LUCASWILLEN05
-
Posts
1,591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by LUCASWILLEN05
-
-
Some interesting thoughts on he Abrams engine issue here - although the military professionals here will probably know all of this already
http://g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm
-
19 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
As to the T-14, a overall smaller tank fleet is possible but doesn't seem to match Russian strategic intentions or posturing. It seems likely a large mechanized army is part of their doctrine and posture for some time to come. Unless we see a mass scrapping/conversion of mechanized to motorized units/units being closed I think the most likely COA is continued T-72/T-90 upgrades, a very small "prestige" amount of T-14s (see KA-50/Russian fighter jet procurement for a good example of this), and continued saber rattling.Agreed. Particularly given the cost of developing and producing the T-14 including setting up the production lines might well prohibit lge numbers of these tanks any time soon although one cabnnot rul out an eventual phasing out of T-72 models for either T-90 or possibly T-14
-
1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:
Strongly agree. When total annihilation of the human race became a possibility, war became something more serious than mankind's favorite outdoor seasonal sport.
Michael
While not wanting to stray too far away from the original issue which was the high cost of MBTs we are in a situation reminiscent of the Cold War but with a key difference. This is now a multipolar international system more like the pre WW2 system. \We do not need ro get into detailed debate/analysis f this here though - and I am certain most, if not all of us are familiar with the geopolitics and he current international situation
-
16 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
The current technology curve indicates the T-14 is not going to make it in numbers, as described. Basically if there were several T-14 equipped Brigades right now, working as advertised it might be interesting. But again as of right now, they're parade floats. Interesting additional caveats:
1. The Armata program was supposed to replace several different vehicle fleets in their entirety. This was part of the economics argument for a mass overhaul. It looks like the procurement will be much slower, and there's lot of legacy programs that need replacement right now though. This opens an interesting question to if the Russians will basically have to focus on updating their current fleet...or will have to move ahead with replacement at the expense of keeping a large amount of the Russian Army on BMP-2s and T-72s into the 2030 range.2. There's a distinct lack of progress in the industrial situation in terms of actually producing the T-14, and a lot of the technology for it still relies on imports. Arguably it'd have almost made sense to instead skip the whole T-14 business, focus on T-90 upgrades, while working on building the basis to actually build domestic high technology vehicles.
As Apocal has pointed out:
1. JP8 is the fuel the US Army. If the US Army is out of JP8, then something likely is wrong to the degree that fueling tanks is a secondary concern.
2. The Abrams does JP8, other avgas, kerosene based fuels, conventional gasoline pretty well. Diesel or less refined products have the following caveats:
a. The Abrams used to have a smoke generator that was run by basically pouring fuel onto a heated surface. This has been disabled because diesel does not smoke properly or burn completely in the smoke generator area, leaving a possible fire hazard (or at the least, fuel outside the engine system).
b. Extended diesel operations basically lower the mean time between services requirement. This isn't "I drove the tank on diesel once and now I need to tear it down!" it's "I should do the annual services as a biannual as a preventative measure." I believe this is one of the issues the Australians ran into with their Abrams fleet, they basically ONLY ran on diesel, without the accompanying increase in services.
In terms of combat operations, we fully anticipated being able to basically loot fuel if required (or, if there was someone at the service station they'd get a receipt, and assuming the second Korean War didn't kill them they could make a claim later). With that said, the use of JP8 as a primary fuel is about as valid as claiming the Russian use of fuel in general is a mistake, and not having wood burning tanks (no need for fuelers! Issue axes and buckets! Steam worked for the railroads!) is a critical error.Thanks for the info on fuel. What, in your professional opinion, would happen to the gas turbine engine if you tried to run it on diesel fuel? Maybe you could get away with it once but, as you say. the Australians found hat they required increased servicing
Regarding the T-14 budget, as we both agree is likely to be the issue for the Russians https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/14/russias-t-14-armata-tank-may-feature-a-fatal-flaw.aspx
Likely the result might be smaller high tech tank fleets. In 2014, after budget cuts. Britain only had 227 Challenger II
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-army-has-just-227-tanks-left-after-spending-cuts-1442463
-
17 hours ago, Apocal said:
Almost every ground vehicle in the US inventory uses JP-8. It isn't a unique thing to the Abrams and I'm somewhat mystified on how you came to conclusion it was the wrong fuel. On top of that, I'm almost certain the AGT1500 specifically is fuel type agnostic, so it burns diesel, gasoline, straight kerosene, or even straight up bunker crude.
Well. let's just say that running your car on the wrong type of fuel s not generally advisable. Trying to run Abrams on diesel probably would not do the gas turbine engine much good although it will probably work or a while at least ;https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13042/why-do-jet-engines-use-kerosene-rather-than-gasoline
-
20 minutes ago, Apocal said:
Why is running on JP-8 a concern? And I'm pretty sure an Abrams will run on anything you put in, it is just JP-8 is the Army's preferred brand, so every vehicle uses it.
Probably for the same reason that running your car (regularly) on the wrong type of fuel is also a sub optimal decision
-
3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
1. The ATG1500 will run on pretty much anything that'll burn. From aviation fuel, to regular gasoline, diesel, kerosene etc, etc. It's actually one of the advantages of the engine in that regard.
2. In terms of technical leads, one of the problems is in general, the state of the art hasn't advanced much on a whole. Basically if there's a technical breakthrough than yes a new tank would be wise, but right now without that technical breakthrough there's no sense to building something completely new (or rather, maybe the next technical breakthrough is rail guns, and the entire tank will have to be designed around heat sinks, separate drive and "power" plants, or it'll be in using some crazy armor array that the entire vehicle will need to be designed from scratch for).
Again, people are working on these things, just it's not exactly the kind of thing shouted from rooftops.I guess it depends how good he much hyped T-14 turns out to be. As you say though actually building a new tank now probably isn't a good idea. But we should a last be thinking about it on the drawing boards, Maybe the next tank would be designed around lasers/particle beam weapons or, as you say, rail guns. Likely this technology is some way off yet though
-
14 hours ago, antaress73 said:
It's only a first batch of 100. This is not the end total . They are going to equip a brigade , learn how to use the new toy and how to integrate it ( write the tactical and operational employment manual) then make a bigger order. Though I would not expect the grand total to exceed 600-700. They can probably build 150-200 a year . These numbers are only for the T-14 MBT version.
The 2300 number probably also included the infantry version T-15 (both the IFV and APC versions , one has autocannon and kornets, the other has 12.7mm only) and the other versions for engineering vehicules, medical, anti-tank missiles vehicule , etc.. This is the grand total for the whole family of vehicles.
Also there is the question of setting up the production lines and training the workers. The length of tme it took to get the T90 into service may be a good indicator of the time frame and numbers of T-14 we can expexct. At most perhaps 1000 by the mid 2020s
-
4 hours ago, MikeyD said:
"M1A2: 148 Liter/10km"
Certain people in the Pentagon have been trying to re-engine the Abrams with a diesel since the mid-80s. There was yet another refit package on display at a trade show just recently. I recall back-in-the-day the chief hold-up was that the tank's turban engines were manufactured in the then-Senate leader Bob Dole's district in Kansas so no way in hell Abrams was going to get a new engine! All that was back before the turn of the century, Kansas is still making those engines last I heard.
Oh, I just recalled! Last year there was rumors about early specs for an M1A3 floating around. Among the specs/was a drastically lighter turret design and, if I recall correctly, a diesel engine. I located the article:
https://www.thebalance.com/the-abrams-tank-next-generation-3345048
Yes I have heard of these issues as well. The reliance on aviation fuel and the high fuel consumption rates are certainly problems. Of more concern however is whether the Abrams can continue to retain its' lead given technological developments in gunnery, armour and ATGMs. What happens when Russia develops top attack capable missiles or instance? Trophy and similar point defense systems will help but sooner or later Abrams will meet its' natural limits. This might not be a problem now but i a couple of decades this will likely change. Given the time it takes to develop a new MBT thinking about what will be needed in he 2030s or 2040s is clearly a good idea. It is also possible that the Russians or Chinese make a technological breakthrough sooner than that
-
Being overly complacent is, historically, a bad idea. Arguably this is a mistake the IDF made prior to the Yom Kippur War. In consequence, while hey did still win the war they paid for it with heavy casualties. The danger is that complacency may have a similar result in the event of a war with Russia or China. There probably won't be time to upgrade the Abrams in a relatively short high intensity conflict which most people assume will be the most likely scenario.
Yes the upgrades might be enough to handle such a war but eventually the M1A2 will need to be replaced either by an M1A3 or with something else
-
-
5 hours ago, Armorgunner said:
Every modern tank, has big gaps in frontal armor protection. If you deny that, you just make youself look stupid. When we (Sweden) bought new tanks in the mid 90´s, the last, and best conteders where the Leo 2i, the Leclerc, and the M1A2 (export armor) The target was that the tank with a Swedish made addon armor, would have protection against the highest threats at that time in 70% of the frontal 30 degree aspect. With the Swedish addonarmor, the M1A2 was 50% more protected, than the original one (export armor). But the Leo 2 with the Swedish addonarmor was the best protected tank in the competition.
For political reasons, we could not buy DU rounds. But since our otherwise politicaly neutralness, we where not bound to buy ammo from a specific country. So after comperehensive testing. We bought the best 120mm non DU ammo at the time, from Israel. Since i am not in the military any more, since about 15 years. I dont know where the ammo of today is from.
But offcorse, the pyrophoric effects after penetration with a DU round, you cant get with a tungsten penetrator. Even if you can get to the same level of penetration.
Trouble is that there has not been a real mechanized conflict between peer level opponents in which the US has been involved for several decades. The two Gulf Was don't really count for this because Iraqi forces, even the Republican Guard were outclassed in terms of both their technology (the RG used T-72M, T-72M1 and T-72G against M1A1 in Desert Storm and the M1A2 in Iraqi Freedom)
A war with Russia in Ukraine would be a war fought by peers, not a second rate Arab army. Look at the difference between Syrian T-72s in CMSF (and even the export version of the T90) and what we see in CMBS. In football (soccer) terms Iraq was the Second Division. Russia on the other hand is among the top teams of the Premier League - as is the US of course :-)
-
13 hours ago, MikeyD said:
There's a law of diminishing returns that gets reached on vehicle design. Eventually you're wrestling with opposing doctrines rather than technological advancement. You're just not going to see leaps forward on par with mid-1930s to mid-1940s anymore. Because we've already got 'there' technology-wise. The argument is now over what sort of war the next war is going to be. Guess wrong and you've got the wrong sort of vehicle with capabilities mismatched to the mission. In Iraq during the occupation the Abrams was relegated to the role of over-engineered MG carrier. I don't think they bothered to send more than a couple Abrams into Afghanistan before the 2011 'surge'.
True. Also, in peace time the bean counters are in the driving seat. According to this there were plans for an M1A3 but these were shelved in 2009 due to budget cuts This fiscal factor may well be a significant part of the reason for the current hiatus in AFV developmment
https://www.thebalance.com/the-abrams-tank-next-generation-3345048
On the other hand it is interesting to compare and contrast Russian tank development. They seem to have spent a coupe of decades and several prototype developments to get to the current T-14 model. Whether the T-14 is just another in the line of prototypes that will not go into mass production remains to be seen
http://taskandpurpose.com/why-russias-new-tanks-are-a-wake-up-call-for-the-us/
Meanwhile China continues tank development with the MBT-3000
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/mbt_3000.htm
As you say Mike doctrine (and training) are. as important as technology. Also the international situation must be a major factor. Only a real threat of war as in the 1980s will provide a real urgency for tank development
-
How do you see the future of the M1A2? Armorgunner this may be your field of expertise
-
23 hours ago, c3k said:
Nice hi-def videos of various Abrams at training ranges.
As to the title of the video: meh. So, budgetary considerations are important for peacetime weapons development? Huh.
Nice to watch...
Hmm, maybe if the much hyped Armata turns out to be all it is cracked up to be and there were to be a war the M1A2 might find itself in trouble without he time being available to upgrade or replace, That said there is likely still room to upgrade. and apparently there is this to replce Bradleythis
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ground-combat-vehicle-gcv/
Maybe an M1A3 MBT? But maybe not any time soon due to budget?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a3.htm
-
interesting video
-
On 8/6/2017 at 8:45 AM, MikeyD said:
A modern 'present-day' CMSF Syria title would be a depressing mess. All the factions, the fuzzy borders, the siege warfare, the terrorist enclaves. Would we be allies with the Russians or opponents? Allies with Assad or opponents? Would we be assaulting villages or liberating them? CMSF force selection is flexible enough for you to create most scenarios you can think of already (excluding Russians). Back-in-the-day I did scenarios involving everything from militia-on-militia violence to Army vs Marines in a Texas shopping plaza.
About CMBS, I doubt anyone this side of Langley VA is more up on the military goings-on in Ukraine than Steve. But he's sticking to his original combat theater concept. You may recall Steve strongly resisted turning CMSF into an 'Iraq occupation' title (in the middle of the war). In CMBS he's strongly resisting mirroring the current war in Ukraine for much the same reasons. Heck, Steve may be more likely to revisit Iraq than do a ripped-from-the-headlines Ukraine title. Because at least the Iraq occupation is behind us now.
That#s why I would avoid another Middle East title for now Instead maybe look at Asia (Sino/Pakistan v India or a Second Korean War) Or expand the Black Sea game considerably. The latter is probably easiest but Asian scenarios would be completely new ground
-
More recently there were skirmishes along the India - Pakistan border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India–Pakistan_border_skirmishes_(2014–2015)
-
12 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:
You are forgetting the Sino-Vietnamese War of March 1979 and several minor border clashes between them lasting into the 1990s.
Michael
I forgot about the Sino - Vietnamese war although it seems China did not perform particularly well. I assume you mean these border clashes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts_1979–90
-
-
3 hours ago, Erwin said:
If the critics are correct this is a tank that was designed to "look" serious while actually being a balsawood knockoff. In other words it's all about "face" and "image" - something that is very important in Asia and the ME to cover up the fact that little actually works over there.
The question is whether China and N. Korea have produced similar "quality". If that is the case, the weapons systems of that region could be evenly matched.
https://www.valuewalk.com/2017/08/china-vs-india-war-army/
There are limited options for a Chinese invasion of India
1 Via Bhutan
2 Possibly via Burma but this seems least likely to me
3 Via Jammu and Kashmir in co-operation with Pakistan
4 A combination of the above (probably 1 and 3)
Even so one suspects there would be some challenging terrain problems for both sides. But an interesting and balanced fight which is different from previous BF offerings. As indicated earlier there would have to be some form of US intervention but I would prefer this to be limited to largely infantry forces (eg 82nd Airborne, 101st Air Mobile) backed with US Marine to pack an armour punch.
Unfortunately I would not expect this game any time soon despite the Docklam Stand Off
-
4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
And won't that be great: http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1517-drdo-indias-porsche/
A lot of interesting info there That said I doubt Pakistani tanks are any better and Pakistan has not performed well against India either in 1965 or 1971
Chinese equipment might be at least as good as India but China has not fought a war since 1962 and therefore may lack combat experience. The Himalayas also form a difficult natural barrier along much of the LOC
-
1 hour ago, c3k said:
Interesting video. Even more interesting than the Arjun is the fact that the video is reversed. The thing seems to be flipped, a mirror image of what it should be. Just look at some of the lettering.
Good for India for trying to get an indigenous tank production industry going.
I would love to see a game on India v China and Pakistan. We would probably have to have some form of US involvement (airborne/light infantry types + Marines - heavy forces probably don't get there in time to matter.. Maybe call it Battlefront: Line of Control?
I doubt BF would ever produce this though :
-(
-
Not exactly relevant to BS or SF but an interesting video nevertheless It would be great if BF did a game covering the India - Pakistan-China area although US military involvement here might be a little tricky to do in a plausible way, Nevertheless there are tanks like the Arjun and the T-90S for India, Pakistani Al Khalids and T-80UD and of course the PLA's tank fleet. An interesting variety of terrain varying from the Himalayan mountains to the plans of the Punjab
Future US AFV development
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Also this
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/abrams-dieselization-project-a-modest-proposal/