This Is What You Get From Those Without Experience Or Thinking The Issue Through

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I worry people with no experiencei in warfare, making war machines.

What could go wrong?

Why would people with no experience in warfare be making war machines?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I mean sooner or later isn’t fuel going to run out anyway?
Why not invest for the long haul?

Not only that, fuel dependence is a strategic military weakness to begin with.

It's why Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, dragging the US into the war (and ultimately leading to Japan's defeat). In Europe, fuel shortages were a key factor in Germany's defeat.

Gas- and diesel-fueled combat vehicles have to be resupplied with fuel. This fuel has to be brought to those vehicles in tanker trucks or by airlift. Reducing fuel usage means reducing the number of vulnerable convoys you have to run, which reduces the number of convoys that are attacked by ambush or IEDs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not only that, fuel dependence is a strategic military weakness to begin with.

It's why Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, dragging the US into the war (and ultimately leading to Japan's defeat). In Europe, fuel shortages were a key factor in Germany's defeat.

Gas- and diesel-fueled combat vehicles have to be resupplied with fuel. This fuel has to be brought to those vehicles in tanker trucks or by airlift. Reducing fuel usage means reducing the number of vulnerable convoys you have to run, which reduces the number of convoys that are attacked by ambush or IEDs.

Can you transport electricity without being subject to the same problems?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why would people with no experience in warfare be making war machines?

Because we get paid, & we believe in defense.

 

[SomeRandom]

Not only that, fuel dependence is a strategic military weakness to begin with.

It's why Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, dragging the US into the war (and ultimately leading to Japan's defeat). In Europe, fuel shortages were a key factor in Germany's defeat.

Gas- and diesel-fueled combat vehicles have to be resupplied with fuel. This fuel has to be brought to those vehicles in tanker trucks or by airlift. Reducing fuel usage means reducing the number of vulnerable convoys you have to run, which reduces the number of convoys that are attacked by ambush or IEDs.

Huh. Didn’t know that.
Informative frubal

 

[SomeRandom]

Can you transport electricity without being subject to the same problems?

I would think that as long as a country has electricity, it would be easier to obtain than fuel.
And it might be made easier with further developments in technology.
But that’s speculation on my part lol

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why would people with no experience in warfare be making war machines?

All electric? It's clearly an amateur goal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All electric? It's clearly an amateur goal.

Why do you say that?

Edit: and what does this have to do with your original comment? I'm sure that all the military suppliers designing and building IC combat vehicles would get a piece of the action building electric combat vehicles.

 

[Revoltingest]

Huh. Didn’t know that.
Informative frubal

But he hasn't answered the question of the vulnerability
of an electrical supply line replacing a fuel supply line.
When evaluating alternatives, the pluses & minuses of
both must be compared. One cannot just criticize one
to justify the other.

 

[SomeRandom]

But he hasn't answered the question of the vulnerability
of an electrical supply line replacing a fuel supply line.
When evaluating alternatives, the pluses & minuses of
both must be compared. One cannot just criticize one
to justify the other.

True enough.
I won’t pretend to know the ins and outs of such a scenario

Seems like electricity supplies are better than fuel. Especially at the moment.
But that could be my bias of having grown up around modern day technology so

 

[Revoltingest]

True enough.
I won’t pretend to know the ins and outs of such a scenario

Seems like electricity supplies are better than fuel. Especially at the moment.
But that could be my bias of having grown up around modern day technology so

Comparing how fuel & electricity are delivered
currently, I see bigger problems for the latter.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why do you say that?

Edit: and what does this have to do with your original comment? I'm sure that all the military suppliers designing and building IC combat vehicles would get a piece of the action building electric combat vehicles.

Electric has a place, but not when it sacrifices overall tactical and strategic advantages over a stupid politically based agenda.

Listen to real military commanders, not the politictions on the feasibility and implementation of electric power in a theater setting.

US Army picks 6 companies to tackle how to power electric combat vehicles in the field

How will the U.S. Army power 225,000 vehicles out in the field? Six companies are tasked to come up with ideas.

www.defensenews.com

There are no answers yet. Just ideas.

 

[SomeRandom]

Comparing how fuel & electricity are delivered
currently, I see bigger problems for the latter.

I’ll take your word for it lol
Still sooner or later we will have to face a reality without fossil fuel.
That’s just inevitable. I mean fuel isn’t exactly a renewable resource

Perhaps a half and half approach for now?

 

[We Never Know]

But he hasn't answered the question of the vulnerability
of an electrical supply line replacing a fuel supply line.
When evaluating alternatives, the pluses & minuses of
both must be compared. One cannot just criticize one
to justify the other.

What!! You mean we can't just set up electrical power stations at bases then run out poles and lines to where they are needed?

 

[esmith]

Why do you say that?

Edit: and what does this have to do with your original comment? I'm sure that all the military suppliers designing and building IC combat vehicles would get a piece of the action building electric combat vehicles.

Can Ukraine keep the lights on?

So far Ukraine has managed to keep its power grid operating despite Russian attacks, but it desperately needs electrical equipment from the U.S. and other countries.

www.nbcnews.com

So, how you going to charge your EV tank....solar panels...not going to work.

 

[esmith]

What!! You mean we can't just set up electrical power stations at bases then run out poles and lines to where they are needed?

Guess you have never read about land warefare.....Try some military history before you speak

 

[Curious George]

- Batteries lack the energy density of oil. This would either expand
the vehicle envelope & weight, or reduce range.
- Swapping batteries would have to occur more often than refueling.
This poses a greater risk of becoming disabled in battle.
- Battery pack swapping would require large hatches, which poses
design problems to address survivability, vehicle weight, cost, &
performance.

Note though that energy efficiency in military vehicles is crucial
because of the incredibly high cost of getting fuel to the field
during a battle.

Edit...
Using ultra-capacitors instead of batteries might allow rapid
charging instead of battery swaps. But the technology isn't
here yet.

Well if there is a poster on RF who might know, I suppose it would be you. And I am at the mercy of your expertise here.

A couple of thoughts:
1) if we were able to send rockets to the moon with just electricity, Tesla would be all over it. So I acknowledge that combustion can provide much more energy. But the question here is whether we can provide adequate energy. Your post would seem to answer this with a no. And perhaps I should take and accept just that. But knowing what you do in both engineering and working with defense contracts is this the end of the discussion?

2) Is it possible you have been out of the game long enough or worked in a sector removed enough to not answer this with such certainty?

3) I have heard tales of military proving math equations years before the public sector provided solutions. If this is true of math, how true is it of various technologies?

4) Also of note, when we land on a way to do something that works well enough, it starts to carve a path where future innovation utilizes past solutions and leaves other paths, which would perhaps lead to equally effective or in some cases more efficient solutions, untrodden. Is it possible something like this has occurred with the combustion engine?

5) your assessment seems to indicate where potential pitfalls reside, but doesn’t explain why these pitfalls cannot be surmounted.

Fire and electricity are both amazing things. I wouldn’t want to discount either.

 

[We Never Know]

Guess you have never read about land warefare.....Try some military history before you speak

If you say so lol

 

[We Never Know]

Well if there is a poster on RF who might know, I suppose it would be you. And I am at the mercy of your expertise here.

A couple of thoughts:
1) if we were able to send rockets to the moon with just electricity, Tesla would be all over it. So I acknowledge that combustion can provide much more energy. But the question here is whether we can provide adequate energy. Your post would seem to answer this with a no. And perhaps I should take and accept just that. But knowing what you do in both engineering and working with defense contracts is this the end of the discussion?

2) Is it possible you have been out of the game long enough or worked in a sector removed enough to not answer this with such certainty?

3) I have heard tales of military proving math equations years before the public sector provided solutions. If this is true of math, how true is it of various technologies?

4) Also of note, when we land on a way to do something that works well enough, it starts to carve a path where future innovation utilizes past solutions and leaves other paths, which would perhaps lead to equally effective or in some cases more efficient solutions, untrodden. Is it possible something like this has occurred with the combustion engine?

5) your assessment seems to indicate where potential pitfalls reside, but doesn’t explain why these pitfalls cannot be surmounted.

Fire and electricity are both amazing things. I wouldn’t want to discount either.

I found this on the net. Sorry its so long.

How big would a battery for a tank be?

"About the size of the tank…just kidding.

And it would be “batteries” or battery pack not “battery.”

For ease of installation and replacement there would be dozens of them. The Abrams already has (12) 24-volt batteries on board. They weigh over 60 pounds each.

The Tesla has a battery pack that weighs 1200 pounds in a car that weighs just under 5,000 pounds. The batteries are thus 24% of the vehicles total weight. This powerpack gives the Tesla a range of about 230 miles. A Tesla Supercharger Station take 75 minutes (1 hour 15 minutes) to fully charge this powerpack.

The Abrams tank with a multi-fuel turbine engine has a range of about 265 miles. The M1A2 SEP v2 and v3 versions of the Abrams are 70 tons dry and unloaded and 72 tons loaded. The Abrams powerpack (engine plus transmission together as one unit) weighs several tons (about 5 tons). Take that out and replace with batteries. Then add several more tons of batteries.

Lets figure this out mathematically and proportionally.

24% of 70 tons = 16.8 tons. Subtract 5 tons for the powerpack replacement and you have a net gain of almost 12 tons of weight. Congratulations you have now made the worlds heaviest operational tank 12 tons heavier. The Abrams will need 28 of the Tesla’s 1200 pound powerpacks to operate at the same level of performance/operational range. I am ignoring the weight of the electric motors at this point. Two will be required that weigh significantly more than the Tesla’s motors. Tesla Model S cars have 2 electric motors that each weigh 70 pounds and generate about 375 horsepower each. The Abrams tank turbine generates over 1500 HP. We would need at least 5 Tesla motors to generate that power or two much larger and heavier motors to equal that power generation. Lets say 500 pounds of weight for two motors at 250 pounds each.

The external dimensions of each Tesla battery is roughly 12 x 26 x 3 inches. The Tesla Model S uses 21 of these for its 1200 pound powerpack (about 55 pounds each). The Abrams needs 28 of the Teslas powerpacks so it would need 21 x 28 of these individual batteries (588 total). Each battery takes up 936 cubic inches of space. The Abrams battery pack would thus require 550,368 cubic inches (318.5 cubic feet) of space for its battery pack. The Abrams current power pack occupies about that much space (6 feet wide by 10 feet long x 6 feet tall or so) so we can drop all those batteries right where the current powerpack sits…BUT we just made the Abrams EXCEPTIONALLY rear end heavy by dropping an additional 12 tons of weight in its rear 1/3 portion. Its gonna be driving around with its nose in the air the whole time without a platform redesign to accommodate the powerpack being evenly distributed along the entire hull bottom. Plus, without distributing them, we would have to swap out the rear 3 or 4 torsion bars for ones with twice the spring rate and weight capacity to accommodate the weight.

The Abram’s range will now also be less than it was with a fuel powered engine so probably around the same range as the Tesla: 230 miles. Lets say 200 for the sake of cautious estimation.

We now have an 84 ton tank that only goes 200 miles on a charge and takes AT LEAST 75 minutes (or more) to recharge. The regular (non-greened) Abrams weighs 72 tons fully loaded, takes 15 minutes to refuel nearly 500 gallons of JP-8, and can go 265 miles on a full tank. Fuel resupply trucks carry 5,000-10,000 gallons of fuel and 2 of them can fuel an entire company in less than an hour. To recharge an entire electric Abrams tank company you would need 14 portable Supercharger stations instead of 2 trucks, it would take AT LEAST 15 minutes longer than conventional fueling (if not 2 hours longer or more), and all 14 tanks would be stationary the entire 75 minute charging time. With regular fueling, you are only fueling 4 tanks at a time in 15 minute blocks. Only 4 tanks are stationary and exposed/susceptible to enemy action and only for 15 minutes. The other 10 tanks can pull security/ perimeter defense while the other 4 are fueling.

Its clear why the Abrams is not an electric vehicle yet. The technology is not there to make it feasible, practical, or desirable for the US Army."

If a M1A3 Abrams were to be converted to electric drive, how large would the battery need to be?

Answer (1 of 3): About the size of the tank…just kidding. And it would be “batteries” or battery pack not “battery.” For ease of installation and replacement there would be dozens of them. The Abrams already has (12) 24-volt batteries on board. They weigh over 60 pounds each. The Tesla has a b...

www.quora.com

 

[Curious George]

I found this in the net.

How big would a battery for a tank be?

"About the size of the tank…just kidding.

And it would be “batteries” or battery pack not “battery.”

For ease of installation and replacement there would be dozens of them. The Abrams already has (12) 24-volt batteries on board. They weigh over 60 pounds each.

The Tesla has a battery pack that weighs 1200 pounds in a car that weighs just under 5,000 pounds. The batteries are thus 24% of the vehicles total weight. This powerpack gives the Tesla a range of about 230 miles. A Tesla Supercharger Station take 75 minutes (1 hour 15 minutes) to fully charge this powerpack.

The Abrams tank with a multi-fuel turbine engine has a range of about 265 miles. The M1A2 SEP v2 and v3 versions of the Abrams are 70 tons dry and unloaded and 72 tons loaded. The Abrams powerpack (engine plus transmission together as one unit) weighs several tons (about 5 tons). Take that out and replace with batteries. Then add several more tons of batteries.

Lets figure this out mathematically and proportionally.

24% of 70 tons = 16.8 tons. Subtract 5 tons for the powerpack replacement and you have a net gain of almost 12 tons of weight. Congratulations you have now made the worlds heaviest operational tank 12 tons heavier. The Abrams will need 28 of the Tesla’s 1200 pound powerpacks to operate at the same level of performance/operational range. I am ignoring the weight of the electric motors at this point. Two will be required that weigh significantly more than the Tesla’s motors. Tesla Model S cars have 2 electric motors that each weigh 70 pounds and generate about 375 horsepower each. The Abrams tank turbine generates over 1500 HP. We would need at least 5 Tesla motors to generate that power or two much larger and heavier motors to equal that power generation. Lets say 500 pounds of weight for two motors at 250 pounds each.

The external dimensions of each Tesla battery is roughly 12 x 26 x 3 inches. The Tesla Model S uses 21 of these for its 1200 pound powerpack (about 55 pounds each). The Abrams needs 28 of the Teslas powerpacks so it would need 21 x 28 of these individual batteries (588 total). Each battery takes up 936 cubic inches of space. The Abrams battery pack would thus require 550,368 cubic inches (318.5 cubic feet) of space for its battery pack. The Abrams current power pack occupies about that much space (6 feet wide by 10 feet long x 6 feet tall or so) so we can drop all those batteries right where the current powerpack sits…BUT we just made the Abrams EXCEPTIONALLY rear end heavy by dropping an additional 12 tons of weight in its rear 1/3 portion. Its gonna be driving around with its nose in the air the whole time without a platform redesign to accommodate the powerpack being evenly distributed along the entire hull bottom. Plus, without distributing them, we would have to swap out the rear 3 or 4 torsion bars for ones with twice the spring rate and weight capacity to accommodate the weight.

The Abram’s range will now also be less than it was with a fuel powered engine so probably around the same range as the Tesla: 230 miles. Lets say 200 for the sake of cautious estimation.

We now have an 84 ton tank that only goes 200 miles on a charge and takes AT LEAST 75 minutes (or more) to recharge. The regular (non-greened) Abrams weighs 72 tons fully loaded, takes 15 minutes to refuel nearly 500 gallons of JP-8, and can go 265 miles on a full tank. Fuel resupply trucks carry 5,000-10,000 gallons of fuel and 2 of them can fuel an entire company in less than an hour. To recharge an entire electric Abrams tank company you would need 14 portable Supercharger stations instead of 2 trucks, it would take AT LEAST 15 minutes longer than conventional fueling (if not 2 hours longer or more), and all 14 tanks would be stationary the entire 75 minute charging time. With regular fueling, you are only fueling 4 tanks at a time in 15 minute blocks. Only 4 tanks are stationary and exposed/susceptible to enemy action and only for 15 minutes. The other 10 tanks can pull security/ perimeter defense while the other 4 are fueling.

Its clear why the Abrams is not an electric vehicle yet. The technology is not there to make it feasible, practical, or desirable for the US Army."

If a M1A3 Abrams were to be converted to electric drive, how large would the battery need to be?

Answer (1 of 3): About the size of the tank…just kidding. And it would be “batteries” or battery pack not “battery.” For ease of installation and replacement there would be dozens of them. The Abrams already has (12) 24-volt batteries on board. They weigh over 60 pounds each. The Tesla has a b...

www.quora.com

Despite some of that users more informed posts, this reply doesn’t really address the question on a fundamental level. The user simply tries to take chunks of available data and put forth the sum as the answer.

While a valiant attempt, I don’t think the user has the knowledge or expertise to field an answer. Were I able to engage this user, however, I would be curious to take apart what makes a m1A3 abrams effective. I think this is where the users knowledge strengths are.

Were we to have a real conversation or listen to one rather, we would need experts in multiple fields of engineering, materials, combat, weapons systems, just to name a few. While this user you quote could likely sit at the table and offer valuable insight his role is more of focus group and person surveyed to tease out the problems for the engineers to solve.