 |
| FFG |
 |
| Nexter VBCI |
The Danish have a program that is definitely worth watching...even better it seeks to answer the age old question.
Tracks or Wheels? Via Defense IQ.
The old argument rears its head again as Denmark looks to award a key procurement contract, while some of the competing manufacturers look to gain an edge by showcasing their solutions for the Nordic military in Oslo.Eight international defence companies are in the running to win potential contracts to meet Denmark’s newly announced requirement for a brand new armoured personnel carrier fleet.The Danish Ministry of Defence has made the call out for the companies to submit bids for an estimated 360 vehicles to help replace the Army’s mechanised capability previously dominated by the ageing M113 fleet, which is already being phased out with the country’s CV90 variant.As yet, the Army cannot decide on whether the vehicle should run on tracks or wheels, and has decided to find a solution by pitting the competition against four specialist suppliers from each side of the spectrum, all of whom qualified for consideration through an evaluation process at the start of the year.Previous tests by other militaries to ascertain the merits and shortfalls of either type have yet to show any definitive benefit of choosing one over the other when vehicles are required for a variety of missions and environments.Recognising that budget constraints are still of highest consideration for most European nations, the answer may fall into the strategic realm, relying on whether the Danes believe themselves to need an all-terrain/all-weather fleet, or whether they will streamline for specialist expeditionary situations.According to early studies, “tracked vehicles offer the best solution for a versatile platform that is required to operate over diverse terrain, including extremely difficult ground, because tracks inherently provide a greater surface area than wheels, resulting in a lower VCI(Vehicle Cone Index)… [whereas] wheeled vehicles inherently attain faster road speeds”, so while overall mobility may have been benefitted by tracks in a traditional combat zone, the transition to greater urban and irregular environments may demand wheels. However, limiting vehicles to primarily on-road use would be a risk.Likewise, wheeled platforms have progressed in leaps and bounds since the beginning of the campaign in Afghanistan, where operational requirements for once vulnerable tyres and axels have pushed innovative upgrades from mine-resistance to traction over sharp slopes. That said, tracked vehicles possess the tighter turning radius and greater route flexibility – even if that involves rubble or other urban obstacles.Also significant to the argument is the wheeled vehicle’s lower noise signature and ease with which repair and maintenance can be supported, should for example, an IED disable one or more of the wheels, yet the tracked option allows for greater weight spread and could potentially be scaled to carry heavier weapons and other equipment, which could otherwise sink a wheeled vehicle on soft or loose ground.
Seems like the golden age of wheeled vehicles is coming to an end.
Solomon, do you mean the Danish rather than the Dutch? Your headline says Dutch but the article refers to procurement in Denmark.
ReplyDeleteright you are. my mistake.
DeleteYou still have Dutch in the text underneath the photographs...
DeleteIMHO this does not signal a trend in "wheels vs tracks", just simply a program picking tracks based on requirements.
ReplyDeleteThe US Army GCV will be tracked (if ever made). The Stryker will continue with medium brigades.
Each has strengths and weaknesses. A large, expeditionary military gains from having both.
Her Majesty's Canadian Forces have been debating the same for several years now. Before Afghanistan the CF's plan was to divest themselves entirely of all tracked vehicles, including Leopard I tanks, and switch over to a LAV 3 based family of vehicles.
ReplyDeleteThey found in Afghanistan that some of the terrain, especially the farming areas was to rough to permit travel by the LAVs. The initially sent over their Leopard I's before leasing then purchasing Leopard IIs from Germany.
When assaulting compounds the tanks would break through irrigation canals, walls and the like creating a path for the wheeled vehicles to follow. Canada is now soliciting bids for a tracked infantry fighting vehicle reversing itself entirely from the initial planning.
The basic dynamic of tracks being better for soft ground and wheels having major advantages for road work hasn't changed and was well understood in WWII, when, for instance, US strategic recon units loved the M8 for their long road marches and tactical recon units, usually working cross country, preferred tracks.
ReplyDeleteIn the last twenty years, there have really only been two significant changes:
First is the ability of even very heavy AFVs to maintain very high mobility levels (see any modern MBT), which is especially significant in this discussion because the more weight goes up the more tracks have advantages over wheels for any kind of soft ground.
The second is the drastic improvement of wheeled vehicles cross country performance on firm ground. Modern vehicles, VBCI being a very good example, can do a far better job keeping up with tracks on firm ground cross country than earlier generations of wheeled vehicles, though they have given up a chunk of the historical cost advantage of wheeled vehicles to get this.