WHICH TANK WILL RULE THEM ALL ????
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
This is getting a bit frustrating. Please stop introducing new factors to the equation. First its the nukes, and now you're talking about smart munitions the Soviets DIDN'T have during the cold war.
Your points were that:-
1. There were insufficient M1s.
2. NATO could not logistically support the deployment of M1 tanks.
3. M1s are so fuel thirsty that they would not last a protracted conflict.
4. Perhaps the most senseless statement, that : "Had there been World War III, do you think the M1 would win the war?"To that, I pointed out that, your points 1 and 2 conflicted with each other. When there are fewer tanks, less logistics is required to support. I added that, the Soviets would have been more likely to face logistics issues simply because they had to support a larger mass.
To the point of fuel, I conceded that its true. But it was not true that they could not last a protracted conflict because NATO would have been fighting a fluid defensive battle in order to attrit the Soviets, while enticing them deeper into Europe and lengthening Soviet supply chains. While NATO tanks and troops operated with shorter supply chains, Soviet ones would have to a lengthier logistics trail to worry about.
To the final point of your ORIGINAL discussion, WW3 will not / would not (hasn't happened yet...) have been won by M1s. Saying that would have been tantamount to saying that AK-47s won the Vietnam war.
I didn't add this earlier because I didn't think it was important. NATO Tankees would not have been worried about any T-72 or T-55 above 1000m. It was the T-64s they were afraid of.
In conclusion to the original arguement, I disagree that the Soviets would have been able to successfully invade Europe with sheer quantity.
Note: The Americans had smart anti-tank submunition weapons, not the Soviets.I'm not introducing new factors to the equation or trying to win an argument with you. I was merely stating my opinions which everyone is entitled to. You should not be relating my opinion on the growing sophistication of anti tank weaponry to my previous posts. They were never meant to be related in any way.
There is no connection between point 1 and point 2. If the M1 numbers were still to small there would not be any logistic nightmare. So why did you try to connect these two. I didn't. I was merely stating that the T-72 and T-55 came out first than the M1.
My question whether that the M1 would win the war is like saying that the F-22 would rule the sky i.e being vastly superior to any other contender. If the Ak-47 was vastly superior than the M-16 you could say that the AK-47 won the Vietnam war. Don't take it literally. I thought it was obvious sigh.
Oh please dont think the T-72 and T-55 as such a bad tank incapable of killing NATO tanks. The ammunition that the Iraqis used during both gulf war was obsolete and many were supplied with training rounds or were selfproduced with abysmal quality material. A T-72 with later ammunition is capable of killing even an M1A1(HA) at over 1000m. Of course it may take load of hits to kill an M1A1(HA) with hits on its frontal turret armor(so you may say they are invulnerable at their frontal turret) but a hit on the lower hull and sides and the gap between the gun amntlet and the hull would surely kill the M1 first chance. Of course you cannot compare the T-55 or even T-72 with M1 on one to one basis. The T-55 and T-72 were more suited to fight with older NATO tanks such as the AMX-30, Leopard 1, Centurion, M-47 and M-48. But a T-72 is still capable of killing an M1 at more than 1000m given an updated ammunition and the right spot to hit. I was just saying not to underestimate the T-55 and T-72 or Russian armor in general. They were good tanks in their time. The Russian always had a history in building capable tank starting with their T-34 with its innovative sloped armor that gave the German a pang or two on the face since they believed that the Russians were of inferior race. The T-55 was innovative too in a way. It introduced even more superior than simple(yet effective) sloped armor: hemispherical armor. I think the US copied the design to their own tank. That reflected the US high regard and acknowledegement to the superior shape of the Russian T-54/55. The Soviet also put the first tank with autoloader into production way before Challenger 2 or the Leclerc(I know about MBT 70 but that was never put into production). The Soviet was also the first to mount the superior(speed) smoothbore cannon in a tank starting with their T-62. Now almost all modern tank mount a smoothbore gun except the British Challenger and the Indian Arjun which continue the use of HESH round. The Soviet was also the first to mount night fighting(active Infra red) devices to their tanks.
And I never mentioned or even implied that the Soviets (or the NATO for that matter), would be successful in invading Europe.
I never even implied that the Soviet had smart weapons.
Actually the Soviet also had smart anti tank weapons that are now offered for foreign sales. It is an artillery launched laser guided anti tank munition similar to what the US had(no longer in production). But now the US is developing a smart fire and forget type which is more advance as it doesn't need a forward observer.
-
I'm not saying that you are not allowed to express your opinion. But I was challenging your statement:-
When the cold war was at its height do you think there were enough M1 tanks to stop the Soviet army tank of T-55s and the T-72s which sported the biggest smoothbore gun ever mounted in any tank?
If you cannot see the connection between points 1 and 2, then I think this is a futile discussion on your part. Munitions, Fuel, Food, and Water don't get "miracled" (pardon the pun) to the front line troops. The more M1 tanks I have, the more supplies I need to move to get them to the troops. The more supplies I need to move, the more vehicles I need to carry them. The more vehicles I need to carry them, the more fuel I burn.
So the "fewer" M1s would have a much smaller logistics trail compared to the Soviet horde. The Americans are not stupid. With far fewer tanks, they know they have to ensure a qualitative advantage of the Soviets.
Of course it may take load of hits to kill an M1A1(HA) with hits on its frontal turret armor(so you may say they are invulnerable at their frontal turret) but a hit on the lower hull and sides and the gap between the gun amntlet and the hull would surely kill the M1 first chance.
From this, its apparent to me that you do not understand the nature of armored warfare during the cold war. An M1 is not gonna stay there, to take hit after hit from a T-72 or trade fire from a static position. Real armored warfare isn't Command & Conquer. Tanks move from position to position rapidly using smoke screens and indirect fire support. The T-72 would have been eaten alive in an engagement against M1s.
For the record, the T-72s that formed the BULK of the Soviet armies had inferior fire control computers, slow auto-reloaders, and inadequate survivability because the ammo carousel is located right under the turret. The T-72s would have been hard pressed to hit the M1s, not to mention kill it. Under 1000m, the T-72s would have a better chance hitting them, but killing them would still be questionable.
The only tank the Soviets had that stood a chance against the M1s or M-60A2/A3s were the T-64. These were at one point, exclusively used by Elite formations.
If you still don't understand, I will spell it out. My disagreement with you is over these 2 paragraphs, and the following baloney about T-55s and T-72s being very capable tanks.
When the cold war was at its height do you think there were enough M1 tanks to stop the Soviet army tank of T-55s and the T-72s which sported the biggest smoothbore gun ever mounted in any tank?
and
Had there been World War III, do you think the M1 would win the war? The deployment of M1 requires extensive logistics chain thanks to its very very fuel thirsty turbine engine. M1s may be able to win a limited war but a protracted world war? maybe not. The Leopard 2 has a better chance I say.
And that is the context of what I am challenging, the Cold War. It has nothing to do with later developments of ammunition of T-72s or Smart Munitions. Majority of the vast improvements came AFTER the Cold War where much Western technologies were used to improve them. The T-72s, when compared against the corresponding M1 of its time, will always be just be equally inferior.
-
-
I think the yanks were not stupid when they introduced the M1, the issues of fuel efficency were considered and managed for the simple reason that high performance and battlefield reliability (turbines have less moving parts, more reliable and are easier to maintain) were more pressing needs for a western tank then having enough fuel.
And in terms of performance the M1 offered a massive leap over the previous M60 Patton, and in the light of the cold war situtation it was a justified technological investment.
Also the whole fuel efficency thing is often taken way out of context- yes the turbine of the M1 burns more fuel when it is in idle, but if you are talking about manuver warfare the turbine actually becomes the engine of choice because it actually burns less fuel then a normal powerpack at full trottle.
Also note this, if turbines were so impossible for armies to keep supplied and running, then it would be difficult to even operate helicopters.
The whole thing on fuel efficency also raises more issues... even if a T-72 is two times more fuel efficent then an M1, in an expected battle can one M1 be expected to kill two T-72s or even more?
And yes, how can the whole issue of keeping the M1s fueled be even an issue if the argument that there aren't that many (by somebody's argument) M1s to begin with?
All in all I find all these arguments kinda pointless, we are assuming they are going to fight armoured warfare battle of Kursk style in battleship style broadsides. Add force multipliers like combined arms and manuver warfare and what have you not and everything changes, it's not just simple number crunching.
Truth is, tanks are not fuel efficent to begin with, if some designers are going to not focus too much on that and getting a high-performance tank by using a turbine, I don't think they really should be faulted. If you want fuel efficent anti-armour then use infantry ATGMs.
-
My point is, the Yanks would not have used a turbine engine in the M1 if it was really such a liability, they did have the option of using a normal powerplant when they were designing it, and could easily revert back to using so if it was really such a drain on the supply lines.
Hence one needs to be more careful before one makes statements like "M1s can't fight because they use more fuel then a normal engine."
-
MAMMOTH TANK!
sry too much C&C
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I think the yanks were not stupid when they introduced the M1, the issues of fuel efficency were considered and managed for the simple reason that high performance and battlefield reliability (turbines have less moving parts, more reliable and are easier to maintain) were more pressing needs for a western tank then having enough fuel.
And in terms of performance the M1 offered a massive leap over the previous M60 Patton, and in the light of the cold war situtation it was a justified technological investment.
Also the whole fuel efficency thing is often taken way out of context- yes the turbine of the M1 burns more fuel when it is in idle, but if you are talking about manuver warfare the turbine actually becomes the engine of choice because it actually burns less fuel then a normal powerpack at full trottle.
Also note this, if turbines were so impossible for armies to keep supplied and running, then it would be difficult to even operate helicopters.
The whole thing on fuel efficency also raises more issues... even if a T-72 is two times more fuel efficent then an M1, in an expected battle can one M1 be expected to kill two T-72s or even more?
And yes, how can the whole issue of keeping the M1s fueled be even an issue if the argument that there aren't that many (by somebody's argument) M1s to begin with?
All in all I find all these arguments kinda pointless, we are assuming they are going to fight armoured warfare battle of Kursk style in battleship style broadsides. Add force multipliers like combined arms and manuver warfare and what have you not and everything changes, it's not just simple number crunching.
Truth is, tanks are not fuel efficent to begin with, if some designers are going to not focus too much on that and getting a high-performance tank by using a turbine, I don't think they really should be faulted. If you want fuel efficent anti-armour then use infantry ATGMs.
T-rex argument need some correction
The M1 turbine are smaller and more compact which the US select for M1. Althought it is more advance then M60 engine, but it is not fair to compare it with old generation engine, it should be compare with new desel engines like lepoard 2 which is in no way less powerful.
T-Rex - fuel efficency thing is correct, yes the turbine of the M1 burns more fuel at the same rate regardless of idle or manuver, while the diesel engine, burn less fuel idle and a lot more in manuver. However issue in armour warfare - you do not power up only when you see the enemy, - a huge percentage of time - the armour is actually idle then manuvering. That why M1 is a too fuel hunger, only super power like US that have the resource to push that type of supply line through can use M1.
If turbines were so impossible for armies to keep supplied and running, then it would be difficult to even operate helicopters ? That is a wrong comments -Helicopter mostly operate out of airbase, they usually return to the airbase to be serivce and station there. So far i do not see tanks that fight then return to an tank-base behind the enemy line to serive and station there till deploy. Thus this is a wrong statment.
You totally miss out the greatest advantage of the turbine engine ! even thought it may be harder to maintance and eat more fuel ...... what it offer is in return is stealth - quietest of its turbine engine ! - A M1 tank company can be so quiet - that by the time you hear their M1 tanks , they are already engaging the enemy. -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
My point is, the Yanks would not have used a turbine engine in the M1 if it was really such a liability, they did have the option of using a normal powerplant when they were designing it, and could easily revert back to using so if it was really such a drain on the supply lines.
Hence one needs to be more careful before one makes statements like "M1s can't fight because they use more fuel then a normal engine."
The Yanks went with a turbine engine in the M1 desprite all those disadvantage, because - you all totally miss the key advantage. Stealth - the quietness of the turbine engine. They are so quiet that by the time you hear them, they are already attacking you.
M1 fuel requirement is its main weakness - frankly unless you are a superpower like USA that can push the supplies through - it will be a great weakness for most countries ..... a tank without fuel is useless !!! -
The M1 turbine are smaller and more compact which the US select for M1. Althought it is more advance then M60 engine, but it is not fair to compare it with old generation engine, it should be compare with new desel engines like lepoard 2 which is in no way less powerful.
Nope, they both may be 1,500hp packs but they are NOT equal.
It's not just about power. Turbines are smaller and lighter and contain less moving parts then a conventional tank powerpack of the same power. Given their genesis in aviation requirements, the turbine is built for reliabilty at high power settings.
In fact turbines offer advantages in just about every area over conventional powepacks except in one critical area, and that is fuel efficency. In fact at a point of time it was considered the de-facto standard for the next generation of powerpacks- that is until the cold war ended.
In terms of stealth the turbine isn't that much quieter then the normal engine, however it does not sound anything like a tank would, more like a giant vaccum cleaner, which would confuse or catch an unexperienced enemy unaware. Also the M1 has a much larger IR signature then your normal MBT (basically it's a jet engine in a tank), making it show up better on thermal sights and what have you not. I'm not sure it's that stealthy.
Frankly AFVs don't make that much noise as we'd expect them to, I've seen a BX approach me before and I could not hear it until it was pretty close.
As I said, I don't think the M1 burns that much more fuel, considering the Australians are willing to get their own stock of M1A1s when there are plenty of Leo2A4s sitting around to be sold.
-
That is a wrong comments -Helicopter mostly operate out of airbase, they usually return to the airbase to be serivce and station there. So far i do not see tanks that fight then return to an tank-base behind the enemy line to serive and station there till deploy. Thus this is a wrong statment.
Erm if anything it proves my point rather then detracts from it.
The difference is that now you got to bring the fuel to them instead of them coming back to the fuel, and that's basically it.
In fact going by this logic, moving fuel to the users actually render them far more fuel efficent (by a factor of 2) then having to make return trips for it, even after factoring in the fuel needed to transport the fuel.
But the bottom line does not change, the M1 may be a gas guzzler, but it isn't impossible to operate ala. MnP's point on it creating a logistical nightmare. It does not. It creates more logistics but it does not make the task impossible, even for a force like the Australian Defence Forces.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Nope, they both may be 1,500hp packs but they are NOT equal.
It's not just about power. Turbines are smaller and lighter and contain less moving parts then a conventional tank powerpack of the same power. Given their genesis in aviation requirements, the turbine is built for reliabilty at high power settings.
In fact turbines offer advantages in just about every area over conventional powepacks except in one critical area, and that is fuel efficency. In fact at a point of time it was considered the de-facto standard for the next generation of powerpacks- that is until the cold war ended.
In terms of stealth the turbine isn't that much quieter then the normal engine, however it does not sound anything like a tank would, more like a giant vaccum cleaner, which would confuse or catch an unexperienced enemy unaware. Also the M1 has a much larger IR signature then your normal MBT (basically it's a jet engine in a tank), making it show up better on thermal sights and what have you not. I'm not sure it's that stealthy.
Frankly AFVs don't make that much noise as we'd expect them to, I've seen a BX approach me before and I could not hear it until it was pretty close.
As I said, I don't think the M1 burns that much more fuel, considering the Australians are willing to get their own stock of M1A1s when there are plenty of Leo2A4s sitting around to be sold.
It does sound a lot more quieter then most diesal engine. There was an article somewhere in on of the tanks books.
Yes the fuel comsumption is much higher - the book did a calucation of 1 bat of leo tanks with M1 - and they calculated that m1 does require a rather high significant percentage over leo tanks.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Erm if anything it proves my point rather then detracts from it.
The difference is that now you got to bring the fuel to them instead of them coming back to the fuel, and that's basically it.
In fact going by this logic, moving fuel to the users actually render them far more fuel efficent (by a factor of 2) then having to make return trips for it, even after factoring in the fuel needed to transport the fuel.
But the bottom line does not change, the M1 may be a gas guzzler, but it isn't impossible to operate ala. MnP's point on it creating a logistical nightmare. It does not. It creates more logistics but it does not make the task impossible, even for a force like the Australian Defence Forces.
Every tanks will need fuel to be bring to it.
But then m1 will need a lot of more fuel tankers !!!
Just imagine - M1 supply convoy have to add on another 30 fuel tankers then compare to others !!! It does make a hell of a concern for a lot of other countries..!!!
But US can afford that, as Aust usually operate together with US, thus they may not post that much issuse as to a lot of other countries !!!
Even type of tanks is a risk to operate if you cannot secure its fuel supply, but dragging another 30 fuel tankers - just added a few more risk percentage that all.As for why aust buy the M1 instead of leo 2 could be a lot of reasons - a lot can be due to political. Anyway Aust choice of weapons systems - has indeed raise some question on suitability and are they really getting the best ? Anyway Aust & US folks are used to big cars - LOL so fuel is never something in their mind.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
It does sound a lot more quieter then most diesal engine. There was an article somewhere in on of the tanks books.
Yes the fuel comsumption is much higher - the book did a calucation of 1 bat of leo tanks with M1 - and they calculated that m1 does require a rather high significant percentage over leo tanks.
But then again on the battlefield your IR signature will be more of an issue then how quiet you are. And the turbine does have a much larger IR signature.The question of fuel consumption will be an issue if your logistics can keep up with it, but then again I maintain that it won't be such an issue that will end up crippling supply lines, especially for the Americans.
According to manufacturer's figures, the Abrams turbine's fuel consumption at best speed for maximum range is 0.58 miles per gallon (0.25 km per liter); the Leopard 's 1.08 miles per gallon (0.46 km per liter) is nearly twice as good. More practically stated, the Leopard travels 56 mi (90 km) farther on 57 percent less fuel. Fuel consumption while idling is the turbine's weakest point, consumption at idle being perhaps three times as much as the diesel. On the other hand, the German engine weighs more than twice as much as the AGT-1500 turbine and occupies more volume.
Note that this is "best speed for maximum range", not maximum speed performance.
At the end of the day if you look at the trends in the cold war it is not hard to see why the went for the gas turbine, this was because performance and reliability were more pressing issues then fuel. The Soviets will be the ones with the fuel issue trying to get their swarm of tanks to move.
But that said, given the way things are now, with the end of the threat of having to face swarms of armour and the focus on urban fighting and network warfare, the yanks will probably go back to using a conventional powerpack for their next generation MBT.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
But then again on the battlefield your IR signature will be more of an issue then how quiet you are. And the turbine does have a much larger IR signature.The question of fuel consumption will be an issue if your logistics can keep up with it, but then again I maintain that it won't be such an issue that will end up crippling supply lines, especially for the Americans.
Note that this is "best speed for maximum range", not maximum speed performance.
At the end of the day if you look at the trends in the cold war it is not hard to see why the went for the gas turbine, this was because performance and reliability were more pressing issues then fuel. The Soviets will be the ones with the fuel issue trying to get their swarm of tanks to move.
But that said, given the way things are now, with the end of the threat of having to face swarms of armour and the focus on urban fighting and network warfare, the yanks will probably go back to using a conventional powerpack for their next generation MBT.
the Leopard travels 56 mi (90 km) farther on 57 percent less fuel - 57% is very shocking mean for every oil tanker - if leopard bridage need 30 tankers - M1 will need about 60 tankers !
"best speed for maximum range", not maximum speed performance ? did you know the US have to put in limiter to stop the crew from speeding over certain speed in M1 ... must be a reason also.
if turbine is really that great - others would have followed. But others prefer to stick with diesel, there must be valid concern.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
the Leopard travels 56 mi (90 km) farther on 57 percent less fuel - 57% is very shocking mean for every oil tanker - if leopard bridage need 30 tankers - M1 will need about 60 tankers !
So?
If you logistics trail can support it in case of the yanks, it's not an issue. Having enough too much armour and lack of fuel was never less of the issue of NATO forces, and having tanks that will outperform soviet tanks were.
It's like saying our M-16 will waste far more bullets then the M-14 because of its higher rate of fire. At the end of the day can the M-1 still fight? Did it still fight? Of course it did. The rest is just nitpicking.
"best speed for maximum range", not maximum speed performance ? did you know the US have to put in limiter to stop the crew from speeding over certain speed in M1 ... must be a reason also.
if turbine is really that great - others would have followed. But others prefer to stick with diesel, there must be valid concern.
Note this is speed for maximum range, not speed. For example, if both tanks were supposed to make best speed over time, advancing on to objective as quickly as possible, the turbine is the most efficent powerplant to use. At full power the diesel burnsa more fuel, as well as wears out faster.
Also, turbines do not experience the cold-start problems that affect diesels and are capable of burning just about any kind of fuel you can put into it from jet fuel to jim bean (though for logistical purposes the Yanks use helicopter fuel for their tanks). Indeed save for fuel efficency the turbine outperforms the diesel in virtually every other area.
The reason was for traffic safety during peacetime, but in wartime the speed governer is one of the first things the crew will remove. Before the governer was introduced there was an incident in which an M1 (the original model) outran an army jeep of MPs.
When it was first introduced in the cold war, the turbine engine was considered the next step in MBT powerpacks, given their very good power-to-weight ratio and reliability. Even the soviets considered mounting them on the T-80.
However, with the end of the threat of the cold war, the task of the MBT switched from having to go mano-a-mano in cold-war style armoured conflict into the more infantry-support and urban role that we have today. In this case fuel efficency will be more of an issue as the tanks will not be moving at top speed most of the time, this has led to the resurgence of the diesel powerplant as the choice engine for the MBT.
An alternative idea has a MBT with a diesel powerplant for normal movement, and a gas turbine for bursts of speed when needed. The S-Tank used this configuration.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
So?
If you logistics trail can support it in case of the yanks, it's not an issue. Having enough too much armour and lack of fuel was never less of the issue of NATO forces, and having tanks that will outperform soviet tanks were.
It's like saying our M-16 will waste far more bullets then the M-14 because of its higher rate of fire. At the end of the day can the M-1 still fight? Did it still fight? Of course it did. The rest is just nitpicking.
Note this is speed for maximum range, not speed. For example, if both tanks were supposed to make best speed over time, advancing on to objective as quickly as possible, the turbine is the most efficent powerplant to use. At full power the diesel burnsa more fuel, as well as wears out faster.
Also, turbines do not experience the cold-start problems that affect diesels and are capable of burning just about any kind of fuel you can put into it from jet fuel to jim bean (though for logistical purposes the Yanks use helicopter fuel for their tanks). Indeed save for fuel efficency the turbine outperforms the diesel in virtually every other area.
The reason was for traffic safety during peacetime, but in wartime the speed governer is one of the first things the crew will remove. Before the governer was introduced there was an incident in which an M1 (the original model) outran an army jeep of MPs.
When it was first introduced in the cold war, the turbine engine was considered the next step in MBT powerpacks, given their very good power-to-weight ratio and reliability. Even the soviets considered mounting them on the T-80.
However, with the end of the threat of the cold war, the task of the MBT switched from having to go mano-a-mano in cold-war style armoured conflict into the more infantry-support and urban role that we have today. In this case fuel efficency will be more of an issue as the tanks will not be moving at top speed most of the time, this has led to the resurgence of the diesel powerplant as the choice engine for the MBT.
An alternative idea has a MBT with a diesel powerplant for normal movement, and a gas turbine for bursts of speed when needed. The S-Tank used this configuration.
Most of the time - tanks usually spend in waiting, travelling to contract - those does not even come close to full power. Even when enemy contacted - with its superior longer range cannon - that is very less need of M1 like old movies - go charging headon down at the enemy. Thus in real life - full power usuage is very rare.
Also you must consider different terrains - in Iraq - open desert - thus M1 can travel a lot faster a lot of area is open space - which you can see miles away - thus it is safe to travel faster and manuvoer. Also this make logistic a hell lot easier to supply.
In Europe and other countries - there is a lot woodland, mountains, rivers .... tank movement will be different and supply is harder.
Also in iraq - the US and allies have huge advantages, which is a one-sided battles which the planes already pounded the iraqs armours to pieces -thus US armour have the upper hand - thus they are on the offensive side and rush in to kick assess.
In europe - the russian will have the massive strenght, the Nato will not have at advantages, in fact they will be on the defensive. Thus together with the terrain , diesel engine will be a better choice for this battlefield, then M1.With the advance is tanks cannon & aimming system - allow the tanks to safely engage from a distance also have an impact on how tanks is used. With anti-tank weapons availability - also change the way tanks fight- don't think you see much of a full charge :). Thus think in long term - we would be seening more of diesel engines tanks then any turbine .
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
Most of the time - tanks usually spend in waiting, travelling to contract - those does not even come close to full power. Even when enemy contacted - with its superior longer range cannon - that is very less need of M1 like old movies - go charging headon down at the enemy. Thus in real life - full power usuage is very rare.
Also you must consider different terrains - in Iraq - open desert - thus M1 can travel a lot faster a lot of area is open space - which you can see miles away - thus it is safe to travel faster and manuvoer. Also this make logistic a hell lot easier to supply.
In Europe and other countries - there is a lot woodland, mountains, rivers .... tank movement will be different and supply is harder.
Also in iraq - the US and allies have huge advantages, which is a one-sided battles which the planes already pounded the iraqs armours to pieces -thus US armour have the upper hand - thus they are on the offensive side and rush in to kick assess.
In europe - the russian will have the massive strenght, the Nato will not have at advantages, in fact they will be on the defensive. Thus together with the terrain , diesel engine will be a better choice for this battlefield, then M1.With the advance is tanks cannon & aimming system - allow the tanks to safely engage from a distance also have an impact on how tanks is used. With anti-tank weapons availability - also change the way tanks fight- don't think you see much of a full charge :). Thus think in long term - we would be seening more of diesel engines tanks then any turbine .
No argument there, you basically restated all my points.In any case the M1A2 SEP improves on fuel efficency by havingan APU, hence not needing to idle the main engine whenever it is not moving, vastly improving it's fuel efficency over previous models.
But in terms of armoured warfare, mobility will always be important. This not to much to dodge shots as it is to allow your forces to out-manuver the enemy, especially if you are talking about network-centric warfare which will involve a lot of battles of manuver.
-
Diesels have gone along way the past 20 years. They are very much more compact for the same power, are extremely reliable and very fuel efficient. I do not see turbines having a future in MBTs - neither do many other countries - US excepting of course.
Personally, I'd rather not like to depend on a big a logistics tail , especially for fuel.
-
Depending on where they are deployed. Which makes me wonder why Singapore bought a crapload of Leopard 2 tanks. We should just get a bunch of insanely small tanks with huge guns and shitloads of Matadors.
-
'Logistics is the ball and chain of armored warfare.'
so the american have bigger balls , thats all.
-
Depending on where they are deployed. Which makes me wonder why Singapore bought a crapload of Leopard 2 tanks. We should just get a bunch of insanely small tanks with huge guns and shitloads of Matadors.
A lot of other countries seemed to have also bought a so called "crapload of L2s." Fact is that L2s are great tanks.
History has repeatedly shown that lesser armored - read small- tanks are totally ineffective when the shooting starts in a full fledged war. They invariably get quickly replaced by more heavilly armored tanks.
Matadors cant kill MBTs. You will need more SPIKEs or Javelins or the new Russian ATGMs which are highly effective. Russian ATGMs can even pentrate Merkava armor.
-
plus small tank doesnt have the fear factor...unlike big tank...