Hosted by Darren Baker
"Mirrored" tracks
tigertanktoo
Joined: June 10, 2007
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 18 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 - 01:06 PM UTC
Does anyone know of or heard that the german tank crews would occassionally reverse one set of tracks from the other for better traction? I've noticed in some photos (not just here, but other sites as well) that the tracks were installed opposite of each other. When I mentioned it to one builder, he told me that he's talked to german tankers and that they told him they would do that to get better traction depending on the type of terrain they were in. I've never read that in any of the books I've researched. All help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
nng-nng
Joined: October 22, 2013
KitMaker: 380 posts
Armorama: 376 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 - 01:21 PM UTC
sounds a bit strange to me...
IF putting those the wrong way on would improve traction (what I donīt think and what wouldnīt be logic at all, as it would have been kind of a "standard" modification then), why doing that just on one side?
I might just quote what Bob Woodman posted in Case Yellow Campaign thread, as itīs a fairly good explanation for such "misshaps":
IF putting those the wrong way on would improve traction (what I donīt think and what wouldnīt be logic at all, as it would have been kind of a "standard" modification then), why doing that just on one side?
I might just quote what Bob Woodman posted in Case Yellow Campaign thread, as itīs a fairly good explanation for such "misshaps":
Quoted Text
What "direction" should tracks run in? There is that convention (and it's only a convention in practice, NOT any sort of technically-mandated need by "functionality considerations") that German dry-pin / dead-link tracks were mounted facing or running "wide-side" of link leading on the top run. It came out of a manufacturer convention. Tracks were installed on tanks at assembly plants using a standard procedure - and that was to do any given assembly-step "always" the same way. So... all original OEM tracks got put on in the same run direction. And of course, all links in a run have to face the same direction to link up, so... We have a convention in place.
German dry-pin tracks in most marks (Pz 1, II, III, IV, and V for sure) all came with track pins inserted from the hull-side of the run - so that pins would not simply drift out and lose the track. Pins could be inserted into either side of most link-types, so that the one type of link could be used on either side of the tank and still run the same direction (that convention...). This is why, for example, Dragon Pz. III / IV "MagicTracks" come "handed" - the links are all the same, but the pin-ends reflect the side of the tank, with "keeper clips" always to the outside of the runs. (asymmetrical links, such as winterketten, are the notable exception, as they could not be put on "paddle" facing in towards the hull!)
So, "technically speaking", one could actually install most "symmetrical link" track types running either direction (again, winterketten types were a special case..., as were the asymmetrial links used on Tigers, etc.) - and they functioned just as well either way.
But... DID this happen? That's actually "your question" here...
YES. Fairly common to find in the photo files that Pz 1A and B and some II as well had tracks put on "backwards", and even more dee-lish, one run going either way! Hardly ever seen (other than with winterketten types) on Pz III and IV. Why this? Tank crew could and did dismount Pz 1 "tiny link" tracks and do so completely for vehicle repairs. Pz III+ tracks were much larger and heavier links and runs, and much less commonly completely removed from the tank... so small Pz. I "OEM" tracks had "opportunity" to get turned around by crew doing repairs, while Pz III+ tracks much less so.
So... got one or both of them assembled "backwards"? You are OK! Photos show that these tiny tanks did sometimes "suffer" that. There are even a few training-school photos which show student-crew being instructed on maintenance... and working on those "driver-school Ohne-aufbau tanks" with reversed tracks! And if the training instructors allowed this to happen... Guess we should reshape our thinking a little about the purported rigidity of the German Army!
See any of the better ref pubs on Pz 1 (Tankograd, etc.) or pubs showing lots of Pz 1 pic in the field and you'll come across these "reversal jobs" on all versions - "gun-tanks", "kleiner befehlspanzer", panzerjager, special-use hulls.
Alas, while now you, too, "know about this detail", you are apt to still encounter show judges who are wholly naive to it.
Cheers!
Bob
tigertanktoo
Joined: June 10, 2007
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 18 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 - 01:53 PM UTC
Thank you for that. It was interesting to read. At least I know I can't truely botch it up if I'm building a Pz I or II. I'm going to have to break out all my books and start looking at photos.
P.S. Just to clarify, I'm talking complete sets i.e. the left set of tracks totally opposite of the right set.
P.S. Just to clarify, I'm talking complete sets i.e. the left set of tracks totally opposite of the right set.
Snorri23
Joined: March 25, 2010
KitMaker: 514 posts
Armorama: 261 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 - 02:09 PM UTC
Early Tiger I did have mirrored tracks. For how long and what build numbers I am not too sure.
panzerbob01
Joined: March 06, 2010
KitMaker: 3,128 posts
Armorama: 2,959 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 - 04:33 PM UTC
IF I might chime in, here...
ALL Larger German tanks with wider, asymmetrical links - links where the horns were not equi-distant from either edge, and/or where driver holes were not symmetrical and equi-distant from link ends (track edges)- were automatically "handed" - and thus came as "mirrored sets". The only other alternative would be to run one side "forward-facing" and the other reversed.
Consider that CyberHobby StuG III G whitebox kit with the "winterketten". The photos of the real thing, recovered from a Russian bog, show that indeed one run faces either direction. These were asymmetrical links with a "paddle" extending out on the "outside". You could only mount these tracks paddle-side out, as the paddle would not clear the hull if mounted hull-in. As there apparently were only one type of winterketten links available for that StuG, one side had to run "reverse" to the other. The CH kit captures this look correctly, with only one "side" of links for both runs. (I cannot say with certainty that there were ONLY one "side" ever made of these winterketten- thus mandating that all tanks would have one side running opposite the other, but I think that may have been the case...)
For Tigers, the "normal" (wide) links were asymmetrical. Either the tank was issued "mirrored" sets, or one run would have to go opposite the other. Kits with "transport tracks" provide the Tiger exception, in that these narrower tracks had (I THINK - not having such a kit on hand) symmetrical links with drive holes equi-distant from both ends of the link. Such tracks would perform like those on Panzer III-IV, where the pins would insert equally well from either side of the link. And both runs could go the same way.
Bob
ALL Larger German tanks with wider, asymmetrical links - links where the horns were not equi-distant from either edge, and/or where driver holes were not symmetrical and equi-distant from link ends (track edges)- were automatically "handed" - and thus came as "mirrored sets". The only other alternative would be to run one side "forward-facing" and the other reversed.
Consider that CyberHobby StuG III G whitebox kit with the "winterketten". The photos of the real thing, recovered from a Russian bog, show that indeed one run faces either direction. These were asymmetrical links with a "paddle" extending out on the "outside". You could only mount these tracks paddle-side out, as the paddle would not clear the hull if mounted hull-in. As there apparently were only one type of winterketten links available for that StuG, one side had to run "reverse" to the other. The CH kit captures this look correctly, with only one "side" of links for both runs. (I cannot say with certainty that there were ONLY one "side" ever made of these winterketten- thus mandating that all tanks would have one side running opposite the other, but I think that may have been the case...)
For Tigers, the "normal" (wide) links were asymmetrical. Either the tank was issued "mirrored" sets, or one run would have to go opposite the other. Kits with "transport tracks" provide the Tiger exception, in that these narrower tracks had (I THINK - not having such a kit on hand) symmetrical links with drive holes equi-distant from both ends of the link. Such tracks would perform like those on Panzer III-IV, where the pins would insert equally well from either side of the link. And both runs could go the same way.
Bob
barkingdigger
Associate Editor
#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 - 05:10 AM UTC
I can't see a mechanical advantage to running the tracks either way on anything softer than concrete. The "cleats" on each link dig in for grip, and the sprocket pulls the tank along the tracks, so it isn't like directional tire tread.
If I recall correctly, early Tigers had "handed" tracks so both runs could point the same direction, but this was quickly changed to a single type of link (for obvious production economy) that automatically forced all Tigers to have one run going each direction depending on which side it was fitted to. (Just looked it up in Jentz & Doyle's Osprey book - this apparently caused them to pull slightly to the side.)
With symmetrical track links (where the only difference is which side the pin is driven in from) there is the added factor of replacement tracks. If they needed a replacement run, and had one left over from a dead tank, then pulling all those pins to reverse them would be far too much work, just to get them to run the correct way. So mis-matched runs might indicate a field replacement...
If I recall correctly, early Tigers had "handed" tracks so both runs could point the same direction, but this was quickly changed to a single type of link (for obvious production economy) that automatically forced all Tigers to have one run going each direction depending on which side it was fitted to. (Just looked it up in Jentz & Doyle's Osprey book - this apparently caused them to pull slightly to the side.)
With symmetrical track links (where the only difference is which side the pin is driven in from) there is the added factor of replacement tracks. If they needed a replacement run, and had one left over from a dead tank, then pulling all those pins to reverse them would be far too much work, just to get them to run the correct way. So mis-matched runs might indicate a field replacement...
panzerbob01
Joined: March 06, 2010
KitMaker: 3,128 posts
Armorama: 2,959 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 - 05:30 AM UTC
Pretty much where I'm at with this, Tom. I feel confident that, for most tanks, there was little effect due to direction of track-runs.
I would, however, point out that there was really seldom need to actually replace a whole track-run, nor any need to pull lots of pins. Why? IF the run snapped, you might need a new link or 2 and maybe a couple of pins. I suppose that a mine might blow several links away, but still you would not need to pull many pins out to repair things - at most 2 (at either end of the gap).
The only real opportunity to get a run reversed on a larger tank would still be when and if the crew or shop had to actually totally remove a run to affect some service or repair to gear and / or hull - that, or to replace the whole run (swapping normal wide field tracks for narrow transport tracks on the Tiger, or maybe swapping standard Pz III / IV tracks for a winterketten or ostketten set (asymmetrical links). I suppose that it is possible that a tank at "full speed" may run completely off a broken set before the driver stopped things... that would be one of those "rare" total-removal cases! But I don't see it being likely that the crew would get out and actually haul that shed run around and get it facing the other way to pull it back on and splice in the new link and pin(s)! I think most would just pull it right back on as it lay, and it would be the same as before in orientation.
But that's all just my thoughts and opinion!
Bob
I would, however, point out that there was really seldom need to actually replace a whole track-run, nor any need to pull lots of pins. Why? IF the run snapped, you might need a new link or 2 and maybe a couple of pins. I suppose that a mine might blow several links away, but still you would not need to pull many pins out to repair things - at most 2 (at either end of the gap).
The only real opportunity to get a run reversed on a larger tank would still be when and if the crew or shop had to actually totally remove a run to affect some service or repair to gear and / or hull - that, or to replace the whole run (swapping normal wide field tracks for narrow transport tracks on the Tiger, or maybe swapping standard Pz III / IV tracks for a winterketten or ostketten set (asymmetrical links). I suppose that it is possible that a tank at "full speed" may run completely off a broken set before the driver stopped things... that would be one of those "rare" total-removal cases! But I don't see it being likely that the crew would get out and actually haul that shed run around and get it facing the other way to pull it back on and splice in the new link and pin(s)! I think most would just pull it right back on as it lay, and it would be the same as before in orientation.
But that's all just my thoughts and opinion!
Bob
tigertanktoo
Joined: June 10, 2007
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 18 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 - 08:15 AM UTC
Thanks to everyone for the input. I have to agree with Bob, I don't see a need where the entire set of tracks would need replacing. Only a few for maintenance or battle damage reasons. And those all depended on how the link pins were installed as to whether or not they would be installed backwards from the other track links.
barkingdigger
Associate Editor#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 - 08:25 AM UTC
Hi Bob,
I agree that most track damage is limited and wouldn't require complete dismounting if the tank was in a position to be fixed in the field. But there are lots of pics where a damaged tank is hauled away to a repair depot with no tracks (due to damage), so at some point back at the depot somebody needed to lay out replacement track and fit it to the repaired tank. If that was just one damaged track, hauled back with the tank and fixed, then it would go on the same way it came off (unless of course BOTH tracks came off). But if for speed of repair they borrowed a track from another dead tank in the junkyard then it could go either way. After all, we're talking about wartime conditions on a fluid front.
Just my thoughts...
I agree that most track damage is limited and wouldn't require complete dismounting if the tank was in a position to be fixed in the field. But there are lots of pics where a damaged tank is hauled away to a repair depot with no tracks (due to damage), so at some point back at the depot somebody needed to lay out replacement track and fit it to the repaired tank. If that was just one damaged track, hauled back with the tank and fixed, then it would go on the same way it came off (unless of course BOTH tracks came off). But if for speed of repair they borrowed a track from another dead tank in the junkyard then it could go either way. After all, we're talking about wartime conditions on a fluid front.
Just my thoughts...
srmalloy
Joined: April 15, 2012
KitMaker: 336 posts
Armorama: 298 posts
Posted: Friday, June 06, 2014 - 01:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Thanks to everyone for the input. I have to agree with Bob, I don't see a need where the entire set of tracks would need replacing. Only a few for maintenance or battle damage reasons. And those all depended on how the link pins were installed as to whether or not they would be installed backwards from the other track links.
While it doesn't make a difference for the most part which way a loop of track faces, whether you could have a few links reversed during replacement depends greatly on the track design. With Sherman tracks, for example, the orientation of the track pads depend on which way they're mounted when the links are joined; they can just as easily face either way. The tracks used by most WWII German tanks, on the other hand, only fit together one way -- you can't have most of a track run facing one way and two or three links facing the other; the entire track run could be reversed, but not individual links.
SdAufKla
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts
Posted: Friday, June 06, 2014 - 02:23 AM UTC
Quoted Text
... I have to agree with Bob, I don't see a need where the entire set of tracks would need replacing...
Actually, a set of tank tracks has a predictable total service life that's usually measured in total miles or kilometers. At some point, wear between the moving parts will become too excessive for the crew to adjust track tension by moving the idler wheel or removing links. The tracks and drive sprocket will become worn out. At this point, the tracks and drive sprockets (or their toothed rings) have to be totally replaced.
How many German tanks in WWII lasted longer than the service life of their tracks is debatable, but the fact remains that their tracks would (and did) wear out requiring total replacement.
There's a very good discussion and description of the effects of wear and tear on dry-pin tracks in chapter 4 of "Canada's Pride: The Ram Tank and Its Variants" (p.89+). German tank tracks were very similar in design and materials and one can easily extrapolate the Canadian experience to what the Germans likely encountered with their own tanks.
Total replacement of tank tracks is a common maintenance procedure (as long as the tanks in question last longer than their tracks!).
panzerbob01
Joined: March 06, 2010
KitMaker: 3,128 posts
Armorama: 2,959 posts
Posted: Friday, June 06, 2014 - 03:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text... I have to agree with Bob, I don't see a need where the entire set of tracks would need replacing...
Actually, a set of tank tracks has a predictable total service life that's usually measured in total miles or kilometers. At some point, wear between the moving parts will become too excessive for the crew to adjust track tension by moving the idler wheel or removing links. The tracks and drive sprocket will become worn out. At this point, the tracks and drive sprockets (or their toothed rings) have to be totally replaced.
How many German tanks in WWII lasted longer than the service life of their tracks is debatable, but the fact remains that their tracks would (and did) wear out requiring total replacement.
There's a very good discussion and description of the effects of wear and tear on dry-pin tracks in chapter 4 of "Canada's Pride: The Ram Tank and Its Variants" (p.89+). German tank tracks were very similar in design and materials and one can easily extrapolate the Canadian experience to what the Germans likely encountered with their own tanks.
Total replacement of tank tracks is a common maintenance procedure (as long as the tanks in question last longer than their tracks!).
This seems to have blossomed waaaay beyond what some may have though "likely" as a discussion!
I have to agree with you, Mike, in that tracks did indeed have general service-lives and expectancy. And, at some point, certainly at least earlier in the war when panzers may have lived longer on average and were more likely to have been recovered when broke-down and sent back for overhaul and refurb... whole track sets might have been replaced. Later tanks probably had less opportunity to see a new set of tracks...
But, save for those tiny Pz 1 and perhaps II tanks, whole-set replacement would probably have been a unit service-shop or even rear area shop job. Those whole sets were heavy and took cranes to move around. NOT a job likely done by a tank crew on its own out in the field (though all crew DID know how to pull a new set on and had the tools to do so) without some assist from the shop guys.
Picture a truck with rolls of new track pulling up by the trackless panzer in the ditch... The tankers have called back and requested a new set of tracks as their old shoes have finally just worn out and look like they need replacing - and one side has "conveniently" (sort of) completely shed off the wheels... The truck stops by the panzer and a crowd of guys push a "new" rolled-up track off the back (brings to mind a wisecrack about stuff having "just fallen off the struck somewhere"
) - Thud!And the truck departs with a wave and the shouted message "here you-all go, lads! Have FUN!" .So, I think probably most whole-set replacements of known worn-out sets took place under assisted conditions in shops -NOBODY would casually decide on spur of moment to swap tracks out in the field when one might find need to be able to fight his tank NOW -and the shop guy in charge would more likely have asserted himself and determined the direction of the newly-installed fresh run. This versus the crew having to repair the broken track in the field by splicing in the new links taken off the fender. In all of those latter cases, the track run did not change direction.
I would guess that, as most whole-track replacements occurred in controlled conditions, and likely all OEM installations had tracks running the same way, most tracks on larger tanks probably all ran one way throughout the life of the tank. But there were those special occasions!
Bob
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.