terrain immobilizations

[pamak]

hello

I was participating in a discussion in another forum and the subject of off-road tank mobility was brought up.

Obviously there are many parameters linked to it, weather, slope, type of soil , obstacles, vegetation and so on.

In that discussion there were basically two arguments. On one side some people were saying that in good conditions basically dry flat terrain the probability of immobilization cause of terrain would be minimal, in the order of 1%, or as someone said it will be comparable to the immobillization cases during a movement in dirt roads. Some data about road movement were also brought in conversation.

Others said that even in those conditions of flat dry terrrain, there is a good chance to see a tank getting stuck by rocks, branches of wood ,terrain anomalies (which exist even in "flat terrain") and so on.

The problem according to the second side is that those things can immobilize temporary a tank. In most cases these will be short-time immobilzations. The crew will be able to overcome the problem very quickly on its own. The use of a recovery vehicle (or another tank) will be nessesary only in the most serious cases, which will be relative few compared to the "short-term immobiliations" which actually happen in the field.

In addition, since these short term immobilizations can not really be tracked by data since most of them will not be recorded in unit diaries and road movement information, so it is difficult for simulation developers to develop an accurate cross-country movement behavor . Anyway according to the second side, the situation is certainly not comparable to a road march on a dirt road. The cases of immobilizations in flat dry terrain would be much more.

I decided to come here and ask the opinion of members since i know there are many who have real life experience.

So how often during your career you found youself temporary immobilized in a cross-country movement in a "good going" terrain? Meaning get stuck for whatever terrain reason (not mechanical breakdown) for a very short time, (a few minutes) and be able to overcome the situation without the need of another tank or recovery vehicle.

How often during your carreer you were forced to ask for a recovery vehicle (or another tank) to help you overcome a serious case of immobilization?

How many miles of cross-country movement you think you accumulated during your service?

What were the dominant terrain you encountered during your cross-road movement?

Do you have any idea about the expected percentage of tanks which will become immobilized because of terrain during a typical cross-country movement during an attack in different enviroments and weather?

Finally how does SB treat this subject regarding the probability of a tank getting stuck in dry terrain or mud?

I understand that this question is too broad and there are too many parameters to give a certain answer. I am trying to find a very rough approximation .

By the way, when i did a search regarding this subject i found some links expressing probability of traversing a certain type of terrain ,in global security pages. However, this was not linked to the legth of the route. So if for example a certain type of terrain gave a 80% probability to traverse it, then that would be the same nomatter if we were talking about a 10 miles or 1 mile travel distance. So it was basically a 80% chance to see all vehicles traverse any length of route over this terrain or a 20% to have this terrain impassable by all units.

Dose anybody have data linking length of cross-country movement and terrain casualties ?

The link i am talking about is the following

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/5-430-00-1/CH7.htm

Thank you

[12Alfa]

On good ground tracks as you know can cross over fallen tress (with care), can cross over automobiles (with care) can cross/crush rocks, and with care one can climb over them. If the river/stream has a solid bottom we can cross them also.

I have found that on "good /dry ground" there is not much that will stop 50+ tons of a good crew on a mission.

Called recovery for the bad/wet/boggy/ ground that looked like "ya lets try it, it looks ok" type of ground:debile2:

[pamak]

On good ground tracks as you know can cross over fallen tress (with care), can cross over automobiles (with care) can cross/crush rocks, and with care one can climb over them. If the river/stream has a solid bottom we can cross them also.

I have found that on "good /dry ground" there is not much that will stop 50+ tons of a good crew on a mission.

Called recovery for the bad/wet/boggy/ ground that looked like "ya lets try it, it looks ok" type of ground:debile2:

I guess the issue is that in combat situation you do not have the luxury of training enviroment to play safe. The best approach will often be the one with tricky terrain at high speed in the middle of smoke and other LOS obstacles and adrenaline which can make even the best tanker commit serious mistakes.

By the way, how many times during your carreer you were forced to ask for recovery (do not be ashamed ) and how many hours of cross-country in bad terrain you roughly estimate to have under your belt?

[Grenny]

On good ground tracks as you know can cross over fallen tress (with care), can cross over automobiles (with care) can cross/crush rocks, and with care one can climb over them. If the river/stream has a solid bottom we can cross them also.

I have found that on "good /dry ground" there is not much that will stop 50+ tons of a good crew on a mission.

Called recovery for the bad/wet/boggy/ ground that looked like "ya lets try it, it looks ok" type of ground:debile2:

Reminds me of a quote from an german army hand bock.

"About one of the most decoratet(70+ kills in WWII) tank commanders the following was said: HE NEVER GOT STUCK! He would rather dismount and recon the way on foot."

[Hedgehog]

Its a lot easier to pull a boot out of the mud than a tank.

[andym]

Its a lot easier to pull a boot out of the mud than a tank.

Not if there is a Tank on it!:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

[crazyeddie]

As an ex footslogger never had any problems crossing any kind of ground, jungle, desert, mountains and the arctic/antartic, managed to yomp over all of it with varying degrees of speed. Preferred the arctic mountains, no stuffing tanks to worry about most of the time and those that were around were pretty restricted to where they could go.

That said, I was often surprised to find tanks where and when I least expected them, the modern MBT is a pretty versatile beast and a good tank commander can influence the decisions of others without firing a single shot. I have seen some pretty adventurous tank commanders do some amazing things with them, even up in the high arctic.

Soldiering is ultimately about dominating ground, can't think of a better bit of kit to do that with than the MBT.

As each new machine gets better the restrictions get fewer and fewer, hovertanks are the future.

[Hedgehog]

As each new machine gets better the restrictions get fewer and fewer, hovertanks are the future.

Till they fire their main gun.

[Tacbat]

Lol.

[ceedub]

You know...until I read Hedgehog's reply to crazyeddie's "hovertank" reference, I thought they were a good idea too!

How would they deal with the main gun's recoil while on a cushion of air?

I think treads are here to stay.

Cheers

ceedub

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

I'll jump into this red hearing off topic thread;

Ref the "hover-tank" and dealing with recoil.

The specification of what type of system is employed to produce the "hovering" action is required to define if gun recoil would effect stalibility or not. Hover by air cushion is not as effective with a heavy mass over a small footprint, air flow cannot be manupulated fast enough to counter fast terrain changes or even strong winds. Hover with a magnetic repelling/attraction force is more stabile and can be controlled faster with computer systems. Not effected by wind or ground surface density.(few exceptions)

As technology's advance and possibly the development of mass effecting/gravity devices makes an appearance we can only hope that the use of explosive producing propellants will disappear also, to be replaced by more efficient electro magnetic rail guns (testing started at 2Km per second muzzle velocity and ramping up,US/British testing) or energy directed systems.

Gun or tube "recoil" will also disappear when you are not using explosive gasses to move the projectile.

9erRed

[GH_Lieste]

Greetings all,

I'll jump into this red hearing off topic thread;

Ref the "hover-tank" and dealing with recoil.

The specification of what type of system is employed to produce the "hovering" action is required to define if gun recoil would effect stalibility or not. Hover by air cushion is not as effective with a heavy mass over a small footprint, air flow cannot be manupulated fast enough to counter fast terrain changes or even strong winds. Hover with a magnetic repelling/attraction force is more stabile and can be controlled faster with computer systems. Not effected by wind or ground surface density.(few exceptions)

As technology's advance and possibly the development of mass effecting/gravity devices makes an appearance we can only hope that the use of explosive producing propellants will disappear also, to be replaced by more efficient electro magnetic rail guns (testing started at 2Km per second muzzle velocity and ramping up,US/British testing) or energy directed systems.

Gun or tube "recoil" will also disappear when you are not using explosive gasses to move the projectile.

9erRed

Magnetic or repelling technologies sound great if you are operating on metal rails, or on a largely metallic area - I'm less confident they can be made to work well on irregular soft earth/vegetation etc.

As for recoil reduction using magnetic rail guns - I have to disagree. While you might be able to reduce the recoil somewhat - there is no accelerated volume of hot gasses - the accelerated projectile will still require an equal and opposite reaction of some description. This would normally be friction between the ground and tracks. At the most optimistic you could halve the recoil energy and impulse, at the expense of a great deal of weight and volume for the powerplant to generate the large energies required.

I can't see any workable medium or heavy vehicle using non-contact movement devices, or electromagnetic weapons anytime soon.

We will probably get more-of-the-same, wheeled or tracked vehicles, with possible transition to liquid propellants and variable charging systems.