Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TDeacon on September 03, 2013, 10:58:36 PM
-
Correct the AH game speed for the Sherman Firefly VC from 20 mph to 22 mph.
Justification: All references I’ve seen, including the 2001 Hayward “Sherman Firefly” book, give the Firefly VC a max road speed of 22.25 mph, and all other AH GVs appear to use their max road speeds for cross country travel (presumably for game play purposes).
Note that the Hayward book also refers to a “sustained speed” of 20 mph. However when you design speeds into a game (any game), you want to use the same speed definition for each platform. “Sustained speed” (whatever that means) data is not used for the other GVs in AH. If you use this type of speed definition for only the Firefly, you distort the relative performance between the Firefly and all the other GVs. It’s like designing a set of naval rules and using trial speeds for Italian warships and design speeds (generally slower than trial speeds) for everyone else. Not logical. If we allow relatively mechanically unreliable German tanks like Panthers to tool around at maximum road speed, we should allow the much more reliable Sherman to do so as well.
MH
-
You sure the maximum speed is used for other AH tanks? The only two references I have for the T34/85 show a speed of 34 mph ("The T34 Russian Battle Tank" by Huges and Mann) or 33 mph (Wikipedia) while the maximum speed for the T34/85 in AH is 32 mph.
-
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=248
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=63
-
I believe the issues is that there are two different Firefly tanks. The AH Firefly is based on the M4 Composite chassis, or at least appears to be. This would be a possibility, since the British did modify at least a few of that model. That means it has the Continental R975 engine (radial) versus the Chrysler A57 5x6cyl (inline). If you look at the model closely you can verify this.
The 22.25 mph figure would be for the M4A4, which we do not have as an M4 let alone as a Firefly.
-
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=63
That link shows the problem with knowing what's real: it doesn't even agree with itself regarding the T34/85 top speed. The text says 34 mph the table says 30 mph. I don't envy HTC trying to decide on vehicle and plane performance specs.
-
I believe the issues is that there are two different Firefly tanks. The AH Firefly is based on the M4 Composite chassis, or at least appears to be. This would be a possibility, since the British did modify at least a few of that model. That means it has the Continental R975 engine (radial) versus the Chrysler A57 5x6cyl (inline). If you look at the model closely you can verify this.
The 22.25 mph figure would be for the M4A4, which we do not have as an M4 let alone as a Firefly.
The AH hanger listing says "Firefly VC". All the tank references in my home library give the 22.25 mph max road speed for that model.
MH
-
Wrong; where do you obtain your information? I listed the Hayward book as one of my sources, which has footnotes and a bibliography.
BTW, the hanger listing says "Firefly VC".
MH
There were two different engines in the Firefly so he is correct, there is a reason the british tanks are slower - if your book does not show both engines or top speeds then it is probably a generic listing on the tank. One engine was a contiental Radial engine the other a Crysler inline engine.
I do know the British Firefly was 20mph and American engine fireflies were 22.25mph.
No Firefly did 25mph, however there were only a few Contiental engines used, the standard Firefly would be 22.25mph and that is what we should have in game.
-
There were two different engines in the Firefly so he is correct, there is a reason the british tanks are slower - if your book does not show both engines or top speeds then it is probably a generic listing on the tank. One engine was a contiental Radial engine the other a Crysler inline engine.
I do know the British Firefly was 20mph and American engine fireflies were 22.25mph.
No Firefly did 25mph.
He is wrong because we are talking about the Firefly VC, which is what we have in AH right now.
I didn't say anything about 25mph, so what's with the red herring? I *am* saying that all sources I have access to, including the Hayward book which is the most detailed book I know of on the Firefly, show 22.25 mph for the VC. My sources do also show different speeds for different models, but since that is not the topic of the OP, I am not bothering to quote them.
What are your sources? Please don't quote websites.
MH
-
Nobody says it did 25 mph. I *am* saying that all sources I have access to, including the Hayward book which is the most detailed book I know of on the Firefly, show 22.25 mph for the VC. What are your sources?
MH
Hawker posted two links that show it does 25, this never happened.
I have the Hayward book too, it doesn't even mention both engines if i'm correct. Osprey Sherman Firefly, Sherman Firefly vs Tiger normandy 1944, Memoirs of Wilfred Harris, Hayward, Armor in action Firefly VC.
Are you insulting me by saying dont quote websites?
-
Looking at the model of the Firefly in game we do indeed have the VC (Sherman V), instead of the IC (Sherman I). Looking at the performance of the tank, it acts like a IC I would guess.
-
These are both Sherman VC Fireflys (fireflies?). :D
Can you see why one might be faster than the other?
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/ShermanVCFireflyparade_zpsb0a01ccc.jpg)
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/ShermanVCFireflycombat_zps6663a6bd.jpg)
-
Hawker posted two links that show it does 25, this never happened.
I have the Hayward book too, it doesn't even mention both engines if i'm correct. Osprey Sherman Firefly, Sherman Firefly vs Tiger normandy 1944, Memoirs of Wilfred Harris, Hayward, Armor in action Firefly VC.
Are you insulting me by saying dont quote websites?
Butcher, no insult intended, but you did post a BBC website link as a reference when we discussed this same issue in the M36 thread.
With respect to book references, yes the 2001 Hayward book does mention the power plants. Among other places, there is a summary data table on page 177. Of the books you quote, I only have immediate access to the Osprey “Sherman Firefly vs Tiger”. I don’t see that it supports your claim that max road speed was 20mph. Note that the author quotes Hayward as a source in his bibliography.
Previously you posted:
There were two different engines in the Firefly so he is correct, there is a reason the british tanks are slower - if your book does not show both engines or top speeds then it is probably a generic listing on the tank. One engine was a contiental Radial engine the other a Crysler inline engine.
I do know the British Firefly was 20mph and American engine fireflies were 22.25mph.
I’m sure you know that British Shermans were made in the USA, and all used “American engines”. The VC was their name for the M4A4 and used the Chrysler multibank engine. The IC was their name for the M4 and used the Continental radial engine. I would be interested in any source you have which indicates that the maximum road speed for the VC (M4A4) was 20mph. A page number would be helpful.
MH
-
These are both Sherman VC Fireflys (fireflies?). :D
Can you see why one might be faster than the other?
<snip images>
Chalenge, the first is not an original Firefly; note the hull machine gun. On a Firefly, this space was used for ammo storage, at the cost of one of the 5 original Sherman crew members. The Hayward book calls these types of tanks "post war museum pieces", cobbled together out of spare parts probably by the museum.
MH
-
Well, perhaps Hayward does say that. The tank is an M4A4 Sherman VC that has not fully been upgraded to British standards, at least. But, that's not the point of the images. The problem for the VC overall is weight, but also the trial specifications resulted in a road speed of 22.25 mph with the rubber block tracks. I first thought that a change to combat steel might make the difference, but now I think it has to do with changes made to the traverse gear by the Department of Tank Design after there were numerous failures in the field.
-
Well, perhaps Hayward does say that. The tank is an M4A4 Sherman VC that has not fully been upgraded to British standards, at least. But, that's not the point of the images. The problem for the VC overall is weight, but also the trial specifications resulted in a road speed of 22.25 mph with the rubber block tracks. I first thought that a change to combat steel might make the difference, but now I think it has to do with changes made to the traverse gear by the Department of Tank Design after there were numerous failures in the field.
You are probably mistaken on that tank ID. The Firefly mods were made in the UK, and they wouldn't have added the gun without the other stuff.
But, to your main point, the Firefly VC (17pdr) is listed as being 3 tons heavier than a regular VC (75mm) tank. That's why its speed was 22.25 mph versus the 25.2 mph of the regular VC (per Hayward, page 177, who claims his data came from original documents from the Bovington Tank Museum and the UK PRO).
MH
-
Butcher, no insult intended, but you did post a BBC website link as a reference when we discussed this same issue in the M36 thread.
With respect to book references, yes the 2001 Hayward book does mention the power plants. Among other places, there is a summary data table on page 177. Of the books you quote, I only have immediate access to the Osprey “Sherman Firefly vs Tiger”. I don’t see that it supports your claim that max road speed was 20mph. Note that the author quotes Hayward as a source in his bibliography.
Previously you posted:
I’m sure you know that British Shermans were made in the USA, and all used “American engines”. The VC was their name for the M4A4 and used the Chrysler multibank engine. The IC was their name for the M4 and used the Continental radial engine. I would be interested in any source you have which indicates that the maximum road speed for the VC (M4A4) was 20mph. A page number would be helpful.
MH
Usually I never post website information, I usually backup my information by going through manuals, books and memoirs and scanning them so I can present the information. I do not know if a Sherman VC goes 25 mph (off top of my head most of the time I have to go back and read again),also I never drove one. I take what comes from different books and try to piece together what I feel is the best available information. Sometimes If I slack I do post websites, most people who don't realize it takes time going through books as well as having to scan them etc, I don't have that luxury anymore. Usually if I am wrong someone will point it out to me and mistakes do happen. I always joke never GIVE websites because people have a tendency to just post Wikipedia or the first website they come across without actual research and claim. if I do post a website honestly I am just being lazy and yes I should be ignored.
The British VC Firefly should have a top speed of 22.25 mph, I posted a link in another thread on the firefly stating this before with multiple sources. the IC Version from what I gather did 20mph, however we have the Sherman VC.
Here's a photo of my old link (now look at the time and date) this was the last time I asked that the Firefly be updated (Two years ago right?) you can use search and see for yourself.
(http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab56/Misconduc/Firefly.jpg)
-
<snip>
The British VC Firefly should have a top speed of 22.25 mph, I posted a link in another thread on the firefly stating this before with multiple sources. the IC Version from what I gather did 20mph, however we have the Sherman VC.
<snip>
Great that we agree on the Firefly VC going 22.25 mph. Hopefully HTC will fix it. :)
MH
-
Great that we agree on the Firefly VC going 22.25 mph. Hopefully HTC will fix it. :)
MH
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Firefly.jpg (http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Firefly.jpg)
This is what you are looking for, what we have in game is the Sherman IC. Why its designated the Sherman VC I dunno, but our performance and tank is the IC.
-
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Firefly.jpg (http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Firefly.jpg)
This is what you are looking for, what we have in game is the Sherman IC. Why its designated the Sherman VC I dunno, but our performance and tank is the IC.
Yes, that's page 177 of Hayward, which I mentioned above at 07:55:39. The 3D model appears to be of the Firefly VC, so all they have to do is increase its speed to 22.25 mph. BTW that page shows that the IC was faster than VC; note the Firefly VC weighed 2 tons more than the Firefly IC, the Firefly VC bhp/ton of 12.8 versus 13.3 for Firefly IC, the "sustained speeds" of 20 mph versus 21 mph, etc. He could have organized it better, I admit.
MH
-
Just so you know, if it's called a VC Firefly that means it is an M4A4 (Sherman V) with the 17 pdr mod (C), thus Sherman VC Firefly. The Sherman I (M4 Composite) with the 17 pdr mod (C) is a Sherman IC Firefly.
The Firefly was in high demand during the war. The fact that there are VC Fireflies without the full mod is not surprising. To go to the astounding conclusion that those tanks are piece-together works by museums is a little outrageous. Most museums do not even have the budget to afford paint, and instead of fixing leaking engines they invest in drain pans instead. For Hayward to say that tanks are facsimiles is weak at best. These tanks are found all over the world and even Chile has Firefly tanks on display. To create a mock-up would be very expensive versus just using the actual tank (even a rust bucket). Here in the U.S. alone we have hundreds!
You don't need to go to Bovington, although I've been there too. Although I'm not ready to bust out writing a book on tanks I can tell you that you could save a ton of dough just by visiting Ft. Lee, Virginia where nearly ever tank that operated during WWII has been fully tested and the data readily available. I'm sure HTC knows exactly where to find that information.
-
You don't need to go to Bovington, although I've been there too. Although I'm not ready to bust out writing a book on tanks I can tell you that you could save a ton of dough just by visiting Ft. Lee, Virginia where nearly ever tank that operated during WWII has been fully tested and the data readily available. I'm sure HTC knows exactly where to find that information.
I would love to get my hands on actual testing data, I've written enough times to museums and other places to get any such information without any luck. Problem with having books, memoirs or magazines is unless I can cross reference the information its almost useless to me, because I like to have verified proof.
HTC might not know where to get that information, but if we have in fact the IC Firefly, it needs to be listed as the IC firefly.
one of my major problems is all the stuff I have is very dated material, I have spent hours and hours converting many of my stuff to PDF files just in case. Because everything is very old (I have books from the 30s) and I am afraid they might be destroyed.
-
The problem I have with the 22.25 mph figure, which is repeated in so many books, is that a 16% increase in power is supposed to result in a 12% increase in speed. That's unprecedented! I could see it with a 36% increase in power, like if the Ford GAA was used. But to think that 70 extra horsepower could push that much extra weight that much faster given a problematic drive system already? I don't buy it, and I can't accept it unless the Army Armaments states that it is so. I just got the TM 9-759 and I'm reading through it see what their claim is.
Yes, I think we have a model of a VC, and probably the actual performance of the tank in battle. Now that Deacon thinks it is a bug, or suspect data I would suggest a post in the Bugs Forum, though I think Pyro and Hitech read this forum also.
EDIT: Regarding the bold area here; the mechanical efficiency checks out as you might expect. In other words, a top speed of 22.25 mph would not be unusual, unless when the drive modifications were implemented the tank governor was also modified to force a lower speed.
I wish to see the British Field Manual for the VC.
-
The problem I have with the 22.25 mph figure, which is repeated in so many books, is that a 16% increase in power is supposed to result in a 12% increase in speed. That's unprecedented! I could see it with a 36% increase in power, like if the Ford GAA was used. But to think that 70 extra horsepower could push that much extra weight that much faster given a problematic drive system already? I don't buy it, and I can't accept it unless the Army Armaments states that it is so. I just got the TM 9-759 and I'm reading through it see what their claim is.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean, as the rationale for the requested speed correction doesn’t rest on theoretical calculation, but on (*widely*) published data. Comparison of the published data I quoted for the Sherman V versus the Sherman Firefly VC seems plausible since the former weighs about 3 tons less and is listed at 25.2 mph, while the latter weights about 3 tons more and is listed at 22.25 mph.
Yes, I think we have a model of a VC, and probably the actual performance of the tank in battle. Now that Deacon thinks it is a bug, or suspect data I would suggest a post in the Bugs Forum, though I think Pyro and Hitech read this forum also.
Chalenge, stop putting words into my mouth. I think it was a deliberate design decision, based on what I believe to be incorrect data, which is why I posted my sources. This is also why I made the comment that using the quoted “sustained speed” doesn’t make sense from a game design decision (all this in the OP).
EDIT: Regarding the bold area here; the mechanical efficiency checks out as you might expect. In other words, a top speed of 22.25 mph would not be unusual, unless when the drive modifications were implemented the tank governor was also modified to force a lower speed.
What drive modifications?? Please provide evidence, not speculation.
I wish to see the British Field Manual for the VC.
And presumably until you get around to finding this hypothetical object, HTC should ignore my evidence and leave the speed at 20 mph? You are grasping at straws here. The OP is a reasonable request, based on reasonable available evidence, and is not in any way a game changer. The Firefly will still be the slowest tank in the game, and the world will not come to an end.
MH
-
<snip>
but if we have in fact the IC Firefly, it needs to be listed as the IC firefly.
<snip>
I'd say we have the Firefly VC. Although the 3D model's suspension element spacing is kind of in between the 2, the overall appearance including the longer rear deck looks like a VC. In any case, as I mentioned previously, what little evidence we have suggests that the IC was faster, not slower. Per previous post, note the Firefly VC weighed 2 tons more than the Firefly IC, the Firefly VC bhp/ton of 12.8 versus 13.3 for Firefly IC, the "sustained speeds" of 20 mph versus 21 mph, etc.
MH
-
And presumably until you get around to finding this hypothetical object, HTC should ignore my evidence and leave the speed at 20 mph? You are grasping at straws here. The OP is a reasonable request, based on reasonable available evidence, and is not in any way a game changer. The Firefly will still be the slowest tank in the game, and the world will not come to an end.
Deacon, I don't know what you're going on about. I certainly am not attacking you (I already said that), but trying to get to the bottom of where HTC got their numbers. They don't normally tell us. What I have been doing, and presumably Butcher, is discover the reason HTC has it as they do. I'm afraid you don't understand that the evidence I found suggests you are wrong about the IC, but correct about the VC. The IC has the Continental 975 rotary engine, which has 70 HP less than the VC. Otherwise, it is the same tank with the same mods, except that the VC also had drive train modifications performed upon it to prevent breakdowns.
As to your claim that the performance in AH is "wrong," I have found no reason to support that it is "right." In other words, at this point I agree. Also what you didn't follow is, what I did was take the performance of the IC and the mechanical efficiency reported in the US Army Technical manual for the drive train, and add the 70 additional HP the VC has over the IC, and what results is the 22.25 mph. The drive modification is not speculation. If Hayward did not report that then he doesn't do a very good job of reporting the history of the Firefly. I know about the mechanical problems because they are reported in Fletcher's book "Sherman Firefly," which you can pick up at Amazon for not much coin (I think Kindle is less than $10). You might also look at "M4 Sherman at War," by Michael Green and James D. Brown.
The reason I want to look at the British field manual for the VC Firefly is it will tell you exactly what the tank can do. Also, one thing you are wrong about is on-road versus off-road performance. HTC is correct in allowing the tanks to perform on open ground at the same speeds that the tanks provide on road. That is very clearly stated in the Technical Manual for the tank. I'm sure there are circumstances where off-road speed were less, such as when the ground is loose gravel piles, or loose topsoil, but on level, firm ground there is no reason the tanks would be slowed down.
I'm also not suggesting that HTC should ignore your wish. Only they know the evidence they used in creating the VC, and only they can decide. If they have in their hands the British Field Manual and it reports 20 mph, then you won't see any change made.
EDIT: One of the problems with retrieving information from the Ordnance Museum, at the moment, is the budget cuts. The Aberdeen museum has been relocated to Ft. Lee, but the money for the museum that would be built there has not been approved, and won't be until something happens. That means the Tiger I that only just returned from Germany is an open air display, as are all displays like 'Anzio Annie' and other very unique artifacts of the war. There is a Heritage Center, but no enclosed museum, so where you call or write for archived information is your guess.
-
<snip>
As to your claim that the performance in AH is "wrong," I have found no reason to support that it is "right." In other words, at this point I agree. Also what you didn't follow is, what I did was take the performance of the IC and the mechanical efficiency reported in the US Army Technical manual for the drive train, and add the 70 additional HP the VC has over the IC, and what results is the 22.25 mph.
<snip>
So you (provisionally) agree with the 22.25 mph maximum road speed as well.
Don’t forget the second point in the OP…
MH
-
Yes, according to the power curves and mechanical efficiency the tank can do 22.25 mph. The only problem outlined in any of the books was, as I mentioned, corrected. What the outcome was of that can probably only be brought to light with a field manual, and that's why I said what I did.
-
So the biggest issue is to determine which engine and which hull HTC has modeled? Is the hull we have going to have a specific engine in it? Or is the the "to be or not to be" question?
-
where HTC got their numbers. They don't normally tell us.
Ask politely?
-
The only real question is why it is limited to 20mph, which is probably because the tanks had a governor installed. That still has to be determined.
The problem is that the only details we have found state a limited endurance at 22.25 mph, and a problem in the drive train that may, or may not, have forced the tank to be run more slowly. There are a lot of texts on the subject (some of them not well researched by the authors), with the available horsepower listed as between 425 and 470 hp. At 425 hp the tank cannot make 22.25 mph and will be limited to 20 mph.
The other question is whether the other tanks are running at a 'sprint' speed, or not. If they are, then there should be no problem with 22.25 mph for the VC.
-
Ask politely?
The silence will be deafening. ;)
From evidence, it appears their sources are not singular and that is good. Relying on a single source in many cases limiting, there are multiple cases in which different authors (and original sources) can outright defy one another simply based on it wasn't their idea so they differ in opinions or base origins of data. Obviously, the best place to start for information, stats, data, production info, etc, is the original source be it WWII documents straight from the production factories, then perhaps military manuals, etc. Then there are authors and researchers who have dug deeper than most of us can imagine and can produce information most of us could only dream of finding. Then, when possible and realistically feasible, testimony from the vets themselves can be referenced.
HTC does well, imo, in producing as accurate of a model as can be. They have a vested interest in being accurate, not being the next big thing on Xbawx. If proof can be produced HTC has shown that they will at least investigate the possibility. Case in point: the Typhoon and the 2 rockets w/ drop tanks. Someone simply showed a picture (and produced other official notes?) and the next update the Typhoon got it's due. Lets hope HTC will do the same thing with the speed of the Firefly, if need be, and the Fw190F-8 and the multiple ordnance options missing. ;)
-
The only real question is why it is limited to 20mph, which is probably because the tanks had a governor installed. That still has to be determined.
The problem is that the only details we have found state a limited endurance at 22.25 mph, and a problem in the drive train that may, or may not, have forced the tank to be run more slowly. There are a lot of texts on the subject (some of them not well researched by the authors), with the available horsepower listed as between 425 and 470 hp. At 425 hp the tank cannot make 22.25 mph and will be limited to 20 mph.
The other question is whether the other tanks are running at a 'sprint' speed, or not. If they are, then there should be no problem with 22.25 mph for the VC.
The Osprey "Sherman Medium Tank" booklet (Steven Zaloga) implies that *all* Shermans had an engine governor installed (page 19). Most of them went at least 25 mph.
Chalenge, granted you have provisionally accepted the 22.25 mph, but your implication that you can calculate a tank's speed from original data has not yet been backed up by evidence. It is not reasonable to expect people to take your word for your level of expertise in this, especially when it contradicts published literature. Surely you can see this?
Finally, I have never driven a WWII tank. Still, the tank literature and miniatures rules which I have seen over the last 40-years-plus of wargaming tends to characterize a road speed and a cross country speed, with the cross-country tending to be about half the road. Anyone who has driven a vehicle cross country can see why this reduction in speed might be modeled (avoiding vehicle breakdown, avoiding injury to occupants, avoiding catastrophic accidents like overturning vehicle, etc..). What original source materials the cross country speed was based on I don't know, but the pattern is so common among authors that there has to be something historical behind it. Of course there are some surfaces where a tank can move at close to its maximum speed off-road, but this appears to be exceptional. Now when you look at the Aces High speeds of the vehicles, they are mostly quite close to published max road speeds. Any minor variations I would attribute to differences in the various authors sources, but the pattern (using road speeds) is clearly there in this game.
MH
-
So the biggest issue is to determine which engine and which hull HTC has modeled? Is the hull we have going to have a specific engine in it? Or is the the "to be or not to be" question?
Per my previous post, I'd say we have the Firefly VC. Although the 3D model's suspension element spacing is kind of in between the 2, the overall appearance including the longer rear deck looks like a VC. And, of course, they say it's a VC. I mean, would we assume their Tiger I was a Crusader? That would be perverse.
MH
-
The silence will be deafening. ;)
From evidence, it appears their sources are not singular and that is good. Relying on a single source in many cases limiting, there are multiple cases in which different authors (and original sources) can outright defy one another simply based on it wasn't their idea so they differ in opinions or base origins of data. Obviously, the best place to start for information, stats, data, production info, etc, is the original source be it WWII documents straight from the production factories, then perhaps military manuals, etc. Then there are authors and researchers who have dug deeper than most of us can imagine and can produce information most of us could only dream of finding. Then, when possible and realistically feasible, testimony from the vets themselves can be referenced.
HTC does well, imo, in producing as accurate of a model as can be. They have a vested interest in being accurate, not being the next big thing on Xbawx. If proof can be produced HTC has shown that they will at least investigate the possibility. Case in point: the Typhoon and the 2 rockets w/ drop tanks. Someone simply showed a picture (and produced other official notes?) and the next update the Typhoon got it's due. Lets hope HTC will do the same thing with the speed of the Firefly, if need be, and the Fw190F-8 and the multiple ordnance options missing. ;)
Is the torpedo option a possibility for the 190 in AH? I don't recall if it's the F-8 or one of the A series or both, nor do I recall if the torpedo was used/carried frequently enough to warrant being included in the game. However, as much as Allied shipping was targeted, I'd imagine there was a fair amount of use...?
-
Is the torpedo option a possibility for the 190 in AH? I don't recall if it's the F-8 or one of the A series or both, nor do I recall if the torpedo was used/carried frequently enough to warrant being included in the game. However, as much as Allied shipping was targeted, I'd imagine there was a fair amount of use...?
nope it was a prototype that didnt happen.
-
nope it was a prototype that didnt happen.
Rgr, ty, I found this (among others just for fyi,) and looks like it was experimented with both the A-5 & F-8, but as you confirm; never saw combat.
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/Torpedo_carrying_Focke_Wulf_190_the_facts_about30632.html
-
Chalenge, granted you have provisionally accepted the 22.25 mph, but your implication that you can calculate a tank's speed from original data has not yet been backed up by evidence. It is not reasonable to expect people to take your word for your level of expertise in this, especially when it contradicts published literature. Surely you can see this?
Finally, I have never driven a WWII tank. Still, the tank literature and miniatures rules which I have seen over the last 40-years-plus of wargaming tends to characterize a road speed and a cross country speed, with the cross-country tending to be about half the road.
It's really simple, Deacon, and whether I can calculate a tank's speed has nothing to do with it. Just look at the facts.
The M4A3 has the GAA engine in it which produces 500 hp at 2600 rpm, which translates to 26 mph. The M4A3 weights 59,560 lbs. (this is all in the manual TM9-759 that I referenced previously) and on page six of the technical manual for that tank it clearly states that the M4A3 can manage 26mph on road, and 4-26mph cross-country for various terrains. I also told you previously that there are countryside surfaces that tanks will run at road speed upon, yet you adhere to some other thinking. In AH those other terrains that slow tanks down are sloped terrains. Your experience in other games does not change that. The treads on these tanks are of type rubber-block, or steel. Perhaps that would make a difference, I don't know.
As to the power of the Sherman VC Firefly? Like I said before, 470 hp for the Chrysler engine has been reported, yet the same engine on the M4A4 is reported at 470 hp, but only 425 hp for the Firefly? If, it has less horsepower and more weight, then it simply cannot go the same speed. You should agree to that! Now simply break it down into available horsepower per ton terms and you can see there's a problem. If the added weight of the Firefly mod is enough to slow the tank to 22.25 mph, then taking away 50 hp is going to slow it down even more. HTC may have found evidence that 425 hp is the correct figure, in which case their speed limitations may also be justified.
EDIT: corrected the name of the M4A3 which is the tank of the TM9-759.
-
The Osprey "Sherman Medium Tank" booklet (Steven Zaloga) implies that *all* Shermans had an engine governor installed (page 19). Most of them went at least 25 mph.
Chalenge, granted you have provisionally accepted the 22.25 mph, but your implication that you can calculate a tank's speed from original data has not yet been backed up by evidence. It is not reasonable to expect people to take your word for your level of expertise in this, especially when it contradicts published literature. Surely you can see this?
Finally, I have never driven a WWII tank. Still, the tank literature and miniatures rules which I have seen over the last 40-years-plus of wargaming tends to characterize a road speed and a cross country speed, with the cross-country tending to be about half the road. Anyone who has driven a vehicle cross country can see why this reduction in speed might be modeled (avoiding vehicle breakdown, avoiding injury to occupants, avoiding catastrophic accidents like overturning vehicle, etc..). What original source materials the cross country speed was based on I don't know, but the pattern is so common among authors that there has to be something historical behind it. Of course there are some surfaces where a tank can move at close to its maximum speed off-road, but this appears to be exceptional. Now when you look at the Aces High speeds of the vehicles, they are mostly quite close to published max road speeds. Any minor variations I would attribute to differences in the various authors sources, but the pattern (using road speeds) is clearly there in this game.
MH
I've been told directly by tanker that the cross road speed is determined by a couple of things: how much the crew is willing to beat the tar out of themselves, how much abuse the commander is willing to chance on the chassis and crew, the tactics or mission, and the terrain itself. A freshly plowed field is not going to allow a tank to go as fast one that has been packed solid. Swamp vs sand vs rocky soil vs hay field. The %50 "cross country" speeds are only a figure to reference for the most part. Certainly, I'd be willing to give the T34 and Panther the edge over the Panzer IV and M4's based on track width and ground pressure alone.
Remember in AH the terrain is uncommonly smooth. There are no creek beds, no fence posts, no sudden craters, no ravines, and barely a butte, mound, or elevation change to traverse. While this may have been typical on the steppes of eastern Europa, I don't think it was typical is most places. There simply is more variables in the terrain to consider in the real deal.
-
all this back and forth with statistics and facts to a tank that 80% of the time stays parked camping. you guys are such nerds :).
semp
-
I've been told directly by tanker that the cross road speed is determined by a couple of things: how much the crew is willing to beat the tar out of themselves, how much abuse the commander is willing to chance on the chassis and crew, the tactics or mission, and the terrain itself. A freshly plowed field is not going to allow a tank to go as fast one that has been packed solid. Swamp vs sand vs rocky soil vs hay field. The %50 "cross country" speeds are only a figure to reference for the most part. Certainly, I'd be willing to give the T34 and Panther the edge over the Panzer IV and M4's based on track width and ground pressure alone.
Remember in AH the terrain is uncommonly smooth. There are no creek beds, no fence posts, no sudden craters, no ravines, and barely a butte, mound, or elevation change to traverse. While this may have been typical on the steppes of eastern Europa, I don't think it was typical is most places. There simply is more variables in the terrain to consider in the real deal.
How I wish we had these, most of the most vivid stories I read was about a thompson machine gunner that was in a foxhole, during the night he heard tanks creeping up on his position - he sent a runner to let HQ know that tanks were in his area, however he had no clue an 88mm was firing shells into the area and one burst a tree killing the runner. Through the dense fog he seen a Panther tank trying to cross a creek bed, there were 5-6 infantry soldiers behind the tank, he got off a burst and killed a few of them - then the Panther started rotating its turret towards him - he panicked and dove in his foxhole. Few seconds later the Panther lets off a HE round then its coax machine guns start ripping - all sudden BOOM! the Tank was knocked out. A bazooka team on his flank had only one round left, they waited until the tank became bogged down in the creek before they tried, they were luck enough to score a hit and the crew bailed out running.
I would love to have Farms, Creeks, Snow and other things that would hamper ground vehicles, but I know weather is rather out of the question for Aces (Although I really wish we had dynamic weather changes). We have Farm houses, why not Fields? I know its a ton of work to redo a map this way, but it would just be a nice touch.
-
It's really simple, Deacon, and whether I can calculate a tank's speed has nothing to do with it. Just look at the facts.
The M4A3 has the GAA engine in it which produces 500 hp at 2600 rpm, which translates to 26 mph. The M4A3 weights 59,560 lbs. (this is all in the manual TM9-759 that I referenced previously) and on page six of the technical manual for that tank it clearly states that the M4A3 can manage 26mph on road, and 4-26mph cross-country for various terrains. I also told you previously that there are countryside surfaces that tanks will run at road speed upon, yet you adhere to some other thinking. In AH those other terrains that slow tanks down are sloped terrains. Your experience in other games does not change that. The treads on these tanks are of type rubber-block, or steel. Perhaps that would make a difference, I don't know.
As to the power of the Sherman VC Firefly? Like I said before, 470 hp for the Chrysler engine has been reported, yet the same engine on the M4A4 is reported at 470 hp, but only 425 hp for the Firefly? If, it has less horsepower and more weight, then it simply cannot go the same speed. You should agree to that! Now simply break it down into available horsepower per ton terms and you can see there's a problem. If the added weight of the Firefly mod is enough to slow the tank to 22.25 mph, then taking away 50 hp is going to slow it down even more. HTC may have found evidence that 425 hp is the correct figure, in which case their speed limitations may also be justified.
EDIT: corrected the name of the M4A3 which is the tank of the TM9-759.
With respect to cross-country speeds, you are quoting only part of what I actually wrote. Thus you are demolishing a straw man. If that makes you happy, fine; it's not central to the OP.
With respect to the 22.25 mph, there are several discontinuities in the chain of logic you describe above, such that the final speed conclusion is not demonstrated. (Like, when did we establish that the Firefly VC has less horsepower than the Sherman V or the M4A4)? Certainly, your logic is not going to convince anyone to ignore commonly published speeds for the Firefly VC. Also, since I am not intellectually insecure, saying something like "it's really simple" doesn't cut the mustard with me.
MH
-
all this back and forth with statistics and facts to a tank that 80% of the time stays parked camping. you guys are such nerds :).
semp
That's probably because our current AH Firefly only goes 20 mph, and is I believe the slowest vehicle in the game. When it was first introduced into AH, it went 25 mph (equal to the Panzer IV).
MH
-
With respect to cross-country speeds, you are quoting only part of what I actually wrote. Thus you are demolishing a straw man. If that makes you happy, fine; it's not central to the OP.
With respect to the 22.25 mph, there are several discontinuities in the chain of logic you describe above, such that the final speed conclusion is not demonstrated. (Like, when did we establish that the Firefly VC has less horsepower than the Sherman V or the M4A4)? Certainly, your logic is not going to convince anyone to ignore commonly published speeds for the Firefly VC. Also, since I am not intellectually insecure, saying something like "it's really simple" doesn't cut the mustard with me.
MH
One thing that people seem to get confused on, TOP speed is not cross country its actually road speed only with a different set of tracks. For example the Tiger tank's top speed on road is 25mph, cross country is 12.5mph.
Firefly VC like the Churchill tank and the KV-1 barely even have 10mph cross country, and some tanks were far worse then this (Matilda).
Road range on a Tiger (for example) was 75 miles, cross country was barely 40 miles.
All Aces High vehicles take their top speed from Road speed only, not cross country, if that was true then the Firefly's top speed would be barely 9.1mph.
-
With respect to the 22.25 mph, there are several discontinuities in the chain of logic you describe above, such that the final speed conclusion is not demonstrated. (Like, when did we establish that the Firefly VC has less horsepower than the Sherman V or the M4A4)? Certainly, your logic is not going to convince anyone to ignore commonly published speeds for the Firefly VC. Also, since I am not intellectually insecure, saying something like "it's really simple" doesn't cut the mustard with me.
Apparently you are not capable of understanding the written word. I already told you that the published engine power varies from text to text. I also pointed out why the Firefly is likely to have less power than the same tank without the mod. If you can't understand what I wrote, then I'm sorry. Probably you would be better off arguing against bombs in AH.
-
Apparently you are not capable of understanding the written word. I already told you that the published engine power varies from text to text. I also pointed out why the Firefly is likely to have less power than the same tank without the mod. If you can't understand what I wrote, then I'm sorry. Probably you would be better off arguing against bombs in AH.
If you say so. :)
MH
-
One thing that people seem to get confused on, TOP speed is not cross country its actually road speed only with a different set of tracks. For example the Tiger tank's top speed on road is 25mph, cross country is 12.5mph.
Firefly VC like the Churchill tank and the KV-1 barely even have 10mph cross country, and some tanks were far worse then this (Matilda).
Road range on a Tiger (for example) was 75 miles, cross country was barely 40 miles.
All Aces High vehicles take their top speed from Road speed only, not cross country, if that was true then the Firefly's top speed would be barely 9.1mph.
Imagine what our GV gameplay would be like if AH limited us to cross-country speeds... :)
MH
-
Imagine what our GV gameplay would be like if AH limited us to cross-country speeds... :)
MH
And this has been debated before, a few times in fact - road speed is the speed we have for vehicles and 99% agree not to change it due to the time and speed problem, however if we added natural resistance such as rivers and weather then they should be slowed to appear realistic.
I personally agree to keep all vehicles as their road speed only, only thing is I wanted to add natural barriers like muddy fields for example to bog tanks down.
However without weather it simply wouldn't work as you'd have a weatherless map and all sudden muddy fields, so it simply wouldn't work. Maybe in due time when weather can be added, for example Snow and Rain to cause natural barriers for GV's. As someone pointed out, I'd like to see a Tundra map so we can start using some of our winter skins.
Its been discussed about weather as well, it simply won't happen anytime soon - we have it actually, I flown in scenarios and Snapshots with weather turned on, its actually quite interesting.
-
From the Hayward "Sherman Firefly" book, here is a facsimile of part of the Bovington Tank Museum drawing TD 25968. I will also email it to HTC, in case they care to address the max road speed issue.
MH
(http://home.comcast.net/~mark.hinds/misc_online_storage_dir/Sherman_V_VC_data.jpg)