Why light armored vehicles and mraps just use the same cab layout as a truck and not go for a central single seat cab like the rataal?
>>643075082 people side by side allows for easier cross-communication, but alot of the reasoning behind it is due to prior crew familiarity with side-by-side seating arrangements, that and it is generally more convenient and soldiers can dismount quicker. Not to mention in the event of a rollover, one side will almost always be available for emergency escape situations (such as rollovers).Additionally, if a vehicle is already going to have windows mounted along the side, it is not going to sacrifice much more protection to just turn the window and associated armor into a door.
>>64307508Because when a vehicle like that drives over a mine it goes off right under the driver which is usually lethal.
>>64307508I thought the ratel was bigger than that.
>>64307527jet fighters and attack helicopters aren't side by sideit would be neat if that layout was adopted for armored vehicles, it could be ideal for operating the remote weapon station
Why you can't speak english?
>>64307562v hull
>>64307607Some are, but the increased width of the fuselage is an otherwise unacceptable tradeoff for many designs.
>>64307607Also, im sure as you know (esl, kek) that the Armata has S-S seating, mirroring the Abrams Tank Test Bed of the 80's. Many AFV's use such seating, such as BTR's. Although it seems that it is becoming somewhat rare on newer designs, especially considering most of them have a forward-engine design.The TTB/Armata has such seating as it allows the creation of an armored crew capsule, greatly improving crew survivability and efficiency.
>>64307620orktech is the one exception
>>64307508jaguar doeswhile its cousin the griffon is truck cab :\
>>64307620It shouldn't be, it's not holding back the velocity.
>>64307508side by side lets you fit one extra soldieror at least gives the commander somewhere to sit when not sticking his head ouyt
Side by side has additional benefits of a passenger being able to read a map to the driver and keep each other awake.
>>64307508Why are esl thirdies on my board?
test
>>64308340ratel and jaguar put the commander and driver behind the driver>>64308550if you went for a fighter/helicopter arrangement of front and back you could still do that
>>64307508Because MRAPs *are* trucks. Trucks with heavy suspensions and a rolled steel V-hull. That's it, the big secret. Trucks plus some cheap steel. You now understand why so many countries make them.Oman or Nigeria or South Africa orders 1000 semi-finished truck chassis from Ohio. They weld some steel on at home and announce "200 jobs created military industry manufacturing behold our cutting edge advances in mine resistance complete home made (now plz vote for Manuel Abdullah Updoots III at your next election)"
>>64310663>from OhioMore likely from Mercedes Türk A.Ş., Volkswagen Caminhões, Ashok Leyland or Sinotruk, but yeah.
>>64310663typical seething mehmetfag trying to downplay manuel abdullahs contribution to the local economy and frame it as cynical politicking. shit like this is why nobody likes you and you will lose the next election.
>>64310663Ratel were made completely indigenously in the 1980s during the BDS movement when they couldn't import, same reason they produced their own attack helicopters the Rooivalk and upgraded Centurions to Oliphants and Israel rebuilt their Mirages into Cheetahs
>>64310618and it isnt quite as an efficient use of space as a side by side
>>64307508Space efficiency.+1 seat.
>>64307508>Why light armored vehicles and mraps just use the same cab layout as a truck and not go for a central single seat cab like the rataal?Because APC's don't have same layout as trucks. Most modern ones have engine in front and driver on one side of that blob of metal. Ratels layout comes with other kind of design compromise, it has rear engine offset to one side. It has rear exit door, but at end of cramped tunnel. Obviously better than BTR, but less than desirable. Sure, central drivers position gives probably decent visibility for driver to both sides, but it still quite limited and probably requires commander to stick out his head and probably chest outside of vehicle to guilde driver.When it comes to MRAPs. Those are discount APC's that are simple conversions of regular trucks. You take medium tactical truck, replace flatbed with armored box that fits a squad of infantry. Cons, crappy offroad mobility when compared proper APC. Pros, it costs somewhere between 300k and half a million dollars. While proper APC is at least 1 million and more likely closer to 2 million each.
>>64307508>Why light armored vehicles and mraps just useESL
>>64307650It's not at all. Side by side isn't particularly uncommon. F111 was side by side, A6 and EA6B were/are, nearly all bombers and civilian jet liners are.
>>64307620Trade off is pilot and gunner visibility. They can't see thru each other.>>64313590F-111 ironically had length constraints, due to naval B-version having to fit into existing carrier hangars, lifts and decks. US still operated a lot of WWII-era carriers back then. US also operated x-box huge A-5 Vigilante recon planes and A-3 Skywarrior bombers/tankers/EW planes, but those were niche planes, not the future backbone of fleet air defense like F-111B was supposed to be. F-111B had folding nose, not nose cone, whole nose with radar assembly folded.
>>64307611OP must be a pajeet. None of them can put together a proper question sentence for some weird reason. They all seem to think you just have to put a question word like why or what at the beginning of the normal declarative sentence and a question mark at the end.
>>64307607>those other vehicles that serve a completely different role are built differently
