Grip is the thing, Mick. I keep wondering what's behind the design philosophy. Are these shapes and patterns- especially on WW2 German tanks and patterns really optimised for grip? I would have thought that the "V' shape seen on the Sherman would have worked much like a swimming stroke, and perhaps this is what gave it the edge in cross country performance.Son of a gun-ner wrote:Symmetrical tracks like the Sherman's were ambidextrous, it made no difference to what side they went on, the connectors with their tightening wedges were exactly the same on both sides of a track, and the duckbills could be fitted to either side.
But, I do wonder about the "V" shape on the Sherman tracks, I would have thought an upside down V would have given more grip in a forwards direction.
Ok, some times a tank would have to tactically reverse, but tanks were still designed more for forwards travel, and in the majority of cases a German tank would have done many more miles in its forward gears.
Above I was giving a reason for those Stug tracks being the wrong way around, and why the the tracks have a correct way around.
Maybe as the Stug was more a defensive piece of armour, it had its tracks on more for reversing back into new defensive positions as the war was nearing its end
Most other tracks are symmetrical if you check them out. What's more, if the pins could be fitted from the inside or the outside the tracks would have been truly interchangeable.
So....how are you supposed to recognise a track that's fitted incorrectly? I'm still in the dark on that one
Rad appears to know, but I'd like him to enlighten me.
