Wondering????

[George Kelln]

Greetings;

Can anyone explain to tell me why the German PzJg III/IV has a ROF 1 with its 88LL and the American M36 & M36B1 with their 90L have ROF 2?

 

[Chris Milne]

Speculation:
There's more space in the M36 turret? Or better organised stowage system/easier breech operation, perhaps?

 

[SamB]

The US vehicles you list are open top... There may be more freedom of movement for the crew...

The US vehicle had power traverse, so came on target faster. I read in "Death Traps" that a US sherman came upon a Panther that had its turret turned 90 degrees. The sherman got off THREE shots before the panther could return fire. The sherman was destroyed, but he got off three shots.

Or, how about this? The US weapon could be fired faster?

Or, how about - because the counter says so?

Sam

 

[da priest]

Or, how about - because the counter says so?

Sam

You're good Sam, da$ned good! 8)

 

[George Kelln]

Still wondering

Well let's look at the vehicles;

1- Both are open topped

2- Both Guns are former AA-Guns

3- Both chassises are from medium tanks

4- Both rounds are about the same size

5- The M36 fighting compartment was inside a turret with sloped sides that housed a gunner, loader and commander while the PzJg III/IV has large boxy fighting compartment that house a gunner, loader and commander

So other than the counter says so, I guess that myth that faster American turrets is why a M36 has a ROF of 2 and a PzJg III/IV has a ROF of 1. Go figure?

 

[SamB]

Myth? You calling my post a myth???

Dice at 20 paces!!!!

I demand saticfaction!

Seriously, there are factors that may not be apparent. Differences in the gun that might cause it to be fired slower / faster.

The Brits have an "88" that was an AA Gun, but the gunners sat looking to the rear of the gun, not at the target. So it didn't do as well as an ATG.

Myth, indeed.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I believe one has to play the game as it is...
I remember an article in The General, analysing the gunshield of the IS-2m tank, noting that it was more often destroyed by german Panther's 75LL gun than the probabilites of the ASL system allows, and proposing adapted rules.
Who ever applied these modifications?
The fight between ASL and realism can go on for ever... :roll:
But this is just a game, with its limits... and when I play against a Jadgd Panzer III/IV I am quite happy it does not have a greater ROF.
Besides, the fact the beast is not turreted can also give a rationale to the difference of ROF.

Of course, also, everyone knows German crews drank 50° schnapps and US ones just relied on good ol' booze (or Normandy Cider, after 44).
When the loader puts the shell the bad way in the gun or when the gunner pulls the trigger when the gun is not loaded, it reduces ROF. :lol:
I am quite sure the Russians have low ROF because they drank vodka.
And British don't cower, because tea is good for their sight.

Besides, if we are trying to change some details, can one explain me why german crews of Kuebelwagens cannot Remove the AAMG the same way US or British can form their jeeps? I thought the MG 40 was such a versatile MG... :wink:

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

George,
Since the M36 is in a turret, and the PzIII/V is an open topped Assault Gun, the turret factors were probadly "fudged" by the designers to have the ROF of two.

Shell size and gun size did not matter. Just the way the game is made/played.

Kevin :?:

 

[Bryan Holtby]

The 1 ROF is likely due to the 30 degree MANUAL traverse of the Nashorn, according to my German tank manual. Thats a big ass gun to be rotating by a hand crank.


I doubt the amount of space had much to do with it, the Elefant had tons of room and an extra loader and it doesnt get a ROF 2

 

[csosus]

M36 vs. Pz. III/IV (aka. "NASHORN" or "HORNIS

According to the several tank books I have:
1) The Nashorn has ONLY a TOTAL of 30 deg. traverse (That's 15 deg. to the right and 15 deg. to the left). In game terms, a Nashorn would have to move around quite a bit to actually cover ALL of the CA that the game sys. represents (CA in game is appx. 60 deg.) Especially if firing at a moving target or @ AREA target type. Also, this AFV was designed to engage targets @ 1500m+ (that's 3/4+ of the length of one board) range, therefore the further the range, the less the gun needs to be traversed, and vise-versa. Most ASL tank battles take place at much less range. FYI, the Nashorn had a crew of 4, Commander, Driver, Gunner and Loader/Radio Operator. Contrary, to what someone posted earlier on this thread, the Nashorn did NOT use a modified 88 AA gun, but a specifically designed 88 AT gun (aka 8.8cm PaK 43/1) and the gun traverse was thusly geared to be easy to traverse despite the size/weight. Also the crew STOOD in the OT to serve the gun (Except Driver & Gunner).

2) The M36 was called a TD (by some odd tactical doctrine) and was also OT to give better visibility. Now this gun WAS an 90mm AA and was used to prevent R&D time, but was put to good use, as it was mounted in a turret WITH power traverse. Therefore much easier to "lead" a target. In addition, the M36 crew had the creature comfort of being able to SIT while fighting. The M36 had a crew of 5, Commander, Loader, Gunner, Driver, and Asst Driver (radio op).

Now, considering all this, imagine standing in Nashorn (with 8.8cm AT round in your hands), and the gunner losses the motion target out of the traverse limits, so the driver has to traverse the whole vehicle to re-acquire, the tank jumps and YOU have to grab hold of something just to keep from falling on your a#$. (standing in an AFV in motion is NOT to be relished, BEEN THERE DONE THAT). Compare this to sitting in your comfy leather seat in an M36 while the turret smoothly rotates to track that Panzer running circles around you, LITERALLY!!!!!!

IMHO, I think this explains you're ROF question.

Noe, given this inf