This is the Japanese-made tanks
>>30233256
Right, and your topic of conversation is......
>>30233256
Looks like it is going fast
>>30233280
Superior Japanese steel folded thousands of times can deflect in coming Russian aluminium foil rockets.
>>30233256
Doesn't it have like ridiculously shitty armor scheme for something that costs ridiculously high?
>>30233694
It's also only diesel powered instead of jet turbine like the Abrams.
I got to see a few in action a couple of years ago at YTC. They were breddy cool tb.h
>>30233809
Those Jet Turbines are expensive to repair, I remember a documentary mentioning how sand wears them down over time.
>>30233694
muh nano crystal steel
it's pretty expensive, but considering the weight constraint it makes sense
>>30233256
I'm assuming this thing is in the middle of a hard stop, otherwise why would you ever make the ass such a large, high target?
>>30234017
it's just using suspension to depress further, most modern tanks can do this
>>30233256
>japanese tank
>all slanty
it checks out
>>30233905
>sand wears them down over time
I really don't know where this meme is from, but it is true that performance suffered in the sand box of 91 cos the air filters where designed with Arizona sand in mind. The desert sand blocked air filters badly
I don't know what sand wears them down comes from, but until the filters where replaced with desert filters, some very minor engine damage was also detected. So maybe it's from that.
>>30234040
>most modern tanks
>all 2 of them
>>30233256
>even their tanks bow
What's the rationale behind that tilt?
Looks stupid to me.
What the hell is the purpose of this thing?
>>30234199
It was probably braking rapidly.
>>30234199
You can lower the back end too, which makes the tank sit very low to the ground. This is great for hiding behind shit.
The fact that you can raise/lower both ends independently means you can wring out a few more degrees of gun depression/elevation when you're on an incline, too. It's not something you use every five minutes, but it's nice to have.
>>30234209
It's only 40 tons without the heavy armor package.
The Japanese survey said this increased the % of Japanese bridges it can cross from 20 to 70.
Base armor package is enough against infantry ATGM and 30mm rounds.
>>30233256
Looks like it can't drive over much, the front is too low
>>30233809
jet turbines are fucking garbage on tanks
They cost a ton, they eat fuel like mother fuckers, can't idle, etc
Abrams carries twice the fuel of other tanks and still has less range
>>30234258
Huh, that's pretty cool.
>>30234427
Yep, it's pretty neat. It's just more mechanically complex than a standard suspension, so most tanks don't have it.
>>30234298
Buuuuut, they are actually mechanically pretty simple and much easier to remove than a diesel pack.
Its all a trade off. You also get better acceleration, for shoot and scoot, but diesel has closed the gap in this regard.
>>30234514
>they are actually mechanically pretty simple
>compared to an internal combustion engine
>not even a gasoline internal combustion engine
>an even simpler diesel
>>30234584
for the simple reason that there are less moving parts.
Also the stress on the parts in a turbine is constant. Internal combustion engines have to deal with reciprocal stress, which reduces the life parts more.
>>30234625
>for the simple reason that there are less moving parts.
You need to stop listening to /k/s bullshit on simple = less moving parts
That's not what that means at fucking all
>Internal combustion engines have to deal with reciprocal stress, which reduces the life parts more.
Yes, the Mack truck I drive every day with 622,589 miles is a total pile of shit that can't last at all, but MAN if it just had a turbine on it so it'd last longer
I mean, that's totally why 18 wheelers that are constantly running at a higher power state for hours on end have them, right?
Don't be fucking stupid
Turbines have incredibly exacting specs and if they get out of spec, they're fucked
>>30234514
It MAYBE was the optimal choice back when they did their studies in the 70's
But that hasn't been true for a long time now
>>30233280
They finally learned how to put the brakes on their war machine
>>30234656
>the power of a truck
>remotely comparable to the power of a tank
>>30234199
It's a hydraulics demonstration. OP decided to use that particular frame for reasons unknown. Like the other guy said, it's useful for hull-down or in more extreme settings allows a little more traverse on the gun in mountainous combat which is applicable to the Japanese mainland.
>>30234719
Was that a toyota joke?
>>30234777
Oh man, I wish.
>Haji_Hilux.jpg
Mostly just a joke about the "never surrender" attitude in WWII
>>30234763
>total power output determining part lifespan
And you say that diesels are on a reciprocating mass, but they're not
The crank arms are spaced out evenly so it is constantly turning under power
Go look at what a crankshaft looks like, nigger
Quit talking out your ass
>>30234209
>Infantry ATGM
You mean the SPIKE/Javelin shit like that ? Or do you mean HATW, like the AT4, and RPG7?
>>30234182
kek
>>30234298
The upside is it can use the same fuel as everything else the force is using (helos, planes, etc)
>>30233694
>Doesn't it have like ridiculously shitty armor scheme
Both the Type 90 and Type 10 have normal armor layouts for their weight.
>>30234815
1. How many tanks are running into these things
2. it's multi fuel
3. it uses diesel for the most part
>>30234831
>1. How many tanks are running into these things
Its the simplification of logistics.
>>30234853
Yes but if you run it on diesel you're simplifying it by having it run on the same shit all the other TRUCKS you'd find at the MOTORPOOL are running
And regardless, it's all multi fuel anyway regardless of it's method of burning it
>>30234656
Your analogy is poor, your trucks engine is nothing like a diesel in a Leopard 2.
>>30234794
The lifetime replacement is the same between the honeywell and other applicable engines.
However, as i said before, it is more simple, with less moving parts, therefore it is easier and faster to swap than a diesel power pack
>>30234853
It's just as simple to have 2 trucks with 2 different fuels, as 2 trucks with the same fuel in each
The whole "simplifying logistics" is a fucking meme from before computers existed and everything was done by hand.
>>30234920
Wew lad. availability is always a concern.
>>30234920
>computers make is simpler to send 2 fuel trucks with 2 different fuels instead of 1
WEW LAD
E
W
L
A
D
>>30234873
Only difference is how heavily they're build and their total power output
A diesel's a diesel's a diesel
>>30234896
>other applicable engines.
name them
>is the same
So then part wear is irrelevant
>it is more simple, with less moving parts
These are not the same thing
The injectors on a diesel are infinitely simpler than the injectors on a turbine as is the pumps as is everything else
>therefore it is easier and faster to swap
How fast it is to unbolt and remove from a chassis has literally nothing to do with complexity
You can unbolt the driveshaft, unbolt the block, pull the fuel/coolant/etc lines and use a crane to pull an engine out the top
I've done it on our concrete truck
>inb4 TANK ENGINES R DIFFRNT
No
Name the model of engine
>>30234920
A tank that can take any kind of fuel you dump in it, maintenance or not, is better than a tank that can only use one fuel.
>>30234944
The engines in question is the Honeywell AGT-1500 for the abrams.
Comparison engine is, say, the Perkins CV-12 on the chally 2.
The injectors on the turbine are just as simplistic as the diesel bw, its the blade tolerances you have to worry about, but its actually no worse than, say, conventional engine tolerences for the pistons.
You can swap the honeywell much faster than the perkins.
>>30234944
>Only difference is how heavily they're build and their total power output
And how they are used, your truck's engine lasts a long time because it spends most of its time moving a wheeled vehicle on highways. That does not change the fact that a gas turbine is simpler and requires less maintenance than a diesel under the same conditions.
>>inb4 TANK ENGINES R DIFFRNT
They are, tank engines operate under far more strain and it burns your ass that your experiences as a trucker has little relevance.
>>30235011
>1500 hp tank engine is magically "under more strain" than 1500 hp truck engine
kk
The only thing that is true about tanks is that they eat tons of vibration due to tracks & offroad driving.
Requiring twice as much fuel as well as an auxialiary engine likely outweighs any supposed increased maintenance of a piston engine.
No doubt natural gas engines are the future though
>>30234945
>>30234920
>>30234853
>>30234831
>>30234815
The US Army operates on JP-8 for commonality with its helicopter fleet, before that practice was put in place it ran its Abrams on the number 2 diesel.
>>30235053
Well now you are compareing an early 70s turbine engine to modern pistons.
Advancements has been made in the turbine arena too..
>Honeywell was developing another gas turbine engine with General Electric for the XM2001 Crusader program that was to be a replacement for the Abrams's AGT-1500 engine.[81] The new LV100-5 engine was lighter and smaller (43% fewer parts) with rapid acceleration, quieter running, and no visible exhaust.[82] It also featured a 33% reduction in fuel consumption (50% less when idle) and near drop-in replacement.
...and that was a while ago too.
>>30235053
You don't run your truck with a 1500hp engine, nor do you drive it offroad. The fact that your truck lasts far longer than, lets say a Leopard 2 with a 1500hp MTU 873 diesel, makes it obvious to anyone that you are a fucking moron.
>>30235053
An APU is not a unique feature of an Abrams.
>>30234998
>The injectors on the turbine are just as simplistic as the diesel bw
so you're making the claim that an electromagnet and a funnel are just as mechanically simple as a turbine injector
And that all the other requisite parts work exactly the same
This only confirms how much people on /k/ talk completely out their ass about technology
>Perkins CV-12
Oh wow, it looks like an a huge heavily built M11
So a basic diesel engine design that hasn't changed in any meaningful way since the inception of the internal combustion engine
>You can swap the honeywell much faster than the perkins.
Source
>your truck's engine lasts a long time because it spends most of its time moving a wheeled vehicle on highways
Fuck no
That thing is constantly bombing down backroads and through pits constantly running through the gears in all RPM ranges
It's a dump truck
>That does not change the fact that a gas turbine is simpler
Source
> requires less maintenance than a diesel under the same conditions.
>requires less maintenance than a diesel under the same conditions.
While I can't agree with you because I don't know what kind of maintenance turbines require, I wouldn't doubt it
So I'll agree with you on the contingency that you're correct
But that still has nothing to do with complexity or ease of removal
>tank engines operate under far more strain
Strain implies it's not built heavily enough to do exactly what it's designed to do
more power =/= more strain
The only strain a diesel engine is under is acceleration
The transmission take nearly all of the damaging stress caused by tank shenanigans
>>30234920
I used to own a rat smarter than you, and that rat died because it jumped into the washing machine.
>>30235053
senpai, these trucks don't have 1500 hp
Now they make Cats they use in mines that have retardedly heavy duty motors so if you're referring to those, then yeah, you have a fair point
However, the trucks I'm referring to only put out 4-500 HP
Granted they're incredibly torquey, but low horses
>>30235101
that's not me, retard
>>30235140
You wrote a lot of words to avoid comparing a diesel engined tank to your truck.
>>30235176
Because I didn't compare my truck to a tank you idiot
I used it as an example to tell your dumb ass that a diesel engine is NOT mechanically more complex than a fucking turbine
And your post just goes to prove that you can't refute anything I said
>>30235140
>Source (for the engine swap times)
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/myaerospacecatalog-documents/SurfaceSystems/AGT1500_Turbine_Technology.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjyndSEpZ_NAhUn6IMKHa8bAOUQFggLMAA&sig2=DSWdfnAG5oEsry4VOyPpxA&usg=AFQjCNFGLyjhCoIad7WewmkrNK4KMyrsIg
Swapping modules is much quicker than going into the whole engine.
>>30235235
what the fuck is that link
>>30235239
A PDF
>>30235235
>view source page
>copypasta from there
>>30235235
>>30235247
>Unlike a diesel, which has
to be serviced as a whole engine, the
AGT1500 can easily be separated and serviced
in the field, keeping more vehicles
operating.
Are you fucking serious right now
You're taking THAT as a source?
Okay senpai, let me explain something to you
You DON'T have to service AND ENTIRE ENGINE just to replace a fucking oil pressure sensor or a TPS or any of the other things that break down
That sweeping statement is just a sales pitch by Honeywell
They're talking about replacing a block, head, or piston sleeves (if so equipped)
>>30235266
fuck
cylinder sleeves
>>30235235
>With the AGT1500’s Digital Electronic
Control Unit (DECU), you get operational
diagnostic capability which results in 30%
less maintenance time
>like every diesel on the road
>>30235250
Im on a phone, thus i just copyed the link.
>>30235266
Well of course, but we are talking about a swap.
The engine itself is a component, and due to its modular nature it is essentially plug and play for lack of a better term, pic related.
>>30235308
It was the shit in the 70s, lol.
Look, the powerpack is due for a replacement, but to say there are zero advantages to turbines is silly.
>>30235312
>but we are talking about a swap.
Which does not relate to complexity whatsofuckingever
>>30235312
You can do that just as easily with a recip diesel.
The turbine's advantage is size and weight.
>>30233256
It's for fighting the Chinese. Don't want miss by shooting over their heads.
>>30235332
Oh but it does. No oil system, no radiator, you have a fuckton less hoses to disconnect, and shit to worry about.
>>30235369
No, see above.
>>30233256
whats with the flat turret armor
genuinely curious. Thought that was obsolete circa ww2
>>30233809
>muh Abrams
Nobody asked you to chime in, boy
>>30235326
>but to say there are zero advantages to turbines is silly.
I don't think anyone has claimed that so far
Hell, I don't think anyone's so much as claimed diesel is better
the argument isn't that diesel is better, the statement that turbines are simpler is dumb
>>30235386
you realize all of that shit comes out WITH the engine, right?
All except the actual radiator which is 2 hoses
And it STILL has nothing to do with mechanical complexity
And if you pull that stupid fucking argument of total parts = complexity, I'm going to fucking find you and smash your head with a piece of cement
>>30235393
They ARE mechanically simpler though, they are. They just have higher tolerences.
I found the old moter trend article that briefly mentioned the advantages. Its nice, because it reminds me of when writers actually fucking wrote.
>http://www.motortrend.com/news/first-test-m1-abrams/
>When the power pack must be taken out, it can be done in one hour (compared to four hours for a diesel) without special tools.
>>30234799
>AT4 and RPG-7
>ATGM
>>30235403
Smash away anon, turbines have less total parts, less moving parts, and less subsystems than pistons. This is a fact.
They are mechanically FAR simpler.
>>30235415
>They ARE mechanically simpler though, they are
Source
>They just have higher tolerences.
Which requires longer machining times, easier chance of coming OUT of tolerance, and all around MORE complexity
If every angle inside a turbine has to be exact, it's complex
>>30235415
>once again states ease of removal = lack of complexity
You are so fucking stupid it hurts
Does Japan have enough tanks to defend the island?
>>30235425
>Smash away anon, turbines have less total parts, less moving parts, and less subsystems than pistons. This is a fact.
Yup
>They are mechanically FAR simpler.
Nope
Not what complexity is
see>>30235431
If you have to precision machine every fin and every angle, it's complex
Total number of parts =/= complexity
Period
End of discussion
Done
Game over
Stop playing
Shut the game off
You're out of hot pockets
>>30234868
The HEMTT has a diesel that runs on JP-8.
So do Humvees.
Every ground vehicle in the US army runs on JP-8, all the way down to the field kitchens.
>>30235053
Torque don't real
This is why a Bugatti can beat a T-72 in a towing contest.
>>30235431
>Source
Ask for a source over simple stupid shit again, ill just straight up ignore you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#Advantages_and_disadvantages
>If every angle inside a turbine has to be exact, it's complex
It no more worse than piston TDC tolerences.
We are talking mechanically. Mechanically, i.e, the working of the mechanism, it is simpler.
>>30235467
I hope you're being a rusemaster
A T72 has over double the peak torque
>>30235443
>Not what complexity is
Oh, i guess pistons TDC can just be eyed by the machinist, amirite.
Its litterally the same tolerences, its not black magic.
Mechanically, they are far simpler. Thats it. Full stop. 100% factual statement.
>>30235480
was making fun of the idiot that said
>1500 hp tank engine is magically "under more strain" than 1500 hp truck engine
Tank engine are by definition under more strain because they have to handle much much more torque than automotive engines.
don't real is always a mocking term.
>>30235468
at no point in what you posted does it state that it is mechanically simpler
Give me a fucking source
>It no more worse than piston TDC tolerences.
literally 4 parts on what you're referring to
Cylinder, piston, head, piston ring
And then there's bearings and crankshaft, but there are bearings on turbines too so it's irrelevant
And yes, it is much worse than cylinder tolerances
have fun making an out of balance turbine
>We are talking mechanically. Mechanically, i.e, the working of the mechanism, it is simpler.
That's not what mechanically simple means
You're thinking conceptually simple
As in
>HURR AIR IN
>HURR AIR OUT
It is by no means mechanically simple
>>30235489
>piston top dead center
How does this have any relevance to machining?
top dead center is set by the length of your crank arms, not any machining aspects
All of that stuff is done with CNC and is done with easy simple boring
Not ridiculous differential milling and lathing of turbine blades
>Its litterally the same tolerences, its not black magic.
>.0001 is the same as .0000001
>the way something is machined is exactly the same regardless of the application
>all parts are exactly the same difficulty to machine despite how they are shaped
You're a fucking idiot
Not just an idiot, an uneducated, ignorant, pompous idiot
>Mechanically, they are far simpler.
>tolerances = mechanical simplicity
No
Stop making up definitions
>>30235504
the application of an engine does not determine it's torque output
>>30235538
Lets just get right down to your main misconception....
>All of that stuff is done with CNC and is done with easy simple boring
Not ridiculous differential milling and lathing of turbine blades
Whooooo nelly, you think turbine blades are not CNC'ed?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk_lhNTO6z8
Are we done here? Its just at "boreing" for turbines.
>>30235559
>Whooooo nelly, you think turbine blades are not CNC'ed?
Never said that
I'm saying tolerances are easily taken care of via CNC
No machinist involved
>Its just at "boreing" for turbines.
That's not English
And you can't bore a turbine
Learn how to machine
>>30235559
Btw, there are like, hundreds of these vids on YouTube, this is nothing new...
>>30235569
>Never said that
You litterally said that.
>I'm saying tolerances are easily taken care of via CNC
Which kind of kills your silly tolerences=complexity arguement.
Anon, you were a dick for no reason about shit you were wrong about. Just go to bed. I dont really expect you to admit you are wrong, just leave the thread, its just me and you anyways.
>>30235591
>Oh, i guess pistons TDC can just be eyed by the machinist, amirite.
>Its litterally the same tolerences, its not black magic.
You made this claim
I refuted with
>All of that stuff is done with CNC and is done with easy simple boring
>Not ridiculous differential milling and lathing of turbine blades
You still have not refuted that complex machining and design steps make a design more complex
>Which kind of kills your silly tolerences=complexity arguement.
Where did I make this argument
>Anon, you were a dick for no reason about shit you were wrong about
>wrong
You haven't refuted a thing I've said
You've just kept regurgitating the more parts = more complex meme
>>30234514
>Buuuuut, they are actually mechanically pretty simple and much easier to remove than a diesel pack.
Why anon? I understand the Abrams powerplant can be removed quickly but I'd love to see someone actually pin that on the fact that it's a turbine and not the fact that the design included a quick removal system.
The fact the AGT 1500 was designed in the 60's shows its well past due for replacement
>ITT
>idiot claims turbines are simple
>idiot comes back and tells him why he's retarded
>idiot #1 changes the topic
>idiot #2 takes the bait
>idiot #1 keeps making the same stupid claim
>idiot #2 makes stupid comparisons
>idiot #1 tries to talk like he knows anything
>idiot #2 keeps digging himself in a hole by making claims
You both are fucking retarded
#1 for thinking he knows a god damn thing about anything mechanical, and #2 for claiming that less parts never means less complexity
>>30235618
So now you are argueing that tolerences =/ more complex.
>You still have not refuted that complex machining and design steps make a design more complex
When its done via CNC (like every fucking thing) it does not.
Are you really still argueing this? Notice how i completely ignored your silly lathing comment, as if this was 1963. Ill let it go, hell, i wont even meantion it again past this even if you bring it up, again.
The blades are CNC'ed, a low speed low heat turbine such as the AGT-1500 does not need the tolerences you think it does. It straight up does not.
>>30235653
Turbines are mechanically very simple, nor have i changed the arguement.
>>30235633
Turbines compactness and mechanical simplicity greatly aids in this.
Wish the Type 10 would put on the cool spaced Armour and make it more angular, kinda like the Merk, or the Leopard 2A5+
Side note, why doesn't the Leopard 2SG have the spaced Armour ? Wouldn't it help against HEAT rounds and such?
>>30235538
>How does this have any relevance to machining?
>top dead center is set by the length of your crank arms, not any machining aspects
>All of that stuff is done with CNC and is done with easy simple boring
>Not ridiculous differential milling and lathing of turbine blades
Do you even know what a CNC machine is?
>>30235718
How does it's internal simplicity effect it's external removal process? you ever watched a diesel genset engine removal? They sit on a sled, coolant and diesel feed lines are removed and the whole powerpack is removed on the sled, which as I understand it is much as the Abrams is done.
>>30235747
I have swapped an 8l Cummins in 12 hours. Just from looking at the power pack of the Abrams I can tell you I'd rather work on that than fuck around with the diesel because the diesel doesn't come away all in one piece, everything has to be detached and it fucking blows.
>>30235747
Less lines, for one. Smaller size makes it eaiser to work around and lift. No oil lines, coolant lines, less shit to get in the way, etc.
One hour swap in the field is pretty damn impressive anon.
>>30235771
But this has nothing inherently to do with the powerpack, simply the design of the vehicle using it. The Abrams was designed with quick powerplant removal in mind, plenty of large diesel powered machines have a similar design with modular powerpacks designed for quick removal.
>>30235790
Show me a one hour average diesel swap in field conditions, not garage.
I mean, an article or whatever, its not like i need a video.
>>30235800
Oh, and it does not need to be a tank, just preferably tank like.
>>30235420
I would think that something that can only stand against 30m would get hit real hard by an ATGM.
>>30235435
Japan isn't just one island. And defend against who ?
Here're some numbers
Type 10 (66)
Type 90 (340)
Type 74 (280)
>>30235851
Depends. Its HEAT resistance might be great, but kinetically its not so great.
DU is like this, but the US backs it with composites.
>>30235787
>Smaller size makes it eaiser to work around and lift
Granted, although one would assume the tools for said powerpack removal were supplied, the weight though isn't all that different, there's about 300kg in it. As far as line removal goes, you don't need to remove any oil lines unless your oil supply is remote and if you're designing a powerpack for quick removal then oil supply/cooling is contained on the sled, coolant is harder as it requires much more volume for cooling so yeah, coolant line removal is an on top although plenty of systems exist for the lock off and quick removal of lines.
>>30235800
I have no idea if I could find something anon, I'm simply speaking from experience with large scale energy powerplants, I've never seen inside current generation diesel tank but I can't see why other modular powerpack systems couldn't be integrated in a similar way inside a tank.
As I've seen it the whole powerpack for the Abrams comes out in one assembly, most of the heat shielding included, do you both claim a similar system couldn't be integrated into a diesel tank?
>>30233256
>it doesn't have a robot mode
D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D
>>30235869
>
Armor Nano-crystal steel (Triple Hardness Steel), modular ceramic composite armor, light-weight upper armor.
Type 10 does have composites, but I think it's meant to shoot and scoot, not slug it out with other tanks.
Re militarisation of Japan when ?
>>30235877
>As I've seen it the whole powerpack for the Abrams comes out in one assembly, most of the heat shielding included, do you both claim a similar system couldn't be integrated into a diesel tank?
As far as i know, it hasent been done, thats my claim.
Logically, if it was easy it would have been done, right?
>>30235909
I don't know if it's been done on a tank but it's certainly been done on gensets and the like.
>>30235909
Thats the problem with the mindset of these defense contractors
If the government isn't paying them extortionate amounts of money, they won't do or improve anything
No surprise China will achieve parity soon with the US military
>>30235892
Yeah its meant to shoot and scoot.
Remember the moon is full of rice paddies, river valleys mountains and other shit that aint conducive to heavy tanks.
That is why China is investing in a new generation of light tanks so when they invade they can send the light tanks instead of the heavies.
>>30235968
> implying the U.S. military won't advance at all while that upgrade shitty Russian knockoffs.
Too bad Japanese tanks and others don't have APS.
Trophy best system.
>>30235909
>As far as i know, it hasent been done,
Pretty much all modern tanks are set up that way.
Here's the power pack from the Leo2
>>30235140
>talk completely out their ass about technology
>more power =/= more strain
power = force*distance/time
stress = force/cross-sectional area
strain = stress/elastic modulus
more power = more force = more stress = more strain
>>30235196
>a diesel engine is NOT mechanically more complex than a fucking turbine
but it fucking is. reciprocating engines have multiple combustion chambers, camshafts, and valves all linked with drive belts and other shit. the forces involved are more discreete, with stress spikes occurring once each cycle (ie compression ignition combustion exhaustion)
a turbine doesnt have distinct combustion phases and the resulting stress spikes since everything is essentially happening at once along the length of the chamber. there arent as many parts either since each system for the combustion cycle is built into the drive shaft, meaning fewer connections prone to failure.
got too bored to read your other spergposts
go read a book on machine design kiddo
>>30234209
youre asking a question of the kind of people who thought making the bradley 10 tons heavier and twice as conspicuous was a good idea. "i get paid too much to worry about where this money goes, and someone at the manufacturer told me this was a good choice" generals.
>>30233256
It looks like a Leopard 2.
Turbines in tanks have too many drawbacks for the barely existing adventages.
The future of tank propulsion is diesel-electric anyway.
>>30234199
Japan's a mountainous country, more incline's actually a useful feature.
>>30235468
above all it's other flaws, turbine entails overextended supply lines. and the decision to equip abrams with it had to do more with lobbying and politics rather than 'mechanical simplicity'
>>30235011
thank god marine applications use turbines, not diesel, rite?
>>30236478
Well getting a 1500hp engine into a tank in the 70 was cutting edge technolgy.
Germany was the first and only for a long time who were capable of archiving it.
And then lobbying happened in the USA that such a crucial part of a tank can't be designed and supplied by a foreign country.
Similiar reason why the USA also went with Chobham/Burlington and not with the German composite armor solution although first gen Chobham armour doesn't provide a weight adventage against KP projectiles - officially it was sold on the idea that the Soviets would only use guided missiles with shaped charge warheads in the future (which was bullshit).
>>30233256
It looks exactly like Leopard 2.
>>30236478
>being this verifiably wrong about everything
>>30236573
No Chobham was sold on the idea that it is to this day still standard Russian doctrine to use HEAT until within 1km due to abysmal KE performance on the 64, 72 and 80 where a standard load out had them equipped with less than a dozen KE rounds.
And the turbine was selected almost entirely because it was cheaper than multifuel traditional engines and fuel depots were expected to be prime targets so having a tank that can refuel at the nearest petrol station using whatever was available was considered too good to pass up.
>>30235743
Anyone know the comparisons between the foreign Leopard 2 variants and the original ?
Domo
Why don't more tanks have something like this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R35j7NPV6Es
Wouldn't it give tank crew/commanders more situational awareness such and such ?
>>30237453
What's that fat box on the front ? Why's it so big ? Why's it got grills on it ?
>>30236478
The temperature difference is not that big ; the AGT-1500 exhaust temperature is stated at 499°C while the MT-873 is rated at 220°C. The Leclerc's V8X1500 Hyperbar diesel engine is evne rated at 400°C
The difference is at the level of their exhaust streams, the first generates a continuous stream of hot air while the latter spews diesel fumes after each acceleration.
The author seems to not understand the laws of infrared radiation ; the air has a very low level of emissivity, which means that its capability to emit its energy as thermal radiation is poor.
>>30237488
ir search light
>>30237496
>The author seems to not understand
I'll give you three guesses who the author is, and then you can judge on that the veracity of the page.
>>30237496
499 static? Because the tank in your picture is
>>30233256
Korean detected, it's supposed to be able to lean like that for better gun depression.
>>30237522
This is not specified.
>>30237707
I ask because the difference in any combustion engine between idle and load figures will be vast.
>>30234079
Underrated post
>>30237717
Your question is if the RPM of a turbine changes when under load, the fact that fuel consumption does not change much while idle gives you your answer.
>>30236564
>thank god marine applications use turbines, not diesel, rite?
Naval ships commonly use gas turbines.
>>30237496
220 degrees is also while it is idle.
>>30237488
>>30237497
holy shit, what is this? the 1960s?
>>30241176
It's an IR spotlight. That tank was designed in the 1960s, so yes, it's kind of an outdated feature.
>>30240719
No that wasn't my question anon, my question was whether the exhaust heat output of 499 was at idle, because 499 at full load is an amazing level of heat reduction in the amount of space given, in sheer terms combustion temperature will be well in excess of 1kc depending on mixture, richer being hotter in the use of Kero/Diesel like JP.
>>30234298
Dont forget doesn't share fuel types with most large vehicles you'll come across.
>>30244096
Yeah it does, the Americans use JP on almost everything from their diesels to their jets. When Australia was in Afghanistan we borrowed their JP for our diesel vehicles too which in a purely Australian operation would use Diesel.
>>30241176
>holy shit, what is this? the 1960s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_74
>Designed 1962
The Kawasaki C2 can carry a type 10, or a type 90.
>>30237474
Cool beans
>>30237474
>Why don't more tanks have something like this ?
Because most of the military hardware being used at present was designed in the 60's, built in the 70's, and first used in a real war in the 80's.
Expect this kind of thing to be standard sometime in 2040, unless a major conflict erupts.
>>30244658
Wouldn't they include such a thing on the SEPv3 upgrade ?
>>30233256
Cat in heat
>>30244747
Why do you think that they should?
>>30233296
See that's kind of like the claim that the katana is the bestest sword ever because it can split a bullet. Impressive sounding, but then you realize that a butter knife can do the same thing.
>>30234656
>That's not what that means at fucking all
Actually yeah, it does.
>>30244969
splitting a bullet is a terrible idea
you get two holes in you instead of one
>>30244849
>>30234079
Actually made me chuckle, good shit anon
>>30244977
>a solid-state hard drive is simpler than a socket wrench
>>30235800
>Show me a one hour average diesel swap in field conditions, not garage.
The WWII M18 Hellcat was designed for quick engine and trans swaps, with both having quick-detach fitting and sliding out rails.
>>30244926
Better situational awareness
>>30244988
I think you remove a lot of KE from the bullet when you split it.
>>30245477
In what sense? The M1 already has a rotating thermal sight. You know that, right?
>>30245521
Up and down ? The thingy I mentioned can also lase targets i think.
>>30245636
>Up and down ?
Uh, yeah, the sight can move up and down. How do you think it follows the movement of the gun barrel except by moving up and down?
>The thingy I mentioned can also lase targets i think.
The M1 is armed with a gun, it doesn't shoot missiles. Why would it need to lase for missiles?
In fact, you know what can lase for missiles? All of the things that carry missiles. Funny how that works, right?
>>30245743
GBUs? Like why infantry have target designators.
>>30245802
Why would you need a tank to lase for a plane?
There are already plenty of other platforms that are capable of this.
Why hasn't Japan and other countries like France and Singapore not chosen slanted armour, like the Abrams, Leopard 2, and the Merk ?
>>30242848
The AGT-1500 has a pretty large cylindrical heat exchanger.
>>30245844
Why would you want a sloped armor when you already have sloped layers within your armor modules?
>>30245899
Could you explain ? I don't understand.
>>30245914
It's not because the armor modules are vertical that the inside isn't slopped.
>>30245936
Thanks fampai
>>30237423
Turbines aren't cheaper a diesel engines + extra logistics
A fact that put the Abrams into the last place in that field in every trial.
>>30237423
HEAT was basically used by all nations until tanks started to deploy new types of armor.
After that the Russian developed new KP ammunition to counter Western armor developement.
>>30245844
>Why hasn't Japan and other countries like France and Singapore not chosen slanted armour, like the Abrams, Leopard 2, and the Merk ?
>>>
> Anonymous 06/12/16(Sun)04:50:12 No.30245886▶
>File: agt1500_postcard_web.jpg (471 KB, 1600x1005)
>>>30242848
>The AGT-1500 has a pretty large cylindrical heat exchanger.
Modern tank armor is not a solid, thin shape. It's a dense construction made up of many layers.
>>30246677
what the shit happened to my post?
fuck it, it's 8 AM, I'm drunk, but my picture posted successfully. I hope you can figure out the rest senpai
>>30246682
Thanks bae
Bumping with link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdrZZwDf3iE
>>30237453
its a nippon death ray, its shoots ray that makes you dead.
Not like inferior white mans piggu mg.
>>30246309
That and KMW bribes.
>>30234079
>>30233256
Why is it slant- OH Japanese. Nevermind.
Is this a new meme
>>30246326
It's still Russian doctrine to use HEAT as the standard AT method for anything more than 1km out.
>>30246309
Nothing you said invalidates the post you're replying to.
>>30247761
>It's still Russian doctrine to use HEAT as the standard AT method for anything more than 1km out.
This is wrong.
The typical combat load of a T-90 is
15 APFSDS
6 HEAT
15 FRAG-HE
6 missile
>>30247761
Modern tanks have such a stupid high protection against HEAT that it would be a rather pointless excercise.
>>30234873
>>30234896
>>30234944
LAV3 uses a CAT3126 engine
Kenworth truck runs a CAT3126 engine
Lav 3 has a shorter operational life so it runs a hotter tune to give it more donkeys
This can be done with pretty much any diesel engine
for example a road truck C15 will be 450 hp factory, where as a marine engine C15 can happily run 1000hp all day with only injector changes and a different cooling package.#
Common rail fuel systems in larger diesel engines have made up that power gap lacking when tanks like the abrams were being designed. A gas turbine is just a big fucking waste of fuel now.
Also an engine like the one used in a Leo 2 (MTU MB873) could be theoretically run in a road truck rather easily
>>30252314
>Also an engine like the one used in a Leo 2 (MTU MB873) could be theoretically run in a road truck rather easily
And it would last significantly longer in a road truck due to the difference in use, which is why claiming a truck can last for xyz more miles is pants on head retarded.
>>30252726
>due to the difference in use
>Pulling anywhere from 50 to 200 tonne
>accelerating up through 18 gears every time they have to stop
>doing this year in year out
>thinking this isn't the hardest job diesel engines do
Work in a vehicle like military armor is simply play time by comparison, so much less time spent at load it's not funny, so many less idle to high idle cycles, short time between overhauls, short operational spans, you seem to lack an understanding of what these engines do for a living.
>inb4 the military will treat them rough
>imblying operators of fleet trucks don't
>imblying fleet operaters don't aftermarket mod their trucks for more power.
>>30253037
They're allowed to ?
>>30254525
Entirely depends on local laws but many, many private operator trucks out there are modified, whether it's through mechanical fuel and boost adjustments on older trucks or flash tunes/piggy back chips on newer ones or even running LPG/CNG injection.
>>30234868
Umm, you do know that most all of the JP-# fuels are basically diesel, right? More to the point kerosene, but kerosene is just diesel with less lubricity.
>>30236478
>that filename
Ya obosralsya.
OT of turbine vs diesel:
Ruskies had a legit choice between a turbine and a diesel in fully-functional machines, and in the end they have chosen diesel. US Army stuck with the turbine because it was their only option at all. I believe it kinda speaks for itself.
>>30253037
>due to the difference in use
>Pulling anywhere from 50 to 200 tonne
>accelerating up through 18 gears every time they have to stop
>doing this year in year out
>thinking this isn't the hardest job diesel engines do
You left out the part where they spend most of their life doing constant speeds on paved roads.
>>30256410
Pulling anywhere from 50 to 200t with less available power than any MBT has and they do it day in, day out. So yes a large portion of their life is steady speed but their operational life is manyfold longer than any piece of armor and said steady speed is at load, 60-70mph with the aerodynamics of a brick and plenty of weight behind. Even if you took out the steady state operation I bet the average truck engine's hours of service/mean time between overhauls would still exceed the average piece of military hardware.
>>30256776
>Even if you took out the steady state operation I bet the average truck engine's hours of service/mean time between overhauls would still exceed the average piece of military hardware.
Exactly, comparing engine life of a road truck to a military vehicle is pants on head retarded.
>>30256923
Not trying to compare engine life, that's where you're missing the point, I'm stating that the average truck engine works waaaaaay harder than an engine in something like a piece of armor and whilst doing this has a much longer service life - ie:it will do more work, more often, for longer.
>>30257999
This is obviously incorrect.
ITT: Fags who doesnt know that multifuel diesel engines exist.
They can use jetfuel, diesel, petrol or any combination of those and are just as easy to remove/install in a tank.
>>30258747
So let me get this straight an engine of 1500hp moving say 65t is going to do more work than an engine of ~600hp moving anywhere up to 200t at higher speeds for longer durations. Bearing in mind these are governed engines.
>>30258837
>So let me get this straight
You're being trolled.
>>30258837
Yes. Mostly because your truck is going to spend literally it's entire life on pavement moving at a constant speed.
Meanwhile a tank climbs a 50 degree hill at 65 miles an hour, fires a 120mm cannon without shaking itself apart, while still climbing a 50 degree hill at 65 mph, while getting shot at.
>>30259353
>while getting shot at.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the engine.
>>30234079
chuckled
>>30233256
Russian T-14 ! Russian-made Tank
>>30259225
Honestly, I don't think I was, could be wrong though.
>>30259468
>I don't think I was
Then you're an idiot.
The only thing I posted was "This is obviously incorrect."
In what universe does that sound like a well-reasoned argument that you need to respond to?
>>30258809
>retard thinks such engines were around, and cheap or reliable during the 70s and 80s
