Military Review

What is better for a tank - gas turbine or diesel

260



DOMESTIC TANKU GIVEN THE “BLACK TAG”

We read with great interest the article by Mikhail Rastopshin “Broneillusion” (newspaper “Tomorrow”, No.38 (722) September 2007). A lot of facts, figures, and the result - everything is bad and very bad. Of course, I would like to tell “taxpayers” (the author of all of us calls this way) not in “general formulations” about all the novelties of tank weapons, protection and mobility, but apparently this is not done in the newspaper. Also, however, the “R & D results on the development of unified on-board information and control systems” for which the author is sad is not discussed, since they are "so far absent." Expositions of rastopshin are full of strong expressions: “degradation”, “traitorous mistake”, “deliverance from illusionists”, etc. To the question "What to do?"

But, we believe that the article does not have the main thing: M. Rastopshin, the candidate of technical sciences, could demand something “requiring accelerated development and deliverance from illusionists.”

We will not enter technical polemics with him here, although we have something to say. We will share impressions about the holiday from the day of tankers and some problems of tank building.

IMPRESSIONS AFTER THE TANKIST DAY

It is known that the tank has long been labeled - "born to crawl can not fly." This is not true - it can and not only fly, but also dance.
Russia, like the United States, is the only country with a unique technology of mass production of a gas turbine engine for tanks. T-80 tanks are successfully operated in a number of military districts, but especially in the Leningrad Military District. The explanation for this is simple - the tank was created and produced at the Kirov factory in St. Petersburg. Here, in due time, during the period of mastering the machines, the designer of the renowned team of the design bureau of the plant, headed by the General Designer Nikolai Popov, spent days and nights.

In one part of the Leningrad Military District, it has become a good tradition to demonstrate our military skills.

What is better for a tank - gas turbine or diesel

Tanks T-80BV dance "Gypsy"


At the festival, not only the beau monde of tank builders of St. Petersburg. Many young people, future warriors. Here is the command of the Leningrad Military District, bosses, veterans. It is interesting and instructive here - this is a real tank salon.

The apogee of the holiday was a show of technology. Tank warriors show what they have achieved. The results are impressive - some of the names of the aerobatics are worth a shot “in flight”, “tank waltz”, “gypsy”. Grandiose spectacle, when 46-ton monsters easily and gracefully to the music of an old waltz or an incendiary gypsy girl pirouettes to the applause of the audience. Gracefully stopping and shaking their gun trunks to the waltz beats, they rapidly pick up speed and lay steep turns.

You involuntarily compare these steps with the skill of pilots at the shows in aviation salons, I recall recent television footage from MAKS-2007. But that is in the air, in three-dimensional space, and this is on a plane - on the ground. And yet there is much in common - in the unusual movement of heavy combat vehicles and ease of movement. There is one more relationship with aviation - it is in the gas turbine engine. The T-80 is equipped with a 1250-strong gas turbine engine. Thanks to him, the tank has the highest power density among domestic and foreign vehicles. This makes it possible to have excellent dynamics, and the technical characteristics of the engine provide a high smoothness of the course and such a parameter unattainable for a diesel engine as uninterrupted. And other systems are at the highest world level - after all, the science of tank building is also in St. Petersburg: these are VNIITransmash scientists - the developers of the world's first lunar rover. Determines the success and the highest skill of the crews, especially the driver mechanics: senior warrant officers - R. Sidorenko and A. Gushchina.


Jump shot


Alexey Gushchin to the question: “Who would win the competition - the Abrams tank or the T-80?”, Said: “I know that Abrams has already fought and the engine is more powerful with him, but you need to meet him not in a fight, and on such shows and competitions. I think we will win, a very hard American. ” Applause of the audience, gifts of the chiefs became the award to the skill of the soldiers-tankers.

I want to believe that the tank salon can become a tradition of St. Petersburg tank builders, good examples are contagious. So, in fact, what to do? The first is to master the technique, improve the military skills "to shine".

From the Editors of “Valiance”: By the way, at the “tank biathlon” recently held in Alabino, the tank crews of the 4 Guards Kantemirovskaya division became real heroes of the event on their gas-turbine handsome T-80U, demonstrating the skill of masterfully driving their “eighty”. And all this was called briefly - “tank ballet”.

MODERNIZING JUMP

The second is what to do? This is the path that the whole armored world is following. Let us make an attempt to analyze one aspect of the well-known tank triad - the problem of mobility.

A tank, as a weapon system, is continuously developing, acquiring new qualities and properties, its combat capabilities are steadily increasing. For all the years of development of the domestic tank building, the caliber of the gun has increased almost 3,5 times, the tank mass is 6,5 times, and the engine power is 37 times. This is convincingly shown by the growth rates of engine power of tanks from other countries.

The tank is considered, first of all, as an offensive means, therefore the principles of its application are rigidly connected with the problems of providing movement and increasing mobility. At the same time, mobility is associated with the ability to evade defeat by improving acceleration and braking characteristics.

The gas turbine power plant (GTSU) has become one of the main factors ensuring the combat and operational and technical superiority of tanks (T-80, T-80) over the best domestic and foreign tanks. In addition to many years of military exploitation in Russia, the GDR, Poland, this is confirmed by comparative tests in Sweden and India (1993 – 1994), weapons and military equipment exhibitions in the UAE (1993 – 1995), and in Greece (1998).


At the same time, inadequate evaluation of operating experience is primarily focused on one of its characteristics - fuel consumption. It is possible that not everyone knows that in the latest modifications of this machine, a whole range of scientific and technical solutions has been implemented, which have reduced operating fuel consumption by more than 1,3 times. Calculations show that by bringing the gas temperature at the turbine inlet to 1316 – 1370 ° C (which is possible with ceramic materials), it’s realistic to get fuel consumption up to 86 g / kWh (117 g / hp). thermal efficiency - 53%. This changes the idea of ​​the efficiency of a gas turbine.

The achieved performance is not the limit for the CCD. There are solutions (both theoretical and practical), which allow to achieve the values ​​of fuel operating costs at the level of tanks with diesel engines of equal power.

CONSTRUCTIVE ADVANTAGES

There is no doubt that the competition between diesel and GTE will continue. Despite the work to further improve the diesel engine, it has a number of design features that make it difficult to significantly improve the level achieved:

• It is, above all, the need to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into the rotational motion of the crankshaft. This, as a consequence, a large sliding friction on significant surfaces of the piston-sleeve. This is a non-stationary process of burning fuel in the cylinder during the working stroke. Note, however, that for the 4-stroke engine, only one of the four cycles is essentially “working”, and the rest are auxiliary.

With its mainly positive quality (specific fuel consumption), tank diesel will not remain uncompetitive in tank building for a long time, which is not only due to the listed disadvantages. Diesels with power over 1000 hp, in limited quantities of MTO, cause a lot of problems to ensure its operation without overheating.

• The liquid cooling system of a four-cycle diesel engine consumes from 15 to 20% of its power. In addition, the diesel requires 2 – 3% power to spend on cooling the oil.


It is known that the heat transfer of a two-stroke engine (6TD2) with a power 1200 hp is 420 thousand kcal / hour, and GTE (ed. "29") power 1250 HP - 48 thousand kcal / hour (almost 9 times less). This leads to increased cooling systems.

For the CCD, a characteristic that favorably distinguishes it from a diesel engine is the power “taken off” per unit volume of the engine. This parameter is better for GTE in 1,6. In this regard, the volume of the engine compartment in a tank with a GTE is smaller.


The significant superiority in overall power of the T-80 tank over the American Abrams tank is due to its increased dimensions of the power plant, due to the large volume of air cleaner.

Indicator overall power indicates not only the optimal layout of the logistics, but talks about the perfection of the systems and components of the power plant. The overall power of the MTO of the T-80 tank exceeds the overall capacity of the Leopard-2 tank by 2,2 times.

Increased MTO volumes of foreign tanks force the tank base to lengthen, increase the silhouette, add several tons of aggregate "excess" weight, thereby increasing the engine power costs by the added mass of the car, and on the other hand worsening mobility indicators. In this regard, let us compare the main overall indicators of tanks with the GTE of Russia and the USA in terms of the frontal (Sl) and lateral (Sб) projection area: T-80 - 7,1 and 12,2 sq.m, and М1А1 - 7,68 and 15,5 sq.m, respectively.

A certain amount of air is required to complete the work process. Since part of the air in the gas turbine engine is spent on cooling the combustion chamber, and the coefficient of excess air in the working process is also increased, the air demand for GTE is greater than for a diesel engine. And, despite the fact that for the combustion process air in a diesel engine is consumed less, its total amount (taking into account the cooling of the engine and transmission) is significantly increased. Let's compare this parameter with engines of tanks МХNUMX "Abrams" and "Leopard-1".


What is the conclusion? The increased (almost doubled) need for air, as well as the total heat emission increased several times, are followed by important consequences: the need to increase (almost threefold) the areas of radiators (heat exchangers), to increase the areas of suction louvers, (that is, to increase the weakened zones) .

OPERATIONAL BENEFITS

According to foreign sources, the cost of manufacturing a gas turbine engine (of the same power as a diesel engine) is about three times more. These indicators in the domestic engine-building industry were estimated somewhat differently (however, the comparisons were not sufficiently correct, since we did not make tank diesel engines the same as the GTE). We should not forget that cost indicators should be considered taking into account the operational costs of maintenance, repair and service life of the compared engines and their systems.

Let us present the results of the cost analysis of training and combat operation, based on data corresponding to the full service life of combat vehicles with gas turbine engines and a diesel engine (of the same power), conducted by MJCV (USA).


Operation in the military shows that the resource of a tank GTE is almost 2-3 times higher than that of diesel engines, due to balance and fewer parts.

According to foreign sources, estimates of the CCD resource are similar: according to MJCV (USA), the GT-601 GTE service life under combat conditions is equal to 3000 h, in peacetime to 10000 h.
Very important and such performance indicators:
• preparation time of the tank to work, especially the start of the CCD at low ambient temperatures, is several times less than that of a diesel engine;
• studies conducted abroad have found that the level of noise in a GTE is twice as low as a diesel engine.
If we consider that the laboriousness of the maintenance of the air cleaning and cooling system in the T-80 tank (and its modifications) is practically absent, then the advantages of the CCD are obvious.

ECOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES

Let us present the data on the level of toxicity of exhaust gases for transport gas turbine engines and diesel engines, obtained during operation in the state of California (USA).


The gas turbine engine of the T-80 tank is no alternative when operating in a zone with radioactive contamination. Radioactive particles emitted with exhaust gases do not come into contact (as it happens in a diesel engine) with oil and, therefore, do not enter the oil system, where a radiation source may occur.

It is also significant that the single-stage air cleaner of the T-80 tank, being an inertial device, does not trap radioactive particles in itself, unlike the two-stage barrier particles (in most diesel engines and the AGT-1500 engine) and throw them out with separated dust outside.
These findings were fully confirmed during the operation of the machine with the CCD in the accident area of ​​the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986.

INSTEAD OF THE AFTERWORK

The tank with a gas turbine engine, ahead of its time, broke into the XXI century with a huge, inexhaustible potential. From the point of view of the active defense policy proclaimed by specialists, potential sources of future war, climatic and geographical features of domestic regions, the CCD is today an ideal power plant for present and future tanks. We emphasize that, starting from 1972 (up to and including 1986), control and troop tests were carried out regularly (KVI) of all types of tanks available. In the most difficult conditions of accelerated troop exploitation, complicating the requirements every year, expanding the geography of the tanks passed thousands of kilometers off-road, solving complicated shooting tasks and identifying weak (or, as they said before, “narrow” places) in design and technology.

According to the results of the CPI, each design bureau developed a complex of various measures aimed at eliminating the identified defects and improving the design. In other words, large-scale systematic work was organized, a kind of competition on a competitive basis. It is necessary to attribute to the merits of the GBTU that the most advanced constructive ideas “passed” from one brand of car to another.

KVI became a powerful incentive to improve and improve the quality of all types of tanks. Each KVI, as the competition of the best, assumed intrigue, revealed new unexpected "surprises", which were eliminated together and were under the control of GABTU specialists.

Nobody wanted to "hit the face in the dirt", each gave birth to technical masterpieces. Competition created an atmosphere of continuous improvement, and foreign tank builders were constantly forced to "catch up" with us.

Today, along with the development of next-generation tanks, foreign tank builders are actively engaged in the modernization of existing models. We are following the same path, the benefit of which is the modernization of our cars.

You should not constantly look back at the USA, the Americans are well aware that they do not need a combat vehicle weighing 60-70 tons. And it is not by chance that the new GTE LV-100 is being improved - an intensive search is underway for reducing the weight of the car.

With all the similarities of the two brands (T-90 and T-80U), they have their advantages and, of course, their disadvantages, and the one whose combat effectiveness machine will be more competitive will win.

Moreover, the organizational structures are also being improved. Following the example of aviation and naval organizations, a research and production holding was established on the basis of Uralvagonzavod that will not only unite the efforts of the BTV developers.

Despite the difficulties, primarily financial ones, among tank builders of Russia, there is a constant work both on the tank of the future and on the modernization of the existing fleet. The potential of domestic tank building is inexhaustible, and the stereotype about the systemic crisis of domestic tank building is untenable.

Author:
Originator:
http://otvaga2004.ru/
260 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Canep
    Canep 12 September 2013 08: 14
    +3
    The turbine burns a lot of fuel, in combat conditions, to provide the tank unit on the t-80 with fuel, it will require twice as many fuel spreaders as for the T-90. This is a significant minus. In addition, if there is a lot of dust, then the tanks will often stop to clean the air filters.
    1. svp67
      svp67 12 September 2013 08: 23
      +6
      Quote: Canep
      The turbine burns a lot of fuel, in combat conditions, to provide the tank unit on the t-80 with fuel, it will require twice as many fuel spreaders as for the T-90. This is a significant minus. In addition, if there is a lot of dust, then the tanks will often stop to clean the air filters.

      Yeah more often, only T80 will go to each stop more ....
      GTD and diesel rivals. And this is a normal phenomenon, we must choose the best and until we have a 2В16 diesel engine, the gas turbine engine is more promising ...
      1. Sibiryak
        Sibiryak 12 September 2013 09: 55
        +7
        Quote: svp67
        GTD and diesel rivals

        In my opinion, these products are both good, only they can and should be used in different climatic conditions (in a 40-degree frost, try to start the diesel engine without buildup, the problem is, but the turbine is at a height and vice versa, in hot weather there’s nothing to dust with a pillar of diesel, but a turbine must be cleaned frequently).
        But there is one important factor that brings diesel to the leading position - SOLAR burns BAD, so the choice falls on him!
        1. Airman
          Airman 12 September 2013 10: 57
          +2
          In the anti-aircraft defense forces, all equipment has an autonomous power supply for gas turbine engines. In winter, in 40 * frost, when the diesel engine cannot be started after the heater is running (the batteries run down), the turbine starts half-turn, and after that the diesel starts.
        2. vjhbc
          vjhbc 12 September 2013 20: 09
          +4
          assertion that SOLAR burns bad amateurish in a cumulative stream, BOPS breakdown especially if it burns uranium everything even does not burn at all, but extinguishing a solarium is most difficult to extinguish the highest octane gasoline
          Quote: Sibiryak
          Quote: svp67
          GTD and diesel rivals

          In my opinion, these products are both good, only they can and should be used in different climatic conditions (in a 40-degree frost, try to start the diesel engine without buildup, the problem is, but the turbine is at a height and vice versa, in hot weather there’s nothing to dust with a pillar of diesel, but a turbine must be cleaned frequently).
          But there is one important factor that brings diesel to the leading position - SOLAR burns BAD, so the choice falls on him!
        3. Cyber7
          Cyber7 12 September 2013 21: 14
          +3
          Quote: Sibiryak
          in a 40-degree frost, try to start a diesel engine without buildup

          Do you know about the cold start button?
          Quote: Sibiryak
          in hot weather, dust is nothing to the diesel column and the turbine needs to be cleaned often

          I agree.
          Quote: Sibiryak
          SOLYARA BURNS BAD

          GTE also works great on diesel, gasoline, and kerosene.
          The choice for a diesel engine falls because every "tractor driver" (driver of diesel transport) can repair it, and not everyone can repair a gas turbine engine in the field.
          Something like that.
          1. uwzek
            uwzek 13 September 2013 01: 53
            +3
            You shouldn't have remembered about the "Cold start" button - it is, in essence, a fake. First, the lower temperature limit is limited (far from minus forty). Secondly, it requires a certain type of battery on the machine. Thirdly (and the funniest thing), the use of a specific type of oil is required, which is not something that the army does not have, it has not been produced for ten years (if ever it was ever produced). The diesel manufacturer slyly indicated substitutes, but this is not entered in the operating manuals, that is, any cold start is a user risk, the allowed number of such starts is limited, the exception is wartime ... It's not a matter of malice, but that it is made to order army, the manufacturer implemented a very clumsy cold start system, and at the same time the customer country disappeared, the standards collapsed, the factories were closed, and no one will tell you what kind of oil was poured into the tank (something black). In short, starting in the cold is the most global drawback of a diesel engine, especially since a series of unsuccessful starts leads to the need to free the gearboxes and guitar of the tank from excess gear oil and manually pour them into the appropriate oil tank.
            I’ve been dealing with tanks for quite some time (though I didn’t finish the tank iron itself and its electronics, I didn’t finish the tractor courses), I don’t imagine how in the field you can fix the V-92 engine with a serious defect - a gas turbine engine is simple.
            But the main plus of the diesel engine is that during operation it passes much less dust through itself than the turbine and less is destroyed by it. A diesel engine does not require such a volume of an air purifier and such a degree of air purification as a gas turbine engine. That is why tanks with diesel engines are still in favor.
            1. Cyber7
              Cyber7 13 September 2013 02: 47
              +3
              Quote: uwzek
              You shouldn't have remembered about the "Cold Start" button - it is, in essence, a fake.

              You shouldn’t be so. At a rembase, one man told me about her. How and how many times they clicked it. And after how many times the t-72 engine finally died. And the figure was (programmatically) greater than-or-equal to ten. A few ... more than ten.
              Quote: uwzek
              that is, any cold start is the risk of the user

              Once again, in vain you are so. And everything above the quote. I do not want to spread about this, because:
              Quote: uwzek
              exception - wartime

              Exactly. The second time may simply not be provided. One time is enough. Of the 10 available. Draw a circle of 3 thousand km from your city in Google map. Is it a lot or a little?
              But our tanks, which are "combat" only 3 km away, can reach Berlin from Moscow with a double reserve.
              And minus 40-50 - this happens with us. They are not in Europe. And the "opponents" need to teach their tanks to launch in Siberia, at least at minus 30. Can they do this? At least one time?
              Quote: uwzek
              not very ... simple

              Both of these words are written separately.
              Just finding fault. Although it is already the second hour of the night and the beer is ending. Sobering up. It is getting sad. Sorry.
              Quote: uwzek
              I’ve been dealing with tanks for quite some time (though I didn’t finish the tank iron itself and its electronics, I didn’t finish the tractor courses), I don’t imagine how in the field you can fix the V-92 engine with a serious defect - a gas turbine engine is simple.

              Four letters - "SPPM" - remind you of nothing? They are simply deciphered - "collection point of damaged cars". This is when in the field (on yay .. in the snow or on jo .. in the mud) disassemble or assemble (mainly) the chassis.
              I was there, I was drinking tea, in which instead of water there was birch sap.
              And although the students of KVTIU periodically drove with a bucket for clearance, but they disassembled and assembled the gearbox and chassis in the field quite clearly.
              It was in the last century.
              Do not consider for collision or tactlessness.
              I completely agree with the last paragraph.
          2. vitya village
            vitya village 13 September 2013 20: 29
            0
            I wish you great success in the overhaul of the diesel engine in the field by the crew, even if they are all tractor drivers.
        4. svp67
          svp67 14 September 2013 21: 51
          0
          Quote: Sibiryak
          SOLARA burns BAD,

          Yes, KEROSIN is not much better ...
        5. kow.117
          kow.117 3 October 2013 16: 18
          0
          80-ka, if anything, a multi-fuel tank)))
      2. Cyber7
        Cyber7 12 September 2013 21: 08
        +3
        A diesel engine can be repaired in the field by any 18-year-old tractor driver-mechanic who has completed a six-month course in the specialty "digging trenches at an average testing ground." Can this person (with a sharp mobilization or for a year of service) repair the GTE in the field?
        Do you get knowledge about the fundamental difference between diesel and gas turbine repair from Wiki?
        Do you know how much it weighs and what the air filter looks like for the T-72 and T-80? Do you know how long it takes to replace it?
        I'm drunk today, so I can be too harsh.
        Sorry.
    2. Asan Ata
      Asan Ata 12 September 2013 09: 43
      +3
      I am an amateur in tanks. But, according to the author:"Calculations show that when the temperature of the gases at the turbine inlet is increased to 1316-1370 ° C (which is possible with the use of ceramic materials), it is realistic to obtain a fuel consumption of up to 86 g / kWh (117 g / hp h.), and the thermal efficiency is 53%, which changes the idea of ​​gas turbine efficiency.

      The achieved indicators are far from the limit for the GTE. There are developments of solutions (both theoretical and practical), which allow achieving the values ​​of operating fuel consumption at the level of tanks with diesel engines of equal power. "


      With all the data given by the author, the turbine looks very, very. It is clear that many things need to be completed, Probably, self-cleaning filters, of course, ceramics. I agree with vladsolo56. Lose technology, it's like two fingers on the asphalt.
      1. ka5280
        ka5280 12 September 2013 10: 08
        0
        And what is the temperature of vortex gases on a gas turbine engine?
      2. Alekseev
        Alekseev 12 September 2013 21: 00
        +2
        Quote: Asan Ata
        According to the author: “Calculations show that when the temperature of the gases at the turbine inlet is increased to 1316–1370 ° C (which is possible with the use of ceramic materials), it is realistic to obtain a fuel consumption of up to 86 g / kWh (117 g / hp. h.),

        But what does not bring the temperature of the gases at the entrance to the turbine to these values? what
        The crafty author knows the answer to this question ...
        But he does not say "partisan" like that. request
        Who wants to know why they still don’t bring it, let him take an interest, this is not a secret.
        It’s not a secret that despite a number of advantages, on profitability and price while GTE is not a competitor to diesel.
        It was this fact that allowed Kharkov citizens to tighten their two-stroke diesel engine (t-80ud) into the t-80.
        It is for this reason that the gas turbine engine was not selected as the engine of the Russian tank. And the t-80 as MBT.
        They wrote and discussed a thousand times ...
        But, "not by bread alone", but also by various kinds of discussions "man is alive" smile
        1. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 23: 42
          +1
          Quote: Alekseev
          Quote: Asan Ata
          According to the author: “Calculations show that when the temperature of the gases at the turbine inlet is increased to 1316–1370 ° C (which is possible with the use of ceramic materials), it is realistic to obtain a fuel consumption of up to 86 g / kWh (117 g / hp. h.),

          But what does not bring the temperature of the gases at the entrance to the turbine to these values? what
          The crafty author knows the answer to this question ...
          But he does not say "partisan" like that. request
          Who wants to know why they still don’t bring it, let him take an interest, this is not a secret.
          It’s not a secret that despite a number of advantages, on profitability and price while GTE is not a competitor to diesel.
          It was this fact that allowed Kharkov citizens to tighten their two-stroke diesel engine (t-80ud) into the t-80.
          It is for this reason that the gas turbine engine was not selected as the engine of the Russian tank. And the t-80 as MBT.
          They wrote and discussed a thousand times ...
          But, "not by bread alone", but also by various kinds of discussions "man is alive" smile


          The Harkovites put their two-stroke diesel because they have NOT had another since the 50s !!!
          5TD-Foreva! Shoved, shoved and will shove everything! And nobody will sell our gas turbine engine to them (this is fraught).
          1. Yemelya
            Yemelya 13 September 2013 00: 05
            +1
            Quote: soldier of fortune
            The Harkovites put their two-stroke diesel because they have NOT had another since the 50s !!!


            They have in the middle. 1980s the production of the T-80A gas turbine ("Alder") was to begin. According to some sources, they even released several dozen in 1983, but it did not work out, they began to make T-80UD ("Birch").

            It's me that the equipment was installed and the technology transferred.
        2. Cyber7
          Cyber7 13 September 2013 00: 29
          -1
          Quote: Alekseev
          But what does not bring the temperature of the gases at the entrance to the turbine to these values?

          Speed-load?
          Quote: Alekseev
          The crafty author knows the answer to this question ... But he does not say, "partisan" is such.

          C'mon, it's simple.
          It is no secret why the gas turbine engine is not a competitor to diesel. Explain? I already, it seems, pretty much registered on this topic upstream and downstream.
          Read and think. I just want to notice one difference.
          Quote: Alekseev
          GTE as the engine of a Russian tank

          A gas turbine engine is (originally) not a motor for a tank. This is a helicopter engine. With all the consequences.
          1. kow.117
            kow.117 3 October 2013 16: 25
            0
            this is not an engine from the turntable, learn the materiel!
      3. Cyber7
        Cyber7 12 September 2013 21: 19
        +1
        Quote: Asan Ata
        the turbine looks very very

        Yeah, and any "driver-mechanic" who has received the diploma "technician for the repair of military aircraft" can repair it.
        1. kow.117
          kow.117 3 October 2013 16: 27
          0
          there is nothing to repair - removed the mono-block, put another, connected all the ends and tubes, and - go!
    3. Hon
      Hon 12 September 2013 11: 45
      +3
      Quote: Canep
      The turbine burns a lot of fuel, in combat conditions, to provide the tank unit on the t-80 with fuel, it will require twice as many fuel spreaders as for the T-90. This is a significant minus. In addition, if there is a lot of dust, then the tanks will often stop to clean the air filters.

      The turbine eats a lot during improper operation. If an experienced tanker, the expense is comparable to a diesel engine. GTD just has its own characteristics.
      1. Cyber7
        Cyber7 12 September 2013 21: 23
        +1
        Quote: Hon
        If an experienced tanker

        Are you talking about those who were called for 1 year? And who for six months dug trenches in the training? (That is - did not have the practice of driving and repairing half of its life)?
        Quote: Hon
        GTD just has its own characteristics.

        Exactly. And these features are very significant. For the driving and service personnel.
    4. nightingale
      nightingale 12 September 2013 14: 58
      +2
      As far as I understand from the article on the t-80, you do not need to clean the filter
      1. Cyber7
        Cyber7 12 September 2013 21: 27
        +2
        Quote: nightingale
        As far as I understand from the article on the t-80, you do not need to clean the filter

        You misunderstood. Filters must be cleaned. And as often as possible. Especially in dusty areas.
        The word "how much" is written together. And after the word "article" a comma is placed.
        This is so, unobtrusively and like a beer.
        1. vitya village
          vitya village 13 September 2013 20: 21
          +2
          You misunderstood this, since the T-80 air filter does not require any maintenance AT ALL.
          The idea that filter cleaning is necessary quite often comes from the experience of operating the T-72 in the desert, where they had permanent "hemorrhoids" with these filters.
    5. soldier of fortune
      soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 15: 42
      +3
      Quote: Canep
      The turbine burns a lot of fuel, in combat conditions, to provide the tank unit on the t-80 with fuel, it will require twice as many fuel spreaders as for the T-90. This is a significant minus. In addition, if there is a lot of dust, then the tanks will often stop to clean the air filters.

      That's just the T-90 and will often stop to clean the air filters. The T-80 filters are serviced much less often (as originally designed + pneumatic cleaning of the turbine which is not in the internal combustion engine). In a gas turbine engine, with an increase in power (revolutions), specific fuel consumption decreases. About ATZ you went too far! Where is the data from the ceiling ??? Or a source, or a calculation, or don’t come up with!
      1. Cyber7
        Cyber7 12 September 2013 21: 36
        +1
        Quote: soldier of fortune
        In a gas turbine engine, with an increase in power (revolutions), specific fuel consumption decreases.

        Do you know at what speeds (speeds) do these tanks usually drive?
        Quote: soldier of fortune
        About ATZ you went too far!

        No, you do not know.
        Quote: soldier of fortune
        Where is the data from the ceiling?

        From practice, your mob. At a speed of 25-40 km / h (normal speed in military conditions), the T-80 refuel 1.5 times more often than a diesel (any) tank.
      2. vitya village
        vitya village 13 September 2013 19: 47
        +1
        I want to note that the T-80 has an air supply filter for the engine’s air supply that is serviced by AAAA much less often, because there is simply nothing to maintain because of its complete absence.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 13 September 2013 20: 16
          +2
          Quote: d. Vitya
          I want to note that the T-80 has an air supply filter for the engine’s air supply that is serviced by AAAA much less often, because there is simply nothing to maintain because of its complete absence.

          Transmission tank T-80. These two boxes on the left (with the inscription P-125) are the filters. They are cyclone type. That is, the dust is separated by centrifugal forces from clean air and emitted through the exhaust.
          1. vitya village
            vitya village 13 September 2013 20: 55
            +1
            Sorry for the previous post, it was not about the absence of a filter as such, but about the absence of an object requiring periodic cleaning during operation. Well, but about "no filter at all" I, of course, got excited, or was misunderstood.
            By the way, the photo shows not a transmission, but a monoblock.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 13 September 2013 21: 13
              0
              Quote: d. Vitya
              the photo shows not a transmission, but a monoblock.

              I agree.
    6. lucidlook
      lucidlook 14 September 2013 01: 17
      0
      In fact, air needs to be cleaned much better for a diesel engine than for a turbine. In a diesel engine, air flows into the cylinder, what dust can there be. Inadmissible!

      But in terms of fuel consumption - yes, GTE is voracious. And this implies not only the need for refueling, but also increased visibility in the IR range.
  2. Predator-74
    Predator-74 12 September 2013 08: 28
    +2
    Turbines need to be developed. There is no doubt, but in the context of comparison, one must also consider the fact that the diesel engine also does not stand still and develops and with each new diesel engine the performance also improves. But the truth will be only in the normal competition of two ideas.
  3. Regis
    Regis 12 September 2013 08: 35
    +5
    For tankers, the turbine is definitely better. But for tank troops, it’s better, judging by world trends, diesel. (for now)
    1. Cyber7
      Cyber7 12 September 2013 21: 52
      0
      Quote: Regis
      For tankers, the turbine is definitely better.

      For which tankers, is louse vigorous ?! For those who at 18 years old learned how to ride a tractor (at best - a diesel!) And somehow repair it? And for half a year (in the most ideal case, when meaningless trenches instead of studying for six months do not dig in the training), they steal the theory of gas turbine engines, for the repair of which normal people have been studying for 5 years?
      And how is it better? The fact that the "tractor driver" unscrews the transmission and looks, freaking out, at the information that he needs to master in such a short time?
      I goofing!
      1. Valentine
        Valentine 12 September 2013 23: 32
        +5
        Are we going to raise the level of soldiers to the level of modern technology or vice versa? Then let’s arm ourselves with baseball bats and kitchen knives, we don’t need training for them.
        1. Cyber7
          Cyber7 13 September 2013 01: 46
          +1
          Quote: Valentine
          Are we going to raise the level of soldiers to the level of modern technology or vice versa?

          What does it mean - "to the level of modern technology"?
          To hang a soldier with computers, GPS, iPhones and batteries for them - do you mean by the word "raise"?
          By shooting down satellites, drones and drowning the communications of a "potential enemy" who is used to trusting the pounds of computers hung around him, you gain an advantage in tactics, and in a couple of days (when "they" run out of batteries) and in strategy.
          And then these bastards, who are ready to burn out Vietnamese villages for "sneakers" in unloading and citizenship in the states and bomb a city in Iraq with phosphorus, whose residents have resisted them for six months, to spite everything, for the Motherland - you can hammer them not only with baseball bats ( Do you like American sports?), but also with simple flicks with your middle or index finger.
          But fingers need to be developed. Even in peacetime. For us. Just in case.
          1. loft79
            loft79 13 September 2013 07: 33
            +1
            Quote: Cyber7
            What does it mean - "to the level of modern technology"?
            To hang a soldier with computers, GPS, iPhones and batteries for them - do you mean by the word "raise"?
            Shooting down satellites, drones and drowning out the communication of a "potential enemy" who is used to trusting the pounds of computers hung around him, you gain an advantage in tactics, and in a couple of days (when "they" run out of batteries) and in strategy


            In vain you are so.
            Valentine right to raise those. level of training of soldiers.
            Or will we act according to the principle "SVT-40 is too complicated for a soldier, requires cleaning and maintenance, so Mosinka"? Then what kind of modern army are we talking about?
            Tank troops must be professional (contracted). Knowledge of technology, coherence of the crew, well-functioning actions in a platoon, company, etc. That being said IMHO.
      2. kow.117
        kow.117 3 October 2013 17: 08
        0
        I'm not sure that a tractor driver from a vocational school will understand a diesel engine ...
  4. major071
    major071 12 September 2013 08: 55
    +7
    We must not rest on our laurels, but continue to develop two areas in tank construction - gas turbine engines and diesel. Now we are operating the T-80 and T-90, when we come to a single tank, then the designers will think that it is better to use a diesel engine or a gas turbine engine, to solve which tasks a tank is created (also Armata).
    1. Cyber7
      Cyber7 12 September 2013 21: 57
      +2
      Quote: major071
      We must not rest on our laurels, but continue to develop two areas in tank construction - gas turbine engines and diesel.

      And it is necessary to specifically address the reform of primary and vocational education.
      Otherwise - kirdyk.
      Quote: major071
      and gas turbine engine and diesel

      Mistake And the reform of the highest.
      Otherwise - kirdyk.
      1. Valentine
        Valentine 12 September 2013 23: 37
        +4
        With our modern education system, diesel will soon seem like a nuclear reactor for conscripts.
        1. Cyber7
          Cyber7 13 September 2013 03: 17
          +2
          Quote: Valentine
          With our modern education system, diesel will soon seem like a nuclear reactor for conscripts.

          Alas, Valentine, but it's true.
          And we need to prepare for a big war. And she will be in the next 5-10 years. Although, hardly anyone is seriously thinking about it now.
          As in 1937.
  5. Airman
    Airman 12 September 2013 09: 09
    +4
    Nevertheless, in Russia they refused the T-80, only the T-72 and T-90 will remain. I would leave the T-80 for the northern regions, especially since the new (modernized) turbine produces 1400 hp.
    1. Cyber7
      Cyber7 12 September 2013 22: 02
      +2
      Quote: Povshnik
      I would leave the T-80 for the northern regions

      I wouldn’t dare to speak in your place
      Quote: Povshnik
      I'd
      .
      The power of the turbine is not the most compelling argument. Especially in the northern regions.
      I have already mentioned the cold start button. Think about the rest yourself.
  6. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 12 September 2013 09: 16
    +6
    If you put an end to the turbine, then in a few years you will have to catch up with the same Americans, so let there be an experimental factory for the production of tanks with a gas turbine engine. if there are even a few dozen tanks with such engines, it’s already good, the command will have a strong reserve.
    1. Cyber7
      Cyber7 12 September 2013 22: 07
      +1
      Quote: vladsolo56
      If you put an end to the turbine, then in a few years you will have to catch up with the same Americans

      And instead of AKM, start developing an M-16 rifle? Which ones (active) amers willingly change to AKM and even PPSh? And to develop a tank with 4 crew members, replacing the loader with a loader, which amers still can’t copy?
      Who should we catch up with?
  7. Eugeniy_369
    Eugeniy_369 12 September 2013 09: 37
    +2
    A dispute between a diesel engine and a turbine is precisely the case when truth is born from a dispute. Not the command of the authorities, namely the competition of designers, engineers, and testers. And he will win who will actually prove in practice, and not under the carpet, that his brainchild is better.
    I myself certainly respect the turbine repeat but this is my subjective winked
    1. Cyber7
      Cyber7 12 September 2013 22: 10
      +1
      Quote: Eugeniy_369
      I myself certainly respect the turbine

      You just didn’t touch her hands.
      Quote: Eugeniy_369
      but this is my subjective

      Exactly.
  8. Per se.
    Per se. 12 September 2013 09: 44
    +7
    Maybe, for a long time it is necessary to realize that the turbine and diesel do not mutually exclusive, but complement each other? Different geographical application environment, type and class of armored vehicles, the availability of promising development of the propulsion system. You can’t refuse the T-80, you can’t refuse the work on the gas turbine engine! From T-80 because it is a successful machine that is already in our army, a machine with far from exhausted potential. From GTE because it will already be a strategic mistake in terms of scientific and technological progress, which does not stand still. Is it so hard to realize, bending fingers to the money and profit managers from the defense? Who are these people who kill the T-80, great strategists, fools, or traitors?
    1. Cyber7
      Cyber7 12 September 2013 22: 21
      0
      [quote = Per se.] you cannot refuse to work ... on the GTE because it will already be a strategic mistake in terms of scientific and technological progress, which does not stand still. [/ quote]
      Yeah, our tractors, driven by future conscripts, are already totally working on the GTE? And our "Cossacks" have a multi-fuel engine?
      quote = Per se.] It's so hard to grasp [/ quote]
      I do not know. It turns out - it's hard.
      [quote = Per se.] Who are these people killing the T-80, great strategists, fools, or traitors? [/ quote]
      And who are these people who write comments on this topic - fools or stupid people who imagine themselves to be great strategists and understand the whole essence of today's world?
      I do not know.
      I doubt both assumptions.
  9. ka5280
    ka5280 12 September 2013 09: 50
    0
    And the cost of operating a diesel engine is lower than that of a gas turbine engine? And what is their resource between overhaul?
    1. Cyber7
      Cyber7 12 September 2013 23: 15
      +2
      Quote: ka5280
      And the cost of operating a diesel engine is lower than that of a gas turbine engine? And what is their resource between overhaul?

      That's funny. Two great questions.
      And not a single answer.
      I would add.
      And draftees equally repair diesel and gas turbine engine?
      And for how long does a conscript of one (ONE!) Year of service (demobilization, type) pull diesel and gas turbine engines out of the transmission?
      And when the oil is leaking, what day is the conscript able to determine what type of lubricant is coming from?
      And how long does he need to fix this problem?
  10. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 12 September 2013 09: 52
    16
    The T-80 is primarily needed for permanent availability parts. In winter, due to problems with starting the engine, the T-72 may not have enough time to get out of a missile strike to the concentration areas. In storage of the mobile reserve, in the south and in Primorye, the T-72 may well stand.
    The rejection of the T-80 is an example of inappropriate lobbying for the interests of the Nizhny Tagil military-industrial complex to the detriment of the country's defense capabilities. Unification is good, but not always. Even the banal lack of competition can slow down the development and improvement of Russian weapons. Under the threat of destroying their offspring, the St. Petersburg plant practically created a miracle machine and either a blind man or a direct pest can not see this.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 12 September 2013 10: 15
      +2
      The people who make our decisions should understand that Russia is opposed not by a separate FRG with a diesel "Leopard", but by a bloc of countries, which is armed not with a couple of types of tanks for diesel engines, but with a wide range of equipment in military cooperation and "division of labor" , including several types of main tanks, both with a diesel engine and a gas turbine engine. Rejection of the T-80, at least stupidity and shortsightedness, even for the opinions of the philistine level. With those in power, the demand is higher.
      1. Cyber7
        Cyber7 12 September 2013 22: 36
        +2
        Quote: Per se.
        Russia is opposed not by a separate FRG with a diesel "Leopard", but by a bloc of countries in which it is not armed with a couple of types of tanks for diesel engines, but a wide range of equipment in military cooperation and "division of labor", including several types of main tanks, as with a diesel engine, and with the GTE.

        And, stepping through the territory of NATO countries, we must focus on their roads and their fuel, which we can fill in our tanks?
        Then why are our (all!) Multi-fuel tank engines? You can simplify the task.
        And then break off on this.
        After all, they do not have kerosene at gas stations? No.
        And they have no swamps. So, maybe, do the tracks on tanks Already? Savings, after all.
        And when the Chinese attack us - to wallow in their own swamps of Siberia?
        Aha?
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 12 September 2013 22: 45
        +3
        Do not write nonsense, only amers have a GTE, no one has been perverted for a long time, you can even remember diesel T-80s. And there is no corruption there, no one is buying Abrams, and serious NATO countries use their own tanks.

        Rejection of the T-80 is objectively the only possible option in our conditions, especially since according to the characteristics of the T-80, if it surpasses the T-72, it is not much, but in the war, more is decided by quantity.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 13 September 2013 01: 57
          +2
          Quote: Avenger711
          all the more so according to the characteristics of the T-80, if it surpasses the T-72, then not by much, and in war decides more quantity.

          about 8 T-000 tanks and its modifications in storage - do you think this is small ??? what
        2. kow.117
          kow.117 3 October 2013 17: 15
          0
          let's start spanking the T-55 again, cheap and cheerful!
    2. ka5280
      ka5280 12 September 2013 10: 18
      +2
      Why not equip your tankast webasto diesel? The engine in the winter will be warm and alert.
      1. dzvero
        dzvero 12 September 2013 11: 46
        +3
        the battery runs out, the computer shuts down, start up smile probably keeping fire under the ITO is cheaper and supporting the crew’s desired degree of nasty wink
        and so - yes, is it possible to provide a removable external diesel generator for 10 hp and electric heating mto?
        1. ka5280
          ka5280 12 September 2013 13: 01
          0
          Well, if the equipment is in the park, then you can power the webast and from the network.
        2. Cyber7
          Cyber7 12 September 2013 22: 46
          +2
          Quote: dzvero
          the battery runs out, the computer shuts down, start up

          Exactly.
          A conventional heater built into the tank will warm up the engine to the required temperature in 10-15 minutes. In an emergency there is a cold start button.
          Quote: dzvero
          Yes, and maintains the desired degree of ghouliness in the crew

          And the fur-water, even during the parade, is a little leaked. The usual thing.
          Quote: dzvero
          and so - yes, is it possible to provide a removable external diesel generator for 10 hp and electric heating mto?

          And a field campfire with canned food and beer in the field, while the engine is warming up? And warm mattresses in the fur-water compartment? And even better - a catapult for mech-waters in case of critical damage to the tank. After all, it’s most difficult for them to leave a burning piece of iron weighing almost fifty tons.
          That would be - yes! :)
          By the way, the tankers. Happy holiday!
        3. kow.117
          kow.117 3 October 2013 17: 17
          0
          there is already an additional generator on the T-90!
      2. AlNikolaich
        AlNikolaich 12 September 2013 23: 40
        0
        Quote: ka5280
        Why not equip your tankast webasto diesel? The engine in the winter will be warm and alert.

        A similar device has been installed since the time of the T-34. The preheater is called.
        Also on most army equipment is.
    3. Cyber7
      Cyber7 12 September 2013 22: 26
      +6
      Quote: Yoon Klob
      T-80 is needed primarily for units of constant readiness. In winter, due to problems with starting the engine, the T-72 may not have enough time to get out of a missile strike to the concentration areas.

      Yes, your mob! The "cold start" button on the T-72 can start the engine in one and a half minutes, without any warming up.
      Do you smoke as usual - with Vicki?
      (There should have been a cruel curse, beginning with the words - "Yeah ... in your mouth.")
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 12 September 2013 22: 37
        0
        I have a question, to what temperature is "cold start" allowed, and is the number of cold starts limited?
        1. Cyber7
          Cyber7 12 September 2013 23: 28
          +3
          I don't remember the temperature anymore (roughly up to minus 40-50). The number of starts according to the standard (instructions for use) - 10. Then the engine "cannot be overhauled".
          For emergency situations, it is enough. Moreover, the tank after 3 thousand kilometers from "combat" is transferred to the category of "combat training".
          Enough for Europe.
          And the tank’s total resource is approximately (old already, I don’t remember the exact numbers) 10-15 thousand kilometers.
          And it’s unlikely that I will disclose some terrible MILITARY SECRET here!
          Everyone has it.
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 12 September 2013 23: 33
            +1
            Quote: Cyber7
            to minus 40-50).
            Is it a bit much?
            1. Cyber7
              Cyber7 13 September 2013 00: 58
              +2
              Enough for us. And the Arabs and Indians do not have a "minus" at all.
              A "cold start" consumes most of the battery capacity (four batteries of 64 kilograms - not ampere-hours) and air, which is usually up to 150 atmospheres.
              I myself have not tried to pull this lever, which is made in the style of a pistol trigger (on the T-72). 10 days on the "lip" - I would have died of boredom.
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 13 September 2013 01: 00
                0
                I was still asking about the track resource.
                1. Cyber7
                  Cyber7 13 September 2013 03: 45
                  +1
                  Throw the link, for definiteness. So that I know what I’m answering.
                  Without an exile I can say this.
                  The caterpillar consists of tracks. About 30-50 trucks - I do not remember.
                  Damn, who knows how many teeth on the drive wheel? I know. But how do I know how many tracks are in the track? Did I count this crap?
                  Changed? Yes! Did you count? What am I, really?
                  The truck consists of iron and rubber. When the rubber wears out, the caterpillar is pulled by the drive wheel. When a truck is knocked out or worn out, it is changed and a little bucket is pulled.
                  All.
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 13 September 2013 17: 31
                    0
                    Quote: Cyber7
                    The caterpillar consists of tracks. About 30-50 trucks - I do not remember.

                    In the T-62 tank, there’s 92 track on each track. I think in the T-72 more.
              2. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 13 September 2013 21: 08
                +1
                Quote: Cyber7
                I myself have not tried to pull this lever, which is made in the style of a pistol trigger (on the T-72). 10 days on the "lip" - I would have died of boredom.

                Twice started up manually, pneumatic valve. In both cases, there were no batteries on the equipment (T-62 and engineering machine based on T-55). Both times the diesel started without problems. The negative consequences of such launches were not noticed, although they probably were, because even a regular engine start in terms of engine life is equivalent to several hours of engine operation.
        2. studentmati
          studentmati 13 September 2013 01: 10
          +1
          Quote: Alex 241
          I have a question, to what temperature is "cold start" allowed, and is the number of cold starts limited?


          I remembered how a comrade from the state reception "sold" "Wasp" to our friends in Syria in the 80s. We examined everything, appreciated, shot and decided - take it! We ordered it, came to receive it, and then there was a stupor, the fuel preheater was not installed (well, what for is he in Syria asked?). The buyer stubbornly, substandard and that's it! I had to install.
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 13 September 2013 01: 19
            +3
            Sash our tanks in Africa were delivered with a set of winter uniforms laughing
            1. studentmati
              studentmati 13 September 2013 01: 22
              +1
              Quote: Alex 241
              Sasha our tanks in Africa were delivered with a set of winter uniforms laughing


              Normal Temka !!! lol drinks Like a camel disguise?
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Alex 241
                Alex 241 13 September 2013 01: 29
                +1
                I’m on my side. I'll see you.
                1. studentmati
                  studentmati 13 September 2013 01: 31
                  0
                  Healthy sleep and good dreams Friend!
              4. Simple
                Simple 13 September 2013 01: 29
                +2
                Good night, Alexander.

                Brighten up a little evening:




                laughing
                1. studentmati
                  studentmati 13 September 2013 01: 37
                  +1
                  Quote: Simple
                  Good night, Alexander.

                  Brighten up a little evening:


                  Good night namesake, Fun and cool! good
                  1. Simple
                    Simple 13 September 2013 01: 42
                    +1
                    Yes, there are a lot of jokes on the Internet, you can sit all night, just get up in the morning at five in the morning.
                    I'll go in the direction of the bed too.
                    Good luck!
                    1. studentmati
                      studentmati 13 September 2013 01: 44
                      +1
                      Quote: Simple
                      Yes, there are a lot of jokes on the Internet, you can sit all night, just get up in the morning at five in the morning.
                      I'll go in the direction of the bed too.
                      Good luck!


                      You, too, have a healthy sleep and good dreams, you yourself will soon be on the rise.
    4. Avenger711
      Avenger711 12 September 2013 22: 43
      +2
      The T-80, in general, has also flown into the global market. Because few people buy a tank that is slightly better than the T-72, but costs three times more. There is no talk of any lobbying, the point is not only in the excessive complexity of the T-80, but also in the fact that, after the collapse of the Union, the available tank production capacities suddenly became redundant.

      The benefits of competition in Russia itself are greatly exaggerated, because the tank still competes in the international market and can directly meet in battle with the products of competitors.
      1. Valentine
        Valentine 13 September 2013 00: 03
        0
        Not certainly in that way. And the Americans, and Germans, and the French, and Britons and many others will now for themselves still buy their tanks. Image! So the development companies in any case. Domestic competition will not give such a guarantee.
      2. Cyber7
        Cyber7 13 September 2013 00: 13
        +3
        I already said that today I’m having a beer. I even spilled beer on Claudia, but the Makovsky clave was able to cope with such (national characteristic) problems online.
        I would be ready to even agree with you, but only a normal man in his own words is so unlikely to speak out (if not for beer). Although it happens. Rarely. In these words. Given your past statements.
        But in essence I agree with you.
        The USSR collapsed. The Kiev tanker's forge (KVTIU) was reformed first, then dismissed.
        Rembases in Kiev and Dnieper have become dumpsters. "Miracle tanks" in Ukraine were made of high quality (still) plasticine, but in the amount of 10 pieces. For a country the size of France - a tiny bit. For one friendly salvo of 25-30 militants.
        But the most annoying words are "buy" and "more expensive".
        The country is protected not in the name of these words.
        And just because.
        I think so.
    5. nick-name
      nick-name 13 September 2013 16: 36
      +2
      Quote: Yoon Klob
      The T-80 is primarily needed for permanent availability parts. In winter, due to problems with starting the engine, the T-72 may not have enough time to get out of a missile strike to the concentration areas. In storage of the mobile reserve, in the south and in Primorye, the T-72 may well stand.

      Gyyy))) Do you know what the parts of constant combat readiness are? The tanks are fully refueled, charged in warm hangars, with rechargeable small current batteries. Also, do not forget about the PVV button (intake air heating). And to make your tank for each climate zone ... This is crap.
      Quote: Yoon Klob
      The abandonment of the T-80 is an example of inappropriate lobbying for the interests of the Nizhny Tagil military-industrial complex to the detriment of the country's defense.

      Exactly! Exactly! And this despite the fact that the performance characteristics of the tanks are about the same, and the APU (auxiliary power unit) T-80 is like a V-84, and the turbine T-80 is like 10 V-84. This is not to mention the gluttony of turbines, and the problems of their use in dusty environments. By the way, you forgot to mention the conspiracy and state crime wassat
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. Eugeniy_369
    Eugeniy_369 12 September 2013 10: 11
    +1
    Quote: Per se.
    Maybe, for a long time it is necessary to realize that the turbine and diesel do not mutually exclusive, but complement each other? Different geographical application environment, type and class of armored vehicles, the availability of promising development of the propulsion system.

    Yes, this is understandable, but not fat now recourse . GTD R&D must be done, but a diesel engine will now be preferable.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 12 September 2013 11: 18
      +6
      The Lord is with you, what kind of fat are we talking about? The T-80 has been developed and produced and is in service with our army. How many years have they been creating the T-95, a breakthrough project, the tank was practically ready EIGHT years ago! No, it's expensive, not for year-olds, we started to “fidget about the platform”, we have been fidgeting for more than eight years, mastering new financial resources. God grant that it will work out, and at least not worse than what the enemy will already have. It is cheap? For myself, tanks in the minimum configuration, no doubt, are also very great savings, but such stinginess afterwards turns into a rush and big sacrifices. We do not save on that, but we can argue endlessly about diesel and gas turbine engines, technology does not stand still, and it is better not to oppose them, but to complement each other, having decided on the quality and quantity.
  13. Algor73
    Algor73 12 September 2013 10: 30
    +6
    These figures do not mean anything yet. I doubt that the data induced by the author were obtained from military operation. Calculations by formulas. In practice, this will not be so. But that is not the point. For some reason, the whole world is on the dieselization of tanks. I do not think that in the same Germany or France they would not have been able to create a tank with gas turbines, there is some kind of calculation not in their favor. But in Russia such a tank has already been created, it would be more reasonable if they were transferred to the northern districts, and not removed from operation - both the tankers' skills and experience are lost.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 12 September 2013 23: 27
      +1
      Quote: Algor73
      For some reason, the whole world is on the dieselization of tanks.

      If it suddenly turns out that the best engine for a tank is a turbine, then the picture will not change in essence, since only a few countries make airplane turbines, and developing an engine only for a tank is generally not economically viable. , thanks to the past, touched in this area and to steal these know-how would be the height of stupidity.

      Ideally, on a new tank (Armata) it would not be bad to have a unified engine compartment, in which, based on specific tasks before the equipment, it would be possible to put the transmission either with a diesel engine or with a turbine.
      1. Yemelya
        Yemelya 13 September 2013 00: 10
        0
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Ideally, on a new tank (Armata) it would not be bad to have a unified engine compartment, in which, based on specific tasks before the equipment, it would be possible to put the transmission either with a diesel engine or with a turbine.


        It is possible to create a unified control system, but it is difficult, it takes too much volume. They tried to put on a project called T-80AT, the seventh skating rink had to be added.
  14. Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 12 September 2013 11: 07
    +4
    Who has heard the thread at least once how the 80s whistle? You can probably see the exhaust from space in the thermal imager. I have already said, but I repeat, being a conscript on Sputnik, I have repeatedly witnessed how the 80ka gets bogged down in the snow, in which the 72ka is calmly driving, even after a complete stop. Not only rides but also pulls out 80ku. It seems to me that the maximum torque of a diesel engine, all the same, comes at a commensurately lower number of revolutions, therefore it cannot move in the snow of 80k. By the way, this is a pebble in the garden "80ki should be used in northern conditions .."

    On my own behalf, if we are talking about the fact that it is more difficult to start a diesel engine in the cold, then the "Webasta" will help, by the way, there is a pile there.
    1. Flooding
      Flooding 12 September 2013 12: 01
      +2
      Quote: Evgeny_Lev
      Who ever heard a thread like 80s whistling?


    2. 31231
      31231 12 September 2013 15: 59
      +1
      Webast, winter oils and diesel fuel. And the diesel starts and works without problems.
      1. AlNikolaich
        AlNikolaich 12 September 2013 23: 55
        0
        Quote: 31231
        Webast, winter oils and diesel fuel. And the diesel starts and works without problems.

        plus ether injection. In the cold, I myself sin with these on tractors ... recourse
    3. jagdpanzer
      jagdpanzer 12 September 2013 21: 13
      +1
      Naturally, the diesel engine torque starts at lower speeds)
    4. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 12 September 2013 23: 37
      +2
      Quote: Evgeny_Lev
      more than once I witnessed how the 80ka bogged down in that snow, in which the 72ka was riding calmly, even after a complete stop.

      And here the reason may not be at all in the engine, but in the fact that the T-72 used to have RMSh tracks with better grip properties than the T-80, in which the track design was created with a slope for high-speed qualities.

      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 12 September 2013 23: 58
        +1
        Question: What resource does the track have?
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 13 September 2013 01: 43
          +1
          Quote: Alex 241
          and what is the resource of the tracks?

          Hi Sasha.

          Goslings are different.
          By type of hinge: open, closed, RMSh (rubber-metal)
          By connection: serial (early T-72), parallel (T-64, T-80 and late T-72)
          With rubberized treadmill, with or without surface.

          Modern gusli hold from about 7 to 10 thousand km.
          There used to be about 5000.
          Something like this, if anything, the guys will correct, wrote from memory.

          Somehow I missed such a good topic about dvigly ...
          Although I still could not take part in the conversation, I operated only B-46-6 and B-84. I can’t compare it with the GTE, I didn’t feel it, but there was always respect for this “unit”.
    5. kow.117
      kow.117 3 October 2013 17: 33
      0
      I - heard, even drove and shot a staff))) And the fact that the youngster sat in the snow - this is the same song with diesels - there is no knowledge, experience. I finished VU just in the 80th, served on the t-54, t-55 and I can firmly say - I love ARMOR (on any engines)))
  15. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 12 September 2013 11: 09
    0
    One tank, two engines, why not. The Northern Fist of Russia!
  16. Hort
    Hort 12 September 2013 11: 19
    +2
    I apologize for. maybe a stupid question: does a gas turbine engine run on the same type of fuel, or is it omnivorous if necessary?

    Perhaps in the long term it is necessary to go just to "universal" engines capable of operating on any type of fuel (even if you pour vodka, roughly speaking), taking GTE as a basis?
    1. Flooding
      Flooding 12 September 2013 11: 49
      +3
      Engines of the GTD-1250 family:

      They can work without overshoot both on diesel fuel, and on kerosene, gasoline and their mixtures in any proportion.

      Able to work in conditions of high dust, humidity, temperature.

      Ensure the performance of combat missions in deserts, tropics, the far north.


      Taken from the developer's site http://www.klimov.ru/production/landmarine/GTD-1250/
      1. Hort
        Hort 12 September 2013 13: 15
        0
        thanks for the info)
      2. nick-name
        nick-name 14 September 2013 09: 12
        0
        Quote: Flood
        Able to work in conditions of high dust, humidity, temperature.

        That's right, but be kind enough to provide 100% purification of the consumed air, and heat removal. With what frankly speaking there are problems, and so everything is true winked
  17. Makarov
    Makarov 12 September 2013 11: 20
    0
    WHAT IS CERAMICS IN F ... This project of a bladeless turbine is only theoretically presented in calculations, moreover, in order to achieve the efficiency that is available in an ordinary modern "iron" gas turbine tube, I understand there, anyway what kind of ceramics will not work, again the questions: reliability, service life, cooling, efficiency, mount? in order to introduce a new turbine, about 5000-7000 tests of all types are needed .... that is, in years in ... with sufficient funding .... if it is needed at that time ... it may be used.
    1. luiswoo
      luiswoo 12 September 2013 17: 45
      +1
      WHAT IN W ... ass CERAMICS?

      Ceramic coating for metal bladesalready used in the engines of the 4 + and 5 generation fighters. No problems here.
  18. Alexey
    Alexey 12 September 2013 11: 49
    +1
    Stop already singing the praises of the GTE. An order of magnitude higher cost. GTE gluttony does not make him a competitor to diesel. Verbal swagger bulging the merits of the GTD, he is a swindle.
    1) Big power ratio per 1 kg of weight? Did you consider the mass of fuel (GTE gluttonous)? Have you considered the maximum power or effectively implemented? Have you considered exploitation in a hot, dusty, alpine climate?
    2) Small MTO volume? Did the increased volume of filters (and again the fuel) be taken into account?
    Look at the real length of the MTO of the same Abram. The T80on is small, but not better than the T72 / 90, and this was done at the cost of reducing the quality of air purification and, as a consequence, a decrease in resource.
    3) Resource GTE more? And in what operating conditions? Even if it turns out to operate 2 ... 3 times longer under ideal conditions for a gas turbine engine (which is doubtful), let's not forget that the price of a gas turbine engine is MUCH MORE THAN! 0 TIME ABOVE.
    4) Is maintenance easier? Tell this to American tankers in the Middle East.
    5) Low cost of operation? Direct juggling. Why is our statistics not used? Why American? The price in 1 particular case may depend not only on the cost. The cost of operating a gas turbine engine in fact is much higher. Just one well-known fact. On the basis of Abrams there is not a single auxiliary machine, as well as on the basis of the T-80. But on the basis of diesel tanks they are full. Is it only a tribute to tradition? I do not know the current prices, but I remember the Soviet 6 Diesel for the T-72 9900rub, GTE for the T-80 - 160 rubles. Yeah, cheap and cheerful.
    4) Big overclocking dynamics? Have you taken into account the time required to accelerate the gas turbine engine to the nominal speed? In fact, it is 40 seconds, during which the tank stands. Well, of course, a gas turbine engine can be in standby mode at nominal speed, but only the fuel consumption is several times higher than that of a diesel engine with high acceleration and capable of working in standby mode at a speed of about 35% of the nominal value.
    The list goes on ...
    1. Genry
      Genry 12 September 2013 13: 10
      +2
      Quote: Alex
      1) ... And did you consider the mass of fuel (GTE gluttonous)?

      The gas turbine engine installed in the T-80 eats somewhere else by 50%. But what is more important in battle, fuel consumption or higher speed and survivability? If you save fuel, stay on horse drawn traction, as Comrade bequeathed. Budyonny.
      And yet, because the tank shoots expensive shells and missiles, you also need to save money here, for example, on a humming gun. I don’t give a damn about uselessness, more importantly saving.


      Aviation has already proven that turbines are more efficient than piston engines. Even the AN2 is being upgraded to a turbo-prop. Other piston aircraft I do not know.
      1. Alexey
        Alexey 12 September 2013 13: 43
        +3
        Speed? What is the speed of the tank? And what speed are we talking about? What about the maximum which is 5km / h higher? And which in reality (even combat) develops extremely rarely.
        Or maybe it's about operational tactical speed? So the maneuvers of the owls. the army showed that the units on the T72 have an operational-tactical speed 1 ... 3 km / h higher than the units equipped with the T-80. In reality, the T-80 has a fuel consumption of 60 ... 80% more than the t-72 / t-90. Range up to 350 km, against 600. This means more often refueling, it means more refueling. This means more problematic and more expensive logistics. This ultimately means less operational mobility of the connection. Its lesser combat readiness.
        In general, the concept is narrow and populist. MOBILITY is important for a tank, and this is already a complex concept and it is not correct to evaluate it simply by maximum speed.
        About aviation it is not necessary it is from the wrong opera. So it is possible to agree that it would be better to install a rocket engine from the Proton-M on the tank; it also "proved" its effectiveness there.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 12 September 2013 19: 48
        0
        Sorry, but you rave, in aviation the difference in speeds is 2-3-fold, because a propeller above 700 km / h does not pull in principle, turboprops fly not only due to the propeller. This alone allows you to transfer the car to more rarefied atmospheric layers, increasing efficiency, a huge difference in speed allows you to more efficiently use the aircraft and staff, which is rather big on the liner. Well, if you fly far enough, then you will have to deploy the infrastructure on board for a long stay of passengers, which turns the plane into a train.
      3. nick-name
        nick-name 13 September 2013 16: 55
        0
        Quote: Genry
        But what is more important in battle, fuel consumption or higher speed and survivability?

        But how does the presence of more fuel in the tank (due to the high engine voracity) add vitality to the machine? Or how does high speed help when the fuel runs out?
        And inappropriately equalize tanks with aircraft, yet the scope of vehicles is slightly different.
    2. soldier of fortune
      soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 16: 36
      +6
      - For those who do not know ....... "an order of magnitude" is ten times !!! Can you tell the exact price, what would be so unfounded?
      - "Prunity" - this is your grandmother sang! (in what mode? at what temperature? in what terrain?) On the GDR autobahns at 100 km / h, the T-80 is more economical than any diesel engine ....... even there is a video) In a gas turbine engine, the higher the speed and power, the lower the specific consumption fuel !!!
      - In combined arms combat, only fuel economy will be considered. If you want to save money - fight on "Oka" or "Matiz". More important is ALL-FUELITY - the GTE has an overwhelming advantage !!! (You won't look for a gas station!)
      - power-to-weight ratio - this is the trolleybus (specific power per unit weight = engine power / operational weight (in kg) along with fuel, crew, ammunition, spare parts, external fuel tanks that never participate in battle, and even together with KOPV to overcome water barriers).
      - Small MTO volume with filters !!! And where is the fuel? Fuel in separate tanks is scattered throughout the tank. The article has a description of MTO volumes !!! What's the question? Which of the three do you not understand?
      - GTD resource is much higher! 100 times less moving parts with alternating loads, and 100 times a large working time before failure in dusty air (2% of the dust was laid during its design, but not in the internal combustion engine - immediately wear of the CPG and a drop in compression). Open any book or at least TTX T-80 and T-72 (-90).
      - In the Middle East, Abrams with a former aviation gas turbine engine with an axial compressor and with very poorly designed filters. MTO blinded hastily for the EUROPEAN theater with good roads and low temperatures. On the T-80, a gas turbine specially designed for it is 100 times more reliable than Abrams at a lower consumption.
      - During the operation of any internal combustion engine, malfunctions are distributed equally: 30% electrical equipment, 30% liquid cooling system, 20% power system and 20% everything else. The gas turbine engine has a liquid cooling system and everything else JUST DOES NOT !!! Statistically operational reliability is 3 times higher!
      - GTE start time with output at a nominal value of 2 minutes. Until the launch of any tank is! In winter, DIESEL stands before dinner! With the engine running, any tank is ready to speed up in any gear (on asphalt) Acceleration from 0 to 60 for the T-90 and T-80 is about the same (it does not matter for the tank - any shell will catch up anyway).
      - For standby mode, APUs are already installed that save up to 70% of fuel in parking lots with the engine turned off. By the way, the APU on the basis of the gas turbine engine (very powerful and very compact things, like in airplanes, again all-fuel), in contrast to the Amer’s very bulky and very vulnerable (a couple of Abrams has already burned down!)

      LIST CAN BE CONTINUED !!! :)
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 12 September 2013 19: 49
        0
        In GTE, the higher the speed and power, the lower the specific fuel consumption !!!


        Namely, i.e., on the rarest tank operation modes.
        1. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 21: 59
          +2
          Quote: Avenger711
          In GTE, the higher the speed and power, the lower the specific fuel consumption !!!


          Namely, i.e., on the rarest tank operation modes.


          Well, it's just - IGNORANCE !!! Before entering into polemics on technical issues, objectively assess the level of your technical literacy !!! This is "Voennoye Obozreniye" and not the magazine "Murzilka" and there is no need to murmur!

          When designing any mechanism, including internal combustion engines and gas turbine engines, they proceed from the maximum operating parameters + margin (strength, durability, power, resource)
          When designing the Cossack (bicycle, truck, tractor), it was assumed that they should calmly overcome with a full mass a slope of 38 degrees (maximum possible for a coefficient of adhesion of rubber to asphalt without loss of adhesion of wheels) in first gear at rated engine speeds providing max . torque.
          In your opinion, it turns out that if the tank rarely reaches the maximum operating conditions, then you can stick an engine from the DT-75 into it (and what will go! ...... on asphalt, downhill, with a fair wind ..... only lights do not turn it on, otherwise it will stall!)
          1. Alexey
            Alexey 17 October 2013 13: 51
            0
            Dear, this problem was solved by the GTE ... by installing a hydrostatic transmission. Its presence, by the way, "eats up" the entire gain of the GTE in dimensions. The author of the article mentioned the absence of oil and associated fittings as an advantage of the gas turbine engine, "forgetting about the presence of GOP.
      2. Alexey
        Alexey 12 September 2013 21: 23
        +2
        Honestly, I wanted to comment on everything, but laziness. You can’t dissuade. So many pearls ... You do not even know that diesel engines on tanks are multi-fuel.
        You are not aware of the importance of resources in the war - and fuel is one of the most important.
        You do not know that comparing the power ratio is correct only for cars with the same type of engine and transmission. Comparison of different engines is necessary according to the external characteristic.
        You are simply illiterate. MTO is an engine-transmission compartment, how could it be "blinded"? ... It's all to no use.
        1. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 22: 36
          +3
          Quote: Alex
          Honestly, I wanted to comment on everything, but laziness. You can’t dissuade. So many pearls ... You do not even know that diesel engines on tanks are multi-fuel.
          You are not aware of the importance of resources in the war - and fuel is one of the most important.
          You do not know that comparing the power ratio is correct only for cars with the same type of engine and transmission. Comparison of different engines is necessary according to the external characteristic.
          You are simply illiterate. MTO is an engine-transmission compartment, how could it be "blinded"? ... It's all to no use.


          -I'm too lazy, but Ignorance should be fought like illiteracy back in 1917!
          MULTI-FUEL engines - this is just a gas turbine engine (the principle of a blowtorch ........ everything that burns, from perfumes to light oil and gas).
          Try to start a tank with ICE on gasoline, gas, fuel oil and even clean aviation kerosene. Just buy this tank first, so as not to ruin the expensive state property (otherwise the Zampotech will jump on your bones for a long time before sending you to the construction battalion for life + paying the cost of the tank ICE in court to the account of the Moscow Region)
          In theory, a multi-fuel diesel engine should constantly automatically change the volume of the combustion chamber and the moment of fuel injection by the nozzle during operation. We have a couple of gasoline ICEs on bench tests (10 years already) but this is pure science. And the complexity of this engine in operation and repair is an order of magnitude higher than any gas turbine engine.
          Multi-fuel tank ICEs allow working on mixtures of DT + ....... preferably with the purchase of DT and manual adjustment of the injection moment by ear (otherwise, because the CETANE NUMBER of the resulting filled mixture cannot be established without a chemical laboratory). Of course, no one is engaged in such adjustment, and all this is necessary only for military operations in order to REACH the SOLAR or to perform a combat mission even if the dviglo grunts three times.
          -At the expense of resources, you are right "fuel is one of the most important" therefore the first tanks with gas turbine engines began to be made by the Germans in 1944 because of the lack of light fuel, and their planes were the first to switch to kerosene.
          - Once again I repeat "power-to-weight ratio - for a trolleybus" for non-electric equipment SPECIFIC POWER PER WEIGHT UNIT = engine power (kW) / mass (kg) ......... REGARDLESS OF ENGINE TYPE (even under sail) .. .... What do you learn in school?
          -Do you speak outside? Well, try to compare the gas turbine engine and the internal combustion engine, and we will laugh! :)))))))))))))
          -The MTO on Abrams was really blinded, just like you are your ravings ...... stuck a gas turbine engine from an airplane and are still tormented!

          And who of us is illiterate ???
          1. Alexey
            Alexey 13 September 2013 00: 53
            +2
            You, dear.
            Any tank diesel has the ability to use different fuels, including gasoline (not fuel oil, of course) of course with a decrease in efficiency. The turbine in this respect does not outperform the diesel engine ...
            Energy, venerable, is not only edetric. A pearl with a trolleybus is inappropriate and just betrays a dropout in you. The energy ratio is the analogue of the specific power and not necessarily per unit of weight. At the same time, the term power-to-weight ratio does not always imply a specific characteristic. Sail, although the engine (and propulsion), but its specific power to characterize - idiocy. The characteristic of the sail is the Bruce number.
            Compare GTE and diesel? In short. GTE in terms of efficiency is comparable to a diesel engine at nominal operating mode (frequency and power) - comparable but inferior! When deviating from the nominal characteristics of the turbine sharply fall. The normal operation area does not exceed 10% of the rated frequency. While diesel has a zone of stable operation from about 40 to 110% of the frequency of the nominal. In this case, the maximum torque of the diesel engine weakly depends on the frequency. Enough? Laugh.
  19. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 12 September 2013 12: 47
    +4
    That's interesting why in Aviation nobody even tries to find out what is more economical than a piston or a turbine. Those who begin to compare and consider savings will be seen as abnormal. In tanks, on the contrary, they are stubbornly pressuring for savings, of course, why in Russia tanks that are better than in the west, our share is only to trail behind and constantly catch up with someone. Is such a position called?
    1. ka5280
      ka5280 12 September 2013 12: 52
      0
      I do not agree with you! MTU made an excellent diesel engine for Leo2, and in my opinion, it is incomparably more practical, reliable and cheaper than a gas turbine.
      1. Genry
        Genry 12 September 2013 13: 38
        +4
        Quote: ka5280
        MTU made an excellent diesel engine for Leo2, and in my opinion, it is incomparably more practical, reliable and cheaper than a gas turbine.

        Practicality and reliability, you say?
        How many rubbing parts in a diesel engine (cylinders with pistons and valves) and how much in a gas turbine (nothing).
        In a diesel engine, over time, compression is lost and valves break. But the gas-turbine does not wear out intensively, the service life is limited by the service life of bearings and gears.

        At a cost.
        It is better to make the engine calm and a little more expensive in peacetime, with a longer service life, than to feverishly jerk during the military crisis, when human resources are more expensive than ever.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 12 September 2013 19: 36
          +1
          Is it 10 times more expensive? Amers have a similar problem, they could put an equal power German diesel from MTU on the Abrams at once.
        2. Diesel
          Diesel 12 September 2013 19: 37
          +1
          The cost of a gas turbine was given above, so consider that 1 diesel engines per cost of a gas turbine. Multiply the resource 16 times, believe me - it’s not worth it.
        3. Avenger711
          Avenger711 12 September 2013 19: 50
          +2
          At a price 10 times easier to make 10 diesel engines and have an almost unlimited supply.
        4. berimor
          berimor 12 September 2013 21: 59
          +2
          Guys! You forget that the life of a tank in modern war is a few battles (if you're lucky). And during the war it will be necessary to constantly increase the production of tanks (well, and engines for them). Well, think about what engines can be riveted more and cheaper !? Remember the Second World War, the Kursk Bulge (Prokhorovka). Yes, the Germans have new and more powerful tanks than the T-34. But ... there were few of them, they were more difficult to operate, less maintainable or something (especially on the chassis) in the field. Well, imagine such a trifle as it is "easy" to deliver fuel to the front line in combat conditions.
        5. ka5280
          ka5280 13 September 2013 04: 32
          0
          A modern diesel tank will last at least for a long time, and even for the price of one gas turbine engine to the T-80, you can build the entire T-72B. What is it like?
      2. soldier of fortune
        soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 22: 49
        +3
        Quote: ka5280
        I do not agree with you! MTU made an excellent diesel engine for Leo2, and in my opinion, it is incomparably more practical, reliable and cheaper than a gas turbine.


        Fortunately, this is only your view (without facts and statistics)! And ask yourself a question MTU at least once tried to make a gas turbine especially for tanks? Or do you think any plant (BMW or Renault, etc.) can make tank GTE? Have you ever tried anything in Europe (after the Germans in 1944)? To develop, create, test, tank gas-turbine engines is very difficult and expensive (only powerful superpower) !!! All Europe alone gave birth to Eurofighter for 30 years. Tupolev would have died with a laugh!

        Can you imagine the difference in mass of Leo2 and T-80? And the difference in the mass of their engines?
        1. Yemelya
          Yemelya 12 September 2013 23: 58
          0
          Quote: soldier of fortune
          Have you ever tried anything in Europe (after the Germans in 1944)? To develop, create, test, tank gas-turbine engines is very difficult and expensive (only powerful superpower) !!!


          The Swedes put the GTE on the Strv-103 (paired with the internal combustion engine, of course, but, nevertheless, not the APU).
        2. ka5280
          ka5280 13 September 2013 04: 46
          0
          Here the difference is not in mass, but in the price of the product. GTU is 10 times more expensive.
    2. ka5280
      ka5280 12 September 2013 12: 56
      0
      How many problems amers had in the desert with the gas turbine! And the exhaust gases from the gas turbine are much hotter than that of a diesel engine, and this is a minus to masking.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 12 September 2013 13: 06
        0
        probably when you read something you think about something completely different, the impression that you did not understand the essence of the comment at all.
        1. Alexey
          Alexey 12 September 2013 13: 16
          +4
          You didn’t enter either. Where did you decide that a gas turbine engine is better for a tank? It just was fashionable at the time. In reality, a gas turbine has only 1 advantage over a diesel engine - easier start-up at low temperatures.
          For many decades, it has been claimed that the GTU will "show itself" and have drawn vague technological breakthroughs. And indeed, progress did not stand still, efficiency and resource increased. That's just, bad luck, progress and diesel engine did not bypass attention. At the moment, the diesel engine outperforms the GTE in about the same proportion as at the beginning of the "competition".
          And about aviation. So the propeller is more efficient, up to speeds of about 500 ... 600 km / h, and over 1000 km / h it is not only ineffective, but unrealistic. If you are talking about a turboprop engine, then it works in completely different conditions. Clean air, constancy of revolutions at face value, lack of frequent shared loads, etc., etc. The optimal operating mode in general. At the same time, less mass than the piston engine and a smaller cross section.
          1. soldier of fortune
            soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 16: 52
            +1
            No, Alex - it’s you who didn’t enter! In reality, the diesel engine has very few advantages over the T-80 gas turbine engine, I repeat the T-80 and not Abroms, when installing the APU for those who are worried about fuel consumption.

            I already answered you in comments ........ I will not repeat.

            And the technology of this engine, as well as the experience in its creation, is only ours! (if we don’t ditch ourselves)
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 12 September 2013 19: 41
              +2
              Alexey gave you just the right arguments. And the whole world puts diesel engines on tanks, "Abrams" to Australia, and they went with diesel engines. Fuel consumption and the terrifying price of the engine are just the tip of the iceberg, the exhaust of a gas turbine engine, for example, is practically impossible to disguise, it is simply forbidden to approach the Abrams from the back during operation from IR receivers and to the Abrams. And the tank engine runs idle most of the time, the tank does not move, and in this mode, the difference in efficiency is already at times. EMNIP 48 hours for a typical diesel tank and 6-8 hours for an Abrams.
              1. soldier of fortune
                soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 23: 15
                +3
                The whole tank world is 4 countries with their own tank school. Of these, only 2 created a tank with a gas turbine engine, and the rest of the world sculpts tanks from what is at hand and the engines put which they find from MTU to B-2 (I’m not talking about the east ........ Japan’s tank army is like the submarine fleet of Paraguay)

                The reasons for the order by the Australians Abrams with desiles are neither known to me nor me! But we can assume that this is: cheaper than with a gas turbine engine, easier (in repair and maintenance) for parades and exercises in a warm country that is not going to fight and in which there are a lot of diesels and absolutely no experience with a gas turbine engine.

                About the appalling price ........ a figure, pliz, to the studio! (or is it just your chatter)
                And what about the exhaust of 12cyl 1000 of a strong ICE? You just saw a tank (even with the engine turned off) in the IR spectrum? (how welding shines !!!) Moreover, the goose from constant friction on the ground heats up to 100 degrees ..... saliva flies off !!!

                The tank generally idles in peacetime! As soon as a combat mission is received, everyone doesn’t give a damn about consumption, motor resources and other nonsense! Statistically in the combined-arms battle, the General Staff gives the tank 3 minutes !!!

                And if you bury it at a checkpoint like a bunker, the resource can be extended forever! (The battery can also be charged from the outlet)
    3. Avenger711
      Avenger711 12 September 2013 18: 58
      0
      In aviation, a high-speed heavy aircraft is more effective than a piston one precisely due to speed and altitude.
    4. Diesel
      Diesel 12 September 2013 19: 31
      0
      What the hell are you talking about?

      Leopard 2 - diesel
      Merkava - diesel
      Challenger 2 - Diesel
      Type99 - diesel
      Type10 - diesel
      K1 - diesel

      List to continue?
      1. soldier of fortune
        soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 23: 18
        +2
        Quote: Diesel
        What the hell are you talking about?

        Leopard 2 - diesel
        Merkava - diesel
        Challenger 2 - Diesel
        Type99 - diesel
        Type10 - diesel
        K1 - diesel

        List to continue?


        This only confirms that only two countries in the world are able to create a TANK of LIMIT opportunities !!!
        1. nick-name
          nick-name 14 September 2013 09: 25
          0
          Quote: soldier of fortune
          This only confirms that only two countries in the world are able to create a TANK of LIMIT opportunities !!!

          Oh my God... belay Although if the turbine gives +10 to armor penetration, then yes, I agree laughing
      2. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 13 September 2013 05: 05
        0
        If everyone thought as you are sure, science and technology would still be at the Stone Age level.
    5. nick-name
      nick-name 14 September 2013 09: 19
      0
      Quote: vladsolo56
      That's interesting why in Aviation nobody even tries to find out what is more economical than a piston or a turbine.

      Maybe because the turbine is relevant for aviation, but not for armored vehicles? wink
  20. washi
    washi 12 September 2013 13: 36
    0
    How much can you chew the same thing.
    For the Northern regions and Europe, GTU is better. Starts up without problems in any cold, provides high speed on European soils (mainly sandy soils)
    Diesel is better to the south (Mountains, deserts) in the presence of boost and a normal filter.
    Considering that the products of our factories go mainly to the south, we preferred diesel. At the same time forgetting about the needs of their own aircraft.
  21. pinachet
    pinachet 12 September 2013 13: 48
    +2
    disputes about the gas turbine engine and diesel have been going on for a long time. look at what others are using .. the Germans have amers diesel turbines with us and this and that.
    but you need to decide, and you won’t put a turbine everywhere! And in a modern battle the power plant of the tank is not very important and we don’t need to throw before breaking.
    I am more inclined to the Germans, their experience is not small, and our experience with the operation of diesel engines has shown that the decisive moment is not in the power plant, but in the experience of the crew!
    1. Tommygun
      Tommygun 13 September 2013 19: 31
      0
      "and we don't need to make a throw before the break."
      Who said? Do you know what the future war will be?
      It seems to me that with today's development of technology
      No one will have 4 years to make machines,
      and have to fight on what is. Therefore in the ranks
      there must be a better one.
  22. Alexey
    Alexey 12 September 2013 13: 58
    +2
    Quote: pinachet
    disputes about the gas turbine engine and diesel have been going on for a long time. look at what others are using .. the Germans have amers diesel turbines with us and this and that.
    but you need to decide, and you won’t put a turbine everywhere! And in a modern battle the power plant of the tank is not very important and we don’t need to throw before breaking.
    I am more inclined to the Germans, their experience is not small, and our experience with the operation of diesel engines has shown that the decisive moment is not in the power plant, but in the experience of the crew!


    One moment about the "throw to the English Channel". This is what was put into a hypothetical task for the T-80. That's just the supply of fuel tankers for hours equipped with the T-80 remained the same, i.e. not taking into account increased fuel consumption. In reality, it was much more realistic and faster for units on the T-72 to complete this task.
    1. pinachet
      pinachet 12 September 2013 15: 22
      +1
      so I'm talking about the same, diesel is better.
    2. nightingale
      nightingale 13 September 2013 00: 50
      0
      When throwing up to the lamanche, not all T-80s would have made it there, so there should have been enough tankers.
    3. nick-name
      nick-name 14 September 2013 09: 32
      -1
      IMHO "throw" to the English Channel on the T-80 generally rare concentration of idiocy. Military units are moving in columns, the speed of which is 40 km / h MAXIMUM!
      In general, all this resembles the story of BT tanks, which, having thrown off the tracks, should have been carried somewhere. But no one has ever applied this in reality, for it is inappropriately!
  23. Tommygun
    Tommygun 12 September 2013 15: 20
    +1
    Quote: Hon
    Quote: Canep
    The turbine burns a lot of fuel, in combat conditions, to provide the tank unit on the t-80 with fuel, it will require twice as many fuel spreaders as for the T-90. This is a significant minus. In addition, if there is a lot of dust, then the tanks will often stop to clean the air filters.

    The turbine eats a lot during improper operation. If an experienced tanker, the expense is comparable to a diesel engine. GTD just has its own characteristics.

    Here's the thing: the turbine has very good efficiency indicators, but only at rated speed. For example, on fighters, the revs vary within 10%. As far as I understand, in ground vehicles the revs go pretty much. Hence the expense. Those. In my opinion, the main way to improve efficiency is not in "ceramics", etc., which will bring the price of a tank to the price of an aircraft, but in improving the operating conditions of the turbine. For example, using a hybrid transmission, as in http://topwar.ru/30992-sozdano-eksperimentalnoe-shassi-s-gibridnoy-energoustanov
    koy-i-elektrotransmissiey.html
  24. Letnab
    Letnab 12 September 2013 15: 46
    0
    Quote: vladsolo56
    That's interesting why in Aviation nobody even tries to find out what is more economical than a piston or a turbine. Those who begin to compare and consider savings will be seen as abnormal. In tanks, on the contrary, they are stubbornly pressuring for savings, of course, why in Russia tanks that are better than in the west, our share is only to trail behind and constantly catch up with someone. Is such a position called?

    If we compare the piston engine. and a theater in aviation, when you read the passport data, it’s kind of like a piston is more economical, but in practice, as it were, everything is different ... A theater of operations is more advantageous.
  25. roma2
    roma2 12 September 2013 16: 48
    +1
    So what's the problem ??
    If for unification it was decided to have the t-72, t-90 in service, then why not make a modification with the gas turbine engine on the basis of the same t-72/90 ????
    In Ukraine, tanks have been modernized for a long time by cutting the old MTO and welding a new one.
    What is so hard to shove a turbine into MTO 72s ???
    And use it on your health in the northern districts.
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya 12 September 2013 17: 44
      +4
      As far as I remember, there was an article in Krasnaya Zvezd about equipping the Far Eastern units of the TOS-1 Buratino. One officer lamented that there were problems with the maintenance of TPSs. In the district, the T-80s were operated, and the TOS, as you know, was based on the T-72.

      This is to say that the tank engine is created not only for the tank, but also for vehicles based on it and other equipment, similar in mass.

      Ideally, the tank engine should be placed on the tank, and on the self-propelled guns and on the ARV and other engineering, and all kinds of TBTR, etc. and on heavy. equipment of the Ministry of Emergencies and heavy. civilian equipment, and it’s absolutely ideal if it is an element of engines of different power installed on cars of different class (2V, it would seem, should have options for the tank and for the BMP and BTR and for tractors, 6TD also has the 3TD option) .Then the cost of its production and operation, staff training will be significantly reduced, there will be no problems in retraining l / s from one type of equipment to another.

      And what do we have in the case of a gas turbine engine?

      Do I need a gas turbine engine for self-propelled guns or ARVs? Why do they have a specific power of 30 hp / t? Is it not fatty expensive GTD for all heavy. cars? I am silent about fuel consumption on an all-army scale. If a gas turbine engine is only for a tank, then deunification, problems with repair and training.
      1. ka5280
        ka5280 13 September 2013 05: 38
        +1
        I agree that maximum standardization is important for army equipment.
  26. Eugeniy_369
    Eugeniy_369 12 September 2013 16: 50
    +1
    Quote: Per se.
    The Lord is with you, what kind of fat are you talking about?

    So besides the T-80, how many other types of tanks are in service? I think you know for yourself. And which of them besides the t-80 with the gas turbine engine? And how much was (is) t-80?
    Quote: Per se.
    and diesel and gas turbine engines can be argued endlessly, the technology does not stand still, and it is better not to oppose them, but to complement each other, having decided on quality and quantity.

    I agree in this - you can argue endlessly, but you will recall the T-72, T-64, T-80. How much haemorrhage was there during the maintenance of the repair, and again, each pair of creatures? Well, yes)))) We have a lot of money and we will pull two engines. For me, a turbine is preferable, but you must not forget about the finances for refueling and maintenance. They can’t understand the new form, but you want two types of engines.
    PS Yes, God make the platform a single one.
  27. Tommygun
    Tommygun 12 September 2013 17: 43
    +1
    Actually, if at UVZ they create a single platform for different applications, who besides using different weapon modules interferes with using two different MTO modules?
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya 12 September 2013 17: 57
      +1
      Quote: Tommygun
      who besides using different weapon modules prevents using two different MTO modules?


      This option has already been considered as part of the modernization of the T-80. To do this, the MTO had to lengthen by a meter and add a seventh roller. Crap, in general, turned out.
  28. The comment was deleted.
    1. Alexey
      Alexey 12 September 2013 20: 53
      +2
      Well, yes, the argument is excellent. Intelligence just crushed.
  29. brewhouse
    brewhouse 12 September 2013 19: 08
    +2
    It has always been believed that gas turbine engines are ideal for cold climates, and diesel engines have a place in warmer and hotter regions. It is no coincidence that 200 omsbers in Pechenga and 138th in Kamenka were on the T-80. Now 138 is re-equipped on the T-72. I don’t know about Pechenga, but I think that there the T-80s will not heal for too long.
    It seems reasonable to leave the T-80 as an MBT for the Arctic theater of operations, primarily in the Murmansk, Leningrad Region and Karelia. There, in all respects, this successful tank feels like a fish in water, and the presence in St. Petersburg of the Kirov Plant and VNIITransmash would only reduce the cost of repair and further improvement of this wonderful machine.
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. Echo
    Echo 12 September 2013 20: 27
    +1
    It remains to consider one more criterion: how much did the Soviet Union cost one T-72 and one T-80? Somewhere I heard such information that one T-80 with a gas turbine engine cost as much as four T-72s. If this information is even half true, then the choice is obvious.
    1. svp67
      svp67 12 September 2013 20: 29
      +1
      Quote: Echo
      It remains to consider one more criterion: how much did the Soviet Union cost one T-72 and one T-80?
      And then it’s worth considering another - the combat effectiveness of the T80U and T72B, believe me here the comparison will not be in favor of the latter ...
      1. Alexey
        Alexey 12 September 2013 21: 03
        +1
        The T 80 was more efficient thanks to a more advanced SLA. But nothing prevented it from being installed on t 72. This was not done purely because of the economy. The T72 was much more massive. In terms of operational, the T72 is better. The cost of 72 is approximately 190 rubles. The cost of 000 is about 80 rubles.
        It’s hard to compare the real effectiveness of the T80 with almost no war (Chechnya, perhaps).
        Then I was tired of reading apologists for GTU, their faith is almost religious. It is impossible to convince. Technical arguments, alas, apply only to technically competent ones.
        1. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 23: 32
          0
          Quote: Alex
          The T 80 was more efficient thanks to a more advanced SLA. But nothing prevented it from being installed on t 72. This was not done purely because of the economy. The T72 was much more massive. In terms of operational, the T72 is better. The cost of 72 is approximately 190 rubles. The cost of 000 is about 80 rubles.
          It’s hard to compare the real effectiveness of the T80 with almost no war (Chechnya, perhaps).
          Then I was tired of reading apologists for GTU, their faith is almost religious. It is impossible to convince. Technical arguments, alas, apply only to technically competent ones.


          Where do you get such numbers, "TECHNICAL LITERATURE YOU ARE OUR"? For such figures, and I myself will buy a tank platoon !!! :)))))))))))))
          1. Alexey
            Alexey 12 September 2013 23: 51
            0
            Soviet prices. Now I do not know.
          2. soldier of fortune
            soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 23: 57
            0
            190 and 000 is the cost of what?
            Crew salary?
            Fuel cost?
            The cost of maintenance (without fuel)?
            Maintenance?
            Track replacement?

            What are the numbers from the ceiling? What operating time? (Mileage? Motorerrs?)
            1. Alexey
              Alexey 26 September 2013 14: 03
              0
              The very beginning of the 80s. The cost of tanks.
        2. svp67
          svp67 14 September 2013 11: 09
          0
          Quote: Alex
          Technical arguments, alas, apply only to technically competent ones.

          So here. Today, the MAIN technical argument is that such a strong and most importantly reliable diesel engine at NO, created on the basis of the B-2, is not reliable ... So for now, the alternative to the gas turbine engine is the promising 2В16, when they bring it to mind, then we can talk about the decline of a gas turbine engine, and even then conditionally, since by this moment a gas turbine engine may appear in 2000 hp ....
          1. nick-name
            nick-name 14 September 2013 13: 56
            -1
            Quote: svp67
            Today, the MAIN technical argument is that there is NO such a strong and most importantly reliable diesel engine

            And is this strong engine so necessary that you had to push a turbine into the tank?
            Quote: svp67
            then we can talk about the sunset of the gas turbine engine

            The sunset of the gas turbine engine will not come soon, but today its use in land technology is irrelevant.
            1. svp67
              svp67 14 September 2013 21: 55
              +1
              Quote: nick-name
              And is this strong engine so necessary that you had to push a turbine into the tank?

              Yes, the higher the specific power indicator, the higher the chances of surviving the battle ...
            2. svp67
              svp67 14 September 2013 21: 56
              +1
              Quote: nick-name
              The sunset of the gas turbine engine will not come soon, but today its use in land technology is irrelevant.
              While they have no equal in power - relevant
              1. nick-name
                nick-name 15 September 2013 21: 45
                -1
                Quote: svp67
                Yes, the higher the specific power indicator, the higher the chances of surviving the battle ...

                Quote: svp67
                While they have no equal in power - relevant

                No need to go in cycles on any one indicator, the tank is a collection of compromise solutions, and sticking out one thing without harming the other will fail. Take tank shots for example, the temperature range is + -50 degrees, but because of this, the charge has a lower ignition temperature.
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 14 September 2013 14: 56
            0
            Quote: svp67
            So here. Today, the MAIN technical argument is that such a strong and most importantly reliable diesel engine at NO, created on the basis of V-2 is not reliable ...

            Give links in support of this statement.
            From personal experience, over two years of service in the tank division, I didn’t even encounter, but did not even hear about problems with this engine.

            Incidentally, diesel power plants (at 200 kW) often use a derated tank engine of the B-2 family to rotate the generator. So, they sometimes do not jam up to six months, sometimes working in extremely unfavorable modes for a diesel engine. And again - there were no problems. This, too, from personal experience in operating diesel power plants in the climate of Afghanistan.
            1. svp67
              svp67 14 September 2013 22: 01
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              From personal experience, over two years of service in the tank division, I didn’t even encounter, but did not even hear about problems with this engine.
              You served on the T62 with its very reliable B55, the B84 T72B is just as good, it’s so good that they put it on the T90 for our army, it’s only power up to 840 hp, but its 1000 strong brother, alas, is not so reliable ...
        3. svp67
          svp67 14 September 2013 21: 53
          +2
          Quote: Alex
          In terms of operational, the T72 is better.

          No, Т80 is made so that it’s just not specialists, they don’t climb ... So, for operators, it’s better, but for industry it’s more difficult ...
      2. ildar335
        ildar335 7 October 2013 14: 12
        0
        and the main feature of the "turbine", from the front, silence from 3 meters, he will drive up and knock on the helmet with the barrel!
        1. ildar335
          ildar335 7 October 2013 15: 52
          0
          And even in winter, the normal BMP was warmed up from the T-80, the tank is adjusted by a divider to the nose of the behi by 2-3 m, the ass of the tank and the nose of the BMP are covered with an awning (do not care whose, but we warm the behu, then the tent will be mabuta), start the t-80-five minutes and beha already purrs in the cold from -20 to -40! and lived)))
    2. soldier of fortune
      soldier of fortune 12 September 2013 23: 28
      +1
      Quote: Echo
      It remains to consider one more criterion: how much did the Soviet Union cost one T-72 and one T-80? Somewhere I heard such information that one T-80 with a gas turbine engine cost as much as four T-72s. If this information is even half true, then the choice is obvious.


      The choice is not at all obvious! T-72 is a classic tank of the Ural school. Immediately went into a series, cardinal (like GTE) never had a change, but the little things are constantly being modernized.
      The T-80 was born as an idea, calculated from scratch as an experiment, created as a pilot project, and at the same time managed to get into the series and close the entire European theater of war, remaining the only one and most technical solutions not repeatable! Hence the cost! It's like the first chip for $ 1000000 and the i7 4 cores for $ 200. The first tank in the series is always more expensive than the thousandth. T-80 has always been released only in a limited edition.
      1. Alexey
        Alexey 12 September 2013 23: 55
        +2
        Yes, nonsense. Structurally and layout - a typical representative of the Soviet school. And GTU was first used in the Urals. They understood the futility after a detailed study and closed the topic. The limited edition is too strong, noticeably smaller than the t-72, but certainly not limited.
      2. nick-name
        nick-name 14 September 2013 09: 46
        0
        Quote: soldier of fortune
        The T-80 was born as an idea, calculated from scratch as an experiment, created as a pilot project, and at the same time managed to get into the series and close the entire European theater of war, remaining the only one and most technical solutions not repeatable!

        Bravo! About the fact that the T-72 and T-80, in fact, should have been T-64 with different engines, we are modestly silent)))
        Can you talk about unique technical solutions in more detail? Maybe MZ is special? laughing
        1. svp67
          svp67 14 September 2013 22: 06
          +1
          Quote: nick-name
          Bravo! About the fact that the T-72 and T-80, in fact, should have been T-64 with different engines, we are modestly silent)))
          Why not. Then it may not be worth it and keep silent that "the student has become better than the teacher," I am in the sense that the T80 was supposed to become, and formally became, the UNITED MBT of the USSR.
          1. nick-name
            nick-name 15 September 2013 21: 48
            -1
            Quote: svp67
            Then it may not be worth it and keep silent that "the student has become better than the teacher," I am in the sense that the T80 was supposed to become, and formally became, the UNITED MBT of the USSR.

            And what is there to say nothing, the teachers surpassed everything, the T-64 was extremely unsuccessful.
            "Single MBT" - what is this?
  32. jagdpanzer
    jagdpanzer 12 September 2013 21: 18
    +2
    why argue it is necessary to develop both lines at least slowly
    1. Alexey
      Alexey 12 September 2013 21: 36
      +1
      No, really. Resources are not infinite, and they must be spent properly. The range should not be prohibitive.
      PS For those who believe that a turbine is "theoretically" more efficient than a diesel engine. Of course - simple kinematics, "simple" cooling, etc. I recommend starting with a simple theory. The efficiency of an ideal heat engine (according to the Carnot cycle) directly depends on the temperature difference between the air entering the engine and the maximum temperature in the combustion cycle. So, for a tank turbine it is difficult to get more than 1400 C, for aviation it reaches 1550 C or so. Further - the question of materials And what about the diesel? The maximum temperature of 3000 C is not a problem even in diesel engines of the recent past. Why? Due to the cyclical nature of the work. I tried to be brief and accessible, therefore it is not entirely correct who wants more details - to the textbook.
      For this reason, being at the same technological level of development, the turbine remains in the role of "catching up". The apparent simplicity of the turbine in the tank does not lead to the simplicity of the layout (and even more the cost) of the MTO. Let's not forget about the transmission ...
      1. soldier of fortune
        soldier of fortune 13 September 2013 00: 16
        +1
        Quote: Alex
        No, really. Resources are not infinite, and they must be spent properly. The range should not be prohibitive.
        PS For those who believe that a turbine is "theoretically" more efficient than a diesel engine. Of course - simple kinematics, "simple" cooling, etc. I recommend starting with a simple theory. The efficiency of an ideal heat engine (according to the Carnot cycle) directly depends on the temperature difference between the air entering the engine and the maximum temperature in the combustion cycle. So, for a tank turbine it is difficult to get more than 1400 C, for aviation it reaches 1550 C or so. Further - the question of materials And what about the diesel? The maximum temperature of 3000 C is not a problem even in diesel engines of the recent past. Why? Due to the cyclical nature of the work. I tried to be brief and accessible, therefore it is not entirely correct who wants more details - to the textbook.
        For this reason, being at the same technological level of development, the turbine remains in the role of "catching up". The apparent simplicity of the turbine in the tank does not lead to the simplicity of the layout (and even more the cost) of the MTO. Let's not forget about the transmission ...


        From your calculation, it turns out that the efficiency of the internal combustion engine should be 2 times higher. 3000> 1400 ......... but in practice it is almost the same. Maybe this is due to the fact that in 4-stroke internal combustion engines there is only one working cycle, and the rest is empty, which takes away %% efficiency? What do you think?
        ............ forward to the textbook!
      2. nightingale
        nightingale 13 September 2013 10: 44
        0
        At such a temperature of 3000 degrees, the diesel will melt you, there in the region of 500 degrees in the combustion chamber.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 13 September 2013 17: 38
          0
          Quote: nightingale
          .... there in the region of 500 degrees in the combustion chamber.

          At the tip of the cigarette, when the smoker drags on, about 800 degrees.
      3. svp67
        svp67 14 September 2013 22: 43
        +1
        Quote: Alex
        (and especially cost) MTO.

        Where there is a question about the life and death of people, it’s not the time to count a penny.
        Admiral S.O. Makarov.
        Quote: Alex
        Do not forget about the transmission ...
        MTO in T80 tanks is more progressive than in T72
  33. 311ove
    311ove 12 September 2013 23: 04
    +2
    Worse, better - time will tell! If you recall that Diesel with its engine also did not immediately understand and accept. And the development of GTE technologies and everything connected with it - from ceramics to ..... - I think it’s better and more useful than building Skolkovo hi
  34. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 12 September 2013 23: 34
    +3
    Not being a narrow specialist, but studying armored vehicles at the School and continuing to be interested in it to this day, I conclude for myself that a diesel engine is much more suitable and more profitable than a gas turbine engine.
  35. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 12 September 2013 23: 35
    +2
    I wonder if everything is so wonderful with turbines, why aren't they put on civilian vehicles?
    1. Alexey
      Alexey 13 September 2013 00: 05
      +1
      In fact, this is the most accurate sign by which a layman can see the impairment of a gas turbine. It's not just the price. If technically gas turbine engines had advantages for use on tracked (well, or wheeled) equipment, then it would be limited, but it would be used.
      GTU on a domestic tank is the result of decision-making by politicians, and not representatives of armored forces. Abrams - initially, the answer to the T-80, hereinafter the result of lobbying the interests of the manufacturer.
      1. kow.117
        kow.117 3 October 2013 18: 21
        0
        just diesel repair kits were splashing the sea! And along with the tanks (T-54 ...- 72). T-80 at the command of Gorbach, directly from the wheels (during the withdrawal of troops) immediately under kerosene cutting !!! I saw it myself! I’ve been in St. Petersburg for 2 weeks trying to deliver the decommissioned 54-ku to the factory, and when a sea transport with a 80-year-old division came to me, nobody even asked for forms — all the armor was spent !!!
    2. Yemelya
      Yemelya 13 September 2013 00: 14
      0
      Quote: chunga-changa
      I wonder if everything is so wonderful with turbines, why aren't they put on civilian vehicles?


      Some put on locomotives.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 13 September 2013 17: 51
        0
        Quote: Emelya
        Quote: chunga-changa
        I wonder if everything is so wonderful with turbines, why aren't they put on civilian vehicles?


        Some put on locomotives.

        And warships are all on them. Also, gas pumping on gas pipelines (they turn the pumps). In the energy sector (CHP), the same thing is not uncommon (now, for example, it is practiced by a gas turbine to turn the generator, the turbine exhaust goes into the boiler, they get steam, and the steam is turned on by the steam. If I’m not mistaken, on cruisers of the 1164 Atlant project - similarly)
      2. kow.117
        kow.117 3 October 2013 21: 00
        0
        At the 10th International Exhibition of High-Tech Equipment and Armaments "VTTV-2013", which opened in Omsk, will show the updated ferry-landing parade PDP (Item 561P) based on the chassis of the T-80 tank.
        http://topwar.ru/34091-v-omske-pokazhut-unikalnyy-perepravochno-desantnyy-parom-
        na-shassi-tanka.html
    3. svp67
      svp67 14 September 2013 22: 07
      +1
      Quote: chunga-changa
      I wonder if everything is so wonderful with turbines, why aren't they put on civilian vehicles?
      Who said, but helicopters?
      But seriously, abroad the R-91 tracked bulldozer, created in the USA by Alice Walters, on which the Boeing 502-10C gas turbine engine with a power of 177 kW is installed, is quite widely known, but in general read here, the story about the K700 with GTE is especially interesting

      http://ga-avto.ru/mownyetraktora/13.html
  36. AK-47
    AK-47 12 September 2013 23: 37
    +1
    1. Aircraft industry at the turn of the 30s and 40s of the last century realized the impasse of using piston engines and switched to the use of gas turbine engines.
    2. The development of tank building in Russia is 95% determined not by objective reasons, but by the insanity of generals from armored vehicles (for whom the best tanks are T-54 - "two levers and a pedal") and leaders from politics.
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 12 September 2013 23: 59
      +2
      Well, the aircraft fought for speed, altitude, weight reduction of the aircraft and engine, and approached the practical and theoretical ceiling of the piston engine-propeller system. I had to invent a new engine-propulsion system.
      We went in two ways (we do not consider purely jet propulsion) turbojet and turboprop. The engine in both cases is a turbine. Light weight, the ability to use the strengths of the turbine and ease of compensation for weaknesses, affordable high-quality service. An increase in flight speed and altitude by a factor of 2-3 compensated for the high price of the engine, its development and operation.
      Have diesel engines reached any theoretical and practical thresholds? The threshold may be in power. Suppose, in the given dimensions, an engine of 3000l.s is needed, the diesel engine could not be made, the turbine climbed, in this case the use of the turbine is justified. Or let's say they made a transmission for which high torque at low revs is not needed or harmful, and a high speed is urgently needed, then the turbine will also pay for any investment. Or suppose you want to dramatically increase the speed of movement of tanks and decided to change the propulsion from the tracks to the movement using an air cushion, but here the turbine is more profitable. But trying to insert a turbine without any need into the conditions where it loses to the diesel engine in all respects except the speed of travel on a good road, if that makes sense.
      1. svp67
        svp67 14 September 2013 22: 24
        0
        Quote: chunga-changa
        But trying to insert a turbine without any need into the conditions where it loses to the diesel engine in all respects except the speed of travel on a good road, if that makes sense.

        Well, again, everything is not so simple, the GTE provides a smoother movement, besides, the GTE does not have the "undermining" effect inherent in all piston engines, which has a positive effect on the tank's passability ... And again, POWER, it determines a lot.
        1. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 14 September 2013 22: 41
          0
          Excuse me, but could not resist, because a good analogy suggests itself. The Germans, instead of improving and improving the technological effectiveness of the successful T-4 tank, focused on expensive, powerful tanks with a smooth ride and high performance, to which we all know them. A disruptive moment depends more on the type of transmission than on the type of engine.
          1. svp67
            svp67 14 September 2013 22: 51
            0
            Quote: chunga-changa
            The Germans, instead of improving and improving the technological effectiveness of the successful T-4 tank, focused on expensive, powerful tanks with a smooth ride and high performance, to which we all know them.

            Of course - T4, no matter how good it was, remained - just a "successful tank". And everyone remembers, they compare their tanks with
            Quote: chunga-changa
            expensive, powerful tanks with a smooth ride and high performance,


            And by the way, even if the Germans hadn’t done this, they had no chance to win the war or even reduce it to a draw ...
          2. svp67
            svp67 14 September 2013 22: 52
            0
            Quote: chunga-changa
            A disruptive moment depends more on the type of transmission than on the type of engine.
            The date. Especially if you remember that on our tanks it is the same, that is, here they are equal and the engines come first ...
    2. Alexey
      Alexey 13 September 2013 00: 08
      0
      And what is it for? T-54 is an excellent tank, ahead of time. His time passed and a change came to him. What did you want to say?
    3. soldier of fortune
      soldier of fortune 13 September 2013 00: 21
      0
      Bravo! AK-47 - Respect! Finally, we got to the true reason, which always has a name, surname and position!

      You can immediately see a wise person who understands how the system works! :)
  37. Alexey
    Alexey 13 September 2013 00: 58
    0
    Quote: soldier of fortune

    -I'm too lazy, but Ignorance should be fought like illiteracy back in 1917!
    MULTI-FUEL engines - this is just a gas turbine engine (the principle of a blowtorch ........ everything that burns, from perfumes to light oil and gas).
    Try to start a tank with ICE on gasoline, gas, fuel oil and even clean aviation kerosene. Just buy this tank first, so as not to ruin the expensive state property (otherwise the Zampotech will jump on your bones for a long time before sending you to the construction battalion for life + paying the cost of the tank ICE in court to the account of the Moscow Region)
    In theory, a multi-fuel diesel engine should constantly automatically change the volume of the combustion chamber and the moment of fuel injection by the nozzle during operation. We have a couple of gasoline ICEs on bench tests (10 years already) but this is pure science. And the complexity of this engine in operation and repair is an order of magnitude higher than any gas turbine engine.
    Multi-fuel tank ICEs allow working on mixtures of DT + ....... preferably with the purchase of DT and manual adjustment of the injection moment by ear (otherwise, because the CETANE NUMBER of the resulting filled mixture cannot be established without a chemical laboratory). Of course, no one is engaged in such adjustment, and all this is necessary only for military operations in order to REACH the SOLAR or to perform a combat mission even if the dviglo grunts three times.
    -At the expense of resources, you are right "fuel is one of the most important" therefore the first tanks with gas turbine engines began to be made by the Germans in 1944 because of the lack of light fuel, and their planes were the first to switch to kerosene.
    - Once again I repeat "power-to-weight ratio - for a trolleybus" for non-electric equipment SPECIFIC POWER PER WEIGHT UNIT = engine power (kW) / mass (kg) ......... REGARDLESS OF ENGINE TYPE (even under sail) .. .... What do you learn in school?
    -Do you speak outside? Well, try to compare the gas turbine engine and the internal combustion engine, and we will laugh! :)))))))))))))
    -The MTO on Abrams was really blinded, just like you are your ravings ...... stuck a gas turbine engine from an airplane and are still tormented!

    And who of us is illiterate ???

    You, dear.
    Any tank diesel has the ability to use different fuels, including gasoline (not fuel oil, of course) of course with a decrease in efficiency. The turbine in this respect does not outperform the diesel engine ...
    Energy, venerable, is not only edetric. A pearl with a trolleybus is inappropriate and just betrays a dropout in you. The energy ratio is the analogue of the specific power and not necessarily per unit of weight. Power density is an indicator of the engine, not the tank. It’s more logical to compare tanks precisely in terms of energy availability. If you do not understand why, excuse me ... At the same time, the term power availability does not always imply a specific characteristic. Sail, although the engine (and propulsion), but its specific power to characterize - idiocy. The characteristic of the sail is the Bruce number.
    Compare GTE and diesel? In short. GTE in terms of efficiency is comparable to a diesel engine at nominal operating mode (frequency and power) - comparable but inferior! When deviating from the nominal characteristics of the turbine sharply fall. The normal operation area does not exceed 10% of the rated frequency. While diesel has a zone of stable operation from about 40 to 110% of the frequency of the nominal. In this case, the maximum torque of the diesel engine weakly depends on the frequency. Enough? Laugh.
    1. svp67
      svp67 14 September 2013 23: 07
      0
      Quote: Alex
      Power density is an indicator of the engine, not the tank.
      No, don’t confuse my friend, this characteristic is inherent in everyone ... And the specific power for a tank weighing 39 tons and a tank weighing 45 tons, but with the same engine will be different ... And
      Quote: Alex
      power ratio
      in characteristics and sounds like "power density"
      Quote: Alex
      In this case, the maximum torque of the diesel engine weakly depends on the frequency.

      Yes, what you say, but what about this schedule - typical for diesel engines

      1. Alexey
        Alexey 17 October 2013 13: 36
        0
        Calculate the torque values ​​in the range of 1500 ... 3500 rpm. just the most "running" range. You will see a slight change in the moment.
  38. Tommygun
    Tommygun 13 September 2013 09: 55
    0
    Quote: Alex
    In fact, this is the most accurate sign by which a layman can see the impairment of a gas turbine. It's not just the price. If technically gas turbine engines had advantages for use on tracked (well, or wheeled) equipment, then it would be limited, but it would be used.
    GTU on a domestic tank is the result of decision-making by politicians, and not representatives of armored forces. Abrams - initially, the answer to the T-80, hereinafter the result of lobbying the interests of the manufacturer.

    Regarding the non-use of civilian equipment, a small resource, sufficient for military equipment, manifests itself here. For example, the resource AL31F 100h. Is it possible to use this unit in freight and passenger transportation? The same requirements must not be imposed on a tank engine and a mining truck.
  39. Tommygun
    Tommygun 13 September 2013 10: 02
    +1
    Quote: Emelya
    Quote: Tommygun
    who besides using different weapon modules prevents using two different MTO modules?


    This option has already been considered as part of the modernization of the T-80. To do this, the MTO had to lengthen by a meter and add a seventh roller. Crap, in general, turned out.

    I agree about modernization - it's difficult. But now a new platform is being created in which it is possible to INITIALLY lay a modular MTO with the possibility of using both a diesel engine and a gas turbine engine. So there will be unification: the engine (GTE) failed on the MBT, removed the diesel from the BMP on the same platform, stuck it and drove off.
    1. gallville
      gallville 13 September 2013 16: 51
      +1
      Quote: Tommygun
      But now a new platform is being created in which it is possible to INITIALLY lay a modular MTO with the possibility of using both a diesel engine and a gas turbine engine.

      Moreover, this option was initially considered in the USSR when creating the T-80 line, as a result, two T-80U and T-80UD tanks were obtained. It’s just that Russia abandoned the T-80UD due to the production of the engines of this tank in Ukraine. Which, in fact, did not stop then developing a 1000 strong engine for the T-72/90.
      The need for gas turbine engines needs to be looked at more widely. The Russian Federation has Far Eastern northern territories. In these areas, the use of a diesel engine is extremely difficult. And what's more, the troops of one of the probable adversaries (USA-Alaska through the strait to Kamchatka) have in their armament the gas turbine engines.
      It’s not in vain that I write who faced the frost on the T-80 will understand me perfectly, especially when someone starts a BMP nearby.
  40. nightingale
    nightingale 13 September 2013 11: 18
    0
    The advantage of a gas turbine engine will grow with an increase in tank mass and power over a diesel engine in the same overall weight
    1. Alexey
      Alexey 13 September 2013 15: 49
      0
      The advantage of a gas turbine engine over a diesel engine cannot grow by definition. Firstly, now diesel has an advantage, and not weak. Secondly, both the diesel engine and the gas turbine engine have opportunities to increase power as technology develops. And keep in mind that you cannot put the "=" sign between 1 kW for a diesel engine and 1 kW for a turbine. It is much more difficult to realize the power of the turbine on a tank than, for example, on an airplane. In reality, it is much more difficult to fully realize the power of a turbine. And the power losses after the GTU are considerable. The turbine cannot be connected to a conventional gearbox - the available speed range is too small. Hydrostatic transmission is used; naturally, the efficiency of such a transmission is noticeably inferior to the efficiency of gear drives.
      1. Tommygun
        Tommygun 13 September 2013 19: 58
        0
        I consider the most promising hybrid transmission:
        GTE operates at optimal speed (low consumption)
        and rotates the generator from which the onboard electric motors are powered. This concept gives great freedom of layout, which is very important when creating a single armored platform (as positioned Armata). In the MBT version of the MTO at the rear, in the BMP variant at the front, etc. I also agree that it makes no sense to use a more expensive gas turbine engine in auxiliary vehicles or self-propelled artillery. There cheaper diesel is more profitable. As I already wrote, we need a MTO modular design with interchangeable engines.

        PS I'd like to hear Kars's opinion on this issue.
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 13 September 2013 20: 19
          0
          I, as I understand, that the "small" consumption of the gas turbine engine at optimal speed is not at all small, although its omnivorous nature fully compensates for this drawback (let's be honest, the multi-fuel capacity of the diesel engine is rather declared). Dimensions - X-shaped diesel engine - nothing has been invented at all: both compact and balanced ... although it will be difficult to crawl there. The automatic transmission makes both engines great in operation ... Which is better? I'm afraid that as usual - the price
          1. Tommygun
            Tommygun 13 September 2013 20: 38
            0
            A tank, like any car, uses maximum power infrequently. When using a hybrid transmission, it is possible to install an engine (internal combustion engine or gas turbine engine) of lower power (and, consequently, lower consumption). Peak power is provided by a battery or capacitor.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 13 September 2013 20: 54
              +1
              Quote: Tommygun
              A tank, like any car, uses maximum power infrequently.

              I, the driver, have a completely opposite opinion. The gas pedal to the floor is one of the main modes. A tank column in motion is like an accordion: if the former move more or less evenly, then the farther from the head, the more ragged the movement, with peculiar "traffic jams, and then, with races, in order to catch up with the ahead of the tank.
              1. ramsi
                ramsi 13 September 2013 21: 06
                0
                Quote: Bad_gr

                I, the driver, have the completely opposite opinion. The gas pedal to the floor is one of the main modes.

                I agree with you, but "gas to polika" today is more of a psychological moment. In modern cars - it is not we who control the fuel supply, but the "brains", we - only designate the intention
                1. svp67
                  svp67 14 September 2013 23: 50
                  0
                  Quote: ramsi
                  I agree with you, but "gas to polika" today is more of a psychological moment. In modern cars - it is not we who control the fuel supply, but the "brains", we - only designate the intention
                  Well, for now, thank God, this "device" has passed our tanks ... And the mechanic's "brains" control everything ...
                  1. ramsi
                    ramsi 15 September 2013 08: 25
                    0
                    Quote: svp67 Well, so far, thank God, our tanks have passed this "device" ... And the mechanic's "brains" control everything ... [/ quote

                    if this is true, then there are still reserves for saving fuel and increasing power
              2. Tommygun
                Tommygun 13 September 2013 21: 09
                0
                It does not matter. With the scheme I proposed, the mech-water does not control the engine speed. He controls electric motors. Those. the engine works the same regardless of the gas pedal. For example engine power 500 hp When you are stuck in traffic or slowly moving, the 0-200 horsepower will move and the remaining 300-500 will charge the battery. When you push gas to the floor, 500 forces from the battery are added to the 500 engine forces, while the energy stored in the plug is consumed.
          2. Tommygun
            Tommygun 13 September 2013 20: 42
            0
            Now diesel engines are being converted to gas, but the gas does not ignite from compression, therefore, anyway, diesel fuel is mixed with diesel fuel for detonation. I think that a diesel engine cannot run on pure gasoline or pure kerosene, but only in a mixture with diesel fuel.
            1. ramsi
              ramsi 13 September 2013 20: 53
              0
              a hybrid - this is not necessary, (this is, roughly, how traditional and - not traditional sexual orientation), in general, this is not the case
              1. Tommygun
                Tommygun 13 September 2013 21: 14
                0
                I am pleased to hear arguments, not LGBT
                1. ramsi
                  ramsi 13 September 2013 21: 25
                  0
                  a hybrid is complicated; electricity is a dark matter; I agree that there will be fuel economy, but there is no gain in power, dimensions and weight (maybe even for all three points)
                  1. Tommygun
                    Tommygun 13 September 2013 21: 38
                    0
                    1. Electricity is just a bright thing laughing
                    2. This power has been given to you. Power marketing ploy. The tank sets in motion a moment. So, the maximum torque is characteristic of an electric motor in a much wider range of revolutions.
                    3. At the expense of weight and dimensions, it is ambiguous here: on the one hand, a generator, battery and electric motors are added, on the other hand, gearbox shafts and gearboxes are not needed. In addition, a less powerful engine is used. Those. less heavy, overall, with smaller cooling and filtration systems.
                    1. ramsi
                      ramsi 13 September 2013 21: 55
                      0
                      here, recently, a hybrid BTR-80 (or92?) was discussed, where they emphasized the same thing - they say, gearboxes are not needed, rolling resistance is lower, transmission efficiency is higher ... Both the power and torque of the electric motor directly depend on the speed: maximum - at maximum, without gears you will lose in all-terrain qualities, although you will win in fuel
                      1. Tommygun
                        Tommygun 13 September 2013 22: 17
                        0
                        Characteristics of a gasoline engine
                      2. ramsi
                        ramsi 13 September 2013 22: 19
                        0
                        so it's a 4-stroke ... a 2-stroke should be better, and the electric motor is just perfect
                      3. Tommygun
                        Tommygun 13 September 2013 22: 37
                        0
                        Push-pull is better than four-stroke in power density, but worse in cost-effectiveness.
                      4. svp67
                        svp67 15 September 2013 00: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Tommygun
                        Push-pull is better than four-stroke in power density, but worse in cost-effectiveness.
                        And the price ...
                2. Tommygun
                  Tommygun 13 September 2013 22: 20
                  0
                  The characteristic of the traction motor.
                  Both graphs are for Lexus and are for reference only.
                  As you can see for ED, the maximum moment is at the bottom, which is just the same very good for cross.
                3. ramsi
                  ramsi 13 September 2013 22: 37
                  0
                  honestly, I can’t clearly comment on the latest schedule; most likely, the optimal speed is still 6000, i.e. - the maximum in the generator directly from the engine, then it seems that only the electric motor is unwound, it is unclear on what energy supply - either briefly from the battery, or in general, by gear ratio
                4. Tommygun
                  Tommygun 13 September 2013 22: 59
                  0
                  This graph shows the characteristics of the ED regardless of the power source.
                5. ramsi
                  ramsi 13 September 2013 23: 06
                  0
                  Quote: Tommygun
                  This graph shows the characteristics of the ED regardless of the power source.

                  But you must agree - the maximum torque at zero rpm is a fiction, this does not mean that the motor "pulls" like a beast, it only means that it pulls as efficiently as possible for the given rpm (for the power supplied to it)
              2. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 13 September 2013 22: 59
                0
                I have a positive attitude towards hybrids. But just what volume and weight will the batteries have, which will be able to carry the tank for 40 tons in weight?
                For example, in the same 62-ke 4th battery of 140 amperes / hour (64kg each). If you spin the starter 3-4 times, 3-4 seconds, and the engine does not start, then the battery’s fifth attempt may not be enough. So this is just a spin on the engine. And drag a tank a few meters? and at least at a speed of 20 km?
              3. Tommygun
                Tommygun 13 September 2013 23: 10
                0
                In terms of speed. Suppose we have a drive wheel with a radius of 0,25m, dressed directly on the axis of the ED with the characteristics as in the graph. Then we have the force F = 300Hm / 0,25m = 1200Н on the track. With the mass in 40, we get the acceleration in 1200Н / 40000kg = 0,03м / с2 at the time of launch. Then, with increasing speed (frequency), torque begins to decrease.
                The tank will accelerate until the moment when the force on the caterpillar is not equal to the force of resistance to movement.
              4. ramsi
                ramsi 13 September 2013 23: 21
                0
                we have power, but only in the mind; and if you don’t give in to the engine, then there it will remain. Then everything is right with you, except for one thing, that the moment will begin to decrease after the ICE reaches its maximum speed under load (maximum combustible fuel, and maximum return of the generator)
              5. ramsi
                ramsi 14 September 2013 08: 20
                0
                I feel that I did not convince you yesterday against the idea of ​​a hybrid.
                Torque should be understood as useful work that an engine can perform. By virtue of the design ideology, in order to perform useful work, it is necessary to make the engine rotate. The design is far from perfect: frictional forces may be insignificant, but the inertia of moving masses - yes. With an increase in revolutions, theoretically, the torque should also increase, but at some stage the inertial forces become so significant that the engine spends all the power supplied only to turn itself; small and two-strokes spin more, large and four-strokes less, diesel with its heavy piston and compression ratio is even smaller. The electric motor has everything much more beautiful - one anchor along the axis on bearings, but apparently it has this barrier too. However, let's not forget that in our case the electric motor depends on the energy source - the internal combustion engine, with all that it implies. Can he, together with the internal combustion engine, increase the overall return? Can. But firstly, it is still impossible to do without a gearbox, and secondly, this can be done only at the expense of the battery. An ordinary car can run a little on the starter until the battery runs out, but we have a tracked transmission, plus 50 tons of weight. Well, look, here they write about tank batteries weighing 250 kg, capable of cranking a diesel engine 4-5 times (idle!), Not to mention driving somewhere on it. And 250 kg of diesel fuel - what a power reserve ... Now, about the auxiliary nature of the batteries: well, yes - in the city, on asphalt, start out of the blue, slide downhill ... - all this makes sense. But when driving for a long time in difficult road conditions, any battery will be quickly "sucked" (and it takes much longer to charge than it discharges) and only one weak internal combustion engine will remain
              6. Tommygun
                Tommygun 14 September 2013 10: 13
                0
                torque should not be understood as work is a force multiplied by a lever. But work requires movement. You can push against the wall with all your strength, but not do any work. With gearbox. If you do not consider the Lexus engine, with its 15000, but look at our traction ED. There are rated speeds of 500-1000. With the diameter of the drive wheel 0,25m 500 rpm = 47 km / h. 1000 - 94 km / h.
                By the way, an article appeared on the site about the British TT TOG, cat. had such a transmission, but without a recovery system.
                The batteries used on the T-72 are considered obsolete. Modern batteries have much higher specifications. The problem is more in adapting them to work in heavy conditions and temperature conditions
              7. ramsi
                ramsi 14 September 2013 17: 28
                0
                So, I still didn't convince you ... Well, your second option: 500-1000 rpm - it would seem not bad, but the overdrive gearbox would allow to increase the revs and speed, and the reduction gearbox - torque and thrust. Without a gearbox, you have very little freedom in the design of your transmission, which means that any force majeure in the field can be an unpleasant surprise. In addition, electric motors "do not like" to stop at high currents (the iron turns blue, the windings burn), while the internal combustion engine simply stalls under excessive load
              8. Tommygun
                Tommygun 14 September 2013 23: 58
                0
                I agree, the use of a gearbox has several advantages, but it has a major drawback - friction loss. Hence, less power, more consumption.
                As for ED. There are special traction EDs. They drag trains, not like MBT.
              9. ramsi
                ramsi 15 September 2013 08: 34
                0
                a piece of iron is generally ideal for a "transport" electric motor: the road is flat, surprises - 0, power - from the contact network ... And what about the tank? Where do not turn - ass
              10. Tommygun
                Tommygun 15 September 2013 10: 37
                0
                And for example, crane hoisting ED. Different loads, vibrations ... And they work. Of course, there are problems, but they are designers in order to solve them. And not that: take everything that has been worked out, paint it with gold paint and say that this is the tank of the future smile
  • Tommygun
    Tommygun 13 September 2013 19: 45
    0
    By type of activity I deal with compressor technology.
    So here is the repair interval (non-stop) for turbochargers
    2-3 OF THE YEAR (20000ч), and for piston 3-4 of the month (2000ч).
    This is an order of magnitude difference!
  • Tommygun
    Tommygun 13 September 2013 22: 43
    0
    As for the 2-stroke, I managed to find a trace. picture.
    As can be seen, all ICEs are characterized by a similar pattern of power distribution (and, consequently, of torque) in terms of speed. Completely different from ED
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 13 September 2013 22: 47
    +4
    I read komenty the second day and marvel at some, like the tank crews have already explained 20 times about the launch of the T-72 in winter, but still questions, fantasies, assumptions ...
    laughing

    1.Standard system.
    2. Emergency system.

    1.Standard:
    Simple to close up:
    Double-circuit boiler with heat exchanger and combustion chamber, supercharger, nozzle, candle.
    And also still warm up a huge diesel?
    Mehan cuts in his batteries and puts "tanks on."
    Behind the commander’s back on the heater, he turns on a faucet, holds a candle-motor with his finger, chewing against the cold. Next, "start" with the transfer to "motor".
    Then, swearing, recalls that he did not open the valve and did not put the “chimney” and flies head over heels to the right rear rollers. lol
    If something is bad, then manually "eb.t" RNM, BTSN.
    And everything works, we drive the fluid through dviglo.
    We are basking in a classic barrel with diesel fuel, as it is going away from the bottom.
    yes
    If a training trip, not related to the "staff", then always caught the "gut" and there was Africa.

    2. Emergency:
    The principle is the intake air heating.
    Applies only to REAL combat alert. Nowadays, even the unit commander did not have the right to this, but only by order from the District. The number of starts is limited. The punishment is serious.
    If only the air in the system was to crank the crankshaft, so that the “sheshnushka" could be grinded in the engine, the cold radish would be.
    Dvigl sorry ... eheh.

    So it is possible to start the T-72 in any case, as long as the mechanic is a "mechanic" and not a "driver".

    GTE did not exploit, therefore, did not participate in disputes here.
    But I saw how the T-80 is turned on:
    They came, conjured with the battery, unwound the "cascades" and ... p.perly. fellow
    Radishes.
    laughing

    Glory to the Tank Forces.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 13 September 2013 22: 56
      +1
      Lesha welcome, your comments print and there will be a real user manual good
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 13 September 2013 23: 02
        +1
        Quote: Alex 241
        Lesha welcome

        Hi Sanya.

        Yes, everyone knows her.
        I just remember this hrendelupputed procedure after Transbaikalia and the Urals almost by heart ...
        laughing

        Above about the "gusli" I wrote to you, I typed from memory (there are different kinds of gusli), if anything, the guys will correct it.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 13 September 2013 23: 06
          +1
          Thanks Lesh read. I remember the worst punishment was the caterpillar defect.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 13 September 2013 23: 13
            +1
            Quote: Alex 241
            caterpillar fault detection.

            Br ...
            But there is even worse than that: complete cleaning and painting of "gusli" EVERYWHERE.
            So put in storage.
            belay
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 13 September 2013 23: 16
              +1
              I remember this procedure before May 9th, we started with the IS-3, and then all the cars.
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 14 September 2013 00: 19
                0
                Quote: Alex 241
                started with IS-3,

                I remember this car ...
                I was still a teenager when the IS-3, regimental 76mm cannons from the Second World War and the classic Katyusha with rails based on the ZIL-157 were removed from service in Bati's Unit ...

                And one IS-3 was put straight from storage, in perfect condition, on a pedestal in front of the Park.
                Such a monument turned out.
                Eheh, Memory ...
            2. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 13 September 2013 23: 41
              +1
              Quote: Aleks tv
              Br ...
              But there is even worse than that: complete cleaning and painting of "gusli" EVERYWHERE.
              So put in storage.

              smile Oh, a very fun activity. After the exercises, caterpillars were removed from the tank and dried clay was knocked out of them with a sledgehammer. Then they were pulled into place. On the T-62 there were still two types of tension mechanisms. If old, then only disengage it - already in the soap.
              And in the training, I still found the changing of tracks. This is when an ordinary caterpillar (not RMSh) with large wear has fingers not in the shape of a crowbar, but in the shape of a crankshaft and everyone changes them (in order to extend the life of this caterpillar a little more).
              Compared to this, painting the caterpillar with tar (before installing the tanks in the boxes) is a pleasure.
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 13 September 2013 23: 48
                0
                Greetings, Vladimir.

                Quote: Bad_gr
                After the exercises, caterpillars were removed from the tank and dried clay was knocked out of them with a sledgehammer. Then they were pulled into place.

                Yeah, full z.dnitsa.
                wassat
                There is another way ... without removing the gusli.
                But this is a "corporate" secret.
                wink
                It’s dangerous just ...

                Quote: Bad_gr
                This is when an ordinary caterpillar (not RMSh) with large wear has fingers not in the shape of a crowbar, but in the shape of a crankshaft and they are all changed

                That's for sure - Brrrrrr ...
                I fortunately did not find a psaltery without an RMSh.
                Respect to the crews.
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 14 September 2013 00: 06
                  +1
                  Alexey, good evening.
                  Quote: Aleks tv
                  There is another way ... without removing the gusli.
                  But this is a "corporate" secret.

                  I think, in Hungary, alternative options would not have passed: very sticky clay. At the sink, even the one on the hull could not be washed off, only with scrapers, and then rags, and from the caterpillar, where there are a lot of nooks and crannies, I think it cannot be pulled out by centrifugal force, only with a sledgehammer.
                  1. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 14 September 2013 00: 11
                    +1
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    very sticky clay

                    Willingly believe, Vladimir.
                    Clay and alumina - a scribe ...
                    The cleaning methods were different, they were cast out after all ... as they could.
    2. ramsi
      ramsi 13 September 2013 23: 30
      +1
      Quote: Aleks tv
      I read komenty the second day and marvel at some, like the tank crews have already explained 20 times about the launch of the T-72 in winter, but still questions, fantasies, assumptions ...
      laughing

      1.Standard system.
      2. Emergency system.


      Tell me, is it not intended to use the APU as a starter?
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 13 September 2013 23: 37
        0
        Quote: ramsi
        APU as a starter, is not provided?

        APU on the T-72?
        This is not a T-80 ...

        And the launch by the starter on the T-72 is not the main one.
        The main launch - with air after raising the pressure in the oil system MZNom.
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 13 September 2013 23: 46
          +1
          So, again: I only saw tanks from afar, so I don’t know the materiel; if the batteries twist the starter, and that, through the gear, flywheel, is it not better to start the APU with a starter, and only then let the APU start the main diesel as a starter?
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 13 September 2013 23: 54
            0
            Quote: ramsi
            Is it not better to start the APU with a starter, and only then let the APU start the main diesel engine as a starter?

            Yes, Igor. This is a classic of the genre in a serious technique.
            On the T-72 this is not.
            Fuck knows why. Maybe they save space under armor, maybe money ...
            request
            1. ramsi
              ramsi 13 September 2013 23: 58
              0
              understandably, thanks, although judging by the description of the batteries, the savings are still that ...
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 14 September 2013 00: 02
                0
                Quote: ramsi
                although judging by the description of the batteries

                Yes, this is a complete zad.tsa, to mess with them.
                Four holes ...
                It is difficult to install and remove to a regular place. Absolutely uncomfortable and alone ... impossible.
  • flanker7
    flanker7 13 September 2013 23: 30
    +1
    GTE is almost absolute reliability.
    Yes, more expensive, but so many times better !!
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 13 September 2013 23: 43
      +1
      Quote: flanker7
      Yes, more expensive, but so many times better !!

      In operation, probably yes ...
      It’s rarely necessary to fight, but to serve is constantly and assiduously daily.
      I remember how the T-80 tech guys joked:
      The gas turbine engine works - DO NOT GET IN IT !!!

      They still forget about starting a cold diesel engine, that EVERY TIME must be filled with water ... (cool-down is a shortage, 90 liters are not khukh-mukhra).
      And accordingly, drain it every evening ...
      And if some gouging "driver" places the tank with a roll to the right or forward when draining ...
      The scribe comes full morning.
      Eheh ... Dieselaku is not so easy to service, "fuck" nana with her.
      Get used to it.
      wink
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 13 September 2013 23: 55
        +2
        Quote: Aleks tv
        still forget that it is necessary EVERY TIME to fill in water ..

        We had a case. After minor repairs (replacing the pipe on the radiator), it was necessary to fill in the coolant in the system. At that time, ordinary water was poured. The guys carry water in buckets, carry, carry .... Until someone accidentally peeks into the driver’s hatch - and even start the fish inside the tank: after draining the coolant they forgot to close the drain valve, but the technical hatch was screwed into place and therefore, everything that was poured into the radiator immediately poured out from under the engine and dispersed throughout the tank, the box of which is pretty tight.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 14 September 2013 00: 06
          +2
          Quote: Bad_gr
          and even launch a fish inside the tank:

          laughing
          Quote: Bad_gr
          whose box is quite tight.

          I recalled the case:
          On the T-72, the mechanic has a small technological hole under his feet.
          If it is open and you drive a car (on "combat") into the slush - the mud just in a thin stream hits the face of the crazed fighter.

          So they were "initiated" into mechans.
          Nobody then forgot to check the closeness of this pip.ski ...
          yes
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 14 September 2013 00: 44
            +1
            Quote: Aleks tv
            If it is open and you drive a car in slush - the dirt just hits the physiognomy of a stunned fighter with a thin stream.
            So they were "initiated" into mechans ...

            smile We didn't have that. And from the word "mud" in combination with winter - I still shiver.
            (The photo is not mine, but such dirt can be said typical)
            But there were enough jokes that would not seem completely ridiculous to the civilian. For example: instead of a lamp, screw the PAZ system drive into the illumination lamp of the driver. On a socle approached.
            While servicing the tanks, being already a "grandfather" I noticed that only I clean the dirt, and the loader and the gunner (the same "grandfathers") just sleep in their places - I took and pressed the button of the automatic fire extinguishing system (it has a manual mode). The loader jumped out of the tank instantly, the gunner fell behind a little (the sights and aiming knobs interfered). By the way, at the same time I saw how the fire extinguishing system works. True, then the company commander made me change the used cylinder for a filled one (the remrota helped out).
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 14 September 2013 01: 29
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              the photo is not mine, but such dirt can be said typical

              Photo, yeah ...
              The test ...
              T-72B, Darling. The exhaust is already in the mud. The airs are almost there ...
              Wah wah.
              In the winter, almost always there was no way to crawl through the mud ramparts at the tank-race track and the director’s track when you run to the cars to the starting one ...
            2. svp67
              svp67 15 September 2013 02: 31
              +1
              Quote: Bad_gr
              And from the word "mud" in combination with winter - I still shiver.

              Yes there is something
              1. The comment was deleted.
      2. kow.117
        kow.117 3 October 2013 19: 12
        0
        proverb SA: - soldier, do not touch the equipment, and it will not let you down)))
  • lucidlook
    lucidlook 14 September 2013 01: 10
    0
    As I understand it, from a technical point of view, the pros and cons of one and the other are enough. Therefore, I have only one question: what is safer - diesel or kerosene?
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 14 September 2013 01: 30
      +1
      Quote: lucidlook
      and what is safer - diesel or kerosene?

      For the war?
      It is necessary to ask the T-80 tankers, they will answer better.
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 14 September 2013 18: 24
    +1
    Not having a powerful diesel engine for the tank, in the 80s they installed an interesting GTU - with their own "+" and "-" ...

    And we got a "road" tank for "Europe" ...

    But the same tasks today are solved by modern DIESEL ...
  • Vityaz68
    Vityaz68 14 September 2013 21: 49
    0
    I PERSONALLY FOR DIESEL.
    I THINK EVERYTHING SIMPLER - BETTER.
    DIESEL AS A MACHINE SIMPLER FOR OPERATION THAN TURBO-DIESEL. AND THIS DURING THE MILITARY ACTIONS IS VERY IMPORTANT !!
    ALSO - TURBO DIESEL MISTERS SPEND MORE.