I mean, to be fair, I never mounted an anti-aircraft gun on the back to mow down my enemies. I like the canopy so I can transport my dogs.
But sure. I could.
You’re missing out on having the dogs mow down your enemies with an AA gun.
No clue. Just answering in as FQ a manner as possible.
I’ve seen the number $400M tossed around, but it’s unclear if that’s for the purchase of the base vehicles or includes the almost certainly needed aftermarket changes.
I suppose it depends who gets to define the standards for “armoured”, too. Probably someone in the government.
IIRC, when he was demonstrating the bullet-proof windows Elon actually said something like the metal sides were “bullet-resistant”, so obviously not up to some standards yet.
If you listen to Tesla’s PR, Cybertrucks are already armored. There’s no shortage of videos celebrating their supposed ability to stop bullets.
There’s no reason to think this announcement is anything more than a typical Musk bait-and-switch, i.e. “Yes, I said I’d provide armored Cybertrucks. The DoD has just released requirements for a no-bid contract for armored electric pickup trucks, and purely by coincidence, the stock Cybertruck easily exceeds these requirements.”
The steel can probably.maybe stop a 9mm, the most common handgun round.
and “Armormax offers an upgraded armoring process that makes the Cybertruck bulletproof against high-powered assault rifles and other weapons.”
So, lightly bullet proof- at least the modified ones. Seemingly about like the armored Humvee. Okay for transport, but not in any way shape or for a front line armored car. They would be fine for VIP transport- the up armored ones that is.
But is that official Tesla publication, or just fanboys speaking without testing?
Mostly fanboys.
Brandon Herrera (gun channel on youtube) tested various rounds against a real Cybertruck door (the thumbnail is clickbait - he shoots at a real Cybertruck door, but not at the actual Cybertruck he owns).
The door actually did fairly well against lighter pistol rounds, but failed at .44 magnum rounds. The lightest rifle rounds that Brandon tested (5.56) went straight through it.
So basically a Cybertruck will protect you from light pistol rounds but that’s it.
On the following chart, a Cybertruck will protect you from the two on the left, but the other seven are going to go right through the door.
To be fair, all nine rounds will easily go through a normal car door, and out through the door on the other side of the vehicle as well. Normal car doors are not at all bulletproof.
Here is Brandon’s video if you want to see every type of round tested:
Note, of course, that Tesla has no public relations or media relations staff whatsoever. That’s one of Musk’s brilliant ideas.
It was a bit of a joke as crappy Toyota trucks are commonly jury-rigged with anti-aircraft guns and whatnot in third world countries to create Mad Max style fighting vehicles simply because they are cheap and available.
I would imagine a Cybertruck could be armored just like any other SUV or civilian vehicle used for security purposes. As others have point out, I don’t know how practical electric vehicles would be for actual military roles due to the charging times and logistics for either having access to a power grid or bringing one with you.
We all know that the only reason we are discussing “armored” vehicles to be used where previously normal cars were used is because Elmo is going to dump 400M “worth” of deploreans on the federal government.
It is naked grift.
The “armored vehicles” entry in the budget only came to be when people called out the naked corruption of 400M to Tesla.
This discussion of the availability or the actual armor of deploreans is sanewashing.
I watched the clip of the cybertruk unveiling a little while ago. It was mostly about the "unbreakable’ windows. (Spoiler - they were not…) but I do recall Elon saying the metal was “bullet-resistant”. I assumed that meant it was slightly thicker than a regular car.
I assume other enthusiasts embellished it into bullet “proof”.
Rather than crappy, older Toyota vehicles have a reputation for reliability and can be serviced by mechanics in the bush. So much so that there is a specialty dealership based in Gibraltar that supplies NGOs with Toyotas for ambulances and other purposes.
A practical question / observation …
Back in the early 1980s I had sorta regular occasion to ride around in DoS’s then-standard armored SUVs. Which had thick unopenable windows and very heavy doors with different much stouter latch arrangements. I wasn’t privy to the rest of the design details and specific threats they could defeat, but if I had been, it’d also have been classified.
They were built from ordinary Chevy Suburbans. And viewed from 50 feet away there were only a few tells it wasn’t stock. Tells that the bad guys were well-versed in. Even up close you had to pay attention to notice anything odd about them.
Anyhow, all that up-armoring weighed a lot. The 'Burb’s chassis & running gear was real stout to begin with, so there was lots of open weight between the normal laden weight and the max gross it could physically carry and remain durable enough. That open weight was available for armoring.
A Tesla CT is already darn heavy. I wonder how much more weight of armor you could pile on it before the suspension and chassis structure would need to be redesigned for greater strength? And given the sorta unibody, or at least uni-bodypan design, there’s not a cheap way to do that.
As stated by others above, it’s already well-established that the only armor a stock CT has is plot armor. It looks evil / threatening; it isn’t really.
My bottom line:
I suspect you can’t up-armor a CT by much before it needs a complete redesign. The MRAP version of the HMMWV certainly found that out. It was intended as a relatively cheapo bolt-on uparmoring and ended up as nearly a complete vehicle redesign / replacement to carry the weight.
The considerations aren’t trivial for sure. They’re already heavy enough to warrant serious thought about infrastructure - get them heavier and many road and bridges won’t safely hold their traffic.
Then again, most of us probably don’t think about things like that. We assume if we can buy it, it must be safe to drive on the streets. That level of forward planning might not have made it to the level of the decision makers, who are likely relying on others to deal with such considerations.
This is not a very GQ sentiment, but you have to consider the possibility that there was never any intent to meaningfully up-armor the vehicles. In other words, deliver nearly-stock CTs as “armored”, call it good enough, and pocket the payout.
I have not researched this but I expect that there are established standards for how well armored a vehicle is. Presumably any order from the State Department would specify the level of protection required.
I’ll point out that any executive branch agency’s determination of regulatory or specification compliance seems to now be subject to presidential override without exception or recourse.
In other words, “Screw your standards. Shut up and pay the man.”
That’s all the farther I intend to indulge my hijack. Thank you.
Depending on the exact spec, the Cybertruck has a cargo capacity of 2200-2500 pounds. It has an air suspension, so it won’t squat with 2000 pounds of cargo.
From a technical standpoint, making an armored Cybertruck (or X, for that matter) doesn’t seem any worse than building any other car into an armored limo. Of course, all I know about armored limos is from some Discovery channel documentary I watched 20 years ago. I’d think turning any light duty vehicle into an armored combat vehicle is pretty stupid.
I’m trying to keep this as FQ as possible, but my understanding is that due to the unicast frame is largely unserviceable, especially as it’s the primary structural component. This seems to imply it would be extremely difficult at best to field repair. So making it an “armored vehicle” in the military sense, on the level of the Humvee seems extremely unlikely. In terms of an up-armored but still predominantly civilian vehicle it would be less of an issue.
I also understand that the body panels are held on through a combination of clips, adhesives, and some degree of laser welding. Which means heavier plating may need brand new methods if the adhesives, especially are insufficient for both the heavier weight and ability to resist impact without sheering off the body.
So, more into IMHO territory, very impractical, but lots of government/military purchasing are political decisions rather than practical ones.
@Czarcasm, I hope that was within the realms of reasoned analysis, I only brought up the politics in that those have always been a factor regardless of who was in charge, ie “I need orders for the plant in my district if you want the funding vote” as historical examples.