Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966
I often wonder how the M1 tank would do if they put in a multi-fueled diesel. I remember many Morrow Project games with the Kentucky Free State where their versions of the M1 did not have the Chobam armor and a diesel engine. I remember a long time ago, I was talking to the late T.R. (I still miss him  ) and he told me that if they did, "you could hear it coming three miles away." |
You know that the turbine engine in the Abrams is multi-fuel, right? Or are you talking about the fuel usage? If the latter yes it is worse than most today, but is still lots better than tanks just a generation or two ago. The M48/M48A1 got 113km (about 70 miles) per tank of fuel (200 gal) or about 2.85 gal per mile. The Sherman has many variables but the average numbers I found was a range of about 100 miles per tank of fuel (175 gal) or about 1.75 gal per mile. So the M1's 265 miles per tank (500 gal) or about 1.88 gal per mile is not really that bad. I think one of the things that made it look bad was the M60 is a really fuel efficient with a range of about 300 mile on 385 gal or 0.78 gal per mile. And looking at other NATO tanks the Challenger 2 (based on wikipedia) has a range of 340 miles on road, but only 160 off road for 350 gal or 1.03/2.18 gal per mile. The one that is the real outlier is the Leopard 2 at 340 miles on 317 gal or 0.93 gal per mile but the thing that sets it apart is only it and the M1 are listed as being able to do 45mph (I know the M1 can do that cross country, and am guessing that for the Leopard 2) all the rest are listed as topping out around 20-30 mph off road and the Challenger doing up to 37 on road.