Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2023 January 20

= January 20 =

M1 Abrams metric?
Can this tank be serviced and repaired in Europe and the rest of the world with metric tools and screws etc., or is it made in US customary units? -- Espoo (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the US is part of NATO alongside many European countries, It seems likely that those countries' military forces have, or are capable of sourcing, the appropriate tools; it was, after all, designed in consultation with other NATO forces, and Poland has already taken delivery of some of its order of 250. In any case, when tanks or other armaments are supplied in such circumstances, it is usually not merely the vehicle itself that is supplied, but also all the support vehicles, equipment and likely personnel that are needed to keep it running.
 * As I understand it (which may be incorrectly), the main practical problem with the M1 Abrams (which has many variants and developments) is that it requires more extensive and frequent (i.e. per-mile) servicing and repairs compared to other forces' tanks. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.179.175 (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 are both powered by diesel engines, as are the Soviet-era tanks used by Ukraine. If you can fix a bus or a truck, it's not too huge a leap to learn how to fix a diesel-powered tank. The M1 Abrams uses a gas-turbine engine (basically a jet), derived from a helicopter engine. At very regular intervals, the whole power plant has to be taken out and sent back for servicing by somebody who knows what they're doing. So spanner sizes are a bit of a side issue. That's why the Ukrainians really want Leopards. Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The goal is 1400 hours of operation between engine rebuilds, according to this magazine article. The engine, the Honeywell AGT1500, "can use a variety of fuels, including jet fuel, gasoline, diesel and marine diesel." Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, the flip side is that the turbine engine can burn basically any liquid fuel, including things like alcohol, which, let's say, simplifies refueling. Found some perfume in a warehouse? Fill 'er up! For a military like the U.S.'s, with enormous resources, the tradeoff of more maintenance in exchange for greater force capability is a pretty easy one. (And in a pinch you can forego routine engine maintenance, at the cost of maybe needing to junk the engine.) For other militaries the tradeoff may not be as appealing. --47.147.118.55 (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you need to fill 'er up much more frequently. Abrams can manage 255 metres per litre compared to Leopard 2's 330 metres. The gas turbine has a slow response from cold and so requires a "tactical idle mode" which uses 2.5 times more fuel than a Leopard when stationary, which probably accounts for most of a tank's time on the front line.  Alansplodge (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Americans don't care about fuel efficiency. We have traditionally PREFERED gas guzzlers.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)