modern tanks, narrow tracks

[spongehoobtank82]

Was just comparing my new leopard 2a6 worth my tiger 1 and thinking how come the tracks are more narrow on the Leo? Surely they would have wider tracks for better 'floatability' now the Leo weighs more and has slimmer tracks but there is a longer are of track in contract with the ground, so I guess ground pressure is about the same between the 2, anyone have any thoughts?

[Tankbear]

Good question, I've never thought about it but I would guess modern tanks have large pads which must add up to a large point of contact than the older tracks which had ribs.

[spongehoobtank82]

Yeah but I would if thought once the ribs press through the ground is the same as having a larger pad, it's a strange one, and I always thought the loads were to save roads and tracks from damage? I could be wrong though! Ha ha ha

[Woz]

Isn't the Leo longer?

Track width is restricted by the need to transport tanks on trains and lorries. If the tanks have very wide tracks then they'd need special transport tracks (like the Tigers) and this causes loads of problems.

[spongehoobtank82]

Yeah but would they just not make a narrower hull? The Leo is alot wide than the tiger to be fair, guess the answer is probably down to some practical or engineering decision we may never know!

[Woz]

Yeah but would they just not make a narrower hull? The Leo is alot wide than the tiger to be fair, guess the answer is probably down to some practical or engineering decision we may never know!

You still need room for a rotating 3 man fighting compartment below the turret. If the hull was too narrow then you'd have no room for the commander, gunner and loader, unless they're all in a high turret that sits on top of the hull.

When you say the Leo is wider is that from outside track to outside track (not including the side skirts which get removed when transported).

I know UK tanks design was restricted by the need for transportation.

[Woz]

Just had a quick google
From the outside of one track to the outside of the other-

Tiger 1 with combat tracks is 3705mm wide
Leo 2 is 3420mm
Ariete Main Battle Tank 3420mm
Chally 2 3420mm
M1A2 Abrams 3470mm (fatty)

So the Tiger 1 had a wider foot print then all modern MBT's.

As for track length
From the center point of the front road wheel to the center point of the rear raod wheel

Tiger 1 4095mm
Leo 2 4733mm

[billpe]

The longer wheel base means the Leo 2 has a ground pressure of 11 psi compared to the Tigers 15.

Also having a 1500bhp, highly reliable turbo diesel which has a phenomenal amount of torque gives you a few more options than the Tiger drivers did in poor terrain.