@@CC-dq6ck generally a bad thing, but sometimes works as a intimidation tactic. Something i would usually do mid tier would be to turn off the engine because the idle was pretty loud and i could hear incoming tanks better, and then i would hear a tiger approaching and it would definitively put me on edge all the time.
Turbines are really distinct. It does help you detect friend or foe just from sound alone, especially if you're using a diesel, like a Leo. An approaching turbine is either almost 100% an Abrams, or a T80B or T80U at high tier. If you're playing in Realistic and using an Abrams or T80B or U yourself... well then, it might just be a little more tough.
You know what? I'm putting my money here right now; Mankind will continue on having transmission problems by the time we are a space-faring empire. It'll become a human trait. 🤣
With how common transmission problems are in tanks I’d say that it’s better to just be able to drop in a new tranny whenever you need them. Modular style.
I have served on both the Abrams and M-60 series tanks. I have been on both sides of operations with a couple of years as an OPFOR member traning NATO forces in Hoenfels Germany. I can vouch for pretty much everything this video says through actual experience. The Abrams are quiet AF compared to other armor during manuevers. I can hear a Bradley IFVs final drives whining at four times the distance of an Abrams. The biggest giveaway that an Abrams was in the hood was the track chatter, and by the time you heard that you were boned. Hell even M 113s are noisier. At any distance over 25meters the Abrams is the most quiet tank I have ever encountered, and I have encountered more operational variants of armor IRL than any one outside the Armor Corp I know. Having worked on and maintained both turbine and piston engines I can tell you turbines are way easier to maintain and are more reliable. Don't get me started on power to weight ratios. The Abrams is fast, and accelerates faster than most comparable armor out there. It will even spank most APCs in a race. As for thermal signatures here is my take. Having shot plenty of Abrams using MILES gear while looking through my TTS (better themals than the Abrams TIS at the time) they did not show up any hotter than any other vehicle I trained with. That includes most NATO armor I worked with in Europe just before desert Storm. It makes me laugh whenever I hear the bullshit stories that I do from some of today's current WOTC tank experts who could not even figure out how to open a real tank hatch let alone possess any real world understanding of tank design or usage. The tank fanboys and haters are irritating as all hell too. Rarely is the crew training or experience taken into account. It's all about "muh countries tank has more RHA value then your tank has in given area, or something stupidly myopic like that. Your crew is at least half of the equation. But hey, it's always amature hour in the you tube comments section. Great video btw!
Good experience-based comments that complement this quality video! Agree, crew performance is a, perhaps THE, major determining factor. With latest variant adding crew situational awareness features, the M1 should stay a contender for some time. Drone warfare and fire directing will present a challenge for all tanks, but we've known that dominating the air is first order of business...
The Bradley's IFV's final drive being audible at longer distances is hardly relevant to the relative noise levels of diesel engines and gas turbines... If the final drive is the noise that can be heard the furthest away, that suggests either that the final drive is particularly noisy or that its diesel engine is rather quiet.
i wonder why the military never seems to care about things like mufflers for engines to make them quiet.? or making their vehicles more comfortable for soldiers. like they don't give a shit . why is that?
I can tell you from 10 years experience that the level of noise inside the M1 with the engine running isn't from the engine, but from the hydraulic pump. On the other hand, it doesn't matter to the crew as they're wearing earphones. Another anecdote from back in the day. Many were the time when I was standing in front of the tank I would ask the driver if the engine was running. Yes, it can be that quiet.
The thing I always find hilarious is when someone says the M1 Abrams doesn't have a quiet engine since they stood next to one and it was loud. Yep, tank engines are louder than most other things that produce noise, therefore it cannot be quieter than other tanks. Makes sense.
the thing about the engine being louder when your closer doesn't matter because if your that close, you should be able to spot it via other methods other than sound
To the first point - loudness. In my personal experience (3/5 Marines, Sangin 2010-2011) the M1 is the only armored vehicle I've ever come across that can literally sneak up on you. The thing about the engine sound is that it is highly *directional.* If you are standing directly outside of the exhaust vents, then yes it will be pretty loud. Not necessarily a whole lot louder than a diesel unless you are right up to the grates, but loud enough to hear it. But if you are anywhere else - sides, oblique angle and especially the front - the Abrams is quiet. If you are out in an open field somewhere, or an area that just doesn't have a whole lot of echo reverb, that thing can creep up on you and you won't hear it until it's 50-75 feet away. You will pick up on the unique noise of the tracks clanking, long before you register the sound of a tank engine. (Hence the nickname "Whispering Death") EDIT 2: this demonstrates superbly what I mean by directionality: th-cam.com/video/Xtl9UFXkvac/w-d-xo.htmlm18s EDIT: To add, as to fuel efficiency, that is highly dependent. As you have mentioned when running at low power a turbine engine is wasting a lot of energy. But once you split up, it is significantly more efficient than a reciprocating piston engine fit in addition, it is significantly lighter van an equivalent output diesel, which is a not-insignificant matter when it comes to tank design. (P.S. if you have ever have the chance to see tech doing a maintenance on the M1's power plant, you will be shocked by one thing - the engine is actually quite small. The ATG 1500 itself probably only makes up like 20 or 25% of the entire power pack, at most. The rest is all transmission.
@@trezapoioiuy well I should clarify here. When I say "you won't hear it", I don't mean that if you were straining to you could not physically pick up the noise before that, I mean that you won't hear it _as a tank._ In the same way that when you go outside you can probably hear a whole bunch of birds making noise and whatnot, but you don't really pay attention to it. If an Abrams was driving near your position at night in the dark, the sound of the engine some distance off probably would not alert you to what it was unless you we specifically in that mental space. And you are correct, the tracks definitely are giveaway, and when it gets close enough that's the first thing you hear (unless you are directly behind it)
@@trezapoioiuy no problem. That said, even in overall absolute terms, it is still quite quiet compared to other tracked armored vehicles (at least the ones I have had experience with, which is mostly AMTRACS, L2's and Challengers).
If you ask an actual tanker, most of them have said that they've had an Abrams sneak up on them to within a few meters without them noticing. That's all I need to know about the turbine's volume.
sneaking up is not all thanks to the turbine noise. the tank has 15 psi of ground pressure (very low for a 62 ton vehicle). this reduces ground vibration significantly.
@@02091992able rather confusing reply. I was not refuting the claim that its quiet or sneaky. I just explained the turbine isn't the only reason the vehicle is quiet/sneaky. cause in all honesty the turbine is loud as fuck. its the manner in which the power-packed is set in the hull and the angled exhaust door that directs the exhaust noise into the ground that makes it quiet
As an ex tanker who served 10 years as a 19K, i started in basic learning both the M60a3 and the M1 (not the m1-a1, the M1 with 105 main gun) As for sound if your standing right behind the tank it is quite loud, but like you said the sound dies off after just a short range. From the sides its not that loud at all, we used to stand next to it while it was running and hold a normal conversation did not have to yell at each other. From the front you can barely tell the tank is even running. Since you tend to keep your front to the enemy this very advantageous. Durring the first Iraq war in 1990 the Iraq soldiers called the M1-A1 silent death as you would never hear them coming. The noise you hear inside the tank is some from the engine but most of the noise is the hydraulic pumps used for controlling the turret and gun. i could go on for hours about the M1A1. I do miss it very much.
You should pop over to the chieftain's channel (retired tank platoon commander and historian) and maybe give him an interview. Don't wait until you are old as balls!
I've heard some criticism of the decision to "up-gun" to the 120mm weapon. Supposedly the 105mm gun was more than adequate to deal with Soviet-made armor, and more rounds could be carried. Thoughts?
I trained on M60s in AIT, then trained on and operated M1s for nearly four years. Anyone that thinks the M1 is loud does not know what they are talking about. The M60 was a roaring beast, while the M1 was more like a purring kitten. Also, the M60's exhaust was quite smokey and, depending on the ambient temperature, was prone to create a tell-tale plume above its operations areas.
I went thru Knox in 84 as a 19A and graduated an echo (M60A3). Did that till 1987 and re-classed to kilo (M1), so I agree with K. Chris and the torque out of the M1 was far superior to that of the 60's. I also don't remember working on the powerpack in the M1 as much as we did in the M60's , just check the fluids and keep the air filters clean.
@@tungabunga4107 yes, they worked on it. With double hearing protection while testing it and with it shut off while they actually worked on it. What part of "the grunt phone is right next to the exhaust of *A LITERAL FUCKING JET ENGINE"* did you not understand? Yes, it's goddamned fucking loud. You've heard jet engines before, you know they're fucking loud. Stop trying to argue to the contrary. Is it quieter at combat ranges and from the front than a diesel or gasoline engine? Physics says yes since high frequency noise dissipates faster than low frequency noise. But when you're next to and behind it, *it is goddamn fucking loud,* the pitch makes your brain want to explode like the aliens in Mars Attacks, and if it doesn't have an exhaust deflector on it and you stray into the exhaust it will burn you (that particular hazard is the whole reason they developed the exhaust deflector in the first place, before you try to claim that's false too. No it won't set you on fire but it will burn you.)
Should be noted that the Abram's engine is modular as well. It is a "power pack" and able to be switched out, even in the field, by a trained crew in under 1 hour.
I was a tank mechanic for the USMC. Outstanding piece of machinery. Stupid simple to work on and troubleshoot as well. A common tool for fixing an issue in that behemoth i shit you not was often a paperclip. The guy in the platoon who came to work with spare clips was a man you bought drinks for on the weekends.
USAF avionics troops kept paper clips and safety wire handy as test probes (clips cut in half make great jumpers for female Cannon plugs). What did you guys use them for?
I really don't like Red effect. He knows alot about tanks, but very little about military as whole. For example, I never heard him saying that NATO tanks are mainly designed for defensive actions, unlike russian counterparts, and that's why they are designed differently. That's why russians have a lot of amphibious vehicles unlike european countries
@@adrianbyrdziak5130 Yep. He seems a little biased (but aren't we all?). I wouldn't take any tank TH-camr's word as gospel until I hear from others and do a little research myself.
@@bluntcabbage6042 i honestily like TheScottish Koala , the only tank that he has some bias towards is the challenger 2, but he also criticize that tank a lot.
@@isaquesevero4369 He makes a lot of valid points in his analyses, but I would still hold off on instantly buying into what he says. It's just a good rule of thumb.
As a guy who transitioned from M60 series tanks to the original M1, I'm just going to tell you the difference in speed between the two made the M1 the hotrod of the battlefield. We used to creep around in those old M60A3's. We could pop up almost anywhere in the blink of an eye in an M1. That's the biggest plus for going to the turbine. But I have to say, the ride provided by the suspension on the M1 was a remarkable improvement as well. Going cross country in an M1 is like riding in a cadillac....as opposed to the M60, where you felt every bump with bone jarring impact.
I was in M1A1s for eight years including time in Iraq. The engine is amazing. We rarely had issues with the engines. The only common issues we had was with the turret electronics. Those issues have long since been solved with the M1A2 series.
Yeah the turboshaft engine is extremely practical and reliable, it being a little less efficient than diesels is outweighed by the fact the Abrams has a huge tank and the US has the best logistics in the world by far and can easily support their tanks around the world.
Thank you for producing this video. I worked on as well as taught the M-1 in all it design model changes since 1981. And I can say for a fact that the AGT-1500 engine is a great system. As you pointed out the turbine is far less complex than any piston engine and has a higher reliability. As to filters, the air handling system is very efficient and the filters (on the hulls left side) are easy to remove, service and put back which is a part of normal after action PMCS (Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services) done daily. I remember when in Saudi during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, all the press agent were going on how it would fail. But even in severe sand storms it just kept going. This was because of all the product testing done at Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona. If you want to test a system against dust and dirt, go there. It's way worse than Iraq. Now the first time the (then) West Germans ever maneuvered against M-1's they were shocked by how incredibly quite they were and nick-named them "Whispering Death" at the Canadian Army Trophy tank matches in Grafenwer Germany. The Leopards by contrast you could not only hear, but feel the vibration from the MTU engines from miles off before visually sighting the tanks.
What's forgotten also are two things: (1) Chrysler had done a lot of work on the gas turbine engine for an automotive application, hence the Chrysler Turbine Car of 1963. (2) In the mid-1970s, there simply wasn't a way to get tank diesels above about 800 horsepower without making them so large it'd require an extensive redesign and rethink of the basic chassis design, which has great implications on things like rail and even AIR transport. There were but a few ways to handle the then-limitations on diesel power output; extensive transmissions (expensive and poor reliability), lighter tanks (like the French AMX-30 and the German Leopard I), or, as in later marks of the Centurion and the Chieftain, the UK kept the heavier weight and protection and just worked with the tank being slow. The poor power/weight ratio was so pronounced in the Chieftain that they couldn't, at first, get the damn thing to drive up the ramps onto a rail flatcar! Give the Soviets credit for some "outside-the-box" thinking with that 5-cylinder, opposed-piston diesel for the T-64, but I've read that this engine was TERRIBLE, and it had a habit of destroying itself and catching fire at the worst possible moments! The AGT-1500 is indeed a thirsty engine, but it should be remembered that the Abrams was designed to fight against Soviet armor in a theoretic conflict in central Germany, where it'd not be far from its supply dumps and if it had to fill up at a civilian station, plenty of them around! Rummaging around the desert in Iraq and Kuwait...that did expose its big weakness, but the Army got creative on that...even having Rangers establish an LZ, then bring in engineers and dig a hole, and drop some bladder bags filled with fuel to wait for the tanks to arrive!
Great Job Spook! I've always wondered what the difference was and why the US Army went with the Turbine. Everything I've read always stated different things.
well i have just one problem with the engine and that is that it is burning a lot of fuel on high speeds too. And the Argument "But you can use everything to fuel it so you can use stolen fuel too" does not count cause quess what the enemy uses to fuel thier diesel engines, right disel so whats the point of being able to use all sorts of fule when only diesel is available? And the enemy can still use US fuel too cause you use disel anyways to fuel them up cause all other us vehicles need it so you only bring diesel
@@tomendruweit9386 The US Army actually standardized on JP-8 for all of its military vehicles. All US military vehicles, including tanks, tank transporters, Heavy, Medium, and light tactical vehicles are designed to run on JP-8. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8
@@tomendruweit9386 So, you watched the video and decided that all of the advantages listed in it don't matter, and the one overriding concern is fuel consumption? So yeah.
@Pedro DLR Did you not watch the video? There are a number of advantages over diesel. They're listed *in the video*. Why is it so hard to admit that? Is the turbine better? No, it's just what the US military went with.
I love the way there is some sort of public consensus that the M1 tank has a poor engine. Never mind that the US army has stuck with it since the late eighties and used it for many minor deployments, three major ones, and one high intensity desert war, involving the biggest tank battle since WW2. But, Y'know, that info guy on youtube says it's crap so...
@@sandervanderkammen9230 I see. That is quite some claim , to have been on the Army procurement board for the XM1 MBT. I have no way of checking up on that , of course, though I can think of no reason why anyone would go on youtube a lie on the subject. If you feel strongly that some disservice is being done through historical misrepresentation ,or that you have a story you wish to tell , might I suggest that you contact either the maker of this video or , perhaps , a more conventional publisher ? It does sound like you have the makings of a good read there.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 It sounds to me like you are bitter at having had your recommendations over ridden. I am sure the at the army made it's decisions in good faith. Since the introduction of the M1 Abrams tank, an increasing number of third generation MBT designers have opted for Gas Turbine engines, somewhat vindication that decision.. Perhaps your diesel engine/ gearbox combi was at the end of it's developmental cycle and the Gas Turbine had greater long term potential.? But, whatever the truth, I think you should put it behind you now. It was over thirty years ago.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Well ,..that is fascinating for sure. I seem to remember reading all about that in a magazine article . That would have been about ten years ago in W H Smiths. I never bought the magazine , just read the article. As I remember it , the prototype they used was a JagdTiger , rather than a Panther 2. Not that it makes much of a difference, except that the Panther two on display at the Patton Museum is supposed to have been the only one built. Look, I'm going to level with you here. I don't know if you really were on any procurement board. As you've said, all the information you have imparted are matters of public record. I can't think of any reason why you would make such a claim if it were not true, but the internet does throw up some strange claims, that is for sure ! In any case , while tanks have always been an area of interest for me , I am not really interested in discussing the history of the Gas turbine engine , the Abrams Tanks engine , or the XM1 procurement program. I am happy to trust that the American army has a decent tank, not that it's that much skin off my nose. I'm not American, I'm British, and the closest I ever came to driving a tank was a two year stint in an armored signals squadron in the mid nineties. I had a 439 , a signals variant of the 432 APC, and that had a Rolls Royce opposed two stroke. They were still using the Chieftain back then for training . Now, that thing had the Leyland L60, another opposed two stroke, albeit horizontal. They were supposed to have been crap but they weren't that bad. These days , you tell someone that those big old chieftains used to move around a bit sharpish, and someone will try to tell you all about what a piece of junk it was, how it was barely mobile. Usually someone who has never actually seen one move , I might add. I prefer to read stuff by the guys who had to use the things .Those guys tell a more balanced story, though it is very clear that it had issues. Point is , those L60 engines barely developed 750 Hp on a good day. Abrams develops twice that. Most American soldiers seem to think it's alright, and that's enough for me. If a piece of kit is seriously deficient , it's a fair bet that the soldiers will let you know.. Anyway , look , I don't want to call you a liar and there is no way to collaborate your story either way. Maybe you were on this procurement board. if so, and you feel there is a story to tell, maybe you should write a book?. It's not a bad idea, I recently bought my Father a book about the CF 105 projec.t He was a draughtsman on the engine during the fifties and he found the book fascinating . I shall read it myself at some point. Point is, it's a far better way to tell a story than on the threads of war game related youtube video.. I wish you the very best in these trying times . I hope things work out.
When the M1 first debuted at the Reforger exercises in 1984(?) a platoon of M1s completely overran a British tank platoon without a loss catching them totally by surprise. The referees thinking that it was some fluke stopped the M1s placing them back at their starting positions and told them to try again. They did even though the British now knew that they were coming. The British were in awe saying that the M1s were FAST and quiet.
@@jackholman5008 Nor did Sir Bernard Law Montgomery, though he always spoke highly of his purported "rival", General Patton, ever quite forgive "Georgie" over scooping him TWICE...the first time, by getting to Messina FIRST (but neither cut off the Germans' escape to Calabria). The second, was when Patton "snuck across" the Rhine the evening of March 22, 1945, at Oppenheim (the Remagen bridgehead having been established 15 days earlier), just ahead of Monty's 21st AG effecting their own Rhine crossing on March 23rd.
having worked alongside M1A1s when I was in the Army, you hear the tracks of an approaching Abrams long before you hear the motor, especially when it's coming towards you.
I was a gunner for M1A1 and A2 Abrams. They burn about 8 gallons (30 Liters?) upon start up, and run quietly. The aux pump produces a lot of noise when upclose or inside but from a short distance its surprisingly very quiet. Like the video stated, the turbine engine is only as good as an army's supply line. It needs a steady supply of JP8, gasoline or even kerosene to keep it moving.
3:00 An auxilary power module that was supposed to save up fuel and thus money _wasn't added due to _*_budget constraints?_* I... but... it's planet Earth and humanity, it's normal, I'm absolutely calm and understanding.
Two explanations: 1: At the time the budget didn't have the raw funds necessary to develop and procure an adequate APU. 2: The way I've had it explained to me is that a lot of tankers absolutely wouldn't hear of it until the addition of the bustle-rack extension. You also have to consider relative cost, does fueling their tanks more actually upset US logistics and budgeting more than an entirely the new piece of hardware. So they might not even have been thinking of the fuel costs as a monetary issue but as a logistics and range issue.
The M1 program wasn't given a bottomless pit of funds. Especially since the government was apprehensive given the failure of the KPZ-70/MBT-70 and XM-803 programs a few years prior.
@@trezapoioiuy as I've said, planet Earth, humanity. I fully understand this PoV. Spoiler alert: it's actually isn't logical as more resources and man-hours of work were wasted. But you know, should you have asked market brokers in 2007 what the fuck they're doing buying low quality assets just because they're packaged and renamed with funds taken from retirement reserves of millions of other people they were responsible for, they would have told you it's all logical. And explained why. And you would have repeated that it's logical;)
@@TheArklyte There's a limit to this. Otherwise everyone not owning a house would be stupid for renting one. Buying a house is better on long term. So why doesn't everyone own a house or an apartment, since it's better than renting? Because they're stupid, of course. Or maybe they don't have that kind of money to buy it. Btw were you asking brokers wtf they were doing back in 2007, or are you doing it now? Hindsight is a tad bit easier. Maybe in hindsight they would also have somehow found money they didn't have in the budget to still fit an APU.
I remember sitting on the back of a 5ton in Holenfels Germany after a 2 week field exercise when we past a column of M1s headed in the opposite direction . The heat from their turbines felt amazing as we were all soaked and freezing.
“It became apparent that survivability and performance were some of the most important aspects of a tank.” *Hmm, yes, the floor here is made out of floor.*
One thing that has always fascinated me is why Canada, who ostensibly would be aiming for maximum interoperability between its armed forces and that of its neighbour, opted to go with the Leopard series of tanks - I would imagine that Canada has an interesting tank story (it was one of the few tank operators in Afghanistan) with a unique interplay of costs versus function.
My understanding is that before Afghanistan, the Canadian military planners had decided they didnt really need an MBT because of poor performance versus modern attack helicopters. They where looking at developing lighter gun systems based on the LAV III (which I think became the m1128). Once Afghanistan started it became clear that MBTs were still quite useful, and the leopard 1s they had were not as good as desired; germany had older surplus leopard 2's for sale on the cheap. So thats what was bought.
Canada is tightly integrated with the US for air defence, sure, but who is going to launch a land invasion of North America. So Canadian Army operations are either going to be in Europe, or somewhere else, as part of NATO, with the US being only one country of many. The Leopard is *the* NATO European tank, operated by 13 of its European members and three other friendly European nations, in numbers collectively comparable to the Abrams. It is a perfectly adequate platform, a bit cheaper per unit, and it's diesel engine is more familiar to mechanics than a turbine, whatever its other advantages. Basically there is nothing about the US that makes integration with it any more or less desirable than integration with Europe, and so they happened to go with the other obvious option.
There’s also the fact that lower frequency sound travels much farther than high freq, like Spookston said, so unless you’re near it, it really doesn’t matter.
I used to wonder about the turbine and why the army went with something so inefficient. I'm glad to hear some of the reasoning as to why, because it makes me appreciate the Abrams again.
The M1's operational range is barely worse than a Leopard's. Off-road, it has ~20km less range, while on roads, it has ~30km _more_ range than a Leopard. At higher speeds, the turbine is also not that ineffecient.
@@bluntcabbage6042 It's substantially worse. The Leopard carries 317 gallons of fuel. The Abrams carries 420 gallons. So at no point does the turbine compete with the diesel engine. The only way it does is by throwing fuel at the problem. That's an issue when every drop of your fuel needs to be hauled in by soft-skinned tanker trucks, like in Desert Storm. For a given set of logistic resources, more Leopards can be brought to battle than Abrams.
@@Crosshair84 You seem to forget that America has bottomless sources of fuel. For a country like the US, high fuel consumption isn't as much of an issue since more fuel can be easily allocated. _Especially_ when the extra fuel is used to provide a ton of protection to the crew in the hull by using them to stop chemical warheads from reaching the crew compartment. And, since fuel isn't a big issue, the Abrams can simply bring bigger fuel tanks and match the operational range of muh Leopard or Challenger.
@@bluntcabbage6042 he has a point tho. The US doesnt have a fuel problem, but that doesnt mean it doesnt have it could have a logistic problem. The US army always faced less powerfull armies and in really short terms. Imagine facing a capable foe like ukraine now with russia and with tons of partisans and drones taking your beautiful tankers way before they reach the tanks. It doesnt matter how much fuel the US has, it already needs more logitics than a leopard that could be a problem in prolonged conflicts with a powerfull foe.
So it's kind of backwards, but even though the M1 is not quite as fuel efficient overall it running on the same JP8 that the military has to cart around everywhere for aircraft and whatnot actually makes it not a bad logistical choice at all.
I saw my first M1 at Fort Bliss in the mid 80s when the 3d ACR was switching over from the M60. You could hear the M60, M113 and M110 from a mile away at speed on the range roads. I had an M1 turn the corner towards me a block ahead and I didn't hear the engine or tracks until it was almost upon me. Impressive at the time.
When the M1 was entering initial production in the early 80s, I was at Aberdeen Proving Grounds for their Armed Forces Day live fire demonstration. They brought the latest M-60 onto the main front exhibition field and you could hear it coming quite a bit before you actually saw it. It then chugged around the course, belching diesel smoke, until it stopped in front of the main bleachers. Then, as the announcer was introducing it, the M-1 almost silently, except for a slight turbine whine that was difficult to nail down where it was coming from, races onto the track, completes the course in about 2/3ds the time, if that, of the M-60 and then hits the bump in front of the bleachers and goes airborne for a moment. No comparison when it came to performance or noise, the M-1 beat the M-60 by being higher performance and much quieter at an equal distance. Also shown and demonstrated (including shooting) was the Sgt. York M-247 and Apache...though we didn't hear the Apache approach until it was right above us. Sadly, these public live fires seem to be a thing of the past.
@Pedro DLR Depends on what you're looking for. Grocery stores have a much better track record on healthy foods, compared to much more popular fast food chains lol.
I was always under the impression that the Gas Turbine was selected for its logistics advantage, I mean, the point raised in the video about how they can run on just about any fuel is an enormous advantage. It must make battlefield planning much easier knowing if you can't secure the optimal fuel, you can just use what ever you can scrounge up from the motor pool. I did know about the signature detection reduction but not the performance advantages. I get why people wouldn't be well versed about Gas Turbines. How many people use vehicles or machinery that uses that type of engine? I can only think of one that was sales disaster from the 1960's I think (it's really rare these days, I think Jay Leno has 1 of the 11 that are left) and another that was a concept car made by Jaguar to showcase how clever their engineers are.
In practice, the multi-fuel capability really isn't worth the effort.as far as using a turbine. The increased fuel consumption offsets any gains you get from being multi-fuel. Which is one reason why nobody is using turbines in new vehicles.
@@Crosshair84 That's certainly true of road going civilian vehicles, Gas Turbines at low power and idling outputs are so bad you might as well buy a V8 powered car and have a monthly bonfire to burn a 1/4 of you fuel bill when used in urban start-stop traffic. They are pretty good for aviation and marine (but not all marine) applications though, and it make sense for well funded military applications. You can run most Gas Turbines on any grade of petrol or diesel, most types of aviation and marine fuel, plus you can make use of stuff you wouldn't dream of sticking in a fuel tank like grain alcohol and boiler fuel (although that would only be an emergency measure as using them put a fair amount of stress on the turbine). Besides different military doctrines will always result in some quirky decisions being made, take were I live, the UK, the Challenger MBT uses a rifled main gun as opposed to smoothbore like every other country (except India) in the world and (like most British Army armoured vehicles) a boiling vessel so crews always have a way of making (stereotype) tea, I mean it can be used to heat up ration packs too... but it's mostly used to make tea.
@@Crosshair84 The gain is that you can literally use any allied nation's fuel stocks or pump it from any gas station. It doesn't matter the octane nor the cleanliness. If it burns it will run.
@@brainplay8060 But when the whole of your army, and most other armies are using diesel for everything, you don't have to plan for fuel too much already, everything just needs the same fuel. I am fairly sure a tank engine, multifuel or not, won't care much about octane or cleanliness. I really want to mention The T-80 and how you would think that the russians would like it more for the multifuel ability, instead of droping it and going with a rebranded T-72BU of all things, but I am fairly sure it was droped because of internal politics. Although I do recall Russians saying they would never adopt a Turbine again, for whatever that is worth
@@shepardpolska That's fine if you're a defense force. If you're an expeditionary force then having access to extra assets is nice especially if you suddenly get cut off. During OIF driving the fuel trucks into the city to the newly established outposts was risky. Luckily no one took RPG shots at the convoys.
Reminds me of the G11 rifle. A lot of people think it’s a bad design for a number of reasons that are either false or only partially true but in reality it’s only real downside is cost and logistical support which weren’t an issue for the military it was intended for. At least, until the Bundeswehr got it’s budget cut when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Yep. For me the G11 will always be kraut space magic and make me proud to be a kraut. The most problems there would have been with the G11 were heating of the action and so a danger of cookoff, aswell as the ammo getting damaged. Both simply because the G11 uses caseless ammunition. The case also absorbs heat and takes it out of the action aswell as it protects the charge.
@@wolfschadow6399 The main issues were the cost and complexity which would make field repairs way too hard. Yes the money maybe wouldn't be an issue, untill you get a war and need to conscript every one you can to fight, then you might find out you had nowhere near enough guns for the army because they were too expensive. Then you get people not being able to maintain and fix their weapons as well as with a much less complex M4. And for what? For a 3 round burst that was kind of recoiless. It was kind of like the Maus in my eyes. Cool, great at the task it was build for, but the designers ignored the real world a bit too much. To be honest I think the gun would might have been adopted if they droped the 3 round burst which was causing the 2 of the 3 issues with it, the cost and complexity.
Eh. The real downfall of the G11 was that it just wasn’t enough of an improvement over the competition. It was better at poking holes in paper at close range but outside 200m wasn’t anything special over a 556 rifle. A marginal improvement for a substantial cost and systemic risk is a tough sell. Also have you seen how complex that thing is out of its skin? Who knows how reliable it would have been in general adoption.
@@JimmySailor for the US ACR trials, everything you said is correct. But for West Germany, it fit their tactical needs and had the logistics to back it up. It works as a defensive weapon but absolutely would fail if deployed in the same way as the M4
I was a Tanker on the M1A2 SEP and I do agree with your video. I feel I must also throw in my 2c on my personal issues. You already hit on the air filtration, let me tell ya bud, its a pain lol. Not difficult, but just a pain to have to bang them out so often in Iraq. My other biggest issue is that the dang thing either leaks or burns through fluids so fast. It was near the number one thing that had to be checked before going out on missions, check and refill oil, check and refill hydraulic fluid, check and refill road wheel hubs (refill hubs not so much, unless the plastic cover broke is really all), and every so often check and refill battery fluids. The tank itself required almost constant maintenance just to be able to start up again the next day. I mean, the crew could spend almost an entire duty day doing 10 and 20 level PMCS (preventative maintenance checks and services) and lock everything up and within a week of storage it wouldn't even be able to start and would prob need more fluids lol. You had said the cost is a big reason why turbines are not super widely used and I agree, the monetary cost is huge and the man-hours cost to keep them going is also large. Anyways, good vid, keep it up.
friendly reminder that Sander Van der Kammen is lurking and a$$blasting in new comments about like gas turbine engine like losing virginity by agt-1500.
Pedro DLR ye diesel motors powered electric generators that powered the tank Also I think Doyle mentioned this at a conference the Ferdinand wasn’t as bad as it’s made out to be, and suffers an unjust negative reputation
@@alfredogarciajr40 through a black box research in 2014 that the Marine Corps did to test the fuel economy of all the ground vehicles in inventory. the box was configured between the main NBC filters and personnel heater and utilized a jumper harness that bridged between the 2w114 and j1 on the DECU. ive also done plenty of missions in M1's that have lasted long hours.
@@alfredogarciajr40 They were trying to see where they can make cuts. well we saw where that went cause now the USMC has no more abrams. sucks cause I've been on them since '06...
the noise advantage is the by product of attempts to hide heat signature. the design isnt meant for urban combat you're right. at idle you can hold conversations because of the mass of steel it is concealed in. to the left and right of the pack are the rear fuel cells. on top is the armor deck all of which closes up.
Good points. When mice show up on FLIR the friction of just the rubber on the road wheels will be easy to spot, let alone all other parts of a tank that is a different temp than its surroundings
I think you forgot one other reason they went with the turbine. I heard a few years ago that the M1 could start up and move out much faster than diesel tanks thus enabling them to get moving toward the Soviet threat or out of the way of an incoming attack.
When the Abrams' first started showing up during Reforger, one Brit tasked to be on the "enemy" side of the annual exercise nicknamed the M1 "the whispering death." because it didn't make the characteristic growling bulldozer noise that all other MBTs did.
That turbine engine had all of its compressor blades made in Mississauga Ontario , Canada . Mississauga is the city attached directly to the west side of the city of Toronto . The mfg plant that I worked in for so many years called Walbar Canada was just about a half mile south west of the Toronto International airport . We were the largest user of hydro electric power in the entire city of Mississauga . We employed just under 500 people. In all my years of working in that plant I remember the job work and instruments vividly for that engine program . I was a "General Inspector of all plant operations" That customer was the Textron/Lycoming aircraft company . The final engine assembly was at the Textron/Lycoming aircraft plant in the USA . The design of all those blades were absolutely the best of all turbine blades that I have ever seen in my life . By far , most cost efficient . No other design of blades were so cost efficient . Other aircraft companies that we made the blades for like Garret/Airesearch , SNECMA of France , Rolls Royce of England , MTU of Germany , Pratt&Whitney Canada , Rockdyne of USA were no were near the cost efficiency of the Textron blades. Also there is certainly no arguing the strength or durability of the steel that was used . The ones we made for the Rolls Royce Turbine division were terribly over designed and very inefficient cost wise hard to make . Also , variable pitch blades made for SNECMA of France were very over designed and terribly cost inefficient to make . I still remember the part numbers for the M1 engine program after all these years , like 3-100-02506 or 3-100-02207 or 3-100-02305 to name a few . Feel free to reply back to me .
What I found great about the turbine as a soldier outside of the tank is that you can stand behind it when it's pouring rain and stay dry. Also, if you need to warm up after a cold guard duty shift, you can get behind it, and it warms you right up.
@ALSO-RAN ! Nonono you're not understanding. I've seen people literally degrade the product to save LITERALLY 50 cents. Not "per unit" or anything. Just for 1 product. 1 piece of material.
@@NeurodivergentSuperiority It was for military aircraft not tanks but I don't want to be any more specific than that, like putting material that is out of spec into a finished product that sort of stuff. On parts that are literally supposed to save lives.
I always enjoy these short informative vids. I especially love the "If Warthunder was Historically Accurate" because it usually lets me shit on Gaijin for what can be perceived as blatant bias against certain nations by not including components or fudging their numbers to make other nations under-perform.
I spent 27 years in the US Army as a tanker. 20 years on M48/M60 tanks and 7 years on M1s. M1s are absolutely more quite then diesel tanks. You will hear the tracks before you hear the engine. The newer tracks are also quieter as well. They call it whispering death for a reason.
You can even tell that when watching the videos. Microphone picks up the track noises first. Even have to turn the volume up to hear the engine and everything.
Been a US Tanker for 13 years. When I was a PL, we were doin night driver training n had chemlights on the antennae. I could hear her from a ways away but couldn’t tell distance, because she sounds nearly the same up close vs distance. It was dark, so I only saw her on e she was right in front of me, the sound was nearly identical. At low speeds, the tracks are louder than the turbine.
I wanted to make some snide comment but your arguments are pretty solid from a physics point of view :) Higher frequency noise dying down, heat signature being in the back and mitigated (also cooler exhausts) and the fuel consumption is higher but they don't care. I guess they sorted out the filter problems as well, must be a joy to figure out how to filter massive amounts of air reliably in a dusty desert condition.
If the turbine engine outperform the conventional diesel engine in fuel efficiency under load, then it could be nicely complemented with electric motors in hybrid vehicles. When idling or low power output is required then the electromotor is used (powered from the batteries) and when high power output and / or battery charging is required then the turbine engine is used. The electric motor also can be used as an extra booster when additional power output is required (for "mountain climbing" or for dashing out in an ambush). It would be a nice emergency backup to fall back to a safer position if somewhy the turbine engine fails. Of course there must reasons for the fact that none of the nations use hybrid military vehicles, but it might be a sensible alternative in civilian usage.
I believe one of the competing designs for the Porsche Tiger 1 was a hybrid, but was thrown out for reliability issues. Considering how reliable the design they went with was, I shudder to imagine how bad the hybrid design was. That was 70+ years ago though, I wonder if it would be viable today...
The limiting factor is battery energy density, the amount of lithium ion you would need to move even a few km will be ungodly. As it's both bulky and heavy, considering tanks are usually both weight and space limited. Same-ish reasons why electric planes aren't a thing yet. However electric motors are hands down superior in every way compared to any others mechanical power source. They have massive amounts of power in a small footprint, are wayyyyyy more reliable as you have one moving part, can regenerate energy when slowing down, and are ~95% efficient at converting electrical power to mechanical power, which greatly outperforms literally any other means of mechanical energy production. I would love to see a tank with turbine connect to a generator and only uses electric motors. Add a massive ultra capacitor bank and you have an efficent, hard acceleration, fighting beast.
As we proudly proclaimed at the Lycoming factory in Stratford, Connecticut where the AGT-1500 was designed and built: Our engines suck and blow at the same time ;-)
In the 1950's Union Pacific used GE Gas Turbines to power a generator. The power went to an electric motor mounted on each axle. Some produced 10,000 Hp. They burned Bunker oil. The UP found out that they guzzled fuel and were only efficient at full throttle. They had a diesel electric gen set to move the units in the yard. 1968 was the last year they ran.
That's the curse of turbine engines - they basically consume the same amount of fuel regardless of power setting. Forget "idling" - hope you have an APU. I think Chrysler's turbine car did "better" at this through the use of reheating and other purpose-built engineering, but there hasn't been anything since that I know of.
as a m1a1 mbt mechanic in the marines. the majority of the in vehicle noise is actually created by the main and aux Hydraulic pumps that run off the agt's main accessory gear drive. surprisingly the agt turbine is fairly quite considering i followed them everywhere in a m88a2 Herc.
Cool video. There were some key issues to turbines though that should be covered and better understood. It's not necessarily the difference in high temperatures in exhaust temperatures between a turbine and diesel engine. The other issue you have with the turbine is that one of the reasons why a turbine does so well in performance is that massive air intake rate it's doing for many more combustions per second than the diesel engine. That massive mass flowrate of air intake also means that you have to have that same flowrate of exhaust out. So the Abram's issue thermally is not necessarily the high exhaust temperatures but the high gas flow rate out of that exhaust. Even with the special exhaust ducting to reduce that signature, the Abrams still has a larger "glow" about it than other contemporary tanks do which makes it easier to spot in IR. An interesting aspect of this though is that with an external power source, like the APU on the newer models, you can electrically drive the compressor without any fuel to force cool air through the turbine to cool it very quickly. This would allow you to setup in an area ahead of time and cool your tank off quicker to ambient temperatures much quicker than any of its competitors can and you would only have to really worry about thermally covering the APU. This theoretically makes an Abrams hiding at night against a modern enemy using thermals extremely difficult to detect if they take proper precautions to cool down the turbine and then shut the engine off and rely on the APU to drive the equipment and turret/guns. A turbine does have a reliability limitation that exceeds that of the diesel engine. A turbine is extremely vulnerable to ingesting debris. FOD and turbines make for a very spectacular and catastrophic failure. This means that the Abrams is extremely reliant on those filters being in good working condition. A diesel motor could work without it's air filters in an emergency if it needed to. The Abrams would probably ingest dirt/sand fairly quickly and kill the compressor blades in very short order. Unlike helicopters, it's air intake is extremely low to the ground similar to regular jets. Unlike a jet though, it doesn't operate in areas where personnel literally pickup every little tiny piece of debris in the area it'll be operating in. You aren't going to have FOD walks out in field like you would on the airfield. While the performance benefits are pretty huge, it's really that fuel flexibility that's key to the Abrams. This means that the tank isn't 100% reliant on the US supply chain to get fuel. It can take nearly any liquid hydrocarbon as a fuel source with a little change of values in the ECU to compensate for different energy content values with the different fuels. This means if your host nation doesn't have JP-8 or other jet fuels that your tank normally would use, as long as they have SOME kind of fuel you're good. This becomes important in more austere locations or should your supply lines be temporarily cut. Your tanks can still operate and effectively remain a usable asset. This was shown to be important when your enemy for example likes to purposely plant IEDs on main roads to attack and destroy supply vehicles moving to supply forward deployed assets. Worse comes to worse, you can siphon fuel from some nearby vehicles and still have an operational tank. It just hasn't really been an issue for the most part because the U.S. military has the best logistics system in the world.
One day while being told for a unit in ft hood I watched someone make a dirt ramp and jump a tank. I've never seen something so magical in my life. The tank was maybe 10 feet in the air after it hit the dirt ramp. Needless to say the tank was completely destroyed when it met the ground bit for the few fleeting seconds it was airborne it was the most amazing thing I think I will ever see in my life. The m1 Abrams can and will fly if your willing to go full send. NEVER NOT SEND IT!
I was a Bradley mechanic for 15 yrs. So no I was never a Abrams mechanic. However that being said I did do some minor work on them and I was around the Abrams a great deal of time while it was operating and while the power pack was being ground hopped. The turbine engine does put out a great deal of heal and if your chart is correct the temps are similar to diesels. But the volume of hot air it puts out is far more than any diesel. Were talking about a turbine engine here. The exhaust was so hot that in winters mechanics and crews would huddle up behind the Abrams as they were idling and enjoy the heat. You couldn't stand too close or else your Gortex jackets and wet weather gear could start to crinkle and melt. Another thing I have seen is a Abrams that had towed in a M88a1 that had broken down. The Abrams crew didn't install the exhaust deflector to direct the hot air up or down. So the M88a1's front section was cooked so bad that plastic in the headlight melted and the vision blocks had to be replaced. And the front winch rollers grease was cooked out of the bearings. Yeah the M1 Abrams engine does put out a wicked amount of heat. But I can't say I ever remember Tankers of Scouts commenting on the Abrams heat signature being huge or anything like that. The thing about the Abrams heat signature is that its engine is in the rear so that leaves the front of the tank much cooler to thermals. The Bradley's power pack sits in the front right next to the driver. Bradley drivers in Iraq in the summer had my complete sympathies. Also Tank crews would use heat deflectors to direct their exhaust either straight up or down depending on what they wanted. As far as the Abrams noise in combat? The tracks (the actual tracks the tanks move on) were the noisiest part of any tanks. The chirping and creaking of metal grinding metal was what you usually heard. Unless you were me driving down roads in a V12 air over liquid cooled M88a1 then yeah my engine would easily be the loudest thing you would hear. But then the M88's used modified engines from the old M60's and they shared the same suspension. So yeah the M88 is not a stealthy vehicle lol. The Abrams was actually pretty quiet while moving at speeds in relative terms for a tank lol.
@@geekmechanic1473 Because apart from a few drones there aren't any. However I don't recall seing laser or railgun equiped tank in developement... well, apart from old soviet 1K17 "Сжатие/Szhatie/Compression" system in case of laser:D But we had those topics already. We know the drawbacks, we know benefits, we know of design challenges. And we know what's happening in this niche. But we already had a lot of tanks with electric transmission(hybrids, if you will) from all Porsche designs that took part in combat to many prototype all over the world. We also are used to fully electric or electric transmission in heavy industry, mass transportation, shipping and many others. Trains, gigantic excavators, haul trucks designed for hundred of tons of cargo, submarines, cargo ships and so on. We have used electric motors everywhere. Everywhere where they were put under massive strain and had proven themselves reliable without question as civilian industry is far more concerned about fuel efficiency and maintenance costs. As for batteries, submarines, backup modules on most of what I have described and... well, you've seen the news. Tesla is producing millions of cars with their own batteries. And they are about to present their own Semi ie semi-trailer hauler. Would they have planned to do that if batteries wouldn't have been able to compete with diesels in terms of economy and lifespan?
@@TheArklyte people have already proven that the tesla semi trucks won't be effective enough for people to buy them because to put it simply the amount of batteries it will take for the semi truck to have all the feature elon said it will, will take up a huge majority of weight that semi trucks can weigh. At least for the U.S. the maximum weight of a semi truck including a loaded trailer is 80,000 lbs or 40 tons. That's not good when the mass majority of weight is taken up by the batteries, motor, and other electric components. That's not to mention that the Abrams weights around 60 tons. Secondly engineering explained also explained and shown that electric vehicles do very poorly at hauling and towing due to the massive amount of energy it takes to do such tasks. One of the biggest problems with having am electric tank is when it gets into combat and its hazards, if the battery packs are hit or damaged you are dealing not only with the toxic fumes but also the electrical fires and they aren't easy to put out and also have a chance to start up again as well as the massive amount of heat they give off. Which by the way fire departments already have a hard time putting out electrical fires from teslas which by the time they are put out, the road is seriously damaged from the heat and such
Interesting factoid ...... After years of design problems dealing with sand getting into the intake, GM - GD turned to Union Pacific Railroad which has been dealing with desert sands since 1860 and using turbines since 1948
the biggest argument that kills me is that people will say "its a bit stupid that the military has an entire fleet of diesel vehicles and you yanks threw something in that needs jet fuel" Fun fact. Jet fuel is basically just a refined diesel >:v Source: I work on a an airport filling jets and diesel trucks with the same fuel
Scuttlebutt is, TARDEC is working on the M1A3 prototype. It takes the existing turbine, and is redesigned without a transmission. It's to be directly coupled to a small high RPM/high efficiency generator to charge a large capacitor type battery that replaces the transmission. The rear drive sprockets will have two electric motors, one on each side. This effectively makes it an electric drive hybrid, with efficiency similar to the diesel. With more fuel capacity, it will then have much longer range. Thermo-electric cells will convert some high temp exhaust directly to power for the Auxiliary and decreasing exhaust temps. The Main Capacitor battery is also capable of being used to power the Abrams for up to 10-20 miles with the engine shut down, making it silent for short distances. Heavy metal tracks also replaced with lightweight continuous rubber tracks. The capacitor can also be used for potential future rail gun technology that will replace the 120mm gun, with a fully automated turret. Crew will be reduced to 2 members.There is still debate if the main hull will be redesigned to put the driver and commander side by side, or keep the commander in the fully automated turret.
I was in the army and worked with Abrams tanks and alot of the noise internal to the tank is the hydraulic pumps. Outside of the tank to the front you can barely hear the turbine to the sides it gets louder but i don't think its any louder than any other tank
All I know is as a kid in the 80s, the guys in the family went regularly to Aberdeen Proving Ground in MD on Armed Forces Days to see the live fire demos. The most memorable was a tank race between an M60 and the M1, which left the M60 in the dust, as the M60 had to slow to change gears while the Abrams was smoothly and rapidly accelerating, even over small hills, going airborne at times. I took a picture of the Abrams while airborne and still firing and hitting its target at every shot. Only the turbine can accelerate a 70+ ton monster like that so quickly.
The real reason why. Chrysler Defense: Hey General, so when we going to close the deal? General: Yeah...I’ve been meaning to talk to you about that. Look the other guys are really wanting to go with GM. Chrysler Defense: Are you serious? Your just now telling me! General: Look if it was up to me we be going with you but one of the other Generals has a Dodge Dart and is having a hell of a time with it’s thermoquad carburetor. I means unless you have something really crazy cool I’m sorry bro. No can do. Chrysler Defense: Oh, yeah...whatever. We were only going to make a jet powered tank but no, your right. Enjoy you El Tankino. You can grow a mullet and buy beer for some teenagers on the way to the war. General: Wait...what do you mean jet powered tank? Chrysler Defense: Oh nothing...just we were going to use a turbine engine on the tank but... General: Wooo hay hold on! Are you shiting me! A jet engine! In a tank? Chrysler Defense: Ahhhhh yah! General: Let’s do this.
+Cold Starts +Multifuel +Instant torque -Costs -Solid logistical chain -Maintenance requires skilled mechanics I've seen (and worked along) Abrams, and what stunned me was their starting procedures, very fast ! Even in the cold of southern Germany, they started within seconds while our diesels required some "cranking" and preheat (no wonder STRV103 use a turbine as "APU") On peacetime, their logistical support was incredibly heavy, they had tons of fuel trucks ! While we drove along for nearly twice to triple the distance they've made After some talks with the crews they said to me that doesnt matter the tank does (drive or idle) the turbine's thirst will remain the same ! They also explained to me that if their engine take a "hit" it's a certain "mobility kill" for them since internal parts are way more fragile than a beefy diesel, also, when the powerpack have to be dismantled, you can indeed remove it within an hour on the field but for deeper fixes, you'll need a very clean area, not exposed to dust and other elements and that these fixes can only be performed by very skilled mechanics, meanwhile a MTU883 can be totally dismounted on the field Abrams filled requirements of the armies within their logistical capacities.. diesel engines suits smaller armies with limited logistics and less skilled crews for "fixes" The most powerful tool of the US Army is their logistics ! They are incredible !
M-1 I first saw them at Ft. Knox as a reservist 19D4H scout instructor Whispering Death we could not hear them coming over our Diesel engine noise from our M113A1 we had borrowed for a weekend exercise. I got to look at them outside and what could be seen inside from the commanders hatch. These were early production examples being used to train Armor Officers. I have been behind them with engines at idle without a problem. My first MOS was Gas Turbine and Generator Repairman 52D2H Instructor. The Life span of a well kept turbine is far longer than most diesels can ever even get a taste of. At Ft. Belvoir we had a turbine that had been started in the Korean war still running without ever being shut down. Duel oil filter and air filter setup that could be changed without ever shutting it down. Most of turbine damage is during start up and shut down. The AGT 1500 was designed to minimize that damage. Another factor was the very short time to startup and getting full power around 25 seconds no matter how hot or cold the system was so long as the batteries were kept near full charge.
A gas turbine has high power-to weight ratio, high mechanical reliability (thanks to few moving parts), amazing acceleration, can use all kinds of fuel and have a long service life.
When your nation's tanks have been embarrassed and humiliated by another nations tanks as often as the Russians have by the M1, it is no surprise that when those folks then make a video game they model the M1 as crappy as they can get away with. Let's not even mention the Bradley.
The Video was very informative. But you have missed out on to something. THe T-80 Series uses Gas Turbine as well. Might wanna make a video on that one. Or a Video on the Mighty 3 Series (T-72,T-80 and T-90) that facinate me and they History.
You hear the tracks creaking well before you hear the engine if you aren't standing next to it. If you are a few hundred meters away you can't really hear it at all.
The problem with designing tanks is Complacency. People try to innovate using turbine engines, depleted uranium and yada-yada but society said that the old standards is the way to go. The self-proclaimed “Tank Experts” can’t help but unleash their saltiness. They also compare tanks in impractical circumstances like fighting in a blank vacuum. They sometimes use bias arguments and don’t understand the purpose that the tank serves.
Turbines are insanely expensive, I'm working for a company which machines fins and blades, man if you once saw the prices of the raw material and tools you know where this is going
That's mainly because they're not as mainstream as reciprocating engine, so they haven't been improved as much as reciprocating engine for general usage combustion engine, but they still better for long term usage because they simpler, lighter, smaller and more reliable than reciprocating engine, although they more inefficient unless you running at full power all the time, which can largely be offset by increasing fuel capacity (because you can put fuel on place previously used for reciprocating engine system, not to mention gas turbine inherent tendency to be simpler, smaller and lighter engine, increase power to weight ratio, which potentially allow you to use less powerful engine) and/or installing auxiliary power unit.
Very true. But given the expensive of the vehicle itself, along with the weapons, the fire control, communications, the CREW, and their training, and it doesn't make sense to pinch pennies where automotive performance is concerned.
As you said, a pretty big misconception with turbine engines is that they're insanely loud- They're high frequency, but about as loud as an un-muffled volkswagen. The props on aircraft are the majority of noise and what you hear, not the engine itself, and the noise from jets is mostly the insane amount of air flow.
Yeah the Abrams is only loud if you're right behind it. It's not loud if you're standing to the side and it's hard to tell if the engine is running if you're in front of the tank. The noise it makes doesn't sound like a heavy duty engine like most other heavy vehicles, either.
Good video. The only thing you said that I'm not sure of is that the filter issue was sorted out quickly. From what I understand, it was a huge issue for a significant portion of the gulf war.
please note that when tank was proposed to export market contract it was always with the German MTU engine, no one like the turbine, exception of the country that receive military aid and has no choice (egypt, Iraq, Arabia saudia)
@@1ohtaf1 Australia is totaly submited to US army for anything now, they abandon the leopard to Abrhams, Tiger to Us coppers, switch to F35 even after bad repports on this plane from their government. sad but understandable.
5:18 and a good running diesel doesn't produce smoke either. I never understood why diesel tanks roll coal like a steam train. Are they build like its 1930????
@@sandervanderkammen9230 can all be remedied by a couple Sensors and hooking a laptop to the ECU if we are talking about a somewhat modern engine (last 20 years). The load in a good no smoke map and your are done. Just make the fueling dependent on the mass airflow sensor and manifold pressure sensor in the intake after the turbo. Then you have a no boost baseline and the ECU is allowed to add fuel on top of that depending on how much PSI the turbo is making until the max allowable amount is reached. The millions of on road diesels driving around today are like that: Tuned for efficiency and clean combustion because that's what you want out of a diesel engine. If I was building a Tank id just go to Cummins or Caterpillar and buy an off the shelf truck engine. There is no excuse for any diesel made in the last 20-30 years to emit visible particulate matter or be a primitive pile of shit. Even the hailed 5.9 and 6.7 Cummins are outdated designs imo.
Actually Abrams moves because of the sheer freedom, turbine is there just as a cooling fan for the crew
Kozarc a cooling fan that never fucking works
Its just the walmart freedom sized AC unit.
The Abrams uses the Enemy's fear to move, and as they hear it closer and closer, the Abrams goes faster as they become more scared
Kozarc i thought it used power of 1000 north american hamsters in wheels
@@Ake-TL If it had an engine it would run on Trumps unused tan oil*
pretty sad how loud this tonk is in warthunder, the sound of turbines scares the shit outta me when I'm playing high tier
So is that a good or bad thing?
@@midgetman4206 its a bad thing
@@CC-dq6ck generally a bad thing, but sometimes works as a intimidation tactic. Something i would usually do mid tier would be to turn off the engine because the idle was pretty loud and i could hear incoming tanks better, and then i would hear a tiger approaching and it would definitively put me on edge all the time.
Turbines are really distinct. It does help you detect friend or foe just from sound alone, especially if you're using a diesel, like a Leo. An approaching turbine is either almost 100% an Abrams, or a T80B or T80U at high tier. If you're playing in Realistic and using an Abrams or T80B or U yourself... well then, it might just be a little more tough.
Have to make flute exhaust making sound of something between demon in pain and bagpipe decepticon, ultimate psychologic warfare
I was an M1 crewman for 8 years and never had an issue with the engine. The transmission, however, was another story.
its always the transmission when it comes to tanks
@@aker1993 transmission and tracks: "I'll work for 2 minutes then I go to sleep forever"
Every tank has transmission issues, just some more than others
You know what? I'm putting my money here right now; Mankind will continue on having transmission problems by the time we are a space-faring empire. It'll become a human trait. 🤣
With how common transmission problems are in tanks I’d say that it’s better to just be able to drop in a new tranny whenever you need them. Modular style.
I have served on both the Abrams and M-60 series tanks. I have been on both sides of operations with a couple of years as an OPFOR member traning NATO forces in Hoenfels Germany. I can vouch for pretty much everything this video says through actual experience. The Abrams are quiet AF compared to other armor during manuevers. I can hear a Bradley IFVs final drives whining at four times the distance of an Abrams. The biggest giveaway that an Abrams was in the hood was the track chatter, and by the time you heard that you were boned. Hell even M 113s are noisier. At any distance over 25meters the Abrams is the most quiet tank I have ever encountered, and I have encountered more operational variants of armor IRL than any one outside the Armor Corp I know. Having worked on and maintained both turbine and piston engines I can tell you turbines are way easier to maintain and are more reliable. Don't get me started on power to weight ratios. The Abrams is fast, and accelerates faster than most comparable armor out there. It will even spank most APCs in a race. As for thermal signatures here is my take. Having shot plenty of Abrams using MILES gear while looking through my TTS (better themals than the Abrams TIS at the time) they did not show up any hotter than any other vehicle I trained with. That includes most NATO armor I worked with in Europe just before desert Storm. It makes me laugh whenever I hear the bullshit stories that I do from some of today's current WOTC tank experts who could not even figure out how to open a real tank hatch let alone possess any real world understanding of tank design or usage. The tank fanboys and haters are irritating as all hell too. Rarely is the crew training or experience taken into account. It's all about "muh countries tank has more RHA value then your tank has in given area, or something stupidly myopic like that. Your crew is at least half of the equation. But hey, it's always amature hour in the you tube comments section. Great video btw!
Bradleys are gawd awful loud, and because they use the same chassis and drivetrain, so is the MLRS.
Good experience-based comments that complement this quality video! Agree, crew performance is a, perhaps THE, major determining factor. With latest variant adding crew situational awareness features, the M1 should stay a contender for some time. Drone warfare and fire directing will present a challenge for all tanks, but we've known that dominating the air is first order of business...
The Bradley's IFV's final drive being audible at longer distances is hardly relevant to the relative noise levels of diesel engines and gas turbines...
If the final drive is the noise that can be heard the furthest away, that suggests either that the final drive is particularly noisy or that its diesel engine is rather quiet.
i wonder why the military never seems to care about things like mufflers for engines to make them quiet.? or making their vehicles more comfortable for soldiers. like they don't give a shit . why is that?
TANKERS LEAD THE WAY
👊😎
I can tell you from 10 years experience that the level of noise inside the M1 with the engine running isn't from the engine, but from the hydraulic pump. On the other hand, it doesn't matter to the crew as they're wearing earphones.
Another anecdote from back in the day. Many were the time when I was standing in front of the tank I would ask the driver if the engine was running. Yes, it can be that quiet.
plasma will required ice water
The thing I always find hilarious is when someone says the M1 Abrams doesn't have a quiet engine since they stood next to one and it was loud. Yep, tank engines are louder than most other things that produce noise, therefore it cannot be quieter than other tanks. Makes sense.
It is much quieter than me when I have to get blood work
the thing about the engine being louder when your closer doesn't matter because if your that close, you should be able to spot it via other methods other than sound
@@t26e44 Like, you know, your eyes.
Like saying camouflage doesn't work because you can see it 10 feet away in broad daylight......
Ebony Phoenix being aware of tanks presence beforehand
To the first point - loudness. In my personal experience (3/5 Marines, Sangin 2010-2011) the M1 is the only armored vehicle I've ever come across that can literally sneak up on you. The thing about the engine sound is that it is highly *directional.*
If you are standing directly outside of the exhaust vents, then yes it will be pretty loud. Not necessarily a whole lot louder than a diesel unless you are right up to the grates, but loud enough to hear it. But if you are anywhere else - sides, oblique angle and especially the front - the Abrams is quiet. If you are out in an open field somewhere, or an area that just doesn't have a whole lot of echo reverb, that thing can creep up on you and you won't hear it until it's 50-75 feet away. You will pick up on the unique noise of the tracks clanking, long before you register the sound of a tank engine. (Hence the nickname "Whispering Death")
EDIT 2: this demonstrates superbly what I mean by directionality: th-cam.com/video/Xtl9UFXkvac/w-d-xo.htmlm18s
EDIT: To add, as to fuel efficiency, that is highly dependent. As you have mentioned when running at low power a turbine engine is wasting a lot of energy. But once you split up, it is significantly more efficient than a reciprocating piston engine fit in addition, it is significantly lighter van an equivalent output diesel, which is a not-insignificant matter when it comes to tank design.
(P.S. if you have ever have the chance to see tech doing a maintenance on the M1's power plant, you will be shocked by one thing - the engine is actually quite small. The ATG 1500 itself probably only makes up like 20 or 25% of the entire power pack, at most. The rest is all transmission.
Wow, I would've thought that, even without the engine noise, just having such a huge thing that moves on tracks would be fairly noisy.
@@trezapoioiuy well I should clarify here. When I say "you won't hear it", I don't mean that if you were straining to you could not physically pick up the noise before that, I mean that you won't hear it _as a tank._ In the same way that when you go outside you can probably hear a whole bunch of birds making noise and whatnot, but you don't really pay attention to it. If an Abrams was driving near your position at night in the dark, the sound of the engine some distance off probably would not alert you to what it was unless you we specifically in that mental space. And you are correct, the tracks definitely are giveaway, and when it gets close enough that's the first thing you hear (unless you are directly behind it)
@@Laotzu.Goldbug Oh ok, thanks.
@@trezapoioiuy no problem. That said, even in overall absolute terms, it is still quite quiet compared to other tracked armored vehicles (at least the ones I have had experience with, which is mostly AMTRACS, L2's and Challengers).
Except tanks spend most of their time running at low power or idle. Very seldom do you run them at high speed.
The internet "tank experts": NO YOU CAN'T PUT A JET TURBINE ENGINE IN A THAT TANK IT'S AWFUL
The us military: *hahahaha tank make jet noise*
Its probably up in the air whether its worth it, but I don't really think its a good idea
M6A1
I can't not read that in a Russian accent
hahahahahaha tank go vrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
@@t26e44 "Up in the air" haha, jet turbine jokes.
If you ask an actual tanker, most of them have said that they've had an Abrams sneak up on them to within a few meters without them noticing. That's all I need to know about the turbine's volume.
sneaking up is not all thanks to the turbine noise. the tank has 15 psi of ground pressure (very low for a 62 ton vehicle). this reduces ground vibration significantly.
@@chev2500hd1 Part of sneaking up is being quiet too.
@@02091992able rather confusing reply. I was not refuting the claim that its quiet or sneaky. I just explained the turbine isn't the only reason the vehicle is quiet/sneaky. cause in all honesty the turbine is loud as fuck. its the manner in which the power-packed is set in the hull and the angled exhaust door that directs the exhaust noise into the ground that makes it quiet
@@chev2500hd1 The turbine is not loud its quieter than a diesel engine found in other MBTs.
only if their operating without infantry, which would be never
As an ex tanker who served 10 years as a 19K, i started in basic learning both the M60a3 and the M1 (not the m1-a1, the M1 with 105 main gun) As for sound if your standing right behind the tank it is quite loud, but like you said the sound dies off after just a short range. From the sides its not that loud at all, we used to stand next to it while it was running and hold a normal conversation did not have to yell at each other. From the front you can barely tell the tank is even running. Since you tend to keep your front to the enemy this very advantageous. Durring the first Iraq war in 1990 the Iraq soldiers called the M1-A1 silent death as you would never hear them coming. The noise you hear inside the tank is some from the engine but most of the noise is the hydraulic pumps used for controlling the turret and gun. i could go on for hours about the M1A1. I do miss it very much.
I wouldn't mind you sharing some tales, if you're up for it
You should pop over to the chieftain's channel (retired tank platoon commander and historian) and maybe give him an interview.
Don't wait until you are old as balls!
I've heard some criticism of the decision to "up-gun" to the 120mm weapon. Supposedly the 105mm gun was more than adequate to deal with Soviet-made armor, and more rounds could be carried. Thoughts?
The Continental AVDS-1790-5 diesel made the ground shake when it idled, I recall. The M60 sounds like an angry dragon.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Then why did the turbine ended up on the Abrams?
Once again I appreciate you touching on the acoustics misconception.
I trained on M60s in AIT, then trained on and operated M1s for nearly four years. Anyone that thinks the M1 is loud does not know what they are talking about. The M60 was a roaring beast, while the M1 was more like a purring kitten. Also, the M60's exhaust was quite smokey and, depending on the ambient temperature, was prone to create a tell-tale plume above its operations areas.
Cool. I trained on M60A3’s and never got to get in a M1. I was one of the last groups to do USUT at Ft. Knox with M60’s. Memories........
I went thru Knox in 84 as a 19A and graduated an echo (M60A3). Did that till 1987 and re-classed to kilo (M1), so I agree with K. Chris and the torque out of the M1 was far superior to that of the 60's. I also don't remember working on the powerpack in the M1 as much as we did in the M60's , just check the fluids and keep the air filters clean.
Clearly you've never tried to scream over that jet engine into the grunt phone. The bitch *is* fucking loud.
@@CrowDawg11 two other men who worked on m1's beg to differ..
@@tungabunga4107 yes, they worked on it. With double hearing protection while testing it and with it shut off while they actually worked on it.
What part of "the grunt phone is right next to the exhaust of *A LITERAL FUCKING JET ENGINE"* did you not understand?
Yes, it's goddamned fucking loud. You've heard jet engines before, you know they're fucking loud. Stop trying to argue to the contrary.
Is it quieter at combat ranges and from the front than a diesel or gasoline engine? Physics says yes since high frequency noise dissipates faster than low frequency noise. But when you're next to and behind it, *it is goddamn fucking loud,* the pitch makes your brain want to explode like the aliens in Mars Attacks, and if it doesn't have an exhaust deflector on it and you stray into the exhaust it will burn you (that particular hazard is the whole reason they developed the exhaust deflector in the first place, before you try to claim that's false too. No it won't set you on fire but it will burn you.)
Abrams are freakishly quiet, when a few showed up on my FOB (iraq 2009) they just made a whine
But moooooom, I don’t want to go to Iraq! Pleaaaaaaaaseeeeeeeee
@@FreeRangeLemon I was a MRAP FSR...I wanted to go.
Incredibly_Average it was a joke, you said they just whined. It was what the abrams was saying
@@FreeRangeLemon big face palm on my part lol
Incredibly_Average No problem :)
Should be noted that the Abram's engine is modular as well. It is a "power pack" and able to be switched out, even in the field, by a trained crew in under 1 hour.
WOW!
Wtf?
Dont belive that
Most modern MBT engines are like that.
@@juanroman4100 It takes about an hour to pull it out and about an hour to put one back in.
I was a tank mechanic for the USMC. Outstanding piece of machinery. Stupid simple to work on and troubleshoot as well. A common tool for fixing an issue in that behemoth i shit you not was often a paperclip. The guy in the platoon who came to work with spare clips was a man you bought drinks for on the weekends.
USAF avionics troops kept paper clips and safety wire handy as test probes (clips cut in half make great jumpers for female Cannon plugs). What did you guys use them for?
*Turbine engines are usually less or equally as noisy as Diesel engines*
Gaijin: RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Gaijin is actually adding realistic stuff to war thunder. So say bye bye to your "Stalin power"
NOT THE STALIN POWER!!!
"Turbine engines are superior to-"
Red effect: *stardust crusaders main theme*
I really don't like Red effect. He knows alot about tanks, but very little about military as whole. For example, I never heard him saying that NATO tanks are mainly designed for defensive actions, unlike russian counterparts, and that's why they are designed differently. That's why russians have a lot of amphibious vehicles unlike european countries
@@adrianbyrdziak5130 Yep. He seems a little biased (but aren't we all?). I wouldn't take any tank TH-camr's word as gospel until I hear from others and do a little research myself.
@@bluntcabbage6042 i honestily like TheScottish Koala , the only tank that he has some bias towards is the challenger 2, but he also criticize that tank a lot.
@@isaquesevero4369 He makes a lot of valid points in his analyses, but I would still hold off on instantly buying into what he says. It's just a good rule of thumb.
@@bluntcabbage6042 i mean that´s true for almost anything , never trust anything 100% right from the gecko.
As a guy who transitioned from M60 series tanks to the original M1, I'm just going to tell you the difference in speed between the two made the M1 the hotrod of the battlefield. We used to creep around in those old M60A3's. We could pop up almost anywhere in the blink of an eye in an M1. That's the biggest plus for going to the turbine. But I have to say, the ride provided by the suspension on the M1 was a remarkable improvement as well. Going cross country in an M1 is like riding in a cadillac....as opposed to the M60, where you felt every bump with bone jarring impact.
I was in M1A1s for eight years including time in Iraq. The engine is amazing. We rarely had issues with the engines. The only common issues we had was with the turret electronics. Those issues have long since been solved with the M1A2 series.
Yeah the turboshaft engine is extremely practical and reliable, it being a little less efficient than diesels is outweighed by the fact the Abrams has a huge tank and the US has the best logistics in the world by far and can easily support their tanks around the world.
Thank you for producing this video. I worked on as well as taught the M-1 in all it design model changes since 1981. And I can say for a fact that the AGT-1500 engine is a great system. As you pointed out the turbine is far less complex than any piston engine and has a higher reliability. As to filters, the air handling system is very efficient and the filters (on the hulls left side) are easy to remove, service and put back which is a part of normal after action PMCS (Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services) done daily. I remember when in Saudi during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, all the press agent were going on how it would fail. But even in severe sand storms it just kept going. This was because of all the product testing done at Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona. If you want to test a system against dust and dirt, go there. It's way worse than Iraq. Now the first time the (then) West Germans ever maneuvered against M-1's they were shocked by how incredibly quite they were and nick-named them "Whispering Death" at the Canadian Army Trophy tank matches in Grafenwer Germany. The Leopards by contrast you could not only hear, but feel the vibration from the MTU engines from miles off before visually sighting the tanks.
What's forgotten also are two things: (1) Chrysler had done a lot of work on the gas turbine engine for an automotive application, hence the Chrysler Turbine Car of 1963. (2) In the mid-1970s, there simply wasn't a way to get tank diesels above about 800 horsepower without making them so large it'd require an extensive redesign and rethink of the basic chassis design, which has great implications on things like rail and even AIR transport. There were but a few ways to handle the then-limitations on diesel power output; extensive transmissions (expensive and poor reliability), lighter tanks (like the French AMX-30 and the German Leopard I), or, as in later marks of the Centurion and the Chieftain, the UK kept the heavier weight and protection and just worked with the tank being slow. The poor power/weight ratio was so pronounced in the Chieftain that they couldn't, at first, get the damn thing to drive up the ramps onto a rail flatcar! Give the Soviets credit for some "outside-the-box" thinking with that 5-cylinder, opposed-piston diesel for the T-64, but I've read that this engine was TERRIBLE, and it had a habit of destroying itself and catching fire at the worst possible moments! The AGT-1500 is indeed a thirsty engine, but it should be remembered that the Abrams was designed to fight against Soviet armor in a theoretic conflict in central Germany, where it'd not be far from its supply dumps and if it had to fill up at a civilian station, plenty of them around! Rummaging around the desert in Iraq and Kuwait...that did expose its big weakness, but the Army got creative on that...even having Rangers establish an LZ, then bring in engineers and dig a hole, and drop some bladder bags filled with fuel to wait for the tanks to arrive!
Damn that Abrams was so ahead of its time. Amazing engineering.
Great Job Spook! I've always wondered what the difference was and why the US Army went with the Turbine. Everything I've read always stated different things.
well i have just one problem with the engine and that is that it is burning a lot of fuel on high speeds too. And the Argument "But you can use everything to fuel it so you can use stolen fuel too" does not count cause quess what the enemy uses to fuel thier diesel engines, right disel so whats the point of being able to use all sorts of fule when only diesel is available? And the enemy can still use US fuel too cause you use disel anyways to fuel them up cause all other us vehicles need it so you only bring diesel
@@tomendruweit9386 The US Army actually standardized on JP-8 for all of its military vehicles. All US military vehicles, including tanks, tank transporters, Heavy, Medium, and light tactical vehicles are designed to run on JP-8.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8
@@ashesofempires04 still, i dont realy see an advantage over a german diesel engine like in the leo 2 so yeah
@@tomendruweit9386 So, you watched the video and decided that all of the advantages listed in it don't matter, and the one overriding concern is fuel consumption? So yeah.
@Pedro DLR Did you not watch the video? There are a number of advantages over diesel. They're listed *in the video*. Why is it so hard to admit that? Is the turbine better? No, it's just what the US military went with.
I love the way there is some sort of public consensus that the M1 tank has a poor engine. Never mind that the US army has stuck with it since the late eighties and used it for many minor deployments, three major ones, and one high intensity desert war, involving the biggest tank battle since WW2. But, Y'know, that info guy on youtube says it's crap so...
@@sandervanderkammen9230 You were on the procurement board ?
@@sandervanderkammen9230 I see. That is quite some claim , to have been on the Army procurement board for the XM1 MBT. I have no way of checking up on that , of course, though I can think of no reason why anyone would go on youtube a lie on the subject. If you feel strongly that some disservice is being done through historical misrepresentation ,or that you have a story you wish to tell , might I suggest that you contact either the maker of this video or , perhaps , a more conventional publisher ? It does sound like you have the makings of a good read there.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 It sounds to me like you are bitter at having had your recommendations over ridden. I am sure the at the army made it's decisions in good faith. Since the introduction of the M1 Abrams tank, an increasing number of third generation MBT designers have opted for Gas Turbine engines, somewhat vindication that decision.. Perhaps your diesel engine/ gearbox combi was at the end of it's developmental cycle and the Gas Turbine had greater long term potential.? But, whatever the truth, I think you should put it behind you now. It was over thirty years ago.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Well ,..that is fascinating for sure. I seem to remember reading all about that in a magazine article . That would have been about ten years ago in W H Smiths. I never bought the magazine , just read the article. As I remember it , the prototype they used was a JagdTiger , rather than a Panther 2. Not that it makes much of a difference, except that the Panther two on display at the Patton Museum is supposed to have been the only one built.
Look, I'm going to level with you here. I don't know if you really were on any procurement board. As you've said, all the information you have imparted are matters of public record. I can't think of any reason why you would make such a claim if it were not true, but the internet does throw up some strange claims, that is for sure ! In any case , while tanks have always been an area of interest for me , I am not really interested in discussing the history of the Gas turbine engine , the Abrams Tanks engine , or the XM1 procurement program. I am happy to trust that the American army has a decent tank, not that it's that much skin off my nose. I'm not American, I'm British, and the closest I ever came to driving a tank was a two year stint in an armored signals squadron in the mid nineties. I had a 439 , a signals variant of the 432 APC, and that had a Rolls Royce opposed two stroke. They were still using the Chieftain back then for training . Now, that thing had the Leyland L60, another opposed two stroke, albeit horizontal. They were supposed to have been crap but they weren't that bad. These days , you tell someone that those big old chieftains used to move around a bit sharpish, and someone will try to tell you all about what a piece of junk it was, how it was barely mobile. Usually someone who has never actually seen one move , I might add. I prefer to read stuff by the guys who had to use the things .Those guys tell a more balanced story, though it is very clear that it had issues. Point is , those L60 engines barely developed 750 Hp on a good day. Abrams develops twice that. Most American soldiers seem to think it's alright, and that's enough for me. If a piece of kit is seriously deficient , it's a fair bet that the soldiers will let you know..
Anyway , look , I don't want to call you a liar and there is no way to collaborate your story either way. Maybe you were on this procurement board. if so, and you feel there is a story to tell, maybe you should write a book?. It's not a bad idea, I recently bought my Father a book about the CF 105 projec.t He was a draughtsman on the engine during the fifties and he found the book fascinating . I shall read it myself at some point. Point is, it's a far better way to tell a story than on the threads of war game related youtube video..
I wish you the very best in these trying times . I hope things work out.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 And this is how you politely Savage someone in British...
When the M1 first debuted at the Reforger exercises in 1984(?) a platoon of M1s completely overran a British tank platoon without a loss catching them totally by surprise. The referees thinking that it was some fluke stopped the M1s placing them back at their starting positions and told them to try again. They did even though the British now knew that they were coming. The British were in awe saying that the M1s were FAST and quiet.
The British have been in awe since American got independence
@@jackholman5008 Nor did Sir Bernard Law Montgomery, though he always spoke highly of his purported "rival", General Patton, ever quite forgive "Georgie" over scooping him TWICE...the first time, by getting to Messina FIRST (but neither cut off the Germans' escape to Calabria). The second, was when Patton "snuck across" the Rhine the evening of March 22, 1945, at Oppenheim (the Remagen bridgehead having been established 15 days earlier), just ahead of Monty's 21st AG effecting their own Rhine crossing on March 23rd.
The Brits are in awe of Meghan Markle.....so it doesn't take much to awe them.
I don't understand why they are in awe of all the royals.
having worked alongside M1A1s when I was in the Army, you hear the tracks of an approaching Abrams long before you hear the motor, especially when it's coming towards you.
I was a gunner for M1A1 and A2 Abrams. They burn about 8 gallons (30 Liters?) upon start up, and run quietly. The aux pump produces a lot of noise when upclose or inside but from a short distance its surprisingly very quiet.
Like the video stated, the turbine engine is only as good as an army's supply line. It needs a steady supply of JP8, gasoline or even kerosene to keep it moving.
I mean, literally any tank (or other vehicle) with a combustion engine is going to stand out in IR.
The solution, as always, is napalm, if everything stands out in IR then nothing will stand out in IR anymore.
@@marktucker1441 Napalm is the solution to most problems
Autism is Uncontrollable whiny Kids? Napalm! Wife wanting divorce? Napalm!
Water? Napalm!
Having trouble admitting you like anime? Napalm!
Neighbor trying to screw your wife? Napalm!
Someone with a different opinion? Napalm!
@@Predator20357 Napalm? Napalm!
3:00
An auxilary power module that was supposed to save up fuel and thus money _wasn't added due to _*_budget constraints?_*
I... but... it's planet Earth and humanity, it's normal, I'm absolutely calm and understanding.
Two explanations:
1: At the time the budget didn't have the raw funds necessary to develop and procure an adequate APU.
2: The way I've had it explained to me is that a lot of tankers absolutely wouldn't hear of it until the addition of the bustle-rack extension.
You also have to consider relative cost, does fueling their tanks more actually upset US logistics and budgeting more than an entirely the new piece of hardware. So they might not even have been thinking of the fuel costs as a monetary issue but as a logistics and range issue.
The M1 program wasn't given a bottomless pit of funds. Especially since the government was apprehensive given the failure of the KPZ-70/MBT-70 and XM-803 programs a few years prior.
Well, isn't it logical that even if something will save you money over time, if the initial investment is too high, you just can't afford to do it?
@@trezapoioiuy as I've said, planet Earth, humanity. I fully understand this PoV.
Spoiler alert: it's actually isn't logical as more resources and man-hours of work were wasted. But you know, should you have asked market brokers in 2007 what the fuck they're doing buying low quality assets just because they're packaged and renamed with funds taken from retirement reserves of millions of other people they were responsible for, they would have told you it's all logical. And explained why. And you would have repeated that it's logical;)
@@TheArklyte There's a limit to this.
Otherwise everyone not owning a house would be stupid for renting one. Buying a house is better on long term.
So why doesn't everyone own a house or an apartment, since it's better than renting?
Because they're stupid, of course.
Or maybe they don't have that kind of money to buy it.
Btw were you asking brokers wtf they were doing back in 2007, or are you doing it now? Hindsight is a tad bit easier. Maybe in hindsight they would also have somehow found money they didn't have in the budget to still fit an APU.
I remember sitting on the back of a 5ton in Holenfels Germany after a 2 week field exercise when we past a column of M1s headed in the opposite direction . The heat from their turbines felt amazing as we were all soaked and freezing.
“It became apparent that survivability and performance were some of the most important aspects of a tank.”
*Hmm, yes, the floor here is made out of floor.*
in the 50s and 60s they figured that being fast, cheap and armed with a big gun was sufficient and tank armor was made of tin cans
Say that to the french tanks
One thing that has always fascinated me is why Canada, who ostensibly would be aiming for maximum interoperability between its armed forces and that of its neighbour, opted to go with the Leopard series of tanks - I would imagine that Canada has an interesting tank story (it was one of the few tank operators in Afghanistan) with a unique interplay of costs versus function.
My understanding is that before Afghanistan, the Canadian military planners had decided they didnt really need an MBT because of poor performance versus modern attack helicopters. They where looking at developing lighter gun systems based on the LAV III (which I think became the m1128). Once Afghanistan started it became clear that MBTs were still quite useful, and the leopard 1s they had were not as good as desired; germany had older surplus leopard 2's for sale on the cheap. So thats what was bought.
Canada is tightly integrated with the US for air defence, sure, but who is going to launch a land invasion of North America. So Canadian Army operations are either going to be in Europe, or somewhere else, as part of NATO, with the US being only one country of many. The Leopard is *the* NATO European tank, operated by 13 of its European members and three other friendly European nations, in numbers collectively comparable to the Abrams. It is a perfectly adequate platform, a bit cheaper per unit, and it's diesel engine is more familiar to mechanics than a turbine, whatever its other advantages.
Basically there is nothing about the US that makes integration with it any more or less desirable than integration with Europe, and so they happened to go with the other obvious option.
this what I want thank you for making this video
Remember that decibels are based on a logarithmic scale so "a few decibels louder" can be a really big difference.
Except when it comes to human perception, which is also logarithmic (which is why the scale was made logarithmic in the first place).
There’s also the fact that lower frequency sound travels much farther than high freq, like Spookston said, so unless you’re near it, it really doesn’t matter.
plainlake a few decibels louder also being from the interior of the tank where hearing protection is worn at all times :)
True, 3 dB more = double the measureble sound. But 10 dB is for humans a double increase of sound.
Abraham at full power is 115db, leopard 2 at 125db.
I used to wonder about the turbine and why the army went with something so inefficient. I'm glad to hear some of the reasoning as to why, because it makes me appreciate the Abrams again.
The M1's operational range is barely worse than a Leopard's. Off-road, it has ~20km less range, while on roads, it has ~30km _more_ range than a Leopard. At higher speeds, the turbine is also not that ineffecient.
@@bluntcabbage6042 It's substantially worse. The Leopard carries 317 gallons of fuel. The Abrams carries 420 gallons. So at no point does the turbine compete with the diesel engine. The only way it does is by throwing fuel at the problem. That's an issue when every drop of your fuel needs to be hauled in by soft-skinned tanker trucks, like in Desert Storm.
For a given set of logistic resources, more Leopards can be brought to battle than Abrams.
@@Crosshair84 You seem to forget that America has bottomless sources of fuel. For a country like the US, high fuel consumption isn't as much of an issue since more fuel can be easily allocated. _Especially_ when the extra fuel is used to provide a ton of protection to the crew in the hull by using them to stop chemical warheads from reaching the crew compartment.
And, since fuel isn't a big issue, the Abrams can simply bring bigger fuel tanks and match the operational range of muh Leopard or Challenger.
@@bluntcabbage6042 he has a point tho. The US doesnt have a fuel problem, but that doesnt mean it doesnt have it could have a logistic problem. The US army always faced less powerfull armies and in really short terms. Imagine facing a capable foe like ukraine now with russia and with tons of partisans and drones taking your beautiful tankers way before they reach the tanks.
It doesnt matter how much fuel the US has, it already needs more logitics than a leopard that could be a problem in prolonged conflicts with a powerfull foe.
So it's kind of backwards, but even though the M1 is not quite as fuel efficient overall it running on the same JP8 that the military has to cart around everywhere for aircraft and whatnot actually makes it not a bad logistical choice at all.
I saw my first M1 at Fort Bliss in the mid 80s when the 3d ACR was switching over from the M60. You could hear the M60, M113 and M110 from a mile away at speed on the range roads. I had an M1 turn the corner towards me a block ahead and I didn't hear the engine or tracks until it was almost upon me. Impressive at the time.
When the M1 was entering initial production in the early 80s, I was at Aberdeen Proving Grounds for their Armed Forces Day live fire demonstration. They brought the latest M-60 onto the main front exhibition field and you could hear it coming quite a bit before you actually saw it. It then chugged around the course, belching diesel smoke, until it stopped in front of the main bleachers. Then, as the announcer was introducing it, the M-1 almost silently, except for a slight turbine whine that was difficult to nail down where it was coming from, races onto the track, completes the course in about 2/3ds the time, if that, of the M-60 and then hits the bump in front of the bleachers and goes airborne for a moment.
No comparison when it came to performance or noise, the M-1 beat the M-60 by being higher performance and much quieter at an equal distance.
Also shown and demonstrated (including shooting) was the Sgt. York M-247 and Apache...though we didn't hear the Apache approach until it was right above us.
Sadly, these public live fires seem to be a thing of the past.
Everyone talking abt serious stuff im wondering how spookston is playing in the xm1 chrysler its an xbox pack only right?
Can you grill steaks on a diesel engine as good as on a turbine?
Didnt think so.
Turbine wins.
🍟🍔Murica🍗🍖
actually you can grill steaks on a diesel engine
@Pedro DLR Look Pedro we get that you're mad about getting deported, but you'll still try to come back. Don't gotta lie to kick it, Pedro.
@Pedro DLR Depends on what you're looking for. Grocery stores have a much better track record on healthy foods, compared to much more popular fast food chains lol.
@Pedro DLR man...
@Pedro DLR Your the guy that'll blame your toe getting stubbed on the object you stubbed your toe on, not your lack of situational awareness.
I was always under the impression that the Gas Turbine was selected for its logistics advantage, I mean, the point raised in the video about how they can run on just about any fuel is an enormous advantage. It must make battlefield planning much easier knowing if you can't secure the optimal fuel, you can just use what ever you can scrounge up from the motor pool. I did know about the signature detection reduction but not the performance advantages. I get why people wouldn't be well versed about Gas Turbines. How many people use vehicles or machinery that uses that type of engine? I can only think of one that was sales disaster from the 1960's I think (it's really rare these days, I think Jay Leno has 1 of the 11 that are left) and another that was a concept car made by Jaguar to showcase how clever their engineers are.
In practice, the multi-fuel capability really isn't worth the effort.as far as using a turbine. The increased fuel consumption offsets any gains you get from being multi-fuel. Which is one reason why nobody is using turbines in new vehicles.
@@Crosshair84 That's certainly true of road going civilian vehicles, Gas Turbines at low power and idling outputs are so bad you might as well buy a V8 powered car and have a monthly bonfire to burn a 1/4 of you fuel bill when used in urban start-stop traffic. They are pretty good for aviation and marine (but not all marine) applications though, and it make sense for well funded military applications. You can run most Gas Turbines on any grade of petrol or diesel, most types of aviation and marine fuel, plus you can make use of stuff you wouldn't dream of sticking in a fuel tank like grain alcohol and boiler fuel (although that would only be an emergency measure as using them put a fair amount of stress on the turbine). Besides different military doctrines will always result in some quirky decisions being made, take were I live, the UK, the Challenger MBT uses a rifled main gun as opposed to smoothbore like every other country (except India) in the world and (like most British Army armoured vehicles) a boiling vessel so crews always have a way of making (stereotype) tea, I mean it can be used to heat up ration packs too... but it's mostly used to make tea.
@@Crosshair84 The gain is that you can literally use any allied nation's fuel stocks or pump it from any gas station. It doesn't matter the octane nor the cleanliness. If it burns it will run.
@@brainplay8060 But when the whole of your army, and most other armies are using diesel for everything, you don't have to plan for fuel too much already, everything just needs the same fuel. I am fairly sure a tank engine, multifuel or not, won't care much about octane or cleanliness. I really want to mention The T-80 and how you would think that the russians would like it more for the multifuel ability, instead of droping it and going with a rebranded T-72BU of all things, but I am fairly sure it was droped because of internal politics. Although I do recall Russians saying they would never adopt a Turbine again, for whatever that is worth
@@shepardpolska That's fine if you're a defense force. If you're an expeditionary force then having access to extra assets is nice especially if you suddenly get cut off. During OIF driving the fuel trucks into the city to the newly established outposts was risky. Luckily no one took RPG shots at the convoys.
I am curious how you are able to research your information so quickly, you do a pretty stellar job man.
Hope to see you on WT
Hearing noosphere in the background makes me realize this video has been blessed by the Omnissiah
Well I'm convinced. I change my mind about the Abrams.
Especially since seeing one in person and realizing that it's much smaller than it does on TV
Reminds me of the G11 rifle. A lot of people think it’s a bad design for a number of reasons that are either false or only partially true but in reality it’s only real downside is cost and logistical support which weren’t an issue for the military it was intended for. At least, until the Bundeswehr got it’s budget cut when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Yep. For me the G11 will always be kraut space magic and make me proud to be a kraut. The most problems there would have been with the G11 were heating of the action and so a danger of cookoff, aswell as the ammo getting damaged. Both simply because the G11 uses caseless ammunition. The case also absorbs heat and takes it out of the action aswell as it protects the charge.
@@wolfschadow6399 The main issues were the cost and complexity which would make field repairs way too hard. Yes the money maybe wouldn't be an issue, untill you get a war and need to conscript every one you can to fight, then you might find out you had nowhere near enough guns for the army because they were too expensive. Then you get people not being able to maintain and fix their weapons as well as with a much less complex M4. And for what? For a 3 round burst that was kind of recoiless. It was kind of like the Maus in my eyes. Cool, great at the task it was build for, but the designers ignored the real world a bit too much. To be honest I think the gun would might have been adopted if they droped the 3 round burst which was causing the 2 of the 3 issues with it, the cost and complexity.
Eh. The real downfall of the G11 was that it just wasn’t enough of an improvement over the competition. It was better at poking holes in paper at close range but outside 200m wasn’t anything special over a 556 rifle. A marginal improvement for a substantial cost and systemic risk is a tough sell. Also have you seen how complex that thing is out of its skin? Who knows how reliable it would have been in general adoption.
@@JimmySailor for the US ACR trials, everything you said is correct. But for West Germany, it fit their tactical needs and had the logistics to back it up. It works as a defensive weapon but absolutely would fail if deployed in the same way as the M4
Abrams is loud up close but I've been around the leo and the challenger and holy shot you can hear them way before they show up
I was a Tanker on the M1A2 SEP and I do agree with your video. I feel I must also throw in my 2c on my personal issues. You already hit on the air filtration, let me tell ya bud, its a pain lol. Not difficult, but just a pain to have to bang them out so often in Iraq. My other biggest issue is that the dang thing either leaks or burns through fluids so fast. It was near the number one thing that had to be checked before going out on missions, check and refill oil, check and refill hydraulic fluid, check and refill road wheel hubs (refill hubs not so much, unless the plastic cover broke is really all), and every so often check and refill battery fluids. The tank itself required almost constant maintenance just to be able to start up again the next day. I mean, the crew could spend almost an entire duty day doing 10 and 20 level PMCS (preventative maintenance checks and services) and lock everything up and within a week of storage it wouldn't even be able to start and would prob need more fluids lol. You had said the cost is a big reason why turbines are not super widely used and I agree, the monetary cost is huge and the man-hours cost to keep them going is also large. Anyways, good vid, keep it up.
Exactly what I have come to expect from Spookston: a well-made video that is nuanced, informative and concise.
friendly reminder that Sander Van der Kammen is lurking and a$$blasting in new comments about like gas turbine engine like losing virginity by agt-1500.
“Turbine is loud!”
Like bruh have you ever stood next to a diesel engine?
Me: hears turbine and engine in that specific order in a sentence
Me: has Ferdinand flashbacks
Pedro DLR ye diesel motors powered electric generators that powered the tank
Also I think Doyle mentioned this at a conference the Ferdinand wasn’t as bad as it’s made out to be, and suffers an unjust negative reputation
It costs alot and wastes fuel when sitting idle, but is pretty amazing when it's put to work. Yep, sounds like the American military.
Abrams has a .6 mpg. that's not a rating for idle. also at idle inlet vanes open and close to optimize consumption to keep the stators cool.
Ryan Evison idk where you got that figure but I’ve done 13hour missions in them shits and it still had plenty of fuel to go and get resupplied.
@@alfredogarciajr40 through a black box research in 2014 that the Marine Corps did to test the fuel economy of all the ground vehicles in inventory. the box was configured between the main NBC filters and personnel heater and utilized a jumper harness that bridged between the 2w114 and j1 on the DECU. ive also done plenty of missions in M1's that have lasted long hours.
Ryan Evison why’d the marines do that? I asked the Mike Golfs and said at idle 9 gallons an hour.
@@alfredogarciajr40 They were trying to see where they can make cuts. well we saw where that went cause now the USMC has no more abrams. sucks cause I've been on them since '06...
My brother is a major in the marine corps, infantry officer, once told me you could have a normal volume conversation about 10 feet away from the M1
Damn. I have no scale of how load tanks are anyways though
But IT doesnt make sense, tanks atent meant for urban warfare s-o noise advantage is redudent
the noise advantage is the by product of attempts to hide heat signature. the design isnt meant for urban combat you're right. at idle you can hold conversations because of the mass of steel it is concealed in. to the left and right of the pack are the rear fuel cells. on top is the armor deck all of which closes up.
Good points. When mice show up on FLIR the friction of just the rubber on the road wheels will be easy to spot, let alone all other parts of a tank that is a different temp than its surroundings
I think you forgot one other reason they went with the turbine. I heard a few years ago that the M1 could start up and move out much faster than diesel tanks thus enabling them to get moving toward the Soviet threat or out of the way of an incoming attack.
Do remember that 'a few dB' is actually significant as dB are measured on a log scale.
Yeah, isn't the ratio something like every 1 dB is three times perceived loudness or some shit like that?
@@johnkapwn the human ear won't detect a change in volume of less than 3dB. This is why volume controls on audio equipment are log-taper pots.
When the Abrams' first started showing up during Reforger, one Brit tasked to be on the "enemy" side of the annual exercise nicknamed the M1 "the whispering death." because it didn't make the characteristic growling bulldozer noise that all other MBTs did.
That turbine engine had all of its compressor blades made in Mississauga Ontario , Canada . Mississauga is the city attached directly to the west side of the city of Toronto . The mfg plant that I worked in for so many years called Walbar Canada was just about a half mile south west of the Toronto International airport . We were the largest user of hydro electric power in the entire city of Mississauga . We employed just under 500 people. In all my years of working in that plant I remember the job work and instruments vividly for that engine program . I was a "General Inspector of all plant operations" That customer was the Textron/Lycoming aircraft company . The final engine assembly was at the Textron/Lycoming aircraft plant in the USA . The design of all those blades were absolutely the best of all turbine blades that I have ever seen in my life . By far , most cost efficient . No other design of blades were so cost efficient . Other aircraft companies that we made the blades for like Garret/Airesearch , SNECMA of France , Rolls Royce of England , MTU of Germany , Pratt&Whitney Canada , Rockdyne of USA were no were near the cost efficiency of the Textron blades. Also there is certainly no arguing the strength or durability of the steel that was used . The ones we made for the Rolls Royce Turbine division were terribly over designed and very inefficient cost wise hard to make . Also , variable pitch blades made for SNECMA of France were very over designed and terribly cost inefficient to make . I still remember the part numbers for the M1 engine program after all these years , like 3-100-02506 or 3-100-02207 or 3-100-02305 to name a few . Feel free to reply back to me .
What I found great about the turbine as a soldier outside of the tank is that you can stand behind it when it's pouring rain and stay dry. Also, if you need to warm up after a cold guard duty shift, you can get behind it, and it warms you right up.
"x modern tank is bad"
damn bro I wish they had you on their design team since you're so much smarter than them.
I've been on design teams. Managers will literally throw out the best ideas to save literally 50 cents.
@ALSO-RAN ! Nonono you're not understanding. I've seen people literally degrade the product to save LITERALLY 50 cents. Not "per unit" or anything. Just for 1 product. 1 piece of material.
@@WalrusWinking Provide more context
@@NeurodivergentSuperiority It was for military aircraft not tanks but I don't want to be any more specific than that, like putting material that is out of spec into a finished product that sort of stuff. On parts that are literally supposed to save lives.
I always enjoy these short informative vids. I especially love the "If Warthunder was Historically Accurate" because it usually lets me shit on Gaijin for what can be perceived as blatant bias against certain nations by not including components or fudging their numbers to make other nations under-perform.
Exactly.
Balance*
good i want to see you fight a king tiger with a sherman or a churchill and no centurion and pershing
@@tomendruweit9386 Pershings were in the war sooo...
Including one super pershing
I spent 27 years in the US Army as a tanker. 20 years on M48/M60 tanks and 7 years on M1s. M1s are absolutely more quite then diesel tanks. You will hear the tracks before you hear the engine. The newer tracks are also quieter as well. They call it whispering death for a reason.
You can even tell that when watching the videos. Microphone picks up the track noises first. Even have to turn the volume up to hear the engine and everything.
Been a US Tanker for 13 years. When I was a PL, we were doin night driver training n had chemlights on the antennae. I could hear her from a ways away but couldn’t tell distance, because she sounds nearly the same up close vs distance. It was dark, so I only saw her on e she was right in front of me, the sound was nearly identical. At low speeds, the tracks are louder than the turbine.
I wanted to make some snide comment but your arguments are pretty solid from a physics point of view :)
Higher frequency noise dying down, heat signature being in the back and mitigated (also cooler exhausts) and the fuel consumption is higher but they don't care.
I guess they sorted out the filter problems as well, must be a joy to figure out how to filter massive amounts of air reliably in a dusty desert condition.
If the turbine engine outperform the conventional diesel engine in fuel efficiency under load, then it could be nicely complemented with electric motors in hybrid vehicles. When idling or low power output is required then the electromotor is used (powered from the batteries) and when high power output and / or battery charging is required then the turbine engine is used.
The electric motor also can be used as an extra booster when additional power output is required (for "mountain climbing" or for dashing out in an ambush). It would be a nice emergency backup to fall back to a safer position if somewhy the turbine engine fails.
Of course there must reasons for the fact that none of the nations use hybrid military vehicles, but it might be a sensible alternative in civilian usage.
I believe one of the competing designs for the Porsche Tiger 1 was a hybrid, but was thrown out for reliability issues. Considering how reliable the design they went with was, I shudder to imagine how bad the hybrid design was. That was 70+ years ago though, I wonder if it would be viable today...
@@bloodtypeinfinity5143 If diesel-electric trucks and trains are anything to go by, the reliability seems to have improved major time.
The limiting factor is battery energy density, the amount of lithium ion you would need to move even a few km will be ungodly. As it's both bulky and heavy, considering tanks are usually both weight and space limited.
Same-ish reasons why electric planes aren't a thing yet.
However electric motors are hands down superior in every way compared to any others mechanical power source. They have massive amounts of power in a small footprint, are wayyyyyy more reliable as you have one moving part, can regenerate energy when slowing down, and are ~95% efficient at converting electrical power to mechanical power, which greatly outperforms literally any other means of mechanical energy production.
I would love to see a tank with turbine connect to a generator and only uses electric motors. Add a massive ultra
capacitor bank and you have an efficent, hard acceleration, fighting beast.
As we proudly proclaimed at the Lycoming factory in Stratford, Connecticut where the AGT-1500 was designed and built: Our engines suck and blow at the same time ;-)
The answer is simple
"UNLIMITED POWER"
well it was a political not a pragmatic choise
1,5k KM.
what kinda vehicle construction founded have turbine
In the 1950's Union Pacific used GE Gas Turbines to power a generator. The power went to an electric motor mounted on each axle. Some produced 10,000 Hp. They burned Bunker oil. The UP found out that they guzzled fuel and were only efficient at full throttle. They had a diesel electric gen set to move the units in the yard. 1968 was the last year they ran.
That's the curse of turbine engines - they basically consume the same amount of fuel regardless of power setting. Forget "idling" - hope you have an APU. I think Chrysler's turbine car did "better" at this through the use of reheating and other purpose-built engineering, but there hasn't been anything since that I know of.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 >The Army has been installing the Hatz si-ACKK!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@sandervanderkammen9230 >>You can't win son, I'm no-AAAACCCCCCCCKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!
@@sandervanderkammen9230 >>>You can't win son, I'm no-AAAACCCCCCCCKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!
Hahaha this old b!tch deleted comment after getting buck broken.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 then why deleted and repost like a b!tch boy ?
as a m1a1 mbt mechanic in the marines. the majority of the in vehicle noise is actually created by the main and aux Hydraulic pumps that run off the agt's main accessory gear drive. surprisingly the agt turbine is fairly quite considering i followed them everywhere in a m88a2 Herc.
3:32 really quickly? It tool them around 15 years to fix that.
Exactly. Consider how long administrative inertia takes to do anything.
Cool video. There were some key issues to turbines though that should be covered and better understood. It's not necessarily the difference in high temperatures in exhaust temperatures between a turbine and diesel engine. The other issue you have with the turbine is that one of the reasons why a turbine does so well in performance is that massive air intake rate it's doing for many more combustions per second than the diesel engine. That massive mass flowrate of air intake also means that you have to have that same flowrate of exhaust out. So the Abram's issue thermally is not necessarily the high exhaust temperatures but the high gas flow rate out of that exhaust. Even with the special exhaust ducting to reduce that signature, the Abrams still has a larger "glow" about it than other contemporary tanks do which makes it easier to spot in IR. An interesting aspect of this though is that with an external power source, like the APU on the newer models, you can electrically drive the compressor without any fuel to force cool air through the turbine to cool it very quickly. This would allow you to setup in an area ahead of time and cool your tank off quicker to ambient temperatures much quicker than any of its competitors can and you would only have to really worry about thermally covering the APU. This theoretically makes an Abrams hiding at night against a modern enemy using thermals extremely difficult to detect if they take proper precautions to cool down the turbine and then shut the engine off and rely on the APU to drive the equipment and turret/guns.
A turbine does have a reliability limitation that exceeds that of the diesel engine. A turbine is extremely vulnerable to ingesting debris. FOD and turbines make for a very spectacular and catastrophic failure. This means that the Abrams is extremely reliant on those filters being in good working condition. A diesel motor could work without it's air filters in an emergency if it needed to. The Abrams would probably ingest dirt/sand fairly quickly and kill the compressor blades in very short order. Unlike helicopters, it's air intake is extremely low to the ground similar to regular jets. Unlike a jet though, it doesn't operate in areas where personnel literally pickup every little tiny piece of debris in the area it'll be operating in. You aren't going to have FOD walks out in field like you would on the airfield.
While the performance benefits are pretty huge, it's really that fuel flexibility that's key to the Abrams. This means that the tank isn't 100% reliant on the US supply chain to get fuel. It can take nearly any liquid hydrocarbon as a fuel source with a little change of values in the ECU to compensate for different energy content values with the different fuels. This means if your host nation doesn't have JP-8 or other jet fuels that your tank normally would use, as long as they have SOME kind of fuel you're good. This becomes important in more austere locations or should your supply lines be temporarily cut. Your tanks can still operate and effectively remain a usable asset. This was shown to be important when your enemy for example likes to purposely plant IEDs on main roads to attack and destroy supply vehicles moving to supply forward deployed assets. Worse comes to worse, you can siphon fuel from some nearby vehicles and still have an operational tank. It just hasn't really been an issue for the most part because the U.S. military has the best logistics system in the world.
One day while being told for a unit in ft hood I watched someone make a dirt ramp and jump a tank. I've never seen something so magical in my life. The tank was maybe 10 feet in the air after it hit the dirt ramp. Needless to say the tank was completely destroyed when it met the ground bit for the few fleeting seconds it was airborne it was the most amazing thing I think I will ever see in my life. The m1 Abrams can and will fly if your willing to go full send. NEVER NOT SEND IT!
I was a Bradley mechanic for 15 yrs. So no I was never a Abrams mechanic. However that being said I did do some minor work on them and I was around the Abrams a great deal of time while it was operating and while the power pack was being ground hopped. The turbine engine does put out a great deal of heal and if your chart is correct the temps are similar to diesels. But the volume of hot air it puts out is far more than any diesel. Were talking about a turbine engine here. The exhaust was so hot that in winters mechanics and crews would huddle up behind the Abrams as they were idling and enjoy the heat. You couldn't stand too close or else your Gortex jackets and wet weather gear could start to crinkle and melt. Another thing I have seen is a Abrams that had towed in a M88a1 that had broken down. The Abrams crew didn't install the exhaust deflector to direct the hot air up or down. So the M88a1's front section was cooked so bad that plastic in the headlight melted and the vision blocks had to be replaced. And the front winch rollers grease was cooked out of the bearings. Yeah the M1 Abrams engine does put out a wicked amount of heat. But I can't say I ever remember Tankers of Scouts commenting on the Abrams heat signature being huge or anything like that. The thing about the Abrams heat signature is that its engine is in the rear so that leaves the front of the tank much cooler to thermals. The Bradley's power pack sits in the front right next to the driver. Bradley drivers in Iraq in the summer had my complete sympathies. Also Tank crews would use heat deflectors to direct their exhaust either straight up or down depending on what they wanted. As far as the Abrams noise in combat? The tracks (the actual tracks the tanks move on) were the noisiest part of any tanks. The chirping and creaking of metal grinding metal was what you usually heard. Unless you were me driving down roads in a V12 air over liquid cooled M88a1 then yeah my engine would easily be the loudest thing you would hear. But then the M88's used modified engines from the old M60's and they shared the same suspension. So yeah the M88 is not a stealthy vehicle lol. The Abrams was actually pretty quiet while moving at speeds in relative terms for a tank lol.
irl: turbine actually relatively quiet.
war thunder: you can hear it from 2km away through buildings and terrain.
Hopefully videos on electric and wheeled tanks and AFVs in general are also in the works.
Problem is I don't know or heard of any country even looking into electric tanks or other vehicles
@@geekmechanic1473 Because apart from a few drones there aren't any. However I don't recall seing laser or railgun equiped tank in developement... well, apart from old soviet 1K17 "Сжатие/Szhatie/Compression" system in case of laser:D But we had those topics already.
We know the drawbacks, we know benefits, we know of design challenges. And we know what's happening in this niche.
But we already had a lot of tanks with electric transmission(hybrids, if you will) from all Porsche designs that took part in combat to many prototype all over the world. We also are used to fully electric or electric transmission in heavy industry, mass transportation, shipping and many others. Trains, gigantic excavators, haul trucks designed for hundred of tons of cargo, submarines, cargo ships and so on. We have used electric motors everywhere. Everywhere where they were put under massive strain and had proven themselves reliable without question as civilian industry is far more concerned about fuel efficiency and maintenance costs.
As for batteries, submarines, backup modules on most of what I have described and... well, you've seen the news. Tesla is producing millions of cars with their own batteries. And they are about to present their own Semi ie semi-trailer hauler. Would they have planned to do that if batteries wouldn't have been able to compete with diesels in terms of economy and lifespan?
@@TheArklyte people have already proven that the tesla semi trucks won't be effective enough for people to buy them because to put it simply the amount of batteries it will take for the semi truck to have all the feature elon said it will, will take up a huge majority of weight that semi trucks can weigh. At least for the U.S. the maximum weight of a semi truck including a loaded trailer is 80,000 lbs or 40 tons. That's not good when the mass majority of weight is taken up by the batteries, motor, and other electric components. That's not to mention that the Abrams weights around 60 tons. Secondly engineering explained also explained and shown that electric vehicles do very poorly at hauling and towing due to the massive amount of energy it takes to do such tasks. One of the biggest problems with having am electric tank is when it gets into combat and its hazards, if the battery packs are hit or damaged you are dealing not only with the toxic fumes but also the electrical fires and they aren't easy to put out and also have a chance to start up again as well as the massive amount of heat they give off. Which by the way fire departments already have a hard time putting out electrical fires from teslas which by the time they are put out, the road is seriously damaged from the heat and such
Interesting factoid ......
After years of design problems dealing with sand getting into the intake, GM - GD turned to Union Pacific Railroad which has been dealing with desert sands since 1860 and using turbines since 1948
lol i want to know more about it
the biggest argument that kills me is that people will say "its a bit stupid that the military has an entire fleet of diesel vehicles and you yanks threw something in that needs jet fuel"
Fun fact. Jet fuel is basically just a refined diesel >:v
Source: I work on a an airport filling jets and diesel trucks with the same fuel
@@sandervanderkammen9230 yeah thats what im saying. Their point is baseless
Abrahams has a silent killer tag. It's so quiet you cannot hear your death is coming...
Scuttlebutt is, TARDEC is working on the M1A3 prototype. It takes the existing turbine, and is redesigned without a transmission. It's to be directly coupled to a small high RPM/high efficiency generator to charge a large capacitor type battery that replaces the transmission. The rear drive sprockets will have two electric motors, one on each side. This effectively makes it an electric drive hybrid, with efficiency similar to the diesel. With more fuel capacity, it will then have much longer range. Thermo-electric cells will convert some high temp exhaust directly to power for the Auxiliary and decreasing exhaust temps. The Main Capacitor battery is also capable of being used to power the Abrams for up to 10-20 miles with the engine shut down, making it silent for short distances. Heavy metal tracks also replaced with lightweight continuous rubber tracks. The capacitor can also be used for potential future rail gun technology that will replace the 120mm gun, with a fully automated turret. Crew will be reduced to 2 members.There is still debate if the main hull will be redesigned to put the driver and commander side by side, or keep the commander in the fully automated turret.
I was in the army and worked with Abrams tanks and alot of the noise internal to the tank is the hydraulic pumps. Outside of the tank to the front you can barely hear the turbine to the sides it gets louder but i don't think its any louder than any other tank
Thank you furry tank daddy for this M1 knowledge!
...and really, having a jet engine in a tank is just the most awesome thing ever.
All I know is as a kid in the 80s, the guys in the family went regularly to Aberdeen Proving Ground in MD on Armed Forces Days to see the live fire demos. The most memorable was a tank race between an M60 and the M1, which left the M60 in the dust, as the M60 had to slow to change gears while the Abrams was smoothly and rapidly accelerating, even over small hills, going airborne at times. I took a picture of the Abrams while airborne and still firing and hitting its target at every shot. Only the turbine can accelerate a 70+ ton monster like that so quickly.
I remember when in Germany in 1984, the USAFN had commercials that showed cars too close to the back of a M1A1 Tank showed burnt off paint on the car.
The real reason why.
Chrysler Defense: Hey General, so when we going to close the deal?
General: Yeah...I’ve been meaning to talk to you about that. Look the other guys are really wanting to go with GM.
Chrysler Defense: Are you serious? Your just now telling me!
General: Look if it was up to me we be going with you but one of the other Generals has a Dodge Dart and is having a hell of a time with it’s thermoquad carburetor. I means unless you have something really crazy cool I’m sorry bro. No can do.
Chrysler Defense: Oh, yeah...whatever. We were only going to make a jet powered tank but no, your right. Enjoy you El Tankino. You can grow a mullet and buy beer for some teenagers on the way to the war.
General: Wait...what do you mean jet powered tank?
Chrysler Defense: Oh nothing...just we were going to use a turbine engine on the tank but...
General: Wooo hay hold on! Are you shiting me! A jet engine! In a tank?
Chrysler Defense: Ahhhhh yah!
General: Let’s do this.
You cant use an outdated design for a modern mbt
Hahaha metal thing go FWOOOSH
Hahaha fuel go fwoooos
It has a jet engine cus the want to add wings later duhh.
The true version of the A 10
@@kyle18934 *NOW THIS IS BEYOND AN AVENGERS LEVEL THREAT*
@@k-874 only a true super hero can defeat this foe,
CRAZY CAT LADY, COME FORTH AND DEFEAT OUR FOE IN FURRY FURY!!!
+Cold Starts
+Multifuel
+Instant torque
-Costs
-Solid logistical chain
-Maintenance requires skilled mechanics
I've seen (and worked along) Abrams, and what stunned me was their starting procedures, very fast ! Even in the cold of southern Germany, they started within seconds while our diesels required some "cranking" and preheat (no wonder STRV103 use a turbine as "APU")
On peacetime, their logistical support was incredibly heavy, they had tons of fuel trucks ! While we drove along for nearly twice to triple the distance they've made
After some talks with the crews they said to me that doesnt matter the tank does (drive or idle) the turbine's thirst will remain the same !
They also explained to me that if their engine take a "hit" it's a certain "mobility kill" for them since internal parts are way more fragile than a beefy diesel, also, when the powerpack have to be dismantled, you can indeed remove it within an hour on the field but for deeper fixes, you'll need a very clean area, not exposed to dust and other elements and that these fixes can only be performed by very skilled mechanics, meanwhile a MTU883 can be totally dismounted on the field
Abrams filled requirements of the armies within their logistical capacities.. diesel engines suits smaller armies with limited logistics and less skilled crews for "fixes"
The most powerful tool of the US Army is their logistics ! They are incredible !
M-1 I first saw them at Ft. Knox as a reservist 19D4H scout instructor Whispering Death we could not hear them coming over our Diesel engine noise from our M113A1 we had borrowed for a weekend exercise. I got to look at them outside and what could be seen inside from the commanders hatch. These were early production examples being used to train Armor Officers. I have been behind them with engines at idle without a problem. My first MOS was Gas Turbine and Generator Repairman 52D2H Instructor. The Life span of a well kept turbine is far longer than most diesels can ever even get a taste of. At Ft. Belvoir we had a turbine that had been started in the Korean war still running without ever being shut down. Duel oil filter and air filter setup that could be changed without ever shutting it down. Most of turbine damage is during start up and shut down. The AGT 1500 was designed to minimize that damage. Another factor was the very short time to startup and getting full power around 25 seconds no matter how hot or cold the system was so long as the batteries were kept near full charge.
A gas turbine has high power-to weight ratio, high mechanical reliability (thanks to few moving parts), amazing acceleration, can use all kinds of fuel and have a long service life.
When your nation's tanks have been embarrassed and humiliated by another nations tanks as often as the Russians have by the M1, it is no surprise that when those folks then make a video game they model the M1 as crappy as they can get away with. Let's not even mention the Bradley.
The Video was very informative.
But you have missed out on to something.
THe T-80 Series uses Gas Turbine as well.
Might wanna make a video on that one.
Or a Video on the Mighty 3 Series (T-72,T-80 and T-90) that facinate me and they History.
Also the fact that Russia abandoned turbine engines after the T-80
@@Crosshair84 They still the T-80 series and it's engines.
You hear the tracks creaking well before you hear the engine if you aren't standing next to it. If you are a few hundred meters away you can't really hear it at all.
The problem with designing tanks is Complacency. People try to innovate using turbine engines, depleted uranium and yada-yada but society said that the old standards is the way to go. The self-proclaimed “Tank Experts” can’t help but unleash their saltiness. They also compare tanks in impractical circumstances like fighting in a blank vacuum. They sometimes use bias arguments and don’t understand the purpose that the tank serves.
Turbines are insanely expensive, I'm working for a company which machines fins and blades, man if you once saw the prices of the raw material and tools you know where this is going
That's mainly because they're not as mainstream as reciprocating engine, so they haven't been improved as much as reciprocating engine for general usage combustion engine, but they still better for long term usage because they simpler, lighter, smaller and more reliable than reciprocating engine, although they more inefficient unless you running at full power all the time, which can largely be offset by increasing fuel capacity (because you can put fuel on place previously used for reciprocating engine system, not to mention gas turbine inherent tendency to be simpler, smaller and lighter engine, increase power to weight ratio, which potentially allow you to use less powerful engine) and/or installing auxiliary power unit.
Very true. But given the expensive of the vehicle itself, along with the weapons, the fire control, communications, the CREW, and their training, and it doesn't make sense to pinch pennies where automotive performance is concerned.
As you said, a pretty big misconception with turbine engines is that they're insanely loud- They're high frequency, but about as loud as an un-muffled volkswagen. The props on aircraft are the majority of noise and what you hear, not the engine itself, and the noise from jets is mostly the insane amount of air flow.
Yeah the Abrams is only loud if you're right behind it. It's not loud if you're standing to the side and it's hard to tell if the engine is running if you're in front of the tank. The noise it makes doesn't sound like a heavy duty engine like most other heavy vehicles, either.
Doesn't change the fact the abrams turbine sounds like a crying baby when started.
That's a weird ass baby then lol
Waking up one on a called morning, standing next to the exhaust is the best feeling ever.
Good video. The only thing you said that I'm not sure of is that the filter issue was sorted out quickly. From what I understand, it was a huge issue for a significant portion of the gulf war.
The french Leclerc MBT also has a turbine engine
The engine itself is a reciprocating diesel, but it has a gas turbine turbocharger/APU.
There is a reason why the Abrams is called the whispering death.
Who's calling it that?
@@usarkarzts4207 it got the nickname when it was first deployed in the gulf war i think
@@usarkarzts4207 the Iraqis did.
@@gungde9419 pretty sure you're correct. Not the first time I've heard it.
please note that when tank was proposed to export market contract it was always with the German MTU engine, no one like the turbine, exception of the country that receive military aid and has no choice (egypt, Iraq, Arabia saudia)
Australian Abrams have turbine engines.
@@1ohtaf1 Australia is totaly submited to US army for anything now, they abandon the leopard to Abrhams, Tiger to Us coppers, switch to F35 even after bad repports on this plane from their government.
sad but understandable.
5:18 and a good running diesel doesn't produce smoke either. I never understood why diesel tanks roll coal like a steam train. Are they build like its 1930????
@@sandervanderkammen9230 can all be remedied by a couple Sensors and hooking a laptop to the ECU if we are talking about a somewhat modern engine (last 20 years). The load in a good no smoke map and your are done.
Just make the fueling dependent on the mass airflow sensor and manifold pressure sensor in the intake after the turbo.
Then you have a no boost baseline and the ECU is allowed to add fuel on top of that depending on how much PSI the turbo is making until the max allowable amount is reached. The millions of on road diesels driving around today are like that: Tuned for efficiency and clean combustion because that's what you want out of a diesel engine.
If I was building a Tank id just go to Cummins or Caterpillar and buy an off the shelf truck engine. There is no excuse for any diesel made in the last 20-30 years to emit visible particulate matter or be a primitive pile of shit.
Even the hailed 5.9 and 6.7 Cummins are outdated designs imo.
As a military weapons engineer I find your comments and illustrations informative and concise. Thanks.
0:08 Why tanks do that noise....?
It’s the tracks rattling on the top part
(I think)
@@Pyroscity thanks friend!!
@@tomasparriles6440 you’re welcome