Abrams has been shown to take 890 liters of gas (235 gallons) per 100 km (62 miles). That's 8.9liters per kilometer or 3.8 gallons per mile.(Historical account, though this has been somewhat improved)
>>64316908>That's 8.9liters per kilometer or 3.8 gallons per mile.Damn almost as much cum as your mom guzzles on her hitchhiking trips
>>64316921How many men is that? I cant cum much myself.
>>64316908It is what it is. We can afford it and we get a tank with a lot of room for growth in terms of weight while maintaining the same mobility, as we have to actively kneecap it right now to stop if from going so fast it tears its tracks off. This means if we one day decide it needs another 20 tons or armor or a new massive gun or something, we don't have to worry about upgrading the engine because we know it can take it.
>>64316908>AbramsUseless without shells
>>64316955assuming full hydration and a quality regimen of supplements, a man should be capable of producing 10mL of semen in an ejaculation.8.9L == 8900mL, which is 890 ejaculation events. This an impressive amount of cum for OP's mom to guzzle, and is only matched by the quantity inhaled by the average russian soldier.
>>64316970Well that's categorically false, they got a couple of kills in the Gulf War but T-posing on top of the dug in iraq's and just spinning till they were buried.
>>64316970good thing it carries 44 shells inside blow-out protected ammo bins
>>64317001What's the value for hot russian twinks?Asking for an undisclosed western intelligence agency
>>64317001>8.9L == 8900mL, which is 890 ejaculation events. This an impressive amount of cum for OP's mom to guzzle, and is only matched by the quantity inhaled by the average russian soldier.
Tanks are inefficient platforms of transportation because they have high rolling friction.
Just maneuvering off-road increases fuel consumption by 3 to 10 times, so conditions must be specified.
>>64317001>man should be capable of producing 10mL of semen in an ejaculationThat's considered hyperspermia. Your average cum volume is ~5mL (generally a teaspoon).
>>64317659Are you not familiar with the efficiency of wheeled transportation? It's much better than tracked transportation. I'll tell you that much.
>>64316908Yeah those jet engine powered tanks get pretty thirsty
>>64316908Turns out moving 70 tons of metal over unpaved surfaces takes a lot of energy. Who would have guessed?
>>64316908So what you're telling me is the US managed to supply their thirstier tanks with enough fuel to conquer Iraq in two weeks on the other side of the world while Russian tanks ran out of fuel in two days and 50km from their own border?
>>64318408the abrams has always been a form of dickwaving for the military's logistical prowess. i don't think any other army in the world could successfully field the abrams.
>>64316970What does this even mean
Fuel efficiency is measured in L / (ton * km).A better metric would be 13.3 L per (ton * 100 km).A normal car is 5.5 - 4.5 L per (ton * 100 km).With a huge caveat: that is the fuel consumption for very heavy vehicle moving 'slow' compared to a light vehicle moving faster. If you ignore the aerodynamic drag for cars then its fuel consumption is more like 1.5-2.5 L per (ton * 100 km).Tracks are ~10 times worse than tires at high speed and on road.
english speaking people refer to it as 'the abrams' . we dont call vehicles by their names as if they're a proper noun.
>>64319849Yes we do.
>>64319903no, we dont. no one called the bradley just "Bradley" before ukirane.no one in america says shit like>bradley is the best IFV in the world
>>64319849Ngl I think we should switch to that. Personification is good for morale
>>64319910yeah, we say shit like bradleys are the best IFVs in the world.
>>64317023>I recognize that drone gay blowjob
>>64319910I'm in America and I say stuff like that, therefore you're wrong.
General Dynamics is already working on electric solutions for Abrams' power source.
>>64317436They should convert then to railcars. Very low friction.
>>64318325I think everyone is suprised. Has anyone told the brass?
>>64320387I hope it has panels, that would be very green. Even Greta would like one of those.
>>64320387Batteries are not a power source, they're power storage.
>>64320421>they're power storage>which can source powerFuck you, pedantic fuck hole faggot.
>>64320416cope cages made out of solar panels and wind turbines
>>64320476They store power from a different source. Where is the generator that you'll be plugging your electric tank into?
>>64317001>10mLthat is nutsI swear when I was a teen I was blasting three or four times that, fucking ropes of the stuff
>>64320421What is gasoline but storage for solar energy?
>>64318492>not practicing refueling tanks from cargo aircraftishygddt
>>64321460Real dickwaving would be if the C-130 on the ground was refueling a hovering CH-53 that was refueling an Abrams
>>64316921Anon, killing people is the tank's job not yours.
>>64317001Well assuming the men in question save up a day or two that seems like a reasonable estimate.>mfw that's per mile
>>64317023When it comes to Russian sperm, this amount is nothing to a Serb
>>64316908See, this proves that desert storm never happened because there isn't enough oil to fuel that many tanks or some shit
When is the new abrams coming out?
>>64322655I don't know but I'm glad it has the big ornate ass vent like the M60.
>>64321305Tesla charging station, obviously. What a retard.
>>64320421>>64321305Are you retarded? How do modern locomotives work, anon?
>>64325441Depends, are you talking about diesel-electric trains that use diesel as their energy source, or fully electric trains powered by an electrified rail? Either way, I don't see what either of those have to do with an electric tank, unless you're considering having them tow a power cable that runs all the way back to a powerplant.
>>64325462Diesel electric, obviously. Now you have finer control over each track, more instantaneous torque, no driveline power loss and can omit the weight and complexity of a transmission. You can downscale the engine a bit as well.
>>64319849Speak for yourself.
>>64323046
>>64325470Diesel electric trains aren't like hybrid cars, they don't have battery banks to buffer the power between the generator and the motors. The power goes straight from one to the other, it's like a transmission without gears to get munched by the mass and torque.
>>64317688Is getting stuck and then killed efficient?
>>64325485I fail to see your point.
>>64325485>The traction motors may be powered directly or via rechargeable batteries, making the vehicle a type of hybrid electric vehicle. This method of transmission is sometimes termed electric transmission, as it is identical to petrol–electric transmission, which is used on vehicles powered by petrol engines, and to turbine–electric powertrain, which is used for gas turbines.
>>64316908Since they are as vulnerable to drones as thin skinned AIFVs that use less fuel due to being lighter, it's just another nail in the MBTs as a viable vehicle, coffin.
