Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Michael R. Blair <pellinoire@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Interestingly I have seen the point made several times by
> people who should know what they are talking about (Jane's Armour 2000
I
> think) that
> it would be a very good idea for an army to standardise its tracked
> vehicles on
> their standard tank chassis and running gear for the MBT, SPGs, APC
and so
> on.
> This would make the tank considerably cheaper and enormously simplify
> maintenance and spares. The APC would be larger than the current ones
> allowing
> either more men to be carried or much better protection and it would
move
> at
> the same rate as the MBT which is apparently a good thing.
>
> The MBT and the other vehicles nominally using the MBT's running gear
will
not have the same maintenance, spares and cross country speed; unless
they
are all the same weight.  Cross country speed is a combination of the
ratios
of power-to-wieght and sprung weight to unsprung weight.  An APC on an
MBT's
running gear, that does not have the same armor, will need to have a
softer
suspension.  Most of the weight difference between the APC and MBT is in
the
sprung portion of the vehicle.	Even with the lighter springs and shock
absorbers, the unsprung weight is mostly the same.  A major drop in
sprung/unsprung weight limits speed by reducing the speed at which going
along the non-level surface is easily confused with tumbling down a
hill,
end over end.

If you compare a mid-70's american land yacht to what now passes for
luxurious comfort, it takes a very complicated adaptive suspension to
ensure
the same level of comfort as a massive curb weight.