The M1 Abrams: The Army Tank That Could Not Be Stopped

[Compost]

From: carniflex 31-Oct 15:47 to: autogun

The company is offering MTU's 883 engine and an Allison transmission – essentially the same powerplant proposed for General Dynamics' Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) submission – and Cannon said this could reduce the Abrams' cost per mile by 14% compared with its current turbine-powered engine.

Australia is the only country in the world to buy M1, were there was a choice of Leo2 and Abrams. I was at the School of Armour when Australia was thinking of getting M1. The gossip was we would not get the turbine but "europower packs".

Instead we bought the turbine with the promise that the new gas turbine would fix the issues (ie 8 liters/km vs 4 for euro). We also aquired M88 with MTB engines (WTF).

We use diesel not kerosene here for ground vehicles. We are destroying engines at a rapid rate (GE is suppose to fix this).

Also because of the extra fuel tanks needed, the APU cannot be fitted under armour (Iin the R rear sponson). It's attached to the turret rear. Our tanks still have no air-con, cooking the crew and electronics up North. My son's mate just finished his term up there and can't wait to leave.

What is amazing with M1, is the resistance to have other M1 support variants (unlike M60). Every time there is a new non-tank variant, they make a dozen and kill it. Wolverine, grizzly, ARV. With 1700 in store why not?

I saw this Jane's article at the same time as the tracked Stryker. It really annoyed me that the Army stuck with turbine, and have a tank that infantry cannot get near the rear of.

Rant over. (I'm sounding like MustangAus!)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ Thread: Tracked Stryker Post: 57 of 148

The above post highlights a third reason for re-engining Abrams MBTs - and especially mobility support variants - with a diesel. An ARV can be required to do a lot of work in a small area. The hot and high volume exhaust from a gas turbine main engine could make that area almost uninhabitable for dismounted mechanics and crews. Similar work conditions can apply to an AEV and dismounted engineering personnel. The lack of companion ARVs and AEVs (except for USMC’s Breacher) may largely result from powering the Abrams chassis with a gas turbine.

One suggested reason for procuring the M88-A2 has been to keep BMY in business as a second source of heavy armour. If that need still applies then GD might produce the diesels and re-engine Abrams MBTs and Wolverine AVLBs, and BAE/BMY could rework stored Abrams to produce ARVs and AEVs. And usefully the ARV could - even if fitted with a heavy-lift A-frame - have a jib-crane for precise manipulation of loads such as a turret or replacement engine.

[Compost]

Have been asked about an inconsistency in my views: “ why upgrade rear-engined Abrams with a diesel instead of expanding GCV project to include a front-engined gun-armed vehicle or MBT ? “

That's a good question and it will probably be asked again so here is an early answer. A ‘best’ path for US heavy armour development could seem to be a new front-engine chassis - incorporating some Abrams components and sub-systems - as a common basis for AEV, ARV, AVLB, BW and MBT variants. But an alternative ‘ one step at a time ’process reduces the risk of creating a Gordian knot such as doomed the FCS.

The monstrously heavy concept that seems to have been adopted for the GCV will result in lengthy delay before the project is revised to be something more objective and manageable. That will require at least two major changes. One, the proposed scale of issue will have to be reduced and directed to companys (rather than battalions) of assault infantry and combat engineers. Two, the large turret and armament will have to be supplanted by something smaller and less heavy that is still able to deliver intense prophylactic fire. Hence the definitive vehicle will be smaller and probably less weighty. Eventually the chassis of that smaller ‘GCV’ (in other words Battle Wagon) could become the basis for future mobility support variants and also a MBT successor. That process would approximate ‘ one step at a time ‘ and might be described as sequential or familial development.

But for an interim period - possibly into the 2030s – believe US force structure would be better served by upgrading what exists today. And that means the Abrams, almost certainly in its current rear-engined form.

[Compost]

An Abrams hull with new running gear by Diehl and a diesel engine and ancillaries by GD and MTU is being shown at AUSA 2013.

See http://www.aviationweek.com/Article...._p0-629179.xml

But to get such an upgrade running as an Army project in the current climate could be as difficult as a push-start on an uphill grade.

[RTK]

If the exhaust isn't in the rear how will dismounted troops warm themselves?