Jump to content

German Interleaved Roadwheels: An Introspective


Recommended Posts

Unfortunately I cannot remember or find who said this and are somewhat loath to post it but it does seem appropriate.

A good Commander knows strategy and Tactics.

A great Commander knows logistics.

Amateurs speak of tactics

Professionals speak of logistics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you John Kettler, but what I'm actually looking for is the information that these people base the story on. I don't find in lessons learned documents that the Krauts were especially disappointed in the interleaved tanks. Everything in the inventory clogged and froze, interleaved or not. I conclude that either the interleaved suspensions are unduly singled out, or that I haven't found the pertinent documents yet. I was hoping someone would grog me the appropriate documents. Thus far I read several complaints about the Pz IV, but since it was the popular thing to hate in the Panzer corps, that might be unfair too.

MikeyD, if the Ferdinand is a red herring, then what is a closer comparison to a non-interleaved tank of similar proportions? It is rather glib to just dismiss it. The spring system, the hybrid drive, the fuel type - these things do not explain why it wouldn't turn, and bogged easily. The track loading does.

To call the E-series pies-in-the-sky designs is a bit optimistic. What little actual documentation survived does not show any technical choices being made beyond basic capability desires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus far I read several complaints about the Pz IV, but since it was the popular thing to hate in the Panzer corps, that might be unfair too.

Do these complaints center on the road wheels or suspension specifically or just bogging in general? The Pz IV suffered from poor ground clearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ArgusEye,

Here's the source for the Panther woes.

Spielberger, Walter (1993). The Panther & Its Variants. West Chester: Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 0-88740-397-2.

Walter Spielberger is an expert on this stuff. Talking hands-on experience during the war. If I had my way, I'd own every book he ever wrote.

http://www.librarything.com/author/spielbergerwalterj&all=1

Unfortunately, he died in 2005. Note his credentials.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=70804

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, John! I'll dig into it, as soon as I can get my hands on my collection. I should have that book somewhere. He is generally a good source, not quite primary, but close. I'll get back to this topic asap. I'm babysitting a machine at work at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm babysitting a machine at work at the moment.

Yes, but is it an INTERLEAVED machine? And if not, why not? Is it faster that way? Or just cheaper to make? ;)

FWIW, what brought this up was the realization that the US Army has about 2,500 Abrams and does NOT want to upgrade all of them to the highest standard. Given the ability to spend a lot of money on chassis which stay in use for DECADES, I'm aware of the sensitivity towards maintenance costs, but also aware of the ability to tweak existing designs to an apex. I don't think the (modern) US Army has ever shied from extra maintenance cost if the design brings more capability. (Or, more profits to the contractor. I guess it depends on how you define "capability". Yes, that was a cheap shot, but how could I not take it?)

The ability to put 1,500 hp to the track solves a LOT of problems. If that power were used more elegantly, could the tank gain better protection or armament? (The old triangle of weapon, protection, manueverability.)

That's what got me thinking about the German tanks. Each allied army kept refining its last design. I really don't see much cross-pollination from one Ally to another, nor from their vanquished foe. (Sure, sloped armor and high velocity guns: but those were applied to current developments, not lifted and taken in toto.)

The Germans saw an advantage in the interleaved system. I'm still curious how and why it disappeared and how a modern version would far vs. independent roadwheels.

Mud, ice, and rocks between them: similar to the tales of woe inflicted upon the German dual rear-wheel trucks vs. the British single rear-wheel trucks in the desert. Why, then, are dual wheel the rule? More maintenance, hard to get to the inner wheel, etc., etc.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short answer: after the power problem is solved, other problems become dominant, none of which get solved by interleaving wheels. The smoothness of the ride is quite sufficient for human comfort, with hydraulic stabilization allowing firing on the move. Wide wheels roll on wide tracks. The track resistance is higher, but what limits the speed and maneuverability now is not the flatness of the track, but mainly its inertia. Interleaving would only fix problems that don't matter anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...