Tiger Tank milage

[lcm1947]

I just read that the Tiger Tank ( tiger I ) only got 2 miles per gallon. That's remarkable. I mean that's horrible milage. Anybody know what the various other tanks got in the way of MPG? I would really be interested to compare them. You would think that the German's would have thought that that would be a bad idea especially since they would be doing all the attacking. Somebody wasn't thinking or they considered that but choose bigger heavier over it. That had to of hurt them in the long run overall. I just can't believe that poor milage.

[Michael Dorosh]

Tanks aren't designed to be moved by road, though; they are ideally moved by rail, and only used in the front line for short periods. They take an incredible amount of daily maintenance, so I am not sure fuel consumption was all that much of an issue; considering the Tiger didn't see action until late 1942 and the days of the offensives were over, but the days of the T-34 and KV-1 were only beginning - I can see why they selected armour and armament over fuel consumption.

[lcm1947]

Good point about them not moving by road and being producted late Michael. I guess I never thought about that but it makes sense. I guess I was seeing them moving across country more then what they actually did maybe. I still would like to see some comparisons however of other tanks.

[rleete]

Jentz & Doyle list fuel consumption at 270 liters per 100 klicks on roads, at speed. It is 480 liters per 100 klicks on average terrain. So, it is actually much less than 2 mpg. But you have to realize that these monsters were 57,000 Kg combat weight(that's almost 63 tons), and used a 700 hp engine. Even so, theye were considered underpowered.

No compare that with the average family vehicle. They weigh in at what, maybe a ton? Ton and a half? They travel on much better roads, too.

[CrapGame]

Mileage is relative. What's a Dodge Durango get these days, 13-14 MPG? And they only weigh 5-6000 pounds. A tiger weighs what, 80,000 pounds? It's 15 times heavier, but the mileage is only 1/7. Not too bad.

[Lars]

M4A1(76)W Sherman

Mileage (liters/100km) 494 on road

or 130.46 gal/62.14 miles

or 2.09 gallons per mile.

Tiger I

Mileage (liters/140km) 682 on road

or 180.11 gal/86.99 miles

or 2.07 gallons per mile.

[ April 24, 2002, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Lars ]

[Lars]

But we are getting better.

Abrams M1

1.83 US mi. per gal (4.3 liters per km)

[gredeker]

Originally posted by Lars:

But we are getting better.

Abrams M1

1.83 US mi. per gal (4.3 liters per km)

Shouldn't that be 1.83 gallons/mile? :confused:

Another thing to remember is that tanks have much lower power/weight ratios than automobiles, and therefore spend much more time at full throttle.

[lcm1947]

Wow! I'm surprised by the Sherman. I sure thought it would at least be a whole lot better. I guess just being used to domistic car milage that 2 gal. per mile just seemed remarkable. So when do you suppose the electric tanks will be coming out.

[Redwolf]

High fuel consumption is a big problem for many western tanks, starting from the Sherman and including the M1. The number stated above for the M1 seems to be much too low. I have to find a book at home that names some consumption numbers, but IIRC the M1 can take up to 800 or 900 liters/100km.

All this is one big reason why the Israelis started building their own tanks instead of buying NATO ones, after using Shermans, Chieftains and M60s.

As for the Tiger, it doesn't have bad milage, German tanks drive kilometers, not miles

The real surprising issue with German WW2 armor is that the Panther is a fuel-hog as well. For the Tiger that is to be expected, but for a general-purpose MTB? You would think that the Germans knew they better save fuel by 1942 or 1943. In the Ardennes they would have fares far better in captured T-34 than in Panthers (not to speak of the King Tigers).

[Lars]

You may be right, redeker. I got it off of this web page. The numbers were for on a hard surface.

M1 Abrams

Found this further down the page.

The debate over fuel economy continued in the Saudi peninsula during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. A retired Marine Lt. Colonel wrote in the January 1991 USNI Proceedings that tank drivers told him the tank used 9 gallons a mile (21 liters/km) and that the M1 was down to 40% of its fuel after 50 mi. (80 km). Army officials quoted in the Proceedings article stated that the M1 and the M60 have the same fuel mileage -- 3 US gal per mile (7 liters per km).

A Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) report on Abrams trials in the United Arab Emirates in October 1990 stated that the M1 had been driven 208 mi. (335 km) at an average speed of 35 mph (56 km/h) over rough terrain before running out of fuel. This equates to 2.4 US gal per mile (5.6 liters per km).

and

Third, the jury remains out on certain performance factors on which data have not been thoroughly analyzed. The high fuel consumption of the M1 remains an open question because the lack of an enemy air threat reduced the risk of bringing fuel supplies forward in unarmored trucks. By the end of 100-hour war, however, fuel demands were noticeably straining VII Corp's logistics system. An observer later told Periscope: "If the unit did not have a top-notch S-4 (staff officer in charge of supply), it was almost out of gas."

Anyone have better numbers?

[Michael Dorosh]

[ April 24, 2002, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[gredeker]

Lars,

Regarding M1 mileage, it's my understanding that the 35mph test would have been in the "sweet spot" for the engine. I've read that the turbine in the M1 is actually most efficient at higher speeds, and gets atrocious gas mileage when idling or doing a low-speed road march. I also seem to recall that the problem was so bad that a small APU was being considered for electrical power when stopped.

[Lars]

That must explain this paragraph.

There is no debate about the AGT-1500's high specific fuel consumption at idle. According to one tank commander interviewed by Periscope, the rate is as much as 16 US gallons (60.6 liters) per hour; the official claim is approximately 10 US gal (37.9 liters) per hour. (Vickers claims that its Challenger 2's 1,200-hp diesel engine consumes 5.2 US gal (19.9 liters) per hour at idle.)

If you can't get the results you want, fudge the data.

Oh, well. They had to get it by Congress somehow.

[Jagdratt]

Originally posted by redwolf:

All this is one big reason why the Israelis started building their own tanks instead of buying NATO ones, after using Shermans, Chieftains and M60s.

What sort of power plant are the Israelis using? I believe the M1 is alone in its use of a gas turbine, right? Does the turbine burn diesel fuel?

You mentioned Israeli Chieftians - did you mean Centurions?

[gredeker]

Originally posted by Jagdratt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

All this is one big reason why the Israelis started building their own tanks instead of buying NATO ones, after using Shermans, Chieftains and M60s.

What sort of power plant are the Israelis using? I believe the M1 is alone in its use of a gas turbine, right? Does the turbine burn diesel fuel?

You mentioned Israeli Chieftians - did you mean Centurions?</font>

[Merkin Muffley]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Wow! I'm surprised by the Sherman. I sure thought it would at least be a whole lot better. I guess just being used to domistic car milage that 2 gal. per mile just seemed remarkable. So when do you suppose the electric tanks will be coming out.

Before electric tanks there'll be electric SP guns. They'll come in batteries.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Jagdratt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

All this is one big reason why the Israelis started building their own tanks instead of buying NATO ones, after using Shermans, Chieftains and M60s.

What sort of power plant are the Israelis using? I believe the M1 is alone in its use of a gas turbine, right? Does the turbine burn diesel fuel?

You mentioned Israeli Chieftians - did you mean Centurions?</font>

[mrcitizenkane]

The IDF uses a lot of US equipment, its just HIGHLY modified. Ive seen many modified 113s and M60s on the news lately as well as many US made small arms. The M1 is a great tank. The Russians have nothing that compares to the weapon systems it has. It mainly use JP-8 fuel, like most helicopters, planes in the US arsenal but is multi-fuel capable.

[Skipper]

> The Russians have nothing that compares to the

> weapon systems it has.

That's a knowledgeable remark. Based on the experience of Desert Storm, no doubt?

For starters, M1, M1A1 and M1A2 are completely different things, as far as combat capabilities are concerned. T-72A and T-80UB - as well. And so on...

[ April 24, 2002, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Skipper ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Jagdratt:

What sort of power plant are the Israelis using? I believe the M1 is alone in its use of a gas turbine, right?

IIRC Russian T-80s also use a turbine.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by mrcitizenkane:

The M1 is a great tank. The Russians have nothing that compares to the weapon systems it has.

This is true, but ignores the fact that Russian tanks are based upon a much different design philosophy. Russian tanks are ~20 tons lighter than the M1 and have better strategic mobility. They have better anti-personel capabilities (although the M1 is getting a beehive round soon). They also cost about 1/3 as much (IIRC). Is a M1 better than a T-80U? Yes. Is it better than 3 T-80Us? Depends...

[ April 25, 2002, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[mrcitizenkane]

[ April 25, 2002, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: mrcitizenkane ]

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by CrapGame:

Mileage is relative. What's a Dodge Durango get these days, 13-14 MPG? And they only weigh 5-6000 pounds. A tiger weighs what, 80,000 pounds? It's 15 times heavier, but the mileage is only 1/7. Not too bad.

Yeah but that doesn't speak well at all for the Dodge Durango. 13-14 mpg??? That s*cks.

Well at least Bush and Cheney are raking it in. I bet they're laughing all the way to the bank.

[gredeker]

After reading the info from one of the above links, I'm surprised at the ground pressure of the M1A2. It's gone all the way up to 15.4 psi. If CM is anything like reality, such a tank would be bogging and immobilizing all the time in anything but perfectly dry conditions.

Is there something special about the M1A2 suspension that makes it less prone to bogging, or are we just failing to learn the lessons of history? :confused: