It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Failings of US Army Vehicles

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
As you can see! There's failings in the US Army Vehicles like: M1 Abrams' Jet Engine where they are surprisingly runs only on Jet Fuel which surprisingly way too flammable to used as Armored Fighting Vehicle fuels and it's 1700 degree hot exhaust are rendering it unusable as moving cover for infantry and this is just few of the failings of the US Army vehicles and for more info about it, click this link: blacktailfa.deviantart.com... and research it for yourself
edit on 20/1/2011 by masonicon because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
thats america for you.
make a buck and dont worry if lots of US soldiers die.
it would not be so bad if they used half the money to build good stuff.
but they just build crap!



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I got lost on that site for a while.
tank lovers check this out!
This is someone dedicated to the history of armor for sure.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


You should really do your home work, the turbine engine in the ahbrams will run on a variety of fuels including JP-8( jet fuel), diesel, gasoline, and alcohol.
And your assertion about jet fuel, which is really just kerosene, being to flamablle is rediculous, it is makedly less flamable than either gasoline or alchohol.
On the modern battlefield, to use your armour for infantry cover will just get your tanks killed in a hurry, as well as the infantry trying to hide behind them.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks10
reply to post by masonicon
 


You should really do your home work, the turbine engine in the ahbrams will run on a variety of fuels including JP-8( jet fuel), diesel, gasoline, and alcohol.
And your assertion about jet fuel, which is really just kerosene, being to flamablle is rediculous, it is makedly less flamable than either gasoline or alchohol.
On the modern battlefield, to use your armour for infantry cover will just get your tanks killed in a hurry, as well as the infantry trying to hide behind them.


Due to logistical reasons, Abrams only uses Jet Fuel



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


really now? because ive seen some footage in iraq where people still use other armoured vehicles like that.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by punkinworks10
reply to post by masonicon
 


You should really do your home work, the turbine engine in the ahbrams will run on a variety of fuels including JP-8( jet fuel), diesel, gasoline, and alcohol.
And your assertion about jet fuel, which is really just kerosene, being to flamablle is rediculous, it is makedly less flamable than either gasoline or alchohol.
On the modern battlefield, to use your armour for infantry cover will just get your tanks killed in a hurry, as well as the infantry trying to hide behind them.


Due to logistical reasons, Abrams only uses Jet Fuel



TheAbrams can run off of a variety of fuels as previously stated, and will mainly use diesel, when moving a colunm forward why have seperate fuel trucks your tanks? They designed the engine to run of multiple fuels for battlefield versatility. Diesel fuel is pretty closeto the composition of Jet fuel. Just look up the AGT-1500 thats the Abrams powerplant.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
its an embezzlement racket, next they are going to design and build a prototype pistol that has curved barrel that points back to you.

after 56 billion dollars in research and development they are going to scrap the project and claim it was to dangerous because soldiers kept shooting themselves in the face.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
JP-5 and JP-8 are the two fuels the military uses in every single vehicle. Both are derived from Kerosene and are very similar to commercial grade diesel fuel. JP-8 is also mixed with de-icing agents so it will not freeze at high altitude. Both have very high flash points. JP-5 can only be ignited at 100 degrees, JP-8 can only be ignited at 140 degrees.

You can also use both fuels in any civilian diesel engine. They do not burn any hotter than diesel. However JP-8 usually causes some compression issues. JP-5 works perfectly though.

However, a gas turbine engine burns through a lot more fuel than a standard diesel engine. And in that respect, it pumps out a lot more heated exhaust at a faster velocity than an average engine.

Point in case, in 2004 an LCAC with ACU-5 ran over somebody on the beach. Heated air generated by two gas turbines is pushed under the craft to create lift. So the guy was cooked alive.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
In the navy we burnt JP 5 on the minesweeper i was on when out side the US because the navy did not want to carry two different fuels (diesel & JP)on there refueling ships

Many diesels run fine on JP 5
A few have problems with the low lubricating factor of JP 5 and this is fixed by adding a small amount of 30 weight oil (2 to 50)

By the way a M1 Abrams will run on biodiesel B100(Fp130) or syndiesel.(Fp150)
Both are really hard to ignite.

Plus the M1 Abrams tanks have on-board automatic fire suppression equipment to deal with fires.
www.army-guide.com...

You have to research stories on the internet as there are a number of people and groups that put out this type disinformation.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
In the navy we burnt JP 5 on the minesweeper i was on when out side the US because the navy did not want to carry two different fuels (diesel & JP)on there refueling ships

Many diesels run fine on JP 5
A few have problems with the low lubricating factor of JP 5 and this is fixed by adding a small amount of 30 weight oil (2 to 50)

By the way a M1 Abrams will run on biodiesel B100(Fp130) or syndiesel.(Fp150)
Both are really hard to ignite.

Plus the M1 Abrams tanks have on-board automatic fire suppression equipment to deal with fires.
www.army-guide.com...

You have to research stories on the internet as there are a number of people and groups that put out this type disinformation.

But there's something wrong about M1 Abrams' fire suppression equipments: it uses highly toxic halon gases that surprisingly more effective of snuffing out it's crew than extinguishing fire



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by allenidaho
JP-5 and JP-8 are the two fuels the military uses in every single vehicle. Both are derived from Kerosene and are very similar to commercial grade diesel fuel. JP-8 is also mixed with de-icing agents so it will not freeze at high altitude. Both have very high flash points. JP-5 can only be ignited at 100 degrees, JP-8 can only be ignited at 140 degrees.


I can tell you, as a soldier currently in Iraq (and currently on duty I might add
) We use JP8 in everything. I think the gators even use it. LMTVs, Humvees, Kiowas, everything uses it. And that high flashpoint comes in handy when you accidentally overfill a tank and it soaks your boots and immediately light up a cigarette. Still felt a little nervous everytime I flicked it.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks10
reply to post by masonicon
 


You should really do your home work, the turbine engine in the ahbrams will run on a variety of fuels including JP-8( jet fuel), diesel, gasoline, and alcohol.
And your assertion about jet fuel, which is really just kerosene, being to flamablle is rediculous, it is makedly less flamable than either gasoline or alchohol.


Maybe you should do your homework.

The Russians loaded kerosene fuel into their T-90s during initial combat testing in Chechnya, just because it was too cold to use any other logistically availiable fuel. This made them especially vulnerable to rebel RPGs, since kerosene may not be as flamable as gasoline, but it is far more explosive.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
wow... our tank is your beef? there isn't many tanks in the world that could stand toe to toe with it.. and soldiers on the ground? not sure if its declassified yet.. but I remember them testing a laser system out on the Abrams that would melt the enemy's eyes out of the sockets lol.. too bad it was deemed in human or sum such.. it was a joint test with the brits... not sure they may still use it..



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


I served in Iraq, I am a US Marine the Abrams covering our units were running on Diesel. It is was not uncommon during exercises to use them as cover for a short time, I was never burned. They are truly amazing, they excellerate hard were very accurate.

Now to the Russian's that want to knock the US Military...please read this article...brings new meaning to "battle of the bulge"... I have trained with Russian spec ops because I am a Sniper 0318 and they are good tough guys, like our Marine recon, not quite up to par with our Seals...but the average Russian trooper is a joke...

vets4politics.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Reaper2137
 


I have not seen the laser but have seen the effects in the field of the microwave weapon that gets your molecules burning, truly amazing tech...these guys told me it was like a really bad sun tan then after they moved out of the rays range the pain went away. They were completely unable to function within the microwaves taget area...

Though they are mainly used with Humvs, they did test it ontop of a M1...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I'm not sure if its mentioned in there but the vehicle that scared me the most was the big 6 wheel 5 ton trucks. Those tires were like balloons, and when you had to slam on the brakes the whole truck would start bouncing like a ball and flip over on your ass.

I saw two people get killed in one coming back from Fort Hood one year. Those big tired vehicles are not safe in heavy traffic when you have to slam on the brakes.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by fatalwishes
Those big tired vehicles are not safe in heavy traffic when you have to slam on the brakes.


The MRAP is the armored osh kosh that's top heavy. From what I read of what happened in Iraq, if they are up to speed and have to swerve the dang thing will flip over.

The old Deuce and half's 6x6 and 5 ton version was more stable...just non armored.

Before the Iraq War remember the news stories where Army soldiers were saying they had nobody to fix their tanks to even get them to Iraq? Guess they contracted out vehicle maintenance.

DOD had to pour wheel barrows of money to get contractors in various places to keep things together. Early Iraq War photo's showed HMWWV's with bald tires tipped over along the roads. Poor-no maintenance before they even left.

Marine Corps/Navy was the first branch to contract out motor pool maintenance. Army followed then the Air Farce.

Took some mighty large wheel barrows of money to get the Army rolling where it is today. Getting rid of Army GI mechanics now seems to have been huge boondoggled in retrospect. Congress didn't save 1 penny opting for contracted maintenance...it actually lost BILLIONS. Completely lost control of Logistics/Support.

Thank God we have big wheel barrows and many printing presses.

That's the failing of US Army Vehicles. Why they gave up keeping non-computer multi-fuel powertrains as they were cheap and simple....and opted for highly complicated computer controlled powertrains-transmissions.....wow what a stupid thing to throw into the mix. But it did end up forcing the SECDEF to yank other branches funds and give them to the Army.

That aint never happened. risked our national security propping congress's failed contract it out program.

It's ok. Those Defense Contractors all funneled money back to Congress Critters pockets to get them to stop sweating. War and Thieving on all fronts is EASY money in da BANK.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
As a U.S. Army tanker on an abrams, I can tell you diesel was used mainly in training, but switched to jp8 on deployments. And I can tell you one thing, every morning when I woke up and it was dark and frozen outside I was thankful that I had that giant heater/exhaust to stand behind and warm myself up and dry out my clothes or sleeping bag or whatever. Plus it heats up a can of raviloi pretty quick if you poke a hole in it and sit it on the back vents.

The abrams is a beast of a tank, theres a reason its been around for 30 years.But in all seriousness, the Abrams has 3 fuel tanks(2 in front, one big one in the rear). every time we did maneuvers, we would fill up all three of them, and we would have to fill up at least twice a day sometimes 3 times. Imagine the fuel requirements of just a company or battalion sized element. Its not a crime to me what kind of fuel it uses so much as how much fuel it uses.
edit on 4-2-2011 by ghostsoldier78 because: misspelled



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Well! what becomes the epic fail of the US Army vehicles are Stryker because it's too heavy to swim, Air droppable, and C-130 Transportable, it's armor has only partial protection against 14.5mm machinegun rounds, but NOT against the missiles, RPGs, and 20mm~57mm automatic cannons that rule the battlefield where the fact that that rifles firing 20mm shells are now commonplace, and ALREADY POSESSED by threat countries, Rides atop a deadly tinderbox of flammable vulcanized rubber, the solidified state of the base ingredients for LIQUID ROCKET FUEL, it's lower half are vulnerable to even guns that as light as handguns, most of them has only either 12.7m Browning Machine gun or MK19 Automatic Grenade Launcher that fires nothing but Anti Personnel Frag Grenade that flies at subsonic velocity, It's NBC System are outdated for today's standard, and so on



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join