Smoke candles

[chuckfourth]

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

Forgetting the time needed to spot danger and to react.

The time needed to spot danger and to react is the same irrespective of wether the tank has forward firing smoke dischargers or rear mounted smoke droppers so this time can be safely ignored. Im talking about the extra time it takes the Pz 3 to get behind the smoke compared to tanks with forward firing smoke dispensers, once the -decision- to create a smoke screen has been made.

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

And, if the tank is moving, to stop it and go to reverse or "dime turn" - try doing that at full speed and you'd throw the track.

I mention dime turns to point out that the pz 3 has some extra manouverability compared to the run of the mill tank that could be considered as offsetting dropping the smoke at the rear as opposed to firing it out the front. Im not suggesting that the tank driver doesnt know how to drive. In any case I would imagine that if there is the chance of AT guns being around the tanks are moving somewhat more cautously than full speed.

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

I suspect first crew reaction would not be dropping smoke but trying to suppress the AT gun

Not if you havn't identified the whereabouts of the AT gun, the tanks usual problem.

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

or "sprint" to cover.

Not in the desert or flat russians steppes me-thinks.

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

Kinda like that famous Polish "cavalry charge against tanks" - it was not a charge, but a retreat, the Poles knew well that they have to get ASAP into forest and shortest route went through the Panzers. They knew if they tried to turn back (away from the tanks) they'd get slaughtered doing so as they'd have to slow and begin turning in full view of the enemy.
Same applies for tanks, turning on dime is nice but it still shows nicely thin side armour (in fact with later PzIII's the thinnest place).

reverse or turn, depends on the situation.

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

As for the smoke itself, would be pretty limited

Why?

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

and might even be more detrimental to the tank than to the enemy, after all the ATG crew may fire blindly through, if they're quick enough the tank is still somewhere there and the ATG position is fixed, whereas tank crew loses any clue on enemy position the moment it backs into the smoke.

This applies equally to tanks with forward firing and rearwards dropping smoke.

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

By the way, try not to exaggerate, I have yet to see a tank in SP having to withstand "hundreds" of AT gun rounds. That is if you do not leave Tiger sitting with disabled weapons in front of company of 37mm popguns. If your tanks have to suffer hundreds of rounds fired at them, there is some serious flaw in your setup and no amount of smoke dischargers will mend it

You inference is that I am suggesting the inclusion of pz3 etc smoke to pander to my own style of playing, this is wrong. I think the Pz 3 should get smoke because they had smoke. They used it for the very same purpose as forward firing dischargers, to screen the tank. Removing the smoke from the tank on a technicality seems wrong to me. The game glosses over any number of other similar 'technicalities' in other areas simply because it is a simulation, not reality.

By the way what if the wind is blowing from behind the tanK? no difference whatsoever.

of interest from Lone sentry.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/s...ics/index.html

"Smoke shells are not fired by the Pz. Kpfw. II [2] or the Pz. Kpfw. III [3], both of which are equipped to discharge "smoke pots" with a range of approximately 50 yards. These pots are released electrically, and are employed chiefly to permit the tank to escape when caught by antitank fire."

Best Regards Chuck

[cbo]

Not that it matters, but the smokecandles mounted on the rear of Panzer III and IV and probably others were introduced in August 1938. It was not considered a succes and was dropped again in February 1942.

The turret-mounted dischargers were introduced on the Panzer IV in February 1943 and dropped again in May 1943 because enemy small arms fire penetrated the dischargers, setting off the smoke, blinding the crew in the tank.

The final smokedevice used by the Germans in their tanks was the bomb-launcer in the turret roof, which was introduced in July 1944.

Incidentally, the British had used a similar device - the 2" bombthrower. Exactly when the British introduced this, I'm not sure, but it appears to have been around since late 1941 and certainly in early 1942 and for the rest of the war. It was also adopted in the Sherman in the summer of 1943 and it was the intention to modify existing tanks to carry it, if they were going overseas from the US.

Claus B

PS: The Panzer III could not spin its tracks in opposite directions, as it had a simple clutch-brake steering system just like the Panzer IV and a lot of other tanks of the period. It could block one track and turn over that track like any other clutch-brake steered tank.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by cbo

PS: The Panzer III could not spin its tracks in opposite directions, as it had a simple clutch-brake steering system just like the Panzer IV and a lot of other tanks of the period. It could block one track and turn over that track like any other clutch-brake steered tank.

Only the Panther could execute that trick then.

Don

[cbo]

Originally Posted by DRG

Only the Panther could execute that trick then.

AFAIK, making a turn in place by counterrotating the tracks ("neutral steering") requires two things:

1. A geared steering system of some sort, which allows power to be distributed to both tracks while turning. That rules out clutch-brake systems, as they turn by cutting power to one track to facilitate the turn.

2. A secondary drive from the gearbox to the steering unit to provide power to the tracks when the tank is in neutral.

The Panther had that - and a clutch-brake steering system on top of that for narrow turns. The Tiger did as well (sans the clutch-brake add-on) and so did the variants built on those two platforms. Earlier German tanks were all clutch-brake while the 38t and variants used a geared system without the secondary steering drive.

Most late-war British tanks could neutral steer - Cromwell and variants, Churchill and Comet.

The US tanks stuck with a geared system without steering drive for the duration of the war, IIRC it wasn't until the M26 was rebuilt into the M46 that a US tank got a neutral steer capability.

AFAIK no Soviet tank had a neutral steer capability in WWII, the T34 and KV were clutch-brake affairs while the IS series used a geared system but without the secondary drive and hence had not ability to counterrotate its tracks.

Claus B

[RERomine]

One more thing to consider was even if you could neutral steer the tank, there is the question of whether you should do it.

While not a WWII era tank, we were told NOT to neutral steer our M1 Abrams on anything but hard surfaces, i.e. concrete, paved roads, etc. because it could cause a us to throw a track. This would certainly be a bad thing in battle. As it was, we through enough tracks without throwing in the risk from neutral steering.

[DRG]

Good point

I watched a program called "Tank Overhaul" last week showing two groups working to restore panthers and part of the program explained neutral steer and showed footage of both Abrams and Leo 2 "neutral steering" at a very impressive rate..... but on concrete

Don

[RERomine]

The rubber track pads make it easy to do on hard surfaces, without tearing up them up. In softer surfaces, it's easier for it to grab the track. With the twisting effect of a neutral steer, this could cause the bolts linking the track sections to break. The track pads don't help prevent this either. Those just helped protect the roads. There was a T-72 that was captured during the first Gulf war that was driven to a display location and the need for track pads was evident. The T-72 didn't have them and the road got chewed up pretty good.