Turn rate for a 7,6cm Pak 36(r)

[poesel]

What would be the expected time needed to turn such a gun by 90° on flat ground or entrenched? To be more specific: I mean the time needed until the gun could fire again.

Thanks!

[winkelried]

measured the following in the game (90 degree turn, time until first shot fired):

50mm PaK = ca. 54 seconds

88mm PaK 43 = ca. 56 seconds

75mm PaK 40 = ca. 62 seconds

76mm PaK 36® = ca. 68 seconds

88mm FlaK 36 = ca 78 seconds

88mm PaK 43/41 = ca. 122 seconds

all guns regular, on flat ground, area fire 90 degrees at approx 700m. timing varies +/- several seconds.

[John Kettler]

winkelried,

How extremely odd, that the honking PaK 43 can be turned much faster than the much smaller and lighter PaK36®! Please consider putting this valuable list in some sticky thread.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Wasn't the Flak 36 a pedestal mounted AA gun? If so, surely it's traverse time should be in single digit seconds rather than over a minute! Much like the 2 pounder AT gun with its pedestal mount could quickly traverse and fire on fast moving targets I would have thought the Flak 36 would be in the same category.

Regards

KR

[poesel]

Thanks Winkelried for the effort. But I need to phrase my questions better:

Does anyone know what the turn rate for said gun was in real life?

Because I feel it's a bit too slow. The turn rate looks apropriate for the case when the gunner adjusts the gun with whatever mechnism the gun has for fine adjusting. But I would think that a unit that has been given a 90° pivot order would rather swing around the whole gun and then fine adjust after that.

This is just my gut feeling and I know nothing how this was really handled.

[John Kettler]

poesel71,

If you're asking about turning an ATG outside of its traverse limits, then the gun trails must be lifted in order to shift the gun. Not only is the 7.62cm® tiny compared to the PaK 43, but it's made from lighter alloy steel, too. Makes no sense to me. Pedestal mounted guns have 360 degree traverse and don't need to pivot.

Anyone,

Why is the Reply button (below the posts) on the left these days? I find it awkward there because the text generally ends somewhere to the right. Also, I've had two recent bouts of a submitted reply's turning into an unexpected rejection, forcing me to log in in order to actually post.

Regards,

John Kettler

[winkelried]

don't understand what doesn't make sense to you john

the 7.62 pak 38® weighs 1.7 tons and has a split carriage.

the 8.8 pak 43 weighs 3.6 tons and has a cruciform carriage with a 360 degree angle

the 8.8 pak 43/41 weighs 4.6 tons and has a split carriage.

so the differences in the measurements between the guns make sense.

how close they are to reality? no idea. still searching.

[poesel]

Yes, I meant outside of the traverse limit which, I think, 90° would be. Also especially about guns with a split carriage.

Was it necessary to bolt/anchor the carriage to the ground? Or would two men 'just' lift the gun by the carriage until it stood on its wheels, turn and then put it down again? If that is so then this behaviour is not reflected in CM. There the gun seems to turn in a uniform speed.

[winkelried]

Yes, I meant outside of the traverse limit which, I think, 90° would be. Also especially about guns with a split carriage.

fully understood. trying to get info about this. usually a ATG on a split carriage has a "natural" traverse. E.g. the PaK 43/41 has such a traverse of +/- 28 degrees. But what is outside asks for turning the whole gun-

Was it necessary to bolt/anchor the carriage to the ground?

Yes and no. There are some photographs where just a member of the gun crew is lying on each of the carriage arms. but if this was common practice or even feasible or just a good photo topic - i can't say. but a gun which was not anchored would risk to move in a uncontrollable way when firing.

Or would two men 'just' lift the gun by the carriage until it stood on its wheels, turn and then put it down again?

on the photos where you see this at least four men if not more are lifting and pushing/turning the gun. The guns at 75mm and above all weigh considerably more than one ton. even when well balanced there will be quite some resistance when turning the wheels even on hard ground.

If that is so then this behaviour is not reflected in CM. There the gun seems to turn in a uniform speed.

Probably an animation issue. The crew doesn't heave the gun, just crawling around it. But the turning doesn't take all time. E.g. the 75mm PaK 40 takes ~40 seconds to turn, after the order is issued. And then another ~10 seconds to adjust and fire.

I would guess, that issuing the order ("Achtung Panzer auf 3 Uhr, Bekämpfen"), getting the crew into position and begin to turn may take another 10 to 15 seconds. So the net turn time would be somewhere between 20 and 30 seconds (meaning 3 degrees per second) for a 1.4 ton gun. OK? probably - certainly not too far off.

[winkelried]

some examples

in muddy terrain, but it doesn't seem easy.

one of the pictures with the crew lying on the split carriage

imagine turing this bastard

here they fire w/o fixed carriage

[Amizaur]

Wasn't the Flak 36 a pedestal mounted AA gun? If so, surely it's traverse time should be in single digit seconds rather than over a minute! Much like the 2 pounder AT gun with its pedestal mount could quickly traverse and fire on fast moving targets I would have thought the Flak 36 would be in the same category.

KR

Good point. Flak 36 should turn much faster than even lighter AT guns. It has a comfortable AA mount. Fast turn rate could at least partially compensate it's bigh size and height.

[poesel]

some examples

...

The pictures don't show but I got the URLs when I quoted your message.

I guess that the arms of the split carriage are there to catch the recoil. The guys lying there are because the arms can't 'dig in' into hard ground. Additional weight creates additional friction.

In the picture where there is no one on the arms they also have no wheels. Which has more friction than with wheels.

Obviously friction on muddy ground is no problem at all.

I did a little test and tried turning on different grounds and with different experience. Looks like ground type has no impact on turn rate (although, IMHO, it should) but experience has. An elite crew has roughly a 10 second advantage over a conscript crew (~50s over 60s for a 90° turn). Nice to have that simulated, too, and a reasonable value IMHO.

After seeing the pictures I don't think that the turn rate is too far off. These things are big. Although the constant speed animation is a bit misleading - especially for bigger distances. Also, as mentioned, terrain should play a role.

[JonS]

Probably an animation issue. The crew doesn't heave the gun, just crawling around it. But the turning doesn't take all time. E.g. the 75mm PaK 40 takes ~40 seconds to turn, after the order is issued. And then another ~10 seconds to adjust and fire.

I would guess, that issuing the order ("Achtung Panzer auf 3 Uhr, Bekämpfen"), getting the crew into position and begin to turn may take another 10 to 15 seconds. So the net turn time would be somewhere between 20 and 30 seconds (meaning 3 degrees per second) for a 1.4 ton gun. OK? probably - certainly not too far off.

the constant speed animation is a bit misleading

Yeah, just like moving a gun, I'm fairly certain that the time taken in CM includes more than just the physical act of rotating the carriage.

[Sgt Schultz]

I have found one simple guideline works for my ATGs...

"Keyhole or die."

Traversing, re-laying, adjusting, then getting taken under fire.... all these things lead to premature gun death.

Heavy cover and hopefully a few troops towards the axis of enemy attack.

Gun set up to cover flanks shots at an angle to enemy axis of attack.

Mines, wire, walls, something to slow armor down while inside keyhole arc.

Arc set withing gun traverse limit.

Better to not be seen at all than to take a bad shot, or dilly-dally playing with your gun out in front of God and everybody. Once a gun crew starts messing around, they tend to stand out and get noticed by the folks that really hate them .... like tanks with big cannon.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

So, do we agree that the time it takes for the emplaced Flak 36 to rotate appears to be way off considering it's a Flak gun that's designed to rotate quickly?

Regards

KR

[winkelried]

So, do we agree that the time it takes for the emplaced Flak 36 to rotate appears to be way off considering it's a Flak gun that's designed to rotate quickly?

Regards

KR

not sure about that. the 88s were used against high altitude targets firing with extensive fire control equipment and as batteries. would probably fire some kind of barrage against the bombers.

for the turn ratr you would need to accelerate 2-3 tons and then stop this mass again. against inertia ... fun

[poesel]

for the turn ratr you would need to accelerate 2-3 tons and then stop this mass again. against inertia ... fun

Don't know about the 88 but the difficulty about doing that depends largely on how the piece is mounted (bearings and such). And then its not a linear movement but a rotational and most of the mass is close to the rotational axis.

So it's not necessarily impossible or even difficult.

[Flanker15]

So, do we agree that the time it takes for the emplaced Flak 36 to rotate appears to be way off considering it's a Flak gun that's designed to rotate quickly?

Regards

KR

Yeah it's waaaaaayyyyy off, I've seen a real one set up and you can spin it real quick on its fancy mount.

Even the pak gun rotation time seems a bit long in the tests.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Starting at 1:27 you can see a Flak 36 turn what appears to be about 90° in 5 seconds.

[kensal]

Flak 36 had a high rate of fire too 15-20 rpm. That doesn't seem to be modelled in the game/

[Redwolf]

What has always been a source of concern for me in CM games is traverse inside the carriage, versus traverse so far that you have to pick up the carriage.

I don't want to re-heat the arguments about the latter, I don't believe that it takes that long for a train gun crew to lift the damn thing and put it back down. Fortifications might not allow it for space reasons but CM does it on the road, too. Never mind that.

But these guns can traverse inside their carriage, and there is no way that you can tell me that this is as slow as CM models it. This was already a problem in CMx1, especially when (not) tracking vehicles moving laterally.

I was very disappointed that CMx2 and even CMx2ww2 didn't fix this. FYI, the Pak40 in reality could aim 30 degree in either direction without moving the carriage. That is a total of 60+ degrees to the front that a real gun could aim at very quickly, but here in CM we have to wait for the same carriage pickup per-degree time as for a 180 degree turn. Now that combines very badly with possibly overly pessimistic times for picking up the carriage.

IMHO this is just another nail in the coffin of successful realistic infantry defenses in CMBN.

The weird thing is that CM does model this for vehicles. StuGs and Marders can aim their gun within the traverse angle without moving the vehicle.

[winkelried]

What has always been a source of concern for me in CM games is traverse inside the carriage, versus traverse so far that you have to pick up the carriage.

I don't want to re-heat the arguments about the latter, I don't believe that it takes that long for a train gun crew to lift the damn thing and put it back down. Fortifications might not allow it for space reasons but CM does it on the road, too. Never mind that.

But these guns can traverse inside their carriage, and there is no way that you can tell me that this is as slow as CM models it. This was already a problem in CMx1, especially when (not) tracking vehicles moving laterally.

I was very disappointed that CMx2 and even CMx2ww2 didn't fix this. FYI, the Pak40 in reality could aim 30 degree in either direction without moving the carriage. That is a total of 60+ degrees to the front that a real gun could aim at very quickly, but here in CM we have to wait for the same carriage pickup per-degree time as for a 180 degree turn. Now that combines very badly with possibly overly pessimistic times for picking up the carriage.

IMHO this is just another nail in the coffin of successful realistic infantry defenses in CMBN.

The weird thing is that CM does model this for vehicles. StuGs and Marders can aim their gun within the traverse angle without moving the vehicle.

Don't know what you are talking about. The inside traverse worked in the recent tests i made - just did them with the Pak 40 (where the angle is +/- 28 degrees by the way). worked well and fast. maybe you can check yourself and give some feedback on this?

[winkelried]

Flak 36 had a high rate of fire too 15-20 rpm. That doesn't seem to be modelled in the game/

first: rate of fire often are theoretical values - i noted a practical ROF for the Flak 36 of 12-15 rounds per minute. i'll check for the source.

in the game i measured for Flak 36 used in an offboard artillery role a ROF of 12 rounds per minute - which would coincide with my values above.

onboard Flak 36 has effectively a lower ROF with 10 rounds per minute. as i usually play WEGO with 1 minute timeslots i prefer the lower ROF since the ammo loadout of an Flak 36 is just 30-35 rounds AP so it would be empty in 2 minutes with the practical ROF of even earlier with the ROF you mentioned. So in the end i prefer the ingame ROF of 10 rounds per minute ...

[Steiner14]

With the current ATG models, I can't imagine that in CM even the luckiest player can achieve that many kills with one gun:

Would make an interesting test if the hit probability of the 88 is better than other guns.

[Sublime]

Completely different things Steiner. I'd bet you on almost any odds that the picture was -

1. Taken in the East Front

2. Taken before Kursk

Completely out of the CM time frame that we have, in a completely different theater. If the picture is from the Ost, circa 41-42 the 88 was a super gun in that time frame and the large amount of kill rings wouldn't surprise me too much. Same with an early Desert War picture.

I doubt ATGs were racking up that many kills later in the war, besides the once in a blue moon Villers Bocage exception.