fuel usage and our new tanks

Submitted: Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 14:08
ThreadID: 37995 Views:2038 Replies:4 FollowUps:13
This Thread has been Archived
goodday all
just having a read about our new tanks and i wont be whingeing about my fuel usage any more

The tanks have a maximum on-road speed of 66km/h and a cross-country speed of 48km/h.

Their 1500hp gas turbine engines use 19.7 litres of fuel a kilometre.

nobody asked me about buying them and as a taxpayer i have to help pay for this fuel for them

bugger

steve
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Notso - Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 14:34

Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 14:34
That's not much worse that the V8 Landcruiser is it?
AnswerID: 196225

Reply By: Footloose - Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 14:45

Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 14:45
For a moment there I thought you were talking about some long range or gas injection tanks that you'd had fitted! Now I'm with the program. I guess they rely on the APCs to go quickly ?
AnswerID: 196228

Reply By: Stu050 - Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 15:08

Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 15:08
Steve,
Don't forget that it weighs 63 tons (not tonnes)?

Power to weight is nearly 24HP/ton. Tactical cruising range 275 miles.

Stu

AnswerID: 196230

Follow Up By: Member - MUZBRY (VIC) - Monday, Sep 25, 2006 at 12:38

Monday, Sep 25, 2006 at 12:38
And you don't even get a steering wheel for all that money.
Muzbry
Great place to be Mt Blue Rag 27/12/2012

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 454657

Follow Up By: Geoff (Newcastle, NSW) - Tuesday, Sep 26, 2006 at 21:05

Tuesday, Sep 26, 2006 at 21:05
Stu,
A metric tonne and an imperial ton are within a bee's pecker of each other.

1 Imperial ton is 2,240lbs.
1 Metric tonne is 1,000kg's
Obvious so far.

Now,
1kg = 2.2lbs, therefore 1 metric tonne = 2,200lbs = close enough to the same.

Yes, they are heavy suckers!!

Geoff.
Geoff,

Grey hair is hereditary, you get it from children. Baldness is caused by watching the Wallabies.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 455078

Reply By: _gmd_pps - Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 15:08

Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 15:08
yeah second hand US rubbish ...
and why do we need tanks with double the shooting range
of a Leopard ? the Leopards are faster, more flexible and have
superior electronics but leass armour and range ... why do we
need this sort of equipment ? If we ever would need it we do not
stand a chance anyway so why not investing a bit smarter ..
well .. I just may be a bit short sighted here ..
regards
gmd
AnswerID: 196231

Follow Up By: Kev M - Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 15:30

Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 15:30
Don't forget the trucks that they had to purpose build to carry the heavy suckers around with. The trucks are now over the load limit of the majority of the hwy's in Australia. What else do they want to buy?
The bloody things will never see a battle outside of Australia any way. So why not buy something that we would actually use in a war. They would have to be the most expensive training aids known to Australia.

Kev
0
FollowupID: 454470

Follow Up By: Exploder - Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 15:36

Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 15:36
why do we
need this sort of equipment ? If we ever would need it we do not
stand a chance anyway.

Why do you say that?
0
FollowupID: 454471

Follow Up By: Richard Kovac - Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 18:02

Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 18:02
Exploder

Why do you say that?

I think that if our enemy (who ever they are) make a landing and start to invade and that we need the tanks to fight a ground war, were in trouble, unless we can win another battle in retreat.
Or thay land at Puckapunyal.

Richard

0
FollowupID: 454498

Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 18:08

Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 18:08
Jeez, Harold Screwball will have a field day with those suckers, eh?!! If he reckons the humble 4x4 is a "killing machine", when will he get his ugly mug on the box to tell us the downside of these? Ouch! It would REALLY sting if one hit you at the lights!!! (anywhere bloody else for that matter)......not to mention that big, unsafe protruding steel pipe......
0
FollowupID: 454499

Follow Up By: Kiwi Kia - Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 18:57

Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 18:57
I do not disagree with any of the other comments above. But these engines do burn almost any fuel or mixture of fuels. Kero, diesel, mixture of oils and kero in fact anything you can pump that will burn.
0
FollowupID: 454510

Follow Up By: Kev M - Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 19:28

Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 19:28
To run on any fuel would be a bonus as at 19l/km it would end up costing a heap of $'s for us taxpayers to keep them running if they were to run on purely diesel.
0
FollowupID: 454514

Follow Up By: Member - 'Lucy' - Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 22:58

Sunday, Sep 24, 2006 at 22:58
Sounds like they are talking about your 'tank' Roachie.

(Overloaded, over GVM obsolete piece of Nissan junk. If the 'enemy' saw it they would chit themselves from laughing)
0
FollowupID: 454567

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Monday, Sep 25, 2006 at 00:29

Monday, Sep 25, 2006 at 00:29
dont think you guys living down there in your Syd/Mel ivory towers have any idea what is going on up north NOW?
The country is being invaded from the north at the moment, as we speak.
Hundreds of fishing boats are coming in every week, very few are even challenged, let alone stopped. I used to have a fishing boat up there, sold out a few years back. The boat has since been boarded several times, once they had to physically "assist" them off the vessel. This was less than a kilometer from the Kimberly coast. Earlier this year quite a few boats landed and completely cleaned out a reef of Trocus, part of a seeding program at one of the Aboriginal missions in a matter of days. (Lombardini? cant recall)
I still work up that way but on a much bigger vessel, and we see them by the DOZENS inside our waters.
How easy would it be for a hostile country/group to gather a stockpile of weapons etc up there without being detected.
Very unlikely to happen of course but without any sort of deterrent it would be even more wide open.
And how could we expect our allies to come and assist if we were too tight arsed to buy any weaponry ourselves?
0
FollowupID: 454582

Follow Up By: Member - 'Lucy' - Monday, Sep 25, 2006 at 02:38

Monday, Sep 25, 2006 at 02:38
B l o o d y Hell! Fisho

I wasn't aware that the situation was that bad 'up there'.

Just hope our new tanks are of the Amphibious variety, cause I am sure those Army Wallahs have got no idea how to air down a Tank.

Wonder if they the left overs from the Gulf War that are full of that Radio-active armour stuff.

You know! Protects your from the enemy but quietly roasts your gonads whilst your are in the sucker.

I will ring John Howard immediately and have him send them up there post haste.

Whats a recovery kit for a tank cost - don't think we can afford them so you will have tp make do.

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 454586

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Monday, Sep 25, 2006 at 03:38

Monday, Sep 25, 2006 at 03:38
Ha Ha, I'll take your reply as light-hearted, rather than sarcastic, but the facts are as I have seen them with my own eyes, on a daily basis. If you are not in the industry or up that way regularly, you have no idea of the problems up that way.
Sure the tanks are not much good in a lot of those areas of course.
But a strong defence force is the backbone of a strong democracy, and it costs money.

But remember that Australia HAS to protect WA, as you would all be F...ed without us at the moment!!!

0
FollowupID: 454590

Follow Up By: _gmd_pps - Monday, Sep 25, 2006 at 13:16

Monday, Sep 25, 2006 at 13:16
Nothing against a STRONG defence force .. by all means .. I am more militant in that regard then it might appear ... but I was talking about these specific tanks .. consider them a total waste of money ... I have no problem paying 10c more for a litre diesel when I know it's used for border protection ... so PLEASE do not get me wrong here ... I am a naturalised Australian, but rather "patriotic" ...
regards
gmd
0
FollowupID: 454663

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)