Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

when tanks=propeller on a stick

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> when tanks=propeller on a stick Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
when tanks=propeller on a stick - 3/15/2001 10:28:00 AM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline 		How realistic is it to face the front armor towards the target for each shot? It maybe more than I'm thinking. But isn't the purpose of the turret to give you faster response? I know there have been very knowledgable posts regarding turret speed for the various tank types. I'm as quilty as most (big assumption on my part) of turning to face the enemy, often multiple times in a given turn. It would seem like if my unit is shooting from a fixed position, not moving, it would be more in line with lining up the front armor, than say moveing full out and then spinning the unit like a top. I don't know if this is something that needs to be "fixed" or if all is right with it. I could see some kind of limitions on the amount of turning to face, changing the way you might play. Just curious.

_____________________________

PR
Post #: 1
- 3/15/2001 12:15:00 PM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		The modern tank Leopard 2 & it's very similar brother the M1 Abrahams can turn their tanks in 9 (nine) seconds 360 degrees - the whole turret weights some 16 (sixteen) tons. I guess WWII tanks with electrical or more likely hydraulic engines for the turret should at least turn under 20 seconds. A SP turn is something from 3-5 minutes so that means from 9-15 full rotations. murx (At least the Panther and the Tiger had an engine for the turret but I'not sure if it was electric or hydraulic)

_____________________________


(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 2
- 3/15/2001 1:12:00 PM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline 		Did you have to lock the tracks to fire? Did WWII units have pistons to lock their tracks. Not that it took long to do, but it's just one more thing to do and undo, hence adding to the time needed to move or adjust and fire.

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 3
- 3/15/2001 3:04:00 PM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		Lock the tracks ??? Hey we're not talking on mobile artillery !!! We're talking tanks. And even those units weren't specially fixed, the targeting for indirect fire wasn't too good so it wouldn't matter much if the artillery piece moves back a meter or two after firing a shot. Additionally the early guns in tanks were either short or of small caliber so the recoil wasn't that hard. (+ the velocity of the shell wasn't even close to modern guns) Esp. Panthers(late) could (with an experienced crew) fire on the move (on good terrain like acre, gras or road) if the target was either stationary or slow - or at the same speed as the Panther. Of course they couldn't fire at flank speed with any accuracy. Tanks are made to get rid of any 'shot preparation' for guns. Complete other matter are AT-guns firing at several targets at all directions (esp with the large AT-guns, me thinks those crews are all on steroid :) ) I dont know Your experiences nor want I to be rude - but I never heard of any tank other then PzArtillery that needs to lock it's track or other means of fixing the tank either modern or WWII units. murx

_____________________________


(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 4
- 3/15/2001 3:21:00 PM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline 		When I crewed on the Vulcan, which was a 20mm gatling AA system, we locked the tracks. It was still experimental when I was on it in 70, maybe they did away with it. I don't recall anyone saying what would happen if we fired while on the move or even unlocked sitting still. Maybe the fact that one shot could last a while, 20 seconds would empty the 1000 round drum if I recall correctly, had something to do with it.

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 5
- 3/15/2001 3:47:00 PM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		Ah, an AA-tank. That might be different (esp with high ROF weapons), because if the gun isn't human but computer aimed it cuts down the need for stabilization sensors/control. To get some bullets near the attacking craft (or even some in it) exact tracking is needed (esp. with nowadays aircraft moving supersonic at low altitude). But I think most modern AA-tanks wont need external locking - just full stop the tank. At least this is the case with the Gepard AA-tank (German AA tank based on the hull of the Leopard 1, equipped with twin 35mm MK firing 2.000-3.000 and active RADAR tracking [dont know it exact anymore]). And I guess the mobile Roland and Patriot AA-missile vehicles need to set up before firing. But probably You have noticed that AA units in SPwaw that have moved have next to no hit chances. murx

_____________________________


(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 6
- 3/15/2001 4:02:00 PM   
frank1970


Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline 		Hey murx, what unit did you serve in? I myself was in 4th PzGrenDiv/10.Brigade/ Weiden.

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 7
- 3/15/2001 4:22:00 PM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		Hi Frank, I was in 5/PzBtl 24 stationed in Braunschweig (former 4/PzBtl21 - which was a mixed PzG/Pz Btl), forgot which brigade :) , never cared which brigade lol. murx

_____________________________


(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 8
- 3/16/2001 7:34:00 AM   
Latka

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Honolulu, HI, USA
Status: offline 		I mentioned to my Pop once (Army LTC, Artillery) that I wanted to go into something that dealt with AAA and self propelled AAA, etc... he gave a huff and called them "Concrete artillerymen", saying they would only fire from a prepared concrete slab. I guess there's not too much lost love between those groups! -Andy

_____________________________


(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 9
- 3/16/2001 11:37:00 AM   
Greg McCarty

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/15/2000
From: woodbury,mn,usa
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Pack Rat: How realistic is it to face the front armor towards the target for each shot? It maybe more than I'm thinking. But isn't the purpose of the turret to give you faster response? I know there have been very knowledgable posts regarding turret speed for the various tank types. I'm as quilty as most (big assumption on my part) of turning to face the enemy, often multiple times in a given turn. It would seem like if my unit is shooting from a fixed position, not moving, it would be more in line with lining up the front armor, than say moveing full out and then spinning the unit like a top. I don't know if this is something that needs to be "fixed" or if all is right with it. I could see some kind of limitions on the amount of turning to face, changing the way you might play. Just curious.
I've always felt that turning to face target in liu of simply rotating turret should be a optional action associated with movement, and it should carry a move & shoot penalty whenever it is employed. In other words, you could rotate turret without shot penaly, but the moment you rotated the entire vehicle, that would be treated similarly as though moving another hex (or a fraction of one), and you would be penalized accordingly. Such motion might also provoke opportunity fire. Seems reasonable.

_____________________________

Greg.

It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.

--Zapata

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 10
- 3/16/2001 12:34:00 PM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline 		Greg, I think your reply well worded and to the point. In other words you hit the nail on the head. Now if this were to be decided to be a good idea, could it be done with this game engine. I was playing a test against myself and didn't opt to face the front when taking shoots, just rotating the turret. Made a big difference in the outcome. It gave Shermans a much better chance against ambushed Tigers. When using hull mounted guns (Stugs in this case) of course it wasn't possable not to move and would have to be built into the game engine. Care would have to be taken in dealing with the Stug types because if you turn and use all your movement, would you still have the shoot? Or does this fit in with more accurate modeling for the time?

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 11
- 3/17/2001 3:30:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		It is a great idea, but unfortunately I don't think its possible without a major rewrite.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 12
- 3/17/2001 12:20:00 PM   
Greg McCarty

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/15/2000
From: woodbury,mn,usa
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Pack Rat: Greg, I think your reply well worded and to the point. In other words you hit the nail on the head. Now if this were to be decided to be a good idea, could it be done with this game engine. I was playing a test against myself and didn't opt to face the front when taking shoots, just rotating the turret. Made a big difference in the outcome. It gave Shermans a much better chance against ambushed Tigers. When using hull mounted guns (Stugs in this case) of course it wasn't possable not to move and would have to be built into the game engine. Care would have to be taken in dealing with the Stug types because if you turn and use all your movement, would you still have the shoot? Or does this fit in with more accurate modeling for the time?
Yeah, StuGs are tricky because they only had about a 15 degree traverse to the left or to the right while stationary. If target is within that forward arc, then fine. Anything else required movement.

_____________________________

Greg.

It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.

--Zapata

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 13
- 3/19/2001 10:44:00 AM   
Mike Rothery

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by murx: I guess WWII tanks with electrical or more likely hydraulic engines for the turret should at least turn under 20 seconds. A SP turn is something from 3-5 minutes so that means from 9-15 full rotations. murx (At least the Panther and the Tiger had an engine for the turret but I'not sure if it was electric or hydraulic)
The Tiger was 60 seconds for 360 degrees in one reference I found, and that was with the hydraulic boost, which required the engine running. The PzIV J which went back to a purely manual traverse needed many hundreds of turns of the wheel to do a full rotation. The Soviet KV II needed several minutes. Rotating the vehicled on its tracks was a real necessity if the targets were near, but that of couirse exposes your flank. The US tanks with their varable speed electric traverse had a real advantage at close range. Mike R

_____________________________

MikeR

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 14
- 3/19/2001 12:02:00 PM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline 		Very interesting Mike. Sounds like to truely model it, experience should be taken into account. In other words a crew well versed/practiced in coordinating the movement of the turret with the placing of the general direction of the gun to begin with, would have more shoots within a given time frame. This is already in the game, but not in terms of using movement to account for facing the unit. This wouldn't always mean facing the best armor value towards the enemy however, but moving the gun with the tracks and fine tuning the shoot with the turret. I'm just guessing here. Seems the more I think about it the more complecated it might be to model it right. The Sherman turret speed would be great to be modeled and may be in another form factored in the game. Almost seems to me I remember something about this in a past thread. Anyone recall?

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 15
- 3/19/2001 9:48:00 PM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		I noticed another *glitch* in the game. When I have my front both hull and turret towards the enemy and shoot at something in my six the turret turns (nope, that's not the glitch). Now if the AI gets opfire he will hit either my front hull or my rear turret. But if the AI fires at something in it's rear the turret is IMMEDIATELY traversed to the hull front BEFORE opfire happens (yes, that's the glitch). murx

_____________________________


(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 16
- 3/20/2001 1:15:00 AM   
Kluckenbill

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Lancaster, PA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Greg McCarty: Yeah, StuGs are tricky because they only had about a 15 degree traverse to the left or to the right while stationary. If target is within that forward arc, then fine. Anything else required movement.
Right... Even tricker were Half-tracks with hull mounted guns. Since these vehicles couldn't pivot like a full tracked vehicle, they needed to turn the wheels to full lock and move up or back in order to make major changes in their point of aim. This was a real disadvantage. Obviously, they were as limited as any assault gun if they lost a track, but in addition, it was difficult for them to set up in good defensive positions due to the requirement that they be able to move in order to aim the gun!

_____________________________

Target, Cease Fire !

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 17
- 3/20/2001 5:10:00 AM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline 		Another intersesting point KluckenBill, it reminded me of something. When crewing for the Vulcan/Chaparral (Chaparrel was a ground to air missle mounted on an armored truck) I changed jobs alot, back then we trained for both systems. It was while a radio operator for a command track (APC) that I was also the 50cal gunner. It had a ring or track that allowed it a 360 degree travis. But like every thing else in desert armor movement it got clogged with dust and wouldn't work. The only way to get the full travis was for me to climb onto the top of the track and swing it from there. Not something I would have done under fire I don't think, but then I was young and foolish so who knows. I doubt if the 50's worked either, although we had ways of dealing with them on the fly. It wasn't till after I got out that I talked to guys back from the Nam and they said they were issued squeeze bootles filled with oil for the 50's, we used a pot and swab. Oh how we all learned to hate that dust. It wiggled it's way into every nook and cranny you can think of, human and machine. After a week or so in the field, we'd return to take care of equipment and then head for the barrecks. The hot water would run out because we'd take a folding metal chair into the showers and just sit there, cold beer in hand. Never could master the cigarette in the shower thing, though I tried. :D

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 18
- 3/20/2001 9:54:00 AM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		What only a cigarette ? Not a cigar ? :) murx

_____________________________


(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 19
- 3/20/2001 10:41:00 AM   
Kluckenbill

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Lancaster, PA, USA
Status: offline 		And speaking of shooting .50's in the old days ... Early in my short military career I was Officer in Charge of a detail of truck drivers and mechanics from my tank batallion (3-32 Armor, 3rd AD) that went to practice shooting .50s from their trucks at the German range at Todtendorf on the Baltic Sea. The problem was that the .50s kicked so hard that between the flexibility of the mounts and the wheels/shocks of the 5-ton trucks, we couldn't hit anything! We borrowed an M113 from Air Defense unit that was shooting their Vulcans and it made a huge difference. The '113 may not be much of a fighting vehicle but it's an excellent platform for the .50 cal. Of course we didn't have to worry about dust, our only problem was freezing our butts off.

_____________________________

Target, Cease Fire !

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 20
- 3/21/2001 3:45:00 PM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline 		The desert can be a cold place as well, not as cold as the northern climates, but damned uncomfortable if you're not dressed for it. Seemed like the water would freeze at night and be too hot to drink in the day. Almost got sent to Germany and was unhappy to say the least I wasn't. The Army in it's "wisdom" (LOL) sent me to a little school stint called LPC (leadership preperation course) at the NCO school. We had one drill sargent for every two men, it was a little on the srtict side compared to basic training :) I lost my unoffical squad leaders stripes halfway through advanced training for defending my guys against a drunk cadre after telling him to go "f--- himself". I would do it again. What can I say other than what do expect from a damned draftee. :) Murx, I didn't pick up my nasty cigar habit till later in life. When I think of all the places my youth took me and I wasn't smoking fine Cuban cigars it makes me sad ;)

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 21
- 3/22/2001 9:03:00 AM   
Greg McCarty

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/15/2000
From: woodbury,mn,usa
Status: offline 		..... Murx, I didn't pick up my nasty cigar habit till later in life. When I think of all the places my youth took me and I wasn't smoking fine Cuban cigars it makes me sad ;)[/B][/QUOTE] God yes; Cubans. I bought a fistful when I was down in Nassau once. They truely are nice. I suppose it would be ungraceful of me to say that I wish the "old fart in the fatigues" down there would pass on so we could lift the embargo and get a few boatloads of those wonderful weeds shipped up here. :D

_____________________________

Greg.

It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.

--Zapata

(in reply to Pack Rat)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> when tanks=propeller on a stick Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.750