Panther turret speed revisited

CavScout · October 12, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

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.

Since CM models cost on effectivness, then a rise in effectivness would result in a rise in price.

Paul Lakowski · October 12, 2000

The side and rear armor being too low is the Achilles Heel of all AFVs. If there was an Achilles heel it was in sufficient production to 'keep up with the Jones'.

Ask any tanker if in combat they crank the turret around to the threat at anything other the best speed they can.

The only case to be made here is the one 'bout crew training controlling traverse speed this 'sounds' reasonable to me.

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 10-11-2000).]

Smoker1 · October 12, 2000

PzKpfw 1,

I assume that the current cost of Tigers and Panthers corresponds to the vehicles' current combat abilities. Turret traverse speed is a major factor in a vehicles'combat abilities so cost should be changed appropriately if traverse speed is increased.

All tanks have thin side and rear armor. The Achilles heel of Tigers and Panthers is the slow turret traverse rate. It's much more difficult to flank a fast turreted vehicle for the elusive side shot, which is often necessary against Tigers and Panthers as you pointed out.

Smoker

IntelWeenie · October 12, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<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. Also German tanks did not fire on the move, their SOP for fireing on the advance was stop, aim, fire, move.

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was the reasoning behind having two speeds? Was the fast speed used to rapidly slew towards a target and the low speed used to make fine adjustments? (Just guessing)

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

Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit.

PzKpfw 1 · October 12, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie:

What was the reasoning behind having two speeds? Was the fast speed used to rapidly slew towards a target and the low speed used to make fine adjustments? (Just guessing)

The traverse speed was selected in aspect to where the target was located, Ie, a target on an arc off the gun, the gunner would use the low ratio, the high ratio was used to bring the targets quickly into the sight picture, and track fast moveing targets. Fine adjustments for aiming were done useing traverse & elevation handwheels

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

"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.

PzKpfw 1 · October 12, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Smoker1:

PzKpfw 1,

I assume that the current cost of Tigers and Panthers corresponds to the vehicles' current combat abilities. Turret traverse speed is a major factor in a vehicles'combat abilities so cost should be changed appropriately if traverse speed is increased.

All tanks have thin side and rear armor. The Achilles heel of Tigers and Panthers is the slow turret traverse rate. It's much more difficult to flank a fast turreted vehicle for the elusive side shot, which is often necessary against Tigers and Panthers as you pointed out.

Smoker<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Smoker I agree, my question was a cost increase for haveing what it should have had. I don't use Panthers I use the PzKpfw IV.

On the achilies heel concerning the Panther was in respect the Shermans armor no where is proof vs the KwK.42 so basicly the whole Sherman was an achilies heel vs German 7.5cm lang & above guns anyway, & Allied tanker accounts that point out the weakness on the Panther was its side hull, side turret, & rear armor and why they flanked for those shots in numbers, Ie, a whole plt would do it not just 1 or 2 Shermans.

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.

October 12, 2000

About the experience level needed to run the engine up to speed, I don't think it would take very much. These are not coal fired engines or anything, it's push the gas pedal down, engine speed goes up, and I'd wager it would be very quick. A shout from the commander would be all that would be needed, no?

As far as rpm while driving, translated from the 'Handbook for the tank driver' for the Tiger II:

"in every gear, you should keep the rpm's between 1800-2000"

So like I said, rpm while driving is right up there, and speed is adjusted with the gears. The transmission on these tanks was a semi automatic type, so the clutch was not necessary except when starting and stopping.

As far as adjusting cost up to keep gameplay even, no problem with that.

Ari Maenpaa · October 12, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Smoker1:

The Achilles heel of Tigers and Panthers is the slow turret traverse rate.

Smoker

Smoker,

Just to avoid misunderstandings:

Only King Tiger and Panther had the faster hydraulic traverse motor not Tiger I. It's max traverse speed was 360 degs in 60 secs. Just like it currently is in CM.

Ari

Claus B · October 12, 2000

The issue of Panther and Tiger II turret traverse speed opens an interesting can-o'worms: If Panther or Tiger II engine is damaged, the turret traverse drops to something utterly rediculous. Can this be modelled in CM?

There can be little doubt that the German turret traverse system demands more cooperation between driver, gunner and commander compared with the system used in the Sherman or in the Panzer IV. So there should probably be a benefit for turret rotation for experienced crews.

But I wounder if not turret rotation speeds should be viewed as a part of the whole target aquisition issue? That is, the ability of the tank and crew to get the gun on target once a target is reported. That includes turret rotation speed, but also available optics for the crew, sights and rangefinders (or rather, range estimation aids).

Focusing on turret traverse speeds because it is quantifiable while ignoring other issues of the whole target aquisition complex is likely to unbalance things - perhaps the reason why it was decided to do an average on the Tiger/Panther turrets rather than a max.?

After all, spinning the turret at lightning speed is of little use if you cannot properly direct the gunner onto the target!

Claus B

PzKpfw 1 · October 12, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Claus B:

But I wounder if not turret rotation speeds should be viewed as a part of the whole target aquisition issue? That is, the ability of the tank and crew to get the gun on target once a target is reported. That includes turret rotation speed, but also available optics for the crew, sights and rangefinders (or rather, range estimation aids).

Focusing on turret traverse speeds because it is quantifiable while ignoring other issues of the whole target aquisition complex is likely to unbalance things - perhaps the reason why it was decided to do an average on the Tiger/Panther turrets rather than a max.?

After all, spinning the turret at lightning speed is of little use if you cannot properly direct the gunner onto the target!

Claus B

Claus are you sugesting the Panther & Tiger II traverse rate may have been undermodeled for Playability reasons?.

Wouldn't the above effect every tank in CM then as well?, under the same criteria it questions the whole aspect of even modeling a traverse speed in the game as a seprate model.

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 10-12-2000).]

Ari Maenpaa · October 12, 2000

Claus B,

Good points overall and I have to think about them more, but one quick comment for the last comment:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Claus B:

After all, spinning the turret at lightning speed is of little use if you cannot properly direct the gunner onto the target!

Claus B

Turret's facing is also crucial for protection purposes. Masses of Panthers in CM are lost to side turret penetrations because of the slow turret speed. So I think that traversing speed itself should't be compromised for delays in targeting procedures.

And it seems that there already is some delay added after the gun is aimed and before the actual firing starts. That is simulating gunner's finer adjustments?

Ari

ianc · October 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Focusing on turret traverse speeds because it is quantifiable while ignoring other issues of the whole target aquisition complex is likely to unbalance things - perhaps the reason why it was decided to do an average on the Tiger/Panther turrets rather than a max.?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I can see, the process is not modelled in this way. It is a relation involving a number of quantifiable factors (of which TRS is one). This relation must be applied to every vehicle in the same way to be meaningful and useful within the context of the game. Given the documentation that's been presented here, it appears that the excessively slow turret rotation speed (TRS) of the Panther and Tiger II is causing them to be less combat-effective than they perhaps should be in relation to other units in the game.

I don't think the matter of points values is a complex one. Points are only for making matched battles with. If the combat effectiveness of these units increases as a result of this modification, then their point values ought to be adjusted accordingly. Thankfully, working this out isn't my job.

ianc

October 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The issue of Panther and Tiger II turret traverse speed opens an interesting can-o'worms<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, it most certainly is If we wanted to simulate the Panther and King Tiger's turret rotation speed ACCURATELY (i.e. to the n'th degree) we would have to do more than have variable rotation speeds based on RPM. We would also have to penalize these big tanks for rotation in anything but wide open space, since the massive overhang of the barrel meant that it might not be able to rotate at all in one direction, or at least limited traverse. We would also have to simulate the fact that at certain angles of the hull the turret could not rotate at all because it was too heavy for the motors to move. We would also have to increase the spotting by sound chance everytime such a vehicle went to use its max traverse speed, since a big engine revved up to 3000rpm is going to make a LOT of noise.

Yup, big can of worms. But as often happens, what is being asked for here is a benefit without the negatives. I can tell you that we aren't going to simulate the upper end of these tank's turret rotation speeds unless we whack 'em with the realistic limitations surrounding that increased speed. So at the moment the turret speeds are averaged down. And for the time being that will not change.

Steve

October 13, 2000

As for a theoretical price increase if we speeded up the turret rotation... yes, we would increase the price of the Panther and KT. The prices are based on the value of the vehicle as it is simulated CURRENTLY. Turret rotation speed is one factor. So if we increaed the turret speed, the price would increase as well. Probably not by very much, but it would.

Steve

Olle Petersson · October 13, 2000

I haven't noticed this thread before, but now that I've found it I'm for the suggestion to make turret speed variable with crew experience.

Why?

Because hull pivoting speed increase with experience.

I've noticed that with high end crews (Crack), they have problems laying fast on target.

Typical situation:

Crack Panther, stationary with gun pointing straight ahead. Enemy tank detected at 3 o'clock. Turret and hull start rotating at the target. Turret points momentarily at the target, but continue towards the 4 o'clock position since turret traverse is slower than pivoting... The fastest way to lock on target is to not rotate the turret!

Less experienced crews don't have to face this problem.

Turret traverse should be at least the same speed as pivoting the tank. This means increasing turret speed and/or reducing pivot speed for crews with high experience. (And of course adjust the vehicle point cost accordingly...)

... then make Panthers only available as "Experienced" or better, Tigers, KTs, Jagdpanthers and Jagdtigers "Veteran" or better to reflect the crews selected for these special units. This will prevent using them en masse.

Cheers

Olle

Ari Maenpaa · October 13, 2000

Thanks for your much awaited contribution Steve.

Couple of comments:

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

We would also have to penalize these big tanks for rotation in anything but wide open space, since the massive overhang of the barrel meant that it might not be able to rotate at all in one direction, or at least limited traverse.

I bet you already saw this coming, but shouldn't this also apply to Pershing and Firefly tanks? They seem to have fast turrets with very long guns without any disadvantage. Also...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

We would also have to simulate the fact that at certain angles of the hull the turret could not rotate at all because it was too heavy for the motors to move.

Yep. In those situations the manual traverse mechanism was the only alternative.

In the earlier thread Guachi pointed out that even modern M1-tank can have similar problems.

I must admit my ignorance on the WW2 allied tanks, so were their traversing mechanisms that much better? Not even the big gunned tanks had problems?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

We would also have to increase the spotting by sound chance everytime such a vehicle went to use its max traverse speed, since a big engine revved up to 3000rpm is going to make a LOT of noise.

This came in my mind too. Sounds perfectly reasonable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Yup, big can of worms. But as often happens, what is being asked for here is a benefit without the negatives. I can tell you that we aren't going to simulate the upper end of these tank's turret rotation speeds unless we whack 'em with the realistic limitations surrounding that increased speed. So at the moment the turret speeds are averaged down. And for the time being that will not change.

Steve

Ok. No problem but couple of thoughts, because I think that currently the negatives possibly outweight the positives. My reasoning below.

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

Turret rotation speed is one factor. So if we increaed the turret speed, the price would increase as well. Probably not by very much, but it would.

Steve

Hmmm... basing on my own play experience I would rise the price considerably.

That is because tacAI handles all tanks by the same logic. So even Tiger I behaves like having the luxury of fast turret speed which it really hasn't. It fails badly when it tries to track targets similar way than some Hellcat.

In reality, I believe, the German tank crews were able to diminish the drawback caused by slow traverse quite well. They anticipated forthcoming situations in a way which tacAi can't emulate realistically.

I don't want to mindlessly attack you or CM, but to me it seems that tacAI's behaviour multiplies the drawbacks of slow turret speeds. Or it multiplies the advantages of fast turret speeds. Either way.

So by my logic the current down averaged value of KT's and Panther's traversing speed make their performance on CM's battlefield considerably poorer than it was historically when compared to allied tanks.

In fact this applies to all the slow turreted tanks when compared to the faster ones. It just happens that the Germans have the most of the slow traversers.

Maybe adding a specific command into game to control turret facing separately from tanks main body would address this problem the best and most fair way.

I admit that this whole thing is not a simple task to solve.

Anyway: If my assumptions are somehow wrong (Wouldn't be the first time ) then please feel free to correct me.

Respectfully,

Ari

[This message has been edited by Ari Maenpaa (edited 10-13-2000).]

ianc · October 13, 2000

Hi Steve, thanks for chipping in on this one. I'm not sure I agree with all of your points though... Here are some more thoughts after reading your post:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We would also have to penalize these big tanks for rotation in anything but wide open space<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is theoretically true, but this detailed a treatment seems inconsistent with the current modelling of CM. The CM of today has a graphic representation that doesn't quite match what's actually going on, leading to 'fuzzy' bldg. corners affecting percieved LOS, hull-down issues, etc. Surely barrel length is not yet a realistic concern in this type of environment?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We would also have to simulate the fact that at certain angles of the hull the turret could not rotate at all because it was too heavy for the motors to move.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose this is true as well, but wouldn't this again apply in only very extreme angles of inclination of the hull? Wouldn't other vehicles in the game be affected by this as well to some extent?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We would also have to increase the spotting by sound chance everytime such a vehicle went to use its max traverse speed, since a big engine revved up to 3000rpm is going to make a LOT of noise<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but again this seems like making complications where there needn't be. Is there currently a difference in the spotting-by-sound chance based on the target vehicle's speed (max speed vs. idle)? If so, is it variable according to different speeds a target vehicle may travel within a given turn? If not, why make the distinction here?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But as often happens, what is being asked for here is a benefit without the negatives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, the crux of the matter. I agree that this is the case, but IMHO the benefit is being requested because of a perceived inaccuracy in the original modelling of the unit, not simply so we can have uber-Panthers.

The documentation given here seems to point to the fact that on average, in combat situations, the traverse speed of these two AFV's was considerably greater than we see modelled in the game.

Saying that these vehicles shouldn't be modelled accurately in this regard simply because it's not currently feasible to simulate other factors which might mitigate this to some degree (thus significantly lowering their combat effectiveness and creating an ahistorical situation) doesn't seem like a workable solution to me. Even if one were able to painstakingly model each one of these mitigating factors you allude to, the Panther and Tiger II would still be considerably more powerful than now, and that doesn't seem right..

Thanks for listening,

ianc

CavScout · October 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ianc:

The documentation given here seems to point to the fact that on average, in combat situations, the traverse speed of these two AFV's was considerably greater than we see modelled in the game.

Perhaps I missed it but where was this shown? We have seen the range that the turrets can traverse at different RPMs but I don't recall, and after reviewing the thread again, or see what you have just claimed. Perhaps I missed it. Where is it at?

Dittohead · October 13, 2000

Would not the compromise in faster rotation of the tanks with big guns and turrets be similar to the compromise BTS made for those tanks that can't neutral steer. I mean all tanks can turn on a dime regardless of their actual turning radius, and I don't see tanks that can't neutral steer suffering a large penalty when they do(even in confined spaces). So the point about panther and KT guns being caught up in the terrain should be handled the same as neutral steer issue. IMHO

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We would also have to penalize these big tanks for rotation in anything but wide open space, since the massive overhang of the barrel meant that it might not be able to rotate at all in one direction, or at least limited traverse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tony

[This message has been edited by Dittohead (edited 10-13-2000).]

ianc · October 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We have seen the range that the turrets can traverse at different RPMs but I don't recall, and after reviewing the thread again, or see what you have just claimed. Perhaps I missed it. Where is it at?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Cav,

This seems fairly clear to me, so I'm not sure if simple obfuscation is not your aim here. Assuming that it is not, I guess for us to reach this conclusion, we operate on some facts, and some assumptions. For facts we have John Waters supplying:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>French 1947 tests with the Panther & data at Samur confirm German data, both should be classed as 'fast' Ie,

Panther - 18 secs 360^ @ 2500rpm.

KT - 19 secs, 360^ @ 2000rpm 10 secs 360^ @ 3000rpm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

machineman also adds:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now we see that considerably higher traverse rates than depicted in the game are factual, if one accepts these references. This leaves us with an assumption to make, and that is: if the crew were in a life-threatening combat situation, would they do whatever was necessary to traverse the gun on target as quickly as possible? The answer to this one seems fairly simple to me as well...

ianc

CavScout · October 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ianc:

Now we see that considerably higher traverse rates than depicted in the game are factual, if one accepts these references. This leaves us with an assumption to make, and that is: if the crew were in a life-threatening combat situation, would they do whatever was necessary to traverse the gun on target as quickly as possible? The answer to this one seems fairly simple to me as well...

If you are, as you claim, making an ASSUMPTION that a crew would do this or that, in this case operated at max RPMs, doesn't it make the statement:

"The documentation given here seems to point to the fact that on average, in combat situations, the traverse speed of these two AFV's was considerably greater than we see modelled in the game."

Is false as you even say it is an assumption? All that has been shown is that at higher RPMs and gear settings a turret can traverse faster. Leaping to "in combat situations, the traverse speed of these two AFV's was considerably greater than we see modelled in the game" is just that, a leap.

ianc · October 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>All that has been shown is that at higher RPMs and gear settings a turret can traverse faster. Leaping to "in combat situations, the traverse speed of these two AFV's was considerably greater than we see modelled in the game" is just that, a leap.

Hi Cav,

I'm not sure the assumption that crews will do all they can to get their weapon on target as quickly as possible in a combat situation could necessarily be termed 'a leap'.

That is, of course, just my opinion. I suppose it is entirely possible that they may have preferred to use the slowest traverse setting when their lives were in imminent danger, but to be objective, I would invite others here to comment on this. Any tankers in the crowd think this is an unreasonable or insupportable assumption?

ianc

[This message has been edited by ianc (edited 10-13-2000).]

CavScout · October 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ianc:

Hi Cav,

I'm not sure the assumption that crews will do all they can to get their weapon on target as quickly as possible in a combat situation could necessarily be termed 'a leap'.

That is, of course, just my opinion. I suppose it is entirely possible that they may have preferred to use the slowest traverse setting when their lives were in imminent danger, but to be objective, I would invite others here to comment on this. Any tankers in the crowd think this is an unreasonable or insupportable assumption?

I have no problems with assumptions... only when they are portrayed as fact.

Cav

"Alle hageln den Tiger und den Leoparden! Sie werden nie besiegt!"

PzKpfw 1 · October 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

I have no problems with assumptions... only when they are portrayed as fact.

The Sherman could traverse 360^ in 15 secs, CM assumes it traverses at full speed in every situation, I dont see you bringing that assumption up .

Ok lets deal in fact Cav the Panther turret traversed 360^ in 18secs @ 2500rpm, the Tiger E traversed 360^ in 60 secs, the Tiger II turret traversed 360^ in 19secs @ 2000rpm, 360^ in 25secs @ 1500rpm, or 360^in 36secs @ 1000rpm, now refute that they did not traverse normaly at these speeds and we've got something to discuss ..

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

"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 10-13-2000).]

CavScout · October 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

The Sherman could traverse 360^ in 15 secs, CM assumes it traverses at full speed in every situation, I dont see you bringing that assumption up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's see... it's not tied to RPMs? Slight differance... but why bring that up, eh?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Ok lets deal in fact Cav the Panther turret traversed 360^ in 18secs @ 2500rpm, the Tiger E traversed 360^ in 60 secs, the Tiger II turret traversed 360^ in 19secs @ 2000rpm, 360^ in 25secs @ 1500rpm, or 360^in 36secs @ 1000rpm, now refute that they did not traverse normaly at these speeds and we've got something to discuss.

Why bother giving a range of numbers if they "normally" traversed at the higher[est] speeds? Besides, you have ask me to prove a negative, an imposible task.

Cav

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

Deutsch sollte nie verlieren. Kampf-Mission muß das widerspiegeln.

Panther turret speed revisited

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest machineman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements