Jump to content

True effectiveness of the M1A2 Abrams?


I've always wondered about the true effectiveness of this tank considering that it's incredibly hyped by so many people. I don't use the Gulf War of 1991 as a demonstration the Iraqi forces during that conflict had outdated equipment and inadequate training. So how effective is it against a modern opponent exactly? I want to like my country's MBT but after seeing the release of the T14, European MBTs, the increasing quality of modern Chinese armor(how much is hard to gauge because of Chinese propaganda and secrecy but certainly a massive improvement to what they had before), and how cost-effective Russian tanks have been in the past it really makes me wonder whether this thing is worth the price tag. So how good is the M1A2 SEPv2(or is it 3 now?) Abrams?

Edit: Whoops can a mod please move this into the Ask the Experts subforum please? Meant for it to be there.

Edited by BloodSeraph
Wrong subforum
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chinese tanks are always going to be at quite the disadvantage because the ammunition they use will never go beyond merely ok. This is the main flaw of a carousel autoloader. The Chinese tanks are not that much to worry about. The T-14 is another story given that it's a mix of multiple Cold War prototype concepts brought to life, but its turret is absolute garbage though it has a fair bit of redundancy (cheeks are mostly cosmetic and house none of the actual turret). Plus given the fact that the Russians can make decent vehicles that will never be delivered in actually ok numbers, the T-14 becomes even less of a threat. The SEP V3 is going to do just fine on the larger scale of things as it defeats T-90s and T-72B3s quite fine.

 

Also, Russian armor fielded to Russian troops are dinosaurs in terms of FCS until the T-72B3. Damn things do not automatically adjust the gun at all, but merely act as a rangefinder that calculates lead. Driving at a decent speed also moves the lazing point further away from center to the point that it might even disappear off the sight entirely. Digitization is also not a thing the Russians were keen on until the T-90SM that they don't even use or the T-72B3 and lately the T-14 and T-90M Proriv-3, or the T-64BV for KMDB tanks and only that tank because KMDB was the only one of the three major design bureaus that actually bothered going for such advanced FCS. Let's also not forget that T-72s and T-90s are slow in comparison to the Abrams, use carousel autoloaders that prevent anything better than 3BM-42M from being fired and rely entirely on ERA to survive.

 

So is the Abrams at a disadvantage? If you asked before the T-14 was conceived, then you'd be terribly wrong. Nowadays it's a probably not.

Edited by Nope
  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

use carousel autoloaders that prevent anything better than 3BM-42M from being fired

T-90A and T-72B3 use 2A46M-5 which allows use of longer ammunition (aka Svinets-1 and Svinets-2)

 

Pic related is ammuntion control in T-72B3

fj1lk0P.jpg

The only thing that puzzles me is the "G1" which afaik was developed solely for Armata's gun

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 5
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Nope said:

Chinese tanks are always going to be at quite the disadvantage because the ammunition they use will never go beyond merely ok. This is the main flaw of a carousel autoloader. The Chinese tanks are not that much to worry about.

Oh, they use old Russian carousels still? I figured they would design their own by now.

I think my main concern is how much life the Abrams design has left in it. How much more can they really add to it, specifically what can they add to counter the T-14? I'd imagine they'd need a new armor package to deal with the gun at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nope said:

Chinese tanks are always going to be at quite the disadvantage because the ammunition they use will never go beyond merely ok. This is the main flaw of a carousel autoloader. The Chinese tanks are not that much to worry about. The T-14 is another story given that it's a mix of multiple Cold War prototype concepts brought to life, but its turret is absolute garbage though it has a fair bit of redundancy (cheeks are mostly cosmetic and house none of the actual turret). Plus given the fact that the Russians can make decent vehicles that will never be delivered in actually ok numbers, the T-14 becomes even less of a threat. The SEP V3 is going to do just fine on the larger scale of things as it defeats T-90s and T-72B3s quite fine.

 

Also, Russian armor fielded to Russian troops are dinosaurs in terms of FCS until the T-72B3. Damn things do not automatically adjust the gun at all, but merely act as a rangefinder that calculates lead. Driving at a decent speed also moves the lazing point further away from center to the point that it might even disappear off the sight entirely. Digitization is also not a thing the Russians were keen on until the T-90SM that they don't even use or the T-72B3 and lately the T-14 and T-90M Proriv-3, or the T-64BV for KMDB tanks and only that tank because KMDB was the only one of the three major design bureaus that actually bothered going for such advanced FCS. Let's also not forget that T-72s and T-90s are slow in comparison to the Abrams, use carousel autoloaders that prevent anything better than 3BM-42M from being fired and rely entirely on ERA to survive.

 

So is the Abrams at a disadvantage? If you asked before the T-14 was conceived, then you'd be terribly wrong. Nowadays it's a probably not.

 

IIRC, both the ZTZ-96A and ZTZ-98 use a newly designed autoloading system. The Sino Internet is quite rife with penetration figures. Generally, the Ammo fired is divided into 3 separate generations. 

Its known that some of the 2nd Generation rounds did 700mm of penetration at 2000m, which is the round pictured below

20151112144637263.jpg

Which is a 120mm Round used on the PTZ-89 TD. 

 

As for the 3rd generation rounds, nothing definitive is known, except that they are DU, and that some of them are claimed to do more then 900mm of penetration at 2000m. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

T-90A and T-72B3 use 2A46M-5 which allows use of longer ammunition (aka Svinets-1 and Svinets-2)

 

Pic related is ammuntion control in T-72B3

 

The only thing that puzzles me is the "G1" which afaik was developed solely for Armata's gun

 

Judging by the given figures alone leaves penetration almost equal to 3BM-42M for Svinets-2 and close to M829A1 for Svinets-1, albeit with possibly worse results against reactive armor in comparison to M829A3 let alone M829A4.

 

3 hours ago, BloodSeraph said:

Oh, they use old Russian carousels still? I figured they would design their own by now.

I think my main concern is how much life the Abrams design has left in it. How much more can they really add to it, specifically what can they add to counter the T-14? I'd imagine they'd need a new armor package to deal with the gun at the very least.

 

The Abrams is almost 2 decades younger than the T-64 in terms of design. If the T-64/T-72 design only started being outdated in the late 2000s, then the Abrams still has plenty of life in it before an entirely new design is required.

 

58 minutes ago, _TomokoAnabuki said:

 

IIRC, both the ZTZ-96A and ZTZ-98 use a newly designed autoloading system. The Sino Internet is quite rife with penetration figures. Generally, the Ammo fired is divided into 3 separate generations. 

Its known that some of the 2nd Generation rounds did 700mm of penetration at 2000m, which is the round pictured below

 

Which is a 120mm Round used on the PTZ-89 TD. 

 

As for the 3rd generation rounds, nothing definitive is known, except that they are DU, and that some of them are claimed to do more then 900mm of penetration at 2000m. 

 

The PTZ-89 did not come with an autoloader though, thus the penetration disadvantage involving the use of two piece ammo (standard in carousel autoloaders) and the carousel autoloader design in general is gone. I'm curious as to how the new Chinese 125mm APFSDS performs should they exist, because the best I could find seem to be 3BM-42M equivalents.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

Judging by the given figures alone leaves penetration almost equal to 3BM-42M for Svinets-2 and close to M829A1 for Svinets-1, albeit with possibly worse results against reactive armor in comparison to M829A3 let alone M829A4.

 

 

The Abrams is almost 2 decades younger than the T-64 in terms of design. If the T-64/T-72 design only started being outdated in the late 2000s, then the Abrams still has plenty of life in it before an entirely new design is required.

 

 

The PTZ-89 did not come with an autoloader though, thus the penetration disadvantage involving the use of two piece ammo (standard in carousel autoloaders) and the carousel autoloader design in general is gone. I'm curious as to how the new Chinese 125mm APFSDS performs should they exist, because the best I could find seem to be 3BM-42M equivalents.

 

And the Chinese stopped developing 120mm Ammo in 1995...

Also, the ZTZ 96 and later don't use a carbon copy of the T-72 autoloader.wAFNBqe.jpg

 

The tank on the left is your regular T-72. The system on the right is what the Chinese have used in their VT export tanks (and as such, i presume to be there in some form on the 96) 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, _TomokoAnabuki said:

 

And the Chinese stopped developing 120mm Ammo in 1995...

Also, the ZTZ 96 and later don't use a carbon copy of the T-72 autoloader.

 

The tank on the left is your regular T-72. The system on the right is what the Chinese have used in their VT export tanks (and as such, i presume to be there in some form on the 96) 

 

The same principle of a carousel autoloader based on two piecce ammo is still there however. On the other hand, maybe the autoloader has been modified to accommodate longer projectiles, but I'll have to find longer penetrators that are in Chinese service first, and the Chinese aren't keen on sharing these details obviously. I would say that this is more of something I'd expect on what is called the Type 99A.

Edited by Nope
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have seen the T14 being incredibly hyped.

 

Nope also said about how faster are the Abrams tanks its not really that important,both tank series are pretty mobile while driving in formation.Only problem i see with the T series in mobility is the reverse gear,it got a minus in the Greek tender for the new MBT where the T-80 variant competed, a tank commander who operated the T series got bamboozled by that,that the reverse gear got a bad score for their trial.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

The same principle of a carousel autoloader based on two piecce ammo is still there however. On the other hand, maybe the autoloader has been modified to accommodate longer projectiles, but I'll have to find longer penetrators that are in Chinese service first, and the Chinese aren't keen on sharing these details obviously. I would say that this is more of something I'd expect on what is called the Type 99A.

 

IIRC the ZTZ-99 uses a different autoloader, one which is more akin to the one on the leclerc then the Russian one.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, _TomokoAnabuki said:

 

IIRC the ZTZ-99 uses a different autoloader, one which is more akin to the one on the leclerc then the Russian one.

55212476201103050023477884747773986_005.

 

If this is a Type 99 turret then i can't find any Leclerc style auto-loader.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see the military adding a active defense system with both Soft & Hard kill elements in a M2A3 revision or something; not much else though. The T-14 while impressive seems more like a testbed for a easier to produce tank; while the Abrams is in a class of it's own. Personally i think the Abrams will end up like the B-52 of tanks; it was made with upgrades and additions in mind. So i doubt even if/when the russians have something equal or better that they would just scrap the design; most could be updated easily.

 

Plus modern MBT's are only fielded by a small number of nations; Germany has the Leo 2 while the French have the Leclerc. Then the British with the challenger 2 and Israel has the Merkava; leaving China and Russia as the only potential enemies with comparable MBT's. To be fair i think the M1 abrams does get a lot more attention & hype than other MBT's; all of them are incredible machines with excellent protection. All i could attribute it to is that the M1 Abrams has seen more combat than most; giving it a reputation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ChrisXD62365 said:

 

 

If this is a Type 99 turret then i can't find any Leclerc style auto-loader.

Isn't this bit here 

6f86477aa6.jpg

 

Just the same kind of thing as on the leclerc? 

63d5b7ed33.PNG

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eden_Earhart said:

Isn't this bit here 

6f86477aa6.jpg

 

Just the same kind of thing as on the leclerc? 

63d5b7ed33.PNG

 

You're pointing at the autoloader arm. If you look at the ZTZ-99's turret pic there's a reference APFSDS shell. It cannot fit in the back the turret at all. The picture shows a layout for a carousel autoloader.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the Chinese have decided to keep the ammunition in a carousel on the floor, with the propellents in a turret bustle, effectively having 2 autoloaders

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2.6.2017 at 11:34 AM, BloodSeraph said:

I've always wondered about the true effectiveness of this tank considering that it's incredibly hyped by so many people. I don't use the Gulf War of 1991 as a demonstration the Iraqi forces during that conflict had outdated equipment and inadequate training. So how effective is it against a modern opponent exactly?

It's a good vehicle, I would rate it as good as the Sherman was during WWII. Better than what the opponent has en-mass, but on level or weaker than the best they got, but still with the firepower to deal with them.

 

But it needs to be replaced, since it has few design disadvantages:

xajQigV.png
1. A massive turret, this is because the US favored after-penetration survival higher than other countries, so they isolated most of the ammunition in the turret.  Since the bustle contained the majority of the ammunition, the side armor had to extend all the way to the back of the turret. This made the turret large and heavy.  

 

 

d039c6503f4d.jpg

2. The turbine engine was a experimental choice for getting more power, at the cost of fuel efficiency. But in the long run, it turned out to not be worth it, as is suggested by the US investigating opposed piston diesel engines now to replace the turbine:  

ttp://www.calstart.org/Libraries/HTUF_2016/6_-_Major_-_Achates.sflb.ashx
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a566997.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a626738.pdf

 

 

1418208604-xm360-and-xm360e1.png

3. The gun is outdated and in need of replacement. The US has several upgrade programs, and we will just have to wait and see if they bear fruit.

 

 

4. The tank is heavy, which is a universal trait of modern MBTs, but the armies around the world are now wanting lighter vehicles in the 35-40 ton class.

 

 

0c0luaO.jpg

5. The UFP is a big weakspot, this is because of a design decision during its development, since when it entered service, APFSDS and ATGMs would bounce off the UFP, this is not longer the case.

 

 

6. The tank less mobile because of all the extra weight without any mayor increase in engine power or similar. 

 

 

7. Lack of roof protection against bomblets and top attack munition.  Compared to the Strv 122, Merkava 4 or Puma:
1200px-Strv122_3_cropped.jpg

8OFXAnq.png

gdAkN7A.jpg

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

M1 Abrams in all incarnations is a fast becoming obsolete. A2s are taking losses when facing modern warheads in places like Yemen and A1s are being fire-balled in Iraq.

 

This is no surprise as same thing happened to Israelis. When their Merkava 4 tanks advanced to Lebanon in 2006 they were shocked by the losses. Nearly half of the hits they had from infantry anti-tank weapons, such as Vampyr RPGs, Metis and Koronet missiles, went through the heavy composite armor. New generation of warheads are designed to penetrate such armor and they clearly work. Israelis upgraded their tank with Trophy Active Protection System to counter (and Trophy is also going to be installed into US Abrams in near future), but calls for a new MBT for Israel have been made from highest levels.

 

Protection isn't the only thing wrong with Abrams these days. 120 mm L/44 is simply out of date. Germans have been driving around with L/55 for better part of 20 years and if their government hadn't been in 'be nice' -mode in late 1990's, their Leopard 2s would now be sporting a 140 mm smooth bore. Potential Leopard 3 (name is not official, but it is in the works) is rumored to sport Rheinmetall 130 mm cannon. Latest Russian gun in action (2A46A) has over 1.5x the combat range of the 120mm L/44 and even British older 120 rifled has clear advantage against Abrams' gun (record combat kill against armor; British 5.75 km, A2 Abrams 4.2 km). The gun has not been state of the art since 1990´s. Israelis increased the effectiveness of L/44 by developing LAHAT missile as tube-launched option, which has been thought as possibility for US as way to increase the range of L/44. Problem with LAHAT is the increased anti-missile protection of most tanks are making them useless. Also the latest Russian weapon is of course 2A82 of T-14. That thing is going to be installed to next upgrade of T-90s as well (so the rumor goes). Top that with Thales optics and latest generation targeting computer which Russians got from French, plus the latest Russian HEAT round (triple tandem - obviously designed to penetrate extremely heavy composite with additional plates) and I would not bet against latest T-90 in T-90 vs M1A2 match.

 

Mobility is also a problem. The weight of Abrams has gone up after every upgrade until it is now seriously hampering the deployment and operative use. Idea of upgrading it would end up increasing weight even more. Also the max speed, once among top of MBTs is now just average, not to mention fuel consumption is beyond funny.

 

All and all US army needs a new tank and it needs it decade ago. It had one planned in Future Combat System - project, until everyone in Pentagon went all "Asymmetric warfare!" and canceled almost entire program in 2006, including the Abrams follow-up. Now with T-90 taking names and making waves in Syria and Ukraine, and Pentagon found out that they are back in business of being a field army. Expect it takes a decade to design a tank and another to get it fully fielded. Meanwhile Russians have used last 15 years to upgrade and modernize their entire force and according to Pentagon they have successfully pulled ahead in multiple fronts (New Russian Capability Study they ran last year). M1A2 is pretty much at the end of its career and only reason it isn't replaced is that there is no replacement in works. Not a good situation.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol the hell did i read? First off M1A2 e M1A1 sold to Saudi Arabia are sold without the armor package of the US ones making them far more vulnerable. Combine that with awful tactics that lead to take mostly side shots and i saw even blast doors kept open resulting in catastropic kills... yea the problem it s not the Abrams, it's the Arabs as always... ATGMs fired from the gun are useless now. Modern ATGMs fired from gun top at 800 mm of RHA Of penetration and is unable to harm any modern MBT from the front, only from the side and then a classic APFSDS can do the job too ( or the standard HEAT-FS..). MBTs such the abrams have 1500+ mm of RHA against HEAT rounds making even the Kornet useless from the front. Anything fired from a tank gun will only literally **** of the target. Mobility is not problem. M1A2 SEP tops at 68 km/h. T90 at 72. 4 km/h are not going to change the world definely. Gun is still ok, the range of 4 km is more than enaught to engage targets. Also 4 km is the effective range. Obviusly the round can arrive further. And the Challenger gunner has admitted that his shot was pure luck than anythig. Not even talking about how few are the possible situation of having clear line of fire up to 4 km or even higher, and even if you had a firing solution penetrating a modern tank at 4 km it's a wet dream with any modern gun in service. Also the 120 M256 thanks to the much advanced penetrator development the M829A4 actually is even better suited than the Rh 120 L55 against russian tanks as the M829 is really advanced in defeating the reactive defences used a lot by the russians. And anyway as Xoon said earlier is going under an upgrade. The armor is still great and SEPV3 program is going to upgrade armor, engine and main gun, along with a even better set of FCS compared to the SEP V2 putting the abrams even more back on course...

T90 actually in a classic frontal engagement stand really few chances against an M1A2.

  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2017 at 5:49 PM, ArmourWorm said:

M1 Abrams in all incarnations is a fast becoming obsolete. A2s are taking losses when facing modern warheads in places like Yemen and A1s are being fire-balled in Iraq.

 

This is no surprise as same thing happened to Israelis. When their Merkava 4 tanks advanced to Lebanon in 2006 they were shocked by the losses. Nearly half of the hits they had from infantry anti-tank weapons, such as Vampyr RPGs, Metis and Koronet missiles, went through the heavy composite armor. New generation of warheads are designed to penetrate such armor and they clearly work. Israelis upgraded their tank with Trophy Active Protection System to counter (and Trophy is also going to be installed into US Abrams in near future), but calls for a new MBT for Israel have been made from highest levels.

 

Protection isn't the only thing wrong with Abrams these days. 120 mm L/44 is simply out of date. Germans have been driving around with L/55 for better part of 20 years and if their government hadn't been in 'be nice' -mode in late 1990's, their Leopard 2s would now be sporting a 140 mm smooth bore. Potential Leopard 3 (name is not official, but it is in the works) is rumored to sport Rheinmetall 130 mm cannon. Latest Russian gun in action (2A46A) has over 1.5x the combat range of the 120mm L/44 and even British older 120 rifled has clear advantage against Abrams' gun (record combat kill against armor; British 5.75 km, A2 Abrams 4.2 km). The gun has not been state of the art since 1990´s. Israelis increased the effectiveness of L/44 by developing LAHAT missile as tube-launched option, which has been thought as possibility for US as way to increase the range of L/44. Problem with LAHAT is the increased anti-missile protection of most tanks are making them useless. Also the latest Russian weapon is of course 2A82 of T-14. That thing is going to be installed to next upgrade of T-90s as well (so the rumor goes). Top that with Thales optics and latest generation targeting computer which Russians got from French, plus the latest Russian HEAT round (triple tandem - obviously designed to penetrate extremely heavy composite with additional plates) and I would not bet against latest T-90 in T-90 vs M1A2 match.

 

Mobility is also a problem. The weight of Abrams has gone up after every upgrade until it is now seriously hampering the deployment and operative use. Idea of upgrading it would end up increasing weight even more. Also the max speed, once among top of MBTs is now just average, not to mention fuel consumption is beyond funny.

 

All and all US army needs a new tank and it needs it decade ago. It had one planned in Future Combat System - project, until everyone in Pentagon went all "Asymmetric warfare!" and canceled almost entire program in 2006, including the Abrams follow-up. Now with T-90 taking names and making waves in Syria and Ukraine, and Pentagon found out that they are back in business of being a field army. Expect it takes a decade to design a tank and another to get it fully fielded. Meanwhile Russians have used last 15 years to upgrade and modernize their entire force and according to Pentagon they have successfully pulled ahead in multiple fronts (New Russian Capability Study they ran last year). M1A2 is pretty much at the end of its career and only reason it isn't replaced is that there is no replacement in works. Not a good situation.

Well as far as modern T-90's in Syria go they're facing a lot of M1A1's without the DU armor and I'm going to guess a lot of the electronics in American ones, as well as inferior ammunition(could be wrong on this one though), which ironically makes it similar to Desert Storm, where modernized tanks curbstomp tanks that aren't modernized and have REALLY bad crews. That and most tank kills in Syria have been from things like atgm ambushes and RPG-7's(not sure if more modern versions were found there, wouldn't doubt it though). Besides T-90's HAVE been taken out in Syria, so praising this supposed superiority of the T-90 series is a rather moot point, especially when developments like the new Rheinmetall gun are being made to counter the T-14, NOT the T-90MS. So if the newest T-90's are so amazing, why bother with producing the T-14 in the first place? That doesn't add up to me, there's clearly a reason for it.

 

Note that I'm NOT calling modern Russian tanks bad, quite the contrary, they're very good. It's just that they, along with American surface naval vessels and aircraft, occupy the top of my list as some of the most overrated modern military equipment on the planet. Good? Yeah. Overrated? Hell yeah. Also the Russians have advanced their tech but they were never extremely behind NATO contrary to what a lot of propaganda would have you believe. The only places they were massively behind was in things like FCS, IR and whatnot.

Edited by BloodSeraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw RPG29 it s also used in Syria

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First a disclaimer:

1.Its from a computer game, so actual performance and engagment outcomes have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

2.I rarely use tanks in game(don't like it much) and only  had a quick glance on how to use the M1A2...so I'm sure I used only half of the features of the fire control system and not very effectively. In shot, I sucked.

 

I'm just linking this to show how effective the optics and the fire-control of the amerikan tank is.

The model of the FCS is pretty good according to some info from RL-M1 tankers. It is f++king amazing! The 3rd Thermal-imager is just crazy and enables you to spot and even ID targets out to 5000m and more...

In ranges between of up to 3000m, IMO the M1A2 will just shred any opposition. On extreme flat ground, that allows ranges greater then that(unlike the hills in the video) the T-xx tanks may have an upper hand due to their ATGMs.

 

[video]

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Abrams' weight has become its greatest issue, not due to lost mobility as the turbine has always been down graded for what it would push powerwise, and several of the proposed diesel replacements are putting out stellar numbers as well. 

No it is the logistics and maintenance issues that this massive weight engenders. 

 

The tracks, even the newest versions, wear out at insane rates. Less than a year of operations and you will be on your second if not third set of them. Drive and road wheels are also wearing out at absurd rates. 

This is actually aided by the fact that they keep on pushing the turbines harder and harder. 

 

Which get us to the log issues. Opened up and running fast across country the Abrams is amazingly fuel efficient, getting close to .75 mile per gallon. Of course that is not what 90%+ of its operations are, so it is closer to .35 mile per gallon. I had the hourly burn rate figures, but not sure where I put them, but they suck. 

 

So had Congress and the DoD not been idiots, we would have had the third generation turbine in it now. Which, if aeronautical fuel efficiency gains in the past 3 decades are any guide, would be at least 50% more fuel efficient with slightly better power. but, DC is filled with imbeciles so we have a tank with 40+ year old driveline technology that requires an insane amount of fuel and needs depot level work multiple times per year. 

 

This portly weight is also why there has been little work done on up gunning the beast, as there really is no way to up gun it without adding tons to a vehicle that is already the heaviest fighting vehicle deployed. 

 

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The power/weight ratio is always better for a gasturbine(less dead weight/less moving parts).

Dowside is there is no differnence between going full speed and idling in a BP: it drinks the same amout of fuel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, muzzleflash98 said:

Lyrch do you know how the proposed diesel power trains compare weight wise to the turbine?

about 1800 pounds or so. 

AGT1500 is about 2200#

The various MTU etc plants I have read of are ranging from 4000# to 5500#. Cannot find the writeup at the moment, or would link it, but as of a year ago it looked like the KA-501 was going to be the next power plant for the Abrams. 

That said, DC is under new management the DoD in particular since then, so who the heck knows what is in play for the Abrams. 

Edited by *Lyrch75
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...