rubber tracks on tanks
s.m.vi...@gmail.com
tracks on its tanks? I assume they provided better traction but were
there any disadvantages to rubber tracks?
Dave Smith
can damage inside the tank. They also reduce damage to the pavement,
which might not be as much of a problem for other tanks following it,
but would present major problems for the support vehicles following the
tank column.
William Black
The rubber bits fell off and wore out.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...
s.m.vi...@gmail.com
rubber covering, is that correct?
Alan Nordin
> I assume they provided better traction but were
> there any disadvantages to rubber tracks?
They didn't perform as well in mud. But if steel extensions were
added, they did as well as steel tracks.
In Sicily and Italy, armored commanders preferred steel tracks. The
rocky terrain in both places chewed up rubber tracks far too quickly.
There was also an innovation that was very useful traction wise,
chevrons were formed into the rubber track blocks. Until this,
neither type did well on ice.
Also the tracks weren't totally rubber, the rubber was formed onto
steel frames. There were also steel pins on which each segment
pivoted. These pins were given rubber bushings in both steel and
rubber tracks. Steel tracks weren't totally steel, as noted above
they had rubber pin bushings and in early 1944 were given rubber backs
to reduce wear and vibration on the bogeys and the rest of the
suspension.
Alan
Bruce Burden
: Was the U.S. the only major combatant in wwii to use rubber-coated
: tracks on its tanks? I assume they provided better traction but were
: there any disadvantages to rubber tracks?
Tanks, yes, I believe so. The US was also the only country
that used "live" track vs "dead" track on their tanks.
Half-tracks? No, I believe the French also used rubber tracks
on their half-tracks. For the M3/M5 family of half-tracks, the
rubber was vulcanised to steel cables to form a continous loop
of track. A coil spring against the idler wheel mount kept the
tension on the tracks. Simple, and low maintence.
Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes
Michele
news:4bae82e6-fc14-4f3b...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
> Was the U.S. the only major combatant in wwii to use rubber-coated
> tracks on its tanks? I assume they provided better traction but were
> there any disadvantages to rubber tracks?
>
Yes, that they consumed rubber, and everyone was short on rubber.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
The German SdKfz 251 half track had rubber pads on the tracks and
rubber rims on the wheels, these were abandoned latter in the war
whenever possible presumably becuase of the hopeless natural rubber
supply situation. The Germans had synthetic rubber, actually having
invented buna-s and buna-n but synthetic rubber needs a small
admixture of natural rubber to develop friabillity. Although the
allies lost much of their plantation supplies in the far east they did
have small supplies of wild rubber from Sth America and possibly India
as well as developing techniques for recovering the natural rubber in
tyres.
As a little side note, forced labour more or less slave labour made
its reappearnace in Sth America to keep this natural supply of wild
rubber up.
The lack of rubber for German tracked vehicles goes a long way to
explaining the supposed high frequency of maintanance for these
vehicles compared to the Sherman (from memmory track life of 300 miles
instead of about 1200 for Sherman).
It believe they developed resilent steel wheels in the final year or
two of the war. Tiger I were retrofitted with steel-rimmed resilient
road-wheels just as those of Tiger II and Panther II tanks. It is
reported that some 800 were mounted with such wheels. The wheels had
internal rubber rim and were adapted from those used in Tiger II tank.
The wheels were introduced because they could stand more weight and
allowed the number of road-wheels per axle to be decreased from three
to two. Deutsche Eisenwerke produced those wheels. It would appear
that having an internal rubber rim would almost completely eliminate
rubber wear since the rubber was not a running surface though it would
clearly be inferiror to a rubber to metal track-wheel contact.
Michele
news:e1ba8acf-11ad-4705...@a19g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
The Germans had synthetic rubber, actually having
> invented buna-s and buna-n but synthetic rubber needs a small
> admixture of natural rubber to develop friabillity. Although the
> allies lost much of their plantation supplies in the far east they did
> have small supplies of wild rubber from Sth America and possibly India
> as well as developing techniques for recovering the natural rubber in
> tyres.
>
> As a little side note, forced labour more or less slave labour made
> its reappearnace in Sth America to keep this natural supply of wild
> rubber up.
Of course, this account conveys the idea that only the Germans had synthetic
rubber. "Buna S" was styrene-butadiene, and guess what, the US produced GRS,
which stands for Government Rubber, Styrene - and it also contained
butadiene. In other words, they produced more or less the same stuff as
those clever Germans.
The account above also conveys the idea that the Germans, as usual, were
technologically ahead. Sure it was a German chemist that invented the
styrene-butadiene rubber, but then again neoprene was invented in the USA,
the first European plant for producing synthetic rubber was Soviet, etc.
Finally, I find remarkable the little attempt at spreading the smudge of
slave labor onto South American countries. It must be because the most
famous slave labor center in history, Auschwitz, had a large satellite camp
called Auschwitz III, or Monowitz, or, also, very simply, "Buna". Guess what
they produced there? Of course, that was true slave labor and the slaves
died like flies.
William Black
> Just to clarify, I'm assuming the tracks were made of steel but had a
> rubber covering, is that correct?
>
The one I have seen, yes.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<39a0b413-9b7c-47b7...@y31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
alan_...@comcast.net (Alan Nordin) wrote:
> They didn't perform as well in mud. But if steel extensions were
> added, they did as well as steel tracks.
As I mentioned in another post they gave better traction on iced up
roads.
Ken Young
Alan Nordin
> As I mentioned in another post they gave better traction on iced up
> roads.
As I mentioned in the post you're replying to, only after the rubber
blocks were formed with chevrons on the surface.
Alan
euno...@yahoo.com.au
wrote:
> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> ha scritto nel messaggionews:e1ba8acf-11ad-4705...@a19g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Germans had synthetic rubber, actually having
>
> > invented buna-s and buna-n but synthetic rubber needs a small
> > admixture of natural rubber to develop friabillity. Although the
> > allies lost much of their plantation supplies in the far east they did
> > have small supplies of wild rubber from Sth America and possibly India
> > as well as developing techniques for recovering the natural rubber in
> > tyres.
>
> > As a little side note, forced labour more or less slave labour made
> > its reappearnace in Sth America to keep this natural supply of wild
> > rubber up.
>
> Of course, this account conveys the idea that only the Germans had synthetic
> rubber. "Buna S" was styrene-butadiene, and guess what, the US produced GRS,
> which stands for Government Rubber, Styrene - and it also contained
> butadiene. In other words, they produced more or less the same stuff as
> those clever Germans.
The history of synthetic rubber development is well known and the
German (IG Farben ie BASF) development of buna-n and buna-s are key
milestones, US developments such as GRS are simply name rebrandings of
Buna-S using slightly modified processes that do not change the
chemical essence of the form. In essence after war broke out the
United States ignored German patents and liscenses and that was most
of the US rubber problem solved.
The key difference was that the Germans had no access to natural
latex, the US was able to obtain modest amounts from Brazil and Sth/
Central America which when combined with recyled latex assured the US
rubber supply.
True synthetic latex was not developed untill the late 1950s.
There were some attempts, Frantic ones by Himmler himself, to develop
latex plantatios based upon the Russian-Dandelion. This is a
superior form of latex but of rather small yield.
Alan Nordin
> The history of synthetic rubber development is well known and the
> German (IG Farben ie BASF) development of buna-n and buna-s are key
> milestones, US developments such as GRS are simply name rebrandings of
> Buna-S using slightly modified processes that do not change the
> chemical essence of the form. In essence after war broke out the
> United States ignored German patents and liscenses and that was most
> of the US rubber problem solved.
The main difference is Germany was cut off from rubber in WWI when the
Allies were not. So Germany's synthetic rubber industry had a head
start. As you point out, they developed both Buna {short for
Butadiene & sodium [Na]} and Buna-S {short for Buna & Styrene}. The
Americans initially produced Buna, then they came up with something
better than Buna or Buna-S. Neoprene, or Isoprene with a chlorine
atom attached instead of a methyl group. It was more resistent to
organic solvents and more temperature resistant. For things like gas
hoses, it's better than rubber itself.
Alan
Michele
I'm glad that you acknowledge that your account was glaringly incomplete. By
reading it, one could gather that
a) the Allies lost their natural rubber save small amounts from South
America,
b) they reclaimed rubber from used tires, but that was obviously not enough,
so
c) slave labor in South America was part of the solution to their rubber
problem.
Now that I've reminded it to you, it turns out that "_most_ of the US rubber
problem" was actually solved through synthetic rubber, just like the German
problem. With the difference that buna production, in Germany, did rely on
slave labor, as seen in Monowitz. Thanks for setting the record straight.
> The key difference was that the Germans had no access to natural
>From June 1941 onwards. Up to that date, they managed to import small
amounts of natural rubber through their friendly agreement with the Soviet
Union. It traveled all the way from the Far East across Japanese-controlled
Manchukuo along the Siberian railroad.
Rich Rostrom
> > The key difference was that the Germans had no access to natural latex...
>From June 1941 onwards. Up to that date, they managed to import small
> amounts of natural rubber through their friendly agreement with the Soviet
> Union. It traveled all the way from the Far East across Japanese-controlled
> Manchukuo along the Siberian railroad.
[Note: I believe the previous post was somewhat
misedited in snipping previous content. I think I
fixed that, but I apologize if I misattributed anything.]
Where did these rubber imports originate? Not Malaya,
which was of course British. Not the Netherlands East
Indies, at least not after April 1940. Thailand? Or French
Indochina, which was under Vichy control? That seems
like the most likely source. I've not read that Indochina
produced rubber. But there was a 1932 movie (_Red
Dust_, starring Clark Gable, Jean Harlow, and Mary Astor)
which was set at a rubber plantation in Indochina.
Michele
news:84c36017-6f07-4e7d...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 10:04 am, "Michele" <nospammiar...@tln.it (chiocciolina)>
> wrote:
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> ha scritto nel
>
>> > The key difference was that the Germans had no access to natural
>> > latex...
>
>>From June 1941 onwards. Up to that date, they managed to import small
>> amounts of natural rubber through their friendly agreement with the
>> Soviet
>> Union. It traveled all the way from the Far East across
>> Japanese-controlled
>> Manchukuo along the Siberian railroad.
>
> [Note: I believe the previous post was somewhat
> misedited in snipping previous content. I think I
> fixed that, but I apologize if I misattributed anything.]
>
> Where did these rubber imports originate?
I have no idea. My online sources are people who are quoting Ericson,
Feeding the German Eagle. But remember that both the USSR and Japan weren't
under a trade embargo. They could buy rubber wherever they pleased at a time
when Germany, being at war with Britain, France and the Netherlands, could
not.
As to your question concerning rubber from Indochina, what I can tell you is
that in the March 1941 meeting in Berlin between the German and Japanese
diplomats, Schnurre and Matsuoka (Schnurre being the leading German Foreign
Ministry expert as to international trade and strategic supplies), Matsuoka
seemed sure that rubber could be produced in Vichy French Indochina, and
Schnurre said that German "mediation" would make sure that the Vichy French
would be willing.
In a memorandum by Schnurre dated April 5, 1941, he stated that the
situation of supply transit across the USSR was "favorable as usual", and
that "At our request, the Soviet Government even put a special freight train
for rubber at our disposal at the Manchurian border."
It is no mystery that a vital amount of some 19,000 tons of natural rubber
was imported by Germany through the USSR in the months between December 1940
and May 1941; various sources state that the last train crossed the border
just a few days before Barbarossa. Some say a few hours.
As a reference quantity, this site
http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/sovexports.html
states that in December 1940, the German strategic stockpile of natural
rubber was down to 2,000 tons, from a September 1939 high of 17,000. Note
that in the same time frame (Dec 1940-May 1941), the German strategic
stockpile of synthetic rubber, touted as the solution to their supply
problem, was never higher than 4,000 tons.
In May 1941, the total strategic supply of rubber, from natural rubber,
synthetic production, and reclaim activity, was 13,000 tons... _including_
the total of 19,000 tons supplied through the USSR.
In other words, in May 1941 the German industries could keep churning out
anything having wheels or seals not because of the clever German chemists
and their synthetic rubber plants, but because they had duped Stalin.
Rich Rostrom
wrote:
> "Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> ha scritto nel messaggio>
> > Where did these rubber imports originate?
And received a magnificently
detailed answer. Thanks very
much.
Stephen Graham
> I have no idea. My online sources are people who are quoting Ericson,
> Feeding the German Eagle. But remember that both the USSR and Japan weren't
> under a trade embargo. They could buy rubber wherever they pleased at a time
> when Germany, being at war with Britain, France and the Netherlands, could
> not.
Nicholas Tarling addresses this issue briefly in _Britain, Southeast
Asia and the Coming of the Pacific War_. The British and Dutch were
continually concerned prior to the outbreak of the Pacific War about
Japan buying goods from Southeast Asia and then trans-shipping them to
Germany. At least some of the rubber, copper and tin received by Germany
came out of Malaya and Indonesia via Japan.