T-14 Armata

[Damian]

And still it seems to be complete and utter BS.

US Army is a more professional and have much higher quality demands than Pakistanis can even imagine, so if tank didn't failed US tests, why it should fail tests done by some 3rd world country, that did not even operated more advanced tanks than M48 back then.

Especially that not even single independent and reliable source, or any document seems to proove claims from that silly TV documentary.

Did I stepped on your toes mate? I had this discussion with a US Army veteran known as Sgt. Cav on some forums. But apparently you know more about Abrams than a man who served on that tank.

Maybe because I read proffesional publications, and I also talk with people that served on M1 and not only on M1.

Jim Warford for example, served on M1 and also wrote articles for ARMOR Magazine, he is also active user of TankNet forums, as well as DKTanker and George Newbill (worker in JSMC) both also users of TankNet.

I also talked with a Pole that emigrated to US and was M1 tanker, he said to me that there are no reliability problems with the M1, and the only problem with engine is it's fuel comsumption.

Besides this I hate television and pseudo documentaries made for/by it... they make people stupidier... books and documents are better and far more interesting.

 

[p2prada]

Did I stepped on your toes mate? I had this discussion with a US Army veteran known as Sgt. Cav on some forums. But apparently you know more about Abrams than a man who served on that tank.

You mean the Merkava vs Abrams(Page 6) discussion you had in israelimilitary forum, probably 5 posts, about it with Sgt Cav sometime back in 2010.

Interesting that you bring it up, but he does not agree with you.

 

[militarysta]

Damian I check about engines and tracks and sorry but Abrams AGT-1500 is not perfect anymore...


Replaced PP in M1 takes <60min, but only dismantling PP in M1 takes more then 30min so repalcmend just must be mucht longer.
In Leo2A4 replacmend PP takes 25min.
Sorry those numbers seem be clear.

Dhiel tracks from Leo2 have liftime 10 000km
T156 - ~1200km
FMC ~3000km
What now is placed in M1 i haven't.

Life time for Engines - well my, big mistake.

Sustaining the M1 Abrams: US Army Puts a TIGER in its Tanks

Honeywell Defense & Space's Vice-President, Surface Systems was even more specific. Mike Cuff said:

"We will deliver performance-based logistics and engineering design improvements facilitating an integrated lifecycle management approach to significantly reduce operating costs while doubling the service life of overhauled AGT1500 engines from 700 to 1,400 hours."

AGT1500 - 700h
after TIGER - 1400h (I saw smowhere 1500h)


And from: Annex B – AIR, LAND, SEA AND SPACE FOD ISSUES
(by J. Warren, C. Gorton, S. Hoff and F. Alby)
B.1 EFFECTS OF SAND AND DUST ON SMALL GAS TURBINE ENGINES

Included in the US Navy FCT test program was a fully-coated T64 lead-the-fleet engine (LTFE) which
subsequently accumulated almost 400 hours in desert operations, whereas the average uncoated T64
engine operating in the same environment averaged 110 hours time-on-wing before requiring removal for
low power. Other US Navy aviation engine types are now considering the use of erosion-resistant
coatings, as are other US services and the UK MOD for their erosion-prone engines. The US Army's
AGT-1500 community is similarly investigating erosion-resistant coatings for use on the compressor
blades of their M1A1 tank engines.

For MB873 LifeTime is 3000h or 16000km
So it's twice better then TIGER AGT-1500, and more then four time better then AGT1500 before TIGER...

Sory for my mistake
Should I posted other bibliograpfy?

 

[blueblood]

And still it seems to be complete and utter BS.

US Army is a more professional and have much higher quality demands than Pakistanis can even imagine, so if tank didn't failed US tests, why it should fail tests done by some 3rd world country, that did not even operated more advanced tanks than M48 back then.

Especially that not even single independent and reliable source, or any document seems to proove claims from that silly TV documentary.



Maybe because I read proffesional publications, and I also talk with people that served on M1 and not only on M1.

Jim Warford for example, served on M1 and also wrote articles for ARMOR Magazine, he is also active user of TankNet forums, as well as DKTanker and George Newbill (worker in JSMC) both also users of TankNet.

I also talked with a Pole that emigrated to US and was M1 tanker, he said to me that there are no reliability problems with the M1, and the only problem with engine is it's fuel comsumption.

Besides this I hate television and pseudo documentaries made for/by it... they make people stupidier... books and documents are better and far more interesting.

A demonstration of the latest American tank for then Pakistani dictator in the presence of American ambassador failed and on their way back died in a plane crash and still your eccentric rants are same as before. Cheers mate, you are a real piece of work.

Since you are quite keen on proving the superiority of Abrams, you should dig up some evidence that the demo was a success.

 

[blueblood]

You mean the Merkava vs Abrams(Page 6) discussion you had in israelimilitary forum, probably 5 posts, about it with Sgt Cav sometime back in 2010.

Interesting that you bring it up, but he does not agree with you.

Yep, but others did. He didn't post much after that.

 

[Damian]

Damian I check about engines and tracks and sorry but Abrams AGT-1500 is not perfect anymore...


Replaced PP in M1 takes <60min, but only dismantling PP in M1 takes more then 30min so repalcmend just must be mucht longer.
In Leo2A4 replacmend PP takes 25min.
Sorry those numbers seem be clear.

Dhiel tracks from Leo2 have liftime 10 000km
T156 - ~1200km
FMC ~3000km
What now is placed in M1 i haven't.

Life time for Engines - well my, big mistake.

...

Jarek, You know that You should provide a source. Nowhere I seen a proof that replacing AGT-1500C takes 60 minutes!

Tracks lifetime You provides is also wrong. In Richard Hunnicutt book it was written clearly that FMC T-158 track have the same lifetime as Diehl track used on Leopard 2, however Diehl track needed different wheels and sprockets, this is why FMC track was choosen.

You are sure that You are not confusing kilometers with miles? Because IRCC in Hunnicutt book, tracks life time was in miles not kilometers.

Sustaining the M1 Abrams: US Army Puts a TIGER in its Tanks
Honeywell Defense & Space's Vice-President, Surface Systems was even more specific. Mike Cuff said:

"We will deliver performance-based logistics and engineering design improvements facilitating an integrated lifecycle management approach to significantly reduce operating costs while doubling the service life of overhauled AGT1500 engines from 700 to 1,400 hours."
AGT1500 - 700h
after TIGER - 1400h (I saw smowhere 1500h)


And from: Annex B – AIR, LAND, SEA AND SPACE FOD ISSUES
(by J. Warren, C. Gorton, S. Hoff and F. Alby)
B.1 EFFECTS OF SAND AND DUST ON SMALL GAS TURBINE ENGINES
Included in the US Navy FCT test program was a fully-coated T64 lead-the-fleet engine (LTFE) which
subsequently accumulated almost 400 hours in desert operations, whereas the average uncoated T64
engine operating in the same environment averaged 110 hours time-on-wing before requiring removal for
low power. Other US Navy aviation engine types are now considering the use of erosion-resistant
coatings, as are other US services and the UK MOD for their erosion-prone engines. The US Army's
AGT-1500 community is similarly investigating erosion-resistant coatings for use on the compressor
blades of their M1A1 tank engines.

For MB873 LifeTime is 3000h or 16000km
So it's twice better then TIGER AGT-1500, and more then four time better then AGT1500 before TIGER...

Sory for my mistake
Should I posted other bibliograpfy?

Now this is reliable. I agree that Diesel have a bit longer service life time, but previous numbers were just insane.

A demonstration of the latest American tank for then Pakistani dictator in the presence of American ambassador failed and on their way back died in a plane crash and still your eccentric rants are same as before. Cheers mate, you are a real piece of work.

Since you are quite keen on proving the superiority of Abrams, you should dig up some evidence that the demo was a success.

I think You do not understand. There is no reliable proof that tests were a failure, especially that in all real operations, tests and competitions M1 proved to be in pair with other modern tanks.

I'm not saying that tests were succesfull either, but what is a real reason behind, this is important, not your ridicoulus reaction on "hey M1 failed, hurray!".

 

[Damian]

Merkava vs M1 Abrams - Page 6 - Israel Military Forum

Israelimilitary forum. It seems that P2P is right, person You brought here in to discussion is completely against Your statements blueblood. You was saying something about reliability and knowing better than a person that served on discussed weapon system?

Not to mention that some people there like that "Rytheon" guy, looks like a 15 years old children with their "knowledge".

 

[blueblood]

...
I think You do not understand. There is no reliable proof that tests were a failure, especially that in all real operations, tests and competitions M1 proved to be in pair with other modern tanks.

I'm not saying that tests were succesfull either, but what is a real reason behind, this is important, not your ridicoulus reaction on "hey M1 failed, hurray!".

Why would I cheer for the failure of Abrams? I have no beef with the Abrams or the Americans. I agree with you that M1 is currently the most potent tank in the world but I don't believe in selective reading. It had it's share of failures like every other thing made by man, the problem is that you choose to ignore that.

 

[Damian]

Why would I cheer for the failure of Abrams? I have no beef with the Abrams or the Americans. I agree with you that M1 is currently the most potent tank in the world but I don't believe in selective reading. It had it's share of failures like every other thing made by man, the problem is that you choose to ignore that.

No, I do not ignore drawbacks of M1, there are some, but contrary to some people I rather want to discuss about reality, not some rumors.

I said I was talking with man that served on the M1, he said that only problem with the engine is it's fuel comsumption, and to some point with temperature if PMCS (Pre Maintnance Checks and Services) is not performed by crew regularly.

Other than that there are no problems with M1's reliability, especially that not single reliable and serious source supports some other theories and opinions.

Besides this looking at for example Lessons Learned from Iraq, it was said that serious reliability problems starts when spare parts are not replaced when their service life time ends both in peace running order or war running order. So when wear and tear of some elements get's extensive then reliability obviously drops.

Important is also how tank is used, jumping tanks might look nice on some presentations, but such jumps increase wear and tear of suspension for example, so this shows how important is proper driving of tank in terrain.

And we can discuss this on and on and on.

 

[blueblood]

Merkava vs M1 Abrams - Page 6 - Israel Military Forum

Israelimilitary forum. It seems that P2P is right, person You brought here in to discussion is completely against Your statements blueblood. You was saying something about reliability and knowing better than a person that served on discussed weapon system?

Not to mention that some people there like that "Rytheon" guy, looks like a 15 years old children with their "knowledge".

Never said he agreed with me. In another thread he also argued that PLA is a footslogging infantry with inferior logistics.

A number of them are veterans not arm chair generals but you can try your luck by joining the forum and educate them.

 

[Damian]

Never said he agreed with me. In another thread he also argued that PLA is a footslogging infantry with inferior logistics.

And he is not very wrong here. Most of PLA units are simple light infantry, not armor-mechanized forces, there is not much of modern tanks and IFV's in PLA, most of them are outdated T-55 clones for example. But as I said, most are simple light infantry units.

A number of them are veterans not arm chair generals but you can try your luck by joining the forum and educate them.

I'am not talking about veterans (respect to them), but some people there looks like 15 years old children that do not understand many things and tend to compare equipment basing their opinion on their nationality, political sympathys or antypathys etc.

 

[militarysta]

...

Jarek, You know that You should provide a source. Nowhere I seen a proof that replacing AGT-1500C takes 60 minutes!

Tracks lifetime You provides is also wrong. In Richard Hunnicutt book it was written clearly that FMC T-158 track have the same lifetime as Diehl track used on Leopard 2, however Diehl track needed different wheels and sprockets, this is why FMC track was choosen.

You are sure that You are not confusing kilometers with miles? Because IRCC in Hunnicutt book, tracks life time was in miles not kilometers.

Ok, source:

 

[blueblood]

And he is not very wrong here. Most of PLA units are simple light infantry, not armor-mechanized forces, there is not much of modern tanks and IFV's in PLA, most of them are outdated T-55 clones for example. But as I said, most are simple light infantry units.

IIRC, the context of the discussion was the relative logistics of Indian Army and PLA. If you take a look around you will find that IA does not have large mech forces either. Even inferior to Paki army in many ways.

I'am not talking about veterans (respect to them), but some people there looks like 15 years old children that do not understand many things and tend to compare equipment basing their opinion on their nationality, political sympathys or antypathys etc.

The difference between national and international forums. This forum is no different.

 

[Damian]

According to Richard Hunnicutt book.

T156 track have 700-800 miles/1 287,4752km service life.
T158 track have a service life of 2000 miles/3 218,688km and is same as Diehl 570 track.



As for engine replacement, it seems to not be a problem with engine but with ARV. Leopard/Leopard 2 based ARV's have traversable crane so it is easier to manouver engines outside a tank. While US Army/USMC have M88 ARV's that do not have traversable crane, but different type, so M88 need to drive close to M1, engine need to be hooked up, then M88 drives somewhere near, left engine, then take second engine, drives to M1 again, and then engine is placed in tank.

So it is not an issue with engine itself, but how it is replaced, by what means. You should know that engine replacement depends on many factors, not only how many bolts and conncetors You need disengage to take out engine and replace it with new one.

IIRC, the context of the discussion was the relative logistics of Indian Army and PLA. If you take a look around you will find that IA does not have large mech forces either. Even inferior to Paki army in many ways.

For Americans with logistics superior to any other country, such armies as PLA or IA might look like a poor light infantry orientated armed forces with logistic problems You know.

The difference between national and international forums. This forum is no different.

Perhaps, but for me not matters national or international, comparrision should be impartial and based on facts, not factors I stated in previous post.

 

[blueblood]

For Americans with logistics superior to any other country, such armies as PLA or IA might look like a poor light infantry orientated armed forces with logistic problems You know.

Perhaps, but for me not matters national or international, comparrision should be impartial and based on facts, not factors I stated in previous post.

Thus the context, India and China.

These things are not likely to change soon.

 

[Damian]

Ok we should back to tanks.

As it might be interesting for some people, small comparrision of fuel tanks number, placement and fuel quantity taken by tank.

M1/M1A1/M1A2 - 6 fuel tanks (2 fuel tanks under front armor, completely isolated from crew, serving as additional armor, 2 fuel tanks (small) in engine compartment, 2 fuel tank in hull rear over track sponsons) taking 1,900 l of fuel.

Leopard 2 - 2 fuel tanks in over track sponsons, 1,200 l of fuel taken.

Challenger 2 - 2 fuel tanks in over track sponsons, 1,500 l of fuel taken.

Leclerc - 2 or 3 fuel tanks, one in over track sponson, one under front hull armor protecting hull ammunition magazine from front, and possibly one additional somewhere under turret basket.

T-64/T-72/T-80/T-84/T-90 series - approx 2 fuel tanks under front armor, not isolated from crew, fuel tanks in crew compartment serving as ammunition storage area, over track sponson fuel tanks + additional rear hull fuel tanks possible to be mounted. 1,000-1,300 l of fuel taken.

Arjun - 1,600 l of fuel taken, but where are fuel tanks? There are two additional in hull rear, where are more? Most obvious place to mount them are over track sponsons.

Any thoughts?

 

[militarysta]

@Damian
According to Richard Hunnicutt:
T156 track have 700-800 miles * 1,609 = <1287km
T158 track have 2000 miles * 1,609 = 3218km

Dhiel track........................................... >10 000km
It's diffrence IMHO...

-------------------------
Fuel compsumption:

M1:

idling - ~33dm3/h
on the road with hard surface 40km/h ~162dm3/h
on the road with bad surface 40km/h ~177dm3/h
terrain: 35km/h ~250dm3/h

generally 100km on good road seems more then 400l fuel and in heavy terrain more then 700l fuel

Leopard2A4:
unpaved roads: ~218l/100km
terrain: ~500l/100km

Leopard2A5DK:

idling: ~12,5l/100km
unpaved roads: ~240l/100km
terrain: ~530L/100km

T-72M1 with V46:
unpaved roads: 430L/100km
terrain: ~600L/100km


PT-91 with S-12 and old transmission:
unpaved roads: ~460-500l/100km
terrain: ~ 800l/100km (yes it's not mistake... :/)


PT-91Ex with S-1000R + Renk ESM350:

on the road with hard surface: ~250l/100km
unpaved roads: ~420-450l/100km
terrain: ?

 

[Damian]

@Damian
According to Richard Hunnicutt:
T156 track have 700-800 miles * 1,609 = <1287km
T158 track have 2000 miles * 1,609 = 3218km

Dhiel track........................................... >10 000km
It's diffrence IMHO...

From where You took Dhiel track service life, IMHO it is something wrong here.

 

[militarysta]

From where You took Dhiel track service life, IMHO it is something wrong here.

Diehl Remscheid - Armoured Vehicle Tracks - Army Technology

In tests run by the Australian Army, Diehl system tracks exceeded a mileage of 16,000km without failure

Tracks | Cook Defence Systems

Track life of up to 15,000km is routinely achieved by the many vehicles around the world which use Diehl tracks.

most important:
Defence Management Journal - Issue 50 digital edition

 

[Damian]

Hmmm, impressive I must say... nothing strange now that US Army and GDLS want also Diehl tracks for M1.



However as Hunnicutt noted in his book, Diehl tracks need new sprockets and wheels, at least model tested back then... on the other hand currently M1's also do not use old T158 track but a new one designated T158LL (it was mentioned it is lighter than T158 but other upgrades are not known). So the question is, or this eventuall upgrade will mean Diehl track accuistion and new sprockets/wheels, or Diehl will just build it's own version of T158?

Overall it's preatty interesting proposal of making a hybrid of US made and German made automotive components.