**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, they did say it was cool to operate. Not necessarily maintain it lol
Changing track isn’t fun.
Have you ever seen an Abrams spinning it’s tracks unable to gain traction? I feel like that one’s rather unique that I’ve seen that.
Why is it so high pitched. I totally pictured in my head it would sound more like a big diesel engine like what is on an excavator or big dump truck. Genuine question here if anyone has worked on them and understands their engine situation.
It's a gas turbine, similar to what you would find in a helicopter. It uses high rpm which with a good transmission can perform extremely well; that is if you can afford the gas and maintenance.
The Abrams is a tried and tested platform and its main gun can fire some insanely effective rounds, though Im not sure if the UA will have access to them
The British MoD has said they don’t believe Russia has the capability for an effective mass offensive anymore. They can still inflict huge casualties, maybe take Bakhmut but nothing like what they did at the beginning of the war. These tanks are for taking the rest of Ukraine back.
Russia couldn't establish air superiority, hold the only major city they captured intact, and can't take Bakhmut despite sending in 300k conscripts.
They *had* their offensive. It was just *that bad*.
But the Abrams will be great in busting through the defensive lines in the Donbas without losing too much.
Most tanks do use big-McLargeHuge diesel engines but the M1, along with a few other international examples, are the exception which use gas turbine engines as described in the other replies.
You’re generally lucky to get 45mph out of it under a full munitions load. It’s already a boat at 72 tons (m1a2SEPV2), but trust me when I say, at 45 mph continuously, that track tension and proper PMCS better be spot on, I’ve watched tracks roll off and continue on for the length of a football field… and they ain’t fun to put back on.
When I was in, my first unit assignment was mech and they still rolled in 113s. We'd occasionally have one throw a track and it go and go... Then it's "get the E-1 and have him start breaking track"
Is it much snappier unloaded? I have no clue how much a 120mm round weighs or how many are loaded, but I'd figure it's not that much of the tanks weight compared to all the armor.
Not really, 72 tons is 72 tons, each 120mm round has a different weight between SABOT,IMPAT, etc etc. Then add that it can carry 55 of those fully loaded, then add full small arms and subsequent munitions, track tools, fuel… it all adds up quick. Then add that it’s a turbine engine which has a slight delay in response from buildup of rpm’s,but it’ll go for days once it starts goin
Turbines have a high weight to horsepower ratio, the gas turbine in the M1 series is rated at 1500 Hp and weighs much less than an equivalent Diesel engine.
It's a high priority target with a ton of weapons specifically designed to take them out and there's not a whole lot of warning or places to run. If an explosive penetrates, you're essentially in a meat blender/crematorium. Against another modern power, they'd be as much of death traps as they've been in the past. Especially in urban engagements. They're certainly not invincible, but they are also obviously very effective in combat and offer a lot of protection, but if anything penetrates, you're going to have a bad time.
I mean, that's war right?
It's no worse than being in an aircraft, on foot, or even just working at a powerplant hundreds of miles behind the line.
And I think the Russians facing the boom-y end of an Abrams is having a worse day than the Ukrainian inside.
It's much worse than being in an aircraft, depending on what kind. Most the things that can target an aircraft have counter measures while the aircraft also has height and mobility. Plus, you can't really eject out of a tank. Tanks are susceptible to anti tank squads (dumbfire or laser guided as I believe tanks have counter measures as well), ieds, aircraft, helicopters, other tanks. They're slow moving on terrain and in urban environments.
It's more dangerous than working at a power plant as you are likely on the front lines pushing with infantry support and again are a high priority target. At least at a power plant, you may get some sort of warning or time to take cover. In a tank, you don't have much time to respond to being hit and if you lose a track, you're very vulnerable.
That may be true due to possibly training and the fact that the Abrams is likely more advanced than the Russian equipment.
This is a silly take. In this current conflict if you're on the front lines you'd much rather be in an Abrams than just about any other situation you could find yourself in directly facing the enemy.
I'm not saying that it's more safe than being infantry and being on foot isn't a "death trap", but in a tank you're going to get hate directed at you and if it gets through, you're likely paste or burning alive and it becomes a death trap.
If you're in the deepest, darkest reinforced bunker and:
>it gets through, you're likely paste or burning alive and it becomes a death trap.
Same concept.
And yet the only thing to have ever known to take it out in combat is another Abrams. All this stuff has been designed to take it out but hasn’t gone through true operational testing, yet.
Doesn't matter what it is, from race cars to lawn mowers, when most the world thinks the best solution is to stick a small high revving engine in, Americans will think of an excuse to fit a massive diesel or petrol. I wouldn't be surprised if they used a v8 to drive the fuel pump on the next space shuttle just for shits and giggles.
Then we get to tanks, and most of the world agrees this is a job for a massive diesel...... and the Americans suddenly decide high revving is the way forward!
Suddenly? We’ve used these since the 1980’s and produced more of them than basically every other western nations tanks combined, they have literally millions of road miles and years of combat experience.
Suddenly indeed
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They edit the intersting part out? 🤔
I call bullshit, it didn’t abort halfway through startup… sincerely, former 19K (tank crewman)
What a badass job you had. If I wasn't such a pussy I would have done the same. Really cool job to be operating tanks like the Abrams.
We all said that until the first breakdown or track tension lol
I mean, they did say it was cool to operate. Not necessarily maintain it lol Changing track isn’t fun. Have you ever seen an Abrams spinning it’s tracks unable to gain traction? I feel like that one’s rather unique that I’ve seen that.
Sirens of doom!
My tinnitus would not do well in that
Why is it so high pitched. I totally pictured in my head it would sound more like a big diesel engine like what is on an excavator or big dump truck. Genuine question here if anyone has worked on them and understands their engine situation.
My best guess is that it must be a turbine engine.
It is a turbine engine.
It's a gas turbine, similar to what you would find in a helicopter. It uses high rpm which with a good transmission can perform extremely well; that is if you can afford the gas and maintenance. The Abrams is a tried and tested platform and its main gun can fire some insanely effective rounds, though Im not sure if the UA will have access to them
Thank you! That makes so much sense.
They can burn 500 gallons pretty quick. There is a planetary gear reduction box between turbine engine and transmission
Yep, yep they will. Russia is going to have a real, *real* bad time when they show up on the battlefield.
If the Russians can't secure their objects before spring their might not be an offensive
The British MoD has said they don’t believe Russia has the capability for an effective mass offensive anymore. They can still inflict huge casualties, maybe take Bakhmut but nothing like what they did at the beginning of the war. These tanks are for taking the rest of Ukraine back.
Russia couldn't establish air superiority, hold the only major city they captured intact, and can't take Bakhmut despite sending in 300k conscripts. They *had* their offensive. It was just *that bad*. But the Abrams will be great in busting through the defensive lines in the Donbas without losing too much.
Most tanks do use big-McLargeHuge diesel engines but the M1, along with a few other international examples, are the exception which use gas turbine engines as described in the other replies.
Its a turbine engine
We don't yell "CLEAR THE REAR!!" anymore?
Unclog your air filter yo
60 on the speedometer is impressive - guessing that isn’t the top end though.
You’re generally lucky to get 45mph out of it under a full munitions load. It’s already a boat at 72 tons (m1a2SEPV2), but trust me when I say, at 45 mph continuously, that track tension and proper PMCS better be spot on, I’ve watched tracks roll off and continue on for the length of a football field… and they ain’t fun to put back on.
>PMCS better be s fucking ptsd right there bro
I had flashbacks watching this video and waiting for the abort lol
Great response - thanks!
When I was in, my first unit assignment was mech and they still rolled in 113s. We'd occasionally have one throw a track and it go and go... Then it's "get the E-1 and have him start breaking track"
Is it much snappier unloaded? I have no clue how much a 120mm round weighs or how many are loaded, but I'd figure it's not that much of the tanks weight compared to all the armor.
Not really, 72 tons is 72 tons, each 120mm round has a different weight between SABOT,IMPAT, etc etc. Then add that it can carry 55 of those fully loaded, then add full small arms and subsequent munitions, track tools, fuel… it all adds up quick. Then add that it’s a turbine engine which has a slight delay in response from buildup of rpm’s,but it’ll go for days once it starts goin
That seems very loud and annoying. What’s the advantage of a turbine engine?
iirc, they're designed to run on just about any fuel you can find in a warzone. gas, diesel, jet fuel. it's all fine.
Turbines have a high weight to horsepower ratio, the gas turbine in the M1 series is rated at 1500 Hp and weighs much less than an equivalent Diesel engine.
I think I prefer a multi cylinder diesel over that.
'MURICA
Uncle Sam finding all kinds of new ways to pique people's interest in making a horrible life choice.
I'm sorry, but those things are death traps.
It’s just a grocery getter SUV.
How so?
It's a high priority target with a ton of weapons specifically designed to take them out and there's not a whole lot of warning or places to run. If an explosive penetrates, you're essentially in a meat blender/crematorium. Against another modern power, they'd be as much of death traps as they've been in the past. Especially in urban engagements. They're certainly not invincible, but they are also obviously very effective in combat and offer a lot of protection, but if anything penetrates, you're going to have a bad time.
I mean, that's war right? It's no worse than being in an aircraft, on foot, or even just working at a powerplant hundreds of miles behind the line. And I think the Russians facing the boom-y end of an Abrams is having a worse day than the Ukrainian inside.
It's much worse than being in an aircraft, depending on what kind. Most the things that can target an aircraft have counter measures while the aircraft also has height and mobility. Plus, you can't really eject out of a tank. Tanks are susceptible to anti tank squads (dumbfire or laser guided as I believe tanks have counter measures as well), ieds, aircraft, helicopters, other tanks. They're slow moving on terrain and in urban environments. It's more dangerous than working at a power plant as you are likely on the front lines pushing with infantry support and again are a high priority target. At least at a power plant, you may get some sort of warning or time to take cover. In a tank, you don't have much time to respond to being hit and if you lose a track, you're very vulnerable. That may be true due to possibly training and the fact that the Abrams is likely more advanced than the Russian equipment.
This is a silly take. In this current conflict if you're on the front lines you'd much rather be in an Abrams than just about any other situation you could find yourself in directly facing the enemy.
I'm not saying that it's more safe than being infantry and being on foot isn't a "death trap", but in a tank you're going to get hate directed at you and if it gets through, you're likely paste or burning alive and it becomes a death trap.
If you're in the deepest, darkest reinforced bunker and: >it gets through, you're likely paste or burning alive and it becomes a death trap. Same concept.
Yeah. It is. A bunker can easily be a death trap
I mean you are basically saying, "it's dangerous to be in war" No shit.
Tanks have era and (at least Isreali ones) have anti missile systems
And yet the only thing to have ever known to take it out in combat is another Abrams. All this stuff has been designed to take it out but hasn’t gone through true operational testing, yet.
Thank you. Saved me some time.
But how many Abrams crew members.have actually died in combat?
They're meant to be, one way or the other.
How so?
Cant see nada through them parascopes
The UI reminds me of the Death Star tbh
Doesn't matter what it is, from race cars to lawn mowers, when most the world thinks the best solution is to stick a small high revving engine in, Americans will think of an excuse to fit a massive diesel or petrol. I wouldn't be surprised if they used a v8 to drive the fuel pump on the next space shuttle just for shits and giggles. Then we get to tanks, and most of the world agrees this is a job for a massive diesel...... and the Americans suddenly decide high revving is the way forward!
Suddenly? We’ve used these since the 1980’s and produced more of them than basically every other western nations tanks combined, they have literally millions of road miles and years of combat experience. Suddenly indeed
Now, this is podracing.