PJungnitsch Posted November 13, 2002 Author Share Posted November 13, 2002 LOL - now you're blowing your bandwidth limit I noticed that. Arggh! Oh well, it seems to be working again. Second paper is up now as well, this one has more tank vs tank stuff. To rephrase, both reports by Rowland on armored vehicle ground pressure are posted here. Click on the other interests link down and to the left on this Africa page to get to them. Cheers [ November 13, 2002, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 Interesting topic. Great material. Thank You Paul. Ari 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 Now, will these findings be considered in CMBB at some point (for example through listing and using the MMP instead of the NGP) or will we have to wait until the engine rewrite for that? Dschugaschwili 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbellamy Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 ROFL I love this quote: "Our men, in general, realize that the Sherman is not capable of standing up in a ding-dong, head-on fight with a Panther." ding-dong fight? hahaha 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbellamy Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 Also a very interesting quote about Panzerfausts: " We have equipped our infantry and reconnaissance units with captured German bazookas and they have great confidence in them. Since we habitually carry them on vehicles, their greater weight than the U.S. type is not a factor." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Bump 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJungnitsch Posted November 20, 2002 Author Share Posted November 20, 2002 A little more info for those interested in this ground pressure thing, a couple of interesting responses from posting on the AFV news forum: I had written: "Wondering what other people think of the articles as well. For example the Elephant having only 20% heavier ground pressure than a King Tiger when measured normally but over double the ground pressure using his method seems to make a lot of sense according to combat accounts I've read (although both are equally difficult to retrieve if they DO get bogged). If true though it would mean that regular ground pressure ratings are next to useless. Could this be the case?" Responses: Depends. NGP (Nominal Ground Pressure) is probably fine as long as you are interested in the performance on a hard surface. For off-road performance, I would think MMP is much more indicative of true performance. MMP also does an excellent job of explaining why the Churchill should perform better than a Sherman on soft ground and why the Panther, and to a lesser degree the Tiger, did so well in the dirt. NGP is not very usefull for highlighting these differences. Btw, MMP is described in detail in Ogorkiewicz: "Tank Technology" that came out ca. 1991, but I've found it difficult to find the necessary data for doing the calculations. The papers you linked to certainly has the benefit of presenting the data for a wide variety of WWII vehicles! (Claus Theory of Ground Vehicles_ by J. Y. Wong (John Wiley & Sons) 1978 covers the same ground, so to speak. ISBN 0-471-03470-3, plus a lot more about road vehicles. Heavy math engineering approach, with lots of diagrams to help us visualize things. It's funny that most book about tanks (except Ogorciewicz) don't mention this concept. Nominal groud pressure (length times width divided by weight) is a limited measure. There are many more factors affecting trafficability. Dynamic loading of the track system for instance, occurs during motion over land, such that the front wheels on the ground carry a greater load than the rear wheels. The Russians measured this on BT tanks. Another recommended title is _Theory of Land Locomotion_ by Bekker. I think this was published in the 1950's. (Robert Livingston) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Thanks for making the full reports available Paul, much appreciated. BTW, both Claus and Robert do (or at least 'did') post on these forums. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Crierie Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Bumpage for a great find! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Robertson Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Interesting stuff on the MMP system, I'm going to try and prduce some figures for later stuff like M1's. The Esienhower report was actually posted in it entirety of this site about 2-3years ago. (befoore being copied by me) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadHunter Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Originally posted by blackbellamy: "Our men, in general, realize that the Sherman is not capable of standing up in a ding-dong, head-on fight with a Panther."That's because the Panther has a bigger and longer ding dong, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Quick question: 'track pitch', as used by Rowlands, refers to the length of the individual track segments, is that correct? Cheers Jon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Great information. I hope BTS finds time to read this info. "M3 Halftrack 363" I'm sure many here are familiar with the Battle of Singling, in which Colonel Creighton (sp?) Abrams send a company of armored infantry and a Sherman company to take the town of Singling France. The ground in front of the town was muddy, forcing the infantry to abandon their half tracks and ride the tanks in a dash for the town behind a 105mm battery smokescreen. In CM you can't simulate this, halftracks actually float over the mud better than sherms. The numbers presented by Paul seem to more accurately reflect the reality in this case than do the current gp ratings. This applies to CMBO, not sure if it's different in CMBB. This brings up another question, why not simply use ground pressure ratings for all vehicles rather than having a seperate poor/avg/good rating system for wheeled vehicles. I'd be curious to know the MMV ratings for the M1, though that was after the time of the reports cited by Paul. I drove one for several years and it had a tendency to 'float' or hydroplane over soft or muddy surfaces, especially wet sod such as that in germany after rain, so badly that you sometimes had trouble going up a gentle slope or along the side of a slope without sliding back down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsen Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 A very interesting discussion. I'm very curious to hear what BTS point of view is on modeling the ground pressure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJungnitsch Posted November 23, 2002 Author Share Posted November 23, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: Quick question: 'track pitch', as used by Rowlands, refers to the length of the individual track segments, is that correct? Cheers JonI was wondering about that too. 'Pitch' in terms of roller chain is the distance from one pin to the next, I assume that carries over to tracks in the same way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward Windsor Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Look, it's got a picture that moves and everything! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.B.Toys Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Is there a list of which German vehicles get fitted with the Ostketten (track extensions to increase surface in contact withground) and should CMBB vehicle data include possible alternative purchases for those so outfitted? Thanks, Richard 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch: Here we go.... Was doing this out of interest, thought I may as well post it. A more complete list, in order of best to worst of ability to traverse soft ground. Panther 150-155 M-24 Chaffee 175 BT-5 175 T-34/76 174-186 Churchill M IV 177 (11 roadwheel) Tiger II 184 Tiger I 185-192 Churchill VII 182-223 Churchill Mk IV 217 (9 roadwheel) Panzer IV 184-191 T-34/85 196 Sherman HVSS 205 M3 Stuart 216 Panzer III 220-232 BT-7 240 JS-II 245 Universal Carrier 253 Sherman VVSS 282 E-100 290 Cromwell VII 300 Cromwell IV 352 M3 Halftrack 363 US 2 1/2 ton 367 (6X6) Elephant 370 SD KFZ 231 (8 rad) 415 M8 Greyhound 460 Maus 470 Opel Blitz 525 (4X4) Opel Blitz 700 (4X2) For comparison M29c Weasel 27 Caterpillar D7 32.5 (widepad) Caterpillar D7 80 (regular) Leopard II 201 M-60 221-236 T-62 242 M-47 246 AMX-30 249THIS its GREAT Great Work! I hope this info can find its way into the engine re-write for BOGGING purposes! -tom w [ January 13, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 bump 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mididoctors Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by BBToys: Is there a list of which German vehicles get fitted with the Ostketten (track extensions to increase surface in contact withground) and should CMBB vehicle data include possible alternative purchases for those so outfitted? Thanks, RichardOh my god! How could there be such an omission! Boris london 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by BBToys: Is there a list of which German vehicles get fitted with the Ostketten (track extensions to increase surface in contact withground) and should CMBB vehicle data include possible alternative purchases for those so outfitted? Thanks, RichardI think for the Germans these special tracks were pretty normal tracks, just wider. The extension of extisting tracks with appendixes to the sides has been done by the Americans to the Sherman tanks. I wonder whether the Russians received these extensiond or maybe built some of their own. Both solutions are probably of little value, especially the American one. The suspension and the wheel configuration do matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krazy Canuck Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by mididoctors: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BBToys: Is there a list of which German vehicles get fitted with the Ostketten (track extensions to increase surface in contact withground) and should CMBB vehicle data include possible alternative purchases for those so outfitted? Thanks, RichardOh my god! How could there be such an omission! Boris london</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 BBToy, Is there a list of which German vehicles get fitted with the Ostketten (track extensions to increase surface in contact withground)...Interestingly enough, I have seen hardly any photographic evidence that these were used in the East. At least, not in any great numbers. The only picture I have ever seen off the top of my head is of a scale model of a StuG III In other words, out of the thousands of pictures I have seen of German tanks in the East and West, to the best of my memory I have never seen one with the track extenders. They appear to have been used only sparingly in the West on US based vehicles. Most shots I have seen of them, there are quite a few missing or bent. The extensions were not of the same strength and durability as the main track. Therefore, they could bend or break off without (apparently) too much trouble. ...and should CMBB vehicle data include possible alternative purchases for those so outfitted?Nope Making purchase options for exceptional devices, upgrades, conditions, etc. is simply not possible in CMBO or CMBB. This will be rectified in the new engine. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJungnitsch Posted January 14, 2003 Author Share Posted January 14, 2003 Steve's right, you don't see a lot of photos of Ostketten. However they were only introduced in the spring of '44. Winterketten were introduced a bit earlier. Photo of Ostketten, from a Stug pulled out of a Ukranian bog recently here. Artist's eye-view, from here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: although I have never seen any historical remark that the IV would be better in mixed terrain or in difficult ground conditions than the IV.Suprisingly, neither have I! 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.