Bolted armour was already obsolete by the beginning of ww2, yet nowadays every new vehicle has optional bolt-on armour. Is it different beause they are bolted onto a solid hull (instead of an skeleton frame)? And what kind of bolts are used exactly?
Tanks and other armoured vehicles
Julian Lewis
Jordan Brown
He's in a band with a emale wrestler called Reika Saiki, iirc they just did a charity wrestling match with a bunch of idols in maid skirts.
Gabriel Rodriguez
Big mistake IMO. The biggest, if not only, advantage of the armata chassis is in the logistics since commonality that allows you to make all your armed forces armata-based.
btw my question towards tankfags cause I hardly have a clue on the subject:
Why isn't the armata multi-role chassis a good idea? How much can a generalist chassis design compromise the performance of different specialized treaded vehicles?
Colton Torres
The engine and drivetrain in most modern AFVs is modular, right? Not 'modular' in the sense of 'its just like LEGO, i can mix and match parts', but in the sense of 'unscrew four bolts, lift the whole assembly out, set it aside for repair, drop in a new unit and go'.
Having one chassis that can do everything with mix-and-match add-ons seems like something the Good Idea Fairy came up with. I guess we'll see how it plays out. In my mind, if you really wanted to maximize ease of repair and logistics, you'd turn as many critical systems as possible into plug-and-play assemblies, and then make those assemblies commonalities to all of your vehicles. So even if you have dedicated chassis for your APCs, IFVs, MBTs, AA, et al, they all use the same motor, the same turret ring, the same suspension bogies, and so forth.
Gavin King
I see no reason why it wouldn't be a good idea. Unlike planes, you can get away with just bolting stuff onto tanks without impacting their overall performance too much, although ships are the true kings of that. If you want a truly modular system, then you should do this:
It has to take enemy direct and indirect fire head on. Basically something like the Armata, just with even more modular armour. It comes with enough armour to withstand the autocannons of more common potential enemy IFVs, but you can armour it up against MBTs.
This should be like a lenghtened chassis of the previous vehicle that has a system to pick up and drop shipping containers. Of course it can carry supplies too, but you can continerize heavy mortars, MRLSs, AA guns, EW systems, command posts, and many more things. You could even use them as APCs with the right containers. So it's to replace vehicles that might get targeted by enemy artillery and possible their vanguard too, but normally they shouldn't directly engage the enemy.
Trucks that carry shipping containers, nothing revolutionary here.
The modern equivalent of jeeps, and also whatever memevehicles the special needs forces like to use nowadays.
Vid related, you could put one into a truck and a dozen into a tank.
Ryder Stewart
Thank god the leaf is here to save any and all eastern equipment from criticism. Don't know what Russia would do without you leaf. Probably have to admit and fess up to their equipment being DOG SHIT
Jayden Bennett
The Russians have it right the heavily armored crew capsule. It doesn't increase tank weight a lot but crew survival rates goes up which means more experienced crews. Make a tank that can withstand 80% of battlefield threats with the capsule coming into play when facing other MBT's and field more of them then the other guy. I don't think we really can go heavier with our tanks without major issues, already MBT's are severely restricted in where they can fight due to weight and increasing it will only give more problems.
Brody Cooper
The contract is properly out now (ria.ru
Compared it to what was said before: 100 Armata before 2020, what a reduction!
Oh no wait, it's 30 per year, same as the low rate T-90 deliveries for example, which is exactly what anyone would expect for a first batch.
132 is just right for a tank regiment (4 bat, 3 tank 1 IFV, 90 T-14 MBTs, 4 T-14K command MBTs, 30 T-15, 8 T-16 ARV):
30x T-14 30x T-14 30x T-14
T-14k T-14k T-14k
2x T-16 2x T-16 2x T-16
30x T-15
T-14k
2x T-16
Which is perfectly consistent with Soviet/Russian procurement practice (and pretty much everyone else in peace time, you first outfit a whole unit, see if anything is particularly wrong in group training, before cranking up prod').
Borisov is the guy that always say shit like that: it's his job in the Russian government to be Scrooge and say "there is no money for that" every time the military ask for something, even if the army asked sticks as weapon for running naked in the snow, he would say that.
It's also his job to make sure whatever is decided is done too.
In Russia it's the defense ministry largely alone that decide on procurement, with Putin arbitrating if a majority of the security council (which Borisov isn't even a member) upon review disagree with the army.
But of course, even through 3 automated translators, it doesn't make a nicer headline than "Russian Prime Minister says there is no money for sticks".
Jaxson Fisher
Are you a SmartCar designer?
Modularity means that parts are built to be replacable at any scale of resolution. Before the concept of modularity, parts could only be replaced at the lowest scale of resolution (ie screws).
The only immediately interchangeable parts on a T-15 vs a T-14 is the radios and a few nuts/bolts. The benefit in the "unity" of the Armata line of vehicles isn't based on similarity between parts, or modularity itself (which they do have)…. the brilliance is on similarity between and unity of manufacturing procedures. Literally one factory can build every single part for every single vehicle, or just build whole vehicles from scratch.
Compare this to the west, where a fucking tank needs to be airlifted between 10 different factories just to have a few parts screwed on in every factory.
Bentley Fisher
The video glosses over the fuckhuge loss of energy in the proposed system. Energy can't be created, only released or transformed, and every transformation has a loss. Hell, even having the driveshaft interfacing with the gears in the differential in the rear axle of a car has a loss just due to the force being applied at a right angle.
Trust me on this, I worked for a paving company. We had a customer that wanted an electric melter as opposed to the more conventional forced air burner. Marketing sold the idea as being environmentally friendly. When engineering finally got wind of it we ran the numbers even though we all knew that it wouldn't work. Sure enough, it was significantly less efficient.