This is the way to go and should be considered for converting older vehicles like the Leopard 1 Tank into an IFV. What could be implemented if such a vehicle include 2 hours of silent running on batteries?
Diesel-electric has been proven in railroad locomotives for almost a hundred years. The simple, old, slab sided M113 three box design, a center hull and two side sponsons, would have been perfect for it. Fuel used for armor, as in the Merkava. Batteries on the floor plate, providing composite anti-mine armor. An inline diesel running an alternator in a side sponson. Cooling, a key factor, in the opposite sponson. A simplified drive train, maybe even in hub motors. A hydro-pneumatic, magnetic shock suspension with rubber tracks. The entire center hull open for crew and weapons. Swift-silent-deadly. But, as usual, the Army castrated the whole project by over dictating the design.
Using fuel as armor isnt real that of an good idea not to mention it dosent help against Modern weapons and ones Penetrated it Starts leaking fuel Reducing the effectiveness to and batteries for floor protection is a REALY bad idea Ones the batteries get Damaged and + and - touches it allways will catch fire and Burn the crew inside even dough the blast didnt hurt them
@@rayotoxi1509 Both the Israeli Merkava and the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 use-d diesel armor in small, well distributed, fuel tanks, as armor. The Merkava tanks are self sealing. I'm not sure about the S-Tank's. Diesel is effective against shape charge warheads. (As is water.) And it does not burn when hit. And not much is lost when a small fuel tank is holed. It's messy but the purpose is protection of the crew. Better a live crew and a slight reduction in range than a dead crew. I agree with you in regards to batteries in the floor. But if you look in most APC/IFVs, you'll already find banks of lead-acid batteries located in the floors. And battery technology and isolation from the crew or passenger compartment of both fighting and civilian transportation has and continues to evolve. One way to deal with the danger of battery fires is the same way ammunition is stored in "wet" containers. In other words, immerse the batteries in fire fire suppressant containers. Meanwhile, their density can provide a modicum of protection when "sandwiched" in composite armor. Fire is actually less of a problem than the toxic chemicals that may be given off if the tank is hit. Just as high pressure, burning hydraulic fluid is more dangerous than actual metallic fragments in a hit tank. The biggest tactical problem with turbo diesel-electrics is thermal signature. But even this can be turned into deception or decoy targets. The biggest issue I have with electric vehicles is increased weight, affecting ground pressure and trafficability, versus the ease of simply funneling a few liters of fuel into an internal combustion engine. Incidentally, you haven't lived until your tank turret has been struck with a long rod penetrator or an ATGM, the noise alone is enough to kill you! Tanks a lot for your comments.
@rayo toxi maybe use those newer ceramic solid state whatever battery's, there less capacity and it's slightly heavier but the damage resistance is ridiculous in comparison with lithium, or alternatively redox flow battery because non toxic/flammable etc and endurance can b3 increased by just hooking up mor3 tanks
While fuel as armour makes sense, since they don't burn due to lack of oxidizer, batteries on the floor is a problem. Aside form the previous mention of short circuit, there is the possibility of explosion. And since this is a military vehicle, not a civilian vehicle like Tesla, plenty of things can go wrong. There are two possible choices, accept small battery storage which will be in the engine bay, expecting short range which is handy for sneaking. Or, have most fuel storage on the engine bay and some in the back, and have the batteries mounted between the hull and outer skirt with some gap. The battery will act like overpriced space armour and will be in several armoured modules just so the rest of the battery doesn't burn the rest.
Just a thought on the subject..... but if you added a battery pack, with enough storage, wouldn't you could move around a bit on the stored power without a major heat signature. low noise, low thermal signature, well lower than diesel or turbine ... a sneaky, sneaky, ambush hunter.
Too bad it was ahead of its time ...and everything which is ahead of its time(t-64 , t-34 , panther , tiger p ) is unreliable mostly . And it used petroleum so ANYWAY
@@tekis0 i mean tiger p used petroleum to make electricity (petrol has higher chance than diesel in catching fire ) and all panzers used it . and those electric motors used to make a lot of heat . recipe for a disaster
Is this an other example of failed progress, because legislators do not understand the principle of technology? To me an electric design seems worth trying for real, and with the introduction of silicon-carbide switching electronics it seems obvious. Who needs gears if you can pack a megawatt switching device in a small volume?
Li-FePO4 are reliable and work in a large temperature range. They have less range, but paired with a diesel electric generator that doesn't matter. They are ideal for this type of application. There are a lot of different cell chemistries with different properties, some use rare elements and are expensive, but some, like this, are not.
@@mennovanlavieren3885 Why use Electric engine then in the first place when you need to have a Diesel Generator to power the batteries would by better to just build a Diesel engine in that case would probly even by better
@@rayotoxi1509 Generally, with electric cars, trucks and also trains and ships etc. The weight of the electric motors is similar to the weight of an equal capable transmission system with gears and a clutch. Then the advantages: 1. The engine is not mechanically connected to the wheels (tracks) which means the engine can run at an optimal rpm for the power needed. This allows for a smaller engine. 2. Removing redundant parts like a dynamo and a starter motor. 3. Design freedom of engine placement in the vehicle. 4. More control over the wheels. Electric motors can be used to implement traction control or differential steering. 5. When a battery is added the engine only needs to deliver average power, and not peak power. This reduces the size of the needed engine further.
This is the way to go and should be considered for converting older vehicles like the Leopard 1 Tank into an IFV.
What could be implemented if such a vehicle include 2 hours of silent running on batteries?
Diesel-electric has been proven in railroad locomotives for almost a hundred years. The simple, old, slab sided M113 three box design, a center hull and two side sponsons, would have been perfect for it. Fuel used for armor, as in the Merkava. Batteries on the floor plate, providing composite anti-mine armor. An inline diesel running an alternator in a side sponson. Cooling, a key factor, in the opposite sponson. A simplified drive train, maybe even in hub motors. A hydro-pneumatic, magnetic shock suspension with rubber tracks. The entire center hull open for crew and weapons. Swift-silent-deadly. But, as usual, the Army castrated the whole project by over dictating the design.
Using fuel as armor isnt real that of an good idea not to mention it dosent help against Modern weapons and ones Penetrated it Starts leaking fuel Reducing the effectiveness to
and batteries for floor protection is a REALY bad idea Ones the batteries get Damaged and + and - touches it allways will catch fire and Burn the crew inside even dough the blast didnt hurt them
@@rayotoxi1509 Both the Israeli Merkava and the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 use-d diesel armor in small, well distributed, fuel tanks, as armor. The Merkava tanks are self sealing. I'm not sure about the S-Tank's. Diesel is effective against shape charge warheads. (As is water.) And it does not burn when hit. And not much is lost when a small fuel tank is holed. It's messy but the purpose is protection of the crew. Better a live crew and a slight reduction in range than a dead crew. I agree with you in regards to batteries in the floor. But if you look in most APC/IFVs, you'll already find banks of lead-acid batteries located in the floors. And battery technology and isolation from the crew or passenger compartment of both fighting and civilian transportation has and continues to evolve. One way to deal with the danger of battery fires is the same way ammunition is stored in "wet" containers. In other words, immerse the batteries in fire fire suppressant containers. Meanwhile, their density can provide a modicum of protection when "sandwiched" in composite armor. Fire is actually less of a problem than the toxic chemicals that may be given off if the tank is hit. Just as high pressure, burning hydraulic fluid is more dangerous than actual metallic fragments in a hit tank. The biggest tactical problem with turbo diesel-electrics is thermal signature. But even this can be turned into deception or decoy targets. The biggest issue I have with electric vehicles is increased weight, affecting ground pressure and trafficability, versus the ease of simply funneling a few liters of fuel into an internal combustion engine. Incidentally, you haven't lived until your tank turret has been struck with a long rod penetrator or an ATGM, the noise alone is enough to kill you! Tanks a lot for your comments.
@rayo toxi maybe use those newer ceramic solid state whatever battery's, there less capacity and it's slightly heavier but the damage resistance is ridiculous in comparison with lithium, or alternatively redox flow battery because non toxic/flammable etc and endurance can b3 increased by just hooking up mor3 tanks
While fuel as armour makes sense, since they don't burn due to lack of oxidizer, batteries on the floor is a problem. Aside form the previous mention of short circuit, there is the possibility of explosion. And since this is a military vehicle, not a civilian vehicle like Tesla, plenty of things can go wrong.
There are two possible choices, accept small battery storage which will be in the engine bay, expecting short range which is handy for sneaking. Or, have most fuel storage on the engine bay and some in the back, and have the batteries mounted between the hull and outer skirt with some gap. The battery will act like overpriced space armour and will be in several armoured modules just so the rest of the battery doesn't burn the rest.
Really interesting article. There is yet much to be exploited from a technological advance in last 40 years.
Just a thought on the subject..... but if you added a battery pack, with enough storage, wouldn't you could move around a bit on the stored power without a major heat signature. low noise, low thermal signature, well lower than diesel or turbine ... a sneaky, sneaky, ambush hunter.
the south africans made a diesel-electric tech demonstrator of the rooikat which could do exactly that.
no... maybe you could move few kilometers before batteries would become so heavy and big and expensive that there would be no point in that
Kinda reminds me to the porsche tiger
Too bad it was ahead of its time ...and everything which is ahead of its time(t-64 , t-34 , panther , tiger p ) is unreliable mostly .
And it used petroleum so
ANYWAY
@@mr.waffentrager4400 Hey, uh hate to break it to ya, but CARS use petroleum. Ever heard of "Cars"? I'm talking about the phenomenon, not the movie.
@@tekis0 i mean tiger p used petroleum to make electricity (petrol has higher chance than diesel in catching fire ) and all panzers used it .
and those electric motors used to make a lot of heat .
recipe for a disaster
but later they did develop new inline diesel engines from 3 pistons up to 6 pistons that would power the generator
O:50 Fan made RA2 Tesla Tank what?
Is this an other example of failed progress, because legislators do not understand the principle of technology? To me an electric design seems worth trying for real, and with the introduction of silicon-carbide switching electronics it seems obvious. Who needs gears if you can pack a megawatt switching device in a small volume?
Excellent video informative.
Do you know what parametric means?
Batteries are not good in cold
Li-FePO4 are reliable and work in a large temperature range. They have less range, but paired with a diesel electric generator that doesn't matter. They are ideal for this type of application. There are a lot of different cell chemistries with different properties, some use rare elements and are expensive, but some, like this, are not.
@@mennovanlavieren3885 If they did,someone would be making them! Maybe in future with solid fuel batteries
@@pashapasovski5860 they are used, in motorhomes, caravans and electric cars and boats and forklifts.
@@mennovanlavieren3885 Why use Electric engine then in the first place when you need to have a Diesel Generator to power the batteries
would by better to just build a Diesel engine in that case
would probly even by better
@@rayotoxi1509 Generally, with electric cars, trucks and also trains and ships etc. The weight of the electric motors is similar to the weight of an equal capable transmission system with gears and a clutch. Then the advantages: 1. The engine is not mechanically connected to the wheels (tracks) which means the engine can run at an optimal rpm for the power needed. This allows for a smaller engine. 2. Removing redundant parts like a dynamo and a starter motor. 3. Design freedom of engine placement in the vehicle. 4. More control over the wheels. Electric motors can be used to implement traction control or differential steering. 5. When a battery is added the engine only needs to deliver average power, and not peak power. This reduces the size of the needed engine further.
Range , 40 Kilometers 🤔
😂
Its not
T O G II