Whatever fuel it burns, the M-1 is going to burn a lot of it. The Australian army fuels its M-1s with diesel and hasn’t reported any serious performance issues.īut force-feeding the M-1 diesel doesn’t do anything to quench the tank’s extreme thirst. It’s unclear whether and how much changing the fuel alters the tank’s performance. Army prefers JP-8, but another army could top off its M-1s with diesel, motor gasoline, kerosene, moonshine, whatever. The M-1’s Honeywell gas-turbine in theory can burn any fuel that’s thin enough to move through its lines. There’s one way somewhat to simplify the problem. When the Germans ask the Americans to give the Ukrainians M-1s as a precondition for Germany signing off on Leopard 2s, the Germans in effect are demanding the Ukrainians accept the extra logistical burden that comes with the American tanks. Army battalion traded its old diesel M-60s for M-1s, it also had to add several dozen fuel tankers, trailers and pumps in order to keep the new tanks gassed up over the same distance as before. One for diesel.Īnd the combined capacity of the logistical trains must increase. Army unit mixing M-1s with other vehicle types- M-2 fighting vehicles, for instance-needs at least two separate fuel trains. That high fuel consumption weighs on an army’s logistics. Project on Government Oversight concluded an M-1 would burn 83-percent more fuel than a Leopard 2 would do at the same speed. The American tank gulps fuel faster than most tanks do. The M-1’s modest agility advantage over similar tanks comes at a cost, however.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |