About the workplace of a driver-mechanic of the British tank "Chieftain"

Today the British, who first used Tanks On the battlefields of World War I, they are often considered outsiders and adherents of a terribly archaic approach to tank design. However, it's worth remembering that it was Foggy Albion, at a time when the concept of ergonomics in military vehicles was still in its infancy, that produced the Chieftain tank, with its truly comfortable driver's station—the most physically demanding member of the crew.

During the Iran-Iraq War, one of these Mk.5P (P for Persia) tanks, delivered to Iran, was transferred to the USSR and thoroughly studied and tested by Soviet specialists. And, as testing showed, some of the British solutions for organizing the driver's workspace proved truly interesting.

We publish a report on this below.

Features of the tank's control compartment

The Chieftain Mk5P's driver's compartment is located in the center of the front hull. Spaces for batteries and ammunition are provided to the left and right of the driver. A hatch is located in the upper glacis plate above the driver's seat; its cover pivots to the right when opened. The driver's seat can be raised for driving with the hatch open (travel mode) or lowered for combat driving.

The seat back reclines to allow passage from the driver's compartment to the fighting compartment. Steering controls are located on either side of the seat. The pedals for the throttle, parking brake, gear shift, and high-beam headlights are located at the front lower edge.

On the inner surface of the roof of the hull in front of the driver, as well as to the right and left of him, there are control panels for the engine-transmission unit (figure), at the top behind the rear edge of the hatch there is a prismatic observation device for the driver AFV No. 36 Mk1.

The main features of the tank's control compartment are:

— a semi-recumbent driver’s position in a combat position with the torso tilted back at an angle of 45–55° (close to physiologically optimal);

— placement of the hatch observation device at a distance of 150–200 mm from the driver’s eyes (the device has a periscope of 240 mm and a normal beam deflection angle in the vertical plane of 30°);

— the presence of two fixed positions of the rotation levers according to their angle of inclination - combat and travel;

— a developed seat back, headrest and complex kinematics provide a sitting position for the march, a reclining position for combat, and a reclining seat for rest or for moving to the fighting compartment;

— rational design of the sensor and motor fields (the main driver's control panel is located in the central viewing area under the hatch, auxiliary control panels are in the peripheral viewing areas; the main control panel has indicators for limit alarms for most of the monitored parameters of the engine-transmission unit);

— foot-operated gear shifting with gear number indication on the instrument panel.

In order to evaluate the driver's working conditions, the tank was tested on two 30-km runs in a combat position.

The race track consisted of a 4-km loop with sections with uneven surfaces up to 1 meter deep. During the race, the tank traveled at the maximum speed possible under the road conditions (18–25 km/h). Following the race, a questionnaire was administered to drivers who had previously driven domestic tanks. The questionnaire included questions about the comfortable driving position, the ease of use of controls and displays, the ease of observing the terrain, and questions about tolerance to mechanical vibrations while driving on the track.

Based on driver surveys, road tests revealed that a reclining driving position in the Chieftain Mk5P tank is preferable to a sitting position, which places the driver's body more flexed. There were no complaints of fatigue, numbness, or muscle stiffness in the neck, back, or legs. This is due to the driver's seat's generous support surface, which reduces strain on the body and legs while driving and, in addition, better absorbs vertical shocks and vibrations when driving over uneven terrain.

Drivers noted the ease of use of the surveillance device, which is explained by the large size of the output window. Drivers quickly adapt to the elevated horizon line caused by the device's design (a 30° downward tilt of the horizontal beam passing through the device), which is significantly facilitated by the fact that the side of the vehicle is within the device's field of view.

The rearward placement of the observation device and its large dimensions create some inconvenience when changing the driver's position from a combat to a stowed position. Drivers noted the ease of pedal-operated gear shifting, which allows their hands to remain on the steering levers at all times, which is especially important when driving on winding sections of the road or in frequently changing road conditions.

The control levers are also noted for their satisfactory reach, thanks to the ability to adjust them to the desired position (combat or travel). Drawbacks include the poorly designed throttle pedal, which can cause the foot to slip while operating the controls.

Drivers rated the design and layout of the control panels highly. Placing the displays in the driver's central field of view ensures quick reading of indicators without requiring them to take long breaks from observing the surrounding area. The presence of limit alarms for key monitored parameters simplifies information comprehension and increases its reliability.

A questionnaire survey of drivers conducted after the tests confirmed two main positive decisions regarding the driver's station of the Chieftain Mk5P tank: a semi-recumbent seating position and a block design of the control panel with a limit signaling system concentrated in the central field of view of the driver.

The design and layout of the driver's compartment with a reclining driver position was used by American specialists in the development of the M-1 tank. Using the results of over 25 km of M-1 tank testing, they experimentally substantiated the choice of a driver's position with the torso tilted backward as having advantages over the seated driver position in the M-60A1 tank.

These benefits include reduced fatigue and the absence of muscle pain in the neck, back, and legs. Muscle pain and numbness, as reported by M-60A1 tank drivers, create discomfort, dramatically increase fatigue, reduce attention to road conditions, and impair the driver's ability to select optimal driving conditions, leading to lower average speeds and increased driving errors.

It should be noted that, in addition to the ergonomic advantages (reduced energy consumption, reduced fatigue, increased average driving speeds and reduced driving errors), in the control compartment with the driver located in a semi-recumbent position, the protection of the frontal plate is increased (due to the elimination of the niche for the observation device), the viewing angles are increased vertically and horizontally (due to the installation of devices with lower periscopes in the hatch) and the anti-mine protection of the driver is improved (due to the use of a seat with a lifting mechanism installed on a vertical post with a gap relative to the bottom).

American designers, like their British counterparts, used a modular design for driver control panels. On the M-60A1 and M-1 tanks, the control panels are assembled into three functional units. On the M-1 tank, the control panel includes the main panel, signal panel, and instrument panel, all designed as separate units.

The control panel is distinguished by the grouping of controls and indicators according to functional features, the extensive use of limit signals about the state of controlled parameters (including built-in diagnostics) and a reduced range of control and measuring instruments.

Final World

The Chieftain Mk. 5P's technical solutions for driver positioning, tilting the driver's body backwards, and for organizing the driver's motor and sensory fields improve the driver's working conditions compared to those in a sitting position.

Source:
"Features of the Tank Control Compartment." E.I. Zaslavsky, A.A. Reshetov. "Questions of Defense Equipment." Series VI, Issue 6 (112), 1983.

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

Who knows, maybe if the goal hadn't been to lower the hull's height, no one would have bothered with such a driver's seating position. But it worked out well.
Why haven't ours gone this far? I think it's because of the length of the control compartment.
Well, there's no point in writing about ergonomics. It hasn't existed for many years...

[belost79]

I watched an interview with some of our tank designers a long time ago; he was praising our tanks. He even remarked that "in Western tanks, driver-mechanics have to operate the vehicles while lying down."
So, in the opinion of our designers, this is a minus. And our machines are the best, there are no analogues, and that's it.

[torbas41]

When a person dies in a tank (as we've seen many times, NATO tanks also burn) while sitting, it's very difficult to stuff them into zinc. But when lying down, a charred NATO corpse fits into a coffin without any problem. That's probably why this innovation was invented.

[Alexey Koshkarov]

That's a strong word. I almost fell off my chair when I read it.

[torbas41]

Otherwise, why such avant-garde, especially since you'll still have to get out of this tank only in front of your feet.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Why haven't ours reached this point?

When deciding what the T-90 tank should look like, the Object-187 and Object-188 (based on the T-72) were offered as options. On the Object-187, the driver-mechanic sat in a semi-recumbent position, in combat mode. But the Object-188 was chosen for the T-90 role (it was cheaper). The photo shows the Object-187 with the turret facing rearward; note the location of the driver-mechanic's observation device. Incidentally, on the T-14, the driver-mechanic also sits in a semi-recumbent position, in combat mode.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Bad_gr

The photo shows Object-187 with the turret turned with the barrel facing backwards. Note the location of the driver's observation device.

It looks like the control compartment is longer than on the 64-72-80-90... Yes, that's right, and there's also no periscope behind the hatch or neckline.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It looks like the control section is longer than on 64-72-80-90.

I once estimated the length of this tank, and it turned out to be 30 centimeters longer than the T-72. And this despite the fact that it had a transmission with a 1200 hp engine (the ancestor of what is now on the T-14), and more powerful frontal armor.

[Vladimir_2U]

It's a bit strange, on the section of the forehead of the 187 there is a periscope in front of the hatch.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It's a bit strange, on the section of the forehead of the 187 there is a periscope in front of the hatch.

There were different versions of Object 187, but the one with the driver in a prone position (No. 6) was considered the most advanced. The photo shows the driver-mechanic's No. 3 observation devices.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bad_gr

+ T-14 The mechanic is also in a combat position, half-lying down.

[Arkady007]

But if this viewing prism gets covered with dirt or something like that, where will the driver look?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Arkady007

But if this viewing prism gets covered with dirt or something like that, where will the driver look?

Ours have pneumatic cleaning.

[Arkady007]

So, this pneumatic cleaning system can’t break or the glass itself will crack?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Arkady007

So, this pneumatic cleaning system can’t break or the glass itself will crack?

There's a small knob under the viewing device. Unscrew it with your fingers, move the mounting bracket to the side, and pull the triplex down, replacing it with a new one (from the tank's spare). Replace the mounting bracket, tighten the knob, and look at the terrain through the new triplex.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Arkady007

But if this viewing prism gets covered with dirt or something like that, where will the driver look?

Strange question. Do our tanks have some kind of dirt-repellent periscopes?

[Arkady007]

Ours let you open the hatch and stick your head out.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Arkady007

Ours let you open the hatch and stick your head out.

Read the article...

[Illanatol]

So, was the Chieftain's hull height lower than the Soviet T-62's? And by how much?
Why bother? Our tanks don't really look like armored sheds anyway, and their dimensions are quite modest.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Illanatol

So, was the Chieftain's hull height lower than the Soviet T-62's? And by how much?

The Chieftain's front height is listed as 1178 mm. I couldn't find the T-62's hull height, but given the 430 mm clearance and 2395 mm height, the hull and turret height would be 1965 mm. The hull is slightly taller than the turret.
So that's how it is.
However, the Chieftain's mechanic's seat is mounted on an armor plate 50 mm above the floor, while the T-62's seat sits directly on the floor.

[Illanatol]

In short, the British didn't have much of an advantage, but they weren't particularly comfortable for the driver to operate. The T-62 clearly outperformed the Chieftain in terms of cross-country performance, perhaps due to its greater ground clearance. In short, all these perversions didn't bring the British any significant advantage, as was practically proven in the Iran-Iraq War.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Illanatol

In short, the British don't have much of an advantage, but it's not very convenient for the driver to control them.

Why the inconvenience? The benefit lies in the significant increase in mine resistance.

Quote: Illanatol

In terms of cross-country ability, the T-62 was clearly superior to the Chieftain, perhaps due to its greater ground clearance.

Actually, 51 is more than 43. But specific power and just weight are a different matter.

Quote: Illanatol

In short, all these perversions did not bring the British any particular advantages, which was practically proven in the Iran-Iraq war.

So what does the driver's seat have to do with the T-62's superior armament and maneuverability? The Chieftain was designed to counter the T-54-55 with its 100...

[Illanatol]

1. Driving a tank prone, which doesn't have panoramic visibility like modern tanks, is definitely uncomfortable. Incidentally, doing anything prone is generally uncomfortable due to impaired cerebral circulation. The T-62 also received improvements in underbody protection, but not at the expense of such inconvenience for the driver.
2. Hmm, are the body widths of these models similar? What about their body lengths? These factors should also be taken into account when assessing ground clearance and off-road capability. Real SUVs were designed to be compact and short, and this is no accident.
3. Did the T-62 really go into production later than the Chieftains? Actually, even the T-64, which was far more powerful, wasn't far behind.
The fact that, despite such distortions caused by the forced reduction in the tank's hull height, the British still found themselves inferior to their Soviet counterpart in these parameters. And creating a counterweight to a potential enemy's already outdated BT is clearly not a sign of advanced development.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Illanatol

Driving a tank prone, which does not have a panoramic view like modern ones, is definitely uncomfortable.

The T-90 has a fantastic panoramic view... Or the Abrams.

Quote: Illanatol

By the way, doing anything while lying down is generally not very comfortable due to the deterioration of blood circulation in the brain.

Do you sleep 8 hours a day sitting? And half-lying down, not lying down.

Quote: Illanatol

The T-62 was also improved in terms of bottom protection, but not at the expense of such inconveniences for the driver.

It had to be done, at the cost of reduced ground clearance. And as for the inconveniences, the article clearly states what those "inconveniences" were.

Quote: Illanatol

What about the body length? These factors must also be taken into account when assessing ground clearance and off-road capability. Real SUVs were designed to be compact and short, and this is no accident.

Cars also have this concept called wheelbase. Yes, it's easy to land on your belly with this wheelbase. But tanks don't have such a wheelbase... And the width is roughly the same—railroad platforms are roughly the same.

Quote: Illanatol

Did the T-62 really go into production later than the Chieftains? Actually, even the T-64, which was far more powerful, wasn't that far behind.

With a 115mm smoothbore, yes, later, a few times. And that was after the scandal.

Quote: Illanatol

The fact is that despite such distortions caused by the forced reduction in the height of the tank hull, the British still ended up inferior to their Soviet counterpart in these parameters.

Well, just imagine if the British had accepted a three-meter-tall fool with a driver on the couch...

Quote: Illanatol

But creating a counterweight to the already outdated BT of a potential enemy is clearly not a sign of advanced development.

The Americans adopted the Abrams!!! with the 105mm gun when everything was already clear.

[Illanatol]

We were talking about truly modern ones.

What does sleep have to do with this? Incidentally, even sleeping on your back isn't considered healthy.

But the T-62's cross-country performance proved quite adequate. Again, the specific pressure, the thrust-to-weight ratio...

Tanks have a specific ground pressure. If it's too high, the tracks will be pressed into the ground, effectively reducing the clearance between the tank and the ground. And yes, the Chieftain's hull is 7.5 meters long, while the T-62's is 6.6 meters. The longer the vehicle, the greater the risk of landing on its belly off-road. The fact that the Chieftain is 20 cm wider really doesn't matter.

I wouldn't be surprised by that either. By the way, how many of the first "Challengers," the direct successors, were there?

The mistakes of some should not be justified by the mistakes of others.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Illanatol

We were talking about truly modern ones.

Well then, what does Chieftain have to do with it?

Quote: Illanatol

What does sleep have to do with this? Incidentally, even sleeping on your back isn't considered healthy.

Only people sleep. And they actually sleep lying down, not with their backs tilted at 45 degrees.

Quote: Illanatol

But the T-62's cross-country performance proved quite adequate. Again, the specific pressure, the thrust-to-weight ratio...

What makes you think the Chieftain has lower cross-country ability? Mobility is lower, yes. But those are not the same thing.

Quote: Illanatol

Tanks have specific ground pressure.

Which is compensated for by the width of the tracks. And easily.

Quote: Illanatol

And yes, the Chieftain's hull is 7.5 meters long, while the T-62's is 6.6 meters. The longer the vehicle, the greater the chance of landing on its belly off-road.

But the jeeps you brought up have a much better chance than tanks. Because of their wheelbase, which tanks lack. And the tanks' length is offset by their height, which the Chieftain has an advantage in.

Quote: Illanatol

The fact that the Chieftain is 20 cm wider is really of little significance.

Side screens.

Quote: Illanatol

I wouldn't be surprised by that either. By the way, how many of the first "Challengers," the direct successors, were there?

Strange question, Challenger is the descendant of Chieftain... And how old is the T-62?

Quote: Illanatol

The mistakes of some should not be justified by the mistakes of others.

So what does this have to do with the Chieftain and the Mechan's landing? What does it have to do with it? The British were squeezing out the technology available to them, but the Chief already had a 120. Albeit a rifled one. The Americans also installed a 120.
You don't know what to come up with to trash the Chief. I already know the tank is mediocre even for its time, but it would have been even worse if its hull had been taller.
But the mechanic's landing pulled him up.
And if you are too lazy to read the article, here it is:

A survey of drivers revealed that a reclining working position in the Chieftain Mk5P tank was preferable to a sitting position, which involved a more flexed driver's body. There were no complaints of fatigue, numbness, or muscle stiffness in the neck, back, or legs.
...Drivers noted the ease of use of the surveillance device, which is explained by the large size of the exit window.

So don't try to fit an owl onto a globe.

[Illanatol]

See above.

When people sleep, they do not work, do not control the environment, and do not manage anything.

Ground pressure is a function of the tank's mass and the track area. Track width is already taken into account. The lower the ground pressure, the greater the tank's cross-country ability and maneuverability. Incidentally, these factors are often interrelated off-road. And yes, the advantages of high ground clearance can be offset by the hull's long length. And yes, it's good if ground clearance is constant and unchangeable, but that's usually only the case on asphalt or hard, dry ground. If the chassis, wheels, or tracks dig into the ground, the clearance between the undercarriage and the ground can be virtually zero. Well, something like the Challenger tanks in Ukraine... it looked funny.

Unfortunately, not always. A UAZ can easily pass where a tank would get stuck.

But real-world experience showed the opposite. Even off-road, the T-62 had an advantage in cross-country ability.

The T-62's overall height is 2.3 meters. It certainly didn't reach 3 meters. The smaller the target, the more difficult it is to hit, especially on uneven terrain. Another advantage of the Soviet counterpart.

You mentioned the 105 mm for the Yankees yourself, no one forced you to.
I didn't set out to trash this particular tank. But the British, and then the Yankees (possibly under British influence), took a wrong turn in their tank design, relying on such behemoths. It doesn't matter, though; they essentially wasted their tank design. There will never be any new, purely British tanks.

This only proves that the prone position has become too familiar to British soldiers. Well, yes, it's better to "press the masses" than to fight... well, maybe with the Papuans.
By the way, could they have expressed themselves differently? Like the tank is inconvenient, they don't like it, and all that? No one would have given them another tank anyway, and the sergeant would have put in a fuse, and anyway, in my humble opinion, such comments wouldn't have made it into the (British) media.
I don’t know what assessment the Iranian tank crews gave to these tanks, but I suspect there were more than just praises when they had to fight.

[Amateur]

I've been driving my car for about 40 years. Starting with the terribly uncomfortable seat in my Lada, to the anatomically designed seat in my Kia. I imagined driving while lying down. As an analogy, I imagined lying on my back for five hours staring at the ceiling. And somehow, I didn't feel like it.

[Konnick]

Quote: Amateur

I've been driving my car for about 40 years. Starting with the terribly uncomfortable seat in my Lada, to the anatomically designed seat in my Kia. I imagined driving while lying down. As an analogy, I imagined lying on my back for five hours staring at the ceiling. And somehow, I didn't feel like it.

Previously, in the 50s and 60s, racing cars had a seating position with a seat back tilt of 45°, but they switched to an optimal 70°, taking into account the peculiarities of the vestibular apparatus... you don’t have to bend your neck

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Konnick

no need to bend your neck

You don't have to bend your neck in a tank; the periscope device shows the image right to your eyes.

[Konnick]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: Konnick

no need to bend your neck

You don't have to bend your neck in a tank; the periscope device shows the image right to your eyes.

And in the stowed position?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Konnick

And in the stowed position?

Uh, in the picture I see 30 grams, and 55 is close to the optimal 60. So it doesn’t seem like anything terrible.

[cpls22]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You don't have to bend your neck in a tank; the periscope device shows the image right to your eyes.

Here's an interesting point: if your head isn't aligned vertically with your neck, you have to exert effort to keep it that way. A headrest should solve this problem, but there's a caveat: can a person actively turn their head while leaning on it? It might be a matter of skill or reflex—after all, leaning the back of your head against something is used to resting, not working. I can tell you from experience: I once crawled under a car and even put a pillow under my head so I could do everything lying down, but as soon as I started doing something (like using a wrench), I immediately lifted my head involuntarily, even though there was no need.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from cpls22

Can a person, leaning on the headrest, actively turn his head?

"Achieved through exercise"

[cpls22]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

"Achieved through exercise"

I'm not sure. Keeping something in your field of vision requires not only the eye muscles but also the neck muscles. They need to be in constant tone for this to happen. Supporting your headrest requires a completely different set of muscles. It might be more difficult in practice than it seems.

[militarist63]

"Achieved through exercise" drinks

That's right!

[Saxahorse]

Quote from cpls22

but there is a nuance - can a person, leaning on the headrest, actively turn his head?

I don't get it, why are you fiddling around? You have a periscope right in front of you, please look through it.

[cpls22]

Quote: Saxahorse

I don't get it, why are you fiddling around? You have a periscope right in front of you, please look through it.

I expressed myself a bit imprecisely. Let me try to explain: while moving, to maintain focus, you need to constantly adjust your head position. This happens automatically, reflexively; we don't even notice it. Try driving a car, even just around town, with your head resting against the headrest. It will take a lot of effort.

[Saxahorse]

Quote from cpls22

Try driving a car, even just around the city, with your head resting on the headrest of your car.

I tried. But in a car, you get distracted by objects in the side windows. In a tank, there's no distraction; there's only one visual channel, the periscope right in front of your eyes.

[cpls22]

Quote: Saxahorse

Tried it. .

How long? My point is that driving requires more than just eye movement; neck mobility is also necessary, but if it's supported by something, the usual motor skills don't work. However, I won't argue—it's possible that drone pilots are currently developing precisely these skills. Although their heads aren't fixed in place.

[Saxahorse]

Quote from cpls22

To drive you need to move not only your eyes, but also your neck mobility,

No, it's not needed.
On the highway, you lie back in your seat and don't worry; eye movement is enough to monitor your progress. The only problem is that the headrest is uncomfortable and your neck gets stiff.

[cpls22]

Quote: Saxahorse

No, it's not needed.
On the highway you lie in your chair and don't worry about anything.

Well, if you only make tanks for highways, then the idea is good.

[Saxahorse]

Quote from cpls22

Well, if you only make tanks for highways, then the idea is good.

That's how they make them!
The driver has no side vision whatsoever; he only looks forward, through the periscope. Why would he even bother turning his head? To admire the armor from the inside?

[cpls22]

Okay, you win. By the way, how are the Englishmen doing with the seating in the newest tanks? Do they use recumbent seats?
What about other Teutonic and not-so-Teutonic geniuses? Haven't thought of something like this yet?

[Saxahorse]

Quote from cpls22

By the way, how are the Englishmen doing now with boarding the newest tanks?

Unfortunately, I don't keep up. Like you, I get my news from Perov.

[Bad_gr]

Quote from cpls22

By the way, how are the Englishmen doing with the seating in the newest tanks? Do they use recumbent seats?

Tank "Challenger-2"

[cpls22]

Thanks, but

In May 2009, BAE Systems announced that it was ceasing production of this model of tank due to the lack of a defense order from the UK government.

[Bad_gr]

Quote from cpls22

Thanks, but

In May 2009, BAE Systems announced that it was ceasing production of this model of tank due to the lack of a defense order from the UK government.

The decision to undertake a large-scale upgrade of 148 Challenger 2 tanks to Challenger 3 standard has been formally made and secured by a contract between the UK Ministry of Defence and Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL). May 7, 2021The program aims to create one of NATO's most protected tanks, equipped with a new 120mm smoothbore gun.

[cpls22]

Quote: Bad_gr

The decision on a large-scale modernization

Well, it’s hard to expect a radical restructuring of the layout from the modernization)
Only those who've been in them at least once can say how comfortable it is to drive in these tanks. By the way:

In January 2023, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's administration announced a decision to supply 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine.

So we're waiting for feedback from survivors)

[Anatole Klim]

Quote: Amateur

I didn't feel like doing something.

A colleague of mine told me that in Chechnya, a driver fell asleep on the march, a tank in front of him drove into him, nothing happened, he was very tired, he swung a sledgehammer, straightened it out, and then they moved on.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Anatol Klim

I swung a sledgehammer and straightened it out

What exactly did you straighten? I'm just really curious.

[Anatole Klim]

Quote: Paranoid62

What exactly did you straighten?

I don't know, I just told you the story; I wasn't there myself at the time. I'm not a tanker myself, so I don't know the correct name; maybe it's a fender, maybe a wing. Why are you so picky right now?

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Anatol Klim

Why are you picking on me right away?

I'm interested in ...

Quote: Anatol Klim

A fellow soldier told me that in Chechnya, a driver fell asleep on the march, the tank in front drove into it

That is, he drove into the stern. At the stern, you can crush a log to pull yourself out, knock down the clearance(s)... and that's about it...

So I'm thinking - what's there to straighten with a sledgehammer later?

[Anatole Klim]

Quote: Paranoid62

At the stern you can crush a log for self-extraction, demolish the dimensions(s)... and, perhaps, that's all...

Could the tank that crashed into the rear of another have had its track protection deformed?

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Anatol Klim

could the protection above the tracks have become deformed?

This is a consumable item; by the second day in the field, even during exercises (and those are about Chechnya), they're usually gone. And, really, there's usually nothing left to "fix with a sledgehammer."

[don_Reba]

Quote: Paranoid62

So I'm thinking - what's there to straighten with a sledgehammer later?

trunk?
9530-6840 2690 =
3420-(`)2100=1320 (approximately)
Somewhere more than 1 meter does not fit
Well, and there's also the turret trunk at the back) it also needs to be "straightened" with a sledgehammer

[Paranoid62]

Quote: don_Reba

trunk?

On the march, the gun rises upward and is stopped by a rigid stopper.

Quote: don_Reba

there is also a turret trunk at the back)

He can't be remembered like that, at least I haven't heard of any such cases. And I certainly haven't seen any.

[don_Reba]

Quote: Paranoid62

On the march the cannon rises up,

I'll know if I "fall asleep" on the march.

Option #2 crushed the domestic (import-substituted) air conditioner, or VSU (has nothing to do with Ukraine, the engine).
He jumped out, slapped him down, and drove on.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Paranoid62

What exactly did you straighten? I'm just really curious.

The T-72 has rubber mudguards, while the T-55-62 has thin iron mudguards. During training, especially in wooded areas, they were constantly bent or lost completely, and driving without one meant dust and dirt flew in your face. Still, it was more cost-effective to lose the mudguard, as they'd issue a new one from the depot, while the dented one had to be removed, smoothed out with a sledgehammer, and reattached, leaving it looking the same.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Bad_gr

It was new, but the dented one was removed, leveled with a sledgehammer, and put back in place.

We just threw it away. More often, we just took it off before loading and left it in the box. T-64B, there's a tin can there.

[Bad_gr]

The T-90M (which is currently in service) has these, rubber-fabric ones with pads. I haven't come across any information about how they performed in service.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Bad_gr

On the T-90M (which is currently in service with the troops) they have these, rubber-fabric ones with pads

I don't know, I've never seen those in my life. And as for the dust and snow getting in your eyes—our mechanics used to drive around in ski goggles. I had some fancy ones for that purpose, bought at a flea market by accident, German ones from WWII... they're still lying around somewhere at home, like these:

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Paranoid62

German ones from WWII... still lying around somewhere at home:

My platoon commander gave me some similar to these, only domestically made, with lenses. In this case, the lenses were a plus, as they didn't scratch. They fit my face very well (and kept dust out).

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Bad_gr

The platoon commander gave it to me

I myself was a platoon commander

But they didn't give it to us, we did it ourselves, all by ourselves...

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Paranoid62

I myself was a platoon commander

I'm a driver-mechanic on the platoon commander's tank (the senior driver-mechanic). The tanks had a high engine life (they were between training and combat tanks in terms of engine life).

[sas711]

Same old story. Prone controls on the Chieftain and Abrams were introduced for one reason: to lower the tank's height. Controlling a 60-ton vehicle while looking between your knees is pretty daunting. Then again, we did lie prone on some tankette...

[militarist63]

however, they were lying on their stomachs on some kind of platform...

I don't know about the tankette, but in the 30s the Americans had an experimental prototype of a light off-road vehicle, the Howie "Belly Flopper" Machine Gun Carrier, which could only be driven while lying on your stomach.

[Konnick]

It's odd that the report doesn't include anthropometric data for the driver's seat. What height is it designed for and how adjustable is the driver's seat? I don't know about British vehicles, but American vehicles, including fighter jets, are designed for heights up to 190 cm, as opposed to our 175 cm.

[Foggy Dew]

Everyone at Hitler's headquarters was a complete idiot. They even had Cobras with car doors, and the Thunderbolt, supposedly a fighter, was as big as a bomber—that's when the Thunderbolts stopped skimping on cockpit size.

[th.kuzmichev]

The normal position for a person to use their brain properly is sitting. Ask truck drivers. It's nonsense.

[Totor5]

Lying down straight away and with your feet forward is all correct.

[lynnot]

In the Abrams, the driver is also lying down, even with his feet up.

[odisey3000]

What kind of nonsense is this, controlling a combat vehicle in a reclining position? It's interesting. There are many surprising solutions. Maybe this is one of them.

[odisey3000]

Да ну ,прям улучшают работу механика водителя .Посмотреть бы на него в боевой обстановке в положении полулежа .