There is something off about those numbers. They cannot possibly apply to any diesel at idle.
Those numbers are from the makers of the engines, but a better way to work out fuel efficiency as such would be to find out the total number of litres a tank has in its fuel tanks.
We know the average driving range for the vehicles... what we don't know is their fuel capacity... which would be a better indicator of how much fuel they burn normally.
Sitting in the snow and ice in Russia with the main engine running so all the electronics and optics and of course the heater are all working does not burn anything like the amount of fuel that is burned when at full revs and max engine power, but a tiny gas turbine APU designed to generate the required electricity to run the electronics and to directly provide the heat needed to keep the crew compartment warm uses a lot less fuel per hour and it also creates a much smaller IR signature while running. It can use the power it generates to keep the main engine preheated so it can start up pretty much straight away if needed.
Trucking would go bankrupt if
diesel engines sucked over 100 liters per hour. Large truck engines are not that far removed from the ones in the tanks.
Very true... buses as well... and most of the time when they stop they leave them running unless they know they will be away for a long time... like a food stop or whatever.
The 500km range is likely on the march so running on relatively flat firm terrain and open road speeds of perhaps 50-60km/s for 8-10 hours.
Most diesels redline at about 2,500 rpm and get their max power range at about 1,800-2,000rpm which means that is the max fuel burn engine rate... whether they are in first gear or 8th gear... across uneven terrain just continuously moving can require high fuel consumption, and that is when not in combat.
In real combat they will be moving at max speed from positions of cover to other positions of cover to fire at targets... when you fire, you give away your position so you generally move to another position that conceals you presence but enables you to fire on enemy positions or vehicles and then you move again... it burns a lot of fuel.
This stopping and starting and accelerating all the time burns a lot of fuel and is what makes gas turbines less efficient as power supplies.
Ironically GTs are normally very efficient if they can be run at optimum fuel efficient speeds, but moving a tank around a battlefield means they are not.
A Gas Turbine offers a small efficient power source and in the future with electric drive vehicles will be a much better choice for supplying energy as its growth potential is much better than with Diesels.... there are enormously powerful diesel engines on ships and in power stations but they are very big and heavy.
In comparison the 11,500hp engines of the Mi-26 are relatively small and compact...
Western tanks also have better Fire Control System (FCS) than Russian tanks.
Actually the Russian systems have had auto target trackers for quite some time... they use them for guiding tank gun fired missiles.
AFAIK the main area the Russian systems lack is magnification, but they are sorting that out too.
They are working on colour digital night vision devices that seem rather impressive, and they have some mind blowing digital video cameras with magnification capacities that are amazing...
The reason the Russians followed ATGM from longer range is their FCS are not as advanced as western ones and so their accuracy is also not as high as western MBTs.
The Soviets developed a missile tank... it was called the IT-1, but their tank gun launched missiles were never intended to make Russian or Soviet tanks in to missile tanks... it was always just supposed to be another round the commander could use if the situation made it the best choice.
People talk about the amazing western guns and their ammo... an example would be the British 17 pounder gun of WWII fame with its super ammo that could penetrate enormous amounts of armour... everyone points that out but they don't actually take in to account it uses a sabot that makes it rather inaccurate beyond about 500m.
Being able to see a target at enormous range only matters if you have a gun that is accurate enough to hit the target and also powerful enough to penetrate it.
U.S APFSDS have similar velocities. M1A2 firing 120mm fin-stab with tungsten carbide is ~ 1770 m/s.
And is a couple of kgs lighter and thinner...
FCS determines tank accuracies and firing rates and extend tank capabilities by enabling effective firing at night.
A fire control system determines an aim point for the main gun... in itself it does not work at night... you need decent thermal sights to collect accurate target data at night and current Russian thermals are based on French ones which are probably as good or better than American ones.
A shell fired from a tank’s gun will not travel in a straight line but will lose altitude due to gravity as it travels. So a gunner must know the distance of the target, and accordingly shoot higher to compensate for the fall. Also, crosswinds blow the shells away from the target.
The gunner will lase the target to determine range which the fire control system will use together with information like wind direction, and the ammo type currently loaded as well as the current droop of the barrel and the internal temperature of the barrel and the propellent being used.
The speed and direction the target is moving will have rather more effect than any cross wind but a decent FCS will compensate for all these things.
The point is that with any western fire control system after the round has been fired any chance in direction or speed of the target with a long range shot and you will miss. A long range shot from a Russian vehicle with a missile the fire control system will note the target has stopped because it has an auto tracker following the target and that will stop with them holding the laser beam the missile just fired is following will still hit the target... even if it stops and start to reverse...
Ballistic computer, electronic sights and the array of sensors on Western MBTs are far more superior than Russian ones.
The Russians export sniper scopes with ballistic computers and Thermal imaging sights using an array of gyros and temperature and humidity sensors and even GLONASS and lasing technology so you can send live video footage of the target to HQ before you fire to confirm the target... the GLONASS sensor on the scope locating you and the laser range finder determines the distance and direction and therefore also the coordinates of the target you are shooting which can be marked on the build in map. Once you have lased the target a spot will appear... place that spot on the part of the body of the target you want to hit and squease the trigger for a kill.
You can record the ballistic profile of dozens of guns and calibres and barrel lengths and bullet weights... select what you are using and you get hits every time.
Same with armoured vehicles including their APCs and BMPs and of course air defence vehicles and tanks.
Even INDRA upgraded the FCS of T 72s
Yeah, India also created a replacement rifle for the AK-47... they called it the INSAS, but it had a lot of problems and now they are replacing the AKs they still use with AK-203s and their INSAS rifles with American made ARs...
[qutoe]M1A2 is compatable to t-90 which has a very good fcs. T-72 is to be compared with older US tanks. [/quote]
The upgraded T-72s are probably 90% the optics and communications of the T-90 and Abrams but much cheaper than the T-90 which is probably half the cost of the Abrams...
Most of the time engagement will benless than 2km away and then you don't really need it. It's really easy to aim with a gun that launches the round at 2000m/s. Just aim the top of the tank and it will hit.
An old unupgraded T-72 could probably kill targets at 2,000m fairly easily and regularly... with upgrades it could probably reliably kill targets to 2,500m while on the move... and long range using missiles much more effectively than any western tank simply because at long range the biggest problem is the target doing something unpredictable that no FCS can predict... like suddenly stopping or making a random turn after the round is fired and on its way... with an APFSDS round that means a miss... with a missile it means you can still get a hit.
If Russian fire control systems are shit why do you think they can shoot down drones that western air defence systems can't even see?