I was just watching a documentary regarding the battle of Kursk and whilst watching archive footage of Tigers and Panthers the thought struck me as to why both tanks (and some halftracks) had their wheels arranged in such a manner
i.e. overlapping.

I read somewhere that this arrangement did cause problems during the cold Russian winters whith mud and ice and that maintainence was a problem , but what are the advantages of using this particular arrangement ???


Thanks Ian

Hey Ian,
If I'm not mistaken, it's to help distribute the weight of the vehicle. The more wheels, the less weight per square inch. Which makes it easier to travel-especially cross country.

Brian nailed it Ian. In theory, and in practice at times a good idea. But it often made for maintenance problems as you alluded to.

Mike

But if its to even out the distrubution whts with the tracks? isnt that what there for? Iam guessing one large wheel that does not overlap would have done the job no?

Frank

Thanks for the info guys , heres somthing else to ponder

Just to add to this , I also watched a documentary on Micheal Whitman and it said that a tactic he employed to get his gun quickly on target was to have his driver slew the whole tank to face the enemy ( as well as rotating the turret ) , does the Tigers wheel arrangement make it less likely of shedding a track in that situation ?



Ian

Any tank that turns on its tracks in the fashion you have described is likely to throw a track, it was not something peculiar to the Tiger/Panther because of the wheel arrangements, even modern tanks/APC's will risk throwing a track if it is turning in place as you describe.

Regards from the Swamp

Hawkeye

I must admit I did raise an eyebrow when the TV programme mentioned this and wondered if he did that only in extreme sitiuations


Ian

Wittmann learned this technique when he was in command of a StuG in Greece, All SP's executed some sort of pivot or neutral steer to get on/or track targets quickly for obvious reasons, limited traverse necessitated the manuever.

I'm not sure if the WWII German medium or heavy tanks were able to do this, but modern tanks are designed to either "pivot steer" or "neutral steer". Pivoting involves the tracks working in opposite directions to pivot the tank on its axis. Neutral steer will lock one and roll the other, acheiving sort of the same effect. In the M1-shifting to N (neutral) will lock one track, depending on which way the T-bar is moved, shifting into "pivot" (below Neutral) automatically raises RPM and will work the tracks in opposite to acheive a pretty fast pivot. Even with modern hydraulics for the turret, it is still faster to bring the gun to bear than slewing the turret around. It is not true that this will automatically throw track. If you attempt the manuever in loose rocky soil, you might indeed throw one or both, but when executed on firm ground, with proper track tension applied, it is a routine manuever that is done all the time. (particularly useful for parking tanks in tight spots).

Steve

Hi Frank:
The tracks assisted with propulsion. Imagine if a tank had only four very large roadwheels. All of the tank's weight would fall on those four points of contact of the wheels to the tracks to the ground. The area of ground beneath would be subject to aproximately 1/4 the weight of the tank. This area would be rather small and therefore the pressure would be inordinately high.

Now imagine the same tank with 12 wheels on each track. Each wheel would transfer less weight onto its particular area of track. The ground beneath the wheel, beneath the track would therefore absorb less pressure.

Remember, the tracks were flexible. It's not as if the tank wheels were resting on two timbers. Timbers would be solid and therefore distribute the weight across the entire length, regardless of the number of roadwheels. Not so with tank tracks.