Stug IIIB and Stug IIIG driving performance

[murhis]

I just browsed ww2 stuff for my boredom and found out that actually both Stugs had the same engine, same gearbox and even same treads. That just brought me a question why Stug IIIB is performing worse than Stug IIIG then? Logically the heavier IIIG should be the one which is performing worse.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/germany/stug3.html

[Voodoo1]

Interesting find.

[smythes]

I just browsed ww2 stuff for my boredom and found out that actually both Stugs had the same engine, same gearbox and even same treads. That just brought me a question why Stug IIIB is performing worse than Stug IIIG then? Logically the heavier IIIG should be the one which is performing worse.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/germany/stug3.html

When you say perform do you mean speed and traction?

It can mean many things around here

In Chamberlain and Doyle (ed Jentz) Enyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two both have same top speed of 40kmh.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Smythes

[murhis]

When you say perform do you mean speed and traction?

If you've ever drove those you know what I mean. I mean the acceleration and turning rate mainly. Cross-country speed is noticeably slower as well. Road speed is roughly the same I believe. It feels like IIIG has much more torque and clearly better gearbox.

Edited August 1, 2011 by murhis

[smythes]

If you've ever drove those you know what I mean. I mean the acceleration and turning rate mainly. Cross-country speed is noticeably slower as well. Road speed is roughly the same I believe. It feels like IIIG has much more torque.

Yes - ive driven them both in game. There is nothing to say from my source that there was any change or development of the gubbinz that might affect speed.

Good spot.

Is there anything in game that might affect this - its not the first time armour performance as regards speed has been re-audited.

[murhis]

Like the most clearest example is when you look how long it takes to rev full rpm on 1st gear. The difference is huge!

[doch]

Question is, which one is correct, the fast one or the slow one?

[murhis]

Question is' date=' which one is correct, the fast one or the slow one?[/quote']

scarUWLnUpw

Quite fast acceleration and you can hear that 1st and 2nd gear doesn't last too long like on Stug IIIB in game. (Finns had Stug IIIGs)

Btw. found a nice doc about Stugs

YrkQvgBnle8

Edited August 1, 2011 by murhis

[doch]

scarUWLnUpw

Quite fast acceleration and you can hear that 1st and 2nd gear doesn't last too long like on Stug IIIB in game. (Finns had Stug IIIGs)

Btw. found a nice doc about Stugs

YrkQvgBnle8

Looks good, perhaps CRS will look at the Char too, since we have videos of that too, sprinting happily along.

[timmy41]

some in game test data would give this argument something to back it up

[fxmmauser]

I never undersstand why the AP round in the stug was heavier than the HE round?!

[timmy41]

I never undersstand why the AP round in the stug was heavier than the HE round?!

probably because the AP rounds is solid?

[murhis]

Made an acceleration comparison video:

uP9XE_W3O-c

On the video you can see the real Stug accelerating far better than Stug IIIB ingame. Though at other hand ingame Stug IIIG accelerating even faster. I would guess the driver on the real StuG didn't accelerated fast as possible. Either way it was faster than ingame Stug IIIB.

[fxmmauser]

probably because the AP rounds is solid?

I say this because on every tank the HE round it's heavier than the AP round expect for the STUG B

[monsjoex]

*just 42 assault guns were in service during the invasion of the low countries.

Hm, thought that the stug was historically correct .. damn if they didn't even have the stugs how the hell did germany get france

[Hinfoos]

*just 42 assault guns were in service during the invasion of the low countries.

Hm, thought that the stug was historically correct .. damn if they didn't even have the stugs how the hell did germany get france

superior tactics and communications

[clone9cz]

Made an acceleration comparison video:

uP9XE_W3O-c

On the video you can see the real Stug accelerating far better than Stug IIIB ingame. Though at other hand ingame Stug IIIG accelerating even faster. I would guess the driver on the real StuG didn't accelerated fast as possible. Either way it was faster than ingame Stug IIIB.

scarUWLnUpw Right, but we will need acceleration test with British grenadier too, you will see things in this terrain.

[oo6oo7]

I wouldn't be surprised if this had something to do with the audits the IVG and IIIG underwent some years ago. When they were first introduced their off road, and especially uphill, performance was terrible. CRS went in and fixed them up so that they had a reasonable amount of mobility. The initial poor performance from those tanks is probably the result of using the base performance data for the IVD and IIIB and then adding a bunch of weight to them. So the audits probably resulted in vehicles that have somewhat better performance than their real life counterparts, but then I've never seen any kind of data on acceleration or traverse rates for these vehicles, just stated top speeds.

[ratatosk]

Well, in the interest of providing some explanatory speculation...

Although the cited source says that both vehicles used a Maybach HL120TRM; 12 cylinder, 60° vee gasoline engine with 300hp, it doesn't say what the torque ratings were. The same engine was used in a number of vehicles throughout the war and I'd be a little surprised if it was not incrementally improved. Torque is more important for acceleration than horsepower is and I would imagine efforts were made to improve that to at least offset the increased weight.

The other common component that has some bearing on acceleration is the ZF SSG 77 Aphon transmission. Aside from incremental improvements here too, the gear ratios might have been changed over time as this was also used in multiple, heavier vehicles and I'd be extremely surprised if a "taller" ratio wasn't used for 1st and 2nd gears as weight went up. Top gear would still have been either 1:1 or some overdrive so top speed could be the same, but the acceleration curve could be quite different as anyone who has done some drag racing knows.

Just saying.

[murhis]

Must get this: http://www.historyfacts.biz/en/04_Publikationen/11_SturmGeschuetzIII.htm

[david06]

*just 42 assault guns were in service during the invasion of the low countries.

Hm, thought that the stug was historically correct .. damn if they didn't even have the stugs how the hell did germany get france

Softcapping, with panzer Is and IIs as support.

[vonkurt]

Softcapping' date=' with panzer Is and IIs as support.[/quote']

This

[mrcheapydd]

Well, in the interest of providing some explanatory speculation...

Although the cited source says that both vehicles used a Maybach HL120TRM; 12 cylinder, 60° vee gasoline engine with 300hp, it doesn't say what the torque ratings were. The same engine was used in a number of vehicles throughout the war and I'd be a little surprised if it was not incrementally improved. Torque is more important for acceleration than horsepower is and I would imagine efforts were made to improve that to at least offset the increased weight.

The other common component that has some bearing on acceleration is the ZF SSG 77 Aphon transmission. Aside from incremental improvements here too, the gear ratios might have been changed over time as this was also used in multiple, heavier vehicles and I'd be extremely surprised if a "taller" ratio wasn't used for 1st and 2nd gears as weight went up. Top gear would still have been either 1:1 or some overdrive so top speed could be the same, but the acceleration curve could be quite different as anyone who has done some drag racing knows.

Just saying.

Here's how I understand from what murhis said

StuG IIIB and G have same engine but the G is heavier so why isn't teh B faster then the G

[murhis]

Well, in the interest of providing some explanatory speculation...

Although the cited source says that both vehicles used a Maybach HL120TRM; 12 cylinder, 60° vee gasoline engine with 300hp, it doesn't say what the torque ratings were. The same engine was used in a number of vehicles throughout the war and I'd be a little surprised if it was not incrementally improved. Torque is more important for acceleration than horsepower is and I would imagine efforts were made to improve that to at least offset the increased weight.

The other common component that has some bearing on acceleration is the ZF SSG 77 Aphon transmission. Aside from incremental improvements here too, the gear ratios might have been changed over time as this was also used in multiple, heavier vehicles and I'd be extremely surprised if a "taller" ratio wasn't used for 1st and 2nd gears as weight went up. Top gear would still have been either 1:1 or some overdrive so top speed could be the same, but the acceleration curve could be quite different as anyone who has done some drag racing knows.

Just saying.

Well I would like to see those assumptions confirmed. Personally I really doubt there was much if any development on components which had exactly the same type name/number. Germans were a very squeamish people, so I really believe if there would have been even a small change on the components they would have had a different type name/number. I couldn't find any more accurate information about the development of these parts, so that's just my guess. Secondly if there would have been some changes I really doubt they were that big. Especially when the Stug IIIG weighted 4 tons more.

[monsjoex]

Well it would be weird for the engine to not have changes throughout all that time..