Re: [FT] Scale in Full Thrust

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan M Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> >Which do you think is the heaviest: a modern MBT (60-70 metric
> >tons), or a block of solid balsa wood with the same external
> >dimensions (width, length, height)?
>
> Umm, I question that...Simply on the basis that an Abrams won't ever
> float unless you magnify its dimensions such that it weighs less than
> an equivalent volume of water does.

This was my first reaction, too. But I think Oerjan is referring to a
cube
with the length/width/heigth of the Abrams. The actual volume of the
Abrams
is rather smaller, as a fair amount of that volume will be air outside
the
tank. So it could be the atnk may not swim, but Oerjan still be right. I
also remember reading that tanks crossing a river underwater had a
problem
with their buoyancy, that they had difficuölty steering because of
their low
ground pressure.

> Less simply, we can look at the numbers (some one have better
> numbers, please use them..)

For starters, use metric units ;-)

> Balsa wood is about 8lbs per cubic foot.

Don't have that handy in metric units, certainly less than 1 ton/cubic
meter
(the density of water)
Let's say 0.6 tons/m3

> That abrams is 70 tons
> ok, some basic facts...
> Outside dimensions. This is the perfect cube size of an abrams.
I think 'perfect cube size' is what Oerjan was talking about.
I
> don't know the presice cubic footage. Any MAC loadmasters know?
>
> 93" x 387" x 144"

My data are: L (Gun forward !) 9.83 m W 3.66 m H 2.44 m
Total outside volume: 87,785832 m3
Multiply by 0.6 : mass of balsa cube: 52,7 tons
or assume balsa's density is 0.7: mass: 61.5 tons

I think Oerjan is right.

Greetings
Karl Heinz