You've done at least one video on a vehicle concept in the past (some preposterous laser zapping afv from Israel) so I wanted to render a suggestion for another, more viable concept that hasn't materialized: the *XM2001 Crusader* edit: ruclips.net/video/qe8FMvEHa94/видео.html
@@HaroldWilsonsGhost By the time we have a technology that can store electric energy in a density that is comparable to diesel fuel or gas, and can also be made in useful quantities at prices comparable to the rest of the machine, tanks may have become obsolete, the same way battleships did. This is how far we are from properly storing electricity.
@@Tequilla449 electric has other benefits, silence is probably the most useful, even if you only had battery for 10 miles, the ability to sneek for 10 miles could be very advantageous plus you get rid of idle fuel consumption.
@@Tequilla449 and when tanks become obsolete, you've now got a much better power system to use in other vehicles that you know, are still not obsolete, like troop carriers, IFVs, secondary systems to planes, helicopters and stuff that we already use electricity for such as mobile devices and individual electrical systems for troopers. Tanks aren't the only thing that can benefit from electrics.
@@user-pq9gy3fq1q The power consumption of electronics is nothing compared to an electric motor. An average phone uses a 4000mAh battery, and can last for, say, 10 hours of heavy use, which means it draws 400mAs when it's on. Most phones run on 3.7V, but let's say it's military grade, so it runs on 5V. That means its power requirement is 5V*400mA = 2'000mW, or 2W, which is way higher than a normal phone, but it was easy to calculate. In comparison a Tesla Model S has two motors, their combined power is 615kW, or 615'000W, but during normal use that could average out to around 100'000kW, which is still 50'000 times more power, than what our example phone needed. And this is just a car. Not a tank, not an APC, not even a truck. It's not that elecric motors aren't great, but once you unplug them from the wall socket, there is no good way to store power for them. The energy density of a lithium ion battery isaround 100~160W/kg. For diesel fuel, it's around 13'000, so you'd need about 100 times more "fuel" to be able to provide the same amount of energy for a vehicle. And more fuel means more mass, and more mass needs more fuel, and more fuel means more mass... you get the point. Remember how the Germans left behind so many tanks during WWII because they ran out of fuel? Now imagine how awkward it would be to leave behind an electric military vehicle, because the battery ran out, and you can't afford to wait 6~10 hours to recharge it. I guess what I'm trying to say is "don't force a new technology into a role, when it's not even better than the current one". And sorry if I sound a bit condescending, I didn't get enough sleep last night.
Also an advantage is the heat signature would be smaller. edit Have a look at the power rating of a Leopard ! tank versus the power rating of electric truck motors.
I doubt it - It would need a pretty big electric motor or a few electric motors to movie an armored vehicle that weighs in at a few tonnes. You'd have to run so much voltage through it, its bound to create a lot of heat somewhere, Not only do these electric motors need to carry themselves - they need to carry the entire tank with all its occupants and tank shells and a hybrid system for movement will just add a lot more weight not to mention it can overcomplicate things when it comes to field repairs and stuff.. Not to forget ground resistances of course. I think Hybrids have a place - Just not on the battlefield. The best way to stop military vehicles polluting the AO - is to have no wars. No wars = no mobilization of vehicle or armored units.
Yeah. I mean its not as if a hybrid motor has any moving parts or anything that needs to move 60-80+ metric tonnes of armor, weapons and personnel. really looking forward to these ghost tanks.
We can use "Solid State Battery" They: -have longer life span -can handle higher voltage -can store more power -are safer than lithium And other stuff that I don't remember
@@natedunn51 when introduced to mass market, price is guranteed to be far less, as they are made from silicates (which is everywhere) rather than using Cobalt or lithium (some of the rarest metals on the planet)
There are quite a few more advantages: An electric tank could be idling for maybe days without needing an APU to power the systems. Then there is ease of maintainance or the lack of thermal emission. It could also have motors in every wheel allowing completely new aproaches for configuration and layout. Battery tech is making massive strides and electric tanks WILL be a thing.
I worked on the LiON batteries for the initial trials of hybrid systems for the Bradley, M1, LAV, a few light wheeled vehicles, and others 20 years ago. Hybrid systems showed great promise, but as you pointed out, they are not without their drawbacks. space and weight are not as big a drawback on a hybrid system as the fuel savings truly can have them replacing some of the fuel tank. "Whisper mode" as it was called back then definitely has it's advantages for scouting vehicles. All that said, in addition to the issues you pointed out (which make pure electric tanks a pure fallacy of judgement), high power industrial batteries are not immune to enemy fire. Energy is energy, and hitting one of these battery packs with even the smallest piece of shrapnel will result in a crew lethality event that makes a Sherman look downright fireproof.
@@joseffliegl4167 The Henschel Tiger was pretty well known for setting itself on fire due to leaking fuel systems. Where did you hear about Elefants having that problem? Not that they didn't have problems, I just never heard of then having that one.
I think the ideal solution for military vehicles short term would be a fairly small battery pack, coupled with modular turbine power packs. Even better, several of each. Now you have the light weight of a turbine with the efficiency and torque of an electric motor. This is what we're doing for ships. It also allows for multi axle vehicles without complex drive trains, or even motor in wheel designs. Such vehicles are hard to disable as they have redundancy in the propulsion system. You also get next level traction and control, as with a motor per wheel you are not compromised by your choice of diff. Having the ability to drive short distances nearly silently can also be a real advantage, bringing heavy firepower without losing the element of surprise.
I know that when it comes to trains there is the need for a gearbox but none have been built that can handle the torque of a powerful electric engine without breaking. That is why trains that go very fast accelerate very slowly because it needs a high top speed, and that is also why freight locomotives are slower as it's more important to have the power to pull heavy loads. I suspect there is a similar problem with electric engines on other vehicles.
Trains accelerate slowly because of two reasons. Wheel slip and passenger comfort. If the track is not high speed, you also have to account individual speed restrictions ahead (doesn't make sense to go at 200 when you have a bend 8km ahead with max160 allowed...). Cargo trains don't brake very well and that is the main reason why they don't go fast. There are normally no electric brakes on freight wagons.
Imagine next generation of the S-tank (strv 103) as a diesel-electric hybrid. It would make the tank cold, with no IR-signature. The idea is not to run on battery power. The idea is to lye dormant under electrical power to just run turret control, sights, radio and so on. And when on the move, you use the on-board diesel. But you end up with a stealth-tank you can hide for use in an ambush. (Just like the 103 was designed for originally, but now addressing every aspect making the old version obsolete today) You put the batteries outside the tank, adding to the tanks Armour, potentially instead off the fuel tanks hanging over the tracks of the tank.
Much more efficient, so lower logistics cost, huge torque, lower maintenance, low IR signature, ability to power other things like e.g. electric armour. It doesn't have to be all-electric - could be hybrid.
Electric motors are much smaller than ICEs, and batteries are versatile as to where you put them, so the use of space could be radically different from current designs. Cost of operation would be lower, reliability would be higher, maintainance would be reduced, the tank would be quieter, etc etc.
Ginger Biscuit i seriously doubt reliability would be higher, in fact, i think it significantly worse to the point of being impractical unless you are considering a hybrid. Batteries are not tools designed for heavy intensive use and you gonna lose a lot of energy if those things heat up.
@@user-pq4by2rq9y Electric cars have offered plenty of data about reliability. There are far fewer moving parts and that makes them much more reliable. Battery packs can be designed for heavy use (i.e. high power output) and are working successfully for everything from those huge house-sized dump trucks in open cast mines to buses and trucks.
One prototype of the M1A3 apparently replaces the steel track with a continuous cable belted rubber track, and eliminates the entire transmission system (which is HUGE) with an ultra high RPM generator directly coupled to the small Gas Turbine. The room where the transmission was, contains a battery system, and 4 electric motors. One motor on each corner of the tank to provide redundancy. The turbine would be able to allow the tank to drive at full power, with a 50% increase in range from increased efficiency. Also, you can shut down the turbine and run off the batteries for roughly 20 miles for stealthy short range operations at night. With the advent of new composite armor, and the possibility of replacing the main gun with a 3" (75mm) rail gun using lighter ammo, the tank would have an operating weight around 60 tons or less, instead of over 70 tons like it is now. The rail gun would also provide the tank the ability to penetrate every know type of armor from hyper-velocity rounds with a combat range of up to 15 miles.
The electric hybrid is how most Trains run, and have run since the mid twentieth century. They have more efficient electro-motive systems, using a a diesel engine to run a generator that powers electric motors that drive the wheels. I think this would be an excellent idea for tanks. Also a pure EMD system does not use or require batteries. They are used in trains because of instant torque, and fuel efficiency. A constant speed EMD diesel system uses less fuel than a pure diesel powered locomotive or ship engine. I imagine that same efficiency would translate to a tank.
It's been done. The U.S. military had a "heavy hybrid" Bradley IFV back in the 1990s. The idea was to reduce the heat signature of the vehicle on approach to its target, and it worked. Modern batteries and motors should make such drive systems for any vehicle a LOT more feasible nowadays.
Turkey produced its first electric driven armored vehicle. The next step is to build a electric motor with 1500 horse power and turkey started to develope and design them
You can't just "swap" anything out of an armored vehicle during a unit movement except for the "smaller" equipment i.e., gear which can be adjusted on the move (coaxials, missiles, communications gear, and so on). The primary source of power for a thirty ton vehicle isn't one of those small things. Now let's say you have a "hot refuel" scheduled during a Troop movement. Your track's crew will be entirely involved with reloading essentials so your Platoon or Troop can be back under way as quickly as possible. You aren't doing that with a few tons of batteries being yanked from of each vehicle. As of now a Track pulls up next to a HEMTT with the engine running, the Driver and TC jump out of their hatches, grab the hose, and pumps fuel into the track for 90 or so seconds, as the rest of the crew does their thing, and the track gets back under way as fast as is possible (90 seconds per track is the goal).
My guess would be that the big win in military emissions would be in carbon capture to offset fuel consumption, and improved vehicle power plant efficiency. The big advantage of hybrids is that you can run your engine in the efficiency band most of the time, even during off-peak consumption. We all know that the Abrams engine is actually quite efficient at full load; a hybridized Abrams could use the generator to pull off any horsepower not being used by the system into the batteries, and switch it off while running on batteries alone, basically forming the tank equivalent of a Prius configuration. You would ditch part of the transmission and have steering and braking operate using the drive motors, and probably reverse as well. Smaller mechanical brakes would be required since they would only be used in the event of motor failure or very slow speed, otherwise dynamic braking would be used. A single motor-generator would provide power for the motors and act as a starter for the turbine. Then you could use the more robust electrical system to replace the hydraulic system with a set of electro-hydrostatic actuators (already commonly used in airlines) to reduce the need for central hydraulics; combined with probably dropping the hydraulic steering system since differential motor drive can be used, we could have a tank with no need for a central reservoir at all and a vastly reduced set of hydraulic lines, cutting down even more weight. Going all-in on the electrical system means easy incorporation of electrothermal-chemical rounds, LASER and MASER emitters, sensors, automatic defense systems, etc.
The main issue right now with high performance lithium ion batteries is: if damaged, they will burn hot and long. If you use large battery packs all around the vehicle it would be a huge fire hazard. You can’t extinguish Battery fires, the tank would be doomed. Once Solid Batteries are a thing this would change. They are more efficient, much smaller, and are solid blocks of a metal alloy that can’t burn. Things that would be removed: Engine, APU, Fuel Tanks. These take about ~40% of internal volume of a tank. A electric engine is much smaller than a Diesel engine / Turbine, so there would be a lot of free Space in the back of the tank for the Batteries. Take a look at the Tesla Truck. While it’s not an MBT and still uses liquid batteries, it demonstrates how small the electric engine and battery pack could be for a 40T vehicle. Solid batteries can be used everywhere on an MBT, where the apu was, instead of fuel tanks, inside the crew compartment, inside armor, outside the tank as NERA blocks. They are just metal alloy blocks after all. Outside the tank also has the advantage that you could mount more to increase range, increase protection, while making them hot swappable. Further pros: - Noise reduction -> Crew can operate more effectively + enemies can’t hear it as well (urban combat) - Heat reduction: Idle electric motors does not produce a visible heat signature (+Survivalbility against IR weapons +Concealment against IR sights) - Instant Power deliver to drive wheels: Faster acceleration - Reduced Fire hazard (No more engine / fuel fires) - much smaller engine reduces risk of being immobilized by a hit - No engine start up time (for normal tanks this can be 1-2min) - No energy wasted when Idle - Could be used to power nearby Units (other tanks, Air Defence, Tents, Tools ...) Cons: - More expensive in R&D and production - Requires a restructured supply chain - less reliable in harsh conditions (temperatures) - currently more difficult to recharge - not field tested (reliability)
I once worked on a Maine Lobster boat powered by some kind of Bio Diesel engine. Literally smelled like burgers and frys on the deck of the boat all day while we worked.
Ooooh, something I actually have a bit of knowledge on! Okay, so there's a couple different components at play here. There's a couple of things that are sort of run together in these discussions I think are worth separating out: A lot of modern 'hybrid' engines are effectively engines with an electric motor bolted onto the shaft so it can be driven with one or the other or both. They gain efficiency by optimizing when one or the other is turned on and what ratios of power are provided by what system. This is a lot more complexity than I think is worth implementation. An electric drive train with a fuel based generator seems like the way to go for this, which is closer to what's been done before. The fuel is fed into a generator of some kind, which produces electrical power, which is then fed into an electric motor which drives the vehicle. There's a couple of main advantages to this, as mentioned by Matsimus, electric motors tend to produce a massive amount of torque at low speeds, which is when you need it (power is needed to accelerate the vehicle and overcome losses, once you reach top speed, you don't need to accelerate anymore). The drive train itself also becomes much much simpler, as it turns into a drive motor, a cooling system, a reduction gear box, and the output sprocket, everything else can be remote and moved where ever it needs to be or is easier to access. IIRC, the Tesla has a 10:1 reducer on its motors, so if we take that as an example, a 15:1 to a 20:1 of the same size would probably be viable (although there's a lot of customization that goes into those motors that might save space, cost, or lifespan). The two can also be physically separated so that the power plant can be swapped out as needed without dismantling the drive system, or vice versa. Electric motors tend to have a lot less maintenance and cooling/lube requirements because they don't have nearly as many moving contact parts, just the bearings at both ends of the shaft. The power electronics don't have a lot of moving parts either, any generator system likely will, but not having to be aligned with the drive system gives you a bit more wiggle room on it, as well as being able to upgrade those parts incrementally or put them in multiple locations for power supply redundancy. Batteries seem more useful as load levelers (allowing the engine to operate at its preferred speeds/torques to improve efficiency) and 'engine off' operations where the vehicle won't be required to move but the various systems will still need an ample reservoir of power. Or possibly to operate underwater or silently for a little bit of time. The energy density of fuel is just too good to pass up for for the cross country and undeveloped environments they'll see. I do think it's also worth mentioning the difference between poly-phase and cross over DC, both of which see decent industrial use. Cross over DC is what diesel electric trains seem to favor, as their ability to produce low end torque is absurd. The rotor and stator are energized with DC, and they can be powered in series or parallel depending on whether low end torque or high speed efficiency is needed, but they have a commutator and brushes which means more wear parts. Poly-phase (usually 3 phase) are the more common systems due to the fact that they don't require a commutator and brush, so the only contact is the bearings. They can also have integrated speed control by having multiple winding connections similar to the cross over DC, although I don't recall what that does to efficiency.
You can absolutely fit a battery, the same way you can fit a battery in a sedan: you replace the engine. EVs generally have the same footprint and more internal volume than their ICE counterparts, because while the batteries are much bigger than the fuel tank, they're smaller than the engine, and the electric motors have basically negligible size. It's possible the trend would be different for armor, but I don't see why it would be; much of the tank's volume is dedicated to their massive engines. The EV powertrain is still much heavier than an ICE. Another advantage you didn't mention would be redundancy. An electric tank could take a round through it's batteries and keep going, because batteries come in cells, and each cell operates independently of every other cell. To maximize redundancy, you could install the tank with many smaller electric motors, which would be just as efficient as a single big motor. Combined with the ability to move all of the batteries to the bottom of the vehicle where they're least vulnerable, and the drive on electric armor would be effectively impossible to knock out. Finally, there is a way to get power without transporting fuel, and that's solar. A 2400 kilowatt solar system, which could charge the example 30 ton in one hour, would weigh around 100 metric tonnes. This is heavy and hard to transport, but it should be doable, and would only need to be transported to a forward outpost once. This power could also potentially be beamed to the field through microwave power transmission, although with some loss, which would probably be the best way to recharge vehicles unable to RTB.
4 года назад+11
Now we just need to arm those electrical tanks with a recording of Thunberg screaming "How dare you" at enemies still using diesel.
From engineer's POV, greatest advantages of diesel-electric armored vehicles is increased survivability and freedom in equipment placement... 1-One problem with IFV/APCs is you can't put engine in rear without having usability problems for mounting/unmounting troops (BMP-3 included), and you can't have thick armor in front if the engine and gearbox is there.. With diesel-electric, designers can put electric motors at the back so there is still a room for a rear door between them, and position diesel generator(s) above the tracks.. They would double as side armor for crew inside, and can have a very thick, tank-like armor at front... 2- Current armored vehicles use a large diesel engine and a gearbox; a series system in which a single failure at any point can immobilize the tank... Its also deemed impractical to run that large engine all the time, so they also carry an APU, which is useless weight for moving the tank around.. This is a flawed system. A diesel-electric vehicle can use several electric motors (8 motors in 8x8 APC), and can have two smaller diesel-generators instead of a large engine.. Technically, vehicle will be road-mobile with only 1 electric motor and no zero diesel power.. This is an impressive redundancy... Having 2 small engines seem like a bad idea (and it was on likes of BTR-60), but since electric motors are driving the vehicle from battery, and diesel engines are doing the charging, only 1 would be needed for 99% of the real-life scenarios.. When is the last time you saw a tank running at full power for 30 minutes in a real war zone? They are mostly glorified mobile gun platforms supporting infantry, or firing their guns from prepared positions, going back an forth perhaps 20 meters.. In real life, only one engine will ever need replacements or overhaul.. 3- While the armor thickness wouldn't cut it, most conventional IFV/APCs can protect its crew from RPG impacts taken to engine or gearbox, but they will be immobilized. With diesel-electric, designers can put the engine in front for extra layer of protection, and still be able to move the vehicle with battery power if the electric motors are elsewhere; like in wheel hubs.. 4- Battery's weight volume is not a clear disadvantage.. They could be put in empty spaces between armor layers, and soft battery types can also be designed to act as NERA to a degree.. These are very clear advantages... Unless some magical batteries with 100-fold energy density are invented, there will never be all-electric Tanks... However I am confident next generation of Tanks will surely be diesel-electric..
I was watching a video the other day, A guy on a building site here in the UK. He was showing the Electric Digger they had, JCB I think. This digger had just two hours of operating time from a full charge. It took eight hours to charge, eight hours of a big diesel generator running to power that charge. How very green!
Hybrid electric is great. For high torque applications, Electric motor works. For cross country and road mobility with low torque requirements, smaller diesel engines are more fuel efficient. This is tremendously advantageous to tanks and pushes their operational range farther than a conventional diesel engine or a gas turbine.
Making an electric tank that's a good question. Strangely when I was in the military people were questioning whether tanks could proceed into the future. The weapons we're advancing, where you don't need that type of firepower of intimidation . Nowadays most armies can't afford it due to cost hence most companies are producing wheeled vehicles. Where you could put a hybrid in place. Time will tell.
benefits: quieter theoretically unlimited range, as long as it can recharge itself less infrastructure associated with its powerplant (oil rigs, oil refineries, etc, to provide fuel) less environmental risk associated with recharging (dont need a handbook on how to deal with a fuel leak) no moving parts to maintain in theory, a battery could simply be swapped in the field to keep the vehicle going disadvantage electrical systems inside the tank directly affect range fires can be a lot more deadly huge environmental risk if the battery explodes cooling is an absolute bitch for electric vehicles, let alone a tank with thi c c armour typed before watching so apologies if i repeated anything
4 года назад
How quick would it be to charge a battery or replace it while under fire.
What about batteries air drops when the tank is needing a charge, instead of charging for hours, what about a air drops in new one in a lot faster and easier.
I was thinking about that myself, but the problem is that we currently don't have hot swappable battery tech yet, not for full sized vehicles of any kind that I'm aware of. It would also require a lot tricky engineering for battery placement over a conventional non-swappable battery since it has to be located some place where it's easily accessible but at the same time, protected and not compromising the vehicle's armor protection in that spot. I'm not saying that it's impossible to do, just tricky.
@@Riceball01 not entirely true. There was a car company in Denmark that launched electric cars with swappable batteries a few years ago. They built swapping stations, that worked like car washes, except it was grabbing the battery from under your car, and putting in a fresh one. Sadly the company went bankrupt, as they weren't economicly viable.
Well, if they want to be environmental friendly (which is kind odd considering... Depleted uranium shells...) They could use bio diesel? And well, an Hybrid system seems plausible, considering some newer technology, I saw something about a wheel test on the Hummvee which had a motor with some kind of gear reduction, the thing make tons of horsepower, actually it's kind of scary, they also put those in the rear wheels of a Civic Si making it a 1000 hp beast of a hybrid with the Prius battery.
Excellent video. People keep forgetting a electric motor is a consumer not a producer. Some modern TDI can be 50-55% efficient. Just turning generated power into electricity you loose 50%, most modern lithium ion batteries operate at 20% efficiency. So yo talking a vehicle operating on 10% efficiency electric, versus 50% for TDI. So if you charge a battery on a mix grid during the day, you actually have a negative impact on the environment. If you charge on night time base load you improve your environmental impact. There so many more considerations to take when operating electric vehicles. For military is a no brainer, diesel and kerosene are the most dense form of energy usable, being liquid easy to transport, store and transfer. So unless there is fusion or reactor system small enough to fit into a tank....it be hydrocarbon.
There has been a few mechanized recon vehicle (both tracked and wheeled) demonstrators and prototypes using hybrid engines. Especially when running on electric the noise became a non-issue. The ICE doesn't have to strain so much.
@Haribo 73 You are don't know much about armored veh's or trains do you.... Trains are under strain from the hills up and down and the weights they have to do move. You can armor them, but then you have cooling issues. As for fighting in & around armored veh's...kinda of my job, as a cav scout. You have to do some research before trying to call me out, lol. Go unfuck yourself :)
my guess is the DOD and international equivalents are anticipating advancements in the field of super capacitors, traditional lithium based batteries would to paraphrase you, be strategically idiotic.
@@carso1500 Solid-state batteries resistance to damage(won't go ablaze or stop working when pierced or partially cut) means that they might be incorporated into armor as a filler between plates in spaced/composite armor.
Matsimus, given current technology, the best use of battery power in an armored vehicle might be a gas turbine powering a generator/alternator that powers a bank of batteries and a set of drive motors. The gas turbine can run at its optimal speed. The batteries would allow the tank to run quietly for brief periods when needed, smooth out power requirements, capture power when braking, and replace the auxiliary engine.
Now Matsimus: You touch at the very heart of the debate between heavy and medium forces. Heavy forces need rail to be transported over land for any considerable streach. The most efficient way of transporting heavy forces is however by sea. The problem with that is not that there aren't lots of ports in Europe - there is; But these ports tend to be located rather remotely from the potential battle areas in the center of Europe - Southern Poland, Rumania and Hungary. Hence the need for rail transport. Now the EU is in fact putting up an indeacent amount of money for rail development in their infrastructual system as it is. I recall the debate in the Baltic countries about the future rail structure. The EU civil servant allmost cried: Please, please get us a political decision - write the application on the back of an envelope sign it and we will redraft the paperwork to fit the requirements - that is what you have civil servants for. Point being: THE MONEY IS THERE. The Medium forces on 8*8 wheeled vehicles can use the road system as they closely resemble trucks; but they are much lighter than tanks 25-30 tons. This translates into: They can use the road network AS IS! They are much faster operationally than heavy tanks that needs loading and unloading at rail heads. If you take the lightly armoured forces on Eagle or similar vehichles. They can be airlifted - if need be; but generally they are easier to transport by ferries - and there are a lot very good ferry connections in Europe.
It's a mixture of things. With a pure hydrocarbon system, a few energy conservation issues come to mind. One is that the engines are optimized for a higher throttle power than they'll usually need, meaning under typical conditions, they're very inefficient because they don't run in their favorite conditions. The next issue is the waste of power when the vehicle is sitting still. So, providing intermediate storage means you could actually increase the range in a number of ways. There's efficiency losses going from mechanical to electrical energy and back again, but a few benefits still come to mind. Engine generators can be tuned to higher efficiency than the high torque engines used in tanks conventionally, since generators care more about horsepower than torque, meaning souped-up automotive engines or small, high RPM turbines could be used instead of behemoth 27-liter engines the size of a pickup truck bed. Another advantage is the prevention of energy loss when the vehicle sits still. If the engine is knocked out or shut off for stealth reasons, the vehicle can still move in a quieter mode. Engines in tanks are always keeping electrical systems powered up, so you might as well have a big battery or supercap pack juiced up for all the vehicle's needs, which bring us to the final point: the vehicles' batteries can be charged at their outpost before they deploy, thus providing them more free range in addition to their hydrocarbon capacity. Bolstering the system's efficiency by using smaller engines with generators packed with neodymium magnets could offset the weight and bulk of an engine module, especially considering their combined size and weight could be less than that of an engine-transmission powerpack, and the weight of the driveshaft and bilateral drive systems could be equaled out by the weight of the motors, gearing and control circuit.
There is an all-electric mine truck that uses inclines and gravity to recharge. www.autoblog.com/2019/08/26/edumper-electric-mining-truck-self-charging/#slide-2163910
And this: ww.electrek.co/2018/03/16/all-electric-40-tonne-truck-mining-artisan-vehicles/ Note the use of a battery swap system rather than a possibly lengthy recharge process.
Hi chap I think you’ve got caught out be some common myths on EV tech. (Apologies it’s a bit long) Charging is very much limited by the charger and not so much the individual cells. It is in theory possible to charge every cell in the battery at the same time which would result in charging times for almost any battery size in a matter of a few minutes. This is not done on civilian vehicles due to the charging infrastructure being hopeless under spec and the cost of doing so. Both of which the military could easily overcome. Maintenance should in fact be easier, primarily due to a huge reduction in connected moving parts. As you only really have a battery wired to a motor and charger with control units attached to both. A nifty side effect of heavy (compared to cars) military vehicles is their mass. As when breaking, rather than using friction brakes, the electric motors can (and are used in cars) as generators. Providing a large amount of resistance and a significant amount of charge for the battery. Which in some vehicles has been developed to the point of ‘one pedal driving’ without regularly using the normal brakes. This also helps with reducing maintenance. There isn’t that much lithium in a lithium-ion battery (despite the name). In fact the lithium is only used as the cathode. As for Cobalt and it’s mining by child labour in the Kongo. The primary use of cobalt in industry is Desulphurisation of oil. Every litre of oil based fuel has already had Cobalt used and destroyed in its production. Add to this that Tesla’s batteries are Cobalt free (demonstrating that it’s possible) making this actually a possessive for electric powertrains. I’m no eco hippie and couldn’t care less for the so called ‘climate emergency’ but I do think dropping oil in civilian use is essential for reducing the political relevance of places like the Middle East. Lastly they seem to have had the right idea in the 50’s. There is a great old school animated video of ‘Atomic power in the Army’. Where a larger vehicle with a nuclear power plant charges batteries and these batteries are slotted in and out of tanks. Removing charging time and fuel consumption in the most 50’s way possible. Not exactly eco-friendly, but that hardly matters.
Gotta say Matsimus, you always impress with your POV and analysis (especially your thoughts on fuel and charging support on this one) but this was just outstanding mate. Thanks AGAIN 👍🇦🇺
You asked a simple question, "Can we produce tanks that only use electric power?" Of course. The only problem is all of them would need their own built in electric generator running off fossil fuels or a very long extension cord. Driven by environmental nut jobs there have been efforts in the states to run warships and planes off vegetable oil. It can be done but the price is staggering and jerks food out of the stores.
n South Africa we have an armoured car that is hybrid. RUclips has a vid that displays the vehicle buzzing around the display track. I remember a huge parade and this car snuck up behind the entire parade absolutely silently got to a few paces behind the assembled troops before anyone even noticed! Was amazing.
About charging: The US military is already planning to build sea-can sized A-reactors, which would potentially work for a long time without refuling. Bringing some of those with an armoured assault would be a lot easier than the hordes of fuel trucks. And some of the new E-cars can recharge to 90% in about 10m. So I think really the big challenge is in the battery technology.
Hydrogen fuel cell comes into play with the heavy vehicles. Still have the electric motors, but instead of heavy batteries, there is lighter and smaller fuel tanks. Also this system refills at roughly the same speed as diesel does.
Yeah, it's not being apolitical saying something like that, it's like an antivaxer casually dropping "if you accept the risks of being vaccinated". They are trying to sound neutral or whatever, but they are really just advertising their retardation.
@@lobsterbark It's not really the same thing at all. Climate change is a huge thing and not only cars contribute to it but also the industry. So changing all cars to electric ones might not solve the problem. So his scepticism is quite valid.
Need a miniaturized nuclear reactor in the trunk. Electric solved, and also a MAD defense. Sure, destroy the tank in your city. Learn what a stackpole is.
nuclear reactor don't go "boom" They don't explode, they can't. Not because of safeties put in place, it isn't physically, nor chemically, possible for a nuclear reactor to explode. Now, leaking radiations? yes they can.
I'm not a scientist, but i will assume several negative effects : 1. Fuel. If the tank needed to be recharged by plug-in hybrid system, when the tank cannot reach recharging post, it will be a sitting duck. Solar power is possible, but it will need a lot of panels to recharge which is highly unreliable. Nuclear will be the best option of fuel, but when the tank blows up, all that nuclear fuel will taint the landscape. 2. Range. Massive batteries are heavy and can reduce it's range. 3. EMP. I don't know that the technology to protect tank from EMP attack exist or not, but EMP will render the tank useless.
Semi truck is out and it has a max load capacity of 40 tons. It can be equipped to a light combat tank which weighs around 40 tons. The battery pack can be served as a additional layer of protection below for mines. And it can travel up to 500 miles which is great. It will be much quieter than the conventional tanks and less heat signature.
See as a tank it's stupid idea . But as a light armoured vehicles and petroling around military base it's very good idea . Also it's ability to operate in cold weather combat without much maintenance can surpass most of the other options .
All-electric is quite a hurdle, but diesel-electric hybrid is doable right now and would grant advantages while saving a significant amount of operating cost. Heck, even the money saved by not having to do cold starts for QRF, or on screening missions in cold weather would save buckets of cash. Hooking several partially broken vehicles together (like modern trains do) to form Voltron, would be handy, since mechanics tend to refuse to leave the wire.
The acoustic signature is very important. Speaking as an Anti-tanker you will hear a tank long before you see it. If you incorporate the batteries as part of the armour/chassis this could become a lot easier. The power density is gradually increasing year on year too. When it comes to powering on ops there are technologies like massive roll out sola. Like held in a a ISO container. Along with battery packs this becomes a lot more viable. This idea isn’t as far fetched as you may believe.
While I mostly agree with this video, there are some things that Matsimus probably isn't aware yet that may bring usable electric fighting vehicles to service sooner. - One of these is storing power in solid matter (not solid state batteries - this thing is using principle of oxidation/redux reactions for stable long term storage without degradation that batteries get). This recent (patented) discovery could solve the logistical problem mentioned (of having to use fuel to power generators for charging and then charging in the field) by having to simply bring these new energy blocks, pellets or whatever via trucks, trains, planes (same as with liquid fuels). You'd then simply change the spent energy blocks (or it may take the form of pallets or some sand - have to wait what researchers will come out as most suitable) with new ones and send used ones back for recharge (or dump them if needed). For logistics the only change would be that you'd transport more solid instead of liquid fuel and your trucks wouldn't drive back empty. For recharging (if recharging the stuff would make sense for military ) time now wouldn't be such an issue as you could take your time with it in your base or you'd send it somewhere with a working power grid (the stuff is primarily being developed to store excess power from power grids and to compensate power fluctuations). In US, Russian (or similar) case a parked ship with a nuclear reactor could theoretically offer ''limitless'' fuel for eletric vehicles in most modern AOs.
My thoughts are can we use piezoelectric crystal in barrels and armor? The impact forces could be used to produce an instantaneous electric localized charge, in barrels it could be harnessed to auto reload and armor it can be used to set off reactive armor quicker. Electric reaction > Heat reaction. Maybe they already do idk.
Honestly I can only imagine fitting any military vehicle with an electric engine and big batteries would only be useful for recon vehicles, preferably light & wheeled, just to give it that extra layer of stealth.
I think was is missing from this discussion regenerative breaking. When a car on a smooth flat highway stops accelerating it can coast for maybe 2 miles. This is where hybrids make their gains, you put energy into accelerating but then get it back when you hit the breaks. But I'm guessing (never been in one) that a tank on rough ground (like @15:10) if they shifted into neutral and coasted would only go for maybe 100 feet tops. All the energy is lost into tread linkages, mud, dust, shock absorbers, etc. Tanks of course have breaks but most likely they aren't as heavily used as in a car in a city, normally just take your foot of the gas and it will slow down quickly on its own. A hybrid without regenerative breaking is worthless.
The hummer replacements from Oshkosh Defense LATVs etc are all diesel electric FYI. Another HUGE advantage of diesel electric in the LATVs for example was developed largely because they can produce a large amount of off site power that can be used to power small installations , charge other electric vehicles and systems that are already developed. They can also quick charge these batteries systems. One of the big reasons the military required diesel electric is the same reason it’s now being incorporated in our destroyers etc, they produce a lot of power that is needed for next generation weapons systems like the Laser and rail gun systems. It also eleimonatea the need of generators and huge fuel drums .
Hybrid diesel Electric might not be the way to go, however there are more than one way to use renewable energy sources. I doubt it will be possible to effectively convert an existing AFV hull to be "green" fuel wise. Going to renewable energy will require new vehicles. Things to consider is that you aren't just replacing the fuel tanks but the powerplant, transmission and back up generator as well. As a former AFV mechanic Matsimus will know more about how much those weigh than I do, I was FDC, but spent a couple of years studying a couple different types of engineering before I gave up on college. Tesla more than any other manufacturer has shown that modern electric motors can provide not just high speed and acceleration but torque as well, this is important for heavier vehicles. Now currently on most tracked vehicles you usually have a single drive wheel on each side, with an idler wheel at the opposite end with multiple unpowered road wheels in between, please correct me if I'm wrong. The drive wheel receives power from the engine through an axle much like an automobile does. If you have an electric motor moving your drive wheels the only thing connecting that motor to the power plant is wires. Another thing you can do is make every road wheel a drive wheel as well so if one is lost you loose some power to the tracks but it isn't a mobility kill. But the question arises how do you provide power to the electric drive motors... if not using combustion engine or turbine power plant? In addition to battery powered, there are hydrogen fuel cells, and nuclear power, as well as even solar to provide energy to the batteries and electric motors. Batteries will be involved but the question is will they be the vehicles only source of power, maybe but not lithium ion batteries. Rechargeable lithium ion batteries, especially larger ones, start becoming a fire and toxic gas hazard. Multiple companies are already working on a replacement, since in the USA DARPA has been looking for such a thing for several decades, I do not know their progress on this research. In an AFV the batteries could be moved to multiple compartments in the floor of an AFV and make up part of its belly armor, however another option is in a forward or aft compartment much like an engine. When the AFV pulls into the resupply point instead of recharging the batteries they pull the battery packs and replace them with fully charged ones. Each AFV will have multiple power packs and if standardized larger heavier vehicles will have more than smaller ones, the point is you replace the battery pack before pulling the next one so the vehicle is never without at least one battery pack with at least some charge in it. Solor panels will not be a primary power source for the military, especially on an AFV, however they will become a secondary. Solar cells are much more efficient than they used to be and can generate power even when overcast now, they are also much tougher. A company called Solar City, a subsidiary of Tesla Motors, makes roofing shingles that are also solar cells that can withstand being struck by hail, in addition to meeting USA building material requirements for roofing shingles. Hydrogen fuel cells are becoming more of an option especially in some countries that are already developing an infrastructure for the liquid hydrogen. The USA already have trucks that act as water purification plants, it wouldn't be difficult to make one that cracks water into liquid hydrogen fuel and oxygen gas. Now I'm sure DARPA is working on cold fussion and ARC reactors but until that science fiction becomes a reality there is already a nuclear reactor that could be scaled down to fit in an AFV. It's been awhile since I've read about them so I might be wrong here but back in the 90s Germany developed something they were calling a Pebble Bed Reactor. Unlike the fission reactors used by naval vessels they do not require extensive cooling systems and are easily scaled large or small. They are very stable and robust, jostling or even shooting one will not cause a meltdown, although blowing one up will scatter radioactive materials over an are it's not like a 3mile island or Chernobyl meltdown. Even if you can't put these in your AFVs they could become part of a mobile logistics network. Future military vehicles are going to have find a way to generate not only enough electrical power for themselves, but enough for their supporting infantry as well. All the data systems, communications, sensory and muscle augmentation being developed for soldiers use a lot of power. That and once the Navy has electromagnetically accelerated projectile and laser weapons working, the Army is gonna want to put such weapons on land vehicles, they are going to need a lot of power.
The idea is not that bad, it would be extremely useful to charge up whilst driving the the battlefield and might even have a longer range because of it
Instead of a battery the military would probably use fuel cells. Fuel cells generate electricity and can use any fuel with hydrogen save water (diesel, gas, jp5, ammonia, pure hydrogen). There's also aluminum air batteries which are as energy dense as gas and super cheap with the right electrolyte. You'd have to lug battery banks around though but depending on the unit it could be effective.
Fuel cell system could be used. Two ac motors, one inverter, two variable speed drives and a fuel cell. You can have a choice of different fuels to use, but you still have to workout the storage/containment problem for that fuel.
It has been tried. The "Tiger I (P)" VK4501 (P) prototype by Porsche used diesel-electric drive and was tested unsuccessfully by Germany during 1942 (it burst into flames). The technology just wasn't there in the 1940's but electric powered tanks has been considered.
The US military is moving towards using small nuclear plants to provide site power where they currently use gas turbines or diesel. If that seems inappropriate but it means much less fuel to be shipped. The new Ford Class carriers have 125 megawatts of electrical power plus the 260 MW drive to the propellers. From TWO nuke reactors. The army would have smaller kit that can be used on army field base stations.
Most tanks have to rely on very vulnerable fuel trucks to stay operational. A hybrid engine could extend their range pretty far and allow them to recover anywhere there’s electricity.
In Serbia we got electric tracked vehicle. It's like 1 meter wide and 1,5 meter long and base it's like 40cm tall. It's remote control, has camera. Can carry 12,7 machine gun, double ATGM(small ones), radar, artillery radar... Anything small 100-200 kg weight. It's slow like 10-20km/h and range is not great (I believe). It's in development process but military and police are already doing training. It can be made almost entirely out of plastic just to add extremely sneaky element. About electric Tank... that's not happening any time soon. About hybrid tank; that was Porsche doing in WWII. All Ferdinand and Porsche tiger tanks are hybrid power. Also Maus was hybrid.
"CYBERTANK is the future" - Elon Musk
*Launches RPG at the hull* - Pierces instantly.
Throws snowball: _Melts through hull..._
MAT PLS MAKE VIDEO WHEEL VS TRACK VEHICLE
This means war!
Mat, you're forgot to mention French Crotale mobile SAM vehicle.
You've done at least one video on a vehicle concept in the past (some preposterous laser zapping afv from Israel) so I wanted to render a suggestion for another, more viable concept that hasn't materialized: the *XM2001 Crusader*
edit:
ruclips.net/video/qe8FMvEHa94/видео.html
Eco friendly killing machines? I'm in.
It's also safer for the people in the tank, as the battery will be less harmful to them should it be damaged.
The ultimate "green" tech 😉
Its about efficiency more than anything else. Quieter, faster, more torque, more reliable.
shooting two targets with single bullet.One destroys enemy and the pollutant together 😁
It will also get rid of people, thus reducing the resource demands. It is the ultimate eco-friendly machine.
They'll all be electric eventually. It's a case of when not if.
@ncsam 000000 you have no concept of the long term do you?
@@HaroldWilsonsGhost By the time we have a technology that can store electric energy in a density that is comparable to diesel fuel or gas, and can also be made in useful quantities at prices comparable to the rest of the machine, tanks may have become obsolete, the same way battleships did. This is how far we are from properly storing electricity.
@@Tequilla449 electric has other benefits, silence is probably the most useful, even if you only had battery for 10 miles, the ability to sneek for 10 miles could be very advantageous plus you get rid of idle fuel consumption.
@@Tequilla449 and when tanks become obsolete, you've now got a much better power system to use in other vehicles that you know, are still not obsolete, like troop carriers, IFVs, secondary systems to planes, helicopters and stuff that we already use electricity for such as mobile devices and individual electrical systems for troopers. Tanks aren't the only thing that can benefit from electrics.
@@user-pq9gy3fq1q The power consumption of electronics is nothing compared to an electric motor.
An average phone uses a 4000mAh battery, and can last for, say, 10 hours of heavy use, which means it draws 400mAs when it's on. Most phones run on 3.7V, but let's say it's military grade, so it runs on 5V. That means its power requirement is 5V*400mA = 2'000mW, or 2W, which is way higher than a normal phone, but it was easy to calculate.
In comparison a Tesla Model S has two motors, their combined power is 615kW, or 615'000W, but during normal use that could average out to around 100'000kW, which is still 50'000 times more power, than what our example phone needed. And this is just a car. Not a tank, not an APC, not even a truck.
It's not that elecric motors aren't great, but once you unplug them from the wall socket, there is no good way to store power for them. The energy density of a lithium ion battery isaround 100~160W/kg. For diesel fuel, it's around 13'000, so you'd need about 100 times more "fuel" to be able to provide the same amount of energy for a vehicle. And more fuel means more mass, and more mass needs more fuel, and more fuel means more mass... you get the point.
Remember how the Germans left behind so many tanks during WWII because they ran out of fuel? Now imagine how awkward it would be to leave behind an electric military vehicle, because the battery ran out, and you can't afford to wait 6~10 hours to recharge it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is "don't force a new technology into a role, when it's not even better than the current one".
And sorry if I sound a bit condescending, I didn't get enough sleep last night.
Early ironclads were basically windpowered tanks
Floating tanks
Now the next evolution is nuclear powered aircraft carrier hovercraft... land and sea....and air....
They were steam powered.
They didn't have sails, which would have been required for wind.
Iron clads floated... alot different than a land based vehicle. You dont see many cruise ships on the highway.....
@@markmtbrider you don't see many tanks on the highway either :P
Also an advantage is the heat signature would be smaller.
edit Have a look at the power rating of a Leopard ! tank versus the power rating of electric truck motors.
I doubt it - It would need a pretty big electric motor or a few electric motors to movie an armored vehicle that weighs in at a few tonnes. You'd have to run so much voltage through it, its bound to create a lot of heat somewhere, Not only do these electric motors need to carry themselves - they need to carry the entire tank with all its occupants and tank shells and a hybrid system for movement will just add a lot more weight not to mention it can overcomplicate things when it comes to field repairs and stuff..
Not to forget ground resistances of course. I think Hybrids have a place - Just not on the battlefield. The best way to stop military vehicles polluting the AO - is to have no wars. No wars = no mobilization of vehicle or armored units.
@@Rose.Of.Hizaki You are mistaken. Electrics produce way, way, way less heat than internal combustion engines.
Yeah. I mean its not as if a hybrid motor has any moving parts or anything that needs to move 60-80+ metric tonnes of armor, weapons and personnel. really looking forward to these ghost tanks.
Youre forgetting one thing.....
Does a Prius Weigh almost 80 tonnes?
Before he describe ease of maintenance oh, you may want to look at the experience of the Germans with their elephant. That was a disaster
Maybe they can ask Wakanda for vibranium for their tank battery. Lol
Apparently the US has just removed Wakanda from their list of countries they will trade with.
We can use "Solid State Battery"
They:
-have longer life span
-can handle higher voltage
-can store more power
-are safer than lithium
And other stuff that I don't remember
Are just better in all things but price and production volume
@@natedunn51 when introduced to mass market, price is guranteed to be far less, as they are made from silicates (which is everywhere) rather than using Cobalt or lithium (some of the rarest metals on the planet)
@@gormauslander Yep, just gotta wait for them to figure out production to mass market them.
@@gormauslander lithium is not rare its hard rather common to get
techs not there yet
There are quite a few more advantages: An electric tank could be idling for maybe days without needing an APU to power the systems.
Then there is ease of maintainance or the lack of thermal emission.
It could also have motors in every wheel allowing completely new aproaches for configuration and layout.
Battery tech is making massive strides and electric tanks WILL be a thing.
Good luck when you get shot in the battery and the tank goes up like a Sherman
James J good luck when they get shot in the gas tank and the tank explodes. I may I have no idea what I’m talking about but just a thought.
@@peterking2561 that's not how diesel works mate. It's why I compared it to a Sherman not an Abrams.
@@jamesj4827 While you're correct regarding batteries, Sherman (especially late ones) was the safest tank of the WW2, from loss of crew standpoint.
@@solarissv777 they would still go up in flames if hit in the fuel tank. The crew could just get out fast
I worked on the LiON batteries for the initial trials of hybrid systems for the Bradley, M1, LAV, a few light wheeled vehicles, and others 20 years ago. Hybrid systems showed great promise, but as you pointed out, they are not without their drawbacks. space and weight are not as big a drawback on a hybrid system as the fuel savings truly can have them replacing some of the fuel tank. "Whisper mode" as it was called back then definitely has it's advantages for scouting vehicles. All that said, in addition to the issues you pointed out (which make pure electric tanks a pure fallacy of judgement), high power industrial batteries are not immune to enemy fire. Energy is energy, and hitting one of these battery packs with even the smallest piece of shrapnel will result in a crew lethality event that makes a Sherman look downright fireproof.
It's very simple ... Install a diesel-powered generator that generates the electricity! 😎😎
Or simply cover your base with solar cells and a few wind turbines, and have fuel forever.
That's already been done, to great success... ever heard of diesel-electric?
@@ianhenk Yeah, and with that as ling as the base is there, you cant break down due to fuel starvation, another logistical win!
Ferdinand Porsche wishes he lived in 2019 lol. RIP Elefant
ButchE30M3S14 Maus has Hybrid Electric drive as well.
Imperial Shocktrooper Yep :-)
the hybrid tanks were already made - WWII - Germans - Maus
If I recall correctly also ferdinand tank destroyer where also
@@BeTeK11 you correct, Porsche was pushing it for the first Tiger. When trials fail those were changed to Ferdinand.
@@jantschierschky3461 and those tanks were the ones known to set themselves on fire
@@joseffliegl4167 well those electric motors did
@@joseffliegl4167 The Henschel Tiger was pretty well known for setting itself on fire due to leaking fuel systems. Where did you hear about Elefants having that problem? Not that they didn't have problems, I just never heard of then having that one.
One possibility that you have missed is hydrogen fuel cells. There may well be opportunities with that.
I think the ideal solution for military vehicles short term would be a fairly small battery pack, coupled with modular turbine power packs. Even better, several of each. Now you have the light weight of a turbine with the efficiency and torque of an electric motor. This is what we're doing for ships. It also allows for multi axle vehicles without complex drive trains, or even motor in wheel designs. Such vehicles are hard to disable as they have redundancy in the propulsion system. You also get next level traction and control, as with a motor per wheel you are not compromised by your choice of diff. Having the ability to drive short distances nearly silently can also be a real advantage, bringing heavy firepower without losing the element of surprise.
I know that when it comes to trains there is the need for a gearbox but none have been built that can handle the torque of a powerful electric engine without breaking.
That is why trains that go very fast accelerate very slowly because it needs a high top speed, and that is also why freight locomotives are slower as it's more important to have the power to pull heavy loads.
I suspect there is a similar problem with electric engines on other vehicles.
AdurianJ WEIGHT!!!!!!
Trains accelerate slowly because of two reasons. Wheel slip and passenger comfort. If the track is not high speed, you also have to account individual speed restrictions ahead (doesn't make sense to go at 200 when you have a bend 8km ahead with max160 allowed...). Cargo trains don't brake very well and that is the main reason why they don't go fast. There are normally no electric brakes on freight wagons.
There is no gearbox in a train because it is extremely hard on the gears it is a direct drive to the wheels
Imagine next generation of the S-tank (strv 103) as a diesel-electric hybrid. It would make the tank cold, with no IR-signature. The idea is not to run on battery power. The idea is to lye dormant under electrical power to just run turret control, sights, radio and so on. And when on the move, you use the on-board diesel. But you end up with a stealth-tank you can hide for use in an ambush. (Just like the 103 was designed for originally, but now addressing every aspect making the old version obsolete today)
You put the batteries outside the tank, adding to the tanks Armour, potentially instead off the fuel tanks hanging over the tracks of the tank.
*You could , you could do that but why? , why would you do that?"- Jon Tron
Much more efficient, so lower logistics cost, huge torque, lower maintenance, low IR signature, ability to power other things like e.g. electric armour. It doesn't have to be all-electric - could be hybrid.
Electric motors are much smaller than ICEs, and batteries are versatile as to where you put them, so the use of space could be radically different from current designs. Cost of operation would be lower, reliability would be higher, maintainance would be reduced, the tank would be quieter, etc etc.
Ginger Biscuit i seriously doubt reliability would be higher, in fact, i think it significantly worse to the point of being impractical unless you are considering a hybrid. Batteries are not tools designed for heavy intensive use and you gonna lose a lot of energy if those things heat up.
@@user-pq4by2rq9y Electric cars have offered plenty of data about reliability. There are far fewer moving parts and that makes them much more reliable. Battery packs can be designed for heavy use (i.e. high power output) and are working successfully for everything from those huge house-sized dump trucks in open cast mines to buses and trucks.
An example: ruclips.net/video/C_xrpYC_FFQ/видео.htmlm03s
One prototype of the M1A3 apparently replaces the steel track with a continuous cable belted rubber track, and eliminates the entire transmission system (which is HUGE) with an ultra high RPM generator directly coupled to the small Gas Turbine. The room where the transmission was, contains a battery system, and 4 electric motors. One motor on each corner of the tank to provide redundancy. The turbine would be able to allow the tank to drive at full power, with a 50% increase in range from increased efficiency. Also, you can shut down the turbine and run off the batteries for roughly 20 miles for stealthy short range operations at night.
With the advent of new composite armor, and the possibility of replacing the main gun with a 3" (75mm) rail gun using lighter ammo, the tank would have an operating weight around 60 tons or less, instead of over 70 tons like it is now. The rail gun would also provide the tank the ability to penetrate every know type of armor from hyper-velocity rounds with a combat range of up to 15 miles.
The electric hybrid is how most Trains run, and have run since the mid twentieth century. They have more efficient electro-motive systems, using a a diesel engine to run a generator that powers electric motors that drive the wheels. I think this would be an excellent idea for tanks. Also a pure EMD system does not use or require batteries. They are used in trains because of instant torque, and fuel efficiency. A constant speed EMD diesel system uses less fuel than a pure diesel powered locomotive or ship engine. I imagine that same efficiency would translate to a tank.
Gotta leave a reference to Porsche VK 45.02 that was a promising tank prototype by F. Porsche. Sincerely:)
Trains don’t have to keep their power source inside them. So no. Just no.
It's been done. The U.S. military had a "heavy hybrid" Bradley IFV back in the 1990s.
The idea was to reduce the heat signature of the vehicle on approach to its target, and it worked.
Modern batteries and motors should make such drive systems for any vehicle a LOT more feasible nowadays.
Only if powered with nuclear energy.
Devyx See Ahrnold's compromised power cell. They become unstable... lol
@@theashpilez Or the cars in Fallout.
lol, which is always readily available in a war zone. Quick, throw up the solar panels and hope the enemy doesn't do anything like shoot at us.
@HowDareYou it won't work
TheWersum it was also a notorious piece of shit
Turkey produced its first electric driven armored vehicle. The next step is to build a electric motor with 1500 horse power and turkey started to develope and design them
In theory, yes. But how do you refuel an electric tank? The problem is range and logistics.
Swappable battery packs. Bring in a battery "tanker" to change the battery and take the depleted ones to be recharged.
It could be hybrid and just much more efficient.
But in cold whether it can be very useful as light armoured vehicles
Just cover it with the solar panels 😂😂
You can't just "swap" anything out of an armored vehicle during a unit movement except for the "smaller" equipment i.e., gear which can be adjusted on the move (coaxials, missiles, communications gear, and so on). The primary source of power for a thirty ton vehicle isn't one of those small things.
Now let's say you have a "hot refuel" scheduled during a Troop movement. Your track's crew will be entirely involved with reloading essentials so your Platoon or Troop can be back under way as quickly as possible. You aren't doing that with a few tons of batteries being yanked from of each vehicle.
As of now a Track pulls up next to a HEMTT with the engine running, the Driver and TC jump out of their hatches, grab the hose, and pumps fuel into the track for 90 or so seconds, as the rest of the crew does their thing, and the track gets back under way as fast as is possible (90 seconds per track is the goal).
My guess would be that the big win in military emissions would be in carbon capture to offset fuel consumption, and improved vehicle power plant efficiency. The big advantage of hybrids is that you can run your engine in the efficiency band most of the time, even during off-peak consumption.
We all know that the Abrams engine is actually quite efficient at full load; a hybridized Abrams could use the generator to pull off any horsepower not being used by the system into the batteries, and switch it off while running on batteries alone, basically forming the tank equivalent of a Prius configuration. You would ditch part of the transmission and have steering and braking operate using the drive motors, and probably reverse as well. Smaller mechanical brakes would be required since they would only be used in the event of motor failure or very slow speed, otherwise dynamic braking would be used. A single motor-generator would provide power for the motors and act as a starter for the turbine. Then you could use the more robust electrical system to replace the hydraulic system with a set of electro-hydrostatic actuators (already commonly used in airlines) to reduce the need for central hydraulics; combined with probably dropping the hydraulic steering system since differential motor drive can be used, we could have a tank with no need for a central reservoir at all and a vastly reduced set of hydraulic lines, cutting down even more weight. Going all-in on the electrical system means easy incorporation of electrothermal-chemical rounds, LASER and MASER emitters, sensors, automatic defense systems, etc.
STart pre laying tank charging points in entire area of warzones charging wirelessly.
That's a good idea, but I think Solid State Batteries would be the best option when we figure it out.
*Tank drives past sentries*
Guard 1: very quiet today
Guard 2: WHAT?
I, Cato Sicarius, have brought glory to my chapter once again.
Imagine we put a wind turbine engine on tank
Solid State Batteries.
Won't win many battles but it sure will save the planet, except the birds that inadvertently fly into it
The main issue right now with high performance lithium ion batteries is: if damaged, they will burn hot and long. If you use large battery packs all around the vehicle it would be a huge fire hazard. You can’t extinguish Battery fires, the tank would be doomed.
Once Solid Batteries are a thing this would change. They are more efficient, much smaller, and are solid blocks of a metal alloy that can’t burn.
Things that would be removed:
Engine, APU, Fuel Tanks. These take about ~40% of internal volume of a tank.
A electric engine is much smaller than a Diesel engine / Turbine, so there would be a lot of free Space in the back of the tank for the Batteries.
Take a look at the Tesla Truck. While it’s not an MBT and still uses liquid batteries, it demonstrates how small the electric engine and battery pack could be for a 40T vehicle.
Solid batteries can be used everywhere on an MBT, where the apu was, instead of fuel tanks, inside the crew compartment, inside armor, outside the tank as NERA blocks. They are just metal alloy blocks after all.
Outside the tank also has the advantage that you could mount more to increase range, increase protection, while making them hot swappable.
Further pros:
- Noise reduction -> Crew can operate more effectively + enemies can’t hear it as well (urban combat)
- Heat reduction: Idle electric motors does not produce a visible heat signature (+Survivalbility against IR weapons +Concealment against IR sights)
- Instant Power deliver to drive wheels: Faster acceleration
- Reduced Fire hazard (No more engine / fuel fires)
- much smaller engine reduces risk of being immobilized by a hit
- No engine start up time (for normal tanks this can be 1-2min)
- No energy wasted when Idle
- Could be used to power nearby Units (other tanks, Air Defence, Tents, Tools ...)
Cons:
- More expensive in R&D and production
- Requires a restructured supply chain
- less reliable in harsh conditions (temperatures)
- currently more difficult to recharge
- not field tested (reliability)
90% or more of the cobalt is used to produce low sulfur diesel.
I once worked on a Maine Lobster boat powered by some kind of Bio Diesel engine. Literally smelled like burgers and frys on the deck of the boat all day while we worked.
What's that song in the intro? It sounds purty cool. Anyway, I appreciate you mat:)
Ooooh, something I actually have a bit of knowledge on! Okay, so there's a couple different components at play here. There's a couple of things that are sort of run together in these discussions I think are worth separating out:
A lot of modern 'hybrid' engines are effectively engines with an electric motor bolted onto the shaft so it can be driven with one or the other or both. They gain efficiency by optimizing when one or the other is turned on and what ratios of power are provided by what system. This is a lot more complexity than I think is worth implementation.
An electric drive train with a fuel based generator seems like the way to go for this, which is closer to what's been done before. The fuel is fed into a generator of some kind, which produces electrical power, which is then fed into an electric motor which drives the vehicle. There's a couple of main advantages to this, as mentioned by Matsimus, electric motors tend to produce a massive amount of torque at low speeds, which is when you need it (power is needed to accelerate the vehicle and overcome losses, once you reach top speed, you don't need to accelerate anymore).
The drive train itself also becomes much much simpler, as it turns into a drive motor, a cooling system, a reduction gear box, and the output sprocket, everything else can be remote and moved where ever it needs to be or is easier to access. IIRC, the Tesla has a 10:1 reducer on its motors, so if we take that as an example, a 15:1 to a 20:1 of the same size would probably be viable (although there's a lot of customization that goes into those motors that might save space, cost, or lifespan). The two can also be physically separated so that the power plant can be swapped out as needed without dismantling the drive system, or vice versa.
Electric motors tend to have a lot less maintenance and cooling/lube requirements because they don't have nearly as many moving contact parts, just the bearings at both ends of the shaft. The power electronics don't have a lot of moving parts either, any generator system likely will, but not having to be aligned with the drive system gives you a bit more wiggle room on it, as well as being able to upgrade those parts incrementally or put them in multiple locations for power supply redundancy.
Batteries seem more useful as load levelers (allowing the engine to operate at its preferred speeds/torques to improve efficiency) and 'engine off' operations where the vehicle won't be required to move but the various systems will still need an ample reservoir of power. Or possibly to operate underwater or silently for a little bit of time. The energy density of fuel is just too good to pass up for for the cross country and undeveloped environments they'll see.
I do think it's also worth mentioning the difference between poly-phase and cross over DC, both of which see decent industrial use. Cross over DC is what diesel electric trains seem to favor, as their ability to produce low end torque is absurd. The rotor and stator are energized with DC, and they can be powered in series or parallel depending on whether low end torque or high speed efficiency is needed, but they have a commutator and brushes which means more wear parts. Poly-phase (usually 3 phase) are the more common systems due to the fact that they don't require a commutator and brush, so the only contact is the bearings. They can also have integrated speed control by having multiple winding connections similar to the cross over DC, although I don't recall what that does to efficiency.
The problem is that batteries are shite fro power density.
You can absolutely fit a battery, the same way you can fit a battery in a sedan: you replace the engine. EVs generally have the same footprint and more internal volume than their ICE counterparts, because while the batteries are much bigger than the fuel tank, they're smaller than the engine, and the electric motors have basically negligible size. It's possible the trend would be different for armor, but I don't see why it would be; much of the tank's volume is dedicated to their massive engines. The EV powertrain is still much heavier than an ICE.
Another advantage you didn't mention would be redundancy. An electric tank could take a round through it's batteries and keep going, because batteries come in cells, and each cell operates independently of every other cell. To maximize redundancy, you could install the tank with many smaller electric motors, which would be just as efficient as a single big motor. Combined with the ability to move all of the batteries to the bottom of the vehicle where they're least vulnerable, and the drive on electric armor would be effectively impossible to knock out.
Finally, there is a way to get power without transporting fuel, and that's solar. A 2400 kilowatt solar system, which could charge the example 30 ton in one hour, would weigh around 100 metric tonnes. This is heavy and hard to transport, but it should be doable, and would only need to be transported to a forward outpost once. This power could also potentially be beamed to the field through microwave power transmission, although with some loss, which would probably be the best way to recharge vehicles unable to RTB.
Now we just need to arm those electrical tanks with a recording of Thunberg screaming "How dare you" at enemies still using diesel.
Blowing up their fuel tanks at their base might work better.
Merry Christmas Matsimus!
Destroy your enemy. Save the planet!
From engineer's POV, greatest advantages of diesel-electric armored vehicles is increased survivability and freedom in equipment placement...
1-One problem with IFV/APCs is you can't put engine in rear without having usability problems for mounting/unmounting troops (BMP-3 included), and you can't have thick armor in front if the engine and gearbox is there.. With diesel-electric, designers can put electric motors at the back so there is still a room for a rear door between them, and position diesel generator(s) above the tracks.. They would double as side armor for crew inside, and can have a very thick, tank-like armor at front...
2- Current armored vehicles use a large diesel engine and a gearbox; a series system in which a single failure at any point can immobilize the tank... Its also deemed impractical to run that large engine all the time, so they also carry an APU, which is useless weight for moving the tank around.. This is a flawed system. A diesel-electric vehicle can use several electric motors (8 motors in 8x8 APC), and can have two smaller diesel-generators instead of a large engine.. Technically, vehicle will be road-mobile with only 1 electric motor and no zero diesel power.. This is an impressive redundancy...
Having 2 small engines seem like a bad idea (and it was on likes of BTR-60), but since electric motors are driving the vehicle from battery, and diesel engines are doing the charging, only 1 would be needed for 99% of the real-life scenarios.. When is the last time you saw a tank running at full power for 30 minutes in a real war zone? They are mostly glorified mobile gun platforms supporting infantry, or firing their guns from prepared positions, going back an forth perhaps 20 meters.. In real life, only one engine will ever need replacements or overhaul..
3- While the armor thickness wouldn't cut it, most conventional IFV/APCs can protect its crew from RPG impacts taken to engine or gearbox, but they will be immobilized. With diesel-electric, designers can put the engine in front for extra layer of protection, and still be able to move the vehicle with battery power if the electric motors are elsewhere; like in wheel hubs..
4- Battery's weight volume is not a clear disadvantage.. They could be put in empty spaces between armor layers, and soft battery types can also be designed to act as NERA to a degree..
These are very clear advantages... Unless some magical batteries with 100-fold energy density are invented, there will never be all-electric Tanks... However I am confident next generation of Tanks will surely be diesel-electric..
I was watching a video the other day, A guy on a building site here in the UK. He was showing the Electric Digger they had, JCB I think.
This digger had just two hours of operating time from a full charge.
It took eight hours to charge, eight hours of a big diesel generator running to power that charge.
How very green!
Hybrid electric is great. For high torque applications, Electric motor works. For cross country and road mobility with low torque requirements, smaller diesel engines are more fuel efficient. This is tremendously advantageous to tanks and pushes their operational range farther than a conventional diesel engine or a gas turbine.
Battery electric, no, not until we have air-aluminum or air lithium flow cell batteries. Diesel-electric though makes much more sense now.
Making an electric tank that's a good question. Strangely when I was in the military people were questioning whether tanks could proceed into the future. The weapons we're advancing, where you don't need that type of firepower of intimidation . Nowadays most armies can't afford it due to cost hence most companies are producing wheeled vehicles. Where you could put a hybrid in place. Time will tell.
benefits:
quieter
theoretically unlimited range, as long as it can recharge itself
less infrastructure associated with its powerplant (oil rigs, oil refineries, etc, to provide fuel)
less environmental risk associated with recharging (dont need a handbook on how to deal with a fuel leak)
no moving parts to maintain
in theory, a battery could simply be swapped in the field to keep the vehicle going
disadvantage
electrical systems inside the tank directly affect range
fires can be a lot more deadly
huge environmental risk if the battery explodes
cooling is an absolute bitch for electric vehicles, let alone a tank with thi c c armour
typed before watching so apologies if i repeated anything
How quick would it be to charge a battery or replace it while under fire.
@ if a battery is on fire putting it out with water is a bad idea you have to take away its oxygen
@@alphacentauri34 When I say under fire I mean bombarded by shells.
@ lol just noticed
You can put 18 hub electric motors on a tank make the bottom out of batteries and use a Toyota Land Cruiser engine as the charger.
What about batteries air drops when the tank is needing a charge, instead of charging for hours, what about a air drops in new one in a lot faster and easier.
I was thinking about that myself, but the problem is that we currently don't have hot swappable battery tech yet, not for full sized vehicles of any kind that I'm aware of. It would also require a lot tricky engineering for battery placement over a conventional non-swappable battery since it has to be located some place where it's easily accessible but at the same time, protected and not compromising the vehicle's armor protection in that spot. I'm not saying that it's impossible to do, just tricky.
@@Riceball01 not entirely true. There was a car company in Denmark that launched electric cars with swappable batteries a few years ago. They built swapping stations, that worked like car washes, except it was grabbing the battery from under your car, and putting in a fresh one. Sadly the company went bankrupt, as they weren't economicly viable.
Well, if they want to be environmental friendly (which is kind odd considering... Depleted uranium shells...) They could use bio diesel? And well, an Hybrid system seems plausible, considering some newer technology, I saw something about a wheel test on the Hummvee which had a motor with some kind of gear reduction, the thing make tons of horsepower, actually it's kind of scary, they also put those in the rear wheels of a Civic Si making it a 1000 hp beast of a hybrid with the Prius battery.
Just use water. Like the Mk17 Fishtank.
Is that real?
Excellent video. People keep forgetting a electric motor is a consumer not a producer. Some modern TDI can be 50-55% efficient. Just turning generated power into electricity you loose 50%, most modern lithium ion batteries operate at 20% efficiency. So yo talking a vehicle operating on 10% efficiency electric, versus 50% for TDI. So if you charge a battery on a mix grid during the day, you actually have a negative impact on the environment. If you charge on night time base load you improve your environmental impact. There so many more considerations to take when operating electric vehicles. For military is a no brainer, diesel and kerosene are the most dense form of energy usable, being liquid easy to transport, store and transfer. So unless there is fusion or reactor system small enough to fit into a tank....it be hydrocarbon.
when your batteries go dead, put in new batteries.
What a logistical nightmare
People dont understand the many advantages of a electric vehicle or motor there are so many people just need to think with logic and not feeling
A hybrid tank makes a lot of sense. As it will be more efficient and can move much more quietly when required
There has been a few mechanized recon vehicle (both tracked and wheeled) demonstrators and prototypes using hybrid engines. Especially when running on electric the noise became a non-issue. The ICE doesn't have to strain so much.
we could have diesel electric
Hey, I've seen this one.
It's a classic.
Could, yes. Most modern trains are just that.
But would it HELP anything?
Yaaa Yaaa run the engines at high RPM at all times. Overheat it will and did...
@Haribo 73 You are don't know much about armored veh's or trains do you....
Trains are under strain from the hills up and down and the weights they have to do move. You can armor them, but then you have cooling issues. As for fighting in & around armored veh's...kinda of my job, as a cav scout.
You have to do some research before trying to call me out, lol. Go unfuck yourself :)
your knowledge is impressive Matt thank you .
my guess is the DOD and international equivalents are anticipating advancements in the field of super capacitors, traditional lithium based batteries would to paraphrase you, be strategically idiotic.
Lithium-ion bateries are already at their theoretical limit, solid state is the future
@@carso1500 Solid-state batteries resistance to damage(won't go ablaze or stop working when pierced or partially cut) means that they might be incorporated into armor as a filler between plates in spaced/composite armor.
Matsimus, given current technology, the best use of battery power in an armored vehicle might be a gas turbine powering a generator/alternator that powers a bank of batteries and a set of drive motors. The gas turbine can run at its optimal speed. The batteries would allow the tank to run quietly for brief periods when needed, smooth out power requirements, capture power when braking, and replace the auxiliary engine.
The last time I was this early I still watched 20 minute videos daily
Stop it! That's a silly profile picture!
(MP reference)
rhodokartillery aka afrika
MARCHING
UP AND DOWN THE SQUAAARE
Now Matsimus: You touch at the very heart of the debate between heavy and medium forces.
Heavy forces need rail to be transported over land for any considerable streach. The most efficient way of transporting heavy forces is however by sea.
The problem with that is not that there aren't lots of ports in Europe - there is; But these ports tend to be located rather remotely from the potential battle areas in the center of Europe - Southern Poland, Rumania and Hungary. Hence the need for rail transport.
Now the EU is in fact putting up an indeacent amount of money for rail development in their infrastructual system as it is.
I recall the debate in the Baltic countries about the future rail structure.
The EU civil servant allmost cried: Please, please get us a political decision - write the application on the back of an envelope sign it and we will redraft the paperwork to fit the requirements - that is what you have civil servants for.
Point being: THE MONEY IS THERE.
The Medium forces on 8*8 wheeled vehicles can use the road system as they closely resemble trucks; but they are much lighter than tanks 25-30 tons. This translates into: They can use the road network AS IS!
They are much faster operationally than heavy tanks that needs loading and unloading at rail heads.
If you take the lightly armoured forces on Eagle or similar vehichles. They can be airlifted - if need be; but generally they are easier to transport by ferries - and there are a lot very good ferry connections in Europe.
But WHY? Hydrocarbon fuels contain at least four times as much energy as the best batteries. Why would you want to reduce your range?
Electric is quieter but I agree we’re not there
Why? Because you've robbed Greta Thunberg of her childhood. *How dare you*
Electric is not hot - no IR signature and hybrid vehicles can use fuel but much more efficiently.
It's a mixture of things. With a pure hydrocarbon system, a few energy conservation issues come to mind. One is that the engines are optimized for a higher throttle power than they'll usually need, meaning under typical conditions, they're very inefficient because they don't run in their favorite conditions. The next issue is the waste of power when the vehicle is sitting still. So, providing intermediate storage means you could actually increase the range in a number of ways. There's efficiency losses going from mechanical to electrical energy and back again, but a few benefits still come to mind.
Engine generators can be tuned to higher efficiency than the high torque engines used in tanks conventionally, since generators care more about horsepower than torque, meaning souped-up automotive engines or small, high RPM turbines could be used instead of behemoth 27-liter engines the size of a pickup truck bed. Another advantage is the prevention of energy loss when the vehicle sits still. If the engine is knocked out or shut off for stealth reasons, the vehicle can still move in a quieter mode. Engines in tanks are always keeping electrical systems powered up, so you might as well have a big battery or supercap pack juiced up for all the vehicle's needs, which bring us to the final point: the vehicles' batteries can be charged at their outpost before they deploy, thus providing them more free range in addition to their hydrocarbon capacity.
Bolstering the system's efficiency by using smaller engines with generators packed with neodymium magnets could offset the weight and bulk of an engine module, especially considering their combined size and weight could be less than that of an engine-transmission powerpack, and the weight of the driveshaft and bilateral drive systems could be equaled out by the weight of the motors, gearing and control circuit.
@@mattbrody3565 Hub motors would allow layout improvements inside and perhaps offset some weight too - plus all the potential traction improvements.
Heavy haul open pit mine trucks have used this tech for a very long time..
There is an all-electric mine truck that uses inclines and gravity to recharge. www.autoblog.com/2019/08/26/edumper-electric-mining-truck-self-charging/#slide-2163910
And this: ww.electrek.co/2018/03/16/all-electric-40-tonne-truck-mining-artisan-vehicles/ Note the use of a battery swap system rather than a possibly lengthy recharge process.
Hi chap I think you’ve got caught out be some common myths on EV tech.
(Apologies it’s a bit long)
Charging is very much limited by the charger and not so much the individual cells. It is in theory possible to charge every cell in the battery at the same time which would result in charging times for almost any battery size in a matter of a few minutes. This is not done on civilian vehicles due to the charging infrastructure being hopeless under spec and the cost of doing so. Both of which the military could easily overcome.
Maintenance should in fact be easier, primarily due to a huge reduction in connected moving parts. As you only really have a battery wired to a motor and charger with control units attached to both.
A nifty side effect of heavy (compared to cars) military vehicles is their mass. As when breaking, rather than using friction brakes, the electric motors can (and are used in cars) as generators. Providing a large amount of resistance and a significant amount of charge for the battery. Which in some vehicles has been developed to the point of ‘one pedal driving’ without regularly using the normal brakes. This also helps with reducing maintenance.
There isn’t that much lithium in a lithium-ion battery (despite the name). In fact the lithium is only used as the cathode.
As for Cobalt and it’s mining by child labour in the Kongo. The primary use of cobalt in industry is Desulphurisation of oil. Every litre of oil based fuel has already had Cobalt used and destroyed in its production.
Add to this that Tesla’s batteries are Cobalt free (demonstrating that it’s possible) making this actually a possessive for electric powertrains.
I’m no eco hippie and couldn’t care less for the so called ‘climate emergency’ but I do think dropping oil in civilian use is essential for reducing the political relevance of places like the Middle East.
Lastly they seem to have had the right idea in the 50’s. There is a great old school animated video of ‘Atomic power in the Army’. Where a larger vehicle with a nuclear power plant charges batteries and these batteries are slotted in and out of tanks. Removing charging time and fuel consumption in the most 50’s way possible. Not exactly eco-friendly, but that hardly matters.
Gotta say Matsimus, you always impress with your POV and analysis (especially your thoughts on fuel and charging support on this one) but this was just outstanding mate. Thanks AGAIN 👍🇦🇺
It would need triple A’s
A few.
Maybe three
Random User three-hundred
It would be nice, Especially for the loud ass Leopard 2... Although keeping the fancy pantsy diesel smoke screen would be a +
You asked a simple question, "Can we produce tanks that only use electric power?" Of course. The only problem is all of them would need their own built in electric generator running off fossil fuels or a very long extension cord.
Driven by environmental nut jobs there have been efforts in the states to run warships and planes off vegetable oil. It can be done but the price is staggering and jerks food out of the stores.
n South Africa we have an armoured car that is hybrid. RUclips has a vid that displays the vehicle buzzing around the display track. I remember a huge parade and this car snuck up behind the entire parade absolutely silently got to a few paces behind the assembled troops before anyone even noticed! Was amazing.
Hybrid Electric tanks?
*Laughs in Elefant Tank Destroyers blowing themselves up climbing a small hill during the battle of Kursk.*
@Nob the Knave It was a joke.
About charging: The US military is already planning to build sea-can sized A-reactors, which would potentially work for a long time without refuling. Bringing some of those with an armoured assault would be a lot easier than the hordes of fuel trucks. And some of the new E-cars can recharge to 90% in about 10m. So I think really the big challenge is in the battery technology.
When tanks go electric they have no personnel operating them, no humans = layout and armor can drastically change
Hydrogen fuel cell comes into play with the heavy vehicles. Still have the electric motors, but instead of heavy batteries, there is lighter and smaller fuel tanks. Also this system refills at roughly the same speed as diesel does.
"Be them rational or not"? I get you don't want to make this a political video, but that seems a ludicrous way to handle that topic.
Yeah, it's not being apolitical saying something like that, it's like an antivaxer casually dropping "if you accept the risks of being vaccinated". They are trying to sound neutral or whatever, but they are really just advertising their retardation.
@@lobsterbark It's not really the same thing at all. Climate change is a huge thing and not only cars contribute to it but also the industry. So changing all cars to electric ones might not solve the problem. So his scepticism is quite valid.
FCS was based on fielding electric combat vehicles
Need a miniaturized nuclear reactor in the trunk.
Electric solved, and also a MAD defense.
Sure, destroy the tank in your city. Learn what a stackpole is.
But it doesn't go boom though, it goes *BOOM*
nuclear reactor don't go "boom"
They don't explode, they can't.
Not because of safeties put in place, it isn't physically, nor chemically, possible for a nuclear reactor to explode.
Now, leaking radiations? yes they can.
@@TidusleFlemard that's the joke behind a "stackpole"
From what I can tell this joke is way too niche.
@@ludaMerlin69 It is very niche.
(Not a whole lot of genres out there with nuclear powered land vehicles.)
I'm not a scientist, but i will assume several negative effects :
1. Fuel. If the tank needed to be recharged by plug-in hybrid system, when the tank cannot reach recharging post, it will be a sitting duck. Solar power is possible, but it will need a lot of panels to recharge which is highly unreliable. Nuclear will be the best option of fuel, but when the tank blows up, all that nuclear fuel will taint the landscape.
2. Range. Massive batteries are heavy and can reduce it's range.
3. EMP. I don't know that the technology to protect tank from EMP attack exist or not, but EMP will render the tank useless.
If electric cars are anything to go off, they would be a hell of a lot quieter, if nothing else positive
I think you totally overlooked capacitor technology's role in this. Most people do. It will definitely have a role in an electric military.
Russia: *NYET*
*Caucuses exist*
Russia: what are electric motors?
Semi truck is out and it has a max load capacity of 40 tons. It can be equipped to a light combat tank which weighs around 40 tons. The battery pack can be served as a additional layer of protection below for mines. And it can travel up to 500 miles which is great. It will be much quieter than the conventional tanks and less heat signature.
Worst idea ever made, HEY LETS RUN EXTENSION CORDS CAUSE IT IS OUT OF POWER!
What if your battery gets hit and critically shorts out? Tank's going up in flames
Great report, Mat. Please do more about future military tech.
See as a tank it's stupid idea . But as a light armoured vehicles and petroling around military base it's very good idea .
Also it's ability to operate in cold weather combat without much maintenance can surpass most of the other options .
Dog Dog lmao batteries get fucked in cold weather , the range on tesla model x‘s in norway drop heavily when its winter time
All-electric is quite a hurdle, but diesel-electric hybrid is doable right now and would grant advantages while saving a significant amount of operating cost. Heck, even the money saved by not having to do cold starts for QRF, or on screening missions in cold weather would save buckets of cash. Hooking several partially broken vehicles together (like modern trains do) to form Voltron, would be handy, since mechanics tend to refuse to leave the wire.
Has anyone ever seen the flintstones ???
The acoustic signature is very important. Speaking as an Anti-tanker you will hear a tank long before you see it. If you incorporate the batteries as part of the armour/chassis this could become a lot easier. The power density is gradually increasing year on year too.
When it comes to powering on ops there are technologies like massive roll out sola. Like held in a a ISO container. Along with battery packs this becomes a lot more viable. This idea isn’t as far fetched as you may believe.
While I mostly agree with this video, there are some things that Matsimus probably isn't aware yet that may bring usable electric fighting vehicles to service sooner.
- One of these is storing power in solid matter (not solid state batteries - this thing is using principle of oxidation/redux reactions for stable long term storage without degradation that batteries get). This recent (patented) discovery could solve the logistical problem mentioned (of having to use fuel to power generators for charging and then charging in the field) by having to simply bring these new energy blocks, pellets or whatever via trucks, trains, planes (same as with liquid fuels).
You'd then simply change the spent energy blocks (or it may take the form of pallets or some sand - have to wait what researchers will come out as most suitable) with new ones and send used ones back for recharge (or dump them if needed).
For logistics the only change would be that you'd transport more solid instead of liquid fuel and your trucks wouldn't drive back empty. For recharging (if recharging the stuff would make sense for military ) time now wouldn't be such an issue as you could take your time with it in your base or you'd send it somewhere with a working power grid (the stuff is primarily being developed to store excess power from power grids and to compensate power fluctuations). In US, Russian (or similar) case a parked ship with a nuclear reactor could theoretically offer ''limitless'' fuel for eletric vehicles in most modern AOs.
My thoughts are can we use piezoelectric crystal in barrels and armor? The impact forces could be used to produce an instantaneous electric localized charge, in barrels it could be harnessed to auto reload and armor it can be used to set off reactive armor quicker. Electric reaction > Heat reaction. Maybe they already do idk.
Honestly I can only imagine fitting any military vehicle with an electric engine and big batteries would only be useful for recon vehicles, preferably light & wheeled, just to give it that extra layer of stealth.
Batteries are improving all the time eventually they will or hydrogen fuel cells will
I think was is missing from this discussion regenerative breaking. When a car on a smooth flat highway stops accelerating it can coast for maybe 2 miles. This is where hybrids make their gains, you put energy into accelerating but then get it back when you hit the breaks. But I'm guessing (never been in one) that a tank on rough ground (like @15:10) if they shifted into neutral and coasted would only go for maybe 100 feet tops. All the energy is lost into tread linkages, mud, dust, shock absorbers, etc. Tanks of course have breaks but most likely they aren't as heavily used as in a car in a city, normally just take your foot of the gas and it will slow down quickly on its own. A hybrid without regenerative breaking is worthless.
I love the idea of environmentally clean warfare... :-)
The hummer replacements from Oshkosh Defense LATVs etc are all diesel electric FYI. Another HUGE advantage of diesel electric in the LATVs for example was developed largely because they can produce a large amount of off site power that can be used to power small installations , charge other electric vehicles and systems that are already developed. They can also quick charge these batteries systems. One of the big reasons the military required diesel electric is the same reason it’s now being incorporated in our destroyers etc, they produce a lot of power that is needed for next generation weapons systems like the Laser and rail gun systems. It also eleimonatea the need of generators and huge fuel drums .
Hybrid diesel Electric might not be the way to go, however there are more than one way to use renewable energy sources. I doubt it will be possible to effectively convert an existing AFV hull to be "green" fuel wise. Going to renewable energy will require new vehicles. Things to consider is that you aren't just replacing the fuel tanks but the powerplant, transmission and back up generator as well. As a former AFV mechanic Matsimus will know more about how much those weigh than I do, I was FDC, but spent a couple of years studying a couple different types of engineering before I gave up on college.
Tesla more than any other manufacturer has shown that modern electric motors can provide not just high speed and acceleration but torque as well, this is important for heavier vehicles. Now currently on most tracked vehicles you usually have a single drive wheel on each side, with an idler wheel at the opposite end with multiple unpowered road wheels in between, please correct me if I'm wrong. The drive wheel receives power from the engine through an axle much like an automobile does. If you have an electric motor moving your drive wheels the only thing connecting that motor to the power plant is wires. Another thing you can do is make every road wheel a drive wheel as well so if one is lost you loose some power to the tracks but it isn't a mobility kill. But the question arises how do you provide power to the electric drive motors... if not using combustion engine or turbine power plant?
In addition to battery powered, there are hydrogen fuel cells, and nuclear power, as well as even solar to provide energy to the batteries and electric motors.
Batteries will be involved but the question is will they be the vehicles only source of power, maybe but not lithium ion batteries. Rechargeable lithium ion batteries, especially larger ones, start becoming a fire and toxic gas hazard. Multiple companies are already working on a replacement, since in the USA DARPA has been looking for such a thing for several decades, I do not know their progress on this research. In an AFV the batteries could be moved to multiple compartments in the floor of an AFV and make up part of its belly armor, however another option is in a forward or aft compartment much like an engine. When the AFV pulls into the resupply point instead of recharging the batteries they pull the battery packs and replace them with fully charged ones. Each AFV will have multiple power packs and if standardized larger heavier vehicles will have more than smaller ones, the point is you replace the battery pack before pulling the next one so the vehicle is never without at least one battery pack with at least some charge in it.
Solor panels will not be a primary power source for the military, especially on an AFV, however they will become a secondary. Solar cells are much more efficient than they used to be and can generate power even when overcast now, they are also much tougher. A company called Solar City, a subsidiary of Tesla Motors, makes roofing shingles that are also solar cells that can withstand being struck by hail, in addition to meeting USA building material requirements for roofing shingles.
Hydrogen fuel cells are becoming more of an option especially in some countries that are already developing an infrastructure for the liquid hydrogen. The USA already have trucks that act as water purification plants, it wouldn't be difficult to make one that cracks water into liquid hydrogen fuel and oxygen gas.
Now I'm sure DARPA is working on cold fussion and ARC reactors but until that science fiction becomes a reality there is already a nuclear reactor that could be scaled down to fit in an AFV. It's been awhile since I've read about them so I might be wrong here but back in the 90s Germany developed something they were calling a Pebble Bed Reactor. Unlike the fission reactors used by naval vessels they do not require extensive cooling systems and are easily scaled large or small. They are very stable and robust, jostling or even shooting one will not cause a meltdown, although blowing one up will scatter radioactive materials over an are it's not like a 3mile island or Chernobyl meltdown. Even if you can't put these in your AFVs they could become part of a mobile logistics network.
Future military vehicles are going to have find a way to generate not only enough electrical power for themselves, but enough for their supporting infantry as well. All the data systems, communications, sensory and muscle augmentation being developed for soldiers use a lot of power. That and once the Navy has electromagnetically accelerated projectile and laser weapons working, the Army is gonna want to put such weapons on land vehicles, they are going to need a lot of power.
The idea is not that bad, it would be extremely useful to charge up whilst driving the the battlefield and might even have a longer range because of it
Instead of a battery the military would probably use fuel cells. Fuel cells generate electricity and can use any fuel with hydrogen save water (diesel, gas, jp5, ammonia, pure hydrogen).
There's also aluminum air batteries which are as energy dense as gas and super cheap with the right electrolyte. You'd have to lug battery banks around though but depending on the unit it could be effective.
Fuel cell system could be used. Two ac motors, one inverter, two variable speed drives and a fuel cell. You can have a choice of different fuels to use, but you still have to workout the storage/containment problem for that fuel.
It has been tried. The "Tiger I (P)" VK4501 (P) prototype by Porsche used diesel-electric drive and was tested unsuccessfully by Germany during 1942 (it burst into flames). The technology just wasn't there in the 1940's but electric powered tanks has been considered.
The US military is moving towards using small nuclear plants to provide site power where they currently use gas turbines or diesel.
If that seems inappropriate but it means much less fuel to be shipped. The new Ford Class carriers have 125 megawatts of electrical power plus the 260 MW drive to the propellers. From TWO nuke reactors. The army would have smaller kit that can be used on army field base stations.
Not sure how practical recharging a tank would be in war situation. You can refuel and go way faster. You can't delay when at war.
Most tanks have to rely on very vulnerable fuel trucks to stay operational. A hybrid engine could extend their range pretty far and allow them to recover anywhere there’s electricity.
In Serbia we got electric tracked vehicle. It's like 1 meter wide and 1,5 meter long and base it's like 40cm tall. It's remote control, has camera. Can carry 12,7 machine gun, double ATGM(small ones), radar, artillery radar... Anything small 100-200 kg weight. It's slow like 10-20km/h and range is not great (I believe). It's in development process but military and police are already doing training. It can be made almost entirely out of plastic just to add extremely sneaky element.
About electric Tank... that's not happening any time soon.
About hybrid tank; that was Porsche doing in WWII. All Ferdinand and Porsche tiger tanks are hybrid power. Also Maus was hybrid.