Mattias Posted April 23, 2000 Share Posted April 23, 2000 Double [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 04-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary T Posted April 23, 2000 Share Posted April 23, 2000 Hi Steve, quote: And the "13th Company" thing actually doesn't apply to *any* 1944/45 Regimental pattern since they were binary and not triangular. My brain slipped a gear on that one Actually you were correct the first time. Even after most infantry regiments went to a two battalion structure the IG and AT companies remained numbered 13./ and 14./. Tessin's books support this. Also I have a number of wehrpasses to members of such units (see my <a href="http://www.percy.clara.net/index.htm"> site</a> which you might find interesting. Cheers, Gary. [This message has been edited by Gary T (edited 04-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted April 23, 2000 Share Posted April 23, 2000 Gary: The link seems to be broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary T Posted April 23, 2000 Share Posted April 23, 2000 I'll try again! It's at www.percy.clara.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 23, 2000 Share Posted April 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: You can´t compare two weapon systems out of context. I suspect this was not what you meant but the way you present your point, using a Panther would be sheer folly, while a Kübelwagen with a Panzerschreck is the pinnacle of efficiency I like both, I just don’t compare them M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ..But you forgot that he would gladly take a MAUS over either one!! I like those HT myself. But they could not perform the sturmartillerie mission as well as a stugIIIG. The stug could lock up one track and drive the other. This would rotate the vehicle about the locked up track. The center of rotation is the middle of the locked track. The HT would have to move forward or backward to "pivot". If you were behind cover or atop a crest, this would expose you to fire longer. I believe the intent of those vehicles was to work with attached armor in the panzer divisions so as to relieve them somewhat of HE and smoke type missions. I doubt they were issued APC type ammo but probably HEAT exclusively. When used, they would have stayed well to the rear (even normal HT usually stay way behind the MLR) and could not be substituted for stugs. So I agree with Mattias that its apples and oranges. Lewis [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted April 24, 2000 Share Posted April 24, 2000 Excerpt from a report by III. /Panzer regt 36: ‘The Sturmgeschuetz must always turn its front towards the enemy. For example it must turn half left in order to engage an enemy target located towards the left front. The driver must often steer by repeatedly driving backwards and forwards in order to bring the gun into the necessary field of fire. The many steering manoeuvres overtax the transmission and especially the brakes. In a few cases things have gone so far that the tracks have been thrown in heavy ground.’ Thats a superb site Gary. [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 24, 2000 Share Posted April 24, 2000 Hey Gary, learn something new every day! I didn't know they retained their numbering even though that meant leaving gaps. Those crazy Germans Mattias, yes... every battlefield condition is different and therefore comparing two different weapons platforms is pretty tough to do. However, their intended role (close support IG fire) was the same as earlier StuGs. Obviously battlefield survivability would be higher for a fully armored vehicle vs. a lightly armored one if employed in the same way. So point well taken. Lewis, do a search on "neutral steering". It was a hotly debated topic prior to your arrival on this BBS. The main thread is: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001493.html According to several people looking into this feature determined that the PzIII family of vehicles does not have the ability to neutral steer, so locking up one track means the vehicle still has to travel in a forward or reverse direction to reposition itself. Having a tracked vehicle that doesn't neutral steer I can tell very easily that a smaller wheeled/HT vehicle would be able to take tighter turns than something the size of the StuG any day. Now, a neutral steering tank would have it all over anything else Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 24, 2000 Share Posted April 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hey Gary, learn something new every day! Having a tracked vehicle that doesn't neutral steer I can tell very easily that a smaller wheeled/HT vehicle would be able to take tighter turns than something the size of the StuG any day. Now, a neutral steering tank would have it all over anything else Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve Yeah I learned something new today too. The turning radius of a SPW is 11 meters and the turning radius of the stugIIIg is 5.85 meters. If you lock the tracks on one side, then the radius is about twice the width. The SPW had a different turning mechanism evidently. If you want I can figure out the difference in "forward" motion for a vehicle like the stug using neutral and track pivot and we can compare. Lets say for pointing at a target 20 degrees to the left and 45 degrees to the left. I am a motion control engineer so it would be no problem.. I read the neutral steer post when it came out. Ive been monitering the board for quite some time. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 24, 2000 Share Posted April 24, 2000 I'm confused here. Are you saying that a StuG has twice as good a turning radius as a SPW? I find the number you quoted for the StuG hard to believe for a bunch of reasons. Though I am not trying to argue against facts, one thing I did learn from that "sit and spin" thread is that there were different ways of measuring turning radius. Apples and Oranges might be compared here. For example, Hunnicutt states the Sherman has a turning radius of roughly 20-28m depending on model. That is 4-5 times greater than the stat you quoted for the StuG, which doesn't seem possible. And the turning radius for my Weasel (60% the size of a StuG) is listed as 7m, which from personal experience is about right if I lock up one track and apply power to the other. So since the StuG apparently doesn't have the ability to neutral steer, I fail to see how it can have a turning radius of only 6m or so. The other question is how does the SPW (or any HT for that matter) steer when the wheel is cranked to one side. Since the SPW apparently does not have power to the front wheels all power must come from the tracks (duh ). The base of those tracks is quite short, which makes turning easier. And does there come a time when one track locks up and the other still gets power? Dunno myself, but it seems that it should be possible in at least 1st gear. Not that any of this really matters, but I am curious Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 24, 2000 Share Posted April 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The other question is how does the SPW (or any HT for that matter) steer when the wheel is cranked to one side. Since the SPW apparently does not have power to the front wheels all power must come from the tracks (duh ). The base of those tracks is quite short, which makes turning easier. And does there come a time when one track locks up and the other still gets power? Dunno myself, but it seems that it should be possible in at least 1st gear. Not that any of this really matters, but I am curious Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My understanding is that the power on one of the tracks on the SPW is scrubbed as the steering is turned. If one track completely locked up it would be dragging the front wheels, since the steering wouldnt allow them to turn all the way to 90 degrees to the tracks. On an US HT the front tires are driven, so that would be interesting if the track locked up on one side. Lewis [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakker@home Posted April 24, 2000 Share Posted April 24, 2000 From New Vanguard 25; sdkfz 251: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Though a fully-tracked design had been rejected because of excessive cost and complexity, the long ground run of the tracks required the use of a tank-type steering final drive unit. During slight turns, the steering wheel turned only the (unpowered red.) front wheels. Past 15 degr, the clutch and brake steering mechanism in the fineal drive system operated to slow the track on the inside of the turn and apply full power to the outside track. Though this was a complexity avoided in the US White m2/m3 halftracks with their short track ground runs and ordinary truck-type differential drive axles, the cross-country performance of the German armoured troop carrier was excellent, and usually superior to the simpler US types.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Any help ? damn typos. Grtz S Bakker ------------------ Visit my CM site! The bunker: http://bunker.panzershark.com Another proud member of the Panzershark webring. [This message has been edited by Bakker@home (edited 04-24-2000).] [This message has been edited by Bakker@home (edited 04-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts