CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Just to add my 2, reasonably well informed pence. The M1A2 SEPv3 is still lighter than the CR2, especially with the weight gain from LEP (more pronounced difference when they are both in a "TES" spec). They also use a marginally larger track, so they have lower ground pressure. This makes the terrain accessability of the M1 better than the CR2 and the CR2 is only getting worse at the moment.
Whilst we were hugely ahead of the US Army wrt the APU and that has helped with the overall fuel consumption, especially during silent watch, the turbine is on par or slightly better when actually running at combat speed (peak turbine efficiency). the CV12 is an extremely old thirsty beast, the proposed Europack would have been a massive improvement, so much so that they could have removed the external fuel tanks. Plus the turbine gives it 1500hp, lower transmission losses and a significantly higher top speed, road or cross country. Torsion bars whilst giving a poorer ride, require less maintenance and are not affected by environment or usage. Whereas the hydrogas is susceptible to overheating and mis-management/maintenance but it does give a more "plush" ride in comparison

The bag charges full protection relies on the charges being stored correctly with the caps in place, and regardless the warheads are exposed, personally I would feel better if they were stored akin to the M1 in a nice armoured, blow out box. Plus then we could use NATO standardised ammunition with the longer APFSDS ammunition, STAFF and MPAT rounds, or even the M1098 canister round. Nothing like a shotgun lethal to 500 m.
You may be well informed I can't confirm or deny, but if at 24 (according to your profile which also shows this is your first post having only joined 39 mins ago) you may not have gained your in depth knowledge of CR2 and other MBTs from personal experience. Unless your profile is wrong that is.

Total weight of the latest ver of the M1 has been obtained by lightening several components. As the M1 has not shown anywhere near the survivability of CR2 (and before LEP is rolled out) the changes may not improve the survivability. It remains lethal but I'd personally prefer to be heavier and survive rather than be lighter and not.

Ground pressure, as you've mentioned it, would not make the M1 much more manoeverable cross country than CR2 and Leopard 2, it depends on many other things with suspension already mentioned. Besides, a marginally wider track isn't going to hugely affect the M1s ground pressure is it? At best it may affect it marginally with a bonus of being lighter overall.

You mention CR2 being a thirsty beast, compared to the M1 it's tea total :)

Torsion bar suspension isn't the greatest but does tend to be fairly long lasting but when one goes, others tend to follow quite soon after and that increases with age. Hydrogas requires maintenance but is a far superior ride adding to the manoeverability of CR2. You can't criticise CR2s hydrogas suspension because crews may or may not maintain it correctly, the criticism should be directed at crews or policy in force at the time.

Why, if you spent money we don't have on a replacement power pack we don't actually need would you also remove the already removable external fuel tanks? Greater fuel gives greater distance/operating time on the ground irrespective of which PP you have installed.

I could go on but the remainder of your post merely shows you've been reading other recent threads.
 
Just to add my 2, reasonably well informed pence. The M1A2 SEPv3 is still lighter than the CR2, especially with the weight gain from LEP (more pronounced difference when they are both in a "TES" spec). They also use a marginally larger track, so they have lower ground pressure. This makes the terrain accessability of the M1 better than the CR2 and the CR2 is only getting worse at the moment.
Whilst we were hugely ahead of the US Army wrt the APU and that has helped with the overall fuel consumption, especially during silent watch, the turbine is on par or slightly better when actually running at combat speed (peak turbine efficiency). the CV12 is an extremely old thirsty beast, the proposed Europack would have been a massive improvement, so much so that they could have removed the external fuel tanks. Plus the turbine gives it 1500hp, lower transmission losses and a significantly higher top speed, road or cross country. Torsion bars whilst giving a poorer ride, require less maintenance and are not affected by environment or usage. Whereas the hydrogas is susceptible to overheating and mis-management/maintenance but it does give a more "plush" ride in comparison

(...)
There was a previous discussion, either on this thread or a related one, of turbine versus diesel engines. The Americans have said they would prefer to get rid of the gas turbine in the M1 and switch to a diesel across the board, but didn't have the money to spend. Diesel offered better fuel economy overall and that in turn had a major effect on the amount of logistical support required.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
There was a previous discussion, either on this thread or a related one, of turbine versus diesel engines. The Americans have said they would prefer to get rid of the gas turbine in the M1 and switch to a diesel across the board, but didn't have the money to spend. Diesel offered better fuel economy overall and that in turn had a major effect on the amount of logistical support required.
And the Russians went further, with the "me too!" gas turbine in the T-80 reverting back to diesels for later models and the T-80UD.
 
And the Russians went further, with the "me too!" gas turbine in the T-80 reverting back to diesels for later models and the T-80UD.
Gas turbines were also installed or trialled in other tanks, dating back as far as WWII, but none saw extensive service except for the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 where it was used to supplement the diesel.

They were also extensively tested in heavy commercial trucks from the 1950s to the 1980s, where they were heavily promoted as being "the future" and were sometimes paired with "futuristic" truck styling. I would not be surprised if this had a major cultural influence on the decision for the US to use a gas turbine in their M1 tank.
 
Gas turbines were also installed or trialled in other tanks, dating back as far as WWII, but none saw extensive service except for the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 where it was used to supplement the diesel.

They were also extensively tested in heavy commercial trucks from the 1950s to the 1980s, where they were heavily promoted as being "the future" and were sometimes paired with "futuristic" truck styling. I would not be surprised if this had a major cultural influence on the decision for the US to use a gas turbine in their M1 tank.
//thread drift on
Rover-BRM - Wikipedia
Thread drift off//
 
Given that if CR2 gets shoved into action again, have we decided where that most likely might be, what our oppo is most likely to field and what is the likely engagement range given that, in the case of a peer enemy, there is likely to be loads of arty going down, lots of smoke, flames, dust dirt etc etc with knock on effect on visibility and optics. Could it be the case that the engagement ranges are short enough to be within the capabilities of the existing weapon aginst current and foreseen threats ?
 
On Black night I am curious why the OHWS got pulled, although its looking a bit crowded on top of the turret at the moment so that might be the reason. I'm also curious about what the black box is they've stuck on top of the turret rear.
Also the arc on the Laser warning receivers seems limited, when you compare it to Ajax which has them glued everywhere.
It all looks very vulnerable to small arms fire to me.
 
Given that if CR2 gets shoved into action again, have we decided where that most likely might be, what our oppo is most likely to field and what is the likely engagement range given that, in the case of a peer enemy, there is likely to be loads of arty going down, lots of smoke, flames, dust dirt etc etc with knock on effect on visibility and optics. Could it be the case that the engagement ranges are short enough to be within the capabilities of the existing weapon aginst current and foreseen threats ?
Overmatch means more stand-off, not less - it's the distance at which you can kill but remain invulnerable.

Simplistically, you could improve CR2's overmatch, even with the current gun, by sticking an extra foot of armour on the front.
 
Just to add my 2, reasonably well informed pence. The M1A2 SEPv3 is still lighter than the CR2, especially with the weight gain from LEP (more pronounced difference when they are both in a "TES" spec). They also use a marginally larger track, so they have lower ground pressure. This makes the terrain accessability of the M1 better than the CR2 and the CR2 is only getting worse at the moment.
As far as I can tell, SEPv3 does nothing to reduce weight and the baseline SEP is of comparable weight to the CR2. Ground pressure is only one measure regarding mobility across different terrains and if the M1 uses a larger track that's going to impact on mobility in different ways.
Whilst we were hugely ahead of the US Army wrt the APU and that has helped with the overall fuel consumption, especially during silent watch, the turbine is on par or slightly better when actually running at combat speed (peak turbine efficiency). the CV12 is an extremely old thirsty beast, the proposed Europack would have been a massive improvement, so much so that they could have removed the external fuel tanks. Plus the turbine gives it 1500hp, lower transmission losses
Do you think you could explain how a turbine gives lower transmission losses?
and a significantly higher top speed, road
all of 5mph, or a little over 10% for tanks of equal weight and 20% disparity in engine power.
or cross country.
but how does suspension play into that? Flat or rough cross country?
Torsion bars whilst giving a poorer ride, require less maintenance and are not affected by environment or usage. Whereas the hydrogas is susceptible to overheating and mis-management/maintenance but it does give a more "plush" ride in comparison
and torsion bars slow you down (worse ride), are more difficult to adjust for weight, give you a higher silhouette (or less ground clearance), are harder to change (particularly if they get broken) and require additional damping systems.

The bag charges full protection relies on the charges being stored correctly with the caps in place, and regardless the warheads are exposed, personally I would feel better if they were stored akin to the M1 in a nice armoured, blow out box.
I do think that energetic material should be kept apart from the crew as much as possible, the flaws you describe are equally applicable to the M1. The one-piece combustible rounds require being kept in the nice blow-out box, without the loader taking one out in preparation for the next shot or jamming the blast door open for faster access.
Plus then we could use NATO standardised ammunition with the longer APFSDS ammunition, STAFF and MPAT rounds, or even the M1098 canister round. Nothing like a shotgun lethal to 500 m.
Modern ammunition would be nice, although STAFF, as an experimental round from the 1990s that never made it into service, could probably do with being left off the list. The better long rods and the programmable HE would do fine.
 
I'm pretty sure we havd L35A1
Overmatch means more stand-off, not less - it's the distance at which you can kill but remain invulnerable.

Simplistically, you could improve CR2's overmatch, even with the current gun, by sticking an extra foot of armour on the front.
Ah, now, Im wondering if some arent doing an SA80 on the Challenger main gun. By that I mean we lust after the German smoothbore and mutter about the lack in the Challenger, when in fact the Chally's gun is quite capable of dishing it out at all "normal" combat ranges and is both reliable and accurate.
Is the ability to standoff at 3km much good if, at that range, you cant see the enemy coz he's popping smoke and hitting you with arty at the same time ? By the time you do get to see him, he might have moved to under 1km in which case both sides are within the theoretical lethal envelope of each others main weaponry. Should we therefore be putting most of the money into 1) the optics and FCS - see the bugger first and either sort him out or get out the way before he sees you and 2) APS - something that will increase your survivability and hence your battlefield persistence when the rounds start coming your way.
Just my 2p.
 
Turbines are wonderful when running flat out when their fuel economy is at its best, but really don't like operating at say, 50% power when they are horribly inefficient. Aircraft use turbines because they operate most of the time at 80% power and in thin air where they have an advantage over piston engines.

I have lost count of the number of attempts to use turbines for road / rail transport, but include:

Rover / BRM race car (1950s)
Rover Jet-1
British Rail APT-E, GT-3, 18000, 18100
Chrysler Turbine Car
Lotus Gas Turbine Racing Car
Various countries have tried gas turbine locos including USA, Switzerland, Russia, Canada and France.

None were a success, usually due to high fuel consumption and the requirement to use high quality oil fuel rather than low quality marine type diesels or heavy fuel oils.

The M1 is the same, it's a smooth engine and powerful for the size but uses almost twice as much fuel as a comparable power output conventional turbo-diesel with the knock-on for logistics in terms of fuel requirement.
 
I wonder if we’ll see a resurgence in gas turbines with increasing interest in electric or hybrid vehicles? Generation for a series hybrid system with a reasonably large battery buffer would seem more in keeping with a turbines characteristics.
 
They also run just a bit warm...
Isn’t that a function of being run at or near max the whole time? The energy content of the fuel will be the same, the efficiency at the high end is similar to a reciprocating engine, so the waste heat will be the same, would it not? So it’s only the low end, where the turbine is inefficient, that the heat generated will be greater. Since a series hybrid wouldn’t run at the low end, it shouldn’t be a problem?
 
Isn’t that a function of being run at or near max the whole time? The energy content of the fuel will be the same, the efficiency at the high end is similar to a reciprocating engine, so the waste heat will be the same, would it not? So it’s only the low end, where the turbine is inefficient, that the heat generated will be greater. Since a series hybrid wouldn’t run at the low end, it shouldn’t be a problem?
When the Abrams was first deployed to Germany, they had to use back-markers on road convoys with signage in German essentially saying 'Do not overtake this vehicle and do not get any closer to the tanks'. The heat from the turbines was such that they blistered the paint off the bonnets of following vehicles.

Combine that with the fuel consumption, and you can see why even the Americans might prefer a diesel or some other option.
 
I'm pretty sure we havd L35A1


Ah, now, Im wondering if some arent doing an SA80 on the Challenger main gun. By that I mean we lust after the German smoothbore and mutter about the lack in the Challenger, when in fact the Chally's gun is quite capable of dishing it out at all "normal" combat ranges and is both reliable and accurate.
Is the ability to standoff at 3km much good if, at that range, you cant see the enemy coz he's popping smoke and hitting you with arty at the same time ? By the time you do get to see him, he might have moved to under 1km in which case both sides are within the theoretical lethal envelope of each others main weaponry. Should we therefore be putting most of the money into 1) the optics and FCS - see the bugger first and either sort him out or get out the way before he sees you and 2) APS - something that will increase your survivability and hence your battlefield persistence when the rounds start coming your way.
Just my 2p.

A really big issue is the lack of access to the very Wide range of programmable and other specialist natures available in 120 smoothbore
 
The last ("LEP") option of modernisation.
View attachment 354013
As a non-tankie sort of person, don't all the bolted/nailled/glued -on bits get knocked off during operations? Presumably this is a trials vehicle, so all that 'stuff' will be integrated somehow, which implies there is lots of spare space inside and many available nooks and crannies for hiding the 'extra stuff' externally. Errrrm . . .
 

Latest Threads

Top