The Army is working on a new hybrid tank.
QuoteMore like a locomotive than a Toyota Prius, the vehicle uses a diesel engine to generate power for electric motors that drive the tracks. The main advantage to this is a 10-20 percent increase in fuel economy, but the instant and consistent torque provided by the electric motors is an added bonus, and the compact size of the mechanicals means there's more room for personnel and equipment on board. Its electrical systems can also be used as a mobile power station for operations.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/02/28/hybrid-tech-heads-to-battlefield/?intcmp=features
The reason the army went away from diesels and went to jet engines in the tanks was the sprint capability that jet engines provided. A diesel would go forever, and was pretty easy to maintain, but when you have to dash from position to position in the middle of a fight, a jet engine doesn't need the extra seconds to 'ramp up' that a diesel does.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 28, 2012, 11:00:47 AM
The reason the army went away from diesels and went to jet engines in the tanks was the sprint capability that jet engines provided. A diesel would go forever, and was pretty easy to maintain, but when you have to dash from position to position in the middle of a fight, a jet engine doesn't need the extra seconds to 'ramp up' that a diesel does.
Do you think our tactics have evolved to the point where we don't need to shoot and scoot? Optics these days have Abrams putting shells on target while maintaining 45/kph over all terrain. Given that context maybe it's now "shoot while scooting?"
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 28, 2012, 11:00:47 AM
The reason the army went away from diesels and went to jet engines in the tanks was the sprint capability that jet engines provided. A diesel would go forever, and was pretty easy to maintain, but when you have to dash from position to position in the middle of a fight, a jet engine doesn't need the extra seconds to 'ramp up' that a diesel does.
but the Leopard2 has double range per liter and the engine runs with everything that burns (and stuff could be catured from the enemy and taken from civilians) ...and war is all about logistics, in the long run ;-)
(both tanks have 1500PS )
and please check wich tank won the Canadian Army Trophy from 1979 on 8)
Do you guys remember when they tried to run a US Navy destroyer on jet fuel back in the 60's or 70's - it didn't go well. But I can see the logic for M-1.
Quote from: MIGMaster on February 28, 2012, 02:21:27 PM
Do you guys remember when they tried to run a US Navy destroyer on jet fuel back in the 60's or 70's - it didn't go well. But I can see the logic for M-1.
No, I don't remember the destroyer experiment. Care to share?
Quote from: MikeGER on February 28, 2012, 02:08:01 PMand please check wich tank won the Canadian Army Trophy from 1979 on 8)
Yeah, I know - those damn Cardboardians just keep trying to over-run Central Germany
In the meantime, M1s have been blowing the shit out of real enemies all over the Middle East ;D
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 29, 2012, 10:50:10 AM
Quote from: MikeGER on February 28, 2012, 02:08:01 PMand please check wich tank won the Canadian Army Trophy from 1979 on 8)
Yeah, I know - those damn Cardboardians just keep trying to over-run Central Germany
In the meantime, M1s have been blowing the shit out of real enemies all over the Middle East ;D
Realisticly, its just a damn good thing there were no Leps in the OPFORs
Quote from: LongBlade on February 28, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
Quote from: MIGMaster on February 28, 2012, 02:21:27 PM
Do you guys remember when they tried to run a US Navy destroyer on jet fuel back in the 60's or 70's - it didn't go well. But I can see the logic for M-1.
No, I don't remember the destroyer experiment. Care to share?
This page makes mention of the Destroyer being the first to use jet fuel -
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1971.tb03541.x/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+3+Mar+from+10-13+GMT+for+monthly+maintenance
Quote from: MIGMaster on February 29, 2012, 12:13:36 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on February 28, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
Quote from: MIGMaster on February 28, 2012, 02:21:27 PM
Do you guys remember when they tried to run a US Navy destroyer on jet fuel back in the 60's or 70's - it didn't go well. But I can see the logic for M-1.
No, I don't remember the destroyer experiment. Care to share?
This page makes mention of the Destroyer being the first to use jet fuel -
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1971.tb03541.x/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+3+Mar+from+10-13+GMT+for+monthly+maintenance
Thanks. That image is degraded enough that I'm afraid I'll have to wait for my reading glasses to get here before I can tackle it. :o
Quote from: LongBlade on February 29, 2012, 12:16:29 PM
Quote from: MIGMaster on February 29, 2012, 12:13:36 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on February 28, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
Quote from: MIGMaster on February 28, 2012, 02:21:27 PM
Do you guys remember when they tried to run a US Navy destroyer on jet fuel back in the 60's or 70's - it didn't go well. But I can see the logic for M-1.
No, I don't remember the destroyer experiment. Care to share?
This page makes mention of the Destroyer being the first to use jet fuel -
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1971.tb03541.x/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+3+Mar+from+10-13+GMT+for+monthly+maintenance
Thanks. That image is degraded enough that I'm afraid I'll have to wait for my reading glasses to get here before I can tackle it. :o
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcohensfashionoptical.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fthick-eyeglass-frames1.jpg&hash=877f9bfe2cf4503d93e87158ff17b928c7a1ce73)
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 29, 2012, 10:50:10 AM
Quote from: MikeGER on February 28, 2012, 02:08:01 PMand please check wich tank won the Canadian Army Trophy from 1979 on 8)
Yeah, I know - those damn Cardboardians just keep trying to over-run Central Germany
In the meantime, M1s have been blowing the shit out of real enemies all over the Middle East ;D
shooting 'fish in a barrel' doesn't count ;)
i wouln'd need Krav Maga lessons to steal candy from a baby
Ouch!!!!
Granted BB's comments may have had some bombast to them, but the comparables you make are a little over the top too.
As an aside the current experts in tank vs tank comparisons (WoT) say you're both wrong - russian tanks win hands down :P
Windi,
speaking of 91 Of the nine Abrams destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire, and two were purposely destroyed to prevent capture after being damaged. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. Very few M1 tanks were hit by enemy fire, and there was only one fatality, along with a handful of woundings as a result.
and thats from a total of 1,848 M1A1s deployed to Saudi Arabia to participate in the liberation of Kuwait
the lower part of my post was firmly tongue in cheek as WoT is a FPS type tank simulation. The developers of the game are Russian and many players would argue that there is a slight bias in the game in favour of russian equipment
You guys gotta read Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad by David Zucchino. It is just amazing how much damage the M1's and Bradley's took during the run into Baghdad. I just finished the book and was blown away by the scary scenarios they got caught in. Well worth the read !
Good to know. Thanks!
I'm looking for it on my fire as soon as I press Post.
You won't be sorry !