Michael Dorosh Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 No explanation necessary - I appreciate the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeP Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Radovan should reply to your post soon enough, he should be active. I hope he knows what his sources are, otherwise all the JP forum members will have to start browsing through their literature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Nah, not there to make trouble, just curious. If he doesn't have the source, I won't mention it there again. It's the first I've heard about turning radius though so I'm really genuinely interested in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Of these, what kind of steering did the Sherman have? Info is sparse. From what I can gather the Sherman had a Cletrac type system. The listed differences of turning circle between the Sherman and T34\Panther etc. is incredible - makes you wonder how they steered through those tight Normandy villages! This site lists turning circle as 19m and lists this as it's source(!): Panzer Truppen The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1943-1945, Thomas L. Jentz, 1996 although I suspect they mean this: British and American Tanks of World War Two, The Complete Illustrated History of British, American, and Commonwealth Tanks 1933-1945, Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, 1969 I will check this one when I get home. [ August 16, 2006, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Melnibone ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Thanks Melnibone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 not saying it is THE TRUTH, but just as a heads up this is from the official US Army CSOI 1944 (courtesy of RMC): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 British and American Tanks of World War Two, The Complete Illustrated History of British, American, and Commonwealth Tanks 1933-1945, Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, 1969 - Contains absolutely no info on turning circles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: not saying it is THE TRUTH, but just as a heads up this is from the official US Army CSOI 1944 Thanks for that - that seem a much more "believable" figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Apprently the Mark 1 Tank from WW1 had a turning circle of 18m - which was a real pain - well it would be! I do not believe the Sherman was worse than the first ever tank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim crowley Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 From "Panzerkampfwagen" by Ellis & Doyle Argus 1976: Min. Turning circles Pzkw I A&B: 2.1m " II F : 4.8m " III M : 5.85m " IV D&G: 5.92m " 38t: 4.54m " 35t: 4.88m Panther G : 10.0m Tiger B : 4.8m Hughes & Mann "The Panther Tank" Weapons Of War 2000 agree on 10m for the Panther G and give: T34-76A : 3.8m Sherman M4 : 9.5m Cromwell MkV : in place However in the same series, Ford in "The Sherman Tank" gives: Panther G : 4.35m There is not a lot of info. on this generally available and I have seen nothing relating to how fast these turns could be carried out - something I always thought was a bit on the slow side, in many cases, in CM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 That's more like it for the Sherman - thanks Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 9.5m = 31ft so the US Army Ordnance listing matches Hughes & Mann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Originally posted by jim crowley: From "Panzerkampfwagen" by Ellis & Doyle Argus 1976: Min. Turning circles Pzkw I A&B: 2.1m " II F : 4.8m " III M : 5.85m " IV D&G: 5.92m " 38t: 4.54m " 35t: 4.88m Panther G : 10.0m Tiger B : 4.8m Hughes & Mann "The Panther Tank" Weapons Of War 2000 agree on 10m for the Panther G and give: T34-76A : 3.8m Sherman M4 : 9.5m Cromwell MkV : in place However in the same series, Ford in "The Sherman Tank" gives: Panther G : 4.35m There is not a lot of info. on this generally available and I have seen nothing relating to how fast these turns could be carried out - something I always thought was a bit on the slow side, in many cases, in CM Tiger "B"? Thanks for the replies and info, all - very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Tiger "B"?OMG! -2 grog points for you! Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B "Tiger" is more commonly known as the Tiger II, Royal Tiger, Koenigstiger. Tiger I was the ausf. E. Yes, they did that just to confuse wargamers 60 years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 You mean minus two points - I suspected "KT" but haven't had my morning cup of tea yet. Then again, since I'm off caffeine, I doubt it would have helped any. Two points "plus" for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: You mean minus two points - I suspected "KT" but haven't had my morning cup of tea yet. Then again, since I'm off caffeine, I doubt it would have helped any. Two points "plus" for you! Ha! Suspecting KT is not nearly enough. You have to know! Hmm. Makes me think ToW won't have misidentified units like CM does. If you see a Tiger, it's a Tiger not a PzIV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Originally posted by RMC: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: You mean minus two points - I suspected "KT" but haven't had my morning cup of tea yet. Then again, since I'm off caffeine, I doubt it would have helped any. Two points "plus" for you! Ha! Suspecting KT is not nearly enough. You have to know! Hmm. Makes me think ToW won't have misidentified units like CM does. If you see a Tiger, it's a Tiger not a PzIV. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 The game already has an adjustable realism setting. No reason FoW can't be a part of that just like in CM. FoW might have to be defaulted of Off so they kiddies don't get confusled, but as long as there's an option... Maybe down the road in the mystical expansion with mortars will include things like FoW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: You mean minus two points - I suspected "KT" but haven't had my morning cup of tea yet. Then again, since I'm off caffeine, I doubt it would have helped any. Two points "plus" for you! while we're at it... "KT" is another two grog points gone. "King Tiger" (or, to use hip gangsta street speak, "KT") is as ubiquitous as it is wrong. The word King Tiger furthermore does not exist in the woeful english language. My Webster goes from "king's yellow" right to "king tody". I am not familar with the canadian english but I assume it doesn't exist there, either (presumably there arent too many Tigers in canada to warrant developing own naming conventions for them). Panthera t. tigris (LInnaeus) in the only valid zoologic translation (since the german name for the Pz. VI Ausf. B or Tiger II "Königstiger" was, in line with german naming tradition, taken from the predator mammal of same name) is Bengal Tiger or Royal (Bengal) Tiger. not that this is a new finding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Yeah, that'd be a bummer, but we have to keep OBERSTRUMMBANNFUEHRERWHITTMANE and the like happy yes, them and their fetish for Übertanks, like the King tiger (I fully agree with you, the influx of such "customers" that are readily identifiable already by their nicknames is...uh... troubling... and not a healthy sign for the game. But then, you just need to look at what other titles 1C does, what their usual business is... 1C projects ... most distrubing is the huge numbers of really downright Sudden-Strike clones of the worst RTS kind like Stalingrad, World War I, Desert War, Cuban Missile Crisis...) :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimthane Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 What I want to know is, how they got away with making the M4 manage a whole 2 gallons/mile! Didn't they know there's a war on? I eagerly await the appropriate data to prove that a KT has mileage so bad that it cannot be expected to traverse a 2km x 2km map... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 KT had a cross-country range of about 120km so if it starts the scenario with a full tank (860 L), it should be good to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Originally posted by RMC: KT had a cross-country range of about 120km so if it starts the scenario with a full tank (860 L), it should be good to go. 120km...that is, if the engine doesnt overheat and the gearbox survives long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: 120km...that is, if the engine doesnt overheat and the gearbox survives long enough. Always with the negative waves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: and the gearbox survives long enough. Is this a reference to the 83rd Panzergrenadiers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts