Russian Armata fails to load onto carrier

Penguin said:

It was backing up the trailer due to its shape and size, notably the front of the AFV. Front en first would be more difficult because the front end sticks out at a much flatter angle. May also not fit the flatbed optimally that way. Duh.

Click to expand...

I can see that...

gambit said:

I can see that...

Click to expand...

Excuse my 'duh', I was cranky ;-)

Wondering if it may also have to do with how to take a vertical obstacle.
- Most MBTs have the drive sprocket in the rear, IFVs at the front however. So by backup up a flatbed truck a heavy IFV could actually be mimicking the way a MBT would be loaded (i.e. push itself up the ramp rather than pull)
- Often the angle of the track of an MBT or IFV is steeper at the rear and shallower at the front, and for a steep climb it may be better to back up against it.

G'day

The tank in the video is beached. It's like you hit an anti-armoured ditch.

The back of a tank was the heaviest, that's where the ammunition, armour and engine were. If you hit an angle rear-ending the tank, the tank will beach.

And you don't generally load a tank from the front too, that AMX show you why.

Davos

why so much of anti armata news?

atatwolf said:

It can't load? Well, at least it can move.......... O wait.

[video]

Click to expand...

Where did you get this video bro?

mike2000 is back said:

Where did you get this video bro?

Click to expand...

What is so funny? I find it amusing that idiots think that somehow if "failed to load". The loadmaster clearly (in Russian) signaled the T-15 to stop and it did. What you see in the video is normal, there is little room for error for loading tanks on a flat bed.

Davos said:

G'day

The tank in the video is beached. It's like you hit an anti-armoured ditch.

The back of a tank was the heaviest, that's where the ammunition, armour and engine were. If you hit an angle rear-ending the tank, the tank will beach.

And you don't generally load a tank from the front too, that AMX show you why.

Davos

Click to expand...

In the end, the problem lay with an experienced driver and loading crew.

Oscar said:

In the end, the problem lay with an experienced driver and loading crew.

Click to expand...

G'day Mate;

Indeed. That crews seems to mistime their acceleration and the tank then got stuck.

Bear in mind there are usually 4 gears forward and 2 gears reverse, there are not much room for mistake, usually the driver lined up the tank with the thread and then ram the back onto the platform.

Davos

Davos said:

G'day Mate;

Indeed. That crews seems to mistime their acceleration and the tank then got stuck.

Bear in mind there are usually 4 gears forward and 2 gears reverse, there are not much room for mistake, usually the driver lined up the tank with the thread and then ram the back onto the platform.

Davos

Click to expand...

Interestingly, I have a guess(and not an accurate one perhaps) that the change in design with the crew compartment being shifted to the main body may also have to do with some different weight distribution experienced by the vehicle?

It's still in deep development, hick ups are bound to pop up.

Oscar said:

Interestingly, I have a guess(and not an accurate one perhaps) that the change in design with the crew compartment being shifted to the main body may also have to do with some different weight distribution experienced by the vehicle?

Click to expand...

G'day mate

That's depends on the weight of the crew and the turret.

All in all, normally a tank is quite heavy on the back, the engine and ammo locker is quite heavy and you cannot put more armour up front to balance it too or the tank will dig in while you are on the move

Davos