"A Question About the Way a Tank Rotates" Topic

I played a skirmish game (meeting engagement) yesterday and an issue came up that is relevant to my forum friends. I played as the US with one squad and a M4A3 Sherman tank. My opponent also had one squad and a Panzerkampfwagon IV Ausf. J.

We were using Final Combat, which allows a tank to rotate in place a number of degrees equivalent to its road speed. In this case the German tank had a road speed of 24mph.

I was able to circle around him faster than he could rotate to track me. Consequently, I destroyed his tank. Then he began to argue that wasn't realistic. He said the driver would simply place one tread in reverse while the other tread moved forward and the tank would be able to rotate close to 180-degrees per second.

Does anyone have knowledge of how fast WWII armor could maneuver as described?

You can turn in place in a tracked vehicle very quickly, you might throw a track doing it though.

Tiger crews often rotated the tank as well as the turret to speed up aquisition as the turret turn took a while.

That is how a tank, and other tracked vehicles turn. I don't know how fast that would be. I don't think it would matter. WWII tanks didn't (mainly) have good gun stability so couldn't fire accurately on the move or quick stop. Also, simply acquiring a target could be difficult, especially with enemy infantry close by. Few commanders would risk a pop up to get a better look.

If I understand you correctly your sherman scooted around behind the PzIV and took him out before he could turn in place to both present his front armor and gun. Sounds like the Jerry got outfought. Incidentally, you should be able to take out a PzIV from the front anyway, but getting on his six is always a good idea.

Finally, your opponent should have argued his case before he got hit, not after. A good rules lawyer anticipates his lumps.

Well, Your question seems like some serious rules-lawyering. I have a good bit of time driving M577 and M1068A3 vehicles (yes, not tanks but tracked combat vehicles none-the-less) and even I wouldn't know what my capable time is to pivot in place. An M577 pivots by the driver locking one track and applying power while the M1068A3 has the ability to pivot-steer by using the gear select (set to PS instead of R or 1-4)which in turn provides power in opposite directions to the tracks. The M1068A3 has a steering wheel system like a a Bradley where as the M577 has a lateral lever system like a WWII tank. I will go out on a limb here but will say "no WWII tank could do as your friend said and pivot-steer." The rules system you are playing are trying to break real life down too far and become a video first-person shooter game. I would think it more realistic to maneuver behind terrain to engage rather than race in plain view. The turret speed rules would be more realistically applied for the gunner having to react to fires from opposing vehicles that are already engaging yourself. e.g.: a Sherman from left side shoots and misses. PZ IV commander orders gunner to traverse turret left to engage. Can the turret turn, acquire and shoot before Sherman gets off 2nd or maybe 3rd shot (assuming further inaccuracy of fires?). Think about it that way. Although I wasn't in WWII myself, I think that we can all agree that tank fires were not accurate back then (especially while moving). Does this at least help you sort out some of your questions?
David

Right just finished posing this to a friend of mine who'se just done 12 years as a tank commander and used to teach at armoured warfare at Warminster.

He reckons between 10 – 15 seconds for a 90 degree turn but the contributing facotrs are massive (type of tank, weather, ground conditon/surface etc)

However he also says that a 'neutral turn' is very dangerous as its very likely to through a track on anything other thana tank park style concrete surface

I second the aforementioned comment about the "turning tactic" used by Tiger tank commanders. I was watching a History Channel show and they mentioned that Wittman did this quite frequently. Seems pretty obvious to me that TCs would use the tank to speed up the turret traverse.

That said, I really like David's explaination where he says that the rules are simplifying "what really happened" (abstracting the ineffective firing).

Please note that, in contrast to the german and british gearbox/steering systems used on WW2 tanks, the US system used on most US tanks of the period (up to the M46) did NOT allow the tank to turn on the spot. If a system takes the pain to have actual ground and time scales, I think this should be included in the rules.

Most M4 Sherman variants, for example, had a minimal turning radius of 20m/60ft, which proved problematic in European urban confines, especially those towns with old houses dating back from the 1800s and earlier.

I don´t have hard data for the Panzer IV. I DO know (from secondary sources, I´ll admit) that heavy, long tanks like the Tiger and Churchill COULD actually pivot on the spot. If this is also the case with the Panzer IV, I don´t know, especially since it had a different gear than the Tiger.

I might be wrong on this, but I do remember reading first hand accounts or a secondary source quoting first hand accounts that did say the Panther could pivot in place and maybe be several others could as well (Royal Tigers and Tigers, plus their jadg versions.)

But I do know that the Sherman and the Stuart could not pivot in place.

As David (CoH139thInf) said, the turrent speed and visiblity of a buttoned up tank will play even more into it. The Sherman had a very fast turret speed which was critical in taking out Panthers which had a slow turret speed. The big advantage for the Panther was that it could pivot in place faster then it could turn it's turret.

There was a show on "Worlds greatest tanks" the other night and it showed some of those tanks just whipping around like they were BMXers – 360's at high speed, everything.

A very detailed technical question that is probably beyond what the rules intended. It depends on how the tank is built whether it pivots with one track locked or spins with one track going forward and one going backward. The 2 primary factors are if the tank has a "live" or "dead" suspension and how the transmission is designed. A "live" track has the top portion under tension, usually from a system of support rollers and adjustable idler wheels like on an M60 series. A "dead" track is not under tension, but returns the top track just laying on top of the roadwheels, like the Tiger. Going backwards while turning with a dead track system is almost guarenteed to throw a track. On the other hand, a dead track system is easier to build and maintain, plus fits into a lower hull.

The transmission must also have a seperate output mechanism that enables the output shafts for the 2 sides to go in different directions. This type of transmission is very complex and expensive. Vehicles like David's M577 above do not have this capability, but basically have seperate brakes for each side; apply one brake and the vehicle pivots forward around that side. An M60 series can put 1 track in forward and the other in revesre and spin around without moving. I do not know of any mass produced tanks from WW2 with these transmissions; the seperate brake system was far easier to build.

Many WW2 turrets were not powered, but relied on the gunner turning a manual crank. Most famous was the Tiger I, which could take 3 minutes to rotate 360 degrees, even longer if the gunner was tired from a long fight. Inside 500 meters range in open country, a Sherman or T-34 can drive in a circle around the Tiger faster than the gun could rotate. On the other hand, the Sherman had an electrically powered turret and could traverse very quickly.

Since optics for the guns were mention – Post war studies done by the US Army showed that while the German optics were superior to the US optic in almost every way, they failed in allowing the German optics to be used to fire on the move and shortly after coming to a complete stop.

In other words, if the German tank was moving/pivoting, that turn/phase it should not be allowed to fire as the gunner is waiting for the optics to settle or give them a serious negative for a "snap-shot."

The US stabilizer (when used) and it optics were superior to anything the Germans could do when it was a moving tank battle because of this. This is reflected into the official reports of tank battles which shows that when the both forces are having a "running" gun battle or the US started concealed to engage the Germans at a closer range, the US forces usually caused high number of German losses for small losses.

Due to work, I am no where near my sources (over 600 miles away) and will not be able to get to them for probably a month or so.

Excellent thread Gentleman!

Keep in mind that the Germans use of the assault gun tank (StuGs, JagdPanzer, Hetzer, JagdPanther, JagdTiger) were credited with the highest number of Allied destroyed vehicles. (20,000+ estimated, with a majority of the kills credited to the SturmGeschutz variant!)

We all know that these vehicles did not have a traversing turret therefore utilizing the pivot manouever frequently.
But on another note, I also read that the Tiger I Ausf. E interior Seats in the driver, commander, and gunners position were "levelled", thus capable in adjusting to the depression and steep inclines of off road terrain. Suppossedly this provided the tank to fire it's main gun without stopping. Perhaps most German Panzers had this system?

Also the Tiger II turret turning time was anywhere from 17 to 70 seconds. (not sure as to what anlge/degrees the author was quoting)

Cold Steel wrote..
"Many WW2 turrets were not powered, but relied on the gunner turning a manual crank. Most famous was the Tiger I, which could take 3 minutes to rotate 360 degrees, even longer if the gunner was tired from a long fight".

Although Cold Steel is partiall correct, Here is the what the website "Achtung Panzer" provides:
{The large size of the gun divided the turret into two sections – gunner and commander on the left side and loader on the right. The turret was traversed by hydraulic power, but for adjustment and elevation handwheels were used}.

German Tiger I info at this link:
link

OR

achtungpanzer.com

Most StuG III and other SPs used the turning in place to aquire targets after the initial ambush shot. Hetzers were hated by their crews for the limited traverse of the main gun as well as the limited internal space of the vehicle.

As COLD STEEL mentioned about "live" or "dead" suspensions, the PZ IV J had support rollers ie. "live suspension" and could turn in place (still possibly throwing a track).

The PZ IV models "A" through "H" had an auxiliary engine to drive a generator to prvide power to the electric traverse.
The PZ IV J had eliminated the electric traverse and its associated auxiliary engine to increase fuel capacity. So it was back to hand cranking for the loader and turning in place for the driver if requested by the tank commander.

Some folks here seem to think all tanks can move one track forward and the other in reverse, what we termed a "neutral turn" when I was in Leopards. As far as I know, like CoH139thINF says, In WWII, not many tanks were capable of this.

Was the Pz4 stationary when the Sherman started his 'Bugs Bunny in the boxing ring' maneouver? Presumably, the issue is that at some point the Sherman was crossing in front of the Pz4 to get into an advantageous position: if so, allow the German an opportunity shot.

Much 'do-do' is talked about the wonders of Shermans firing on the move, but such tactics were only going to be effective based on the ability of the gunner being able to maintain aim in jolting bouncing steel box – the human factor. There may be something said for the hypothesis that such a shot on the move may put the enemy off THEIR shot, but given the admitted inferiority of the optics in a Sherman, to expect a first shot kill is optimism bordering on Hollywood.

As for the racing around 'the slow German tank', all of my references either show the Sherman to be the same speed as the Pz4, or even slower.

This hard fact was reflected in the fact that Tank Destroyers based on the Sherman (M10 & M36) were unable to fulfill their intended role of 'shoot and scoot' as they were not faster than their intended targets.

"The Sherman had a very fast turret speed which was critical in taking out Panthers which had a slow turret speed. The big advantage for the Panther was that it could pivot in place faster then it could turn it's turret."

The Panthers turret was hydraulicly operated and, depending on the engine speed, could rotate 360 degrees in 15 seconds. Obviously low engine revs would increase the time taken for the turret to rotate.

I have spoken to a number of British WW2 Sherman, Cromwell and Churchill crews and they were unanimous on one important point – you couldn't hit a damn thing while moving! It's also worth remembering that Allied powered turret traversing systems were very quick indeed compared to the Germans'. One Cromwell in Villers-Bocage got off four shots in the time it took Wittmann's Tiger to traverse its turret through 180 degrees (the Cromwell still lost).

Monophagos: "Much 'do-do' is talked about the wonders of Shermans firing on the move, but such tactics were only going to be effective based on the ability of the gunner being able to maintain aim in jolting bouncing steel box – the human factor."

Hensed the reason I said when the US stablizer and the US optics were used together. The biggest problem was not the optics for quick sighting, which it was superior to the German one, but that the gun stablizer had to be used with it. Most US tankers either unplugged it or did not know how to use it. Keep in mind that the most of the highly trained tankers where taken out in the hedgerows of Normandy and the replacements did not have the same level of training. So, by the time the US Army got into the open area of France, they did not do so well against the panzers until some of the crews got better and more experienced. Then it was not uncommon for US to knock out more panzers then their own losses. An example of this can be seen at the 4th Armor Div's engagements around Nancy where a couple of engagement that I can recall from primary sources talk about an outnumbered Sherman platoon (almost 3 to 1) against Panthers and Pz IV, KO'ed almost all of the panzer with the lost of 1 Sherman.

The TD's are a whole different story, but on the most part were highly effective and regularly KO'ed more Germans then losses.

Evan Allen: That is true about the Panther's turret, but from my sources the turret ring was of a poor design and when the tank was off balance or not level, the turret had problems rotating at high speeds (depending on the angle) as there was friction from the turret rubbing the ring.

R Mark Davis: That is probably very true as I suspect that the British tankers probably also lacked the proper training on the stablizers in the Shermans, if they were even included.

Although I have experienced a similar situation with Final Combat, I must say it was not the rodeo described by John Kelly.

I encountered a Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. G while operating a Sherman M4A3. In the rules, the Sherman turret takes 15-seconds to traverse 360-degrees. That's 24-degrees per action. Of course the StuG III is turretless (by contrast, the Panther moves 6-degrees). So, he was at a distinct disadvantage. I was able to maneuver around him before he could bring his gun to bear.

Had he fired while rotating, by rule he would have suffered a movement penlaty. So, I believe Final Combat takes everything into account without bogging down in excessive detail. Check out a "Sherman's Triumph." link

I am surprised to hear from Sapper Joe that the Sherman and Stuart could not rotate in place. I've never heard that before. I guess my question is, why not? Cheers, Jürgen

RMD,

Very well said, and according to a close tanker acquaintance of ours, tanks of today still can not hit a damned thing while on the move!

DB

I have some experience driving an M113 apc. I was cruising along at top speed and the TC ordered me to turn us around. So I pulled hardback on the right drive stick and pushed forward on the left stick and accomplished a 180 degree turn. The track almost flipped and my driving days were over.

Tracks pivot just fine.

"The biggest problem was not the optics for quick sighting, which it was superior to the German one,"

you mean the US optics were superior to the German optics? I think you'll find even the US military of the period thought that German optics were far superior to their own.

As an ex-tank TC, I can verify that the manual turning of a coax gun on the turret is very slow. Trying to follow and fire at a target at the same time is inaccurate.

Exposing the TC or loader to enemy fire to use poorly aimed but suppressing fire is an option. One reason why tanks would not even try to enter close terrain (jungle or urban) areas without infantry support.

Jurgen Keuppe: "I am surprised to hear from Sapper Joe that the Sherman and Stuart could not rotate in place. I've never heard that before. I guess my question is, why not?"

I really can't answer that as my Sherman books are 600 miles away from me and I will not be getting back there for at least a month. But as ChrisGermanicus stated earlier, it has to do with the different transmissions and gear boxes. In several first hand accounts that I have read, the US tankers clearly stated that they could not pivot in place like the Panthers.

EvanAllen: "you mean the US optics were superior to the German optics? I think you'll find even the US military of the period thought that German optics were far superior to their own."

In one of my earlier post, I mention that the German optics were superior in every way except being able to get a snap shot off compared to the US optics. That was the only thing that the US tankers lucked out on for their optics. It has something to do with the way the optics were linked to the stablizer (when used) and the way the optics were marked. This was established in interviews with US tankers after testing captured German equipment during WWII. This study also included other items like uniforms, small arms, artillery, and etc. It is a great reference if you can get your hands on it. Again, my copy is not readily available.

Rotation rates for turrets can be found.

Rotation rates for AFVs can not.

I know, I tried for quite some time. :-/

Good luck,
GG

As the 4th Armoured were part of Patton's 3rd Army, I would be extremely skeptical of their claims for destroyed enemy tanks. Patton calculated enemy casualties according to a formula of 'number of prisoners x 10 = total killed and wounded'. I doubt the Germans had as many Panthers as Patton's troops would have claimed, particularly as armoured strength was at its nadir in the early fall of '44, and what tanks there were were stationed at the northern end of the front to cover the Ruhr, rather than in the sideshow front that was Patton's sphere of operations.

I think the rate a tank rotates at is not something I want to see in any game I play.

Sherman stabilisation was widely regarded as being more a hindrance than a help. I thought that all UK shermans had the system physically removed.

Anyhow.

Real allied crews were unlikely to go charging around in NWE (generally) because of fear of pzFausts. I wonder whether the rules designers perhaps overlooked a major influence on tank movement whilst incorporating a trivial one. Dancing round an enemy tank was the sort of thing done
only out of desperation where they had nothing to lose. EG early pz3 vs KV1.

Actually, the rates of turn for various tanks can apparently be estimated by calculation. There are different formulae for different steering systems but all seem to take into account the gauge (width) of the tank, maximum horsepower available, mass of the tank, and the tightness of the turn. How close these estimations are to real life I do not know but they seem pretty realistic to me. For anyone interested I can dig up some formulae later this week.

Aside from Final Combat also Phoenix Command can use this sort of turning data. It can be fun to see whether your tank can take a turn of the road at the rate you're going or if you wind up in the ditch :)

"As the 4th Armoured were part of Patton's 3rd Army, I would be extremely skeptical of their claims for destroyed enemy tanks."

I find it curious German claims are accepted without question and yet American claims and feats of arms are regularly dismissed or shrugged off.

In fact Sapper Joe is correct. On 2 July 1944 Hitler ordered the formation of special Heer Panzer-Brigades. A total of some 13 were eventually formed. The experiment proved to be short lived for good reason. They were fully formed and armed with Panthers, 33 to a unit along with 11 tank destroyers. While receiving first rate equipment they were poorly trained (not used to operating together) and only a small cadre had combat experience. In the space of little over a weeks time 3rd Army completely decimated the 106, 111, 112, and 113 Panzer Brigades and destroyed over 120 rather scarce Panthers in the process. This is well documented. The results of such poor performance saw these Panzer Brigades absorbed into existing units which desperately needed the surviving equipment. You might want to look into accounts of such battles as Arracourt or Dompaire.

Another consideration is that, unlike a game, an opponent rarely has the luxury of knowing the tank they are facing is the only one. Trying to rotate in place to track a tank racing around your flank exposes you to flanking fire from his buddies still to your front. The preferred plan would be to try and rotate the turret (which presents a smaller more difficult target to your opponent to your front) while continuing to face the enemy and presenting both a smaller target (tank head on vs side) as well as thicker armor.

Failing that most tank crews, even in hasty defense, scouted out positions to fall back to when necessary and being flanked would be one of those necessary times.

Trying to rotate in place to track a tank racing around your flank exposes you to flanking fire from his buddies still to your front.

When I was training as a Leo commander, we were "ambushed" from our side at relatively close range, between 300 to 500 meters, by the enemy force. I thought I was being a -hot commander as I roared into the intercom for the driver to "pivot left…halt!" at the same time giving fire orders "sabot, tank, on!".

The instructor, an NCO, who loved being able to brutalize us poor officer cadets WHACKED me hard across the face with his folded map and hurled all kinds of comments about my mother being a dog and my being illegitimate. Because, in the process of getting my frontal armour towards the threat, I had broadsided myself to the axis of advance which in the armour school was like giving the finger to the school commanding officer…

I was supposed to have kept my hull facing front, and traversed the turret only. I failed that trace as a result.

To this day, I'm still not sure about the veracity of that NCO instructor's point of view. I guess he had a point, but there weren't any enemy to our front at the time… Nevertheless, later in my career when I planned defences, sometimes a sniper tank was part of that, ie, a tank deployed forward in a position to catch an advancing unit's flank to encourage them to do exactly what I had done so that the rest of us could pop up from our turret downs into hull downs and…

Didn't the PzII through IV apply a brake to the oppisite trad in a turn? and the reverse tread was introduced in the Tiger? Maybe the Panther had this as well.

Rex, I seem to remember the earlier Panzers had regular clutch-brake steering systems and that the Tiger and Panther had something called single-radius clutch-brake steering. Or something. So they did have different steering systems. The original clutch-brake system was not at all suitable for very heavy tanks such as the Tiger and Panther.

All armies inflate their claims, it's just that Patton's lot were more extravagant than most………

I was supposed to have kept my hull facing front, and traversed the turret only. I failed that trace as a result.
Actually, a good Panzer War players will do it the way your instructor suggested. The reason we found is to play the odds.
If you are going to be hit from fire from two directions then if you have side armor in only one of those directions you will be hit on the side armor 100% of the time.
But if you have front turret in one direction and front hull in the other you have a 25% chance that both hits will be on some frontal armor.

I was able to circle around him faster than he could rotate to track me.
One wonders how you 'circle' in a WWII US tank? You might polygon.
Anyways WWII US tanks had to stop and drag a track to turn like a bulldozer does nowadays. This requires it to move ahead and two the side a little when turning. I suppose you could figure out how fast a tank could turn this way by using its speed in first gear and having that be the outer radii of a circle.
German Tigers and Panthers could run one track forward and the other backward to turn in place or move one slow and the other faster to turn in a curve. I don't know if this applied to the Mark IV though.

Monophagos: "All armies inflate their claims, it's just that Patton's lot were more extravagant than most………"

So, what happen to the German army that was facing Patton?

I agree that in war military intelligence is guess work, but after the war the US Army started to read the German reports and started to change their numbers to start comparing to the German reports…in other words, the inflation of claims were reduced.

The RAF started to do this after the war for the Battle of Britian as it turn out they were way to high on the number of German planes shot down. I would be really surprised that it turns out that Erich Hartmann really did shoot down 352 planes (which I suspect the actual number is much lower)or that Wittman really killed that many tanks. But the Soviets were very tight lipped after WW2 about their losses (and who can blame them about wanting to keep that a secret from their enemies at the time…us)and now some of the information is becoming more and more available, I think we are going to found out that the Germans were pretty bad about over inflating their numbers…especially when their leader is killing generals and officers for failures.

The German reports were generaly pretty accurate- comparison of figures from the german claims compared with allied reports of their own losses often closely match.
One of the problems is that Patton (and even worse, Monty)and most other allied generals totally exagerated claims in their memoirs, these then get accepted as "fact" by lazy authors and passed on to the rest of us, who then perpetuate these myths. You need to be extremely discerning and check the sources an author quotes before accepting anything some of these suppossed historians tell you. Unfortunately for some reason the worst offenders are often the ones who sell the most books.

cheers chris

"All armies inflate their claims, it's just that Patton's lot were more extravagant than most………"

I am sorry but I can find no justification in current history for this claim. You already claimed:"I doubt the Germans had as many Panthers as Patton's troops would have claimed, particularly as armoured strength was at its nadir in the early fall of '44, and what tanks there were were stationed at the northern end of the front to cover the Ruhr, rather than in the sideshow front that was Patton's sphere of operations."
When it is well documented, as I pointed out, at the very least the complete destruction of at least four of the new Panzer Brigades and a minimum of at least 120 new Panthers. As I said, many seem to want to denigrate allied or US fetes of arms and I just dont understand it.

An example of this can be seen at the 4th Armor Div's engagements around Nancy where a couple of engagement that I can recall from primary sources talk about an outnumbered Sherman platoon (almost 3 to 1) against Panthers and Pz IV, KO'ed almost all of the panzer with the lost of 1 Sherman.
In the Nancy area the Germans took a shellacking even though many were veterans from the east. They weren't used to the overwhelming air superiority and the quantity and responsiveness of artillery that could be brought to bear. Also, they advanced without recon through ground fog and heavy foliage and ran into many ambushes. They mostly p***ed away their tanks. And I think Enigma let the Americans know what was coming.

Hi

Not to hijack this… German fighter claims were less inflated than everyone else usually requiring a 3ed observer.

Chris Shores comparing squadron records actually found that, for example, Heinz Bar had MORE kills than claimed in North Africa.

And the Russians doing similar studies have claimed that Hartman had more than his 352. I have seen them claim as high as 500. Now, HE claimed, before his death, being a seemingly modest guy, that the Russians were wrong. HE claimed that he would have his wingman fly his famous "tulip nose" plane to protect him and that the russians were conflating with observing TWO Hartmans.

No one, to my knowledge has done a "Chris Shores" type comparison for the russian front. But the Russians were certain.

Rocky

gizmology.net/tracked.htm
This is an interesting article about "Tracked Vehicle Steering." However, I'm not sure I understand it. John

The fact remains that Patton based his army's performance on the outrageous formula described above. There is no desire on my part to denigrate the actions of Allied troops, but the active propaganda of Patton and his supporters does a real disservice to other US armies like the 1st and 9th who fought against far tougher opposition, but with a weaker PR organization. The Germans never regarded the Saar front as vital to their war effort.

For a further example of such exaggeration, in order to bolster 8th Air Force morale, all gunners claims were more readily accepted, making the B-17 the plane with the highest 'bag' of German fighters. This was a nonsense which was seriously proposed as the basis for the air plan for Overlord, until wiser counsel prevailed.

Always difficult with claims of air kills.

e.g. Shared kills
British practice was to split up 'shared' kills so you'd get weird numbers like 'so-and-so has shot down 3 1/2 planes'

German practice was to allot the shared kill to one pilot only. So the numbers would stay 'whole' but if you'd contributed to bringing down one of Hartmann's victories you'd probably get no credit.

Soviet practice was to award shared kills to the squadron and not to any individual pilot.

I don't know USAAF practice.

Therefore, a pilot in the VVS gets one score for a given amount of effort.

Move him to the RAF and his score goes up because of all the fractional kills.

Move him to the Luftwaffe and his score goes up. How much depends on whether he's a 'name' or not.

John Kelly, Nice link. Thanks.