Tracks Vs. Wheels
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Two different doctrines, whats the best guys?
I've always thought tracks were the best e.g.Muddy Fields, so why does (France) use tracks, is there somthing im missing?
Also general opinions and experience is welcome
>>30084218
How about you use whatever tool is best for the job at hand, you tremendous faggot?
Wheeled vehicles can't turn 360 around tight streets. While tracked vehicles can.
>>30084228
Thanks.....
But i'll bite, should the military have both wheeled and tracked vehicles of the same kind for different parts of the battlefield
>>30084218
>doctrines
>>30084253
>use whatever tool is best for the job at hand
>>30084253
Assuming you have infinite money and manpower, yes, you should. However, money and manpower is finite, so you stretch your dollars by buying whichever platform will work for the largest percentage of your usage cases, which is exactly what modern armies do.
>>30084316
So if you're procuring a IFV for example, bearing in mind most non-American military's have limited money, what would you choose?
>>30084401
What kind of terrain will I be operating on? How big of a geographic area will I be covering? Will this be an expeditionary force, or a defensive force? Does it rain or snow a lot where I will be operating? What's my logistics platform like? Will I have to be able to air-transport my IFVs, or can I ship them via train, or will they have to road march everywhere?
I'm going to buy something completely different if I'm Finland and I'm trying to defend my country from Russians in the winter as opposed to if I'm attempting to quell an insurgency in far western, rural China.
>>30084244
>wheeled vehicles can't turn
you trackfags aren't even trying anymore.
>>30084485
Well I took a picture of the Bradley because its going to be replaced soon
So America I guess, and terrain, well looks like contemporary battlefields are desert and semi-arid, but also I would also say North and Central Africa (where France is operating) so dirt roads and thick forest
>>30084545
tracked vehicles if you are fighting in forest, wheeled vehicles will only get stuck innawoods...
>>30084532
Show me a video of a Stryker doing a U-turn down a Baghdad street.
>>30084545
For your scenario I would probably say wheeled vehicles. While >>30084562 is correct, Sub-Saharan Africa is a motherfucking rain forest. Not even a tracked vehicle is going to be able to effectively operate off-road in those types of conditions.
>>30084218
Depends on the purpose.
>>30084577
>falling for bait this hard
>>30084594
Oppressing Afgani wheat farmers
>>30084401
if you are France something you can make yourself. You need to understand France lost world war 2 and never again is their doctrine. They have outright said an intrusion into their borders will be met with maximum force, so if their armies can't kick you out nukes.
>>30084616
Then tracked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frDdcYsRqko
The ONLY point of wheeled vehicles is that in their current incarnations, they tend to be easier to maintain, more reliable, better fuel efficiency, etc
Of course you sacrifice everything that makes it into a competent military vehicle but hey, you need APC's I guess.
I think if tracks had any where close to the amount of money thrown at them like wheels have had, they would be in a similar state in regards to reliability/maintenance/fuel efficiency
>>30084616
You need tracked for operating in afghanistan, probably need it for iraq too but iraq has better roads
>>30084401
>bearing in mind most non-American military's have limited money
Even Americans have limited money.
>>30084545
>Well I took a picture of the Bradley because its going to be replaced soon
With the A4 Bradley, and M113's are going to be replaced with a turretless Bradley variant starting in 2018.
>>30084926
>Of course you sacrifice everything that makes it into a competent military vehicle
Funny you say this after listing some of its advantages that are pertinent to a competent military vehicle.
>>30084926
Wheeled APCs also tend to be lighter and easier to transport, so if you need an infantry brigade somewhere right the fuck now, wheels are a nice option.
>>30085191
The weight of the vehicle is a design decision based mostly on armor requirements & size, not a wheels/tracks thing
Both.
But I'll add that I think for the sake of simplicity military vehicles should follow a general rule of limiting themselves to "small, medium, large, extra purpose" when selecting vehicles so that they'll clear up their supply chains.
It would be ideal if they had a soft limit of 4 per class of vehicle.
>>30085252
Dont all the wheels on tracked vehicles and the tracks themselves add a signifcant amount of weight to the vehicle overall? Im sure if you slapped ERA and slat armour all over a wheeled APC it would be heavier than a vanilla tracked APC straight out of the factory but generally, tracked vehicles are heavier?
>>30084218
Wheels are usually quieter, easier to repair, cheaper, allow for higher top speeds, and more fuel efficient. Wheels also require less complex power transmission devices, and less hardware generally making them lighter. Tracks can be made as light weight as wheel but usually at a big cost to durability (just look at light tanks).
Tracks are more durable, and allow for better traction in most situations. Tracks also allow for better "on the spot" maneuverability.
>>30085327
Tracks are usually heavier because they CAN be heavier, and CAN be scaled up very easily
You can make 100 ton wheeled vehicles
Just as you can make 5 ton tracked vehicles
Your total vehicle weight is a design decision based on whatever criteria you wish
Currently the 8x8 wheeled APC seems to have hit a sweet spot versus the threats that are commonly faced on the battlefield
And I believe they fare better vs IED's too
>>30085411
Can tracks be made out of any metal and, I guess future materials like graphene, like aluminium and titanium
>>30085411
>Tracks are usually heavier because they CAN be heavier, and CAN be scaled up very easily
More of a vehicles weight is taken up by tracks than wheels.
>>30085411
Plus multiwheeled vehicles have more redundancy. Lose a tire? You got 7 more to pick up the slack. Lose a track? You're stuck till it gets repaired/replaced.
>>30084218
Its not really a matter of one being better than the other, they have advantages in different areas, it's like asking whether helicopters or jet fighters are better. Tracks are better off-road, so they make sense for tanks and mobile artillery which must keep up with them. But wheels provide better performance all around on roads, so they make sense for logistics vehicles. Scout vehicles can also benefit from being wheeled, even though they have to go offroad; if properly designed for off-road travel, they can have off-road mobility approaching that of tracked vehicles, while also being better able to take advantage of roads to jump ahead.
>>30085903
What about multi tracked vehicles? Couldn't they spilt each side into 2 or 3 smaller tracks?
>>30086178
>What about multi tracked vehicles? Couldn't they spilt each side into 2 or 3 smaller tracks?
With electric drive, this would be possible and theoretically would allow a tank that lost a track section to a land mine or IED to limp off the battlefield to safety.
>>30086253
CAT uses hydraulic drive, so its a mature technology. Plus, its already being used for multiton vehicles, so its gotta be better.
>>30084616
"wheat" farmers
>>30086684
Your propoganda doesn't work on me Mr DoD
>>30086720
"propaganda"
afghanistan's cash crop was poppy for opium. it dipped after the invasion, and went right back after exit.
>>30086769
CIA saw its yields decreasing so its told everyone Osama was in Afghanistan so they could go in and restore order to their money trees
>>30084244
https://youtu.be/a0MHjQjzzdU?t=4m35s
>>30087992
That is sliding on snow, although it is reminiscent of the T-72 family's inability to neutral steer.
both master race
fuck your tires vs. tracks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbDe5dEu07I
every one knows screw is best!
>>30089831
what about roads?
>>30084218
All depends on the type of terrain and the mission.
There is no such thing as "tracks are always better" or "wheels are always better" as it all comes down to what type of terrain there is in your country.
>>30086178
This has been done.
>>30091951
a road is the easy way, and the easy way is always mined
>>30092009
Two seperate linked hulls is not what the anon was fantasizing about.
>>30084218
This is like helicopters vs airplanes.
You can pick both
>>30093390
Dont mention it. Gliderfag might shit up the tread.
>>30093447
Gliders are better than wheels and tracks combined.
They are silent, don't use fuel, can carry anything, go anywhere, land anywhere, can't be shot down and could have perfectly been used in the raid on OBL.
>>30085449
Tracks can be made of anything, tracks are basically chains or repeating hinges.
Aluminums only advantage is being lighter, even the toughest alloys are inferior to steel.
Titanium isn't as strong as steel has the potential to be.
Can say anything about muh future materials, just know that steel will be the king for a very long time.
Gold for the mistress
Silver for the maid
Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.
'good' said the baron sitting in his hall
'but iron, cold iron Is the master of them all. '
>>30085903
This is true, but tracks are much tougher than wheels, but I guess run flat wheels are better than blown off tracks.
>>30085903
This is a major pro with todays IED thread.
Its also easier to make a V-shape hull on wheeled vehicles.
I do think tracks are the master race because they will stop at nothing.
I must also admit I have experience with the Fennek, when you drive it as you should it will take you everywhere you want. It has a tire inflate/deflate system. Works really well.
Run flat tires are not as good as they are supposed to be. They are promoted they will take you 30km, after 3km the shreds of rubber hanging from the wheels will beat everything to shit inside the wheel well.
>>30093567
>>30093692
Anon isn't necessarily talking about run flats
https://youtu.be/vyrDV-D1bLY?t=33s
>>30093772
Well flat tires are muchos more likely to happen un the battlefield than taking if a whole wheel.
I mean if you get shot at or run over an IED/mine it won't exactly be the good time to get off the vehicle and dismount the wheel to improve your mobility.
>>30093845
The point is that if an APC can run with half its wheels straight up missing, it can run with a few damaged tires.
>>30093893
I don't wanna be like this.
But not necessarily true, flat wheels or mangled wheels put a hell of a lot of resistance when moving. when they're missing yea you have more load per wheel, but you don't have the mangled wheel dragging around and or getting caught in things.
>>30086769
The Taliban banned opium. They only started farming poppies when Afghanistan was invaded.
>>30084218
>so why does (France) use tracks
They don't except with the BVS10 for mountain troops, the Leclerc MBT, and the soon to be retired AUF1 artillery automotives.
Reason is money first. Mobility second. In a country with actual roads, you don't need that extra mobility provided by tracks.
Are tracks still best on the overall ? Yes. They also make for lighter vehicles. They're also much less reliable than wheeled vehicles using engines and transmissions coming from the truck industry.
>>30095658
>They also make for lighter vehicles.
You mean heavier.
