Claus B Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: This may be so in your book, but, as I have already pointed out on this forum, "pivot turn" and "neutral turn" are given as synonymous in no less a book than R. M. Ogorkowiecz' "Armour". Well, then by all means call it a neutral turn a pivot turn. The point is, that there are two ways of turning a tank on the spot as I described. And it is "skid steering" regardless of whether you do it one way or the other, even if Ogorkiewicz is not quite consistent in the use of the term. Claus B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Gentlemen, According to Jentz, the Panther indeed is capable of utilizing a zero radius turn due to the advanced nature of its transmission. To the nit-pickers and those whose minds cannot adapt to different terminology to describe the same physical action, a "zero-radius turn" means it pivots in place. One track goes forward, the other reverses. Much better than -the other- method. Imagine you've picked a beautiful tactical location. Do you want to rotate in place to face the enemy, or use -the other- method, with whatever turning radius (on the order of 10's of meters), to change facing? -The other- method will force you to displace your position. Plus, you must accelerate the mass of the tank through a distance, following an arc, then stop. This takes time. Now, there can be several techniques used to achieve -the other- turning method. Warping, differential transmission, differential braking, etc. All involve the inner track moving less than the outer track. This is fundamentally different than the inner track going in the opposite direction of the outer track, and geared in such a manner so that the tracks move at the same rate. Dispute as necessary. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claus B Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by c3k: According to Jentz, the Panther indeed is capable of utilizing a zero radius turn due to the advanced nature of its transmission. To the nit-pickers and those whose minds cannot adapt to different terminology to describe the same physical action, a "zero-radius turn" means it pivots in place. One track goes forward, the other reverses. Much better than -the other- method.Technically, the Panther could use both methods But since you mentioned it.... The Panther used a more advanced (or perhaps more correctly - a smarter and more elegant) version of the Pz 38(t) steering which added the ability to turn in place. By application of a steering brake, one track was slowed down and the tank would turn, the radius of the turn being dependant on the gear choosen. That system is not really different from that found in most British tanks of the mid- to late war period. However, the Panther also had the ability to do clutch-and-brake turns, allegedly because the smallest turning radius was considered too big. The British, on the other hand, seems to have accepted the one-radius provided and did not add a clutch-and-brake system. My question is, why did the Germans opt for the additional clutch-and-brake system which is both ineffective and very hard on the mecanical parts (particularily a problem with the Panther due to weakly constructed final drives)? German over-engineering? British pragmatism? Claus B [ February 19, 2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Claus B ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 The record of German war production pretty much answers this one. One of their biggest failings wasn't that what they produced wasn't clever it was that it was too clever. The quest for the ultimate weapon seemed to make them lose sight of the value of having a ton of good systems rather than a handful of wonderful ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Originally posted by Claus B: I had always assumed that the ability to clutch/break turn was an attempt to "retain" the ability for multiple turn radius per gear as found in the Tigers double radius steering but at a "cheaper" price. But you're right in pointing out that it's an unuasual feature to have when Pz Regt report the that drivers with the new "short technical training" are unequal to the task of babysitting the final drive during the "muddy" season. (I.abteliung/Pz regt 2. 20 Oct 1943). [ February 19, 2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Originally posted by Claus B: [snips] That system is not really different from that found in most British tanks of the mid- to late war period. However, the Panther also had the ability to do clutch-and-brake turns, allegedly because the smallest turning radius was considered too big. The British, on the other hand, seems to have accepted the one-radius provided and did not add a clutch-and-brake system. I assume that the "British tanks of the mid-to-late war period" you are talking about are Crusaders (which used a geared differential transmission). Churchill, Centaur, Cromwell, Challenger, Comet and Centurion all have the Merrit-Brown system, rather superior to the Panther's, with an infinite number of turning radii right down to zero. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claus B Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: I assume that the "British tanks of the mid-to-late war period" you are talking about are Crusaders (which used a geared differential transmission). Churchill, Centaur, Cromwell, Challenger, Comet and Centurion all have the Merrit-Brown system, rather superior to the Panther's, with an infinite number of turning radii right down to zero.No, I did not mean the Crusaders, but the Churchill etc. And while different from that of the Panther, the Merrit-Brown did not have "infinite number of turning radii", it had as many as it had forward propulsion gears - four - and the ability to do a neutral turn. In that respect it was the same as the Panther. As the Service Instruction Book says: "The ratio between the speeds of the two tracks when steering is determined by the change gear engaged. This is obvious when it is borne in mind that for a given engine speed the sun wheels remain at constand speed but the annulus speed is dependent on the gear engaged. The effect of this is to give four turning radii in the forward direction plus a pivot turn in neutral." The four turning radii were (in meters): 1st gear: 2.70 2nd gear: 7.68 3rd gear: 13.69 4th gear: 21.6 For the Panther they were: 1st gear: 5 2nd gear: 11 3rd gear: 18 4th gear: 30 5th gear: 43 6th gear: 61 7th gear: 80 "Infinite turning radii" would only be possible with a hydraulic steering drive (akin to what was found in the French Char B1/B1-bis) or with some kind of electrical drive. As Bastables wrote, the clutch-and-brake addition on the Panther was probably made to compensate for having only one steering radius (pr. gear). The question remains why this was thought necessary when the British made do without an additional clutch-and-brake system all the way up to the Centurion (and beyond?)? Wonder if there is a rational explanation, or whether it simply came about as a product of the somewhat chaotic development of the Panther? Claus B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Look chaps the main question is are the times too long in the game? I have been watching you lot show off your man hoods by displaying your vast knowledge and while interesting I would like to know your views on the question above. In the real world would it take as long as the tests have shown? H 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Thank god this discussion has been brought back to focus on what is relevant to the game we know as CMBB. I too feel that the incredibly slow rate at which a Panther and Tiger can rotate unfairly penalises these 2 AFV's in particular when we know that they had quite effective neutral steer systems. Try getting a Panther to rotate 180 degrees in scattered trees and you might as well put the kettle on, stroll down to the corner shop to pick up a paper and by the time you get back it may have finished its rotation. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgian Dubh Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 I would like to refine the point of this discussion a bit (and keep it on the front page in the hopes that someone 'in the know' will weigh in how/why it is modeled this way and what (if anything) might be done about it. So the questions are: Are the rates-of-turning for some/all vehicles too long? Are there sufficient parameters being modeled in CMBB to allow for the kinds of differentiation being described in this thread? If the answer to the first two questions is yes, then the final question is: Will BFC fix it or do somefink? If BFC's answer to either of the first two questions is 'No.", then please allow the thread to wander off-track into the minutiae of details which have side-tracked this issue once already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Want to talk about unrealistically slow turning rates? Try to turn an assault boat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but don't the German half-tracks throw a monkey wrench into the debate? I undstand they were a real dog to maneuver. I'm not entirely certain that they could brake-steer like a tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 ......BUMP...... In the hope that BFC may shed some light on this issue. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but don't the German half-tracks throw a monkey wrench into the debate? I undstand they were a real dog to maneuver. I'm not entirely certain that they could brake-steer like a tank. No because the 251/250s tracks would brake-steer. A search would show the actual angles that locking up of the track would occur. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: . Try getting a Panther to rotate 180 degrees in scattered trees Regards Jim R. Half of your problem is right there. I remember a statement by BTS on CMBO that long-gun armed tanks would receive greater rotation time penalties in/near "trees". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 This isn't the thread I was looking for, but the video is highly topical. Just watch this Panther turn in its own length and completely reverse direction. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 And of course, that is a simple brake the left track and use the right to pivot turn. Easy, plenty quick, and nothing overly involved mechanically. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 So..... according to that video CMBB is waaayyyyyy off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 This is an interesting video of a StuG III and Leopard 2 mobility being compared: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 How many of you noticed that the Panther is fitted with real or mocked up IR night fighting gear? Sergei, That was interesting, as in interesting weird and interesting surreal. That long VO passage after the Finnish StuG III/G pulled forward strongly reminded me of my dyed in the wool Catholic days back when the mass was in Latin and the priest's back was to the congregation, times when the priest would interminably intone some l-o-n-g prayer which I firmly hoped would end, so I could deliver my responsorial. Wonder how many people went to sleep on their feet at the military show during that exegesis? That a Leo II could run rings around the StuG didn't surprise me, though it did show off the Leo II's maneuverability and its superb gun stabilization, given the extreme angular requirements caused by being so close as it circled. Also, I thought the low throatiness of the big cat was most impressive. Regards, John Kettler [ April 21, 2007, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted April 21, 2007 Author Share Posted April 21, 2007 Originally posted by John Kettler: How many of you noticed that the Panther is fitted with real or mocked up IR night fighting gear?Me. I've actually seen that Panther moving in Koblenz, together with Warphead, Lindan & co... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 Folks I know I'm known to be a CMx1 basher, which is really not true However, even when CMBB was released, you could see the Tiger 1 turn in place, in mud, twice as fast as the CMBB one, on a street, on history channel. Every week. Every week where we CM players had our Tigers taken out by sluggish Shermans going around their side, out-running the unrealistically slow turn of the Tiger. I bet there's a utube version of that somewhere, now that the history channel is the UFO and conspiracy theory channel. BFC improved some of the more obvious nonsense in CMAK, vehicles turn faster, don't bog as often etc. but it still doesn't come close to realistic rates. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 ParaBellum, Lucky you lot! Redwolf, I keep hoping that the eventual release of CMC will lead to a patch for at least the worst of CMBB's known problems, seeing as how CMC would presumably lead to a the return of former CMBB players and the arrival of new ones. This, to my mind, creates a valid justification for patching an obviously older game. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket-Man Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 The turn rate of all CM vehicles is an order of magnitude too slow. Take the numbers from the first post in this thread and divide them by 10 and you would have much more reasonable turn rates. 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.