• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

3D & Animation King Tiger - WIP

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#101
Mike_Nomad said:
No....... increasing the RPM's to levels as such would first, blow the engine and seconf the turning gear ratio would "top out" too. For further details... heh heh do the legwork.
Click to expand...


Did my leg work my friend, and you are correct! Hydraulics are powerful stuff, and from my "looking" around found that the Tiger IIs HL 230 engine was governed to run at 2500 RPM maximum to prevent it from self destructing. So in any case, the engine would be the limiting factor. Seems then despite what the Vanguard book states there would be no way the turret could reach a full revolution in 9 seconds if the motor could not run up over 2500 rpm's!!

I think it is a matter of speed vs power. Tank turrets can be turned very easily if they are properly balanced, especially on flat ground and I don't think it is not unreasonable to think that considerable speeds can be achieved once the mass of the turret has been put into motion.

But if the tank is on a slope and the traverse gear box has to really push the weight of the turret & gun around, then these systems would soon loose their power and resulting speed. I read where the German Panther turret couldn't be turned if the tank was on a 20 degree or greater slope.
 
Upvote 0
#102
OneShot said:
Did my leg work my friend, and you are correct! Hydraulics are powerful stuff, and from my "looking" around found that the Tiger IIs HL 230 engine was governed to run at 2500 RPM maximum to prevent it from self destructing. So in any case, the engine would be the limiting factor. Seems then despite what the Vanguard book states there would be no way the turret could reach a full revolution in 9 seconds if the motor could not run up over 2500 rpm's!!

I think it is a matter of speed vs power. Tank turrets can be turned very easily if they are properly balanced, especially on flat ground and I don't think it is not unreasonable to think that considerable speeds can be achieved once the mass of the turret has been put into motion.

But if the tank is on a slope and the traverse gear box has to really push the weight of the turret & gun around, then these systems would soon loose their power and resulting speed. I read where the German Panther turret couldn't be turned if the tank was on a 20 degree or greater slope.
Click to expand...
hahahah:D these people are experts in the book and it says 3000 rpm see here about the guys who made the books http://www.panzerworld.net/review-panzertracts.html
 
Upvote 0
#103
karl stiner said:
hahahah:D these people are experts in the book and it says 3000 rpm see here about the guys who made the books http://www.panzerworld.net/review-panzertracts.html
Click to expand...

My source my friend. However, I always attempt to verify the data from at least two or three independent sources before I consider it gospel for just this very reason! Here we have the same author, two different titles, two different reference reports of data! I am not saying your info is wrong, just stating that my source data differs from yours! Let you know when/if I have verified the data. I consider the author Thomas Jentz an expert, at least that we agree on!

http://www.biblio.com/books/16989598.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#104
OneShot said:
My source my friend. However, I always attempt to verify the data from at least two or three independent sources before I consider it gospel for just this very reason! Here we have the same author, two different titles, two different reference reports of data! I am not saying your info is wrong, just stating that my source data differs from yours! Let you know when/if I have verified the data. I consider the author Thomas Jentz an expert, at least that we agree on!

http://www.biblio.com/books/16989598.html
Click to expand...
yea these 2
Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary Louis Doyle):p
 
Upvote 0
#105
OneShot said:
My source my friend. However, I always attempt to verify the data from at least two or three independent sources before I consider it gospel for just this very reason! Here we have the same author, two different titles, two different reference reports of data! I am not saying your info is wrong, just stating that my source data differs from yours! Let you know when/if I have verified the data. I consider the author Thomas Jentz an expert, at least that we agree on!

http://www.biblio.com/books/16989598.html
Click to expand...
Always good to check the sources :). I always check websites' sources and keep an eye out for Jentz's name. I had read / heard that Jentz has travelled around measuring armour thickness and hardness on the panzers he could find as part of his research.

Karl's source was published in '93. Your's in '97.
I'd say that the later source is probably more reliable, due to Thomas Jentz having done more research.Does Thomas list any sources for this data in either book, and have they changed?

Other thoughts are that how were engine limiters designed in '43?
And did crews adjust them themselves?
Maybe the original data was from a damaged tank, and when it was repaired by the Allies, the engine limiter could have been incorrectly set then.
 
Upvote 0
#106
Recce said:
Always good to check the sources :). I always check websites' sources and keep an eye out for Jentz's name. I had read / heard that Jentz has travelled around measuring armour thickness and hardness on the panzers he could find as part of his research.

Karl's source was published in '93. Your's in '97.
I'd say that the later source is probably more reliable, due to Thomas Jentz having done more research.Does Thomas list any sources for this data in either book, and have they changed?

Other thoughts are that how were engine limiters designed in '43?
And did crews adjust them themselves?
Maybe the original data was from a damaged tank, and when it was repaired by the Allies, the engine limiter could have been incorrectly set then.
Click to expand...
yes Recce Jentz's is one of the best mate, also i done a scan from my book so you can all read it , please go here and download it :p http://rapidshare.com/files/27397437/tiger_turret.jpg.html
 
Upvote 0
#111
karl stiner said:
yes you will love it:p its a very good humble book, it also says the king tiger was never knocked out from the front :eek::D all enemy shells could only knock on the door but never got in, but when the king tiger knocked on your door it Ripped your front door off the hinges :p
Click to expand...

Apparently even IS2 shells at close ranges rarely even penetrated the lower glacis (hull), really bad shatter problems.
 
Upvote 0
#114
Pretty much any contemporary AP shell would bounce or shatter when hitting the front armor. Unless you are so damn good you can hit the welds where the front and side armor plates interlock. The IS-2 had enough trouble with penetrating the Panthers armor, double the amount and you are royally screwed. It's the same case as 76mm guns against the Tiger I, they don't have the energy to punch through that much steel and APBC rounds aren't very good for slopped armor.

Awaits some pseudo tank expert to post the battlefield.ru article.....
 
Upvote 0
#116
Upvote 0
#119
otester said:
Was the Pak43 / other German barrels at the time rifled or smoothbore?
Click to expand...
All guns were rifled, but tapered-bore guns had a rifled and a smooth sections.
As we all know, rifling gives the shell spin, to help stabilise it's flight. But this spin is a problem for finned projectiles, and the effectiveness of HEAT shells. With a HEAT shell, the spinning interfers with the formation of the jet of moltern metal, reducing it's penetration, but I'm not sure when this was realised.

The tapered-bore was originally a British idea to produce very high muzzle velocities and was used with the 2pdr. The Pak 41 75/55mm was an example of a german tapered-bore gun. The inital calibre is 75mm, and this section was rifled. The second half was tapered from 75mm down to 55mm, and was not rifled. The projectile would have been squeezed as it passed through the barrel. Because of this, only shot could be used, not shells. The other problem was the very high wear on the barrel, giving it a life of between 500 and 600 firings.

The Pak 41 was used until all the projectiles that had been manufactured were used up, and then retired.

The projectiles would have looked similar to this russian 85mm arrow-head APCR shell.
shellspj3.jpg
 
Upvote 0
#120
karl stiner said:
yes i only really wont to know about the king tiger also the jadgpanther :p these 2 tanks i like the best ;) the pak 43 gun really will knock the hell out of anytank :)
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see that you guys are addressing the issue of gameplay/playability with such seriousness. :rolleyes: A 500lb bomb from divebomber would blow the shiat out of a tank as well and would have a similarly destructive effect on gameplay.

If this King Tiger project is to work at all it needs to be focussed on the technicalities of how to get it in-game in a non-destructive fashion rather than yet another "Let's all have a wank over how 1337 German tech was in 1944" thread.

*Wow! I can say 'wank' but not the opposite of 'blow' ???*
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu