Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Track protection?


Major

Status: Offline
Posts: 146
Date:
Track protection?
Permalink   


I noticed that tracks in MK tanks are completely unarmoured. Is there any practical reason for it? Also, I noticed that tracks in k-wagen were under armour. Would the armour provide significant protection to them?



__________________
...


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2318
Date:
Permalink   

I think you're looking at WW1 tanks with a modern viewpoint.

Protection of the tracks and suspension (if any) doesn't seem to have been an

issue the designers of WW1 tanks considered. Of more importance seems to

have been to minimise problems with mud packing around the tracks and jamming them. The British rhomboid scheme with the exposed tracks was pretty good at shedding mud picked up by the tracks. I'd guess the K-Wagen, if it ever had been deployed, would have run into problems with mud building up inside the enclosed top run of the track. The Whippet, with exposed tracks, and many tanks of the 1920s, had mud chutes to try to keep spaces under the top run of the tracks clear of mud.

Modern tank designs with side shields to protect the track and suspension is a reaction to HEAT rounds, especially from man-portable weapons. The shields cause a HEAT round to initiate before it can hit anything vital or the side of the hull. This form of protection didn't appear until WW2 when the Germans fitted their tanks with schurzen (skirts). 

Regards,

Charlie



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3885
Date:
Permalink   

The top run of the tracks on the Gun Carrier Mk I was partly covered by the armoured hull, and that caused problems with mud accumulating in between. As Charlie says, it was probably the least of Wilson and Tritton's concerns. The track was as bulletproof as the rest of the vehicle, and a shell that could damage the track would most likely put paid to the entire vehicle, so no point in making a special effort.



-- Edited by James H on Tuesday 26th of June 2012 02:10:43 PM

__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Major

Status: Offline
Posts: 146
Date:
Permalink   

Thanks. I suspected so. How would it look with shellproof tanks like Flying Elephant?

__________________
...


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1393
Date:
Permalink   

Flying Elephant would have suffered badly from mud packing the covered sections of the track, especially because of the large sheets of armour covering the outside of the outer (main) track frames with very little clearance down the sides. Much the same goes for the inner track units.

__________________


Major

Status: Offline
Posts: 146
Date:
Permalink   

It's weird that the designers of these monsters haven't thought about it.

So, any tank practical for trench warfare would be easily immobilised even if a shell wouldn't pierce its armour?

__________________
...
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard