Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the M-1 Became a Fuel Hog
Strategypage.com ^ | 12-18-03 | AJ Wagner

Posted on 12/18/2003 2:11:03 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4

December 18, 2003: The M1 Abrams is the first and only gas turbine powered main battle tank. Similar to a helicopter gas turbine, its AGT-1500 engine is very compact and has a tremendous power to weight ratio, making the Abrams the fastest accelerating tank in the field today. Unfortunately, the Abrams' fuel consumption horribly high, about 5 gallons per mile, a number that does not go down much at idle because, unlike a diesel engine, the turbine is still turning even when the tracks are not.

At the time the tank was conceived, this poor fuel consumption wasn't considered an issue. The Abrams' design was optimized for NATO's Central European Theater with the Army's aggressive Airland Battle Doctrine in mind. This new doctrine called for fast-paced maneuvering. Because German terrain was rough and heavily forested, which limited distance; it fit the Abrams power plant like a glove. The tank's power gave it the required speed (a top speed of 72 kilometers an hour versus the British Challenger's top speed of 59 kilometers an hour) and its poor fuel economy mattered significantly less over short distances.

It was the 1991 Persian Gulf War that highlighted the limits of the Abrams' specialized design and Army doctrine. Charging through the Iraqi desert west of Kuwait, the Army's VII Corps struggled to keep four armored and mechanized divisions synchronized (tanks and other vehicles moving together) for a simultaneous attack on the Iraqi Republican Guard. Synchronization meant frequent stops and slow downs to keep a common pace among thousands of vehicles. The Corps could only move as fast as the slowest element if it was to stay together. Most telling, when units halted to refuel, the Abrams' tanks were empty while other vehicles, including tracked Bradley Fighting Vehicles, had quarter- and even half-filled fuel tanks. The pace of the battle was slowed in a way the corps commander didn't believe he could change. The Abrams drank too much gas and Army doctrine said that synchronization was vital. He couldn't abandon the Abrams and he felt desynchronizing his force would result in friendly fire. The "slow" pace of VII Corps is blamed by some for the escape of Republican Guard elements in the last days of the war.

After the war, a Defense Science Board report highlighted the Abrams gas-guzzling as a problem and the Army sought a number of technical solutions, including JP-8 fuel, an improved fuel control system, Auxiliary Power Units to allow the turbine to be shut off more often, and a replacement engine. The simplest non-technical solution was the new operational approach used in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

Because the Abrams burns almost as much fuel at idle as it does on the move, the 3rd Infantry Division simply did not stop moving from the Kuwait-Iraq border to the outskirts of Baghdad. The latest iteration of Army doctrine, FM 3-0 Operations, still lists synchronization as a tenet of Army operations, but this time the emphasis was put on other tenets: initiative, agility, and depth. Synchronization went out the window, allowing one brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division to speed 240 km in 40 hours versus VII Corps' Desert Storm attack of 160 km in four days. The Abrams was still a gas hog, but the fuel was burned moving instead of standing still.

To replace the Abrams' tired AGT-1500 engines, the Army planned to develop a new gas turbine, the LV100, for the Crusader howitzer and a future M1 upgrade. With twenty years of technology to build on, the LV100 was to have improvements such as hotter core temperatures for better fuel efficiency and fewer bolts to reduce rotor stress and increase length between inspections and replacement. Unfortunately, fewer than a dozen LV100 prototypes were built before the Crusader program was cancelled, taking the LV100 with it. Testing of these engines was not completed but the program expected to reduce the number of parts in the engine by 43 percent versus the AGT-1500 and improve the efficiency by 30 percent. The cancellation leaves the Abrams to soldier on with the aging inefficient engine and growing maintenance problems.

The US Army of the late 1970s and 1980s had a laser-beam focus on war in Central Europe. The Abrams might have done well there. The deficiencies we see today lie at the crossroads of technology, doctrine, and strategy and will not be easily corrected. Where and how will the next war be fought? The better we are able to predict these issues and the better design tradeoffs we make, the more effective our next generation weapons will be. --AJ Wagner


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: abrams; armor; m1a1; miltech; tanks; treadheads
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
Free Republic Treadhead Ping

archy; Gringo1; Matthew James; Fred Mertz; Squantos; colorado tanker; The Shrew; SLB; Darksheare; BCR #226; Imacatfish; Tailback; DCBryan1; Eaker; Archangelsk; gatorbait; river rat; alfa6; Lee'sGhost

1 posted on 12/18/2003 2:11:07 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: M1Tanker; Delta 21; oh8eleven; Proud Legions; .cnI redruM; Thunder 6; archy; Gringo1; ...
Treadhead Ping
2 posted on 12/18/2003 2:16:09 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (Old soldiers never die. They just go to the commissary parking lot and regroup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Good read. However, it is a little doom and gloom. Materials and combuster technology is greatly improved, with SFC approaching recip engines. This doesn't help idol fuel flow, but it does mitigate the problem. What they don't mention is the reliability the turbine offers, with fewer moving parts and minimal vibration through the drive train (no power pulses, just smooth continuous ponies)
3 posted on 12/18/2003 2:17:16 PM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
idol=idle
4 posted on 12/18/2003 2:17:57 PM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
While all this may be true, I think the MA-A1 as a weapon system (including fuel) has proved itself.

Form follows function.

You pick the weapon you want to use against a U.S. Armor Brigade.
5 posted on 12/18/2003 2:18:15 PM PST by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Past time to consider developing a CODAG power system like that used in the Swedish "S" tank.

That is a 300hp diesel engine that provides fuel efficient power sufficient for travel on good roads and for slow manuvering in the field and lager, and an 800hp coaxial gas turbine that is lit off in combat to provide an instant 1100 hp.

The M-1 would need something larger like a 500hp diesel and a coaxial 1200 hp gas turbine to give 1700 hp when needed.
The weight increases from the original M-1 to the M1A2 make the added power very desirable.

6 posted on 12/18/2003 2:20:20 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Back in the late 1980's I worked for a company that made tankers (gasoline, fuel oil, etc), including some for the military. The ones for the military were generally truck-frame-mounted ones with 4,000 to 5,000 gallon capacity. The military had this new tank (either in planning or in early production) and they just realized that they did not have enough tanker capacity to keep the new tank moving.

We built the 8,000 gallon semi-trailer type M-1062 for them. It was too late for the first gulf war, but I saw one of them on TV in this war. I remember talking with a military guy in Detroit one time about the fuel mileage of the tank. He told me it was in gallons-per-mile, too (rather than miles-per-gallon). I jokingly suggested that they put a fifth-wheel on the back of the tank and just pull the M-1062 along with them. He did not think it was funny.
7 posted on 12/18/2003 2:24:09 PM PST by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
If it is going more than a fews 10s of miles, then it needs to be on the back of a roll-on/roll-off flatbed. What's the problem then? If the combination comes under attack, it then rolls off and persues the enemy. When the way is clear it rolls back on and off they go. If trouble is anticipated ahead it will roll off and lead the way. Do I have to think of everything around here?
8 posted on 12/18/2003 2:24:45 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
December 18, 2003: The M1 Abrams is the first and only gas turbine powered main battle tank. Similar to a helicopter gas turbine, its AGT-1500 engine is very compact and has a tremendous power to weight ratio, making the Abrams the fastest accelerating tank in the field today. Unfortunately, the Abrams' fuel consumption horribly high, about 5 gallons per mile, a number that does not go down much at idle because, unlike a diesel engine, the turbine is still turning even when the tracks are not.

Somebody didn't do his homework....

The T-80 main battle tank has been in production since the late 1970's. KBTM of Omsk, Russian Federation, manufactures the T-80U for general use in infantry and tank units and the T-80UK command tank and XKBM, Kharkov, Ukraine, manufactures the T-80UD and the T-84. 320 T-80UD tanks have been ordered from Ukraine by Pakistan, and are being delivered. In August 2002, it was announced that South Korea is to purchase from Russia a number of T-80 tanks.

ARMAMENT

The T-80U carries the 9M119 Refleks (NATO designation AT-11 Sniper) anti-tank guided missile system which is fired from the main gun. The range of the missile is 100m to 4,000m. The system is intended to engage tanks fitted with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as low-flying air targets such as helicopters, at a range of up to 5km. The missile system fires either the 9M119 or 9M119M missiles, which have semi-automatic laser beamriding guidance.

PROPULSION

The T-80U's gas turbine engine is the GTD-1250 which produces 920 kW (1,250hp). The GTD-1250 is a three shaft engine with two cascades of turbocompression. There is also an independent GTA-18 auxiliary power unit for use when the tank is stationary.


9 posted on 12/18/2003 2:24:48 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
...power system like that used in the Swedish "S" tank.

I drive a Sweedish "S" series tank...it burns unleaded.

10 posted on 12/18/2003 2:34:51 PM PST by Orangedog (Remain calm...all is well! [/sarcasm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
Next, you will be saying that the U.S. Army doesn't need fixed wing assets and that all fixed wing aircraft belongs in the AF......oh, wait, that is the way it works now..... never mind.
11 posted on 12/18/2003 2:35:26 PM PST by Lokibob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
Sounds like that LV100 engine deserves some research funding.

I believe the Abrams has a 500 gallon fuel tank, making for 100 miles of straight-line travel before they go empty on fuel. That also means 4,000 lbs. of fuel adds to the weight of the tank.

I think they store about 1 ton of main gun ammo (40 rounds or so at 40-54 lbs.)

12 posted on 12/18/2003 2:36:28 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
hmmm,

I discussed this with an old cannon cocker and some professional troublemakers,

airstrikes and lots of long-range artillery,
as nothing we could think of will stay in the fight past the inital exchange

I was thinking an old Elephant or Mause might do it for a bit but they 'only had 88mm or 105mm' if I recall correctly, and they were put out of commission by artillery and tank destroyers at the German Version of Abdereen proving ground.

a German tank destroyer the Nashorn, had a long range high velocity 88 but not much armor or mobility

I'm thinking an A-10 is about it.

r
13 posted on 12/18/2003 2:38:26 PM PST by woerm (student of history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
unlike a diesel engine, the turbine is still turning even when the tracks are not.

So he thinks that every time the Diesel engined tanks stop moving even for a moment, the engine is shut down?

14 posted on 12/18/2003 2:50:58 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Turbine engines are notorious fuel hogs when run at, or near, sea-level. If it wasn't for the fact that they fly at 30-40,000 ft they wouldn't be used on airliners, for that reason.
15 posted on 12/18/2003 2:53:26 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
116 command detonated 500 lb bombs.

Or just bribe the Pakistani contractors running the chow hall not to wash the dishes.

16 posted on 12/18/2003 2:53:41 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (Old soldiers never die. They just go to the commissary parking lot and regroup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
Actualy what you suggest is not that bad of an idea.

I worked on hellicopters for the Army and they have drop tanks for those, why not have a sort of pull along drop tank for armor. You could use them for long runs in non danger areas and then "drop them off" when going into a high probable combat area. You could then pick them up for later dellivery at a forward refuel area.
17 posted on 12/18/2003 2:57:11 PM PST by tricky_k_1972
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Oh, I thought you were talking about this kind of M1. I guess it's a fuel hog too, but not as much as the one you're talking about.
18 posted on 12/18/2003 2:57:35 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Weight.

Weight.

Weight.

Weight.

Following weight was acceleration, startup power, and physical size (smaller engine means smaller engine compartment and lighter weight chassis = less armor needed to protect a smaller frame.

But weight drove the selection of GT over the competing diesel when the tank was designed.

Notice the "failure" cited in the first Gulf War was the "doctrine" that the commander cited that everybody had to stay together! If they had let the tanks go, they might have succeeded in cutting off the escaping Iraqi troops and armor, or they "might" have gotten cut down and isolated by NOT having troops and support vehicles with the tanks.

Doctrine was the failure. Not the tank.
19 posted on 12/18/2003 3:09:14 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
The M-1 would need something larger like a 500hp diesel and a coaxial 1200 hp gas turbine to give 1700 hp when needed.

I wouldn't want to work on that transmission.

20 posted on 12/18/2003 3:17:09 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson