No announcement yet.

Wheels vs Tracks ;)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wheels vs Tracks ;)

    the Vietnam thread reminded me of something I read the other day on the Land Power Transformation e-magazine. There was the usual ranting about the ineffectiveness of Stryker in Iraq, but one comtributor borught up the question -> "Could the Stryker have functioned in Vietnam?"

    now given the ADFs use of ASLAVs in ET, and the subsequent movement to the rear of those vehicles in favour of M113A3s engaging in cross country manuveurs, I'd have to say, no, they couldn't have functioned adequately in VN.

    however, I still think wheeled LAVs are the vehicle best suited for OOTW roles, and Groznyy certainly proclaimed the Russians preference for wheeled vehicles in urban environs. (VDV and mech forces envied the MVD troops in their BTRs).

    How say you? are wheels the way to go?
    We should maintain a mix
    Now listening too;
    - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

  • #2
    IMHO I think than any military force that wants to be able to respond to anything and anywhere and they should maintain a mix of tracked and wheeled vheicles. There are advantages to both (and disavantages). So that military should have to option of using either so they can be as mobile as possible. This balance of tracked to wheeled vehicles would make this a mobile and flexible force.

    Thanks for looking!!


    • #3
      well, the British FRES program is looking to be wheeled, and FCS is wheeled for the most part I think.
      Now listening too;
      - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.


      • #4
        I think a mix is the best idea from a unit commanders point of view, but if the bean counters say you must have all vehicle X in the regiment then so be it. Logisticians run the war (when you go out for longer than internal spares holdings allow) so you have to pay attention to them too.


        • #5
          I think it is quite obvious for tactical flexibility, a mix of both wheeled and tracked vehicles are needed. Then again, a vehicle that can take advatage of both, would be the ideal. Maybe someday they'll invent a wheel that works just as well in all terrain, or perhaps tracks that are just as effecient on roads. Then again, it really depends on what the mission is. If you're looking at primarily the Peacekeeping type role, wheeled is probably more efficient and cost effective. You don't need Leo 2s patrolling city streets, when a wheeled LAV can do the job better. On the other hand, you're likely going to need more than just a swarm of LAVs in a toe-to-toe conventional situation.


          • #6
            Well, I also think the mix is essential, as for different pros and cons.

            On the think Martin Schenkel wrote:

            Early in WW1 the French had tanks which had metal wheels for travel and tracks attached for the combat area.
            This concept was (at this time) quite ineffective as the parts tended to break quite fastly, but probably today one might find a suitable solution...
            "A platoon of Chinese tanks viciously attacked a Soviet harvester,
            which was peacefully working a field near the Soviet-Chinese border.
            The harvester returned fire and upon destroying the enemy
            returned to its home base."


            • #7
              With the conventional war in Iraq over within a month, Stryker hardly had an opportunity to prove itself. It's not a neighborhood watch vehicle for chasing militants around downtown Baghdad. It was designed to fight a full-scale mechanized war.

              "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
              --Frederick II, King of Prussia


              • #8
                I´d say the armies should maintain a good mixture of both types of combat vehicles.
                Maj. Reismann: "Kill every officer in sight!"
                soldier: "Ours or theirs?"


                • #9
                  I voted that we should maintain a mix.


                  • #10
                    I voted no. The last Gulf War showed that M1 Abrams and M2, two tracked vehicle were still needed.
                    But apparently there are a lot of army who want wheeled vehicle, the French among other who want to replace their AMX 10 with wheeled armored vehicles.

                    Monsieur de La Palice est mort
                    Mort devant Pavie.
                    Un quart d'heure avant sa mort
                    Il était encore en vie...


                    • #11
                      the gulf war was fought on flat open desert plains. Of course a big tracked vehicle is going to be successful on that kind of battlefield, it's what they were made for. Studies show that most future battlefields will be in urban areas where large tracked vehicles have trouble. I believe it is essential for a modern military to implement faster and more manuverable vehicles many of which have wheels.
                      "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

                      – George W. Bush


                      • #12
                        I voted for a mix of both types but with a ratio of about 70/30 in favor of wheeled.
                        Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!


                        • #13
                          How about resurrecting the WW2 halftrack idea to satisfy everybody?

                          "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                          --Frederick II, King of Prussia


                          • #14
                            There are pros and cons to both sides. Tracked vehicles can go practically anywhere. Wheeled vehicles are usually much faster and would be ideal in a reconnaissance role. Replacing or repairing a damaged tire or wheel, I believe would be much easier then replacing or repairing damaged tracks under combat conditions. However sustaining damage to tires would probably happen more freguently then sustaining damage to tracks.


                            • #15
                              I agree with Zero here.. the Half-track was ingenious, why don't we bring the good ol' thing back?
                              Furthermore, they had calculated that if 25,000 of them died for every one of us, they would finish us first, for they were many and we were but few.
                              -Hernan Cortez

                              The Pacific is our ocean. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. That power is and will forever be the American Republic.
                              -Senator Albert J. Beveridge, 56th Congress


                              Latest Topics