RT: New Russian T-14 Armata tank grinds to a halt on Red Square
Russia’s military will be glad it was only a dress rehearsal, as its new state-of-the-art tank broke down in the Red Square. One of the T-14 Armata tanks ground to a halt, before finally rumbling away after the Victory Day parade rehearsal was over.
In a dress rehearsal for the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II on May 9, a parade of the new tanks, which were getting their first public viewing, rolled towards the very heart of the Russian capital.
All seemed to be going to plan until one of the mighty machines unexpectedly stopped right in front of the Lenin's mausoleum. Its engine was still running, but the tank would not move. An attempt to tow it away failed, before the T-14 eventually managed to restart and rumble off around 15 minutes later.
WNU Editor: Better have it happen now instead of Saturday.
More News On Russia's Armata Tank Breaking Down In the Middle Of Red Square During Today's Victory Day Parade Rehearsal
Parade hiccup as Russia prepares to unveil 'masterpiece' tank -- Reuters
Russian Armata Tank Breaks Down in Parade? -- AP
New Russian hi-tech tank grinds to halt in Victory Day parade rehearsal -- The Guardian
Russia reveals fearsome Armata tank in bid to gain battlefield advantage -- Euronews
Russian super-tank 'stalls' on rehearsal parade in Moscow -- BBC
Russia's New Armata Tank Seems to Break Down During Parade Rehearsals -- Moscow Times
Russia's Newest Tank Stops Working During Parade Rehearsal -- ABC News
Russia: T-14 Armata super tank breaks down during parade rehearsal in red Square -- IBTimes
Victory Day fail: Russia's tank to defeat all tanks breaks down mid-rehearsal -- Mashable
4 comments:
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/07/the_new_york_times_does_its_governments_bidding_heres_what_youre_not_being_told_about_u_s_troops_in_ukraine/
Is the new tank heavier?
That would be interesting to know.
Aizino Smith: As far as I know, compared to a T72 or T90, it's heavyer, it's weight close to 60 t, so still lighter than an M1. I don't know that the additional reactive armour's weight is included, but it's surely has some heavy weight. I seen videos of the new BMP2s also have some similar problems. But these are only minor problems.
For years the Panther 5 was considered the best tank of WW2.
From taking a Taguchi and a Design of Experiments courses I would have to conclude that the T-34 best tank.
The Sherman has the ease of maintenance and numbers. Ease of maintenance does not cut it, when you have a high profile and the tanks nickname is the Ronson Lighter. "It lights up every time." The Sherman had a gasoline engine, which is not conducive to crew survivability.
The Merkava to enhance survivability put their engine in the front of the tank. The engine block is to act as additional armor for the crew. I think the stats I saw when a tank gets hit is that 2 of the 4 crew survive. Israel wanted to up those odds.
The Panther 5 I have read was over engineered. From a manufacturing and quality point of view this is a waste of resources. The Panther 5 suffered from weight issues. It was up-gunned and up-armored from previous versions the suspension suffered suffered breakdowns.
The T34 had issues of very uneven production quality due to moving factories, long work hours, staff training and the state of USSR industry. A robust design will cover for not getting tolerances within a gnat's ass.
I have read of some M1s needing repair work, because they sat in on rail cars too long. The wheels or bogies deformed sitting in a place under the weight.
(If have also heard of simple construction equipment failing prior to 1st use, because they sat in the sub tropic sun for a full year. Rubber went bad. However, production quotas were met although a few parts were missing. This did not happen in the USSR. The VP kept his job. I heard both POV from the same person, which is not necessarily a bad thing.)
It would be interesting to know, if the engine, transmission or suspension failed.
Post a Comment