Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III

[Weirdo]

I really want to know who's insurance is going to cover that last one...

[Kidd]

Nice Chally pics Doc!

[misterpants]

I really want to know who's insurance is going to cover that last one...

"And next on the village council agenda, the proposal of the AFV Right of Way traffic ordinance..."

[ColBosch]

All fun and games till they start throwing flaming liquids into your air intake.

I've been reliably informed that Molotov cocktails are not effective against the Abrams, thanks to its incredibly air-hungry and hot-burning turbine. The air is sucked in so quickly that any flames go out, you're just not going to get enough fluid in there to drown the engine, and the turbine is far hotter than anything likely to be tossed on the rear deck anyway.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I've seen at least one source claiming that that was one of the factors that was considered when selecting the M1's engine.

[CDAT]

I've been reliably informed that Molotov cocktails are not effective against the Abrams, thanks to its incredibly air-hungry and hot-burning turbine. The air is sucked in so quickly that any flames go out, you're just not going to get enough fluid in there to drown the engine, and the turbine is far hotter than anything likely to be tossed on the rear deck anyway.

This is what they taught us at OSUT. Now there is one case of a Abrams (that I know of) having an engine fire that destroyed it, but in this case it was when the insurgent ran up and fired the RPG with the nose toughing the rear grill, my understanding is that the on-board fire extinguisher (that is Halon) was unable to put out the RPG fuel that provides its own O2.

[sadlerbw]

I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I know a little bit about turbines. The worst that throwing a bottle of flamable liquid into the intake air stream would do would be to cause a surge, or maybe a compressor stall if too much combustion happens before it gets inside the combustor. However, given the rather small amount of liquid, its unlikely to affect combustion long enough to matter. The burning liquid will expand in the compressor stages and reduce the pressure ratio, and when that air hits the combustor, it will probably run rich and rise the turbine inlet temp a little bit. However, there is so much mass flowing through those turbines, that a gallon of just about anything is going to get sucked in, burnt/heated, and blown out the exhaust in less than a second.

I know it isn't a high-bypas turbofan, but in general they do try to design turbines to reject solids and liquids from the intake air, and to safely ingest whatever makes it in. I know it's not the same, but here is a nice water ingestion test (and a couple other fun tests!):

https://youtu.be/_PR0Ka_J2P4?t=42s

Again, a power turbine is not going to be as good at this as a high-bypass turbofan, but it can still suck a good amount of liquid and not really care. Oh, and I take no responsibility for the horrible narration in that video.

[ANS Kamas P81]

This is what they taught us at OSUT. Now there is one case of a Abrams (that I know of) having an engine fire that destroyed it, but in this case it was when the insurgent ran up and fired the RPG with the nose toughing the rear grill, my understanding is that the on-board fire extinguisher (that is Halon) was unable to put out the RPG fuel that provides its own O2.

I would imagine that at least a one component of that fuel was portions of said insurgent.

[CDAT]

I would imagine that at least a one component of that fuel was portions of said insurgent.

 :) except that people do not really burn all that well.

[DoctorMonkey]

:) except that people do not really burn all that well.

wiggle-waggle hand


depends, if you have a hot enough fire then the fat will catch light quite nicely; it's a difference between whether the person is fuel or "food" being cooked

[Matti]

I've been reliably informed that Molotov cocktails are not effective against the Abrams, thanks to its incredibly air-hungry and hot-burning turbine. The air is sucked in so quickly that any flames go out, you're just not going to get enough fluid in there to drown the engine, and the turbine is far hotter than anything likely to be tossed on the rear deck anyway.

I recall seeing a piece of footage about S-tank, where fighter drops huge bomb of napalm (or other burning liquid) on it, and the vehicle just keeps moving under remote control. Another bombing run dropped some kind of burning gel, which stick on the tank and didn't fall off. Inside it got "only" up to 40 degrees of Celcius. Good number of recent tanks seem to be quite resistant to the fire attacks and can survive through burning woods much better than their BattleTech equivalents.

[Luciora]

The tank may be fine,  but the crew is another question.  Humans have an innate fear of fire, especially when they know they are surrounded by explosives and know history of firetraps in confined spaces.

I recall seeing a piece of footage about S-tank, where fighter drops huge bomb of napalm (or other burning liquid) on it, and the vehicle just keeps moving under remote control. Another bombing run dropped some kind of burning gel, which stick on the tank and didn't fall off. Inside it got "only" up to 40 degrees of Celcius. Good number of recent tanks seem to be quite resistant to the fire attacks and can survive through burning woods much better than their BattleTech equivalents.

[Kidd]

The tank may be fine,  but the crew is another question.  Humans have an innate fear of fire, especially when they know they are surrounded by explosives and know history of firetraps in confined spaces.

Western tank crews are trained to trust in the armor of their tank, and will button up and sit tight even in a disabled tank under fire. Some, uh, other nations' tank crews however do indeed have such a tendency to abandon their tanks, and that is usually how those crews lose their lives and intact tanks get captured...

[ANS Kamas P81]

Western tank crews are trained to trust in the armor of their tank

Considering modern western composite-armored tanks, that's trust very well-earned.  And considering the fact that we don't deploy tanks in any small numbers at all, with plenty of infantry to support them, buttoning up and letting your friends deal with the local threat is your best option.

The other thing is, how many opposing armed forces are going to continue to fire on a mobility- or mission-killed tank when there's plenty of other healthy and really pissed-off tanks next to it?

[DoctorMonkey]

Considering modern western composite-armored tanks, that's trust very well-earned.  And considering the fact that we don't deploy tanks in any small numbers at all, with plenty of infantry to support them, buttoning up and letting your friends deal with the local threat is your best option.

The other thing is, how many opposing armed forces are going to continue to fire on a mobility- or mission-killed tank when there's plenty of other healthy and really pissed-off tanks next to it?

There isn't really a scenario where I want to be taking on modern first world latest generation MBTs and their friends without... more tanks (ideally of better quality) and the rest of the associated combined arms team including artillery and air support

[ColBosch]

The tank may be fine,  but the crew is another question.  Humans have an innate fear of fire, especially when they know they are surrounded by explosives and know history of firetraps in confined spaces.

Not Abrams crewmembers. We are, if anything, an overconfident lot, due to trust in our machines. We've all seen the armor casualty numbers from the '93 Gulf War and the current conflict. We know that more M1s have been lost to rollovers in canals and ditches than to enemy fire.

A little fire? Please. Chobham II can defeat plasma jets, so you think we're worried about some burning gasoline?

[Fat Guy]

Considering modern western composite-armored tanks, that's trust very well-earned.  And considering the fact that we don't deploy tanks in any small numbers at all, with plenty of infantry to support them, buttoning up and letting your friends deal with the local threat is your best option.

The other thing is, how many opposing armed forces are going to continue to fire on a mobility- or mission-killed tank when there's plenty of other healthy and really pissed-off tanks next to it?

I do recall an Abrams in Iraq that was immobilized taking hits from over 100 RPGs and the crew eventually coming out unscathed.

[chanman]

I do recall an Abrams in Iraq that was immobilized taking hits from over 100 RPGs and the crew eventually coming out unscathed.

I'm pretty sure that was a Chally 2

[DoctorMonkey]

there was a well reported incident of a Challenger 2 but I have also seen a History Channel or similar show about tanks where I think I heard about similar things happening to an M1


Is it weird that I find the cultural background to the differences between the different top level MBTs to be fascinating:
M1 Abrams - "the bestest" but the turbine uses different fuel to other AFVs but the huge level of air support the US Army has means this isn't an issue for the logistics system
Challenger 2 - solid, tough, a bit more conventional than the M1 and the ongoing fondness for the rifled gun
Leopard 2 - essentially a Challenger 2 with a smoothbore
Merkhava - crew protection as the prime consideration, close anticipated areas of operation so things like needing to cross bridges etc not such a worry
Leclerc - opted for the speed as armour rather than slow and solid (carved from something stronger than steel) because... France so often takes a different doctrinal route to the other Western Powers
Japanese Type 10 - totally just for self defence, honest...
Indian Arjun - torn between needing huge numbers and wanting high tech, wanting indigenous design and manufacture versus recognising that someone else has done the hard work
T-72/T-90 - crew ergonomics? what's that?

[Luciora]

Thanks all for the information, not something I'd know,  only being a casual military buff.  :)

[CDAT]

there was a well reported incident of a Challenger 2 but I have also seen a History Channel or similar show about tanks where I think I heard about similar things happening to an M1


Is it weird that I find the cultural background to the differences between the different top level MBTs to be fascinating:
M1 Abrams - "the bestest" but the turbine uses different fuel to other AFVs but the huge level of air support the US Army has means this isn't an issue for the logistics system
Challenger 2 - solid, tough, a bit more conventional than the M1 and the ongoing fondness for the rifled gun
Leopard 2 - essentially a Challenger 2 with a smoothbore
Merkhava - crew protection as the prime consideration, close anticipated areas of operation so things like needing to cross bridges etc not such a worry
Leclerc - opted for the speed as armour rather than slow and solid (carved from something stronger than steel) because... France so often takes a different doctrinal route to the other Western Powers
Japanese Type 10 - totally just for self defence, honest...
Indian Arjun - torn between needing huge numbers and wanting high tech, wanting indigenous design and manufacture versus recognising that someone else has done the hard work
T-72/T-90 - crew ergonomics? what's that?

Only one and a kind of to add about the M1, first it does not use a special fuel from all other AFV's, it uses any fuel (I remember my Drill Sergeant telling me how it could work on any high proof spirits, but just remember it is "one bottle for the crew, and two for the tank"). It is just the US Military deciding to use JP over DF (the M1 works better with the DF like other AFV's), and second the kind of. I read a report about the XM-1 where before they accepted it they took one of them to the firing range and let them test it with live fire for the day, at the end of the day after having been shot with everything from 155 and down (top attack was not a something that manpad AT missiles did at that time) the tank was able to start and drive out on it own power (it did run a bit rough but ran).

[Matti]

M1 Abrams - "the bestest"

It is my understanding that Abrams is getting outdated despite of upgrades. Gun is shorter and therefore less powerful than other tank guns of equal caliber. And it consumes so much of fuel that number of Abrams have been exchanged to less thirsty Strykers.

[The Eagle]

It is my understanding that Abrams is getting outdated despite of upgrades. Gun is shorter and therefore less powerful than other tank guns of equal caliber. And it consumes so much of fuel that number of Abrams have been exchanged to less thirsty Strykers.

The swap to Strykers is driven more by their ease of deployability than anything.  There are more airframes that can move Strykers than there are that can move Abrams, which gives your medium mechanized forces greater ability to respond to various points on the globe than the heavy armored forces.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

That was my understanding: the Abrams was designed to fight massed Soviet tank divisions in Eastern Europe.  The current hotspots the US military has been deployed to don't really call for that as much.

[CDAT]

The swap to Strykers is driven more by their ease of deployability than anything.  There are more airframes that can move Strykers than there are that can move Abrams, which gives your medium mechanized forces greater ability to respond to various points on the globe than the heavy armored forces.

And get more GI's killed, the stryker is a terrible vehicle. I never responded to a single post blast that involved one that it did not catch fire (has so much electronics and the wire are everywhere). Now having said that I have never used one, but know guys who did, one of my old co-workers was the only suriver from his squad when they got hit and the rest burned to death (he got away with only burns on 90% of his body).

[DoctorMonkey]

Sorry, the list was intended as facetious


The Stryker isn't really a replacement for the Abrams - one is a tank and the other is an APC.
Sadly the Stryker doesn't seem to have been designed as an "MRAP" or similar but for a more conventional battlefield; the British Army had a similar problem with the Snatch Land Rover.

[The Eagle]

And get more GI's killed, the stryker is a terrible vehicle.

Oh, I'm aware.  It's list of flaws is long and unfortunate, and I feel the Army is making a mistake trading heavy forces for mediums.  They're falling into the trap of expecting tomorrow's wars to be fought like today's wars.  Our conventional warfighting capability is deteriorating in both the tactical and materiel realms, and that's going to bite us in the ass eventually.

[Sharpnel]

Back to pictures. Here's one of the Chinese Type 99A



Typical Eastern bloc fare with 125mm gun with missile capability and coming in at hefty 58 tons

[Van Gogh]

O, the other hand, armored forces in the US army are still present in huge numbers (compared to contemporary armies), and expeditionnary forces need something lighter than a M1 right now.
It feels a bit like the generals would love to have both heavy armor AND light cavalry unit (like what the French try to do with their AMX-10/Leclerc combo, on a much different scale) but due to budgetary reasons are forced to trade some for the other.

Of course, the traded-off Abrahms may not be dismanteled, mothballing and squirrelling in the desert are possible.

[Sharpnel]

Yeah a nice 35-40 ton tank with 105mm gun and fancy armor would be a godsend for a LIC environment.

EDIT: Or something like the failed US Army M8