For insurgencies and low scale conflicts it's literally the worst possible design, they couldn't have made it worse if they tried.
It's built for apocalyptic conflicts and it's not that great for those either because the maintenance requirement is huge.

The M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) is a successor to the M1A2. It is also an upgrade package for the older Abrams tanks. It has improved armor protection, improved system components, improved computer components, and some other improvements. First upgraded tank was delivered in 1999. A total of 240 M1A2 SEP tanks were newly built. Another 300 M1A2 tanks were upgraded to M1A2 SEP standard. Furthermore 400 oldest M1A1 tanks were upgraded to M1A2 SEP. Also unknown number of the basic refurbished M1 tanks were upgraded to this standard. So the US military operates at least 900 main battle tanks upgraded to this standard. It is the backbone of the US military armored forces. This tank has not been exported. It is planned that the fleet of refurbished and upgraded M1A1 tanks will remain with the US military service until at least 2021. The M1A2 tanks will remain in service beyond 2050.
The M1A2 SEP is one of the best main battle tanks in the world. It has incredible technology and armor. Upgraded tanks are slightly heavier than the baseline M1A2.
The baseline M1A2 tank uses advanced armor, reinforced with depleted uranium layers. The M1A2 SEP has a further upgraded depleted uranium armor components with graphite coating. Protection of this MBT is considered as one of the best in the world. The M1A2 SEP has significant level of protection against all known anti-tank weapons. It can also employ counter-IED equipment. Protection can be further increased with add-on explosive reactive armor. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m1a2_sep.htm

The tank is armed with the same 120-mm M256 smoothbore gun as its predecessor. Range of effective fire is in excess of 4 km. It can fire the M829A3 APFSDS rounds with depleted uranium penetrator and M1028 canister rounds that discharges massive blast of tungsten fragments at muzzle exit. This round has devastating lethality against assaulting infantry between a range of 200-500 meters. Ammunition for the main gun is stored in the turret bustle, fitted with blow-out panels.
The SEPv2 (version 2) added CROWS or CROWS 2 remotely operated weapon station, armed with a 12.7-mm machine gun. This weapon can be fired from inside of the tank without exposing the crew to enemy fire. Also there are two 7.62-mm machine guns. One of them is mounted coaxially with the main gun. The other is mounted on top of the roof and is operated by the gunner.
The SEPv3 (version 3) was publicly revealed in 2015. Today it is the most modern version of the Abrams tank. It has a number of upgrades in the area of survivability, maintainability, fuel efficiency, and network capabilities. Main survivability upgrades are the new armor package and improved anti-IED capability. Testing of this upgraded tank is planned to be completed in 2016. The SEPv3 should be delivered to the US Army starting in 2017.
The M1A2 SEP has a more advanced fire control system with upgraded ballistic computer. Both the gunner's sight and commander's independent thermal viewer use new 2nd generation FLIR technology and have improved thermal imaging and night vision capabilities. Commander and gunner can designate and track multiple targets simultaneously. This gives the tank a hunter-killer engagement capability.
This tank is fitted with a digital battlefield management system. It allows commanders to track friendly and hostile forces on the battlefield. This system is near real-time based. Locations of friendly vehicles are constantly updated. This system increases vehicle commander's situational awareness.
This tank is operated by a crew of four, including commander, gunner, loader and driver.
Some upgrades were made to the powerpack. This main battle tank is powered by a Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine, developing 1 500 hp. This engine offers good performance. The gas turbine develops more horsepower than a comparable diesel. However it is complex and requires tremendous amount of maintenance, logistical support and is thirsty on fuel. This engine operates primarily on diesel or jet fuel, but during emergencies can also operate on gasoline. A complete power pack can be removed and replaced within 30 minutes. The tank is also fitted with auxiliary power unit. It powers all systems when the main engine is turned off. Transmission was upgraded for better durability. It is worth noting that this tank is quiet in operation.
This main battle tank can be airlifted by a C-5 Galaxy or C-17 Globemaster III military transport aircraft.

  M1A2 Abrams SEP V3 main battle tank General Dynamics AUSA 2015 Army Recognition Web TV Washington DC
Published on Oct 23, 2015 https://youtu.be/L94E8DGLmjw
The M1A2 SEP V3 (System Enhanced Package) is a modernized version of the M1A2 SEPV V2 main battle tank which has a number of upgrades in the areas of survivability, maintainability, full efficiency and network capability. In October 2015, the M1A2 SP V3 was presented for the first time at AUSA, defense exhibition in Washington D.C. Interview Tim Reese General Dynamics Land Systems about M1A2 Abrams SEP V3 at AUSA 2015.
Read full technical data sheet about M1A2 Abrams SEP V3 at this link http://www.armyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11777

  M1A2 SEP Abrams Main Battle Tank
Published on Oct 7, 2012 https://youtu.be/uBWo6RiWBWw
Armored TV: The M1A2 - SEP Abrams Main Battle Tank. Video by Spc. Derrick Ramey and Spc. Eddrenia Scott | 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division Public Affairs | Date: 09.14.2012. 1-15 IN, 3ABCT, 3ID as they demonstrate one of the most modernized platforms of the U.S. Armed Forces; the M1A2 - SEP Abrams Main Battle Tank. HD. High Definition.

But for tailoring the big M1 tank for urban fighting, there's the Tank Urban Survivability Kit (TUSK)
The field-installed kit includes armor upgrades to the rear and bottom of the hull; an installation of slat armor to protect the engine compartment and use of appliqué reactive armor tiles to improve flank protection. A CROWS remote controlled weapon station (RWS) mounting a .50 caliber machine gun is replacing the commander's 0.5" cupola mounted heavy machine gun, enabling the commander to operate the weapon when "buttoned up" under closed hatches. RWS is provided only for M-1A2 TUSK sets. The M-1A1s will be fitted with a thermal sight coupled with remote- viewing and firing capability.

The TUSK kit includes a bolt on armored gun shield attached to the M240 (7.62mm) external machine gun, which will help to protect the loader when he is in the open-hatch firing position. When "buttoned up" the loader will be able to use the weapon from inside, aiming it via a thermal sight which projects the target image into a pair of goggles. A tank-infantry phone linked to the tank's intercom will also be added to improve connectivity with supporting forces.

On August 29, 2006 General Dynamics Land Systems received a US Army order for 505 Tank Urban Survivability Kits (TUSK) for Abrams main battle tanks supporting operations in Iraq, under a US$45 million contract. The add-on kit will be provided for M1A1 and M1A2-series tanks to enhance crew survivability in urban environments. The kit ordered by the Army consists of a Loader's Armor Gun Shield (LAGS), a Tank Infantry Phone (TIP), Abrams Reactive Armor Tiles (ARAT), a Remote Thermal Sight (RTS) and a Power Distribution Box (PDB). Deliveries are expected to be complete by April 2009.

Under a separate order, the US Army awarded General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP) US$30 million to produce reactive armor kits to equip M-1A2. The total contract value could reach $59 million if all contract options are exercised. The reactive tiles for the M-1 will be locally produced at GDATP's Burlington Technology Center. Tiles will be produced at the company's reactive armor facility in Stone County Operations, McHenry, Miss. On December 8th 2006 the U.S. Army added Counter Improvised Explosive Device enhancements to the M1A1 and M1A2 TUSK, awarding GDLS U.S. $11.3 million, part of the $59 million package mentioned above. In December GDLS also received an order amounting about 40% of a US$48 million order for loader's thermal weapon sights being part of the TUSK system improvements for the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams Tanks. http://defense-update.com/products/t/tusk.htm

Tank Urban Survivability Kit/Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK)
A program to help improve the M1's survivability in an urban environment. The goal is for the entire TUSK to be applied by units in the field, without requiring a return to a depot for modification.
Commander's Remote Weapons Station - Provides ability to fire .50 caliber machine gun from inside the turret. Under development.
Loader's Armored Gun Shield (LAGS) - Provides protection to the loader when firing the 7.62mm machine gun. Fielded.
Loaders Thermal Weapon Sight (LTWS) - Provides ability to locate and fire on targets in the dark. Fielded. A system that attaches a pair of goggles to the sight, allowing the loader to fire the gun from inside the turret, while seeing the thermal sight's image, is under development.
Abrams Reactive Armor Tile (ARAT) Skirts.
Abrams Rear Protection Unit Armor Kit - Slat armor designed to protect the tank's rear from RPG attack. Painted with a special heat-resistant paint. Fielding started in 2003.
Tank Infantry Phone (TIP) - Allows infantry and armor soldiers to work together in combat.
Driver's Rear Facing Camera.
New driver's safety seat.
Tank Commander's 360° Camera.
Counter Sniper/Anti-Materiel Mount (CSA-MM) - Mounts a .50 caliber M2 machine gun with a Xenon spotlight on top of the main gun. Can be fired single shot or full auto. Aimed using the M1's ballistics computer. Fielded.
Power Distribution Box (PDB).

The loader's shield, remote weapons station, and the tank infantry telephone may all be included as regular production items in new Abrams' production. http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1.html

- M1A1 AIM with TUSK on patrol. 1st Platoon, Delta Company, 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment. Rustamiyah, Baghdad al Jadidah, Iraq. 07-DEC-2007

The M1 Abrams is aging but gets these upgrades to extend her service life and keep the specter of obsolesce away.

I wonder if the army is going to take these old Abrams and turn them into automated tanks. A two-man crew in the hull, a driver and gunner and the turret having an automatic loader with RC and automatic guns on the roof.

>>19698
But that comparison video showing the AMX-30B2 just does not sell me on the French tank. It's strength is the high mobility, but her 750 hp engine just does not give this 39-ton tank the mobility of the 69.5-ton M1A2 SEP. (40mph vs. 42mph), and 80mm of armor vs the M1A2's depleted uranium mesh-reinforced composite armor being rated around 800mm thick... yeah, no sale. Especially when the AMX-30B2's rifled 105mm L/56 gun could not hope to penetrate the armor of the Abrams unless she shot her in the ass.

- A crew member waves to the camera from the back of his AMX-30B2 main battle tank of the French 6th Light Armored Division bivouaced near Al-Salman during Operation Desert Storm. 3 March 1991

THE FRENCH AMX-30B2 TANK

This up-grade package started development in 1973, transforming the vehicle from a 1st generation tank to a 2nd generation. Its upgrades were implemented from 1979 whilst the vehicle was still in production. New build vehicles were manufactured to this standard and a number of earlier production vehicles were also upgraded.

A great deal of effort had gone in to ironing out the problems with the vehicles mobility, namely the manual gearbox being replaced with the semi-automatic SESM ENC200. A new torsion bar suspension which increased the vertical deflection range of the road wheels was installed and gave a greater off road capability. A new diesel engine was added, the Hispano-Suiza HS-110-S2, which generated 780hp.

A key upgrade was the new integrated COTAC fire control system APX M581, which incorporated a laser rangefinder and thermal sights as well as a new M496 commander’s sight. The pressurised NBC system was also improved. The French army took first delivery of the B2 in 1982 and a total of 166 B2’s were new builds and 493 were upgraded B’s. Final assembly of the vehicle was completed in the heavy manufacturing factory “Atelier de Construction de Roanne” whilst other facilities manufactured the parts. A total of 1173 AMX-30 (including the new build B2’s) MBT’s (excluding other variants) had been built for the French Army by 1985 when final deliveries were completed.

During the Early 90’s after the Gulf War (which the AMX-30 fought in) the French Army started taking delivery of its new 3rd Generation MBT, the Leclerc. However the AMX-30 continued to play a key role in the French army and two further up-grades were implemented in limited numbers for their rapid reaction force which was made up of 2 Tank Regiments “1er/ 2e Chasseurs”. The first was an Explosive Reactive Armour package called BRENUS which was made up of 112 bricks fitted over the front of the vehicle and turret sides, increasing protection by the equivalent of 400mm of steel.

The final upgrade has been the purchase of 500 Renault RVI Mack E9 turbocharged diesel engines generating 750hp. http://tanknutdave.com/the-french-amx-30-series/

  AMX-30B2 Main Battle Tank https://youtu.be/kOuv1urCRPA

Ignore the OP. "Blacktail Defense" is well known to be Mike Sparks' fursona.

Seriously.

>>19718
Is that the guy who thinks the M113 should replace every other ground vehicle? I thought OP's post smacked of that sort of attitude.

I was just wondering why the OP was comparing the modern M1A2 SEP with the old AMX-30B2 tank and not the more modern Leclerc.
- Leclerc tank in the Bastille Day 2014 military parade on the Champs-Élysées in Paris.

Char Leclerc, stand de l'armée à la Foire de Châlons de 2012.

>>19718
>>19719
The problem is that the American military is unwilling to accept casualties and considers soldier safety as a higher priority than completing the mission. Considering this current political atmosphere of safety I don't see how we could win a war against anyone except highly undeveloped countries.

If we ever get back to fighting wars properly, we're going to get back to the light tank concept. It's just too much lethality per cost to pass up.

Sparks problem is that his idea of the light tank is based on M113, which was a shitty APC when it came out and is much worse now. I think it was in Vietnam when ancient RPG-2 systems and even rifle grenades were used to turn the passengers of M113s into burger meat.

Sprey suggested upgrading the M60 with composite armor and using that, something like the Sabra mark 3.

  .

  >>19720

>>19722
It was shown back in WW2 that the vehicle's crew is the most important asset and component. A well-trained and experienced crew was a significant force-multiplier as well as being expensive. Time to train, house and supply a crew really adds up after a while and losing trained crews really ruins your efficiency and effectiveness. When the Japanese lost their experienced aircraft crew at big battles like Midway, their effectiveness really went down. The new crews were rushed through training and proved nowhere near as effective as the experienced fliers they replaced even though they were flying newer aircraft. The US did not rush training, but expanded aircrew training and kept the training at around two years with lots more flying time before they were deployed. The factories could bash out aircraft fast, but having trained crew for them was the tough and expensive part. Making sure that their crew survived and any downed crew were rescued was very important.

This importance of crew survivability was learned in the tank corps where US Shermans proved inferior to heavy German armor like the Panthers and Tigers. If enemy tanks were encountered, standard procedure was to retreat if possible and call in artillery and airstrikes. Other allies sneered at this as cowardice but lavishing artillery or bombs is better than risking tank crew. When the Germans really started losing experienced tank crew in France and the Eastern Front in 1944 after Stalingrad, Kursk and the meat-grinder enveloping Soviet offensives, such as the destruction of Army Group Center (Operation Bagration), things really went bad for the Germans and the Soviets became more effective by actually retaining experienced crew in these victories.

- Israeli Namer (leopard) APC based on a Merkava Mk IV tank chassis. This 60-ton APC has a crew of 3 (commander, driver, RCWS operator) + 9 troops and is one of the most heavily armored APC in the world, having a composite matrix of laminated ceramic-steel-nickel alloy & underlaid reactive armor, sloped modular design. It is only armed with a remote-controlled (Samson RCWS) Browning M2 12.7x99mm (.50 cal) machine gun, or Mk 19 grenade launcher, and a 7.62mm FN MAG MG. The point is to protect the troops in a vehicle that is also fast enough to keep up with the tanks.

I have heard that more M1 Abrams are being made than can be possibly crewed and these tanks are being placed in various forward deployment depots (like US Reforger bases in NATO) and US storage bases. Perhaps Abrams could likewise be turned into APCs? More difficult compared to the Israeli Namer that has the engine up front and the crew enters from the rear door. Plus, the Abrams has a voracious jet engine powering it and using these as APCs would require lots more fuel supplies, although the research into an M1A3 upgrade would probably have a 2000hp diesel engine for better fuel economy.

The US Army’s heavily armored IFV, the Ground Combat Vehicle, is likely to weigh as much as 84 tons, making it the heaviest armored vehicle on the battlefield. It's supposed to seat a 9-man squad, but cost 28 billion dollars. Critics suggest instead buying the Israeli Namer or the German Puma IFV or upgrading the Bradley. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Combat_Vehicle

The US Army conducted non-developmental vehicle operational assessments of current combat vehicles in 2012 to evaluate capabilities against requirements for purchase of a new IFV for the Ground Combat Vehicle program. One of the vehicles validated was the Namer. On 2 April 2013, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that advised purchasing current vehicles instead of developing a new vehicle for the GCV program. Buying the Namer would cost $9 billion less, and met the required nine-man carrying capacity. The army responded by saying that although the Namer and other vehicles assessed in 2012 met some GCV requirements, no currently fielded vehicle met enough without needing significant redesign.

- Soldiers from A Company, 1st Battalion, 29th Infantry Regiment, maneuver around an Israeli Namer during the Maneuver Battle Lab's Ground Combat Vehicle assessment last month at Fort Bliss, Texas. Army leaders used the session to learn about eventual requirements for a new Infantry fighting vehicle. 21 May 2012

German Puma IFV
Weight (level A/C): 31.4 / 43 t
Length: ca. 7.4 m
Width: ca. 3.7 m
Height (roof): ca. 3.1 m
Engine performance: 800 kW (1,088 hp)
Maximum speed: 70 km/h
Crew: 9 (3+6)
Armament: 30 mm (MK 30-2/ABM) / coaxial mounted MG 4 / guided missiles
http://www.kmweg.com/home/tracked-vehicles/infantry-fighting-vehicles/puma/product-information.html

German Puma IFV, first series production model.
>>19725
A further example of how important trained and experienced crew are to the war effort, I remember reading of US ground attack fighter pilots (P-47, P-38, etc.) were told to attack German locomotives but especially target the driving compartment where the locomotive engineer was. A new train could be built quickly, but it takes years to get a good, experienced engineer to drive it. Replace experienced ones with green ones and inefficiencies will increase and more accidents will occur. One pilot asked if they would be prosecuted as war criminals for specifically targeting civilian locomotive engineers but the reply was "Don't worry about that".

>>19725
Crews are the most essential part of the tank, but it's not like they can make an inferior tank function in a superior way. This is also a lesson from world war two, when Panzer III and IV crews met the T-34 they didn't beat themselves up over not being it's match.

An inferior machine is an inferior machine.

The modern tank isn't facing another tank so it's easy to think there's no such thing as an inferior machine, because nothing opposes it. But there can be an inferior machine for anti-insurgency missions, and no crew can make abrams need fewer filter changes.

>>19719
Yep.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/594460/
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/608-blacktaildefense-doesnt-know-shit-about-tank-design/?p=15029
>Part of this goes back to when BlacktailDefense' account on tanknet had an IP trace done, and, forget the exact details, but it placed him within the same neighborhood (possibly even the same house) as Sparks.

>>19702
I don't know how many times I've seen that pic before, but I just noticed the "99 problems" written on the fume extractor.

>>19751
What would you write on your tank?
I'd go with "Happy Flower"

>>19739
Depends on the mark of Pz.III/Pz.IV. When up gunned to the 50mm the service life was extended and the ability to take on T-34 was there, however the engagement range was lower than that preferred by German forces. Pz.IV was still relevant during the latter stages of WWII as it could be up gunned.

A superior crew with only slightly inferior machine will be able to overcome a certain amount of (Clausewitzian) friction created by their tank. Look at the experience of the Panthers, cracking tank (when it didn't break down) but consistently had inexperienced crews manning it meaning it never achieved the superiority it should have.

>>19753
I think the Pz IV might have been one of the most heavily-upgraded tanks of the WWII period. Would you believe that the first few versions only had like 15mm of hull armor? Big difference from the quite-formidable late war variants.

The main problem is that OP like light cavalry.

And the French are obsessed with light cavalry too after the disastrous WWII tank engagement (french on average had "better tanks", IE on paper, than the germans, with bigger guns, thicker armor, they invented slopped armor too, etc... and were completely outmaneuvered by german lighter and more reliable designs.)

The AMX-30 replaced their main tank which was the AMX-13, which was a light tank, latter beefed up with ATGM (maybe the first widely deployed ATGM too, the SS-13).

Their main cavalry vehicle even today is the wheeled gun AMX-10 RC (which stand for Roue Cannon, wheeled gun AND NOT "recon" as so many people thinks).

The smaller ERC-90 Sagaie is exactly that, full high pressure 90mm gun (unlike the export versions which have a low pressure one and fire only HE and HEAT rounds) on something that barely stops 12.7mm and fit in a small cargo plane (C-160 Transall). With a good crew that thing can fuck up something from the T-55 family and anything lighter.

French designers essentially always try to make the lighter/smaller chassis possible and put the biggest bang they can on it, then they add the armor depending on what they're making.

Even the AMX-56 is like that.

The thing meant to replace the AMX-10RC, ERC-90 and VAB MEPHISTO, is something to behold too it's stupidly small, and has a 40mm CTA gun and 2x twin french javelin equivalent launchers (MMP Missile Moyenne Portée - Medium Range Missile, which is the MILAN successor starting to enter service next year).

And it's not a recon vehicle, they field entire cavalry regiments of those. The french army as Cuirassé regiments (tanks, on AMX-56) and then cavalry units: Hussard, Dragoons (RC, wheeled guns, on AMX-10 RCR... officially the ERC-90 aren't still in service, but we still saw them in Mali because those thing can be air transported anywhere with very little efforts and everyone is happy to have a big hitting thing in support, once they retire the C-160 for the bigger A-400m they will really leave the service).

>>19753
OK, thanks for the info.... kind of missing the point though.

>>19755
Don't forget the French experience in Africa, they did some really badass things against insurgents using those shitty four wheelers with 90mm cannons and mortars.

Turns out unarmored insurgents don't care if the FRAG shells are coming from a full size 120mm tank gun or a half sized 90mm cannon. The 90mm actually had more effect because more ammo could be carried and it reloaded faster.

  Armor is all around (including top) protection against artillery fragments and 7.62mm NATO. Crew compartment is actually an armored capsule with higher armor protection. Front of vehicle and turret can take 14.5mm. IED protection included in a double v hull and anti mine seats.
All around slat armor can be installed to protect against RPGs.

A light four wheel dune buggy with a full sized 25mm cannon.
The cannon is stabilized so it can fire fused ammo at a helicopters or APFSDS ammo at AFVs 2km away while at full speed over rough terrain. Secondary weapons are Thales lightweight multirole missiles, or laser guided rockets. It can paint a target for dropping bombs as well, all this with almost zero operator input.
Second armament option is a simple protected 12.7mm machine gun and 40mm grenade launcher for policing duty.
Third option is an infantry support cupola with a 60mm gun-mortar.
Fourth option is an anti aircraft turret, MBDA Mistral with short range air defense missiles and a 12.7mm machine gun.
Fifth option is a ground attack turret with NLOS missiles (mini land to land cruise missiles) or anti tank missiles.
Sixth option is a urban support turret, 12.7mm gatling gun with laser guided concrete penetrating rockets.

But the weapons are just the sideshow. Everything about this thing is focused on the driver, who is in a bubble of 360 degree day-night panoramic viewscreens and has amazing control over mobility. It has like 40-50 horsepower per ton depending on loadout, the heaviest variant with weakest engine overloaded is 37hp/t. It can move in reverse at full speed (cue french jokes) and the reason why it's called the crab is it can go nearly at full speed sideways. 800km rage on single tank.

They actually bothered to add radar control measures, which makes no sense to me.

>>19758
Yeah but those are meant to replace the VBL (a very cool design but aged fast) and the stopgap PVP (a basic armored jeep).

It's highly doubtful the 25mm version will see service except maybe replacing the VAB 20mm that the airforce riflemen uses as their main support vehicle for base perimeter patrol/defense.

One possibility was to replace the ERC 90 by those (which are typically for airborne and mountain troops).

I gave you a rough order of battle (it's a clusterfuck when it actually come down to who has what, between deployment of new gear and rotation of old one) for the french military...

As you can see the idea was 1 heavy brigade, 2 light, 1 specialized...

In truth they scrapped a light brigade, one is half german, etc...

It's becoming ridiculously small.

And France still is the biggest European land army and wares about it... Recently they somehow managed to reversed a 11 000 combat troops cut...

When Russian soldiers goes on vacations on Portuguese beach don't ask where they came from...

>>19758
I was in forest and national resource and the most overpowered vehicle I know of had 27 horsepower per ton, and that was a truck which was designed to pull other trucks out of mud with a winch.

What the fuck could anyone use 30 or 40 horsepower per ton for? Is it going to be pulling tanks out of wells?

>>19762
The US M1 Abrams gets just under 27 horsepower per ton as she has a Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine rated at 1,500 shp (1,120 kW) giving her a power/weight ratio from 26.9 hp/t (20.05 kW/t) to 23.8 hp/t (17.74 kW/t).

The German Leopard 2 has an MTU MB 873 Ka-501 liquid-cooled V-12 Twin-turbo diesel engine at 1,500 PS (1,479 hp, 1,103 kW) at 2,600 rpm for a power/weight of 24.1 PS/t (17.7 kW/t).

The British Challenger 2 has a Perkins CV-12 V12 diesel 26 litre 1,200 hp (890 kW) for a power/weight of 19.2 hp/t (14.3 kW/t).

The French AMX Leclerc has an 8-cylinder diesel SACM (Wärtsilä) at 1,100 kW (1,500 hp) for a power/weight of 27.52 hp/tonne. Their AMX-30 has a Hispano-Suiza HS-110 680 hp (510 kW)-720 hp (540 kW) engine. At 36 tonnes, she gets 20 hp/tonne.

The Russian T-90A has a V-92S2 12-cyl. diesel engine at 950 hp (736 kW) for a power/weight of 20.4 hp/tonne (15 kW/tonne).

MTU-PowerPack für den Leopard 2 vom Typ MB 873 Ka-501 mit Ladeluftkühlung und zwei Turboladern auf der Basis eines V12-Viertakt-Dieselmotors mit einer Leistung von 1100 kW (1500 PS).

Marines from 1st Tank Battalion, Twentynine Palms, California, load a Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine from an M1A1 Abrams tank engine back into the tank at Camp Coyote, Kuwait during Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. Location: TA COYOTE
Date 2/8/2003

Cpl. Ryan J. Sharkey, 24, from Vista, Calif., who is a tank driver with Company A, 4th Tank Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 5, guides a turbine engine into a M1A1 Abrams main battle tank at Al Asad Air Base, Iraq, Sept. 23. The dust and heat of the Iraqi desert makes it necessary for the Marines with Company A to meticulously check their tanks to guarantee that they are combat ready.
Date 23 September 2008

>>19758
Panhard's Combat Reconnaissance Armoured Buggy (CRAB) was among the most popular vehicles on display at the International Armoured Vehicles Forum 2014 in Farnborough on Wednesday. The CRAB, already in use by the French Army, features a 25-mm turret and machine gun and is designed for a crew of three. The CRAB has ballistic and mine protection features, six peripheral cameras, day and night modes, and can run at a speed of 110 km/h (68 mph) due to its rather small size.

But 40 to 50 horsepower per ton is insanely powerful for an armored vehicle, even a light armored car like the CRAB.

- Vickers Mk VIA light tank in Royal Australian Armoured Corps Tank Museum, Puckapunyal, Victoria, Australia. This is one of the 10 vehicles purchased by Australia in 1936.

>>19767
The CRAB is nowhere near in use.

The entire Scorpion program (replacement of land vehicles, VBCI, EBRC, VBMR, CRAB... in that order of priority) is on ice with only somewhere between a third and half of the VBCI delivered.

VAB 20mm and VBL 20mm do exist in very low numbers.

Those thieving boches!

>>19774
Indeed!
The UK Vickers Mk VIA light tank was produced in 1936.
The German Wiesel Armored Weapons Carrier (AWC) was produced in 1985.

- A Wiesel Armoured Weapons Carrier at the side of the Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr in Dresden, Germany, 2011.

Now I have a tremendous desire to Wiesel up this thread.
- Wiesel 1 (MK 20) air-transportable armoured vehicle in the Bundeswehr Military History Museum Dresden.

A Wiesel dropped off by what appears to be a CH-53 helicopter.

There's even a robot version of the Wiesel!
SYRANO (Système Robotisé d'Acquisition pour la Neutralisation d'Objectifs, "Robotic system for acquisition and neutralisation of targets") is the first operational battlefield robot of the French military.

http://www.primeportal.net/apc/dieter_krause/wiesel_1_mk/index.php?Page=1