> read about ww2 tanks
> tankers are constantly blowing chuds
> no matter the model or country they all blow chuds
what innovations stopped this? just stronger chuds in general?
pic rel: modern tank that allegedly blows chuds constantly
> read about ww2 tanks. > tankers are constantly blowing trannys
>just stronger chuds in general?
factually incorrect, it is well known that chuds lose physical strength post-op
ba-dum-tsh
>add more armor
>tank gets slow
>add horsepower
>need stronger gearbox
>stronger gearbox has to take up more physical space assuming the same packing efficency
>hard to make tank bigger without feedback loop of armor > HP > bigger chud
>accept gearbox is a bit shit instead of going back to the drawing board
This will be solved for the first time by hybrid tanks in the coming decades, a combustion engine will run a generator that powers electric drive motors the same way mining haul trucks have done for decades.
so the current meta is to just accept the loss and do a quick swap?
Yep, everyone is running power packs that can be swapped in under an hour because shit is going to break.
Isn't the BMPT just a recycled T-72 chassis without the big boom turret? The weight of the goofy shit they bolted to it instead should be something the chassis and trans can handle.
Current? Quick swaperoos have been an intentional design feature since at least the M18 Hellcat.
>a combustion engine will run a generator that powers electric drive motors the same way mining haul trucks have done for decades.
I am pretty sure the German Wiesel replacement, with those four treads, already works that way. The sprockets that drive the threads seem to be electric hub motors, with massive cables going into them.
It offers much better control and completely removes the gearbox, I'm kind of surprised it's taken this long to happen but the brass have always been scared of change.
Historically diesel over electric hasnt been very good in armored vehicles. Namely the Porsche Tiger 1 variant and the suqsequent Oliphant tank destroyer.
I agree though, its the way to to.
.t mining electrician.
Agreed
t. mining electrician
PS. are you on normal operations crew or do you travel around doing shutdowns?
Ive been all over normal ops, im underground instrumentation, electrician and communications in nevada the last 7 years, interned in another open pit mine and underground mine when going to school.
Cant say i miss open pit at all.
Where are you at?
Australia open pits doing shutdowns, expansions and setting up new mines.
Got to do a lot of cool shit like build power plants and play with 11vk to get power down kilometers of conveyor.
I'm out now, got sick of it destroying every relationship when I fuck off to the other side of the country for 3 months 3 times a year.
Tramp mining is hard for sure, it gets tempting when i see what some outfits are paying but ive been able to resist but UG production bonus makes up for it most of the time.
Probably should have done some of what you have for a few years tbh.
Nah mate, if you are on a good roster / rotation stick with it. Everyone I did shutdowns with burnt out eventually, some before me and others after but I have never seen anyone make it 10 years, I got to 7 myself.
With ops you get to live close to the mine and have a normal life, it's what I'm trying to get into now.
Well nevada needs electricians pretty badly if you care to make it to the states, top pay underground is 46 an hour plus bonus, a good month being 20 an hour, 4/5 rotating schedules.
I would love to do a few years there but I don't think the wife would be keen on that. I took a huge pay cut to turn up to a factory 5 minutes from my place and build switchboards. Best decision I ever made.
Thats always the hard part with nevada, there isnt alot of people that like it here, unless you hunt or do motorsports there isnt shit to do here but drink unless you take a trip to the city.
How hard is it for foreigners to work is Australia?
General work for a skilled trade is easy, catch is our mines get a tax break for hiring aussies over anyone else so they'll only take someone else if they have to.
We had a few super specialized German instrument guys with us but they were the only non-aussies I ever saw in the mines.
Thats too bad, i met some dudes from Perth and they were cool af, between that and aussie SAS committing the raddest warcrimes ive ever seen I want to make Australian friends.
The US Army wanted gasoline-electric way back in WWII. That was going to be *the* breakthrough in tank design, and it would give them a major advantage over all other nations' armor.
Only, it didn't work. They bashed their heads against the wall until they made squishy sounds. They simply couldn't make an electric drive that was *reliable*. This is part of the reason why Pershings almost missed the war; the Army wanted to replace the Sherman with an electric-drive tank, and the Pershing was a backup plan.
>They simply couldn't make an electric drive that was *reliable*
Hardly surprising, back then they still had to use motors with fucking carbon brushes, LOL
They didn't have semiconductors back then, so they can't make modern motor controllers that can easily manipulate electric waveforms.
Same reason electric grids are AC, back then there was no easy way to change DC voltages, and you do need that for long range transmissions
>the German Wiesel replacement, with those four treads, already works that way. The sprockets that drive the threads seem to be electric hub motors
The LuWa and yes that exactly right. Diesel-electric drive with a motor in each driving sprocket for four total.
Abrams X is hybrid as well
i've always wondered how much efficiency is lost having these round about style electric transmission.
~2%, the generator is ~99% efficent and the motors are ~99% efficent. The real catch with them is the weight, you simply can't make the generator, motors and reduction gears weigh less than a gearbox of similar output.
That said getting instant torque, no gear changes, instant direction changes, fully tuneable steering and millisecond traction control is well worth an extra ton IMO.
You missed the only part that matters - a diesel engine running a power generator for a 500 kW or larger size will be around 40% efficient in terms of fuel energy --> electrical energy out the generator at best efficiency point.
What about, like I don’t know. Remote capabilities? Fuel/refuel transport? “Ruggedness”?
True you do gain some IC efficency my being able to lock it at the best revs.
It's still a liquid fuel engine proving the power so nothing changes for logistics.
"Ruggedness" is significantly better, this is why haul trucks use it. They don't have a division of mechanics on every mine site.
Electric motors at peak output can be 95% efficient given enough effort. So it's not terrible and there have been diesel-electric trains boats and submarines for a long long time. Also mechanical gearboxes are less efficient than you might think.
>95% efficient
Worthless number. Can they effectively be fit in a vehicle ton for ton without impairing its ability?
Well yeah, porche did it in ww2 though the systems were much more primitive then resulting in breakdowns and fires.
Modern drive systems are mostly solid state controlled and much smaller and more effieicnt, afaik the generator/traction alternator is brushed but i dont see why they couldnt use a standard ac generator and use ac motors or a converter to DC.
What about vids related as an alternative to traditional gearboxes?
I know that belt CVTs have a history poor performance and lots of slip under heavy loads, but toroidal CVTs handle it a lot better.
Anon, hybrid powertrains have been a thing for tanks since the literal Second World War.
The Porsche entry for the VK45.01 competition (the Henschel entry won for many reasons) used a hybrid electric transmission. Later the vehicle was adapted into the Ferdinand/Elefant tank destroyer.
Americans also used hybrid transmission then. The T23, derived from the T20 (prototype of a M4 successor) used an electric drive (where the T20 used a torque converter and the similar T22 used a conventional mechanical drive). Actually, the T23, with various suspension setups (pic is the torsion-bar T23E3, base T23 was VVSS, T23E4 HVSS) was ordered, mainly for the VVSS version. 250 were built but the model was never standardised and sent into service, possibly because the electric drive was trouble. Later derivatives of the model did not use the electric system.
The T23's T80 turret went on to become the standard 76mm gun turret for M4s though.
>Anon, hybrid powertrains have been a thing for tanks since the literal Second World War.
Since WWI. The French St.Chamond tank used an electric drive.
But that was a French tank and they don't count. French tanks don't count as tanks, and France doesn't count as a country.
that looks like it sucks at crossing trenches, I imagine it getting stuck in any jagged bit of ground.
that is exactly why it was a pretty big failure. Although they did see some good use during the 100 day offensive as far as i remember, when they could actually drive on relatively flat ground again.
T20 series of prototypes ended up becoming M26 Pershing. Powertrain inherited from earlier and lighter prototypes being originally developed for lighter tank was the main problem for substantially heavier Pershing, to degree where improved version was renamed M46 Patton to divorce it from shitty reliability of Pershing.
It will never be solved by this because hybrid-electric drive is shit. The massive losses in terms of efficiency and weight are unacceptable in something so weight constrained as a tank, and the necessary preventative maintenance schedules are hard enough with trains(which catch on fire and suffer catastrophic mechanical failures all the time btw). The problem has not been solved and unless someone invents some groundbreaking alternatives that are lighter, AND more energy dense than petroleum or diesel products, it’ll never happen.
I'm talking about a diesel engine driving a generator that powers traction motors.
Did you even open the picture?
>inb4 that's unreliable too
It's how pic related works.
yeah but compare the size of a tank with the size of that thing
One moves 300 tons, the other doesn't.
One has to be capable of driving over civilian roads and bridges, one doesn't.
> electric motors
BUT WHAT ABOUT EMPENIS
>a combustion engine will run a generator that powers electric drive motors the same way mining haul trucks have done for decades.
Steam turbine battleships built in the 1910s (starting with USS New Mexico) did this as well, because reduction gearing to provide power transmission from the high RPM turbines to the much lower RPM propellers was a bitch and a half to manufacture at the time.
Many of those were later (1930s) refitted with the reduction gearing once manufacturing caught up, since in the end that's more efficient.
Modern materials and better manufacturing I'd imagine
>t. knows nothing about the subject matter at all
This but also training. One reason German tanks had reliability problems was the fact that as the war progressed, tank crews received less training. Imagine an 18 year old, never even driven a car, being put behind the sticks of a Panther. Highly trained and experienced crews are incredibly important. German tanks were often over engineered, but their reputation for mechanical unreliability is overstated due to this oversight
I think the Israelis and the US have designed their tanks with this in mind, keeping a crew alive is more important because you can always get another tank but good luck replacing the crew.
Thankfully newer tanks are much easier to drive than they used to be, electric driven vehicles more so, the motorshaft to wheel hub is easy to make strong.
i don't get it
I believe they are talking about transmission from male to female.
anon was just wondering about chuds in tanks, since it's a common point of failure throughout history.
operational wear and tear has little effect on the strength of a transmission.
obviously not.
Most modern tanks do not use direct drive.
The Leopard series use a Renk hydromechanical, the Abrahams uses an Allison hydromechanical, the challenger uses an indirect epicyclic gear train. The only non Russian based one I can think of is the K21.
Spur gear transmission have delicate teeth, that must have shock absorption or it will shatter.
Tanks by nature of having huge mass and massive surface area, due to armor and treads. This means every time they move, the initial jolt is tons and tons of forch delivered to the teeth of the gears.
>what innovations stopped this?
metallurgical developments. easy to make fancy alloys when there isn't a world war.
They always try to use automotive manufacturers to make tank parts and IMO, going to marine diesel manufacturers instead would be more robust.
Marine diesels are so reliable because they are oversized for their power output, same as trains.
You can make you boat a bit bigger or your train engine a little longer without any real drawbacks but you can't oversize a tank engine without getting more armored volume and a lot more weight.
is there a practical reason why the outer rocket pod's position is tilted downwards by roughly 15°?
Looking cool.
Let rainwater run off maybe? Dries a little faster and thus a little less corrosion? Maybe the just like slants, pic related.
>PrepHole - Mein Shaft & Trannies
Most of the issues I’m guessing were from grinding gears in the middle of combat. Imaging trying to shift an unsycromeshed transmission under that much stress or even just off roading a 30-45 ton vehicle. Cadillac pioneered automatic transmissions for tanks and most tanks these days are semi automatic.
Haha, blowing chuds.
>pic rel: modern tank that allegedly blows chuds constantly
It's not a tank.
Alleged by who?
You're a moron.
> tankers are constantly blowing chuds
lawl. Fellatio
Metallurgy and automotive engineering improved *massively* between the 1930s and 1950s. WWII did have a fair bit to do with it, as there was a lot of pressure (especially for the US, which didn't have the option of shipping transmissions back to the factory) to improve reliability. However, there was a lot of progress in general; compare a Model A to a '51 Ford Victoria with automatic transmission.
Tanks benefited from these advances. Another innovation was the development of the power pack, which combined the engine and transmission into a single unit that could be removed fairly easily for maintenance or repairs.
Finally, some of the worst offenders were German and Russian tanks, which tended to have over-designed or crudely-built transmissions (depending upon the model). This was partly because of poor planning and priorities, but the immediate, desperate needs of war played a huge role on both sides.
Oh, anon, you and your trannies.