Vanir Ausf B Posted January 4, 2013 Author Share Posted January 4, 2013 So basically, we're looking at a WWII tank version of one of those redneck events were some guy in a souped-up truck goes flat out and tries to make it as far as possible across a mud pit before he bogs down, blows the engine/tranny, or loses control and flips the vehicle (or some combination of the three). Fun. It does look kinda fun 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 4, 2013 Author Share Posted January 4, 2013 Jentz was a nice guy and good researcher, but I'd be very careful of making such an all encompassing statement as that. Given vehicles with better power to weight ratios, its slope climbing performance was certainly not as good as say the Cromwell. CM appears to model off road ability and power to weight ratio (hill climbing ability) separately. My tests were designed to test off road ability specifically. That is why the test area is perfectly flat. Testing more than one attribute at the same time tends to muddy the waters, if you'll excuse the expression. If some one wants to test hill climbing ability and compare that to real world expectations that would be great, but that isn't what my data is about. Overall, based on the data you are showing I'm not seeing this a major "game" problem. Would altering the figures make a significant difference to tactical conduct? In muddy terrain it certainly could make a significant difference. It could also make a difference in QBs when judging what types of vehicles to purchase if you know bad weather is possible. Whether one sees this as a "major" or "minor" issue would likely depend on how one plays the game. Needless to say I feel it's important enough to have spent a considerable amount of time on it. If I was designing the experiment, I'd want to see the failure rates based on a series of terrains, and not just one homogenous type. Not criticising your research method. I am merely suggesting another course of enquiry that you may want to pursue. Given the time requirements I don't think I'll be doing that and I don't feel it is necessary. We have data on soft ground performance in the game and good numbers on expected real world performance, so it's a good apples to apples comparison. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yes some data sets may exist, but I suggest they are utterly irrelevant for a game where not tank can really drive more than 20km and only lasts for 4 hours - so company and battle group tactics. It would be very relevant if you wanted to play Divisional or Corps level stuff though. Certainly relevant to a divisional or higher level game, but I would suggest also relevant on the tactical level. Mechanical wear is cumulative. Depending on how far a tank has been driven to reach the CM battlefield, its overall reliability is going to impact the odds of it breaking down on that battlefield. Immobile tanks, as you know, lose most of their effectiveness. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 ...I would suggest also relevant on the tactical level. Mechanical wear is cumulative. Depending on how far a tank has been driven to reach the CM battlefield, its overall reliability is going to impact the odds of it breaking down on that battlefield. Immobile tanks, as you know, lose most of their effectiveness. Since there is no consideration whatsoever given to the maintenance state of vehicles at game start, it's not relevant to CM. If there was a "maintenance level" that scenario designers could set, then, perhaps. But not until. Until that is introduced we have to assume that we should expect the vehicles to be "good enough to last for however long the game lasts", and all vehicles are at the same level as far as we can possibly know. While it would be fine indeed to know that 3rd Sherman has a dodgy gearbox and should be used conservatively, we have no such information. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Well as nobody else will .... I have generated a quick test with mud/light rain and warm. My disparate quintet has the Bedford truck managing around 2.2 kilometres, over three times as far as the Wolverine, and the universal carrier is slightly ahead of the truck. A DaimlerII is just less than the Wolverine and the remaining one is still trying to complete the course and is currently at 2.4km. The Bedford truck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_QLD Daimler MkII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Armoured_Car I have spoken to a family member who with a club does driving on difficult terrain including deep mud - which on a Landrover he reckons means over the wheelhub. Difficult to drive in and might involve winching. As to tanks his theory is if it is too deep they will belly pretty darn soon or probably not at all. There are historical accounts of bellied Shermans watching Tigers skate over the mud so perhaps some consideration needs to be given to this aspect. In game terms I am not a fan at all of breakdowns unless someone is behaving stupidly with there use such as driving into buildings etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Apropos of the relative mobility discussion, may I suggest all parties concerned repair here, beginning with p. 323 and continuing through page 335? This is material from the Army Green series volume THE ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT: Beachfront to Battlefield and concerns American mobility in the run up to and during the Roer River Campaign. I believe some of you will find this a disturbing read. In a nutshell, it says the American tanks lacking duckbill extenders AKA grousers were roadbound in muddy conditions. It goes on to show the Germans generally were able to operate in such conditions and that mud and/or terrain constraints fundamentally wrecked the whole U.S. fix and flank tactical scheme. Outgunned, worse protected and unable to maneuver offroad, the US. tanks and tankers were butchered. Morale was low, confidence in equipment lower, and an Ordnance Department officer from the States got a very hostile reception from American tankers when all he could offer were yet more of the very tanks the Germans had clobbered. Remember, this is part of the official history of the U.s. Army in World War II. http://archive.org/stream/ordnancedepartme00mayo/ordnancedepartme00mayo_djvu.txt Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I am not too sure you can rely on these official histories. Note what they say about stone houses and movement - surely JasonC and BF have put the lie to these canards! : ) The fields were criss- crossed by roads connecting numerous small villages whose thick-walled stone houses would make splendid defensive posi- tions for the Germans. Not the least con- sideration was the mud created by Novem- ber rains. Without the duckbills, the nar- row-tracked American tanks would be road bound and would be unable to use the flanking tactics that were their best hope of defeating German armor. 12 During the First Army breakthrough battles in July and August, the 2d Armored Division tankers had learned how to fight German Panther and Tiger tanks with their M4 Shermans. They knew that the ammunition of the 75-mm. gun with which most of the M4's were armed (a low- velocity shell about 13 inches long, as compared with the 28- to 30-inch high- velocity 75-mm. shell of the Panthers) would not penetrate at any range the thick frontal armor of the Panthers and Tigers, but could damage the sides and rear. Therefore the tankers had used wide en- circling movements, engaging the enemy's attention with one platoon of tanks while another platoon attacked from the rear. Stone buildings as defensive points , and flanking movement!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Well that quote is useless since it doesn't even take into account that the Tiger has bulletproof armor at the sides and the Panther does not. Also, the total length of the shell might not be the perfect indicator of performance (think ADPS etc). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 dieseltaylor, Drolly put! Redwolf, If bore diameter is held constant, overall projectile length is a pretty good indicator of relative performance. Think of it as being the difference between a .22 Long Rifle and a .223. If you Google "flames of war, ant-tank ammunition" you can read of see the considerable differences among the straight 2 pr round, the bottle necked 6 pr round and the enormous 17 pr, as compared to the Sherman 75mm. Here's a page with a bunch of comparison shots showing the 75mm Sherman round vs. the German Panzer IV and Panther 75mm rounds. http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ground-warfare/59028-pershing-tank-3.html Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Well that quote is useless since it doesn't even take into account that the Tiger has bulletproof armor at the sides and the Panther does not. Also, the total length of the shell might not be the perfect indicator of performance (think ADPS etc). Bulletproof huh : ) Actually most tanks got upset when taking fire front and side[or rear] and would try and remove themselves from a vulnerable position. Whilst Shermans might not penetrate 80mm at a sensible range there was always track and other hits that would ruin the day. Keeping the Tiger alive, and incidentally the crew, was usually more important than nailing one or two extra tanks in exchange. A fleet in being - as per WW1- is always a threat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Redwolf and dieseltaylor, Here's a nice distillation of Tiger 1 info with very good data on the armor, armor hardness, resistance vs various Western and Russian tank guns, with a good discussion of how the relationship between armor thickness and projectile diameter factored in, plus some combat examples and pics of pounded, but still functioning, Tiger 1s. As a bonus, the exchange ratio is given for the various Tiger 1 battalions. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 Well as nobody else will .... I have generated a quick test with mud/light rain and warm. My disparate quintet has the Bedford truck managing around 2.2 kilometres, over three times as far as the Wolverine, and the universal carrier is slightly ahead of the truck. A DaimlerII is just less than the Wolverine and the remaining one is still trying to complete the course and is currently at 2.4km. Trucks have very good off-road ratings in the game. How accurate that is I don't know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Vanir Ausf B, Depends. The standard 3 metric ton German truck, the Opel Blitz, began military life as a 4 x 2 (Typ S), but it later switched over to a 4 x 4 configuration (Typ A). This is precisely because the earlier configuration had cross country mobility issues. http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=519 By contrast, the ubiquitous U.S. 2 1/2 standard ton 6 x 6 was built that way from the start and generally had an excellent record. http://ww2db.com/vehicle_spec.php?q=354 Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Redwolf and dieseltaylor, Here's a nice distillation of Tiger 1 info with very good data on the armor, armor hardness, resistance vs various Western and Russian tank guns, with a good discussion of how the relationship between armor thickness and projectile diameter factored in, plus some combat examples and pics of pounded, but still functioning, Tiger 1s. As a bonus, the exchange ratio is given for the various Tiger 1 battalions. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm Regards, John Kettler Thanks for the link JK. I note the German penetration figures derive from, at the side, firing at 30 degrees. Not a very helpful figure then as I am sure any attacking Sherman would want to go for nearer 90! I have two books on Tiger 's in Action with daily logs for each unit and what, if known, knocked them out and their kills. I think I will have to collate it for the computer once I get my teeth into it. It is noteworthy that some die to Shermans and one day they record 5 lost to Firefly. : ) As for truck performance cross-country I suspect there are very few details avialble about travelling through mud heavy enough to stop tracked vehicles. You would not try it apart from very short distance. My f-i-l has plenty of tales of bogged Army vehicles in post-war Germany. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 dieseltaylor, You're welcome. Page 19 of this Congressional Budget Office study shows why the Germans analyzed the 30 degree engagement vs. side armor. Welcome to the cardioid distribution! http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-06-2012-Ground_Combat_Vehicles.pdf Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT North Dakota Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 You're welcome. Page 19 of this Congressional Budget Office study shows why the Germans analyzed the 30 degree engagement vs. side armor. Welcome to the cardioid distribution! http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-06-2012-Ground_Combat_Vehicles.pdf Actually that's not a very good piece of work or analysis. I would not attach much insight to it. If someone prepared that for me I'd throw it back pretty quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 19, 2013 Author Share Posted January 19, 2013 http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-06-2012-Ground_Combat_Vehicles.pdf The Army issued a revised RFP in November 2010 that left some flexibility in how the contractor could address the requirements.3 The RFP designated a manufacturing cost of between $9 million and $10.5 million per vehicle, an average procurement unit cost of $13 million per vehicle, and a sustainment cost of $200 per mile of operation. Off-topic, but holy ****! That's more expensive than an M1A2 Abrams tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 RT North Dakota, There isn't much available online about the cardioid distribution as it applies to tank engagements. I took what I could get. Here's another attempt. Google Images doesn't have a single useful pic. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/052504.pdf (Discussion p. 9 et seq.) Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 A year later and I thought I would update this with some new tests on how speed affects bogging... or doesn't. I chose the Panther A mid and M4A3(76)W Sherman for this run. Except for the change in vehicles and a somewhat larger sample size this test is identical to the ones done in the first post of this thread. Oh, and I changed the weather from raining to overcast, but the ground conditions are the same (muddy). Fast speed Total distance traveled: Sherman: 139316 meters Panther: 138732 meters Average distance traveled before immobilized: Sherman: 1393 meters Panther: 1387 meters Slow speed Total distance traveled: Sherman: 108634 meters Panther: 136935 meters Average distance traveled before immobilized: Sherman: 1086 meters Panther: 1369 meters Conclusion: It has been conventional wisdom since the CMx1 days that reducing speed in mud or snow will decrease bogging chances, but this does not seem to be true now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Hmmm, 1% seems to be very consistent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Hmmm, 1% seems to be very consistent. I think his point is that it should NOT be consistent between different tanks at different speeds. Fast > Slow and Sherman > Panther 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 The game is already very lenient regarding offroad performance, German tankers were skittish about going off road in muddy conditions in RL, (see Anzio for example) but that is not an issue in game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 I have no opinion on whether speed should make any difference. In that respect the last test is just an FYI. I know that with wheeled vehicles going as fast as possible is oftentimes better than creeping along. But as I outlined in the OP I do still think the relative performance between some vehicles is way off. Tiger > everything else is not correct. I assume that when the HVSS Shermans are introduced in the Bulge game it will be Tiger and Sherman > everything else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I have no opinion on whether speed should make any difference. In that respect the last test is just an FYI. I know that with wheeled vehicles going as fast as possible is oftentimes better than creeping along. True, I have memories of crossing a flooded river in India and getting stuck in the mud as you came out - where there were already about 3-4 other vehicles stuck. And while we were all pushing, another car crossed and slowed down to see if we needed help and everyone's screaming at him to speed up lest we all have to push another. But as I outlined in the OP I do still think the relative performance between some vehicles is way off. Tiger > everything else is not correct. I assume that when the HVSS Shermans are introduced in the Bulge game it will be Tiger and Sherman > everything else. He has a point, if the Panther was generally regarded as having the best off-road performance, then surely at the least it should be the one with the "4 bar" rating ( without going into what exactly the bars represent ) and not the Tiger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I think his point is that it should NOT be consistent between different tanks at different speeds. Fast > Slow and Sherman > Panther But irregardless of the tank or the speed, it seems to be a constant 1%. That seems to be off. I would think that fast should be worse than slow. As far as Panthers and Shermans, I'd give Panthers the benefit of better flotation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.