Armata soon to be in service.

[akd]

Latest IFVs and APCs are big.  Dimensions are similar to, for example, Puma IFV.

Edited May 6, 2015 by akd

[c3k]

Just doing some quick pixel counting and measuring (avg Russian male, 20-30 yr. old, 2006-2010 is 176.2cm tall)...

 

The Kurganets hull is 3m wide by 1.5m tall. It has about .5m ground clearance. Top of hull about 2m above ground.

 

Side add-on blocks are about 31cm thick by 122cm tall.

 

It's big.

[akd]

Kurganets IFV at bottom:

 

Puma: L- 7.4m, H- 3.6m, W-3.7m (with armor), weight- 31.5 - 43 tonnes

 

Kurganets likely requires some additional volume relative to weight for amphibious capability.

Edited May 6, 2015 by akd

[c3k]

Do you draw blueprints of EVERY vehicle?

 

[A Canadian Cat]

The thing is, newgen IFVs/APCs are obviously good designs for their role. Even classical, by modern world standard. So the first problem is fixed by a better designed vehicles,

Ah, you cannot say that at this point.  OK you can "say" that but it is very far from certain - we really have no idea.  OK, for sure there do seem to be improvements we can see (like better egress) and there are statements of the design goals that sound good (better crew protection).  But none of that is a sure thing yet and no one knows if there are any design issues that we don't know yet.

 

Which brings us too:

 

and the second one is fixed by a better thought-out experimental process (= making ~100 vehicles per model, and test them over few years before mass production).

 

Which is totally the right thing to do.  Clearly just designing something and driving it around a test track and then putting into mass production is a bad idea.  It is good to see that they will spend time really working with the vehicles to uncover any issues.  Hopefully any issues will be small and tweak-able.  I am sure this process is the right way to go.

Which then makes this statement less strong:

So, all in all, newgen IFVs/APCs have much better chances of being mass produced in great numbers than previous models. T-14 is kind of another story that should be discussed separately of IFVs.

 

The issues is you are saying:

Good design + Proving period = Much better results. 

 

I think it is more like

Encouraging design + Proving period - Track record = Likely better results

 

Then there is Steve's reasoning that looks more like:

Encouraging design + Proving period - Track record - Cost and bad economy = Believe it when I see it results

 

Most of the discussion here has been around is the new design "awesome" or "encouraging", is the track record "bad" or "fixed a long time ago" as well as is the economy a factor or not.  In other words we are really arguing about degrees. And the bottom line is it will take that proving period to see how the design is and maybe by then the economic conditions will be different too. 

[Battlefront.com]

I think Ian summed up the positions very well and I don't see the point in debating it any longer. At least not from my perspective. Especially because I still can't wrap my head around how the BMP-3, T-90, T-80, T-64, etc. histories are anything but a big red flags. "I shot myself in the foot with a shotgun, but I managed to stop the bleeding and learned how to walk again after 10 years" is not an indicator that mishandling a shotgun is a good idea or that I'm going to have a good outcome if I managed to hit my other foot.

In the end it really boils down to two major points of contention:

The first is that of capability/capacity. There are those who think that Russia has learned enough from its past mistakes and gained enough new knowledge that it can develop these new vehicles pretty much as planned. The other view is that although Russia has shown major improvements since 2008, it has a long way to go before the confidence level in its abilities to pull off a complex and expensive R&D project *and* be able to afford to produce in numbers that will make a difference (to logistics, national defense capabilities, competitive export market, etc.)

In the end the only way to know which side is more right than the other is to wait about 10 years. Let me repeat... ANYBODY who thinks they at they know, for sure, how this is going to wind up is being exceptionally foolish. As sure as I am that Russia will not pull things off as planned, I absolutely admit that it might because I see no theoretical reason why it can not.

The other point of debate is on whether this is a wise venture for Russia in the first place. The primary arguments for/against are strongly influenced by the other position. Meaning, those who think Russia is going to wind up with a full set of extremely capable vehicles ready for mass production in 2019 AND can afford to produce them in mass quantities (i.e. far more than 50% of the total force) AND not take until 2040 to do it tend to believe that there is less risk with the current plan than any alternatives to it. Those who think Russia is "biting off more than it can chew" think that Russia would be much better off producing a more modest set of new vehicles with affordability as a major consideration. This alternative vehicle set could then be more assured of full scale production in 2019 and perhaps 100% force changeover by 2030. This argument hinges on the assessment that Russia not only can't produce a NATO challenging force, but that it also doesn't need to.

The only to know who is more right than wrong is to wait until 2019 and then perhaps 2025. I recommend we all come back here in 2019 and see how things went

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

But in order to avoid a sudden incapacitating strike against nuclear forces you need to cover them with an air and missile defense shield. And that shield itself has to be protected from being taken out by ground threats with ground forces. Not to mention that it is a very dangerous and unreliable arrangement when your only two options of dealing with rising crises on your borders is either ignore them or immediately start a nuclear war.

Nonsense I agree that a few Russia soldiers manning the border with pointy sticks and only basic intellectual capacity achieve the same results as a fully modern ground based military. The reason why is that NATO has absolutely no reason or incentive to invade Russian territory EVEN IF Russia is behaving extremely aggressively. So if Russia has no ability to wage war on its neighbors, as it is in Ukraine, then there's no reason for Russia to fear a land incursion. Period.

Contrast this with Germany. Russia is a realistic threat to German soil. Or at least to German interests in Baltic and Polish soil. Putin has deliberately reminded Germany of this. Therefore, Germany realistically doesn't have to fear a Russian incursion of its soil (Russia is no longer capable of such a thing), but it does have to realistically worry about a Russian incursion into it's friend's soil.

Even with this, Germany, France, Italy, and other nations have adopted a poor attitude towards defending themselves. Many are willing to take the risk that Russia will not directly harm their interests and therefore would rather spend money on other things. Especially because they know, for certain, that the US will bail them out as it always has. This is the part that makes Americans a wee bit resentful about. Especially because many Europeans loudly voice their opinions that America should "go home, except if we really need them".

The temptation to use the quick option of military force in order to achieve your political goals is always present, and grows stronger the weaker your opponent becomes.

We are seeing that in Ukraine, though I for one don't think it's working out too well for Russia.

Besides, NATO is not the only major potential threat. China is in a "friendly" phase now, but friendship is best when both sides are on relatively the same level. And Japan has been slowly but surely upgrading its military capabilities, and has standing claims on Russian territory.

If Russia became friends with the West instead of deliberately being adversarial, it wouldn't have to worry about this sort of thing. Does Poland have to worry about Russia alone? No. Russia, if allied with the West, would not have to worry about China alone and wouldn't have to worry about Japan AT ALL.

That may not always be an option, and even if it is, you can probably get a much better deal when you have a credible threat of force as an alternative. "Talk softly and carry a big stick."

That's the point. Russia, for most of its history, has believed in "talk loudly and hit people with sticks if they disagree". Even if it decided to change it's overtly aggressive attitude towards its neighbors, it has a stick sufficiently big to threaten action for decades to come with only moderate upgrading of its current military. While Russia might not have the economic and population to successfully wage war against NATO, against Armenia or Kazakhstan? It already has what it needs. Or at least it appears to. I think Ukraine is showing where the upper limit of Russia's "big stick" is.

Unfortunately, there is no resting in the marathon of geopolitics. Any ground lost can only be recovered by great effort and expense. You have to take care of your economy and military simultaneously. If you focus on just the economy, you will probably find out that you have fallen hopelessly behind in military capabilities and technologies twenty years from now. And Russian capabilities had suffered a decade of rapid contraction, followed by a decade of painfully slow restoration, so that now it has to run twice as fast.

If you can't run the race because you're physically incapable of it, the best thing to do is not try. Do something else to give yourself a sense of direction/purpose/pride instead of a fool's errand. Russia is already hopelessly behind the West and squandering its limited resources in an attempt to "keep up the the Joneses" is foolish national strategy.

Russia would very much like to be a part of the global community - as long as this community is not dominated by objectives and priorities of capitalist elites (the current Russian government is quite happy with these elites though).

I just saw a statistic that 113 Russian citizens control 35% of Russia's financial worth. Greedy US Capitalists can only dream of being that successful

Steve

[Lethaface]

 

In terms of homeland defense, yes. In terms of international interest, no. Russia doesnt have the international defense/security burden the US has, nor the sort of commitments we carry.

The US military has not seriously planned for conventional thtreats against the US soil for a long time.

 

 

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this"
"Then don't do it"

Steve

 

There is a point to be made that the international defense/security burdens are in a large part due to the way the US operates internationally. Apart from that most countries developing their military assets are under no risk of being invaded (and or have nuclear weapons), so your point regarding 'wasted effort' is not only 'valid' for Russia but also for UK/France/Germany etc. 

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Ah, you cannot say that at this point.  OK you can "say" that but it is very far from certain - we really have no idea.  OK, for sure there do seem to be improvements we can see (like better egress) and there are statements of the design goals that sound good (better crew protection).  But none of that is a sure thing yet and no one knows if there are any design issues that we don't know yet.

Uhm. Yes, I can, and I am saying that. Here's what is already known for certain. Newgen infantry vehicles:

• don't have explodable ammo inside,
• have better optics than any other vehicle in Russian fleet (none of which even have thermals, except for BMD-4Ms),
• have thermal jackets on 30mm autocannons for better stability and sustained accuracy,
• can fire 30mm airburst rounds,
• use new, stronger steel,
• have OLS (optical locator system) capable FCS,
• have 4x Kornets ATGM each (with salvo capability),
• Laser Warning System,
• Yeah, and there are rear exits.

That's freaking great, I'd say. For a Russian design, at least. Notice how I didn't even mention new smoke grenade launchers and APS, becuase little is known about them. But one can guess that new smoke launchers deploy screens much faster. APS? So far, it's a default part for certain vehicles, which is a thing in itself. But that can certainly change. Things I've mentioned above? No way.

 

The issues is you are saying:

Good design + Proving period = Much better results. 

 

I think it is more like

Encouraging design + Proving period - Track record = Likely better results

Well, even bad track record can give better results, because it's experience upon which one can improve.

 

Then there is Steve's reasoning that looks more like:

Encouraging design + Proving period - Track record - Cost and bad economy = Believe it when I see it results

 

Most of the discussion here has been around is the new design "awesome" or "encouraging", is the track record "bad" or "fixed a long time ago" as well as is the economy a factor or not.  In other words we are really arguing about degrees. And the bottom line is it will take that proving period to see how the design is and maybe by then the economic conditions will be different too.

 

True. But some things (like I've stated above) are already certain.

Edited May 6, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Lethaface]

Which is why I too love your idea of taxing all NATO allies who fail to meet their defense requirements

Steve

 

Why is it you think a large part of NATO/the West have been lapdogs for US foreign policy last few decades?

Once the US starts charging others for their own defense commitments, things would change quite dramatically over time.

 

Anyway if Russia would have just listened to SauerkrautWerfer there would be no need for defense requirements in the EU ;-)

[A Canadian Cat]

already known for certain

Right my point exactly.  You say certain - I say encouraging.  Design (like the points on your list) is all fine and dandy and a prototype is even better but next you have to show that the prototype actually lives up to the design.  Contractors of any type tend to say stuff with lots of confidence.  Some of it turns out even to be true

 

Well, even bad track record can give better results, because it's experience upon which one can improve.

 

Quite true - if the lessons have been learned. Don't get me wrong it would be good to see if they have been. However if someone has a track record of behaving a certain way just because the *say* they have changed their ways does not mean they have.  Hence the term track record.  If they start actually executing on what they say then that's great.  If the follow through repeatedly then I say they have earned a new track record.  Right now we are at a point where the MoD *says* they will do better.  Now we have to watch and see them *do* that.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Right my point exactly.  You say certain - I say encouraging.  Design (like the points on your list) is all fine and dandy and a prototype is even better but next you have to show that the prototype actually lives up to the design.  Contractors of any type tend to say stuff with lots of confidence.  Some of it turns out even to be true

 

There's a simple reason why I am certain. ALL of these components have already been proven in tests AND actual vehicles. Thermal jackets for 30mm AC come back from Afghan war ages, 4x Kornet with salvo come from BMP-2M Berezhok upgrade (which are exported to Algeria). Airburst is there since BMP-3 and BTR-82A. LWS come back to Shtora. OLS comes back to Soviet era aircraft and modern ground vehicle's FCS. Even the new steel have already been used in the new MRAPs (Typhoons). New optics package is a mystery, but it obviously contains thermals. Regardless of their quality, the simple fact that there are thermals already makes them better than any other optics package out there on Russian vehicles, because there are no thermals on them (IFVs/APCs, obviously).

 

That's where my certainty comes from. All of these are existing and proven tech.

 

Quite true - if the lessons have been learned. Don't get me wrong it would be good to see if they have been. However if someone has a track record of behaving a certain way just because the *say* they have changed their ways does not mean they have.  Hence the term track record.  If they start actually executing on what they say then that's great.  If the follow through repeatedly then I say they have earned a new track record.  Right now we are at a point where the MoD *says* they will do better.  Now we have to watch and see them *do* that.

 

I don't believe words. I see what they do. And yes, we have to keep watching, obviously. I am just saying that so far they are showing good stuff.

Edited May 6, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Sgt Joch]

I just saw a statistic that 113 Russian citizens control 35% of Russia's financial worth. Greedy US Capitalists can only dream of being that successful

 

 

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Study, where that statistic supposedly comes from, in Russia 111 persons control 19% of the overall wealth in 2014 (p. 53). No comparable figure for the USA.

 

https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4

 

However, both Russia and the USA are ranked as having "very high inequality" (p.30). In Russia the top 10% own 84.8% of the wealth. In the USA, the top 10% own 74.6% of the wealth. The "very high inequality" ranking put the USA and Russia in the same category as Egypt, India, South Africa, Thailand, etc.(p.33)

 

OTOH, Canada, UK, France, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Finland are all rated as having only "medium inequality" since the top 10% own between 50-60% of the overall wealth.

 

Not sure it is anything for Americans to be bragging about .

Edited May 6, 2015 by Sgt Joch

[MikeyD]

One thing that interests me, Russia has labored for decades under rail transport restrictions that have largely dictated the dimensions of their armored vehicles. Germany has the same sort of restrictions, particularly the ability to make it through a particular railroad tunnel. Now Russia's vehicles have grown exponentially. Have the Russian rail restrictions been altered? Or do the vehicle still comply once the added armor has been unbolted?

 

I recall the US had fits getting Stryker to comply with its own restrictions (mostly involving air transport).

[L0ckAndL0ad]

One thing that interests me, Russia has labored for decades under rail transport restrictions that have largely dictated the dimensions of their armored vehicles. Germany has the same sort of restrictions, particularly the ability to make it through a particular railroad tunnel. Now Russia's vehicles have grown exponentially. Have the Russian rail restrictions been altered? Or do the vehicle still comply once the added armor has been unbolted?

 

I recall the US had fits getting Stryker to comply with its own restrictions (mostly involving air transport).

 

Yeah, they are still in compliance. It was in the last interview with Bochkarev.

 

Vitaly Kuzmin's photos from the rehearsal:

 

http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/603

 

The optics package on IFVs is strange. Old pictures showed that there's something in the middle that's covered. Why sides don't have cover too? Or the outer lenses are actually cover? Hmm.

[Krasnoarmeyets]

If Russia became friends with the West instead of deliberately being adversarial, it wouldn't have to worry about this sort of thing. Does Poland have to worry about Russia alone? No. Russia, if allied with the West, would not have to worry about China alone and wouldn't have to worry about Japan AT ALL.

From our side it looks like it is the West (or, more specifically, the ruling elites of the United States and the governments under their influence) that is being deliberately adversarial, unconditionally demanding and hypocritical. It likes to crusade all around the world under pretense of dispensing justice and protecting the oppressed when it suits its interests, but screams bloody murder when Russia tries to protect its own people and their brothers at its borders from oppression by tyrants that are useful to the West, or does not see the sense in making yet another middle eastern country (which government has been inconvenient for the West) fall to religious extremist rebellion.

Since becoming an "ally of the West" (read: United States puppet) would entail losing any real measure of national sovereignty and any prospect of doing what is best for your people, Russia is better served by sticking to the allies it has now. China is at least honest about its demands.

All right, since this is likely to turn into an endless back-and-forth where neither side can convince the other, and therefore be a waste of time and energy, I will cease this tangential political discussion.

I just saw a statistic that 113 Russian citizens control 35% of Russia's financial worth. Greedy US Capitalists can only dream of being that successful

Yes, we need a new Revolution to restore the power of the people...

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Not going to lie, I did laugh out loud at the last post at several times. 

[kaburke61]

 

"Not going to lie......"

 

I know....me too. The propaganda machine is running at full blast......

 

Talk about hypocrisy........

[Battlefront.com]

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Study, where that statistic supposedly comes from, in Russia 111 persons control 19% of the overall wealth in 2014 (p. 53). No comparable figure for the USA.

...

Not sure it is anything for Americans to be bragging about .

Too off topic to pursue, but you won't find me arguing that America doesn't have major room for improvement when it comes to wealth disparity. The on topic point is that Russia has some systemic problems that are putting pressure on its ability to govern right now, today, whereas the problem in America is likely to fester for a lot longer before it is corrected (hopefully not like the Roaring 20s were corrected).

Steve

[sburke]

From our side it looks like it is Russia (or, more specifically, the ruling elites of the Russia and the governments under their influence) that is being deliberately adversarial, unconditionally demanding and hypocritical. It likes to crusade all around the world under pretense of dispensing justice and protecting the oppressed when it suits its interests, but screams bloody murder when the United States tries to protect  people at Russia's borders from oppression by tyrants that are useful to Russia or does not see the sense in making yet another middle eastern country (which government has been Russia's last remaining ally in the post Soviet world) fall to religious extremist rebellion.

Since becoming an "ally of Russia" (read: Russian puppet) would entail losing any real measure of national sovereignty and any prospect of doing what is best for your people, Ukraine is better served by sticking to the allies it has now. The West is at least honest about its demands.

All right, since this is likely to turn into an endless back-and-forth where neither side can convince the other, and therefore be a waste of time and energy, I will cease this tangential political discussion.

Yes, we need a new Revolution to restore the power of the people... Wait, you mean the gov't you just spent all that time defending?

 

 

Fixed that for you to the extent it was actually correctable.

Edited May 6, 2015 by sburke

[Battlefront.com]

Not going to lie, I did laugh out loud at the last post at several times.

 

Me too! I started to bite (i.e. respond) but what's the point? Not only is if off topic, but I'm certainly not going to undo decades of state propaganda.

All I will do is respond to this one tiny bit:

 

From our side it looks like it is the West (or, more specifically, the ruling elites of the United States and the governments under their influence) that is being deliberately adversarial, unconditionally demanding and hypocritical.

Oh really When was the last nuclear bomber flight on the edge of Russian airspace with transponders turned off? How about reminding me the last time the US conducted a massive "nuclear readiness" drill? When was the last time a US fighter plane buzzed a Russian warship? Just curious.

And this one:

 

Russia is better served by sticking to the allies it has now. China is at least honest about its demands.

This is the point I am making. Let's look at Russia's allies:

1. Syria

2. North Korea

3. Some of the Stans (i.e. ex Soviet Republics)

4. Venezuela (and some other South American states)

5. Sorta kinda maybe Greece

6. Belarus depending on how the wind blows

All but one are ruthless and poor despotic nations with nothing positive to offer their own people or the world around them. Now, why is that? Because all free minded nations in the world openly reject Russia's offer of genuine friendship and cooperation instead of the US' selfish and repressive arrangements? It's really got to gaul Russia that many of these nations, that are willingly rejecting friendship with Russia, were formerly allied with the Soviet Union in relationships of brotherly love and mutual respect. Now they have been twisted into fearing their brothers in the Kremlin.

Boy, America is even more powerful than I thought it was!

 

Yes, we need a new Revolution to restore the power of the people...

On this point we totally agree.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Pretty much.  Which gets to the heart of why this discussion is amusing.  The west shouldn't tell Russia what to do inside Russia.  Russia should be allowed to intervene wherever Russian ethnic populations are, regardless of borders.  The west is being provocative by military exercises that often have nothing.to.do.with.Russia, but hey, here's a full Russian run-up to starting a nuclear war with literally every country on the earth.  Everyone is an American puppet, including countries that frequently clash loudly, and decisively on nearly every American policy.   Russia is surrounded by enemies, but it has also invaded, raped, and pillaged its way across all of said enemies several times in the last two decades.  Russia objects to NATO expansion in the face of a treaty that never existed, but violates real treaties it signed because don't tell me what to do.

 

It's like if everyone treats you like you're an untrustworthy a-hole, you should start asking questions about if you're acting like an untrustworthy a-hole.  If no one is your friend, the question isn't "how did the people I not like turn the whole world against me?!?!?!" it's "what have we done to so sour our world image?" 

 

You cannot simply blame everything on "the west" or "America," as much as Russia Today tells you it isn't your fault. Russia dug its own hole, and holds a parade to celebrate how deep it has dug said hole.  More than tanks, more than missiles, if Russia simply stopped treating the rest of the world like it was something to push around (and honestly without the muscle to do much of the pushing in the first place), it'd be a lot more secure.

 

But no.  We'll keep getting garbage about the Russian right to shoot Ukrainians for being closet Nazis, how America should move Alaska father back (or give it back to Russia) and stop being so threatening with arming Inuit, and Denmark will be reminded how irradiated it could be in lieu of actual foreign policy.

 

Anyway.  I think the Armata pretty much looks as good as any Soviet/Russian military first rollout, and I expect it to perform accordingly. 

[Battlefront.com]

And with that said... let's get more-or-less back on topic please. Even if I'm accused of being a pushy Capitalist American pig dog

 

Uhm. Yes, I can, and I am saying that. Here's what is already known for certain.

This is something that is going to keep coming back at you. You say "known for certain", but it's not true. Let me illustrate this:

 

Newgen infantry vehicles:

• don't have explodable ammo inside,
• have better optics than any other vehicle in Russian fleet (none of which even have thermals, except for BMD-4Ms),
• have thermal jackets on 30mm autocannons for better stability and sustained accuracy,
• can fire 30mm airburst rounds,
• use new, stronger steel,
• have OLS (optical locator system) capable FCS,
• have 4x Kornets ATGM each (with salvo capability),
• Laser Warning System,
• Yeah, and there are rear exits.

These are *planned* features that are "known for certain". Nobody, not even Bochkarev himself, knows "for certain" what will be on the production vehicles in 3-4 years time. That is a fact and I can not emphasize it enough because it is basic thinking. Planning ≠ Production. It just doesn't.

This is not to say the planned items won't happen. They might, they might not. They might be dropped, they might be downgraded *or* they could be upgraded to something better. An item on that list could be modified/dropped for budgetary reasons *or* something that isn't on the list gets cut to make sure the basic stuff doesn't get touched. NOBODY knows for "certain".

For example, it is entirely possible that the 4x Kornets at the ready is deemed unnecessary because no vehicle is going to sit still to fire more than 1 or 2 at a time, therefore it can be reloaded between engagements. Or they decide to use the space on the other side of the turret for some totally new, and super-duper-awesome, feature that isn't even on the current list. Or they decide to mount all 4x Kornets in a single housing so they don't lose functionality of four at the ready missiles AND can still have the super cool new thing on the other side. But then after testing they might find the 4x launcher is problematic and so it goes back to a 2x launcher.

Can anybody here say that what I just said is wrong? No. So let's stop using the term "certain" because there is *nothing* certain at this point.

 

That's freaking great, I'd say.

No disagreement. But it's not "certain".

 

Well, even bad track record can give better results, because it's experience upon which one can improve.

True. As I've said many times already, I absolutely see a big shift in Russian thinking and planning since 2008. Therefore, Russia is clearly showing that it has the capacity to learn from its past mistakes and make effective changes to leverage the new knowledge.

Having said that, Russia has been working in pretty much the same way that it has been since the 1930s. So although it is showing definite signs of improvement, "the jury is still out" on if they've made enough progress to pull off this ambitious plan. I don't think we'll be able to fully assess Russia's progress for another 3-4 years and then even more in 8-10.

 

True. But some things (like I've stated above) are already certain.

On a final note... "no"

Steve

[Alan8325]

It looks like the intent of the design is that ATGMs are stopped by APS, auto cannon such as 25mm is stopped by the "new, improved steel" plating and sabot rounds pass straight through, hopefully not hitting anything on the way.

[Hister]

Not hitting anything on the way? That would be hardly the case since there's not much free space in any tank.