Tracked vehicle attrition

[Mohoender]

I think we already develloped that subject but as I grow old, my memory is not as good. No kidding, I'm just overworked :D

Anyway, I found an interesting element today while reading a military magazine edited by a friend. France recently withdrew the Leclerc tank and AMX-10P IFV it had deployed with the FINUL in Lebanon. It appeared that, on the average, the track shoes had to be changed every 3 weeks.

As a result, the VBCI have replaced both of these vehicles while the Ceasar artillery system has replaced the AU-F1. VAB, however, remain in operation.

I would expect tracked vehicle in T2K to be really rare with them mostly available to units in cantonments (as in Krakow). Salvaged tracks could be found of course but with time they would become increasingly rare.

Tires last longer (much longer) and can be replaced more easily while damaged/used tires can be reworked more easily (poisoning people in the process but who would be caring about that in T2K?).

Your thoughts.:)

[95th Rifleman]

Past 2000 I'd expect tanks to be used as dug in bunkers in all honesty. It's not just tracks, but enines need allot od maintenance. The American M1 is a bitch to maintain, it's engine is essentialy a gas turbine and has perhaps the worst mileage of any military vehicle without wings.

With fuel and parts becoming scarce I'd imagine more effort would be put into smaller, easier to maintain vehicles while the big warhorses would form fixed defensive positions.

[TiggerCCW UK]

I would be inclined to agree that most tanks will become pill boxes, but I reckon the odd one here and there will be kept mobile as a 'secret weapon' for emergencies.

[bobcat]

I reckon the odd one here and there will be kept mobile as a 'secret weapon' for emergencies.

hey thats supposed to be a secret.:D

but yeah i'd expect to see more smaller lighter vehicles. heck once tanks start exiting the picture for the most part ATVs and technicals could fill in a lot of gaps in the lines sufficiently

[Panther Al]

I rather doubt ATV's and Technical's will take on the role of tanks, or even any kind of fighting vehicle. Just too fragile. When even light small arms can eat up one of those with ease, and lets face it, with 4, 5 years of attrition the ratio of automatic weapons to troops is going to be well into the stratosphere, which means there will be far too much lead being sprayed about to let them do anything.

Now, you want to slap some armour on a truck, ala uparmoured humvee or something, maybe then. But a lot of the load capacity will be used by armour, which means less firepower and with the extra weight, more time spent up on blocks due to breakdowns.

[Legbreaker]

Anyone know if the turbine of an M1 could be ripped out and replaced with a conventional diesel?
I know that you wouldn't get anywhere near the same speed, etc, but if it saves fuel and keeps some amount of mobility.....

[Tegyrius]

Anyone know if the turbine of an M1 could be ripped out and replaced with a conventional diesel?

Any engineering problem is solvable with a hammer of sufficient size. :) The Ukrainians did it with the T-80UD, which is a diesel variant of the turbine-powered T-80.

Would a transmission replacement also be necessary?

- C.

[Legbreaker]

The next question is just how big would said engine need to be to give say 80%+ of the performance of the turbine? Would it be possible to shoehorn such a beast into the available space?
Would it even be worth it if the turbine still worked?

[Panther Al]

Anyone know if the turbine of an M1 could be ripped out and replaced with a conventional diesel?
I know that you wouldn't get anywhere near the same speed, etc, but if it saves fuel and keeps some amount of mobility.....

The answer is:


Actually quite easy relatively speaking. MTU has a repower package that shoehorns a 1500hp diesel into the bay with a minimal reworking done to the engine bay. Keeps most of the fuel load, and massive increase in fuel savings. They also have a 1650 from what I understand that is a little more complex, and cuts the fuel load by 30%, but... still.

The downsides is that the M1's agility is seriously compromised. The weight of both diesels are much higher than the turbine (Remember, a third of the engine compartment is actually empty space for the intake.) and it doesn't give the tank the massive power on demand that a turbine does, so accel is way down.

People don't understand, but the M1 isn't a great rough terrain tank: A Merkava going cross country will actually leave a M1 in its dust due to its suspension having a higher bounce than the M1's - almost triple the range of travel.

[Legbreaker]

Ah, good. I can see that as the war drags on and fuel becomes a major concern (as early as Christmas 1997) the turbines are likely to be removed and replaced with 1500's. Initially perhaps as just a temporary measure while the turbines undergo major service, but as more and more turbines become unrepairable, and fuel consumption grows into a critical issue....

Perhaps a Division would maintain a supply of a dozen turbines in their stores for "just in case fuel supply improves" or they are sent on an offensive. As most modern vehicles have relatively easily changeable power packs, changing over a dozen tanks may well take less than a day for one engineering crew to accomplish.

Obviously this isn't something that would be done ordinarily, but since when was anything about T2K ordinary?

Gives a GM (and players to some extent) more options for keeping the tanks on the field for longer.

[Panther Al]

Don't get me wrong: this isn't a field swap, from what I understand its a 40 level (depot) operation.

And also: In the next 5 to 10 years all M1's are going to have to have it done in the real world. Why?

Things to note:
All engines, especially high stress types like Turbines can only run so long before needing a rebuild.

Every time you rebuild one, the hours till it needs another is less than before.

We haven't made a new Turbine for the M1 in almost a decade - even the new tanks going to Australia and Iraq are going out with (admittedly very good) rebuilt engines.

Something to consider: Back when my old 1SG was a buck Sgt, he said that to swap a M1 engine was a call a Spec4 could make at anytime without a second thought. In 05, in order to swap out a engine required the approval of the Motor Pool CWO. Says something about the engine supply situation doesn't it?

[Legbreaker]

Yes, I can see it's not something that would be done lightly and would only occur with at least several days notice and planning (those tanks aren't going to be very useful while it's happening).
Once swapped, I imagine the engine would remain the same for months (or longer) before the need to swap back came along.
I see it a little like fitting your car with Nitrous - you're not going to need it on a daily basis, but it's damn good to know it's there as an option. Of course flicking a switch to kick in the gas is a little easier than swapping out a whole engine...

[dragoon500ly]

Any engineering problem is solvable with a hammer of sufficient size. :) The Ukrainians did it with the T-80UD, which is a diesel variant of the turbine-powered T-80.

Would a transmission replacement also be necessary?

- C.

Certainly a bigger hammer tends to fix most things on a tank!

But replacing the power pack on any modern tank is going to be a major engineering challenge. The engine and transmission normally comes in one unit. Most battalion maintenance sections do have the expertise and tooling to break packs apart so that the engine could be used on one vehicle and the trannie on another. The key problem will be adapting a engine to not only fit the trannie, but fit into the remaining space in the engine compartment.

On of the key problems with the M-1 design process was getting a small enough engine that developed the horsepower needed to move a dang heavy vehicle at high speed. Virtually every diesel engine in production or under development was tested and simply created more problems with weight, volume, fuel consumption and maintenance access. The turbine engine, in spite of its high fuel requirements was chosen because it met or exceeded the requirements.

Its a measure of note, that in spite of of its long life time, in spite of repeated requests to develop a diesel engine replacement, the M-1 is still rolling on, powered by the same turbine engine that it started out with.

When ever the discussion turns to replaceing engines, armament and fire control systems on tanks springs up, I am reminded of a quote by Major General John G. Willis who, in the 1980s, was the British Army's Director of Vehicle Procurement. He was often frustrated by the inability of his political bosses to understand how very difficult it is to design and build a tank. After one memorable session in which a politican had leveled the charge "After all, the tank is a simple tin box." General Willis replied, "Yes, you're absolutely right that a tank is indeed a simple tin box. Unfortunately it is a simple tin box that most move across country. To move across country, it requires an engine of the highest possible power density you can get and is therefore putting out a lot of heat. What do you do if you wrap the engine in a box and therefore make your cooling problem even worse than it was before? You start putting thermal stresses on this engine that no engine should be subjected to."

"What is more, you then put a gearbox behind it. You ask that gearbox that it not only give you a range of gears in forward and reverse but also act as a steering mechanism. Furthermore, you demand of that gearbox that the power you do not require for the outside track when you are turning is delivered to the inside track so you do not waste any power. You produce a gearbox the like of which has no civilian application whatsoever."

"You wish this vehiclle to move across country at a reasonable speed and therefore have to supply it with a suspension and tracks which must be capable of withstanding the shocks of cross-country travel but not so heavy as to totally nullify the whole thing. This box must also carry fuel which is highly volatile. And so on and so forth. And you end up by putting in it human beings, without whose presence the vehicle would be a total nonevent, but who, of all the elements within that weapons system, are probably the most vulnerable."

"So yes, the tank is a very simple tin box."

"The trade-offs are infinitely more difficult to achieve than in an aircraft. People say to me that perhaps weight doesn't mean very much in a tank. It is crucial....crucial!"

That's the problem in a nutshell.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Something else strikes me as important to Mohoender's original post. Perhaps part of the reason the French tracked vehicles got such a low track time was because they were designed for European fields and roads.

Panther Al mentioned that the M1 isn't a great rough terrain tank particularly compared to a Merkava. I wonder how much track time a Merkava gets considering it is operating in the region it is designed for (unlike the French vehicles, designed for Europe but working in the more demanding conditions of Lebanon)

[95th Rifleman]

Something else strikes me as important to Mohoender's original post. Perhaps part of the reason the French tracked vehicles got such a low track time was because they were designed for European fields and roads.

Panther Al mentioned that the M1 isn't a great rough terrain tank particularly compared to a Merkava. I wonder how much track time a Merkava gets considering it is operating in the region it is designed for (unlike the French vehicles, designed for Europe but working in the more demanding conditions of Lebanon)

Not so sure about that, the UAE uses the Leclerc and they don't seem to have too much in the way of enviromental issues.

[dragoon500ly]

When the M1 first came out, we had mostly rubber chevron tracks (1980s), life span in Europe was roughly 2,500 kilometers before replacement.

By the time of Desert Storm, the M1 had switched to mostly metal with rubber replacement pads. Estimated track life for the metal portion was 4,000 kilometers with the replacement pads having to be replaced roughly every 1,800 kilometers.

After the Merkava was introduced, an Israeli colonel on exchange duties claimed that the track was good for 5,000 kilometers. I would take that figure with a large bag of salt as the Israelis are famous for being "tight" with reliable info!

Now the figures I quoted are for European service! In rough, rocky terrain, track life is roughly halved.

[Mohoender]

Not so sure about that, the UAE uses the Leclerc and they don't seem to have too much in the way of enviromental issues.

Actually the Leclerc sold to the UAE are quite different from the French ones. Still, conditions in Lebanon are in no way conditions in UAE.

Stainlesscynic has a point and I should have recall that the German had tracks problem in USSR and not only in winter.

That must make things even more complicated as the need for mechanical replacements are more common on tracked vehicles than on wheeled ones. As someone said, with time most tanks will be turned into pillboxes.

[Mohoender]

Now the figures I quoted are for European service! In rough, rocky terrain, track life is roughly halved.

Really interresting figures. Then, IMO it will effectively render tracked vehicles in T2K useless outside of the local level where a commander can gather sufficient technical supports. I'm thinking that because the lack of available spare parts will make necessary to maintain some type of repair shop.

Could be interesting to look at the haganah in 1948 or at what has happened in Africa over the years. With time, I would expect to find a larger number of hybrid vehicles in the ranks of most armies.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Not so sure about that, the UAE uses the Leclerc and they don't seem to have too much in the way of enviromental issues.
Interesting, I'd wager that the UAE doesn't have as much hard ground surface as Lebanon though

When the M1 first came out, we had mostly rubber chevron tracks (1980s), life span in Europe was roughly 2,500 kilometers before replacement.

By the time of Desert Storm, the M1 had switched to mostly metal with rubber replacement pads. Estimated track life for the metal portion was 4,000 kilometers with the replacement pads having to be replaced roughly every 1,800 kilometers.

After the Merkava was introduced, an Israeli colonel on exchange duties claimed that the track was good for 5,000 kilometers. I would take that figure with a large bag of salt as the Israelis are famous for being "tight" with reliable info!

Now the figures I quoted are for European service! In rough, rocky terrain, track life is roughly halved.
That was kind of my train of thought, the harder rocky terrain of Lebanon would probably chew through the tracks much quicker than if they were running on soil or sand.
As a point of interest, the Merkava originally made use of the tracks from the Centurion and I believe that later track types evolved along with the tank itself.
Not too surprising as the prototype for the Merkava was little more than a Centurion with the turret placed to the hull front and the whole vehicle turned around so that the engine was now the front!

http://www.davidpride.com/Israeli_Armor/images/IL_Armor_08_183.jpg
Merkava prototype, Yad la-Shiryon Museum, Latrun, Israel

[Panther Al]

Track service life on the Merkava is a good bit longer than most other tracks in the west due to the fact that our track was designed with the idea that it would spend enough time on pavement that the rubber pads are needed to avoid destroying the roads upon which they run on. Now in Europe, this isn't a bad point- the road net is so huge that its actually pretty reasonable that a tank would spend more than half its time on some sort of pavement. Now the Merkava's tracks (And soviet style ones as well to a point) are designed to spend all its life running over rocks: All steel. A lot more durable than the soviet all steel tracks, but they both are designed to take massive amounts of abuse compared to the "softer" rubber padded tracks we use. The doesn side to all steel is that as mentioned, they destroy roads. Also, the ride of the tracks are a lot rougher. But when the ground you are crossing is already rough, it really isn't noticeable.


In regards to the points Dragoon500ly made, he is right: Deciding tomorrow to reengine a tank is far from easy: in the case I mentioned, MTU already did all the work and engineering to make it possible with relatively little pain. Diesel engines have some a long way in the almost 40 years the M1 has been bouncing around (including prototype stage).

[dragoon500ly]

Don't forget, when we discuss replacing the M-1s turbine, in the twilight war time frame, there is no diesel engine capable of doing the job as well as the turbine.

So breaking the pack apart and slapping the trannie onto a diesel and then rigging it to fit isn't even an option, IMO.

Any diesel engine was still in the test stand stage, virtually hand made and almost totally lacking in spare parts.

Came across this little tidbit in a M-60 maintenance manual...the T142 track (replaceable rubber pads) can also be used without the pads, the requirement was that this was only to be considered when the vehicle was to be used solely cross-country.

[Olefin]

Saw this old thread - keep in mind guys that the M1 engine will do just fine a large variety of fuels.

My boss was an M1 commander in the Gulf War and as a reservist drove them again in 2003-2004 - and as he said you can keep it going on just about anything

it will run very well on any aviation gas, jet fuel (various types), gasoline ranging down to as little as 70 octane, diesel, even bio fuels and cooking oils

you have to clean out the filters more but it will work

the tracks are a different story - but keep in mind that Europe by now would be literally littered with dead M1's that they can salvage tracks and track shoes from - and with the reduced operational tempos they may be fine for years

the people who will have problems will be guys like me (I rolled an M1A1 tank) who take them cross country all over Poland - found track shoes and parts in Krakow (where else after all would have them?) but cost a lot

[kcdusk]

Reading all through this thread, I'm thinking:

1. could an average soldier replace treads? Would he have the tools & technical know-how? Could an average soldier even drive a tank?

2. we keep forgetting most of the T2K combatants are likely to be civilians. Some will be ya-hoos thinking they can claim abandoned army gear, riding around in army vehicles they can drive (jeeps, humvees, i wouldnt imagine a civvy could work out anything more ... even "simple" ATVs like a couger or Grizzly?). Most civilians will stick to what they know, maybe a .22 rifle. But who's going to try and start a tank? Point being even if a brand new tank was available or spares in abundance, i dont think civvys (or normal soldiers) would have the tools or technical knowhow to do the job.

[Sanjuro]

When I first read Olefin's (I rolled an M1A1 tank) I thought, AWESOME! Then I read the post properly and was a little disappointed, but thanks for the image anyway...:cool:

[Targan]

Reading all through this thread, I'm thinking:

1. could an average soldier replace treads? Would he have the tools & technical know-how? Could an average soldier even drive a tank?

2. we keep forgetting most of the T2K combatants are likely to be civilians. Some will be ya-hoos thinking they can claim abandoned army gear, riding around in army vehicles they can drive (jeeps, humvees, i wouldnt imagine a civvy could work out anything more ... even "simple" ATVs like a couger or Grizzly?). Most civilians will stick to what they know, maybe a .22 rifle. But who's going to try and start a tank? Point being even if a brand new tank was available or spares in abundance, i dont think civvys (or normal soldiers) would have the tools or technical knowhow to do the job.

Good points. You only need to find one guy with the right knowledge though, and he can train others. A lack of tools would be a major problem, I agree.

[Adm.Lee]

I agree with the above, if one is speaking of civilians finding an abandoned tank in the woods. But a military unit's got to have contact with at least one oother unit with still-kicking treadheads and their mechanics, and they've likely got a building full of whatever they could strip off of their own derelicts.

[Olefin]

the M1 tank is very easy to drive - take it from me (or you can watch the BBC and see it for yourself)

replacing treads is a different issue - but with the right TM and at least one guy who is trained how to do it and who can teach it can be done

oh and I havent rolled an M1 tank personally - but I have seen the results of it being done (saw a briefing a year ago about how an M1 in Iraq got retrieved after it flipped off a bridge because of a driver who was going way too fast - took two M88A2's to get her out of the river)

[Webstral]

If memory serves, them Iraqi rivers are all yummy.

[kiltedguard]

1. could an average soldier replace treads? Would he have the tools & technical know-how? Could an average soldier even drive a tank?

2. we keep forgetting most of the T2K combatants are likely to be civilians. Some will be ya-hoos thinking they can claim abandoned army gear, riding around in army vehicles they can drive (jeeps, humvees, i wouldnt imagine a civvy could work out anything more ... even "simple" ATVs like a couger or Grizzly?). Most civilians will stick to what they know, maybe a .22 rifle. But who's going to try and start a tank? Point being even if a brand new tank was available or spares in abundance, i dont think civvys (or normal soldiers) would have the tools or technical knowhow to do the job.

Yes and no. The average person, once they figured out how to start it...could learn to drive it in very short order. Replacing track pads is a fairly easy task that can be accomplished with a socket wretch, gun oil and a standard screwdriver.

On the other hand, popping the link-pin out of a set of tracks is what we like to refer to as "Breaking Track", and is universally accepted to be on of the most horrific experiences the first time you have to do it. (And only mildly better subsequent times.) The sheer weight of each track section makes a repair like that EXCEPTIONALLY DIFFICULT (I won't say impossible) to do alone. It requires tools to maintain track tension...and well...it's not fun with a whole crew. Yer looking at a timeframe of about 4-6 hours to do that in the field with field tools. The mechanics at the support BN could probably bang it out in about a hour or two change using their equipment and their experience doing it fairly often.

[Olefin]

Nice to see someone who has actually done it - seen it myself here at the plant in York.

And you are right about how much fun it would be in the field - it can be done - but it would be a lot easier if you had an M88 along for the ride with your M1 or Bradley when the time came.

[kiltedguard]

Nice to see someone who has actually done it - seen it myself here at the plant in York.

And you are right about how much fun it would be in the field - it can be done - but it would be a lot easier if you had an M88 along for the ride with your M1 or Bradley when the time came.

It would be a heroic task for a single person to do with an M1...easier with a Bradley. It's the sheer wieght of the M1 track sections. An 88 and a contact team would make it SOOOO much eaier and quicker.

[Olefin]

It would be a heroic task for a single person to do with an M1...easier with a Bradley. It's the sheer wieght of the M1 track sections. An 88 and a contact team would make it SOOOO much eaier and quicker.

AMEN BROTHER

Breaking track in the field, in a Twilight 2000 scenario, would be a load of fun - especially since you would be screwed if you had to suddenly try to put it back together if you get visited by marauders

[kiltedguard]

AMEN BROTHER

Breaking track in the field, in a Twilight 2000 scenario, would be a load of fun - especially since you would be screwed if you had to suddenly try to put it back together if you get visited by marauders

And that is EXACTLY when they would show up because GM's are horrible evil creatures.

[Olefin]

be a great way to build tension even if they didnt show up - and possibly have the guy doing it screw up and injure himself in the process

"the sudden noise made you jump and injure yourself badly"

or even more fun - you are finally getting the track back together when you hear the gunner yell "tank, tank, tank"

[kiltedguard]

be a great way to build tension even if they didnt show up - and possibly have the guy doing it screw up and injure himself in the process

"the sudden noise made you jump and injure yourself badly"

or even more fun - you are finally getting the track back together when you hear the gunner yell "tank, tank, tank"

That's not unrealistic. If you were to "throw track", that is if the track were to slip off the sprocket, you could slip it back on if it hadn't slipped too far off. This requires a large steel bar referred to as a "rooster bar" or tanker/track bar. It's a lot like putting the chain back on your bicycle. Just will a massive machine that can crush you. It is very easy to get hurt doing it and is usually a result of poor maintenance or bad track tension.

[Webstral]

I do not miss breaking track. I never worked on an M1. My track was an M577. This was arduous enough. I can only imagine what a bear of a task breaking and replacing track for an M1 must be.

[kiltedguard]

Overall I would say that there are some tanks that are easy enough to keep functioning, but the wear and tear of using them would be primary on the minds of those shepherding that resource. M1's wouldn't last long in an austere environment with no direct support. That is the one thing that the Russians had in their favor. Lots of the same type of vehicle...as opposed to NATO which had many different MBT's ect.

I would think Eastern Block tracked vehicles would be easier to keep running. To see a running M1 would be both a frightening and unusual experience in T2K. The commander would have needed to be thinking ahead and almost have his own maintenance crew and have stripped other vehicles prior to moving out. I'm not saying it wasn't done in numbers, and to a degree...farther back from the front lines, that might be possible.

[Adm.Lee]

This is all sounding like something I've been thinking. Each one of those armored brigades or divisions in 2000 would have a near-full-strength maintenance battalion following those armored monsters around. Further reason to concentrate them as much as possible. We're talking about fuel trucks, parts trucks, scavenging crews and machine shops to make everything needed. An armored formation might leap forward 50km in a day, but then it's gonna sit for a while.

[Panther Al]

I do not miss breaking track. I never worked on an M1. My track was an M577. This was arduous enough. I can only imagine what a bear of a task breaking and replacing track for an M1 must be.

One of the great things about being in the Heavy Cav, is that I have had the chance to break track on M1's, 88's, M2's, 113's, and the 577's. I can't believe how easy it was to break track on the 113 style tracks compared to the M1's. The M1 is a beast. Now, its not exactly hard: Put the track jacks on either side of the track so it straddles the block you are breaking. Then, unbolt the centre guides and the ends. Now, grab the burliest, strongest, SOB you got, and the biggest sledge you can steal. And pound the ever-loving crap until the ends pop off. Once that is down, grab your tankers bar, another two or three guys, and very very very carefully loosen the jacks and lower the track to the ground... oh, yeah.. make sure you advance the track so the break is between the idler and the first road wheel before you start. Remember, each of those blocks are 80 pounds, and odds are you got 4 or 5 hanging in the air you gotta hold up...



Yeah.

Give me 113 track any day. Heck, I'd take Brad track!

[Webstral]

make sure you advance the track so the break is between the idler and the first road wheel before you start.

The very first time I helped break track, we failed to do that. I was new, so I didn't dare voice my feeling that were doing something wrong by breaking the track in the middle of the row of road wheels. It seemed very, very hard to do it there. I figured if there was a better place to break track, surely the more senior guys in the unit would know. Right? Little did I know that the other guys also were almost as new to heavy engineering as I was. We broke track, then backed the vehicle off the track. To make a long story short, the maintenance guys eventually showed up, along with the battalion XO. Bad juju, man.

[Panther Al]

The very first time I helped break track, we failed to do that. I was new, so I didn't dare voice my feeling that were doing something wrong by breaking the track in the middle of the row of road wheels. It seemed very, very hard to do it there. I figured if there was a better place to break track, surely the more senior guys in the unit would know. Right? Little did I know that the other guys also were almost as new to heavy engineering as I was. We broke track, then backed the vehicle off the track. To make a long story short, the maintenance guys eventually showed up, along with the battalion XO. Bad juju, man.

Yeah... sometimes you have no choice, but... man. That blows having to do it there.


Then again, you could be a smartass, not that I was, there is no witnesses saying I was at any rate, and pull the track pins on both sides of a brad's track just past the #1 road wheel...


Heheh...

[Webstral]

Yeah... sometimes you have no choice, but... man. That blows having to do it there.

I don’t think we had to. That’s the problem. We just did it the hard way for no good reason.

Then again, you could be a smartass, not that I was, there is no witnesses saying I was at any rate, and pull the track pins on both sides of a brad's track just past the #1 road wheel...

I forgot where the sprocket wheel on an M2 is, so I had to go find an image. I see there are sprockets on the forward set. I can’t find an image that gives me a good look at the rear to see if there is a sprocket wheel back there, too. Not likely, I guess. Given that the forward sprocket wheel can drive the track, did the driver of the vehicle roll forward until the loose end went over the return rollers and came off the sprocket wheel, flopping to the ground in front of the #1 road wheel and leaving twin strips of track lying forlornly behind an IFV no longer capable of moving itself? If so, that’s just messed up.

[kiltedguard]

Yeah... sometimes you have no choice, but... man. That blows having to do it there.


Then again, you could be a smartass, not that I was, there is no witnesses saying I was at any rate, and pull the track pins on both sides of a brad's track just past the #1 road wheel...


Heheh...

Youuuuuuu rat bastard....

[Panther Al]

Hey! They deserved it! Even the 1SG said as much - saying when he was looking right at *me* that the perps would be punished hard - and then never could find the perp in question.


A few weeks before, on the day before an IG inspection, the crew of said Brad decided that the 66 Track would be better off stuffed to the gills with styrofoam peanuts - applied stealthily the previous weekend. You have no idea how hard, and how many hours spent over the day and night before the inspection it took to get the tank strac again.


If they did this the following weekend? OK, funny, minor gag in retaliation. *Just* before an IG inspection? Nuclear Retaliation Alpha Strike.

[kiltedguard]

You and your crew were terrible people. I have NEVER done such a deplorable thing to my fellow soldiers... *Looks around innocently*:rolleyes:

[Targan]

That's not unrealistic. If you were to "throw track", that is if the track were to slip off the sprocket, you could slip it back on if it hadn't slipped too far off. This requires a large steel bar referred to as a "rooster bar" or tanker/track bar. It's a lot like putting the chain back on your bicycle. Just will a massive machine that can crush you. It is very easy to get hurt doing it and is usually a result of poor maintenance or bad track tension.

That sounds a bit like the perils of owning your own dragon. It's a beast of war so awesomely destructive that it will even sometimes accidentally kill its owner, and not even require it's breath weapon main armament to do it. It just mis-stepped, critically chipped a toe claw and the ricochet decapitated it's rider.

[pmulcahy11b]

I do not miss breaking track. I never worked on an M1. My track was an M577. This was arduous enough. I can only imagine what a bear of a task breaking and replacing track for an M1 must be.

Last time I broke track on a 577, it was because we had to change all the track pads on both sides for the whole TAC. Just a long, labor-intensive activity...we started with an air gun for the track pad bolts, but it gave up and had a meltdown before we finished the first track...after that, it was the misery of tightening bolts with breaker bars on a hot day and an activity that stretched well into the night...the TAC had four 577s and two 113s...:(

[kiltedguard]

Ironically enough, my current character I'm playing with (well...just started) was a team leader on one of the combat service support teams sent forward to cannibalize equipment and bring parts back. His team got jumped, he got separated...