Leopard Tank Question

[alejandro_]

T-80 veterans have stated that the issue with the turbine is that you have to drive like a rally car to be the most efficient. As you mentioned, when idle fuel consumption does not really change. This explains why the APU is so important.

Which Abrams version was the first to receive a APU? I have asked a M1A1 AIM veteran and he said that there was an “EAPU” - external auxiliary power unit. It was essentially a generator that sat in the bustle rack, but he does not recall using it.

Some more data:

T-80U average fuel consumption during Swedish trials (*): 201 liter/10km

(*) Different trial to Lecler/Abrams/Leopard

1976 Soviet trials, average fuel consumption:

- T-80: 64.2 liter/10 km
- T-72: 35.7 liter/10 km
- T-64: 40.4 liter/10 km
- T-62: 30.8 liter/10 km

[RoflSeal]

IIRC in OIF both M1A1s and M1A2s had the EAPU mounted in the turret bustle. M1A2SEP had under armor APU replacing the rear port sponson fuel tank, replaced with a battery pack in the SEPv2

[Tim Sielbeck]

Not helpful to the discussion, but...

 

When I was in the reception station at Ft. Knox they showed a film about the new XM-1.  Things I remeber about it were:

     1.  The vastly improved stabilization system.  They showed views through both M60A1 and XM-1s GPS on the move over a wash-board road (which they also showed) and the XM-1s view was so smooth in comparison.

     2. 15 minutes to remove the power pack (engine and transmission).

     3.  The ease with which it could be short-tracked if the vehicle runs over a mine.

     4.  The small, two-cylinder APU the XM-1 had mounted in the hull next to the engine.

I never understood why the production M-1s lacked the last item.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Tim Sielbeck

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

4.  The small, two-cylinder APU the XM-1 had mounted in the hull next to the engine.

I never understood why the production M-1s lacked the last item.

In a recent interview the current Abrams program manager stated that congress was very much concerned about budget limits, so they had to remove the APU to stay within the budget margin - just like the decision to go with the 105mm gun initially. Fitting the APU only in the A2+ variants cost, of course, more than it saved back then.

I thought it was part of this interview; skipped through it, seems like I remembered it wrong.

 

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

In a recent interview the current Abrams program manager stated that congress was very much concerned about budget limits, so they had to remove the APU to stay within the budget margin - just like the decision to go with the 105mm gun initially. Fitting the APU only in the A2+ variants cost, of course, more than it saved back then.

Yeah, Carter and company seemed to be dead set against giving the military the budget it needed.  That is until he realised it mattered to the voters in 1980.

[JWB]

10 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

Yeah, Carter and company seemed to be dead set against giving the military the budget it needed.

Democrat Congress.

[RETAC21]

How does a Leopard 2 prototype ends up in Sweden?

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

42 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

How does a Leopard 2 prototype ends up in Sweden?

 

Heavy equipment transporter.

[RETAC21]

35 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Heavy equipment transporter.

[ChuckFan4]

If I recall, the Swedes found the tank must have been been submerged and it’s interior completely flooded at one time.  So may be it drove over on the bottom of the Baltic?

[Ssnake]

Museums trade tanks all the time.

[bojan]

2A4 in Ukraine, claimed to be Lancet hit, but looks more like it was HE from arty:

[Harkonnen]

definely not handicaped Lancet which failed to destroy a single MBT, it artillery 

[DB]

Looks like a clean fracture of the plate, which I think is interesting - I'd like to know what an expert thinks of the mode of failure, because without knowing I'd guess that it was purely overpressure, and that the sight damage could be similarly explained.

[sunday]

47 minutes ago, DB said:

Looks like a clean fracture of the plate, which I think is interesting - I'd like to know what an expert thinks of the mode of failure, because without knowing I'd guess that it was purely overpressure, and that the sight damage could be similarly explained.

Also, a break at one welding line, I think. That could be unusual, as well done welds could be stronger that the surrounding plates.

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Also, a break at one welding line, I think. That could be unusual, as well done welds could be stronger that the surrounding plates.

If I'm reading it correctly, the break is along a vertical steel wall below the upper plate, next to the main optic. There may have been a shearing effect.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Stefan Kotsch

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 23, 2024 by Junior FO

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 23, 2024 by Junior FO

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 23, 2024 by Junior FO

[Junior FO]

...

 

Edited September 23, 2024 by Junior FO

[seahawk]

And a new upgrade

https://www.army-technology.com/features/is-the-leopard-2-a-rc-3-0-an-abrams-x-challenger-3-5-or-something-else/?cf-view

[RETAC21]

Leopard 2s parade to the rhythm of the Panzerlied in Chile: