Modern Main Battle Tanks ( MBT )

Pmichael

Junior Member
The recent addition of an APU to the Abrams is going to increase range. A lot of people deride the Gas turbines for the Range issue, but in almost every other point the Turbines have the Edge. They offer incredible power to weight, Higher Reliability, equal to better potential speed ( the only reason for it's max speed of 45MPH is it has a Governor). The Abrams has the tech to fire on the move although yes Zig zag is another mator.

The international tank industry pretty much decided that diesel engines are the better option for tanks. We will move to diesel-electric within the next tank generation and that diesel vs. turbines thing will be forgotten.

Also the top speed of tanks are always limited by governors. The crew is the limited factor here.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The international tank industry pretty much decided that diesel engines are the better option for tanks. We will move to diesel-electric within the next tank generation and that diesel vs. turbines thing will be forgotten.

Also the top speed of tanks are always limited by governors. The crew is the limited factor here.
first, just because it is the norm does not make it the decided. the only reason it is the norm is because of the shear availability based on the automotive industry.
second, Turbines can be generators to. In fact they often are. in a hybrid though the engine is a generator it's all about generation of electricity which can be stored and used. the reason this is more efficient is you don't need to run the power pack to drive and can get more speed and Torque from the electric side without needing to rev up the RPMs.
Third Even Turbines can be Diesel, I have had to deal with this argument a lot lately but one fact a lot of people forget is Turbines are multifuel ( see fourth) The default for tanks has been a V12 turbocharged engine or a 12 cylinder engine or a variation of a Piston engine. The fact is that there are all kinds of engines that run on Diesel fuel.
Fourth the US uses JP8 as it's universal fuel for the DOD, turbines have an advantage here they burn JP8 better but they are also multi fuel, regular civilian gas ( Petrol), Diesel, JP8, Vodka, Moonshine, it will burn it all and since in this case it would be a generator not the direct engine as such an APU style generator may be prefered and small turbines are not uncommon for use as an APU. the K2 for example uses a 100 horsepower Samsung Techwin gas-turbine engine as it's APU. In the Role of a Hybrid Electric propulsion system the Power pack is just a generator. the generator could be any kind of "Engine" Turbines, piston engines, Rotary engines,
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Turbines can be generators to. In fact they often are. in a hybrid though the engine is a generator it's all about generation of electricity which can be stored and used. the reason this is more efficient is you don't need to run the power pack to drive and can get more speed and Torque from the electric side without needing to rev up the RPMs.

Actually this may not be possible depending on the amount of torque and speed required.
I had a discussion with a fellow another forum who was an officer of engineering on a naval ship and told me that diesel electric motors on a ship are connected directly since the electric motors themselves cannot maintain full speed on their own.
Basically a diesel electric sub is the same which will deplete their batteries from full charge within couple of hours when traveling at full speed underwater.
Hybrid powered tanks are not going to carry even 1/10 the amount of batteries subs do so it will be likely that the tanks will be connected in a direct configuration like ships.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Actually this may not be possible depending on the amount of torque and speed required.
To date the "Silent running" mode of Hybrid vehicles trades off speed for the electric drive. when it needs speed it would kick in the power pack. just like a Hybrid car.
I had a discussion with a fellow another forum who was an officer of engineering on a naval ship and told me that diesel electric motors on a ship are connected directly since the electric motors themselves cannot maintain full speed on their own.
Full speed is the operative phrase here As noted most AFV's have a governor to restrict their speeds although we all love to see Armored vehicles flying across obstacles at 100 KPH, 90 % of the time they are nowhere near that. They also can still run the engine to add more power. On the Go.

Basically a diesel electric sub is the same which will deplete their batteries from full charge within couple of hours when traveling at full speed underwater.
Submarines use a lot more electricity than land vehicles, and no matter the case it would still need to fuel up from time to time.
Hybrid powered tanks are not going to carry even 1/10 the amount of batteries subs do so it will be likely that the tanks will be connected in a direct configuration like ships.[/QUOTE]
additionally there are power capture abilities via breaking on idling. part of the reason favoring a indirect is that you can use duel power packs and open the interior of the vehicle more. Submarines are far larger then AFV's and there engines take up a smaller portion of the interior volume than AFV power pack.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Submarines use a lot more electricity than land vehicles, and no matter the case it would still need to fuel up from time to time.
additionally there are power capture abilities via breaking on idling. part of the reason favoring a indirect is that you can use duel power packs and open the interior of the vehicle more. Submarines are far larger then AFV's and there engines take up a smaller portion of the interior volume than AFV power pack.

To my knowledge modern day MBT's electric requirement is pretty high as well requiring air filtration/air conditioning system, various sensors, GPS, satellite data link and firing control computers.
Basically the huge hunk of metal with an engine and guns are long gone.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Basically the huge hunk of metal with an engine and guns are long gone.
It's this way for many decades.
Say, good old dumb t-72 depletes itself in few hours with engine off.

But for subs it's an different story altogether.

Basically, limitless power is a thing making SSNs a class of their own.

SSKs can be helluva cheaper, quiter, smaller, use AIP systems, but in the end - conventional sub just can't keep up: SSN routinely spends amounts of energy SSK commander will be willing to give probably only in life-or-death situation.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
1024px-iraq-m1abrams.jpg

Army 3-Star: Enemy Tanks Now Rival Abrams
1283261.jpg

CHRISTOPHER WOODY
12:21 PM

Army Lt. Gen. John M. Murray told the Senate Armed Services Committee's Airland subcommittee that other militaries — including some potential adversaries — have produced tanks that could match the US's marquee battle tank, the M1 Abrams.

Army Lt. Gen. John M. Murray told the Senate Armed Services Committee's Airland subcommittee that other militaries — including some potential adversaries — have produced tanks that could match the US's marquee battle tank, the M1 Abrams.

"I think for the very near term, the Abrams is still near the very top of its class," Murray, deputy chief of staff for financial management, told the Senate,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to Defense Tech.

"I think we have parity," he said of the Abrams, which entered service in 1980, in response to a question from Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, who was a Marine in Afghanistan.

"I think there is parity out there," Murray added. "I don't think we have over match."

Later, when asked about peer or near-peer tanks by Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, Murray named several models.

"I would say that the Israelis' — the Merkava — would be one," he said.

"The [Russian] T-90 is probably pretty close. People talk about their Armata tank, and that's still, in my mind, not completely fielded. Probably the British tank [Challenger 2] is pretty close," Murray continued. "I would not say that we have the world-class tank that we had for many, many years. I'll be an optimist and say that we're at parity with a lot of different nations."

firingt-90amainbattletank.jpg
A T-90A tank firing its main gun at Engineering Technologies 2012.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Of the tanks Murray mentioned, Israel's Merkava IV
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, introduced in 2004.

Russia's tanks — the T-90 and the T-14 Armata — are Moscow's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The T-90A, the latest iteration of the 1970s' T-72, came online in 2004 and has a number of sophisticated armaments, including antitank and anti-missile systems — although it appears to have reached a "dead end" for improvements,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to Popular Mechanics.

The Armata is Russia's newest tank and is based on a completely new design, though development issues and budget cuts appear to have slowed its deployment.

challenger2tankfromthebritisharmedforces3rdbattalion1.jpg
A British Challenger 2 takes part in the Saber Junction exercise in Hohenfels Training Area, October 28.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The T-90A is the only tank used by US adversaries' Russia and Syria, Popular Mechanics notes.

The UK has its Challenger 2, debuted
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to replace the Challenger 1, which was in service during the Cold War.

As the Challenger 2 and T-90A have been in service for most of the last 20 years, their parity or near parity with the Abrams
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Murray, responding to questions,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
several other current tanks, including Germany's Leopard 2 and Japan's Type 10. Nor did he refer to China's Type 99. Besides tanks, there is also plenty of competition for the US military in the air as well.

In a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the International Institute for Strategic Studies wrote: "We now judge that in some capability areas, particularly in the air domain, China appears to be reaching near-parity with the West."

China's Defense Ministry
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
its plans to demobilize 300,000 troops to free up cash for more high-tech air force and navy weaponry were on track.

Murray's omission of Beijing's Type 99, introduced to service in 2001,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the Pentagon still sees the Abrams as more advanced.

screen%20shot%202016-03-31%20at%2082908%20am.png
A Chinese Type 99 Main Battle Tank on display at the Beijing Military Museum, August 1, 2007. Max Smith Public Domain

The Abrams, continually upgraded over the last decade and a half, appears to be nearing the end of its operational life,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, though the US military has yet to settle on an effective replacement.

The US Army is "just about reaching the limits of what we can do with the Abrams, so it is time for us to start looking at a next-generation tank," Murray told the Senate subcommittee.

But,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, “There is nothing on the horizon that indicates a fundamental breakthrough in technology where we can come up with a lighter tank."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I do have to agree to a point there is no one technology that will reduce the weight of a true MBT There are lighter tanks but they trade integrated armor for add on modules and ERA, Trading off ammo and crew for smaller size and autoloaders, unmanned turrets with limited minimal armor. Abrams is a heavy weight at almost 70 tons combat ready ( not has heavy as the British Challenger 2 ) yes but it has performance that matches or betters all other existing tanks.
a new tank with smaller size, lighter tank gun and alternative technologies would still likely be sitting in the 50-75 ton weight scale where all modern MBT sit including Armada.
I still stand by lighter tanks coming but the how and the when. I expect to the later half of the 2020's
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
One of the Most Advanced STEALTH Tank concept !

PL-01 is a Polish armoured fighting vehicle created by OBRUM with support from BAE Systems, based on the Swedish CV90120-T light tank.The concept vehicle was first unveiled at the International Defence Industry Exhibition in Kielce on 2 September 2013. With the program being approved, mass production is now confirmed and is scheduled to begin in 2018.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Man! I really like this tank. Granted I'm no guru on armored vehicles but that is one cool looking tank. They can certainly uparmored it to like 45-50 tons, add current generation electronics then it can certainly rivaled or even outmatched the likes of Abrams, Leo 2s etc.
 
Top