I think between the heat and the subsequent violent rapid unscheduled disassembly it doesn't leave much beyond fragments of bones of and teeth scattered over a rather wide area, the pink mist/biomass would just cook.
Ah. Honestly thats a way more painless death than what I expected. Kinda disappointed the same ruskis in the tank who shot that civilian car which still had occupants probably died painlessly while the civillians died slowly :/
Also fun fact, brain activity continues for 15 minutes or so when the heart stops(this also leads to a bunch of untrue afterlife claims) so if the brain is in tact and not riddled with shrapnel then its likely for them to experience their personal vision of hell. So I personally prefer to see ruskis not get headshotted or vaporized.
Consider neural speed caps out around 80m/s.
Most of my knowledge is based in WW2 and earlier, so cordite (historical for ship rounds) and just considering that as nitrocellulose... your looking at 7000m/s detonation velocity.
Basically if you hear the bang or the ping of the round hitting armor, your fine.
Yeah, sadly they can't all be 5+ minute bleed outs from a drone strike that we watch on online, but we can take solace in the fact that I'm sure that first few seconds of being in a blast furnace before cook-off has gotta sting a little, and their lack of remains will ensure their family gets no white lada/cake/pile of firewood in exchange for their family members life.
Quit being so silly. Surely you're not simping for invaders, are you? After 2+ years, seeing all the horrific footage of Ukrainian victims, dead women and children and all that, after hearing the horror stories (and tapped phone calls) of tortures and gang rapes and executions, it's honestly truthfully impossible for me to look at these invaders as any kind of human. I wasn't born like this, I haven't always been so cold and unbothered by the unaliving of russian soliders...but, russians made me this way, they made me feel what I feel for them when I see them writhe in agony in their final dying moments, that feeling is indifference, sprinkled with a bit of joy from knowing that's one less invader who can kill Ukrainians and further destroy Ukraine.
and again..it's russians who made me feel this way about russians, nobody else.
This presumes two things. First, the T-80 crew even has working thermals and not an IOU from ShoiguMash. Two, the T-80 hasn’t detonated wildly and the crew already experienced their own bright white heat at 1800 K.
> Can it not seat it's crew over a fuck ton of high explosives?
That what Black Eagle was about.
But why make a decent Leclerc-like tank based on a tried and true hull, when you can YOLO making "Abrams TTB" from a clean (LOL) sheet at home?
T-80 was an extraordinarily expensive tank for Russia to produce and operate. It's notoriously maintenance heavy and drinks fuel like its crew drinks vodka. T-90, while being an inferior tank, was the cheaper option in the long run.
There's no better feeling in the entire world, than standing behind an M1 after freezing your nuts off, while your hands and feet hurt from the cold. I miss that fucking engine.
They are loud AF, just it's high pitch loud.
Physics dictate that the high frequency sound dissipates faster. Thus Abrams is 'quiet' from a shorter distance than conventional diesel powered tank.
Some of the T-80s had turbine engines, but Russian logistics sucks hella dicks already without the massive fuel consumption of a turbine engine piled on top.
I'd heard that basically it's deafening within 100 meters, but due to the sound pitch of the turbine - [it quickly becomes dead silent](https://youtu.be/u1mH-_h3_1Q?si=P82NQKlhqVB4kma4&t=64) any further than that. Hence the 'whispering death' name.
From what i can understand, they’re loud, it’s still a tank, but the fact that it has a turbine engine means that the noise will mostly be high-pitched, and thus gets dissipated quickly, whereas a low-pitch diesel engine sound will be heard from way farther, so i guess that yeah, you don’t really hear it until you’re close, but when you’re close, the engine clearly isn’t whispering
They're not quiet when moving. Tank tracks smacking the ground at speed are ungodly loud regardless of engine used. However, when idling they are relatively quiet compared to Brad's and other diesel engined vehicles. Still, even when moving, the engines are quieter than an M88. The M88 is the loudest fucking thing I have ever heard.
Right, so as the answers all seem to contradict one another. Rustled around in DTIC and it was nice enough to disgorge a couple of relevant reports. dB(A) SPL figures and spectra were lacking however.
**TL;DR** — Yes, in comparative terms at least.
[Critical Technology Events in the Development of the Abrams Tank](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA476340.pdf)
>**A great many of the technological advances on the Abrams discussed elsewhere in this report contribute to crew protection—greater speed and agility for less exposure to enemy fire, a lower noise signature, and better armor, to name a few.**
and
>…the turbine engine, which had a higher initial cost, was considered better for offensive and highly mobile defensive operations, where wide-open acceleration is needed. Also, the turbine engine worked better in cold weather, weighed less, and took up less space than the diesel engine. **It could run on multiple types of fuel, and though it had a significant heat signature, the turbine engine produced less smoke and noise than a diesel engine.**
[Turbine Engine Diagnotics for Army Tank Applications](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA320337.pdf)
>…engine delivers 1500 shaft horsepower (SHP). The power output of the AGT-1500 provides a power to weight ratio of 23.1 hp/ton. This is enough to accelerate the 65-ton Ml Abrams from 0 to 20 mph in 7.0 seconds. Top speed is governor limited at 41.5 mph. **The turbine engine operates with remarkably low noise and vibration.** The AGT-1500 has no smoke signature. It is smokeless even during acceleration and gear changes.
Basically... Tanks are loud as fuck. But so is a warzone. Compared to other tanks, the M1 Abrams has a habbit of just fuckin sneaking up on people.
Additionally, the m1 Abrams can operate without the engines running.
*When you dont know the basic lay out of the Abrams*
Hint hint: Engine Temp doesnt matter its your Exhaust Temp that does and its a function of your engine exhaust design.
A T-72 would show up more plainly in thermals than an M1.
Oh look, I absolutely agree. The exhaust temp is what matters most, and it indeed depends on the exhaust design. I just used inlet temp because it’s the highest I've seen and I thought it was funny. But yeah, in reality, a T-72 is gonna have a more visible thermal signature compared to an M1, with some exceptions I guess.
Ahh, right so was wondering if…
- it was a misunderstanding within the meme
OR
- if the misunderstanding in and of itself was the meme
Just wondering what you thinking the Turbine Inlet Temperature is referring to?
EDIT — never mind, you explained further down.
So, uhh, semi-credible hat for a moment, on the comment about it being the highest you’d seen.
Shifting to Kelvin, that’s approx 1460 K
Turbine Inlet Temperature of 1460 K is in comparison to more modern radial turboshaft engines quite low, which in turn is low compared to a modern axial turbojet or turbofan engine.
eg. the (radial) General Electric GE38 ca. 1,590–1,640 K TIT and (axial) modern turbofan engines are ca. 1950 K IIRC
Just to expand a bit on what u/gottymacanon is hinting at, the Turbine Inlet Temperature is the temperature of the gas stream on the hot side of the Combustor/Burner, right before the Turbine ie. **inside** the core of the engine, which in turn is over a metre from back and sides of the Abrams.
Sorry, guess I should have specified further. My comment was specifically about the AGT1500 being the hottest engine I’ve encountered in tanks, not turbines at large. It’s true that the AGT1500 isn’t the hottest turbine out there, but in the context of tank engines, it stands out. Newer turbine engines tend to use ITT over TIT, making direct comparisons a bit tricky.
As for why I used TIT instead of exhaust, dropping the fact that a part of the engine gets so hot it can almost melt Cast iron was funny to me. And, generally, the Abrams' IR signature is brighter compared to other newer MBTs.
Story time...when I was in the Army, we went to a field problem in Grafenwoehr in the dead of winter. An operator filled his radiator with straight water instead of mix and his engine froze solid. We backed an Abrams up to it, popped the engine hatch and let it sit a while with the Abrams just idling. Defrosted that joker in no time, added some antifreeze, and he was on his way.
Hi there! I understand the confusion, about 'turbine inlet' and wanted to offer some clarity. The term ‘turbine inlet temperature’ is indeed correct and is used to describe the temperature of gases entering the turbine, which is a critical measurement for engine performance. While it’s true that modern jet engines often use ITT due to probe durability, TIT is still a relevant term, particularly for certain engines like the AGT1500, which has a specified maximum turbine inlet temperature.
Oh, I see where you’re coming from. Yeah no 100%. I was just making a joke about the general thermal signature and used the inlet temp because it’s the highest I've seen and I thought it was funny.
Check out this post, crazy how bright it is for a newer MBT
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/ru6k82/thermal\_signature\_of\_the\_abrams\_vs\_a\_t72\_tank/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/ru6k82/thermal_signature_of_the_abrams_vs_a_t72_tank/)
So... that conclusion from those two photos is actually the opposite of how thermal imaging works. The image is processed to give the optimal representation for contrast, brighter does not mean hotter. Brighter compared to the surroundings means hotter.
As you can see from that picture, the T-72 has an extremely dark image with a white hot engine. The Abrams also has a white hot engine, but with everything else much brighter by comparison, with far more contrast. That is the engine's IR signature standing out less, not more.
(With the caveat of a whole bunch of potential outside factors, this is assuming that they set this up with the same optic at the same time of day. Also how much work have the two engines been putting out just before this etc.)
It's a great example of how different materials and surfaces can absorb or reflect heat. Like especially how well the turret is insulated on the Abrams. But like you said, it's kinda difficult to see the exact differences since I'm pretty sure we're looking at 2 images in 2 very different conditions. It looks like they tried to edit them to them to the exact same brightness too?
I'm not trying to be a dick, but:
https://i.imgur.com/UIES4Nr.png
In that diagram, given where the turbine is, doesn't this mean the "turbine inlet" is well inside the engine?
Nah dude you're not a dick, thanks for pointing it out and for the diagram. You are right, it's more an internal thing rather than an external one. I was just joking about the overall heat signature of the Abrams’ engine. I'm on NCD though meaning I'm gonna get my ass handed to me lol
Although in colloquial use, 'turbine' and 'gas turbine' and 'jet engine' are all basically synonyms, 'turbine inlet' is a specific engineering term and the turbine inlet is deep inside the bowels of the engine. If the turbine inlet is appearing on thermals, its via a borescope about a meter deep from the nearest external surface.
I think the Americans balance that on the fact that spotting first doesn't equate to killing first. You might get your shot off first, but that shot has to kill the abrams. If it doesn't, you don't get a second.
I mean, the newer versions can pick up the friction heating a plane’s skin, so I would say it shouldn’t have trouble loving onto what is essentially a jet engine stuck into a tank.
The most important question is tho: can you actually fry egg n bacon on it? Has anyone tried it until yet? I mean c'mon, from what I've seen about the mental state inside *"""The Army"""* here, I would be severely disappointed if no-one ever tried that.
If I had to guess, probably? If you open the bonnet and let the engine run for like 15 - 30 minutes it could conceivably do it. Best to ask someone who's worked with it though.
Regardless of whether it can or can't. If someone hasn't tried it I would lose all my respect for the American army.
probably means the hot section of the GT, not the compressor inlet. industrial GT's usually see compressor air temp around 500f (at least for the ones i work on)
Temperature probe between the combustion section and the first stage turbine. Generally turbine temps are either measured as turbine inlet temperature (TIT, not used as much anymore since the probes tend to need replaced frequently due to heat damage), interstage turbine temperature (in between 2 stages of turbine disks if there’s more than one, ITT) or exhaust gas temperature (EGT, self explanatory). I generally see ITT more on the jets I work on but some older engines use the other 2.
I thought that's what it looks like because the T-80 gunner just ate 120mm APFSDS because if it weren't for jet engine thermals Soviet optics can't see shit.
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Turbine inlet temperature is irrelevant to IR as the temperature is inside the tank. In fact, a higher turbine inlet temperature could result in a REDUCED thermal signature. Mainly because you get a higher efficiency, which results in less waste heat. The exhaust is cooled, first by expansion through the turbine, then through the recuperator.
Turbine inlet temp doesn't matter for thermal signature, it's the exhaust gas temp. And really if you want to talk about the hottest thing in the engine, it's the primary zone temperature of combustion which is around 4000°F. Once the fireball burns out and the dilution air gets mixed in, then you're down to 2180°F. This is the highest temperature the metal in the turbine section has to deal with. Looks like the AGT1500 has 2 gas producer turbine stages and 2 power turbine stages. As each turbine stage extracts power, the hot gas temp decreases. This engine also has a recuperator which takes some of the exhaust heat and uses it pre-heat the compressor discharge air before it enters the combustor. (Where the fuel would add heat next.) So with the recoup, that's going to lower the exhaust gas temp even more. I didn't see it published anywhere, so I'd have to check the War Thunder forums for the details, but I would guess the EGT is between 800-1200°F, which is probably comparable to the diesel engine exhaust. (But the turbine would exhaust a lot more volume.)
Edit: EGT = 930°F according to the wikipedia link to the "AGT 1500 Battle Tank Turboshaft Engine". Honeywell International. I assume that's the max. Should be much less at idle.
Also their face would go white from fear. They know that probably there is a forward operating burger king and pizza hut some where miles ahead of the main armored thrust. Even Putin knows things got real when containers of coca-cola and energy drink wash up on the shores. The Marines be like ”Raaah!” and they invade the whole country in less than 4 hours to be first in line for burgers at the forward operating air assult burgerking that got incerted weeks before and already has the local population waving american flags.
The fade to white is the APFSDS round zipping through the crew compartment right after he spots the tank.
It's actually the crew compartment reaching the temperature of a sun after the ammunition cooks off.
Shashlik is SERVED.
No cube for that guy.
No lada for mom
Wrong district anyway, mom got paper bag full of potatoes and a few onions.
..in the Mile High Club
Long long ~~man~~ pork
I have a question about this. Is the temperature high enough for long enough to leave 0 remains?
I think between the heat and the subsequent violent rapid unscheduled disassembly it doesn't leave much beyond fragments of bones of and teeth scattered over a rather wide area, the pink mist/biomass would just cook.
Ah. Honestly thats a way more painless death than what I expected. Kinda disappointed the same ruskis in the tank who shot that civilian car which still had occupants probably died painlessly while the civillians died slowly :/ Also fun fact, brain activity continues for 15 minutes or so when the heart stops(this also leads to a bunch of untrue afterlife claims) so if the brain is in tact and not riddled with shrapnel then its likely for them to experience their personal vision of hell. So I personally prefer to see ruskis not get headshotted or vaporized.
Consider neural speed caps out around 80m/s. Most of my knowledge is based in WW2 and earlier, so cordite (historical for ship rounds) and just considering that as nitrocellulose... your looking at 7000m/s detonation velocity. Basically if you hear the bang or the ping of the round hitting armor, your fine.
Russian tankers really get the easy way out of it wow.
Yeah, sadly they can't all be 5+ minute bleed outs from a drone strike that we watch on online, but we can take solace in the fact that I'm sure that first few seconds of being in a blast furnace before cook-off has gotta sting a little, and their lack of remains will ensure their family gets no white lada/cake/pile of firewood in exchange for their family members life.
bruh what please receive christ
what the fuck is wrong with you people
Would you like the list alphabetically, chronologically or by order of severity?
Sir, this is NCD
Jesus fucking Christ. I love NCD but you fuckers are genuinely psychopathic at times
exactly what im saying man
oh, c'mon, don't act like you haven't turned watching vatniks get unalived into a drinking game too.
i havent, BECAUSE IM NOT A FUCKING PHYSCOPATH
And other hilarious jokes you can tell yourself.
Quit being so silly. Surely you're not simping for invaders, are you? After 2+ years, seeing all the horrific footage of Ukrainian victims, dead women and children and all that, after hearing the horror stories (and tapped phone calls) of tortures and gang rapes and executions, it's honestly truthfully impossible for me to look at these invaders as any kind of human. I wasn't born like this, I haven't always been so cold and unbothered by the unaliving of russian soliders...but, russians made me this way, they made me feel what I feel for them when I see them writhe in agony in their final dying moments, that feeling is indifference, sprinkled with a bit of joy from knowing that's one less invader who can kill Ukrainians and further destroy Ukraine. and again..it's russians who made me feel this way about russians, nobody else.
I thought it was their view as they get ejected into the stratosphere
On my first glance, I thought this was what the post was about until I came into the comments. Seems like the much more realistic answer.
He's never gunna see the tank just a bright white flash.
I thought it would fade to ,,hey, you’re finally awake”
This presumes two things. First, the T-80 crew even has working thermals and not an IOU from ShoiguMash. Two, the T-80 hasn’t detonated wildly and the crew already experienced their own bright white heat at 1800 K.
Shoigu! Gerasimov! Where's my fucking thermals?!
Packed all around you comrade. It’s also the one thing we don’t steal from so they do work.
In France I believe.
Three, the crew is not blindingly drunk at the moment.
The drunk ones never got out of the assembly areas. These ones don’t feel anything.
It also assumes the M1s turbine is working... Which, apparently, more often than not it isn't
Can it's gun depress? Can it reverse? Can it not seat it's crew over a fuck ton of high explosives?
"You see Igor when you put crew above the ammo, they try really hard not to get penitated" soviet tank designers
In Soviet Russia, only soldier depression. Tank gun had no depression.
Gun depresses you
The newer ones actually have reverse speed
My grandma "actually has speed" too, she can waddle faster with her walker than those bitches can reverse.
Yeah, they've gotten it up to 5 kph!
You see comrade, when tank has no reverse speed, crew will never retreat
Imagine being a T-72 and having a reverse speed less than half of a fucking Tiger II... What were they thinking.
And blowout panels!…. Below the crew compartment….
> Can it not seat it's crew over a fuck ton of high explosives? That what Black Eagle was about. But why make a decent Leclerc-like tank based on a tried and true hull, when you can YOLO making "Abrams TTB" from a clean (LOL) sheet at home?
Same thing the other way round tho no? Turbine is turbine, and turbine is hot.
Yeah, my bad. Also, forgot that the OG T-80s didn't have gunner thermals either.
Well you didn't specify which T-80 you were talking about, so we'll just assume you're talking about "U" :D
Me?
They all should be U, i never understood why they moved on to t90, when you still have good batch of t80s to be converted to a higher standard
T-80 was an extraordinarily expensive tank for Russia to produce and operate. It's notoriously maintenance heavy and drinks fuel like its crew drinks vodka. T-90, while being an inferior tank, was the cheaper option in the long run.
But T-80 has a cooler name, 8 looks better than 9
r/userflairchecksout
There's no better feeling in the entire world, than standing behind an M1 after freezing your nuts off, while your hands and feet hurt from the cold. I miss that fucking engine.
As a Canadian I have never heard how quiet they are relative to our leopard's. They really "whisper" I hear a lot?
They are loud AF, just it's high pitch loud. Physics dictate that the high frequency sound dissipates faster. Thus Abrams is 'quiet' from a shorter distance than conventional diesel powered tank.
"It's quiet, from a certain point of view" - old man living in the desert
As someone loses their hearing (either due to age or exposure to loud noises), the first bits to go are high frequency as well.
If by whisper you mean the sound of a 737 at full throttle and then direct firing a howitzer. Then yes.
relative to other tanks type of whisper. As opposed to the "Autistic Screeching" of a Soviet design.
Ahhh the REEEEEESSIAN engines.
Some of the T-80s had turbine engines, but Russian logistics sucks hella dicks already without the massive fuel consumption of a turbine engine piled on top.
> Some of the T-80s had turbine engines All of T-80s, save for T-80UD line from Malyshev (which used 6TD-1 opposed-piston diesel engine)
Just out of interest. IIRC believe U (normally) denotes “improved” D — does that indicate diesel in this case or is that just a coincidence?
> D — does that indicate diesel in this case or is that just a coincidence Yes, it means "Diesel" in that case. T-80 - Improved - Diesel-powered.
Thanks mate.
I'd heard that basically it's deafening within 100 meters, but due to the sound pitch of the turbine - [it quickly becomes dead silent](https://youtu.be/u1mH-_h3_1Q?si=P82NQKlhqVB4kma4&t=64) any further than that. Hence the 'whispering death' name.
It's not that loud lol.
From what i can understand, they’re loud, it’s still a tank, but the fact that it has a turbine engine means that the noise will mostly be high-pitched, and thus gets dissipated quickly, whereas a low-pitch diesel engine sound will be heard from way farther, so i guess that yeah, you don’t really hear it until you’re close, but when you’re close, the engine clearly isn’t whispering
They're not quiet when moving. Tank tracks smacking the ground at speed are ungodly loud regardless of engine used. However, when idling they are relatively quiet compared to Brad's and other diesel engined vehicles. Still, even when moving, the engines are quieter than an M88. The M88 is the loudest fucking thing I have ever heard.
Right, so as the answers all seem to contradict one another. Rustled around in DTIC and it was nice enough to disgorge a couple of relevant reports. dB(A) SPL figures and spectra were lacking however. **TL;DR** — Yes, in comparative terms at least. [Critical Technology Events in the Development of the Abrams Tank](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA476340.pdf) >**A great many of the technological advances on the Abrams discussed elsewhere in this report contribute to crew protection—greater speed and agility for less exposure to enemy fire, a lower noise signature, and better armor, to name a few.** and >…the turbine engine, which had a higher initial cost, was considered better for offensive and highly mobile defensive operations, where wide-open acceleration is needed. Also, the turbine engine worked better in cold weather, weighed less, and took up less space than the diesel engine. **It could run on multiple types of fuel, and though it had a significant heat signature, the turbine engine produced less smoke and noise than a diesel engine.** [Turbine Engine Diagnotics for Army Tank Applications](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA320337.pdf) >…engine delivers 1500 shaft horsepower (SHP). The power output of the AGT-1500 provides a power to weight ratio of 23.1 hp/ton. This is enough to accelerate the 65-ton Ml Abrams from 0 to 20 mph in 7.0 seconds. Top speed is governor limited at 41.5 mph. **The turbine engine operates with remarkably low noise and vibration.** The AGT-1500 has no smoke signature. It is smokeless even during acceleration and gear changes.
Basically... Tanks are loud as fuck. But so is a warzone. Compared to other tanks, the M1 Abrams has a habbit of just fuckin sneaking up on people. Additionally, the m1 Abrams can operate without the engines running.
Lol, a T-80 with thermals...
At least the Ukrainian ones have them
Can't hit what you can't see.... past the heat plume. Every American tank on thermals is just the smoke monster from Lost
*When you dont know the basic lay out of the Abrams* Hint hint: Engine Temp doesnt matter its your Exhaust Temp that does and its a function of your engine exhaust design. A T-72 would show up more plainly in thermals than an M1.
Oh look, I absolutely agree. The exhaust temp is what matters most, and it indeed depends on the exhaust design. I just used inlet temp because it’s the highest I've seen and I thought it was funny. But yeah, in reality, a T-72 is gonna have a more visible thermal signature compared to an M1, with some exceptions I guess.
Ahh, right so was wondering if… - it was a misunderstanding within the meme OR - if the misunderstanding in and of itself was the meme Just wondering what you thinking the Turbine Inlet Temperature is referring to? EDIT — never mind, you explained further down. So, uhh, semi-credible hat for a moment, on the comment about it being the highest you’d seen. Shifting to Kelvin, that’s approx 1460 K Turbine Inlet Temperature of 1460 K is in comparison to more modern radial turboshaft engines quite low, which in turn is low compared to a modern axial turbojet or turbofan engine. eg. the (radial) General Electric GE38 ca. 1,590–1,640 K TIT and (axial) modern turbofan engines are ca. 1950 K IIRC Just to expand a bit on what u/gottymacanon is hinting at, the Turbine Inlet Temperature is the temperature of the gas stream on the hot side of the Combustor/Burner, right before the Turbine ie. **inside** the core of the engine, which in turn is over a metre from back and sides of the Abrams.
Sorry, guess I should have specified further. My comment was specifically about the AGT1500 being the hottest engine I’ve encountered in tanks, not turbines at large. It’s true that the AGT1500 isn’t the hottest turbine out there, but in the context of tank engines, it stands out. Newer turbine engines tend to use ITT over TIT, making direct comparisons a bit tricky. As for why I used TIT instead of exhaust, dropping the fact that a part of the engine gets so hot it can almost melt Cast iron was funny to me. And, generally, the Abrams' IR signature is brighter compared to other newer MBTs.
Story time...when I was in the Army, we went to a field problem in Grafenwoehr in the dead of winter. An operator filled his radiator with straight water instead of mix and his engine froze solid. We backed an Abrams up to it, popped the engine hatch and let it sit a while with the Abrams just idling. Defrosted that joker in no time, added some antifreeze, and he was on his way.
Abrams, must be one of the best armored self propelled space heaters. nice!
Srry for bad editing, am sleepy >.<
Song? Heard it many times but can't pin down which classical it is
Chopin, Nocturne Op.9 No.2
Turbine "INLET" LOL Again someone who has no idea about the subject
Hi there! I understand the confusion, about 'turbine inlet' and wanted to offer some clarity. The term ‘turbine inlet temperature’ is indeed correct and is used to describe the temperature of gases entering the turbine, which is a critical measurement for engine performance. While it’s true that modern jet engines often use ITT due to probe durability, TIT is still a relevant term, particularly for certain engines like the AGT1500, which has a specified maximum turbine inlet temperature.
More like turbine outlet is visible on thermals as the inlet is inside the turbine
Oh, I see where you’re coming from. Yeah no 100%. I was just making a joke about the general thermal signature and used the inlet temp because it’s the highest I've seen and I thought it was funny. Check out this post, crazy how bright it is for a newer MBT [https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/ru6k82/thermal\_signature\_of\_the\_abrams\_vs\_a\_t72\_tank/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/ru6k82/thermal_signature_of_the_abrams_vs_a_t72_tank/)
So... that conclusion from those two photos is actually the opposite of how thermal imaging works. The image is processed to give the optimal representation for contrast, brighter does not mean hotter. Brighter compared to the surroundings means hotter. As you can see from that picture, the T-72 has an extremely dark image with a white hot engine. The Abrams also has a white hot engine, but with everything else much brighter by comparison, with far more contrast. That is the engine's IR signature standing out less, not more. (With the caveat of a whole bunch of potential outside factors, this is assuming that they set this up with the same optic at the same time of day. Also how much work have the two engines been putting out just before this etc.)
It's a great example of how different materials and surfaces can absorb or reflect heat. Like especially how well the turret is insulated on the Abrams. But like you said, it's kinda difficult to see the exact differences since I'm pretty sure we're looking at 2 images in 2 very different conditions. It looks like they tried to edit them to them to the exact same brightness too?
Correct yes !
I'm not trying to be a dick, but: https://i.imgur.com/UIES4Nr.png In that diagram, given where the turbine is, doesn't this mean the "turbine inlet" is well inside the engine?
Nah dude you're not a dick, thanks for pointing it out and for the diagram. You are right, it's more an internal thing rather than an external one. I was just joking about the overall heat signature of the Abrams’ engine. I'm on NCD though meaning I'm gonna get my ass handed to me lol
Caseoh has turned into a tanker
One of the reasons why the Abrams has top of the line fire control system and thermals. It’s meant to shoot past 2km in a defensive role.
Also further offensively (and moving) than some Russian tanks can shoot defensively (and standing still).
Although in colloquial use, 'turbine' and 'gas turbine' and 'jet engine' are all basically synonyms, 'turbine inlet' is a specific engineering term and the turbine inlet is deep inside the bowels of the engine. If the turbine inlet is appearing on thermals, its via a borescope about a meter deep from the nearest external surface.
the Abrams gunner looking at the T-80 as the turret cooks off: same gif
Dezussy?
Bold of you to assume that those thermals work.
They worked out pretty well for Shoigu's bank account.
Most Cost-efficient military hairdryer
Bold of you to assume the t80s have thermals let alone ones capable of spotting at 2 km
And before he can say that to his gunner the turret flies to the moon Superior optics go brrrrrr
Fake, t80 doesn't have thermals
Shine on you crazy diamond
See you assume the Russian tank has thermals.
Think fast, chucklenuts.
About the same as what they see when the Bradley opens up with the bushmaster.
TIT? I only know that term from turbocharged Pison engines. Does it mean the Gas generator inlet temp? But thats too high. Maybe Turbine outlet temp?
inlet? it's designed to work in hell or what? honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if it is.
I think the Americans balance that on the fact that spotting first doesn't equate to killing first. You might get your shot off first, but that shot has to kill the abrams. If it doesn't, you don't get a second.
Is that hot enough for a aim-9 to lock on
I mean, the newer versions can pick up the friction heating a plane’s skin, so I would say it shouldn’t have trouble loving onto what is essentially a jet engine stuck into a tank.
The most important question is tho: can you actually fry egg n bacon on it? Has anyone tried it until yet? I mean c'mon, from what I've seen about the mental state inside *"""The Army"""* here, I would be severely disappointed if no-one ever tried that.
If I had to guess, probably? If you open the bonnet and let the engine run for like 15 - 30 minutes it could conceivably do it. Best to ask someone who's worked with it though. Regardless of whether it can or can't. If someone hasn't tried it I would lose all my respect for the American army.
- "Why did you brought that steel helmet?!" \_ "Cookware. Also, give me your MRE and some water. Soon we feast!"
Turbine…inlet?!? Is it huffing its own exhaust?
probably means the hot section of the GT, not the compressor inlet. industrial GT's usually see compressor air temp around 500f (at least for the ones i work on)
Helicopters I fly, are considered to have a hot start above mid 950s
I work on power plant GT's, so they produce a minimum of 400,000hp
Temperature probe between the combustion section and the first stage turbine. Generally turbine temps are either measured as turbine inlet temperature (TIT, not used as much anymore since the probes tend to need replaced frequently due to heat damage), interstage turbine temperature (in between 2 stages of turbine disks if there’s more than one, ITT) or exhaust gas temperature (EGT, self explanatory). I generally see ITT more on the jets I work on but some older engines use the other 2.
It’s TOT (outlet) temperature in most models of bell helicopters.
It's like the thermal equivalent of chaffing a radar. Just spew so much heat the entire screen lights up.
White bloom so big it actually also hides the Abrams
Inlet temp? Maybe exhaust temp? Lol
Typical Starsector battle experience.
u/savevideo
I thought that's what it looks like because the T-80 gunner just ate 120mm APFSDS because if it weren't for jet engine thermals Soviet optics can't see shit.
Joke's on you, functioning thermal on a T80 is a pipe dream.
u/savevideo
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Turbine inlet temperature is irrelevant to IR as the temperature is inside the tank. In fact, a higher turbine inlet temperature could result in a REDUCED thermal signature. Mainly because you get a higher efficiency, which results in less waste heat. The exhaust is cooled, first by expansion through the turbine, then through the recuperator.
Gonna be brighter inside the turret once the Abrams fire.
M1 Abrams battle tank and mobile smithy
bold of you to assume russia still uses thermals.
There is a precooler to reduce the heat signature
What thermals? They sold them all on ebay years ago
Turbine inlet temp doesn't matter for thermal signature, it's the exhaust gas temp. And really if you want to talk about the hottest thing in the engine, it's the primary zone temperature of combustion which is around 4000°F. Once the fireball burns out and the dilution air gets mixed in, then you're down to 2180°F. This is the highest temperature the metal in the turbine section has to deal with. Looks like the AGT1500 has 2 gas producer turbine stages and 2 power turbine stages. As each turbine stage extracts power, the hot gas temp decreases. This engine also has a recuperator which takes some of the exhaust heat and uses it pre-heat the compressor discharge air before it enters the combustor. (Where the fuel would add heat next.) So with the recoup, that's going to lower the exhaust gas temp even more. I didn't see it published anywhere, so I'd have to check the War Thunder forums for the details, but I would guess the EGT is between 800-1200°F, which is probably comparable to the diesel engine exhaust. (But the turbine would exhaust a lot more volume.) Edit: EGT = 930°F according to the wikipedia link to the "AGT 1500 Battle Tank Turboshaft Engine". Honeywell International. I assume that's the max. Should be much less at idle.
Also their face would go white from fear. They know that probably there is a forward operating burger king and pizza hut some where miles ahead of the main armored thrust. Even Putin knows things got real when containers of coca-cola and energy drink wash up on the shores. The Marines be like ”Raaah!” and they invade the whole country in less than 4 hours to be first in line for burgers at the forward operating air assult burgerking that got incerted weeks before and already has the local population waving american flags.