Jump to content
hoggydog

A question on vehicle reliability

Recommended Posts

One for you real tankers (or ex tankers or even well knowledgeable armchair experts) out there.

i was wondering what the most common faults modern MBTs and AFV's suffer from?

by fault I mean anything that degrades or removes its ability to fight.

top three or top five lists would be great also what vehicle(s) your list is based on.

thanks

HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From my observations:

Engine failures would probably rate pretty highly.

For British vehicles, surely a malfunction in the BV would lead to the vehicle being classed as "not taskworthy" :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For British vehicles, surely a malfunction in the BV would lead to the vehicle being classed as "not taskworthy" :-P

The Crew would almost certainly require a course of emotional counselling.

tumblr_m5t2q5je0K1qh5lduo1_500.png

:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, how long is a piece of string. Track problems.....Thrown track,

Had all the coolant drop out of a Spartan once, Wrong oil in wrong hole ( a "friend" did this lovely caramel smell as the engine cooked the OEP final drive fluid...oopsie) suppose it depends on the wagon in question ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5% of what?

5% malfunction for every shot?

5% chance that a tank will EVER experience a malfunction before being decommissioned?

5% of the fleet at any given time have a malfunction?

Of all damaged tanks, 5% have an issue with the autoloader?

There are so many different 5%s in the world, which one to pick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5% have eaten a crewmembers arm/finger?

This is a myth.

Both 6ETs series of mechanical loading system used in T-64, T-80 and T-84 tanks, and AZ-125 autoloader system used in T-72 and T-90 series, will not harm a crew member, untill he will place his limbs close to a working mechanism on purpose.

Which means the chances to be harm by these system are same as in case of a human loader not being carefull during loading procedure.

Also 6ETs mechanical loading system is actually more reliable and faster than AZ-125 system. 6ETs is also less vurnable to mines. 6ETs is also designed such way that it does not eject propelant charge stub case, so it provides more tight NBC protection compared to AZ-125. Other thing is that 6ETs is connected as a single module with turret, Russians calls it a механизм зарижаня кабиновэго типа. While AZ-125 is called автомат зарижаня бэзкабиновэго типа. Sorry for my poor russian. ;)

However cost for faster loading cycle is that 6ETs is more exposed to enemy fire, do not permitt driver to escape through turret if gunner and commander earlier not traversed turret properly and deinstalled at least two ammunition cassettes. Also reloading 6ETs might be a bit longer than AZ-125, because stub cases are stored in cassettes and not ejected outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back on topic.

My experience with M60, M1 family and Bradleys:

M60s - Always worked. Very dependable vehicle, but it should be considering that by the time I got into them they had been around in some version for 40 years.

M1s - Engine reliability was a real issue. You have to keep the engine lube with turbo-shaft oil; some engines would need a quart an hour, some not as much. I never messed around with the M1A2s very much.

Brads - Good vehicle from a reliability standpoint. The ergonomic design was crazy.

All were solid designs, but each one had their little idiosyncrasies. To me it was much more important that the crew did their part. Good crews did maintenance all the time; they didn't do "down time" in the field or in the motor pool. There was always something that needed cleaning, replacing or checking. You could have your tank as perfect as it was going to get on a Friday afternoon before final formation; on Monday morning you could find ten things that had broken while it was just sitting there. Definitely a Love/Hate relationship sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To get back on topic.

My experience with M60, M1 family and Bradleys:

M60s - Always worked. Very dependable vehicle, but it should be considering that by the time I got into them they had been around in some version for 40 years.

M1s - Engine reliability was a real issue. You have to keep the engine lube with turbo-shaft oil; some engines would need a quart an hour, some not as much. I never messed around with the M1A2s very much.

Brads - Good vehicle from a reliability standpoint. The ergonomic design was crazy.

All were solid designs, but each one had their little idiosyncrasies. To me it was much more important that the crew did their part. Good crews did maintenance all the time; they didn't do "down time" in the field or in the motor pool. There was always something that needed cleaning, replacing or checking. You could have your tank as perfect as it was going to get on a Friday afternoon before final formation; on Monday morning you could find ten things that had broken while it was just sitting there. Definitely a Love/Hate relationship sometimes.

Remember, your weapons system was made by the lowest bidder!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could have your tank as perfect as it was going to get on a Friday afternoon before final formation; on Monday morning you could find ten things that had broken while it was just sitting there. Definitely a Love/Hate relationship sometimes.

So true. :icon_frown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing as tanks got long into their life cycles, little design faults got picked up and sorted but wear and tear became more of an issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a myth.

"The auto-loader is supposed to be dangerous to the gunner, and you hear stories about gunners having their arms crushed in the thing; actually, in my experience, the tube - when controlled by the gun stabilization device - is more dangerous to the commander. With the gun depressed, the loader can potentially crush the arm of the TC against the turret roof if he doesn't keep out of the way. And when you're distracted by searching for targets and watching what's going on outside the tank, it's easy to get in range of the loader. That happened to me while trying to designate a target on the move, traveling about 30km/h over rough terrain; the stabilizer was keeping the gun level, and as the hull pitched up and down the gun swung up and down, with the breech tapping me on the elbow. Once I discovered what was bumping me I got my arm out of the way; if we had really pitched down and the breech pitched up any higher, I would likely have been injured."

from "Inside Great Tanks"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One for you real tankers (or ex tankers or even well knowledgeable armchair experts) out there.

i was wondering what the most common faults modern MBTs and AFV's suffer from?

by fault I mean anything that degrades or removes its ability to fight.

top three or top five lists would be great also what vehicle(s) your list is based on.

thanks

HD

The crew? :clin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...