1. Restored vehicles parks, in Eastern Europe especially, are very underfunded, so they make due with whatever they have on hand. Do not trust museum pieces immediately.

2. The ASU-85 started out as the SU-85 and initially was meant to be a anti-tank/assault gun. It was only after a long development with delays, the 85mm quickly became too anemic for its intended use, the chassis could not be used for a upgraded gun, and missiles were coming into vogue...then it was relegated only to airborne use almost immediately after the first few vehicles rolled out of the plants. This does not mean it was not used in its intended role immediately, and possibly early with PT-76 track, but it would have been withdrawn quickly if it had been. I am, however, solidly convinced that once it was relegated to airborne use only, and redesignated ASU-85, the lightened tracks became standard and exclusive.

I might add that other ASU-85's in Checkoslovakia '68 have the tracks with the holes so the one without might be an exception.





Cheers,
/E

I think the weight route is the most plausible explanation- the lighter the tracks the lighter the load the easier it would be to air deploy it in a number of aircraft. Perhaps what might have been planned was for it to be dropped/deployed via aircraft with lightened tracks then, at the first oppurtunity, re-equipped on the ground with the heavier tracks which would probably have lasted longer. Anyway, thats just me 0.2 cents.

Quoted Text

---

I think the weight route is the most plausible explanation- the lighter the tracks the lighter the load the easier it would be to air deploy it in a number of aircraft. Perhaps what might have been planned was for it to be dropped/deployed via aircraft with lightened tracks then, at the first oppurtunity, re-equipped on the ground with the heavier tracks which would probably have lasted longer. Anyway, thats just me 0.2 cents.

---

Breaking track, and replacing it, is a back breaking, wearing job. You would immobilize your vehicle for hours, have to drop the tracks to replace the lightened ones and thus INCREASE your total drop weight per vehicle, and fatigue your crews. Never mind demoralizing them. No, you pretty much run with what you are dropped in Airborne, and consumables are far more valuable than tracks when the mission is measured in hours or days as many airborne ops are...but it was a goof thought. IF the SU-85 (note SU-85) was used initially, and not intended for airdrop but say moved by rail to a railhead, then the heavier tracks would be ok and probably better with a lot of initial road movement.

Thinking out loud doesn't always bear fruit !