M1 Abrams vs Challenger 2 vs Leopard 2 vs Leclerc

[Kanon]

On 2/6/2023 at 8:15 PM, alejandro_ said:

 

From an interview with a Leclerc veteran (who used both engines as he was an advisor in UAE):

13) Leclerc has been sold with 2 different engine types (MT883 diesel and Hyperbar diesel engine). How do they compare in different climates? What about the maintenance?

2 different generations of engines.

• MTU is 80s technology. Reliable and easy to maintain. Classic turbo charged V12 bi turbo of 27liters for 1500HP.
• Wartsila hyperbar. Full optimized diesel engine. Turbine charged V8 16liters for 1500HP.
•   
These 2 different technologies have their positive and negative sides. The maintenance is easier on MTU but the engine, according to me, is a little less efficient. The maintenance is sharp on the Hyperbar but this engine is amazing.

For hot climates, I have to admit than the MTU is perfect. The Hyperbar suffers issue, not from its technology, but by the electronic supposed to protect the powerpack…

http://alejandro-8en.blogspot.com/2021/01/interview-with-former-leclerc-crew.html

Regarding comparison, IMO Abrams is a superior vehicle as it has been backed by large investment. Challenger 2 remains as fielded in the late 90s.

 

The MTU (873 & 883 both) is easily capable of well over 2000 hp with only minor modification, it's the RENK tranmission which limits the power to around 1500 hp. New mods have raised this limit to 1650 hp. 

This is not a dig at the RENK transmission btw, it's excellent, esp. considering its age. Just want to make clear that the MTU engine provides a lot of headspace for future power increases. A massive boost will require a new transmission however.

Also I have to say that calling the 883 80's tech is a stretch considering its compactness, which along with the improved fuel economy is the selling point of the 883 over the older 873. Yes the Wartsila produces more power pr. liter, but that's because it's a highly tuned engine, with less capacity for future power increases. There'in lies part of the explanation for why the 883 has been the prefered upgrade for most projects.

[Walter_Sobchak]

2 hours ago, Kanon said:

 

The MTU (873 & 883 both) is easily capable of well over 2000 hp with only minor modification, it's the RENK tranmission which limits the power to around 1500 hp. New mods have raised this limit to 1650 hp. 

This is not a dig at the RENK transmission btw, it's excellent, esp. considering its age. Just want to make clear that the MTU engine provides a lot of headspace for future power increases. A massive boost will require a new transmission however.

Also I have to say that calling the 883 80's tech is a stretch considering its compactness, which along with the improved fuel economy is the selling point of the 883 over the older 873. Yes the Wartsila produces more power pr. liter, but that's because it's a highly tuned engine, with less capacity for future power increases. There'in lies part of the explanation for why the 883 has been the prefered upgrade for most projects.

I'm going to guess that it will take a bit more than just "minor modifications" to get to 2000hp.  Don't underestimate how much time, work and money it takes to improve these engines to the point where they are serviceable in vehicles.  I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it's something that takes time and resources to do.  Calling the 883 "80's" technology is not really an insult, since that still makes it a newer design than most other tank engines out there.  The fact is, tank engines have no civilian application and are expensive and difficult to develop, therefore successful designs tend not to appear very often and when they do, they stick around for a long time.  The AGT-1500 was in prototype at the same time that the Beatles released Sgt. Pepper!  People tend to forget how far back some of these engine programs go.  

[Kanon]

1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

I'm going to guess that it will take a bit more than just "minor modifications" to get to 2000hp.  Don't underestimate how much time, work and money it takes to improve these engines to the point where they are serviceable in vehicles.  I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it's something that takes time and resources to do.  Calling the 883 "80's" technology is not really an insult, since that still makes it a newer design than most other tank engines out there.  The fact is, tank engines have no civilian application and are expensive and difficult to develop, therefore successful designs tend not to appear very often and when they do, they stick around for a long time.  The AGT-1500 was in prototype at the same time that the Beatles released Sgt. Pepper!  People tend to forget how far back some of these engine programs go.  

IIRC a simple ECU tune and the 883 hits over 1800 hp reliably without any major parts modifications. The Renk trans just can't handle that in the long term.

Also worth keeping in mind is that the same engine, with modifications allowing for a much higher boost pressure, passed a 400 hr test run at 2740 hp. This version of the engine was intended for marine vehicle applications at the time.

On a sidenote the 873's in the latest Leopard 2A7's have also been made ready for an upcoming uprating, as a natural follow on to the upgraded RENK transmission. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Kanon

[KV7]

1 hour ago, Kanon said:

IIRC a simple ECU tune and the 883 hits over 1800 hp reliably without any major parts modifications. The Renk trans just can't handle that in the long term.

Also worth keeping in mind is that the same engine, with modifications allowing for a much higher boost pressure, passed a 400 hr test run at 2740 hp. This version of the engine was intended for marine vehicle applications at the time.

On a sidenote the 873's in the latest Leopard 2A7's have also been made ready for an upcoming uprating. 

MT-883 Ka-524 ? Wasn't that designed for use in amphibious vehicles ? The EFV was going to use it.

I don't understand why the output is so much higher when running in the aquatic mode, running the pumpjets. Is it just power limited due to the gearbox ?

Edited February 8, 2023 by KV7

[Kanon]

12 minutes ago, KV7 said:

MT-883 Ka-524 ? Wasn't that designer for use in amphibious vehicles ? The EFV was going to use it.

I don't understand why the output is so much higher when running in the aquatic mode, running the pumpjets. Is it just power limited due to the gearbox ?

Yes and yes.

The trans in the EFV was designed for a 35-40 ton vehicle with about 1000 hp for landbased locomotion, it wouldn't be remotely capable of reliably handling an output of 2700+ hp, which is also far from needed for that vehicle weight.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Kanon

[Walter_Sobchak]

47 minutes ago, KV7 said:

MT-883 Ka-524 ? Wasn't that designer for use in amphibious vehicles ? The EFV was going to use it.

I don't understand why the output is so much higher when running in the aquatic mode, running the pumpjets. Is it just power limited due to the gearbox ?

In aquatic mode there is a near infinite amount of cold water to use for cooling the engine, thus it can be run at higher RPMs than on land where cooling is much more difficult.

Also, AAAV was not a successful program.  I am not sure how much of this was due to problems with the prototype and how much was due to budgetary issues, but it is probably not the best example to use to trumpet a particular engine.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Walter_Sobchak

[Ssnake]

7 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Also, AAAV was not a successful program.  I am not sure how much of this was due to problems with the prototype and how much was due to budgetary issues, but it is probably not the best example to use to trumpet a particular engine.

Guilt by association?

The EEEV failed, yes, like an alarmingly high number of other land vehicle projects of the US in the last 30 years. Did it fail because of the engine? I don't think so.

[KV7]

11 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

In aquatic mode there is a near infinite amount of cold water to use for cooling the engine, thus it can be run at higher RPMs than on land where cooling is much more difficult.

Also, AAAV was not a successful program.  I am not sure how much of this was due to problems with the prototype and how much was due to budgetary issues, but it is probably not the best example to use to trumpet a particular engine.

 

 

So it had some seawater intake for a heat exchanger and then a smaller radiator only to cover on land cooling ?

Edit - 'smaller than would be typically mounted in an engine with this power' = i.e. insufficient to provide cooling at extended full power.

Edited February 8, 2023 by KV7

[DB]

Air to coolant heat exchange is less efficient than water to coolant, so the one would be much larger than the other for the same capacity. As even the monstrous AAAVs are volume/weight limited, one could easily imagine a case where the needs of running for significant periods at high power when using the pump jet would mean that the cooling system was biased towards that requirement and that the water to coolant heat exchanger would be relatively oversized. For land use, I don't think the expectation would be for (say) two hours at full power, whilst getting from ship to shore might really need that.

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 hours ago, Wobbly Head said:

To be fair the British Army recycle their prototypes and trial vehicles into the regular vehicle supply once they are approved. You can tell them apart at most regiments by their license plate numbers they are significantly different number and lettering from the normal production vehicles. I remember one of the Challenger 1 prototype/trial vehicles. When I was first line tanks (REME) of the  fifty tanks in the regiment they all had KG or KA as  middle letters only one had SP as it's middle letters. Which can explain why the trial and prototype vehicles look run down is because they are. 

Not all of them. There was at least 2 Challenger 1 test rigs parked outside Bovington in the 1990s. I can point to a third that's is in private hands, and never even got more than a test rig turret. I don't believe any of the Challenger 2 prototypes were reused either. One of them is at Bovington, the others ended up as gate guardians.

[KV7]

1 hour ago, DB said:

Air to coolant heat exchange is less efficient than water to coolant, so the one would be much larger than the other for the same capacity. As even the monstrous AAAVs are volume/weight limited, one could easily imagine a case where the needs of running for significant periods at high power when using the pump jet would mean that the cooling system was biased towards that requirement and that the water to coolant heat exchanger would be relatively oversized. For land use, I don't think the expectation would be for (say) two hours at full power, whilst getting from ship to shore might really need that.

Yes, certainly the radiator would be smaller than the (water to coolant) heat exchanger - I mean the radiator is presumably smaller than would be typically mounted on an engine with such power as it only needs to cover cooling at the downrated power when used on land.

 

[GJK]

14 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

I'm going to guess that it will take a bit more than just "minor modifications" to get to 2000hp.  Don't underestimate how much time, work and money it takes to improve these engines to the point where they are serviceable in vehicles.  I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it's something that takes time and resources to do.  Calling the 883 "80's" technology is not really an insult, since that still makes it a newer design than most other tank engines out there.  The fact is, tank engines have no civilian application and are expensive and difficult to develop, therefore successful designs tend not to appear very often and when they do, they stick around for a long time.  The AGT-1500 was in prototype at the same time that the Beatles released Sgt. Pepper!  People tend to forget how far back some of these engine programs go.  

Not quite true that tank engines have no civilian application - the Condor series including CV12 and CV8 was first used in trucks and I recall reading some Perkins literature referring to use for generators.

Definitely true about age of these engine programmes. When I was still serving there were CV12 still with Rolls Royce rocker covers, even though their diesel division was sold on to Perkins and then owned by Caterpillar.  The irony is that Rolls now have a diesel division again having bought MTU!

Best,

Greg.

 

[ChuckFan4]

As I recall, derived versions of the original t-34 engine went on to power heavy trucks in the Soviet Union. 

[Wiedzmin]

does Leclerc have head mirror assembly stabilization, or only full sight elevates with gun ? 

 

 

[Wiedzmin]

 

TOGS history 
 

[Wiedzmin]

L2A4 hited by either tank fired HEAT, HE or heavy ATGM, driver hatch removed

Edited March 17 by Wiedzmin

[QOHC32]

Damages to mantlet are not severe. Perhaps an FPV headed to driver's hatch.

[Wiedzmin]

Fpv can't do such damage, and mantlet outer plates is pierced 

Edited March 18 by Wiedzmin

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 10/11/2023 at 6:15 PM, Wiedzmin said:

 

TOGS history 
 

 

If you think thats good, read Rob Griffin's Chieftain books, where the MOD tried to resist getting a thermal viewer in Chieftain and Challenger at all, and it took an emergency procurement order by the director of the Royal Armoured Corp to make them back down. He did that on his own authority, not the MOD's, and he effectively overrode them because he could see it was battle winning kit. Probably cost him a Knighthood I would guess, but hey ho.

In truth, you only have to go back to the very start, to Bertie Sterns 'Memoirs of a tank pioneer' to see that the way the Army/MOD have always procured armoured fighting vehicles has been defective. It also explains why so many excellent tanks originated with developers like vickers that went off and designed their own vehicles, rather than relying on the Army/MOD to design their own specifications.

[Ssnake]

13 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

Fpv can't do such damage, and mantlet outer plates is pierced 

RPG-7 warhead on FPV, why not?

Which "outer mantlet plate", what am I missing that you see? (You're not referring to the auxiliary sight's canal, are you?)

[GJK]

24 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

If you think thats good, read Rob Griffin's Chieftain books, where the MOD tried to resist getting a thermal viewer in Chieftain and Challenger at all, and it took an emergency procurement order by the director of the Royal Armoured Corp to make them back down. He did that on his own authority, not the MOD's, and he effectively overrode them because he could see it was battle winning kit. Probably cost him a Knighthood I would guess, but hey ho.

In truth, you only have to go back to the very start, to Bertie Sterns 'Memoirs of a tank pioneer' to see that the way the Army/MOD have always procured armoured fighting vehicles has been defective. It also explains why so many excellent tanks originated with developers like vickers that went off and designed their own vehicles, rather than relying on the Army/MOD to design their own specifications.

Thanks Stuart.  Depressing but not surprising.

Best,

Greg.

[Wiedzmin]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

RPG-7 warhead on FPV, why not?

Rpg don't have such heavy fragments

 

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Which "outer mantlet plate

 

But this plate iirc 10mm thick or so

[Mighty_Zuk]

Do we know whether the driver's hatch was removed manually or forcefully by the blast?

[Ssnake]

To me this looks more like a mark from a side-on fragment; the center of the detonation was somewhere between that point and the camera's perspective. Note that they are very similar with the extension of the gun cradle, and also all the deformations on the turret front plate.

In any case, there's also a rear plate in the mantlet - but of course, any mantlet is a breakthrough of the armor front. If you want a gun, you can't do without that.

[MiGG0]

Is there part of driver hatch or surrounding are of armon in picture? I would be very surprised if driver survived from that. Hit seems to be general area of hatch.