Your favourite tanks

[CBR]

Even in this regard, IIRC, the Abrams has a greater operational range. I'm not sure whether that is because the Abrams has more fuel capacity than the Challenger 2, or whether it has greater fuel economy. The Challenger 2 uses a diesel, so I doubt it is the latter- but it must carry a lot less fuel. Do you know anything about this?

I think the Challenger 2 use an older engine. The export model in the Greek trial apparently had a new German 1500 hp diesel, and IIRC both the Challenger and the LeClerc (using same engine) were noted for their good range in the tests. The M1 has 1900 liters of fuel and the Challenger 2 apparently has about 1600.

edit:The primary problem for the M1 is that it needed the turbine to produce the power needed for its electrical system. It consumes nearly 40 liters to start up and about 45 liters/hour when idling. It is also an older engine so it could easily get better if they found the money for the next generation engine.

edit2: I just checked some numbers and the M1A2 SEP has less fuel (1680 liters) and a range of just 350 Km compared to the about 450 Km of the M1A1. Compare that with about 450 Km for the Challenger 2 and maybe 550 for the Leopard 2. But it is easy to find conflicting numbers so cannot be sure.

[PanzerJaeger]

I think the Challenger 2 use an older engine. The export model in the Greek trial apparently had a new German 1500 hp diesel, and IIRC both the Challenger and the LeClerc (using same engine) were noted for their good range in the tests. The M1 has 1900 liters of fuel and the Challenger 2 apparently has about 1600.

edit:The primary problem for the M1 is that it needed the turbine to produce the power needed for its electrical system. It consumes nearly 40 liters to start up and about 45 liters/hour when idling. It is also an older engine so it could easily get better if they found the money for the next generation engine.

edit2: I just checked some numbers and the M1A2 SEP has less fuel (1680 liters) and a range of just 350 Km compared to the about 450 Km of the M1A1. Compare that with about 450 Km for the Challenger 2 and maybe 550 for the Leopard 2. But it is easy to find conflicting numbers so cannot be sure.

Thanks for the information. We'll see what the M1A3 has in store, if it doesn't get axed. It is supposed to be 15 tons lighter, which should help fuel economy (not to mention an assumed new engine). IIRC, they are planning on keeping the thing in service for another four decades!

[CBR]

Oh 15 tons lighter? And in the mean time they are thinking about the next IFV and numbers like 70 tons have come up, heh. But maybe future active defenses will be so good that weight of armour can be lowered to maintain a good strategic mobility.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh 15 tons lighter? And in the mean time they are thinking about the next IFV and numbers like 70 tons have come up, heh. But maybe future active defenses will be so good that weight of armour can be lowered to maintain a good strategic mobility.

That is the plan. It seems pretty ambitious, and if all the changes come to fruition it will make the A3 a far more radical departure from the A2 than the A2 was from the A1.

[Brennus]

Well I have certainly learnt alot with reading the last few posts.