Juardis Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 I know there was a big thread earlier about the "slow" Panther turret speed. There was data that indicated a variable speed depending on the engine RPMs such that it could range anywhere from 25 some odd sec to 70+ sec. BTS chose to model it as 48 sec (or thereabouts). Are there any plans in the next patch to change this? Make it a function of crew quality like I suggested in that thread? Speed it up like someone else suggested? Do nothing as still others suggested? Nothing in CM1, do something in CM2? Beta testers? BTS? "Do nothing" is an acceptable answer, I'd just like to know what the decision is/was. ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 A faster turret won't save your Panthers from my dead-eye dick Piat teams! Where's that file! Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: I know there was a big thread earlier about the "slow" Panther turret speed. There was data that indicated a variable speed depending on the engine RPMs such that it could range anywhere from 25 some odd sec to 70+ sec. BTS chose to model it as 48 sec (or thereabouts). Are there any plans in the next patch to change this? Make it a function of crew quality like I suggested in that thread? Speed it up like someone else suggested? Do nothing as still others suggested? Nothing in CM1, do something in CM2? Beta testers? BTS? "Do nothing" is an acceptable answer, I'd just like to know what the decision is/was. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Same here the Panther & KT turret traverses were much faster then modeled in CM French 1947 tests with the Panther & data at Sumar confirm German data, both should be classed as 'fast' Ie, Panther - 18 secs 360^ @ 2500rpm. KT - 19 secs, 360^ @ 2000rpm 10 secs 360^ @ 3000rpm Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron: A faster turret won't save your Panthers from my dead-eye dick Piat teams! Where's that file! Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I won't need no stinkin' panthers after my nebelwerfers of death rain down on your valley. But now that I know I'm facing the Brits, I will delay my attack until tea time. I sent you the file last night, 8:00 pm eastern time. Let me know if you did not get it. I'll send it again when I get home, just in case. Use either one. ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 I too would like to see BTS's official take on this issue. The already presented historical facts seem to pretty unambiguously show that KT's and Panther's hydraulic traverse motors were much faster than they are in CM 1.05. TacAI makes the turret speed a crucial factor in actual gameplay. Changes to current values would most likely require some compensation in point costs. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: The already presented historical facts seem to pretty unambiguously show that KT's and Panther's hydraulic traverse motors were much faster than they are in CM 1.05. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand the turret traverse was tied to the RPMs of the engine. If so how can one claim that it has been shown "unambiguously" that they were faster in RL than in CM? What has been shown is they can be faster than currently in the game but can also be slower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: I understand the turret traverse was tied to the RPMs of the engine. If so how can one claim that it has been shown "unambiguously" that they were faster in RL than in CM? What has been shown is they can be faster than currently in the game but can also be slower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. But isn't it reasonable to presume that in battle conditions the German crews would use their engines in full throttle to engage their targets ASAP? It's the question of life and death. At least the (in)famous Tiger I seems to be modelled that way currently. Ari Ps. If asked, I would reclassify KT and Panther as medium turreted vehicles, because 'fast' SEEMS to be too generous for this kind of variable factor. On the other hand 'slow' FEELS just too slow if compared to the max achievable speed. After all we are speaking about an abstraction. [This message has been edited by Ari Maenpaa (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: I understand the turret traverse was tied to the RPMs of the engine. If so how can one claim that it has been shown "unambiguously" that they were faster in RL than in CM? What has been shown is they can be faster than currently in the game but can also be slower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhhh, if the turret speed is under the control of the crew, why would they choose to turn their turret at a lower rate of speed? Why would you wish to model anything but the most reasonable lower bound? A PzIV gunner could choose to turn his turret slower also. So could any tank gunner. Why would we arbitrarily decide to only punish some subset of vehicles? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: Right. But isn't it reasonable to presume that in battle conditions the German crews would use their engines in full throttle to engage their targets ASAP? It's the question of life and death. At least the (in)famous Tiger I seems to be modelled that way currently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think it is possible to be at "full throttle" at all times. The only time this would be possible, IMO, is when at rest or driving at top speed. Wouldn't the turret speed, on the move, be tied directly to movement speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 I'd tend to agree. I'm sure the driver would hammer the throttle in an instant when an enemy tank was spotted, and I suspect that with the fancy steering mechanism in Panthers and Tigers there was also a lot of 'hull steering' going on if necessary to speed things up even further and to present the hull glacis to the threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Uhhh, if the turret speed is under the control of the crew, why would they choose to turn their turret at a lower rate of speed? Why would you wish to model anything but the most reasonable lower bound? A PzIV gunner could choose to turn his turret slower also. So could any tank gunner. Why would we arbitrarily decide to only punish some subset of vehicles? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How about because it is tied to the engine in these tanks, unlike the others. Unless you are at a stop or moving at top speed you are unlikely to be at max RPMs. Are you insistng that these tanks would operate at max RPMs, to facilitate the turret speed, at all times? [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman: I'd tend to agree. I'm sure the driver would hammer the throttle in an instant when an enemy tank was spotted, and I suspect that with the fancy steering mechanism in Panthers and Tigers there was also a lot of 'hull steering' going on if necessary to speed things up even further and to present the hull glacis to the threat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At rest I could see the driver "hammer[ing] the throttle" but on the move? Would a Tiger or Panther, on the move, speed up to better engage a target? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 As far as engaging a target from what I know German procedure was to stop before firing. So I'm assuming the driver would push the clutch (whereupon he could then also have the advantage of pivoting on the spot -one track forward, one back) and then of course he would have all the rpm he would want. As for positioning the turrent while driving, the heavy equipment I've used is mostly driven at full rpm, with the gears used to adjust the speed. These things only went to 2500 rpm, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoker1 Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Oh great, Tigers and Panthers with faster turrets. They should cost 400 pts. each with Regular crews. That would also cut down on the number of these tanks we see. Smoker out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoker1: Oh great, Tigers and Panthers with faster turrets. They should cost 400 pts. each with Regular crews. That would also cut down on the number of these tanks we see. Smoker out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, but aren't history and reality the most important factors here? Isn't CM supposed to be as authentic as possible? Lets first get the tanks (and other things) modelled as realistically as possible and then give them corresponding point costs. At least that is what I hope. If the play balance is the only matter then I could play Ground Control or some similar scifi game instead. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted October 12, 2000 Author Share Posted October 12, 2000 I just want to know if BTS is going to address this or not? If they choose not to, fine. I personally think it should be a function of crew quality. Crack and elite - fast turret speed. Regular and vet, medium turret speed. Below green = slow. That seems to me to be the most realistic. I mean, you cannot expect a green crew to know their machine well enough to get the turret movement down pat. I'm sure it takes skill to rotate the turret as fast as possible, skill that is learned only after a certain period of time. But that may be more coding work than it's worth. In CM2, it'll definitely need to be addressed since the T-34 is a more than capable opponent. ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianc Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 I agree that the turret speeds should be adjusted. I recall from an earlier thread that BTS stated they used an average rotation time from values obtained from max RPM and idle speed. It makes alot of sense that crews would obviously use more RPM's in a life-threatening combat situation to traverse as fast as possible... Does anyone have any reference material to support this assumption? ianc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: How about because it is tied to the engine in these tanks, unlike the others. Unless you are at a stop or moving at top speed you are unlikely to be at max RPMs. Are you insistng that these tanks would operate at max RPMs, to facilitate the turret speed, at all times? [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-11-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I am suggesting that as soon as the TC said "Gunner, target!" (or whatever the Germans said) the driver stomped on the gas. Have you eveer driven a car with a manual stransmission? It is easy to park the Tach at whatever RPM you want. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: How about because it is tied to the engine in these tanks, unlike the others. Unless you are at a stop or moving at top speed you are unlikely to be at max RPMs. Are you insistng that these tanks would operate at max RPMs, to facilitate the turret speed, at all times? [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-11-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just to clear this up a bit the gunner controlled turret traverse speed, he had a selector for high & low speed, this was independant of the driver. Also German tanks did not fire on the move, their SOP for fireing on the advance was stop, aim, fire, move. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Just to clear this up a bit the gunner controlled turret traverse speed, he had a selector for high & low speed, this was independant of the driver. Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cool, thanks John. That makes an even better argument for increasing the Panther turret traverses. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoker1 Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 If faster turret speeds of Panthers and Tigers are needed to better simulate the way it really was then I'm all for it, BUT there should definitely be a substantial cost increase for these much improved vehicles since their Achilles Heel is being removed. Smoker out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 The gunner still needed the drivers cooperation as the two speeds were more like selecting two ratio, then the engine rpm (from which the pump was directly coupled) alters your speed in each ratio. From extracts of a March 15, 1945 US Army report, quoted in 'Tiger Tanks' by Michael Green. "Results: It was found that, with the engine turning over at 2000 rpm and with the high ratio engaged, the turret traversed 360 in 19 seconds. With low ratio, the time required was 40 seconds" George Forty's German Tanks of WWII gives this for the Panther: "...driver and gunner had to work as a team to produce fast traversing....For example, in high ratio, at 2500 rpm, the turret could be traversed in 17-18 seconds, while in low ratio at 1000 rpm it took 92-93 seconds." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoker1: If faster turret speeds of Panthers and Tigers are needed to better simulate the way it really was then I'm all for it, BUT there should definitely be a substantial cost increase for these much improved vehicles since their is being removed. Smoker out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I'd ask why cost should be raised for something they should have had to begin with?. Their achilles heel, was their side & rear armor thats why Allied tanks closed distance & swarmed them. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman: The gunner still needed the drivers cooperation as the two speeds were more like selecting two ratio, then the engine rpm (from which the pump was directly coupled) alters your speed in each ratio. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed Machine I should have been clearer, I was pointing out the gunner had independant control over traverse speed selection. It still needs to be adressed in CM as CM models both tanks useing low traverse, in combat this would not have been the case. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 ok, I usually keep mouth shut because I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said. Well, I have something to add... but I'm not sure if it is relivent. When I was younger I used to drive a CAT(dozer) to clear brush off my uncles farm. It was an old model, 50's I believe. When using it I basically set the throttle when it was time to work. Idle for doing nothing, then set the throttle up when it was time to work. During work you never really messed with the throttle setting, you used the transmission to control speed ect. Much the way you do a riding lawn mower. When you mow you don't keep moving the throttle. You set it and control your speed direction with the transmission (gears/hydostatic,ect). The only time you throttle it down is when your done, or getting off to move something ect. This may have nothing to do with this topic, but I figured a 40's tank may be the same way. Are there any tankers here or heavy equipment guys that could comment? Lorak ------------------ "Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats Cesspool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts