Posted on 11/19/2019 6:49:44 AM PST by Lowell1775
Ok, so maybe you are suggesting that the engine be replaced with one using pre-1970’s technology. That might be a wise thing to do. The tank would then have the power to not only move but to fight. Assuming there is a backup targeting system installed.
I think you just described AUVs . . .
AUV is autonomous underwater vehicle.
Didn’t have much fuel economy, polluted like crap, were actually less reliable and required way more maintenance. And made way less power than modern counterparts.
Old joke - The advantage of an old points ignition system is that you can fix it by the side of the road. The disadvantage of an old points ignition system is that you will *have* to work on it by the side of the road.
Yes.
There isn’t a single pre-1970s tech engine that can fit in the Abrams that will be able to move the tank at the current speed and acceleration requirements.
The Honeywell/Lycoming AGT1500 used in an Abrams makes 1,500 hp and 3,950 lb-ft of torque.
Additionally, NO piston engine could meet the multifuel requirements. The British came closest to doing it, but their Leyland L60 turned out to be a giant disaster. Nobody else even tried.
typo shoulda been “UAV.”
I miss Keith Laumer ... and Retief!
“There isn’t a single pre-1970s tech engine that can fit in the Abrams that will be able to move the tank at the current speed and acceleration requirements.”
Okay, then we are back to square one as I doubt there is space on the tank to fit an pre-1970’s technology engine that is powerful enough to move the tank even at slow speed.
They do not have Computers. They do have electronics.
The condenser coil, the distributer, voltage regulator and the alternator are all vulnerable to an EMP.
Not to mention that the battery is likely to explode.
Absolutely. Guaranteed immunity to EMP. And in a pinch, when all of the other tanks are dead, you can still move. That is a huge plus.
And your basic engine hasn’t changed much in the years. Basic engine tech hasn’t changed at all. Still spark, explosion or glow plug, thermal expansion both via timing. An engine still goes bang.
So, fundamental systems that determine survivability must be able to continue to run and operate. This can be done through redundancy or default and drop to a simple state.
A high school friend of mine commanded a M60 in the 1980’s when they were just beginning to get the M1’s in Germany.
He got out on a medical before he could get in to a M1.
It is the sensitive gate channel of a mosfet that is vulnerable to the EMP blast. Not unlike an ESD hit. Probably other areas such as the substrate that interfere with the ICs function but it will continue to operate after the source is removed.
An EMP is simply a massive amount of fairly broad band noise that interferes with modern electronics.
According to post 86, that can’t be done.
That is when your check engine light turns on. But you can still drive the car to the garage although it may not run that well. Or maybe it will run okay and not be noticeable but it will not be operating optimally until you fix it.
Same idea.
If I were king of the world and designing a tank engine system, I would do exactly this. Besides, adding all of the electronic crap reduces the reliability of the tank even if you have redundant systems.
And if the important function, such as an engine, depends completely on this complicated computer system, then you are toast if there is an EMP plus the likelihood of the tank breaking down is greater as well.
As I stated earlier, there are advantages to having all of the electronic gizmos. And when they are operational, you may have huge advantage during a battle. Computer systems can bring together tons of information, coordinate that information, and help the operators make quick decisions. Plus, the precision will be greater.
The problem is when one of the system fails AND you ARE WORSE OFF if you didn't have it in the first place.
It is a trade off and decisions that engineers have to make when designing a tank or any system.
All those are there as the 3rd backup. Manual traverse and elevation. 105-D “choke” sight (optics) slaved to the main gun. Manual blaster to fire the gun. Its always been there and always will be.
I think the command has figured that out.
All that is required is a feeler gauge and screw driver. If you need new points, you keep a spare in the kit. Usually a 15 minute repair and $10 for the points.
The modern ignition systems require expensive equipment and mandatory actual trip to the garage to fix it.
Usually you have to limp along sputtering with a rough idle to a garage and a repair bill of $200 plus the inconvenience of not having the car for a day or so.
Plus your car with points is EMP proof should it ever happen.
“The art of simplicity.”
No, actually, it isn’t. Depending on strength, the EMP may kill your alternator, weld the points closed and explode the battery.
Yep, why my rifles "had" backup sights on them. Damn unstable kayaks.
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.