Average specific ground pressure is an indicator that shows little

81
Average specific ground pressure is an indicator that shows little

In the course of studying the characteristics of this or that tank in various publications, including specialized technical literature, it is almost guaranteed that you will find a line with an indicator of average specific ground pressure, usually expressed in kilograms per square centimeter. It is generally accepted that the value of this parameter allows you to clearly judge the cross-country ability of a combat vehicle on soils with low bearing capacity. But is this really so?

Instead of an introduction


Generally speaking, a tank's cross-country ability is one of its most important parameters. Most important because even the most powerful armament of a combat vehicle, its electronics and armor are of absolutely no significance if it gets stuck in some black soil or marshy ground, before reaching the enemy and, accordingly, without realizing its capabilities in combat conditions.



But what influences this indicator?

In fact, a lot, from the design of the track drive to even the specific width of the tank hull if its bottom is on the ground. However, it is often the average pressure that is perceived as a kind of universal measure by which one can accurately assess the cross-country ability of equipment and, as is fashionable now, distribute it into categories in the style of: "this tank is lighter, so it will go everywhere, and the one that is heavier will get stuck at any convenient opportunity and is not suitable for war."

Well, we won't deny it, average specific pressure is indeed used, including in design calculations when developing combat equipment and its upgrade options. Only this value is in fact terribly conditional - akin to the average temperature in a hospital - and can only give a very distant idea of ​​the cross-country ability of a conventional tank. In most cases, so distant that it does not coincide with practice almost completely.

Discrepancy between calculations and practice


This discrepancy is due to the fact that the average specific ground pressure is calculated using a very simple formula: the tank mass is taken and divided by the support area of ​​the tracks - there are no additional inputs. As a result, at the output we have a value that is valid only for a stationary body whose mass is distributed evenly over the entire area.

Figuratively speaking, it is the same as if instead of a 40-ton machine with a track support area of ​​20 square meters each, we took two XNUMX-ton blocks with the same area and placed them on the same marshy ground, observing how deeply they would sink into it. After all, the formula does not take anything else into account.

As a result, seemingly paradoxical situations arise, when tanks of different designs with similar average specific pressure behave differently on soft soils, and heavy vehicles overcome off-road conditions better than light ones. An example of the latter, by the way, is the German "Panther", which left a track half as deep as the light American tank M5A1.


Distribution of pressure along the length of the supporting surface of the tracks: 1 - with an open hinge, 2 - with a rubber-metal hinge

Difficulties, or rather, a complete discrepancy with reality, the average specific pressure also creates in the course of theoretical calculations, which is perfectly demonstrated by the tests of the Japanese SPG SS3 (prototype "Type 60"). Based on the specified indicator, engineers predicted an average track depth of 1,25 centimeters on plastic soils with a density of 1,38-4 grams per cubic cm for this product, but in practice they got as much as 13,4 centimeters. That is, in fact, three times more.

The reason is that the track is mobile and consists of tracks, and the tank rests on it with the help of support rollers, which distribute the pressure not evenly, but locally. Therefore, the result of simple calculations of the average specific pressure is a kind of "spherical horse in a vacuum" (something speculative, oversimplified and divorced from reality), which can lead to the wrong place.

Let's put in a word about rollers and tracks


In order to see how much the number and diameter of the road wheels, as well as the design of the track, affect the depth of the track and, accordingly, the cross-country ability of the tank, we can look at two studies conducted back in the Soviet Union.

The first experiment involved a 26-ton T-10 tank with 305 mm diameter road wheels and 254 mm wide tracks with a 100 mm pitch. Its average specific ground pressure was 0,69 kg per square centimeter and did not change during the tests, since the width and length of the tracks remained unchanged. But they played around with the number of rollers, installing from two to ten on board.

The results of these executions were quite expected. They are shown in the attached figure below (z is the depth of the rut).


As we can see, the more rollers per side the chassis of the tested T-26 had, the lesser the track depth it left. And there is no secret here, since in this way the tank's mass was more effectively distributed over the entire supporting surface. So, it is obviously impossible to rely only on the average specific pressure on the ground.

However, the track depth is affected not only by the number of support rollers - their diameter and the width of the track pitch are also of great importance. To prove this, we will cite the second Soviet study, during which a model weighing 8,5 tons was tested with the possibility of changing the size of its chassis. It was driven on sand 0,5-0,7 meters deep at a speed of 4 kilometers per hour.

The model was equipped with rollers with a diameter of 515 and 700 millimeters, as well as double rollers with a diameter of 360 mm. The width of the track with an open hinge is 300 mm, the step width is 123 and 250 mm. The soil resistance coefficient was used as the main indicator - the higher it is, the greater the track depth, and vice versa.

The results, as last time, were predictable:


From the data presented in the table, we can draw unambiguous conclusions that the diameter of the support roller directly affects the reduction of the soil resistance coefficient, and, accordingly, the reduction of the track depth. In other words, the larger the diameter, the larger the support area of ​​the roller and the more uniform the distribution of the tank's mass. The same applies to the width of the track pitch - the larger it is, the higher the cross-country ability.

But these are, let's say, just facts that can be guessed without any special explanations. The question is, how can one get at least an approximate idea of ​​the cross-country ability of a particular tank, given that the average specific ground pressure cannot give anything specific?

There are no universal methods that take into account all aspects, because, as we have already mentioned, cross-country ability depends on many factors. For example, even the presence of a track with a rubber-metal hinge already changes the pressure indicators on the surface on which the tank moves. But there is still one interesting formula.

It was proposed by Soviet researchers in 1979 and is essentially the "heir" to the tried and tested formula of D. Roland, which determines the mathematical expectation of the average maximum of the pressure diagram under the rollers of a moving vehicle. It takes into account not only the mass of the tank, but also the number and diameter of the support rollers, as well as the width and pitch of the track.


The designations used in it are: G is the weight of the machine, n is the number of support rollers per side, b is the track width, D is the diameter of the support roller, t is the track pitch.

The formula shows the peak pressure under the rollers, and with its help, at least, it is possible to compare the cross-country ability of tracked vehicles more productively. Yes, there are more inputs than in calculating the average specific pressure, but the result is much more accurate - it's not a shot in the dark.

Sources:
L.A. Klushin. Complex indicator of tank cross-country ability/ L.A. Klushin // Bulletin of armored equipment. – 1980. – No. 4.
A.P. Belov, V.I. Krasnenkov, Yu.I. Lovtsov. Distribution of normal pressures along the length of track support surfaces / A.P. Belov, V.I. Krasnenkov, Yu.I. Lovtsov // Issues of defense equipment. - 1979. - No. 88.
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    12 November 2024 05: 00
    It's complicated, you can't take everything into account, paper is always different from reality, there's nothing you can do about it
    1. SAG
      +14
      12 November 2024 06: 20
      I agree! As a civil engineer directly involved in strength of materials and soil mechanics, I can say that the research and formula do not take into account many more parameters.
      For example, the plasticity of soils, their viscosity and temperature.
      I think mechanics will support me in that the pressure on all rollers is assumed to be the same (this is only possible with ideal weight distribution), but in fact, when moving, the pressure on different rollers is different. From this we can conclude that the track of a tank with a weight shift to the rear will be less than the same one, but with the greatest weight in the front.
      I can assume that the speed of movement will also affect the depth of the track. Since the soil deflection is not linear and depends on the duration of pressure on it. And the speed in turn will depend on the balance of all tank systems.
      + it would be worth considering the track tension coefficient.
      In fact, the topic is very deep, even though it seems simple.
      1. +2
        12 November 2024 09: 11
        Quote: SAG
        The research and formula do not take into account many more parameters.
        For example, the plasticity of soils, their viscosity and temperature
        .


        I think that this parameter will be constant for different machines under the same conditions and therefore it was not taken into account.
      2. 0
        12 November 2024 09: 37
        This is all logical and understandable. But we are talking about some universal characteristic that allows us to compare tanks. Specific pressure is simply not suitable. What can we replace it with?
        Just field tests and something like track depth on some standard ground at standard temperature, standard speed?
        I'm afraid this is technically impossible.
        1. +2
          12 November 2024 16: 52
          There can be no standard soil, because even driving on the same place will be different each time. In some cases, the soil is compacted and easier to drive, in other cases it is destroyed and harder to drive.
          1. 0
            12 November 2024 17: 56
            I mean a certain standard, similar in principle to jelly for testing pools.
            And yes, I understand that such comparative tests of tanks are not science fiction.
            1. +1
              12 November 2024 19: 23
              What's the point of an abstract standard soil if it doesn't reflect the passability on real terrain?
              The characteristic of specific pressure on the soil is adopted for comparison. And the soil has its own response characteristic - the bearing capacity of the soil (shows what load it can withstand while maintaining its original structure. Measured in kg / cm²) By comparing these two characteristics, you can find out with a high degree of probability whether the BM will pass or not. And the author of the opus decided that he is smarter than everyone. There are many conditions in the surrounding world that are not taken into account when measuring characteristics.
              1. +5
                12 November 2024 19: 25
                The author of the opus is the only one in my memory who not only drew attention to the imperfection of the specific pressure indicator, but also substantiated it with arguments.
                And yes, smarter than many.
                1. 0
                  12 November 2024 19: 29
                  Doesn't the imperfection of the engine power indicator bother you? And the fact that it is still measured in horses the old-fashioned way?)))
                  1. +2
                    12 November 2024 19: 46
                    Actually, the standard is in kilowatts. The standard was introduced, if memory serves, in the 70-80s.
                    But you are right. I understand it better the old way in horses. That's how it is in all the old books and reference books. Converting to kilowatts is tedious.
                    1. 0
                      12 November 2024 19: 50
                      Well, then there are even more questions about the power than about the specific pressure. After all, the power is indicated as peak, and it is theoretically achievable in ideal conditions on the shaft. In practice, however, it turns out to be completely different and over time it decreases even more. And this does not even happen to the leading sprocket, since the losses in the transmission are significant. And it must be calculated per ton of weight. And this is one of the main characteristics of the BM.
                      1. 0
                        12 November 2024 19: 51
                        This is common knowledge. Even to non-tankers. Banal theoretical mechanics.
                  2. -1
                    13 November 2024 16: 20
                    .... Doesn't the engine power bother you? And the fact that it is still measured in horsepower the old-fashioned way?
                    The power of the internal combustion engine is measured in LS exclusively for the Federal Tax Service laughing
                    In all other cases, measuring the power of an internal combustion engine is only to compare whose is longer bully
                    1. +1
                      13 November 2024 16: 29
                      Are you sure? And for OSAGO, CASCO, customs, sports, etc. is it not measured?
              2. +2
                12 November 2024 22: 42
                And the author of the opus decided that he is smarter than everyone else. There are many conditions in the surrounding world that are not taken into account when measuring characteristics.

                The fact that you are unable to imagine that with the help of peak pressure under the rollers it is possible to find out with a HIGH degree of probability the depth of the rut on this or that soil of different density, etc. (i.e. taking into account its characteristics) does not change the reality. There is no point in veiledly insulting me here without having familiarized yourself with the research.

                I will give them, here you go. The qmax indicator is calculated using the Roland formula, from which the formula in the article follows. Roland's formula differs in that it includes a coefficient of span between rollers. Compare qmax with qc (track depth by specific pressure) and real tests.

                What is it? Which calculations are closer to reality? I can also give a table for the M113 armored personnel carrier and other vehicles on snow - alas, your magical specific pressure also drew a picture there that showed nothing correct.
                1. 0
                  13 November 2024 16: 23
                  The track depth is absolutely NOTHING of an indicator of the BM cross-country ability. In addition, this characteristic is tied to a specific type of soil. Whereas the average specific pressure on the ground when compared with the bearing capacity of the soil allows you to estimate the probability of overcoming terrain with weak-bearing soils MORE ACCURATELY. By the way, the peak pressure in dynamics is smoothed out by the time of soil deformation, therefore, the higher the speed, the smaller the track depth.
                  1. 0
                    13 November 2024 19: 34
                    The track depth is not a SHIT indicator of the BM's cross-country ability.

                    This is one of the most important "natural" indicators of the support cross-country ability of any combat vehicle, by which it is possible to correlate calculations with practice - that is, to prove that the specific pressure does not make much sense. Of course, without taking into account other parameters, such as engine power, clearance, specific width of the hull, and so on down the list.

                    When the average specific pressure on the soil, when compared with the bearing capacity of the soil, allows us to estimate the probability of overcoming terrain with weak soils MORE ACCURATELY

                    In the article, I presented arguments that this is absurd. With the same specific pressure, vehicles with different chassis designs have different cross-country ability. At the same time, formulas that take into account the design features of the chassis and, accordingly, the peak pressure, reflect the situation more accurately. You can see this for yourself, including in the table I attached above in the comments - the specific pressure in the calculations turned out to be useless, since the vehicle sank 3-4 times deeper on the move on plastic soil than according to calculations with your magic specific pressure. But calculations using the pressure under the rollers only slightly agreed with the tests. Accordingly, these formulas can be used to compare different tanks and other vehicles, and to calculate cross-country ability (together with other design characteristics).

                    Once again, if you are unable to understand that peak pressure can also be used in calculations with soils of different density and other characteristics, then reality will not change. Even in technical literature, specific pressure is called very conditional. In order not to waste someone else's time with useless disputes, read the sources I indicated - especially VBT, where you will also find Roland. All this is in the public domain.
                    1. 0
                      13 November 2024 22: 08
                      Peak pressure in practice will differ from the calculated one depending on the track tension and the terrain, and the formula you provided does not reflect this. Therefore, the cross-country ability will differ even for the same BM and is not suitable for comparison.
                      This formula is used when designing the chassis, and not for comparing different BM. Because any manufacturer tries to find the most optimal chassis, and not the one that comes to hand.
                      1. +1
                        13 November 2024 22: 29
                        Nobody claims that the peak pressure calculation formula is universal - there are simply no universal ones. But it takes into account the main parameters of the caterpillar drive of a specific machine and, accordingly, gives more accurate results. In this connection, it is recommended for comparative assessment of the support cross-country ability of tanks and other equipment instead of specific pressure (L.A. Klushin. Complex indicator of tank cross-country ability / L.A. Klushin // Bulletin of armored equipment. - 1980. - No. 4.).

                        I am providing a list of references not for beauty, but so that everyone could, if they wish, become more fully acquainted with the research. You stubbornly refuse to do so. It is up to you.
                      2. 0
                        14 November 2024 10: 12
                        Thank you for the interesting dialogue and information, I will take it into account.
        2. 0
          12 November 2024 18: 43
          even according to your words, it turns out that the dynamic parameters are more important than the static parameters in the ground running model. clarification of the model and measurement methods - this will be the "answer". and of course only in connection with real conditions. conditionally, the use of this model on the T80 and Merkava will give a result, but it will have to be stipulated and explained, because their supposed theater of operations is different and the natural conditions are different.
          1. 0
            12 November 2024 19: 05
            Definitely, dynamic. The author of the article wrote about statics. I have nothing to add.
      3. +2
        12 November 2024 09: 41
        and the pattern of supporting the tracks on the ground is similar to a split beam on an elastic base! while a continuous beam behaves much better, but this cannot be implemented in a tracked drive!
        1. +1
          12 November 2024 11: 54
          Quote: realist
          and the pattern of the tracks supporting the ground is similar to a split beam on an elastic base!

          I remembered:
          - Listen, Pryakhin, how do you view the intermediate shaft? As a beam with a clamped end.

          1. +2
            12 November 2024 22: 10
            I agree, especially as a graduate of the PGS, I can't imagine an intermediate shaft with a jam. Unless the unit was welded. It's a hinge in any case.
  2. +3
    12 November 2024 05: 15
    Generally speaking, a tank’s cross-country ability is one of its most important parameters.

    The formula shows the peak pressure under the rollers, and with its help, at the very least, it is possible to more productively compare the cross-country ability of tracked vehicles.

    It is difficult not to agree with the author, who outlined the solution of the issues with the help of drawings, diagrams and formulas. Probably, when studying comparative parameters and characteristics, this carries a semantic load...
    Have you seen professional driver-mechanics (factory testers) driving equipment? I have seen it, even gray-haired deputy maintenance officers took off their caps in front of them and said that if everyone in the units were such driving masters, then half of the accidents, breakdowns and critical situations simply would not have happened...
    I myself witnessed a case when the deputy chief of technical staff sat down at the controls of a stalled 72-ka and got out with the words: “It wasn’t about the reel...” that was his saying...
    1. +2
      12 November 2024 11: 47
      The photo is awesome. The crew will have something to do for a long time.
  3. +1
    12 November 2024 05: 23
    Quote: ROSS 42
    I myself witnessed a case when the deputy commander of technical equipment sat down at the controls of a stalled 72-ka and got out with the words:

    In a car situation, they usually refer to "the gasket between the steering wheel and the seat."
  4. +1
    12 November 2024 05: 24
    Thank you!
    Very interesting.
  5. +13
    12 November 2024 05: 48
    That is, in the design of the Kniepkamp track drive, which all German tankers cursed when they had to change the roller from the inner row, there was a rational grain.
    1. +10
      12 November 2024 05: 52
      That is, in the design of the Kniepkamp track drive

      That's right. The staggered arrangement of the rollers distributed the pressure quite well. smile
    2. +1
      12 November 2024 06: 24
      in the design of the Kniepkamp track drive,

      This was done to reduce the load in order to increase the durability of the rubber bands of the rollers and tracks, and not the mythical distribution in order to prevent crushing, they even came up with a whole formula...science for the sake of science
    3. +5
      12 November 2024 08: 24
      Quote: Nagan
      there was a grain of truth to it.

      Yes, that's what they were doing, and what's more, this suspension was distinguished by its very smooth ride, allowing for accurate firing on the move...
      1. -1
        12 November 2024 09: 32
        Yes, that's what they were doing, and what's more, this suspension was distinguished by its very smooth ride, allowing for accurate firing on the move...

        You are mistaken. Kniepkamp first used the suspension for a high-speed half-track armored personnel carrier in order to increase the mileage of the rubber tires of the rollers and reduce the unsprung weight of the roller itself, the thickness of the sheet from which the roller was stamped was 10 millimeters. And both Tigers and Panthers did not shoot on the move, only from a stop, if you want to watch a war newsreel. And it is easier to change rollers when they are light.
        1. +2
          12 November 2024 09: 53
          Quote: Konnick
          And while moving, neither Tigers nor Panthers fired, only when stopped, if you want to watch the war newsreel

          You are making a mistake by drawing conclusions based on a few frames of newsreel footage. It is much easier to film shooting from a standstill than on the move, and it is safer...
          Here is a description of Wittmann's fight, which brought him particular fame:
          Wittman started his masked Tiger with the number 205, but he had a problem with the engine. Then he quickly moved into the car under the number 212, gave the rest of the company’s tanks an order to hold positions, and he himself moved towards the convoy. Having approached 100 meters with her, he opened fire and with the first two shots he destroyed Sherman and Cromwell at the head of the column, then he set fire to the tank in her tail, thereby eliminating the rest. After that, he transferred the fire to armored personnel carriers in the center. Wittman destroyed everything that appeared in his area of ​​visibility. Attacking the fixed targets, he sent a projectile behind the projectile at tanks and armored personnel carriers almost at close range, from the shortest distances, and at the end rammed Cromwell's tank in the side, which blocked his entrance to the city.

          And there are plenty of such stories. The same Hitlerjugend tankers fired on the move at American tanks in the Ardennes.
          1. +5
            12 November 2024 09: 56
            And there are plenty of such stories.

            Where does it say that he shot while moving?
            As he got closer...he opened fire.
            it's not getting closer
            1. -1
              12 November 2024 10: 05
              Quote: Konnick
              Where does it say that he shot while moving?

              Having approached it to 100 meters, he opened fire and with the first two shots destroyed the Sherman and Cromwell, which were at the head of the column, then he set fire to the tank at its tail, thereby eliminating the retreat of the rest. After that, he transferred fire to the armored personnel carriers, which were in the center.Wittmann destroyed everything that appeared in his line of sight. Attacking stationary targets, he sent shell after shell into tanks and armored personnel carriers almost point-blank, from the shortest distances, and finally rammed the side of a Cromwell tank that was blocking his entry into the city.
              In this case, targets could only appear in a stationary column when moving on the move.
              1. +4
                12 November 2024 10: 13
                From an interview with German tanker Alfred Rubbel

                How long did the tank driver training last in total?
                - Half a year. First individual training, then putting together a crew. Not very intensively. The division was reorganized into a tank division from an infantry division. A tank regiment was simply added to the infantry regiments.

                How did they teach you to shoot, on the move or from a short stop?
                - Only from a stop. On the move we only fired from a machine gun, at best.


                And Katukov was the first to order his tankers to shoot only when stopped.
                1. +1
                  12 November 2024 10: 18
                  Quote: Konnick
                  And Katukov was the first to order his tankers to shoot only when stopped.


                  But Stalin convinced him :)
                  1. +1
                    12 November 2024 22: 55
                    Quote: S.Z.
                    But Stalin convinced him :)

                    Exactly. As soon as the tank stopped, the infantry running behind it immediately lay down.

                    True, towards the end of the war they came up with the idea of ​​doing it the other way around: the infantry runs forward and the tank runs behind, supporting.
                2. 0
                  12 November 2024 10: 21
                  Quote: Konnick
                  From an interview with a German tanker

                  Diary of a German tanker. How Joachim Scholl and his Tiger crew practiced shooting on the battlefield...
                  6th of October 1943

                  It looks like the scouts were right. The cowardly Russians tried to attack us this morning. Our camouflage worked perfectly. We mowed them down with machine guns before they even realized what was happening. I think they thought they were just machine gun crews, because their T-34s kept rolling towards us without slowing down until Paul and I dropped our camouflage and rolled our Tigers out to meet them. We managed to knock out three of them when they finally realized what was happening and began to retreat. We pursued them to the end of the hill and left them to our infantry. We were still firing at them, but they were rolling back at the same speed they had been advancing at just a few minutes ago.
                  Quote: Konnick
                  And Katukov was the first to order his tankers to shoot only when stopped.

                  Yes? Comrade Stalin had a different opinion and who dared to violate his order?

                  On September 19, 1942, Stalin issued the “Order of the People’s Commissariat of Defense on the introduction of tank firing on the move into the combat practice of tank troops” No. 0728. “The experience of the Great Patriotic War shows that our tank crews do not use the full firepower of tanks in combat, do not conduct intensive artillery and machine gun fire on the enemy on the move, but limit themselves to aimed fire only from guns, and even then from short stops.

                  The tank attacks practiced by our troops without sufficiently intensive fire from all the tank's fire weapons create favorable conditions for the enemy's artillery crews to operate with impunity.

                  Such incorrect practice significantly reduces the fire and moral impact of our tanks on the enemy and leads to large losses in tanks from enemy artillery fire....


                  The date and number of the order are there, you can personally read it yourself.

                  And firing from a short stop from a German tank was faster and more effective, due to the lesser effect of rocking the tank hull.
                  1. +1
                    12 November 2024 13: 18
                    Yeah, fire on the move at the artillerymen so that they get nervous and miss when shells are exploding nearby, and the memories of the fascists, well, believe me)))
                    1. -1
                      12 November 2024 14: 43
                      Quote: Quantu
                      Yeah, fire on the move at the artillerymen so that they get nervous and miss when shells are exploding nearby, and the memories of the fascists, well, believe me)))

                      At the very beginning of the Battle of Kursk, the "Panthers" also fired at our anti-tank guns, the first salvos were armor-piercing, apparently they were expecting to meet our tanks and only from the second did the high-explosive shells come into play. Those of our anti-tank gunners who survived, especially remembered this moment
                3. +2
                  12 November 2024 13: 56
                  I read the memoirs of our tank crews that they fired on the move, and in some movie they showed the mechanism of firing on the move. The tank commander gave the command "Road!", the driver-mechanic chose a smoother road, without potholes and bumps, drove the tank without changing gears and revving up the engine, reported "There is a road!", the gunner at that moment aimed and fired.
              2. +1
                12 November 2024 22: 55
                "only when moving on the move"//
                ---
                Wittmann moved, shot from a stop and moved on.
                Never in World War II did tank crews shoot on the move.
                1. 0
                  14 November 2024 17: 30
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Never in World War II did tank crews shoot on the move.

                  Just NEVER????? No need. The "Path" command was invented for exactly this purpose
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Wittmann moved, shot from a stop and moved on.

                  This is called "shooting from short stops". It is practiced on the command "Short". And even in this case, the vibrations of the hull of our T-34 took a much longer period of time than on German vehicles. Which interfered with aiming and firing, the tank began to move immediately after the shot, independently, without waiting for the command
        2. -3
          12 November 2024 21: 32
          A company commander who went through Afghanistan taught us that a tank in a modern dynamic battle, on average, lives for five minutes. Therefore, do not save ammunition. A fired upon enemy, in most cases, will panic, seek cover, and is unlikely to undertake a concentrated attack.
          1. 0
            13 November 2024 18: 22
            People fight for MONTHS (!) in "modern dynamic battles"... Comrade "military scientists" also sometimes make mistakes.
    4. 0
      13 November 2024 22: 38
      Quote: Nagan
      there was a grain of truth to it.
      According to calculations, everything is so. But if the tank stopped, and the mud between the rollers dried or froze, then the tank may not move. In addition, if the mud got into the space between the inner and outer rollers, it will slow the vehicle down much more than if the rollers were single-row. In addition, the track joint shafts will experience a bending load every time the inner or outer roller runs over them.
  6. +3
    12 November 2024 06: 19
    If there are two deer-like drivers and tank commanders in a tank, even if you make the tank an air cushion, they will sink it.
    1. 0
      13 November 2024 18: 18
      Best comment!

      The tank's cross-country ability is determined by the driver's EXPERIENCE and the commander's BRAIN. And the "technical" will only give the third most important component in the "cross-country ability formula".
  7. +1
    12 November 2024 06: 41
    The formula shows the peak pressure under the rollers, and with its help, at least, it is possible to compare the cross-country ability of tracked vehicles more productively. Yes, there are more inputs than in calculating the average specific pressure, but the result is much more accurate - it's not a shot in the dark

    There were too many "scientists", there were many theories about automobiles and tractors, but there were few intelligent engineers.
  8. +3
    12 November 2024 06: 53
    Cross-country ability is certainly a complicated thing. In addition to specific pressure, it also includes: the shape and material of the tracks, rollers, lugs, ground clearance, the width and length of the body and their ratio, weight, engine power in different modes, specific engine power... A lot of things
  9. +5
    12 November 2024 08: 11
    Good article. Haven't seen one like this in a long time.
  10. +2
    12 November 2024 08: 22
    The type of engine also greatly affects the vehicle's cross-country ability due to the "ground-undermining" effect. And here, of course, the winner is the GTE, which has just "0" for this effect.
    1. 0
      12 November 2024 08: 55
      This is not a plus on all types of soil; sometimes a smooth increase in traction does not lead to anything other than further “plunging to the center of the earth,” but a sharp “jerk” on the verge of breaking the transmission allows you to leave a difficult section quite easily.
      1. +2
        12 November 2024 10: 00
        Quote: 0389db
        This is not a plus on all types of soil; sometimes a smooth increase in traction does not lead to anything other than further “plunging to the center of the earth,” but a sharp “jerk” on the verge of breaking the transmission allows you to leave a difficult section quite easily.

        But "soil blasting" is a sharp break in the solid layer not from a simple build-up of gas, but from the peculiarities of the engine operation. Many who work with diesel tracked equipment must have noticed how during idle operation the body and track shake at the moment of ignition in the engine cylinder, and at this moment a sharp increase in power and "soil blasting" occur.
        1. 0
          12 November 2024 11: 55
          That's true, but this effect is not always "evil", and on a carpet swamp and similar conditions, sudden movements are contraindicated, but in soggy black soil and sometimes on snow, a sharp jerk is the only way to move from a place.
          There are such concepts as plasticity and internal friction/adhesion of soil particles. The simplest example is a shovel completely stuck in plastic clay, if you gently apply force to the handle, gradually increasing the force, then with difficulty you will be able to extract a lump of earth (the soil will not withstand it, the adhesion properties are not enough), and if you apply it as sharply as possible and with all your strength, then the handle will simply break (a significantly greater applied force will not be able to overcome the adhesion of the soil).
  11. +1
    12 November 2024 09: 24
    The formula shows the peak pressure under the rollers, and with its help, at least, it is possible to compare the cross-country ability of tracked vehicles more productively. Yes, there are more inputs there,


    Introductory: what will that formula show for such a distribution of rollers? smile
    1. +1
      12 November 2024 09: 27
      Where the main thing is, there are more supports of physics
      1. 0
        12 November 2024 10: 08
        Quote: Ivan 1980
        Where the main thing is, there are more supports


        That's clear! But here we are talking about the specific pressure of the rollers on the ground
    2. +1
      13 November 2024 00: 45
      You need to calculate for the front and rear rollers separately and take the larger number.
  12. +1
    12 November 2024 11: 37
    Nobody remembered about the track tread pattern.
    Agree, this is an important dimension of the traction force in the soil/track pair.
    Like summer and winter tires on a car.
  13. +4
    12 November 2024 11: 45
    Still, the main thing for the tank's cross-country ability is its ability to pass. The quality of roads and bridges it can pass through depends on this.
    Because of this, the weight of Soviet tanks was limited to 50 tons.
  14. 0
    12 November 2024 14: 00
    It is not necessary to burden tankers with formulas. It is necessary to know that a tank has a lower specific pressure on the ground than a person. Therefore, where a person falls, a tank will go.
    The tank runs over a plastic one-and-a-half liter bottle of water without crushing it. It runs over a person and flattens him into a pancake, literally making the corpse flat. This is practical knowledge.
  15. +2
    12 November 2024 15: 28
    Average specific ground pressure is an indicator that shows little
    In addition to the average specific pressure of the tank tracks on the ground, there are other indicators that even couch potato tankers and many certified engineers do not know about. This is the speed and method of removing dirt from the tracks. For example, the T-64 tank is much more passable in mud than the T-72. And the whole point is that the T-64 removes dirt from the track itself during movement through holes in the track itself and into the gap between the rollers. But in the T-72, dirt that gets between the roller and the track will flutter there for a very long time and hinder movement, just like dirt stuck to a fisherman's shoes. From more ancient examples. During the Great Patriotic War, the Sherman tanks did not remove dirt from the tracks themselves due to the design features. In the memoirs of front-line soldiers, there are episodes when, during a battle, it was necessary to use a sledgehammer and a crowbar to pick out black soil stuck to the Sherman's tracks under enemy fire.
    1. 0
      12 November 2024 16: 32
      method of removing dirt from tracks.

      and into the gap between the rollers.

      What a tongue-tied person.
      It is also possible to say that the bypass is not pushed apart by the soil thanks to the narrow roller.
      But this same narrow roller worsens the stability of the track.
      1. +2
        12 November 2024 16: 51
        What kind of tongue-tiedness is this? You can say it normally,
        The same technical characteristic can be explained in different ways. It can be explained for narrow specialists. It can be explained for educated specialists. It can be explained in a popular way for armchair experts. Here on VO the majority are armchair experts and not everyone knows what a bypass and a roller are, and that is why I wrote it in a popular way.
    2. 0
      13 November 2024 18: 12
      at T-64 mud self-removes from the track during movement through holes in the track itself
      For 72 years now, a new track has been installed on the T-25 - it is also lighter, has better self-cleaning properties, is more wear-resistant, and is more rigid.
      and then - the track can end up not only in mud, but also in sand - where the T-64 with its chassis loses out. And in our country 3/4 of the world is in sand, and the T-72 is used all over the world.
      again, the T-72's track is wider, and then again, the mass of tanks is growing - without modernizing the T-64's chassis, it will not survive.
      1. 0
        13 November 2024 20: 20
        and then - the caterpillar can end up not only in the mud, but also in the sand
        In the article we are discussing, the conversation is not about sand at all, but about the Donbass black soil, which often becomes a fake.
        .
        and the T-72 has been getting a new track for 25 years now - it's also lighter, has better self-cleaning, is more wear-resistant, and is more rigid
        Perhaps the track is self-cleaning, but I have tankers writing in Telegram that a huge lump of dirt collects on the rollers of the T-72 and this lump does not fall off by itself
        1. 0
          14 November 2024 05: 56
          The article we are discussing is not about sand at all, but about the Donbass black soil
          Where exactly? I didn't notice.

          video

          This is a Ukrainian repairman.
          He himself says that the T-64 belt is worse, since the belt itself is more fragile due to the holes and narrow support rollers - you run over a stump and that's it - you're done."and this has happened more than once". This is already enough to put the T-64 belt on its shoulder blades.
          .
          the fact that a lump of mud on the T-72 between the road wheels falls off worse - it doesn't really bother - "the T-72 has enough power to rewind". But for some reason he doesn't take into account that the specific pressure in the area of ​​the T-64 rollers is higher.
          .
          on the crowns there is a difference because the height of the engagement teeth is different and everything just looks different visually - it is not difficult to increase them - just make changes to the drawing and cast them longer, but the designers did not go for it.
          .
          "they were pulling T-72" - well, two Nivas are pulling each other through the forest.
          1. 0
            14 November 2024 21: 50
            This is a Ukrainian repairman.
            For some reason I didn’t catch any southern Russian dialect in his conversation.
  16. Alf
    +2
    12 November 2024 15: 59
    The German Panther, which left tracks half as deep as the American M5A1 light tank.
  17. +1
    12 November 2024 16: 24
    The military usually has tables of soil passability for different locations and seasons. Military topographers do this directly with surveyors. They dance from there.
  18. 0
    12 November 2024 16: 47
    The average specific pressure on the ground is average so that it can be easily calculated and compared with other BM. The article is sucked out of a finger, and the information is taken from old sources. In this way, you can write about the engine power that it is nothing. Since this characteristic poorly gives an idea of ​​the speed characteristics of the BM. Because the power is indicated as peak, and it is theoretically achievable in ideal conditions on the shaft. In practice, it turns out completely different. And even this does not reach the leading sprocket, since the losses in the transmission are significant. And it must be calculated per ton of weight.
  19. +1
    12 November 2024 19: 57
    Someday we need to put an end to this tautology "average SPECIFIC pressure".
    In Platonov's works, "average pressure on the ground" is used, and this is correct, because pressure is already a specific force (in our case, the weight per unit area of ​​the supporting surface).
  20. 0
    12 November 2024 23: 18
    Tanks are not afraid of mud! They sink immediately but bravely! wink
  21. +1
    12 November 2024 23: 21
    Somehow the comments about the bridges not being able to withstand Western tanks and the autumn soil have died down.
  22. 0
    13 November 2024 07: 38
    The German Panther, which left a rut half as deep as the American M5A1 light tank

    Nothing surprising. The Panther featured a staggered arrangement of support rollers, which reduced the sagging of the support part of the track by about half compared to the traditional scheme. This allowed for a more even distribution of pressure on the ground and significantly increased cross-country ability. However, such a scheme created significant difficulties in maintenance.
  23. 0
    16 November 2024 11: 43
    thank you, I read it with interest
  24. 0
    16 November 2024 14: 46
    The topics of static and dynamic loads are not covered.