Uh, whoosh? I think Dag’s point was that even if the slug hit, the DD wouldn’t even notice it’s under attack, gets bored, and leaves whereupon the tank’s propaganda arm immediately declares victory over the running dog infidels.
approx. 200 miles on a full fuel tank.
According to wiki, the American M1 Abrams engine can use diesel, gasoline, kerosene, or jet fuel. It seems to me that it doesn’t need to go back to it’s depot, just find a gas station!
A shot from the Abrams to the bridge of the destroyer may give it a fighting chance, but that’s all the tank is going to get, a [small] chance.
Hm, OK, that’s convenient (how do they make a dual-fuel engine like that?). So I guess the next question is, how long does it take a tank to refuel, and how does that compare to the time it takes to program and launch a Tomahawk to hit a gas station?
The destroyer calls in air support from a nearby carrier group, leading to an international incident that leads to the Vietnam War.
Wait, what?
It’s a turbine engine, not a piston engine. The timings, volumes, pressures don’t have to match as precisely as when you have several pistons.
Any idea what else the upgrade block will bring?
If they have onboard cameras, and a datalink it may be possible to steer it into the tank. Or is it not possible to pilot it like a UAV in addition to waypoints?
It’s a turboshaft engine like in a C-130 or helicopter.
Diesel, kerosene, and jet fuel are essentially the same stuff plus or minus some minor additives you can live without in a pinch. Pretty much all DoD turboshaft (or diesel) engines will burn any of those. You don’t typically run kerosene or diesel in aircraft mostly for lack of ice prevention at high altitudes where the fuel eventually will cool below 0C. But you could if you had to; e.g. evacuation of Saigon or the outbreak of WWZ.
Gasoline is a bit of a different fish. It tends to need a different fuel/air mixture and has a lot less lubricity than the others. But gas turbines are notoriously agnostic; if it’s pumpable and flammable and you can get it lit off at the start it’ll probably work, albeit with increased wear & reduced power.
I expect, but do not know, that there’s a toggle in the M1’s fuel control software to alter the mixture curves for use with gasoline.
That, I actually did know, which is why I said “dual fuel” instead of “quad fuel”. I didn’t know about them being turbine engines, though, which is interesting. I presume that the reason for using turbine engines (rather than piston engines like other large land vehicles) is precisely for that versatility, for operation in environments where your supply chain might not be very good and you might need to improvise for fuel?
I don’t know about other upgrades. From what I’ve read, they’ll be refurbishing them and replacing old parts with the coolest stuff 2019 has to offer. Surely someone will think of more neat things to add by then.
I don’t think they can control it like a drone. I think it’s just sending GPS coordinates to it and probably commands like “take a photo” or “attack.” Humans don’t actually do the flying.
Here are a couple good articles:
One other thing I forgot is that Tomahawks can be controlled by other platforms other than the one that launched it. In one article I read, a Tomahawk was launched and an F-18 flew up beside it and steered it to the target. In that second article above, they fired a Tomahawk in California and controllers at the 5th fleet in Bahrain were controlling it. The missile sent photos, the controllers picked a target from the photos, gave the missile the coordinates and hit that target. So, even if the tank sank the destroyer, if they got a Tomahawk in the air, it’s possible someone else could use that missile to take revenge.
Back when the M1 was first being developed, there was a publicity stunt by the Pentagon that had them run the engine on perfume. Stupid and expensive, but the tank swallowed it and ran fine. The multi-fuel turbine in the Abrams is arguably its single most impressive feature.
One problem with this thread is that it defines “tank” very specifically (M1 Abrams), but the term “destroyer” has been widely defined as loosely as posters see fit, to the point where a poster here even implied that the destroyer would be fitted with nuclear weapons.
We need to be just as specific with the destroyer as we are with the tank, otherwise it is not fair to the tank, because the destroyer could be fitted with every armament under the Sun that a destroyer can carry. So are these American Arleigh Burkes? Russian Sovremennys? Chinese Luyang-class?
Because otherwise, we might as well say, “The Abrams is carrying nuclear artillery shells and can nuke the destroyer.”
The general assumption has been a Arleigh Burke/Zumwalt class destroyer. I think.
M1 engine is a turbine, if you can spray it out a nozzle and make it burn, it can probably run on it, which has already been covered.
You might be interested though in the fact that the engine in the the M35 and its 5 ton brother can also run on diesel, gasoline, kerosene, turpentine, fuel oil, vodka, etc and it is a piston engine.
Well, looking back at the Wikipedia page, I noticed that I was in error on the range. (It seems to be given different values in different paragraphs.) However, the “general characteristics” sidebar says 265 miles on 500 U.S. gallons of fuel.
If the gas station/fuel depot has working pumps/electric power, than I guess we can estimate based on the pump rate at the station/depot.
From here: link
I wonder if the higher speed pumps (1000 gal/min) might “choke” a tank’s fill spout. 
I assume the tank comes with manually powered pumps (or a pump that draws power from the tank) to be used when electrical power is out at the station/fuel depot. I have no idea what the flow rate on those are.
Too late to edit, but this is an LD-465 like you would have found in a 5 ton or deuce and a half.
Fuel is probably not the reason for the M1 using turbine.
Id imagine it is a combination of simplicity of design, compact package, high power ratio, ease and speed of in field service and replacement.
The M1 is a fairly fat assed thing in terms of weight, so it needs a lot of power to move it at the speeds to can move at, but it has exact size and shape and profile requirements.
I am thinking the turbine power pack was probably the most feasible way to pull that off, with the space available.
The pumping rate might not be the only relevant factor in refuelling a tank, though. I can’t imagine that it’s as simple as flipping open a little door and unscrewing a plastic cap like it is on a car-- That’d be a major vulnerability on a tank. And anything you do to protect the gas intake is also going to make it more of a nuisance to use.
You might be surprised https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/5412472387_b0cffe4370_o.jpg
I don’t recall an example but there’s really only one adversary with significant attack helicopter capability that the Abrams has faced. That’s Iraq. They used them in the initial conquest of Kuwait but mostly withdrew them back into Iraq itself before the ground fight with the US led coalition. Partly that was because they were a pretty important regime asset to respond quickly in order to maintain control in the event of rebellion. The US Air Force may also have had something to do with the plan.
The second iteration had their operations pretty disjointed. They also still suffered under the problem that flying was near synonymous with dying even before getting anywhere near ground forces.
That works if you are thinking of a straight up “fair” fight where both sides have perfect knowledge of what the opponent has. The Abrams main gun can elevate 20 degrees. One say the back side of a hill in a hasty defensive position the helicopter crew probably has to assume something like +40 degrees before they are safe. They can fly that high but that normally puts them into airspace dominated by even more dangerous systems - fixed wing fighters, dedicated air defense systems, MANPADs, other surface naval combatants etc. Getting tunnel vision on a single threat, while exposing yourself to even more dangerous potential threats, is not a good way to end up old and telling war stories over a beer at the VFW.
Told from the helo’s POV the story is similar. You want to stay very close to the terrain. That lets you hide behind small hills & dips. It lets you hide behind trees if there are any. You pop up enough to see something, then shoot it, then drop down again, move aways left or right, then pop up again. Lather rinse repeat.
An attack helo in a hostile environment might fly for hours never getting about 100 feet above the rocks. At engagement ranges of 1/2 mile to, say, 3 miles, 100 feet elevation difference is pretty close to nil.
Said another way, if you’re directly overflying an enemy armor formation, you’re doing it waaay wrong. Instead you should be sniping its perimeter from a safe[sub]r[/sub] distance until you’ve killed most of it.
Belated add:
Ref DinoR’s very well-said bottom line: I’ve often commented that one-on-one engagement threads like these are so artificial as to be meaningless. What happens when you put Tom Brady up against LeBron James if Lebron has the puck near second base? Damn good question. Or rather: unanswerably bad question.
Combat is utterly a team sport. The US is overwhelmingly good at it because we’ve been honing our team tactics and team play and team communications for decades now. Every individual player is fiercely effective at some moves and at the same time utterly defenseless against certain enemy moves. Working together, everybody covers everybody else and the whole is vastly more capable than the sum of the parts. Much less any single part.
LeBron shoots! Ohh Noes!! He doesn’t pick up the spare! Brady bids 4 spades and takes the trick FTW! 