Re: Future of Tanks
- From: Mikko Nahkola <mnahkola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:06:45 GMT
Andrew Swallow wrote:
> Airborne! wrote:
>> Andrew, I tend to agree with you more then not, but you have forwarded
>> some common myths relating to armored vehicles that I feel I should
>> respond too. Wheeled vehicles being cheaper is based upon the
>> assumption of using commercial drivetrains. The current crop of
>> wheeled armor using complex 6x6 and 8x8 drivetrains actually tend to be
>
> Yes. Commercial trucks do not use 6x6 drivetrains. Made to measure is
> expensive.
Actually, _some_ commercial trucks do. I've seen 8x8 too. But, sure, the
forestry gear is a bit special and expensive too.
Even so, they do exist.
> The centre wheels on a 6 wheeled combat taxi are basically spares to
> handle loss of a front or back wheel. Do they need either steering or
> traction?
IIRC Sisu had trials with that and decided that steering on two axles
was about necessary anyway and it was easier to drive when those were
the front and centre. As to the traction, well, a single non-spinning
wheel _will_ ruin your day in deep snow, and probably mud too.
(That's why a lot of trucks come in 4x4+2 or 6x4, with external wheel
couplers...)
--
Mikko Nahkola <mnahkola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
#include <disclaimer.h>
#Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV.
.
- References:
- Re: Future of Tanks
- From: Andrew Swallow
- Re: Future of Tanks
- From: Paul J. Adam
- Re: Future of Tanks
- From: Andrew Swallow
- Re: Future of Tanks
- From: Airborne!
- Re: Future of Tanks
- From: Andrew Swallow
- Re: Future of Tanks
- Prev by Date: Re: Future of Tanks
- Next by Date: Re: XM109 + G11 = ???
- Previous by thread: Re: Future of Tanks
- Next by thread: Re: Future of Tanks
- Index(es):