we've go a plausible alternate history sloped German MBT. how many spare parts do your factories produce given the resources already spent on the vehicle? make the machine as robust as you can so maintenance is lowered. army crew etc which touch on that point.Īgain, lots of design trade offs. Are the crew thence considered as 'throw away' as the machine they are operating? Again, seen comments by former U.S. And the recovered hulk dragged back and used as/for spare parts.Ī sucky idea when you consider crew surviablity/replacement. assuming said tank didn't get blown away after said first day in combat. And just masses of replacement parts being churned out and shipped forwards along with the tanks to keep them going in the field. I've seen a lot of documentaries where the design of the Sherman and T-34 actually mentioned that their long term structural integrity was secondary (If that) compared to every thing else. Long term reliability, again, is only a kind of concern if you're looking into the long term survivablity of the machine itself. That's why you have wheeled 'Tank transporters' (Any one have images of Prof Porsche's Leopard mover btw?) or, y'know, trains. Tanks, I'm pretty sure, have never been designed for traveling long distances any where.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |