>M1 Abrams>Engine: Avco-Lycoming AGT1500>1,500 hp Multifuel Turbine EngineWTF is a turbine engine? I thought that was a jet, but this is in a tank... so the fuck is it how does it work
wait till you learn how superchargers workhot gas turns a spinny thing that connects with a driveshaft
>>28889710It's a turboshaft with a gear reduction gearbox. Chrysler did the same back in the 50's or 60's in a car. Turbine engines have lots of cons but a lot of advantages too. They'll run on anything flammable or oil based. A 400lb PT6 puts out as much horsepower and torque as a 6.7 Cummins and will do it 24/7.
>>28889710obsoletetalk about drones instead
>>28889718The failed turbine car engine was one of the reasons to put a turbine in the Abrams.
Gas turbine engines in tanks are retarded. Can only be in battle for 5 minutes before they're out of fuel.
Turbines are T H I R S T Y
>>28889786Actually this is a good example of the stupidity of military procurement.And the "runs on any fuel" argument is retarded as well. How often has this actually been done in battle?And almost any diesel engine can run on plant based oils....
>>28889787>But turbine start ups don't always go smoothly
>>28889789I think it’s a lot easier to run anything on a turbojet plus it’s more compact as a power plant.
>>28889786>>28889789biggest gaz guzzler in the troops running on jp8? How is that not a gigantic plus?also lower noise signature than diesel engines>Can only be in battle for 5 minutes before they're out of fueland the leopard 2 with superior diesel engine has a whopping 100 mile offroad range
>>28889835What about highway miles?
>>28889840nobody cares about highway miles
>>28889835America is a logistic army, can afford to feed them
>>28889835Lol made up numbers. Offroad the leopard 2 and abrams have the same milage of 120 miles. Meanwhile the boss tank challenger 2 does 160.
>>28889714you're thinking of a turbo. superchargers run off the crank
>>28889786Dumbass.In combat they burn 2 gallons per mile or about 60 gallons per hour with 505 gallon capacity (spread over 3 fuel cells- left, right, front).90% of the military are support roles. We havent had issues running out of fuel in combat since WWII
>>28889710Basically a jet engine but the spinny thing isn't just used to suck in air but to turn the wheels.Modern helicopters all work that way.
>>28889853>made up numbersnot my fault the anglo saxon wikipedia is spewing lies as is tradition160km are 100 miles
>>2888985392FH7, Sabre Squadron, 3d Armored Combat Regiment here.Abrams has a range of over 250 miles.I should know, im the guy that drove ahead in the M978 and set up the fuel point.As far as im aware, all modern combat tanks have similar range so these wiki numbers are bullshit.
>>28889903Well done that is correct! its more dependant on a supply line and can't go astray as long! Way to go champ.
>>28890063Well thanks a lot. Here we are having a fun nerd argument and you just slammed it into a wall with your "factual experience". I hope you're happy.
>>28890063How long does it take to fuel one up. Asking for a friend who wants to know timings for Appalachia resistance.
Russia did it first and the USA decided that they must have had a great reason for it, so they copied it
>>28889710Turbine is a big turbo without the reciprocating engine, basically.
>>28890079300gpm pump on my rig so about 2 minutes if I'm on the ball.But I only have a 2,500 gallon tank and I only fill to 2,300. Youre looking at 15 minutes and ive filled 5-6 abrams- theyre never empty but theyre never full either.
>>28890090Based Putin trolling the drumpf retard regime like a boss
>>28889835>>28889848All of you are retarded. The reason they went with the turbine on the M1 was because it's always at peak power and is able to supply max torque quickly. The main concern with tank mobility is how well it's able to do a bunch of small sprints from standstill cross country, since that's what tactical tank movement in combat looks like.All moot point anyways since the M1A3 is removing the turbine for a diesel hybrid.The Army claims 50% fuel efficiency boost and even more low end torque from the electric motors. Pic related, engine and tranny.
>>28890141>and is able to supply max torque quicklythis nigga never heared of a torque converterThe big upside of a hybrid drive train is they can ditch the additional apu
>>28890141>The reason they went with the turbine on the M1 was because it's always at peak powerall cold war era gear was build with multi fuel in mind. And that is the big upside of the turbine, it runs on everything from rendered pig fat to aircraft /helicopter fuel available in bulk.Even this shitbox was build with some cursed diesel engine that also runs on gasoline.Think of it as lessons learned from ww2, where lack of specific fuels paralized entire theaters
>>28889710Gas turbines are common is helicopters and turbo prop aircraft. You can use them in a tank but they don't idle like a diesel so they drink a shitton of fuel. The Abrahams uses it because it weighs less than a diesel of equivalent power so it can have MORE ARMOR BAY BEE to do it's role as a dug in heavy defensive tank against waves of advancing slavshit like T72 in Soviet deep battle doctrine. In the only hot war it was used it was the one rolling up used offensively against dug in T72s. Life can be real funny sometimes.
>>28889710They have a new diesel engine ready for the next gen M1.It's not as fast as the turbine, but the range increases like 3x.Watch the interviews with the new designers They are pretty smart.The goal isn't more armor and a bigger gun.It's mostly sensors, drone warfare, and crew upgrades.
>>28890150with enough gearing, 45 hp is enough for anybody
>>28889786only a problem for poor third world nations that cant into logistics
>>28889925Halts maul, du Arschloch
>>28890197>,
>>28890141The turbine was selected because the variable-compression diesel was trash. Both the GM and Chrysler entries could use either engine, it wasn't a case of "we must use a turbine because the Chrysler prototype is better". The GM pilot tank was initially the better option (with the turbine) but in the time between the two rounds of testing they didn't bother to improve the tank all that much while Chrysler did. The Chrysler XM1 was also able to be easily upgunned to a 120
>>28890090>>28890129So this is your hideout, armatard?
>>28889710WW2 sherman had like seven different engine options and chrysler turbine might have been one of them
>>28889718>Turbine engines have lots of cons but a lot of advantages too.The advantages are amazing if you rethink how they could be used.Use a smaller turbine to drive a generator, the motive power is a motor, with a small reserve battery bank (acting more like an accumulator).The turbine engine driving the generator provides almost immediate heat/aircon (without needing freon, it would use air as the refrigerant), and you could have blown windshields, no need for wipers.
>>28890279No, you're thinking of the Chrysler multibank used in the M4A4.The only really weird engine offered for the M4 during WW2 was the RD1820 radial Diesel in the M4A6.
>>28890247do you think the M1 came out before the T-80?
BRINGHERBACKhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQYlPRXEeKY
>>28890145>they can ditch the additional apu
>>28890280Turbine efficiency does not scale down well at all. Small turbines that would fit in a car chug fuel like a big block V8. Generating electricity on a small scale is also extremely inefficient which is why range extenders are memes. SO a combination of the two would make no sense.
>>28890483Nah, small turbine APU's/gensets are everywhere. They run at two speeds, "idle" and "power". Plus, you run them on whatever. it makes all the sense. So much sense you need a wheelbarrow to carry the excess that spilled from the first three wheelbarrows.
>>28889720Btfo by apaches
>>28890486>small turbine APU's/gensets are everywhere"everywhere" being applications that are not really relevant to a roadgoing vehicle. Outside of planes you're only going to find them in the O/G sector in things like compressor stations but they're plumbed into the natural gas supply so fuel consumption is irrelevant. I'm sure the military uses them too but fuel consumption is obviously irrelevant to them. Turbines don't like idling or being started/stopped which are both issues in a roadgoing vehicle.
>>288905032slow
>>28890516*Explodes u*
>>28889789>How often has this actually been done in battle?Thunder run in Iraq. So to answer your question, every time it's actually mattered. Plus, the Abrams were ordered to stop and wait for mechanized infantry to catch up so the range wasn't an issue at all tbqhwy.
>>28890526*u missed*
>>28891364Proximity burst fuses are a hell of a thing
>>28890514>Turbines don't like idling or being started/stopped which are both issues in a roadgoing vehicle.Youre one of them faggots with the pushbutton who gets pissed off at the cars idling next to you at a stop.
>>28891371*gets swarmed from all 360 degrees*Ggnoreplay
>>28891379He has a point though.You think turbo lag is bad??Turbines actually have to "spool up" to start developing power from idle.An Abrams takes about 3 seconds to spool from standby mode then another second or so to engage the transmission then another second+ to continue revving to start moving.So 0-2 MPH is the same as a late 80's 5.0 Mustang's 0-60 time. Here's a turbine RC plane that hits over 400mph.Fast forward to 1:20Be sure to turn up your speakers.https://youtu.be/DPGDAZyQ44k?si=7tmIx_qZXXlMKaiy
>>28891416Pic related for reference.
IMAGINE if you got a jet engine and then you put a fan behind it so that when the jet engine blows on the fan, the fan can spin something
>>28891384*Shoots them all down with my buddies*
>>28891421>mog all the Wanker engine fags who think their angry beehive makes them cool
>>28891445I know, right?
>>28891445>you put a fan behind it so that when the jet engine blows on the fan, the fan can spin somethingYou mean, like....a turbine (?)
>>28890090to bad all T72 variants are doomed since the T72 sucks so much.
