Correct the Firefly VC's speed

[SmokinLoon]

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.    

[TDeacon]

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

[TDeacon]

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

[RotBaron]

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...?

[Butcher]

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.

[RotBaron]

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]

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.

[SmokinLoon]

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. 

[guncrasher]

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

[Butcher]

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.

[TDeacon]

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

[TDeacon]

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

[Butcher]

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.

[Chalenge]

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.

[TDeacon]

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