Hydraulic versus Electric Turret Drives

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Found a Twitter thread discussing the features (and dangers) and evolution of Hydraulic Turret Drives and the Oils used in armored vehicles like the American Abrams that still use hydraulics turret drives instead of power hungry electrical systems like some modern foreign main battle tanks utilize.

 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
I think hydrlics work for jt.
I like how they show Bruning M1s, I think only two were US. One was destroyed by friendlies to prevent capture.
Don't know about the others.

The US mikitary also uses the same fuel in damn near everything, and our helicopters also use Hydrolic fluid.

We just like to have redundancy.

M1A2 Sepv3 best tank
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
I remember that hydraulics were quite a problem in M-48 and M-60, even non penetrating hits would burst the hydraulics lines, spraying the crews with scorching hot fluid, leading to crippling injuries. And it happens in non-combat situations as well.
 

gral

Well-known member
Perhaps using hydraulic because perhaps it uses less electricity?
That would be my guess. Hydraulic does have its problems, though(as mentioned above). In the end, it comes down to what you find less worse.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
From my understanding, most of the time the hydraulic turret drives are just more space-efficient. Electrical drives had the problem of being large as hell for their capabilities for the longest time. The reason that US hydraulics had this bad reputation is either a) they're forced to do far more than they're designed to (the entire Sgt. York debacle is one example, they had 3kPSI units doing the work of 5kPSI units and this is due to 3kPSI units being cheaper) or b) they're older models beyond their life-span.

At least, from my recollection of US military development.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Age is the main variable here. Hydraulics are a technology that got mature a long time ago and didn't change much since decades.
Meanwhile electric drives are something that got much better over last few decades and so did related technologies needed to support them.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Age is the main variable here. Hydraulics are a technology that got mature a long time ago and didn't change much since decades.
Meanwhile electric drives are something that got much better over last few decades and so did related technologies needed to support them.
Another thing is that with things like tanks, you have to take into account space considerations and not just the turret assembly either, we're talking about what you could call 'infrastructure' too. Electric drives eat a lot of power to move heavy things, that's why ships had electric turret drives first (they had the volume for the infrastructure), and even then they tended to be hybrid hydraulic-electrics than pure electric turret drives.
 

ThatZenoGuy

Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
I cannot speak for modern systems but in WW2 Germany really pressed for Hydraulics for turret systems, seemingly due to the lack of copper available for electricals.

They didn't really have APU's to power such things so it was solely dependent on the RPM of the engines, not a good idea when you're running on fumes and your lubricant oil progressively seems more water and less oil.

Postwar it looks like electrical and hydraulic are about as good as each other, with ups and downs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top