IntelWeenie Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: [bSo, 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One (lesser known?) problem the Shermans had was in icy conditions they tended to slip 'n' slide a lot, at least on roads. This was due to the rubber track pads (to reduce vibration and track wear - you changed the pads, not the whole track). Anyone who's driven a such a track on ice knows what I mean. AFAIK, this was not wholly resolved by the use of grousers and was one of the things altered in the Easy 8's. I have also read (can't remember where, it's been a while) of some British troops removing ALL the pads in order to get more 'bite' from the tracks and accepting the additional wear and tear. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Is it possible that we're comparing something like 'battlefield mobility' with 'theater mobility' (or some related vague terms)? Everything I've read indicates that over medium-haul or long-haul, the German tanks with their complicated suspensions and drive trains tended to perform less favorably than the Shermans, but the only thing I've read about actual battlefield performance talks about German tanks tending to throw tracks more often in rough terrain. But I can't recall reading anything authoritative comparing the German stuff with the Shermans once everyone actually got to the battlefield. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcelt Posted July 20, 2000 Author Share Posted July 20, 2000 As the person who started this thread, I did so in order to learn 1) something about the factors that most caused tanks to bog 2) What factors does the game actually use in its code and 3) Are there any measures one can take to a) reduce the likelihood (eg speed) etc and to help free a tank which has bogged. There was some very interesting and useful discussion before the thread was railroaded by some petty squabble . Would those protagonists please have the decency to allow those who are genuinely interested in developing the topic to proceed constructiveitly with it. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cueball Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Aside from reliability, there are three things to consider when looking at cross-country mobility -- * Ground Pressure * Horsepower to Weight Ratio * Gearing I don't have the game in front of me right now, but I would be curious what the HP-WGT ratio of the Panther is to some of the Shermans. Gearing is likely not represented in the game, but HP-WGT is (IIRC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 There would be issues with the overall weight of the Tigers and other heavies and super-heavies, since there were bridges and culverts they couldn't cross. They were too wide for many village streets. And their fuel consumption was outrageous- no mean factor in the Germans' late war conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Originally posted by Scott Clinton: 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?)</quote> Err, apperently i have stumbled into an touchy area between participants here. Anyway not to feed this anymore but posting more then 'lol please', might have been more conductive to an better discussion. My use of 'cross country performance'was a generalisation, meant just as that. The Panther and the Tiger E were better over soft terrain then the Sherman. The M4A3E8 HVSS did go someways to equalising the performance diferences. My reply in this subject was to another post claiming that these tanks needed dry ground etc, when in truth the Sherman was the more likely to bog then either German tank in soft terrain. Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted July 21, 2000 Share Posted July 21, 2000 pcelt, you should keep all veh on move or hunt and keep them out of scattred woods. Never take the King tiger off road when it rains or snows [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 07-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zulu1 Posted July 21, 2000 Share Posted July 21, 2000 Cueball; M4A3 71,025 lbs with 500hp or 142.05 lbs/hp PzV 100,100 lbs with 700 hp or 143.0 lbs/hp and for CM2 T34/76 57,200 lbs w/500 hp or114.4 lbs/hp. For the Russians, come on snow and mud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts