PAK Ammo Carrier and small Tank movm. issue

[JG11Preusse]

hello,

i´d like to know if i can carry ammo from one pak (with much ammo left) to an other pak, which almost has low ammo ?

2. thing is, that i really like to see tanks beiing able to turn at normal speed. turning at the moment is much much to slow, beacause in real a tank can turn direction very fast and in this game it is only able to turn super slow.

[womble]

Nope, you can't carry ammo from one unit to another. If they're in the same lowest-level organisational element, and are within 16m of each other, they'll share, but I expect that's not much use.

Thing is, testimony from those that have driven tanks and other tracked equipment says otherwise. You have to be careful how you turn for various reasons, from throwing tracks to mangling your final drive. These are not tanks from Battlezone, and most of them, IIRC, can't actually turn by throwing one track into reverse with the other going forward; best they can do is brake the inside track.

[JG11Preusse]

in dangerous situation, especially when you aware that your sides are very vulnerable, you for sure can turn very fast, as i saw it in original documentation film showing at least pz4, panther and tiger.

the most early kanonenjagdpanzer (pre ww2) i saw with my own eyes driving in the field, while hovering in the training battlezone with my antitank helicopter.

due to this superslow turning abilities in cm, i lost some tanks because got hit at the side of the tank

[womble]

in dangerous situation, especially when you aware that your sides are very vulnerable, you for sure can turn very fast, as i saw it in original documentation film showing at least pz4, panther and tiger.

Documentation from where? Propaganda? My recollection is that, particularly the Panther, if you slewed fast you would be spending a week rebuilding the final drive. Fine for 'look how good the tanks you'll be fighting alongside' footage. Not so much when you're in action.

the most early kanonenjagdpanzer (pre ww2) i saw with my own eyes driving in the field, while hovering in the training battlezone with my antitank helicopter.

Personally, I'd not be surprised if rather lighter vehicles (as the pre ww2 examples would have been) have somewhat less trouble with their drives. It seems to be generally agreed that the drivetrain was one of the places that the kitties struggled, being underpowered and fragile.

[JG11Preusse]

propaganda ..... sure... they build some special tanks only for propaganda films and sent them to battle, so that more than 60 years later to help you with your argumentation.

sounds like you only want to provocate .... not worth to discuss with you.

you are personally not surprised ...uhhhhhh .. did you ever saw a kanonenjagdpanzer yourself ? i guess you never did, but you know everything about it in germany such people called "knallzeugen"... they never saw something, but they heard something and due to that they are sure to know everything.

btw.... kanonenjagdpanzer (early) was an advancement from jagdpanzer IV .... not from V and also not from VI and i guess it was not lighter with its 90mm maingun ....... the weight (mass) was 1.5 tonns more heavy, then the jagdpanz IV with its 24 tonns

[siffo998]

2. thing is, that i really like to see tanks beiing able to turn at normal speed. turning at the moment is much much to slow, beacause in real a tank can turn direction very fast and in this game it is only able to turn super slow.

hello preusse,

if you refer to the turning ability from tanks while driving, just set up additional waypoints (refinement of the waypoints when tank performs a turn around a corner). this way the turning process is much faster (like it would be in real life). If you set up your waypoints in a 90° angle or higher then the tank will stop and turn much slower. if you set up the waypoints more refined than the turning process for the ingame tanks will be just as in real life (here is a video of a restored panther from the german military museum for comparison, in my opinion the tanks ingame behave the same way:

).

if you are refering to the turning process of the tank while standing then... hm... actually the turning process of a standing tank isnt that fast...mostly because he lacks the thrust from the driving process.

[Narses]

Documentation from where? Propaganda? My recollection is that, particularly the Panther, if you slewed fast you would be spending a week rebuilding the final drive. Fine for 'look how good the tanks you'll be fighting alongside' footage. Not so much when you're in action.

Personally, I'd not be surprised if rather lighter vehicles (as the pre ww2 examples would have been) have somewhat less trouble with their drives. It seems to be generally agreed that the drivetrain was one of the places that the kitties struggled, being underpowered and fragile.

I think you're right on the Panther. It was designed as a much lighter panzer. In Jan 42 the final determination was for a pz of 36 tons. It ended up on the A version (most common in Normandy I think) at nearly 45 tons. The final drive and numerous other components were mostly not redesigned to accomodate that weight (added armor). I would expect crews would be extremely careful even under threat.

I don't see the point of comparing a modern tank (ok a kanjagdpz) with the WW2 tanks. I have seen most of the then modern German armor while stationed in Germany in the early 60s thru late 1979. although not running under stress. They were designed in peacetime and Im sure they were not compromised in design as the Panther was under severe wartime pressures.

[JG11Preusse]

I think you're right on the Panther. It was designed as a much lighter panzer. In Jan 42 the final determination was for a pz of 36 tons. It ended up on the A version (most common in Normandy I think) at nearly 45 tons. The final drive and numerous other components were mostly not redesigned to accomodate that weight (added armor). I would expect crews would be extremely careful even under threat.

I don't see the point of comparing a modern tank (ok a kanjagdpz) with the WW2 tanks. I have seen most of the then modern German armor while stationed in Germany in the early 60s thru late 1979. although not running under stress. They were designed in peacetime and Im sure they were not compromised in design as the Panther was under severe wartime pressures.

hello narses,

a kanonenjagdpanzer is not really a modern tank its a modiefied jagdpanzer IV with a 90mm gun and arround 1.7 tonns more heavy.

i most time talk about this tank, because i saw him in action with my own eyes, all other ww2 tanks i only saw in films or in a museum.

i sent an email to my former mate from german army aviation, because i know his grandpa still was alive 1 year ago and he was a tank kommander in ww2.

lets see what his point of view will be.

[siffo998]

a kanonenjagdpanzer is not really a modern tank its a modiefied jagdpanzer IV with a 90mm gun and arround 1.7 tonns more heavy.

i most time talk about this tank, because i saw him in action with my own eyes, all other ww2 tanks i only saw in films or in a museum.

actually according to wiki the kanonenjagdpanzer also uses a 500 PS (Horsepower) motor from daimler-benz while the jagdpanzer 4 has a 300 PS motor from maybach. according to this data the kanonenjagdpanzer is also modified in terms of motor efficiency and is not really comparable to a ww2 tank like the jpz 4 when it comes to perform fast turning maneuvers...

just for better comparison: the jgp4 uses 12.5 PS per ton and the kjp uses 19,5 PS per ton...

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanonenjagdpanzer (look at the box on the right at: "Antrieb")

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdpanzer_IV

[JG11Preusse]

actually according to wiki the kanonenjagdpanzer also uses a 500 PS (Horsepower) motor from daimler-benz while the jagdpanzer 4 has a 300 PS motor from maybach. according to this data the kanonenjagdpanzer is also modified in terms of motor efficiency and is not really comparable to a ww2 tank like the jpz 4 when it comes to perform fast turning maneuvers...

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanonenjagdpanzer (look at the box on the right under "Antrieb"

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdpanzer_IV

and you want to tell me what ? did you see a kanonenjagdpanzer in real ?

btw ... i talok about trurnspeed onloy and not not about other issues, or do you think engine -ps is the "can or can not turn fast " factor ?

maybe you also know the relationship between weight and "ps" ?

[siffo998]

i have posted the relationship between ps and weight just edited my post... at least according to the source !

actually it doesnt matter if you saw it in real because... according to your post you saw it from your helicopter and not even from ground level... and further on everybody can say: " i saw something so it must be like this"... but this way its not scientific and reproduceable at all...

i for myself posted a wiki link supported by sources at the end of the page... but you havent posted any sources that would prove your claim, apart from that what you have seen out of your helicopter, referring to a modified tank that wasnt even used in ww2 times...

[JG11Preusse]

ah ..... great idea ..... did you ever sit inside a helicopter and did you ever heard, that a helicopter also flies in about 10 feet hight in combat situations for example ????

how tall are you ? .... try to imagine the difference between your eyes in you head and 10 feet.

from groundlevel its different ? im sure you also looked movies before and you will have seen car, motorcycle, horse or what ever movements from different angles or ?

nascar race from only groundlevel i never saw and also if filemd from higher leveln, you are able to have an idea, how the vehicle behaves.

sorry that i dont made a film for you, but if you think wikipedia is state of the art, then you have to learn a lot.

you can get much good informations from wikipedia indeed, but you also can get much rubbish informations from wikipedia.

i guess you know from what kind of informations wikipedia lives ???

maybe you try to find out something there about antitankhelipilots at wikipedia, then you maybe have an idea about what they can recognize or what they cant

[c3k]

Zero radius turns: that requires one track to move forward while the opposite track moves in reverse. This is VERY hard on the transmission. The opposite drive, in German tanks, took place in the final drive unit. The Germans made 2 significant compromises in the design.

First, to ease production concerns, they chose a more-easily produced gearing arrangement. This allowed more final drives to be produced, but create greater stresses on the unit.

Second, due to raw materiel shortages, the "doping" ingredients used to create hard alloys were not used.

These two factors exacerbated each other. A higher stress design using weak metal. Not a good combination.

The knowledge was there, but the production pressure and economic realities forced a weakened end product.

The result was many failures of the final drive when the zero radius turn was used. This eventually meant that it was prohibited except for emergencies. Given that, would you order your driver to use a zero radius turn, knowing it may immediately immobilize the tank?

Post WWII, both these restrictions were no longer in force.

German tanks used turn-radius steering, where specific gears produced specific turn radii. The driver was expected to know which gear to use for the turns, as he judged them.

Western tanks - for the vast majority - used brake steering (this was used by German tanks as well): To turn, apply the track brake for the side you wish to turn towards.

Does that help?

Ken

[womble]

the most early kanonenjagdpanzer (pre ww2) i saw with my own eyes driving in the field, while hovering in the training battlezone with my antitank helicopter.

propaganda ..... sure... they build some special tanks only for propaganda films and sent them to battle, so that more than 60 years later to help you with your argumentation.

Don't be any more stupid than you have to be. You don't have to build special tanks for propaganda. Just abuse the crap out of them with no regard for the consequences. So what if your final drive fails while filming? There aren't any tanks really shooting at you. There is almost no footage of actual real combat. Please provide the link for it.

btw.... kanonenjagdpanzer (early) was an advancement from jagdpanzer IV .... not from V and also not from VI and i guess it was not lighter with its 90mm maingun ....... the weight (mass) was 1.5 tonns more heavy, then the jagdpanz IV with its 24 tonns

the most early kanonenjagdpanzer (pre ww2) i saw with my own eyes driving in the field, while hovering in the training battlezone with my antitank helicopter.

So this tank was pre-ww2 but it was a development of the P4-chassis with a 90mm gun. Right. Really worth taking anything you say seriously. Really. Fine, if writing in a second language meant you made a mistake, but don't then call me on projecting off your mistake. Forgive me for thinking you were talking sense.

[argie]

The first prototype of the KanonenJagdPanzer came out in 1960 and had nothing to do with any WWII design, except the obvious traits for armor and signature, which made it externally "similar" to the JPz IV. It wasn't based in it and it has all the advantages of post-war drive trains and engines (the brute and per ton HPs were already posted).

No idea from where you took your data. Even Wikipedia has it correct.

[JG11Preusse]

The first prototype of the KanonenJagdPanzer came out in 1960 and had nothing to do with any WWII design, except the obvious traits for armor and signature, which made it externally "similar" to the JPz IV. It wasn't based in it and it has all the advantages of post-war drive trains and engines (the brute and per ton HPs were already posted).

No idea from where you took your data. Even Wikipedia has it correct.

if you like wikipedia, then i will copy a sentece from there for you into this post:

"Die Entwicklung des Kanonenjagdpanzers begann 1960 und gründete sich auf den Erfahrungen der Wehrmacht im Zweiten Weltkrieg – der Kanonenjagdpanzer stellte eine Weiterentwicklung des Jagdpanzers IV dar." (zitat from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanonenjagdpanzer)

[argie]

Sorry, I don't speech German. I was talking on the English version of Wikipedia (and I said "even Wikipedia has it correct", not that I like it) in which the phrase you posted reads: "Its design was very similar to that of the World War II Jagdpanzer IV."

And thats all. It has nothing to do with any WWII era model, except the external resemblance to the Jagdpanzer IV. Basically, low profile, frontal fixed gun and sloped armor. Everything else, specially the relevant parts, power and drive train, are something totally different.

And, to be more specific, the Jpz IV, with the Pz IV chassis, had not neutral steering.

[JG11Preusse]

Sorry, I don't speech German. I was talking on the English version of Wikipedia (and I said "even Wikipedia has it correct", not that I like it) in which the phrase you posted reads: "Its design was very similar to that of the World War II Jagdpanzer IV."

And thats all. It has nothing to do with any WWII era model, except the external resemblance to the Jagdpanzer IV. Basically, low profile, frontal fixed gun and sloped armor. Everything else, specially the relevant parts, power and drive train, are something totally different.

And, to be more specific, the Jpz IV, with the Pz IV chassis, had not neutral steering.

so it looks like that english and german wikipedia has different opinions about that tank

[argie]

Well, the German version is wrong, plain and simply.

Just look at the chassis and the general specifications of each AFV.

The PzIV chassis was obsolete by the middle of the war: no space for more improvements, no neutral steering, lack of a good weight/power ratio, etc, etc, etc.

The JagdPanzerKanone is an entirely different chassis, engine, drive train... everything, with prototypes made well over 20 years after the first PzKw IV left the factory.

[JG11Preusse]

Well, the German version is wrong, plain and simply.

Just look at the chassis and the general specifications of each AFV.

The PzIV chassis was obsolete by the middle of the war: no space for more improvements, no neutral steering, lack of a good weight/power ratio, etc, etc, etc.

The JagdPanzerKanone is an entirely different chassis, engine, drive train... everything, with prototypes made well over 20 years after the first PzKw IV left the factory.

i didnt expected to hear something other

all in all ... i will ask where they for sure know what is right and what is wrong here in germany. i have a former comrade who played the training target in a training area for our antitank helicopters and he was commander of a jagdpanzer jaguar 1 what i guess was a kanonenjagdpanzer without maingun.

[argie]

Ask him. The Jaguar was the KanonenJagdPanzer converted to use ATGMs when the 90mm gun was considered obsolete: same AFV.

But you can also look just at the blueprints I provided and easily spot the differences. Even the power axis was in the front wheel in the JgPz IV and in the last wheel in the KJP, as external obvious difference, not to mention the different suspension and wheels.

I think that the MG-3 and the MG-42 were the only pieces of equipment with some commonality.