What the M-1s really needs is a new engine that gulps less fuel.
The M1 doesn’t gulp a lot of fuel, it’s a misconception repeated over and over on the web.
The M1 uses a little more than 1 gallon per mile at 20 MPH and gets better mileage than it’s Leo counterpart. Turbines are “more” efficient than otto or diesel engines. The M1 achieves this running on JP-8 which is a less energy rich fuel and the tank weighing more. Think about that.
When the M1 transitioned from JP-4 to JP-8, like all other vehicles it began to burn more fuel because the fuel itself has less energy (joules) per volume. However, the turbine is a true multi fuel power plant, which the diesels are not. While they list that the diesels are, it’s not really the case with every modern diesel tank out there which might be able to run a “mix” of “some” fuels, looses power, degrades engine life.......... The M1 will run on straight kerosene if that’s all you have and even after the switch from JP-4 to JP-8 other than loosing a little in mileage and not being able to run the smoke generator because it was a fire hazard with the new fuel the tank was fine.
Furthermore, the turbine runs quieter, and anyone around the M1 can attest to the fact that from the front, even just 100 yards away you can hardly hear the tank while running. The turbine runs your NBC and cool air systems which are separate on a diesel. A power pack like in a Leo is a 7 ton motor. The turbine in an M1 separated from the tranny and recouperator you can pick up with your arms. The turbine doesn’t give a rats ass about the heat, nor really the cold, but there is a reason why those export versions of the LeClerk and Challenger have modified cooling systems in the Middle East. The turbine doesn’t even really have that significant an issue with sand and dust, but a diesel sucking in this crap does. Go ask the diesel mechanics that maintain the generators in Iraq what dust does to a diesel motor over time. The turbine will blow it right out the rear, and only after long and extended times will you see some wear on certain parts in the motor which by the way uses a high pressure air flow reversal to self clean it’s air filtration system (Which you can’t easily do on a diesel). The turbine requires very little power to start, and a HMMWV can actually jump an M1, try that with a 47 liter high compression diesel. The turbine can be used as part of a obscuration system (albeit disabled because of fire hazards and no need in recent times) and to decon each other forming a gauntlet and essentially blow drying contaminants off one another in a field expedient NBC decon.
Ever wonder why an M1A1 with an automatic transmission and 7 tons heavier can accelerate better than a Leo IIA4 with the same horsepower output on paper? Torque. Of course if you take an AGT1500 (1970s) and compare it to new diesels (2000) they too get the performance because you’re comparing a 30 year older power pack. But isn’t it awesome that an old AGT1500 can hold ground TODAY with diesels that are on steroids and still only bring similar performance? Isn’t it awesome that when comparing the old AGT1500 to the MTU883 (I think that was the original power pack), the AGT kicked the diesel in the rear when it came to torque AND how fast it can develop the power?
**** Turbines run most efficiently under load. They want to run. And that’s where the misconception of the fuel guzzling M1 comes from. When an M1 sits and idles he sucks fuel. If you were to draw a curve where you have fuel consumption vs. power output you’d see the turbine has a linear and gentle sloping curve that starts fairly high but only slopes up slightly as load increases; meaning he needs a lot of fuel just to keep running but doesn’t use really that much more when driving down the road at 20 MPH. However, the Diesel while starting much lower and using very little in idle has a near exponential curve that starts to drink when under load. When an M1 sits and spends a lot of time idling in places like NTC, or Graffenwoehr one might get the thought that an M1 drinks a lot because these tanks don’t move much inside these small confined battle spaces but need refueled constantly. However, in a maneuver war for which the tank was built, quite the opposite is true.
The way the issue of high fuel consumption in idle, especially tach idle, was largely solved was with an APU. That’s why we needed the APU so urgently. But that’s something that we began to address nearly 20 years ago. We also had some power plant improvements that attempt to reduce the fuel consumption in idle.
No-no, the turbine is no bad concept. Sometimes little kids that don’t know better and have no idea that the toy they have is the better one, would rather trade it for a cheaper less capable toy that their friend has.
Misconception: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misconception
Much of the arguments floating around are simply misconceptions that get propagated through the web and accepted as the truth. The arguments were “reliability” and “fuel consummation” with the M1, but neither is really rooted in anything factual. Truth is, those diesels they now use are no simple tractor like a John Deer motor. They are trying to squeeze every last bit of power from them and with multiple turbo's direct injection on a V12 etc etc etc. Many of these arguments like the “reliability” one regards the AGT1500 are sound good arguments. The logic is that the turbine is more complex and prone to failure. Which is of course the opposite of reality where the turbine is more reliable than a otto or diesel, as evidenced in aviation. Compare reliability of a turbine on something like a Cessna 208 to an otto motor like on a Cessna 206.
Many of these arguments simply “sound reasonable” and use an appeal to ignorance to make their case. I'm no cook, and if a cook told me something that was complete BS but sounded reasonable, I would probably fall for it. The turbine was one of the M1s original advantages, and when you talk tanks like with car rivalries those that are rooting for the other team will attempt to minimize your product or advantages if it be only with rhetorical arguments that can't really hold ground when looked at more closely.