Which is better for combat, treaded or hover vehicles?

[jaeger115]

Personally, I think treaded is better for heavy units like tanks, MRLSs, artillery, anti-air, because the heavy recoil would be absorbed by the shock absorbers and the ground. Scout vehicles would be better if they could hover, since they could go faster. But, the ability to hover means that the vehicle will not have contact with the ground so it can't accelerate or manueuver as well as a treaded vehicle can. Hover can be better for VTOL aircraft, though.

[NecronLord]

If you have energy weapons then hover is far superior, as it gives immense tactical flexibility (unlimited fording depth, ability to get over difficult terrain etc,) If however you have projectile weapons then the recol will send you back a long way. (until air resistance stops you)

[Vympel]

Tracks are king.

If recoilless energy weapons became commonplace, then we may see hover applications- presuming it's cost efficient, of course.

[jaeger115]

Another reason why I prefer tracks: If a hover vehicle gets hit by enemy projectile fire, it will coast along on the direction in which the round came. For energy weapons, that's a different story.

[Knife]

As said before, depends on the role of the vehicle. For MBT and such, the track is superior. But for tactical mobility for say, personel carriers and troop transports the hover option would be a good idea if implamented well. The ability to move troops quickely anywhere in the area durring a battle is invaluable. Already most armies use lightly armored if armored at all, all terain vehicles to quickly move troops across rough terrain. If a hover craft could be shown to quickly, cheaply, and reliably move the troops better than a ATV, then you will see them in the armies.

[jaeger115]

I have a list:

Tracked:

LBT
MBT
IFV
Mobile Howitzer
MRLS

Hover:

APC
Scout vehicle
VTOL aircraft (hover is for liftoff and landing)

[jaeger115]

Wait a minute. Wouldn't the hover units make a lot of noise since they have to use AIR-BREATHING engines to move?

[Setzer]

But what about relative speeds? If hover vehicles move much faster than tracked tanks, the armor will be left behind.

[Howedar]

Nobody knows. Its never been tried.

[Magashi]

Another reason why I prefer tracks: If a hover vehicle gets hit by enemy projectile fire, it will coast along on the direction in which the round came. For energy weapons, that's a different story.

On the same token, I would like to see treads traverse a mine-field without mine-sweepers without heavy loss of units. I think the coasting would be more than acceptable given the advantages that hover has to offer over-all.

Luckily, modern and SW militaries don't follow the ST precedent of replacing all prior technology with the new stuff as soon as it is proved to work. So a mixture of the two (which works best) is what we should be looking for.

[Darth Wong]

Both tracked and hover vehicles use air-breathing engines to move. And I don't think anyone ever expects to sneak up with 50 feet of someone with an armoured vehicle anyway.

Rather than decide superiority, it's a matter of combined-arms synergy. As Knife said, hover-vehicles are more appropriate for light armour (barring sci-fi anti-grav technologies which allow you to hover a heavy object) and recon vehicles, where their terrain flexibility, amphibious capabilities, and speed would be very valuable. Tracked vehicles are more appropriate for heavy armour, where their stability against recoil and ability to deploy heavier armour would be very valuable.

It would depend on terrain; if terrain is good, there's no reason whatsoever to use hover-vehicles. If terrain is swamp, then you would be FORCED to use them. I would think that the best situation is to have both available.

[paladin]

Treads are best. There aren't many applications for hover at this time.

[jaeger115]

So in response I'm posting another list:

Types of Terrain:

Tracked:

Flat, solid
Grassy

Hover:

Swamp
Water
Dunes
Taluses

[Knife]

So in response I'm posting another list:

Types of Terrain:

Tracked:

Flat, solid
Grassy

Hover:

Swamp
Water
Dunes
Taluses

Again it would depend on the mission that the vehicle is trying to do. If it is a troop carrier ment to carry troops to a battle then the fastest avalible means would be wise weather it is hover, traked, or wheeled. If it is an assualt vehicle such as a MBT, then the track would still be the best with current weapon and armor technology.


Now as already said, the MBT of the forces would still have tracks because of the advantage it has in dispersing the weight of the armor and having a good solid base in contact with the ground to cope with the recoil of the main gun. However, tanks do not go anywhere with out support to protect them against enemy anti-armor. These secondary vehicles would do better with wheels such as a ATV to cope with varible terrain. They don't need tracks to carry massive armor weight because they are either lightly armored on not armored at all. They don't have large guns, so they don't need tracks to help spread out the recoil. Infantry goes along with tanks to support them against enemy infantry. The vehicles that hold the infantry need to be fast to get the troops to where they are needed. They also need to be able to traverse varible terrain to keep up with the armor. Here is probably where the hover option would be a good idea. The hover could get the troops to the scene fast and over just about any obstacle. Yes you can have armored troop carries, but again, tactical mobility is a higher calling than armoring troops in a slow easy to hang up APC. Get them there quick and let them do their jobs. Thats how hover can help.

[Sea Skimmer]

But what about relative speeds? If hover vehicles move much faster than tracked tanks, the armor will be left behind.

Tanks currently outrun everything else on the battlefield. Anything faster generally cannot cope with significant defenses and must stop for the heavy armor to come up anyway.

In any case just because something hovers doesn’t mean it must move faster then the armor. That’s why we have accelerators on vehicles rather then a simple GO STOP button.

[TrailerParkJawa]

On the same token, I would like to see treads traverse a mine-field without mine- sweepers without heavy loss of units. I think the coasting would be more than acceptable given the advantages that hover has to offer over-all.

I dont think it would be too hard to come up with new mines for hover vehicles. Old style pressure mines would not work, but Im sure they could make mines that detect a vehicle through noise, vibration or some other standard.

[fgalkin]

Treads are best. There aren't many applications for hover at this time.

One must not forget that treads are easy target for the enemy. Blow a tread with a grenade, and the vehicle is immobilized and easy prey for enemy tank killers, artillery, or infantry.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Sea Skimmer]

On the same token, I would like to see treads traverse a mine-field without mine- sweepers without heavy loss of units. I think the coasting would be more than acceptable given the advantages that hover has to offer over-all.

I dont think it would be too hard to come up with new mines for hover vehicles. Old style pressure mines would not work, but Im sure they could make mines that detect a vehicle through noise, vibration or some other standard.

Bolting on mine plows to a normal tank is hardly a big deal.

And we already have mines that use tilt rods that protrude above ground and mines, which use acoustical sensors to locate tanks and then actually shoot a bomb into the air to attack from above. MAD mines have also been designed.

In fact a hover unit would be very venerable to bottom attacks and shell burst close along side and would need some very heavy armor under its self along with heavy side skirts. Those would set off mines anyway.

[Antediluvian]

Here's a question I've been pondering:

What about recoilless cannon? Couldn't you add one of those to a hover vehicle and create a hover tank?

It shouldn't create any problems for a hover vehicle, right?

[fgalkin]

On the same token, I would like to see treads traverse a mine-field without mine- sweepers without heavy loss of units. I think the coasting would be more than acceptable given the advantages that hover has to offer over-all.

I dont think it would be too hard to come up with new mines for hover vehicles. Old style pressure mines would not work, but Im sure they could make mines that detect a vehicle through noise, vibration or some other standard.

Bolting on mine plows to a normal tank is hardly a big deal.

And we already have mines that use tilt rods that protrude above ground and mines, which use acoustical sensors to locate tanks and then actually shoot a bomb into the air to attack from above. MAD mines have also been designed.

In fact a hover unit would be very venerable to bottom attacks and shell burst close along side and would need some very heavy armor under its self along with heavy side skirts. Those would set off mines anyway.

Treads are still weaker to attack, though.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Sea Skimmer]

I dont think it would be too hard to come up with new mines for hover vehicles. Old style pressure mines would not work, but Im sure they could make mines that detect a vehicle through noise, vibration or some other standard.

Bolting on mine plows to a normal tank is hardly a big deal.

And we already have mines that use tilt rods that protrude above ground and mines, which use acoustical sensors to locate tanks and then actually shoot a bomb into the air to attack from above. MAD mines have also been designed.

In fact a hover unit would be very venerable to bottom attacks and shell burst close along side and would need some very heavy armor under its self along with heavy side skirts. Those would set off mines anyway.

Treads are still weaker to attack, though.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

But a hover vehicle will have less weight available to armor unless we resort to total Sci Tech

[Sea Skimmer]

Here's a question I've been pondering:

What about recoilless cannon? Couldn't you add one of those to a hover vehicle and create a hover tank?

It shouldn't create any problems for a hover vehicle, right?

The back blast would be beyond massive, the turret arrangement difficult and reloading a bitch. Recoilless weapons are not suitable for such a role.

[fgalkin]

Bolting on mine plows to a normal tank is hardly a big deal.

And we already have mines that use tilt rods that protrude above ground and mines, which use acoustical sensors to locate tanks and then actually shoot a bomb into the air to attack from above. MAD mines have also been designed.

In fact a hover unit would be very venerable to bottom attacks and shell burst close along side and would need some very heavy armor under its self along with heavy side skirts. Those would set off mines anyway.

Treads are still weaker to attack, though.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

But a hover vehicle will have less weight available to armor unless we resort to total Sci Tech

Any tank can be killed by infantry. Treads are the weakest spot on a tank. Destroy the tread, and the tank just sits there, doing nothing.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Knife]

On the same token, I would like to see treads traverse a mine-field without mine- sweepers without heavy loss of units. I think the coasting would be more than acceptable given the advantages that hover has to offer over-all.

I dont think it would be too hard to come up with new mines for hover vehicles. Old style pressure mines would not work, but Im sure they could make mines that detect a vehicle through noise, vibration or some other standard.

Bolting on mine plows to a normal tank is hardly a big deal.

And we already have mines that use tilt rods that protrude above ground and mines, which use acoustical sensors to locate tanks and then actually shoot a bomb into the air to attack from above. MAD mines have also been designed.

In fact a hover unit would be very venerable to bottom attacks and shell burst close along side and would need some very heavy armor under its self along with heavy side skirts. Those would set off mines anyway.

You wouldn't use it as an armored vehicle, or an assualt vehicle. Its uses would be splendid for fast troop movements and deployments over various terrain. Think a smaller version of an LCAC for the land.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Its uses would be splendid for fast troop movements and deployments over various terrain. Think a smaller version of an LCAC for the land.

Would skirts be able to handle rough terrain or are we talking beyond LCAC technologies where the hover vehicle has some sort of anti-grav?