WTF: An M1 tank uses a jet engine?

[Tominator]

The military official top speed is 45mph or close to that. It does little good to outrun your supporting vehichls and they are Bradleys. A lone tank or even a group of tanks are very easy marks for foot soldiers.

The Chrysler gas turbine has an incredible maintainence schedule. It is complicated and expensive. The tank that replaces the Abrams will be diesel powered. At the time the Abrams was developed the turbine had a power advantage over the diesels. Technology has caught up and modern diesels are less complex, more reliable and way cheaper than the turbine.

 

[Pastore]

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
Turbine power cycle. pic Dodge even put a turbine in a test car back in the 60's I think

Isn't that Leno?

 

[Adul]

i remember helping with some proposal to the army for that when i was at Honeywell /alliedsignal.

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: Beast1284

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
Turbine power cycle. pic Dodge even put a turbine in a test car back in the 60's I think

Isn't that Leno?

Yes.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: KokomoGST
Wait... I'm confewzed... 😕

Are you asking the question or answering it?? Seems like you're answering it...
I heard that tank crews remove the limiter off the M1s since they can go a lot faster than the 40mph they're listed as.

top speed is 70mph. on pavement they can stop 35mph to 0 in under 15 feet.

That's why they wear helmets. 😉

I'm trying to find the vid of the tank doing it's stoppie. the whole thing lurches up onto the front 1/4 of track then comes back down.
I'm guestemating the stopping range, but it looks like it does it in under the length of the tank.

Probably the same video I saw, M1 doing 60mph on pavement did a full brake and was at a dead stop in 2 tank lengths. Bet the guys inside hit their heads hence the need for helmets. 🙂 A tracked vehicle can stop much faster than a rubber tired vehicle because more stuff is in contact with the surface and there is a higher coefficient of friction.

No...
Tracks do have ridges though.

 

[burnedout]

More than once, our brigade was forced to cancel training during the budget crunch days because of blown M1 packs. They are ridiculously expensive. At one time, I remember 19 packs blowing in an 8 day period in a 58-track armor battalion. Those babies are nice and quick, but also very maintainance intensive.

We have raced them before on motorpool road out back on Fort Hood. I know for a fact an M1 will do at least 60.

Back in the day, when I was a dismount in an M113 Mech Bn, we were so happy to see M1s join us on an assault or movement to contact during the winter months. M1 exhaust is indeed rather warm. LOL, stress case German drivers also changed their infamous tailgating habits when coming up on an M1 in a convoy as the exhaust has quite an effect on their paint jobs.

That's why they wear helmets.

All mech or armored vehicle crewmen, regardless whether they are in M113s, M1s, M2s, CEVs, M88s, M901s, yada yada, wear "helmets" or CVCs. The CVC offers some protection from bangin the noggin on the roof of a turret or hatch. The shell on a standard issue CVC is only about 1/8 inch thick. However the primary purpose is internal communications, with unit net commo being a secondary consideration.

If the driver, who is in a completely isolated compartment from the rest of the crew, can't hear the TC or gunner while underway, then something very bad will undoubtedly occur as far as controlling the vehicle. I've seen idiot, irresponsible TCs charged under UCMJ because they failed to check their commo during a short excursion which ultimately resulted in an accident. The driver's field of vision extends only so far. Hence the CVC and the second set of eyes from the TC.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
lots of naval vessels use gas turbines as well.

If it's a major combatant and not nuclear powered, it's gas turbine powered. The Navy loves these power plants. All destroyers, frigates, and cruisers in service are gas turbine, unless there's some old stuff still in the fleet that I'm not aware of.

Biggest ship that I could find that wasn't gas turbine (apart from auxiliaries) is the Cyclone class patrol vessel, which is pretty small -- 900 tons or so.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: KokomoGST
Wait... I'm confewzed... 😕

Are you asking the question or answering it?? Seems like you're answering it...
I heard that tank crews remove the limiter off the M1s since they can go a lot faster than the 40mph they're listed as.

top speed is 70mph. on pavement they can stop 35mph to 0 in under 15 feet.

That's why they wear helmets. 😉

I'm trying to find the vid of the tank doing it's stoppie. the whole thing lurches up onto the front 1/4 of track then comes back down.
I'm guestemating the stopping range, but it looks like it does it in under the length of the tank.

Probably the same video I saw, M1 doing 60mph on pavement did a full brake and was at a dead stop in 2 tank lengths. Bet the guys inside hit their heads hence the need for helmets. 🙂 A tracked vehicle can stop much faster than a rubber tired vehicle because more stuff is in contact with the surface and there is a higher coefficient of friction.

No...
Tracks do have ridges though.

Don't be a numbskull that repeats stuff that you don't understand. Surface area does effect the coefficient of friction and directly controls the amount of frictional force that can be applied to a vehicle to stop it. Because a tank has long ridged tracks in contact with a surface it will be capable of stoping faster than a car that weighs 1/10 what it does for the simple reason that it has more surface area of a higher friction surface in contact with the road thereby altering the coefficient of friction JUST LIKE I SAID.

 

[bleckywelcky]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: FenrisUlf

Originally posted by: Howard
Not all jets use turbines and not all turbines are used in jets. And yes, they are.

Really? What kind of jet doesn't use a turbine? The word "jet" is short for "turbojet" which is a sub-category of turbine. By definition a "jet" uses one of the categories of turbojet power - straight turbojet, or turbofan. Turboshaft (turboprop) aircraft technically recieve their thrust from an auxialry power take off - the propeller. Even though turboshaft are turbines, they're not classified as jets. Now if you had said "airplanes" instead of "jets", you would have been right on.

Ramjets don't use turbines.

Jet engines are typically rated in thrust (lbs in the US) and propellor engines are typically rated in power (hp in the US). Jet engines are their own category, and propellor engines are their own category, neither is short for any other word. Turbo propellor engines and turbo fan engines are sub categories of the jet and propellor engines. A turbo propellor engine is a jet-assisted propellor engine. A turbo fan engine is a propellor-assisted jet engine. Throughout the use of the various terms, confusion may be incurred in which terms are switched around or someone thinks they are combining two terms to have a new term that describes what they are thinking of. However, these are the classical definitions for the types of engines that move aircraft. The idea behind jet engines is to take in a certain mass of air and expel the same (relatively the same) mass of air at a much higher velocity. The idea behind a propellor engine is to take in an extremely large mass of air and expel the same mass of air at slightly higher velocity.

IAAAE - I am an Aerospace Engineer.

-

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
Turbine power cycle.
pic

Dodge even put a turbine in a test car back in the 60's I think

Yup they did, right up till the mid 1980's.

Weren't half bad. Made the same power as a 318 2bbl.

 

[Aquaman]

Originally posted by: Tominator
The military official top speed is 45mph or close to that. It does little good to outrun your supporting vehichls and they are Bradleys. A lone tank or even a group of tanks are very easy marks for foot soldiers.

The Chrysler gas turbine has an incredible maintainence schedule. It is complicated and expensive. The tank that replaces the Abrams will be diesel powered. At the time the Abrams was developed the turbine had a power advantage over the diesels. Technology has caught up and modern diesels are less complex, more reliable and way cheaper than the turbine.

Any idea what is replacing the M1A1?

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Aquaman

Originally posted by: Tominator
The military official top speed is 45mph or close to that. It does little good to outrun your supporting vehichls and they are Bradleys. A lone tank or even a group of tanks are very easy marks for foot soldiers.

The Chrysler gas turbine has an incredible maintainence schedule. It is complicated and expensive. The tank that replaces the Abrams will be diesel powered. At the time the Abrams was developed the turbine had a power advantage over the diesels. Technology has caught up and modern diesels are less complex, more reliable and way cheaper than the turbine.

Any idea what is replacing the M1A1?

Cheers,
Aquaman

Nothing is planned at the moment. The abrams is debately currently the best in the world. It is also very heavy with a logistically heavy supply line(its only weakness).

The army is currently working on a lighter armored vehicle called striker(i think). It is an 8 wheeled vehicle that can be configured to a variety of rolls.


The crusaider was recently canceled(mobile howitzer with an autoreloading vehicle) because of size and weight.

The end may be near for tanks.

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Aquaman

Originally posted by: Tominator
The military official top speed is 45mph or close to that. It does little good to outrun your supporting vehichls and they are Bradleys. A lone tank or even a group of tanks are very easy marks for foot soldiers.

The Chrysler gas turbine has an incredible maintainence schedule. It is complicated and expensive. The tank that replaces the Abrams will be diesel powered. At the time the Abrams was developed the turbine had a power advantage over the diesels. Technology has caught up and modern diesels are less complex, more reliable and way cheaper than the turbine.

Any idea what is replacing the M1A1?

Cheers,
Aquaman

Nothing is planned at the moment. The abrams is debately currently the best in the world. It is also very heavy with a logistically heavy supply line(its only weakness).

The army is currently working on a lighter armored vehicle called striker(i think). It is an 8 wheeled vehicle that can be configured to a variety of rolls.


The crusaider was recently canceled(mobile howitzer with an autoreloading vehicle) because of size and weight.

The end may be near for tanks.

My brother is in field artillery and he said that the crusader looked promising. Autoloading, weighs less than a tank, and uses the same engine (does it?). Also has an automatic fuze system or some easy crap like that.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Aquaman

Originally posted by: Tominator
The military official top speed is 45mph or close to that. It does little good to outrun your supporting vehichls and they are Bradleys. A lone tank or even a group of tanks are very easy marks for foot soldiers.

The Chrysler gas turbine has an incredible maintainence schedule. It is complicated and expensive. The tank that replaces the Abrams will be diesel powered. At the time the Abrams was developed the turbine had a power advantage over the diesels. Technology has caught up and modern diesels are less complex, more reliable and way cheaper than the turbine.

Any idea what is replacing the M1A1?

Cheers,
Aquaman

Nothing is planned at the moment. The abrams is debately currently the best in the world. It is also very heavy with a logistically heavy supply line(its only weakness).

The army is currently working on a lighter armored vehicle called striker(i think). It is an 8 wheeled vehicle that can be configured to a variety of rolls.


The crusaider was recently canceled(mobile howitzer with an autoreloading vehicle) because of size and weight.

The end may be near for tanks.

My brother is in field artillery and he said that the crusader looked promising. Autoloading, weighs less than a tank, and uses the same engine (does it?). Also has an automatic fuze system or some easy crap like that.

Yes but you still only get one of them in a C5, our biggest heavy lifter. It is lighter, but not much lighter.
I agree it would be a devistating weapons system.



Army's Stryker

 

[etech]

In WWII the Stuart light tank used a radial aircraft type engine.

I remember hearing the Spruance (destroyer) take off one time. You could hear the turbines spinning up. It sounded very much like a large airplane. It was amazing how fast that ship could accelerate as compared to the oil fired ships.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: KokomoGST
Wait... I'm confewzed... 😕

Are you asking the question or answering it?? Seems like you're answering it...
I heard that tank crews remove the limiter off the M1s since they can go a lot faster than the 40mph they're listed as.

top speed is 70mph. on pavement they can stop 35mph to 0 in under 15 feet.

That's why they wear helmets. 😉

I'm trying to find the vid of the tank doing it's stoppie. the whole thing lurches up onto the front 1/4 of track then comes back down.
I'm guestemating the stopping range, but it looks like it does it in under the length of the tank.

Probably the same video I saw, M1 doing 60mph on pavement did a full brake and was at a dead stop in 2 tank lengths. Bet the guys inside hit their heads hence the need for helmets. 🙂 A tracked vehicle can stop much faster than a rubber tired vehicle because more stuff is in contact with the surface and there is a higher coefficient of friction.

No...
Tracks do have ridges though.

Don't be a numbskull that repeats stuff that you don't understand. Surface area does effect the coefficient of friction and directly controls the amount of frictional force that can be applied to a vehicle to stop it. Because a tank has long ridged tracks in contact with a surface it will be capable of stoping faster than a car that weighs 1/10 what it does for the simple reason that it has more surface area of a higher friction surface in contact with the road thereby altering the coefficient of friction JUST LIKE I SAID.

Are you stupid??? Increasing surface area DOES NOT INCREASE COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION. Coefficient of friction depends on the two surfaces. Ridges do not increase coefficient of friction. They act like teeth. Notice that I said "Tracks do have ridges though".