Jump to content

Comparative tank mobility in terrain. Video


Recommended Posts

Swedish post-war film showing Sherman, Churchill, Panther and some light tanks attempting various obstacles, with explanation. Don't know if this has been posted before, but it's pretty interesting. The Panther comes off quite well.

Edited by A co
commas between tags.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since everything seems to depend on weight/sq inch ground pressure and that is affected by width of the tracks, one would predict the T-34 would be the best.  That's probably why they didn't use a T-34 in the comparisons.  Politically incorrect to show the superiority of Russian tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple question: is bogging in CM vehicle-dependent? For example, do all heavy tracked vehicles have the same chance of bogging or are factors like those in the video taken into account? I have seen threads looking at speed and chances of bogging but don't recall seeing discussion on vehicle types.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Erwin said:

Since everything seems to depend on weight/sq inch ground pressure

That - Nominal Ground Pressure (NGP) - is the obvious answer. But like a lot of things, complex situations have an answer that is obvious, simple, and wrong. Mean Maximum Pressure (MMP) is a much better predictor of actual cross country performance, and accurately explains why the Churchill and Panther were so agile cross country - most obviously because their axles were closer together. The Churchill achieved that by having lots of closely spaced small wheels, the Panther by having lots of overlapping large wheels.

Try to find a copy of the paper Tracked vehicle ground pressure and its effect on soft ground performance by D. Rowland.

Edited by JonS
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Yes. In the vehicle UI look for a stat called Off-Road, That is a rough measure of how prone to bogging it is.

That's worth knowing. I had always proceeded under the vague assumption that the off-road rating only referred to how fast the vehicle would go cross-country and how maneuverable it was. Your explanation makes more sense and is more useful.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JonS said:

That - Nominal Ground Pressure (NGP) - is the obvious answer. But like a lot of things, complex situations have an answer that is obvious, simple, and wrong. Mean Maximum Pressure (MMP) is a much better predictor of actual cross country performance, and accurately explains why the Churchill and Panther were so agile cross country - most obviously because their axles were closer together. The Churchill achieved that by having lots of closely spaced small wheels, the Panther by having lots of overlapping large wheels.

Try to find a copy of the paper Tracked vehicle ground pressure and its effect on soft ground performance by D. Rowland.

So what about the T-34?  Not that many road wheels, but the best cross country etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here's one to think about: the average track pressure of a tank is on the order of the pressure exerted by a soldier's foot on the  ground. If a soldier steps on my thigh, I won't even bruise. If a tank rolls over my thigh...well, my thigh will be somewhat marred.

Perhaps average pressure is too simplistic to use. (MMP is incorporated into the game.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, c3k said:

So, here's one to think about: the average track pressure of a tank is on the order of the pressure exerted by a soldier's foot on the  ground. If a soldier steps on my thigh, I won't even bruise. If a tank rolls over my thigh...well, my thigh will be somewhat marred.

Perhaps average pressure is too simplistic to use. (MMP is incorporated into the game.)

If your leg were a flat piece of wood on the ground it probably wouldn't sustain damage.  My theory is that  since your leg sticks up off the ground, it would be subject to much more weight as the tracks climb over it.

I saw a magician have an articulated semi drive over him safely.  He dug a shallow grave type hole and lay in it with a sheet of plywood over him - so it was like part of the flat level ground.   Mind you, if it were a tank that would be impressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is dear John, that one needs to have a flat very solid non-bending weight-bearing surface covering all the people so that the weight is distributed over a large surface.  Distribution of weight over a large surface is the trick.  A woman with stilettos could kill you by walking over you, so does that make her as heavy as a tank?  (Try that comparison on your own female sigother unit btw.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, and if you lay large sheets of "flat very solid non-bending weight-bearing surface" over swamps and mudholes then even Shermans would be able to cross them.

Oh wait ...

bobbin.jpg

Of course distribution of weight over a large surface is the trick. The point, dear Erwin, is that NGP is not a good proxy for soft ground performance. MMP is a lot better. The tricky point is that any clod can work out the value of NGP, but MMP takes a bit more effort.

Edited by JonS
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting test. The Panther did indeed have very good battlefield mobility, even if it paid a maintenance price for those overlapping wheels. The broad Ostketten tracks copied from the T-34 also helped. I guess the penalty there would be road speed, which seems bearable.

The end result of all these Swedish tests was buying lots and lots of Centurions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duckman said:

Interesting test. The Panther did indeed have very good battlefield mobility, even if it paid a maintenance price for those overlapping wheels. The broad Ostketten tracks copied from the T-34 also helped. I guess the penalty there would be road speed, which seems bearable.

The end result of all these Swedish tests was buying lots and lots of Centurions.

Here is the part of the Panther episode from Inside the Chieftain's Hatch where he talks about the wheel design, its mobility pros, and maintenance cons:

And here are his final conclusions, which I'm sure have surprised many viewers who only hear the Panther's praises sung:

I wonder what the difference in required time, effort, and equipment was for changing the wheels on a Panther vs. a Sherman. Anybody know?

 

Edited by Macisle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...