Modern track vs wheeled arguments

[Colin]

This is from Army.ca where we are discussing the merits of tracked vs wheeled, particularly when we are talking about very heavy wheeled vehicles like the LAV 6 which weighs in over 23,000kg. This poster (permission granted to copy) I think did a good job in pointing out that the merits of track vs wheeled are not so great anymore when you compare heavy wheeled to modern tracked systems for APC/IFV's. In Canuck speech CCV refers to a program to purchase a vehicle to accompany the Leopard 2's, since it did not specify tracked, a number of bidders submitted 8x8, which lead to the obvious question: "Why bother having two different 8x8?" and the project died, funding also played a part. Yet the reality is that the LAV 6 cannot follow the tanks in many circumstances, from both a terrain and combat protection point of view. 

I am of the view that the Canadian Army will always be an "expeditionary army" never knowing for sure where it will be asked to fight/operate next, needs a "Light Brigade" based on the LAV with a variety of different versions to fulfil the roles of SPG, SHORAD, Gun vehicle (Centauro like) with a small subset using very light vehicles like the Jackal. It also needs a "Heavy brigade" built around the Leopard 2's with tracked APC/IFV's, proper SPG's and SPAAG's along with tracked engineering vehicles. Whatever the operation we can send either brigade or a mix of the two. The biggest challenge in this model is having to maintain a long term operation (like Afghanistan) and then forced to retrain people to the vehicles being used as we are such a small army. Anyways here is the post that I felt summed up the issue currently. Perhaps Nick will do a video on this issue, covering briefly the historical issues, but focusing on the modern issues?

You're right about the fact that two of the contenders were wheeled, and I both knew that and was at first hesitant to put the issues re the CCV and the tracked part together the way that I did (I also tend to think that the CV90 had won the competition). In large measure they are separate topics but I think that when the overriding requirements of a CCV are to provide protection to the infantry and to be capable of accompanying tanks into "close combat" you are almost naturally drawn to concluding that the CCV needs to be tracked to provide an equal mobility to the tank.

That led me to the prevailing anti-track attitude within the Army which I think continues to this day. Supporters of wheeled APCs generally point to their excellent on-road mobility and then to lower maintenance requirements. In some measure, it's the preferred on road mobility that assists the lower maintenance issue. If used to accompany tanks in rough terrain at tank speed then the maintenance issues for the LAV increase significantly.

As for sources, I'm afraid its mostly anecdotal although I could point you to a degrader study on the LAV-25 which points to the problem. There are three key maintenance issues with the older LAVs two of which are irrelevant for the comparison but the third, drive train issues, is relevant.

In short, tracked vehicles have relatively simple drive trains compared to wheeled APCs. In the TLAV for example there is a fairly short and straightforward linkage between the power pack to differential to drive sprocket all of which remain aligned during operation and receive no external strains.

LAV drivetrains are much more complex and exposed to external stresses (shown for the LAV 25 which is essentially similar for illustration purposes).
 

These components (particularly differentials, transfer case, wheel bearings, brakes etc) are prone to failure when faced with heavy terrain and once failed, hard and very expensive to repair. This problem becomes more of an issue the heavier the LAV is and in the 6.0 upgrade the drive trains required major upgrading because of the significant weight increase of the vehicle.

Tracked vehicles, with their relatively simple and straightforward drive trains and its layout and operation generally have fewer abnormal stresses on them and therefore less failures.

One area which does create a problem for older tracked vehicles is steel track vibration (which also affects the crew and greatly increases maintenance time and complexity). It's the track itself (rather than power pack or drive train repairs) which added to the maintenance burden, for both the crew and maintenance chain. That situation however has changed significantly with the introduction of composite rubber tracks (CRTs) such as on the BVs, CV90s and Canadian TLAVs which have a significantly longer life, reduce vibration wear on wheels and drive train and greatly reduce operator maintenance requirements.

My guess is that you have much better access to comparative studies as to LAV 6.0 v TLAV maintenance issues, VOR rates, repair costs than I'll ever see because that data isn't generally available in the public domain. I expect there are probably still some issues because of the age of the TLAVs that go to power pack and other than drive train failures. Then on the other hand (putting on my tin foil hat) maybe those statistics aren't circulating freely within DND either.

CRTs still have limitations. They won't go on the heaviest of tanks as yet but can handle all APC, IFV, CCV etc up to around 40+ tons (which is still more than the already heavy LAV6.0 is).

My point is that the maintenance burden (both cost and labour) of tracked vehicles used to be a big issue which weighed heavily in favour of the wheeled vehicle. That is no longer the issue and in fact CRT equipped IFVs, because of their simple and robust drive trains and rubber tracks have at least pulled even to wheels and with respect to the expensive LAV 6.0 are probably ahead of the game. That gets us still back to the two key factors, mobility and protection which has always remained with tracked vehicles.

[Rick]

Composite rubber tracks (CRTs), isn't this the same thing as the tracks on those U.S. W.W.2 half-tracks?

[RETAC21]

Horses for courses, what is the expected threat? if all you are going to do is Jihadi patrol or you need to redeploy your forces from one end to the other of the country very quickly, wheels are for you. If your neighbour is North Korea, maybe not so much.

[seahawk]

Maybe the answer is both. 

[bojan]

Tracked IFVs for cooperation with tanks + wheeled APCs for cheap trucking of "regular"/"light" infantry. US got it more-less right with Stryker, through 6x6 would have probably done a job.

Edited May 7, 2021 by bojan

[alejandro_]

Quote

Maybe the answer is both. 

An Ukrainian study pointed this out. Comparison is pointless because they both have advantages and disadvantages.

[Colin]

7 hours ago, bojan said:

Tracked IFVs for cooperation with tanks + wheeled APCs for cheap trucking of "regular"/"light" infantry. US got it more-less right with Stryker, through 6x6 would have probably done a job.

I think after the LAV III (which is more or less the Stryker) that the law of diminishing returns applies to wheeled armour. LAV III is 16.9 tons and the LAV 6 is 26 tons. This also forces your recovery vehicles to be bigger and heavier and makes recovery under fire far more difficult. Not to mention limiting your access across 3rd world bridges and culverts. The Taliban very quickly assessed the terrain limits of the LAV III and developed their defenses around that. then Canada introduced tanks and dozer bladed Engineering Vehicles that could go almost anywhere, then forcing them to defend far more terrain and facing a \long range weapon system with pinpoint accuracy.   

[Colin]

8 hours ago, seahawk said:

Maybe the answer is both. 

While I like that answer the common refrain here is "Wheeled is better because..." But is a wheeled 26 ton APC/IFV that much better than  27-37 ton AFV like the CV-90? For Mali I would consider a slightly improved LAV III the biggest best option. For Europe I think tracked is the way to go. 

[lucklucky]

Europe has a very good road base. Both wheels and tracks are needed in most situations.

[Burncycle360]

Both have their place, and others have already said it: it depends on what the job is (domestic or expeditionary, conventional war or COIN), and where you plan to fight. If I could only choose one, I'd prefer tracked, as they can go where a wheeled vehicle can go (assuming same weight category), but the reverse is not necessarily true.

Wheeled is more complex but nothing that cannot be managed, and has undeniable advantages for rapid reaction forces who may be called to respond quickly over long distances, as well as for long term occupation / peacekeeping where threat of anything beyond crew served weapons is low, and the mission requirements involve hanging out in cities and "being present",  it's nice that it doesn't tear up the local infrastructure.  MRAP format considerations is important if you're going to go wheeled because if you don't have a hardpack surface you may be limited to tarmac for significant portions of the year depending on terrain and weather, and this makes planning IED / Mine / Ambushes easier for the enemy. Shock absorbing seating makes sense.

A wealthy country could always get both, even if they only have the manpower for one or the other, and use whatever is most appropriate for the mission. You could even use the approach like wheeled stryker / tracked stryker concept where the base vehicle is very similar and infantry are agnostic to the carrier type because capacity, layout, and procedures remain much the same for them, with the vehicle crews and planning / ops staff needing some additional maintenance training to be able to handle either / or, especially employment considerations (understanding capabilities and limitations).

That could also be a good idea fairy that just leads to development quagmire like the F-35, and maybe the different types don't even have to be in the same family with the long term costs just being cheaper to buy a COTS tracked and COTS wheeled, and just eating the additional logistics complexity (which, while not ideal,  is still viable and imminently doable, regardless of what the those who want to streamline the logistics chain to the extreme will tell you).

For what it's worth, I think battalion level assets (everything except light utility vehicles) should all have ground pressure no greater than 13-15 PSI, to include any organic logistics assets. Most wheeled vehicles and trucks well exceed that.

Edited May 7, 2021 by Burncycle360

[CaptLuke]

14 hours ago, bojan said:

Tracked IFVs for cooperation with tanks + wheeled APCs for cheap trucking of "regular"/"light" infantry. US got it more-less right with Stryker, through 6x6 would have probably done a job.

I agree.  I also think you can get an acceptable vehicle using heavy truck components (military or, even better, civilian); then you get your costs down and start to restore the drivetrain simplicity that is lost with more elaborate wheeled arrangements.

I'm thinking the VBTP-MR Guarani may be the contemporary example but I am still quite fond of the Ratel approach (the approach, I'm not saying build Ratels today).

IIRC the South Africans thought that the spaced 6x6 arrangement (Ratel, RG-35) gave superior performance on long road marches than the "evenly spaced wheels" approach (VAB, Pandur).

[bd1]

6x6 OTOH seem to suffer more center axle failures , when going over some hump more weight rests on it. 

looking a youtube videos of it, was the brazilian boomerang-suspension  Urutu APC a good idea? super-cheap and more contact with ground?

[seahawk]

If you think about a hybrid-electric solution with an electric motor for each wheel, this whole problem becomes easy.

[Mighty_Zuk]

There aren't many countries that would be better suited with only one type.

[seahawk]

Especially if you look at numbers.

[Samson]

Imagine a Twister 2.0 with all wheel in hub drive, independent traction/steering/suspension control, composite tweel tech so no flat ever stays flat, etc...

What they could do now would be amazing and be a cross between a F1 car, a rock crawler, an IFV, and a work truck

 

 

On 5/8/2021 at 2:38 AM, seahawk said:

If you think about a hybrid-electric solution with an electric motor for each wheel, this whole problem becomes easy.

 

[shep854]

I may as well; we're all waiting for it--

Sparky.

Gav*n.

Now, we can all breathe...

Edited May 11, 2021 by shep854

[DKTanker]

I thought Walter Christie already answered the question about having your tracks and wheels too?  😇

[Stuart Galbraith]

Bring back the Half Track! Its the sensible bureaucrat solution!

[Rick]

The traditional mode of transportation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww

 

[shep854]

3 hours ago, Rick said:

The traditional mode of transportation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww

 

LPCs!! Leather Personnel Carriers...