Panther turret speed revisited

[Claus B]

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

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. :

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.

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John,

That is a description of the turret traverse mechanism in the Panther Ausf. D with the Boehringer-Sturm M4S, which had a system independant of engine RPM. As I understand it, the engine drove a pump which provided the necessary pressuring for the hydraulics to work. The speed of the traverse was regulated by regulating the flow through the hydraulic unit. "Independant of engine RPM" is to be taken with a grain of salt - with a stalled engine, I am pretty shure that pressure would soon drop to a level where the turret could no longer be traversed.

The Panther Ausf. A and G used the engine-RPM dependant Boehringer-Sturm L4S (Jentz: "Panther" p. 56,57, Spielberger p. 98)

Claus B

[Claus B]

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does.

I was wondering where all the stories of Shermans outrunning the Panther turret traverse are comming from if the turret could be traversed 360 degrees in 18 seconds. I think part of the answer is found in the fact that the Panther gunner could not utilize the faster turret traverse to actually bring his gun on target. To find the target, he had to slow down the turret traverse speed.

The problem is that the Panther gunner had his monocular 2.5x or 5x sight with a field of view of 19 and 15 degrees respectively as his only means of vision. Turning the turret at max. speed, the target would be in his sight for something like a second.

You cannot pick up a target that way, you have to slow down the traverse speed to allow you to see what the hell is going on.

Our Sherman gunner, on the other hand, can view the world through his periscope with a much wider field of vision (42 degrees IIRC) and thus has a much better chance of picking up the target even at max. traverse speed (15 sec/360 degrees).

In other words, the Panther gunner would be dependent on his commander to find the target and direct him in the general direction, probably using fast traverse. But then the gunner has to slow down turret traverse considerably to actually get the target in his sights. The Sherman gunner can use his periscope to lay his gun vary precisely on target and then switch to his sight either the one built into the periscope or his direct-fire telescope.

As it says in the 1947 French report on the Panther (Spielberger: "Panther..." p. 160ff):

When the commander has found the target, it takes between 20 to 30 seconds before the gunner can open fire. This time, which is considerably higher than that of the Sherman, can be attributed to the lack of a gunners periscope

The fact was not lost on the Germans, as can be seen in the Panther Schmalturm which sported not only a monocular sight, but also a periscopic sight (and a steroscopic rangefinder).

So what the game should portray is the slower target aquisition of the Panther vs the Sherman. If the turret traverse is the primary factor here, allowing the Panther to turn its turret at 19 seconds/360 degrees will give it an un-historical advantage.

Claus B

[Ari Maenpaa]

Good and informative post as usual. Thanks Claus B.

Your post seems also to indicate that the current SLOW turret speed makes Panther sadly to take un-historically much side and rear turret penetrations.

Ari

[PzKpfw 1]

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

John,

That is a description of the turret traverse mechanism in the Panther Ausf. D with the Boehringer-Sturm M4S, which had a system independant of engine RPM.

The Panther Ausf. A and G used the engine-RPM dependant Boehringer-Sturm L4S (Jentz: "Panther" p. 56,57, Spielberger p. 98)

Claus B<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Claus,I used the Boehringer-Sturm M4S because Spielberger described exactly how it functioned, and in initialy reading Jentz's description of the Boehringer-Sturm L4S I found no changes in operation other then variable speed & power take off that indicated the Boehringer-Sturm L4S was 'engine RPM dependant', as he describes basicly the same pump, motor set up, and same regulation method as detailed in the M4S Ie:

'A new variable-speed power traverse replaced the single speed system that had been used in the Ausf D. The Boehringer-Sturm Type L 4S hydraulic system for powered turret traverse was driven by a power take-off from the engine drive shaft. A high and low gear ratio were provided and selected by a lever on the left of the turret drive houseing. Power was transmitted through a hydraulic pump and hydraulic motor. Traverse was controlled by a foot pedal which which regulated the output of the pump. The pedals were located on the floor in front of the gunners position.

The speed the turret traversed was governed by the motor speed, selection of high or low range, and the degree the footpedal was depressed.

Spielberger's notes on the L4S I could not find last night, till you poiinted p.98 to me BTW Claus, its p.97 in the US version . Speilberger states & all we get is this rather lacking description compared to his detailed M4S data. :

'By this time the Boehringer-Sturm L 4 S oil drive was being installed; this ran off engine r.p.m. and powered the turret traverse'

So me bad, and I apologise, as I took motor to represent the hydraulic motor r.p.m as in the M4S when in the L4S it meant engine r.p.m. yet reatined the same operation mode as the M4S.

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).]

[Guest machineman]

However in the German tanks, from what combat stories I've read, it is always the commander who spots (and picks) targets, yelling out "Sherman at 6 o'clock!" or some such. It was not left to the gunner to slowly pan around and look for targets himself.

Both commander and gunner had a fairly sophisticated counter-rotating clock-like devices marking turret rotation compared to hull. So the commander could spot the target and be able to give a quite accurate initial targeting info to the gunner over the intercom, who would then acquire the target on his sight after quickly swinging the turret over to the indicated position.

[Claus B]

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

However in the German tanks, from what combat stories I've read, it is always the commander who spots (and picks) targets, yelling out "Sherman at 6 o'clock!" or some such. It was not left to the gunner to slowly pan around and look for targets himself.

Both commander and gunner had a fairly sophisticated counter-rotating clock-like devices marking turret rotation compared to hull. So the commander could spot the target and be able to give a quite accurate initial targeting info to the gunner over the intercom, who would then acquire the target on his sight after quickly swinging the turret over to the indicated position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that is pretty much standing operation procedure for any tank with a three man turret. It does not change the fact that...

A: The Sherman gunner had much better vision devices than the Panther, even though the actual sights may have been less effective at longer ranges.

B: Actual tests with the Panther showed that target aquistion was considerably slower than for the Sherman - and the French Army operated both vehicles.

As I stated earlier, if you reduce the issue to include ONLY turret traverse speeds and give all tanks max. traverse, that will give an un-historical advantage to Panther.

Perhaps a two-speed system as someone suggested could help, that is max. traverse used for the first 75% of the turn, the slower traverse used for the last 25% (numbers are completely random - no data). You could then give the Sherman its historical advantage by letting it use max. speed for 90% of the turn and slow speed for 10% or something like that.

Ari,

Yes, if you view the matter in terms of getting the thickest armour towards the enemy ASAP with no intention of actually taking a shot at him. But if you give the Panther max. traverse speed for the reason you describe, you will give it an unhistorical advantage in targetting.

I think the two-speed system desribed above could help there, giving the Panther fast traverse until the turret front was pointing in the general direction of the enemy.

In any case, I think the whole turret traverse issue can only be solved if changes are made to the modelling of it and seen in context of the target aquisition problem. And doing something about it will require you to find a lot of data that may not even exist. That is comparable data (tests, comparisons, hard data) for all vehicles depicted in CM. We have some data on the Panther and Sherman, but how about all the other vehicles in the game, not to mention those that may come in CM2?

I'm not saying that BTS has choosen the right speed for the Panther turret, only that with the limitations in the model, it will not be possible to portray it as it was historically regardless of what speed you choose.

Claus B

[This message has been edited by Claus B (edited 10-14-2000).]

[Claus B]

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

Spielberger's notes on the L4S I could not find last night, till you poiinted p.98 to me BTW Claus, its p.97 in the US version . Speilberger states & all we get is this rather lacking description compared to his detailed M4S data. :

So me bad, and I apologise, as I took motor to represent the hydraulic motor r.p.m as in the M4S when in the L4S it meant engine r.p.m. yet reatined the same operation mode as the M4S.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I too had hoped to find a more detailed description of the L4S in Spielberger - if just someone could get the tech. manual for the damn' ting and post it

Part of the story is that the engine-RPM independent M4S could turn the Panther D turret in 60 seconds for 360 degrees while the L4S in Panthers A and G had the following values:

High hydraulic motor speed:

Engine - 1000 RPM, turret 360/46 sec

Engine - 2000 RPM, turret 360/23 sec

Engine - 2500 RPM, turret 360/18 sec

Engine - 3000 RPM, turret 360/15 sec

Low hydraulic motor speed:

Engine - 1000 RPM, turret 360/93 sec

Engine - 2000 RPM, turret 360/45 sec

It seems evident, that the advantage of having a constant pressure pump with a guaranteed traverse speed independent of engine RPM was more than off set by the speed advantages of having an engine RPM dependant system that could give more pressure when needed. The L4S was still on par with the the M4S at the high-speed setting, even when the engine was idling (800 rpm)!

Btw, the Ausf. F Schmalturm traverse was a simplified version system with only one speed setting and a max. speed for 360 degrees at 30 seconds.

Claus B

[This message has been edited by Claus B (edited 10-14-2000).]

[Ari Maenpaa]

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

Ari,

Yes, if you view the matter in terms of getting the thickest armour towards the enemy ASAP with no intention of actually taking a shot at him. But if you give the Panther max. traverse speed for the reason you describe, you will give it an unhistorical advantage in targetting.

Claus B

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that exactly was in my mind.

In reality, I believe, the thick frontal turret armor could many times buy the time needed to finish the enemy tank IF the turret was even roughly towards the enemy.

With SLOW traversing speed that change is completely lost. This is particularly evident with Panther because of it's pathetic side turret armor. This makes for example Stuarts far better Panther killers in CM than they may have been in history.

Still I have to agree with you. If the turret speed is the ONLY way to simulate targeting differences then there is no way to increase the speed without giving Panther or an unhistorical advantage.

Btw. Does King Tiger share same limitations with targeting?

Even if your post was enough to make me accept the current turret speeds on Panther, I still want to give my final take on the engine speed issue.

On below I only talk about turret traverse speeds WITHOUT noticing differences in targeting procedures:

Panther’s max engine speed is 2500 rpm. The engine (Maybach HL 230) was originally made for 3000 rpm, but after November 43 it was governed at 2500 rpm. So I believe it could take some overreving

Current traverse speed on Panther in CM is SLOW (360 degs in 46 secs) and suggests that the engine is running at 1000 rpm. That is 40% of the max.

Increasing Panther’s turret speed to MEDIUM (360 @ 26) would mean an engine speed slightly below 2000 rpm. That would be <80% of the max.

I base my values directly to Jentz’s table given in his Panther book.

At close to medium range battles and under average circumstances (in which CM is based on), how could MEDIUM turreted Panther be considered as having an unhistorical advantage?

To me it clearly seems that SLOW turreted one is much further from the presumable truth.

Ari

[Guest machineman]

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

Perhaps a two-speed system as someone suggested could help, that is max. traverse used for the first 75% of the turn, the slower traverse used for the last 25% (numbers are completely random - no data). You could then give the Sherman its historical advantage by letting it use max. speed for 90% of the turn and slow speed for 10% or something like that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post. With the information presented so far, that seems like the most accurate solution.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I too had hoped to find a more detailed description of the L4S in Spielberger - if just someone could get the tech. manual for the damn' ting and post it

Claus B

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Claus what would realy help is an better explanation of how the L4S worked. my question concerns the selector switch for high low, this indicates to me the traverse speed was independant, in that the gunner selected the ratio then the power takeoff kicked in, then the gunner pressed the foot pedal, and the hydraulic pump & motor then kicked in as well to bring up the desired traverse speed.

No where does anything say I have found yet, indicate the driver was sitting their giveing the Panther gas or shifting gears to build rpms for the traverse.

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).]

[Claus B]

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

Claus what would realy help is an better explanation of how the L4S worked. my question concerns the selector switch for high low, this indicates to me the traverse speed was independant, in that the gunner selected the ratio then the power takeoff kicked in, then the gunner pressed the foot pedal, and the hydraulic pump & motor then kicked in as well to bring up the desired traverse speed.

No where does anything say I have found yet, indicate the driver was sitting their giveing the Panther gas or shifting gears to build rpms for the traverse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we agree that the L4S hydraulic traverse used in the Panther A and G could turn the turret faster if the engine was run at higher RPMs (as shown by Jentz figures in "Panther" p.60), then someone must be able to influence the speed of the traverse by revving the engine.

I've never seen any indication that the gunner or indeed anyone but the driver could influence the engine RPM.

Using Spielbergers description of the Tiger I traverse mechanism, which appears to be very similar to the one used in the Panther D (M4S), I understand it as a system with two parts.

1. An oil pump, driven by the engine.

2. A hydraulic motor (Ölmotor) that was driven by the flow of oil generated by the oil pump.

The gunner controlled the turret traverse hydraulic motor (not the engine) by

A: Using his foot-pedals, where he could control the oil pump and the amount of oil that was pumped around in the system and thereby the speed of the turret traverse, as well as the direction of the flow of oil in the system, thereby controlling the direction of the traverse.

B: By use of a lever, he could control the flow of oil in the hydraulic motor, setting it to high or low speed.

When the pedals (A.) were not depressed, the pump was idling and no power transferred to the hydraulic motor.

What is puzzling is not how such a system would be dependent on engine RPM, but rather how the pump, driven by the transaxle, would NOT be effected by engine RPM? But I take Spielbergers and Jentz word for it when they state that the M4S was not dependant on engine RPM while the later L4S was.

Claus B

[PzKpfw 1]

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

If we agree that the L4S hydraulic traverse used in the Panther A and G could turn the turret faster if the engine was run at higher RPMs (as shown by Jentz figures in "Panther" p.60), then someone must be able to influence the speed of the traverse by revving the engine.

I've never seen any indication that the gunner or indeed anyone but the driver could influence the engine RPM.

Claus B<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, in further reading Forty concerning the Panther's traverse states that 'The driver and gunner had to work as a team to produce fast traversing'. So that pretty much settles the question of how traverse r.p.m. was provided in the A - G, how one would implement that in CM is beyond me, but regardless the Panther & Tiger II still are not recieving their historical traverse speeds, and I do feel something should be done to adress this even a midway compromise, with penalties etc if quantified.

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.

[Dittohead]

I hope at least they make some changes for the flat wide open steppes of Russia in CM2

[Juardis]

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

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.

<snip>

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, just got back from Charleston (air show, USS Yorktown, etc). Anyway, thanks for giving us your thoughts. I just want to clear something up. You're dead set against speeding up the turret speed of the Panther/KT for reasons given above. That's cool. Yet the reasons given above seem to point to an experience modifier. In other words, elite crews should be able to pull off the fast turret rotation while regular crews should not, especially while moving. After I paraphrased your words, isn't that what you just said?

I realize I'm ignoring the circumstances in the "skill and circumstances" part of your post, but you cannot easily model all circumstances (e.g., slopes, scattered trees, moving or stationary, etc). So all I was really hoping for was the skill benefit, and attendant penalties such as an increase in sound contact and maybe a slight increase in becoming immobilized as you trash your transmission system (but not too much since we're talking skilled people crews here).

Is this difficult to do with the current coding? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. I'm not really asking for CM1, I'm more concerned with CM2. Afterall, a good commander can overcome equipment limitations, be they real or artificial (i.e., modeling compromises) .

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

Jeff Abbott

[John Kettler]

First of all, I confess myself stunned by the depth and breadth of this technical discussion.

Second, given the arguments presented here, I believe that there is a case for somehow enhancing the turret traverse rate for the Panther (possibly others) while still keeping it BELOW that of the Sherman. Medium seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Alternatively, a crew bonus might get the same effect. I know nothing about the coding difficulty, though.

Third, I have something to add the Sherman side of the equation, though I'm generally abundantly ignorant concerning their details. If readers go to the excellent oral history site www.tankbooks.com and wade through the online version of TANKS FOR THE MEMORIES (a treadhead must read) they will encounter a story of a German dusk/night attack on a rear tank maintenance area. One Sherman had no engine (still had the battery installed), but was hastily crewed and successfully fought off the German attack. To my mind, this is a conclusive argument that Sherman turret traverse was not dependent on the engine, since the participant clearly states that the vehicle couldn't move, but the turret was fully powered and functional.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

John Kettler

PS

Why doesn't someone contact a reenactor or AFV collector and ask for firsthand info on the turret traverse mechanism for Shermans?

[Oddball_E8]

Havent read the entire post so sorry if this has been suggested...

how about increasing the turret speed of the panther but also increasing the time it takes to fire the shot (representing the increased aiming time)

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

Wof, wof, wof, wof... Thats my other dog imitation.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Great discussion here folks. Keep it up

Quotes from various people:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This is particularly evident with Panther because of it's pathetic side turret armor. This makes for example Stuarts far better Panther killers in CM than they may have been in history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that isn't the problem. The problem is that most Stuart drivers, upon seeing a Panther, would exit the battlefield. We thought that adding this degree of realism into CM would land us in very hotwater with the bulk of our customer base

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hope at least they make some changes for the flat wide open steppes of Russia in CM2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oddly enough, this is where turret traverse speed matters very little. The further away the target, the less likely you will need to swing the gun radically and quickly. Also, the Soviet's didn't have fast turrets either (or so I remember, which might not be correct).

The main problem is on the Western Front, where combat ranges are smaller and the opposition has much faster turret speeds. If the Panther and Sherman get into a situation where turret speed matters, the Panther is doomed unless the Sherman misses the first shot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So all I was really hoping for was the skill benefit, and attendant penalties such as an increase in sound contact and maybe a slight increase in becoming immobilized as you trash your transmission system (but not too much since we're talking skilled people crews here).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We think we can put in some sort of turret traverse bonus for the Panther and KT based on crew skill. But I think we are going to stay far away from any "situational" bonus arrangement because it would involve quite a bit of coding.

Remember folks, we are talking about 2 tanks out of how many? Yes, the Panther is an important tank from the period of mid 1944 to the end of the war, so this is why we are actually bothering to discuss the whole thing But we can not spend our precious and limited time on this one issue at the expense of much larger and fundamental ones.

The only thing I can add to the technical discussion is that, from what I just read in Hunnicutt's "Sherman" boo, the hydrolic motor for the turret traverse did work independently of the main engine. However, I would assume that the engine was necessary to power the hydrolic motor. From what I understand, it was this motor that made all the difference between the Sherman and the Panther. The former received its hydrolic pressure INDIRECTLY from the main engine, while the Panther received it directly. Does that sound right?

About that damaged Sherman quote... some Shermans were outfitted with an electric traverse motor because there were initial shortages of the hydrolic model. So perhaps this Sherman was one of them and was running the turret off the batteries? Either that or it had enough hydrolic pressure to move the turret for the length of the battle (presumably getting slower and slower over time).

Steve

[Dschugaschwili]

I'd like to get away from the raw turret speeds for a moment to address two points made earlier in this thread:

1. In most cases it's not the turret speed that makes a tank vulnerable, but instead it's the TacAI. I know very well that it's difficult to come around this, but seeing a crack Tiger turning the turret 180° to engage a Stuart 1500m behind it after all the tanks in front of it have hidden behind smoke can really make you want to shoot the Tiger's crew.

So the question is: is it possible to have a tank keep its turret towards a potential threat (even if it's only a threat to the side turret) that has temporarily moved out of sight at least as long as there's no other danger to itself? It may require another "behavior mode" saying something like "ignore any non-threat targets", but it might make the simulation of slow turret vehicles much more realistic because any above-conscript crew would know the limitations of the tank.

2. Neutral steering.

I know most WWII tanks couldn't do it, but some could. My question is: Is CM's hull rotation speed of tanks that couldn't neutral steer historically lower than it is for tanks that could do it? If not, would it be possible/realistic to include this?

Dschugaschwili

[This message has been edited by Dschugaschwili (edited 10-16-2000).]

[Bastables]

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

I know most WWII tanks couldn't do it, but some could. My question is: Is CM's hull rotation speed of tanks that couldn't neutral steer historically lower than it is for tanks that could do it? If not, would it be possible/realistic to include this?

Dschugaschwili

[This message has been edited by Dschugaschwili (edited 10-16-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tanks that can turn on their axis aka neutral steer are The Panther, Tiger I and II, Churchill and all veh based on these chassies.

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

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!"

"Yes that's right Jerry, RUN, Run for your little lives because Tommy's gotten close enough to assault mhahahahah."

Nizam al-Mulk, (Order of the realm) In speaking of his superb disregard of maneuver warfare, in the destruction of OGSF hamsters who then carried on to flee the battle in their own notion of maneuver warfare. Tally HO!

[Olle Petersson]

Hmmm...

I'd still like a comment on my posting in page two of this thread, concerning the relationship between turret speed and hull rotation speed.

The only trouble I have with this whole slow turret issue is that (in the game) it often is faster to not rotate the turret in the first place, but to rotate the entire hull. Unfortunately the TacAI don't recognice this but start rotating the turret even if the hull is rotating the same way...

(Please read my earlier posting for more details.)

Some sort of coordination between turret and hull rotating speeds are necessary.

I think optimum when facing a target at, say, three o'clock, is to first turn both at full speed and when the gun points at the target, the rotations synchronise so that the gun don't leave the target again...

Cheers

Olle

[Ari Maenpaa]

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

We think we can put in some sort of turret traverse bonus for the Panther and KT based on crew skill. But I think we are going to stay far away from any "situational" bonus arrangement because it would involve quite a bit of coding.

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds fine to me. Please keep us informed of the further details if possible.

Nice to see that once again you were open minded for feedback.

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

1. In most cases it's not the turret speed that makes a tank vulnerable, but instead it's the TacAI.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As has earlier been stated by BTS, it's not easy (maybe not even possible) to solve this problem by adjusting the current tacAI-routine. And that is why I would suggest that the turrets with variable traversing speed shouldn't be modelled conservatively.

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

2. Neutral steering.

Is CM's hull rotation speed of tanks that couldn't neutral steer historically lower than it is for tanks that could do it?

Dschugaschwili

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is easy to test.

I put some tanks to rotate their hull facing by 180 degs and clocked the required times.

These are very close estimations (CM 1.05):

Panther A: 17 secs

Panzer IVG: 21 secs

Stug IIIG: 23 secs

Tiger I: 26 secs

Lynx: 19 secs

King Tiger: 30 secs

M4A1 Sherman: 21 secs

Churchill VIII: 33 secs

Cromwell VIII: 12 secs

M36B1 Jackson: 18 secs

M26 Pershing: 23 secs

All tanks were regulars.

So it SEEMS that different hull rotation times are modelled BUT they are not based on neutral steering. At least not primarily.

Ari

[aka_tom_w]

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

......

2. Neutral steering.

I know most WWII tanks couldn't do it, but some could. My question is: Is CM's hull rotation speed of tanks that couldn't neutral steer historically lower than it is for tanks that could do it? If not, would it be possible/realistic to include this?

Dschugaschwili

[This message has been edited by Dschugaschwili (edited 10-16-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a VERY good point, perhaps one of the most interesting in the thread.

SO it would seem there are two sort of compounding historical inaccruacies here, which are both advantagous to the Allies.

It appears the Panther turret is some what unrealistically slow AND the Sherm and (I think) all other tanks in CM are modeled with the neutral steer feature which they did not historically enjoy which allows them to turn their frontal aspect to the threat unrealistically quickly.

For added historical accuracy it would be nice to see the Panther turret rotation speed bumped up a bit, AND it would be harder for those allies tanks to conduct quick rear action suicide runs, (I know because I do this all the time) if they were modeled so they could NOT turn on a dime and pretend to be tiger tanks using that (quick) neutral steer feature.

The Neutral steer ability on the Sherm and Stuart allow those tanks to get their frontal aspect pointed toward the threat unrealistically quickly, IMHO.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-16-2000).]

[Dschugaschwili]

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

I put some tanks to rotate their hull facing by 180 degs and clocked the required times.

These are very close estimations (CM 1.05):

Panther A: 17 secs

Panzer IVG: 21 secs

Stug IIIG: 23 secs

Tiger I: 26 secs

Lynx: 19 secs

King Tiger: 30 secs

M4A1 Sherman: 21 secs

Churchill VIII: 33 secs

Cromwell VIII: 12 secs

M36B1 Jackson: 18 secs

M26 Pershing: 23 secs

All tanks were regulars.

So it SEEMS that different hull rotation times are modelled BUT they are not based on neutral steering. At least not primarily.

Ari<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for testing. I don't have access to a CM capable computer right now, so I couldn't do it myself.

Anyways, I really think that tanks that have to move back and forth to rotate their hull (i.e. can't neutral steer) should rotate slower than tanks that can turn in place in CM.

Dschugaschwili

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

Erst hat man kein Glück, und dann kommt auch noch Pech dazu.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Hmmm...

This is just my imagination but the neutral steering on the newer/better German tanks may have had an impact on the actual tank design on both sides.

So that the Germans didn't see it necessary to make the turret traverse mechanisms faster because they had the neutral steering in their newer tanks.

Also vice versa. It was absolutely necessary for the majority of allied tanks to counterbalance the neutral steering in the German tanks by faster turret traversing mechanism.

Surely somebody has real info about this.

Ari

[PzKpfw 1]

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

if they were modeled so they could NOT turn on a dime and pretend to be tiger tanks using that (quick) neutral steer feature.

-tom w

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

" How can we outflank them when all they have to do is pivot and keep their frontal armor towards us" - Sgt. Chester J. Marczak.

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.