The Abrams can be fitted with a diesel engine, Congress just hasn’t let the Army get any at this point. The turbine was forced on the Army.Well, the turbine can be run on diesel fuel, while the M1A2SEP3 adds an APU that can also use diesel fuel.
Yep - the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) allows the tank's systems to be powered without having to run the engine. Still uses fuel, but not to the same magnitude as the turbine.Sorry, dumb question- APU is basically a genny on the vehicle to power electrical systems without running the engine?
There have been a number of proposed changes from both the Army and GD on the Abrams and the engine, but Lawmakers down here have enforced the Turbine - and had scuttled some earlier APU adoption attempts.As an aside, the Government Accountability Office report on Army combat systems after the 1991 Gulf War noted that the M1 was a great tank but had limited range (in terms of movement, not gunnery) due to high fuel consumption. They noted that the tanks were idling close to 70% of the time to operate combat systems, and one recommendation that came out of the war was for APUs to be fitted.
There have been a number of proposed changes from both the Army and GD on the Abrams and the engine, but Lawmakers down here have enforced the Turbine - and had scuttled some earlier APU adoption attempts.
That said, when the Army wanted to close the Abrams line, the House and Senate refused and put it on a minimum build rate.
I think a lot of them have a "Resists Change" PER BoxWhat in the hell are legislators doing meddling with things like whether a tank had an APU? I know American Congress critters get mixed up in all kinds of wacky shit way outside their legislative arcs, but this?
I think the term is "pork-barreling."
Those Bradley's have the BRA on them (Bradley explosive Reactive Armor) - so that is the reason for the survivability.@KevinB
In the Ukraine thread you posted a video of an M2A2 Bradley surviving a frontal hit from a 125mm tank gun.
Much is made of the M10 Booker not being a tank, not being heavy enough to be used as a tank etc.
Now the username says it all, but to me it seems like between the weight per surface area, armour angle, material advances etc, that an M10 should be significantly better protected/more survivable than an M2A2.
By no means a vehicle that can slug it out with modern western MBT's, but throw in a state of the art FCS and it seems like it should be at least serviceable as a "tank" capable of day/night operations against Russian equipment, especially the B grade stuff (T-72's, etc)
With the RCAC looking to single stream, a tank that shares the same crewing requirements and could be employed similarly to the Leo's while providing strategic mobility benefits and not requiring the same heavyweight infrastructure seems like a viable option for the non-Leo portion of th RCAC.
Those Bradley's have the BRA on them (Bradley explosive Reactive Armor) - so that is the reason for the survivability.
In the past we (NATO) had generally avoided ERA solutions due to damage to dismounts - but the smaller panels BRA uses on the turret and front glacis plates generally dont cause significant issues where friendly infantry would be.
ERA works for single charge HEAT - they don't work so well for multi staged warheads, or kinetic penetrators.
I suspect Russia has burned through most of their modern 125mm APDS shells, and a lot of their dual warhead HEAT rockets, shells. and missiles, but not all, and they and others will adapt.
Wheeled and tracked vehicles fight very differently -- if Canada was too look at a M10 FSV (Fire Support Vehicle: for the "not a light tank" nomenclature) I would think that it would be supporting a T-IFV not a LAV, but I would also suggest that then the Abrams and Bradley (or OMFV if it ever comes to light) would be a better option for Canada and go all in on US mech kit.