Abrams vs Challenger

Excerpt:

US Abrams M1 tanks … each typically consuming around 720 litres of kerosene-grade diesel fuel every 100km. The British Challenger tanks are less thirsty, consuming around 220 litres per 100km.
Full story:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3350487&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

WTF? Here are the Abram’s specs:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

And here are the Challenger specs:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/challenger2.htm

It’s not an exact comparison, but both tanks weigh around 60 tons, have similar horsepower, and similar top speeds. Yet the Abrams consumes over three times as much fuel as the Challenger. Shit, no wonder the US is keen on Iraqi oil!

probably something to do with the fact that the challenger has a 12 cylinder 1200 horsepower diesel engine, whereas the abrams have a 1500 horsepower Lycoming Textron gas turbine engine....

if you've ever bought petrol in england you'll realise why the challenger is far less gas hungry. fuckin expensive.
interestingly, i didn't realise that the abrahms ran on JP-8 jet fuel and that they can run them on the same stuff as their jets. quite cool synergy although i hear the yanks are consuming 1.3million litrs of fuel a day in iraq

I have a great article on Challenger reliability somewhere around, but can't be fucked finding it. Challenger is better than Abrams in many ways but I think the new M1A2SEP is a slight bit ahead of CHallenger 2.
Gas turbines are thirstier, but they accelerate MUCH faster, and are MUCH quieter.

Soviets installed them on the T-80 then decided to go back to the diesel.