Wheel-and-Track Vehicles

A lot of people think these were just a dead-end of interwar tank design, but there were a few models that saw service during the war, Notably the Austrian Saurer reconnaissance APCs in North Africa.

The negative side for most of these designs was an over-complication of manufacture and maintenance, and therefore increased cost, but the savings in fuel economy and track mileage would seem to make up for this over the life of the vehicles.

I believe that the time for this design idea will return - the recent trend for light armour to be wheeled instead of tracked coupled with the improvements in materials and engineering might see the wheel-and-track concept return in time.

Please note: We are not talking about halftracks here! Thankyou. The three main types of wheel and track designs were:

1. Transmutables - vehicles where both wheels and tracks were carried and you could choose between the two, sometimes quickly and easily from within the vehicle, sometimes after a lot of messing about outside the vehicle.

2. The Wheel-or-track option - most notably the early BT series Russian tanks which could drive on the road wheels with the tracks removed.

3. The Auto Transporter/Draisine option where a separate unpowered wheeled 'trailer' or 'chassis' could be mounted by the tracked vehicle and then powered by it.

 

To start the thread off, I will just post this list of Wheel-and-Track vehicles, which as people mention or post about different models I can edit and update, hopefully eventually giving us a useful reference list.

Austria/Germany

Saurer RR-7 reconnaissance APC / Sdkfz 254 (140 built, in service Austria/Third Reich 1936/7 - 1942/3)
ADMK Mulus (1935 - in service Austria and supposed then Third Reich (no source)) (multiple variants)
Saurer RR/RK-7 all terrain Truck
Austro Daimler ADAT all terrain Truck
Benz-Brauer?
Sauer/Saurer Lj-9/RK-9 (based on Pz1, 1 prototype 1942)
1928 experimental model

Czechoslovakia

Tatra KTT (t-25) all terrain truck
Skoda KH-50 medium tank
Skoda KH-60 medium tank
Skoda KH-70 medium tank

France

St Chamond Modele 1921
St Chamond Modele 1923 (7 Units in service (very briefly) with Spain)
St Chamond Gun Tractor Modele 1924
Schneider-Laurent amphibian 1928

Great Britain and Commonwealth

Alvis Straussler (became eventually the Hungarian V4)
Vickers Armstrong D3E1 Medium Tank (Prototype 1927/28)
Vickers Medium Mk 1 (Prototype 1926)
Carden Loyd Mk1* (1925/6)
Carden Loyd Mk5 (8 vehicles built 1928)
Schofield Tank (NZ) (1 prototype produced 1940, 1 produced 1942 (2lb OQF armed), not in service)
Vickers-Wolseley medium tank

Hungary

Straussler V4 Light Tank

Japan

St Chamond Look-alike???

Poland

TKS/Ursus AutoTransport(AT) (in service in fairly large numbers)
TKS/FT-17/7TP Rail Draisine (Dreznya)
FT17 AT
10TP

Russia

BT-2
BT-3
BT-5
BT-7
T-29
Model 1931

Sweden

Landswerk L-5 (one prototype 1929)
Landswerk L-30 (3 prototypes taken into service for testing the type, 1931, not retained)
Landswerk L-80 (one prototype, development of L-30, 1933)

Switzerland

Hurliman MS 70

United States

Ford Model T based tractor?
Christie 8-inch SPG (1918)
Christie 105mm SPG
Christie M1921 Amphibious
Christie M1923 Amphibious
Christie M1932
Christie T1 CC
Christie T2 CC
Linn C5
T4E1 medium tank prototype
Crosley Duck Prototype

 

Here are some of the British efforts from the 1920s and 30s;

The Vickers Armstrong D3E1

The Vickers Medium Mk1

The Carden Loyd Mk1*

The Carden Loyd Mk5

Both the Carden Loyd vehicles used a tricycle arrangment with a single wheel at the rear for steering.

 

Here is my personal favourite: the Schofield tank of New Zealand


Nigel, I hope I'm not out of place here by stating my opinion, as you seem to want more a reference guide.

On a more serious note, the technology certainly could have had its applications. I think the most evident case is the allied advance into Germany. Had Shermans and Churchills been equipped with wheels as well as tracks, an even quicker advance via the autobahn would have ensued.

Allied forces often used various well-maintained roads to advance (and often met little resistance), but the speed of advance was usually limited by the speed of the slowest vehicles. For example; Jeeps and CCKWs could make over 45mph, while the Shermans were limited to around 25mph. Any advance needs heavy support, meaning that the these vehicles would have to travel together in the advance. The faster, lightly-armoured vehicles couldn't use their speed to the full potential, as the slower tanks were "holding them back". Joint track/wheel technology could've helped to fix this problem.

I think this technology was ignored because of:
-Its cost
-Its possible maintenance issues (it was unproven, and this is generally seen as unreliable)
-There was no pressing need to do so: you weren't loosing a battle solely because your tanks were too slow, whereas being outgunned, outclassed or outmanned had a more direct impact.

 

Opinions are just what we want - thanks Alan - hopefully the reference guide evolves by accident out of the discussion and opinionating.

As to what you said - i am not so sure that faster tanks would have made much difference - the issue of advancing down roads at high speed is more the amount of resistance expected or found - look at the 30 Corps advance to Nijmegen - the 25mph of the Shermans was never achieved, so faster tanks wouldn't have likely helped much.

On the local defensive, faster tanks were often critical - especially such as the US tank destroyers, which could rapidly move to appropriate positions, cutting down the need for so many vehicles and allowing them to be better positioned - perhaps they could have benefited from a wheel/track design although the distances involved and thus track life considerations were negligible compared to other theatres of operations.

 

Also worth noting is the German solution - the 8-wheel armoured cars/tank destroyers which had good cross country performance and weapons such as the 50mm L60 and the 75mm L24 and eventually L46 for reasonably heavy support - obviously there was little advancing done in the west by this time, so the full potential was perhaps not realised.

 

Absolutely that is the key factor, but, when the opportunity presents itself, one must take advantage of it. Yes, in Nimegan faster tanks wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference, but in situation where there is weak resistance, their presence could be key, or at the very least provide an edge. Would the money and resources expended in developing the technology be worth it? That is open to debate.

For example: Operation Dragoon. Allied invaders met little resistance (I believe this is jokingly called the "Champagne Campaign"), so could have advanced at any pace they wanted if they had ample resources and support. Due to logistical issues (mainly lack of fuel), German forces were allowed to retreat northwards. Wheels would have assisted in solving the fuel problem (less fuel to run on wheels as opposed to tracks), and could have helped to cut off the retreating enemy.

The speed of an advance is absolutely tied to the tactical situation, but in just one occasion could make the difference between victory and defeat. An example would be Anzio - if Lucas wanted to advance instead of dig in, Rome could have been captured before the Germans even knew what hit them. There is a certain tactical edge to be had by a fast advance.

In response to your second email: The German 8-wheel heavy armor cars would have been effective had the Wehrmacht been advancing. The Sdkfz 234/2 "Puma" is a good example of this. Many nations adopted heavy armoured cars after the war in lieu of tanks or tank destroyers (the Italian 'Centrano' and French AMX-10 come to mind).

All the best

 

All good points - one thing perhaps we are both missing here is that the technology was explored during the interwar period quite a lot, although the success of the designs was very limited it certainly wasn't untried - by ww2 there was much greater potential to make working versions.

Here is one of the least successful, just to disprove my point, the St Chamond of 1923, 7 sold to Spain and almost immediately taken out of service! (to be fair most of the problems were not due to the wheel/track drive)

 

Incidentally does anyone actually have figures detailing fuel consumption of a wheel-and-track vehicle in each configuration? The argument for better fuel economy might be easily answered if the figures for wheel travel and track travel, both on road, are fairly close together or widely different.
I'll keep looking but found nothing yet.

 

Courtesy of the 'Catalog of Enemy Ordnance: Volume 1':

For the Sdkfz 254:

Theoretical Radius of Action
Roads (Wheels): 302 Miles
Cross-Country (Tracks): 62 Miles



For the ADMK:

Fuel Tank: 10 Gallons
Highway Economy: 10 MPG
"Average Economy": 6.8 MPG

Theoretical Radius of Action
Roads (Wheels): 124 Miles
Cross-Country (Tracks): 68 Miles



I hope this helps. The book doesn't give the fuel tank capacity for the 254, and I don't know if these vehicle would use more fuel offroad or onroad, which would certainly play a factor. However, given the differences in the range it appears they get better fuel economy on wheels.

 

Thanks for those figures Alan, but what i really hope to find is comparable figures for both systems on road - pure tracked vehicles have a similar proportional difference in range on road and off road to the ADMK mulus of about 50% (although the figure for the 254 shows a better ratio), and that might indicate that the wheel and track didn't help that much other than with track wear.

If we can assume a fairly typical figure for the sdkfz 254 of about 120 miles on road on tracks, and 300 miles on road on wheels, then the difference is striking for the same vehicle. it makes you wonder why firstly the mulus was not so good (if the figures are true) and why Germany as a fuel starved nation didn't go all out with this type of vehicle. The fuel savings would have easily made up for the increased production resources needed I believe)

It's a puzzle!

 

That's what I thought you were after, but that will hard to find, espcially given the rare nature of the vehicles. I hope the previous figures will be a start, anyway. I'm flipping through another book as we speak ('Army Vehicles Directory to 1940' of 1970s vintage), but haven't found much on fuel economy or range differences. However, I have turned up a bunch of names:

I'll try to scan some of these vehicle pages later today, as they have a photo for each one, and some technical information.

Austria
Austro-Daimler ADMK
Austro-Daimler ADMK with large bogies
Austro-Daimler ADMK open top
Austro-Daimler ADAT
Saurer RK7

Czechoslovakia
Tatra KTT
Skoda KH60

France
Gun Portee Saint Chamond

Germany
Benz-Brauer

Great Britain
Vickers/Wolseley

 

I'm very eager to see the Benz-Brauer - not heard of that before and maybe the Germans did more with wheel and track than I thought - doesn't seem to be anything obvious on the net although i intend to keep looking

Here's some pictures i found of the others;

Tatra KTT (T-25)
Skoda/Vollmer KH-60
It's predecessor the KH-50
Vickers-Wolseley
Austro-Daimler ADAT

Please post what you have though - I think this subject needs as many photos as possible as it is difficult to see the mechanisms used properly without several views.

 

Also the Sauer RK-7 - basically a soft skin version largely similar to the RR-7 armoured vehicle - sources on the web call this Sauer, Saurer, AD and probably more, and the RK-7 and RR-7 are often mixed up -

maybe your book has it clearer what is what?

 

Also here is;

What is said to be the St Chamond portee - to me however a portee is when a field carriage gun is carried on a vehicle so i think this is just a proposed variant of the modele 1921

The St Chamond gun tractor modele 1924 on tracks

And on wheels

 

Another aspect of the concept to consider is the amount of damage tracked vehicles do to roads - follow on wheeled vehicles can often have problems and repair work is often needed. Wheel and track designs could have limited this considerably.

From my own experiences in Germany more recently, where to be sure the issue was more cost of repairs to roads rather than follow on logistics, but we were very limited to the amount of road mileage we could do in tracked vehicles. The amount of damage caused was significant, even for light armour with rubber-shod tracks. seems another good reason for more of these to be around, training and operations.

 

Found a reference here to a 'Benz-Brauer halftrack' of 1918 - not sure if it the same model you referred to - incidentally Brauer was on the A7V design team and the army procurement organisation.

The Orionwagen - The Patriot Files Forums

 

Here is the Austrian Sauer Lj-9 (possibly RK-9) of 1942,
The Swedish Landswerk L-30 on wheels
and L-30 on tracks

And to show some variations on the wheel track theme

The Polish TKS on Autotransport
And TKS Rail Draisine

 

Found this great article; fuel consumption listed as 2 miles/gallon on tracks, 20 miles a gallon on wheels!

Lone Sentry: Track-Wheel Vehicles (WWII Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 39, December 2, 1943)

Experimentation by Austrian automotive engineers to produce for the German army a dual-purpose vehicle which will be capable of quick conversion from wheel to caterpillar traction is reported in an article sprinted recently in the German technical publication "Wehrtechnische Monatshefte" A translation of the article follows:

* * *
A suitably-built caterpillar vehicle is fully capable of cross-country travel, but has only a limited cruising radius. The caterpillar track cannot be used for travel on highways at great speed without excessive wear and tear.

Vehicles on wheels, on the contrary, develop great speed and have a great cruising radius, but are poorly suited for cross-country travel, even when equipped with all-wheel drive.

It was quite natural, therefore, to think of creating a vehicle which would be adequate for both cross-country and road travel, that is, caterpillar motion with motion on wheels.

Practical development of this idea has for more than two decades been the subject of research and experimentation. To some extent the creation of tanks is closely associated with that development. Worthy of mention in this connection is particularly the Christie type of construction, such as Russia is using for light battle tanks. Unquestionably, however, this principle involves certain technical and tactical disadvantages, due to the fact that the vehicle's crew requires half-an-hour for the work of removing the caterpillar chains, and must leave the vehicle to do this. One of the advantages, however, is that the width of the vehicle remains unchanged. In the Kolo-Housenka tank of the Vollmer type, developed by Skoda, 4 wheels have to be attached from the side, and the method of driving the vehicle into position on blocks involves much additional difficulty. There was an advantage, however, in the simplicity of construction of that type of vehicle, so that these Skoda vehicles were regarded favorably for a considerable period of time.

Of real importance were the wheel-caterpillar vehicles of Landsverk, Sweden. The wheel running gear is built solidly into the car, and can be lowered on the outside by means of a spindle joint. Change from caterpillar to wheel operation, and vice-versa, can be effected while the vehicle is in motion. Both, the French and the English have attempted similar types of construction, but due to its practical adaptability for military purposes the Swedish type of construction was considered superior.

Under the stimulus of experimentation in other countries, the former Austrian High Command submitted to the Saurer Works (Vienna) a list of requirements for building a caterpillar-tread wheel car. While traveling on wheels, the vehicle was to be adequate for cross-country travel, and the caterpillar treads were to be used only in traversing particularly difficult terrain. This was taken to imply that change from one type of drive to the other could be done from the driver's seat in a few seconds of time. Consequently, since the caterpillar treads are to be used only on special occasions, and since, therefore, the wear and tear to be anticipated was relatively slight, it would be possible to avoid large structural design and thus keep the weight of the car within close limits. The vehicle must be suited for use not only in draft but also for carriage of heavy loads.

After many months of trial on level terrain, in mountains of moderate and great height, partly on snowy ground, with and without attached loads, Saurer developed his wheel-caterpillar car RR (Räderraupenwagen) Type 7. The Austrian High Command had made plans for developing this vehicle as carrier, prime mover, and combat car.


This car is propelled by a Diesel motor located in front. The motor is operated on the double-gyration principle, and the speed with trailer is approximately 45 miles per hour on wheels and 12 miles per hour on caterpillar treads. Transmission to the driving gear is effected by means of a dry-operated, single-disk coupling. The caterpillar treads are moved by 2-drive wheels located in front. Each tread rests upon 6 uncovered, stamped rollers of sheet-metal. Helical springs are used for the rollers. The joints of the tread are made of alloyed cast steel and linked to one another by specially hardened bolts of chromium nickel steel. The chain cleans itself while in motion. Steering is effected through a differential by braking the movement of the inside tread when taking a curve.

The driving gear for use on wheels embodies a number of structural innovations which Saurer had previously found satisfactory upon testing in the construction of truck series. Since it was necessary for wheel driving to provide the necessary clearance for turning of the wheels, the front wheels placed laterally outside the caterpillar tread entailed a corresponding extra width of vehicle; and for caterpillar driving this width has to be reduced sufficiently to enable the car to pass without difficulty through narrow sunken roads. As the wheels are drawn up, they fit close to the body of the car; in fact, the lower part of the wheels in this position does not project beyond the outer edge of the caterpillar tread. Change from one type of drive to the other is effected by an auxiliary motor through a worm gear, without requiring the crew to leave the vehicle. Since the time required for changing is only 4 seconds, there was no attempt to insist on an arrangement for changing from one type of drive to the other while the vehicle is in motion. This helped to simplify the construction and reduce costs. Only the rear axle is motorized when the vehicle is operated by means of the wheel drive.

The driver's seat is located by the side of the motor, at the front of the vehicle, so that there is every possibility of modifying the superstructure further back. This vehicle is equipped with a cable winch.

Further details follow:

Motor . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 cylinder Diesel, type CRDV
Continuous output (with
brakes) . . . . . . . . . . . 70 HP at 2,000 rpm
Gear ratio . . . . . . . . . 4.91:1, 3.03:1, 1.72:1, 1:1,
0.75:1, reverse 4.58:1
Rear axle reduction . . . . . 5.9:1
Tank capacity . . . . . . . . Approx 18 gals
Fuel consumption (wheels) . . Approx 5 gals per 100 miles
Fuel consumption (treads) . . Approx 2 quarts per mile
Dead weight . . . . . . . . . Approx 8,800 pounds
Useful load . . . . . . . . . Approx 4,400 pounds
Total length . . . . . . . . 14 feet, 3 in
Height on treads . . . . . . 5 feet, 3 in
Width on wheel drive . . . . 7 feet, 2 in
Circumstances did not permit the planned far-reaching adoption of this vehicle in the Austrian Army in 1938. But development of the type is being continued.

Comment: Vehicles of this Austrian type were reported by observers as in use by the German Army in the Middle-East theater.

 

A Thread.



Schneider Laurent Amphibian:


Maybe slightly 'off-track' - BT7 of the Belarussian museum of the GPW doing what it (among others) was designed to do:


~A