Wheels vs. tracks

[tom!]

Hi.

In the late 1920th/early 1930th the japanese army had to decide what suspension should be used for motorised artillery transport and reconnaissance. They made different trials and finally decided to use only tracked vehicles. The wheeled and halftracked (mainly Kegresse-type suspensions were tested) vehicles were all found too unreliable and too immobile in muddy terrain and in the winter. So only tracked vehicles (Type 92 heavily armoured vehicle, Type 92 and type 94 prime movers and later Type 94 and Type 97 armoured tractors/tankettes) were adopted.

Only one halftracked vehicle was adopted until 1945, the type 98 aa-artillery prime mover for homeland and rear echelon units. Even a halftracked version of the standard Type 94 wheeled truck was rejected.

Yours

tom!

[Pika]

Well the japs were more focused on naval and air production as they could achieve the victory without any special armor against other countries around them so the only thing they would require was a powerfull prime mover to move the heavy artillery

[Ricky]

Actually the Japanese made a large variety of specialised tracked vehicles, from the more normal ARVs up to the more unusual armoured logging machine for clearing paths in the jungle. They just didn't make vary many of them.

[Pika]

Well the japs just stirred up the hornets nest when they attacked USA and had no smoke to chill them out and got pwned as for the vehicles a tracked vehicle is a MUST in a jungle as a wheel vehicle cand get boged the moment it enters the jungle UNLESS you care to mount a mg on a bike )


Cheers

[Ricky]

as for the vehicles a tracked vehicle is a MUST in a jungle as a wheel vehicle cand get boged the moment it enters the jungle UNLESS you care to mount a mg on a bike )

Absolutely. I think that there was only one AFV design with wheels that the Japanese introduced during the war, and that was a halftrack.
Mind you, they did make great use of bicycles for troop movement

Or you could just adopt this:

[Pika]

Add some side plates and you made a APC

[triumf]

Add some side plates and you made a APC

I`d rather call it a IFV though As it is very limited space for an infantrysquad

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

APC version



Seriously, though: If speed, logistics and costs are the three main benefits of a wheeled vehicle, I don't see much point in making wheeled combat vehicles anymore. I don't believe that the difference between a road speed of 70 km/h and 100 km/h is that significant, and since todays armies are generally smaller, thus making the logistical and financial burden less of an issue.

On the other hand, I think there are three factors which haven't been considered in the article linked to: One is the psycological aspect, in that a tracked vehicle inherently looks more threatening than a wheeled vehicle, which can be a significant issue in today's conflicts. Two, while a track can take more punishment than a wheel, if the track does break, the vehicle is immobilised. With a wheeled vehicle, loosing one wheel will generally not immobilise the vehicle, and with the current advancements in run-on-flat technology and non-inflated tires, tires are more durable. FInally, it is much easier to learn how to drive a wheeled vehicle than a tracked one, which is significant when maintaining a small standing army.

[Oli]

I don't believe that the difference between a road speed of 70 km/h and 100 km/h is that significant

A nearly 50% difference isn't that significant?
Chances are that the vehicle with a higher top speed will also have better acceleration at lower speeds (because there's more reserve power), making it it more agile and able to get out of trouble quicker.

and since todays armies are generally smaller, thus making the logistical and financial burden less of an issue.

Er, today's forces are getting smaller because of the financial burden. And a lighter vehicle (smaller logistic burden) has knock-on effects: smaller (and cheaper) transport aircraft: releasing money for combat aircraft purchase.

One is the psycological aspect, in that a tracked vehicle inherently looks more threatening than a wheeled vehicle, which can be a significant issue in today's conflicts.

I mentioned that in the second post of this topic: wheeled vehicles are more suited to "police action" duties and internal security.

Two, while a track can take more punishment than a wheel, if the track does break, the vehicle is immobilised. With a wheeled vehicle, loosing one wheel will generally not immobilise the vehicle, and with the current advancements in run-on-flat technology and non-inflated tires, tires are more durable.

And wheels cause less damage to the running surface (peacetime training costs if nothing else), but your point was mentioned in the fourth post.

FInally, it is much easier to learn how to drive a wheeled vehicle than a tracked one, which is significant when maintaining a small standing army.

Nice point.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

A nearly 50% difference isn't that significant?
Chances are that the vehicle with a higher top speed will also have better acceleration at lower speeds (because there's more reserve power), making it it more agile and able to get out of trouble quicker.

But what will you use that extra speed for? If you're going to out-run your armoured support, it won't give you much of an edge. The acceleration point is well taken, though.

Er, today's forces are getting smaller because of the financial burden. And a lighter vehicle (smaller logistic burden) has knock-on effects: smaller (and cheaper) transport aircraft: releasing money for combat aircraft purchase.

But the price difference isn't that big. The safety of the soldiers is the most critical aspect of army equipment today, where every death is highlighted in the news.

[Pika]

So if the wheels are not good and the tracks either I recommend on foot with stell plates as shielding