M1 Abrams Developments and News

GregoryUSSR said:
I'm thinking how can a hybrid powerplant be adapted to a tank? It's not a car. Car in the city yes - acceleration / braking, acceleration /braking. Braking by recuperation charges the battery. But the tanks have a different mode of movement. The tank usually either stands still or moves slowly. And as soon as he removed his foot from the accelerator pedal, tank immediately stopped under itself weight. It is almost not necessary to turn on the brake. So the battery will not be charged. It is easier to make an energy accumulator from a cannon. So that the battery is charged with the energy of each shot.
Click to expand...

There is no regenerative braking, just a diesel engine operating at a steady speed as a dynamo for recharging. The “Thunderbolt” demonstrator already broke this ground with an M8 chassis IIRC. I’m not an engineer so I can’t speak to how viable the idea is for a 50 ton vehicle, but it seems likely it’s possible, if not cost effective. I believe the M-1X does use that arrangement though I’m not near my PC right now. There certainly are diesels locomotives set up this way, albeit I don’t think they use battery storage and simply directly apply electricity generated by the diesels to electrical motors.
 
Aaaaaah... Just a diesel-electric system without a battery... So, you can do yes. In 1941, we had an ЭКВ tank with such a scheme. Also 50 tons in weight. The Germans had a self-propelled gun "Ferdinand" was even heavier. About 70-80 tons. And he drove, albeit slowly.
 
GregoryUSSR said:
I'm thinking how can a hybrid powerplant be adapted to a tank? It's not a car. Car in the city yes - acceleration / braking, acceleration /braking. Braking by recuperation charges the battery. But the tanks have a different mode of movement. The tank usually either stands still or moves slowly. And as soon as he removed his foot from the accelerator pedal, tank immediately stopped under itself weight. It is almost not necessary to turn on the brake. So the battery will not be charged. It is easier to make an energy accumulator from a cannon. So that the battery is charged with the energy of each shot.
Click to expand...
As said, you have a ~1000hp diesel engine spinning a generator that runs all the time. When you're moving slower than 1000hp, the excess goes into batteries. When you need to move faster than the diesel's output can provide, the batteries provide the excess.

Diesel-electric train, plus a battery pack. Works much better than the Porsche version.
 
GregoryUSSR said:
Aaaaaah... Just a diesel-electric system without a battery... So, you can do yes. In 1941, we had an ЭКВ tank with such a scheme. Also 50 tons in weight. The Germans had a self-propelled gun "Ferdinand" was even heavier. About 70-80 tons. And he drove, albeit slowly.
Click to expand...

"But the heavily-armored tank's hybrid powertrain buried deep inside it is probably its most exciting feature. General Dynamics says this will result in a whopping 50 percent fuel saving — the Abrams' kerosene-guzzling turbine engine has long involved a major logistics-versus-performance trade-off. This hybrid system will also allow AbramsX to operate silently while sitting idle and possibly for short durations at low speed, which would provide a huge tactical advantage."

www.thedrive.com

AbramsX Next Generation Main Battle Tank Breaks Cover

This is the first time we have seen the AbramsX concept, which is representative of a future American main battle tank, outside of artwork.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
Josh_TN said:
"But the heavily-armored tank's hybrid powertrain buried deep inside it is probably its most exciting feature. General Dynamics says this will result in a whopping 50 percent fuel saving — the Abrams' kerosene-guzzling turbine engine has long involved a major logistics-versus-performance trade-off. This hybrid system will also allow AbramsX to operate silently while sitting idle and possibly for short durations at low speed, which would provide a huge tactical advantage."

www.thedrive.com

AbramsX Next Generation Main Battle Tank Breaks Cover

This is the first time we have seen the AbramsX concept, which is representative of a future American main battle tank, outside of artwork.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
At the same time, there are a number of technical difficulties. For example. Very large mass - such batteries usually weigh a lot. Variability of characteristics. How the tank will be able to move at the moment will depend on the battery level at that particular moment. Next. Double energy conversion is a reduction in efficiency in itself. Fire hazard. Batteries are very fond of suddenly catching fire for no apparent reason. The danger of a short circuit and, as a result, the difficulty in overcoming water barriers and operating in a humid climate. Very high complexity of the design. Difficulty in repair. Difficulty in conservation. Such a tank cannot simply be put in a warehouse. The battery will lose its properties even if the tank is not working.
It is possible that the Model X will be a compromise between economy and other qualities. What do you think?
 
GregoryUSSR said:
At the same time, there are a number of technical difficulties. For example. Very large mass - such batteries usually weigh a lot. Variability of characteristics. How the tank will be able to move at the moment will depend on the battery level at that particular moment. Next. Double energy conversion is a reduction in efficiency in itself. Fire hazard. Batteries are very fond of suddenly catching fire for no apparent reason. The danger of a short circuit and, as a result, the difficulty in overcoming water barriers and operating in a humid climate. Very high complexity of the design. Difficulty in repair. Difficulty in conservation. Such a tank cannot simply be put in a warehouse. The battery will lose its properties even if the tank is not working.
It is possible that the Model X will be a compromise between economy and other qualities. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I'm expecting both battery packs and power pack to be sitting on rails so that you can pull them out of the hull as needed.

Double energy conversion from engine to generator to motor works to roughly 81%. Which is better than the usual all wheel drive racing sequential transmission!
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm expecting both battery packs and power pack to be sitting on rails so that you can pull them out of the hull as needed.

Double energy conversion from engine to generator to motor works to roughly 81%. Which is better than the usual all wheel drive racing sequential transmission!
Click to expand...
Diesel/electric also removes the gearbox which greatly assists removing the power pack on rails and reduces some packaging concerns/heat build up. Simpler removal process too.
 
Its my understanding that, except for 45 new-build M1A2 SEPs procured in 2017, we haven't built a new M1 since the early 2000s and even those were part of relatively small production run. In other words, almost all of our M1s were originally built prior to Desert Storm or shortly thereafter. Hundreds were scrapped; hundreds are in storage. And about 1,200 converted to M1A2 standard and beyond.

So, 1,200 tanks originally built in the 1980s or very early 90s that have been upgraded multiple times. I understand aircraft ware & tear better than land systems. So, putting aside much of the digital tech, what state are the literal nuts & bolts (and powertrains, tracks, shafts, gyros, and electrical wiring) in?

Even if many of the components I listed are replaced, what about the condition of the chassis and hull?

Putting aside the B-52 whose longevity is almost unbelievable, even some of the greatest aircraft cannot safely & reliably fly--no matter what internal upgrades are performed. The F-15A/B/C/D fleet is perhaps the best recent example. Those jets, especially the Air Nat'l Guard ones performing air defense, had to go. Some literally had their wings fall off.

What's the equivalent with a tank? Nothing lasts forever (except maybe B-52s).
 
Take a good look around at Centurion, M47, M48, M60, T54 to T62 series etc and the simpler update process becomes obvious. A much less stressful life for a start and if a supesion unit gives up with a tank all is not lost. If an aircraft wheel unit fails it means possible total loss for obvious reasons. Airframe stresses also much higher.

Essentially a tank hull can be replaced with a new design relatively simply to but try that with any aircraft fuselage/wings and the overtime alone will be a nightmare. Sorry about that, I shall get my coat.
 
JohnCitizen said:
Its my understanding that, except for 45 new-build M1A2 SEPs procured in 2017, we haven't built a new M1 since the early 2000s and even those were part of relatively small production run. In other words, almost all of our M1s were originally built prior to Desert Storm or shortly thereafter. Hundreds were scrapped; hundreds are in storage. And about 1,200 converted to M1A2 standard and beyond.

So, 1,200 tanks originally built in the 1980s or very early 90s that have been upgraded multiple times. I understand aircraft ware & tear better than land systems. So, putting aside much of the digital tech, what state are the literal nuts & bolts (and powertrains, tracks, shafts, gyros, and electrical wiring) in?

Even if many of the components I listed are replaced, what about the condition of the chassis and hull?

Putting aside the B-52 whose longevity is almost unbelievable, even some of the greatest aircraft cannot safely & reliably fly--no matter what internal upgrades are performed. The F-15A/B/C/D fleet is perhaps the best recent example. Those jets, especially the Air Nat'l Guard ones performing air defense, had to go. Some literally had their wings fall off.

What's the equivalent with a tank? Nothing lasts forever (except maybe B-52s).
Click to expand...
Significantly more tanks than that in storage, IIRC some 6000 Abrams in storage.

Ground vehicles only see aircraft g-load numbers when they slam into a rock or tree solid enough to make them come to a complete stop from 20-30kph.

As long as the hull hasn't gotten heavily rusted (and those tanks stored in Arizona basically don't rust), it will last for quite a while. Torsion bars are springs and will eventually sag and fail, but they're also easily replaceable. Most of the hydraulic systems on old tanks have been replaced with electrics on the new versions due to lower fire risks, so even if the hydraulic system did rot out in the stored tank you're replacing it anyways. Same with the electrical system, you're replacing a lot of that because you need bigger alternators, bigger main power cables, etc.
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
Even rust isn't necessarily an issue once they go in for complete overhaul or rebuild:
Click to expand...
When I'm talking "heavily rusted," I mean enough rust to significantly reduce the the thickness of the metal.

Like when your car panels rust through. That bad.
 
Why Australia? Why not from US stocks, which have thousands of Abrams tanks? I somehow doubt it's a decision made on bilateral level. The US is probably part of the decision at every step anyway.
 
totoro said:
Why Australia? Why not from US stocks, which have thousands of Abrams tanks? I somehow doubt it's a decision made on bilateral level. The US is probably part of the decision at every step anyway.
Click to expand...
The probable reason is that the M1A1s operated by Australia are the export version with the DU armour replaced and thus could be sent immediately when replaced by the new M1A2s, granted after having received US permission. Additionally, due to the gridlock in the US congress, additional deliveries of M1A1s and M2A2 SA ODSs from US stocks is unfortunately currently unlikely.
 
DU inserts are literally insertable nera packages, to replace or to be replaced by steel nera packages. US had some of their older tanks upgraded with DU inserts. It's not some big destructive process on the tank.

US stock abramses could, in theory, be sent at no cost, labeled as being worth zero. Requiring no funding. Then other countries could pay for manipulation, transport, refurbishment and modifications.

It's all a matter of will. What i dont get is why Australia seems to have that will while its much bigger ally doesn't. Makes you wonder what sort of undisclosed provisions (for australia, from US) the whole deal has.
 
totoro said:
Why Australia? Why not from US stocks, which have thousands of Abrams tanks? I somehow doubt it's a decision made on bilateral level. The US is probably part of the decision at every step anyway.
Click to expand...
Because the Australian M1A1s are about to be replaced by M1A2 SEP V3s and thus will become surplus. Australia gives up nothing by giving them to Ukraine.
 

Attachments

  • photo_2024-02-26_19-00-38.jpg
    photo_2024-02-26_19-00-38.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
GTX said:
www.abc.net.au

War-weary Ukraine shows renewed interest in Australia's aging Abrams tanks

Australia will be asked to consider donating its entire fleet of aging Abrams tanks to Ukraine as part of a broader package of military support that includes ammunition desperately needed in the war-torn country.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
$50 million AUD wouldn’t come close to the cost arranging for the approvals, readying 59 run down tanks, arranging for specialist shipping, offloading in an American port, shipping by rail to a backlogged repair depot, paying for upgrades/rebuilding, then rail shipping to an east coast port, offloading in Europe, another rail transit, etc. Then there is the embarrassment if a good number of the tanks have already been cannibalized, or if the entire program takes 24 to 36 months, the war is over and the recipient nation wants to standardize their tank fleet and doesn’t even need 59 old, oddball M1A1s.

So a $50 million AUD donation through the established UK fund is a very nice donation. Spending 3, 5 or 10 times as much on hardware that most likely won’t get there in time to be of any use is a total waste.
 
DWG said:
And gains a little goodwill both at home and in Ukraine after the recent episode with the NH-90s.
Click to expand...
Donating an unmaintainable fleet of largely inoperable NH-90s wouldn’t earn goodwill from any quarter. Especially when the fleet was mostly parted out and scrapped before the donation request. Assuming the request had come in a more timely manner, it still would have been impossible. Australia couldn’t have footed the bill for maintaining NH-90s in a war zone and I somehow doubt that the Europeans were willing either.
 
totoro said:
Why Australia? Why not from US stocks, which have thousands of Abrams tanks? I somehow doubt it's a decision made on bilateral level. The US is probably part of the decision at every step anyway.
Click to expand...
Repair depots are renowned for backlogs and with the incredible tight labor market, building out the capacity would be slow and expensive. The reality is that complex weapons systems require comprehensive and time consuming overhauls when withdrawn from storage. We’re talking overhauling electronics and gas turbines. With a T-54 you fire up the smokey old diesel, assuming someone hasn’t stolen critical parts, such as the engine itself. You can even hand crank the turret if all else fails.

It’s best to think of a stored M1 tank as being equivalent to an aircraft at AMARC or a mothballed naval ship. It takes a lot of time and money to make it combat ready.
 
Harry64 said:
wishful thinking?
Click to expand...
The blow-off panels seem to have blown, that would indicate a hit to the ammo in the turret bustle. But if the panels blew, the crew likely survived and the tank may be recoverable. The whole point of the design isn't that the vehicle is invulnerable, it's that it's more robust and more survivable. It didn't launch it's turret into Low Earth Orbit, it did it's job.
 
TinWing said:
Donating an unmaintainable fleet of largely inoperable NH-90s wouldn’t earn goodwill from any quarter.
Click to expand...
The plan would be to have support from European operators such as Germany, France and Italy.
TinWing said:
Especially when the fleet was mostly parted out and scrapped before the donation request.
Click to expand...
They are not mostly parted out and apart from an initial 6 Navy ones are not stripped or scrapped.
TinWing said:
Assuming the request had come in a more timely manner, it still would have been impossible.
Click to expand...
It originally came informally back in October 2023
TinWing said:
Australia couldn’t have footed the bill for maintaining NH-90s in a war zone and I somehow doubt that the Europeans were willing either.
Click to expand...
There is/was no bill for Australia
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
The plan would be to have support from European operators such as Germany, France and Italy.

They are not mostly parted out and apart from an initial 6 Navy ones are not stripped or scrapped.

It originally came informally back in October 2023

There is/was no bill for Australia
Click to expand...
Nope, the Army airframes are already partially disassembled, with no consideration for reassembly, and being prepared for burial. https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103456586

France, Germany and Italy all passed on Australia’s NH-90 fleet when it was intact and saleable. None of the countries in question have any great surplus of NH-90s. The disinterest was genuine. It’s all over now. Done. Except for the crash investigations.

Some suspicious minded people might think that the Aussies didn’t want to see a third party make a success of helicopters that failed so badly Down Under. In reality, the decision to scrap and replace was made by the previous government and there’s no reason to question the concerns over safety and maintainability.
 
Last edited:
TinWing said:
Donating an unmaintainable fleet of largely inoperable NH-90s wouldn’t earn goodwill from any quarter.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's not a nuance understood by the people calling for their transfer, hence the goodwill for the M1s is useful.

And parting out is definitely the most useful role for the Aussie NH-90s, though that being does illustrate just how badly wrong NHI got their required number of spares predictions.
 
DWG said:
Yes, but that's not a nuance understood by the people calling for their transfer, hence the goodwill for the M1s is useful.

And parting out is definitely the most useful role for the Aussie NH-90s, though that being does illustrate just how badly wrong NHI got their required number of spares predictions.
Click to expand...
Gets back to why I think the Kiwis haven't had trouble with theirs. The Kiwis ordered spare parts as if it was a 50yo Huey.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom