Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+33
Podlodka77
Arrow
flamming_python
Hole
PapaDragon
LMFS
kvs
lyle6
Isos
Zhar666
Anonymous Fighter
JohninMK
Gunfighter-AK
User 1592
OminousSpudd
Book.
AlfaT8
higurashihougi
KiloGolf
KoTeMoRe
nemrod
Werewolf
George1
rtech
Zivo
Cyberspec
magnumcromagnon
collegeboy16
BlackArrow
GarryB
Mindstorm
TR1
Austin
37 posters

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2094
    Points : 2088
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:29 am

    kvs wrote:The 20 rounds per minute for the autoloader sounds like marketing BS to me.   If you want reliability, then you do not squeeze every last
    drop of juice out of the system.   So in the real world, this 20 will never be used.   Russian fire rates under 10 are from systems with decades
    of experience but some no-name US company will just nearly triple the fire rate with the snap of the fingers.  Sure.

    BTW, the mechanical issues are not size-invariant.   Machine-gunning tank shells is not the same as bullets.
    An MBT's main gun optimized for power and precision, like a sniper rifle. It is not a rapid fire weapon.

    The carousel autoloader might not have the sheer rate of fire as a bustle autoloader, but its hell of a lot safer.

    GarryB likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2094
    Points : 2088
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Wed Dec 27, 2023 4:41 am


    The Ukrainians should know better. They were exposed to T-80 MBTs that had cyclone filters for the gas turbine engines which automatically cleans itself using vibrations only. Hilarious that Soviet engineers with slide rules could do this while the Americans with the most advanced computing resources can't. Razz

    Maybe they should've tapped the Germans for the propulsions too while they were at it. At least the German cats managed to drag themselves on their own power to prepared killzones. The Aybraps can't even make it out of the starting position.

    Not that it would be any help if they could. The hohols were issued old and problematic ammo to go with the clapped out 120 mm guns. The M829A3 was a particular caution item at the time of its release due to it maxing out the pressure margins on the 120 mm gun and I doubt the years would have made it any less harsher to fire. The opposite, really.

    GarryB, kvs, The-thing-next-door, Hole and Belisarius like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2094
    Points : 2088
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Tue Jan 02, 2024 12:46 pm


    Regardless of the presence of the heavy metal layer or no, the front hull has 50% less array depth to work with compared to the front turret. The space available on the former is simply not enough to fit an armor package that is anywhere near close to the resistance offered by the latter. And the front turret is already very close run vis a vis the latest deployed anti-armor rounds (except of course the T-14's subcaliber shells Twisted Evil) so realistically there is not much advantage to improving the front hull when they will be penetrated by anything more modern than the 3BM42 shell anyway.

    GarryB and Hole like this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 14951
    Points : 15088
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  kvs Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:22 pm

    I am having a hard time reconciling the technical issue with the Abrams in terms of clogging of engine air filters after short periods of operation.
    The T-80 gas turbine version does not have this problem or at least I have never heard about it. It does not make sense why the Abrams would
    have a ludicrous handicap (e.g. can't be used in Ukraine, supposedly) but the T-80 doesn't. Same freaking air + aerosol intake through a filter.
    Americans cannot into filters?

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2556
    Points : 2554
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lancelot Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:39 pm

    kvs wrote:I am having a hard time reconciling the technical issue with the Abrams in terms of clogging of engine air filters after short periods of operation.
    The T-80 gas turbine version does not have this problem or at least I have never heard about it.    It does not make sense why the Abrams would
    have a ludicrous handicap (e.g. can't be used in Ukraine, supposedly) but the T-80 doesn't.    Same freaking air + aerosol intake through a filter.
    Americans cannot into filters?
    They just don't want it to look weak in Ukraine and lose sales of the M1 as a result. There is also the fact they simply can't manufacture it anymore.
    If the filters were a problem then they couldn't have used it in Iraq. Those issues would have been much worse in a desert environment.

    kvs likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38484
    Points : 38984
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  GarryB Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:21 am

    Comes down to training... if they cleaned the filters three times a day then it might not be a problem, but in the Ukraine they face enemy C4ISTAR and drones and ATGMs and artillery and air power etc etc and might prefer to stay hidden rather than cleaning the engine intake every 5 hours.

    If you don't clean it the engine gets damaged... and the Orcs wont be able to fix such engines...

    During Desert Storm they were worried about the Apache because it was a bit of a Hangar Queen, needing a lot of support to keep it going.

    The solution was that they tripled the support budget and funding and manhours and the availability rate turned out to be pretty good.

    kvs likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6286
    Points : 6378
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  ALAMO Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:28 am

    ... and keep in mind that GTD1250 has a mechanical dust separator that filters air from particles bigger than can be burned through. It is a different design.

    GarryB likes this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 14951
    Points : 15088
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  kvs Sat Jan 06, 2024 5:38 am

    ALAMO wrote:... and keep in mind that GTD1250 has a mechanical dust separator that filters air from particles bigger than can be burned through. It is a different design.

    So the Honeywell AGT-1500 has only regular air filters. Seems like a silly limitation but consistent with corruption. High maintenance means high money flow
    to contractors.

    GarryB, Hole and lancelot like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2094
    Points : 2088
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Sat Jan 06, 2024 9:45 am

    kvs wrote:I am having a hard time reconciling the technical issue with the Abrams in terms of clogging of engine air filters after short periods of operation.
    The T-80 gas turbine version does not have this problem or at least I have never heard about it.    It does not make sense why the Abrams would
    have a ludicrous handicap (e.g. can't be used in Ukraine, supposedly) but the T-80 doesn't.    Same freaking air + aerosol intake through a filter.
    Americans cannot into filters?
    Different requirements, one supposes, given how often the same pattern repeats across their equipment. The Americans have never fought a true high intensity conflict with apocalyptic stakes against a highly capable and competent opponent and it shows. Their stuff has never been the most robust even at peace time and to them that is A-ok, because they have tons of resources to paper over those deficiencies in wartime - or so they thought.

    GarryB and kvs like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6286
    Points : 6378
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  ALAMO Sat Jan 06, 2024 10:53 am

    You can check the Combat Approval episode concerning restarting GTD1250 production. There is a whole thread about the matter, with a quite detailed presentation of this separator system. How it works. They even make visual presentations showing how effective it is. Impressive stuff, and a great example of superb engineering and mechanics.

    GarryB, kvs, Hole, lyle6 and lancelot like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2556
    Points : 2554
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lancelot Sat Jan 06, 2024 7:11 pm

    lyle6 wrote:Different requirements, one supposes, given how often the same pattern repeats across their equipment. The Americans have never fought a true high intensity conflict with apocalyptic stakes against a highly capable and competent opponent and it shows. Their stuff has never been the most robust even at peace time and to them that is A-ok, because they have tons of resources to paper over those deficiencies in wartime - or so they thought.
    Things did not use to be like this. For example the equipment they did series produce in WW2 was pretty reliable. But back then development was done by civilian companies using modified civilian components to fit military needs. If I was the US government, I wouldn't be asking General Dynamics Land systems or BAE to make a tank, I would ask Caterpillar to make one.

    The M1 engine was done by a company who's only prior experience was helicopter engines. A much different operating environment. The Soviet gas tank turbine program had been going on for decades before the engine for the T-80 was produced.

    GarryB, kvs and ALAMO like this post


    Sponsored content


    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 8 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Feb 24, 2024 2:10 pm