UberIguana
Well-known member
One of the major differences between eastern and western armour design is the tendency for eastern armour to be made amphibious if at all possible. I gather this is in part due to not wanting to rely on being able to find a useable bridge during a war. Some western vehicles are amphibious, usually those involved in reconnaissance and amphibious assault, but the ability seems widely ignored. This is even the case in vehicles originally designed for it, like the M113A1 versus later versions. Compare this to the BMP/BTR series and similar vehicles where they and every platform based on them float. The downside to this approach is their counterpart western vehicles often weigh nearly twice as much, with a corresponding increase in protection and presumably other capabilities.
Does the difference ultimately come down to power and survivability versus mobility?
Is amphibious capacity something western militaries should place more focus on?
Are eastern designers overestimating its importance?
How far should the trade-off of increased size for the same thickness of armour go?
Does the difference ultimately come down to power and survivability versus mobility?
Is amphibious capacity something western militaries should place more focus on?
Are eastern designers overestimating its importance?
How far should the trade-off of increased size for the same thickness of armour go?