2805662 Posted September 5, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2020 11 hours ago, DIADES said: Rubber band needs to be replaced completely and I don't see carrying a whole spare track as practical. But will be a liability in real operations. Your first point is no longer correct. Here are some pics I took at AUSA 2019 of the CRT repair kit: Regarding your second point, Canadian “TLAVs” (M113) in Afghanistan seemed to find CRT robust & practical enough, as do multiple users of the BV210 & Warthog. ATDU trialled CRT in 2018 on Warrior and had overwhelmingly positive results. Some of you concerns & considerations re. CRT, whilst once potentially valid, appear to have been overtaken by developments and aren’t supported by evidence. David Moyes and skylancer-3441 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted September 6, 2020 Report Share Posted September 6, 2020 8 hours ago, 2805662 said: aren’t supported by evidence. OK, yes rubber bands work on very light vehicles. Please show me any evidence of a medium or heavy AFY on rubber track? And - the repair is not apples and apples. The rubber band repair does not return the track to fully functional - speed degraded and vibration increased - it is purely an expedient repair prior to replacement. A repaired in the field conventional track is fully functional. There is no comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted September 6, 2020 Report Share Posted September 6, 2020 20 hours ago, 2805662 said: It’s unlikely that any conventional track could either, surely? It can happen, it depends on a lot of factors. But repairing conventional and light-weight steel tracks is easier. Both Sourcy CRTs and steel tracks can also be damaged by smaller blasts. But the type of damage is rather different and means for (quick) repair are usually carried inside/on the vehicle in case for steel tracks. 17 hours ago, Laser Shark said: The Battle Damage Repair Kit at least offers a temporary fix until you can get back to base. Extra tracks will of course have to be brought along with the unit's logistics train. If you have to bring up a replacement track to an immobilized vehicle, however, it probably won’t be too much of an issue either since you have this thing: It's a solution, but also an afterthought. The vehicle will be able to limp back to base for proper repairs. That's not necessary with steel tracks allowing a proper repair in field. Personally I'd prefer the segmented rubber tracks from DST. They combine the strengths of CRTs (claimed weight reduction of 50% compared to conventional steel tracks) with the segmented construction of steel tracks. Though I suspect given that they are still composite-rubber tracks, their overall lifetime will also be significantly worse than that of lightweight/conventional steel tracks. The US Army tested Soucy's band tracks and DST Type 513 steel tracks on the M113. Soucy's tracks lasted 4,700 kilometers, the Type 513 tracks were still not worn out after the trials were stopped after 6,000 kilometers of travel. DST claims a lifetime of up to 14,000 kilometers for the Type 513 tracks. 2805662 and DIADES 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted September 6, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2020 My vehicles were fitted with (then) Diehl 513 track back in the day, replacing T130E1. Huge improvement. SH_MM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted September 6, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2020 52 minutes ago, DIADES said: OK, yes rubber bands work on very light vehicles. Please show me any evidence of a medium or heavy AFY on rubber track? . Here you go: http://gvsets.ndia-mich.org/documents/PM/2018/0945_Marcotte, Tommy_final presentation.pdf SH_MM and DIADES 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted September 6, 2020 Report Share Posted September 6, 2020 1 hour ago, DIADES said: OK, yes rubber bands work on very light vehicles. Please show me any evidence of a medium or heavy AFY on rubber track? And - the repair is not apples and apples. The rubber band repair does not return the track to fully functional - speed degraded and vibration increased - it is purely an expedient repair prior to replacement. A repaired in the field conventional track is fully functional. There is no comparison. Do they state it is degraded in vibration or speed. I'm not saying it isn't, but Im not assuming it is either, simply because induatrial belting splice kits can be rated for the same speed the application is used for even if it less than the theoretical maximum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laser Shark Posted September 6, 2020 Report Share Posted September 6, 2020 11 hours ago, SH_MM said: Personally I'd prefer the segmented rubber tracks from DST. They combine the strengths of CRTs (claimed weight reduction of 50% compared to conventional steel tracks) with the segmented construction of steel tracks. Though I suspect given that they are still composite-rubber tracks, their overall lifetime will also be significantly worse than that of lightweight/conventional steel tracks. As long as the durability isn’t unacceptably bad, I think the benefits of rubber band tracks, particularly when it comes to environment, health and safety (aka “HMS” In Norway), will ultimately convince most Western militaries to adopt them sooner or later. I agree, though, that a segmented solution would be another step in the right direction. 11 hours ago, DIADES said: OK, yes rubber bands work on very light vehicles. Please show me any evidence of a medium or heavy AFY on rubber track? One example: Norwegian CV9030NF1 in Northern Afghanistan. These vehicles had also been outfitted with AMAP add-on-armour by that time, so they probably weighed around 30 tonnes. The positive experiences with rubber band tracks in Afghanistan, contributed to the decision to outfit the entire fleet of 144 new and upgraded vehicles (CV9030 MkIIIb and CV90RWS) with this type of tracks. Beer and Ramlaen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 12 hours ago, Laser Shark said: utfitted with AMAP add-on-armour by that time, so they probably weighed around 30 tonnes Definitely getting up there . Still another 15t or 50% to go to get to Ph3 weight class - no, I do not believe Hanwha (or Rheinmetall) weights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 23 hours ago, 2805662 said: Here you go Excellent. I still struggle. Medium? What does one those beasties weigh? 2805662 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 https://www.jlv.com.au/cable-belt-conveyors.html The soucy patch reminds me of cable belt conveyors. Not the cheapest solution but they are the long distance champioms of conveyors. 31km between drives is possobly not even physically possible with a segmented steel solution with shear connections. Point is, rubber tracks are technology with lots of development potential. With an end point generally superior to metal tracks with rubber pads. DIADES 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Kal said: With an end point Agreed. My point is that we are not there yet. And that is what we are talking about. Now, well, the next 12 months roughly when the evaluation takes place. That will use existing technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laser Shark Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 5 hours ago, DIADES said: Definitely getting up there . Still another 15t or 50% to go to get to Ph3 weight class - no, I do not believe Hanwha (or Rheinmetall) weights. Yes, and the TU article I posted earlier in this thread claims they’re already snapping more frequently than they should on a vehicle that is just 5 tonnes heavier than the CV9030NF1, so there is definitely reason to be sceptical. Granted, it’s also possible that the Norwegian tracks were ones that were ordered years ago, and as such, might not give the correct impression of how durable those on the Redback are. So, one shouldn’t approach this without an open mind either. DIADES 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted September 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 These vehicles are not little! Not a surprise, sure, but vehicles from both OEMs are tall enough that they qualify for PPE “working at height” workplace safety legislation. David Moyes, Clan_Ghost_Bear, LoooSeR and 1 other 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 9 hours ago, DIADES said: Agreed. My point is that we are not there yet. And that is what we are talking about. Now, well, the next 12 months roughly when the evaluation takes place. That will use existing technology. Agree about using existing technology for the evaluation, but pointing out for future growth, this tech's progression is open ended not closed ended. Also, has reservations that a cold country track maker will choose the right compound for a hot country DIADES 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 FWIW https://www.liebherr.com/en/aus/products/components/combustion-engines/diesel-engines/product-portfolio-diesel-engines/details/d976a7.html New D976 18 litre, 6cyl 1,850 kg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted September 8, 2020 Report Share Posted September 8, 2020 16 hours ago, 2805662 said: is closer to 35 metric tonnes, than 45 metric tonnes. So you saw a Redback. The question is, what config is that mass? In particular, what protection level? Not expecting you to answer that, me thinking as I type Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted September 8, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2020 Nah, I never said that! No appliqué on the turret, but that belly armour! Thickest I’ve ever seen! Kal and DIADES 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted September 8, 2020 Report Share Posted September 8, 2020 11 hours ago, Kal said: FWIW https://www.liebherr.com/en/aus/products/components/combustion-engines/diesel-engines/product-portfolio-diesel-engines/details/d976a7.html New D976 18 litre, 6cyl 1,850 kg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted September 8, 2020 Report Share Posted September 8, 2020 5 minutes ago, SH_MM said: The 2 are not mutually incompatible, added boost to achieve required power rating combined with new emissions verifications is probably sufficient to consider it a new engine, even if it is 95%+ common by parts DIADES 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted September 8, 2020 Report Share Posted September 8, 2020 12 minutes ago, Kal said: common by parts Just like many MTU are souped up Merc. I agree, this almost certainly the correct base engine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted September 8, 2020 Report Share Posted September 8, 2020 30 minutes ago, Kal said: The 2 are not mutually incompatible, added boost to achieve required power rating combined with new emissions verifications is probably sufficient to consider it a new engine, even if it is 95%+ common by parts I did not say that they are mutually incompatible, but I mentioned the D976 engine already last Friday... which at least makes me wonder, why you post about it with the words "New D976 18 litre, 6cyl ". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted September 8, 2020 Report Share Posted September 8, 2020 32 minutes ago, SH_MM said: I did not say that they are mutually incompatible, but I mentioned the D976 engine already last Friday... which at least makes me wonder, why you post about it with the words "New D976 18 litre, 6cyl ". Because in my country the link to that engine has the word NEW appended in the top corner, unlike most of liebherr's other engine links. But there are plenty of times when whats new for Australia is old for the rest of the world.... I dont know if D976 is a new 18l engine, or just a new edition of an old 18l engine. Just that liebherr is labeling it as 'new'. I do appreciate your friday posts, I'll need to update my lynx vs as21 spreadsheet with the 6cyl engine.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted September 8, 2020 Report Share Posted September 8, 2020 2805662 and MoritzPTK 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Posted September 8, 2020 Report Share Posted September 8, 2020 "Plenty of room" they say, with no equipment, weapons or gear on. Civilians.. SH_MM and DIADES 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted September 8, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2020 On 9/8/2020 at 11:29 PM, Voodoo said: "Plenty of room" they say, with no equipment, weapons or gear on. Civilians.. They’re civilians now - there’s almost 100 years of combined mechanised infantry or cavalry experience in that pic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.