Wheels or tracks?
-
flats perfrom perfectly fine....apart from erm the fact that u'd damge the inside and suspension will be a bitch
anyway they are bullet proof tires meaning their made of kelvar,very very thick(like 3inches) and are double layered.A tire within a tire so to speak.Chances of them getting blown by normal bullets is low....well the 50cal frm an M-89 could blow the tire but normal bullets wont. -
thx |-|05|.
and check out this page:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehtlav.htm
note the 'complimentary not competitors' point. .. hmmmmm, changed my view of view of wheeled vehicles. .. so they are useful after all, but then i still think fighting should be left to the tracked ones. .. though wheeled vehicles have their role to play too -
You dun have to shoot at the wheels, in a lot of cases, wheels that tried in run flaming barricades which tracks would have just breezed through found their tires on fire and reduced to running on rims. And they are moving nowhere near top speed...Originally posted by |-|05|:flats perfrom perfectly fine....apart from erm the fact that u'd damge the inside and suspension will be a bitch anyway they are bullet proof tires meaning their made of kelvar,very very thick(like 3inches) and are double layered.A tire within a tire so to speak.Chances of them getting blown by normal bullets is low....well the 50cal frm an M-89 could blow the tire but normal bullets wont.
Given the choice, any smart person would take a track in an urban seneriao, you're a lot harder to take out. Sure you can run with a wheel, but you can never run fast enough to dodge bullets and rpgs might as well use a system that's almost as fast and can support the protection to stand up to these threats as well... LAVs just open up like a tin can whenever they are hit, it's mobility is hardly advantageous at all... assuming they dun flip themselves first from their high cg when trying to run away. -
Combat wise, tracks are better. . .
but maintenance and for long distance, i think wheels are better. . .tracks prob also wear out faster. . .
but then again, in war, if each of ur vehicle has 8 tyres, erm, how many spares do u need? and u will need to change the whole wheel not just the tyres i think, cos ur rims and all will prob get damaged running on 0 pressure in the tyres. . .and because proponents of wheels give the ability of wheels to 'run flat' as an advantage it has over tracks, we also have to factor in how run flats perform against tracks. . .are they faster even after they tyres are blown?
another thing is the complexity needed in steering and drivetrain for 8 wheeled vehicles, tracks are, well, tracks. . .
however, for small patrol vehicles, 4 x4 wheels will be much more economical then tracks, even 6 x6 too, problem probably comes in when u have to steer 4 wheels in an 8 wheel vehicle. . .cost more bucks
however, u can use tracks all the time too cos u'll spoil all ur roads if u wanna run on roads, and ur tracks get damaged faster. a busted wheel is much easier to replace than a busted track, though a busted wheel also happens to be much more likely than a busted track. . .
i've decided i'm moderate. . . -
One interesting question to members of this thread, please:- Why did the Germans or otherwise build those half-tracks?!!!
What possible advantages do you get out of those vehicles?
Why were they even build in the first place?
Why have half-tracks more or less disappeared today?
Please enlighten or point to URL with the answers.......
Thanks! -
aiyah use hover tank lah, best...
-
totally agree that they're complementary... i mean... SAF would be STUPID to choose one OR the other right???Originally posted by laser51088:thx |-|05|.
and check out this page:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehtlav.htm
note the 'complimentary not competitors' point. .. hmmmmm, changed my view of view of wheeled vehicles. .. so they are useful after all, but then i still think fighting should be left to the tracked ones. .. though wheeled vehicles have their role to play too
i kinda think wheels are more suited for deployment in an urban enviornment in a peace-keeping role... they won't tear up or wear out the asphalt so easily
so i do think that SAF should get a few and try them out in Timor Leste... would make a potential arms customer for ST too once they get their infrastructures together... oil and timber can pay for lots of stuff... including a credible military force which they sorely need!
but in combat, its tracks man! psychologically speaking, i think they're more intimidating too... -
Actually, actual field experience has shown that tracks actually require less maintaince... yes, driving around on drunken tours in peacetime on wheels means that you will have to maintain them little, while tracks need constant care. The thing is, the amount of maintainence for tracks remains more or less little changed when the use increases, if a wheel gets put into actual field use (could be even driving extended preriods at speed), their reliability drops dramatically. US Marines found that out the hard way when they had to change the wheels of their LAVs once every two weeks in the field while a tracked Gavin treads could survive 2 months under the same conditions with little maintaince, though you officer would probably be after your butt by that time.Originally posted by laser51088:Combat wise, tracks are better. . .
but maintenance and for long distance, i think wheels are better. . .tracks prob also wear out faster. . .
but then again, in war, if each of ur vehicle has 8 tyres, erm, how many spares do u need? and u will need to change the whole wheel not just the tyres i think, cos ur rims and all will prob get damaged running on 0 pressure in the tyres. . .and because proponents of wheels give the ability of wheels to 'run flat' as an advantage it has over tracks, we also have to factor in how run flats perform against tracks. . .are they faster even after they tyres are blown?
The idea of wheels being more combat survivable then tracks becos they can limp away after their running gear get shot is pretty moot. After all, the unit is only useful when it is combat effective, so what if they can limp back after missing two tires and running on flats when their LAV suspension, superstructure and such is all screwed up by that abuse and the unit will not be ready till dunno when. In comparism, a Bradely, Abrams or even a Gavin will be back in the field quite quickly following such damage. -
Looks like we have to stick to our vintage V200 commando 4 wheelie armour vehicle for another 20 years. 55 years of usage for a piece of equipment, looks like our army is going to get the most cost efficient award of the year. Too bad for ST Kinetics and it's ill-fated terrex 8 wheelie armoured vehicle.
Anyway, I still find the V200 looks great despite it's age, must really praise that US hull designer. However at 400,000 a pop for an upgrade, I would rather suggest the decision maker buy 2 new mercedes saden instead, more comfortable. -
ill - fated Terrex?? What happen, cancelled? I've seen the Terrex and been inside. It has far more internal volume and space than the V200s. The sitting arrangement is also more comfortable. One has to be really carefull when closing the hatches on the V200. One slip and there goes your fingers. On the other hand, the Terrex has a large ramp like the M113 for easier access.Originally posted by bigballs11:Looks like we have to stick to our vintage V200 commando 4 wheelie armour vehicle for another 20 years. 55 years of usage for a piece of equipment, looks like our army is going to get the most cost efficient award of the year. Too bad for ST Kinetics and it's ill-fated terrex 8 wheelie armoured vehicle.
Anyway, I still find the V200 looks great despite it's age, must really praise that US hull designer. However at 400,000 a pop for an upgrade, I would rather suggest the decision maker buy 2 new mercedes saden instead, more comfortable. -
today's chinese papers came out a report on the recent upgrade to the v200. IMO, i also think getting new wheeled AFV to replace the present ones then convert the v200 into static targets for live firing, or maybe as platforms for an experimental unmanned recon vehicleOriginally posted by bigballs11:Looks like we have to stick to our vintage V200 commando 4 wheelie armour vehicle for another 20 years. 55 years of usage for a piece of equipment, looks like our army is going to get the most cost efficient award of the year. Too bad for ST Kinetics and it's ill-fated terrex 8 wheelie armoured vehicle.
Anyway, I still find the V200 looks great despite it's age, must really praise that US hull designer. However at 400,000 a pop for an upgrade, I would rather suggest the decision maker buy 2 new mercedes saden instead, more comfortable. -
check this interesting site regarding stryker's performance!Originally posted by laser51088:Yah. . . Thats the idea...
Would you rather enter combat riding in a wheeled armoured vehicle or tracked armoured vehicle ? Not restricted to vehicles used in saf here. . .
US army got their LAV-III stryker but grunts are complaining they want the M113, don't trust wheels. . .
Do you think the argument is justified or is it a classic case of the military being conservative?
http://www.combatreform.com/strykerrollover.htm -
Actually, the wheels aren't THAT vulnerable to small arms. Really. If you cut open those wheels for these wheeled APCs, you will realise why. With 4 wheels, perhaps the vehicle will be pretty badly hurt if one wheel gets COMPLETELY Shredded. Yes, thats what you have to do to disable those wheels. In the case of the Terrex, u have 8 wheels!! They really aren't the regular kind of wheels that we have on every day vehicles. How many really well place shots can you place on quick wheeling vehicles like a Terrex or LAV?
Sure, explosives will shred those things fine. But they will damage the tracks of a tracked vehicle too. So the question now is, WHICH is easier to replace? Does one really want to spend so much time to fix an armored transport? A units like an IFV should always be tracked, cos they are more likely to face heavy fire. Armored transports, should be wheeled because you want to minimise the amount of time making these vehicles serviceable.
As for the US ARMY's light brigade, well. Logistics will be easier on them. A brigade with a loose logistic chain would be more flexible and manueverable. However, due to their LIGHT nature, they are not able to do the usual, "Few company of Abrams, up the middle." Tactics but rather focus on rapid manuevering and avoiding fronts. Therefore, they actually use up that logistic chain pretty quick too. Then, they will be vulnerable again.
Its a very pro vs cons now.