Bad Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 its going slower then shermans.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneaksie Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 In field? Wheeled are slower in game than tracked outside the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted May 14, 2007 Author Share Posted May 14, 2007 odd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platoon Crusher Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 No not odd. It is actually realistic. The wheeled vehicles shine on the roads, cross country they are not as quick. This is particularly why I love 1/2 tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted May 15, 2007 Author Share Posted May 15, 2007 Originally posted by Platoon Crusher: No not odd. It is actually realistic. The wheeled vehicles shine on the roads, cross country they are not as quick. This is particularly why I love 1/2 tracks. actuly its made of offroad, therefor it should be faster still Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeboy Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 the eight wheel drive armored cars were awesome off rode, one more for the patch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 The M8 was not an eight wheeled car, and it doesn't take long to check up on its off-road performance: However cavalry units criticized its off-road performance. In the mountainous terrain of Italy and in the deep mud and snow of North European winter the Greyhound was more or less restricted to roads, which reduced its value as a reconnaissance vehicle. - according to its wikipedia entry. Oh and for good measure, here is another: . The M2 [sic] offered less than desirable mobility cross-country. Mobility was limited in heavily wooded areas and on broken terrain. A large turning radius and limited mobility across country made the M8 armored car susceptible to ambush on roads and in defiles. Performance on hard surfaces was exceptional, the M8's off-road performance in mud, snow or mountain terrain was disappointing. Under these adverse conditions, the Cavalry Recon would often employ the war winning Jeep instead of the 'Greyhound'. (edit to add: 'm2' above is meant to be M8 - the previous sentence refered to the 'm2 mg' and the writer got confused) Perhaps you'd better check before you post next time. [ May 17, 2007, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: Sivodsi ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted May 15, 2007 Author Share Posted May 15, 2007 Originally posted by Sivodsi: The M6 was not an eight wheeled car, and it doesn't take long to check up on its off-road performance: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />However cavalry units criticized its off-road performance. In the mountainous terrain of Italy and in the deep mud and snow of North European winter the Greyhound was more or less restricted to roads, which reduced its value as a reconnaissance vehicle. - according to its wikipedia entry. Oh and for good measure, here is another: . The M2 offered less than desirable mobility cross-country. Mobility was limited in heavily wooded areas and on broken terrain. A large turning radius and limited mobility across country made the M8 armored car susceptible to ambush on roads and in defiles. Performance on hard surfaces was exceptional, the M8's off-road performance in mud, snow or mountain terrain was disappointing. Under these adverse conditions, the Cavalry Recon would often employ the war winning Jeep instead of the 'Greyhound'. Perhaps you'd better check before you post next time. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 He's not being rude. You say 'bug' where even a basic google would've prevented you from doing so. Sivodsi's advice (and I read it as no more then that) is entirely justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeboy Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Note, we did note say M2 8 we said armored cars, the G cars did do well as I recall, of course no first hand Knowledge... I did not wiki them, perhaps someone will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platoon Crusher Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I agree that the German 8 wheeled AC's were much more agile than most AC's of the time. They were the most advanced AC's in the world. You know 8 wheel drive doesn't just sound nice, it is nice! I think the main problem with most AC's is that they are set up like trucks with only 2 steeable wheels. The German ones had all wheels steerable to my knowledge. Front ones would turn if the driver was in the front seat and rear would steer if the driver was in the rear facing driver seat. They could go equally well in either direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Platoon Crusher, You're half right on the 8 rad ACs. There were two drivers, one facing front, the other rear. This made breaking contact swift and relatively simple. The basic design was so good that a modern version, called the Luchs, was built. My brother was in Scouts during the 80s on Bradley CFVs, and he and his buddies would gladly have swapped their huge noisy Bradleys for the smaller, quiet, fast, front and rear driver equipped Luchs. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Originally posted by Bad: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sivodsi: Perhaps you'd better check before you post next time. dont be rude </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted May 17, 2007 Author Share Posted May 17, 2007 Originally posted by Sivodsi: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bad: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sivodsi: Perhaps you'd better check before you post next time. dont be rude </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 So its not a deal. Oh well, I tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jippo Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I think you did really try. Unfortunately to no avail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platoon Crusher Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Thx John, I didn't realise there were actually 2 drivers. I did know about the 2 driver positions though. Do you know if it was still used in the Puma? or the 234/4 (w 75mm pak)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Originally posted by Freeboy: Note, we did note say M2 8 we said armored cars, the G cars did do well as I recall, of course no first hand Knowledge... I did not wiki them, perhaps someone will why dont you go ahead and enter whatever you want into wiki yourself. ...wiki as the penultimate judgement...this is what we have come to.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Sivodsi and Moon are more than right, and IMO rather polite about it . Its just plain rude to run around shouting the big B-word, the worst judgement you can bring about an aspect of a game (which is a commercial enterprise), when all the commotion is really due to your own deficiencies re. most basic facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Platoon Crusher, From what spotty info I have, and it doesn't help that Achtung Panzer only partially works, the Puma does have a 4 man crew (Von Senger und Etterlin, GERMAN TANKS, data tables), but finding details on the other models is harder. This is helpful, though, and confirms the rear driver scenario for the fully crewed 8 Rad ACs. http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/reach/175/sdkfz234.htm Note that this isn't a new capability, as seen at the bottom of the intel report here for the earlier Sd Kfz 231 series. http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/eight-wheeled-armored-cars.html Jackpot! Four man crews in both 234/2 (Puma) and 234/4 variants. http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/armored-cars/sdKfz-234.asp Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platoon Crusher Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Thx again John! I really enjoyed the read. If you look close at some of the excellent photos you can see the vision slits at the rear of the hulls for the rear driver position. 6 forward and 6 reverse gears and a speed of 50 mph (top speed on road) in either direction. Engineering marvels for thier time I think. One of the links say they go at 19 mph cross country. I assume that is an average speed. Again Thx for the links I enjoyed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Originally posted by Platoon Crusher: Thx again John! I really enjoyed the read. If you look close at some of the excellent photos you can see the vision slits at the rear of the hulls for the rear driver position. 6 forward and 6 reverse gears and a speed of 50 mph (top speed on road) in either direction. Engineering marvels for thier time I think. ...or overengineered expensive luxury toys, which would be another way to look at them One of the links say they go at 19 mph cross country. I assume that is an average speed. ...and doesnt take into account the extra "ivan is right behind my ass" pucker factor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts