While playing with my KV-2 with the TBU plugged, I realize that I can only fire the MG about once every 9 seconds, which of course would make sense since it would be classifies as a heavy tanks. While firing my DBU equipped Tiger 1 at my KV, while the Tiger would fire more often, the KV would only register a hit only after 9 seconds from the last hit from the Tiger.

As I’m looking to expand my little army, I’m looking at some medium sized tanks, but there are some German and Russians armor that has me confused as what class they would be. What classifies a medium from a heavy, armor thickness, MG, combination of both?

T-34/85
SU-100
Panther
Jagpanther

Are then any others out there are different then what they seem.

Chris ... it's called effective armor ratings.

http://www.bayareatankers.org/Intell...atified03_.htm

It ain't perfect but a guidline to rate tanks based on armor ratings and not just weight.


- Jeff

That seems odd. There is no 'delay' in receiving hits only when firing.

Tanks can get hit multiple times in 9 seconds, try with another TBS equiped tank, that is how it should work.

The only 'delay' is a temporary invulnerability to receiving a hit while firing (about one second). Otherwise multiple hits within 9 seconds should be occuring.

Well the Pershing was classified as a heavy tank in WWII era, but later reclassified as a medium tank after, if your looking for another Ally.<div>
</div>

As for armour ratings, you will find Russia and Germany classified differrently during WWII (surprise!).

In fact, when the Pershing was issued, probably for morale reasons as well, it was classified as Heavy, shortly after the War it was reclassified as Medium.

Russians tended to classify more based on fire power whereas Germans tended to classify more on armor protection.

yes that's the time needed to fire the canon, in my tamiya docmentation for the sherman 105mm its 9second and for the .30 its 10 seconds otherwise the barrel would be overheaten and get scraping together end of fire then, i real they give short bursts of fire not a minute long, ammunition was limited although

Heavyaslead, not to derail the thread, but do you have a build thread of your Object 640? I really love it and visit SEAD's site often just to look at it! lol

think about it you have to put every 9 sec a granade into the canon it would be a high rate for the loader too ... understand now the rate of fire its a scalemodel that's how it should be like tamiya does.
My HL Panther fires every second, thats not realistic, a real loader can not put every sec a granade into the canonhatch that would be slavery outlandisch

Well, I haven't had the opportunity to battle yet or even test out my pershing, but boy I can't wait and plan to drive out to one of these battle fest's if the group will have me. But any way, does the TBU keep it totally realistic...for instance. German tanks didn't have <span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 15px; "><em style="font-style: normal; ">gyroscopic[/i]</span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 15px; "> </span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 15px; ">stabilized gun, so they were more likely to stop and shoot to keep on it's target whereas the Pershing and Sherman didn't have to. </span>

i learned again something new your the best tony thanks

Glad to have brought some new info to light for you Karel. I actually learned this info a couple weeks ago when I was reading about the infamous battle between the Panther and Pershing at cologne. That's what gave the Pershing the advantage to knock that big boy out, it was able to drive and shoot at it instead of stopping. Had the Pershing not had that ability, it would have likely been another notch on the Panther's belt since it already had the Pershing in itssight.

As a reference, the REAL Leopard 2A6 can fire about 10 rounds per minute under optimal conditions.

yes that leopard is new not 65 years older version though

Thanks Jeff, that does help. So it's kind of up to the club/group you're battling with that decides the tank class?

Yes Tony, the time frame would have a big factor I would think. June 1941 gave the Germans a nasty surprise when they came across the T-34 and KVs, for all intents and purposes, the KV would be considered invulnerable front and the T-34 could almost be a heavy in comparison to the lightly armed and armored Pz-III/IV or Pz-35(t). When a single KV-2 can hold up the 6th Panzer Division for several days, that says quite a bit about the strength of the Russian armor. If it wasn’t for Stalin’s purges and lack of leadership/training on the part the Russians, Operation Barbarossa might have had a different outcome.

On the USA side, our WW II classification was mostly geared to the operational use of the tank. Light tanks, such as M-3, M-5 and M-24 were designed for speed and reconaissance. Mediums for infantry support and general direct combat. Heavy tanks were designed for use in heavy tank vs tank and fortifications. We only developed 3 heavies for issue; M-6 (T-1), M-26 Pershing and M-103, and only the Pershing and M-103 were ever issued and used. In 1948-49, the clasification was changed to reflect gun size. Light tank M-41 had the nomenclature of 76mm gun light tank M-41. Mediums carrying 90 to 105mm were medium gun tanks (and that's where the change came in for the Pershing from heavy to medium) and the heavy tank M-103 series was 120m gun Heavy Tank M-103.

There is always a debate on classification of the Panther as well as some Japanese tanks, as each country had it's own ideas based on weight. Most Japanese mediums are in the USA light catagory as far as weight as well as small caliber of the main gun. British have a totally different classification of Infantry and Cruiser, again based on operational use. There are exceptions in some tanks, given the weight etc, but most stayed within operational catalgories.

Tony, No Pershing was ever fitted with a gyro stabilzer and the Sherman's Gyro stabilizer was so erratic and ineffective, that from many reports, most crews never turned them on, plus they were only lateral and not for elevation of the gun. If the tank was rolling on a smooth surface and steady speed, it was usable. In the case of the Pershing-Panther at Cologne, the Pershing was on a city street rolling slow and short range, which made a hit on the move a good chance. The Pershing did stop for the next two rounds. The only tank we had in WW II with a decent stabilizer was the M-24 Chaffee. M-46 thru M-48 series had none, and the M-60A3 had the first really good system developed. The M-1 Abrams has the ultimate system.

Bill, are you 100% positive the M26 Pershing was never fitted with a gyro stabilizer? Just typing gyro stabilizer and M26 Pershing in google, and it seem tons of people and documents think there was. Not saying your wrong, but I would think if the Sherman had it, and Pershing was to be the US more improved tank....it would have had it.

Tony, The M-26, M-45 and M-46 all used the same turret and controls, the M-45 having only a different mount for the 105mm, but none of these tanks were designed for or had a gyro stabilizer. The 90mm gun recoil mechanism, size of ammo and no turret basket left no room for the bulky mechanism and as with the Sherman, the stabilizer at that time was not well developed and less than desirable. Some countries that purchased the Pershing may have tried to later retrofit one, but I have never seen or heard of any. My personal working experience with an operational Pershing is limited to a couple months, but the M-46 turret is exactly the same and I know it very well. Some units I have worked with, Army and Marines, had Pershings and the subject of a gyro use or problems was never discussed. None of my ref material covers any type of stabilizer, including Dick Hunnicutt's Pershing. If someone has any documentation, I'd like to see it.

Actually tony, the Panther at  Cologne did not see the Pershing as it approached from a side street from which the Sherman had been hit on. The Pershing flanked the Panther, and it was not common practice too fire on the run as they only had vertical stabilization.

Thanks for everyone’s help, for my medium companions I’m looking at an HL Strug III with Asiatam hull, 3:1 gear box and DBC for the Axis. I’ve always liked the look of that little assault gun/tank destroyer.

For the Allies, I really like to get another Tamiya so I’m leaning towards the Sherman and maybe make it an Easy-8. My first RC tank was a Tamiya Sherman back in the 70s with the tracks you had to assemble piece by piece, now that was a job, those tracks sure road nice though.

Panther G, the Pershing had absolutely no stabilization at all other than the gunner's left hand on the elevating handwheel and right hand on the power traverse handle. There was no power elevation/depression on the Pershing's gun as it was totally manual. This was the same on the M-46 and also the M-41....elevation/depression was totally manual and no stabilizer can be made to work on a manual mechanism. The first tank to have totally powered control of the gun was the M-47, all hydraulic and very noisy.

Firing on the move, even at slow speed was extremely questionable, as the vibration from the tracks made the gunner's sights jiggle and vibrate, that you could not put the crosshair on the target. At best was to keep the tank at a steady speed around 5-8 mph where the vibrations would level off a bit, aim low and fire. At the angle and short range the Pershing fired on the Panther, it was a good choice and a lucky shot. Russian T-34s were prone to fire on the move, but this was Russian doctrine scare tactic and rarely got a hit.

I agree with Pattoncommander. I don't think any tank that saw combat in WWII had an effective gun stabilizer for firing on the move. I've read stories of some commanders firing while moving (in which case they had a much greater chance of missing the target), but I think all WWII tanks had to come to a complete stop to fire accurately.

In contrast, at the IR battles I've attended, you have tanks firing on the move frequently and they can stop and move out as if they were Ferrari's and Porsche sports cars in comparison to the real tanks. They can change direction, from forward to reverse, faster than any automobile can via the simple, electric 1-speed drive. Fast enough to strip gears too.. The stock Tamiya's, like the KV-1, take off like race cars! You could actually race them against each other on RC car tracks.. They'd be great for drag races too lol. I think the fastest drag racer would either be a Tiger I or Sherman with stock Type 1 TUs and plastic tracks (the Benny Hill tanks), or the Leopard A2. That would be a good race to watch!

Tank drag racing..... Could even put wheelie bars on the back of them and RC car motors in them. I can see the Bigg Tony, tricked-out Pershing speeding through the traps right now!

If a real tank could reverse direction as fast as the models, the crews would need seat belts and air bags to prevent from being splattered on the insides of the hull and turret from the inertia. Our models may look like their real life counterparts, but they don't move or battle like them. Only the ones with 3:1 gear reduction units get anywhere close.

The DBC kind of smooths out the transition from forward to reverse, and the El mod does the best job of it. IF Tamiya were to reinvent their electronics that is the one wish list I would have. Add some momentum to the mix.

RCEA,

We did have some degree of developement on Gyros in WW II, but not complete stabilization. The M-3 Lee had stabilization for gun elevation only in both the 37 and 75mm guns, but they had problems with gun balance which was never fully resolved. Early Shermans
were equipped with stabilizers for elevation only, which were also not reliable and required special training to use. Most crews disconnected them or never turned them on. In 1943, both Ordnance and IBM developed a gyrostabilizer system for the M-4A3 and they were still working to improve it in 1945. It was also very unreliable and the Easy 8s in Korea did not make use of it. The gyros in the 105 Sherman were discontinued in 1943 as unsatisfactory. I believe the M-24 had the better system, but have heard or read nearly nothing about it's performance. I recall one TC talking about an M-24 laying upside down and seeing the gun bouncing up and down, still trying to elevate, so it must have had full gyro. in the Korean countryside, a stabilizer, or even power elevation would have been very welcome. To engage shooting down into a valley, then have to traverse and fire at something on a hill was a big workout for the gunner in a Pershing, M-46, Easy 8 and the M-41, although the M-41 neven got to Korea until 1955.

I made a typo on my post regarding classification;;;;I wrote 90-105mm guns were mediums, but have to add the 75-76mm Shermans to the mediums.

Have to agree fully with RC "combat". It's the biggest turn-off, seeing tanks slam from forward to reverse and pivoting like a screwdriver in a totally unrealistic manner. With all the minute detailing some guys put into these tanks, it would reasonable assume that the tank should be operated like the 1;1 scale and move in accordance with what that tank was capable to doing. A Sherman could not pivot and going from forward to reverse, it had to sit and wait for the manual tranny to slow down for the driver to grate it into reverse...only way out was hold the clutch until the engine nearly stalled, which made it easier to get to reverse. They didn't operate like a Ford mustang, let alone the speed they get out of them. 25mph was flying in an Easy 8. The M-41 IS a drag racer and speed and maneuvering was awesome.

Thanks Pattoncommander for the clarification on the Pershing!

I was aware of the Stuart and T-44 having gun stabilizers but always unsure about the WWII Pershing.

Even so, the WWII era ones were single axis and largely not used as previously stated.