WHY Is This? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

yegor21 -> WHY Is This? (10/20/2000 9:07:00 AM)

Hello first of all why when my people get killed in the compaing their rank doesnt appeir?I Also whant to know why the king tiger is so good in the game? I just read about it and how the russians were testing it this tank should break all the time!!! Just read this((( "Tiger-B" tanks captured by Soviet forces were sent to the Chief Armored Vehicle Directorate's (GBTU) Armored Vehicle Research and Development proving ground (NIIBT) at Kubinka for comprehensive study. There were vehicles numbered 102 and 502. The very movement of these tanks to the loading station under their own power revealed numerous defects. At 86 kilometers, the left idler wheel went out of commission (when the bearings failed), as well as the left drive sprocket (when all the mounting bolts sheared). The high temperatures at the time, which reached 30 degrees Celsius (86 F), turned out to be too much for the cooling system. This led the right engine block to overheat and to continual overheating in the gearbox. The tank was repaired, but after that the right side running gear had completely failed. It was replaced with one scavenged from another tank, but this one almost immediately went out of commission again when the drive shaft roller bearings failed. Besides this, time and again it was necessary to change the track's elements, which were constantly breaking (cracking) due to the tank's colossal weight, especially when the vehicle was turning. The design of the track tensioning mechanism hadn't been completely perfected. As a result, the tension had to be adjusted after every 10-15 km of travel.)))) Well any ways i love the game and all i whant to know is about the compaing why does my rank desopear? ------------------ Ruski General Yegor



BA Evans -> (10/20/2000 7:18:00 PM)

How would you like the game to represent this particular quirk of the Tiger II tank? BA Evans



thewood -> (10/20/2000 7:26:00 PM)

I think issues like the unreliability of tanks should be a rarity issue, maybe through cost. Most breakdowns happen on the way to combat. This would preclude the vehicle ever getting to the point where it has an effect on a SPWAW battle. I am sure the issue also effects speed. If a driver knows his gearbox tends to overheat, he is only going to push the tank's speed in desperation.



Mac_MatrixForum -> (10/20/2000 7:33:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by thewood: I am sure the issue also effects speed. If a driver knows his gearbox tends to overheat, he is only going to push the tank's speed in desperation.
Which means in game terms that he will not go full speed every turn. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] As to what the reliability/unreliability ratios are... one can only get so close to the truth. And I believe only the exaggerated half-truths survive the teeth of time. Same thing with armor/penetration and other issues. And even if we do have some stories of how a certain tank functioned, how can we possibly extrapolate this to entirely other conditions and to the other vehicles? ------------------ Markku "Mac" Rontu "Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Sheridan in B5 [This message has been edited by Mac (edited October 20, 2000).]



Kluckenbill -> (10/20/2000 8:38:00 PM)

Mac, you mentioned reliability ratios. Do different vehicles have different levels of reliability? Maybe its in the manual, I'm sure its in a prior post somewhere. I thought that reliability was a national trait that could only be changed for all the vehicles of a given country?



DoubleDeuce -> (10/20/2000 9:03:00 PM)

Regarding the Tiger II issue. There could have been numerous reasons for these "failures" or "defects". Familairity with the vehicles would be a big one IMHO. Were these captured vehicles driven by regular german (captured) crewman or Russian soldiers never regularly having driven Tigers alot. Did the russians also have the technical manuals to reference operating instructions, limitations on performance, optimal track tensions, etc? Did the vehicles have alot of wear and tear on them prior to their capture? There may have been numerous issues (therby compounding other problems) that would have effected these vehicles. We will never really know unless we talk maitainence and perfomance issues with those who did the driving. As Mac has mentioed earlier in this post it is probably not a godd idea to drive any vehicle its full movement (You won't believe how many vehicles I had "breakdown" before I figured it out in the game. Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth.



Charles22 -> (10/20/2000 10:05:00 PM)

I would also question any data that was obtained from a Russian proving ground during the war, as it's well known how their analysis of many things military, regarding the Germans, was blown way out of proportion. Of course, even if it an extremely accurate report, you would have to figure that it's an isolated lemon Tiger, because if it's indicative of Tigers in general the Germans would've never been able to move them at all. They were most definitely more troublesome than the Panther or PZIVH though. Also, one would have to figure in the date of capture, as I noticed the tank was tested in '44. With testing it in '44, the tank hadn't been produced for that terribly long, so like the early Panthers one could expect the results weren't typical of all King Tigers.



yegor21 -> (10/20/2000 10:27:00 PM)

BA Evans----How would you like the game to represent this particular quirk of the Tiger II tank? I would Like to see more breakdowns for the king tiger.------ This is something about king tigers armor>>> Go here to see the hole report.http://history.vif2.ru/library/weapons7.html ------------------ Ruski General Yegor



Almogavar -> (10/20/2000 11:54:00 PM)

yegor21, numerous statements have been made that the Tiger II was too heavy, too big, too slow, ungainly, unmanoeuvrable, etc. One is left with the impression that it was lucky to move at all. These generalities are never substantiated by actual specifications, test Reports(except Kubinka) or after-action accounts from the units that used this tank. From "KINGTIGER heavy tank 1942-1945" Tom Jentz, Hilary Doyle and Peter Sarson: "The authors paid a visit to the Tiger II (Fgst.Nr. 280273, produced in October 1944) now located in the Ardennes in the village of La Gleize. Driving a modern car to the village on the narrow, steep and sharply curved roads, had required frequent use of low gears. That Tiger IIs had managed to make this same trip in the winter was indeed an impressive testimony to both their manoeuvrability and mobility". Of the thirteen Tigers recorded as lost between December 16 and December 31 by Heeresgruppe B, six were abandoned in La Gleize. More, the statistics compiled from status reports for 15 March 1945 show that 59 per cent of the Tigers (I and II) with front line units were operational. This was about equal to the Pz.Kpfw.IV at 62 percent. Panzer Truppen vol.2, Jentz. And Hauptmann Fromme commander of s.Pz.Abt.503 on the Eastern Front said: "From 19 October until the unit was reassembled on 23 October, 120 anti-tank guns and 19 artillery pieces were destroyed....The entire stretch covered in this action of about 250 kilometres was achieved without significant mechanical breakdowns...". Almogavar. ------------------ Desperta ferro.



Charles22 -> (10/21/2000 12:11:00 AM)

Fprado's Armorsite speaks about Tiger reliability and it's nothing like the Russian version of that one tank. I think given the complaints we generally hear about King Tigers that it was, at least regarding engine wear, less depnedable than the Panthers and PZIVs, but probably just as reliable in other areas. You might've seen Tigers needing repair, more typically for engine/tracks (weight), while PZIVs may have needed repair more for dangerous armor penetrations and so forth.



BA Evans -> (10/21/2000 2:46:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by yegor21: I would Like to see more breakdowns for the king tiger.------
I don't think the program can handle that. From what I have read about the breakdown routine, each country has a breakdown rate. This simulates the countries' average maintenance capabilities and their average construction quality. Some pieces of equipment might have been better or worse than the average, but that seems to be the best the program can handle. I don't think each piece of equipment can be given its own separate breakdown statistic. If you want to have the Tiger II breakdown more often, you would have to increase the chance of breakdowns for the entire German army. I am not sure if this is warrented since I am not familiar with the exact breakdown rates used by the program. BA Evans



Drake -> (10/21/2000 2:47:00 AM)

Yup, you cant read to much into a Soviet report. The Soviets were use to using equipment that was more basic in design. The Tiger II was disigned with skilled crews in mind and crew that already had experince for the most part on the Tiger I. The Tiger II was not a tank that some Soviet taker could jump into and use and not break in some way.



Desert Fox -> (10/21/2000 6:42:00 AM)

Yeah, I am gonna have to agree with the rest here. The Soviet report cannot be taken at face value. Either it was pure propaganda, or it was a bunch of green tankers (green to tigers anyways) driving a foreign tank, probably at full throttle, more than the tank was intended to be driven at. If they were overheating it, then this is almost certain. Then you have to ask yourself, why was the tank captured? If the tank was still operational, I doubt the crew would have abandoned it or surrendered it. Obviously something was already wrong with the tank for it to have been left behind by the crew. [This message has been edited by Desert Fox (edited October 20, 2000).]



yegor21 -> (10/21/2000 7:45:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Desert Fox: driving a foreign tank, probably at full throttle, more than the tank was intended to be driven at. If they were overheating it, then this is almost certain.
Desert Fox if you read the report careful you would see that the russians did not push the tank to its limits or its full speed... ------------------ Ruski General Yegor



Drake -> (10/21/2000 8:06:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by yegor21: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Desert Fox: driving a foreign tank, probably at full throttle, more than the tank was intended to be driven at. If they were overheating it, then this is almost certain.
Desert Fox if you read the report careful you would see that the russians did not push the tank to its limits or its full speed... [/B][/QUOTE] yegor21 a inexperince russain crew in the use of a Tiger II could have did any number of things to Break it. They may say in the report that they never pushed it to its full speed but if I was a russain crewman and broke a pice of equipment like this I would not till my commanders I did. That would be one quick way to end up with a bullet in the brain. Were not talking about the US army are or something heir. Back in them days in the russain army you reported what the upper crust wanted to heir not what was the truth. Back then it was the only way to stay alive.



AmmoSgt -> (10/21/2000 2:45:00 PM)

Most Military Vehicles and systems have a Mean Time between failure rating and an availabilty rating, and are a factor usually of a nations military readiness and the teeth to tail ratio. Availabilty of up front maintianence and maintenance doctrine are considered significant multiplers in modren thought and they stem from lessons learned the hard way something to think about. The stats should be readily available in procurment data form equipment vendors and unit status reports .



Grisha -> (10/21/2000 3:52:00 PM)

Guys, in 1944 there were more than enough experienced Soviet tankers, as well as experienced testing staff. You're making it sound like the Germans lost to a bunch of bumbling idiots. Ease up a bit with the post-war-German-memoir propaganda [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Grisha -> (10/21/2000 4:00:00 PM)

quote:

Were not talking about the US army are or something heir. Back in them days in the russain army you reported what the upper crust wanted to heir not what was the truth. Back then it was the only way to stay alive.- Drake
This did occur in the first phase of the war, which is why things got so screwed up at times. But by 1943, the STAVKA (and Stalin) knew that it was important to receive accurate combat reports, and really eased up on the NKVD crap. In fact, commissars lost their command status by this time, leaving the military commander in sole charge. By 1944, forward detachment commanders were given wide freedom of action to accomplish their mission.



Tom_Davie -> (10/21/2000 8:01:00 PM)

I've read this thread with interest, and while I *could* concede some of the points about the T2's unrealiability, I simply won't. And why? Well, 2 tanks is statistically insignificant to draw valid conclusions about a larger class of data from. For instance, lets say that 1000 T2's were produced, I certainly would not want to make inferences about the remaining 998 from the 2 'unrealiable' ones. Coupled with the valid points that; a) The Soviets likely did not have the operating manuals. b) They did not have factory approved replacement parts. c) Maintenance was not performed according to the operating manuals. d) The crews did not receive primary training in the vehicles. I find it invalid to conclude that the Tiger-2 was all that unreliable. Now, has anyone here ever broken a piece of sophisticated equipment at work? I have. And I damn well fixed it (or think I did) prior to my boss having to fly in a technician at the cost of several thousand dollars. And my life wasn't on the line [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Tom



Desert Fox -> (10/21/2000 10:12:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Grisha: Guys, in 1944 there were more than enough experienced Soviet tankers, as well as experienced testing staff. You're making it sound like the Germans lost to a bunch of bumbling idiots. Ease up a bit with the post-war-German-memoir propaganda [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
Yeah there definitely were some experienced soviet crews by 1944. But there were just as many, if not more, green crews who just got put into the field with minimal training, or were still in training. And think about it for a moment, would you rather take an experienced T-34 crew out of action and tell them to drive a Tiger 2 back to a testing ground, or would you send some green crew? Either way, its incredibly unimportant who drove it back. The fact is that they had no idea what they were doing inside the thing. They had no training, no instructor, and absolutely no experience driving a king tiger. And I have to say that no one here is spreading Nazi propaganda. Thats absolutely ridiculous. The facts are that the Tiger 2 was a very complicated tank, and underpowered for its weight. Germans were instructed, and knew how to drive and use this vehicle to its maximum potential. Soviet crews were lucky to ever drive this vehicle, and the first ones to do so obviously had no idea how to operate it.



Almogavar -> (10/22/2000 3:34:00 AM)

The Tiger II initially experienced numerous automotive problems which required a continuous series of minor modifications to correct. These problems can be traced to two main causes: leaking seals and gaskets and an overtaxed drive train originally designed for 40 metric ton vehicle. The first five production series Tiger IIs (Fgst.Nr. 280001-280005) issued to the Panzer Lehr Division were in such poor automotive condition that they were destroyed to prevent capture without having been used in combat. The first unit, s.PzAbt. 501 sent to the Eastern Front outfitted with Tiger II, arrived at front with only eight out of 45 operational, mainly due to the failure of the final drives. The test done in Kubinka used Tigers from this unit. S.Pz.Abt.505 was ordered out of the Eastern front on 7 July 1944 to reorganise at the troop training grounds at Ohrdruf. The 505th were sent their first six Tiger IIs from the ordnance depot on 26 July. Of these , two were traded with the 501st and two others had immediate automotive failures. The other 39 Tiger IIs were shipped from the ordnance depot between 10 and 29 August. Immediately losing three to fires due to leaks in the engine compartment. The 505th worked closely with Henschel technical representatives to correct many of the deficiencies before being sent to the Eastern Front. With mature drivers, taking required maintenance halts, and modification of key automotive components , the Tiger II could be maintained in a satisfactory operational condition. I didn’t know the drivers, they might be POWs (von Paulus) or excellent Russian tank crews (Stalin). Only I said that the first vehicle series experienced numerous automotive problems, same that Panther, or transmission defects in early T-34 (more T-34s were lost in 1941 to mechanical trouble than to enemy action) and this is not propaganda. Almogavar ------------------ Desperta ferro.



AmmoSgt -> (10/23/2000 12:40:00 PM)

Almo WOW!! now that was a report



Larry Holt -> (10/23/2000 6:41:00 PM)

The original report that started this tread is ambigious as to the knowledge of a Tiger II and operation by an inexperienced crew may or may not have contributed to the breakdowns of the tanks. We can only speculate. I had occasion to recover a Soviet BRDM and ship it on a trailer. I have a college engineering degree and I was assisted by a very experienced maintenance warrant officer. We were both at a loss as to how to operate the thing. We eventually borrowed a large crane and lifted it onto the trailer. After that a pair of wheels stuck out too far for safe transportation so they had to come off. We removed every bolt in sight but could not pull the wheel. Finally we found some bolts that were covered and got the wheels off. Now I submit that unless the Soviets had German crews that were cooperating, they probably had similar problems. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



Heartland -> (10/23/2000 7:02:00 PM)

I don't think it would have been healthy for Russians to fudge internal reports. Propaganda is one thing, internal technical reports another. Also, the absolutely miserable (make that miserable reliability of the King Tiger is well documented, so I hardly see how this can be disputed. What I do find interesting, and quite surprising, are yet another set of internal reports from the Kubuinka testing ground (fall '44) which are translated at http://history.vif2.ru/library/weapons7.html for those interested. It states that the King Tiger had worse armor compared to the Tiger I and Panther, due to very poor armour quality at this stage in the war. Quote from the translation: "1. The quality of armor on the "Tiger-B" tank, in comparison with the armor on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as early production "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun, has sharply deteriorated. The first individual impacts caused cracks and spalling in the armor of the "Tiger-B" tank. Groups of shell impacts (3-4 shells) caused large-scale spalling and fractures in the armor. 2. Weak weld seams appeared characteristic of all hull and turret joints. Despite careful workmanship, the seams held up to shell impacts significantly worse than they did in analogous constructions on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as the "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun. 3. Impacts of 3-4 armor-piercing or high-explosive fragmentation shells from 152, 122, or 100 mm artillery pieces caused cracks, spalling and destruction of the weld seams in the tank's 100-190 mm thick frontal armor plates at ranges of 500-1000 metres. The impacts disrupted the operation of the transmission and took the tank out of service as an irrevocable loss. 4. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated when impacting the edges or joints of the "Tiger-B" tank's front hull plates at ranges of 500-600 metres. 5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's front turret plate at ranges of 1000-1500 metres. 6. 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles from the D-5 and S-53 gun failed to penetrate the tank's front hull plates or cause any structural damage at distances of 300 metres. 7. The tank's side armor plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret. 8. The tank's hull and turret side plates were penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 85 mm and American 76 mm guns at ranges of 800-2000 metres. 9. The tank's hull and turret side plates were not penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 76 mm guns (ZIS-3 and F-34). 10. American 76 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's side plates at ranges 1.5 to 2 times greater the domestic 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles." Not really related to the subject at hand, just thought somebody might find it interesting if they haven't seen it before...



frank1970 -> (10/24/2000 1:40:00 PM)

You might all be right, but donīt you know the kill ratios of TigerII compared with American or Soviet standard tanks? (I quote from memory, so the numbers might be a little wrong) TigerII-Sherman 1:6 (means 6 Shermans killed before one Tiger was killed) TigerII-T34 1:9 So you can see when a Tiger II reached the fighting zone it caused real trouble for the enemy. In France most Tigers were destroyed by planes.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.375