I wouldn't worry about the
position of the engine as much as the engine
itself. The
Temsah's engine was so complex (due less to sophistication and more extant the level of technology) that they simply decided to turn the rear into the front. The Temsah essentialy drives
backwards. What concerns me more (yes I have thought about the idea myself) is the type of engine installed. The choice of a turbine was, IMO only, plain dumb but understandible. US doctrine saw tanks making rapid tactical advanced from potion to position rather than operational movement (strategic movement was essentially a question about sealift). A gasoline guzzling engine was thus een a s a favourable tradeoff for the tactical manouevrability it afforded the M1. You don't need that now (didn't even need it then IMO). You can talk about armour and armament all you want (I have and do, more so when slightly inebriated
) but it's the powerpack and drivetrain that are as, if not more, important. Remember the trinity , no not Clausewitz' although one could spin it that way philosophically speaking, for armoured (indeed most warfare); Protection, Mobility, Firepower. The Leo 1 traded (physical) protection for mobility on the (correct) assumption that moving about the battlefield was a better idea than sitting around presenting a large target (it was a dual purpose decision and highlights the relationship between the "armour trinity" and
doctrine/
employment). Nowadyas there is really only one calibre (120mm) for tanks (140mm being a still immature round in all but conventional for which there are 120mm rounds than can match it).
For a HAPC I can't see why the conversion of an M1 into a HAPC with a RCWS could be done but with the U.S. Congress penetrated by vested industrial interests and congressmen on the payroll I don't see that happening anytime soon. Sorry, if this post rambles, just had chocolate bar and got all tingly at the thought of armour (are tankers the armour encased equivalent of leather-clad fetishsists?
)
Bookmarks