I will start this post with a simple statement…
The IED is not going to go away any time soon
Whether we engage in asymmetric conflicts or those against traditional state actors the likelihood of the IED being used is extremely high, the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be pushed back in. This presents a significant challenge because traditional armoured vehicle design tended to concentrate on direct fire and shell fragmentation as the main threats; these of course don’t go away. We have covered the IED and vehicular design strategies in a couple of previous posts here and here but to summarise; passive vehicular design is just one facet of a diverse approach to defeating the threat.
I am planning a separate post on IED’s and specifically route clearance (where is Talisman?) but this post is about vehicles so will concentrate on this aspect for now.
A Mechanised Brigade will utilise four principle vehicle types, light and medium weight protected mobility, FRES and ‘others’, the others section includes everything from quad bikes to 15 tonne trucks and combat engineering vehicles. FRES is going to be built on the ASCOD2 base platform, we have rehearsed the arguments for and against but the fact is, ASCOD2 it is. One of the problems with FRES, amongst many it must be said, is that it was too ambitious, trying to replace most of the established vehicles with a single family. It has now developed into what looks like a simple and achievable set of vehicle replacements.
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in a wide range of UOR vehicles, from diesel quads to the Mastiff. Although the UOR process has been a success it is a fundamental admission of failure, the Army were woefully unprepared. The Snatch Land Rover issue has been covered by many blogs and online sources so doesn’t need rehashing here but if I can summarise, great vehicle, wrong time and place. The Army now has a wide range of disparate vehicles so the challenge will be to create some form of medium to longer term strategy that reduces this logistically challenging diversity, whilst still meeting contingent requirements.
For an idea of the wide range of vehicle types have a look here
In our ideas for restructure the Warrior and Challenger are moved out of the Mechanised Brigades and into square Armoured Brigades. Although air mobility is sometimes overstated the Mechanised Brigade must be able to have the bulk of its equipment moved by the A400 with some of the heavier types by C17. Generally speaking, most movements inter and intra theatre will be carried out by sea and road but the flexibility to deploy small units by air should be retained. The proposal called for 3 Mechanised Infantry Battalions and 1 Medium Armour Support/Reconnaissance Regiment per Brigade.
What vehicle types for these Mechanised Infantry Battalions, going back a few years one can start to see a few ideas beginning to form…
The length of time it took to deploy heavy ground forces to Kosovo led to calls to make armies more deployable i.e. lighter so they could be delivered by fast aircraft, not by slow ships and be self deployable by ground over strategic distances.
The fact that the Russians embarrassingly beat NATO to the airport at Pristina using wheeled, vehicles driven from Bosnia further reinforced the medium weight argument. It was argued that the problem was the existing tracked vehicle fleet; it being too heavy. Protection could be sacrificed to make vehicles lighter as this reduction in capability could be more than compensated for by the improved situational awareness and information superiority afforded by network centric capabilities and integrated sensor platforms.
The so called Revolution in Military Affairs was born.
Lighter more deployable forces, with less protection and manpower backed up by increasingly sophisticated precision strike all wrapped up in a ‘network’ would be the answer to the problems encountered in Kosovo and the predicted future conflicts. Talk was now of effects rather than weapons.
A whole new range of management speak was born, we would move away from platform based solutions and move to effects based solutions, a new paradigm. Paradigm is an over-used word in defence planning, deployability would be crucial for these expeditionary concepts and the ‘network’ would produce a step change akin to the invention of gunpowder.
At about the time the Revolution in Military Affairs / Future Combat System / FRES / Cure for Cancer fashion was being debated on both sides of the Atlantic, wheels seemed to gain the upper hand.
As operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have unfolded the wheeled argument has grown stronger because with wheeled vehicles one can use hull shaping to massively increase survivability against buried IED’s.
The debate about protection v mobility is also an interesting one with many arguments on both side.
Of course, the other RMA and subsequent FRES/FCS concepts have more or less been consigned to the dust bin of military fashion but that as they say, is another post!
Most armed forces have used a mix of tracked and wheeled military combat vehicles for some time but the larger 6×6 and 8×8 types have generally been limited to specific roles or in nations with less demanding military requirements.
Is the tracked vehicle a design Cul-de-sac?
What are the arguments?
Deployability – Inter theatre deployability favours neither a wheeled or tracked solution. Intra theatre is a different matter; wheeled vehicles do not need transporters and can self deploy from theatre entry points, in many regards, tracked vehicles are a transport headache.
Survivability – As mentioned above, the IED as a weapon will continue to be a major threat. Wheeled vehicles can use hull shaping and other techniques to improve protection against buried mines and IED’s but tracked vehicles, generally speaking, have a flat belly, so are much less survivable against this threat.
Protection against direct fire and shell fragments can be applied to either but tracks provide much more manoeuvrability so vulnerable points can be avoided. However, the scope for utilising these additional capabilities afforded by tracks can be limited in some terrain where no amount of ground mobility will make a difference.
The vehicles with the heaviest armour are main battle tanks and it is no coincidence that these are tracked.
In order to carry extra armour it’s weight must be distributed across the surface contact points, which bring us on to the next factor.
Combat Mobility – Mobility equals tactical advantage which contributes to survivability.
Higher speed on roads is generally easier to achieve with wheeled vehicles, unless one is driving a CVR(T) around the Nurburgring!
In difficult off road conditions, tracked vehicles can usually achieve greater speeds. Large vehicles like Mastiff are heavy and no matter how many wheels or centralised tyre pressure management systems are added the ground pressure is going to be significantly greater and traction significantly poorer than for a comparable tracked vehicle. A track has a much greater surface contact area than wheels so the weight is distributed across a larger area, this results in a lower ground pressure and in turn, greater off road mobility.
As armour is added to improve protection against direct fire then this issue becomes acute, higher ground pressure and a limit on wheel size means there is a practical ceiling for wheeled armoured vehicles off road mobility.
The lack of off road mobility means wheeled vehicles spend more of their time on road and have to move in or through vulnerable points. These vulnerable points are predictable and can be mined or covered by direct fire weapons.
If a wheeled vehicle is immobilised by terrain then it and any recovery units become exposedto fire.
Multi wheeled vehicles can usually continue to drive with a couple of wheels destroyed but if a tracked vehicle looses a track then it is immobilised.
Artificial obstacles in urban areas such as barricades, walls and cars etc present challenges to wheeled vehicles, not always insurmountable challenges but tracked vehicles, with their greater surface area on the ground, power to weight ratio and traction can more easily overcome these obstacles. The infamous US operation in Mogadishu showed that even old fashioned tracked vehicles like the M113 could deliver winning effects in an urban environment, pushing through rubble and other obstacles.
In the aftermath of the special forces capture in Basra, Operation Thyme was mounted against the Serious Crimes Unit in Jamiat police station. The outer wall was breached by a Medium Wheeled Tractor of 38 Engineer Regiment and through/over the resultant rubble a number of Warriors from the Staffordshire Regiment entered the compound. The shock delivered by this breach might have been impossible to conduct with a wheeled vehicle, instead of going through a breach a wheeled vehicle might have had to go through the entrance.
In the video below the Warriors can be seen entering the compound and pushing other vehicles out of the way.
Large wheeled vehicles are unable to execute changes of direction in close confines easily, requiring a ’23 point turn’ unlike a tracked vehicle, that can turn on the spot.
8×8 wheeled vehicles like the Boxer for example, have a high centre of gravity, meaning high speed turning or evasive manoeuvres can be hazardous. After several accidents, US Stryker’s are speed limited.
The video below shows a very impressive off road mobility demonstration for an early model LAV. Although the tests involving the removal of wheels have those axles conveniently chained in the up position it is still a striking video.
But in videos below, the extra weight of turrets, additional armour and electronic systems imposed on a similar chassis design, by later models, degrades mobility even in what might be reasonably considered to be only mild off road conditions (sorry for the author of the videos by the way but they do prove a point)
and here
This is a clip of a Canadian unit in Afghanistan, skip forward to 2 minutes 40
So although wheeled vehicles generally have greater road mobility than tracks, as soon as the terrain becomes mixed or challenging then their mobility rapidly deteriorates. A cynic might that the FRES Utility Variant Trials of Truth exposed some of these mobility issues with the very heavy Boxer, Piranha and VBCI.
Technology moves on though and industry is always looking at alternative solutions. Whilst I am not saying that the videos below represent practical military options for improving combat wheeled vehicle mobility it does show that innovation can address wheeled vehicle mobility.
TheTrack Truck from AP Van den Berg
The Iveco Trakker Hovertrack from Veldhuizen. The Hovetrack even gets a mention in Parliament, here. I like the approach they have taken here and with some of the other vehicles the driver is positioned centrally in the cab, this means that a protective shape can be much more easily applied.
Maybe a military future beckons!
Support – Fuel consumption is an increasing concern, with asymmetric conflicts the need for combat logistics as opposed to logistics becomes a greater problem, absorbing valuable combat power.
Every litre of fuel or spare part places a considerable strain on logistics and support arrangements. The larger protected patrol vehicles have increased fuel consumption enormously over previous types.
Tracks generally have poorer fuel economy than wheeled vehicles but as soon as difficult terrain is encountered or in stop start activity this is reversed. Run flat tyres are very expensive and the US experience in Iraq with Stryker’s has shown that running costs are more expensive for wheeled vehicles than tracks (fuel and tyres).
The inherent complication of an 8×8 like drive train is inevitably going to be more maintenance intensive than the very simple arrangements of a tracked vehicle.
Weapons Platform Suitability – For small calibre weapons such as machine guns and automatic grenade launchers there isn’t any real difference. In the protected mobility role, light automatic weapons are all that is needed. However, when large calibre weapons are fitted the stability and low centre of gravity of tracked vehicles favours them. Large weapons on wheeled vehicles create recoil handling problems from both an accuracy and service life perspective. These problems aren’t insurmountable though, especially with advanced low recoil weapons.
Growth Potential – The ability to up armour, add extra weapons, communications or sensor equipment is now seen as a key requirement for combat vehicles. There is no real difference between wheels and tracks on this but in general, tracked vehicles have more space for a given set of dimensions, because of the simplicity of drive train and transmission for tracked vehicles.
Other Considerations – It could be reasonably argued that wheeled vehicles pose a less aggressive stance than tracked ones and this is a large concern in counter insurgency or lower intensity operations. Tracked vehicles can damage fragile infrastructure such as roads and bridges, totally counter productive in some operations.
On the other hand, tracked vehicles do signal ‘intent’
A low acoustic signature provides advantages in a number of areas and this clearly favours the wheeled vehicle, the US Stryker experience in Iraq has shown this to be a significant combat advantage in built up areas.
Engine noise can still be significant in either type but as hybrid engines are developed then the near silent operation of a wheeled vehicle could potentially deliver a range of tactical advantages.
Rubber band tracks are in constant development and might eventually see them being suitable for larger vehicles. This type of track is in widespread use on commercial plant vehicles and the BV series of all terrain vehicles, in an earlier post we examined the use of covered the use of Soucy band tracks on the LANCER and SIKA demonstrators.
Advantages of band tracks include much reduces sound signature, greater traction, less weight and long life but if they are damaged it is not an easy field repair although industry has produced a number of field repair systems.
As tracked technology matures the noise disadvantages of tracks may be negated.
Summary
So from the above, tracks and wheels are complimentary, each has advantages and disadvantages.
The question we asked at the beginning, wheels or tracks, is more or less a nonsense.
When approaching vehicle design these factors must be considered and relative priorities applied.
In the next couple of posts I am going to look at the protected mobility and fighting vehicles of our proposed Mechanised Infantry Brigade structure.
Taking the above into account, are we going to see the return of the halftrack onto the battlefield? Albeit with a roof and a ‘V’ shaped hull.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Half-track
Just FYI, but one of the design parameters of the Boxer 8×8 MRAV is that it can perform a track-like ‘crab turn’, ie turn 180 degrees by locking the wheels on one side.
It will always be a difficult and heated discussion, but I think we can all agree that any army would benefit from a combination of wheeled [i]and[/i] tracked infantry fighting vehicles.
Not just for support, but for frontline use as well.
The US Stryker were chasing (!) insurgents and mortar teams through the suburbs of Baghdad, not something easily done with tracks.
Also (another RMA), data-networking is changing mechanized warfare. By near-instantaneous info units need speed to position themselves for setting up – or avoiding – ambushes.
Re IEDs; yes, they are here to stay. And the best way to deal with them is to be unpredictable, which translates into avoiding obvious roads and routes.
Trouble is, when forced to do MOUT/FIBUA, there’s often no other choice than to mount up and slug it out, Israeli (Namer) style.
I think people are finally realising what vehicle designers have actualy known for decades, whilst you can bend the rules with things like V shaped hulls the rule of thumb is you can’t have a mobile pillbox, survivable against all threats and still be capable of being underslung by a Lynx
Thanks for the Boxer information on 180 degree turns, I saw a video of that ages ago but forgot it until you mentioned it.
A return to half tracks?
Amazing. The issue isn’t between tracks and wheels. Tracks are clearly superior. The issue is how do you make tracks better?
Remember the Christie suspension? Now thats an idea that might be ready for a come back.
The original reasoning for the half-track was that the gearboxes for true tracked vehicles were too immature and true tracked vehicles weren’t fast enough (the Christie tanks were featherweights).
The wear of track segments (on themselves and on roads) was furthermore terrible before the introduction of rubber pads.
The Christie suspension is inferior to the later invention of the now-standard torsion bar and that in turn is inferior to hydropneumatic suspension (especially if you make it an active one). So Christie won’t have a comeback.
The Swedes used an articulated all-terrain 6wd vehicle for their Archer SPH . This kind of building site dumpster truck chassis might be a better answer to ground pressure problems than the more common 6wd and 8wd mil vehicles with their relatively modest tire widths.
I blogged on the Hovertruck (as well as on Mattracks) last year, but a video shows it on a road march using only wheels – an indicator that it’s not without problems.
There’s furthermore the old bandtrack concept for vehicles up to about 30 tons.
The right vehicle mix is certainly quite diverse, with maybe five vehicle families at least. I’m only sure that one category does not deserve its existence; the elaborate 8×8 APCs that became so fashionable since Shinseki ’99. They represent a very unsatisfactory compromise.
Yes, we currently need the mix, and I dont think thats going away any time soon.
To steal stats from the USMC – 60% of the worlds population live in urban conurbations within a 100 miles of the sea. Does that mean all vehicles need to be amphibious ? No of course not, and as you note the Stryker’s highlight so far was on ‘good’ roads in urban situations in Iraq. However the original ‘thunder run’ into Baghdad and many other operations relied on the firepower of the biggest track of them all the M1A1, as noted by Marcase, the Israeli experience has led to the Namer, a very heavily protected tracked APC.
So it depends what we want the army to do. By the way the tracked vehicles tend to be more compact in a volumetric way, so you can pack more of them into your C17 / LPD !
Sven, I like the Archer system not so much for its combat abilities (which are impressive) but because of the design. The articulated chassis allows the rear wheels to either be fixed or only slightly ‘steerable’ meaning a protective V shape can be implemented with a much lower centre of gravity for a given width. The mobility of the BV206, Viking and Bronco is facilitated partly by the articulated design.
The central driver position is also something I like because it allows a crew safety cell to be implemented in a much more compact shape, a bit like the Pookie and Husky type route clearance vehicles. The only reason military vehicles use a side by side driver/crew arrangement is because they are based on civilian trucks. A tandem arrangement like in helicopter gunships might actually be much more sensible.
Sven – I have to say that in my humble opinion the 6×6 and 8x8s are here to stay. Schwarzkopf, Shinseki and Schoomaker were also inspired by the French, who used their lighter wheeled vehicles with great success during their cavalry-style flanking maneuver in Desert Storm ’91.
And regarding Archer, perhaps that is the way to go; vehicles with big a$$ tractor-style wheels, perhaps even monster truck size. I’m going a bit over the top here, of course, but the larger the wheel, the lower the ground pressure.
And as we all know, wheeled IFVs are still lighter than tracks, which has both implications for (air) transport but also inter-theatre mobility. A US Cav Rgt was stuck for days near the Sava river in Bosnia, waiting for bridging units because the bridges spanning the river couldn’t support the heavy M-1s, something Schoomaker pointed out often as an argument for adopting IAVs/Strykers.
Btw, let’s not forget, that Strykers are in effect interim vehicles, a semi off-the-shelf option untill the wheeled variant of the planned FCS would’ve entered service. Back then the US choose “good enough” over “excellent”; that the “good enough” Stryker is still reasonably successfull is a tribute to its design and especially the troops who use them.
It comes back to what role we want our respective army’s to focus on. Again the French with their policing/peacekeeping commitments in Africa deploy the lighter wheeled vehicles such as the VAB and AMX-10RC 105mm with much success.
Although there were several combat operations, none were even close to the anticipated “Fulda Gap” armor slugfest.
Terrain and enemy in Africa lend itself well to lighter vehicles, where mobility trumps protection.
But then the Balkans proved that tracked vehicles – especially the British Warrior – was superior, and that was, initially, a policing/peacekeeping operation as well.
“Large wheeled vehicles are unable to execute changes of direction in close confines easily, requiring a ‘23 point turn’ unlike a tracked vehicle, that can turn on the spot.”
The German SdKfz 231 of WWII vintage or the Post war 8×8 Luchs could be driven forwards or backwards with equal measure, having an additional drivers station. This adds complexity etc to a vehicle, but an alternative would be a rear facing camera(s) and an LCD screen to give greater situational awareness for the driver and allow them to drive backwards with relative(ish) ease.
Not a perfect solution but better than trying to execute a ’23 point turn’ under fire. I agree with Marcase, whether we like it or not I think the 6×6 and 8×8′s are here to stay.
The track has been in operation for around a century and we’re still not there yet, I think this says a lot.
Isn’t your wheeled IFV v tracked statement a little incorrect, look at the CVR(T) Spartan, tracked yet less than 9 tonnes, same for Viking and then look at Piranha V and Boxer etc.
In fact if you look at similar vehicles, say a Warrior and Boxer, the wheeled one is nearly 10 tonnes heavier for a similar level of protection and the Warrior has a turreted 30mm canon in that as well.
I see the Stykers are being modified with a deeper V hull now as well, this will reduce their mobility even further
Are we trying to make two different concepts work in one platform again here?
Like the Lynx Wildcat Scout Transport, which cant scout and cant transport?
Is Lighter More Deployable?
Well, obviously, if it weighs half as much you can fit twice as much on an A400m.
But for the UK thats 40 vehicles a day instead of 20.
Good, but not exactly game changing is it?
Would we be better buying cheaper but heavier vehicles and more transport capability with which to shift them?
Strategic Self Deployability is even worse.
A Bay Class can travel 33km/h which is just under 800km a day, all day, every day.
A Styker can travel 100km/h, but only carries fuel for 500km.
It could in theory do 2400km every day, but its fuel train would never keep up with it, never mind the rest of its logisitics base, how far can it go without a service? How long do its tyres last?
Even if I’m overestimating those problems, does anyone really believe the UK and US could have driven from Salisbury to Pristena?
Sorry Southern England, we’ve got to close you for a few days whilst the tanks self deploy to the Channel Tunnel.
Hi France, dont mind the tank army wandering through Belgium and Northern France, we arent German, but please clear the traffic we’re in a hurry.
True, we could fly lighter equipment to somewhere closer and have it “self deploy”, the last few hundred miles, but is that a huge advantage?
The problem in Pristina was simply that we had never planned on moving an armoured brigade there, so had no equipment to do it with, whereas the Russians had, and did.
“The German SdKfz 231 of WWII vintage or the Post war 8×8 Luchs could be driven forwards or backwards with equal measure, having an additional drivers station. This adds complexity etc to a vehicle, but an alternative would be a rear facing camera(s) and an LCD screen to give greater situational awareness for the driver and allow them to drive backwards with relative(ish) ease.”
These rear driver’s cameras have been installed on several types of AFVs in the past years.
Since they are optional on most luxary executive cars now, I cant imagine they’re a problematic system.
Dont most UK IFV already use LCD screens in place of windows in the passenger compartment?
Of have I just read about plans for it?
maybe spectrum had the answer all the time!!!
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/SPV/SPVTop.htm
PaulG – how about the SHADO ‘Mobile’ – more firepower I seem to remember !
http://ufoseries.com/models/c21Mobile.jpg
I just want to add a bit of practical experience of tracked and wheeled combat vehicles to this very interesting debate.
Tracked vehicles require much more maintenance than any wheeled vehicle period. The infinitely greater amount of vibration created by the movement of tracks literally shakes such a vehicle to pieces. You constantly need to tighten everything or the thing will literally fall apart on you. A whole bunch of routine maintenance tasks such as adjusting track tension, replacing worn track pins, lubricating individual suspension arms and so on, make tracked vehicles infinitely more complex and time consuming to maintain.
While tracked vehicles are generally more mobile than wheeled ones, in two of the films showing wheeled vehicles getting bogged down, it is quite possible that tracked vehicles would have also got stuck in the same situation due to a phenomenon known as grounding, where the underside of the vehicle presses into the mud preventing the tracks from gaining traction.
When tracked vehicles are driven extensively on roads and at speed, track lifespan is rapidly depleted. Being metal, the components heat up rapidly due to friction. Sometimes they fracture, but more often than not, they simply expand, which may cause the vehicle to throw a track. Rubber pads certainly help, but do not cure the fundamental problem.
Meanwhile, wheeled vehicle technology has advanced considerably over the last 10 years due to new developments in suspension and transmission design. Air suspensions and the ability to deflate and re-inflate tyres has markedly improved cross-country ability. Most 8×8 designs can now also turn on their axis. Modular components and overall simplification of drivetrains has also reduced maintenance requirements. The latest designs, such as the Piranha and Boxer are extremely impressive in these areas.
So which is better a wheeled APC or a tracked one? In a general war scenario, there is no doubt that you will need the combination of mobility, protection and firepower that only MBTs and MICVs can provide. They can go just about anywhere. Where you don’t want tracked vehicles is in urban areas, because they suddenly become very vulnerable, especially to overhead attack by enemies hiding on building rooftops.
Given the considerable amount of metalled roads in existence everywhere, wheeled vehicles certainly confer an advantage, because their greater speed enables them to get to places very quickly. They are generally better than tracked vehicles in urban environments. They are generally easier to transport and because they are easier to maintain, impose a lesser logistics burden. Above all, they allow infantry to focus on being infantry rather than vehicle mechanics.
So, what I’m really saying is that we need a mixed fleet of tracked vehicles and wheeled vehicles. The real difference between the vehicles is not armour protection simply wheels versus tracks. This realisation is what led to the FRES requirement.
What changed FRES was your exact point: IEDs are here to stay. To get the kind of IED protection and mobility we need in Afghanistan, any wheeled or tracked vehicle is likely to weigh in the region of 30 tonnes, not 20 and certainly not 10. While vehicles like the Mastiff weigh less, they provide only limited mobility off-road. Many have suffered from broken axles after having been driven a bit too enthusiastically given the limits of their design.
The UK abandoned the Boxer project, because we thought it was possible to create a lighter vehicles with similar protection and better mobility. In the end, the Germans were right and we were wrong. The result is that they are fielding the Boxer to Afghanistan this year and to the rest of the German Army subsequently and we are stuck with a fleet of different vehicles none of which provides an equivalent level of mobility and protection. A big advantage of the Boxer is that its armour is modular. This means it can add or subtract levels of protection according to the threat and is air transportable in an A400 transport aircraft. The Boxer will be complimented by the tracked Puma MICV.
ASCOD2 will also end up weighing about the same. In the end, the difference between the ASCOD2 and Warrior will only be visual. ASCOD2 will certainly better than the Scorpion/ Scimitar/ Spartan family of CVR(T)s, which provide totally inadequate protection against mines or IEDs. I tend to think that FRES SV will fall victim to the Strategic Defence Review, and we’ll end up with Warriors used in the recce role instead.
One other point to make about tracked vehicles is that when one is hit by an IED, and its tracks are broken, it is immediately rendered immobile. If an 8×8 wheeled vehicle loses a wheel, it may be able to limp home on just six wheels.
Interesting stuff Nicholas
I was aware that tracked vehicles required a lot of maintenance, through the 4 crew challenger decision, but its interesting to hear specificaly why from someone who knows.
I’d meant to add in somewhere that we could have a tracked war fighting force, and a wheeled peacekeeping force, but apparently didnt.
We could have a tracked force geared for mobility and direct fire, and a wheeled force geared for long term use and IED strikes.
The likely threat to tracked vehicles in the first stages from IED’s would be minimal, they would have to be pre planted mine fields, which we would know about and could clear conventionaly.
In the later stages, when insurgents can plant single IED’s along convoy routes but will have lost most of their war fighting capability, the switch from direct fire to IED protection and road use would cause minimal problems.
Nicholas said: “Given the considerable amount of metalled roads in existence everywhere, wheeled vehicles certainly confer an advantage, because their greater speed enables them to get to places very quickly.”
However apparently 80% of the worlds bridges can’t hold the weight of an MRAP Cat III type vehicle (Mastiff 2 in our case) – so does that cut into the advantage of metalled roads ?
Looking holistically, taking a system of systems point of view, we need to remember that as well as light v. Medium v. Heavy / Wheeled v. Tracked – we also have ground vehicle versus Helicopter where it comes to the mobility stakes.
Mention was made in earlier posts of the Archer SPH. Admin and Sven Ortmann seemed to agree on the advantages of such a vehicle (It might provide a better answer to ground pressure problems; its articulated chassis allows the rear wheels to either be fixed or only slightly ’steerable’ meaning a protective V shape can be implemented with a much lower centre of gravity; its central driver position would allow a crew safety cell to be fitted, etc.)
Sven called it a “kind of building site dumpster truck chassis”. However, don’t such vehicles have serious limitations on roads? Some time ago the British Army bought a number of Terex Frame Steer Dump Trucks. Although proving very successful in the dump truck role on site and over rough terrain, they are, to the best of my knowledge, not even allowed to operate on British roads. Artillery systems and logistics trucks would need to travel quite a lot on highways.
Or have I got it all wrong and is the Archer chassis not like the Frame Steer Dump Truck at all?
Jed.
What I was trying to say is that we need two types of infantry vehicle, one wheeled and one tracked, depending on the threat and the environment. Given the amount of IED protection we also need, both vehicles are likely to weigh around 30 tonnes. If a bridge is unusable to a wheeled vehicle, then it will probably be unusable for its tracked equivalent too. ASCOD2, Warrior, Boxer and Piranha V all weigh around the same.
I am sure both vehicles will come up against the weak bridge problem. They’ll also come against well prepared conventional enemies who destroy perfectly usable bridges.
On balance, however, wheeled vehicles can cover much more ground much more quickly than tracked vehicles, terrain permitting. When it comes to tracked APCs, Warrior and Bulldog are not bad; but the only alternative we have had to a wheeled FRES is Mastiff or Saxon. Both are very mediocre when it comes to on-road let alone off-road performance.
I don’t know whether you’ve read about the US deployment of Stryker Brigades in Iraq, but this Piranha-based vehicle has performed much better than HUMMVs. Of course, they’re not perfect. The desired balance of load capacity, mobility and protection means these vehicles are right on the limit of what is feasible with today’s technology.
“Sven called it a “kind of building site dumpster truck chassis”. However, don’t such vehicles have serious limitations on roads?”
Military road marches are actually quite slow. Even a slowed-down vehicle could be integrated into army formations. Today’s tracked SPHs are certainly no faster and a heavy Pzh2000 SPH is certainly more limited.
Nicholas – I agree with you, we need wheeled and tracked.
Ref 30 tonners and bridges, the tracks are normally a better alternative for routes that don’t need the bridge i.e. “off road”, fording rivers with steep muddy banks, swimming in the case of Warthog / Viking, etc.
Thanks very much for the information, Sven. Very interesting. I had not taken into account the fact that military road convoys are usually quite slow. Could you tell me whether the Archer is a portee-type vehicle, or is the gun permanently fixed on the carrier chassis?
“8×8 wheeled vehicles like the Boxer for example, have a high centre of gravity, meaning high speed turning or evasive manoeuvres can be hazardous. After several accidents, US Stryker’s are speed limited.”
Part of the problem is that these vehicles are designed as APC’s with a front mounted engine to leave a large passenger space in the rear. In order to give the passengers enough headroom the roof is raised – and the CoG too. A properly designed AFV doesn’t have to be like that. Check out the Rooikat to see how it can be done. The problem you then have is that such a chassis is useless for conversion to any form of APC, Ambulance, command vehicle etc.
“The inherent complication of an 8×8 like drive train is inevitably going to be more maintenance intensive than the very simple arrangements of a tracked vehicle,”
Remember that a large part of a tracked vehicles transmission is external to the hull and is wrapped round the drive sprocket, idler and road wheels . . .
If hybrid / electric transmission vehicles are perfected then a multi-wheeled AFV becomes more attractive. Putting motors in the hubs removes the need for complex drive shafts, makes mine damage easier to cope with and allows for some very effective traction control systems to be implemented improving off road performance. Skid steering is also easier to implement.
I forgot to mention one other thing;
Stop making ‘em amphibious!
Can we make ‘em deep fording?
“The problem you then have is that such a chassis is useless for conversion to any form of APC, Ambulance, command vehicle etc.”
That’s true Peter, but if the vehicle is that good, and the Rooikat looks very capable, you could still utilise major items such as engines, transmission, axles etc on other vehicles with a different body/chassis. You’d get a high degree of commonality and still get your AFV of choice as well as your APC, ambulance etc.
A few points to add: If you are fighting a war even against someone not so tough they will still be able to destroy bridges or mine the approaches to a bridge or simply be ready to ambush you when you try and cross. So the bridge might not be there to take advantage of in the first place and chances are it will not be strong enough. Therefore your options are avoid the bridge and take another route which tracks are arguably better for off road use and getting past the problem than an equally protected heavy wheeled vehicle. Option two is wait until you can get your engineers there to make a new bridge so tracks or wheels no longer really matters but who says the area is safe for engineers to work in the open.
The suggestion by Peter to look at the Rooikat is a fair point however it is a tank destroyer not an APC with space in the hull for upwards of 8 blokes so it would still need to be taller. However your right it could be done possibly if you used hub motors to remove the drive train to make clearance for a lower hull.
Anyhow I agree that we need two vehicles one tracked and one wheeled but we should have enough of each so we are not stuck using wheels when tracks would be better and vice versa. My ideal choice would be an evolved BAE SEP but good enough would be CV-90 and Boxer MRAV combination. The lighter end of things would be the Ocelot LPPV possibly coupled with a slightly larger 6×6 version for a flexible family of vehicles to replace quite a few of the current UOR vehicles. A question is what are MRAP’s going to be replaced with? or is the LPPV and Wheeled APC families going to be enough not to need additional vehicles that weigh almost as much as a Boxer.
@Mike, ref frame steer. yes I think the Archer is based on a Volvo articulated loader.
re, road legality in the UK, not sure to be honest but should we really be basing our thoughts on whether they can be driven legally on the roads.
Can you drive a Mastiff on the roads in the UK?
Admin, thanks for the info. My point about dump trucks was rather unfortunately expressed. I was referring more to their lack of mobility on roads in general, rather than to the legal situation in Britain. I was, I suppose,wondering whether they would be the right choice to carry SP artillery, as opposed to more conventional improved mobility or high mobility trucks, which would be faster on highways.
That said, they would in some respects have greater mobility off-road, where I suppose the majority of their work in combat zones would be carried out.
“Can you drive a Mastiff on the roads in the UK?”
I find that if your driving in convoy with several challenger 2′s the police will let you do more or less anything.
I realize I’m coming late to the party here.
First, I am concerned about this desire for every vehicle to weigh 30 tonnes. While you may not be able to fit 2 Strykers on an A400M, you still can fit 1 Stryker plus other cargo.
This will improve the overall air deployability of a unit.
Also, once in theater, a 18t wheeled vehicle will use far less gas and have a much smaller logistics footprint than a 30t wheeled or tracked vehicle. An ASCOD with a 650 liter tank can go 500km. A Stryker with a 200 liter tank can go 530km. As we’ve seen in Afghanistan, trucking in fuel is difficult, dangerous and expensive.
Second, if you’re already conceding that not every vehicle in this mech inf brigade can be carried by an A400M, why not just bite the bullet and attach a Challengers in place of the fire support FRES SVs? Tanks open up a lot of capability.
Hi there B…
Better late than never!
Your suggestion of attaching of attaching Challengers to the Mechanised Brigades is what is already done now. Each mechanised brigade has a single armoured regiment. My suggestion is to create a couple of armoured brigades that concentrate firepower by going square (2 armd, 2 armd inf) and make the mechanised brigades lighter overall by replacing Challenger with FRES fire support, which is much lighter
Have a read of the follow on posts for suggestions on vehicles
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/category/defencereviews/thinkdefence/
admin,
You have a lot of great content on this site. I’ve tried to look through most of it, but I keep finding new and interesting posts. Thanks for the link.
I think if you’re going to go with a FRES fire support variant, then don’t bother keeping them in a separate regiment. This just encourages the brigade commander to use them like tanks (which they certainly aren’t). Attach a platoon to each company or recc squadron (ala Stryker MGSs in the SBCT). Then the local company commander has hip-pocket fire support, and a habitual relationship can form.
Does removing tanks really make the brigade “light enough”? (which begs the question, “light enough for what?”) What deployability and logistics metrics are you trying to hit?
new US GCV project which replaced FCS is throwing up some interesting options recently, baseline vehicle to meet the basic protection requirement is looking like its going to be 50t with options to go to 70t with additional armour to protect against EFPs etc. i.e. very very heavy like the israeli Namer vehicle based on the Merkava which limits you automatically to tracks. I also just recently read that one of the bidding consortiums is proposing a variant of the German Puma IFV.
Spec seems overly sized to me 12+ dismounts, MRAP protection, styker mobility and bradley firepower, ambitious as always from the Yanks
Last I looked, the GCV was 3 crew + 9 dismounts, for a vehicle total of 12. That’s not too much of a leap as modern IFVs carry eight already.
Firepower isn’t too difficult either, as the Bradley only carries a 25mm bushmaster. A 30/40mm Mk44 would be a big jump, let alone a 35/50mm. Add a couple of ATGW, Javelin or Hellfire and you’re way over the Bradley.
Protection should be fairly easy if you’ve got up to 70 tonne to play with. Even 50 tonne is twice the weight of modern IFVs
Stryker mobility off road would be a piece of cake, while on road/operational could be quite a challenge.
I can see how 70t works fine for the IDF, but how are we supposed to patrol afghanistan with that?