Jump to content
Douglas Mac

Russians Underpowered, US Overpowered in CMBS?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Was quite surprised there seemed to be so little speed difference between the two, to the point where I wonder whether some fundamental mistake was made. From all the footage I've seen, and using both in CMBS in separate games, I think the Russian tank would run rings around ours.

 

?

The M1A2 has a power to weight ratio of 23.07 hp/t.  The T-90A is 20.43 hp/t, according to wikipedia numbers.  They just get better gas mileage, presumably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Codename Duchess,

That's certainly relevant, but compared to the M1A2 Abrams, from what I've seen the T-90 is a race car compared to a sedan. I'm looking at the specs here for a T-90S.

http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Tanks/T-90S_a000369001.aspx

It lists combat weight as 46,500 kg and horsepower as 1000. 46,500 kg x 2.2 = 102,300 lbs = 51.5 US hp/ton or 46.5 hp/metric ton. Thus, best case for US still means the T-90S has twice the hp/ton of the M1A2 Abrams. If expressed in US tons/short tons, it has 2.23 x the hp/ton. If the numbers are correct, then the T-90S should indeed be able to dash around with ease, which is exactly what the videos I've seen show to be the case.

Codename Duchess and panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Having heard numbers as high as 73 US tons combat weight for the M1A2 Abrams, what does it actually weigh when fully loaded out for war? Should we now count the ERA, too? I may be missing something obvious or miskeyed my calculator, but right now it appears to me the T-90S has a huge hp/ton advantage over the M1A2 Abrams. If the Abrams weight is anywhere near the number I cited for in full war array, then the numbers get even uglier. The American Fighting Vehicle Database lists the M1A2 as having a combat weight of 139,000 lbs or 69.5 US tons = 22.2 US hp/ton. It lists the metric combat weight as 63,100 kg or 63.2 long tons/metric tons =  Brain glitch! Seem to have forgotten how to do the rest of the calculation. My apologies! In any event, the AFV DB numbers seem to track pretty well with Codename Duchess's numbers, so I am reasonably confident in them. Summing up, I conclude the M1A2 Abrams is at an enormous mobility disadvantage relative to the nimble T-90S.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m1abrams.html#M1A2

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tank top speed not relevant in any meaningful way.  "Combat speed" is somewhere between 15-20 MPH, you might kick up a bit higher for some uses, but basically unless your tank can outrun a sabot, it just doesn't matter.  You don't road march fast because it's too hard on the tank/cohesion.  You don't attack at top speed because you're basically running into someone's kill zone as fast as you can at that point.

I went flat out in the Abrams once, and it's because we had an open field in a training area, and I was bored.  It was cool, but it'd have gotten me killed eight ways to sunday if someone had LOS on me.

I don't have the time or inclination for a longer refutation because I'm on my way to learn to scramble people's brains for a living, but you're using the wrong metrics for mobility.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Codename Duchess,

That's certainly relevant, but compared to the M1A2 Abrams, from what I've seen the T-90 is a race car compared to a sedan. I'm looking at the specs here for a T-90S.

http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Tanks/T-90S_a000369001.aspx

It lists combat weight as 46,500 kg and horsepower as 1000. 46,500 kg x 2.2 = 102,300 lbs = 51.5 US hp/ton or 46.5 hp/metric ton. Thus, best case for US still means the T-90S has twice the hp/ton of the M1A2 Abrams. If expressed in US tons/short tons, it has 2.23 x the hp/ton. If the numbers are correct, then the T-90S should indeed be able to dash around with ease, which is exactly what the videos I've seen show to be the case.

Codename Duchess and panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Having heard numbers as high as 73 US tons combat weight for the M1A2 Abrams, what does it actually weigh when fully loaded out for war? Should we now count the ERA, too? I may be missing something obvious or miskeyed my calculator, but right now it appears to me the T-90S has a huge hp/ton advantage over the M1A2 Abrams. If the Abrams weight is anywhere near the number I cited for in full war array, then the numbers get even uglier. The American Fighting Vehicle Database lists the M1A2 as having a combat weight of 139,000 lbs or 69.5 US tons = 22.2 US hp/ton. It lists the metric combat weight as 63,100 kg or 63.2 long tons/metric tons =  Brain glitch! Seem to have forgotten how to do the rest of the calculation. My apologies! In any event, the AFV DB numbers seem to track pretty well with Codename Duchess's numbers, so I am reasonably confident in them. Summing up, I conclude the M1A2 Abrams is at an enormous mobility disadvantage relative to the nimble T-90S.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m1abrams.html#M1A2

Regards,

John Kettler

You've mixed up your units John. Pzrsrkrtwrfr has already established this is pointless, but for the sake of the engineer in me I'm going to write this out:  I used the T-90A with the V-92S2 950hp diesel and the M1A2 with the Honeywell AGT1500C gas turbine.

tank%20power%20to%20weight_zpsbuo9wldp.j
Double underline ANS.  In order to get the same power/weight ratio, you'd need to add 3.2 short tons of weight to the Abrams. As I have no idea how much ERA adds (or, wikipedia didn't specify the configuration of the M1A2 as measured) that doesn't seem that hard to me but at the end of the day the T-90 certainly doesn't "run rings around" the Abrams.  That said, wikipedia being wikipedia, gives a lower weight later for the M1A2 SEP so if you assume that the 72 short ton weight is fully loaded with ERA then it still reigns king.  If it was the point of this thread and I cared enough I'd run the M1A3 with it's multiple ton weight savings versus the bigger engine being added to the T-90AM, but the point being John's numbers were way off.  I suspect switching between types of ton through something off there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This is cool.  As zoom.

2. Any tank going that fast is going to have a severe risk of rolling over if it tries to turn at that speed.

3. Do you think that's fast enough to outrun a sabot or anything more recent than an AT-3?

Going flat out only really matters if you're doing one of those stupid jumping tank demonstrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. This is cool.  As zoom.

2. Any tank going that fast is going to have a severe risk of rolling over if it tries to turn at that speed.

3. Do you think that's fast enough to outrun a sabot or anything more recent than an AT-3?

Going flat out only really matters if you're doing one of those stupid jumping tank demonstrations.

The fanny wiggling hull rotation in front of the kids just felt inappropriate.  That was still a pretty cool demo.  I made the same argument when an LCS project head talked to my Midshipman unit about how fast it could go: "Can it outrun a Chinese ASCM?"

I didn't realize how quiet the tank is though.  I mean I'd heard stories but it seemed like past like 200 meters it was damn hard to hear, even at full grunt.

Edited by Codename Duchess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

The fanny wiggling hull rotation in front of the kids just felt inappropriate.  That was still a pretty cool demo.  I made the same argument when an LCS project head talked to my Midshipman unit about how fast it could go: "Can it outrun a Chinese ASCM?"

I didn't realize how quiet the tank is though.  I mean I'd heard stories but it seemed like past like 200 meters it was damn hard to hear, even at full grunt.

I had a Platoon leader who argued dashing through open space very fast was as good as a more deliberate approach around the side.  I explained to him it took like 2-3 seconds for the round to get to max effective range using impolite language.  

M1s are stupid levels of quiet.  When they're getting set up on the range it's just all quiet "whirrrrrrs" somewhere out there before the thundering starts from the main guns.  Bradleys, and M88s you can hear from space though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Codename Duchess,

Thanks for sorting me out, though I'm not in good enough shape presently to figure out what I did wrong. (Makes mental note next time to calculate in furlongs per fortnight). Went looking for "ANS" and couldn't find anything relevant under disambiguation for it. Have ruled out American Numismatic society, though! Is it some sort of mnemonic? Your crack about fanny wiggling was hilarious.

panzersaurkrautwefer,

That was terrifying to behold, when viewed from the perspective of someone facing the beast. Even knowing there was no hostile intent, it was still scary to see it blazing up and down the road. Had I seen that video or others of the same ilk, I feel safe in asserting I'd have a whole different perspective on Abrams mobility. Wow!

On Abrams quietness

Back when the Abrams was still the XM1, exercise after exercise both here and in Europe conclusively established that the acoustic signature was so low it was practically undetectable relative to the M60 series, with the result that a lot of people had nightmarish experiences after the Abrams came calling at night, basically showing up at their encampments without warning. I've been within tens of feet of one in the Ft. Benning motor pool as it fired up in the morning and idled, and all there was to hear from that low profile powerhouse was hardly noticeable turbine whine. By contrast, the Bradley CFVs I was there with Brother George (who was a Scout) to see were these towering, roaring, snorting monsters which threw up great gouts of black Diesel smoke. How anyone was supposed to be covert in that thing is beyond me. After that, I absolutely understood why George and his colleagues so envied the Germans who had this familiar looking toy. Compared to a Bradley CFV, it was virtually inaudible, especially when idling, easily hidden and could go just as fast in reverse as forward, thanks to using the same configuration the WW II ACs had, with a driver facing fromt and another facing the rear! George said the Scouts offered to swap, but the Germans refused. I would've, too, in that line of work. Also, as George noted, the armament isn't enough to tempt anyone into thinkings he's in a tank.

In other news, I have just identified another shortfall in Russian weaponry. It's gigantic. Not kidding.But first, BFC has to give us...Well, you'll see.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4881/russia-has-revived-its-armored-trains

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2017 at 4:35 PM, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. This is cool.  As zoom.

2. Any tank going that fast is going to have a severe risk of rolling over if it tries to turn at that speed.

3. Do you think that's fast enough to outrun a sabot or anything more recent than an AT-3?

Going flat out only really matters if you're doing one of those stupid jumping tank demonstrations.

Yes let's impress the provincials. Yawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2017 at 11:41 PM, John Kettler said:

-snip-

-snip-

Regards,

John Kettler

Dang. I wish my Strykers in-game would ford like that. But nope. First vehicle bogged and then immobilized. Better hoof it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting footnote on the T-90MS Fantasy tanks that India totally did not actually order from Russia. The MoD wants APS but won't buy Arena because it's not good enough and won't buy Trophy because it's too expensive.

Quote

The Indian Army wants the advanced protection systems on the 464 T-90MS tanks ordered for $2 billion in November 2016, said an Indian Army official.

The MoD official said efforts were made last year to procure advanced protection systems from the overseas market, but the Russian system was rejected on technical grounds, and the second competitor from Israel would have led to a single-vendor situation. The Indian government avoids purchasing weapons and equipment on a single-vendor basis.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/india-wants-defensive-upgrades-for-its-new-russian-tanks

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How expensive is the trophy system? India is a major economy in the world. They should go for it especially considering how small their armored fleet is. Well trained crews and survivability usually fare better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On March 31, 2017 at 8:41 PM, John Kettler said:

Back when the Abrams was still the XM1, exercise after exercise both here and in Europe conclusively established that the acoustic signature was so low it was practically undetectable relative to the M60 series, with the result that a lot of people had nightmarish experiences after the Abrams came calling at night, basically showing up at their encampments without warning.

I wish someone had shown this to BFC when they were setting the sound files for BS. The existing sound effects for the M1 are so loud I have to take my headphones off while in the command phase and close to an Abrams.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

I wish someone had shown this to BFC when they were setting the sound files for BS. The existing sound effects for the M1 are so loud I have to take my headphones off while in the command phase and close to an Abrams.

Michael

It's still scary quiet.  Like you'll hear the mech infantry guys tearing around from miles away, and even wheeled vehicles from some distance, but a company of M1s a few dozen feet away sounds like someone's running a vacuum cleaner upstairs.  

Strykers are pretty quiet too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Since the Abrams power plant remains unchanged from it's long had, I wouldn't expect the acoustic emissions to change much, other than maybe as a result of  higher rpm. if feasible, to compensate for the additional armor and other things. Seems to me BFC needs to fix the sound files or some modder needs to undertake this. Fortunately, sound files are in the category of things moddable.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...