Abruptly, certainly. Only fags in power russian politic, for the sake of reception of worthy recoils for the eternally hungry pockets, will buy Italian "Iveko". Than money from the country for the sake of another's economy, instead of support of masterpieces of the car industry become dependent on spare parts, etc. How many it is possible such to suffer! The Russian army loses the face of the Russian weapon. Also plays very bad game, in dependence from from the outside.Fuck you mr.Putin!
Круто, конечно. Только пидрилы у власти, ради получения достойных откатов для своих вечно голодных карманов, закупят задроченные итальянские "Ивеко". Чем станут зависимы от запчастей и т.п. Денюжку из страны во имя чужой экономики, вместо поддержки шедевров своего автопрома. Блеаа! Сколько можно такое терпеть! Российская армия теряет лицо своего российского оружия. И играет в очень плохую игру, в зависимость от извне.
@Pravoverniy Хватит паниковать. Пока ничего массового иностранного закупленно не было.
Все заявления о покупке иностранной техники это внутреняя борьба МО с представителями ВПК... этакий шантаж для получения адекватных цен и открытых схем ценообразования.
Все что закупленно это опытные партии для оценки иностранного опыта и это нормальная практика.
Литеру "О1" еще никто не отменял для вооружения принятого на в РА.
@BitnikGr В этом есть долика правды. Но все же не абсолютно во всем. Я поддерживаю покупку финских винтовок, поскольку у них на порядок круче ТТХ наших СВД. Сделали СВД с таким же коллибром и толку? Дерьмовая винтовка... В таком случае я понимаю т.з. МО. Но самое возмущающее то, что почти в 2 раза танки российской армии продают дороже нежели эти же за границу. МИ 28 Н по 28 пунктам уступил Апаче Н 64. А нам пялат тут какой это супер вертолет. Сейчас я понимаю вояк. И правильно делают...
@Pravoverniy "покупку финских винтовок, поскольку у них на порядок круче ТТХ наших СВД"
Это не так. Лучше, но не на порядок. А вот цена вероятно на порядок выше. СВД никогда не создавалась как снайперская винтовка в западном понимании этого слова. СВ-98 более корректный пример для сравнения.
Хамер, Тигры, Ивеки, конечно, штуки хорошие, но все-таки в России для армии нужно другого типа т/с. У нас же болота, распутицы, огромное количество мелких рек. В таких условиях бронеавтомобиль ну никак не может быть двухосным, минимум трехосным, а лучше четырехосным и еще он должен быть плавающим.
@bestamerica They don't copy only American designs. They have copied from Europeans (BMW, Smart) and from Russians (BMP3, S300, SU27) as well.
However, in Chinese culture, which is much richer and much older than American one, copying is not a shame or a crime. In fact, by copying, it is like they pay a tribute to a master.
Any automotive company hadn't won a law sue against China for copyright.
-
Anyhow, copying of the design is easy. Copying of technology is much more difficult.
@bestamerica sometimes even american lawyers will learn that other countries will simply ignore any copyrights if they want to - the copyright "industry" will be the next economic bouble to implode
@bestamerica In military equipment there is no copyright patents or trademarks. When military stuff would have copyrights America wouldn't have any military stuff. The most things come from Germany and Russia.
Most of world-wide inventions since WW I came from Europe. Germany, UK and France were traditionally countries with new inventions. Both the USA and the USSR benefited a lot in beginning of 20th century from France and UK and of course they benefited a lot from German engineering after WW II.
@Korvan1993 russia needs to forget about china! they are no good for russia! russia needs to allie with america and the two powers will rule the world for a very very long time! stop hating america! i love russia, but you hate! life ain't fair! >:/
@dedrilia "If you want peace, prepare for a war" - Unfortunately this is an axiom of our egocentric animal distorted human behavior.
Spending money only for peaceful needs would be possible only in World without wars. World without wars is possible only in altruistic society without monetary system and without materialistic values. We don't live in such world...
@dedrilia Because others spend 10x more waging wars. Russia is not superpower anymore, i'm happy that at least something is going on in military development.
@StiviGun1 It is more problematic than just fuel consumption.
I don't get why people like it so much. Just because of its cool look...
High noise level inside, which doesn't allow even use of radio, totally flat belly and no possibility of getting from cabin to passengers compartment and back are its biggest problems than increased fuel consumption.
For all the above, it is not well suited for service in Army (like Humwee let's say). But it is quite ok for Police Force.
@BitnikGr Well, the Russians never were good at building cars. And it seems like they can't even do it for the military, which always was their main area of interest. And to, me that huge fuel consumption still remains the biggest problem. This vehicle is simply a logistical nightmare.
@StiviGun1 "the Russians never were good at building cars. And it seems like they can't even do it for the military" - Not true.
UAZ are fine military all-road vehicle for HQ.
"Tiger" is fine armored vehicle. Brazil bought "Tigers" for its Police for patrolling Rio's favelas. Built by the way by the same GAZ factory.
Production of armored cars is not a space technology. Even Georgia builds their own copy of OTOKAR "Cobra". Even private companies can armor cars up to STANAG I and II levels.
german ATF dingo has 25 l/100 km consumption. leopard2 has 218l / 100km konsumption and abrams turbine needs 2 time more. sorry, your comment is ridiculous
@StiviGun1 range of leo2 is ~470km, so tank capacity must be 1000l. you must consider the weight of those vehcles. this gaz car has 6,5t weight, it's an armored vehicle. in german army i was an truck driver of huge MAN truck (man 7 to gl), it has empty weight of only 5tonnes + 40l/100km consumption!
Hammer H2 weights 3.5 and "eats" from 21 to 26l/100km. H3 weights about 2300kg and consumes about 16-18l/100km. HUMVEE weights 2.5tons (without armor).
As it seems, it is not unusual for a vehicle, which weights more than 6tons to consume around 30l/100km.
@BitnikGr yeah for a small country its pretty darn good :) The only beautiful thing that russia made is the SU-27, the rest is just crap. A carrier with a jump on the end of the runway ? fail . Thinks that north pole is all hers ? Fail. ( but less then china lmao , China's saying that she's the owner of the north pole , lawl) Of course there's a part of the north pole who belong to Russia but not all of it. Anyways Russia is a fail :)
@marcolo182 Small country?! Since when Canada is a small country? Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world after Russia and US is 3rd. And your northern borders are closer to north pole than Russian border are... but still, you don't claim anything... why?
Also, why are you changing subject to politics, and territorials, when we were talking about vehicles design?
I think that it is you, who is a fail or your parents :)
@BitnikGr first of all cunt face , I meant Canada is a small country because we're only 34millions dickhead. You failed . Canada's the second country , China's the third , Russia's the first dumb ass. Anyways . Russia's a fail , everyone know it :) She thought that her lil communism system was THE BEST . And what happened ? SHE FAILED LOL and got PWN'D by the capitalist :D ( except in Vietnam of course cuz you guys were to gay so you equipped the lil Vietcong like fags and didn't fight.now stfu
@marcolo182 Well, as it seems you know English same bad, as you know geography, politics or mechanics :)))
1) Since when a country is SHE?
2) When we talk about small country, we talk about size and not population.
3) How much US owns to *ghou* communist China?
4) Greece never equipped Vietcong. Actually US corporations didn't allow to finish the war as soon as possible, leading to more casualties among American citizens, and making more profit of it.
@rhino4311 If a vehicle can swim, then it is amphibious. This term is not applied to Humvee, wherever I've looked for it. Can it really swim or it just can ford across rivers on shallow passes? Fording is not swimming.
I think vehicles with a layout of usual car (like Humvee is) cannot swim, by default. In order to be amphibious another body layout is necessary. Like a boat. M113 is amphibious. Bradley can swim. Many APCs could, if not their excessive weight. But jeeps can't.
@6SpAr6TAN69 Thank you for suggestion. I saw about 5-6 videos with title "Hummer Swimming", but in none of them Hummer was actually SWIMMING. Or maybe you guys in US another definition for word "swimming". Even driving underwater on river's bottom is not swimming. Swimming is when vehicles wheels doesn't touch ground and vehicle on the surfaces of the water acts like a boat.
Hummer and Humvee are not amphibious and they CAN NOT SWIM.
@6SpAr6TAN69 Really? And this is said by a guy from a country, which have automotive factories like Cadillac, Chrysler, Pontiac and builds the biggest trucks in the World? :)
@BitnikGr I' m sure if the Russians really concentrated they' d build bigger cars/ trucks than the american equivalents. that' s their technique of war anyway, usually scare tactics they got bigger armaments against those of the rest of the world. In a real war situation though, we' ll have to see which is the best.
Aircraft carriers: Admiral Kuznetsov is much smaller than most of US Aircraft Carriers
-
As you see, it is not that Soviets/Russians build bigger military vehicles.
About cars and trucks... Megalomania is solely characteristic of US autocar industry. No other country in the world think that "size matters" in cars, engines or in trucks. They don't seem to want to follow US in this matter. KAMAZ team is 7 times champions of Paris-Dakkar by the way.
@6SpAr6TAN69 My point is that "bigger = better" is not a mentality of Russians or Europeans. And it was my counter-argument to what you said. "If yo just know how to say "Make it bigger" in Russian you probably covered 95% of the language."
Soviets/Russians indeed have some thing, which are the biggest among all analogues, but there are very few of them, in order to say that it is a common pattern.
@8m293 It is not all about bhp this car needs torque and it gets it from the 6,6 l engine a very big engine to get a sample a normal car has about 2 l engine a normal car has got about 200 torque this may have 800 torque that is the point !!
C'est quand même gros et même si je comprend l'idée d'en faire un hybrid entre les véhicules moyens de patrouilles et les véhicules blindés de combats d'infateries ou de soutiens ou les véhicules blindés de plate-formes multiples...il me semble que le véhicule est pas très sécuritaire et un peu haut. Il me semble plus facile a détruire qu'un HMMWV
@locoawise Well it has more armour (and straight up mass) than a Humvee, but it's not a full blown APC like a Striker, Bradley or BMP so I'd say it would fall between those examples.
if it's at all in keeping with the traditional Russian equipment model it's also likely extremely durable, easy to operate, maintain and repair which is a huge difference maker in an extended deployment.
@locoawise vs IED? Badly! It has totally flat belly. Standard Humvee isn't any better if an additional armor package isn't installed.
Armor is classic for any light army utility vehicle. It offers only anti-bullet protection, probably effective against rifles with up to 12.5mm caliber. Not more...
@darkmann88 60.000 military personnel means no occupation?! 60.001 is a war, and 60.000 is not? War is over, when the last foreign soldier goes back home!
Read the news, only yesterday 2 bombs attacks with more than 60 casualties.
@peepeevagi Cobra might look cool in a game, but in reality... There is a picture on Internet where one .50 bullet had penetrated Cobra's armor, passed throw 3 soldiers and driver and stuck into front panel. I can find it for you if you want. That's not so cool, right?
However, Vodnik is not so cool, besides its look, too. Some troubles with transmission, engine and flat design made it unpopular in Russian Army, that's why they don't want to buy it.
Well do you want to be in mortal danger from faulty armor, or in mortal danger from being a sitting duck? Both have their problems yeah but i want the one that's nimble and that you can jump. Something desert worthy. When i want something to trudge through four feet of russian mud, then i'd buy the Gaz.
All I'm saying is that tracks give better mobility than wheels.
The fact that this thing is combat proven in Cechnya is impressive - I find it hard to imagine anything in a 2 ton weight area hauling itself up on a wet muddy riverbank on wheels.
Their is always the chance of guerilla's operating behind an armys front line as well - another reason to either have tracked supply or light jeep supply (eg land rover) but something like the humvee? I see problems there.
True, but you only need to remember the mobility problems wheels had in WW2 Russia to remember that the Russians need light tracks. Besides, Russia has paid off the debts of the Soviet Unions collapse and unlike america she tries to make vehicles the right way.
And my point is that if Russia wants to be able to defend herself all year round then she would do well to invest in tracked vehicles because wheeled vehicles operate poorly in the Russian winter.
@Ag3nt0fCha0s well, depends. In cities it is waste of resources. Also, note that not winter when landg is frozen and firm, but muddy spring is main drag for wheeled cars.
Tracked vehicles cost lot more then wheeled ones. They slower, require lot more maintenance, handicapped on regular roads. Above all they have serious disadvantage to mines - tracks...
Seems like you don't fully understand what your talking about;
A very light tracked vehicle is faster than a very heavy wheeled one.
They don't require more maintenance, just compare stryker to M113.
They are in no way handicapped on regular roads. Very light tracked vehicles with rubber tracks do less damage than very heavy ones with steel tracks do roads.
Tracks have a massive advantage vs mines; a track spreads weight, minimising chance of mine detonation and tracks r tougher.
@Ag3nt0fCha0s A very light tracked vehicle neither faster or more maneuverable on the road then VERY LIGHT wheeled vehicle. Driving tracked vehicle require more skills and training then wheeled. Rubber pads cost money. Tracked vehicle automotive components more complicated then wheeled one. Rubber pads don't live long. Tracks have by far shorter life then tires as it is (maintenance). Small tracks decrease 'spread' and lot more fragile. cont..
@zrvpvo8789 "Tracked vehicle automotive components more complicated then wheeled one", "Tracks have by far shorter life then tires" - I doubt about these two statements. Transmission system of engine at front rolling front drivewheels of tracked vehicle is much simplier than 4x4 or 8x8 formula.
Can't tracks survive same milage as wheels of BTR or Stryker, before they require to be changed?
@BitnikGr M113 tracks average lifespan - 3000 miles. M1 is even less. Have you seen tires being changed that soon? Do you really believe Soviets (for instance) were just bored so they developed tank transporters? Let me enlighten you - in 4x4 etc.. vehicle - transmission has nothing to do with turns and stopping. Tracked vehicle turns by stopping one side of the tracks which makes design by far more complicated. This is why it require more maintenance / faster replacement.
If I said that tracked vehicles require less maintenance I meant only for m113 & Stryker.
I know that normally tracks take more maintenance, but I think it's worth it for the mobility bonus (you don't choose where you fight unless you're lucky)
You're being unfair talking about tank transporters; tanks aren't designed to be economical and their tracks are expensive, I'm talking about a very cheap very light (say 1-2 tons) tracked supply vehicle to replace wheels.
@zrvpvo8789 In 4x4 or 8x8 you need 2 and 4 axels to be attached to driveshaft and then to engine. While in tracked you need only one. More axels = more complication transmission. That's what I was talking about.
-
What is a lifespan of Spykers wheels? And same for BTR-80/90?
-
Now BTR-90 can turn on spot like a tank, turning wheels of one side in opposite direction of another side. Doesn't it require even more complication of axels?
@BitnikGr There is only ONE transmission in all 4x4, 8x8 etc..( w/ single engine) Power from transmission transfers through the transfer case to axles differentials which are very simple. If there is more then 4 wheels the drive-shaft attached to differential intermediate differential - nothing special. Steering works completely separate. On contrary tracked vehicle steer with tracks which makes transmission very complicated.
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Fragile tracks was one of the reasons why Soviets pulled out most of BMD's (light tracked vehicle) from Afghanistan early in the war. With ripped track - your vehicle is dead! On contrary wheeled vehicles limped home on remaining wheels on numerous occasions. It's lot easier to sustain long trip in wheeled vehicle. There is a reason why every military carry tracked vehicles when it's possible rather then drive them. I rest my case.
That's a problem with that specific tracks - not all tracks. Some MBT tracks are so touch they'll survive landmine hits.
Other tracks, EG bandtracks are quite weak, but so light that they give a vehicle a lot more MPG.
Tracks diffuse a vehicles weight, allowing it NOT to set off pressure fused landmines.
Wheeled vehicles, if their wheels are vulcanised rubber permanently risk having their tyres BURN AWAY and besides which, tyres pop with a bullet; trakcs survive.
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Have you seen light tracked vehicle with MBT tracks?
Pressure fused landmines could be set for any vehicle weight - thousands of tracked vehicle lost all over the world... Powerful mine will flip over tracked vehicle just as easy as wheeled. FYI - most wheeled vehicles have runflats and CTIS.
Not sure if you got the message yet but literally all MRAPs are wheeled - not tracked. So basically you just dreaming.
Great benefit of tracks; so much mobility that you can maneuver to avoid likely points for the enemy to place mines; tracks have better mobility. That goes double for a heavily laden supply vehicle.
I'm saying that's a mistake; with tracks you have the mobility to stay off likely ambush routes like tracks and roads, with wheels you don't so much and wheels don't offer an innate propulsion source in water.
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Where you going to maneuver on mountain shelf? Have you seen many tracked supply vehicles, especially long range? Why would you need tracks for propulsion if you have water jet or props? By the time M113 get's ready to cross water obstacle - BTR-80 be miles ahead! Just because you in love with tracked vehicle hardly means they superior to wheeled in every way. No offense, but looks like you live in virtual world of a video game. Get in touch with reality.
@zrvpvo8789 With tracks you can maneuver a whole lot better than wheels. FACT. Don't forget the universal carrier.
Here's a revelation for you; armies make cockups.
Now I admit tracked vehicles tend to have less range, but this is because they tend to be heavier. There's no reason why a tracked vehicle of the same weight and with the same power plant should be any slower or less fuel efficient than a wheeled one.
Using a specific example like that is unfair on the overall picture -
@Ag3nt0fCha0s With tracks you can maneuver better only on soft ground which is not always an issue. If there is no reason why tracked vehicle with the same power plant should be any slower or less fuel efficient - you seriously need to get yourself educated. Does gearing rings the bell? How about friction?
@Ag3nt0fCha0s There is no mechanical friction on wheeled vehicle after the hub of the axle. On contrary every track link makes a friction with sprocket, idler, every roller and every road wheel. On the top of that there is more friction between the road and track then between the road and tires. How do you achieve superior traction on softer ground otherwise?
This subject is too complicated for your primitive education. Go back to play Call of Duty.
"VODA" - water
"VODNIK" - something swimming, it's slang, folklore
"VODYANOI" - "goblin" who lives in the water, it's folklore
"VODKA" - because this fluid is similar to water
In Russian, a lot of endings and prefixes, they change the tone and meanings of the words
zipmantube 4 weeks ago
Abruptly, certainly. Only fags in power russian politic, for the sake of reception of worthy recoils for the eternally hungry pockets, will buy Italian "Iveko". Than money from the country for the sake of another's economy, instead of support of masterpieces of the car industry become dependent on spare parts, etc. How many it is possible such to suffer! The Russian army loses the face of the Russian weapon. Also plays very bad game, in dependence from from the outside.Fuck you mr.Putin!
Men4iki 1 month ago
@Men4iki stupid guy gaz vodnik never enter inservice in fully time
actually its gaz tigr and vpk volk
TATARSTAN59500 2 weeks ago
Why russians always make emoticons without eyes?
)))
GrzesVJ 1 month ago
@GrzesVJ We so have got used to do, even itself I do not know why
Men4iki 1 month ago
can you buy the Gaz vodnik in real life
explosivemadness 2 months ago
@explosivemadness No. There is no civilian version of this car. But there is a civilian version of "Tigr".
BitnikGr 2 months ago
Battlefield 2
Lagerfeld2008 2 months ago
@Lagerfeld2008 and 3
1169Timothy 2 months ago
I remember driving this in a game, Battlefield 2 that is.
In the game it had very lofty suspension and speed. It could also climb hills other vehicles couldn't
Interesting to see it in real life.
azntranc3951 4 months ago
Круто, конечно. Только пидрилы у власти, ради получения достойных откатов для своих вечно голодных карманов, закупят задроченные итальянские "Ивеко". Чем станут зависимы от запчастей и т.п. Денюжку из страны во имя чужой экономики, вместо поддержки шедевров своего автопрома. Блеаа! Сколько можно такое терпеть! Российская армия теряет лицо своего российского оружия. И играет в очень плохую игру, в зависимость от извне.
Pravoverniy 4 months ago 2
@Pravoverniy Хватит паниковать. Пока ничего массового иностранного закупленно не было.
Все заявления о покупке иностранной техники это внутреняя борьба МО с представителями ВПК... этакий шантаж для получения адекватных цен и открытых схем ценообразования.
Все что закупленно это опытные партии для оценки иностранного опыта и это нормальная практика.
Литеру "О1" еще никто не отменял для вооружения принятого на в РА.
BitnikGr 4 months ago
@BitnikGr В этом есть долика правды. Но все же не абсолютно во всем. Я поддерживаю покупку финских винтовок, поскольку у них на порядок круче ТТХ наших СВД. Сделали СВД с таким же коллибром и толку? Дерьмовая винтовка... В таком случае я понимаю т.з. МО. Но самое возмущающее то, что почти в 2 раза танки российской армии продают дороже нежели эти же за границу. МИ 28 Н по 28 пунктам уступил Апаче Н 64. А нам пялат тут какой это супер вертолет. Сейчас я понимаю вояк. И правильно делают...
Pravoverniy 4 months ago
@Pravoverniy "покупку финских винтовок, поскольку у них на порядок круче ТТХ наших СВД"
Это не так. Лучше, но не на порядок. А вот цена вероятно на порядок выше. СВД никогда не создавалась как снайперская винтовка в западном понимании этого слова. СВ-98 более корректный пример для сравнения.
BitnikGr 4 months ago
@Pravoverniy "что почти в 2 раза танки российской армии продают дороже нежели эти же за границу."
Это из сеерии заявлений из МО типа за один Т-90 купим 3 Леопарда? :)
Почитайте интервью директора УВЗ Сиенко на блоге gurkhan.blogspot.com и что конкретно он говорит по заявкам типа Т-90 стоит 118млн. :)
BitnikGr 4 months ago
Aint got shit on the marauder
Chinkeyface 4 months ago
Хамер, Тигры, Ивеки, конечно, штуки хорошие, но все-таки в России для армии нужно другого типа т/с. У нас же болота, распутицы, огромное количество мелких рек. В таких условиях бронеавтомобиль ну никак не может быть двухосным, минимум трехосным, а лучше четырехосным и еще он должен быть плавающим.
Arimir666 5 months ago
GAZ VODKIN )))
MrTitanic22 5 months ago 17
@MrTitanic22 пять баллов, мужик!
greyderH2 5 months ago
@MrTitanic22
Wodnik=Watter )))
nliox1 2 months ago
@nliox1 I know a friend, it's just a play on words untranslatable Russian folklore
MrTitanic22 2 months ago
@jamdoughnuts666 WOW! That's a lot of hate in there! Thank you and good bye!
Racists are not welcome here!
BitnikGr 5 months ago
Thumbs up if you drove this in BC2...
straighter100 5 months ago
Лучше бы БМП делали, а не это "чудо".
Rustafa13 5 months ago
Зачем нам вездеход? Если у нас есть БМП/БМД.
Rustafa13 5 months ago
I've always said: Russians build some of the coolest-looking military vehicles :)
SilentSooYun 6 months ago
now china will copy it! lol
11mrjarjar 6 months ago 32
@11mrjarjar They've already copied HUMVEE.
BitnikGr 6 months ago 2
BitnikGr,
@11mrjarjar They've already copied HUMVEE.
BitnikGr 2 days ago
'
china copy steal from america HUMMER / HUMVEE design,,,
china is break the law of copyright / patent / trademark from america
bestamerica 6 months ago
@bestamerica They don't copy only American designs. They have copied from Europeans (BMW, Smart) and from Russians (BMP3, S300, SU27) as well.
However, in Chinese culture, which is much richer and much older than American one, copying is not a shame or a crime. In fact, by copying, it is like they pay a tribute to a master.
Any automotive company hadn't won a law sue against China for copyright.
-
Anyhow, copying of the design is easy. Copying of technology is much more difficult.
BitnikGr 6 months ago
BitnikGr,
'
okay thank explain
bestamerica 6 months ago
@bestamerica sometimes even american lawyers will learn that other countries will simply ignore any copyrights if they want to - the copyright "industry" will be the next economic bouble to implode
derschatten82 5 months ago
@bestamerica In military equipment there is no copyright patents or trademarks. When military stuff would have copyrights America wouldn't have any military stuff. The most things come from Germany and Russia.
Talshet 4 months ago
Talshet,
'
okay thank explain
bestamerica 4 months ago
@Talshet
You funny! Know any more good jokes?
cbarsonfire 2 months ago
@cbarsonfire Why do you find this funny? :)
Most of world-wide inventions since WW I came from Europe. Germany, UK and France were traditionally countries with new inventions. Both the USA and the USSR benefited a lot in beginning of 20th century from France and UK and of course they benefited a lot from German engineering after WW II.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@11mrjarjar I dont think they have to. Russia will send them some copies.
Korvan1993 2 months ago
@Korvan1993 russia needs to forget about china! they are no good for russia! russia needs to allie with america and the two powers will rule the world for a very very long time! stop hating america! i love russia, but you hate! life ain't fair! >:/
11mrjarjar 2 months ago
@11mrjarjar Yeah I would be good if we could all get along. But America and Russia have 2 totaly diffrent politics. Not that easy.
Korvan1993 2 months ago
@Korvan1993 all an be allies if we all set aside our difference,we only need to choose
Shuuchan85 2 months ago
US.Army use HUMVEE's not hummer's
lipa90 6 months ago
Dear Santa...
TheCommentator420 6 months ago
good design for militry vehicle
Raybhaffi 6 months ago
why u do not spend money for peace?
dedrilia 6 months ago
@dedrilia "If you want peace, prepare for a war" - Unfortunately this is an axiom of our egocentric animal distorted human behavior.
Spending money only for peaceful needs would be possible only in World without wars. World without wars is possible only in altruistic society without monetary system and without materialistic values. We don't live in such world...
BitnikGr 6 months ago 5
@BitnikGr we build our world!
laxwork 6 months ago
dedrilia,
why u do not spend money for peace?
'
what is that question,,,
currency is no help at all
bestamerica 6 months ago
@dedrilia Because others spend 10x more waging wars. Russia is not superpower anymore, i'm happy that at least something is going on in military development.
ghos7bear 5 months ago
30l/100km not bad :)
9999RuneScape999 6 months ago
Similar to the stryker. pretty cool
Mockingbird5150 6 months ago
The humvee also looks cool, but is a huge gas guzzler too.
Puertorico161 7 months ago
Hummers can forge rivers with a snorkel kit, but it gets rather soggy otherwise.
bigskip2121 7 months ago
It looks cool, but the fuel consumption is FUCKING HUGE. 30l on 100 km is ridiculous. I think that even the Abrams tanks take less fuel.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 It is more problematic than just fuel consumption.
I don't get why people like it so much. Just because of its cool look...
High noise level inside, which doesn't allow even use of radio, totally flat belly and no possibility of getting from cabin to passengers compartment and back are its biggest problems than increased fuel consumption.
For all the above, it is not well suited for service in Army (like Humwee let's say). But it is quite ok for Police Force.
Uruguay have bought them.
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr Well, the Russians never were good at building cars. And it seems like they can't even do it for the military, which always was their main area of interest. And to, me that huge fuel consumption still remains the biggest problem. This vehicle is simply a logistical nightmare.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 "the Russians never were good at building cars. And it seems like they can't even do it for the military" - Not true.
UAZ are fine military all-road vehicle for HQ.
"Tiger" is fine armored vehicle. Brazil bought "Tigers" for its Police for patrolling Rio's favelas. Built by the way by the same GAZ factory.
Production of armored cars is not a space technology. Even Georgia builds their own copy of OTOKAR "Cobra". Even private companies can armor cars up to STANAG I and II levels.
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr What Tiger? The Tiger is not a Russian vehicle, it's a Greek one. And the UAZ-469 is not as good as the Humvee.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 GAZ-2975 "Tigr".
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr Yeah, that is a good vehicle.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1
german ATF dingo has 25 l/100 km consumption. leopard2 has 218l / 100km konsumption and abrams turbine needs 2 time more. sorry, your comment is ridiculous
affenjungeee 7 months ago
@affenjungeee 218 l/100 km? And what is the capacity of those fuel tanks?
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 range of leo2 is ~470km, so tank capacity must be 1000l. you must consider the weight of those vehcles. this gaz car has 6,5t weight, it's an armored vehicle. in german army i was an truck driver of huge MAN truck (man 7 to gl), it has empty weight of only 5tonnes + 40l/100km consumption!
affenjungeee 7 months ago
@affenjungeee Well, 30l/100 km is still A LOT for a vehicle that's relatively light.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Hummer H2 weights up to 3.5tons and its consumption is approximately 24l/100km.
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr And what is a HUMVEE's fuel consumption?
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 I don't know. I didn't find it.
Hammer H2 weights 3.5 and "eats" from 21 to 26l/100km. H3 weights about 2300kg and consumes about 16-18l/100km. HUMVEE weights 2.5tons (without armor).
As it seems, it is not unusual for a vehicle, which weights more than 6tons to consume around 30l/100km.
BitnikGr 7 months ago
zuker bled...my russich friends...!!
MrSenol73 7 months ago
Unlike American Hamer he carries the vodka ..
emen218 7 months ago
@emen218 Vodka will make a looooot of people happier than 4 Marines with M16s :)
In fact, if Jamaica was to buy Vodniks, what would they carry in it? ;)
BitnikGr 7 months ago
loool russia makes so many ugly things hahahahaha
marcolo182 8 months ago
@marcolo182 Just as many ingenious and beautiful.
What for is your country famous? Only LAV APC?
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr yeah for a small country its pretty darn good :) The only beautiful thing that russia made is the SU-27, the rest is just crap. A carrier with a jump on the end of the runway ? fail . Thinks that north pole is all hers ? Fail. ( but less then china lmao , China's saying that she's the owner of the north pole , lawl) Of course there's a part of the north pole who belong to Russia but not all of it. Anyways Russia is a fail :)
marcolo182 8 months ago
@marcolo182 Small country?! Since when Canada is a small country? Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world after Russia and US is 3rd. And your northern borders are closer to north pole than Russian border are... but still, you don't claim anything... why?
Also, why are you changing subject to politics, and territorials, when we were talking about vehicles design?
I think that it is you, who is a fail or your parents :)
BitnikGr 8 months ago 3
@BitnikGr first of all cunt face , I meant Canada is a small country because we're only 34millions dickhead. You failed . Canada's the second country , China's the third , Russia's the first dumb ass. Anyways . Russia's a fail , everyone know it :) She thought that her lil communism system was THE BEST . And what happened ? SHE FAILED LOL and got PWN'D by the capitalist :D ( except in Vietnam of course cuz you guys were to gay so you equipped the lil Vietcong like fags and didn't fight.now stfu
marcolo182 8 months ago
@marcolo182 Well, as it seems you know English same bad, as you know geography, politics or mechanics :)))
1) Since when a country is SHE?
2) When we talk about small country, we talk about size and not population.
3) How much US owns to *ghou* communist China?
4) Greece never equipped Vietcong. Actually US corporations didn't allow to finish the war as soon as possible, leading to more casualties among American citizens, and making more profit of it.
5) Don't tell me stfu in my own video, bitch
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@marcolo182
1) Filthy mouth
2) Irrelevant and wrong comments
3) stupid comments promoting hate
4) Disrespectful conversation with strangers (your parents fail in raising you all right) and that's why you are a miserable failure.
-
For the above reasons you are blocked from my videos. Go spit your bile somewhere else, looser.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
Хаммер нервно курит в углу
AzimutAKA 8 months ago
Ugly vehicle but I'd rather be in one of these than a standard unarmoured humvee. What I really would like is the Komatsu LAV, those are badass.
thebigwarthog 8 months ago
i don't know anything about military vehicle design but it seems to miss the V Hull of all other new designs in the world ( against IED and mines )
asm6ekyu 8 months ago
@asm6ekyu Yes. It is one of its faults.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
The Humvee is modular and can swimm also. What is this russian guy talking about?
6SpAr6TAN69 8 months ago
@6SpAr6TAN69 Humvee is not amphibious. What are you talking about?
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr the humvee can swim across rivers to thats all the vodnik can do also there not necesisarily amphibeas
rhino4311 8 months ago
@rhino4311 If a vehicle can swim, then it is amphibious. This term is not applied to Humvee, wherever I've looked for it. Can it really swim or it just can ford across rivers on shallow passes? Fording is not swimming.
I think vehicles with a layout of usual car (like Humvee is) cannot swim, by default. In order to be amphibious another body layout is necessary. Like a boat. M113 is amphibious. Bradley can swim. Many APCs could, if not their excessive weight. But jeeps can't.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Search on YouTube for 'Hummer swimming'
6SpAr6TAN69 8 months ago
@6SpAr6TAN69 Thank you for suggestion. I saw about 5-6 videos with title "Hummer Swimming", but in none of them Hummer was actually SWIMMING. Or maybe you guys in US another definition for word "swimming". Even driving underwater on river's bottom is not swimming. Swimming is when vehicles wheels doesn't touch ground and vehicle on the surfaces of the water acts like a boat.
Hummer and Humvee are not amphibious and they CAN NOT SWIM.
BitnikGr 8 months ago 3
@BitnikGr Ah, ok you mean amphibious. Is this russian amphibious, Wow, ok. Got it now.
6SpAr6TAN69 8 months ago
@6SpAr6TAN69 ok, cant swim but is modular.
6SpAr6TAN69 8 months ago
If yo just know how to say "Make it bigger" in Russian you probably covered 95% of the language.
6SpAr6TAN69 9 months ago
@6SpAr6TAN69 Really? And this is said by a guy from a country, which have automotive factories like Cadillac, Chrysler, Pontiac and builds the biggest trucks in the World? :)
BitnikGr 9 months ago
@BitnikGr I' m sure if the Russians really concentrated they' d build bigger cars/ trucks than the american equivalents. that' s their technique of war anyway, usually scare tactics they got bigger armaments against those of the rest of the world. In a real war situation though, we' ll have to see which is the best.
6SpAr6TAN69 8 months ago
@6SpAr6TAN69 Are you sure for what you are saying? :)
Assault rifles: same dimensions, Russians just have bigger 7.62mm caliber
Sniper rifles: both armies have rifles from 7.62mm till 20mm caliber
APC: BTR-90 is indeed bigger than Stryker, but despite its size its mobility is way better.
IFV: US Bradley is bigger than any BMP model
MBT: Abrams is bigger than any Soviet/Russian MBT
Fighter plane: SU-27 family is not much bigger than Raptor. MiG-29 is smaller than F-15.
...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@6SpAr6TAN69 ...
Aircraft carriers: Admiral Kuznetsov is much smaller than most of US Aircraft Carriers
-
As you see, it is not that Soviets/Russians build bigger military vehicles.
About cars and trucks... Megalomania is solely characteristic of US autocar industry. No other country in the world think that "size matters" in cars, engines or in trucks. They don't seem to want to follow US in this matter. KAMAZ team is 7 times champions of Paris-Dakkar by the way.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr They did built it. This is bigger than the Humvee. Whats the point of arguing on this?
6SpAr6TAN69 8 months ago
@6SpAr6TAN69 My point is that "bigger = better" is not a mentality of Russians or Europeans. And it was my counter-argument to what you said. "If yo just know how to say "Make it bigger" in Russian you probably covered 95% of the language."
Soviets/Russians indeed have some thing, which are the biggest among all analogues, but there are very few of them, in order to say that it is a common pattern.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
if you want a real bad ass machine try this VPK-3927 Volk!!
TheKifinas 9 months ago
2:04 - 2:05 sagt er "ist scheiße" :D
blackhawk35i 10 months ago
Russia No.1 !!!
1968drale 10 months ago
Nice. How much?
BTW, in the vid 2:30 it says 185bhp, not 165. In wiki it says 175.
With that engine size and weight, I would expect 300 bhp. The poor fuel consumption already fits the stats...
Check the engine of similar vehicles:
wikipedia org/wiki/Plasan_Sand_Cat
Rafael Golan
RG-31_Nyala
8m293 10 months ago
@8m293 I don't know how much is it. But Brazilian Police bought it. For forces which are intended to clean Rio's poor and criminal favelas.
Furthermore, there were news last week, that Brazil asked Russia to build factory for Lada Niva and GAZ Vodnik. They want to build them themselves.
BitnikGr 10 months ago
@8m293 It is not all about bhp this car needs torque and it gets it from the 6,6 l engine a very big engine to get a sample a normal car has about 2 l engine a normal car has got about 200 torque this may have 800 torque that is the point !!
TheKifinas 9 months ago
I like GAZ 66 and somebody should buy it for me:-)))
dima1978 10 months ago
mean mashine.. those russians know how 2 build badass
kz4eva 10 months ago
@kz4eva After all it is not as good as it is presented here...
BitnikGr 10 months ago
GREECE AND RUSSIA <3
R10freestyle 11 months ago
165 horse. DAMMMMMM
thetafour 11 months ago
JESUS SUBTITLES! THANK YOU. (ps im not russian)
dakiler2028 11 months ago
@dakiler2028 You are welcome!
BitnikGr 11 months ago
Russia's version of the Humvee.
Evilsnowman2213 11 months ago
lol, the russians....
DeathRockPogo 11 months ago
Awesome !
Sikorsky67 1 year ago
How many liters of Vodka can it carry?
bulgogi1212 1 year ago 12
@bulgogi1212 ou yeah this is an important information..:D
YUCplNT 9 months ago
@bulgogi1212 Enough for your wedding party :)))
BitnikGr 9 months ago
@bulgogi1212 побольше чем Ваш Хаммер
Sy47BERKYT 8 months ago
@bulgogi1212
916 грамм = 1 литр Русской водки.
Rustafa13 5 months ago
@bulgogi1212 a litre of vodka weights about 940 grams + about 100 grams of a bottle. So 1500/1.04 gives us 1442 litres
PaulRawlings100 5 months ago
30l / 100km is extrem a better engine would bring this car a longer Range at lower wight.
Ismalith 1 year ago
C'est quand même gros et même si je comprend l'idée d'en faire un hybrid entre les véhicules moyens de patrouilles et les véhicules blindés de combats d'infateries ou de soutiens ou les véhicules blindés de plate-formes multiples...il me semble que le véhicule est pas très sécuritaire et un peu haut. Il me semble plus facile a détruire qu'un HMMWV
mikgazine 1 year ago
crappy suspension
glpainterwindstream 1 year ago
I wonder how that would fair against IED in Iraq. Also, armor, how thick and effective?
locoawise 1 year ago 8
@locoawise Well it has more armour (and straight up mass) than a Humvee, but it's not a full blown APC like a Striker, Bradley or BMP so I'd say it would fall between those examples.
if it's at all in keeping with the traditional Russian equipment model it's also likely extremely durable, easy to operate, maintain and repair which is a huge difference maker in an extended deployment.
imperialus 1 year ago
@locoawise vs IED? Badly! It has totally flat belly. Standard Humvee isn't any better if an additional armor package isn't installed.
Armor is classic for any light army utility vehicle. It offers only anti-bullet protection, probably effective against rifles with up to 12.5mm caliber. Not more...
BitnikGr 11 months ago
@locoawise Iraq war is mostly over since a year ago. Only 60,000 active military personnel remain.
darkmann88 8 months ago
@darkmann88 60.000 military personnel means no occupation?! 60.001 is a war, and 60.000 is not? War is over, when the last foreign soldier goes back home!
Read the news, only yesterday 2 bombs attacks with more than 60 casualties.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@locoawise it's not a battle truck, it's carry
Roughnegg 7 months ago
Interesting!
Destointment 1 year ago
Над подвеской бы немного поработали, она прыгает и слабо гасит колебания...
Stepler666 1 year ago
@Stepler666 и шумоизоляцию получше бы...
BitnikGr 1 year ago
Ha , the vodnik : battlefield 2 FTW --> roadkill time
10ssomeone 1 year ago
@10ssomeone Cobra should be replaced with Vlodnik on every level. It´s way cooler.
qelleri 1 year ago
I dont know about that, the Cobra is pretty darn cool.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi Cobra might look cool in a game, but in reality... There is a picture on Internet where one .50 bullet had penetrated Cobra's armor, passed throw 3 soldiers and driver and stuck into front panel. I can find it for you if you want. That's not so cool, right?
However, Vodnik is not so cool, besides its look, too. Some troubles with transmission, engine and flat design made it unpopular in Russian Army, that's why they don't want to buy it.
BitnikGr 1 year ago
Well do you want to be in mortal danger from faulty armor, or in mortal danger from being a sitting duck? Both have their problems yeah but i want the one that's nimble and that you can jump. Something desert worthy. When i want something to trudge through four feet of russian mud, then i'd buy the Gaz.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi Fair enough. "Armor vs mobility" is a permanent compromise of any AFV since WW I.
BitnikGr 1 year ago
Why wheels? Why not just have light tracks?
The Russians know how to make a good tracked vehicle after all.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Most of APCs are wheeled. M113 is an exception.
Most of IFVs are tracked.
Vodnik is not a fighting vehicle. It is for personnel transportation and other auxilary duties.
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@BitnikGr
You again eh?
All I'm saying is that tracks give better mobility than wheels.
The fact that this thing is combat proven in Cechnya is impressive - I find it hard to imagine anything in a 2 ton weight area hauling itself up on a wet muddy riverbank on wheels.
Their is always the chance of guerilla's operating behind an armys front line as well - another reason to either have tracked supply or light jeep supply (eg land rover) but something like the humvee? I see problems there.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Whom was you expecting to see? :)
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@BitnikGr
Zorba the Greek....ski
Of course.
Lol
:-)
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Tracked APCs are heavier, cost twice as much and the maintenance cost is also substantially higher.
DudeNumberOnePlus 1 year ago
@DudeNumberOnePlus
True, but you only need to remember the mobility problems wheels had in WW2 Russia to remember that the Russians need light tracks. Besides, Russia has paid off the debts of the Soviet Unions collapse and unlike america she tries to make vehicles the right way.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Well yes, the point is using tracked vehicles only where needed, thus save money and resources.
DudeNumberOnePlus 1 year ago
@DudeNumberOnePlus
And my point is that if Russia wants to be able to defend herself all year round then she would do well to invest in tracked vehicles because wheeled vehicles operate poorly in the Russian winter.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s well, depends. In cities it is waste of resources. Also, note that not winter when landg is frozen and firm, but muddy spring is main drag for wheeled cars.
DudeNumberOnePlus 1 year ago
@DudeNumberOnePlus
Oh yeah, silly me, it is the spring. But anyways, you see my point; I think it's worth paying a bit more for an all year round army.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s How is it worth paying more?
Tracked vehicles cost lot more then wheeled ones. They slower, require lot more maintenance, handicapped on regular roads. Above all they have serious disadvantage to mines - tracks...
zrvpvo8789 1 year ago
@zrvpvo8789 How are they handicapped on regular roads?
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@BitnikGr Speed, maneuverability. Tracks has to have rubber pads not to damage the road.
zrvpvo8789 1 year ago
@zrvpvo8789
Seems like you don't fully understand what your talking about;
A very light tracked vehicle is faster than a very heavy wheeled one.
They don't require more maintenance, just compare stryker to M113.
They are in no way handicapped on regular roads. Very light tracked vehicles with rubber tracks do less damage than very heavy ones with steel tracks do roads.
Tracks have a massive advantage vs mines; a track spreads weight, minimising chance of mine detonation and tracks r tougher.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s A very light tracked vehicle neither faster or more maneuverable on the road then VERY LIGHT wheeled vehicle. Driving tracked vehicle require more skills and training then wheeled. Rubber pads cost money. Tracked vehicle automotive components more complicated then wheeled one. Rubber pads don't live long. Tracks have by far shorter life then tires as it is (maintenance). Small tracks decrease 'spread' and lot more fragile. cont..
zrvpvo8789 1 year ago
@zrvpvo8789 "Tracked vehicle automotive components more complicated then wheeled one", "Tracks have by far shorter life then tires" - I doubt about these two statements. Transmission system of engine at front rolling front drivewheels of tracked vehicle is much simplier than 4x4 or 8x8 formula.
Can't tracks survive same milage as wheels of BTR or Stryker, before they require to be changed?
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@BitnikGr M113 tracks average lifespan - 3000 miles. M1 is even less. Have you seen tires being changed that soon? Do you really believe Soviets (for instance) were just bored so they developed tank transporters? Let me enlighten you - in 4x4 etc.. vehicle - transmission has nothing to do with turns and stopping. Tracked vehicle turns by stopping one side of the tracks which makes design by far more complicated. This is why it require more maintenance / faster replacement.
zrvpvo8789 1 year ago
@zrvpvo8789
If I said that tracked vehicles require less maintenance I meant only for m113 & Stryker.
I know that normally tracks take more maintenance, but I think it's worth it for the mobility bonus (you don't choose where you fight unless you're lucky)
You're being unfair talking about tank transporters; tanks aren't designed to be economical and their tracks are expensive, I'm talking about a very cheap very light (say 1-2 tons) tracked supply vehicle to replace wheels.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Why are you switching subject every time you have no arguments? Now is a supply vehicle? Have you heard of supply truck?
zrvpvo8789 1 year ago
@zrvpvo8789 In 4x4 or 8x8 you need 2 and 4 axels to be attached to driveshaft and then to engine. While in tracked you need only one. More axels = more complication transmission. That's what I was talking about.
-
What is a lifespan of Spykers wheels? And same for BTR-80/90?
-
Now BTR-90 can turn on spot like a tank, turning wheels of one side in opposite direction of another side. Doesn't it require even more complication of axels?
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@BitnikGr There is only ONE transmission in all 4x4, 8x8 etc..( w/ single engine) Power from transmission transfers through the transfer case to axles differentials which are very simple. If there is more then 4 wheels the drive-shaft attached to differential intermediate differential - nothing special. Steering works completely separate. On contrary tracked vehicle steer with tracks which makes transmission very complicated.
zrvpvo8789 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Fragile tracks was one of the reasons why Soviets pulled out most of BMD's (light tracked vehicle) from Afghanistan early in the war. With ripped track - your vehicle is dead! On contrary wheeled vehicles limped home on remaining wheels on numerous occasions. It's lot easier to sustain long trip in wheeled vehicle. There is a reason why every military carry tracked vehicles when it's possible rather then drive them. I rest my case.
zrvpvo8789 1 year ago
@zrvpvo8789
That's a problem with that specific tracks - not all tracks. Some MBT tracks are so touch they'll survive landmine hits.
Other tracks, EG bandtracks are quite weak, but so light that they give a vehicle a lot more MPG.
Tracks diffuse a vehicles weight, allowing it NOT to set off pressure fused landmines.
Wheeled vehicles, if their wheels are vulcanised rubber permanently risk having their tyres BURN AWAY and besides which, tyres pop with a bullet; trakcs survive.
The reason is void.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Have you seen light tracked vehicle with MBT tracks?
Pressure fused landmines could be set for any vehicle weight - thousands of tracked vehicle lost all over the world... Powerful mine will flip over tracked vehicle just as easy as wheeled. FYI - most wheeled vehicles have runflats and CTIS.
Not sure if you got the message yet but literally all MRAPs are wheeled - not tracked. So basically you just dreaming.
zrvpvo8789 1 year ago
@zrvpvo8789
Good point.
Great benefit of tracks; so much mobility that you can maneuver to avoid likely points for the enemy to place mines; tracks have better mobility. That goes double for a heavily laden supply vehicle.
I'm saying that's a mistake; with tracks you have the mobility to stay off likely ambush routes like tracks and roads, with wheels you don't so much and wheels don't offer an innate propulsion source in water.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s Where you going to maneuver on mountain shelf? Have you seen many tracked supply vehicles, especially long range? Why would you need tracks for propulsion if you have water jet or props? By the time M113 get's ready to cross water obstacle - BTR-80 be miles ahead! Just because you in love with tracked vehicle hardly means they superior to wheeled in every way. No offense, but looks like you live in virtual world of a video game. Get in touch with reality.
zrvpvo8789 1 year ago
@zrvpvo8789 With tracks you can maneuver a whole lot better than wheels. FACT. Don't forget the universal carrier.
Here's a revelation for you; armies make cockups.
Now I admit tracked vehicles tend to have less range, but this is because they tend to be heavier. There's no reason why a tracked vehicle of the same weight and with the same power plant should be any slower or less fuel efficient than a wheeled one.
Using a specific example like that is unfair on the overall picture -
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s With tracks you can maneuver better only on soft ground which is not always an issue. If there is no reason why tracked vehicle with the same power plant should be any slower or less fuel efficient - you seriously need to get yourself educated. Does gearing rings the bell? How about friction?
zrvpvo8789 1 year ago
@zrvpvo8789
What friction? Tracks are laid down, the wheels roll over them, then they are picked up. Less friction than wheels
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s There is no mechanical friction on wheeled vehicle after the hub of the axle. On contrary every track link makes a friction with sprocket, idler, every roller and every road wheel. On the top of that there is more friction between the road and track then between the road and tires. How do you achieve superior traction on softer ground otherwise?
This subject is too complicated for your primitive education. Go back to play Call of Duty.
zrvpvo8789 1 year ago
@zrvpvo8789 Please, present your arguments without sending anyone anywhere :)
It would be much apreciated by me. Thank you in advance.
BitnikGr 1 year ago