Thoughts?

https://twitter.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1686309561228021760

If done right, it seems like a force that's half wheels and half tracks would offer increased flexibility for future deployments versus a force that's 100% wheels or 100% tracks.

stancrist said:

If done right, it seems like a force that's half wheels and half tracks would offer increased flexibility for future deployments versus a force that's 100% wheels or 100% tracks

I imagine that was the rationale; from the post the author seems to believe it was either a case of 'not done right' or perhaps too ambitious for the UK's budget to try and field two distinct vehicle philosophies. 

I don't know much about Boxer (wheeled) or Ajax (tracked.) But seemingly counter to the authors argument, a quick google turned up numerous Ajax issues, not issues with the wheeled Boxer?

gatnerd said:

from the post the author seems to believe it was either a case of 'not done right' or perhaps too ambitious for the UK's budget to try and field two distinct vehicle philosophies.

I'm not quite sure what his complaint is, but "too ambitious" does seem a part of it.  My take is that he primarily thinks a mix of tracked and wheeled infantry vehicles is somehow a bad idea, that if the British want to have wheeled IFVs, they should not also have tracked IFVs, but instead copy the French who have tracked MBT operating with wheeled IFV.

The problem is obvious: in situations in which wheeled vehicles cannot traverse the terrain, what takes their place?  In a hybrid model, do you just leave half your forces behind and has anyone trained for this? In an all wheeled force, do you just walk?

If you must choose one or the other, tracked makes the most sense. It's not ideal, but you can force march tracked vehicles long distances (ie, Kuwait to Bagdad), but you can't make wheeled vehicles go places that even tracked vehicles struggle.

YouTube

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR|UKRAINE TANK IN MUD DURING WINTER|UKRAINE FAN GIVE LIKE PUTIN #shorts

# tank #shorts #politics #russiaukrainewar #pubgmobile #warzone #kingGuys please write your opinion and don't forget to comment your country name-----+So ,gu...

Refleks said:

It's not ideal, but you can force march tracked vehicles long distances (ie, Kuwait to Bagdad),

From the information available online, in 2003, the "march to Baghdad" of the 3rd Infantry Division took 17 days to make a 300 miles trip, "though its speed pushed troops and equipment to the limit, according to The New York Times, stretching supply lines dangerously thin".

Another source writes "By then, the division had covered 240 miles from Kuwait in two days. Commanders said it was the fastest, farthest and largest advance by an armored invasion force in history."

That's less than 200 km per day, something not even worth mentioning if the tanks were on a flatbed truck, and daily routine with wheeled armored vehicles.

Refleks said:

but you can't make wheeled vehicles go places that even tracked vehicles struggle.

That's right, but on the video you post the main point isn't that the vehicle is tracked, it's that the vehicle is amphibious.

EmericD said...

That's less than 200 km per day, something not even worth mentioning if the tanks were on a flatbed truck, and daily routine with wheeled armored vehicles.

 

As a divisional move through hostile territory?

"That's less than 200 km per day, something not even worth mentioning if the tanks were on a flatbed truck, and daily routine with wheeled armored vehicles."

I will assume true, but that is almost certainty due to factors other than vehicle capabilities (hostile territory, movement to contact, clearing areas, coordination of advancement so units aren't outpacing each other, tactical pauses, not outrunning their logistics trail which needs its own security, etc) all of which would be limiting factors with an all wheeled or hybrid force too. If anything, it demonstrates tracks is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck. A better argument against tracks is cost (peacetime upkeep aside, you could theoretically afford more wheeled vehicles than tracked, ie what if you could buy another brigade for the same total cost?). I haven't crunched the numbers here but I could see it being compelling to a peacetime army, or one who only expects to fight in specific circumstances tot he exclusion of others. 

"That's right, but on the video you post the main point isn't that the vehicle is tracked, it's that the vehicle is amphibious.

I dunno, VBL is amphibious and I just don't see it doing that. LAV-25 is amphibious and I don't see it doing that either.  Mud is far more viscous than water and short of something like a Sherp, I don't see wheels being doable there.

Obviously there's a whole lot more that goes into it, after a certain point mud is impassable to tracked vehicles too, and of course the ground pressure, weight of the vehicle and driver skill comes into play...

YouTube

#Bradley vs #CV90 in snow. #Sweden #Ukraine #usa

Sorry for the bad quality. Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAsR7m1wXM0&t=9s&ab_channel=mickewest

But in general I don't think it's controversial to suggest tracks can simply go more places (amphibious helps I'm sure)

EmericD said:

on the video you post the main point isn't that the vehicle is tracked, it's that the vehicle is amphibious.

That seems questionable. 

The BTR80 is also amphibious, but it is difficult to imagine one going through such mud as did the MTLB.

YouTube

BTR-80 pulls BTR-80 out of the mud | ???-80 ?????????? ????? ?? ?????

BTR-80 pulls BTR-80 out of the mud | ???-80 ?????????? ????? ?? ?????