Tanks should carry a trailer full of fuel like pic related. Then they wouldn't get stranded so much, like they did in the Gulf War.
A quick release from the driver's seat would let them ditch it instantly if they got attacked or something.
This is a trailer designed for the Crusader tank btw
>>29713606
I got a better idea, make a more fuel efficient engine rather than slap a jet engine onto a tank chassis like with the Abrams.
>>29713706
Like a diesel? Makes sense to me. Would let infantry walk close to an Abrams without getting 3rd degree burns too.
then they would expend more fuel just hauling more fuel that they may or may not (probably not) even need
that's a stupid idea and your parents never loved you
>>29713801
>Why would aircraft use drop tanks, they're just hauling more fuel they may or may not need
>>29713785
You can walk behind an Abrams just fine.
>>29713801
Abrams has half the fuel efficiency of other MBT's due to turbine engine
Lets not pretend that a couple ton trailer changes anything fuel consumption
>>29713893
>Lets not pretend that a couple ton trailer changes anything fuel consumption
I'm sure everyone with a high school level understanding of physics felt their skin crawl when you typed that
>>29713785
>Like a diesel?
I thought that was the plan for the Abrams?
The logistics are too complicated, honestly. With the amount of work it takes to maneuver the initial wave of gliders in, I don't think it makes sense to send a second wave of gliders just to deliver fuel trailers.
>>29714061
I don't understand this reference. What are you talking about?
>>29713606
Sorry guys. DARPA is already working out a solution.
>>29713706
Why does it even have a turbine engine?
>>29713706
>>29713893
Difference isn't THAT big. Abrams is fuel-hungry, but has impressive fuel capacity to accommodate for increased consumption. IIRC Leopard's capacity is 1300 litres.
>>29713606
Whilst the fuel efficiency isn't great on a lot of tanks, fuel tank trailers are kind of pointless considering the way modern wars are fought.
No tanks have ever 'gotten stranded' because of running out of fuel.
>>29714217
Torque. It can do faster than 50mph without the limiter but it would destroy the driveline. Its also quieter than a diesel of similar output.
>>29713606
Yeah...you see in WW2 German tanks had external fuel tanks and trailer but then Juggernauts, Mustangs and other ground attack planes would shoot it up and it would set tanks on fire.
>>29714290
>>29714254
Are you legitimate retarded or just purposefully being stupid
>>29714331
Same could be asked of you, really.
Pretty much nobody else that matters is using tanks in a combat zone. The US has been using tanks in Afghanistan that are never far from logistics and FOBs.
If you're the OP, you might've had a legitimate point about this for a conflict like the Gulf War, but in modern conflicts they really don't need to go hauling big stupid fuel tanks around.
>>29714331
I'm pretty sure he's refering to "M1's stranded in Gulf" statement
![T-72B3_-_TankBiathlon2013-09[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kYIAKEe.jpg "T-72B3_-_TankBiathlon2013-09[1].jpg")
just use external drop tanks like the slavs do.
>>29714392
If modern war = COIN and never anything else but COIN
The centurion had a tank like that, bolted to the rear lifting eyes and able to hinge up and down.
The tail wheel castors like a shopping trolly wheel.
The problem was that the ground pressure on the tail whe was five times what the rest of the tank had. Ihr trailer bogged continuously when moving off road. When reversing the trailer mogged and was crushed under the tank.
The Australians replaced the trailer with an external fuel cell that held about 80% of what the trailer carried.
Remember this is a petrol fueld tank with a Rolls Royce V12. The engine is lighter and more powerful than the diesel one in the M48 and M60.
>>29714217
More torque = faster acceleration
More reliable/easier to maintenance believe it or not
Simpler logistics
can run off fucking kerosene in a pinch if you wanted to
