And that is precisely what is happening the majority of the time that a tank is running. I do agree that the APU ameliorates most of the "sitting around doing little" idling issues.
For myself, I like the turbine - it was great to hang Jiffy Pop off the rear end and get freshly popped popcorn.
They are old as hell, rebuilt several times over, and it's time to get a newer turbine that uses less fuel, have better self diagnostics, are quieter yet, more reliable....etc. Many of the pieces for the AGT1500 have to be “re-manufactured” at this point, with some of the original firms behind the motor not even in existence anymore. What we're using is essentially turbine technology from the 60s with the exception of some of the electronics/updates they made. But in it's basic design, it's an ancient motor. We can do sooooooooo much better today if we developed a newer turbine based on some other existing helicopter engine that incorporates some of the newer technologies in how turbines are designed, materials, and electronics.
The point I was trying to make is that conceptually the turbine is a good thing, not a bad one. You can take nearly any argument and use what is actually a net benefit and argue the opposite. Think of Iraq and the concept of taking the war to the enemy. This same argument can be turned around and used against the Iraq war, stating that before we invaded, AQ wasn't there. Likewise some try to argue that the concept of a turbine is a bad idea and advocate the use of a diesel which CANNOT deliver the power as efficiently under load, CANNOT deliver the same power given a weight or volume, CANNOT deal with extreme climates as well........... The Bradley (M2) will run into problems from dust and sand, extreme heat or cold before the M1 will, and it has a name brand industrial grade bad ass 903 ci diesel. The turbine concept is the better way to go for a whole slew of reasons to include reliability and maintenance. Ever see how tight and inaccessible a diesel power pack is in some of these other MBTs? How much they can get too without pulling it all together?
The M1 wasn't designed to be a pillbox, a mobile bunker at a TCP. Though it is used as such today, that's not what the tank was designed for nor what he's really good at. He was designed for maneuver warfare, a mobile defense, fighting against other armored vehicles on the rolling Western plains of Europe. While we design things more open ended than many of our allies because we are in S. Korea, Sinai......... we are a more global force with a broad spectrum of uses, the M1 was NEVER made to do what he's doing today in Iraq. Like the Lem on Apollo 13, he's out of his role, but he's doing OK at what we're using hm for today. Bottom line, the M1 was designed for armored warfare, to bust up T72s, BMP2s.......... as the Red horde comes across the border. Everything about him was made to kill other tanks, originally.
His fast reload times, thermals, later the CITV, HMG and main gun which allow dual target engagement (Which your crew practiced at gunnery- i.e. engage an enemy MBT and BTR simultaneously), stand off range, shoot on the move capability, the type of armor and where it is, the type of ammunition we carried and what it can do, the stab system, turret speed (very fast) so if I see a TGT I can lay on him before he can on me............. The M1 was made to kill Soviet armor not much unlike the AH64, which today is also struggling to find a role, seeing how the “smallest” weapon he has is a 30mm chain gun with exploding rounds. We are adapting these machines to meet the needs we have today, with new Hellfires that are made for greater effects on buildings, upgrades that make the M1 more useful in an urban environment doing what we do today.......... But many of the weapons we have: MLRS (M270), AH64, or the M1 were designed for an armored slugfest where the mechanized forces of the Warsaw Pact and NATO duke it out. That said, because he's so massively armored and the design is very robust (i.e. no internal stowage of ammo, fuel outside the bulkheads, low spalling inner skin, made to take T10 mines and survive........) makes him a decent mobile pillbox even though that's not what he was meant to do. He's very survivable against many IEDs, even though that's not really what he was meant to deal with. How useful do you think the M270 has been in Iraq ever since 2003 when major ground combat ended? How many times has DPICM been fired since 2004?
The M1 is being used in a way for which he was never intended and he's doing good. The high fuel consumption in idle (which is a fact), is a by product of his design and what he was meant for originally. But the bottom line is that the turbine is a good thing, just not this moment are its advantages brought to light, but they were in 1991 and 2003 during the major ground combat phases when many M1s were used for what they were intended to do.