PzKpfw 1 Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: 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 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly my point Cav, does this mean their was no slower traverse rate on the Sherman?. Again I have asked you to refute the traverse, rates, you assume the normal traverse was diferent because of speeds? either way its still an assumption, on your part, as you said but since the 'uber' German crowd brought it up its not a valid realism issue apperently. ------------------ "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...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: 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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And I say go right ahead and whack em . How many other tanks in CM had their traverses averaged down besides the Panther & Tiger II Steve?. 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 10-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: And I say go right ahead and whack em . How many other tanks in CM had their traverses averaged down besides the Panther & Tiger II Steve?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Looks like only those tied to engine RPMs. Go figure... Cav ------------------ Deutsch sollte nie verlieren. Kampf-Mission muß das widerspiegeln. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishu Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 I didn't read all those messages.. but.. With Panther, I constantly curse TacAI if I know theres a tank behind some obstruction or hill, which I am moving to pass with 'hunt' mode and then tanker sees some lowly halfway dead infantry team at 8 o'clock and then traverses turret there... Of course you all know that by this point it is very close to see that enemy tank, but but, its turret is totally on wrong direction even if nose is pointing right on the enemy! I'd really like to have a way to set turret traverse which would unlock only if seeing deadly target. This would be extremely useful (I believe historical also) when trying to intercept some tank at certain place, where you have to move, what for you'll traverse turret to be ready for a shot when that known tank is visible. With Tiger I this is even more of a problem, sometimes I don't get even a shot off for a long time when turret just keeps traversing back and forth between targets that hides just in time. *again curses TacAI + slow turret combination* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theron Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu: I didn't read all those messages.. but.. With Panther, I constantly curse TacAI if I know theres a tank behind some obstruction or hill, which I am moving to pass with 'hunt' mode and then tanker sees some lowly halfway dead infantry team at 8 o'clock and then traverses turret there... Of course you all know that by this point it is very close to see that enemy tank, but but, its turret is totally on wrong direction even if nose is pointing right on the enemy! I'd really like to have a way to set turret traverse which would unlock only if seeing deadly target. This would be extremely useful (I believe historical also) when trying to intercept some tank at certain place, where you have to move, what for you'll traverse turret to be ready for a shot when that known tank is visible. With Tiger I this is even more of a problem, sometimes I don't get even a shot off for a long time when turret just keeps traversing back and forth between targets that hides just in time. *again curses TacAI + slow turret combination*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ari mentioned this point earlier. The real problem with slow turrets when you have the big german tanks is the Tac AI. Sometimes it targets unimportant things like far away troops. Other times it picks the wrong tank i.e. the one that is zooming directly accross the field of view and not the one that it could actually have time to get a shot on. I don't know what a good solution for this would be, but maybe some sort of targeting priority like you suggest would work. In terms of game play I feel as if this is a more important issue than the actual speed of the turret. I'll play with whatever speed is determined to be correct. Theron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 John, Cav has said it plain and clear. The Sherman's traverse speed is not dependent upon RPMs. That means that it is not hindered by the same circumstances that hinder turret rotation in a Panther or KT. As has been discussed earlier, and perhaps overlooked, revving the engine is not always possible since engine RPMs are tied into vehicle speed (variable depending on gear and terrain). So, let us get one thing perfectly straight... Making the Panther or King Tiger have a faster turret rotation speed, in all circumstances, gives it an ahistorical advantage in a host of combat conditions. Not allowing the Panther or King Tiger to have their turrets rotate above the current level, in any and all situations, is also ahistorical. So either way we have it, there is a historical problem. The question is, which is less historically damaging. On balance, we feel that keeping the turret rotation speeds as they are is more realistic vs. having them always be faster. Nothing in this thread has altered that opinion in the slightest. So the request for an across the board increase is dennied (firmly). Unfortunately, everything else is more complicated and far reaching, and therefore not on the top of our list. As for things like Neutral Steering, all non-neutral steering tanks (which is just about every single last one of them) get a benefit for positioning their hulls faster. The bigger and heavier the vehicle, the more benefit since larger vehicles would have more trouble manuvering in tight spots. As for bigger gun overhangs, the Germans have far more tanks that would be difficult to manuver in tight spots than do the Allies (look at the JPzIV for example). So if we were somehow able to simulate tight spot manuvering (which I don't think we can) the Germans would be hurt worse and more frequently than Allied vehicles. The TacAI situation giving a bonus to faster traversing turrets because of SOME situations where the TacAI gets distracted... I see the point. However, making the German tank turret speeds faster than they should be is not a solution since the TacAI does not ALWAYS penalize the player. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Looks like only those tied to engine RPMs. Go figure... Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cav, do you have some evidence to provide that would suggest that in combat the traverse rate was closer to what CM portrays, or are you just arguing for the hell of it? As far as I can tell, you have not brought a single point to the discussion other than quibbling over the blindingly obvious. As in other threads, you do not really seem to have a purpose other than to attack arguments based on minutia. Do you have a counter point to make? Something for us to read and go "Hmmm, maybe Cav has a point there..." Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: John, Cav has said it plain and clear. The Sherman's traverse speed is not dependent upon RPMs. That means that it is not hindered by the same circumstances that hinder turret rotation in a Panther or KT. [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-13-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But what Cav (or anyone else for that matter) has not said is why the turret traverse speed being dependent upon engine RPM results in a slower effective traverse rate. Saying it is so is not the same as showing it is so. Any chance BTS could share the quantifiable and/or qualitative data which suggests that there is a correlation between those two factors? Maybe some anecdotal evidence even? Anything at all other than the flat assumption that there is a casual relationship? So far I can see no reason to believe that in a combat situation there would ever be an issue. Given traverse speeds on the order of several seconds, the tenth of a second lost while the gunner ramps the RPMs up seems irrelevant. Of course, I could be wrong, but I have seen zero to suggest that that is the case. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Cav, do you have some evidence to provide that would suggest that in combat the traverse rate was closer to what CM portrays, or are you just arguing for the hell of it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff, you missed Cav's point. John implied that we overrated the Sherman's traverse speed (for example) or have unfairly picked on the Panther or KT for some intangible reason. Cav pointed out (and quite correctly) that this has to do with engine RPMs and therefore bringing in vehicles that do not have variable traverse speeds based on RPM is not relevant. If Cav had not pointed this out, I would have. What I am trying to do here is show you that Cav is NOT just picking fights here. But you are obviously very biased against his posts and did not see that he did in fact make a valid point. OK, now that I have said this... please! Do not start your petty bickering back and forth again (that applies to John, Jeff, AND Cav). There is no need for it and in fact it will most likely be the only reason this thread is closed up (like some of the others). Remove the bickering here and what do you have? A rational discussion that I am only too happy to partake in. Start in with your petty bickering and I'll lock it up. Your choice. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 Steve, One question. In WWII armor did you really have to control the throttle all the time? Like I pointed out in an earlier post on my uncles 50's dozer(don't laugh). You pretty much set the throttle and then used the transmission for speed adjustments. Seems to me this would have also been the case in WWII. A tank when entering a fight would throttle up to 1500-2000 and then use the transmission for speed and manuerver. I could be totally off base, but that was my thinking. 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...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Any chance BTS could share the quantifiable and/or qualitative data which suggests that there is a correlation between those two factors? Maybe some anecdotal evidence even? Anything at all other than the flat assumption that there is a casual relationship?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhmmmm... because this is a basic mecahnical relationship that is the same in a tank as it is in a modern day manual transmission car. Do your own experiement (I take no responsbility for injury or death!!) if you like: Take a manual transmission vehicle. Drive off road in 2nd or 3rd gear. Have a friend randomly shout to you and then drop out of gear and race the engine to get max RPMs. Put it back into gear without grinding them. And try to do this while keeping a constant speed and not losing control of the vehicle. The above is EXACTLY what would have to happen to get the turret to traverse at the max rate in a realistic on the move setting. If the vehicle is motionless, that is a whole different thing. Is that enough of an example, or do I have to take my M29C Weasel out and try the same thing for you with someone noting the changes in speed, control, and engine RPMs? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 Lorak, AFVs did not have a "throttle". Like a manual transmission car, they have a clutch and a gas peddle. The relationship between the elements is the same as it is for the car. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 Steve, Ok thats what I was wondering. Our dozer wasn't an automatic either. We had a throttle lever that set the engine speed. The thing was geared so low that changing gears while at engine speed wasn't a problem. Like I said it was more like old riding lawnmower.(don't laugh). Yes when shifting gears you do get a lurch but not damaging our anything. I was just wondering in old tanks worked the same way. Obviously not. Thanks for the reply Lorak ------------------ "Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats Cesspool [This message has been edited by Lorak (edited 10-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Looks like only those tied to engine RPMs. Go figure... Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thx Steve........... ........ 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...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 Before anybody can correct me on it, my manual transmission example above is probably not the easiest method of increasing RPMs on the move... Instead of shifting out of gear, one would downshift into a lower gear and obtain more revs, then upshift when done. The problem is that this is far easier than it sounds. It will also probably not yield max RPMs right away. Increasing RPMs while idle is a lot easier to do than when in gear. What I think should be clear to everybody is that a dedicated motor for turret traverse is going to be a lot more reliable (in terms of max traverse speed) than one that is dependent upon engine RPM. So all things being equal, a Sherman's turret should be able to traverse at max speed all the time while the Panther's only some of the time. And the increase in turret traverse speed would be highly variable depending on skill and circumstances. It is also less mechanically reliable, as overrevving an engine (especially one that is under strain like a Panther or KT engine) increases the chance of "something bad" happening, like busting a seal or throwing a rod. I say this because I think I remember reading something about this being something the driver thought about. Could be very mistaken here, but with all the mechanical problems evident in AFVs in general (and specifically heavy ones, like the KT), it does seem plausible that the crew might not want to go for max traverse speed all the time. Anybody have a feeling on this one? Does something like the Tiger manual discuss overreving? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: John, Cav has said it plain and clear. The Sherman's traverse speed is not dependent upon RPMs. That means that it is not hindered by the same circumstances that hinder turret rotation in a Panther or KT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh I know Cav was correct on the RPM post Steve, my question was more on the lines of traverse speed, Ie, did the Sherman have a lower traverse & for all tanks, I get the impression that some feel traversing at warp speed didn't affect tanks without RPM dependant traverse, where I feel that would bear some looking into before any assumptions were made. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As has been discussed earlier, and perhaps overlooked, revving the engine is not always possible since engine RPMs are tied into vehicle speed (variable depending on gear and terrain). So, let us get one thing perfectly straight... Making the Panther or King Tiger have a faster turret rotation speed, in all circumstances, gives it an ahistorical advantage in a host of combat conditions. Not allowing the Panther or King Tiger to have their turrets rotate above the current level, in any and all situations, is also ahistorical. So either way we have it, there is a historical problem. The question is, which is less historically damaging. On balance, we feel that keeping the turret rotation speeds as they are is more realistic vs. having them always be faster. Nothing in this thread has altered that opinion in the slightest. So the request for an across the board increase is dennied (firmly). Unfortunately, everything else is more complicated and far reaching, and therefore not on the top of our list. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve I agree in general my thinking concerning this was that the traverse speed was dependant on the targets location in bearing to where the gun was pointed and should be modeled as accurately as possible in CM. I understand Charles halved the Panther's traverse rate from the unassisted 360^ @ 100secs rate to 46, but the Panther still ends an ahistorical traverse rate. I think conversations with some German vets as well as some further research would be benificial in establishing realistic limitations to RPM traverse rates, thats all I'm saying. The traverse system for both tanks was tested at Kummersdorf extensively, as well as against the M4 Shermans traverse rate, as were the overhang problems concerning problems with the driver but unfourtently the reports were lost or are in still classified in the Russian archives. I also seem to reacall overhang problems related with the 76mm Sherman and Firefly, but would need to find the data. If a realistic traverse rate for both tanks could be worked out with penalties if in fact there were quantifiable penaties, it wouldn't matter to me in the least as it would represent a realistic problem. 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 10-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for things like Neutral Steering, all non-neutral steering tanks (which is just about every single last one of them) get a benefit for positioning their hulls faster. The bigger and heavier the vehicle, the more benefit since larger vehicles would have more trouble manuvering in tight spots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Panther, Tiger and KT had neutral steer IIRC so they gain no benefit from this approximation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for bigger gun overhangs, the Germans have far more tanks that would be difficult to manuver in tight spots than do the Allies (look at the JPzIV for example). So if we were somehow able to simulate tight spot manuvering (which I don't think we can) the Germans would be hurt worse and more frequently than Allied vehicles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As you say Steve where is the evidence to quantify this problem. Yes there were places German Tanks had problems, but other than Kelly's heroes a good German Cmdr did not put himself in this position. We do know the turning radius' of all vehicles and some gain a huge huge advantage by being able to neutral steer in tight places. What about the open steppes of Russia where rotational speed is far more important when chasing T-34's. Should we penalize Panther's or KT for the same reason in CM2. If used correctly a vehicles shortcummings are easily avoided as most Tank Cmdrs did. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Jeff, you missed Cav's point. John implied that we overrated the Sherman's traverse speed (for example) or have unfairly picked on the Panther or KT for some intangible reason. Cav pointed out (and quite correctly) that this has to do with engine RPMs and therefore bringing in vehicles that do not have variable traverse speeds based on RPM is not relevant. If Cav had not pointed this out, I would have. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoa their Steve I did not imply or mean to imply that BTS 'overrated the Sherman's traverse speed (for example) or have unfairly picked on the Panther or KT for some intangible reason'. My response was a question concerning traverse rates in general Ie, did the Sherman always traverse its turret at 1 speed or were their lower speeds and if so would this also be reflected in CM. Also I agree on the bickering and would add yes I'm guilty of it time to time, but would point out that some of us object to biased opinions, Ie, being lumped into some 'uber' Germaphobe group, when we question realism concerning German equiptmentin CM or point out when someone was mistaken & and then get labeled for shareing info that showed they were mistaken. I'm not saying you do this Steve, but it does tend to get on some ppls nerves after a while and ppl will comment on it, and it will esculate right or wrong. 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. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: As has been discussed earlier, and perhaps overlooked, revving the engine is not always possible since engine RPMs are tied into vehicle speed (variable depending on gear and terrain). So, let us get one thing perfectly straight... Making the Panther or King Tiger have a faster turret rotation speed, in all circumstances, gives it an ahistorical advantage in a host of combat conditions. Not allowing the Panther or King Tiger to have their turrets rotate above the current level, in any and all situations, is also ahistorical. So either way we have it, there is a historical problem. The question is, which is less historically damaging. On balance, we feel that keeping the turret rotation speeds as they are is more realistic vs. having them always be faster. Nothing in this thread has altered that opinion in the slightest. So the request for an across the board increase is dennied (firmly). Unfortunately, everything else is more complicated and far reaching, and therefore not on the top of our list. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While I understand that coding the traversal speed based on vehicle speed would be daunting, would it be hard to meet it halfway? Here's what I'm suggesting: have 2 traversal rates (still not a perfect simulation, but closer to reality than currently is the case?): a slower rate when the tank is moving (at any speed) and a faster rate when it is stopped (to reflect the ability of the driver to easily rev the engine when not in gear). ------------------ Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: While I understand that coding the traversal speed based on vehicle speed would be daunting, would it be hard to meet it halfway? Here's what I'm suggesting: have 2 traversal rates (still not a perfect simulation, but closer to reality than currently is the case?): a slower rate when the tank is moving (at any speed) and a faster rate when it is stopped (to reflect the ability of the driver to easily rev the engine when not in gear). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good sugestion intel & I agree, as it could be factored into that Tac AI on some basis of the threat location compared to gun faceing the traverse could be middle ground Ie, the Panthers 360^ in 18secs & the Tiger B's 360^ in 25secs or 360^ in 36secs I'd also add that neither the Panther or Tiger fired on the move. as well as the French tests indicate the turret wasn't even traversed on the move due to the traverse motors inability to hold the turret in any position but straight ahead or behind while moveing, the Germans also had a very set fire routine Ie, stop, fire, move. Nor have I found any data concerning what gear was used when the Panther was stopped as of yet. I have also not found any mechanichal problems identified with revving the Panthers engine to the hydrauliuc turret traverse or turet traverse failure, that would hinder engageing the second ratio the main problem in both tanks in 1944 was the final drive failing, Ie, half the abandoned Panthers in Normandy were abandoned because of final drive failures, and their are similar numbers concerning the Tiger B. The one statement I did find concerning a turret traverse system improvement was in the documented changes for the Panther Ausf. F Ie: *'By dropping the two diferentials and the multi-plate overload clutch used in previous turrets, it was possible to produce a cheaper, smaller, and lighter turret traverse gear.' *See: Jentz Thomas L. Germany's Panther Tank p.111 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. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 Don't suppose there would be the ability to code in the Panthers inability to fire on the move, a sort of anti gyro modifier in the game. Just based on the French report that John brought up. ------------------ From the jshandorf "Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?" Mr T's reply "Don't touch me FOO!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoker1 Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 What we need to know here is the AVERAGE traversal rates of the tanks in question in a combat situation. This information is probably impossible to obtain. After all, who's measuring traverse speed in the heat of battle under a myriad of different conditions. Why not just set the traverse rate of the tanks in question to 50% above minimum. This is just an arbitrary solution but probably isn't too far off base. If this speed seems to be out of line on the Eastern Front, where it seems to be most important, adjustments can be made up or down. Just a simple suggestion from an average guy for a not so simple problem. Smoker out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 Well I think the below settles any question's of the Panther's traverse being linked to driver cooperation, engine r.p.m. & or gear when moveing etc, while showing the Panther had a dedicated system for turret traverse similar to the Sherman. The Panther gunner controled traverse speed useing foot pedals and when the traverse speed data refers to r.p.m Ie, 360^ in 18secs @ 2500rpm, it is not refering to the engine r.p.m. but to the hydraulic turret traverse drive r.p.m. : * <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The pressure needed to traverse the the turret was produced by a hydraulic drive, which was driven by a cardan shaft from the turret drive. During road marches the hydraulic drive could be disconnected by a lever from the loader's position by means of a jaw clutch coupling mounted in the same houseing as the drive. The hydraulic drive, a Boehringer-Sturm Type M 4S, operated independantly of the engine r.p.m. and consisted of two vane-type units with rotateing housings; they were both of the same design, but one was driven as the pump, and the other functioned as the hydraulic motor. They were joined together in an enclosed cycle by a suction and pressure channel inside a fixed tubular body. Regulateing the drive r.p.m. of the hydraulic motor, i.e. regulating the traverse speed of the turret, was controled by monitering the discharge from the pump. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *See: Spielberger Walter J. Panther & its Varients p.76 Now off to determine if the Tiger B traverse operated the same way & I believe it does as Jentz states it was independent as well. 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. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Take a manual transmission vehicle. Drive off road in 2nd or 3rd gear. Have a friend randomly shout to you and then drop out of gear and race the engine to get max RPMs. Put it back into gear without grinding them. And try to do this while keeping a constant speed and not losing control of the vehicle. The above is EXACTLY what would have to happen to get the turret to traverse at the max rate in a realistic on the move setting. If the vehicle is motionless, that is a whole different thing. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just thought I'd note a few things. I've got some pretty good specs on the King Tiger, not the Panther, so I'll stick with that. Turret rotation while driving: "In every gear, you should keep the rpm's between 1800-2000" "It was found that, with the engine turning over at 2000 rpm and with the high ratio engaged, turret traversed 360 in 19 seconds." So the engine does not need to be revved like crazy to get the fast turret speed on the King Tiger, anyway. The regular operating rpm the tank should be driven at is enough. Max recc engine rpm is listed at 2500, so conceivably if the driver really wants to pin it he could go to this and the turret should spin FASTER yet. If it's like any other engine he could probably go faster than 2500 for short periods, even. Because of the semiautomatic design of the transmission the clutch is not needed between shifts if the revs are kept above 1600, another reason for the revs to be high enough to keep the turret spinnin'. Turret rotation while idling: Idle speed is listed at 1000-1200. So at idle a King Tiger driver would only have to rev his engine another 800 to 1000 rpm, again, well below redline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: 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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yes so if the tank is hunting, it should have very slow traverse. if it is moving full speed in a straigth line, it should have fast traverse. if it is sitting still, it should have fast traverse. andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts