In armoured fighting vehicle design, the Iron Triangle concept describes the design tensions that exist between the three primary characteristics of these vehicles: mobility, protection and lethality. Traditionally, wheels and tracks represent two different trade-off instances between different aspects of these three factors and are suited to different operational conditions. To provide some clarity to the wheels vs tracks argument for the ADF, a wheels vs tracks study was undertaken in the Australian context. This study collated results of previous studies and performed a meta-analysis, synthesizing the results to produce an understanding of the impacts of wheels and tracks on operational outcomes, analyzing the current evidence of the strengths and weaknesses of wheels and tracks, and interprets these in different contexts characterized by environmental and operational variables. The results of the meta-analysis show that overall a tracked vehicle will offer a greater operational capability advantage more often. Out of the 72 different contexts defined, 62 show an operational advantage for tracked vehicles. Only nine contexts had an overall utility skewed towards a wheeled vehicle, and in one context wheeled and tracked vehicles were judged as equal. The analysis identified 14 contexts with an intensity rating of extreme, and in all of those contexts tracked vehicles had an operational advantage over wheeled vehicles. In 15 of the 20 contexts judged to be most likely, tracked vehicles had an operational advantage over wheeled vehicles, while the remaining five showed an operational advantage for wheeled vehicles.
The Wheels Versus Tracks Problem for Armoured Fighting Vehicles in the Australian Context
Lect. Notes in Managem., Industrial Engineering
2021-02-27
14 pages
Article/Chapter (Book)
Electronic Resource
English
Wheels versus tracks for armoured fighting vehicles
Automotive engineering | 1982
|Engineering Index Backfile | 1962
|Engineering Index Backfile | 1962
|Automotive engineering | 1975
|