Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegyrius
Any engineering problem is solvable with a hammer of sufficient size.  The Ukrainians did it with the T-80UD, which is a diesel variant of the turbine-powered T-80.
Would a transmission replacement also be necessary?
- C. |
Certainly a bigger hammer tends to fix most things on a tank!
But replacing the power pack on any modern tank is going to be a major engineering challenge. The engine and transmission normally comes in one unit. Most battalion maintenance sections do have the expertise and tooling to break packs apart so that the engine could be used on one vehicle and the trannie on another. The key problem will be adapting a engine to not only fit the trannie, but fit into the remaining space in the engine compartment.
On of the key problems with the M-1 design process was getting a small enough engine that developed the horsepower needed to move a dang heavy vehicle at high speed. Virtually every diesel engine in production or under development was tested and simply created more problems with weight, volume, fuel consumption and maintenance access. The turbine engine, in spite of its high fuel requirements was chosen because it met or exceeded the requirements.
Its a measure of note, that in spite of of its long life time, in spite of repeated requests to develop a diesel engine replacement, the M-1 is still rolling on, powered by the same turbine engine that it started out with.
When ever the discussion turns to replaceing engines, armament and fire control systems on tanks springs up, I am reminded of a quote by Major General John G. Willis who, in the 1980s, was the British Army's Director of Vehicle Procurement. He was often frustrated by the inability of his political bosses to understand how very difficult it is to design and build a tank. After one memorable session in which a politican had leveled the charge "After all, the tank is a simple tin box." General Willis replied, "Yes, you're absolutely right that a tank is indeed a simple tin box. Unfortunately it is a simple tin box that most move across country. To move across country, it requires an engine of the highest possible power density you can get and is therefore putting out a lot of heat. What do you do if you wrap the engine in a box and therefore make your cooling problem even worse than it was before? You start putting thermal stresses on this engine that no engine should be subjected to."
"What is more, you then put a gearbox behind it. You ask that gearbox that it not only give you a range of gears in forward and reverse but also act as a steering mechanism. Furthermore, you demand of that gearbox that the power you do not require for the outside track when you are turning is delivered to the inside track so you do not waste any power. You produce a gearbox the like of which has no civilian application whatsoever."
"You wish this vehiclle to move across country at a reasonable speed and therefore have to supply it with a suspension and tracks which must be capable of withstanding the shocks of cross-country travel but not so heavy as to totally nullify the whole thing. This box must also carry fuel which is highly volatile. And so on and so forth. And you end up by putting in it human beings, without whose presence the vehicle would be a total nonevent, but who, of all the elements within that weapons system, are probably the most vulnerable."
"So yes, the tank is a very simple tin box."
"The trade-offs are infinitely more difficult to achieve than in an aircraft. People say to me that perhaps weight doesn't mean very much in a tank. It is crucial....crucial!"
That's the problem in a nutshell.