offered with a deisel. Few countries can afford to operate a gas turbine engine. Putting in a deisel will certainly reduce the Army's support requirements which in the current climate of transformation is a good thing and cheaper than a new tank.
Abrams - 504 U.S. gal (1,908 liters) internal
Challenger 2- 1592 lit
Merkava - 1400 liters
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Ei Temporis Vita Semper Resumo Sese
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:35 PM
Posts: 8,449,
Visits: 7,539
|
|
Black Eagle is nothing more than an upgraded POS T-80... easy pickings for any properly crewed Western modern MBT. The Merkava is tailor made for operations in the area which it's fielded and is woefully slow and vulnerable to modern AT systems. The Challenger 2 is... well... it's a close second to the M1A2 but not even close to the M1A2 SEP.
To go with a conventional diesel engine would be to negate the mobility advantage the M1 has over all it's peers... Some tanks have equivalant armor (Challenger 2) fire power (Challenger 2... no one else uses DU super sabot) and observation (Frog's AMX-40 has a system similar to the TCITS) but none have the complete package of capabilitys the M1 series possess. Sorry, but if you want our DATs to have the advantage on the modern battlefield, we need to fork out the additional cost for higher fuel consumption. A few extra thousand gallons of JP8 are a hell of a lot cheaper than a dozen burnt out hulks of tanks that had a longer exposure time or were caught by IDPCM because they couldn't maneuver fast enough.
"The degenerative and loony should never be denigrated but, rather, thanked. In their absence, the rest of you would be obliged to fill congressional seats... positions naturally unsavory to the sane and honorable." Thorax
|
|
|
|
|
Masters of Hard Knocks from the University of Gravity
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: Today @ 5:13 PM
Posts: 2,515,
Visits: 3,036
|
|
According to the one of the British Army web sites:
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0023.html
The Challenger 2 has a fuel capacity of 1797 liters or about 475 gallons of fuel. So the difference between diesel and JP8 is only 30 gallons. I don't call that significant enough to change the engine type!
The Challenger has a published road range of 450 km (279 miles) and a cross country range of 250 km (155 miles).
The Merkava tank is not even in the same league as either the Abrams or Challenger 2.
I'll agree that a newer powerplant may be needed but diesel is not necessarily the answer.
"Si Vis Pacum Para Bellum"
If you want peace prepare for war!
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: Today @ 2:50 PM
Posts: 2,953,
Visits: 5,185
|
|
The new engine will eliminate visible exhaust and as far as road and off-road speed, put it in the Cobra/Ferrari class compared to other Pacer/Edsel tanks.:
quote:
" . . . . The US Army has selected Honeywell International Engines and Systems and General Electric to develop a new LV100-5 gas turbine engine for the M1A2. The new engine is lighter and smaller with rapid acceleration, quieter running and no visible exhaust."
|
|
|
|
 Posted 12/8/2003 8:43 AM |
| | | |