Your Nation's Main Battle Tank [Part 2]

[Ularn]

Has to be at least 100% proof in order to burn, otherwise the water content is too high...

He's Scottish. It'll burn.

(no offence intended to any Scottish people out there)

Why would I be offended?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

"Private Mackenzie! Hand me your alcohol, it is for the good of the platoon!"

Has to be at least 100% proof in order to burn, otherwise the water content is too high...

Nope, you genuinely can put vodka through a turbine, IIRC

[Spirit of Hope]

Has to be at least 100% proof in order to burn, otherwise the water content is too high...

Nope, you genuinely can put vodka through a turbine, IIRC

So even more reason not to fight the Russians? They have the fuel supply and vodka to drive them forward.

[Immoren]

Has to be at least 100% proof in order to burn, otherwise the water content is too high...

Nope, you genuinely can put vodka through a turbine, IIRC

Now I have this mental image of TC holding one of his crewmen at the gun point with pistol in one hand while pouring vodka of that crewman into tanks engine from bottle with other hand. ._.
Although that mental image is not probably possible.I have no idea where that fuel port is located/how it is sealed in "typical" MBT.

[New Lunar republic NLR]

T90

[Senestrum]

Can't remember if the AGT-1500 is bigger or smaller than a conventional diesel.
But yes, if you can burn it, a turbine can run on it.

The best modern diesels exceed it in power/weight and power/volume. Of course, it also requires larger air supply and exhaust, so the powerpack size isn't necessarily smaller than a conventional diesel (remember, when the Abrams was introduced the competing diesel was the MTU873, and those are... big). Of course, the turbine's volume advantage is going to be offset by the increased fuel tank size. The Abrams has the second largest fuel capacity of any tank in history; it's only beat out by the Maus.

And there's the fact that under real use conditions the fuel consumption is something ludicrous like 16 liters/km.

Biggest issue with the switch from a reciprocating ICE to a turbine is the gear box, your turbine engine itself will be much smaller but its gear box will be a fair bit bigger than the one for a conventional engine.

To my knowledge the Abrams uses a conventional transmission, but the engine output shaft is fitted with a 10x reducer gear to get the RPM down into diesel ranges. Fun fact: you know that Turbine Advantage graph that compares the AGT-1500's torque to the MTU 883? It's blatantly dishonest because it's including transmission elements (the 10x reducer gear) for the turbine.

[Ularn]

T90

(Image)

*Blows raspberry*

Mine's better!

[The Akasha Colony]

The new LV-series turbines are significantly smaller, more fuel efficient, and have better power-volume and power-weight than the old AGT-series turbines. Although unfortunately none have entered service. They also have cooler exhaust. The problem is that the AGT-1500 gets compared to modern engines like the MTU 883, despite being rather old. The LV50-2 has a much better power-weight than the MTU 883, but was never scaled up to the same output, given that it was designed for the lighter MGV/GCS platform. Although since engines tend to get more efficient as they get larger, chances are it would've had the same power-weight, if not better.



LINK

I know I already posted the Cerebrese before, but I'm working on re-linearting it in a much larger format (original image was 604x249, current is 1400x600) and to reflect the changes made since the A2 model, as well as the new designation. It also gives me a separated base chassis to use for the rest of my vehicles, without having to laboriously separate the turret and chassis on the old image, which got JPEGed up. I still have to add the rest of the turret detailing, plus some more to the chassis itself, as well as the rest of the secondary armament. This is just a preliminary coloring to see how things are proportioned, since I'm drawing the turret separately. And yes, I know there's a random white dot in the turret. It will be fixed in the final.

[Senestrum]

MTU 883 is not a modern diesel. MTU 890-series is, and it's damned close to LV-series turbine power density.

[The Akasha Colony]

MTU 883 is not a modern diesel. MTU 890-series is, and it's damned close to LV-series turbine power density.

Indeed, I wasn't paying attention and meant the 890, the 883 was mentioned earlier in the thread.

From what I can tell, promotional materials peg the 890-series at between 0.94 to 0.81 kW/kg, depending on model. Power to volume is 1,200 to 1,360 hp/m³. Honeywell advertises 1.51 kW/kg and 1,232 hp/m³. So the higher-end MTUs have better volume efficiency, but the LV still has better weight efficiency. And my guess is that the diesels still have better fuel efficiency.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Yes, but the turbine design is a gas guzzler, it's just a fact. Its lone advantage is you can run it on any kind of fuel, plus several things that look like fuels.
And, had the US fought the Russians in the middle east, this would have been a fantastic advantage.

[Orussia]

Yes, but the turbine design is a gas guzzler, it's just a fact. Its lone advantage is you can run it on any kind of fuel, plus several things that look like fuels.

...I can so picture a scenario.

An M1A2 runs out of fuel near a backcountry town.

A visit to the townspeople leads them to the doorstep of a redneck.

He gives them sealed buckets of some unknown fluid.

The loader looks at the buckets and asks the commander if this is really such a good idea.

Commander says 'There's only one way to find out."

Five minutes later...

The tank drives off.

[Senestrum]

While the AGT-1500 and other multifuel turbines will run on damned near anything that's liquid and burns, it doesn't mean it's actually a good idea to do so.

You can expect lower power, increased wear, higher fuel consumption, etc, and (unless you're fighting the commies in the Glorious Revolutionary Vodka Factory Of The Proletariat) chances are you won't be able to come close to filling up the tank anyways.

Edit:

MTU 883 is not a modern diesel. MTU 890-series is, and it's damned close to LV-series turbine power density.

Indeed, I wasn't paying attention and meant the 890, the 883 was mentioned earlier in the thread.

From what I can tell, promotional materials peg the 890-series at between 0.94 to 0.81 kW/kg, depending on model. Power to volume is 1,200 to 1,360 hp/m³. Honeywell advertises 1.51 kW/kg and 1,232 hp/m³. So the higher-end MTUs have better volume efficiency, but the LV still has better weight efficiency. And my guess is that the diesels still have better fuel efficiency.

Remember that turbines scale up very well; the LV100 (as opposed to the LV50) had an energy density of ~1,485hp/m³, which beats out the closest comparable MTU-890 series engine (the 10V model) at ~1,420hp/m³. Well, unless you're using the 890 as a generator for an electric drive, in which case you can get ~1,540hp/m³ out of the thing.

Figures for the 10V 890 from here, while the power density (well, volume, but we know the power output already) for the LV100 is buried on page 59-60 (the sentence is split) of this report.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Unless you really are fighting the Russians, I agree it would be difficult to find 1900L of Vodka
It'd be cheaper to run it on multifuel, actually, Russian Standard is typically about £22 a litre in the UK xD

[The Akasha Colony]

Unless you really are fighting the Russians, I agree it would be difficult to find 1900L of Vodka
It'd be cheaper to run it on multifuel, actually, Russian Standard is typically about £22 a litre in the UK xD

The Russians would have probably drank it all by the time you arrived. Given the amount they're drinking now while not being invaded, if they were being invaded, even their stockpiles of vodka may not last. They certainly got desperate in WWII for some booze.

Transportation costs are what eat into fuel anyway. In 2002, JP-8 fuel cost about $1 to the Department of Defense to purchase, actually cheaper than diesel. But it costs the Army $13 to get it to tanks in peacetime and at home. That cost balloons to $25 if trying to deliver it by truck to 100 kilometers beyond the Forward Edge of the Battle Area. Overland transport costs for farther distances is $40-50, while air transport in emergencies is $400 per gallon. And that was in 2002.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

hory shet

Also, as an indulgence to curiosity, I have it on authority that the average Russian drinks 38L of vodka in a year.
The person who provided that claims to have drunk more than that in a single ten-week term of Uni.

[Ularn]

hory shet

Also, as an indulgence to curiosity, I have it on authority that the average Russian drinks 38L of vodka in a year.
The person who provided that claims to have drunk more than that in a single ten-week term of Uni.

As someone at Uni, I can attest to that probably being true - from observation if not from personal experience.

[Indeos]

hory shet

Also, as an indulgence to curiosity, I have it on authority that the average Russian drinks 38L of vodka in a year.
The person who provided that claims to have drunk more than that in a single ten-week term of Uni.

IIRC, Russians are still relatively low on the vodka consumption scale; the average post-Soviet citizen is somewhat more likely to drink mouthwash or cologne simply because they contain alcohol and are less expensive than vodka. (They're also only .35 gallon above the U.S. in alcohol consumption per capita per year, which still only gets them to like low twenties in world placement.)

[Aaakaar]

Aakaar's Main Battle is the I50 Monster the tank contains twin long range heavy tank cannons that can rotate on a platform that can turn 360 degrees. the tank is over 2 meters tall 3 meters long and over 5000 lbs of steel the tank has 4 long range Machine guns on each side. the enemy goes in like this
and comes out like this

[Ularn]

Aakaar's Main Battle is the I50 Monster the tank contains twin long range heavy tank cannons that can rotate on a platform that can turn 360 degrees. the tank is over 2 meters tall 3 meters long and over 5000 lbs of steel the tank has 4 long range Machine guns on each side. the enemy goes in like this
and comes out like this

Double barrels on a tank turret are pointless; the recoil will destroy any semblance of accuracy you have and two shots aren't going to accomplish anything that couldn't be achieved with one. Three metres is far to short; that should be the width of your tank, not its length, which should be something like 6m at the least. As for the weight, 5,000 lbs is about 2.5 tons. Your tank has a lower density than some cars; a handful of strong guys could flip it!

[The Akasha Colony]

Aakaar's Main Battle is the I50 Monster the tank contains twin long range heavy tank cannons that can rotate on a platform that can turn 360 degrees. the tank is over 2 meters tall 3 meters long and over 5000 lbs of steel the tank has 4 long range Machine guns on each side. the enemy goes in like this
and comes out like this

Double barrels on a tank turret are pointless; the recoil will destroy any semblance of accuracy you have and two shots aren't going to accomplish anything that couldn't be achieved with one. As for the weight, 5,000 lbs is about 2.5 tons. Your tank has a lower density than most cars.

It has to be a troll post. For one, three meters is shorter than most 40 mm weapons out there, nevermind a true tank-caliber gun, and the hull needed to carry it. In comparison, a Humvee is already 4.6 meters, and more than two meters across.

[Spirit of Hope]

Question, would a 155m artillery shell impacting on the top of RL and NS MBTs destroy said MBT's?

[Cyprum Xecuii]

Question, would a 155m artillery shell impacting on the top of RL and NS MBTs destroy said MBT's?

it...it should? ...is it possible that it could not?... straight up 90 degree, vertical angle pounding on the top?... I'm sure it would...

[United States of PA]

Question, would a 155m artillery shell impacting on the top of RL and NS MBTs destroy said MBT's?

Yes, it absolutely would.

[Spirit of Hope]

Question, would a 155m artillery shell impacting on the top of RL and NS MBTs destroy said MBT's?

it...it should? ...is it possible that it could not?... straight up 90 degree, vertical angle pounding on the top?... I'm sure it would...

Maybe not strait down, that would be hard to engineer. I just wasn't sure.

Yes, it absolutely would.

Ok thanks, bought so, but wasn't 100% sure.