Diesels in M1 Abrams

[Ncostello]

I read (heard) where the military is considering replacing the turbines in the M1 Abrams with good ole heavy duty diesels. The were several reasons mentioned... and several would retain the turbine engine however.



In the post cold war era... the need for a fast tank has somewhat diminished. The days of designing tanks to be fast to combat other fast tanks (Russian) in a tank battle arena are gone for the most part. The turbines get terrible fuel mileage... somewhere around 1/2 to 1 mpg but they are super fast (60 mph) for a 70 ton vehicle. Diesels on the other hand, in test models, were shown to get 3-4 mpg... so the range is greatly improved although the speed is down some.



But thats OK because in todays wars. . such as Iraq. . the tanks cant outrun the rest of the convoy, especially the fuel trucks. 30-40mph is fast enough. The 3rd ID was using 500,000 of fuel per day of operation during full swing operations.



Plus the diesels are easier to maintain, run better in dusty conditions, and troops can actually walk behind them for cover in urban fighting. The current turbines have hot exhaust shooting out the rear making walking behind them impossible. Diesels are also quiter so troops can actually use an intercom phone to talk to the inside tankers while walking along with them. Seems like slower is better in the type of environment the military is expecting to see in the future?

 

[Jeff H]

I saw on tnn once. They got to ride in the bradley tanks. Powered by a V8 cummins. He was hitting close to 45mph.

 

[KKaiser]

When I played Army, pre M1 days, we had M60s with 900 horse Continental 1780c. i. (29 litre), air/oil cooled V-12s. They got somewhat better than 1/2 MPG. They also topped out at about 30 MPH and were total pigs IMO, except at gunnery! There was no way anyone could walk behind one, as they were so loud as to cause ear pain! They only had about a one foot elbow coming out of the turbos for an exhaust system! I personally don't think the Army should mess with a good thing.

NCostello, what type of diesel are they thinking of repowering with? Where's your info coming from? I'd like to check it out.



Kent

 

[Ncostello]

M1A3



That link talks about it. The magazine is G2MIL which is a suscription magazine written by retired generals and such. I have two friends in the military... one of which is a mechanic for the Army who drives tank recovery vehicles (I think he also drives HEMMT trucks... other friend is a marine sniper who doesn't like tanks). He mentioned this fact to me... and I discovered this article discussing the issue further. Curious as I am, I wanted to do some more searching. The site is not free to navigate and requires a subscription, but some stuff is available.



Dont get me wrong... I'm not a military person or a government decision maker... and military change isn't cheap or fast... and I'm not saying its absolute truth yet... just interesting information. I'd like to know more myself. I tend to believe my mechanic buddy. He's repaired these tanks in Gulf I and loves to study and talk about them. Now some of his stories seem a little out there at times but I bought this one.



Looks like this info talks about 1500 HP engines of some sort. V-12's or ??

 

[Ncostello]

PS: That link in there to General Dynamics mentions the diesel is a General Dynamics AVDS 1790 w/1500HP... transmission is an Allison X7050. This info looks to be from 2000... and the military would be slow to change this for sure. But again my main info is from the friend who claims to have seen these rigs.

 

[KKaiser]

I have to admit that I always had trepidations with using a turbine in hostile environments. I surly don't see a downside if they would stay with a high power level and be able to cut fuel consumption by 50%. I do happen to like diesels.

Reading your link, where they talk about using three TANKERS of fuel a week for a division to operate with another tanker to support the fuel trucks is mind boggling, what a logistic nightmare!



KK

 

[Azhuskcarr]

I work for a company that is developing the new engines for the tank. It's a new turbine that has more power and better efficiency. We had a tank at work awhile back ago, and boy does that thing move for being so heavy!!!:--)

 

[Skydiver]

Good info.

I have a cousin that works at the Anniston Army depot and he overhauls the M1. After work today I will travel to north Alabama to visit relatives and get his input on this.

If anyone has questions for him I will print this thread at 3pm cst. today and let him read it. Unless I can find a comp. it will be at the end of week before I can reply.

Tim

 

[Ncostello]

I've sat in the Abrams tanks at a military airshow several years ago in Dayton OH at Wright Patterson AFB. I knew they were big but I had no idea they weighed 70 tons. . WOW!! Guess those steel plates add up! Diesel or turbine... I wouldn't want one of these things bearing down on me!! Some of the footage you see on TV is amazing. The accuracy and power is amazing to say the least.



I'd like to hear the input of your family member Skydiver. Looks like Azhuskcarr has seen the new engines and it sounds to be a turbine. Bet they don't use Carter lift pumps

 

[FMcClaren]

Man, I,m getting old.



I worked on M41s & M48s. I did see a M60 one time.



Have a good one---Frank

 

[KSyme]

I've heard they are switching to General Electric turbines. There is not enough room to put in a internal combustion engine w/ enough HP.

 

[MABurns]

I read (heard) where the military is considering replacing the turbines in the M1 Abrams with good ole heavy duty diesels.

My opinion (partially substantiated with fact) is that a diesel will never replace the gas turbine engine in a M1 tank. It does not have the power to weight ratio and, like previously stated it is just plain TO BIG. The B5. 9 is bigger than the engine in a M1. Sure the transmission and recuperator are huge but the engine itself is very small.



Take away the Ground Hop Air cleaner, recuperator and transmission and you not left with a whole lot.



#ad




Don't mess with a good thing. The M88A2 is a pig and it has the biggest diesel engine in the army inventory. I wouldn't want it in my tank!!!





pictures of the best tank ever!:



http://community.webshots.com/user/majburns

 

[Ncostello]

Nice Photos MABurns:



I see what your talking about... those things are small!! I personally didn't have any idea about the size of the engine house. But I do know what a 1500 HP Diesel looks like... much bigger!!



Plus I should have put some quotes on some of the info I wrote... much of what I wrote is not from my personal knowledge (which is very limited on tanks) but rather from the person I spoke with and the article I read. I definately wouldn't have the kind of knowledge of the M1 that you would have.



So I wont even claim to know as much about the M1 as anyone else... . I just like them and thought it would be interesting to discuss. Beats talking about lift pumps all day . Wonder if that turbine would fit in my Dodge since its smaller than the B5. 9!! Reminds me of the Chrysler turbine cars I saw at Indy.

 

[MABurns]

The "engine" would fit under your hood, problem would be putting the transmission in. It would also prevent people from tailgating. EGTs are a real *****!!



In the photo with the engine ground hop'd you will can see where it says "no step"... that is where the exhaust comes out of the recuperator (rear mod) so you can see how small the engine is. That transmision on the other hand... ... ... .



A good mechanic(s) can change an engine and transmission --when they are mated together (Full-up Pack) in a few hours. It is a lot of hard work but fairly simple. The crew's prep work takes longer... yanking out the old pack and putting in the new one is easy!

 

[Ncostello]

I remember that news photo of those poor guys in the 3rd ID when they were stopped by that big sand storm. Looked like they were trying to replace what looked like a V-8 Detroit turbo series engine in some kind of tracked vehicle. They had all the openings duct taped to keep the sand out since it was blowing everywhere. I wouldn't want that job in a nice shop environment much less out in the middle of a terrible sand storm. Those kinda jobs dont get all the coverage like the battle footage. They are just as important to me however.

 

[KKaiser]

My crew R&Red an M551 pack in 45 minutes using a five ton wrecker for the hoist in the field one day. Had it running in 65. The Sheridan was such a POS that we had gotten REAL good at the procedure! Never had to do an M60. That had the same basic engine as MABurns' M88. Back then the M-88 had a gas version of it's current diesel.



MABurns, whats the cause of the gun tube failure in your pics? bet you were glad to have that pig like recovery vehicle around with that way stuck M-1, eh? The M-88 is world famous now after pulling down that Saddam statue!



KK

 

[MABurns]

I am pretty sure the footage you are talking about was an M2 Bradley engine being worked on. Not sure of the exact engine nomenclature but it is a Cummins (V-902?) V-8 500+hp.



KK,



The hardest part of swapping an M1 Engine is to disconnect the final drive and take off the rear engine compartment deck.



Disconnecting one engine, pulling it and reconnecting the replacement could take less than an hour if you didn't ground hop it.



Gun tube failure picture, just like could happen with any rifle... ... Gun tube got stuck in the mud and the crew didn't know it and fired a round.

How can you stick a gun tube in the mud you ask? Easy, going down a hill and the TC/GNR not paying attention and sticking it in the ground.



And it took a D-7 Dozer to get the stuck tank out. M88 coudnlt do it. I think the M88A2 is now something like 1075 HP with the V-12 turbo diesel. Like I said, fuel thirsty or not. I love the 1500 HP work truck!!!

 

[KKaiser]

Yea, power is good. I was in the 3/7 Cav (they've gotten allot of press lately!) for 3 years and we had Sheridans as our firepower. There was nothing more fun than blowin by a convoy of M60s with a platoon of 6 at about 45, while the 60s were lumbering along at 20 or so. Even got clocked by some field problem graders at 60 mph one night in total blackout!.



When we traded our M551s for 60s in '79 we sure took a mobility beating, but they sure were better than the Sheridans at gunnery.



Saw some of the first M-1s at Hood in '80. They combined the best of both worlds.



KK

 

[KKaiser]

MABurns,

What do you think of the argument about not being able to hide behind an M-1 in urban environments? Would you walk behind an 88? Would you ever hear again? I'd assume you're too young to have played with M-60s.



Kent

 

[MABurns]

Kent,

I have been on M60s, although my first unit had already transitioned to M1s, there where a few units that used M60s when I first joined the Army. And I have worked with a Army NG unit that still had them. (Although most are now targets on ranges or artificial reef)



On an M1 you can walk right up behind it (near the track) on either side in it's normal configuration.



Now directly in the middle-- it gets pretty hot. In the winter you can always find the attached infantry there or a crew drying out there sleeping bags, because the EGTs are 1400+. But you can still walk within 10 feet of the rear (the exhaust goes down). They have developed a heat shield that directs the exhaust up for just what you are talking about. It is very similar to the heat shield that allows an M1 tank to tow another tank.



Walk behind an M88, aside from being deaf you would probably drop over dead from the black cloud of smoke that they belch out!