narboza22, on 29 Jun 2007, 16:38, said:
Eddy01741, on 29 Jun 2007, 15:27, said:
and also, eh... diesel is pretty quiet (if you make th engine right), i mean, IIRC, from futureweapons, one country used diesel engines instead of nuclear power for submarines because it was quieter (this was like from first episode)
Diesel subs use batteries when they go silent, not their diesel engines. Those things can be heard for miles.
Quote
Also, for the europe/M1 thing. Eh, if we were fighting a better army in the middle east, we would have our fuel trucks obliterated. I mean ,c'mon, first hour, the Abrams come through, troops delibrately set up very little resistance, then four hours later, a convoy of fuel trucks comes up the road, and i mean, you can kill fuel trucks will bullets (50 cal), but it's doubtful that you could kill a Abrams with RPG unless you hit it in weak spots (which are very few and very small) or from the top (which is neigh impossible with an RPG). Seriously, you can brin gan M1 abrams to it's knees if you take out it's mobility.
That would only work if the supply train was left completely unprotected. Even if you got away with it once, the next time the logistics would be covered with everything available.
Right, forgot about dieso-electric :stickattack2:
Anyways, a supply train on a road isn't very well covered. THere's a couple of humvees, but i mean, a couple of insurgents with RPGs could take out a lot of the supply line easily, it's not like the fuel trucks would be surrounded by tanks (if they were, they would need even more fuel trucks lol).
"Diesel engines are dirty, nosiy, and smoky, which again, exposes a tank since it can be heard or it's smoke sighted long before it can. The advanage of the turbine engine is that it is relatively quiet (Iraqi tankers called the Abrams "whispering death" in the Gulf War), and gives the crew the advantage of "speed on demand" unlike a diesel engine which must work itself up (through gears)to high speed. In addition, having to transport/supply less diesel fuel is a good thing, since if I'm not mistaken, jet fuel weighs a hell of a lot less than diesel fuel.
And yes, the Abrams can go extremely fast for short periods of time...they had to put a governor on the engine as it would burn out if it went its top speed. Hell, I've heard of an M1A1 going at over 55MPH on a nearby road pacing a car."
THermal imaging? Jet engine vs. truck engine....
Also, eh, the Abrams accelerates slightly faster than say, a leopard 2 (the leopard 2 has 9 less tons on it and runs on a 1500hp multi-fuel diesel engine). Also, you think they would waste jet fuel on abrams? Seriously, jet fuel is very refined, they're not gonna spend so much money to send in jet fuel for that thirsty turbine. Also, it's not the weight of the fuelt hat matters, it's the volume, if diesel weighed twice as much as jet fuel for a given volume (twice the density), they could both still be packed in a fuel truck, and I would presume that diesel engine would have more kcals inside it to burn as well. THey put a governor to make the abrams go at a max of 42mph on road (i emphasize road), I have no idea about the governor (hey, if you want tanks going 55mph, that's more fuel burned...)
Seriously, most anybody will agree that until you can get fuel trucks to have as much armor as tanks, gas turbines wil still be a weakness of the abrams. It's thirsty, it's hot, and requires at least quadruple the maintainence of a diesel engine, but then again, US can afford that kind of thirst and maintenance (but not most others, USSR switched out the gas turbine on the T-80 on the T-80U model for a similar power diesel, because of bad performance in the cold, and bad milage. Also, the T-90 doesn't have a gas turbine either).
0
This topic is locked
