What Kind Of MPG Does A Military Tank Get?

When people buy cars, they often focus on fuel efficiency, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tests and reports on the fuel economy of every car sold in the United States. Fuel efficiency is less of a concern for militaries than for most car buyers, but it's still on the minds of those responsible for defense budgets. Militaries around the world have operated different classes of battle tanks for over a century, and these deadly behemoths have made up a significant aspect of military ground operations since World War I. The more massive an object, the more energy is required to move it, and tanks aren't light. Because of this, their fuel efficiency is horrendous compared to non-military or unarmored vehicles. 

While an average car weighs around two tons, modern tanks typically weigh between 40 and 70 tons. The German Army built a 188-ton tank during World War II, but it never saw combat. The M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) gets about 0.6 MPG, so it's far from the most fuel-efficient vehicle on the planet. Versatile MBTs have all but displaced the traditional classification system, which divided tanks into light, medium, and heavy categories. Armored personnel carriers and self-propelled artillery aren't typical tanks, but because they're armored vehicles capable of direct engagement we'll include them here. We'll also use the old weight classification system to help break down the average fuel mileage of some other notable tanks.

The United Kingdom's FV101 Scorpion (pictured above) is officially dubbed an MBT, but its weight of 7.93 tons makes it a truly light tank. In fact, it's well under the 20 to 50 ton range that the defense industry think tank Global Security established for light tanks. The FV101 Scorpion was initially outfitted with Jaguar J60 Mk 100b 4.2-liter gasoline engines, but these were later swapped out for diesel engines. On land they can move as fast as 51 mph, but they are also capable of traversing water at up to 3.6 mph. This tank's fuel capacity is 88 gallons, and it has a range of up to 470 miles. 

This gives the FV101 an approximate fuel consumption rate of just over 5 mpg. Because it's comparably light, the FV101 can drive on paved surfaces. Fuel mileage dips a little when you take the FV101 Scorpion into rough terrain, but that's true of all tanks. One light tank that is no longer in service is the M551 Sheridan Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle. The Sheridan was produced and operated primarily by the United States Army and weighed nearly twice as much as the FV101 at 15.2 tons. It could travel up to 43 mph on paved roads for a distance of around 350 miles. It carried 158 gallons of fuel, making its fuel consumption just about 2.2 mpg.

Medium tanks are those weighing between 20 and 50 tons, and there have been many examples. Germany's Leopard I (pictured above) has been in service since the 1960s. It weighs 42.2 tons and is powered by a Daimler-Benz 10-cylinder diesel engine. This tank has a cruising speed of 40 mph and a range of 372 miles. The Leopard I carries 252 gallons of diesel, placing its fuel consumption at just under 1.5 mpg. Another medium tank in use today is the Russian Federation's T-90, which weighs in at 46.5 tons, placing it at the upper limit of the old medium tank weight classification. These tanks are outfitted with a liquid-cooled V12 diesel engine providing 940 hp. Its speed on paved roads is about 37.2 mph, and it carries about 423 gallons of diesel in its armored fuel tanks. It drinks that fuel at about 1.3 miles per gallon, making it almost twice as efficient as the Abrams but a little worse than the Leopard.

The Japanese Ground Self Defense Force's Type 10 — first introduced in 2012 — weighs between 40 and 48 tons depending on its configuration. The 40-ton model can travel up to 43.3 mph on paved roads in forward and reverse, giving it great battlefield agility. It's powered by a 4-stroke V8 diesel engine and has a fuel capacity of 232.4 gallons with a range of 273.4 miles. This makes its fuel consumption roughly 1.18 mpg.

Using Global Security's old classification system, heavy tanks are those that weigh in excess of 50 tons. The British FV4034 Challenger 2 MBT pictured above weighs 62.5 tons, but this can climb as high as 75 tons when armor modules are added. Powering the tank is a Perkins V12 26-liter diesel engine fed by 421 gallons of fuel. The Challenger 2 has a range of 280 miles on pavement, making its fuel consumption about 0.7 mpg. Its range can be extended with external fuel tanks, but they make it more vulnerable to attack.

The U.S. Army's M1A2 Abrams MBT has been used in combat since Operation Desert Storm. It weighs roughly 68 tons and is powered by a 1,500 hp turbine engine, giving it a maximum speed of 42 mph. Its range is 265 miles, and it carries up to 505 gallons of fuel. When operating on flat terrain, the M1A2's fuel consumption is about 0.52 mpg. If the mine plow attachment is installed, it drops by 25%, so fuel efficiency is not the Abrams' best feature.

The newest heavy MBT to enter the picture is the U.K.'s replacement for the Challenger 2, which is aptly called the Challenger 3. It weighs in at 64 tons without additional armor and is powered by a 1,200-hp Perkins Condor V-12 diesel engine. Its top speed is just under 35 mph, and it's believed to be capable of traveling up to almost 280 miles with 420.6 gallons of fuel. This places the Challenger 3's fuel consumption at 0.7 mpg, about the same as its predecessor.

There are many types of armored personnel carriers (APC) in service, although some of them have wheels and not tracks like tanks. One of the most storied APCs is the U.S. military's M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle (pictured above). This is a tracked, armored, combat-capable transport vehicle weighing in at 24.9 tons. It's powered by a 500-hp supercharged eight-cylinder diesel engine, giving it a power-to-weight ratio of just over 20 hp per ton. This allows the Bradley to travel up to 40 mph on paved roads for up to 300 miles. Its onboard fuel capacity of up to 197 gallons gives it an average fuel economy of about 1.5 mpg. 

A lighter APC that's been in service since the 1960s is the M113. The U.S. Army has replaced them with the M2 and M3 BFVs, but they're still operated by various allied nations. The M113A2 without external fuel tanks or combat load weighs 12.5 tons, and it carries 95 gallons of fuel. The M113A2 can travel up to 42 mph on flat terrain for up to 300 miles, thanks to its 5.2-liter, two-stroke, 210 hp diesel engine. With its relatively light weight and diesel engine, it can deliver more than 3 mpg of fuel efficiency.

While some people mistake self-propelled artillery for tanks, they're different classes of vehicles. Still, the M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer is a good example of a heavy, armored tracked vehicle capable of direct engagement. Its function is similar to that of a tank, and most artillery personnel call them tanks, so we'll make space for the Paladin here. It's a 31.8-ton self-propelled howitzer that boasts a 440-hp turbocharged Detroit Diesel engine and a fuel capacity of 133 gallons. Its range is 214 miles, and it can travel up to 38 mph. Its fuel consumption is about 1.6 mpg, making it comparable to traditional tanks.

A mid-weight APC used by the British Army is the AS-90, weighing in at 45 tons with a full combat load. The AS-90 is powered by a four-stroke turbocharged V8 diesel engine, using the vehicle's 198 gallons of fuel. The AS-90 can travel up to 230 miles at a top speed of about 28 mph. This gives it a fuel consumption of about 1.2 mpg, a little worse than the M109A6.

The German Army has a similar vehicle, the Panzerhaubitze 2000 self-propelled howitzer, though it's considerably heavier than the previous two. It weighs 61 tons and carries 138.3 gallons of fuel to feed the supercharged V8 diesel engine. The Panzerhaubitze 2000's top speed is 37.26 mph, and it has a range of 265.2 miles. With its onboard fuel capacity, the 265.17 Panzerhaubitze 2000 has a fuel consumption of almost 2 mpg, which is impressive given how heavy it is compared to its American and British counterparts.