Panther turret speed revisited

[RMC]

Great discussion.

I am curious about that French test that shows that the Panther engagement time was much higher than the Sherman. To me it would seem that this is a very difficult thing to measure because of the human element. I would want to know if the crew doing the testing was experienced in the Sherman and new to the panther. The lack of a gunner's periscope may be an adequate explanation, but I have seen many references to the significance of the German commander's cupolas alowing rapid target acquistion because of the compass indicators that counter rotated so that the gunner had only to line up the turret with the direction given by the commander and the target would appear in his sights. From this I had gotten the impression that target acquisition in most german tanks was better than most allied tanks.

[Bastables]

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

Not really they’re both completely unrelated components. The British cruiser tanks were expected to fire on the move in evigied naval battle manoeuvres, except over land. One of the problems was assumed gunner fatigue and therefore experimental powered turret transverse were mounted in the Light Mark IV in 1936 and the Cruiser Mark I or the A.9 first production run of 89 veh in Jan 1939-June 1940.

Neutral steering on the other had was a bonus from designing steering that could turn the heavier tanks without excessive wear and tear on the traditional break and clutch systems. Such as the problems in break overheating in the initial production run of 100 Panthers which were equipped with break and clutch steering due to initial problems in fabrications of the simpler single radius mechanism (relative to the Tiger’s double radius). In layman’s terms it (engine) turned the tracks at differing speeds so that the one closer to the turn was driven slower as opposed to just breaking one and powering thru with the outer track which even in the lighter although overloaded chassis as the StuG F onwards led to the dangers of throwing tracks in heavy ground, exacerbated no doubt to the need of limited transverse veh to turn the front to the enemy to engage within the guns arc. This of course leading to a crazy backwards and forward gymnastic when StuG’s, PIV/70’s and Hertzers were caught on the flanks past the 10/11 and 1/2 o’clock position. Sherman’s the Crusers/Crusaders/Cromwells and the PIV/III could just make the initial pivot and then lay the turret on target. It should be noted that the Germans captured several Churchill’s with their ability at single radius steering, which they found so cunning they decided to stick it in the Tiger but with another radius (which meant you could have 2 turning circles at a single speed/gear), the cads.

I remember when every one was talking about how the StuG in Chance encounter had immense problems in the attack; imagine the problems with out neutral steer.

Oh it should also be noted that this has been brought to BTS attention before (surprise, surprise, do a search ) and they have dismissed it on the basis of added complexity required by the TAC AI before it is remotely feasible, I for one even as a non programmer believe them. Although you never know Charles and Steve have surprised before, for instance only one track animating when tanks are pivoting as opposed to the beta demo when both tracks preformed a neutral steer even for M18, Sherman’s and StuG’s and rifle grenades.

heh the addition of rifle grenades was another thing that suprised me, they can't neutral steer

Also it was not made clear before but all British tanks after the Cruiser Mark I used a powered turret transverse.

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

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!

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

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

[Jeff Heidman]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. It was easy. Every time my friend shouted, I depressed the clutch and gave it a little gas. No problem at all.

Of course, most of the time my engine was in the target RPM range anyway, so I did not have to do anything.

So why again is this a problem?

Does BTS have some data showing that this was, in fact, an issue? Maybe some anecodtal stories from crewmwmbers complaining about how hard it was to get the turret traversed quickly? Maybe some data from tests showing that it was a real problem? Something refuting the French tests which clearly claim that it was not a problem?

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not in CM actually. It models the turret rotation speed as being quite slow even at a full stop. As far as one can tell from BTS, the Panther had an astoundingly badly desinged turret traverse mechanism, and it worked poorly under all conditions.

Considering that 80%+ of all shots will be taken while the vehicle is at a full stop, this seems like a rather significant oversight on the part of the game.

Note: There does not appear to be any desire to have these vehicles traverse as quickly as the excellent Sherman turrets did. Just faster than glacially slow.

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

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed is a secondary issue when it comes to getting the turret rotated. If the gunner needs the turret turned, I think maintaining a constant speed is not really important, relative to whatever threat is causing the need to have the turret slewed. In all likelihood, the turret needs to be turned for one of two reasons:

1. Because the tank is about to get shot at. In this case, who cares if your speed is not constant for a moment?

or

2. The tank wants to take a shot. In this case, you are probably stopping anyway, so it does not matter if the driver has to take his foot off of the gas.

As far as control is concerned, why would you lose control? I do not see that as an isue in any case.

Jeff Heidman

P.S. For anyone who cares, yes I do have experience in this department, albeit a bit (actually a lot) removed from a PzKpfw V. I was a loader, gunner, and driver in a ITV, so I have messed with turret traversing. Only in a vehicle that HAD to stop to traverse the turret.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Thank you Bastables for waking me up from my fanciful dreams.

It's always good to base on hard facts, but the arrangement to put neutral steering against fast turret speed seemed so fitting.

I should have known better.

Anyway the tanks in CM which in reality had the neutral steering are:

Panther VA, VG, VG late

Tiger VIE, VIE late

King Tiger

Jagdtiger

Jagdpanther

Churchill VI, VII, VIII, Crocodile, AVRE

(Error free list?)

Giving these a considerably shorter hull rotation time compared to other tanks would boost the meanest badasses in the German arsenal

Ari

[Guest machineman]

Originally posted by 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.

The Panther designers may have justified putting so much of the armour on the front plate and so little on the sides partially on the ease of neutral steering keeping the hull front to the intended threat. From what I understand both the Tigers and Panthers spun pretty easily on the spot.

A quote from the Tiger II drivers manual:

"5) With the engine running and the vehicle at rest, CARE MUST BE TAKEN THAT THE STEERING WHEEL IS NOT DISTURBED FROM THE MIDDLE POSITION DURING ENTRY AND EXIT OF THE DRIVER."

(emphasis theirs) In other words, this thing spins so easy, that bumping the steering wheel on your way out to take a leak and oops! you've just greased your treads with half the squad tramping along beside you.

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

[CavScout]

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

P.S. For anyone who cares, yes I do have experience in this department, albeit a bit (actually a lot) removed from a PzKpfw V. I was a loader, gunner, and driver in a ITV, so I have messed with turret traversing. Only in a vehicle that HAD to stop to traverse the turret.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're talking about the same ITV I am thinking of, the "hammerhead" hardly counts as a turret, IMO.

Cav

[CavScout]

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

Giving these a considerably shorter hull rotation time compared to other tanks would boost the meanest badasses in the German arsenal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They would get a benefit if turning in a tight place but one can still pivot quickly without neutral/pivot steer.

[Claus B]

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

Any hydraulic turret traverse needs power to operate. In the Panther and Tiger(s) the power came from the engine and was taken either directly off the transaxle or from a separate axle off the gearbox (Tiger I). So a stalled engine would result in no power and no powered turret traverse.

The Sherman used a hydraulic turret traverse from Oilgear with another hydraulic system from Logansport and an electric one from Westinghouse being used as substitutes where the Oilgear unit was not available.

The brilliant thing about the hydraulic units used in the Sherman was that they got their power not from the engine, but from an electric motor driven off the batteries. Of course, the electric Westinghouse system also got its power from the batteries. So, as long as you had power in you batteries, you would have powered traverse regardless of whether the motor driving the turret was hydraulic or electric.

And that is not all: The Sherman also had an auxillary generator, a small two-stroke engine that could be started separately to charge the batteries when the main engine was not running. It would also be used to supplement the main generator when the demand on the batteries where high.

Regarding neutral turns:

It seems that most people assume that a neutral turn would be faster than driving a bit back or forward and perform a normal turn. I've never seen any data supporting this. Neutral turns are not necessarily fast and they can be taxing on the mechanical components, especially off road and on soft ground. Unless the ground underneath is hard (surfaced roads), the tank will tend to dig in and push up a mound of dirt as it turns.

Tanks with simple clutch/brake steering can also perform a turn on the spot by simply brake and de-clutching on track. It will then turn over the braked track.

However, in most cases it would probably be a lot faster to back up and turn than to fiddle around with a neutral turn.

Regarding French reports on the Panther: As the report contains comments on how fast German repair units worked, it seems that the tests was conducted with Germans who had experience of the vehicle. Also, the report is not negative as such, it contains both pros and cons of the Panther, the lack of vision devices for the gunner being one of the major cons. It also emphasizes that the Panther needed an experienced and well trained crew as well as trained and experienced mechanics to keep it running.

Claus B

[CavScout]

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

It seems that most people assume that a neutral turn would be faster than driving a bit back or forward and perform a normal turn. I've never seen any data supporting this. Neutral turns are not necessarily fast and they can be taxing on the mechanical components, especially off road and on soft ground. Unless the ground underneath is hard (surfaced roads), the tank will tend to dig in and push up a mound of dirt as it turns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good point! I know we would avoid using pivot steer/neutral turn in anything but the firmist ground. If not careful the build up of dirt, rocks and whatever could cause you to throw track.

Cav

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

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

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "Wehrmact penis envy."--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

[Claus B]

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

This of course leading to a crazy backwards and forward gymnastic when StuG’s, PIV/70’s and Hertzers were caught on the flanks past the 10/11 and 1/2 o’clock position. Sherman’s the Crusers/Crusaders/Cromwells and the PIV/III could just make the initial pivot and then lay the turret on target. It should be noted that the Germans captured several Churchill’s with their ability at single radius steering, which they found so cunning they decided to stick it in the Tiger but with another radius (which meant you could have 2 turning circles at a single speed/gear), the cads.

I remember when every one was talking about how the StuG in Chance encounter had immense problems in the attack; imagine the problems with out neutral steer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am a bit confused there. You say that "PIV/III could just make the initial pivot" while the StuG and Jpz IV had all sorts of problems turning - they all had the same type of steering, clutch and brake.

The Sherman used the Cletrac system which did not allow a pivot turn at all while the Cromwell could do a neutral turn but used a diferent system from the earlier cruisers.

The Churchill did not influence the design of the Tiger as the first Churchills were captured in August 1942 when Henschel had already produced the first Tigers.

The Hetzer could do sort of a pivot turn, by turning over one track as previously described.

The ability to neutral steer a tank was not something new in WWII, it was done very cleverly by the French in the Char B1 in the 1920ies, using a hydraulic unit instead of fixes gears, giving the tank an unlimted number of turn radii for each gear. The downside was that that thing tended to fall apart, but still a fine piece of engineering.

Claus B

[Bastables]

Bugger

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

[Bastables]

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

Originally posted by Claus B:

I am a bit confused there. You say that "PIV/III could just make the initial pivot" while the StuG and Jpz IV had all sorts of problems turning - they all had the same type of steering, clutch and brake.

The Sherman used the Cletrac system which did not allow a pivot turn at all while the Cromwell could do a neutral turn but used a diferent system from the earlier cruisers.

The Churchill did not influence the design of the Tiger as the first Churchills were captured in August 1942 when Henschel had already produced the first Tigers.

The Hetzer could do sort of a pivot turn, by turning over one track as previously described.

The ability to neutral steer a tank was not something new in WWII, it was done very cleverly by the French in the Char B1 in the 1920ies, using a hydraulic unit instead of fixes gears, giving the tank an unlimted number of turn radii for each gear. The downside was that that thing tended to fall apart, but still a fine piece of engineering.

Claus B<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Claus perhaps my problems with the written word are cropping up again. What I was attempting to describe was that in heavy aka damp, sodden or muddy ground the clutch and break steering would prove more of a handicap for the veh with limited transverse weapons than one, which mounted a turret. Because of the increased friction one would have to reverse and move forward again after the initial pivot (bit like a 3 point turn) if the target was located at an angle greater than 40-50 deg from the axis of advance. Now my understanding is that the Turret tanks would only have to make the initial pivot and then the turret would finish off target acquisition whereas the limited transverse weapons would have to bring the front to face the enemy and therefore be forced in to performing a truncated 3 point turn.

I’m not sure if that any clearer since it’s just a re-statement but we’ll see how it goes. I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I implied that the vehs so described possese single/double radius steering, but perhaps it’s just my individual take on the Queens English

On reflection you're quite correct in the Churchill’s and Tigers in the development time line of single/double radius steering of the British and Germans respectively.

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

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!

[Claus B]

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

What I was attempting to describe was that in heavy aka damp, sodden or muddy ground the clutch and break steering would prove more of a handicap for the veh with limited transverse weapons than one, which mounted a turret. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That makes sense. Regardless of steering type, the turreted vehicle would always have an advantage over the non-turreted when a quick change of aim is needed. Which is why, of course, the tactics employed for the two types of vehicles should be different.

Claus B

[Ari Maenpaa]

Here is some opinions from the US veterans about the differences in hull rotation capability (Mainly between the Sherman and the Panther):

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

The consensus of opinion is that the German Mark V can out-speed, out-maneuver and out-gun us, in addition to their added protection of heavier armor.

It has to our mind greater maneuverability, being able to turn in the space it's sitting in, while our mediums require half a field.

What the American tanker wants is a high-velocity weapon, as high or higher than the Germans, mounted on a tank of equal maneuverability, and added armor plate.

-Rains M. Robbins, Sergeant, Tank Commander

-Walter McGrail, Corporal, Driver

What we need is more armor, higher velocity, not necessarily a bigger gun, souped-up ammunition, and a means whereby we can maneuver faster, making sharper turns.All of us know that the German tanks are far superior to anything that we have in combat. They are able to maneuver on a space the length of their tank. How can we outflank them when all they have to do is pivot and keep their frontal armor toward us?

-Chester J. Marczak, Sergeant

The small turning radius when standing still is a desirable feature of German tanks. Would like this feature incorporated in our own tanks.

-Capt Charles B. Kelley, Company "D" 66th Armored Regiment

As far as flotation and maneuverability are concerned, our new E8 suspension system is okay. But we need to be able to some way lock one track so we could turn in the field like the Mark V. On the road we were okay, but they have us beat in the field.

Raymond Kasner, Platoon Sgt.

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

Although the reliability of their stories has already been questioned in other thread, I still wanted to show these again.

In any case it seems that at least the Panther was remarkably better at rotating it's hull when compared to the Sherman.

Ari

[Claus B]

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

Although the reliability of their stories has already been questioned in other thread, I still wanted to show these again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think these are any less reliable than other 1st person accounts but they may include a fair degree of rumour and hearsay as such accounts tends to do. You will find many US veterans accounts which claims the Panther and Tiger had only manual turret traverse...

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

In any case it seems that at least the Panther was remarkably better at rotating it's hull when compared to the Sherman.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The minumum turning radius for the Panther in 1st gear or reverse was 5 meters while it was nearly 10 meters for the Sherman, so even if we disregard the ability of the Panther to do a neutral turn, it could turn much tighter than the Sherman. In fact, the Panther driver had three different means to turn his vehicle in tight corners:

A: Doing a 1st gear or reverse gear turn using the fixed (single-)radius steering.

B: Do a clutch/brake turn either exclusively or as a follow up for A, tightening the last part of the turn.

C: Stop the vehicle and perform a neutral turn.

The problem was that the Panthers final drives would not tolerate any hard handling, so using the clutch/brake option could easily rip the final drive apart.

The Tiger, on the other hand, benefitted from a fixed radius steering with two-radii and could thus used its geared system to do very tight turns without using the clutch/brake. The Tigers minumum turning radius using its geared system was 3.44 meters (Tiger I, 2.08 meters in Tiger II).

But all in all, the steering system of Panther and Tiger was technically superior to that of the Sherman.

The Sherman could not pivot at all as it had no means of disengaging the inner track completely, so turning in tight spots had to be done by a lot of inching back and forth.

Claus B

[This message has been edited by Claus B (edited 10-17-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great Post

Worth repeating

-tom w

[CavScout]

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

Here is some opinions from the US veterans about the differences in hull rotation capability (Mainly between the Sherman and the Panther):

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'll notice they are about the turning radius and not about the speed of the pivot.

[Ari Maenpaa]

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

You'll notice they are about the turning radius and not about the speed of the pivot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wouldn't the shorter turning radius mean faster rotation time under typical circumstances? No need to inch back and forth.

The game doesn't directly model different turning radiuses for hardware limitation reasons, but the current abstraction (different hull rotation times) doesn't seem to give much weight for the German advantage in steering systems.

It's still possible that there is more to it, so hopefully Steve could light CM's hull rotation model some more.

Ari

[CavScout]

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

Wouldn't the shorter turning radius mean faster rotation time under typical circumstances? No need to inch back and forth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if you were in a tight place. If in an open field, you would just have a wider turn radius. So U-turning in a narrow street would be faster with pivot steer but elsewhere it may not be.

Cav

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

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "Wehrmact penis envy."--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[PeterNZer]

Tip for the day:

If you scroll through this thread, it makes about as much sense as reading every post, and you save time to go PLAY cm, hurah!

PeterNZ

[Ari Maenpaa]

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

You will find many US veterans accounts which claims the Panther and Tiger had only manual turret traverse...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. Even Belton Cooper in his “Death Traps” states that the Panther had manual traverse only.

To be fair I doubled my test result times. That way they’ll get comparable with turret speeds. There is also some corrections to previous estimations and couple of additions:

360 degs hull rotation on dry open ground by regular crews (CM 1.05):

Cromwell VIII: 24 secs

Panther A: 36 secs

Jagdpanther: 36secs

M36B1 Jackson: 36 secs

Sherman Easy 8: 38 secs

Lynx: 38 secs

Panzer IVG: 42 secs

Sherman M4A1: 42 secs

Sherman Jumbo 76: 44 secs

Stug IIIG: 46 secs

Pershing: 46 secs

Tiger I: 52 secs

King Tiger: 60 secs

Jagdtiger: 60 secs

Super Pershing: 60 secs

Churchill VIII: 66 secs

Now it becomes apparent that the vehicles built on Panther chassis are quite agile, but the Churchill, Tiger I and the vehicles built on the massive KT chassis are very clumsy. Also the whole Sherman family is relatively fast to make hull rotations.

To me these values seem to be quite OK. Perhaps the mere mass and size of the KT chassis makes it slow to turn. Even with advanced steering system. Still I would like to see the Tiger made more agile when compared to the basic Shermans with simpler steering system. Also is the Cromwell an anomaly here?

This may very well be nit-picking but the little details here and there have cumulative effect on the end results.

Opinions, additions and comments please.

Ari

[Guest machineman]

This is the critical thing as it applies to turret speeds, isn't it?

"They are able to maneuver on a space the length of their tank. How can we outflank them when all they have to do is pivot and keep their frontal armor toward us"

Wouldn't this be the first choice of the Panther (or KT) commander, especially if the flanking tank is close? Most of his armour is on the front, after all.

It would be nice to see some official specs of Panther and KT pivot speed vs the 'ahead and back and again' that the Sherman needs. It seems strange that that all that jinking around is modelled nearly as fast as a Panther and much faster than a KT.

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

"Environment is everything - The Lion may be king of the jungle, but you airlift him to Antartica, and he's just some Penguins bitch" - Dennis Miller

[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.

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.

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, what happened to the turret traverse bonus? Not in the new beta-patch?

Ari

[Jeff Duquette]

I thought this was kind of interesting. I have seen all the mechanical facts and figures so what do you suppose prompted the US ARMY's comments on slow turret traverse for the Panther? Of additional interest is the lack of TC turret override control. This had to have been a severe speed disadvantage when initially trying to acquire targets.

From: Michael Green's, "Weapons of Patton's Armies"

http://historicalgaming.freeservers.com/home.html

Anyone have access to the full version of this report. Anyone have access to the full version of the 1947 French Report that keeps getting bated about...perhaps there is some context regarding target acquisition?

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

[Ari Maenpaa]

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

I thought this was kind of interesting. I have seen all the mechanical facts and figures so what do you suppose prompted the US ARMY's comments on slow turret traverse for the Panther? Of additional interest is the lack of TC turret override control. This had to have been a severe speed disadvantage when initially trying to acquire targets.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for very good reading. Unfortunately I haven’t access to the full version of either report.

Anyway:

It seems that CM is based on the assumption that all the modelled tanks are using power driven turret traverse. The report says that when power driven the Panther's turret speed was one-half of the M4A3E8. But in CM that is one-third. 360^@15 secs of M4 against 360^@45 secs of Panther. Basing on this report the CM’s medium turret speed 360^@26 secs seems to be more reasonable. And that is still "slow" when compared to Sherman’s speed.

I believe that in CM the turret speed simulates more than just plain traversing speed. However giving a tank slower turret speed for secondary reason like longer targeting time bring an unwanted disadvantages. Particularly Panther, which lives by it’s frontal armor, gets this way compromised protectionwise. A shot which in reality would have been ricocheted from the front turret, now slices through the thin side turret armor. Also tacAI’s little, but inevitable shortcomings become much more evident with slower turret speeds, adding an ahistorical drawback.

Also as already has been said, it's suspectible if these tests by western tankers are fully objective. They have been trained to use M4s and Panther's environment is different. More specifically, like RMC, I too would put this sopposedly MUCH longer target acquiring time under doubt.

Panther was designed in a way that mainly TC was responsible for viewing and scanning targets. He had excellent optics and other necessities in a specific commander’s cupola for his role. M4’s didn’t have similar cupola. After a new target was found, TC gave the exact direction - basing on the tank’s specific azimuth indicator - to gunner and then the gunner traversed turret and engaged it with help of first-rate gunsight on a very accurate gun. Different tasks in the tank were divided very clearly and efficiently within the crew. No unnecessary hassles this way, I believe. That philosophy also explains why TC didn’t have separate control over turret traverse. I don’t think that it would have been too advanced feature for the Germans to add in their tanks.

It would be interesting to know, if the men responsible for this or the french test’s results fully understood the basic german philosophy in Panther’s inner operational concept, and had they adequate knowledge to use the indicator accurately? Because basing on the additional almost half a minute’s targeting time they most likely did not. It would be very strange if germans themselves really had that kind of targeting times. So much can happen in half a minute.

Anyway this makes me think that the drawback for Panther crew to lose TC would have been bigger than for Sherman's. Currently, I believe, that CM doesn’t make difference between different tanks in this aspect.

Also we know that the German tank doctrine expected a tank to stop before it fired the main gun. And that, I believe, makes comments about unstable turret traverse on the move irrelevant. It is understandable that men familiar with gyrostabilized M4s tried to use Panther same way. But Panther was never designed to work such way.

This same fact is very likely to apply on other results too. It's normal to get badder result with a relatively new tool. It can be fully exploited only after you get completely familiar with it. Still even this didn't hampered those testers to realize that Panther had INCREDIBLY accurate gun with EXCELLENT sights. They used this kind of adjectives in 1945. Could someone tell what tanks U.S. second armored division had themselves in addition to M4A3E8 in -45?

I admit that Panther’s performance in close combat surely was inferior to M4’s in RL. No question about that. Panther was designed for longer engagement ranges on eastern front. However currently in CM Panther is compromised for short range combat by slowing turret speed but not rewarded by better sights for longer ranges. It is anyway a very good tank in CM, no denying that, but some of it’s major historical strenghts are still likely to be uncovered.

Ari