|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
 
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paracowboy
tomahawk6
why has this not been addressed before? Surely someone must have caught these facts when the tank was first bring produced? Lower heat signature, triple the range, and faster? There has to be a reason they didn't go with diesel in the first place.
PC, the turbine engine was chosen because it accelerated quicker and had a higher top speed than a diesel. I agree that the Army should replace the turbine engine in some M1's with a diesel that is more robust and gets much better fuel economy than the turbine engine. Technology for diesel engines has come quite aways since the '70's, so the switch to diesel would not slow down the M1 that much.
quote:
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.
Steve,
The cost is not just what is required for a few extra thousand gallons of JP8. It's the cost to get the fuel there in airlift/sealift/trucklift (what else could be delivered instead?), the cost in logistical facility footprint, the cost in manpower required for larger logistical footprint, the time to get all this in theater and in country.....etc. The list goes on.
A turbine engine tank is an anathema to Expeditionary warfare. Our forces in Iraq had to halt after few days of combat so that Fuel could catch up to them. It is not good when you outrun your fuel supply, it tends to halt your advance immediately.
Our MBTs clearly outclass anything that an Arab military can field against us at the moment. If we are going to be able to conduct future Expeditionary warfare in support of "The War on Terror" then we are going to have to field an "Expeditionary Tank" with a diesel that will use much less fuel IMO. Not to even mention that a diesel is MUCH more robust (can take more battle damage and keep running) than a gas turbine.
A diesel-electric hybrid or perhaps even a turbine-electric hybrid powerpack for the M1 Abrams might be the best overall solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 10:13 PM
Posts: 5,502,
Visits: 70
|
|
How about this?
Develop a drop-in diesel power pack and a fuel system flush. A theater commander could make the call of which plants to have installed.
The downsides I see with turbines are the complete supply line for one item for one vehicle instead of just transporting 'fuel'.
Even if you did have a field phone attached to an M1, who's gonna brave the heat to use it? If its a TA1 with wire, it can get torn off with movement. I am picturing the scene in Full Metal Jacket where the grunts talk directly to the tank and direct fires into a building.
Go with God, but make Him walk the point.
If you load a mudfoot down with a lot of gadgets he has to watch somebody a lot more simply equipped - say with a stone axe - will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying to read a Vernier. - Robert Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Registered User
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:03 PM
Posts: 2,375,
Visits: 2,519
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group:
Last Login: 11/1/2008 9:24 PM
Posts: 239,
Visits: 108
|
|
For one a Diesel is faster than a Turbine. Due to no lag. The Leo 2 A5 is the best tank I have been in. The US Army was looking at the same power pack of the Leo.
Garad man, your in a 60 ton kill machine, noise does not matter.
The Challenger 2 is a Inf tank, designed to assault with the inf. The power pack in the Leo1/2, Challenger is a multi fuel. It will burn anything. In winter we used a naptha mix. The veh techs have used comet in worn engines to get a few more miles. I have seen a deisel use it own oil to run. After a piston blew. A good crew tank can change out a pack in 45 mins. The Germains hold the record of 25 mins for a Leo 1 A3. The biggest pain in pulling a pack, is the QDCs in the engine coolant system. They get full is crap and stick.
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 2/14/2008 2:14 PM
Posts: 369,
Visits: 48
|
|
quote:
How about this?
Develop a drop-in diesel power pack and a fuel system flush.
Based on the size of the flat, twin turbo diesel in the M60, I'm not sure a diesel would fit. The MTU diesel in the latest Leo is a 90 degree V12.
The Leo II diesel is 1,500 hp like the M1, and a Leo II was trialed with the Lycoming turbine way back when.
Armor Magazine reported in 1999 a study by a company called Forecast International, naming the Leo II as the world's best tank, followed by the Abrams. They also looked at the French, Israeli, Korean, and several Russian models.
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
The Germans are producing a MTU diesel engine for the proposed M1A1 sale to Turkey.
Here is some info on diesel engines in an M1 tank:
http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm
http://me.engin.umich.edu/autolab/Publications/Adobe/P1999_04_scanned.PDF
And here is perhaps a really great USMC and Army Expeditionary MBT:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m60-2000.htm
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw010206_1_n.shtml
Here is a link for some excellent info on the M1 tank series:
http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapons/gcv/tanks/w0003593.html
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Registered User
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:03 PM
Posts: 2,375,
Visits: 2,519
|
|
| Here is a link for the Israeli upgrade of the M-60.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 10:13 PM
Posts: 5,502,
Visits: 70
|
|
So the Army should have mostly M1 types and a few light tanks and the Marines should have mostly light tanks and a few M1s types.
| | | |