Tracked vehicle was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 08 December 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Continuous track. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
...Christie suspension uses oversized road wheels and the track simply lies on top of the wheels. The shape of the track as a whole is somewhat banana-like as the track droops onto the wheels after running over the driving wheel and idler.
Chinese Type 62 tank with "Christie" tracks. The driving-wheel is in the back.
This is incorrect. Christie suspension has coil springs inside the vehicle's hull, and was generally replaced by torsion-bar suspension. The Christie designs also used a different method of driving the tracks, and some had a chain drive which could be engaged to run the road wheels, so the tracks could be removed for road travel ("convertible" tanks).
The Soviets abandoned convertible drive after the BT series, adopted torsion-bar suspension in the T-44 and drive sprockets in the T-54. The pictured Chinese tank is a T-54 derivative, which has a torsion-bar suspension and conventional rear drive sprocket. It is in no way Christie.
i miss the pictured Chinese tank: is this discussion point still valid or outdtaed ? --Regine69 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Christie suspension requires large diameter road wheels with individual trailing arms rather than bogies. In some cases (including Christie's original design) those were leading arms. The original design included convertible drive, but that has not been considered a defining feature or requirement.
Return rollers are optional and many slack-track designs have been used. Rear drive is universal, but I know of no formal definition requiring it (although the slack-track behaviour would make a front drive difficult). Interleaved and linked bogie designs have been seen as not-Christie.
Most Christie designs have used coil springs, either vertical, near-vertical or angled any way and with a bellcrank linkage. However is there a robust source stating that torsion bar designs (such as the T-54) are not Christie? Christie himself was quiet on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Steam powered tractors using a form of caterpillar track were reported in use during the Crimean War in the 1850s.
Reported?? Any more info on this? KAM 00:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC
I agree that there is evidence of a report. What I should have asked is if there is evidence of the use of tracked vehicles in the Crimean War? Surely they would have left more of a trace then mention on a TV show's web site.KAM 15:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It will be engines with Boydell type wheels (e.g. boards fitted to them) these are not tracked vehicls.--Chenab (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous editor recently wrote the edit summary ""Dead track" refers to dry pin tracks, vs "Live track" where the rubber bush causes the link to spring back to a designed angle, return rollers are irrelevant." If this is technically correct, then wouldn't it be the case that live track would not lie slack, so that dead track often corresponds with slack track? It's quite common in a military context to treat the two as a synonym, even though they may not be technically the same. —MichaelZ. 2006-02-1 16:25 Z
It's complicated. Dead track/live track is fairly simple. With dead track the links are joined by a ordinary steel pin, it functions just like a door hinge, move it to a certain angle and (absent any other forces) it stays there. German, british and soviet tanks of WWII and most construction equipment uses this type. American and most post war western tanks use live track, the pin (well not always a pin) is bonded into the link with rubber, it's springy enough that you can still bend it (or at least the vehicle can) but when the load is taken off it the rubber rotates it back to it's original angle, usually slightly curled up. If you hunt around on the net you can find pictures of Shermans and such where if the track is broken the last few links will actually be held up off the ground because of this.
Now whether you use return rollers or not is a whole other matter T34/Panther/Crusader all dead track, none with return rollers. Centurion/Comet/Stalin all dead track, all with return rollers. Abrams/Leopard/FV423 live track, with return rollers. The M113 uses live track but doesn't have return rollers but I can't think of another that does off the top of my head right now (M551 Sheridan and the FV101 Scorpion might but I'm not sure). The trend is towards the live track/return rollers since you can have more smaller road wheels to distribute the weight of the vehicle, and the rubber bushs extend track life since they eliminate metal on metal contact between the pin and link.
That's correct & the article should be edited to reflect this. DMorpheus (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Scorpion (and the related FV 100 Series) used ordinary link/hinge tracks with polyethylene bushings in the track plate hinges to reduce noise and improve the ant-friction properties of the hinge in the dry. That's why if you've ever heard them being driven on roads the normal track 'squeaking' is absent and they are comparatively quiet for a tracked AFV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.103 (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the ground pressure of a car is equal to the pressure of the air in the tires, perhaps 30 psi (207 kPa)" Is this right? A bicycle has pressure of 100 psi or more with or without a rider yet a bicycle with a rider will obviously sink deeper then a bicycle being pushed. What am I missing? KAM 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two ways a tire can increase its ground contact area in response to increased weight. One is for the tire to flatten out until the contact area compensates for the increased weight. The other is for the tire to sink into the ground until the contact area compensates for the increased weight. The shape of the tire and the hardness of the ground determine how much of each factor is involved. For car tires on pavement, flattening accounts for almost all of it: try lifting up a car on a jack, and watch how the shape of the tire changes. For bicycle tires on mud, sinking accounts for most of it. --Carnildo 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement "the ground pressure of a car is equal to the pressure of the air in the tires, perhaps 30 psi (207 kPa)" is totally incorrect. The ground pressure of a car is the weight of the car divided by the contact area of the tires. For example, if a car weighs 3000 lbs and each tire has a contact area of 4x6 inches, that would equate to 3000 lbs/(4x6)x4 or 31.25psi. This is simplified because the front and rear tires are likely to have different amounts of weight on them, but for this example, it is sufficient. You can actually reduce the ground pressure by reducing the pressure in the tires and increasing the contact area of the tires.
That at least implies that ground pressure has a positive relationship with tire pressure. I've also read somewhere that tire pressure=ground pressure—we need a reference to resolve this. —MichaelZ. 2006-10-11 17:15 Z
Nonsense, this would mean that a punctured/flat tire with no pressure at all would have zero ground pressure. --92.74.31.46 (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it is nonsense to suggest that the situation with a flat/punctured tyre (or 'tire' if you prefer) is comparable. In that situation the weight is not taken up by the air in the tyre but is resting on the rim. Shropshirechris (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tire works in a pretty simple way. First, there is zero-load pressure, provided by tire elasticity. When the wheel is under load, it deforms (flattens in the contact area), thus decreasing the volume and correspondively increasing the pressure. For a vehicle to retain zero vertical acceleration, the vehicle weight must equal the upward force exerted by the pressurized air inside the tire. So a car actually floats on air, which pressure changes with the car's weight.
If we view the Ground-Wheel system, then the tire itself is just a membrane. Pressure on ground is exerted by the air pressure in the tire. So tire pressure doesn't just equal ground pressure - it's simply the same thing. When you measure the pressure of tires on the ground and the pressure inside the tires, you measure the same thing; tires themselves don't exert pressure, it's the air inside what does. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project|
Well explained CP/M, you hit the point ! --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ground pressure of a car tire is exactly equal to the air pressure in the tire (give or take the stiffness of the tire material). This is elementary physics -- you should be able to get it from a textbook. --Carnildo 05:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that it is true that in most cases air pressure and ground pressure are nearly equal. It is not equal at low pressures and low vehicle weight because some weight is supported by the tire wall as has been pointed out. My guess it that it also does not hold true with low vehicle weight and very high pressure, the example of the road racing bike at 20 lbs weight and 100 psi. In this case the the some of the increase in contact area is due to the rubber deforming. Consider a small steel container (a compressed air tank) with 100 psi air pressure placed on the ground. Only the weight would be considered, not the air pressure inside. On the other hand it seems the weight/contact calculation will always be right. A source would be nice otherwise we are guilty of doing our own research. KAM 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we cite Newton's Laws as the source? Shropshirechris (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give or take the stiffness of the tire material - this is not trivial!! There is a lot of tension in the tire material that prevents the air from escaping out... and that is a significant portion of the tire pressure inside! Think of it in this way - say a car accelerates off the ramp, and is airborne for a short time. Where is the pressure from the ground? Nowhere! Does this mean the tire explodes? No! Removing line to comply with physics and to prevent people from being misled) 129.219.65.205 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you forgot, that where contact-pressure is absent, then the tire skin will take over and compensate the air pressure inside. Otherwise the flatended contact area will take all the pressure from the tire skin and here you are: Ground pressure = air pressure ! --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged this article OR, mainly because of its total lack of references, but specifically because the part about why tank tracks may be undesirable seems very speculative to me. mgekelly 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just delete it citeing OR - it appeared in one huge block by an unregistered user. Alternatively trim it down to a single short paragraph. GraemeLeggett 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be useful if an encompassing track title could be used at the top of the explanation of tracks. Currently, pages such as Track link here (to caterpillar track), implying a false specificity that excludes belt tracks. Perhaps Track (motorized), could be used to cover all types of tracks, or a better title if anyone can think of one. ENeville 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Kegresse track is just an unusual type of caterpillar track. Please adjust the wording and remove the notices cluttering all of these articles. —MichaelZ. 2006-10-26 21:49 Z
Temporary continuous tracks for trucks for crossing extreme slippery muddy roads (bogiebands)[edit]
I've seen images where one puts a continuous track around the 2 pairs of wheels at the back of a truck to increase traction. Anybody who can help expand that? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are called Bogiebands and they do only enhance traction, not much distribute weight, so no real continuous track; concept similar to snow chains, rather --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, there may have been up to twice as many Phoenix Centipeed versions of the steam log hauler built under license from Lombard, with vertical instead of horizontal cylinders. In 1903, the founder of Holt Manufacturing, Benjamin Holt, paid Lombard $60,000 for the right to produce vehicles under his patent. There seems to have been an agreement made after Lombard moved to California, but some discrepancy exists as to how this matter was resolved when previous track patents were studied. Popularly, everyone claimed to have been inspired by the dog treadmill used on farms to power the butter churn, etc. to "invent" the crawler on their own, and the more recent the history, the earlier this supposed date of invention seems to get.
How which matter was resolved? The previous sentences talk about agreements, not disputes.
Who is everyone? Did someone dispute Lombard's invention? What does the "more recent the history" sentence mean? —MichaelZ. 2007-06-06 22:32 Z
Would be good to reduce the number of tank images a little, and add more construction machines. One of the small diggers with rubber tracks would be interesting too, to show that not all tracks are metal. MadMaxDog 08:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
more images of uncommon vehicles are welcome: Please use a gallery to not clutter the in-text images ! --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is based on a misapprehension of what a "Caterpillar" is. --- that is simply a trademark of Caterpillar Tractor Company.
Caterpillar invented none of them nor did the company even exist until 1925, though one of their predecessor companies I think Holt Manufacturing Company had the trade mark requiring Best who made a competiive product to call theirs a 'track layer'.
the highspeed track system used by military vehicles is so fundamentally different from what Caterpillar uses that relating them seems a bit of a stretch. they are similar in that they are an endless series of pads to distribute weight, and an Escalator almost meets that criteria.
The tracks typical of Caterpillar Tractor are universally made of two distict components.--- a Track chain--- which is really just that--- a large chain roller chain--- and then to each link there is bolted a pad of an appropriate length to provide the floatation desired. the pad may depending on application have 1 2 or 3 grousers on it. A series of rollers on the bottom of the swing frame support the weight of the machine.
the military design is usually a series of pads linked together without a separate rail and the vehicle weight is supported by bogey wheels which typically have a torsion bar suspensions of some type.
The similarity of the two is only superficial Both are tracks but beyond that there is really nothing about them that is the same... their drive is different, their suspension is different, their application is different, the method of interconnecting the links is different Rvannatta 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
things are not that easy Rvannatta: there are slightly different designs but a common concept: distributing weight and flatten over bumps in the ground. The lines between designs do not divide civilian an military applications, but the weight and designed speed of vehicles, type of terrains to be adapted for (hard bumpy, swamp or protecting agricultural soil and roads pavement etc.) and last not least: patents and manufacturers proprietary technology... --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to appropriately add this to the article. I have been watching a television show in the US called "Howe & Howe Technologies". The show revolves around a manufacturing facility that designs and builds fast track vehicles. The part I find interesting is that their vehicles use metal tracks, but don't appear to have hinge pins. They appear to use wire cable as a hinge mechanism. Each cleat has tubes or channels that the wire cable runs through. Instead of a chain link & hinge pin design, this design uses two wire cables, each near the outside edges of the cleat. It looks like a track consists of a number of grousers/cleats slid onto two parallel wire cables. It is unclear how the ends of a section of track are joined together to form a complete loop of track. To drive this track, they don't use a chain sprocket as there aren't any chain pins to engage with. Instead, the cleats have small spacers that maintain a gap between the cleats. The driving "sprocket" resembles an open drum of bars. Each bar fits in the space between cleats. The bar engages the entire width of the cleat. The open drum drive seems as though it would be very easy to keep clean and free of debris. Also, this arrangement seems to eliminate the pinching problem between overlapping grousers in a typical track design. Also, I doubt these tracks "stretch" much over time as they don't have pins that wear, producing an effective "stretching" of the chain pitch over time. Anyone know if this is a design similar to a rubber track or maybe a snowmobile track? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.115.100.194 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This concept is obviously vers similar to rubber track, but might eliminate slipping issues, if the the driving wheels syncronize with the track pattern. However, some rubber tracks also use gear teeth to achieve the same. However, WP needs some further references for citing, to make exist substancially what you might have seen in your dreams... --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "slack track" the same as dead track; ie where no return rollers are used.
Live track is then the track system where return rollers are used.
--> "Some track arrangements use return rollers to keep the top of the track running straight between the drive sprocket and idler. Others, called slack track, allow the track to droop and run along the tops of large road wheels. This was a feature of the Christie suspension, leading to occasional misidentification of other slack track-equipped vehicles."
Regarding the idler wheel, isn't this discarded ie with slack track continuous wheels ? This, as the the extra tension required as the wheels go up & down trough driving over potholes can be provided by means of the drooping of the track on the return side.
Finally, can the effect of suspension system on the track design be mentioned better, ie the linked bogie system (see http://img.tfd.com/ggse/d2/gsed_0001_0026_0_img7986.png ) as opposed to the seperate wheel suspension of the christie system isn't mentioned.
91.182.245.155 (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is hardly anything on how tracked vehicles change their driving direction (just a bit about turning in place in the Advantages section). While I know that it boils down to having one track run faster than the other, I would imagine that the engineering is not an entirely trivial matter.
For example, how are engine, transmission and steering set up to accomodate this? What role does the length of the tracks play, given that turning leads to the tracks sliding laterally across the ground? This likely puts some stress on the tracks, especially at the front and rear of the vehicle. Does this lead to some maximum length for tracked vehicles?
Unfortunately I have no knowledge about this (that's why I came here :-)), so I cannot really add this information myself. Elanguescence (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest AFAIK for tracked military vehicles (AFVs) was clutch-and-brake - each side of the vehicle has the drive sprocket connected to the transmission by a steering clutch and a steering brake. To steer, the clutch on the inside turn of the vehicle is clutched out, i.e., initially allowing the sprocket to free-wheel. As the turn is required to become tighter, the brake on that wheel is progressively applied, slowing the track on the inside of the turn even more. This simple system has the disadvantage in that it wastes engine power. Later specialised transmission such as the Merritt-Brown Regenerative System (a system incorporating a differential) were devised, which was much more efficient and also allowed the vehicle to rotate on its own axis. I believe many bulldozers today still use the simple clutch-and-brake method however, as it is simple to implement.
There IS a maximum length for a tracked vehicle (if you want it to be able to make turns that is) and this limitation was discovered on the early British 'Tadpole tail' versions of the Mark I tank. The 'Tadpole tail' was an extension to the rear of the tank that was intended to increase the trench crossing ability, the Germans having widened their trenches after their initial encounter with them at the Battle of Cambrai. The extra length however limited the tanks turning ability and also lead to thrown tracks, and so they were not widely used, the British adopting the carriage of Fascines on their tanks for dropping in trenches instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.77.208 (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added an image of the Kegressé tracks, based on an image of a Tamiya robot. Image might be off slightly, but should be about accurate. 91.182.152.129 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even in such a simple image, it has two serious errors that make it an unillustrative and unencyclopedic image for illustrating Kegressé tracks. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bad link
Steam powered tractors using a form of continuous track were reported in use with the Western Alliance during the Crimean War in the 1850s
Western alliance links to nato this is incorrect please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.190.48 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Continuous track. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Weight to traction relationship marked as dubious[edit]
"Extra weight is an advantage when optimizing for traction and power over speed and mobility." This is objectively true and is not for debate. Friction is net force exerted by two objects against each other, multiplied by friction coefficient. There is simply no other variables. The only source of force in this situation is weight. Therefore, bigger weight directly converts to bigger traction. Bigger weight however naturally reduces mobility and speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.42.35.145 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Edgeworth's contribution (? ≈ Dreadnaught Wheel?)[edit]
There's no concrete evidence that Edgeworth achieved anything. His original idea was a vehicle that would move over obstacles by raising and lowering alternate sets of stilt-like legs.
His biography says, "This idea by degrees developed itself in my mind, so as to make me perceive, that as one half of the machine was always a road for the other half, and that such a machine never rolled upon the ground, a carriage might be made, which should carry a road for itself. It is already certain, that a carriage moving on an iron railway may be drawn with a fourth part of the force requisite to draw it on a common road. After having made a number of models of my machine, that should carry and lay down its own road, I took out a patent to secure to myself the principle; but the term of my patent has been long since expired, without my having been able to unite to my satisfaction in this machine strength with sufficient lightness, and with regular motion, so as to obtain the advantages I proposed.
... I never lost sight of this scheme during forty years; I have made considerably above one hundred working models upon this principle, in a great variety of forms; and that, although I have not yet been able to accomplish my project, I am still satisfied that it is feasible."
I see nothing here that justifies crediting him with the invention of a continuous track. Hengistmate (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He invented a number of things over the years, particularly late on when he was involved with surveying in Ireland. One of these was a sort of wooden Decauville tramway. Do you know anything more about him? It might not belong here, but his own article is looking thin.
Dreadnaught (sic) Wheel: moving to its own main article[edit]
This passing reference to the Dreadnaught Wheel is longer than the main article on the Dreadnaught Wheel, and it begins and ends by saying it's not a continuous track. It shouldn't be here. Hengistmate (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right Hengistmate, however i was glad to find the reference here though: i did not know that before. so please:
do !not! delete without moving the content to the main article Dreadnaught Wheel (as far as references & descriptions lacking there)
include the mention as {{Main Article|Dreadnaught Wheel}}:
All in good time. If it concerns you, then you do it. Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, although I find I usually encounter quite the opposite. I've just observed that Blinov is described twice in the article. Hengistmate (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right again Hengistmate, i hate counteraction and am so sorry that i had to decide to overwrite your last edits, because i saw you had just deleted a lot. I much respect the work of others and avoid deleting anything exept double or nonsense statements or things to be covered elsewhere via moving to {{Main Article|XXX}}. I also was not happy with the extra === patent history === section either, but did not dare touch it in the first step (i should have done my transformations in smaller steps anyway). And i agree your point in moving most but one or two intro lines over to the main article Dreadnaught Wheel. Same might go for Blinov which might be relevant only as a side note for historical context, however i know nothing about Blinovs concept exept what i understood just from this article.
My handicap is, i am not native english, so it is not easy for me to create writing content and i prefer going for logical structure and image galleries rather. This is why i would leave the text to you now for a day or two and appreciate if you look over the text version i have commited as a whole to apply all your corrections, exept for discarding content that might still be useful elesewhere (see next section i will create below here in a few minutes). The text might also deserve some additional headlines for each detail, to help navigation and prevent doublications. --Regine69 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article i found here in Continuous track is just precious for its very detailed historical analysis, not to be found in de:WP, though de:WP features even two separate articles:
The two german articles are not well structured either with some doublications for general track technology and common history.
The plan is, to draw a sharp line between
one article covering the principles of continuos track drive "bottom" technology with its detailed patent & development history (most of which is found here)
one article giving the overview of all the tracked vehicles and their custom application purposes of today + a gallery of some famous historical vehicles, as a "catogery navigation center", but not going into any detail to be covered by continuos track.
The idea is to complete en:Continuous track first with some stuff from de:WP and then translate it back.
The second article (still lacking on en:WP ?) needs to be done mostly from scratch, however this should mainly be mere collecting links & pictures. --Regine69 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That article has a tag stating that it has been decided to merge it with this one. I don't feel ready to do that at this time, but I remind others in case they do. David R. Ingham (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this might proove to not have been the best idea then ? --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maus isn't good as the side-shields hide too much of the track. We need better tank photos though: many of the ones here are poor, and they don't show anything of the suspension development through the 1920s and 1930s. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example this one here. Pz.Kpfw VIII «Мaus» at the Kubinka tank museum130.232.136.229 (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a useful image for the Maus article, but not here.
Maus was largely parts-bin engineering. It used existing designs for things, it didn't innovate. There is merit to including Porsche's VK.4501 suspension bogie design in this article, but we can get much better photographs of that from the other AFVs which used it, not Maus. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or this one, spotted in Stewart BC in September 2015, said Mr L with his tongue planted halfway into his cheek: Lloyd LS600 SnowmobileMr Larrington (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of the article refers to tracks "driven by two or more wheels". As far as I know typical track systems run about two or more wheels but are overwhelmingly driven by only one of them. Am I missing something? Totensiebush (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the original editor meant either 1 per track (2 tracks = 2 driving wheels) or was talking about multiple wheels of any type (not just driven). Either way, we should probably just delete that last clause of the sentence. Stepho talk 08:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
