flamingknives Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 British tanks usually had excellent turret traverse mechanisms, almost always powered, so there should be no real reason why they should be any slower in fine adjusment. In fact, that was the only area where British tanks consistantly outperformed German ones. The vertical gun laying in early British tanks is a manual operation - the gun is balanced about the trunions and all elevation control is carried out by the gunner moving his shoulder. The upside of this is that the gun has a crude stabiliser for firing on the move. The downside is that firing when stationary is much less accurate at long range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tools4fools Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 I was just using the Valentine as an example as I thought that if you have a fast hydraulic motor but have to do the final adjustment by a hand wheel then this final adjustment might take more time to do compared to a system as in the Tiger where the turret "slows down" when roughly pointing towards the target and is then moved right on the target. What I am talking about is those extra 2 seconds that a system like the one used in the Valentine might cause (IF it does cause an extra delay). Just moving your hand from the grip used to control the hydraulics to the handwheel takes time. How about other tanks - were there significant differences that made it easier and faster to aim the gun of a tank? Turret speed and optics are taken in account in the game, but the mechanics of laying the gun and their handling is another point on how fast you can aim your gun and get the first shot out I would think. While Valentine is hands for rotating the turret and shoulders for elevation and Tiger is feet for rotation with hands most probably for elevation (I am guessing here), what would other tanks use? Instead of shoulders in particular? Feet/hand combo as well? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 How do you know that the Val used two controls for traversing? I don't know specifically one way or the other, but from what I've read I've always taken it that all traverse control was simply the hydraulic drive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tools4fools Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 By reading as well (tanks of the world, David Miller and Christopher Foss). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NON Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Moon, did you try the test with CMAK yet? Did anyone else? Anxious to find out just what is going on here ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 regarding testing and having non-moving targets: i usually KO the target tanks before starting the actual tests. that way you can be sure that the targets won't be moving or rotating, and you can control the test fire much better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted June 14, 2004 Author Share Posted June 14, 2004 Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry: regarding testing and having non-moving targets: i usually KO the target tanks before starting the actual tests. that way you can be sure that the targets won't be moving or rotating, and you can control the test fire much better. Interesting idea. I thought about deploying IS-3s without ammo on unpassable grounds but I don't know whether I should try that outat all since it seems that even the difference between the best and the worst German optics is there, but too small to measure accurately with small tests I had in mind. 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.