![]() | Tracked vehicle was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 08 December 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Continuous track. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 24, 2004. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is incorrect. Christie suspension has coil springs inside the vehicle's hull, and was generally replaced by torsion-bar suspension. The Christie designs also used a different method of driving the tracks, and some had a chain drive which could be engaged to run the road wheels, so the tracks could be removed for road travel ("convertible" tanks).
The Soviets abandoned convertible drive after the BT series, adopted torsion-bar suspension in the T-44 and drive sprockets in the T-54. The pictured Chinese tank is a T-54 derivative, which has a torsion-bar suspension and conventional rear drive sprocket. It is in no way Christie.
Steam powered tractors using a form of caterpillar track were reported in use during the Crimean War in the 1850s.
It will be engines with Boydell type wheels (e.g. boards fitted to them) these are not tracked vehicls.-- Chenab ( talk) 11:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous editor recently wrote the edit summary ""Dead track" refers to dry pin tracks, vs "Live track" where the rubber bush causes the link to spring back to a designed angle, return rollers are irrelevant." If this is technically correct, then wouldn't it be the case that live track would not lie slack, so that dead track often corresponds with slack track? It's quite common in a military context to treat the two as a synonym, even though they may not be technically the same. — Michael Z. 2006-02-1 16:25 Z
"the ground pressure of a car is equal to the pressure of the air in the tires, perhaps 30 psi (207 kPa)" Is this right? A bicycle has pressure of 100 psi or more with or without a rider yet a bicycle with a rider will obviously sink deeper then a bicycle being pushed. What am I missing? KAM 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The above statement "the ground pressure of a car is equal to the pressure of the air in the tires, perhaps 30 psi (207 kPa)" is totally incorrect. The ground pressure of a car is the weight of the car divided by the contact area of the tires. For example, if a car weighs 3000 lbs and each tire has a contact area of 4x6 inches, that would equate to 3000 lbs/(4x6)x4 or 31.25psi. This is simplified because the front and rear tires are likely to have different amounts of weight on them, but for this example, it is sufficient. You can actually reduce the ground pressure by reducing the pressure in the tires and increasing the contact area of the tires.
I've tagged this article OR, mainly because of its total lack of references, but specifically because the part about why tank tracks may be undesirable seems very speculative to me. mg e kelly 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that it would be useful if an encompassing track title could be used at the top of the explanation of tracks. Currently, pages such as Track link here (to caterpillar track), implying a false specificity that excludes belt tracks. Perhaps Track (motorized), could be used to cover all types of tracks, or a better title if anyone can think of one. ENeville 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I've seen images where one puts a continuous track around the 2 pairs of wheels at the back of a truck to increase traction. Anybody who can help expand that? Thy -- SvenAERTS ( talk) 18:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
In addition, there may have been up to twice as many Phoenix Centipeed versions of the steam log hauler built under license from Lombard, with vertical instead of horizontal cylinders. In 1903, the founder of Holt Manufacturing, Benjamin Holt, paid Lombard $60,000 for the right to produce vehicles under his patent. There seems to have been an agreement made after Lombard moved to California, but some discrepancy exists as to how this matter was resolved when previous track patents were studied. Popularly, everyone claimed to have been inspired by the dog treadmill used on farms to power the butter churn, etc. to "invent" the crawler on their own, and the more recent the history, the earlier this supposed date of invention seems to get.
How which matter was resolved? The previous sentences talk about agreements, not disputes.
Would be good to reduce the number of tank images a little, and add more construction machines. One of the small diggers with rubber tracks would be interesting too, to show that not all tracks are metal. MadMaxDog 08:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is based on a misapprehension of what a "Caterpillar" is. --- that is simply a trademark of Caterpillar Tractor Company. Caterpillar invented none of them nor did the company even exist until 1925, though one of their predecessor companies I think Holt Manufacturing Company had the trade mark requiring Best who made a competiive product to call theirs a 'track layer'.
the highspeed track system used by military vehicles is so fundamentally different from what Caterpillar uses that relating them seems a bit of a stretch. they are similar in that they are an endless series of pads to distribute weight, and an Escalator almost meets that criteria.
The tracks typical of Caterpillar Tractor are universally made of two distict components.--- a Track chain--- which is really just that--- a large chain roller chain--- and then to each link there is bolted a pad of an appropriate length to provide the floatation desired. the pad may depending on application have 1 2 or 3 grousers on it. A series of rollers on the bottom of the swing frame support the weight of the machine.
the military design is usually a series of pads linked together without a separate rail and the vehicle weight is supported by bogey wheels which typically have a torsion bar suspensions of some type.
The similarity of the two is only superficial Both are tracks but beyond that there is really nothing about them that is the same... their drive is different, their suspension is different, their application is different, the method of interconnecting the links is different Rvannatta 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure how to appropriately add this to the article. I have been watching a television show in the US called "Howe & Howe Technologies". The show revolves around a manufacturing facility that designs and builds fast track vehicles. The part I find interesting is that their vehicles use metal tracks, but don't appear to have hinge pins. They appear to use wire cable as a hinge mechanism. Each cleat has tubes or channels that the wire cable runs through. Instead of a chain link & hinge pin design, this design uses two wire cables, each near the outside edges of the cleat. It looks like a track consists of a number of grousers/cleats slid onto two parallel wire cables. It is unclear how the ends of a section of track are joined together to form a complete loop of track. To drive this track, they don't use a chain sprocket as there aren't any chain pins to engage with. Instead, the cleats have small spacers that maintain a gap between the cleats. The driving "sprocket" resembles an open drum of bars. Each bar fits in the space between cleats. The bar engages the entire width of the cleat. The open drum drive seems as though it would be very easy to keep clean and free of debris. Also, this arrangement seems to eliminate the pinching problem between overlapping grousers in a typical track design. Also, I doubt these tracks "stretch" much over time as they don't have pins that wear, producing an effective "stretching" of the chain pitch over time. Anyone know if this is a design similar to a rubber track or maybe a snowmobile track? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.115.100.194 ( talk) 21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't "slack track" the same as dead track; ie where no return rollers are used. Live track is then the track system where return rollers are used.
--> "Some track arrangements use return rollers to keep the top of the track running straight between the drive sprocket and idler. Others, called slack track, allow the track to droop and run along the tops of large road wheels. This was a feature of the Christie suspension, leading to occasional misidentification of other slack track-equipped vehicles."
Regarding the idler wheel, isn't this discarded ie with slack track continuous wheels ? This, as the the extra tension required as the wheels go up & down trough driving over potholes can be provided by means of the drooping of the track on the return side.
Finally, can the effect of suspension system on the track design be mentioned better, ie the linked bogie system (see http://img.tfd.com/ggse/d2/gsed_0001_0026_0_img7986.png ) as opposed to the seperate wheel suspension of the christie system isn't mentioned. 91.182.245.155 ( talk) 10:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
In addition, add "differential"; methods are
Ref= http://members.tele2.nl/s_weggeman/Differential%20steering%20book%20of%20wisdom.htm 91.182.240.216 ( talk) 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
There is hardly anything on how tracked vehicles change their driving direction (just a bit about turning in place in the Advantages section). While I know that it boils down to having one track run faster than the other, I would imagine that the engineering is not an entirely trivial matter. For example, how are engine, transmission and steering set up to accomodate this? What role does the length of the tracks play, given that turning leads to the tracks sliding laterally across the ground? This likely puts some stress on the tracks, especially at the front and rear of the vehicle. Does this lead to some maximum length for tracked vehicles?
Unfortunately I have no knowledge about this (that's why I came here :-)), so I cannot really add this information myself. Elanguescence ( talk) 14:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I added an image of the Kegressé tracks, based on an image of a Tamiya robot. Image might be off slightly, but should be about accurate. 91.182.152.129 ( talk) 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Bad link
Steam powered tractors using a form of continuous track were reported in use with the Western Alliance during the Crimean War in the 1850s
Western alliance links to nato this is incorrect please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.190.48 ( talk) 01:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Continuous track. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"Extra weight is an advantage when optimizing for traction and power over speed and mobility." This is objectively true and is not for debate. Friction is net force exerted by two objects against each other, multiplied by friction coefficient. There is simply no other variables. The only source of force in this situation is weight. Therefore, bigger weight directly converts to bigger traction. Bigger weight however naturally reduces mobility and speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.42.35.145 ( talk) 18:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no concrete evidence that Edgeworth achieved anything. His original idea was a vehicle that would move over obstacles by raising and lowering alternate sets of stilt-like legs.
His biography says, "This idea by degrees developed itself in my mind, so as to make me perceive, that as one half of the machine was always a road for the other half, and that such a machine never rolled upon the ground, a carriage might be made, which should carry a road for itself. It is already certain, that a carriage moving on an iron railway may be drawn with a fourth part of the force requisite to draw it on a common road. After having made a number of models of my machine, that should carry and lay down its own road, I took out a patent to secure to myself the principle; but the term of my patent has been long since expired, without my having been able to unite to my satisfaction in this machine strength with sufficient lightness, and with regular motion, so as to obtain the advantages I proposed.
... I never lost sight of this scheme during forty years; I have made considerably above one hundred working models upon this principle, in a great variety of forms; and that, although I have not yet been able to accomplish my project, I am still satisfied that it is feasible."
I see nothing here that justifies crediting him with the invention of a continuous track. Hengistmate ( talk) 10:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, Dreadnaught wheels / Continuous track#Dreadnaught wheel are listed here. Are they justified? Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This passing reference to the Dreadnaught Wheel is longer than the main article on the Dreadnaught Wheel, and it begins and ends by saying it's not a continuous track. It shouldn't be here. Hengistmate ( talk) 12:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
-- Regine69 ( talk) 12:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
All in good time. If it concerns you, then you do it. Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, although I find I usually encounter quite the opposite. I've just observed that Blinov is described twice in the article. Hengistmate ( talk) 12:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
My handicap is, i am not native english, so it is not easy for me to create writing content and i prefer going for logical structure and image galleries rather. This is why i would leave the text to you now for a day or two and appreciate if you look over the text version i have commited as a whole to apply all your corrections, exept for discarding content that might still be useful elesewhere (see next section i will create below here in a few minutes). The text might also deserve some additional headlines for each detail, to help navigation and prevent doublications. -- Regine69 ( talk) 17:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The article i found here in Continuous track is just precious for its very detailed historical analysis, not to be found in de:WP, though de:WP features even two separate articles:
The two german articles are not well structured either with some doublications for general track technology and common history.
The idea is to complete en:Continuous track first with some stuff from de:WP and then translate it back. The second article (still lacking on en:WP ?) needs to be done mostly from scratch, however this should mainly be mere collecting links & pictures. -- Regine69 ( talk) 17:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That article has a tag stating that it has been decided to merge it with this one. I don't feel ready to do that at this time, but I remind others in case they do. David R. Ingham ( talk) 21:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Images of Panzer VIII Maus, a bucket-wheel excavator, and a crawler-transporter would be good additions to this article. 130.232.136.229 ( talk) 11:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Anybody with knowledge on this? Thy, SvenAERTS ( talk) 01:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
First sentence of the article refers to tracks "driven by two or more wheels". As far as I know typical track systems run about two or more wheels but are overwhelmingly driven by only one of them. Am I missing something? Totensiebush ( talk) 13:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Tracked vehicle was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 08 December 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Continuous track. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 24, 2004. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is incorrect. Christie suspension has coil springs inside the vehicle's hull, and was generally replaced by torsion-bar suspension. The Christie designs also used a different method of driving the tracks, and some had a chain drive which could be engaged to run the road wheels, so the tracks could be removed for road travel ("convertible" tanks).
The Soviets abandoned convertible drive after the BT series, adopted torsion-bar suspension in the T-44 and drive sprockets in the T-54. The pictured Chinese tank is a T-54 derivative, which has a torsion-bar suspension and conventional rear drive sprocket. It is in no way Christie.
Steam powered tractors using a form of caterpillar track were reported in use during the Crimean War in the 1850s.
It will be engines with Boydell type wheels (e.g. boards fitted to them) these are not tracked vehicls.-- Chenab ( talk) 11:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous editor recently wrote the edit summary ""Dead track" refers to dry pin tracks, vs "Live track" where the rubber bush causes the link to spring back to a designed angle, return rollers are irrelevant." If this is technically correct, then wouldn't it be the case that live track would not lie slack, so that dead track often corresponds with slack track? It's quite common in a military context to treat the two as a synonym, even though they may not be technically the same. — Michael Z. 2006-02-1 16:25 Z
"the ground pressure of a car is equal to the pressure of the air in the tires, perhaps 30 psi (207 kPa)" Is this right? A bicycle has pressure of 100 psi or more with or without a rider yet a bicycle with a rider will obviously sink deeper then a bicycle being pushed. What am I missing? KAM 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The above statement "the ground pressure of a car is equal to the pressure of the air in the tires, perhaps 30 psi (207 kPa)" is totally incorrect. The ground pressure of a car is the weight of the car divided by the contact area of the tires. For example, if a car weighs 3000 lbs and each tire has a contact area of 4x6 inches, that would equate to 3000 lbs/(4x6)x4 or 31.25psi. This is simplified because the front and rear tires are likely to have different amounts of weight on them, but for this example, it is sufficient. You can actually reduce the ground pressure by reducing the pressure in the tires and increasing the contact area of the tires.
I've tagged this article OR, mainly because of its total lack of references, but specifically because the part about why tank tracks may be undesirable seems very speculative to me. mg e kelly 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that it would be useful if an encompassing track title could be used at the top of the explanation of tracks. Currently, pages such as Track link here (to caterpillar track), implying a false specificity that excludes belt tracks. Perhaps Track (motorized), could be used to cover all types of tracks, or a better title if anyone can think of one. ENeville 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I've seen images where one puts a continuous track around the 2 pairs of wheels at the back of a truck to increase traction. Anybody who can help expand that? Thy -- SvenAERTS ( talk) 18:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
In addition, there may have been up to twice as many Phoenix Centipeed versions of the steam log hauler built under license from Lombard, with vertical instead of horizontal cylinders. In 1903, the founder of Holt Manufacturing, Benjamin Holt, paid Lombard $60,000 for the right to produce vehicles under his patent. There seems to have been an agreement made after Lombard moved to California, but some discrepancy exists as to how this matter was resolved when previous track patents were studied. Popularly, everyone claimed to have been inspired by the dog treadmill used on farms to power the butter churn, etc. to "invent" the crawler on their own, and the more recent the history, the earlier this supposed date of invention seems to get.
How which matter was resolved? The previous sentences talk about agreements, not disputes.
Would be good to reduce the number of tank images a little, and add more construction machines. One of the small diggers with rubber tracks would be interesting too, to show that not all tracks are metal. MadMaxDog 08:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is based on a misapprehension of what a "Caterpillar" is. --- that is simply a trademark of Caterpillar Tractor Company. Caterpillar invented none of them nor did the company even exist until 1925, though one of their predecessor companies I think Holt Manufacturing Company had the trade mark requiring Best who made a competiive product to call theirs a 'track layer'.
the highspeed track system used by military vehicles is so fundamentally different from what Caterpillar uses that relating them seems a bit of a stretch. they are similar in that they are an endless series of pads to distribute weight, and an Escalator almost meets that criteria.
The tracks typical of Caterpillar Tractor are universally made of two distict components.--- a Track chain--- which is really just that--- a large chain roller chain--- and then to each link there is bolted a pad of an appropriate length to provide the floatation desired. the pad may depending on application have 1 2 or 3 grousers on it. A series of rollers on the bottom of the swing frame support the weight of the machine.
the military design is usually a series of pads linked together without a separate rail and the vehicle weight is supported by bogey wheels which typically have a torsion bar suspensions of some type.
The similarity of the two is only superficial Both are tracks but beyond that there is really nothing about them that is the same... their drive is different, their suspension is different, their application is different, the method of interconnecting the links is different Rvannatta 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure how to appropriately add this to the article. I have been watching a television show in the US called "Howe & Howe Technologies". The show revolves around a manufacturing facility that designs and builds fast track vehicles. The part I find interesting is that their vehicles use metal tracks, but don't appear to have hinge pins. They appear to use wire cable as a hinge mechanism. Each cleat has tubes or channels that the wire cable runs through. Instead of a chain link & hinge pin design, this design uses two wire cables, each near the outside edges of the cleat. It looks like a track consists of a number of grousers/cleats slid onto two parallel wire cables. It is unclear how the ends of a section of track are joined together to form a complete loop of track. To drive this track, they don't use a chain sprocket as there aren't any chain pins to engage with. Instead, the cleats have small spacers that maintain a gap between the cleats. The driving "sprocket" resembles an open drum of bars. Each bar fits in the space between cleats. The bar engages the entire width of the cleat. The open drum drive seems as though it would be very easy to keep clean and free of debris. Also, this arrangement seems to eliminate the pinching problem between overlapping grousers in a typical track design. Also, I doubt these tracks "stretch" much over time as they don't have pins that wear, producing an effective "stretching" of the chain pitch over time. Anyone know if this is a design similar to a rubber track or maybe a snowmobile track? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.115.100.194 ( talk) 21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't "slack track" the same as dead track; ie where no return rollers are used. Live track is then the track system where return rollers are used.
--> "Some track arrangements use return rollers to keep the top of the track running straight between the drive sprocket and idler. Others, called slack track, allow the track to droop and run along the tops of large road wheels. This was a feature of the Christie suspension, leading to occasional misidentification of other slack track-equipped vehicles."
Regarding the idler wheel, isn't this discarded ie with slack track continuous wheels ? This, as the the extra tension required as the wheels go up & down trough driving over potholes can be provided by means of the drooping of the track on the return side.
Finally, can the effect of suspension system on the track design be mentioned better, ie the linked bogie system (see http://img.tfd.com/ggse/d2/gsed_0001_0026_0_img7986.png ) as opposed to the seperate wheel suspension of the christie system isn't mentioned. 91.182.245.155 ( talk) 10:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
In addition, add "differential"; methods are
Ref= http://members.tele2.nl/s_weggeman/Differential%20steering%20book%20of%20wisdom.htm 91.182.240.216 ( talk) 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
There is hardly anything on how tracked vehicles change their driving direction (just a bit about turning in place in the Advantages section). While I know that it boils down to having one track run faster than the other, I would imagine that the engineering is not an entirely trivial matter. For example, how are engine, transmission and steering set up to accomodate this? What role does the length of the tracks play, given that turning leads to the tracks sliding laterally across the ground? This likely puts some stress on the tracks, especially at the front and rear of the vehicle. Does this lead to some maximum length for tracked vehicles?
Unfortunately I have no knowledge about this (that's why I came here :-)), so I cannot really add this information myself. Elanguescence ( talk) 14:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I added an image of the Kegressé tracks, based on an image of a Tamiya robot. Image might be off slightly, but should be about accurate. 91.182.152.129 ( talk) 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Bad link
Steam powered tractors using a form of continuous track were reported in use with the Western Alliance during the Crimean War in the 1850s
Western alliance links to nato this is incorrect please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.190.48 ( talk) 01:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Continuous track. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"Extra weight is an advantage when optimizing for traction and power over speed and mobility." This is objectively true and is not for debate. Friction is net force exerted by two objects against each other, multiplied by friction coefficient. There is simply no other variables. The only source of force in this situation is weight. Therefore, bigger weight directly converts to bigger traction. Bigger weight however naturally reduces mobility and speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.42.35.145 ( talk) 18:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no concrete evidence that Edgeworth achieved anything. His original idea was a vehicle that would move over obstacles by raising and lowering alternate sets of stilt-like legs.
His biography says, "This idea by degrees developed itself in my mind, so as to make me perceive, that as one half of the machine was always a road for the other half, and that such a machine never rolled upon the ground, a carriage might be made, which should carry a road for itself. It is already certain, that a carriage moving on an iron railway may be drawn with a fourth part of the force requisite to draw it on a common road. After having made a number of models of my machine, that should carry and lay down its own road, I took out a patent to secure to myself the principle; but the term of my patent has been long since expired, without my having been able to unite to my satisfaction in this machine strength with sufficient lightness, and with regular motion, so as to obtain the advantages I proposed.
... I never lost sight of this scheme during forty years; I have made considerably above one hundred working models upon this principle, in a great variety of forms; and that, although I have not yet been able to accomplish my project, I am still satisfied that it is feasible."
I see nothing here that justifies crediting him with the invention of a continuous track. Hengistmate ( talk) 10:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, Dreadnaught wheels / Continuous track#Dreadnaught wheel are listed here. Are they justified? Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This passing reference to the Dreadnaught Wheel is longer than the main article on the Dreadnaught Wheel, and it begins and ends by saying it's not a continuous track. It shouldn't be here. Hengistmate ( talk) 12:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
-- Regine69 ( talk) 12:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
All in good time. If it concerns you, then you do it. Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, although I find I usually encounter quite the opposite. I've just observed that Blinov is described twice in the article. Hengistmate ( talk) 12:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
My handicap is, i am not native english, so it is not easy for me to create writing content and i prefer going for logical structure and image galleries rather. This is why i would leave the text to you now for a day or two and appreciate if you look over the text version i have commited as a whole to apply all your corrections, exept for discarding content that might still be useful elesewhere (see next section i will create below here in a few minutes). The text might also deserve some additional headlines for each detail, to help navigation and prevent doublications. -- Regine69 ( talk) 17:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The article i found here in Continuous track is just precious for its very detailed historical analysis, not to be found in de:WP, though de:WP features even two separate articles:
The two german articles are not well structured either with some doublications for general track technology and common history.
The idea is to complete en:Continuous track first with some stuff from de:WP and then translate it back. The second article (still lacking on en:WP ?) needs to be done mostly from scratch, however this should mainly be mere collecting links & pictures. -- Regine69 ( talk) 17:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That article has a tag stating that it has been decided to merge it with this one. I don't feel ready to do that at this time, but I remind others in case they do. David R. Ingham ( talk) 21:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Images of Panzer VIII Maus, a bucket-wheel excavator, and a crawler-transporter would be good additions to this article. 130.232.136.229 ( talk) 11:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Anybody with knowledge on this? Thy, SvenAERTS ( talk) 01:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
First sentence of the article refers to tracks "driven by two or more wheels". As far as I know typical track systems run about two or more wheels but are overwhelmingly driven by only one of them. Am I missing something? Totensiebush ( talk) 13:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)