Vanir Ausf B

Yep. I mentioned MMP in the OP. Here's some links to technical pages. http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/soil-mechanics/ http://www.angelfire.com/trek/mytravels/militarygp.html There was a discussion about it on the forum years ago (which you may be referring to)... http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=38553 ... in which someone familiar with the concept listed the MMP of various armored vehicles, which I will partially reproduce here:

I've asked. The crickets are still chirping. Listen! *chirp chirp chirp* The big unsolved mystery is what are the ratings based on? I'm trying to think of something unique to the Tiger I that would explain it but all I can think of is that it's length to width ratio is close to the ideal. Somehow I don't think that's it. In the CMx1 games it was a straight function of ground pressure. That is obviously not the case in CMx2.

How do you know that 150 km doesn't assume off-road mileage? You don't. The comparison to a new modern car is very apropos. I commend you on your depth of knowledge of the issue.

This is just getting silly. Actually, it was silly before. Now its ridiculous. I'm almost at a loss for words here. I have detailed the Panther's various physical characteristics that gave it such excellent off-road performance. But when you get right down to it, the main factor was that it had very wide tracks relative to its weight. When you say it was only more maneuverable than a Sherman under "ideal conditions" (whatever those are) you are essentially claiming that those wide tracks only functioned properly under ideal conditions. Bizarre. :confused: No they were not. You made up that claim out of thin air. I've already posted first person accounts of them operating in muddy conditions. If what you said was true they would have been essentially road-bound for half the year. Crazy talk. The extremely muddy conditions relegated armour attacks to the few roads available. This forced any gains to be made to infantry attacks, which resulted in bloody battles and heavy casualties on both sides. http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=112&art_id=2211 _____ Congratulations. You have succeeded in proving the Panther had limits. But that has never been in question. The question is how it compared to other tanks. Aaand here we go again with the predictable conflation of off-road ability and mechanical reliability. This is getting tedious so I'm just going to cut and paste what I previously wrote so you can not understand it all over again. Right. That is what I want, to make German tanks perfect. It is becoming more apparent with each post that you have no intention of debating this issue honestly and are just trying to derail the discussion under a torrent of idiocy. If there are no major changes it will most likely be because Charles doesn't read this forum and Steve is probably oblivious to the issue. I can't imaging it being because they actually believe the crap you're peddling. Still arguing? When did I say that? Oh, wait I didn't. What I actually said was: ... which is pretty much the exact opposite of what you just claimed I was arguing.

Back on-topic (hopefully ). I ran across this section in the CMBN manual My last test results suggest this section is either incorrect about the difference speed makes or the difference is too small to be significant.

Precisely, thank you. While off-road ability and mechanical reliability both affect mobility in the broadest sense of the term they do so in different ways via different means and are manifestly not the same thing at all. Lumping them together confuses the issue, and the fact that the game doesn't even consider one of them relevant makes it all the more of an obfuscation. I have no issue with the idea of CM modeling mechanical reliability in some way, but the subject needs to be considered on its own merits. And if we are to start introducing that type of operational mobility factor then logically I see no reason why fuel supply and consumption rates should not also be brought in. Big Cats were prodigious fuel guzzlers and a lot of them were abandoned when the fuel gauge hit E.

Um, no, I did not say that. I specifically said the exact opposite. What I did say is that while all tanks are more vulnerable to breakdown off-road there is no reason to assume the "Big Cats" were exponentially worse off-road than they were on. Look at the expected longevity of the Panther's final drive. 150 km, not 150 km on-road 50 meters off-road. The reason it was German SOP to transport tanks by rail rather than road if the distance was greater than 100 km isn't because of their off-road performance, it was because of their on-road performance. The primary factor was distance driven. There was a lot of variation between vehicles types. Even though the Jagdpanther was built on the Panther chassis it used a different final drive that was more durable. Tigers and KTs were well known for their adverse relationship with hills. There are many stories of Tigers in Italy catching fire while climbing long mountain roads. There was a KT in the Ardennes that, um, blew a tranny while climbing a hill and rolled back down into a house. But these were on paved roads. The key factor was the hill, not on-road vs off-road.

I only cherry pick quotes for relevance. As for secondary vs. primary, you don't need primary source material to know the US Army went to great effort to rectify a deficiency in Sherman soft ground performance. But if you want primary source material there is plenty of it out there. _____ "Wherever we have seen Tiger and Panther tanks they have not demonstrated any inferior maneuverability. Near Puffendorf, Germany, several Tiger Royal tanks were encountered. These Tiger Royals were able to negotiate very soft ground and their tracks did not sink as deeply into the soft ground as did our own." -- Capt Charles B. Kelley, Company D 66th Armored Regiment The wider tracks on the Mark V and the Mark VI enables it to move much better cross-country and in muddy or snow-covered terrain than do the narrow tracks of the Sherman tank. The field expedient of duck bills added to widen the Sherman tread aids but does not affect the advantage the Mark V and Mark VI tanks have. It is my opinion that the Mark V and Mark VI enemy tank is far superior in maneuverability to our own Sherman tanks. -- Captain Henry Johnson, U.S. Army Report on United States vs German Armor, March 1945. Operating across typical ground the Mark V left a track imprint one-half inch deep. It did not break through the ground surface. Similar results were obtained with the M4A3E8. Other tanks of the M4 series with narrow track and no track extensions broke through the ground surface, leaving a track imprint two inches deep. -- United States Vs. German Equipment: As Prepared for the Supreme Commander _____ Of course the problem is, once again, that you are refusing to evaluate CM's off-road rating for what it is while insisting on evaluating it based on what you wish it were, all the while ignoring that it would be wrong either way. A few comments on your examples, although I'm probably going to regret indulging your off-topic excursions. It is true that the Pz IV was the most effective German tank in the Normandy hedgerow fighting and it pains me that CM doesn't reflect this. The guns on the StuGs were too low and the Panther was too wide-bodied to fit down narrow country lanes between hedgerows, and its long gun interfered with turret traverse in towns and forests. While it's a pity this is not a factor in CM it has nothing to do with off-road performance. Most of these situations would have occurred on-road. The requirement for well-trained drivers is an interesting subject on its own. That the Panther was rushed into service before it was ready and was hilariously unreliable at Kursk is well documented. But the Germans were constantly modifying. By October '44 there was very little on that tank's drive train unchanged, and the steadily improving readiness rates reflect that. There is strong evidence that while late-model Panthers were highly temperamental and unforgiving of poor treatment, a good crew could coax a lot out of them. There are documented cases of Panthers logging over 1000 km without a breakdown. Here is one U.S. Army report on Panther maneuverability: _____ Except for the ability of the tank to make a pivot turn about its own axis, its steering system does not contribute to satisfactory maneuverability and this tank (Panther), even though it has a higher top speed than a medium tank M4A1, could not keep up with the medium tank on a course where the curves were frequent. It is readily realized that practice in operating these vehicles (Panthers) would contribute greatly to driver skill and , therefore, increased mobility; but it should be pointed out that in any event it is necessary for the Panther driver to gauge any approaching turn and select the proper transmission ratio to negotiate that turn. -- U.S. Army report, January 12, 1945 _____ And here a similar report: _____ It has been claimed that our tank (Sherman) is the most maneuverable. In recent tests we put a captured German Mark V against all models of our own. The German tank was the faster, both across country and on the highway and it could make sharper turns. It was also the better hill climber. -- U.S. Army Report on United States vs German Armor, March 1945 _____ Same tank, different drivers, different outcomes. A captured Panther crew member had these comments about the perceived mechanical shortcomings in a September 1944 British report: _____ PW (prisoner of war) denied the statement that the Panther, from the point of view of engine, was a poor tank. He said that like all tanks it had teething problems but once these had been overcome it was much superior to the Pz.Kpfw IV. The following are a few of the defects and their improvements: 1) The steering clutch had given trouble but this was due to the inexperience of the drivers. 2) The inability on the part of the (British test) driver to engage third gear had been due to his lack of experience in synchronizing engine speed with gear box speed. There was no difficulty once the driver had gotten used to the tank. 3) The final drive had given trouble but now had been improved. 4) The faults in the pressure lubrication system had been due partly to the oil pump. This had been improved and an eight main bearing had been fitted. The 231 (23.1) liter HL 230 was the most powerful tank engine that PW knew about. He agreed that it was too weak for the Tiger II (Tiger . He stated that it was originally built too compact and that it got too hot, hence the trouble with the cylinder head gasket. An experienced driver was essential. It has now been greatly improved. The centrifugal governor on the carburetor was an excellent idea. _____ A major problem for the late-war German panzers was that due to fuel shortages new drivers were only getting a few hours of practice during training, and they would just thrash the transmission. They were told not to do it and they probably rarely did. But in the heat of battle sometimes it was too useful a capability to ignore. _____ "I saw a Mark V tank turn in place and move off in a new direction without having to use the back up and move forward system that our tankers are compelled to use." -- U.S. Army report on United States vs German Armor, March 1945 (hey looky there, another primary source )

It was earlier claimed or implied that the Sherman had superior fording and climbing ability to the Panther. It so happens the US Army put that question to the test. -- U.S. Army Report on United States vs German Armor, March 27, 1945 -- U.S. Army report, January 4, 1945

And what about that Sherman tank? I mentioned earlier that the US Army went to considerable effort to shore up the Sherman's off-road performance in the fall of '44. They weren't doing that for ****s and giggles. They were learning the same hard lessons the Germans had learned in Russia several years earlier. -- excerpt from Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II by Steven Zaloga

Now, as for why the Panther had such excellent cross-country mobility, I've already quoted the ground pressure, ground clearance and MMP numbers in the OP, which should speak for themselves. But there were a few other factors as well. First, the interleaved road wheels, which were indeed a maintenance nightmare but had some advantages. Also, the twin torsion bar suspension on the Panther provided an unusually smooth cross-country ride. -- excerpts from Panther: Germany's Quest For Combat Dominance

Ah, back home. Now to begin the pulling of teeth This shouldn't be particularly controversial. I was under the impression that these things were common knowledge among WW2 aficionados. Guess not. First off, since some people are throwing everything including the kitchen sink into the discussion under the misguided notion that it all amounts to the same thing, it may be time to define a few things. For one, this thread deals with off-road mobility in general and soft soil performance in particular. It is tangentially related to fording, hill climbing and other cross-country performance factors. It has virtually nothing to do with mechanical reliability, fuel consumption or whatever other operational factor you keep tossing into the ring in an attempt to obfuscate the issue. CM does not model those factors and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Next, in case it wasn't obvious enough, this primarily concerns the Panther, Tiger, KT and Sherman series of vehicles and now they perform relative to each other. Other vehicles may be referenced at times but are not the subject of my testing. As for tactical and operational mobility factors, here's a primer on what they are and why some of them are more relevant to CM than others (hint: CM is a fairly low-level tactical wargame). -- excerpt from Panther: Germany's Quest For Combat Dominance by Michael and Gladys Green

dp ...........

You have no idea.

.............

Fire, huh, yeah What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, say it again, y'all

Just saw your edit. Why am I not surprised that it turns out to be another straw man. Here we are discussing off-road performance of Big Cats and Shermans and you come back with a comparison to Soviet tanks, which have not even been mentioned First of all those are KTs not Tigers. Secondly, although I don't have the specs for IS-2 at hand, the T-34 has excellent flotation. Better than KT or Tiger. MUCH better than the Sherman. So you are once again arguing against a claim I never made.

I'm going to guess that those instances are primarily in Italy and/or involve steep hills, or perhaps bridges, rather than soft ground -- you know, the actual subject of this thread. If that is not the case, then I'm sure you will have no trouble citing them, being that they are so easy to find. Interesting that you keep bringing up the Tiger tank. I'm still waiting for an explanation for it's excellent off-road performance in-game. By your own logic the game has it wrong. I think it is you who has argued yourself into a corner.

All tanks did. You'd have to do some serious cherrypicking to claim otherwise.

I see you passed on explaining away the Tiger performance. Hmm, I wonder why? Your quotes are alternately beating a strawman or not relevant to the types of actions in CM. That the Big Cats were not mechanically reliable is not in question. It's simply not relevant no matter how hard you insist otherwise. The issue with interleaved wheels is well known, but the circumstances in which these issues formed were usually fairly specific. If the wheels became caked with mud and the vehicle was let sit overnight in freezing temperatures the mud would freeze and the vehicle wouldn't move in the morning. I'm pressed for time ATM, but in short you are making a lot of mistakes. You are conflating operational and tactical mobility, pretending the game models something it actually does not, claiming that mechanical reliably and soft ground performance are the same thing, ect. But I agree this will be fun.... for me

Actually, given that some people seem to be feeling protective of the Sherman for some reason I should probably frame the question in terms of explaining why the Tiger is the best off-road tank in the game. Someone step up to the plate to defend that

Of course I can. Because they were The current system isn't simplified. It's just flat-out wrong. The only Big Cat that benefits from the present system is the Tiger I, oddly enough. Why BFC picked that one out of the bunch is anyone's guess. There is no evidence that "Big Cats" were any more likely to break down off-road vs. on-road than Shermans or any other tank. None. It is pure speculation. I have seen fuel consumption numbers broken down off-road vs on-road, speed broken down off-road vs. on road but I have only seen reliability numbers given in total km driven, which suggests it was not the huge factor people are imagining. And frankly I would be fine with mechanical reliability being modeled in the game, but I would hope it would be given more thought than soft ground performance has been.

That is all very theoretical and not particularly relevant. CM does not model mechanical breakdown. Maybe it should, but it doesn't and it really is not the same thing as soft ground performance. Panthers driving off road probably did break down more often than Shermans, but that is because they were prone to break down in general, not because they were off-road. If you really want to model mechanical reliability then you need to assign a % chance that a tank you pick in your QB isn't there when the game starts.

I think what you might be obliquely referring to is the German preference for transporting their tanks via rail rather than road due to their tendency to break down on long road marches. But that was simply a factor of mileage rather than anything to do with on-road vs. off-road.

Apples to oranges. While what you say is true, mechanical reliability and soft ground performance are two very different things. I have never read anything to support this. Panther had better hill climbing and fording capability than the Sherman.