Panther turret speed revisited

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ari wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hey, what happened to the turret traverse bonus? Not in the new beta-patch?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We never said it would be out with the next patch. If you saw how long our list of proposed tweaks/fixes/additions is you would understand

When discussing this issue some things need to be kept in mind here:

1. CM's turret rotation speed is just that. How long the turret takes to turn 360 degrees. The exact mechanism for acheiving this rate is not relevant. On the output is.

2. Targeting time has nothing to do with turret rotation speed. This is factored in once the gun is put onto the target, which is where it should be done.

3. The speed of which a tank can rotate to meet a threat with its thickest armor has nothing to do with turret rotation speed, and therefore is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

4. Hardly any tanks in WWII were able to pivot in place, either through dedicated controls or "neutral steering". This has been discussed before at length in the past, but once again is not relevant to turret rotation speed.

5. Optical advantages (or assumed advantages) is the subject of another very detailed discussion. Some 1000 posts later a conclusive argument in favor of German optical advantages has still not been presented. So it is our position that, at the very least, this is still something that is up for debate. But again, this has nothing to do with turret rotation speeds.

6. The loss of a tank commander is not different from tank to tank. We have no way of estimating, nor the desire to simulate, the efficency ratings of each member of a crew for each AFV in WWII. The data doesn't exist, and even if it did there are more important things to spend our limited time on. So abstraction of crew positions will remain in effect for CM until the day we stop making it. And once again, this has little to do with turret speed, if anything.

----

Really, the only relevant thing to discuss here (as I see it) is what was the average speed the Panther turret is under combat conditions for various levels of crew experience. All other issues are their own.

As for the slow speed of German traverse systems... I think if you comb through reports you will find no shortage of statements that the Sherman's traverse system was faster than for any of the German tanks. In fact, I think Jeff found some quotes in that Ike report that back this up. I certainly feel like I have seen this in practically every book on AFVs that compared/contrasted models from different countries.

Remember... the German philosophy was to have their tanks engage in long range (1000m+) battles whenever possible. This allowed the tanks to utilize their superior armor and guns to their fullest. At closer ranges these advantages were greatly reduced and, in the case of something like the weak side armor of the Panther, actually lost in some respects. At long ranges turret rotation speed was not much of an issue, so it makes sense that either the Germans designed their systems with this in mind, or further adapted their tactics so that this limitation was minimized.

In short... remember that the argument FOR some sort of improvement in Panther performance is based an opinion that it is somehow shortchanged right now. With the possible exception of giving the Panther a faster rotation time when manned by better crews, we still have seen no strong case to suggest that further changes would aid realism.

Steve

[Dittohead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Remember... the German philosophy was to have their tanks engage in long range (1000m+) battles whenever possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if that was their philosophy then they would have had superior optics to do just that.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Or superior guns

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Or superior guns <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Superior guns mean little, if the optics arn't upto par, the whole concept of long range engagements requires an intergrated FCS which means optics, ammunition & gun working together, you cant ignore one aspect and attempt to quantify it with another.

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 field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Well yup, thats a very good point John. Sounds good, I would probably agree from my little knowledge on the matter.

Of course, I could have been just trying add a little humour to the thread, I mean I did leave the door way open for someone to say *or both*....

Hmmm, come to think of it maybe I should upgrade to an even more potent form of smiley.

Dan

Disclaimer : This poster knows very little about gun ballistics and WW2 optics, so please do not attempt to take him *too* seriously whilst reading his posts on the matter, *most* importantly those of three words or less.

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 11-29-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

John:

Speaking of optics I just found a snippet on the US ARMY indicating tank mounted stereoscopic range finders were widely adapted in the early 1950’s. Apparently a fairly rigid training routine was required for stereoscopes relative to coincidence type range finders. In addition, not all folks are capable of seeing in stereo (or so the report goes). Ratio was apparently about 70% of personal trained had acute enough stereoscopic vision to use these rangefinders.

I reckon this adaptation of actual range finders probably accounts for the FM 100-5 quote:

To Obtain 50-50 Probability Of Hit On Standing Tank At 1500 Meters:

World War II Medium Tank - Had to fire 13 Rounds.

Korean War Medium Tank - Had to fire 3 rounds.

Mid-'70's Medium Tank - Needs to fire 1 Round.

I found a couple more WWII German 3,000 meters engagement tales Seems like its not so much an outlier range as much it’s a standard deviation or two from the mean.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Of course, I could have been just trying add a little humour to the thread, I mean I did leave the door way open for someone to say *or both*....

Hmmm, come to think of it maybe I should upgrade to an even more potent form of smiley.

Dan

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL Dan sorry I was trying to stay in 'charachter' I shoulda added a smiley myself apperently, my bad....

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 field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hehe, no worries and thanks John, Im actually quite liking this new version of smiley. It took me a good 10 mins to figure out how to do it, too

Dan

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

John:

Speaking of optics I just found a snippet on the US ARMY indicating tank mounted stereoscopic range finders were widely adapted in the early 1950’s. Apparently a fairly rigid training routine was required for stereoscopes relative to coincidence type range finders. In addition, not all folks are capable of seeing in stereo (or so the report goes). Ratio was apparently about 70% of personal trained had acute enough stereoscopic vision to use these rangefinders.

I reckon this adaptation of actual range finders probably accounts for the FM 100-5 quote:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff so car as I can find out the M4A3E8's used in Korea were standard WW2 configured Shermans, with no upgrades.

Yes the US developed an stereoscopic RF's for the T37 light tank in 1947, but it proved to complex & was removed from the T37 design & the T37 was redesignated the T-41 which later became the M-41 in 1951. The 1st US tank to be produced with an stereoscopic RF & enter service was the M48 in April 1952.

Due to my limited knowledge on the later designs I don't believe any M48's saw action in Korea since the initial production run was plauged by teething problems, someone pls correct me if I'm wrong on M48's seeing combat in Korea. & if they did not see combat in Korea what tank are they refering to the M4A3E8 or Pershing as the 3 round Korean war medium?.

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 field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ari said:

However currently in CM Panther is compromised for short range combat by slowing turret speed but not rewarded by better sights for longer ranges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I’m not sure I share all the sentiments regarding the Panther being a weakling in CM. I have played several scenarios via PBEM in which I have managed with a hand full of Panthers to subdue a considerably larger force of Shermans. The "Sgt Berkman" Scenario is an excellent test. An up-close in your face engagement…typical tank on tank duels are occuring at ranges of less than 300 meters. I knocked out all Shermans (8 or 10 seemed like) and 2 Wolverines for the loss of 1 Panther and 1 Panther immobilized.

No one will argue that the Germans had superior tank fighting machines mid to late war relative to Anglo\Americans. The Tiger and Panther were after all built from the ground up with the forethought that these beasts would be employed in tank killing roles. This is a somewhat different philosophy to the design\doctrinal philosophy behind the Sherman or T34/76.

However, experienced German Panzer Truppen admit to a tendency of the unenlightened "uber-mench" to employ Tigers and Panthers in situations and circumstances which were ill suited to their intended strengths. Experienced panzer officers suggest that the best employment of Tigers and Panthers was not to assume that their "uber-panzers" were indestructible.

Maneuver under cover whenever possible, seek hull down positions to engage from. Stick and than displace to alternate firing positions. Pick your places of engagement (somewhat easier for an army standing primarily on the defense). In other words -- they argued -- pretend your vehicle is a somewhat more fragile MkIV and adapt your tactics accordingly.

I think the Germans had numerous equipment advantages, but I also think the following were equally important in creating this indestructible aura surrounding the Panther and Tiger:

1) Veteran Tank Crews in Normandy. Men used to looking at terrain and the best way of adapting their defensive positions to that terrain.

2) German Army perpetually standing in a defensive posture throughout much of 43-45. Some ability at a tactical level to pick and choose where to engage. Easier to ambush when your sittin quite within the edge of a woods, camo-net drapped, binos in hand, than if you’re a company of tanks kickin up dust and noisily rumbling toward Hill 122. The defense has always been the far more powerful form of combat.

3) Closed nature of Norman Terrain resulted in limited avenues of advance for attacking Armour. Choke Points. Fairly easy to slaughter an attacking force en-masse if combat power can be concentrated at choke points. Limited ability of an Attacking force to employ maneuver.

So I would argue that the mythical\factual success of German "uber-Armour" in WWII was as much or more a function of: the average German soldiers past combat experience, his tactical savvy, eye for terrain, and ability to rely on his initiative to adapt to changing situations in battles, rather than relying on a notion that his machines were indestructible or his traverse speed was quicker.

[Guest machineman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

The report says that when power driven the Panther's turret speed was one-half of the M4A3E8. But in CM that is one-third. 360^@15 secs of M4 against 360^@45 secs of Panther. Basing on this report the CM’s medium turret speed 360^@26 secs seems to be more reasonable. And that is still "slow" when compared to Sherman’s speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that is the gist of it here. No one is saying that the Panther should be the same speed as the Sherman, just not down as far as it is now.

My specs for Panther (George Forty) say 17-18 secs at 2500 rpm and high ratio, and 19 seconds at 2000 rpm and high ratio for Tiger II.

Michael Green gives a fairly detailed March 15, 1945 US army report giving 19 seconds traverse in high ratio at 2000 rpm for Tiger II. I have no specs on Tiger I.

So 26 seconds would not be way out of line, as far as I can see. That would give a second or two for the driver to get on the gas. Being as those engines were originally governed for 3000 then 2500 I could see turret speed actually being faster as the driver revved it over tested spec with the excitement of a Sherman bearing down. A bit like the tungsten idea on the Allied side.

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff wrote:

So I would argue that the mythical\factual success of German "uber-Armour" in WWII was as much or more a function of: the average German soldiers past combat experience, his tactical savvy, eye for terrain, and ability to rely on his initiative to adapt to changing situations in battles, rather than relying on a notion that his machines were indestructible or his traverse speed was quicker. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the best "all in one" summaries of a position we BTS folks hold near and dear to our hearts

This is one of the problems I have had with the accuracy, turret, etc. discussions from the get go until now. There is strong evidence to show that, overall, certain German tanks were better than their Allied counter parts. Plently of strong evidence, in fact. But the question is, WHY were they so much better.

As you have put so well, it was a combo of factors. The problem is that people like to single out individual things and award them far more of the glory than they should really have. At least that is our opinion.

Yes, the German tanks were more likely to knock out Allied tanks at longer ranges. But the most critical factors have nothing to do with SUPERIOR sights. Adequate sights would have still given them a huge edge over the Allied tanks.

Superior guns (range and penetration), better armor, more than likely experienced crews, perhaps better training, defensive posture, etc. etc. really stands up quite nicely to greatly inferior or almost equal guns, inadequate armor, less experience overall, burdon of attacking, etc. If we gave the Germans a slight advantage for their optics at long range (and that would be the MOST they deserve) I doubt there would be much of a difference in the outcome of tank on tank engagements from the way they are now.

Likewise, a rather slow turret rotation speed vs. the Allies did not negatively impact the German vehicles provided the crew knew what they were doing. If the tank was standing off at many hundreds of meters, the difference between the 1500 rev and 3000 rev turret rotation speeds would make little difference. But when shooting it out at the OK Coral, yeah, every little edge helps. However, LUCK is the biggest factor in such a situation IMHO since nearly all of the tangible German benefits were largely neutralized (longer range gun, greater penetration, better armor, etc.). Put a lowly M4 (75) up against a Panther at 100m and see how many times the Panther looses when both are moving around for a good shot

So the lesson here is that when you loose your über tanks in a game of CM, pay close attention what conditions you lost them. I bet that in the vast majority of cases a small bonus for the optics and a slightly faster turret rotation speed wouldn't have helped out one bit. If you fall off a cliff it doesn't matter how many feathers you have in your hands -> the result upon landing will be the same So obviously the smart thing to do is stay away from the lip of the cliff!

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Simon Fox]

A great post from Jeff there and when they did counterattack in the Normandy terrain as the 9th and 10th SS did after Epsom they suffered similar loss ratios to the allied attacks except of course for the Germans those losses were crippling.

------------------

"Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

[Jeff Duquette]

Steve:

The more I dig the more I’m convinced German Tigers and Panthers had an edge in long range gunnery over both the Anglo\Americans and Soviets. It's all anecdotal...but thats my gut feel. How that factors into the elements that make up the design philosophy behind CM I have no idea.

John:

My source regarding the US ARMY adoption of stereoscopic range finders in the early 50’s was the infamous Michael Green. “Bringer” of the Tiger I’s TZR1(TSR1) range finder. Further digging indicates that the TZR1 was not in fact a range finder at all, it was actually a simple monocular observation periscope. Perhaps outfitted with stadia lines for range estimate via a mil relationship (dunno fer certain on the stadia). I can’t imagine how this thing could be any more effective at range estimation than the gunners TZF9b. So the mythical Tiger I coincidence range finder remains aloof…at least for me. Can you give me a hint here? Maybe this was some kind-of grab-um if you can get-um thing. I know you didnt originally bring up Tigers with range finders, but I thought maybe you have some additional clues.

On the other hand it is pretty well documented that just about every German assault gun is equipped with an honest to god set of coincidence range finders. Binocular Sf14Z scissors range finders. How effective was say the Jagdpanzer IV at first or second round hits at ranges beyond 1500 meters? Were Sf14Z's even employed for shotting at tanks...or was it used only for HE fire.

Anyway I digress. I am not personally aware of M48’s being employed during the Korean War. But than again I was convinced at one time that the 3.5 inch Bazooka had never been employed in combat till Korea. Somebody somewhere told me limited numbers of the M20’s were in fact employed during by the 13th Airborne during Operation Varsity, 1945. Go figure. The Pershing was apparently remodeled (wall paper, a marble sink, new drywall) before Korea. Any possibility it was somehow provided with a range finding instrument?

Be that as it may…if the M48 represented the ARMY’s MBT of the 50’s it could still account somewhat for the seeming uplift in US Tanker gunnery skills during this period as a result of the stereoscopic range finder add. Vague perhaps. But presumably the vast majority of M48’s were busily being shipped to Europe in preparation for the “real” Commie push waitin to happin in Germany. Once the Chi-Coms had sucked all our reserves into Korea…boom…the Soviet 1st Guards Tank Army comes rumblin through Fulda.

[Jeff Duquette]

Simon Fox:

Gracias…a couple of similar examples are Panzer Lehr’s ill-fated counter attacks on the 9th ID in front of St. Lo. Wolverines very effectively combated MkV's and MkIV’s via close in, cat and mouse engagements. Fritz Bayerlain eventually relented and later blamed the closed in nature of the terrain and close range engagements by American SPTD’s for his divisions failure.

Another example off the top of my head was the second phase of Villers-Boccage often ignored because of Whittman’s outstanding day. However, small force of British tanks and infantry were able to open a can of whop-ass on German Tigers and MkIV’s (again misfortunate from Panzer Lehr) in the close quarters of Villers.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The more I dig the more I’m convinced German Tigers and Panthers had an edge in long range gunnery over both the Anglo\Americans and Soviets. It's all anecdotal...but thats my gut feel. How that factors into the elements that make up the design philosophy behind CM I have no idea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Always have But the question still remains, how much of an edge was due to the optics vs. the gun system as a whole (the gun being the most important element). I am going to guess that if we need to adjust the accuracy at long ranges it should be done across the board for all weapons.

The major Western Allied guns that would really be affected by this are the 76mm, 3inch, 17lbr, and 90mm guns. The latter two were not very common, the 3inch was a dedicated TD weapon for M10/Archillies vehicles, and the long 76mm guns were non-existant at first and only slowly built up in numbers as the war went on. The other weapons were low velocity and therefore won't really benefit from any changes at long range.

What this means is that the average German tank outclassed the average US/UK tank at long ranges (3000m). So of course they (Germans) would, and should, have an overall better accuracy rate at long ranges vs. the average enemy tank. This is what would be reflected in AARs. But search out examples from US AARs associated with M10 units in particular. I have seen some pretty long range successes (3000m against Panthers on the move) that show these weapons weren't inept at long range.

The question therefore remains unanswered. The Germans were superior at long ranges... I agree. But why... I tend to say it had more to do with other factors like you mentioned, not the optics.

Steve

[Silencer]

Steve, one question.

Why do tanks that do have neutral steering, take longer to turn then tanks that don't have that option?

especially important on tanks with slow turret speeds (a la tiger 1) and turretless vehicles, (jadgtiger, jadgpanther).

Was it the weight of the vehicles that is the parameter of the turning speed?

Cromwell VIII: 24 secs

Panther A: 36 secs

Jagdpanther: 36secs

M36B1 Jackson: 36 secs

Sherman Easy 8: 38 secs

Lynx: 38 secs

Panzer IVG: 42 secs

--> Sherman M4A1: 42 secs

--> Sherman Jumbo 76: 44 secs

Stug IIIG: 46 secs

Pershing: 46 secs

--> Tiger I: 52 secs

--> King Tiger: 60 secs

Jagdtiger: 60 secs

Super Pershing: 60 secs

Churchill VIII: 66 secs

and wat about that odd 24 seconds of the Cromwell VIII?

S.

[aka_tom_w]

WHAT!

Whats this???!

An optics thread disguised a "slow panther turret traverse" thread???

geesh !

The lengths you guys will go to avoid hearing me rant on about superior German Zeiss optics!!!

All in Good Fun

I'm Glad to See John Waters keeping up the "German's had superior optics" concept in this thread.

I'm still VERY true to the cause but I agree completely with:

quote:

Jeff wrote:

So I would argue that the mythical\factual success of German "uber-Armour" in WWII was as

much or more a function of: the average German soldiers past combat experience, his tactical

savvy, eye for terrain, and ability to rely on his initiative to adapt to changing situations in

battles, rather than relying on a notion that his machines were indestructible or his traverse

speed was quicker.

AND playing v1.1 is so much fun its really hard to bitch and complain anymore, because such a great deal of work has gone into the TCP/IP patch.

I will suggest again that the BEST of The BEST Mods AND the v1.1 TCP/IP Multiplayer Patch should be burned to a few "one off" CD's and trotted out AGAIN as a NEW press release to all the reviewers at those video game Mags so they can play the game now and see what they have left to complain about !!

Onward and Upward BTS!!!!

-tom w

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Yes, the German tanks were more likely to knock out Allied tanks at longer ranges. But the most critical factors have nothing to do with SUPERIOR sights. Adequate sights would have still given them a huge edge over the Allied tanks.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whats an adequate sight Steve? how would adequate measure up to US & UK sights compared to German optics?.

My problem is and has been all along on the 'critical' factors, on LR engagements etc, is if you have an target at 1200m & its blurred etc, because of the weather conditions, in your unfiltered sight picture, your gonna have problems with hitting it, & spotting your rounds fall to adjust your fire etc, where if the other tank see's you clearly at the same range under the same conditions he's most likely going to kill you.

In about every successful LR US engagement (1200yrds - 3000yrds) I have read of was on a clear day, this had nothing to do with the 76mms guns ability to hit at 3000yrds it was because the 'adequate' optics, & their limitations that dictated engagemnt ranges, to the optics limitations, in difering weather conditions.

Ie, in the Bulge fighting during snowfall a German tank snuck into a treeline 2000yrds from a US 76mm Sherman tank Plt & Inf forces position. The German tank (believed to have been a PzKpfw VI) opened accurate fire, destroying an Sherman on the 1st shot, the Sherman's could not even locate the German tank, because of the weather conditions, it destroyed 3 Shermans out of the Plt & forced the remaining tanks & Inf to pull back.

In another Ardennes engagement in cloudy weather, an Shermans (75mm & 76mm) were held up for over 2 hours by 2 Stugs & 1 PzKpfw IV located on high ground who opened fire at over 2000m knocking out 2 Shermans. The Shermans could not return accurate fire because they could not see their shotfall to adjust aim.

In LR engagements the most importanrt factor Was being able to clearly see your target to facilitate aiming Ie, quickly locate & kill it, if you cant see it you can't hit it, but if he can see you in the same conditions; your guns MV etc, does you no good whatsoever if you can not see your target. Optics, gun, ammunition are all part of the mix that makes up up either an effective FCS able to engage with a good chance of sucess at 1400 - 2000m or an 'adequate' FCS able to engage with a good chance of sucess at 800 - 1000yrds.

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 field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Ari Maenpaa]

Steve,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

We never said it would be out with the next patch. If you saw how long our list of proposed tweaks/fixes/additions is you would understand

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. I just felt that many of us put in effort here and we seemed to reach an agreement of some kind. Then I couldn’t find the bonus in the patch and was puzzled. You might had found additional information which nullified the bonus but nowhere was a word about that. Good to know that it isn’t abandoned

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

1. CM's turret rotation speed is just that. How long the turret takes to turn 360 degrees. The exact mechanism for acheiving this rate is not relevant. On the output is.

2. Targeting time has nothing to do with turret rotation speed. This is factored in once the gun is put onto the target, which is where it should be done.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. These points are exactly how I think they should be. If Panther’s targeting really took a long time then be it, but not at the expense of turret speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

3. The speed of which a tank can rotate to meet a threat with its thickest armor has nothing to do with turret rotation speed, and therefore is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

4. Hardly any tanks in WWII were able to pivot in place, either through dedicated controls or "neutral steering". This has been discussed before at length in the past, but once again is not relevant to turret rotation speed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I didn’t meant hull rotation, even if that was discussed earlier. Just that turret itself has much thicker armor on it’s front than on sides. Many times a tank engage target by traversing turret towards it, but without rotating hull. At the same gesture the engaging tank also boosts it’s protection against that target, because thicker frontal turret armor gets on the line of possible incoming shots. And those enemy shots have quite a big change to hit on turret regardless of hull’s position. Particularly in hull down position. That is when turret traverse speed counts protectionwise. And this happens often enough to make difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

5. Optical advantages (or assumed advantages) is the subject of another very detailed discussion. Some 1000 posts later a conclusive argument in favor of German optical advantages has still not been presented. So it is our position that, at the very least, this is still something that is up for debate. But again, this has nothing to do with turret rotation speeds.

6. The loss of a tank commander is not different from tank to tank. We have no way of estimating, nor the desire to simulate, the efficency ratings of each member of a crew for each AFV in WWII. The data doesn't exist, and even if it did there are more important things to spend our limited time on. So abstraction of crew positions will remain in effect for CM until the day we stop making it. And once again, this has little to do with turret speed, if anything.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After reading many different threads (including that one about optics) dealing at least partly with Panther, I just felt a need to summarize some of my thoughts. I realize that not all things I said are directly relative to topic of this thread, but also I didn’t want to start completely new thread. Sorry, if anyone’s valuable time was wasted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As for the slow speed of German traverse systems... I think if you comb through reports you will find no shortage of statements that the Sherman's traverse system was faster than for any of the German tanks. In fact, I think Jeff found some quotes in that Ike report that back this up. I certainly feel like I have seen this in practically every book on AFVs that compared/contrasted models from different countries.

Remember... the German philosophy was to have their tanks engage in long range (1000m+) battles whenever possible. This allowed the tanks to utilize their superior armor and guns to their fullest. At closer ranges these advantages were greatly reduced and, in the case of something like the weak side armor of the Panther, actually lost in some respects. At long ranges turret rotation speed was not much of an issue, so it makes sense that either the Germans designed their systems with this in mind, or further adapted their tactics so that this limitation was minimized.

In short... remember that the argument FOR some sort of improvement in Panther performance is based an opinion that it is somehow shortchanged right now. With the possible exception of giving the Panther a faster rotation time when manned by better crews, we still have seen no strong case to suggest that further changes would aid realism.

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I know that German traverse systems were slower. It’s just questionable how much slower. Panther's and King Tiger's variable system speed is hard to abstract with one setting only. That however is the way it is done currently. I think that the chosen speed is probably too much emphasized on the lower end of curve.

In fact I’m not urging for better bonus than that for better crews. Sounds to be realistic if it allows faster traversing speeds. Even though by myself I can’t see it ahistorical to raise Panther’s and KT’s turret speeds to medium class for solving this trouble easily (Shermans are FAST class and would still be roughly 50% faster), I can somewhat understand musings preventing that. All in all I respect your firm line on not accepting any half-truths and that very much helps CM to be the best wargame out there.

Keep up the good work.

Ari

[Guest machineman]

Just found the answer to my optics related question back on the 88 thread...

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Lee]

Well, I think the best overall solution here is to let veteran or higher

crews (who would know their tanks well) use the high rpm technique to get

their turrets turned faster. Perhaps even a midway increase in speed for

veteran crews, with only crack and elite crews using the full max

turret speed the tank can deliver. Of course, there would be some

increase in cost for these tanks, but only for crews at these levels

of experience and quality. Extra cost for veteran and even a tad

more cost for crack and elite (since they would be even faster). There

would be no change for conscript, green or regular crews.

Sound good?

[Texas]

I have been reading the posts on the topic of Panther Turret Speed, and have some questions for y'all.

1) How long did it take for a Panther/Tiger turret to reach it's max rotation speed ? Were they instantly at top speed? Or did it take a second or 2?

2) How long did it take for the turret to stop when they were traversing at max speed? Again, was it instantly or a second or 2?

3) Same questions as above but at the slower speed (when so equipped).

Just wondering.

[Guest Big Time Software]

John,

We are starting to overlap with the other existing thread. I will answer your post there so we don't get all muddled up.

Steve

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lee:

Well, I think the best overall solution here is to let veteran or higher

crews (who would know their tanks well) use the high rpm technique to get

their turrets turned faster. Perhaps even a midway increase in speed for

veteran crews, with only crack and elite crews using the full max

turret speed the tank can deliver. Of course, there would be some

increase in cost for these tanks, but only for crews at these levels

of experience and quality. Extra cost for veteran and even a tad

more cost for crack and elite (since they would be even faster). There

would be no change for conscript, green or regular crews.

Sound good? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the idea that the rotation speed be tied to crew quality is a bad one on two levels.

First, it involves special case coding, which makes it that much more unlikely to get done. It would be trivial to change the rotation speed (if appropriate) to "medium" (still slower than a Sherman). It would take Charles actual work to write code to deal with a special case based upon another variable.

Second, I cannot see any reason to think that a more experienced crew would be better at this. The task we are talking about (ramping up engine RPMs) is trivial. It is not like it was some trick that experienced crews figured out, it was standard operating procedure for all crews. Low quality crews are already appropriately dinged, I cannot see any reason to believe that they should be dinged for this just because.

If it is the case that achieving enough engine RPMs to rotate the turret at its optimal speed is possible for vet or crack crews, it is the case that it is possible for all crews. It is a *very* simple procedure. You just stomp on the gas pedal.

As far as cost goes, it is certainly the case that the cost for any vehicle with an increased turret speed must go up.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 11-30-2000).]