Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
the Abrams may have slightly better acceleration and slightly less top speed (at the price of extremely high gasoline consummation of its turbine, compared to the Leo-Diesel with the same hp)
|
Just a trivia:
The Abrams turbine is a multi anything that will burn engine. Diesel, Gas, Av-Fuel, paint thinner, vodka, whatever burns. |
Yes, but it burns immense ammounts of it, even when sitting still. Since it is a turbine, it burns roughly the same ammount when sitting still, as if it were going at full speed.
This makes a diesel engine the more interesting choice for an army expecting to fight in the defensive, with maybe stressed or sometimes interrupted supply lines.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Heibges
Wow, I was surprised at how heavy even the Mark 1's were at 63 tons.
|
Yes, and only with 1200 hp. the British Chally-2, if I remember correctly, also has a 1200 hp engine - but with a weight greater than some 70 tons. If weight is an indicator for armour, than in it's maximum-armour configuration it probably is the most heavily armoured tank today. And not one of the fastest.
Münster, where I live, is the major base for the 1st Dutch-German corps, and seat of the British Royal Dragoon Guards, who are equipped with Challenger-2s. Unfortunately, they never show them
- probably only playing with them hidden in the cellar.
The Brits will leave until 2009. No more loud yelling in my neighbourhood when the english football team again misses the final
P.S. 70+ tons for the Challenger = tank configurated with maximum additional armour.