A co Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) 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 November 17, 2016 by A co commas between tags. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1000 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) The Panther is king of open land. The German plan was to replace all mark ivs with it. Edited November 17, 2016 by user1000 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swant Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Ok now I understand why my shermans keep geting immobilized 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG TOW Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Great comparison, and realistic obstacles. Would have liked to have seen how aT34 compared to the panther. Also seeing a hellcat do this would have been interesting since it has an off-road speed advantage over all others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshoot Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) 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 November 17, 2016 by JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 3 hours ago, Offshoot said: A simple question: is bogging in CM vehicle-dependent? . Yes. In the vehicle UI look for a stat called Off-Road, That is a rough measure of how prone to bogging it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 The Panther's tactical mobility was in most respects superior to the T-34's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 A co, thanks for taking the time for doing the sub-titles! Nice film. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Erwin said: So what about the T-34? Not that many road wheels, but the best cross country etc. read the paper etc. Edited November 18, 2016 by JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Thanks for posting. Interesting. I was surprised by the ease the Panther went over rocky terrain, through trees and over that wall. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 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.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A co Posted November 19, 2016 Author Share Posted November 19, 2016 c3K, I'm glad you liked the video but I can't take credit for the subtitles- they were already there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Alright then: Lay 100 soldiers next to each other so their legs form a flat surface. Walk over them - anyone hurt? No, good. Ok, now we're going to drive this Sherman over your legs. Don't worry - Erwin assures us you'll be fine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 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.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 (edited) 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 ... 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 November 20, 2016 by JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 5 hours ago, Erwin said: A woman with stilettos could kill you by walking over you, so does that make her as heavy as a tank? LOL maybe..... But then if she is that big I don't think it matters if she wears heels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 We seem to be making exactly the same point. But, thanks to Aspergers... Here ya go: http://aspergerstest.net/aq-test/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 i'm not sure about Percy Horbart's views on the stiletto heel, after all it didn't really come back into fashion until the '50s. But, he knew a thing or two about vehicle weight distribution thankfully. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckman Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 (edited) 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 December 5, 2016 by Macisle 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.