How produce yous define armored vehicle mobility?
The inquiry comes from the post yesterday concerning the Leclerc MBT. One of its principal attributes set forwards past times its supporters is that its to a greater extent than mobile than whatever other tank inwards the West.
But how produce yous teach far at that?
Consider the ready on on Baghdad. Traveling at 30mph over broken dry reason is a jarring experience. It non solely breaks trucks simply it gives tanks a adept run out. Quite honestly moving faster than that is non solely non necessary simply downright hazardous to the crew.
What nigh obstacles? If your ready on is stalled because yous pick out convey forwards bridging equipment for your MBTs simply your AAVs or other amphibious vehicles tin maintain does that hateful that they’re somehow to a greater extent than mobile than your tanks…even if they’re slower cross country?
What nigh move on difficult packed soil or roads? Wheeled IFVs tin approach (some of them) almost 70-80mph. Yet those same vehicles struggle inwards mud, whereas the MBTs (if driven correctly) tin brand it thru. What nigh vehicles that lack the mobility of tanks over broken dry reason similar the LAV-25, nonetheless pick out the mightiness to lifted (a brusk distance) past times CH-53E. Suddenly that dense wood is bypassed past times air as well as your heavy armor has to brand a detour. Does that brand the LAV-25 as well as other readily heli-lifted vehicles the ultimate inwards beingness mobile?
So just how produce yous define armored fighting vehicle mobility? Sumber http://www.snafu-solomon.com/