stancrist said...

1.  That articulated vehicles are typically longer than a "normal one-piece tracked vehicle" is not an advantage.

If you are width restricted and need a certain volume then you need your vehicle to be longer. Articulation allows your vehicle to be longer, although it does also require your vehicle to be longer to accommodate the articulation.

stancrist said...

2.  Turning ability of an articulated vehicle is more restricted than that of a "normal one-piece tracked vehicle".

For instance, the Bv206 requires almost 2.5x its length to turn around, but an M113 can literally turn on a dime.

Not necessarily if they are equal length. Show me a one piece tracked vehicle the same length to width ratio as a BV206 doing a neutral turn.

Perhaps I should have been a little clearer and stated "longer single piece tracks restrict turning ability relative to shorter single piece tracks". I'm always willing to expand on my thinking if people have difficulty with it.

If you want the greatest flexibility, then an AFV with the same weight, mobility and protection as your main battle tank (whether you like medium tanks as Schnuersi does, or heavy tanks) is the way to go, along with a protected non penetrating RWS

This allows you the troop carrying advantages of an APC, protection advantages of an MBT and the firepower advantages of an IFV, and can be employed in a flexible manner as trends in doctrine come and go, suitable for APC CONOPS or IFV CONOPS.

RovingPedant said:

       stancrist said: Turning ability of an articulated vehicle is more restricted than that of a "normal one-piece tracked vehicle". For instance, the Bv206 requires almost 2.5x its length to turn around, but an M113 can literally turn on a dime.

Not necessarily if they are equal length. Show me a one piece tracked vehicle the same length to width ratio as a BV206 doing a neutral turn.

Now you're being just silly.   There is no reason to make a one piece tracked vehicle the same length to width ratio as a Bv206.

The articulated vehicle is as long as it is because of the articulation.  A one piece tracked vehicle would be 2-3 meters shorter.

Refleks said:

If you want the greatest flexibility, then an AFV with the same weight, mobility and protection as your main battle tank is the way to go, along with a protected non penetrating RWS

This allows you the troop carrying advantages of an APC, protection advantages of an MBT and the firepower advantages of an IFV, and can be employed in a flexible manner as trends in doctrine come and go...

Concur.

stancrist said...

 

 

 

Now you're being just silly.   There is no reason to make a one piece tracked vehicle the same length to width ratio as a Bv206.

The articulated vehicle is as long as it is because of the articulation.  A one piece tracked vehicle would be 2-3 meters shorter.

 

I would encourage you to re-read my first point, that you did not quote, where you will notice that I addressed both of your reservations.

In any case, the original point was to compare a long single piece tracked vehicle against a shorter one.

If you'd like to add something constructive as to why someone would chose articulated over non-articulated, that would be helpful. 

I'm interested in why metal tracks should be so much more longer lasting - I think I've posted a link to the comparative trials between metal and band tracks on Warrior, which had the rubber tracks lasting longer, on top of all the vibration and noise benefits. With regards to the vibration and noise, modern protective equipment is only helpful if it works and the occupants use it correctly. Even the best, personally fitted, stuff gets uncomfortable after a while and if it's part of the vehicle equipment rather than the soldier's equipment, it's one size fits no-one.

I think that there's scope for an armoured AFV family that matches protection and mobility across MBTs and other vehicles in the direct fire zone, but there is also need for something smaller and lighter, though I don't think M113 2023 model is it. Or Boxer, for that matter. The former is too lightly built and lacking the modern conveniences that are effectively standard, while the latter is far to heavily protected to act as a cheap support vehicle.

Define "rubber". If you're using all-natural rubber, it might do better than metal, but the price is not cheap. Typical synthetic rubber is cheaper, but generally wears fast enough to negate any cost advantage.

RovingPedant said:

I would encourage you to re-read my first point, that you did not quote, where you will notice that I addressed both of your reservations.

a.  I expressed observations, not reservations.

b.  Your first point (in Msg 301) did not address my second observation (in Msg 300).

RovingPedant said:

If you'd like to add something constructive as to why someone would chose articulated over non-articulated, that would be helpful.

I cannot help you.  Except for special purpose use like the BvS10, I think it is rather unlikely that any army would choose articulated over non-articulated for AFVs.

Historically, there has been very little military interest in articulated armored vehicles.  Most such endeavors appear to have never got beyond the concept stage.

Swedish UDES XX20 prototype

US Army superheavy tank concept

Lockheed/Forsyth concept

Soviet era Object 490 was not articulated, but did have four separate tracks like articulated designs.

In 2020 the Russkis were reportedly considering an articulated tank as a future successor to the T14 Armata.

farmplinker2 said...

Define "rubber".

Soucy composite rubber tracks.

https://soucy-defense.com/crt-systems/

RovingPedant said:

I'm interested in why metal tracks should be so much more longer lasting - I think I've posted a link to the comparative trials between metal and band tracks on Warrior, which had the rubber tracks lasting longer,

Its complicated. Rubber tracks have advantages and disadvantags. Depending on the circumstances of use one sinde will outweight the other.

The wear of tracks, as I mentioned, is highly dependent on the surface they are used on. Rubber tracks do well on soft grounds. Their wear under such conditions is low. On hard surfaces like concrete slabs typical for tank roads or tarmac for regular streets they are not a good choice. Since the track has to have some form of profile like a tire the weight of the vehicles is not evenly spread like it is when the track sinks into the ground even a little. So there are pressure spikes. The movement a track does during use if different to how a tyre moves. As a result there is a grinding effect. Especially if there is force applied at an angle. Which is required for turning.
Vehicle weight, movement speed, sharpness of turns etc also plays a role.
Rubber tracks are outright awefull on hard and uneven ground. Rocky terrain and urban rubble for example. Because a rubber track an flex in all directions this can cause all sorts of problems under such conditions. Metal tracks are stiffer than rubber tracks, the individial links can not be deformed at all. In addition metal is harder than (most) rocks and stones.
This is just a short "in a nutshell" overview.
One big problem with rubber tracks, which used to make them inferiour to metal ones, even if in a specific application they would have made sense is the fact that they can not be easily opened. They also can not be put back together once open or broken. A rubber track might be lighter than a metal track but its not lighter than the individual links. A rubber track allways has to be handeled in one piece. Which is to large hand heavy for the crew to handle. Metal tracks are unsually handeled in links or sections of links that can be manhandled. Tracks also don'T wear even. Especially the rubber pads. This is why its common to have the rubber pads exchangable so individual ones can be changed. As can individial track links. Tracks also lengthen during use. That is common. The track for a Leo 2 for exampke lengthes so much that during its lifetime two links are taken out one at a time when the track tension can not be further tightened by the track tensioning device. This is not possible with a rubber track. Either you have a track tensioning device with a really long way of travel or your track needs to be changed out befor it reached its maximum allowable stretch. The track tensioning thing is a particular problem for legacy vehicles and changing them over to rubber tracks.
Rubber tracks are attractive for use for AFVs on the lighter end of the spectrum. The Wiesel for example uses one. For heavy weight AFVs they create more new problems than they solve old ones.
One thing a lot of people overlook is that metal tracks also get better. In parts they also benefit from improvements in rubber technology. Obviously the pads get better. But this is not the only thing. The currently used western tracks are so called living tracks. Which means there is tension on the track even if its not closed. The studs to which the connector that connect the individual links are fitted are sitting in a rubber filled socked. During connecting two links these are slightly twisted and this creates a restoring force trying to turn them back into the idle position. This has conciderable impact on vibrations and noise.
The metalurgy also got better. Reducing track weight. A modern metal track for a tank is a high tech product. It might not have electronics but its not comparable to the same thing from 50 or even 20 years ago. With allmost all high tech products things get complicated quickly and there are no simple answers that are allways right.
 

RovingPedant said:

With regards to the vibration and noise, modern protective equipment is only helpful if it works and the occupants use it correctly. Even the best, personally fitted, stuff gets uncomfortable after a while and if it's part of the vehicle equipment rather than the soldier's equipment, it's one size fits no-one.

The German army now starts issuing helmets to tankers and these are individual. It has been required from soldiers for a very long time to keep their helmets on their heads if their are not sleeping. So I really do not see the problem. At the end of the day there is the individual hearing protection. If you don'T stick it in you ear its your own fault. Personal protection gear is there to be used.

RovingPedant said:

but there is also need for something smaller and lighter, though I don't think M113 2023 model is it. Or Boxer, for that matter. The former is too lightly built and lacking the modern conveniences that are effectively standard, while the latter is far to heavily protected to act as a cheap support vehicle.

Fully agree

The novel twin track powerpack projects were smaller than one might imagine , non articulated track concept was meant to enable a tank to drag it self to safety with a blown track

Project 490 with Leopard2 silhuete