pcelt Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Having just been playing the German side in a Quick Game in snow and finding that 2 of my 3 Tigers became "immobile" in the first couple of moves-----I wonder if any of you more experienced players have deduced any principles and advice to minimise this frustrating problem. First i presume "immobility " is a worse state than "bogged" and less reversible? I assume movement speed is one factor----I was using "hunt" mode with these tanks. Is it the slower the better in wet and snow?-----Does sitting in one spot for a period contribute to bogging and immobility----- I should welcome any info/advice from experienced snow and wet ground experts to help minimise this hazard which can really screw up your plan. Thanks from someone all too frequently caught in the bog [This message has been edited by pcelt (edited 07-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paullus Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 The heavier German tanks were notorious for their poor weight/track ratio and got bogged down constantly in anything but dry conditions. I recommend keeping your tanks on the roads when possible to prevent becoming bogged. Also, once a tank is immobile, that's it, it won't be moving the rest of the game. Be careful where you put your tanks, and especially where you move them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Paullus: I don't know the ins and outs, but bogged vehicles can definitely free themselves. If I recall correctly (and a Search will reveal much discussion on this) there is a chance they will free themselves within a turn or two- after that they generally stay stuck. I have had them free themselves, and I dearly hope one I have in that condition right now does so very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Bogged vehicles may get underway. Immobile means you've got yourself a pillbox. apex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Originally posted by paullus: The heavier German tanks were notorious for their poor weight/track ratio and got bogged down constantly in anything but dry conditions. The German Tiger1 & Panther both had better cross country mobility then the Sherman, remember they were designed to operate in Russia. Their are numerous reports from allied tank crews, of Panthers & Tigers, crossing muddy feilds, as well as snow feilds, where US tanks that tried to follow got mired.Now a PzKpfw IV is another story as they basicly had the same problems as Allied tanks in mud, snow. If anything I think Tigers & Panthers get bogged to easy in CM, Ie, I had a Tiger 1 & Panther get mired last night in the same area a Sherman and M10's drove through in snow. Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 For more, see: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum7/HTML/000091.html and http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum7/HTML/000078.html ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cueball Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Highlight a vehicle, press <enter> and look at the ground pressure -- The lower the better. Wide tracked vehicles are better in soft ground conditions. Under these conditions, it's my advice to keep your vehicles on the roads if possible, or at least to a point where you wouldn't mind them bogging down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kb9sog Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 The ground pressure advice is good to know. TNX Cueball ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The German Tiger1 & Panther both had better cross country mobility then the Sherman...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> lol! Please... ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murkz Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Hi, I have un-bogged vehicles by pushing them with another, it has worked the twice i have done this. Murkz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: The German Tiger1 & Panther both had better cross country mobility then the Sherman...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: lol! Please... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please what? I wasn't refering to mechanichal reliability, i was refering to Allied AFV crews reports on Tigers & Panthers moveing through areas in bad ground conditions Ie, mud, deep snow, where their Shermans, etc couldn't follow & if they did they got stuck. Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Scott, Do you actually happen to know who John Waters is and his pedigree? He's actually right and absolutely knows what he's talking about. Check out his history and credits sometime. John, Don't bother too much about Scott. He often makes fun of people who know what they're talking about. (Also, I'd wager he has no idea who you are ) [This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 07-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 PzKpfw1, I mean nothing personal, i'ts a very common misconception/generalization about the supposed superiority of all German WWII armor. As a sidebar, think of how feared the Soviet T-72 was when it was introduced. Now we know the truth about them. (They pretty much suck!) </quote> I never said German tanks were 'superior' I merely pointed out data concerning cross country mobility thru bad terrain an area where the Tiger & Panther as well as Soviet tanks were superior to the Sherman. As for the T-72 that would depend on what era we wish to discuss, and export vs service. As well as Model the T-72BM1 with KONTAKT 5 and later optics packagages,is a very survivable tank Ie,as US Live fire tests with the 120mm M829A1 round proved that. Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zulu1 Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Quick check of some of my material shows: Ground Pressure Panther V - 12.5 psi Sherman M4A1(76)W - 14.5 psi So as ground pressure is an indication of how well a vehicle would travel over soft ground, the Panther is better. However, I believe the Yanks were ingenious and had wider tracks put on some Shermans so they were as good as the Panthers on soft ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zulu1: Quick check of some of my material shows: Ground Pressure Panther V - 12.5 psi Sherman M4A1(76)W - 14.5 psi So as ground pressure is an indication of how well a vehicle would travel over soft ground, the Panther is better. However, I believe the Yanks were ingenious and had wider tracks put on some Shermans so they were as good as the Panthers on soft ground.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, in 1944 they began useing track extenders, better known as 'duck bills', which brought the Shermans psi down to 12. These were stop gap solutions though untill the appearence of the M4A3E8 HVSS in Dec 1944, with its wider tracks and lower psi, as the bills tended to snap off,after very little use. Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Belton Cooper, "Death Traps" goes into loving detail about the procedure and urgent need for these these track extenders. Mr. Cooper, from what I recall, makes frequent mention of the superior manouverbility of the German tanks as compared to the Sherman. IIRC they were called umm grossards? Err something like that but Duck Bills is more meaningful and descriptive. Madmatt ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission Combat Mission HQ CMHQ-Annex Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 I didn't think there was any question that the Panther and Tiger had superior cross country mobility than all but the Easy Eight as far as Shermans go. The Panzer IV of course was a different story. Also, the interleaved running gear of the heavy panzers posed problems with mud caking and freezing. But as far as raw ability to traverse terrain, they were undoubtedly superior to the Sherman (with the exception of the E8, not really sure how they compare). BTW, IIRC, the extenders were called grousers, or something like that. ------------------ "Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you. Take it easy, Dude." -- The Stranger The Dude abides. [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 07-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 OK, all this begs a simple question: What factors are taken into account when checking a vehicle for bogging in CM? Three main ones come to mind. 1) State of the terrain 2) Ground Pressure 3) Speed of vehicle Does (I hope) experience play any role? How about mechanical reliability? (Does bogging also simulate simple mechanical failure?) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 jgdpzr: "Grousers' is correct. GAFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Sorry guys but I was always under the impression that "cross country mobility" consisted of more than simple ground pressure. The phrase used was "cross country mobility" and that would be a general term not specific to whom would sink in mud the fastest (Perhaps I should 'read between the lines' more, huh Fionn?) If the 'debate' is about who would sink in mud the fastest I think simple ground pressure is all the data needed and there would be no debate (or not much of one anyway). If however someone is trying to say that the Tiger (for example) had better "cross country mobility", then I am sorry but I have to disagree. I now realize that I am not allowed to do that with Fionn around... Fionn: I have made no less than five attempts to apologize to you. That is: apologize for something you won't even detail so I could know what the Hell I am apologizing for!! Hell, I even went through a third party last time, because I am afraid to email you directly (wouldn't want to 'stalk' you now with a single email in the last 7 months now would I?) This all on top of the fact that all this crap was started by YOUR three day childish tirade bashing me in no less than TEN posts on this very forum...when I was out of town...all because you MIS-read a 3-4 line post by me...NOT EVEN DIRECT TO YOU! You then totally refused to accept the fact you were wrong and mis-read the post by me! Hell, BTS had to DELETE the entire thread! I am tired of your constant harassment on this forum and others. Once again you stick your face in to a tread with no purpose except to attack me. You make the entire CM community proud with your continued behavior. It sure is odd that you have caused so many threads to be locked down and yet you are such an innocent victim. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Scott, Fionn .... please, just friggin' drop it, would you? ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: Scott, Fionn .... please, just friggin' drop it, would you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll second that - I would actually like to learn more about the differences in cross-country mobility (not just mud), and I fear that if this personal fight is contd. we just end up with another padlock on what could have been an interesting thread. So, broadening the topic, what were the main drawbacks of the early Shermans in different terrains, compared to German armour? Did they tend to throw tracks more easily in wooded terrain, less capable of climbing slopes, problems in rubble? Any info (or pointer to the search function) greatly appreciated. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcents Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Motion has been presented and seconded...all in favor??? Scott and Fionn...It seems that whenever I open a thread that has over 15 responses, I can pretty much assure myself that you two are flaming each other. Keep it private...I'm sick of reading your petty little war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Scott, I think in most regards the Panther and Tiger still had better cross country mobility. I know that the Panther at least could take a steeper incline, traverse taller obstacles, and could cross wider trenches. Not sure about the Tiger, but I do know that numerous US vets said that both the Tiger and Panther had better mobility than their Shermans. Anecdotal, perhaps, but I believe the numbers also back up the assertion they have better mobility. I believe the differential (or whatever it was called, in which the tracks could actually turn in opposite directions) steering also helped their mobility. Are there measures that you are alluding to other than ground pressure and ability to traverse obstacles that give the edge to the Sherman? Not challenging you, just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts