Jon Hawkes Profile picture
Dec 24 22 tweets 7 min read
1/ Wheels vs tracks: a short series of threads on relative merits of each, continuing with another on the ability to negotiate trenches.

TLDR: tracks are better at trench crossing than wheels, and for wheels the fewer the # axles, the worse it gets.
2/ Quick point of order: these threads are to talk about comparative strengths & weaknesses outside the normal framing of 'which is best in a muddy field' and think about a few other angles that don't always get acknowledgement.
3/ Final point of clarity – comparisons assume we are comparing equivalent vehicles seeking peer weights, internal volumes, automotive performance etc. As that’s never really the case, the comparisons are more conceptual and generic than reflecting vehicle A vs vehicle B.
4/ So, Trench crossing: In general terms, tracked vehicles have a good capability. For 8x8s its reasonable, problematic with 6x6 and poor with 4x4.
5/ So once more tracks win out, again because that uniform surface of the tracks makes it much easier to overhang and then climb out of the other side of a trench.
6/ The tracks act to contain the road wheels, preventing them dropping into the trench so far as to immobilise the vehicle, and then provide a form of ramp for the vehicle to drive up and out.
7/ These characteristics mean tracked vehicles can actually benefit from crossing at speed rather than slowly, but you need to be very careful the conditions are right before you do!
8/ Secondly, the sprocket/idler being projected ahead of the roadwheels creates an effective lengthening of the running gear, allowing the vehicle to reach a little further.
9/ An interesting factor is number of road wheels, or rather whether odd or even. Odd mean CoG ideally needs to be above centre wheelstation, allowing the vehicle to pivot about this point.
10/With even numbers, a central CoG sees the vehicle pitch into the trench as soon as the last frontal wheel ahead of CoG passes over the gap. The further forward the CoG is, the worse this becomes.
11/ For wheeled AFV again depends on # axles. 4x4s are worst, once front axle drops into the trench youre unlikely to get out, as you are now facing a step climb of >55% tyre diameter with most of the AFVs weight wedging it in place. This...
12/ ...constraint was talked about in the last thread . Effectively, 2-axle AFV dont have a trench crossing capability.
13/ 3-axle (6x6) is similar, with a (not) fun see-saw effect. If the front wheel drops in, the vehicle will still get stuck. But if the rear wheel drops in as it exits, it may also get stuck. That centre axles needs good suspension travel to avoid this pitfall.
14/ To try and mitigate these problems, wheeled AFV can approach a trench obliquely, preventing the condition where an entire axle drops in at once. This is by no means an assured method, however.
15/ 4-axles (8x8) is much better, with the limitation being a trench where the front 2 axles both fall into the trench, effectively creating the same issue as with a 4x4, just grouping the axles.
16/ ≥5 -axle vehicles are very rare, but again follow the expanding model that is clear – better than the one that came before, but again once tipped into the trench it is likely to be stuck.
17/ Where tracked AFV want to avoid projections beyond sprocket to make sure tracks contact obstacles, wheeled AFV may benefit from a projected nose.
18/ When toppling into a trench it prevents the wheels falling too far into it and providing sufficient torque, the vehicle can drive its nose up the far side of the trench and then climb out as a low step obstacle.
19/ In any case, the result is that tracked AFV have a much better time of it, thanks in large part to the fact they are laying a quasi-mini bridge (though better to have a real one) to run their wheels over.
20/ Be under no illusions though, tracks are better, but ditches and trenches remain perilous for AFV, and a very effective way of stopping tanks dead. A bridge is always better (@thinkdefence)
20/ And that’s that for trench crossing. Tracks win again!

End Note: These will all get gathered up, written a bit more long form, and made into a post over on the blog soon™.
21/ Next time: more obstacles – ground clearance & approach/departure angles.

Beyond that: cost and a bit of logistics; survivability considerations; and finally some odds and ends that don’t deserve a whole thread each.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jon Hawkes

Jon Hawkes Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JonHawkes275

Dec 23
1/ Wheels vs tracks: a short series of threads on relative merits of each, continuing with one on the ability to negotiate obstacles.

TLDR: tracks are generally better at obstacle negotiation whether natural or man made.
2/ This part of the series on obstacle crossing got wildly out of hand (about 140 tweets) so I've broken it into further mini-threads. This first one is step climbing.
3/ Quick point of order: these threads are to talk about comparative strengths & weaknesses outside the normal framing of 'which is best in a muddy field' and think about a few other angles that don't always get acknowledgement.
Read 27 tweets
Dec 21
1/ Wheels vs tracks: a short series of threads on relative merits of each, starting with one on comparative design efficiency, in terms of volume.

TLDR: tracks are inherently more compact configurations allowing lower & more efficient profiles for the same internal volume
2/ Quick point of order: these threads are to talk about comparative strengths & weaknesses outside the normal framing of 'which is best in a muddy field' and think about a few other angles that don't always get acknowledgement.
3/ Assumptions – comparisons assume we are comparing equivalent vehicles seeking peer weights, internal volumes, automotive performance etc. As that’s never really the case, the comparisons are more conceptual and generic than reflecting vehicle A vs vehicle B.
Read 26 tweets
Sep 28
With news of Pearson buy out by Rafael, a short thread to show some appreciation of what a remarkable dominance of their market they have, for a ~75 person company in a large shed in Newcastle. Image
In summary, unless theyre getting mine clearance kit from Russia (this pic the odd sight of a Finnish Leopard 2A4FIN with Russian KMT-5M roller), when you see a mine plough/roller on an AFV essentially anywhere in the world, they probably bought a Pearson product. Image
Obviously start with the home market - UK has a lot of Pearson gear, most dramatic (or menacing?) are the full width mine plough (FWMP, recently rebranded the Route Opening Mine Plough) on Trojan AEVs, which you'll see all over the world on heavy engineering AFV. Image
Read 12 tweets
Aug 16
A short🧵on Leopard turret size:

Leopard 2's turret has changed radically in size and shape over its various developments, here some angles of the bustle getting longer and longer through a few examples (2A4, 2A5, 2SG and KF51), mainly to accommodate increased electronics
The turret face has also continuously crept forwards, contrast flat-faced 2A4 with the famous arrowhead armour from 2A5 onwards, and particularly the latest 2A7A1 where APS radars have extended it even further. Some of the more exotic prototypes also have substantial turret faces
Also width. 2A4 had quite a difference between turret width and hull width, whereas later versions have substantial additional armour packs that almost match the widths. Looking at Singapore's 2SG from above you can see the base turret and the side packs clearly.
Read 8 tweets
Jun 29
1/n If 130 and/or 140 are to be the future calibre for the next generation of MBTs, the means of handling the new rounds need some thought. Some rambling thoughts in the form of a mini thread.
2/n The 10 mm difference in calibre between 120 and 130 mm has quite a marked impact on the overall size of the round, potentially much more than you might expect. Pictured here the Rheinmetall 130 next to a conventional 120 round.
3/n 140 is another order of magnitude. Left image the Nexter 140 as mounted to Leclerc for trials in the past few years, again compared to conventional 120 round. Right image a British 140/120 comparison.
Read 15 tweets
Jun 27
Whilst JLTV is a good truck, I dont see how this changes anything. LIS seeks to strategically build UK land capability & industry. Changing logos on the brochure from Oshkosh to Oshkosh/Jankel, and doing lip service local work doesnt make anyone...

more likely to be able to bid a true UK in-house option next time. It doesn't make UK any better other than continuing (eg Boxer, Ajax etc) to manufacture or assemble overseas designs onshore.

I'm really firm on the view that MRVP or whatever it may reincarnate as is an open...
...goal for Army and UK industry to do something home grown as part of baby steps to a revitalised land industry. Protected utility is a reasonable target to have a domestic design and build solution.

Whereas this sort of thing is transparently so Army SRO of the day can go...
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(