Hi -lynx-......
Thanks for the feedback. It appears that I'm not communicating the issue well, for that I do apologize.
Originally posted by -lynx-:
Gun stabilizers? <badger>: "...Despite the tests and the official position, most crews interviewed preferred to fire from a stable (halted) position..." I wonder why? Did they really prefer to stop the tank (instantly creating a fat juicy target) to fire their gun or did they actually prefer to take the risk but to get a chance to destroy the enemy with that shot no matter what the "official position" was on the subject? Somehow I do not think that those brave men were bent on suicide...
Lots of staff was developed/used in WW2 - including radars and helicopters. But can we really even compare all that stuff to what's working today? Sherman with gun stabilizer and whatever else is as close to, say, M1 (with actually _working_ gun stabilizer) as a 262 is to, say, F15.
Lets just keep to the stuff that was out there fighting the enemy on the front lines in every day battles and not what could have been used if some ideal laboratory conditions existed.
Sorry partner, I was trying to point out exactly the opposite. It wasn't my attention to get into a whole bunch of techno babble with figures and data, but rather talk about the real world. Also, I don't recall anywhere attempting to equate the capabilities to the M1 Abrams of the Gulf War era. To reiterate, this was not laboratory conditions, but rather actual "tank to tank" combat from the moment that the allies landed at Normandy on June 6th. To borrow your phrase, this really is "the stuff that was out there fighting the enemy on the front lines in every day battles". That's all that I was trying to say, albeit badly.
The gyro stabilization that was built into the Sherman M4 and was indeed used quite effectively against Panzer IV's and particularly later on against Tigers. The system built into them was exactly the SAME gyro stabilizer I personally fired from on the M4A2E8 version. Just to make sure that my memory hadn't completely faded, I dug out my old gunnery log book and checked for my MTR 'fire and movement' scores. I had achieved an average of 83% first round hits at ranges from 600-1,200 yards using this system with APDS. I telephoned my local friend (1st Hussars, RCAC) who landed at D-Day and used this same gyro equipment in combat and he said "there's no way he would have ever wanted to take on Panzer IV's and Tigers without the ability to fire on the move". He also said that this was simply because most of his "tank to tank" engagements during the war tended to be up close and personal, under 1,500 yards. This was primarily due to the nature of the countryside (forested, hedge rows and hilly) where an enemy vehicle either waited in ambush till you were real close, then opened fire, or, both of you simply appeared in the open and surprised each other without any warning. This is reinforced separately with the example of the actual combat report from Italy above that stated "One of the tp cpls spotted a Panther at about 300 yds range. He indicated it to his tp sgt and meanwhile fired one round of 75 mm AP at it. The tp sgt's gunner reports that as he laid the 17-pdr on the Panther, its turret was swinging slowly towards him and, as be fired, was still roughly 30 degrees off. Four rounds of 17-pdr AP were fired, all scoring direct hits" Note: 300 yards!!!!! I think many people often get confused about WWII tank warfare in France because they are so used to reading and seeing videos of the Arab/ Israeli wars of the 60's and 70's plus the Gulf War in the early 90's. They see lots of flat open tank engagements at extreme range distances.
"Did they really prefer to stop the tank (instantly creating a fat juicy target) to fire their gun....". Well, one just doesn't really stop the tank in the open.
You take up a fire position, either "hull down" or preferably a pre-cursor "turret down". If caught in the open, you always ran like stink in high gear (usually 3rd) for the nearest cover that fitted the first two criteria. Guess what, while you're running, you returned fire on the move using your gyro stabilizer, even if he was out of range from a pragmatic point of view. It would sure as heck make him think about his own cover before he fired again. The reason a gunner PREFERS to be stopped is because he knows two things. First, he'll probably be in a safe fire position protected against incoming AP from his turret ring and below and second, while stopped his ability to engage at long ranges out to 3,000 yds plus is a given. Unfortunately, these long ranges also yielded less kills due to the superior German equipment, especially Panthers and Tigers.
Anyway, sorry for rambling again, plus I've been down these roads before with these kind of academic discussions. I have them daily with my CFO who's always trying to convince me that numbers tell the truth.
I'll just leave it at that and we'll try to remember that AH is just a game, but if the Sherman is introduced as the next vehicle, play balance will need to be maintained so that it has some survival chance against the Panzer IV. My bottom line point is simply to give the Sherman what it indeed utilized daily from D-Day onward, that being the ability to fire on the move using it's superior cross country speed combined with an in-close (1,000 yds or less) steady gun platform. Sure, lots will bounce off their armor, but it will be one heck of a fun fight.
By the way, to some degree the Panzer IV already mimics gyro stabilization by accident. When moving in it within AH and looking through the sighting telescope, the game sight is far too stable, some of which is due to the flat graphics terrain. In a real tank moving across country, this sight pattern without stabilization is bobbing around so much you actual get motion sickness.
The current Panzer IV is close ( perhaps still somewhat a little too giggly) to what I used to see exactly in a gyro stabilized Sherman M4 system.
Regards,
Badger
