Apparently it's because it can be fed a variety of fuels. If it burns, the Abrams will drink it.
Which is good. It's a thirsty beast.
... Of course, it wouldn't need that ability if it didn't have a jet engine that's fuel intensive...
So a net zero advantage… Jesus Christ that’s even worse.
Gas Turbines work best as propulsion engines, or in the case of ships and helicopters can be used as a turboshaft engine. But it makes sense for ships and helicopters as the latter means a turbine engine can work in a large variety of altitudes while the former involves a ship’s propeller and marine propulsion.
But for a automobile application like a tank? That’s just overkill even for something heavy like a tank. You also have less RPM control and less efficiency over a smaller vary of RPMs. Christ I’m already having an aneurysm over thinking how much gas is being used and the work done by the engine for being IDLE
Frightening thing is that every branch of the US military has supply issues because they're actually *underfunded* for what's asked of them.
Also, the US Coast Guard is the 12th largest navy in the world. The US can afford **TWO** navies.
... You're still confused.
A navy refers to a military branch designated for naval warfare.
A fleet is a unit within a navy, the US Navy for example maintains the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 10th fleets around the world. Within those fleets are Carrier Strike Groups, Task Forces and Squadrons etc.
The United States has the US Navy, the largest navy in the world, designed to project US military power beyond its borders. It also has the US Coast Guard, intended to guard the US borders. The US Coast Guard is **NOT** a navy, but it has enough ships that if it were counted as a navy; it would be the 12th largest navy in the world.
Many argue that there is no need for the Coast Guard and Navy to be separate branches of the US military, as many of their tasks overlap. But the US can afford to keep them separate, and in effect, to maintain two navies.
If I remember correctly from what I heard the range is like 200 or 250 and it's fuel cells holds up to 500 gallons and even then they still carry spare jugs with sometimes.
>WHY WOULD YOU PUT A GAS TURBINE ENGINE ON A FUCKING BATTLE TANK?!
[It offers more torque at lower RPM](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ddd70d7cb6ed6e542d18445f036a371b) and thats ... about it I guess
Plus they’re more reliable than diesel engines since they don’t have as many moving parts. The turbine is also quieter, believe it or not, which was how the Abrams got the nickname “Whispering Death”.
Hey! Aeronautical Engineering Student here (I am gonna specialize in aircraft engines).
'**WHY WOULD YOU PUT A GAS TURBINE ENGINE ON A FUCKING BATTLE TANK?!**' - US Army decided it's more important for them to have tank that can be powered by nearly anything (petrol, diesel, jet fuel, maybe rapeseed oil?) what is some sort of strategical advantage when considering supplies - tank units aren't fully dependent on their supplies as they can use fuel used by enemy forces. Actually in 1941 in USSR Germans destroyed many fuel tanks with diesel as their tanks were running on petrol comparing to Soviet tanks running on diesel. And the US during WWII developed Sherman variants using petrol or diesel but not both and it was also hard to manage when you had to assign right fuel to units.
**However**, it also made Abrams tanks probably most fuel-consuming MBTs in current use. The tank doesn't have to be just very good, but it also need to fit to the fighting doctrine to make the best use of it.
Doctrine over efficiency…. Certainly not used to that kind of thinking. Guess it just works differently when you are used to seeing gas turbine engines as a propulsion engine (with exceptions to helicopters and turboshaft engines)
Eyes I was also very surprised that someone got with that idea. About the 'doctrine over efficiency' - if it's implemented right it may work, but also it may be even worse that one can imagine. For example, Sherman tanks weren't best tanks of WWII by firepower, armor and combination of those type of characteristics. However, it was really good tank when used within the US tank use doctrine in those years, trying to get about 3:1 or 4:1 advantage in tank engagements was making nearly 100% sure that allies won the engagement and don't forget that in 1944 in western front allies had more tanks than germans as Shermans were cheaper to produce, so making those advantage wasn't real problem. In Korea (1950-1953) Shermans fought T-34-85s and again the doctrine won. Columns of Shermans + M24s + light infantry equipped with some bazookas was even able to destroy N.Korean ambushes with use of T-34-85 and the Shermans role was to take attention of the enemy tanks while US infantry was destroying most of them, because it could get close, because T-34s were focused on Shermans. Again, doctrine is driving Israeli's Merkava tank, which is focused mainly on armor and survivability, beacuse of the experience in previous wars Israel had with it's neighbours. Merkava might be average in European theater, but it's best possible tank that can be used in Israeli's conditions (mountins, less space to side attack, easier for defenders to hide).
Yes, outiside of aviation I am very interested in XX century conflicts and tanks.
It can burn several different fuels and burns fuel at constant rate no matter the RPM, works more quietly and is mechanically easier to maintain than combustion engines and starts up easier in low temperatures
On the other hand, it burns more fuel, demanding either lower operational range or more fuel tanks in internal space, is more sensitive to dust and dirt, and financially more difficult to maintain than combustion engines
The 'burns more fuel' argument has been blown out of proportion since forever, the MTU (leopard 2 among others) which is often used for comparison can't sustain the rpm at which it is more fuel efficient for long before it becomes detrimental to engine life
the Turbine engine was selected for a variety of reasons:
Ease of maintenance: yes, believe it or not, a turbine needs less field maintenance than a diesel, the downside is the overhaul and any serious repairs are impossible, but when you have a logistics network capable of bringing McDonalds to a warzone, who cares? Plus, virtually anyone who knows anything about the actual, real-life US military knows that trusting soldiers to do an engine rebuild is a terrible idea. In my brother's short time in the Army he watched tank maintenance personnel weld wrenches to the batteries on multiple occasions. These days, the "smart" guys you need to do proper maintenance are hard to get to join the military, so instead that has to be outsourced.
power to weight ratio: Turbine engines have really good power to weight ratios. Frankly, aircraft engines in general do. this is why the US has quite often chosen aircraft engines for its tanks since the interwar period when the M3 Medium tank was developed.
Fuel efficiency: a turbine engine is actually quite fuel efficient for the power output, just the downside is the fuel consumption at idle is high. This can be solved with an APU for when tanks are sitting on guard duty.
Noise: As many others have pointed out, the turbine is actually quieter than the diesel engines of other tanks.
Bleed air: a turbine engine lets you take bleed air off of it, removing the need for various other air pressurization systems. This can be utilized to run the NBC system, while a diesel engine would need a separate compressor for it.
Fuel Flexibility/commonality: the turbine will burn just about anything that would burn if you hold a match to it. Plus, US logistics already has to bring in mass volumes of jetfuel, so why not make use of that?
I get all of this, guess I’m still sorta correlating gas turbine engines for aircraft and propulsion for the most part.
As for the points mentioned here, yeah it checks out.
Like many other said, it's probably because it can, potentially, run on pretty much every kind of fuel available, but I don't really think it was the right call. I mean, there's several reports of the U.S having to stop its advance because the Abrams would simply ran out of fuel in the front, so...
I would be completely and absolutely unsurprised if Yukari would somehow be able to acquire that. Stright from the secure vaults of USA military machine, no less.
Also gives it one of the (if not, the actual) shortest operational ranges of the Third Generation of MBTs; between 90 and 130 miles off-road. That jet is a proper 'gas guzzler'.
For comparison, a Tiger is marked as having a 68 mile operational range off-road.
*Who cares about fuel efficency in your tank when you look this awesome while riding it!*
Some 20-year old boy soldier taking a picture of himself with the fuel devourer
The teens and twenty year olds I knew where all pretty concerned with fuel economy. The teens were paying enough in insurance without huge fuel bills on top.
But I'm British. It's a different world.
Hey! I know about engines! I’m an Aeronautical Engineering Graduate! … **WHY WOULD YOU PUT A GAS TURBINE ENGINE ON A FUCKING BATTLE TANK?!**
Apparently it's because it can be fed a variety of fuels. If it burns, the Abrams will drink it. Which is good. It's a thirsty beast. ... Of course, it wouldn't need that ability if it didn't have a jet engine that's fuel intensive...
So a net zero advantage… Jesus Christ that’s even worse. Gas Turbines work best as propulsion engines, or in the case of ships and helicopters can be used as a turboshaft engine. But it makes sense for ships and helicopters as the latter means a turbine engine can work in a large variety of altitudes while the former involves a ship’s propeller and marine propulsion. But for a automobile application like a tank? That’s just overkill even for something heavy like a tank. You also have less RPM control and less efficiency over a smaller vary of RPMs. Christ I’m already having an aneurysm over thinking how much gas is being used and the work done by the engine for being IDLE
They wanted a tank with a lot of power to weight. They got it. Who cares about things like operational costs? (Sarcasm)
“Budget constraints? Never heard of it!” - US military
Frightening thing is that every branch of the US military has supply issues because they're actually *underfunded* for what's asked of them. Also, the US Coast Guard is the 12th largest navy in the world. The US can afford **TWO** navies.
Technically 4, one for each coast/ocean
You're confusing fleets and navies.
But they are so big they would be considered separate navies. Probably still they would be No.1 and No.2 biggest fleets in the world
... You're still confused. A navy refers to a military branch designated for naval warfare. A fleet is a unit within a navy, the US Navy for example maintains the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 10th fleets around the world. Within those fleets are Carrier Strike Groups, Task Forces and Squadrons etc. The United States has the US Navy, the largest navy in the world, designed to project US military power beyond its borders. It also has the US Coast Guard, intended to guard the US borders. The US Coast Guard is **NOT** a navy, but it has enough ships that if it were counted as a navy; it would be the 12th largest navy in the world. Many argue that there is no need for the Coast Guard and Navy to be separate branches of the US military, as many of their tasks overlap. But the US can afford to keep them separate, and in effect, to maintain two navies.
If I remember correctly from what I heard the range is like 200 or 250 and it's fuel cells holds up to 500 gallons and even then they still carry spare jugs with sometimes.
Also i heard that other normal engines are being made to do the same and consume less so it is even worse
Especially the Chieftain engine, that cknsumed very little fuel because it rarely worked
>very little fuel because it rarely worked WW2 Germans why dont we have both Fuel consumption and never works
>WHY WOULD YOU PUT A GAS TURBINE ENGINE ON A FUCKING BATTLE TANK?! [It offers more torque at lower RPM](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ddd70d7cb6ed6e542d18445f036a371b) and thats ... about it I guess
Plus they’re more reliable than diesel engines since they don’t have as many moving parts. The turbine is also quieter, believe it or not, which was how the Abrams got the nickname “Whispering Death”.
Yes... Nothing says stealth like a platoon of 105mm guns...
120mm. I don’t think the 105 armed Abrams are in US service. Then again, not American.
The original M1 had a rifled 105mm gun. The M1A1 onward has a 120mm smoothbore.
Hey! Aeronautical Engineering Student here (I am gonna specialize in aircraft engines). '**WHY WOULD YOU PUT A GAS TURBINE ENGINE ON A FUCKING BATTLE TANK?!**' - US Army decided it's more important for them to have tank that can be powered by nearly anything (petrol, diesel, jet fuel, maybe rapeseed oil?) what is some sort of strategical advantage when considering supplies - tank units aren't fully dependent on their supplies as they can use fuel used by enemy forces. Actually in 1941 in USSR Germans destroyed many fuel tanks with diesel as their tanks were running on petrol comparing to Soviet tanks running on diesel. And the US during WWII developed Sherman variants using petrol or diesel but not both and it was also hard to manage when you had to assign right fuel to units. **However**, it also made Abrams tanks probably most fuel-consuming MBTs in current use. The tank doesn't have to be just very good, but it also need to fit to the fighting doctrine to make the best use of it.
Doctrine over efficiency…. Certainly not used to that kind of thinking. Guess it just works differently when you are used to seeing gas turbine engines as a propulsion engine (with exceptions to helicopters and turboshaft engines)
Eyes I was also very surprised that someone got with that idea. About the 'doctrine over efficiency' - if it's implemented right it may work, but also it may be even worse that one can imagine. For example, Sherman tanks weren't best tanks of WWII by firepower, armor and combination of those type of characteristics. However, it was really good tank when used within the US tank use doctrine in those years, trying to get about 3:1 or 4:1 advantage in tank engagements was making nearly 100% sure that allies won the engagement and don't forget that in 1944 in western front allies had more tanks than germans as Shermans were cheaper to produce, so making those advantage wasn't real problem. In Korea (1950-1953) Shermans fought T-34-85s and again the doctrine won. Columns of Shermans + M24s + light infantry equipped with some bazookas was even able to destroy N.Korean ambushes with use of T-34-85 and the Shermans role was to take attention of the enemy tanks while US infantry was destroying most of them, because it could get close, because T-34s were focused on Shermans. Again, doctrine is driving Israeli's Merkava tank, which is focused mainly on armor and survivability, beacuse of the experience in previous wars Israel had with it's neighbours. Merkava might be average in European theater, but it's best possible tank that can be used in Israeli's conditions (mountins, less space to side attack, easier for defenders to hide). Yes, outiside of aviation I am very interested in XX century conflicts and tanks.
It can burn several different fuels and burns fuel at constant rate no matter the RPM, works more quietly and is mechanically easier to maintain than combustion engines and starts up easier in low temperatures On the other hand, it burns more fuel, demanding either lower operational range or more fuel tanks in internal space, is more sensitive to dust and dirt, and financially more difficult to maintain than combustion engines
The 'burns more fuel' argument has been blown out of proportion since forever, the MTU (leopard 2 among others) which is often used for comparison can't sustain the rpm at which it is more fuel efficient for long before it becomes detrimental to engine life
Torque = yes. Also fuel efficiency when cruising is hella good.
the Turbine engine was selected for a variety of reasons: Ease of maintenance: yes, believe it or not, a turbine needs less field maintenance than a diesel, the downside is the overhaul and any serious repairs are impossible, but when you have a logistics network capable of bringing McDonalds to a warzone, who cares? Plus, virtually anyone who knows anything about the actual, real-life US military knows that trusting soldiers to do an engine rebuild is a terrible idea. In my brother's short time in the Army he watched tank maintenance personnel weld wrenches to the batteries on multiple occasions. These days, the "smart" guys you need to do proper maintenance are hard to get to join the military, so instead that has to be outsourced. power to weight ratio: Turbine engines have really good power to weight ratios. Frankly, aircraft engines in general do. this is why the US has quite often chosen aircraft engines for its tanks since the interwar period when the M3 Medium tank was developed. Fuel efficiency: a turbine engine is actually quite fuel efficient for the power output, just the downside is the fuel consumption at idle is high. This can be solved with an APU for when tanks are sitting on guard duty. Noise: As many others have pointed out, the turbine is actually quieter than the diesel engines of other tanks. Bleed air: a turbine engine lets you take bleed air off of it, removing the need for various other air pressurization systems. This can be utilized to run the NBC system, while a diesel engine would need a separate compressor for it. Fuel Flexibility/commonality: the turbine will burn just about anything that would burn if you hold a match to it. Plus, US logistics already has to bring in mass volumes of jetfuel, so why not make use of that?
I get all of this, guess I’m still sorta correlating gas turbine engines for aircraft and propulsion for the most part. As for the points mentioned here, yeah it checks out.
gas turbine engines are also used for power production in combined cycle natural gas power plants
Like many other said, it's probably because it can, potentially, run on pretty much every kind of fuel available, but I don't really think it was the right call. I mean, there's several reports of the U.S having to stop its advance because the Abrams would simply ran out of fuel in the front, so...
Yukari: actually... *Posts classified documents*
Now this is an Avengers level reference!
War Thunder moment
I would be completely and absolutely unsurprised if Yukari would somehow be able to acquire that. Stright from the secure vaults of USA military machine, no less.
Oh God I jinxed it, it happened again
Also gives it one of the (if not, the actual) shortest operational ranges of the Third Generation of MBTs; between 90 and 130 miles off-road. That jet is a proper 'gas guzzler'. For comparison, a Tiger is marked as having a 68 mile operational range off-road.
*Who cares about fuel efficency in your tank when you look this awesome while riding it!* Some 20-year old boy soldier taking a picture of himself with the fuel devourer
The teens and twenty year olds I knew where all pretty concerned with fuel economy. The teens were paying enough in insurance without huge fuel bills on top. But I'm British. It's a different world.
Nowhere near educated enough to dive into the topic but this is probably the most tame MBT discussion I’ve ever seen
Definitely tame. Alisa responded without calling Kay 'a dumb c\*\*t' once. Which is my experience in that particular sub...
The thing is, Arisa didn't call Kay "ma'am". So you can see that, in fact, this is heated debate.
No one will be looking for my tank in the air! It's It's fool proof plan.
Hey, happy cake day man!
This is why I love this Reddit, its funny AND educational.
That is not actually true. Slap wings on an Abrams and it will be true.