Tank questions
- Thread starter wkehrman
- Start date
And the KT's maximum speed was rarely, if ever achieved (my sources more accurate than Wikipedia suggest between 35 and 38kph, or the same as a Sherman on a decent surface and about half that off road).
This thread will of course have everyone dashing to the book case to get their favourite tank reference books
Of course you can always just change it, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes out with a "revised" stat book under the OGL that presents a different spin on official stats.
This thread will of course have everyone dashing to the book case to get their favourite tank reference books
Of course you can always just change it, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes out with a "revised" stat book under the OGL that presents a different spin on official stats.
DM said:
Part of the point of the OGL - when recreating real world vehicles and weapons, there is _always_ a degree of interpretation, and it is by no means unusual to find conflicting source material, even for vehicles and weapons manufactured, oh, ten years ago.
Unless you are lucky enough to have a full set of WWII tanks and aircraft, and have the ability to watch what happens when they fire upon one another, there is always an element of designer fiat and opinion. What matters is consistency between different units, and the level of granularity you accept in the designs.
As DM pointed out, people have a tendency to reach for their favourite tank book and accept it as proof. The key is to use multiple sources.
Agis said:wkehrman said:OK, seriously Matt, this is the reason the M4 moves so slow? Because the drivers are worried?msprange said:I would
Not at all, it was obvioulsy a joke! :twisted:
Why so slow? That is something for me:
Sherman Speed max: 38.5 km/h (24 mi/h) for a brief period
Tiger II speed max: Speed 41.5 km/h (25.8 mph)
Plus the way Shermans were most of the time used, stats in other games etc etc.
And do not worry, the slower speed is also represented in lower points!
And no, I will not answer in and endless discussion that might follow...
:wink: :wink: :wink:
I would be interested to know your sources on that as this is the first time ever I have heard that the Tiger II was (a) faster and (b) more reliable (which is how I interpret "a brief period"), even in games. Most sources I find have your numbers reversed: 42kph for the M4A3 (75) Sherman and 38kph for the Tiger II, and if either is to be considered "brief period" it is the Tiger II. It was mechanically unreliable, had a low hp/weight ratio and was a fuel hog.
I'll dig through some references at the store this morning (Osprey, etc.) to see what others say.
wkehrman said:
No I meant that the Shermans top speed was only used for "a brief period" during battle (aka "game"). :wink:
And yes I totally agree that the KT was more unreliable as the Sherman.
BTW: For the OGL German vehicle book I am already working on an "Unreliable" trait for the KT!
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
Roll 1D6 per German vehicle prior to the battle, on the following chart:
1: Out of fuel. On a 5+, the tank is on table and cant move, on 1-4 its stuck 3 miles behind the front.
2: If Panther or Tiger, engine is dead.
3: Blown up by allied airforce
4: Replace Panzer with captured French vehicle from 1940 or STUG
5-6: Panzers ready to rock
1: Out of fuel. On a 5+, the tank is on table and cant move, on 1-4 its stuck 3 miles behind the front.
2: If Panther or Tiger, engine is dead.
3: Blown up by allied airforce
4: Replace Panzer with captured French vehicle from 1940 or STUG
5-6: Panzers ready to rock
wkehrman said:Pietia said:My bet is on wikipedia. The numbers and additional note matchwkehrman said:
With Matt's statement on sources I would certainly hope not. Even Wikipedia's founder isn't too keen on Wikipedia being used as a sole source.
He, he, you got me! The initial response was based on Wiki, I was at work and had nothing more at hand!
:wink:
:wink:
But I can assure you that I used plenty more sources for the army lists in WaW...
DM said:Looks like a pretty decent table there, Weasel. I'd go with that
Wikipedia is banned as a reference in our department - OK to use as a potential starting point to track down propoer references, but nothing else.
In most cases, Wikipedia citations in my student's papers (indeed any encyclopedia reference) will result in failure. These days it takes about 5 minutes to do a Web search for information and that's where the kids woud stop if I let them. Minimal effort results in a minimal grade.
I find people's slavish reliance on the internet quite deprssing. I was involved ina discussion with soemone on a Yahoo group who refused to accept anything as fact unless I could provide him with a link to a website. The quoting of relevant facts from a (shock horror) BOOK wasn't sufficient for this bloke. If it wasn't on the net it didn't exist.
Agis said:wkehrman said:Pietia said:My bet is on wikipedia. The numbers and additional note match
With Matt's statement on sources I would certainly hope not. Even Wikipedia's founder isn't too keen on Wikipedia being used as a sole source.
He, he, you got me! The initial response was based on Wiki, I was at work and had nothing more at hand!
:wink:
:wink:
But I can assure you that I used plenty more sources for the army lists in WaW...
Some help for future searches:
AFV Database http://afvdb.50megs.com/index.html
Vehicle data for the US from post WWI to present.
Achtung Panzer! http://www.achtungpanzer.com/achtung-panzer-home
Same thing as above, but for German vehicles.
WWII Technical Database http://www.tarrif.net/
Comprehensive website on all equipment from WWII. Nice side by side comparisons.
I usually take data I find here and compare it to the stuff at our FLGS. (Osprey, Squadron, Ian Allen and Schiffer publications) though since most of these sites use those publications, it's mostly error checking. If that's not enough there are some folks who have the more comprehensive volumes who will go home and check on these things.
DM said:
Well, actually he was quiet well in his rights to ask for a website, DM. I mean, beyond actually looking for the book (which you could have provided a link for at alibris or amazon) he has to take your word for it. Obviously he wanted more assurance than merely trusting you to tell the truth.
Thats not how it was (and to be honest I didn't make it clear). His view was "no website = does not exist". Referring to books, technical histories and operational reports equalled myth and legend as far as this person was concerned (and I did indeed post references, not just "it says in a book"). I've found it to be an increasingly common phenomenon.
