Korvessa | 20 Jan 2015 4:52 p.m. PST |
This always makes me smile. I trained a bit (just a bit) on M60A3 that had even better stabilizers. It is still really hard to hit anything other than an area target while on the move at any kind of speed. Especially over uneven terrain. I also like the filmstrips they show with the tanks moving at high speed. what they don't show is the inside. No seat belts! Your bouncing all over the place in there. How good were those things really? I bet they still stopped to shoot (again, unless shooting an area target). |
Mako11 | 20 Jan 2015 5:04 p.m. PST |
Yes, I've wondered about them as well, especially the post-WWII stabilizers, frequently listed as 2-Axis, or 3-Axis stabilization. I suspect at least for the WWII, and early post-WWII (2-Axis stabilizers), that they were really meant more for keeping the gun generally pointed in the rough direction of the target, to permit the gunner to more quickly acquire it, once stopped. I've read accounts that even the M-60 and follow-on variants of it, had to stop to fire, but that they could usually get halted and fire on a target, within seven seconds, or so. I suspect that not until the Abrahms, Leopard IIs, etc. was it really possible to fire at a target, while on the move at any real speed, and I even wonder about them, if they are traversing really rough terrain. Though with advance computer tech, and lock-on capabilities, perhaps that is now much less of an issue than previously. |
troopwo | 20 Jan 2015 5:34 p.m. PST |
For the UK, the 2 and 6 pounder, they still had a harness that fitted over the gunners shoulder, so not yet. With the advent of the 75mm they realized it was gearing or bust. The Sherman was probably good enough to land something in the direction of the right acre, but not necessarily inside that same acre. That is with a lot of training too. The UK doctrine was shoot at the halt and move on.I can't see the US being much different. Another great thing in theory, with the technology that makes it practicable fifty years into the future. |
surdu2005 | 20 Jan 2015 7:24 p.m. PST |
Stabilization enabled firing from the "short halt." This is a huge tactical advantage -- if the crew was properly trained. |
Wolfhag | 20 Jan 2015 9:39 p.m. PST |
Discussed in an older post: TMP link Wolfhag |
goragrad | 21 Jan 2015 12:00 a.m. PST |
To save some time here are two of the quotes I put in to that discussion at the link from John Salt's War Office compendium -
WO 291/1202 Tank armament stabilisation: User experience and the present situation Westinghouse hydro-electric stabilisation on the Stuart, Lee and Sherman stabilised the main turret armament and co-ax in elevation only. "Owing to the limitations inherent in the system, it was used very little operationally. It gave slightly better results when shooting on the move than could be obtained with a shoulder-controlled gun; but the chances of hitting when using it on the move were so small, compared with firing from the halt, that users preferred to engage their targets from the halt rather than on the move with the stabiliser working." In Italy, the stabiliser was used as a shock-absorber on 76mm Shermans, as the big gun subjected the elevating mechanism to large shock loadings when moving cross-country. "The Westinghouse stabiliser was so little used during the campaign in NW Europe, that servicing and repair of the equipment ceased after the liberation of Belgium. Replacement vehicles were sent forward classified as "fit", regardless of whether the stabiliser was in working order or not." Trials with the Metrovick electrical two-axis stabiliser on 20-pr Centurions at Lulworth showed accuracy with AP 70–75% as good as at the halt, and with HE very nearly as good as at the halt. A second trial produced results slightly less favourable. WO 291/90 Firing on the move from tanks "With existing British tanks the effectiveness (hits per minute) of shooting on the move is never greater than 1/2 that of stationary fire under similar conditions and is often 1/20 or less. The Westinghouse gyro stabilizer produces some improvement". The "Movement is armour" argument was held to be confuted by results from a trial by gunnery instructors at Lulworth shooting at a target at 800 yards and obtaining 62% hits on a static target and 64% hits on a moving one. It is pointed out that the smooth, steady movement necessary to gunnery on the move does little to make the tank harder to hit. For MG fire, "…the number of machine gun bullets per minute that will come dangerously close to an anti-tank gun crew from a single tank firing on the move is very small." The best MG results, using the shoulder-controlled mounting in the Crusader and an expert crew, showed a reduction of one-half in hitting rate. "For average gunners factors of 1/4 to 1/20 or worse would be expected." For the main armament, it was found that "…a comparatively high percentage of hits can be obtained with a light gun in a free elevation mounting but that the rate of fire is greatly reduced by movement." P.S. At least this time it has been more than a few months for this to come up again.
|
langobard | 21 Jan 2015 3:18 a.m. PST |
Didn't the Germans take a different route on this? I seem to recall hearing that the interleaved wheels on the Panther and Tiger provided the crew with such a smooth ride that the Germans couldn't see the point in adding a stabiliser to the gun. And the Germans deciding they didn't need some sort of kewl bit of technology has to be some sort of first… |
Dynaman8789 | 21 Jan 2015 6:20 a.m. PST |
Then again, by the end of the war the Germans were dumping the powered traverse mechanisms… |
warhawkwind | 21 Jan 2015 9:45 a.m. PST |
I've never used gyro-equipped dice modifiers in WWII gaming. Their usage was so insignificant I didnt deem it worth the bother of adding it to the rules. Just another bit of minutia to slow the game down. I suppose you could represent it if you're roll playing tanks tho. But thats just me. |
Weasel | 21 Jan 2015 4:06 p.m. PST |
In Advanced Squad Leader they improve your chances of hitting on the move from "1 in a trillion" to "1 in a billion". |
Deadone | 21 Jan 2015 5:24 p.m. PST |
In FOW, the stabilisers allow Shermans to lob extra shots on the move though with a modifier for innaccuracy. But then this is the same game where you could used towed M5 3" guns as stealth assault guns and having a commissar attached is actually a good thing. |
Lion in the Stars | 21 Jan 2015 7:32 p.m. PST |
I think the probabilities for Flames of War are a bit too good. This does kinda indicate that a stabilizer COULD be very useful:
Trials with the Metrovick electrical two-axis stabiliser on 20-pr Centurions at Lulworth showed accuracy with AP 70–75% as good as at the halt, and with HE very nearly as good as at the halt. A second trial produced results slightly less favourable. Though it took the development of solid state electronics before you could have a naval-quality gun stabilizer small enough to fit in a tank. |
donlowry | 21 Jan 2015 8:59 p.m. PST |
I believe the Germans were planning to put gun stabilizers on the Panther II. |
snurl1 | 21 Jan 2015 11:33 p.m. PST |
My dad did his basic training in "43 in NJ in an M3. I remember him telling me that he marveled at how the Gyro-Stableizer kept the gun barrel straight, even while moving across a bumpy field. |
Dynaman8789 | 22 Jan 2015 10:38 a.m. PST |
> In Advanced Squad Leader they improve your chances of hitting on the move from "1 in a trillion" to "1 in a billion". Your not using them right! |
Andy ONeill | 22 Jan 2015 2:31 p.m. PST |
The british removed the stabilisers off shermans. Mostly. If they were any use at all then they would have at least left the things on. |
number4 | 24 Jan 2015 8:41 p.m. PST |
having a commissar attached is actually a good thing. It generally was. They performed the welfare functions normally done by Chaplains in western armies. On the front line, Commissars were meant to inspire troops through bravery and heroism; many did and paid the ultimate price. |