Is this a meme? tracks can only travel long distances via rail? What prevents a Bradley from moving down the highway like a Stryker?
Is this a meme? tracks can only travel long distances via rail?
Is this a meme? tracks can only travel long distances via rail? What prevents a Bradley from moving down the highway like a Stryker?
Yeah
>What prevents a Bradley from moving down the highway like a Stryker?
it so so much cheaper, easier and faster to move by rail. that is the reason. Tracks can easily move long distances, see the gulf war and WW2. but in peace conditions traveling by rail is better.
Why on earth would you want to wear down the suspension and engines of vehicles for no reason while burning tons of fuel anon
logistics and fuel efficiency
Bradleys only get like 2mpg, the driver's view out of them is shit, top speed is like 35mph (M2A4/M7A4), they're wide as frick so it's easy to take up 2 lanes by accident, etc.
Trust me, OP. You don't want the Brads on the road if it can be avoided
Plus, you'd have to replace track pads and road wheels regularly, monitor track tension, there's no AC in Brads so it's hot as frick, they're loud, a b***h to steer if you aren't used to it (they tend to turn abruptly when trying to make small adjustments, leading to squished personnel in some cases), and - in the case of 113's - tend to catch fire. Talk to someone who's driven an M88 and take notes, a lot of it carries over to smaller vehicles
d-do marines use bradleys?
That's not even the point, you dolt.
Tracked AFVs have tracks life about 2500-5000 kms, and their running gear require rebuild every 5000-10000 kms. If you run big unit it would have failure of some vehicle requiring field repairs every two-three hundred kms
Tracked AFVs literally shake themselves appart while driving. They are not suited for long marches.
Tracks tear up asphalt roads even with rubber pads on. Red square and tiananmen square have a special paving to deal with the tracks.
>tiananmen square have a special paving to deal with the tracks.
The tracks don't ruin the asphalt due to the protective covering of crushed bug
With pads roads are fine so long as you avoid neutral steering.
Thing is you NEED pads or you'll stamp the tar with the cross bars on the tracks and make a couple of km feel like rumble strip.
t. driven plenty of 40 ton excavators on roads
>Is this a meme?
No, tracks are not a meme but instead are the pimary combat vehicle type used by countries that are heavily involved in war, or expect it, such as Russia, USA, Israel, Korea, Turkey, etc. Yes, those countries also have wheeled vehicles but they are not usually not the tip of the speer for the ground forces. Most countries that have primarily wheeled focused are usually broke, LARPing as peacekeepers (see Canada, Beligum) or are one of the few handful of countries where a primarily wheeled vehicle fleet actually makes sense (South Africa or France). As a Canadian, our wheeled fleet got absolutely BTFO in Afghanistan (something like 30% of our fleet got destroyed) because they had terrible mobility and protection.
Here is an excellent source if you want some more reading:
>https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1800/RR1834/RAND_RR1834.pdf
A rare quality post on /k/.
>30% of our fleet got destroyed
against the fricking Taliban, wow, thats bad.
If you can move by rail during peacetime why would you put more wear and tear on the vehicle when you can avoid it? It makes logical sense to do this.
Especially here in the US where you would need to transport vehicles potentially across the country which is thousands of miles to either pacific or atlantic ports to be loaded onto ships.
>tracks can only travel long distances via rail?
Or trailers.
Ask the Russians why using inefficient engines long distance is bad.
They can travel long distances on treads but rail gives less wear and tear which means less maintenance. It's like how you should change your oil every 5000 miles but if you put it in a cargo container and ship it across the ocean those miles don't count.
>What prevents a Bradley from moving down the highway like a Stryker?
You can hear it from 3 miles away.
Nothing prevents it but it isn't ideal
1. Top speed of 35 MPH
2. Much worse fuel economy for that top speed.
3. Bradley is large so you'd need to cordon off or shutdown the freeways or highways being used for the sake of not having a slow-motion pile up or accident due to it's size, poor driver visibility and moronic car drivers
4. Wear on the tracks; not immediate but the miles will add up
5. Wear on the roads if the tracks are un padded
6. if one breaks down bad you will need a large recovery vehicle, which will be even larger and stop absolutely everything on the road for a long time.
7. They probably require every vehicle to have a full crew while being operated, so that you can potentially conduct repairs if a break down isn't severe and for security of the vehicle.
For long distance transportation of just the vehicles, even with strykers it makes more sense to put it on a train. If it's going to an exorcise, it still makes sense to send them to a staging area via train, then drive them.
the metal will disappear like tread on a tire and it will continually have to be replaced, especially in the hot road. Also the rubber pads will frick up/fall off randomly and when that happens the shit will vibrate more and more like a fricking wooden roller coaster.
Modern road vs 70 year old, 32 ton tank
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a32936404/russian-tank-street-destruction/
ABCT cucks get stuck at railhead and ride the cuckbus while SBCT roll down the interstate at 90 waving at civilians and have girls flash us their breasts when going to gunnery. God i loved being a commander convoying strykers.
The fact we'd die instantly in combat while brads would probably survive is not important. It's all about the breasts.
It's not that they can't. The efficiency of using a train is just so much massively higher than driving them. You save an order of magnitude on fuel and time via rail vs driving.
>What prevents a Bradley from moving down the highway like a Stryker
Nothing. but tracks tear up highways, so now you have to replace the tracks with rubber tracks, then swap them back at the destination. You also get shit fuel economy, and you have to support the troops driving them. So now you're
Burning tons of fuel just to move the armor
Burning resources to feed and support the drivers/others
Putting thousands of miles on high maintenance equipment
Moving much slower than rail
Clogging up civilian roads with armor
very exposed the entire time, its going to take a while to get there
Road damage is unavoidable, even with rubber pads, its going to happen
Risk breakdowns, which WILL happen constantly, which will delay you even more
All for.... what exactly? Not needing railroads that are already in place? There's no logistic or tactical advantage of using roads. Even with equipment specifically designed to work on roads, its still better to transport by rail, thats why civilians ship new cars via rail/truck
This. Don't flex nuts if you know you got 'em.
once the rubber track pads grind off, brads start to get a tendency to skate on asphalt at top speed