Follow TV Tropes
tl;dr: The 25mm Bushmaster probably won't kill a tank, but most things on the battlefield aren't tanks anyways and for those it is more than adequate.
Against RHA tanks like the T55 and T62 (plus their Chinese variants), Bradleys using APFSDU and the 25mm Bushmaster scored kills on the sides.
That round at best gets 60mm penetration, both the T-64 and T-55 had at least 80mm RHA on the sides. The rear armor was fairly thin and could be penned easily and it could be penned through the tread well and turret ring.
Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Sep 21st 2019 at 1:28:36 PM
The Chinese copies that the Iraqis had were notoriously made from poor quality metal.
There were stories of catastrophic hull cracking and outright shattering following HEAT and APFSDS impacts.
Yeah, that screams manufacturing and quality control issues.
Is there any way to rationalize a tank having more than one set of tracks on each side, as depicted in the classic Mammoth tank from Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn and other iterations of the design throughout the C&C franchise, to name but one example? Some examples (not necessarily the aforementioned C&C ones) claim that it's because the vehicle is so heavy, but that seems counterintuitive, as having separate tracks like that leaves a gap in between the sets and thus should make it that much less efficient at distributing the weight on the ground (nevermind that such superheavy tanks are so large that they're more likely to sink into the ground anyway).
Perhaps it could increase the tank's mobility on uneven ground? Such tanks are usually so unusually long and wide that they're quite likely to have significant portions of themselves lifted off the ground by as much as a meter or more on sufficiently rough terrain almost all the time, which would expose the vulnerable tracks and maybe even underbelly for opportunistic enemy attacks. Consider this tank concept.
Edited by MarqFJA on Oct 4th 2019 at 6:13:55 PM
I believe the T28 Super Heavy Tank had such an arrangement.
Technically yes, but in the T28's case the tracks are full-sized and were placed side by side rather than in series (which is what I'm talking about in the cited examples).
I see what you mean now.
The track being continuous all the way down the body of the vehicle is a big part of what gives tracks their overland mobility. Separating them like that might actually make the tank less mobile, not to mention way more vulnerable.
Though it does look cool, and that’s as good a reason as any.
Let's take this to its logical extreme. A tank train. Just a bunch of tanks and trailers hitched together with their tracks synced so they choo choo their way through the enemy flanks to deliver an entire army with its supplies in the enemy rear.
That'd be the best kind of Wolfenstein bullshit tactics right there.
Edited by AFP on Oct 5th 2019 at 4:46:48 AM
I mean the term track in the first place comes from the fact that the vehicles were conceived as a train that lays down it's own track infront of it and then pulls it up behind it so that it can go any where....
Hell the original patent for tracked vehicles is called 'Universal Railway'
Edit: Pattent in question as proof
Edited by Imca on Oct 5th 2019 at 4:14:53 AM
I still think, all things considered, the armor community is pretty lucky we didn't just call their vehicles "Combat Tractors" or something which would still be as accurate as anything.
I dont know, the official term that didnt stick, in exchange for the code name we got was fucking "Land Ship"
The british even had a land ship commitie well after the war, and if you ask me that's a pretty badass name for them.
They were also developed by the Navy, so imagine if that had been whom actualy deployed and operated them.
We need an amphibious Destroyer that bombards coastal positions before rolling ashore to escort landing forces.
Quad tracks also exist on Scorpion tanks in Halo.
Also Iosef Stalin-10 heavy tank Object 279 which uses a similar layout to T28.
The main idea behind quad tracks as seen in Halo and elsewhere is a combination of redundancy and increased mobility over uneven or soft ground. A conventional tracked vehicle needs to call for a tow if one of its tracks sinks into the mud and gets stuck. A quad track can theoretically back itself out of the literal mudhole it's gotten itself into. Same deal with enemy fire. Take an RPG to the tracks of an M1 Abrams and it breaks the links, you better have enough spares in your toolbox to do field repairs otherwise call for a tow. Take an RPG to one set of tracks in a quad tracks and you can still theoretically drive home.
Edited by MajorTom on Oct 5th 2019 at 7:00:39 AM
The US actually prototyped out some four-track designs like that when developing the Abrams for that very reason, increased damage resistance. Of course, in that design the four tracks were all tucked together and away like a regular tank rather than splayed out.
In the end it was determined that the minimal increase in resiliency wasn’t worth the downsides.
Edited by archonspeaks on Oct 5th 2019 at 7:30:04 AM
That track arrangement does not hurt mobility or ground pressure. The tracks are wider than the full-length tracks and the idea there is to give the vehicle more freedom in terms of maneuverability for track sections. The example shown is tracks with some independent movement and suspension which would allow the vehicle to have some extra finesse when navigating around. The other examples in the folder show the tank with a more normal level profile when not crossing rough terrain like the raised example.
There are Farming tractors, UGV's, snow vehicles, and other examples that use quad tracks. None of them suffer from ground pressure or mobility issues.
There are a few caveats to the quad track layout. They need to have wider tracks to make up for length. The surface contact area of track is what matters not length. The track layout is usually more mechanically complex especially if the separate treads are independently maneuverability.
No one has really tried it with tanks because it is more complex and expensive and for the most part, the current set up works just fine for tanks.
Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Oct 5th 2019 at 9:47:20 AM
So serial quad tracks are theoretically feasible, but in practice they're deemed not worth the trouble considering the nature of contemporary real-life tank warfare?
Edited by MarqFJA on Oct 5th 2019 at 9:02:20 PM
Basically technically feasible but offer negligible advantages in exchange for greatly increased complexity and cost.
Don't forget the square cube law:
The Quad tracks are a tradeoff. You get more maneuverability options for the tracks but you get more mechanical complexity. It works fine on some heavy vehicles such as tractors but no one has ever really tried something akin to that with an MBT type vehicle. I would imagine it would be a technical challenge and possibly rather expensive.
Marq: That particular artist has three examples in his artwork folders. One with a side hatch open, one with it raised up and one running level.
So basically, it's a case of "currently impractical, but hypothetically could become practical in the future with the right technological advancements"?
The "open side hatch" one (link) is actually the revised version from 2013. Both the original (which you refer to by "raised up") and the desert camo version (the one that's completely levelled) date back to the same day on 2009. I'm guessing the artist thought in hindsight that the original concepts weren't as realistic-looking as he preferred them to be.
No matter how advanced technology gets the four-track arrangement is always going to have more moving parts.
I’d also point out the obvious weak points in a design like that: the joints that connect the tracks to the body of the tank.
Can you still hit 70ish kph with a quad track layout anyway?
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?