M1A2 SEP V2..A glass tiger?

Good to see that you did not actually have anything productive to put forward in this thread.

If you want to come back and try to argue that horsepower is actually torque again I will be here waiting.

1 Like

X-1100 is 1500rpm, MTU 883 is 1400rpm.

The comment they are arguing against is about the power availability and time to reach adequate power in these engines. That’s entire irrelevant, as the only semblance of low-end torque is lost with high-RPM engagement and throttle responsiveness.

The comment being refuted is that you cannot beat turbine torque unless using another turbine as comparison… This is untrue, as per the reason I’ve stated.

I made a statement directly refuting a statement made. The set baseline was the quoted comment, and my response to it did not “shift goalposts”, it corrected a common misconception.

Once again, nowhere am I making a statement about high RPM anything. My argument is this.

You are misconstruing the statement as this.

Missing a very important caveat now aren’t you.

No thats is not at all true, see attached.

Both of these statements are factually incorrect in relation to the Leclerc’s engine when compared to a AGT-1500 when comparing the starting ramp up of both engines from a standstill.

Thus, bringing high-rpm performance into the equation has no bearing on the situation as a high standing RPM is not “instant torque” (torque available on impetus when beginning movement) or “the simple fact that it reaches its max PTWR significantly earlier than its counter parts” as the AGT-1500 achieves it’s peak PTWR energy transfer at 20% shaft speed or 950RPM, while the likes of the MB 873/883 achieves such at around 2200RPM, low RPM vs high RPM.

my statement

  • you cant beat a turbine at low RPM in tractive force

your response

  • ah but you can if you aren’t at low RPM, instead lets do it at the peak PTWR energy transfer, torque, of the MTU-883 instead

That is a clear as day goalpost shift my guy because the peak PTWR energy transfer of the AGT-1500 is

drum roll please

At 950RPM, far below the peak torque generation RPM of the MTU-883 at 2200RPM, and what is 950RPM considered? LOW RPM, compared to the MTU-883’s 2200RPM which is considered High RPM.

So once again, no engine, ICE or otherwise cannot outperform a turbine in peak, low RPM torque output, also known as instantaneous torque.

1 Like

Your argument is about low-rpm performance, which is overruled by the AGT-1500’s lack of low-RPM authority. The entire range of higher relative torque is irrelevant when you take into account when that torque is applied to the drivetrain.

I didn’t misconstrue your statement, I quite literally quoted it.

By all means, you can act like you didn’t say it, but you did.

“See attached.”
Doesn’t attach anything

We aren’t talking peak PTWR, we’re talking clutch engagement rpms… That is all that matters.

Again, anything under 1400-1500rpm is irrelevant. It can make more torque at 2rpm and I could give less of a shit, because at 950 rpm it will not power the drivetrain.

Instantaneous torque is the torque figure at the lowest available RPM. This is almost twice that of its idle RPM.

Ho man this is rich, do you think that the AGT-1500 just tac idles 24/7 at 1500 + RPM? No the AGT-1500 idles at 950 RPM and has full command of it’s power curve through 3000 RPM based upon the range selected by the gearbox.

And perchance what within the drivetrain does the AGT apply this irrelevant torque to? A certain object that requires a certain amount of tractive effort at variable rates based upon their diameter and / or gauge to apply said force to the final drive and thus the ground?

Huh thats right its almost like the final drive can operate more expeditiously from a standstill if said device is fed high rates of torque allow for superior tractive effort to be applied to the ground which equates to higher mobility with large mass. Curious.

Hey look you are cutting off parts of my comments again, let me just fix this for you.

I guess we can add legally blind to this real quick.

Want me to spell it out for you again, come on we can do it right this time.

Torque is tractive effort.

Tractive effort is energy being applied to motion.

The AGT produces it’s max torque at low RPM.

Thus is produces it’s peak tractive effort at low RPM.

Thus the AGT-1500 produces it’s peak PTWR energy transfer, or application of tractive effort at low RPMs.

Ooo a good one, both another goalpost move and an incorrect statement to boot, lets go.

The primary driveshaft of the AGT is always engaged and spinning while the turbine is active at any speed. In the case of idling outside of neutral, the vehicle will be able to move itself by the idle power produced at 950RPM alone, that is, if the the torque converter did not exist, which, mind you, operates in quite a different way than a standard ICE engine, namely it is far more limited.

So no, 950RPM produces more than enough power to move the vehicle.

Nope but good try, Instantaneous Torque is the available torque or tractive effort available from an idle standstill of any motor, in the case of the AGT, is 950RPM, the lower quoted neutral idle of 750RPM is not relevant it can only be achieved while in neutral, thus, out of gear.

1 Like

Oh sorry, I seem to have left your responses in the dust, allow me to adress them as well.

Yes, thats why I dont cite the M1 series fielding TUSK, as of now it has no actual use in game and is a direct detriment to the vehicle, much akin to the case armor of the stryker.

IRL this is a vastly different story, yet, by comparison, the AZUR kit’s composite actually does something tangible while TUSK and TUSK II are currently just dead weight.

The bribery is directly cited as the reason the Azur was selected due to the availability of the powerpack and drive train available. Said drive train was made accessible to the UAE through bribery by RENK AG and MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH. This scandal did not just occur during the selection process but long into 2011 as well, with GIAT still orchestrating under the table deals with the Jordanians and UAE, circumventing contractual obligations of the equipment being sold to the two nations.

Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, I’ve had the pleasure of speaking with him at length over the armor of his nation.

That and curious, I was not aware that the selection process for national export contracts included being sent into combat.

Thank you for referencing the recent attempts by France to muscle in on the M1A2S deal, I’m sorry to say the US already made that sale. Love that the second source is still trying to harp on the AGT-1500’s sand ingestion issues way back from the 1990s which were solved in the early 2000s, I guess old myths die hard.

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - M1A2S Saudi Abrams Main Battle Tanks and M88Al/A2 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift Evacuation System (HERCULES) Armored Recovery Vehicles (ARV) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency (dsca.mil)

Saudi Arabia received 153 additional US M1A2 Main Battle Tanks MBTs at the end of 2021 | Defense News February 2022 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2022 | Archive News year (armyrecognition.com)

No? I don’t? I’ve already said multiple times now that it idles at 900rpm.

It has “full command” of its power curve from 1200 - 3075rpm on legacy models, or 1230 - 3075 on the M1A1 and later. The average RPM under load from speeds of 5mph to 25mph is about 2300 - 2600 rpm.

The… the transmission…? It has a lockup clutch + TC coupling…
What does the engine output and engagement have to do with the final drive?

And again, those are the same exact quotes? You said that I was “misconstruing your point” that “you cannot beat turbine torque unless using another turbine as comparison”… How do these in any way refute that my statement saying that that is the basis of your argument.

Were those meant for me? I didn’t know you were referencing those quotes, as it seemed like you were directly speaking to Macekeeks instead.

Either way, I fail to see how the Leclerc’s “hybrid diesel + [turboshaft]” has to do with this, and it’s an absolute fact that diesel engine throttles response is far faster than the spool of the AGT-1500.

Torque is a factor in tractive effort, but it is not derived by it. Tractive effort, as a way to equivalize it in an example, would be the effective mix between torque and tire contact on the ground. I’ve had to deal with this a lot when trying to find the right tire for my offroad rig.

Tractive effort is irrelevant to our topic. We’re talking about engine specifications, not mobility.

The AGT-1500 cannot utilize that torque when its engagement rpm negates all bonuses given by its low-end torque.

Again, tractive effort is irrelevant to this topic. We are not talking about the final drive, sprocket, road wheels, tracks, ground pressure, or its overall material contact.

Are we talking about PTWR or TTWR? You’re talking about its maximum torque this entire time, yet I fail to see what the PTWR has to do with torque.

What goalpost move? The entire basis of power for the AGT-1500 and its application to the X-1100 has to do with its powerband throughout the RPMs of 1400-3000.

The vehicle, when put into drive, will bump up to its tac range, where it relies solely on its torque converter to move. Once any amount of throttle is given and its rpms pas 1400rpm, the clutch will engage and provide full power.
The vehicle will never move below 1000rpm, especially not at its idle speed of ~900rpm.

The X-1100-3B’s power management system works in almost the exact same way as ICE engines, being most comparable to the A-3700SP’s 3-element lockup system.

Instantaneous torque and tractive effort are two entirely different figures. Hell, instantaneous torque, as I said before, can be a figure used to calculate tractive effort.

Who the fuck said 750rpm? The AGT-1500 idles at 900rpm no matter what, and will never drop below that. There is no universe in which the AGT-1500 will ever hit 750rpm when not in the startup or shutdown sequence, even when in neutral as you say.

I love the immediate edit of your comment to change every statement of the tac rpm being 950 rpm.


It’s not so much that the French were trying to muscle in on the deal but rather Saudi Arabia shopping around to get a better deal from the US. There were MOUs between Saudi Arabia and Russia to purchase T-90MS tanks and S-300/400 Air defense systems but they came to nothing and were just to put pressure on the US to approve more M1A2 and Patriot Sales.

That is the 1600hp MTU-883 variant vs the 1500hp AGT 1500. This isn’t a fair graph, the equivalent MTU-883 with 1500 horsepower never peaks at higher horsepower OR torque over the AGT 1500. Additionally, the AGT 1500 has much more overhead for increasing horsepower for wartime settings at reduced engine life… which is already much higher than the MTU-883 as standard.

Well someone didn’t seem to like my comment and reported it which was deleted. Not surprising. Won’t post it however if anyone is curious about what it said I’ll toss it in the WARCOMM aka The Unofficial WT community discord.

Have a nice day.

And this is also showing an ungoverned AGT-1500… I feel that’s a perfect equivalency to make against an 883 Ka-501

1 Like

The AGT 1500 shown is not ‘ungoverned’… they are not even “governed” in the same fashion as the 883. They are a turbine, the mechanical pieces that require modification to increase / decrease power don’t just change on a whim. The KA-501 isn’t ungoverned by any means either, it is an entirely different motor configuration to make a bit more power for a reason.

Nobody said they are governed in the same fashion, and it surely does not add up when explicit rpm figures are not shown and it seemingly doesn’t relate to any other documented performance figures of the AGT.

Woah, really? You don’t say?

What gives you the impression that it is?

1 Like


It shows the correct horsepower and torque, the RPM’s are also visible. The tank has a 3,000 RPM redline (which is usually exceeded with a simple ‘engine overspeed’ caution on the driver display). The RPM limit is measured after the reduction gear (at the output shaft). The RPM limit is the same on both engines output shafts.

So what are you trying to say? These engines are not with governor removed. This is the normal performance from both engines as measured by the output shaft.

Fair, however as of right now AZUR is a detriment as well in game, since its incorrectly modeled and it cannot be removed.

You have to give a source for that, i doubt the US Army developed TUSK for just being dead weight. In game both armor kits are death weight currently, and neither armor kits are correctly modeled.

AZUR is not a vehicle, its an armor package, what the UAE bought back in the day was this:



With the following changes over the Leclerc S1:



This tank later got/has been seen with the following armor kits:





Earlier this year Nexter has said they will work on modernize the Fleet of Leclerc in service in UAE, however this didn’t happened yet, so its useless to talk about it.

I have yet to see from you GIAT or France bribing officials during Tank Trials because the vehicle performed badly, don’t move the goalpost, here is what you originally claimed:

Hmmm I’m sure its that and not the Leclerc consistently failing at trials so much that France got caught bribing officials of said trials.

GIAT in 2011 didn’t existed anymore FYI.

Sure, however you still have failed to provide a source for your claims, which is what i have asked you, remember that you claimed the following:

The former found deficiencies in the drivetrain, powerpack maintenance, and an inadequate fire control system, all of said issues were subsequently retracted midway through the trials without notes as to why

You still have not provided a source for this, when you’d like, i would appreciate to see it, thanks.

You have failed to provide a source for your claim above, hence why resorting to see how they performed in combat was an option, to see how both tanks performed in a conflict, when you’d like to provide a source for this claim we can go over it once again.

Since you did not provided a claim, this is one of the way to resort on concluding something, you have said that using Swedish Trials is not a good point, which is fair.

For being clear, Leclerc Tropicalisé is what UAE have bought.
If we use Greek Trials where M1A2 and Leclerc Tropicalisé partecipated if we follow your what you have said previously, the Leclerc Tropicalisé would have had issues with the drivetraiin and FCS, however it didn’t have any of those mentioned above and it classified just below the M1A2:



From another source, in case you wouldn’t believe me:


M1A2 and Leclerc here are classified roughly the same, with the only exception being the Leopard, which was classified much higher.
Does this mean M1A2 and Leclerc are bad tanks? Don’t think so, i don’t even see the need of GIAT/France to bribe official because they classified “only” 3rd in a competition just below the M1A2.
And take note that GIAT have beel already penalized in this competition because they failed to provide informations about the armor, which resulted in being last for it.

With all of that being said, i hope you will take a read at Greek Trials so you can see how it performed during said trials. Leclerc Tropicalisé is the same vehicle trialed by UAE, hence why for continuing this discussion further there would be the need for you to provide a source for your claims and issues with FCS and Drivetrain with the Leclerc, without a solid source from you there is little to no sense to continue this discussion since we’re clearly not going anywhere.

Did they? This is not about France attempting to muscle up or anything, it was Saudi Arabia which was interested, just how they was interested for some Russian Equipment, this was probably done for putting pressure on the US for getting a better deal.
You have said that Saudi Arabia wasn’t happy with the Leclerc because of the issues we talked about, so it seems strange than even then Saudi Arabia would even remotely interested on getting the Leclerc in 2016 if they had all the issues you mentioned back then.

Again, i don’t have anything against you, i do think there are issues with the Abrams in game, so does every other vehicle like the Leclerc, what we can hope is that this issues will all get addressed soon.
But for engaging a worthwhile discussion you will have to provide sources for your claims. So:

  • A source for GIAT/France briping Officials during Tank Trials
  • A source about the issues with the drivetrain and the inadeguate fire control system

After you will provide this two sources for your claims we will talk about that again, until then its pretty much worthless.
We had Tank Trials with the Greeks, and in this Trials the Leclerc performed just fine, scoring 3rd, just below the M1A2 without any of the issues you mentioned.


To be fair, as long as the gun shields trigger HE and overpressure, TUSK will always be dead weight in game to a certain extend, no matter how got the era is.

I don’t see much people abusing the gun shield thing, also in TUSK v2 that issue is less prominent, unfortunately this is something we gotta deal.
If TUSK would have been more effective against KE i’d see it as a nice thing to have. During Dev Server it was very effective, you can see a video here.
Maybe it was a bug, or maybe they was testing it, nevertheless having it like that would make it really good and worth taking everytime.

This is why it’s probably best to make them a modification, because no matter how good the protection is, even a 1% risk of someone abusing the gun shields is already too much for me.

Besides that. Due to the huge turret ring, being in a position where you are getting shot in an Abrams usually means you are going to dy anyway, regardless of TUSK. At least add on armor like on the Stev 122s/2A7 and era like K5/Relikt/FY5 serves some purpose.