Turbine powered tanks

[Rickshaw]

What credibility is there to the story that during the First Gulf War the Iraqis gave up trying to find our tanks because it was easier to find our fuel truck convoys instead because the M1s needed gas so often?  Another stretched truth, falsehood, or what? 

I doubt the Iraqis had the means to find the logistics convoys during Desert Storm.  However, if an enemy did have that means it would be easiest way to locate any advancing force.   Just follow the long lines of the fuel convoys.   If though, they had the technical means to find the convoys, I'd expect they'd also have the technical means to locate the armoured forces themselves.  Destroying the convoys though, would ensure that the armoured forces couldn't continue their advance - interdiction is always a valuable strategy, particularly out "in the blue".

[GTX_Admin]

However, there have been several proposals which the US Army have considered seriously to re-engine the M1 with diesel engines.   The operators are happy with the turbine but their superiors aren't, particularly in the coming age of scarcity.  It is more than likely that the next US tank may be using a diesel engine.

Are any of the proposals serious though?

[AGRA]

The only serious (ie approved by TACOM) engine replacement program for the M1 that I know of was the LV100-5. This was the engine developed for the XM2001 Crusader and was another 1,500 hp gas turbine with huge improvements in reliability. It did however cut idle fuel consumption down to around 18 L per hour which is only a fraction above the Leopard 2/Challenger diesel engine idle consumption. Alos road march fuel consumption would equal the efficiency (actually slightly exceed) of the Leopard 2/Challenger diesel engines. With 1,800 L in the tank compared to 1,600 and 1,200 (Challenger and Leopard 2 respectively) the M1 could out march either. But alas Ole Rummy’s cancellation of Crusader ruined this option as well as American battlefield artillery dominance.

[Rickshaw]

However, there have been several proposals which the US Army have considered seriously to re-engine the M1 with diesel engines.   The operators are happy with the turbine but their superiors aren't, particularly in the coming age of scarcity.  It is more than likely that the next US tank may be using a diesel engine.

Are any of the proposals serious though?

Yes.  Whether the US Armoured people considered them seriously is another matter.  There were proposals to replace the M1's turbine with a diesel from the Germans upon several occasions, most recently during the development of the original M1a3 project.   MTU proposed their 883 model 1500 hp diesel engine, this would have increased the range from 209 miles to 300 on 500 gallon full fuel load.

The main problem AIUI for the M1 (AGT 1500) at the moment is that it's engine is now out of production since 1992 in the US (although production continues AIUI in Egypt).  It is quite an old design engine, dating from the 1960s.   Newer turbines are available.   However, I wonder if they would go with one when an alternative, more economical diesel is available?

[GTX_Admin]

Actually Honeywell are still producing AGT1500s...trust me.

[AGRA]

The MTU-833 CRI 1,500 Hp diesel engine is part of the current GDLS Abrams Modernisation hull demonstrator. Combined with Allison 5250MX hydrokenetic transmission and L-3’s hydropneumatic suspension.