General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

Mike E wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:There is.

Gas turbin engine only has high effeciency in high level of working. In low level of working, the effeciency drastically decreases and fuel consumption drastically increases.

Tanks not always run on maximum speed. There are instances that they have to move at medium speed, or low speed. And Abrams's gas turbin will become a disaster.

People only use gas turbin when they hadn't manage to develop a strong diesel engine yet. T-80 gas turbin was used but didn't last for very long. Today Russia and Ukraina have de facto abandoned gas turbin due to the fact that they all have strong diesel engine.

Armata, T-72, T-80 and T-90 diesel engine can use several kinds of fuel.

T-72, T-80, T-90, T-84, Armata engines have higher [[power : volume]] ratio than Abrams. Put 3 6TD engine together they will be as big as one Abrams gas turbin, but totally they will have 3000-4000hp compared with 1500 hp of Abrams.



Armata engine has only 1/2 the height of Abrams gas turbin. But it has 1500hp and can run with multifuel, from diesel to ethanol.

Larger but not heavier. ERA and spaced armour is created to significantly reduce the penetration power of the projectiles without significantly increase the tank's weight and armour.

And by the way I prefer ERA and spaced armour rather than DU.

The side armour of ammunition is quite thicker than top and rear, but not very thick. B41 aka RPG-7 put a hole in it.



And even if it is thick, it will cost a significant additional weight and material. Meanwhile since T-64/72/80/90 put the ammunition in the hull, below the turret, it saves up a lot of weight, and the ammo is less exposed.

Density of Vonfram is only slightly higher than uranium. But vonfram is tough, hard and heat resistant, meanwhile DU is soft and has lower melting point. When the penetrator collides with the target, the high energy of the collision can significantly increase the temperature of the penetrator, it can melt or increase the volume of the penetrator, and when the volume increases => contact size increases => pressure decreases => penetrating power decreases.

So that means, the penetrator with very high melting point provides significant advanrages. Vonfram's melting point is 3422 degree Celsius, significantly greater than uranium (1132 degree). Meanwhile Uranium carbide ceramic is heat resistant, but then the density is lesser.

The greatest advantages of DU is the price. DU is cheap and very available, while vonfram is very expensive.

Like....what? 

Which is why the US has added APU's and advanced fuel management controllers to the AGT-1500. Sure it will still consume more fuel than a diesel at lower speeds, but not by a whole lot. 

Actually, it is kind of funny....because the M1's engine generates the most torque below maximum RPM, so at lower speeds, it will be faster to accelerate if needed. And in regards to efficiency, look above. 

US has had multiple successful diesels before, during, and after the Abrams' development cycle. The decision to use a turbine was mostly political, but it had advantages as well. 

Any of the large diesels can run other fuels; at significantly reduced power and high fuel consumption. It also doesn't help the their ECM's wouldn't be optimized for other fuels. All while turbines can basically run anything that is flammable at little to no consequence. Heck, the old Turbine car of the 1960's ran on perfume.

HP/volume is far too generalized in this case. The AGT-1500 has a higher hp/weight than all but the A-85-3A, torque higher than all but the -3A, and in reality; is smaller than the diesel rumored to replace it. 

Don't forget; I'm not comparing the AGT to Russian diesels, I'm comparing it to the MTU series engine that *would* replace it.

Spaced armor still adds weight and size; because it is still armor. In the case of the M1A2; its' armor is already massively thick, so there simply is no room for spacing, unless you are suggesting they lower the actual armor thickness.

ERA covering the front of an Abrams would add another 3 tonnes, or more. 

It is estimated to be 400 mm, which is obviously thick for turret and bustle side armor. It getting penetrated by an RPG doesn't change the thickness.

Ammunition isn't exposed in the hull of a T-64/T-72? lol, what about all the ammunition cook-offs? The only way hull-storage can be successful, is if it is completely isolated and protected ala Armata. 

Tungsten alloys are a better form of armor than DU, sure, but that's not what I'm talking about. In sheer density, DU comes out on top.

Yes and no. In the T-64/80, any penetrating hit to the crew compartment had a very high chance of igniting the esposed propellants. If the T-72/90 only loads the carousel, then it is not exposed.

I see what you mean, the bustle is large and easy target to hit. That's true, but it's better that than risking the lives of the crew.

T-90MS helped this significantly, by up-armoring the carousel, moving formerly exposed ammunition (outside of caro.) into an armored compartment, and putting the rest in an external bustle.

T-14 solves it by isolating the ammunition completely, surrounding it with additional armor, and by adding blow-out panels (most likely).

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I am looking for some good images showing the general layout of Leclerc, including ammo location.

My question is in relation with Yemeni conflict where Emirati Leclerc tanks are currently stationed - I want to know how much of tank fireworks we could possibly see.

There's certainly an argument to be made that all that turret keeps it pretty safe from frontal penetrations... just at the expense of higher possibility of catastrophic flanking shots.

Gas turbin engine only has high effeciency in high level of working. In low level of working, the effeciency drastically decreases and fuel consumption drastically increases.

Tanks not always run on maximum speed. There are instances that they have to move at medium speed, or low speed. And Abrams's gas turbin will become a disaster.

People only use gas turbin when they hadn't manage to develop a strong diesel engine yet. T-80 gas turbin was used but didn't last for very long. Today Russia and Ukraina have de facto abandoned gas turbin due to the fact that they all have strong diesel engine.

T-72, T-80, T-90, T-84, Armata engines have higher [[power : volume]] ratio than Abrams. Put 3 6TD engine together they will be as big as one Abrams gas turbin, but totally they will have 3000-4000hp compared with 1500 hp of Abrams.

Any of the large diesels can run other fuels; at significantly reduced power and high fuel consumption. It also doesn't help the their ECM's wouldn't be optimized for other fuels. All while turbines can basically run anything that is flammable at little to no consequence. Heck, the old Turbine car of the 1960's ran on perfume.

Compare the range of M1 Abrams with its fuel capacity vs range of Diesel powered tanks with their inferior fuel capacity but with higher range.
T-90A 550km with 1600 l vs M1A2 430km with 1900 l kerosine.

Why is there a debate about gas turbine engines? Russia would use them if they were worth it. The USSR used them
in the T-80 as everyone knows and that experience counts for something. The T-14 engine is an impressive achievement
of engineering. It is more impressive than any gas turbine used in tanks.

Israel defense industries are building the Eitan, which will half as much.

The Namer APC. Israeli defense industries are building the Eitan, which will weigh half as much.

Israeli defense manufacturers unveiled a prototype for a new armored personnel carrier, named Eitan, which will accompany and weigh just half as much as Namer APCs.

According to global weekly Defense News, which reported the unveiling, the Eitan is meant to replace Israeli infantry’s older M113s, one of which was destroyed by Hamas fighters during the 2014 Gaza war in an attack that killed all seven soldiers manning the vehicle.

“Sources here said it will weigh no more than 35 tons and will incorporate a new generation of active protection, an advanced turret and a full complement of munitions and sensors,” Defense News reported.

Commander of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Ground Forces Command, Maj. Gen. Guy Zur, said the new tank “may be less good [than the Namer], but it will be affordable and allow us to equip a large part of our force.”

The Israeli Defense Ministry’s MAFAT Research and Development Bureau is also working on a research-and-development project called Carmel for a treaded, medium-weight combat vehicle, according to the report. At about 32 tons, the Carmel weighs in at about half of the IDF’s Merkava Mk4 tank.

Sources told Defense News that Carmel was no replacement for the Mk4, which is set to remain in production until 2020. “The operational requirement will be something entirely different,” said one source.

Zur noted that both vehicles were expected to enter Israel’s ground forces, but not in the immediate future. He said Eitan could be deployed in as little as five years, but Carmel would not be active until probably 2025, or even 2027.

Replacing a 15 ton tracked vehicle with a 35 ton wheeled vehicle = logic

Mike E wrote:Not much to say - it'll be larger, more powerful, and possibly ETC as well. Details are, of course, lacking, but we'll see but in the future. Now the big question is what ammunition it will fire.

Werewolf wrote:It would highly need it despite being 2nd gen western MBT the Chieftain can't even compete with T-55/62 in protection.

galicije83 wrote:Russia dont have 900 T-90s. Have less then 500 of them.

T-72 was junk when he was made and its still is. This T-72 tanks dont have real chance against Leo2s, AMX-56s or M1A1/2.

I know that because i was commander on Yugo M-84 tank, who have much batter FCS then any T-72 even a new one B3. I was trained on T-72M tanks fist then i move on M-84. Our M-84 is mercedes for this Russian junk.
Only one good modernization of T72 tank was Rogatka but it was to expensive for Russians i guess so they go with this B3 modernization.

Instead they modernized T-80Us they put them almost all in reserve (one division have operational T-80s i think and its 4th guard division).T-80U have much batter armor protection then any T-72 will have. It has much batter FCS, it is far batter tank then T-72 will be with all this new modernizations...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.