Future of the EU

[Atrocities]

Seriously, the EU is really just a bloated beurocracy that desprately needs to be reorganized into the first European World Empire.

[Thermodyne]

JHC, how the hell can you know that for which you would be voting? It must have taken 40 thousand lawyers to write that thing. No way am I going to attempt to digest it. I do hope you guys can work it out. But please don’t crap all over my euros in getting it done. I would really hate to have to go to China to hedge my holdings. Not sure how I would place that order anyway. I guess I would just issue an order for “x” tones of 100 Yuan notes (sick).

Not to mention the lenghts they have gone to for counting money with their fingers.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Side note: The Leopard tank is a German tank, and is more widely used IIRC than the Abrams - but that's probably 'cause the US military command is too stinkin' afraid to let anyone else, even their allies, even get close enough to the Abrams tank that they could see where to climb into it.

[El_Phil]

Honestly, you try for a joke and you end up with more than is healthy to know about US tank engines. Still interesting stuff.

Wouldn't most of the stuff about the M1 apply to the Challenger. Except the Challenger would have better armour, better gun, but slower to target.

Aren't they're Abrams in Australian service and a few other places? I think that was from Steel Panthers so could be utter rubbish.

Not being an expert on such matters can I confirm something, I have heard the LeClerc tank is the fastest main battle tank in the world. Light armour, large engine, etc. This seems too much like a dodgy fact cooked up to produce various bad jokes about French tanks being very fast as reversing so they aren't shot at before surrendering.

[Randallw]

El_Phil said:

Aren't they're Abrams in Australian service and a few other places? I think that was from Steel Panthers so could be utter rubbish.

We use Leopard 2s, as well as LAV-25 (though I think we produce our own version) and m113s

[El_Phil]

The Abrams has a short(ish) range and eats fuel (so does evey other tank but that ain't the point ). Also a stereotypical US designed engine will have a fuel efficiency measured in gallons per mile (that would be hundreds of litres per kilometre for European types)

So assume that as the US built the engine it would be like the cars. Not a good joke and doesn't improve with explanation. Hey ho.

[Thermodyne]

El_Phil said:
The Abrams has a short(ish) range and eats fuel (so does evey other tank but that ain't the point ). Also a stereotypical US designed engine will have a fuel efficiency measured in gallons per mile (that would be hundreds of litres per kilometre for European types)

So assume that as the US built the engine it would be like the cars. Not a good joke and doesn't improve with explanation. Hey ho.

When it comes to gas turbines, the US sets the standard. Gas turbines are more durable and reliable than diesel internal combustion engines, and have a much longer service life between overhauls. The US uses them in everything; many of our war ships use geared gas turbines as do many aircraft, landing craft, etc. Generators using turbines fueled by natural gas provide 40% (IIRC) of the tipping power to the US electric grid. Also, when the M1 was in development, a diesel prototype was tested, it had a huge caterpillar diesel engine and was found to be underpowered and with only marginally better fuel economy. The engine was so large that it limited the amount of space that could be used for fuel. The only prototype that met the spec for speed was the Chrysler turbine. Cooling is another factor to be considered, the M1 does not have a liquid cooling system, which is a problem area for every other tank in the world.

Comparing a mil spec engine to something that Detroit puts into mass produced cars is silly. AFAIK, the only US combat vehicle in wide deployment to use a civil production engine is the HMMWV. Of note is the fact that during GW1, the US Army was able to keep its tanks fuel in what was the largest, farthest reaching armored maneuver since WWII. Sure, they had complete freedom of manuvor because of total air superiority, but it would be assumed that in any large armored battle the same would exist. Every time US designed aircraft have gone up against their Soviet contemporaries since the end of the war in SEA, the Soviet aircraft have been swept from the sky. As to providing fuel to the tanks in Germany, there is a propositioned infrastructure that includes hardened storage as well as a system of distribution points. An M1 can be refueled as fast as it can be rearmed. Finally, the war for which the tank was built would have been a delaying action probably in the Fulda Gap. Range would not have been a big issue as the initial battle would have been a delaying action to buy time for American air power to come to bare. By plan, it would have been a shoot and scoot action, designed only to slow the Soviet advance. There was never any confidence that a counter offensive would have been successful. It would have come down to negotiations and the threat of nuclear escalation. Another problem was not knowing what the French would have done. They were/are luke warm as to their NATO responsibilities, and there was some concern that they would close their airspace and sit WW3 out.