Toad Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 It occured to me today that I don't know why German turrets are slow. Why are German turrets slow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 Not being a German armor fan I can not be 100% but I believe most German turrets were manually turn. Most US tank turrets were hydraulic (maybe electric) so therefore easier to turn. Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toad Posted December 7, 2002 Author Share Posted December 7, 2002 I know that the Tiger's turret was motor-driven, so I assume this was also used on other German tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 The Tiger's turret is too heavy for its drive, it was very slow in reality. The Pz IV except the latest are driven by a nice electrical system which happens not to be as good as the Sherman's one, so it appears medium by comparision. The Panther had a variable system, it was driven by the main engine. To turn fast the driver had to put up RPMS. BTS just gave it a slow because the engine cannot handle variable speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevsharr Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 According to Speilberger's book on the Panther it had a hydraulic drive that operated independent of engine rpm and would take 60 second's for a full rotation.I believe the Pzkw IV also used hydraulic's until the J version where the drive was removed and extra fuel storage was incorporated to increase range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: The Tiger's turret is too heavy for its drive, it was very slow in reality. The Pz IV except the latest are driven by a nice electrical system which happens not to be as good as the Sherman's one, so it appears medium by comparision. The Panther had a variable system, it was driven by the main engine. To turn fast the driver had to put up RPMS. BTS just gave it a slow because the engine cannot handle variable speeds.Why didnt they just make it medium then? Assuming they reved the engine alot when needed of course why not make it just fast? If my assumptions are wrong then nevermind, hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 Originally posted by Gaylord Focker: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf: The Tiger's turret is too heavy for its drive, it was very slow in reality. The Pz IV except the latest are driven by a nice electrical system which happens not to be as good as the Sherman's one, so it appears medium by comparision. The Panther had a variable system, it was driven by the main engine. To turn fast the driver had to put up RPMS. BTS just gave it a slow because the engine cannot handle variable speeds.Why didnt they just make it medium then? Assuming they reved the engine alot when needed of course why not make it just fast? If my assumptions are wrong then nevermind, hehe.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brightblade Posted December 8, 2002 Share Posted December 8, 2002 If it took really 60 sec for a Panther´s turret full rotation, we should be thankful that it´s only "slow" in CMBO. I tested the turret speeds of different vehicles some time ago. IIRC "fast" is 7 sec for 180°, "medium" is 13 sec for 180°, "slow" is 22 sec for 180° and "very slow" (Tiger only) is 30 sec for 180°. In the meantime I can live with the slow turrets for tanks, but I can´t understand why the turrets of Pumas and especially of 234/1 are rated "slow". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reinald@berlin.com Posted December 8, 2002 Share Posted December 8, 2002 Cause the Puma's turret was also traversed by hand. -> http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/sdKfz234.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJungnitsch Posted December 9, 2002 Share Posted December 9, 2002 Originally posted by Brightblade: If it took really 60 sec for a Panther´s turret full rotation, we should be thankful that it´s only "slow" in CMBO. I tested the turret speeds of different vehicles some time ago. IIRC "fast" is 7 sec for 180°, "medium" is 13 sec for 180°, "slow" is 22 sec for 180° and "very slow" (Tiger only) is 30 sec for 180°.Only the very first Panthers (D series) had the slow independent turret traverse. The later ones all had a variable speed traverse turret that gave 9 sec/180 at 2500 rpm engine speed. The US army measured a captured Tiger II at 9sec/180 at 2000 rpm, so it was even slightly faster. Being as these engines are meant to be kept at 1800 to 2000 rpm while the tank is moving, giving the Panthers and Tiger II's "slow" turrets has always been a bit controversial. Tiger I is spot on the mark though, and the late PzIV's (J series) was also slow, due to deletion of the electric turret traverse from lack of copper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 9, 2002 Share Posted December 9, 2002 Also worth noting that the Pz IV turret was often voluntarily operated by hand because it gave better accuracy without readjusting before a shot. That may be a big factor in making it fully manual in the last versions, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brightblade Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 Originally posted by reinald@berlin.com: Cause the Puma's turret was also traversed by hand. That´s no reason for being slow. Those turrets were much lighter than tank turrets, so the handwheels could be higher geared. I was told that some turrets which had to be traversed by hand had even two gears, one to bring the gun in generally right direction and one to aim precisely. So I think your argument is not satisfactory. Do you have any information about traversing time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reinald@berlin.com Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 I do think my argument is satisfactory cause a 5cm AT gun's weight was some 900+ kg. Now try to traverse that plus a turret quickly - by hand that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brightblade Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 That weight argument doesn´t really count. Those few hundered kilograms may sound a lot, but compared to real tank turrets it´s next to nothing. I don´t know the weight of a Puma´s turret, but as it lacked some real armor, it was certainly much lighter than any tank turret the German army used (aside maybe from the MG turrets of PzI). The turret of the 234/1 was even lighter, as it was open topped and it had a lighter gun. A heavy turret needs a low transmission (hope that´s the right term) to enable lightgoing handwheels. Lighter turrets will do with a much higher transmission, so they should be able to be turned faster. [ December 14, 2002, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Brightblade ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reinald@berlin.com Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 Hmm, good point. I dunno from here on. Given all that I agree it should at least be a tad quicker traversed than a hand-crancked medium tank like the Panther. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 I once operated the hand-cranked traverse of a quad 40mm mount on the USS Alabama. It was both fast and easy to turn, as you might expect from an AA mount. I don't know what it weighed, but it was probably roughly equivalent to a heavy AC turret or a light tank. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[UF]fridericus Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 i think, the programmers made this game with slow german turrets only for balance of forces, because there is no real reason given by reality for slowing them down. another fact for game-balance is, that the tanks dont hit with first shot at 1000m. if that would be so, the armor of esp. panther or tiger 1 were helpful. in reality, you have at 1000m a hitchance of around 99% with green-units, at 2000m nearly every shot of regular units hits his target. so the 88-FlaK had a hitchance of around 60% at 4000m. "it`s ronson`s day" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 Originally posted by [uF]fridericus: i think, the programmers made this game with slow german turrets only for balance of forces, because there is no real reason given by reality for slowing them down. another fact for game-balance is, that the tanks dont hit with first shot at 1000m. if that would be so, the armor of esp. panther or tiger 1 were helpful. in reality, you have at 1000m a hitchance of around 99% with green-units, at 2000m nearly every shot of regular units hits his target. so the 88-FlaK had a hitchance of around 60% at 4000m. "it`s ronson`s day"Nope, BTS never sacrificed historical reality for gameplay in either CM title. An example to prove this would be the Sherman Jumbo. In the first couple versions it had much thicker armor than in 1.12. When research proved that CM was not matching up with reality, BTS took the time and effort to change the Jumbo, even though this made the game less balanced since it cost the allies one of their two ubertanks. Can you give a source to back up your claim that tanks in WWII nearly always hit their target at 1000m? Again, BTS is trying to be realistic here. Michael, now that you mention it I remember cranking a quad-40 turret on the USS North Carolina when I was about 9. Even then I could move the thing, but not very fast. Of course, on a battleship you have plenty of room to add counterweights and redesign the turret so it is balanced and cranks easier, while a tank turret is much more limited in its design. [ December 20, 2002, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: 109 Gustav ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brightblade Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 Don´t mistake that, I really love CMBO (not so sure about CMBB yet), but German hit chances are far below realistic values (don´t know about Allies, but I guess their hit chances should be higher too, while their penetration (for 76mm at least) should be lower). Tank crews in WWII didn´t simply aim at an enemy tank, they aimed for known weakpoints. All right, maybe they didn´t score with the first shot, but usually the second scored, and if not then definitely the third. If on shot scored and didn´t knock out the enemy, the following shots would hit. Why does any shot have more or less the same hit chance (I know, hit chance increases slowly after a few shots, but that´s far from realistic)? You asked for some source? Well, how about that: According to Jentz (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.): "These accuracy tables are based on the assumptions that the actual range to the target has been correctly determined and that the distribution of hits is centered on the aiming point. The first column shows the accuracy obtained during controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion. The figures in the second column include the variation expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunition and gunners. These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first hit was much lower than shown in these tables. However, the average, calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown in the second column". Accuracy: Gun 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 Ammunition Pzgr. 39 ___Pzgr. 40 ___Gr.39 HL Range _500 m ___100 (100) __100 (100) __100 (98) 1000 m ___100 _(93) ___99 _(80) ___94 (62) 1500 m ____98 _(74) ___89 _(52) ___72 (34) 2000 m ____87 _(50) ___71 _(31) ___52 (20) 2500 m ____71 _(31) ___55 _(19) 3000 m ____53 _(19) Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6 Accuracy of the 88 mm KwK 43 L/71: Range: ___________Ammunition: _________PzGr. 39/43 ____PzGr. 40/43 _______Practice Combat Practice Combat _100m ___100 __100 ____100 ____100 _500m ___100 __100 ____100 ____100 1000m ___100 ___85 ____100 _____89 1500m ____95 ___61 _____97 _____66 2000m ____85 ___43 _____89 _____47 2500m ____74 ___30 _____78 _____34 3000m ____61 ___23 _____66 _____25 3500m ____51 ___17 _____ - _____ - 4000m ____42 ___13 _____ - _____ - Source: JENTZ, Thomas L.; Kingtiger Heavy Tank: 1942 - 1945; ISBN 185532 282 X The Armor Site [ December 20, 2002, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Brightblade ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 The zeroing in (raising hit probablity for several shots in a row) happens only when neither the shooter nor the target move one bit. If the target retreats a single meter it is reset to the original hit probablity. Also, targetting a second tank directly besides the previous one does not use the zeroing in from the previous one. That was for CMBO. I noticed CMBB does some fancy stuff at least for zeroing in for areas. Not sure what movement does, I didn't run real tests so far. Not sure I will. Volunteers welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brightblade Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 It´s one thing if shooter or target move a bit, but if both stay on the spot, the first shot ricochets and two or three others miss, that´s absolutely unrealistic. After a hit, the gunner will try to hit something vulnerable, but he will continue to hit, no matter of the hit chances for the first shot (well, a little dispersion exists of course, but with the long barreled German guns, that´s not really a factor up to 1000m, especially for the heavy projectiles of a 88). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 You're assuming that the gunner knows where his shots are landing, and that he knows whether they are hitting their target. It's going to be very hard to see where a shell is impacting from 1000m away, especially with smoke and dust churned up by the enemy tank. In addition, tanks had to estimate the range precisley or they would miss for sure, and WWII era rangefinders were nowhere near as good as the ones today. Again, very difficult to do under combat conditions. I agree that the 88mm is undermodeled in CMBO, but only because optics are modeled. But there's already a thread going on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brightblade Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 Originally posted by 109 Gustav: You're assuming that the gunner knows where his shots are landing, and that he knows whether they are hitting their target. It's going to be very hard to see where a shell is impacting from 1000m away, especially with smoke and dust churned up by the enemy tank. That´s why the gunners were trained to better aim short if they were not sure. It´s much easier to watch the impact in front of the target. Take a look at the Tigerfibel or the Pantherfibel. They were quite good at estimating ranges (simply by experience and using stadiametrics). These estimations didn´t have to be too accurate (but usually they were). If the first shot missed, the gunner simply adjusted his aim ("Haltepunkt") and shot again. These second shots were very accurate, as Jentz says in the text I included before. In the Tigerfibel they say that the trajectory of the gun was so flat that when the sights were at 1000m, any target of at least 2m height between 0 and 1000m would be hit. Not necessarily destroyed by the first shot, that´s something completely different, but if you hit the target, it´s much easier to adjust the aim. The Panther`s trajectory was even shallower, so it was even easier to hit. At 500m or less it was nearly impossible to miss with any long barreled gun. Theoretically the loader could have aimed at those distances by looking through the barrel before he shoved in the shell. The projectile weight of a 88 is what made it so accurate (and the long barrel of course). Any 88 had very little dispersion, and that´s why 88 Flak were used in North Africa to knock out pillboxes at 4000m or more by aiming at the fire slits. [ December 20, 2002, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Brightblade ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts