| Louie N | 23 Sep 2017 8:34 a.m. PST |
I have two "I'm clueless" style questions related to tank tracks.
1. Why did the WWI design of running the tracks over the body of the hull go away? Are there any pros or cons with that style of track lay out? Hence, why do all 40K vehicles use it beside gothic style points? Are there any modern tanks that still use that style of design? 2. Can the tracks be brought "into" the hull. Thus exposing none of the tracks running system? What are the pros and cons with that concept? This is all curiosity. Thanks |
| MajorB | 23 Sep 2017 9:05 a.m. PST |
The Churchill Mark 1 (1941) had over the hull tracks
|
| emckinney | 23 Sep 2017 9:10 a.m. PST |
WWI tanks had no suspension (springs, etc.). You can begin to imagine how awful that was in a vehicle weighing many tons … It becomes utterly impossible if you want a tank that goes faster on roads. This design also leaves the tracks quite exposed to damage. The pros are that it's an excellent design to climbing over obstacles, going down into trenches and back up, etc. You can find videos on Youtube. About as important for the WWI battlefield, you have no problems with mud clogging. The tracks carry it up and away and it falls off in all directions. Find a photo of a Matilda Mk. II. You'll see that the tracks are almost totally protected. However, mud accumulation can be a problem (that's why there are large mud chutes), the armor tends to limit the play of the suspension, and access to the running gear for repairs can be a nightmare! Oh, and if you need to break track (remove and replace a track), it's incredibly awkward. |
 StoneMtnMinis  | 23 Sep 2017 9:26 a.m. PST |
Tracks, as stated above can be easily damaged. Throwing your tracks was fairly common during manuvering at speed. And replacing a thrown track is hard work, especially in the field. Ditto with replacing damaged links. As our instructor at armor school said, if you can't move instead of being a mbt you are now a target. Dave
wargamingminiatures.com |
| emckinney | 23 Sep 2017 9:44 a.m. PST |
The 40K model designers, especially of late, know nothing about tank design. Recent designs have the rhombus INVERTED, so the tank can't climb a curb more than a foot high! |
| Vostok17 | 23 Sep 2017 12:07 p.m. PST |
Hello, Louie N! Minus the second option is that a short distance between the tarck and the hull is filled with dirt. It ends with the fact that the tank will just stand on the march. This was the case, for example, with the Matildes, which were supplied to the USSR. And still this dirt can freeze … About replacement of a caterpillar and repair I at all I do not speak – as Dave sad, service even completely open chassis is qute hard work. |
| Louie N | 23 Sep 2017 1:14 p.m. PST |
emckinney, Which recent tanks have this inverted rhombus. I am unfamiliar with the concept and just need a visual. Thanks |
 Legion 4  | 23 Sep 2017 2:05 p.m. PST |
As our instructor at armor school said, if you can't move instead of being a mbt you are now a target. Yep, even just being Mech Inf, if you can't Shoot, Move & Communicate you are a very heavy paper weight, i.e. – a target …  But yes I agree with what many have said here. And as always as tech improves so do designs, etc. The majority of WWI tanks were in their infancy in design, etc. But through trial and error and battlefield experience, etc., designs, etc. improved. Even if many FT-17s were still used in WWII. They were much more like tank designs of the future after WWI. It even had a turret ! As we see today, many MBTs have a low outline and sloped front hull. For obvious reasons … |
| emckinney | 23 Sep 2017 4:41 p.m. PST |
Louie, take the tank in the photo you posted and turn it upside down. Instead of the tracks catching a high wall at the top, it hits it as the very base …
|
| Trierarch | 23 Sep 2017 6:12 p.m. PST |
The main design requirement in WW1 is trench & obstacle crossing, which the Rhomboid/Parallelogram shape is good for.
It is worth remembering that the Churchill was designed against a specification that called for good trench crossing ability, hence its length and general shape (the original Churchill also had sponson MGs).
The disadvantage of the WW1 design is the sponsons, you need two guns to get good arcs, which is inefficient in both weight and crew. A turret is a much better option. Cheers
David |
| Der Krieg Geist | 23 Sep 2017 6:39 p.m. PST |
40K tanks have bulldozer track suspension…A.K.A no suspension.a little research into the "Cristie" suspension and torsion bar suspension systems will answer all your questions. The short answer is you cannot be in a vehicle with dozer-like road wheel configurations at speeds above a crawl. The top speed of WW1 tank mentioned: 6mph, Churchill from WW2: 18mph much faster then that and you will severely injure the crow moving cross country. |
| Legion 4 | 24 Sep 2017 9:35 a.m. PST |
Yes, the "boyz" at GW were never "cutting edge" when it came to their 40K AFV designs. Of course their "Rhino" APC was a "doppelganger" for the US M113 or UK FV 432 … But GW now has gone with some Grav AFVs for 40K … |
| Lion in the Stars | 25 Sep 2017 2:57 a.m. PST |
Yeah, those new grav 'tracks' for the Emperors Janitors (Adeptus Custodes) look pretty awesome. Tank tracks are probably the most vulnerable part of the tank, you can throw a track doing just about anything. Including driving in a straight line, apparently. Putting most of the track under armor, like on a GW Rhino, makes it very hard to access the track to put it all back together. |
| Dynaman8789 | 25 Sep 2017 5:53 a.m. PST |
Tracks on the side limit the amount of space available in the main fighting compartment vs space taken up. Later tanks put the tracks underneath to free up space up top. Space older style tracks could be used for Sponsoons (per the WW1 tanks) but turret rings on top could not be. Really important when tank width was often limited to train tunnel width. |
| Legion 4 | 25 Sep 2017 8:23 a.m. PST |
And you want to make a vehicle as small as you can to make it less a target … But that is not always the situation based on design, etc. Putting most of the track under armor, like on a GW Rhino, makes it very hard to access the track to put it all back together.
Yes as those of us who have had the "good" fortune of being in Armor/Mech units know only too well …  |
