[MV] Panthers and Tigers, why are their tracks loose

I have wondered something for a while. I have noticed all the pictures I
have seen of both Tiger tanks and Panthers show the upper track not touching
the road wheels. I operate tracked things daily and have wondered how the
tracks stay on so loose. It would appear when the vehicle is moving forward
the track would tighten on the top and get loose on the bottom and therefore
could be thrown off easily. These tanks were believed to be among the
best, so they can't be as undependable as I am assuming, so I must be wrong.

Does anyone out there know what gives. I am always aware of track tension
when I see a tracked vehicle and these tanks are the only things I have ever
notices with such a loose design.

Thanks,
Joe Trapp



===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>

At 1:58 PM -0400 6/20/04, GOTaM35 wrote:[color=blue]
>I have wondered something for a while. I have noticed all the pictures I
>have seen of both Tiger tanks and Panthers show the upper track not touching
>the road wheels. I operate tracked things daily and have wondered how the
>tracks stay on so loose. It would appear when the vehicle is moving forward
>the track would tighten on the top and get loose on the bottom and therefore
>could be thrown off easily. These tanks were believed to be among the
>best, so they can't be as undependable as I am assuming, so I must be wrong.[/color]

first off tight vs loose top tracks will depend
on a front or rear drive sprocket. These both
have a front drive sprocket which means that the
top returning track will be tight.


--
--
Ryan Gill [email]rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com[/email]
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | -==----
| O--=- | | /_8[*]°_\
|_/|o|_\_| | _________ | /_[===]_\
/ 00DA61 \ |/---------\| __/ \---
_w/|=_[__]_= \w_ // [_] o[]\\ _oO_\ /_O|_
|: O(4) == O :| _Oo\=======/_O_ |____\ /____|
|---\________/---| [__O_______W__] |x||_\ /_||x|
|s|\ /|s| |s|/BSV 575\|s| |x|-\| |/-|x|
|s|=\______/=|s| |s|=|_____|=|s| |x|--|_____|--|x|
|s| |s| |s| |s| |x| |x|
'60 Daimler Ferret '42 Daimler Dingo '42 Humber MkIV (1/3)
----------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>

I would guess the weight would have something to do with it
----- Original Message -----
From: "GOTaM35" <GOTaM35@joetrapp.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 1:58 PM
Subject: [MV] Panthers and Tigers, why are their tracks loose

[color=blue]
> I have wondered something for a while. I have noticed all the pictures I
> have seen of both Tiger tanks and Panthers show the upper track not[/color]
touching[color=blue]
> the road wheels. I operate tracked things daily and have wondered how the
> tracks stay on so loose. It would appear when the vehicle is moving[/color]
forward[color=blue]
> the track would tighten on the top and get loose on the bottom and[/color]
therefore[color=blue]
> could be thrown off easily. These tanks were believed to be among the
> best, so they can't be as undependable as I am assuming, so I must be[/color]
wrong.[color=blue]
>
> Does anyone out there know what gives. I am always aware of track tension
> when I see a tracked vehicle and these tanks are the only things I have[/color]
ever[color=blue]
> notices with such a loose design.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe Trapp
>
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>[/color]



===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>

At 6:52 PM -0400 6/20/04, Bobby Joe Pendleton wrote:[color=blue]
>I would guess the weight would have something to do with it[/color]

There are several light armored vehicles in the
US inventory that have front drive sprockets that
have loose tracks that run on the tops of the
main wheels.
--
--
Ryan Gill [email]rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com[/email]
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | -==----
| O--=- | | /_8[*]°_\
|_/|o|_\_| | _________ | /_[===]_\
/ 00DA61 \ |/---------\| __/ \---
_w/|=_[__]_= \w_ // [_] o[]\\ _oO_\ /_O|_
|: O(4) == O :| _Oo\=======/_O_ |____\ /____|
|---\________/---| [__O_______W__] |x||_\ /_||x|
|s|\ /|s| |s|/BSV 575\|s| |x|-\| |/-|x|
|s|=\______/=|s| |s|=|_____|=|s| |x|--|_____|--|x|
|s| |s| |s| |s| |x| |x|
'60 Daimler Ferret '42 Daimler Dingo '42 Humber MkIV (1/3)
----------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>

It's called "dead" track, versus "live" track. Check out any American made
bulldozer if you want to see examples.

There are lots of arguments pro and con for dead versus live track. America
has pretty much went with live track. Our commie friends pretty much went
with dead track.

Short of a dissertation from the Armor School, there are pros and cons for
both.

Doc

-----Original Message-----
From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org] On Behalf
Of GOTaM35
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 13:59
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
Subject: [MV] Panthers and Tigers, why are their tracks loose

I have wondered something for a while. I have noticed all the pictures I
have seen of both Tiger tanks and Panthers show the upper track not touching
the road wheels. I operate tracked things daily and have wondered how the
tracks stay on so loose. It would appear when the vehicle is moving forward
the track would tighten on the top and get loose on the bottom and therefore
could be thrown off easily. These tanks were believed to be among the
best, so they can't be as undependable as I am assuming, so I must be wrong.

Does anyone out there know what gives. I am always aware of track tension
when I see a tracked vehicle and these tanks are the only things I have ever
notices with such a loose design.

Thanks,
Joe Trapp



===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>


===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>

Hi Joe,

I've probably seen thousands of pictures of WWII vehicles in various
states of use on all fronts. I would say that although it is common to
see the track tensions looser than one would expect, that was not always
the case. I too have wondered how the crews could get away with the
tracks being loose, when on other vehicles the tracks would surely slip
or get thrown. Here are some theories...

1. The tracks on vehicles based on Panther, Tiger, or King Tiger models
were very heavy. This would make it difficult to keep the tracks tight,
especially because these models did not have return wheels like earlier
German tanks (and of course tracked vehicles of other nations).

2. Because the tracks were so darned heavy, wide, and long it would
appear that tightness was not as important because the weight of the
track kept adequate feed on the sprockets. A lighter track would, on the
other hand, have a tendency to jump.

3. These vehicles were used HARD and were not the easiest beasts to deal
with. Therefore track tension was likely somewhat sloppy on most
vehicles most of the time. As you well know from your tracked vehicle
experiences, track tension is not something that likes to stay adjusted.

It is also interesting to note that the heavy AFVs of the Soviet Union
also had very loose tracks more often than not. Even when return wheels
were present. The ISU series is probably the easiest to see this on. I
could be wrong but I also think I've noted this on the US Pershing tanks
used at the end of WWII and during Korea.

Anyway, just some food for thought!

Steve
[color=blue]
>I have wondered something for a while. I have noticed all the pictures I
>have seen of both Tiger tanks and Panthers show the upper track not touching
>the road wheels. I operate tracked things daily and have wondered how the
>tracks stay on so loose. It would appear when the vehicle is moving forward
>the track would tighten on the top and get loose on the bottom and therefore
>could be thrown off easily. These tanks were believed to be among the
>best, so they can't be as undependable as I am assuming, so I must be wrong.
>
>Does anyone out there know what gives. I am always aware of track tension
>when I see a tracked vehicle and these tanks are the only things I have ever
>notices with such a loose design.
>
>Thanks,
>Joe Trapp
>
>
>
>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
>To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>[/color]



===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>

I agree with Doc about his "dead" or "live" track assessment.
For those of you who don't know what he's talking about, imagine taking a
track off the vehicle and laying it out on the ground. A dead track will
lay flat on the ground its full length because the connections between the
links are plain bushings which allow the links to rotate freely between one
another. On a live track , the ends of the track will rise off the ground
because the link pins are embedded in rubber at a specific angle so that
adjacent links are at an angle to one another in their relaxed position.
Due to the resilient nature of the rubber connection, the links can flex
enough to go around the drive and idle wheels.
It seems to me that dead tracks would be fine for a bulldozer, but if you're
looking for a high speed vehicle in the 35 to 70 mph range then live track
would be preferable. Also less noise and bushing maintenance.
So there's my two bits worth on the subject.

Ken

[color=blue]
> It's called "dead" track, versus "live" track. Check out any American[/color]
made[color=blue]
> bulldozer if you want to see examples.
>
> There are lots of arguments pro and con for dead versus live track.[/color]
America[color=blue]
> has pretty much went with live track. Our commie friends pretty much went
> with dead track.
>
> Short of a dissertation from the Armor School, there are pros and cons for
> both.
>
> Doc[/color]


===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>