Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (20411)	12/18/2003 7:53:06 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793677

My brother called earlier today to let us know he was in a group of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital this morning that had their Purple Hearts presented to them by GWB. That's just great, UW. I knew Bush was going there, he got an MRI on his knees after awarding your brother his Purple Heart. I am sure your brother got a picture of that award that he will treasure. Fill us in after you pump him this weekend, and let him know we are all pulling for his full recovery.

To: unclewest who wrote (20411)	12/18/2003 8:02:13 PM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 793677

so happy for you and family... No one wants to get a purple heart but if you got to get one no better way. enjoy the holidays your family has a lot to celebrate. ps Please thank him for his contributions. John

To: unclewest who wrote (20411)	12/18/2003 11:57:14 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793677

We don't get this in the main media. Strategy Page. ARMORED WARFARE: How the M-1 Became a Fuel Hog December 18, 2003: The M1 Abrams is the first and only gas turbine powered main battle tank. Similar to a helicopter gas turbine, its AGT-1500 engine is very compact and has a tremendous power to weight ratio, making the Abrams the fastest accelerating tank in the field today. Unfortunately, the Abrams' fuel consumption horribly high, about 5 gallons per mile, a number that does not go down much at idle because, unlike a diesel engine, the turbine is still turning even when the tracks are not. At the time the tank was conceived, this poor fuel consumption wasn't considered an issue. The Abrams' design was optimized for NATO's Central European Theater with the Army's aggressive Airland Battle Doctrine in mind. This new doctrine called for fast-paced maneuvering. Because German terrain was rough and heavily forested, which limited distance; it fit the Abrams power plant like a glove. The tank's power gave it the required speed (a top speed of 72 kilometers an hour versus the British Challenger's top speed of 59 kilometers an hour) and its poor fuel economy mattered significantly less over short distances. It was the 1991 Persian Gulf War that highlighted the limits of the Abrams' specialized design and Army doctrine. Charging through the Iraqi desert west of Kuwait, the Army's VII Corps struggled to keep four armored and mechanized divisions synchronized (tanks and other vehicles moving together) for a simultaneous attack on the Iraqi Republican Guard. Synchronization meant frequent stops and slow downs to keep a common pace among thousands of vehicles. The Corps could only move as fast as the slowest element if it was to stay together. Most telling, when units halted to refuel, the Abrams' tanks were empty while other vehicles, including tracked Bradley Fighting Vehicles, had quarter- and even half-filled fuel tanks. The pace of the battle was slowed in a way the corps commander didn't believe he could change. The Abrams drank too much gas and Army doctrine said that synchronization was vital. He couldn't abandon the Abrams and he felt desynchronizing his force would result in friendly fire. The "slow" pace of VII Corps is blamed by some for the escape of Republican Guard elements in the last days of the war. After the war, a Defense Science Board report highlighted the Abrams gas-guzzling as a problem and the Army sought a number of technical solutions, including JP-8 fuel, an improved fuel control system, Auxiliary Power Units to allow the turbine to be shut off more often, and a replacement engine. The simplest non-technical solution was the new operational approach used in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Because the Abrams burns almost as much fuel at idle as it does on the move, the 3rd Infantry Division simply did not stop moving from the Kuwait-Iraq border to the outskirts of Baghdad. The latest iteration of Army doctrine, FM 3-0 Operations, still lists synchronization as a tenet of Army operations, but this time the emphasis was put on other tenets: initiative, agility, and depth. Synchronization went out the window, allowing one brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division to speed 240 km in 40 hours versus VII Corps' Desert Storm attack of 160 km in four days. The Abrams was still a gas hog, but the fuel was burned moving instead of standing still. To replace the Abrams' tired AGT-1500 engines, the Army planned to develop a new gas turbine, the LV100, for the Crusader howitzer and a future M1 upgrade. With twenty years of technology to build on, the LV100 was to have improvements such as hotter core temperatures for better fuel efficiency and fewer bolts to reduce rotor stress and increase length between inspections and replacement. Unfortunately, fewer than a dozen LV100 prototypes were built before the Crusader program was cancelled, taking the LV100 with it. Testing of these engines was not completed but the program expected to reduce the number of parts in the engine by 43 percent versus the AGT-1500 and improve the efficiency by 30 percent. The cancellation leaves the Abrams to soldier on with the aging inefficient engine and growing maintenance problems. The US Army of the late 1970s and 1980s had a laser-beam focus on war in Central Europe. The Abrams might have done well there. The deficiencies we see today lie at the crossroads of technology, doctrine, and strategy and will not be easily corrected. Where and how will the next war be fought? The better we are able to predict these issues and the better design tradeoffs we make, the more effective our next generation weapons will be. --AJ Wagner strategypage.com

To: unclewest who wrote (20411)	12/19/2003 1:58:21 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793677

WOW! That's great uw! Here's hoping the rehab goes well too. Can't wait to see what your brother has to say too.

To: unclewest who wrote (20411)	12/19/2003 2:26:42 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793677

Please give him our thanks as well. Can't wait to hear what he thinks about the Court decisions about the dirty bomb suspect, and the Gitmo situation....

To: unclewest who wrote (20411)	12/19/2003 11:27:26 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793677

Please make sure that he knows that there are many here who appreciate all he has done.

To: unclewest who wrote (20411)	12/19/2003 11:38:10 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Respond to of 793677

Please pass along to him our thanks and best wishes.

To: unclewest who wrote (20411)	12/19/2003 10:59:20 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793677

Wonderful!!! GZ