mav1 Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Why should the soviet 100mm anti tank gun be immobile in the game, when the British 17pdr is not? How long would it take to set up the 100mm gun? Another question is does it really take a tank more than 1m to rotate 360 degrees in a stationary position (i have no idea) ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Hello Mav, Not really sure about the AT gun question but its probably due to the 17pdr ( 77mm gun ) being a medium class and the 100mm gun being bigger. Many of the vehicles in my opinion rotate and move thru cover much to slow in CMBB and CMAK then it does in CMBO. How i so much missed the CMBO vehicle movement. [ June 15, 2006, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: JoMc67 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmoney Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 The German 88mm is immobile as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
76mm Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 does it really take a tank more than 1m to rotate 360 degrees in a stationary positionI was hoping that one of the experts would answer, but since not I'll toss in my two cents: I would expect that for WWII tanks it would take a minute or more to rotate 360 degrees, and most of them probably couldn't rotate 360 degrees in a stationary position at all. This is the "pivot steer" in which (I think) one track goes forward and one backward. Modern tanks can do this, but I think most models of that era could not--I think the best that they could do was stop one track while continuing with the other, and you might not want to do even that because I can't imagine that such a maneuver would be good for the track on the stationary side. Can any of the grogs confirm/deny? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 German halftracks in particular can't pivot steer, relying entirely on steering the front wheels. That's why they're so positively awul at turning in place in the game. From conversations with modern tankers even the tanks that can pivot in place (Panther and Tigers can I believe) often hesitate to do it on anything other than a flat parade ground surface. Too much of a chance of accidentally shedding a track in the process. Still CMBB pivot is a bit slow, that's why it was boosted in CMAK - otherwise that Brit TD with the rearward facing gun on the Valentine chassis would've taken 2 1/2 minutes to pivot to rotate to face the enemy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I once saw an M1 Abrams tank almost get immobilized while turning on cobblestone pavement. It was during a vehicles show at Koblenz armour museum, and Lindan and Warphead were standing next to me, chanting "Bog down! Bog down!". That was shortly before Lindan close-assaulted a Flammpanzer III with a beer bottle. Good times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Yes i also think that rotating in CM can also represent vehicles moving back and forth to face the desired location. If CM were to represent in real life the 360 degree back and forth motions of a vehicle then you would have to put in several way points that in turn could take several seconds to a minute just to finally start moving. On a closely related subject its a shame that there is no " Follow the Road " order so that in just 10 or 15 seconds the vehicle can start to move to get to its destination. Instead you have to put in a way point at every bend in the road that in turn could take up to a minute for the vehicle to finally start moving. [ June 16, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: JoMc67 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I believe something like that s supposed to show up in CMx2... if only CMx2 would show up! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Originally posted by ParaBellum: That was shortly before Lindan close-assaulted a Flammpanzer III with a beer bottle. Good times. heh, good story 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hughes Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I have a friend who works at the IWM Duxford, he regularly drives tanks (apparently rather enjoyable) and had this to say on the subject of turning tanks when I asked (for other reasons): What I can tell you is that a Second World War tank steers because of the speed differential between tracks. To turn right the right hand track is slowed and the 'outer' (faster) track pulls the tank round. (but you knew that.) This is all done via braking (some WW2 tanks have a differential whereby as one track is braked, extra power is applied to the other track - thus increasing the differential and allowing a sharper turn at a given speed.) Post war tanks (the Chieftain for example) can vary the power output to each track via the gearbox (in some cases, the T-72 for example - the tank has two separate steering gearboxes - one for each track). This means steering is not dependant on braking (but it still has a part to play - brakes are still applied when steering is initiated.) Another upshot of this is the so called 'neutral turn'. This means that on many modern tanks equal and opposite power can be applied to each track at the same time and the vehicle can therefore turn 'on the spot'. Back to WW2 tanks.. The faster you are going forwards when steering (and therefore braking) is applied the wider the turning arc of your vehicle. I suppose that this is because although there is still a speed differential between the tracks at higher speeds when the turn is initiated both tracks are travelling that much faster and the tank will have moved further by the time the rather crude braking system comes into effect (does this make sense?) Also a tank weighing 25 tons moving at 20mph is going to have much more resistance / inertia than one moving at 10mph. Thus the mechanical systems controlling turning will need more time and application to work effectively. I think? Any how all the manuals give wider turning arcs at higher speeds. There comes a point (depending on the inertia of your tank and the capability of its braking system) where you try and turn a tank and you just go straight on! This is quite easy when tank driving, it is quite easy to 'lose' say a Sherman when trying to turn at speeds as low as 15 miles an hour. This point varies considerably dependant on the ground you are moving on. You have to turn at much lower speeds on wet ground. A vehicles tank driver manul will tell drivers at what speeds and in what gears turns are safe and what expected arcs of turn should be in 'average' conditions (but there are many variables.) In just the same way that an experienced racing car driver can feel when a car is on he edge of spinning or skidding a tank driver can feel when he is about to push the vehicle past it limits. This only really comes with experience of driving that sort of tank. Your turning arc will depend on variables such as ground pressure, power to weight ratio, forward inertia (your arc will be wider if you are heading down hill) - this is why one of the main tank accidents is the roll - inexperience drivers assume that because they have turned at a particular angle on the flat, at a given speed, they can do the same on a slope - nope they can't.) state of the ground you are moving over, the quality of your brakes, the quality of your steering mechanism, do you have a differential to switch extra power into the faster track (if so how good is it?) - there are probably others. I don't think you can extrapolate all turning circles from one set of tank data. You can possibly get a formula but the parameters of that formula would change from tank to tank because of the different mechanical capabilities of their braking, steering, gearbox & power systems (and the interrelationships of these - you may have a very powerful tank that can apply a lot of power through a track but has a crap steering linkage system or a tank that has low power but a fantastic way of directing the power through to the track quickly.) Which would be best? I am not a mechanic either, I haven't a clue - you will have to talk to tank designers about this one!) WW2 tanks cannot turn on the spot. There needs to be forward (or rearward) motion. Without this there is no speed differential between tracks and thus no turn can take place. This is a real bugger for non turreted tank destroyers lurking in ambush. If an enemy appears 'out of arc' the tank destroyer may well have to edge forward out of cover to be able to fire at it (this means they must lurk with engines running, with all the implications that has for overheating and engine smoke giving away your position or they lurk with engines switched off and face the prospect of trying to start whilst in action (not that easy) or starting, backing out and abandoning a position, all because the enemy are not straight ahead.) There is also a minimum speed at which a turn can take place. Unless sufficient power (and therefore forward or rearward motion) is applied to pull the tank round obviously nothing happens. What tends to happen in tight turns (e.g. street fighting turns) is that the driver slows to a halt before the turn and applies power, a 'biting point' is reached where power output suddenly overcomes the vehicle inertia / resistance and the tank 'jerkily' slews round. This is often where the 'inside' tank tracks come off - ripped off through sideways force. Or something else gives (like the gearbox or power train). The driver has tried too hard. He is trying to put the tank through a very tight turn and has applied a lot of power to overcome both the weight of the tank and the fact that he has got the brakes full on one side. It is much safer to turn steadily at say 5 miles an hour, than to turn sharply at 2 mph. But if you imagine turning steadily in a street fighting situation what happens is that your turning arc brings you out into the centre of the street and for a few seconds your vulnerable side armour is what the enemy anti-tank gunner sees in front of him. If you can slew it round without taking the track off then all he sees is your front armour. Of course in very tight turns the length of the tank itself dictates what a minimum arc can be. I believe some WWII tanks could do the "neutral turn" number, but maybe not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
76mm Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Well that answer seems rather definitive...thank you Tim Hughes! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Gents, The translation of the German term was "zero radius turning gear". "Gear" referring to the actual gears in the transmission, as opposed to the looser definition of "gear" meaning "stuff". The Tiger (I for sure, possible II) and the Panther are explicitly mentioned as having the zero radius turning ability. This is a "pivot in place" ability. This differed from the Allied tanks in that one track was driven forward while, simultaneously, the other track was reversed. Both tracks moved, which reduced or eliminated all the problems inherent in skidding one track. (Also, skidding one track still resulted in a lateral movement of the tank's center of mass.) The two tracks' speeds were synchronized such that the center of the tank pivoted over the same spot in the ground. Obviously, the tactical payoff could be quite worth the high technical cost of such a capability. Regards, Ken (Edited to clarify the differences in tank pivoting.) [ June 19, 2006, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: c3k ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 Great info as always guys. So how fast can modern tanks rotate? And back to the 100mm soviet gun its only slightly heavier than the British 17pdr, so should it be rated heavy while the 17pdr is medium. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 On immobile guns: Design choice by BFC. They considered some things to be impossible during the CM scope of a battle (which for most players is below 40 minutes). Their reason was that it was too complex to set up certain guns. Italian 7.6 AA can't move, too - at least in CMAK. Guess there are others. Grß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.