Jump to content


M1 Abrams Track Throwing


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

Walter_Sobchak #41 Posted Jun 23 2014 - 04:47

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostCarnageINC, on Jun 22 2014 - 21:09, said:

 

In today's configuration of turrets this is impossible.  Its just to crowded with equipment and ammo racks and there also would be no room for the recoil of the main gun. 

 

From what I've seen, the 'crew in hull' config looks like a decent concept to me.  That is where the driver, commander and gunner all sit tucked down in the hull were the driver is.  It would rely heavily on cameras, thermals and sensors in a 360 degree configuration along with a fool proof auto loader to be successful.  The main problem with the 'crew in hull' config is situational awareness would be in the toilet in my opinion.  Nothing like a couple pairs of good eyes looking around.


Considering the amazing advancement in camera technology over the past decade, I think a crew in the hull with the right digital camera set-up would have a situational awareness (at least visually) far better than tank crews of the past could ever dream of.  Actually, why even put the crew in the tank?  Drone vehicles will probably be the thing of the future, at least for a segment of the AFV market.  



The_Chieftain #42 Posted Jun 23 2014 - 05:21

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10152 battles
  • 9,596
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

I was able to reach the gunner's controls from the TC's seat, but I acknowledge I'm not typical. 

 

I am not aware of any failings by the US logistical system which necessitated the use of non standard fuel.



CarnageINC #43 Posted Jun 23 2014 - 10:53

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5590 battles
  • 200
  • [-CHH-] -CHH-
  • Member since:
    05-21-2014

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jun 22 2014 - 22:47, said:


Considering the amazing advancement in camera technology over the past decade, I think a crew in the hull with the right digital camera set-up would have a situational awareness (at least visually) far better than tank crews of the past could ever dream of.  Actually, why even put the crew in the tank?  Drone vehicles will probably be the thing of the future, at least for a segment of the AFV market.  

 

I think the biggest argument for keeping the crew in the tank would be geared more toward vehicle maintenance and having personal on site for quick repairs, rearm and refueling.  Heavy combat vehicles really need a lot of work on the track and power plant to keep near maximum fighting condition.  By eliminating the crew you actually greatly increase the support personnel and equipment used by them.  There would have to be vehicles dedicated to carrying people to service the tanks and work on them.  In my eyes...just keep the crew with the tank...seems easier and more efficient.

 

 



Walter_Sobchak #44 Posted Jun 23 2014 - 15:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
I have always thought it was a bit ironic that while the M1 turbine was always touted as being more flexible in terms of type of fuel used than a diesel, it's the diesel engines that have had to convert to using JP-8. 

Blackhorse_Six_ #45 Posted Jun 23 2014 - 16:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 45078 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jun 23 2014 - 00:21, said:

I was able to reach the gunner's controls from the TC's seat, but I acknowledge I'm not typical.

 

I suspect that you didn't have to stand on anything to use the vision blocks or go CE ... :tongue:



zloykrolik #46 Posted Jun 24 2014 - 03:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 30619 battles
  • 409
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012
Way back whe I was on M60A3s in Germany, we had a guy in our platoon who was 6'5". He was a driver, & used his hand on the accelerator pedal and his foot on the brake pedal.

collimatrix #47 Posted Jun 24 2014 - 03:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,786
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jun 23 2014 - 16:44, said:

I have always thought it was a bit ironic that while the M1 turbine was always touted as being more flexible in terms of type of fuel used than a diesel, it's the diesel engines that have had to convert to using JP-8. 

 

 

The abrams got off easy from the whole "multi-fuel engine" good idea fairy, compared to chieftain anyhow.



Blackhorse_Six_ #48 Posted Jun 24 2014 - 14:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 45078 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Postzloykrolik, on Jun 23 2014 - 22:28, said:

Way back when I was on M60A3s in Germany, we had a guy in our platoon who was 6'5". He was a driver, & used his hand on the accelerator pedal and his foot on the brake pedal.

 

One of my drivers also was quite tall - it was painful to watch the guy unfold after a long drive ...



Walter_Sobchak #49 Posted Jun 24 2014 - 18:18

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View Postcollimatrix, on Jun 23 2014 - 22:40, said:

 

 

The abrams got off easy from the whole "multi-fuel engine" good idea fairy, compared to chieftain anyhow.


Yeah, the UK was the only one that took the multi-fuel requirement seriously.  The M60 could run off a variety of fuel, including DF-1, DF-2, JP-4 and JP-5, but different fuels would create different power outputs.  The US had some truck engines that were truly "multifuel" (could theoretically produce the same power output regardless of fuel type) but never a piston tank engine that was truly multifuel..


Edited by Walter_Sobchak, Jun 24 2014 - 19:41.


majormojo #50 Posted Jun 24 2014 - 19:30

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6126 battles
  • 227
  • [SC-DG] SC-DG
  • Member since:
    09-10-2012

View PostNutrientibusMeaGallus, on Jun 21 2014 - 16:23, said:

 

   That moment you're talking about air filters and realize you haven't changed the air filter on your car in over a year..... With air filters, aside from the initial mounting/design.. It's all about people simply forgetting about them. You use the vehicle off road and you compound the problems you might have.. Back when I had my old Bronco (carb not FI) and when wheeling with it... It started running poorly... I went to check the carb and I found 3 dead frogs, 1 dead sparrow, 1 mouse (or maybe a mole or vole, was pretty mangled) and a layer of mud that made the filter look like a ring of pottery... Replaced it... ran like new again... Also made me invest in a K&N filtercharger... Check it every time you go out... Never a problem again.

When are people gonna realize that thats not a good spot to keep your pets.  tsk tsk.  Anyways, whats better in the matter of fuel, gas or desil?


Edited by majormojo, Jun 24 2014 - 19:31.


Thunderlyon #51 Posted Jul 16 2014 - 10:34

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4583 battles
  • 103
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011
    I was an M60A3 tanker back in the 80s. Yes the M1 had a track throwing problem but that was only when the tank was going 70 mph plus on hard surfaces. Through terrain like deserts there was no problem with track throwing. And with the governors off the E6s and E7s I knew and talked to said the M1 could easily go over 100 mph. Course the 105mm that was initially on the M1s.

Xlucine #52 Posted Jul 16 2014 - 11:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
Hang on, hunnicutt says the M1 vanilla had a governed max speed of 45mph - are you claiming it was possible to run the engine at more than twice the max rpm it was intended to do without small bits of engine covering the landscape? Even 70mph means running the engine 50% faster than it was intended to, and at that speed the centrifugal force experienced by the turbine blades would be 2.4 times what the governor limited it to

Colddawg #53 Posted Jul 16 2014 - 13:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 43722 battles
  • 3,790
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

Here's what I find that makes gathering real facts about vehicles to be a pain in the [edited].  The difference between hearsay, personal experiences, and "declassified information" that might have been altered to keep a vehicle's true abilities hidden even well after end of service.

 

I'm more interested in hearing what exactly happened to the tank when it threw a track going "top speed" as the physics involved in that kind of force would be quite extensive.  Does anyone have any stories about when this happened?



Thunderlyon #54 Posted Jul 16 2014 - 14:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4583 battles
  • 103
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011
    That is what I was told back then. I was in M60s so I did not deal with the M1. And that was with the governor off. Heck the M60 could hit 40 MPH with the governor off and had a lot smaller diesel engine and not a turbine.  

collimatrix #55 Posted Jul 16 2014 - 21:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,786
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jun 24 2014 - 19:18, said:


Yeah, the UK was the only one that took the multi-fuel requirement seriously.  The M60 could run off a variety of fuel, including DF-1, DF-2, JP-4 and JP-5, but different fuels would create different power outputs.  The US had some truck engines that were truly "multifuel" (could theoretically produce the same power output regardless of fuel type) but never a piston tank engine that was truly multifuel..

 

Turbines will produce different power when running on different fuels as well, just because of the different caloric contents of the different fuels.

 

However, it is true that turbines don't give a damn about cetane or octane numbers, so for that reason they're omnivorous in theory.

 

Dunno if that's ever been seriously tested.



Xlucine #56 Posted Jul 16 2014 - 22:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
I gather they achieved the equal power level by increasing the volume of fuel used for lower density fuels

Walter_Sobchak #57 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 02:26

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostXlucine, on Jul 16 2014 - 17:29, said:

I gather they achieved the equal power level by increasing the volume of fuel used for lower density fuels


I have no idea how it works in a Turbine.  A while back I had asked a retired Continental Motors engineer about multifuel engines in response to a thread over at Tank net regarding whether or not the M60 tank was "multi-fuel."  He gave me a pretty detailed explanation of how they work.  I did a little editing of his email for the sake of clarity.  I put it in the spoiler section below, I suspect it will only be of interest to people really into engine stuff. 

 

Spoiler

 



Xlucine #58 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 03:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
Forgetting the effect of heat on the fuels is quite an impressive oversight

Walter_Sobchak #59 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 04:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostXlucine, on Jul 16 2014 - 22:56, said:

Forgetting the effect of heat on the fuels is quite an impressive oversight


Yeah, I thought of that as well.  I'm sure there is more to the story.  Of course, usually when people talk about heat and viscosity, it's about oil, not fuel. 



Meplat #60 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 04:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 6635 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Postcollimatrix, on Jul 16 2014 - 13:04, said:

 

Turbines will produce different power when running on different fuels as well, just because of the different caloric contents of the different fuels.

 

However, it is true that turbines don't give a damn about cetane or octane numbers, so for that reason they're omnivorous in theory.

 

Dunno if that's ever been seriously tested.

Chrysler did with their automotive regenerative turboshafts. Ran them on all kinds of stuff, including various alcohols.

 

The biggest issue is not power output, but hot-section depositing and possible changes in gas-flow. Especially when you're incorporating a regenerator. 

 

I'll check some of my old manuals when I get a chance for the cleaning procedure one had to perform after running some gas turbines on leaded fuels, to knock the crud off/out.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users