With the news of @DefenseSoucy teaming with @SupacatLtd for the UK, a few cool facts showing why CRT technology is awesome. (Note: this thread comes off a bit advertorial but its just that the tech is undeniably impressive and Soucy are the leaders in this field) 
CRT for those new to the tech is Composite Rubber Track (“rubber band tracks” colloquially) and is an alternative to conventional steel segmented track. Consists of a single piece composite track, with new running gear components (roadhweels, idler, sprokcet etc)
Called composite for a reason, its not actually just a giant rubber band, but a continuously cased rubber band structure reinforced with a range of composite materials as well as longitudinal and lateral steel cords.
CRT isn’t that new, having been around on lighter high mobility platforms like Bv206/BvS10 and Bronco since the 90s and on some CV90 for the better part of a decade. UK Warthog in Afghanistan did 300,000 miles and survived 30 IEDs on CRT.
Some big numbers in their conclusions. Huge fuel saving, significant reductions in weight, noise and vibrations, the latter two having big impacts on crew, dismount and component/material fatigue.
Fuel consumption is the big one for the logistics fans out there. Testing with Warrior showed an extra 121 km can be travelled per tank of fuel, or you can save 234 litres of fuel travelling the same distance as a steel tracked veh would on a tank.
In a bigger picture, that means an AI Coy of 14 Warrior being supplied by a single Close Support Tanker (CST) can travel an additional 310 km (for a total of 1,290 km) before they need a fresh tanker to help them. 32% more range.
On the logs points, life cycle costs are much reduced. No track stretching, no pads to replace, roadwheels, idler and sprocket last longer. Track life is ~5,000km. 1.5t less weight than steel means suspension doesn’t have to be as robust, saving more weight and expense.
Vibration is a big issue, affecting human health, fatigue & system reliability. Im doing a thread on it soon, effects range from fatigue & discomfort to damage to organs, spine etc. Many organs resonate in similar frequencies to those found in AFV in motion, which is unfortunate
CRT significantly reduces vibration – data here claimed between ~40% and 130% worse to use steel than CRT tracks. The beneficial difference to a crew’s fatigue, health and ability to operate the vehicle optimally is fairly self-evident
Noise reductions are similar, owing to a smoother rubber interaction between road and running gear, and between running gear components. Less fatigue on crew, easier to communicate internally and less external noise signature to the enemy. Good stuff.
CRT also stated to be more survivable than steel, especially against blast where rubber and steel cable structures flex to absorb blast rather than break. Secondary benefits include not having metallic fragments being projected by a blast if it does fail.
If the track is severed or otherwise critically damaged, you can apply a patch kit to allow a limp to a location for a full track replacement. The max range for the repair kit is stated as 130 km.
Soucy offered up some additional data from tests of CRT on an M113A3, which add further real-world numbers to the various performance claims. These were conducted on ice, which is self-evidently a worst-case condition for tractive performance.
Draw bar pull, a measure of the tractive force of a vehicle, in essence its strength to propel across terrain. CRT significantly better than steel - up to 240% with grouser chains fitted
Stopping distances. CRT w/grouser chains stopped in 35% of the distance of a conventional steel track. Not an insignificant improvement to grip, remarkable this level of grip can be achieved whilst having greater not lesser longevity. Some sort of materials science wizardry there
Note that in both examples the plain CRT without grousers or other modifications and actions taken is better than the best-case steel with grouser. Results are similar in other conditions, here some old data on sand performance.
A significant drawback at present is weight capacity. CRT has been developing fast to accommodate larger GVW, but still cannot handle MBT weights. In January Soucy said a 50t capacity track was 12-18 months out and expect to have 55t CRT ready for 2023.
At present it also is only for front drive (see my thread on rear vs front drive AFVs: bit.ly/2LREXhy). But again, rear drive CRT is in development. Weight + rear drive is critical to get this into tank territory. Fingers crossed.
Regardless, the quick wins for anyone operating light or medium weight tracked vehicles would on the surface appear to be a no brainer. Nod to Australia's LAND 400 Phase 4 programme where Redback and Lynx have been shown sporting Soucy CRT
H/T to @kevinsloan348 of @DefenseSoucy for his excellent briefing on CRT at IAV in January, where most of the imagery and data above has been sourced /end #miltwitter #TankTwitter
