Re: Re: [FT] Scale in Full Thrust

At 9:16 PM +0200 6/14/01, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
>Some days back, Ryan Gill wrote:
>
>>>I'm a bit curious as to how Ryan got 70 metric tons to be 180,000 
>>>lbs though. As I recall, 1 metric ton is 1000 kg and 1 kg is 2.2 
>>>lbs, so the 70-ton Abrams only masses about 155,000 lbs (must be 
>>>the M1A2 SEP version though - the M1A1 is only 65 tons/145,000 lbs 
>>>IIRC?).
>>
>>M1A2 is 80 tons, 160,000lbs.
>
>Have checked the figures now. According to TACOM the M1A2 is 69.5 
>short tons, ie. 139,000 lbs or equivalently 63 metric tons.
>
>Now I'm no longer curious how you got 180,000 lbs, but I *am* 
>curious about the "80 tons" figure <g>

It was after a quick search of the web. Looking further, GDLS says 
69.4 tons for the M1A2.

http://www.gdls.com/programs/m1a2.html

And the Logistics people in the army say 69.54. So perhaps I miss 
wrote in that one too....

http://www.tacom.army.mil/gcss/pmabrams/vehicles/m1a2char.htm

Could be a difference of wet and dry. How much does 40 rounds of 
120mm sabot and all the fuel for that beast weigh in at.

Though I really think perhaps I mis-wrote that as well.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		 ----------	      SW1025 H -
-   Internet Technologies  --  Data Center Manager (3N &10S)   -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 rmgill@mindspring.com -
-		   www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- C&R-FFL -	  The gunshow loophole isn't		 - NRA -
-	     keep federal laws out of private lives	       -