Guest R Cunningham Posted November 9, 1999 Share Posted November 9, 1999 Disclaimer: This thread is not started with the intention of a dig on CM or BTS. But it was CM that prompted the question. I was describing to a friend before he played the demo the track motion of the vehicles in CM. Somehow the issue of counter rotating tracks for turning in place came up. He thought he remembered something to the effect that the Sherman was incapable of this maneuver. I did some checking in my sources but no book I have specifically addresses this issue, though minimum truning radii are frequently published. While looking for information on the StuG G for the other thread I came upon some tables in the back of a little book I have "Die deutschen Panzer 1926-1945" by F.M. von Senger und Etterlin published by Bernard & Graefe Verlag. These tables list various bits of data for most major models of German AFVs. I noticed a entry called "Wendung auf der Stelle" (turning in place) and was surprised at what I found. This list is representative: Vehicle Turning in Place Panzer III No Panzer IV No Panther No Tiger E No Tiger B No JagdPz IV No Jagdpanther No Hetzer data n/a Jagdtiger No Elefant/Ferdinand No I suppose I could have listed the shorter list of yesses if there was one (no German vehicle listed has a yes). This is the only source that I have that addresses this. I looked through Spielberger's book on the Panzer III and though he talks about the drive train he offers no clues about this issue. If this turns out to be accurate data, then CM and a host of other game have misrepresented this capability of AFVs. The dance of death in CC2 is a particularly gross example. Though I've played a lot of CC it never occured to me that WW II tanks could not turn in place. I have absolutely no data of this kind for allied/soviet vehicles. Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 I vaguely remember hearing the same thing about the Sherman. I believe some later models had a transmission that allowed the tracks to move in opposite directions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Hmmm...good question. On thinking about it I realized that I have always assumed all tanks could always neutral steer because modern tanks can. The M1 transmission has a special neutral steer position you select from a standstill and deselect when you're done. I thought all WWII tanks had controlled differential transmissions which address steering by varying power to one track or the other, but maybe the German tanks used some other transmission design which ruled out true neutral steering. Now that I think of it the only way i've seen a german tank pivot (on film) is by holding one track and powering the other to 'spin' the vehicle around on the locked track. This achieves roughly the same effect as the neutral steer so the CM tank animation would be off but the end result would be close I think. In cities I could see a tactical advantage to tanks with neutral steer capability if it were modeled. -Ren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Welcome to my parlour Richard I was responsible for this data and this capability getting into Panzer Commander (after talks with the producer) and for deciding which tanks had it for Panzer Elite... What you are talking about is differential steering and is a complicated thing to put in a tank, especially a heavy tank... I've done a bit of research into this for articles I've written about the Panther and Tiger and found that they did have differential steering. I wrote the following about the Panther D's transmission: "The ZF 7 gearbox was situated in between the driver and radio operator and provided 7 forward and 1 reverse gears. It provided syncromesh for all gears at 2,000 to 2,200 revolutions per minute but double-declutching was necessary at over 2,500 revolutions per minute or when changing down below 1,500 revolutions per minute. Obviously such a demanding system was difficult and tiring to operate. The drive passed through the reduction gear via a transfer box and from there went to the forward-mounted drive sprockets. While normal hydraulic disk brakes were used for steering by braking the tracks a more desirable method of turning could also be obtained by using the epicyclic gear to drive one or other of the forward-mounted drive sprockets against the main drive, slowing down the track on that side and allowing tighter turns to be made and momentum conserved. This differential steering system was also used on the Tiger with great effect." It is my understanding that it was possible to use the epicyclic gear to actually mesh the track to the main drive and actually drive one track in reverse which is the equivalent of neutral steer. Thus I advised that the Panther and Tiger should be given a neutral steer capability in PzC as should ALL vehicles built on their chassis. von Senger und Etterling is wrong and I would guess it has something to do with incorrect translation since he's normally oh so right. The Tiger and Panther chassis had differential steering as did ALL vehicles based on their chassis OTHERS DID NOT! (German vehicles obviously) Those other tanks relied upon simple braking of only ONE track whereas the Panther and Tiger were able to use a differential system to give "neutral turning radii". I'd be interested in seeing this list of yesses as that might help me figure out what data this table IS giving. My guess is that it is something different to neutral steer. The Brits got enough tanks at Bovington and tested them extensively to get the neutral steer right.. Especially, since I remember the neutral steer thing being very much stressed by them in reports on the Panter and Tiger. Soviet tanks didn't even have working transmissions most of the time .. They didn't progress to giving their tanks differential drives in the main. I seem to remember some LATE model Shermans having neutral turn capability but I can't remember which right now. This is actually a good reminder. I think I have some books here with the turn radii of the German tanks.. I'll have to go and have a look. ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers [This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 11-09-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 I knew I had it here somewhere.. It was actually in another chapter of my Panther article.. "Turning circles In neutral 0 metres In 1st gear 5 metres In 7th gear 80 metres" That was for the Panther as measured by the British army post-WW2 ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Huzza for the Panther's But are there armour weak spot's on the Panther ausf G in the game? Presuming the weak spots are represented in the King-Tigers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Of course. It'd be stupid to cover all the other factors and then leave weak spots out. I don't know how much more I can tell you about the armour model (some bits are probably still secret) but it is good, very good. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Thanks for the posts. Charles is aware of these issues, but since research material is generally pretty poor when you try to make a simulation with so many vehicles, there are gaps in our knowledge. It amazes me how someone like Spielberger can tell you how many teeth, and what size, are on a particular gear in a gearbox, but not list basic information like turret rotation speeds or discuss things like neutral steering! So while we know some things about tanks turning on their tracks, we don't know everything about how each tank handles this Anyways, we do acknowledge that tanks in Combat Mission are allowed to neutral steer when in fact they realistically can not. The problem is the amount of AI programming and CPU cycles that would be needed to get a tank to turn around realistically outweigh the realism benefits they yield (in our opinion). Think about it... how many turns would it take to get something like a PzIV on a narrow dirt road to be turned around 180 deg? Having a WWII tracked vehicle with no neutral steering myself, I can tell you quite a few The problem here is that the AI has to plot each backwards and forwards move in relation to the terrain and desired direction. This is no simple task, especially when there is more than one vehicle nearby. Keep in mind that the degree of realism is greater the less the vehicle is trying to rotate. If I just want to shift my M29C Weasel to face something that is 20-40 degrees off center, I only need to drive forward a couple of meters to achieve this. I lock up one track and give power to the other. So to face a threat a decent ways off center is really not a problem spacially or speed wise. To shift something like 90 degrees I need to go forward a few meters, kick it into reverse, switch tracks, and then give it some gas go backwards. I am not a very experienced driver, but I can do this pretty damned quickly within a very small area (3x3 meters for a 90 deg turn). This is the most crucial game element for something like a tank (i.e. getting the armor facing a threat) because it is the most common (i.e. you generally have the enemy in front of you). The greater the tank needs to shift to face the desired direction, the more abstract our system becomes. To compensate, the rotation speed is decreased, which in effect simulates the slow nature of turning a vehicle to do something like a 90 deg facing change. Also, for tanks like the Panther, we look at neighboring terrain to see if the long gun barrel should hinder turning ability (thus making it slower) due to the difficulties of turning a tank with a long, overhanging gun in tight spots. All of this adds time to the turn, which means it takes longer to face a threat, which obviously gives the enemy more/better chances of getting a hit. Since the danger resulting from driving backwards and forwards to shift facing is the important thing to have simulated, we feel that we have an adequate compromise system in place. Steve P.S. An additional note here, vehicles in forward motion turn faster than if they are stationary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Some very interesting and informative posts above. I read every word. You guys are well versed. As a gamer, I feel like I am in good hands in buying this game. I would like to throw in my two cents though. I am a nut when it comes to realism over gameplay. I vote for realism every time. I say put it in the game and let us deal with it. Okay..now the real 2 cents part. Please model the tanks' turning abilities (differential steering - neutral steering) accurately per tank. But save it for CM2 if it means delaying this version. Thanks TeAcH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Fionn, F.M. Senger and Etterlin may have gotten some info wrong (there are some questionable pics in the front half of the book) but it cannot be a translation problem, unless he wrote this book in some other language and translated it into German. What I found interesting in his tables was the entries for minimum turning radii. The Panther was the worst of the tanks with 10 meters. The Tiger E has 7, and the Tiger B 4.8. I didn't cross check those numbers with other sources other than the Doyle and Jentz book on the Tiger B (from Osprey) because I remembered something in there about variable turning radii because of special gearing. They list the min radius for the Tiger B as 2.08 meters. I'm trying to visualize these turning radii but I keep thinking of the T-34s in "Stalingrad" and the Tiger mock up in "kelly's Heroes" where they locked up one track and almost turned in place. I think this calls for a fact-finding mission to Fort Knox to test the Panther they have and any other WWII tanks that are still operating. [This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 11-10-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 When I say incorrect translation I MEAN that he may have been using a word which had a fixed meaning back then but which now has lost that meaning as another word has been created to deal with that meaning. This is a common occurence in languages as language develops. I know his book is in German, so much is, a) public knowledge and obvious from the German title BUT what I'm saying is that as with so many German words it could be translated to have two different meanings when you get down to the fine levels of precision between differential drive and neutral turning capability see? What I'm saying is that since the Panther and Tiger really do look like they could turn in-place according to my sources that I would imagine von Senger etc meant something different when he said nein and THUS it is an incorrect translation see? ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 TeAcH: 'I vote for realism every time. I say put it in the game and let us deal with it.' Me too! But Steve said they didn't want to put it in due to the enormous complexity and CPU cycles it would use, not because they thought we as users would have a hard time dealing with it. I think the posts so far tend toward the view that Tiger and Panther could neutral steer. This makes these two tanks very advanced automotively because it looks as if very few (if any) other tanks in WWII had controlled differential steering. Hey the Imperial War Museum in London has a jagdpanther. I doubt if it runs though since there is a big hole from a 17lbr in the side. -Ren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Umm... actually it has 4 holes! Fired from 100 meters. Nice grouping too, all hitting it within just a foot or so, impacting into (through?!?) the Jadgpanthers right rear quarter. Information sign says that at least one round took out the engine and mounting. I have about a dozen pictures of it taken last month when I was in London! Nice museum, 'THE TRENCH' exhibit was pretty cool! Madmatt out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 FWIW those holes were done AFTER the Jadgpanther was captured as part of a series of firing tests. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Heheh, yea well I sorta left out THAT piece of info Not as cool sounding ya know! "Yeah we punched a whole right through that Mutha!" "Um, yes but it isn't moving..." "Yeah, but we punched right through it! See? 4 holes dead on!" "Umm I see but... err It isn't fighting back..." "So? We still killed it!" "Ok, errr sure thing, ya killed it dead..." See my point?!? Madmatt out, as always... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Fionn, I see what you are saying about the translation aspect of older text but I don't think it applies here. The book is from 98. I did more checking on the Tiger and Panther since those are in doubt now. I think it is accepted that the other vehicles could not do what has been described as nuetral-steering. Still no clue about the allies. To further confuse the issue I have found the following bits of info... From Von Senger und Etterlin (BTW this book was reworked and added to by Spielberger and a Diplom. Ing F. Kosar for the 3rd printing) re: Panther.... "Beim Radius 0 wurde die innere Kette völlig abgebremst und das Fahrzeug um die Kette gedreht." (For 0 radius turns the inside track was stopped and the vehicle was turned about the track) To me this implies that it could not in fact neutral steer and change direction without forward/rearward motion. But read on... Bruce Culver from his "Panther in Action" from Squadron Signal. "Steering: MAN multi-geared. Turning circle/gear: 0 meters/neutral, 5m/1st....." This clearly indicates neutral steering capability. What is the truth? Re: the Tiger. From F.M.v.S.u.E "Bei Ausschaltung des Antriebes kann auf der Stelle gedreht werden." (By switching off [disconnecting]the drive turning in place is possible). This implies that the Tiger could neutral steer but hints at a cumbersome process to do so. But after all this F.M.v.S.u.E still has in his tables that neither vehicle could turn in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 R Cunningham, Yeah but what I am getting at is that in 1945 THAT specific turn may have had an "accepted meaning" among Wehrmacht officers which it doesn't have now.. E.g. I'm sure you have the LITERAL translation right but maybe in officer lingo back then this meant something slightly different and let's face it the difference between differential steer and neutral steer is tiny since the end effect is the same. Culver's data agrees with mine... I think the Panther and Tiger could use differential steer to obtain a zero metre turning radius but that this wasn't exactly a neutral turn. In the end isn't one zero metre turn the same as another ? ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 This whole turning radius thing is really odd. The Shermans variants had between a 60-85 foot turning radius (roughly 20-28m). Compare that to the figures Cunningham has unearthed, and I am just scratching my head here. Looks like there is a different way of measuring this. Hell, my Weasel, which is tiny compared to a Tiger B, but yet has roughly twice the turning radius (20ft) as the huge monster German tank. Er, that sounds VERY wrong to me Plus, as I stated, this value is questionable since all tracked vehicles can hard break on one track and apply power to the other, then go back and forth, to change direction in a tight spot. So the impact on the battlefield is not as great as the number might have people believe. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Hi Friends This might be interesting for you: Spielberger says in edition 6/1998 of his Tiger book about the turning abilities: TigerI Neutral = 0m smallest radius (gear 1) = 3,44m biggest radius (gear 8) = 165m TigerII Neutral = 0m smallest radius (gear 1) = 2,08m biggest radius (gear 8) = 114m Furthermore he says in his Pantherbook 1999 about the Panther: Neutral = 0 smallest radius (gear 1) = 5m biggest radius (gear 7) = 80m References: Spielberger, Doyle " Der Panzer-Kamfwagen Tiger und seine Abarten " Motorbuch Verlag 1998 6. Auflage Spielberger, Doyle " Der Panzer-Kampfwagen Panther und seine Abarten " Motorbuch Verlag 1999 5. Auflage Pantherfibel (Dienstvorschrift D 655/27 1.7.1944) Tigerfibel (Dienstvorschrift D 656/27 1.8.1943) I just have mailed Fionn the relevant Scans out of the 2 Fibeln, perhaps he can find some way to make it public available ? best regards ============== Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Well Wüstenfuchs, I guess that settles it for the later German tanks. Was the Tiger I the first vehicle to have this capability? What about allied/russian vehicles? I read a German tank page (http://home.t-online.de/home/frank.koehler/tiger.htm) where there are some comments on british testing of the Tiger. He says the Brits were not very impressed by the powertrain. "Auch für die komplizierte und teure Herstellung der Kraftübertragung zum Zweck des einfachen Fahrens hatten sie nur begrenztes Verständnis." (also they had limited appreciation for the complicated and expensive powertrain that made driving easier." They could be referring to the steering wheel arrangement but could imply that the brits were not much interested in this neutral steer capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Well concerning the german Pz I-IV I must admit, that I can´t be of help here, since I personally don´t have the relevant sources. But perhaps someone on this Forum does have a copy of the Spielberger books about Pz I-II, III, IV ? And concerning the Sherman perhaps Hunnicut does tell something about this issue? But with or without neutral steering, with braking one track and moving the other, more or less every tank can turn in place. One more thing you might like to know is that today it works nearly exactly the same way. If a LeoII wants to do "Wenden auf der Hochachse" the driver has to switch gears to neutral and then he can turn in place, but this only works if the tank has come to a halt, not if it is still moving. The moving tank, lets say slow moving with 2km/h, is restricted to the smallest turn radius which is dependent on the chosen gear and the velocity of the tank. ============== Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 R Cunningham, I have the report that this guy is basing his comments on.. Basically the British liked it but figured it was too expensive and complicated to mass-produce with their current technology and factory levels. "Wenden auf der Stelle ohne Gang" This is what the Tiger fibel refers to the zero metre turn as... I'll upload them to the web tonight for people to look at... So it looks like the Tiger AND Panther had true turn in place while stationary capability. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scarhead Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Concerning German language, I guess there are some translation problems here. The "Wendekreis" is the smallest circle a car can drive in forward gear (and I guess it's the same for armor). A car has about 10 metres. Nevertheless I can turn around on 5 metres easily (with several forward- backward moves), (or a powerslide F. M. von Senger und Etterlin is one person "Sir Ferdinand M. of Senger and Etterlin" - some ancestor accumulated two villages or areas. (e.g. Macbeth gets Thane of Glamis, later he acquires Cawdor, too, and gets Thane of Glamis and Cawdor) If I turn around in a small place in half an hour, and I can turn around in a slightly larger place in one minute - I would not bother for the tedious process, but use the faster one. I guess German tankers did the same, turning on the track with one track neutral (or full brake) and one track forward. Forward and reverse simultaneously looks way to complicated - why use it if there is an easier way. In one of the books of the "08/15" series (forget the author and neither amazon.de nor amazon.com ever heard of it...) Unteroffizier Vierbein dies in his foxhole because a T34 turns around on top of it, thus compressing the earth below - eliminating the foxhole. The book is written by a WW2 vet, so I guess he knows what he writes and even a T34 can turn in place - with according gear or not. Maybe if the gear is robust enough to allow for braking one track only, any tank can do?? Scarhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Scarhead, I don't think we had any problems with the German language. I think we all knew the F.M v. Senger and Etterlin was one guy. Fionn's only point was that perhaps Senger und Etterlin was using an older term "Wendung auf der Stelle" that has a specfic meaning other than what I thought it meant. He might be right because Spielberger who indicates that both the Tiger and Panther could neutral steer in his book dedicated to each tank, also revised F.M. von Senger und Etterlin's book and allowed the data tables to retain the "nein" for "Wendung auf der Stelle." Other than using wenden instead of Wendung though I think that this term is basically correct and that Spielberger was not involved in the tables, only in the expansion of the main text. It would mean that the entries in Senger und Etterlin's book are simply incorrect with regard to the Tiger and Panther. I do have Spielberger's Panzer III book and the data tables list the Wendekreis as 5.85m for all variants except Ausf. A. which has no entry for Wendekreis. In the text he describes the mechanics but does not indicate if the vehicles of this series had this capability to rotate in place by running the tracks in the opposite direction. I presume that the Wendekreis refers to the radius of a turn when the vehicle was in the lowest gear when both tracks are still being driven forward and that this radius is controlled by the design of the single radius gears in the steering unit. But that does not correspond to the complete braking of one track to turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 To restate it clearly, it is my opinion now that the Panther and Tiger could neutral turn (and any of their chassis conversions too of course) but Pz I, II, III and IV couldn't. I think the T-34 could brake one track and thus "twist" on a foxhole a little but I have read reports of US officers on the T-34 when they got one in '42 I think it was and they were shocked by the terrible transmission and how weak it was.. If the Germans couldn't put neutral steer into Pz IVs I can't imagine the Soviets putting it into T-34s Oh what I wouldn't give for one month in a field with 1 specimen of each tank and tank variant of World War II in working order. I'd revolutionise our knowledge of those vehicles with just a measuring tape and a camcorder. *sigh* ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts