Jump to content


Detail Page: Stabilisation Systems


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Sep 19 2013 - 00:03

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,456
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Gun stabilization systems first came into common usage in the interwar period on warships. They generally use the principle of ‘rigidity in space’, and the fact that spinning objects tend to resist movement.

As the mount in which the gyroscope was positioned moved up or down due to the motions of the ship, the system would recognize the pressure of the gyroscope resisting this movement, and as a result apply the signal to the gun elevation and traverse drives to attempt to keep the guns stable and pointed at the target. The reason this came into effect for warships over tanks first is twofold. Firstly, there is a lot more room on a ship for mechanisms, and secondly, a battleship’s movement due to the sea is substantially slower than that of a tank moving cross-country.
Eventually, however, the systems were miniaturized to such an extent that they could be placed into tanks. Early stabilization systems were mounted in American M3 tanks, both the light tank’s 37mm and the medium tank’s 75mm. They eventually became standard on many subsequent tanks, though M26 and M103 were exceptions. These early stabilization systems were, of course, limited. They applied solely to elevation, and, frankly, couldn’t usually keep up with the movements of the tank itself. However, they did at least tend to keep the target within the field of vision of the gunner and allow for a faster lay onto the target.

Centurion was the first production tank to have two-axis stabilization, in both elevation and traverse. Again, however, it wasn’t truly enough to allow the tank to have a proper fire-on-the-move capability, but at least over lightly rolling ground against near targets, it was good enough.

A change in the concept of gun stabilization came with the idea that the sights and the gun need not be linked. In today’s tanks, the sight is fully stabilized, the gun just tries to keep up. It is much easier for the motors to stabilize the 5”x6” mirror in a sight head than it is to stabilize a 2-ton cannon. In a normally functioning modern tank, the gunner controls the sight, not the gun. When the gunner fires the main gun, he is actually closing part of a firing circuit. There can be a small delay between the pulling of the trigger and the actual detonating of the propellant while the fire control system waits for the gun to catch up with the sight. When the sight and gun are in total alignment, the rest of the firing circuit is closed, and the round is fired. In the event of a stabilization system malfunction, the gunner reverts to controlling the gun, with the sight trying to keep up. This is why you’ll hear a description of the difference of ‘normal mode’ and ‘emergency mode’ in an Abrams tank as “In normal mode, the gun is slaved to the sights, in emergency mode, the sights are slaved to the gun”

Of course, that’s not the end of the story. There is still a further limitation of the ride of the tank. Though the sight and gun may be somewhat stabilized even over the roughest ground, you still have the problem that there is nothing stabilizing the gunner’s seat. As the tank is being thrown around by the bumps, so is the gunner. As he’s holding onto the gunner’s handles, the effect then is that (even if he can keep his eye to the sight), a lot of unintended inputs will be placed into the fire control system. There have been moves to try to minimize this effect. Obviously a smoother suspension system is a good first step, but the latest British tank, Challenger 2, has a gunner’s control handle which is fixed in position, and the gun is moved with a thumb switch akin to a joystick’s hat. As a result, the gunner can hold on to something solid as he’s being thrown around, and should be able to keep the gun on target more accurately. As a result, though claims of accuracy at 30mph on a par with stationary fire for modern tanks may be correct on the test range on roads and trails, such claims must be treated as somewhat suspect when dealing with such speeds on rough terrain.

The most recent form of gyroscopes are not really gyros at all, as they have no moving parts. Laser Ring Gyros work on the basis of a laser beam bounced off a number of mirrors, and as the mounting moves, the light projected is bounced in different angles which is registered by the system and interpreted as motion.

Vertical stabilisers in World of Tanks which can be mounted on a number of vehicles are best considered as equivalents to the stabilisers as found in American WWII vehicles. You will be disappointed with the results if you’re attempting to fire at any distance when driving at full tilt, but the speed it takes for the aiming circle to shrink to full accuracy will be increased, thus allowing you to get the first accurate shot off compared to an opponent not so equipped.

Kauris #2 Posted Nov 09 2013 - 17:50

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17872 battles
  • 71
  • Member since:
    12-31-2011
I bet most people wish they had LASERS in their tanks.

It'd be hilarious if WG did a fake patch on april fools. just to hear the whining and cries of OP! OP! OP! OP!

But yeah these lasers aren't those kind of lasers. :tongue:

Btw, I've always wondered-  what does your signature: "remove uncomfortable tanks from the game" Mean?

Thank you as always for taking time out of your life to write these! (I know you're probably paid but still)

Here, I'm tipping you for your service! have a coin! :coin:

Nelagend #3 Posted Nov 09 2013 - 18:57

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9228 battles
  • 51
  • Member since:
    01-05-2012
The signature means he always loads up HE whenever he sees a Lorraine, so as to remove it in fewer shots.

Flametz #4 Posted Nov 09 2013 - 19:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 9597 battles
  • 13,311
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    03-30-2013
I clicked the other "linkything".
Now what? :teethhappy:
But that aside, great article. Might explain the tiny reticle my T29 has when flying downhill with a vert stabilizer.

Boggins #5 Posted Nov 09 2013 - 20:45

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 15045 battles
  • 41
  • Member since:
    09-05-2012
Hey great info. Now, when are you coming back to Fort Benning? We never got to discuss Israeli tanks at Chedders last year. :harp:

The_Chieftain #6 Posted Nov 09 2013 - 21:42

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,456
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostBoggins, on Nov 09 2013 - 20:45, said:

Hey great info. Now, when are you coming back to Fort Benning? We never got to discuss Israeli tanks at Chedders last year.
Monday week. See thread on news forum

Xlucine #7 Posted Nov 09 2013 - 22:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 7625 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 19 2013 - 00:03, said:

A change in the concept of gun stabilization came with the idea that the sights and the gun need not be linked.

I recall EE talking about a soviet gun-follows sight system developed pre-war, so it looks like the US gyro system was fitted to a tank after the more advanced gun-follows-sight system. Admittedly the soviet system didn't see service, it was merely trialled.

KrasnayaZvezda #8 Posted Nov 10 2013 - 03:14

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10239 battles
  • 2,629
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

View PostXlucine, on Nov 09 2013 - 22:03, said:

I recall EE talking about a soviet gun-follows sight system developed pre-war, so it looks like the US gyro system was fitted to a tank after the more advanced gun-follows-sight system. Admittedly the soviet system didn't see service, it was merely trialled.

'TOS' gyrostabilized gun sight system for BT-7

Posted Image
Posted Image


IIRC this was not only tested but also actually fielded by Red Army in limited number. They just removed it from the service about a year later as the device was overly complicated, necessitating longer training.

I also heard that Russians actually designed several gun gyrostabilization systems as early as in 1917.  Not sure how the device looked or worked, though.

partisan1941 #9 Posted Nov 10 2013 - 04:28

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23370 battles
  • 1,304
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012
TY for the informative info chieftain

nublex #10 Posted Nov 10 2013 - 09:07

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17549 battles
  • 2,992
  • Member since:
    01-05-2011
How about the British just let the gun sit balanced on the pivot?

coolathlon #11 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 14:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 18
  • Member since:
    06-05-2012
I reached this through another linkythingy to express my please over this informative post. Are there visual examples of the early ship mounted GLDs?

Myeq #12 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 21:44

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 3947 battles
  • 491
  • [TOON] TOON
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostFlametz, on Nov 09 2013 - 19:16, said:

I clicked the other "linkything".
Now what? :teethhappy:
But that aside, great article. Might explain the tiny reticle my T29 has when flying downhill with a vert stabilizer.

I thought vert stabs were only available on Tier 8 tanks?  And the T29 is a Tier 7 tank?  I only have up to Tier 7 tanks so if I can mount vert stabs I will be looking into re-equipping my tanks asap!

BuubyTrap #13 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 22:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 28762 battles
  • 3,349
  • [_BOT_] _BOT_
  • Member since:
    04-10-2012
Easy 8 at tier 6 can equip one, haven't looked for any others at that level.

TouchFluffyTail #14 Posted Nov 12 2013 - 08:09

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21552 battles
  • 111
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    08-23-2012
Whether or not you can mount a vertical stabilizer depends on the tank itself more than its tier, the wiki has a full list of what the modules can be mounted on.

ShermanPanzer #15 Posted Dec 14 2013 - 23:39

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 16147 battles
  • 37
  • [JUTSU] JUTSU
  • Member since:
    11-27-2010
Belton Cooper states in his book "Death Traps" (1988, 1998), that gyro-stabilized systems were available on both the M4 Sherman and M5 light (Stuart) tanks, but that the crews were hesitant to use them (page 213). Perhaps this was due to the high number of inexperienced "replacement" crew members, who received cursory training.  For instance, replacement gunners for M4 tanks in the 3AD were often given only a few shells worth of target practice due to high necessity for tank crews, short tank crew life expectancy, and preciousness/scarcity of ammo, cf. Cooper.  The famous footage of the Pershing tank making use of this against a panther in entangling terrain (city) is of course, the most well-known instance showing its use during the war, so I think this is often associated with the Pershing as a result.

The_Chieftain #16 Posted Dec 31 2013 - 07:45

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,456
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

There's a problem with that. Pershing didn't have a stabilizer.



ket101 #17 Posted Dec 31 2013 - 08:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18247 battles
  • 8,575
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
Belton Cooper probably shouldn't be relied upon as a primary reference.  His technical details have been pointed out elsewhere as lacking in an acceptable degree of accuracy.




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users