In message , Eunometic
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Why? Fuel consumption at idle (where tanks spend most of their time)
would be similar if diesel-engined: for that matter, the inability to
explain "idle power" to a gas turbine doesn't scale down much either.

Doubling the horsepower of a typical automobile doesn't usually double
the fuel consumption. Increase it yes, but not in direct ratio.

The superior fuel consumption of a 45 ton tank as opposed to a 63 ton
tank derives from the lower mass of the former.

But you're not going to radically reduce fuel requirements, especially
if you're then bringing in more tanks.

A 45 ton tank with a hyperbaric diesel should consume 0.75 x 0.75 =
56% as much fuel as a 60 ton gas turbine vehicle.

Trouble is, you're bringing more tanks so burning more fuel: and if fuel
economy is that critical there are several offers to replace the M1's
gas turbine with a diesel. (Or you could bring a LeoII or Chal2)

Irrelevant - you've got so many warm bodies to feed and water that
removing a handful doesn't matter. (You *did* have supporting infantry
for these tanks, didn't you?)

A squdron of M1A2 Abrams needs 20 tanker trucks to support it and a
Leopard 2 needs only 15.

Again, cutting the M1A2's fuel consumption is an issue that's been
looked at in the past: if the need becomes pressing there are options
available to do so.

Sure, just throw enough money at it. That's the problem - you end up
spending more money to get to where you already were before.

No. The fire control system is merely an electronic device. It works
as well in 45 ton tank as a 60 ton tank.

The "fire control system" is the sight head and mounts, the gunner's
controls, the gun and turret drives, and a fair bit more besides (tilt
sensors, met sensors et al) plus increasingly often a commander's
hunter-killer unit too; it's not just a drop-in black box, but a complex
array of kit that's designed into the vehicle from the start and not
easy to retrofit.

For the most basic example, it's not too hard to bolt a laser
rangefinder, thermal camera and ballistic computer into a splinterproof
box on the roof: that'll give you decent gunnery performance on a static
range. Trouble is, unless your stabilisation system and gun and turret
drives are also designed for the task, firing on the move will be a
losing proposition regardless of how finely calculated the ballistic
solution is.

Unfortunately, they've demonstrated a persistent inability to outfight
their Western counterparts.

First of all we have never seen contemporary Western tanks battle
against up to date Russian tanks.

One wonders why: surely *someone* must have wanted to purchase some
up-to-date Russian tanks.

How well does a six-foot crewman fit into the T80UM2 and how well can he
man his position buttoned-up for 48 hours? (This was an acceptance test
right back in the 1960s for Chieftain...)

Confort is less but has been improved in the Black Eagle version of
the T80.

Which means serious degradation of performance: you have to remember
that wars are fought by people first and foremost, and no matter how
marvellous the tank, it'll fail if the crew are exhausted, cramped and
hungier than their opponents.

Certainly. Is it cost-effective to do so compared to the alternatives?

I am talking about using Russian tank designe philosophy in an
entirely western designe as opposed to modification to existing
Russian hardware with western systems.

In other words, building a new tank from the tracks up?

Why, when we've got large numbers of thoroughly effective and
combat-proven tanks already, should we wish to throw them away and pay
for a new design based on the concepts that keep *losing*?

They'll shoot off more ammunition (four tubes rather than three)

That's a good thing.

Not when you're having to airlift every round to the APOD and then haul
it forwards, it isn't. You win by scoring more hits, not just by
expending more rounds.

and burn off little less fuel, and still come in one per airlifter.

Clearly a C5 could carry two 42-45 ton tanks and struggle with a
single 63 ton tank.

If it struggles with 63 tons, how can it cope so comfortably with 84-90
tons?

A C17 could bring a 45 ton tank along with additional support
vehicles.

But why, unless it's got the same sort of combat power as the heavier
tanks it's supposed to replace?

So, if
you pursue this option... why bring in four tanks that keep losing
fights, when you can bring in three that keep winning?

They won't be loosing fights. Despite being 45 tons their armour is
of the same protective value.

Doesn't square with their mass, dimensions and armament.

If you're trying to do an armoured advance based on airlift, you're so
screwed before you start that the choice of tank is irrelevant.

Its not just airlift but other aspects of mobillity and logistics that
are effected.

You're running up a lot of costs for this proposal, but so far the
benefits are nebulous and keep coming back to "all right, the Russian
stuff always lost in action, but that's because there's *other* Russian
stuff that's supposed to be far better but has never actually been
tested"

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk