Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Darpa Literally Reinvented the Wheel for Army Combat Vehicles

taskandpurpose.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 220 posts

Re: Darpa Literally Reinvented the Wheel for Army Combat Vehicles

#131

Post by masklinn »

binarray2000 wrote: post #122
webbrahmin wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These were my thoughts also. During WW II German tanks were technologically superior to Russian tanks. However Russian tanks were easy to repair in the field and that was one of the reasons why Russian armour prevailed over German armour.

Due to simplicity Russian tanks were also cheaper and easier ti build. Which is why they outnumbered the Germans.

OTOH Germany didn't have the resources (raw materials or crews) to field that many tanks, so focusing on fewer but better tanks made sense. Not that it panned out, but it made sense.

Re: Darpa Literally Reinvented the Wheel for Army Combat Vehicles

#132

Post by fastball »

namirez wrote: post #49
stefco_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the whole assembly rotates when in wheel mode. Making it radially symmetric (i.e. a triangle) in track mode means that it can switch modes with at most a 120 degree rotation rather than having to rotate through up to 360 degrees to get the flat bottom into position.

I didn't say anything about the design of it, which is by the way, very cool. I don't understand the point of the triangle. The same mechanism could be used to change the geometry of the wheel only at the bottom.

It's a symmetrical wheel -- there is no bottom.

Re: Darpa Literally Reinvented the Wheel for Army Combat Vehicles

#133

Post by wingerlang »

RangerScience wrote: post #104
killjoywashere wrote: post #82

As a military officer, I pray these never make it past Test and Evaluation. They took essentially one part and turned it into 1000 parts. Anyone who has seen what 20 year old Marines do with these machines, let alone what happens in war, will appreciate that this is a fantastically horrible idea in a war zone. I need high reliability, not high zoot. Let NASA have high zoot.

I have never heard this use of the word "zoot" and would like know more.

Might be related to 'zoot suits'? (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/brief-history-zo...)

Re: Darpa Literally Reinvented the Wheel for Army Combat Vehicles

#134

Post by psergeant »

asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #130
killjoywashere wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing against 20-year-olds, I was one. I know what I did and what my friends did. I'm no angel. But if was running the engineering team on this, I'd make sure everyone had in their mind "the driver is maximally amped-up, young, and male.

What does them being male have to do with anything? Are you implying that being male means that they must be reckless? Or that if they were female they would automatically be careful and gentle? Careful throwing around those negative stereotypes. EDIT: The driver is likely to be getting shot at. This is going to be an order of magnitude more important than slight gender differences.

> What does them being male have to do with anything?

Being young and male correlates strongly with high testosterone, the effects of which you can Google for. Being young and male also correlates with higher incidences of road traffic accidents than most other demographics.

Re: Darpa Literally Reinvented the Wheel for Army Combat Vehicles

#135

Post by jbjorge »

asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #130
killjoywashere wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing against 20-year-olds, I was one. I know what I did and what my friends did. I'm no angel. But if was running the engineering team on this, I'd make sure everyone had in their mind "the driver is maximally amped-up, young, and male.

What does them being male have to do with anything? Are you implying that being male means that they must be reckless? Or that if they were female they would automatically be careful and gentle? Careful throwing around those negative stereotypes. EDIT: The driver is likely to be getting shot at. This is going to be an order of magnitude more important than slight gender differences.

Weeeeell, we do have statistics for how civilians drive based on gender.

Re: Darpa Literally Reinvented the Wheel for Army Combat Vehicles

#136

Post by Theodores »

webbrahmin wrote: post #115
killjoywashere wrote: post #82

As a military officer, I pray these never make it past Test and Evaluation. They took essentially one part and turned it into 1000 parts. Anyone who has seen what 20 year old Marines do with these machines, let alone what happens in war, will appreciate that this is a fantastically horrible idea in a war zone. I need high reliability, not high zoot. Let NASA have high zoot.

These were my thoughts also. During WW II German tanks were technologically superior to Russian tanks. However Russian tanks were easy to repair in the field and that was one of the reasons why Russian armour prevailed over German armour.

No, no, no, the comedy tank of the era was the Sherman Tank.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-m-4-sherman-tank-was-he...

Favourite quote: Hence, the Sherman’s grim nickname—Ronson, like the cigarette lighter, because “it lights up the first time, every time.”

Everything was wrong about it and the Russians that got given these on Lend Lease knew that they had been given a death sentence. Aforementioned article just touches the surface, the barrel was too short, the 'tech' for being able to shoot on the move did not work and you needed five of the things to take out one German tank, four as cannon fodder (complete with the guys inside) and one to sneak around the back to get that German tank whilst it was busy taking out the other four.

The 5 Shermans vs 1 Panzer myth is much disputed however where there is smoke there is fire and I would not want to be in one. Plus, by the time that the Americans rocked up to fight WW2 - which was late to the party - the Germans had run out of oil so their tanks were running on recycled coal dust extract rather than the diesel fuel required.

The shoddy design of the Sherman Tank was no matter though, the 'allies' were expected to pay for these useless behemoths after the war so this was the military-industrial-complex and built-in-obsolescence at its finest.

Meanwhile the Soviets had a much more serious war on their hands so their hardware wasn't about making a quick buck. It had to be fit for purpose. The same thinking happens today hence we have toy planes like the F-35 where everyone and his pet congressman is getting a backhander vs. the fit for purpose planes of Russia, as advertised over the skies of Syria and doing much better in the global arms trade.

Re: Darpa Literally Reinvented the Wheel for Army Combat Vehicles

#137

Post by asfdsfggtfd »

psergeant wrote: post #134
asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does them being male have to do with anything? Are you implying that being male means that they must be reckless? Or that if they were female they would automatically be careful and gentle? Careful throwing around those negative stereotypes. EDIT: The driver is likely to be getting shot at. This is going to be an order of magnitude more important than slight gender differences.

> What does them being male have to do with anything? Being young and male correlates strongly with high testosterone, the effects of which you can Google for. Being young and male also correlates with higher incidences of road traffic accidents than most other demographics.

But there are millions of young males in the US alone who are more careful than millions of young females.

The effects of testosterone are far from as simple as you suggest. It tends to lead to higher competitiveness. This is not quite the same as recklessness.

Meanwhile during normal usage the driver (of whatever gender) is likely to be getting shot at. This will tend to have a larger affect than their gender.

Re: Darpa Literally Reinvented the Wheel for Army Combat Vehicles

#138

Post by Angostura »

killjoywashere wrote: post #82

As a military officer, I pray these never make it past Test and Evaluation. They took essentially one part and turned it into 1000 parts. Anyone who has seen what 20 year old Marines do with these machines, let alone what happens in war, will appreciate that this is a fantastically horrible idea in a war zone. I need high reliability, not high zoot. Let NASA have high zoot.

> Let NASA have high zoot.

NASA does really rather well with high reliabilty. The Martian rovers have managed without a service.

Re: Darpa Literally Reinvented the Wheel for Army Combat Vehicles

#139

Post by stult »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #129
mhandley wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could of course just carry a regular spare wheel or two. If your fancy trackwheel fails, unbolt it, and fit the regular spare wheel. You're still mobile, just without the ability to switch to track mode.

Never mind those folks with the rifles pointed at us! They’d never shoot someone whose busy changing a wheel!

We'll just make another machine that changes the wheel. Surely that will fix the problem.

Re: Darpa Literally Reinvented the Wheel for Army Combat Vehicles

#140

Post by return2sender »

webbrahmin wrote: post #115
killjoywashere wrote: post #82

As a military officer, I pray these never make it past Test and Evaluation. They took essentially one part and turned it into 1000 parts. Anyone who has seen what 20 year old Marines do with these machines, let alone what happens in war, will appreciate that this is a fantastically horrible idea in a war zone. I need high reliability, not high zoot. Let NASA have high zoot.

These were my thoughts also. During WW II German tanks were technologically superior to Russian tanks. However Russian tanks were easy to repair in the field and that was one of the reasons why Russian armour prevailed over German armour.

It's also the reason why Finland successfully defended its independence.
Post reply on HN