Tanks thread?

I'm mainly an aerospace & wwII nut. However,..

Yes, Abrams fuel consumption can be lowered with a new state-of-the-art diesel replacement,    ...or,..  ...a new gas turbine.

After almost 4 decades of service the Abrams is now into it's fifth version, not to mention all the smaller upgrade kits. Wouldn't one think the army would have replaced the engine long ago if they were unhappy with it? Or if the "fuel consumption" would have been a problem?

Here's part of the reasons they haven't. Let's compare. Comparisons is such a wonderful tool.
Fuel consumption of the british Challenger 2 tank is 1.24 gallons (US gal) per mile on road, and 2.63 gallons/mile in terrain. So while the Abrams is worse - and yes it has the highest fuel consumption of modern tanks -, it's still in the same ball park as contemporary tanks of comparable size.

Reliability and maintenance costs are not in the same ball park though. The Abrams' engine is much better in that regard. Which is why my guess is that the replacement engine, when/if it comes, is likely to be yet another gas turbine. The army is happy with Abrams' engine. Still, fuel costs have gone through the roof in recent decades and it's not impossible that economy will dictate a diesel. We'll see.
 One of the identified fuel consumption problems is idle, when the tank has to stand by. This is now solved by fitting a small auxiliary engine.


It's like GT sports cars. The fanboy and specs favorites, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Bugatti, Maserati etc, don't win races. Other cars do, Porsches, Fords, Corvettes, Aston Martin, Viper.

Tanks are, like all military weapons, tools to win wars. One need to not lose vision of that. It changes the landscape considerably regarding what tank should be considered "the best".
For instance, it then becomes obvious that the German Tiger, Tiger II and Panther tanks of WWII are not the best tanks but rather the worst serious tanks of WWII. This still holds true even if we consider, for instance, the odds of the tank crew surviving. Yes, the average crew of the infamous "Tommie cooker " aka "Ronson, one-shot lighter" had a better chance of survival than the Tiger crew, if we consider the battlefield 'correctly'  (hint: because of numbers).

Tanks are just like machine guns, mortars, artillery, mines, ground attack aircraft. They change the landscape of the battlefield. If they change the battlefield in your favor, it's appropriate to field them, if you can .  It will force the opponent into a different situation, limiting his options.

So two properties are important for tanks, as tools to win wars. Being there and being able to act meaningfully. Phrased differently: Available and good enough. Those two things make the "best" weapon. Period.
While armament and protection are factors, some other factors also pop up: Numbers, situational awareness/communications, logistically favored and mobility, both tactical and strategic mobility. Have you ever wondered why the most favored american WW2 tanks look so funny? The Grant, Lee and Sherman? So boxy, like they were designed inside some size restrictions? Well, they were. For fitting inside mass production facilities, for standard transport by rail and ship, for loading and unloading.
The german KonigsTiger obviously wasn't. Which is why there were less than 500 built and why they were a huge mess to get to the front. Where those few which still worked by then, promptly broke down and had to be abandoned, because they were too isolated and too heavy to be salvaged. While there were almost 50,000 easily maintained Sherman tanks built and swiftly whisked to the front.

Today the situation is different. Conflicts are and will be fought with hardware already in the inventory long before. Expensive, hi-tech and flexible equipment will be favored as long as operating costs are manageable, the training is there and they are robust & reliable enough.
We see that on Russian developments as well. They have completely switched to a Western approach. In the Gulf wars they saw what technology will do. They now try to make quality equipment which is intended to get and survive a lot of mileage in peacetime service, rather than the old Soviet concept, which was mass production of junk for storage, intended to only survive hours or days of WW3.

And my prediction is that the next american tank will be smaller and lighter than the Abrams. Though I guess I'm out on a limb with that.
The Russian T-14 is very interesting. I'm not so sure that placing the crew in the front is the best idea though. And how comfortable will they be during long operations? The Challenger/Abrams concept of making the turret into most of the tank is maybe not yet obsolete? Maybe just lowering the crew?

Well, that ends my ramblings for now.

I just wanted to chime in and post my favorite tank of all time here.

Even though it's sluggish, has the tendency to break down, was a bit of an overkill at the time and just isn't very practical in many ways it still is a beauty to look at and an absolute beast on the armor/main armament front. The design from an aesthetic viewpoint is just perfect. If I were an allied Tank Commander I would pray every day that I would never have to face a (working) Tiger II on the battlefield.

We gave them a chance to Surrender! Didn't we?

Funny how many tanks seeing real combat for a good while start to fit extra side armor for the hull.
Kinda asks the question why it wasn't fitted from the start.


.... And my attempt to include images ( PzKw IV Ausf H and Abrams TUSK ) failed.    (I need to organize a replacement for photobucket)

Here's a vid that Suomi patriot Ms. Noxxy would enjoy.

Clearly the infantry knew somebody was taking photographs.

I've always liked the French Char-B. It was the only French tank that posed a serious threat to the German Tanks in WWII and I think it just looks damn cool. Those tracks and the two turrets, it was also pretty big as well, AFAIK it was the heaviest tank early in the war.

There was an incident in that war where British Centurions engaged a North Korean captured and operated Cromwell tank.

My favorite kind of tank and the only one I really like IRL:

Speaking of the Japanese, here's a story about a successful "blitzkrieg" style tank assault they did against the British in Malaya in Jan of 1942 using Type 97 Chi-Ha Medium tanks and Type 95 light tanks.



Type 97 Chi-Ha



Type 95 Ha-Go

I don't think I've seen the thread before, and I am kind of a sucker for tanks (War thunder cough cough, although I haven't been playing lately).

I'll share our own argentine stuff. First this thing which was supposed to be producing during WW2, since no one could sell tanks to us because they were busy selling them to countries involved in the conflict.

The Nahuel DL-43


Apparetnly inspired by the Shermans, had a 76mm gun. Never saw massive production though. We just ended up buying M4s to both the americans and the british since they were pretty much giving them away for nothing.

And then the TAM which is the one we're still using even though it should've been replaced decades ago.



It's a 70s vehicle manufactured in the 80s. The idea was to replace the old AF Shermans still rolling, with something lighter and easy to produce locally, so the military looked at Europe and Both Germany and France presented the best around there which was by the time the Leopard 1 and the AMX 30, very similar in performance, the americans as good sellers also offered the M60, although that thing was massive and way too heavy, and also expensive I'm sure. Goverment here wasn't convinced.
Ended up developing a local vehicle with the help of the Germans. It has a Marder german chasis (the reason why we could never sell these cheap ass yet decent vehicles to our neighbors or other countries), the turret is locally developed and the gun (105mm) was based on a british one.
The concept was to also create side vehicles based on this one, like SPGs like the VCA Palmaria (the one below) that has a 155mm gun. SPAAGs and some other stuff I've seen.


It was modernized once or twice, Some high tech junk for the turret, but the gun is still the same I think. It was supposed to be modernized to the "2C" version, but thanks to the lack of interest of the government and the "money" narrative, plus leftist policies, it never happened.
The vehicle was fairly decent back in the 80s, sure the armor was non existent, but the gun and the firing systems were on par with any other back then.

The lack or armor was due to reducing costs and keeping the vehicle light. Which is something I don't understand since all our roads and bridges are built to withstand very heavy weights, understand that we don't have railroads here (we do technically, but we don't use cargo trains) all it's moved via heavy trucks using the roads. Trucks that weight the same as any morern MBT. So that explanation I don't buy. The cost explanation sounds more like it.

We really ought to team up with Brazil and develop something together. Something just as good as any other, but cheaper since we're not paying royalties. Ain't happening though, with the pseudo left anti military garbage governments we've been having since the last 50 years. 

Horrible for a lot of reasons. One nasty reason was the interior of the tank was openly lined and covered with asbestos. That is why in tank museums those tanks are welded shut.