• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada's tanks

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,475
Points
1,140
The end of the day the M1A2 Abrams is the most successfully combat tested tank in the field currently.
Would the Leo 2A6+ d as well, probably, they just haven't seen the number of engagements that the Abrams has at this point.

I would argue that the T-XX USSR tanks are the most combat tested tanks, and clearly take gold in the turret throw event.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
883
Points
1,060

going to be a need for new tanks everywhere if this war keeps going. Perfect time to send our Leos over and get in line for some Abrams

If the UK can get Challengers over to Poland to facilitate a transfer of T-72. Crickets from Canada
 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
344
Points
730
Thanks for the replies, interesting info on survivability. How do they compare on fuel consumption they are both listed at 1500hp. I think the turbine would be thirsty. Not that would be reason to not buy Abrams them but I'm just curious?
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
883
Points
1,060
Thanks for the replies, interesting info on survivability. How do they compare on fuel consumption they are both listed at 1500hp. I think the turbine would be thirsty. Not that would be reason to not buy Abrams them but I'm just curious?

I think this was previously posted theres some value in the diesel for sure
 

TangoTwoBravo

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,417
Points
1,110
The turbine is distinctive, but I don't find M1s particularly loud. In the field we tend to wear headseats and have our own vehicle noise around us. As a tank crew commander, if I am relying on my sense of hearing to find enemy tanks then we've gone off-script. Although I suppose sound to find enemy tanks is better than smell, touch and taste? I'd still rather rely on my sense of sight, aided by good optics. Like those found on M1s and Leos.

Anyhoo.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,942
Points
1,160
Thanks for the replies, interesting info on survivability. How do they compare on fuel consumption they are both listed at 1500hp. I think the turbine would be thirsty. Not that would be reason to not buy Abrams them but I'm just curious?
It's improved greatly since they installed an APU on them (which they should have done from the beginning) To give you an idea, our 1100hp RR Gnome in a hovercraft consumed 50 gals at idle and about 70 at cruise. So bank on 60 gals per hour of movement.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,028
Points
1,040
Whatever happened with that dieselization project?

Just based on stats, the Leo 2 and M1 weigh about the same and their engines produce about the same horsepower but at significant fuel savings for the diesel Leo.

It seems that the hull was built to take either engine. We're long past the Chrysler issue. Have there been any serious attempts to swap out a diesel engine and improve its fuel consumption?

🍻
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,453
Points
1,040
the Abrams is likley the most survivable tank on the field right now
Challenger 2 (now 3) would like to have a word with you... lol

It used to be that NATO MBT's were relatively easily categorized by what they emphasized on the mobility, armour, and firepower triangle.

Leo's and Leclerks emphasized mobility both strategic and tactical (better milage, higher speed, lighter ground pressure etc...)
Challenger's were much better armoured then the others
Abrams had the best fire control and sensor systems

Not so much anymore as they are all taking the best from each other and implementing that in upgrade programs etc...
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,453
Points
1,040
Although I suppose sound to find enemy tanks is better than smell, touch and taste?
Russian tanks probably don't taste so good...

sick ralph wiggum GIF
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,475
Points
1,140
Whatever happened with that dieselization project?

Just based on stats, the Leo 2 and M1 weigh about the same and their engines produce about the same horsepower but at significant fuel savings for the diesel Leo.

It seems that the hull was built to take either engine. We're long past the Chrysler issue. Have there been any serious attempts to swap out a diesel engine and improve its fuel consumption?

🍻
Congress has constantly refused any Diesel engine changes.
I suspect any foreign military could swap them over if they wanted.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,453
Points
1,040
Congress has constantly refused any Diesel engine changes.
I suspect any foreign military could swap them over if they wanted.
Is that a pork barrel thing? Lots of electorial districts hinge on no diesel? Or is that because the engine is multifuel.
 

armrdsoul77

Member
Reaction score
226
Points
730
It's improved greatly since they installed an APU on them (which they should have done from the beginning) To give you an idea, our 1100hp RR Gnome in a hovercraft consumed 50 gals at idle and about 70 at cruise. So bank on 60 gals per hour of movement.
What hovercraft is that?
 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
344
Points
730

I think this was previously posted theres some value in the diesel for sure

Thanks, I didn't see that article before. If that article is accurate dieselization would be a great benefit to the Abrams. Maybe the environmental benefits of the lower fuel consumption will push it forward. You can also add a small diesel apu to save even more fuel. A 1-2L diesel can keep environmental and eletrical systems working for much less fuel and they don't take much room
With the other options available our current government is much to environmentally sensitive to buy the Abrams at those fuel consumption numbers.

The article mentions the Bradley. It uses an obsolete V-8 Cummins the VTA-903. Apparently Cummins has been hand building them for the army out of left over parts and charging crazy money for them. If they are keeping the Bradley a re-power would be a good idea.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,475
Points
1,140
The article mentions the Bradley. It uses an obsolete V-8 Cummins the VTA-903. Apparently Cummins has been hand building them for the army out of left over parts and charging crazy money for them. If they are keeping the Bradley a re-power would be a good idea.
You cannot simply obsolete an Army part that is on contact.
The manufacturer needs to supply items and subcomponents for 5 years after the end date of any contract.

Ideally the manufacturer proposes an ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) to the Government to update older items.
This helps both the manufacturer (not having to keep old items in production or keep old stock) and the Government with newer/more economical etc items.
 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
344
Points
730
You cannot simply obsolete an Army part that is on contact.
The manufacturer needs to supply items and subcomponents for 5 years after the end date of any contract.

Ideally the manufacturer proposes an ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) to the Government to update older items.
This helps both the manufacturer (not having to keep old items in production or keep old stock) and the Government with newer/more economical etc items.

Obsolete technology that is only being produced for the army thus driving the costs up. Rumor had it that Cummins is charging $130,000+ per engine. In comparison a Re-Mack MP10 600hp was $50,000cad when we replaced one a couple years ago.

Cummins stopped commercial production of the 903 back in the early 90's. Diesel technology has come a long way since then.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,475
Points
1,140
Obsolete technology that is only being produced for the army thus driving the costs up. Rumor had it that Cummins is charging $130,000+ per engine. In comparison a Re-Mack MP10 600hp was $50,000cad when we replaced one a couple years ago.

Cummins stopped commercial production of the 903 back in the early 90's. Diesel technology has come a long way since then.
I'd argue that is a fail on the OEM provider not to look into an ECP.
 
Top