Subject:
|
Track Spares (was: Re: Pz.VI TigerI Tank)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build.military
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 23:38:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
519 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.build.military, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.build.military, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> <snip>
>
> Thanks for that detailed answer. I knew about the technique for tread
> replacement (basically, drive off, fix it, then drive back on) and so
> understood why SOME treads would be carried (1) but had not thought of the
> "impromptu armor" aspect of it.
As "impromptu armor" it wouldn't generally be planned. Often, if this
artificial armor were added in tread form, it would be the treads of
something other than the vehicle in question. As German supply lines
extended and stores became scarcer, it became necessary for increasingly
autonomous tank crews to grab whatever spares they could lay their hands on,
and keep them close by. This was especially true with the Pz VIs, which
often operated alone in enemy territory. Having one or two links' damage
equal the destruction of the vehicle was just ridiculous--and a Tiger crew
would need to be ready for six or more episodes of that sort and still be
running.
Another reason the spare track was that important on the Tiger was because,
well, that's a very heavy tank. As mass/surface ratio increases, in spite
of the widening tracks, the possibility of metal fatigue or joint failure
went up significantly. Add to that the quality problems inherent in
late-war German steel manufactures--the wages of slave labor, no doubt--and
you have a growing need for dwindling spares. Thus, the packing-on of
replacement parts whenever possible! It all works together.
If you look at certain Soviet tanks of the period, and German StuGs (which
were in *themselves* a manufacturing expedient), you'll see that the
auxiliary armor is in fact custom-cut plates, rails, and even halves of
55-gallon drums. It's similiar to the phenomenon of custom-building
hedgecutters for US tanks following D-Day, except that the need being filled
was much more basic and the unction that much more extreme.
> 1 - You see them on US tanks of the era too, although I have no idea whether
> an M1A1 for example would carry them, I suspect not but have not done any
> research
Virtually every military did equip their tanks with external spares.
Some--and I think Shaun's PzIII reflects this--even carried spare road
wheels. (This was less possible on larger heavies and the Christie-wheeled
T-34 and British Cruiser/Crusader series, because of the size of the wheels
in question.)
In the case of modern armor, the treads (IIRC) are made of far more valuable
alloys, and are actually engineered to much greater precision. After all,
an M1 needs to hit 45-50mph on open road, if necessary; imagine a King Tiger
trying that (maybe off a cliff, sure). The end result is that it's far more
worthwhile to keep track spares inside the tank if they're carried at all;
the possibility of minor damage rendering the spares useless is just too
great and the cost of replacement too high. However, the US Army is also
far better in supplying masses of tanks today than the Wehrmacht/SS were in
1944, for obvious reasons. So the analogies above probably wouldn't hold.
(Some of the above is speculation based on known conditions, but I think
it's some fair brainfarting.)
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Pz.VI TigerI Tank
|
| In lugnet.build.military, Shaun Sullivan writes: <snip> Thanks for that detailed answer. I knew about the technique for tread replacement (basically, drive off, fix it, then drive back on) and so understood why SOME treads would be carried (1) but (...) (23 years ago, 17-Feb-02, to lugnet.build.military)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
