German heavy-tanks' movement ability

[apanzerfan]

Panther A, G, Tiger, Kingtiger, Jagdtiger all with 5-hex moving ability?

It is kinda strange (unbalanced), as Panthers (even the A variant) were much more mobile.


The Jagdtiger with its 72 tonnes, shouldnt have such high moving ability.
However, the Panthers' should be changed to 6

[skarczew]

Panther A, G, Tiger, Kingtiger, Jagdtiger all with 5-hex moving ability?

It is kinda strange (unbalanced), as Panthers (even the A variant) were much more mobile.


The Jagdtiger with its 72 tonnes, shouldnt have such high moving ability.
However, the Panthers' should be changed to 6

I think it should be reflected in a similar way like in PG:
- Panther D, A: 5
- Panter G: 6
- Tiger: 5
- Kingtiger: 4
- Jagdtiger: 3

[apanzerfan]

Yes, something like that.

imo all panthers should be 6, but the A and D variant should come with significantly less fuel. (like 35-40 instead of the current.)
so the G (the most developed one) should have 6 movement ability, and ~60 fuel.

"- Tiger: 5
- Kingtiger: 4
- Jagdtiger: 3"

those are fine.

The second gen german panzers (III & IV) should be able to move 6 in a turn (more than a tiger)


not to mention the maus, which should have 2 hex moving ability.

[skarczew]

Yes, something like that.

imo all panthers should be 6, but the A and D variant should come with significantly less fuel. (like 35-40 instead of the current.)
so the G (the most developed one) should have 6 movement ability, and ~60 fuel.

"- Tiger: 5
- Kingtiger: 4
- Jagdtiger: 3"

those are fine.

The second gen german panzers (III & IV) should be able to move 6 in a turn (more than a tiger)


not to mention the maus, which should have 2 hex moving ability.

I was thinking about less movement for Panther D (and A maybe) because of their initial teething problems (very visible when they were introduced - at Kursk).

I agree about Panzer III & IV - maybe the later variants could have it.
Maus should have 3 probably, as its max speed was estimated to be around 20 km/h - it will move with the same speed as Infantry. Human walking speed is said to be around 6 km/h, it is hard for me to believe that Maus will move slower than that.

[Kerensky]

I somewhat agree, but I have a problem with units who move too slow. I would actually rate the jagdtiger at a movement rate of 4 for game play balance purposes. Definitely shouldn't be the current 5 it has, but 3 may be too damaging.

[skarczew]

I somewhat agree, but I have a problem with units who move too slow. I would actually rate the jagdtiger at a movement rate of 4 for game play balance purposes. Definitely shouldn't be the current 5 it has, but 3 may be too damaging.

It has MV=3 in PG, even though those maps are bigger.

Yes, it is damaging - but on the other side it is strictly defensive weapon.

In my opinion non self-propelled AT have more problems now (same as in PG). They are too slow - need a transport - and are vulnerable while in truck state.
Maybe the lightest of them could get MV=2, so the player could have choose between them, heavier ones or self-propelled.

[Dragoon24]

I agree that the German heavies should have a much smaller move, they were big, slow, and liked to bog down a lot even in open terrain. Also this would force a commander to think more about his troop composition as bigger would not necessary be better.

Also i would love it if the Panther D would randomly loss strength as these were particularly notorious for their unreliability, you know the whole spontaneous combustion thing

That aside, I do agree that towed AT needs a buff, usually they had better penetration than their tank-borne counterparts because they had a longer barrel and longer rounds but I think what will really make them interesting is to give them better initiative due to the ease in hiding and ambushing with AT guns.

[Razz1]

Fuel is already a problem for the heavy tanks.

[apanzerfan]

Okay so:
Movement:
Panther D: 5
Panther A,G: 6
Tiger: 5
Kingtiger: 4
Maus, Jagdtiger: 3
Late Panzer IIIs (L,M,N): 6
Late Panzer IVs (G,H,J): 6


Fuel:
Panther G: current is fine
Panther A,D: 30-35


These are my thoughts, please feel free to agree (or contradict )

[Kerensky]

From a game play perspective, considering speed of Russian, American, and British armor.

Late IIIs and IVs down to 5.
Jagdtiger up to 4.

The rest I agree with.

[skarczew]

Also i would love it if the Panther D would randomly loss strength as these were particularly notorious for their unreliability, you know the whole spontaneous combustion thing

If we do that, we would have to include similar thing for T-34, especially for early ones. Some units equipped with them had loss ratio of 20-30% in first days of Barbarossa, without even seeing enemy.

[skarczew]

From a game play perspective, considering speed of Russian, American, and British armor.

Late IIIs and IVs down to 5.
Jagdtiger up to 4.

The rest I agree with.

You consider the in-game speed, or the real speed?

In-game speed of some allied tanks can - or even must be adjusted.

Regarding the speed of Russian tanks, I think they are lot of myths about that.

In a lot of publications I can find that:
T-34 speed: 53 km/h (33 mph)
Panzer III speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

The source of both is usually not stated, but every kid runs away shouting that "T-34 was the best tank, had sloping armor and great cannon".
However this is not so obvious like Discovery or Military Channel want to tell us.

I found this source:
http://www.battlefield.ru/ru/tank-devel ... ml?start=3
English: http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-devel ... 9-t34.html

It states that apparently German Panzer III was evaluated by Russians and compared to their tanks. And the result?

Soviet engineers were surprised by Pz-III's maximum speed. It was far superior and could run up to 69.7 km/h whereas the T-34's best result was 48.2 km/h. The BT-7, which was used as a standard model, could run on wheels at only 68.1 km/h. The report of those tests indicates that the Pz-III had better suspension, a high quality of German optics, a handy layout of ammunition and radio, and a reliable engine and transmission.

Now, I assume this website bases its texts on real documents.
I found many other serious sources which state that T-34 was pretty slow.

There are few reasons, imho:
- speed of 40 km/h for Panzer III was estimated by German engineers as the highest "safe" one - and it guaranteed that the tank would go to Moscow and back to Berlin;
- speed of 50+ (I found somewhere even 55) km/h for T-34 was estimated as the highest "ever possible" one; T-34 usually broke after 200-300 km - it improved later;
- most of time the second gear on T-34 was used; reason: it was very hard to change gears - the force of around 25 kN on clutch was needed;

If someone is in doubt, I would recommend also Report from Aberdeen .

Now we can back to discussion .

[Kerensky]

In game speed. Unit strength values are purely relative. A unit who moves 50 isn't unbalanced if all other units also move between 40-60 as well.

[skarczew]

In game speed. Unit strength values are purely relative. A unit who moves 50 isn't unbalanced if all other units also move between 40-60 as well.

I totally agree.

I may be up for all III and IV set to 5, but I am not really sure about Jagtiger's 4.

And we need to reduce speed of early T-34. They were of really bad quality and with many problems.

[Dragoon24]

I may be up for all III and IV set to 5, but I am not really sure about Jagtiger's 4.

And we need to reduce speed of early T-34. They were of really bad quality and with many problems.

I think 4 is plenty for the Jagdtiger, they were quite slower than PzIII and PzIVs also they had suspension issues due to their weight.

I agree that early T-34s had engine and transmission issues however the problem is there is only the T-34 there is no T-34/40, T-34/41, T-34/42, T-34/43. A lot of the engine issues were fixed with the T-34/41 and the major reason many early T-34s had issues was because of production issues they had the engine from the BT-7 not the proper diesel engine designed for the T-34.

And speaking of the speed difference between German and Russian tanks a lot of it can be attributed to the terrain. The PzIII was fantastic on roads and in fact part of German tank design was to get excellent road performance so the vehicle could be staged easier and be more aggressive behind enemy lines. The Russian design philosophy was quite different (with the exception of the BT series). Russian tanks had much wider tracks which gave better performance in uneven terrain and were less prone to bogging down. The Germans did quickly learn this lesson though and started using wider tracks on their next tanks (such as the Tiger, Panther and beyond).

[skarczew]

I may be up for all III and IV set to 5, but I am not really sure about Jagtiger's 4.

And we need to reduce speed of early T-34. They were of really bad quality and with many problems.

I think 4 is plenty for the Jagdtiger, they were quite slower than PzIII and PzIVs also they had suspension issues due to their weight.

I agree that early T-34s had engine and transmission issues however the problem is there is only the T-34 there is no T-34/40, T-34/41, T-34/42, T-34/43. A lot of the engine issues were fixed with the T-34/41 and the major reason many early T-34s had issues was because of production issues they had the engine from the BT-7 not the proper diesel engine designed for the T-34.

And speaking of the speed difference between German and Russian tanks a lot of it can be attributed to the terrain. The PzIII was fantastic on roads and in fact part of German tank design was to get excellent road performance so the vehicle could be staged easier and be more aggressive behind enemy lines. The Russian design philosophy was quite different (with the exception of the BT series). Russian tanks had much wider tracks which gave better performance in uneven terrain and were less prone to bogging down. The Germans did quickly learn this lesson though and started using wider tracks on their next tanks (such as the Tiger, Panther and beyond).

There are 4 versions of T-34 in PzC . Why do you say there is only one? Or maybe I don't understand something...

I recall T-34 received around 16 thousands of different improvements and fixes during war. T-34/85 was the tank that was finally somewhat reliable. But this was only a part of production.
The main power of T-34 were always its numbers.

Also, BT-7 did not have V-2 engine. The BT-7M (1939 model) and BT-8 had it. And I don't think the BT-7 engine was used in T-34 at all. Source please, if you disagree .
You can't put engine from a different tank.

Regarding wider tracks - early models had it. But I think later models of T-34 had narrower ones - because of increased weight (they wanted to decrease the weight of a whole tank this way...).
And none complained that the tank will bog down (another one from factory was waiting anyway - with brand new crew as well ).

On the other side - newer German tanks had wider tracks - and there were special versions of those for really soft ground. So - discussable .
I think wide / narrow track is only half truth. What is really important is the pressure on the ground (mass of a tank divided by surface of a track).

[Dragoon24]

There are 4 versions of T-34 in PzC . Why do you say there is only one? Or maybe I don't understand something...

I recall T-34 received around 16 thousands of different improvements and fixes during war. T-34/85 was the tank that was finally somewhat reliable. But this was only a part of production.
The main power of T-34 were always its numbers.

Also, BT-7 did not have V-2 engine. The BT-7M (1939 model) and BT-8 had it. And I don't think the BT-7 engine was used in T-34 at all. Source please, if you disagree .
You can't put engine from a different tank.

Regarding wider tracks - early models had it. But I think later models of T-34 had narrower ones - because of increased weight (they wanted to decrease the weight of a whole tank this way...).
And none complained that the tank will bog down (another one from factory was waiting anyway - with brand new crew as well ).

On the other side - newer German tanks had wider tracks - and there were special versions of those for really soft ground. So - discussable .
I think wide / narrow track is only half truth. What is really important is the pressure on the ground (mass of a tank divided by surface of a track).

Sorry misspoke about the earlier T-34s models in PzC, my mistake. I am totally fine with the T-34/40 having less movement but I feel the T-34/41 and T-34/43 are fine.

Russians did not follow the British philosophy of having dozens of Marks for minor incremental improvements they would save improvements and do a year's worth at a time. Although crews would sometimes make improvements on their own tanks but this was common in all armies of the time. My understanding (from Jane's and Zaloga) is almost all of the engine and suspension issues were worked out with the 41 release and the 42 and 43 release improved the sights, cupola, manufacturing ease and of course the well known '43 turret.

That is correct the BT-7 did not have the V-2 engine that was the problem. Reference for T-34 production issues is: Neizvestnyy T-34 ISBN: 5-94038-013-1

The T-34/85 had the same track width as the regular T-34 however the weight was more so the ratio was much worse. Bogged down tanks are a major issue, especially because the Soviet Union didn't have the experienced recovery troops that Germany did which meant a lot more T-34s were left that could have been recovered, but you are correct that the T-34's real genius was in it's ability to be mass-produced (unlike let's say the JagdTiger which they made less then 100 of)

You are correct that the ratio of weight to track width is the real issue that is why the King Tiger with it's massive tracks still stuck to the ground like a fly in honey (assuming it's transmission didn't break again). Also I would like to point out that German really loved their heavy tanks, like how the Panther weighted 44.8 metric tons and the Tiger was 56.9 metric tons, Tiger II was 69.8 metric tons, while the IS-2 weighted 46 metric tons and the Pershing was a mere 41.7 metric tons.

[skarczew]

Russians did not follow the British philosophy of having dozens of Marks for minor incremental improvements they would save improvements and do a year's worth at a time. Although crews would sometimes make improvements on their own tanks but this was common in all armies of the time. My understanding (from Jane's and Zaloga) is almost all of the engine and suspension issues were worked out with the 41 release and the 42 and 43 release improved the sights, cupola, manufacturing ease and of course the well known '43 turret.

That is correct the BT-7 did not have the V-2 engine that was the problem. Reference for T-34 production issues is: Neizvestnyy T-34 ISBN: 5-94038-013-1

Thanks for reference .

Regarding problems with T-34, I found mostly notes about friction clutches and very bad air cleaner that simply did not do its role.
My previous link and the following one explains the source of problems better than me:
http://www.battlefield.ru/en/documents/ ... ation.html

[Razz1]

If you lower the movement for Jag Tiger you will need to lower it for other tanks like the JSU-152/ ISU -152

Edite dypo error!

ha ha can't spell...

[skarczew]

If you lower the movement for Jag Tiger you will need to lower it for other tanks like the Ju-152

I think such tank did not exist...
Maybe you meant SU-152? Or ISU-152? Those were used as self-propelled assault guns / artillery / TDs.