dano6 Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 I was just playing a MP game of CE and had the odd chance to notice that the Stug has a faster rate of fire than a 75mm Sherman. It equated to about 4 secs faster during the movie I watched. Can this be correct? Both tanks were rated "regular". All things being equal the Sherman had a much higher rate of fire than a Stug. I could see if the Stug was and elite crew or something but I find this problem completely wrong. Steve or Charles any comment on this? dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianc Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Hi Dan06, why do you think the Sherman has a much higher ROF than a Stug? Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 The fighting compartment of a StuG was more cramped than the turret of a Sherman. In a StuG, all 4 crewmen were in basically the same wedge-shaped hull, whereas in a Sherman only the TC, gunner and loader were in the turret. Add to that the fact that the Shermans's turret was a uniform cylinder shape giving greater freedom of movement, compared to the decidedly wedge shape of the fighting box of the StuG. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 I could be wrong about this, but I believe the Sherman's 75 was derived from the famous WW1 French 75mm fieldgun, which was built in large numbers in the US during and after WW1. This gun had a Nordenfeldt rotary breech that had to be manually opened after each shot, and then manually closed after reloading. If the Sherman's gun inherited this feature, I can see it having a longer reload time even if the loader had more room to work in, because I'm very sure the StuG's gun had a semi-automatic, sliding bolt breech. On firing, this automatically opens and ejects the empty cartridge and, when the fresh round is inserted, automatically closes itself. Of course, I could well be wrong about the Sherman's gun. -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 BH, I've found a reference to the Sherman's 75mm gun as having a ROF of 20/min. http://wwii-allied-afvs.virtualave.net/afv_data/m4.htm Dunno how accurate it is, but there certainly is a lot of data there. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zigster Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Hunnicut uses the same figure in "Sherman - A History of the American Medium Tank" 20 per min for the 75mm maximum ROF. However, it also uses a semiautomatic sliding wedge breechblock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted January 22, 2000 Author Share Posted January 22, 2000 By the way the 75mm gun M2, M3 and M6 all had semi-automatic breeches ejecting the shell casing automatically. There is no problem with the 75mm gun other than its muzzle velocity. In fact there are many actual crews that have said they would fire 2 rounds to every 1 of the heavier German tanks. I am trying to figure out how a Stug III with a slow ROF due to its cramped fighting configuration and stowage, could outfire a Sherman that had a very high ROF. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Pender Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Is it possible that the sherman was at a lowe ammo state than the Stug? If it was a duel between the Sherman and the Stug this would not seem correct, but if the Sherman was shooting at a non threat target it would. It may have something to due with the ammo conservation code? Take care John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 That little whinny bitch SS just took out one of my STUGs because he got got off two shots to my one shot. It was VERY VERY VERY cool. We both got off our 1st shots at the same time and BOTH bounced of the armor (beyond cool to watch, I wish I had saved it to post somewhere). Then his Sherman got off a 2nd shot before my STUG did and BOOM. Blowed it up real good. Next week on celebrity blow up I'm gonna have SS begging for his life and not grant him his wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zigster Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Dano, were either of the vehicles in motion at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Scientific Test Results! I ran a little test using CE 2 Stuggs and 2 Shermans. Out of site of each other shooting at buildings.... Stugg 1.....5 rounds 60sec Stugg 2.....5 rounds 60 sec Sherman 1...6 rounds 60 sec Sherman 2...5 rounds 60 sec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 I'm playing Dan in the game in question. I think there are factors involved other than simply a straight tank duel and reload time. There were a lot of german infantry and support moving towards the sherman during the duel and whether it could see them or not, the stug could see no enemies other than the sherman as it hunted forward. Plus the area was covered in smoke which might have temporarily affected LOS. [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 01-21-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Also, keep in mind that the stated ROF for a gun was ROF under test conditions--bolted to a bench, nobody shooting back, etc etc. Also, the ROF tested only how fast somebody could whip in fresh shells; things like refining aim weren't included in ROF tests. Similarly, automakers until the mid 70s gave horsepower figures from engines that had been stripped of extras like a/c, power steering pumps, etc etc to reduce the load on the engine and bring up its horsepower rating. They would also fudge the numbers a lot. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zigster Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Yes, there's no doubt in my mind that the 20 rounds per minute figure quoted is without any sort of aiming at all. Just a slide 'em in and bang 'em out test. 5 or 6 shots as in Mark's test sounds much more reasonable for aimed shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted January 22, 2000 Author Share Posted January 22, 2000 As far as everything is concerned, both tanks were stopped when they targetted and fired on each other. Whether there was infantry moving or not is not even relevant to this because my tank could not see them due to smoke. Both tanks only had targetting on one another. His Stug was buttoned and my Sherman was not. That meant that his TC was inside the tank taking up even more room in the already super cramped space of the Stug. When the engagement began my Sherman got off the first round due to his Stug being buttoned by MG fire from the Sherman. On the second exchange both fired at the same time with his TC buttoned. My problem is this: THE SHERMAN HAD A MUCH HIGHER ROF THAN A STUG IN ALMOST ANY CONDITION. So why is this not portrayed in the game. I want to know if this is fixed in the release version of the game. I don't really care if the BETA demo shows this but what about the release version. This seems like a major glaring error to me. Ron I know I am playing you and I am not complaining about the outcome in the BETA Demo. What I want to know is if this error has been fixed for the final version of the game. Steve or Charles please answer on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Testing in CE, firing at area targets, no enemy contact what so ever. Shermans get off the first shot usually, but after that: (approximately) Regular StuG: 1/11 seconds Regular Sherman: 1/12 seconds Veteran Sherman: 1/10 seconds Major glaring error? Well... Why not wait for the final release before going "major glaring error" on the game mechanics...? This is just one of a multitude of possible game decisions or possible mistakes... M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Or else wait for Steve or Charles to weigh in? dano6, I would wait for some info from BTS before demanding changes be made due to experiences in one battle. Or else, can you post something that shows battle-condition ROF for the StuG vs that for whatever Sherman type is in CE? Also, consider this: say a Sherman's listed battle-condition ROF is 6/minute. That works out to 1 shot/10 seconds, as observed. Now let's say that a StuG's battle-condition ROF is only 5/minute. That works out to 1 shot/12 seconds. Not far off what people have observed. One further point: the ROF is not a "concrete, hard&fast" number. Suppose the fumble finger loader couldn't ram a fresh shell home as fast as he could in training? Or the first shot raised a dust cloud that obscured the target? IMHO there are always factors beyond what we can see with our eyes in a movie; it's what makes the game so suspenseful. If the game engine were reduced to definite numbers/factors that never changed, we may as well play Battleship. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Zig said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just a slide 'em in and bang 'em out test.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are 2 responses: 1) "I think I saw a movie with that title...oh, wait. No, forget I said that." 2) "Sounds like the way I used to shoot my grandfather's .45 pistol. I couldn't hit the barnside of a broad, but I sure liked making all that noise!" DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted January 22, 2000 Author Share Posted January 22, 2000 Mattias, your post shows the exact problem with this question. A regular Sherman against a regular Stug: The Sherman should get off more shots than the Stug. This is due to space limitations within the tanks, movement of the loader, positioning of the ready rack of rounds, and German gunnery tactics. The (non-buttoned)US tank would go something like this. First Shot: TC "tank direct front" "Load AP" "Fire" This would probably take about 10 secs for the gunner to line up and elevate gun for 250m. If AP was not loaded to start gunner would have fired HE round intantly at nothing to clear breech. Loader loads AP from ready rack on floor. Gunner fires: the 12 second thing is about right. Second round: Unbuttoned TC "Down 1" (for spotted miss of top of Stug "1 degree") this would have taken the loader 4 secs. to load AP, Loader: "up" Gunner adjust down 1 degree 2 secs. while loader is loading. TC "fire". For a regular crew with unbuttoned TC this would take about 5-6 secs until the ready rack was empty. 75mm wet ready rack held 4 rounds. Typical was 2 AP and 2 HE. After the ready rack was empty it would take loader a little longer to load due to farther reach to turret floor to get round. Some very good crews could get off 4 round in 20 secs. By end of war most US crews would shoot AP then wait for 10 secs and shoot a HE. Notice the wait. Now for the buttoned Stug. The TC is buttoned so he cannot spot rounds the gunner must adjust without help. This would take longer due to German gunnery technique. Also loader with TC fully in the Upper structure would take up preciuos room and possibly make loader take longer. I just do not see how the Stug got off a round 4 secs faster than the Sherman. Steve or Charles any response would be appreciated. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted January 22, 2000 Author Share Posted January 22, 2000 Doug as for the factors you talked about limiting ROF, The unbuttoned TC would have adjusted fire not the gunner. The gunner would have heard the order "down one" and adjusted down one degree and fired whether or not he could see. This would not have worked for the Stug aa he was buttoned. The gunner would have had to adjust through the site. The dust would have effected the Stug not the Sherman. Now for fumble fingers loader, if this is modeled is it modeled for the Germans also? I would just like an explanation from Steve or Charles how this happened!!! 4 secs longer for the Sherman is an eternity. Again Steve or Charles, any comment would be appreciated. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 dano6, what you've described as the Sherman's actions resembles "hip-shooting" the main gun, and it was NOT easy. Still isn't in the Abrams, where the TC has a turret override and a gunsight repeater. The Sherman's TC, while he could observe the fire, had no sight mechanism of his own, and had a lot of other things to do. It's my understanding that tank training says that the TC spots targets and tells the gunner the approximate bearing, and then it's up to the gunner and loader together to hit the thing. The TC is busy looking for other targets, watching for enemy infantry, and being the link between his tank and the platoon leader. I don't think doctrine called for the gunner to fire blind on the direction of the TC who had no sight mechanism beyond a little metal blade welded to the turret top in line with the main gun. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Dan, if you replay the movies you'll see the stug wasn't buttoned when it fired its shots. Also there was a 12s interval between the first and second shots for the sherman, a 10s interval for the stug. [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 01-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted January 22, 2000 Author Share Posted January 22, 2000 Doug actually, the TC did adjust fire in the Sherman. Or at least a good TC would. The gunner had very little vision of the round after he let fly due to the non-smokeless powder used in the US tank ordnance. Here is a quote from Sergeant Reece Graham TC in a M4A1 76mm Sherman. "Right Front, Right Front, Range 1000, Fire.... Up 2, fire" new target "left 2 up 2 fire" This seems as if he is directing fire to me. The gunner of course would adjust if he could see but he would not take all day to wait for the smoke to clear. Both of these shots resulted in kills to Panthers in the Bulge. dano6 dano6 dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 23, 2000 Share Posted January 23, 2000 Ok, some official stuff from Charles 1. The RoF for the Sherman in CM is roughly 6/min as the 20/min figure quoted is not battlefield condition test. 2. The RoF for a StuG is not statistically that much differen than the Sherman in CM. The crew *might* be a bit more cramped, but that shouldn't dramatically effect RoF in this case. In the case of a Hetzer, definately. But to say that a turretless tank should have a slower RoF than a turreted one is an over simplification since some had superior interior space (Jadgtiger and Jagdpanther for example). 3. There is slight randomness in reload and firing times, which can effect probably a one shot +/- difference per minute. Crew training can also +/- reload and firing times. 4. There are NO "practical" hard facts (i.e. field average under combat) to go on for RoF so much of CM's RoF is guess work on our part. 5. There are more factors involved in RoF than we can quantify, like ammo readiness, speed of opitcal adjustments, physical positions of each man, etc. Many of these have the potential to balance out advantages, thus creating a sort of equality for most AFV gun systems of roughly equal design. In fact, the Sherman had poor ammo accesability IIRC after x rounds were fired as much of the ammo was stored in difficult to access bins. In any case, there is only so much that can be done. Hope that helps clarify some stuff. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 23, 2000 Share Posted January 23, 2000 Yeah, I hadn't thought of the ease-of-use of the gunnery optics before. I've read that German optics were of a very high quality, but how does that translate to user-friendliness? What about the gunnery optics of other tanks, especially Shermans as those are all we slackass posterboys (remember us, Fionn? You used to be just like us!) get to play with DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts