ParaBellum Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 In a recent PBEM I gave a move order to one of my SPWs. Next turn I was wondering where that SPW had been moving until I found out that it was still turning in place. That got me wondering about the turning speed of vehicles in CMBB and I did a quick test to see what are the main factors for the turning ability of different vehicles. The following vehicles were placed on open ground, dry ground conditions, all regulars. I gave all vehicles a 'fast move' order 180° to the rear. Test group consisted of a truck (LKW), Kübelwagen, PSW 222, SPW 250/1, SPW 251/1, SdKfz 7, StuG III, StuG IV, Pz IV G, Panther G (late), Tiger I (late). When looking at the results one has to consider that the LKW, the Kübelwagen and the SdKfz 7 have a command delay of 14s (->no radio) compared to a command delay of 7s for all the other vehicles. In brackets are the 'corrected' times (-7s) Test results (I): LKW : 35s (28s) Kübel : 45s (38s) PSW 222 : 49s SPW 250/1 : 54s Panther G : 63s StuG IV : 69s Pz IV G : 74s StuG III : 78s Tiger I : 82s SdKfz 7 : 82s (75s) SPW 251/1 : 86s Interesting results. Especially the fact that the LKW achieved the best result, even though it had a 14s delay (like the Kübel and the SdKfz 7) compared to the 7s of the other vehicles. It really suprised me that a truck actually turns faster on open ground/off-roads than the tracked vehicles or even the light Kübelwagen. Another surprise for me was the extremely slow turning rate of the SdKfz 7 and the SPW 251/1. Even the Tiger turned faster! I did a second test, this time all vehicles are placed on pavement. Test results (II): LKW : 26s (19s) Kübel : 27s (20s) PSW 222 : 29s SPW 250/1 : 39s Panther G : 44s StuG IVG : 47s Pz IV G : 50s StuG III : 50s Tiger I : 50s SdKfz 7 : 56s (49s) SPW 251/1 : 56s No big surprises here, all vehicles turn much faster on pavement than on open ground. Interesting though, that the Kübelwagen catches up with the LKW and that the Pz IVG, the StuG III and the Tiger I turn at the same rate, as opposed to their different results on open ground. The SdKfz 7 and the SPW 251/1 still lag behind. So, what defines the vehicles' ability to turn? It looks like the weight and the engine power are the most important factors. The fact if a vehicle uses tracks or wheels doesn't seem to have too much influence on their turning ability. The fastest-turning vehicles are also the lightest ones (Kübel, LKW, PSW 222, SPW 250/1). The Panther does pretty well too, but the SdKfz 7 and the SPW 251/1 are real hogs. The SPW 251/1 has a weight of 10 tons compared to the 6 tons of the SPW 250/1 while having the same amount of HP (100). The SdKfz 7 has a weight of 13 tons but has 150HP and about the same max speed as the 250/1, so I think it should turn faster than the 251/1. As the last test I placed them in mud to see if the tracked vehicles get a better result compared to the wheeled vehicels under such conditions. Result (III): LKW : 41s (34s) Kübel : 52s (45s) PSW 222 : 62s SPW 250/1 : 75s Panther G : 95s StuG IV : 98s Pz IV G : 106s SdKfz 7 : 114s (107s) StuG III : 119s SPW 251/1 : 124s Tiger I : 124s Hm, this doesn't seem right to me. The un-tracked vehicles (LKW, Kübel, PSW 222) still turn faster than the fully- or half-tracked vehicles on open ground in muddy conditions. I think these vehicles should be at a disadvantage under these conditions. At least the the SdKfz 7 manages to get a better result! Conclusion: I'm surprised about the turning speed of the wheeled vehicles when off-roads and especially in muddy terrain compared to the tracked vehicles, especially when one considers that they (truck, Kübel) suffer from an additional 7s delay compared to the other vehicles. IIRC both the Panther and the Tiger could turn in place, but I think this is not modelled in CM. Rather all tracked vehicles have the ability to 'turn on the spot' in CM. [ February 15, 2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Bell, Without any historical or factual citation, in BB, all vehicles seem to turn waaaaay tooooo sloooowly, especially AFVs. I suspect that there may have been some threads on this subject hopefully with BFC response. However, being lazy, I have not recently looked these up. Cheers, Richard 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 So far the official word on this has been the fact that many vehicles needed to do kind of a back and fill turn to turn in place. That is what makes turning so slow if the vehicle is standing still. The point has still been raised, however, that several tracked vehicles should be able to pivot turn, or brake one track while driving the other. This would give them a much faster rate of turn than is shown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevermind Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Great test,preciate the effort.I think all will agree that test 3 seems odd,but what gets me is the comparison of the tanks on open ground/dry conditions versus pavement.A tank was designed to be off road,it is its optimal operating conditons,pavement should result in slightly slower,or similar turn rates.I guess weight would be a factor,but it also seem like the more weight on pavement the more likely a tank would be to throw a track.Simply,a tank wasnt meant to be on pavement,it can and will damage the tracks after awhile.You know of the rubber inserts used for on road travel,i know it is to prevent damage to the road,but i assume the tracks as well?Anyone know more of this? [ February 15, 2003, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Ares_the_Great ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PondScum Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 What would be even more interesting would be to compare the time taken for a "turn in place, move out" order with that for a "three-point turn" (or similar) order. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 I did an unscientific test using 2 each Stugs and PzIII's/IV's. I had one of each do a 90 degree turn and fast move 30 meters and then rotate back to original facing. The other I had do a reverse at 45 degrees and then a fast move then rotate to original facing. In each case, all units moved 30 meters to their right and ended up with the same original facing. With regular experienced crews, the 3 pt, 45 degree reverse, 45 degree fast move ending with rotate was faster than the 90 degree turn, fast move, rotate by about 12-15 seconds. Also remember that rotating during a move is faster than rotating in place. The built up speed seems to allow for faster rotating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 By the way, didn't the Panther and Tiger series tanks have a transmission designed to turn in place? apex 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 actually how does one make a vehicle turn but not restrict it to moving in place...if you do a whole bunch of way points the delay goes up, but if you just do a fast command to a different angle it pivots slowly first then goes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by Sgtgoody: [snips] The point has still been raised, however, that several tracked vehicles should be able to pivot turn, or brake one track while driving the other. This would give them a much faster rate of turn than is shown. I challenge anyone to name any tracked vehicle that can't brake one track and drive the other. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevermind Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 sorry...im not bright...dont mind me..i cant even read and comprehend [ February 15, 2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Ares_the_Great ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Well, I don't think the Tiger and Panther families braked, but rather one thread went forward, the other backwards. That brake thingy worked for most AFVs, but at the risk of damaging or throwing the track. apex 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rother Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sgtgoody: [snips] The point has still been raised, however, that several tracked vehicles should be able to pivot turn, or brake one track while driving the other. This would give them a much faster rate of turn than is shown. I challenge anyone to name any tracked vehicle that can't brake one track and drive the other. All the best, John. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by Rother: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sgtgoody: [snips] The point has still been raised, however, that several tracked vehicles should be able to pivot turn, or brake one track while driving the other. This would give them a much faster rate of turn than is shown. I challenge anyone to name any tracked vehicle that can't brake one track and drive the other. All the best, John. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 John, I have a question: is it correct that both the Panther and the Tiger I were able to pivot in place by accelerating one track while reversing the other? I think I read something like that somewhere and that the Pz III/IV series were not able to do this. IIRC the drivers were instructed not to pivot in place using this technique since it puts a great strain on the suspension. Can you confirm this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brightblade Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Is that enough of a proof? In English about: Pivoting on the spot: Select gear 1 - 3 pedal the clutch turn steering wheel left or right press big button on the change speed gearbox 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louie the Toad Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Awhile back I had asked a similar question about turning, whether it was faster to rotate and move off or to move forward and circle around. IIRC circling was faster. BUT I believe the test may have been done in BO. BB's waypoint delay could certainly be a deciding factor. I suggest a search using 'circling' and or 'rotating'. Doe si doe... Toad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claus B Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: But that leaves a total of zero types of vehicle you have yet mentioned that cannot steer by braking one track and drive the other. All the best, John. Depends on your definition of "braking". It could be argued that no WWII US tank could "brake" a track, as applying the steering lever did not brake the track but instead result in gearing down the inner track, transferring more power to the outer track. Also, the track could not be braked to a standstill. Claus B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: Also, Mr. Picky advises that you missed the fourth method of steering, namely track-warping (found AFAIK only in combination with differential-and-brake transmission). All the best, John. There is a fifth method of steering, which involves having another tank push your tank into the desired facing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 The Tiger can certainly neutral steer (run one track forwards and the other backwards) that is, unless all the grogs on this board are great big liars. Tracked diggers (which I have driven) can do that too, but I was told not too unless I wanted to refit the track that I would throw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by Claus B: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt: But that leaves a total of zero types of vehicle you have yet mentioned that cannot steer by braking one track and drive the other. All the best, John. Depends on your definition of "braking". It could be argued that no WWII US tank could "brake" a track, as applying the steering lever did not brake the track but instead result in gearing down the inner track, transferring more power to the outer track. Also, the track could not be braked to a standstill. Claus B </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claus B Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: OK, let's say "by slowing one track and speeding up the other", if you prefer. It is quite normal to refer to reducing gear as "engine braking" in the UK, though; and Chamberlain and Ellis describe driving the Sherman in the following terms: "The vehicle was steered by means of levers, which operated steering brakes in the differential housing. Braking was effected by pulling back both steering brakes at once." (AFV Profile no. 29, M4 Medium (Sherman), Profile Publications, Windsor, 1971). I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the track could not be braked to a standstill. How do you stop a Sherman otherwise? Intriguing isn't it The fact is, that the Shermans has one brake and one brake only (well, one on each side of the differential). And that is the steering brake. However, the speed reduction induced by applying the steering brake is sufficient to stop the tank if both levers are applied. If you could actually brake a track to a standstill, you should also be able to pivot steer the tank over the braked track - but as I think we agree, that was not possible with the Sherman. Originally posted by John D Salt: Hunnicutt gives the minimum turning radius of the M3 and M4 as 62 feet (70 feet for the M3A4, M4A4 and M4A6, 74 feet for "Jumbo"), which I imagine must be measured according to a different convention from that used in AFV profile no. 11 on the M3 Medium, which gives a turning radius of 37 feet (39 feet for the M3A4).Actually, Hunnicutt gives minimum turning circle (diameter). Which probably explains it Claus B [ February 17, 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Claus B ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rother Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Claus B: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt: OK, let's say "by slowing one track and speeding up the other", if you prefer. It is quite normal to refer to reducing gear as "engine braking" in the UK, though; and Chamberlain and Ellis describe driving the Sherman in the following terms: "The vehicle was steered by means of levers, which operated steering brakes in the differential housing. Braking was effected by pulling back both steering brakes at once." (AFV Profile no. 29, M4 Medium (Sherman), Profile Publications, Windsor, 1971). I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the track could not be braked to a standstill. How do you stop a Sherman otherwise? Intriguing isn't it The fact is, that the Shermans has one brake and one brake only (well, one on each side of the differential). And that is the steering brake. However, the speed reduction induced by applying the steering brake is sufficient to stop the tank if both levers are applied. If you could actually brake a track to a standstill, you should also be able to pivot steer the tank over the braked track - but as I think we agree, that was not possible with the Sherman. Claus B </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claus B Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Rother: Braking one track isn't a pivot steer. It's a skid steer. To pivot steer you must reverse a track. There's a huge difference. Yes there is. But you got it wrong. "Skid steering" is the means by which nearly every AFV turns at all. However, many AFVs have the ability to turn in place, but by different means. What you refer to as "pivot steer" is, in my book, "neutral steering". Which is what happens when you can put the vehicle in neutral but still have the ability to turn the tracks, albeit in opposite directions and thus turn the tank in place. What I would call pivot steering is when you turn the tank in place by turning over (i.e. pivoting around) a braked track, something that is possible with clutch-and-brake systems (but not with a geared differential like that used in WWII US AFVs). Claus B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Pusher Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I dont wish to intrude into this fascinating discussion on tank steering, but to return to the original subject, I would just like to point out that the times quited to turn 180 degrees in a Kübelwagen are way too long. This is a small car (think old style VW Beetle with the top cut off). Fom a standing start with the engine running I would guess no more than 5-10 seconds and probably faster. Certainly faster than a truck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Claus B: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rother: Braking one track isn't a pivot steer. It's a skid steer. [snips] Yes there is. But you got it wrong. [snips] What you refer to as "pivot steer" is, in my book, "neutral steering". </font> 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.