All im doing is looking into this and looking at what we have here. lobbie111 seems to have a good idea about the Abrams. For now im just looking and later ill be more active here
Amarion
Mini Abrams...
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
Amarion
That "slight decrease in capability" is not worth the weight reduction at all. That "slight decrease in capability" makes the crew very dead.
I digress. I thought the idea was to take an existing design and shrink it down? Maybe if you had some little guys to put in there. Otherwise, I don't think it's really feasible, primarily due to manufacturing process.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #43
I meant a scaled down Abrams about the size of say an M113 or CV90 probably with adjustable armour levels like on the Puma IFV on top of the original Abrams armour which was scaled down to about say 30mm frontal and 14.5mm side and rear chobham armour capability. In regards to the cannon I was thinking of a bofors type setup where a clip of say five shells can be loaded by the gunner of commander (even a mix of different shells) and then fired, keeping the same capability of a three man crew
Ahem, if you want a tank with 30mm frontal protection and 14,5mm side protection and with roughly the size of a CV90 I would highly recommend the CV90120 to you... 
I thought you want something smaller which is at least as good protected as an Abrams.
I thought you want something smaller which is at least as good protected as an Abrams.
Actually I think that the CV120 is a brilliant fire support vehicle - it just isn't a proper tank. But for almost all uses it shall suffice for expeditionary warfare. A modern, working APS togheter with all the other active and passive protection suites would greatly improve its survilability against a good part of the thread spectrum. Especially important seems to me the additon of a source-of-fire detection system (acoustic or/and optical) coupled with a remote controlled .50 weapon station.
However the nowadays critical protection against mines or IEDs with or without EFPs was clearly not one of the most important design factors...
However the nowadays critical protection against mines or IEDs with or without EFPs was clearly not one of the most important design factors...
The problem I have with the CV90120 is that one still needs a C-17 to carry it around.
In the end it is not much easier to deploy by air or sea than a normal MBT.
It only gives you a vehicle with less logistical footprint if you are already operate other vehicles on CV90 chassis and it is cheaper to obtain than a modern full size MBT.
In the end it is not much easier to deploy by air or sea than a normal MBT.
It only gives you a vehicle with less logistical footprint if you are already operate other vehicles on CV90 chassis and it is cheaper to obtain than a modern full size MBT.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #47
In my last post I specified that it should have modifiable Armour levels like the Puma IFV. But instead of having three levels just have an A and a B (A being the standard level of protection) and (B being MBT level of protection). It was more of a measure for training and getting away quickly.
While I fully agree with the first part which presents a possible severe limitation of its strategical and to some degree tactical mobility I disagree partly with the second part.
The logistical footprint isn't just smaller when you already operate the CV90 chassis, although it would of course be very desiderable. As I pointed out, fuel is the biggest burden for the supply system and the CV90 needs far less than a MBT, as it is much lighter and can be propelled by a engine with almost a third (~400kw)of the power needed for a MBT (~1100kw). To roughly break the fuel consumption down I would need to take a closer look.
So whenever a "CV" is able to fullfill the required tasks far away from home and has to operate with a high price tag on the supply the maxim is "as light as possible and as heavy as necessary". The difficulty is as always in striking the right balance between many conflicting factors...
P.S: Waylander could you confirm if this results are sound. They ought to be from the Swedish tank trials.
Yeah, the logistical footprint of the platform is also smaller but IMHO it doesn't justifies to replace your current MBT platforms with it or to add it to your forces besides normal MBTs if you don't operate CV90s already.
At least not for a arguably rich western army.
If one wants to get lighter and for example wants to replace whored down T-72M1s or Leopard 1s than the CV90 is a good choice but if someone already operates a modern MBT but no CV90 the advantages of the CV90120 are not enough to justify a procurement in my eyes.
-----
I have seen these figures before and at least for the Leo II and the Abrams they sound right but the Leclerc wasn't as mature back then as it is now and it would do better now than in the past.
IIRC this can also be seen when one looks at the Greek or Turkish tank trials but I am not sure. I have to do some diggin.
At least not for a arguably rich western army.
If one wants to get lighter and for example wants to replace whored down T-72M1s or Leopard 1s than the CV90 is a good choice but if someone already operates a modern MBT but no CV90 the advantages of the CV90120 are not enough to justify a procurement in my eyes.
-----
I have seen these figures before and at least for the Leo II and the Abrams they sound right but the Leclerc wasn't as mature back then as it is now and it would do better now than in the past.
IIRC this can also be seen when one looks at the Greek or Turkish tank trials but I am not sure. I have to do some diggin.
Thats some darn good fuel mileage for the LEO 2 and doing it with less fuel.Yeah, the logistical footprint of the platform is also smaller but IMHO it doesn't justifies to replace your current MBT platforms with it or to add it to your forces besides normal MBTs if you don't operate CV90s already.
At least not for a arguably rich western army.
If one wants to get lighter and for example wants to replace whored down T-72M1s or Leopard 1s than the CV90 is a good choice but if someone already operates a modern MBT but no CV90 the advantages of the CV90120 are not enough to justify a procurement in my eyes.
-----
I have seen these figures before and at least for the Leo II and the Abrams they sound right but the Leclerc wasn't as mature back then as it is now and it would do better now than in the past.
IIRC this can also be seen when one looks at the Greek or Turkish tank trials but I am not sure. I have to do some diggin.
We really do need to replace the M1 series engine pacts, the justification for keeping the turbine is no longer the case especially when you guys are able to get that kind of performance out of your engine pacts.
I guess it really depends on the political agenda of a state and its resulting strategical needs. If expeditionary warfare is high on it than it might be a very good addition to the CV90 fleet. But IMHO an IFV of the same family with a relatively large cannon 30-40mm and the ability to fire ATGM will do a very good job instead. So in the end it is a nice bonus with good uses, but an expensive one.
---------------------------
I had a hard time to believe that the M1A2 is such a big fuel hog. If this is true than somebody's bloody mistake is costing the US forces billions $ and human lifes. This means that the M1A2 needs a three times (the supply trucks need also fuel, far higher resupply frequency) bigger tanker fleet than the Leo II to support it with all the material and human costs and risks attached to it. With this in mind the Leo II outclasses the M1A2 for serious warfighting in a difficult to supply region by a huge margin.
Unbelievable blundering :shudder
P.S: Does the Australian version run on a diesel engine?
Nope, they also run on the turbine.
And while an army like the US one is able to support such a turbine it is still a burden.
I seriously question the ability of other Abrams users (Except Australia) to fully support their Abrams fleet in a high intensity operation.
Today the advantages of a turbine doesn't justify it if they ever did.
In the end the MTU for the Leo was also available back then. And the only advantage of a turbine is IMHO the acceleration. And this advantage is not that big when compared to a multi-fuel MTU diesel with the same hp and I doubt that it is a serious advantage during real operations.
And while an army like the US one is able to support such a turbine it is still a burden.
I seriously question the ability of other Abrams users (Except Australia) to fully support their Abrams fleet in a high intensity operation.
Today the advantages of a turbine doesn't justify it if they ever did.
In the end the MTU for the Leo was also available back then. And the only advantage of a turbine is IMHO the acceleration. And this advantage is not that big when compared to a multi-fuel MTU diesel with the same hp and I doubt that it is a serious advantage during real operations.
It takes over five gallons of fuel just to get it started, also I have over 10 years of active military time on M1 series tanks and we never used any other type of fuel except diesel, and I would be surprised if the Aussies arent.
M1 series turbines will run off of three fuels:
JP series
Mogas
Diesel
IIRC the troops during OIF used JP8 for their tracks.
Multifuel is also an advantage of more or less modern diesel engines.
Is there any advantage if one uses JP8 with a turbine
We usually added some paraffin to the diesel during very cold winter days. Helps to reduce the problems diesel has with cold temperatures.
Multifuel is also an advantage of more or less modern diesel engines.
Is there any advantage if one uses JP8 with a turbine
We usually added some paraffin to the diesel during very cold winter days. Helps to reduce the problems diesel has with cold temperatures.
Supposingly running with JP8 makes the engine burn cleaner, also cold weather could make Diesel fuel gel up as you have already implied to. I have had diesel fuel gel up on me only once, and this happened on a M-60A3 in ROK.
I agree with you that there is no real benefits to stick with the turbine and we could replace it with a more dedicated diesel power pact.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #56
You think the Abrams is bad never mind that, of the thousands of vehicles in US service i refer you mostly to the HMMWV which consumes fuel like a freakin' jet engine and then they add 2.5 tonnes of weight in Iraq giving it the fuel efficiency of a coal power station (even less than a jet engine). How many vehicles in US service? Plus all i've heard are bad things about all American car efficiency do you think a 70 tonne MBT would do any better?
Why would you use MBT's in a limited supply war? maybe light to medium assets with anti Armour capability.
Because sometimes in war your supply might flow as smoothly and uncontested like during something like Desert Storm.
Just let the enemy get some hits onto your nearest pipeline and a lucky shot at one or two fuel convoys and you end up in trouble really fast.
Driving a tank is maybe the most fuel inefficient style of driving ever. Most of the time standing somewhere with a running engine, interrupted by small sprints and some serious cross country rides followed again by a halt with running engine.
Because of that real fuel consume and what one reads in tech sheets often differs a lot.
Just let the enemy get some hits onto your nearest pipeline and a lucky shot at one or two fuel convoys and you end up in trouble really fast.
Driving a tank is maybe the most fuel inefficient style of driving ever. Most of the time standing somewhere with a running engine, interrupted by small sprints and some serious cross country rides followed again by a halt with running engine.
Because of that real fuel consume and what one reads in tech sheets often differs a lot.
No, the turret can run on batteries or also on an APU (If one is lucky) to save battery power.
It is not very nice to be caught by the enemy with empty batteries.
Nevertheless if you are not on guard duty in the rear one runs the engine because one wants to be able to move fast if necessary.
And usually tanks also tend to hop from one battle position to the next, especially when fighting a mobile defense or delaying action.
Also in the offense leapfrogs are common. Not to talk of recce, counter-recce, avoiding artillery,...
All this is not comparable to a normal roadmarch and costs much more fuel so usually a tank tends to burn much more fule than what one reads in a fact sheet.
BTW, if one starts the engine of the Leopard II it generates voltage peaks which make the turret crash. Then the turret needs some seconds to reboot. Not got when enemy forces are approaching...
It is not very nice to be caught by the enemy with empty batteries.
Nevertheless if you are not on guard duty in the rear one runs the engine because one wants to be able to move fast if necessary.
And usually tanks also tend to hop from one battle position to the next, especially when fighting a mobile defense or delaying action.
Also in the offense leapfrogs are common. Not to talk of recce, counter-recce, avoiding artillery,...
All this is not comparable to a normal roadmarch and costs much more fuel so usually a tank tends to burn much more fule than what one reads in a fact sheet.
BTW, if one starts the engine of the Leopard II it generates voltage peaks which make the turret crash. Then the turret needs some seconds to reboot. Not got when enemy forces are approaching...
The turrets crash on occasion when starting the LEO 2, thats interesting, does the LEO2A5/6 still have this problem, I would think that they could build a better surge protection system for the electronics.No, the turret can run on batteries or also on an APU (If one is lucky) to save battery power.
It is not very nice to be caught by the enemy with empty batteries.
Nevertheless if you are not on guard duty in the rear one runs the engine because one wants to be able to move fast if necessary.
And usually tanks also tend to hop from one battle position to the next, especially when fighting a mobile defense or delaying action.
Also in the offense leapfrogs are common. Not to talk of recce, counter-recce, avoiding artillery,...
All this is not comparable to a normal roadmarch and costs much more fuel so usually a tank tends to burn much more fule than what one reads in a fact sheet.
BTW, if one starts the engine of the Leopard II it generates voltage peaks which make the turret crash. Then the turret needs some seconds to reboot. Not got when enemy forces are approaching...
Leo 2 series turrets and gun can be moved manually and fired also in a degraded mode correct.
I took the Diesel fuel question to the Aussie thread inregards to their M1s and AGR stated that they are burning diesel, also confirmed that they are burning it in Iraq also.